diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67330-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67330-0.txt | 52803 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 52803 deletions
diff --git a/old/67330-0.txt b/old/67330-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f51a7ff..0000000 --- a/old/67330-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,52803 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of Magic and Experimental -Science (Vol. II), by Lynn Thorndike - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: A History of Magic and Experimental Science (Vol. II) - During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era - -Author: Lynn Thorndike - -Release Date: February 5, 2022 [eBook #67330] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tim Lindell, sf2001, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF MAGIC AND -EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE (VOL. II) *** - - - - - -A -HISTORY OF MAGIC AND -EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE - -_VOLUME II_ - - - - -A -HISTORY OF MAGIC AND -EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE - -DURING THE FIRST THIRTEEN -CENTURIES OF OUR ERA - -By LYNN THORNDIKE - -VOLUME II - -COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS - -NEW YORK - - - - -Copyright 1923 Columbia University Press -First published by The Macmillan Company 1923 - -ISBN 0-231-08795-0 -Manufactured in the United States of America -10 9 8 7 - - - - -CONTENTS - - -BOOK IV. THE TWELFTH CENTURY - - CHAPTER PAGE - - 35. The Early Scholastics: Peter Abelard and Hugh of St. - Victor 3 - - 36. Adelard of Bath 14 - - 37. William of Conches 50 - - 38. Some Twelfth Century Translators, Chiefly of Astrology - from the Arabic 66 - - 39. Bernard Silvester; Astrology and Geomancy 99 - - 40. Saint Hildegard of Bingen 124 - - 41. John of Salisbury 155 - - 42. Daniel of Morley and Roger of Hereford 171 - - 43. Alexander Neckam on the Natures of Things 188 - - 44. Moses Maimonides 205 - - 45. Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages 214 - - 46. Kiranides 229 - - 47. Prester John and the Marvels of India 236 - - 48. The Pseudo-Aristotle 246 - - 49. Solomon and the Ars Notoria 279 - - 50. Ancient and Medieval Dream-Books 290 - - - BOOK V. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY - - Foreword 305 - - 51. Michael Scot 307 - - 52. William of Auvergne 338 - - 53. Thomas of Cantimpré 372 - - 54. Bartholomew of England 401 - - 55. Robert Grosseteste 436 - - 56. Vincent of Beauvais 457 - - 57. Early Thirteenth Century Medicine: Gilbert of England - and William of England 477 - - 58. Petrus Hispanus 488 - - 59. Albertus Magnus 517 - I. Life 521 - II. As a Scientist 528 - III. His Allusions to Magic 548 - IV. Marvelous Virtues in Nature 560 - V. Attitude Toward Astrology 577 - - 60. Thomas Aquinas 593 - - 61. Roger Bacon 616 - I. Life 619 - II. Criticism of and Part in Medieval Learning 630 - III. Experimental Science 649 - IV. Attitude Toward Magic and Astrology 659 - - 62. The Speculum Astronomiae 692 - - 63. Three Treatises Ascribed to Albert 720 - - 64. Experiments and Secrets: Medical and Biological 751 - - 65. Experiments and Secrets: Chemical and Magical 777 - - 66. Picatrix 813 - - 67. Guido Bonatti and Bartholomew of Parma 825 - - 68. Arnald of Villanova 841 - - 69. Raymond Lull 862 - - 70. Peter of Abano 874 - - 71. Cecco d’Ascoli 948 - - 72. Conclusion 969 - - Indices: - General 985 - Bibliographical 1007 - Manuscripts 1027 - - - - -A -HISTORY OF MAGIC AND -EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE - -_VOLUME II_ - - - - -BOOK IV. THE TWELFTH CENTURY - - - Chapter 35. The Early Scholastics: Peter Abelard and Hugh of - St. Victor. - - Chapter 36. Adelard of Bath. - - Chapter 37. William of Conches. - - Chapter 38. Some Twelfth Century Translators, chiefly of Astrology - from the Arabic in Spain. - - Chapter 39. Bernard Silvester: Astrology and Geomancy. - - Chapter 40. St. Hildegard of Bingen. - - Chapter 41. John of Salisbury. - - Chapter 42. Daniel of Morley and Roger of Hereford; or, Astrology in - England in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century. - - Chapter 43. Alexander Neckam on the Natures of Things. - - Chapter 44. Moses Maimonides. - - Chapter 45. Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages. - - Chapter 46. Kiranides. - - Chapter 47. Prester John and the Marvels of India. - - Chapter 48. The Pseudo-Aristotle. - - Chapter 49. Solomon and the Ars Notoria. - - Chapter 50. Ancient and Medieval Dream-Books. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXV - -THE EARLY SCHOLASTICS: PETER ABELARD AND HUGH OF ST. VICTOR - - -Relation of scholastic theology to our theme--Character of Abelard’s -learning--Incorrect statements of his views--The nature of the -stars--Prediction of natural and contingent events--The Magi and the -star--Demons and forces in nature--Magic and natural science--Hugh of -St. Victor--Character of the _Didascalicon_--Meaning of _Physica_--The -study of history--The two mathematics: astrology, natural and -superstitious--The superlunar and sublunar worlds--Discussion of -magic--Five sub-divisions of magic--_De bestiis et aliis rebus_. - - -[Sidenote: Relation of scholastic theology to our theme.] - -The names of Peter Abelard, 1079-1142, and Hugh or Hugo of St. Victor, -1096-1141, have been coupled as those of the two men who perhaps -more than any others were the founders of scholastic theology. Our -investigation is not very closely or directly concerned with scholastic -theology, which I hope to show did not so exclusively absorb the -intellectual energy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as has -sometimes been asserted. Our attention will be mainly devoted as -heretofore to the pursuit of natural science during that period and the -prominence both of experimental method and of magic in the same. But -our investigation deals not only with magic and experimental science, -but with their relation to Christian thought. It is therefore with -interest that we turn to the works of these two early representatives -of scholastic theology, and inquire what cognizance, if any, they take -of the subjects in which we are especially interested. As we proceed -into the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries in subsequent chapters, -we shall also take occasion to note the utterances of other leading men -of learning who speak largely from the theological standpoint, like -John of Salisbury and Thomas Aquinas. Let us hasten to admit also -that the scholastic method of instruction and writing made itself felt -in natural science and medicine as well as in theology, as a number -of our subsequent chapters will illustrate. In the present chapter we -shall furthermore be brought again into contact with the topic of the -_Physiologus_ and Latin Bestiaries, owing to the fact that a treatise -of this sort has been ascribed, although probably incorrectly, to Hugh -of St. Victor. - -[Sidenote: Character of Abelard’s learning.] - -There is no more familiar, and possibly no more important, figure in -the history of Latin learning during the twelfth century than Peter -Abelard who flourished at its beginning. His career, as set forth in -his own words, illustrates educational conditions in Gaul at that time. -His brilliant success as a lecturer on logic and theology at Paris -reveals the great medieval university of that city in embryo. His -pioneer work, _Sic et Non_, set the fashion for the standard method -of presentation employed in scholasticism. He was not, however, the -only daring and original spirit of his time; his learned writings were -almost entirely in those fields known as patristic and scholastic; and, -as in the case of _Sic et Non_, consist chiefly in a repetition of the -utterances of the fathers. This is especially true of his statements -concerning astrology, the _magi_, and demons. To natural science he -gave little or no attention. Nevertheless his intellectual prominence -and future influence make it advisable to note what position he took -upon these points. - -[Sidenote: Incorrect statements of his views.] - -Although not original, his views concerning the stars and their -influences are the more essential to expose, because writers upon -Abelard have misunderstood and consequently misinterpreted them. -Joseph McCabe in his Life of Abelard,[1] for instance, asserts that -Abelard calls mathematics diabolical in one of his works. And Charles -Jourdain in his in some ways excellent[2] _Dissertation sur l’état -de la philosophie naturelle en occident et principalement en France -pendant la première moitié du XIIe siècle_, praises Abelard for what -he regards as an admirable attack upon and criticism of astrology in -his _Expositio in Hexameron_, saying, “It will be hard to find in the -writers of a later age anything more discriminating on the errors of -astrology.”[3] Jourdain apparently did not realize the extent to which -Abelard was simply repeating the writers of an earlier age. However, -Abelard’s presentation possesses a certain freshness and perhaps -contains some original observations. - -[Sidenote: The nature of the stars.] - -In the passage in question[4] Abelard first discusses the nature of -the stars. He says that it is no small question whether the planets -are animated, as the philosophers think, and have spirits who control -their motion, or whether they hold their unvarying course merely by -the will and order of God. Philosophers do not hesitate to declare -them rational, immortal, and impassive animals, and the Platonists -call them not only gods but gods of gods, as being more excellent and -having greater efficacy than the other stars. Moreover, Augustine says -in his _Handbook_ that he is uncertain whether to class the sun, moon, -and stars with the angels. In his _Retractions_ Augustine withdrew -his earlier statement that this world is an animal, as Plato and -other philosophers believe, not because he was sure it was false, but -because he could not certainly prove it true either by reason or by -the authority of divine scripture. Abelard does not venture to state -an opinion of his own, but he at least has done little to refute a -view of the nature of the heavenly bodies which is quite favorable to, -and usually was accompanied by, astrology. Also he displays the wonted -medieval respect for the opinions of the philosophers in general and -the leaning of the twelfth century toward Plato in particular. - -[Sidenote: Prediction of natural and contingent events.] - -Abelard next comes to the problem of the influence of the stars upon -this earth and man. He grants that the stars control heat and cold, -drought and moisture; he accepts the astrological division of the -heavens into houses, in certain ones of which each planet exerts its -maximum of force; and he believes that men skilled in knowledge of the -stars can by astronomy predict much concerning the future of things -having natural causes. Astronomical observations to his mind are very -valuable not only in agriculture but in medicine, and he mentions that -Moses himself is believed to have been very skilful in this science of -the Egyptians. It is only to the attempt to predict _contingentia_ as -distinguished from _naturalia_ that he objects. By _contingentia_ he -seems to mean events in which chance and divine providence or human -choice and free will are involved. He gives as a proof that astrologers -cannot predict such events the fact that, while they will foretell to -you what other persons will do, they refuse to tell you openly which -of two courses you yourself will pursue for fear that you may prove -them wrong by wilfully doing the contrary to what they predict. Or, if -an astrologer is able to predict such “contingent events,” it must be -because the devil has assisted him, and hence Abelard declares that he -who promises anyone certitude concerning “contingent happenings” by -means of “astronomy” is to be considered not so much _astronomicus_ as -_diabolicus_. This is the nearest approach that I have been able to -find in Abelard’s writings to McCabe’s assertion that he once called -mathematics diabolical. But possibly I have overlooked some other -passage where Abelard calls _mathematica_, in the sense of divination, -diabolical.[5] In any case Abelard rejects astrology only in part and -accepts it with certain qualifications. His attitude is about the -average one of his own time and of ages preceding and following. - -[Sidenote: The Magi and the star.] - -Abelard speaks of the Magi and the star of Bethlehem in a sermon for -Epiphany.[6] This familiar theme, as we have seen, had often occupied -the pens of the church fathers, so that Abelard has nothing new to -say. On the contrary, he exhausts neither the authorities nor the -subject in the passages which he selects for repetition. His first -point is that the Magi were fittingly the first of the Gentiles to -become Christian converts because they before had been the masters -of the greatest error, condemned by law with soothsayers to death, -and indebted for their “nefarious and execrable doctrine” to demons. -In short, Abelard identifies them with magicians and takes that word -in the worst sense. He is aware, however, that some identify them -not with sorcerers (_malefici_) but with astronomers. He repeats the -legend from the spurious homily of Chrysostom which we have already -recounted[7] of how the magi had for generations watched for the star, -warned by the writing of Seth which they possessed, and how the star -finally appeared in the form of a little child with a cross above it -and spake with them. He also states that they were called _magici_ in -their tongue because they glorified God in silence, without appearing -to note that this is contrary to his previous use of _magi_ in an evil -sense. Abelard believes that a new star announced the birth of Christ, -the heavenly king, although he grants that comets, which we read of as -announcing the deaths of earthly sovereigns, are not new stars. He also -discusses without satisfactory results the question why this new star -was seen only by the Magi. - -[Sidenote: Demons and forces in nature.] - -In a chapter “On the Suggestions of Demons” in his _Ethica seu Scito te -ipsum_,[8] Abelard attempts to a certain extent a natural explanation -of the tempting of men by demons and the arousing of lust and other -evil passions within us. In this he perhaps makes his closest approach -to the standpoint of natural science, although he is simply repeating -an idea found already in Augustine and other church fathers. In plants -and seeds and trees and stones, Abelard explains, there reside many -forces adapted to arouse or calm our passions. The demons, owing to -their subtle ingenuity and their long experience with the natures -of things, are acquainted with all these occult properties and make -use of them for their own evil ends. Thus they sometimes, by divine -permission, send men into trances or give remedies to those making -supplications to them, “and often when such cease to feel pain, they -are believed to be cured.” Abelard also mentions the marvels which the -demons worked in Egypt in opposition to Moses by means of Pharaoh’s -magicians. - -[Sidenote: Magic and natural science.] - -Evidently then Abelard believes both in the existence of demons and -of occult virtues in nature by which marvels may be worked. Magic -avails itself both of demonic and natural forces. The demons are more -thoroughly acquainted with the secrets of nature than are men. But -this does not prove that scientific research is necessarily diabolical -or that anyone devoting himself to investigation of nature is giving -himself over to demons. The inevitable conclusion is rather that if -men will practice the same long experimentation and will exercise the -same “subtle ingenuity” as the demons have, there is nothing to prevent -them, too, from becoming at last thoroughly acquainted with the natural -powers of things. Also magic, since it avails itself of natural forces, -is akin to natural science, while natural science may hope some day -to rival both the knowledge of the demons and the marvels of magic. -Abelard does not go on to draw any of these conclusions, but other -medieval writers were to do so before very long. - -[Sidenote: Hugh of St. Victor.] - -Upon Hugh of St. Victor Vincent of Beauvais in the century following -looked back as “illustrious in religion and knowledge of literature” -and as “second to no one of his time in skill in the seven liberal -arts.”[9] Hugh was Abelard’s younger contemporary, born almost twenty -years later in Saxony in 1096 but dying a year before Abelard in 1141. -His uncle, the bishop of Halberstadt, had preceded him at Paris as -a student under William of Champeaux. When Hugh, as an Augustinian -canon, reached the monastery of St. Victor at Paris, William had -ceased to teach and become a bishop. Hugh was himself chosen head -of the school in 1133. He is famous as a mystic, but also composed -exegetical and dogmatic works, and is noted for his classification -of the sciences. Edward Myers well observes in this connection: -“Historians of philosophy are now coming to see that it betrays a lack -of psychological imagination to be unable to figure the subjective -coexistence of Aristotelian dialectics with mysticism of the Victorine -or Bernardine type--and even their compenetration. Speculative thought -was not, and could not be, isolated from religious life lived with such -intensity as it was in the middle ages, when that speculative thought -was active everywhere, in every profession, in every degree of the -social scale.”[10] Later, in the case of St. Hildegard of Bingen, we -shall meet an even more striking combination of mysticism and natural -science. - -[Sidenote: Character of the _Didascalicon_.] - -Of Hugh’s writings we shall be chiefly concerned with the -_Didascalicon_, or _Eruditio didascalica_,[11] a brief work whose six -books occupy some seventy columns in Migne’s _Patrologia_. It is -especially devoted, as its first chapter clearly states, to instructing -the student what to read and how to read. On the whole, especially -for its early twelfth century date, it is a clear, systematic, and -sensible treatise, which shows that medieval men were wider readers -than has often been supposed and that they had some sound ideas on how -to study. In order to have a basis for systematic study, Hugh describes -and classifies the various arts and sciences, mechanical and liberal, -theoretical and practical. He is possibly influenced in his definitions -and derivations by Isidore’s _Etymologies_, although he seldom if ever -acknowledges the debt, whereas he cites Boethius a number of times, -but at least his classification and arrangement of material are quite -different from Isidore’s. In this description and classification, -and indeed throughout the treatise, Hugh seems to display no little -originality of thought and arrangement--once he tells us of his own -methods of study[12]--although his facts and details are mostly -familiar ones from ancient authors and although he of course embodies -generally accepted notions such as the _trivium_ and _quadrivium_. - -[Sidenote: Meaning of _physica_.] - -To the four subjects of the _quadrivium_ he adds _physica_ or -_physiologia_,[13] which he says “considers and investigates the causes -of things in their effects and their effects in their causes.” He -quotes from Vergil’s _Georgics_, (II, 479-) - - “Whence earthquakes come, what force disturbs the deep, - Virtues of herbs, the minds and wraths of brutes, - All kinds of fruits, of reptiles, too, and gems.” - -Thus _Physica_ is more inclusive than the modern science of Physics, -while Hugh evidently does not employ it in the specific sense of the -art of medicine, of which the word _physica_ was sometimes used in the -medieval period. Hugh goes on to say that _Physica_ is sometimes still -more broadly interpreted to designate natural philosophy in contrast to -logical and ethical philosophy. His quotation from the _Georgics_ also -causes one to reflect on the prominent part played in natural science -from before Vergil to after Hugh by the semi-human characteristics -ascribed to animals and the occult virtues ascribed to herbs and gems. - -[Sidenote: The study of history.] - -Hugh’s attitude to history is interesting to note in passing. In -his classification of the sciences he does not assign it a distinct -place as he does to economics and politics, but he shows his inchoate -sense of the importance of the history of science and of thought by -attempting a list of the founders of the various arts and sciences.[14] -In this connection he adopts the theory of the origin of the Etruscans -at present in favor with scholars, that they came from Lydia. He -regards the study of Biblical or sacred history as the first essential -for a theologian, who should learn history from beginning to end before -he proceeds to doctrine and allegory.[15] Four essential points to note -in studying history in Hugh’s opinion are the person, the event, the -time, and the place. - -[Sidenote: The two mathematics: astrology, natural and superstitious.] - -In discussing the _quadrivium_ Hugh explains the significance of the -terms, _mathematica_, _astronomia_, and _astrologia_. _Mathematica_, in -which the first letter “t” has the aspirate, denotes sound doctrine and -the science of abstract quantity, and embraces within itself the four -subjects of the _quadrivium_. In other words it denotes mathematics in -our sense of the word. But _matesis_, spelled without the aspirate, -signifies that superstitious vanity which places the fate of man under -the constellations.[16] Hugh thus allows for the common use since the -time of the Roman Empire of the word _mathematicus_ for an astrologer, -and the frequent use of _mathematica_ in the sense of the Greek word -_mantike_ or divination. He correctly states the Greek derivation of -astrology and astronomy and employs those words in just about their -modern sense. Astrology considers the stars in order to determine -the nativity, death, and certain other events. For Hugh, however, it -is not wholly a superstition, but “partly natural science, partly -a superstition,” since he believes that the condition of the human -body as well as of other bodies depends upon the constellations, and -that sickness and health as well as storms or fair weather, fertility -and sterility, can be predicted from the stars, but that it is -superstitious to assert their control over contingent events and acts -of free will,--the same distinction as that made by Abelard. - -[Sidenote: The superlunar and sublunar worlds.] - -In an earlier discussion of the universe above and beneath the moon[17] -Hugh had further emphasized the superiority of the heavenly bodies -and their power over earthly life and nature. He distinguished three -kinds of beings: God the Creator (_solus naturae genitor et artifex_) -who alone is without beginning or end and truly eternal, the bodies of -the superlunar world which have a beginning but no end and are called -perpetual and divine, and sublunar and terrestrial things which have -both a beginning and an end. The mathematicians call the superlunar -world nature, and the sublunar world the work of nature, because all -life and growth in it comes “through invisible channels from the -superior bodies.” They also call the upper world time, because of -the movements of the heavenly bodies in it determining time, and the -lower world temporal, because it is moved according to the superior -motions. They further call the superlunar world Elysium on account of -its perpetual light and peace, while they call the other _Infernum_ -because of its confusion and constant fluctuation. Hugh adds that he -has touched upon these points in order to show man that, in so far as -he shares in this world of change, he is like it, subject to necessity, -while in so far as he is immortal he is related to the Godhead. - -[Sidenote: Discussion of magic.] - -Hugh’s brief, but clear and pithy, account of magic occurs in the -closing chapter of his sixth and last book,[18] and seems to be rather -in the nature of an _addendum_. It is, indeed, missing from the -_Didascalicon_ in some of the earliest manuscripts[19] and is found -separately in the same collection of manuscripts, so that possibly it -is not by Hugh. At any rate, magic is treated by itself apart from -his previous description and classification of the arts and sciences -and listing of their founders. The definition of magic makes it clear -why it is thus segregated: “Magic is not included in philosophy, but -is a distinct subject, false in its professions, mistress of all -iniquity and malice, deceiving concerning the truth and truly doing -harm; it seduces souls from divine religion, promotes the worship of -demons, engenders corruption of morals, and impels the minds of its -followers to every crime and abomination.” Hugh had prefaced this -definition by much the usual meager history of the origin of magic to -be found in Isidore and other writers, but his definition proper seems -rather original in its form and in a way admirable in its attitude. -The ancient classical feeling that magic was evil and the Christian -prejudice against it as the work of demons still play a large part -in his summary of the subject, but to these two points that magic -is hostile to Christianity or irreligious, and that it is improper, -immoral, and criminal, he adds the other two points that it is not a -part of philosophy--in other words, it is unscientific, and that it is -more or less untrue and unreal. Or these four points may be reduced to -two: since law, religion, and learning unite in condemning magic, it is -unsocial in every respect; and it is more or less untrue, unreal, and -unscientific. - -[Sidenote: Five subdivisions of magic.] - -Hugh’s list of various forbidden and occult arts which are -sub-divisions of magic is somewhat similar to that of Isidore, but he -classifies and groups them logically under five main heads in a way -which appears to be partly his own, and which was followed by other -subsequent writers, such as Roger Bacon. His first three main heads -all deal with arts of divination. _Mantike_ divides as usual into -necromancy, geomancy, hydromancy, aerimancy, and pyromancy. Under -_mathematica_ are listed _aruspicina_, or the observation of hours -(_horae_) or of entrails (_hara_); augury, or observation of birds; and -_horoscopia_, or the observation of nativities. The third main head, -_sortilegia_, deals with divination by lots. The fourth main head, -_maleficia_, with which magic has already been twice identified in the -chapter, is now described by Hugh as “the performance of evil deeds -by incantations to demons, or by ligatures or any other accursed kind -of remedies with the co-operation and instruction of demons.”[20] -Fifth and last come _praestigia_, in which “by phantastic illusions -concerning the transformation of objects the human senses are deceived -by demoniacal art.”[21] - -[Sidenote: _De bestiis et aliis rebus._] - -Among the doubtful and spurious works ascribed to Hugh is a bestiary -in four books,[22] in which various birds and beasts are described, -and spiritual and moral applications are made from them. At least -this is the character of the first part of the treatise; towards the -close it becomes simply a glossary of all sorts of natural objects. -_Physiologus_ is often cited for the natural properties of birds -and beasts, but as we have already dealt with the problem of the -_Physiologus_ in an earlier chapter, and as we shall sufficiently deal -with the properties and natures ascribed to animals in the middle ages -in describing the treatment of them by various encyclopedists like -Thomas of Cantimpré, Bartholomew of England, and Albertus Magnus, we -are at present mainly interested in some other features of the treatise -before us. It is often illustrated with illuminations of birds and -animals in the manuscripts and was originally intended to be so, as -the prologue on the hawk and dove by its monkish author to a noble -convert, Raynerus, makes evident. “Wishing to satisfy the petitions -of your desire, I decided to paint the dove whose ‘wings are covered -with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold,’ and to edify minds by -painting, in order that what the simple mind can scarcely grasp by the -eye of the intellect, it might at least discern with the carnal eye, -and vision perceive what hearing could scarcely comprehend. However, -I wished not only to depict the dove graphically but to describe it -in words and to explain the painting by writing, so that he whom the -simplicity of the picture did not please might at least be pleased by -the morality of Scripture.” Indeed, the work is often entitled _The -Gilded Dove_ in the manuscripts. The treatise is manifestly of a -religious and popular rather than scientific character. One interesting -passage states that a monk should not practice medicine because “a -doctor sometimes sees things which are not decent to see,” and “touches -what it is improper for the religious to touch.” Furthermore, a -physician “speaks of uncertain matters by means of experiments, but -experience is deceitful and so often errs. But this is not fitting for -a monk that he should speak aught but the truth.”[23] It is rather -surprising to find free will attributed to the wild beasts, who are -said to wander about at their will.[24] This passage, however, is -simply copied from Isidore.[25] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] J. McCabe, _Peter Abelard_, New York, 1901. - -[2] Especially considering its date, Paris, 1838. - -[3] _Ibid._, p. 119. - -[4] Cousin, _Opera hactenus seorsim edita_ (1849-1859), I, 647-9. - -[5] I have, however, searched for such in vain. - -[6] Migne, PL 178, 409-17. - -[7] See above, chapter 20, page 474. - -[8] Cap. 4, in Migne, PL 178, 647. - -[9] _Speculum doctrinale_ (1472?), XVIII, 62, “Hugo Parisiensis sancti -victoris canonicus religione et literarum scientia clarus et in VII -liberalium artium peritia nulli sui temporis secundus fuit.” - -[10] CE “Hugh of St. Victor,” where is also given a good bibliography -of works on Hugh’s theology, philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy. - -[11] I have employed the text in Migne PL vol. 176, cols. 739-812. -It should be noted, however, that B. Hauréau, _Les Œuvres de Hugues -de Saint-Victor, Essai critique, nouvelle edition_, Paris, 1886, -demonstrated that there should be only six books of the _Didascalicon_ -instead of seven as in this edition and that of 1648. This will not -affect our investigation, as we shall make no use of the seventh book, -but we shall have later to discuss whether a passage on magic belongs -at the close of the sixth book or not. There appears to be a somewhat -general impression that the edition of 1648 is the earliest edition of -Hugh’s works, but the British Museum has an undated incunabulum of the -“Didascolon” numbered IB. 859, fol. 254. - -Vincent of Beauvais in the thirteenth century speaks of the -“Didascolon” as in five books (_Speculum doctrinale_, XVIII, 62) but -is probably mistaken. The MSS seem uniformly to divide the work into a -prologue and six books, as in the following at Oxford: - -New College 144, 11th (_sic_) century, folio bene exaratus et servatus, -fols. 105-43, “Incipit prologus in Didascalicon.” - -Jesus College 35, 12th century, fol. 26- - -St. John’s 98, 14th century, fol. 123- - -Corpus Christi 223, 15th century, fol. 73- - -I have not noted what MSS of the _Didascalicon_ there are in the -British Museum. The following MSS elsewhere may be worth listing as of -early date: - -Grenoble 246, 12th century, fols. 99-133. - -BN 13334, 12th century, fol. 52-, de arte didascalica, is probably our -treatise, although the catalogue names no author. - -BN 15256, 13th century, fol. 128-. - -Still other MSS will be mentioned in a subsequent note. - -[12] _Didasc._ VI, 3. - -[13] _Ibid._, II, 17. - -[14] _Didasc._ III, 2. - -[15] _Ibid._, VI, 3. - -[16] A similar distinction will be found in the _Glosses on the -Timaeus_ of William of Conches (Cousin, _Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard_, -1836, p. 649), one of Hugh’s contemporaries of whom we shall presently -treat. A little later in the twelfth century John of Salisbury -(_Polycraticus_, II, 18) makes the distinction between the two -_mateses_ or mathematics lie rather in the quantity of the penultimate -vowel “e”. In the thirteenth century Albertus Magnus (_Commentary -on Matthew_, II, 1) also distinguished between the two varieties of -mathematics according to the length of the “e” in “_mathesis_”; but he -did not regard the second variety as necessarily superstitious, but -as divination from the stars which might be either good or bad, like -Hugh’s _astrologia_. - -Roger Bacon mentioned both methods of distinction between the true and -false mathematics; but statements in his different works are not in -agreement as to which case it is in which the “e” is long or short. In -the _Opus Maius_ (Bridges, I, 239 and note) and _Opus Tertium_ (caps. 9 -and 65) he states that the vowel is short in the true mathematics and -long in the superstitious variety; but in other writings he took the -opposite view and declared that “all the Latins” were wrong in thinking -otherwise (see Bridges, I, 239 note; Steele (1920) viii). - -In a twelfth century MS at Munich (CLM 19488, pp. 17-23) a treatise or -perhaps an excerpt from some longer work, entitled _De differentiis -vocabulorum_, opens with the words, “Scire facit mathesis et divinare -mathesis.” Roger Bacon says (Steele, 1920, p. 3), “Set glomerelli -nescientes Grecum ... ex magna sua ignorancia vulgaverunt hos versus -falsos: - -Scire facit matesis, set divinare mathesis; Philosophi matesim, magici -dixere mathesim.” - - -[17] _Didascalicon_, I, 7. - -[18] _Didasc._ VI, 15 (Migne PL 176, 810-12). - -[19] BN nouv. acq. 1429, 12th century, fols. iv-23, and CLM 2572, -written between 1182 and 1199; both end with the thirteenth chapter of -Book VI, or at col. 809 in Migne. St. John’s 98, 14th century, fol. -145v, also ends at this point. Jesus College 35, 12th century, is -mutilated at the close. - -Other early MSS, however, include the passage on magic in the -_Didascalicon_, and end the sixth book with the closing words of the -account of magic, “Hydromancy first came from the Persians”: see -Vitry-le-François 19, 12th century, fols. 1-46; Mazarine 717, 13th -century, #9, closing at fol. 97v. - -The passage on magic is also cited as Hugh’s by Robert Kilwardby, -archbishop of Canterbury 1272-1279, in his work on the division of the -sciences, cap. 67: MSS are Balliol 3; Merton 261. - -In Cortona 35, 15th century, fol. 203, the _Didascalicon_ in six books -is first followed by a brief passage, _Divisio philosophie -continentium_, which is perhaps simply the fourteenth chapter -of the sixth book as printed in Migne, and then at fol. 224 by the -passage concerning magic and its subdivisions. - -The account of magic also occurs in MSS which do not contain the -_Didascalicon_, for instance, Vatic. Palat. Lat. 841, 13th century, -fol. 139r, “Magice artis quinque sunt species....” - -[20] “Malefici sunt qui per incantationes daemonicas sive ligaturas vel -alia quaecunque exsecrabilia remediorum genera cooperatione daemonum -atque instructu nefanda perficiunt.” - -[21] “Praestigia sunt quando per phantasticas illusiones circa rerum -immutationem sensibus humanis arte daemoniaca illuditur.” - -[22] Migne, PL 177, 13-164, “Hugo Raynero suo salutem. Desiderii tui -petitionibus, charissime, satisfacere cupiens....” - -[23] I, 45. “De incertis per experimenta loquitur, sed experimentum est -fallax, ideo saepe fallitur. Sed hoc religioso non expedit ut alia quam -vera loquatur.” - -[24] II, prologus. “Ferae appellantur eo quod naturali utantur -libertate et desiderio suo ferantur. Sunt enim liberae eorum voluntates -et huc atque illuc vagantur et quo animus duxerit eo feruntur.” - -[25] _Etymologiarum_, XII, ii, 2. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF DE BESTIIS ET ALIIS REBUS OR THE GILDED DOVE - - -The _De bestiis et aliis rebus_ or _Columba deargentata_ appears with -other opuscula of Hugh of St. Victor or Hugh of Folieto in - - Vendôme 156, 12th century, fol. 1v--, “Libellus cuiusdam ad - fratrem Rainerum corde benignum qui Columba deargentata - inscribitur. Desiderii tui, karissime, petitionibus - satisfacere....” - - Dijon anciens fonds 225, 12th century, fols. 92v-98, - “Prologus Hugonis prioris in librum de tribus columbis. - Desiderii tui, karissime, petitionibus satisfacere....” - -Cambridge University has several copies, most of which seem to differ -from the printed edition and from one another. - - CUL 1574, 15th century, Liber de bestiis et aliis rebus; - the arrangement is said to be very different from that in - Migne. - - CUL 1823, 12th century, “Liber bestiarum”; similar in text - to the foregoing, but with a different order of chapters, - “and there are both large omissions and insertions.” The - numerous figures of animals in outline “are remarkable for - their finish and vigor.” - - CUL 2040, late 13th century, fols. 50-93, “De natura - animantium”; said to be “substantially the same as that - of Hugo de S. Victore; the arrangement, however, is very - irregular.” - - CU Sidney Sussex 100, 13th century, James’s description - (pp. 115-7) shows it to be our treatise; for its fine - miniatures see James (1895) pp. 117-20. - -A few other MSS (doubtless the list can be greatly augmented) are: - - Vitry-le-François 23, 13th century, fols. 1-23, illuminated, - “Incipit libellus cuiusdam ad Rainerum conversum cognomine - Corde Benignum. Incipit de tribus columbis. Si dormiatis - inter medios cleros ...”; it closes without Explicit, “... - per bonam operationem conformem reddit.” Then follows at - fol. 23v, “Incipit tractatus Hugonis de Folieto prioris - canonicorum Sancti Laurentii in pago Ambianensi de - claustro anime....” - - Vitry-le-François 63, 13th century, fol. 1-, “De tribus - columbis ad Raynerum conversum cognomento Corde Benignum - seu de natura avium....”; followed at fol. 7-, by portions - of De claustro anime. - - BN 12321, 13th century, fol. 215v (where it follows works - by St. Bernard), De naturis avium ad Rainerum conversum - cognomine Corde benignum. - - Bourges 121, 13th century, fol. 128-, “Libellus cuiusdam - (Hugonis de Folieto) ad fratrem Rainerum corde benignum - qui Columba deargentata inscribitur.” - - CLM 15407, 14th century, fol. 46, Libellus qui “Columba - deargentata” inscribitur, etc. - - CLM 18368, anno 1385, fol. 121, Hugonis de S. Victore - Columba deargentata; fol. 124, Eiusdem avicularius. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVI - -ADELARD OF BATH - - - Place in medieval learning--Some dates in his - career--Mathematical treatises--Adelard and - alchemy--Importance of the _Natural Questions_--Occasion - of writing--Arabic versus Gallic learning--“Modern - discoveries”--Medieval work wrongly credited to Greek and - Arab--Illustrated from the history of alchemy--Science and - religion--Reason versus authority--Need of the telescope - and microscope already felt--Some quaint speculative - science--Warfare, science, and religion--Specimens of - medieval scientific curiosity--Theory of sound--Theory of - vision--Deductive reasoning from hot and cold, moist and - dry--Refinement of the four elements hypothesis--Animal - intelligence doubted--The earth’s shape and center of - gravity--Indestructibility of matter--Also stated by Hugh - of St. Victor--Roger Bacon’s continuity of universal - nature--Previously stated by Adelard--Experiment and - magic--Adelard and Hero of Alexandria--Attitude to the - stars: _De eodem et diverso_--Attitude to the stars: - _Questiones naturales_--Astrology in an anonymous - work, perhaps by Athelardus--Authorities concerning - spirits--Adelard’s future influence--Appendix I. The - problem of dating the _De eodem et diverso_ and _Questiones - naturales_ and of their relations to each other--Difficulty - of the problem--Before what queen did Adelard play the - _cithara_?--Circumstances under which the _De eodem et - diverso_ was written--Different situation depicted in - the _Natural Questions_--Some apparent indications that - the _De eodem et diverso_ was written after the _Natural - Questions_--How long had Henry I been reigning? - - “_Quare, si quid amplius a me audire desideras, rationem - refer et recipe._” - - --_Questiones naturales, cap. 6._ - - -[Sidenote: Place in medieval learning.] - -While the Breton, Abelard, and the Saxon, Hugh of St. Victor, were -reviewing patristic literature from somewhat new angles and were -laying the foundations of scholastic method, an Englishman, Adelard -of Bath,[26] was primarily interested in exploring the fields of -mathematical and natural science. As Hugh came from Saxony to Paris -and Abelard went forth from his native Brittany through the towns of -France in quest of Christian teachers, so Adelard, leaving not only his -home in England but the schools of Gaul where he had been teaching, -made a much more extensive intellectual pilgrimage even to lands -Mohammedan. “It is worth while,” he declares in one of his works, “to -visit learned men of different nations, and to remember whatever you -find is most excellent in each case. For what the schools of Gaul do -not know, those beyond the Alps reveal; what you do not learn among -the Latins, well-informed Greece will teach you.”[27] Adelard seems to -have devoted himself especially to Arabian learning and to have made -a number of translations from the Arabic, continuing at the beginning -of the twelfth century that transfer of Graeco-Arabic science which we -have associated with the name of Gerbert in the tenth century and which -Constantinus Africanus carried on in the eleventh century. Adelard -himself hints that some of his new ideas are not derived from his -Arabian masters but are his own, and Haskins has well characterized him -as a pioneer in the study of natural science. - -[Sidenote: Some dates in his career.] - -Adelard has been described as “a dim and shadowy figure in the history -of European learning,”[28] and the dates of his birth and death -are unknown. We possess, however, a number of his works and some -may be either approximately or exactly dated. In the preface to his -translation of the astronomical tables of Al-Khowarizmi he seems to -give the year as 1126.[29] The Pipe Roll for 1130 informs us that -Adelard received four shillings and six pence at that time from the -sheriff of Wiltshire. This suggests that he was in the employ of the -king’s court,[30] and his brief treatise on the astrolabe seems to -be dedicated to Prince Henry Plantagenet,[31] later Henry II, and to -have been written between 1142 and 1146. It was probably one of his -last works and in it he mentions specifically three earlier works.[32] -Two other writings, which are the best known and apparently the most -original of his works, namely the _Questiones naturales_ and _De eodem -et diverso_, may be dated approximately from the fact that they are -dedicated respectively to Richard, Bishop of Bayeux from 1107 to 1133, -and to William, Bishop of Syracuse, who died in 1115 or 1116. Both -works are addressed to Adelard’s nephew, who is presumably the same -person in both cases, one in the form of a letter, the other of a -conversation, and both justify Adelard’s studies in foreign lands. In -an appendix to this chapter the question when these two treatises were -written and their relations to each other will be discussed more fully. - -[Sidenote: Mathematical treatises.] - -The subjects of a majority of Adelard’s known works and translations -are mathematical or astronomical. The most elementary is a treatise -on the abacus, _Regule abaci_,[33] in which his chief authorities -are Boethius and Gerbert and he seems as yet unacquainted with -Arabic mathematics.[34] But most of the mathematical treatises -extant under Adelard’s name are from the Arabic, such as his -translation of Euclid’s _Elements_;[35] of the astronomical tables -of Al-Khowarizmi--who flourished under the patronage of the caliph -Al-Mamum (813-833)--“apparently as revised by Maslama at Cordova,” -under the title _Liber Ezich_; and, if by a “Master A” Adelard is -meant, of a treatise of the first half of the twelfth century on the -four arts of the quadrivium and especially on astronomy, which is -apparently also a work of Al-Khowarizmi.[36] Some of the introductory -books on the quadrivium have been printed,[37] but “the astronomical -treatise has not yet been specially studied.”[38] One therefore cannot -say how far it may indulge in astrology, but we are told that Adelard -translated from the Arabic another “astrological treatise, evidently -of Abu Ma’ashar Dja’afar,”[39] or Albumasar. We have already mentioned -in another chapter the ascription to Adelard of one Latin translation -of the superstitious work of Thebit ben Corat on astrological images, -and in the present chapter the treatise on the astrolabe for Henry -Plantagenet. - -[Sidenote: Adelard and alchemy.] - -Adelard was interested in alchemy as well as astrology and magic, -if the attribution to him in a thirteenth century manuscript[40] of -the twelfth century version of the _Mappe clavicula_ is correct. We -have seen that the original version of that work was much older than -Adelard’s time, but he perhaps made additions to it, or translated -a fuller Arabic version. The occurrence of some Arabic and English -words in certain chapters of the later copies are perhaps signs of his -contributions. Berthelot, however, thought that few of the new items in -the twelfth century version originated with Adelard and that many of -the additions were taken by him, or by whoever was responsible for the -later version, from Greek rather than Arabic sources.[41] - -[Sidenote: Importance of the _Natural Questions_.] - -Our attention will be devoted chiefly to the two treatises by Adelard -which we have already mentioned as the most original of his works. -Of these the _Natural Questions_ are evidently much more important -than the _De eodem et diverso_, which is largely taken up with a -justification, in the style of allegorical personification made so -popular by Martianus Capella and Boethius, and with much use of Plato’s -_Timaeus_, of the seven liberal arts against the five worldly interests -of wealth, power, ambition, dignities, and pleasure. The _Natural -Questions_, although put into a dramatic dialogue form somewhat -reminiscent of Plato, deal without much persiflage with a number of -concrete problems of natural science to which definite answers are -attempted. - -[Sidenote: Occasion of writing.] - -Adelard opens the _Natural Questions_ with brief allusion to the -pleasant reunion with the friends who greeted him upon his return to -England in the reign of Henry I after long absence from his native -land for the sake of study. After the usual inquiries had been made -concerning one another’s health and that of their friends, Adelard -asked about “the morals of our nation,” only to learn that “princes -were violent, prelates wine-bibbers, judges mercenary, patrons -inconstant, the common men flatterers, promise-makers false, friends -envious, and everyone in general ambitious.” Adelard declared that he -had no intention of conforming to this wretched state of affairs, and -when asked what he did intend to do, since he would not practice and -could not prevent such “moral depravity,” replied that he intended -to ignore it, “for oblivion is the only remedy for insurmountable -ills.” Accordingly that subject was dropped, and presently his nephew -suggested and the others joined in urging that he disclose to them -“something new from my Arabian studies.”[42] From the sordid practical -world back to the pure light and ideals of science and philosophy! Such -has been the frequent refrain of our authors from Vitruvius and Galen, -from Firmicus and Boethius on. It is further enlarged upon by Adelard -in the _De eodem et diverso_; it has not quite lost its force even -today; and parallels to Adelard’s twelfth century lament on England’s -going to the dogs may be found in after-the-war letters to _The London -Times_ of 1919. - -[Sidenote: Arabic versus Gallic learning.] - -The result of the request preferred by Adelard’s friends is the present -treatise in the form of a dialogue with his nephew, who proposes by a -succession of questions to force his uncle to justify his preference -for “the opinions of the Saracens” over those of the Christian “schools -of Gaul” where the nephew has pursued his studies. The nephew is -described as “interested rather than expert in natural science”[43] in -the _Natural Questions_, while a passage in the _De eodem et diverso_ -implies that his training in Gaul had been largely of the usual -rhetorical and dialectical character, since Adelard says to him, “Do -you keep watch whether I speak aright, observing that modest silence -which is your custom amidst the wordy war of sophisms and the affected -locutions of rhetoric.”[44] In the _Natural Questions_ the nephew, as -befits his now maturer years, has more to say, raising some objections -and stating some theories as well as propounding his questions, but -Adelard’s answers constitute the bulk of the book. Beginning with -earth and plants, the questions range in an ascending scale through -the lower animals to human physiology and psychology and then to the -grander cosmic phenomena of sea, air, and sky. - -[Sidenote: “Modern discoveries.”] - -In agreeing to follow this method of question and answer Adelard -explains at the start that on account of the prejudice of the present -generation against any _modern_[45] discoveries he will attribute -even his own ideas to someone else, and that, if what he says proves -displeasing to less advanced students because unfamiliar, the blame -for this should be attached to the Arabs and not to himself. “For I am -aware what misfortunes pursue the professors of truth among the common -crowd. Therefore it is the cause of the Arabs that I plead, not my -own.”[46] This is a very interesting passage in more ways than one. -Adelard appears as an exponent of the new scientific school, stimulated -by contact with Arabian culture. He is confident that he has valuable -new truth, but is less confident as to the reception which it will -receive. The hostility, however, in the Latin learned world is not, as -one might expect, to Mohammedan learning. The process of taking over -Arabic learning has apparently already begun--as indeed we have seen -from our previous chapters--and Adelard’s Christian friends are ready -enough to hear what he has learned in Mohammedan lands and schools, -although of course they may not accept it after they have heard it. -But he fears that he “would not get a hearing at all,” if he should -put forward new views as his own. Indeed, he himself shows a similar -prejudice against other novelties than his own in a passage in the -_De eodem_, where he speaks impatiently and contemptuously of “those -who harass our ears with daily novelties” and of “the new Platos and -Aristotles to whom each day gives birth, who with unblushing front -proclaim alike things which they know and of which they know nothing, -and whose supreme trust is in extreme verbosity.”[47] Adelard of course -regarded his own new ideas as of more solid worth than these, but the -fact remains that he was not after all the only one who was interested -in promulgating novelties. Yet his justification for writing the _De -eodem_ is the silence of “the science of the moderns” compared with the -fluency of the ancients, of whose famous writings he has read “not all, -but the greater part.”[48] It is not necessary, of course, to regard -this passage and the preceding as inconsistent, but it is well to read -the one in the light of the other. - -[Sidenote: Medieval work wrongly credited to Greek and Arab.] - -But let us return to the passage from the _Natural Questions_ and -Adelard’s insinuation--slightly satirical no doubt, but also in part -serious--that he has fathered new scientific notions of his own upon -the Arabs. There is reason to think that he was not the only one to do -this. Not only were superstitious and comparatively worthless treatises -which were composed in the medieval period attributed to Aristotle and -other famous authors, but this was also the case with works of real -value. Also the number is suspiciously large of works of which the -lost originals were supposedly by Greek or Arabian authors but which -are extant only in later Latin “translations.” - -[Sidenote: Illustrated from the history of alchemy.] - -This point may be specifically illustrated for the moment from the -researches of Berthelot among alchemistic manuscripts, which have -demonstrated that Latin alchemy of the thirteenth century was less -superstitious and more scientific than in previous periods, whether -among the ancient Greeks or more recent Arabs. He found but one -treatise in Arabic which contained precise and minute details about -chemical substances and operations. As a rule the Arabian alchemists -wrote “theoretical works full of allegories and declamation.” For a -long time several works, important in the history of chemistry as -well as of alchemy, were regarded as Latin translations of the Arab, -Geber. But Berthelot discovered the Arabic manuscripts of the real -Geber, which turned out to be of little value and largely copied from -Greek authors. On the other hand, the Latin works which had gone -under Geber’s name were produced in the thirteenth and fourteenth -centuries by men who seem, like Adelard of Bath, to have preferred -to ascribe their own ideas to the Arabs. Let us examine for a moment -with Berthelot[49] the chief of these Latin treatises. It is a “a -systematic work, very well arranged. Its modest method of exposition” -differs greatly from “the vague and excessive promises of the real -Geber.” Much of the book possesses “a truly scientific character” and -“shows the state of chemical knowledge with a precision of thought and -expression unknown to previous authors.” As for Adelard’s new ideas, -we may not regard them as so novel as they seemed to him, nor estimate -them so highly in comparison with ancient Greek science as Berthelot -did medieval compared with Greek alchemy--much of Adelard’s thought may -be derived by him from those ancient writings in which he claims to -have read so widely--but they were probably as new to Adelard’s Latin -contemporaries as they were to himself. - -[Sidenote: Science and religion.] - -While Adelard’s English friends displayed no bigoted opposition to the -reception of Saracen science, the question of science and religion -is raised in another connection in the very first of the questions -concerning nature which the nephew puts to his uncle. The nephew -inquires the reason for the growth of herbs from earth, asking, “To -what else can you attribute this save to the marvelous effect of -the marvelous divine will?” Adelard retorts that no doubt it is the -Creator’s will, but that the operation is also not without a natural -reason. This attitude of independent scientific investigation is -characteristic of Adelard. Again in the fourth chapter when the nephew -displays a tendency to ascribe all effects to God indifferently as -cause, Adelard objects. He insists that he is detracting in no way from -God, whom he grants to be the source of all things, but he holds that -nature “is not confused and without system” and that “human science -should be given a hearing upon those points which it has covered.” On -the other hand he has no desire in the present treatise to overstep the -bounds of natural science and enter the field of theology. When his -nephew towards the close wishes him to go on and discuss the problem of -God’s existence and nature, he wisely responds, “You are now broaching -a question to me where it is easier to disprove what isn’t so than to -demonstrate what is,”[50] and that they had better go to bed and leave -this big question for another day and another treatise.[51] - -[Sidenote: Reason versus authority.] - -Besides preferring the learning of Arabian and other distant lands to -the schools of Gaul, and favoring scientific investigation rather than -unquestioning faith, Adelard also sets reason above authority. He not -only complains of his generation’s inborn prejudice against new ideas, -but later on, when his nephew proposes to turn his questions from the -subject of plants to that of animals, enters upon a longer diatribe -against scholastic reliance upon past authorities. “It is difficult for -me to discuss animals with you. For I learned from my Arabian masters -under the leading of reason; you, however, captivated by the appearance -of authority, follow your halter. Since what else should authority be -called than a halter? For just as brutes are led where one wills by a -halter, so the authority of past writers leads not a few of you into -danger, held and bound as you are by bestial credulity. Consequently -some, usurping to themselves the name of authority, have used excessive -license in writing, so that they have not hesitated to teach bestial -men falsehood in place of truth. For why shouldn’t you fill rolls of -parchment and write on both sides, when in this age you generally -have auditors who demand no rational judgment but trust simply in the -mention of an old title?”[52] Adelard adds that those who are now -reckoned authorities gained credence in the first instance by following -reason, asserts that authority alone is not enough to convince, and -concludes with the ultimatum to his nephew: “Wherefore, if you want to -hear anything more from me, give and take reason. For I’m not the sort -of man that can be fed on a picture of a beefsteak.”[53] - -[Sidenote: Need of the telescope and microscope already felt.] - -The history of natural philosophy and science has demonstrated that the -unaided human reason has not been equal to the solution of the problems -of the natural universe, and that elaborate and extensive observation, -experience, and measurement of the natural phenomena are essential. -But exact scientific measurement was not possible with the unaided -human senses and required the invention of scientific instruments. -As Adelard says in _De eodem et diverso_, “The senses are reliable -neither in respect to the greatest nor the smallest objects. Who has -ever comprehended the space of the sky with the sense of sight?... Who -has ever distinguished minute atoms with the eye?”[54] Notable natural -questions these, showing that the need of the telescope and microscope -was already felt and that the discovery must in due time follow! - -[Sidenote: Some quaint speculative science.] - -We must not, therefore, unduly blame Adelard for placing, like the -Greek philosophers before him, somewhat excessive trust in human reason -and believing that “nothing is surer than reason, nothing falser -than the senses.”[55] But in consequence much of his discussion is -still in the speculative stage, and uncle as well as nephew shows the -influence of dialectical training. Some quaint and amusing instances -may be given. Asked why men do not have horns like some other animals, -Adelard at first objects to the question as trivial; but when his -nephew urges the utility of horns as weapons of defence, he replies -that man has reason instead of horns, and that, as a social as well as -bellicose animal, man requires weapons which he can lay aside in times -of peace.[56] Asked why the nose, with its impurities, is placed above -the mouth, through which we eat, Adelard answers that nothing in nature -is impure, and that the nose serves the head and so should be above -the mouth which serves the stomach.[57] Such arguing from the fitness -of things and from design was common in the Greek philosophers whom -Adelard had read, and in judging his treatise we must compare it with -such books as the _Saturnalia_ of Macrobius which he cites,[58] the -_Natural Questions_ of Seneca, Plato’s _Timaeus_, and the _Problems_ of -Aristotle,[59] rather than with works of modern science. - -[Sidenote: Warfare, science, and religion.] - -It is noteworthy, however, even in these two amusing instances that -the argument from design is questioned, while the question about horns -Adelard perhaps inserted as a sly hit against the militarism of the -feudal age. Little recked he of the horrible substitutes for horns -that twentieth century warfare would work out with the aid of modern -science. The medieval church has too often been wildly accused of -persecuting natural scientists and it has been erroneously stated that -Roger Bacon dared not reveal the secret of the mariner’s compass--which -really was well known before his time--for fear of being accused of -magic.[60] There is somewhat more plausibility in the theory that he -concealed the invention of gunpowder from fear of the inquisition,[61] -since there appears to have been a certain medieval prejudice against -inhuman war inventions, which historians of artillery somewhat -impatiently ascribe to “ignorance, religion, and chivalry,” and which -they hold prevented the use of Greek fire in the west.[62] At any rate -in Adelard’s day the Second Lateran Council attempted to prohibit the -use of military engines against men on the ground that they were too -murderous.[63] - -[Sidenote: Specimens of medieval scientific curiosity.] - -Returning to the _Natural Questions_, we may note that, like the -_Problems_ of Aristotle, they vary from such crude queries as might -occur to any curious person without scientific training to others that -imply some previous theory or knowledge. A list of some of them will -illustrate the scope of the scientific curiosity of the time. When one -tree is grafted upon another, why is all the fruit of the nature of -the grafted portion? Why do some brutes ruminate; why are some animals -without stomachs; and why do some which drink make no water? Why do -men grow bald in front? Why do some animals see better in the night -than in the day and why can a man standing in the dark see objects -that are in the light, while a man standing in the light cannot see -objects that are in the dark? Why are the fingers of the human hand -of unequal length and the palm hollow? Why don’t babies walk as soon -as they are born, and why are they at first nourished upon milk, and -why doesn’t milk agree equally with old and young? Why do we fear dead -bodies?[64] A number of questions are devoted to each of the topics, -vision, hearing, and heat, while the senses of taste, smell, and touch -are dismissed in a single question and answer.[65] - -[Sidenote: Theory of sound.] - -The discussion of sound and vision may be noted more fully. The nephew -has already learned from his Boethius something similar to the wave -theory of sound. He states that when the air has been formed by the -mouth of the speaker and impelled by the tongue, it impresses the same -form upon that which is next to it, and that this process is repeated -over and over just as concentric circles are formed when a stone is -thrown into water.[66] Vitruvius had given the same explanation in -discussing the acoustics of a theater.[67] But when the nephew asks -his uncle how the voice can penetrate an iron wall, Adelard replies -that every metal body, no matter how solid, has some pores through -which the air can pass.[68] Thus he appears to regard air as the only -substance which can transmit or conduct sound waves. His notion that -air can pass through solids reminds one a little of the milder theory -of Hero of Alexandria that heat and light consist of material particles -which penetrate the interstices between the atoms composing air and -water.[69] But it hardly seems as if Adelard could have derived _his_ -notion from Hero, since the impermeability of metal vessels to air is a -fundamental hypothesis in many of the devices of Hero’s _Pneumatics_. - -[Sidenote: Theory of vision.] - -Adelard’s theory of vision, that of extramission of “a visible spirit,” -is similar to that of Plato in the _Timaeus_, by which he was not -unlikely influenced. The visible spirit passes from the brain to the -eye through “concave nerves which the Greeks call optic,” and from the -eye to the object seen and back again “with marvelous celerity.”[70] -It would be interesting to know certainly whether Adelard penned this -passage before John of Spain translated into Latin the _De differentia -spiritus et animae_, in which Costa ben Luca speaks of “hollow nerves” -from the brain to the eye through which the _spiritus_ passes for the -purpose of vision.[71] Apparently Adelard was first, since the _Natural -Questions_ were finished at some time between 1107 and 1133, while -John of Spain is said to have made his translation for Raymond who was -archbishop of Toledo from 1130 to 1150. Were the manuscripts not so -insistent in naming John as translator,[72] we might think that Adelard -had translated the _De differentia spiritus et animae_. Very possibly -he had come across it during his study with Arabian masters. But he -shows no acquaintance with the optical researches of Al-Hazen or with -the treatise on _Optics_ ascribed to Ptolemy, which last is extant only -in the twelfth century Latin translation by Eugene of Palermo, admiral -of Sicily.[73] However, the fact that three other theories of vision -than the one which Adelard accepts are set forth by his nephew suggests -that the problem was attracting attention. Pliny’s _Natural History_ -gave no theory of vision whatever, although he listed various cases of -extraordinary sight. Boethius, on the other hand, briefly adverted to -the opposing theories of vision by extramission and intramission in the -first chapter of his work on music. As for the marvelous celerity of -the visible spirit, Augustine had enlarged upon the vast distance to -the sun and back traveled by the visual ray in an instant or twinkling -of an eye.[74] - -[Sidenote: Deductive reasoning from hot and cold, moist and dry.] - -Throughout the _Natural Questions_ Adelard’s explanations and answers -are based in large measure upon the familiar hypothesis of the four -elements and of the four qualities, hot and cold, dry and moist. When -asked, for instance, why all ruminating animals begin to lie down with -their hind legs, he explains that their scanty animal heat is the -cause of their ruminating to aid digestion, and that there is more -frigidity in their posterior members, which are consequently heavier -and so are bent first in reclining. The nephew thinks that here he -has caught his uncle napping, and asks why is it then that in rising -they lift themselves first onto their hind legs. But Adelard is not to -be so easily nonplussed, and explains that after they have lain down -and rested, they feel so refreshed that they lift their heavier limbs -first.[75] Again, asked why persons of quick perception often have -faulty memories, Adelard suggests that a moist brain is more conducive -to intelligence, but a dry one to memory. Thus moist potter’s clay -receives impressions more readily but also easily loses them; what is -drier receives the impression with more difficulty but retains it.[76] -In a third passage, Adelard explains his nephew’s weeping in his joy -at seeing his uncle safely returned by the theory that his excessive -delight overheated his brain and distilled moisture thence.[77] - -[Sidenote: Refinement of the four elements hypothesis.] - -Adelard, however, like Galen, Constantinus Africanus, Basil, and -other writers before him, finds it advisable to refine the theory of -the four elements. He is at pains in his answer to the nephew’s very -first question to explain that what we commonly call earth is not the -element earth, and that no one ever touched the pure element water, or -saw the elements air and fire. Every particular object contains all -four elements and we deal in daily life only with compounds. In an -herb, for instance, unless there were fire, there would be no growth -upward; unless there were water or air, no spreading out; and without -earth, no consistency. Moreover, when Adelard is asked why some herbs -are spoken of as hot by nature, although all plants have more earth -than fire in their composition, he says that while earth predominates -quantitatively, efficaciously they are more fiery, just as his green -cloak is larger than his green emerald, but much less potent.[78] Thus -comes in the theory of occult virtue to help out the inadequate and -unsatisfactory hypothesis of four elements and four qualities. We shall -find our subsequent authors often resorting to the same explanation. - -[Sidenote: Animal intelligence doubted.] - -Adelard may believe in the marvelous virtue of emeralds, to which -indeed he alludes rather inadvertently, but we do not find in the -_Natural Questions_ any of the common tales concerning remarkable -animal sagacity or malice. This may be mere accident or it may be due -to his warning in introducing the discussion of animals to give and -take reason only. However, the question is discussed whether the brutes -possess souls,[79] and he states that the common people are sure that -they do not, and that only philosophers assert that animals have souls. -This does not mean that their souls are rational, however: either -animals possess “neither intelligence nor discretion but only opinion -which is founded not in the soul but in the body”; or perhaps they -have “some judgment why they seek and avoid certain things,” and such -discretion of sense as enables a dog to distinguish scents. If they -possess such animal souls, do these perish with the body? - -[Sidenote: The earth’s shape and center of gravity.] - -Adelard is correctly informed as to the shape of the earth and its -center of gravity. Asked how the terrestrial globe is upheld in the -midst of space, he retorts that in a round space it is evident that -the center and the bottom are the same.[80] This thought is reinforced -by the next question, If there were a hole clear through the earth -and a stone were dropped in, how far would it fall? Adelard correctly -answers, Only to the center of the earth. The same question is asked -of Adelard by a Greek in the _De eodem et diverso_, so that, in case -we regard the _De eodem_ as written before the _Natural Questions_, -it would appear that he had not derived his conclusion in this matter -from either the Greeks or the Arabs. However, we have heard Plutarch -scoff at the statement that bars weighing a thousand talents would stop -falling at the earth’s center, if a hole were opened up through the -earth.[81] - -[Sidenote: Indestructibility of matter.] - -In a recent review of Sir William Ramsay’s _The Life and Letters of -Joseph Black, M.D._, it is stated, “The nature of the experiment he -(Black) made is not now known, but his tremendous comment on it was, -‘Nothing escapes!’ Have we here really the first glimmering of the -great principle of the indestructibility of matter which, with the -associated principle regarding energy, forms the foundation of modern -chemistry and physics?”[82] To this the answer is, “No.” Adelard of -Bath stated the indestructibility of matter eight centuries earlier, -and apparently not as the result of any experiment. But his utterance -was fuller and more explicit than that of Black. “And certainly in my -judgment nothing in this world of sense ever perishes utterly, or is -less today than when it was created. If any part is dissolved from one -union, it does not perish but is joined to some other group.”[83] - -[Sidenote: Also stated by Hugh of St. Victor.] - -The indestructibility of matter is also stated by Adelard’s -contemporary, Hugh of St. Victor, who remarks in the _Didascalicon_ -that of earthly things which have a beginning and an end “it has -been said, ‘Nothing in the universe ever dies because no essence -perishes.’ For the essences of things do not change, but the forms. -And when a form is said to change, it should not be so understood -that any existing thing is believed to perish utterly and lose its -being, but only to undergo alteration, either perchance so that those -things which were joined are separated, or those joined which had -been separated....”[84] Hugh was quite certainly a younger man than -Adelard, but it is not so certain that the _Didascalicon_ was written -after the _Natural Questions_, although it is probable. Or Hugh may -have heard Adelard lecture in Gaul or learned his view concerning the -indestructibility of matter indirectly. Or they both may have drawn it -independently from a common source.[85] - -[Sidenote: Roger Bacon’s continuity of universal nature.] - -In an article entitled _Roger Bacon et l’Horreur du Vide_[86] Professor -Pierre Duhem advanced the thesis that in place of the previous doctrine -that nature abhors a vacuum Roger Bacon was the first to formulate -a theory of universal continuity. This was an incorrect hypothesis, -it is true, but one which Professor Duhem believed to have served -the useful purpose of supplementing “the Peripatetic theory of heavy -and light” until the discovery of atmospheric pressure. This theory -developed in connection with certain problematical phenomena of -which this “experiment” is the chief and typical case. If there be -suspended in air a vessel of water having a hole in the top and several -narrow apertures in the bottom, no water will fall from it as long as -the superior aperture is closed. Yet water is heavier than air and -according to the principles of Aristotle’s _Physics_ should fall to the -ground. Writers before Roger Bacon, according to Duhem, explain this -anomaly by saying that the fall of the water would produce a vacuum and -that a vacuum cannot exist in nature. But Bacon argues that a vacuum -cannot be the reason why the water does not fall, because a vacuum does -not exist; he then explains further that although by their particular -natures water tends downwards and air upwards, by their nature as -parts of the universe they tend to remain in continuity. Duhem held -that Roger Bacon was the first to substitute this positive law of -universal continuity for the mere negation that a vacuum cannot exist -in nature.[87] - -[Sidenote: Previously stated by Adelard.] - -Professor Duhem supported his case by citation of Greek, Byzantine, -and Arabic sources and by use of writings of fourteenth century -physicists available only in manuscripts. But unfortunately for his -main contention he overlooked a remarkable passage written by Adelard -of Bath over a century before Roger Bacon. In the fifty-eighth chapter -of the _Natural Questions_ the nephew says, “There is still one point -about the natures of waters which is unclear to me.” He then asks his -uncle to explain a water jar, similar to that just described, which -they had once seen at the house of an enchantress. Adelard replies in -his clear, easy style, so different from the scholastic discussion in -Bacon’s corresponding passages. “If it was magic, the enchantment was -worked by violence of nature rather than of waters. For although four -elements compose the body of this world of sense, they are so united -by natural affection that, as no one of them desires to exist without -another, so no place is or can be void of them. Therefore immediately -one of them leaves its position, another succeeds it without interval, -nor can one leave its place unless some other which is especially -attached to it can succeed it.” Hence it is futile to give the water -a chance to escape unless you give the air a chance to enter. Be it -noted that Adelard not only thus anticipates the theory of universal -continuity, but also in the last clause of the quotation approaches the -doctrine of chemical affinity in the formation and disintegration of -molecules. Finally, he describes what actually occurs in the experiment -more accurately than Roger Bacon or the other physicists cited by -Duhem. “Hence it comes about that, if in a vessel which is absolutely -tight above an aperture is made below, the liquid flows out only -interruptedly and with bubbling. For as much air gets in as liquid -goes out, and this air, since it finds the water porous, by its own -properties of tenuity and lightness makes its way to the top of the -vessel and occupies what seems to be a vacuum.” - -[Sidenote: Experiment and magic.] - -This detailed and accurate description of exactly what takes place -shows us Adelard’s powers of observation and experiment at their best, -and compares favorably with two cruder examples of experimentation -which he ascribes to others. He states that it was discovered -experimentally which portion of the brain is devoted to the imagination -and which parts to reason and memory through a case in which a man -was injured in the front part of the head.[88] In the other instance -some philosophers, in order to study the veins and muscles of the -human body, bound a corpse in running water until all the flesh -had been removed by the current.[89] But the question remains, how -often did Abelard exercise his powers of accurate observation by -actual experiments? Certainly one thing is noteworthy, that the best -and almost sole experiment that he details is represented by him -as suggested by the magic water jar of an enchantress. Thus we are -once again impelled to the conclusion that experimental method owes -a considerable debt to magic, and that magic owed a great deal to -experimental method. - -[Sidenote: Adelard and Hero of Alexandria.] - -We are also reminded of the association of similar water-jars with -thaumaturgy in the _Pneumatics_ of Hero of Alexandria.[90] It will -be noted that Adelard is content with a single illustration of the -principle involved, while Hero kept reintroducing instances of it. And -while Hero gave little more than practical directions, Adelard gives -a philosophical interpretation of and scientific deduction from the -experiment. But he also describes what actually occurs more accurately, -admitting that some liquid will gradually flow out even when the -air-hole is kept closed. Here again, as in the case of the theory of -the penetration of the particles of one substance between those of -another mentioned in our paragraph above on the theory of sound, it -is difficult to say whether Adelard was acquainted with Hero’s works. -Probably it is only chance that Hero’s _Pneumatics_ seems to contain -almost exactly the same number of theorems as Adelard’s _Natural -Questions_ has chapters.[91] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to the stars: _De eodem et diverso_.] - -It remains to consider Adelard’s attitude towards the stars, which is -very similar to that of Plato’s _Timaeus_. We have already seen that -he translated works of Arabic astrology. Such a work as the tables of -Al-Khowarizmi evidently has an astrological purpose, enabling one to -find the horoscope accurately. In the _De eodem et diverso_ he calls -the celestial bodies “those superior and divine animals,” and “the -causes and principle of inferior natures.” One who masters the science -of astronomy can comprehend not only the present state of inferior -things but also the past and the future.[92] The existence of music, -says Adelard in another passage, supplies philosophers with a strong -argument for their belief that “the soul has descended into the body -from the stars above.”[93] In the _De eodem et diverso_ Adelard also -expresses the belief that from present phenomena the mind can look -ahead far into the future, and that the soul can sometimes foresee the -future in dreams.[94] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to the stars: _Questiones Naturales_.] - -In the _Natural Questions_[95] Adelard again alludes to the stars as -“those superior animals,” and when asked whether they are animated -replies that he deems anyone to be without sense who contends that -the stars are senseless, and that to call those bodies lifeless which -produce vitality in other bodies is ridiculous. He regards “the bodies -of the stars” as composed of the same four elements as this world of -inferior creation, but he believes that in their composition those -elements predominate which conduce most to life and reason, and that -the celestial bodies are more fiery than terrestrial bodies. “But -their fire is not harsh, but gentle and harmless. It therefore follows -that it is obedient to and in harmony with sense and reason.” Their -form, too, being “full and round,” is especially adapted to reason. -Finally, if reason and foresight exist even in our dark and perturbed -lower world, how much more must the stars employ intelligence in -their determined and constant courses? When the nephew proceeds to -inquire what food the stars eat, since they are animals, Adelard shows -no surprise, but answers that as diviner creatures they use a purer -sustenance than we, namely, the humidities of earth and water which, -extenuated and refined by their long upward transit, neither augment -the stars in weight nor dull their reason and prudence. But when the -nephew asks whether the _aplanon_ or outermost and immovable sphere of -heaven should be called God or not, Adelard answers that to assert this -is in one sense philosophical but in another, insane and abominable, -and he then avoids further discussion by terminating the treatise. - -[Sidenote: Astrology in an anonymous work, perhaps by Athelardus.] - -For some reason, which I failed to discover, the catalogue of -the Cotton manuscripts in the British Museum, in describing “a -philosophical treatise concerning the principles of nature, the power -of celestial influences on minds and morals, and other matters,”[96] -states that “the author seems to be Athelardus.” The treatise is -perhaps of later date than Adelard of Bath, but as it would be equally -difficult to connect it with any other of our authors, we will give -some account of it now. It seems to be incomplete as it stands both -at the beginning and end, but the main interest in the portion -preserved to us is astrological. Authorities are cited such as Hermes -Trismegistus, Theodosius, Ptolemy, Apollonius of Thebes, “Albateni,” -and “Abumaxar.” Discussing the number of elements our author states -that medical men speak of the four parts of the inferior world, fire, -air, water, earth,[97] but that astrologers make the number of the -elements twelve, adding the eight parts of the superior world.[98] -Later our author argues further for astrological influence as against -“the narrow medical man who thinks of no effects of things except those -of inferior nature merely.”[99] Our author holds that forms come from -above to matter here below, and discusses the influence of the sky on -the generation of humans and metals, plants and animals, and connects -seven colors and seven metals with the planets.[100] He furthermore, in -all probability following Albumasar in this, asserts that the course -of history may be foretold by means of astrology and that different -religions go with different planets.[101] The Jews are under Saturn; -the Arabs, under Venus and Mars, which explains the warlike and sensual -character of their religion; the Christian Roman Empire, under the -Sun and Jupiter. “Ancient writers argue” and “present experience -proves”[102] that the Sun stands for honesty, liberality, and victory; -Jupiter, for peace, equity, and humanity. The constant enmity between -the Jews and Christians, and Moslems and Christians, is explained by -the fact that neither Mars nor Saturn is ever in friendly relation -with Jupiter. These three religions also observe the days of the week -corresponding to their planets: the Christians, Sunday; the Moslems, -Friday or Venus’s day; the Jews, Saturday. Our author also explains the -worships of the Egyptians and Greeks by their relation to signs of the -zodiac. - -[Sidenote: Authorities on spirits.] - -Despite the allusion just mentioned to “the experience of to-day,” our -author perhaps shows too great a tendency to cite authorities to be -that Adelard of Bath who wished to give and take reason and reproved -his nephew for blind trust in authority. In discussing the theme of -spirits and demons[103]--a different problem, it is true, from natural -questions--he thinks that “it is enough in these matters to have faith -in the authority of those who, divinely illuminated, could penetrate -into things divine by the purer vision of the mind.” He proceeds -to cite Apuleius and Trismegistus, Hermes in _The Golden Bough_, -“Apollonius” in _The Secrets of Nature_, which he wrote alone in the -desert, and Aristotle who tells of a spirit of Venus who came to him in -a dream and instructed him as to the sacrifice which he should perform -under a certain constellation. - -[Sidenote: Adelard’s future influence.] - -But I would close this chapter on Adelard not with superstition from -a treatise of dubious authenticity, but rather with reaffirmation of -the importance in the long history of science of his brief work, the -_Natural Questions_. Its probable effects upon Hugh of St. Victor and -Roger Bacon are instances of its medieval influence to which we shall -add in subsequent chapters. But most impressive is the fact that within -such compact compass it considers so many problems and topics that are -still of interest to modern science. For instance, its two concrete -examples of the stone dropped into a hole extending through the earth’s -center and of the magic water jar have been common property ever since. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[26] For the _De eodem et diverso_ I have used the text printed for -the first time by H. Willner, _Des Adelard von Bath Traktat De eodem -et diverso, sum ersten Male herausgegeben und historischkritisch -untersucht_, Münster, 1903, in _Beiträge_, IV, i. - -For the _Questiones naturales_ I have used the _editio princeps_ of -Louvain, 1480 (?), and what is supposed to be the original MS at Eton -College, 161, (Bl. 6. 16). I have also examined BN 2389, 12th century, -fols. 65r-81v, _Questiones naturales_ from cap. 12 on; fols. 81v-90v, -_De eodem et diverso_ (sole extant text); and BN 6415, 14th century, -where Adelard’s _Natural Questions_ are found together with William of -Conches’ _Dragmaticon philosophiae_ and Bernard Silvester’s _Megacosmus -et microcosmus_, of which we treat in succeeding chapters. Professor H. -Gollancz has recently translated the Latin text into English for the -first time in his _Dodi Ve-Nechdi_, the work of Berachya based upon -Adelard’s and preserved in MSS at Oxford and Munich. - -For Adelard’s translation of the _Liber Ezich_, or astronomical tables -of Al-Khowarizmi (as revised by Maslama at Cordova), I have used H. -Suter, _Die astronomischen Tafeln des Muhammed ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi_, -Copenhagen, 1914. - -For further bibliography of Adelard’s writings see the articles on -_Adelard of Bath_, by Professor C. H. Haskins in EHR 26 (1911) pp. -491-8, and 28 (1913) 515-6. These articles will henceforth be cited as -_Haskins (1911)_ and _Haskins (1913)_. - -[27] _De eodem et diverso_, p. 32. - -[28] Haskins (1911) p. 491, who has, however, himself done much to -clear up this obscurity. I largely follow his account in the ensuing -biographical and bibliographical details. - -[29] But the passage giving this date has been found in but one MS; -Suter (1914), pp. 5, 37. - -[30] R. L. Poole, _The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century_, London, 1912, -p. 56. - -[31] CU McLean 165, “Heynrice cum sis regis nepos”; Haskins (1913) pp. -515-6. - -[32] Namely, the translation of Euclid, _De eodem et diverso_, and -_Liber Ezich_. - -[33] Ed. Boncompagni, _Bullettino di Bibliografia e di Storia della -Scienze matematiche_, XIV, 1-134. - -[34] Unless indirectly through Gerbert. - -[35] The numerous MSS vary so in text and arrangement that it is not -clear whether Adelard’s work in its original form “was an abridgement, -a close translation, or a commentary,” (Haskins (1911) 494-5). - -Professor David Eugene Smith states in his forthcoming edition of Roger -Bacon’s _Communia Mathematicae_, which he has very kindly permitted -me to see in manuscript, that Roger refers several times to Adelard’s -_Editio specialis super Elementa Euclidis_--“a work now entirely -unknown.” - -[36] _Liber ysagogarum Alchorismi in artem astronomicam a magistro A. -compositus_: Haskins (1911) p. 493 for MSS. - -[37] Ed. Curtze, in _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math._, VIII, 1-27. - -[38] Haskins (1911) p. 494. - -[39] _Ibid._, 495, _Ysagoga minor Iapharis mathematici in astronomiam -per Adelardum bathoniensem ex arabico sumpta_. It is perhaps worth -noting the similarity of the _Incipit_, “Quicumque philosophie -scienciam altiorem studio constanti inquirens....” (Digby 68, 14th -century, fols. 116-24), to the three _“Quicumque” Incipits_ mentioned -in our chapter on Gerbert (see above, Chapter 30, vol. I, page 707.) - -[40] Royal 15-C-IV. - -[41] Berthelot (1906) 172-77, “Adelard de Bath et le _Mappe -Clavicula_,” as well as the citations from other writings of Berthelot -by Haskins (1911) 495-6. - -[42] “Aliquid arabicorum studiorum novum me proponere exhortatus.” - -[43] “Nepos quidam meus in rerum causis magis implicans quam explicans.” - -[44] _De eodem et diverso_, p. 2, “Tu utrum recte texam animadverte, -et ea qua soles vel in sophismatum verboso agmine vel in rhetoricae -affectuosa elocutione modesta taciturnitate utere.” - -[45] Adelard uses the word _modernus_ a number of times, and usually -of his own age, although in one passage of the _De eodem et diverso_ -(p. 7, line 3) he speaks of the Latin writers, Cicero and Boethius, -as _modernos_ in distinction from Greek philosophers of whom he has -previously been speaking. Other uses of the word in _De eodem et -diverso_ to apply to his own age are: p. 3, line 3; p. 19, line 24; p. -22, line 33. - -Cassiodorus is said to be the first extant author to use _modernus_. - -[46] _Quest. nat., Proemium._ “Habet enim haec generatio ingenitum -vitium ut nihil quod a modernis reperiatur putent esse recipiendum, -unde fit ut si quando inventum proprium publicare voluerim, personae id -alienae imponens inquam, ‘Quidam dixit, non ego’ Itaque--ne omnino non -audiar--omnes meas sententias dans, ‘Quidam invenit, non ego.’ Sed haec -hactenus. - -... hoc tamen vitato incommodo ne quis me ignota proferentem ex mea id -sententia facere, verum arabicorum studiorum sensa putet proponere. -Nolo enim si quae dixero minus provectis displiciant, ego etiam eis -displicere. Novi enim quis casus veri professores apud vulgus sequatur. -Quare causam arabicorum non meam agam.” - -In the catalogue of books at Christ Church, Canterbury, which was drawn -up while Henry of Eastry was prior (1284-1331), our treatise is listed -as “Athelardus de naturalibus questionibus secundum Arabicos”: James -(1903) p. 126. - -[47] P. 7, “Cui tandem eorum credendum est qui cotidianis novitatibus -aures vexant? Et assidue quidem etiam nunc cotidie Platones, -Aristoteles novi nobis nascuntur, qui aeque ea quae nesciant ut et -ea quae sciant sine frontis jectura promittunt; estque in summa -verbositate summa eorum fiducia.” - -[48] _De eodem_, p. 1, “Dum priscorum virorum scripta famosa non omnia -sed pleraque perlegerim eorumque facultatem cum modernorum scientia -comparaverim, et illos facundos judico et hos taciturnos appello.” - -[49] Berthelot (1893) I, 344-7. - -[50] Cap. 77. I cite chapters as numbered in the _editio princeps_. - -[51] To which the nephew cheerfully assents. - -[52] _Quest. nat._, cap. 6. - -[53] _Quest. nat._, cap. 6, “Quare, si quid amplius a me audire -desideras, rationem refer et recipe. Non enim ego ille sum quem pellis -pictura pascere possit.” - -[54] _De eodem et diverso_, p. 13. - -[55] _De eodem et diverso_, p. 13. - -[56] _Quest. nat._, cap. 15. - -[57] _Ibid._, cap. 19. - -[58] _Ibid._, cap. 35. - -[59] The ascription of this work to Aristotle is questioned by D’Arcy -W. Thompson (1913), 14, note, who calls attention to the fact that the -majority of the numerous place-names in it are from southern Italy -or Sicily; “and I live in hopes of seeing this work, or a very large -portion of it, expunged, for this and other weightier reasons, from the -canonical writings of Aristotle.” - -[60] See below, chapter 61, page 621. - -[61] I refute this theory, however, in Appendix II to the chapter on -Bacon. - -[62] Reinaud et Favé, _Le feu grégeois et les origines de la poudre -à canon_, (1845) p. 210. In the quotation from Christine de Pisan at -pp. 219-20, however, it seems to me that she has reference only to -the poisons last-named and not to the Greek fires previously named in -declaring them inhuman and against all the laws of war. - -[63] _Ibid._, p. 128. - -[64] The questions thus far listed occur in the order of mention in the -following chapters: 6, 7, 10, 11, 20, 12, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, -40, 46. - -[65] _Quest. nat._, cap. 31. - -[66] _Quest. nat._, cap. 21. - -[67] _De architectura_, V, iii, 6 (Morgan’s translation). “Voice is -a flowing breath of air, perceptible to the hearing by contact. It -moves in an endless number of circular rounds, like the innumerably -increasing circular waves which appear when a stone is thrown into -smooth water, and which keep on spreading indefinitely from the center -unless interrupted by narrow limits, or by some obstruction which -prevents such waves from reaching their end in due formation. When they -are interrupted by obstructions, the first waves, flowing back, break -up the formation of those which follow.” - -[68] _Quest. nat._, cap. 22. - -[69] See above, chapter 5, vol. I, page 191. - -[70] _Quest. nat._, cap. 23. - -[71] See above, chapter 28, I, 659. - -[72] See above, chapter 28, I, 657. - -[73] See above, chapter 3, page 107. - -[74] _De Genesi ad litteram_, IV, 34; Migne, PL 34, 319-20. - -[75] _Quest. nat._, caps. 8-9. - -[76] _Ibid._, cap. 17. - -[77] _Ibid._, cap. 32. On “weeping as a salutation,” see J. G. Frazer -(1918) II, 82-93. - -[78] _Quest. nat._, cap. 2. - -[79] _Ibid._, caps. 13-14. - -[80] _Ibid._, cap. 48. - -[81] Chapter 6, I, 219. - -[82] London Weekly Times, Literary Supplement, Nov. 15, 1918, p. 549. - -[83] _Quest. nat._, cap. 4, “Et meo certo iudicio in hoc sensibili -mundo nihil omnino moritur nec minor est hodie quam cum creatus est. -Si qua pars ab una coniunctione solvitur, non perit sed ad aliam -societatem transit.” - -[84] _Didascalicon_ I, 7 (Migne, PL 176). - -[85] Plotinus had said, “Nothing that really is can ever perish” -(οὐδὲν ἀπολεῖται τῶν ὄντων), as Dean Inge notes, _The Philosophy of -Plotinus_, 1918, I, 189. - -There is also resemblance between the _Didascalicon_ (II, 13) and _De -eodem et diverso_ (p. 27, line 7) in their division of music into -mundane, human, and instrumental. For this Boethius is very likely the -common source. - -[86] In _Roger Bacon Commemoration Essays_, ed. by A. G. Little, -Oxford, 1914, pp. 241-84. - -[87] _Roger Bacon Essays_, p. 266. - -[88] _Quest. nat._, cap. 16. For a somewhat similar passage in -Augustine see _De Genesi ad litteram_, VII, 18 (Migne, PL 34, 364). - -[89] _Ibid._, cap. 18. - -[90] See above, chapter 5, I, 191. - -[91] That is, 78 and 77. - -[92] _De eodem et diverso_, p. 32. - -[93] _Ibid._, p. 10. - -[94] _Ibid._, p. 13. - -[95] _Quest. nat._, caps. 74-77. - -[96] Cotton Titus D, iv, fols. 75-138v, opening “fiat ordinata parato -quo facile amplectamur ...”, and closing “pars tercia tocius orbis -terreni, unde reliqua duo spacia reliqua.” - -[97] Cotton Titus D, iv, fol. 77r. - -[98] _Ibid._, fol. 78r. - -[99] _Ibid._, fol. 126v. - -[100] _Ibid._, fols. 127-32. - -[101] _Ibid._, fols. 113-4. - -[102] _Ibid._ fol. 113v, “Et antiqui scripture arguunt et hodierni -temporis experimentum probat”.... - -[103] _Ibid._, fols. 120v-124v. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -THE PROBLEM OF DATING THE DE EODEM ET DIVERSO AND QUESTIONES NATURALES -AND OF THEIR RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER - - -[Sidenote: Difficulty of the problem.] - -It is a difficult matter to fix the date either of the _De eodem -et diverso_ or of the _Questiones naturales_, and to account -satisfactorily for the various allusions to contemporary events and -to Adelard’s own movements which occur in either. It is not even -entirely certain which treatise was written first, as neither contains -an unmistakable allusion to the other. On general grounds the _De -eodem et diverso_ would certainly seem the earlier work, but there are -some reasons for thinking the contrary. It seems clear that not many -years elapsed between the composition of the two works, but how many -is uncertain. It is evident that the _De eodem et diverso_ must have -been written by 1116 at the latest in order to dedicate it to William, -bishop of Syracuse. But the _Questiones naturales_ apparently might -have been dedicated to Richard, bishop of Bayeux, at almost any time -during his pontificate from 1107 to 1133, although probably not long -after 1116. - -[Sidenote: Before what queen did Adelard play the _cithara_?] - -Professor Haskins would narrow down the time during which the _De -eodem et diverso_ could have been written to the years from about -1104 to 1109, with the single year 1116 as a further possibility. He -says, “Adelard speaks of having played the _cithara_ before the queen -in the course of his musical studies in France the preceding year, -and as there was no queen of France between the death of Philip I and -the marriage of Louis VI in 1115, the treatise, unless the bishop of -Syracuse was still alive in 1116, would not be later than 1109.”[104] -But may not the queen referred to have been Matilda, the wife of Henry -I?[105] She was a patroness both of artists and of men of letters, and -the Pipe Roll for 1130 and the treatise on the astrolabe have shown -us that later, at least, it was the English royal family with which -Adelard, himself an Englishman, was connected. It is of “Gaul,” not -of “France” in the sense of territory subject to the French monarch, -that Adelard writes,[106] and Normandy was of course under Henry’s rule -after the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. - -[Sidenote: Circumstances under which the _De eodem et diverso_ was -written.] - -The _De eodem et diverso_ takes the form of a letter[107] from Adelard -to his nephew, justifying his “laborious itinerary” in pursuit of -learning against the reproach of “levity and inconstancy” made by the -nephew, and stating “the cause of my travel among the learned men of -various regions,” at which the nephew has time and again expressed his -astonishment, and the reasons for which his uncle has kept concealed -from him for two years.[108] This letter seems to have been written by -Adelard in Sicily, since it is prefaced with a dedication to William, -bishop of Syracuse, and since towards its close Adelard speaks of -“coming from Salerno into Graecia maior”[109]--a phrase by which he -presumably refers to the ancient Magna Graecia, or southern Italy, and -perhaps also Sicily. In the preceding year, however, Adelard and his -nephew had been together in Tours.[110] It thus appears that the _De -eodem_ was written not very long after Adelard set out on his quest for -foreign learning, while he was still in the Greek or semi-Greek learned -society of southern Italy and Sicily, and presumably before he had -come into contact with the science of the Saracens, which he does not -mention in the _De eodem et diverso_, although traces of it undoubtedly -lingered in Sicily. He writes as if the idea had only comparatively -recently come to him “that he could much broaden his education, if he -crossed the Alps and visited other teachers than those of Gaul.” - -[Sidenote: Different situation depicted in the _Natural Questions_.] - -In the _Natural Questions_, on the other hand, he returns to England -after seven years, instead of a single year, of separation from his -nephew, after a visit to the principality of Antioch,[111] and after a -considerable period of study among the Saracens or Arabs. It is rather -natural, however, to conclude that the same absence abroad is referred -to in both treatises, and that Adelard wrote _De eodem et diverso_ -to his nephew after he had been absent a year, while the _Natural -Questions_ was composed after his return at the end of seven years. -Thus six years would separate the two treatises. But the _Natural -Questions_ depicts a different last parting of uncle and nephew from -that of _De eodem et diverso_. It does not allude to their having been -together in Tours seven years ago, but reminds the nephew how, when -his uncle took leave of him and his other pupils at Laon seven years -since, it was agreed between them that while Adelard investigated -Arabian learning, his nephew should continue his studies in Gaul.[112] -In the _De eodem et diverso_, on the contrary, neither Laon nor the -Arabs nor any such agreement between uncle and nephew is mentioned. -Rather, the uncle seems to have at first kept secret the motives for -his crossing the Alps. It therefore may be that Adelard had returned -from Sicily to Gaul and had taught at Laon for a short time before -setting out on a longer period of travel in quest of Arabian science. -This would agree well enough with his allusion to his nephew in the -_De eodem et diverso_ as “still a boy,”[113] and the statement in the -_Natural Questions_ that his nephew was “little more than a boy”[114] -when he parted from him seven years before. In this case the _Natural -Questions_ would have been written more than seven years after the _De -eodem et diverso_. This is, I think, the most tenable and plausible -hypothesis. - -[Sidenote: Some apparent indications that the _De eodem et diverso_ was -written after the _Natural Questions_.] - -There are, it is true, one or two circumstances which might be taken -to indicate that the _De eodem et diverso_ was written after the -_Questiones naturales_. In the sole manuscript of the _De eodem_ thus -far known[115] it follows that treatise, and its title _Of the same -and different_ might be taken as a continuation with variations of the -general line of thought of the other treatise. But it is perhaps just -because some copyist has so interpreted its title that it is put after -the _Natural Questions_ in this manuscript. At any rate in the text -itself Adelard gives another explanation of its title, stating that it -has reference to the allegorical figures, Philosophia and Philocosmia, -who address him in his vision, and who, he says, are designated as -_eadem_ and _diversa_ “by the prince of philosophers,”--an allusion -perhaps to some of Aristotle’s pronouns.[116] Another curious -circumstance is that the problem, How far would a stone of great weight -fall, if dropped in a hole extending through the earth at the center? -occurs in both the _De eodem_ and _Natural Questions_.[117] In the -latter the nephew puts the query to his uncle: in the former a Grecian -philosopher whom Adelard has been questioning concerning the properties -of the magnet in attracting iron, in his turn asks Adelard this -question. Now in the _Natural Questions_ Adelard’s answer is given, -as if the nephew had never heard it before, but in the _De eodem et -diverso_ it is simply stated that the Greek “listened to my explanation -of this,” as if the nephew had already heard the explanation from his -uncle.[118] - -[Sidenote: How long had Henry I been reigning?] - -In opening the _Natural Questions_ Adelard states that Henry I was -reigning when he returned to England recently. This statement, in -Professor Haskins’ opinion, “would seem to imply that he originally -left England for his studies in France before Henry’s accession.” I am -not quite sure that this inference follows, but if it does, may one not -go a step further and argue that Henry I had come to the throne since -Adelard parted from his nephew at Laon to investigate the learning of -the Arabs? Had Henry become king of England while Adelard was still -studying or teaching in northern Gaul, he would almost certainly have -heard of it, and it would have been no news to him on his return from -his studies among the Arabs. If we accept this view, Adelard’s return -to England would be not later than 1107. But it could scarcely be -earlier, if he wrote and dedicated the _Natural Questions_ promptly -after his arrival, of which he speaks as a recent event in that work, -since the dedicatee did not become Bishop of Bayeux until 1107. And -if the _De eodem et diverso_ was written more than seven years before -the _Natural Questions_, we should have to date it back into the -eleventh century, which would perhaps be too early for its dedication -to William, bishop of Syracuse. And to put these two works so early -is to leave a gap between them and the other known dates of Adelard’s -career, 1126, 1130, and 1142-1146, and make the period of his literary -productivity quite a long one. He would have been quite a graybeard -when he wrote on the astrolabe for the juvenile Henry Plantagenet. On -the whole, therefore, I am inclined to think that Henry I had been -reigning for some time when Adelard wrote the _Natural Questions_. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[104] Haskins (1911) pp. 492-3. - -[105] It is true that after 1109, “The queen herself, who had for a -time accompanied the movements of her husband, now resided mostly -at Westminster” (G. B. Adams in Hunt and Poole, _Political History -of England_, II, 151), so that Adelard would not have had many -opportunities to play before her in the English possessions across the -channel after that date. - -[106] _De eodem et diverso_, pp. 25-6, Philosophy addresses Adelard, -“... cum praeterito anno in eadem musica Gallicis studiis totus sudares -adessetque in serotino tempore magister artis una cum discipulis cum -eorum reginaeque rogatu citharam tangeres.” - -[107] P. 3, line 16, “Quoniam autem in epistola hac ...”; line 25, -“Hanc autem epistolam ‘De eodem et diverso’ intitulavi”; p. 34, line 7, -“Vale; et utrum recte disputaverim, tecum dijudica.” - -[108] P. 3, line 9, “Nam et ego, cum idem metuens iniustae cuidam -nepotis mei accusationi rescribere vererer, in hanc demum sententiam -animum compuli, ut reprehensionis metum patienter ferrem, accusationi -iniustae pro posse meo responderem.” - -P. 4, line 6, “Saepenumero admirari soles, nepos, laboriosi itineris -mei causam et aliquando acrius sub nomine levitatis et inconstantiae -propositum accusare ...”; line 17, “Et ego, si tibi idem videtur, -causam erroris mei--ita enim vocare soles--paucis edisseram et -multiplicem labyrinthum ad unum honesti exitum vocabo ...”; line 22, -“Ego rem, quam per biennium celavi, ut tibi morem geram aperiam....” - -P. 34, line 3, “Hactenus, carissime nepos, tibi causam itineris mei -per diversarum regionum doctores flexi satagens explicavi, ut et me -injustae accusationis tuae onere alleviarem et tibi eorundem studiorum -affectum applicarem....” - -[109] P. 33, line 13, “... a Salerno veniens in Graecia maiore ...”; -also p. 32, line 27, “Quod enim Gallica studia nesciunt, transalpina -reserabunt; quod apud Latinos non addisces, Graecia facunda docebit.” - -[110] P. 4, line 25, “Erat praeterito in anno vir quidam apud Turonium -... et te eius probitas non lateat, qui una ibi mecum adesses.” - -[111] _Quest. nat._, cap. 51, “Cum semel in partibus Antiochenis pontem -civitatis Manistre transires, ipsam pontem simul etiam totam ipsam -regionem terre motu contremuisse.” It is true that this remark is -put into the nephew’s mouth, but it is probably meant to refer to an -incident of Adelard’s recent trip abroad and not to some previous one. - -[112] _Quest. nat._, _proemium_, “Meministi, nepos, septennio iam -transacto, cum te in gallicis studiis pene puerum iuxta laudisdunum -una cum ceteris auditoribus meis dimiserim, id inter nos convenisse ut -arabum studia pro posse meo scrutarer, te vero gallicarum sententiarum -in constantiam non minus acquireres? - -(Nepos) Memini eo quoque magis quod tu discedens philosophie attentum -futurum me fidei promissione astringeres.” - -[113] _De eodem_, p. 4, line 10, “cum in pueritia adhuc detinearis.” -In this treatise, too, Adelard himself is regularly spoken of as -_iuvenis_, which is, however, an exceedingly vague word. - -[114] “pene puerum.” - -[115] Latin MS 2389, a twelfth century parchment, of the Bibliothèque -Nationale, Paris. The _Questiones naturales_ end at fol. 82v, whence -the _De eodem et diverso_ continues to fol. 91v. The manuscript is -described by Willner at p. 37 of his edition of the _De eodem et -diverso_. - -[116] P. 3, line 25ff. “Hanc autem epistolam ‘De eodem et diverso’ -intitulavi, quoniam videlicet maximam orationis partem duabus personis, -philosophiae scilicet atque philocosmiae attribui, una quarum eadem, -alter vero diversa a principe philosophorum appellatur.” Adelard -fails to explain why the title is not _De eadem et diversa_, as his -explanation might seem to require. - -[117] _Quest. nat._, cap. 49; _De eodem et diverso_, p. 33. - -[118] In both treatises Adelard regards the stars as divine animals, as -we have seen, and refers to the same partition of the head among the -mental faculties in both (_Quest. nat._, cap. 18; _De eodem_, p. 32) -but there is nothing to indicate which passage is prior. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVII - -WILLIAM OF CONCHES - - - His relation to his time--Early - life--Writings--_Philosophia_: general - character--Contemporary education--Good and bad - demons--Astronomy and astrology--Extent of the influence of - the stars--Science and religion--Letter of William of St. - Thierry to St. Bernard--Extent of William’s retraction in - the _Dragmaticon_--Reassertion of previous views--No denial - of science--William’s future influence--Appendix I. Editions - and Manuscripts of the Original and of the Revised Version - of the Work of William of Conches on Natural Philosophy. - - “... _rejoicing not in the many but in the probity of the - few, we toil for truth alone._” - - --_Philosophia (1531) p. 28._ - - -[Sidenote: His relation to his time.] - -Practically contemporary with Adelard of Bath and associated like him -with members of the English royal line was William of Conches,[119] -of whom we shall treat in the present chapter. Like Adelard also -he withdrew from the schools of Gaul after teaching there for a -time--longer apparently than Adelard; like Adelard he followed the -guidance of reason and took an interest in natural science; like -him he employed the dramatic dialogue form in his works. John of -Salisbury, who studied grammar under William of Conches and Richard -Bishop (_l’Évêque_) from about 1138 to 1141,[120] represents those -masters as successors to the thorough-going educational methods and -humanistic ideals of Bernard of Chartres; but adds that later, when -men “preferred to seem rather than be philosophers, and professors -of the arts promised to transmit all philosophy to their hearers in -less than three or two years’ time, overcome by the onslaught of the -unskilled multitude, they ceased teaching.”[121] William then seems -to have entered the service of Geoffrey Plantagenet, to whom as duke -of Normandy as well as count of Anjou we find William addressing his -_Dragmaticon_ or _Dramaticus_, which takes the form of a dialogue -between them. It thus was written at some time between 1144 and 1150, -the period when Geoffrey was duke of Normandy.[122] His son, the -future Henry II of England, was in Normandy from 1146 to 1149, when -William appears to have been his tutor.[123] In the _Dragmaticon_ -William praises Geoffrey for training his children “from a tender age” -in the study of literature,[124] and before the boy was made duke of -Normandy by his father in 1150 at the age of seventeen William prepared -for his perusal a collection of moral extracts from such classical -Latin authors as Cicero, Seneca, Juvenal, Horace, Lucan, and Persius, -entitled _De honesto et utili_.[125] The last we hear of William seems -to be in 1154, under which date Alberic des Trois Fontaines,[126] a -thirteenth century chronicler, states that he had attained a great -reputation. He might well have lived on for some time after that date, -since his former associate, Richard Bishop, was archdeacon of Coutances -at the time John of Salisbury wrote the _Metalogicus_ in 1159, and -survived to become bishop of Avranches in 1171, dying only in 1182. One -infers, however, from John’s account that William was no longer living -in 1159. - -[Sidenote: Early life.] - -We may next look back upon the earlier events of William’s life. In the -_Dragmaticon_ he speaks of having been previously engaged in teaching -“for twenty years and more than that.” Still earlier he had been a -student, presumably under Bernard of Chartres, in which town it is -possible that much of his own teaching was done. John of Salisbury, -however, simply says of his studies with William, “Straightway I betook -me to the grammarian of Conches,” while in another passage he mentions -“my teachers in grammar, William of Conches and Richard, surnamed -Bishop, now an archdeacon at Coutances.” Although this passage might -seem to suggest that William taught at Conches, no one so far as I know -has ever entertained that supposition, and the chief dispute has been -whether he taught at Chartres or at Paris.[127] But that he was born at -Conches no one doubts, and he himself once speaks somewhat satirically -of his Norman dulness compared to the lightning intelligences of some -of his contemporaries.[128] - -[Sidenote: Writings.] - -The _Dragmaticon_ was a revision of a work on philosophy or natural -philosophy composed in William’s “younger days.”[129] He also appears -to have commented upon Boethius’ _Consolation of Philosophy_,[130] and -to have written a gloss on the _Timaeus_[131] in which among other -things he dilates upon the perfection of certain numbers. But our -discussion will be almost exclusively concerned with his much more -influential _Philosophia_ and its revised version, _Dragmaticon_. We -shall first examine the original version.[132] - -[Sidenote: _Philosophia_: general character.] - -The original treatise touches on the fields of philosophy and astronomy -in a simple and elementary way, but with considerable skill, if not -originality, in the selection and presentation of its subject-matter. -William does not seem acquainted with Arabic science except that he -has read Constantinus Africanus and from him derived the same doctrine -that the four elements are never found in a pure state which we met -in Adelard of Bath. William gives us a Platonic interpretation of -nature, in which nevertheless he does not adhere at all closely to the -_Timaeus_, interspersed with not infrequent quotation from or reference -to astronomical works, classical literature, and the Bible and church -fathers. Indeed, he is always careful to allow for divine influence -in nature and for the statements of Scripture, and to show that his -theories do not contradict either. In such passages his language is -always reverent, and he not infrequently alludes respectfully to what -the saints have to say (_sancti dicunt_) on the theme in hand. The body -of the treatise opens with definition of philosophy and statement of -its method of inquiry, after which the author argues that the world was -made by God and discusses the Trinity at some length. He then discusses -the topics of world-soul, demons, and elements; next passes to various -matters astronomical and astrological concerning the sky and stars; and -finally treats of our lower world and of man. - -[Sidenote: Contemporary education.] - -The work also contains, especially in the prefaces to its different -books but also in other passages, a number of interesting allusions -to contemporary learning and education. William frequently refers to -the existence of other scholars and furthermore makes it evident that -this learned society is not in its earliest stage. Its paradise period -is over; the evil has entered in among the good; the enemy has sown -tares amid the wheat. Education has become too popular, and already -the insincere and the incapable, the charlatan and the unthinking -mob, are cheapening and degrading the ideals of the true philosopher. -William speaks of “many who usurp the name of teacher,”[133] and of -“certain men who have never read the works either of Constantinus -or of any other philosopher, who out of pride disdain to learn from -anyone, who from arrogance invent what they do not know,”[134] and who -actually insist that the four qualities, hot, cold, moist, and dry, -are elements. In another passage William says, “Although we are aware -that many strive for an ornate style, few for accuracy of statement, -yet rejoicing not in the many but in the probity of the few, we toil -for truth alone.”[135] These are not all of William’s complaints. -Back in the world of feudalism, crusades, and Holy Roman Empire which -seems to many so foreign, distant, and incomprehensible, he voices -grievances which are still those of the college or university professor -of to-day. The teacher is so occupied with classes that he has little -time for research and publication;[136] the vulgar crowd has stolen -philosophy’s clothing and left the essential body of truth naked and -vainly crying for covering,--a figure borrowed from _The Consolation -of Philosophy_ of Boethius without express acknowledgment,[137] but -perhaps the allusion was so familiar as not to require one; the truly -learned are in danger of the bite of envy; most teachers are catering -to their pupils and giving “snap courses” in order to gain popularity; -the elective system is a failure, since the students, in the words -of the Apostle, “after their own lusts heap to themselves teachers -having itching ears”; academic freedom has become a thing of the past -now that masters are become flatterers of their students and students -judges of their masters, while “if there is anyone who does maintain -a magisterial air, he is shunned as if insane by the meretricious -scholars and is called cruel and inhuman.”[138] All which agrees -perfectly with John of Salisbury’s statement why William had ceased -teaching. - -[Sidenote: Good and bad demons.] - -William does not mention magic in his treatise, but the fact that he -does not condemn all demons indifferently is perhaps worth noting as -a departure from the usual patristic view and as offering opportunity -for an innocent variety of necromancy. William, who attributes his -classification to Plato, distinguishes three sorts of demons. The first -class, existent in the ether betwixt firmament and moon, are rational, -immortal, ethereal animals, invisible and impassive, whose function is -blissful contemplation of the divine sun. The second class, who dwell -in the upper atmosphere near the moon, are rational, immortal, aerial -animals. They communicate the prayers of men to God and the will of -God to men, either in person or through signs or dreams and “by the -closest aspiration of vocal warning.” They are capable of feeling, and, -devoting themselves to good men, rejoice in their prosperity and suffer -with them in their adversity. Both of these first two classes of demons -are good,--_kalodaemones_. But the third class, who inhabit the humid -atmosphere near the earth and are rational, immortal, watery animals, -and capable of feeling, are in every way evil,--_kakodaemones_. They -are lustful, cohabit with women, and envy and plot against mankind, for -men, although fallen from grace like these demons, can recover their -lost estate as the demons cannot.[139] - -[Sidenote: Astronomy and astrology.] - -William offers a rather novel and unusual explanation of the difference -in meaning between the terms “astronomy” and “astrology,” stating that -authorities on the subject speak of the superior bodies in three ways, -the fabulous, the astrological, and the astronomical. The method by -fable is that employed by Aratus, Memroth (Nimrod the astronomer?), and -Hyginus (“Eginus”), who interpret the Greek myths in an astronomical -sense. Hipparchus and Martianus Capella are representatives of the -astrological method, which treats of phenomena as they appear to exist -in the heavens, whether they are really so or not. Astronomy, on the -contrary, deals with things as they are, whether they seem to be so or -not. Exactly what he has in mind by this distinction William fails to -make any clearer as he proceeds, but from the fact that he lists Julius -Firmicus and Ptolemy as instances of the astronomical method it would -appear that he included part at least of what we should call astrology -under “astronomy.” William cites yet other astronomical authorities, -advising anyone wishing to learn about the Milky Way to read Macrobius, -and for an explanation of the signs of the zodiac to consult Helpericus -(of Auxerre), the ninth century compiler of a _Computus_ which occurs -with fair frequency in the manuscripts.[140] - -[Sidenote: Extent of the influence of the stars.] - -William represents “Plato, most learned of all philosophers,” as -saying that God the Creator entrusted the task of forming the -human body to the stars and spirits which He had first created, -but reserved to Himself the making of the human soul.[141] This -Christian interpretation or rather perversion of Plato’s doctrine -in the _Timaeus_ is characteristic. William accepts to the full the -control of the stars over nature and the human body, but stops there. -Like Adelard he states that the stars are composed of the same four -elements as earthly objects. The predominance in their composition -of the superior elements, fire and air, accounts for their motion. -Their motion heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the element -water, which is the fundamental constituent in the various species -of animals, which further differ according to the admixture in them -of the other elements. Of the superior elements the birds of the air -have the most, and fish next. Of land animals choleric ones, like the -lion, possess most fire; phlegmatic ones, like pigs, most water; and -melancholic ones, like the cow and ass, most earth. The human body is -composed of an unusual harmony of the four elements, to which Scripture -alludes in saying that “God formed man of the dust of the earth.”[142] -William also lists the natural qualities and humors of each planet -and its consequent influence for good or evil. He believes that the -ancient _astrologi_ discovered that Saturn is a cold star by repeatedly -observing that in those years when the Sun in Cancer burned the earth -less than usual, Saturn was invariably in conjunction with it in the -same sign. How Saturn comes to exert this chilling influence William -is less certain. He has already denied the existence of the congealed -waters above the firmament, so that he cannot accept the theory that -Saturn is cold because of its proximity to them. He can only suggest -that its great distance from us perhaps explains why it heats less than -the other planets.[143] The good and evil influences of the planets -also come out in the astrological interpretation of myth and fable. -Thus Saturn is said to carry a scythe because one who carries a scythe -does more execution in receding than in advancing. Jupiter is said in -the fables to have ousted his father Saturn because the approach of the -planet Jupiter increases the evil influence of Saturn. Jupiter is said -to have begotten divers children in adultery because the conjunctions -of that planet produce varied effects upon earth; and Venus is said to -have had adulterous intercourse with Mars because the propinquity of -the planet Venus to the planet Mars renders the former less benevolent. -Mars is god of battle because the planet of that name produces heat -and drought which in their turn engender animosity.[144] As the tides -follow the phases of the moon, so, William believes, a universal flood -or conflagration may be produced by the simultaneous elevation or -depression of all the planets.[145] But he accepts comets as special -signs of the future caused by the Creator’s will instead of attempting -to give a natural explanation of the events which follow them.[146] -This is perhaps because of their signifying human events. Thunder and -lightning are discussed without mention of divination from them.[147] - -[Sidenote: Science and religion.] - -Thus far we have heard William cite authorities rather than spurn them -as Adelard did. He could, however, be independent enough on occasion. -He went so far as to reject the Scriptural account of waters above the -firmament, if that word were taken in its ordinary astronomical sense, -as naturally impossible; he explained away the passage in _Genesis_ -by interpreting the firmament to mean the air, and the waters above -it, the clouds.[148] Like Adelard, too, he several times feels it -essential to justify his views against the possible criticism of an -obscurantist religious party. Discussing the Trinity, he insists that -if anyone finds something in his book which is not found elsewhere, -it should not on that account be stigmatized as heresy but only if it -can be shown to be against the Faith.[149] Thus he confirms Adelard’s -complaint that the present generation is prejudiced against any modern -discoveries. William, by the way, also employs the word “modern.” -Again, in affirming the physical impossibility of reconciling the -elements fire and earth, he notes that someone may object that God -could find a way. To this he replies that “we do not place a limit upon -divine power, but we do say that of existing things none can do it, nor -in the nature of things can there be anything that would suffice.”[150] -In a third passage his indignation is fanned to a white heat by those -who say, “We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.” -“You poor fools,” he retorts, “God can make a cow out of a tree, but -has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or -cease to hold that it is so.”[151] Elsewhere he yet further dilates -upon the unreasonableness of the opponents of natural science, who are -loath to have explained even the natural facts given in the Bible but -prefer to accept them blindly, and who, “since they themselves are -unacquainted with the forces of nature, in order that they may have all -men as companions in their ignorance, wish them to investigate nothing -but to believe like rustics. We, on the contrary,” continues William, -“think that a reason should be sought in every case, if one can be -found.”[152] Thus he vigorously echoes Adelard’s exhortation to give -and take reason, and his retort to the nephew’s suggestion that the -growth of plants from earth can be explained only as a divine miracle. - -[Sidenote: Letter of William of St. Thierry to St. Bernard.] - -William, it turned out, was too original and bold in some of his -assertions concerning the Trinity and kindred topics, which were -not allowed to pass unchallenged. A letter to St. Bernard from -William, abbot of St. Thierry,[153] shows the attitude of William -of Conches’ opponents. The abbot first says,--with the assumption -of superior seriousness and dignity characteristic through all time -of conservatives, bigots, and pompous persons subconsciously aware -of their own stupidity--that anyone who knows William of Conches -personally is aware of his levity and will not take his vanities -too seriously, and that he is to be classed with Abelard in the -presumptuousness of his opinions. The abbot then devotes most of his -letter to an attack upon William’s discussion of the Trinity, taking -umbrage at his discussing questions of faith at all, especially upon a -philosophical basis, and at his distribution of the three faculties, -power, will, and wisdom, among the Three Persons. The abbot more -briefly objects to William’s physical account of the creation of man, -saying: “First he says that man’s body was not made by God but by -nature, and the soul was given him by God afterwards, and forsooth that -the body was made by spirits whom he calls demons and by the stars.” -This doctrine the abbot regards as on the one hand dangerously close -to the opinion “of certain stupid philosophers who say that there is -nothing but matter and the material, and that there is no other God in -the world than the concourse of the elements and the system of nature”; -and on the other hand as manifestly Manichean, affirming that the human -soul is created by a good God but the body by the prince of darkness. -Finally the abbot complains that William “stupidly and haughtily -ridicules history of divine authority,” and “interprets in a physical -sense” the account of the creation of woman from one of Adam’s ribs. - -[Sidenote: Extent of William’s retraction in the _Dragmaticon_.] - -The effect of this theological attack upon William of Conches can -probably be discerned in the _Dragmaticon_. There he states that it is -his purpose to include “many essential points” which were not contained -in the earlier treatise, and to omit those statements which he has -since become convinced are erroneous. He then proceeds to list and -expressly condemn certain statements in the earlier work as contrary -to the Catholic Faith, and he asks those readers who have copies of -that treatise to make these corrections in it.[154] He accordingly -retracts his assertion that in the Trinity the Father represents power -and the Holy Spirit will, since there is no direct scriptural authority -for this view, but he still maintains that the Son is Wisdom on the -authority of the Apostle. He takes back his interpretation of the words -of the Prophet concerning Christ, “Who will tell his generation?” as -indicating merely the difficulty and not the impossibility of solving -that mystery. Finally he reverts to the letter of Scripture in regard -to the creation of Eve. - -[Sidenote: Reassertion of previous views.] - -But this done, William becomes his old self again in the remainder of -the _Dragmaticon_. In the rôle of the philosopher he argues at length -with the duke whether Plato’s five circles of the sky and division of -spirits into _kalodaemones_ and _kakodaemones_ is in agreement with -the Christian Faith. Later on, when the duke cites Bede against him in -regard to some astronomical point, he replies that in a pure matter of -faith he would feel obliged to accept Bede’s authority, but that on a -point of philosophy he feels perfectly at liberty to disagree with him. -This declaration of scientific independence from patristic authority -became a _locus classicus_ cited with approval by several writers of -the next century. Presently to our surprise we find William boldly -inquiring at what time of year the six days of creation occurred. He -also indulges as before in somewhat bitter reflections upon the learned -world of his day. - -[Sidenote: No denial of science.] - -William, therefore, has had to withdraw some theological opinions for -which he could not show authority in Scripture, and some other opinions -wherein he disregarded the literal meaning of the Bible. But except -that he has to agree to the miraculous account of the creation of the -first woman, he does not seem to have altered his views concerning -nature and philosophy, nor to have given up in any way his scientific -attitude or his astrological theories. The theologians have forced him -to conform in respect to theology, but his retraction in that field -takes the form of a second edition of his treatise and a reaffirmation -of his astronomical and philosophical views. As Hauréau well says, “He -always believes in science, he still defends in the name of science, in -the accents, and by the method of the scholar, everything in his former -writings that has not been condemned in the name of the Faith.... So it -is no denial of philosophy that has been won by the outcries of William -of St. Thierry and Walter of St. Victor;[155] those attacks have -resulted in merely intimidating the theologian.”[156] - -[Sidenote: William’s future influence.] - -Such attacks, moreover, had little or no success in lessening William’s -ultimate future influence. How utterly they failed to intimidate -astrologers may be inferred from the much greater lengths to which -William’s contemporary, Bernard Silvester, went without apparently -getting into any trouble, and from the half-hearted arguments against -the art of John of Salisbury a little later in the century. As Doctor -Poole has already pointed out, even the _Philosophia_, which William -of St. Thierry censured and which William of Conches himself modified, -survived in its original and unexpurgated version “to be printed in -three several editions as the production of the venerable Bede, of -saint Anselm’s friend, William of Hirschau, and of Honorius of Autun; -the taint of heresy plainly cannot have been long perceptible to -medieval librarians.”[157] Also the revised edition, or _Dragmaticon_, -“enjoyed a remarkable popularity, and a wide diffusion attested by a -multitude of manuscripts at Vienna, Munich, Paris, Oxford, and other -places.”[158] We shall find William’s book much used and cited by -the learned writers of the following century, and a number of copies -of it are listed in the fifteenth century catalogue of the library -of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. If then from the contemporary -and passing world of talk William retired disgusted and discomfited -to the shelter of ducal patronage, in the enduring world of thought -and letters he carved for himself a lasting niche by his comparative -intellectual courage, originality, and thoroughness. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[119] On William of Conches see, besides HL XXI, 455 _et seq._ and DNB, -Antoine Charma, _Guillaume de Conches_, Paris, 1857; B. Hauréau, in his -_Singularités historiques et littéraires_, Paris, 1861; H. F. Reuter, -_Geschichte der religiösen Aufklärung im Mittelalter_, II (1877) pp. -6-10; R. L. Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought_, -1884, pp. 124-31, 338-63, (or, 1920, pp. 106-12, 293-310) and “The -Masters of the Schools at Paris and Chartres in John of Salisbury’s -Time,” EHR, 35 (1920) pp. 321-42. For editions and MSS of the original -version and revision of William’s chief philosophical treatise see -Appendix I at the close of this chapter. For his other works see my -subsequent foot-notes. - -[120] _Metalogicus_ II, 10. - -[121] _Metalogicus_, I, 24. - -[122] Haskins, _Norman Institutions_, 1918, p. 130. Haskins, _Ibid._, -p. 205, has found no authority for Geoffrey’s absence on crusade -in 1147, so that it need not be taken into account in dating the -_Dragmaticon_. - -[123] R. L. Poole, in EHR (1920) p. 334. - -[124] R. L. Poole (1884), p. 348, (1920) p. 299, concluded from -this, “The dialogue was written therefore some time, probably some -years, before Henry was of an age to be knighted, in 1149; and we -shall certainly not be far wrong if we place it about the year 1145.” -As, however, Henry was knighted when only about sixteen, and as the -remark “quos ... studio literarum tenera aetate imbuisti” may be -retrospective, and as one can scarcely argue with any chronological -exactness from these medieval phrases denoting time of life--Henry, for -example, is addressed as “vir optime atque liberalis” in the preface of -the collection of ethical maxims which William made for him before he -was seventeen,----it seems to me that there is no sufficient reason for -fixing on 1145 as the date of the _Dragmaticon_. - -[125] Printed in Migne, PL 171, 1007-56, among the works of Hildebert -of Le Mans. William’s authorship was determined by Hauréau, _Notices et -Extraits_, XXXIII, i, 257-63. - -[126] Bouquet, _Recueil_, XIII, 703D. - -[127] R. L. Poole, in EHR (1920) p. 334, decides in favor of Chartres. - -[128] Cited from the _Dragmaticon_ by Poole (1884) pp. 348-9, (1920) -300. - -[129] _In iuventute nostra_, another example of a vague chronological -phrase. - -[130] Charles Jourdain, _Des Commentaires inédits de Guillaume de -Conches et de Nicolas Triveth sur la Consolation de la Philosophie_, -Paris, 1861. - -[131] Printed in part as by Honorius of Autun in Cousin, _Ouvrages -inédits d’Abélard_, Appendix, p. 648, _et seq._ - -[132] My references will be to the _editio princeps_ of Basel, 1531, -which is, however, not particularly accurate. - -[133] Edition of 1531, p. 1. - -[134] _Ibid._, p. 14. - -[135] _Ibid._, pp. 27-8. - -[136] _Ibid._, p. 51. - -[137] The parallel passages are: _De consolatione philosophiae_, I, -i, 21-3 and I, iii, 19-28. It will be recalled that William wrote a -commentary on Boethius’ work. - -[138] Ed. of 1531, p. 65. - -[139] _Ibid._, pp. 9-10. - -[140] Ed. of 1531, pp. 30-32. - -[141] _Ibid._, preface. - -[142] Ed. of 1531, pp. 24-25, “... et hoc est quod divina pagina dicit -deum fecisse hominem de limo terrae.” - -[143] _Ibid._, p. 34. - -[144] _Ibid._, pp. 36-7. - -[145] Ed. of 1531, p. 64. - -[146] _Ibid._, p. 60. - -[147] _Ibid._, pp. 55-6. - -[148] _Ibid._, pp. 28-9. - -[149] _Ibid._, p. 7. - -[150] _Ibid._, p. 19. - -[151] _Ibid._, p. 29. - -[152] Ed. of 1531, p. 26. - -[153] Migne PL 180, 333-40, _Guillelmi abbatis S. Theodorici De -erroribus Guillelmi de Conchis ad sanctum Bernardum_. - -[154] This was the impression that I received from the text in CLM -2595 rather than that “His former work, therefore, he suppressed and -begged everyone who possessed the book to join him in condemning and -destroying it”;--R. L. Poole (1884) p. 130, (1920) p. 110. - -[155] Walter, in an attack upon the views of Abelard, Gilbert de la -Porrée, and others, unjustly accused William of holding the Epicurean -atomic theory; Poole (1884) pp. 349-50, (1920) pp. 300-1. - -[156] B. Hauréau, _Histoire de la philosophie scolastique_, ed. of -1872, I, 445. - -[157] R. L. Poole (1884) p. 130, (1920) p. 111. - -[158] _Ibid._, p. 131, (1920) p. 111. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -EDITIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE ORIGINAL AND OF THE REVISED VERSION OF -THE WORK OF WILLIAM OF CONCHES ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY - - -Although, as the ensuing bibliography will make apparent, a variety of -titles have been at one time or another applied to the two versions -of the work in question, we shall refer to the original version as -_Philosophia_ and the revision as _Dragmaticon_, which appear to -be both the handiest and the most correct appellations, although -personally I should prefer _Dramaticus_ for the latter. The two -works may perhaps be most readily distinguished by their _Incipits_, -which are, for _Philosophia_, “Quoniam ut ait Tullius in prologo -rhetoricorum, Eloquentia sine sapientia ...”, and for _Dragmaticon_, -“Quaeris, venerande dux Normannorum et comes Andagavensium, cur -magistris nostri temporis minus creditur quam antiquis....” The titles -and the number of books into which the work is divided differ a good -deal in different editions and manuscripts, and the catalogues of -manuscript collections sometimes do not identify the author. - -First as to printed editions. _Philosophia_ has been printed three -times as the work of three other authors. - - Philosophicarum et astronomicarum institutionum Guilelmi - Hirsaugiensis olim abbatis libri tres, Basel, 1531. - - Bede, Opera, 1563, II, 311-43, Περὶ Διδάξων, sive - Elementorum Philosophiae Libri IV. - - Honorius of Autun, De philosophia mundi, Migne, PL vol. 172. - -_Dragmaticon_ seems to be have been printed but once under the title, - - Dialogus de substantiis physicis confectus a Guillelmo - aneponymo philosopho, Strasburg, 1567. - -In the following list of MSS, which is no doubt far from complete, -I have attempted to distinguish between the _Philosophia_ and -_Dragmaticon_ but have often had to rely only upon the notices in -catalogues which frequently do not give the opening words or other -distinguishing marks. The following MS seems unusual in apparently -containing both versions, if by “eiusdem philosophia secunda” is -indicated the _Dragmaticon_. - - CLM 564, 12th century, with figures, fol. 1-, Willelmi - de Conchis philosophiae libri IV, fol. 32-, eiusdem - philosophia secunda. - - -_MSS of the Philosophia_ - - Egerton 935, 12th century, small quarto, Phylosophia - Magistri Willihelmi de Conchis, cum figuris. - - Egerton 1984, 13th century, fols. 2-33. - - Royal 9-A-XIV, 14th century, fols. 245-65, Physicorum libri - 4. - - Royal 13-A-XIV, #7, “Quoniam ut ait Tullius....” - - Additional 11676, 13th century, anon. de philosophia - naturali, in three parts. - - Additional 26770, 13-14th century. - - Digby 104, 13th century, fol. 176-, De elementis - philosophiae naturalis. - - University College 6, 14th century, p. 389, Philosophiae - compendium, “Quoniam ut ait Tullius....” - - Bodleian (Bernard) 2596, #10, in four parts; 3623, #30, fol. - 187v-; 4056, #1. - - BN 6656, 14th century, Philosophia, in four parts; 15025; - 13th century; 16207, 13th century, fol. 58-. - - Ste. Geneviève 2200, anno 1277, fols. 1-47, with colored - figures, “Quoniam ut ait Tullius....” - - Vienna 2376, 12th century, fols. 32v-64v, “Incipit prologus - in phylosophyam Willehelmi. Quoniam ut ait Tullius....” - - Amplon. Octavo 85, 13th century; Octavo 87, mid 12th century! - - CLM 2594, 13th century, fol. 24, Compendium philosophie de - naturis corporum celestium et terrenorum. Sunt libri IV. - - CLM 2655, late 13th century, fol. 106, “Summa de naturis - videlicet totius philosophiae,” in fine nonnulla desunt. - - CLM 14156, 15th century, fols. 1-18, Philosophia minor. - - CLM 14689, 12th century, fols. 85-7. Wilhelmi Hirsaugiensis - dialogus de astronomia, supersunt tria tantum folia. - - CLM 15407, 14th century, fols. 1-42, philosophia. - - CLM 16103, 12-13th century, fols. 68-99, philosophia - naturalis. - - CLM 18918, 12th century, fols. 1-34, de philosophia. - - CLM 22292, 12-13th century, fol. 40, “Quoniam ut ait - Tullius....” - - -_MSS of the Dragmaticon_ - - CLM 2595, 13th century, 43 fols. Dragmaticus. - - CLM 7770, 14th century, 56 fols. De secunda philosophia. - - Florence II, VI, 2, 13th century, fols. 50-65, “Queris - venerande dux....” - - Ashburnham (Florence) 98, 13th century, fols. 2-41. - - Bibl. Alex: (Rome) 102, 14-17th century, fols. 112-209. - - Wolfenbüttel 4610, 12-14th century, fols. 78-160v, Phisica - Willendini, “Queris venerande dux....” - - Berlin 921, 13th century. - - Vienna 5292, 15th century, fols. 105-57, “Veros (_sic_) - Venerande dux....” - - Vendôme 189, 13th century, fols. 123-59. - - St. John’s 178, early 13th century, fols. 266-360, anon., - “Queris venerande dux....” - - Corpus Christi 95, end 12-13th century, fol. 1, Universalis - Philosophiae libri tres per modum dialogi inter - Normannorum ducem et ipsum doctorem. - - Digby 1, 14th century, fol. 1, Dragmaticon. - - Digby 107, 14th century, Summa magistri Wilhelmi de Conches - super naturalibus questionibus et responsionibus, “Queris - venerande dux....” The catalogue incorrectly speaks of it - as a dialogue with Henry, duke of Normandy, afterwards - Henry II of England. - - Bodleian (Bernard) 3565. - - Royal 4-A-XIII, #5, Philosophia naturalis, “Queris,” etc. - - Royal 12-F-X, 13th century. - - Arundel 377, 13th century, fol. 104. - - Sloane 2424, 14th century. - - Additional 18210, 13-14th century. - - Egerton 830, 15th century, Dialogus de philosophia inter - Henricum II (_sic_) Normannorum ducem et ipsum auctorem.... - - BN 6415, 14th century; and 4694. - - Montpellier, École de Méd. 145. - - Troyes 1342. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVIII - -SOME TWELFTH CENTURY TRANSLATORS, CHIEFLY OF ASTROLOGY FROM THE ARABIC -IN SPAIN - - - Importance of medieval translations--Plan of this - chapter--Transmission of Arabic astrology--Walcher, - prior of Malvern--Pedro Alfonso--His letter to the - Peripatetics--Experimental method--Magic and scepticism in - the _Disciplina clericalis_--John of Seville--Dates in his - career--Further works by him, chiefly astrological--John’s - experimental astrology--Gundissalinus _De divisione - philosophiae_--Place of magic in the classification of the - sciences--Al-Farabi _De ortu scientiarum_--Gundissalinus - on astrology--Robert Kilwardby _De ortu sive divisione - scientiarum_--Plato of Tivoli--Robert of Chester--Hermann - the Dalmatian--Hugh of Santalla--A contemporary memorial of - Gerard of Cremona--Account by a pupil of his astrological - teaching--Character of Gerard’s translations--Science - and religion in the preface to a translation of the - _Almagest_ from the Greek--Arabs and moderns--Astronomy - at Marseilles--Appendix I. Some medieval Johns, mentioned - in the manuscripts, in the fields of natural and occult - science, mathematics and medicine. - - -[Sidenote: Importance of medieval translations.] - -Already we have treated of a number of Arabic works of occult -science which are extant in Latin translations, or have mentioned -men, important in the history of medieval science like Constantinus -Africanus or Adelard of Bath, whose works were either largely or partly -translations. In future chapters we shall have occasion to mention -other men and works of the same sort. We have already seen, too, that -translations from the Greek were being made all through the early -middle ages and in the tenth century; and we shall see this continue -in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries especially in connection with -Galen, Aristotle, and Ptolemy. We have also seen reasons for suspecting -that the Latin versions of certain works were older than the so-called -Greek originals, that works were sometimes translated from Arabic into -Greek as well as from Greek into Arabic, and that there probably never -were any Arabic originals for some so-called translations from the -Arabic which are extant only in Latin. All this is not yet to mention -versions from Hebrew and Syriac or in French, Spanish, and Anglo-Saxon. -We have seen also in general how important and influential in the -history of medieval learning was the work of the translator, and yet -how complicated and difficult to follow. Many names of translators are -mentioned in the medieval manuscripts: some, for instance, who will not -be treated of in the present chapter are: from the Greek, Aristippus -of Sicily, Bartholomew of Messina, Burgundio of Pisa, Eugenius admiral -of Sicily, Grumerus of Piacenza, Nicolaus of Reggio, Stephen of -Messina, and William of Moerbeke; from the Arabic, Egidius de Tebaldis -of Parma, Arnold of Barcelona, Blasius Armegandus or Ermengardus of -Montpellier, Marcus of Toledo, the canon Salio of Padua, John Lodoycus -Tetrapharmacus, Philip of Spain, Philip of Tripoli, Roger of Parma, -Ferragius, and so on. But not all such names of translators can be -correctly placed and dated, and many translations remain anonymous in -the manuscripts. Into this vast and difficult field Jourdain’s work on -the medieval translations of Aristotle made but an entrance, and that -one which now needs amendment, and even such extensive bibliographical -investigations as those of Steinschneider have only made rough charts -of portions. Some detailed monographs on single translators[159] and -the like topics have been written, but many more will be required -before we shall have a satisfactory general orientation. - -[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.] - -The subject of medieval translations as a whole of course in any case -lies in large part beyond the scope of our investigation and would lead -us into other literary and learned fields not bearing upon experimental -science and magic. In the present chapter we shall further limit -ourselves to some translators of the twelfth century who chiefly -translated works of astrology from the Arabic and who, although they -themselves often came from other lands, were especially active in -Spain. One or two men will be introduced who do not possess all these -qualifications, but who are related to the other men and works included -in the chapter. - -[Sidenote: Transmission of Arabic astrology.] - -Throughout the twelfth century from its first years to its close may -be traced the transit of learning from the Arabic world, and more -particularly from the Spanish peninsula, to northwestern Europe. -Three points may be made concerning this transmission: it involves -Latin translation from the Arabic; the matter translated is largely -mathematical, or more especially astronomical and astrological in -character; finally, it is often experimental. - -[Sidenote: Walcher, prior of Malvern.] - - -On the very threshold of the twelfth century, in addition to Adelard -of Bath to whom we have given a separate chapter, we meet with another -Englishman, Walcher, prior of Malvern, whom we find associated with -Peter Alphonso or Pedro Alfonso, who apparently was a converted Spanish -Jew. Walcher’s experimental observations would seem to have antedated -his association with Pedro, since a chapter headed, “Of the writer’s -experience,”[160] in lunar tables which he composed between 1107 and -1112, tells of an eclipse which he saw in Italy in 1091 but could -not observe exactly because he had no clock (_horologium_) at hand -to measure the time, and of another in the succeeding year after his -return to England which he was able to observe more scientifically with -the aid of an astrolabe. In 1120 Walcher translated into Latin, at -least according to the testimony of the manuscripts, an astronomical -work by Pedro Alfonso on the Dragon.[161] Pedro perhaps wrote the -original in Hebrew or Spanish or translated it from the Arabic into -one of those languages, but we also know of his writing in Latin -himself. - -[Sidenote: Pedro Alfonso.] - -This Pedro Alfonso seems to have been the same[162] who in 1106 -in his forty-fourth year was baptized at Huesca with the name -of his godfather, King Alfonso I of Aragon, and who wrote the -_Disciplina clericalis_ and _Dialogi cum Iudeo_. Indeed we find the -_Disciplina clericalis_ and _De dracone_ ascribed to him in the same -manuscript.[163] In another manuscript chronological and astronomical -tables are found under his name and the accompanying explanatory text -opens, “Said Pedro Alfonso, servant of Jesus Christ and translator -of this book.”[164] This expression is very similar, as Haskins -has pointed out, to a heading in a manuscript of the _Disciplina -clericalis_, “Said Pedro Alfonso, servant of Christ Jesus, physician -of Henry the first (_sic_) king of the Angles, composer of this -book.”[165] The experimental pretensions and astrological leanings of -the astronomical treatise are suggested by Pedro’s statement that the -science of the stars divides into three parts, marvelous in reasoning, -notable in the signification of events, and approved in experience; and -that the third part is the science of the nature of the spheres and -stars, and their significations in earthly affairs which happen from -the virtue of their nature and the diversity of their movements, things -known by experiment. - -[Sidenote: His letter to the Peripatetics.] - -In a manuscript at the British Museum[166] I have read what seems to -be a third astronomical treatise by Pedro Alfonso, differing both -from the preceding and from the _De dracone_.[167] We meet as before -the expression, “Said Alfonso, servant of Jesus Christ and translator -of this book,”[168] and the emphasis upon experiment and astrology -continues. It will be noted further that in this treatise, which takes -the form of a letter to Peripatetics and those nourished by the milk of -philosophy everywhere through France, Pedro is no longer connected with -Englishmen, although this manuscript, too, is in an English library. -After rehearsing the utility of grammar, dialectic, and arithmetic, -Pedro finally comes to astronomy, an art with which “all of the Latins -generally” are little acquainted, in which he himself has long been -occupied, and a portion of which he presents to them as something rare -and precious. It has come to his ears that some seekers after wisdom -are preparing to traverse distant provinces and penetrate to remote -regions in order to acquire fuller astronomical knowledge, and he -proposes to save them from this inconvenience by bringing astronomy -to them. Apparently, therefore, this letter to the Peripatetics and -other students of philosophy is simply the advertisement of, or preface -to, a translation by Pedro of some astronomical or astrological work, -presumably from the Arabic.[169] It is accordingly mainly devoted to a -justification of the thorough study of astronomy and astrology. Many -persons, in Pedro’s opinion, are simply too lazy to take the trouble -to ground themselves properly therein. Those who think they know all -about the subject because they have read Macrobius and a few other -authors are found wanting in a crisis,--a passage meant doubtless as a -hit at those who base their knowledge of astronomy simply upon Latin -authors. Pedro also alludes to those who have been accustomed to regard -themselves as teachers of astronomy and now hate to turn pupils again. - -[Sidenote: Experimental method.] - -The contrast which Pedro draws, however, is not so much between Latin -and Arabic writings as it is between dependence upon a few past -authorities and adoption of the experimental method. He argues that -the principles of astronomy were discovered in the first place only -through experimentation, and that today no one can understand the art -fundamentally without actual observation and experience. He believes -that astrology as well as astronomy is proved by experience. “It has -been proved therefore by experimental argument that we can truly affirm -that the sun and moon and other planets exert their influences in -earthly affairs.”[170] Or, as he says in another passage, “And indeed -many other innumerable things happen on earth in accordance with the -courses of the stars, and pass unnoticed by the senses of most men, but -are discovered and understood by the subtle acumen of learned men who -are skilled in this art.”[171] Pedro’s letter further includes some -astrological medicine, interesting in connection with the statement in -another manuscript that he was the physician of Henry I of England. In -this context, too, he shows familiarity with the translations from the -Arabic of Constantinus Africanus.[172] - -[Sidenote: Magic and scepticism in the _Disciplina clericalis_.] - -Pedro’s _Disciplina clericalis_,[173] although a collection of -oriental tales rather than a work of natural science,[174] contains -one or two passages of interest to us. Asked by a disciple what the -seven arts are, the master gives a list somewhat different from the -common Latin _trivium_ and _quadrivium_, namely, logic, arithmetic, -geometry, physics, music, and astronomy. As to the seventh there is -some dispute, he says. Philosophers who believe in divination make -necromancy the seventh; other philosophers who do not believe in -predictions substitute philosophy; while persons who are ignorant of -philosophy affirm that grammar is one of the seven arts.[175] Thus -while Pedro retains all four arts of the _quadrivium_, he holds only -to logic in the case of the _trivium_, omitting rhetoric entirely -and tending to substitute physics and necromancy for it and grammar. -This tendency away from _belles-lettres_ to a curriculum made up -of logic and philosophy, mathematical and natural science, also -soon became characteristic of Latin learning, while the tendency to -include necromancy as one of the liberal arts or natural sciences, -although less successful, will be found in other writers who are to -be considered in this chapter. In the passage just discussed the -importance of the number seven also receives emphasis, as the master -goes on to speak of other sevens than the arts. One is impressed also -in reading the _Disciplina clericalis_ by a sceptical note concerning -magic and the marvelous properties of natural objects, as in the tale -of the thief who repeated a charm seven times and tried to take hold of -a moonbeam, but as a result fell and was captured, and in the tale of -the Churl and the Bird, who promised his captor, if released, to reveal -three pieces of wisdom.[176] The first was not to believe everyone. -“This saide,” in the quaint wording of the medieval English version, -“the litel brid ascendid vpon the tree and with a sweete voice bigan to -synge: ‘Blessid be god that hath shit and closed the sight of thyn eyen -and taken awey thi wisdam, forwhi if thow haddest sought in the plites -of myn entrailes thow shuldest have founde a jacinct the weight of an -vnce.’” When the churl wept and beat his breast at this announcement of -his lost opportunity, the bird again warned him not to be so credulous. -“And how belivistow that in me shuld be a jacynt the weight of an vnce, -whan I and al my body is nat of somoche weight?” - -[Sidenote: John of Seville.] - -Apparently the chief and most voluminous translator of astrological -works from Arabic into Latin in the twelfth century was John of -Seville.[177] Although he translated some other mathematical, medical, -and philosophical treatises, the majority of his translations seem -to have been astrological, and they remained in use during the later -middle ages and many of them appeared in print in early editions. So -many Johns[178] are mentioned in medieval manuscripts and even wrote -in almost the same fields as John of Seville that it is not easy to -distinguish his works. Jourdain identified him with a John Avendeath -or Avendehut (Joannes ibn David) who worked with the archdeacon -Gundissalinus under the patronage of Raymond, archbishop of Toledo from -1126 to 1151.[179] John of Seville was perhaps not the man who worked -with Gundissalinus[180] but he certainly appears to have addressed -translations to Archbishop Raymond. Thus in speaking of Costa ben -Luca’s _De differentia spiritus et animae_ we saw that the manuscripts -stated that it was translated by John of Seville from Arabic into Latin -for Archbishop Raymond of Toledo.[181] John of Seville is further -styled of Luna or Limia, in one manuscript as bishop of Luna,[182] and -also seems to be the same person as John of Toledo or of Spain. In -one of the citations of the _Speculum astronomiae_ of Albertus Magnus -he is called “Joannes Ulgembus Hispalensis.”[183] John Paulinus, who -translated a collection of twelve experiments with snakeskin entitled -_Life-saver_ which he discovered when he “was in Alexandria, a city -of the Egyptians,” is in at least one manuscript of his translation -identified with John of Spain.[184] - -[Sidenote: Dates in his career.] - -Certain dates in the career of John of Seville may be regarded as -fairly well fixed. In the Arabic year 529, or 1135 A. D., he translated -the _Rudiments of Astronomy_ of Alfraganus (Ahmed b. Muh. b. Ketîr -el-Fargânî, or Al-Fargani)[185]; in 1142 A. D. he compiled his own -_Epitome of the Art of Astrology_ or _Quadripartite Work of Judgments -of the Stars_,[186] consisting of _Isagoge in astrologiam_ and four -books of judgments. In 1153 A. D. he translated the _Nativities_ of -Albohali[187] (Yahyâ b. Gâlib, Abû Alî el-Chaiyât), if we accept the -“John of Toledo” who is said to have translated that treatise as the -same person as our John of Spain.[188] John of Spain is sometimes said -to have died in 1157, but Förster argued that the Tarasia, queen of -Spain, to whom the medical portion of the pseudo-Aristotelian _Secret -of Secrets_, translated by John of Spain, was dedicated, was not the -queen of Portugal contemporary with Archbishop Raymond of Toledo, but -queen of Leon from 1176 to 1180; and in 1175 a monk of Mt. Tabor is -called Johannes Hispanus.[189] If a Vienna manuscript is correct in -saying that a marvelous cure for a sore heel which it contains was sent -to Pope Gregory by John of Spain, the pope meant must be Gregory VIII -(1187).[190] There is of course no impossibility in the supposition -that the literary career of John of Spain extended from the days of -Archbishop Raymond to those of Gregory VIII or Queen Tarasia. Still -there is some doubt whether all the works extant under the name John of -Spain were composed by the same individual.[191] - -[Sidenote: Further works by him, chiefly astrological.] - -Several books dealing with the science of judgments from the stars -by John of Spain are included in the bibliography of deserving works -of astrology in the _Speculum Astronomiae_ of Albertus Magnus, but -are perhaps simply sections of his _Epitome_[192] which, after -discussing in the _Isagoge_ the natures of the signs and planets, -takes up in turn the four main divisions of judicial astrology, -namely; conjunctions and revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and -elections. John seems to have translated several astrological treatises -by Albumasar and Messahala (Mâ-sâ-allâh), the treatise by Thebit -ben Corat on astrological images of which we have already treated, -that by Abenragel (ʿAli b. abî’l-Rigâl, abû’l-Hasan) on elections, -and the _Introduction to the Mystery of Judgments from the Stars_ by -Alchabitius or Alcabitius[193] (ʿAbdelʿazîz b. ʿOtmân el-Qabîsî), which -should not be confused with his own somewhat similar _Ysagoge_. Of -other translations by John of Spain, such as a portion of the _Secret -of Secrets_ of the Pseudo-Aristotle, the twelve experiments with -pulverized snakeskin, and Costa ben Luca’s _De differentia spiritus -et animae_, we treat elsewhere. He was perhaps also the author of a -chiromancy.[194] - -[Sidenote: John’s experimental astrology.] - -The experimental character of John’s own handbook on astrology is -worth noting. In the main, it is true, he follows the works of the -philosophers and astrologers of the past, especially when he finds them -in agreement.[195] Besides constantly alluding to what astrologers -in general or the ancients say on the point in question, he often -cites of the Greeks Ptolemy and Dorotheus (“Dorothius”) and Hermes -and Doronius, but probably through Arabic mediums. He also gives us -the views of the masters of India, and distinguishes as “more recent -masters of this art”[196] the Arabic writers “Alchindus” and Messahala. -The latter he seems to regard as an Indian or at least as skilful in -their methods of judgment.[197] But he also notes when his authorities -are in disagreement[198] or points out that his own experience in many -nativities contradicts their views,[199] against which John’s readers -are warned when they find them in the books of judgments. Even Ptolemy -is twice criticized on the basis of actual experiment.[200] We see -that John was not merely a translator or writer on astrology but an -expert practitioner of the art. He supplements the divergent views of -past authorities, or qualifies their consensus of opinion, by his own -apparently rich experience as a practicing or experimental astrologer. -Indeed, for him the theory and practice of the art, the paths of reason -and experience, are so united that he not merely speaks of “this -reasoning” or view as being “tested by experience,”[201] but seems to -employ the words _ratio_ and _experimentum_ somewhat indiscriminately -for astrological tenet or technique.[202] - -[Sidenote: Gundissalinus _De divisione philosophiae_.] - -The chief known work of Gundissalinus, the archdeacon who was for a -time perhaps associated with John of Spain in the labor of translation, -is his _De divisione philosophiae_,[203] a treatise which owes much -to the Turkoman Al-Farabi (Muh. b. Muh. b. Tarchân b. Uzlag, Abû Nasr, -el-Fârâbî). If Baur is right in thinking that Gundissalinus made use -of translations by Gerard of Cremona, 1114-1187, in the _De divisione -philosophiae_,[204] it would appear to be a later work than his -translating for Archbishop Raymond, 1130-1150, which perhaps began as -early as 1133.[205] - -[Sidenote: Place of magic in the classification of the sciences.] - -In the classification and description of the sciences which make up the -bulk of the _De divisione philosophiae_ Gundissalinus gives a certain -place to the occult arts. At the beginning of the book, it is true, the -magic arts are not classed among useful things of the spirit like the -virtues and true sciences (_honestae scientiae_). Neither, however, -are they grouped with pride, avarice, and vain glory as harmful vices, -but are merely classed along with worldly honors as vanities.[206] -“Nigromancy according to physics,” however, is later listed as one of -eight sub-divisions of natural science together with alchemy, medicine, -agriculture, navigation, the science of mirrors, and the sciences of -images and of judgments.[207] Gundissalinus was innocent, however, of -any detailed knowledge of necromancy or indeed of any of the other -sub-divisions except medicine. He explains that he has not yet advanced -as far as these subjects in his studies.[208] He is manifestly simply -copying an Arabic classification, probably from Al-Farabi’s _De ortu -scientiarum_, and one of which we find similar traces in other medieval -Christian authors.[209] - -[Sidenote: Al-Farabi _De ortu scientiarum_.] - -This little treatise on _The Rise of the Sciences_ by Al-Farabi, -although it occupies only a leaf or two in the manuscripts and has -only recently been printed,[210] is a rather important one to note, -as other of its statements than its eight sub-divisions of natural -science seem to be paralleled in medieval Latin writers. There seems, -for instance, a resemblance between its attitude towards the sciences -and classification of them and that of Roger Bacon in the _Opus -Maius_.[211] Al-Farabi believes in God the Creator, as his opening -words show, and he regards “divine science” as the end and perfection -of the other sciences; “and beyond it investigation does not go, for -it is itself the goal to which all inquiry tends.”[212] At the same -time Al-Farabi emphasizes the importance of natural science, adding -its eight parts to the four divisions of the _quadrivium_--arithmetic, -geometry, astrology, and music, and saying, “Moreover, this last (i. -e. natural) science is greater and broader than any of those sciences -and disciplines (or, than any of those disciplinary sciences).” We need -a science, he says in effect, which deals inclusively with changes -in nature, showing how they are brought about and their causes and -enabling us to repel their harmful action when we wish or to augment -them,--a science of action and passion.[213] This suggestion of applied -science and of a connection between it and magic also reminds one of -Roger Bacon, as does Al-Farabi’s statement later that the beginning of -all sciences is the science of language. - -[Sidenote: Gundissalinus on astrology.] - -Both for Al-Farabi and Gundissalinus the sciences of images and -judgments were undoubtedly astrological. Gundissalinus himself believes -that the spiritual virtue of the celestial bodies is the efficient -cause, ordained by the Creator, of generation, corruption, and other -natural operations in this corporeal world. He defines _astrologia_ -as we would astronomy, while he explains that _astronomia_ is the -science of answering questions from the position of the planets and -signs. There are many such sciences,--geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, -pyromancy, chiromancy, and augury; but astronomy is superior to -the rest because it predicts what will befall upon earth from the -dispositions of the heavenly bodies. Gundissalinus also repeats -Isidore’s distinction between _astronomia_ and _astrologia_, and -between the natural and superstitious varieties of “astronomy.”[214] - -[Sidenote: Robert Kilwardby, _De ortu sive divisione scientiarum_.] - -At this point it may be well to note briefly a later work with a -very similar title to that of Gundissalinus, namely, the _De ortu -sive divisione scientiarum_ of Robert Kilwardby,[215] archbishop -of Canterbury from 1272 to 1279. The work borrows a great deal from -Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, and Gundissalinus. One of its more -original passages is that in which Kilwardby suggests an alteration -in Hugh’s division of the mechanical arts, omitting theatrical -performances as more suited to Gentiles than Catholics, and arranging -the mechanical arts in a _trivium_ consisting of earth-culture, -food-science, and medicine, and a _quadrivium_ made up of costuming, -armor-making, architecture, and business-courses (_mercatura_), after -the analogy of the seven liberal arts.[216] Kilwardby, as has been -already noted elsewhere, repeats Hugh’s classification of the magic -arts.[217] - -[Sidenote: Plato of Tivoli.] - -Next in importance to John of Spain as a translator of Arabic astrology -in the first half of the twelfth century should probably be ranked -Plato of Tivoli. They seem to have worked independently and sometimes -to have made distinct translations of the same work, as in the case -of the _Nativities_ of Albohali and the _Epistle_ of Messahala. -On the whole, Plato’s translations[218] would appear slightly to -antedate John’s. Haskins has shown, however, that the date 1116, -hitherto assigned for Plato’s translation of the _Liber embadorum_ of -Savasorda, should be 1145.[219] But Plato’s translation of Albohali -is dated 1136, while John’s was not made until 1153.[220] In 1136 is -also dated Plato’s translation of the astrological work of Almansor in -the form of one hundred and fifty or so brief aphorisms, judgments, -propositions, or _capitula_, which later appeared repeatedly in print. -Two years later he turned the famous _Quadripartitum_ of Ptolemy into -Latin. His other translations include Albucasis (Abû’l-Qâsim Chalaf b. -ʿAbbâs el-Zahrâwî) on the astrolabe, Haly (ʿAlî b. Ridwân b. ʿAlî b. -Ğaʿfar, Abû’l-Hasan) on nativities, and a geomancy. Most of Plato’s -translations were produced at Barcelona. - -[Sidenote: Robert of Chester.] - -In a manuscript at the British Museum[221] one of Plato of Tivoli’s -translations is immediately preceded in the same large clear hand, -different from the smaller and later writing employed in the remainder -of the manuscript, by a translation of the _Judgments_ of the -astrologer Alkindi by Robert of Chester,[222] with an introduction -to “my Hermann,” whom Robert commends highly as an astronomer. A -letter written in 1143 by Peter the Venerable to St. Bernard tells -how in 1141 he had induced two “acute and well trained scholars,” who -were then residing in Spain near the river Ebro, to turn for a time -from the arts of astrology which they had been studying there, and -to translate the Koran. These two translators were the friends whom -we have just mentioned, Hermann of Dalmatia and Robert of Chester. -Robert, too, tells us in the prefatory letter to the translation of the -Koran, completed in 1143, that this piece of work was “a digression -from his principal studies of astronomy and geometry.” Besides such -mathematical treatises as his translations of the _Judicia_ of Alkindi, -the Algebra of Al-Khowarizmi, a treatise on the astrolabe ascribed to -Ptolemy, and several sets of astronomical tables, including a revision -or rearrangement of Adelard of Bath’s translation of the Tables of -Al-Khowarizmi, Robert on February 11, 1144, translated a treatise on -alchemy which Morienus Romanus, a monk of Jerusalem, was supposed to -have written for “Calid, king of Egypt,” or Prince Khalid ibn Jazid, -a Mohammedan pretender and patron of learning at Alexandria. Of it we -shall treat more fully in another chapter. About 1150 we seem to find -Robert returned to his native England and writing at London.[223] - -[Sidenote: Hermann the Dalmatian.] - -Hermann the Dalmatian, or twelfth century translator, must be -distinguished on the one hand from Hermann the Lame who wrote on -the astrolabe,[224] and apparently on the other hand from Hermann -the German who translated Averroes and Aristotle in the thirteenth -century.[225] To the twelfth century translator we may ascribe -such works as a treatise on rains,[226] a brief glossary of Arabic -astronomical terms,[227] and Latin versions of the _Planisphere_ -of Ptolemy,[228] of the astrological _Fatidica_ of Zahel,[229] and -of the _Introduction to Astronomy_ in eight books of the noted -Arabic astrologer Albumasar, a work often entitled _Searching of the -Heart_ or _Of Things Occult_.[230] Hermann dedicated it to Robert of -Chester, whom he also mentions in the preface of his translation of -the _Planisphere_,[231] and in his chief work, the _De essentiis_, a -cosmology which he finished at Béziers in the latter part of the same -year 1143.[232] - -[Sidenote: Hugh of Santalla.] - -Hugo Sanctelliensis or Hugh of Santalla[233] is another translator of -the first half of the twelfth century in the Spanish peninsula who -appears to have worked independently of the foregoing men, since he to -some extent translated the same works, for instance, the _Centiloquium_ -ascribed to Ptolemy, Latin versions of which have also been credited to -Plato of Tivoli and John of Seville. Hugh’s translations are undated -but at least some of them may have antedated those of the men already -mentioned,[234] since Haskins has identified Hugh’s patron, “my -lord, Bishop Michael,” with the holder of the see of Tarazona from -1119 to 1151. Hugh’s nine known translations are concerned with works -of astronomy, astrology, and divination. Those on astrology include, -besides the _Centiloquium_ already mentioned, Albumasar’s _Book of -Rains_, Messahala on nativities, and a _Book of Aristotle from 255 -volumes of the Indians_, of which we shall have more to say in the -chapter on the Pseudo-Aristotle. The works on other forms of divination -are a geomancy[235] and _De spatula_, a treatise on divination from -the shoulder-blades of animals. In the preface to the geomancy he -promises to treat next of hydromancy but says that he has failed to -find books of aeromancy or pyromancy.[236] Although, as has been said, -Hugh seems to have labored independently of the other translators -and in a somewhat out-of-the-way town, he nevertheless seems to have -felt himself in touch with the learning of his time. In his various -prefaces, like William of Conches, he speaks of “moderns” as well as -the arcana of the ancients,[237] and his patron is continually urging -him to write not only what he has gathered from the books of the -ancients but what he has learned by experiment.[238] In the preface -to his translation of Albumasar’s _Book of Rains_ he tells Bishop -Michael that “what the modern astrologers of the Gauls most bemoan -their lack of, your benignity may bestow upon posterity,”[239] and the -distribution of manuscripts of his translations in European libraries -indicates that they were widely influential. - -[Sidenote: A contemporary memorial of Gerard of Cremona.] - -The best source for the life and works of Gerard of Cremona[240] -(1114-1187) is a memorandum attached by his friends to what was -presumably his last work, a translation of the _Tegni_ of Galen with -the commentary of Haly, in imitation of Galen who in old age was -induced to draw up a list of his own works. Gerard, however, is already -dead when his associates write, having worked right up to life’s close -and passed away in 1187 at the age of seventy-three. They state that -from the very cradle he was educated in the lap of philosophy, and -that he learned all he could in every department of it studied among -the Latins. Then, moved by his passion for the Almagest, which he -found nowhere among the Latins, he came to Toledo. There, beholding -the abundance of books in every field in Arabic and the poverty -of the Latins in this respect, he devoted his life to the labor of -translation, scorning the desires of the flesh, although he was rich in -worldly goods, and adhering to things of the spirit alone. He toiled -for the advantage of all both present and future, not unmindful of -the injunction of Ptolemy to work good increasingly as you near your -end. Now, that his name may not be hidden in silence and darkness, -and that no alien name may be inscribed by presumptuous thievery in -his translations, the more so since he (like Galen) never signed his -own name to any of them, they have drawn up a list of all the works -translated by him whether in dialectic or geometry, in “astrology” or -philosophy, in medicine or in the other sciences.[241] - -[Sidenote: Account by a pupil of his astrological teaching.] - -Another contemporary picture of Gerard’s activity at Toledo is provided -us by the Englishman, Daniel of Morley, or _de Merlai_, who went to -Spain to study the sciences of the _quadrivium_. He tells how Gerard of -Toledo (_Gerardus tholetanus_), interpreting the Almagest in Latin with -the aid of Galippus, the Mozarab,[242] asserted that various future -events followed necessarily from the movements and influences of the -stars. Daniel was at first astounded by this utterance and brought -forward the arguments against the _mathematici_ or astrologers in the -homily of St. Gregory. But Gerard answered them all glibly. It should -perhaps be added that in another passage Daniel without mentioning -Gerard speaks of setting down in Latin what he learned concerning the -universe in the speech of Toledo from Galippus, the Mozarab.[243] -Gerard’s translation of the Almagest seems to have been completed in -1175,[244] but meanwhile in Sicily an anonymous translation from the -Greek had appeared, probably soon after 1160. Of it we shall presently -have something to say. Gerard’s version was, however, the generally -accepted one, as the number of manuscripts and citations of it show. - -[Sidenote: Character of Gerard’s translations.] - -But to return to the list of Gerard’s translations. Only three of the -long list are strictly dialectical, Aristotle’s _Posterior Analytics_, -the commentary of Themistius upon them, and Alfarabi on the syllogism. -And only one or two of the translations listed under the heading -_De phylosophya_ are pure philosophy.[245] Most of Gerard’s work is -mathematical and medical, natural and occult science. He translates -Ptolemy and Euclid; Archimedes, Galen and Aristotle; Autolycus and -Theodosius; and such writers in Arabic as Alkindi, Alfarabi, Albucasis, -Alfraganus, Messahala, Thebit, Geber, Alhazen, Isaac, Rasis, and -Avicenna. His mathematical translations include the fields of algebra -and perspective as well as geometry and astronomy. Of Aristotle’s -natural philosophy the list includes the _Physics_, _De coelo et -mundo_, _De generatione et corruptione_, _De meteoris_ except the -fourth and last book which he could not find,[246] and the first part -of the astrological _De causis proprietatum et elementorum_ ascribed -to Aristotle. Among his translations of Galen was the apocryphal _De -secretis_, of which we shall have more to say in a later chapter on -books of experiments. Three treatises of alchemy are included in the -list of his translations and also a geomancy, although Boncompagni -tries to saddle the latter upon Gerardus de Sabloneto. Gerard is also -supposed to have translated some works not mentioned in this list but -ascribed to him in the manuscripts. One of interest to us is a work on -stones of the Pseudo-Aristotle.[247] - -[Sidenote: Science and religion in the preface to a translation of the -_Almagest_ from the Greek.] - -We must say a word of the anonymous Sicilian translation of the -_Almagest_ which preceded that of Gerard of Cremona, because of a -defense in its preface[248] of natural science against a theological -opposition of which the anonymous translator appears to be painfully -conscious. After darkly hinting that he was prevented from speedily -completing the translation by “other secret” obstacles[249] as well as -by the manifest fact that he did not understand “the science of the -stars” well,[250] and remarking that the artisan can hope for nothing -where the art is in disrepute, the translator inveighs against those -who rashly judge things about which they know nothing, and who, lest -they seem ignorant themselves, call what they do not know useless -and profane. Hence the Arabs say that there is no greater enemy of -an art than one who is unacquainted with it. So far the tone of the -preface reminds one strongly of those of William of Conches. The writer -proceeds to complain that the opposition to mathematical studies has -gone so far that “the science of numbers and mensuration is thought -entirely superfluous and useless, while the study of astronomy (i. -e. astrology) is esteemed idolatry.”[251] Yet Remigius tells us that -Abraham taught the Egyptians “astrology” (i. e. astronomy), and the -translator ironically adds that he supposes it can be shown from Moses -and Daniel that God condemned the science of the stars. He then dilates -on how essential it is to study and understand the created world before -rising to study of the Creator, and waxes sarcastic at the expense -of those who study theology before they know anything else and think -themselves able like eagles to soar aloft at once above the clouds, -disdaining earth and earthly things, and to gaze unblinded upon the -full sun:[252]--a passage somewhat similar to Roger Bacon’s diatribe -against the “boy-theologians” in the following century. - -[Sidenote: Arabs and moderns.] - -The translator, although his own rendition is from a Greek manuscript, -shows some familiarity with Arabic learning. Besides the Arabic saying -already quoted, in giving the Greek title of Ptolemy’s thirteen books -on astronomy he adds that the Saracens call it by the corrupt name, -_elmeguisti_ (i. e. _Almagest_).[253] He also acknowledges the aid -he has received from Eugene, the admiral or emir, whose translation -of Ptolemy’s _Optics_ from the Arabic we have mentioned elsewhere, -and whom he describes as equally skilled in Greek and Arabic, and -“also not ignorant of Latin.” It may also be noted that as Adelard -of Bath contrasted “the writings of men of old” with “the science of -moderns,”[254] so this translator characterizes Ptolemy as _veterum -lima, specculum modernorum_. - -[Sidenote: Astronomy at Marseilles.] - -This seems the best place to call attention to some evidence for the -existence of astronomical, and apparently also astrological, activity -at Marseilles in the twelfth century, seemingly under the influence of -the Arabic astronomy and astrology. In a manuscript at Paris which the -catalogue dates of the twelfth century[255] is a treatise formerly -said to have been composed at Marseilles in the year 1111 A. D. But -Duhem has suggested that the XI should be XL, since the author tells of -a dispute at Marseilles in 1139.[256] The text tells how to find the -location of the planets for the city of Marseilles and is accompanied -by astronomical tables imitating Azarchel. The same treatise appears -in a manuscript at Cambridge,[257] written before the year 1175, -where it is entitled “The Book of the Courses of the Seven Planets -for Marseilles” and seems to be attributed to a Raymond of that city. -Duhem notes that our author often cites an earlier treatise of his, _De -compositione astrolabii_. The treatise opens with allusion to “many -of the Indians and Chaldeans and Arabs”; the author also says, “And -since we were the first of the Latins to whom this science came after -the translation of the Arabs,” and avers that he employs the Christian -calendar and chronology in order to avoid all appearance of heresy or -infidelity. So we would seem to be justified in connecting it with the -diffusion of Arabic astronomy and astrology. Our author believes that -God endowed the sky with the virtue of presaging the future, cites -various authorities sacred and profane in favor of astrology, and -emphasizes especially the importance of astrological medicine.[258] -It was also at Marseilles that William of England early in the next -century in the year 1219 wrote his brief but very popular treatise, -found in many manuscripts, entitled “Of Urine Unseen” (_De urina non -visa_), that is, how by astrology to diagnose a case and tell the color -and substance of the urine without seeing it. Of it we shall treat -again later in connection with thirteenth century medicine. But we may -note here that William, although of English nationality, was a citizen -of Marseilles, and that the person to whom his work _Of Urine Unseen_ -was addressed had formerly studied with him at Marseilles. William is -also spoken of as a professor of medicine. Furthermore in at least one -manuscript William of England is called a translator from the Arabic, -since he is said to have translated from that tongue into Latin “The -very great Secret of Catenus, king of the Persians, concerning the -virtue of the eagle.”[259] We may also note that it was in reply to -inquiries which he had received from Jews of Marseilles that Moses -Maimonides in 1194 addressed to them his letter on astrology.[260] -Interest in astronomy and astrology thus appears to have prevailed at -Marseilles from the first half to the close of the twelfth century. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[159] Especially by Professor C. H. Haskins, who has corrected or -supplemented Steinschneider and others on various points, and who has -other studies in preparation in addition to those to be mentioned in -ensuing footnotes of this chapter. - -[160] The passage is reproduced by C. H. Haskins, “The Reception of -Arabic Science in England,” EHR 30, 57, from Bodleian Auct. F-i-9 -(Bernard 4137), fols. 86-99. - -[161] In the MS mentioned in the preceding note, “Sententia Petri Ebrei -cognomento Anphus de dracone quam dominus Walcerus prior Malvernensis -ecclesie in latinam transtulit linguam;” Haskins, _Ibid._, p. 58. I -also note in Schum’s _Verzeichniss_, Amplon. Quarto 351, 14th century, -fols. 15-23, the _De dracone_ of Petrus Alphonsus with a table, -translated into Latin by “Walter Millvernensis prior.” After two -intervening tracts concerning the astrolabe by another author the same -MS contains “Alfoncius,” _De disciplina clericali_. - -[162] But not the same apparently as an Alfonsus of Toledo, to whom -Steinschneider (1905) p. 4, has called attention, and who translated -a work by Averroes (1126-1198) preserved in Digby 236, 14th century, -fol. 190. Its prologue speaks of an abridgement of the Almagest by -Averroes which Alfonso the Great (presumably Alfonso X or the Wise of -Castile, 1252-1284) had had translated and which was in circulation in -Spain and at Bologna. From the Explicit of the same treatise one would -infer that two Alfonsos were engaged in its translation, one a son of -Dionysius of Lisbon, and the other a convert, who became a sacristan -at Toledo:--“_et iste tractatus translatus fuit a magistro Alfonsio -Dionysii de Ulixbona Hispano apud Vallem Toleti, interprete magistro -Alfonso converso, sacrista Toletano_.” The treatise is followed at -fol. 194v by a “Narration concerning Averroes and the Saracen king of -Cordova,” which opens, “This is worth knowing which was told me by -Alfonso, a trustworthy Jew, physician of the king of Castile.” - -[163] Amplon. Quarto 351, as noted in note 2 on the preceding page. - -[164] Corpus Christi 283, late 12th century, fols. 113-44, “Dixit -Petrus Anfulsus servus Ihesu Christi translatorque huius libri ...”, -quoted by Haskins, EHR 30, 60. - -[165] CU Ii, vi, 11, fol. 95. “Dixit Petrus Amphulsus servus Christi -Ihesu Henrici primi regis Anglorum medicus compositor huius libri”; -quoted by Haskins, _Ibid._, 61. Pedro would hardly have called Henry -“first”, so the heading is perhaps not entirely genuine. - -[166] Arundel 270, late 12th century, fols. 40v-44v, Epistola de studio -artium liberalium praecipue astronomiae ad peripateticos aliosque -philosophicos ubique per Franciam. - -[167] So far as I can judge from Professor Haskins’ description of and -brief excerpts from them; he does not notice the Arundel MS. - -[168] This occurs at fol. 43r in the midst of the treatise; at the -beginning, in addressing the Peripatetics and other philosophers -and students throughout France, the writer calls himself, “_Petrus -Anidefunfus_, servant of Jesus Christ, and their brother and fellow -student.” - -[169] See fol. 42v, “Ceterum in nostro translationis inicio prologum -dictare curavimus de veritate videlicet artis.” - -[170] Fol. 44v, “Probatum est ergo argumento experimentali quod re vera -possumus affirmare solem et lunam aliosque planetas in terrenis viras -(_sic_) suas exercere.” A little further along on the same page he -employs the same phrase again, “Ostensum est quod eodem experimentali -argumento....” - -[171] Fols. 44v-45r, “Multa quidem alia et innumerabilia iuxta syderum -cursus in terra contingunt atque vulgarium sensus hominum non attingit, -prudentium vero atque huius artis peritorum subtile acumen penetrat et -cognoscit.” - -[172] Fol. 41v, “sicut Constantinus in libro suo quem de lingua -saracena transtulit in latinam testatur.” - -[173] The most recent edition of the Latin text is A. Hilka and W. -Söderhjelm, _Petri Alfonsi Disciplina Clericalis_, 1911. An English -version from a 15th century MS in Worcester Cathedral was edited by W. -H. Hulme in _The Western Reserve University Bulletin_, 1919. - -[174] In the preface (Hulme’s translation, p. 13) Pedro says, “I have -composed this little book partly from the sayings and warnings of the -philosophers, partly from Arabic proverbs and admonitions both in prose -and verse, and partly from fables about animals and birds.” - -[175] _Discip. cleric._, I, 9. - -[176] _Discip. cleric._, XVII, 48. - -[177] The fullest list of his translations that I know of is in -Steinschneider (1905) pp. 41-50. - -[178] See Appendix I at the close of this chapter for a list of some of -them. - -[179] Jourdain (1819) pp. 113 _et seq._, 449. - -[180] A difficulty is that John of Seville’s translations are -usually described as direct from the Arabic and nothing is said of -Gundissalinus, whereas in the preface to Avicenna’s _De anima_ John -Avendeath tells the archbishop that he has translated it word for word -from Arabic into Spanish, and that Dominicus Gundisalvus has then -rendered the vernacular into Latin: Steinschneider (1893) pp. 981 and -380, note 2; J. Wood Brown (1897) p. 117; Karpinski (1915) pp. 23-4. -But perhaps John learned Latin as time passed. However, as far as I -know, there is no MS where John of Spain is definitely called John -Avendeath or _vice versa_. - -[181] For example, S. Marco X-57, 13th century, fols. 278-83; Avranches -232, 13th century; BN 6296, 14th century, #15. - -[182] Amplon. Quarto 365, 14th century, fols. 100-19, Liber Haomar -de nativitatibus in astronomia ... quem transtulit mag. Iohannes -Hyspalensis et Lunensis epyscopus ex Arabico in Latinum. “Bishop” is -omitted in Digby 194, 15th century, fol. 127v, “Perfectus est liber -universus Aomar Benigan Tyberiadis cum laude Dei et eius auxilio quem -transtulit magister Johannes Hispalensis atque Limensis de Arabico in -Latinum.” Likewise in CU Clare College 15 (Kk. 4. 2), c. 1280 A. D., -fol. 64v. - -[183] _Spec. astron._, cap. 2. - -[184] Arundel 251, 14th century, fol. 35v, “Cum ego Johannis -hyspanicus....” - -Steinschneider (1905) p. 51, lists “Johannes Pauli, oder Paulini,” as -distinct from John of Spain. I shall treat of the _Salus vitae_ in a -later chapter on “Experiments and Secrets of Galen, Rasis and Others: -II. Chemical and Magical.” See below, chapter 65, page 794. - -[185] Printed in 1497, 1537, and 1546 as _Brevis ac perutilis -compilatio_ or _Rudimenta astronomiae_. Digby 190, 13-14th century, -fol. 87, gives the Arabic year as 529, while its 1173 should obviously -not be A. D. but of the Spanish era. Corpus Christi 224 gives the -Arabic year as 528, and the era date has been altered to clxx. m. -(1170), probably from mclxxiii (1173), the initial ‘m’ dropping out, -and the final ‘iii’ in consequence being misread by a copyist as -‘m.’ The same careless copyist has perhaps dropped an ‘i’ from the -arabic year. In BN 6506 and 7377B, according to Jourdain (1819) pp. -115-6, the Arabic year is 529, but the other 1070, a further error. I -suppose this is the same treatise as the _Liber in scientia astrorum -et radicibus motuum celestium_ or _Theoria planetarum et stellarum_ -of “_El-Fargânî_” which Sudhoff (1917) p. 27, following J. Brinkmann, -_Die apokryphen Gesundheitsregeln des Aristoteles_, 1914, says John of -Toledo translated into Latin in 1134. - -[186] _Epitome totius astrologiae conscripta a Ioanne Hispalensi -Hispano astrologo celeberrimo ante annos quadringentos ac nunc primum -in lucem edita. Cum praefatione Ioachimi Helleri Leucopetraei contra -astrologiae aduersarios. Noribergae in officina Ioannis Montani et -Ulrici Neuber, Anno Domini M.D.XLVIII._ The date 1142 is given at fol. -18r and at the close, fol. 87v. - -Steinschneider (1905), p. 41, “im Jahre 1142 kompilierte er, nach -arabischen Mustern, eine _Epitome totius astrologiae_, ed. 1548, deren -Teile (_Isagoge_ und _Quadripart_.) mit besonderen Titeln vielleicht in -einzelnen mss. zu erkennen wären.” - -In the 14th century MSS, S. Marco XI-102, fols. 107-31, and XI-104, -fols. 1-30, the title is “epitome artis astrologiae.” Vienna 5442, 15th -century, fols. 158r-79v, Opus quadripartitum de iudiciis astrorum, has -the same Incipit, “Zodiacus dividitur in duodecim....” See also Amplon. -Octavo 84, 14th century, fols. 1-37, and Quarto 377, 14th century, -fols. 7-11, Iudicia Iohannis Hispalensis, and BN 7321, 1448 A. D., -fols. 122r-154v, “Incipiunt ysagoge Iohannis Hyspalensis cum parte -astrologie iudiciali.” - -[187] Laud. Misc. 594, 14-15th century, fols. 94-106, Liber Albohali -de nativitatibus translatus a Johanne Toletano. “Perfectus est liber -Nativitatis mense Julii anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo cliii cum -laude Dei et ejus auxilio.” - -CU Clare College 15 (Kk. 4, 2), c. 1280 A. D., fols. 39-47, does not -name the translator but gives the date as 1153, and the same MS, -fols. 24-9, contains John of Seville’s translations of a work on the -astrolabe in 40 chapters, of treatises by Messahalla at fols. 48-55, -and Aomar at fols. 56-64. - -Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century, fols. 2-9v, ends incomplete, but a -colophon added in another hand gives the date as 1152. - -The work was printed at Nürnberg, 1546. - -There is a different translation of it, made by Plato of Tivoli in 1136 -A. D., in Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 163-, Aubueli liber in judiciis -nativitatum quem Plato Tiburtinus ex Arabico sumpsit Ao. Arabum 530 et -alexandri 1447 in civitate Barkelona. - -[188] Steinschneider ascribes the translation of Albohali to John -of Spain; the Catalogue of the Royal Manuscripts says that Johannes -Toletanus is possibly the same as John of Spain. Sudhoff (1917), p. 17, -identifies “Johann von Toledo (Hispanus, Avendehut).” - -Perhaps, however, the John of Toledo to whom a treatise entitled, _De -conservanda sanitate_, is ascribed in two 14th century MSS at Paris, BN -6978, #1 and 16222, fol. 76-; also Berlin 905, 15th century, fol. 74-; -CU Gonville and Caius 95, 15th century, fol. 283-; was not the same -person. - -Rose, in the Berlin MSS catalogue, identifies this last John of Toledo -with a John David of Toledo who in 1322 joined with other astrologers -in issuing a threatening circular letter predicting terrible events for -the year 1329. See Amplon. Quarto 371 for another such letter for the -year 1371, and Amplon. Octavo 79 for tables of conjunctions of the sun -and moon for the years 1346-1365 by a John of Toledo. - -[189] R. Förster, _De Aristotelis quae feruntur physiognomonicis -recensendis_, Killiae, 1882, pp. 26-27; J. Wood Brown (1897), 35; HL -XXX, 369. - -[190] Vienna 5311, 14-15th century, fol. 41v. - -[191] A work that I have not before seen ascribed to him is, Perugia -683, 15th century, fols. 393-6, “Incipit summa magistri Iohannis yspani -super arborem de consanguineitate.” - -Steinschneider fails, I think, to note in his list of John’s -translations an “introductio de cursu planetarum” (St. John’s 188, late -13th century, fol. 99v-) which he translated from Arabic into Latin at -the request of two “Angligenarum, Gauconis scilicet et Willelmi.” - -[192] However, the _Incipits_ given by Albert do not agree very well -with those of the sections of the _Epitome_ in the printed text of -1548. See chapter 42 for the resemblance between this printed text and -a treatise in MS ascribed to Roger of Hereford. - -[193] Arundel 268, 13-14th century, fols. 7v-23r, Abdolaziz Arabis -libellus ad judicium astrorum introductorius qui dicitur Alkabitius, -interprete Johanne Hispalensi. - -S. Marco XI-104, 14th century, fols. 79-102, Alcabitii ad iudicia -astrorum interpretatum a Iohanne Hispalensi. - -BN 7321, 1448 A. D., fols. 1-79r, Introductorium ad magisterium -iudiciorum astrorum. - -[194] S. Marco XI-105, 14th century, fols. 54-61, “Cyromancia est ars -demonstrans mores et inclinationes naturales per signa sensibilia -manuum.” Valentinelli comments, “Eadem fortasse cum chiromantia Ioannis -Hispalensis quam inter codices manuscriptos Ioannis Francisci Lauredani -Tomasinus refert.” - -[195] _Epitome_, II, xx, “Iam radicem nativitatis secundum -philosophorum dicta complevimus nec edidimus nisi ea in quibus -sapientes convenerunt et ex quibus experimentum habetur.” - -[196] _Epitome_, III, viii, “Iuniores huius artis magistri dicunt posse -inveniri locum thesauri absconditi quod veteres discreti omiserunt....” - -[197] _Ibid._, “Messehala autem Indorum in iudiciis solertissimus -dicit....” - -[198] _Epitome_, III, xii, “... in quaestione autem quis victurus -astrologi discordati sunt....” - -[199] _Epitome_, II, x, “Sed expertum est in nativitatibus multis hoc -abrogari etiam cum omnes rationes praedictae simul convenerint cuius -rei meminimus ne in libris inveniendo fidem daremus.” - -[200] The passage just quoted in the preceding note continues, “Porro -Ptolemaeus dicit ... sed experti sumus multoties hoc non recipi.” See -also the following chapter of the _Epitome_, II, xi. - -[201] _Epitome_, II, xxii, “... et est ratio experimentata haec....” - -[202] See III, xii, where, after stating the discordant views of -astrologers he says, “Hanc vero postremam rationem experimentis -caeteris preponimus.” - -[203] Ed. Ludwig Baur, in _Beiträge_, IV, 2-3, Münster, 1903, pp. 1-144 -text; pp. 145-408 “Untersuchung.” Another work by Gundissalinus on the -immortality of the soul was published in the same series by G. F. von -Hertling, 1897. - -Baur unfortunately failed to note the existence of the _De divisione -philosophiae_ in two 13th century MSS at the British Museum in the -Sloane collection, nor does Scott’s Index catalogue of the Sloane MSS -mention Gundissalinus as their author. - -Sloane 2946, 13th century, fols. 209-16, “de philosophia ... auctore -Isaaco philosopho.” But the Incipit, “Felix prior aetas qui (quae) -tot sapientes ...” is that of Gundissalinus’ treatise. The erroneous -ascription to Isaac is probably owing to the fact that the treatise -just preceding, at fols. 205-208v, is a translation of a medical work -by Isaac. This MS is mutilated towards the close so that the leaves -containing our text have the upper right hand corner torn off, thus -removing nearly one-sixth of the text. The colophon reads, “Explicit -hoc opus a domino Gundissalini apud Tholetum editum, sdens (succedens?) -de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et ordo -eorum et disciplina.” Similarly in Baur’s text the _De divisione -philosophiae_ at pp. 1-142 is followed at pp. 142-44 by Alfarabi’s -“Epistola de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et -ordo earum in disciplina.” - -Sloane 2461, late 13th century, fols. 1-38r, contains the _De divisione -philosophiae_ under the caption, _Compendium scientiarum_, without -indication of the author. It also is immediately followed at fols. -38v-40r by _De unitate_, which Baur found in another MS at the close of -Gundissalinus’ _De divisione philosophiae_, and in a third MS before -the above mentioned letter of Alfarabi. - -A MS now lost is, Library of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, 1175, -Gundisalvus de ortu et divisione scientiarum. - -Cotton Vespasian B-X, fols. 24-27, Alpharabius de divisione omnium -scientiarum, is not the treatise of Gundissalinus, as I was at first -inclined to suspect that it might turn out to be upon examination. - -Alfarabi’s _De scientiis_ was published in his _Opera omnia_ by -Camerarius at Paris in 1638 from a MS which the preface represented -as a recent discovery. Baur, p. viii, states that this text differs -considerably from the Latin version by Gerard of Cremona, but that the -borrowings of Gundissalinus from Alfarabi and the citations in Vincent -of Beauvais’ _Speculum doctrinale_ agree with this 1638 text rather -than with Gerard’s. - -[204] Baur (1903), p. 163. - -[205] Karpinski (1915), p. 23. - -[206] Baur, pp. 4-5. - -[207] Baur, p. 20. - -[208] Baur, p. 89. - -[209] See Daniel Morley on the eight parts of astrology in chapter 42 -below, p. 177. - -[210] I have read it in two MSS at Paris, where, however, the text -seems faulty: BN 6298, 14th century, fols. 160r-161v, and BN 14700, -fols. 328v-330v. It opens, “Scias nihil esse nisi substantia et -accidens et creatorem substantie et accidentis in secula.” Printed in -_Beiträge_, xix. - -[211] For Bacon’s views see below, chapter 61. - -[212] BN 6298, fol. 160v; BN 14700, fol. 330r. “Scientia divina que est -finis scientiarum et perfectio earum. Et non restat post illam ulla -inquisitio. Ipsa enim est finis ad quem tendit omnis inquisitio et in -ea quiescit.” - -[213] “Et imo opus erat (fuit) scientia que hoc totum ostendit scilicet -per quam veniremus ad huiusmodi permutationis scientiam (perveniremus -ad scientiam huius permutationis) qualiter fiat et que sint eius -actiones nocentes (occasiones et cause et quomodo possemus removere has -occasiones nocentes) cum vellemus repellere et quomodo cum vellemus -possemus eas augere. Hec igitur scientia fuit scientia de naturis que -est scientia de actione et passione.” The passages in parentheses are -the variant readings in one of the two MSS. - -[214] For the passages cited in this paragraph see Baur, 6, 115, 119-21. - -[215] Baur, who lists MSS of the work at p. 368 and presents an -analysis of it at pp. 369-75, gives the title as _De ortu et divisione -philosophiae_, but the two 13th century MSS at Oxford, Balliol 3 and -Merton 261, seem to prefer the form which I have given. I have looked -through the text in Balliol 3, a beautifully written MS, but, in -view of Kilwardby’s date, scarcely of the early 13th century, as it -is described in the catalogue. Hauréau regarded the work as clear, -accurate, and worth printing. - -[216] Cap. 40. - -[217] Cap. 67. - -[218] Listed by Steinschneider (1905), pp. 62-6. - -[219] C. H. Haskins, in EHR (1911), 26, 491 note. - -[220] See page 75 of this chapter, note 2. - -[221] Cotton, Appendix VI. - -[222] For the biography and bibliography of Robert of Chester see L. -C. Karpinski, _Robert of Chester’s Latin Translation of the Algebra of -Al-Khowarizmi_, New York, 1915, especially pp. 26-32; C. H. Haskins, -_The Reception of Arabic Science in England_, EHR 30 (1915), 62-5; -Steinschneider (1905), pp. 67-73. - -[223] Karpinski (1915), pp. 26, 29-30. - -[224] See above, chapter 30, I, 702-3. Besides the articles of Clerval -and Haskins there mentioned we may note A. A. Björnbo, _Hermannus -Dalmata als Uebersetzer astronomischer Arbeiten_, in _Bibliotheca -Mathematica_, VI (1903), third series, pp. 130-3. - -[225] Steinschneider (1905), pp. 32-5. He says, “Hermannus Alemannus, -oder Teutonicus, Germanicus, soll um 1240-1260 Lehrer des Roger Bacon -in Toledo (?) gewesen sein,” but I do not know where he gets the notion -that Hermann was Roger’s teacher. The following works ascribed to -Hermannus Theutonicus by Denifle (1886), p. 231,--and not mentioned by -Steinschneider--seem to indicate another person of that name: “(41) -fr. Hermannus Theutonicus de Cerwist (Zerbst) scripsit postillam super -cantica; (50) fr. Hermannus Theutonicus scripsit librum de ascensu -cordis. Item super Cantica. Item de arte precandi.” In Vienna 2507, -13th century, fols. 85-123, an Ars dictandi is attributed to “Magistri -Heremanni.” - -On the part taken by Hermannus Alemannus in the translation of -Aristotle in the thirteenth century see further Grabmann (1916), pp. -208-12, 217-22, etc., where translations of his are connected with the -dates 1240 and 1254. - -[226] Clare College 15 (Kk. 4. 2), c. 1280 A. D., fols. 1-2r, -Hermannus, liber imbrium, “Cum multa et varia de imbrium cognicione -precepta Indorum tradat auctoritas ... / ... plerumque etiam imbres -occurrunt set steriles” Iafar on rains immediately follows. - -Vienna 2436, 14th century, fols. 134v-136v, “Cum multa et varia ... / -... eciam ymbres occurrant sed mediocres. Finitur Hermanni liber de -ymbribus et pluviis.” - -Dijon 1045, 15th century, fols. 187-91 (following Hermann’s translation -of Albumasar), “de pluviis ab Hermano (de) Kanto (?) a judico in -latinum translatus. Cum multa et varia de nubium cognicione ... / ... -occurrunt sed steriles.” - -[227] In CUL 2022 (Kk. IV. 7), 15th century, fol. 116, however, such -a short glossary preceding prognostications of famine is said to be -“secundum Hermannum Teutonicum.” - -[228] Printed Basel, 1536; and Venice, 1558. J. L. Heiberg, _Claudii -Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia_, II, pp. clxxxiii-vi; Karpinski -(1915), p. 32; Haskins (1915), p. 62; Suter (1914), p. ix. - -[229] Or Sahl ben Biŝr ben Hânî, Abû ʿOtmân. Steinschneider (1905), -p. 34, and (1906) pp. 54-5, ascribes the translation to Hermann -the Dalmatian; see, too, CUL 2022, 15th century, fols. 102r-115v, -pronostica Zahel Iben Bixir, Hermanni secundi translatio. But in Digby -114, 14th century, fols. 176-99, “Explicit fetidica Zael Benbinxeir -Caldei. Translacio hec mam. Gi. astronomie libri anno Domini 1138, 3 -kal. Octobris translatus est.” - -[230] Printed at Augsburg in 1489 and in other editions; it opens, -“Astronomie iudiciorum omnium bispertita est via....” - -[231] Suter (1914), pp. xiii, xviii, interprets Hermann’s words, “Quem -locum a Ptolemaeo minus diligenter perspectum cum Albatene miratur et -Alchoarismus, quorum hunc quidam opera nostra Latium habet, illius -vero commodissima translatio Roberti mei industria Latinae orationis -thesaurum accumulat,” to mean that Robert translated Al-Battani, but -in view of Robert’s known translations of Al-Khowarizmi, I should -translate _hunc_ as “former” in this case and regard Hermann as the -translator of Al-Battani. - -[232] Professor Haskins wrote me on July 26, 1921, “The _De essentiis_ -is an interesting work of cosmology; when I am able to work it over -more carefully I shall print the article on Hermann, now long overdue.” - -[233] The best treatment of Hugh is, C. H. Haskins, “The Translations -of Hugo Sanctelliensis,” in _The Romanic Review_, II (1911), 1-15, -where attention is called to translations not noted by Steinschneider, -and the prefaces of seven extant translations are printed. - -[234] I cannot, however, agree with Professor Haskins (p. 10), that -“From certain phrases in the preface” (of Hugh’s translation of the -_Liber Aristotilis de 255 indorum voluminibus_) “it would seem that, -while Hugo has been for some time a devotee of Arabian science, he -has only recently (_nunc_) and comparatively late in the day (_serus -ac indignus minister_) entered the bishop’s service.” It seems to me -that the last phrase should read _servus ac indignus minister_, for -Hugh had already translated at least one other work for the bishop -before this one on the 255 books of the Indians, and in the present -preface he alludes to many previous discussions between them and to the -bishop’s continually exhorting him to publish, so that one would infer -that they had been associated for some time past. Since writing this I -have learned both from Mr. H. H. E. Craster of the Bodleian and from -Professor Haskins himself that the reading in the MS (Digby 159, fol. -1v) is “seruus” or _servus_, as I have it in the rough notes I took on -the treatise in August, 1919. - -[235] The following MSS may be noted in addition to those (BN 7453 -and Florence, Laur. II-85, Plut. 30, c. 29) listed by Steinschneider -(1905), pp. 35-6, and Haskins (1911), p. 13. - -CU Magdalene 27, late 14th century, fols. 1-66, “Ludus philosophorum -qui apellatur filius (?) Astronomie. Rerum opifex deus qui sine -exemplo nova condidit universa ... Ego sanctelliensis geomantie -interpretacionem (instead of inscriptionem as given by Haskins from -BN 7453) ingredior et tibi mi domine tirasonensis antistes....” -James adds, “On a Latin version of a tract of Apollonius, by Hugo -Sanctelliensis in MS Bib. Nat. Lat. 14951, see F. Nau in _Revue de -l’Orient Latin_, 1908,” but in a note of 21 June 1921 Dr. James informs -me that one should read _Orient Chrétien_ in place of _Orient Latin_. - -Vienna 5508, 14th century, fols. 182-200, Hugo Sacelliensis sive -Saxaliensis, Geomantia, “Rerum opifex deus ... / ... sive mundus facie.” - -Vienna 5327, 15th century, fols. 59r-60v, Operis de geomantia ad -Tirasconensem anstitem prologus et caput primum. - -Haskins (1911), p. 13, note 45, notes that the Laurentian MS has a -different Incipit from BN 7453, but CU Magdalene 27 and Vienna 5508 -agree with the latter Incipit. - -[236] Haskins, p. 14. - -[237] In the preface to his translation of el-Biruni’s commentary -on al-Fargani he says, “Lest therefore, completely intent upon the -footprints of the ancients, I seem to dissent from the moderns utterly -...”, (_Ne itaque antiquorum vestigiis penitus insistens a modernis -prorsus videar dissentire_,--Haskins, p. 8). In the preface to the -Pseudo-Aristotle on the 255 books of the Indians he speaks of Bishop -Michael as exalted above moderns or contemporaries (_ultra modernos -vel coequevos_,--Haskins, 10) in fame and love of learning, and later -of “what can be fully explained by none of the moderns” (_quod a -nullo modernorum plenissime valet explicari_--Haskins, p. 11). In the -preface to Albumasar’s _Book of Rains_ occurs the allusion to modern -astrologers of the Gauls given below in the text. - -[238] Haskins, p. 10. - -[239] _Ibid._, p. 12, “... tue offero dignitati, ut quod potissimum -sibi deesse moderni deflent astrologi gallorum posteritati tua -benignitas largiatur.” - -[240] Baldassare Boncompagni, _Della Vita e delle Opere di Gherardo -Cremonese traduttore del secolo duodecimo e di Gherardo da Sabbionetta -Astronomo del secolo decimoterzo, Roma_, 1851. - -Giovanni Brambilla, _Monografie di due illustri Cremonesi, Gherardo -Toletano e Gherardo Patulo, Cremona_, 1894. It largely repeats -Boncompagni without acknowledgement. - -K. Sudhoff, _Die kurze Vita und das Verzeichnis der Arbeiten Gerhards -von Cremona, von seinen Schülern und Studiengenossen kurz nach dem Tode -des Meisters (1187) zu Toledo verabfasst_, in _Archiv f. Gesch. d. -Medizin, herausg v. d. Puschmann-Stiftung an der Universität Leipzig_, -VIII, 73, Nov., 1914. - -V. Rose, in _Hermes_, VIII (1874), 334. - -A. A. Björnbo, _Alkindi, Tideus und Pseudo-Euclid_, 1911 (_Abhandl. z. -Gesch. d. Math. Wiss._ XXVI, 3), 127, 137, 150, etc. - -Steinschneider (1905), 16-32. - -[241] Boncompagni (1851), 3-4, from Vatican 2392, fols. 97v-98r. I -have, except for changing the order, practically translated the Latin -text of the _Vita_, which with some omissions is as follows: “... Ne -igitur magister gerardus cremonensis sub taciturnitatis tenebris lateat -... ne per presumptuosam rapinam libris ab ipso translatis titulus -infigatur alienus presertim cum nulli eorum nomen suum iscripsisset, -cuncta opera ab eodem translata tam de dyalectica quam de geometria, -tam de astrologia quam de phylosophya, tam etiam de physica quam -de aliis scientiis, in fine huius tegni novissime ab eo translati, -imitando Galenum de commemoratione suorum librorum in fine eiusdem -per socios ipsius diligentissime fuerint connumerata.... Is etiam cum -bonis floreret temporalibus.... Carnis desideriis inimicando solis -spiritualibus adhaerebat. Cunctis etiam presentibus atque futuris -prodesse laborabat non immemor illius ptolomei, cum fini appropinquas, -bonum cum augmento operare. Et cum ab istis infantie cunabulis in -gremiis philosophiae educatus esset, et ad cuiuslibet partis ipsius -notitiam secundum latinorum studium pervenisset, amore tamen almagesti -quem apud latinos minime reperiit tolectum perexit. Ubi librorum -cuiuslibet facultatis habundantiam in arabico cernens et latinorum -penurie de ipsis quam noverit miserans ...” etc. - -Other less complete lists of Gerard’s works are found in the following -MSS: Laon 413; All Souls 68, fol. 109; Ashmole 357, fol. 57. - -[242] Arundel 377, 13th century, fols. 88-103, Philosophia magistri -danielis de merlai ad iohannem Norwicensem episcopum, fol. 103r, “qui -galippo mixtarabe interpretante almagesti latinavit.” - -[243] Arundel 377, fol. 89v, “quod a galippo mixtarabe in lingua -tholetana didici latine subscribitur.” - -[244] Boncompagni (1851) 18, quoting Laurent. Plut. 89, 13th century. - -[245] Such as “Aristotelis de expositione bonitatis pure.” - -[246] It was translated from the Greek about the middle of the twelfth -century by Aristippus, minister of William the Bad of Sicily: see -Singer (1917) p. 24; V. Rose, _Die Lücke im Diogenes Laertius und der -alte Uebersetzer_, in _Hermes_ I (1866) 376; Haskins (1920) p. 605; F. -H. Fobes, _Medieval Versions of Aristotle’s Meteorology_, in _Classical -Philology_ X (1915) 297-314; Greek text, ed. Fobes, Cambridge, 1919. - -[247] Ed. V. Rose, in _Zeitschrift f. deutsches Alterthum_, XVIII -(1875) 349-82. - -[248] The preface was printed by Haskins and Lockwood, _The Sicilian -Translators of the Twelfth Century_, in _Harvard Studies in Classical -Philology_, XXI (1910) pp. 99-102, to which text the following -citations apply. Commented upon by J. L. Heiberg, _Noch einmal die -mittelalterliche Ptolemaios-Uebersetzung_, in _Hermes_, XLVI (1911) -207-16. - -[249] Line 31. - -[250] Line 42. - -[251] Line 61. - -[252] Line 87 _et seq._ - -[253] Line 23. - -[254] Lines 20-21. - -[255] BN 14704, fols. 144-70 (present numbering, fols. 110r-35v). The -handwriting seems to me later than the twelfth century, but I am not an -expert in such matters. The text ends at fol. 118v; the rest is tables. - -[256] Duhem, III (1915), 201-16. - -[257] CU McClean 165, fols. 44-47, Liber cursuum planetarum vii super -Massiliam, “Cum multos indorum seu caldeorum atque arabum ... / ... -Attamen siquis providus fuerit premissa satis emendare poterit. -Expl. liber cursuum planetarum vii.” The Paris MS ends with the same -sentence, but prefixes at the beginning, “Ad honorem et laudem dominis -nostri, patris scilicet et filii,” etc. I have examined the Paris but -not the Cambridge MS. Duhem does not note the latter. - -[258] Duhem (1915) 205. - -[259] Merton College 324, 15th century, but with such early works -as that of Marbod, fol. 142, Secretissimum regis Cateni Persarum de -virtute aquilae, “Est enim aquila rex omnium avium. ... / ... Explicit -iste tractatus a magistro Willelmo Anglico de lingua Arabica in Latinum -translatus.” One wonders if it is a fragment of Kiranides. - -[260] See below, pp. 206, 211. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -SOME MEDIEVAL JOHNS, MENTIONED IN THE MANUSCRIPTS, IN THE FIELDS OF -NATURAL AND OCCULT SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND MEDICINE - - - Johannes Anglicus: see John of Montpellier. - - Johannes Archangel: Additional 22773, 13th century, fol. 45, - “Tabule Johannis Archangeli” astronomiae; said to be the - same as Johannes Campanus. - - Johannes de Beltone, Sloane 314, 15th century, fol. 106, - Experimentum de re astrologica bonum (imperfect). - - Johannes Blanchinus, BN 7268, Distinctiones in Ptolemaei - almagestum; BN 7269, 7270, 7271, 7286, Tabulae - astronomicae; BN 7270, 7271, de primo mobili; Perugia - 1004, 15th century, “Tractatus primus de arithmetricha - per Johannem de Blanchinis.... Regule conclusionum ad - practicam algebre in simplicibus.... Tractatus florum - Almagesti.” Professor Karpinski informs me that the - _Flores Almagesti_ of Giovanni Bianchini was discussed - by L. Birkenmajer in _Bull. d. l’Acad. d. Sciences de - Cracovie_, 1911. - - Johannes Bonia, Valentinus, BN 7416A, translated Fachy, - _Sex genera instrumentorum sive Canones Quadrantis - universalis_; see Steinschneider (1905) p. 39. - - John of Brescia, who translated with Profatius Judaeus at - Montpellier; see Steinschneider (1905) 40. - - John of Campania, BN 6948, 14th century, #1, “Abenzoaris - Taysir sive rectificatio medicationis et regiminis,” - translated from Hebrew into Latin. - - Johannes Campanus (of Novara) is of course well known - for his _Theory of the Planets_ and translation of - and commentary on Euclid. Perhaps less familiar works - are: Additional 22772, 15th century, Johannis Campani - Novarensis liber astronomicus de erroribus Ptolemaei, - dedicated to Pope Urban IV; Amplon. Quarto 349, late 14th - century, fols. 57-65, de figura sectorum; indeed, the - collection of Amplonius at Erfurt is rich in works by - Campanus. Concerning him see further HL XXI (1847) 248-54 - and Duhem III (1915) 317-21. They hold that Campanus - is not called John in the MSS. His letter to Urban IV - (1261-1265) and Simon of Genoa’s dedication of this - _Clavis sanationis_ in 1292 to “master Campanus, chaplain - of the pope and canon at Paris,” serve to date him in the - later 13th century. - - John of Cilicia (apparently the same as John of Sicily), - Harleian 1, fols. 92-151, Scripta super Canones Arzachelis - de tabulis Toletanis. - - John Dastine (or Dastyn), among whose treatises on alchemy - may be mentioned Ashmole 1446, fols. 141-54v, “Incipit - epistola ... ad Papam Johannem XXII transmissa de - alchimia”; also found in CU Trinity 1122, 14-15th century, - fol. 94v-. - - Johannes de Dondis, Laud. Misc. 620, 16th century, “Opus - Planetarii Johannis de Dondis, fisici, Paduani civis.” - - Iohannes Egidii Zamorensis, Berlin 934, 14th century, 242 - fols., de historia naturali; it includes a reproduction of - John of Spain’s 39 chapters on the astrolabe. - - John of Florence, Magliabech. XI-22; XVI-66, fols. 260-301, - “Incipit liber de magni lapidis compositione editus a - magistro artis generalis florentino.... / ... Explicit - secretum secretorum mineralis lapidis mag Io.” - - Joannes de Janua (Genoa), BN 7281, 7322, Canon eclypsium; - 7281, Investigatio eclipseos solis 1337; 7282, Canones - Tabulares. He is classed by Duhem IV (1916) 74-, as a - disciple of Jean des Linières. - - Joannes de Lineriis, BN 7281, 15th century, #9, Theorica - planetarum ed. anno 1335, #11, Canones tabularum Alphonsi - anno 1310; and other astronomical treatises in BN 7282, - 7285, 7295, 7295A, 7329, 7378A, 7405, etc. Gonville and - Caius 110, 14th century, pp. 1-6, Canones super magnum - almanach omnium planetarum a mag. Iohanne de Lineriis - picardi ambianensis dyocesis, compositum super meridianum - parisiensem. See also Duhem IV (1916) 60-68, “Jean des - Linières.” - - Ioannes Lodoycus Tetrapharmacus, S. Marco XIV-38, 14th - century, 160 fols., “Antidotarius Galaf Albucassim - Açarauni a Ioanne Lodoyco Tetrapharmaco gebenensi filio - Petri fructiferi mathematici ... de arabico in latinum - translatus” (1198 A. D.). - - John of London, BN 7413, 14th century, fols. 19v-21r, de - astrologia judicaria ad R. de Guedingue, or it may be - better described as a letter, written in 1246 or shortly - thereafter (“usque ad consideracionem meam que fuit anno - Christi 1246”), in which John discusses various matters, - including the motion of the eighth sphere and dog days, - and states that he is sending a transcript of tables of - the fixed stars which he verified at Paris. - - The John of London who gave so many MSS to the library of - St. Augustine’s, Canterbury--see James (1903)--would seem - to have been of later date, since his books included - works of Aquinas, Roger Bacon, and John Peckham, the - chronicle of Martin which extends to 1277, translations - of the astrological treatises of Abraham aben Ezra which - were not made until toward the close of the 13th century, - and even treatises by Joannes de Lineriis who wrote in - the early 14th century and William of St. Cloud who made - his astronomical observations between 1285 and 1321. It - therefore seems unlikely that the donor, John of London, - could be even the young lad who was spoken of in such high - terms by Roger Bacon, as is suggested by James (1903) pp. - lxxiv-vii. Possibly the Friar John mentioned below is - Bacon’s protégé. - - John Manduith, CUL 1572 (Gg. VI. 3), 14th century, - astronomical treatises and tables. Other MSS, mentioned by - Tanner (1748) p. 506, contain tables finished by him in - Oxford in 1310. - - Johannis de Mehun (Jean de Meun), de lapide minerali et de - lapide vegetabili, Sloane 976, 15th century, fols. 85-108; - Sloane 1069, 16th century. - - Johannes de Messina, a translator for Alfonso X in 1276; - perhaps identical with John of Sicily, see Steinschneider - (1905) p. 51. - - Fratris Joannis ord. Minorum Summa de astrologia, BN 7293A, - 14th century, #3. Possibly this is Roger Bacon’s lad John - following in his master’s footsteps. - - John of Montpellier or Anglicus (and see John of St. - Giles), a treatise on the quadrant. BN 7298, 7414, 7416B, - 7437, Joannes de Montepessulano de quadrante; Firenze - II-iii-22, 16th century, fols. 268-82, “Explicit quadrans - magistri Iohannis Anglici in monte;” Firenze II-iii-24, - 14th century, fols. 176-82, “Incipit tractatus quadrantis - veteris secundum magistrum Iohannem de Montepessulano.” - CUL 1707 (Qi. I. 15), fols. 10-14r, “Quadrans Magistri - Johannis Anglici in Monte Pessulano.” CUL 1767 (Qi, III. - 3), 1276 A. D., fols. 56-60, Tractatus quadrantis editus a - magistro Johanne in monte Pessulano. - - John of Meurs (Johannes de Muris), a French writer on music, - mathematics and astronomy in 1321, 1322, 1323, 1339, and - 1345. Parts of his works have been printed. See further - L. C. Karpinski, “The ‘Quadripartitum numerorum’ of - John of Meurs,” in _Bibl. Math._ (1912-1913) 99-114; R. - Hirschfeld, _Io. de Muris_, 1884; Duhem (1916) IV, 30-37. - - Johannes Ocreatus, see Steinschneider (1905) p. 51. - - Johannes Papiensis, see Steinschneider (1905) p. 51. - - Johannes Parisiensis, master in theology, besides several - theological treatises wrote _de yride_ and _super librum - metheorum_. His _Contra corruptum Thome_ shows that he - wrote after Aquinas. See Denifle (1886) p. 226. - - There was also a medical writer named John of Paris who - perhaps, rather than Thaddeus of Florence, wrote the - treatise, De complexionibus corporis humani, Amplon. - Quarto 35, 1421 A. D., fols. 142-58. The remark of V. Rose - may also be recalled, “Ioh. Parisiensis ist bekanntlich - ein Mädchen für alles.” - - John of Poland, Addit. 22668, 13th-14th century, “Liber - Magistri Johannis Poloni,” medical recipes, etc. - - Johannes de Probavilla, Vienna 2520, 14th century, fols. - 37-50, “Liber de signis prognosticis.” - - John of Procida, see De Renzi, III, 71, Placita - Philosophorum Moralium Antiquorum ex Graeco in Latinum - translata a Magistro Joanne de Procida Magno cive - Salernitano. - - Johannes de Protsschida, CLM 27006, 15th century, fols. - 216-31, Compendium de occultis naturae. - - Ioannes de Rupecissa, a Franciscan who wrote various works - on alchemy and who was imprisoned by the pope in 1345 for - his prophecies concerning the church and antichrist; it - would take too long to list the MSS here. - - Johannes de Sacrobosco (John Holywood), well known for his - _Sphere_, which has been repeatedly printed and was the - subject of commentaries by many medieval authors. - - Joannes de S. Aegidio (John of St. Giles, also Anglicus or - de Sancto Albano), Bodleian 786, fol. 170, Experimenta - (medical). - - John of St. Amand, a medical writer, discussed in our 58th - chapter. - - Johannes de Sancto Paulo, another medical writer whose best - known work seems to be that on medicinal simples. - - John of Salisbury; see our 41st chapter. - - John of Saxony, or John Danko of Saxony, at Paris in 1331 - wrote a commentary on the astrological Ysagogicus of - Alchabitius, which John of Spain had earlier translated. - Amplon. Quarto 354, 14th century, fols. 4-59, Commenta - Dankonis scilicet magistri Iohannis de Saxonia super - Alkubicium; Amplon. Folio 387, 14th century, 46 fols., - Iohannis Danconis Saxonis almanach secundum tabulas - Alfonsinas compositum et annis 1336-1380 meridiano - Parisiensi accomodatum--also in Amplon. Folio 389 and many - other MSS; BN 7197, 7281, 7286, 7295A, Canones ad motum - stellarum ordinati. Duhem IV (1916) 77 and 578-81 holds - that two men have been confounded as John of Saxony,--one - of the 13th, the other of the 14th century. - - Johannes de Sicca Villa, Royal 12-E-XXV, fols. 37-65, de - principiis naturae. - - Joannes de Sicilia, BN 7281, 7406, Expositio super canones - Arzachelis. Steinschneider (1905) p. 51, dates it in - 1290 and regards this John as “hardly to be identified” - (“schwerlich identisch”) with John of Messina. See also - Duhem IV (1916) 6-9. - - Joannes de Toledo, perhaps identical with John of Spain, as - we have said. - - Iohannes de Tornamira, dean or chancellor of Montpellier, - Amplon. Folio 272, 1391 A. D., fols. 1-214, - Clarificatorium ... procedens secundum Rasim in nono - Almansoris. - - Joannes Vincentius, Presbyter, Prior Eccles. de Monast, - super Ledum, BN 3446, 15th century, #2, Adversus magicas - artes et eos qui dicunt artibus eisdem nullam inesse - efficaciam; Incipit missing. - - John of Wallingford, Cotton Julius D-V I, fols. 1-7r, an - astronomical fragment. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIX - -BERNARD SILVESTER: ASTROLOGY AND GEOMANCY - - - Problem of his identity--His works--Their - influence--Disregard of Christian theology--The divine - stars--Orders of spirits--The stars rule nature and - reveal the future--Plot of the _Mathematicus_--Different - interpretations put upon the _Mathematicus_--Hildebert’s - Hermaphrodite’s horoscope--The art of geomancy--Prologue - of the _Experimentarius_--Pictures of Bernard - Silvester--Problem of a spying-tube and Hermann’s - relation to the _Experimentarius_--Text of the - _Experimentarius_--Two versions of the 28 Judges--Other - modes of divination--Divination of the physician of King - Amalricus--_Prenostica Socratis Basilei_--Further modes of - divination--Experimental character of geomancy--Various - other geomancies--Interest of statesmen and clergy in the - art--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the _Experimentarius_ of - Bernard Silvester. - - _“Nell’ ora che non può il calor diurno_ - _Intrepidar più il freddo della luna,_ - _Vinto da terra, o talor da Saturno_ - _Quando i geomanti lor Maggior Fortuna_ - _Veggiono in oriente, innanzi all’ alba,_ - _Surger per via che poco le sta bruno.”_ - - _Purg. XIX, 1-6._ - - -[Sidenote: Problem of his identity.] - -Bernard Silvester, of whom this chapter will treat, is now generally -recognized as a different person from the Bernard of Chartres whom -William of Conches followed and on whose teaching John of Salisbury -looked back.[261] From John’s account it is plain that Bernard of -Chartres belonged to the generation before William of Conches, and -Clerval has shown reason to believe that he was dead by 1130.[262] -Bernard Silvester, on the other hand, wrote his _De mundi universitate_ -during the pontificate of Eugenius III, 1145-1153. Moreover, one of -his pupils informs us that he taught at Tours.[263] This last fact -also makes it difficult, although not impossible, to identify him -with a Breton, named Bernard de Moelan, who, after serving as canon -and chancellor at Chartres, became bishop of Quimper from 1159 to -1167.[264] At least they appear to have had somewhat similar interests, -and Silvester seems to have had some connection with the school of -Chartres, since he dedicated the _De mundi universitate_ to Theodoric -of Chartres.[265] - -[Sidenote: His works.] - -A number of works are extant under the name of Bernard Silvester. His -interest in rhetoric and poetry is shown by a long _Summa dictaminis_ -(or, _dictaminum_) and by a _Liber de metrificatura_, in the -_Titulus_ of which he is called “a poet of the first rank” (_optimi -poetae_).[266] He also wrote a commentary on the first books of the -_Aeneid_.[267] Two other treatises are ascribed to him in which we are -not here further interested, namely: _De forma vitae honestae_ and _De -cura rei familiaris_ or _Epistola ad Raimundum de modo rei familiaris -gubernandae_.[268] The three works of especial interest to us, while -no one of them is exactly a treatise on astrology, all illustrate, -albeit each in a different way, the dominance of astrological doctrine -in the thought of the time. One is _Experimentarius_, an astrological -geomancy translated into verse from the Arabic.[269] Another is a -narrative poem whose plot hinges upon an astrologer’s prediction and -whose very title is _Mathematicus_.[270] The third work, variously -entitled _De mundi universitate_, _Megacosmus et Microcosmus_, and -_Cosmographia_[271] has much to say of the stars and their rule over -inferior creation.[272] It is written partly in prose and partly in -verse,[273] and shows that Bernard laid as much stress on literary form -in his scientific or pseudo-scientific works as in those on rhetoric -and meter. Sandys says of it, “The rhythm of the hexameters is clearly -that of Lucan, while the vocabulary is mainly that of Ovid”; but Dr. -Poole believes that the hexameters are modelled upon Lucretius.[274] He -would date it either in 1145 or about 1147-1148.[275] - -[Sidenote: Their influence.] - -The manuscripts of these three works are fairly numerous, indicating -that they were widely read, and no contemporary objection appears to -have been raised against their rather extreme astrological doctrines. -As was well observed concerning the _De mundi universitate_ over one -hundred and fifty years ago, “These extravagances and some other -similar ones did not prevent the book from achieving a very brilliant -success from the moment of its first appearance,” as is shown by the -contemporary testimony of Peter Cantor in the closing twelfth century -and Eberhart de Bethune in the early thirteenth century, who says -that the _De mundi universitate_ was read in the schools. Gervaise of -Tilbury and Vincent of Beauvais also cited it.[276] Indeed in our next -chapter we shall find a Christian abbess, saint, and prophetess of -Bernard’s own time charged--by a modern writer, it is true--with making -use of it in her visions. Passages from Silvester are included in a -thirteenth century collection of “Proverbs” from ancient and recent -writers,[277] and more than one copy of the _De mundi universitate_ -is listed in such a medieval monastic library as St. Augustine’s, -Canterbury.[278] - -[Sidenote: Disregard of Christian theology.] - -In the _De mundi universitate_ we see the same influence of Platonism -and astronomy, and of the Latin translation of the _Timaeus_ in -especial, as in the _Philosophia_ of William of Conches. At the -same time, its abstract personages and personified sciences, -its _Nous_ and _Natura_, its _Urania_ and _Physis_ with her two -daughters, _Theoretical and Practical_, remind us of the pages of -Martianus Capella and of Adelard of Bath’s _De eodem et diverso_. The -characterization by Dr. Poole that the work “has an entirely pagan -complexion,” and that Bernard’s scheme of cosmology is pantheistic -and takes no account of Christian theology,[279] is essentially true, -although occasionally some utterance indicates that the writer is -acquainted with Christianity and no true pagan. Perhaps it is just -because Bernard makes no pretense of being a theologian, that at a time -when William of Conches was retracting in his _Dragmaticon_ some of the -views expressed in his _Philosophia_ and the Sicilian translator was -conscious of a bigoted theological opposition, Bernard should display -neither fear nor consciousness of the existence of any such opposition. -And yet it does not appear that the Sicilian translator engaged in -theological discussion. Yet he complains of those who call astronomy -idolatry; Bernard calmly calls the stars gods, and no one seems to have -raised the least objection. At least Bernard’s fearless outspokenness -and its subsequent popularity should prevent our laying too much stress -upon the timidity of other writers in expressing new views, and should -make us hesitate before interpreting their attitude as a sure sign -of real danger to freedom of thought and speech, and to scientific -investigation. - -[Sidenote: The divine stars.] - -What especially concerns our investigation are the views concerning -stars and spirits expressed by Silvester. Like William of Conches, he -describes the world of spirits in a Platonic or Neo-Platonic, rather -than patristic, style. He differs from William in hardly using the word -“demon” at all and in according the stars, like Adelard of Bath, a much -higher place in his hierarchy. “The heaven itself is full of God,” says -Bernard, “and the sky has its own animals, sidereal fires,”[280] just -as man, who is in part a spiritual being, inhabits the earth. Bernard -does not hesitate to call the stars “gods who serve God in person,” -or “who serve in God’s very presence.”[281] There in the region of -purer ether which extends as far as the sun they enjoy the vision of -bliss eternal, free from all care and distraction, and resting in the -peace of God which passeth all understanding.[282] He also repeats -the Platonic doctrine that the mind is from the sky and that the human -soul, when at last it lays aside the body, “will return to its kindred -stars, added as a god to the number of superior beings.”[283] - -[Sidenote: Orders of spirits.] - -Between heaven and earth, between God and man, comes the mediate and -composite order of “angelic creation.” “With the divinity of the -stars” the members of this order share the attribute of deathlessness; -with man they have this in common, to be stirred by passion and -impulse.[284] Between sun and moon are benevolent angels who act as -mediums between God and man. Other spirits inhabit the air beneath the -moon. Some of them display an affinity to the near-by ether and fire, -and live in tranquillity and mental serenity, although dwelling in the -air. A second variety are the _genii_ who are associated each with some -man from birth to warn and guide him. But in the lower atmosphere are -disorderly and malignant spirits who often are divinely commissioned -to torment evil-doers, or sometimes torment men of their own volition. -Often they invisibly invade human minds and thoughts by silent -suggestion; again they assume bodies and take on ghostly forms. These -Bernard calls _angelos desertores_, or fallen angels. But there are -still left to be noted the spirits who inhabit the earth, on mountains -or in forests and by streams: _Silvani_, Pans, and _Nerei_. They are -of harmless character (_innocua conversatione_) and, being composed -of the elements in a pure state, are long-lived but in the process of -time will dissolve again.[285] This classification of spirits seems to -follow Martianus Capella. - -[Sidenote: The stars rule nature and reveal the future.] - -Bernard’s assertion that the stars are gods is accompanied, as one -would naturally expect, by a belief in their control of nature and -revelation of the future. From their proximity to God they receive -from His mind the secrets of the future, which they “establish through -the lower species of the universe by inevitable necessity.”[286] -Life comes to the world of nature from the sky as if from God, and -the creatures of the earth, air, and water could not move from their -tracks, did they not absorb vivifying motions from the sky.[287] _Nous_ -or Intelligence says to Nature, “I would have you behold the sky, -inscribed with a multiform variety of images, which, like a book with -open pages, containing the future in cryptic letters, I have revealed -to the eyes of the more learned.”[288] In another passage Bernard -affirms that God writes in the stars of the sky what can come “from -fatal law,” that the movements of the stars control all ages, that -there already is latent in the stars a series of events which long time -will unfold, and that all the events of history, even the birth of -Christ, have been foreshadowed by the stars. - - “Scribit enim caelum stellis totumque figurat - Quod de fatali lege venire potest, - Praesignat qualique modo qualique tenore - Omnia sidereus saecula motus agat. - Praejacet in stellis series quam longior aetas - Explicet et spatiis temporis ordo suis: - Sceptra Phoronei, fratrum discordia Thebae, - Flammae Phaëthonis, Deucalionis aquae. - In stellis Codri paupertas, copia Croesi, - Incestus Paridis, Hippolytique pudor; - In stellis Priami species, audacia Turni, - Sensus Ulixeus, Herculeusque vigor. - In stellis pugil est Pollux, et navita Typhis, - Et Cicero rhetor, et geometra Thales; - In stellis lepidus dictat Maro, Milo figurat, - Fulgurat in latia nobilitate Nero. - Astra notat Persis, Aegyptus parturit artes, - Graecia docta legit, praelia Roma gerit. - Exemplar specimenque Dei virguncula Christum - Parturit, et verum saecula numen habent.”[289] - -Yet Bernard urges man to model his life after the stars,[290] and once -speaks of “what is free in the will and what is of necessity.” He thus -appears, like the author of the treatise on fate ascribed to Plutarch, -like Boethius, and like a host of other theologians, philosophers, and -astrologers, to believe in the co-existence of free will, inevitable -fate, and “variable fortune.”[291] - -[Sidenote: Plot of the _Mathematicus_.] - -Bernard Silvester’s interest and faith in the art of astrology is -further exemplified by his poem _Mathematicus_, a narrative which -throughout assumes the truth of astrological prediction concerning -human fortune. Hauréau showed that it had been incorrectly included -among the works of Hildebert of Tours and Le Mans, and that the theme -is suggested in the fourth Pseudo-Quintillian declamation, but that -Bernard has added largely to the plot there briefly outlined. A Roman -knight and lady were in every respect well endowed both by nature and -fortune except that their marriage had up to the moment when the story -opens been a childless one. At last the wife consulted an astrologer -or _mathematicus_, “who could learn from the stars,” we are told, “the -intentions of the gods, the mind of the fates, and the plan of Jove, -and discover the hidden causes and secrets of nature.” He informed her -that she would bear a son who would become a great genius and the ruler -of Rome, but who would one day kill his father. When the wife told -her husband of this prediction, he made her promise to kill the child -in infancy. But when the time came, her mother love prevailed and she -secretly sent the boy away to be reared, while she assured her husband -that he was dead. She named her son _Patricida_ in order that he might -abhor the crime of patricide the more. The boy early gave signs of -great intellectual capacity. Among other studies he learned “the -orbits of the stars and how human fate is under the stars,” and he -“clasped divine Aristotle to his breast.” Later on, when Rome was hard -pressed by the Carthaginians and her king was in captivity, he rallied -her defeated forces and ended the war in triumph. - - “And because the fatal order demands it so shall be, - The fates gave him this path to dominion.... - Blind chance sways the silly toiling of men; - Our world is the plaything and sport of the gods.” - -The king thereupon abdicated in favor of _Patricida_, whom he addressed -in these words, “O youth, on whose birth, if there is any power in the -stars, a favorable horoscope looked down.” - -The mother rejoiced to hear of her son’s success, and marveled at -the correctness of the astrologer’s prediction, but was now the more -troubled as to her husband’s fate. He noticed her distraction and at -last induced her to tell him its cause. But then, instead of being -angry at the deception which she had practiced upon him, and instead of -being alarmed at the prospect of his own death, he, too, rejoiced in -his son’s success, and said that he would die happy, if he could but -see and embrace him. He accordingly made himself known to his son and -told him how he had once ordered his death but had been thwarted by the -eternal predestined order of events, and how some day his son would -slay him, not of evil intent but compelled by the courses of the stars. -“And manifest is the fault of the gods in that you cannot be kinder to -your father.” - -The son thereupon determines that he will evade the decree of the stars -by committing suicide. He is represented as soliloquizing as follows: - - “How is our mind akin to the ethereal stars, - If it suffers the sad necessity of harsh Lachesis? - In vain we possess a particle of the divine mind, - If our reason cannot make provision for itself. - God so made the elements, so made the fiery stars, - That man is not subject to the stars.” - -Patricida accordingly summons all the Romans together, and, after -inducing them by an eloquent rehearsal of his great services in their -behalf to grant him any boon that he may ask, says that his wish is to -die; and at this point the poem ends, leaving us uninformed whether -the last part of the astrologer’s prediction remained unfulfilled, -or whether Patricida’s suicide caused his father’s death, or whether -possibly some solution was found in a play upon the word _Patricida_. -Hauréau, however, believed that the poem is complete as it stands. - -[Sidenote: Different interpretations put upon the _Mathematicus_.] - -The purpose of the poet and his attitude towards astrology have been -interpreted in diametrically opposite ways by different scholars. -Before Hauréau it was customary to attribute the poem to Hildebert, -archbishop of Tours, and to regard it as an attack upon astrology. -The early editors of the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ supported -their assertion that the most judicious men of letters in the eleventh -and twelfth centuries had only a sovereign scorn for the widely -current astrological superstition of their time by citing Hildebert -as ridiculing the art in his _Mathematicus_.[292] A century later -Charles Jourdain again represented Hildebert as turning to ridicule -the vain speculations of the astrologers.[293] Bourassé, the editor -of Hildebert’s works as they appear in Migne’s _Patrologia Latina_, -seems to have felt that the poem was scarcely an outspoken attack upon -astrology and tried to explain it as an academic exercise which was not -to be taken seriously, but regarded as satire upon judicial astrology. -Hauréau not only denied Archbishop Hildebert’s authorship, but took -the common sense view that the poet believes fully in astrology. It -would, indeed, be difficult to detect any suggestion of ridicule or -satire about the poem. Its plot is a tragic one and it seems written in -all seriousness. Even Patricida, despite his assertion that “man is -not subject to the stars,” does not doubt that he will kill his father -conformably to the learned astrologer’s prediction, if he himself -continues to live. It is only by the _tour de force_ of self-slaughter -that he hopes to cheat fate. - -[Sidenote: Hildebert’s Hermaphrodite’s horoscope.] - -Even Archbishop Hildebert shows a tendency towards astrology in other -poems attributed to him; for example, in his _Nativity of Christ_ -and in a short poem, _The Hermaphrodite_, which reads as follows, -representing the fulfillment of a horoscope: - - “While my pregnant mother bore me in the womb, ’tis said - the gods deliberated what she should bring forth. Phoebus - said, ‘It is a boy’; Mars, ‘A girl’; Juno, ‘Neither.’ So - when I was born, I was a hermaphrodite. When I seek to die, - the goddess says, ‘He shall be slain by a weapon’; Mars, - ‘By crucifixion’; Phoebus, ‘By drowning.’ So it turned out. - A tree shades the water; I climb it; the sword I carry by - chance slips from its scabbard; I myself fall upon it; my - trunk is impaled in the branches; my head falls into the - river. Thus I, man, woman, and neither, suffered flood, - sword, and cross.”[294] - -This poem has always been greatly admired by students of Latin -literature for its epigrammatic neatness and conciseness, and has been -thought too good to be the work of a medieval writer, and has been -even attributed to Petronius. Another version, by the medieval poet, -Peter Riga, entitled _De ortu et morte pueri monstruosi_, is longer and -far less elegant. Hauréau, however, regarded _the Hermaphrodite_ as -a medieval composition, since there are no manuscripts of it earlier -than the twelfth century; but he was in doubt whether to ascribe it -to Hildebert or to Matthew of Vendôme, who in listing his own poems -mentions _hic et haec hermaphroditus homo_.[295] - -[Sidenote: The art of geomancy.] - -We turn to the association of the name of Bernard Silvester with the -superstitious art of geomancy. It may be briefly defined as a method -of divination in which, by marking down a number of points at random -and then connecting or cancelling them by lines, a number or figure is -obtained which is used as a key to sets of tables or to astrological -constellations. The only reason for calling this geomancy, that is, -divination by means of the element earth, would seem to be that at -first the marks were made and figures drawn in the sand or dust, like -those of Archimedes during the siege of Syracuse. But by the middle -ages, at least, any kind of writing material would do as well. Although -a somewhat more abstruse form of superstition than the ouija board, -it seems to have been nearly as popular in the medieval period as the -ouija board is now. - -[Sidenote: Prologue of the _Experimentarius_.] - -The name of Bernard Silvester is persistently associated in the -manuscripts with a work bearing the title _Experimentarius_, which -seems to consist of sets of geomantic tables translated from the -Arabic. Its prologue is unmistakable, but it is less easy to make -out what text should go with it and how the text should be arranged. -Sometimes the prologue is found alone in the manuscripts,[296] and the -text which accompanies it in others varies in amount and sometimes -is more or less mixed up with other similar modes of divination. The -prologue is sometimes headed, _Evidencia operis subsequentis_, and -regularly subdivides into three brief sections. The first, opening -with the words, _Materia huius libelli_, describes the subject-matter -of the text as “the effect and efficacy of the moon and other planets -and of the constellations, which they exert upon inferior things.” The -writer’s opinion is that God permits mortals who make sane and sober -inquiry to learn by subtle consideration of the constellations many -things concerning the future and persons who are absent, and that -astrology also gives information concerning human character, health -and sickness, prosperity, fertility of the soil, the state of sea and -air, business matters and journeys. In a second paragraph, opening, -_Utilitas autem huius libelli_, the writer states that the use of his -book is that one may avoid the perils of which the stars give warning -by penitence and prayers and vows to God who, as the astrologer -Albumasar admits, controls the stars. And through them the Creator -reveals his will, as in the case of the three Magi who learned from a -star that a great prophet had been born. Finally, in a paragraph of a -single sentence, which opens with the words, _Titulus vero talis est_, -we are informed that the title is the _Experimentarius_ of Bernard -Silvester, “not because he was the original author but the faithful -translator from Arabic into Latin.” - -[Sidenote: Pictures of Bernard Silvester.] - -In one manuscript which contains the _Experimentarius_ there is twice -depicted, although the second time in different colors, a seated -human figure evidently intended to represent Bernard Silvester. He -is bearded and sits in a chair writing, with a pen in one hand and a -knife or scalpel in the other. Neither miniature is in juxtaposition -to the prologue in which Bernard is named, but in both cases the -figure is accompanied by five lines of text, written alternately in -red and blue colors and proclaiming that Bernard Silvester is the -translator and that the number seven is the basis in this infallible -book of lot-casting.[297] It would not be safe, however, to accept -this miniature as an accurate representation of Bernard, since the -manuscript is not contemporary and it contains similar portraits of -Socrates and Plato, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, and Cicero. - -[Sidenote: Problem of a spying-tube and Hermann’s relation to the -_Experimentarius_.] - -Both in the manuscript which we have just been describing and -another of older date[298] is a picture of two persons seated. In -both manuscripts one is called Euclid, in the older manuscript only -is the other named, and designated as Hermann. According to Black’s -description Euclid “uplifts a sphere with his right hand, and with his -left holds a telescope through which he is observing the stars; towards -whom ‘Hermannus,’ on the other side, holds forth a circular instrument -hanging from his fingers, which is superscribed ‘Astrolabium.’” The -picture in the other manuscript is similar, but in view of the fact -that they were written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, -the rod along which, or tube through which ‘Euclid’ is squinting, can -scarcely be regarded as a telescope without more definite proof of the -invention of that instrument before the time of Galileo. Perhaps it is -a _dioptra_[299] or spying-tube of the sort described by the ancients, -Polybius and Hero, and used in surveying. But I mention the picture -for the further reason that Clerval[300] asserted a connection between -Hermann of Dalmatia, the twelfth century translator, and Bernard -Silvester, affirming that Hermann sent Bernard his work on the uses of -the astrolabe and that he really translated the _Experimentarius_ from -the Arabic and sent it to Bernard who merely versified it. But we have -already proved that it was Hermann the Lame of the eleventh century -who wrote on the astrolabe and that he did so a century before Bernard -Silvester. The aforesaid picture is clearly of him and not of Hermann -the Dalmatian. And whether the “B” at whose request Hermann wrote on -the astrolabe be meant for Berengarius or Bernard, it certainly cannot -be meant for Bernard Silvester, who was not born yet. - -[Sidenote: Text of the _Experimentarius_.] - -Apparently the text proper of the _Experimentarius_ opens with the -usual instructions of geomancies for the chance casting of points and -drawing of lines. The number of points left over as a result of this -procedure is used as a guide in finding the answer to the question -which one has in mind. In a preliminary table are listed 28 subjects of -inquiry such as life and death, marriage, imprisonment, enemies, gain. -One turns to the topic in which one is interested and, according as the -number of points obtained by chance is over or under seven, reckons -forward or backward that many times from the number opposite his theme -of inquiry, or, if exactly seven points were left over, takes the -number of the theme of inquiry as he finds it. In one manuscript the -new number thus obtained is that of the “Judge of the Fates” to whom -one should next turn. There are 28 such judges, whose names are the -Arabic designations for the 28 divisions of the circle of the zodiac -or mansions of the moon, which spends a day in each of them.[301] A -page is devoted to each judge, under whose name are twenty-eight lines -containing as many responses to the twenty-eight subjects of inquiry. -The inquirer selects a line corresponding to his number of points and -the tables are so arranged that he thus always receives the answer -which fits his inquiry. But most of the manuscripts, instead of at -once referring the inquirer to his Judge as we have described, insert -other preliminary tables in which he is first referred to a planet and -then to a day of the moon. This unnecessarily indirect and complicated -system is probably intended to mystify the reader and to emphasize -further the supposedly astrological basis of the procedure, whereas it -is in reality purely a matter of lot-casting. - -[Sidenote: Two versions of the 28 judges.] - -Now in most of the manuscripts which I have examined there are two -versions of these twenty-eight pages of Judges of the Fates, worded -differently, although the corresponding lines always seem to answer the -same questions and apply to the same topics of inquiry as before. In -the version which comes first, for example, the first line under the -first Judge, _Almazene_ or the belly of Aries, is - - _Tuum indumentum durabit tempore longo_ - -while in the second version the same line reads, - - _Hoc ornamentum decus est et fama ferentum._[302] - -Both versions seem to be regarded as the _Experimentarius_ of Bernard -Silvester, for in the manuscripts where they occur together the -first usually follows its prologue, while the second is preceded by -his picture and the line, _Translator Bernardus Silvester_.[303] -In one manuscript[304] the prologue is immediately followed by the -second version and the first set of Judges does not occur. In some -manuscripts,[305] however, the second version occurs without the -first and without the prologue, in which cases, I think, there is -nothing to indicate that it is by Bernard Silvester or a part of the -_Experimentarius_. The first version ends in several manuscripts with -the words, _Explicit libellus de constellationibus_[306] rather than -some such phrase as _Explicit Experimentarius_. Furthermore in some -manuscripts where it occurs alone this first set of Judges is called -the book of Alchandiandus or Alkardianus.[307] He may, however, have -been the Arabic author and Bernard his translator, and the _liber -alkardiani phylosophi_ opens in at least one manuscript with words -appropriate to the title, _Experimentarius_, “Since everything that is -tested by experience is experienced either for its own sake or on some -other account.”[308] - -[Sidenote: Other modes of divination.] - -There are so many treatises of this type in medieval manuscripts and -they are so frequently collected in one _codex_ that they are liable -to be confused with one another. Thus in two manuscripts a method of -divination ascribed to the physician of King Amalricus[309] is in such -juxtaposition to the _Experimentarius_ that Macray takes it to be part -of the _Experimentarius_, while the catalogue of the Sloane Manuscripts -combines the two as “a compilation ‘concerning the art of Ptolemy.’” -Macray also includes in the _Experimentarius_ a _Praenostica Socratis -Basilei_, which is of frequent occurrence in the manuscripts, and -other treatises on divination which are either anonymous or ascribed -to Pythagoras and, judging from the miniatures prefixed to them, to -Anaxagoras and Cicero, who thus again is appropriately punished for -having written a work against divination. I doubt if these other modes -of divination are parts of the _Experimentarius_, which often is found -without them, as are some of them without it. But they are so much -like it in general form and procedure that we may consider them now, -especially as they are of such dubious date and authorship that it -would be difficult to place them more exactly. - -[Sidenote: Divination of the physician of King Amalricus.] - -The treatise which is assigned to the physician of King Amalricus and -which is said to have been composed in memory of that monarch’s great -victory over the Saracens and Turks in Egypt, obtains its key number -by revolution of a wheel[310] rather than by the geomantic casting -of points, and introduces a trifle more of astrological observance. -If on first applying the inquirer receives an unfavorable reply, he -may wait for thirty days and try again, but after the third failure -he must desist entirely. “It is not allowed to inquire concerning one -thing more than three times.” The twenty-eight subjects of inquiry are -divided in groups of four among the seven planets, and the inquirer is -told to return on the weekday named after the planet under which his -query falls. On the day set the astrologer must further determine with -the astrolabe when the hour of the same planet has arrived, and not -until then may the divination by means of the wheel take place, as a -result of which the inquirer is directed as before to one of 28 Judges -who in this case, however, are said to be associated with mansions -of the sun[311] rather than moon. At the close of the treatise of -the physician of King Amalricus in both manuscripts[312] that I have -examined is inserted some sceptical person’s opinion to the effect that -these methods of divination are subtle trifles which are not utterly -useless as a means of diversion, but that faith should not be placed in -them. The more apparent the devil’s nets are, concludes the passage, -the more wary the human bird will be. - -[Sidenote: _Prenostica Socratis Basilei._] - -In the _Prenostica_ or _Prenosticon Socratis Basilei_--Prognostic of -Socrates the King--a number from one to nine is obtained by chance -either by geomancy or by revolving a wheel on which an image of “King -Socrates” points his finger. The inquirer then consults a table -where sixteen questions are so arranged in compartments designated -by letters of the alphabet that each question is found in two -compartments. Say that the inquirer finds his question in A and E. He -then consults another table where 144 names of birds, beasts, fish, -stones, herbs, flowers, cities, and other “species” are arranged in -nine rows opposite the numbers from one to nine and in sixteen columns -headed by the sixteen possible pairs of letters such as the AE of our -inquirer. Looking in the row corresponding to his number and the column -AE he obtains a name. He must then find this name in a series of twelve -circular tables where the aforesaid names are listed under their proper -species, each table containing twelve names. He now is referred on to -one of sixteen kings of the Turks, India, Spain, Francia, Babylonia, -the Saracens, Romania, etc. Under each king nine answers are listed and -here at last under his original number obtained by lot he finds the -appropriate answer.[313] - -[Sidenote: Further modes of divination.] - -In the _Prenostica Pitagorice_ we are assured that we may rest easy as -to the integrity of the Catholic Faith being observed, “for that does -not happen of necessity which human caution forewarned, can avoid.” It -answers any one of a list of thirty-six questions by means of a number -obtained by chance between one and twelve. The inquirer is referred -to one of 36 birds whose pictures are drawn in the margins with twelve -lines of answers opposite each bird. Other schemes of divination -found with the _Experimentarius_ in some manuscripts differ from the -foregoing only in the number of questions concerning which inquiry can -be made, the number of Judges and the names given them, the number of -lines under each Judge, and the number of intermediate directory tables -that have to be consulted before the final Judge is reached. As Judges -we meet the twelve sons of Jacob, the thirty-six decans or thirds of -the twelve signs, and another astrological group of twenty made up of -the twelve signs, seven planets, and the dragon.[314] - -[Sidenote: Experimental character of geomancy.] - -In one manuscript[315] the directions for consulting this last group -of Judges are given under the heading, _Documentum experimenti -retrogradi_, which like Bernard’s _Experimentarius_ suggests the -experimental character of the art of geomancy or the arts of divination -in general. Later we shall hear Albertus Magnus in the _Speculum -astronomiae_ call treatises of aerimancy,[316] pyromancy, and -hydromancy, as well as of geomancy “experimental books.” - -[Sidenote: Various other geomancies.] - -Geomancies are of frequent occurrence in libraries of medieval -manuscripts.[317] Many are anonymous[318] but others bear the names of -noted men of learning. The art must have had great currency among the -Arabs,[319] for not only are treatises current in Latin under such -names as Abdallah,[320] Albedatus,[321] Alcherius,[322] Alkindi,[323] -and Alpharinus,[324] but almost every prominent translator of the time -seems to have tried his hand at a geomancy. In the manuscripts we find -geomancies attributed to Gerard of Cremona,[325] Plato of Tivoli,[326] -Michael Scot,[327] Hugo Sanctelliensis,[328] William of Moerbeke,[329] -William de Saliceto of Piacenza,[330] and Peter of Abano,[331] and -even to their medical confrère and contemporary, Bernard Gordon, who -is not usually classed as a translator.[332] Some of these, however, -were translators from the Greek or the Hebrew rather than Arabic, and -some of the geomantic treatises in the manuscripts claim an origin from -India.[333] But a Robert or Roger Scriptoris who compiled a geomancy -towards the close of the medieval period thinks first among his sources -of “the Arabs of antiquity and the wise moderns, William of Moerbeke, -Bartholomew of Parma, Gerard of Cremona, and many others.”[334] These -other geomancies are not necessarily like the _Experimentarius_ of -Bernard Silvester[335] and we shall describe another sort when we come -to speak of Bartholomew of Parma in a later chapter. - -[Sidenote: Interest of statesmen and clergy in the art.] - -In the fifteenth century such intellectual statesmen as Humphrey, -Duke of Gloucester, and Henry VII of England displayed an interest -in geomancy, judging from a manuscript _de luxe_ of Guido Bonatti’s -work on astrology which was made for Henry VII and contains a picture -of him, and also Plato’s translation of the geomancy of Alpharinus -and geomantic “tables of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.”[336] The -interest of the clergy in this superstitious art is attested not only -by the translation of such a person as William of Moerbeke, who was -papal penitentiary and later archbishop of Corinth, but by a geomancy -which we find in two fifteenth century manuscripts written by Martin, -an abbot of Burgos, at the request of another abbot of Paris.[337] -Treatises on geomancy continue to be found in the manuscripts as late -as the eighteenth century, that of Gerard of Cremona especially. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[261] Clerval, _Les Écoles de Chartres_, Paris, 1895, pp. 158-63. The -point was for a time contested by Ch. V. Langlois, “Maître Bernard,” -in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, LIV (1893) and by Hauréau. The two -Bernards are still identified in EB, 11th edition, while Steinschneider -(1905), p. 8, still identified Bernard of Chartres with the author of -_De mundi universitate_. - -[262] Dr. R. L. Poole, EHR (1920), p. 327, does not regard this as -absolutely certain but agrees at p. 331 “that the evidence of place -and time make it impossible to identify Bernard Silvester with Bernard -of Chartres,” as he had done earlier in _Illustrations of Medieval -Thought_ (1884), pp. 113-26. - -[263] B. Hauréau, _Le Mathematicus de Bernard Silvestris_, Paris, 1895, -p. 11. - -[264] Clerval (1895), pp. 158, 173. - -[265] BN 6415, fol. 74v, “Terrico veris scientiarum titulis doctori -famosissimo bernardus silvestris opus suum.” - -[266] Clerval (1895), pp. 173-4. - -[267] BN 16246, 15th century. Extracts from it are printed by Cousin, -_Fragments philosophiques_, II, 348-52. John of Salisbury in 1159 used -it in the _Polycraticus_, ed. Webb (1909) I, xxx, xlii-xliii. - -[268] Many MSS at Paris, BN 3195, 5698, 6395, 6477, 6480, 7054, 8299, -8513, and probably others. MSS catalogues often ascribe it to St. -Bernard. - -[269] Attention was first called to it by Langlois, _Maître Bernard_, -1893. It has not been printed. A description of some of the MSS of it -will be found in Appendix I at the close of this chapter. - -[270] B. Hauréau, _Le Mathematicus de Bernard Silvestris_, Paris, 1895, -contains the text and lists the following MSS: BN 3718, 5129, 6415; -Tours 300; Cambrai 875; Bodleian A-44; Vatican 344, 370, 1440 _de la -Reine_; Berlin Cod. Theol. Octavo 94. Printed in Migne PL 171, 1365-80, -among the poems of Hildebert of Tours. - -[271] Ed. by Wrobel and Barach, in _Bibl. Philos. mediae aetatis_, -Innsbruck, 1876, from two MSS, Vienna 526 and CLM 23434. HL XII (1763), -p. 261 _et seq._, had already listed six MSS in the then Royal Library -at Paris (now there are at least eight, BN 3245, 6415, 6752A, 7994, -8320, 8751C, 8808A, and 15009, 12-13th century, fol. 187), four at the -Vatican, and many others elsewhere. The following may be added: - -Cotton Titus D-XX, fols. 110v-115r, Bernardi Sylvestris de utroque -mundo, majore et minore. - -Cotton Cleopatra A-XIV, fols. 1-26, Bernardi Sylvestris cosmographia -proso-metrice in qua de multis rebus physicis agitur. - -Additional 35112, Liber de mundi philosophia, author not named. - -Sloane 2477 and Royal 15-A-XXXII. - -CU Trinity 1335, early 13th century, fols. 1-25v, Bernardi Silvestris -Cosmographia. - -CU Trinity 1368 (II), late 12th century, 50 leaves, Bernardi Silvestris -Megacosmus et Microcosmus. - -[272] Clerval’s (1895) pp. 259-61, “Le système de Bernard Silvester,” -is limited to the _De mundi universitate_ and says nothing of his -obvious astrological doctrine, although at p. 240 Clerval briefly -states that in that work Bernard takes over many figures from pagan -astrology. - -[273] HL XII (1763) p. 261 _et seq._, besides the _De mundi -universitate_ mentioned “two poems in elegiacs written expressly in -defense of the influence of the constellations.” These were very -probably the _Mathematicus_ and _Experimentarius_, or the two parts or -versions of the latter. - -[274] _History of Classical Scholarship_ (1903) I, 515; _Illustrations -of Medieval Thought_ (1884) p. 118. - -[275] EHR (1920) p. 331. - -[276] HL XII (1763) p. 261 _et seq._ - -[277] Berlin 193 (Phillips 1827), fol. 25v, “Proverbia.” - -[278] Indeed, the 15th century catalogue of that abbey lists one MS, -1482, which contains both the _Megacosmus_ and _Mathematicus_, with the -treatise of Valerius to Rufinus on not getting married sandwiched in -between. - -[279] Poole (1884) pp. 117-18. - -[280] _De mundi universitate_, II, 6, 10, “Caelum ipsum Deo plenum -est.... Sua caelo animalia ignes siderei....” - -[281] _Ibid._, I, 3, 6-7, - -“Motus circuitus numina turba deum Dico deos quorum ante Deum -praesentia servit.” - -Also II, 4, 39, “deos caelumque.” - -[282] _Ibid._, II, 6, 49, “Qui quia aeternae beatitudinis visione -perfruuntur, ab omni distrahentis curae sollicitudine feriati in pace -Dei quae omnem sensum superat conquiescunt.” - -[283] _De mundi universitate_, II, 4, 49-50. - -“Corpore iam posito cognata reibit ad astra Additus in numero -superumdeus.” - - -[284] _Ibid._, II, 6, 36-, “Participatenim angelicae creationis numerus -cum siderum divinitate quod non moritur; cum homine, quod passionum -affectibus incitatur.” - -[285] _Ibid._, II, 6, 92 _et seq._ - -[286] _De mundi universitate_, II, 6, 47-. - -[287] _Ibid._, I, 4, 5-. - -[288] _Ibid._, II, 1, 23-. - -[289] _Ibid._, I, 3, 33 _et seq._ - -[290] _De mundi universitate_, II, 4, 31-50; and II, 1, 30-32. - -[291] _Ibid._, II, 1, 33-35. - -“Parcarum leges et ineluctabile fatum Fortunaeque vices variabilis Quae -sit in arbitrio res libera quidve necesse.” - -[292] HL VII (1746) p. 137. - -[293] C. Jourdain, _Dissertation sur l’état de la philosophie naturelle -etc._, Paris, 1838, p. 116, note. - -[294] Migne, PL 171, 1446. Juno here stands for the planet Venus: -see Hyginus II, 42, “Stella Veneris, Lucifer nomine, quam nonnulli -Junonis esse dixerunt”; and other passages cited by Bouché-Leclercq, -_L’Astrologie grecque_, 1899, p. 99, note 2. - -[295] J. B. Hauréau, _Les mélanges poétiques d’Hildebert_, 1882, pp. -138-47. In Digby 53, a poetical miscellany of the end of the 12th -century, no author is named for the “De Ermaphrodito” nor for some -other items which appear in the printed edition of Hildebert’s poems, -although Hildebert’s name is attached to a few pieces in the MS. - -[296] Ashmole 345, late 14th century, fol. 64. Bodleian Auct. F. 3. 13, -fol. 104v. For a summary of the MSS see Appendix I at the close of this -chapter. - -[297] Digby 46, 14th century, fol. 1v, the first line is blue, the next -red, etc. - -_An sors instabilis melius ferat ars docet eius_ _In septem stabis -minus una petens numerabis_ _Post septem sursum numerando perfice -cursum_ _Translator Bernardus Silvester_ _Hic infallibilis liber -incipit autem peius._ - -At fol. 25v, the same five lines except that the last line is put -first, where it would seem to belong, and is accordingly colored red -instead of blue as before, the colors of the other four lines remaining -the same as before. - -[298] Ashmole 304, 13th century, fol. 2v. - -[299] In this connection the following MS might prove of interest: CU -Trinity 1352, 17th century, neatly written, _Dioptrica Practica_. Fol. -1 is missing and with it the full title. Cap 1, _de Telescopiorum ac -Microscopium Inventione, diversitate, et varietati. Quaestio I, Quid -sunt Telescopia et quomodo ac quando inventa_. After fol. 90 is a -single leaf of diagrams. - -[300] Clerval (1895), pp. 169, 190-91. - -[301] These 28 Judges, or mansions of the moon, are seldom spelled -twice alike in the MSS, but are somewhat as follows: _Almazene_, -_Anatha_, _Albathon_, _Arthura_, _Adoran_, _Almusan_, _Atha_, _Arian_, -_Anathia_, _Althare_, _Albuza_, _Alcoreten_, _Arpha_, _Alana_, -_Asionet_, _Algaphar_, _Azavenu_, _Alakyal_, _Alcalu_, _Aleum_, -_Avaadh_, _Avelde_, _Cathateue_, _Eadabula_, _Eadatauht_, _Eadalana_, -_Algafalmar_, _Algagafalui_. - -[302] In the MSS, which are very carelessly and often slovenly written, -the wording of these lines varies a good deal, for instance, in Digby -46, fol. 11r, “Sum (_sic_) monumentum durabit tempore longo,” and in CU -Trinity 1404 (II), fol. 2r, “Hoc ornamentum est et fama parentum.” - -[303] Digby 46, fol. 25v; in Ashmole 304 the corresponding leaf has -been cut out, probably for the sake of the miniature; Sloane 3857, -fol. 181v, omits the picture but has the phrase, “Translator Bernardus -Silvester.” - -[304] Sloane 3554, fol. 13v-. - -[305] Ashmole 342, early 14th century, #2. - -Ashmole 399, late 13th century, fols. 54-8. - -Royal 12-C-XII, fols. 108-23. - -CU Trinity 1404 (II), 14-15th century, fols. 2-16. - -Some of these MSS I have not seen. - -[306] Digby 46, fol. 24v; Ashmole 304, fol. 16v; Sloane 3857, fol. 180v. - -[307] Additional 15236, English hand of 13-14th century, fols. 130-52r, -“libellus Alchandiandi”; BN 7486, 14th century, fol. 30v, “Incipit -liber alkardiani phylosophi. Cum omne quod experitur sit experiendum -propter se vel propter aliud....” And see above, the latter pages of -Chapter 30. - -[308] See the preceding note. - -[309] Sloane 3554, fol. 1-; Digby 46, fols. 3r-5v, and fol. 90r. But -in both MSS it precedes the prologue of the _Experimentarius_. Macray -was probably induced to regard everything in Digby 46 up to fol. 92r -as _Experimentarius_ by the picture of Bernard Silvester which occurs -at fol. 1v with the accompanying five lines stating that he is the -translator of “this infallible book.” But the picture is probably -misplaced, since it occurs again at fol. 25v before the second version -of the 28 Judges. - -[310] Inset inside the thick cover of Digby 46 are two interlocking -wooden cogwheels for this purpose, with 28 and 13 teeth respectively. - -[311] In Digby 46 diagrams showing the number of stars in each are -given. - -[312] Digby 46, fol. 5v; Sloane 3554, fol. 12r. - -[313] I have described the _Prenostica_ as it is found in Digby 46, -fol. 40r-, with a picture at fol. 41v of Socrates seated and Plato -standing behind him and pointing. Ashmole 304 has the same text and -picture; and the text is practically the same in Sloane 3857, fols. -196-207, “_Documentum subsequentis considerationis quae Socratica -dicitur_.” In Additional 15236, 13-14th century, fols. 95r-108r, -the inquirer is first directed to implore divine aid and repeat a -Paternoster and Ave Maria, and some details are slightly different, but -the general method is identical. The final answers are given in French. -In BN 7420A, 14th century, fol. 126r- (or clxxxxvi, or col. 451), -“_Liber magni solacii socratis philosophi_” is also essentially the -same; indeed, its opening words are, “_Pronosticis Socratis basilii_.” -Preceding it are similar methods of divination, beginning at fol. 121v -(or clxxxxii or col. 440), “_Si vis operare de geomancia debes facere -quatuor lineas...._” Evidently the following is also our treatise: CU -Trinity 1404 (IV), 14-15th century, _Iste liber dicitur Rota fortune -in qua sunt 16 questiones determinate in pronosticis sententiat’_. -(sic) _basilici que sub sequentibus inscribuntur et sunt 12 spere et -16 Reges pro iudicibus constituti et habent determinare veritatem de -questionibus antedictis cum auxilio sortium_. James (III, 423) adds, -“The questions, tables, spheres, and Kings follow....” Our treatise is -also listed in John Whytefeld’s 1389 catalogue of MSS in Dover Priory, -No. 409, fol. 192v, _Pronostica socratis phi_. - -[314] These tracts of divination are found in Digby 46, fols. 52r-92r, -and partially in Ashmole 304, Sloane 3857, and Sloane 2472. - -[315] Sloane 2472, fol. 22r. - -[316] The word seems to be regularly so spelled in the middle ages, -although modern dictionaries give only aeromancy. - -[317] For instance, at Munich the following MSS are devoted to works of -geomancy: CLM 192, 196, 240, 242, 276, 392, 398, 421, 436, 456, 458, -483, 489, 541, 547, 588, 671, 677, 905, 11998, 24940, 26061, 26062. - -[318] For instance, Amplon. Quarto 174, 14th century, fol. 120, -_Geomancia parva_; Qu. 345, 14th century, fols. 47-50, _geomancia cum -theorica sua_; Qu. 361, 14th century, fols. 62-79, five treatises; Qu. -365, fol. 83; Qu. 368, 14th century, fol. 30; Qu. 374, 14th century, -fols. 1-60; Qu. 377, 14th century, fols. 70-76; Amplon. Octavo 88, 14th -century, fols. 5-10; Amplon. Duodecimo 17, 14th century, fols. 27-35. -Harleian 671; 4166, 15th century; Royal 12-C-XVI, 15th century; Sloane -887, 16th century, fols. 3-59; 1437, 16th century; 2186, 17th century; -3281, 13-14th century, fols. 25-34, “_Liber 28 iudicum_” or “_Liber -parcarum sive fatorum_.” - -[319] Additional 9600 is a geomancy in Arabic, and Addit. 8790, _La -Geomantia del S. Christoforo Cattaneo, Genonese, l’inventore di detta -Almadel Arabico_. - -[320] Vatic. Urbin. Lat. 262, 14-15th century, _Abdallah geomantiae -fragmenta_. Amplon. Folio 389, 14th century, fols. 56-99, _Geomantia -Abdalla astrologi cum figuris_; perhaps the same as Math. 47, -_Geomancia cum egregiis tabulis Abdana astrologi_, in the 1412 -catalogue. - -Amplon. Quarto 380, early 14th century, fols. 1-47, _geomancia optima -Abdallah filii Ali_. - -Magliabech. XX-13, 15th century, fols. 208-10, “_Il libro di Zaccheria -ebrio il quale compuose le tavole de giudici. Disse il famiglio di -Abdalla_....” - -[321] Amplon. Octavo 88, early 14th century, fols. 1-5, _geomancia -Albedato attributa_, fols. 107-10, _Albedatii de sortilegiis_. - -CLM 398, 14th century, fols. 106-14, “_Belio regi Persarum vates -Albedatus salutem_.” - -BN 7486, 14th century, fol. 46r-, _Albedaci philosophi ars punctorum_; -here the work is addressed to “_Delyo regi Persarum_” and is said to be -translated by “Euclid, king and philosopher.” It immediately follows -another geomancy by Alkardianus, of whom we have spoken elsewhere. - -Berlin 965, 16th century, fol. 64-, “_Incipit liber Albedachi vatis -Arabici de sortilegiis ad Delium regem Persarum / Finis adest libri -Algabri Arabis de sortilegiis_”; similarly Amplonius in 1412 listed -Math, 8, “_liber subtilis valde Algabre geomanticus ad futurorum -negociaciones_.” - -[322] Vienna 5508, 14-15th century, fols. 200-201v, “_Ego Alcherius -inter multa prodigia / nudus postea quolibet subhumetur_.” Is this the -Alcherius mentioned by Mrs. Merrifield (1849) I, 54-6 as copying in -1409 “Experiments with Color,” from a MS which he had borrowed? - -[323] CLM 489, 16th century, fols. 207-22, _Alchindi libellus de -geomantia_; also in CLM 392, 15th century. - -[324] Arundel 66, 15th century, fols. 269-77, “_Liber sciencie -arienalis de judicis geomansie ab Alpharino filio Abrahe Judeo editus -et a Platone de Hebreico sermone in Latinum translatus_.” - -CLM 11998, anno 1741, fol. 209-, _Alfakini Arabici filii quaestiones -geomantiae a Platone in Latinum translatae anno 1535_ (which cannot be -right). - -CU Magdalene College 27 (F. 4. 27, Haenel 23) late 14th century, fols. -120-125v, “_Incipit liber arenalis sciencie ab alfarino abizarch editus -et a Platone Tiburtino de Arabico in latinum translatus_.” - -[325] Bologna University Library 449, 14th century, “_Geomantia ex -Arabico translata per Magistrum Gerardum de Cremona. Si quis partem -geomanticam / multum bonum signi_.” - -Magliabech XX-13, fol. 61. - -Digby 74, 15-16th century, fols. 1-52. - -Sloane 310, 15th century. - -Amplon. Quarto 373, 14th century, fols. 1-31, with notes at 32-37. - -CLM 276, 14th century, fols. 69-75, _Geomantia mag. Gerardi Cremonensis -ab auctoribus via astronomice conposita_. - -Also printed under the title _Geomantia astronomica_ in H. C. Agrippa, -_Opera_, 1600, pp. 540-53. - -[326] See note 324. - -[327] CLM 489, 16th century, fol. 174-, _Michaelis Scoti geomantia_. - -[328] MSS of Hugo’s geomancy have already been listed in chapter 38, p. -86. - -[329] CLM 588, 14th century, fols. 6-58, “_Incipit geomantia a fratre -gilberto (?) de morbeca domini pape penitentionario compilata quam -magistro arnulfo nepoti suo commendavit_.” - -CLM 905, 15th century, fols. 1-64, _Wilhelmi de Morbeca Geomantia_. - -Wolfenbüttel 2725, 14th century, “_Geomantia fratris Guilhelmi de -Marbeta penitenciarii domini pape dedicata Arnulpho nepoti. Anno -domini millesimo ducentesimo octuagesimo octavo. Hoc opus est scientie -geomancie_.” - -Vienna 5508, 14-15th century, fol. 1-, “_Liber geomancie editus a -fratre Wilhelmo de Morbeta. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus / querenti vel -in brevi_.” - -Amplon. Quarto 373, 14th century, fols. 39-118; Qu. 377, 62-67; Qu. 384. - -For MSS in Paris see HL 21; 146. - -Magliabech. XX-13, 15th century, fol. 101-, in Italian. - -CU Trinity 1447, 14th century, fols. 1-112r, a French translation made -by Walter the Breton in 1347. He states that Moerbeke’s Latin version -was translated from the Greek. - -[330] Magliabech, XX-13, 15th century, fol. 210-, “_del detto Çacheria -Albiçarich_,” translated from Hebrew into Latin by “_maestro Saliceto_.” - -[331] CLM 392, 15th century; 489, 16th century, fol. 222, _Petri de -Abano Patavini modus iudicandi quaestiones_; in both MSS accompanied by -the geomancy ascribed to Alkindi. Printed in Italian translation, 1542. - -[332] BN 15353, 13-14th century, fol. 87-, _Archanum magni Dei -revelatum Tholomeo regi Arabum de reductione geomancie ad orbem, tr. de -Bernard de Gordon, datée de 1295_. - -[333] Harleian 2404, English hand, two geomancies (_Indeana_). - -Sloane 314, 15th century, fols. 2-64, Latin and French, “_Et est -Gremmgi Indyana, que vocatur filia astronomie quam fecit unus sapientum -Indie_.” - -With the opinions of Siger of Brabant in 1277 was condemned a book of -geomancy which opened “_Estimaverunt Indi_”; _Chart. Univ. Paris_, I, -543. - -CU Magdalene College 27 (F. 4. 27), late 14th century, fols. 72-88, -“_Hec est geomantia Indiana_.” - -[334] Sloane 3487, 15th century, fols. 2-193, _Geomantia Ro. -Scriptoris_, fol. 2r, “... _arabes antiquissimi et sapientes moderni -Guillelmus de morbeca, Bartholomeus de Parma, Gerardus Cremonensis, et -alii plures_.” - -[335] A geomancy by Ralph of Toulouse, however, preserved in a 14th -century MS, has, like Bernard’s, the four pages of key followed by -the twenty-eight pages of “judges of the fates,” from “_Almatene_” to -“_Algagalauro_.” Berlin 969, fol. 282-, “_Divinaciones magistri Radulfi -de Tolosa_.” - -[336] Arundel 66 (see above, p. 119, note 5); the portrait of Henry is -at fol. 201, at fols. 277v-87, “_Tabulae Humfridi Ducis Glowcestriae in -judiciis artis geomansie_.” - -[337] Corpus Christi 190, fols. 11-52, “_Explicit liber Geomancie -compilatus per magistrum Martinum Hispanum phisicum abbatem de Cernatis -in ecclesia Vurgensi quam composuit ad preces nobilis et discreti viri -domini Archimbaldi abbatis sancti Asteensis ac canonici Parisiensis_.” - -Ashmole 360-II, fols. 15-44, Explicit as above except “_Burgensi_,” -“_Archibaldi_,” and “_Astern_.” - -Also by the listing of geomancies in the medieval catalogues of -monastic libraries. See James, _Libraries of Canterbury and Dover_. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE EXPERIMENTARIUS OF BERNARD SILVESTER - - - Digby 46, 14th century, fols. 7v-39v. - - Ashmole 304, 13th century, fols. 2r-30v. - - Sloane 3857, 17th century, fols. 164-95. - -These three MSS are much alike both in the _Experimentarius_ proper and -the other tracts of divination which accompany it. Digby 46 has more -of them than either of the others and more pictures than Ashmole 304. -Sloane 3857 has no pictures. I have given the numbers of the folios -only for the _Experimentarius_ proper. - - Sloane 2472, a quarto in skin containing 30 leaves, dated - in the old written catalogue as late 12th, but in Scott’s - printed _Index_ as 14th century, fols. 3r-14v, the - prologue and 22 of 28 Judges of the first version; fols. - 15r-21v, the last part of the method of divination by the - 36 decans, “Thoas Iudex X” to “Sorab Iudex XXXVI”; fols. - 23r-30v, divination by planets and signs as in Digby 46. - - Sloane 3554, 15th century, contains the divination of - the physician of King Amalricus, the prologue of the - _Experimentarius_, and the second set only of 28 Judges. - -The following MSS also contain only this second version: - - Ashmole 342, early 14th century, #2. - - Ashmole 399, late 13th century, fols. 54-8. - - CU Trinity 1404 (II), 14-15th century, fols. 2-16. - - Royal 12-C-XII, fols. 108-23, has the second version of the - _Experimentarius_ but also a few of the other items of - divination found in Ashmole 304. - -The first set of 28 Judges is found without mention of Bernard -Silvester in the following MSS: - - BN 7486, 14th century, fol. 30v-, “Incipit liber alkardiani - phylosophi. Cum omne quod experitur sit experiendum - propter se vel propter aliud.” - - Additional 15236, 13-14th century, English hand, fols. - 130-52r, “libellus Alchandiandi”; and at fols. 95r-108r, - Prenosticon Socratis Basilei. - -The prologue of the _Experimentarius_ is found alone in - - Ashmole 345, late 14th century, fol. 64, “Bernardinus.” - - Bodleian (Bernard 2177, #6) Auct. F. 3. 13, fol. 104v, - “Bernardini silvestris.” - - - - -CHAPTER XL - -SAINT HILDEGARD OF BINGEN: 1098-1179 - - - Was Hildegard influenced by Bernard - Silvester?--(Bibliographical note)--Her personality - and reputation--Dates of her works--Question of - their genuineness--Question of her knowledge of - Latin--Subject-matter of her works--Relations - between science and religion in them--Her peculiar - views concerning winds and rivers--Her suggestions - concerning drinking-water--The devil as the negative - principle--Natural substances and evil spirits--Stars and - fallen angels; sin and nature--Nature in Adam’s time; - the antediluvian period--Spiritual lessons from natural - phenomena--Hildegard’s attitude toward magic--Magic Art’s - defense--True Worship’s reply--Magic properties of natural - substances--Instances of counter-magic--Ceremony with a - jacinth and wheaten loaf--Her superstitious procedure--Use - of herbs--Marvelous virtues of gems--Remarkable - properties of fish--Use of the parts of birds--Cures from - quadrupeds--The unicorn, weasel, and mouse--What animals to - eat and wear--Insects and reptiles--Animal compounds--Magic - and astrology closely connected--Astrology and divination - condemned--Signs in the stars--Superiors and inferiors; - effect of stars and winds on elements and humors--Influence - of the moon on human health and generation--Relation of the - four humors to human character and fate--Hildegard’s varying - position--Nativities for the days of the moon--Man the - microcosm--Divination in dreams. - - -[Sidenote: Was Hildegard influenced by Bernard Silvester?] - -The discussion of macrocosm and microcosm, _nous_ and _hyle_, by -Bernard Silvester in the _De mundi universitate_ is believed by Dr. -Charles Singer, in a recent essay on “The Scientific Views and Visions -of Saint Hildegard,” to have influenced her later writings, such as -the _Liber vitae meritorum_ and the _Liber divinorum operum_. He -writes “The work of Bernard ... corresponds so closely both in form, -in spirit, and sometimes even in phraseology to the _Liber divinorum -operum_ that it appears to us certain that Hildegard must have had -access to it.”[338] Without subscribing unreservedly to this view, -we pass on from the Platonist and geomancer of Tours to the Christian -“sibyl of the Rhine.”[339] - -[Sidenote: Her personality and reputation.] - -From repeated statements in the prefaces to Hildegard’s works, in -which she tells exactly when she wrote them and how old she was at -the time,--for not only was she not reticent on this point but her -different statements of her age at different times are all consistent -with one another--it is evident that she was born in 1098. Her -birthplace was near Sponheim. From the age of five, she tells us in the -_Scivias_, she had been subject to visions which did not come to her -in her sleep but in her wakeful hours, yet were not seen or heard with -the eyes and ears of sense. During her lifetime she was also subject -to frequent illness, and very likely there was some connection between -her state of health and her susceptibility to visions. She spent her -life from her eighth year in religious houses along the Nahe river, -and in 1147 became head of a nunnery at its mouth opposite Bingen, the -place with which her name was henceforth connected. She became famed -for her cures of diseases as well as her visions and ascetic life, and -it is Kaiser’s opinion that her medical skill contributed more to her -popular reputation for saintliness than all her writings. At any rate -she became very well known, and her prayers and predictions were much -sought after. Thomas Becket, who seems to have been rather too inclined -to pry into the future, as we shall see later, wrote asking for “the -visions and oracles of that sainted and most celebrated Hildegard,” -and inquiring whether any revelation had been vouchsafed her as to -the duration of the existing papal schism. “For in the days of Pope -Eugenius she predicted that not until his last days would he have peace -and grace in the city.”[340] It is very doubtful whether St. Bernard -visited her monastery and called the attention of Pope Eugenius III -to her visions, but her letters[341] show her in correspondence with -St. Bernard and several popes and emperors, with numerous archbishops -and bishops, abbots and other potentates, to whom she did not hesitate -to administer reproofs and warnings. For this purpose and to aid in -the repression of heresy she also made tours from Bingen to various -parts of Germany. There is some disagreement whether she died in 1179 -or 1180.[342] Proceedings were instituted by the pope in 1233 to -investigate her claims to sainthood, but she seems never to have been -formally canonized. Gebenon, a Cistercian prior in Eberbach, made a -compendium from her _Scivias_, _Liber divinorum operum_, and _Letters_, -“because few can own or read her works.”[343] - -[Sidenote: Dates of Hildegard’s works.] - -As was stated above, we can date some of Hildegard’s works with -exactness. In her preface to the one entitled _Scivias_[344] she says -that in the year 1141, when she was forty-two years and seven months -old, a voice from heaven bade her commit her visions to writing. She -adds that she scarcely finished the book in ten years, so we infer that -she was working at it from 1141 to 1150. This fits exactly with what -she tells us in the preface to the _Liber vitae meritorum_, which she -was divinely instructed to write in 1158, when she was sixty years old. -Moreover, she says that the eight years preceding, that is from 1151 -to 1158, had been spent in writing other treatises which also appear -to have been revealed in visions and among which were “_subtilitates -diversarum naturarum creaturarum_,” the title of another of her works -with which we shall be concerned. On the _Liber vitae meritorum_ she -spent five years, so it should have been completed by 1163. In that -year, the preface to the _Liber divinorum operum_ informs us,--and -the sixty-fifth year of her life--a voice instructed her to begin -its composition, and seven more years were required to complete it. -This leaves undated only one of the five works by her which we -shall consider, namely, the _Causae et curae_, or _Liber compositae -medicinae_ as it is sometimes called, while the _Subtilitates -diversarum naturarum creaturarum_ bears a corresponding alternative -title, _Liber simplicis medicinae_. - -[Sidenote: Question of their genuineness.] - -“Some would impugn the genuineness of all her writings,” says the -article on Hildegard in _The Catholic Encyclopedia_, “but without -sufficient reason.”[345] Kaiser, who edited the _Causae et curae_, -had no doubt that both it and the _Subtilitates_ were genuine works. -Recently Singer has excluded them both from his discussion of -Hildegard’s scientific views on the ground that they are probably -spurious, but his arguments are unconvincing. His objection that they -are full of German expressions which are absent in her other works is -of little consequence, since it would be natural to employ vernacular -proper names for homely herbs and local fish and birds and common -ailments, while in works of an astronomical and theological character -like her other visions there would be little reason for departing -from the Latin. Anyway Hildegard’s own assertion in the preface of -the _Liber vitae meritorum_ is decisive that she wrote that work. -The almost contemporary biography of her also states that she wrote -“certain things concerning the nature of man and the elements, and -of diverse creatures,”[346] which may be a blanket reference to the -_Causae et curae_ as well as the _Subtilitates diversarum naturarum -creaturarum_. The records which we have of the proceedings instituted -by the pope in 1233 to investigate Hildegard’s title to sainthood -mention both the _Liber simplicis medicinae_ and _Liber compositae -medicinae_ as her works; and later in the same century Matthew of -Westminster ascribed both treatises to her, stating further that the -_Liber simplicis medicinae secundum creationem_ was in eight books and -giving the full title of the other as _Liber compositae medicinae de -aegritudinum causis signis et curis_.[347] Kaiser has pointed out a -number of parallel passages in it and the _Subtilitates_, while its -introductory cosmology seems to me very similar to that of Hildegard’s -other three works. Indeed, as we consider the contents of these five -works together, it will become evident that the same peculiar views and -personality run through them all. - -[Sidenote: Question of Hildegard’s knowledge of Latin.] - -In the preface to the _Liber vitae meritorum_ Hildegard speaks of -a man and a girl who gave her some assistance in writing out her -visions.[348] From such passages in her own works and from statements -of her biographers and other writers[349] it has been inferred that she -was untrained in Latin grammar and required literary assistance.[350] -Or sometimes it is said that she miraculously became able to -speak and write Latin without having ever been instructed in that -language.[351] Certainly the _Causae et curae_ is a lucid, condensed, -and straightforward presentation which it would be very difficult to -summarize or excerpt. One must read it all, for further condensation -is impossible. One can hardly say as much for her other works, but a -new critical edition of them such as the _Causae et curae_ has enjoyed -might result in an improvement of the style. But our concern is rather -with their subject-matter. - -[Sidenote: Subject-matter of Hildegard’s works.] - -Three of the five works which we shall consider are written out in -the form of visions, and are primarily religious in their contents -but contain considerable cosmology and some human anatomy, as well as -some allusions to magic and astrology. The other two deal primarily -with medicine and natural science, and give no internal indication -of having been revealed in visions, presenting their material in -somewhat didactic manner, and being divided into books and chapters, -like other medieval treatises on the same subjects. As printed in -Migne, the _Subtleties of Different Natural Creatures_ or _Book of -Medicinal Simples_ is in nine books dealing respectively with plants, -elements, trees, stones, fish, birds, animals, reptiles, and metals. -In this arrangement there is no plan evident[352] and it would seem -more logical to have the books on plants and trees and stones and -metals together. In Schott’s edition of 1533 the discussion of stones -was omitted--perhaps properly, since Matthew of Westminster spoke of -but eight books--and the remaining topics were grouped in four books -instead of eight as in Migne. First came the elements, then metals, -then a third book treating of plants and trees, and a fourth book -including all sorts of animals.[353] That the _Subtleties_ was a widely -read and influential work is indicated by the number of manuscripts of -it listed by Schmelzeis and Kaiser. Of the five books of the _Causae -et curae_ the first, beginning with the creation of the universe, -Hyle, the creation of the angels, fall of Lucifer, and so forth, -deals chiefly with celestial phenomena and the waters of the sea and -firmament. The second combines some discussion of Adam and Eve and the -deluge with an account of the four elements and humors, human anatomy, -and various other natural phenomena.[354] With book three the listing -of cures begins and German words appear occasionally in the text. - -[Sidenote: Relations between science and religion in them.] - -So much attention to the Biblical story of creation and of Adam and Eve -as is shown in the first two books of the _Causae et curae_ might give -one the impression that Hildegard’s natural science is highly colored -by and entirely subordinated to a religious point of view. But this is -not quite the impression that one should take away. A notable thing -about even her religious visions is the essential conformity of their -cosmology and physiology to the then prevalent theories of natural -science. The theory of four elements, the hypothesis of concentric -spheres surrounding the earth, the current notions concerning veins and -humors, are introduced with slight variations in visions supposed to -be of divine origin. In matters of detail Hildegard may make mistakes, -or at least differ from the then more generally accepted view, and she -displays no little originality in giving a new turn to some of the -familiar concepts, as in her five powers of fire, four of air, fifteen -of water, and seven of earth.[355] But she does not evolve any really -new principles of nature. Possibly it is the spiritual application -of these scientific verities that is regarded as the pith of the -revelation, but Hildegard certainly says that she sees the natural -facts in her visions. The hypotheses of past and contemporary natural -science, somewhat obscured or distorted by the figurative and mystical -mode of description proper to visions, are embodied in a saint’s -reveries and utilized in inspired revelation. Science serves religion, -it is true, but religion for its part does not hesitate to accept -science. - -[Sidenote: Peculiar views concerning winds and rivers.] - -We cannot take the time to note all of Hildegard’s minor variations -from the natural science of her time, but may note one or two -characteristic points in which her views concerning the universe and -nature seem rather daring and unusual, not to say crude and erroneous. -In the _Scivias_ she represents a blast and lesser winds as emanating -from each of four concentric heavens which she depicts as surrounding -the earth, namely, a sphere of fire, a shadowy sphere like a skin, a -heaven of pure ether, and a region of watery air under it.[356] In the -_Liber divinorum operum_ she speaks of winds which drive the firmament -from east to west and the planets from west to east.[357] In the -_Subtilitates_ Hildegard seems to entertain the strange notion that -rivers are sent forth from the sea like the blood in the veins of the -human body.[358] One gets the impression that the rivers flow up-hill -toward their sources, since one reads that “the Rhine is sent forth by -the force of the sea”[359] and that “some rivers go forth from the sea -impetuously, others slowly according to the winds.” - -Since Hildegard lived on the Nahe or Rhine all her life she must -indeed have been absorbed in her visions and monastic life not to have -learned in which direction a river flows; and perhaps we should supply -the explanation, which she certainly does not expressly give in the -_Subtilitates_, that the sea feeds the rivers by evaporation or through -subterranean passages. Perhaps a passage in the _Causae et curae_ may -be taken as a correction or explanation of the preceding assertions, -in which case that work would seem to be of later date than the -_Subtilitates_. In it too Hildegard states that “springs and rivers” -which “flow from the sea” are better in the east than in the west, -but her next sentence straightway adds that they are salt and leave -a salt deposit on the sands where they flow which is medicinal.[360] -The waters rising from the southern sea are also spoken of by her as -salt.[361] Even in the _Causae et curae_ she speaks of the water of the -great sea which surrounds the world as forming a sort of flank to the -waters above the firmament.[362] - -[Sidenote: Suggestions concerning drinking-water.] - -On the subject of whether waters are wholesome to drink or not -Hildegard comes a trifle nearer the truth and somewhat reminds us of -the discussions of the same subject in Pliny and Vitruvius.[363] She -says that swamp water should always be boiled,[364] that well water is -better to drink than spring-water and spring-water than river water, -which should be boiled and allowed to cool before drinking;[365] -that rain-water is inferior to spring-water[366] and that drinking -snow-water is dangerous to the health.[367] The salt waters of the -west she regards as too turbid, while the fresh waters of the west are -not warmed sufficiently by the sun and should be boiled and allowed to -cool before using.[368] The salt waters arising from the south sea are -venomous from the presence in them of worms and small animals. Southern -fresh waters have been purged by the heat, but make the flesh of men -fatty and of black color.[369] Hildegard is not the first author to -advise the boiling of drinking-water,[370] but she certainly lays great -stress on this point. - -[Sidenote: The devil as the negative principle.] - -While the scheme of the universe put forward by ancient and medieval -science is, as we have seen, on the whole adopted even in Hildegard’s -most visionary writings, it is equally true that the religious interest -is by no means absent from her two works of medicine and natural -history. In the first place, the devil is a force in nature which she -often mentions. Her opening the _Causae et curae_ with a discussion -of creation--of course a usual starting-point with the medieval -scientist--soon leads her to speak of the fall of Lucifer. She has a -rather good theory that Lucifer in his perverse will strove to raise -himself to Nothing, and that since what he wished to do was Nothing, -he fell into nothingness and could not stand because he could find no -foundation under him.[371] But after the devil was unable to create -anything out of nothing and fell from heaven, God created the firmament -and sun, moon, and stars to show how great He was and to make the devil -realize what glory he had lost.[372] Other creatures who willingly -join themselves to the devil lose their own characteristics and become -nothing.[373] Lucifer himself is not permitted to move from Tartarus -or he would upset the elements and celestial bodies, but a throng -of demons of varying individual strength plot with him against the -universe.[374] But in other passages Hildegard seems to admit freely -the influence, if not the complete presence, of the devil in nature. -And he has the power of deceiving by assumed appearances, as Adam was -seduced by the serpent. - -[Sidenote: Natural substances and evil spirits.] - -Indeed, the dragon to this day hates mankind and has such a nature and -such diabolical arts in itself that sometimes when it emits its fiery -breath, the spirits of the air disturb the air.[375] This illustrates a -common feature of Hildegard’s natural history and pharmacy; namely, the -association of natural substances with evil spirits either in friendly -or hostile relationships. In the preface to the first book of the -_Subtleties_ she states that some herbs cannot be endured by demons, -while there are others of which the devil is fond and to which he joins -himself. In mandragora, for example, “the influence of the devil is -more present than in other herbs; consequently man is stimulated by -it according to his desires, whether they be good or bad.”[376] On -the other hand, the holm-oak is hostile to the spirits of the air; -one who sleeps under its shade is free from diabolical illusions, and -fumigating a house with it drives out the evil spirits.[377] Certain -fish, too, have the property of expelling demons, whether one eats -them or burns their livers or bones.[378] Finally, stones and metals -have their relations to evil spirits. It is advisable for a woman in -childbirth to hold the gem jasper in her hand, “in order that malignant -spirits of the air may be the less able to harm her and her child; -for the tongue of the ancient serpent extends itself towards the -perspiration of the child, as it emerges from the mother’s womb.”[379] -Not only does the touch of red-hot steel weaken the force of poison in -food or drink, but that metal also signifies the divinity of God, and -the devil flees from and avoids it.[380] - -[Sidenote: Stars and fallen angels: sin and nature.] - -It is perhaps not very surprising that we should find in Hildegard’s -works notions concerning nature which we met back in the Enoch -literature, since some of her writings take the same form of recorded -visions as Enoch’s, while one of them, the _Liber vitae meritorum_, -is equally apocalyptic. At any rate, in the _Scivias_ in the second -vision, where Lucifer is cast out of glory because of his pride, the -fallen angels are seen as a great multitude of stars, as in the _Book -of Enoch_, and we are told that the four elements were in harmony -before Lucifer’s fall.[381] The disturbing effect of sin, even human, -upon nature is again stated in the _Causae et curae_, where it is said -that normally the elements serve man quietly and perform his works. But -when men engage in wars and give way to hate and envy, the elements -are apt to rage until men repent and seek after God again.[382] In -the _Liber vitae meritorum_, too, the elements complain that they are -overturned and upset by human depravity and iniquity.[383] - -[Sidenote: Nature in Adam’s time: the antediluvian period.] - -The influence of the Christian religion is further shown and that of -the Bible in particular is manifested by numerous allusions to Adam -and the earliest period of Biblical history, but very few of them -find any justification in the scriptural narrative. Thus the _Liber -divinorum operum_ states[384] that after the fall of Adam and before -the deluge the sun and moon and planets and other stars were “somewhat -turbulent from excessive heat,” and that the men of that time possessed -great bodily strength in order that they might endure this heat. The -deluge reduced the temperature and men since have been weaker. In the -preface to the fifth book of the _Subtleties_ we are told that there -are certain plants which fish eat, and which, if man could procure and -eat, would enable him to go without food for four or five months. Adam -used to eat them at times after he had been cast out of Eden, but not -when he could get enough other food, as they make the flesh tough. In -the preface to the eighth book Hildegard says that all creatures were -good before Adam’s fall, but when Abel’s blood stained the soil noxious -humors arose from which venomous and deadly reptiles were generated. -These perished in the deluge, but others were generated from their -putrefying carcasses. In the _Causae et curae_, too, the names of Adam -and Eve occasionally appear in the chapter headings, for instance, “Of -Adam’s fall and of melancholy.”[385] - -[Sidenote: Spiritual lessons from natural phenomena.] - -Hildegard also held the view, common among medieval Christian writers, -that one purpose of the natural world about us is to illustrate the -spiritual world and life to come, and that invisible and eternal truths -may be manifested in visible and temporal objects. In the _Scivias_ -she hears a voice from heaven saying, “God who established all things -by His will, created them to make His Name known and honored, not -only moreover showing in the same what are visible and temporal, but -also manifesting in them what are invisible and eternal.”[386] But -neither Hildegard nor medieval Christians in general thought that -the only purpose of natural phenomena and science was to illustrate -spiritual truth and point a moral. But this always constituted a good -excuse which sounded well when one of the clergy wished to investigate -or write about things of nature. Not that we mean to question the -sincerity of the medieval writers one whit more than that of certain -“Christian colleges” of the present which deem it wise to demonstrate -their piety and orthodoxy by maintaining compulsory chapel attendance -and holding an occasional “Convocation.” But certainly our abbess of -Bingen in the course of her writings, especially the _Subtleties_ and -_Causae et curae_, lists many natural phenomena and medical recipes -without making any mention of what spiritual truth they may or may not -illustrate. - -[Sidenote: Hildegard’s attitude toward magic.] - -Associating natural substances as much with the devil or spirits of the -air as she does, it is not surprising that Hildegard believes in the -reality of magic and has something to say about it. Magic is regarded -by Hildegard as an evil and diabolical art. She describes it in a -vision of the _Scivias_, where God Himself is represented as speaking, -as the art of seeing and hearing the devil, which was taught to men -by Satan himself.[387] Similarly in the _Liber divinorum operum_ it -is stated that Antichrist will excel “in all diabolical arts” and in -“the magic art.”[388] This was of course the usual Christian view. -In the _Liber vitae meritorum_ with more apparent originality Magic -or _Maleficium_ is presented as one of the personified Vices and is -allowed to speak for itself. It is represented as having the body of a -dog, the head of a wolf, and the tail of a lion. This beast or image -speaks in its own praise and defense as follows. - -[Sidenote: Magic Art’s defense.] - -“Of Mercury and other philosophers I will say many things, who by their -investigations harnessed the elements in such wise that they discovered -most certainly everything that they wished. Those very daring and very -wise men learned such things partly from God and partly from evil -spirits. And why shouldn’t they? And they named the planets after -themselves, since they had made many investigations and learned a great -deal concerning the sun and moon and stars. I, moreover, rule and reign -wherever I list in those arts, forsooth in the heavenly luminaries, -in trees and herbs and all that grows in the earth, and in beasts and -animals upon the earth, and in worms both above and below the earth. -And on my marches who is there that resists me? God created all things, -so in these arts I do Him no injury. For He wishes it, as is proved in -His scriptures and perfect works. And what would be the advantage, if -His works were so blind that no cause could be studied in them? There -wouldn’t be any.”[389] - -[Sidenote: True Worship’s reply to Magic.] - -To this bold attempt of Magic to identify itself with scientific -investigation, the True Worship of God responds with the counter -question, “Whether it is more pleasing to God to adore Him or His -works?” and reminds _Maleficium_ that mere creatures which proceed -from God can give life to no one and that man is the only rational -created being. “You, moreover, O Magic Art, have the circle without -the center, and while you investigate many problems in the circle of -creation ... you have robbed God of His very name.” This reply does not -seem to separate magic and scientific investigation or to deny Magic’s -claim that they are identical, and its force would seem about as cogent -against science as against magic. But a little later in the same -work Hildegard reverts to her former charge that _maleficium_ is “by -diabolical arts,” and that its devotees “by directing all their works -to impurity turn their science also to the pursuit of evils.” “For they -name demons as their gods and worship them instead of God.”[390] - -[Sidenote: Magic properties of natural substances.] - -That magic, however diabolical it may be, does employ natural forces -and substances, is not only asserted by Magic Art itself, but freely -admitted by Hildegard in her discussions of the properties of animals, -plants, and minerals in her other two works, the _Subtleties of Diverse -Creatures_ and _Cases and Cures_. In the latter work she states that -while herbs in the east are full of virtue and have a good odor and -medicinal properties, those in the west are potent in the magic art -and for other phantasms but do not contribute much to the health of -the human body.[391] In the former work she tells that the tree-toad -is much employed in diabolical arts, especially when the trees are -beginning to leaf and blossom, since at this time the spirits of the -air are especially active.[392] Sometimes, however, there is a way to -remove this magic virtue from a natural substance. The root mandragora -“is no longer efficacious for magic and fantastic purposes,” if it is -purified in a fountain for a day and a night immediately after it has -been dug from the earth.[393] - -[Sidenote: Instances of counter-magic.] - -There are also substances which counteract magic. It has little force -in any place where a fir-tree grows, for the spirits of the air hate -and avoid such spots.[394] In the _Causae et curae_ Hildegard tells how -to compound a powder “against poison and against magic words.”[395] It -also “confers health and courage and prosperity on him who carries it -with him.” First one takes a root of geranium (_storkesnabil_) with its -leaves, two mallow plants, and seven shoots of the plantagenet. These -must be plucked at midday in the middle of April. Then they are to be -laid on moist earth and sprinkled with water to keep them green for a -while. Next they are dried in the setting sun and in the rising sun -until the third hour, when they should once more be laid on moist earth -and sprinkled with water until noon. Then they are to be removed and -placed facing the south in the full sunshine until the ninth hour, when -they should be wrapped in a cloth, with a stick on top to hold them in -place, until a trifle before midnight. Then the night begins to incline -towards day and all the evils of darkness and night begin to flee. A -little before midnight, therefore, they should be transferred to a high -window or placed above a door or in some garden where the cool air may -have access to them. As soon as midnight is passed, they are to be -removed once more, pulverized with the middle finger, and put in a new -pill-box with a little _bisemum_ to keep them from decaying but not a -sufficient quantity to overcome the scent of the herbs. A little of -this powder may be applied daily to the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, or -it may be bound on the body as an antiaphrodisiac, or it may be held -over wine without touching it but so that its odor can reach the wine, -which should then be drunk with a bit of saffron as a preventive of -indigestion, poison, magic, and so forth. - -[Sidenote: Ceremony with a jacinth and wheaten loaf.] - -In the _Subtilitates_[396] the following procedure is recommended, if -anyone is bewitched by phantasms or magic words so that he goes mad. -Take a wheaten loaf and cut the upper crust in the form of a cross. -First draw a jacinth through one line of the cross, saying, “May God -who cast away all the preciousness of gems from the devil when he -transgressed His precept, remove from you N. all phantasms and magic -words and free you from the ill of this madness.” Then the jacinth is -to be drawn through the other arm of the cross and this formula is to -be repeated, “As the splendor which the devil once possessed departed -from him because of his transgression, so may this madness which -harasses N. by varied phantasies and magic arts be removed from you -and depart from you.” The ceremony is then completed by the bewitched -person eating the bread around the cross. - -[Sidenote: Hildegard’s superstitious procedure.] - -These two illustrations make it apparent that Hildegard has a licit -magic of her own which is every whit as superstitious as the magic art -which she condemns. It is evident that she accepts not only marvelous -and occult virtues of natural substances such as herbs and gems, but -also the power of words and incantations, and rites and ceremonies of a -most decidedly magical character. In the second passage this procedure -assumed a Christian character, but the plucking and drying of the -herbs in the first passage perhaps preserves the flavor of primitive -Teutonic or Celtic paganism. Nor is such superstitious procedure -resorted to merely against magic, to whose operations it forms a sort -of homeopathic counterpart. It is also employed for ordinary medicinal -purposes, and is a characteristic feature of Hildegard’s conception of -nature and whole mental attitude. This we may further illustrate by -running through the books of the _Subtilitates_. - -[Sidenote: Use of herbs.] - -Except for passages connecting the devil with certain herbs which -we have already noted, Hildegard’s discussion of vegetation is for -the most part limited to medicinal properties of herbs, which are -effective without the addition of fantastic ceremonial. Sometimes -nevertheless the herbs are either prepared or administered in a rather -bizarre fashion. Insanity may be alleviated, we are told, by shaving -the patient’s head and washing it in the hot water in which _agrimonia_ -has been boiled, while the hot herbs themselves are bound in a cloth -first over his heart and then upon his forehead and temples.[397] An -unguent beneficial alike for digestive and mental disorders is made of -the bark, leaves, and bits of the green wood of the fir-tree, combined -with saliva to half their weight. This mess is to be boiled in water -until it becomes thick, then butter is to be added, and the whole -strained through a cloth.[398] The mandragora root should first be worn -bound between the breast and navel for three days and three nights, -then divided in halves and these bound on the thighs for three days -and three nights. Finally the left half of the root, which resembles -the human figure, should be pulverized, camphor added to it, and -eaten.[399] If a man is always sad and in the dumps, after purifying -the mandragora root in a fountain, let him take it to bed with him, -hold it so that it will be warmed by the heat of his body, and say, -“God, who madest man from the dust of the earth without grief, I now -place next me that earth which has never transgressed”--Hildegard has -already stated that the mandragora is composed “of that earth of which -Adam was created”--“in order that my clay may feel that peace just as -Thou didst create it.” That the prayer or incantation is more essential -than the virtue of the mandragora in this operation, is indicated by -the statement that shoots of beech, cedar, or aspen may be used instead -of the mandragora. - -[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues of gems.] - -Other marvelous effects than routing the devil, which Hildegard -attributes to gems in the course of the fourth book of the -_Subtilitates_, are to confer intellect and science for the day, to -banish anger and dulness, bestow an equable temper, restrain lust, -cure all sorts of diseases and infirmities, endow with the gift of -sound speech, prevent thefts at night, and enable one to fast. These -marvelous results are produced either by merely having the stone in -one’s possession, or by holding it in the hand, placing it next the -skin, taking it to bed with one and warming it by the heat of the body, -breathing on it, holding it in the mouth especially when fasting, -suspending it about the neck, or making the sign of the cross with -it. In the cure of insanity by use of the magnet the stone should be -moistened with the patient’s saliva and drawn across his forehead -while an incantation is repeated.[400] A man may be brought out of -an epileptic fit by putting an emerald in his mouth.[401] Having -recovered, he should remove the gem from his mouth and say, “As the -spirit of the Lord filled the earth, so may His grace fill the temple -of my body that it may never be moved.” This ceremony is to be repeated -on nine successive mornings, and that here the gem is as important -as the prayer is indicated by the direction that the patient should -have the gem with him each time and take it out and look at it as he -repeats the incantation. Different is the procedure for curing epilepsy -by means of the gem _achates_.[402] In this case the stone should be -soaked in water for three days at the full moon; this water should -be slightly warmed, and then preserved, and all the patient’s food -cooked in it _dum luna tota crescat_. The gem should also be placed -in everything that he drinks. This astrological procedure is to be -repeated for ten months. - -[Sidenote: Remarkable properties of fish.] - -We have already heard that certain fish have the property of expelling -demons. Fish also have other remarkable virtues. The eye of a -_copprea_, worn in a gold or silver ring so that it touches one’s -finger, arouses a sluggish intellect.[403] The lung of a tunny fish, -taken in water, is good for a fever, and it keeps one in good health -to wear shoes and a belt made of its skin.[404] Pulverized salmon -bones are recommended for bad teeth.[405] But eating the head of a -_barbo_ gives one a headache and fever.[406] Hildegard also tells some -wonderful stories concerning the modes of generation of different -varieties of fish. In the _Causae et curae_[407] for dimness of the -eyes it is recommended to dry some walrus skin in the sun, soften it in -pure wine, and apply it in a cloth between the eyes at night. It should -be removed at midnight and applied only on alternate nights for a week. -“Either it will remove dimness of the eyes, or God does not permit this -to be done.” - -[Sidenote: Use of the parts of birds.] - -To render available or to enhance the occult virtues of birds Hildegard -suggests a great amount of complicated ceremonial. The heart of a -vulture, split in two, dried before a slow fire and in the sun, and -worn sewn up in a belt of doeskin, makes one tremble in the presence -of poison.[408] This is explained by the vulture’s own antipathy -to poison, which is increased and purified by the fire, sun, and -especially by the belt, for the doe is swifter and more sensitive -than other animals. Mistiness is marvelously removed from the eyes -by catching a nightingale before day-break, adding a single drop of -dew found on clean grass to its gall, and anointing the eyebrows -and lashes frequently with the same.[409] Another eye-cure consists -in cooking a heron’s head in water, removing its eyes, alternately -drying them in the sun and softening them in cold water for three -successive times, pulverizing and dissolving them in wine, and at -night frequently touching the eyes and lids with the tip of a feather -dipped in this concoction.[410] The blood of a crane, dried and -preserved, and its right foot are employed in varied ways to facilitate -child-birth.[411] Hildegard also often tells how to make a medicinal -unguent by cooking some bird in some prescribed manner and then -pulverizing certain portions of the carcass with various herbs or other -animal substances.[412] Even without the employment of ceremonial -sufficiently remarkable powers are attributed to the bodies or parts -of birds. Eating the flesh of one reduces fat and benefits epileptics, -while eating its liver is good for melancholy.[413] The liver of a -swan has the different property of purifying the lungs, while the lung -of a swan is a cure for the spleen.[414] Again, a heron’s liver cures -stomach trouble, while a cure for spleen is to drink water in which its -bones have been stewed, and if one who is sad eats its heart, it will -make him glad.[415] - -[Sidenote: Cures from quadrupeds.] - -Hildegard’s chapters on quadrupeds are so delightfully quaint that I -cannot pass them over, although the properties which she attributes -to them and the methods by which their virtues are utilized are not -essentially different from those in examples already given. The camel, -however, is peculiar in that its different humps have quite different -virtues.[416] The one next to its neck has the virtues of the lion; the -second, those of the leopard; the third, those of the horse. A cap of -lion’s skin cures ailments of the head whether physical or mental.[417] -Deafness may be remedied by cutting off a lion’s right ear and holding -it over the patient’s ear just long enough to warm it and to say, “Hear -_adimacus_ by the living God and the keen virtue of a lion’s hearing.” -This process is to be repeated many times. The heart of a lion is -somewhat similarly employed, but without any incantation, to make a -stupid person prudent. Burying a lion’s heart in the house is regarded -as fire insurance against its being struck by lightning, “for the lion -is accustomed to roar when he hears thunder.” Digestion is aided by -drinking water in which the dried liver of a lion has been left for -a short time. Placing a bit of the skin from between a bear’s eyes -over one’s heart removes timidity and anxiety.[418] If anyone suffers -from paralysis or one of those changeable diseases which wax and wane -with the moon like lunacy, let him select a spot where an ass has been -slain, or has died a natural death, or has wallowed, and let him -spread a cloth on the grass or ground and repose there a short time and -sleep if he can. Afterwards you should take him by the right hand and -say, “Lazarus slept and rested and rose again; and as Christ roused -him from foul decay, so may you rise from this perilous pestilence -and the changing phases of fever in that conjunction in which Christ -applied Himself to the alleviation of such complaints, prefiguring -that He would redeem man from his sins and raise him from the dead.” -With a brief interval of time allowed between, the same performance -is to be repeated thrice in the same place on the same day, and then -again thrice on the next and the third days, when the patient will be -cured.[419] - -[Sidenote: The unicorn, weasel, and mouse.] - -The liver and skin of the unicorn have great medicinal virtues, but -that animal can never be caught except by means of girls, for it flees -from men but stops to gaze diligently at girls, because it marvels -that they have human forms, yet no beards. “And if there are two or -three girls together, it marvels so much the more and is the more -quickly captured while its eyes are fixed on them. Moreover, the girls -employed in capturing it should be of noble, not peasant birth, and -of the middle period of adolescence.”[420] When one weasel is sick, -another digs up a certain herb and breathes and urinates on it for an -hour, and then brings it to the sick weasel who is cured by it.[421] -But what this herb is is unknown to men and other animals, and it would -do them no good if they did know it, since its unaided virtue is not -efficacious, nor would the action of their breath or urine make it -so. But the heart of a weasel, dried and placed with wax in the ear, -benefits headache or deafness, and the head of a weasel, worn in two -pieces in a belt next the skin, strengthens and comforts the bearer and -keeps him from harm. The mouse, besides being responsible for two other -equally marvelous cures, is a remedy for epilepsy. “For inasmuch as the -mouse runs away from everything, therefore it drives away the falling -disease.”[422] It should be put in a dish of water, and the patient -should drink some of this water and also wash his feet and forehead in -it. - -[Sidenote: What animals to eat and wear.] - -Hildegard gives some strange advice what animal products to eat and -wear. “Sheepskins are good for human wear, because they do not induce -pride or lust or pestilence as the skins of certain other animals -do.”[423] Pork is not good for either sick or healthy persons to eat, -in her opinion, while beef, on account of its intrinsic cold, is not -good for a man of cold constitution to eat.[424] On the other hand, she -recommends as edible various birds which would strike the modern reader -as disgusting.[425] - -[Sidenote: Insects and reptiles.] - -Fleas remain underground in winter but come forth to plague mankind -when the sun dries the soil in summer. But one may be rid of them by -heating some earth until it is quite dry and then scattering it upon -the bed.[426] Hildegard also describes a complicated cure for leprosy -by use of the earth from an ant-hill.[427] If a man kills a certain -venomous snake just after it has skinned itself in the cleft of a rock, -and cautiously removes its heart and dries the same in the sun, and -then preserves it in a thin metal cover, it will serve as an amulet. -Holding it in his hand will render him immune to venom and cheer him up -if he becomes gloomy or sorrowful.[428] - -[Sidenote: Animal compounds.] - -In the _Causae et curae_ Hildegard combines the virtues of parts of a -number of animals into one composite medicine for epilepsy.[429] Four -parts of dried mole’s blood are used because the mole sometimes shows -himself and sometimes hides, like the epilepsy itself. Two parts of -powdered duck’s bill are added because the duck’s strength is in its -beak, “and because it touches both pure and impure things with its -bill, it is repugnant to this disease which is sudden and silent.” One -portion of the powdered claws of a goose, minus the skin and flesh, is -added for much the same reason, and the claw of a goose rather than a -gander is required because the female bird is the more silent of the -two. These constituents are bound together in a cloth, placed for three -days near a recent molecast,--for such earth is more wholesome, then -are put near ice to cool and then in the sun to dry. Cakes are then to -be made with this powder and the livers of some edible animal and bird -and a little meal and cummin seed, and eaten for five days. Against -diabolical phantasms is recommended a belt made of the skin of a -roebuck, which is a pure animal, and of the skin of the _helun_, which -is a brave beast, and hence both are abhorred by evil spirits.[430] -The two strips of skin are to be fastened together by four little -steel[431] nails, and as each is clasped one repeats the formula, “In -the most potent strength of almighty God I adjure you to safeguard me”; -only in the second, third, and fourth instance instead of saying “I -adjure” (_adiuro_), the words _benedico_, _constituo_, and _confirmo_ -are respectively substituted. One should be girded with this belt night -and day, and magic words will not harm one. - -[Sidenote: Magic and astrology closely connected.] - -We have already encountered more than one instance of observance of -the phases of the moon in Hildegard’s medicinal and magical procedure, -and have met in one of her formulae a hint that Christ employed -astrological election of a favorable conjunction in performing His -miracles. Thus as usual the influence of the stars is difficult to -separate from other occult virtues of natural substances, and we may -complete our survey of Hildegard’s writings by considering her views -concerning the celestial bodies and divination of the future. - -[Sidenote: Astrology and divination condemned.] - -In the passage of the _Scivias_ to which we have already referred God -condemned astrology and divination as well as magic.[432] _Mathematici_ -are called “deadly instructors and followers of the Gentiles in -unbelief,” and man is reproved for believing that the stars allot -his years of life and regulate all human actions, and for cultivating -in the place of his Creator mere creatures such as the stars and -heavens, which cannot console or help him, or confer either prosperity -or happiness. Man should not consult the stars as to the length of -his life, which he can neither know beforehand nor alter. He should -not seek signs of the future in either stars or fire or birds or any -other creature. “The error of augury” is expressly rebuked. Man should -abstain not only from worshiping or invoking the devil but from making -any inquiries from him, “since if you wish to know more than you -should, you will be deceived by the old seducer.” - -[Sidenote: Signs in the stars.] - -It is true that sometimes by divine permission the stars are signs to -men, for the Son of God Himself says in the Gospel by Luke that “There -shall be signs in the sun and moon and stars,” and His incarnation was -revealed by a star. But it is a stupid popular error to suppose that -other men each have a star of their own, and, continues God, speaking -through the medium of Hildegard, “That star brought no aid to My Son -other than that it faithfully announced His incarnation to the people, -since all stars and creatures fear Me and simply fulfill My dictates -and have no signification of anything in any creature.” This last -observation receives further interpretation in a passage of the _Causae -et Curae_[433] which explains that the stars sometimes show many signs, -but not of the future or hidden thoughts of men, but of matters which -they have already revealed by act of will or voice or deed, so that the -air has received an impression of it which the stars can reflect back -to other men if God allows it. But the sun and moon and planets do not -always thus portray the works of men, but only rarely, and in the case -of some great event affecting the public welfare. - -[Sidenote: Superiors and inferiors; effect of stars and winds on -elements and humors.] - -If the stars do not even signify the fate and future of man, they -are none the less potent forces and, under God, causes in the world -of nature. “God who created all things,” writes Hildegard in the -_Liber divinorum operum_,[434] “so constituted superiors that He also -strengthens and purifies things below through these, and in the human -form introduces also those things allotted for the soul’s salvation.” -This passage has two sides; it affirms the rule of superiors over -inferiors, but it makes special provision for the salvation of the -human soul. And thus it is a good brief summary of Hildegard’s -position. Sun, moon, and stars are represented as by the will of God -cooperating with the winds--which play an important part in Hildegard’s -cosmology--in driving the elements to and fro;[435] and the humors in -the human body now rage fiercely like the leopard, now move sluggishly -like the crab, now proceed in other ways analogous to the wolf or deer -or bear or serpent or lamb or lion--animals whose heads, belching -forth winds, are seen in the vision about the rim of the heavenly -spheres.[436] They suggest the influence of the signs of the zodiac, -although there appears to be no exact correspondence to these in -Hildegard’s visionary scheme of the universe as detailed in the _Liber -divinorum operum_. In the _Causae et curae_, on the other hand, she -gives a detailed account of how pairs or triplets of planets accompany -the sun through each of the twelve signs.[437] In other passages[438] -she affirms that the sun and moon serve man by divine order, and bring -him strength or weakness according to the temper of the air. - -[Sidenote: Influence of the moon on human health and generation.] - -Hildegard more especially emphasizes the influence of the moon, in -which respect she resembles many an astrologer. In the _Causae et -curae_[439] she states that some days of the moon are good, others -bad; some, useful and others, useless; some, strong and others, weak. -“And since the moon has this changeability in itself, therefore the -moisture in man has its vicissitudes and mutability in pain, in labor, -in wisdom, and in prosperity.” Similarly in the _Liber divinorum -operum_[440] it is noted that human blood and brain are augmented when -the moon is full and diminish as it wanes, and that these changes -affect human health variously. Sometimes one incurs epilepsy when -the moon is in eclipse.[441] The moon is the mother of all seasons. -Hildegard marvels in the _Causae et curae_[442] that while men have -sense enough not to sow crops in mid-summer or the coldest part of -winter, they persist in begetting offspring at any time according to -their pleasure without regard either to the proper period of their -own lives or to the time of the moon. The natural consequence of -their heedlessness is the birth of defective children. Hildegard then -adds[443] by way of qualification that the time of the moon does not -dominate the nature of man as if it were his god, or as if man received -any power of nature from it, or as if it conferred any part of human -nature. The moon simply affects the air, and the air affects man’s -blood and the humors of his body. - -[Sidenote: Relations of the four humors to human character and fate.] - -Hildegard, however, not only believed that as the humors were perturbed -and the veins boiled, the health of the body would be affected and -perhaps a fever set in,[444] but also that passions, such as wrath -and petulance, were thereby aroused and the mind affected.[445] This -is suggested in a general way in the _Liber divinorum operum_, but is -brought out in more detail in the _Causae et curae_, where various -types of men are delineated according to the combinations of humors in -their bodies, and their characters are sketched and even their fate to -some extent predicted therefrom. In one case[446] “the man will be a -good scholar, but headlong and too vehement in his studies, so that he -scatters his knowledge over too wide a field, as straw is blown by the -wind; and he seeks to have dominion over others. In body he is healthy -except that his legs are weak and he is prone to gout; but he can -live a long while, if it so please God.” Such a passage hardly sounds -consistent with Hildegard’s statement elsewhere already noted that man -cannot know the length of his life beforehand. In the case of choleric, -sanguine, melancholy, and phlegmatic men[447] Hildegard states what -the relations of each type will be with women and even to some extent -what sort of children they will have. She also discusses four types of -women in very similar style.[448] These are not exactly astrological -predictions, but they have much the same flavor and seem to leave -little place for freedom of the will. - -[Sidenote: Hildegard’s varying position.] - -In one passage, however, Hildegard comfortingly adds that nevertheless -the Holy Spirit can penetrate the whole nature of man and overcome his -mutable nature as the sun dispels clouds, and so counteract the moist -influence of the moon. She also states concerning the significations -of the stars concerning man’s future, “These significations are not -produced by the virtue of the planets themselves alone or stars or -clouds, but by the permission and will and decree of God, according as -God wished to demonstrate to men the works of the same, just as a coin -shows the image of its lord.”[449] In another passage, on the other -hand, Hildegard recognizes, like Aquinas later, that it is only rarely -and with difficulty that the flesh can be restrained from sinning.[450] - -[Sidenote: Nativities for the days of the moon.] - -Finally, the _Causae et curae_ close with predictions for each day of -the moon of the type of male or female who will be conceived on that -day.[451] Selecting the eighteenth day by lot as an example of the -others, we read that a male conceived then will be a thief and will be -caught in the act and will be deprived of his landed property so that -he possesses neither fields nor vineyards, but strives to take from -others what is not his. He will be healthy in body and live a long -life, if left to himself. A woman conceived on that day will be cunning -and deceitful of speech and will lead upright men to death if she can. -She too will be sound of body and naturally long-lived, but sometimes -insane. Hildegard then seems to feel it advisable to add, “But such -morals, both in men and in women, are hateful to God.” - -[Sidenote: Man the microcosm.] - -The theory of macrocosm and microcosm had a considerable attraction -for Hildegard. At the beginning of the _Causae et curae_ she exclaims, -“O man, look at man! For man has in himself heavens and earth ... -and in him all things are latent.”[452] Presently she compares the -firmament to man’s head, sun, moon, and stars to the eyes, air to -hearing, the winds to smelling, dew to taste, and “the sides of the -world” to the arms and sense of touch. The earth is like the heart, and -other creatures in the world are like the belly.[453] In the _Liber -divinorum operum_ she goes into further detail. Between the divine -image in human form which she sees in her visions and the wheel or -sphere of the universe she notes such relationships as these. The sun -spreads its rays from the brain to the heel, and the moon directs its -rays from the eyebrows to the ankles.[454] Elsewhere she says, “The -eyebrows of man declare the journeyings of the moon, namely, the one -route by which it approaches the sun in order to restore itself, and -the other by which it recedes after it has been burnt by the sun.”[455] -Again, from the top of the cerebral cavity to “the last extremity of -the forehead” there are seven distinct and equal spaces, by which are -signified the seven planets which are equidistant from one another -in the firmament.[456] An even more surprising assumption as to -astronomical distances is involved in the comparison[457] that as the -three intervals between the top of the human head and the end of the -throat and the navel and the groin are all equal, so are the spaces -intervening between the highest firmament and lowest clouds and the -earth’s surface and center. Corresponding to these intervals Hildegard -notes three ages of man, infancy, adolescence, and old age. One more -passage may be noted, since it also involves a similar explanation -of weeping for joy to that given by Adelard of Bath. As the heart is -stirred by emotion, whether of joy or of sorrow, humors are excited in -the lungs and breast which rise to the brain and are emitted through -the eyes in the form of tears. And in like manner, when the moon begins -to wax or wane, the firmament is disturbed by winds which raise fogs -from the sea and other waters.[458] - -[Sidenote: Divination in dreams.] - -If Hildegard resorts to a magic of her own in order to counteract the -diabolical arts, and if she accepts a certain amount of astrological -doctrine for all her censure of it, it is not surprising to find her -in the _Causae et curae_ saying a word in favor of natural divination -in dreams despite her rejection of augury and such arts. She believes -that, when God sent sleep to Adam before he had yet sinned, his soul -saw many things in true prophecy, and that the human soul may still -sometimes do the same, although too often it is clouded by diabolical -illusions.[459] But when the body is in a temperate condition and the -marrow warmed in due measure, and there is no disturbance of vices or -contrariety of morals, then very often a sleeper sees true dreams.[460] -Hildegard’s own visions, as we have seen, came to her in her waking -hours. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[338] Singer (1917) p. 19. - -[339] Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. 197. This volume contains the -account of Hildegard in the _Acta Sanctorum_, including the _Vita -sanctae Hildegardis auctoribus Godefrido et Theodorico monachis_, etc.; -the _Subtilitatum diversarum naturarum creaturarum libri novem_, as -edited by Daremberg and Reuss; the _Scivias_ and the _Liber divinorum -operum simplicis hominis_. I shall cite this in the following chapter -simply as _Migne_ without repeating the number of the volume. - -Pitra, _Analecta sacra_, vol. VIII (1882). This volume contains -the only printed edition of the _Liber vitae meritorum_, pp. -1-244,--Heinemann, in describing a thirteenth century copy of it (MS -1053, S. Hildegardis liber meritorum vite) in 1886 in his Catalogue -of Wolfenbüttel MSS, was therefore mistaken in speaking of it as -“unprinted,”--an imperfect edition of the _Liber compositae medicinae -de aegritudinum causis signis atque curis_, and other works by -Hildegard. - -A better edition of the last named work is: _Hildegardis causae et -curae_, ed. Paulus Kaiser, Leipzig, Teubner, 1903. - -Earlier editions of the _Subtilitates_ were printed at Strasburg by J. -Schott in 1533 and 1544 as follows: - -_Physica S. Hildegardis elementorum fluminum aliquot Germaniae -metallorum leguminum fructuum et herbarum arborum et arbustorum piscium -denique volatilium et animantium terrae naturas et operationes IV -libris mirabili experientia posteritati tradens_, Argentorati, 1533. - -_Experimentarius medicinae continens Trotulae curandarum aegritudinum -muliebrum ... item quatuor Hildegardis de elementorum fluminum aliquot -Germaniae metallorum ... herbarum piscium et animantium terrae naturis -et operationibus_, ed. G. Kraut, 1544. - -F. A. Reuss, _De libris physicis S. Hildegardis commentatio -historico-medica_, Würzburg, 1835. - -F. A. Reuss, _Der heiligen Hildegard Subtilitatum diversarum naturarum -creaturarum libri novem, die werthvolleste Urkunde deutscher Natur- und -Heilkunde aus dem Mittelalter_. In _Annalen des Vereins für Nassau. -Alterthumskunde und Geschichtsforschung_, Bd. VI, Heft i, Wiesbaden, -1859. - -Jessen, C. in _Sitzb. Vienna, Math, naturw. Klasse_, (1862) XLV, i. 97. - -Jessen, C. _Botanik in kulturhistorischer Entwickelung_, Leipzig, 1862, -pp. 124-26. - -Jessen, C. in _Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit_, (1875), p. -175. - -Von der Linde, _Die Handschriften der Kgl. Landesbibl. in Wiesbaden_, -Wiesbaden, 1877. - -Schmelzeis, J. Ph. _Das Leben und Wirken der hl. Hildegardes_, -Freiburg, 1879. - -Battandier, A. “Sainte Hildegarde, sa vie et ses œuvres,” in _Revue des -questions historiques_, XXXIII (1883), 395-425. - -Roth, F. W. E. in _Zeitsch. für kirchl. Wissenschaft u. kirchl. Leben_, -Leipzig, IX (1888), 453. - -Kaiser, P. _Die Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften der hl. Hildegard_, -Berlin, 1901. (_Schulprogramm des Königsstädtischen Gymnasiums in -Berlin._) A pamphlet of 24 pages. See also his edition, mentioned -above, of the _Causae et curae_. - -Singer, Chas. “The Scientific Views and Visions of Saint Hildegard,” in -_Studies in the History and Method of Science_, Oxford, 1917, pp. 1-55. -Dr. Singer seems unacquainted with the above work by Kaiser, writing -(p. 2) “The extensive literature that has risen around the life and -works of Hildegard has come from the hands of writers who have shown no -interest in natural knowledge.” Yet see also - -Wasmann, E. “Hildegard von Bingen als älteste deutsche -Naturforscherin,” in _Biologisches Zentralblatt_ XXXIII (1913) 278-88. -Herwegen in the _Kirchl. Handlexicon_ (1908), I, 1970. - -[340] Migne, 28, citing Baronius, _Ann._ 1148, from _Epist. S. Thomas_, -I, 171. - -[341] I have noted one MS of them in the British Museum, Harleian 1725. - -[342] Migne, 84-85, 129-130. - -[343] CLM 2619, 13th century, Gebenonis prioris Cisterc. in Eberbach, -Speculum futurorum temporum sive Compendium prophetiarum S. -Hildegardis; also, at Rome, Bibl. Alex. 172, 14th century, fols. 1-29. - -[344] Early MSS of the _Liber Scivias simplicis hominis_ are Palat. -Lat. 311, 12th century, 204 fols.; Merton 160, early 13th century. - -[345] Citing Preyer, _Gesch. d. deutsch. Mystik._ 1874; Hauck, -_Kirchengesch_, _Deutsch_. IV, 398; Von Winterfeld, _Neue Archiv_, -XXVII, 297. - -[346] Migne, 101, _quaedam de natura hominis et elementorum, -diversarumque creaturarum_. Singer, taking the words as an exact title -of one work, tries to deny that they apply even to the _Subtilitates_; -but the writer of the _Vita_ is obviously simply giving a general idea -of the subjects treated by Hildegard. - -[347] In what is so far the only known extant copy, a thirteenth -century MS at Copenhagen, which Jessen discovered in 1859 and called -attention to in 1862 (_Act. Acad. Vindob._, XLV, i. 97-116), the -Titulus is _Causae et curae_ (shown in facsimile by Singer (1917), -Plate 5a.) - -[348] Pitra, 7-8, “Et ego testimonio hominis illius quem ut in -prioribus visionibus praefata sum occulte quaesieram et inveneram et -testimonio cuiusdam puellae mihi assistentis manus ad ascribendum -posui.” - -[349] Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum historiale_, XXVII, 83, and other -actors cited from the _Acta Sanctorum_ in Migne, col. 197. - -[350] This may be a further explanation of the use of German words in -some of her works and their absence in others. - -[351] Migne, 17, 19-20, 73-74, 93, 101. - -[352] It is, however, the order in at least one of the MSS, -Wolfenbüttel 3591, 14th century, fols. 1-174, except that the second -book is called Of rivers instead of, Of elements: “_B. Hildegardis -Physica seu liber subtilitatum de diversis creaturis, scilicet f. 2 de -herbis, f. 62 de fluminibus, f. 67 de arboribus, f. 90 de lapidibus -preciosis, f. 106v de piscibus, f. 120 de volatilibus, f. 141 de -animalibus, f. 162 de vermibus, f. 168 de metallis._” - -[353] It was, however, subdivided into three parts, treating -respectively of fish, fowl, and other animals. - -[354] The variety and confusing order of its contents may be best -and briefly indicated by a list of chapter heads (pp. 33-52): _De -Adae casu_, _de spermate_, _de conceptu_, _quare homo hirsutus -est_, _de reptilibus_, _de volatilibus_, _de piscibus_, _de -conceptus diversitate_, _de infirmitatibus_, _de continentia_, _de -incontinentia_, _de flegmaticis_, _de melancholis_, _de melancholice -morbo_, _de elementorum commixtione_, _de rore_, _de pruina_, _de -nebula_, _quod quatuor sunt elementa tantum_, _de anima et spiritibus_, -_de Adae creatione_, _de capillis_, _de interioribus hominis_, _de -auribus_, _de oculis et naribus_, _quod in homine sunt elementa_, _de -sanguine_, _de carne_, _de generatione_, _de Adae vivificatione_, _de -Adae prophetia_, _de animae infusione_, _de Adae somno_, _de Evae -malitia_, _de exilio Adae_, _quare Eva prius cecidit_, _de diluvio_, -_quare filii Dei_, _de lapidum gignitione_, _de iri_, _de terrae situ_, -_quod homo constat de elementis_, _de flegmate diversitate_, _de -humoribus_, _de frenesi_, _de contractis_, _de stultis_, _de paralysi_. - -[355] _Causae et curae_, pp. 20 and 30. - -[356] Migne, 403-4. - -[357] Migne, 791-95. - -[358] _Subtilitates_, II, 3 (Migne, 1212), _Mare flumina emittit quibus -terra irrigatur velut sanguine venarum corpus hominis_. - -[359] _Subtilitates_, II, 5 (Migne), _Rhenus a mari impetu emittitur_. -Singer (p. 14) is so non-plussed by this that he actually interprets -_mari_ as the lake of Constance, and asks, questioning Hildegard’s -authorship of the _Subtilitates_, “How could she possibly derive all -rivers, Rhine and Danube, Meuse and Moselle, Nahe and Glan, from the -same lake, as does the author of the _Liber subtilitatum_?” - -That all waters, fresh or salt, came originally from the sea is -asserted in the _Secretum Secretorum_ of the Pseudo-Aristotle, as -edited by Roger Bacon: Steele (1920), p. 90. - -[360] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 24. - -[361] _Ibid._, p. 25. - -[362] _Ibid._, p. 23. - -[363] See Vitruvius, Book VIII, chapters 2-4, on “Rain-water,” “Various -Properties of Different Waters,” and “Tests of Good Water.” Pliny, -NH, Book XXXI, chapters 21-23, on “The Wholesomeness of Waters,” “The -Impurities of Water,” “Modes of Testing Water.” - -[364] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 27. - -[365] _Ibid._, p. 28. - -[366] Vitruvius held that rain-water was unusually wholesome, but Pliny -disputed this notion. - -[367] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 30, “si quis eam bibit, ulcera et -scabies in eo saepissime crescunt ac viscera eius livore implentur.” -Pliny noted the belief that ice-water and snow-water were unhealthy, -and both he (XXXVII, 11) and Vitruvius speak of Alpine streams which -cause diseases or swellings in the throat. - -[368] _Causae et curae_ (1903), pp. 24-25. - -[369] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 26. - -[370] Both Vitruvius and Pliny mention the practice, and the latter -calls it an invention of the emperor Nero. A note, however, in Bostock -and Riley’s translation of the _Natural History_ states that Galen -ascribed the practice to Hippocrates and that Aristotle was undoubtedly -acquainted with it. When Pliny goes on to say, “Indeed, it is generally -admitted that all water is more wholesome when it has been boiled,” -another translator’s note adds, “This is not at all the opinion at the -present day,” that is, 1856. But apparently the progress of medical and -biological science since 1856 has been in this respect a retrogression -to Pliny’s view. - -[371] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 1. Somewhat similarly Moses -Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher, who was born thirty-seven years -after Hildegard, held that evil was mere privation and that the -personal devil of scripture was an allegorical representation thereof. -He also denied the existence of demons, but considered belief in angels -as second only in importance to a belief in God. See Finkelscherer -(1894) pp. 40-51; Mischna Commentary to Aboda-zara, IV, 7; Lévy (1911) -89-90. - -[372] _Causae et curae_ (1903), p. 11. - -[373] _Ibid._, p. 5. - -[374] _Causae et curae_, pp. 57-58. - -[375] _Subtleties_, VIII, 1. - -[376] _Ibid._, I, 56. - -[377] _Ibid._, III, 25. - -[378] _Ibid._, V, 1 and 4. - -[379] _Ibid._, IV, 10. - -[380] _Ibid._, IX, 8. - -[381] Migne, 387-9. - -[382] (1903) p. 57. - -[383] II, 1, “Querela elementorum. ‘Nam homines pravis operibus suis -velut molendinum subvertunt nos.’” III, 23, “Quod elementa humanis -iniquitatibus subvertuntur.” - -[384] Migne, 966. - -[385] (1903), p. 143. - -[386] Migne, 404-405. - -[387] Vision III, Migne, 410. - -[388] Vision X, 28 and 32, Migne, 1028 and 1032. - -[389] Pitra (1882) _Vitae meritorum_, V, 6-7. - -[390] _Vitae meritorum_, V, 32. - -[391] _Causae et curae_ (1903) 31-32. - -[392] _Subtleties_, VIII, 6. - -[393] _Subtleties_, I, 56. - -[394] _Ibid._, III, 23. - -[395] (1903), p. 196. - -[396] IV, 2. - -[397] _Subtleties_, I, 114. - -[398] _Ibid._, III, 23. - -[399] _Ibid._, I, 56. - -[400] _Subtleties_, IV, 18. - -[401] _Ibid._, IV, 1. - -[402] _Ibid._, IV, 16. - -[403] _Ibid._, V, 8. - -[404] _Ibid._, V, 1. - -[405] _Subtleties_, V, 5. - -[406] _Ibid._, V, 10. - -[407] (1903), pp. 193-4. - -[408] _Subtleties_, VI, 7. - -[409] _Ibid._, VI, 49. - -[410] _Ibid._, VI, 6. - -[411] _Ibid._, VI, 4. - -[412] _Ibid._, VI, 5, 20, 40. - -[413] _Subtleties_, VI, 2. - -[414] _Ibid._, VI, 5. - -[415] _Ibid._, VI, 6. - -[416] _Ibid._, VII, 2. - -[417] _Ibid._, VII, 3. - -[418] _Ibid._, VII, 4. - -[419] _Subtleties_, VII, 9. - -[420] _Ibid._, VII, 5. - -[421] _Ibid._, VII, 38. - -[422] _Ibid._, VII, 39. - -[423] _Subtleties_, VII, 16. - -[424] _Ibid._, VII, 17. - -[425] _Ibid._, VII, 14. - -[426] _Ibid._, VII, 42. - -[427] _Ibid._, VII, 43. - -[428] _Ibid._, VIII, 2. - -[429] (1903), pp. 206-7. - -[430] (1903), pp. 194-5. - -[431] (1903), p. 195, “Nam calibs est firmamentum et ornamentum aliarum -rerum et est quasi quaedam adiunctio ad vires hominis quemadmodum homo -fortis est.” - -[432] Migne, 409-14; I alter the order somewhat in my summary. - -[433] (1903), p. 15. - -[434] Migne, 807. - -[435] Migne, 791 and 798. - -[436] Migne, 732 et seq. - -[437] (1903), pp. 11-14. - -[438] Migne, 778. - -[439] (1903), pp. 16-17. - -[440] Migne, 779. - -[441] Migne, 793. - -[442] (1903), pp. 17-18; and again 77-78; see also p. 97, “_de -concepta in plenilunio_.” - -[443] (1903), p. 19. - -[444] Migne, 793. - -[445] (1903), p. 19. - -[446] (1903), p. 54. - -[447] _Causae et curae_ (1903), pp. 70-76. - -[448] _Ibid._, pp. 87-9. - -[449] _Ibid._, pp. 19-20. - -[450] _Ibid._, p. 84. - -[451] _Ibid._, pp. 235-42. - -[452] (1903), p. 2. - -[453] (1903), p. 10. - -[454] Migne, 779. - -[455] Migne, 833. - -[456] Migne, 819. - -[457] Migne, 943. - -[458] Migne, 829. - -[459] (1903), p. 82. - -[460] (1903), p. 83. - - - - -CHAPTER XLI - -JOHN OF SALISBURY - - - His picture of the learned world--Chief events of his - life--General character of the _Polycraticus_--Magic, - _maleficia_, and _mathematica_--Use of Isidore - on magic--Relation of Thomas Becket to John’s - discussion--Inconsistent Christian attitude toward - superstition--Divine and natural signs--Miracle and - occult virtue--Interpretation of dreams--Dreams of Joseph - and Daniel--The witchcraft delusion--Prevalence of - astrology--John’s attack upon it--Does astrology imply fatal - necessity?--John’s lame conclusion--Other varieties of - magic--Thomas Becket’s consultation of diviners--Witch of - Endor: exorcisms--Divination from polished surfaces--Natural - science and medicine--Summary. - - -[Sidenote: His picture of the learned world.] - -In 1159 John of Salisbury completed his two chief works, the -_Metalogicus_ and the _Polycraticus_.[461] In the former he tells the -interesting story of his education in the schools of northern France, -and describes the teachers and methods of the humanistic school of -Chartres and the schools of logic at Paris. This valuable picture of -educational conditions in the middle of the twelfth century has already -supplied us with a number of bits of information concerning authors of -whom we have treated. Its importance in the history of the study of -the classics and of scholasticism has long been recognized, and its -content has often been reproduced in secondary works, so that we need -not dwell upon it specifically here.[462] Moreover, although John spent -some twelve years in his studies in France, he appears from his own -statements to have passed from the study of logic and “grammar” to that -of theology without devoting much attention to natural science,[463] -although he received some instruction in the Quadrivium from Richard -Bishop and Hardewin the Teuton. He was, it is true, according to his -own statement, a pupil of William of Conches for three years, but he -always alludes to William as a grammarian, not as a writer on natural -philosophy and astronomy. This one-sided description of William’s -teaching warns us not to place too implicit faith in John’s account of -the learned world of his times. Even if reliable as it stands, it is -not in itself a complete or adequate picture. In the _Polycraticus_, -however, he engages in a rather long discussion of magic, astrology and -other forms of divination which it behooves us to note. - -[Sidenote: Chief events of his life.] - -John tells us that he was a mere lad when in 1136 he first came from -England to Gaul to hear the famous Abelard lecture. Like many medieval -students, he was or soon came to be in a needy condition and eked out a -living at one time by tutoring the sons of nobles. During the time that -had elapsed between his long training in the liberal arts and theology -and his writing of the _Metalogicus_ in 1159, he had led a busy life -in the employ of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, crossing the Alps -ten times, journeying twice all the way from England to Apulia, and -frequently traveling about England and what is now France (John says, -“the Gauls”--_Gallias_). In 1159 he addressed the _Polycraticus_ to -Thomas Becket, then absent with Henry II as his chancellor at the siege -of Toulouse. Thomas was just about John’s age and, before he became -chancellor in 1154 at the age of thirty-six, had been like John first -a student and then in the employ of Archbishop Theobald. John sided -with Thomas Becket in the struggle with Henry II, retired to France, -and returned to England with him in 1170. In 1176 he crowned his career -by becoming bishop of Chartres where perhaps some years of his early -studies had been spent. His death was in 1180. - -[Sidenote: General character of the _Polycraticus_.] - -In the _Metalogicus_ John tells us that he has scarcely touched a book -of logic since he left the _palaestra_ of the dialecticians so many -years ago, but he returns to the subject again in that work. In the -_Polycraticus_ his literary tastes and interests are more manifest. He -writes a good Latin style and shows a wide acquaintance with classical -authors and ancient history as well as with patristic literature. -The character and content of the _Polycraticus_ is more clearly -suggested by its sub-title, “Courtiers’ Trifles and Philosophers’ -Footprints” (_De nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum_). In part -it is satirical, although there is considerable serious discussion -of the state and philosophy and much moralizing for the benefit of -contemporary courts and statesmen. John confesses that the entire work -is little more than a patch-work of other men’s opinions, sometimes -without specific acknowledgment of the authorities. He professes to -believe that Thomas will recognize the sources of these passages -without being told, while other readers who are more ignorant will be -thereby spurred on to wider reading. These quotations, moreover, are -either from ancient classical or comparatively early Christian writers. -John does not epitomize recent literature and thought, although he -makes application of the thought of the past to contemporary society -and politics, and although he shows some acquaintance with the works -of contemporary writers such as Bernard Silvester. In the main his -attitude is essentially conservative; he repeats traditional views in -an attractive but somewhat dilettante literary form, with such rational -criticism as a study of the classics might be expected to produce when -qualified by scrupulous adherence to medieval Christian dogma. This is -especially true of his discussion of the magic arts and astrology. - -[Sidenote: Magic, _maleficia_, and _mathematica_.] - -John begins to discuss magic in the first of the eight books of the -_Polycraticus_ after a few chapters have been taken up with such other -triflings of courtiers as hunting, dicing, music, and theatrical -shows and spectacles. More harmful than the illusions of the stage, he -declares, are those of the magic arts and various kinds of disreputable -_mathematica_, long since forbidden by the holy fathers who knew -that all these _artificia_, or rather _maleficia_ arose from a fatal -familiarity of men and demons.[464] John thus takes as practically -synonymous the three terms, _magica_, _mathematica_ and _maleficium_. -He presently explains that the word _mathesis_ in one sense denotes -learning in general, but that when it has a long penultima, it -signifies the figments of divination,[465] which belong under magic, -whose varieties are many and diverse. Thus magic is John’s most general -and inclusive term for all occult arts. - -[Sidenote: Use of Isidore on magic.] - -The account of magic in John’s ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth -chapters is largely derived without acknowledgment from that of -Isidore of Seville.[466] We have already seen how this became a stock -description of the subject copied with little change by successive -writers and embodied in the decretals of the church. It is rather -surprising that a writer as well versed in the classics as John is -generally supposed to be should not have borrowed his account more -directly from some such ancient Latin writers as Pliny and Apuleius. -John, however, alters the wording and arrangement and consequently the -emphasis considerably. He makes it seem, for example, that several -magic arts, which really have nothing to do with predicting the future, -are sub-varieties of divination. He also adds some new varieties to -Isidore’s list of practitioners of the magic arts. The _vultivoli_ try -to affect men by making images of them from wax or clay. _Imaginarii_, -on the other hand, make images with the intent that demons should enter -these images and instruct them in regard to doubtful matters. Besides -interpreters of dreams (_conjectores_) and chiromancers John further -mentions _specularii_ who practise divination by gazing into polished -surfaces such as the edges of swords, basins, and mirrors. It was this -art that Joseph is described as exercising or pretending to exercise, -when he charged his brothers with having made off with the cup in which -he was wont to practice divination. The thirteenth and closing chapter -of John’s first book is a long list of omens from Roman history and -Latin literature, especially Vergil. - -[Sidenote: Relation of Thomas Becket to John’s discussion.] - -In the second book he resumes the same subject after a brief and -somewhat apologetic preface in which he states that all things are of -use to the wise man. Therefore he responds with alacrity to Thomas -Becket’s request that he publish his trifles, introducing interpreters -of dreams and astrologers with some other triflers. We shall later meet -with some further explanation of Thomas’ interest in such matters. It -is perhaps significant that John further expresses his confidence that -Thomas will faithfully protect those in whom he has inspired boldness -of utterance,[467] but it would be too much to assume from it that -John fears any persecution because he discusses such subjects. More -likely he merely shares the common medieval fear of the envious bite of -critics and reviewers, or wishes to remind Thomas of his need of his -patronage. At any rate he closes the prologue with the request that -Thomas will correct any mistake in either book. - -[Sidenote: Inconsistent Christian attitude toward superstition.] - -In opening his second book John subscribes to the proverb that he who -trusts in dreams and auguries will never be secure and asks--like -Cicero in his _De divinatione_[468]--what possible connection there -can be between sneezes, yawns, and other such things accepted as signs -and the events which they are supposed to signify. With Isidore and -Augustine[469]--although he names neither--he rejects those empty -incantations and superstitious ligatures which the entire medical -art condemns, although some call them _physica_.[470] This seems like -an admirable approach to an attitude of rational criticism, but John -after all may be merely repeating others’ statements like a parrot, -and he entirely spoils its effect by what he goes on to say. He -believes that the cloak of St. Stephen raised the dead, and that such -practices as saying the Lord’s prayer while plucking or administering -medicinal herbs, or wearing or hearing or repeating the names of the -four evangelists,[471] are not only allowable but most useful. He adds -further that the force of all omens depends upon the faith of the -recipient. - -[Sidenote: Divine and natural signs.] - -Although opposing faith in omens and augury, John admits that God -provides signs for His creatures, such as those of the weather which -sailors and farmers learn by experience and the birds are not ignorant -of, or the indications by which doctors can prognosticate the course of -diseases. Unfortunately the demons also are able to show signs and thus -lead men astray. Mention of signs which preceded the fall of Jerusalem -then leads John into a digression for several chapters concerning the -horrors of the siege itself and Vespasian and Titus, a passage which -was very likely inserted because Henry II and Becket were at that very -time engaged in laying siege to Toulouse. - -[Sidenote: Miracle and occult virtue.] - -Returning to the subject of signs, John interprets the verse in Luke, -“There shall be signs in sun and moon and stars” as having reference -to unnatural signs, and the obscuration of the sun during Christ’s -passion as not a natural eclipse.[472] John explains that by nature he -means “the accustomed course of things or the occult causes of events -for which a reason can be given.”[473] If, however, we accept Plato’s -definition of nature as the will of God there will be no unnatural -events. But John would distinguish between the gradual growth of leaves -and fruit on tree or vine by means of roots drawing nutriment from -earth’s vitals and sap produced within the trunk, which is indeed -marvelous and has the most occult causes, and the performance of the -same process without any interval of time, which he regards as a -miracle and of a divine height which transcends our understanding. -After drawing this distinction between divine miracle and wonders -wrought by occult virtues in nature John returns again to the subject -of signs. - -[Sidenote: Interpretation of dreams.] - -For some chapters the topic of dreams and their interpretation absorbs -his attention,[474] and at first he discusses in an apparently -credulous and approving tone “the varied significations of dreams, -which both experience approves and the authority of our ancestors -confirms.”[475] He explains that now the dream concerns the dreamer -himself, now someone else, now common interests, sometimes the public -or general welfare; and he quotes Nestor to the effect that “trust -is put in the king’s dream concerning public matters.”[476] After -referring credulously to the Sibylline verses predicting Christ’s -incarnation, passion, and ascension, John continues his exposition -of the interpretation of dreams. He explains that the season of -year when one dreams, the place where one dreams, and the personal -characteristics of the dreamer must all be taken into account; that -sometimes interpretations should be by contraries, and again from -like to like. But then he checks himself with the words: “But while -we pursue these traditions of the interpreters, I fear lest we -deservedly seem not so much to trace the art of interpretation, which -is either no art at all or an idle one, as to dream ourselves.” He -adds further, “Whoever fastens his credulity to the significations of -dreams evidently wanders as far from sincere faith as from the path of -reason.”[477] - -[Sidenote: Dreams of Joseph and Daniel.] - -John then attacks the _Dream-Book of Daniel_, which he says “circulates -impudently among the hands of the curious” and gives a specific -interpretation for each thing imagined by the dreamer. He denies the -truth and authority of the book and argues at some length that neither -Joseph nor Daniel would have composed such a work, and that they -interpreted dreams by divine inspiration, not by any occult art learned -in Chaldea or Egypt. In the first place, the method of interpretation -set forth in this book is faulty and crude. The remainder of John’s -argument is worth quoting in part: - -“Daniel indeed had the grace to interpret visions and dreams, which -the Lord inspired in him, but it is inconceivable that a holy man -should reduce this vanity to an art, when he knew that the Mosaic law -prohibited any of the faithful to heed dreams, being aware how Satan’s -satellite for the subversion of men is transformed into an angel of -light and how suggestions are made by bad angels. Joseph, too, won -the rule of Egypt by his ability to predict.... But if this could -have come from any science of human wisdom, I should think that some -one of his ancestors before him would have merited it, or I should -think that the saint, desirous of serving science and full of pious -impulses, would have left the art as a legacy, if not to the human race -at large, which would nevertheless have been just, at any rate to his -brothers and sons. Besides, Moses, trained in all the wisdom of the -Egyptians, either was ignorant of or spurned this art, since, detesting -the error of impiety, he took pains to exterminate it from among God’s -people. Furthermore, St. Daniel learned the studies and wisdom of the -Chaldeans, which, as a saint, he would not have done, had he thought -it sinful to be instructed in their lore. And he had companions in -his education whom he rejoiced to have as comrades in divine law -and justice. For at the same time Ananias, Axarias, Misael learned -whatever a Chaldean would learn.... But notice that the privilege which -man could not confer was given to Daniel alone, to bring to light the -riddles of dreams and to scatter the obscurities of figures....” - -Pointing out that Daniel read the king’s thoughts and prophesied “the -mystery of salvation” in addition to interpreting the dream, John then -concludes sarcastically: “Are the interpreters of dreams thus wont to -examine thoughts and remove obscurities, to explain what is involved -and illuminate the darkness of figures? If there is any who enjoys a -like portion of grace, let him join Daniel and Joseph and like them -ascribe to God the glory. He whom the spirit of truth does not illume -vainly puts his confidence in the art of dreams.”[478] - -[Sidenote: The witchcraft delusion.] - -John concludes that many dreams are the work of demons.[479] Especially -as of this sort he classifies the illusions of those who think that -they have taken part during the night in witches’ Sabbats. “What they -suffer in spirit they most wretchedly and falsely believe to have -occurred in the body.”[480] And such dreams come mainly to women, -feeble-minded men, and those weak in the Christian faith. Too much -stress must not, however, be laid upon this apparent opposition to the -witchcraft delusion.[481] John admits that the demons send dreams, and -if he denies their verity, he merely repeats a hesitation as to the -extent and reality of the power of demons over the body of men and the -world of nature which we have frequently met in patristic literature -and which is due to a natural reluctance to admit that their magic is -as real as God’s miracles. - -[Sidenote: Prevalence of astrology.] - -From divination by dreams and demons John passes to astrology. To -start with he admits the attraction which the art has for men of -intellect in his own time. “Would,” he exclaims, “that the error of the -_mathematici_ could be as readily removed from enlightened minds as the -works of the demons fade before true faith and a sane consciousness -of their illusions. But in it men go astray with the greater peril in -that they seem to base their error upon nature’s firm foundation and -reason’s strength.”[482] Beginning with mathematical and astronomical -truths based on nature, reason and experience, they gradually slip -into error, submitting human destiny to the stars and pretending to -knowledge which belongs to God alone. - -[Sidenote: John’s attack upon it.] - -John ridicules the astrologers for attributing sex to the stars and -stating the exact characteristics and influences of each planet, when -they cannot agree among themselves whether the stars are composed of -the four elements or some fifth essence, and when they are confounded -by a schoolboy’s question whether the stars are hard or soft.[483] He -grants that the sun’s heat and the moon’s control of humors as it waxes -and wanes are potent forces, and that the other heavenly bodies are -the causes of many utilities, and that from their position and signs -the weather may be predicted. But he complains that the astrologers -magnify the influence of the stars at the expense of God’s control -of nature and of human free will. “They ascribe everything to their -constellations.” Some have even reached such a degree of madness that -they believe that “an image can be formed in accordance with the -constellations so that it will receive the spirit of life at the nod of -the stars and will reveal the secrets of hidden truth.”[484] Whether -John has some magic automaton or merely an engraved astrological image -in mind is not entirely clear. - -[Sidenote: Does astrology imply fatal necessity?] - -John is aware, however, that many astrologers will deny that their -science detracts in any way from divine prerogative and power, and -will “appear to themselves to excuse their error quite readily” by -asserting with Plotinus that God foreknew and consequently foredisposed -everything that is to occur, and that the stars are as much under his -control as any part of nature.[485] But John will have none of this -sort of argument. “These hypotheses of theirs are indeed plausible but -nevertheless venom lies under the honey. For they impose on things a -certain fatal necessity under the guise of humility and reverence to -God, fearing lest his intent should perchance alter, if the outcome -of things were not made necessary. Furthermore, they encroach upon -the domain of divine majesty, when they lay claim to that science of -foreseeing times and seasons, which by the Son’s testimony are reserved -to the power of the Father, even to the degree that they were hid from -the eyes of those to whom the Son of God revealed whatever He heard -from the Father.”[486] - -John furthermore contends that divine foreknowledge does not require -fatal necessity. For instance, although God knew that Adam would sin, -Adam was under no compulsion to do so. God knew that by his guilt Adam -would bring death into the world, but no condition of nature impelled -him to this; in the beginning man was immortal. At this point John -wanders off into a joust at the Stoics and Epicureans, whom he censures -as equally in error, since the one subjected all to chance, the other -to necessity. It is true, John argues, that I know a stone will fall to -earth if I hurl it skywards, but it “does not act under necessity, for -it might fall or not.” But that it does fall, “though not necessary, -is true.” John presently recognizes that he has given away his previous -argument against astrology and that the devotee of the stars will -say that he does not care whether his predictions are necessary or -not provided they are true. “‘Nor does it make any difference to -me,’ says the devotee of the stars, ‘whether the affair in question -might be otherwise, provided I am not doubtful that it will be (as I -think.)’”[487] - -[Sidenote: John’s lame conclusion.] - -John accordingly resorts to other arguments and to facetious sarcasm -to cover his confusion. Then he recovers sufficiently to reiterate -his belief that God frequently interferes in the operation of nature -by special providences; and asserts that God has been known to change -His mind, while the astrologers assert that the stars are constant in -their influences. Expressing doubt, however, whether Thomas Becket will -be convinced by his arguments, especially the one concerning fate and -Providence, or whether he will not laugh up his sleeve at such a clumsy -attempt to refute so formidable a doctrine, John lamely concludes by -citing Augustine and Gregory against the art, and by affirming that -every astrologer whom he has known has come to some bad end,[488] in -which assertion he probably simply echoes Tertullian. - -[Sidenote: Other varieties of magic.] - -Resuming his discussion of the varieties of magic John briefly -dismisses necromancers with the _bon mot_ that those deserve death -who try to acquire knowledge from the dead.[489] A number of other -terms in Isidore’s list--_auspices_, augurs, _salissatores_, _arioli_, -_pythonici_, _aruspices_--he says it is needless to discuss further -since these arts are no longer practiced in his day, or at least -not openly. Turning to more living superstitions of the present, he -explains that chiromancy professes to discern truths which lie hidden -in the wrinkles of the hands, but that since there is no apparent -reason for this belief it is not necessary to contravert it. - -[Sidenote: Thomas Becket’s consultation of diviners.] - -John wishes to ask Thomas one thing, however, and that is what triflers -of this sort say when they are interrogated concerning uncertain -future matters. He knows that Becket is familiar with such men because -on the occasion of a recent royal expedition against Brittany he -consulted both an aruspex and a chiromancer. John notes that a few days -afterwards Thomas “lost without warning the morning-star so to speak -of your race,” and warns him that such men by their vanity deserve to -be consulted no more. This gentle rebuke did not avail, however, to -wean Thomas entirely from his practice of consulting diviners, which -he continued to do even after he became Archbishop of Canterbury. In a -letter written to the future martyr and saint in 1170 John again chides -Thomas for having delayed certain important letters because he had been -“deluded by soothsayings which were not of the Spirit” and exhorts him -“So let us renounce soothsayings in the future.”[490] - -[Sidenote: Witch of Endor: exorcisms.] - -Despite his previous declaration that he need not discuss the -_pythonici_, John now proceeds to do so, listing instances of ambiguous -and deceptive Delphic oracles and discussing at length the well-worn -subject of Saul and the witch of Endor. He concludes the chapter by a -warning against abuse of the practice of exorcism: “For such is the -slyness of evil spirits that what they do of their own accord and what -men do at their suggestion, they with great pains disguise so that -they appear to perform it unwillingly. They pretend to be coerced -and simulate to be drawn out as it were by the power of exorcisms, -and that they may be the less guarded against they compose exorcisms -apparently expressed in the name of God or in the faith of the Trinity -or in the power of the incarnation or passion; and they transmit the -same to men and obey men who use these, until they finally involve them -with themselves in the crime of sacrilege and penalty of damnation. -Sometimes they even transform themselves into angels of light, they -teach only things of good repute, forbid unlawful things, strive to -imitate purity, make provision for needs, so that, as if good and -favoring, they are received the more familiarly, are heard the more -kindly, are loved the more closely, are the more readily obeyed. They -also put on the guise of venerable persons....”[491] - -[Sidenote: Divination from polished surfaces.] - -“The _specularii_,” John continues, “flatter themselves that they -immolate no victims, harm no one, often do good as when they detect -thefts, purge the world of sorceries, and seek only useful or necessary -truth.”[492] He insists that the success of their efforts is none the -less due to demon aid. John tells how as a boy he was handed over -for instruction in the Psalms to a priest who turned out to be a -practitioner of this variety of magic, who after performing various -adjurations and sorceries tried to have John and another boy look -into polished basins or finger-nails smeared with holy oil or chrism -and report what they saw. The other boy saw some ghostly shapes but -John thanks God that he could see nothing and so was not employed -henceforth in this manner. He adds that he has known many _specularii_ -and that they have all suffered loss of their sight or some other evil -except the aforesaid priest and a deacon, and that they took refuge -in monasteries and later suffered evils above their fellows in their -respective congregations. - -[Sidenote: Natural science and medicine.] - -John closes his second book with a chapter on natural scientists -and medical men, for he seems to apply the term _physici_ in both -senses, although towards the close of the chapter he also employs the -word _medici_. He begins by saying that it is permissible to consult -concerning the future anyone who has the spirit of prophecy or who -from scientific training knows by natural signs what will happen in -the bodies of animals, or who “has learned experimentally the nature -of the time impending,” provided only that these latter men say and -do nothing prejudicial to the Christian faith. But sometimes the -_physici_ attribute too much to nature,[493] and John has heard many -of them disputing concerning the soul and its virtues and operations, -the increase and diminution of the body, the resurrection, and the -creation, in a way far from accord with the Christian faith. “Of God -Himself too they sometimes so speak, ‘As if earth-born giants assailed -the stars.’”[494] John recognizes, however, their knowledge of animals -and medicine, although he finds their theories sometimes in conflict. -As for practicing physicians, he dares not speak ill of them, for he -too often falls into their hands, and he grants that no one is more -necessary or useful than a good doctor. John makes considerable use of -the _Natural History_ of Pliny and of Solinus, and sometimes for occult -or marvelous phenomena, as when he cites Pliny concerning men who have -the power of fascination by voice and tongue or by their glances, and -adds the testimony of the Physiognomists.[495] - -[Sidenote: Summary.] - -It may be well to review and further emphasize some of the chief -features of John’s rather rambling discussion. Despite its frequent -quotations from classic poets and moralists, it is theological in -tone and content to a degree perhaps greater than I have succeeded -in suggesting, for to repeat all its scriptural passages would be -tedious. There is even some theological jealousy and suspicion of -natural science shown. John perhaps more nearly duplicates the attitude -of Augustine than that of any other writer. Magic is represented as -inevitably associated with, and the work of, demons. John sometimes -charges the magic arts with being irrational or injurious, but these -charges are in a way but corollaries of his main thesis. The arts must -be harmful since demons are concerned with them, while the influence -of demons seems the only rational explanation for their existence. -John repeats the old Isidorian definition of magic but he adds some -current superstitions and shows that the magic arts are far from having -fallen into disuse. Finally he shows us how vain must have been all -the ecclesiastical thunders and warnings of demons and damnation, -like his own, directed against magic, from the fact that not merely -kings of the past like Saul and Pharaoh, but clergy of the present -themselves--a priest and a deacon, a chancellor and an archbishop -of England--practice or patronize such arts. Sometimes John’s own -condemnation of them seems a bit perfunctory; he takes more relish, it -seems at times, in describing them. Again, as in the case of astrology, -he evidently feels that his opposition will be of little avail. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[461] _Johannis Sarisberiensis Episcopi Carnotensis Policratici sive -de nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum libri VIII._ Recog. C. -C. I. Webb. 2 vols. Oxford, 1909. The work is also contained in Migne, -PL vol. 199. For John’s life see DNB. All references are to book and -chapter of the _Polycraticus_ unless otherwise stated. - -[462] The most recent discussion of it is by R. L. Poole, “The Masters -of the Schools at Paris and Chartres in John of Salisbury’s Time,” in -EHR XXXV (1920), 321-42. - -[463] _Metalog._ II, 10. - -[464] I, 9. - -[465] At II, 18 he makes the same distinction. - -[466] For Isidore’s account see PL 82, 310-14. - -[467] _Polycrat_. II, prologus. “Alacres itaque exeant nugae nostrae -quas serenitas tua prodire iubet in publicum, ut conjectores, -mathematicos, cum quibusdam aliis nugatoribus introducant; quia quibus -dedisti egrediendi audaciam, securitatis quoque fiduciam praestabis.” -The following words, “Connectantur ergo inferiora superioribus” seem to -mean that the second book goes on where the first left off, but perhaps -the suggestion of astrological doctrine is an intentional play upon -words on John’s part. - -[468] II, 12. - -[469] _De doctrina Christiana_, II, 20 in Migne, PL vol. 34. - -[470] Thus, it will be recalled, Marcellus Empiricus and Alexander of -Tralles labelled their superstitious recipes. - -[471] “Capitula Evangelii.” - -[472] II, 11. - -[473] II, 12. - -[474] II, 14-17. - -[475] II, 14. Quis nescit somniorum varias esse significationes, quas -et usus approbat et maiorum confirmat auctoritas. - -[476] II, 15. Somnium ... gerit imagines, in quibus coniectorum -praecipue disciplina versatur, et nunc suum cuiusque est, nunc alienum, -modo commune, interdum publice aut generale est. Ut enim ait Nestor, de -statu publico regis credatur somnio. - -[477] II, 17. Sed dum has coniectorum traditiones ex(s)equimur, vereor -ne merito non tam coniectoriam ex(s)equi, quae aut nulla aut inania -ars est, quam dormitare videamur ... Verum quisquis credulitatem suam -significationibus alligat somniorum, planum est quia tam a sinceritate -fidei quam a tramite rationis exorbitat. - -[478] _Polycrat._ II, 17. Gratian appears to refer to the same book on -oneiromancy in his _Decretum_, Secunda pars, Causa XXVI, Quaest. vii, -cap. 16, “somnialia scripta et falso in Danielis nomine intitulata.” - -[479] II, 17 (Webb I, 100). Quis huius facti explicet rationem nisi -quod boni spiritus vel maligni exigentibus hominum meritis eos erudiunt -vel illudunt?... Quod si materiam vitiis afferat, libidinem forte -accendens aut avaritiam aut dominandi ingerens appetitum aut quidquid -huiusmodi est ad subversionem animae, procul dubio aut caro aut -spiritus malignus immittit. - -[480] II, 17 (Migne, col. 436), Webb I, 100-1. - -[481] John is perhaps influenced by a similar passage in the Canon, _Ut -episcopi_ (Burchard, _Decreta_, X, 1). - -[482] II, 18. Possit utinam tam facile mathematicorum error a -praestantioribus animis amoveri quam leviter in conspectu verae -fidei et sanae conscientiae istarum illusionum demonia conquiescunt. -Verumtamen eo periculosius errant quo in soliditate naturae et vigore -rationis suum fundare videntur errorem. - -[483] II, 19. - -[484] II, 19 (Migne, col. 442). Webb, I, 112. ... stellarum nutu -recipiet spiritum vitae et consulentibus occultae veritatis -manifestabit arcana. - -[485] II, 19. - -[486] II, 20. - -[487] Cap. 24, nec mea, inquit astrorum secretarius, interest an aliter -esse possit, dum id de quo agitur ita futurum esse non dubitem. - -[488] John’s argument against astrology extends from the 18th to the -26th chapter of the second book of the _Polycraticus_. - -[489] II, 27. - -[490] _Epistola_ 297 (Migne, cols. 345-46). - -[491] II, 27; Webb, I, 155-56. - -[492] II, 28. - -[493] II, 29 (Migne, col. 475). Licet tamen ut de futuris aliquis -consulatur, ita quidem si aut spiritu polleat prophetiae, aut ex -naturalibus signis quid in corporibus animalium eveniat physica -docente cognovit, aut si qualitatem temporis imminentis experimentorum -indiciis colligit. Dum tamen his posterioribus nequaquam quis ita aurem -accommodet ut fidei aut religioni praejudicet.... At physici, dum -naturae nimium auctoritatis attribuunt, in auctorem naturae adversando -fidei plerumque impingunt. - -[494] Webb, I, xxxiii and xxxv. - -[495] V, 15 (Webb, I, 345). - - - - -CHAPTER XLII - -DANIEL OF MORLEY AND ROGER OF HEREFORD: OR ASTROLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE -SECOND HALF OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY - - - Daniel’s education--(Bibliographical note)--Defense - of Arabian learning--A moderate treatment of moot - points between science and religion--The four elements - and fifth essence--Superiors and inferiors--Daniel’s - astronomy--Astrological argument--Astrology and other - sciences--Daniel and Greek: a misinterpretation--Daniel - and the church: a misinterpretation--Daniel’s future - influence--Roger of Hereford--An astrology in four - parts--Another astrology in four parts--_Book of Three - General Judgments_--Summary. - - -[Sidenote: Daniel’s education.] - -In discussing Gerard of Cremona in a previous chapter we noticed the -studies at Toledo of Daniel _de Merlai_ or of Morley, how he heard -Gerard translate the _Almagest_ into Latin and defend the fatal -influence of the stars, and Galippus, the Mozarab, teach concerning -the universe in “the tongue of Toledo,”--presumably Spanish. Like -Adelard of Bath, Daniel had long absented himself from England in the -pursuit of learning, and had first spent some time at Paris, apparently -engaged in the study of Roman law. He became disgusted, however, with -the instruction there and in his preface[496] speaks sarcastically of -“the brutes” (_bestiales_) who occupied professorial chairs “with grave -authority” and read from codices too heavy to carry (_importabiles_) -which reproduced in golden letters the traditions of Ulpian. Holding -lead pencils in their hands, they marked these volumes reverently -with obeli and asterisks. They wished to conceal their ignorance by -maintaining a dignified and statuesque silence, “but when they tried -to say something, I found them most childish.” Daniel accordingly made -haste away to Spain to acquire the learning of the Arabs and to hear -“wiser philosophers of the universe.” Finally, however, his friends -summoned him back to England and he returned “with an abundant supply -of precious volumes.” On his arrival he found that the interest in -Roman law had almost completely eclipsed that in Greek philosophy, and -that Aristotle and Plato were assigned to oblivion. Not wishing to -remain the sole Greek among Romans, he prepared to withdraw again where -the studies in which he was interested flourished. But on the way he -met John, bishop of Norwich (1175-1200) who asked him many questions -concerning his studies at Toledo and the marvels of that city, and -concerning astronomy and the rule of the superior bodies over this -sublunar world. Daniel’s present treatise gives a fuller reply to these -inquiries than time then permitted him to make. - - In the following bibliographical note the MSS will be listed - first and then the printed works by or concerning Daniel of - Morley. - - Arundel 377, 13th century, well-written small quarto, fols. - 88-103, “Philosophia magistri danielis de merlai ad iohannem - Norwicensem episcopum ... / ... Explicit liber de naturis - inferiorum et superiorum.” Until very recently this was - supposed to be the only MS of Daniel’s sole extant work. - No other treatise has as yet been identified as his, but - several other MSS may be noted of the whole or parts of the - aforesaid “Philosophia” or “Liber de naturis inferiorum et - superiorum.” - - Corpus Christi 95, 13th century, where, according to K. - Sudhoff in the publication noted below, the first two or - three books ascribed to William of Conches are really the - work of Daniel of Morley. - - Berlin Latin Quarto 387, 12th century, 51 fols. Attention - was called to it by Birkenmajer in the publication noted - below. It has many slips of copyists and is regarded by him - as neither the original nor a direct copy thereof. For the - MS to be written in the twelfth century this would require - a very rapid multiplication and dissemination of Daniel’s - treatise which was at the earliest not composed until after - 1175. - - The remaining MSS have not hitherto been noted by writers on - Daniel: - - CUL 1935 (Kk. I. 1), 13th century, small folio, fols. - 98r-105r (and not to 115r, as stated in the MSS catalogue, - which gives Daniel Morley as the author, but _De creatione - mundi_ as the title). From rotographs of fols. 98r-v, 100r, - and 105r, I judge that this copy is almost identical with - Arundel 377 but somewhat less legible and accurate. - - Oriel 7, 14th century folio, fols. 194v-196v (191-193, - according to Coxe), extracts from _De philosophia Danielis_, - opening, “Nos qui mistice.”... They are immediately preceded - by extracts from “Adelardi Bathoniensis ... de decisionibus - naturalibus.” - - Corpus Christi 263, early 17thI’ll sp century, fols. - 166v-67r, “Ex Daniele de Merlai” (or, “Merlac,” according to - Coxe) “alias Morley in lib. de superioribus et inferioribus - primo De creationis Mundi.” This MS is one of the notebooks - of Brian Twyne, the Elizabethan antiquary, written in his - own hand. - - Twyne perhaps made his extracts from Arundel 377, for - immediately after them he gives extracts “from William of - Conches who is together with Daniel Merlai in our library,” - and in Arundel 377 Daniel’s work is immediately followed - by that of William of Conches. Moreover, of the Selden MSS - which are now in the Bodleian, Supra 72 was once owned by - Lord “William Howarde” who died in 1640, while Supra 77 is - marked “Arundel,” referring presumably to Thomas Howard, - Earl of Arundel, who died in 1646, and Supra 79 consists - of astronomical and astrological treatises copied by Brian - Twyne. If MSS which once belonged to the Arundel collection - and to Twyne have thus passed somehow into the Selden - collection and are found listed there in close proximity to - one another, it is at least tempting to conjecture that the - MS containing Daniel’s treatise, followed by that of William - of Conches, which Twyne says was once “in our library,” - somehow became Arundel 377. - - BN 6415 does not contain _De philosophia Danielis_, as - stated by C. Jourdain (1838) p. 101; Jourdain, however, - regarded Adelard of Bath as the author of _De philosophia - Danielis_, and BN 6415 does contain Adelard’s _Questiones - naturales_. - - Balliol 96, 15th century, a commentary upon Aristotle’s - eight books of Physics in the form of questions and preceded - by a prologue, “Expliciunt questiones super 8 libros - phisicorum compilate a domino Marlo magistro in artibus - Tholose ac canonico de Timsey.” This does not seem to be a - work by Daniel of Morley; a cursory examination revealed no - reason for thinking that _domino Marlo_ should read _Daniele - Merlai_, or that _Tholose_ should be _Tholeto_. - - I have not examined two MSS at Queen’s College, Oxford, Reg. - lxxi; lxxiv, 4) containing pedigrees of the Morlay or Morley - family which may possibly throw some light upon Daniel’s - identity. - - All the printing that has been done of Daniel’s treatise - has been based upon Arundel 377. J. O. Halliwell, _Rara - Mathematica_, 1839, and Thomas Wright, _Biographia - Literaria_, London, 1846, II, 227-30, printed the preface - and other brief extracts for the first time. - - Valentin Rose reprinted the preface and also published - the conclusion in his article, “Ptolemaeus und die Schule - von Toledo,” _Hermes_ VIII (1874) 327-49. Rose also gave - a list of the authorities cited by Daniel which makes a - very large number of omissions: for example, fol. 89r, - “sicut in trismegisto repperitur” and “isidori”; fol. 90v, - Aristotle, “philosophus,” “Adultimus” (?), “Platonitus”; - fol. 91r, “Esiodus autem naturalis scientie professor omnia - dixit esse ex terra,” and so on for “tales milesius,” - Democritus, and other Greek philosophers; fol. 91v, “sicut - ab inexpugnabili sententia magni hermetis”; fol. 92r, - “audiat ysidori in libro differentiarum”; fol. 92v, “unde - astrologus ille poeta de creatione mundi ait,” and “magnus - mercurius” and “trismegistus mercurius” and “trismegistus - mercurius praedicti mercurii nepos”; fol. 97r, “Aristotelis - in libro de sensu et sensato,” “Albumaxar,” “Aristotelis - in libro de auditu naturali”; fol. 98v, “in libro de celi - et mundo”; fol. 99v, Almagest, and “Ypocrati et galieno”; - fol. 100v, “liber veneris ... quem edidit thoz grecus,” and - “aristoteles ... in libro de speculo adurenti.” - - Karl Sudhoff, _Daniels von Morley Liber de naturis - inferiorum et superiorum nach der Handschrift Cod. Arundel - 377 des Britischen Museums zum Abdruck gebracht_, in - _Archiv für die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der - Technik_, Band 8, 1917 (but not received at the New York - Public Library until July 8, 1921). Here is printed for the - first time the full text of Daniel’s treatise as contained - in Arundel 377, but from photographs taken years before - and apparently without further reference to the MS itself. - Also according to the following article by Birkenmajer, - Sudhoff sometimes renders the contractions and abbreviations - incorrectly. As Sudhoff’s text comes late to my hand, I - leave my references to the folios of Arundel 377 as they - are. These folios (with the exception of 88v) are marked in - Sudhoff’s text. - - Alexander Birkenmajer, _Eine neue Handschrift des Liber de - naturis inferiorum et superiorum des Daniel von Merlai_, in - the same _Archiv_, December, 1920, pp. 45-51, gives some - variant readings from Berlin 387. - - Dr. Charles Singer has published a brief account of Daniel - of Morley in a recent issue of _Isis_. - - The article on Daniel in DNB XXXIX (1894) by A. F. Pollard - is criticized by Sudhoff for failing to mention “Roses - wichtigste Vorarbeit;” but I observe that Sudhoff himself - similarly fails to mention the publications by Halliwell and - Thomas Wright which preceded both Rose’s and his own. - -[Sidenote: Defense of Arabian learning.] - -Daniel warns his readers at the start not to scorn the simple language -and lucid style in which the doctrines of the Arabs are set forth, or -to mistake the laborious circumlocutions and ambiguous obscurities of -contemporary Latins for signs of profound learning. Nor should anyone -be alarmed because he presents the opinions of Gentile philosophers -instead of church fathers in treating of the creation of the world. -They may not have been Christians, but where their opinions seem -sound, Daniel believes in taking spoils of learning even from pagans -and infidels, as God instructed the Hebrews to do in the case of the -golden and silver vessels of the Egyptians. Thus he borrows the theory -of a triple universe from an Arabic work. The first universe exists -only in the divine mind and is neither visible nor corporeal, but is -eternal. The second universe is in work and is visible, corporeal, and -in that state not eternal. It was created simultaneously with time. -The third universe is imitative. It is the microcosm and was formed in -time and is visible and corporeal, but is in part eternal.[497] In a -later passage[498] Daniel again defends his use of Arabian authorities, -contending that it is only just that one who is already informed -concerning the opinions about things supercelestial of the philosophers -in use among the Latins should also not disdain to listen attentively -to the views of the Arabs which cannot be impugned. It may be perilous -to imitate them in some respects, but one should be informed even on -such points in order to be able to refute and avoid the errors to which -they lead. - -[Sidenote: A moderate treatment of moot points between science and -religion.] - -In general plan, tone, and content, as well as in the title, -_Philosophia_, Daniel’s treatise roughly resembles that of William of -Conches. As Daniel says in his preface, the first part deals with the -inferior portion of the universe, and the second part with the superior -part. The work proper opens with a discussion of the creation, in which -Daniel expresses some rather original ideas, although he treats of such -time-worn topics as God’s creation of the angels, of the universe, and -of man in His own image, and then of man’s fall through concupiscence, -virtue and vice, and like matters. Later he argues against those who -hold that the world is eternal, but he is not quite ready to accept the -Mosaic account of creation entire. He argues that in the beginning God -created heaven and earth and cites Augustine, Isidore, and Bede to show -that the meaning is that heaven and earth were created simultaneously. -He then adds that philosophers are loath to accept the division of the -works of creation over six days; in human works it is true that one -thing must be done before another, but God could dispense everything -with “one eternal word.”[499] - -[Sidenote: The four elements and fifth essence.] - -The four elements are discussed a good deal and it is explained that -fire is hot and dry, air is hot and wet, and so on.[500] To fire -correspond cholera, the light of the eyes, and curiosity; to air, -blood, words, and loquacity; to water, phlegm, abundance of natural -humors, and lust; to earth, melancholy, corpulence, and cruelty.[501] -Daniel, like Adelard of Bath and William of Conches, repeats the -doctrine that the four elements are not found in a pure state in any -bodies perceptible to our sense, that no one has ever touched earth -or water, or seen pure air or fire, and that the four elements are -perceptible only to the intellect. Daniel differs from Adelard and -William, however, in denying that the stars are made merely out of the -purer parts of the four elements. He declares that the Arabs will not -agree to this, but that the higher authorities in astrology assert that -the stars are composed of a fifth essence.[502] Daniel furthermore -speaks of three bonds existing between the four elements, stating that -scientists call the relation between fire and air, obedience; that -between air and water, harmony; and that between water and earth, -necessity.[503] This faintly reminds one of the three relationships -between the four principles of things which were associated with the -names of the three fates in the essay on fate ascribed to Plutarch. - -[Sidenote: Superiors and inferiors.] - -But the greatest bond in nature is that existing between the superior -and inferior worlds. An oft-repeated and fundamental principle of -Daniel’s philosophy, and one which explains the division of his work -into two parts, is the doctrine that superiors conquer inferiors, that -the world of the sky controls the world of the four elements, and that -the science of the stars is superior to all other disciplines.[504] -“The sages of this world have divided the world into two parts, of -which the superior one which extends from the circle of the moon even -to the immovable heaven is the agent. The other, from the lunar globe -downwards, is the patient.”[505] Much depends, however, not only upon -the force emitted by the agent but upon the readiness of the patient to -receive the celestial influence. - -[Sidenote: Daniel’s astronomy.] - -Daniel of course believed in a spherical earth and a geocentric -universe. Influenced probably by the _Almagest_, he explains the -eccentrics of the five planets in a way which he regards as superior to -what he calls the errors of Martianus Capella and almost all Latins, -and to the obscure traditions which the Arabs have handed down but -scarcely understood themselves.[506] He affirms that there are not ten -heavens or spheres, as some have said, but only eight, as Alphraganus -truly teaches.[507] - -[Sidenote: Astrological argument.] - -There are some men who deny any efficacy to the motions of the stars, -but Daniel charges that they for the most part condemn the science -without knowing anything about it, “and hold astronomy in hatred from -its name alone.”[508] He replies that it is useful to foreknow the -future and defends astrology in much the usual manner. He details the -qualities of the seven planets[509] whom the Arabs call “lords of -nativities.”[510] Also he takes up the properties and attributes of the -signs of the zodiac and how the Arabs divide the parts of the human -body among them.[511] - -[Sidenote: Astrology and other sciences.] - -Daniel interprets the scope of astrology very broadly, asserting -that it has eight parts: the science of judgments, or what we should -call judicial astrology; medicine; nigromancy according to physics; -agriculture; illusions or magic (_de praestigiis_); alchemy, “which -is the science of the transmutation of metals into other species; -the science of images, which Thoz Grecus set forth in the great and -universal book of Venus; and the science of mirrors, which is of -broader scope and aim than the rest, as Aristotle shows in the treatise -on the burning glass.”[512] Except that magic illusions have replaced -navigation, this list of eight branches of learning is the same as -that which Gundissalinus repeated from Al-Farabi, but which they -called branches of natural science rather than of astrology. At any -rate we see again the close association of natural science and useful -arts with astrology and magic, and necromancy and alchemy, and with -pseudo-writings of Aristotle and Hermes Trismegistus. In other passages -Daniel cites genuine Aristotelian treatises[513] and speaks of “the -great Mercury” and of the other “Mercury Trismegistus, the nephew of -the aforesaid.”[514] Despite his subordination of alchemy to astrology -in the above passage, Daniel does not seem to have it in mind when he -remarks that there are “some who assign diverse colors of metals to the -planets,” as lead to Saturn, silver to Jupiter, white to Venus, and -black to Mercury.[515] He goes on to deny that the stars are really -colored any more than the sky is. - -[Sidenote: Daniel and Greek: a misinterpretation.] - -Some modern scholars have drawn inferences from Daniel’s treatise -with which I am unable to agree. Mr. S. A. Hirsch in his edition of -Roger Bacon’s Greek Grammar follows Cardinal Gasquet[516] in observing -concerning Daniel’s preface, “There can be no clearer testimony than -this to the complete oblivion into which Greek had in those days fallen -in western Europe, including England.” It may be granted that there was -and had been little knowledge of Greek grammar and the Greek language -in twelfth century England, but that is not what Daniel is talking -about: indeed, there seems to be no reason for believing Daniel himself -proficient in either Greek grammar or Greek literature, although he was -shrewd enough to question whether Chalcidius always interpreted Plato -aright.[517] When he calls himself “the only Greek among Romans,” he -means the only one interested in Greek philosophy and astronomy and in -translations of the same made largely from the Arabic. But earlier in -the same century we have seen Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, and -Bernard Silvester interested either in Platonism or Arabic science, -and the anonymous Sicilian translator of the Almagest from the Greek, -and before him Burgundio of Pisa and other translators from the Greek. -Therefore all that Daniel’s remarks seems to indicate is that there -was less interest in Greek philosophy in England after his return than -before he went away, owing to the temporary popularity of the study of -Roman law. But he knew where the studies in which he was interested -still flourished. - -[Sidenote: Daniel and the church: a misinterpretation.] - -A more serious misinterpretation of Daniel’s relation to his age is -Valentin Rose’s assertion that, because of Daniel’s addiction to -Arabian and astrological doctrines, “his book found no favor 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.”[518] -Rose spoke on the assumption that only one copy of Daniel’s treatise -had reached us, whereas now we know of several manuscripts of it. If it -did not become so widely known as some works, the more probable reason -for this may well be that his brief résumé of Arabic and astrological -doctrines appeared too late, when the fuller works of Ptolemy and of -the Arabic astrologers were already becoming known through complete -Latin translations. Brief pioneer treatises, like those of Adelard -of Bath and William of Conches, which had appeared earlier in the -century, had had time to become widely known during a period when -there was perhaps nothing fuller and better available. But Daniel’s -little trickle of learning from Toledo, which does not represent any -very considerable advance over Adelard and William, might well be -engulfed in the great stream of translations that now poured from Spain -into Christian western Europe.[519] It is unreasonable to conjecture -that Daniel’s book, which is rather mild anyway in its astrological -doctrine, and which was called forth by the favoring questions of a -bishop, was then crushed by bitter ecclesiastical opposition; when we -know that William’s book, which actually encountered an ecclesiastical -opposition of which we have no evidence in Daniel’s case, nevertheless -continued in circulation and was much cited in the next century; and -when we know that both Arabic and astrological doctrines and books -were widespread in Christian western Europe both in the twelfth and -thirteenth centuries. Treatises with more poison of astrology in them -than his were read and cited and seem to have weathered successfully, -if not to have escaped unscathed, whatever ecclesiastical censure may -have been directed against them. If Daniel’s own composition did not -secure a wide circle of readers, the chances are that “the multitude -of precious volumes” which he imported from Spain to England did. And -if the work of the pupil remained little cited, the translations of -the master, Gerard of Cremona, who had taught him astrology at Toledo, -became known throughout western Europe. Thus, while Daniel’s personal -influence may not have been vast, he reflects for us the progress of a -great movement of which he was but a part. - -[Sidenote: Daniel’s future influence.] - -But Rose was further mistaken in his assertion that Daniel’s _De -philosophia_ “has left no trace in subsequent literature; no one has -read it and no one cites it.” Not only is the work found complete -in three manuscripts of which Rose did not know, and of which one -appears to be twice removed from the original. In a manuscript of -the fourteenth century at Oriel College, Oxford,[520] in the fitting -company of excerpts from Adelard of Bath and Gundissalinus, are -over three double column folio pages of extracts drawn from various -portions of the _Philosophia_. These begin with Daniel’s excuse for -borrowing the eloquence and wisdom of the infidels and with some of his -utterances anent the creation of the world. They include a number of -his citations of other writers, his story of the two fountains outside -the walls of Toledo which varied in fulness with the moon’s phases and -contained salt water although remote six days journey from the sea, -and other bits of his astrological doctrine. A similar, although not -identical, selection of pearls from Daniel’s philosophy is found in one -of the notebooks of Brian Twyne,[521] the Elizabethan antiquary, who -gives the title of Daniel’s work as _De superioribus et inferioribus_ -and makes extracts both from its first and second books. Both Twyne and -the Oriel manuscript’s writer seem to have been particularly impressed -with Daniel’s views concerning the creation, rather than his retailing -of astrological doctrine. Twyne first repeats his statement that the -quantity of the universe reveals the power of its Maker; its quality, -His wisdom; and its marvelous beauty, His unbounded good will. Twyne -also notes Daniel’s phrase, “court of the world,” for the universe. -Both Twyne and the Oriel manuscript note the passage concerning the -triple universe, and another in which Daniel tells how the three human -qualities, reason, irascibility, and desire, may be either used to -discern and resist evil, or perverted to evil courses. Both also notice -his contention that the chaos preceding creation was not _hyle_ or -matter but a certain contrariety present in matter. - -[Sidenote: Roger of Hereford.] - -In the same manuscript with Daniel’s treatise is a work by another -Englishman, Roger of Hereford,[522] who was contemporary with him, who -wrote treatises both in astronomy and astrology, and who, again like -Daniel, was encouraged by a bishop. We are not, I believe, directly -informed whether any of his works were translations from the Arabic or -whether he was ever in Spain, but some of them sound as if they might -be at least adaptations from the Arabic. At any rate Alfred of England -dedicated to Roger the translation which he made from the Arabic of the -pseudo-Aristotelian _De vegetabilibus_. Astronomical tables which Roger -calculated for the meridian of Hereford in 1178 are based upon tables -for Marseilles and Toledo, and the manuscript of one of his works is -said by the copyist of 1476 to have been taken by him from an ancient -codex written in Toledo in the year 1247.[523] Other astronomical -treatises attributed to Roger are a _Theory of the Planets, a Treatise -concerning the rising and setting of the Signs_, and a _Compotus_ which -dates itself in 1176 and is addressed to a Gilbert[524] who seems to -be no other than Foliot, bishop of Hereford until 1163 and thereafter -bishop of London. The signature of Roger of Hereford attests one of his -documents in 1173-1174. In 1176 in the preface to the _Compotus_[525] -Roger speaks of himself as _iuvenis_, and the heading in the manuscript -even calls him “Child Roger” or “Roger Child,”[526] but he also says -that he has devoted many years to learning, so that we need not regard -him as especially youthful at that time. The definite dates in his -career seem to fall in the decade from 1170 to 1180, although his -association with Alfred of England may well have been later. - -[Sidenote: An astrology in four parts.] - -Professor Haskins ascribes one or more astrological works to Roger -of Hereford and lists a number of manuscripts with three different -_Incipits_.[527] Some of these manuscripts I have examined. One at -Paris has the _Titulus_, “In the name of God the pious and merciful, -here opens the book of the division of astronomy and its four parts -composed by the famous astrologer Roger of Hereford.”[528] Roger -explains that the first part is general and concerned with such -matters as “peoples, events, and states, changes of weather, famine, -and mortality.” The second is special and deals with the fate of -the individual from birth to life’s close. The third deals with -interrogations and the fourth with elections. The first chapter of the -first part is entitled, “Of the properties of the signs and planets -in any country,” and opens with the statement that it has been proved -by experience that the signs Aries and Jupiter have dominion in the -land “baldac and babel and herach,” Libra and Saturn in the land of -the Christians, Scorpion and Venus in the land of the Arabs, Capricorn -and Mercury in India, Leo and Mars over the Turks, Aquarius and the -Sun in Babylonia, Virgo and the Moon in Spain. The other five signs -seem to be left without a country.[529] Chapter two tells how to find -what sign dominates in any villa; three, of the powers of the planets -in universal events; four, of the science of the annual significance -of the planets; five, knowledge of rains for the four seasons; six, -knowledge of winds in any villa;[530] nine, the twenty-eight mansions -of the moon. After the tenth chapter distinguishing these mansions as -dry and wet and temperate, the second part on nativities opens with -the retrospective statement, “Now we have treated of the first part of -this art, omitting what many astrologers have said without experience -and without reason.”[531] After a dozen chapters on the significance -of the twelve houses in nativities, the author again asserts that in -his discussion of that subject he has said nothing except what learned -men agree upon and experience has tested.[532] After devoting three -chapters to the familiar astrological theme of the revolution of years, -he takes up in the third and fourth books[533] interrogations according -to the twelve houses and elections, which are made in two ways -according as the nativity is or is not known. The invocation of God the -pious and compassionate in the _Titulus_ and the list of countries and -peoples in the first chapter have a Mohammedan and oriental flavor and -suggest that the work is a translation. - -[Sidenote: Another astrology in four parts.] - -Different from the foregoing is another work dealing with four parts of -judicial astrology which the manuscripts ascribe to Roger of Hereford. -Its opening words[534] and the subjects of its four parts all differ -from those of the other treatise. Its first part deals with “simple -judgment”; its fourth part, with “the reason of judgment”; while -its second and third parts instead of third and fourth, as in the -foregoing treatise, deal with interrogations, now called _Cogitatio_, -and elections.[535] I know of no manuscript where this second work -is to be found complete; in fact, I am inclined to surmise that -usually the manuscripts give only the first of its four parts.[536] It -professes at the start to be a brief collection of rules of judicial -astrology hitherto only to be found scattered through various works. -Astrology is extolled as an art of incomparable excellence without -which other branches of learning are fruitless. “They appear to a few -through experiments; ... it gives most certain experiments.”[537] The -first book treats of the properties of the signs and planets, of the -twelve houses, and defines a long list of astrological terms such as -_respectus_, _applicatio_, _separatio_, _periclitus_, _solitudo_, -_allevatio_, _translatio_, _collatio_, _redditio_, _contradictio_, -_impeditio_, _evasio_, _interruptio_, _compassio_, _renuntiatio_, and -_receptio_.[538] Some tables are also given, in connection with one -of which we are told that the longest hour at Hereford exceeds the -shortest by eleven degrees and forty minutes.[539] - -[Sidenote: _Book of Three General Judgments._] - -To Roger is also ascribed a _Book of Three General Judgments of -Astronomy, from which all others flow_, which sometimes is listed -separately in the manuscripts and apparently is found alone as a -distinct work,[540] but in other manuscripts[541] seems to be an -integral part of the work of four parts which we have just described. -Its three general judgments are: gaining honors and escaping evils; -_intentio vel meditacio_, which, like the _cogitacio_ mentioned above, -refers to interrogations; and _comparatio vel electio_ which of -course is elections. Thus the second and third parts of this _Book of -Three General Judgments_ deal with the same subjects as the second -and third books of the work in four parts, which makes it difficult -to distinguish them. I am inclined to think that in those manuscripts -where the _Book of Three General Judgments_ seems an integral part -of the work in four parts, we really have simply the first of the -four parts, followed by the _Book of Three General Judgments_.[542] -At any rate it seems clear that most of Roger’s astrological -composition is on the theme of interrogations and elections. _Iudicia -Herefordensis_,[543] found in more than one manuscript, may come from a -fourth work of his or be portions of the foregoing works. - -[Sidenote: Summary.] - -In this chapter we have treated of two Englishmen of the latter half -of the twelfth century who are not generally known.[544] They were -not, however, without influence, as we have already shown in the case -of Daniel of Morley and as the number of manuscripts of the works of -Roger of Hereford sufficiently attests for him. Daniel and Roger show -that the same interest in astrology and astronomy from Arabic sources -prevails at the close of the century in England as at its beginning in -the cases of Walcher, prior of Malvern, and Adelard of Bath. Daniel, -like Adelard, illustrates the relation of science to Christian thought; -Roger, like Walcher, is an astronomer who makes and carefully records -observations of his own,[545] while he trusts in astrology as based -upon experience. As Alfred of England dedicated his translation of the -pseudo-Aristotelian _De vegetabilibus_ to Roger, so he dedicated his -_De motu cordis_ (_On the Motion of the Heart_) to a third Englishman, -Alexander Neckam, to whom we turn in the next chapter for a picture -of the state of science and his work _On the Natures of Things_ (_De -naturis rerum_) in his time. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[496] Fol. 88r. - -[497] Fols. 88v-89r. - -[498] Fol. 95v. - -[499] Fol. 96. - -[500] Fol. 94v. - -[501] Fol. 89v. - -[502] Fol. 95v. - -[503] Fol. 93v. - -[504] Fols. 95r-96. - -[505] Fol. 92r. - -[506] Fol. 101v. - -[507] Fol. 100v. - -[508] _Idem._ - -[509] Fol. 99v. - -[510] Fol. 102v. - -[511] Fol. 102r. - -[512] Fol. 100v. - -[513] _De sensu et sensato_ at fols. 97r and 98v; _De coelo et mundo_, -_ibid._; _De auditu naturali_, fol. 97r. I do not know if Al-Farabi’s -_De ortu scientiarum_ is meant by (fol. 96r) “Aristotiles in libro de -assignanda ratione unde orte sunt scientie.” - -[514] Fols. 92v, 91v, and 89r. - -[515] Fol. 99r. - -[516] Edmund Nolan and S. A. Hirsch, _The Greek Grammar of Roger -Bacon_, Cambridge, 1902, p. xlvii. Gasquet, “English Scholarship in the -Thirteenth Century,” and “English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth -Century,” in _The Dublin Review_ (1898), vol. 123, pp. 7 and 362. - -[517] Fol. 89v, “Calcidius, forte minus provide exponens Platonem, -dixit....” We have so often been assured that the Middle Ages knew -Plato only through Chalcidius’ translation of the _Timaeus_ that I -think it advisable to note this bit of evidence that the medievals did -not swallow their Chalcidius whole. - -[518] Rose (1874), p. 331. Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, although himself -calling attention to a second manuscript of Daniel’s treatise, -continues to hold that it “scheint wenig Verbreitung gefunden zu haben.” - -[519] Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, expresses a similar opinion. He still, -however, repeats with respect Rose’s assertion that the treatise “wie -ein Gift beseitigt worden,” but would explain this as less due to -Daniel’s astrological doctrine than his employing Arabian authorities -instead of the church fathers. - -[520] Oriel 7, fols. 194v-96v: see bibliographical note at beginning -of this chapter for a fuller description of it and the following MS of -Brian Twyne. - -[521] Corpus Christi 263, fols. 166-7. - -[522] Professor Haskins’ account of Roger’s life and works in his -“Introduction of Arabic Science into England,” EHR (1915), XXX, 65-8, -supplements and supersedes the article in DNB. Where I do not cite -authorities for statements that follow in the text, they may be found -in Haskins’ article. - -[523] BN 10271, fol. 203v, quoted by Haskins (1915), p. 67. It seems to -me, however, from an examination of the MS that Roger’s work concludes -at fol. 201v, “Explicit liber,” and that this extract, “Ad habendam -noticiam quis est vel erit dominus anni,” at fol. 203v, may be another -matter. - -[524] The initial letters of the table of contents form the acrostic, -“Gilleberto Rogerus salutes H. D.” - -[525] Printed in part by T. Wright, _Biograph. Lit._, p. 90 _et seq._ - -[526] Digby 40, fol. 65, “Prefatio magistri Rogeri Infantis in -compotum”; Haskins conjectures that _Infantis_ may be a corruption for -Hereford, or an equivalent for the _iuvenis_ of the text; but Leland -took it as Roger’s surname and called him Roger Yonge. - -[527] Haskins is not quite accurate in saying (p. 67), “Royal MS 12 -F, 17 of the British Museum, catalogued as ‘Herefordensis iudicia’ is -really the treatise of Haly, _De iudiciis_,” for while the MS does -contain Egidius de Tebaldis’ translation of _Haly de iudiciis_ in a -fourteenth century hand, on its fly-leaves are inserted in a fifteenth -century hand both “iudicia Herfordensis” and a treatise on conjunctions -of John Eschenden. Moreover, all these items are listed both in the old -and the new catalogue of the Royal MSS. - -[528] BN 10271, written in 1476, 1481 A. D., etc., fol. 179-, “In -nomine dei pii et misericordis Incipit liber de divisione astronomie -atque de eius quatuor partibus compositus per clarum Rogerium Herfort -Astrologum.” The text proper opens: “Quoniam principium huic arti -dignum duximus de quatuor eius partibus agamus.” - -[529] This chapter is almost exactly like the first chapter of the -first book of the printed edition of John of Seville’s _Epitome totius -astrologiae_, and the general plan of the two treatises and their -emphasis upon experience are very similar, although there also seem -to be considerable divergences. For instance, the next chapter in the -printed text is different, “De coniunctionibus planetarum, quae sunt -numero c.xx.” Unfortunately I have not been able to compare edition and -manuscript in detail. Both may represent texts of late date which have -rearranged or added variously to the original, whether it be by John or -Roger. Or both John and Roger may have taken similar liberties with a -common Arabic source. John’s authorship appears to be supported by more -MSS than Roger’s. - -[530] Caps. 7 and 8, at fol. 182r-v, are, “De proprietate signorum in -qualibet terra” and “De cognitione de bono anno vel malo.” - -[531] Fol. 183v, “Iam egimus de prima parte huius arte omissis que -astrologi multi sine experimento et ratione dixerunt.” - -[532] Fol. 190v (cap. 14, de revolutione annorum nativitatis), “Iam -radicem nativitatis sermone complevimus nec diximus nisi in quibus -sapientes convenerunt et experimentum ex ipsis habetur.” The same -sentence occurs in John of Spain, _Epitome totius astrologiae_, 1548, -II, xx, fol. 62v. - -[533] Book 3, fols. 192v-199r, has 16 chapters; Book 4, fols. -199v-201v, has ten. The division into chapters is different in the -printed text ascribed to John of Spain. - -[534] Berlin 964, 15th century, fol. 87-, “Quoniam regulas artis -astronomie iudicandi non nisi per diversa opera dispersas invenimus -universali astrologorum desiderio satisfacere cupientes....” Other MSS -similar. - -[535] Selden supra 76, fol. 3v, de simplici iudicio, de cogitatione, de -electione, de ratione iudicii. - -[536] Digby 149, 13th century, fols. 189-95, “Liber de quatuor partibus -astronomie iudiciorum editus a magistro Rogero de Herefordia. Quoniam -regulas astronomie artis ... / ... Explicit prima pars.” - -CUL 1693, 14th century, fols. 40-51, “Liber Magistri Rogeri de -Herfordia de iudiciis Astronomie. Quoniam Regulas artis Astronomice ... -/ ... oportet inspicere diligenter et completur Liber primus.” - -I shall presently show reason for thinking that Selden supra 76 and MS -E Musaeo 181 also give only the first part. - -[537] Selden supra 76, fol. 3r. - -[538] Selden supra 76, fol. 6, has only those terms from _redditio_ on; -the others will be found in MS E Musaeo 181. - -[539] Selden supra 76, fol. 5r. - -[540] BN 7434, 14th century, #5, de tribus generalibus iudiciis -astronomie ex quibus certa (cetera?) defluunt.... - -Dijon 1045 (the same, I judge, as that numbered 270 by Haskins), -15th century, fol. 172v-, “Quoniam circa tria fit omnis astronomica -consideratio ... / ... sed non respiciens 3. Explicit.” - -In the following MS it follows the first book of the work in four parts -but is listed as distinct therefrom in the catalogue: - -CUL 1693, 14th century, fols. 51-59, “Liber de tribus generalibus -iudiciis astronomie ex quibus cetera omnia defluunt editus a Magistro -Rogero de Herfordia. Quoniam circa tria sit (fit?) omnis astronomica -consideratio ... / ... minimus vero septem horarum et 20 minutorum -etc.” This last is not the same ending as in Dijon 1045, but would seem -to refer to the length of the shortest day. - -[541] Selden supra 76 and MS E Musaeo 181. - -[542] As we have already seen to be the case in CUL 1693, fols. -40-51-59. In Selden supra 76, the work in four parts begins at fol. -3r, “Liber magistri Rogeri Hereford de iudiciis astronomicis. Quoniam -regulas artis....” At fol. 10v, Liber de tribus generalibus iudiciis -astronomie ex quibus cetera omnia defluunt, editus a magistro Rogero -Hereford. In three books and a prologue, opening, “Quoniam circa tria -fit omnis astronomica consideracio....” The question then arises, -do fol. 14v, “Incipit liber secundus de cogitatione. Sed quum iam -de intentione et cogitatione tractandum...”; and fol. 18r, “Incipit -liber tercius de electione vel operatione per quod fiat electio”; have -reference to the last two books of _Three General Judgments_ or to the -two middle books of the work in four parts? Apparently the former, -since there is no fourth part given; at fol. 20 seems to open another -treatise, _Liber de motibus planetarum_. - -MS E Musaeo 181 has the same arrangement as Selden supra 76, fols. -10-18, but ends with the second book _De cogitacione_. For the first of -the four parts it is fuller than Selden supra 76, fols. 3-9. - -Laud. Misc. 594, fols. 136-137r, beginning mutilated, opens “illius -signi et duodenarie ostendentis” and ends “secunda si vero respiciens -tertia. Explicit liber de quatuor partibus iudiciorum astronomiae -editus a magistro Rogero de Hereford.” But the closing words, -“respiciens tertia,” are those connected with the Incipit of the _Book -of Three General Judgments_ in Dijon 1045, a good illustration of the -complexities of the problem. - -[543] Besides the fly-leaf of Royal 12-F-17, mentioned above in a note, -Ashmole 192, #2, pp. 1-17, “Expliciunt iudicia Herfordensis multum bona -et utilia.” It will be noted that in Selden supra 76 the title _De -iudiciis_ is applied to the work in four parts. - -[544] Neither name, for example, despite the devotion of both to -astrology, appears in the index of T. O. Wedel’s, _The Mediaeval -Attitude toward Astrology particularly in England_, Yale University -Press, 1920. - -[545] For example, in the same MS with Daniel of Morley’s work, Arundel -377, fol. 86v, de altitudine Solis etc. apud Toletum et Herefordiam; -_Ibid._, “Anni collecti omnium planetarum compositi a magistro Rogero -super annos domini ad mediam noctem Herefordie anno ab incarnatione -domini mclxxviii post eclipsim que contigit Hereford eodem anno” (13 -September). - - - - -CHAPTER XLIII - -ALEXANDER NECKAM ON THE NATURES OF THINGS - - - Birth and childhood--Education--The state of learning in his - time--Popular science and mechanical arts--His works--_De - naturis rerum_--Neckam’s citations--His knowledge of - Aristotle--Use of recent authors--Contemporary opinion of - Neckam--His attitude toward natural science--Science and - the Bible--His own knowledge of science--Incredible stories - of animals--A chapter on the cock--Effect of sin upon - nature--Neckam on occult virtues--Fascination--His limited - belief in astrology--Neckam’s farewell. - - -[Sidenote: Birth and childhood.] - -In the year 1157 an Englishwoman was nursing two babies. One was a -foster child; the other, her own son. During the next fifty years -these two boys were to become prominent in different fields. The fame -of the one was to be unsurpassed on the battlefield and in the world -of popular music and poetry. He was to become king of England, lord -of half of France, foremost of knights and crusaders, and the idol of -the troubadours. He was Richard, Cœur de Lion. The other, in different -fields and a humbler fashion, was none the less also to attain -prominence; he was to be clerk and monk instead of king and crusader, -and to win fame in the domain of Latin learning rather than Provençal -literature. This was Alexander Neckam. Of his happy childhood at St. -Albans he tells us himself in Latin verse somewhat suggestive of Gray’s -lines on Eton: - - _Hic locus aetatis nostrae primordia novit_ - _Annos felices laetitiaeque dies_ - _Hic locus ingenuis pueriles imbuit annos_ - _Artibus et nostrae laudis origo fuit_, - -[Sidenote: Education.] - -A number of years of his life were spent as teacher at Dunstable in a -school under the control of the monastery of St. Albans. It was at -Paris, however, that he received his higher education and also taught -for a while. Scarcely any place, he wrote late in life, was better -known to him than the city in whose schools he had been “a small -pillar” and where he “faithfully learned and taught the arts, then -turned to the study of Holy Writ, heard lectures in Canon Law, and upon -Hippocrates and Galen, and did not find Civil Law distasteful.” This -passage not only illustrates his own broad education in the liberal -arts, the two laws, medicine, and theology, but also suggests that -these four faculties were already formed or forming at Paris. Neckam -visited Italy, as his humorous poem bidding Rome good-by attests, and -from two of the stories which he tells in _The Natures of Things_[546] -we may infer that he had been in Rouen and Meaux. In 1213 Neckam was -elected abbot of Cirencester, and died in 1217. An amusing story is -told in connection with Neckam’s first becoming a monk. He is said to -have first applied for admission to a Benedictine monastery, but when -the abbot made a bad pun upon his good name, saying, _Si bonus es, -venias; si nequam, nequaquam_ (If you are a good man you may come; if -Neckam, by no means), he joined the Augustinians instead.[547] - -[Sidenote: The state of learning.] - -Neckam gives us a glimpse of the learned world of his time as well -as of his own education. He thinks past times happy, when he recalls -that “the greatest princes were diligent and industrious in aiding -investigation of nature,” and that it was then commonly said, “An -illiterate king is a crowned ass.”[548] But he is not ashamed of the -schools of his own day. After speaking of the learning of Greece -and Egypt in antiquity and stating that schools no longer flourish -in those lands, he exclaims, “But what shall I say of Salerno and -Montpellier where the diligent skill of medical students, serving the -public welfare, provides remedies to the whole world against bodily -ills? Italy arrogates to itself proficiency in the civil law, but -celestial scripture and the liberal arts prefer Paris to all other -cities as their home. And in accord with Merlin’s prophecy the wisdom -now flourishes at Oxford which in his time was in process of transfer -to Ireland.”[549] Neckam’s assertion that there were no schools -in the Greece and Egypt of his day is interesting as implying the -insignificance of Byzantine and Mohammedan learning in the second half -of the twelfth century. He perhaps does not think of Constantinople as -in “Greece,” but in Egypt he must certainly include Cairo, where the -mosque el-Azhar, devoted in 988 to educational purposes, “has been ever -since one of the chief universities of Islam.”[550] At any rate it is -clear that to his mind the intellectual supremacy has now passed to -western Europe. - -[Sidenote: Popular science and mechanical arts.] - -In his praises of learning Neckam is a little too inclined, like many -other Latin writers, to speak slightingly of the _vulgus_ or common -crowd. In antiquity, he affirms, the liberal arts were the monopoly -of free men; mechanical or adulterine arts were for the ignoble.[551] -This does not mean, however, that his eyes are closed to the value of -practical inventions, since both in _The Natures of Things_ and his -_De utensilibus_ we find what are perhaps the earliest references to -the mariner’s compass[552] and to glass mirrors.[553] Indeed, he often -entertains us with popular gossip and superstition, mentioning for -the first time the belief in a man in the moon,[554] and telling such -stories of daily life as that of the lonely sailor whose dog helped -him reef the sails and manage the ropes of the boat in crossing the -Channel,[555] or of the sea-fowl whose daily cry announced to the sheep -in the tidal meadow that it was time to seek higher pasture, until one -day its beak was caught by the shell of an oyster it tried to devour -and the sheep were drowned for lack of warning.[556] - -[Sidenote: His works.] - -Neckam’s writings were numerous, and, as might have been expected -from his wide studies, in varied fields. They include grammatical -treatises,[557] works on Ovid and classical mythology, commentaries -upon the books of the Bible such as the Psalms and Song of Songs, and -the writings of Aristotle, and other works of a literary, scientific, -or theological character.[558] Most of them, however, if extant, are -still in manuscript. Only a few have been printed;[559] among them is -_The Natures of Things_ which we shall presently consider. - -Neckam is a good illustration of the humanistic movement in the twelfth -century. He wrote Latin verse[560] as well as prose; took pains with -and pride in his Latin style; and shows acquaintance with a large -number of classical authors. He had some slight knowledge, at least, of -Hebrew. He was especially addicted, according to Wright,[561] to those -ingenious but philologically absurd derivations of words in which the -_Etymologies_ of Isidore of Seville had dealt, explaining, for example, -the Latin word for corpse (_cadaver_) as compounded from the three -roots seen in the words for flesh (_caro_), given (_data_), to worms -(_vermibus_). Yet in one chapter of _The Natures of Things_ Neckam -attacks “the verbal cavils” and use of obsolete words in his time -as “useless and frivolous,” and asks if one cannot be a good jurist -or physician or philosopher without all this linguistic and verbal -display.[562] Wright, moreover, was also impressed by Neckam’s interest -in natural science, calling him “certainly one of the most remarkable -English men of science in the twelfth century,”[563] and noting that -“he not infrequently displays a taste for experimental science.”[564] - -[Sidenote: _De naturis rerum._] - -_The Natures of Things_, however, is not primarily a scientific or -philosophical dissertation, as Alexander is careful to explain in the -preface, but a vehicle for moral instruction. Natural phenomena are -described, but following each comes some moral application or spiritual -allegory thereof. The spots on the moon, for instance, are explained -by some as due to mountains and to depressions which the sun’s light -cannot reach, by others as due to the greater natural obscurity of -portions of the moon. Neckam adds that they are for our instruction, -showing how even the heavenly bodies were stained by the sin of our -first parents, and reminding us that during this present life there -will always be some blot upon holy church, but that when all the -planets and stars shall stand as it were justified, our state too will -become stable, and both the material moon and holy church will be -spotless before the Lamb.[565] Neckam intends to admire God through -His creatures and in so doing humbly to kiss as it were the feet of -the Creator. Despite this religious tone and the moralizing, Wright -regarded the work “as an interesting monument of the history of science -in western Europe and especially in England during the latter half -of the twelfth century,”[566] and as such we shall consider it. That -it was written before 1200 is to be inferred from a quotation from it -by a chronicler of John’s reign.[567] It seems to have been the best -known of Neckam’s works. The brevity of _The Natures of Things_, which -consists of but two books, if we omit the other three of its five books -which consist of commentaries upon _Genesis_ and _Ecclesiastes_, hardly -allows us to call it an encyclopedia; but its title and arrangement by -topics and chapters closely resemble the later works which are usually -spoken of as medieval encyclopedias. Later in life Neckam wrote a -poetical paraphrase of it with considerable changes, which is entitled -_De laudibus divinae sapientiae_. - -[Sidenote: Neckam’s citations.] - -The citations of authorities in the _De naturis rerum_ are of much -interest. A number of references to the law books of Justinian show -Neckam’s knowledge of the Roman law,[568] and, as we should expect -after hearing of his commentary upon Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_, allusions -to that work, the _Fasti_, and the _Ars amandi_ are frequent. Claudian -is once quoted for two solid pages and considerable use is made -of other Latin poets such as Vergil, Lucan, Martial, and Juvenal. -Neckam believed that the diligent investigator could find much that -was useful in the inventions of the poets and that beneath their -fables moral instruction sometimes lay hid.[569] Neckam quotes Plato, -perhaps indirectly, and repeats in different words the fable of the -crow and fox, as given in Apuleius.[570] The church fathers are of -course utilized--Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Basil, and a more recent -theologian like Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury; and familiarity is -shown with the early medieval standard authorities, such as Boethius, -Cassiodorus, Bede, and Isidore. Of writers who may be regarded as -dealing more particularly with natural science there are mentioned -Pliny and Solinus on animals--but he seems to use Pliny very little -and Solinus a great deal, Macer and Dioscorides on the properties -and effects of herbs,[571] while works in the domain of astronomy -or astrology are attributed to Julius (perhaps really Firmicus) and -Augustus Caesar as well as to Ptolemy.[572] - -[Sidenote: His knowledge of Aristotle.] - -But what is most impressive is the frequent citation from Euclid and -Aristotle, especially the latter. Not only the logical treatises -are cited, but also the _History of Animals_[573] and the _Liber -Coeli et Mundi_, while allusion is also made to Aristotle’s opinions -concerning vision, motion, melancholy, waters, and various astronomical -matters.[574] Such passages--as well as the fact that commentaries -on Aristotle are ascribed to Neckam--suggest that Roger Bacon was -mistaken in the much-quoted passage in which he states that the works -of Aristotle on natural philosophy were first introduced to the -medieval (Latin) learned world in Latin translations by Michael Scot -about 1230. Neckam perhaps cites the _History of Animals_ indirectly: -at any rate he makes little use of it; but his numerous mentions -of Aristotle’s views on nature make it evident that “the truth of -Aristotelian” doctrine is already known in the twelfth century. And he -already regards “the most acute Aristotle” as the pre-eminent authority -among all philosophers. After stating that “all philosophers generally -seem to teach” that the planets move in a contrary direction to the -firmament like flies walking on a rushing wheel, Neckam adds a number -of objections to this view, and adds, “It therefore was the opinion -of Aristotle, the most acute, that the planets moved only with the -firmament.” He then expresses his amazement that the other philosophers -should have dared to oppose Aristotle, should have presumed to set -their opinions against so great a philosopher. It is as if a peacock -spread its spotted tail in rivalry with the starry sky, or as if owls -and bats should vie with the eagle’s unblinking eye in staring at the -mid-day sun.[575] - -[Sidenote: Use of recent authors.] - -That Neckam had some acquaintance with Arabic and Jewish writers is -indicated by his citing Alfraganus and Isaac. Of Christian writers -of the century before him Neckam quotes from Hildebert, and four -times from Bernard Silvester. He cites the _Pantegni_ or _Tegni_ -of Constantinus Africanus more than once.[576] He does not mention -Adelard of Bath by name but in discussing experiments with vacuums -repeats the experiment of the water jar. In another chapter he states -that, if the earth were perforated, an enormous weight of lead would -fall only to the center. Neckam’s chapter on “Why in the same earth -plants grow of contrary effects” is similar to the third chapter of the -_Natural Questions_ of Adelard, and his chapter on “Why certain animals -ruminate” is like Adelard’s seventh in the same work.[577] - -[Sidenote: Contemporary opinion of Neckam.] - -Roger Bacon, whose estimates of his contemporaries have sometimes been -accepted at too high a value, wrote of Neckam some fifty years after -Alexander’s death: “This Alexander wrote true and useful books on many -subjects, but he cannot with justice be named as an authority.”[578] -Bacon himself, however, seems on at least one occasion to have used -Neckam as an authority without naming him.[579] On the other hand, -another Englishman of note in science, Alfred of Sarchel or Sareshel, -dedicated his book on The Movement of the Heart (_De motu cordis_) to -Neckam. - -[Sidenote: His attitude toward natural science.] - -Whatever Neckam’s own scientific attainments may have been, there can -be no doubt that he had a high regard for scientia and that he was not -wanting in sympathetic appreciation of the scientific spirit. This -fact shines out in the pages of the _De naturis rerum_ amid its moral -lessons and spiritual illustrations, its erroneous etymologies and -popular anecdotes. “Science is acquired,” he says in one passage, “at -great expense, by frequent vigils, by great expenditure of time, by -sedulous diligence of labor, by vehement application of mind.”[580] -But its acquisition abundantly justifies itself even in practical life -and destructive war. “What craftiness of the foe is there that does -not yield to the precise knowledge of those who have tracked down the -elusive subtleties of things hidden in the very bosom of nature?”[581] -He often cites these experts in natural science, whom he always seems -to regard with respect as authorities.[582] Not that he believes that -they have solved all problems. Some things forsooth are so hidden -that it seems as if Nature is saying, “This is my secret, this is my -secret!”[583] On the other hand, there are many natural phenomena too -familiar through daily use and experience to need mention in books, -since even those who do not read are acquainted with them. Neckam -consequently will follow a middle course in selecting the contents of -his volume. - -[Sidenote: Science and the Bible.] - -Although a Christian clergyman, Neckam seems to experience little -difficulty in adopting the scientific theories of Aristotle; or, if -there are Aristotelian doctrines known to him with which he disagrees, -he usually quietly disregards them.[584] But he does raise the question -several times of the correctness of Biblical statements concerning -nature. He explains that Adam’s body was composed of all four elements -and not made merely from earth, as the account of creation in the Book -of Genesis might seem to imply.[585] And of the scriptural assertion -that “God made two great lights” he says, “The historical narrative -follows the judgment of the eye and the popular notion,” but of course -the moon is not one of the largest planets.[586] In a third chapter -entitled, “That water is not lower than earth,” he notes that the -statement of the prophet that “God founded the earth upon the waters” -does not agree with Alfraganus’ dictum that there is one sphere of -earth and waters.[587] Wright quite unreasonably interprets this -chapter as showing “to what a degree science had become the slave -of scriptural phraseology.”[588] What it really shows is just the -contrary, for even the Biblical expositors, Neckam tells us, say that -the passage is to be taken in the sense that one speaks of Paris as -located on the Seine. Neckam then makes a suggestion of his own, that -what is really above the waters is the terrestrial paradise, since it -is even beyond the sphere of the moon, and Enoch, translated thither, -suffered no inconvenience whatever from the waters of the deluge. -Moreover, the terrestrial paradise symbolizes the church which is -founded on the waters of baptism. All of which is of course far-fetched -and fanciful, but in no way can be said to make science “the slave -of scriptural phraseology.” On the contrary it makes scriptural -phraseology the slave of mysticism, while it subjects Enoch’s -translation to somewhat material limitations. Possibly there may be -used here some of the apocryphal books current under Enoch’s name.[589] -On one occasion Neckam does accept a statement of the Bible which -seems inconsistent with the views of philosophers concerning the four -elements. This is the assertion that after the day of judgment there -will be neither fire nor water but only air and earth will be left. To -an imaginary philosopher who seems unwilling to accept this assertion -Neckam says, “If you don’t believe me, at least believe Peter, the -chief of the apostles, who says the same in his canonical epistle. -Says what? Says that fire and water will not exist after the judgment -day.”[590] But if Neckam prefers to believe his Bible as to what will -occur in the world of nature after the day of judgment, he prefers -also, as we have seen, to follow natural science in regard to present -natural phenomena. Moreover, in neither the canonical nor apocryphal -books can I find any such statement in the Epistles of Peter as Neckam -here credits him with, unless after the elements have melted with -fervent heat, the new heavens and a new earth are to be interpreted as -made respectively of air and earth! - -[Sidenote: His own knowledge of science.] - -We may agree at least with Wright that Neckam’s scientific attainments -are considerable for his time. In physics and astronomy he shows -himself fairly well versed. He knows something of vacuums and -syphoning; he argues that water tends naturally to take a spherical -shape;[591] he twice points out that the walls of buildings should not -be exactly parallel, since they should ultimately meet, if prolonged -far enough, at the center of the earth;[592] and he asserts that the -so-called “antipodes” are no more under our feet than we are under -theirs.[593] He gives us what is perhaps our earliest information of -some medieval inventions, such as the mariner’s compass and mirrors -of glass.[594] But he does not attempt to explain differences in the -images in convex and concave mirrors.[595] He is modest in regard to -his biological attainments, saying that he “is not ashamed to confess” -that there are species of which he does not even know the names, to say -nothing of their natures.[596] But when Wright calls Neckam’s account -of animals “a mere compilation” and says that “much of it is taken -from the old writers, such as Solinus, Isidore, and Cassiodorus,”[597] -he is basing his conclusion simply on the fact that marginal notes in -the medieval manuscripts themselves ascribe a number of passages to -these authors. This ascription is correct. But there are many passages -on animals where the manuscripts name no authorities, and with one -exception--the chapter on the hyena from Solinus--Wright fails to name -any source from which Neckam has borrowed these other passages. It -is easy to show that Neckam is a compiler when he himself or others -have stated his authorities but it is equally fair to suppose that he -is honest and original when he cites no authorities or has not been -detected in borrowing. And he sometimes criticizes or discriminates -between the earlier writers. After quoting Bernard Silvester’s -statement that the beaver castrates itself to escape its hunters, he -adds, “But those who are more reliably informed as to the natures of -things assert that Bernard has followed the ridiculous popular notion -and not reached the true fact.”[598] Neckam also questions the belief -that a lynx has such keen sight that it can see through nine walls. -This is supposed to have been demonstrated experimentally by observing -a lynx with nine walls between it and a person carrying some raw meat. -The lynx will move along its side of the walls whenever the meat is -moved on the other side and will stop opposite the spot where the -person carrying the meat stops. Neckam does not question the accuracy -of this absurd experiment, but remarks that some natural scientists -attribute it rather to the animal’s sense of smell than to its power of -vision.[599] - -[Sidenote: Incredible stories of animals.] - -But as a rule Neckam’s treatment of animals is far more credulous -than sceptical. He believes that the barnacle bird is generated from -fir-wood which has been soaked in the salt water for a long time,[600] -and that the wren, after it has been killed and is being roasted, turns -itself on the spit.[601] He tells a number of delightful but incredible -stories in which animals display remarkable sagacity and manifest -emotions and motives similar to those of human beings. Some of these -tales concern particular pets or wild beasts; others are of the habits -of a species. The hawk, for example, keeps warm on wintry nights by -seizing some other bird in its claws and holding it tight against its -own body; but when day returns it gratefully releases this bird and -satisfies its morning appetite upon some other victim.[602] Neckam -also shares the common belief that animals were acquainted with the -medicinal virtues of herbs. When the weasel is wounded by a venomous -animal, it hastens to seek salubrious plants. For “educated by nature, -it knows the virtues of herbs, although it has neither studied medicine -at Salerno nor been drilled in the schools at Montpellier.”[603] - -[Sidenote: A chapter on the cock.] - -Neckam’s chapter on the barnyard cock perhaps will illustrate the -divergences between medieval and modern science as well as any other. -As a rooster approaches old age, he sometimes lays an egg upon which a -toad sits, and from which is hatched the basilisk. How is it that the -cock “distinguishes the hours by his song”? From great heat ebullition -of the humors within the said bird arises, it produces saltiness, the -saltiness causes itching, from the itching comes tickling, from the -tickling comes delectation, and delectation excites one to song. Now -nature sets certain periods to the movements of humors and therefore -the cock crows at certain hours. But why have roosters crests and hens -not? This is because of their very moist brains and the presence near -the top of their heads of some bones which are not firmly joined. So -the gross humor arising from the humidity escapes through the openings -and produces the crest.[604] - -[Sidenote: Effect of sin upon nature.] - -Neckam harbored the notion, which we met long before in the pagan -Philostratus, in the Hebraic Enoch literature, in the Christian -_Pseudo-Clementines_ and Basil’s _Hexaemeron_, and more recently in the -writings of Hildegard, that man’s sin has its physical effects upon -nature. To Adam’s fall he attributes not only the spots on the moon but -the wildness of most animals, and the existence of insects to plague, -and venomous animals to poison, and diseases to injure mankind.[605] -But for the fall of man, moreover, all living creatures would be -subsisting upon a vegetarian diet. - -[Sidenote: Neckam on occult virtues.] - -Magic is hardly mentioned in the _De naturis rerum_. In a passage, -however, telling how Aristotle ordered some of his subtlest works to -be buried with him, Neckam adds that he so guarded the neighborhood of -his sepulcher “by some mysterious force of nature or power of art, not -to say feat of the magic art, that no one in those days could enter -it.”[606] But Neckam is a believer in occult virtues and to a certain -extent in astrology. He would also seem to believe in the force of -incantations from his assertion that “in words and herbs and stones -diligent investigators of nature have discovered great virtue. Most -certain experience, moreover, makes our statement trustworthy.”[607] -He mentions a much smaller number of stones than Marbod, but ascribes -the same occult virtues to those which he does name. In the preface -to his first book he says that some gems have greater virtue when set -in silver than when set in gold. A tooth separated from the jaw of -a wild boar remains sharp only as long as the animal remains alive, -an interesting bit of sympathetic magic.[608] The occult property of -taming wild bulls possessed by the fig-tree which we have already seen -noted by various authors is also remarked by Neckam.[609] A moonbeam -shining through a narrow aperture in the wall of a stable fell directly -on a sore on a horse’s back and caused the death of a groom standing -nearby. Out-of-doors the effect would not have been fatal, since the -force of the moon’s rays would not have been so concentrated upon one -spot and the humidity would have had a better chance to diffuse through -space.[610] - -[Sidenote: Fascination.] - -After telling of the fatal glances of the basilisk and wolf, Neckam -says that fascination is explained as due to evil rays from someone who -looks at you. He adds that nurses lick the face of a child who has been -fascinated.[611] - -[Sidenote: His limited belief in astrology.] - -Neckam will not believe that the seven planets are animals.[612] He -does believe, however, that they not merely adorn the heavens but exert -upon inferiors those effects which God has assigned to them.[613] Each -planet rules in turn three hours of the day. As there are twenty-four -hours in all, the last three hours of each day are governed by the same -planet which ruled the first three. Hence the names of the days in the -planetary week, Sunday being the day when the sun governs the first -three and last three hours, Monday the day when the moon controls the -opening and closing hours of day, and so on.[614] But the stars do not -impose necessity upon the human will which remains free. Nevertheless -the planet Mars, for instance, bestows the gift of counsel; and science -is associated with the planet Venus which is hot and moist, as are -persons of sanguine temperament in whom science is wont to flourish. -Neckam also associates each of the seven planets which illuminate the -universe with one of the seven liberal arts which shed light on all -knowledge.[615] He alludes to the great year of which the philosophers -tell, when after 36,000 years the stars complete their courses,[616] -and to the music of the spheres when, to secure the perfect consonance -of an octave, the eighth sphere of the fixed stars completes the -harmony of the seven planets. But he fears that someone may think he -is raving when he speaks with the philosophers of this harmony of the -eight spheres.[617] - -[Sidenote: Neckam’s farewell.] - -At Jesus College, Oxford, in a manuscript of the early thirteenth -century, which is exclusively devoted to religious writings by -Neckam,[618] there occurs at the close an address of the author to his -work, which is in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, which -we may therefore not unreasonably suppose to have been Neckam’s own -writing. As he is spoken of in the manuscript as abbot of Cirencester, -perhaps these are also actually the last words he wrote. We may -therefore appropriately terminate our account of Neckam by quoting them. - -“Perchance, O book, you will survive Alexander, and worms will eat -me before the book-worm gnaws you; for my body is due the worms and -book-worms will demolish you. You are the mirror of my soul, the -interpreter of my meditations, the surest index of my meaning, the -faithful messenger of my mind’s emotions, the sweet comforter of my -grief, the true witness of my conscience. To you as faithful depositary -I have confided my heart’s secrets; you restore faithfully to me those -things which I have committed to your trust; in you I read myself. You -will come, you will come into the hands of some pious reader who will -deign to pour forth prayers for me. Then indeed, little book, you will -profit your master; then you will recompense your Alexander by a most -grateful interchange. There will come, nor do I begrudge my labor, -the devotion of a pious reader, who will now let you repose in his -lap, now move you to his breast, sometimes place you as a sweet pillow -beneath his head, sometimes gently closing you with glad hands, he will -fervently pray for me to Lord Jesus Christ, who with Father and Holy -Spirit lives and reigns God through infinite cycles of ages. Amen.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[546] I, 37 and II, 158. - -[547] For references to the sources for the above facts of Neckam’s -life see the first few pages of the preface to Thomas Wright’s edition -of the _De naturis rerum_, and the _De laudibus divinae sapientiae_, -in _Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores_, vol. 34, London, 1863. -All references in this chapter, unless otherwise noted, will be to this -volume, and to the book and chapter of the _De naturis rerum_. - -[548] II, 21. - -[549] II, 174. - -[550] S. Lane-Poole, _The Story of Cairo_, London, 1902, p. 124. - -[551] II, 21. - -[552] II, 98. Wright, _Volume of Vocabularies_, p. 96. - -[553] II, 154, and Wright, Preface, p. 1, note. Wright gives no -authority for his further observation, “The employment of glass for -mirrors was known to the ancients, but appears to have been entirely -superseded by metal.” - -[554] I, 14. - -[555] II, 20. - -[556] II, 36. - -[557] Such as his “Corrogationes Promethei” found at Oxford in the -following MSS: Laud. Misc. 112, 13th century, fols. 9-42; Merton -College 254, 14th century; Bodleian (Bernard 4094) and 550 (Bernard -2300), middle of 13th century. - -[558] HL XVIII (1835), 521 was mistaken in saying that the _De -naturis rerum_ is the only one of Neckam’s works found in continental -libraries, for see Evreux 72, 13th century. Alexandri Neckam opuscula, -fol. 2. “Correctiones Promethei,” fol. 26v, “super expositione -quarundem dictionum singulorum librorum Bibliothece scilicit de -significatione eorum et accentu.” And there is a copy of his _De -utensilibus_ in BN 15171, fol. 176. - -[559] The _De utensilibus_ was also edited by Thomas Wright in 1857 -in _A Volume of Vocabularies_. Professor Haskins has printed “A List -of Text-books from the Close of the Twelfth Century” in _Harvard -Studies in Classical Philology_, XX (1909), 90-94, which he argues is -from a work by Neckam (Gonville and Caius College MS 385, pp. 7-61). -In 1520 there was printed under the name of Albericus a work which -is really by Neckam, as a MS at Oxford bears witness, Digby 221, -14th century, fol. 1. “Mithologie Alexandri Neckam et alio nomine -Sintillarium appellatur”; Incipit, “Fuit vir in Egipto ditissimus -nomine Syrophanes.” In the same MS, fols. 34v-85, follows another work, -“Alexander Nequam super Marcianum de nuptiis Mercurii et Philologie.” -See also in the Bodleian (Bernard 2019, #3, and 2581, #6) Scintillarium -Poiseos in quo de diis gentium et nominibus deorum et philosophorum de -eis opiniones ubi et de origine idolatriae. - -[560] See M. Esposito, “On Some Unpublished Poems Attributed to -Alexander Neckam,” in _English Historical Review_, XXX (1915), 450-71. -He prints several poems on wine, etc., and gives a bibliography of -Neckam’s works, five printed and eleven in MSS. - -[561] P. xiii. - -[562] II, 174. - -[563] P. ix. - -[564] P. xii. - -[565] I, 14. - -[566] Pp. xiv-xv. - -[567] Wright (p. lxxvii) used four MSS of the 13th or very early 14th -century. At Corpus Christi College, Oxford, there is a beautifully -written twelfth century copy which he did not use, MS 45, folio, 186 -fols., double columns. Comment, in Genesim et Ecclesiasten, sive de -naturis rerum libri quinque; “Explicit tract. mag. Alex. Neckam super -Ecclesiasten de naturis rerum.” Although Wright used two MSS from -the Royal Library, he fails to note a third, MS 3737 in the Harleian -collection of the British Museum. It is of the 13th century according -to the catalogue and contains this interesting inscription, “Hic est -liber S. Albani quam qui abstulerit aut titulum deleverit anathema -sit. Amen.” (This book belongs to St. Albans. May he who steals it or -destroys the title be anathema. Amen.) - -[568] I, 75; II, 155, 173. - -[569] II, 11; II, 107; II, 12; II, 126. - -[570] In H. E. Butler’s translation, Oxford, 1909, given as _Florida_, -cap. 26; in the MSS and in Hildebrand’s text, part II, Lipsiae, 1842, -included in the _prologus_ to the _De Deo Socratis_, with which we -may therefore infer that Neckam was acquainted. Indeed there is a -twelfth century manuscript of the _De Deo Socratis_ in the British -Museum--Harleian 3969. - -[571] II, 166. - -[572] II, 12. - -[573] II, 44. Narcos piscis est tantae virtutis, ut dicit -Aristoteles.... II, 159. Ut docet Aristoteles, omnia mula sterilis est. -While the substance of these two passages is found in Pliny’s _Natural -History_, he does not mention Aristotle in these connections nor use -the Greek word “narcos.” Moreover, Neckam seems to give credit as a -rule to his immediate sources and not to copy their citations; as we -have seen, he credited the fable of the fox and crow to Apuleius and -not to Aesop to whom Apuleius credits it. - -[574] II, 153. Sed Aristoteli magis credendum esse reor quam vulgo. I, -39. Dicit tamen Aristoteles quod nihil habet duos motus contrarios. -I, 7. Aristoteles qui dicit, “Solos melancholicos ingeniosos esse.” -II, 1. Secundum veritatem doctrinae Aristotelicae omnes aquae sunt -indifferentes secundum speciem. I, 9. Placuit itaque acutissimo -Aristoteli planetas tantum cum firmamento moveri. Sed quid? Aristoteli -audent sese opponere?... etc. - -[575] It would therefore seem that Professor Haskins (EHR, 30, 68) -is scarcely justified in saying that “the natural philosophy and -metaphysics of Aristotle” are “cited in part but not utilized by -Alexander Neckam,” especially since he states presently that “Neckam -himself seems to have been acquainted with the _Metaphysics, De -Anima_, and _De generatione et corruptione_” (_Ibid_., 69, and “A -List of Textbooks,” _Harvard Studies_, XX (1909), 75-94). Professor -Haskins, however, believes that the new Aristotle was by this time -penetrating England, but gives the main credit for this to Alfredus -Anglicus or Alfred of Sareshel, the author of the _De motu cordis_, -and the translator of the Pseudo-Aristotelian _De vegetabilibus_ and -of an appendix to the _Meteorologica_ consisting of three chapters _De -congelatis_, also translated from the Arabic. Alfred was no isolated -figure in English learning, since he dedicated the _De vegetabilibus_ -to Roger of Hereford and the _De motu cordis_ to Neckam: ed. Baruch, -Innsbruck, 1878; and see Baeumker, _Die Stellung des Alfred von -Sareshel ... in der Wissenschaft des beginnenden XIII Jahrts., München, -Sitzber_. (1913), No. 9. On the whole it is probably safe to assume -that his knowledge of Aristotle was soon at least, if not from the -start, shared with others. Grabmann (1916), pp. 22-25, adds nothing new -on the subject of Neckam’s knowledge of Aristotle. - -[576] I, 39; II, 11; I, 49; II, 129, 140, 157; II, 157 and 161. - -[577] I, 19; I, 16; II, 57; II, 162. - -[578] Fr. Rogeri Bacon, _Opera Inedita_, ed. Brewer, p. 457 in RS, vol. -15. - -[579] As I shall point out when I come to Roger Bacon, there are one or -two rather striking resemblances between his interests and method and -those of Neckam. - -[580] II, 155. - -[581] II, 174. - -[582] For instance, II, 148. “Qui autem in naturis rerum instructi -sunt.” - -[583] II, 99. - -[584] I, 16, a citation from Aristotle gives him a little trouble. - -[585] II, 152. - -[586] I, 13. “Sed visus iudicium et vulgarem opinionem sequitur -historialis narratio.” - -[587] II, 49. - -[588] Preface, p. xxx. - -[589] See _I Hermas_, iii, 42. “Hear therefore why the tower is built -upon the water: because your life is and shall be saved by water....” - -[590] I, 16. - -[591] II, 14. Vitruvius, VIII, v. 5, ascribes this doctrine to -Archimedes. - -[592] II, 172; and p. 109 of _De utensilibus_. - -[593] II, 49. - -[594] Wright points out (p. 1, note) that in Beckman’s _History of -Inventions_ no instances are given of allusions to glass mirrors -earlier than the middle of the thirteenth century. - -[595] II, 154. - -[596] II, 99. - -[597] P. xxxix. - -[598] II, 140. - -[599] II, 138. - -[600] I, 48. - -[601] I, 78. - -[602] I, 25. - -[603] II, 123. This reminds one of the account of the tunny fish by -Plutarch which we noted in our chapter on Plutarch, where he says -that the tunny fish needs no astrological canons and is familiar with -arithmetic; “Yes, by Zeus, and with optics, too.” It is unlikely that -Neckam was acquainted with Plutarch’s _Essays_. - -[604] I, 75; the reasoning is somewhat similar to Adelard of Bath’s -explanation why his nephew wept for joy. - -[605] II, 156. - -[606] II, 189. - -[607] II, 85. - -[608] II, 139. - -[609] II, 80. - -[610] II, 153; this item is also found in the _De Natura rerum_ of -Thomas of Cantimpré. - -[611] II, 153. - -[612] I, 9. - -[613] I, 7. - -[614] I, 10. See p. 670 for Bacon’s different account of this point. - -[615] II, 173. - -[616] I, 6. - -[617] I, 15. - -[618] Jesus 94. The MS includes a gloss on the psalter, a commentary on -the proverbs of Solomon, two sermons, and three books on “Who can find -a virtuous woman?” by Bede. - - - - -CHAPTER XLIV - -MOSES MAIMONIDES (MUSA IBN MAIMUN) 1135-1204 - - - His life--His works in the west--His works in - Latin--Attitude to science and religion--Attitude - to magic--Towards empiricism--Abuse of divine - names--Occult virtue and empirical remedies in his - work on poisons--Attitude to astrology--Divination and - prophecy--Marvels in the _Aphorisms_. - - -[Sidenote: His life.] - -In this chapter we turn to consider perhaps the leading representative -of Hebrew learning in the middle ages, Moses Maimonides[619] or Musa -ibn Maimum or Moses ben Maimon, as he is variously briefly styled, -not to entangle ourselves in the intricacies of his full Arabic name. -In the Latin versions of his works he is spoken of as Rabbi Moyses of -Cordova[620] or is made to call himself an Israelite of Cordova,[621] -but it seems to have been not much more than the scene of his birth and -childhood, since the invasion of the fanatical Almohades in 1148 forced -his father to flee with his family first from place to place in Spain, -in 1160 to Fez, later to Syria and Egypt. From about 1165 on Maimonides -seems to have lived most of the time at Cairo and there to have done -most of his work. After the deaths of his father and brother forced him -to earn a livelihood by practicing medicine, he became physician to the -vizier of Saladin and head of the Jewish community in Cairo. - -[Sidenote: His works in the west.] - -Whether or not he returned to Spain before his death in 1204, he was -certainly known to the western world of learning. In 1194 he wrote a -letter on the subject of astrology in response to inquiries which he -had received from Jews of Marseilles.[622] In it he tells them that his -_Repetition of the Law_ (_Iteratio legis_) has already spread through -the island of Sicily. But he apparently was still in Cairo, where in -July, 1198, he wrote his treatise on Poisons for the Cadi Fadhil.[623] -After his death, however, it was between the conservative and liberal -parties among the Jews of France and Spain that a struggle ensued over -the orthodoxy of his works, which was finally settled, we are told, -by reference in 1234 to the Christian authorities, who ordered his -books to be burned. His _Guide for the Perplexed_, first published -in Egypt in Arabic in 1190, had been translated into Hebrew at Lunel -in southern France before the close of the twelfth century, and then -again by a Spanish poet.[624] But the rabbis of northern France opposed -the introduction of Maimonides’ works there and, when they were -anathematized for it by those of the south, are said to have reported -the writings to the Inquisition. The Maimonist party then accused them -of delation and several of them were punished by having their tongues -cut out.[625] - -[Sidenote: His works in Latin.] - -If certain Christian authorities really did thus burn the books of -Maimonides, their action was unavailing to check the spread of his -writings even in Christian lands, and certainly was not characteristic -of the attitude of Christian Latin learning in general. _The Guide of -the Perplexed_ had already been translated into Latin before 1234,[626] -and we find Moses of Cordova cited by such staunch churchmen as -Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus,[627] Thomas Aquinas, and Vincent -of Beauvais. It was for Pope Clement V himself that Ermengard Blasius -of Montpellier translated at Barcelona Maimonides’ work on Poisons at -the beginning of the fourteenth century from Arabic into Latin.[628] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to science and religion.] - -It was not surprising that Albert and Aquinas should cite Maimonides, -for he did for Jewish thought what they attempted for Christian, -namely, the reconciliation of Aristotle and the Bible, philosophy and -written revelation. If he anteceded them in this and perhaps to some -extent showed them the way, we must remember that William of Conches, -who was earlier than he, had already faced this difficulty of the -relations between science and religion, the scriptures and the writings -of the philosophers, although he of course did not know all the books -of Aristotle. As for Maimonides, continuing the allegorical method of -Philo, he tried to discover in the Old Testament and Talmud all the -Aristotelian philosophy, and was convinced that the prophets of old had -received further revelations of a philosophical character, which had -been transmitted orally for a time but then lost during the periods -of Jewish wandering and persecution.[629] He defended Moses from the -slurs of Galen who had charged the lawgiver with an unscientific -attitude.[630] He denied the eternity of matter[631] and of the -heavens,[632] but held that the celestial bodies were living animated -beings and that the heavenly spheres were conscious and free.[633] -He spoke of belief in demons as “idle and fallacious,” holding that -evil is mere privation and that the personal Devil of Scripture was -an allegory for this, while the possession by demons was merely the -disease of melancholy.[634] Yet he believed that God does nothing -without the mediation of an angel and that belief in the existence of -angels is only second in importance to a belief in God.[635] Thus the -rationalism and scepticism which modern Jewish admirers have ascribed -to Maimonides had their decided limitations. - -[Sidenote: Attitude to magic.] - -An interesting discussion of magic occurs in the _Guide for the -Perplexed_[636] in connection with the precepts of the Mosaic law -against idolatry. Maimonides holds that magicians and diviners are -closely akin to idolaters, and this part of his discussion is very -similar to patristic treatments which we have already encountered. -He goes on, however, to say that astrology and magic were especially -characteristic of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Canaanites, and to -distinguish three varieties of magic: one employing the properties of -plants, animals and metals; a second determining the times when these -works should be performed; a third employing gesticulations, actions, -and cries of the human operator himself. Thus he recognizes the three -elements of materials, times, and rites in magic. He sees that they may -be combined in one operation, as when an herb is plucked when the moon -is in a specified degree. He notes that magic is largely performed by -women, towards whom men are more merciful than towards their own sex. -He also notes that magicians claim to do good or at least to ward off -evils such as snakes and wild beasts or the blight from plants. But -the lawgiver forbade “all those practices which contrary to natural -science are said to produce utility by special and occult virtues and -properties, ... such forsooth as proceed not from a natural cause but -a magical operation and which rely upon the constellations to such a -degree as to involve worship and veneration of them.”[637] - -[Sidenote: Towards empiricism.] - -But then Maimonides goes on to say that “everything is licit in which -any natural cause appears.” And he goes farther than that. He says that -the reader need not feel uneasy because the rabbis have allowed the use -in suspensions of a nail from the yoke worn by criminals or the tooth -of a fox. “For in those times they placed faith in these things because -they were confirmed by experience and served in the place of medicine.” -Similarly in Maimonides’ own day Galen’s remedy of the suspension of a -peony from the patient’s neck was employed in cases of epilepsy, dog’s -dung was used against pustules and sore throat, and so forth. “For -whatever is proved by experience to be true, although no natural cause -may be apparent, its use is permitted, because it acts as a medicine.” -Thus he condemns magic, but approves of empirical medicine as well as -of natural science, and evidently does not regard the employment of -occult virtues as necessarily magical and forbidden. - -[Sidenote: Abuse of divine names.] - -In another passage of the _Guide_ Maimonides cautions, however, against -the abuse of divine names, and, while he holds to the Tetragrammaton -“which is written but is not pronounced as it is spelled,” deplores -the many inventions of meaningless and inefficacious names which -superstitious and insane men have too often imposed upon the credulity -of good men as possessed of peculiar sanctity and purity and having the -virtue of working miracles. He therefore warns his readers against such -“amulets or experimental charts.”[638] - -[Sidenote: Occult virtue and empirical remedies in his work on poisons.] - -Maimonides again approves of empirical remedies and of occult virtues -in his treatise on poisons. He holds that counter-poisons do not act by -any physical or chemical quality but by their entire substance or by a -special property.[639] Lemon pips, peeled and applied in a compress; a -powdered emerald, which should be a beautiful green, quite transparent, -and of good water; and the animal bezoar, which comes from the eyes or -gall bladder of deer; these are antidotes whose efficacy is proved by -incontestible experimentation. When _terra sigillata_ cannot be had, -a powdered emerald of the sort just described may be substituted for -it as an ingredient in the grand theriac.[640] Maimonides believes -that this last named remedy is the outcome of experiments with vipers -carried on through the course of centuries by ancient philosophers -and physicians.[641] As for the stone _bezoar_, the writings of the -moderns are full of marvelous tales concerning it, but Galen does not -mention it, and Maimonides has tried all the varieties which he could -obtain against scorpion bites without the least success. But experience -confirms the virtue of the _bezoar_ of animal origin, as has been -stated. Maimonides’ observations concerning cures for the bites of mad -dogs are interesting. He states that at first the bite of a mad dog -does not feel any different from that of a dog who is not mad. He also -warns his readers not to trust to books to distinguish between the -two, but unless they are sure that the dog was not mad, to keep on the -safe side by taking the remedies against the bite of a mad dog.[642] -He also states that all of the various remedies listed for the cure of -the bite of a mad dog must be employed before hydrophobia manifests -itself, “for after the appearance of that symptom, I have never seen -a patient survive.”[643] In speaking of sucking the venom from a -wound, Maimonides affirms that it is better to have this done by a -fasting person, since the spittle of such a person is itself hostile to -poisons.[644] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to astrology.] - -That Maimonides was well acquainted with the art of astrology may be -inferred from his assertion that he has read every book in Arabic on -the subject.[645] Maimonides not only believed that the stars were -living, animated beings and that there were as many pure intelligences -as there were spheres,[646] but he states twice in the _Guide for the -Perplexed_[647] that all philosophers agree that this inferior world -of generation and corruption is ruled by the virtues and influences -of the celestial spheres. While their influence is diffused through -all things, each star or planet also has particular species especially -under its influence. According to Lévy[648] he further held not only -that the movement of the celestial sphere starts every motion in -the universe, but that every soul has its origin in the soul of the -celestial sphere. In his letter on astrology to the Jews of Marseilles -he repeats that all the philosophers have held, and that Hebrew masters -of the past have agreed with them, that whatever is in this inferior -world the blessed God has brought about by that virtue which arises -from the spheres and stars. As God performs signs and miracles by -angels, so natural processes and operations by the spheres and stars -which are animated and endowed with knowledge and science. All this -is true and in no way derogates from the Jewish faith. But Maimonides -regards as folly and not wisdom the doctrine found in Arabic works -of astrology that a man’s nativity compels everything to happen to -him just as it does and in no otherwise. He regards this doctrine as -derived from the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Canaanites and makes the -rather rash assertion that no Greek philosopher ever wrote a book of -this sort. This doctrine would make no distinction between a man whom -a lion meets and tears limb from limb and the mouse which a cat plays -with. It would make men warring for kingdoms no different from dogs -fighting over a carcass. These illustrations may seem to the reader -rather favorable to the doctrine which Maimonides is endeavoring to -combat, but he upholds human free will and man’s responsibility for his -actions, which he declares are fundamental tenets of the Jewish law. -For some reason which is not clear to me he identifies the doctrine of -nativities and the control of human destiny by the constellations with -the rule of blind chance and the happening of everything fortuitously, -which would seem quite a different matter and third alternative.[649] -Maimonides holds that God planned all human affairs beforehand, and -that just as He planned the course of nature so as to allow for the -occurrence of miracles, so He planned human affairs in such a way -that men could be held responsible and punished for their sins. -Maimonides regards the rule of chance and the doctrine of nativities as -incompatible with this. - -[Sidenote: Divination and prophecy.] - -Yet Maimonides believed in a human faculty of natural divination, -stating that the ability to conjecture and divine is found in all men -to some degree, and that in some imagination and divination are so -strong and sure that they correctly forecast all future events or the -greater part of them.[650] The difference between true prophets and -the diviners and observers of times “is that the observers of times, -diviners, and such men, some of their words may be fulfilled and some -of them may not be fulfilled.”[651] - -[Sidenote: Marvels in the _Aphorisms_] - -In his _Aphorisms_ which are drawn largely from the works of Galen -Maimonides repeats many marvelous stories, instances of belief in -occult virtue, and medical methods bordering upon the practice of -magic.[652] Most of these have already been mentioned in our chapters -upon Galen and need not be reiterated here. It is perhaps worth noting -that Maimonides displays some critical sense as to the authenticity -of works ascribed to Galen. He does not accept as his a treatise -forbidding the burial of a man until twenty-four hours after his -supposed death, although the patriarch who translated it from Greek -into Arabic regarded it as Galen’s. Maimonides suggests that it may -be by some other Galen than the great physician “whose books are well -known.” Maimonides also notes that in the work of Hippocrates on female -ailments which Galen commented upon and Hunain translated there have -been added many statements of a marvelous character by some third hand. - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[619] In English, besides the article on Maimonides in the _Jewish -Encyclopedia_, there is a rather good essay by Rabbi Gottheil in -Warner’s _Library of the World’s Best Literature_. Recent works in -French and German are: L. G. Lévy, _Maimonide_, 1911; _Moses ben -Maimon, sein Leben, seine Werke, und sein Einfluss, zur Erinnerung -an den siebenhundertsten Todestag des Maimonides, herausg. v. d. -Gesell. z. Förderung d. Wiss. d. Judenthums durch_ _W. Bacher_, _M. -Brann_, _D. Simonsen_, _J. Guttmann_, 2 vols., containing twenty essays by -various contributors, Leipzig, 1908 and 1914. L. Finkelscherer, _Mose -Maimunis Stellung zum Aberglauben und zur Mystik_, Breslau, 1894; a -Jena doctoral dissertation, full of somewhat juvenile generalizations, -and which fails to appraise Maimonides’ attitude towards magic, -astrology, and superstition comparatively. See also D. Joël, _Der -Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu demselben_, 1881-1883. -Other older works on Maimonides are listed in the bibliography in the -_Jewish Encyclopedia_. _The Guide of the Perplexed_ (Moreh Nebukim) -was translated by M. Friedländer, second edition, 1904, and I have -also used the Latin translation of 1629. The _Yad-Hachazakah_ was -published in 1863; _The Book of Precepts_, in 1849; the _Commentary on -the Mishnah_, in 1655. Other works will be listed in the four following -foot-notes. - -[620] “Rabymoyses Cordubensis,” fols. 1r and 13v of the Latin -translation of his work on Poisons by Ermengard Blasius of Montpellier -in an Oxford MS, Corpus Christi College 125. - -[621] “Moysi israhelitici,” on the first page of a Latin translation -printed in 1477 (?)--numbered IA.27063 in the British Museum--from -his “Yad Hachazakah,” under the title, “De regimine sanitatis -omnium hominum sub breviloquio compilatus.” In the Latin version of -the _Aphorisms_ printed in 1489 (numbered IA.28878 in the British -Museum), “ait Moyses filius servuli dei israeliticus cordubensis,” and -“Incipiunt aphorismi excellentissimi Raby Moyses secundum doctrinam -Galieni medicorum principis.” - -[622] Moses ben Maimon, _De astrologia ... epistola_, 1555, Hebrew text -and Latin translation. - -[623] See the preface as given in the French translation by I. -M. Rabbinowicz, Paris, 1865. There is a German translation by M. -Steinschneider, _Gifte und Ihre Heilungen_, Berlin, 1873. - -[624] Lévy (1911), 237. - -[625] Lévy (1911), 233, who cites “pour le détail” Kobéç III; Henda -ghenonza, 18, Königsberg, 1856; Taam zeqanim, Frankfurt, 1854. - -[626] Lévy (1911), 261, “Le Guide avait dû être traduit en latin au -début du XIIIe siècle, attendu que, dès ce moment, on relève des traces -de son influence dans la scolastique.... Moïse de Salerno déclare qu’il -a lu le Guide en latin avec Nicolo Paglia di Giovenazzo, qui fonda en -1224 un convent dominicain à Trani.” - -According to Gottheil, it was this Latin translation of the Guide which -the Jewish opponents of Maimonides’ teaching induced the church to -consign to the flames. - -The Latin translation in CUL 1711 (Qi. I. 19), fols. 1-183, is ascribed -in the catalogue to Augustinus Justinianus, Nebiensium Episcopus, and -is said to have been printed in Paris, 1520. - -[627] M. Joël, _Verhältnis Albert des Grossen zu Moses Maimonides_, -1863. A. Rohner, _Das Schöpfungsproblem bei Moses Maimonides, Albertus -Magnus, und Thomas von Aquin_, 1913. - -[628] See his preface in Corpus Christi 125, fol. 1r. - -[629] _Jewish Encyclopedia_, p. 74. - -[630] _Aphorismi_ (1489), partic. 25. “Et ostendam hac demonstratione -quod insipientia quam attribuit Moysi erat attribuenda ipsi Galieno -vere et ponam dictum meum inter eos sicut inter duos sapientes unum -compilatiorem alio....” - -[631] JE, p. 77. - -[632] Lévy (1911), p. 86. - -[633] Lévy (1911), p. 84. - -[634] Finkelscherer (1894), pp. 40-51. - -[635] Lévy, pp. 89-90. - -[636] _More Nevochim_ (1629), III, 37. - -[637] “... interdixit omnia ea quae contra speculationem naturalem -specialibus et occultis viribus ac proprietatibus utilitatem afferre -asserunt ... talia videlicet quae non ex ratione naturali sed ex opere -magico sequuntur et stellarum dispositionibus ac rationibus innituntur, -unde necessario ad colendas et venerandas illas devenitur.” - -[638] _More Nevochim_ (1629), I, 61-62. - -[639] French translation (1865), p. 26. - -[640] _Ibid._, pp. 27-28, 53-4. - -[641] _Ibid._, p. 38. - -[642] _Poisons_ (1865), p. 43. - -[643] _Ibid._, p. 40. - -[644] _Ibid._, p. 21. - -[645] So he states at the beginning of his _De astrologia_ (1555). - -[646] Lévy (1911), pp. 84-5. - -[647] II, 5 and 10. - -[648] Lévy (1911), p. 87. - -[649] And the following passage seems quite confused and illogical; -but perhaps the fault is with the Latin translator: “Ad haec omnes -illae tres sectae philosophorum qui asseverant omnia per sphaeras et -stellas fieri etiam dicunt quicquid mortalibus contingit id casu temere -et fortuito fieri et nullam de supernis causam habere, nec ea in re -quicquam.” - -[650] _More Nevochim_ (1629), II, 38. - -[651] _Yad-Hachazakah_, (1863), I, i, x, pp. 63-4. - -[652] These occur in the 24th section which is devoted to medical -marvels: “Incipit particula xxiiii continens aphorismos dependentes a -miraculis repertis in libris medicorum.” It is rather to Maimonides’ -credit that he segregated these marvels in a separate chapter. - - - - -CHAPTER XLV - -HERMETIC BOOKS IN THE MIDDLE AGES - - - Prince Khalid ibn Jazid and _The Book of Morienus_--Robert - of Chester’s preface--The story of Morienus and Calid--The - secret of the philosopher’s stone--Later medieval works of - alchemy ascribed to Hermes--Medieval citations of Hermes - otherwise than as an alchemist--Astrological treatises--_Of - the Six Principles of Things_--_Liber lune_--Images of the - seven planets--_Book of Venus_ of Toz Graecus--Further - mentions of Toz Graecus--Toz the same as Thoth or - Trismegistus--Magic experiments. - - -[Sidenote: Prince Khalid ibn Jazid and _The Book of Morienus_.] - -Al-Mas’udi, who lived from about 885 to 956 A. D., has preserved a -single recipe for making gold from the alchemical poem, _The Paradise -of Wisdom_, originally consisting of some 2315 verses and written by -the Ommiad prince, Khalid ibn Jazid (635-704 A. D.) of Alexandria. -Other Arabic writers of the ninth and tenth centuries represent this -prince as interested in natural science and medicine, alchemy and -astrology, and as the first to promote translations from the Greek and -Coptic. Thus the alchemistic _Book of Crates_ is said to have been -translated either by him or under his direction. The _Fihrist_ further -states that Khalid was instructed in alchemy by one Morienes, who was -himself a disciple of Adfar.[653] There is still extant, but only in -Latin translation, what purports to be the book of this same Morienes, -or Morienus as he is called in Latin, addressed to this same Khalid. -The book cites or invents various Greek alchemists but claims the -Thrice-Great Hermes as its original author. It is of this work that we -shall now treat as the first of a number of medieval Hermetic books. - -[Sidenote: Robert of Chester’s preface.] - -One of the earliest treatises of alchemy translated from Arabic into -Latin would appear to be this which Morienus Romanus, a hermit of -Jerusalem, edited for “Calid, king of the Egyptians,” and which Robert -of Chester turned into Latin[654] on the eleventh day of February -in the year 1182 of the Spanish era or 1144 A. D. Of Robert’s other -translations we have spoken elsewhere.[655] He opens his preface to -the present treatise with an account of three Hermeses--Enoch, Noah, -and the king, philosopher, and prophet who reigned in Egypt after the -flood and was called Hermes Triplex. This account is very similar to -one which we shall presently find prefixed to an astrological treatise -by Hermes Trismegistus. It was this Hermes, Robert continues, who -rediscovered and edited all the arts and sciences after the deluge, and -who first found and published the present work, which is a book divine -and most replete with divinity, and which is entitled, _The Book of the -Composition of Alchemy_. “And since,” says Robert, “what alchemy is and -what is its composition, your Latin world does not yet know truly,[656] -I will elucidate the same in the present treatise.” Alchemy is that -substance which joins the more precious bodies which are compounded -from one original matter and by this same natural union converts them -to the higher type. In other words, it is the philosopher’s stone by -which metals may be transmuted. Although Robert is a relatively young -man and his Latinity perhaps not of the best, he essays the task of -translating this so great and important a work and reveals his own name -in the preface lest some other person steal the fruits of his labor and -the praise which is his due. Lippmann dismisses the translation rather -testily as “surpassed by no later work for emptiness, confusion, and -sheer drivel,”[657] but we shall attempt some further description. - -[Sidenote: The story of Morienus and Calid.] - -Following Robert’s preface comes an account, in the usual style of -apocryphal and occult works, told partly in the first person by -Morienus and partly of him in the third person by someone else. Long -after Christ’s passion an Adfar of Alexandria found the book of Hermes, -mastered it after long study, and himself gave forth innumerable -precepts which were spread abroad and finally reached the ears of -Morienus, then a young man at Rome. This reminds us of the opening of -the _Recognitions_ of Clement. Morienus left his home, parents, and -native land, and hastened to Alexandria to the house of Adfar. When -Adfar learned that Morienus was a Christian, he promised to divulge to -him “the secrets of all divinity,” which he had hitherto kept concealed -from nearly everyone. When Adfar died, Morienus left Alexandria and -became a hermit at Jerusalem. Not many years thereafter a king arose -in Egypt named Macoya. He begat a son named Gezid who reigned after -his father’s death and in his turn begat a son named Calid who reigned -after his death. This Calid was a great patron of science and searched -all lands for someone who could reveal this book of Hermes to him. -Morienus was still living, and when a traveler brought him news of -Calid and his desire, he came to his court, not for the sake of the -gifts of gold which the king had offered, but in order to instruct him -with spiritual gifts. Saluting Calid with the words, “O good king, -may God convert you to a better,” he asked for a house or laboratory -in which to prepare his masterpiece of perfection, but departed -secretly as soon as it was consummated. When Calid saw the gold which -Morienus had made, he ordered the heads to be cut off of all the other -alchemists whom he had employed for years, and grieved that the hermit -had left without revealing his secret. - -[Sidenote: The secret of the philosopher’s stone] - -More years passed before Calid’s trusty slave, Galip, learned the -identity and whereabouts of Morienus from another hermit of Jerusalem -and was despatched with a large retinue to bring him back. The king -and the hermit at first engaged in a moral and religious discussion, -and many days passed before Calid ventured to broach the subject of -alchemy. He then put to Morienus a succession of questions, such as -whether there is one fundamental substance, and concerning the nature -and color of the philosopher’s stone, also its natural composition, -weight and taste, cheapness or expensiveness, rarity or abundance, -and whether there is any other stone like unto it or which has its -effect. This last query Morienus answered in the negative, since in -the philosopher’s stone are contained the four elements and it is -like unto the universe and the composition of the universe. In the -process of obtaining it decay must come first, then purification. As in -human generation, there must first be _coitus_, then conception, then -pregnancy, then birth, then nutrition. To such general observations -and analogies, which are commonplaces of alchemy, are finally added -several pages of specific directions as to alchemistic operations. Such -enigmatic nomenclature is employed as “white smoke,” and “green lion,” -but Morienus later explains to Calid the significance of most of these -phrases. “Green lion” is glass; “impure body” is lead; “pure body” is -tin, and so on. - -[Sidenote: Later works of alchemy ascribed to Hermes.] - -In so far as I have examined the alchemical manuscripts of the later -middle ages,[658] which I have not done very extensively owing -to the fact that most of them consist of anonymous and spurious -compositions which are probably of a later date than the period with -which we are directly concerned,[659] I have hardly found as many -treatises ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus as might be expected. -Perhaps as many works are ascribed to Aristotle, Geber, and other -famous names as to Hermes or Mercury. Thus out of some forty items in -an alchemical miscellany of the fourteenth or fifteenth century[660] -two are attributed to Hermes and Mercury, two to Aristotle, one to -Plato, three to Geber, two to Albertus Magnus, and others to his -contemporaries like Roger Bacon, Brother Elias, Bonaventura, and -Arnald of Villanova. Of the two titles connected with Hermes one is -simply a _Book of Hermes_; the other, _A Treatise of Mercury to his -disciple Mirnesindus_. Other specimens of works ascribed to Hermes in -medieval Latin manuscripts are: _The Secrets of Hermes the philosopher, -inventor of metals, according to the nature of transmutation_[661] or -in another manuscript, “inventor of transformation,”[662] a treatise -on the fountain of youth by Trismegistus;[663] and a work on alcohol -ascribed to “father Hermes.”[664] The Early English Text Society has -reprinted an English translation of the Latin treatise on the fifth -essence “that Hermes, the prophet and king of Egypt, after the flood -of Noah, father of philosophers, had by revelation of an angel of God -to him sent,” which was first published “about 1460-1476 by Fred J. -Furnival.”[665] “The book of Hermogenes” is also to be accredited to -Hermes Trismegistus.[666] - -[Sidenote: Medieval citations of Hermes] - -Among the Arabs and in medieval Latin learning the reputation of -Hermes continued not only as an alchemist, but as a fountain of -wisdom in general. Roger Bacon spoke of “Hermes Mercurius, the father -of philosophers.”[667] Daniel of Morley we have heard cite works of -Trismegistus and distinguish between “two most excellent authorities,” -the “great Mercury,” and his nephew, “Trismegistus Mercurius.”[668] -Albertus Magnus cited “The so-called _Sacred Book_ of Hermes to -Asclepius,”[669] an astrological treatise of which the Greek version -has been mentioned in our earlier chapter on Hermes, Orpheus, and -Zoroaster. And Albert’s contemporary, William of Auvergne, bishop of -Paris, makes use several times[670] of the dialogue between Mercurius -Trismegistus, “the Egyptian philosopher and magician,” and Asclepius -from a _Liber de hellera_ or _De deo deorum_, which is presumably the -Greek Ἱερὰ βίβλος. Trismegistus is represented as affirming that there -is divine power in herbs and stones. In the _Speculum astronomiae_[671] -Albert listed a number of bad books on necromantic images[672] by -Hermes of which Christians were to beware: a book of images for each of -the seven planets, an eighth treatise following them, a work on _The -seven rings of the seven planets_, a book of magical illusions (_liber -praestigiorum_),[673] and a book addressed to Aristotle. William of -Auvergne seems to allude to the same literature when he twice repeats -a story of two fallen angels from Hermes, citing his _Seven Planets_ -in one case and _Book of Venus_ in the other.[674] Albertus Magnus -also cites “books of incantations” by Hermes in his work on vegetables -and plants;[675] and a _Liber Alcorath_ is ascribed to Hermes in the -_Liber aggregationis_ or _Experimenta Alberti_ which is current under -Albert’s name. The astrologer Cecco d’Ascoli in the early fourteenth -century cites a treatise by Hermes entitled _De speculis et luce_ (_Of -mirrors and light_).[676] These few instances of medieval citation of -Hermes could of course be greatly multiplied but suffice to suggest the -importance of his name in the later history of magic and astrology as -well as of alchemy. - -[Sidenote: Astrological treatises.] - -We may, however, briefly examine some specimens of the works -themselves, chiefly, as in the citations, of a magical and astrological -character, which are current under Hermes’ name in the medieval -manuscripts. A treatise on fifteen stars, fifteen stones, fifteen -herbs, and fifteen images to be engraved on the stones, is ascribed -sometimes to Hermes and sometimes to Enoch.[677] The number fifteen -is difficult to relate to planets, signs, or decans; in fact the -fifteen stars are fixed stars supposed to exceed others in virtue. -John Gower in the fourteenth century treated of the same subject in -his _Confessio amantis_.[678] In the middle ages a _Centiloquium_, or -series of brief astrological dicta, was ascribed to Hermes as well -as to Ptolemy. Some manuscripts imply that the _Centiloquium_ of -Hermes was a selection from the astrological treatises of Hermes put -together by Stephen of Messina for Manfred, king of Sicily.[679] In a -fifteenth century manuscript is ascribed to Hermes a Latin astrological -treatise of considerable length opening with the thirty-six decans -and their astrological influence[680] but dealing with various other -matters bearing upon the prediction of nativities; and a much briefer -but equally astrological work on _Accidents_, which we are told was -rewritten by Haly before it was translated into Latin.[681] Two books -of “Hermes the Philosopher” on the revolutions of nativities by some -unspecified translator were printed by H. Wolf in 1559.[682] A work -on medical diagnosis of diseases from the stars without inspection of -urine which is ascribed to Hermes in a Wolfenbüttel manuscript[683] -would probably turn out upon examination to be the treatise on that -theme of William of England. - -[Sidenote: _Of the Six Principles of Things._] - -By the thirteenth century, if not before, a treatise was in existence -by “Hermes Mercurius Triplex” on the six principles of things[684] -with a prologue concerning the three Mercuries,[685] of whom we have -already heard Robert of Chester speak in his preface. Here too the -first is identified with Enoch, the second with Noah, and the third is -called triplex because he was at once king, philosopher, and prophet, -ruling Egypt after the flood with supreme equity, renowned in both the -liberal and mechanical arts, and the first to elucidate astronomy. He -wrote _The Golden Bough_, _Book of Longitude and Latitude_, _Book of -Election_, _Canons on the Planets_, and a treatise on the astrolabe. -Among his pastimes he brought to light alchemy which the philosopher -Morienus developed in his writings. _The Six Principles of Things_ is -a treatise part astronomical and part astrological, considering the -natures of the signs and the powers of the planets in their houses. -Citations of such authors as Zahel and Dorotheus show that the work is -much later than Hermes. It is followed by four other brief treatises, -of which the first discusses time, the winds, pestilences, divination -from thunder, and eclipses of the sun and the moon; the second and the -third deal with the astrological topics, _Of the triple power of the -celestial bodies_, and _Of the efficacy of medicines according to the -power of the planets and the effect of the signs_. The fourth treatise -tells how to use the astrolabe. - -[Sidenote: _Liber lune._] - -Of the books of bad necromantic images for each of the seven planets -by Hermes, which the _Speculum astronomiae_ censured, at least one -seems to have been preserved for our inspection in the manuscripts, -since it has the same _Incipit_ as that cited by Albert, “_Probavi -omnes libros_ ...,” and the same title, _Liber lune_,[686] or _Book -of the Moon_, or, as it is more fully described, of the twenty-eight -mansions and twenty-eight images of the moon and the fifty-four angels -who serve the images. And as Albert spoke of a treatise of magic -illusions which accompanied the seven books of necromantic images for -the planets, so this _Liber lune_ is itself also called _Mercury’s -magic illusion_.[687] It probably is the same _Book of Images of -the Moon_ which William of Auvergne described as attempting to work -magic by the names of God. The treatise opens in the usual style of -apocryphal literature by narrating how this marvelous volume came to -be discovered. After some “investigator of wisdom and truth and friend -of nature had read the volumes of many wise men,” he found this one -in a golden ark within a silver chest which was in turn placed in a -casket of lead,--a variant on Portia’s method. He then translated it -into Arabic for the benefit of the many. Nevertheless we have the usual -caution to fear God and not show the book to anyone nor allow any -polluted man to touch it, since with it all evils as well as all goods -may be accomplished. It tells how to engrave images as the moon passes -through each of its twenty-eight houses. The names of angels have to be -repeated seven times and suffumigations performed seven times in the -name of God the merciful and pious. Just as the moon is nearer to us -than other planets and more efficacious, so this book, if we understand -it aright, is more precious than any other. Hermes declares that he -has proved all the books of the seven planets and not found one truer -or more perfect than this most precious portion. Balenuch, however, -a superior and most skilful philosopher, does much of the talking -for his master Hermes. The Latin text retains the Arabic names for -the mansions of the moon, the fifty-four angels also have outlandish -names, and a wood that grows in an island in India is required in the -suffumigations. Instructions are given for engraving images which -will destroy villa, region, or town; make men dumb; restrain sexual -intercourse within a given area; heat baths at night; congregate ten -thousand birds and bees; or twist a man’s limbs. Four special recipes -are given to injure an enemy or cause him to sicken. - -[Sidenote: Hermes on images of the seven planets.] - -We shall leave until our chapter on the Pseudo-Aristotle “The book of -the spiritual works of Aristotle, or the book _Antimaquis_, which is -the book of the secrets of Hermes ... the ancient book of the seven -planets.” But in at least one manuscript the work of Hermes on the -images of the moon is accompanied by another briefer treatise ascribed -to him on the images of the seven planets, one for each day of the -week, to be made in the first hour of that day which is ruled by the -planet after which the day is named. This little treatise begins with -the words, “Said Hermes, editor of this book, I have examined many -sciences of images.”[688] Altogether I have noted traces of it in four -manuscripts. - -[Sidenote: _Book of Venus_ of Toz.] - -In two of these manuscripts the work of Hermes on images of the seven -planets is immediately followed by a work of Toc or Toz Graecus on the -occult virtues of stones called the Book of Venus or of the twelve -stones of Venus.[689] The first part of the treatise, however, consists -of instructions, largely astrological in character but also including -use of names of spirits and suffumigations, for casting a metal image -in the name of Venus. Astrological symbols are to be placed on the -breast, right palm, and foot of the image. - -In the discussion of stones each paragraph opens with the words, -“Said Toz.” The use of these stones is mainly medicinal, however, and -consists usually in taking a certain weight of the stone in question. -Of astrology, spirits, and power of words there is little more said. -Some marvelous virtues are attributed to stones nevertheless. With one, -if you secretly touch two persons who have hitherto been firm friends, -you will make them enemies “even to the end of the world. And if -anyone grates from it the weight of one _argenteus_ and mixes it with -serpent’s blood (possibly the herb of that name) and gives it to anyone -to drink, he will flee from place to place.” - -[Sidenote: Further mentions of Toz Graecus.] - -Toz Graecus was cited by more than one medieval writer and the work -which we have just been describing was not the only one that then -circulated under his name, although it seems to be cited by Daniel -Morley in the twelfth century.[690] Albertus Magnus in his list of -evil books on images in the _Speculum astronomiae_ included a work on -the images of Venus,[691] another on the four mirrors of Venus, and -a third on stations for the cult of Venus. This last is also alluded -to by William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris, in his _De universo_, and -ascribed by him to “Thot grecus.”[692] There also was once among the -manuscripts of Amplonius at Erfurt a “book of Toz Grecus containing -fifty chapters on the stations of the planets.”[693] Cecco d’Ascoli, -the early fourteenth century astrologer, mentions together “Evax king -of the Arabs and Zot grecus and Germa of Babylon.” Which reminds one -of Albert’s allusion in his theological _Summa_[694] to “the teachings -of that branch of necromancy” which treats of “images and rings and -mirrors of Venus and seals of demons,” and is expounded in the works -of Achot of Greece--who is probably our Toz Graecus, Grema of Babylon, -and Hermes the Egyptian. And again in his work on minerals[695] Albert -lists together as authorities on the engraving of gems with images the -names of Magor Graecus, Germa of Babylon, and Hermes the Egyptian. - -[Sidenote: Toz the same as Thoth or Hermes Trismegistus.] - -Moreover, not only is the work of Toz closely associated both in the -extant manuscripts and by Albertus Magnus with that of Hermes, but -William of Auvergne’s spelling “Thot” shows what has perhaps already -occurred to the reader, that this Toc or Toz Graecus is no other than -the Greek equivalent of the Egyptian god Thoth; in other words, Hermes -Trismegistus himself. I have not yet mentioned one other treatise found -in a seventeenth century manuscript, and which, while very likely a -later invention, shows at least that Toz remained a name to conjure -with down into modern times.[696] The work is called _A commentary -by Toz Graecus, philosopher of great name, upon the books of Solomon -to Rehoboam concerning secrets of secrets_. A long preface tells how -Solomon summed up all his vast knowledge in this book for the benefit -of his son Rehoboam, and Rehoboam buried it in his tomb in an ivory -casket, and Toz after its discovery wept at his inability to comprehend -it, until it was revealed to him through an angel of God on condition -that he explain it only to the worthy. - -[Sidenote: Magic experiments.] - -The text is full of magic experiments: experiments of theft; -experiments in invisibility; love experiments; experiments in -gaining favor; experiments in hate and destruction; “extraordinary -experiments”; “playful experiments”; and so on. These with -conjurations, characters, and suffumigations make up the bulk of the -first book. The second book deals chiefly with “how exorcists and their -allies and disciples should conduct themselves,” and with the varied -paraphernalia required by magicians: fasts, baths, vestments, the knife -or sword, the magic circle, fumigations, water and hyssop; light and -fire, pen and ink, blood, parchment, stylus, wax, needle, membrane, -characters, sacrifices, and astrological images. Two of its twenty-two -chapters deal with “the places where by rights experiments should be -performed” and with “all the precepts of the arts or experiments.” In -another seventeenth century manuscript are _Seven Books of Magical -Experiments of Hermes Trismegistus_. “And they are magic secrets of the -kings of Egypt,” drawn, we are told, from the treasury of Rudolph II, -Holy Roman emperor from 1576 to 1612.[697] Another manuscript at Vienna -contains a German translation of the same work.[698] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[653] For detailed references for this and the preceding statements see -Lippmann (1919), pp. 357-9. - -[654] I have used the edition of Paris, 1564, _Liber de compositione -alchemiae quem edidit Morienus Romanus Calid Regi Aegyptiorum Quem -Robertus Castrensis de Arabico in Latinum transtulit_. A number of MSS -of the work will be found listed in the index of Black’s Catalogue of -the Ashmolean MSS, and elsewhere, as in Sloane 3697 and Digby 162, 13th -century, fols. 21v and 23r. Other editions are Basel, 1559; Basel, -1593, in _Artis Auriferae quam Chemiam vocant_, II, 1-54; and Geneva, -1702, in J. J. Manget, _Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa_, I, 509-19. - -[655] See above, chapter 38, p. 83. - -[656] Berthelot (1893) I, 234, took the date to be 1182 A. D. and -so, on the basis of this remark, placed the introduction of Arabic -alchemy into Latin learning 38 years too late. It is rather amusing -that Lippmann, who elsewhere avails himself of petty pretexts to -belittle the work of Berthelot, should have overlooked this error. -He still (1919), pp. 358 and 482, states the date as 1182 A. D., -although he is puzzled how to reconcile it with that of 1143 A. D. for -Robertus Castrensis or Robert de Retines. He also is at a loss as to -the identity of this Robert or the meaning of “Castrensis,” and has -no knowledge of the publications of Karpinski (1915) and Haskins, EHR -(1915). - -[657] Lippmann (1919), p. 358. - -[658] Berthelot is a poor guide in any such matter since his -pretentious volumes on medieval alchemy are based on the study of a -comparatively small number of MSS at Paris. He made little or no use -of the Sloane collection in the British Museum which is very rich in -alchemical MSS, a subject in which Sir Hans Sloane was apparently much -interested, or of the Ashmolean collection at Oxford, although Elias -Ashmole edited the _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, 1652, “containing -several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers who have -written the hermetic mysteries in their own ancient language,”--a work -in which Ashmole himself is called _Mercuriophilus Anglicus_. - -[659] The two earliest MSS used by Berthelot for medieval Latin alchemy -were BN 6514 and 7156 of the late 13th or early 14th century. In an -earlier chapter we have mentioned Berlin 956 of the 12th century, fol. -21, “Hic incipit alchamia,” and probably a fairly long list could be -made of alchemical MSS of the 13th century, like Digby 162 mentioned -in a previous note to this chapter. However, as a rule the numerous -alchemical collections in the Sloane MSS--a majority of the MSS -numbered from about 3600 to about 3900 are in whole or part concerned -with alchemy, as well as a number of earlier numbers--are not earlier -than the 14th and 15th centuries, and many are subsequent to the -invention of printing. - -[660] Riccard. 119. - -[661] Sloane 1698, 14th century, fol. 53-, “Hic incipiunt secreta -Hermetis inventoris metallorum secundum transmutationis naturam ... / -... Explicit Hermes de salibus et corporibus.” - -Corpus Christi, 125, fols. 39-42, “Incipiunt secreta Hermetis -philosophi inventoris metallorum secundum mutacionis naturam.” - -[662] Library of the Dukes of Burgundy 4275, 13th century, Secreta -Hermetis philosophi “Inventor transformationis.” The preceding item -4274 is in the same MS and consists of an exposition of Hermes’ words, -“Quoniam ea quae ...” etc. - -[663] Vienna 2466, 14th century, fols. 85-88, Trismegistus, aqua vite. - -[664] Wolfenbüttel 2841, anno 1432, fols. 138-44v, De aque ardentis -virtutibus mirabilibus que de vino utique fit.... - -[665] Reprinted London, 1866; revised, 1889. Treatises of alchemy are -also ascribed to Hermes in Sloane 2135, 15th century, and 2327, 14th -century. - -[666] Arezzo 232, 15th century, fols. 1-14, “Liber transmissus ab -Alexandro rege ex libra Hermogenis”; Bodleian 67, fol. 33v (_Secret -of Secrets_ of the pseudo-Aristotle), “Et pater noster Hermogenes qui -triplex est in philosophia optime philosophando dixit.” - -[667] _Opus minus_, ed. Brewer (1859), in RS XV, 313. - -[668] Arundel 377, 13th century, _Philosophia magistri danielis de -merlai_, fols. 89r, 92v; these citations, like many others, are not -included in V. Rose’s faulty list of Daniel’s authorities in his -article, “Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo,” _Hermes_, VIII (1874), -327-49. - -[669] _De animalibus_, XX, i, 5, “dicit Hermes ad Esclepium.” - -[670] The passages are mentioned in the chapter on William of Auvergne; -see below, p. 350. - -[671] _Spec. astron._, cap. 11 (_Opera_, ed. Borgnet, X, 641). - -[672] A book on necromantic images by Hermes is listed in the 1412 A. -D. catalogue of MSS of Amplonius: Math. 54. - -[673] See in the same catalogue, Math. 9, Mercurii Colotidis liber -prestigiorum. - -[674] _Opera_, Venetiis, 1591, pp. 831, 898. - -[675] _De veget. et plantis_, V, ii, 6. - -[676] P. G. Boffito, _Il Commento di Cecco d’Ascoli all’ Alcabizzo_, -Firenze, 1905, p. 43. - -[677] Catalogue of Amplonius (1412 A. D.) Mathematica 53, “Liber -Hermetis de quindecim stellis, tot lapidibus, tot herbis, et totidem -figuris.” But in Amplon. Quarto 381, fols. 43-5, the work is ascribed -to Enoch, whom it is not surprising that Robert of Chester classed as -one of three Hermeses. - -Ashmole 1471, 14th century, fols. 50r-55, “Incipit liber Hermetis de 15 -Stellis, 15 lapidibus, 15 herbis et 15 ymaginibus.” - -Ashmole 341, 13th century, fols. 120v-28. - -Corpus Christi 125, fols. 70-75. - -Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century. - -Harleian 80, 14th century. - -Harleian 1612. - -Sloane 3847, 17th century. - -BN 7440, 14th century. No. 4. - -Vienna 5311, 14-15th century, fols. 37-40. - -Vienna 3124, 15th century, fols. 161-2, De Stellis fixis, translatus a -Mag. Salione, is perhaps the same work. This Salio, who seems to have -been a canon at Padua, also translated Alchabitius on nativities from -Arabic into Latin: _Ibid._, fols. 96-123; BN 7336, 15th century, #13; -S. Marco XI-110, 15th century, fols. 40-111. - -By the fourteenth century the work had been translated into French: - -CU Trinity 1313, early 14th century, fol. 11-, “Cy commence le livre -Hermes le Philosofre parlaunt des 15 esteilles greyndres fixes et 15 -pierres preciouses,” etc. - -[678] Sloane 3847, fol. 83. “What stones and hearbes are appropriated -unto the 15 Starres accordinge to John Gower in his booke intituled _De -confessione amantis_.” - -[679] Amplon. Quarto 354, mid 14th century, fols. 1-3, “Centiloquium -Hermetis ... domino Manfrido inclito regi Cicilie Stephanus de Messana -has flores de secretis astrologie divi Hermetis transtulit.” - -CLM 51, 1487-1503 A. D., fols. 46v-49, Hermetis divini Propositiones -sive flores Stephanus de Messana transtulit. Other MSS are numerous. - -Printed before 1500; I have used an edition numbered IA.11947 in the -British Museum. It was printed behind Ptolemy at Venice in 1493. - -[680] Harleian 3731, 15th century, fols. 1r-50r, “Incipit liber -hermetis trismegisti de XXXVI decanis XII signorum et formis eorum -et de climatibus et faciebus quas habent planete in eisdem signis.” -After this rubric the text opens, “Triginta sex autem decani”; closes, -“... aspexerit illum dictis prius mori.” It is obviously different -from the Dialogue with Asclepius included in the works of Apuleius and -longer than the Greek astrological text dealing with the thirty-six -decans published by J. B. Pitra, _Analecta Sacra_, V, ii, 284-90. The -discussion of the decans terminates at the bottom of fol. 2. - -[681] Harleian 3731, fols. 170v-172v, “Incipiunt sermones hermetis -de accidentibus. Ordina significationes fortiorem ... / ... erit res -egritudo. Explicit sermo hermetis de accidentibus rescriptus ab Haly.” - -[682] _Hermetis philosophi de revolutionibus nativitatum libri duo -incerto interprete_, in an astrological collection by H. Wolf, Basel, -1559, pp. 201-79. - -[683] Wolfenbüttel 2841, anno 1432 fols. 380-2. Liber Hermetis -philosophi de iudiciis urine sine visu eiusdem urine et de -prognosticatione in egritudinibus secundum astronomiam. - -Vienna 5307, 15th century, fol. 150, has a “Fragmentum de iudicio -urinae” ascribed to Hermes, but it follows the treatise of William of -England. - -[684] Digby 67, end of 12th century according to the catalogue but -I should have placed it in the next century, fols. 69-78, “Hermes -Mercurius Triplex de vi rerum principiis multisque aliis naturalibus; -partibus quinque; cum prologo de tribus Mercuriis.” - -Bodleian 464, 1318 A. D., fols. 151-162r, Hermetis Trismegisti opuscula -quaedam; primum de 6 rerum principiis, is almost identical. - -[685] A _Liber mercurii trismegisti de tribus mercuriis_ appears in the -15th century catalogue of the MSS of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. - -[686] Corpus Christi 125, fols. 62-68 (“Liber lunae” is written in the -upper margin of fol. 62), “Hic incipit liber ymaginum tr. ab Hermete -id est Mercurio qui latine prestigium Mercurii appellatur, Helyanin in -lingua Arabica ... / ... Explicit liber lune de 28 mansionibus lune -translatus ab Hermete.” - -Digby 228, 14th century, fols. 54v-55v, incomplete. Macray describes it -as “‘Liber lune’; tractatus de 28 mansionibus et 28 imaginibus lunae, -et de 54 angelis ‘qui serviunt ymaginibus.’” - -Florence II-iii-214, 15th century, fol. 8-, “Dixit Hermes huius libri -editor, lustravi plures imaginum”; fol. 9-, “Hec sunt ymagines septem -planetarum et characteres eorum”; fols. 9-15, “liber ymaginum lune”.... -fols. 33-43, “Liber planetarum inventus in libris Hermetis.” - -[687] The Incipit, however, which Albert gave for Hermes’ _Liber -praestigiorum_, namely, “Qui geometriae aut philosophiae peritus, -expers astronomiae fuerit,” identifies it with Thebit ben Corat’s work -on images. - -[688] See Florence II-iii-214, fols. 8-9, already listed with -_Incipits_ among the MSS of the _Liber lune_ on p. 223, note 1 above. -Also Bodleian 463, 14th century, written in Spain, fol. 77v, “Dixit -hermes editor huius libri lustranti plures imaginum (?) scientias -invenit.” The work is mutilated at the end, as a leaf has been torn -out between those now numbered 77 and 78. See also Sloane 3883, 17th -century, fol. 95-; Arundel 342, fol. 78v, “Hermetis ut fertur liber de -imaginibus et horis.” - -[689] Owing to the missing leaf above mentioned only the latter part -of the _Liber Toc_ is now contained in Bodleian 463. Sloane 3883, -fols. 96r-99, “Liber Toc; et vocatur liber veneni (_sic_), et liber de -lapidibus veneris. Dixit Toc Graecus observa Venerem cum perveniret ad -pliades et coniuncta fuerit.” In the text and Explicit, however, the -author’s name is often spelled Toz. This MS seems to be directly copied -from Bodleian 463, for not only is it preceded by the Hermes on images -for the seven planets and also by an “Instructio ptholomei” which deals -with the subject of astrological images, but furthermore it exactly -reproduces its text, down even to such a manuscript copyist’s pi as “ad -dumtanpo itulia” for “alicui ad potandum.” - -[690] Arundel 377, fol. 100v, “Thoz Grecus Liber Veneris.” - -[691] _Spec. astron._, cap. 11 (Borgnet, X, 641), “Toz Graeci, de -stationibus ad cultum Veneris” opening “Commemoratio historiarum”; “de -quatuor speculis eiusdem” opening “Observa Venerem cum pervenerit ad -Pleiades”;--this is the Incipit of our treatise in Sloane 3883, but the -title does not seem to fit very well; perhaps Albert, who says that he -last looked at these bad books long ago and then with abhorrence, so -that he is not sure he always has the titles and Incipits exact, has -exchanged the Incipit with that of the third treatise, “de imaginibus -veneris,” which opens, “Observabis Venerem cum intrabit Taurum.” - -[692] _De universo_ II, ii, 96 (p. 895, ed. 1591), “Thot grecus in -libro quern scripsit de cultu veneris dixit quandam stationem cultus -illius obtinere ab ipsa venere colentes septem qui illi et veneri -serviant.” - -[693] Math. 8 in the catalogue of 1412 A. D., Liber Toz Greci continens -50 capitula de stacionibus planetarum. - -[694] II, 30. - -[695] II, iii, 3. - -[696] BN 15127, fols. 1-100, Toz Graeci philosophi nominatissimi -expositio super libros salomonis de secretis secretorum ad Roboam. - -[697] Wolfenbüttel 3338, 17th century, 43 fols. - -[698] Vienna 11267, 17-18th century, fols. 2-31. - - - - -CHAPTER XLVI - -KIRANIDES - - - Question of the origin of the work--Its - prefaces--Arrangement of the text--Virtues of a tree--Feats - of magic--An incantation to an eagle--Alchiranus--Treatises - on seven, twelve, and nineteen herbs--Belenus. - - -[Sidenote: Question of the origin of the work.] - -The virtues, especially medicinal, of plants and animals comprise the -contents of a work in Latin of uncertain date and authorship, usually -called the _Kiranides_ of Kiranus, King of Persia.[699] Thomas Browne, -in his _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_ or _Inquiry into Vulgar Errors_, -included in his list of “authors who have most promoted popular -conceits, ... _Kiranides_, which is a collection out of Harpocration -the Greek and sundry Arabick writers delivering not only the Naturall -but Magicall propriety of things, a work as full of vanity as variety, -containing many relations, whose invention is as difficult as their -beliefs, and their experiments sometime as hard as either.”[700] The -work purports to be a translation from the Greek version which in -its turn was from the Arabic,[701] and Berthelot affirms[702] that -in antiquity _Kiranides_ was cited by Galen and by Olympiodorus, the -historian and alchemist of the early fifth century, while Kroll cites -a Greek manuscript at Paris as ascribing the third book of _Kiranides_ -to Hermes Trismegistus.[703] - -[Sidenote: Its prefaces.] - -The preface of the medieval Latin translator is by “a lowly cleric” -who addresses some ecclesiastical or scholastic superior, possibly the -Chancellor at Paris.[704] He marvels that the mind of his patron, which -has penetrated beyond the seven heavens to contemplate supernatural -things above our sphere, should nevertheless not disdain an interest -in the most lowly of terrene “experiments.” The master has asked him -to translate this medical book from Greek into Latin, a task easier -to ask than to execute. There are several Greek versions of it, all -professedly translations from some oriental original, but the volume -which his patron gave him to translate into Latin is that translated -into Greek at Constantinople in 1168[705] or 1169[706] by order of the -Byzantine emperor, Manuel Comnenus, whom we shall also find associated -with the _Letter of Prester John_ of which we shall treat in the next -chapter. The translator speaks of the work as _The Book of Natural -Virtues, Complaints, and Cures_, but adds that it is a compilation from -two other books, namely, _The Experience of the Kiranides of Kiranus, -King of Persia_, and _The Book of Harpocration[707] of Alexandria to -his Daughter_. There then follows the preface of Harpocration to his -daughter, which tells of a certain city and of encountering an aged -sage there, of great towers and of precious writing on a column which -Harpocration proceeds to transcribe. We are given to understand that -the original was written in “antique archaic Syriac” and was as old as -the Euphrates. - -[Sidenote: Arrangement of the text.] - -The text is divided into four books, each arranged alphabetically. -The first book subdivides into “Elements.” For example, _Elementum -XII_ is devoted to a tree, a bird, a stone, and a fish, each of which -begins with the letter M. Most, however, of the virtues and medicinal -prescriptions which follow have to do with the tree or herb only. The -second book treats of beasts or quadrupeds, the third of birds, and the -fourth of fish. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of a tree.] - -Much superstition and magical procedure is found scattered through, -or better, crowded into, the book. For instance, in a medicinal -application of the cyme of the tree Μορέα, one is to face the southwest -wind, use two fingers of the left hand to remove the cyme, then look -behind one toward the east, wrap the cyme in purple or red silk -(_vera?_), and touch the patient with it or bind it about her. In -another recipe the fruit of this tree is to be compounded in varying -proportions with such substances as an Indian stone and the tips of -the wings of crows and is then to be stirred with a crow’s feather -until the mixture is “soft and sticky.” In a third prescription a -stone engraved with an image of the fish mentioned under the letter -M--μόρμυρος, and enclosed in an iron box, is to be combined with the -“eyes” (buds?) of the tree _Morea_ as an amulet against certain ills. - -[Sidenote: Feats of magic.] - -In some cases the end sought as well as the procedure employed is -magical rather than medicinal. In another chapter of the first book, -for example, the reader is instructed how to make a _licinium_ or -combustible compound in whose light those present will appear to one -another like flaming demons. Or in book two the reader is told that -wearing the dried tongue of a weasel inside his socks will close the -mouths of his enemies. The weasel’s testicles, right and left, are used -as charms to stimulate and prevent conception respectively. - -[Sidenote: An incantation to an eagle.] - -Incantations are employed in connection with the eagle, the first of -forty-four birds taken up in the third book. Catch one, collect the -dung it makes during the first day and night of its captivity, then -bind its feet and beak and whisper in its ear, “Oh, eagle, friend of -man, I am about to slay you for the cure of every infirmity. I conjure -you by the God of earth and sky and by the four elements that you -efficaciously work each and every cure for which you are oblated.” -The eagle is then decapitated with a sword composed entirely of iron, -all its blood is carefully caught in a bowl, its heart and entrails -are removed and placed in wine, and other directions observed. The -discussion of the virtues of fish in the fourth and last book is -essentially identical in character with the examples already given for -plants, birds, and beasts. - -[Sidenote: Alchiranus.] - -In a sixteenth century manuscript at Venice[708] is a Latin version -which would seem to be translated from the Arabic since it gives the -author’s name as Alchiranus, although some scholiast has interpolated -and added to the words of this author and of Harpocration. As described -by Valentinelli the arrangement into books is the same as that which we -have noted. Valentinelli also was impressed by the fact that “medical -substances are used to produce not merely physical but moral effects, -such as prescience of the future, dispelling demons and evil phantoms, -avoiding shipwreck by binding the heart of a _foca_ to the mast of -the vessel; discovering what sort of life a woman has led, becoming -invisible, averting storms, perils, wild beasts, robbers.” And further -that “the efficacy of the medicaments is dependent upon their mode of -preparation or application, at the rising or setting of the sun, at the -waning or waxing of the moon, by uttering certain words or engraving -stones.”[709] - -[Sidenote: Treatises on seven, twelve, and nineteen herbs.] - -The Latin translator of the Kiranides says that it should be preceded -by the book of Alexander the Great concerning seven herbs and the -seven planets, and by the Mystery of Thessalus to Hermes about twelve -herbs for the twelve signs of the zodiac and seven herbs for the seven -stars. And in what is left of the preface to the latter treatise in -an Erfurt manuscript we are told that after discovering the volumes -of the Kyranides the writer found also in the city of Troy the -present treatise enclosed in a monument along with the bones of the -first king named Kyrannis.[710] The first treatise on seven herbs, -however, seems to be more often ascribed in the manuscripts to an -Alexius Affricus[711] or Flaccus Africanus[712] than to Alexander the -Great.[713] Alexius or Flaccus seems to address his work to a Claudius -or Glandiger of Athens. The work of Thessalus, whose name is sometimes -corrupted to Tesalus or Texilus, and whose work is variously styled of -twelve or of nineteen herbs, usually is found with the other treatise -in the manuscripts.[714] It was one of the authorities acknowledged -by Jacobus de Dondis in his _Aggregatio Medicamentorum_, written -in 1355.[715] The treatise on seven herbs of Alexander or Flaccus -Africanus closes with the direction that the herbs should be gathered -from the twenty-first to twenty-seventh day of the moon, with Mercury -rising during the entire first hour of the day. As they are plucked, -the passion of our Lord should be mentioned, and they should be -preserved in barley or wheat. But one manuscript adds, “But do not put -credulity in them beyond due measure.”[716] We have, of course, already -met with similar treatises ascribed to Enoch and Hermes.[717] - -[Sidenote: Belenus.] - -The Belenus, as whose disciple Flaccus Africanus is represented, is -also the reputed author of a work on astrological images found in -several manuscripts of the British Museum.[718] Albertus Magnus in the -_Speculum astronomiae_ attributed to Belenus two reprehensible books -of necromantic images.[719] The _Turba philosophorum_, a medieval -work of alchemy consisting in large measure of Latin re-translation -of Arabic versions from Greek alchemists, also cites a Belus or -Belinus. The name is believed to be a corruption from Apollonius of -Tyana, with whom Apollonius of Perga, the mathematician, is perhaps -also confused.[720] One of the _Incipits_ of the tracts listed in the -_Speculum astronomiae_ is, “Said Belenus who is also called Apollo.” -However, many medieval Latin manuscripts attribute works to Apollonius -under that name, as in the case of a work on the Notory Art which we -shall mention in another chapter.[721] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[699] I know of no very early printed editions, but have consulted a -copy published at Leipzig in 1638, and two MSS, Ashmole 1471, late 14th -century, fols. 143v-167r, and Arundel 342, 14th century, in an Italian -hand. The work is also contained either _in toto_ or brief excerpt in -several Sloane MSS, and was printed in English in 1685 as _The Magick -of Kiranus_. See also Wolfenbüttel 1014, 15th century, fol. 102, _De -libro Kyranidis Kyrani, regis Persarum_. I have not seen P. Tannery, -_Les Cyranides_, in _Congrès international d’histoire des sciences_, -Geneva, 1904. - -[700] I, 8. - -[701] See Black’s description of Ashmole 1471, “Translator qui libros -tres operis huius ... e Gracca versione (ex Arabico textu anno 377 -facta) ... Latinos fecit.” - -[702] Berthelot (1885) p. 47. - -[703] Article _Hermes Trismegistus_ in PW 798. - -[704] Ashmole 1471, fols. 143v-167r, “Incipit liber Kirannidarum in -quo premittitur tale prohemium. Prudentissimo domino Magistro Ka. -Parissen. infimus clericus salutem.” The translator’s address to his -patron sounds a little like Hugh of Santalla, but a date after 1168 is -rather late either for Hugh or the anonymous Sicilian translator of the -Almagest, whom the association in this case with Paris also tends to -preclude. Possibly the translator may be Philip, the cleric of Tripoli, -who speaks of himself in a similarly humble style, and of whom we shall -speak in the next two chapters. - -[705] According to the printed text of 1638. - -[706] Ashmole 1471, “_anno Christi_ 1280 _aliter_ 1169.” - -[707] Harpocration is cited by Galen: see Kühn XII, 629, “ad aures -purulentas Harpocration.” - -[708] S. Marco XIV, 37, fols. 11-73 Alchirani, liber de proprietatibus -rerum. Liber physicalium virtutum, compassionum et curationum, -collectus ex libris duobus. - -[709] _Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, Codices MSS -Latini_, V (1872) 109-10 ....“medicamina proponuntur ad effectus -non tantum physicos sed et morales progignendos. Eiusmodi sunt ad -praescienda futurorum; ad fugandos daemones et phantasmata mala; ad -naufragium evitandum, dummodo cor focae in arbore navis ligetur; ad -sciendum quid mulier egerit in vita sua; ad corpus invisible reddendum; -ad avertendum tempestates, pericula, feras, latrones. Medicaminum autem -efficacitas pendet ab eorum confectione vel applicatione, in ortu vel -occasu solis, sub augmento aut diminutione lunae, verbis quibusdam -prolatis vel lapidibus insculptis.” - -[710] Amplon. Quarto 217, No. 5, “Post antiquarum kyrannidarum volumina -... inveni in civitate troiana in monumento reclusum presentem libellum -cum ossibus primi regis kyrannis qui compendium aureum intitulatur eo -quod per discussionem (or distinctionem?) factam a maiorum kyrannidarum -volumine diligenter compilatum et studio vehementi tractat de vii -herbis vii planetis attributis secundum illas impressiones.” See also -Vienna 5289, 15th century, fol. 21, “Tractatus de septem herbis et -septem planetis qui dicitur inventus in ciuitate Trojana in monumento -primi Regis Kyrani” sive “aureum compendium.” - -[711] Ashmole 1450, 15th century, fol. 31v, “Incipit quidam tractatus -de vii herbis vii planetis attributis. Alexius Affricus, discipulus -Belbeis, Claudio Artheniensi epylogiticis studium continuare et finem -cum laude. Post etiam antiquorum Kirannidarum volumina”; only the first -page of the treatise now remains in this MS. - -All Souls 81, 15-16th century, fols. 133v-45, “De virtutibus et -operationibus septem herbarum secretarum per ordinem, et quomodo per -eas fiunt mirabilia”; the treatise, however, here appears in English -and by “Alaxus Affrike, disciple of Robert Claddere of the worthye -studie.” - -CLM 405, 14-15th century, fol. 98, Fracii Africii liber de vii herbis -vii planetis attributis. - -[712] Amplon. Q. 217, 14th century, fols. 51-54, Incipit tractatus -de vii herbis vii planetis attributis Flacti Africani discipuli -Belbenis.... Glandegrio Atthoniensi epylogitico studium. - -Sloane 1754, 14th century, fols. 45-57, “Flacius Affricus discipulus -Bellenis Glandigero Atthonensi epilogitico.” - -Sloane 75, 15th century, fols. 131-2, “Inquit Flaccus Affricanus -discipulus Beleni septem sunt herbe.” - -See also Sloane 73, fols. 4-7; Sloane 3092, 14th century, fols. 2-6. - -Berlin 900 (Latin Octavo 42), anno 1510, Compendium aureum des Flaccius -Africanus. - -[713] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 44-45, “Virtutes septem herbarum -et septem planetarum secundum Alexandrum imperatorem.” - -Vienna 3124, 15th century, fol. 49, Alexander is given as the author in -the catalogue, but I do not know if the name actually appears in the MS. - -[714] Berlin Folio 573, fol. 22, Liber Thesali philosofi de virtutibus -19 herbarum. - -Amplon. Quarto 217, #5. - -Montpellier 277, 15th century. - -Vienna 3124, 15th century, fols. 49-53, Texili, “Liber secretorum -de virtutibus 12 herbarum secundum influentiam quam recipiunt a 12 -celestibus signis.” - -Judging by their varying length, I should imagine that some of the MSS -listed in the preceding notes contain the Thessalus also. - -[715] “Tesalus in secretis de xii herbis per signa celi et de vii -secundum planetas.” - -[716] Digby 147, 14th century, fol. 106. - -[717] See above chapters 13, 45. - -[718] Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century (?), Baleni de imaginibus. - -Sloane 3826, 17th century, fols. 100v-101, Liber Balamini sapientis de -sigillis planetarum. - -Sloane 3848, 17th century, fols. 52-8, 59-62, liber sapientis Balemyn -de ymaginibus septem planetarum. - -[719] _Opera_ ed. Borgnet, X, 641, “Belenus, liber de horarum opere, -‘Dixit Belenus qui et Apollo dicitur, imago....;’ liber de quatuor -imaginibus ab aliis separatis, ‘Differentia in qua fiunt imagines -magnae....’” - -[720] Berthelot (1893) I, 257-8. - -[721] See below, chapter 49, pp. 281-3. - - - - -CHAPTER XLVII - -PRESTER JOHN AND THE MARVELS OF INDIA - - - Medieval notions of the marvels of India--India’s - real contribution to knowledge--The legend of Prester - John--Miracles of the Apostle Thomas--Otto of Freising - on Prester John--Prester John’s letter to the Emperor - Manuel--Marvels recounted by Prester John--Additional - marvels in later versions--The letter of Pope Alexander - III--Philip, the papal physician. - - -[Sidenote: Medieval notions of the marvels of India.] - -In a twelfth century manuscript at Berlin a treatise on precious stones -and their medicinal and other marvelous virtues which is ascribed to -St. Jerome,[722] opens with a prologue describing a voyage to India, -the home of the carbuncle, emerald, and other gems, and the land of -mountains of gold guarded by dragons, griffins, and other monsters. -According to this prologue the navigation of the Red Sea is extremely -dangerous and takes six months, while another full year is required to -cross the ocean to India and the Ganges. - -India was still a distant land of wonders and home of magic to the -minds of medieval men, as it had been in the _Life of Apollonius of -Tyana_, and as even to-day many westerners are credulous concerning -its jugglers, fakirs, yogis, and theosophists. So William of Auvergne, -bishop of Paris, writing in the first half of the thirteenth century, -states that feats of magic are very seldom wrought in the Europe of -his time. For one thing, as Origen and other early church fathers had -already explained, the demons since the coming of Christ to earth -had largely ceased their magical activities in Christian lands. But -another reason was that the materials for working natural magic, the -gems and herbs and animals with marvelous virtues, were seldom found -in European lands. In India and other countries adjacent to it, -on the contrary, such materials were abundant. Hence natural magic -still flourished there and it was a land of many experimenters and of -skilful marvel-workers.[723] Similarly Albertus Magnus, discussing the -marvelous powers of astrological images, states that the best gems upon -which to engrave them are those from India.[724] Costa ben Luca says in -his work on physical ligatures that doctors in India are firm believers -in the efficacy of incantations and adjurations; and about 1295 Peter -of Abano speaks in his _Phisionomia_ of the wise men of India as -prolix on astrological themes. Medieval geomancies, too, often claim a -connection with India.[725] - -[Sidenote: India’s real contribution to knowledge.] - -It should also be kept in mind, however, that medieval men believed -that they derived from India learning which seems to us even to-day as -sound and useful as it did to them then; for example, the Hindu-Arabic -numerals.[726] Leonardo of Pisa, the great arithmetician of the early -thirteenth century, tells us in the preface to his _Liber Abaci_[727] -how, summoned as a boy to join his father who was a customs official -at a trading station in Algeria, he was introduced to the art of -reckoning “by a marvelous method through the nine figures of the -Indians.” Thus we see that India’s marvels were not always false. -Later he traveled in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Sicily, and Provence and -studied their various methods of reckoning, but vastly preferred the -Indian method to all others, returned to a more intensive study of it, -and developed it further by additions from Euclid and contributions -of his own. Not always, it is true, were medieval mathematicians as -favorable to Indian methods as this. Jordanus Nemorarius in one passage -characterizes an Indian theorem as “nothing but mere credulity without -demonstration.”[728] But to return to the natural marvels of India. - -[Sidenote: The legend of Prester John.] - -In the extraordinary accounts of Prester John,[729] which are first -met in the twelfth century and were added to with succeeding centuries -and which had great currency from the start, as the number of extant -manuscripts shows, the natural marvels of India vie in impressiveness -and wonderment with the power of Prester John himself and with the -miracles of the Apostle Thomas. - -[Sidenote: Miracles of the Apostle Thomas.] - -Odo, Abbot of St. Rémy from 1118 to 1151, states in a letter in -response to the inquiry of a Count Thomas what had happened when -he was recently in Rome. Byzantine ambassadors introduced to the -pope an archbishop of India who had already had the extraordinary -and disconcerting experience of having to return a third time to -Constantinople for a new prince for his country, each previous -Byzantine nominee having died on his hands. This archbishop said that -the body of the Apostle Thomas was preserved in his country in a church -rich in treasure and ornaments and surrounded by a river fordable only -at the time of the saint’s festival. On that solemn occasion the -Apostle’s body was shown to believers and the Apostle would raise his -arm and open his hand to receive their gifts, but close it and refuse -to receive any gift offered by a heretic. When this tale reached the -pope’s ears he forbade the archbishop to disseminate such falsehoods -further under pain of anathema, but the archbishop finally convinced -the pope by taking an oath on the holy gospels. - -Another longer and anonymous account has come down from manuscripts -going back to the twelfth century of the visit of a Patriarch John of -India to Rome under Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124). It is this account -which is often joined in the manuscripts and early printed editions -with the _Letter of Prester John_ of which we shall presently speak. -In this account the Patriarch John told “of memorable matters of his -Indian region that were unknown to the Romans,” such as of the gold and -gems in the river Physon which flows from Paradise, “but especially -of the miracles of the most holy Apostle Thomas.” Without going into -further details, such as that of the miraculous balsam lamp, which -differ a good deal from Odo’s account, it may be noted that in this -account the Apostle’s hand ministers the Eucharist to believers and -refuses it to infidels and sinners. - -[Sidenote: Otto of Freising on Prester John, the descendant of the -Magi.] - -We have progressed from an archbishop of India to a Patriarch John; we -now come to Prester John the monarch. The historian, Otto of Freising, -learned in 1145 from a Syrian bishop at Rome of a great victory -recently gained over the Moslems by “a certain John who lived beyond -Persia and Armenia in the extreme East, a king and priest, since he was -a Christian by race but a Nestorian ... Prester John, for so they are -wont to call him.” He was of the ancient progeny of the Magi mentioned -in the Gospel, ruled the same races as they, and enjoyed such glory and -abundance that he was said to use only an emerald scepter. After his -victory he would have come to the aid of the crusaders at Jerusalem, -but could not cross the Tigris, although he marched north along its -eastern bank and waited for some years in the hope that it would freeze -over.[730] - -[Sidenote: Prester John’s letter to the Emperor Manuel.] - -This Prester John was to be heard from again, however, for in the same -century there appeared a letter purporting to have been written by -him to the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel (1143-1180).[731] It is in this -letter that the natural and artificial marvels of India and adjacent -territories--Prester John’s dominion reaches from farther India to the -Babylonian desert--are especially recorded. This letter even in its -earliest and briefest form seems without doubt a western forgery and -bears the marks of its Latin origin,[732] since despite the use of a -few Greek ecclesiastical and official terms[733] and the attempt to -rehearse unheard-of wonders, the writer indulges in a sneer at Greek -adoration of the emperor[734] and is unable to conceive of Prester -John except as a feudal overlord[735] with the usual kings, dukes and -counts, archbishops, bishops and abbots under him. The letter then -is of value chiefly as showing us what ideas prevailed concerning -India and the orient in the Latin world of the twelfth and succeeding -centuries, for the letter received many additions and variations, was -translated into the vernacular languages, and appeared in print before -1500.[736] In the following account of its contents, however, I shall -try to describe the letter as it existed in the twelfth century, after -which I shall mention what seem to be interpolations of the thirteenth -or later centuries. - -[Sidenote: Marvels recounted by Prester John.] - -But while different copies of the work vary, all have the same general -character. Prester John tells what a mighty and Christian potentate he -is and describes his marvelous palaces and contrivances or the natural -marvels, strange beasts and serpents, monstrous races of men, potent -herbs, stones, and fountains, to be found in the lands owning his sway. -In one province is the herb _assidios_ which enables its bearer to rout -an impure spirit and force him to disclose his name and whence he -comes. “Wherefore impure spirits in that land dare not take possession -of anyone.”[737] A fountain flows from Mount Olympus not three days’ -journey from Paradise whence Adam was expelled. Three draughts from it -taken fasting insure one henceforth from all infirmity, and however -long one may live, one will seem henceforth but thirty years of -age.[738] Then there are some little stones which eagles often bring -to Prester John’s territories and which worn on the finger preserve or -restore the sight, or if consecrated with a lawful incantation, make -one invisible and dispel envy and hatred and promote concord.[739] -After a description of a sea of sand in which there are various kinds -of edible fish and a river of stones, Prester John soon mentions the -worms which in his language are called salamanders, who cannot live -except in fire, and from whose skins he has robes made which can be -cleansed only by fire.[740] After some boasting concerning the absence -of poverty, crime, and falsehood in his country and about the pomp and -wealth with which he goes forth to war, Prester John then comes to the -description of his palace, which is similar to that which the Apostle -Thomas built for Gundaphorus, King of India. Its gates of sardonyx -mixed with _cornu cerastis_ (horn of the horned serpents) prevent the -secret introduction of poison; a couch of sapphire keeps John chaste; -the square before the palace where judicial duels are held is paved -with onyx “in order that the courage of the fighters may be increased -by the virtue of the stone.”[741] Near this square is a magic mirror -which reveals all plots in the provinces subject to Prester John or -in adjacent lands.[742] In some manuscripts of the twelfth century is -a description of another palace which before Prester John’s birth his -father was instructed in a dream to build for his son. One feature -of it is that no matter how hungry one may be on entering it, he -always comes out feeling as full as if he had partaken of a sumptuous -banquet.[743] - -[Sidenote: Additional marvels in later versions.] - -To such marvels in the early versions of the _Letter of Prester -John_ were added others in the course of the thirteenth century -and later middle ages:--the huge man-eating ants who mined gold by -night;[744] the land where men lived on manna, a substance which we -shall find somewhat similarly mentioned by Michael Scot and Thomas of -Cantimpré;[745] the tale, which we shall also hear from Roger Bacon, -of men who tame flying dragons by their incantations and magic, saddle -and bridle them, and ride them through the air;[746] the five marvelous -stones that froze or heated or reduced to an even state of temperature -or made light or dark everything within a radius of five miles; the -second five stones, of which two were unconsecrated and turned water to -milk or wine, while three were consecrated and would respectively cause -fish to congregate, wild beasts to follow one, and, sprinkled with hot -lion’s blood, produce a conflagration which could only be quenched by -sprinkling the stone with hot dragon’s blood;[747] the marvelous mill -operated by the occult virtue of the stone adamant;[748] the wonderful -tree on which the wonderful healing apple grew;[749] the marvelous -chapel of glass, always just big enough for as many persons as entered -it;[750] and the stone and the fountain that served as fireless -heaters.[751] In another case a marvel is wrought by stone and fountain -combined. Two old men guard a large stone and admit to its hollow only -Christians or those who desire to become Christians. If this profession -of faith is genuine, the water in the hollow which is usually only four -fingers deep thrice rises above the head of the person admitted, who -thereupon emerges recovered from all sickness.[752] - -[Sidenote: The letter of Pope Alexander III.] - -How real Prester John was to the men of the twelfth century may be -seen from the fact that Pope Alexander III on September 27, 1177, -addressed from the Rialto in Venice a letter to him or to some actual -eastern potentate whom he had confused with him.[753] The Pope does not -expressly mention Prester John’s letter to Manuel but says that he has -heard of him from many persons and common report, and more especially -from “Master Philip, our friend and physician,” who had talked “with -great and honourable men of your kingdom,” by whom he had been informed -of their ruler’s desire for a church and altar at Jerusalem. It is this -Philip whom the Pope now sends with his letter to Prester John and to -instruct him in the doctrine of the Roman church. But it is a long and -laborious journey involving many hardships and vicissitudes and the -traversing of many countries with barbarous and unknown languages. - -[Sidenote: Philip, the papal physician.] - -Whether Philip ever succeeded in delivering the letter is not known and -he has himself been regarded as a mysterious personage of whom nothing -further was known.[754] I would suggest, however, that, as he seems to -have been conversant with Syria and the Holy Land, he may have been -the Philip of whose translation of the _Secret of Secrets_ of the -Pseudo-Aristotle we shall treat in the next chapter, a work which he -found in Antioch and dedicated to the bishop of Tripoli. Or, if we do -not meet this particular Philip again, we shall find in close relations -with other popes other physicians whose names are prominent in the -natural and occult science of the age. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[722] Berlin 956, 12th century, fols. 24-25. - -[723] _Gulielmi Alverni ... Opera Omnia_, 1591, p. 1003, _De universo_, -II, iii, 23. - -[724] _Mineral._ II, iii, 4. - -[725] One condemned at Paris in 1277 began, “The Indians have -believed....”; two in a Harleian MS 2404 are called _Indeana_; a third, -part Latin and part French, in Sloane MS 314 of the 15th century, -opens, “This is the Indyana of Gremmgus which is called the daughter -of astronomy and which one of the sages of India wrote.” See also CU -Magdalene 27 (F. 4. 27, Haenel 23), late 14th century, fols. 72-88, -“Hec est geomentia Indiana que vocatur filia Ast ... quam fecit unius -(_sic_) sapientum Indie....” - -[726] See D. E. Smith and L. C. Karpinski, _The Hindu-Arabic Numerals_, -Boston, 1911; S. R. Benedict, _A Comparative Study of the Early -Treatises introducing into Europe the Hindu Art of Reckoning_, Concord, -1914; L. C. Karpinski, “Two Twelfth Century Algorisms,” _Isis_, III -(1921) 396-413. For “newly discovered evidence showing that the Hindu -numerals were known to and justly appreciated by the Syrian writer -Severus Sebokht, who lived in the second half of the seventh century,” -see F. Nau in _Journal asiatique_, 1910, and J. Ginsburg, “New Light on -our Numerals,” in the _Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society_, -XXIII (1917) 366-9. On the question of the debt of Arabic algebra to -India, especially in the case of Muhammad. b. Musa al-Hwarazmi, who -was also an astrologer, see J. Ruska _Zur ältesten arabischen Algebra -und Rechenkunst_, in _Sitzb. d. Heidelberger Akademie d. Wiss. Philos. -hist. Klasse_, 1917. - -[727] _Scritti di Leonardo Pisano_, vol. I, 1857. - -[728] _Jordani Nemorarii Geometria vel De triangulis libri IV_, ed. M. -Curtze, Thorn, 1887, pp. 43-44. - -[729] A good brief summary of the results of d’Avezac, Zarncke, and -others will be found in Sir Henry Yule’s article on “Prester John,” EB. -For the various texts to be here considered, with later interpolations -and additions distinguished, see Friedrich Zarncke, _Der Priester -Johannes_, in _Abhandl. d. Kgl. Sächs. Gesells. d. Wiss._ VII (1879), -627-1030; VIII (1883) 1-186. - -[730] In Yule (1903) I, 231-7, Cordier discusses whether this monarch -was Gurkhan of Kara Khitai (as urged by d’Avezac and Oppert) who “in -1141 came to the aid of the King of Khwarizmi against Sanjar, the -Seljukian sovereign of Persia, ... and defeated that prince with great -slaughter,” or whether he was “John Orbelian ... for years the pride of -Georgia and the hammer of the Turks” (as urged by Professor Bruun of -Odessa). - -[731] For its text, with interpolations distinguished from the -original text, see Zarncke (1879) 909-924. Some of the passages which -Zarncke regards as interpolations are, however, already found in -12th century MSS. On the other hand, his text does not include all -the interpolations and variations to be found even in the MSS which -he describes. For instance, in BN 6244A, fol. 130r, just before the -description of the herb _assidios_, occurs a passage which may be -translated as follows: “You should know also that in our country we do -not need doctors, for we have precious stones, herbs, fountains, and -trees of so great virtue that they prevail against every infirmity and -against poisons and wounds. And we have books which instruct us and -distinguish between the potencies and virtues of the herbs.” In this MS -Prester John is also more voluble on the theme of his devotion to the -Christian faith than appears in Zarncke’s text, and (fols. 127v-128r) -repeats the story of the administration of the Eucharist by the hand -of the body of the Apostle Thomas. Zarncke lists about one hundred MSS -of the letter but fails to use or mention any of those in the Bodleian -Library where, for instance, Digby 158, fols. 2r-5v, is of the twelfth -century. Another twelfth century MS not in his list is Paris Arsenal -379A, fol. 34. Zarncke also does not list the MSS of the letter at -Madrid and Wolfenbüttel. - -[732] In many MSS. nothing is said of its being a translation or when -or by whom it was translated; others state that it was translated into -Greek and Latin, or, in at least one case, from Arabic into Latin. -Only from the thirteenth century on, I think, is Christian, Archbishop -of Mainz, sometimes said to have translated it from Greek into Latin. -Often it is simply stated that Manuel transmitted the letter to the -Emperor Frederick, to whom also it is sometimes represented as sent -direct by Prester John. Sometimes it is to the Pope to whom the letter -comes from Manuel or Prester John. - -The statement that Manuel transmitted the letter to the Emperor -Frederick makes one wonder whether Anselm, Bishop of Havelberg -and later of Ravenna, can have had anything to do with it. He was -sent by Frederick on an embassy to Manuel in 1153, which seems to -identify him with the author of a “_Liber de diversitate nature -et persone proprietatumque personalium non tam Latinorum quam ex -Grecorum auctoritatibus extractus_”--CUL 1824 (Qi. vi. 27), beautiful -13th century hand, fols. 129-76,--who states in his preface that he -collected his Greek authorities in Constantinople where he was sent by -Frederick on an embassy to Manuel, and on his return to Germany showed -them to “_Petro venerabili Tusculano episcopo_.” - -[733] Such as Apocrisarius and Archimandrite, a word however not -entirely unknown in the west; see Ducange. - -[734] “Cum enim hominem nos esse cognoscamus, te Graeculi tui Deum -esse existimant, cum te mortalem et humanae corruptioni subiacere -cognoscamus,” Zarncke (1879) 910. - -[735] For instance, the writer twice alludes to the square before -Prester John’s palace where he watches the combatants in judicial duels -or wager of battle, Zarncke (1879) 918, 919. - -[736] I have seen a copy in the British Museum (IA.8685), _De -Mirabilibus Indiae_, where the account given Calixtus II of miracles of -the Apostle Thomas is run together with the letter of Prester John. - -[737] Zarncke, 912; Digby 158, fol. 2v; BN 2342, fol. 191v; BN 3359, -fol. 144v. - -[738] Zarncke, 912-913; MSS as before. This fountain of youth was -little improved upon by another inserted later (Zarncke, 920-21; BN -3359, fol. 146v; not in the other two MSS), which one had to taste -thrice daily on a fasting stomach for three years, three months, -three weeks, three days, and three hours, in order to live and remain -youthful for three hundred years, three months, three weeks, three -days, and three hours. - -[739] Zarncke, 913; Digby 158, fol. 3r, etc. - -[740] Zarncke, 915; Digby 158, fol. 3v; BN 2342, fol. 192r; BN 3359, -fol. 145r. It will be recalled that Charlemagne is said to have had -such a garment. Pliny discussed both salamanders and asbestos but did -not connect the two. Marco Polo, however, says (I 42, Yule (1903) -I, 212-3), “The real truth is that the salamander is no beast, as -they allege in our part of the world, but is a substance found in -the earth.... Everybody must be aware that it can be no animal’s -nature to live in fire, seeing that every animal is composed of all -four elements.” Polo confirms, however, the report of robes made of -incombustible mineral fibre and cleansed by fire. - -[741] Zarncke, 918; Digby 158, fol. 4r; BN 2342, fol. 192r; BN 3359, -fol. 145v. - -[742] Zarncke, 919-20; Digby 158, fols. 4v-5r; BN 2342, fol. 192v; BN -3359, fol. 146r. - -[743] Zarncke, 920-22; Digby 158 fol. 5v; BN 2342, fol. 192v; BN 3359, -fol. 146r-v. - -[744] Zarncke, 911. - -[745] _Ibid._, 913. For Michael Scot, see Chapter 51, page 324; for -Thomas of Cantimpré, Chapter 53, Page 393. - -[746] Zarncke, 913. For Roger Bacon, see Chapter 61, page 657. - -[747] Zarncke, 915-16. - -[748] _Ibid._, 918-19. - -[749] Zarncke, 921. - -[750] _Ibid._, 922. - -[751] _Ibid._, 923. - -[752] _Ibid._, 914. - -[753] Text of the letter in Zarncke, 941-44. - -[754] Zarncke, 945, “Der Philippus, den der Papst seinen familiaris -nennt, ist bis jetzt nicht nachgewiesen.” - - - - -CHAPTER XLVIII - -THE PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE - - - Alexander and Aristotle--Spurious writings ascribed - to Aristotle--Aristotle and experiment--Aristotle and - alchemy: _Meteorology_ and _On colors_--Works of alchemy - ascribed to Aristotle--Aristotle and Alexander as - alchemists--Aristotle and astrology--Astrology and magic - in the _Theology_ and _De Pomo_ of Aristotle--_Liber de - causis proprietatum elementorum et planetarum_--Other - astrological treatises ascribed to Aristotle--Aristotle - and 250 volumes of the Indians--Works on astrological - images--And on necromantic images--Alexander as an - astrologer--Aristotle and spirits--_On plants_ and the - _Lapidary_--Virtues of gems--Stories of Alexander and - of Socrates--Alexander’s submarine--Arabian tales of - Alexander--A magic horn--More stories of Alexander and - gems--Story of Alexander’s belt--The royal _Lapidary_ of - Wenzel II of Bohemia--_Chiromancy_ and _Physiognomy_ of - Aristotle--_The Secret of Secrets_--Its textual history--The - Latin translations of John of Spain and Philip--Philip’s - preface--Prominence of occult science--Absence - of mysticism--Discussion of kingship--Medical - discussion--Astrology--Story of the two boys--Virtues of - stones and herbs, incantations and amulets--Thirteenth - century scepticism--Number and alchemy--The poisonous - maiden--The Jew and the Magus. - - -[Sidenote: Alexander and Aristotle.] - -In a previous chapter we have seen what a wide currency the legend of -Alexander had both in east and west in the later Roman Empire and early -middle ages, and how with Alexander was associated the magician and -astrologer Nectanebus. We also saw that by about 800 A. D. at least a -separate Letter of Alexander to Aristotle on the Marvels of India was -current in the Latin west, and in the present chapter it is especially -to the Pseudo-Aristotle and his connection with Alexander and India, -rather than to the Pseudo-Callisthenes, that we turn. The tremendous -historical importance of the career of Alexander the Great and of the -writings of Aristotle impressed itself perhaps even unduly upon both -the Arabian and the medieval mind. The personal connection between -the two men--Aristotle was for a time Alexander’s tutor--was seized -upon and magnified. Pliny in his _Natural History_ had stated that -Alexander had empowered Aristotle to send two thousand men to different -parts of the world to test by experience all things on the face of the -earth.[755] This account of their scientific co-operation was enlarged -upon by spurious writings associated with their names like the letter -on the marvels of India.[756] With the introduction into western Europe -in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries of many genuine works of -Aristotle unknown to the early middle ages, which had possessed only -certain of his logical treatises, there also came into circulation a -number of spurious writings ascribed to him. - -[Sidenote: Spurious writings ascribed to Aristotle.] - -It is not surprising that many spurious works were attributed to -Aristotle in the middle ages, when we remember that his writings came -to them for the most part indirectly through corrupt translations, -and that some writing from so great a master was eagerly looked for -upon every subject in which they were interested. It seemed to them -that so encyclopedic a genius must have touched on all fields of -knowledge and they often failed to realize that in Aristotle’s time -the departments of learning had been somewhat different from their own -and that new interests and doctrine had developed since then. There -was also a tendency to ascribe to Aristotle any work of unknown or -uncertain authorship. At the close of the twelfth century Alexander -Neckam[757] lists among historic instances of envy Aristotle’s holding -back from posterity certain of his most subtle writings, which he -ordered should be buried with him. At the same time he so guarded -the place of his sepulcher, whether by some force of nature or power -of art or prodigy of magic is uncertain, that no one has yet been -able to approach it, although some think that Antichrist will be able -to inspect these books when he comes. Roger Bacon in the thirteenth -century believed that Aristotle had written over a thousand works and -complained bitterly because certain treatises, which were probably -really apocryphal, had not been translated into Latin.[758] Indeed, -some of the works ascribed to Aristotle in the Oriental and Mohammedan -worlds were never translated into Latin, such as the astrological -_De impressionibus coelestibus_ which Bacon mentions, or the Syriac -text which K. Ahrens edited in 1892 with a German translation as -“Das Buch der Naturgegenstände”; or first appeared in Latin guise -after the invention of printing, as was the case with the so-called -_Theology_ of Aristotle,[759] a work which was little more than a -series of extracts from the _Enneads_ of Plotinus.[760] Some treatises -attributed to Aristotle in medieval Latin do not bear especially upon -our investigation, such as _Grammar_ which Grosseteste is said to have -translated from Greek.[761] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and experiment.] - -For our purposes the Pseudo-Aristotelian writings may be sub-divided -under seven heads: experiment, alchemy, astrology, spirits, occult -virtues of stones and herbs, chiromancy and physiognomy, and last the -famous _Secret of Secrets_. Under the first of these heads may be put -a treatise on the conduct of waters, which consists of a series of -experiments in siphoning and the like illustrated in the manuscript by -lettered and colored figures and diagrams.[762] In a Vatican manuscript -it is perhaps more correctly ascribed to Philo of Byzantium. - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and alchemy: _Meteorology_ and _On colors_.] - -From experiment to alchemy is an easy step, for the alchemists -experimented a good deal in the period which we are now considering. -The fourth book of the _Meteorology_ of Aristotle, which, if not a -genuine portion of that work, at least goes back to the third century -before Christ,[763] has been called a manual of chemistry,[764] and -apparently is the oldest such extant. Its doctrines are also believed -to have been influential in the development of alchemy; and there were -passages in this fourth book which led men later to regard Aristotle -as favorable to the doctrine of the transmutation of metals. Gerard of -Cremona had translated only the first three books of the _Meteorology_; -the fourth was supplied from a translation from the Greek made by -Henricus Aristippus who died in 1162; to this fourth book were added -three chapters translated by Alfred of England or of Sareshel from -the Arabic,[765] apparently of Avicenna.[766] These additions of -Alfred from Avicenna discussed the formation of metals but attacked -the alchemists.[767] Vincent of Beauvais[768] and Albertus Magnus[769] -were both aware, however, that this attack upon the alchemists was -probably not by Aristotle. The short treatise _On colors_,[770] which -is included in so many medieval manuscript collections of the works of -Aristotle in Latin,[771] by its very title would suggest to medieval -readers that he had been interested in the art of alchemy, although its -actual contents deal only in small part with dyes and tinctures. Its -form and contents are not regarded as Aristotle’s, but it was perhaps -by someone of the Peripatetic school. Thus works which, if not by -Aristotle himself, at least had been written in Greek long before the -medieval period, gave medieval readers the impression that Aristotle -was favorable to alchemy. - -[Sidenote: Works of alchemy ascribed to Aristotle.] - -It is therefore not surprising that works of alchemy appeared in -medieval Latin under Aristotle’s name. The names of Plato and Aristotle -had headed the lists of alchemists in Greek manuscripts although no -works ascribed to Aristotle have been preserved in the same.[772] -Berthelot, however, speaks of a pseudo-Aristotle in Arabic,[773] and -in an Oxford manuscript of the thirteenth century under the name of -Aristotle appears a treatise _On the twelve waters of the secret -river_ said to be “translated from Arabic into Latin.”[774] In the -preface the author promises that whoever becomes skilled, adept, and -expert in these twelve waters will never lose hope nor be depressed by -want. He regards this treatise as the chief among his works, since he -has learned these waters by experiment. They are all chemical rather -than medical; a brief “chapter” or paragraph is devoted to each. In -another manuscript at the Bodleian two brief tracts are ascribed -to Aristotle; one describes the seven metals, the other deals with -transmutation.[775] In a single manuscript at Munich both a theoretical -treatise in medicine and alchemy and a _Practica_ are attributed to -Aristotle, and in two other manuscripts he is credited with the _Book -of Seventy Precepts_ which sometimes is ascribed to Geber.[776] Thomas -of Cantimpré cites Aristotle in the _Lumen luminum_ as saying that -the best gold is made from yellow copper ore and the urine of a boy, -but Thomas hastens to add that such gold is best in color rather -than in substance.[777] The translation of the _Lumen luminum_ is -ascribed both to Michael Scot and brother Elias.[778] Aristotle is -quoted several times in _De alchimia_, ascribed to Albertus Magnus, -but only in the later “Additions” to it, where Roger Bacon also is -cited, is the specific title _Liber de perfecto magisterio_ given as -Aristotle’s.[779] Sometimes works of alchemy were very carelessly -ascribed to Aristotle, when it is perfectly evident from the works -themselves that they could not have been written by him.[780] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and Alexander as alchemists.] - -The alchemical discoveries and writings ascribed to Aristotle are -often associated in some way with Alexander the Great as well. In one -manuscript John of Spain’s translation of the _Secret of Secrets_ is -followed by a description of the virtues and compositions of four -stones “which Aristotle sent to Alexander the Great.”[781] It seems -obvious that these are philosopher’s stones and not natural gems. -The _Liber ignium_ of Marcus Grecus, composed in the thirteenth or -early fourteenth century, ascribes to Aristotle the discovery of two -marvelous kinds of fires. One, which he discovered while traveling with -Alexander the king, will burn for a year without cessation. The other, -in the composition of which observance of the dog-days is requisite, -“Aristotle asserts will last for nine years.”[782] A collection of -chemical experiments by a Nicholas, of whom we shall have more to -say in a later chapter, gives “a fire which Aristotle discovered -with Alexander for obscure places.”[783] A letter of Aristotle to -Alexander in a collection of alchemical tracts is hardly worth noting, -as it is only seven lines long, but it is interesting to observe that -it cites Aristotle’s _Meteorology_.[784] Perhaps by a mistake one -or two alchemical treatises are ascribed to Alexander rather than -Aristotle.[785] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and astrology.] - -Aristotle’s genuine works give even more encouragement to the -pretensions of astrology than to those of alchemy. His opinion that -the four elements were insufficient to explain natural phenomena -and his theory of a fifth essence were favorable to the belief in -occult virtue and the influence of the stars upon inferior objects. -In his work on generation[786] he held that the elements alone were -mere tools without a workman; the missing agent is supplied by the -revolution of the heavens. In the twelfth book of the _Metaphysics_ he -described the stars and planets as eternal and acting as intermediaries -between the prime Mover and inferior beings. Thus they are the direct -causes of all life and action in our world. Charles Jourdain regarded -the introduction of the _Metaphysics_ into western Europe at the -opening of the thirteenth century as a principal cause for the great -prevalence of astrology from that time on, the other main cause being -the translation of Arabian astrological treatises.[787] Jourdain did -not duly appreciate the great hold which astrology already had in the -twelfth century, but it is nevertheless true that in the new Aristotle -astrology found further support. - -[Sidenote: Astrology and magic in the _Theology_ and _De pomo_ of -Aristotle.] - -Astrology crops out here and there in most of the spurious works -extant under Aristotle’s name, just as it does in medieval learning -everywhere. One section of a dozen pages in the _Theology_ discusses -the influence of the stars upon nature and the working of magic by -making use of these celestial forces and the natural attraction which -things have for one another. It regards artificial magic as a fraud -but natural and astrological magic as a reality. However, as in the -original text of Plotinus which the _Theology_ follows, it is only the -animal soul which is affected by magic and the man of impulse who is -moved thereby; the thinking man can free himself from its influence by -use of the rational soul. In the treatise, _De pomo_,[788] which seems -not to have been translated into Latin until the thirteenth century -under Manfred,[789] Aristotle on his death bed, holding in his hand -an apple from which the treatise takes its title, is represented -as telling his disciples why a philosopher need not fear death and -repudiating the doctrines of the mortality of the soul and eternity -of the universe. He also tells how the Creator made the spheres and -placed lucid stars in each and gave them the virtue of ruling over -this inferior world and causing good and evil and life or death. They -do not, however, do this of themselves, but men at first thought so -and erroneously worshiped the stars until the time of Noah who was the -first to recognize the Creator of the spheres.[790] - -[Sidenote: _Liber de causis proprietatum elementorum et planetarum._] - -There are also attributed to Aristotle treatises primarily -astrological. A “Book on the Properties of the Elements and of the -Planets” is cited under his name by Peter of Abano at the end of the -thirteenth century in his work on poisons,[791] by Peter d’Ailly in his -_Vigintiloquium_[792] written in 1414, and by Pico della Mirandola, -who declares it spurious, in his work against astrology written at the -close of the fifteenth century. D’Ailly and Pico cite it in regard to -the theory of great conjunctions; Abano, for a tale of Socrates and -two dragons which we shall repeat later. It is probable that all these -citations were from the paraphrase of and commentary on the work by -Albertus Magnus[793] who accepted it as a genuine writing of Aristotle. -We shall consider its contents in our chapter upon Albertus Magnus. - -[Sidenote: Other astrological treatises ascribed to Aristotle.] - -In a manuscript of the Cotton collection in the British Museum is a -work of some length upon astrology ascribed to Aristotle.[794] After -a discussion of general principles in which the planets, signs, and -houses are treated, there are separate books upon the subjects of -nativities,[795] and of elections and interrogations.[796] In a Paris -manuscript a treatise on interrogations is ascribed in a marginal -heading to “Aristoteles Milesius, a Peripatetic physician.”[797] In -the Cotton Manuscript in commentaries which then follow, and which -are labelled as commentaries “upon the preceding treatise” Ptolemy is -mentioned rather than Aristotle.[798] In an astrological manuscript -of the fifteenth century at Grenoble written in French, works of -Messahala and Zaël translated for Charles V of France are preceded by -“a book of judicial astrology according to Aristotle,” which opens -with “the preface of the last translator,” and is in four parts.[799] -Perhaps both the above-mentioned manuscripts contain, like a third -manuscript at Munich, “The book of judgments which is said by Albert -in his _Speculum_ to be Aristotle’s.”[800] This work also occurs in -a manuscript at Erfurt.[801] Roger Bacon was much impressed by an -astrological treatise ascribed to Aristotle entitled _De impressionibus -coelestibus_, and told Pope Clement IV that it was “superior to -the entire philosophy of the Latins and can be translated by your -order.”[802] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and two hundred and fifty volumes of the Indians.] - -A treatise found in two manuscripts of the Bodleian Library bears -the titles, _Commentary of Aristotle on Astrology_, and _The book of -Aristotle from two hundred and fifty-five volumes of the Indians, -containing a digest of all problems, whether pertaining to the sphere -or to genethlialogy_.[803] From the text itself and the preface of -Hugo Sanctelliensis, the twelfth century translator from Arabic into -Latin, addressed to his lord, Michael, bishop of Tarazona, we see -that the work is neither entirely by Aristotle nor from the books of -the Indians but is a compilation by someone who draws or pretends to -draw from some 250 or 255 books[804] of the philosophers, including in -addition to treatises by both Aristotle and the Indians, 13 books by -Hermes, 13 by Doronius (Dorotheus?), 4 by Ptolemy, one by Democritus, -two by Plato, 44 by the Babylonians, 7 by Antiochus, and others by -authors whose names are unfamiliar to me and probably misspelled in -the manuscripts. In one of the works of Aristotle of which the present -work is supposed to make use, there are said to have been described the -nativities of twelve thousand men, collected in an effort to establish -an experimental basis for astrology.[805] It is not so surprising that -the present work bears Aristotle’s name, since Hugh had promised his -patron Michael, in the prologue to his translation of the _Geometry_ of -Hanus ben Hanne,[806] that if life endured and opportunity was given he -would next set to work as ordered by his patron, not only upon Haly’s -commentaries on the _Quadripartite_ and _Almagest_ of Ptolemy, but also -upon a certain general commentary by Aristotle on the entire art of -astrology. - -[Sidenote: Works on astrological images.] - -The _Secret of Secrets_ of the Pseudo-Aristotle is immediately followed -in one manuscript by chapters or treatises addressed to Alexander and -entitled, _Of ideas and forms_, _Of the impression of forms_, and -_Of images and rings_.[807] The theory, very like that of Alkindi, -is maintained that “all forms are ruled by supercelestial forms -through the spirits of the spheres” and that incantations and images -receive their force from the spheres. The seven planets pass on these -supercelestial ideas and forms to our inferior world. By selecting -proper times for operating one can work good or ill by means of the -rays and impressions of the planets. The scientific investigator -who properly concentrates and fixes intent, desire, and appetite -upon the desired goal can penetrate hidden secrets of secrets and -occult science both universal and particular. The writer goes on to -emphasize the importance of understanding all the different positions -and relationships of the heavenly bodies and also the distribution -of terrestrial objects under the planets. He then describes an -astrological image which will cause men to reverence and obey you, will -repel your enemies in terror, afflict the envious, send visions, and -perform other marvelous and stupefying feats too numerous to mention. - -[Sidenote: And on necromantic images.] - -As the _Speculum astronomiae_ of Albertus Magnus listed a _Book -of Judgments_ by Aristotle among deserving works of astronomy and -astrology, so in its list of evil books dealing with necromantic -images appear a treatise by Hermes addressed to Aristotle and opening, -“Aristotle said, ‘You have seen me, O Hermes,’” and a treatise ascribed -to Aristotle with the sinister title, _Death of the Soul_, opening, -“Said Aristotle to King Alexander, ‘If you want to perceive.’” This -treatise the _Speculum_ calls “the worst of all” the evil books on -images. Roger Bacon, too, alludes to it by title as filled with -figments of the magicians, but does not name Aristotle as author.[808] -Peter of Abano in his _Lucidator_ follows the _Speculum astronomiae_ in -listing it among depraved, obscene, and detestable works.[809] - -[Sidenote: Alexander as an astrologer.] - -Alexander himself, as well as Aristotle, had some medieval reputation -as an astrologer. We have already seen[810] in the tenth and eleventh -century manuscripts of the _Mathematica_ of Alhandreus, supreme -astrologer, that “Alexander of Macedon” was more than once cited as an -authority, and that there were also given “Excerpts from the books of -Alexander, astrologer, king,” and a “Letter of Argafalan to Alexander.” -Different from this, moreover, was the _Mathematica_ of Alexander, -supreme astrologer, found in a thirteenth century manuscript, in which -from the movements of the planets through the signs one is instructed -how to foretell prosperous and adverse journeys, abundance and poverty, -misfortune or death of a friend, or to discover stolen articles, -sorceries, buried treasure and so forth.[811] A treatise on seven herbs -related to the seven planets is sometimes ascribed to Alexander,[812] -but perhaps more often to Flaccus Africanus, as we saw in Chapter 46, -and at least once to Aristotle.[813] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle and spirits.] - -The association of astrological images with spirits of the spheres in -one of the above-mentioned works ascribed to Aristotle has already -brought us to the border-line of our next topic, Aristotle and spirits. -Under this caption may be placed a work found in a fifteenth century -manuscript.[814] It also is in part astrological and is associated -with the name of Hermes as well as of Aristotle. Its title runs, _The -book of the spiritual works of Aristotle, or the book Antimaquis, -which is the book of the secrets of Hermes: wonderful things can -be accomplished by means of this book and ’tis the ancient book of -the seven planets_. The treatise opens, “To every people and clime -pertains a group of spirits.” It then maps out these regions of -different spirits in accordance with the planets and signs of the -zodiac. Apparently this is the same work as that which Hunain ibn -Ishak translated into Arabic and of which he says, “Among the works of -Aristotle which we have found and translated from Greek into Arabic was -_The book of the Causes of Spirituals_ which has Hermes for author.... -It is the book in which Aristotle treats of the causes of spirituals, -talismans, the art of their operation, and how to hinder it, ordered -after the seven climates.”[815] It was probably some such spurious work -that William of Auvergne had in mind when he spoke of Aristotle’s boast -that a spirit had descended unto him from the sphere of Venus.[816] - -[Sidenote: _On plants_ and the _Lapidary_.] - -No genuine work of Aristotle on vegetables or minerals has come down to -us to accompany his celebrated _History of Animals_, but supposititious -writings were soon found by the Arabs to fill this gap. On plants a -brief treatise by Nicolaus Damascenus passed for Aristotle’s. Alfred of -Sarchel translated it from Arabic into Latin,[817] presumably before -the close of the twelfth century, since he dedicated it to Roger of -Hereford, and Albertus Magnus expanded its two short books into seven -long ones in his _De vegetabilibus et plantis_. There also existed -in Arabic a _Lapidary_ ascribed to Aristotle,[818] which we have -heard cited in the ninth century by Costa ben Luca. Ruska believes -the work to be of Syrian and Persian origin,[819] although one Latin -text professes to have been originally translated from Greek into -Syriac.[820] Valentin Rose regarded it as the basis of all subsequent -Arabic mineralogy, but found only two Latin manuscripts of it.[821] -Albertus Magnus in his _Minerals_ confesses that, although he had -sought diligently in divers regions of the world, he had seen only -excerpts from Aristotle’s work. But another writer of the thirteenth -century, Arnold of Saxony, cites translations of Aristotle on stones -both by Dioscorides, which would seem sheer nonsense, and by Gerard, -presumably of Cremona. Gerard’s translation occurs in one of Rose’s -manuscripts; the other seems to give a version translated from the -Hebrew. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of gems.] - -In Gerard’s translation, a work marked by puerile Latin style, -the _Lapidary_ of Aristotle is about equally devoted to marvelous -properties of stones and tales of Alexander the Great. After some -general discussion of stones and their wonderful properties, particular -gems are taken up. The _gesha_ brings misfortune. Its wearer sleeps -poorly, has many worries, many altercations and law-suits. If it is -hung about a boy’s neck, it makes him drivel. “There is great occult -force” in the magnet, and instructions are given how to set water on -fire with it. Several stones possess the property of neutralizing -spells and counteracting the work of demons. With another stone the -Indians make many incantations. Vultures were the first to discover -the virtue of the stone _filcrum coarton_ in hastening delivery. When -a female vulture was near death from the eggs hardening in her body, -the male flew off to India and brought back this stone which afforded -instant relief. Another stone is so soporific that suspended about the -neck it induces a sleep lasting three days and nights, and the effects -of which are thrown off with difficulty even on the fourth day, when -the sleeper will awake but will act as if he were intoxicated and will -still seem sleepier than anyone else. Another stone prevents a horse -from whinnying, if suspended from his neck. - -[Sidenote: Stories of Alexander and of Socrates.] - -Other gems suggest stories of Alexander. Near the frontier of India -in a valley guarded by deadly serpents whose mere glance was fatal -were many precious gems. Alexander disposed of the serpents by -erecting mirrors in which they might stare themselves to death, and -he then secured the gems by employing the carcasses of sheep in the -manner which we have already heard described by Epiphanius.[822] A -somewhat similar tale is told of Socrates by Albertus Magnus in his -commentary on the pseudo-Aristotelian work on the properties of the -elements and planets.[823] In the reign of Philip of Macedon, who is -himself described as a philosopher and astronomer, the road between -two mountains in Armenia became so poisoned that no one could pass. -Philip vainly inquired the cause from his sages until Socrates came -to the rescue and, by erecting a tower as high as the mountains with -a steel mirror on top of it, saw two dragons polluting the air. The -mere glance of these dragons was apparently not deadly, for men in -air-tight armor went in and killed them. The same story is told by -William of St. Cloud, who composed astronomical tables based upon his -own observations from about 1285 to 1321, in which he detected errors -in the earlier tables of Thebit, Toulouse, and Toledo.[824] In Peter -of Abano’s treatise on poisons,[825] however, although he too cites -the Pseudo-Aristotle _On the causes of the elements_, the mirror has -become a glass cave in which Socrates ensconces himself to observe -the serpents. A _Lapidary_ dedicated to King Wenzel II of Bohemia -tells of Socrates’ killing a dragon by use of quicksilver.[826] That -Socrates also shared the medieval reputation of Aristotle and Plato -for astrology and divination we have already seen from the _Prenostica -Socratis Basilei_. - -[Sidenote: Alexander’s submarine.] - -Similar to Abano’s tale of Socrates in the glass cave is the story -told a century earlier by Alexander Neckam of Alexander himself. So -sedulous an investigator of nature was the Macedonian, says Neckam, -that he went down in a glass vessel to observe the natures and customs -of the fishes. He would seem to have remained submerged for some time, -since Neckam informs us that he took a cock with him in order to tell -when it was dawn by the bird’s crowing. This primitive submarine had at -least a suggestion of war about it, since Neckam goes on to say that -Alexander learned how to lay ambushes against the foe by observing one -army of fishes attack another. Unfortunately, however, Alexander failed -to commit to writing his observations, whether military or scientific, -of deep-sea life; and Neckam grieves that very few data on the natures -of fishes have come to his attention.[827] We shall hear Roger Bacon -tell of Alexander’s descending to see the secrets of the deep on the -authority of Ethicus.[828] - -[Sidenote: Arabian tales of Alexander.] - -Neckam’s account differs a good deal from the story as told by the -Arabian historian, Masʿudi, in the tenth century. There we read that, -when Alexander was building the city of Alexandria, monsters came from -the sea every night and overthrew the walls that had been built during -the day. Night watchmen proved of no avail, so Alexander had a box -made ten cubits long and five wide, with glass sides fastened into the -frame work by means of pitch and resin. He then entered the box with -two draughtsmen, who, after it had been let down to the bottom of the -sea, made exact drawings of the monsters, who had human bodies but the -heads of beasts. From these sketches Alexander had images constructed -and placed on pillars, and these magic figures served to keep off the -monsters until the city was completed. But the effect apparently began -to wear off and talismans had to be added on the pillars to prevent the -monsters from coming and devouring the inhabitants, as they had begun -to do again.[829] Another Arab, Abu-Shâker, of the thirteenth century, -repeats a current tradition that Aristotle gave Alexander a box of wax -soldiers which were nailed, with inverted spears and swords and severed -bow-strings, face-downwards in the box, which in its turn was fastened -by a chain. As long as the box remained in Alexander’s possession and -he repeated the formulae which Aristotle taught him whenever he took -the box up or put it down, he would triumph over his foes in war.[830] -This reminds one of the methods of warfare employed by Alexander’s -fabled natural father, Nectanebus. - -[Sidenote: A magic horn.] - -While we are speaking of military matters, it may be noted that in -a manuscript of the thirteenth century which once belonged to an -Albertus Bohemus or Beham, dean of the church at Padua, and seems to -have been his note-book, we find between the _Secret of Secrets_ of -the Pseudo-Aristotle and a treatise on the significations of the moon -in the signs “a delineation of a brazen horn made with marvelous art -by which Alexander in time of war summoned his army from a distance -of sixty miles.”[831] Such a horn “of Temistius” is mentioned in some -versions of the _Secret of Secrets_.[832] - -[Sidenote: More stories of Alexander and gems.] - -But to return to other tales of Alexander in the _Lapidary_. Once he -saw afar enchanters and enchantresses who slew and wounded the men of -his army by their diabolical power until Alexander prayed to God, who -revealed two stones which counteracted the sorcery. On another occasion -when by Alexander’s order his barons had carried off certain gems, -during the night following they suffered much insult from demons and -were sore afraid, since sticks and stones were thrown about the camp by -unseen hands and men were beaten without knowing whence the blows came. -It thus became apparent that the demons cherished those gems as their -especial property and were accustomed to perform occult operations with -them of which they did not wish men to learn the secret. Alexander -found that these gems would protect him from any beast, serpent, or -demon, although the nocturnal experience of his barons would scarcely -seem to support this last point. On a third occasion his troops were -held motionless and gazed open-mouthed at certain stones, until a bird -fluttered down and covered the gems with its outstretched wings. Then -Alexander had his followers close their eyes and carry the stones away -under cover and place them on top of the wall of one of his cities so -that no one might scale the wall to spy upon the town. - -[Sidenote: Story of Alexander’s belt.] - -Yet another curious story of Alexander and a stone is repeated by Peter -of Abano in his work on poisons[833] from a treatise “On the Nature -of Serpents” which he ascribes to Aristotle. Alexander always wore a -certain stone in his belt to give him good luck in his battles, but -on his return from India, while bathing in the Euphrates, he removed -the belt, whereupon a serpent suddenly appeared, bit the stone out of -the belt, and vomited it into the river. Deprived of his talisman, -Alexander presently met his death.[834] - -[Sidenote: The royal _Lapidary_ of Wenzel II of Bohemia.] - -Another _Lapidary_, printed as Aristotle’s at Merseburg in 1473, is -really a compilation of previous medieval works on the subject with -the addition of some items derived from the personal knowledge or -experience of the author. It was composed “to the honor of almighty God -and the glory and perpetual memory of that virtuous and most glorious -prince, Wenzel II, King of Bohemia” (1278-1305). As the treatise itself -states, “the Lapidary of Aristotle in the recent translation from the -Greek” is only one of its sources along with Avicenna, Constantinus -Africanus, Albertus Magnus, and others. - -[Sidenote: _Chiromancy_ and _Physiognomy of Aristotle_.] - -Another work which claims Aristotelian authorship only in its title is -the _Chiromancy of Aristotle,_ printed at Ulm in 1490, which quotes -freely from Albertus Magnus and Avicenna. There are also brief tracts -on chiromancy ascribed to Aristotle in manuscripts of the thirteenth or -fourteenth century.[835] Förster has identified Polemon as the author -of the Greek treatise on physiognomy ascribed to Aristotle.[836] The -art of physiognomy of course professed to read character from the -face or other parts of the body, and chiromancy which we have just -mentioned is really a branch of it. In Latin translation the treatise -was accepted as Aristotle’s by such medieval schoolmen as Albertus -Magnus and Duns Scotus. There are many manuscripts of it in the -British Museum, including one which perhaps dates back to the twelfth -century.[837] Its popularity continued long after the invention of -printing, as is shown by separate editions of it brought out at Paris -in 1535 and at Wittenberg in 1538, and by commentaries upon it[838] -published at Paris in 1611, at Bologna in 1621, and at Toulouse in -1636. Besides such separate manuscripts and editions of it, it was also -regularly embodied in the numerous copies of the pseudo-Aristotelian -work to which we next turn. - -[Sidenote: _The Secret of Secrets._] - -Most widely influential upon the medieval mind of all the spurious -works attributed to Aristotle was _The Secret of Secrets_. Förster -enumerated two hundred and seven Latin manuscripts of it and his -list is probably far from complete.[839] Gaster calls it “The most -popular book of the middle ages.”[840] This is not surprising since -it purports to sum up in concise form what the greatest of ancient -philosophers deemed it essential for the greatest of ancient rulers -to know, and since under the alluring pretense of revealing great -secrets in parable and riddle it really masses together a number of -the best-tested and most often repeated maxims of personal hygiene and -practical philosophy, and some of the superstitions to which men have -shown themselves most inclined. Every European library of consequence -contains a number of copies of it. It was translated into almost -every European language and was often versified, as in Lydgate’s and -Burgh’s _Secrees of old Philisoffres_.[841] Albertus Magnus cited it -as Aristotle’s;[842] Roger Bacon wrote a rather jejune commentary upon -it.[843] It was printed a number of times before 1500.[844] - -[Sidenote: Its textual history.] - -The _Secrets of Secrets_ is believed to be the outcome of a gradual -process of compilation from very varied sources, and to have reached -something like its present form by the seventh or eighth century of -our era. But its chapters on physiognomy, as we have seen, go back -to Polemon’s treatise, and part of its medical discussion is said -to be borrowed from Diocles Caristes who wrote about 320 B. C. Some -Graeco-Persian treatise is thought to be the basis of its discussion -of kingship. It is also believed to have appropriated bits from -popular literature to its own uses. In Arabic there is extant both -a longer and a shorter version, and Gaster has edited a Hebrew text -which is apparently derived from an Arabic original different from -that of any Latin text. The process of successive compilation, or at -least, re-editing and repeated translation which the work underwent -is suggested by a series of prologues which occur at the beginning. -Following the preface of the Latin translator and the table of contents -comes what is called “the prologue of a certain doctor in commendation -of Aristotle,”[845] in which omnipotent God is prayed to guard the -king and some anonymous editor states that he has executed the mandate -enjoined upon him to procure the moral work on royal conduct called -_The Secret of Secrets_, which Aristotle, chief of philosophers, -composed. After some talk about Aristotle and Alexander a second -prologue begins with the sentence, “John who translated this book, son -of a patrician, most skilful and faithful interpreter of languages, -says.” This John appears to have been Yuhanna ibn el-Batrik, or Ibn -Yahya al-Batrik, who died in 815 A. D.[846] What he says is that he -searched the world over until he came to an oracle of the sun which -Esculapides had constructed. There he found a solitary abstemious -sage who presented him with this book which he translated from Greek -into Chaldaic and thence into Arabic. This passage reminds one of -Harpocration’s prefatory remarks to his daughter in the _Kiranides_; -indeed, it is quite in the usual style of apocryphal writings. - -[Sidenote: The Latin translations of John of Spain and Philip.] - -In the matter of the Latin translation we are on somewhat more certain -ground. John of Spain in the first half of the twelfth century seems -to have translated only the medical portion.[847] Manuscripts of this -partial translation are relatively few,[848] and it was presently -superseded by the complete translation made either in the twelfth or -early thirteenth century[849] by Philip, “the least of his clerics” for -“his most excellent lord, most strenuous in the cult of the Christian -religion, Guido of Valencia, glorious pontiff of the city of Tripoli.” -Philip goes on to say in his dedicatory preface that it was when he was -with Guido in Antioch that they found “this pearl of philosophy, ... -this book which contains something useful about almost every science,” -and which it pleased Guido to have translated from Arabic into Latin. -Although the various printed editions and manuscripts of _The Secret -of Secrets_ in Latin vary considerably, they regularly are preceded -by this ascription of the Latin translation to Philip, and usually -by the other prologues afore-mentioned. Who this Philip was, other -than a cleric of Tripoli, is still undetermined. If he was the same -as the papal physician whom Alexander III in 1177 proposed to send on -a mission to Prester John,[850] he had probably made his translation -before that date. J. Wood Brown would identify him with Philip of -Salerno, a royal notary whose name appears in 1200 on deeds in the -kingdom of Sicily.[851] I have already suggested that possibly he -translated the _Kiranides_. - -[Sidenote: Philip’s preface.] - -Returning to Philip’s preface to Guido, it may be noted that he -states that Latins do not have the work, and that it is rare among -the Arabs.[852] His translation is a free one since the Arabic idiom -is different from the Latin. Aristotle wrote this book in response -to the petition of King Alexander his disciple who demanded that -Aristotle should either come to him or faithfully reveal the secrets of -certain arts, namely, the motion, operation, and power of the stars in -astronomy, the art of alchemy, the art of knowing natures and working -enchantments, and the art of geomancy. Aristotle was too old to come in -person, and although it had been his intention to conceal in every way -the secrets of the said sciences, yet he did not venture to contradict -the will and command of so great a lord. He hid some matters, however, -under enigmas and figurative locutions. For Alexander’s convenience he -divided the work into ten books, each of which is divided into chapters -and headings. Philip adds that for his readers’ convenience he has -collected these headings at the beginning of the work, and a table of -contents follows.[853] Then come the two older prologues which we -have already described, next a letter of Aristotle to Alexander on -the extrinsic and intrinsic causes of his work,[854] and then with -a chapter which is usually headed _Distinctio regum_ or _Reges sunt -quatuor_ begins the discussion of kingship which is the backbone of the -work. - -[Sidenote: Prominence of occult science.] - -It is evident from Philip’s preface that occult science also forms a -leading feature in the work as known to him. Gaster, who contended -that the Hebrew translation from the Arabic which he edited was as old -as either John of Spain’s or Philip’s Latin translations, although -the oldest of the four manuscripts which he collated for his text is -dated only in 1382 A. D., made a rather misleading statement when he -affirmed, “Of the astrology looming so largely in the later European -recensions the Hebrew has only a faint trace.”[855] As a matter of fact -some of the printed editions contain less astrology than the thirteenth -century manuscripts, while Gaster’s Hebrew version has much more than -“a faint trace” of astrology. But more of this later. - -[Sidenote: Absence of mysticism.] - -On the other hand, I cannot fully subscribe to Steinschneider’s -characterization of _The Secret of Secrets_ as “a wretched compilation -of philosophical mysticism and varied superstition.”[856] Of -superstition there is a great deal, but of philosophical mysticism -there is practically none. Despite the title and the promise in -Philip’s preface of enigmatic and figurative language, the tone of the -text is seldom mystical, and its philosophy is of a very practical sort. - -[Sidenote: Discussion of kingship.] - -Nor can _The Secret of Secrets_ be dismissed as merely “a wretched -compilation.” Those portions which deal with kingcraft and government -display shrewdness and common sense, worldly wisdom and knowledge of -human nature, are not restricted by being written from any one premise -or view-point, and often evince real enlightenment. Those historians -who have declared the love of fame a new product of the Italian -Renaissance should have read the chapter on fame in this most popular -book of the middle ages, where we find such statements as that royal -power ought not to be desired for its own sake but for the sole purpose -of achieving fame. Other noteworthy utterances indicative of the tone -and thought of the book are that “the intellect ... is the root of all -things praiseworthy”; that kings should cultivate the sciences; that -liberality involves respect for others’ property; that “war destroys -order and devastates the lands and turns everything to chaos”; that no -earthly ruler should shed blood, which is reserved for God alone, but -limit his punishments to imprisonment, flogging, and torture; that the -king, as Chief Justice Coke later told James I, is under the law; that -taxes upon merchants should be light so that they will remain in the -country and contribute to its prosperity; that his people are a king’s -true treasury and that he should acquaint himself with their needs and -watch over their interests. - -[Sidenote: Medical discussion.] - -From the medical passages of the book one would infer that the art -of healing at first developed more slowly than the art of ruling in -the world’s history. The medical theory of _The Secret of Secrets_ is -not of an advanced or complex sort, but is a combination of curious -notions, such as that vomiting once a month or oftener is beneficial, -and sensible ideas, such as that life consists of natural heat and that -it is very important to keep the abdomen warm and the bowels moving -regularly. Turkish baths are described for perhaps the first time in -Europe, and Alexander is advised to keep his teeth and mouth clean. The -well-known apothegm of Hippocrates is quoted, “I would rather eat to -live than live to eat,” and Alexander is advised to cease eating while -he still has an appetite. - -[Sidenote: Astrology.] - -Much of the advice offered to Alexander by Aristotle in _The Secret -of Secrets_ is astrological. Among those studies which the king -should promote, the only one specifically mentioned is astrology, -which considers “the course of the year and of the stars, the coming -festivals and solemnities of the month, the course of the planets, the -cause of the shortening and lengthening of days and nights, the signs -of the stars which determine the future and many other things which -pertain to prediction of the future.”[857] Alexander is adjured “not to -rise up or sit down or eat or drink or do anything without consulting -a man skilled in the art of astronomy.”[858] Later the two parts of -astronomy are distinguished, that is, astronomy and astrology in our -sense of the words. Alexander is further warned to put no faith in the -utterances of those stupid persons who declare that the science of the -stars is too difficult to master. No less stupid is the argument of -others who affirm that God has foreseen and foreordained everything -from eternity and that consequently all things happen of necessity -and it is therefore of no advantage to predict events which cannot be -avoided. For even if things happened of necessity, it would be easier -to bear them by foreknowing and preparing for them beforehand, just -as men make preparations against the coming of a cold winter--the -familiar contention of Ptolemy. But _The Secret of Secrets_ also -believes that one should pray God in His mercy to avert future evils -and ordain otherwise, “For He has not so ordained things that to ordain -otherwise derogates in any respect from His Providence.” But this is -not so approved astrological doctrine. Later in the work Alexander -is once more urged never to take medicine or open a vein except with -the approval of his astronomers,[859] and directions are given as to -the constellations under which bleeding should be performed and also -concerning the taking of laxatives with reference to the position of -the moon in the signs of the zodiac.[860] Later the work discusses -the relations of the four elements and of various herbs to the seven -planets,[861] and in the next to last chapter Alexander is advised to -conduct his wars under the guidance of astrology.[862] - -[Sidenote: Story of the two boys.] - -There is much indulging in astrological theory in the midst of the -chapter on Justice, and the constitution of the universe is set forth -from the first and highest simple spiritual substance down through the -nine heavens and spheres to the lowest inferiors. To illustrate the -power of the stars the story is presently told of two boys,[863] one a -weaver’s son, the other a royal prince of India. Sages who were chance -guests in the weaver’s house at the time of the child’s birth noted -that his horoscope was that of a courtier high in royal councils but -kept their discovery to themselves. The boy’s parents vainly tried to -make a weaver of him, but even beatings were in vain; he was finally -allowed to follow his natural inclination, secured an education, and -became in time a royal governor. The king’s son, on the contrary, -despite his royal birth and the fact that his father sent him through -all his provinces to learn the sciences, would take no interest in -anything except mechanics conformably to his horoscope. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of stones and herbs, incantations and amulets.] - -In _The Secret of Secrets_ the Pseudo-Aristotle refers Alexander -for the virtues of gems and herbs to his treatises on stones and -plants, presumably those which we have already described. He does not -entirely refrain from discussion of such marvelous properties in the -present work, however, mentioning the use of the virtues of stones in -connection with incantations. We also again hear of stones which will -prevent any army from withstanding Alexander or which will cause horses -to whinny or keep them from doing so; and of herbs which bring true or -false dreams or cause joy, love, hate, honor, reverence, courage, and -inertia.[864] One recipe reads, “If you take in the name of someone -seven grains of the seeds of the herb called androsimon, and hold -them in his name when Lucifer and Venus are rising so that their rays -touch him (or them?), and if you give him those seven grains to eat -or pulverized in drink, fear of you will ever abide in his heart and -he will obey you for the rest of his life.”[865] The discussion of -incantations, astrological images, and amulets is omitted from many -Latin manuscripts but occurs in Roger Bacon’s version.[866] - -[Sidenote: Thirteenth century scepticism.] - -The extreme powers attributed to herbs and stones in _The Secret -of Secrets_ aroused some scepticism among its Latin readers of the -thirteenth century.[867] Geoffrey of Waterford, a Dominican from -Ireland who died about 1300, translated _The Secret of Secrets_ into -French. He criticized, however, its assertions concerning the virtues -of stones and herbs as more akin to fables than to philosophy, a fact -of which, he adds, all clerks who know Latin well are aware. He wonders -why Alexander had to win his battles by hard fighting when Aristotle is -supposed to inform him in this book of a stone which will always rout -the enemy. Geoffrey decides that such false statements are the work of -the translators and that Aristotle is the author only of what is well -said or reasonable in the work. - -[Sidenote: Number and alchemy.] - -Something is said in _The Secret of Secrets_ of the occult properties -and relative perfection of numbers, and as usual the preference is -for the numbers, three, four, seven, and ten.[868] The Hebrew version -adds a puerile method of divining who will be victor in a battle by -a numerical calculation based upon the letters in the names of the -generals. The Latin versions of the thirteenth century contain a -chapter on alchemy which had great influence and gives a recipe for the -philosopher’s stone and the Emerald Table of Hermes.[869] But in the -Hebrew version and Achillini’s printed text occurs a passage in which -Alexander is warned that alchemy is not a true science.[870] - -[Sidenote: The poisonous maiden.] - -We may conclude our picture of the work’s contents with two of its -stories, namely, concerning the poisonous maiden and the Jew and the -Magus. A beautiful maiden was sent from India to Alexander with other -rich gifts. But she had been fed upon poison from infancy “until she -was of the nature of a snake. And had I not perceived it,” continues -Aristotle in the Hebrew version, “for I suspected the clever men of -those countries and their craft, and had I not found by tests that she -would kill thee by her embrace and by her perspiration, she surely -would have killed thee.”[871] This venomous maiden is also alluded to -in various medieval discussions of poisons. Peter of Abano mentions -her in his _De venenis_.[872] Gilbert of England, following no doubt -Gerard of Cremona’s translation of Avicenna, cites Ruffus rather than -the Pseudo-Aristotle concerning her and says nothing of her relations -with Alexander, but adds that animals who approached her spittle were -killed by it.[873] In _Le Secret aux philosophes_, a French work of the -closing thirteenth century, where the story is told at considerable -length, Socrates rather than Aristotle saves Alexander from the -poisonous maid.[874] - -[Sidenote: The Jew and the Magus.] - -In the other story a Magus is represented in a much more favorable -light than magicians generally were; he seems to represent rather one -of the Persian sages. He was traveling on a mule with provisions and -met a Jew traveling on foot. Their talk soon turned to their respective -religions and moral standards. The Magus professed altruism; the Jew -was inclined to get the better of all men except Jews. When these -principles had been stated, the Jew requested the Magus, since he -professed to observe the law of love, to dismount and let him ride -the mule. No sooner had this been done than the Jew, true to his law -of selfishness and hate, made off with both mule and provisions. This -misfortune did not lead the Magus to lose his faith in God, however, -and as he plodded along he by and by came again upon the Jew who had -fallen off the mule and broken his neck. The Magus then mercifully -brought the Jew to the nearest town where he died, while the king of -the country made the Magus one of his trusted ministers of state.[875] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[755] See Roger Bacon’s allusion to this passage in F. A. Gasquet, “An -Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon,” in EHR, XII (1897), p. -502. - -[756] Ch. Gidel, _La Légende d’Aristote au moyen âge_, in _Assoc. -des Études Grecques_, (1874), pp. 285-332, except for the -Pseudo-Callisthenes uses only the French vernacular literature or -popular legends concerning Aristotle. Similar in scope is W. Hertz, -_Aristoteles in den Alexanderdichtungen des Mittelalters_, in _Abhandl. -d. philos-philol. Classe d. k. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss._, XIX (1892) 1-103; -revised in W. Hertz, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, 1905, 1-155. - -[757] _De naturis rerum_, II, 189. - -[758] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, ed. Brewer, (1859), p. 473. - -[759] It was translated into Arabic about 840 A. D.; an interpolated -Latin paraphrase of it was published at Rome in 1519, by Pietro Niccolo -de’ Castellani,--_Sapientissimi Aristotelis Stagiritae Theologia sive -mistica philosophia, secundum Aegyptios noviter reperta et in latinam -castigatissime redacta_; a French version appeared at Paris in 1572 -(Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_, p. 74). F. Dieterici translated it from -Arabic into German in 1883, after publishing the Arabic text for the -first time in 1882. For divergences between this Arabic text and the -Latin one of 1519, and citation of Baumgartner that the _Theology_ was -known in Latin translation as early as 1200, see Grabmann (1916), pp. -245-7. - -[760] Indeed Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_, p. 73, says, “Tout un livre qui -ne contient en réalité que des extraits des Ennéades IV à VI de Plotin.” - -[761] See Arundel MS 165, 14th century. On the general subject of -the Pseudo-Aristotelian literature the reader may consult V. Rose, -_Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus_, and _De ordine et auctoritate librorum -Aristotelis_; Munk’s article “Aristote” in _La France littéraire_; -Schwab, _Bibliographie d’Aristote_, Paris, 1896; and R. Shute, -_History of the Aristotelian Writings_, Oxford, 1888. It is, however, -a difficult subject and for the middle ages at least has not been -satisfactorily investigated. Grabmann (1916) devotes only a page or two -of supplement to it; see pp. 248-51. A work on Aristotle in the middle -ages, announced in 1904 by G. H. Luquet, seems not to have appeared. - -[762] Sloane 2030, fols. 110-13. - -[763] Hammer-Jensen, _Das sogenannte IV Buch der Meteorologie des -Aristoteles_, in _Hermes_, vol. 50 (1915) pp. 113-36, argues that its -teachings differ from those of Aristotle and assigns it to Strato, his -younger contemporary. Not content with this thesis, which is easier to -suggest than to prove, Hammer-Jensen contends that it was a work of -Strato’s youth and that it profoundly influenced Aristotle himself in -his last works. “The convenient Strato!” as he is called by Loveday and -Forster in the preface to their translation of _De coloribus_ (1913) -vol. VI of _The Works of Aristotle_ translated into English under the -editorship of W. D. Ross. - -[764] So Hammer-Jensen, p. 113, and earlier Heller (1882), I, 61. - -[765] Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek (centur. V, 59, membr. 13th -century)--cited by Rose, _Hermes_ 1, 385,--“Completus est liber -metheororum cuius tres primos libros transtulit magister Gerardus -Lumbardus summus philosophus de arabico in latinum. Quartum autem -transtulit Henricus Aristippus de greco in latinum. Tria ultima -capitula transtulit Aluredus Anglicus sarelensis de arabico in latinum.” - -Steinschneider (1893) pp. 59 and 84; (1905) p. 7; and others, including -Hammer-Jensen, give the name of the translator of the fourth book from -the Greek as Hermann and of the last three chapters as Aurelius, whom -Steinschneider is more correct in describing as “otherwise unknown.” -On the other hand, we know that Aristippus and Alfred translated other -Aristotelian treatises. Evidently Steinschneider and the others have -followed MSS where the copyist has corrupted the proper names. - -[766] Steinschneider and Hammer-Jensen quote from MSS, “tria vero -ultima Avicennae capitula transtulit Aurelius de arabico in latinum.” -Albertus Magnus, _Mineral_, III, i, 9, also ascribed the passage to -Avicenna; others have suggested that it is by disciples of Avicenna. -See J. Wood Brown (1897) pp. 72-3, for a similar passage from -Avicenna’s _Sermo de generatione lapidum_. - -[767] They were printed at Bologna, 1501, as _Liber de mineralibus -Aristotelis_ and also published, sometimes as Geber’s, sometimes as -Avicenna’s, under the title, _Liber de congelatione_. - -BN 16142 contains a Latin translation of the four books of the -_Meteorology_ with an addition dealing with minerals and geology -which is briefer than the printed _Liber de mineralibus Aristotelis_, -omitting the passage against the alchemists: published by F. de -Mély, _Rev. des Études grecques_, (1894), p. 185 _et seq._ (cited -Hammer-Jensen, 131). - -[768] _Speculum naturale_, VIII, 85. - -[769] See note 1 above. - -[770] Greek text by Prantl, Teubner, 1881; English translation by -Loveday and Forster, 1913. See also Prantl, _Aristoteles über die -Farben_, 1849. - -[771] Just a few examples are: Mazarine 3458 and 3459, 13th century; -3460 and 3461, 14th century; Arsenal 748A, 15th century, fol. 185; BN -6325, 14th century, #1; BN 14719, 14-15th century, fol. 38-; BN 14717, -end 13th century; BN 16633, 13th century, fol. 102-; S. Marco X, 57, -13th century, beautifully illuminated, fols. 312-17; Assisi 283, 14th -century, fol. 289-; Volterra 19, 14th century, fol. 196-. - -[772] Berthelot (1885) p. 143, “Platon et Aristote sont mis en tête de -la liste des alchimistes œcuméniques sans qu’aucun ouvrage leur soit -assigné.” - -[773] Berthelot (1888) I, 76; citing Manget, _Bibl. Chemica_, I, 622. - -[774] Digby 162, 13th century, fols. 10v-11v, “Incipit liber -Aristotelis de aquis secreti fluminis translatus ab arabico in -latinum.” In the margin the twelve waters are briefly designated: 1 -_rubicunda_, 2 _penetrativa_, 3 _mollificativa, et ingrediente_, 4 _de -aqua eiusdem ponderis et magnitudinis_, 5 _ignita_, 6 _sulphurea_, 7 -_aqua cineris_, 8 _aurea_, etc. In one or two cases, however, these -heads do not quite apply to the corresponding chapters. - -[775] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 200-202, de “altitudinibus, -profundis, lateribusque” metallorum secundum Aristotelem (name in the -margin). It opens, “Plumbum est in altitudine sua ar. nigrum.” It takes -up in turn the _altitudo_ of each metal and then discusses the next -quality in the same way. - -_Ibid._, pp. 239-44, opens, “Arestotilus, Cum studii, etc. Scias -preterea quod propter longitudines”; at p. 241 it treats “de -purificatione solis et lune” (_i.e._, gold and silver); at p. 243, -“de separatione solis et lune.” It ends with a paragraph about the -composition of a golden seal. - -[776] CLM 12026, 15th century, fol. 46-, “Alchymia est ars docens -... / ... Explicit dicto libri (_sic_) Aristotelis de theorica in -rebus naturalibus”; fol. 78, Liber Aristotelis de practica summae -philosophiae, “Primo de separatione salis communis....” - -CLM 25110, 15th century, fols. 211-45, Liber Aristotelis de 70 -preceptis. - -CLM 25113, 16th century, fols. 10-28, A. de alchimia liber qui dicitur -de 70 preceptis. - -[777] Egerton 1984, fol. 141v; in the _De natura rerum_. - -[778] See Chapter 51 on Michael Scot, near the close. - -[779] Caps. 22 and 57. It was printed with further “Additions” of its -own in 1561 in _Verae alchemiae artisque metallicae citra aenigmata_, -Basel, 1561, II, 188-225. - -[780] Thus in _Auriferae artis quam chemiam vocant antiquissimi -authores_, Basel, 1572, pp. 387-99, a treatise which cites Morienus, -Rasis, and Avicenna is printed as _Tractatulus Aristotelis de Practica -lapidis philosophici_. Apparently the only reason for ascribing it to -Aristotle is that it cites “the philosopher” in its opening sentence, -“Cum omne corpus secundum philosophum aut est elementum aut ab -elementis generatum.” - -[781] Laud. Misc. 708, 15th century, fol. 54. - -[782] Berthelot (1893), I, 105 and 107. - -[783] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, p. 123. - -[784] Ashmole 1450, 15th century, fol. 8, “Epistola ad Alexandrum. O -Alexander rector hominum ... / ... et audientes non intelligant.” - -Harleian 3703, 14th century, fols. 41r-42r, Aristoteles ad alexandrum. -“In primo o elaxandor tradere tibi volo secretorum maximum secretum -...,” is a similar treatise. - -[785] Ashmole 1384, mid 14th century, fols. 91v-93r, “Incipit Epistola -Alexandri. Dicunt philosophi quod ars dirivata sit ex creatione hominis -cui omnia insunt ... / ... ex omni specie et colore nomine. Explicit -epistola Alexandri.” In the text itself, which is written in the manner -of a master to a disciple, there is nothing to show that the work is by -Alexander rather than Aristotle. - -The following is apparently the same treatise but the closing words are -different. - -Riccard. 1165, 15th century, fols. 161-3, Liber Alexandri in scientia -secretorum nature. “Dicitur quod hec ars derivata sit ex creacione -hominis cui omnia insunt ... / ... et deo annuente ad optatum finem -pervenies.” - -The next would seem to be another treatise than the foregoing. - -Arezzo 232, 15th century, fols. 1-14, “Liber transmissus ab Alexandro -rege ex libro Hermogenis.” - -Hermogenes, who is cited on the subject of the philosopher’s stone -in at least one MS of the _Secret of Secrets_ (Bodleian 67, fol. -33v, “Et pater noster Hermogenes qui triplex est in philosophia -optime philosophando dixit”), is apparently none other than Hermes -Trismegistus. He is also mentioned in a brief work of Aristotle to -Alexander; Harleian 3703, 14th century, fols. 41r-42r, “... hermogenes -quod (_sic_) egypti multum commendunt et laudant et sibi attribuant -omnem scientiam secretam et celerem (?).” The use of the reflexive -pronoun in this sentence to refer to Hermogenes I would have the reader -note, as it appears to illustrate a fairly common medieval usage which -has or will lead me to alter the translations which have been proposed -for certain other passages. - -[786] II, 9. - -[787] _Excursions historiques_, etc., p. 562. - -[788] I have read it in an incunabulum edition numbered IA.49867 in the -British Museum. - -[789] _Ibid._, fols. 21v-22r, “Nos Manfredus divi augusti imperatoris -frederici filius dei gratia princeps tharentinus honoris montis sancti -angeli dominus et illustris regis conradi servi in regno sicilie -baiulus ... quem librum cum non inveniretur inter cristianos, quoniam -eum in ebrayco legimus translatum de arabico in hebreum, sanitate -rehabita ad eruditionem multorum et de hebrea lingua transtulimus -in latinam in quo a compilatore quedam recitabilia inseruntur. Nam -dictum librum aristotiles non notavit sed notatus ab aliis extitit qui -causam hylaritatis sue mortis discere voluerunt sicut in libri serie -continetur.” - -[790] Edition No. IA.49867 in the British Museum, fols. 25v-26r. - -[791] Cap. 4. - -[792] Verbum 4. - -[793] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum_, IX, 585-653 in -Borgnet’s edition of Albert’s works; Albert himself in his treatise on -Minerals cites the title as “_Liber de causis proprietatum elementorum -et planetarum._” - -[794] Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 8r, “liber iste est aristotelis in -scientia ipsius astronomie.” - -[795] Fol. 11v, “Alius liber de nativitatibus”; opens, “Superius prout -potuimus promissorum partem explevimus.” - -[796] Fol. 13r, “De electionibus alius liber”; opens, “Unde -constellationibus egyptios imitantes nativitates satis dilucide -dixerimus.” This book intermingles the subjects of interrogations and -elections, and ends at fol. 20v, “Finit liber de interrogationibus.” - -[797] BN 16208, fol. 76r-, “liber arystotelis milesii medici -perypathetici in principiis iudiciorum astronomorum in -interrogationibus.” - -[798] Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 20v, “Incipit commentum super praemissa -scilicet praedictum librum”; fol. 23v, “Expositio ad litteram -superioris tractatus. Ptolomaeus summus philosophus et excellentissimus -egyptiorum rex....” - -[799] Grenoble 814, fols. 1-24. “Cy commence le livre de jugemens -d’astrologie selon Aristote. Le prologue du derrenier translateur. -Aristote fist un livre de jugemens....” - -[800] CLM 25010, 15-16th century, fols. 1-12, “liber de iudiciis qui ab -Alberto in Speculo suo dicitur esse Aristotelis.” - -[801] Amplon. Quarto 377, 14th century, fols. 25-36, de iudiciis -astrorum. Schum identifies it with the work ascribed to Aristotle by -Albert in the _Speculum astronomiae_. - -[802] Bridges (1897), I, 389-90; Brewer (1859) p. 473. - -[803] Digby 159, 14th century, fols. 1-87, mutilated at the end. -“Liber Aristotilis de ducentis lvque Indorum voluminibus, universalium -questionum tam genecialium quam circularium summam continens.” At fol. -5v, “Explicit prologus. Incipit Aristotelis commentum in astrologiam.” -This is the MS which I have chiefly followed. - -Savile Latin 15 (Bernard 6561), 15th century, fols. 185-204v, is -similar. - -[804] In the text the number is given as ccl; see Digby 159, fol. 2r. - -[805] Digby 159, fol. 2r. - -[806] Savile 15, fol. 205r. - -[807] Bodleian 67 (Bernard 2136), 14th century, fol. 54r, _De ydeis et -formis_; fol. 54v, _De impressione formarum_; fol. 56v, _De ymaginibus -et annulis_. These chapters are sometimes included in the _Secret of -Secrets_, as in Roger Bacon’s version; Steele (1920) 157-63. But “in -the greater part of the Latin MSS this section is entirely omitted”; -_Ibid._, lxii. Steele does not mention Bodleian 67. - -[808] Brewer (1859) p. 532, _De secretis_, cap. 3. - -[809] BN 2598, fol. 101r, “liber quem Aristoteles attribuit Alexandro -et quem nonnulli mortis intitulent anime.” - -[810] See above, I, 713-714. - -[811] Ashmole 369, late 13th century, fols. 77-84v, “Mathematica -Alexandri summi astrologi. In exordio omnis creature herus huranicus -inter cuncta sidera xii maluit signa fore / nam quod lineam designat -eandem stellam occupat. Explicit.” Cap. x, de inveniendo de prospero -aut adverso itinere; xi, de copia et paupertate; xiv, de nece aut -casu amici; xvi, de latrocinio inveniendo; xxiv, de pecunia in terra -defossa; xxxviii, de noscendis maleficiis. - -[812] In the preface to the Kiranides; in Montpellier 277, 15th -century; and in Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 44-45, “Virtutes 7 -herbarum a septem planetis secundum Alexandrum Imperatorem.” It is -also embodied in some editions and MSS of the _Liber aggregationis_ or -_Experimenta_ attributed to Albertus Magnus (see Chapter 63), where it -is entitled, “Virtutes herbarum septem secundum Alexandrum Imperatorem.” - -[813] Ashmole 1741, late 14th century, fol. 143, “Incipiunt virtutes -septem herbarum Aristotilis. Et has quidem virtutes habent ipse septem -herbe ab influentia 7 planetarum. Nam contingit unamquamque recipere -virtutem suam a superioribus naturaliter. Nam dicit Aristotiles quod -corpora inferiora reguntur per superiora.” - -[814] Sloane 3854, 15th century, fols. 105 V-110. - -[815] L. Blochet, _Études sur le Gnosticisme musulman_, in _Rivista -degli studi orientali_, IV, 76. - -[816] _De universo_, II, ii, 39 and 98; II, iii, 6. I presume that -there is some connection between our present treatise and those on the -seven planets, Venus, and the moon mentioned in our chapter on the -Hermetic books. - -[817] One MS is Harleian 3487, 14th century, #11. - -[818] V. Rose, _Aristoteles de lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo_, in -_Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, XVIII (1875) 321 _et seq._ More -recently the _Lapidary_ of Aristotle has been edited by J. Ruska, -_Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles ... nach der arabischen Handschrift_, -Heidelberg, 1912, who gives both the Latin of the Liège MS and the text -of the translation into Arabic by Luca ben Serapion from BN 2772, with -a German translation of it. - -[819] Ruska (1912), p. 43. - -[820] _Ibid._, p. 183, “Et ego transfero ipsum ex greco sermone in -ydyoma su(r)orum vel Syrorum.” - -[821] Liège 77, 14th century; printed by Rose (1875) pp. 349-82. - -Montpellier 277, 15th century, fol. 127-; printed by Rose (1875) pp. -384-97. - -The following treatises, also ascribed to Aristotle, I have not -examined: Sloane 2459, 15th century, fols. 9v-16, _de proprietatibus -herbarum et lapidum_; Vienna 2301, 15th century, fols. 81-2, “Isti sunt -lapides quorum virtutes misit Aristotiles in scriptis maximo imperatori -Alexandro.” Perhaps the last may have reference to philosopher’s -stones, like the similar treatise of Aristotle to Alexander noted above -in our discussion of the pseudo-Aristotelian alchemical treatises. - -[822] See above chapter 21, I, 496. - -[823] _De causis elementorum, etc.,_ II, ii. 1 (Borgnet, IX 643). - -[824] HL XXV, 65. - -[825] _De venenis_, cap. 5, probably written in 1316, but see chapter -70, appendix vi. - -[826] Aristotle, _Lapidarius et Liber de physionomia_, Merseburg, 1473, -p. 8. - -[827] _De naturis rerum_, II, 21. In an illustrated 13th century MS of -the vernacular Romance of Alexander three pictures are devoted to his -submarine. CU Trinity 1446, 1250 A. D., fol. 27r, “_Coment Alisandre -vesqui suz les ewes_; a covered ship with windows under green water, -Alexander and three men in it; fol. 27v, _Des nefs ke sont apelees -colifas_; a similar ship in the water, no one visible in it; _Coment -Alisandre encercha la nature de pessons_; Alexander and two men in the -ship, fish and mermaid below.” I have quoted James’ description of the -MS (III, 488). - -See also Lacroix, _Science and Literature in the Middle Ages_, 1878, -Fig. 87, p. 119, for Alexander descending to the bottom of the sea in a -glass cask, from a thirteenth century MS, Brussels 11040. - -[828] See chapter 61, pp. 654-5. - -[829] Budge, _Egyptian Magic_, 1899, pp. 152-6; Masʿudi, _Les Prairies -d’Or._ ed. B. de Maynard and Pavet de Courteille, 1861, II, 425ff. - -[830] Budge (1899), pp. 95-6. - -[831] CLM 2574b, bombyc. 13th century, fol. 69v. Although Steele -(1920) p. lviii, says, “No Latin manuscript is known in which there -is a figure of the horn, with the exception of that in Holkam Hall, -in the borders of which an entirely fanciful instrument is depicted -(reproduced in plate 151 of the Roxburghe Club publication of 1914). -There are drawings in MSS C and D of the Eastern Arabic text, of -entirely different shape.” - -[832] Steele (1920), p. 151. - -[833] Cap. 5. - -[834] Very similar is the story in the Gilgamesh epic, a work “far -more ancient than Genesis,” of a serpent stealing a life-giving plant -from Gilgamesh while he was bathing in a well or brook. The plant, -which had been revealed to Gilgamesh by the deified Utnapishtim, “had -the miraculous power of renewing youth and bore the name, ‘the old -man becomes young.’” Sir James Frazer (1918), I, 50-51, follows Rabbi -Julian Morgenstern (“On Gilgamesh Epic, XI, 274-320,” in _Zeitschrift -f. Assyriologie_, XXIX, 1915, p. 284ff.) in connecting this incident -with the serpent and the tree of life in the Biblical account of the -fall of man, and gives further examples from primitive folk-lore -of other jealous animals, such as the dog, frog, duck, and lizard, -perverting divine gifts or good tidings to man to their own profit. - -[835] Sloane 2030, fols. 125-26; Additional 15236, fols. 154-60; BN, -7420A (14th century) #16. - -[836] Richard Förster, _De Aristotelis quae feruntur physiognomonicis -recensendis, Kiliae_, 1882; _De translat. latin. physiognom., Kiliae_, -1884; _Scriptores Physiognomici, Lipsiae_, 1893-1894. - -[837] Cotton Julius D-viii, fol. 126ff.; Harleian 3969; Egerton 847; -Sloane 2030, fol. 95-103; Additional 15236, fol. 160 (in abbreviated -form); Sloane 3281, fols. 19-23; Sloane 3584; Egerton 2852, fol. 115v, -_et seq._ - -[838] There is a manuscript copy of a commentary on it of the -fourteenth century at Erfurt, Amplon. Quarto 186. See Schum’s catalogue -for MSS of the _Physiognomia_ itself in the Amplonian collection. - -[839] R. Förster, _De Aristotelis quae feruntur secreta secretorum -Commentatio_, Kiliae, 1888; _Handschriften und Ausgaben des -pseudo-aristotelischen Secretum secretorum_, in _Centralblatt f. -Bibliothekwesen_, VI (1889), 1-22, 57-76. And see Steele (1920). - -[840] M. Gaster, in his “Introduction to a Hebrew version of the Secret -of Secrets,” in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ (1908, -part 2), pp. 1065-84; for the Hebrew text and an English translation, -_Ibid._ (1907), pp. 879-913 and (1908, part 1), pp. 111-62. - -[841] Ed. Robert Steele, EETS, LXVI, London, 1894. Volume LXXIV -contains three earlier English versions. There are numerous MSS of it -in Italian in the Riccardian and Palatini collections at Florence. - -[842] _De Somno et vigilia_, I, ii, 7. - -[843] Tanner 116, 13th century; Corpus Christi 149, 15th century. -Recently edited by Robert Steele, 1920, as Fasc. V of his _Opera -hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi_. - -[844] There are considerable discrepancies between the different early -printed editions, which differ in length, order of arrangement, tables -of contents, and number of chapters. And in the same edition the -chapter headings given in the course of the text may not agree with -those in the table of contents, which as a rule, even in the MSS, does -not fully cover the subject-matter of the text. The different printers -have probably used different manuscripts for their editions rather than -made any new additions of their own. The following editions are those -to which references will be made in the following pages. - -An edition printed at Cologne about 1480, which I examined at the -Harvard University Library, divides the text into only thirty chapters -and seems imperfect. - -An edition of about 1485, which I examined at the British Museum, where -it was numbered IA.10756, has 74 chapters, and the headings of its 25th -and 30th chapters, for instance, agree with those of the 11th and 13th -chapters in the Harvard copy. - -A third edition of Paris, 1520, has no numbered chapters and contains -passages not found in the two earlier editions. - -As a check upon these printed texts I have examined the three following -MSS, two of the 13th, and one of the 14th, century. Of these Egerton -2676 corresponds fairly closely throughout to the edition numbered -IA.10756 in the British Museum. - -Egerton 2676, 13th century, fols. 3-52. - -BN 6584, 13th century, fols. 1r-32v. - -Bodleian 67, 14th century, fols. 1-53v, is much like the preceding MS. - -[845] BN 6584, fol. 1v, “De prologo cuiusdam doctoris in commendatione -aristotelis.” See also Digby 228, 14th century, fol. 27, where a -scribe has written in the upper margin, “In isto libello primo ponitur -prologus, deinde tabula contentorum in libro, deinde prologus cuiusdam -doctoris in commendacionem Aristotilis, deinde prologus Iohannis qui -transtulit librum istum....” In Egerton 2676, fol. 6r, “Deus omnipotens -custodiat regem....” - -[846] Steele (1920), p. xi. - -[847] Steinschneider (1905), p. 42, it is true, says, “Ob Joh. selbst -das ganze Secretum übersetzt habe, ist noch nicht ermittelt”; but the -following passage, cited by Giacosa (1901), p. 386, from Bibl. Angelica -Rome, Cod. 1481, 12th century, fols. 144-146v, indicates that he -translated only the medical part. - -“Cum de utilitate corporis olim tractarim et a me quasi essem medicus -vestra nobilitas quereret ut brevem libellum et de observatione diete -et de continentia cordis in qualibus se debent contineri qui sanitatem -corporis cupiunt servare accidit ut dum cogitarem vestre iussioni -obedire huius rei exempliar aristotelis philosophi Alexandro dictum -repente in mente occurreret quod excerpi de libro qui arabice vocatur -ciralacerar id est secretum secretorum que fecit fieri predictus -Aristotelis philosophus Alexandro regi magno de dispositione regni in -quo continentur multa regibus utilia....” - -Steele (1920) pp. xvii-xviii, gives the same passage, worded and -spelled a little differently, from another MS, Addit. 26770. - -[848] Ed. H. Souchier, _Denkmäler provenzal. Lit. u. Sprache_, Halle, -1883, I, 473 _et seq._ - -[849] Thirteenth century MSS of Philip’s translation are numerous: I -have not noted a 12th century one. - -[850] See above, chapter 47, p. 244. - -[851] Brown (1897), pp. 19-20, 36-7. But not much reliance can be -placed on the inclusion of this name, “Master Philip of Tripoli,” in a -title which Brown (p. 20) quotes from a De Rossi MS, “The Book of the -Inspections of Urine according to the opinion of the Masters, Peter -of Berenico, Constantine Damascenus, and Julius of Salerno; which was -composed by command of the Emperor Frederick, Anno Domini 1212, in -the month of February, and was revised by Master Philip of Tripoli -and Master Gerard of Cremona at the orders of the King of Spain,” -etc., since Gerard of Cremona at least had died in 1187 and there was -no “king of Spain” until 1479. Brown does not give the Latin for the -passage, but if the date 1212 could be regarded as Spanish era and -turned into 1174 A. D., Gerard of Cremona would still be living, the -emperor would be Frederick Barbarossa instead of Frederick II, and -Master Philip of Tripoli might be the same Philip whom Pope Alexander -III proposed to send to Prester John in 1177. - -Steele (1920) p. xix, inclines to identify Philip of Tripoli with a -canon of Byblos from 1243 to 1248, but that seems to me too late a date -for his translation of _The Secret of Secrets_. - -[852] BN 6584, fol. 1r, “Hunc librum quo carebant latini eo quod -apud paucissimos arabies reperitur transtuli cum magno labore....” A -considerable portion of Philip’s preface is omitted in the Harvard -edition. - -[853] The preliminary table of contents, however, gives only chapter -headings, which in BN 6584 are 82 in number, but the beginnings of the -ten books are indicated in the text in BN 6584 as follows. The numbers -in parentheses are the corresponding leaves in Bodleian 67 which, -however, omits mention of the book and its number except in the case of -the fourth book. - -Fol. 3v (5r), Incipit liber primus. Epistola ad Alexandrum. - -Fol. 6r, Secundus liber de dispositione Regali et reverentia Regis. - -Fol. 12r (18v), Incipit liber tertius. Cum hoc corpus corruptibile sit -eique accidit corruptio.... - -Fol. 22r (36r), Incipit liber quartus. transtulit magister philippus -tripolitanus de forma iusticie. - -Fol. 28r (44v), Liber Quintus de scribis et scriptoribus secretorum. - -Fol. 28r (45r), Liber Sextus de nuntiis et informationibus ipsorum. - -Fol. 28v (46v), Liber Septimus de hiis qui sr’ intendunt et habent -curam subditorum. - -Fol. 29r (47r), Liber Octavus de dispositione ductoris sui et de -electione bellatorum et procerum inferiores (?). - -Fol. 29v (48r), Liber Nonus de regimine bellatorum et forma aggrediendi -bellum et pronatationibus eorundem. - -Fol. 30v (50v), Sermo de phisionomia cuiuslibet hominis. - -[854] It is omitted in some printed editions, but occurs in both 13th -century MSS which I examined. - -[855] Gaster (1908), p. 1076. - -[856] Steinschneider (1905), p. 60. - -[857] Cap. 11 (Harvard copy); cap. 25 (BM IA.10756); Egerton 2676, fol. -12r; BN 6584, fol. 9v; Steele (1920) pp. 58-59. - -[858] Cap. 13 (Harvard copy); cap. 30 (BM IA.10756); Egerton 2676, fol. -13r; BN 6584, fol. 10r; Steele (1920) p. 60; also in Gaster’s Hebrew -text. - -[859] Egerton 2676, fol. 32r; cap. 62 (BM IA.10756); fol. 33r (Paris, -1520); BN 6584, fol. 19v; Steele (1920) pp. 108-10. - -[860] The Paris, 1520, edition then goes on to explain the effects -of incantations and images upon astrological grounds, but this -passage seems to be missing from the earlier printed editions and the -thirteenth century manuscripts. Roger Bacon, however, implies that -incantations were present in Philip’s original translation, and one -Arabic MS gives cabalistic signs for the planets; Steele (1920) pp. -258-9. - -[861] This passage is found both in Egerton MS 2676 and in BM IA.10756. -BN 6584, fol. 21r-v. Bodl. 67, fol. 32v-35v. Steele, 119-20. - -[862] Cap. 73 (BM IA.10756); fols. 44v-45r (Paris, 1520); BN 6584, fol. -30v; Steele, 155-6. - -[863] BN 6584, fol. 21r; also in Gaster’s Hebrew version; cap. 26 in -the Harvard copy; Steele, 137. - -[864] Gaster, pp. 116, 160-62; Egerton 2676, fols. 34r-35r; cap. 66 (BM -IA.10756); fol. 37v (Paris, 1520); BN 6584, fol. 20r-22r; Steele, 121-2. - -[865] Egerton 2676, fol. 36v; BN 6584, fol. 22r; Steele, 122. - -[866] Steele (1920) pp. lxii, 157-63, 252-61; Paris (1520), fol. 37; -Gaster, p. 159. - -[867] HL XXI, 216ff. - -[868] Caps. 68 and 72 (BM IA.10756); cap. 68 appears in Egerton 2676; -cap. 72 in Gaster’s text and in the Paris (1520) edition. I could not -find the passage in BN 6584; Steele (1920) 134-5. - -[869] BN 6584, fol. 20r-v; Egerton 2676, fols. 33v-34r; cap. 65 (BM -IA.10756); fols. 36v-37r (Paris 1520); Steele, 114-15. - -[870] Gaster, 159-60; fol. 38r (Paris, 1520); Steele, 174. - -[871] Gaster, p. 127; cap. 12 (Harvard copy); also in BM IA.10756, -and BN 6584, fol. 10r, where Aristotle seems to detect the venomous -nature of the maiden by magic art--“Et nisi ego illa hora sagaciter -inspexissem in ipsam et arte magica iudicassem....”; while it -is her mere bite that kills men, as Alexander afterwards proved -experimentally; Steele, 60. - -[872] Cap. 3. - -[873] Gilbertus Anglicus, _Compendium medicinae_, Lyons, 1510, fol. -348v. - -[874] HL XXX, 569ff. “Die Sage vom Giftmädchen” is the theme of a long -monograph by W. Hertz, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (1905), pp. 156-277. - -[875] BN 6584, fol. 27; IA.10756, cap. 68; also in Paris, 1520 edition, -etc.; Steele, 144-6. - - - - -CHAPTER XLIX - -SOLOMON AND THE ARS NOTORIA - - - Solomon as a magician--Magic books ascribed to - Solomon--Manuscripts of them--Notory art of Solomon - and Apollonius--Other works ascribed to Solomon and - Apollonius--_Liber sacratus_; preface--_Incipit_ and - _Explicit_--A work of theurgy or the notory art--Character - of its contents--The third “work”--The fourth and fifth - “works”--How to operate with spirits--The seal of the living - God--Spirits of Saturn. - - -[Sidenote: Solomon as a magician.] - -It was only natural that Solomon, regarded as the wisest man in the -history of the world, should be represented in oriental tradition -as the worker of many marvels and that in the course of time books -of magic should be attributed to him, just as treatises on the -interpretation of dreams were ascribed to Joseph and Daniel. Roger -Bacon speaks of the magic books in a grand-sounding style which were -falsely ascribed to Solomon and which “ought all to be prohibited by -law.”[876] Solomon’s reputation as a magician, even in the western -Latin-speaking world, was much older than the thirteenth century, -however. In 1918 Roman archaeologists excavated at Ostia a bronze disc, -on one side of which was depicted Solomon as a magician, stirring -with a long ladle some mess in a large cauldron. On the other side of -the disc was a figure of the triple Hecate, who, like Solomon, was -surrounded by mystic signs and magic characters.[877] - -[Sidenote: Magic books ascribed to Solomon.] - -But to return to the medieval period. In the first half of the -thirteenth century William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris, in his -treatise on laws declares that there is no divinity in the angles of -Solomon’s pentagon, that the rings of Solomon and the seals of Solomon -and the nine candles (_candariae_) are a form of idolatry, and involve -execrable consecrations and detestable invocations and images. “As for -that horrible image called the _Idea Salomonis et entocta_, let it -never be mentioned among Christians.” In the same class are the book -called _Sacratus_ and the figure _Mandel_ or _Amandel_.[878] Some years -later Albertus Magnus, listing evil books of necromantic images in his -_Speculum astronomiae_,[879] includes five treatises current under the -name of Solomon, and seems to have in mind about the same works as -William. One is _De figura Almandel_, another _De novem candariis_, and -a third on the four rings (_De quatuor annulis_) opens with the words -“_De arte eutonica et ideica_,” which remind one of William’s “_Idea -Salomonis et entocta_,” and is perhaps also identical with a _Liber -de umbris idearum_ cited under the name of Solomon by Cecco d’Ascoli -in his necromantic commentary upon the _Sphere_ of Sacrobosco,[880] -written in the early fourteenth century. - -[Sidenote: Manuscripts of them.] - -Moreover, these same works are apparently still extant in manuscripts -in European libraries. The figure Almandal or Almandel and the rings -of Solomon are found in fifteenth century manuscripts at Florence -and Paris,[881] while in the Sloane collection of the British Museum -we find Solomon’s pentagon, the divine seal, the four rings, and the -nine candles, all in seventeenth century manuscripts.[882] In these -seventeenth century manuscripts also appear, and more than once, the -_Clavicula_ or Key of Solomon, in French, Italian, and English,[883] -the book by Solomon called _Cephar_ or _Saphar Raziel_,[884] and the -_Liber sacer_ or _sacratus_.[885] The last-named work, mentioned -at least twice in the thirteenth century by William of Auvergne, -who calls it “a cursed and execrable book,”[886] is also found in -manuscripts of the fourteenth or fifteenth century,[887] and we shall -presently consider it in particular as a specimen of the Pseudo-Solomon -literature and of medieval books of magic, theurgy, and necromancy. - -[Sidenote: Notory art of Solomon and Apollonius.] - -Let us first, however, note some other works ascribed to Solomon and -which have to do with the _Ars Notoria_, or Notory Art, which seeks -to gain knowledge from or communion with God by invocation of angels, -mystic figures, and magical prayers. We are told that the Creator -revealed this art through an angel to Solomon one night while he -was praying, and that by it one can in a short time acquire all the -liberal and mechanical arts.[888] There seems to be little difference -between the notory art of Solomon, that of Solomon, Machineus, and -Euclid,[889] and the _Golden Flowers_ of Apollonius,[890] in which -Solomon is mentioned almost every other sentence. Cecco d’Ascoli may -have had it in mind when he cited the _Book of Magic Art_ of Apollonius -and the _Angelic Faction_ of the same author.[891] In one manuscript -at the close of the _Golden Flowers_ of Apollonius are prayers which -one “brother John Monk” confesses he himself has composed in the years -1304-1307.[892] In a later manuscript we find his prayers described as -given to him by the blessed God and as “perfect science,” and they are -followed by “The Pauline art,” discovered by the Apostle Paul after -he had been snatched up to the third heaven, and delivered by him at -Corinth.[893] Other works of notory art are listed in the manuscript -catalogues without name of author.[894] But all alike are apt to -impress the present reader as unmeaning jumbles of diagrams and magic -words.[895] We shall sufficiently illustrate them all when we come -to speak of the _Liber sacratus_ which is itself in large measure -concerned with the Notory Art. - -[Sidenote: Other works ascribed to Solomon and Apollonius.] - -Certain works may be mentioned which are ascribed to Solomon or to -Apollonius in the medieval manuscripts, and which do not seem to be -concerned with the notory art. Experiments ascribed to Solomon will be -mentioned in another place in connection with experimental literature. -Treatises of alchemy and astrology also were attributed to him.[896] -Under the name of Apollonius we find a work on the properties or occult -virtue of things, and another, or possibly the same, on the principal -causes of things.[897] One wonders if it may have any connection with -the book on six principles of things ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus -and which has been discussed in our chapter on _Hermetic Books in -the Middle Ages_. A treatise on palmistry is ascribed to Solomon in -a fourteenth century manuscript at Cambridge.[898] A “Philosophy of -Solomon” in a manuscript of the late twelfth century in the British -Museum consists of “notes perhaps from more than one source on the -analogy between the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the three -divisions of philosophy (_moralis_, _naturalis_, _inspectiva_), and the -three books of Solomon.”[899] - -[Sidenote: _Liber sacratus_: preface.] - -The _Liber sacratus_, as William of Auvergne twice entitles it, or -the _Liber sacer_ or _Liber juratus_, as it is also called in the -manuscripts,[900] is associated with the name Honorius as well as -Solomon, and is often spoken of as _The Sworn Book of Honorius_. -The preface, as given in the Latin manuscripts of the fourteenth -century--one of which once belonged to Ben Jonson--states that under -the influence of evil spirits the pope and cardinals had passed -a decree aiming at the complete extirpation of the magic art and -condemning magicians to death. The grounds for this action were that -magicians and necromancers were injuring everyone, transgressing the -statutes of holy mother church, making invocations and sacrifices -to demons, and dragging ignorant people down to damnation by their -marvelous illusions. These charges the magicians hotly deny as inspired -by the envy and cupidity of the devil who wished to keep a monopoly -of such marvels. The magicians declare that it is impossible for a -wicked or impure man to work truly by the magic art, in which they -assert that the spirits are compelled against their will by pure men. -The magicians further profess to have been forewarned by their art -of this legislation against them. They hesitate, however, to summon -the demons to their aid lest those spirits avail themselves of the -opportunity to destroy the populace utterly. Instead an assembly of 89 -masters from Naples, Athens, and Toledo has chosen Honorius, son of -Euclid,[901] a master of Thebes, to reduce their magic books to one -volume containing 93 chapters, which they may more readily conceal -and preserve. And inasmuch as it has pleased the prelates and princes -to order the burning of their books and the destruction of schools of -magic, the followers of that art have taken an oath not to give this -volume to anyone until its owner is on his death-bed, never to have -more than three copies of it made at a time, and never to give it to -a woman or to a man who is not of mature years and proved fidelity. -Each new recipient of the sacred volume is also to take this oath. -Hence the name, _Juratus_ or _Sworn-Book_. Its other titles, _Sacer_ or -_Sacratus_, refer either to the sacred names of God which constitute -much of its text or to its consecration by the angels. - -[Sidenote: _Incipit_ and _Explicit_.] - -After this proemium, which, like the magic art itself, is probably more -impressive than true, the work proper opens with the statement, “In the -name of almighty God and Jesus Christ, one and true God, I, Honorius, -have thus ordered the works of Solomon in my book.” Later Honorius -reiterates that he is following the precepts and in the foot-prints of -Solomon, whom he also often cites or quotes in course. The _Explicit_ -of the _Sworn-Book_ is unusually long and sets forth in grandiloquent -style the purpose of the volume. - -“So ends the book of the life of the rational soul,[902] which is -entitled _Liber sacer_ or _The Book of the Angels_ or _Liber juratus_, -which Honorius, Master of Thebes, made. This is the book by which -one can see God in this life. This is the book by which anyone can -be saved and led beyond a doubt to life eternal. This is the book by -which one can see hell and purgatory without death. This is the book -by which every creature can be subjected except the nine orders of -angels. This is the book by which all science can be learned. This is -the book by which the weakest substance can overcome and subjugate the -strongest substances. This is the book which no religion possesses -except the Christian, or if it does, does so to no avail. This is the -book which is a greater joy than any other joy given by God exclusive -of the sacraments. This is the book by which corporeal and visible -nature can converse and reason with the incorporeal and invisible and -be instructed. This is the book by which countless treasures can be -had. And by means of it many other things can be done which it would -take too long to enumerate; therefore it is deservedly called _The Holy -Book_.” - -[Sidenote: A work of theurgy or the notory art.] - -From this description it will be seen that the work has a good deal to -do with the so-called Notory Art. Moreover, in the manuscript copy -said to have belonged to Ben Jonson the word _Theurgia_ is written -on the fly-leaves before the beginning and after the close of the -text. This calls to mind the passage in _The City of God_[903] where -Augustine speaks of “incantations and formulae composed by an art -of depraved curiosity which they either call magic or by the more -detestable name _goetia_ or by the honorable title _theurgia._ For -they try to distinguish between these arts and condemn some men, whom -the populace calls _malefici_, as devoted to illicit arts, for these, -they say, are concerned with _goetia_; but others they want to make out -praiseworthy as being engaged in theurgy. But they are both entangled -in the deceptive rites of demons who masquerade under the names of -angels.” - -[Sidenote: Character of its contents.] - -The text is full of the names of spirits, prayers in strange words, -supposedly derived from Hebrew or Chaldaic, and other gibberish. -Series of letters and figures often occur and names inscribed in -stars, hexagons, and circles. An English translation in a fifteenth -century manuscript[904] is adorned with pictures of rows of spirits -dressed like monks in robes and caps but with angelic wings. The text -does not seem to be complete in any of the manuscripts that I have -examined,[905] but Sloane 3854 of the fourteenth century contains an -apparently complete table of contents. The chapter headings, anyway, -are more intelligible than the jargon of the text. The first chapter -deals with the composition of the great name of God which contains 72 -letters. The second is about the divine vision and by the time it is -finished we are nearly two-thirds through the space allotted to the -_Liber juratus_ in one manuscript. The third chapter is on knowledge of -the divine power, the fourth on absolution from sin, the fifth deals -with mortal sin, the sixth with the redemption of souls from purgatory. -With this the “first work” of the collection of Honorius ends. The -opening chapters of the second work discuss the heavens, the angels -found in each heaven and at the four points of the compass, their names -and powers, seals and virtues, and invocation. Chapters 14 and 15 -tell how to get your wish from any angel or to acquire the sciences. -Chapter 16 tells how to learn the hour of one’s death, and chapter 17 -how to know all things, past, present, or future. It was perhaps these -chapters that William of Auvergne had in mind when, in censuring works -on divination by inspection of mirrors, sword-blades, and human nails -to discover stolen articles and other hidden things, he added that -“from this pest of curiosity proceeded that accursed and execrable -work called _Liber sacratus_.”[906] That work next returns for three -chapters to the stars and planets and their virtues and influence. -Chapter 21 then instructs how to turn day into night or night into -day. Next spirits are further considered, those of air and those of -fire, their names and their superior spirits, their powers, virtues, -and seals. Attention is then given to the four elements and bodies -composed thereof, to herbs and plants, and to human nature, after which -aquatic and terrestrial spirits are discussed. The future life is then -considered and the 33rd chapter, which is the last one of the “second -work,” deals with “the consecration of this book.” - -[Sidenote: The third “work.”] - -The “third work,” which extends from chapter 34 to 87 inclusive, -treats of the control of spirits by words, by seals, by tables, and -by shutting them up. It tells how to provoke thunder and lightning, -storms, snow, ice, rain, or dew; how to produce flowers and fruit; how -to become invisible; how to wage war and to make an indestructible -castle, how to destroy a town by means of mirrors; how to sow discord -or concord, how to open closed doors, to catch thieves, fish, and -animals, and to produce varied apparitions. - -[Sidenote: The fourth and fifth “works.”] - -The fourth work deals with similar marvels but it is stated that two of -its chapters, namely, 91 on the apparition of dead bodies which speak -and seem to be resuscitated, and 92 on the apparent creation of animals -from earth, will be omitted as contrary to the will of God. The fifth -work or book, which seems to coincide with the 93rd and last chapter -of Honorius, is in reality divided into five chapters, which return to -themes similar to those of the first work. - -[Sidenote: How to operate with spirits.] - -To illustrate further the character of the work a few particular -passages may be noticed. We are told that there are three ways of -operating by means of spirits: the pagan, Jewish, and Christian. The -pagans sacrificed to spirits of earth and air but did not really -constrain them. The spirits only pretended to be coerced in order to -encourage such idolatrous practices. “Whoever wishes to operate by such -experiments” (mark the word!), “deserts the Lord God.” As for the Jews, -they get along only so-so, and “do in no wise work to obtain the vision -of the deity.” Only a Christian, therefore, can operate successfully -in such visions. “And although three kinds of men work at this art of -magic, one should not think that there is any evil included in this -name of _magus_, for a _magus per se_ is called a philosopher in Greek, -a scribe in Hebrew, and a sage in Latin.”[907] - -[Sidenote: The seal of the living God.] - -Very elaborate directions are given for the composition of the seal of -the living God. Circles are drawn of certain proportions emblematic of -divine mysteries, a cross is made within, numerous letters are written -down equidistant from one another. A pentagon and two hexagons have to -be placed just so in relation to one another; characters are inscribed -in their angles; and various sacred names of God, Raphael, Michael, and -other angels are written along their sides. Different parts must be -executed in different colors; a particular kind of parchment must be -employed; and the blood of a mole or hoopoe or bat must be used as ink -for some of the writing. Finally, there are sacrifices, purifications, -suffumigations, invocations, and prayers to be performed and offered. -This seal, we are told, “will conquer the celestial powers, subjugate -the aerial and terrestrial together with the infernal; invoke, -transmit, conjure, constrain, excite, gather, disperse, bind, and -restore unharmed; will placate men and gain petitions from them -graciously, pacify enemies,”[908] etc., etc. - -[Sidenote: Spirits of Saturn.] - -The spirits associated with the planet Saturn are Bohel, Casziel, -Uuchathon, and Dacdel. Their nature is to cause sadness and wrath and -hate, to produce ice and snow. Their bodies are long and large, pale -or golden. Their region is in the north and they have five or nine -demons under them.[909] As a rule spirits of the north and south are -ferocious, those of the east and the west gentle.[910] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[876] Brewer (1859), pp. 526, 531. - -[877] _The Nation_, New York, May 10, 1919, p. 744. In January, 1922, -it was announced that a paper by Professor C. C. McCown, “Solomon as -a Magician in Christian Legend,” would appear in the _Journal of the -Palestine Oriental Society_. - -[878] _De legibus_, cap. 27. - -[879] Cap. 11. - -[880] Ed. of 1518, p. 22F2. - -[881] Florence II-iii-24, 15th century, 74-77, “Liber in figura -Almandel et eius opere / et eius iuditio”; 77, “Alius liber de Almandal -qui dicitur tabula vel ara Salomonis.” - -BN 7349, 15th century, #8, Annuli Salomonis. - -[882] Sloane 3851, fols. 31v-53, “Signum Pentaculum Salomonis”; 3853, -fol. 127v, Divine seal of Solomon; 3847, fols. 66v-81, “Opus mirabile -et etiam verissimum de quatuor annulis sapientissimi Salomonis”; -3850, fols. 68-75, Salomonis opus de novem candariis celestibus. In a -16th century MS in French there is a book of conjurations of spirits -ascribed to Solomon. The conjurations themselves are mainly in Latin. -CU Trinity 1404 (VI). - -[883] Harleian 3536, in French; Sloane 1307, in Italian, the -translation being ascribed to “Gio. Peccatrix”; Sloane 3825 and 3847 -are not identical versions. - -[884] Sloane 3826, fols. 1-57; 3846, fols. 127-55; 3847, fols. 161-88; -3853, fols. 41-53. Perhaps the same as the “Sefer ha-Yashar” mentioned -by Haya Gaon in the early eleventh century: Gaster, _The Sword of -Moses_, 1896, p. 16. - -[885] Sloane 3883, fols. 1-25, De modo ministrandi librum sacrum -(revealed to Solomon by an angel). - -Sloane 3885, fols. 1-25, “Liber sacer Salomonis,” repeated at fols. -96v-125; fols. 58-96, Tractatus de re magica ab Honorio filio Euclidis -magistro Thebarum ex septem voluminibus artis magicae compilatus, et -intitulatus Liber sacer, sive juratus. - -[886] _De legibus_, caps. 24 and 27. - -[887] Sloane 313, late 14th or 15th century (according to a Letter from -Dr. Montague Rhodes James to me, dated 21 May, 1921), mutilus, quondam -Ben Jonsonii, 26 fols., Salomonis opus sacrum ab Honorio ordinatum, -tractatus de arte magica. - -Sloane 3854, 14th century, fols. 112-39, Honorii Magistri Thebarum -liber cui titulus “Juratus.” - -[888] BN 7153, 15th century, Solomon, Sacratissima ars notoria. - -Harleian 181, fol. 18-, Ars notoria (Salomoni ab angelo tradita) -preceded at fol. 1- by Ars memorativa, and followed at fol. 81 by “de -arte crucifixa.” - -CU Trinity 1419, 1600 A. D., Liber de Arte memorativa sive notoria ... -Prologus per Sallomonem ... Inc. sanctissima Ars notoria quam Creator -altissimus per Angelum suum super altare templi quodam modo Salomoni -dum oraret ministrans. - -Math. 50 (Amplonius’ catalogue of 1412), “Item liber continens septem -libros parciales qui dicitur angelus magnus vel secreta secretorum et -est de arte notoria Salomonis et non debet rudibus exponi.” - -CLM 19413, 10-11th century, fols. 67-108, Salomonis III formulae, might -turn out to be a work on Notory Art. - -[889] Sloane 1712, 13th century, fols. 1-22, “Ars notoria Salomonis, -Machinei, et Euclidis,” followed at fols. 22-37 by an anonymous “ars -notoria quae nova ars appellatur.” - -BN 7152, 14th century, Expositiones quas Magister Apollonius flores -aureos ad eruditionem et cognitionem omnium scientiarum et naturalium -artium generaliter et merito et competenter appellavit; hoc opus -Salomonis Machinei et Euclidii actoritate maxima compositum et probatum -est: accedunt figurae. - -[890] CLM 268, 14th century, 16 fols.; CLM 276, 14th century, fols. -1-26, Apollonii flores aurei, quorum pars extat in cod. 268. - -Amplon. Quarto 380, 13th century, fols. 49-64, ars notoria Appolonii -philosophi et magi; while the 1412 catalogue gives Math. 54, “Liber -Appollonii magi vel philosophi qui dicitur Elizinus”; Amplon. Octavo -84, 14th century, fols. 95-106 (Apollonii) de arte notoria Salomonis. - -Ashmole 1515, 16th century, fol. 4r, “Incipit primus tractatus istius -sanctissime artis notorie et expositiones eius et temporum exceptiones, -quas Salomon et Apollonius flores aureos appellaverunt, et hoc opere -probatum est et confirmatum authoritate Salomonis, Manichei et -Euduchii.” - -[891] _Sphere_ (1518), fol. 3. - -[892] CLM 276, fol. 49. - -[893] BN 7170A, 16th century, #1, de arte notoria data a Deo beato -Joanni Monacho sive de scientia perfecta: praemittuntur orationes -decern; #2, Ars Paulina, a Paulo Apostolo inventa post raptum eius et -Corinthiis denotata. - -[894] BN 9336, 14th century, “Sacratissima ars notoria.” - -Amplon. Quarto 28, anno 1415, fols. 38-41, ars notoria et orationibus -et figuris exercenda; Amplon. Octavo 79, 14th century, fols. 63-64, ars -notoria brevis et bona. - -Sloane 3008, 15th century, fol. 66-, de arte notoria, brief and -illegible. - -[895] Essentially similar is “The _Sword of Moses_. An ancient book -of magic from an unique manuscript, with introduction, translation, -an index of mystical names and a facsimile. Published for the first -time,” London, 1896, by M. Gaster from a Hebrew MS of 13-14th century. -Gaster (p. 18) describes the treatise as “a complete encyclopaedia of -mystical names, of eschatological teachings, and of magical recipes.” -The _Sword_ proper is a series of names. - -[896] Sloane 3849, 15-16th century, fols. 30-38, A noble experiment of -King Solomon with astrological tables. - -Ashmole 1416, 15th century, fol. 113v, Libellus de sulphuris -virtutibus; 114-, Fragmentum de planetarum influentia; 123-, On -perilous days; 123-4, Ars artium, or prayers to invoke spirits, is -perhaps a portion of the _Ars Notoria_. - -[897] Vienna 3124, 15th century, “Verba de proprietatibus rerum quomodo -virtus unius frangitur per alium. Adamas nec ferro nec igne domatur / -cito medetur.” - -BN 13951, 12th century, Liber Apollonii de principalibus rerum causis. - -[898] Trinity 1109, fols. 388-90, Expl. tract. de Palmistria Salamonis. -The tract consists of two full page diagrams and an explanation in -French. - -[899] Royal 7-D-II, late 12th century, fols. 3-10, opening, “Hanc ergo -triplicem divine philosophie formam....” I quote the description in the -new catalogue of the Royal MSS. - -[900] See above, page 281 of this chapter, notes 3 and 5. - -[901] Possibly he is the same Euclid as one of the three co-authors of -the work on the _Notory Art_ mentioned above. - -[902] One wonders if this can be the evil book of magic referred to by -Roger Bacon and other writers as _De morte animae_. - -[903] _De civitate Dei_, X, 9. - -[904] Royal 17-A-XLII. - -[905] Sloane 313 seems to reach only as far as the early chapters of -the “second work.” - -[906] _De legibus_, cap. 24, p. 68 in ed. of 1591. - -[907] Sloane 3854. fol. 114r. - -[908] Sloane 3854, fols. 114r-115v. - -[909] _Ibid._, fol. 129v; Royal 17-A-XLII, fol. 67v. - -[910] Sloane 3854, fol. 132r. - - - - -CHAPTER L - -ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL DREAM-BOOKS - - - _Oneirocritica_ of Artemidorus--Astrampsychos and - Nicephorus--Achmet translated by Leo Tuscus--Byzantine - and oriental divinations by Daniel--Latin _Dream-Books of - Daniel_--_Sompniale dilucidarium Pharaonis_--An anonymous - exposition of dreams--Physiological origin of dreams--Origin - and justification of the art of interpretation--Sources - of the present treatise--Demoniac and natural causes of - dreams--Interpretation--William of Aragon on prognostication - from dreams--Who was William of Aragon?--His work formerly - ascribed to Arnald of Villanova--Another anonymous work on - dreams. - - -[Sidenote: _Oneirocritica_ of Artemidorus.] - -Both Jews and Greeks at the beginning of the Christian era were much -given to the interpretation of dreams. There were “established and -frequented dreaming places” at the shrines of Asclepius at Epidaurus, -Amphiaraus at Oropus, Amphilochus at Mallos, Sarpedon in the Troad, -Trophonius at Lebedea, Mopsus in Cilicia, Hermonia in Macedon, and -Pasiphaë in Laconia. We hear of dream-books by Artemon, Antiphon, -Strato, Philochoros, Epicharmus, Serapion, Cratippus, Dionysius -of Rhodes, and Hermippus of Beirut. But the chief work upon the -interpretation of dreams which has reached us from the time of the -Roman Empire is that of Artemidorus, who was born at Ephesus and lived -in Lydia in the time of the Antonines. He of course wrote in Greek and, -despite the superstitious character of his work, in a pure and refined -Attic style. The Ὀνειροκριτικά has also been translated into Latin, -French, and Italian.[911] It is a compilation in five books gathered -from previous literature on the subject and by the author personally -in travel in Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. The first thirteen chapters -of the fourth book, which Artemidorus opens with a general instruction -to his son, deal with such preliminary and general considerations as -the different types of dreams and more especially those divinely sent, -the significance of times, the personal qualifications requisite in the -interpreter, and certain rules of interpretation such as that native -customs are good signs and foreign ways bad signs in dreams. But the -great bulk of the work consists of specific interpretation arranged -either under topical headings such as “Concerning Nativity,” or listed -as single dreams. - -[Sidenote: Astrampsychos and Nicephorus.] - -In the edition of 1603[912] the work of Artemidorus is followed by -much briefer metrical treatises on the same subject by Astrampsychos -and Nicephorus.[913] These poems, if they may be so called, devote a -line of interpretation to each of the things seen in dreams, and these -verses are arranged in alphabetical order. This was to be the method -of arrangement adopted in the medieval dream-books ascribed to the -prophet Daniel. Astrampsychos is first named by Diogenes Laertius[914] -in the early third century. He was supposed to have been one of the -Persian Magi, and other occult treatises are ascribed to him, including -astrological writings, a book of oracles addressed to Ptolemy, and love -charms in a papyrus in the British Museum.[915] - -[Sidenote: Achmet translated by Leo Tuscus.] - -Still another work on the interpretation of dreams contained in the -edition of 1603[916] is ascribed to “Achmet, the son of Sereim” or -Ahmed ben Sirin.[917] The Greek text states that he was interpreter of -dreams to Mamoun, the first minister of the Caliph, which fixes his -date as about 820 A. D.[918] Perhaps he is the same Achmet who wrote an -astrological treatise extant in Greek which he says he compiled from -books from Adam’s time to the present day.[919] Of the work on dreams -there is a Latin version in the medieval manuscripts translated from -the Greek by Leo Tuscus,[920] who died in 1182 and was interpreter -of imperial letters in the time of the Byzantine emperor, Manuel -Comnenus. Leo prefixes to his translation a prologue addressed[921] -to his brother Hugo Eterianus or Eteriarius (Ecerialius). This work -of Achmet is of about the same length as that of Artemidorus and -contains over three hundred chapters. It is or pretends to be drawn -mainly from Indian, Persian, and Egyptian sources and often cites -in turn the doctrine or interpretation of those three peoples, or -mentions by name interpreters of dreams of the kings and pharaohs of -those countries.[922] The preface states that the same dream must be -interpreted differently in the case of king and commoner, of rich and -poor, and according to sex. The time of the dream must also be taken -into account. For example, to see a tree blossom is a good sign in -spring but a bad omen in autumn. The hour of the night when the dream -occurs and the phases of the moon are other time factors which must be -reckoned with. The remainder of the treatise is devoted to specific -interpretation of dreams. - -[Sidenote: Byzantine and oriental divinations by Daniel.] - -To Joseph and Daniel, as the chief Biblical interpreters of dreams, -books on the subject were assigned in the middle ages, as John of -Salisbury has informed us. Daniel, however, seems to have been the -greater favorite. Liutprand the Lombard, who died in 972, says in the -account of his embassy to Constantinople, “The Greeks and Saracens -have books which they call the _horaseis_, or Visions, of Daniel, but -I should call them Sibylline. In them is found written how many years -each emperor will live, and what will be the character of his reign, -whether peace or strife, whether favorable or hostile relations with -the Saracens.”[923] A brief set of Greek verses in alphabetical order -ascribed to the emperor Leo, which occur in a late manuscript with -various works of the fathers, seem to resemble the Latin alphabetical -dream-books of which we shall presently treat.[924] Works of divination -were also attributed to Daniel in Syriac and Arabic, such as -predictions of rain, hail, and the like for each day of the year, and -of eclipses and earthquakes,[925] or astrological forecasts for each -month of the year.[926] There is even a geomancy in Turkish ascribed to -the prophet Daniel.[927] - -[Sidenote: Latin _Dream-Books of Daniel_.] - -Dream-Books ascribed to the prophet Daniel are found in Latin -manuscripts at least as early as the tenth century, and continue -through the fifteenth century despite the denial of their authenticity -by John of Salisbury in the twelfth century. At least three different -types of _Dream-Books of Daniel_ are represented in incunabula editions -in the British Museum.[928] The _Dream-Book of Joseph_ occurs with -less frequency.[929] These Latin _Dream-Books_ do not go into details -of politics like the Byzantine books which Liutprand described. The -simplest form, which we have already mentioned in speaking of the -Moon-Books of the tenth and eleventh centuries, is according to the -days of the moon.[930] It is often embodied in the fuller versions. -Their usual arrangement is an alphabetical list of objects seen in -dreams with a line of interpretation for each and perhaps a page for -each letter of the alphabet. Sample lines are: - - _Aerem serenum videre lucrum significat_ - (“To see a clear sky signifies gain”) - _Intestina sua videre secreta manifesta_ - (“To see one’s own intestines means secrets revealed”) - -This alphabetical arrangement already appears in the early -manuscripts.[931] Sometimes, however, the procedure is by opening the -Psalter at random, taking the first letter on the page opened to, -and then referring to a list where the letters of the alphabet have -various significations, such as “A signifies power of delight,” “B -signifies victory in war.”[932] This last method might, of course, -be employed without having any dream at all, and perhaps should not -be regarded as a Dream-Book. It is interesting to note that in one -manuscript it is called _Experiments of Daniel_. In these books -of Daniel further instructions are sometimes given, as when it is -stated that dreams which occur before midnight are of no value for -purposes of interpretation, or when one is told before opening the -Psalter to repeat on bended knees a Lord’s Prayer, _Ave Maria_, and -_Miserere_. Days to be observed are also sometimes mentioned as a sort -of accompaniment to the _Dream-Book_: forty dangerous days “which the -masters of the Greeks have tested by experiment,”[933] “bromantic days” -from the twenty-fourth of November to the eighteenth of December, and -“perentalic days” from the first of January to the first of March. -“And these are the days when the leaves fall from the trees,” which is -apparently supposed to have a disturbing effect upon the clarity of -dreams.[934] - -[Sidenote: _Sompniale dilucidarium Pharaonis._] - -_A Sompniale dilucidarium Pharaonis_, as it is entitled in the -manuscript of it which I have examined,[935] or _Morale somnium -Pharaonis_, as it is called in the printed editions,[936] was -addressed by a John of Limoges[937] to Theobald, King of Navarre and -Count of Champagne and Brie, who died in 1216.[938] It is really -not a Dream-Book but a series of imaginary and fulsomely rhetorical -letters between Pharaoh and his Magi, Pharaoh and Joseph, and Joseph -and adulators and detractors. John states in his introductory letter -to Theobald that the famous dream of Pharaoh will here be “morally -expounded concerning royal discipline.” Pharaoh typifies any curious -king; Egypt stands for any studious kingdom; Joseph represents any -virtuous counselor; and the dream will be interpolated with flowers of -rhetoric and theology. - -[Sidenote: An anonymous _Exposition of Dreams_.] - -More elaborate and making more pretense to philosophical character -than the brief Dream-Books of Daniel is an anonymous work on dreams -contained in a Paris manuscript of apparently the later part of the -thirteenth century.[939] It is the first treatise in the manuscript, -which further contains two important works of the first half of the -twelfth century, namely, the _Imago mundi_ of Honorius of Autun and the -_De philosophia_ of William of Conches. The texts of these two latter -works are much cut up and intermixed with each other. It is therefore -not unlikely that the opening treatise on dreams is also a work of -the twelfth century, although there does not seem to be much reason -for ascribing it either to Honorius of Autun or William of Conches. A -long _prohemium_ fails to throw much light upon the personality of the -author, but the work does not seem to be a translation. That it is not -earlier than the twelfth century is indicated by its citation of the -_Viaticum_ and _Passionarius_, presumably the well known medical works -of Constantine Africanus and Gariopontus,[940]--unless indeed it be by -Constantinus himself, to some of whose views it shows a resemblance. - -[Sidenote: Physiological origin of dreams.] - -The preface opens by stating that a desirable treasure lies hidden -in the heart of the wise but that it is of no utility unless it is -revealed. In other words, dreams must be interpreted. The author -regards dreams, like thoughts in general, as beginning with the -_spiritus_ which rises from the heart and ascends through two arteries -to the brain.[941] Our author perhaps still holds to Aristotle’s -view of the importance of the heart in the nervous system as against -Galen’s exclusive emphasis upon the brain, since he allots the heart a -share even in mental processes; and he seems to be ignorant of Galen’s -discovery that the arteries contain blood and not _spiritus_. - -[Sidenote: Origin and justification of the art of interpretation.] - -The preface goes on to justify the study of dreams on the ground that -“the most ancient Magi and perfect physicians” thereby adjudged to each -man health and sickness, life and death. “Medicine and divine thoughts, -dreams, visions, or oracles are not prohibited, but demoniacal -incantations, sorcery, lot-castings, insomnia, and vain phantasms are -condemned that you may not readily trust in them.”[942] No doctrine -is to be spurned wholesale, but only what is vicious in it. Shadrach, -Meshach, and Abednego excelled all the Magi and soothsayers of the -Chaldeans. Our author explains that among the Chaldeans then as today -learning consisted not of the philosophy and sophistry of the Greeks -and Latins, but of astronomy and interpretations of dreams. He alludes -to a prayer of seven verses which they repeat when going to bed in -order to receive responses in dreams. They pay little heed to the -superficial meaning of their dreams, but by examining the inner meaning -they learn either past or future. The author exhorts the person to whom -he addresses the preface to do the same, laying aside all terrors that -dreams may arouse in him. He points out that interpretation of dreams -has Biblical sanction and that Joseph, Daniel, and Marduch all profited -thereby. - -[Sidenote: Sources of the present treatise.] - -As for the present treatise, it is collected from divine and human -scripture, based upon experience as well as reason, and drawn from -Latins, Greeks, Persians, and the annals of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar -in which many of their dreams are recorded, for they were both lovers -of the future and, since they had no philosophers like the Gentiles, -God allowed them as a compensation to foresee the future in dreams. -For by dreams life and death, poverty and riches, sickness and health, -sorrow and joy, flight and victory, are known more easily than through -astrology, a more difficult and manifold art.[943] But lest his -introduction grow too long, the author at this point ends it and begins -the text proper. - -[Sidenote: Demoniac and natural causes of dreams.] - -After stating what a dream is, the author discusses the origin and -causes of dreams further. Some are from the devil or at least are -influenced by demons, as when a monk was led to become a Jew by a -dream in which he saw Moses with a chorus of angels in white, while -Christ was surrounded by men in black. But when we see chimeras in -dreams, this is generally due to impurity of the blood. The author -also opines that, while the sage can judge from the nature of the -dream whether there is fallacy and illusion of the demon in it, the -origin of virtues and vices is mainly in ourselves. He who goes to -sleep with an easy conscience is unlikely to be disturbed by nightmares -and is more likely in quiet slumber to behold secrets and mysteries. -The author next discusses the effect of the passions and exercise of -the mental faculties upon the liver, heart, and brain. He adopts the -common medieval view that the brain contains three ventricles devoted -respectively to imagination, reason, and memory. He explains that the -so-called _incubus_, popularly thought of as a dwarf or satyr who -sits on the sleeper, is really a feeling of suffocation produced by -blood-pressure near the heart. The interpretation of a dream must vary -according to the social rank of the person concerned. As images in a -mirror deceive the ordinary observer but are readily accounted for -by the geometer, and as the philosopher notes the significations of -other planets than the sun and moon, whose effects alone impress the -vulgar herd, so there are dreams which only a skilled interpreter can -explain. Dreams are affected by food and by the humors prevailing in -the body, and also by the occult virtues of gems, of which a list is -given from “Evax” or Marbod.[944] - -[Sidenote: Interpretation.] - -The second book takes up again the varying significations of dreams -according to the person concerned, and also the significance of the -time of the dream. The four seasons, the phases of the moon, nativity -of the dreamer, and hour of the night are discussed. The remaining -two-thirds of the treatise consists in stating the interpretation to -be placed upon the varied persons and things seen in dreams, beginning -with God and Jesus Christ, and continuing with crucifixes, idols, -statues, bells, hell, the resurrection of the dead, and so on and -so forth. Early mention of eunuchs and icons suggests a Byzantine -source. More especially in the last third of the treatise, various -marginal headings indicate that the interpretations are “according -to the Indians” or “according to the Persians and Egyptians,” which -suggests that use is being made of the work of Achmet or of Leo Tuscus’ -translation thereof. - -[Sidenote: William of Aragon on prognostication from dreams.] - -The influence of Achmet’s work is also seen in a treatise on the -prognostication of dreams compiled by master William of Aragon.[945] -It opens by referring to the labors in this art of the ancient -philosophers of India, Persia, Egypt, and Greece, and later it cites -Smarchas the Indian,[946] whom I take to be the same as the Strbachan -of Achmet’s second chapter. William justifies writing his treatise -by saying that while there may be many Dream-Books in existence -already, they are mere _Practice_ and without reason, while he intends -to base the prediction of the future from dreams upon rational -speculation, and to support his particular reasoning by specific -examples.[947] He makes more use of Aristotle’s classification of -dreams[948] than the anonymous work just considered, from which he -further differs in dwelling more upon the connection of dreams with the -constellations.[949] The second part of his treatise consists of twelve -chapters devoted to the twelve astrological houses.[950] Earlier he -mentions that at the nativity of Alexander an eagle with extended wings -rested all day on the roof of the palace of his father Philip.[951] -In stating the signification of various objects William has a chapter -on what different parts of the human body signify when seen in -dreams.[952] Like our previous works on divination from dreams, he lays -considerable stress upon experience, illustrating his statement that -dreams are often due to bodily ills by cases which “I have seen,”[953] -and also asserting that it is shown by experience that dreams seen on -the first four days of the week are most quickly fulfilled.[954] - -[Sidenote: Who was William of Aragon?] - -This William of Aragon is no doubt the same who commented upon the -_Centiloquium_ ascribed to Ptolemy.[955] From his medical experience -and his tendency to give an astrological explanation for everything one -is tempted to identify him further with the William Anglicus or William -of Marseilles who wrote the treatise of astrological medicine entitled, -_Of Urine Unseen_, in the year 1219, but it is of course unlikely -that the same man would be called of Aragon as well as of England -and Marseilles or that the words _Anglicus_ and _Aragonia_ should be -confused by copyists. - -[Sidenote: His work formerly ascribed to Arnald of Villanova.] - -The treatise on dreams has been printed among the works of Arnald -of Villanova,[956] a physician who interpreted dreams for the kings -of Aragon and Sicily at the end of the thirteenth century, under -the title _Expositio_ (or, _Expositiones_) _visionum quae fiunt in -somniis_.[957] The _Histoire Littéraire de la France_[958] has noted -that in the manuscript copies the work was anonymous and not ascribed -to Arnald, but I believe that I am the first to identify it with the -work of William of Aragon. - -[Sidenote: Another anonymous work on dreams.] - -In the same manuscript with the _Sompniale dilucidarium Pharaonis_ and -the work of William of Aragon on dreams just described is another long -anonymous work on the interpretation of dreams.[959] It makes the usual -points that the meaning of dreams varies with times and persons. But -the treatise consists chiefly[960] of a mass of significations which -are not even arranged in alphabetical order, a failing which it is -attempted to remedy by an alphabetical index at the close.[961] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[911] Cockayne, _Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms_, RS vol. 35, 1864-1866, III. -x. The Ὀνειροκριτικά was printed by the Aldine press at Venice, 1518; -a Latin translation by Cornarius appeared at Basel, 1539; it was -published in both Latin and Greek by N. Rigaltius at Paris, 1603; the -modern edition is by R. Hercher, Leipzig, 1864. - -I have not seen P. Diepgen, _Traum und Traumdeutung als -medizinisch-naturwissenschaftliches Problem im Mittelalter_, Berlin, -1912. - -[912] Its full title reads: _Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi -F. (filius) Oneirocritica. Astranpsychi et Nicephori versus etiam -Oneirocritici. Nicolai Rigaltii ad Artemidorum Notae_. Paris. 1603. - -[913] They cover only twenty pages in large type as against the -269 pages of small type of _Artemidorus_. _Astrampsychos_ was also -published at Amsterdam in 1689 with the _Oracula Sibyllina_ by S. -Gallaeus. - -[914] Proem. 2. - -[915] Papyrus 122. - -[916] See note 1 on this page. The work was previously printed at -Frankfort under the title _Apomasaris Apotelesmata_ or _Predictions of -Albumasar_. There is some matter missing at the beginning of both of -these editions of the work. - -[917] Rigaltius, however, states that Achmet’s name did not appear in -either of the two Latin MSS at Paris which he used, nor in the Greek -one; but the opening of his text, as just stated in the previous note, -seems defective. - -On Ahmed ben Sirin see: Drexl, _Achmets Traumbuch_ (_Einleitung und -Probe eines kritischen Textes_), Munich dissertation, 1909; and -articles by Steinschneider in _Zeitschrift d. deutsch. Morgenl. -Gesellschaft_, XVII, 227-44, _Vienna Sitzungsberichte_, _Phil-hist. -Kl._ CLXIX, 53 and CLI, 2: cited by Haskins (1918), p. 494, note 12. - -[918] Krumbacher (1897), p. 630. - -[919] _Cat. Cod. Astrol. Graec._, II, 122, Achmet, _De introductione et -fundamento astrologiae_. ἡ ποίησις τούτου τοῦ τοιούτου βιβλίου ἐκ τῶν -βιβλίων τῶν Περσῶν ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἀχμάτης, ὅστις ὡς ἔφη συνῆξε τὰ βιβλία -τὰ εὑρισκόμενα ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι τῆς αὐτοῦ ἡμέρας. - -Since this astrological work mentions Albumasar, while Achmet, the -author of the dream-book, wrote early in the ninth century, the editors -of the _Catalogus_ doubt if the two Achmets are the same, but it should -be noted that in the astrological treatise Achmet is spoken of in the -third person and that it may be a re-editing of his original work. On -the other hand, perhaps this astrological Achmet is Alphraganus, or -Ahmetus filius Ahmeti (Ameti), as he is often called. - -[920] C. H. Haskins, _Leo Tuscus_, in EHR (1918), pp. 492-6. Leo’s -activity as a translator is further attested by BN 1002, “Liturgia -sancti Joannis Chrysostomi,” printed in Claudius de Sainctes, -_Liturgiae sive Missae Sanctorum Patrum_, Antwerp, 1562, fol. 49. - -[921] Haskins, _op. cit._, prints the prologue from the first of the -following MSS of Leo’s Latin translation. - -Digby 103, late 12th century, fol. 59-, “Ad Hugonem Ecerialium doctorem -suum et utraque origine fratrem Leo Tuscus imperatoriarum epistolarum -interpres de sompniis et oraculis.” “Explicit liber sompniorum Latine -doctus loqui a Leone Thusco imperialium epistolarum interprete -temporibus magni imperatoris Manuel.” Neither this Titulus to the -prologue nor this Explicit appears in the printed edition of 1603. - -Wolfenbüttel 2917, 13-14th century, fols. 1-20, “Ad Hugonem Eteriarium -doctorem summum et utraque origine fratrem Leo Tuscus imperatoriarum -epistolarum interpres de somniis et oraculis. Quamquam, optime -preceptor, invictum imperatorem Manuel sequar per fines Bithinie -Licaonieque fugantem Persas.” Haskins (1918), p. 494, shows that this -statement applies to the year 1176 rather than 1160-1161 as scholars -have previously held. - -Haskins also lists the following MSS: Harleian 4025, fols. 8-78; -Ashmole 179; Vatic. Lat. 4094, fols. 1-32v; but does not mention these: - -BN 7337, 15th century, pp. 141-61, which has the same Titulus and -includes the prologue, a table of 198 chapters, and the text as far as -the 37th chapter, De ventre. - -Vienna 5221, 15th century, 136 fols., “Laborans laboraui inveniendum -... / ... huiusmodi egritudinem jnueniret. Explicit liber sompniorum -latine doctus loqui a leone Imperialium epistolarum interprete -temporibus Magni Imperatoris Manuel.” - -[922] Preface, “ac primo quidem secundum Indorum doctrinam, deinde -Persarum, tum denique Aegyptiorum”; cap. 2, “Strbachan regis Indorum -interpres ait”; cap. 3, “Baram Interpres Saanissae Persarum regi”; cap. -4, “Tarphan Interpres Pharaonis regis Aegyptiorum.” - -[923] Quoted by Haskins and Lockwood, _The Sicilian Translators_, 1910, -p. 93, from the _Legatio_, ed. Dümmler, Hanover, 1877, pp. 152-3. - -[924] BN 3282, 17th century, fols. 27v-29r, Leonis (sapientis) imp. -versus alphabetici de futuro judicio. - -[925] Bodleian 3004, #15 (Qu. Catal. VI, Syriac, #161), Arabice literis -Syriacis. - -[926] Alger 1517 and 1518, in Arabic but according to the months of the -Syrian year. - -[927] Additional 9702. - -[928] _Sōnia Daniel’_ (IA.8754), “Danielis somniorum expositoris -veridici libellus incipit.... Ego sum daniel propheta unus de -israhelitis qui captivi ducti sunt....” - -_Somnia Danielis et Ioseph_ (IA.31744), “Omnes prophete tradebant -somnia que videbant in somniis eorum et solus propheta Daniel filius -Iude qui captus a rege Nabuchudonosor....” This is followed by a second -treatise which opens, “Incipiunt somnia quae composuit Joseph dum -captus erat a rege Pharaone in egypto....” - -_Interpretationes somniorum Danielis prophete revelate ab angelo misso -a deo_ (IA.11607, and IA.18164 is very similar). - -The Incipit in the second edition is given in more nearly correct form -in Sloane 3281, 13-14th century, fol. 39r, “Omnes homines tradebant -sompnia que tradebant (?) ut solveret propheta daniel....” - -Another opening, found in the MSS, states that the princes of Babylonia -asked the prophet Daniel to interpret their dreams. See Digby 86, late -13th century, fols. 34v-40r, “Daniel propheta petebatur a principiis -civitatis Babilone ut somnia que eis videbantur solvere (solveret?). -Tunc sedit et hec omnia scribat (et) tradidit populo ad legendum.” The -first two lines of interpretation are: - -“Arma in somniis portare securitatem significat; Arcum tendere et -sagittas mittere lucrum vel laborem significat.” - -(“To bear arms in dreams signifies security; To draw bow and shoot -arrows signifies gain or labor.”) - -Bodleian 177 (Bernard 2072), late 14th century, fol. 64r, opens -somewhat differently, “Danielem prophetam cum esset in Babilonia -petebant principes,” and its first two lines of interpretation are: - -“Aves cum se pugnare videre fecundiam significat; Aves in sompniis -apprehendere lucrum significat.” - -(“To see birds fight among themselves signifies fecundity; To catch -birds in one’s dreams signifies gain.”) - - -[929] For a printed edition see the second item in the preceding note. - -CLM 7806, 14th century, fol. 153, where as in the printed edition it -follows a _Dream-Book of Daniel_. - -Vatican Palat. 330, 15th century, fol. 303v. - -[930] For instance, Chartres 90, end of tenth century, fol. 16, -“Somnium Danielis prophete. Luna I. Quidquid videris ad gaudium -pertinet. Luna II et III et IIII. Bonus affectus erit,” etc. - -[931] Tiberius A-III, fols. 25v-30v; Titus D-XXVI, fols. 11v-16r; -Sloane 475, fols. 217v-218r, breaking off in the midst of the letter B. -In Harleian 3017, fol. iv-, however, the lines of interpretation are -not in alphabetical order. - -[932] This is the method in the second part of the printed edition -numbered IA.8754 in the British Museum. See also: BN 7453, 14th -century, #3, Ars psalterii a Daniele inventa; BN 7349, 15th century, -Danielis experimenta sive modus divinandi ad aperturam psalterii et -conjiciendi per somnia. - -[933] Ashmole 361, 14th century, fols. 158v-159. - -[934] Sloane 3281, fol. 39r; also in IA.31744, except that the names -are misspelled. - -[935] St. John’s 172, 15th century, fols. 99v-123, where the work is -rather appropriately preceded by two treatises on Ars dictaminis. Our -author, according to Fabricius, _Bibl. Med. et Inf. Lat._, Padua, 1754, -IV, 90, also wrote _De Stylo dictionario_. Other MSS of the _Sompniale_ -are CUL Dd. iv. 35, 15th century, fols. 49r-73v, and Ii. vi. 34. - -[936] The first 18 letters were printed at Altdorf, 1690, by J. C. -Wagenseil, and in Fabricius, _Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test._, 1713, I, 441-96. -For letters 19 and 20 see Fabricius, _Bibl. Med. et Inf. Lat._, 1754, -IV, 91-4. - -[937] Joannes Lemovicensis; but Fabricius calls him “Joannes a Launha, -Lemovicensis.” Steele (1920) p. ix, calls him “Jean de Launha or de -Limoges.” - -[938] Steele (1920) p. ix, however, says, “but modern scholars put the -date as about 1250, a much more probable one.” Steele does not add his -references or reasons for this statement. - -[939] BN 16610, fols. 2r-24r, _Expositio somniorum_. It opens, -“Thesaurus occultus requiescit in corde sapientis et immo desiderabilis -sed in thesauro occulto et in sapientia abscondita nulla pene utilitas -ergo revelanda sunt abscondita et patefacienda que sunt occulta.” It -closes, “... ventus si flavit in hyeme calidus fructus frugisque in -illo loco erit copia frigidus et acer (?) ventus in hyeme visus per -sompnium contrarium in messe significat si frigidus. Explicit expositio -somniorum.” - -The mistakes made in the text in such matters as case-endings and -abbreviations indicate that our MS is not by the hand of the author but -by that of some later and careless copyist. A number of corrections -of the text have been made in the margin or between the lines, and -apparently the same hand has written in the margin or between the lines -a number of headings to indicate the contents. These occur chiefly, -however, towards the close of the work. - -[940] BN 16610, fol. 7v, “Fiunt preterea sompnia secundum qualitates -ciborum et humorum a quibus et certissima signa ut diximus cuiusque -infirmitatis capiuntur sicut in viatico et passionario demonstrantur.” - -[941] The point is repeated in the text proper at fol. 4r. In the -preface at fol. 2r the author also states that a small boy can be put -into a stupor when standing up, by pressing his arteries between the -thumb and forefinger so that “the vapor of the heart cannot ascend to -the brain.” - -[942] _Ibid._, fol. 3r. - -[943] BN 16610, fol. 3v. - -[944] BN 16610, fols. 4r-8r. In my summary I have followed the order of -the text for the first book. - -[945] BN 7486, fols. 2-16r, “Incipit liber de pronosticationibus -sompniorum a magistro Guillelmo de aragonia compilatus. Philosophantes -antiquos sive yndos sive persos sive egyptios sive grecos.” - -St. John’s 172, early 15th century, fols. 140-52, where it appears -anonymously. - -It is listed in the 15th century catalogue of MSS in St. Augustine’s -Abbey, Canterbury, 1545, Tractatus W. de Arrogon de interpretatione -sompniorum. - -[946] Simarchardus, as printed in the works of Arnald of Villanova. - -[947] St. John’s 172, fol. 140v. - -[948] BN 7486, fols. 3v-4r. - -[949] _Ibid._, fols. 4v-6v. - -[950] _Ibid._, fols. 10r-16r. - -[951] _Ibid._, fol. 6r. - -[952] _Ibid._, fol. 7v. - -[953] _Ibid._, fol. 9r. - -[954] _Ibid._, fol. 9v. - -[955] Harleian 1, 13-14th century, fol. 76v-. - -[956] See below for a chapter concerning him. - -[957] In the edition of Lyons, 1532, at fols. 290-2. - -[958] HL 28, 76-7. - -[959] St. John’s 172, fols. 153-209r, “Summus opifex deus qui -postquam homines ad ymaginem suam plasmaverit animam rationalem eidem -coniunxerit ratione cuius malum a bono discernit suum creatorem -laudando unde anima futura in sompniis comprehendit sive bonum sive -malum in posterum futurum....” - -[960] _Ibid._, fols. 153v-208v. - -[961] _Ibid._, fols. 209v-212r. - - - - -BOOK V. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY - - -Foreword - - Chapter 51. Michael Scot. - - Chapter 52. William of Auvergne. - - Chapter 53. Thomas of Cantimpré. - - Chapter 54. Bartholomew of England. - - Chapter 55. Robert Grosseteste. - - Chapter 56. Vincent of Beauvais. - - Chapter 57. Early Thirteenth Century Medicine: - Gilbert of England and William of England. - - Chapter 58. Petrus Hispanus. - - Chapter 59. Albertus Magnus. - I. Life. - II. As a scientist. - III. His allusions to magic. - IV. Marvelous virtues in nature. - V. Attitude toward astrology. - - Chapter 60. Thomas Aquinas. - - Chapter 61. Roger Bacon. - I. Life. - II. Criticism of and part in medieval learning. - III. His experimental science. - IV. Attitude toward magic and astrology. - V. Conclusion. - - Chapter 62. The Speculum Astronomiae. - - Chapter 63. Three Treatises Ascribed to Albert. - - Chapter 64. Experiments and Secrets of Galen, Rasis, and Others - I. Medical and Biological. - II. Chemical and Magical. - - Chapter 66. Picatrix. - - Chapter 67. Guido Bonatti and Bartholomew of Parma. - - Chapter 68. Arnald of Villanova. - - Chapter 69. Raymond Lull. - - Chapter 70. Peter of Abano. - - Chapter 71. Cecco d’Ascoli. - - Chapter 72. Conclusion. - - - - -BOOK V. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY - - - - -FOREWORD - - -In our preceding book on the twelfth century we included some writers, -like Alexander Neckam, who lived on a few years into the following -century but whose works were probably written in the twelfth. We now, -with Michael Scot, begin to treat of authors whose period of literary -productivity dates after 1200. We shall endeavor to consider the -various authors and works in something like chronological order, but -this is often difficult to determine and in one or two cases we shall -purposely disregard strict chronology in order to bring works of the -same sort together. Our last four chapters on Arnald of Villanova, -Raymond Lull, Peter of Abano, and Cecco d’Ascoli carry us over the -threshold of the fourteenth century, the death of the last-named not -occurring until 1327. - -Greater voluminousness and thoroughness mark the work of these writers -as compared with those of the twelfth century. The work of translation -has been partly accomplished; that of compilation, reconciliation, -criticism, and further personal investigation and experimentation -proceeds more rapidly and extensively. The new Friar Orders invade the -world of learning as of everything else: of the writers whose names -head the following chapters Bartholomew of England and Roger Bacon were -Franciscans;[962] Thomas of Cantimpré, Vincent of Beauvais, Albertus -Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas were Dominicans. In these representatives of -the new religious Orders, however, theology cannot be said to absorb -attention at the expense of natural science. The prohibitions of the -study of the works of Aristotle in the field of natural philosophy by -the University of Paris early in the century preceded the friars and -were not lasting, and the mid-century struggle of the friars with the -other teachers at Paris[963] was one over privilege and organization -rather than tenets. Teachers and writers were, however, sometimes -condemned for their intellectual views at Paris and elsewhere in the -thirteenth century, and whether the study of natural science and -astrology was persecuted is a question which will arise more than once. -In any case the friars seem to have declined in scientific prowess as -in other respects toward the close of the century. Petrus Hispanus, who -became Pope John XXI in 1276-1277, had not been a friar himself, and is -said to have been more favorable to men of learning than to the regular -clergy. Finally, in Guido Bonatti, Arnald of Villanova, Peter of Abano, -and Cecco d’Ascoli we come to laymen, physicians and astrologers, who -were to some extent either anti-clerical themselves or the object of -clerical attack. - -This was the century in which Roger Bacon launched his famous eulogy of -experimental science. A good-sized fleet of passages recognizing its -importance will be found, however, in our other authors, and we shall -need to devote two chapters to experimental books which were either -anonymous or pretended to date back to ancient or Arabic authors. And -not without some justification, since we have been tracing the history -of experimental science through our previous books. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[962] Little that is new on the theme of the Franciscans and learning -is contributed by H. Felder, _Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Studien -im Franziskanerorden bis um die Mitte des 13 Jahrhunderts_, Freiburg, -1904. - -[963] Concerning it consult F. X. Seppelt, _Der Kampf der Bettelorden -an die Universität Paris in der Mitte des 13 Jahrhunderts_, Breslau, -1905, in _Kirchengesch. Abhandl._, III; or H. Rashdall, _The -Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, I, v, 2, “The Mendicants -and the University”; or P. Feret, _La faculté de théologie de Paris: -moyen âge_, Paris, 1894-1897, 4 vols.; and other works listed by Paetow -(1917), p. 441. - - - - -CHAPTER LI - -MICHAEL SCOT - - - Bibliographical note--Michael Scot and Frederick - II--Some dates in Michael’s career--Michael Scot - and the papacy--Prominent position in the world of - learning--Relation to the introduction of the new - Aristotle--Thirteenth century criticism of Michael - Scot--General estimate of his learning--God and the - stars--A theological digression--The three Magi--Astrology - distinguished from magic--The magic arts--Experiments - of magic--History of astronomy--The spirits in the sky, - air, and earth--Occult medicine--The seven regions of the - air--Michael’s miscellaneous content--Further astrological - doctrine--Omission of nativities--Magic for every - hour--Quaint religious science--The _Phisionomia_--Influence - of the stars on human generation--Discussion of - divination--Divination from dreams--Works of divination - ascribed to Michael Scot--Medical writings--Occult - virtues--Astrology in the _Commentary on the - Sphere_--Dionysius the Areopagite and the solar eclipse - during Christ’s passion--Alchemy--Works of alchemy ascribed - to Michael Scot--Brother Elias and alchemy--_Liber luminis - luminum_ and _De alchemia_--Their further characteristics. - - -[Sidenote: Michael Scot and Frederick II.] - -But little can be said with certainty concerning the life of Michael -Scot.[964] However, a poem by Henry of Avranches, addressed to the -emperor Frederick II in 1235 or 1236,[965] shows that Michael was then -dead and that he apparently had occupied the position of astrologer at -the court of Frederick II at the time of his death. The poet explains -how astrologers (_mathematici_) “reveal the secrets of things,” by -their art affecting numbers, by numbers affecting the procession of -the stars, and by the stars moving the universe. He recalls having -heard “certain predictions concerning you, O Caesar, from Michael Scot -who was a scrutinizer of the stars, an augur, a soothsayer, a second -Apollo”; and then tells how “the truthful diviner Michael” ceased -to publish his secrets to the world, and “the announcer of fates -submitted to fate,” apparently in the midst of some prediction made -on his death-bed. Michael’s own statements also show that he was one -of Frederick’s astrologers.[966] If at the time of his death Michael -was Frederick’s astrologer, it is more questionable at what date his -association with Frederick began, and in what countries Michael resided -with the emperor, or accompanied him to, whether Sicily, southern -Italy, northern Italy, or Germany. From the fact that three of Michael -Scot’s works, or rather, the three chief divisions of his longest -extant work,[967] namely, _Liber Introductorius_, _Liber Particularis_, -and _Phisionomia_, were written at the request of Frederick II for -beginners[968] and apparently in the time of Innocent III,[969] J. -Wood Brown jumped to the conclusion that Michael was Frederick’s tutor -before that monarch came of age, and that he spent some time in the -island of Sicily, from which Brown failed to distinguish Frederick’s -larger kingdom of Sicily.[970] As a matter of fact, there would seem -to be rather more evidence for connecting Michael with Salerno than -with any Sicilian city, since in one manuscript of his translation -for the emperor of the work of Avicenna on animals he is spoken of as -“an astronomer of Salerno,”[971] while in another manuscript he is -associated with a Philip, clerk of the king of Sicily, and this royal -notary in two deeds of 1200 is called Philip of Salerno.[972] Brown was -inclined to identify him further with Philip of Tripoli, the translator -of the pseudo-Aristotelian _Secret of Secrets_. - -[Sidenote: Some dates in Michael’s career.] - -No date in Michael’s career before the thirteenth century is fixed. If -it is true that the three sections of his main work were written under -Innocent III, that places them between 1198 and 1216. The date of his -translation of the astronomical work of Alpetragius or Alpetrangi (Nûr -ed-din el-Betrûgî, Abû Ishâq) seems to have been in the year 1217 on -Friday, August 18, in the third hour and at Toledo.[973] Brown holds -that Michael translated Avicenna on animals in 1210 for Frederick II -and that the emperor kept it to himself until 1232, when he allowed -Henry of Cologne to copy it.[974] But the date 1210 perhaps applies -only to a glossary of Arabic terms which accompanies the work and which -is ascribed to a “Master Al.”[975] In a thirteenth century manuscript -at Cambridge Michael Scot’s translation of Aristotle’s _History of -Animals_ is accompanied by a note which begins, “And I Michael Scot -who translated this book into Latin swear that in the year 1221 on -Wednesday, October twenty-first.”[976] The note and date, however, do -not refer to the completion of the translation but to a consultation -in which a woman showed him two stones like eggs which came from -another woman’s womb and of which he gives a painstakingly detailed -description. There is, however, something wrong with the date, since in -1221 the twenty-first of October fell on Thursday.[977] - -[Sidenote: Michael Scot and the papacy.] - -The career of Michael Scot affords an especially good illustration -of how little likelihood there was of anyone’s being persecuted by -the medieval church for belief in or practice of astrology. Michael, -although subordinating the stars to God and admitting human free will, -as we shall see, both believed in the possibility of astrological -prediction and made such predictions himself. Yet he was a clergyman, -perhaps even a doctor of theology,[978] as well as a court astrologer, -and furthermore was a clergyman of sufficient rank and prominence -to enable Pope Honorius III to procure in 1224 his election to the -archbishopric of Cashel in Ireland.[979] At the same time the papal -_curia_ issued a dispensation permitting Michael to hold a plurality, -so that he evidently already occupied some desirable benefice. Michael -declined the archbishopric of Cashel, on the ground that he was -ignorant of the native language but perhaps because he preferred a -position in England; for we find the papacy renewing its efforts in -his behalf, and Gregory IX on April 28, 1227, again wrote to Stephen -Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, urging him to make provision for -“master Michael Scot,” whom he characterized as “well instructed not -only in Latin but also in the Hebrew and Arabic languages.”[980] - -[Sidenote: Prominent position in the world of learning.] - -Whether Michael ever secured the additional foreign benefice or not, -he seems to have remained in Italy with Frederick until the end of -his days. He also seems to have continued prominent among men of -learning, since in 1228 Leonardo of Pisa dedicated to him the revised -and enlarged version of his _Liber abaci_,[981] important in connection -with the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into western Europe. - -[Sidenote: Relation to the introduction of the new Aristotle.] - -Roger Bacon in the _Opus Maius_[982] in a passage often cited by -historians of medieval thought ascribes the introduction of the new -Aristotle into western Latin Christendom to Michael Scot who, he says, -appeared in 1230 A. D. with portions of the works of Aristotle in -natural philosophy and metaphysics. Before his time there were only -the works on logic and a few others translated by Boethius from the -Greek; since 1230 the philosophy of Aristotle “has been magnified -among the Latins.” Although many writers have quoted this statement -as authoritative in one way or another, it must now be regarded as -valuable only as one more illustration of the loose and misleading -character of most of Roger’s allusions to past learning and to the -work of previous translators. We know that the books of Aristotle on -natural philosophy had become so well known by that time that in 1210 -the study of them was forbidden at the university of Paris, and that -about that same year, according to Rigord’s chronicle of the reign of -Philip II, the books of Metaphysics of Aristotle were brought from -Constantinople, translated from Greek into Latin, and began to be read -at Paris.[983] But Bacon’s date is more than twenty years too late, and -we have already mentioned the translation of _The Secret of Secrets_, -which Bacon regarded as genuine, the acquaintance of Alexander Neckam -with works of Aristotle, Alfred of England’s translation of the _De -vegetabilibus_ and of three additional chapters to the _Meteorology_, -the still earlier translation of the rest of that work by Aristippus -from the Greek and by Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic, and Gerard’s -numerous other translations of works of Aristotle in natural -philosophy. The translations of Gerard and Aristippus take us back to -the middle of the twelfth century nearly a century before the date set -by Bacon for the introduction of the new Aristotle.[984] Michael Scot, -then, did not introduce the works of Aristotle on natural science and -Bacon’s chronological recollections are obviously too faulty for us to -accept the date 1230 as of any exact significance in even Michael’s own -career, to say nothing of the history of the translation of Aristotle. - -This is not to say that Michael was not of some importance in that -process, since he did translate works of Aristotle and his Arabic -commentators, especially Avicenna and Averroes. Frederick II is -sometimes said to have ordered the translation from Greek and Arabic -of such works of Aristotle and other philosophers as had not yet -been translated from Greek or Arabic.[985] But the letter which has -been ascribed in this connection to Frederick is really by his son -and successor, Manfred,[986] for whom many translations were made, -including several Aristotelian treatises, genuine and spurious, by -Bartholomew of Messina. Already, however, in 1231 and 1232 a Jew at -Naples had translated Averroes’ abridgement of the _Almagest_ and -his commentary on the _Organon_, in the latter extolling Frederick’s -munificence and love of science.[987] Michael Scot has been shown to -have translated from the Arabic the _History of Animals_ and other -works on animals, making nineteen books in all, and also Avicenna’s -compendium of the same, the _De caelo et mundo_, the _De anima_ with -the commentary of Averroes, and perhaps the _Metaphysics_ or part of -it.[988] His translation of the _De caelo et mundo_ was accompanied by -a translation of Alpetrangi’s commentary on the same.[989] - -[Sidenote: Thirteenth century criticism of Michael Scot.] - -Scholars of the succeeding generation sometimes spoke unfavorably of -Michael’s work. Although Roger Bacon recognized his translations as the -central event in the Latin reception of the Aristotelian philosophy, -and spoke of him as “a notable inquirer into matter, motion, and -the course of the constellations,”[990] he listed him among those -translators who “understood neither sciences nor languages, not even -Latin,” and charged more than once that a Jew named Andrew was really -responsible for the translations credited to Michael.[991] Albertus -Magnus asserted that Michael Scot “in reality was ignorant concerning -nature and did not understand the books of Aristotle well.”[992] Yet -he used Michael’s translation of the _Historia Animalium_ as the basis -of his own work on the subject, often following it word for word.[993] -Michael was, however, listed or cited as an authority by the thirteenth -century encyclopedists, Thomas of Cantimpré, Bartholomew of England, -Vincent of Beauvais, and at the close of that century is frequently -cited by the physician Arnald of Villanova in his _Breviarium -practicae_.[994] - -[Sidenote: General estimate of his learning.] - -Michael Scot may be said to manifest some of the failings of the -learning of his time in a rather excessive degree. His mind, curious, -credulous, and uncritical, seems to have collected a mass of undigested -information and superstition with little regard to consistency or -system. Occasionally he includes the most childish and naïve sort of -material, as we shall illustrate later. He continues the Isidorean -type of etymology, deriving the name of the month of May, for example, -either from the majesty of Jupiter, or from the major chiefs of -Rome who in that month were wont to dedicate laws to Jupiter, or -from the _maioribus_ in the sense of elders as June is derived from -Juniors.[995] He also well illustrates the puerilities and crudities -of scholastic argumentation. Thus one of the arguments which he lists -against regarding a sphere as a solid body is that solids can be -measured by a straight line and that it cannot.[996] Asking whether -fire is hot in its own sphere, he says that it might seem not, -because fire in its own sphere is light and light is neither hot nor -cold.[997] This argument he rebuts in the end, and he finally decides -that a sphere is a solid. But he would have seemed wiser to the modern -reader to have omitted these particular contrary arguments entirely. -Such propositions continue, however, to be set up and knocked down -again all through the thirteenth century, and such famous men as -Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Abano are guilty of much the same sort -of thing. To Michael Scot’s credit may be mentioned his considerable -power of experimentation and of scientific observation. Perhaps some -of the “experiments” attributed to him are spurious, but they show -the reputation which he had for experimental method, and on the whole -it would seem to be justified. The note in his name in a thirteenth -century manuscript at Cambridge,[998] giving a carefully dated and -detailed account of two human foetuses which had solidified into stones -like eggs, shows a keen sense of the value of thorough observation -and a precise record of the same. Experimental science would seem to -have received considerable encouragement at the court of Frederick II, -judging from the stories told of that emperor and the pages of his own -work on falconry.[999] - -[Sidenote: God and the stars.] - -But let us examine Michael’s views and methods more particularly. In -opening the long preface to his voluminous _Introduction to Astrology_ -he states that hard study is requisite to become a good astrologer, -but he finds incentive to such effort in citations from Seneca, Cato, -and St. Bernard that it is virtuous to study and to be taught, and -in the reflection that one who knows the conditions and habitudes of -the superior bodies can easily learn those of inferior bodies. The -signs and planets are not first movers or first causes, and do not -of themselves confer aught of good or evil, but by their motion do -indicate “something of truth concerning every body produced in this -corruptible world.” The hour of conception is important and Michael -explains why two persons born at the same moment may be unlike. He -then jumbles together from Christian and astrological writers such -assertions as that the stars are only signs, not causes, and that their -influence on inferior creation may be compared to the action of the -magnet upon iron, or that we see on earth good men suffer and bad men -prosper, which has usually been regarded as a better argument for a -fatalistic or mechanical universe than for divine control. He agrees -that the universe is not eternal and that everything is in God’s power, -but insists that much can be learned concerning the future from the -stars.[1000] - -[Sidenote: A theological digression.] - -Michael then embarks upon a long theological digression[1001] in the -course of which he quotes much Scripture concerning the two natures, -angelic and human. After telling us of the nine orders of angels in the -empyrean heaven, he deals with the process of creation, just as William -of Conches and Daniel of Morley had done in their works of astronomy -and astrology. In the first three days God created spiritual substances -such as the empyrean heaven, angels, stars, and planets; in the other -three days, visible bodies such as mixtures of the elements, birds, -fish, and man. Michael also answers various questions such as why man -was created last, although nobler than other creatures, what an angel -is, whether angels have individual names like men, and much concerning -the tenth part who fell. Perhaps the emperor Frederick is supposed to -put these queries to Michael, but there seemed to be no indication -to that effect in the manuscript which I examined. The reply to the -question where God resides is, potentially everywhere but substantially -in the intellectual or empyrean heaven.[1002] Michael discusses the holy -Trinity and thinks that we have a similitude of it in the rational -soul in the three faculties, intellect, reason, and memory,[1003] -although he attempts no association of these with the three Persons -as William of Conches imprudently did in the case of power, wisdom, -and will. He indulges, however, in daring speculation as to where the -members of different professions will go after they die. Philosophers, -“who die in the Lord,” will be located in the order of Cherubim, which -is interpreted as plenitude of science; sincere members of religious -orders and hermits will become Seraphim; while pope, emperor, -cardinals, and prelates will enter the order of Thrones.[1004] Michael -also contributes the following acrostic of eight sins whose initials -compose the word, “Diabolus”: - - Desperatio - Invidia - Avaritia - Blasphemia - Odium - Luxuria - Ventris ingluvies - Superbia.[1005] - -[Sidenote: The three Magi.] - -In the course of the foregoing digression Michael inserted an account -of the Magi and the star that appears to be based in part but with -variations on the spurious homily of Chrysostom. He makes them three in -number, one from Europe, Asia, and Africa respectively; and states that -forewarned by Balaam’s prophecy they met together annually for worship -on the day of Christ’s nativity, which they appear to have known -beforehand. They stood in adoration for three days continuously on -Mount Victorialis until on the third day they saw the star in the form -of a most beautiful boy with a crown on his head. Then they followed -the star upon dromedaries which, Michael explains, can go farther in -a day than horses can in two months. Beside the star three suns arose -that day at equal distances apart and then united in token of the -Trinity; and Octavianus, emperor of the Romans, saw the Virgin holding -the Child in the center of the sun’s disk. As for the word _magus_, -Michael explains that it has a threefold meaning,--which, however, has -nothing to do with the Trinity,--namely: trickster, sorcerer, and wise -man, and that the Magi who saw the star were all three of these until -their subsequent conversion to Christianity.[1006] - -[Sidenote: Astrology distinguished from magic.] - -The remainder of Michael’s lengthy and lumbering preface is largely -occupied with the utility of astrology, which he often calls -“astronomy” (_astronomia_), and differentiation of it from prohibited -arts of magic and divination. While, however, he distinguishes these -other occult arts from astrology, he affirms that nigromancers, -practitioners of the notory art, and alchemists owe more to the -stars than they are ready to admit.[1007] He also distinguishes a -superstitious variety of astrology (_superstitiosa astronomia_),[1008] -under which caption he seems to have in mind divination from the -letters of persons’ names and the days of the moon, and other methods -in which the astronomer or astrologer acts like a geomancer or sorcerer -or tries to find out more than God wills. Scot also distinguishes -between _mathesis_, or knowledge, and _matesis_, or divination, and -between _mathematica_, which may be taught freely and publicly, and -_matematica_, which is forbidden to Christians.[1009] - -[Sidenote: The magic arts.] - -Michael condemns magic and necromancy but takes evident joy in telling -stories of magicians and necromancers and shows much familiarity with -books of magic. He explains “nigromancy” as black art, dealing with -dark things and performed more by night than day, as well as the -raising of the dead to give responses, in which the nigromancer is -deceived by demons.[1010] He repeats Hugh of St. Victor’s definition -that the magic art is not received in philosophy, destroys religion, -and corrupts morals. As he has said before, the _magus_ is a trickster -and evil-doer as well as wise in the secrets of nature and in -prediction of the future.[1011] Michael lists twenty-eight varieties -or methods of divination. He believes that they are all true: augury -by song of birds, interpretation of dreams, observance of days, or -divination by holocausts of blood and corpses. But they are forbidden -as infamous and evil. Later on, in the text itself, he returns to this -point, saying that these methods of predicting the future are against -the Christian Faith, but nevertheless true, like the marvels of Simon -Magus.[1012] Michael defines and describes various magic arts in much -the same manner as Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, and John of Salisbury; -but with some divergences. Under aerimancy he includes divination from -thunder, comets, and falling stars, as well as from the shapes assumed -by clouds. Hydromancy he calls “a short art of experimenting” as well -as divining. The gazing into clear, transparent, or liquid surfaces -for purposes of divination is performed, he says, with some observance -of astrological hours, secrecy, and purity by a child of five or seven -years who repeats after the master an incantation or invocation of -spirits over human blood or bones. He speaks of a _maleficus_ as one -who interprets characters, phylacteries, incantations, dreams, and -makes ligatures of herbs. The _praestigiosus_ deceives men through -diabolic art by phantastic illusions of transformation, such as -changing a woman into a dog or bear, making a man appear a wolf or ass, -or causing a human head or limb to resemble that of some animal. Even -alchemy, or perhaps only the superstitious practice of it, Michael -seems to classify as a forbidden magic art, saying, “Alchemy as it were -transcends the heavens in that it strives by the virtue of spirits to -transmute common metals into gold and silver and from them to make a -water of much diversity,” that is, an elixir. Lot-casting, on the other -hand, both the authority of Augustine and many passages in the Bible -pronounce licit. - -[Sidenote: Experiments of magic.] - -Michael more than once ascribes an experimental character to magic -arts. Besides calling hydromancy “a short art of experimenting,” he -states that, since demons are naturally fond of blood and especially -human blood, nigromancers or magicians, when they wish to perform -experiments, often mix water with real blood or use wine which has -been exorcized in order to make it appear bloody. “And they make some -sacrifice with the flesh of a living human being, for instance, a -bit of their own flesh, or of a corpse, and not the flesh of brutes, -knowing that consecration of a spirit in a bottle or ring cannot be -achieved except by the performance of many sacrifices.”[1013] Despite -his censure of the art in the preface under discussion, we find a -necromantic experiment of an elaborate character ascribed to Michael -Scot in a fifteenth century manuscript[1014] which purports to copy it -“from a very ancient book,”[1015] a phrase which scarcely increases -our confidence in the genuineness of the ascription. The object of the -experiment is to secure the services of a demon to instruct one in -learning. Times and astrological conditions are to be observed as well -as various other preliminaries and ceremonies; a white dove is to be -beheaded, its blood collected in a glass vessel, a magic circle drawn -with its bleeding heart; and various prayers to God, invocations of -spirits, and verses of the Bible are to be repeated. At one juncture, -however, one is warned _not_ to make the sign of the cross or one will -be in great peril. - -[Sidenote: History of astronomy.] - -But to return to Michael’s _magnum opus_. The preface closes with a -rather long and very confused[1016] account of the history of astronomy -and astrology. While Zoroaster of the lineage of Shem was the inventor -of magic, the arts of divination began with Cham, the son of Noah, -who was both of most subtle genius and trained in the schools of the -demons. He tested by experience what they taught him and having proved -what was true, indited the same on two columns and taught it to his -son Canaan who soon outstripped his father therein and wrote thirty -volumes on the arts of divination and instructed his son Nemroth in -the same. When Canaan was slain in war and his books were burned, -Nemroth revived the art of astronomy from memory and was, like his -father, deemed a god by many because of his great lore. He composed a -work on the subject for his son Ionicon,[1017] whose son Abraham also -became an adept in the art and came from Africa to Jerusalem and taught -Demetrius and Alexander of Alexandria, who in turn instructed Ptolemy, -king of Egypt, who invented astronomical canons and tables and the -astrolabe and quadrant. The giant Atlas brought the art to Spain before -Moses received the two tables containing the ten commandments. If this -chronology surprises us, there is something more amazing to follow. At -this point in the manuscript the copyist has either omitted a great -deal[1018] or Atlas was extremely long-lived, since we next read -about his showing the astrolabe to two “clerks of France.” Gilbertus -(presumably Gerbert) borrowed the instrument for a while, conjured up -demons--for he was the best nigromancer in France, made them explain -its construction, uses, and operation to him, and furthermore all the -rest of astronomy. Later he reformed and had no more dealing with -demons and became bishop of Ravenna and Pope. Having thus got rather -ahead of time, Michael mentions various other learned astronomers, -most of whom really lived before Gerbert, such as Thebit ben Corat, -Messahalla, Dorotheus, Hermes, Boethius, Averroes, John of Spain, -Isidore, Zahel, and Alcabitius. - -[Sidenote: The spirits in the sky, air, and earth.] - -Having finally terminated his preface, Michael begins the first book -with a description of the heavens and their motion. Some say that the -planets are moved by angels; others, by winds; but he holds that they -are ruled by divine virtues, spiritual and not corporeal, but of whom -little further can be predicated, since they are imperfectly known -to man and naturally will remain so.[1019] Later he states that they -do not move or rule the celestial bodies naturally but as a service -of obedience to their Creator.[1020] He has already spoken in the -preface of spirits in the northern and southern air, and asserted that -very wise spirits who give responses when conjured dwell in certain -images or constellations among the signs of the zodiac.[1021] In the -_Liber particularis_ he speaks of similar demons in the moon.[1022] -Now he mentions “a legion of spirits damned” in the winds.[1023] In -later passages in the _Liber introductorius_ he gives the names of the -ruling spirits of the planets, Kathariel for Saturn,[1024] and so on, -and a list of the names of spirits of great virtue who, if invoked by -name, will respond readily and perform in marvelous wise all that may -be demanded of them.[1025] And as the planets are said to have seven -rectors who are believed to be the wisest spirits in the sky, so the -seven metals are said to have seven rectors who are believed to be -angels in the earth.[1026] Names of angels also occur in some of his -astrological diagrams.[1027] This education of the reader in details -of astrological necromancy shows that Michael is not to be depended -upon to observe consistently the condemnation of magic and distinction -between astrology and necromancy with which he started out in the -preface. - -[Sidenote: Occult medicine.] - -By affirming that the physician must know the state of the moon and -of the wind and that “there are many passions of the soul under the -sphere of the moon,”[1028] Michael introduces us to the subject of -astrological medicine, a theme to which he returns more than once in -the course of the work.[1029] The practice of flebotomy is illustrated -by a figure showing the influence of the signs of the zodiac upon the -human body.[1030] From the fact that there are fourteen joints in the -fingers of the hand or toes of the foot Michael infers that man’s -span of life should be 140 years, a maximum which sin has reduced to -120.[1031] There are as many medicines as there are diseases and these -consist in the virtues of words, herbs, and stones, as illustrations -of which Michael adduces the sacrament of the altar, the magnet and -iron used by deep-sea sailors, and plasters and powders.[1032] In some -cases, however, neither medicine nor astrology seems to avail, and, -despite his preliminary condemnation of the magic arts, Michael argues -that when the doctor can do nothing for the patient he should advise -him to consult an enchantress or diviner.[1033] - -[Sidenote: The seven regions of the air.] - -From the seven planets and sphere of the moon Michael turns to the -seven regions of the air, which are respectively the regions of dew, -snow, hail, rain, honey, laudanum, and manna.[1034] This is the -earliest occurrence of this discussion which I have met, and I do not -know from what source, if any, Michael took it. It is essentially -repeated by Thomas of Cantimpré in his _De natura rerum_, where he -gives no credit to Michael Scot but cites Aristotle’s _Meteorology_ -in which, however, only dew, snow, rain, and hail are discussed. In -the _History of Animals_[1035] Aristotle further states that honey is -distilled from the air by the action of the stars and that the bees -make only the wax. Michael similarly describes the honey as falling -from the air into flowers and herbs and being collected by the bees; -but he distinguishes two kinds of honey, the natural variety just -described and the artificial honey which results from the bee’s -process of digestion. He also explains that sugar (and molasses?) is -not a liquor which will evaporate like honey and manna, but is made -from the pith of canes.[1036] “Laudanum” is a humor of the air in the -Orient, and manna descends mainly in India with the dew, being found -in Europe only in times of great heat. It is of great virtue, both -medicinal and in satisfying hunger, as in the case of the children of -Israel under Moses. - -[Sidenote: Michael’s miscellaneous content.] - -We cannot take the time to follow Michael in all his long ramblings -through things in heaven above and earth beneath: sun, tides, springs, -seasons, the difference between _stella_, _aster_, _sidus_, _signum_, -_imago_, and _planeta_, the music of the spheres, the octave in music, -eight parts of speech in grammar, and eight beatitudes in theology, -zones and paradise, galaxy and horizon and zenith, divisions of time, -the four inferior elements and the creatures contained in them, -eclipses of sun and moon, Adam protoplasm and _minor mundus_ as the -letters of his name indicate, the mutable and transitory nature of this -world, the inferno in the earth, and purgatory. - -[Sidenote: Further astrological doctrine.] - -Sooner or later Michael comes to or returns to astrological doctrine -and technique, lists the qualities of the seven planets and head and -tail of the dragon,[1037] explains the names and some of the effects -of the signs of the zodiac,[1038] gives weather prognostications -from sun and moon,[1039] states the moon’s influence in such matters -as felling trees and slaughtering pigs,[1040] and expounds by text -and figures planetary aspects, exaltations, and conjunctions,[1041] -friendships and enmities.[1042] The planet Mercury signifies in regard -to the rational soul, grammar, arithmetic, and every science.[1043] -The election of hours is considered and a list given of what to do and -not to do in the hour of each planet and that of the moon in each -sign.[1044] There then follows, despite Michael’s animadversions in -the preface against interpreters of dreams and those observing days, -an “Exposition of dreams for each day of the moon,”[1045] nativities -for each day of the week, and a method of divination from the day of -the week on which the New Year falls.[1046] A discussion of the effect -of the moon upon conception is interrupted by a digression on eggs: -how to estimate the laying power of a hen by the color and size of -its crest, the effect of thunder upon eggs, how from eggs to make a -water of great value in alchemy, and how to purify bad wine with the -white of an egg.[1047] Returning again to the moon, we are told that -in the new moon intellects are livelier, scholars study and professors -teach better, and all artisans work harder. Michael Scot used to say -to the emperor Frederick that if he wished clear counsel from a wise -man, he should consult him in a waxing moon and in a human and fiery -or aerial sign of the zodiac.[1048] Michael had spoken earlier of the -planets as judges of the varied questions of litigators,[1049] and -now, although admitting the freedom of the human will, he proceeds -to discuss at considerable length[1050] the art of interrogations -by which the astrologer answers questions put to him. With this the -Bodleian manuscript of the _Liber introductorius_ ends, apparently -incomplete.[1051] - -[Sidenote: Omission of nativities.] - -In the marginal gloss accompanying a Latin translation of the -astrological works of Abraham Avenezra in a manuscript of the fifteenth -century[1052] Michael Scot is quoted a good deal on the subject of -nativities. But the _Liber introductorius_, or at least as much of it -as appears in the Bodleian manuscript, contains little upon this side -of astrology, except the brief nativities for each day of the week. -A passage quoted by Brown[1053] to the effect that the person born -under a certain sign will be an adept in experiments and incantations, -in coercing spirits and working marvels, and will be an alchemist and -nigromancer, appears in the manuscript as a marginal addition rather -than part of the text and so is presumably not by Michael Scot himself. - -[Sidenote: Magic for every hour.] - -In connection with the subject of elections Michael gives a list of the -prayers, conjurations, and images appropriate for each of the twelve -hours of the day and of the night.[1054] For instance, in the first -hour of the day men pray to God and it is a good time to bind all -tongues by images, characters, and conjurations. In the second hour -angels pray to God and images and other devices to promote love and -concord should be constructed then. In the third hour birds and fishes -pray to God and it is a good time to make images and other contrivances -to catch birds and fish. In the first hour of the night demons hold -colloquy with their lord and the time is favorable for the invocation -of spirits. - -[Sidenote: Quaint religious science.] - -A more Christian and less magical enumeration of the hours occurs in -the _Liber particularis_.[1055] At morning Christ was arrested on the -Mount of Olives. In the first hour Christ was presented to Ananias and -Caiaphas, the high priests; in the third hour, to Pontius Pilate; in -the sixth hour He was brought back to Herod and taken to Mount Calvary; -in the ninth He was given vinegar and gave up the ghost and the earth -quaked and the veil of the temple was rent in twain; at vespers He was -taken down from the cross. Another specimen of this quaint religious -science is found in the _Liber introductorius_,[1056] where Michael, -writing before the invention of the telescope, speaks of the limits -set to seeing into the heavens except by special grace of God, as in -the case of Katherine and of Stephen, the first martyr, who, when -stoned, saw the heavens opened. A third example occurs in the third -part of the _opus magnum_, or _Phisionomia_, where it is stated that -at birth a male child cries “Oa” and a female child “Oe,” as if to say -respectively, “O Adam (or, O Eve) why have you sinned that I on your -account must suffer infinite misery?”[1057] In the same work Michael -gives original sin as one of two reasons why a baby cannot talk and -walk as soon as it is born.[1058] - -[Sidenote: The _Phisionomia_.] - -The third part of Scot’s main work, and the only section which has -been printed, is that primarily devoted to the pseudo-science of -physiognomy, which endeavors to determine a man’s character from signs -furnished by the various parts of his body. The _Phisionomia_[1059] -is addressed to the Emperor Frederick II who is exhorted to the -pursuit of learning in general and the science of physiognomy in -particular. This is probably a conscious or unconscious imitation of -the remarks addressed to Alexander by the Pseudo-Aristotle in _The -Secret of Secrets_, of which also a considerable portion is devoted -to physiognomy, and from which Rasis and Michael borrowed a good -deal.[1060] Indeed, the _Phisionomia_ of Michael Scot is also often -entitled _De secretis naturae_ and really only a certain portion of it -is devoted exclusively to physiognomy proper. Its early chapters and -first part deal rather with the process of generation and it is only -with the twenty-third chapter and second part that Michael “reverts to -the doctrine of physiognomy.” Perhaps these chapters on generation had -more to do with the popularity and frequent printing of the work than -did those on physiognomy. - -[Sidenote: Influence of the stars on human generation.] - -In this discussion of the process of human generation the influence -of the stars receives ample recognition. Michael regards the moment -of conception as of great astrological importance; then according to -the course of the stars and the disposition of the bodies conceiving -the foetus receives “similarly and simultaneously” each and all of -the determining factors in its subsequent nature and history.[1061] -This we may perhaps regard as a medieval approach to the theory of -Mendel. Michael further urges every woman to note the exact moment -of sexual intercourse, when this is to result in generation, and so -make astrological judgment easy.[1062] Yet he states later that God -gives a new and free soul with the new body, just as a father might -give his son a new tablet on which to write whatever he wills of good -or evil.[1063] He notes the correspondence of the menstrual fluid to -the waxing and waning of the moon and that planet’s influence during -the seventh month of the formation of the child in the womb,[1064] -and gives the usual account of the babe’s chances of life or death -according as it is born within seven months, or during the eighth, or -ninth, or tenth month. It is not quite clear if it is because there -are seven planets that Michael affirms that a woman can bear as many -as seven children at once.[1065] He adds that in this case the child -conceived in the middle one of the seven cells of the matrix will be a -hermaphrodite.[1066] - -[Sidenote: Discussion of divination.] - -Scot’s treatise on Physiognomy has considerable to say of other forms -of divination and they here appear in a more favorable light than in -his discussion of varieties of the magic arts in the preface preceding -his _Liber introductorius_. Among signs to tell whether a pregnant -woman will give birth to a boy or a girl he suggests “a chiromantic -experiment”[1067] which consists simply in asking her to hold out her -hand. If she extends the right, the child will be a boy; if the left, -a girl. He also expounds methods of augury at some length, although -again stating that they are in the canons of the church, that is to say -prohibited by canon law. The divisions of space employed in augury are -twelve in number after the fashion of the signs of the zodiac.[1068] -Michael also discusses the significance of sneezes. If anyone sneezes -twice or four times while engaged in some business and immediately -rises and moves about, he will prosper in his undertaking. If one -sneezes twice in the course of the night for three successive nights, -it is a sign of death or some catastrophe in the house. If after making -a contract one sneezes once, it is a sign that the agreement will -be kept inviolate; but if one sneezes thrice, the pact will not be -observed.[1069] - -[Sidenote: Divination from dreams.] - -Dreams and their interpretation are also discussed in the -_Physionomia_.[1070] The age of the dreamer, the phase of the moon, -and the stage reached in the process of digestion, all have their -bearing upon interpretation. A dream which occurs before the process of -digestion has started either has no significance or concerns the past. -The dream which comes while the food is being digested has to do with -the present. Only when the process of digestion has been completed do -dreams occur which signify concerning the future. In order to recall a -dream in the morning Michael recommends sleeping upon one’s other side -for the remainder of the night or rubbing the back of the head the next -day. Some dreams signify gain, others loss; some joy, others sadness; -some sickness, others health, others war; some labor, others rest. For -instance, to catch a bird signifies gain, to lose a bird in one’s dream -signifies loss; to mourn in dreams portends joy, to laugh indicates -grief. The rest of his discussion of dreams Scot limits to their -significance in matters of health and physical constitution. He takes -up dreams indicative of predominance of blood, red cholera, phlegm, -and melancholy respectively; of heat, cold, dryness, and humidity; of -excess of humors and of bad humors. - -[Sidenote: Works of divination ascribed to Michael Scot.] - -While on the subject of divination we may note that a geomancy[1071] -and a chiromancy[1072] have been ascribed to Michael Scot, and also -prophetic verses concerning the fate of Italian cities in the style -of the Sibylline verses and prophecies of Merlin. Brown held that the -evidence for the authenticity of these verses was as convincing as that -for any event in Scot’s life.[1073] - -[Sidenote: Medical writings.] - -It would not be surprising to find that Michael himself practiced -medicine as well as astrology, in view of the attention given to human -physiology and the process of generation in his _Physiognomy_ and -elsewhere, and the interest in biology which his translation of the -Aristotelian works on animals evidences. A treatise on prognostication -from the urine is ascribed to him[1074] and “Pills of Master Michael -Scot” are mentioned in at least one manuscript,[1075] where they are -declared to be good for all diseases and of virtue indescribable. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtues.] - -Michael’s general allusion to the occult virtue of words, herbs, and -stones in the _Liber introductorius_ may be supplemented by a few -specific examples of the same from the other two divisions of his -main work. In the _Liber particularis_ he mentions such virtues of -stones as the property of the agate to reveal various signs of demons -and illusions of enchantment, and the power of the jasper to render -its bearer rich, amiable, and eloquent.[1076] In the _Phisionomia_ -he suggests that persons who cannot maintain physical health without -frequent sexual intercourse may be able to do so by carrying a jasper -or topaz.[1077] He also states that bathing in the blood of a dog -or of two-year-old infants mixed with hot water “undoubtedly cures -leprosy,”[1078] and that many sorceries can be wrought by use of the -menstrual fluid, _semen_, hairs of the head, blood, and footprints in -dust or mud.[1079] - -[Sidenote: Astrology in the _Commentary on the Sphere_.] - -Michael Scot’s _Commentary upon the Sphere of Sacrobosco_[1080] -confines itself rather more strictly to astronomical and astrological -topics than did the _Liber introductorius_, but otherwise their -contents are not dissimilar. In the Commentary Michael discusses such -questions as whether the universe is eternal, one or many, and what -form or figure it should have; whether the mover of the sky is moved, -whether the stars are spherical bodies, and whether the zone between -the tropic of Capricorn and the Antarctic Circle is temperate and -inhabited. Also whether the elements are four in number, and whether -the heavens include a ninth sphere. One argument against its existence -is that there are no stars in it, on which account some hold that it -would exert no influence upon the earth. But Michael replies that it -has light apart from any starry bodies and by virtue of this light -does exert influence. Other astrological questions which he raises -are whether the signs of the zodiac should be designated by the -names of animals, whether the first heaven is a more potent cause of -generation and corruption than the circle of the zodiac is, whether -celestial bodies have particular properties as terrestrial bodies do, -whether the heavens are animate, whether their motion is natural or -voluntary, whether the motion of the planets is rational, and whether -supercelestial bodies act upon inferiors by virtue of their motion. -In mentioning the departments of life over which the seven planets -rule, Michael cites either theologians or astrologers[1081] to the -effect that Saturn signifies concerning pagans, Jews, and all other -adversaries of the Faith, who are slow to believe just as Saturn is -slow of movement and chilling in effect, while Jupiter is the sign of -true believers and Christians. - -[Sidenote: Dionysius the Areopagite and the solar eclipse during -Christ’s passion.] - -In commenting upon Sacrobosco’s concluding passage concerning the -miraculous eclipse at the time of Christ’s passion and the remark -attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, “Either the God of nature -suffers or the machine of the universe is dissolved,” Michael explains -that ancient Athens was divided into three parts. One of these was the -shore which was consecrated to Neptune, but in place of the plain and -the mountains, Michael appears to take a leaf out of Plato’s _Republic_ -and mentions the region of the warriors, dedicated to Pallas, goddess -of war, and the residential quarter of the philosophers, named the -Areopagus from Ares meaning virtue and _pagus_ meaning villa. According -to Michael the altar to the unknown god was erected by Dionysius the -Areopagite at the time of the darkness and earthquake accompanying -Christ’s passion, and when Paul came and preached the Christ whom he -ignorantly worshiped, Dionysius was converted, and became a missionary -to the Gauls, bishop of Paris, and finally gained a martyr’s crown. - -[Sidenote: Alchemy.] - -In the _Liber Introductorius_ Michael seemed to associate alchemy -with the magic arts. In his _Commentary on the Sphere_ his attitude -is more favorable. After citing the fourth book of the _Meteorology_ -and other passages from Aristotle to the effect that no element can be -corrupted and hence the transmutation striven after by the alchemists -is impossible, Michael explains that the word element may be taken -in two senses. As a part of the universe it is neither generable nor -corruptible, but in so far as an element is mixed with active and -passive qualities, it is both generable and corruptible.[1082] - -[Sidenote: Works of alchemy ascribed to Michael Scot.] - -Thanks perhaps to this passage the composition or translation of -several works of alchemy is ascribed to Michael Scot in manuscripts -or printed editions. The _Quaestio curiosa de natura Solis et Lunae_, -which was printed as Michael’s in two editions of the _Theatrum -Chemicum_,[1083] was apparently written after his death.[1084] A -Palermo manuscript contains among other alchemical tracts a “Book of -Master Michael Scot in which is contained the mastery.”[1085] In at -least one manuscript Michael Scot is called the translator of the -_Liber luminis luminum_, of which Rasis is elsewhere mentioned as the -original author.[1086] In an Oxford manuscript a _De alchemia_ is -attributed to Michael Scot. It is addressed to “you, great Theophilus, -king of the Saracens”[1087] rather than to the Emperor Frederick, and -speaks of “the noble science” of alchemy as “almost entirely rejected -among the Latins.” Michael Scot mentions himself by name in it rather -too often for us to accept the treatise as his without question, while -the allusions to “Brother Elias” the Franciscan as a fellow-worker in -alchemy are perhaps also open to suspicion. - -[Sidenote: Brother Elias and alchemy.] - -We find, however, another suggestion of Brother Elias’s interest in -alchemy and association therein with Michael Scot in the fact that in -the same manuscript containing the translation of the _Liber luminis -luminum_ ascribed to Michael occurs another _Liber lumen luminum_ which -Brother Elias, General of the Friars Minor, edited in Latin for the -Emperor Frederick.[1088] A brother Cyprian translated it from Arabic -into Latin for him. In view of the later interest of another Franciscan -friar, Roger Bacon, in alchemy and the supposition which some have -entertained that he was persecuted by his Order because of his -experimental studies, this reputation of Brother Elias as an alchemist -is interesting to note. One of St. Francis’s earliest followers, he -succeeded him in 1226 as General of the Order. Deposed by the pope in -1230 on the charge of promoting schism in the Order, he was re-elected -in 1236 and was again deposed by the pope in 1239, after which he -joined the imperial party and was excommunicated from 1244 until just -before his death in 1253.[1089] Brown suggested that his alchemical -activities were alluded to by the pope on the occasion of his first -deposition in the words “_mutari color optimus auri ex quo caput erat -compactum_.”[1090] But if Elias was an alchemist, no open objection to -this appears to have been made either by the pope or his Order. Indeed, -many of the alchemists in Italy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -were clergy and even friars.[1091] - -[Sidenote: _Liber luminis luminum_ and _De alchemia_.] - -Brown has already discussed the contents of the _Liber luminis luminum_ -and _De alchemia_ (or, _alchimia_)[1092] but erroneously and from not -quite the same standpoint as ours. He incorrectly interprets “the -secrets of nature” which the writer says he has investigated as the -title of a book which has formed his chief source.[1093] Brown also -states that one of several features which distinguishes the _De -alchemia_ from the _Liber luminis_ “is an early passage which refers -to the correspondence between the metals and the planets.”[1094] But -there is a similar passage connecting seven metals with the seven -planets in the opening paragraph of his own printed text of the _Liber -luminis luminum_.[1095] The latter treatise, brief as it is, divides -into five parts dealing with salts, alums, vitriols, spirits, and the -preparation of alums, and the employment of these in transmutation. The -_De alchemia_ is less orderly in arrangement and seems largely a brief -collection of particular recipes for transmutation. - -[Sidenote: Their further characteristics.] - -Both works emphasize the secret character of alchemy. The _De alchemia_ -holds forth concerning the great secret of Hermes and Ptolemy, and -tells how most men’s eyes are blinded, and to how few the truth of the -art is revealed. The _Liber luminis luminum_ narrates that “when the -great philosopher was dying he said to his son, ‘O my son, hold thy -secret in thy heart, nor tell it to anyone, nor to thy son, unless -when thou canst retain it no longer.’ Wise philosophers have yearned -with yearning to know the truth of this salt. But few have known it -and those who have known it have not told in their books the truth -concerning it as they saw it.”[1096] Both works also are largely -experimental in form and in the _De alchemia_ we are assured more than -once that “I, Michael Scot, have experienced this many times.”[1097] -The books of the ancients and past philosophers are cited both in -general and by name, but a black vitriol from France called French -earth[1098] and a gum found in Calabria and at Montpellier[1099] are -mentioned as well as herbs and minerals from India and Alexandria, and -we also hear of the experiments of brother Elias, certain Saracens who -seem of comparatively recent date, and of the operation at Catania -or Cortona by master Jacob the Jew which “I afterwards proved many -times.”[1100] The _Liber luminis luminum_ often speaks of “the great -virtue” of this or that, and both treatises make much use of animal -substances such as “dust of moles,” the urine of the _taxo_ or of a -boy, the blood of a ruddy man or of an owl or frog. Five toads are -shut up in a vessel and made to drink the juices of various herbs with -vinegar as the first step in the preparation of a marvelous powder for -purposes of transmutation.[1101] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[964] James Wood Brown, _An inquiry into the life and legend of Michael -Scot_, Edinburgh, 1897. While this book has been sharply criticized -(for instance, by H. Niese in HZ, CVIII (1912), p. 497) and has its -failings, such as an unsatisfactory method of presenting its citations -and authorities, it gives, obscured by much verbiage intended to make -the book interesting and popular and much fanciful speculation as to -what may have been, a more reliable account of Michael’s life and a -fuller bibliography of his writings than had existed previously. But it -must be used with caution. - -_Liber introductorius_: extant only in MSS, of which some are: - -Bodleian 266, 15th century, 218 fols. “Quicumque vult esse bonus -astrologus ... / ... finitur tractatus de notitia pronosticorum.” This -is the MS which I have used. - -CLM 10268, 14th century, 146 fols. Described by F. Boll (1903), p. 439. -I tried to inspect this MS when I was in Munich in 1912 but it had been -loaned out of the library at that time. - -Brown further mentions BN nouv. acq. 1401 and an Escorial MS of the -14th century which I presume is the same as Escorial F-III-8, 14th -century, fols. 1-126, “Incipit prohemium libri introductorii quem -edidit Michael Scotus,” etc. - -The following are perhaps extracts from the _Liber Introductorius_: - -BN 14070, 13th-14th-15th century, fol. 112-, Mich. Scoti de notitia -conjunctionis mundi terrestris cum celesti; fol. 115-, Eiusdem de -presagiis stellarum. - -Vienna 3124, 15th century, fols. 206-11, “Capitulum de hiis quae -generaliter significantur in partibus duodecim celi sive domibus.” - -Vatican 4087, fol. 38r, “Explicit liber quem edidit micael scotus de -signis et ymaginibus celi.” - -See also MSS mentioned by Brown at p. 27, note 2. - - * * * * * - -_Liber particularis_, or _Astronomia_; also extant only in MSS. - -Canon. Misc. 555, early 14th century, fols. 1-59. “Cum ars astronomie -sit grandis sermonibus philosophorum....” This is the MS I have used; -others are: - -Escorial E-III-15, 14th century, fols. 41-51, Michaelis Scoti ars -astronomiae ad Federicum imperatorem II. - -CLM 10663, 18th century, 261 fols., Michael Scot, Astronomia. - -At Milan, Ambros. L. 92. - - * * * * * - -_Phisionomia_: eighteen editions are said to have appeared between 1477 -and 1660. I have used the following text: - -Michael Scot, _De secretis naturae_, Amsterdam, 1740, where it follows -at pp. 204-328 the _De secretis mulierum_ and other treatises ascribed -to Albertus Magnus. - -It occurs at fols. 59-88 of Canon. Misc. 555, immediately after the -_Liber particularis_, and is found in other MSS. - - * * * * * - -_Commentary on The Sphere of Sacrobosco._ - -_Eximii atque excellentissimi physicorum motuum cursusque siderei -indagatoris Michaelis Scoti super auctorem sperae cum questionibus -diligenter emendatis incipit expositio confecta Illustrissimi -Imperatoris Dn̄i D. Fedrici precibus_, Bologna, 1495. I have also used -an edition of 1518, and there are others. - - * * * * * - -_Liber lumen luminum._ - -Riccardian 119, fols. 35v-37r, “Incipit liber luminis luminum -translatus a magistro michahele scoto philosopho.” - -Printed by Brown (1897), Appendix III, pp. 240-68. - -I presume it is the same as the _Lumen luminum_ ascribed to Rasis in -BN 6517 and 7156--see Berthelot (1893), I, 68--but I have not compared -them. - -In the same Riccard. 119 at fol. 166r is a Liber lumen luminum -ascribed to Brother Elias, general of the Franciscans. “Incipit liber -alchimicalis quem frater helya edidit apud fredericum Imperatorem. -Liber lumen luminum translatus de sarraceno ac arabico in latinum -a fratre cypriano ac compositus in latinum a generali fratrum -minorum super alchimicis. Incipit liber qui lumen luminum dicitur ex -libris medicorum et experimentis et philosophorum et disciplinarum -ex(t)ranearum.” - - * * * * * - -_De alchimia_ (or, _alchemia_) - -Corpus Christi 125, fols. 97v-100v, Michaelis Scoti ad Theophilum -Saracenorum regem “de alkemia.” “Explicit tractatus magistri michaelis -Scoti de alke.” - -The above-mentioned books and manuscripts are those especially -discussed and utilized in the present chapter. The following may be -noted, since they are omitted by Brown, although they have little to do -with our investigation: - -_Mensa philosophica._ Of this brief work ascribed to Michael Scot -several incunabula exist in the library of the British Museum. - - * * * * * - -Amplon. Folio 179, 14th century, fols. 98-99, “Liber translative -theologie de decem kathegoriis.” The attribution of this to Michael -Scot might be taken to support the tradition that he was a doctor of -theology at Paris. - - -[965] The poem is printed in _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_, -XVIII (1878), p. 486. Yet Cantor II (1913), p. 7, has Michael outlive -Frederick and transfer his residence to the court of Edward I of -England. - -[966] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 44v, “Quadam vice me michaelem scotum sibi -fidelem inter ceteros astrologos domestice advocavit.” - -[967] That they are sections of one work is made clear from his -statement at the end of the long preface to all three: Bodleian 266, -fol. 25v; Boll (1903), p. 439, quotes the same passage from CLM 10268. - -[968] “Scolares novitii.” - -[969] The MSS say “Innocent IV,” but Michael had died before his -pontificate. - -[970] Brown (1897), chapter II. Criticized by H. Niese in _Historische -Zeitschrift_, vol. 108 (1912), p. 497, note 3. - -[971] Bologna University Library 693, 16th century, “Michaelis Scoti -astronomi Salernitani liber de animalibus. Incipit liber primus -de animalibus Avicenne rubrica. Frederice domine mundi Romanorum -Imperator, suscipe devote hunc laborem Michaelis Scoti.” - -[972] Laurentian P. lxxxix, sup. cod. 38, 15th century, p. 409; printed -in Brown (1897), pp. 231-4. Concerning Philip see also Brown, pp. -19, 36-7. The important passage in the MS is, “Explicit nicromantiae -experimentum illustrissimi doctoris Domini Magistri Michaelis Scoti, -qui summus inter alios nominatur Magister, qui fuit Scotus, et servus -praeclarissimo Domino Philipo Regis Ceciliae coronato; quod destinavit -sibi dum esset aegrotus in civitate Cordubae, etc. Finis.” Brown, p. -19, translates the last clause, “which experiment he (i. e., Michael) -contrived when he lay sick in the city of Cordova,” and so concludes -that Scot visited that city; but I should translate it, “which he -(Michael) sent to him (Philip) while he (Philip) lay sick in the city -of Cordova.” Otherwise why is Philip mentioned at all? - -[973] Brown, p. 104, citing Jourdain, _Recherches_, p. 133, who called -attention to two Paris MSS, Anciens fonds 7399 and Fonds de Sorbonne -1820, in one of which the MS is dated 1217, while the other gives the -year as 1255 which is the exactly corresponding year of the Spanish -era. Arsenal 1035, 14th century, fol. 112, a MS not noted by Jourdain -or Brown, states the year as 1207 A. D., but this is evidently a -mistake for 1217, since it gives the same day of the week and month as -the other MSS and August 18th fell on Friday in 1217, but not in 1207. -BN 16654, 13th century, fol. 33, gives the date as 1217. - -[974] P. 55, arguing from a Vatican MS which is described at pp. 235-7. - -[975] “Glosa magistri al. Explicit anno domini mccx.” - -[976] Gonville and Caius 109, fols. 102v-103r, written in a different -hand from the text of the _History of Animals_, “Et iuro ego michael -scotus qui dedi hunc librum latinitati quod in anno MCCXXI, xii kal. -novembr. die mercurii....” - -[977] Perhaps the year is correct, but “xii kal.” should be “xiii kal.” - -[978] HL XX, 47; Brown (1897), p. 14; both citing Du Boulay, _Hist. -univ. Paris._, 1656-1675. - -[979] See Denifle et Chatelain, _Chartularium Universitatis -Parisiensis_, 1889, I, 104, for a letter of Honorius III of January 16, -1224, asking Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, to secure a -benefice for Michael Scot whom he calls “singularly gifted in science -among men of learning”: and Theiner, _Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et -Scotorum_, Rome, 1864, p. 23, for a letter of Honorius III of June in -the same year, stating that Michael has declined the archbishopric of -Cashel and appointing another man. Brown has incorrectly dated both -letters in 1223. - -[980] Denifle and Chatelain, I, 110. - -[981] For the date and MSS see Boncompagni, _Intorno ad alcune opere di -Leonardo Pisano_, Rome, 1854, pp. 2 and 129-30. - -[982] Bridges (1897) I, 55; in Jebb’s edition, pp. 35-6. - -[983] _Rigordus de Gestis Philippi II_; quoted in the Leo XIII edition -of Aquinas, Rome, 1882, vol. I, p. cclix, “legi Parisiis coepisse -libellos quosdam aristotelis, qui docebant metaphysicum, de novo -Constantinopoli delatos et a graeco in latinum translatos.” - -[984] P. Duhem, “Du temps où la Scolastique latine a connu la physique -d’Aristote,” in _Revue de philosophie_, August, 1909, pp. 163-78, -argues that the _Physics_ was known to Latins in the twelfth century. - -[985] Petrus de Vineis III, ep. lxvii; Latin cited in Dissertation 23 -in vol. I of the Rome, 1882, edition of the works of Aquinas. Frederick -II is not even mentioned in Grabmann’s dissertation on the translation -of Aristotle in the thirteenth century. In the preface to his _De arte -venandi cum avibus_ Frederick refuses to follow Aristotle who, he says, -had little or no practice in falconry: Haskins, EHR XXXVI (1921) 343-4. - -[986] The letter of Manfred accompanied his gift to the University of -Paris of copies of the translations made for him. See _Chartularium -Universitatis Parisiensis_, I, 435-6. - -[987] Renan, _Averroès et Averroïsme_, p. 188. - -[988] Grabmann (1916), pp. 143-4, 175-6, 186-7, 198. - -[989] BN 17155, 13th century, fol. 225-. - -[990] Brown, 145. - -[991] Brown, 119, Brewer (1859), p. 91. - -[992] _Meteor._ III, iv. 26 (Borgnet, IV, 697). - -[993] See Jourdain, _Recherches_, etc., and more recently H. Stadler, -“Irrtümer des Albertus Magnus bei Benutzung des Aristoteles,” in -_Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Naturwissenschaften u. d. Technik_, VI (1913) -387-93. - -[994] De Renzi, I, 292. - -[995] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 6. - -[996] _Sphere_ (1518), p. 106. - -[997] _Ibid._, p. 107. - -[998] Gonville and Caius 109, fol. 1O2v-1O3r. - -[999] C. H. Haskins, “The ‘De Arte Venandi cum Avibus’ of the Emperor -Frederick II,” EHR XXXVI (1921) 334-55. - -[1000] Bodleian 266, fols. 1r-v. Future citations, unless otherwise -specified, will be to this MS. - -[1001] It extends from fol. 2 to fol. 19. - -[1002] fol. 4r. - -[1003] fol. 10r. - -[1004] fols. 11v-12r. - -[1005] fol. 17v. - -[1006] fol. 3r-v. - -[1007] fols. 2 and 20v. - -[1008] fols. 21v-22r. - -[1009] fol. 22r. - -[1010] fol. 22v. - -[1011] In another passage at fol. 23r which speaks of a _magus_ as -inspecting entrails of animals I take it that the word is a slip of the -copyist for _haruspex_. - -[1012] fol. 175r. - -[1013] fol. 22v. - -[1014] Printed by Brown (1897), pp. 231-4. - -[1015] _Ibid._, p. 18. - -[1016] At least in the MS which I have used; Bodleian 266, fols. -24r-25r. - -[1017] What purported to be this work is listed in the _Speculum -astronomiae_ of Albertus Magnus, and Haskins, “Nimrod the Astronomer,” -_Romanic Review_, V. (1914), 203-12, has called attention to the -following MSS: S. Marco VIII, 22; Vatic. Pal. Lat. 1417; and an -extract in Ashmole 191. Haskins notes various mentions of Nimrod as an -astronomer in medieval authors, but not the above passage from Michael -Scot. Although Latin writers make Ioathon or Ionaton (and various other -spellings) the disciple of Nimrod, in Syrian writers Ionitus is the -fourth son of Noah and himself the discoverer of astronomy and teacher -of Nimrod (Haskins, _op. cit._ 210-11). - -[1018] The word _Explicit_ is written across the knees of a figure of -the giant Athalax or Caclon who supports the heavens on his head at -fol. 25r, col. 1, but the passage concerning “Gilbertus” follows and -the proper Explicit of the preface does not occur until fol. 25v, col. -1. See Haskins, _op. cit._ p. 207 for pictures in the MSS of Atlas and -Nimrod side by side, the one standing on the Pyrenees and supporting -the starry firmament; the other on the mount of the Amorites bearing -the starless heavens. - -[1019] fol. 28r-v; also Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 22r. - -[1020] fol. 68v. - -[1021] fol. 21v. - -[1022] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 17v. - -[1023] fol. 29v. - -[1024] fols. 150v-158r. - -[1025] fol. 172. - -[1026] fol. 145v. - -[1027] fol. 128v. - -[1028] fols. 30r, 31r. - -[1029] fol. 174r. - -[1030] fol. 144v. - -[1031] fol. 173v. - -[1032] fol. 173r, “Nam tot sunt medicine quot sunt infirmitates et hae -constant in tribus videlicet in verbis, herbis, et lapidibus, virtutes -quorum quotidie videmus ut in hostia sacrata super altare, in magnete -et ferro navigantes in alto mari, et in emplastris, pulveribus, et -consertis.” - -[1033] fol. 175v. - -[1034] fols. 32v-35r. - -[1035] _Hist. Animal._ V, xix, 4. - -[1036] fol. 35r, “de zuccaro et zaccara. Saccarum et zathara non sunt -liquores vaporabiles ut mel et manna sed sit de medula cannarum.” - -[1037] fols. 44r et seq.; fols. 150-8. - -[1038] fol. 75r et seq.; fols. 108-114. - -[1039] fols. 117-8. - -[1040] fol. 89. - -[1041] fol. 124 et seq.; fols. 132-5. - -[1042] fols. 145v-147v. - -[1043] fol. 45r. - -[1044] fols. 162v-163. - -[1045] fol. 164v. - -[1046] fol. 165. - -[1047] fol. 176r-v. - -[1048] fol. 177v. - -[1049] fol. 28r. - -[1050] fols. 178-218. - -[1051] As Madan’s description of the MS says, “The first book contains -four _distinctiones_, of which the second ends on fol. 178, but it is -difficult to state whether the MS contains anything beyond the first -portion of the third _distinctio_ of this first book, owing to the -absence of decisive rubrics.” - -F. Boll (1903) states that the fourth _distinctio_ is also missing in -CLM 10268. - -[1052] BN 7438, 15th century. - -[1053] In a footnote at page 185, from Bodl. 266, fol. 113. - -[1054] fol. 162r. - -[1055] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 4. - -[1056] Bodleian 266, fol. 47r. - -[1057] _Phisionomia_ (1740) cap. xi, p. 235. - -[1058] _Ibid._, cap. ix, p. 229. - -[1059] Or _Phisonomia_ as it is often spelled in the medieval texts -themselves. - -[1060] Brown (1897), 32 and 37. - -[1061] Edition of 1740, p. 210, “Et secundum cursum corporum superiorum -sicut dispositionem corporum concipientium foetus recipit similiter -et semel omnia et singula quae postea discernunt ordinem temporum et -naturae.” - -[1062] Cap. 7 (1740), p. 226. - -[1063] Cap. 8 (1740), p. 228. - -[1064] Cap. 3 (1740), p. 218; cap. 10, p. 230. - -[1065] Cap. 2 (1740), p. 213. - -[1066] Cap. 7 (1740), p. 227. - -[1067] Cap. 18 (1740), p. 248, “In chiromantia est illud -experimentum....” - -[1068] _De notitia auguriorum_, cap. 57 (1740), p. 285. - -[1069] Cap. 58 (1740), pp. 288, 289, 290. - -[1070] Caps. 46-56 (1740), p. 280, _et seq._ - -[1071] CLM 489, 16th century. - -[1072] _Chiromantica Scientia, quarto minori sine notis typographicis, -foliis 28 constat impressis. “Ex divina philosophorum academia -secundum nature vires ad extra chyromantitio diligentissime collectum. -Exordium.” Cl. Denis, qui alias editiones huius operis adfert, -Michaelum Scotum auctorem eiusdem censeri tradit._ - -[1073] Brown (1897), 163 _et seq._ - -[1074] Vatican, Regina di Svezia, 1159, fol. 149, “Finis urinarum -Magistri Michaelis Scoti.” To the two MSS listed by Brown, p. 153, note -6, containing an Italian translation, may be added Perugia 316, 15th -century, fols. 91-106, “Qui chomenza el tractato delle orine secondo -come mete maistro Michelle sthato strollogo del re Ferigo ai nostri -bexogni.” - -[1075] Addit. 24068, 13th century, fol. 97v. - -[1076] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 50r-v. - -[1077] (1740), p. 222. - -[1078] _Phisionomia_, cap. 14 (1740), p. 241. - -[1079] _Ibid._, cap. 10, p. 233. - -[1080] If the ascription of this _Commentary_ to Michael is correct, -probably either he wrote it toward the end of his life or Sacrobosco -composed the _Sphere_ fairly early in his career, since he appears -to have outlived Michael and to have composed his _Computus -ecclesiasticus_ or _De anni ratione_ in 1244: see Duhem III (1915), -p. 240. The lines quoted in DNB “John Holywood or Halifax” as on his -tomb in the cloister of the Mathurins and as having reference to the -date of his death are really the verses at the close of his _Computus -ecclesiasticus_: - -“_M Christi bis C quarto deno quater anno_ _De Sacro Bosco discrevit -tempora ramus_ _Gratia cui dederat nomen divina Johannes_,” etc. - -Cantor II (1913), p. 87, however, speaks of two different tomb -inscriptions given by Vossius and Kästner but says that they agree on -1256 as the date of Sacrobosco’s death. The first line above quoted is -sometimes interpreted as giving the date 1256 rather than 1244. - -[1081] In the _editio princeps_ of 1495 the marginal heading is, “_Quid -de planetis sentiunt theologi,”_ but in the text we read “_thrologi_,” -which is possibly derived from “_asthrologi_” by a dropping off of the -first syllable. - -[1082] Edition of 1495, fol. b-ii, verso. - -[1083] Strasburg, 1622 and 1659. - -[1084] And is not a chapter from the _Liber Introductorius_; see Brown, -77-8. - -[1085] _Liber Magistri Michaelis Scotti in quo continetur Magisterium_, -No. 44 in a MS belonging to the Speciale family. I have not seen the -MS. It is described briefly by Brown, 78-80; see further S. A. Carini, -_Sulle Scienze Occulte nel Medio Evo_, Palermo, 1872. - -[1086] See bibliographical note at the beginning of this chapter. - -[1087] This expression occurs in the course of the text itself--Corpus -Christi 125, fol. 97r--in addition to the words scratched in the upper -margin at the beginning by another hand, “_Michael Scotus Theophilo -Regi Saracenorum_.” The conclusion of the treatise is in a 14th century -hand, the remainder in a 15th century hand. - -[1088] See bibliographical note at opening of this chapter. - -[1089] Brown, p. 91, citing Wadding, I, 109. - -[1090] Brown, p. 91, note 2. - -[1091] Berthelot (1893) II, 74 and 77; Lippmann (1919) 481. I doubt if -there is much ground for their further assertion that such clerics fell -easily under suspicion of heresy and hence wrote in ciphers like Roger -Bacon’s for gunpowder. At p. 688 I have refuted the notion that Bacon -employed a cipher to conceal the recipe for gunpowder. - -[1092] In his fourth chapter, “The Alchemical Studies of Michael Scot.” - -[1093] If the title of any book were meant, it would rather be -Michael’s own _De secretis naturae_, since he not only says, -“Cum rimarer et inquirerem secreta naturae ex libris antiquorum -philosophorum....,” but also, “Quedam extraxi et ea secretis nature -adiunxi....” - -[1094] P. 92. - -[1095] P. 240, “Et notum est quod sicut 7 sunt metalla ita 7 sunt -planete et quodlibet metallum habet suum planetam,” etc. - -[1096] For Latin text see Brown, p. 248. The same passage occurs in -another alchemical treatise, _Liber Dedali philosophi_, which Brown -printed on opposite pages to the text of the _Liber luminis luminum_. - -[1097] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99v, “et ego multotiens sum expertus,” -fol. 100r, “Et ego michael scotus multotiens sum expertus,” etc. - -[1098] Brown, p. 262, “Vitriolum nigrum apportatur de Francia et -idcirco dicitur terra francigena. Cum isto mulieres vulvam constringunt -ut virgines appareant. Non est autem magne utilitatis in ista arte.” - -[1099] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99r. - -[1100] _Ibid._, fol. 100r, “Et ego vidi istam operationem scilicet apud -cartanam a magistro jacobo iudeo et ego postea multotiens probavi....” - -[1101] Brown, p. 252, for Latin text. - - - - -CHAPTER LII - -WILLIAM OF AUVERGNE - - - The man and his writings--His respect for science--And - for experimentation--Influenced by Christian - doctrine--Importance of his account of magic--Its - main points summarized--Demons and magic--Magic and - idolatry--Magic illusions--Natural magic--Is not concerned - with demons--Some instances of natural magic--“The - sense of nature”--Magic’s too extreme pretensions--Wax - images--Factitious gods--Characters and figures--Power of - words denied--Use of divine names--Christian magic--Magic - of sex and generation--William’s contribution to - the bibliography of magic--Plan of the rest of this - chapter--Theory of spiritual substances--Spirits in - the heavens--Will hell be big enough?--Astrological - necromancy--False accounts of fallen angels--Different kinds - of spirits--Limited demon control of nature--Can demons be - imprisoned or enter bodies?--Susceptibility of demons to - the four elements and to natural objects--Stock examples - of natural marvels--The hazel rod story--Occult virtues of - herbs and animals--Virtues of gems--A medley of marvelous - virtues--Divination not an art but revelation--Divination - by inspection of lucid surfaces--Other instances of - divination, ancient and modern--His treatment of - astrology--The philosophers on the nature of the heavens - and stars--William’s own opinion and attitude--Objection - to stars as cause of evil--Virtues of the stars--Extent of - their influence upon nature and man--Against nativities, - interrogations, and images--Astrology and religion and - history--Comets and the star of Bethlehem. - - -[Sidenote: The man and his writings.] - -We now come upon a Christian theologian whose works present an -unexpectedly detailed picture of the magic and superstition of the -time.[1102] He is well acquainted with both the occult literature -and the natural philosophy of the day, and has much to say of -magic, demons, occult virtue, divination and astrology. Finally, -he also gives considerable information concerning what we may call -the school of natural magic and of experiment. This theologian is -William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris from 1228 to his death in 1249, -and previously a canon of that city and a master of theology in its -university. Judging from his age when he received this degree Valois -estimates that he was born about 1180. He was made a bishop at Rome by -the pope, where he had come as a simple deacon to pursue his appeal in -the recent disputed election.[1103] He granted the Dominicans their -first chair of theology at Paris during a quarrel of the university in -1228 with Queen Blanche of Castile and the dispersion of the faculties -to Angers and Rheims.[1104] He took a prominent part in the Parisian -attack upon the Talmud and was perhaps the first Christian doctor of -the Latin west to display an intimate acquaintance with the works -attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.[1105] These facts suggest the extent -of his reading in occult lore. We shall consider his views as expressed -in his various writings, “On Sins and Vices,” “Of Laws” (or Religions), -in the frequent medieval use of the word, _lex_, “Of Morals,” “Of -Faith,” but especially in his voluminous work on “The Universe” which -deals more with the world of nature than do his other theological -treatises. Indeed, in the sixteenth century edition of his works he is -called “a most perfect mathematician” and “a distinguished philosopher” -as well as “a most eminent theologian.” - -[Sidenote: His respect for science.] - -William at any rate has respect for natural philosophy and favors -scientific investigation of nature. Like his namesake of Conches in -the preceding century he has no sympathy with those who, when they -are ignorant of the causes of natural phenomena and have no idea how -to investigate them, have recourse to the Creator’s omnipotent virtue -and call everything of this sort a miracle, or evade the necessity of -any natural explanation by affirming that God’s will is the sole cause -of it. This seems to William an intolerable error, in the first place -because they have thus only one answer for all questions, and secondly -because they are satisfied with the most remote cause instead of the -most immediate one. There is no excuse for thus neglecting so many -varied and noble sciences.[1106] - -In another passage William apologizes to the person to whom the _De -universo_ is addressed for the summary and inadequate discussion of -the stars in which he has just been indulging.[1107] He knows that -certitude in this subject calls for a most thorough investigation and -requires a separate treatise. Moreover, his remarks have been in the -nature of a digression and have little direct bearing on the question -under discussion. But he has introduced them in order that his reader -might see something of the depth and truth of philosophical discussion -and not think that it can be despised as some fools do, who will accept -nothing unless it is armed with proofs and adorned with flowers of -rhetoric and who still more insanely regard as erroneous whatever they -do not understand. - -[Sidenote: And for experimentation.] - -Thus we see the scientific standards of William of Conches in the -twelfth century still influential and probably more universally -prevalent in the thirteenth. Like his namesake of Conches again, -William of Auvergne states that our common fire is not the pure -element, since it is largely made up of burning coal or wood or other -consumed objects.[1108] He also states that “innumerable experiences” -have proven that moles do not live on earth but hunt worms in -it.[1109] William is aware that many sailors and navigators have found -by experience that certain seas open into others, and as another -indication that all seas are really only one connected sea, he adduces -hidden subterranean channels, and mentions the report that Sicily is -supported on four or five mountains as if by so many columns. Such -are some illustrations of the bits of scientific information and the -trust in natural experiment to be found in William’s work. It is indeed -surprising the number of times he alludes to “experimenters” and to -“books of experiments.” - -[Sidenote: Influenced by Christian doctrine.] - -On the other hand William, of course, maintains such doctrines as -that of creation against the Peripatetic theory of the eternity of -the universe. He also does not confuse the world soul with the Holy -Spirit as William of Conches and Theodoric of Chartres had done.[1110] -More important than these particular points is the general hypothesis -running through and underlying much of William’s thought that the -Creator can interfere again in the course of nature at any time and -in any way He wills.[1111] The atmosphere of the miraculous and the -spiritual is almost constantly felt in William’s account of the -universe. To a certain extent, however, he evades the difficulties -between science and religion by holding that one thing is true in -philosophy and quite another in theology. Thus he affirms that one -who says that the stars and lights of the sky do not receive addition -or improvement, speaks the truth if the matter is regarded from the -standpoint of natural science, for nature cannot add anything to their -natural perfection. “Yet you ought to know that learned Christian -doctors teach ... and the prophets seem to say expressly that they will -undergo improvement.”[1112] It is, then, as we said to begin with, the -account of magic, demons, occult virtue, divination, astrology and -experimental science, of a theologian not ignorant of nor unsympathetic -with science that we have now to consider. - -[Sidenote: Importance of his account of magic.] - -William’s account of magic is a remarkable and illuminating one. Most -of it occurs in the closing chapters of the _De universo_. William -himself there states that nothing has come down from previous writers -on the things of which he has just been speaking.[1113] He admits -that his remarks are incomplete but he has at least made a beginning -which will prove welcome to the reader. Probably, however, he is -indebted to previous Christian writers; at any rate we recognize some -of his statements as familiar. But he also has a wide acquaintance -with the literature of magic itself--in his youth he examined the -books of judicial astronomy and the books of the magicians and -sorcerers[1114]--and he combines the results of his reading in a sane -manner. We feel that his view is both comprehensive, including all -the essential factors, and marked by insight into the heart of the -situation. For his time at least he sees remarkably clearly what magic -is, what it cannot do, and how it is related to the science of that age. - -[Sidenote: Its main points summarized.] - -The chief characteristics of magic as it is depicted by William may -first be briefly summarized, and then illustrated in more detail. He -constantly assumes that its great aim is to work marvels. He holds that -often the ends are sought by the help of demons and methods which are -idolatrous. Evil ends are often sought by magicians. On the other hand -the apparent marvels are often worked by mere human sleight-of-hand -or other tricks and deceptions of the magicians themselves. But the -marvel may be neither human deceit nor the work of an evil spirit. It -may be produced by the wonderful occult virtues resident in certain -objects of nature. To marvels wrought in this manner William applies -the name “natural magic,” and has no doubt of its truth. But he denies -the validity of many methods and devices in which magicians trust, -and contends that marvels cannot be so worked unless demons are -responsible. William furthermore constantly cites books of experiments -and narrates the feats of “experimenters” in discussing magic, and he -often implies a close connection of it with astronomy or astrology. -Here again as in the case of natural magic we see an intimate -connection between the development of magic and of natural science. -Finally, these various characteristics and varieties of magic are not -always kept distinct by William, but often overlap or join. The demons -avail themselves of the forces of nature in working their marvels and -their marvels too are often only passing illusions and empty shams. The -experimenters and operators of natural magic also deal in momentary -effects and deceptive appearances as well as in more solid results. - -[Sidenote: Demons and magic.] - -William holds then that much of magic is performed by the aid of demons -and involves the worship of them or other forms of idolatry.[1115] One -reason why magic feats are so seldom performed in Christian lands and -William’s own time is that the power of the evil spirits has been so -repressed by Christianity. But the books of the magicians and of the -sorcerers assume the existence of armies of spirits in the sky.[1116] -In the necromantic operation called “The Major Circle” four kings -of demons from the four quarters of the earth appear with numerous -attendants according to the statements of those who are skilled -in works of this sort.[1117] William has also read in the books of -experiments that water can be made to appear where there really is none -by use of a bow of a particular kind of wood, an arrow of another kind -of wood, and a bow-string made of a particular sort of cord.[1118] As -far as an arrow is shot from this bow so far one is supposed to behold -an expanse of water. But William does not believe that the bow and -arrow possess any such virtues, and hence concludes that the mirage is -an illusion produced by the demons and that the ceremony performed by -the magician is a service to the evil spirits. Another writer in his -book of necromancy bids one to take as an oblation such and such a wood -or stone or liquor on such a day at such an hour. Here too, perhaps -because of what he regards as superstitious observance of times and -seasons, William holds that the word “oblation” covers some diabolical -servitude or cult, which has been concealed by the writers of such -experiments. He also states that sorcerers and idolaters often go off -into deserts to have dealings with the demons who dwell there.[1119] He -cites “a certain magician in his book on magic arts” who says that in -order to philosophize he went to places destitute of any inhabitant and -there lived for thirty years with those who dwelt in light and learned -from them what he has written in his book. - -[Sidenote: Magic and idolatry.] - -In his treatise _De legibus_ William, like Maimonides, endeavors to -explain some of the questionable provisions and prohibitions in the -Mosaic law as measures to guard against idolatry and magic.[1120] -Under the head of idolatry he groups not only the worship of idols -proper and of demons, but also superstitious observance of the stars, -the elements, images, figures, words and names, times and seasons, -beginnings of actions and finding objects.[1121] In another passage -he adds the observance of dreams, auguries, constellations, sneezes, -meetings, days and hours, figures, marks, characters and images.[1122] -Also incantation is not without idolatry. Thus many features of the -magic arts are condemned by him. - -[Sidenote: Magic illusions.] - -We come next to those magic works which are “mockeries of men or -of demons.”[1123] First there are those transpositions which are -accomplished by agility and hability of the hands and are popularly -called _tractationes_ or _traiectationes_. They are a source of great -wonderment until men learn how they are done. A second variety are -mere apparitions which have no truth. Under this head fall certain -magic candles. One made of wax and sulphurated snakeskin, burned in a -dark place filled with sticks or rushes makes the house seem full of -writhing serpents. William’s explanation of this is that the powdered -snakeskin as it burns makes the rushes appear similar in color to -serpents, while the flickering of the flame gives the illusion that -they are moving. Possibly, however, this may be a defective recipe -for some firework like the modern “snake’s nest.” William is more -sceptical whether in the light of a candle made of wax and the tears -or _semen_ of an ass men would look like donkeys. He doubts whether -wet tears would mix with wax or burn if they did, and whether these -internal fluids possess any of the substance, figure, and color of an -ass’s external appearance. He concedes nevertheless that the _semen_ -has great virtue and that the sight is of all senses the most easily -deceived. At any rate “experimenters” (_experimentatores_) have said -things of this sort, and you may read in the books of experiments a -trick by which anyone’s hand is made to appear an ass’s foot, so that -he blushes to draw it from his bosom.[1124] - -The work of necromancy called “The Major Circle” is also in the nature -of a delusive appearance. The four demon kings from the four quarters -of the earth seem to be accompanied by vast hosts of phantom horsemen, -jugglers, and musicians, but no prints of horses’ hoofs are visible -afterwards. Moreover, if real horsemen appeared, they would be seen by -everyone, not merely by those within the magic circle. Another common -apparition, produced by “these sorcerers and deceivers” by means of -sacrifices and other evil observances which William will not reveal, is -a wonderful castle with gates, towers, walls, and citadel all complete. -But it is seen only during the magic operation and when it vanishes -leaves no trace behind. William compares such illusions to some -fantastic dream which leaves behind nothing but horror on the faces of -the participants. He argues that if corporeal things outside us make -the strong impression on our senses that they do, it is no wonder if -spiritual substances like demons who are full of forms can impress our -minds potently. It will, of course, occur to the modern reader that -such illusions, like certain marvels of India, were perhaps produced by -hypnotic or other suggestion. William notes that illusions of this sort -are shown only to the gullible and “those ignorant of natural science,” -and that necromancers dare not produce or suggest such phantasms in the -presence of learned and rational men. - -[Sidenote: Natural magic.] - -There are, nevertheless, occult forces and powers in nature and -those men who are acquainted with them work many marvels and would -work much more wonderful ones, if they had an abundant supply of the -necessary materials.[1125] This is “that part of natural science which -is called natural magic.”[1126] “Philosophers call it necromancy or -_philosophica_, perhaps quite improperly, and it is the eleventh part -of all natural science.” This rather strange association of necromancy -with natural science for which William seems to apologize, we shall -meet again in Albertus Magnus and we have already met with it in -Gundissalinus, Daniel of Morley, and Al-Farabi. With them, however, -necromancy was one of only eight parts of natural science or astrology. -In a third passage William omits mention of necromancy, but again -asserts that certain marvels are natural operations and that knowledge -of them is one of the eleven parts of natural science.[1127] It is with -it that the books of experiments are especially concerned.[1128] From -them and from “the books of natural narrations” you can learn “the -causes and reasons of certain magic works, especially those which are -by the art of natural magic.” The materials possessed of the marvelous -virtues essential for this art are very rare in Europe, but in India -and lands near it they abound, and hence natural magic flourishes -vigorously there, and there are many experimenters there who work -marvels by their skill.[1129] - -[Sidenote: Natural magic is not concerned with demons.] - -Between this natural magic and that due to demons William makes a -decided distinction.[1130] In natural magic nothing is done by the -aid of demons. The workers of the one are called _magi_ because they -do great things (_magna agentes_) although some may have evilly -interpreted the word as meaning evil-doers (_male agentes_).[1131] And -these others who perform such works by the aid of demons are to be -regarded as evil-doers. William indeed perhaps uses the word _malefici_ -(sorcerers) more often than _magi_ for workers of evil magic, but he -cannot be said to observe any such distinction uniformly. He does, -however, express his intention of setting forth “the causes and ways -and methods” by which even the phantasies and illusions of magic are -produced naturally, but of “perditious methods such as nefarious -sacrifices and oblations and sacrilegious observances” he intends to -reveal nothing.[1132] In natural magic William seems to see no harm -whatever, unless it is employed for evil ends. He grants, however, -that some of its works are so marvelous that they seem to the ignorant -to be the works of gods or demons, and that this has been one cause -of idolatry in times past.[1133] So in order that Christianity might -prevail, it was ordered that anyone performing such works should be -considered evil and a sorcerer (_malus et maleficus_), and that -works of this sort should be regarded as performed not by the virtue -of any natural object but rather by the aid and power of demons. -But specialists in such matters are not “surprised at these feats -but glorify the Creator alone in them, knowing that nature alone in -accordance with His omnipotent will operates both in the customary -manner known to men and contrary to custom not only in new ways but new -things.” In another context William again affirms that natural magic -involves no offense or injury to the Creator unless one works evil or -too curiously by that art.[1134] - -[Sidenote: Some instances of natural magic.] - -One example of the marvels worked by means of natural magic is the -sudden generation of such animals as frogs and worms. Here the natural -processes of generation are hastened by applying certain aids, and -William does not doubt the assertion of Emuth that by mixing seeds new -animals can be bred.[1135] Other phenomena belonging under natural -magic are the marvels worked outside its own body by the soul of the -basilisk and certain other animals and certain human souls--a hint that -the power of fascination is natural magic.[1136] In short, all use of -occult virtue in nature may be classed as natural magic. - -[Sidenote: “The sense of nature.”] - -Of William’s statements concerning occult virtue we shall hear more -under that head. But we may note here what he says of “the sense of -nature,”[1137] which he calls “one of the roots of natural magic,” -which he often mentions, and which in his opinion accounts for a number -of wonderful things.[1138] It is “a sublimer sense than any human -apprehension and nobler and more akin to prophecy.” By it one senses -the presence in the house of a burglar or harlot who is otherwise -unperceived by any of the ordinary senses. By it some dogs can detect -a thief in a crowd.[1139] It is the mysterious power by which vultures -foresee the coming battle, sheep detect the approach of the wolf, and -the spider that of the fly. William tells of a woman who could feel -the presence of the man she loved when he was two miles distant[1140] -and of another woman who so abhorred her husband that she fell into -an epileptic fit whenever he entered the house.[1141] In the main, -this sense of nature seems about the same as what other writers call -the power of natural divination. William, however, in several cases -accounts for it by the strong sympathy or antipathy existing between -the two persons or animals concerned. - -[Sidenote: Magic’s too extreme pretensions.] - -While William accepts such marvels and strange forces, there are many -claims of magic which he refuses to grant.[1142] As we shall see later -he sets limits even to the powers of demons. Much less will he allow -the extreme powers asserted of human magicians. In the books of the -magicians appear subversions of nature of every sort. They would bind -fire so that it cannot burn, robbers that they may not steal in a -certain region, a well or spring so that no water may be drawn from -it, and so with merchants and ships. They would even stop water from -flowing down hill. William contends that such works are possible only -by divine miracle, and that if the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Arabs -could really accomplish the lies in their books, they would have -conquered the world long ago. Nay, the world would be at the mercy of -any single magician or sorcerer (_magi seu malefici_). William then -raises the objection that if two magicians tried to gain the same -object at once, the magic of one or the other would prove a failure or -they would both share an imperfect and half-way success, and in either -case the promises of their art would prove a failure. The same logic -might be applied to the advice how to succeed given to young men by -some of our “self-made” millionaires (are they _magi_ or _malefici_?) -who have exploited natural resources. William, however, goes on to -explain that the books of magic say that not all artificers are equally -skilful or born under a lucky star. He points out the limitations of -Pharaoh’s magicians in much the usual manner.[1143] - -[Sidenote: Wax images.] - -William not only denies that magic can attain some extreme results, -but also denies that some of the methods employed in magic are -suited or adequate to the ends aimed at. He especially attacks the -employment of images and characters, words, names, and incantations. -The use of wax images in magic to harm the person or thing of whom the -image is made seems to him a futile proceeding. He will not believe -that Nectanebo--the magician of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, it will be -remembered--could sink the ships of the enemy by submerging wax images -of them.[1144] Such magic images possess neither intelligence nor will, -nor can they act by bodily virtue, since that requires contact either -direct or indirect to be effective.[1145] If someone suggests that -they act by sense of nature, he should know that inanimate objects are -incapable of this.[1146] The only way in which the occasional seemingly -successful employment of such images can be accounted for is that -when the magician does anything to the image, demons inflict the same -sufferings upon the person against whom the image is used, and thus -deceive men into thinking that the virtue of the image accomplishes -this result.[1147] - -[Sidenote: Factitious gods.] - -Hermes Trismegistus speaks to Asclepius in the _Liber de hellera_ or -_De deo deorum_ of terrestrial gods, associated each with some material -substance, such as stones and aromatics which have the natural force -of divinity in them.[1148] Hermes, however, distinguished from natural -gods “factitious gods,” or statues, idols, and images made by man, -into which “the splendor of deity and virtue of divinity” is poured or -impressed by celestial spirits or the heavens and stars, “and this with -observation of the hours and constellations when the image is cast or -engraved or fabricated.” William regrets to say that traces of this -error still prevail “among many old women, and Christians at that.” -And they say that sixty years after their manufacture these images lose -their virtue. William does not believe that there is divinity in stones -or herbs or aromatics, or that men can make gods of any sort.[1149] -Minds and souls cannot be put into statues,[1150] and William concludes -that Trismegistus “erred shamefully” and “was marvelously deceived by -the evil spirits themselves.”[1151] He also calls impossible “what is -so celebrated among the astrologers (_astronomos_), and written in so -many of the books, namely, that a statue will speak like a man if one -casts it of bronze in the rising of Saturn.”[1152] - -[Sidenote: Characters and figures.] - -William likewise holds that characters or figures or impressions or -astrological images have no force unless they are tokens by which the -evil spirits may recognize their worshipers.[1153] There is no divinity -in the angles of Solomon’s pentagon. William states that some are led -into this error from their theories concerning the stars, and that -the idolatrous cult of the stars distinguishes four kinds of figures: -seals, rings, characters, and images.[1154] Such are the rings and -seal of Solomon with their “execrable consecrations and detestable -invocations.” Even more unspeakable is that image called _idea -Salomonis et entocta_, and the figure known as _mandel_ or _amandel_. -So excessive are the virtues attributed to such images that they belong -only to God, so that it is evident that God has been shorn of His glory -which has been transferred to such figures. Artesius in his book on the -virtue of words and characters asserts that by a certain magic figure -he bound a mill so that the wheels could not turn.[1155] But William is -incredulous as to such powers in characters. He thinks that one might -as well say that virtue of the figure would run the mill without water -or mill-wheels. If the mill did stop, it must have been the work of -demons. Nor can William see any sense in writing the day and hour when -thunder was heard in that locality on the walls of houses in order to -protect them from lightning.[1156] It seems to him an attribution of -the strongest force to the weakest sort of an incidental occurrence. - -[Sidenote: Power of words denied.] - -William indeed denies that there is magic power in mere words or -incantations. Mere words cannot kill men or animals as sorcerers -claim.[1157] William argues scholastically that if spoken words -possessed any such virtue they must derive it either from the material -of which they are composed, air, or from their form, sound; or from -what they signify. Air cannot kill unless it is poisoned by a plague, -dragon, or toad. Sound to kill must be deafening. If what is signified -by the word is the cause, then images, which are more exact likenesses, -would be more powerful than words. William’s opinion is that when -sorcerers employ magic words and incantations they are simply calling -upon the demons for aid, just as the worshipers of God sometimes induce -Him to work wonders by calling upon His name. - -[Sidenote: Use of divine names.] - -This brings William to the delicate question of divine names. He -censures the use of the name of God by “magicians and astronomers” -in “working their diabolical marvels.”[1158] He also notes that they -employ a barbaric name and not one of the four Hebrew names of God. -They forbid anyone who is not pure and clad in pure vestments to -presume to touch the book in which this name is written, but they -try to gain evil ends by it and so blaspheme against their Creator. -William, however, seems to feel that the names of God have a virtue not -found in ordinary words and he states that not only servants of God -but even wicked men sometimes cast out demons by making use of holy -exorcisms. - -[Sidenote: Christian magic.] - -In short, incantations possess no efficacy, but exorcisms do. This -is an indication, not merely of William’s logical inconsistency, but -also of the existence of a Christian or ecclesiastical variety of -magic in his day. He will not believe in Nectanebo’s wax images, but -he believes that the forms of wax which have the likeness of lambs -receive through the benediction of the pope the virtue of warding off -thunderbolts.[1159] He denied that magic words had efficacy through -their sound but he affirms that consecrated bells prevent storms within -the sound of their ringing, and that salt and water which have been -blessed obtain the power of expelling demons. William, however, takes -refuge in God’s omnipotent virtue to explain the efficacy of these -Christian charms. - -[Sidenote: Magic of sex and generation.] - -Magic appears to have always devoted considerable attention to matters -of sex and generation, and William’s works give one or two instances of -this. He states that sorcerers investigate the cohabiting of certain -animals, thinking that if they kill them at that hour they will obtain -from their carcasses potent love-charms and aids to fecundity.[1160] -We are also told that men have tried to produce, and thought that they -succeeded in producing human life in other ways than by the usual -generative process.[1161] “And in the books of experiments may be found -mockeries of women similar to those which the demons called _incubi_ -work and which certain sorcerers have attempted and left in writing for -posterity.” They have recorded a delusive experiment by which women who -have been known only once or twice think that this has occurred fifty -or sixty times. - -[Sidenote: William’s contribution to the bibliography of magic.] - -As has been already incidentally suggested, William offers considerable -information as to the bibliography of magic in his day. Besides his -many general allusions to works of magic, writings of sorcerers and -prestidigitateurs and astrologers and books of experiments, he mentions -several particular works ascribed to Aristotle and Avicenbros, to -Hermes Trismegistus and Solomon, the “cursed book” of Cocogrecus on -“Stations to the cult of Venus” and, what is perhaps the same, of Thot -grecus on “The cult of Venus.”[1162] An Artesius or Arthesius, whom -in one passage he calls a magician and cites concerning divination -by water and whom in another passage he calls both a magician and -a philosopher who had written a book on the virtue of words and -characters,[1163] is probably the same Artesius who is cited concerning -divination by the rays of the sun or moon in liquids or mirrors in a -work of alchemy in a twelfth century manuscript,[1164] and further -identical with the Artephius who Roger Bacon says lived for one -thousand and twenty-five years,[1165] to whom a treatise is ascribed in -the _Theatrum Chymicum_[1166] and a Sloane manuscript,[1167] and who -seems to have been the same as Altughra’i, a poet and alchemist who -died in 1128.[1168] There also are a number of magic books of which -William does not give the author’s name or the title, but of which -he gives descriptions or from which he makes citations which would -be sufficiently definite to identify the works should one meet with -them elsewhere. In our chapters on pseudo-literature and experimental -literature we treat of many of these works. - -[Sidenote: Plan of the rest of this chapter.] - -From our survey of magic proper as delineated in William’s works we now -turn to what he represents as the two chief forces in magic, namely, -the demons and the occult virtues in nature, and to two subjects which -he closely connects with magic, namely, divination and astrology. These -four topics will be taken up separately in the order stated. - -[Sidenote: The theory of spiritual substances.] - -Since William attributes so much of magic to demons, it is important -to note what he has to say concerning these “spiritual substances.” He -proposes to follow as his sources on the subject “authentic accounts” -(_sermones authentici_): first of all the statements of the divinely -inspired prophets, and after that the opinions of the philosophers -and also of the magicians. He observes elsewhere, however, that -there is a lack of literature on the subject; the sages have only -dipped into it and not yet plumbed it to its depths: in fact, only -the treatise of Avicenbros has come to his hands, and while that -authority has said and written many sublime things, far removed from -popular comprehension, still he has made only a beginning in this -field.[1169] William also utilizes, however, the works of Hermes -Trismegistus[1170] and other books of necromancy and magic--among them -Thot Graecus[1171]--the testimony of medical men[1172] and “innumerable -experiences” of men at large.[1173] - -William professes himself open to conviction and new light on the -question of the assumption of bodies by good and bad spirits.[1174] -And it must be said that his whole treatment of spirits is full of -inconsistencies and difficulties. Part of the time he draws a hard -and fast line between spiritual substances and physical creation, but -only part of the time. He also essays the difficult task of explaining -how and to what extent these spiritual substances are able to disturb -physical creation, and how far they in turn are affected by it. - -[Sidenote: Spirits in the heavens.] - -To begin with, William takes up the difficult position--or rather -he makes it difficult for himself--but the usual one with medieval -theologians, that angels occupy physical space and are located in their -own heaven as the stars are in theirs.[1175] Some modern believers -in spiritualism hold a very similar position.[1176] He also declares -that the tenth and last or empyrean heaven will be the eternal abode -of men whose souls are saved, although the resurrected bodies of the -saved would presumably still be corporal substances.[1177] This raises -the further difficulty that apparently the empyrean heaven cannot -be the abode of the angels, as some theologians and saintly doctors -have held (for a corporal place cannot be filled except with corporal -substances), for those superficial persons who mock the authentic -divine revelation of scripture will say that “if that heaven is a -corporal place it cannot be filled except by corporal substances.” - -[Sidenote: Will hell be big enough?] - -Another point which puzzles William is whether there will be room in -hell for all the evil spirits and resurrected bodies of the damned -destined to make it their ultimate abode. The infernal regions, -located in the interior of our terrestrial globe, seem very small to -him compared with the vast expanse of the empyrean heaven which is -even greater than that of the fixed stars. And our earth is a mere dot -compared to the sphere of the fixed stars. If then that entire empyrean -heaven is to be filled with glorified men, how shall the infernal -regions hold all the damned?[1178] It will be seen that Dante’s later -cosmology is very similar to William’s. - -[Sidenote: Astrological necromancy.] - -William will not agree, however,[1179] with the books of magic and -the masters of images and illusions that the starry heavens and even -single planets are inhabited by spirits so that the circle of the moon -has fifty ministering spirits and that there are also angels in the -twelve signs of the zodiac. On the other hand, in an earlier chapter -he makes the statement that he has never heard anywhere even in magic -books of demons with power over celestial bodies.[1180] William is of -the opinion that Aristotle was deceived by an evil spirit into boasting -that a spirit had descended to him from the circle of Venus.[1181] -William argues that the starry heavens are _rational_ and able to -regulate themselves and do not require any ministering angels; and on -the other hand that the nobler spirits would not debase themselves by -ministering to mere celestial _bodies_.[1182] William’s own theory is -that demons dwell in the air about the earth and not in the planetary -heavens. He also speaks in one passage of their especially frequenting -deserts.[1183] - -[Sidenote: False accounts of fallen angels.] - -William also rejects[1184] some non-Christian assertions concerning -fallen angels. One is the statement of the author of a book of sorcery, -who claimed to have communed with spirits thirty years, to the effect -that new spirits are created daily, and that there are twelve orders -of them, and that every day a multitude of them fall and that they -fall into different regions of the earth and there rule--some in -deserts, some in woods, some in fountains and rivers, some in herbs and -trees, some in gems and stones, which thus derive their marvel-working -qualities from them. The other account rejected by William is a -pretty story from Hermes to this effect.[1185] When two angels were -criticizing mankind harshly for its sinfulness God incarnated them to -see how much better they would do. Both promptly fell in love with a -beautiful woman who would return their love only on condition that they -renounce God. When they had done even this, God called them to heaven, -reproved them for not having justified their criticism of sinful -mankind, and told them to choose now their place of punishment. They -selected the air, but later through the prayers of a prophet in Babylon -were shut up in a cave to await their final punishment at the last -judgment. - -[Sidenote: Different kinds of spirits.] - -William of course makes the usual sharp Christian distinction between -good spirits or angels and bad spirits or demons. It is the latter -alone, rather than spiritual substances in general, whom he connects -with magic, although naturally the magicians themselves often claim to -employ good spirits. William is in doubt whether fauns and pygmies -and some other monsters are demons or animals or men.[1186] He also -lists satyrs, _joculatores_, incubi, succubi, nymphs, Lares, Penates -and other old Latin names such as _cloacina_, _Lucina_, _limitanus_, -_priapus_, _genius_, _hymenus_.[1187] He regards as a delusion the -belief fostered by old-wives in demons who injure infants.[1188] -Despite his mention of incubi and succubi and despite the verses of -Scripture about the sons of God and the daughters of men and that woman -ought to veil her head on account of the angels, he regards demons as -incapable of sexual intercourse with human beings, but he thinks it -possible that they may juggle with nature so as to produce the effects -of sexual intercourse.[1189] He mentions the belief in a demon who -comes to cellars at night in women’s clothing and bestows abundance and -prosperity where food and drink is left uncovered for it to partake -of, which it does without diminishing the quantity. “And they call her -_satia_ from satiety.” - -[Sidenote: Limited demon control of nature.] - -What is the extent of the control over matter exercised by the demons -in performing marvels? In discussing what demons can and cannot perform -in the ways of marvels, William’s decisions seem rather arbitrary and -capricious.[1190] He grants them superhuman powers of divination and -says that it has been repeatedly proved that they know when invocations -and sacrifices are made to them.[1191] But the apparitions which they -produce are neither real objects nor images in the air but thoughts -and pictures in the mind of the beholder.[1192] The armies of horsemen -produced by necromancers leave no prints of hoofs behind them and their -elaborate castles with gates, towers, walls, and citadel completely -vanish without leaving a trace.[1193] This explains how enchanters and -magicians can apparently cut horses in two, although William grants -it not unlikely that there may be other ways of doing this for those -“who know the marvellous occult virtues of many things.” William also -discusses how demons can toss sticks and stones about, throw persons -out of bed, and transport men or huge rocks for great distances when -they have neither necks nor shoulders to carry them on.[1194] This is -no more strange, he says, than the magnet’s ability to draw iron.[1195] -He believes that the virtue of spiritual substances can overcome weight -which holds bodies at rest and produce lightness which makes motion -easy. It was thus that an angel transported one of the Hebrew prophets -to Babylon by a lock of his hair. It is doubtful, however, if this last -could have been accomplished save by divine aid. He doubts furthermore -if horses could be generated as the frogs were by the Egyptian -magicians of Pharaoh. The generation of frogs is a much easier and more -rapid process. Also the wax lights which mysteriously appear in stables -on the horses’ manes and tails would be easy for demons to make.[1196] -But William disbelieves in such magic transformations as werwolves. His -explanation is that the devil first made the man imagine himself a wolf -and then caused a real wolf to appear and frighten people.[1197] Demons -cannot make idols or images speak, but when the bodies of human beings -are possessed by demons, they form voices after a fashion, although, as -exorcists have assured him, in a raucous tone unlike the usual human -voice, probably because the vocal chords respond but indifferently to -demoniacal abuse of them.[1198] - -[Sidenote: Can demons be imprisoned or enter bodies?] - -William is sure that demons cannot be imprisoned against their will in -material bodies, whether rings, gems, mirrors, or glass phials such as -Solomon is said to have shut them up in.[1199] William argues that if -a man died in a huge corked bottle his soul would be able to get out. -William, however, believes his Bible when it tells him of demons shut -up in men whom “they vex with innumerable tortures,” or in swine or -in lakes,[1200] although he declares that he does not adduce the case -of demons in swine because it is recorded in the Bible but because -it is attested by the experience of many. And he declares that even -to his day demons give most certain indication of their presence in -lakes when stones are thrown in or they are provoked by some other -movement or sound.[1201] He states, however, that many medical men deny -that human beings are possessed by demons and attribute the seizures -and agitations to fumes and vapors.[1202] Many skilled doctors also -dispute the existence of the nocturnal demon called _ephialtes_ and -attribute the oppressive feeling to action of the heart and not to the -weight of a demon. In this instance William is inclined to agree with -the physicians.[1203] William holds that it is useless to strike at -demons when they appear before you, for you merely beat the air, as -many experiments have shown.[1204] But he believes that demons can be -punished not only by material hell fire but by contact with the other -three elements, air, earth and water. - -[Sidenote: Susceptibility of demons to the four elements and to natural -objects.] - -Demons feel any affront offered or indignity done them very keenly so -that saints have often routed them by a volley of spit. William is also -inclined to accept the “ancient opinion among the Romans” that human -urine dissolves works of magic.[1205] Furthermore there are several -natural objects which have the occult virtue of driving away demons, -a peony suspended from the neck--Galen’s old remedy for the epileptic -boy--or the top of the heart of a certain fish placed on the coals. If -it is asked how it is that these proud spiritual substances are thus -subject to the virtues of physical bodies, William can only answer that -it is probably in consequence of their fall, which also subjected them -to hell fire. William’s logic simply reduces to this, that God can do -anything He pleases with demons while men can do nothing with them -against the demons’ wills and without imperiling their own souls. - -[Sidenote: Stock examples of natural marvels.] - -William is as credulous concerning the marvelous powers attributed -to herbs, gems and animals, and as anxious to find some plausible -explanation of their validity, as he was sceptical in regard to images, -characters and words. We encounter once more in his pages many of the -stock examples of natural marvels which we have met again and again -in previous writers and shall find in many writers after him. He -rhapsodizes concerning the power of the magnet and mentions its three -species according to Hermes (Mercurius).[1206] He tells of the phoenix, -of the masculine and feminine palms, and of theriac.[1207] Indeed, the -magnet, the palms, and the story of the hazel rod told below are all -introduced while William is supposedly discussing divine providence. -In more than one passage he tells--perhaps directly from Pliny--of -the stupefaction produced by the _torpedo_ in persons who touch it -only with a long stick, of the little _echinus_ or _remora_ which -stops great ships, or of the powers of lion and basilisk, and of the -gem heliotrope which aided by the virtue of the herb of the same name -renders one invisible.[1208] For this assertion concerning heliotrope, -however, which Pliny stigmatized as an example of the magicians’ -impudence,[1209] William cites the writings of experimenters. - -[Sidenote: The hazel rod story.] - -On the other hand, a passage in William’s work concerning the property -of a hazel rod was repeated within a few years by at least three -writers: Albertus Magnus, John of St. Amand, and Roger Bacon. William -relates that men say that if the rod is split in two lengthwise -the halves will approach one another again of their own accord and -reunite.[1210] Deceivers attribute this to the virtue of certain words -which they utter, but it is by virtue and sense of nature. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtues of herbs and animals.] - -William regards the occult virtue of things on this earth as so certain -that he uses it to argue that the stars too must possess great -powers.[1211] This is attested “from the operations of the virtues of -other things, both animals and parts of them, also herbs, medicines, -and stones.”[1212] Of medicines he especially recommends the _empirica_ -to the reader’s consideration.[1213] The virtues of herbs have been -proved to be very numerous and very marvelous.[1214] As for animals, -after describing the virtues of the basilisk, William adds, “and when -you have heard similar and maybe greater things concerning the occult -virtues of other animals, you will not marvel at these.” Among many -medicines which prolong life he believes that the flesh of snakes has -great renovating virtue,[1215] and among medicines supposed to produce -visions and revelations he names the eye of an Indian tortoise and -the heart of the hoopoe,[1216] which are thought to clear the soul of -noxious vapors in sleep and pave the way for illuminations. William -suggests that these substances may horrify one so as to shock the soul -free from the body. He even mentions a medicine the smoke from which -in the room in which one is sleeping will free the soul from the body -so that it emerges into the region of light and the luminosity of the -Creator.[1217] And in the case of the little fish which binds ships -so that they cannot move, he holds it indubitable that this cannot -possibly be done by any bodily virtue which it possesses and must be by -some spiritual virtue which exists in its soul.[1218] This reminds him -of the power of the human imagination as shown in the case of the man -who cast down a camel by merely imagining its fall.[1219] - -[Sidenote: Virtues of gems.] - -To the virtues of gems William alludes a number of times. He recounts -how the sapphire of its own motion springs into a diseased human eye -and cleanses it of its noxious humors.[1220] He also finds it asserted -that the emerald attracts riches to its owner and that the topaz -checks the passions of avarice, cupidity, luxury, and evil desire. He -endeavors to explain how it may be possible for the stone heliotrope to -render one invisible; as the power of the stone turns the brightness -of the sunlight to a ruby shade, so it may be that the potency of its -color prevents the spectators from discerning at all the color of the -man who wears it, just as it is said that a musical instrument strung -with snake-skin drowns the sound of all other instruments.[1221] - -[Sidenote: A medley of marvelous virtues.] - -Some of the virtues ascribed to natural objects William finds -almost too marvelous for belief, but then strengthens his faith by -recollecting some others which are more marvelous still, as the -following passage will illustrate.[1222] The experimenters have put in -their books the marvelous statement that the presence of a serpent or -of a reed containing some quicksilver affects sorcerers and magicians -so that their juggleries and incantations are of no avail. William, who -it will be recalled had elsewhere denied the ability of a magic figure -to stop a mill-wheel, is also inclined to question whether serpents -or quicksilver have any power over evil spirits and incantations. But -then he remembers that the experimenters also assert that a crab hung -in mid-air keeps moles who move underground out of the field and that -the herb peony drives devils out of demoniacs. Since the peony has many -virtues necessary for men and demons hate men, William thinks it likely -that they hate the herb too, and flee from it, when it is suspended -about one’s neck. And in one of the books of the Hebrews it is -expressly stated that one of the holy angels said that the top of the -heart of a certain fish placed on live coals would drive any kind of -demon out of men or women. This book is received as authentic by both -Hebrews and Christians, and William also regards an archangel as a good -authority. This being established, he sees no reason why a snake may -not have power over demons too. He recalls too the ancient belief among -the Romans that human urine dissolves all works of magic; the manifest -fact that jasper drives away snakes and that eagles place it in their -nests for this reason; and that the gem achates or agate taken powdered -in drink causes the unchaste to vomit. In Great Britain they test the -morals of boys and girls by this experiment. This property of the agate -causes William to marvel much, for he sees no connection between stones -and virginity. However, if the agate is incompatible with unchastity, -what wonder if quicksilver will not tolerate the working of magic in -its presence? - -It has been made evident that William accepts very extreme powers in -natural objects and that with such resources the possibilities of his -natural magic should be well-nigh unlimited. If he does not quite -believe in all these marvels, he does not definitely deny them, and -evidently enjoys repeating them. - -[Sidenote: Divination not an art but revelation.] - -William states that the proper meaning of divination is imitation -of the deity, but that the term is usually not applied to the -revelations made by good spirits and prophets but to the revelation -of hidden things, especially the future, by evil spirits.[1223] For -he also affirms that divination is not a human art but a matter of -revelation. The medical prognostications of physicians, although they -may seem occult to other men, are based on experience of their art and -astronomers are not called diviners but men of learning. While William -may deny that the diviner is an _artifex_, he has to admit that some -diviners use tools or materials and so give their predictions the -appearance of being based upon some art. - -[Sidenote: Divination by inspection of lucid surfaces.] - -Of this type is the practice of predicting the future by gazing upon -polished and reflecting surfaces which are rubbed with oil to increase -their lucidity.[1224] Among the substances employed are mirrors, -two-edged swords, children’s finger-nails, egg shells, and ivory -handles. Usually a boy or a virgin is employed to gaze thereupon, -and sometimes exorcisms, adjurations, and observance of times are -added. William affirms that many experiences have demonstrated that -only one boy out of seven or ten sees anything therein, and he is of -the opinion that the whole apparatus simply conceals “the impiety of -diabolical sacrifices.” Some ancient sages, nevertheless, notably -Plato, have thought that the soul of the gazer is thrown back upon -itself by the luminosity of the object seen and then exercises its -latent powers of natural divination. We sometimes see such revelations -by the irradiation of spiritual light in the insane, the very ill, -dreamers, and those in whom because of great fright or care the mind -is abstracted from the body.[1225] William therefore finally concludes -that the theory of the philosophers as to divination by inspection of -lucid bodies “is undoubtedly possible,” but he still maintains that -demons are often involved. - -[Sidenote: Other instances of divination, ancient and modern.] - -William also tells us of an ancient Latin magician who believed that -the soul of an immaculate boy who had been slain by violence would have -knowledge of past, present and future.[1226] He therefore murdered a -boy, and then went insane himself and imagined that he heard responses -from the boy’s soul. This was surely the work of demons. Other ancient -philosophers blinded boys or themselves in order to increase the power -of the soul in divination.[1227] William further mentions the old-wives -of his own time who still persisted in divination and interpreting -dreams and could not be made to desist even by beatings.[1228] He -states that these old women still cherished the superstition of the -augurs that if you find a bird’s nest with the mother bird and little -ones or the eggs, and preserve it intact, all will go well with you, -while if you harm it or separate any bird or egg from it you will -encounter ill fortune.[1229] - -[Sidenote: His treatment of astrology.] - -William has much to say in his various works of the heavens and the -stars, and he rarely overlooks an opportunity to have a tilt with -the astrologers. Most of his statements and arguments had been often -employed before, however, and he also repeats himself a great deal, and -his long-drawn scholastic listing and rebutting of supposed reasons -pro and con at times becomes insufferably tedious. We shall therefore -compress his treatment to a very small space compared to that which it -occupies in his own works and words. - -[Sidenote: The philosophers on the nature of the heavens and stars.] - -William states that Plato and Aristotle, Boethius, Hermes Trismegistus, -and Avicenna, all believed the stars to be divine animals whose souls -were as superior to ours, as their celestial bodies are.[1230] Since -these philosophers regarded the stars as nobler, wiser, and more -powerful than mortals, they made them guardians and guides of humanity, -and distributed all earthly objects under their rule. Such doctrines -William recalls examining when he was young in the books of judicial -astrology and the volumes of magicians and sorcerers, from whom he -would appear to distinguish the above-named philosophers none too -carefully. He indeed explicitly classes “Plato and Aristotle and their -followers” with “those who believe in judgments of the stars.”[1231] -He also tells us that Plato regarded the entire universe as one divine -animal, and that his followers regarded the tides as the breathing of -this world animal; but that Aristotle and his school included only what -is above the moon or even only the heaven of the fixed stars.[1232] -Avicenna, too, called the heaven an animal obedient to God. - -[Sidenote: William’s own opinion and attitude.] - -William himself is inclined to think that the divisions and diversities -of the nine spheres militate against their being animated by a single -soul; and he rejects the theory that the world soul is composed of -number and musical consonance.[1233] But he leaves Christians free, -if they will, to believe with the Aristotelians and many Italian -philosophers that the superior world is either one or many animals, -that the heavens are either animated or rational.[1234] In this he -sees no peril to the Faith; but hitherto Hebrew and Christian doctrine -has not explored such matters, and Christians have been too absorbed -in saving men’s souls to note whether the heavens had souls or no. -It would indeed be strange if William denied the starry heavens some -sort of soul or souls when he has attributed one to a sea-fish like -the echinus.[1235] But he declares that “it is manifest that human -souls are nobler than those which they put in heavenly bodies.” And -he warns against the wicked error of identifying the Holy Spirit with -the world soul. We have noted elsewhere his hostility to the theory -of astrological necromancy that the heavens and stars are full of -ministering spirits. He also contraverts the Aristotelian doctrines -that there are as many intelligences moving the heavenly bodies -as there are celestial motions and that the heavens love superior -intelligences and strive to become assimilated to these.[1236] - -[Sidenote: Objection to stars as cause of evil.] - -Like most Christian apologists William adopts the argument that -the stars, if rational, would not cause evils and misfortunes such -as astrologers predict, and seems to think that all the evil in -the world can be charged to the account of human perversity or the -imperfections inherent in the matter of our inferior world, and that -for these two sources of ill neither God nor the stars should be held -responsible.[1237] He recognizes, it is true, that someone may argue -that these evils exist by the will of the Creator, whose will is -nevertheless always good, but he does not seem to see that the same -reasoning may be applied to the rule of the stars. He seems to regard -as a new discovery of his own and a point hitherto unrecognized by -astrologers, the argument that ineptitude on the part of inferior -matter receiving the force of the stars may account for many effects -apparently due to the heavens. But in thinking this argument novel he -is much mistaken. Really his only point here against astrologers is -that some of them are careless in their phraseology and speak of the -stars as causing evil, which he regards as blasphemy of Him who created -the stars. “And all blasphemy against the Creator,” continues William -in a truculent and intolerant tone which reveals the spirit of the -medieval inquisition, “is an impiety to be exterminated with fire and -sword.” - -[Sidenote: Virtues of the stars.] - -William raises certain difficulties in regard to astrological technique -only to answer them himself. And he grants that fixed stars which -seem close together may really be separated by vast distances and so -have very different virtue. And he cannot deny “many marvelous and -occult virtues” in celestial bodies, when he admits “so many and so -great occult virtues” in terrestrial bodies. Indeed all philosophers -agree that the virtues of the stars far surpass even those of precious -stones. The variations in the heat of the sun, while its course -continues constant, seem to William a sure indication that the other -planets and fixed stars participate in influencing our world. - -[Sidenote: Extent of their influence upon nature and man.] - -While William was not unwilling to concede souls or reason to the -stars, he believes that it is perilous for Christians to regard the -souls of the heavens as “governors of inferior things and especially -of human affairs.”[1238] Those who hold that man’s actions are caused -of necessity by the motion of the sky and the positions of the stars, -ruin, in his opinion, the foundations of law and morality.[1239] -“Against that error, one ought not so much to dispute with arguments -as fight with fire and sword.” Some have argued that because stars -and lights were created before vegetation, animal life, and human -beings, they are causes of these others, both generating and regulating -them.[1240] In favor of this contention so much has been written that -it can scarcely be read, says William, and the stars do give much -aid in generation and in conservation of generated things, but not -so much as the astrologers think.[1241] They should not be consulted -even as signs--rather than causes--in human concerns.[1242] In our -sublunar world their power extends only to the four elements and -four humors and only to such animals composed of these as lack free -will and obey natural necessity. Thus William really excludes only -human free will and intellect from sidereal control,[1243] and he -admits that “the multitude and populace from want of intelligence and -other evil dispositions lives almost after the manner of brutes,” -following natural impulse to a great extent, so that astrologers may -predict popular agitations and mob uprisings with a fair degree of -accuracy, but should not predict concerning individuals. Even in the -case of individuals, however, he does not deny that natural virtues -and vices are attributable to the stars, such vices, for instance, as -irascibility, levity, and lubricity, which medical authorities ascribe -not to moral fault but physical constitution.[1244] William would limit -the influence of the stars not only by individual freedom of the will -but by the power of prayer.[1245] He does not believe the decrees of -fate so fixed and the laws of nature so unchangeable that God’s wrath -may not be placated by prayer, and freedom from any threatening evil -obtained from His goodness. Belief in the power of the stars and belief -in the power of prayers: which is the more superstitious, which the -more nearly scientific? Or which belief has led to progress in science? - -[Sidenote: Against nativities, interrogations, and images.] - -William complains that “Ptolemy and Haly and other astronomers” have -attributed original sin and all its consequences to the constellations -and hours of nativity, in that they have presumed to write books -of horoscopes and nativities.[1246] He feels it “necessary to say -something against that insanity” because of the great reputation such -famous writers have among the “simple and stupid multitude” which -regards them as profound sages and sublime prophets. Into William’s -particular arguments against the art of casting nativities, which much -resemble the arguments of Augustine and John of Salisbury, we will not -go. Elsewhere he also attacks the practice of interrogations.[1247] -He also strongly objects to the books which he says astrologers have -written on discovering men’s secret thoughts through the significations -of the stars.[1248] - -William has much to say against astrological images, but his attitude -has already been partially indicated in stating his attitude towards -images, figures, and characters in general. He declares that belief -in astrological images “derogates more from the honor and glory of -the Creator than the error which attributes such virtue to the stars -and luminaries themselves.” It seems to him “a strange and quite -intolerable error to think that stars which cannot help themselves -can bestow such gifts as invincibility, social graces, temperance or -chastity.”[1249] Yet elsewhere we have heard him mention with seeming -complaisance the bestowal of riches and checking of evil passions -by emeralds and topazes. His best argument as against figures and -characters in general is that such lifeless bodies cannot produce -intellectual and moral effects in living human beings, especially when -the engraved gems are, as is usual, hidden away somewhere, or buried -underground. - -[Sidenote: Astrology and religion and history.] - -William condemns as error the association of the world’s leading -religions with the planets, as Judaism with Saturn, Islam with -Venus, and Christianity with the sun.[1250] The stars, he declares, -are subject to religion, not religion to the stars, and Joshua made -even the sun and moon stand still. William is candid enough to -recognize that the seven-branched candlestick in the Jewish tabernacle -designated the seven planets, but elsewhere states that the Mosaic -Law forbade observation of the stars.[1251] William also considers -the doctrine of the _magnus annus_ or Platonic year, that after -36,000 solar years history will repeat itself down to the minutest -detail owing to the recurrence of the former series of positions of -the constellations.[1252] Since this has the support of men of great -reputation, he lists various arguments advanced in its favor and rebuts -them in detail. - -[Sidenote: Comets and the star of Bethlehem.] - -William believes that comets appear in the sky and in the air “as signs -of slaughters and other great events in the world.” He mentions “the -universal belief” that they foretell the deaths of kings and political -changes.[1253] But he asserts that the star announcing Christ’s -birth was not of this sort and that the darkness at the time of the -Crucifixion was not due to an ordinary eclipse. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1102] _Gulielmi Alverni episcopi Parisiensis mathematici perfectissimi -eximii philosophi ac theologi praestantissimi Opera omnia per -Joannem Dominicum Traianum Neapolitanum Venetiis ex officina Damiani -Zenari_, 1591. The _De universo_ occupies nearly half of the volume, -pp. 561-1012. My references will be to this edition and to the _De -universo_ unless some other title is specified. In it--and in such -other editions of William’s works as I have seen--the chapter headings -are often very poor guides to the contents, especially if the chapter -is of any length. There are at Paris thirteenth century MSS of the _De -fide_ and _De legibus_ (BN 15755) and _De universo_ (BN 15756). - -The chief secondary work on William of Auvergne is Noel Valois, -_Guillaume d’Auvergne_, Paris, 1880. One chapter is devoted to his -attitude to the superstitions of his age, and goes to the other extreme -from Daunou, HL XVIII, 375, whom Valois criticizes for calling William -extremely credulous. The inadequacy of Valois’ chapter, at least from -our standpoint, may be inferred from his total omission of William’s -conception of “natural magic.” Valois has no treatment of William’s -attitude to natural science but contents himself with a discussion -of his philosophy and psychology. (See also M. Baumgartner, _Die -Erkenntnislehre des Wilhelm von Auvergne_, Münster, 1893.) The chapter -on William’s attitude to superstition is largely given over to examples -of popular superstitions in the thirteenth century, supplementing -legends of Brittany and other stories told by William with similar -anecdotes from the pages of Stephen of Bourbon, Caesar of Heisterbach, -and Gervaise of Tilbury. Valois’ citations of William’s works are from -an edition in which the pages were numbered differently from those in -the one I used. - -[1103] Valois (1880), pp. 9-11. - -[1104] Valois (1880), p. 53. - -[1105] HL 18, 357. - -[1106] II-iii-20, (pp. 994-95). Yet in another connection (I-i-46, pp. -625-26) William inconsistently makes the assertion that everything -depends absolutely upon God’s will alone as an argument against -employing magic images to gain one’s ends. He tells a story of a man -who, when a magician offered to secure him some great dignity in -his city, asked him if he could get it against God’s will. When the -magician admitted that he could not, the man asked if he could prevent -securing it if God willed it and the magician again answered “No.” The -man then said that he would commit it all to God. William does not seem -to see that this attitude is the same as that of ignorant persons who -leave scientific investigation to God or of hungry people who expect -God to feed them. - -[1107] I-i-44, (p. 613). - -[1108] I-i-42, (p. 608). - -[1109] _Ibid._, (p. 606). - -[1110] See I-iii-31, (p. 759). See also Valois, 304 and M. K. Werner, -_Wilhelms von Auvergne Verhältniss z. d. Platonikern des XII. Jhts_, in -_Vienna Sitzb._, vol. 74 (1873), p. 119 _et seq._ - -[1111] See I-ii-30, (p. 694) for an expression of this view. - -[1112] I-ii-31, (p. 695). - -[1113] II-iii-23, (pp. 1003-4). - -[1114] _De legibus_, Cap. 25, (p. 75). - -[1115] I-ii-21, (p. 680): II-iii-7, (p. 973). - -[1116] II-iii-23, p. (1003): _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (p. 73): II-ii-29, -(p. 820). - -[1117] II-iii-7, (p. 971). - -[1118] II-iii-22, (p. 998). - -[1119] _De legibus_, Cap. 9, (pp. 38-39). - -[1120] See Cap. 13 (p. 43) and before - -[1121] Cap. 23, (p. 65). - -[1122] Cap. 14, (pp. 44-45). - -[1123] II-iii-22, (p. 998) ... opera huiusmodi quae opera magica et -ludificationes vel hominum vel daemonum nuncupantur. - -[1124] II-iii-7, (p. 971): II-iii-12, (pp. 977-79). - -[1125] II-iii-21, (pp. 997-998) naturarum vires et potentias occultas, -etc. - -[1126] I-i-43, (p. 612): _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (p. 67). - -[1127] _De legibus_, Cap. 14 (p. 44). - -[1128] II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1129] II-iii-23, (p. 1003). - -[1130] _De legibus_, Cap. 14, (p. 46). - -[1131] II-iii-21, (p. 998). - -[1132] II-iii-12, (p. 979). - -[1133] _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (pp. 67-68). - -[1134] I-i-46, (p. 627). - -[1135] _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (pp. 67-68). - -[1136] I-i-43, (p. 612). - -[1137] “Sensus naturae,” _De legibus_, Cap. 27, (p. 88). - -[1138] See pp. 875, 876 and 983 as well as the following reference. -I-i-46, (p. 624). - -[1139] II-ii-70, (p. 870). - -[1140] II-ii-69, (p. 869). - -[1141] II-ii-70, (p. 870). - -[1142] I-i-46, (p. 625). - -[1143] II-iii-22, (p. 1000). - -[1144] I-i-46, (p. 625). - -[1145] I-i-46, (p. 626). - -[1146] I-i-46, (p. 624). - -[1147] I-i-46, (p. 627). - -[1148] _De legibus_, Cap. 23, (p. 64): II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1149] _De legibus_, Cap. 26, (p. 82). - -[1150] _Ibid._, Cap. 27, (pp. 84 ff.). - -[1151] II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1152] _De legibus_, Cap. 26, (p. 84). - -[1153] _Ibid._, Cap. 27, (pp. 86-87). - -[1154] _Ibid._, Cap. 23, (p. 65). - -[1155] II-iii-23, (p. 1003). - -[1156] _De legibus_, Cap. 27, (p. 89). - -[1157] _Ibid._, (pp. 87-88). - -[1158] _Ibid._, (p. 89). - -[1159] _De legibus_, Cap. 27, (p. 84). - -[1160] _Ibid._, Cap. 4, (p. 34). - -[1161] II-iii-25, (p. 1010). - -[1162] II-ii-96, (p. 895). - -[1163] _De universo_, pp. 996-7, also 1003; _De legibus_, cap. 27 (p. -89). - -[1164] Berlin 956, 12th century, fol. 21, Hic incipit alchamia.... - -[1165] Bridges, II, 212. - -[1166] _Theatrum Chymicum_, Strasburg, 1613, IV, 221. - -[1167] Sloane 1118, 15th century, #28. Arthephii capitulum ex opere -solis extractum. - -[1168] Gildemeister in _Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Ges._ XXXIII, -534: cited by Lippmann (1919), 408. - -[1169] _De legibus_, Cap. 26, (pp. 81-82): I-i-44, (p. 613). - -[1170] _De universo_ II-ii-37, (p. 831): II-ii-100 (p. 898). - -[1171] _Ibid._, II-ii-96, (p. 895). - -[1172] _Ibid._, II-iii-13, (p. 982): II-iii-24, (p. 1007). - -[1173] _Ibid._, II-ii-63, (p. 860): II-ii-70, (p. 871): II-iii-6, (p. -968): II-iii-17, (p. 988). - -[1174] _Ibid._, II-iii-24, (p. 1007). - -[1175] _Ibid._, II-ii-84 and 85, (pp. 885-6). - -[1176] Among errors condemned at Paris in 1240 by William as bishop the -seventh was “that neither glorified souls nor glorious or glorified -bodies will be in the empyrean heaven with the angels but in the watery -or crystalline (heaven) which is above the firmament. Which they even -presume to say of the blessed virgin. On the contrary it should be -believed that there is the same place for holy angels and souls of the -blest, namely, the empyrean heaven,” etc. - -The eighth error was “that an angel can in the same instant be in -different places and is everywhere if he wishes to be everywhere.” - -These errors and various other sets of errors condemned at Paris and -Oxford are printed in an incunabulum numbered IA.4778 in the British -Museum. - -[1177] _De universo_ I-i-34, (p. 595 ff). Also Cap. 43 (pp. 609 to 611). - -[1178] Who William believes will exceed the saved in numbers: “De -multitudine vero damnandorum omnis lex determinatum habet apud se quod -multo maior futura sit multitudine glorificandorum.” The passage has -already been quoted in HL XVIII, 371-2. - -[1179] _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (p. 73.) _De universo_ II-ii-96, (p. 895). - -[1180] _Ibid._, II-ii-70, (p. 871). - -[1181] _Ibid._, II-ii-39 and 98, (pp. 833 and 897) and II-iii-6, (p. -967): also II-ii-96, (p. 895). - -[1182] _De universo_, II-ii-97, (p. 896). - -[1183] _De legibus_, Cap. 9, (pp. 38-39). - -[1184] _De universo_, II-ii-29, (p. 820) and II-iii-6 to 8, (pp. 966 to -973). - -[1185] _Ibid._, II-ii-37, (p. 831): II-ii-100, (p. 898). - -[1186] _De universo_, II-iii-7, (p. 970). - -[1187] _Ibid._, II-iii-12, (pp. 976-7). - -[1188] _Ibid._, II-iii-24, (p. 1004). - -[1189] _Ibid._, II-iii-25, (pp. 1009-10). - -[1190] _Ibid._, II-iii-23, (p. 1000). - -[1191] _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (p. 67). - -[1192] _De universo_, I-ii-21, (p. 680), and II-ii-63, (p. 860). - -[1193] _Ibid._, II-iii-12, (p. 979). - -[1194] _De universo_, II-ii-70, (p. 871). - -[1195] _Ibid._ (p. 1001). - -[1196] _Ibid._ (pp. 1003-1004). - -[1197] _Ibid._, II-iii-13, (p. 983). - -[1198] _De legibus_, Cap. 26, (p. 83-4). - -[1199] _De legibus_, Cap. 26, (p. 81). - -[1200] _De universo_, II-iii-6, (p. 968). - -[1201] _Ibid._, II-iii-17, (p. 987). - -[1202] _Ibid._, II-iii-13, (p. 982). - -[1203] _Ibid._, II-iii-24, (p. 1007). - -[1204] _Ibid._, II-iii-17, (p. 988). - -[1205] _Ibid._, II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1206] I-iii-11, (p. 731: also pp. 756-57). - -[1207] I-ii-16, (p. 668): II-iii-22 (p. 999). - -[1208] II-ii-73, (p. 873): II-iii-22, (p. 998): II-iii-16, (p. 986): -I-i-46, (p. 621). - -[1209] NH 37, 60. - -[1210] I-iii-11, (p. 731). - -[1211] I-i-46, (p. 621). - -[1212] The influence of this passage is seen in a MS at Paris which -was once the property of the humanist Budé: BN nouv. acq. 433, anno -1486, fol. 1: Excerpta from William of Auvergne, “et primo ex capitulo -de virtutibus occultis quorundam animalium herbarum et lapidum -relatorum ad consideracionem astronomicam et astronomorum, ut plurimum, -errancium.” - -[1213] II-ii-76 (p. 876), necnon et exemplis occultarum operationum et -mirabilium quaeque nonnulli medicorum et etiam quidam philosophorum -naturalium empirica vocant. - -[1214] II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1215] I-i-59, (p. 639). - -[1216] II-iii-21, (p. 997). - -[1217] II-iii-20, (p. 995). - -[1218] II-iii-16, (p. 986). - -[1219] This illustration is also used by Peter of Abano, _Conciliator_, -Diff. 135; and is found in the 219 opinions of Siger de Brabant and -others condemned at Paris in 1277 (see below, Chapter 62). - -[1220] I-i-46, (p. 621). - -[1221] II-iii-22, (p. 998). - -[1222] II-iii-22, (p. 999). - -[1223] II-iii-18, (p. 989). - -[1224] _Ibid._ and _De legibus_, Cap. 24, (p. 68). - -[1225] II-iii-20, (p. 993). - -[1226] II-iii-19, (p. 990). - -[1227] II-iii-20, (p. 994). - -[1228] I-iii-27, (pp. 750-51). - -[1229] _De legibus_, Cap. 2, (p. 31). - -[1230] _De legibus_, cap. 25 (p. 75). _De universo_, I-iii-27, (p. 751). - -[1231] I-iii-28, (p. 753). - -[1232] I-iii-27, (pp. 751-2). - -[1233] I-iii-30, (p. 757). - -[1234] I-iii-31, (p. 759). - -[1235] I-ii-29, (p. 693). - -[1236] I-ii-5, (p. 650): II-i-45, (p. 794): II-i-4, (p. 763). - -[1237] I-i-46, (pp. 618-23). - -[1238] I-iii-28, (pp. 753-4). - -[1239] I-iii-20, (p. 740). - -[1240] I-i-42, (pp. 606-7). - -[1241] I-i-46, (pp. 627-8). - -[1242] I-iii-31, (p. 759). - -[1243] I-i-46, (pp. 628-9). - -[1244] _Ibid._, (p. 620). - -[1245] _Ibid._, (p. 626). - -[1246] _De vitiis et peccatis_, cap. 6, (p. 264). - -[1247] _De legibus_, cap. 20, (p. 55). - -[1248] I-i-46, (p. 628). - -[1249] _De universo_, I-i-46, (pp. 622 ff). _De legibus_, cap. 23, (p. -65). - -[1250] _Ibid._, cap. 20, (p. 53). - -[1251] _Ibid._, cap. 2, (p. 31): I-i-46, (p. 628). - -[1252] I-ii-16 and 17, (pp. 667-9). - -[1253] I-i-46, (p. 629). - - - - -CHAPTER LIII - -THOMAS OF CANTIMPRÉ - - - _De natura rerum_; date, authorship, and relation to - similar works--Life of Thomas--Character of the _De natura - rerum_--Plan and contents--Chief authorities--Embodiment of - long extracts--Other citations--Credulous attitude--Very - uncritical character of the _Bonum universale de apibus_--A - chapter on the lion--Different kinds of lions: their - generation--Disposition and behavior--Fear inspired - and felt by lions--Their diet, medicine, and mode of - fighting--Medical virtues of the lion’s carcass--Medieval - and modern encyclopedias compared--Examples of the zoology - of the Experimenter--Fish, worms, and toads--Solomon’s - experiment in worms--Trees--Marvelous virtues of stones--An - adamantine mariner’s compass--The mariner’s compass and - magic--Occult virtues of sculptured gems--Thetel on images - on stones--Zahel or Zaël the Israelite--Consecration of - gems--The seven metals: modern plumbing--The seven regions - of the air--Astrological--Elements and spirits--Other works - incorrectly ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré--Appendix I. - The Manuscripts of the _De natura rerum_--Appendix II. Some - Manuscripts of the Treatise of Thetel on Seals. - - -[Sidenote: _De natura rerum_; Date, authorship, and relation to similar -works.] - -We now approach the consideration of two works with titles similar -to Alexander Neckam’s _On the Natures of Things_, namely, Thomas -of Cantimpré’s _On the Nature of Things_[1254] and Bartholomew of -England’s _On the Properties of Things_. These two works are much -longer and more elaborate than Neckam’s, containing each nineteen -books, whereas of his five books only two really dealt with the natures -of things, and they lead up to the later and still better known natural -encyclopedia of Vincent of Beauvais. Thomas and Bartholomew were -contemporaries and it is difficult to say whose book was finished or -appeared first but we shall consider Thomas first. As he says that he -spent fourteen or fifteen years in collecting his material, he perhaps -began to write first and his work seems to reflect a somewhat less -developed state of learning. Thomas is later than Michael Scot whom he -cites, while an allusion to Jacques de Vitry as the most recent of his -authorities and as now bishop of Tusculum and a cardinal indicates that -the work was finished between 1228 and 1244. On the whole Thomas and -Bartholomew seem to have compiled their works independently, employing -different general plans, emphasizing rather different fields, and using -somewhat different authorities. Possibly, therefore, the two works may -have been completed almost simultaneously, and one wonders whether -they may not have represented rival ventures of the two friar orders. -Bormans and Rose[1255] after him have dwelt on the use made of Thomas’s -compilation by his fellow Dominicans, Vincent of Beauvais and Albertus -Magnus, but I have little doubt that most of his sources were known to -them directly. The _De natura rerum_ remained long in use; an official -price was fixed for it at the University of Paris in the reign of -Philip the Fair;[1256] and the manuscripts of it are numerous and -widespread, but as yet often unidentified because in the manuscripts -themselves it is either anonymous or ascribed to Albertus Magnus.[1257] -This attribution to Albert is found even in a manuscript of the -thirteenth century, while “Albert in the book _De naturis rerum_,” is -cited in the _Thesaurus pauperum_[1258] by Petrus Hispanus, a work -written at some time before 1277 when its author died as Pope John XXI. -But Thomas himself speaks in the _Bonum universale de apibus_[1259] of -the _De natura rerum_ as an earlier work of his, which seems decisive, -and he is also credited with the authorship of both these works in the -fourteenth century Dominican bibliography. A critical edition of the -_De natura rerum_ would be a valuable contribution to the study of -medieval learning. - -[Sidenote: Life of Thomas.] - -The date of the birth of Thomas in Brabant has not been fixed but -seems to lie between the years 1186 and 1210 and probably is close to -the latter date. He attended the episcopal school at Liège for eleven -years and entered the Dominican order in 1232. He states that he was in -Paris in 1238 when William of Auvergne as bishop of that city called a -meeting of all the masters in the chapter house of the Friars Preachers -to consider the abuse of plurality of benefices.[1260] In 1246 he -became subprior and lector of the Dominicans at Louvain. Kaufmann -placed the date of his death between 1263 and 1293, but if the date -1276 mentioned in his _Bonum universale de apibus_ is correct,[1261] -he was alive then. In that work he seems to refer to Aquinas and -Albertus Magnus as both still living,[1262] but the former had already -completed his studies with Albert and become a professor of theology -himself,[1263] while Albert is spoken of as if an old man.[1264] Thomas -says that he was an attendant upon his lectures “for a long while” when -he occupied the chair of theology. It does not seem, however, that this -passage implies any very close relation of discipleship between Thomas -and Albert. - -[Sidenote: Character of the _De natura rerum_.] - -The _De natura rerum_ is professedly a handy compilation made from -numerous other writings, as Thomas states both in his preface and -conclusion. Stimulated by the remark in Augustine’s _Christian -Doctrine_ that it would be a splendid achievement if someone should -collect in one volume data concerning the natures of things and -especially of animals, Thomas has spared neither labor, solicitude, -nor expense toward that end and has spent fourteen or fifteen years in -collecting material “scattered widely over the world in the diverse -writings” of many philosophers and authors. He has not been satisfied -to pursue his investigations merely in Gaul and Germany, although books -abound in those countries, but has gone beyond the sea and collected -the books published in England on nature, and has made excerpts from -all sources. He asks indulgence of his readers if he has omitted -anything that should be included, reminding them how great a task it -is for one man to read and digest all the varied and scattered works -of the philosophers. Nevertheless he feels that “there will scarcely -be found among the Latins so much and so varied material compressed -into a single volume.”[1265] Thomas does not directly state as his -aim, although it is perhaps involved in his citation of Augustine, the -elucidation of the properties of things mentioned in the Bible, as we -shall find that Bartholomew of England does. But he expresses a hope -that arguments for the Faith and illustrations serviceable in sermons -may be derived from his work, and there are a number of little books -in existence in manuscript which seem to be extracts from the works -of Thomas or Bartholomew intended for pulpit use.[1266] Thomas will -sometimes, moreover, like Alexander Neckam, explain the allegorical or -moral significance of natural phenomena, “but not continually, because -we have tried to avoid prolixity.” As a matter of fact, it is rarely -that he does so,[1267] although the amount of allegory or moralizing -varies somewhat in different manuscripts. These also differ as to the -fulness of the text generally and there are numerous minor differences, -certain passages being abbreviated or entirely omitted in some -manuscripts. Copies have also been discovered of a second or revised -edition in which a twentieth book has been added.[1268] - -[Sidenote: Plan and contents.] - -The manuscripts also differ in their arrangement of the work, but as -Thomas supplies us with a table of contents, there can be no doubt as -to the original and correct order. He begins with the parts of the -human body, devoting a chapter to each member, its ills and their cure, -and having considerable to say on the subject of obstetrics. His second -book discusses the soul (_anima_). The brief third book treats of -strange and monstrous races of men who are found chiefly in the orient -but in some cases elsewhere, hermaphrodites, for instance, in France. -Then come successive books on quadrupeds, birds, marine monsters, fish, -serpents, and worms. These six books devoted to animal life other than -man occupy considerably more than half of the entire work. Thomas turns -next to the vegetable kingdom, devoting two books to trees, of which -the second deals with aromatic and medicinal trees, and one book to -herbs. After the brief thirteenth book on fountains and other bodies of -water he comes to (14) precious stones, (15) the seven metals, (16) the -seven regions of air, (17) the sphere and planets, (18) meteorology, -and finally to the universe and four elements. These two topics of -his nineteenth book are usually discussed near the start of medieval -scientific treatises, and the reason for the order adopted by Thomas is -not very evident, unless perhaps he at first intended to write about -animals alone and then added further books on other subjects, or unless -he decided to begin with man the microcosm and end with the _mundus_ -or macrocosm. If such was his plan, he does not seem to say so, and it -is hardly surprising that liberties were taken with his order in some -of the manuscripts, which begin with book sixteen and end with book -fifteen, apparently in order to start with the heavens and elements and -then consider the particular creatures of inferior creation. - -[Sidenote: Chief authorities.] - -As the work of Thomas is professedly a compilation, it is important -to note his authorities. At the start he mentions those to whom he -is most indebted: first, Aristotle, and then Pliny. Third comes the -_De mirabilibus_ (instead of _memorabilibus_) _mundi_ of Solinus whom -Thomas esteems both as a man of marvelous eloquence and as a diligent -scrutinizer of the natures of things. Very different this from Albertus -Magnus’ sceptical estimate of Solinus as a philosopher who told many -lies, and yet there are modern scholars who contend that Albert took -much of his natural science ready-made and without acknowledgment -from the _De natura rerum_ of his pupil[1269] Thomas. It will be -noted that Thomas names his chief authorities in chronological order. -Fourth comes Ambrose, to whose eloquent description of birds and -beasts in the _Hexaemeron_ Thomas finds it necessary, however, to make -additions; and fifth, Isidore. Sixth, and most recent in time, is the -_Oriental History_ of Jacques de Vitry to whom Thomas “was intimately -devoted.”[1270] Jacques had occupied several chapters of his _Oriental -History_[1271] with the fountains, trees and herbs, animals, serpents, -birds, and rare fish, precious stones and strange races of the orient, -and had then added a briefer list to show that the west, too, was not -without its marvels. Thomas also mentions two anonymous works, which -he appears to cite chiefly concerning animals[1272] and whose titles -he gives as _Experimentator_ and _Liber rerum_. Thomas was probably -correct in his surmise that _Experimentator_ had been compiled in -recent times and we shall meet citations of it in other authors of the -thirteenth century. But the original texts of the _Liber rerum_ and -_Experimentator_ do not seem to have survived. - -[Sidenote: Embodiment of long extracts.] - -Thomas mentions yet other authorities in his preface and even more -in the course of his work. His method in using his sources varies. -Sometimes he combines in one paragraph brief statements from a -number of authorities bearing on the same topic. Again he may insert -practically _verbatim_ a long extract or complete treatment of a matter -by some one author, or even an entire treatise such as the _Letter of -Alexander to Aristotle_ or Thetel’s discussion of seals in stones. Thus -in his first book on the human body he uses a work supposed to have -been written by Cleopatra to her daughter on the subject of gynecology, -and inserts in condensed form John of Spain’s translation from the -Arabic of the medical portion of _The Secret of Secrets_ supposed -to have been written by Aristotle to Alexander. His second book on -the soul follows Augustine’s treatise _De anima_. His third book on -strange and monstrous races of men includes also some account of the -Gymnosophists and Brahmans and their verbal repartee or epistolary -correspondence with Alexander of Macedon. - -[Sidenote: Other citations.] - -With some of the authors whom he names Thomas was almost surely not -directly acquainted. Dorotheus the Athenian, Menander, and Mago, for -instance, he mentions as “authorities according to Pliny.” He does -not seem to make as much use of Galen as might be expected, were -that author’s works already accessible in Latin translation; but he -probably had the old Latin version of Alexander Tralles, to whom he -probably refers as “_Alexander medicus_.” He probably also had seen -Basil’s _Hexaemeron_ in Latin translation, since he cites it as well -as Ambrose a number of times, and also in the preface to his _Bonum -universale de apibus_ lists “the great Basil” together with Aristotle, -Solinus, Pliny, Ambrose, and Jacques de Vitry as his authorities in the -discussion of bees in the _De natura rerum_. Many other writers he has -without much doubt read for himself: Boethius, Martianus Capella, and -Rabanus of earlier medieval Latin writers; Platearius and Constantinus -Africanus in medicine; Aldhelme[1273] and _Physiologus_ on animals; -of the Arabs Alfraganus, Albumasar, and perhaps Averroës. Michael -Scot seems to be cited in some manuscripts and not in others.[1274] -In treating of stones Thomas does not cite Marbod by name but states -that he is using the metrical version of the account which Evax, king -of Arabia, is said to have written for the emperor Nero. Thomas, -however, adds statements from other authors on stones. Like Alexander -Neckam Thomas seems to use the _Natural Questions_ of Adelard of Bath -without acknowledgment. In discussing herbs he asks the three opening -questions of Adelard’s treatise and proceeds to solve them in words -which are often identical. After this general introduction his chapters -on particular herbs are almost invariably introduced by the formula, -“As Platearius says.” Ferckel has pointed out that the greater part of -three chapters in his first book on human anatomy is drawn from the -_Philosophia_ of William of Conches,[1275] and that the twentieth book, -added in some manuscripts, is taken from the same work. Thus Thomas -makes much use of comparatively recent authorities. He also tells us -that he has not disdained to include some popular beliefs. - -[Sidenote: Credulous attitude.] - -Thomas of Cantimpré must be reckoned as one of the most credulous -of our authors. In his books on animals he seems of the uncritical -school of the marvelous of Solinus, Basil, Ambrose, the _Physiologus_, -and Jacques de Vitry. Seldom does he question any statement that he -finds in his authorities; indeed, he does not appear to possess the -independent knowledge of animal life to enable him to do so. He does -state that the power of the little _echinus_ to stop ships has seemed -incredible to many, but inasmuch as Ambrose, Jacques, Aristotle, -Isidore, and Basil all assert it confidently, he does not see how -there is any room left for doubt.[1276] The story of the beaver’s -self-castration in order to escape its hunters is given without -comment, and we are further told that the animal cannot live unless it -keeps its tail in the water.[1277] Thomas tells us that Isidore held -that the Sirens were really harlots who enticed men to moral ruin, -but he adds that the more general opinion is that they are irrational -marine monsters who still exist and he cites “those who testify that -they have seen the Sirens themselves.” Their song is more like that of -birds than it is like articulate speech. Sometimes, on the other hand, -Thomas prefers a miraculous or supernatural to a natural explanation -of a marvelous statement. He is not sure whether the onocentaur seen -by St. Anthony in the desert was real or a deception of the devil, -and he regards as not natural but a divine miracle the story that -the Apostle Peter had shut up in a mountain near Rome a dragon which -will live until the end of the world. He adds, however, the tale of -the two dragons found alive under the tower from the _History of the -Britons_. About all that can be said for Thomas on this score is that -he does not appear to add many new marvels of his own to the incredible -assertions of past writers. - -[Sidenote: Very uncritical character of the _Bonum universale de -apibus_.] - -Thomas’s credulity seems to have increased with age, since his later -_Bonum universale de apibus_,[1278] in which bees are a mere starting -point for a disquisition on the qualities which bishops and other -clergy should possess and the introduction of innumerable anecdotes, is -a tissue of monkish tales and gossip, instances of special providence, -apparitions of the dead and of demons, and other miracles and -moralities, most of which are supposed to have occurred in Thomas’s own -time and are recounted upon hearsay. Thus we read of a son who did not -adequately support his aged father and was punished by a toad leaping -onto his face and taking such a hold that it could not be removed but -remained as a disfiguring growth. As a penance the son was sent by his -bishop through the diocese as an example and warning to others. Or -Thomas assures us that Albertus Magnus told him that at Paris the demon -appeared to him in the form of a fellow friar in an effort to call him -away from his studies, but departed by virtue of the sign of the cross. -In short, the work is on the same order as the _Dialogues_ of Gregory -the Great. - -[Sidenote: A chapter on the lion.] - -Thomas’s treatment of animals in general and quadrupeds in particular -can perhaps best be illustrated by a paraphrase of some one chapter -entire, for which purpose I have selected that on the lion. It will be -noted that there is no apparent logic in the order of the statements -which I have had to divide into paragraphs rather arbitrarily. It -has seemed fairer, however, to reproduce the order unchanged than to -bring together scattered statements bearing on the same point. Many -of Thomas’s statements are found also in Aristotle’s _History of -Animals_,[1279] although Thomas’s citations would indicate that some -items, at least, were derived by him from that source only indirectly. - -[Sidenote: Different kinds of lions: their generation.] - -The lion, as Jacques and Solinus state, is called the king of animals. -There are three kinds of lions. Many are short and have curly manes -but are weak and cowardly. Those generated by pards are ignoble and -degenerate and have no manes. The larger ones with ordinary manes are -noble and keen and without guile or suspicion. The lion’s brow and tail -reveal his intentions. His virtue resides in his breast and forefoot -and tail.[1280] And he is stout-hearted.[1281] He is so hot of nature -that he is said to have sexual intercourse at all times.[1282] The -lioness bears first five, then four, then three, then two cubs, then -only one, after which she becomes sterile.[1283] Aristotle accounts -for this by the great heat attending the generation of lions who have -solider and stronger bodies for their size than other animals. The -lioness has only two tits and not corresponding in size to her body. -This is not because she has so few cubs but because she eats only flesh -which does not readily turn into milk. - -[Sidenote: Disposition and behavior.] - -Solinus says that the lion is not easily enraged, but when anyone does -provoke him he shows no mercy to his adversary. On the other hand, he -spares the prostrate captive and allows those whom he meets by chance -to proceed on their way.[1284] He is fiercer to men than to women, -and to women who have had intercourse with men than to virgins and -children. Adelinus says that he sleeps with his eyes open. Pliny says -that as he walks he obliterates his tracks with his tail in order -to foil his hunters. Lions do not fight among themselves.[1285] -Solinus[1286] says that if hunted in the open, the lion will wait -for the dogs and dissimulate his fear, but in the woods, where no -one can see his cowardice, will take to his heels. When pursuing his -prey he leaps into the air in order to see farther, but not when he -is fleeing. Aristotle states that the lion and Arabian camel are the -only quadrupeds to move the right foot first. In making water the lion -lifts his foot like a dog. When the lion opens his mouth a strong odor -exudes. “The lion, very swift by fortitude, is somewhat heavy of nature -because of its slow digestion.” When running, it cannot come to a stop -the instant it wishes. - -[Sidenote: Fear inspired and felt by lions.] - -When about to drink, the lion draws a wide circle with its tail and -roars so that the other animals dare not cross this line.[1287] Ambrose -tells a marvel to the effect that many animals which are swift enough -to evade the lion’s onset are paralyzed by the sound of its roar. As -king of beasts the lion scorns the society of the other animals and -will not touch meat which is a day old.[1288] But it fears a scorpion. -According to the _Liber rerum_, some say that the lion is consumed -internally by its own fury and fiery blood, even when it does not have -the appearance of being angry. Solinus says that a lion in captivity -fears the sound of wheels but dreads a fire still more. Jacques says -that it is also afraid of a white cock. Pliny says that a captive lion -can be tamed by seeing its cub whipped or by watching a dog obey a man. - -[Sidenote: Their diet, medicine, and mode of fighting.] - -Lions are never found overladen with fat. They take food or drink on -alternate days, and fast if their digestion fails to operate. If they -devour too much flesh, they put their claws into their mouths and -extract it. The lion has a natural enmity for the wild ass. A sick -lion eats an ape, as Ambrose says, or drains a dog’s blood. Pliny tells -of a Syracusan whom a lion persistently followed until he extracted a -splinter from its foot. Another lion insisted on having a bone removed -from its teeth. Some manuscripts[1289] here insert from Pliny and -Solinus the tale of the wiles of the lioness to conceal her amours with -the pard, and the assertion that a lion wags its tail only when in good -humor. When a lion begins to move it beats the ground with its tail but -as it increases its speed lashes its back. When wounded it always takes -note of the man who inflicted the wound and goes for him. If a man has -hurled missiles at it but failed to hit it, the lion merely knocks him -down. Philosopher says that when fighting for its cubs the lion keeps -its gaze fixed on the ground so as not to be terrified by the spears of -the hunters. - -[Sidenote: Medical virtues of the lion’s carcass.] - -Pliny recommends eating the flesh and heart of a lion to persons -afflicted with colds. The lion’s bones are so hard that they -strike fire like flint. The hollow in its bones is very small and -rarely contains any marrow, and then only in the hip bones, as -Experimenter[1290] says. Lion’s fat is an antidote for poisons, and a -man anointed with it and wine puts to flight all beasts and snakes. -It is hotter than the fat of any other quadruped. The lion is almost -always feverish, and that with quartan fever. The effect of its roar -upon other beasts is again mentioned. When crossing hard or stony -ground the lion spares its claws since they are its weapons. Pliny -asserts that lion fat with oil of roses keeps the face white and free -from blotches. The neck bone of the lion is continuous and the flesh -there cartilaginous like a muscle, so that it cannot turn its neck, a -disability which some, the _Liber rerum_ states, ascribe incorrectly to -indignation or stolidity on the lion’s part. Aristotle says that the -internal organs and teeth of a lion are like those of a dog. - -[Sidenote: Medieval and modern encyclopedias compared.] - -After this account in the _De natura rerum_ the article on the lion -in the latest edition of the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ will be found -rather dull reading and scanty as concerns the behavior of lions as -well as the medicinal properties of their carcasses. Almost all of -antiquity’s interesting assertions concerning lions are omitted, no -doubt as false, but little of interest is supplied in their place. We -are told a number of things that the lion will not do: he will not -climb, he will not take more than three bounds after his prey. But even -Thomas does not say that a lion ever climbs; the notion does not seem -even to have occurred to him.[1291] Nor does Thomas assert that all -lions are brave or noble or magnanimous. On the whole, the lion does -not seem a subject upon which modern science has added vastly to our -knowledge. There were far more lions in existence in antiquity, and men -were more interested in them then, and thought at least that they knew -more about them. - -[Sidenote: Examples of the zoology of the Experimenter.] - -Some notion of the work ascribed by Thomas to _Experimentator_ may -be gained from Thomas’s citations of it in his chapter on the wolf. -Experimenter explains the fact stated by Ambrose, that a man who is -seen first by a wolf cannot speak, by arguing that the rays from the -wolf’s eyes dry up the _spiritus_ of human vision which in its turn -dries up the human _spiritus_ generally. Thereby the wind-pipes are -dried up and in consequence the throat so that man cannot speak. -Experimenter states further that the wolf collects willow leaves in his -mouth and makes a pile of them under which he hides in order to catch -goats. And when walking over dry leaves he licks his paws so that the -dogs will not hear him. An insulting reflection upon the canine sense -of smell! - -[Sidenote: Fish, worms, and toads.] - -We will pass over Thomas’s books on birds, marine monsters, fish, -and serpents, except to note in passing that Delisle credited him -with supplying some new information concerning the medieval herring -fisheries,[1292] and come to his separate treatment of “worms.” -Those with only two or four feet have a little blood, but those with -more feet than four are bloodless, because the blood is exhausted in -providing nutrition for so many feet and because the motion of so -many feet annihilates the blood. Many worms begin and end their life -in the course of a summer, since they are born rather from corruption -than from seed. Earthworms in particular are generated from pure and -unadulterated earth with no admixture of _semen_, and so furnish -illustration and proof of the virgin birth of Christ. In the opinion -of the _Liber rerum_ the toad is a worm. It is venomous and has a -pestilential glance. It feeds on earth, eating as much as it can clutch -in its forefoot, in which it is emblematic of avarice and cupidity. In -Gaul there are big toads or frogs with a voice like a horn, but they -lose their voice if taken outside of that country, typifying clergymen -who like Jonah will not preach outside of their own land. Some -manuscripts add from “Alexander”[1293] that toads are fond of the plant -salvia and that it is sometimes poisoned by contact with them. Hence it -is advised to touch a patch of salvia with rue, the dew from which is -deadly to toads. A stone found in the head of a toad, if worn by a man, -is an amulet against poison. Several toads can be generated from the -ashes of a toad. - -[Sidenote: Solomon’s experiment in worms.] - -In planning to build a temple of fine marbles Solomon found -embarrassing the prohibition in the Mosaic law forbidding one to cut -stones for the altar of the Lord with iron. But then he sought by -an experiment in worms what the art of man knew not. He shut up the -fledglings of an ostrich in a glass vase, so that the mother bird could -see them but could not get at them to feed them. The ostrich thereupon -flew (?) off to the desert and came back with a worm. It then broke the -glass vase by smearing it with the blood of this worm. Solomon found -this worm, called _Thamur_ or the worm of Solomon, equally efficacious -in cutting marble. - -[Sidenote: Trees.] - -In speaking of trees most manuscripts[1294] tell of an oak under which -Abraham dwelt and which lasted until Constantine’s time. The trees in -the Garden of Eden or terrestrial paradise are also discussed, though -of course no longer accessible. Josephus is cited concerning trees -near the Red Sea and apples of Sodom. Thomas thinks that the Sun-tree -and Moon-tree mentioned in Alexander’s letter to Aristotle had been -referred to much earlier in the benediction of Joseph in _Deuteronomy_. -As for the responses which these trees are said to have given -Alexander, Thomas has little doubt that this was the work of demons, -although some contend that it was done by divine permission through -ministering angels. - -[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues of stones.] - -Like Marbod, Thomas points out that, while plants and fruits receive -their virtues “through the medium of the operations of nature,” no -excess of cold or heat can be observed in stones to account for -their miraculous powers, such as conferring invisibility, and that -consequently their virtues must come direct from God. He alludes to -the belief that Solomon imprisoned demons beneath the gems in rings, -and cites the fifteenth book of _The City of God_ for the statement -that demons are attracted by various stones, herbs, woods, animals, and -incantations. - -[Sidenote: An adamantine mariner’s compass.] - -While Thomas’s exposition of the virtues of gems is largely based upon -Marbod, in discussing _adamas_ or adamant he introduces a description -of the mariner’s compass, concerning which Marbod is silent and which -had probably not been invented or introduced in western Europe that -early, although Neckam of course alludes to it before Thomas. After -speaking of a variety of adamant which can be broken without resort to -goat’s blood but which will attract iron even away from the magnet, -Thomas adds that it also betrays the location of the star of the sea -which is called _Maria_. When sailors cannot direct their course to -port amid obscure mists, they take a needle and, after rubbing its -point on adamant, fasten it transversely on a small stick or straw -and place it in a vessel full of water. Then by carrying some adamant -around the vessel they start the needle rotating. Then the stone is -suddenly withdrawn and presently the point of the needle comes to rest -pointing towards the star in question.[1295] - -[Sidenote: The mariner’s compass and magic.] - -Having concluded this description of a mariner’s compass, Thomas again -follows the poem of Marbod and goes on to say that the adamant is also -said to be potent in magic arts, to make its bearer brave against the -enemy, to repel vain dreams and poison, and to benefit lunatics and -demoniacs. I mention this accidental juxtaposition of the mariner’s -compass and magic because, as we shall find in the case of Roger Bacon, -it has often been stated that those in possession of the secret of -the mariner’s compass were long afraid to reveal it for fear of being -suspected of magic, or that sailors were at first afraid to employ the -new device for the same reason. This passage in the _De natura rerum_ -is as far as I know the only one in the sources that might even seem -to suggest such a connection, but Thomas does not really connect the -compass and magic at all. Later in the same book, in discussing the -magnet, he says nothing of the compass, although repeating the usual -statements that the magnet attracts iron, is used in magic, and has the -occult property of revealing an unchaste wife. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtues of sculptured gems.] - -After completing his account of the occult virtues of gems in their -natural state, Thomas goes on to discuss the sculpture of gems and -the additional virtues which they thereby acquire, a subject on which -Marbod had not touched. Thomas had already announced at the beginning -of his book on stones:[1296] “Moreover, at the close of this book we -have given certain opinions of the ancients which we think are neither -to be credited in every respect nor denied in every respect, and in -this we follow the glorious Augustine. The children of Israel are said -to have carved certain gems in the desert, especially carnelians, and -their work of sculpture is said to have been of such subtle skill that -no one since has ever dared attempt an imitation of it. And there is -no doubt but that figures and images of figures are engraved according -to the efficacies of the virtues of gems.” Thomas also admits that -the Israelites should have been adepts in such work, when he recalls -the divine direction which they received in the case of the twelve -gems in the breast-plate of the high priest. “Therefore it is evident -that sculptures are not found on gems without good reason. On the -other hand, I would not say that every such engraving is a token of -mystic virtue.” Later, when he comes to “the relations of the ancient -sculptors concerning the engraving of gems,” Thomas warns that, -although the form of stones is to be honored for its virtue, “yet hope -is not to be put in them but, according to what is written, in God -alone from whom is derived the virtue of stones and the dignity of -every creature.” The astrological character of such engraved images is -made manifest by the connection of many of them with the signs of the -zodiac. - -[Sidenote: Thetel on images on stones.] - -Thomas complains that the ancient authorities for such images and their -virtues are often not cited, but he had found a treatise in which the -images which the children of Israel were supposed to have engraved -in the desert were recorded by a Jewish philosopher named Thetel or -Techel.[1297] Of this treatise Thomas makes a Latin translation for -his readers, cautioning them, however, that Thetel’s opinions “are not -to be trusted on every point.” Thetel’s treatise, at least as it is -reproduced by Thomas who, however, has perhaps already used parts of it -in his preceding discussion, begins with the sentence: “When a jasper -is found and on it a man with a shield about his neck or in his hand -and a serpent beneath his feet, this has virtue against all enemies.” -It ends with the sentence: “When there is found on a stone a foaming -horse and above a man holding a scepter in his hand, this is good for -those who have power over men.” These sentences perhaps sufficiently -suggest the character of the work. It is also found separately in the -manuscripts as early as the twelfth century.[1298] Some of these vary -considerably from the text as given by Thomas. The popularity of the -treatise is also attested by the allusions in its prefaces to spurious -imitations of it. - -[Sidenote: Zahel or Zaël the Israelite.] - -This Thetel, Techel, or Cehel, with his seals of the children of -Israel, is presumably no other than Zethel or Zachel or Zahel or Zaël, -the Israelite or Ismaelite,[1299] some of whose astrological treatises -appeared in early printed editions,[1300] and several of whose works -are listed by Albertus Magnus in the _Speculum astronomiae_.[1301] -This Sahl ben Bisr ben Habib lived until 823 with the governor of -Chorasan and then became the astrologer of El-Hasan, vizier to the -Caliph al-Mamun. He was highly esteemed by the Byzantines, who called -him Σέχελ or τοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἰουδαίου τοῦ Σὰχλ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Πέσρ.[1302] -The translation of his works into Latin seems to have begun at an early -date, as his _Fatidica_ or _Decrees of Fate_ was translated in 1138 by -Hermann of Dalmatia,[1303] while our treatise on seals appears in a -twelfth century manuscript. - -[Sidenote: Consecration of gems.] - -Thomas terminates his book on stones by instructions, quite in the -tone of the blessed Hildegard, concerning the blessing of gems. As a -result of Adam’s fall every creature was corrupted and lost some of its -original virtue, and even such virtues as are left to gems are often -further corrupted by the touch of impious and impure men. Hence, just -as sinful men are renovated by baptism and penance, so gems can have -some of their lost virtues restored by a ceremony of consecration and -sanctification. They should be wrapped in linen, placed on the altar, -and the priest, after saying mass and while still wearing his sacred -robes, should offer this prayer: - -“God, almighty Father, who showed Thy virtue to all through certain -insensible creatures, who bade Thy servant Moses adorn himself -among other holy vestments with twelve precious stones as a token -of judgment, and also showed the Evangelist John the heavenly city -of Jerusalem eternally constructed of the virtues which these same -stones typify, we humbly beseech Thy Majesty to deign to consecrate -and sanctify these stones by the sanctification and invocation of Thy -Name, that they may be sanctified and consecrated, and may recover the -efficacious virtues with which the experience of wise men proves Thee -to have endowed them, so that whatever persons may wear them, may feel -Thy virtue present through them and may deserve to receive the gifts of -Thy grace and the protection of Thy virtue, through Jesus, Thy Son, in -whom all sanctification consists, who lives with Thee, and reigns as -God through infinite successions of cycles.”[1304] - -[Sidenote: The seven metals: modern plumbing.] - -In his book on the seven metals, namely, gold, electrum, silver, -copper, lead, tin, and iron, Thomas alludes to transmutation in -speaking of copper and cites a work of alchemy ascribed to Aristotle, -_The Light of Lights (De lumine luminum)_, for the assertion that -the best gold is that made from a boy’s urine and brass. This -statement is to be understood, however, only of the color of the -gold and not of the substance. In his discussion of lead, tin, and -iron Thomas cites no authorities except that once he remarks, “as -the philosopher says.”[1305] Perhaps therefore we have here what is -largely a contribution of his own. At any rate it seems to include the -first mention of the invention of modern plumbing.[1306] Tin, Thomas -tells us, rusts out easily if it lies long in water. Therefore the -underground pipes of aqueducts have long been made of lead, but they -used to be joined with tin, but in “modern times” human art has thought -out a method of uniting them with hot molten lead. For while tin will -not remain solid for long, “lead lasts forever underground.” Thomas -goes on to say that lead has the peculiar property among the metals -of always increasing in size. Like Hildegard, he also mentions steel, -which he says is hardened by many tensions so that it surpasses iron in -virtue. He further tells of an oriental iron[1307] which is very good -for cutting and is fusible like copper or silver but not ductile like -the iron in other parts of the world. - -[Sidenote: The seven regions of the air.] - -The discussion in the _De natura rerum_ of the seven regions of the -air and their humors, namely, dew, snow, hail, rain, “laudanum,” -manna and honey, reminds one of Michael Scot’s treatment of the same -subject,[1308] but seems to be drawn from a common source rather than -directly copied from it. Thomas states that Aristotle has treated more -fully of these humors in his _Meteorology_, but in reality Aristotle -says nothing of the last three named in the _Meteorology_, although in -the _History of Animals_ he says that honey is distilled from the air -by the stars. Thomas draws the same distinction as Michael Scot had -made between natural honey and the artificial sort made by bees. He is -willing to grant that the manna upon which the children of Israel lived -was created in this region of the sky, although especially prepared for -them by a divine miracle. - -[Sidenote: Astrological.] - -The astrological passages of the _De natura rerum_ are neither striking -nor novel. In his books on animals Thomas had stated that various -animal substances such as the brains of wolves or the livers of mice -vary in size with the waxing and waning of the moon. He denies that the -planets possess sense or that their movements are voluntary, but he -quotes Pliny’s statement that by the influence of Venus all things on -earth are generated, and states the influence of each planet when it is -in the ascendant. Under Mars men become choleric and bellicose. Jupiter -is such a source of safety and good health that Martianus declared that -were Jupiter the only planet, men would be immortal. Such, however, -was not the Creator’s will. The word “Jupiter” is not without reason -derived from _iubens_ and _pater_, since during the ascension of this -planet all terrestrial things are born. For unless seeds were severed -from their beginnings by some occult virtue, they would always remain -immovable in the state in which they were created. God accordingly put -such power in the spheres of the stars and especially the planets that -created things might obey his command to increase and multiply. They -return, however, to the earth from which they came; the processes of -nature are unceasingly repeated; and, as Solomon said, there is nothing -new under the sun. Thomas therefore reaches the usual conclusion that -except for human free will and special manifestations of divine will, -all nature is placed by God under the rule of the stars. The influence -of sun and moon is manifest, and “why should we not with entire reason -believe the same of the other planets?” - -[Sidenote: Elements and spirits.] - -The nineteenth book opens with a discussion of the universe and -creation and closes with a discussion of the four elements. Fire has -eight effects expressed in the couplet: - - _Destruit, emollit, restringit, consolidatque;_ - _Clarificat, terret, accendit, letificatque._ - -Thomas illustrates each of these effects by a verse of Scripture. Fire -also has six properties, likewise expressed in a couplet: - - _Mobilis et siccus mundusque favilla tenetur;_ - _Crescit et accendit[1309] sed aqua modica removetur._ - -Concerning these properties also Thomas quotes Scripture. He then -treats briefly of that purest fire which is above the seven regions of -the air. Demons dwell in the air “awaiting with torments the judgment -day.”[1310] When they appear to men, they assume bodies from that -part of the air which is densest and most mixed with the other three -elements. But angels coming as messengers to mankind assume bodies in -the region of pure fire extending from the sphere of the moon to the -firmament. - -[Sidenote: Other works incorrectly ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré.] - -In the life of Albertus Magnus written by Peter of Prussia toward the -end of the fifteenth century[1311] it is stated on the authority of -the chronicle of Brother Jacobus de Zuzato, master of theology, that -Thomas of Cantimpré translated word for word from Greek into Latin -“all the books of Aristotle in rational, natural, and moral philosophy -and metaphysics which we now use in the schools,[1312] and this at the -instance of Saint Thomas of Aquinas, for in Albert’s time all commonly -used the old translation.”[1313] The task of translating Aristotle -was scarcely one for which Thomas of Cantimpré was qualified, and his -name almost never appears in the extant manuscripts of translations of -Aristotle.[1314] Peter of Prussia and his source have probably confused -William of Moerbeke with Thomas of Cantimpré, as they both came from -Brabant, and their names are juxtaposed in a fourteenth century list -of writings by Dominicans, where, however, William is said to have -“translated all the books of natural and moral philosophy from Greek -into Latin at the instance of brother Thomas.”[1315] Because of Thomas -of Cantimpré’s chapters on gynecology, the _De secretis mulierum_ -usually ascribed to Albertus Magnus has sometimes been attributed to -him, but Ferckel denies this.[1316] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1254] Only extracts of the _De natura rerum_ have been printed (by J. -B. Pitra, _Spicilegium Solesmense_, III, and in HL and _Ferckel_ as -noted below). Some discussion of the MSS and a partial list of them -will be found in Appendix I to this chapter. I have chiefly used MSS -Royal 12-E-XVII, 13th century; Royal 12-F-VI, 14th century; Egerton -1984, 13th century, fols. 34-145; Arundel 323, 13th century, fols. -1-98; and Arundel 164, 15th century, at the British Museum; and BN -347B and 523A at Paris. As any topic to which a chapter is devoted -can be found without much difficulty in these MSS, which are divided -into books and chapters and equipped with tables of contents, I shall -usually not take the time and space to make specific citations by folio -in the ensuing chapter. - -Of Thomas’s _Bonum universale de apibus_ I have used the 1516 edition. - -Some books and articles on Thomas and his natural science are: Bormans, -“Thomas de Cantimpré indiqué comme une des sources où Albert le -Grand et surtout Maerlant ont puisé les matériaux de leur écrits sur -l’histoire naturelle”; in _Bulletins de l’Acad. roy. des Sciences de -Belgique_, XIX, 132-59, Brussels, 1852. - -Carus, _Geschichte der Zoologie_, Munich, 1872, pp. 211-33. - -HL 30 (1888) 365-84, Delisle, “La Nature des Choses, par Thomas de -Cantimpré,” supplementing and correcting the earlier account by Daunou -in HL 19 (1838) 177-84, where the _De natura rerum_ had been called an -anonymous work known only from Vincent of Beauvais’ citation of it. - -A. Kaufmann, _Thomas von Cantimpré_, Cologne, 1899, 137 pp., an -unfinished work published posthumously without a projected section on -Thomas’s natural science, which the author had scarcely begun. - -Stadler, “Albertus Magnus, Thomas von Cantimpré, und Vincent von -Beauvais,” in _Natur und Kultur_, IV, 86-90, Munich, 1906. - -C. Ferckel, _Die Gynäkologie des Thomas von Brabant, ausgewählte -Kapitel aus Buch I de naturis rerum beendet um 1240_, Munich, 1912 (in -G. Klein, _Alte Meister d. Medizin u. Naturkunde_). - -[1255] V. Rose (1875), pp. 335, 340. - -[1256] HL 30: 380. - -[1257] Sometimes the work concludes with the extraordinary _Explicit_, -“the book of Lucius Annisius Seneca of Cordova, disciple of Fortinus -the Stoic, _De naturis rerum_,” as in Arundel 323. - -[1258] III, 16. - -[1259] In the preface. - -[1260] _Bonum universale de apibus_, I, 19, vii. - -[1261] _Ibid._, II, 57, lix. At I, 5, ii, 1252 is given as the date of -the “recent” murder of a Dominican by heretics at Verona; at II, 57, -iii, great winds and thunders are mentioned, which frightened men in -Germany nearly out of their wits in 1256. - -[1262] Aquinas died in 1274, Albert in 1280. - -[1263] _Bonum universale de apibus_, I, 20, xi. - -[1264] _Ibid._, II, 57, li, “venerabilis ille frater ordinis -predicatorum magister Albertus.” - -[1265] From this statement one might infer either that Bartholomew’s -book was not yet published or that Thomas did not know of it. - -[1266] HL 30: 384. - -[1267] As HL 30: 374-5 has already noted. - -[1268] HL 30: 383 mentions three such MSS; see also CLM 6908, where, -however, the three last books are missing; Lincoln College 57, 13th -century; CU Trinity 1058, 13th century; Wolfenbüttel 4499, 14th century. - -[1269] As has been said above, it is doubtful if there was any close -relation of master and disciple between Albert and Thomas. - -[1270] HL 30: 377. - -[1271] Jacobus de Vitriaco, _libri duo ... prior Orientalis ... alter -Occidentalis Historiae_, 1597, _Hist. Orient._ caps. 85-92. - -[1272] _Experimentator_, however, is also cited concerning the -properties of air. - -[1273] Thomas’s extracts from Adhelmus were printed by Pitra (1855) -III, 425-7. Concerning St. Aldhelm see above, chapter 27, page 636. - -[1274] Michael Scot is cited concerning silk-worms and gourds in -Egerton 1984, fols. 100r and 121r, and, judging from the catalogue -notice, also in Corpus Christi 221, but not in the corresponding -passages in either Royal 12-E-XVII or 12-F-VI. The _Histoire -Littéraire_, however, gives a citation of Michael’s translation of -Aristotle’s _History of Animals_ from three Paris MSS. - -[1275] Ferckel (1912), p. 4, “und tatsächlich ist fast das ganze -Kapitel _De Impregnatione_ ein Teil des folgenden und die erste -grössere Hälfte des Kapitels 73 fast wörtlich der _Philosophia_ des -Wilhelm von Conches entnommen.” - -[1276] “Tanta fides in hoc auctorum est et tanta concordia ut nulli -umquam de hoc dubitare relinquatur.” - -[1277] In the condensed version of Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323 the -castration story is omitted, but the other statement is made. - -[1278] A fuller form of the title is: _Liber apum aut de apibus -mysticis sive de proprietatibus apum seu universale bonum tractans de -prelatis et subditis ubique sparsim exemplis notabilibus_. - -[1279] See especially _Historia animalium_, VI, 31; VIII, 5, IX, 44. - -[1280] In Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323 this statement occurs later and -is ascribed to “Alexander”. These MSS add that in its fore-quarters the -lion is of a hot nature, in the hind-quarters cold, like the Sun in Leo. - -[1281] “Firmitas autem in pectore est.” - -[1282] Egerton 1984, “to be feverish all the time.” - -[1283] EB, 11th edition, “The number of cubs at a birth is from two to -four, usually three.” - -[1284] _Ibid._ “The lion ... seldom attacks his prey openly, unless -compelled by extreme hunger.... He appears ... as a general rule only -to kill when hungry or attacked, and not for the mere pleasure of -killing, as with some other carnivorous animals.” - -[1285] EB, “Though not strictly gregarious, lions appear to be sociable -towards their own species.” - -[1286] Also Aristotle, IX, 44. - -[1287] EB, 11th edition, “On no occasions are their voices to be heard -in such perfection, or so intensely powerful, as when two or three -troops of strange lions approach a fountain to drink at the same time.” - -[1288] _Ibid._ “He, moreover, by no means limits himself to animals of -his own killing, but, according to Selous, often prefers eating game -that has been killed by man, even when not very fresh, to taking the -trouble to catch an animal himself.” - -[1289] For instance, I found the passage in Royal 12-E-XVII, but not in -Royal 12-F-VI. - -[1290] Aristotle, instead of _Experimentator_, in Egerton 1984 and -Arundel 323. Of the small amount of marrow in lions’ bones Aristotle -treats twice, _Historia animalium_ III, 7 and 20. - -[1291] I am told, however, that in a recent moving picture lions are -seen climbing trees to escape from dogs. - -[1292] HL 30: 367. - -[1293] Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323. - -[1294] Omitted in the two MSS mentioned in the preceding note. - -[1295] Compare the similar description of the _magnetised_ needle in -Neckam, _De naturis rerum_, II, 98 (RS 34: 183). - -[1296] HL 30: 370 does not mention this introductory passage but quotes -a somewhat similar passage which occurs later on. In fact, Thomas makes -practically the same statement at least three times in the course of -his fourteenth book. - -[1297] “_Rechel_” in Royal 12-F-VI, fols. 106-7. Printed by Pitra -(1855) III, 335-7, as “Cethel aut veterum Judaeorum Physiologorum de -lapidibus sententiae.” - -[1298] A further discussion of them will be found in Appendix II to -this chapter. - -[1299] Steinschneider (1906) 54-5, 103-4, fails to include our treatise -on seals in his mentions of Zaël’s works; but in BN 16204, 13th -century, the _Seals_ of Theel is immediately preceded by two treatises -of “Zehel the Israelite” on interrogations and elections. - -[1300] In the astrological miscellany of Petrus Liechtenstein, -Basel, 1551, fols. 122-7, _Introductorium de principiis judiciorum_; -127-38, _De interrogationibus_; 138-41, _De electionibus_; 141-2, _De -significatione temporis ad judicia_. Steinschneider mentions only the -_Elections_ as printed in 1551, but also notes a 1533 edition of it and -1493 and 1519 editions of all these treatises. - -[1301] In cap. 6, _Introductio_, “Scito quod signa sunt duodecim”; in -cap. 9, _Judicia Arabum_, “Cum interrogatus fueris”; _De significatione -temporis_, “Et scito quod tempore excitat motus”; in cap. 10, _Liber -electionis_, “Omnes concordati sunt”; _Quinquaginta praeceptorum_, -“Scito quod significata lunae.” - -[1302] CCAG V, 3, 98-106. - -[1303] Steinschneider (1905), p. 34, names Hermann the Dalmatian as -translator and notes CUL 2022, 15th century, fols. 102r-115v, Hermanni -secundi translatio. “Explicit Fatidica Ben Bixir Caldei....,” but the -_Gi_ in the _Explicit_ of the following MS might stand for _Gerardi_ -and indicate Gerard of Cremona, who would, it is true, have been but -twenty-four in 1138: Digby 114, 14th century, fols. 176-99, “Explicit -fetidica Zael Banbinxeir Caldei. Translacio hec mam. Gi. astronomie -libri anno Domini 1138, 3 kal. Octobris translatus (_sic_) est.” - -Some other MSS which Steinschneider does not mention are: Harleian 80; -Sloane 2030, 12-13th century, fols. 41-76; Amplon. Quarto 361, 14th -century, fols. 96-113, Chehelbenbis Israelite; and perhaps Sloane 3847, -17th century, fols. 101-12, Zebel alias Zoel, liber imaginum, but more -probably this is the Pseudo-Zebel found in Berlin 965, 16th century, -fols. 1-63, and printed at Prague, 1592, “Incipit zebelis sapientis -arabum de interpretatione diversorum eventuum secundum lunam in 12 -signis zodiaci.” - -[1304] This consecration of gems also follows Techel’s treatise on -seals in Ashmole 1471, fol. 67v, while in Canon. Misc. 285 the work of -Thetel is preceded at fol. 36v by _De consecratione lapidum_, and at -fol. 38 by _De modo praecipuos quosdam lapides consecrandi_. - -[1305] Or, in one MS, “sicut dicunt phisici.” - -[1306] This fact has already been noted by the HL. - -[1307] Called _andena_ in one MS, and _alidea_ in another. - -[1308] See above, chapter 51, page 324. - -[1309] Or perhaps “ascendit.” - -[1310] Compare Bede, _De natura rerum_, cap. 25. - -[1311] Petrus de Prussia, _Vita B. Alberti Magni_, (1621), p. 294. - -[1312] Trithemius, _De script, eccles._ probably has Peter and Jacobus -in mind when he states that some writers say that Thomas of Cantimpré -knew Greek and translated the works of Aristotle used in the schools. - -[1313] As Albert lived six years beyond Aquinas, this would indicate -that his Aristotelian treatises were completed early in life. Yet some -accuse him of using Thomas’s _De natura rerum_ in these works. - -[1314] Additional 17345, late 13th century, imperfect, ascribes the -_antiqua translatio_ of the fourteen books of Metaphysics to him, but -is the only such MS I know of. - -[1315] One wonders if this can mean _Thomas Brabantinus_, whose name -immediately follows that of _Wilhelmus Brabantinus_ in the list, rather -than Thomas Aquinas. - -[1316] Ferckel (1912), pp. 1-2, 10. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE DE NATURA RERUM - - -Of the half dozen or so MSS which I have examined Egerton 1984, 13th -century, fols. 34-145, and Arundel 323, 13th century, fols. 1-98, -present a different version from the others, arranged in a different -order and somewhat more condensed, although sometimes inserting points -omitted in the other MSS, as has already been illustrated in the text -in the reproduction of the chapter on the lion. These two MSS open -with what is usually the 16th book on the seven regions of the air and -continue with the subjects of the heavens and elements to which books -17-19 are usually devoted. Then, omitting the themes of the usual first -three books, they consider quadrupeds (Egerton 1984, fol. 51v; Arundel -323, fol. 33r), other animals, and herbs. Then follow precious stones -and metals, after instead of before which comes a truncated version of -the book on fountains (Egerton 1984, fol. 142v; Arundel 323, fol. 91r). -Next comes a treatment of parts of the human body which roughly answers -to Thomas’s first book but omits entirely the chapters dealing with -generation and obstetrics. Indeed in Egerton 1984 the text breaks off -at fol. 145v in the midst of the chapter on teeth and in the middle of -a word, and then ends on the upper part of fol. 146r with the closing -portion of the chapter _De anchis_ and the chapter on _Spondilia_. -Arundel 323 continues as far as the 44th chapter on the spleen. It then -at fol. 98r introduces a brief discussion of geography (_Incipiunt -Divisiones Provinciarum_), at the close of which we read, “Explicit -liber lucii annisii Senece Cordubensis fortini stoyci discipuli -De naturis rerum.” The text, however, goes on to fol. 103v with a -discussion of diseases, remedies, and astrological medicine. Neither -this nor the list of provinces forms a part of the _De natura rerum_ as -contained in Royal 12-E-XVII and 12-F-VI. - -As the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ listed only MSS of the _De -natura rerum_ at Paris and in a few other continental libraries, and as -the authorship of Thomas of Cantimpré is seldom recognized in the MSS -catalogues, I append a list of MSS in British and continental libraries -which are not noted in the _Histoire Littéraire_. No doubt the list -is still very incomplete. C. Ferckel (1912), pp. 11-18 gives a fuller -list than that in the _Histoire Littéraire_, but only those MSS which -are marked with an asterisk in the following list have been noted by -Ferckel: - - -British Museum - - Egerton 1984, 13th century, described above. - - Royal 12-E-XVII, 13th century. - - Royal 12-F-VI, 14th century, fols. 3-119. - - *Arundel 323, perhaps 13th century, described above. - - *Arundel 142, 15th century, fols. 1-93. - - The following contain only portions of the work: - - *Arundel 298, perhaps 13th century, fols. 1-83, Books 3-9. - - *Arundel 164, 15th century, fols. 5-58, preface and four - books. - - Sloane 2428, 13th century, 9 fols., Book 14 on gems. - - Sloane 405, 15th century, fols. 65-107, “De natura rerum - liber primus,” attributed to Albertus Magnus but really - the prologue of Thomas and most of his first book on - anatomy. - - -At Oxford - - Selden supra 75 (Bernard 3463), early 14th century, fols. - 1r-231v, de naturis rerum secundum diversos philosophos. - In 1919 the proof sheets for the new Summary Catalogue of - Bodleian MSS still stated: “The author, who wrote while - Jacobus de Vitriaco was bishop of Tusculum (1228-44: fol. - 1v), appears to be unknown.” - - *Canon. Misc. 356, 14th century, Anon. De naturis rerum. - - Corpus Christi 221, 14th century, fol. 2-. Liber in quo - tractatus de motu coeli, de elementis, de mari, de - propriis mirabilibus cuiuslibet terrae, de lapidibus - pretiosis, de metallis, de fructibus, de avibus, de - bestiis, etc. - - *Corpus Christi 274, 15th century, fol. 6-, Anon, de naturis - rerum. - - Lincoln College 57, 13th century, Anon, de proprietatibus - rerum. This is the version in 20 books. - - -At Cambridge - - Trinity 1058, 13th century, well-written, the version in 20 - books, ending at fol. 186v. - -James fails to rectify the attribution of the work to Albertus Magnus -in both the following MSS: - - Gonville and Caius 414, 13th century, fols. 1-161v. - - Gonville and Caius 35, 15th century, fols. 1-137. - - -At Vienna - - Vienna 2357, 14th century, fols. 1-46, Lucretius de naturis - rerum. - - Vienna 5371, 15th century, fols. 1-100r, Opus de rerum - naturis. - - -At Munich - - CLM 326, 14th century, 95 fols. The catalogue states, “Liber - Thomae Cantipr. vel. Conradi Megenb. similis, sed multo - amplior”; but its preceding description of the contents is - sufficient to identify the work as Thomas of Cantimpré’s. - - CLM 2655, 13th century, fols. 1-94, de naturis rerum - visibilium. - - CLM 3206, 13-14th century, fols. 1-145, de naturis rerum - liber. - - CLM 6908, 13th century, fols. 1-78, Tractatus de naturis - animalium in xx libros divisus quorum tres extremi desunt. - - CLM 8439, 15th century, fols. 84-144, Alberti Magni de - naturis rerum. - - CLM 11481, anno 1390, de naturis rerum. - - CLM 13582, 14th century, Thomae Cantipratensis liber de - natura rerum. - - CLM 14340, 15th century, Thomae de Catimprato de naturis seu - proprietatibus rerum, in codice tributus Alberto Magno. - - CLM 21008, 14th century, De proprietatibus rerum. - - CLM 23879, 15th century, fols. 1-93, de natura rerum. - - CLM 27006, anno 1409, fols. 1-170, de natura rerum. - - -Miscellaneous - - *Wolfenbüttel 4499, 14th century, the version in 20 books, - catalogued by Heinemann as anonymous. - - Dôle 173-80, 15th century, fols. 1-189, “De secretis nature, - Alberti Magni.” - - S. Marco XII-65, 15th century, ascribed to Albert, - but opening, “Septem sunt regiones aeris, ut dicunt - philosophi.” - - * Florence, Ashburnham 115, 15th century, “Expliciunt - Capitula de naturis Lucii Anney Senece Cordubensis, - Fortini Stoyci discipuli.” - - - - -APPENDIX II - -SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE TREATISE OF THETEL ON SEALS - - -For the Berlin MS I follow the catalogue description by V. Rose. I have -examined personally the two Paris MSS and some of those at Oxford. - -Berlin 956, 12th century, fol. 22, what Rose calls the “very peculiar -original text.” “Hic incipit liber sigillorum filiorum israel quem -fecerunt in deserto. Cum pluribus libris nobilibus magne auctoritatis -et nominis vigilante animo atque perspicaci, fratres karissimi, -studeamus,” etc., which may be translated: “Here begins the books -of seals of the children of Israel which they made in the desert. -Although, dearest brothers, we have studied many noble books of great -authority and name with vigilant and perspicacious mind, we have not -found any book so dear and precious as this is. For this is that great -and secret precious book of seals of Cehel the Israelite, which the -children of Israel made in the desert after their exodus from Egypt -according to the course and motion of the stars. And because many false -books are made in imitation of this, in order that we may perfectly -know the virtue of these seals we have noted them down in this little -book.” - -BN 8454, 12-13th century, fols. 65v-66r, Liber magnus et secretus -sigillorum Cehel. The _Incipit_ and text closely resemble Digby 79, -except that the name is spelled “Cehel” and that no mention is made of -the planets. - -BN 16204, 13th century, pp. 500-7. Has the same _Incipit_ as BN 8454 -and Digby 79, except that the name is spelled “Theel” and that the last -clause of the _Incipit_, “et quia multi ... subnotavimus” (for which -see the description of Digby 79 below) is omitted. On the other hand, -we have the following opening paragraph of text which is not found in -BN 8454: “I, Theel, one of the sons of the children of Israel, who -after the transit of the Red Sea ate manna in the wilderness and drank -water from the rock and saw innumerable miracles with my own eyes, and -heard why from the twelve tribes twelve precious stones are worn by -order of the Lord on Aaron’s vestments. And I myself chose them. And -besides this selection I have inspected the engraving of gems made, as -the divine Nature willed, according to the movement of the signs and -the courses of the planets. And I have learned the virtues of many. And -I am called Theel (or rather, Cheel) for this reason, because I have -written of sealing (_de celatione_), that is, concerning the sculpture -of gems, and not because I have concealed and kept to myself what God -and nature have produced, for I write to you, my posterity, in order -that through these few brief words many seals may be known in the -nature of stones.” - -This MS then has at pp. 500-2 the same text as BN 8454 except that -the names of the planets are inserted before the first seven seals. -At p. 502 the text as given in BN 8454 ends with the words, “Hoc -autem sigillum fertur habuisse galienus,” but the listing of seals -continues in BN 16204 until the top of p. 507, where the work of Haly -on elections begins. - -Digby 79, 13th century, fols. 178v-180, opens, “In nomine Domini nostri -Jesu Christi. Hic est liber preciosus magnus atque secretus sigillorum -Eethel quem fecerunt filii Israel in deserto post exitum ab Egipto -secundum motus et cursus siderum, et quia multi ad similitudinem huius -falso facti sunt, in hoc libello subnotavimus.” This version differs -from that of Thomas of Cantimpré, since its first seal is made under -the planet Mercury and is an image of a man seated on a plow. Then -“under Mars” comes a fuller description of what is the first seal in -Thomas’s version. - -Digby 193, 14th century, fol. 30, closely resembles Digby 79, except -that the name is spelled “Cethel.” - -Ashmole 1471, late 14th century, fols. 65v-67v, closely resembles -Thomas of Cantimpré’s text. “Incipit liber Techel. Liber Techel nomine -editus de sculpturis lapidum a filiis Israel eo tempore quo per -desertum transierunt, et transierunt ut intrarent terram promissionis: -propterea hii lapides leguntur fuisse assignati in templo Appollonis -a rege Persarum cum consilio omnium astrologorum tam Egiptiorum quam -Caldeorum secundum cursum signorum et cursum planetarum.” Next ensue -the same preliminary observations that Thomas makes; the text of Techel -proper begins only at fol. 66v. - -Canon. Misc. 285, 15th century, fol. 40, anon., “In nomine dei Amen; -Pretiosissimus liber sigillorum quem filii Israel post exitum....” - -Corpus Christi 221, 14th century, fol. 55. - -Selden 3464 (Bernard), #9. - -CUL 1391, 14th century, fols. 204v-207v, “Liber magnus de sigillis -lapidum et de virtutibus eorum quem fecerunt Filii Israelis in -Deserto.” Like BN 8454 it closes, “hoc sigillum fertur habuisse -Gallienus.” - - - - -CHAPTER LIV - -BARTHOLOMEW OF ENGLAND - - - Bartholomew on the character of his book--Question of its - date--Who are the most recent authors cited in it?--How far - are its citations first-hand?--Its medieval currency--Not - a mere compilation nor limited to Biblical topics--The - nature of demons--Psychology and physiology--Vision and - perspective--Medieval domestic science--The medieval - domestic servant--Medieval boys--Medieval girls--A - medieval dinner--Dreams and their interpretation--Medical - advice--Poisons--The waters above the firmament--The - empyrean heaven: Rabanus--Alexander of Hales--Aristotelian - theory of one heaven--As the basis of astrology--Properties - and effects of the signs and planets--Bartholomew - illustrates the general medieval acceptance of - astrology--Medieval divisions of the day and hour--Form - and matter; fire and coal--Air and its creatures--The - swallow, swallow-stone, and swallow-wort--The hoopoe and - magic--Water and fish--Jorath on whales--Geography; physical - and political--Also economic--Medieval boundaries--France - in the thirteenth century--Brittany and the British - Isles--A geography by Herodotus--Two passages about - magic--Bartholomew and Arnold of Saxony on stones--Citations - by Arnold of Saxony and Bartholomew--Virtues of - animals--_Physiologus_--Color, odor, savor, liquor. - - -[Sidenote: Bartholomew on the character of his book.] - -_On the Properties of Things_ by Bartholomew of England[1317] is, as -has been said in a previous chapter, a work of the same sort as those -on the natures of things by his earlier fellow-countryman, Alexander -of Neckam, and his contemporary of Brabant, Thomas of Cantimpré. -Bartholomew himself clearly states the character, purpose, and scope of -his work both at its beginning and again in closing. It is primarily a -brief compilation of passages on the natures and properties of things, -which are scattered through the works both of the saints and the -philosophers, with the intent of making plainer the enigmas which the -Holy Scriptures conceal under the symbols and figures of the properties -of natural and artificial objects. Bartholomew further speaks modestly -of his work as an elementary treatise, text-book, or work of reference -for the benefit of “young scholars and the general reader (_simplices -et parvuli_) who because of the infinite number of books cannot look -up the properties of the objects of which Scripture treats, nor are -they able to find quickly even a superficial treatment of what they -are after.”[1318] Bartholomew’s book is therefore “a simple and rude” -compilation, but he hopes that it may prove useful to persons who, like -himself, are not advanced scholars. But after mastering this elementary -treatise, they should proceed to more subtle and specialized works. And -if they think that anything should be added to what he has given, let -them add it. From the tone of these remarks compared to those of Thomas -of Cantimpré one would infer that the number of available books and -also the amount of available knowledge had considerably increased since -Thomas wrote. Yet at the most Bartholomew cannot have written very -many years later than Thomas, and it is most likely that their books -appeared almost simultaneously. - -[Sidenote: Question of its date.] - -If Bartholomew’s last sentence is interpreted as an open invitation to -his readers to issue revised editions of the book or at least add to -their own copies further extracts from the writings of the saints and -the philosophers, we shall feel that it is rather risky to attempt to -determine the date of the first appearance of the _De proprietatibus -rerum_ from the date of the latest works cited in our present copies. -But all the manuscripts seem to be essentially alike regardless of -date, and the printed edition seems to vary little from the text of -the earliest manuscripts. To assist us in determining when Bartholomew -lived and wrote we have a request from the General of the Franciscan -Order in 1230 asking the French provincial to send to Magdeburg in -Saxony Brother Bartholomaeus Anglicus to act as lecturer there.[1319] -Salimbene, writing in 1284, cites a passage from Bartholomew concerning -elephants and looks back upon him as a great clerk who lectured on -the whole Bible in course at Paris.[1320] Bartholomew speaks of the -inhabitants of Livonia as having been forced by the Germans from the -cult of demons to the Faith of one God, and states that by divine grace -and the cooperation of the Germans they are now believed to be freed -from their former errors.[1321] But since the conquest of Livonia began -as early as 1202, this passage does not serve to date Bartholomew’s -work very definitely. - -[Sidenote: Who are the most recent authors cited in it?] - -It has already been remarked by the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ -that in the bibliography at the close of his work Bartholomew mentions -no writer of later date than the early thirteenth century.[1322] As -Bartholomew himself states, however, he uses “many other” authorities -than those given in the list, and other names are found sprinkled -through his text. In the printed edition of 1488 the _Speculum -naturale_ of Vincent of Beauvais, which was not written until 1250, -is cited,[1323] but this mention is found in the last sentence -of a chapter and may be pretty certainly regarded as a later -interpolation.[1324] In citing commentaries upon the works of Aristotle -the printed text confuses the abbreviations _Albu._, _Alber._, and -_Alfre._ or _Alur._, standing respectively for Albumasar, Albertus -Magnus, and Aluredus or Alfred of England who alone is listed in -Bartholomew’s bibliography. There seems to be no certain citation of -Albert. If Bartholomew had read Albert’s sharp criticism of Jorath, -he perhaps would not have made use of that author. The bibliography -includes the names of Michael Scot who was dead by 1235 and of Robert -of Lincoln, by whom Grosseteste must be meant, who was born about -1175, became bishop of Lincoln in 1235, and died in 1253. A Gilbertus -mentioned in the bibliography may be either the medical writer, Gilbert -of England, whose own date is somewhat uncertain, or a corruption for -Gerbert. These three writers are seldom, if ever, cited by name in the -text of Bartholomew. But he does cite Alexander of Hales[1325] who died -in 1245. On the whole it seems possible that Bartholomew wrote his work -as early as 1230. - -[Sidenote: How far are its citations first-hand?] - -The _Histoire Littéraire_ asserts that “Bartholomew surely was not -acquainted with all the authors, true or supposititious, whom he is -pleased to enumerate,” but it gives no grounds except the list itself -for this sceptical attitude. It is true that in the case of a few -authorities in his list, such as Scipio Africanus, Ninus Delphicus, -and Epicurus, it would have been as difficult to find any works by -them then as now. But I believe that Bartholomew was a wide reader -and acquainted with the greater part of the books and authors that -he cites. Modern writers concerning medieval learning have too often -proceeded upon the gratuitous assumption that medieval writers seldom -were directly acquainted with the authorities which they cite. But -one suspects that those who have assumed this were none too well -acquainted themselves either with the works citing or cited. And -why should medieval scholars take their citations at second hand? -The original works were fairly accessible; the earliest manuscripts -we have of them are almost invariably medieval, and probably they -had many, many more copies that are now destroyed, and possibly -some originals that are now forever lost. As for Bartholomew, his -citations are so numerous, so varied, so specific that they must be -largely first-hand.[1326] Obviously he did not spare himself trouble -in making a book to save others trouble. Bartholomew also seems to be -scrupulously honest in his citations. For instance, Pythagoras is cited -but once in the _Etymologies_ of Isidore,[1327] and when Bartholomew -makes use of this passage, he gives both Pythagoras and Isidore -credit.[1328] It is therefore only fair to Bartholomew to admit that, -had his citation of Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_ been drawn -from any third author, he would have given him credit too. Bartholomew -cites Pliny’s _Natural History_ by book and chapter and is evidently -directly acquainted with it. On the whole, I am inclined to think that -medieval writers had read quite as much of the works listed in their -bibliographies as modern writers have of those listed in _theirs_. - -[Sidenote: Its medieval currency.] - -In the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris alone there are eighteen -manuscripts of the _De proprietatibus rerum_, chiefly of the late -thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and the _Histoire Littéraire_ -tells us that its title appears in a catalogue of the books which -the medieval booksellers of Paris rented to the students at that -university.[1329] The work also occurs with frequency in the manuscript -collections of England, Germany, and Italy. Hain’s list of fourteen -printed editions of it before 1500 is incomplete, and the British -Museum catalogue of books printed in Germany alone in the fifteenth -century mentions nine editions. It was translated into French under -Charles V in the fourteenth century, and also appeared in English, -Spanish, and Dutch versions, all three of which were printed at the -end of the fifteenth century. These facts indicate that the work was, -and continued until the sixteenth century to be, widely used as a -text-book, and suggest the further thought that such widely multiplied -and disseminated elementary and popular works are more likely to -have survived the stagnant and destructive period of the Black Death -and Hundred Years War and to have come down to us than are the more -advanced, original, and elaborate works of the thirteenth century. Be -that as it may, we must not look upon the _De proprietatibus rerum_ as -a specimen of the most advanced medieval scholarship, but rather as an -illustration of the rough general knowledge which every person with any -pretense to culture was then supposed to possess. At the same time, -the large number of authorities cited shows how much wider reading a -medieval student might do. - -[Sidenote: Not a mere compilation nor limited to Biblical topics.] - -On the other hand, we must not be misled by Bartholomew’s humble tone -of self-depreciation nor even by his assertion, repeated at the close -as well as the opening of his work, that he presents “little or nothing -of my own, but simply the words of the saints and the sayings of the -philosophers.” As a matter of fact, he not infrequently alludes to -contemporary matters or describes daily life without mentioning any -authorities, and his amusing accounts of such animals as cats and -dogs, or boys and girls, or his instructions how to set a table and -give a dinner, are almost entirely his own and show considerable power -of observation and dry humor. His chapters on geography, too, deal -in large measure and with unusual fulness with the feudal states and -peoples of his own day: Scotland, Ireland, Flanders, Brabant, Anjou, -Poitou, and so on through a long list alphabetically arranged. In -these and in other chapters he forgets all about the fact that he is -supposedly explaining only those things mentioned in the Bible, and -is manifestly actuated by a scientific interest in present facts and -phenomena. The influence of Isidore’s _Etymologies_ upon Bartholomew’s -book is evident, and Bartholomew often makes Isidore his starting point -in discussing a given topic. But he also often goes far beyond the -other’s brief statements; it seems clear that the scanty contents of -the _Etymologies_ are no longer deemed sufficient even in an elementary -encylopedia and general text-book. Bartholomew seems to use the -scissors less than Thomas of Cantimpré, to state things more in his own -words, and not to make such long extracts from or paraphrases of other -works. - -However, in Bartholomew’s first book, whose subject is God, the first -two chapters are taken entirely and perhaps discreetly, since the -difficult problem of the Trinity is under discussion, from an _Extra_ -of Innocent III, while the third chapter is drawn from more varied -authorities, such as Augustine, the treatise on the Trinity ascribed -to Boethius,[1330] and the more recent Hugh and Richard, both of St. -Victor. Presently the theme of divine names is discussed[1331] and -Bartholomew lists and explains the ten Hebrew names of God, which are -found also in Isidore, namely: El, Eloe, Sabbaoth, Zelioz or Ramathel, -Eyel, Adonay, Ya, Tetragrammaton, Saday, and Eloym. - -[Sidenote: The nature of demons.] - -In the second book on the properties of angels is also discussed the -nature of demons.[1332] They are naturally perspicacious in matters -of science and powerful by their “sense of nature”--a phrase which -we have already met in William of Auvergne, whom, however, I think -Bartholomew does not cite; perhaps it was a technical expression that -spread rapidly from mouth to mouth of medieval psychologists as such -expressions do today,--experience of time, and knowledge of Scripture. -They can predict many future events, partly because their knowledge -of nature gained through their subtler senses is superior to man’s, -partly because of their longer lives which permit them to learn more, -partly by angelic revelation. Their bodies were celestial before they -transgressed but now are aerial. Apuleius’s characterization of them is -repeated _via_ Augustine, whose explanation is also given, that they -know occult virtues in nature which are hidden from us and by which -they are able to accelerate natural processes and work feats of magic -such as those performed by Pharaoh’s magicians. - -[Sidenote: Psychology and physiology.] - -Bartholomew’s third book may be described as psychological and -discusses the human mind or soul (_anima_), of which definitions by -various Greek philosophers are repeated, and the senses. The fourth -and fifth books are physiological. These three books seem to be based -mainly upon the writings of Constantinus Africanus; less frequently -Aristotle and other authorities are cited. One treatise is ascribed to -Avicenna and Constantinus which is not in Peter the Deacon’s list of -the latter’s works, namely, a treatise on poisonous animals and poisons -and presumably a translation of Avicenna by Constantinus.[1333] In this -connection we are told that while some animals have poisonous tongues -like snakes, others have medicinal and healing tongues like the dog, as -Cassiodorus says, and either from the goodness of nature or from some -occult property.[1334] We have already noted elsewhere Bartholomew’s -acceptance of the usual medieval theory of three brain cells devoted -to three mental faculties, in which connection he cites Johannitius -or Hunain ibn Ishak.[1335] In discussing the disease of _melancholia_ -Bartholomew tells of a noble whom he knew who imagined that he was a -cat and insisted upon sleeping under the bed in order to watch the -mouse holes.[1336] In a later passage in his seventh book Bartholomew -repeats Constantinus’ distinction between mania as an infection of -the anterior cell of the brain with injury to the imagination and -melancholia as an infection of the central cell with loss of one’s -reason.[1337] - -[Sidenote: Vision and perspective.] - -In discussing vision Bartholomew gives the views of “an author of the -science of perspective” precedence over those of Constantinus.[1338] -This author believes that in vision three coterminous pyramids or cones -are formed with the apex of each in the pupil of the eye and the base -formed by the object seen. One pyramid is made up of _species_ from -the object coming along straight lines to the center of the eye. The -second pyramid is made by the vision going out from the eye to the -object seen. The third pyramid consists of light, which, as Bartholomew -explains elsewhere[1339] on the authority of Basel and Dionysius -and Augustine, is a distinct substance by which other bodies are -illuminated. Light was created three days before sun and moon which are -simply vehicles for it. But while this light is always shining, whether -visibly or invisibly, it produces illumination only when other bodies -are in a condition to receive it. The human eye can see itself only by -the reflection of rays, “and possibly the vision delights in the sight -of a mirror because through reflection of rays it is, by returning to -itself, fortified as it were and in a way strengthened.”[1340] - -[Sidenote: Medieval domestic science.] - -Bartholomew’s sixth book is entitled, “Of ages,” but really deals -more with matters of daily family and domestic life, discussing in -addition to age, death, infancy, childhood, manhood, such family -relationships as father, mother, and daughter, and such domestic -concerns as servants, food and drink, dinners and banquets, sleep and -waking, dreams and exercise. This last topic of exercise is discussed -largely in the words of a sermon by Fulgentius, but in other chapters -Bartholomew writes so vividly from his own observation that he deserves -quotation, although the themes are somewhat of a digression from our -main subject.[1341] - -[Sidenote: The medieval domestic servant.] - -“The handmaid is a female slave deputed to make herself useful to the -housewife. She is assigned to the more laborious and demeaning tasks, -she is fed with coarser food, she is clad in meaner clothing, she is -oppressed by the yoke of servitude.” Her son becomes a serf and, if she -is of servile condition, so does a freeman who marries her, nor is she -permitted to marry as she chooses. “Like the serf, she is because of -the vice of ingratitude recalled after being manumitted, is afflicted -with scoldings, is bruised by rods and beatings, is oppressed by varied -and conflicting vexations and anxieties, is scarcely permitted to -breathe amid her miseries.” Such painting of her woes does not imply -much sympathy on Bartholomew’s part, however, since he concludes by -saying that it is written that whoso nourishes his servant delicately -will find him insolent in the end.[1342] - -[Sidenote: Medieval boys.] - -Boys have a great capacity for mischief but are susceptible to -discipline, if put under tutors and compelled to submit to it. Their -constitutions are hot and moist, their flesh is soft, their bodies -are flexible, agile, and light; their minds are docile. They lead a -safe life without care and worry, appreciating only play, fearing no -danger more than the rod, loving apples better than gold. They go naked -unashamed; they are heedless of praise or scolding, easily angered and -easily placated, easily hurt in the body and unable to endure much -work. The hot humor that dominates them makes them restless and fickle. -They tend to eat too much and are susceptible to various diseases in -consequence. They think only of the present and care nothing for the -future; they love games and vanities but refuse to attend to gain and -utility. “The least things they think the greatest, and vice versa.” -“They want what is hurtful and contrary to them.” They do not remember -favors received. All that they see they desire and imitate. They prefer -to talk with and take advice from other boys, and shun the company of -their elders. They can’t keep secrets. They laugh or cry easily, and -they are continually shouting, talking, or chattering, and can scarcely -keep still even while they are asleep.[1343] - -[Sidenote: Medieval girls.] - -Girls “are in constitution hot, moist, and of delicate health; in -physique graceful and flexible and beautiful; in mental attitude modest -and timid and playful; in their social relations well trained in -manners, cautious and reticent in speech, luxurious in dress.” After -quoting Aristotle to the effect that women generally have longer and -softer hair than men and a longer neck, and remarking the peculiarities -of their complexions and figures, Bartholomew says further that they -have slenderer and more flexible hands and feet, a weaker voice, -voluble and ready speech, that they take short steps, and that in -mind they tend to be haughty, are prone to wrath, tenacious in hate, -merciful, jealous, impatient of labor, docile, tricky, bitter, and -“headlong in lust.”[1344] Whether Bartholomew is inconsistent in this -passage or believes that the female nature is, the reader must judge. - -[Sidenote: A medieval dinner.] - -These are Bartholomew’s instructions for giving a dinner party: “First -the food is prepared; at the same time the guests are assembled; chairs -and also stools are required; in the dining room tables are set and the -table furnishings are arranged and adorned. The guests with the host -are placed at the head table, but they do not sit down at table before -the hands of the guests are washed; next the host’s children and then -the servants are grouped together at table. Spoons, knives, and salt -cellars are first placed upon the table. Loaves of bread and cups of -wine are presently added. There follow many and varied courses; the -butlers and waiters serve each person diligently. The guests joyfully -engage in vying with one another in pledging toasts; they are cheered -with viols and citharas; now the wines and now the courses are -renewed; they divide and share with one another the dishes which happen -to be opposite them; finally the fruit and dessert are brought in. -When dinner is finished, the table furnishings and remains of food are -carried away and the tables are set aside. Hands are again washed and -wiped; thanks are returned to God and to the host; for the sake of good -cheer the cups go round again and again. When these features of the -dinner are over, the guests either are offered couches for some rest, -or are allowed to return home.”[1345] - -[Sidenote: Dreams and their interpretation.] - -In a chapter on dreams Bartholomew declares that they are sometimes -true and sometimes false. One should neither put indiscriminate faith -in them nor spurn them entirely, since sometimes certain conjectures -concerning the future may be had through dreams. Moreover, the meaning -of some dreams is evident at once; others require interpretation. -Dreams arise from varied sources, being produced by divine inspiration, -by angelic administration, by diabolic illusion, or by natural and -bodily causes.[1346] - -[Sidenote: Medical advice.] - -Bartholomew’s seventh book is medical, treating of infirmities in -seventy chapters. His desire to be brief is probably what restrains -him from including any long medical concoctions. He continues to make -much use of Constantinus Africanus, who is cited in almost every -chapter, and whose “many other experiments”[1347] Bartholomew often -has not time to include. One of the cures cited from Constantinus is -to scarify the shin bones in order to cure a headache, the theory -being that this will remove the injurious humor from the head to the -lower extremities.[1348] A part of the treatment prescribed for cases -of frenzy is to shave the scalp and wash it with tepid vinegar or -cover it with plasters made of the lung of a pig or cow. Keeping the -patient firmly bound in a dark place, bleeding him, and abstaining -from answering his foolish questions are other features of the regimen -suggested.[1349] To rouse a patient from a state of stupor and -lethargy it is recommended to pull hard at his hair or beard, dash cold -water frequently in his face, or make a stench under him.[1350] An -“experiment” against epilepsy from Platearius consists in scarifying -three drops of blood from the patient’s scalp and at the end of the fit -giving them to him to eat with a crow’s egg.[1351] Indeed crow’s eggs -alone are regarded as quite beneficial. To Platearius is also credited -the following method “of curing or at least palliating leprosy.”[1352] -Take a red snake with a white belly, remove the venom, cut off the -head and tail, cook it with leeks, and administer it frequently with -food,--a preparation roughly similar to theriac. Wine in which a -snake has lain putrefying a long time is “a medicine useful for many -diseases,” and Bartholomew repeats the tale we have heard before of -the woman who caused her blind husband to recover his sight instead of -killing him when she cooked a snake instead of an eel with garlic for -him to eat. After such liberties had been taken with his blindness, one -would expect a husband to recover his sight, if he could! - -[Sidenote: Poisons.] - -The poisons of venomous animals differ. The venom of the viper is hot -and dry; that of the scorpion, cold and dry; that of the spider, cold -and moist. Avicenna says that the poison of the male is really more -deadly than that of the female, but female serpents have more teeth -and so are perhaps worse on the whole. The venom of the old is more -injurious than that of the young; that of a fasting animal is more -harmful than that of a full animal; and poisons are worse in summer -than winter, and at noon than at night.[1353] “Diascorides” says[1354] -that river crabs possess an occult virtue against the bite of mad dogs, -and their ashes taken with gentian are a singular remedy. A scorpion -sting may be cured by placing oil in which the scorpion has been -drowned or boiled upon the puncture, or by pulverizing the scorpion’s -body and placing it upon the wound. The idea of course is that the -poison will return to the body from which it came. - -[Sidenote: The waters above the firmament.] - -In book eight Bartholomew discusses the universe and celestial bodies. -According to the tradition of the saints there is a visible and an -invisible heaven. The visible heaven is multiplex and subdivides into -seven heavens, the aerial, ethereal, fiery, Olympian, the firmament, -the aqueous or crystalline, and the empyrean. The authority of -Scripture concerning the waters above the firmament causes Bartholomew -to accept the existence of an aqueous or crystalline heaven. But he -rejects Bede’s view that these waters are cold and congealed in order -to temper the excessive heat generated by the swift revolution of the -other heavens, for Job tells us that there is concord and harmony -in the heavens, and cold and humid waters would be contrary to the -celestial substance of the heavens. Therefore “the moderns” have in -Bartholomew’s opinion “investigated the inmost secrets of philosophy -more profoundly,” when, as Alexander of Hales states, they suggest -that those waters are neither frigid, fluid, and humid, nor congealed, -solid, and ponderous, but on the contrary very mobile and remarkable -for their clearness and transparency. It is not because they are -congealed but because they are transparent that this heaven is called -crystalline.[1355] In other words, the “waters above the firmament” are -not really waters. And the original modern investigator who ventured -to dispute Bede’s authority on the subject of the waters above the -firmament was not Alexander of Hales but, as we have seen, William of -Conches, whom Bartholomew lists in his bibliography and quotes in other -passages, although he does not mention him by name here. - -[Sidenote: The empyrean heaven: Rabanus.] - -Of the other heavens Bartholomew gives most space to the empyrean. It -is by nature immobile and unmoved and consequently is not essential -like the other heavens for the continued generation of things in our -inferior world, but rather, as Alexander of Hales says, to round out -the universe and the types of bodies in it. Bartholomew continues: -“The empyrean heaven is the first body, simplest in nature, the least -corporeal, the subtlest, the first firmament of the world, largest in -quantity, lucid in quality, spherical in shape, loftiest in location -since farthest from the center, embracing in its amplitude spirits and -bodies visible and invisible, and the abode of the supreme God; for -God may be everywhere, yet he is said especially to be in the heaven, -since there shines most powerfully the working of his virtue.”[1356] -After this description of the last of the visible heavens as the abode -of invisible spirits and of God Himself there does not seem to be much -call for an invisible heaven, which Bartholomew himself seems by this -time to have forgotten. For the passage just quoted he cites Rabanus -as his source “who employs the words of Basil in the _Hexaemeron_,” -but I have been unable to find the passage either in the _Hexaemeron_ -of Basil or the works of Rabanus Maurus.[1357] Nor have I been able to -find several other citations which Bartholomew makes from Rabanus in -matters astronomical and astrological. - -[Sidenote: Alexander of Hales.] - -A word may be introduced concerning Alexander of Hales, whom -Bartholomew has twice cited in the foregoing passages, but whom we -probably shall not have occasion to mention again. Like Bartholomew, -he was an Englishman and a Franciscan, and Bartholomew may have been -either an attendant upon his lectures or his colleague at Paris. -He died in 1245 and is known as one of the first to attempt to fit -together previous Christian opinion and theology with the newly -introduced works of Aristotle and writings of the Arabs. Of this we see -evidence in the citations made from him by Bartholomew. But Alexander’s -field was primarily theology and not natural science. - -[Sidenote: Aristotelian theory of one heaven.] - -While the saints may regard the heavens as manifold and list as many as -seven of them,[1358] the philosophers will admit only one heaven, says -Bartholomew, who this time correctly quotes Basil as affirming in the -_Hexaemeron_ that “the philosophers would rather gnaw out their tongues -than admit that there are many heavens.” Bartholomew also presents -Aristotle’s view in the _Liber de celo et mundo_ that the heaven is -characterized by the greatest possible simplicity and purity and has no -division or contrariety of parts. According to the new translation of -_De celo et mundo_ it is “a perfect complete unit to which there is no -like, neither fabricated nor generated,” and with an equal, single, and -circular motion. In the _De causis elementorum_ Aristotle holds further -that the heaven is a fifth element, differing in natural properties and -distinct from the four elements and not like them subject to generation -and corruption.[1359] Indeed, they would destroy one another by their -mutual contrariety and repugnance were it not for the conciliating -influence of celestial virtue.[1360] But while the heaven is one, it -has many orbs and circles of varying figure and magnitude, and there -is a greater aggregation of light in the stars than in other parts -of the sky. Such variations account for the varying or even contrary -effects produced by the heaven in our lower world at different times -and places, and explain why the pure sky causes corruption as well as -generation here below. - -[Sidenote: As the basis of astrology.] - -The Aristotelian foundation thus laid for the superstructure of -astrological science and art is apparently accepted by Bartholomew, who -states that “the Creator established the heaven as the cause and origin -of generation and corruption, and therefore it was necessary that it -should not be subject to generation and corruption.” In short, the -universe divides into two parts. The heaven, beginning with the circle -of the moon, is the nobler, simpler, superior, and active portion -of the universe. The other part, extending from the sphere of the -moon downward to earth’s center, is inferior, passive, acted upon and -governed by the heaven. In all his later scientific and astrological -discussion Bartholomew implies this hypothesis, and, after the two -chapters which we have already summarized on the waters above the -firmament and the empyrean heaven, pays no more attention to the seven -heavens of the saints. The firmament, “called by the philosophers the -first heaven and the last, in whose convexity are situated the bodies -of stars and planets,” absorbs his attention during the remaining -forty-eight chapters of his eighth book. “By means of its motion, it is -the effective principle of generation and corruption in the inferior -world.” Rabanus explains how its rays converge as toward a center upon -the earth’s surface and exert a concentrated impression there; and the -science of perspective also illustrates this. The three less stable -elements, air, fire, and water, obey the firmament even to the extent -of local motion, as is illustrated by the tides. The element earth is -not influenced in this way, but produces diverse species from itself in -obedience to the celestial impressions which it receives. - -[Sidenote: Properties and effects of the signs and planets.] - -Bartholomew discusses the signs of the zodiac in much the usual -astrological fashion. They are given animal names because in their -effects they represent the properties of those animals.[1361] In their -effects, too, they may be distinguished as hot or cold, masculine or -feminine, diurnal or nocturnal; and they are grouped in trios with -the four elements and cardinal points and in varied relations with -the planets. Each governs its portion of the human body; thus the Ram -“dominates the head and face, and produces a hairy body, a crooked -frame, an oblique face, heavy eyes, short ears, a long neck.”[1362] -Each sign also has its bearings on human life; thus Virgo is “the -house of sickness, of serfs and handmaids and the domestic animals. -It signifies inconstancy and changing from place to place.”[1363] -Bartholomew indeed devotes a separate chapter to “the properties and -occult virtues” of each sign “according to the astrologers.”[1364] The -seven planets by their progress through the signs and conjunctions in -them influence every creature on earth.[1365] Bartholomew outlines -their successive control of the formation of the child in the womb. -He also devotes a chapter to the influence of each planet. Mars, for -example, “disposes men to mobility and levity of mind, to wrath and -animosity and other choleric passions; it also fits men for arts -employing fire such as those of smiths and bakers, just as Saturn -produces agriculturists and porters of heavy weights, and Jupiter on -the contrary turns out men adapted to lighter pursuits such as orators -and money-changers.”[1366] Bartholomew also discusses the head and tail -of the dragon as “two stars which are not planets but yet seem to have -the nature and influence of the planets.”[1367] The fixed stars, too, -have their influence, causing storms or clear weather and, according -to the _mathematici_, presignifying sad or glad events. Bartholomew -further sets forth the theory of the _magnus annus_ or return of all -the stars to the same positions after an interval of 15,000 or 36,000 -years. “But whatever the philosophers have said concerning it, this -much is sure that it is not for us to determine the last day.”[1368] -God alone knows. Bartholomew’s most frequently cited authorities on -the subject of astrology seem to be Albumasar, Messahala[1369] (Ma -Sha’Allah), and Alphraganus. - -[Sidenote: Bartholomew illustrates the general medieval acceptance of -astrology.] - -Thus Bartholomew, a Franciscan in good standing, who lectured on the -Bible at Paris and was called by the General of his Order to lecture -in Saxony, in a work intended for elementary students and the general -reader, far from engaging in any tilt with the astrologers or -attacking their art as involving fatalism and contrary to morality and -free will, affirms the general law of the control of earth by sky and -repeats with little or no question a mass of astrological detail from -Arabian writers. After such an exhibition as this of what a commonplace -and matter-of-course affair astrological theory was in the thirteenth -century, how impossible it is to have the least sympathy with those -specialists in medieval learning who would have the work of Daniel of -Morley shunned like the pest because of its astrological doctrine, -or account for Bacon’s imprisonment in 1278 by his astrological -doctrine, or deny that Albertus Magnus could have written the _Speculum -astronomiae_ with its astrological doctrine. But of Bacon and Albertus -more later. - -[Sidenote: Medieval divisions of the day and hour.] - -Bartholomew’s ninth book deals with time and its parts. He defines a -day as the time occupied by a complete revolution of the sun around -the earth, and states that a day consists of twenty-four hours, or -of four “quarters” of six hours each. But he seems unacquainted with -our division of the hour into sixty minutes and the minute into sixty -seconds. Instead he subdivides the hour into four “points” or forty -“moments.” Each moment is thus equivalent to a minute and a half of -our time, and it may be divided further into twelve _unciae_ (ounces), -while each _uncia_ includes forty-seven atoms, making 22,560 atoms -in an hour as against 3,600 of our seconds. Honorius of Autun in his -_De imagine mundi_, a work written presumably in the first part of -the twelfth century, speaks of the hour as a twelfth part of the day, -but makes it consist of four “points,” forty “moments,” and 22,560 -atoms just as Bartholomew does. But Honorius also divides the hour -into ten “minutes,” fifteen “parts,” and sixty _ostenta_, which last -would correspond to our minutes, if his hour was of the same length as -ours. Honorius does not mention the _unciae_ of Bartholomew.[1370] -Bartholomew further tells us that Sunday is called the Lord’s Day and -is privileged in many particulars, since on it the world was created, -the Lord was born, rose from the dead, and also sent the Holy Spirit. -We have already presented Bartholomew’s discussion of the Egyptian days -in an earlier chapter. - -[Sidenote: Form and matter: fire and coal.] - -The tenth book, in nine brief chapters, is entitled, “Form and Matter,” -but after one chapter on form, discusses the elements. An element, -according to Constantinus, is a simple substance and the least particle -of a compound body. The rest of the chapters are devoted to the -particular element fire and to things closely associated with it, such -as flame, smoke, sparks, and ashes. _Carbo_, “Rabanus says, is fire -actually incorporated and united with earthly matter.” Bartholomew’s -further description suggests our coal, but perhaps he has only charcoal -in mind. - -[Sidenote: Air and its creatures.] - -The eleventh book treats in sixteen chapters of the element air and -its “passions,” such as winds, clouds, rainbows, dew, rain, hail, -snow, thunder and lightning, and leads up to the following book on -birds, or rather, creatures of the air, since bees, flies, crickets, -locusts, bats, and griffins are included in the alphabetical list -of thirty-eight chapters. The birds described are for the most part -familiar ones: the eagle, hawk, owl, dove, turtle-dove, quail, -stork, crow, crane, hen, swallow, kite, partridge, peacock, pelican, -screech-owl, sparrow, vulture, hoopoe, phoenix. Some of these creatures -place precious stones in their nests to keep off snakes, the eagle -employing the gem achates[1371] and the griffin an emerald.[1372] - -[Sidenote: The swallow, swallow-stone, and swallow-wort.] - -Swallows have gems called _celidonii_ in their gizzards, one white and -one red. The red variety is called masculine because it is of greater -virtue than the white kind. These stones are especially valuable if -they have been extracted from the chick before it touches the ground, -“as is said in _Lapidarius_ where their virtues are described as -Constantinus says.”[1373] _Lapidarius_ can scarcely mean Marbod’s poem -on gems, since he wrote later than Constantinus Africanus, and while he -discusses the _chelidonius_, he says nothing of extracting it so soon -and describes the colors of its two varieties as black and red,[1374] -and so does Bartholomew later on.[1375] Marcellus Empiricus had called -them black and white.[1376] _Chelidonius_ seems to be derived from the -Greek word for swallow, χελιδών, and to mean the swallow-stone. Pliny -mentions two varieties but simply states that they are like the swallow -in color, not that they come from its gizzard. Furthermore he describes -the color of one as purple on one side, of the other as “purple -besprinkled with black spots.”[1377] Solinus mentions swallows but -says nothing of any stone connected with them. Bartholomew, however, -also mentions the herb _celidonia_ or swallow-wort. He cites Macrobius -for the story that, if anyone blinds the young of swallows, the parent -birds restore their offspring’s sight by anointing their eyes with the -juice of this herb, a statement which is also found in Pliny.[1378] Not -only does the swallow contain gems of great virtue and know of healing -herbs; it has medical properties itself. For instance, blood extracted -from its right wing is a remedy for the eyes. - -[Sidenote: The hoopoe and magic.] - -Of the birds described by Bartholomew the _upupa_ or hoopoe is -especially associated with the practice of magic. Pliny cites the poet -Aeschylus as saying that the bird changes its form;[1379] and from -Aristotle to modern French peasants it has been believed to build its -nest of human ordure.[1380] After quoting Isidore, who in part uses -Pliny,[1381] for the bird’s supposed filthy habits, its frequenting -sepulchers, and the statement that anyone anointed with its blood -will see demons suffocating him in his dreams, Bartholomew adds that -its heart is used in sorceries. Students of nature (_Phisici_) say -that when it grows old and cannot see or fly, its offspring tear off -its outworn pinions and bathe its eyes with the juices of herbs--thus -just reversing the relation between the swallow and its young--and -warm it under their wings until its feathers grow again and, perfectly -renovated, it is able to see and fly as well as they. In Basil’s -_Hexaemeron_ a similar story is told of the filial devotion of young -storks toward their aged parent. The hoopoe’s renovation by its young -also is included in the Latin bestiaries,[1382] but Bartholomew -appears to cite _Phisici_ rather than _Physiologus_.[1383] Thomas of -Cantimpré’s chapter on the hoopoe is similar to Bartholomew’s except -that all he says to connect it with magic is that anointing one’s -temples with its blood protects one from sorcerers and enchanters; but -“how this is, Experimenter does not state.” Vincent of Beauvais gives -a somewhat fuller account of the hoopoe in his _Speculum naturale_ -and the bird’s properties are also treated by Albertus Magnus in his -_De animalibus_,[1384] and in the _De mirabilibus mundi_ ascribed to -him, also by Petrus Hispanus in the _Thesaurus pauperum_,[1385] and -by Arnald of Villanova in _Remedia contra maleficia_. For the use of -the bird’s heart in magic Vincent cites a _Liber de natura rerum_, -which perhaps is the _Liber rerum_ cited by Thomas of Cantimpré, -who, however, in that case failed to copy the statement in question. -Vincent attributes to “Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_,” the -statement that sprinkling a sleeping person with the blood of the -hoopoe will cause him to see phantasms of demons, which is essentially -the same statement that Bartholomew draws from Isidore and Pliny. But -Bartholomew sometimes cites Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_. -These instances show the difficulty of dealing with medieval citations, -but on the whole indicate that Vincent used independently the same -sources as Thomas and Bartholomew and made a different selection from -them. - -[Sidenote: Waters and fish.] - -In the thirteenth book Bartholomew deals with the element water, with -wells, streams, seas, ponds, pools, and drops of water, with some -particular bodies of water such as the Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, -Lake of Tiberias, and Mediterranean Sea. In the last chapter fish are -considered. As in the account of birds, use is made of Isidore and -Pliny, notably concerning the cleverness with which fish escape the -snares laid for them by fishermen. Some fish are said to help their -fellows withdraw from the basket-like traps set for them by fishermen -by seizing their tails in their mouths and pulling them out backwards. -Aristotle, too, is cited and Avicenna is referred to several times -on the question whether a particular fish is edible or not. But an -authority especially employed in this chapter is Jorath or Iorat, who -in the bibliography at the end of the work is called a Chaldean. From -his book on animals Bartholomew takes such details as that there are -fish who live only three hours, who conceive from dew alone or in -accord with the phases of the moon and the rising and setting of the -stars. Dolphins, when a man is drowning, can tell from the odor whether -he has ever eaten the flesh of a dolphin. If he has not, they rescue -him and bring him safe to land; if he has, they devour him on the spot. - -[Sidenote: Jorath on whales.] - -Bartholomew also depends upon Jorath for his account of whales, which -were not treated of by Pliny. The whale possesses a superabundance of -sperm which floats on the water and, when collected and dried, turns -to amber. When hungry, the whale has only to open its mouth and emit a -fragrant odor like amber, and the other fish, attracted and delighted -thereby, swim into its jaws and down its throat. On some occasions, -however, this pleasant breath, if it may be so termed, of the whale -saves the other fish instead of luring them on to destruction. When -a certain serpentine and venomous fish approaches, they take refuge -behind the whale, who then repels the fetid odor of the newcomer by the -sweetness of his own effusion. While Bartholomew lists the whale along -with fish, he notes that Jorath says that terrestrial matter dominates -in it over water, and that consequently it becomes very corpulent and -fat, and in its old age dust collects on its back to such an extent -that vegetation grows there and the creature is often mistaken for an -island and lures sailors to their destruction,--a reminiscence, we -may suppose, of one of Lucian’s stories. So fat is the whale that he -must be wounded deeply to feel it at all, but once his inner flesh is -reached by the weapon, he cannot endure the bitterness of the salt -water, seeks the shore, and is easily captured. The whale cherishes -its young with wondrous love, and when they are stranded on shoals it -frees them by spouting water over them. When a severe storm is raging, -it swallows them and they abide safely in its belly until the storm is -past, when it vomits them forth again. - -[Sidenote: Geography, physical and political.] - -In the fourteenth book Bartholomew treats of earth, and besides -defining mountains, hills, valleys, plains, fields, meadows, deserts, -caves, and ditches in general, describes over thirty particular peaks -or mountain ranges, most of which are named in the Bible, like Ararat, -Bethel, Hermon, Hebron, and Horeb. But in the fifteenth book, on -Provinces, his geography is that of classical antiquity and of the -feudal world of his own time rather than that of Scripture. Where the -medieval region was known under the same name in antiquity, he is -apt to continue to use the old description of it, even though it may -be really out-of-date and no longer closely applicable. Sometimes, -however, as in the chapter on Burgundy, he uses only a little of -Isidore’s description and apparently writes the rest of the paragraph -from personal knowledge. And in the case of new localities and names, -for which he can find no ancient and early medieval authorities, he -describes the province intelligently and accurately as it is in his own -time. On the whole his account, although its 175 chapters are brief, is -of considerable value[1386] for the political geography of Europe in -the thirteenth century, both as a general survey showing what regions -he deemed important enough to mention[1387] and what he thought might -be omitted, and also often for particular details concerning particular -places, while it is sometimes enlivened by the spice of local or racial -prejudice. - -[Sidenote: Also economic.] - -Citing Isidore, Bartholomew divides the world as in a T map into Asia, -occupying one-half the circle, and Europe and Africa each occupying a -quarter. Indeed he says later that Africa is smaller than Europe;[1388] -Africa of course had not yet been circumnavigated. In speaking of -Alemannia he alludes to other provinces “in either Germany” which are -not included in his list of chapter headings: Austria and Bavaria near -the Danube, Alsace along the Rhine, “and many others which it would -be tedious to enumerate one by one.”[1389] He describes Apulia as the -maritime region in Italy separated from the island of Sicily by an arm -of the sea, and as a very populous land, full of gold and silver, rich -in grain, wine, and oil, famous for its renowned cities, well fortified -in castles and towns, fertile and fecund in varied crops. Brindisi -(Brundusium) is its metropolis, and across the sea from Apulia to the -south is Barbary.[1390] Bartholomew thus uses the term “Apulia” as “Le -Puglie” is used today, to include both ancient Apulia and Calabria, -which he does not mention by that name. His description testifies to -the greater prosperity of that region under the Normans and Frederick -II than in later times, and also shows that Bartholomew is not blind to -economic conditions in his survey of various regions. He is very apt, -indeed, to tell whether the soil is well-watered and fertile or rocky -and arid, and to describe the other resources of the district and the -characteristics of the peoples inhabiting it. He speaks in high praise -of the extensive dominions and sea-power of Venice and of the justice -and concord of its citizens.[1391] He also recognizes the importance of -the wool trade between England and Flanders.[1392] - -[Sidenote: Medieval boundaries.] - -Bartholomew often undertakes to state the boundaries of a region under -discussion. Sometimes he is clear and convincing in this, as when he -states that Gascony used to be a part of Aquitaine, that it is bounded -by the Pyrenees, the Ocean, and the county of Toulouse, and approaches -the territory of the Poitevins to the north; that it is drained by -the Garonne river and that Bordeaux is its metropolis.[1393] Sometimes -his statements are confusing, but we must remember that feudal states -were very difficult to bound exactly and varied greatly in extent from -time to time. Some mistakes in the points of the compass are perhaps -slips of copyists rather than of Bartholomew. He speaks of Brabant and -Lorraine as the westernmost or frontier provinces of Germany. Brabant -is bounded on the north by Frisia, the Britannic Ocean (North Sea), and -the Gulf of Flanders; on the west by lower Gaul and on the south by -upper France. It is watered by the Meuse and Scheldt.[1394] Lorraine is -bounded by Brabant, the Rhine, Alsace, the region of Sens, and Belgic -Gaul. Metz is located in it.[1395] Flanders is a province of Belgic -Gaul next the seacoast, with Germany to the east, the Gallic sea to the -west, and the region of Sens and Burgundy to the south.[1396] - -[Sidenote: France in the thirteenth century.] - -Bartholomew is uncertain whether France is named from the Franks or -from a free hangman (_a franco carnifice_) who became king at Paris -and from whom the executioners received privileges. Isidore does not -mention _Francia_, so that Bartholomew does not derive this etymology -from him. He seems uncertain also whether to identify France with -all ancient Gaul or simply with Belgic Gaul. He would carry it south -only to the province of Narbonensis and the Pennine Alps, but east -to the Rhine and Germany. This perhaps is an attestation of the -growing territorial power of the French monarch, but perhaps is also a -hold-over from the ancient boundaries of Gaul. At any rate many of his -other regions would overlap and conflict with a France of this size. -He extols the stone and cement about Paris, which give it an advantage -over other localities in building construction, and he further -eulogizes the city itself as the Athens of his age which elevates the -science and culture not of France only but all Europe.[1397] - -[Sidenote: Brittany and the British Isles.] - -Léopold Delisle, writing in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, -endeavored to claim Bartholomew as a Frenchman, despite the _Anglicus_ -that regularly accompanies his name. Yet for all Bartholomew’s praise -of Paris and Venice, his chapters on England, Ireland, Scotland, and -Brittany[1398] are alone almost enough to determine his nationality. -He asserts that Brittany should be called _Britannia Minor_, and the -island _Britannia Maior_ or Great Britain, since Brittany was settled -by fugitive Britons from the island and the daughter should not be -raised to an equality with the mother country, especially since it -cannot equal Great Britain either in population or merit.[1399] Also -Bartholomew represents the Irish as savages[1400] and describes the -Scots in very unfavorable terms. His view is that if they have any good -customs, they borrowed them from the English. He admits, however, that -the Scots would be good-looking in face and figure, but then adds the -insulting condition, if they would not insist on deforming themselves -by wearing their national costume.[1401] But as for England, or Albion -as it was once called, after describing it as the largest island in -the (Atlantic) ocean and recounting some of its legends and history, -Bartholomew quotes a metrical description of it as a fertile corner of -the world, a rich island which has little need of the rest of the world -but whose products all the rest of the world requires, and whose people -are happy, jocose, and free of mind, tongue, and hand.[1402] Censure of -and prejudice against all others who claim to be British, ill-concealed -insular pride! Who can doubt that the writer is an Englishman? - -[Sidenote: A geography by Herodotus.] - -Some writer named Herodotus is cited a good deal by Bartholomew for -such regions as Poitou, Picardy, Saxony, Sclavia, Scotland, and -Thuringia, of which the Greek historian Herodotus of course knew -nothing and said nothing. - -[Sidenote: Two passages about magic.] - -The inhabitants of Finland, we are told, are a barbarous race “occupied -with magic arts.” They practice divination by means of the number of -knots in a ball of thread and sell favorable winds to the sailors who -navigate along their shores. In reality, Bartholomew explains, the -demons send the winds or not, in order to secure the souls of the Finns -in the end.[1403] While we are on the subject of magic, a passage -from Bartholomew’s next book may be noted.[1404] Discussing the gem -Heliotrope, he cites Isidore for the statement that “it manifests the -stupidity of enchanters and magicians who glory in their prodigies, -for they deceive men’s eyes in their operations just as this gem does, -of which he says by way of illustration that together with the herb -of the same name and certain incantations it deceives the gaze of the -spectators and causes them not to see the man who carries it.” But -when we turn to the _Etymologies_,[1405] we find that Isidore simply -quotes the sentence of Pliny, “This too is a manifest instance of the -impudence of the magicians that they say that the bearer of this stone -cannot be seen if he joins to it the herb Heliotrope and adds certain -prayers.” Bartholomew has evidently put his own interpretation upon the -passage. - -[Sidenote: Bartholomew and Arnold of Saxony on stones.] - -The last passage has introduced us to Bartholomew’s sixteenth book -on gems, minerals, and metals. Valentin Rose,[1406] in what Langlois -praised as “sa belle dissertation sur le _De lapidibus_ aristotélique -et sur le _Lapidaire_ d’Arnoldus Saxo,”[1407] exploited a hitherto -obscure German writer, Arnold of Saxony, who appears to be cited only -by Vincent of Beauvais and of whose works but a single manuscript is -known. Yet Rose would have us believe that Albertus Magnus made much -use of him without acknowledgment in his work on minerals[1408] and -that Bartholomew did the same in his sixteenth book. I shall endeavor -to show that it is much more likely that Arnold copied Bartholomew. -First, it is less likely that Bartholomew, who was called to Magdeburg -to instruct the Saxons, possibly after his _De proprietatibus rerum_ -had been completed, would have borrowed from one of them than that -the opposite should be the case. Second, Bartholomew’s work is much -fuller than Arnold’s which Rose admits is “meager and mechanical.” -Third, Bartholomew’s work is professedly a compilation; his object is -to cite his authorities and he usually does so scrupulously; hence if -he made much use of Arnold, he would certainly mention him somewhere. -Fourth, in descriptions of particular stones Arnold of Saxony cites -no authorities but merely makes the lump statement at the start that -he uses Aristotle, Aaron and Evax, by whom he means Marbod’s poem, -and “Diascorides”; Bartholomew on the other hand in the case of each -gem makes distinct citations from Isidore, _Lapidarius_,[1409] and -“Diascorides,” all of whom he is evidently using directly but with -discrimination and in different combinations in each particular case. -Fifth, the same stones are treated more fully by Bartholomew than by -Arnold, whose terse descriptions suggest the style of an abbreviator. -Thus Bartholomew devotes two columns to the sapphire; Arnold gives -it but eleven lines. Sixth, although Rose denied that Arnold used -Aristotle and “Diascorides” except in his other work _De virtute -universali_, and contended that in his _De virtutibus lapidum_ he used -only Marbod and one other unknown source, in point of fact almost -every passage in Arnold which Rose refers to this unknown source is -given by Bartholomew as from “Diascorides.” If, therefore, Arnold’s -unknown source is not “Diascorides,” it must be Bartholomew. The -natural inference is that while Bartholomew has made direct use of -some treatise passing under the name of Dioscorides, Arnold has not -seen this treatise itself but has probably condensed or extracted it -at second-hand from Bartholomew without acknowledging his indebtedness -to Bartholomew at all and only vaguely acknowledging his debt to -“Diascorides” in his preface. This inference is supported by the use -made of Isidore on stones by our two authors; Bartholomew uses Isidore -directly and cites book and chapter; Arnold repeats indirectly through -Marbod a bare skeleton of brief phrases which originally were in -Isidore.[1410] - -[Sidenote: Citations by Arnold of Saxony and by Bartholomew.] - -Rose further asserted, without printing the passages in question to -support his contention, that Albertus Magnus had simply copied a number -of citations from Arnold, such as Jorach on animals, Pictagoras in -_The Book of the Romans_, Esculapius in _De membris_, Zeno in _De -naturalibus_, Velbetus in _De sensibus_, and Alchyldis _De venenis_. -But we have already noted that Bartholomew cites Jorath and Pythagoras; -Zeno, too, is in his bibliography, and in the introduction to his -eighteenth book he cites the _Liber Escolapii de occultis membrorum -virtutibus_. Vincent of Beauvais also cites these works more than once. -I do not believe that Bartholomew took his citations from Arnold, -and I doubt if either Albert or Vincent did. The probability is that -such books were common property then, however little may be known -about them today, and that it would be as easy then for anyone to lay -his hand on these books as on the works of Arnold of Saxony, whom -Vincent alone mentions. In discussing other mineral substances than -gems, such as metals, sulphur, salt, soda, glass, Bartholomew cites -Aristotle, Avicenna, and Platearius as well as _Lapidarius_, Isidore, -and “Diascorides,” but in the seventeenth book on trees and herbs he -continues to cite “Dyascorides” and Isidore, although also making -extensive use of Pliny. In the eighteenth book on animals his list -of authorities widens again and he cites Solinus, Papias, Marcianus, -Aristotle, Theophrastus, Avicenna, and Isaac, but Pliny continues to be -his chief reliance. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of animals.] - -In the introduction to this book Bartholomew takes the view, supported -by the authority both of Pliny and of John of Damascus,[1411] that all -kinds of animals were created for man’s benefit. Even fleas and vermin, -like wild beasts and reptiles, are useful in leading him to recognize -his own infirmity and to invoke the name of God. But furthermore -“there is nothing in the body of an animal which is without manifest -or occult medicinal virtue.” Escolapius in _The Occult Virtues of -Members_ states that hemorrhoids may be cured by sitting on a lion’s -skin, and Bartholomew lists other examples of amulets, ligatures, and -suspensions from Pliny and the _Viaticum_ of Constantinus Africanus -as well as “Dyascorides” and “Pitagoras in _The Book of the Romans_.” -The knowledge of medicinal herbs and the semi-human emotions or moral -virtues supposed to be possessed by animals also receive the usual -treatment. Bartholomew informs us that the deadly basilisk loses its -venomous character when burned to an ash, and that its ashes are -considered useful in operations of alchemy and especially in the -transmutation of metals.[1412] Jerome and Solinus are cited concerning -dragons who overturn ships by flying against their sails, and of -the use made by the Ethiopians of the blood of dragons against the -summer’s heat and of their flesh for divers diseases. For as David -says, “Thou gavest him for food to the peoples of Ethiopia.”[1413] -Marvelous monsters of India are not forgotten, and Aristotle is cited -concerning a terrible man-eating wolf in India with three sets of -teeth, a lion’s foot, a scorpion’s tail, human face and voice. Its -voice is furthermore terrible like the sound of a trumpet, and it is -swift as a deer.[1414] Bartholomew’s credulity and scepticism vary with -the attitude of his authorities. When he finds them in disagreement -over the question whether the beaver castrates itself in order to -escape its hunters--Cicero, Juvenal, Isidore, and Physiologus asserting -this, while Pliny, Dyascorides, and Platearius deny it--he prefers the -arguments of the latter, especially since the experience of his own -time supports their view.[1415] - -[Sidenote: _Physiologus._] - -Physiologus is cited a number of times[1416] by Bartholomew concerning -the snake, crocodile, elephant, wolf, wild ass or _onager_, the -onocentaur who is half human and half ass, panther, siren, and taxo or -melus. Rather strangely he does not cite Physiologus in describing the -lion. Bartholomew’s citations of Physiologus bear out the points we -have made in an earlier chapter that Physiologus is one thing, and the -allegorical interpretation of passages cited from Physiologus another -thing, that Physiologus means what it says, “Natural Scientist,” -and not allegorist or moralizer. For although a primary purpose of -Bartholomew’s own work is supposed to be the elucidation of the truth -concealed in Scripture under the symbolism of natural phenomena, -he cites Physiologus simply for zoological data and omits entirely -the moral application and spiritual allegory which it has become -customary to associate with the term Physiologus. Moreover, much which -Bartholomew ascribes to Physiologus cannot be found in any of the -bestiaries which are commonly associated with that name.[1417] This -again shows how the middle ages added to its ancient authorities. - -[Sidenote: Color, odor, savor, liquor.] - -In his nineteenth and last book Bartholomew states that he will treat -“first of color, then of odor, then of savor, last of liquor.” The -discussion of color occupies the first thirty-six chapters in which -Aristotle is more frequently cited than any other authority. The -citations become less numerous from chapter eleven to thirty-six[1418] -while particular colors are being described, and where Bartholomew -perhaps gives us some original information. Isaac seems to be -Bartholomew’s chief authority in the chapters upon smell and taste. -Concerning the latter matter Bartholomew states that the theories of -philosophers and medical men disagree.[1419] Under the caption of -Liquor he describes honey, mead, _claretum_ (which was a mixture of -wine, honey, and spices), milk, butter, and cheese. These last suggest -eggs, and chapters 77 to 113 are devoted to those of various animals. -The work then proceeds to consider weights and measures, and concludes -with chapters describing various musical instruments.[1420] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1317] Bartholomew has already been presented in part to -English-speaking readers in Steele’s _Medieval Lore_, London, 1907, -and more recently in excerpts in Coulton’s _Social Life in Britain -from the Norman Conquest to the Reformation_, Cambridge, 1918, but -their quotations and most other modern references to him are based upon -the later medieval English versions of his work and not upon his own -original Latin text. My summary is based directly upon the Latin text -as printed by Lindelbach at Heidelberg in 1488: - -“_Explicit liber de proprietatibus rerum editus a fratre Bartholomeo -anglico ordinis fratrum minorum. Anno domini Mcccclxxxviii kalendas -vero Junii xii._” - -I am indebted to the liberality of the John Crerar Library in Chicago -in allowing this rare volume to be transported to Cleveland for my use. - -I have also checked up the printed text to some extent by examination -of the following MSS at Paris. On the whole the discrepancies between -the MSS and printed version seem slight, although a modern critical -edition of Bartholomew’s work is certainly desirable, especially in -view of the rarity of the _editio princeps_. - -BN 16098, 13th century. - -BN 16099, 13th century. - -BN 347, 14th century. - -Since I finished this chapter a paper has appeared by G. E. Se Boyar, -“Bartholomaeus Anglicus and his Encyclopaedia,” in _The Journal of -English and Germanic Philology_, XIX (1920) 168-89. - -[1318] _De propriet. rerum_, Book XIX, close. - -[1319] Wadding, _Annales_, 1230, No. 16; cited HL XXX, 355. - -[1320] Cited HL XXX, 354. - -[1321] _De propriet. rerum_, XV, 88. - -[1322] HL XXX, 357; at pp. 356-7 it reproduces Bartholomew’s -bibliography. - -[1323] IV, 2, “Hec vincentius in speculo suo naturali, li. III, ca. -lxxiii.” I was not able to find this citation in such MSS as I examined. - -[1324] Had the _Speculum naturale_ been written before the _De -proprietatibus rerum_, Bartholomew, if he cited it at all, would have -made use of it more than once, but would hardly have spoken as he did -of the need of one compilation on the natures and properties of things, -had the _Speculum_ already been in existence. - -[1325] VIII, 3. - -[1326] It is true that they do not always seem absolutely accurate, but -copyists may have altered or misplaced them. - -[1327] _Etymol._, XII, 4. - -[1328] _De propriet. rerum_, XVIII, 8. - -[1329] HL XXX, 363. - -[1330] And now again accepted as his; see above, chapter 27, page 619. - -[1331] _De propriet. rerum_, I, 19. - -[1332] _Ibid._, II, 19-20. - -[1333] _De propriet. rerum_, V, 21-22. (Henceforth all citations in -this chapter, unless otherwise noted, will be to this work.) BN 16099, -fol. 31r, V. 21, “ut dicunt avicenna et constantinus in tractatu de -venenosis animalibus et venenis”; V. 22, “ut dicunt predicti auctores -in tractatu de venenis.” - -[1334] V, 21. - -[1335] III, 10 and 16; V, 3. - -[1336] IV, 11. - -[1337] VII, 5. - -[1338] III, 17. - -[1339] VIII, 40. - -[1340] V, 7. - -[1341] Since I completed this chapter in manuscript form there has -appeared in print G. C. Coulton’s _Social Life in Britain from the -Conquest to the Reformation_, Cambridge, 1918, in which he has selected -almost exactly the same passages from Bartholomew as illustrations -of his theme. This is welcome confirmation of their interest and -importance, and I have decided to let the following paragraphs -stand for two reasons, despite the fact that they are now available -elsewhere in English. In the first place any description of the _De -proprietatibus rerum_ would seem rather incomplete without them. In -the second place Mr. Coulton gives the passages in Trevisa’s English -translation, while I have made a translation direct from the Latin text -in more modern English. The exaggerated impression of quaintness and -illiteracy which the old English version makes upon the modern reader -finds in my opinion little or no justification in the original Latin. -Men apparently could think more directly in Latin in the thirteenth -century than they could express themselves in English in the fourteenth -or fifteenth century. - -[1342] VI, 11. - -[1343] VI, 5. - -[1344] VI, 6. - -[1345] VI, 22. - -[1346] VI, 27. - -[1347] VII, 9 and 16. - -[1348] VII, 2. - -[1349] VII, 4. - -[1350] VII, 6. - -[1351] VII, 9. - -[1352] VII, 64. - -[1353] VII, 66. - -[1354] VII, 68. - -[1355] VIII, 3. - -[1356] VIII, 4. - -[1357] At least as printed in Migne, PL. - -[1358] R. H. Charles, in discussing “The Seven Heavens--an early Jewish -and Christian belief” (Morfill and Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of -Enoch_, Oxford, 1896, pp. xxx-xlvii), asserts that after Chrysostom, -“Finally such conceptions, failing in the course of the next few -centuries to find a home in Christian lands, betook themselves to -Mohammedan countries” (_Ibid._, xxxi-xxxii). But Bartholomew ascribes -to “the tradition of the saints” a belief in the plurality of heavens -and a sevenfold division of them other than the planetary spheres. - -[1359] VIII, 2. - -[1360] VIII, 28. - -[1361] VIII, 9. - -[1362] VIII, 10. - -[1363] VIII, 15. - -[1364] VIII, 21, which is the last of the twelve chapters. - -[1365] VIII, 22. - -[1366] VIII, 25. - -[1367] VIII, 31. - -[1368] VIII, 33. - -[1369] In the bibliography _Miselat astrologus_; in the text Misa., -Misael, mesahel, Misalach, etc. I am convinced that none of these is -meant for Michael Scot who is also listed in the bibliography but does -not seem to be cited in the text. - -[1370] Migne, PL vol. 172, col. 147, “Hora ... est duodecim pars -diei, constans ex quatuor punctis, minutis decem, partibus quindecim, -momentis quadraginta, ostentis sexaginta, atomis viginti duobus mil, -quingentis et sexaginta.” - -[1371] XII, 1. - -[1372] XII, 19. - -[1373] XII, 21, “hi lapidi dicuntur celidonii et sunt preciosi maxime -quando extrahuntur de pullo antequam tangat terram ut dicitur in -lapidario ubi eorum virtutes describuntur, ut dicit Constan. Sanguis -de dextra ala extractus oculis medetur....” But perhaps the “ut dicit -Constan.” goes with these last words rather than the preceding. - -[1374] Migne, PL 171, 1750. In a number of other cases Bartholomew’s -citations of _Lapidarius_ do not apply to Marbod. - -[1375] XVI, 30. - -[1376] _De medicamentis_, cap. viii. - -[1377] NH 37, 56. - -[1378] NH 25, 50. - -[1379] NH 10, 44. - -[1380] Bostock and Riley, English Translation of Pliny’s _Natural -History_, London, 1890 (Bohn Library), II, 511 note. And see D’Arcy W. -Thompson’s note on Aristotle’s _History of Animals_, IX, 15. - -[1381] _Etymologies_, XII, vii, 66, in Migne PL 82, 468. - -[1382] Cahier (1851); _De bestiis_, I, 51, ascribed to Hugh of St. -Victor, in Migne PL 177, 50. - -[1383] _Phisici_ in the printed edition used; in BN 16099, fol. -97r, _ph’i_; BN 347, fol. 126r, _ph’ici_. In the work of Thomas of -Cantimpré, however, BN 347B, 14th century, fol. 104v, _“Dicit ph’s”_ -which may stand for Physiologus, Philosophus, or Phisicus. - -[1384] _De animal_, XXIII, 111. - -[1385] _Thesaurus pauperum_, cap. 85. - -[1386] Yet neither Bartholomew of England nor Thomas of Cantimpré is -mentioned by C. Kretschmer, _Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen -Mittelalter_, 1889, although he uses Neckam, Vincent of Beauvais, -Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon. - -[1387] Bartholomew’s list of provinces with the Latin name anglicized -in some cases is as follows. Asia, Assyria, Arabia, Armenia, Aradia, -Albania (_i.e._, in Asia), Attica, Achaia, Arcadia, Alania (land -of the Alani), Amazonia (land of the Amazons), Alemannia, Anglia -(England), Aquitaine, Anjou, Auvergne, Apulia, Africa, Asturia, -Aragon, Babylonia, Bactria, Braciana, Brabant, Belgica, Bithynia, -Britannia, Boecia (Boeotia), Bohemia, Burgundy, Cappadocia, Chaldea, -Cedar, Kent, Cantabria, Canaan, Campania, Cauda, Cilicia, Cyprus, -Crete, Cyclades, Choa, Corsica (later occurs a longer chapter on -Korsica), Dalmatia, Denmark (Dacia), Delos, Dedan, Europe, Evilath, -Ethiopia, Egypt, Hellas, Eola (Aeolia?), Franconia, Francia (_i.e._ -France), Flanders, Fenix (Phoenicia?), Phrygia, Frisia, Fortunate -Islands (Canaries), Galilee, Gallacia (in central Europe), Gallicia -(in the Spanish peninsula), Gaul, Gadis, Greece, Isle of the Gorgons, -Gothia and the island of Gothland (Sweden and Gotland), Guido, India, -Hyrcania, Idumea, Judea, Iberia, Italy, Spain (Hispania), Ireland -(Hibernia), Icaria, the island in the salt sea (De insula in salo -sita), Carthage, Carinthia, Lacedemonia, Lithuania (Lectonia), Livonia, -Lycia, Lydia, Libya (Lybia), Lorraine (Lothoringia), Lusitania, -Mauritania, Macedonia, Magnesia, Mesopotamia, Media, Melos, Midia, -Meissen, Mytilene, Nabathea, Norway, Normandy, Numidia, Narbonensis, -Ophir, Holland (Ollandia), Orcades, Paradise, Parthia, Palestine, -Pamphylia, Pannonia, Paros, Pentapolis, Persia, Pyrenees, Pigmy-land, -Poitou (Pictavia), Picardy, Ramathea, Reucia, Rivalia, Rinchonia, the -Roman province (_i.e._, Provence), Romania, Rhodes, Ruthia, Sabaea, -Samaria, Sambia, Sabaudia, Sardinia, Sarmatia, Samos, Saxony, Sclavia -(land of the Slavs), Sparta (Sparciata), Seres (_i.e._, China), Seeland -(Zeeland), Semogallia, Senonensis (region about Sens), Syria, Sichima, -Scythia, Sicyon, Sicily, Sirtes, Scotland (Scotia), Suecia (Sweden, -before called Gothia), Suevia (Swabia), Tanatos, Taprobana, Thrace, -Traconitida, Thessaly, Tenedos, Thule, Tripoli (two are distinguished -in Syria and Africa respectively), Tragodea, Troyland, Tuscany -(Thuscia), Thuringia, Thuronia (the region about Tours), Gascony -(Vasconia), Venice, Westphalia, Vironia, Finland, Vitria, Iceland, -Zeugia. - -[1388] XV, 19. - -[1389] XV, 13. - -[1390] XV, 18. - -[1391] XV, 169. - -[1392] XV, 58. - -[1393] XV, 168. - -[1394] XV, 25. - -[1395] XV, 92. - -[1396] XV, 58. - -[1397] XV, 57. - -[1398] Of these four chapters Delisle (HL XXX, 353-65) quoted only that -on England. Delisle gave extracts from Bartholomew’s descriptions of -several French provinces to show that he knew them well and stated that -he gave much fewer details concerning England, but that he (Delisle) -would transcribe the chapter “parce qu’on pourrait supposer qu’il -renferme des allusions à la prétendue origine anglaise de Barthélemi.” -Delisle also cited (p. 362) the chapter on Britannia, but omitted the -statements which I shall cite, and earlier said (p. 358), “Nous n’avons -rien à relever dans les chapitres de la Normandie, de la Bretagne,” etc. - -Yet the statements I shall cite occur in both the MSS which Delisle -used, where the chapter on Britannia is continued beyond the point -where his quotation leaves off as follows: - -BN 16098, 13th century, fol. 14Or. “Est autem alia britannia minor -super oceanum aquitanicum sita in partibus galliarum que a britonibus -relinquentibus britanniam maiorem propter importunitatem germanorum -est usque hodie populata, vero usque adhuc genus britonum et nomen -perseverat, et quamvis hec britannia in multis laude digna sit, non -potest tamen filia matri, minor britannia maiori comparari, et immo -bene minor britannia debuit vocari que sicut nec numero populi sic nec -merito soli potest maiori britannia adequari.” - -BN 347, 14th century, fol. 145, is the same except that _tamen_ -precedes _potest_, and that the words _minor britannia maiori comparari -et immo bene_ are omitted, evidently by the mistake of a copyist who -has jumped from one _minor_ to the next _minor_ and thus inadvertently -omitted the intervening words. - -[1399] XV, 28. - -[1400] XV, 80. - -[1401] XV, 152. - -[1402] XV, 14. - -[1403] XV, 172. - -[1404] XVI, 41. - -[1405] _Etymol._, XVI, 7. - -[1406] V. Rose, “Aristoteles De Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” in -_Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, XVIII (1875), 321-455. - -[1407] Langlois (1911), p. 124. - -[1408] J. Ruska, _Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles_, 1912, p. 38, -reiterates, “Sein Büchlein _De virtutibus lapidum_ ist die Grundlage -des Steinverzeichnisses in Albertus Magnus’ 5 Büchern _De mineralibus_.” - -It also is asserted that Vincent and Albert learned of the mariner’s -compass from this Arnold’s _De virtute universali_,--a view which -overlooks Alexander Neckam’s earlier allusions to the compass. - -[1409] This title can scarcely refer to Arnold’s _De virtutibus -lapidum_. - -[1410] The fact is that Rose examined the text of Bartholomew in a -careless and superficial manner. He used some Frankfurt edition of the -_De proprietatibus rerum_ for which he gives no date, and he usually -fails to state what chapter of Bartholomew he is citing, but refers to -him simply by the letter B. Also he fails to note that the first two -stones listed by Arnold, namely, _abeston_ (asbestos) and _absictus_ -(_apsyctos_) are both in Bartholomew, and what is more, are spelled -exactly the same by both authors. Nor are these the only gems that Rose -fails to note are treated of by both authors. Others are _alabandina_, -_calcofanus_ (which Bartholomew begins with a k), _virites_ or -_pyrites_ (also spelled a little differently in Bartholomew), and -_turcois_ (_De turchoge_ in Bartholomew). In the first three of these -four passages Arnold’s statements sound like a bald and abbreviated -copy of Bartholomew’s description. - -[1411] John of Damascus, who wrote on theology, dialectic, and so forth -in the first half of the eighth century (works in Migne, PG vols. -94-96) became well known to western writers through the twelfth century -translation of him by Burgundio of Pisa. Some of the works ascribed to -him are probably spurious, but “his undoubted works are numerous and -embrace a wide range.” A chapter is devoted to the introduction of his -writings into western Europe in J. de Ghellinck, S. J., _Le Mouvement -théologique du XIIe siècle, Études, Recherches, et Documents_, Paris, -1914; see EHR (1915), p. 112. But see Steinschneider (1866), pp. 375-91. - -[1412] XVIII, 15. - -[1413] XVIII, 37. - -[1414] XVIII, 69. - -[1415] XVIII, 28, “et hoc quotidie patet in castoribus qui in diversis -locis inveniuntur.” - -[1416] XVIII, 8, 32, 43, 69, 76, 77, 80, 95, 101. - -[1417] Lauchert (1889), p. 105, has recognized this fact, saying of -the _De proprietatibus rerum_, “worin ebenfalls der Physiologus häufig -citirt ist und auch für Manches das nicht aus ihm stammt.” - -[1418] In reading the printed edition I thought that some of these -chapters might be later interpolations, since after _minium_ has been -described in chapter 16 it is again considered in chapter 25, and -_indicum_ is similarly discussed in both chapters 21 and 31. But these -chapters are also repeated in BN 347, 16098, and 16099. - -[1419] XIX, 40. - -[1420] These matters are found in BN 16098 and 16099 as well as in the -printed edition. “Explicit Tractatus de proprietatibus” precedes the -bibliography in BN 16099, follows it in BN 16098. - - - - -CHAPTER LV - -ROBERT GROSSETESTE - - - Chief sources for Robert Grosseteste--Reasons for Roger - Bacon’s eulogy--Grosseteste’s scholarly career--His - writings: absence of magic--His scientific writings - little affected by his ecclesiastical position--Reliance - on experience--Theory of vision and science of - perspective--Experimental discovery of lenses--Mentioned - also in _The Romance of the Rose_--Theories formed - by experimenters with lenses--Mathematical physics: - the radiation of virtue--The _Computus_ and calendar - reform--Juggling with numbers--From mathematics to - astronomy to astrology--Astrology in natural philosophy, - agriculture, alchemy, medicine and music--Some astrological - technical detail--Man and the stars--Grosseteste’s theory - of comets--Alchemy--Other treatises--_Summa philosophiae_ - ascribed to Grosseteste--Its contents--Oriental origin - of philosophy--Greek men of learning--Arabs and medieval - Christians--Ancient and modern science compared--Criticism - of Aristotle and the Arabic text--Use of the word - “modern”--Theology, philosophy, and science; speculative and - experimental--Astrology in the _Summa_--Occult virtue and - alchemy--Brother Giles on the comet of 1264--Appendix I. The - Perspective or Optics of Witelo. - - -[Sidenote: Chief sources for Robert Grosseteste.] - -The fame of Robert Grosseteste,[1421] who lived from about 1175 to 1253 -and was bishop of Lincoln during the last eighteen years of his life, -rests largely upon the praises of his countrymen and contemporaries, -Matthew Paris and Roger Bacon, and upon his own writings. The -historian, Matthew Paris, depicts him especially as the man of affairs, -the churchman and statesman who dared oppose either king or pope for -England’s sake. But with his repeated resistance in parliament to -royal financial exactions, his outspokenness against abuses at the -papal court and his refusal to admit papal provisors to benefices in -his diocese, his aggressive and reforming activity in his bishopric -and consequent quarrels with the monastic orders and his own cathedral -chapter--with all this side of his career we are little concerned. It -is rather as a great scholar of his time that like Roger Bacon we shall -look back upon him. - -[Sidenote: Reasons for Roger Bacon’s eulogy.] - -Bacon’s eulogies of Grosseteste may seem rather extravagant. Writing -fourteen years after his death he thinks that no living scholar can -compare with him, nay, he ranks him and Adam Marsh, another Englishman -of whom we know little, as in their day what Solomon, Aristotle and -Avicenna were in theirs.[1422] One reason for this high praise is -presumably that Grosseteste had been Bacon’s favorite teacher, and -certainly that he was interested in the same learned pursuits, Greek -and Hebrew, mathematics, optics, experimental science, as the friar -who followed him. Roger practically admits that he owes much in those -fields to Robert and an examination of Grosseteste’s writings makes -this fact still more evident. - -[Sidenote: Grosseteste’s scholarly career.] - -A letter by Giraldus Cambrensis written before the close of the twelfth -century speaks of the then youthful Grosseteste as already proficient -in law and medicine. He seems to have been born of humble and poor -parents at Stradbrook in Suffolk.[1423] He was educated at Oxford where -he became _rector scholarum_ and Chancellor and in 1224 the first -rector of the Franciscans at Oxford. He perhaps also studied at Paris. -After holding various archdeaconries and other prebends he was elected -bishop of Lincoln in 1235 but continued his interest in the welfare of -the university at Oxford. Roger Bacon, in affirming that Grosseteste -surpassed all others in knowledge of the sciences, gives as a reason -his long life and experience as well as his enthusiasm for study;[1424] -and in another passage declares that hitherto it has taken thirty or -forty years for a man to become really proficient in mathematics, as -the case of Robert Grosseteste among others shows.[1425] Bacon also -states that it was not “until the latter portion of his life” that he -undertook the work of making translations and summoned Greeks and had -grammars brought from Greece and other lands. Since Grosseteste appears -at first to have studied law and medicine rather than ancient languages -and mathematical sciences, Bacon’s statements suggest that the works of -Grosseteste which we are about to consider were written late in life. -This inference is further borne out by a passage in the treatise _De -impressionibus aeris seu de prognosticatione_ which gives the positions -of the seven planets in the signs of the zodiac and states the date as -“the Arabic year 646 or the year of grace 1249.”[1426] - -[Sidenote: His writings: absence of magic.] - -Our discussion of Grosseteste will be based upon some treatises -included in Baur’s edition of his philosophical works. They are mostly -brief and in some cases seem rather fragmentary. We shall not be -concerned with his Greek grammar or with his theological writings, -which occupy half of the bibliography in Pegge’s Life.[1427] His -letters contain some hints of his scientific works but nothing bearing -on magic or astrology. It used to be stated that Grosseteste certainly -constructed charms to expel maladies, that he invented forms of words -to exorcise fiends, and that he worked cures by engraved gems.[1428] -The ascription to Grosseteste of treatises on Necromancy and Sorcery, -and the Philosopher’s Stone, is, however, false and grew, Baur says, -from marginal glosses appended to one of his genuine works.[1429] What -we shall note in Grosseteste’s works will be mainly his attitude to -experimental science on the one hand and to astrology on the other. - -[Sidenote: Scientific writings little affected by his ecclesiastical -position.] - -In these scientific treatises by Grosseteste there is little to suggest -the Christian bishop. However, in the work “On the Fixity of Motion and -Time” he opposes the Aristotelian doctrine that the universe or motion -of the celestial bodies is eternal.[1430] And in a second treatise, “On -the Order of the Emanation of Things Caused from God,” he expresses the -wish that men would cease to question the scriptural account of the age -and beginning of the world.[1431] A third treatise “On Freedom of the -Will” also lies on the frontier of philosophy and theology. - -[Sidenote: Reliance on experience.] - -Grosseteste affords us further examples in a number of passages of -that reliance upon experience and reason, that rejection of certain -views as contrary to experience, and yet that acceptance of statements -in old authors as based upon experience, which we saw in Galen and -William of Auvergne’s “experimental books,” and shall see in Albertus -Magnus and the other medieval scientists. Grosseteste speaks, however, -not merely of experience or _experimenta_, but also of experimenters -(_experimentatores_).[1432] We may first note some use of observation -and experience in astronomy and geography. In his treatise on comets -he alludes to “experience in natural things.”[1433] In his treatise -on the Sphere[1434] Bishop Robert declares that the sphericity of -the earth and of all the stars and planets “is shown both by natural -reasons and astronomical experiences,” that is, in the case of the -earth, by the observations of the sky by men in different parts of -the earth. In the same work he says that Thabit ben Corra (836-901 -A. D.) working over the operations of Ptolemy, “found by certain -experiments that the motion of the fixed stars was different.”[1435] -Likewise in his treatise _On the Generation of the Stars_ Grosseteste -remarks of one contention that “experience shows the contrary” and of -another view that it “is against both experience and reason.”[1436] -Again in writing _Of the Nature of Places_ he adduces in support of -his positions “experiments and reasons,” and “divers authors and -experimenters.”[1437] The old legend of the Hyperboreans who dwell -among mountains near the pole in such a salubrious and temperate -climate that they live on and on until they tire of life and commit -voluntary suicide by leaping off cliffs into the sea, Grosseteste -introduces by the statement: “It has also been found by experience, as -authors tell”--among whom he names Pliny, Solinus, and “Marcianus in -his geometry.” - -[Sidenote: Theory of vision and science of perspective.] - -In the realm of physics Grosseteste not only mentions experience in -discussing vision and what he calls Perspective but also brings to -our notice a recent or approaching experimental discovery, that of -magnifying lenses. In his treatise on the rainbow he makes a rather -unpromising beginning. After arguing whether the sense of sight -operates by the eye receiving something within itself, as natural -philosophers are prone to hold, or by sending forth a visual species -or rays, he decides as was usual with men of his time in favor of -the latter alternative.[1438] He cites Aristotle in his last book on -animals as saying that a man with deep-set eyes sees farther because -his visual virtue is not spread or scattered but goes straight--as if -from a long-barreled gun--to the things seen. - -[Sidenote: Experimental discovery of lenses.] - -Grosseteste then goes on to say that there are three parts of -Perspective. The first is that concerning the sight with which he has -just been dealing. The second concerns mirrors. The third has been -“untouched and unknown among us until the present time. Yet we know -that Aristotle completed this third part”--he of course did nothing -of the sort--“and that it is much more difficult in its subtlety and -far more wonderful in its profound knowledge of natures than the -other parts. For this branch of Perspective thoroughly known shows us -how to make things very far off seem very close at hand and how to -make large objects which are near seem tiny and how to make distant -objects appear as large as we choose, so that it is possible for us -to read the smallest letters at an incredible distance, or to count -sand or grain or grass or any other minute objects.”[1439] So far the -passage reads as if it might be merely the exaggerated dream of fancy. -But Grosseteste proceeds to state “how these marvels happen,” which -seems to be by the breaking up of “the visual ray”--or as we should -say, by the refraction of rays of light--as it passes through several -transparent objects or lenses of varying nature. He explains also that -great distance does not make an object invisible but the narrowness of -the angle under which it is seen.[1440] This he proceeds to illustrate -“by experiments” (_per experimenta_). Again in his treatise on comets -he mentions “those who have experienced that by a transparent figure -interposed between the spectator and the object seen it is possible -that the thing seen should be multiplied and that great things seem -small and conversely according to the shape given the interposed -transparent object.”[1441] I have given as far as possible a literal -translation of Grosseteste’s words on this point in order to convey his -exact or inexact meaning. If these passages are not a sufficient proof -that magnifying lenses of some sort were already discovered, they at -least point the way to the microscope and telescope, and we know that -eye-glasses for nearsightedness were in use at the latest by the end -of the thirteenth century. - -[Sidenote: Mentioned also in _The Romance of the Rose_.] - -Very similar and perhaps copied from this very treatise of Grosseteste -on the rainbow--or from its source (Al-Hazen)--are some verses in the -continuation of the French _Romance of the Rose_ written by Jean de -Meun, probably about 1270. Besides remarking of rainbows that--the -words are Ellis’ translation--[1442] - - “Only he who’s learned the rule - Of optics in some famous school - Can to his fellow men explain - How ’tis that from the sun they gain - Their glorious hues;” - -the poet mentions burning-glasses and various types of mirrors, and -also tells us that from optics one - - “... may learn the cause - Why mirrors, through some subtle laws - Have power to objects seen therein-- - Atoms minute or letters thin-- - To give appearance of fair size, - Though naked unassisted eyes - Can scarce perceive them. Grains of sand - Seem stones when through these glasses scanned.” - -The poet adds that by these glasses one can read letters from such a -distance that one would not believe it unless he had seen it. Then he -concludes: - - “But to these matters blind affiance - No man need give; they’re proved by science.” - -[Sidenote: Theories formed by experimenters with lenses.] - -Returning to Grosseteste and experimental method we may note his -mention in the same treatise upon comets of “those who reflect and -experiment in natural phenomena and form their opinions from their -experiments without foundation of reasons.”[1443] Grosseteste holds -that such experimenters “necessarily fall into false notions concerning -the natures of comets,” because they try to explain them as reflected -rays and the like after the analogy “of their varied experiments which -they have employed in radiations and the producing of fires”--probably -by burning glasses--“and by what is seen through the medium of lenses” -(_diaphanorum_). The important point for us, however, is not whether -these men were wrong about comets, but their varied experimentation and -their basing of hypothesis upon their experiments. - -[Sidenote: Mathematical physics: the radiation of virtue.] - -In view of Grosseteste’s interest in physical and astronomical matters, -and his training, if we believe Bacon, for some thirty or forty years -in mathematics, it is not surprising that he realized something of the -value of mathematics in the study of natural science. He believed that -a knowledge of geometry was of great aid to the “diligent investigator -of natural phenomena” in explaining the causes of all natural effects. -In a treatise “On lines, angles and figures,” or “On refraction and -reflexion of rays,” Grosseteste holds that not only vision or light -but every natural agent sends forth its virtue to the object affected -and acts upon sense or matter along geometrical lines.[1444] This -doctrine of radiation or emanation of force seems to date back at -least to Plotinus, and we have heard Alkindi among the Arabs in his -treatise on Stellar Rays say that the stars and all objects in the -world of the four elements emit rays of this sort. From any given agent -virtue radiates forth in all directions, but a perpendicular line is -the shortest and strongest line of force between it and any other -single point or object. From a point or center of influence to a larger -surface we get pyramids or cones of radiated force. The same theory is -set forth by Roger Bacon under the name “multiplication of species” -but even this wording is not new with him, since Grosseteste speaks of -the natural agent as “multiplying its virtue” from itself to the thing -affected, and then explains that this virtue is also sometimes called -“species” and sometimes “similitude” and is the same in whatever way -it is named. - -[Sidenote: The _Computus_ and calendar reform.] - -The _Computus_, or treatise on reckoning time and keeping track of -Easter especially and also other church festivals, had been a variety -of mathematical and astronomical exercise indulged in by the clergy -even in the darkest periods of the early middle ages. The _Computus_ of -Grosseteste pointed out the need of reforming the Julian calendar then -in use, and he also called attention to this need in his treatise on -_The Sphere_. From the later use made of it by Roger Bacon[1445] and by -Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly[1446] in the early fifteenth century one infers -that Grosseteste’s _Computus_ remained an authoritative work upon the -subject of calendar reform.[1447] - -[Sidenote: Juggling with numbers.] - -On one occasion at least Grosseteste’s interest in mathematics -degenerated into one of those puerile reveries on the relations -and perfection of certain numbers in which so many authors since -Pythagoras, if not before him, had indulged. Having stated that in “the -supreme body” there are four things, namely, form, matter, composition -and compound, Grosseteste states that form is represented by the -number one, matter by two, and composition by three, “since there is -patent in it formed matter and materialized form and the property of -composition itself.”[1448] The compound besides these three things has -its own nature and so is represented by four. Now 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10. -“Wherefore every whole and perfect thing is ten.” - -[Sidenote: From mathematics to astronomy to astrology.] - -That Grosseteste’s “mathematics” includes astronomy is indicated by -his citing “_mathematicos_” as explaining that the sun burns the -regions under the tropic of capricorn more than those under the tropic -of cancer, because an eccentric of the sun when it is in capricorn -brings it closer to the earth.[1449] These mathematicians disagree on -this point with the commentator upon Aristotle who believed that the -sun burned more in Cancer. If for Grosseteste mathematics included -astronomy, astronomy also included astrology--although he does not -usually employ the word _mathematicus_ for an astrologer. To his -attitude toward astrology we now turn. - -[Sidenote: Astrology in natural philosophy, agriculture, alchemy, -medicine and music.] - -Grosseteste accepts astronomy or astrology as the supreme science -and says in his treatise on the liberal arts that natural philosophy -needs its aid more than that of the others.[1450] There is scarcely -any operation whether of nature or of man, such as the planting of -vegetables, or transmutation of minerals, or cure of diseases, which -can dispense with astronomical assistance. For inferior nature does -not act except as celestial virtue moves and directs it. He then goes -on to detail the effects of the moon, Saturn, and Mars on the hour -of planting, and then to emphasize the importance of selecting the -favorable hours astrologically in medical practice and in alchemy where -he associates the seven planets with seven metals.[1451] He also argues -that the harmony of the movements of the celestial spheres is found -also in their effects upon the inferior world.[1452] Therefore he who -knows the due proportion of the elements in the human body and the -concord of the soul with the body, can restore any lack of harmony in -the same to its proper state.[1453] In other words, diseases and even -wounds and deafness should be curable by music based upon a knowledge -of astrology and mathematics, and one should also be able to control -such emotions as joy, grief, and wrath. - -[Sidenote: Some astrological technical detail.] - -In another treatise on how to predict the weather (_De impressionibus -aeris seu de prognosticatione_[1454]) Grosseteste says that one must -know such things as the powers of the signs and the natures of the -planets.[1455] He then relates the four elements and four qualities -to the planets and signs and proceeds to such further technical -astrological terms as house, exaltation, _triplicitas_, _terminus_, -_facies_, and aspect, and to an explanation of the effect of the -eccentrics of the sun and moon upon inferior objects.[1456] - -[Sidenote: Man and the stars.] - -Grosseteste, like most of our Christian authors, exempts man in part -by virtue of his free will and rational soul from the control of the -stars. One of his brief fragments is entitled “That man is a microcosm” -(_Quod homo sit minor mundus_), that is, a replica of the surrounding -universe.[1457] One of his arguments for the finiteness of this world -and of the stars is that all things are made for man and that when he -no longer requires the processes of generation and corruption which -the movements of the heavens cause, the heaven itself will cease to -move and time will be no more.[1458] In a treatise on freedom of the -will, he follows Augustine in _The City of God_ in affirming that the -rational soul is sublimer than the stars and in denying that all our -actions which seem to be freely willed by us are predictable from the -constellations, and that fate prevails as a necessity in all inferiors -from the motion of the stars. He admits, however, that the human body -is subject to two forces; as part of the world of cause it is changed -in many ways by the movements of the stars, but it also is subject to -the control of the mind especially in voluntary actions. - -[Sidenote: Grosseteste’s theory of comets.] - -Grosseteste has an ingenious theory which I do not remember having met -elsewhere to explain why comets are signs of great disasters. In his -treatise on comets he states that a comet is sublimated fire which has -been separated from terrestrial nature and assimilated to celestial -nature.[1459] The cause of this separation and assimilation by which -comets are generated is the virtue of the heavenly bodies. Moreover, -each comet has a particular star of its own which draws it as iron is -drawn by adamant. This star, even if it is one of the fixed stars, must -be related to one of the planets and hence the comet is under some -planet also. Grosseteste then further explains that in every earthly -object there are incorporated through the action of the celestial -bodies particles of a more spiritual sort assimilated to the celestial -natures. The generation of a comet, a process in which these fiery or -ethereal particles are released from matter and carried up on high, -is therefore the first step and sign of a more general release of the -spiritual nature and of the consequent corruption of the terrestrial -objects and compounds concerned, namely: in the first place, those -under the rule of the same planet as the comet in question, and, -in the second place, those in the region from which the comet was -sublimated.[1460] But it is not easy to discern over which region the -comet has especial significance of all those regions which are under -the same parallel in which it appears, unless, concludes Grosseteste -naïvely, it is that region where men are most alarmed by it. - -[Sidenote: Alchemy.] - -Grosseteste makes one or two incidental allusions to alchemy which -show that he was a believer in the possibility of transmuting metals. -He avers that nature intended that all metals should be gold, and that -they vary from it only by degrees of imperfection.[1461] In another -passage[1462] he mentions a theory of “the doctors of alchemy” that -in each natural object there is, besides the four elements composing -it, a fifth essence, unchangeable in itself but alterable after it has -descended into inferior bodies. Here again we find a connection between -alchemy and astrology. - -[Sidenote: Other treatises.] - -It is probable that not all of Grosseteste’s astrological writings are -included in Baur’s edition. He mentions but does not publish a Digby -manuscript and another of the thirteenth century in the Bibliothèque -Nationale. Both are astronomical or astrological.[1463] A fourteenth -century manuscript in the British Museum contains a treatise of -“Grosthede” on the medicinal virtues of herbs.[1464] After the name of -each herb the word “Grosthede” is usually added as if the items were -extracts from a larger work. The treatise is not included in Baur’s -edition and is perhaps spurious. - -[Sidenote: _Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to Grosseteste.] - -Baur includes in his edition of Grosseteste’s philosophical works -a _Summa philosophiae_ which is longer than the other scientific -treatises put together but which is probably spurious. The latest -authors whom it cites are Alexander of Hales who died before -Grosseteste and Albertus Magnus who possibly had written many of his -works and made his reputation before 1253 although he lived on until -1280. Its several mentions of Albert are much more likely, however, -to have been penned by some younger man than Grosseteste.[1465] And -unless a passage referring to the death of Simon de Montfort after the -appearance of a comet in 1264[1466] is an interpolation, the _Summa_ -cannot be by Grosseteste, unless in the sense that it represents his -teaching or is an incomplete work of his to which someone else later -put the finishing touches. - -[Sidenote: Its contents.] - -The _Summa_ is, like the encyclopedias of Bartholomew of England and -Thomas of Cantimpré, in nineteen books,[1467] a number perhaps chosen -in deference to the seven planets and twelve signs of the zodiac. These -books are devoted to the following topics: 1. the rise of philosophy; -2. truth; 3. science; 4. matter; 5. form; 6. virtue; 7. the first -cause; 8. the universe--one but not eternal; 9. bodies, space, and -vacuum; 10. intelligence and intelligences; 11. the rational soul; -12. the sensitive soul; 13. the vegetative soul; 14. light; 15. the -sphere or heavens; 16. nature, universal and particular, and natural -virtue; 17. elements and compounds; 18. meteorology; 19. minerals and -metals.[1468] - -[Sidenote: Oriental origin of philosophy.] - -The account of the rise of philosophy includes considerable mention -of occult sciences, with which it would seem to have been closely -associated from the first.[1469] The Chaldeans are called the first -famous philosophers. Sem is regarded as the founder of astrology and -Cham, whom some identify with Zoroaster, is said to have invented the -seven liberal arts. Abraham’s instruction of the Egyptians in astrology -and arithmetic is next mentioned and then Atlas and his nephew Mercury, -and the latter’s grandson Trismegistus, of the same name, are spoken -of. This second Mercurius Trismegistus was according to Albumasar an -illustrious astrologer, pre-eminent in theology and alchemy and magic -and a famous prophet, but according to Augustine he was very worthless -(_vanissimus_) in many respects. Long after this Homer revealed -philosophy in his stories and Solomon philosophized concerning the -nature of vegetables and animals, but in parables, it is believed. - -[Sidenote: Greek men of learning.] - -After mention of Abrachys, the astrologer of King Nebuchadnezzar, -the author then lists the Greek philosophers from Thales to -Socrates.[1470] The first philosopher in Italy was Pythagoras who -had been thoroughly instructed in the science of the stars and magic -by the Persians, Chaldeans and Egyptians. In less than a page a good -estimate and contrast of Plato and Aristotle is made,[1471] and the -author tries to explain why until the time of Arabic culture Plato -was almost universally preferred to Aristotle among the Greeks and -Latins. There follows a list of the learned Greeks: Empedocles, -Heraclitus, Hippocrates, Euclid, Archimedes, and various orators, -astronomers, astrologers, and naturalists (_naturales_) concluding with -“Callisthenes the famous alchemist.”[1472] - -[Sidenote: Arabs and medieval Christians.] - -Among the Arabs three groups are distinguished of philosophers, -_mathematici_ or astrologers--among whom we are amazed to find Julius -Firmicus listed, and medical writers.[1473] Thebit also is classed with -the Arabs, but Plato of Tivoli, Costa ben Luca, Algazel, Gundissalinus, -Constantinus, Theophilus Macer, and Philaretus are distinguished as -Christian, and both Rabbi Moses as Hebrews. - -[Sidenote: Ancient and modern science compared.] - -Approaching his own time the author says that there are many other -men whose excellent works of philosophy he has inspected but of whose -names he is ignorant or has his reasons for keeping silent about.[1474] -He does, however, name John the Peripatetic and Alfred, and still -more recently Alexander the Minorite and Albert of Cologne, the -friar preacher, as eminent philosophers and yet not to be considered -authorities. The author nevertheless has no uncritical veneration for -the learned men of the past. He thinks that with the exception of the -Peripatetics very few of them had a complete or correct knowledge of -the principles of nature and causes of natural phenomena or concerning -the transmutation of the elements and the composition of physical -bodies.[1475] Compared with moderns he finds their comprehension -slight, except as they had fewer problems to occupy them and got -results by concentrating for a long time on these. But he can think of -no one among them except Boethius who was not guilty of some erroneous -opinion. This attitude, however, is perhaps more owing to Christian -prejudice than scientific superiority on our author’s part. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of Aristotle and the Arabic text.] - -Even Aristotle does not escape criticism. We are told that we should -not accept his statement concerning the number of movers of the -heavenly spheres, for, as Avicenna and Rabbi Moses have pointed out, -the science of astronomy was little developed in his time.[1476] Nor -are the Arabian commentators upon Aristotle left uncensured. It is said -that some of the works of Aristotle in their present form smack more -of Arabic loquacity than of Greek eloquence or the Aristotelian style, -and that, especially in the Arabic text, interpolations and additions -and alterations have been made involving patent anachronisms. Probably -there have also been corresponding omissions.[1477] These criticisms of -the Arabic text of Aristotle remind us of those which Roger Bacon said -Grosseteste made. - -[Sidenote: Use of the word “modern.”] - -The author of this _Summa_ is quite fond of employing the word “modern” -which we heard him use above. He also tells how “Ptolemy, and other -more modern _mathematici_” introduce epicycles in the orbits of the -planets to save appearances, but have not fully determined “whether -it is really so.”[1478] He also speaks of “Avenalpetras and the more -modern Arabs” and calls Albertus Magnus “the most famous of the more -modern theologians.”[1479] - -[Sidenote: Theology, philosophy, and science; speculative and -experimental.] - -It is rather outside the limits of our investigation, but I cannot -refrain from noting the _Summa’s_ division of theologians into three -classes: first, those who are original and have been made saints by -the pope; second, those who are original and have not been sainted; -third, the unoriginal minds who compile _Summae_ from the works of -the other two classes.[1480] The author believes that theology may -utilize philosophy to refute heretics but that it must beware of making -philosophy its chief end and should use theological terms as far as -it can.[1481] Later he states that there are eight celestial spheres, -according to the philosophers, nine according to the theologians who -include the waters above the firmament as one.[1482] The author divides -science into theoretical or speculative and practical or operative. -He also has a touch of experimental science, asserting that very many -experiences have proved that water will harden into stone,[1483] that -the rules of genethlialogy and the predictions of astrologers are based -upon the many specific cases observed and classified from experience -by past astrologers,[1484] that many experiences in his own age--some -of which he presently mentions--have shown that terrible events always -follow the appearance of a comet,[1485] and that the alchemists had -learned from many experiments that metals can be transmuted. - -[Sidenote: Astrology.] - -This favoring attitude toward astrology and alchemy is about all that -there is left for us to notice in the _Summa_. The author thinks -that no one has ever adequately treated the virtues appropriate to -each planet, but quotes Rabbi Moses and Albumasar somewhat on this -point.[1486] He has no difficulty in believing simultaneously in -freedom of the will and genethlialogy.[1487] He also cites the passage -in Albumasar concerning the astrological prediction of the virgin birth -of Jesus Christ.[1488] In discussing comets, instead of attempting -to explain their signifying disaster to whole regions naturally, as -we heard Grosseteste do in his treatise on comets, the author of the -_Summa_ holds that “they appear of necessity by the will of God alone, -not by chance or nature, but by the ministry of intelligences.”[1489] -This was also the case with the star seen at Christ’s nativity. It -may be, however, that this entire passage about comets and other -astrological matters is an interpolation in the _Summa_, since it is in -it that the mention of the date 1264 occurs to which we before alluded. -The writer then goes on to say that his master, who was “most skilled -in natural and mathematical science and most perfect in theology and -most holy in life and religion,” taught him that Noah’s flood was -necessitated by a constellation which God had foreordained for the -wickedness of the then world.[1490] This, too, is perhaps a sign of an -addition by some disciple of Grosseteste. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtue and alchemy.] - -The author of the _Summa_ believes in occult virtue in nature and -attributes it to the stars.[1491] He accepts Albertus Magnus’s -explanation of the marvelous virtues of gems as due to celestial -influence.[1492] He believes that metals are generated in the earth by -the same force and are seven in number according to the seven planets, -and thinks that this process can be simulated by alchemy.[1493] In -discussing that subject Hermes is his chief authority. The _Summa_ -terminates by explaining the superiority of steel to iron and listing -various salts.[1494] - -[Sidenote: Brother Giles on the comet of 1264.] - -Since we have mentioned the comet of 1264, we may note farther that -it was the occasion of a treatise by Brother Giles of the Order of -Dominicans, on the essence, motion, and signification of comets,[1495] -in which he cites Grosseteste _De iudiciis_ and alludes to the death of -Pope Urban IV in that year. The comet was seen in the kingdom of France -from mid-July to October and “stupefied the minds of many.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1421] References to Grosseteste’s works, unless otherwise stated, will -be to Ludwig Baur, _Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste_, -Münster, 1912, in Baeumker’s _Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie -des Mittelalters_, Vol. IX. This edition seems to make little effort to -correct errors of case or number in the MSS, so that much of the text -is far from being smooth reading. Baur discussed _Die Philosophie des -Robert Grosseteste_ in Vol. XVIII (1917) of the same series. The life -of Grosseteste is treated briefly in DNB, and more fully in the old -and pedantic work of Samuel Pegge, _The Life of Robert Grosseteste_, -London, 1793, 385 quarto pages with many foot-notes and appendices, -which however are based mainly on the works of preceding antiquaries, -the author stating in his preface, “my private station as a country -clergyman would not permit me to have much access to public libraries, -but the materials were chiefly to be sought for in a book-room which, -you will easily suppose, cannot be very richly or amply furnished.” -Pegge’s Life was already described in 1861 as “one of the scarcest -of modern works”; but the British Museum possesses two copies. Other -biographies are by J. Felten, Freiburg, 1887, and F. Stevenson, London, -1889. The letters of Grosseteste, which do not especially concern us, -are edited by H. R. Luard in RS XXV, 1861. - -Not to be confused with Grosseteste is Robertus Anglicus who wrote -a commentary on the _Sphere_ of Sacrobosco in 1271, a _Tractatus -quadrantis_ at Montpellier in 1276 (printed 1508), and _Canons for the -Astrolabe_ (printed at Colle about 1478): see Duhem, III (1915), pp. -292, 298. - -[1422] Brewer, 70 and 75. - -[1423] Pegge (1793), p. 8, and Appendix II. - -[1424] Brewer, 91; Bridges, I. 67. - -[1425] Brewer, 472. - -[1426] Baur, 49-50. If, on the other hand, the mention of an Arabic -year indicates that the treatise is a translation of an Arabic work, -the date would seem almost too late for Grosseteste to have effected -the translation. It will be recalled that Bartholomew of England -included “Robert of Lincoln” in his bibliography. - -[1427] Pegge (1793), 267-91. - -[1428] Wharton, _Anglia Sacra_, II, 325-41, _de vita Grosteste auctore -Richardo monacho Bordenienso_. This life was apparently written about -1500. - -[1429] Baur, 124. - -[1430] Baur, 105. - -[1431] Baur, 150. - -[1432] Baur, 68. - -[1433] Baur, 36. - -[1434] In _Sacro Bosco, Joannes de, Sphera, cum commentis_, 1518, -_Reverendissimi Episcopi Roberti Lincolinensis Sphere Compendium_, fol. -131 (B1). Baur, 13. _De sphaera_. - -[1435] Baur, 25, _De sphaera_; _Sacro Bosco_, fol. 133 (F2). - -[1436] _De generatione stellarum_, Baur, 33 and 34. - -[1437] _De natura locorum_, Baur, 68. - -[1438] _De iride, seu de iride et speculo_, Baur, 72-73. - -[1439] Baur, 74. - -[1440] Baur, 75. - -[1441] Baur, 41. - -[1442] In the Temple classics, vol. III, pp. 113-4. - -[1443] Baur, 40. - -[1444] Baur, 60. - -[1445] See below, chapter 61, p. 644. - -[1446] See the frequent citations of Grosseteste in his _De Correctione -Kalendarii_, in an edition of the works of d’Ailly and Gerson printed -about 1480. - -[1447] On the general subject, Kaltenbrunner, _Die Vorgeschichte der -gregorianischen Kalendarreform_, 1876. - -[1448] _De luce seu de inchoatione formarum_, Baur, 58. - -[1449] _De natura locorum_, Baur, 69. - -[1450] _De artibus liberalibus_, Baur, 5. - -[1451] Baur, 6-7. - -[1452] Baur, 3. - -[1453] Baur, 4-5. - -[1454] Dover Priory, 409, fol. 80r, _Pronostica Roberti Grosteste_, -would seem from its opening words, “_Hoc ornamentum_ ...” to be the -geomancy ascribed to various authors rather than this treatise by -Grosseteste. - -[1455] Baur, 42. - -[1456] Baur, 44. - -[1457] Baur, 59. - -[1458] Baur, 106. - -[1459] Baur, 38. - -[1460] Baur, 39-40. - -[1461] _De artibus liberalibus_, Baur, 6. - -[1462] _De generatione stellarum_, Baur, 36. - -[1463] Baur, 143. - -[1464] Sloane 3468, fols. 43v-64r. - -[1465] Baur, 280, 505, 633. - -[1466] Following the passage in question, 587-88, other events -mentioned are in the life of Emperor Frederick II and Louis IX’s -departure from Aigues-Mortes to Egypt in 1248. - -[1467] In _Erh Ya_, the earliest Chinese dictionary, the entries are -arranged for ready reference under nineteen heads. - -[1468] These headings are not given in the text but are made up by me -to indicate its contents. - -[1469] I, 1, (Baur, 275-77). For the origins of “mathematical science” -see also XV, 12, (Baur, 561). - -[1470] I, 2, (Baur, 277). - -[1471] I, 3, (Baur, 278). - -[1472] I, 4, (Baur, 278-79). - -[1473] 1, 6, (Baur, 279). - -[1474] Baur, 280. - -[1475] I, 7, (Baur, 281). - -[1476] X, 25, (Baur, 457). - -[1477] I, 10, (Baur, 283): see too XV, 5, (Baur, 551). - -[1478] XV, 14, (Baur, 565), _Ptolemaeus etiam, ceterique moderniores -mathematici:_ see also XV, 16, (Baur, 567), _nonnullisque etiam -modernioribus mathematicis_. - -[1479] XV, 5, (Baur, 551): XII, 17, (Baur, 505). - -[1480] I, 11, (Baur, 284-85). - -[1481] I, 13, (Baur, 288). - -[1482] XV, 12, (Baur, 560). - -[1483] XIX, 2, (Baur, 627). - -[1484] XV, 30, (Baur, 588). - -[1485] XV, 29, (Baur, 586). - -[1486] XV, 28, Baur, 583. “De effectibus planetarum famossisimis et de -eorum qualitatibus.” - -[1487] XV, 30, (Baur, 588-89). - -[1488] I, 9, (Baur, 282). - -[1489] XV, 29, (Baur, 586). - -[1490] Baur, 589. - -[1491] XVI, 5, (Baur, 594). - -[1492] XIX, 6, 7, (Baur, 633-34). - -[1493] XIX, 8-9 and 13, (Baur, 635-36, and 641). - -[1494] XIX, 13-14, (Baur, 641-3). - -[1495] Pembroke 227, 14-15th century, fol. 250. “Inc. tract. fratris -Egidii ordinis fratrum predicatorum de essencia motu et significacione -cometarum. Quoniam multorum animos andivi stupefactos ... occasione -... stelle caudate ... que apparuit in regno francie ... a 19º kal. -aug. usque 5º non. oct. a. d. 1264.” CUL 2022 (Kk. IV. 7) 15th century, -fols. 91-96r. Fratris Egidii de cometis. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -THE PERSPECTIVE OR OPTICS OF WITELO - - -[Sidenote: Emphasis upon experimental method.] - -In the work on the science of Perspective or Optics, which was composed -later in the thirteenth century by Witelo[1496] who calls himself a -son of Thuringians and Poles,[1497] we meet again with much the same -attitude as that shown in the corresponding works of Grosseteste. The -experimental character of the subject is repeatedly emphasized;[1498] -we hear much of experimenting with instruments;[1499] and such words as -“experimenter” and “experimentation” are used.[1500] Similar passages, -however, are also found in Witelo’s main source, the work of the Arab -Alhazen on the same subject.[1501] But Witelo also encourages his -readers to go farther and experiment for themselves, assuring them -that “experience more than books will teach the varied possibilities -of images”[1502] from mirrors, suggesting, “Let then the ingenuity of -moderns and men of the future add what it shall please,”[1503] and -again affirming in the case of burning-glasses, “But in experimentation -with these too there is the greatest latitude which we leave to those -who are curious in such matters.”[1504] - -[Sidenote: Occult and astral virtue.] - -Witelo also resembles Grosseteste in his favorable attitude toward -astrology and the conception of the radiation of virtue. Already in his -preface to William of Moerbeke he speaks of that “influence of divine -virtues which is made in marvelous wise in inferior bodies through the -virtues of superior bodies,”[1505] of that “divine light” which is “the -sensible medium of corporal influences,”[1506] marvelously assimilating -and connecting inferior bodies with superior bodies, while he compares -the influence of the celestial constellations upon subject bodies to -the process of reflection in a mirror.[1507] At the beginning of his -tenth book, stating that the virtues of natural forms increased by -refraction act more strongly, he adds that universally an increase -of the virtue of the rays of the stars or of other forms at the same -natural point or about the same point results in stronger action. Such -passages suggest that perspective or optic was studied not only for its -own sake but for its supposed analogy to the operation of occult and -astral virtue. Indeed in his preface he represents William of Moerbeke -as versed in such occult research,[1508] and William translated not -only astrological treatises but also probably the so-called _Ptolemaei -de speculis_ which is really Hero’s _Catoptrica_. Baeumker believes -that Witelo for his part was strongly affected by the metaphysical -theory in favor with the Neo-Platonists and Gnostics of primitive light -as the origin of intelligence, space, and so on. - -[Sidenote: Marvelous effects.] - -In Witelo’s work may also be noticed something of that element of -thaumaturgy which we noted in Hero of Alexandria. Thus in his eighth -book on concave mirrors he speaks of the “marvelous diffusion of -natural forms and the multiform deception of the visions beheld,” while -in the ninth book on burning glasses we are promised the production -of astonishing effects. But as a rule Witelo’s presentation of his -subject is geometrical rather than sensational, and his first book, not -paralleled in Alhazen, is a geometry of 137 propositions as a basis -for the ensuing “universal axioms of this science.” As we have seen, -however, Witelo employs the experimental as well as the mathematical -method and instruments as well as theorems. - -[Sidenote: Further characteristics.] - -Unlike Grosseteste, Witelo regards vision by extramission of rays from -the eye as impossible,[1509] wherein he follows Alhazen. Of magnifying -lenses he seems to display only a theoretical knowledge,[1510] and -to add little to Alhazen on this point and less to Grosseteste. In -general, however, he is believed by collecting the tradition of the -past and filling in the gaps therein to have made the whole subject -clearer to the Latin world and to have produced a work which served for -several centuries as an excellent text book in the field of optical -science.[1511] Its original portion consists especially of observations -made by the author at Padua and Viterbo,[1512] which latter town was -also the scene of several of William of Moerbeke’s translations. The -Perspective was probably dedicated to him about 1270.[1513] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1496] I have used the edition of 1572, _Vitellionis Thurinopoloni -Opticae libri decem_, ed. F. Risner, Basel, 1572, where the text of -Witelo, occupying 474 pages, is preceded by a Latin translation of -Alhazen in 288 pages. The chief modern study on Witelo is C. Baeumker, -_Witelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII Jahrhunderts_, -Münster, 1906. - -[1497] In his preface to William of Moerbeke. “Veritatis amatori fratri -Guilielmo de Morbeta vitello filius thuringorum et polonorum....” - -[1498] II, 43, “Experimentaliter etiam et hoc propositum theorema -potest declarari ...;” II, 46, “Sed et id quod nunc proponitur -potest experimentaliter declarari ...;” X, 43, “Hoc autem potest sic -experimento declarari ...” etc. - -[1499] II, 42, “Huius propositionis probatio plus experientiae -instrumentorum innititur quam alteri demonstrationum. Cum ergo quis -experiri voluerit....” II, 44, “Instrumentaliter similiter experientia -propositum theorema potest declarari....” II, 45, “Hoc quod nunc hic -proponitur est conformiter prioribus per instrumentalem experientiam -declarandum....” II, 47, “Illud quod particularibus experientiis -hactenus instrumentaliter probatum est naturali demonstratione.... -intendimus.... adiuvare....” - -[1500] See especially IV, 108. - -[1501] Compare Witelo IV, 108 and X, 5 with Alhazen III, 12 and VII, 10. - -[1502] IX, 35, “et plus experientia quam scriptura docebit imaginum -diversitates....” - -[1503] IX, 35, “Ingenium vero modernorum et futurorum addat quod -libuerit....” - -[1504] X, 48, “Sed et in horum experimentatione est maxima latitudo -quam relinquimus ad talia curiosis.” - -[1505] “... divinarum virtutum influentiam inferioribus rebus -corporalibus per virtutes corporales superiores modo mirabili fieri....” - -[1506] “Corporalium vero influentiarum divinum lumen sensibile est -medium.” - -[1507] “Et dum sic per figuras speculorum discurrimus celestes et omnes -naturales influentias a subiectis corporibus sub quodam reflexionis -modo ad alia corpora declaramus.” - -[1508] “Placuit tibi in illius rei occulta indagine versari,” in the -1572 edition; but in Quetif-Echard (1719) I, 389, “in illius rei -occultae indagine.” - -[1509] III, 5-6. - -[1510] X, 43 _et seq._ - -[1511] Baeumker (1908), p. 237. - -[1512] _Ibid._, p. 224. - -[1513] Such is Baeumker’s opinion; why Dr. Charles Singer in -his lecture on “Science” in _Medieval Contributions to Modern -Civilisation_, (p. 140), speaks of Witelo as “the earliest” of the -group of forward-looking scientific thinkers which culminated in Roger -Bacon and dates him “(c. 1250)” I do not know. - - - - -CHAPTER LVI - -VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS - - - The _Speculum Maius_--Events of his life--Was the - _Speculum naturale_ finished in 1250?--Order of the - three Mirrors--Chronological relation to Albert - and Aquinas--General character of the _Speculum - naturale_--Vincent’s method of compilation--Use of - Pliny and Aristotle--More recent authorities--Credulity - concerning the barnacle birds--A sign of his scientific - inferiority--Demons, magic, and superstition--Divination - from dreams--The stars--Their influence--Virtues of - gems--A chapter on the jasper--Alchemy--Virtues of - plants--Animals--The tree of life and the bodies of the - damned--Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?--Classification of - the sciences--Concluding estimate of the _Speculum naturale_. - - -[Sidenote: The _Speculum Maius_.] - -Of medieval encyclopedists and compilers Vincent of Beauvais may -be ranked as chief by reason of his _Speculum Maius_, which really -consists of three voluminous “Mirrors,” the _Speculum naturale_, -with which we shall be chiefly concerned,[1514] and the _Speculum -doctrinale_ and _Speculum historiale_. The _Speculum morale_, once -attributed to him, has been shown to be a later production. The -_Speculum naturale_ may be regarded as capping the series begun with -Neckam’s _De naturis rerum_ and continued by Thomas of Cantimpré’s -_De natura rerum_ and Bartholomew of England’s _De proprietatibus -rerum_. The _Mirror of History_ is a world chronicle written from the -Christian standpoint. The _Mirror of Doctrine_ is not merely concerned -with doctrine in the theological sense but with all fields of art and -learning, industry and society, beginning with a discussion of schools -of philosophy and educational method and a dictionary of some 3200 -words, and running through grammar, logic, rhetoric, poetics, monastic -and economic and political institutions, the useful and military arts, -medicine, physics, and natural philosophy, mathematics and metaphysics, -and finally reaching theology in its seventeenth and last book. Indeed, -Vincent himself well described it as concerned with “all arts,” as the -other two Mirrors reflect “all things” and “all times.”[1515] It is -considerably briefer than the _Mirror of Nature_ which contains almost -twice as many books. - -[Sidenote: Events of his life.] - -Little is known of Vincent’s life and the years of his birth and death -are uncertain. He speaks of himself as “Vincent of Beauvais of the -Order of Preachers,” and in 1246 was a sub-prior of the Dominican -monastery at Beauvais. Like another learned friar of his time, Roger -Bacon, he speaks of laborious duties which interrupted his literary -activities and forced him to employ copyists. Probably the most -important external circumstance of his career was his connection with -the royal family of St. Louis. Although a Dominican, Vincent held -the post of reader in the Cistercian abbey of Royaumont which Louis -had founded in 1228. Vincent seems to have served Louis IX in the -triple capacity of royal librarian, chaplain, and tutor of the king’s -children. His treatise _On the Education of the Royal Children_ was -composed at some time after the return of St. Louis from the Holy Land -in 1254, and his _Consolatory Letter_ dealt with the death of Prince -Louis in 1260. The date 1264, often mentioned as that of Vincent’s -death, rests on the statement of Louis à Valleoleti who wrote in the -early fifteenth century. Ptolemy of Lucca who wrote a century nearer -to Vincent’s time cites him concerning the three year vacancy in -the papacy following the death of Clement IV, which would bring the -completion of the _Speculum historiale_ down to 1271 at least, but -Daunou showed that this citation was incorrect and that the passage in -question was from Martin of Poland, not Vincent of Beauvais. This is -perhaps also the case with another passage in Ptolemy of Lucca which -Daunou failed to note and which says, “Historians in general state, -but Vincent in particular writes” of a comet which portended the death -of Pope Urban IV in 1264. Although the duration of the comet was three -months, the pope sickened as soon as it appeared and died on the very -day that it disappeared.[1516] If the citation is from Vincent, he must -have lived beyond 1264. - -[Sidenote: Was the _Speculum naturale_ finished in 1250?] - -It has been customary to give 1250 as the precise date for the -completion of the _Speculum naturale_, because its last book, which -is geographical and historical, states that it will bring the history -of the world down to the present year, 1250. Valentin Rose accepted -this date so confidently as to argue on the basis of it that, because -Vincent did not cite the work of Albertus Magnus on minerals,[1517] -that treatise was not written until after 1250. But that such -statements of the current year in Vincent’s works cannot be relied -upon too implicitly is shown in his _Mirror of History_. From the -list of popes given in its eighth book we should infer that it was -composed in 1244 or 1245, since it speaks of Innocent IV as having -now sat on the throne for two years; and again the closing chapter of -its thirty-first[1518] book states that the author has brought the -history of the sixth age of the world down to the current year, that -is, the eighteenth of Louis IX and the second of Innocent IV and -the thirty-fourth of Frederick II. But other events are mentioned which -happened in 1250 and 1254.[1519] - -[Sidenote: Order of the three Mirrors.] - -It is also difficult to determine the order in which the three Mirrors -were completed. Daunou assumed that the _Speculum naturale_ was -finished first, and that the _Speculum doctrinale_ treated again of -some topics which had already been discussed in the other. He also -placed the _Speculum historiale_ later than the _Mirror of Nature_, -believing that it was published at some time after 1254 rather than -ten years earlier, and pointing out that in its ninth book Vincent -mentioned having used Pliny’s _Natural History_ in his _Speculum -naturale_. On the other hand, the revised edition of Potthast’s -_Wegweiser_ regards the _Mirror of History_ as completed about 1244 -before the _Mirror of Nature_. As an intermediate work it mentions -_Memoriale omnium temporum_, an extract in eighty chapters made by -Vincent himself from the _Speculum historiale_. This extract was then -embodied in the last book of the _Speculum naturale_, where an account -of the years 1242-1250 was added to it. And in the last chapter of -the _Speculum naturale_, where the coming of antichrist and the last -judgment are discussed, we are told that these matters are more fully -treated at the close of the _Speculum historiale_. Thus we have both -the _Mirror of History_ looking back on the _Mirror of Nature_ as an -earlier work, and _vice versa_. Thus we apparently have to do with a -revised edition of one or both of the works, or with later additions -and interpolations which a study of the manuscripts would be necessary -to unravel, although very likely it would fail to do so. One might -hazard the conjecture that the _Mirror of History_ was first issued -in 1244, as it says, and that this edition was the one cited in the -_Mirror of Nature_; that after 1254 a revised edition of the _Mirror -of History_ was issued and that in this the _Speculum naturale_ was -referred to. There are further objections even to this view, however, -as we shall presently see. - -[Sidenote: Chronological relation to Albert and Aquinas.] - -If the _Speculum naturale_ as we have it was completed by 1250, it -would aid us in dating works of Albertus Magnus and Aquinas which -it cites. Vincent cites Albert a great deal, especially for the -Aristotelian psychology, often without definite mention of the title of -the work cited, but sometimes such titles are mentioned as _De anima_, -_De sensu et sensato_, _De somno et vigilia_, _De animalibus_.[1520] -Evidently Albert had already completed many of his commentaries upon -and elaborations of the Aristotelian philosophy, and had made an -established reputation for himself. It is quite possible that this -had been already accomplished by 1250, since, while Albert lived on -until 1280, he was then an old man. But what is surprising to find -in a work written in 1250 are Vincent’s citations of Thomas Aquinas -on such questions as “How an angel instructs the soul?” and “What -prophecy is?”[1521] In 1250 Aquinas would have been only twenty-three -and would scarcely have attained the rank of an authority upon advanced -theological problems of this sort, since he did not receive his -doctorate in theology, precocious as he was, until 1257. Either then -these citations are later interpolations, or Vincent did not complete -the _Speculum naturale_ in 1250. But this problem again calls for an -examination of the earliest manuscripts. - -[Sidenote: General character of the _Speculum naturale_.] - -The _Speculum naturale_ may be described as a sort of over-grown -_Hexaemeron_; indeed, in some of the manuscripts it is entitled, -_Speculum in Hexemeron libris 32, ex dictis innumerabilium tam -christianorum quam gentilium_.[1522] That is to say, its consideration -of nature follows the order of the six days of creation. But the mass -of scientific data is so voluminous as to obscure this underlying -Biblical plan, and the work is divided not into six books, but -thirty-two and a prologue, or thirty-three in all. The work is, -however, more marked by a theological aim, tone, and interest than -others that we have considered or shall consider. This is not quite so -noticeable as in the _Speculum historiale_, described by Daunou as “a -work planned and executed in an essentially theological spirit,”[1523] -and one of whose four books on the twelfth century consists entirely of -extracts from the writings of St. Bernard. But as the prologue of the -_Mirror of Nature_ ranks the philosophers and doctors of the Gentiles -as of the third and lowest grade of authority, as its next book -discusses the Trinity and angels as well as the universe, and the third -deals with demons as well as elements and atoms, so its twenty-fourth -book is largely concerned with the soul and its immortality, the -thirtieth with the seventh day of rest and such topics as fate and -providence, sin and penitence, and the thirty-first with Paradise, -the creation and fall of man, marriage, and so on. We have had other -writers begin with the Trinity and angels and demons but thereafter -deal more exclusively with purely physical phenomena. We have seen -other writers start out with the professed object of explaining the -Scriptures but end by discussing nature in a purely scientific way. -Vincent, on the other hand, sets out to compile a _Mirror of History_ -or a _Mirror of Nature_ but cannot keep his mind off such themes as the -fall of man and the last judgment. - -[Sidenote: Vincent’s method of compilation.] - -Vincent also adheres rather more strictly to his professed rôle of a -mere compiler than some of our other medieval writers. He says that he -will distinguish his own statements by the word _Actor_ or _Auctor_, -author or editor, and such passages are of minor importance and make -little or no new contribution to scientific knowledge. His superiority -to other medieval compilers or encyclopedists consists almost entirely -in the fact that he has had access to a larger library and has made -longer and more numerous excerpts from his authorities than they. As a -rule he does not attempt to reconcile conflicting statements in the -authorities, warning his readers in the prologue that he is a mere -excerptor and not to be held responsible for such inconsistencies. -Indeed, he is to such an extent a mere excerptor that it is perhaps -more important to note the authors whom he uses[1524] than the -subject-matter which he takes from them and which we have already been -over in large measure, since we have already considered separately many -of his main sources. - -[Sidenote: Use of Pliny and Aristotle.] - -Vincent is easily indebted to Pliny, with whose entire _Natural -History_ he seems acquainted,[1525] more than to any other single -source and the _Speculum naturale_ is as much an imitation of it as a -development from patristic _Hexaemerons_. Another constant reliance -is Isidore, who of course in his turn had used Pliny extensively. -Aristotle and various Arabian authorities--Rasis, Avicenna, Albumasar, -Averroes--are frequently cited, but sometimes at least indirectly -through Albertus Magnus. In his preface Vincent apologizes for often -giving Aristotle’s views not in his own words but in transposed order -for the sake of condensation and clearness. Incidentally he reveals -that he had the service of assistants in compiling his encyclopedia, -since he states that he has not made these renditions of Aristotle -himself but that they have been “excerpted by certain brothers.” At -the same time he shows how familiar the wording of Aristotle’s text -had become by his time and how precise the standards of medieval -scholarship were in some respects, when he adds that there are some -scholars who will not tolerate the alteration of one iota or the order -of a single word of the authority.[1526] - -[Sidenote: More recent authorities.] - -Vincent is also not ashamed “to learn from modern doctors”[1527] -and employs many works of his medieval Latin predecessors from -Constantinus Africanus, whom he cites a great deal as Bartholomew did, -to Albertus Magnus and perhaps Thomas Aquinas. He makes some use of the -_Natural Questions_ of Adelard of Bath, which treatise he once cites -as “_Adelardus ad nepotem_,”[1528] and for matters astronomical he -makes much use of the _De philosophia_ or _Dragmaticon_ of William of -Conches. He also repeats its _locus classicus_ concerning the waters -above the firmament where the view of Bede is rejected for “the more -probable opinion of the moderns in this matter.”[1529] - -[Sidenote: Credulity concerning barnacle birds.] - -While Vincent shows a wide and commendable acquaintance not only with -a large number of names of authors and titles, but in many cases -with a part or the whole of the contents of the books themselves, -it sometimes appears that he has not got all that he might have -from the authority in question, and he sometimes does not display -the soundest of judgment in what he includes and what he omits in -making his selections. The case of the barnacle birds may serve as an -illustration. Now Vincent cites the work of Albertus Magnus on animals -concerning falcons in the very same seventeenth book in which this -chapter on the barnacle birds occurs. With his broad bibliographical -attainments Vincent should have realized the worth of Albert’s work -and should have imbibed some of its sceptical and critical attitude -toward stories of strange and outlandish animals. Albert had branded -as liars those who said that birds were born from trees, hanging from -the trunk and branches and being nourished by the sap beneath the -bark, or that birds were generated from driftwood at sea, and that -no one had ever seen such birds lay eggs or have sexual intercourse. -Albert and many of his associates had seen them doing both and feeding -their young.[1530] Yet Vincent continues to discuss these barnacle -birds most credulously. They feed on driftwood. At birth they are -naked but gradually grow feathers and float through the sea hanging to -the driftwood by their beaks until they come to maturity and bestir -themselves and break away. “And we ourselves have seen many of them -and trustworthy men have testified that they have seen them hanging -thus.” Jacques de Vitry tells of them in his _Oriental History_: “It -is further to be noted that they do not hang in the tops of trees but -on the bark of the boughs and trunks. And they grow on the sap of the -tree and the infusion of dew until they have feathers and strength and -break off from the bark. It may be said with certainty of these birds -that in our part of the world around Germany they neither generate -by sexual concourse nor are generated. Nor has any man among us ever -seen their sexual congress. Consequently some Christians in our time -in those places where birds of this sort abound are accustomed to eat -their flesh in Lent. But Pope Innocent III in the general council at -the Lateran forbade them to do this any more.”[1531] After stating -that the barnacle birds eat herbs and grain like geese and cannot go -for long without drink, Vincent cites a “Philosopher,” but it is not -clear whether as authority for the foregoing statements or the ensuing -assertion that the barnacle bird which is born from trees is found also -in certain parts of Flanders.[1532] “Philosopher” in this case can -therefore scarcely be Aristotle. Despite what was said of the bird’s -thirst, it is now added that like trees it has no superfluity. - -[Sidenote: A sign of his scientific inferiority.] - -Perhaps Vincent had read but little of Albert’s work on animals; -possibly the citations of it in the _Speculum naturale_ are later -interpolations; but in any case the passage suggests a difference in -scientific attitude between the two men. It should be added, however, -in Vincent’s favor that his descriptions of fish were in Cuvier’s -opinion more precise and correct than those of Albert.[1533] But in -general it seems to me that he was neither the personal observer -of nature that Albert was, nor did he possess as much scientific -discrimination. This defect is bound to affect his whole selection -of material and use of authorities, and, together with his somewhat -excessive theological bias, makes his compilation, extensive as it is, -scarcely representative of medieval natural science at its best. At the -same time we see that in the very process of excerpting he gives his -compilation a certain character and tone of its own. It will therefore -be well, in view of its widespread and enduring influence, attested -by numerous manuscripts and printed editions, to give some attention -to its contents, and see what attitude it reflects on the subjects of -magic, astrology, divination from dreams, and occult virtue in nature. - -[Sidenote: Demons, magic, and superstition.] - -Vincent’s mentions of magic[1534] are incidental to his discussion of -demons and the marvels, transformations, and divination which they are -able to work. On these points he repeats the views of Augustine, Peter -Lombard, and other like-minded ecclesiastical authorities, and we need -not dwell upon them further, except to note that he makes the demons -inhabit the lower and misty air, and that his citation of _The Golden -Ass_ of Apuleius is probably indirect through Augustine. We should -also note, however, a passage in the _Mirror of Doctrine_[1535] which -seems to be largely derived from the _Summa_ of a “brother William,” -which may possibly be the _De universo_ of William of Auvergne, -although he does not seem to have been a friar. The passage states that -incantations may be used to enchant the sick or children or animals, -provided no superstitious practice which the church has prohibited -is involved, and only licit prayers, adjurations, and such symbols as -the sign of the cross are used. Perhaps the practice of hypnotism is -involved here. Vincent believes that men and women who introduce many -useless and superstitious ceremonies should be forbidden to continue -these practices, which should be confined to priests and to laymen and -women of excellent life and proved discretion. But he does not object -to employment of the divine symbol in plucking an herb or to writing -the Lord’s prayer on a scroll and placing it near the patient. - -[Sidenote: Divination from dreams.] - -In his discussion of dreams and their significance Vincent combines -such varied authorities as Aristotle, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, and -Pope Gregory the Great, who accounted for dreams by a full or empty -stomach, the thoughts of the dreamer, the illusions of demons, and -the revelations of angels. While recognizing with the Bible that -dreams make many err, Vincent agrees “with the saints and prophets -that dreams frequently signify something concerning the future.” -Dreams are powerfully affected by the motion of the stars in the sky, -which is scarcely noticed when we are awake but is manifest in sleep. -Dispositions, too, on the part of the sleeper make themselves felt in -dreams which are not observed in waking hours, a medieval statement -of the Freudian theory. Dreams are not causes but simply signs of the -future. Since the events which they forecast are not yet in existence, -they obviously cannot portray them plainly but suggest them obscurely -in a manner requiring interpretation. Thus to dream of fire is a sign -of future anger, to see a great foul mouth in a dream indicates a false -criminal accusation, to dream of a scorpion portends secret detraction. -It is commonly stated by philosophers that the signification of a -dream varies as it occurs at the full moon or the new moon or in the -sunshine, and also according to the positions of the planets in the -signs.[1536] - -[Sidenote: The stars.] - -From the influence of the stars upon dreams we may next turn to -Vincent’s attitude toward astrology in general. It is a mixture of -passages from church fathers against the errors of the genethlialogists -and _mathematici_, and of passages from the philosophers, ancient and -recent, affirming the control of the stars over the world of nature. -Vincent, however, attempts to combine and reconcile these, and makes -his own standpoint fairly evident. He holds that the brief, vague -utterances of Aristotle whence the commentators have inferred that -the stars are alive do not necessarily imply this.[1537] They are -nevertheless superior in certain ways to all inferior life, and are of -an unalterable and incorruptible nature.[1538] Vincent undertakes to -reconcile the assertion of holy doctors that the heavens neither have -souls nor are animals with the doctrines of the philosophers.[1539] -He holds that there are Intelligences in the spheres of the heavens -who serve the First Cause or Mover and that, although the saints abhor -giving these the name of souls, yet they concede that intelligences or -angels move the heavens and the stars at the nod of God. - -[Sidenote: Their influence.] - -From sages and men of old Vincent reiterates such doctrine as that -“the movement of the heavens and superior bodies is the cause of all -natural motions” and of generation and corruption; that there is no -plant on earth which does not have its controlling star; and that -“all things which are renewed in the inferior world, except such as -are caused by the superior form of our reason, have their efficient -causes in the inalterable and incorruptible superior world.”[1540] -Vincent devotes much of his sixteenth book to astrological technique, -detailing the good and evil qualities of the planets, and describing -their houses, exaltations, _triplicitates_, _termini_, _facies_, -and their virtues in the different signs of the zodiac.[1541] Like -Bartholomew he also reproduces Constantinus Africanus’ account of the -control by the planets of the formation of the human foetus in the -womb.[1542] In a later book[1543] he repeats the views of Albumasar and -an unnamed astrologer concerning the influence of the sun and other -planets in human generation. Against their control of such matters -as sex, however, Vincent cites the authority of Augustine and some -physiological arguments. He further warns us not to subject human -reason and free will to fatal necessity of the constellations, citing -such authorities as Gregory’s homily for epiphany and Chrysostom’s -sixth homily on Matthew anent the Magi and the star, and repeating such -time-worn and time-honored arguments as the case of Esau and Jacob or -the fact that in fishless inland provinces men are born under the sign -Pisces.[1544] Vincent repeats the general medieval belief that comets -signify pestilence, famine, or war.[1545] His discussion of Egyptian -days we have considered elsewhere. He seems to accept the efficacy of -astrological images, repeating the attribution of medicinal virtue and -influence on human character to “stones on which you find engraved -Aries or Leo or Sagittarius,”[1546] and citing Thetel,[1547] perhaps -indirectly through Thomas of Cantimpré, concerning the virtues of -engraved gems. But to the virtues of gems let us turn. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of gems.] - -For the virtues of gems Vincent combines authorities from the -Pseudo-Aristotle and Pliny down to Arnold of Saxony and Thomas of -Cantimpré. The extreme powers credited to gems by the Magi and Marbod -play a prominent part in his ninth book. Selecting by lot five[1548] -out of seventy odd chapters we read that the agate averts storms and -thunderbolts, gives victory in war, routs venomous animals, aids -the sight, slakes the thirst, and promotes fidelity. The _balagius_ -stimulates conjugal affection, burns the right hand grasping it, -strengthens weak eyes if one drinks water in which it has lain, -and protects one against enemies. Coral checks hemorrhage, reduces -corpulence, draws harmful humors from the eye, cures ulcers, and -benefits heart, intestines, and spleen. Suspended over the mouth it -stops stomachache; suspended from the neck it prevents epileptic fits. -Suspended from trees or sown with seed it protects the fruit or crops -from hail storms. Decayed teeth are filled with it in order to extract -them, and it is terrible to demons because it is so often found in the -form of the cross. The gem heliotrope makes one invincible in battle -and invisible, if it is combined with the herb of the same name and -certain incantations. It makes water boil, reddens the sun, prevents -loss of blood, is an antidote to poison, assures its bearer long life, -and aids in prediction of the future. - -[Sidenote: A chapter on the jasper.] - -The chapter on the jasper is a good example of Vincent’s method of -combining excerpts from varied authors. First he cites the monkish -chronicler Helinandus who died in 1227 to the effect that the jasper -worn chastely dispels fever and dropsy, and that application of it aids -child-birth. The _Lapidary_ of the pseudo-Aristotle repeats this last -assertion and adds that the gem clarifies the human sight and checks -bleeding. Arnold says it makes a man safe and drives away phantasms, -resists luxury, prevents conception, and checks the flow of blood or -the menstrual discharge. From Pliny we learn that magicians use it -in public assemblies. Philosopher affirms that it renders its wearer -chaste, safe, and agreeable, if it has been consecrated, and that it -dispels noxious phantasms. Thetel is cited concerning the potency of a -jasper found inscribed with a man having a shield about his neck or in -one hand, a spear in the other, and a snake underfoot. When the image -on the gem is that of a man with a bundle of herbs about his neck, -the stone should be set in silver and it will possess the virtue of -distinguishing between diseases and checking bleeding. Galen is said -to have worn this stone on his finger, and Rabanus says that it drives -away idle fears. Thus the same properties of the gem are repeated over -and over from the mouths of various authorities. - -[Sidenote: Alchemy.] - -Before treating of gems in his ninth book Vincent had discussed -other minerals and metals in the eighth. There he often alludes to -alchemy,[1549] which he regards as a practical art related to the -science of mineralogy as agriculture is to botany. He also believes -that “by the art of alchemy mineral bodies are transmuted from their -own species into others, especially metals.”[1550] It is true that the -fourth book of the _Meteorology_ of Aristotle contains the statement -that artificers cannot alter species but can only make other metals -seem like silver or gold. But some say that this passage is not -Aristotle’s but an addition from some other author. Avicenna in the -alchemical treatise _De anima_[1551] represents Aristotle and Plato as -favorable to alchemy. So Vincent persists in maintaining that, “while -the aforesaid words make alchemy seem false in a way, yet it has been -proved true both by the ancient philosophers and the artificers of our -time,” and that “transmutation, or rather disintegration” of metals -is truly effected through alchemy. The baser metals may be reduced to -their simplest form and then reformed into more precious metals.[1552] -Vincent also devotes some chapters to “the stone, elixir, by which -art imitates nature.”[1553] Avicenna and an unnamed Alchemist seem -to be Vincent’s two chief authorities on the subject of alchemy in -the _Speculum naturale_. In the _Speculum doctrinale_[1554] he again -discussed the subject, this time quoting liberally from a treatise _De -aluminibus et salibus_ attributed to Rasis. A separate treatise seems -to have been formed from these chapters of Vincent.[1555] Vincent’s -discussion of alchemy has already been reviewed by Berthelot[1556] -who noted the theories that everything has an occult quality opposed -to its natural one; that four spirits, mercury, sulphur, arsenic, and -sal ammoniac, and six metals, gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and -iron, are generated in the bowels of the earth; and that the metals are -generated by mercury and sulphur. The last doctrine in its developed -form Berthelot regarded as not earlier than the twelfth century. -Berthelot was unable to identify the “Alchemist” cited by Vincent. One -can hardly accept Berthelot’s hypothesis that a work which contains -ideas not found in the _Speculum naturale_ is later than the thirteenth -century. The _Speculum naturale_ was written, if not by 1250, at least -many years before the close of the century, and, voluminous as are its -extracts, it is very far from being all-inclusive of the ideas of the -time. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of plants.] - -Like Pliny, Vincent devotes much more space to the vegetable than to -the mineral kingdom.[1557] But the virtues ascribed to plants are much -less marvelous than those credited to stones, and the methods of making -use of them are seldom superstitious. In this we have, of course, not -merely Vincent’s attitude; he reflects his sources and conforms to the -usual medieval position. The virtues ascribed to plants are mainly -medicinal; many are doubtless false, however, and Vincent, with his -voluminous extracts and citations, magnifies the customary ancient and -medieval tendency to make each herb a cure for a long list of very -miscellaneous and unrelated ailments. Cinnamon and pepper,[1558] for -example, he appears to regard as panaceas, an interesting side-light on -medieval fondness for spices. A fair sample of his ordinary treatment -is provided by the chapter on the herb _Cameleon_ or _Camelea_. Pliny -says that it purges the stomach and removes phlegm and bile. Ulcers are -purged by cooking its leaves in two parts of wormwood and drinking them -with syrup of honey, at the same time making a poultice of the leaves. -They say that if anyone plucks it before sunrise and states that he -takes it for white growths of the eyes, the ailment will be removed by -its application. Indeed, gathered in any way it is wholesome for the -eyes of the young. Dioscorides says that it removes phlegm and makes a -healing poultice for foul wounds. Avicenna holds that it should be used -only in external applications, where it has cleansing, soothing, and -softening properties. It is beneficial for morphea, scab, ringworm, and -corrosive ulcers. By this point the citation from Avicenna must have -terminated, since we are informed that the roots of the white variety -taken in wine as a drink help a patient suffering from dropsy. These -roots of the white variety also kill worms, while the black kind kills -any venomous creature. Vincent then cites the _Herbarium_, presumably -of the pseudo-Apuleius, to the effect that the _Cameleon_ has the -force of tyriac or theriac, that a decoction of it solves difficulty -in urinating and cures intestinal worms and dropsy.[1559] Besides the -authors cited in the foregoing chapter Vincent makes use on the subject -of vegetation of such writers as Solinus, Isidore, the _Hexaemeron_ -of Ambrose, the work of Isaac on diet, Platearius, and Constantinus -Africanus. He apparently does not use Galen’s work on medicinal simples -directly. - -[Sidenote: Animals.] - -Vincent discusses animals at even greater length than vegetation, -devoting a book each to birds, fish, and snakes; two to quadrupeds; -others to animal life and processes in general; and still others to -human physiology and psychology. Again we encounter the marvelous -virtues, medicinal and otherwise, inherent in parts of animals, and -amusing accounts of their ways and instinctive sagacity. The eagle -places certain stones in its nest to counteract its own excessive heat -in the hatching process; the bird called “goat-milker” steals milk -from goats’ udders by night; the cormorant dips its head beneath the -wave to collect signs of the weather and flies shoreward clamorously, -if it detects a storm approaching; the parrot bites rocks and drinks -wine.[1560] Pope Alexander had a cloak made of the wool of salamanders -which, whenever it became soiled, was cleansed by casting it into the -flames instead of washing it in water.[1561] Vincent borrows his -statements of the virtues of animals and their parts to a large extent -from Pliny, whose contents we have earlier sufficiently presented. The -medicinal virtues of the human body and its different parts are also -set forth in much the usual fashion. Vincent’s considerable number -of citations from Physiologus are, like Bartholomew’s, difficult to -identify with those of any existing Bestiary. Some seem connected with -Scriptural Glosses. It is remarkable that while he cites Physiologus -a good deal concerning birds and serpents,[1562] in the book on -quadrupeds he does not cite Physiologus for the lion, _onager_, and -other such animals as figure prominently in the so-called Physiologus -and Bestiaries. - -[Sidenote: The tree of life and the bodies of the damned.] - -In the thirty-first book on paradise and the fall of man Vincent quotes -Peter Comestor who, unlike Philo Judaeus, believes in the actual -existence of both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of -good and evil. He states that the tree of life was so called from -its natural effect, which was so to strengthen in perpetual solidity -the body of him who ate of it that he would suffer no infirmity, -anxiety, or old age.[1563] Thus Vincent encourages belief not only -in transmutation of metals but some natural method of maintaining -perpetual youth and health. In the _Mirror of History_ he quotes -“the sayings of a certain simple and good man,” to whom, among other -revelations concerning the end of the world, the information had been -vouchsafed that the torments of the damned would largely consist in -the removal from their bodies of all the good qualities which now -temper the contrariety of the bad, which would thus be left to vex them -unopposed and unassuaged.[1564] - -[Sidenote: Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?] - -Vincent ventures on some amusing theological speculation of his own in -discussing the interesting question whether Adam or Eve sinned more -in eating the apple.[1565] As might be expected of a medieval man and -clergyman, he decides against the woman. Eve sinned in four respects -and Adam in only two. First she sinned in doubting the divine warning; -second, in wishing to steal divinity for herself; third, in eating -contrary to the prohibition; fourth, in tempting man to eat. Adam was -not seduced into thinking that he could become divine by this method, -but was led astray by a certain amiable good-will, fearing to offend -his wife if he did not eat the apple which she offered him. Thus Eve’s -intention in sinning was the worse and woman has been punished for it -the more severely. Yet Adam sinned in two respects, namely, in secret -pride and in eating what had been forbidden. Another reason why Eve was -the greater sinner was that she sinned against more persons; against -God, against herself, and against her neighbor. But in one respect -Adam’s sin was the graver; he knew better, while Eve sinned in a -certain measure from ignorance and feminine incapacity. - -[Sidenote: Classification of the sciences.] - -We may also note Vincent’s classification of the sciences. As he -adopted the common Christian division of the world’s history into -six ages, as in the _Speculum naturale_ he followed the order of -the six days of creation, so in the third _Mirror of Doctrine_ he -made six fields of knowledge; literary, moral, mechanical, physical, -mathematical, and theological.[1566] This suggests Roger Bacon’s -selection of the five most essential subjects leading up to the study -of theology, namely, the languages, mathematics, perspective or optics, -experimental or applied science, and moral philosophy. - -[Sidenote: Concluding estimate of the _Speculum naturale_.] - -Such is the _Speculum maius_ or more particularly the _Speculum -naturale_, a work impressive by its very voluminousness and multitude -of citations of authorities, valuable as a work of reference, a great -storehouse of medieval lore, providing somewhat the same retrospect -upon previous medieval and Latin science as Pliny’s _Natural History_ -afforded for Hellenistic science. We can, however, recover more of -its sources than in the case of Pliny; and when we have read them, -Vincent’s excerpts from them drop to a secondary place in our esteem. -We see how much of his work had been done for him by previous -compilers like Bartholomew of England and Thomas of Cantimpré, and how -large a portion of his work is a repetition of Pliny himself. Vincent’s -volumes suggest the use of scissors and paste a little too manifestly. -On the other hand, his work does not include everything that is in -previous medieval writers on nature, to say nothing of others that were -to come after him, and the assumption made even by specialists in the -study of medieval culture, like Rose, Berthelot, and Mâle, that the -_Speculum naturale_ alone is an adequate reflection of medieval natural -science and that Vincent is sure to mention any previous writer or -treatise,--this assumption is far from true. His _Mirror_ is a glass -through which we see darkly and not face to face. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1514] Our two chief accounts of Vincent’s life and works are still the -long article by Daunou in HL XVIII (1835), 449-519, and M. l’Abbé J. -B. Bourgeat, _Études sur Vincent de Beauvais_, Paris, 1856. A little -more recent is E. Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaissance -de l’antiquité classique au XIIIe siècle_, in _Revue des Questions -Historiques_, XVII (1875), 5-57. - -I have used the following edition of the _Mirror of Nature_: -_Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum naturale, sine nota_ (_Nurembergae, -Anth. Koburger_, 1485), in two huge folio volumes. Later editions than -this are apt to be very faulty. I have used an edition of the _Speculum -doctrinale_ of 1472 (?) and one of the _Speculum historiale_ of 1473. - -[1515] Prologue, cap. 17; cited HL XVIII, 475. - -[1516] Ptolemy of Lucca XXII, 26, in Muratori, X, 1155. I unfortunately -omitted to verify the citation from the _Speculum historiale_, at the -time that I had access to that work. - -[1517] As a matter of fact Vincent cites Albert concerning the odors of -certain metals (V, 106) without naming any book. - -[1518] Or thirty-second book in some editions. As a matter of fact the -date 1244-1245 is also indicated at the close of the preceding book. - -[1519] In book XXXII, edition of 1473, he mentions the death of Edmund -Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1247; and (cap. 102) tells how St. -Louis in 1250 sent his brothers Alphonse of Poitou and Charles of -Anjou back to console their mother; while in caps. 103-4 we read of -Peter of Milan being canonized by Innocent IV in the tenth year of his -pontificate or about 1254. - -[1520] Vincent does not seem to know or use Albert’s _De vegetabilibus -et plantis_ in seven books, citing instead apparently Alfred of -England’s translation of the two books of the _De plantis_. I doubt, -however, if Vincent’s failure to cite a work by Albertus Magnus can be -taken as sure proof that the work had not yet been written. Vincent was -far from noting or including everything that was known in his time or -had been written before, although some lazy investigators of the past -have seen fit to assume that his work adequately depicted the entirety -of medieval natural science. - -[1521] _Spec, nat._, XXVII, 74 and 82; see also 101. - -[1522] HL XVIII, 485. - -[1523] HL XVIII, 504. - -[1524] His use of classical authors has already been treated by E. -Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaisance de l’Antiquité -classique au XIIIe siècle_, in _Revue des Questions Historiques_, XVII -(1875), 5-57; also printed separately. - -Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Graeca_, 1718-1728, XIV, 107-25, gives a -list of about 350 names of authors or titles cited in the _Speculum -naturale_; of these 254 are repeated by Daunou in HL XVIII, 483-4. - -Unfortunately, at least in the printed edition of 1485, it is often -not clear where quotations begin and end, or to just what passages the -names of the authorities who are cited apply. - -[1525] Daunou (HL XVIII, 486) asserts that Vincent had better MSS of -Pliny than Albertus Magnus had. - -[1526] _Spec. nat._, I, 10, _Apologia de modo excerpendi de quibusdam -libris Arestotelis_. - -[1527] _Ibid._, I, 3. - -[1528] _Ibid._, VII, 6-7. - -[1529] _Ibid._, IV, 93-4. - -[1530] _De animalibus_, XXIII, 14. Frederick II, in his _De arte -venandi cum avibus_, was equally sceptical and based his disbelief on -personal investigation: Haskins in EHR XXXVI (1921) 351. - -[1531] _Spec. nat._, XVII, 40. - -[1532] This treatment and the previous quotation sound rather like -Thomas of Cantimpré, but I did not notice such a passage in his _De -natura rerum_ at the time that I had access to MSS of it, although at -that time I was not searching for this particular topic. - -[1533] _Hist. des Poissons_, I, 35; cited HL XVIII, 489. - -[1534] _Spec. nat._, III, 101-11; I, 19; V, 114; XXXII, 122. - -[1535] _Spec. doctr._, X, 121. - -[1536] The passages cited will be found in _Spec. nat._, XXVII, 52-61, -but I have altered Vincent’s order of presentation. - -[1537] _Spec. nat._, XXV, 42-44. - -[1538] _Ibid._, cap. 45. - -[1539] _Ibid._, IV, 26-27. - -[1540] _Ibid._, IV. 37 and 83; XVI, 43. - -[1541] _Ibid._, XVI, 27-42. - -[1542] _Spec. nat._, XVI, 49. - -[1543] _Ibid._, XXXII, 38-39. - -[1544] _Ibid._, XVI, 50-51. - -[1545] _Ibid._, XVI, 58. - -[1546] _Ibid._, IX, 35. - -[1547] _Ibid._, IX, 77. - -[1548] Caps. 37, 47, 57, 67, 77. - -[1549] See caps. 60, 67, 70, 81-84. etc. - -[1550] This passage has already been quoted in HL XVIII, 488. - -[1551] Latin text printed Basel, 1572, in _Artis Chemicae principes_; -no Arabic original has yet been discovered. - -[1552] _Spec. nat._, VIII, 84-85. In our chapter on The -Pseudo-Aristotle we have discussed the addition of the passage to the -fourth book of the Meteorology. - -[1553] _Spec. nat._, VIII, 81-83. - -[1554] _Spec. doctr._, XI, 105-107 and 132. - -[1555] HL XVIII, 459. - -[1556] Berthelot (1893), I, 280-87. - -[1557] Books X-XV deal with herbs and trees, while only VIII-IX are -devoted to metals, minerals, and gems. - -[1558] _Spec. nat._, XIV, 70; XV, 65. - -[1559] _Spec. nat._, X, 50. - -[1560] _Ibid._, XVII, 35, 45, 105, 135. - -[1561] _Ibid._, XXI, 63. - -[1562] _Spec. nat._, XVII, 22, 28, 29, 32, 36, 41, 42, 50, 148; XXI, -13, 20, 21, 39, 44, 47, 48, 54, 172. - -[1563] _Ibid._, XXXI, 5. - -[1564] _Spec. hist._, XXXII, 119. - -[1565] _Spec. nat._, XXXI, 73. - -[1566] HL XVIII, 517. - - - - -CHAPTER LVII - -EARLY THIRTEENTH CENTURY MEDICINE: GILBERT OF ENGLAND AND WILLIAM OF -ENGLAND - - - Representatives of thirteenth century medicine--Question of - Gilbert’s date--Works ascribed to Gilbert--The _Compendium - medicinae_--General character of his medicine--An - estimate of it by a modern physician--Picturesque - compounds--_Empirica_ and an old wife’s remedy--Use of - red for small-pox; occult virtue--Magical treatment of - epilepsy--Poisons and snake-oil--Eye cures--Influence - of the stars--The soul, number, and geometry; - physiognomy--Astrological medicine in William of England’s - _De urina non visa_--Other works by William of England or by - other Williams. - - -[Sidenote: Representatives of thirteenth century medicine.] - -Medical writers of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century are -so numerous and their writings so similar, that it will be advisable -to treat of only two or three of them as examples of the rest. At -the close of the thirteenth century Peter of Abano and Arnald of -Villanova were such important personalities and so addicted, the one -to astrology, and the other to occult science, that we must devote an -entire chapter to each. Of the writers before them it will perhaps be -sufficient if we consider in some detail, first Gilbert of England, who -seems to have flourished in the first half of the thirteenth century -and who was much cited by the later medical writers; next, a brief -but significant work in astrological medicine composed in 1219 by a -William of England (or of Aragon?); and finally in a second chapter -Petrus Hispanus, who terminated his brilliant career in 1277 as Pope -John XXI, and to whose account of “the way of experience” we shall -add briefly something concerning the similar discussion of medical -experiment in John of St. Amand who seems to have written between 1262 -and 1280.[1567] - -[Sidenote: Question of Gilbert’s date.] - -It seems certain from the citation of Gilbert by Petrus Hispanus and -other writers--possibly by Bartholomew of England--that he must have -written rather early in the thirteenth century.[1568] Haeser,[1569] who -dated him about 1290, and Freind, who dated him about 1270, are both -certainly wrong. But his date has not yet been fixed with exactness, -and it is doubted whether he was physician to Hubert Walter who died in -1205, as Bale, Pits, and Leland tell us. It is also disputed whether a -Master Richard whom he cites was Richard of Salerno, who flourished at -the close of the twelfth century, or Richard of Wendover and Paris, who -was physician to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) and died himself in 1252 -or 1256. Because our Gilbert cites Averroes it has been argued[1570] -that he did not flourish until the middle of the thirteenth century but -Michael Scot had translated Averroes’ commentary on the metaphysics of -Aristotle early in the century. - -[Sidenote: Works ascribed to Gilbert.] - -A manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris contains -_Experiments of Master Gilbert, Chancellor of Montpellier_,[1571] and -there was a chancellor of that university named _Gillibertus_ in 1250. -It remains uncertain, however, whether he was the same as Gilbert of -England, and whether the _Experiments_ are by Gilbert of England or -perhaps a later compilation made partly from his _Compendium_ and -partly from other sources. The _Dictionary of National Biography_ -describes the _Experiments_ as “a collection of receipts, many of which -bear Gilbert’s name and are certainly his, for they agree closely with -passages in his _Compendium_ without being identical.” If “Experiments -of a Chancellor and Cardinal” in a manuscript at Madrid[1572] were the -same work, there would be reason for thinking that Gilbert of England -became a cardinal. “A secret of Gilbert the cardinal” is contained in -an alchemistic manuscript of the fifteenth century at Cambridge.[1573] -We also hear of a Gilbertus Anglicus who was a great theologian and -wrote a commentary upon the oracle of Cyril the Carmelite.[1574] -It would not be strange to have in the course of a century or two -more than one writer from England named Gilbert. But it also at that -time would not be strange to have the same man write on medicine and -theology, and such a man is just the one who might be expected to fill -both the posts of chancellor at Montpellier and cardinal at the papal -court. We shall see that Peter of Spain wrote on logic as well as -medicine and became pope. But to note one or two other treatises that -have been ascribed to Gilbert of England. An _Antidotarium_ which is -ascribed to him in a thirteenth century manuscript[1575] is perhaps -a portion of the _Compendium_, but the commentary of Gilbert on the -_Verses of Giles concerning Urines_ was an independent and well-known -work.[1576] - -[Sidenote: The _Compendium medicinae_.] - -Gilbert’s chief work, and the one which we shall discuss, is the -_Compendium medicinae_,[1577] a medical compilation in seven books. Its -quotations from the _Surgery_ (_Chirurgia_) of Roger of Parma inclined -Dr. Handerson to date it about 1240 and not before 1230.[1578] It -seems to have set the style for such works as the _Lilium medicinae_ -of Bernard Gordon and the _Rosa medicinae_ of John of Gaddesden.[1579] -The first book deals with fevers, the second begins with the hair, -the third treats of diseases of the eyes, the fourth of ills of the -neck and throat, the fifth discusses the appetite, the sixth the -liver, and the seventh the private parts. The seven books of Gordon’s -_Lilium_ cover the same ground respectively, except that Gordon omits -the surgical passages which Gilbert incorporated in his work.[1580] E. -Littré in the _Histoire Littéraire_ has described Gilbert’s work as -“abounding in superstitious or ridiculous or childish formulas.” To -these Gilbert often adds such expressions as “This has been proved,” -or copies the accounts in his authorities even to such phrases as “in -our presence.” But we have already seen this to be the practice in the -far-off days of Aëtius of Amida. Gilbert also often calls this or that -assertion false, but here again the scepticism probably does not always -originate with him. His work is of course professedly a compilation. -Gilbert nevertheless seems at times to speak from his own experience -and medical practice. - -[Sidenote: General character of his medicine.] - -If one were to attempt a brief general characterization of Gilbert’s -medicine, it would be that he combines Aristotelian principles and -reasoning, and the hypothesis of four elements and four qualities, -with a practical regimen of bathing, diet, bleeding, plasters, rubbing -with ointments, and the like--which is perhaps largely Salernitan. -His procedure is vitiated by a large residuum from early magic as -well as by incorrect scientific hypotheses handed down from the Greek -philosophers. His pharmacy, however, makes more use of herbs than of -gems or of parts of animals. But his recipes are legion and many of -them include an absurdly large number of ingredients. He also discusses -the signs of diseases, their course and character, and the processes of -the human body. - -[Sidenote: An estimate of it by a modern physician.] - -Since I wrote the preceding paragraph, a rather detailed presentation -of the contents of Gilbert’s _Compendium_ has fortunately been -published in English from the pen of one better fitted than I to -judge its medical defects and merits. Dr. Handerson’s eminently sane -conclusions may be briefly indicated by two quotations. “It is not -difficult, of course, to select from the Compendium a charm or two, -a few impossible etymologies and a few silly statements, to display -these with a witty emphasis and to draw therefrom the easy conclusion -that the book is a mass of crass superstition and absurd nonsense. -This, however, is not criticism. It is mere caricature.”[1581] “The -book is, undoubtedly, the work of a famous and strictly orthodox -physician, possessed of exceptional education in the science of his -day, a man of wide reading, broadened by extensive travel and endowed -by the knowledge acquired by a long experience, honest, truthful, and -simple minded, yet not uncritical in regard to novelties, firm in his -own opinions but not arrogant, sympathetic, possessed of a high sense -of professional honor, a firm believer in authority and therefore -credulous, superstitious after the manner of his age, yet harboring, -too, a germ of ... healthy scepticism.”[1582] - -[Sidenote: Picturesque compounds.] - -Some of Gilbert’s over-elaborate compounds possess picturesque names -as well, for instance, the potion of St. Paul and the ladder of -Hermes.[1583] The latter was composed at Heliopolis on the altar of -the sun and written not in letters but figures. It consists of sixty -different simples and is called a ladder because the amount of these -simples used in the compound is increased step by step. First one takes -one ounce each of four simples, then two ounces each of four more, and -so on for four species at a time, until the quantity of fifteen ounces -is reached and the list of sixty simples is exhausted. This compound is -asserted to be beneficial for rather more than fifteen ailments.[1584] -Gilbert employs various Salernitan pills and they usually contain from -ten to twenty ingredients each. - -[Sidenote: _Empirica_ and an old-wife’s remedy.] - -When other remedies fail Gilbert has recourse, like Marcellus, to -_empirica_. One by which many “under our charge” (_in manu nostra_) -who were thought sterile have borne children is as follows.[1585] In -the vigil of St. John the Baptist[1586] dig certain herbs by the roots -from the earth before the third hour, repeating the Lord’s Prayer -thrice and not speaking to anyone going or returning. In silence, too, -extract the juice from the herbs and write on a piece of parchment -these words, “The Lord said, ‘Increase’ x Uthiboth x ‘and multiply’ -x thabechay x ‘and fill the earth’ x amath x.” If the man wears this -writing about his neck, a boy will be born; if the woman wears it, a -girl. Other _empirica_ employ suffumigations with a tooth of a dead -man and an herb that has grown through a hole in a stone. In another -passage to aid child-bearing Gilbert recommends the water in which a -murderer has washed his hands.[1587] He repeats the good old remedies -for gout of binding frogs’ legs or asses’ hoofs or tortoises’ feet -upon the patient’s extremities, right on right and left on left, but -cites therefor the mysterious authority “Torror,” while “Funeius” is -his source for the use of the magnet in the same way. Gilbert states, -however, that he has little inclination towards these things, but that -it is just as well not to omit what the ancients have said.[1588] -In another passage he tells that a certain old woman has freed many -persons from jaundice with the cooked juice of the plantagenet.[1589] - -[Sidenote: Use of red for small-pox: occult virtue.] - -Gilbert is credited with being the first to mention the employment of -red colors in the treatment of small-pox.[1590] It is interesting to -note that the passage in which he does this has to do also with the -practices of old-wives and with the conception of occult virtue. He -writes, “Old women of the countryside give burnt purple in drink, for -it has the occult nature of curing _variolae_. The same is true of dyed -cloths.”[1591] Here again therefore we seem to have a real discovery -developed from or concealed beneath a bit of experimental magic. John -of Gaddesden is said to have used scarlet cloths to cure a son of -Edward I of small-pox. - -[Sidenote: Magical treatment of epilepsy.] - -The following very magical procedure is used for epilepsy and is called -_expertissimum_.[1592] At the first access of the disease, when the -patient falls to the ground, all his clothes except his shirt should be -removed and placed at his feet. The nails of all his fingers and toes -should next be clipped and wrapped in a cloth. A long white thorn is -then to be split and the patient dragged feet first through the cleft -as far as his middle. The thorn should then be cut into small bits and -placed with the nail parings. Next the patient’s hair should be cut -in three places. These clippings of hair and the knife used in the -operation are then to be added to the other paraphernalia wrapped in -the cloth, and the whole is to be buried underground, and the following -words uttered. In the patient’s right ear, “Christ conquers”; in his -left ear, “Christ reigns”; and to his face, “Christ commands.” Others -perform the ceremony differently, cutting the patient’s shoe latchet -into four pieces and burying them in the form of a cross at his head, -feet, and either hand with some of his nails and hair. And the names of -the three kings--that is, the Magi who came to adore Christ--should be -worn about his neck. - -[Sidenote: Poisons and snake oil.] - -Gilbert’s account of poisons repeats such usual statements as that the -saliva of a fasting man is poison for snakes,[1593] that the viper -deposits its venom on a stone by the shore when entering the water to -have commerce with the fish, and that there was a girl fed on poison -who caused the deaths of kings who loved her and whose saliva killed -animals who approached her.[1594] Gilbert cites for the last “Ruffus,” -however, and not the _Secret of Secrets_. A medicinal unguent is made -by cutting off the heads and tails of snakes, as in Galen’s directions -for preparing theriac, and distilling an oil from them.[1595] - -[Sidenote: Eye cures.] - -Parts of animals are much employed in corrosives for eye complaints. -Green lizards, all gall, but especially that of birds of prey, _omne -stercus_ but human especially, all salts but especially nitrates, the -inner skin of a hen’s liver, the blood of a black fly, and many other -similar substances are recommended.[1596] For spots in the eyes Gilbert -suggests administering whole in drink the little worms with many feet -which are found between the bark and trunk of trees. “But they should -be taken with the Lord’s Prayer.”[1597] - -[Sidenote: Influence of the stars.] - -Occasionally a passage evinces Gilbert’s belief in the influence of the -stars. He speaks of the participation of the heavens in the process -of human generation[1598] and of the influence of the various planets -on the formation of the embryo in the womb.[1599] In arguing that a -poisonous compound multiplies its potency through the union of the -species composing it, and that it “has a stronger action than if it -were simple”[1600]--a passage in which there is a close approach to -our conception of chemical change--Gilbert adduces the influence of -the heavens as a factor in increasing the strength of the compound. He -holds that the celestial bodies resemble terrestrial mineral substances -in not feeling pain, but that unlike them they are sentient, sensible, -and unchangeable. They are bodies, but uncorruptible.[1601] Arnald -of Villanova[1602] at the end of the century cites Gilbert’s warning -in his first book on fevers against bleeding the patient during dog -days or the Egyptian days or when the moon is in conjunction with -a malevolent planet. Gilbert adds that the wise doctor will always -observe the moon. - -[Sidenote: The soul, number, and geometry; physiognomy.] - -In the midst of his discussion of dropsy Gilbert digresses to treat -of the soul, “because ignorance gives birth to shame and stupidity -to poverty.” Some traces of numerical and geometrical mysticism are -seen in his discussion.[1603] He represents Pythagoras as saying that -the soul is number moving itself, and that of its four properties or -functions intellect is like the number one because it comprehends -simple matters and so is compared to a point. Reason is like two or -a line since it comprehends form as it exists in bodies. Opinion is -like four or a surface because it comprehends form as form. Science is -like eight or a cube because it comprehends form _ut est in subiecto_. -Gilbert further explains that the three souls assigned to man by -Aristotle are really the triple power of one soul.[1604] He compares -the vegetative soul to a triangle, the sensible soul to a square, and -the rational soul to a circle. Gilbert regards the disagreement between -Aristotle and Plato concerning the movement of the soul as verbal -rather than real. “Aristotle discusses matters truly, essentially, and -philosophically; Plato, figuratively, casually, and mathematically.” -Gilbert occasionally embodies the dicta of the physiognomists in his -_Compendium_, for instance: “He whose eyes are large and tremulous is -lazy and a braggart and fond of women”; and “He who has large ears is -stolid and long lived.”[1605] - -[Sidenote: Astrological medicine in William of England’s _De urina non -visa_.] - -Because perhaps of Gilbert’s commentary upon the verses of Giles -concerning urines, a Master G. of England who is the author of “a -book in which he tells how to know the character of the urine without -inspecting it and many other things by means of astrology,” in a Vienna -manuscript is called in the catalogue Gilbertus instead of Guilelmus -Anglicus.[1606] As many other manuscripts[1607] of the treatise show, -the work is really the _Of Urine Unseen_ written in 1219 by William -of England, a citizen of Marseilles, by profession a medical man, by -merit of science an astronomer, as he himself states. Indeed, there -are extant other astronomical works by him, one of which is dated -1231.[1608] The object of the brief treatise is how to tell the nature -of the patient’s disease and the outcome of it from the stars and signs -of the zodiac without inspection of the patient’s urine. The nine -chapters deal with (1) “the quadruple way of astrological speculation,” -that is, nativities, revolutions, interrogations, and elections; (2) -“the comprehension of the effects of superior bodies” on the human body -for each sign of the zodiac and the use of astrology in medicine; (3) -the division of the human body among the planets and their natures and -properties with the diseases appropriate to them; (4) the houses of -the planets; (5) the distribution of the parts of the body among the -planets and signs with an accompanying chart of eighty-four squares -arranged in seven columns and twelve rows; (6) how to arrive at a -judgment in any particular case by finding the ruling planet;[1609] (7) -“of the place of the liver and its significator and the virtues of the -same”; (8) of the color and substance of the urine; (9) of the outcome -of the sickness and its end. William mentions in closing a case where -he correctly predicted that the patient would die in exactly two months -and eight days. - -[Sidenote: Other works by William of England or by other Williams.] - -We have already alluded elsewhere[1610] to “the very great secret -of Catenus, king of the Persians, concerning the virtue of the -eagle” which William of England is credited with having translated -from the Arabic. And we have suggested that a William of Aragon who -commented upon the _Centiloquium_ ascribed to Ptolemy and wrote a -treatise on the interpretation of dreams might possibly have been -the same man.[1611] We also hear of a “William, master of medicine, -of Provençal nationality,” who translated from Greek into Latin the -life of the philosopher Secundus, which work he brought with him from -Constantinople. Afterwards, we are told, this William became a monk -of St. Denis and finally the abbot of that monastery. Secundus is -described as a philosopher who observed the rule of silence and led -the life of a Pythagorean, and who was associated with the emperor -Hadrian.[1612] He appears to have broken his silence enough to give -forth _Sententiae_ which were treasured up by that emperor.[1613] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1567] HL, XXI, 541. - -[1568] On the life of Gilbert, besides the articles in DNB and HL 21 -(1847), 393-403, see J. F. Payne, _British Medical Journal_ (Nov. 12, -1904), 1282, and H. E. Handerson, _Gilbertus Anglicus_, 1918 (published -posthumously for private distribution by the Cleveland Medical Library -Association, Cleveland, Ohio), 18-24. - -[1569] Haeser, _Lehrbuch d. Gesch. d. Medicin_, I, 711. - -[1570] DNB, article on Gilbert. - -[1571] BN 7056, fols. 93r-95r, “Experimenta magistri Gilberti -Cancellarii Montepessulani”; many of them open, “Gilbert said”; they -have been published with a discussion of their authorship by P. -Pansier, in _Janus_, (1903). - -[1572] Escorial P-II-5. 14th century, fols. 69v-74, Incipiunt -experimenta Cancellarii et Cardinalis. - -[1573] Trinity 1120 III, 15th century, fols. 19-21. - -[1574] Gonville and Caius 388, 14-15th century, fol. 103, “Gilbertus -Anglicus super oraculum Cyrilli Carmelitae. Frater Gilbertus anglicus, -magnus ille theologus....” - -[1575] Gonville and Caius 379, 13th century, fols. 134-41r, headed in -an old hand, “Inc. Antitodus Gileberti ... / ... Expl. Antidotarium -Guilberti.” - -[1576] Many copies of it are listed in the 15th century catalogue of -MSS of St. Augustine’s Abbey at Canterbury. An extant 13th century MS -at Cambridge is St. John’s 99, fols. 11-22v, “Versus Egidi de urinis -cum commento gilberti.” - -[1577] The following citations will be to the edition of Lyons, 1510. - -[1578] Handerson (1918), pp. 22-24. - -[1579] For a treatment of him in English see H. P. Cholmeley, _John -of Gaddesden and the Rosa Medicinae_, Oxford, 1912. The _Rosa_ was -printed at Pavia, 1492 (the John Crerar Library, Chicago, has a copy -of this edition), and again in 1516 and 1595. Gordon’s _Lilium_ was -printed at Venice in 1496 (also in the John Crerar Library); it had -previously been translated into French and Spanish. See HL. 25, 329ff. -for Gordon’s life and other writings. - -[1580] “Gordon’s work does not contain a single chapter on surgery -proper,” Handerson (1918), 77. - -[1581] Handerson (1918), p. 75. - -[1582] _Ibid._, 76. - -[1583] _Compendium medicinae_, fols. 119v. and 357r. - -[1584] Possibly there is some connection between the 15 steps of this -ladder of Hermes and the 15 fixed stars of first magnitude and the -treatise ascribed to Enoch or Hermes on 15 stars, 15 herbs, and 15 -stones. - -[1585] fol. 287r. - -[1586] Or Midsummer eve. - -[1587] fol. 307r. “Lotio manuum alicuius interfectoris detur.” - -[1588] fol. 327r. “Quamvis ego declino ad has res parum, tamen est -bonum scribere in libro nostro ut non remaneat tractatus sine eis qui -(?) dixerunt antiqui.” - -[1589] fol. 260v. - -[1590] Handerson (1918), 52. - -[1591] fol. 348. “Vetule provinciales dant purpuram combustam in potu, -habet enim occultam naturam curandi variolas. Similiter pannus tinctus -de grano.” - -[1592] fol. IIIv. - -[1593] fol. 349r. - -[1594] fol. 348v. - -[1595] fol. 120v. - -[1596] fol. 134. - -[1597] fol. 136r. - -[1598] fol. 284v. - -[1599] fol. 305v. - -[1600] fol. 350v. - -[1601] fol. 304r. - -[1602] _Regule Generales Curationis Morborum_, Doctrina IV. “Item ille -Gilbertus anglicus in prima parte sui libri in cura ethice.” That is, -in that portion of the first book of the _Compendium_ devoted to the -fever called “ethica.” This passage in Gilbert is also referred to by -Handerson (1918), 29. - -[1603] fol. 243r. - -[1604] fol. 244r. - -[1605] From Handerson (1918), 34-36 where further illustrations are -given. - -[1606] Vienna 5207, 1342 A. D., fols. 208-10, “Incipit liber magistri -G(ilberti) Anglici in quo docet cognoscere disposicionem urine non vise -et multa alia secundum astrologiam.” - -[1607] Some MSS are: Cotton Appendix VI, fols. 2-5; Sloane 3281, -13th-14th century, fols. 76v-79; Harleian 2269, a paper folio, fol. -88; Ashmole, 345, 14th century, fols. 70-74; Ashmole 393, 15th century -(?), fols. 56-57v, “Explicit liber Anglici nationis quondam civis -Marsiliensis de urina non visa editus 1219”; Canon. Misc. 46, 15th -century, fols. 61-67; CU Trinity 1406, 15th century, fols. 173-6; -BN 7298, 14th century #17; BN 7328, 7413, 7416, 7440; CLM 267, 14th -century, fols. 46-8; CLM 588, 14th century, fols. 93-6; Berlin 963, -14-15th century, fols. 74-6; Vienna 5311, 14-15th century, fols. 42-52; -Amplon. Folio 37, fols. 49-51, de urina non visa, followed at fol. 52 -by “de pactis secundum astrologiam,” which would seem to be another -treatise; Amplon. Quarto 196, 361, and 391; Amplon. Quarto 345, 14th -century, fols. 53-4 astrologia de iudiciis medicine, is probably the -_De urina non visa_; but Amplon. Quarto 357, 13-14th century, fols. -1-21, astrologia, seems rather long for it. - -I have read the treatise in Cotton Appendix VI, Canon. Misc. 46, and -Ashmole 345. It opens, “Ne ignorancie vel pocius invidie redarguar, mi -Germane, qui quandoque apud Masciliam aliquando mecum studuisti ...” -but the wording of this opening sentence varies a little in different -MSS. - -Duhem, III (1915), 287-91, suggests that “mi Germane” may refer to -Gilbert of England who would thus be William’s brother or cousin. - -[1608] They will be found listed with references to MSS and such -portions as have been printed in Duhem, III (1915), pp. 287-91. - -[1609] “de inventione iudicis cui nomen almutaz.” - -[1610] See above, p. 93. - -[1611] See above, p. 301. I realize that William would have to be -indeed a cosmopolitan to come from both England and Aragon as well as -being a citizen of Marseilles; but copyists may have confused Aragon -and Anglicus, although it does not seem very likely. - -[1612] CUL 186, 13-14th century, fols. 66-67, “Incipit vita Secundi -philosophi de Greco in Latinum translata a Magistro Willelmo medico -natione Provinciali. Hanc secum de Constantinopoli detulit; post factus -monachus in cenobio Sancti Dionisii; ac postremo perficitur Abbas -eiusdem loci.” Opens, “(S)ecundus fuit philosophus: hic philosophatus -est omni tempore silentium conservans, et Pitagoricam ducens vitam.” -Ends, “precepit eius libro sacre bibliothece inseri et intitulari.” - -CUL 1391, 14th century, fol. 214v, “De Secundo philosofo,” has the same -Incipit. - -Other MSS are CLM 9528, 13th century, fol. 33-, “Erat quidam -philosophus Secundus dictus”; and CLM 18757, 15th century, fol. 22-25. - -There are doubtless many more MSS. Manitius (1911), p. 285, states that -“Der lateinische Secundus findet sich übrigens in alten Katalogen von -s. XIII an nicht selten, ... nämlich in Canterbury (Christ-Church und -St. Augustin), Dover, Peterborough, Prüfening, Durham, bei Benedikt -XIII, Amplonius von Ratinck, Borso d’Este und in Leicester.” - -[1613] The _Dicta_ or _Sententiae_ of Secundus were printed with -the _Altercatio Hadriani Aug. et Epicteti philosophi_, in 1628; see -Manitius (1911), pp. 268 and 284. - - - - -CHAPTER LVIII - -PETRUS HISPANUS - - - Nationality: at Paris--Medical works and later - life--Death and character--The _Thesaurus pauperum_--Is - it interpolated?--Its essential character is fairly - represented even by the printed version--Devout tone - of its preface--Arrangement of the text--Emphasis on - occult virtue--Authority and experiment--Some of Peter’s - authorities--Parts of animals; suspensions--Remedies - for toothache--Prescriptions for epilepsy--Against - sorcerers and demons--_De morbis oculorum_--_Summa - de conservanda sanitate_--A marvelous treatise on - waters--Other works ascribed to him--_Commentaries - on Isaac’s Diets_; their scholastic method--Their - questions concerning nature--Absence of astrology and - occult virtue--Incorrect ideas about nature--Reason and - experience--_Via experimenti_--Question of Peter’s relation - to Roger Bacon and Galen--John of St. Amand on medical - experimentation--Natural and occult science in John of - St. Amand--Appendix I. Some Manuscripts of the _Thesaurus - pauperum_. - - -[Sidenote: Nationality: at Paris.] - -Petrus Hispanus, or Peter of Spain, who finally became Pope John XXI, -is said by Ptolemy of Lucca, who died fifty years after him in 1327, -to have been of Portuguese nationality.[1614] His birth is placed at -Lisbon between 1210 and 1220, and he is said to have been the son of -a physician named Julian.[1615] However, in the preface to his _De -conservanda sanitate_, as preserved in a fifteenth century manuscript, -Peter speaks of himself as from Compostella and as familiar with -all Italy, Burgundy, Gascony, and parts of Spain.[1616] In other -manuscripts he calls himself Petrus Hispanus. He came to the University -of Paris at an early age, as he himself testified when pope in a letter -to the bishop of Paris.[1617] In the same epistle he refers to the many -years he spent at Paris occupied with varied studies. His text-book in -logic was universally adopted and often commented upon, and has now -been shown to be, not, as Prantl held in his _History of Logic_,[1618] -a copy of the work of Psellus, but an independent product of the -Parisian school. It was printed from forty to fifty times between 1477 -and 1519.[1619] - -[Sidenote: Medical works and later life.] - -From 1246 to 1250 Peter was at Siena in the faculty of arts. Perhaps -he then wrote the letter to the emperor, Frederick II, _On the Rule -of Health_, if it be a genuine work, which precedes his _Thesaurus -pauperum_ in at least one manuscript.[1620] Ptolemy of Lucca calls -Peter “an all-round scholar and specialist in medicine,”[1621] and -mentions particularly among his medical works the famous _Thesaurus -pauperum_, which we shall presently consider as a very influential -and representative handbook of medieval medicine. In all seventeen -medical works are attributed to Peter, of which only three have been -printed.[1622] At the beginning of his treatise on eye diseases -Peter speaks of himself as a professor of the art of medicine and an -investigator of the truth.[1623] In the _Thesaurus pauperum_ he cites -Albertus Magnus as well as Gilbertus Anglicus, but he probably did -not write it very late in life. Pope Gregory X made Peter a cardinal -in 1273,[1624] he was also an archbishop, and in 1276 the career of -the celebrated scholar culminated in his election to the papal see -following Gregory’s death. - -[Sidenote: Death and character.] - -The next year Peter met an untimely death from the fall of a ceiling, -a catastrophe which according to the gossip of Ptolemy of Lucca -occurred while he was engaged in a fit of complacent and self-admiring -laughter and shortly after he had issued some fulminations against the -monks, for whom he had little love. Ptolemy criticizes the pope as not -dignified enough in speech and manner for his office, but concedes -that he was easily approached and very kindly to all scholars and -men of letters. Millot-Carpentier regarded him as “assuredly one of -the most illustrious personages of the thirteenth century both as a -philosopher and as a dialectician,” and as “a true scholar and worthy -representative of the University of Paris, ... having all the faults of -his time but endowed with a liberal spirit.”[1625] Millot-Carpentier -also gives a list of ecclesiastical offices, honors, and dignities held -by other physicians of the period in addition to the supreme honor of a -papal election which Peter attained. - -[Sidenote: The _Thesaurus pauperum_.] - -Peter’s book, the _Thesaurus pauperum_, became perhaps the leading -brief medical manual during the remainder of the middle ages, as -the numerous extant manuscripts and many printed editions bear -witness.[1626] It was translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, -and English. The work was intended to be a condensed compilation and -its title, “The Treasure of the Poor,” indicates that it was written -especially for the benefit of poor students and medical practitioners, -who could not afford many books. It thus continues the type of -book represented by Galen’s _Euporista_ and by the compendiums of -post-classical medicine, and is to be regarded, like Bartholomew of -England’s “On the Properties of Things,” as an example of a medieval -text-book and not as a specialized work. - -[Sidenote: Is it interpolated?] - -Stapper states in his Life of Pope John XXI[1627] that the text of the -_Thesaurus pauperum_ has suffered greatly from later interpolations, -that every successive transcriber of the manuscript felt at liberty -to add any further recipes of past authors that hit his fancy, and -that thereby a great deal of superstitious nonsense for which the -pope should not be held accountable was added to the original work. -But on what authority or from what personal inspection of manuscripts -Stapper makes this assertion is not clear. He lists, it is true, a -number of manuscripts in continental libraries and a few at Oxford, -but his citations of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ are all from the Lyons -edition of 1525. It is also true that he affirms that he has searched -the manuscripts in vain for the sentence in the preface of the printed -text in which it is stated that ligatures are not superstitious. But I -have found the passage without much search in three manuscripts of one -library.[1628] Possibly one reason why Stapper failed to find it is -that the opening word of the sentence is not _Litteras_, which he gives -presumably from the 1525 edition, and which would mean “characters” if -it could mean anything in the context in question, but _Ligaturas_, as -the 1497 edition correctly has it.[1629] - -[Sidenote: Essential character of the work fairly represented even by -the printed version.] - -My own feeling is rather that the book, even in the printed editions -of 1497 and 1578 which I had access to, is not more superstitious -than one would expect a compilation of ancient, Arabic, and medieval -medicine to be. The 1497 edition, it is true, confesses to a number of -additions from a Peter of Tuscany (? _de tusciano_) and from Bernard -Gordon; but it gives these additions separately at the close of various -chapters. I have also inspected a number of manuscripts of the work at -the British Museum, none of which Stapper mentions in his list, and -which date from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is not easy -to compare these different copies or versions, since they vary greatly -in headings and arrangement, so that the same statement may be found -in different places in them. But there seem to be passages in the 1497 -edition which are not in the manuscripts, and these in turn, as is -usually the case, are not all alike in contents.[1630] But while there -may be considerable interpolation, it does not seem to have essentially -altered the original character of the book. The superstitious nonsense -may have increased in amount but scarcely in degree. Much the same -sort of remedies may be found in the earliest manuscript and latest -printed text. To be on the safe side, however, in the ensuing account -of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ I shall follow the manuscripts rather than -the printed text. I shall then add some account of other treatises -which I have found ascribed to Peter in the manuscripts and of his -printed Commentaries on Isaac’s _Diets_. - -[Sidenote: Devout tone of its preface.] - -The brief preface, which appears in most of the manuscripts that I -have seen as well as in the printed editions, gives a good idea of -the nature of the work. Its opening sentence reflects the religious -spirit of the age and status of the author. “In the name of the holy -and indissoluble Trinity, who created all things which are not God and -who endowed individual objects with their particular virtues, from -whom all wisdom is given to the wise and science to scientists, I -approach a task beyond my powers trusting in the aid of the same, who -works through us as instruments all good works.” In a second sentence, -given differently in the manuscripts and printed texts, the author -states the title of his work, _Thesaurus pauperum_. Later he adds that -the attentive reader will find here easy and efficacious medicines -for almost all infirmities, provided he has Him as helper who created -medicine from earth. He also warns the physician, lest by his science -he impugn God the giver of science, to take the utmost care not to -reveal to anyone any medicines by which pregnancy may be prevented -or abortions provoked. In most manuscripts that I have examined the -preface presently concludes with the sentence, “Therefore in the name -of Jesus Christ, the supreme physician, who heals at His will all our -infirmities, since He is the head of the faithful, let us begin with -diseases of the head and descend to the feet.” - -[Sidenote: Arrangement of the text.] - -This top to toe order, taking up one ailment after another and listing -remedies in connection with each, was already common[1631] and is -generally followed with some variations in the manuscripts. The 1497 -preface also states that the work is divided into four books, but this -division is neither promised nor performed in most of the manuscripts. -Two seem to go no farther than where the third book ends in the 1497 -edition, and two others give the first few chapters of its fourth book -as a separate treatise on fevers.[1632] Indeed the colophon to the -1497 edition states that Peter’s treatise on fevers has been added to -the _Thesaurus pauperum_. In the 1578 edition instead of four books we -find simply eighty-five headings representing as many diseases. Some -manuscripts also have tables of contents. Royal 12 B III gives but -fifty-two headings, ending with quartan fever, while Additional MS. -32,622 and Harleian MS. 5218 sometimes have more and sometimes fewer -headings than the 1497 text, which has 21, 18, 19, and 20 chapters -respectively in its four books. The other manuscripts which I have seen -have to a considerable extent the same headings, and still more so the -same matter, but the order varies somewhat. - -[Sidenote: Emphasis on occult virtue.] - -Returning to the preface, we may note that the author counsels the -reader not to despise what he reads because it is unfamiliar to him, -and also not to apply the remedies before carefully considering the -nature of the disease and the condition of the patient. “And let him -study diligently to learn the natures and constitutions and substances -of things, and as far as he can the occult virtue of particular -things.”[1633] Otherwise it will be a case of blind leading blind. We -have already seen that in addition to this profession of belief in -occult virtue of particular objects some manuscripts, though hardly the -oldest or most reliable ones, assert further that ligatures are not -superstitious but act directly, especially if a right foot is bound on -the right foot, or a male animal on a man. - -[Sidenote: Authority and experiment.] - -The preface also informs us of the sources whence the work has been -compiled. These are “the books of the ancient philosophers and masters -and of modern experimenters.” The author has tried either to present -their views in their own words, or to express their precise meaning in -other words of easier comprehension, so that if you had their books -at hand you would find nothing other than what he sets down here, and -so that in perusing his book you may seem to read the originals. The -mention of “modern experimenters” is a foretaste of the “experimental” -character of the _Thesaurus pauperum_. In some manuscripts it is -called a _Book of Experiments_ or a _Summa_ of medicinal experiments, -and it is sometimes included in collections of expressly experimental -works. One reason for this is the common medieval use of the word -“experimentum” for almost any medicinal recipe or remedy, but another -reason is that Peter’s remedies are rather empirical in character. -And as early as Galen’s time the Empirics relied partly for their -experiences upon the statements of past authors. Moreover, we meet -throughout the _Thesaurus pauperum_ with assurances that this or that -has been experienced, or that experts or “Experimenter” have said -so, or even that “I have experienced this.”[1634] These uses of the -first person are often probably copied from Peter’s authorities, but -they later came to be regarded as his own experiences, since the 1578 -edition describes the _Thesaurus pauperum_ in the full title as “an -empirical work from all sorts of authors and his own experience.” - -[Sidenote: Some of his authorities.] - -Among his authorities Peter makes much use of recent works and writers, -such as Constantinus Africanus and Platearius and the _Antidotarium_ -of Nicholaus, Walter and Richard and Roger, _Experimentator_ and -_Lapidarius_ and _Liber de natura rerum_, Gilbert of England and -Albertus Magnus. He of course utilizes such Hebrew and Arabic medical -writers as Isaac, Rasis, Haly, and Avicenna. It is worth noting as a -hint of the superstitious character of parts of his work that he cites -the Kiranides a good deal. Galen and “Dyascorides”--often pseudo, -Pliny and Esculapius, are of course not forgotten. - -[Sidenote: Parts of animals: suspensions.] - -Much use is made of parts of animals, and perhaps especially of those -least to be mentioned. Less nauseating examples are, among many similar -parts of animals prescribed for epileptics, the liver of a vulture -drunk with its blood for nine days, or the gall still warm from a dog -who should have been killed the moment the epileptic fell in the fit. -This last is borrowed from Gilbert. Portions of the human body, too, -are employed; for instance, burnt human bones or the tooth of a dead -man. Suspensions from the neck of such objects as the hairs of a dog or -a cabbage root are also in favor.[1635] - -[Sidenote: Remedies for toothache.] - -Selection of a few details from two or three specimen chapters will -further illustrate the nature of the contents. For toothache is -recommended touching the ailing tooth with one from a corpse, holding -in the mouth violets cooked in wine, holding a grain of opium between -the teeth. Other remedies are vinegar in which a root of jusquiam has -been boiled, deer horn burnt until it whitens and dries, and a powder -made from dogs’ teeth. Cavities may be filled with the brain of a -partridge or crow’s dung. The latter “breaks the tooth and removes -pain.” A tooth may be easily extracted by touching it with dog’s milk -or applying a hot root of jusquiam to its roots. But in the latter case -beware not to touch the other teeth or they will fall out too.[1636] -These remedies are, however, mild indeed compared to the treatment -for toothache prescribed by Pliny in two chapters of his _Natural -History_.[1637] Nor do I find in those chapters a passage ascribed to -Pliny in the _Thesaurus pauperum_, in which one is directed to dig a -root without use of iron, touch the ailing tooth with it for three -days, and then replace it where one has dug it, after which “that tooth -will never ache again.” - -[Sidenote: Prescriptions for epilepsy.] - -For epilepsy besides parts of animals and suspensions already -mentioned, “Experimenter says and I have heard from experts that eating -a wolf’s heart cures.”[1638] Or one may try the following experiment: -Take a frog and split him down the back with a knife, and extract his -liver and wrap it up in a cabbage leaf, and reduce it to a powder in -a sealed pot, and give it to the epileptic to drink with the best -wine. “And if one frog does not cure him, give him another, and so on -until he is cured; and don’t doubt concerning the cure, for he will -be cured beyond a doubt.”[1639] From Constantinus and Walter[1640] is -repeated the cure of an epileptic child by bringing him to church on -certain days and having him hear mass and having the priest read over -him the Scripture about this sort of demon not being cast out except -by fasting and prayer. Most of the manuscripts also state that one who -carries with him the names of the three kings who adored Christ will -be free from epilepsy, and some give their names, Jasper, Baltaser, -Melchior.[1641] - -[Sidenote: Against sorcerers and demons.] - -Under the caption of remedies for witchcraft and possession by demons -are found such procedures as smearing the walls of the house with the -blood of a black dog or burying a reed filled with quicksilver under -the threshold. A recipe to rescue a patient from infatuation in love -produced by sorcery is hardly translateable, but affords too good an -example of sympathetic magic or of human psychology to be omitted -entirely. “Si quis ad aliquam vel aliquem nimis amandum maleficiatus -fuerit, tum stercus recens illius quem vel quam diligit ponatur in -ocrea vel in calceo dextro amantis, et calciet se et quamprimum -foetorem sentiat, maleficium solvetur.” It is also stated that wearing -the heart of a vulture makes one popular with all men and very -wealthy, and that by vivisecting the bird hoopoe and eating its still -palpitating heart one may learn the future and all secrets concealed -in men’s minds.[1642] - -[Sidenote: _De morbis oculorum._] - -Very similar to the remedies of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ are those in -Peter’s treatise on diseases of the eyes.[1643] The works are further -alike in being compilations and yet experimental or empirical. Peter -states that he has collected his material on eye diseases from many -books at the urging of a disciple,[1644] and that it is based upon -reason and experience. Of one recipe for removing ingrowing eyebrows -he says, “I have tested this with my own hands”; and he cites as an -experiment of Rasis the trite prescription of using the blood of a -bat to prevent eyebrows or lashes which have been plucked out from -growing again.[1645] Millot-Carpentier[1646] has already given a -number of these eye-cures, bringing out chiefly the great use of parts -of animals, which we have already remarked in the case of Gilbert of -England. We may further note a bit of astrology. Peter first makes the -general assertion that the human body is subject to the planets and -signs,[1647] and later in describing the eye notes that it has seven -tunics or humors covering it like the seven planets. There is also, as -in the _Thesaurus pauperum_, some use of Christian incantations. To -remove a fistula from the eye, besides using the blood from a cock’s -crest and pulverized snakeskin one should bind the leaf of an herb -about the patient’s foot and say, “As Christ descended from heaven into -the Virgin’s womb, so may the fistula descend from the eye to the -foot.”[1648] This is of course also an example of the magic transfer of -disease. - -[Sidenote: _Summa de conservanda sanitate._] - -A third treatise exists under Peter’s name in a British Museum -manuscript and is called a “Summa concerning the preservation of health -and those things which assist and harm it.”[1649] This work opens in a -more self-confident and flamboyant style than the other treatises where -Peter spoke of himself in a self-depreciatory manner. Now after a few -lines of pious introduction we read, “Let the Jews blush, the Saracens -be put to confusion, roving practitioners desist, old enchantresses -be dumb, and empirics and methodics keep silence. Let rational -physicians rejoice and those descendants of the medical art who employ -both reason and experience. I, master Petrus Hispanus, a native of -Compostella, have pursued my education (_expertus ... alumpniam_) in -all Italy, Burgundy, Vienne, Provence, Gascony, and certain parts -of Spain. Certain useful natural phenomena which are not found in -the bosom of the art of medicine I have discovered by labor, vision, -chance, experience, and genius to be both useful against diseases and -the causes of diseases; and I have demonstrated certain instructive -experiments for conserving the safety of the human mechanism, and -I have experienced that all things from the eighth sphere to the -earth’s center are governed by the law of reason (_veridica ratione -habentur_).” At first, however, the treatise consists of general rules -and precepts for guarding one’s health rather than experiments or -recipes. Astrology comes in again in the statement that the motion of -the superior bodies is one of the causes of the shortening of human -life. Presently the author considers different parts of the body in -turn, as the brain, eyes, ears, teeth, lungs, heart, stomach, liver, -spleen, and feet, and lists things which are good and bad for each. -Things which harm the brain,[1650] for example, are quicksilver, the -cerebellum of all animals except the dog and the fox, fetid odors, -gluttony and drunkenness, sleeping immediately after eating--if the -brain is weak, bathing after eating, turbid air, worry over temporal -affairs, eating with bent head, and eating a great deal of fish or -milk, cheese, unripe fruit, and nuts. Among things beneficial for the -eyes frequent washing of the feet is suggested. - -[Sidenote: _A Marvelous Treatise on Waters._] - -_A Marvelous Treatise on Waters which master Petrus Hispanus composed -with natural industry guided by the intellect_ is found in a number -of manuscripts. Sometimes it appears to be the closing part of his -treatise on diseases of the eyes,[1651] and its first item is “a -marvelous water to preserve and clarify the sight.” But it also is -found as a separate treatise, in which directions are given for -distilling various liquids, which in at least one manuscript are -accompanied by two figures of chemical apparatus.[1652] In another -manuscript the word _philosophus_ is substituted for _master Petrus -Hispanus_ in the title given at the beginning of this paragraph, but -the treatise is presumably the same.[1653] In this case, at least, it -seems to include exactly twelve waters[1654] and so to conform to -other medieval books _Of twelve waters_, of which we treat further in -another chapter.[1655] Also its last two “waters” are an elixir of life -and alcohol.[1656] If Peter of Spain came from Compostella, he may have -had something to do with a _Book of Compostella, which treats of many -waters and of many oils and of many salts of great virtue_. However, -Brother Bonaventura, a Franciscan, is said to have composed the book in -the convent of the Brothers of St. Mary in Venice.[1657] - -[Sidenote: Other works ascribed to him.] - -A _Rule of Health_[1658] and a _Rule of Safety through all the -months_,[1659] which are ascribed to Peter in still other manuscripts, -very likely have some connection with the above-mentioned _Summa -de conservanda sanitate_ or with the _Letter to Frederick on the -Rule of Health_ which has also been mentioned earlier in this -chapter. A treatise on anatomy is attributed to Peter in an Italian -manuscript,[1660] and a _Book of Life and Death and of the Causes -of Longevity and Brevity of Life_ is listed as his in an Oxford -manuscript.[1661] Perhaps the shortest work ascribed to him is one -of seven verses on rain.[1662] Commentaries by him on one or more of -the following works are contained in a manuscript at Paris:[1663] -the _Introduction_ of Johannitius (Honein or Hunain ibn Ishak) -to the _Ars parva_ of Galen, the _Prognostics_ of Hippocrates, -Philaretus concerning the pulse, Theophilus on urines, the _Aphorisms_ -of Hippocrates, the _Microtegni_ itself. A _Liber naturalis de -rebus principalibus naturarum_ is ascribed to Peter in a Vienna -manuscript.[1664] - -[Sidenote: Commentaries on Isaac’s _Diets_: their scholastic method.] - -We come finally to Peter’s Commentaries upon the works of Isaac on -_Universal Diets_ and _Particular Diets_.[1665] They are as full as the -_Thesaurus pauperum_ was abbreviated and as scholastic and dialectical -in form as it was empirical. Where Isaac’s text is clear Peter leaves -its meaning to the reader’s industry,[1666] but it suggests to him -over a thousand further questions which he takes up one after the -other, listing authorities _pro_ and _con_ in each case and rebutting -or reconciling them. Here we see the handiwork of the author of the -favorite manual of logic of the later middle ages. The systematic, -but abstract, sophistical, and jejune character of this method may be -sufficiently illustrated by quotation of the closing passage of the -“First Lecture” (_Lectio prima_).[1667] - -“Next we proceed to the fourth point and inquire whether any food can -be found of like nature to our bodies. And it would seem so, since when -foods are called temperate and equal, they are not called equal except -with respect to the body. But certain foods, such as chicken meat and -the like, are called temperate and equal; therefore it is possible to -find food of like nature to our bodies.” - -“Against this three arguments are advanced. The first is that it is -impossible to associate or join two different individuals; therefore a -plant which grows in the earth and an animal cannot be joined and made -one. The second argument is that nothing which is at first contrary -and at last similar is of like nature to our bodies; but such is food, -according to Aristotle, therefore no food is at all like. The third -argument is that nothing far removed from human nature in constitution -and composition and species is in any way like human nature. But all -food is of this sort; therefore no food at all resembles the nature of -our bodies, which we concede.” - -“But it should be said anent these opposing arguments that ‘like’ may -be understood in two senses. Either it means alike in all respects, -and so no food is like. In the second sense, it means that it makes -no manifest impression on the body, and in this sense some foods are -called of like nature, such as chicken.” - -“Next it is asked whether human flesh is nourishing, since nutriment -goes by likeness. And it would seem so, for Isaac says that man is -not nourished by the elements, since he is too far removed from them. -Therefore that flesh which approaches closest to human nature should -be the most nutritious. But this is human flesh; hence human flesh -should be very nutritious. Here is another argument. Nutriment is -from likeness, and from equal nutriment comes a well-balanced state -of health; now the human constitution is especially temperate and -well-balanced; therefore it requires temperate and equal food, and -such, some agree, is human flesh. We, however, call it the worst sort -of nutriment for two reasons: one, its corrruptibility; the other, its -excessive unctuosity. For as the flesh of the body endures by virtue -of the presence of the soul, so after the spirit’s departure the flesh -becomes moist, vile, and fetid; and herein lies the solution of the -difficulty, since if it is temperate, it has this property from the -soul while it exists in the body.” - -As to what the effect would be of eating men alive, Peter does not -state. His argument may have possessed an additional interest for his -own time from the possibility of applying it in theological as well as -medical matters,--for example, the sacrament of the Eucharist. - -[Sidenote: Their questions concerning nature.] - -Many of the questions raised by Peter are concrete enough, however, and -supply, not only some definite information on the history of domestic -science and of the medieval table, but also interesting illustration -of the scope of that medieval curiosity concerning nature to which -we have more than once adverted. Such questions continue the type of -natural science of which the _Problems_ of Aristotle and the _Natural -Questions_ of Adelard of Bath are earlier instances. Those of Peter -are the more impressive in that some of them are far removed from the -subject of diet at all strictly interpreted. The following is a list of -such representative questions picked out here and there throughout the -commentaries on both the works of Isaac on diet. - - Can natural death be retarded? - - Is a well-balanced constitution the best preserved, or is it - easily overcome by the causes of disease? - - Is bad food more injurious than bad air? - - Why do we employ foods hot in the fourth degree and not - those cold in the same degree? - - What should be the diet of those taking mental exercise, - like students? - - Why is man less hairy and of weaker constitution than the - brutes? - - Why does nature sustain a multitude of medicines, but not of - foods? - - Are medicines always contraries? - - How can animals who eat poisons be food for men? - - Why in some foods is the liquid substance of the same nature - as the solid, and in others not? - - If the spleen causes laughter by purifying the blood, why - isn’t love caused by the gall-bladder? - - Why are the droppings of birds of prey white, of others not? - - Does the blood alone nourish us? - - How do sweet things sour on the stomach? - - Should wine be drunk before or after eating, and immediately - following or long afterwards? - - Is water of more aid than wine in the process of - assimilating food? - - Which satiety is sooner removed, that from fats or from - sweets? - - How do salts possess the virtue of laxatives? - - Why are fish not given in acute fevers? - - Why are compound foods more often injurious than compound - medicines? - - Why are some plants cold and wet when young, hot and sharp - when old? - - Is humidity the formal principle of tastes? - - Is fruit wholesome? - - Why do some plants bear fruit twice a year? - - Why does a branch cut from a plant and placed in earth live, - while the severed limb of an animal will not live? - - Why are animals soft in infancy, and fruits hard? - - What part of water is more truly water: top, bottom, or - middle? - - Is cow meat better eating than ox meat? - - Is the flesh of female animals moister? - - Why in hot regions are the brutes large but the men small, - and in cold countries the contrary? - - Is pork better in summer? - - Is meat cooked in a pie good?[1668] - - Why are the ears of all animals save men and apes in - continual motion? - - Why do sparrows cure epilepsy when they are subject to the - disease themselves? - - Why are pigs’ intestines the best of animals that walk and - geese’s intestines of those that fly? - - Why a small hen lays more eggs than a large one? - - Are eggs or meat better for convalescents? - - Why is white of egg used for wounds? - - Is goats’ milk the best? - - Is human milk subtler than asses’ milk? - - Why do these things go together:--having large flanks - and belly, ruminating, lack of teeth in the upper jaw, - coagulation of the milk, having horns? - - Is butter of a hotter nature than oil? - - Why salt water fish do not have salt flesh? - - Why the dolphin and whale have true blood, albeit they are - fish? - - Why there are larger fish in salt water than fresh? - - Are fish fried in meal better than those not? - - Should paralytics eat fried fish? - - Why should one not eat eggs raw like milk? - - Why the flame of fire takes the figure of a pyramid? - - Why are springs hot in winter and cold in summer? - - Should an interval elapse between the courses of a meal? - - Should drink be taken along with one’s food? - - Should the heartier meal be at mid-day or in the evening? - - Why are other animals than man content with one form of food? - - Why does human urine enrich vines? - - Should fruit be plucked ripe or green? - - Are apples good in fevers? - - Why is wine (cider) made from apples? - - Why does melancholy especially excite the appetite? - - Why do the boxwood, white-fir, and laurel trees retain their - foliage a longer time than others? - - Why in the boxwood, laurel, and olive are the leaves - pointed, in the poplar and other trees wide? - - Is it beneficial to strew myrtle leaves in the sick-room? - - Why is oil best at the top, honey at the bottom, wine in the - middle of the cask? - - Are fungi plants or something between earth and plants? - - Why the weasel seeks rue and rubs itself with it when it - intends to fight a snake? - - Why pepper is good for dimmed eyes? - - Why the water in the sea does not grow less? - - Why the horse, mule, and ass neither nourish man nor harm - him, if he eats them?[1669] - - Why castration improves the conduct of beasts, makes men - worse?[1670] - - Is raw cheese better than cooked, and solid cheese or cheese - with holes in it? - - Why are fools so fond of cheese? - - Why have birds but two feet and no teeth? - - Which is more nourishing, the white or the yolk of an egg? - - Why travelers should eschew fish? - - Whether the water that we drink is the element?[1671] - - Which is better, standing or running water? - - Why wine affects the tongue more than the other members? - -[Sidenote: Absence of astrology and occult virtue.] - -Some of the questions which Peter raises one might expect him to -solve by an appeal to occult virtue, sympathy and antipathy existing -between things in nature, or the superior influence of the stars. -This, however, he almost never does; his reasoning is based rather on -the prevalence of the four qualities, hot and cold, dry and moist, in -natural objects. Thus the property of dove’s blood of removing spots -from the eye is attributed to its heat and humidity, not to any occult -power.[1672] And sparrows, although epileptics themselves, are said to -cure epilepsy because they are very hot and dry and consume the humors -or vapors which cause epilepsy, not by antipathy or because like cures -like.[1673] Even less does one note any instances of ligatures and -suspensions, characters and incantations. One or two passages show, -however, that Peter believes in occult virtue and the rule of the -stars. He states that in addition to the four simple elements “there -is another simplicity ... namely, from qualities, and it is not in -the elements but in the celestial bodies.”[1674] And in his prologue -to the _Particular Diets_ he affirms that celestials are the cause of -inferiors and quotes the words addressed by God to the stars in Plato’s -_Timaeus_, “O gods of gods, whose father and creator I am, by your -nature you are dissoluble but by my will indissoluble,” to prove how -much more corruptible inferior bodies are.[1675] - -[Sidenote: Incorrect ideas about Nature.] - -Despite the almost complete absence of superstitious practices and of -astrological and magical doctrine from the _Commentaries on Isaac_ it -is of course true that Peter harbors many incorrect notions such as -that fish lack bones and that hot water freezes harder and quicker -than cold.[1676] This last, however, he supports by the authority -and arguments of Aristotle and Avicenna. Peter also throughout the -work displays faith in the validity of compound medicines, although -he raises the suggestive question, why compound foods are more often -injurious than compound medicines. He also accepts various stories of -animal remedies and sagacity for which he finds support in Aristotle’s -_History of Animals_, such as that the serpent eats fennel to restore -or sharpen its sight,[1677] and that the bone in the heart of the -stag is especially beneficial for heart disease because “the stag is -very ingenious and astute and so eats potent herbs which especially -affect the heart like parsley and origanum,” and from these the bone -forms.[1678] In explaining why deer shed their horns and hide them, -Peter incorrectly makes Aristotle say that they secrete the right horn -with more care, whereas the _History of Animals_ states, “It is said -that no one has ever seen the left horn, for he conceals it as if it -had some medicinal (or, magic) power.”[1679] - -[Sidenote: Reason and experience.] - -Finally, despite the scholastic form of Peter’s Commentary, it contains -a long passage on the importance of experimental method or “the way of -experience” (_via experimenti_),[1680] f which it couples with “the -path of reason” (_via rationis_) as the two methods by which dietary -science may be investigated. First Peter distinguishes between the two, -then shows the necessity of the way of experience, and third that it -can and should be confirmed by reason. Galen says that experience is -weak without reason, and so is reason when not joined to experience. -Some say that reason should precede experience, that first we should -seek rationally, then test by experience. In any case the way of -experience proceeds through effects, the way of reason through causes. -The one method is inductive; the other, syllogistic; the one based -on immediate effects, the other on mediate effects. “Experimental -method pays no attention to causes; rational method considers causes -and principles; experience makes use of the senses; reason, of the -intellect” and arguments. - -[Sidenote: _Via experimenti._] - -After listing various arguments _pro_ and _con_ as to whether the -_via experiment_ “is of art and in art, or precedes art,” Peter gives -his solution to the effect that _experimentum_ is threefold. As a -method of attaining knowledge it antecedes all arts and sciences. As -a method of making known the objects of scientific inquiry, it is a -part of science. As an application of scientific doctrine to practical -life and industry, it follows science. Furthermore, experience “may -proceed regularly through science and doctrine and in this way it -can be rational.” Or it may be irregular and not syllogistic in -method. The experimental discoveries of brutes, as when the serpent -restores its sight with fennel, come to them from nature, but ours are -acquired by art and confirmed by reason, although man too possesses -the experimental instinct. Peter further distinguishes the experiences -of rustics, which are unregulated by reason, from the experiments of -skilled men which are regulated by reason. Moreover, “experiences -are not without their reasons, and idle is the experiment which does -not rest on reason.” Finally, Peter gives six conditions requisite -in medical experimentation which are somewhat similar to the seven -conditions stated by his contemporary, John of St. Amand. First, the -medicine administered should be free from all foreign substance.[1681] -Second, the patient taking it should have the disease for which it is -especially intended. Third, it should be given alone without admixture -of other medicine. Fourth, it should be of the opposite degree to the -disease. Fifth, “we should test it not once only but many times.” -Sixth, “the experiments should be with the proper body, as on the body -of a man and not of an ass.” - -[Sidenote: Question of Peter’s relation to Roger Bacon and Galen.] - -Peter’s discussion of the _via experimenti_ is in several respects -similar to Roger Bacon’s discussion of experimental science, but is -probably quite independent of it. Peter died before Roger in 1277, and -his _Commentary on Isaac_ was probably composed before the works which -Bacon addressed to the pope in and around the year 1267. The influence -of Galen, who had discussed the part played by reason and experience in -his own work on food values, upon Peter is fairly evident. - -[Sidenote: John of St. Amand on medical experimentation.] - -John of St. Amand, to whose similar conditions for medical -experimentation we just alluded, was a canon of Tournai who seems to -have written a little later than Peter, since he describes the death -from vomiting of a bishop of Tournai which took place in 1261.[1682] -It is in his commentary on the _Antidotarium_ of Nicolaus that John -gives his seven conditions for medical experimentation. After having -said that on account of the scarcity and incompleteness of experience, -we should sometimes learn the virtues of simple medicines “through -doctrine,” John for a page or two discusses other matters, but then -reverts to the subject of experimentation. A medicinal simple, he says, -may be known by two methods, “the way of experience and the way of -reason.” “And because the principles of experience are better known to -us than the principles of reason, let us first inquire concerning the -knowledge of medicinal simples by the way of experience.” He goes on to -say that experience is twofold as it is supported or not supported by -reason. If unsupported by reason experience or experiment is timorous -and fallacious. As for experience supported by reason, it should -conform to these seven requirements.[1683] First, “the medicinal simple -which is being tested should be pure and free from every extraneous -quality, lest by such extraneous quality the proper operation of the -medicine be impeded, and in consequence experimental knowledge.”[1684] -Here the use of the adjective, “experimental” is interesting. Second, -the experimentation should be with a simple and not a complicated -disease.[1685] Third, the simple should be tested in two contrary types -of disease, because sometimes a medicine cures one disease by its -“complexion” or elemental properties and another by its occult virtue. -Thus scammony cures both quotidian and tertian fever; the first because -scammony is of a hot nature; but the second by its occult virtue and -not because scammony is of a cold nature, for it is not.[1686] Fourth, -the virtue of the medicine should correspond to the quality of the -patient. Fifth, essence and accident should not be confused; water, -for example, may be heated, but is not of a hot nature.[1687] Sixth, -the experiment should be often repeated. For if a medicine is tested -in the cases of five men and has a heating effect upon them all, still -that is not adequate proof that it will always have a heating effect, -for they may have all been of a cold or temperate constitution, whereas -a man of hot nature would not be heated by the simple in question. -Seventh, the test should be on the human body and in varying states of -health. Trying the medicine upon a lion may not prove anything as to -its effect upon a man.[1688] John seems to have taken his conditions -directly from Galen rather than from Petrus Hispanus, since only three -of them are identical with Peter’s, whereas all but one occur in his -own _Concordances_ from Galen’s works.[1689] John of St. Amand repeats -the experiment with the hazel rod which we have already encountered in -William of Auvergne. According to John the two split halves tend to -reunite because it is natural for them to be together, but he adds that -some old women make use of it with utterance of a useless incantation -as a matrimonial charm, asserting that if the halves unite, the -marriage will be a happy one.[1690] - -[Sidenote: Natural and occult science in John of St. Amand.] - -It was not my intention to speak of John of St. Amand further than -to compare his remarks on experimental method with those of Petrus -Hispanus, but the _Histoire Littéraire_ has already presented some -specimens of his views, which it will be worth repeating to show -that his experimental tendency has the same accompaniment of mingled -credulity and scepticism and of occult science and signs of magic -as we have noted in other cases. Thus he rejects the story that the -beaver castrates itself to escape the pursuit of hunters on the -ground that the animal has not that much sense, but believes that -beavers enslave one another. From the fact that herons are subject -to diarrhoea he argues that men with long necks and legs should not -resort to purgatives, and he states that pearls comfort the heart by -similarity, since they are hard like the heart. He enters into long and -obscure explanations how it is that application of the flesh of a snake -extracts the venom from its bite, and “is not exempt from astrological -ideas.”[1691] But the writings of John of St. Amand have carried us -well along into the second half of the thirteenth century; in the next -chapter we must turn back to a man whose literary activity began in the -Erst half of that century, Albertus Magnus. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1614] _Ptolemaei Lucensis Historia Ecclesiastica. Liber XXIII_, _cap. -xxi_, in Muratori, XI, 1176. For the life of John XXI see also HL -XIX (1838) 322-34; J. T. Koehler, _Vollständige Nachricht von Pabst -Johann XXI_, Göttingen, 1760; L. Zdekauer, in _Bullettino Senese di -Storia Patria_, VI (1898-1899); Richard Stapper, _Papst Johannes XXI_, -Münster, 1898, in _Kirchengesch. Studien herausg. v. Dr. Knöpfler, Band -IV, Heft iv_. - -[1615] Millot-Carpentier (1901). G. Porro, in his catalogue of -Trivulzian MSS at Milan, Turin, 1884, calls Peter “Petrus Julianus -Ulissiponensis.” - -[1616] Royal 13-A-VII, 15th century, fol. 149r. - -[1617] Stapper (1898), p. 4, “In illis namque laribus ab annis teneris -diutius observati variis scientiis inibi studiose vacavimus et per -annos plurimos....” - -[1618] See too, C. von Prantl, _Michael Psellus und Petrus Hispanus_, -1867. - -[1619] HL XIX, 330. - -[1620] Harleian 5218, fols. 1r-3r, _Epistola Magistri Petri Hyspani -missa ad Imperatorem Fridericum super regimen sanitatis_. It seems -strange, however, that Peter should call himself, as he does in this -work, “senex artis medicinae professor,” before 1250, when he would -have been rather less than forty years of age. Other MSS. are: CLM 615, -13-14th century, fols. 41-68; BN 7446, 15th century. - -[1621] “Hic generalis clericus fuit et praecipue in medicinis.” - -[1622] HL XIX, 327-8; namely, the _Thesaurus pauperum_, and the -commentaries on Isaac on _Diets_ and _Urines_. - -[1623] Sloane 1214, 15th century, fols. 38r-46, _De morbis oculorum_. -Other MSS of his work or works on eye diseases are: Sloane 2268, -14th century, fols. 52-59; CLM 161, 13th century, fols. 55v-57, -_de aegritudinibus oculorum_; CLM 40, 14th century, fols. 112-15, -_Breviarium de aegritudinibus oculorum_; CLM 381, 14th century, fol. -78-, _Curae ... de passionibus oculorum, vel Secretum pro amico ad -oculos_; CLM 438, 14th century, fol. 108, _de passionibus oculorum_; -Wolfenbüttel, 2794, 15th century, fols. 183-8, _Petri Hispani liber -oculorum_, fol. 188v, _Secretum magistri Petri Hispani_; BN 6957, 15th -century, #1, _Secretum de oculis_. - -[1624] Cholmeley, _John of Gaddesden_, 1912, p. 183, says that Peter -had been Gregory’s physician. - -[1625] Millot-Carpentier (1900), p. 180. - -[1626] Printed at Antwerp in 1476 and 1497, at Lyons in 1525, at -Frankfurt perhaps in 1567, 1575, 1576, and certainly in 1578, at Paris -in 1577. I have used the 1497 edition,--_Summa Experimentorum sive -thesaurus pauperum magistri Petri yspani, Antwerpiae, Theodoricus -Martini, 1497 (die 22 Mai)_. A letter lying loose in the copy (numbered -IB. 50018) which I read at the British Museum, stated that the copy -at Liège is (was) the same. I also consulted the edition printed at -Frankfurt in 1578 but it seemed faulty compared with the 1497 edition. -For a list of MSS see Appendix I at the close of this chapter. - -[1627] Stapper (1898), p. 23. - -[1628] Sloane 284, Harleian 5218, Additional 25,000 contain the -sentence; Sloane 521 and 2479, and Royal 12 B III do not have it. The -entire preface is missing in Addit. 22,636 and in the early MS, Sloane -477, but it also has no _Incipit_ and a first sheet may well be missing -which contained the preface. - -[1629] The sentence as Stapper gives it (p. 24), reads: “_Litteras -autem quas aliquando ponunt physici superstitiose positas nemo credat, -sed quia immediatius operantur vel magis assidue, sicut dextrum -dextro vel sinistrum sinistro membro et masculo apponitur._” In -the 1497 edition and Sloane 284 the sentence reads more correctly: -“_Ligaturas autem quas aliquando posuerunt philosophi nemo credat -superstitiose positas, sed immo quod (ideo quia) immediatius operantur -vel magis assidue si (vel aliter) numquam deponuntur vel a simili -sicut si ad (aliud) dextrum dextro membro vel sinistrum sinistro vel -masculinum masculino apponatur._” In the 1578 edition the sentence has -been completely changed and begins: “_Characteres vero et de collo -suspendenda quorum interdum a Philosophis sit mentio nemo arbitretur -superstitiose tradita esse sed ideo quia immediate operantur vel magis -per_ ἀντιπάθειαν...” etc. - -[1630] For instance, among remedies for sore throat an herb “divinely -revealed to good bishop Boniface” and “a good prayer” were detailed in -the 1497 edition, but I failed to find them in Sloane 477, Sloane 2479, -Additional 32,622, or Royal 12-B-III. The next remedy after the good -prayer was given in Sloane 477 only in the margin, but in Additional -32,622 appeared in the body of the text. In the chapter on toothache, -too, a remedy written in the margin in a different ink from the text of -Sloane 477 is embodied in the text of Sloane 521 and 2479 as well as in -the 1497 edition. - -[1631] Gilbert of England’s _Compendium_ adopted essentially that order. - -[1632] See also CLM 457, 15th century, fol. 112-, De febribus. Sunt -aliqua capitula ex thesauro pauperum Hispani Petri. - -[1633] Sloane 521 and Addit. 32,622 omit “occult.” - -[1634] Even in an early MS like Sloane 477 we find the first person -used a great deal and experience or “experiments” often mentioned. - -[1635] Sloane 2479, fol. 37v, fol. 14r, fol. 13v; and in other MSS. - -[1636] These remedies for toothache will all be found in Sloane 477 and -2479, Addit. 32,622, and Royal 12-B-III, as well as in the 1497 edition. - -[1637] 28, 49 and 30, 8. - -[1638] Sloane 477, fol. 9r. - -[1639] Sloane 2479, fol. 14v; Addit. 25,000, fol. 79v; Addit. 32,622, -under the heading “_De spasmo_.” - -[1640] Sloane 477, fol. 10r does not cite Constantine and Walter, but -other MSS do. - -[1641] Sloane 2479, fol. 14v; Royal 12-B-III, fol. 19v; Addit. 25,000, -fol. 79v; Harleian 5218. - -[1642] All the items mentioned in this paragraph are found in the -early MS Sloane 477 as well as in other MSS. In a fifteenth century -MS at Florence (Ashburnham 143, fols. 113-14), this chapter appears -separately as, “_Capitulum pulcrum pro maleficiis malis_” and under -the further sub-titles, “_De hiis qui maleficiis impediti cum uxoribus -cohire non possunt. Pro maleficiis destruendis secundum magistrum -Petrum Yspanum._” - -[1643] For the _De morbis oculorum_ I have used two MSS. in the British -Museum; Sloane 1214, 15th century, fols. 38-46, and Sloane 2268, 14th -century, fols. 52-59. I presume that Gonville and Caius 379, 13th -century, fols. 142-49, “Secreta mag. Petri yspani ad oculos. In nomine -summi opificii/acceptis de pectine matris,” is the same work. - -[1644] Sloane 1214, fol. 38r; Sloane 2268, fol. 52. - -[1645] Sloane 2268, fol. 54v. - -[1646] _Op. cit._ (1901). - -[1647] Sloane 1214, fol. 38r. - -[1648] Sloane 2268, fol. 54v. Millot-Carpentier presumably has this -passage in mind when he says, “Il connaissait la fistule lacrymale -qu’il soignait ... par les exorcisms.” - -[1649] Royal MS. 13-A-VII, 15th century, fols. 149r-153v. “Explicit -summa magistri p. de conservanda sanitate et de his quae conferunt et -nocent. Finito libro reddetur gratia Christo amen. Rogatis deum pro -anima magistro qui hunc librum composuit. Explicit liber.” See also -CLM 14574, 15th century, fol. 117. Magistri Petri liber de conservanda -sanitate, “Erubescant Judei confundantur Sarraceni.” - -[1650] Cap. 1, fols. 150r-v. - -[1651] Sloane 2268, 14th century, fol. 52-, De morbis oculorum; fol. -56r, “Tractatus mirabilis aquarum quod composuit m. p. hyspanus cum -naturali industria secundum intellectum”; fol. 59r, “Explicit secretum -magistri P. hys. quod fecit pro amico suo ad oculos.” - -BN 6957, 15th century, #2, Tractatus mirabilis aquarum quem composuit -Petrus Hispanus cum naturali industria secundum intellectum. Explicit -secretum magistri Petri Hispani de oculis, (as described by Renzi, V, -122). - -BN 7349, 15th century, #2, is the same treatise. - -[1652] Additional 32,622, early 14th century, fol. 95r, “Actus -mirabilis aquarum quas composuit Petrus Hispanus cum naturali -industria.” - -Egerton 2852, 14th century, fols. 1-5, “de aquis,” is very similar in -contents to Addit. 32622. - -[1653] Digby 147, 14th century, fols. 104r-105v, “Tractatus mirabilis -aquarum quem composuit philosophus naturali industria secundum -intellectum.” It opens, “Aqua mirabilis valet ad visum conservandum.” - -[1654] Namely: 1 _aqua mirabilis ad visum conservandum et -clarificandum_, 2 _aqua preciosa de radicibus_, 3 _aqua preciosa de -seminibus_, 4 _aqua mirabilis per quam facit mistica sive mirabilia -medicus_, 5 _aqua salicis_, 6 _aqua aromatica_, 7 _aqua qui dicitur lac -virginis_, 8 _aqua tartari_, 9 _aqua de sale gemme_, 10 _aqua copose_, -11 _aqua vite_, 12 _aqua ardens_. - -[1655] See below, pp. 797-8. - -[1656] I regret that I have not been able to examine and compare this -and the other MSS of the treatise more closely in order to ascertain -how far their texts are identical or vary. Some further MSS are: - -CU Trinity 1411, early 16th century, fol. 131, _Aqua mirabilis Petri -Hispani_. - -Harleian 1887, 16th century (?), _Petrus Hispanus, mirab. aquar._ - -[1657] Assisi 292, 15th century, 75 fols. - -[1658] BN 7446, 15th century, _Regimen sanitatis_. - -[1659] Harleian 2258, fols. 224v-225v, _regimen salutis per omnes -menses_. - -[1660] Bibl. Palat. Parma 1065, 15th century, fols. 147-53. - -[1661] Corpus Christi 243, 1423 A. D., fols. 15v-28, “Sicut igitur in -negotio nostro de anima ... / ... Explicit liber de morte et vita et de -causis longitudinis ac brevitate vite magistri Petri Hispani.” - -[1662] Sloane 568, late 14th century, fol. 15v. - -[1663] BN 6956, 14th century. - -[1664] Vienna 4751, 15th century, fols. 274-80, excerptus et in fine -mutilus. - -[1665] Printed in the Lyons, 1515 edition of Isaac’s works: fol. xir, -_Commentarium singulare doctissimi viri Petri hispani olim pontificis -maximi Johannis vicesimiprimi super librum dietarum universalium Isaac -Incipit_; fol. ciii, _Apollinee artis monarche Ysaac filii adoptivi -Salomonis regis Arabum diete particulares cum uberrimis excellentissimi -viri Petri hispani commentariis_. - -[1666] _Ibid._, fol. 12r. - -[1667] _Ibid._, fol. 14v. - -[1668] “_An caro coda in pasta sit bona?_” Peter thinks that it is -_pessima_, because the pastry prevents the noxious fumes and humors of -the meat from escaping, but he adds, “_Contrarium facit vulgus_.” - -[1669] An interesting passage, which seems to indicate that despite -frequent famines the medieval poor were seldom reduced to horse meat. -Peter’s explanation is that these animals are not poisonous, but that -nature designed them for man’s service, not his nutriment. - -[1670] On this point Peter does not seem to be in agreement with some -modern sociologists. - -[1671] Peter of course answers in the negative. - -[1672] fol. 145v. - -[1673] fol. 78. - -[1674] fol. 150v. - -[1675] fol. 103r. - -[1676] fol. 149r; fols. 150v-151r. - -[1677] fol. 127r. - -[1678] fol. 136r. - -[1679] fol. 135v, and _De animal. hist._ ed. Dittmeyer (1907), p. 362, -lines 29-30. λέγεταιδ’ ὡς ἀριστερὸν κέρας οὐδείς πω ἑώρακεν ἀποκρύπτειν -γὰρ αὐτὸ ὡς ἔχον τινὰ φαρμακίαν. The last word, of course, suggests -either a drug or poison, medicine or charm. - -[1680] fols. 19v-20v; see also fol. 11v. - -[1681] “... medicina sit tuta ab omni qualitate complexionali.” - -[1682] On Jean de Saint-Amand see HL XXI, 254-66; J. L. Pagel, _Die -Concordanciae des Johannes de Sancto Amando_, Berlin, 1894, and -_Nachträge zu den Concordanciae des Johannes de Sancto Amando_, Berlin, -1896. For the _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, I have followed the -text in _Mesuae medici clarissimi opera_, Venice, 1568; but there are -earlier editions, such as Venice, 1497, and Lyons, 1533. - -[1683] _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_ (1568), fol. 231, “Sed -medicina simplex duplici via cognoscitur scilicet via experimenti et -via rationis.... Et quia principia experimenti sunt nobis magis nota -quam principia rationis, ideo prius inquiramus cognitionem simplicium -medicinarum via experimenti ... duplex est experimentum ... vallatum -et non vallatum ratione, tunc ipsum est timorosum et fallax si non sit -vallatum ratione....” - -[1684] _Ibid._, “Oportet ut medicina simplex quae experiatur sit pura -et munda ab omni extranea qualitate, ne per illam extraneam qualitatem -impediatur propria operatio medicinae, et per consequens cognitio -experimentalis.” This is the same as Peter’s first condition. Also as -the passage from Galen’s _Medicinal Simples_, II, 5, quoted in John’s -_Concordances_, “Oportet quod res quae experitur sit pura et denudata -ab omni qualitate accidentali....” - -[1685] I do not note this condition among Peter’s nor in the -_Concordances_. - -[1686] “Oportet quod medicina simplex experiatur in duabus contrariis -aegritudinibus diversis, sicut scamonea in quotidiana et tertiana, ipsa -enim curat quotidianam ex sua complexione, tertianam ex proprietate -sua, tamen non sequitur, scamonea curat tertianam, ergo est frigida; -sed sequitur, ipsa ex sua complexione curat quotidianam, ergo est -calida.” - -The use of the word “proprietas” for occult virtue is found also in -Arnald of Villanova and other medieval writers. - -[1687] John’s third, fourth and fifth conditions do not exactly -correspond to any of Peter’s, but are contained in the following -quotation from Galen (_simpl. med._ I, 2) in the _Concordances_. “Ad -hoc ut res recte experiatur, tria requiruntur: 1m est ut experiatur in -re ad quam comparatur, ut helleborus in coturnice non in homine; 2m -requiritur ut distinguamus inter opus quod facit res per se et quod -facit per accidens; 3m oportet cavere ne complexio actualis obnubilet -potentialem et de omnibus his exempla ponit.” - -[1688] “experimentum in corpore humano et primo in temperato, postea -in lapso, et postea in aegro.” These last two conditions correspond -to Peter’s last two and are also duplicated in John’s _Concordances_ -from Galen: “Si videris 5 vel 6 homines qualibet medicina mobiles, -experimento solo non potuisti certiorare ilia medicina omnes homines -posse moveri.... Oportet cum res experitur ut primo experiatur in -corpore temperato et postea in intemperate.” - -[1689] See the foregoing footnotes and Pagel’s text (1894), pp. 102-4. - -[1690] _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, fol. 268, “... et hoc -patet per experimentum accipiatur virga coryli recens et scindatur per -medium medullae et ponatur frustum unum in manu una et aliud in alia -manu, adinvicem coniungentur et hoc est quia unam alteri natum est -conjungi naturaliter quia ex eis fiebat naturaliter unum conjunctum, et -ideo unum natum est alteri conjungi excitatum per virtutem alterius. -Et per illud faciunt vetulae carmen suum in matrimonium: dicunt enim -quod quando aliquis desponsat aliquam, quod illae virgae coryli si -conjungantur matrimonium erit ad bonum, si non, non: sed dicunt carmen -aliquid operari ad hoc quod nisi dicerent, conjungerentur tarnen sive -ad bonum sive ad malum.” - -[1691] HL XXI, 263-5. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE THESAURUS PAUPERUM - - -I have examined the following MSS of the work in the collections in -the British Museum. As usual, the dating of the MSS is not my own, but -either that given in the catalogues of the collections or in the MSS -themselves. - - Sloane 282, quarto, 15th century, fols. 87-105, Petri - Hispani, postea Johannis Papae XXI, Thesaurus pauperum. - - Sloane 284, 15th century, fols. 129-174. “Incipit liber qui - thesaurus pauperum nominatur compositus a magistro P. - Hispano Papa Johanne postmodum.” - - Sloane 477, dated Sept. 30, 1309. Fol. 79r, “Explicit - thesaurus pauperum ad honorem dei et hominum ipsius operis - exigentium. Anno domine mill’o tricentessimo nono die - tricessimo mense septembris hoc opus complevi scripsi - presbitur N. De. Machia Anconitana hunc scripsit librum - cui Christus filius dei et virginis matris marie det sibi - gratiam consolationem anime et corpori. Amen.” Then in - different ink is added, “Explicit thesaurus pauperum vel - summa experimentorum medicinalium magistri petri Hispani.” - This MS, which seems as early as any that I examined, - is written on small pages in large print-like letters. - The red ink of the text has faded and is accompanied by - numerous notes in small black writing. - - Sloane 521, 14th-15th century, fols. 46-74. “Explicit summa - Petri Hispanensis experimentorum medicinalium, cujus libri - posuit nomen thesaurus pauperum. Amen. Amen.” - - Sloane 1754, 14th century, fols. 8-13. “Flos florum - experimentorum thesauri pauperum a magistro Petro Yspano” - etc. A collection of excerpts from the work; see also - Sloane 357 and 405, both 15th century. - - Sloane 2479, 14th century, fols. 10-41. At fol. 38v, - “Explicit thesaurus pauperum”; at fol. 41v, “Expliciunt - febres et thesaurus pauperum magni petri hispani quondam - pape.” - - Additional MS 22,636, fols. 23-35r (and not, as the - catalogue and Scott’s Index say, to fol. 47, since a work - on Phisionomia and some extracts from Thomas of Cantimpré - on seals and gems intervene.) “Explicit liber qui dicitur - tesaurus pauperum.” - - Additional 25,000. This MS resembles Sloane 2479 closely in - its arrangement: at fol. 94r, “Explicit liber pauperum”; - at fol. 96v, another Explicit follows the discussion of - fevers. - - Addit. 32,622, early 14th century, fols. 116-177. “Summa - experimentorum medicinalium Magistri Petri Ispaliensis, - qui dicitur liber nomine thesaurus pauperum.” - - Royal 12-B-III, 14th century, #2. - - Harleian 5218. “Petri Hispani Thesaurus pauperum, Liber - medicus cum complexionibus simplicium medicinarum, - secundum Gallianum de Sancta Sophya Phisicum.” - -I have not been able to consult the following MSS in the Amplonian -collection at Erfurt, but mention them as of early date and not listed -by Stapper. - - Ampion. Octavo 62, early 14th century hand, fols. 124-165, - Rubr. “Incipit thesaurus pauperum editus per Iohannem - papam.” - - Ampion. Quarto 193, end of 13th century to 1362-1364, - fols. 2-49. “Incipit liber experimentorum, qui thesaurus - pauperum nuncupatur.” - - Ampion. Folio 271, 13th-14th century (Schum omits this in - the index to his catalogue of the Amplonian collection). - - Ampion. Folio 303, fols. 147-63. - - Another early copy is contained in a miscellany compiled at - Bologna in 1326: Wolfenbüttel 4504, fols. 106-31, Explicit - summa medicinalis Magistri Petri Yspani, que dicitur - thesaurus pauperum. - -A few other MSS of the Thesaurus pauperum are: - - Ste. Geneviève 2235, 14th century, “Incipit Summa - experimentorum medicinalium magistri Petri Hispani, que - dicitur thesaurus pauperum.” - - Ste. Geneviève 2237, 18th century, fol. 57, “Incipit - pauperum thesaurus summi medicorum monarchae D. Joannis - XX (XXI) pontificis maximi cui Petro Hispano ante nomen - erat in quo curandorum morborum et theoresim et praxim - absolutissime comperies.” - - BN 8654, 14th century, perhaps 1306 A. D. - - Trivulz. 657, 14th century. - - Turin F-V-25, 14th century, fols. 93-177. - - Naples VIII-G-100. - - Perugia 1227, 14th century, 50 fols., no author named. - - Florence II-vi-62, 14th century, in Italian. - - Wolfenbüttel 3050, 14th century, no author named. - - CLM 438, 14th century, fols. 1-84; 321, 15th century, fol. - 107-; 8742, 15th century, fols. 152-68. - - - - -CHAPTER LIX - -ALBERTUS MAGNUS - - - _Bibliography_ - - His own writings--His life--His relations to natural science. - - I. _Life_ - - Albert the leading figure in thirteenth century - learning--Albert and Aquinas--Dates of birth and - death--Early life--Probable early date of some - of his works--Events of his life after 1250--At - Cologne--Contemporary estimates of Albert. - - II. _As a Scientist_ - - The scope of his scientific treatises--Can a gradual - intellectual development be traced in his works?--His - best works are those on natural science--His fame in - the early nineteenth century--A survival of medieval - attitude--Recent historians of science and Albert--His - scientific spirit--Philosophical generalization and - scientific detail--Medieval interest in nature--Albert’s - own attitude--Albert and modern experimentation--Personal - observation and experience of plants--Experience a - criterion in zoology--Observations of Albert and his - associates--Experiments with animals--Past authors - questioned--Instances of credulity--Incredible - “experiences”--Minerals and experience--Minerals and - credulity--Tale of a toad and an emerald--Experience versus - Aristotle. - - III. _His Allusions to Magic_ - - Peter of Prussia on Albert’s occult science--Trithemius - on Albert’s study of magic--_Magnus in magia_--Albert’s - varying treatment of magic--Reality of magic--Magic due to - demons--Magic and miracle--Good magic of the Magi--Natural - magic--Attitude in his scientific treatises--Use of animals - and herbs in magic--Magic stones--Magic images engraved on - gems--Magic and alchemy; finding hidden metals--Fascination - and magic--Interpretation of dreams and magic--Magic and - divination--Summary of Albert’s accounts of magic. - - IV. _Marvelous Virtues in Nature_ - - Properties of the lion--Nasty recipes: illusory - lights--Dragons--The basilisk--Remedies for falcons - and mad dogs--Habits and remedies of animals--The - virtues of herbs--Their medicinal use--Occult - virtue of herbs due to the stars--Occult virtue - of stones--Occult virtue of stones due to the - stars--Pseudo-Albert _De lapidibus_--Alchemy--Works of - alchemy ascribed to Albert--A more detailed description - of one of them: preface--Experimental method and - equipment--Differences between transmuted and natural - metals--Substances and processes of alchemy--Ligatures and - suspensions--Incantations--Fascination--Physiognomy--Aristotle - on divination from dreams--Albert on divination from - dreams--Augury. - - V. _Attitude Toward Astrology_ - - Emphasis on the influence of the stars--Problem of the - authorship of the _Speculum astronomiae_--Mandonnet fails - to prove Albert hostile to astrology--Nature of the heavens - and the stars--The First Cause and the spheres--Things on - earth ruled by the stars--Conjunctions--Comets--Man and the - stars--Free will--Ptolemy on free will--Nativities--Galen - on the stars and human generation--Plato on boys and the - stars--The doctrine of elections--Influence of the stars on - works of art--Astrological images--Discussion of fate in the - _Summa theologiae_--Attempt to reconcile the Fathers with - the astronomers--Glossing over Augustine--Christ and the - stars--Patristic arguments against astrology upheld, but - perhaps not by Albert. - - -_Bibliography Concerning Albertus Magnus_ - -In the following bibliography I include some works that I have not -been able to examine and cannot vouch for, and omit others which I -have seen but which seemed of doubtful value or treated sides of -Albert’s personality and writings which have little connection with our -investigation, such as accounts of Albert as a saint, or theologian, -or metaphysician, or psychologist. Of recent years a bewildering -underbrush of German monographs has sprung up concerning Albert as one -of the few prominent persons that Germany could claim as its own among -the many scholars of the medieval period. - -A number of works that do not deal primarily with Albert will be -cited in the course of the chapter rather than here, and mention of -his individual works and of manuscripts of them will also be found in -connection with the following text. - - -I. _His Own Writings_ - - M. Weiss. Primordia novae bibliographiae B. Alberti Magni, - Paris, 1898. - - B. Alberti Magni Opera omnia, ed. Augustus Borgnet, Paris, - 1890-1899, in 38 vols. My references are regularly to - this edition. Its text, however, has been a good deal - criticized. - - Of more recent and critical editions of single works by - Albert, that of the Historia animalium by H. Stadler - from the Cologne autograph MS in Beiträge z. Gesch. d. - Philos, d. Mittelalters, vols. 15-16, is the only one - of a work with which we are concerned. Stadler attempts - to distinguish Albert’s additions from Aristotle’s - text and to trace their sources. German criticism - of the genuineness of large portions of the text of - Aristotle’s Historia animalium has in my opinion been - carried altogether too far and based upon the gratuitous - assumption that Aristotle would not have said anything - superstitious. For recent editions of other single works - by Albert see v. Hertling (1914) 23. - - Separate bibliographies of printed texts and MSS of certain - works of doubtful or spurious authorship ascribed to - Albert will be given later in separate chapters dealing - with these. - - -II. _His Life_ - - Articles in the Histoire Littéraire de la France, XIX, - 362-81, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, and by Mandonnet in - Vacant and Mangenot’s Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. - - Petrus de Prussia, Vita B. Alberti Magni, 1621; von Hertling - mentions an earlier edition of Cologne, 1496, which I have - not seen. - - Joachim Sighart, Albertus Magnus: sein Leben und seine - Wissenschaft, Ratisbon, 1857. (French translation, Paris, - 1862). (English translation by Dixon, London, 1876, is - incomplete and garbled.) - - N. Thoemes, Albertus Magnus in Geschichte und Sage, Cologne, - 1880. - - G. von Hertling, Albertus Magnus: Beiträge zu seiner - Würdigung, 2nd edition, revised with the help of Baeumker - and Endres, Münster, 1914, in Beiträge z. Gesch. d. - Philos, etc., vol. XIV. - - Paul von Loë, De vita et scriptis B. Alberti Magni, in - Annal. Boland., XIX (1900) 257-84, XX (1901) 273-316, XXI - (1902) 361-71. - - Kritische Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete der Albertus Magnus - Forschung, in Annalen d. hist. Vereins f. d. Niederrhein, - Cologne, vol. 72 (1902) 115-26. - - E. Michael, Albert der Grosse, in Zeitsch, f. kath. Theol., - Innsbruck, XXV (1901) 37-; Wann ist Albert der Grosse - geboren? _Ibid._ XXXV (1911) 561-. - - P. P. Albert, Zur Lebensgeschichte Alberts des Grossen, in - Freiburg. Dioces. Archiv, 1902. - - J. A. Endres, Das Geburtsjahr und die Chronologie in der - ersten Lebenshälfte Alberts des Grossen, in Historisches - Jahrbuch, XXXI (1910) 293-. - - Eine beabsichtigte zweite Berufung Alberts des Grossen - an die Universität Paris um Jahr 1268, in Hist.-polit. - Blätter, vol. 152 (1913) 749-. - - Chronolog. Untersuchungen z. d. philos Kommentaren Alberts - des Grossen, in Festgabe 70 Geburtstag von G. Freiherr von - Hertling, Freiburg, 1913, p. 96-. - - A. Pangerl, Studien über Albert den Grossen, in Zeitschrift - für katholische Theologie, XXXVI (1912) 304-31, 332-46, - 512-49, 784-800. - - P. Pelster, S. J., Kritische Studien zum Leben und zu den - Schriften Alberts des Grossen, Freiburg, 1920: I have not - been able to procure in time to utilize, but it seems in - large measure a re-examination of ground already covered. - - -III. _His Relations to Natural Science_ - - E. H. F. Meyer, Albertus Magnus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte - der Botanik im XIII Jahrhundert, in Linnaea, 1836-1837. - - F. A. Pouchet, Histoire des sciences naturelles au moyen - âge, ou Albert le Grand et son époque considéré comme - point de départ de l’école expérimentale, Paris, 1853; pp. - 203-320 deal particularly with Albert. - - L. Choulant, Albertus Magnus in seiner Bedeutung für die - Naturwissenschaften, historisch und bibliograpisch - dargestellt, in Janus, I (1846) 152-. - - E. v. Martens, Ueber die von Albertus Magnus erwähnten - Landsäugethiere, in Archiv f. Naturgesch. XXIV (1858) - 123-44. - - C. Jessen, Alberti magni historia animalium, in Archiv f. - Naturgesch. XXXIII (1867) 95-105. - - R. de Liechty, Albert le Grand et saint Thomas d’Aquin, ou - la science au moyen âge, Paris, 1880. - - A. Fellner, Albertus Magnus als Botaniker, Vienna, 1881. - - H. Stadler, Albertus Magnus als selbständiger Forscher, in - dem Vordergrund des Interesses gestellt; in Forschungen z. - Gesch. Bayerns, XIV (1906) 95-. - - J. Wimmer, Deutsches Pflanzenleben nach Albertus Magnus, - etc. Halle, 1908. - - S. Killermann, Die Vogelkunde bei Albertus Magnus, - Regensburg, 1910. - - -I. _Life_ - -[Sidenote: The leading figure in thirteenth century learning.] - -At last we come to the consideration of the dominant figure in Latin -learning and natural science of the thirteenth century, with whose -course his lifetime was nearly coincident, the most prolific of -its writers, the most influential of its teachers, the dean of its -scholars, the one learned man of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -to be called “the Great,”--Albertus Magnus. The length of his life -and presumably also of his period of literary productivity makes it -difficult to place him at any particular point in the century, and from -the fact that Vincent of Beauvais and Peter of Spain cite him we might -well have placed our account of his works before theirs. He appears, -however, to have outlived them both. But it is mainly in order to bring -our account of Albert into juxtaposition with our treatment of the -other two great names of Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon, to determine -whether the _Speculum astronomiae_ should be ascribed to Roger rather -than Albert, and to treat of books of experiments and magic, that have -been ascribed to Albert but are perhaps of somewhat later date, in -connection with other similar experimental and occult literature, that -we have postponed our consideration of Albertus Magnus until this point. - -[Sidenote: Albert and Aquinas.] - -In 1253, the same year that Robert Grosseteste died, four years after -William of Auvergne, opened the pontificate of Alexander IV, of which -Ptolemy of Lucca wrote: “In his time flourished two great doctors -in the Order of Preachers. Doubtless many others were famous during -this same time both in life and doctrine. But these two transcended -and deserve to be placed before all others.”[1692] The two Dominicans -whom Ptolemy had in mind were, of course, Albertus Magnus and Thomas -Aquinas.[1693] It is customary and natural to couple their names. -Besides being members of the same order, they were master and student; -they were also the two scholars of their time who did most to adapt -the natural philosophy of Aristotle to Christian use, a fact which in -itself suggests their interest in natural science. It may seem strange -to us today that two theologians, and even more so two members of an -order vowed to asceticism, apostolic poverty, and the maintenance -of strict orthodoxy against heresy, should play a leading part in -interpreting the ideas of Greek and Arabic philosophers and should -display such an interest in natural science. The fact, however, is -indisputable. It is to the credit of the medieval church and its -religious orders. But it is even more a tribute to the power that -philosophy and natural science exercise upon every able mind that -really studies them. As for the relations between Albert and Aquinas, -it must be added that while the former outlived his pupil, he was born -a full generation before him. It was thus Aquinas who profited by and -built upon Albert’s work. - -[Sidenote: Dates of birth and death.] - -Ptolemy of Lucca states that Albertus Magnus was over eighty years -old when he died in 1280, and that for about three years before his -death he largely lost control of his intellectual faculties.[1694] -That he outlived his pupil Aquinas by six years, and that his writings -are cited by other contemporaries who died before he did--Vincent of -Beauvais and Petrus Hispanus, are other indications of his longevity. -There consequently seems little reason for questioning the traditional -date of his birth, 1193, although Pouchet has suggested 1205[1695] -and Father Mandonnet, more recently, 1206.[1696] The main argument -for placing his birth about 1206 is that a fourteenth century -chronicler[1697] states that he was only sixteen when he entered the -Dominican Order, while in the fifteenth century Peter of Prussia -asserts that Albert himself used to say that he had been in the Order -“from his very boyhood.”[1698] His birthplace was at Lauingen in Swabia -and he was the oldest son of the count of Bollstädt. - -[Sidenote: Early life.] - -Albert studied at Padua, where he tells us that in his youth he -saw a well which exhaled a deadly vapor,[1699] while at Venice he -beheld a royal figure painted by nature upon marble.[1700] He perhaps -entered the Dominican Order in 1222 or 1223. According to Peter of -Prussia,[1701] a few years later he was made reader or lecturer of the -friars at Cologne and “twice gloriously lectured on the _Sentences_.” -Then he was successively _Lector_ at Hildesheim in 1233, at Freiburg, -for two years in Ratisbon, and at Strasburg. Albert alludes in his -works to a comet which he saw in Saxony in 1240.[1702] - -[Sidenote: Probable early date of some of his works.] - -Although Ptolemy of Lucca mentions Albert and Aquinas as flourishing -during the pontificate of Alexander IV, 1253-1261, much of the former’s -writing as well as teaching probably antedates this. Presumably he -was already famous when young Aquinas came all the way from Italy to -Cologne or Paris to study with him about 1244 or 1245. If the _Speculum -naturale_ of Vincent of Beauvais was written by 1250, many of Albert’s -writings which it freely cites must have appeared before that date, for -instance, the _De anima_ (III, 41), _De sensu et sensato_ (V. 108), _De -somno et vigilia_ (XXVI, 23), _De animalibus_ (XVII, 71). The treatise -on sleep and waking is found in a manuscript written in a French hand -in 1258.[1703] Even in the treatise on minerals,[1704] which has been -regarded as written after 1250 because Vincent of Beauvais does not -cite it, and in which Albert speaks of having been in Paris as well -as Cologne, he also speaks of one of his associates who saw in the -possession of the emperor, Frederick II, 1212-1250, a magnet which -instead of attracting iron was drawn to that metal.[1705] On the other -hand, in his work on animals Albert cites the emperor Frederick’s -book on falcons, so that Albert’s treatise on animals was probably not -finished until at least the latter part of that monarch’s reign.[1706] -But even Mandonnet who delays Albert’s birth to 1206 believes that -his first writings date back to 1240 and that his great philosophical -works began to appear about 1245. I should be inclined to push these -dates back ten or twenty years. Albert was probably teaching at Paris -from about 1245 to 1248, in which year he signed the condemnation of -the _Talmud_ in that city and then became regent of the new school at -Cologne established by the Dominicans.[1707] - -[Sidenote: Events of his life after 1250.] - -The two chief ecclesiastical offices held by Albert were those of -provincial of his order in Germany from 1254 to 1257, and of bishop -of Ratisbon, 1260-1262. He resigned from both positions, apparently -preferring the scholar’s life. Ptolemy of Lucca explains that German -bishops had to use the sword too much for Albert’s taste. In his -work on animals Albert alludes in one passage to his villa on the -Danube.[1708] In 1256 he went to Rome to defend the friars against the -attacks of William of St. Amour, and while in Italy discovered the _De -motibus animalium_ of Aristotle. In his theological _Summa_ he speaks -of having collected the material for his treatise _On the Unity of -the Intellect against Averroes_, when he was “in the _curia_ at the -command of Lord Alexander the Pope.”[1709] In 1259, when the general -chapter of the Dominicans met at Valenciennes, he was appointed upon -a committee to draw up a course of study for the Order along with -Aquinas and Pietro di Tarantasia, who in 1276 became Pope Innocent V. -After resigning the bishopric of Ratisbon in 1262, Albert returned to -teaching at Cologne, but in 1263 he preached the crusade in Germany and -Bohemia, and his name appears in documents at Würzburg in that year -and those immediately following.[1710] In his _Politics_ he speaks of -having been papal _nuncius_ in Saxony and Poland, where he found the -barbaric custom still observed of killing the old men of the tribe when -they had outlived their period of usefulness.[1711] We are told that in -1270 he despatched a treatise to Paris to help Aquinas in connection -with the affair of Siger de Brabant, and in 1277 visited that city -again in person to defend his own Aristotelian teaching and the memory -of Aquinas in connection with the condemnation by Stephen Tempier, -bishop of Paris, and other doctors of 219 opinions ascribed to the -same Siger de Brabant and others,[1712]--an affair of which we shall -have more to say later. The Catholic Encyclopedia and _Dictionnaire -d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique_ repeat the assertion of -fifteenth century biographers that Albert attended the Council of -Lyons in 1274, but the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ eighty years -ago assured us that his name is not mentioned in the records of that -assembly.[1713] - -[Sidenote: Albert at Cologne.] - -This brief account of Albert’s life has made it evident that he stayed -in no one place for long at a time, and his own works show that he -had traveled widely. He seems, however, to have returned repeatedly -to Cologne, and to have passed more time there than at any other one -place. There he saw ruined remains of Roman buildings excavated;[1714] -there he says that he wrote his _De natura locorum_;[1715] and there -other of his writings, partly in his own hand, were still treasured -when Peter of Prussia wrote his life near the close of the fifteenth -century.[1716] - -[Sidenote: Contemporary estimates of Albert.] - -We have seen that Albert was already cited as an authority during his -lifetime by such writers as Petrus Hispanus and Vincent of Beauvais. -Roger Bacon in 1267 mentioned “Brother Albert of the Order of Friars -Preachers” and William of Shyrwood as two of the foremost scholars -of the time, although he seems rather jealous of Albert and inclined -to rank William of Shyrwood and of course himself above him.[1717] -Such envy only proves the great reputation that Albert had. In the -_Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to Grosseteste but which we have seen -was apparently written some years after his death, following a long -list of ancient and Arabian philosophers and some comparatively modern -Christian writers such as Gundissalinus, Constantinus, and Alfred of -England, the author mentions as even “more modern” Alexander minor, -presumably Alexander of Hales the Franciscan who died in 1245, and -Albert of Cologne of the Order of Preachers. He regards them as -distinguished philosophers but not to be held for authorities. However, -he later prefers Albert’s explanation of the virtues of gems to those -of Democritus, Pythagoras, Plato, Hermes, and Avicenna. He also -calls Albert “the most famous of modern theologians,” and gives his -arguments against vision being by extramission.[1718] Ulrich Engelbert -of Strasburg, a contemporary and pupil of Albert, in the fourth book -of his _Summa theologiae_ described “my lord Albert, once bishop of -Ratisbon,” as “a man in every science so divine that he may well be -called the wonder and miracle of our time.”[1719] Thomas of Cantimpré, -in his moralizing _Bonum universale de apibus_, a farrago of monkish -gossip and incredible tales, written apparently in 1276 or shortly -after, emphasizes the saintly character of Albert who is apparently -well along in years when Thomas writes.[1720] He represents Albert as -having told him that at Paris a demon appeared to him in the likeness -of a certain friar in an attempt to keep him from his studies but -departed at the sign of the cross.[1721] Or again Thomas assures us -that as Albert’s auditor for a considerable time when he occupied the -chair of theology he had seen for himself and “most certainly tested” -how Albert for many years almost daily participated in the prayers -by day and night and read the psalter of David and often sweated -in religious contemplation and meditation. “What wonder,” piously -ejaculates Thomas, “that a man of such whole-hearted devotion and piety -should show superhuman attainments in science!”[1722] - - -II. _As a Scientist_ - -[Sidenote: The scope of Albert’s scientific treatises.] - -It may be well at the start to indicate the scope and character of -Albert’s works in the field of science. In general they follow the plan -of the natural philosophy of Aristotle and parallel the titles of the -works then attributed, in some cases incorrectly, to Aristotle. We have -eight books of physics, psychological treatises such as the _De anima_ -and _De somno et vigilia_, both in three books, and works dealing with -celestial phenomena, such as the _De meteoris_ and _De coelo et mundo_ -in four books each, and with the universe and life in general, such as -the _De causis et procreatione universi_, _De causis et proprietatibus -elementorum et planetarum_, and the _De generatione et corruptione_. -Geography is represented by the _De natura locorum_, zoology by the -twenty-six books on animals, botany by the seven books on vegetables -and plants, and mineralogy by the five books on minerals. Björnbo -called attention to a work on mirrors or catoptric ascribed to “Albert -the Preacher” in several manuscripts but which is not included in the -editions of Albert’s works and which has never been printed.[1723] I -do not know if this is the same treatise as a treatise on Perspective -attributed to Albertus Magnus in a manuscript which Björnbo did not -mention.[1724] A work on the planting of trees and preserving of wine -is sometimes ascribed to Albert in the manuscripts, but is probably -rather by Petrus de Crescentiis or Galfridus de Vino Salvo.[1725] -I think that I have encountered only once in the manuscripts the -attribution to Albert of an epitome of the _Almagest_ of Ptolemy[1726] -and of a _Summa astrologiae_.[1727] Fairly frequently one meets with -some brief compendium of all natural philosophy ascribed to Albert, -of which perhaps the most common is the _Philosophia pauperum_ or -“Introduction to the books of Aristotle on physics, sky and universe, -generation and corruption, meteorology, and the soul.”[1728] These -are either spurious, or, if based on Albert’s writings, add nothing -of importance to them. Finally we may note a group of works lying on -the border of natural and occult science and which have been regarded -as spurious: treatises on alchemy and chiromancy, the _Speculum -astronomiae_, the _De secretis mulierum_, the _Liber aggregationis_, -and the _De mirabilibus mundi_. Of some of these we shall treat in -separate chapters. - -[Sidenote: Can a gradual intellectual development be traced in Albert’s -works?] - -The order in which Albert’s numerous works were written is a matter -difficult to determine but of some interest, although not of very great -importance, for our investigation. The statement of Peter of Prussia -that the translation of Aristotle “which we now use in the schools” -was made by Thomas of Cantimpré at the suggestion of Aquinas, “for in -Albert’s time all commonly used the old translation,”[1729] would, if -true, suggest that Albert wrote his Aristotelian treatises early in -life, since he actually outlived Aquinas. But not much reliance is to -be placed in this statement of Peter, since it is reasonably certain -that Thomas of Cantimpré at least did not translate Aristotle. I have -been impressed by differing and almost inconsistent attitudes in -different treatises by Albert, for instance in his attitude towards -magic, which seem to hint that his opinions changed with the years, -although it may be attributable, as in some other authors, to the -fact that in different works he reflects the attitude of different -authorities, or approaches different subjects with a different -view-point, writing of theology as a theologian, but of Aristotle as a -philosopher. However, Baeumker and Schneider, pursuing in connection -with Albert’s writings a different line of investigation from mine, -have been struck with the same thing and have concluded that Albert -underwent a gradual intellectual development. They note that in his -_Commentaries on the Sentences_ he is still glued to the Augustinian -tradition, while in his _Summa_ he is strongly influenced by Aristotle -and working for a synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine. Finally, in his -philosophical and scientific works, related to the genuine and spurious -works of Aristotle, “he goes very far with this Arabian-trimmed -Neo-Platonism, often so far that he finally feels compelled to explain -such exposition as mere citation, and in the strife of conflicting -masses of thought surging within him refers for his own personal -interpretation to his theological writings.”[1730] From this it -would seem that most of Albert’s theological treatises were written -before his scientific works, based upon Aristotle and spurious Arabic -and other additions. But we have seen that many of his Aristotelian -treatises were completed before the _Speculum naturale_ of Vincent -of Beauvais, whereas his _Sentences_ name 1246 and 1249 as current -dates.[1731] - -[Sidenote: His best works are those on natural science.] - -But while Albert may sometimes refer to his theological works for his -own personal views, he does not do so in those passages which will -especially concern us, and it is in his works on natural science that -he seems to the modern reader more original. Indeed Jessen declared -that repeated perusal of Albert’s many writings in the field of natural -history had convinced him that he was “original everywhere, even where -he seems to copy.”[1732] Jessen, indeed, held that Albert would have -been even more original and outspoken than he is, but for fear of the -charge of heresy; but in my opinion there is little to support such a -view. Be that as it may, in his works on natural science Albert does -not merely repeat past ideas whether of Aristotle or others, but adds -chapters of his own drawn in large measure from his own observation, -experience, and classification. It is in his scientific works that he -is as superior to Aquinas as the latter is generally considered to -surpass him in the purely metaphysical and theological field. Since -writing the foregoing sentences I have found that Peter of Prussia -expressed much the same view in his life of Albert written toward the -close of the fifteenth century. Peter says, “Moreover, this should be -understood, that after Aristotle faith is to be put in Albert above all -who have written in philosophy, because he has himself illuminated the -writings of almost all philosophers and has seen wherein they spoke -truly or falsely, nay more, since he himself was experienced above all -others in natural phenomena. It may be that some, relying on their -metaphysics or logic, can impugn him by certain arguments, but I think -that no matter of great concern, since Albert himself says that faith -is to be put in anyone who is expert in his art.”[1733] - -[Sidenote: Albert’s fame in the early nineteenth century.] - -Albert’s scientific fame perhaps reached its zenith shortly before -the publication of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ in 1859. In 1836 and -1837 Ernst Meyer published in _Linnaea_[1734] his “Albertus Magnus, -ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Botanik im XIII Jahrhundert,” and -later in his _History of Botany_[1735] ranked Albert as the greatest -botanist during the long period between Aristotle and Theophrastus on -the one hand and Andrea Cesalpini on the other. “Yes, more than that. -From Aristotle, the creator of scientific botany, until his time this -science sank deeper and deeper with time. With him it arose like the -Phoenix from its ashes. That, I think, is praise enough, and this crown -shall no one snatch away from him.”[1736] In the meantime, at Paris in -1853, Pouchet had published his _History of the Natural Sciences in -the Middle Ages_ with the sub-title, _Or Albertus Magnus and his age -considered as the point of departure of the experimental school_.[1737] -But the extreme praise of Albert had occurred a little earlier in -lectures on the history of science delivered by De Blainville at -the Sorbonne in 1839-1841 and published a few years later.[1738] De -Blainville too centered his discussion of medieval science about -Albert, to whom alone he devoted some ninety pages, extolling him for -affirming the permanence of species and for “broadening” Aristotle to -fit the requirements of theology. In ten theses in which De Blainville -undertook to sum up briefly the chief legacies of Albert to science, he -held that he completed and terminated the circle of human knowledge, -adding to Aristotle the scientific demonstration of the relations -of man with God; that he extended the scope of observation to every -scientific field except anatomy; that he created the description of -natural bodies, a thing unknown to the ancients; and that in filling in -the gaps in Aristotle’s writings he was the first to embrace all the -natural sciences in a complete plan, logical and perfectly followed. -“In accepting therefore with the Christian Aristotle,” concluded De -Blainville, “the first verse of _Genesis_, ‘In the beginning God -created heaven and earth,’ and the consequences which follow it, we -have, in my opinion, reached the _apogée_ of the encyclopedia of human -knowledge, which can now only extend itself in respect to the number -and the deeper knowledge of material objects.” - -[Sidenote: A survival of the medieval attitude.] - -This passage from De Blainville, who seems to have been a Roman -Catholic, is very interesting as showing how the progress of modern -science in his own time and the centuries just preceding could be -almost completely miscomprehended by a professed historian of science. -We must not, however, suppose that such misconceptions of the progress -of science were universal or even general in the first half of the -nineteenth century. The article on Albertus Magnus in the _Histoire -Littéraire de la France_, which was published in 1838, recognizes that -Albert did not extend the bounds of the sciences as much as had been -supposed, and that progress had been made since the sixteenth century -which rendered that part of his works “almost useless.”[1739] The -passage from De Blainville is interesting also as showing the same -intimate connection presupposed between Christian theology, natural -science, and Aristotelianism as in the days of the great Dominicans -themselves. Again, it reveals the extent to which natural science, -since the appearance of _The Origin of Species_, has tended to the -opposite extreme. - -[Sidenote: Recent historians of science and Albert.] - -As for historians of science, they have been rather scarcer of late -than in the earlier years of the nineteenth century, when the subject -seems to have had a great vogue in France. Or at least the historians -of science have been less sympathetic with the distant past. Perhaps -the inclination has been to go almost as far toward the other pole -of neglect as De Blainville went toward that of extollation. But -the modern eulogies of the scientific attainments of Roger Bacon, -supposed to be a thorn in the side of the medieval church and falsely -regarded as its victim, and as the one lone scientific spirit of the -middle ages, have been rather more absurd than the earlier praises of -Albert, who was represented both as a strong pillar in the church and -the backbone of medieval and Christian science. Indeed, the _Histoire -Littéraire_, in the same passage which we a moment ago quoted against -De Blainville, also states with probable justification that Albert -did “more than any other doctor of his day” to introduce the natural -sciences into the course of public and private studies, and that it -was his taste for those subjects which won him his popular renown and -the homage of scholars until the end of the seventeenth century. At no -period, however, has Albert been entirely without defenders. Jessen in -1867 regarded him as an original natural scientist. Stadler in 1906 -recognized that “he made many independent observations, perhaps even -carried out experiments,” and showed great interest in biology.[1740] - -[Sidenote: Albert’s scientific spirit.] - -Coming back from the opinions of others concerning Albert to his own -attitude towards natural science, it is to be noted that, while he -may make all sorts of mistakes judged by modern standards, he does -show unmistakable signs of the scientific spirit. This will become -more apparent as we proceed, but for the present we may cite two -examples of it, and these from a work based upon a pseudo-Aristotelian -treatise and one which at first sight might seem quite superstitious -and unscientific to the modern reader, since it is full of astrology, -the _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_.[1741] In -the first passage Albert repeats the justification of natural science -against a narrow religious attitude which we heard from the lips of -William of Conches in the previous century. When Albert finds that -some men attribute the deluge simply to the divine will and believe -that no other cause for it should be sought, he replies that he too -ascribes it ultimately to the divine will, but that he believes that -God acts through natural causes in the case of natural phenomena, and -that, while he would not presume to search the causes of the divine -will, he does feel free to investigate those natural causes which were -the divine instruments. A little further on in the same chapter Albert -declares that “it is not enough to know in terms of universals, but we -seek to know each object’s own peculiar characteristics, for this is -the best and perfect kind of science.”[1742] - -[Sidenote: Philosophical generalization and scientific detail.] - -This desire for concrete, specific, detailed, accurate knowledge -concerning everything in nature is felt by Albert in other of his -writings to be scarcely in the spirit of the Aristotelian natural -philosophy which he follows and sets forth in his parallel treatises. -In his work on animals a cleavage may be observed between those parts -where Albert discusses the general natures and common characteristics -of animals and seems to follow Aristotle rather closely, and those -books where he lists and describes particular animals with numerous -allusions to recent experience and considerable criticism of past -authorities. At the beginning of his twenty-second book he apologizes -for listing particular animals in alphabetical order, which is “not -appropriate to philosophy,” by saying that “we know we are debtors both -to the wise and to the unlearned, and those things which are told in -particular terms better instruct a rustic intelligence.” But while this -desire to describe particular objects precisely is felt by Albert to -be not in accord with traditional philosophic methods of presentation, -it is a desire which many of his contemporaries share with him. At -the beginning of his sixth book on vegetables and plants, where -particular herbs and trees are listed, he explains, “In this sixth book -of vegetables we satisfy the curiosity of our students rather than -philosophy, for philosophy cannot deal with particulars.” - -[Sidenote: Medieval interest in nature.] - -This healthy interest in nature and commendable curiosity concerning -real things was not confined to Albert’s students nor to “rustic -intelligences.” One has only to examine the sculpture of the great -thirteenth century cathedrals to see that the craftsmen of the towns -were close observers of the world of nature and that every artist was -a naturalist too. In the foliage that twines about the capitals of -the columns in French Gothic cathedrals it is easy to recognize, says -M. Mâle, a large number of plants: “the plantain, arum, ranunculus, -fern, clover, coladine, hepatica, columbine, cress, parsley, -strawberry-plant, ivy, snapdragon, the flower of the broom and the -leaf of the oak, a typically French collection of flowers loved from -childhood.”[1743] _Mutatis mutandis_, the same statement could be made -concerning the carved vegetation that runs riot in Lincoln cathedral. -“The thirteenth century sculptors sang their _chant de mai_. All the -spring delights of the Middle Ages live again in their work--the -exhilaration of Palm Sunday, the garlands of flowers, the bouquets -fastened on the doors, the strewing of fresh herbs in the chapels, the -magical flowers of the feast of Saint John--all the fleeting charm of -those old-time springs and summers. The Middle Ages, so often said to -have little love for nature, in point of fact gazed at every blade of -grass with reverence.”[1744] But it is not merely love of nature but -scientific interest and accuracy that we see revealed in the sculptures -of the cathedrals and in the note-book of the thirteenth century -architect, Villard de Honnecourt,[1745] with its sketches of insect -as well as animal life, of a lobster, two parroquets on a perch, the -spirals of a snail’s shell, a fly, a dragonfly, and a grasshopper, as -well as a bear and a lion from life, and more familiar animals such -as the cat and swan. The sculptors of gargoyles and chimeras were not -content to reproduce existing animals but showed their command of -animal anatomy by creating strange compound and hybrid monsters--one -might almost say, evolving new species--which nevertheless have all -the verisimilitude of copies from living forms. It was these breeders -in stone, these Burbanks of the pencil, these Darwins with the chisel, -who knew nature and had studied botany and zoology in a way superior to -the scholar who simply pored over the works of Aristotle and Pliny. No -wonder that Albert’s students were curious about particular things. - -[Sidenote: Albert’s own attitude.] - -But one is inclined to wonder whether the passage from the _De causis -et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, which we quoted first, -may not have been written after the passages which we have quoted from -his works on plants and animals, and whether Albert had come, thanks -possibly to that same stimulating scientific curiosity of his students, -to cease to apologize for the detailed description of particular -objects as unphilosophical and to praise it as “the best and perfect -kind of science.” At any rate it is those portions of his works on -animals, plants, and minerals which he devotes to such description of -particular objects which possess most independent value, and it is -perhaps also worth noting that Ptolemy of Lucca in looking back upon -Albert’s work seems not only to distinguish his writings on logic -and theology from those on nature, but also to imply a distinction -between Aristotle’s natural philosophy and his “very well-known and -most excellent contribution to the experimental knowledge of things of -nature.”[1746] Ptolemy seems to say Aristotle’s contribution, but the -credit really belongs largely to Albert and his students. - -[Sidenote: Albert and modern experimentation.] - -Pouchet was therefore not without justification in his sub-title, “Or -Albertus Magnus and his Period Considered as the Beginning of the -Experimental School.” His distinguishing, however, three stages of -scientific progress in the history of civilization--the first, Greek, -characterized by observation, and represented especially by Aristotle; -the second, Roman, marked by erudition and typified by Pliny; the -third, medieval, distinguished by experimentation, and having Albertus -Magnus and Roger Bacon as its two great representatives;--was rather -too general and sweeping. Galen, for instance, was a great experimenter -and the ancient Empirics put little trust in anything except -experience. Albert himself, in discussing “the serious problem” whether -life is possible in the Antipodes or southern hemisphere, states that -“the most powerful kings and the most accomplished philosophers have -labored over it from antiquity, the kings forsooth by experiment and -the philosophers by rational inquiry.”[1747] Moreover, neither Roger -Bacon nor Albert can be shown to have done much experimenting of the -sort, carefully planned and regulated, which is carried on in modern -laboratories. Meyer in his _History of Botany_,[1748] although Albert -was a great favorite with him, felt constrained to renounce the credit -for purposive experimentation which Pouchet had given him. “How gladly -would I see this crown also placed deservedly upon my favorite’s -head!... But I do not know of his undertaking an experiment in order -to solve a physiological or physical problem in which he had a clearly -defined purpose and the suitable materials at hand for carrying it out; -his books on plants certainly do not contain a single one.” - -[Sidenote: Personal observation and experience of plants.] - -Albert’s work on plants does contain, however, many passages in -which he recognizes experience as a criterion of truth or gives the -results of his personal observations. Such passages occur especially -in the sixth book where he tries to satisfy his students’ curiosity, -but we may first note an earlier passage where he recommends “making -conjectures and experiments” in order to learn the nature of trees -in general and of each variety of tree, herb, fruit, and fungus in -particular. Since, however, one can scarcely have personal experience -of them all, it is also advisable to read the books which the experts -(_experti_) of antiquity have written on such matters.[1749] But -a mistrust of the assertions of others often accompanies Albert’s -reliance upon personal observation and experience. Like Galen in his -work on medicinal simples, he explains in opening his sixth book that -merely to list the names of plants found in existing books would -fill a volume, and that he will limit his discussion to those native -varieties “better known among us.” Of some of these he has had personal -experience; for the others he follows authors whom he has found unready -to state anything unless it was proved by experience. For experience -alone is reliable concerning particular natures. He cautions in regard -to a tree which is said to save doves from serpents, “But this has -not been sufficiently proved by certain experience, like the other -facts which are written here, but is found in the writings of the -ancients.”[1750] Of another assertion he remarks, “But this is proved -by no experience”;[1751] and of a third he says, “As some affirm, but -I have not tested this myself.”[1752] - -[Sidenote: Experience a criterion in zoology.] - -Personal observation and experience are equally, if not more, -noticeable in Albert’s work on animals. He proposes to tell “what -he knows by reason and what he sees by experience of the natures of -animals”; he adds that science cannot be attained in all matters by -demonstration, in some cases one must resort to conjecture.[1753] -After listing various remedies for the infirmities of falcons from the -work on falconry of the Emperor Frederick, he concludes, “Such are the -medicines which one finds given for falcons and the experience of wise -men, but the wise falconer will with time add to or subtract from them -according to his own experience of what is beneficial to the state of -health of the birds. For experience is the best teacher in all matters -of this sort.”[1754] - -[Sidenote: Observations of Albert and his associates.] - -In the treatise on animals as in that on plants Albert’s allusions -to experience occur mainly in the last few books where he describes -particular animals. Here he often says, “I have tested this,” or “I -and my associates have experienced,”[1755] or “I have not experienced -this,” or “I have proved that this is not true.”[1756] Like Alexander -of Neckam he rejects the story that the beaver castrates itself -in order to escape with its life from its hunters; Albert says -that experience near his home has often disproved this.[1757] In -discussing whales he restricts himself entirely to the results of -his own observation, saying, “We pass over what the Ancients have -written on this topic because their statements do not agree with -experience.”[1758] According to Pouchet[1759] Albert gives even more -detailed information concerning whales than do the Norse sagas, and -also includes animals of the north unknown to classical writers. He -occasionally reveals his nationality by giving the German as well -as the Latin names of animals, and he displays an acquaintance -with the fauna of surrounding countries such as Norway, Sweden, -Bohemia, and Carinthia.[1760] He asserts that there are no eels in -the Danube and its tributaries, but that they abound in the other -rivers of Germany.[1761] He tells of observing the habits of eagles -in Livonia,[1762] or supports the account in Solinus of a monstrous -beast with fore legs like human arms and hind legs like human legs by -stating that he has seen both male and female of the species captured -in the forests of Russia (_Sclaviae_).[1763] Of his wide travels and -observation of natural phenomena we shall meet other examples as we -proceed. - -[Sidenote: Experiments with animals.] - -Albert has not only observed animal life widely, he has also performed -experiments with animals as he apparently did not do with plants. He -and his associates, for instance, have proved by experiment that a -cicada goes on singing in its breast for a long time after its head has -been cut off.[1764] He also proved to his satisfaction that the turtle, -although a marine animal, would not drink sea water, unless possibly -fresh water which flowed into the sea, by experimenting with a turtle -in a vessel of water.[1765] He has heard it said that the ostrich eats -and digests iron, but the many ostriches to whom he has offered the -metal have consistently declined it, although they would devour with -avidity stones and bones cut into small bits.[1766] Crude experiments -these may be, but they are at least purposive. - -[Sidenote: Past authors questioned.] - -Albert also often expresses doubt as to certain statements concerning -animals on the ground that they have not been tested by experience, -even if he has had no opportunity to disprove them. And he draws a -sharp distinction between authors who state what they themselves -have seen and tested and those who appear simply to repeat rumor or -folk-lore. That there are any such birds as gryphons or griffins, -he believes is affirmed in story-books (_historiae_) rather than -supported by the experiments of philosophers or arguments of -philosophy.[1767] The story found in the _Physiologus_ of the pelican’s -restoring its young with its own blood he also considers as “read in -story-books rather than proved philosophically by experience,”[1768]--a -criticism which shows how mistaken those modern scholars have been -who have declared the Physiologus and Bestiaries representative of -the thirteenth century attitude towards nature. The accounts of -harpies which one reads are also according to Albert “not based upon -experience, but are the assertions of men of no great authority.”[1769] -They are said to be rapacious birds with crooked nails and human -faces, and when a harpy meets a man in the desert it is said to kill -him, but afterwards, when it sees by its reflection in the water that -its own face is human, it grieves all the rest of its life for the -man whom it has slain. “But these statements,” says Albert, “have not -been experienced and seem fabulous. Such tales are told especially by -a certain Adelinus” (perhaps the Anglo-Saxon Aldhelm) “and Solinus -and Jorach.” Albert is particularly chary of accepting the assertions -of these last two authors, assuring us, anent their statement that -certain birds can fly unharmed through flames, “These philosophers -tell many lies and I think that this is one of their lies.”[1770] In -yet other passages Albert calls one or the other of them a liar.[1771] -He also sometimes rejects statements of Pliny, once classing him with -Solinus among those who rehearse popular hearsay rather than disclose -scientific experience.[1772] - -[Sidenote: Instances of credulity.] - -Albert thus displays considerable independence in dealing with past -authorities. Yet at times statements in earlier writers which seem -absurd to us pass him unchallenged. He is far, for example, from -rejecting all of Pliny’s marvelous assertions. He still believes that -the little fish _eschinus_ can stop “a ship two hundred feet or more” -in length by clinging to its keel, so that neither wind nor art nor -violence can move it.[1773] And he adds something to Pliny’s tale of -hunters who make good their escape to their ship with the tiger’s -cubs by throwing them one at a time to the pursuing tigress, who -takes each whelp back to her lair before returning to the pursuit of -the hunters.[1774] Albert’s emendation is that the hunters provide -themselves with glass spheres which they roll one at a time towards -the pursuing tigress.[1775] Seeing her own reflection on a small -scale in the glass ball, she thinks it one of her cubs until she -has vainly tried to give it milk, when she discovers the fraud and -bounds after the hunters again. But a second and a third glass ball -deceive her temporarily as before, and so the hunters reach their ship -without having had to surrender any of the real cubs. This imputation -of singular stupidity to the tigress should be kept in mind to set -against other passages in medieval writers where almost human sagacity -is ascribed to animals. Although in two or three preceding passages -Albert has refuted the doctrine of spontaneous generation of animal -life,[1776] he attributes the following passage to Pliny without -adverse criticism.[1777] “There is a worm shaped like a star, as Pliny -says, which shines like a star at night; but it never appears except -when after great clouds it predicts clear weather.[1778] He says that -there is so much rigid cold in this worm that it extinguishes fire like -ice. And if a man’s flesh is touched with its slime, all the hair falls -off and what it touches decays. And he says that they beget nothing, -nor is there male or female among them. Therefore they are generated -from decaying matter.” Albert also accepts the story of the poisoned -maiden sent to Alexander the Great. - -[Sidenote: Incredible “experiences.”] - -Albert also is unduly credulous of utterances about animals supposed -to be based upon experience, although he cannot be called a mere -empiricist, since he tries to test particular statements by the general -laws concerning living beings which he has read in Aristotle or derived -from his own experience and reflection. He denies, for example, Pliny’s -statement that other animals are attracted by the pleasant smell which -the panther emits as it sleeps after overeating, on the ground that man -is the only animal who is pleased or displeased by odors.[1779] But it -would seem that some of the fishermen, fowlers, and hunters from whom -he gleaned bits of zoological information were not so trustworthy as he -imagined. He says that “a trustworthy person” told him that he saw in -an eagle’s nest three hundred ducks, over a hundred geese, about forty -hares, and many large fish, all of which were required to satisfy the -appetites of the young eagles.[1780] He also “heard from trustworthy -persons” that a serpent with the virgin countenance of a beardless man -“was slain in an island of Germany and there displayed in our times -to all who wished to see it until the flesh putrefied.”[1781] Such -reports of mermaids and sea-serpents have still, however, a certain -currency. Experienced hunters said that worms could be killed in -any beast by suspending from its neck a strip of citron (_sticados -citrinum_) immediately after it had been dried.[1782] German artificers -of Albert’s day told him that the hyena bore a gem in its eyes, or -more truly in its forehead.[1783] Albert sometimes has a tall story -of his own to tell. At Cologne in the presence of himself and many -associates a little girl of perhaps three years was exhibited who, as -soon as she was released from her mother’s hands, ran to the corners -of the room searching for spiders, “and ate them all large and small, -and flourished on this diet and greatly preferred it to all other -food.”[1784] Albert also learned by personal experience that moles -gladly eat frogs and toads. For once he saw a mole who held by the foot -a big toad which “cried loudly because of the mole’s bite.”[1785] He -also found by experience that both frogs and toads would eat a dead -mole. In affirming that the custom of killing off the old men is still -prevalent within the borders of Saxony and Poland, Albert says, “As I -have seen with my own eyes”; but really all that he has seen is the -graves of their fathers which the sons have shown to him.[1786] - -[Sidenote: Minerals and experience.] - -Albert’s general attitude towards past authorities and present -experience remains the same in his treatise on minerals. He will give -the names of the important gems and state their virtues as known from -authorities and experience, but he will not repeat everything that -has been said about precious stones because it is not profitable for -science. “For natural science is not simply receiving what one is -told, but the investigation of causes in natural phenomena.”[1787] -Concerning metals, too, he intends to state “rationally either what -has been handed down by the philosophers or what I myself have -experienced.”[1788] He adds that once he wandered far in exile to -places rich in mines in order that he might test the natures of metals. -“And for this same reason I investigated the transmutation of metals -among the alchemists, in order that I might observe something of the -nature and characteristics of the metals.” In a later chapter he -alludes to workers in copper “in our parts, namely, Paris and Cologne, -and in other places where I have been and seen things tested by -experience.”[1789] _Fui et vidi experiri_, such is Albert the Great’s -peaceful paraphrase, probably unintentional, for warring Caesar’s -_Veni, vidi, vici_. - -[Sidenote: Minerals and credulity.] - -Again, also, in the treatise on minerals, reliance upon experience -proves to be no sure guarantee against incorrect notions, credulity, -and unquestioning trust in authority. Albert still repeats[1790] the -old notion that “adamant,” hard as it is, is softened and dissolved by -the blood and flesh of a goat, especially if the goat for some time -before has been fed on a diet of certain herbs and wine.[1791] He adds -that this property of goat’s blood makes it beneficial for sufferers -from stone in the bladder. Albert repeats with a qualifying “It is -said” the statement that the emerald comes from the nests of gryphons -or griffins,[1792] but he does not stop to deny the existence of those -birds, as we have heard him do elsewhere. He adds, however, as to the -source of the emerald that “a truthful and curious experimenter coming -from Greece” had said that it was produced in rocks under the sea. -This expression, “curious experimenter” (_curiosus experimentator_), -or perhaps better “inquisitive observer,” Albert also applied to one -of his associates who saw Frederick II’s peculiar magnet.[1793] In the -present discussion of the emerald he adds that experience in his own -time has proved that this stone, “if good and true,” cannot endure -sexual intercourse, so that the reigning king of Hungary, who was -wearing an emerald upon his finger when he went in to his wife, broke -it into three pieces. “And that is probably why they say that this -stone inclines its wearer to chastity.” - -[Sidenote: Tale of a toad and an emerald.] - -Albert, however, had told as a personal experience a stranger tale -than this of an emerald in his work on vegetables and plants in order -to illustrate “the many effects of stones and plants which are known -by experience and by which wonders are worked.” But as a matter of -fact, the incident is concerned not with an emerald and a plant, but an -emerald and a toad, an animal which one would infer was in Albert’s day -often the subject of experiment. - -“An emerald was recently seen among us, small in size but marvelous in -beauty. When its virtue was to be tested, someone stepped forth and -said that, if a circle was made about a toad with the emerald and then -the stone was set before the toad’s eyes, one of two things would -happen. Either the stone, if of weak virtue, would be broken by the -gaze of the toad; or the toad would burst, if the stone was possessed -of full natural vigor. Without delay things were arranged as he bade; -and after a short lapse of time, during which the toad kept its eye -unswervingly upon the gem, the latter began to crack like a nut and -a portion of it flew from the ring. Then the toad, which had stood -immovable hitherto, withdrew as if it had been freed from the influence -of the gem.”[1794] - -[Sidenote: Experience versus Aristotle.] - -In the incident just narrated Albert was perhaps tricked by some -traveling magician. But let us conclude our discussion of his general -scientific method by some more rational instances of personal -observation and experience. In his treatise on meteorology his -discussion of the rainbow, which occupies some twenty-four pages of -Borgnet’s text,[1795] is especially based upon experience and full -of allusions to it--a very interesting fact in view of the large -space which the discussion of the rainbow occupies in Roger Bacon’s -better known eulogy of experimental science. Albert recounts his own -observations when sailing over great waves or when looking down from -the top of a castle built upon a high mountain, “and the time when this -was seen was in the morning after a rainy night, and it was in the -autumn with the sun in the sign of Virgo.” Albert takes exception to -Aristotle’s assertion that rainbows caused by the moon at night appear -only twice in fifty years. He and many others have seen a bow at night, -and “truthful experimenters have found by experience” (_veridici -experimentatores experti sunt_) that a rainbow has appeared twice at -night in the same year. Nor can Albert conceive of any astronomical -reason why it should appear only twice in fifty years. “And so I think -that Aristotle stated this from the opinions of others and not from -the truth of demonstration or experience, while those facts which -have been adduced against his statement have been experienced beyond -a doubt by myself and by other reliable investigators associated with -me.” The very chapter headings of this portion of Albert’s treatise -suggest an antithesis between the ancient authorities and recent -experimental investigation, for instance: “Of the Iris of the Moon -and what Ancients have said of it and what Moderns have tested by -experience,”[1796] and “A Digression stating Seneca’s views concerning -_virgae_ and experiments with certain arcs seen in modern times.”[1797] -Thus while Albert of course believes that the statements of many of -his authorities are based upon experience, he seems to feel that he -and his associates have founded an important modern school for the -investigation of nature at first hand. We may choose to regard it as a -mere school of observation, but he dignifies its members by the title -of _experimentatores_. Again therefore we may admit that Pouchet was -not unjustified in associating Albert with the modern experimental -school. - - -III. _His Allusions to Magic_ - -At the close of his story of the toad and the emerald Albert adds -that there are many other such virtues of stones and plants which are -learned by experience, and that magicians investigate the same and -work wonders by them. It is therefore quite appropriate for us to turn -directly from his attitude to experimental method to his conception -of magic. Like William of Auvergne he hints at an association between -the two. His pupil and contemporary, Ulrich Engelbert of Strasburg, -actually called him “expert in magic.”[1798] - -[Sidenote: Peter of Prussia on Albert’s occult science.] - -In his _Life of Albert_ Peter of Prussia not only is evidently -concerned to make him out a saint as well as a scientist, telling of -his devotion to the Eucharist[1799] and the Virgin Mary and the wood -of the Holy Cross[1800] and of the miraculous visions which he had -from childhood, in which the Virgin and the Apostle Paul appeared -to him,[1801] and how he advanced more in knowledge by prayer than -by study and labor,[1802] and that he read the Psalter through -daily.[1803] He also devotes a number of chapters[1804] to a defense of -Albert against the charge of having indulged in occult sciences, and -of having been “too curious concerning natural phenomena.”[1805] Peter -explains that many superstitions were rife in Albert’s time and that -nigromancers were fascinating the people by their false miracles, and -pretending that their sorcery was worked by the sciences of astronomy, -mathematics, and alchemy.[1806] It was therefore essential that some -man who was equally learned and devout should thoroughly examine -these sciences, proving what was good in them and rejecting what was -bad.[1807] Peter is inclined to be disingenuous in stating Albert’s -attitude toward some of the occult sciences, especially the engraving -of stones with images according to the aspects of the stars, which he -misrepresents Albert as prohibiting, whereas Albert really calls it a -good doctrine, as we shall show later. Peter however states “how useful -it is to know natural and occult phenomena in the nature of things, and -that those who write about such things are to be praised for it.”[1808] -Also “that it is useful and necessary to know the facts of nature even -if they are indecent.”[1809] Later on, towards the close of his book, -Peter denies various feats of magic that by his time had come to be -popularly recounted of Albert, and then does his best to make up for -the subtracted marvels by himself inventing many pious miracles in -which he would have us believe Albert was concerned.[1810] - -[Sidenote: Trithemius on Albert’s study of magic.] - -The learned Trithemius (1462-1516), abbot of Sponheim, in a letter -to John Westenburgh in which he defends himself against the charge -of magic, admits that he “cannot say that he is entirely ignorant of -natural magic,” a form of wisdom which he regards very highly; and -adduces in his justification the example of “Albertus Magnus, that -most learned man and among the saints truly most saintly, of the -profoundest intellect, worthy of eternal memory, who scrutinized the -depths of natural philosophy, and learned to know marvels unheard of by -others.”[1811] Even to this day, continues Trithemius, he is unjustly -regarded by the unlearned as a magician and devotee of superstition. -For he was not ignorant of the magic of nature, and he had innocently -read and mastered a great number of superstitious books by depraved -men. For not the knowledge but the practice of evil is evil. Trithemius -admits that he himself has read many books of superstitious and even -diabolical magic, but contends that this is necessary, if one is to -learn to distinguish natural from illicit magic. - -[Sidenote: _Magnus in magia._] - -The brief but sane estimate of Albertus Magnus published eighty years -ago in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, from which we have -already had occasion to quote regarding his importance in the history -of natural science, mentions the efforts of Trithemius and Naudé to -defend him from the charge of magic, but adds that even his panegyrists -have called him “great in magic, greater in philosophy, greatest in -theology,” and agrees that he frequently shows a leaning towards the -occult sciences. “He is an alchemist, he is an astrologer, he believes -in enchantments; he delights like most savants of his age in explaining -all phenomena that surprise him by supernatural causes.” This rough -characterization contains much truth, although it is hardly true that -Albert gave supernatural explanations for strange natural phenomena. -Rather he believed in occult forces and marvels in nature which we no -longer credit. We also have already stated it as our opinion that he -was really much greater as a natural scientist than as a theologian. -But we have now to examine what grounds there are for calling him -_magnus in magia_, and _in magicis expertus_. - -[Sidenote: His varying treatment of magic.] - -Magic is often mentioned by Albert, both in his Biblical and -Aristotelian commentaries, both in his theological writings and his -works on natural science. Some references to magic arts, occurring -chiefly in the Biblical commentaries, are too brief, incidental, and -perfunctory to afford any particular information.[1812] The other -passages seem scarcely consistent with one another and will require -separate treatment. We shall first consider those in which Albert more -or less adheres to the traditional Christian attitude of condemnation -of magic as criminal and dealing with demons, of recognition of its -marvels but jealous differentiation of them from divine miracle. It -should be observed that all such passages occur in his theological -writings and that in them he does little more than rehearse opinions -which we have already encountered in the writings of the early -Christian fathers with a few additional citations from books of -necromancy or from Arabic works on natural science such as those of -Algazel and Avicenna. - -[Sidenote: Reality of magic.] - -Albert has no doubt either in his scientific or religious writings that -marvels can be worked by magic. It is true that one of its departments, -_praestigia_, has to do with illusions and juggleries in which things -are made to appear to exist which have no reality. But it also performs -actual transformations.[1813] But even the actual performances of magic -are deceptive in that demons by their means lead human souls astray, -which is far worse than merely to deceive the eye.[1814] - -[Sidenote: Magic due to demons.] - -Albert affirms in his theological _Summa_ that it is the consensus of -opinion that magic is due to demons. “For the saints expressly say -so, and it is the common opinion of all persons, and it is taught in -that part of necromancy which deals with images and rings and mirrors -of Venus and seals of demons by Achot Graecus and Grema of Babylon -and Hermes of Egypt, and invocations for this purpose are described -in the book of Hermogenes and Philetus, the necromancers, and in -the book called the Almandel of Solomon.”[1815] In his _Commentary -on the Sentences_[1816] Albert declares that to make use of “magic -virtues” is evil and apostasy from the Faith, whether one openly -resorts to “invocations, conjurations, sacrifices, suffumigations, and -adorations,” or to some simple operation which none the less requires -demon aid for its performance. One must beware even of “mathematical -virtues,” that is, of astrological forces, especially in “images, -rings, mirrors, and characters,” lest the practice of idolatry be -introduced. In commenting upon the passage in the gospel where the -Pharisees accuse Christ of casting out demons through the prince of -demons, Albert admits that necromancers are able to cast out demons and -to restrain them from doing external damage, but holds that they cannot -like Christ restrain the evil spirits from inciting inward sin.[1817] - -[Sidenote: Magic and miracle.] - -Albert will not admit, however, that the marvels of magic compare with -divine miracles. For one thing, feats of magic do not even happen as -instantaneously as miracles, although they occur much more rapidly -than the ordinary processes of nature. But except for this difference -in speed the works of magic can usually be explained as the product -of natural forces, and by the fact that the demons are aided in their -operations by the influence of the stars. To change rods into snakes, -for instance, as Pharaoh’s magicians did, is simply hastening the -process by which worms generate in decaying trees. Indeed, Albert is -inclined to believe that the demons “produce no permanent substantial -form that would not easily be produced by putrefaction.”[1818] The -magic power of fascination is after all only analogous to the virtue of -the sapphire in curing ulcers or of the emerald in restraining sexual -passion. Albert adds the comforting thought that neither fascination -nor the magic art can harm anyone who has firm faith in God, but for -us the most important thing to note is that even in his theological -writings he has associated magic with natural forces and the stars as -well as with demons. In this he resembles William of Auvergne rather -than the early Christian fathers. - -[Sidenote: Good magic of the Magi.] - -Like some other Christian commentators, Albert exempts the Magi of the -gospel story, who followed the star to Bethlehem, from the category of -magicians in the evil sense that we have just heard him define magic. -In his commentary upon the gospel by Matthew he asserts that “the Magi -are not sorcerers (_malefici_) as some wrongly think.” He also affirms -that there is a difference between a Magus and a _mathematicus_ or an -enchanter or necromancer or _ariolus_ or _aruspex_ or diviner. Like -Isidore Albert adopts the incorrect etymology of connecting Magus and -_magnus_. But for him the Magi are not so called on account of the -magnitude of their sins. “Etymologically the Magi are great men” whose -knowledge of, or conjecture from, the inevitable processes of cause -and effect in nature often enables them to predict or produce marvels -of nature. In his commentary on the Book of Daniel Albert quotes -Jerome’s similar description of them as “masters who philosophize -about the universe; moreover, the Magi are more particularly called -astronomers who search the future in the stars.” It is interesting to -note that this view of the Magi still persists among Roman Catholics; -the recent Catholic Encyclopedia still insists concerning the wise -men who came to Bethlehem, “Neither were they magicians: the good -meaning of μάγοι, though found nowhere else in the Bible, is demanded -by the context of the second chapter of Matthew.” But here is a still -more interesting point to note: Albertus Magnus does not deny that -the Magi were magicians. To contend that Magi were not _magi_ was a -contradiction of terms that was probably too much for his common sense. -All that he tries to do is to exculpate them from the practice of -those particular evil, superstitious, and diabolical occult arts which -Isidore and others had included in their definitions of magic. From -evil witchcraft and necromancy and fatalistic astrology, from augury -and liver divination, from the arts of _sortilegi_ and _pythones_, -of enchanters “who by means of certain incantations perform certain -feats with beasts or herbs or stones or images,” or of diviners who -employ geomancy or “the chance of fire” or hydromancy or aerimancy: -from all such practices he acquits them. “They were not devoted to any -of these arts, but only to magic as it has been described. And this -is praiseworthy.”[1819] Thus Albert not merely defends the Magi, he -praises magic; and we begin to see the fitness of the epithet, _Magnus -in magia_, as applied to him. - -[Sidenote: Natural magic.] - -But how does this praiseworthy magic differ from the magic which he -condemned in his _Summa_ and commentary on the Sentences? Presumably -in that its objects are good not evil, and that it does not make any -use of demons. It would seem to resemble closely the natural magic of -William of Auvergne. It is like evil magic in that both employ the -forces of nature and the influences of the stars, but it is unlike -it in that it employs them exclusively and is free from any resort -to demons and also apparently from the use of incantations or the -superstitious devices of geomancers and other diviners. - -[Sidenote: Attitude in the scientific treatises.] - -If in his theological writings Albert thus distinguishes two varieties -of magic, one good and one evil, one demoniacal and one natural, -we need not be surprised if in his scientific treatises, where he -is influenced mainly by Arabian astrology, the pseudo-Aristotelian -treatises, the Hermetic literature, and other such writings rather than -by patristic literature, he introduces yet a third conception of magic, -which scarcely agrees with either of the others and yet has features -in common with both. He nowhere in his commentaries on Aristotle or -other works of natural science really stops and discusses magic at any -length. But there are a number of brief and incidental allusions to -it which imply that it is a distinct and definite branch of knowledge -of which, although he himself does not treat, he gives no sign of -disapproval. He also cites even enchanters and necromancers without -offering any apology, and now seems to regard as sub-divisions of magic -those occult arts from which we have just heard him exculpate the Magi. - -[Sidenote: Use of animals and herbs in magic.] - -In his treatise on animals Albert states that anointing a sleeper’s -temples with the blood of a hoopoe makes him see terrible dreams, -and that enchanters value highly the brain, tongue, and heart of -this bird. He adds, “But we shall not discuss this matter here, for -the investigation of it belongs to another science,”--presumably to -magic.[1820] In his treatise on plants he says that certain herbs seem -to have “divine effects”[1821] which those who study magic follow -up further. Examples are the betony, said to confer the power of -divination, the verbena, used as a love charm, and the herb _meropis_, -supposed to open closed seas, and many other such plants listed in the -books of incantations of Hermes the philosopher and of Costa ben Luca -the philosopher and in the books of physical ligatures. “Enchanter” -(_Incantator_), apparently the author or title of a book, is cited -more than once for the virtues of herbs, and what enchanters in general -say is also mentioned.[1822] “According to the testimony of the -_praestigia_ of the magi” the juice of a certain herb drunk in water -makes a person do or say whatever the magician says or does.[1823] -Students of magic believe that the seed of another herb extinguishes -lust.[1824] Necromancers avow that betony indicates the future when -plucked with an adjuration of Aesculapius,[1825] and students of -necromancy say that a man invoking demons should have a character -painted on him with the herb Jusquiam,[1826] and that gods invoked by -characters and seals and sacrifices present themselves more readily -if frankincense is offered them.[1827] Such passages seem to indicate -that Albert regarded occult virtues as largely the concern of magic, -but that at least in necromancy the invocation of gods and demons also -enters. - -[Sidenote: Magic stones.] - -Many allusions to magic occur in Albert’s treatise on minerals, as the -especially marvelous powers attributed to gems in antiquity might well -lead us to expect. The magi, he tells us, make much use of the stone -_diacodos_, which is said to excite phantasms but loses its virtue if -it touches a corpse.[1828] But such things do not come within Albert’s -present scope; he refers the reader for further information to the -books of magic of Hermes, Ptolemy, and Thebith ben Chorath. The stone -magnet is also stated in the magic books to have a marvelous power of -producing phantasms, especially if consecrated with an adjuration and a -character. - -[Sidenote: Magic images engraved on gems.] - -Albert twice assures us that the “prodigious and marvelous” powers of -stones, and more particularly of images and seals engraved on stones, -cannot be really understood without a knowledge of the three other -sciences of magic, necromancy, and astrology.[1829] He therefore -will not in this treatise on minerals discuss the subject as fully -as he might, “since those powers cannot be proved by physical laws -(_principiis physicis_), but require a knowledge of astronomy and magic -and the necromantic sciences, which should be considered in other -treatises.”[1830] For the reason why gems were first so engraved he -refers his readers to “the science of the _magi_ which Magor Graecus -and Germa of Babylon and Hermes the Egyptian were among the first -to perfect, and in which later wise Ptolemy was a marvelous light -and Geber of Spain; Tebith, too, handed down a full treatment of the -art.”[1831] And in this science it is a fundamental principle that all -things produced by nature or art are influenced by celestial virtues. -Thus we comprehend the close connection of astrology and magic. As -for necromancy, the third “science” involved, Albert’s associates are -curious to know the doctrine of images even if it is necromancy, and -Albert does not hesitate to assure them that it is a good doctrine -in any case. Yet in his theological writings he not only condemned -necromancy, but declared the art of images to be evil “because it -inclines to idolatry by imputing divinity to the stars, and ... is -employed for idle or evil ends.”[1832] - -[Sidenote: Magic and alchemy; finding hidden metals.] - -Albert again refers to magic in his discussion of alchemy in the -treatise on minerals, where he not only cites Hermes a great deal but -refers to writings by Avicenna on magic and alchemy.[1833] Albert -holds that it is not the business of a physical or natural scientist -(_physicus_) to determine concerning the transmutation of metals; that -is the affair of the art of alchemy, which thus seems to lie outside -the field of natural science upon the borders of magic. Similarly the -problem in what places and mountains and by what signs metals are -discovered falls partly within the sphere of natural science and partly -belongs to that magical science which has to do with finding hidden -treasure. Albert perhaps has the employment of the divining rod in mind. - -[Sidenote: Fascination and magic.] - -The occult virtue of the human mind is another matter which Albert -seems inclined to place within the field of magic. In the treatise on -minerals[1834] he remarks that whether fascination is true or not is a -question for magic to settle, and in his _On Sleep and Waking_[1835] -he cites Avicenna and Algazel as adducing “fascination and magic -virtues” as examples of occult influence exerted by one man over -another. It will be remembered that he cited the same authors anent -fascination in his Commentary on the Sentences,[1836] but there denied -that fascination or magic could harm anyone who had firm faith in God, -although he illustrated the possibility of potent human occult virtue -exercised at will by the marvelous virtues exerted constantly by the -sapphire and emerald. Peter of Prussia gives us to understand that -Albert’s belief was that fascination did not operate naturally but -by the aid of demons; nevertheless certain men are generated at rare -intervals who work marvels like the twins in Germany in Albert’s time -at whose approach bolts would open.[1837] - -[Sidenote: Interpretation of dreams and magic.] - -Albert also regards the interpretation of dreams as especially the -affair of magic. In one passage of _On Sleep and Waking_[1838] he -grants that probably the art of interpreting dreams cannot be acquired -without a knowledge of magic and “astronomy.” In a second passage[1839] -he speaks of the magicians as teaching the interpretation of dreams -and the “astronomers” as talking of signs of prophecies, but not the -sort of prophecy accepted among theologians. In a third passage[1840] -he defines the kind of dreams “which wise men interpret and for which -was invented the art of interpretation in the magical sciences.” Albert -seems to have no particular objection, either moral or religious, -to the interpretation of dreams, even if it is a branch of magic. -Rather he censures Aristotle and other philosophers for not having -investigated this side of the subject further, and he thinks that -by physical science alone one can at least determine what sort of -dreams are of value for purposes of divination and are susceptible -to interpretation.[1841] Magicians make great use not only of dreams -but also of visions seen when one is awake but with the senses -distracted.[1842] The magicians indeed specialize in potions which clog -and stupefy the senses, and thereby produce apparitions by means of -which they predict the future. - -[Sidenote: Magic and divination.] - -In this same treatise _On Sleep and Waking_ Albert lists together -“the astronomer and augur and magician and interpreter of dreams and -visions and every such diviner.”[1843] He admits that almost all men -of this type delight in deception and are poorly educated and confuse -what is contingent with what is necessary, but he insists that “the -defect is not in the science but in those who abuse it.” Thus magic and -divination in general are closely associated. - -[Sidenote: Summary of Albert’s accounts of magic.] - -This last passage, like the connecting of enchanters and necromancers -with magic which we have noted in a previous paragraph, is hard to -reconcile with the passage in his commentary upon the Gospel of Matthew -where Albert separated the Magi and magic from diviners, enchanters, -necromancers, and their arts. So far as mere classification is -concerned, Albert’s references to magic in his scientific writings -are in closer accord with his discussion of magic in the _Summa_ and -Sentences, where too he associated magic with the stars, with occult -virtues, with fascination, and with images. But the emphasis which he -there laid upon the evil character of magic and its connection with -demons is now almost entirely lacking. Our attention is rather being -continually called to how closely magic, or at least some parts of it, -border upon natural science and astronomy. And yet we are also always -being reminded that magic, although itself a “science,” is essentially -different in methods and results from natural science or at least from -what Albert calls “physical science.” Overlapping both these fields, -apparently, and yet rather distinct from both in Albert’s thought, -is the great subject of “astronomy” which includes both the genuine -natural science and the various vagaries of astrology. It is all like -some map of a feudal area where certain fiefs owe varying degrees of -fealty to, or are claimed by, several lords and where the frontiers are -loose, fluctuating, and uncertain. Perhaps the rule of the stars can be -made to account for almost everything in natural science or in magic, -but Albert seems inclined to leave room for the independent action of -divine power, the demons, and the human mind and will. But his attitude -to the stars and to astrology will be considered more fully later; we -shall first examine in more detail his own attitude towards marvelous -virtues in inferior nature and towards some of the other matters which -he has located expressly or by implication along the ill-defined -frontier of “magic and astronomy.” In concluding the present section -let us make the one further observation that while Albert describes -magic differently and even inconsistently in different passages, it is -evident enough that he is trying to describe the same thing all the -time. - - -IV. _Marvelous Virtues in Nature_ - -[Sidenote: Properties of the lion.] - -So many instances have already been given from other authors of the -occult virtues ascribed to parts of animals that we shall note in -Albert’s treatise on animals only two or three passages, chiefly -for purposes of comparison. The properties which he ascribes to the -carcass of the lion,[1844] for instance, bear a certain resemblance to -Pliny’s paragraph on its medicinal virtues and to Thomas of Cantimpré’s -compilation concerning it, yet are considerably different. Its fat is -hotter than that of other animals, and they flee from anyone who is -anointed with it, while fumigation therewith keeps wolves away from -sheep. A diet of lion’s flesh benefits paralytics. Garments wrapped -in its skin are secure from moths, and the hair falls out of a wolf’s -skin which is left near a lion’s skin. If the tooth of a lion which is -called _caninus_ is suspended about a boy’s neck before he loses his -first teeth, he will be free from toothache when his second teeth come. -Lion’s fat mixed with other unguents removes blotches, and rubbing -cancer with its blood cures that disease. Drinking a little of its gall -cures jaundice; its liver in wine checks pain in the liver. Its brain, -if eaten, causes madness; but remedies deafness, if inserted in the ear -with some strong oil. Its testicle, administered pulverized with roses, -causes sterility--a case, it would seem, of sympathetic magic operating -by contraries. But no doctrine of sympathy and antipathy is needed to -explain the further assertion that its excrement drunk with wine makes -one abhor wine. - -[Sidenote: Nasty recipes: illusory lights.] - -The last two items are very characteristic of Albert’s section on -quadrupeds, where the medicinal and other properties of such parts as -_stercus_, _virga_, and _testiculus_ are incessantly mentioned, and -are sometimes used in charms, as in the following: “Si virga lupi in -alicuius nomine viri vel mulieris ligetur, non poterit coire donec -nodus ille solutus fuerit.”[1845] The saliva of a fasting human being -cures abscesses and removes scars and blotches.[1846] It kills serpent -or scorpion, if it falls into its mouth or wound so as to reach its -inner parts. If the tip of an arrow or sword has touched the lips of a -fasting man, it inflicts a poisonous wound, say those who have tested -it. Others say that if the wax and dirt from dogs’ ears are smeared -on wicks of new cotton, and these are placed in a crucible in green -oil and lighted, the heads of persons present will appear entirely -bald.[1847] This sort of half-magical, half-chemical experiment with -various combustible or illuminating compositions, which are supposed -to produce optical or other illusions, is not infrequently met with in -medieval manuscripts, especially alchemical ones, and we shall in a -later chapter encounter further specimens thereof in works ascribed to -Albert himself. - -[Sidenote: Dragons.] - -Albert is rather unusually sceptical concerning dragons, which are -generally the theme of so many marvelous stories. That a dragon is -large enough to crush an elephant with a twist of its tail, that the -Ethiopians eat the flesh of dragons to cool themselves, that dragons -are afraid of thunder and therefore enchanters imitate it with drums -in order to capture dragons and ride on them through space,[1848]--all -such assertions Albert treats as rumors rather than tested facts. -He also suggests that meteors or flaming vapors have been mistaken -for dragons flying through the air and breathing forth fire. We have -already, however, heard his tale of a serpent with a human face. - -[Sidenote: The basilisk.] - -Albert still believes, moreover, that the mere glance and hiss of the -basilisk are fatal. But while the reptile’s glance will kill as far as -its vision extends, its hiss is not fatal as far as it can be heard but -only as far as it is propagated by the basilisk’s breath.[1849] Albert -rejects as neither true nor reasonable Pliny’s assertion that if a man -sees a basilisk first, his glance is fatal to it. “Nor do Avicenna and -Semerion, philosophers who tell what they have experienced, mention -this.” But Albert repeats Pliny’s story of the horseman who was -killed by touching with the end of his long lance a corpse slain by -a basilisk. He rejects, however, as false and impossible the notion -that the basilisk is generated from a cock’s egg, and the books of -wise philosophers do not support the assertion that there is a flying -variety of basilisk. But scattering the ashes of a basilisk expels -spiders and other venomous creatures, and hence in antiquity its ashes -were scattered in temples. Hermes says that silver rubbed with its ash -takes on the splendor and weight and solidity of gold; Hermes also -teaches that the basilisk is generated in glass, but Albert interprets -this as an allusion to some alchemical elixir by which metals are -transmuted. - -[Sidenote: Remedies for falcons and mad dogs.] - -Very amusing are the detailed recipes for every ailment of the birds -in the chapters on the infirmities of falcons.[1850] These appear to -be culled chiefly from the works on falconry of the Emperor Frederick -and of King William, one of the Norman line which preceded him in the -kingdom of Sicily. To make the birds fierce one is advised to feed them -flesh soaked in urine. If a falcon develops a cataract, one should -inject into its eye a mixture of pulverized fennel seed and the milk -of a woman bearing a male child. Several prayers and incantations are -recommended for use when taking up the falcon in the morning, when -releasing it in fowling, and in order to preserve it from injury from -eagles. In the last case the words to be repeated are, “Leo conquers -of the tribe of Judah, root of David, Alleluia.” Albert adds, however, -“But these last items,” meaning probably the incantations, “are not so -reasonable as the first,” meaning probably the more purely medicinal -directions. Equally diverting is a cure of a mad dog borrowed by Albert -from a king of Valencia. For nine days the hound should be so immersed -in hot water that his hind legs barely touch the ground while his fore -legs are held erect. After that his head should be shaved and his -hair well plucked out so that the skin is wounded. Then he should be -anointed with beet juice and ducked often and soaked in the same juice. -“And if he eats anything, give him some pith of the elder tree, for it -will do him good. And if this treatment fails to benefit him within the -space of seven days, kill him, for he is incurable.”[1851] - -[Sidenote: Habits and remedies of animals.] - -Albert’s treatise on animals not only ascribes marvelous properties -and medicinal virtues to various portions of their carcasses, but -also continues to some extent the tradition of crediting them with -semi-human intelligence and medical knowledge. Albert discredits, -however, the report of the adultery of the lioness with the leopard -and her craftiness in concealing it, and he also rejects as contrary -to the wise provision of nature the statement that the lion suffers -continually from quartan fever.[1852] But he believes that a sick -lion cures itself by eating an ape or drinking the blood of a dog. -Even the tortoise (_tortuca_?), although it seems to Albert a sort -of reptile and lacking in “noble virtues of the soul,” yet from mere -natural sagacity eats wild origanum after it has eaten the viper in -order to overcome the chill of the venom by the heat of the herb.[1853] -And someone in Aristotle’s time learned by experience that it will not -eat a viper except in a place where this herb is available, and that -if the herb is removed while it is eating the viper it will die from -want of it. Avicenna tells a similar experience of an old man who was -an experienced hunter and deserving credence. He saw a bird of slow -movement and weak flight fighting with a viper. As often as it was -wounded, it would retreat, eat some of a certain herb, and then return -renewed to the fight. The observer covertly removed the herb and when -the bird returned again and failed to find it, it raised a great outcry -and died. From the old hunter’s description of the plant’s shape and -color Avicenna judged it to be wild lettuce (_lectuca agrestis_). - -[Sidenote: The virtues of herbs.] - -Thus the remedies employed by animals bring us to the virtues of -herbs. The “divine effects” of certain plants, as we have seen, Albert -regards as lying within the province of magic rather than that of his -treatise on plants, but he mentions a few, such as that planting a -certain herb on the roof protects the house from lightning,[1854] and -that carrying another stirs up quarrels and hatreds,[1855] while a -woman who wears a third about her neck will not become pregnant.[1856] -But he believes that there is strong virtue in herbs in general. -Their elemental qualities are unusually acute and closely akin to the -excellencies of the pure elements. They grow close to the ground and -“recede less from the first fertilizing humor in the earth.”[1857] In -them matter predominates more and the form of the vegetable soul is -less developed than in other kinds of vegetation. Consequently they are -more efficacious in altering other bodies and are used by physicians -more than any other class of remedies. - -[Sidenote: Their medicinal use.] - -Most, indeed, of the virtues of herbs mentioned by Albert are -medicinal. Sometimes the method of applying them is injudicious, as -when a root of parsley is hung from the neck to cure toothache, or -artemisia is bound to the legs to prevent wayfarers from feeling -weariness.[1858] More often, however, our criticism is that the same -disease is represented as curable by too many different plants, or that -a single herb is made a cure for a long list of very miscellaneous and -unrelated ills, not content with which Albert often concludes, “And it -has many other effects.” Selecting an example at random, we may note -what he says of the nasturtium.[1859] “It possesses acidity, is hot -and dry, acts as a gentle purgative and laxative, and dries up the -putridity of an empty belly. Used as a potion and liniment, it keeps -the hair from falling out. Combined with salt and water, it helps -abscesses and carbuncles, and mixed with honey, it eradicates Persian -Fire and is good for all softening of the muscles. It purifies the -lungs and relieves asthma by its sharp, cutting qualities. It warms the -stomach and liver and cures enlarged spleen, but its disturbing quality -is bad for the stomach. _Auget coitum et multiplicat menstrua et eiicit -foetum, sed tamen si non teratur et confringatur, retinet ipsum._ It is -good for venomous bites, and if carefully prepared, works many other -effects.” - -[Sidenote: Occult virtue of herbs due to the stars.] - -According to Albert the properties of plants are produced by the -combination of five virtues: that of the element which preponderates -in the composition of the plant, the cooperating virtue of the other -elements which are mixed with it, the virtue of the proportion in -which they are mixed, the influence of the stars, and the virtue of -the vegetable soul. “The virtue of the place (where the plant grows) -and the virtue of the surrounding air are also effective, but they do -not enter into the plant’s nature so essentially as the aforesaid five -virtues.”[1860] “Its specific form,” upon which its occult virtues -largely depend, is given to the plant by the motion of the heavens, -especially by the movement of the planets through the circle of the -zodiac,[1861] and their position in relation to the fixed stars. Plants -receive this influence at the time of their formation, when vapors, -potentially seminal and formative, ascend from the depths of earth and -meet the dewy air as it descends. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtue of stones.] - -It is unnecessary to repeat the marvelous powers attributed to -particular gems and stones by Albert in his treatise on minerals, -since they are either copied from or similar to those of Marbod, Costa -ben Luca, and Constantinus Africanus. What, however, he has to say on -the general subject of their occult virtue is worth noting. He states -that many doubt if stones really have such powers as to cure ulcers, -counteract poisons, conciliate human hearts, and win victories. Such -sceptics contend that a compound substance like a gem can exert only -such powers as one can account for from the elements which enter -into its composition and the composition itself. Albert grants that -the wonders worked by means of stones seem “more prodigious and -marvelous” than those produced by simple substances, that the physical -constitution of stones does not seem to justify the existence of such -powers in them, and that “the cause of the virtue of stones is indeed -occult.” But he maintains that such occult virtues are well established -by experience, “since we see the magnet attract iron and the adamant -restrict that virtue in the magnet.”[1862] Albert has seen with his own -eyes a sapphire which removed ulcers. - -[Sidenote: Due to the stars.] - -Albert finds that students of nature (_physiologi_)--it will be noted -that the word cannot possibly refer here to the authors of such works -as the _Physiologus_--have assigned very diverse causes for this -marvelous virtue of stones. He rejects as “most absurd” the suggestion -of certain Pythagoreans that it is due to the action of souls or of -a world-soul in stones. Alexander Aphrodisiensis argues from the -operations of alchemy that some chemical change makes the compound -stone far more potent than any or all of its constituents. Plato -thinks that all inferior objects are imbued with superior ideas; Hermes -and Avicenna suggest that celestial virtue is responsible. Albert -himself concludes that the occult virtue of stones resides in their -specific forms, in which, as in the case of herbs, the influence of the -stars plays the chief part. Albert’s discussion of the virtue of gems -is repeated in a _Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to Robert Grosseteste, -but in part at least written after his death. The author regards -“Albert of Cologne” as having “spoken more certainly than others in -this matter.”[1863] - -[Sidenote: Pseudo-Albert _De lapidibus_.] - -Albert’s discussion of the engraving of images and seals on stones -in his treatise on minerals has already been mentioned in connection -with his attitude toward magic and will come up again in connection -with his attitude towards astrology. Besides the treatise on minerals -there seems to be another work on stones ascribed to Albert which is -spurious. It deals with the colors and virtues of stones, and, like -Thetel and the fourteenth book of Thomas of Cantimpré, with their -sculpture and consecration.[1864] - -[Sidenote: Alchemy.] - -In his third book concerning minerals Albert judiciously discusses -alchemy, citing Avicenna and Hermes especially. He says that of all the -arts alchemy most closely imitates nature.[1865] Albert regards the -various metals as distinct species, and hardly accepts the assertions -of Hermes, Gilgil, Empedocles, and other alchemists that in each -metal there are several species and natures, one manifest and another -occult,[1866] one external and another internal, one superficial and -another deep. Albert then considers the remark of Avicenna, incorrectly -ascribed by some to Aristotle, that the alchemists cannot alter species -but can make them appear alike, as when they color copper so that it -seems to be gold.[1867] Avicenna has also remarked in his _Alchemy_, -however, that species can perhaps be reduced to first matter and then -by the aid of the art formed into the species of the desired metal. -Albert thinks that perhaps, as physicians by their medicines purge away -corrupt matter and afterwards restore health, so skilled alchemists -may purify a great mass of quicksilver and sulphur, which according -to Avicenna are the material constituents of all metals, and then -combine these in due ratio of elemental and celestial virtues for the -composition of the metal which they wish to obtain.[1868] But those who -merely color the metal white or yellow, while the species of the baser -metal remains in the material, are beyond doubt deceivers and do not -make true gold or true silver. Unfortunately all alchemists proceed in -this fashion to a greater or less extent, and Albert has subjected gold -made by them to fire and has found that it is finally consumed, after -it has stood the test of fire perhaps six or seven times. - -Albert thus suggests that the transmutation of metals by means of -human art is possible, although he does not regard the alchemists as -having yet employed the right method. But it is hard to see how Peter -of Prussia got the notion that Albert had condemned the art of alchemy -in the _De mineralibus_ and could not be the author of a treatise -on the subject.[1869] In other passages Albert speaks of alchemy -without disapproval and apparently with respect. He cites “alchemical -experiments” concerning the evaporation of water when heated.[1870] -He repeats the argument of Alexander of Aphrodisias that the occult -virtues of gems are due to the mixture of the elements in them, as is -proved by the operations of alchemy, in which simple substances effect -little, but when mixed together produce truly marvelous effects.[1871] -And as one instance of the influence exerted by the moon he states that -skilled alchemists work during the waxing of the moon because then -they produce purer metals and purer stones, especially when they are -really expert and do not hurry their operations but await the opportune -time when the process will be aided by celestial virtue.[1872] On the -whole, however, as these passages show, Albert’s mentions of alchemy -are mainly allusive. He does not treat of it fully in his Aristotelian -treatises apparently because, as we saw earlier, he regarded it as a -separate subject from physics or physical science, bordering more on -the field of natural magic. The question therefore next arises whether -he ever wrote a work or works dealing especially with alchemy, just as -the question will arise whether he ever wrote any works in the field of -natural magic. - -[Sidenote: Works of alchemy ascribed to Albert.] - -Berthelot gives the impression in his _La Chimie au Moyen Age_[1873] -that there was but one alchemistic treatise current under the name of -Albertus Magnus. This he describes as a serious and methodical work -but written a little after Albert’s time. But the manuscripts seem to -contain several, or rather, nearly a dozen, different works of alchemy -ascribed to Albert.[1874] In the University library at Bologna alone -there appear to be six different alchemistic treatises ascribed to -Albert, and three of them in one manuscript.[1875] In one manuscript -of the British Museum is a rather lengthy “_Practica_ of Brother -Albert in alchemy which is called by the same the Secret of Secrets,” -in seven books. The text, however, cites Albert’s work on minerals, -stating that the Latins in general have discovered very little for -themselves experimentally in alchemy but have been dependent upon -translations from other languages, but that “Albert, once of Ratisbon, -the crown of the Latins,” studied it and discovered some secrets by -experimentation, as he bears witness in his “_De mineralibus_.”[1876] -Presently Albert is again cited in a list of old masters who labored -at this art, Alexander the Great, Dioscorides, and others.[1877] In -another manuscript at the British Museum is a much briefer _Of the -hidden things of nature_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus.[1878] What seems -to be still another brief tract on alchemy ascribed to Albert occurs -in a manuscript at Cambridge. It concludes with the statement, “And I -Albert say that I have tested these two operations and that there is -no other perfect work by me except these two works, and they are true. -Euclid, too, and many philosophers agree with me and assert that all -the value of this art consists in Mercury and the Moon and in Mercury -and the Sun, and you should know that all others are vain and illusory. -Thanks to God.”[1879] - -[Sidenote: A more detailed description of one of them: preface.] - -Of these various treatises in alchemy ascribed to Albert we shall now -consider in more detail the one which has been included in editions of -his works,[1880] and which is perhaps the most likely of any of them -to be genuine. It is ascribed to Albert in a manuscript list of the -writings of Dominicans drawn up before 1350, and also by Pignon.[1881] -It is also an unusually intelligible treatise for a work of alchemy and -so the better lends itself to description and summary. After opening in -devout tone with praise of God and invocation of His aid, the author -proceeds to tell in somewhat Albertine style how he has traversed many -regions, provinces, cities, and castles with great labor for the sake -of the science which is called alchemy, and has diligently inspected -the books on the subject by men of erudition and learning, but has -found nothing true in them. He has also encountered “many very rich -men, scholars, abbots, _praepositi_, canons, physicians, and illiterate -persons,” who have expended much money and toil without result. He did -not despair, however, but went to infinite expense and labor, keeping -his eyes open and constantly moving from place to place, until at last -he found what he sought “not by any science of mine but by the grace of -the Holy Spirit.” He therefore, the least of philosophers, intends to -write to his friends and associates concerning this art, true, easy, -and infallible, yet so that seeing they shall not see and hearing they -shall not understand. And he adjures them to keep it secret and not to -show his book to the foolish. - -[Sidenote: Experimental method and equipment.] - -After this preface, the first of the fifty-seven chapters, for the -most part brief, into which the treatise is divided, lists various -“errors” which have made the previous efforts of alchemists a failure. -The author also strikes an experimental key-note for his work, stating -that after seeing so many fail he has decided to write true and -approved works and the best which all the philosophers have to offer, -works furthermore in which he has labored and which he has tested by -experience, and he will write nothing but what he has seen with his own -eyes.[1882] After suggesting a derivation for the word “alchemy”[1883] -and a theory for the origin of metals and “proof that alchemy is a -true art,”[1884] the author lays down eight precepts for alchemists to -follow. The alchemist should work silently and secretly or he may be -arrested as a counterfeiter. He should have a laboratory, “a special -house away from the sight of men in which there are two or three -rooms in which experiments may be conducted.”[1885] He must observe -time and seasons; the process of sublimation, for instance, cannot be -successfully performed in winter. He must be a sedulous, persevering, -untiring, and constant worker. In his operations he must observe due -order: first _contributio_; then _sublimatio_; third, _fixio_; fourth, -_calcinatio_; fifth, _solutio_; sixth, _coagulatio_; processes which -are further explained in chapters 30 to 35. All the vessels which -he uses should be made of glass. He should fight shy of princes and -potentates, and finally, should have plenty of money. Chapters four to -eight then deal with the subject of furnaces, and chapter nine tells -how to glaze clay vessels. - -[Sidenote: Differences between transmuted and natural metals.] - -In the tenth chapter, besides discussing what are the four “spirits” -of metals which dye or color, the author states his opinion as to the -extent to which metals can be transmuted. He believes that metals can -be produced by alchemy which are the equal of natural metals in almost -all their qualities and effects, except that the iron of alchemy is -not attracted by the stone adamant, and that the gold of alchemy does -not stimulate the human heart or cure leprosy, while a wound inflicted -by it swells up as one made by natural gold would not do. “But in -every other operation, hammering, testing, and color, it will endure -forever.” In the two following chapters the author discusses what the -Elixir is and the kinds of medicines. - -[Sidenote: Substances and processes of alchemy.] - -A number of chapters are next devoted to description of various -minerals, chemicals, dyes, and coloring matter, such as mercury, -sulphur, orpiment, arsenic, salts of ammonia, common salt, various -other salts, azure, minium, ceruse, and so on. We are then instructed -in various processes such as whitening quicksilver or sulphur -or orpiment or arsenic, the making of powders, solutions, and -distillations, leading up finally in the last two chapters to two brief -recipes for the making of the precious metals. The general plan of this -treatise is one to which many others conform; it is noteworthy further -for the absence of mysticism and magic procedure. - -[Sidenote: Ligatures and suspensions.] - -We have already noted in Albert’s works some instances of marvels -worked by herbs bound to the body or suspended from the neck. In his -treatise on plants he cited books concerning physical ligatures[1886] -for the divine effects of plants with which magic is especially -concerned. But in his treatise on minerals, after stating that the -marvels worked by images engraved on gems cannot be explained by the -laws of physical science but require a knowledge of “astronomy” and -magic and necromancy,[1887] he adds that ligatures and suspensions -of stones seem to operate naturally and belong more to physical -science.[1888] He cites, however, Socrates, probably through the medium -of Costa ben Luca, to the effect that ligatures and suspensions are -one of four kinds of incantations, and that they affect the mind, -depressing or elating it and so affecting the health of the body. -This half-sceptical attitude seems to influence Albert little, for he -states that for the present he intends to treat only of ligatures and -suspensions of stones, of which he proceeds to list examples for a page -and a half drawn largely from Costa ben Luca’s treatise. In his work on -animals Albert again quotes Costa ben Luca to the effect that dogs will -not bite the wearer of a dog’s heart.[1889] Others say that they will -not bark at one who holds in his hand the tooth of a black dog, “and so -robbers carry such a tooth with them at night.” Albert further finds in -the book of sixty animals--probably the work ascribed to Rasis--that -dog’s teeth should be suspended from the neck of a patient suffering -from jaundice. - -[Sidenote: Incantations.] - -Albert does not expressly discuss the power of words or incantations. -It is rarely that he repeats any incantations, and it will be -remembered that those which he quoted from books on falcons were -accompanied with a word of caution. His belief in the power of -characters or images engraved on gems may be best discussed in -connection with his attitude towards astrology. - -[Sidenote: Fascination.] - -The power of fascination possessed by one human being over another is -touched upon by Albert in three different treatises.[1890] We have -already heard him identify it with magic. He cites certain Pythagoreans -as affirming that the soul of a man or other animal can act upon -another, fascinating it and impeding its working. He quotes Hermes as -telling Esclepius that man is so endowed with divine intellect and -raised above the world, that its matter follows his thought, and so -the sage can work transformations and miracles in nature or fascinate -another person through sight or some other sense. Avicenna and Algazel -“say that souls can in so far conform to the celestial intelligence -that it will alter material bodies at their pleasure, and then such a -man will work wonders.” It is not clear, however, to what extent Albert -agrees with the authorities he has cited; he remarks that the power of -the soul in fascination can scarcely be proved by philosophy, but he -perhaps simply means that it can be proved by magic. - -[Sidenote: Physiognomy.] - -In a passage of his treatise on animals[1891] Albert describes -physiognomy as a science which divines a man’s character from the -physical form of the various parts of his body. He explains, however, -that the configuration of one’s physical features does not absolutely -force one to a corresponding course of action. Thus he upholds human -free will against a mechanistic view of man, or rather he shows that -the physiognomists themselves do. He cites Aristotle, to whom we have -seen that a treatise on physiognomy was ascribed, for the following -story: The disciples of Hippocrates made a perfect image of him and -submitted it to an excellent physiognomist, who declared it the -likeness of a man given to luxury, deceit, and lusts of the body. The -disciples were angered at this slur upon the character of their master, -who they knew lived a sober and upright life; but Hippocrates himself -told them that the physiognomist had judged aright as to his natural -traits, and that it was only by love of philosophy and integrity and a -life of study and effort that he had triumphed over nature. A treatise -on chiromancy is ascribed to Albert in more than one manuscript.[1892] - -[Sidenote: Aristotle on divination from dreams.] - -In the third book of his _De somno et vigilia_[1893] Albert -complains that Aristotle’s treatment of divination from dreams -is unsatisfactory; being “brief, deficient in proof, naïve, -unphilosophical, imperfect,” and having “many doubtful points because -it leaves the causes of such dreams uncertain.” Aristotle’s attitude -was in fact a vacillating one, since he found it “not easy either to -despise or to believe” in that kind of divination. Yet Roger Bacon -tells us that one reason why the study of the books of Aristotle -on natural philosophy was forbidden at Paris before 1237 was this -third book of his _De somno et vigilia_ dealing with divination from -dreams.[1894] But perhaps this was because of commentaries of Averroes -which accompanied it or errors in translation of which Bacon speaks. - -[Sidenote: Albert on divination from dreams.] - -Little as Aristotle said, he came nearer the truth in Albert’s -opinion than any other extant philosophers, among whom there is great -diversity of view. However, that dreams are prophetic “is no idle -report but the testimony of experience,”[1895] and Albert thinks -that there is scarcely anyone who has not been warned in his dreams -of many future events. “Socrates put great faith in divination from -dreams.”[1896] Interpretation of dreams is necessary, for dreams -cannot be exact images of future events, since these are as yet -non-existent.[1897] Predictions from dreams, even if correctly made, -do not invariably come true, just as medical prognostications and the -predictions of augurs--of whom we are surprised to hear Albert speak -approvingly--sometimes fail owing to the arising of some conflicting -cause.[1898] The dreamer must be free from care and passion. Albert -agrees with Aristotle that dreams requiring interpretation do not come -from God but have a natural cause; while the future cannot be foretold -from dreams which have an accidental cause.[1899] More specifically -he finds the cause of dreams not, like Socrates and Plato, in demons -and corporeal and incorporeal gods,[1900] nor, like Democritus, in -atoms streaming from the stars through the pores of the dreamer into -his inmost soul, but in the motion of the stars acting upon the -body of man, who is in a sense a microcosm or image of the universe -(_imago mundi_).[1901] The interpreter of dreams must be quick to see -associations and similarities from the realm of nature and of art, -he must understand astronomy and astrology, and the state of health -and mind of the dreamer.[1902] Albert again discusses divination -from dreams in much the same way in the second part of his _Summa de -creaturis_ and in his _De apprehensione_.[1903] - -[Sidenote: Augury.] - -In the _De somno et vigilia_ he mentions one further variety of vision -“when the celestial influence is so strong that it affects even while -awake one whose attention is not occupied by the distractions of -sense.” Such visions move the bodies of animals even when they are -awake, “and then their movements have some future signification, which -augurs endeavor to note and interpret. On so much ground of reason is -divination by augury based.”[1904] - - -V. _Attitude Toward Astrology_ - -[Sidenote: His emphasis upon the influence of the stars.] - -We come finally to that influence of the heavens and stars which makes -the art of augury and divination from dreams possible, which serves to -explain the occult virtue of herbs and stones, and to that “astronomy,” -or astrology as we should say, which is so closely associated with the -science of the magi and with necromancy. Albert’s astrological view’s -crop out in almost all his scientific treatises rather than merely in -those dealing with astronomical subjects, such as the _Meteorology_, -the _De coelo et mundo_, and the _De causis et procreatione universi_. -Especially astrological in character is the treatise _On the Causes -and Properties of the Elements and Planets_.[1905] - -[Sidenote: Problem of the authorship of the _Speculum astronomiae_.] - -Another treatise very important in the history of astrology is the -_Speculum astronomiae_, hitherto usually placed among Albert’s -works[1906] but recently declared by Father Mandonnet[1907] to be -the work of Roger Bacon. Although Mandonnet adduced no evidence of -manuscripts in favor of the Baconian authorship, other students of -Roger Bacon[1908] have since unquestioningly accepted this attribution -of the _Speculum_ to him, but I shall show that there is no good reason -for it. This may best be done, however, by delaying our consideration -of the _Speculum astronomiae_ itself until after we have taken up Roger -Bacon and his views. But in our present discussion of Albert’s other -writings we may break the backbone of Mandonnet’s argument, which is -his extraordinary contention that Albert did not believe in astrology -and that Roger Bacon was “the only ecclesiastical author in the -second half of the thirteenth century who has undertaken the defense -of judicial astrology and of the other occult sciences which depend -more or less directly upon it.”[1909] Mandonnet criticized Charles -for saying of Roger Bacon’s astrological views, “These doctrines, -which seem contemptible to us, were widespread in the thirteenth -century; Albert was not free from them; St. Thomas merely expressed -some reservations but did not deny the science.” Mandonnet declares -that Charles “has given no evidence for his conclusion and could not -do so,”[1910] but our detailed presentation of the opinions of the men -named and of others will show that Charles was quite right and that -Mandonnet is all wrong. - -[Sidenote: Mandonnet fails to prove Albert hostile to astrology.] - -Mandonnet, in fact, gives no sign of having ever candidly examined the -works of Albert to see what his attitude towards astrology really was, -so that it seems arrant presumption on his part to question Charles’ -statement. And he himself gives no justification for having questioned -it. He cites only one passage directly from Albert’s works, and it is -merely a repetition of the argument of the saints that the star at -Christ’s birth was a miraculous apparition in the upper air rather -than the sky.[1911] Then he quotes three passages from the fifteenth -century biography of Peter of Prussia as if they were Albert’s own -statements. If they are, why does not Mandonnet state where they are -to be found in Albert’s works? Also why does he not state that these -passages occur in chapters where Peter is making an effort, none too -successful or disingenuous, to defend Albert from the charge of having -devoted too much attention to nigromancy and such arts rather than to -mere astrology? Mandonnet does note that Peter believed Albert to be -the author of the _Speculum astronomiae_, but he does not note that -Peter in these very chapters which he cites relies chiefly on the -_Speculum astronomiae_ to clear Albert from the charge of dabbling in -nigromancy. In brief, Peter proves from the _Speculum_ that Albert did -not favor nigromancy; then Mandonnet proves from Peter that Albert did -not believe in astrology and so could not have written the _Speculum_! -In succeeding chapters[1912] Peter goes on to try to make out from the -_Speculum_ that Albert opposed astrological images and interrogations -and that he was more outspoken against them than Aquinas. But this -Mandonnet says nothing of, and it would not fit his argument. - -The passages from Peter which Mandonnet does select as suited to his -purpose are as follows: - - “The pursuits of magicians and necromancers are evil - and superfluous and forbidden by the church.... That - _mathematici_ or idolaters sometimes predict the future is - the outcome of conjecture and fatuous presumption, not of - certitude.... There are three things to which some men have - recourse, namely, sorcerers, enchanters, and _mathematici_, - but which really are not wisdom but foolishness, for the - Chaldeans rely on such methods. The _mathematici_ seek to - reduce the effects of the stars to fixed hours, and those - who investigate such things are far from the one science of - God.”[1913] - -Even if these passages are from Albert’s works, they are no proof that -he condemned astrology. Roger Bacon penned very similar passages, and -the _Speculum astronomiae_ expresses no approval of either enchanters -or sorcerers or magicians or _mathematici_. We have already repeatedly -seen that _mathematici_ was used in two senses and that one might -condemn the _mathematici_ as diviners and yet accept astrology. Albert -himself made such a distinction in his _Commentary on Matthew_[1914] -where he differentiates between two, or rather three, kinds of -mathematics. One is the abstract science in our present sense of the -word; the other, more properly called _mathesis_ and pronounced with a -long middle syllable, is “divination by the stars,” but it in turn may -be either good or bad, superstitious or scientific. Thus it is proved -by a direct examination of Albert’s writings that, contrary to the -impression which Mandonnet strives to give by his citation from Peter -of Prussia, even in his theological works Albert did not condemn all -_mathematici_ even, to say nothing of astrology. And we have further -seen that in his scientific writings he sometimes does not condemn -even magic. We shall now proceed to show from numerous passages in -other works than the _Speculum astronomiae_ how favorably inclined -toward astrology Albert really was. - - -[Sidenote: Nature of the heavens and the stars.] - -Albert accepts the Aristotelian description of the sky and heavenly -bodies as formed of a fifth element distinct from the four elements -of which earthly objects are composed.[1915] In another passage he -subdivides the heavenly substance into three elements composing -respectively the sun, the moon and stars, and the sky apart from the -celestial bodies.[1916] In any case the stars are nobler than inferior -bodies, “less involved in the shadows and privations of matter,” and -closer to the first cause of the universe.[1917] Their motion is -eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible.[1918] Some have called them -animals but Albert holds that they are not animals in the sense that we -apply that word to inferior creatures.[1919] - -[Sidenote: The First Cause and the spheres.] - -Again like Aristotle, Albert regards the heavens and stars as -instruments of the first mover or intelligence, just as the hand is the -instrument of the human intellect in making works of art.[1920] They -are mediums between the first cause and matter. Albert believes in a -number of heavens “existing from the first heaven to the sphere of the -moon.”[1921] The first mover moves the first heaven and through it the -other spheres included within it. Whether every other heaven has its -own celestial intelligence to move it is a question upon which Albert -is somewhat obscure.[1922] Others certainly thought so. He mentions, -for instance, the opinion of certain Arabs that floods are due to the -imagination of the intelligence which moves the sphere of the moon, and -concedes that there is some truth in it.[1923] The ancient Stoics and -Epicureans, he tells us in another passage, ascribed divinity to the -virtue of the circle of the zodiac, which ruled and governed life under -the God of gods, as they called the First Cause. Apuleius in the _De -deo Socratis_ says that they called the twelve signs incorporeal gods, -and the planets and other stars corporeal gods, and the chief effects -of the celestial virtue upon inferior nature terrestrial gods.[1924] -But probably Albert mentions this merely as an illustration of the -great influence exerted by the circle of the zodiac. In a third passage -he says that the movers of the celestial spheres, whom the philosophers -have called celestial intelligences, are mediate causes between the -First Cause and matter; but he presently adds that philosophers -of better understanding have said that there is only one Mover of -everything, and that the so-called movers of the other spheres are -but the virtues and members of the first heaven and its Mover.[1925] -Translated from terms of Aristotelian physics into those of Christian -theology, this means that the stars are merely God’s instruments, and -that, if there are spirits or intelligences delegated to move the -particular heavens, these angels are also merely God’s agents. - -[Sidenote: Things on earth ruled by the stars.] - -Since the celestial spheres and the stars are the instruments and -mediums through which the First Cause governs the world of inferior -creation, it follows that the four elements are generated by the -motion of the heavens and that plants, stones, minerals, animals--in -short, whatever exists in the inferior world is caused by the motion -of the superior bodies. This general law that the world of nature and -of life on this earth is governed by the movements of the stars is -expressly repeated again and again in Albert’s works, and its truth -is assumed even oftener.[1926] We may note by way of illustration a -few of the specific applications of this general law to be found in -Albert’s writings. Arguing the question whether life is possible in -the torrid zone at the equator, Albert points out that the rays of the -stars are more multiplied there and fall perpendicularly and directly -and therefore are even more favorable to the generation of life than in -our climate.[1927] In another passage he explains the pagan attribution -of the thunderbolt to the god Jupiter as probably a mistake due to the -influence of the planet Jupiter in provoking thunder-storms.[1928] A -third passage ascribes the height of the inundation of the Nile to the -planets, stating that Venus and the Moon produce a greater overflow -than other drier stars.[1929] - -[Sidenote: Conjunctions.] - -Albert has a good deal to say of the effects produced by the -conjunctions of the planets,[1930] ascribing to them great mortality -and depopulation, or “great accidents and great prodigies and a -general change of the state of the elements and of the world.”[1931] -To a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars with others aiding in the sign -of Gemini he attributes pestilential winds and corruption of the air -resulting in a plague by which a multitude of men and beasts suddenly -perish.[1932] - -[Sidenote: Comets.] - -Albert also discusses comets, and why they signify wars and the death -of kings and potentates rather than of some poor man.[1933] Their -especial connection with wars is explained by the astrologer Albumasar -as due to their association with the planet Mars. As for kings, owing -to their greater fame and power, the relation of celestial phenomena -to their destinies has been observed more carefully than the fate of -the poor, and as their horoscopes have more planetary dignity, so it is -customary to refer greater portents to them. - -[Sidenote: Man and the stars.] - -Despite the allusion just made to royal horoscopes, Albert makes an -exception to the control of the stars over this world in the case of -man. Strictly speaking, however, this is no exception, since man is not -to be classed with other inferiors inasmuch as his soul is a superior -being, derived from the First Intelligence and still subject to Its -illumination. “The essence of the soul is wholly and solely from the -first cause.”[1934] It is true that Plato says that the soul receives -something in each sphere or heaven, memory from the sphere of Saturn -and so on; but Albert regards this doctrine as simply a description -of the process of fitting the mind or soul to the body which it must -occupy. - -[Sidenote: Free will.] - -But the human reason and will remain free and are not necessarily -subjected to the movements of the stars. Thus in his theological -_Summa_ Albert admits that the stars govern even the souls, vegetable -and sensitive, of plants and brutes, but denies that they coerce the -loftier rational soul and will of man, who is made in the image of -God, except as he yields to sin and the flesh.[1935] But this last is -a very important exception as we see from a passage in the treatise on -minerals.[1936] “There is in man a double spring of action, namely, -nature and the will; and nature for its part is ruled by the stars, -while the will is free; but unless it resists, it is swept along by -nature and becomes mechanical (_induratur_).” - -[Sidenote: Ptolemy on free will.] - -Albert is aware that neither the Peripatetic philosophy nor the -art of astrology itself slavishly subjects the human mind and will -to the stars.[1937] Rather he keeps citing Ptolemy to show that -the astrologers themselves do not believe in fatal necessity and -that consequently the art of astrology is not incompatible with -Christianity.[1938] Ptolemy declares that the mind apprehends the -superior bodies in their spheres, and can freely turn away from those -things towards which the motions of the stars incline it, and can turn -towards other things by the wisdom of its intellect.[1939] In another -passage Ptolemy is quoted as saying that the effects of the stars can -be impeded by the science of men skilled in astrology.[1940] If the -average “astronomer and augur and magician and interpreter of dreams -and visions” has brought divination into disrepute, it is, says Albert -in a third passage, because “almost all men of this class delight -in deception and, being poorly educated, they think that what is -merely contingent is necessary, and they predict that some event will -certainly occur; and when it does not, those sciences are cheapened in -the sight of unskilled men, although the defect is not in the science, -but in those who abuse it. For this reason wise Ptolemy says that no -judgment should be made except in general terms and with the cautious -reservation that the stars act _per aliud et accidens_ (subject to -other forces and to accidents) and that their significations meet many -impediments. Moreover, the pursuit of sciences dealing with the future -would be idle, if one could not avoid what one foresaw.”[1941] - -[Sidenote: Nativities.] - -But free will no more restrains Albert than it did Ptolemy from -accepting the art of genethlialogy[1942] or casting of nativities, -as his mention of royal horoscopes has already suggested. He states -elsewhere that the astrologer who understands the virtues of the -signs of the zodiac and of the stars situated in them at the moment -of birth can prognosticate so far as lies within the influence -of the sky concerning the entire life of the person born.[1943] -Indeed, Albert ascribed to Ptolemy a treatise _De accidentibus parvis -particularibus_[1944] concerning the events in the life of the -individual born under this or that constellation, as contrasted with -great social events involving large numbers of men such as political -revolutions, racial migrations, and religious movements, of which -Ptolemy is said by Albert to have treated in another work in eight -parts called _De accidentibus magnis universalibus in mundo_.[1945] - -[Sidenote: Galen on the stars and human generation.] - -Albert even believed that the influence of the stars upon man was -stronger in some respects than upon other animals. He attributed to -Galen in the treatise _De spermate_ a statement, which I have failed -to find in Galen’s _De semine_ or other works, that “in the generation -of brutes the sperm is not altered according to the order of the hours -and the operations of the planets and signs as it is in man.” Albert -prefers his own explanation of this circumstance to that offered by -Galen. It is that the human body is less material and terrestrial -than those of the brutes and more nearly resembles the heavens, and -so more readily follows the impressions from the sky, and is a sort -of microcosm as a beast is not. On the other hand, Albert grants that -changes of the atmosphere and weather are felt more quickly by the -beasts, who have little else to distract their attention.[1946] - -[Sidenote: Plato on boys and the stars.] - -Albert states that Plato, as well as Ptolemy and Galen, proved the -influence of the stars upon human beings from the case of boys, who are -still too young to make much use of free will against nature and the -force of the heavens. For boys often display a special aptitude, due -to celestial influence, for some one art and become perfect workmen if -they are trained in it; but if they are forced into another occupation, -never attain proficiency therein because of their natural ineptitude -for it.[1947] This is of course the same point as was illustrated -in the pseudo-Aristotelian _Secret of Secrets_ by the story of the -weaver’s son whose horoscope showed a predilection to govern, and the -king’s son whose sole interest was in the mechanical arts. - -[Sidenote: The doctrine of elections.] - -Naturally Albert finds no difficulty in accepting the astrological -doctrine of elections, by which the astrologer applies his knowledge -of the movements and effects of the stars and their relationships to -inferior bodies to the selection of a favorable hour for beginning a -contemplated action.[1948] This doctrine of course implies and requires -freedom of election and will, and shows that astrology is an operative -as well as divining art. In another passage Albert mentions the famous -and historic, as he regards it, royal example of eugenics, when -Nectanabus, the natural father of Alexander, in having intercourse with -his mother Olympias observed the hour when the Sun was entering Leo and -Saturn was in Taurus, since he wished his son to receive the figure and -force of those planets.[1949] - -[Sidenote: Influence of the stars on works of art.] - -If astrology is thus operative as well as divinatory by its power to -select the proper and most advantageous moment for entering upon any -course of action, and to harness so to speak the power of the planets, -it becomes evident that it is or should be an all-important factor -in all the arts. Albert well asserts therefore that a fundamental -principle of this science is that all things which are made by nature -or art are moved first by celestial virtues. He adds that no one -doubts this concerning nature, and that it is also true of art, in -which it is the influence of the stars which incites the artist to -make something.[1950] The force of the stars is potent in alchemy, for -example,[1951] for those who try to transmute metals and stones produce -purer metals and stones when the moon is waxing and ascending, “and -particularly the more skilful they are, not hurrying their operations, -but awaiting the opportune time when the process is assisted by -celestial virtue.” - -[Sidenote: Astrological images.] - -Of all the arts the most astrological is that of images, to which -Albert devotes several chapters of his treatise on minerals.[1952] -In it images of the stars are engraved on gems or metals at the -favorable moment when the celestial force is strongest, “and marvels -are worked by such images” because some force from the celestial figure -flows into the work of art.[1953] Incidentally Albert remarks that -“in the science of geomancy” the figures traced from the points are -of no value unless they can be made to conform to such astronomical -images. Albert mentions several particular astronomical conditions -which must be observed in engraving such images. Gems from India are -the best for this purpose. Some images engraved in antiquity are no -longer efficacious. Albert gives a number of examples of the effects -expected from these images.[1954] Stones engraved with Aries or Leo or -Sagittarius are good for fevers, dropsy, and paralysis, and are said to -make their possessors talented and fluent and highly honored. Stones -carved with Gemini and Libra and Aquarius temper hot humors and promote -friendship, justice, civility, and observance of law. - -[Sidenote: Discussion of fate in the _Summa theologiae_.] - -In the foregoing sketch of Albert’s attitude to astrology, based -chiefly on his writings in the field of natural science, some allusion -has also been made to his discussion of the subject in his _Summa_ of -theology, which occurs in the section _On fate_,[1955] “which those -maintain who deny providence” and which is generally identified with -the influence of the stars. I have in the main, however, reserved -this section for separate treatment here, partly because it might be -expected to show a more conservative and less favorable attitude to -astrology than Albert’s scientific writings, since its authorities -would presumably be the church fathers, while the scientific works -reflect the views of Aristotle and other Greeks and Arabs. And -partly for another reason, that I am inclined to question whether a -supplementary passage at the close of this section is by Albert or -added by another hand. - -[Sidenote: Attempt to reconcile the fathers with the astronomers.] - -Although Albert in this section of the _Summa_ approaches the subject -of the influence of the stars from the unfavorable standpoint of fate -instead of the favoring one of nature, it is noteworthy that he is not -content merely to reproduce the attacks upon astrologers by Augustine -and Gregory of Nyssa, but endeavors to reconcile them with the views -of such scientific or pseudo-scientific authorities as Ptolemy, Hermes -Trismegistus, “Socrates,” and other _Astronomi_. The keynote of his -solution is found in the definition of Boethius that “Fate is the -disposition inherent in movable things by which Providence binds each -by its order.” Thus there is no necessary conflict between Providence -and the rule of the stars. But Albert maintains that “neither fate -nor stars nor even Providence takes away from human free will its -liberty of action,”[1956] quoting Ptolemy as usual to the effect that -the wise man rules the stars and that what the stars do they do _per -aliud et accidens_. Albert therefore rejects absolute fatal necessity -as heretical[1957] and the doctrine of the _magnus annus_ that history -repeats itself as the stars repeat their courses as “horrible.”[1958] -On the other hand, he insists that “it cannot be denied that the -stars by the figures of their positions pour radiations of diverse -figures upon the place of generation,”[1959] or that “the stars in -truth are rulers of the world in those things which are subject to -the world,”[1960] namely, things corporeal. He also admits that the -soul may be inclined to the body, though not coerced. Thus a choleric -person is likely to choose different food and occupation from a -phlegmatic one. Hence Socrates “says that voluntary elections are made -in accordance with the diversity of habits previously existing in the -chooser.”[1961] But Socrates means that such habits incline but do not -compel us. Later Albert qualifies Gregory of Nyssa’s assertion that our -choosing precedes “fortune” by again pointing out that the influence of -the stars “inclines the will to choose this or that.”[1962] - -[Sidenote: Glossing over Augustine.] - -Albert has to force his authorities a good deal to arrive at this -compromise. Thus he interprets Augustine’s grudging concession that -it “can be said not utterly absurdly that certain sidereal afflations -effect mere differences of bodies, as we see that the seasons of -the year vary with the approach and withdrawal of the sun and some -sorts of things, such as shellfish and the wonderful tides of ocean, -increase and diminish with the waxing and waning of the moon,”--Albert -interprets this as favoring his own much more sweeping assertion that -the stars rule the universe in most respects and change the souls -as well as the bodies of plants and brutes.[1963] Again, Augustine, -asking “What is so pertinent to the body as sex?” contended against -the astrologers that twins of opposite sex might be born under the -same constellation; yet Albert maintains that Augustine did not mean -here that sex of the body is not subject to the stars, but only that -the constellations are not the sole and entire cause of natural bodily -processes, and this for the reasons given above from Ptolemy, namely, -that the influence of the stars depends upon the capacity of matter to -receive it and operates _per aliud et accidens_.[1964] - -[Sidenote: Christ and the stars.] - -In connection with the question, “Whether Christ was subject soul and -body to fate or fortune or _eupraxia_?” Albert makes an exception to -the influence of the stars, and apparently holds that even in respect -to His body Christ was not subject to the power of the constellations. -The argument is advanced that the Lawgiver is not subject to the -law. The opposing contentions that in becoming man Christ assumed -the defects of our mortality and that, since fate is the disposition -inherent in all mobile objects, Christ was subject to fate as much as -any other man,--these are denied on the ground that Christ became man -voluntarily and suffered as man only what and when He would, and that -from the moment of conception He possessed “grace and all knowledge.” -It is also held that when the Magi said that they had seen His star in -the east, they did not mean a constellation ruling His nativity but -a new celestial sign which demonstrated the new birth of a heavenly -king.[1965] - -[Sidenote: Patristic arguments against astrology upheld, but perhaps -not by Albert.] - -Scarcely consistent with the apparent approval with which Albert cited -the views of the “astronomers” and such a work as the _Tetrabiblos_ or -_Quadripartitum_ of Ptolemy in the preceding discussion, and with the -general tone of much of it, seems a supplementary passage at the close -of this section on fate[1966] after he has apparently completed the -discussion of the four questions concerning fate which he put at the -start. In this supplementary passage are upheld against the “calumnies” -of the astrologers such objections of Augustine and Gregory the Great -to the art of nativities[1967] as that Jacob and Esau were conceived -and born under the same constellation, that a queen and slave may be -conceived at the same instant, and that there are countries where no -one born under Aquarius becomes a fisherman or under the Balances a -money-changer. The argument employed in this connection, which we -cannot follow in detail, involves such a dubious piece of physics -as that the pyramid of light which gradually spreads from a distant -luminous point exercises the same force on all points lying within its -base. The astronomers would doubtless retort that the rays of light -falling perpendicularly and the shortest distance would be stronger and -more efficacious than the oblique ones, or that pyramids must also be -taken into account with the point in the object affected and the base -in the constellation. Indeed, Albert in this very section _On fate_ -has previously shown[1968] from the science of perspective and _Liber -de speculis_ that in Ethiopia the sun’s direct ray “reflected upon -itself” produces fire and makes the child born there fiery and black, -while near the pole the great obliquity of the incidences of the rays -produces cold and damp. For such reasons as these I am inclined to -wonder if this supplementary passage, which is not essential to the -plan or main argument of the section _On fate_, has not been added by -someone other than Albert. Whoever the author is, he also agrees with -Augustine that, when asked to account for two persons falling sick, -growing worse, and recovering at the same times, Hippocrates gave the -better answer in saying that they were conceived and born together of -the same parents, than Posidonius did in saying that they were born -under the same constellation. For Hippocrates named the immediate -cause, whereas Posidonius mentioned the extrinsic and indirect one, for -the stars are not a cause, it is again reiterated, except _per aliud -et accidens_. But the author, like Albert before, holds that Augustine -does not deny that there is some force from the stars inclining though -not compelling us. This is equivalent to sanctioning astrology. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1692] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 17 (Muratori, XI, 1150). - -[1693] Epitaphs of Albert and Aquinas, opening respectively, “fenix -doctorum” and “in luctu citharae,” are preserved in CLM 19608, 15th -century, fols. 219-21. A portrait of Albert is found in CLM 27029, fol. -88, in the midst of a treatise copied in 1388 A. D. - -[1694] _Hist. Eccles._ XXII, 19 (Muratori, XI, 1151). - -[1695] Pouchet (1853), p. 210. - -[1696] In _Dict. Theol. Cath._, (1909-). Also _Revue Thomiste_ V, 95; -_Siger de Brabant_, 2nd edition (1911 and 1908), p. 36. - -[1697] Henry of Hereford, ed Potthast, Göttingen, 1859. Over this point -quite a war of pamphlets and monographs has recently been waged. - -[1698] Peter of Prussia (1621), p. 65, “qui ab ipso puerili aevo -ut ipse testatur ad decrepitam usque aetatem iugum Domini mira cum -hilaritate in eodem Ordine portavit.” - -[1699] _Meteor._, III, ii, 12. - -[1700] _Mineral._, II, iii, 1. - -[1701] _Vita Alberti_ (1621), p. 90. - -[1702] _Meteor._, I, iii, 5. See also Ashmole 393, fol. 77, “Cometa” -seu “De generatione comete” secundum Januensem, Papiam, et Albertum in -summa (an. 1240). - -[1703] Amplon. Quarto 296. - -[1704] Although the treatise on Minerals has always been accepted as -authentic, since its opinions in connection with magic and astrology -are rather extreme, it may be well to list here some early MSS of it. -Berthelot (1893) I, 290, regarded BN 6514, written about 1300, as -“almost contemporary,” but some of the following are older, if the -dating in the MSS catalogues is dependable. - -CLM 353, 13th century, fol. 55- _Lapidarius_, fol. 69- _liber de -mineralibus_. - -CLM 540A, anno 1298, fols. 1-106, _libri V mineralium_. - -CLM 23538, 13-14th century, 54 fols., _de mineralibus libri V_. - -Amplon. Quarto 189, about 1300 A. D., fols. 40-67, _liber de -mineralibus et lapidibus_. - -Amplon. Quarto 293, 13th century, fols. 57-85, quatuor (vel potius -quinque) libri mineralium domini Alberti Magni. - -Magdalen 174, close of 13th century, fol. 51v- _de mineralibus libri -tres_ (_?_). - -The Minerals is found in the following 14th century MSS, and doubtless -in many others: Digby 119, 26; 183, 1; 190, 1; Ashmole 1471, fols. -1-48; Merton 285; S. Marco XIII, 18, fols. 1-31, “Explicit liber de -lapidibus secundum fratrem Albertum qui liber oculo intitulatur”; CLM -16129, fols. 25-112; BN 7156, 2; BN 7475, 8. - -[1705] _Mineral._, IV, i, 6, “Hi autem qui in cupro multum operantur -in nostris partibus Parisiis videlicet at Coloniae et in aliis locis -in quibus fui et vidi experiri.” _Ibid._, II, ii, 11, “Narravit mihi -unus ex nostris sociis curiosus experimentator quod vidit Fredericum -Imperatorem habere magnetem qui non traxit ferrum sed ferrum vice versa -traxit lapidem.” - -[1706] _De animalibus_, XXIII, i, 40. - -[1707] Schools were established by the general chapter of the -Dominicans in that year at Cologne, Oxford, Bologna, and Montpellier. - -[1708] _De animalibus_, VII, i, 6, “quod expertus sum in villa mea -super Danubium”; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 16. - -[1709] _Summa_, XIII, 77, iv; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 14. - -[1710] Sighart (1857), pp. 157, 159, 162. - -[1711] _Politics_, VII, 14; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 13. - -[1712] CE, “Albertus Magnus.” I have not found original sources for -these events and fear that they may be inferences from the _Speculum -astronomiae_. - -[1713] HL XIX, 365; and v. Hertling (1914), p. 19. But he is called -“Bishop of Lyons” in a 15th century MS at Munich; CLM 15181, fols. -167-77, Compendium magistri Magni Alberti episcopi Lugdunensis de -disputatione corporis et animae. - -[1714] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum_, I, ii, 3, “In Colonia -vidimus altissimas fieri foveas et in fundo illarum inventa sunt -paramenta (pavimenta?) mirabilis schematis et decoris quae constat ibi -homines antiquitus fecisse et congestam fuisse terram super ea post -ruinas aedificiorum”; quoted by v. Hertling (1914), p. 11. - -[1715] _De natura locorum_, III, 2; v. Hertling (1914), p. 11 note. - -[1716] Petrus de Prussia (1621), pp. 179-81. Recently H. Stadler -has edited the _Historia animalium_ from what is believed to be -the autograph MS at Cologne in _Beiträge zur Gesch. d. Philos. d. -Mittelalters_, vols. 15-16. See also his _Vorbemerkungen zur neuen -Ausgabe der Tiergeschichte des Albertus Magnus_ in _Sitzungsberichte d. -kgl. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. phil. hist. Classe_, Munich (1912), pp. 1-58. -Stadler also edited from a Cologne MS, believed to be the archetype, -_Liber de principiis motus processivi_, Munich, 1909. - -[1717] _Opus Tertium_, ed. Brewer (1859), p. 14. - -[1718] _Summa philosophiae_, I, 6; XIX, 6; XII, 17; Baur (1912), pp. -280, 633, 505. - -[1719] Cited by Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 126. - -[1720] “venerabilis ille frater ordinis predicatorum magister Albertus.” - -[1721] _Bonum univ._, II, 57, Partic. xxxv, “Simili prope modo magister -Albertus theologus frater ordinis predicatorum narravit mihi quod -Parisius illi demon in specie cuiusdam fratris apparuit ut eum a studio -revocaret sed mox crucis virtute discessit.” - -[1722] _Ibid._, Partic. li, “Vii et fortissimo expertus sum sicut -auditor eius per multum tempus quam venerabilis ille frater ordinis -predicatorum Albertus cuius superiors femurs mentionem multis annis -fere quotidie cum tamen in cathedra theologie regeret tantum de die -et nocte orationibus incumbebat ut psalterium davidicum legeret et -interdum dictis horis et lectionibus et disputationibus terminatis -contemplatione divine et meditationibus insudaret. Quid mirum ergo si -talis homo super hominem in scientia profecerit qui tam sancte tam -integre in virtute profecerit.” - -[1723] _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math._ 26, 139 (1911). - -[1724] CLM 453, 15th century, fol. 87-. - -[1725] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 16r- “Incipit tractatus fratris Alberti -de Colonia de plantacionibus arborum.” - -Ashmole 1471, late 14th century, fols. 137-43, “Incipit tractatus -Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de conservatione vini ... / -... Explicit tractatus Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de -conservatione vini. aliqui tamen asserunt Euclidem hunc librum fecisse.” - -Arundel 251, written on the back of the cover binding is “Albertus -Magnus de Plantationibus arborum, etc.” But in the Arundel catalogue -of 1834 the work is listed as “Anonymi cuiusdam tractatus de -plantationibus arborum, de conservatione fructuum et de vino,” which -has since been corrected to “Galfridi de Vino Salvo,” etc. - -BN 9328, 14th century, fol. 124- Petrus de Crecenciis, De -plantationibus arborum. - -[1726] Vienna 5292, 15th century, fols. 1r-65v, Epitome in Almagestum -Cl. Ptolomaei. Perhaps it is the same as CLM 56, 1434-1436 A. D., fols. -1-122, “Almagesti abbreviatum per mag. Thomam de Aquino,” which opens, -“Omnium recte philosophantium....” - -[1727] Vienna 5309, 15th century, fols. 127r-55v, Summa astrologiae, -“In hoc tractatu brevi ... / ... habencia probabilitatis.” - -[1728] It is included in Borgnet’s edition, vol. 5. Other such works -are: - -BN 16222, 14th century, fols. 22-67, Alberti compendium de negotio -naturali; BN 16635, 14th century, fols. 1-53, Libri V Alberti Magni in -philosophia naturali. Albertus Magnus, Summa naturalium, in Arundel -344, 13-14th century, fols. 40-65; Harleian 536, fols. 1-8; Harleian -4870, 14th century, #2. - -[1729] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 294. - -[1730] Clemens Baeumker, _Die Stellung des Alfred von Sareshel_ -(Alfredus Anglicus) _und seiner Schrift De motu cordis in der -Wissenschaft des beginnenden XIII Jahrhunderts_, (June 7, 1913), p. 12, -in _Sitzungsberichte d. Königl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Philos-philol. -u. hist. Klasse_; citing Arthur Schneider, _Die Psychologie Alberts des -Grossen_, II, Münster, 1906, pp. 293-308, in _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. -Philos. des Mittelalters_, IV, 5-6. - -[1731] Grabmann (1916), pp. 165-6, citing Pangerl (1912). Grabmann -notes further that Albert did not leave his theological _Summa_ -unfinished, but that the part which has never been printed exists in a -MS at Venice. - -[1732] C. Jessen (1867), p. 99. - -[1733] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 288. - -[1734] Halle, X, 641-741; XI, 545. - -[1735] _Geschichte der Botanik_, Königsberg, 1855, IV, 39. - -[1736] Meyer (1855), p. 40. - -[1737] Pouchet’s fifth chapter (p. 203-644) was devoted to _École -Expérimentale_, and of this pp. 203-320 to Albert himself. - -[1738] M. H. De Blainville, _Histoire des sciences de l’organisation -... Rédigée d’après ses notes et ses leçons faites à la Sorbonne -de 1839 à 1841, avec les dêveloppements nécessaires et plusieurs -additions, par F. L. M. Maupied_, in 3 vols, Paris, 1847. - -[1739] HL XIX, 377. - -[1740] Stadler (1906), p. 2. - -[1741] I, ii, 9. - -[1742] “Non autem sufficit scire in universali sed quaerimus scire -unumquodque secundum quod in propria natura se habet, hoc enim optimum -et perfectum est genus sciendi.” Galen had expressed much the same -thought eleven centuries before. - -[1743] Émile Mâle, _Religious Art in France in the Thirteenth Century_, -translated from the third edition by Dora Nussey, 1913, p. 52. - -[1744] _Ibid._, 53. - -[1745] Published in facsimile at London, 1859, and Paris, 1908. - -[1746] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 18. “Hic commentatus est totam -logicam Aristotelis, philosophiam naturalem et quantum ad naturalem -experientiam naturarum clarissima et excellentissima tradidit. Hic -theologiam declaravit.” I assume that Aristotle is understood as the -subject of _tradidit_. - -[1747] _De natura locorum_, I, 7. - -[1748] IV, 40. - -[1749] _De veget. et plantis_, I, ii, 12. - -[1750] VI, i, 30. - -[1751] VI, i, 2. - -[1752] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 35. - -[1753] _De animalibus_, XI, i, 1. - -[1754] XXIII, i, 40 (xix). - -[1755] XXII, ii, 10 and 99; XXIII, i, 5 and 34-35 and 83 and 123; XXVI, -i, 10 and 14 and 20. - -[1756] XXIII, i, 9 and 14 and 23 and 57 and 83 and 104. - -[1757] XXII, ii, 1. - -[1758] XXIV, i, 28. - -[1759] Pouchet (1853), pp. 285-6. - -[1760] XXII, ii, 29 and 39 and 41 and 51 and 97. - -[1761] XXIV, i, 9. - -[1762] XXIII, i, 9. - -[1763] XXII, ii, 28. - -[1764] XXVI, i, 10. - -[1765] XXIV, i, 123. - -[1766] XXIII, i, 104. - -[1767] XXIII, i, 54. - -[1768] XXIII, i, 93. - -[1769] XXIII, i, 55. - -[1770] XXIII, i, 22. - -[1771] XXII, ii, 56. Sed iste Jorach frequenter mentitur. XXV, i, 5. Et -sicut in multis mentitur Solinus, ita et in hoc falsum dicit. - -[1772] XXV, i, 26. Hoc est verius quod de draconibus ab expertis -Philosophorum invenitur. Si autem sequamur dicta eorum qui potius -referunt audita vulgi quam physica dictorum suorum ostendant experta, -tunc sequendo Plinium et Solinum et quosdam alios dicemus.... For -further criticism of Pliny see XXV, i, 13, and XXIII, i, 9. - -[1773] XXIV, i, 47. Pliny, NH XXXII, i, spells it _echenais_ or -_echeneis_, as does Plutarch. We have seen other medieval authors spell -it _echinus_. - -[1774] NH, VIII, 25. - -[1775] XXII, ii, 101. - -[1776] XVII, ii, 1; XXIII, i, 14; see also _Meteor._, IV, i, 11. - -[1777] I have been unable, however, to run it down in the _Natural -History_; perhaps it is in the _Medicina_ of the Pseudo-Pliny. - -[1778] XXVI, i, 37. - -[1779] XXII, ii, 88. - -[1780] XXIII, i, 9. - -[1781] XXV, i, 28. - -[1782] XXII, ii, 19. - -[1783] XXII, ii, 56. - -[1784] VII, ii, 5. - -[1785] XXII, ii, 99. - -[1786] _Polit._, VII, 14. - -[1787] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 1. - -[1788] III, i, 1. - -[1789] IV, i, 6. - -[1790] II, ii, 1. - -[1791] Pliny, NH XXXVII, 15, agrees with the passage in Albert only in -the general notion that goat’s blood will break adamant. - -[1792] II, ii, 17. - -[1793] II, ii, 11. - -[1794] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 1. “Smaragdus enim nuper apud -nos visus est parvus quidem quantitate et mirabiliter pulcher, cuius -cum virtus probari deberet, adstitit qui diceret, quod si circa bufonem -circulus smaragdo fieret et postea lapis oculis bufonis exhiberetur, -alterum duorum, quod aut lapis frangeretur ad visum bufonis si debilem -haberet lapis virtutem, aut bufo rumperetur si lapis esset in naturali -suo vigore: nec mora factum est ut dixit et ad modicum temporis -intervallum, dum bufo adspiceret lapidem nec visum averteret ab ipso, -crepitare coepit lapis sicut avellana rumperetur et exilivit ex annulo -una pars eiusdem, et tunc bufo qui ante stetit immobilis, coepit -recedere ac si absolutus esset a lapidis virtute.” - -[1795] _Meteor._, III, iv, 8-26 (Borgnet, vol. IV, 674-97). - -[1796] III, iv, 11. - -[1797] III, iv, 28. - -[1798] Peter of Prussia (1621), 126. - -[1799] Cap. 20. - -[1800] Caps. 21-24. - -[1801] Caps. 1, 25, 29. - -[1802] Cap. 3. - -[1803] Cap. 19. - -[1804] Caps. 8-18. - -[1805] P. 106. - -[1806] P. 107. - -[1807] P. 108. - -[1808] Cap. 17, p. 161. - -[1809] Cap. 18, p. 165. - -[1810] Cap. 44, _et seq._, pp. 299-341. - -[1811] Quoted in Latin by Wolfgang E. Heidel in his _Vita Trithemii_, -prefixed to his edition of the _Steganographia_, cap. xvii, “Trithemium -non fuisse alchymistam, astrologum et magum, ostenditur.” - -[1812] For instance, _Commentary on Micah_, VI, 11, “_Maleficia_ are -_veneficia_ by which men are deceived in the works of necromancers and -of idols.” - -[1813] _Sententiae_, II, 7, F, vi. - -[1814] _Summa_, II, 30. - -[1815] _Summa_, II, 30, ii. - -[1816] _Sententiae_, II, 7, L, xii. - -[1817] _In Evang. Lucae_, XI, 15. - -[1818] _Sententiae_, II, 7, viii. - -[1819] The Latin of the essential portions of these passages is as -follows. _In Evang. Matth._, II, 1. “Magi enim grammatice magni -sunt.... Nec sunt Magi malefici sicut quidam male opinantur. Magus -enim et Mathematicus et Incantator et Maleficus sive Necromanticus et -Ariolus et Aruspex et Divinator differunt. Quia Magus proprie nisi -magnus est, qui scientiam habens de omnibus necessariis et effectibus -naturarum coniecturans aliquando mirabilia naturae praeostendit et -educit.... - -Incantator ... qui carminibus quibusdam bestias aut herbas aut lapides -aut imagines ad quosdam parat effectus.... - -Divinatores autem multi sunt valde: in punctis terrae et casu ignis et -aqua et in aere divinantes.... - -Nulli istorum dediti fuerunt isti nisi magicis hoc modo prout dictum -est. Et hoc est laudabile.” - -_In Daniel._, I, 20. “Magi dicuntur secundum Hieronymum quasi magistri -qui de universis philosophantur, magi tamen specialiter astronomi -dicuntur qui in astris futura rimantur.” - -[1820] XXIII, i, III. - -[1821] _De veget. et plantis_, V, ii, 6. - -[1822] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 32; VI, ii, 17; VI, i, 30; VI, -ii, 3. - -[1823] VI, ii, 12. - -[1824] VI, i, 33. - -[1825] VI, ii, 3. - -[1826] VI, ii, 10. - -[1827] VI, i, 34. - -[1828] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 4. - -[1829] II, iii, 1. - -[1830] II, iii, 5. - -[1831] II, iii, 3. - -[1832] _Sentent._, II, 7, ix and xii. - -[1833] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1. - -[1834] II, i, 1 (Borgnet, V, 24). - -[1835] III, i, 6. - -[1836] II, 7, vii. - -[1837] _Petrus de Prussia_ (1621), cap. XII or p. 135, citing the _De -motibus animalium_. - -[1838] III, i, 1. - -[1839] II, i, 3. - -[1840] III, i, 10. - -[1841] III, i, 1. - -[1842] III, i, 3. - -[1843] III, ii, 5. - -[1844] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 61. - -[1845] XXII, ii, 67. - -[1846] XXII, i, 5. - -[1847] XXII, ii, 18. - -[1848] XXV, i, 26. - -[1849] XXV, i, 13. - -[1850] XXIII, i, 40 (17-23). - -[1851] XXII, ii, 18. - -[1852] XXII, ii, 61. - -[1853] VIII, ii, 2. - -[1854] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 3. - -[1855] VI, i, 32. - -[1856] VI, ii, 17. - -[1857] VI, ii, 1. - -[1858] VI, ii, 2. - -[1859] VI, ii, 13. - -[1860] V, ii, 1. - -[1861] VI, ii, 22. - -[1862] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1. - -[1863] Tract., XIX, cap. 6 (ed. Baur, pp. 633-34). - -[1864] I have not examined the work itself, but append the following -notice of a MS of it: Corpus Christi (Cambridge), 243, 13-14th century, -Pseudo-Albert de lapidibus; fol. 1-, Incipit liber de coloribus et -virtutibus lapidum, Liber primus, including a prologue and then -an alphabetical arrangement of stones; fol. 20v-, De sculturis de -omnibus lapidibus; fol. 21v-, Liber II, de natione et ubi inveniuntur; -fol. 27-, Liber III, de sculturis lapidum; fol. 40v-, Liber IV, -de consecratione lapidum; fol. 44-, Liber V, de confectione et -compositione lapidum. - -There is said to be another copy at Glasgow in Hunterian, V, 6, 18. - -I am not sure whether CUL 1175, 14th century, fols. 1-3, “Albertus de -Colonia de lapidibus,” is a fragment of it or of the genuine treatise -on minerals. - -In CLM 353, 13th century, the _Liber de mineralibus_ of Albertus Magnus -at fol. 69 is preceded at fol. 55 by _Lapidarius_ (_deest lib. I, -tract, i_) also ascribed to him. - -In the notice of CLM 16129, 14th century, fols. 25-112, Alberti Magni -tractatus de passionibus aeris et impressionibus vaporum in alto, de -mineralibus, de imaginibus lapidum et sigillis, de natura metallorum, -it is scarcely clear whether _De imaginibus lapidum et sigillis_ is a -separate treatise from the _De mineralibus_ or only the portion of it -dealing with astronomical images. - -[1865] III, i, 2. - -[1866] _Mineral_, III, i, 8. - -[1867] _Ibid._, III, i, 9. - -[1868] _Ibid._, III. i, 4. - -[1869] _Vita Alberti_, cap. 16. - -[1870] _Mineral._, III, i, 2. - -[1871] _Mineral._, II, i, 5. - -[1872] _De causis elementorum_, I, ii, 7 (Borgnet, IX, 615). - -[1873] I, 290. - -[1874] Most of them I have not been able to examine or compare; but -where the opening and closing words are given in the catalogues, they -differ as well as the titles. It is possible, however, that some of -them may be parts of the other treatises. - -[1875] MS 138, 15th century, fols. 171-83, “Semita recta fratris -Alberti Magni”; fols. 233-5, “Speculum secretorum philosophorum Alberti -Magni de secretis naturae,” opening, “Ad instructionem multorum” and -closing, “penuriam librorum”; fols. 235-7, “Liber xii aquarum Alberti -Magni,” opening “Ovorum vitella,” and closing, “omne corpus.” - -In the same library MS 139, 14th century, besides the _Semita recta_ -at fols. 3-35--this time Albert is not named as its author--occurs -at fols. 107-21, “Incipit libellus ab Alberto compositus. Quoniam -ignorantis ... / ... dum regnat Iupiter.” - -Also in MS 270, II, 15-16th century, fol. 77, “Alberti Magni Alchymia. -Callixtenes unus philosophorum ... / ... siccum.” - -In MS 270, X, at fol. 99 the _Speculum secretorum_, etc., is again -ascribed to Albert; and in MS 270, XV, fol. 3-, is “Ars experimentorum -Alberti Magni. Sciendum vero ... / ... viscositate malve.” - -[1876] Sloane 323, 14th century, fols. 1-84, “Practica Fratris Alberti -in alchimiam, que ab eodem dicitur sec. sec.” The work is said to have -been printed in the _Theatrum Chymicum_, II, 423. - -[1877] _Ibid._, fol. 8r. The previous citation of Albert was at fol. 7v. - -[1878] Arundel 164, written in 1422, fols. 127v-131, “De occultis -nature,” opening, “In mutue allocutionis tractatu,” and closing, “sicut -qui cum arcu sine torta sagutur (sagittur?) deo gratias.” - -[1879] CUL 220, 16th century, occupying two leaves in an alchemical -miscellany. It opens, “Aqua Mercurius et oleum sulphuris. Opus istud -multis diebus abscondebatur....” - -Possibly the following are also distinct treatises, but I do not -have their _Incipits_ and _Explicits_: CLM 12026, 15th century, fol. -32, Alberti de Colonia ars alchymiae; Wolfenbüttel 676, anno 1444, -following the _Semita recta_ at fols. 34-36, Varia Alberti Magni -chymica; Riccard. 119, following the _Semita recta_, which is #32 in -this miscellany, comes #33, an _Alchimia_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus, -while the second treatise bearing #37 (at fol. 177r) is _Alberti quidam -Tractatus_. - -[1880] It is included in vol. 21 of the edition of Lyons, 1651, by R. -P. Jammy; and by Borgnet, vol. 37; 545-73, Alberti Magni libellus de -alchimia. It had previously been printed at Basel, 1561, and Urcellis, -1602-1608, _Theatrum chemicum_, pp. 485-527. It is the same as the -treatise called _Semita recta_ in the MSS. Another MS of it is Corpus -Christi 226, 15th century, fols. 59-69. - -[1881] See Denifle (1886), 236. - -[1882] “Videns ergo tot errare iam decrevi scribere vera et probata -opera et meliora omnium philosophorum in quibus laboravi et sum -expertus nihil aliud scribam nisi quod oculis meis vidi.” Or perhaps he -means that his works are better than those of all the philosophers. - -[1883] “Alchimia est ars ab Alchimo inventa et dicitur ab archymo -Graece quod est massa Latine,” cap. 2. - -[1884] Cap. 3, “Probat artem Alchimiae esse veram.” This done, however, -the chapter continues with the eight precepts which follow. - -[1885] “domum specialem extra hominum conspectum in qua sint duae -camerae vel tres in quibus fiant operationes.” - -[1886] Since he had just mentioned “the books of incantations of Hermes -the philosopher and Costa ben Luca,” he very likely had in mind simply -the Letter of the latter on Incantation, Adjuration, and Suspension -from the Neck, of which we have previously treated, and which Albert -uses for physical ligatures in his treatise on minerals. - -[1887] II, iii, 5. - -[1888] II, iii, 6. - -[1889] XXII, ii, 18. - -[1890] _Mineral._, II, i, 1; _De animalibus_, XXII, i, 5; _De somno et -vigilia_, III, i, 6. - -[1891] I-ii-2. - -[1892] CLM 916, 15th century, fols. 25-30, Chiromantia Alberti: BN -7420A, 14th century, #15, Alberti de Colonia ars chiromantiae. - -[1893] I presume that Vienna MS 2448, 14th century, 26 fols., -“Expliciunt interpretaciones sompniorum reuerendi domini Magni Alberti -Parisiis conscripta” is simply this third book, but perhaps it is some -spurious treatise. MS 1158, 14th century, in the University Library at -Bologna, fols. 41-52, catalogued as “Magistri Alberti theotonici de -fato, de divinatione, de sortibus,” consists of the _De fato_ ascribed -to Aquinas; a second treatise _De fato_ which in the MS itself is -headed in the upper margin of fol. 45r, “Magri (Magistri) Alexandri”; a -“Questio de divinatione Alexandri,” at fol. 47r; and an anonymous _De -sortibus_. - -[1894] Extract from the _Compendium studii theologiae_, quoted at -page 412 of Charles’ Life of Roger Bacon. “Tarde venit aliquid de -philosophia Aristotelis in usum Latinorum, quia naturalis philosophia -eius et metaphysica cum commentariis Averrois et aliorum libris in -temporibus nostris translatae sunt, et Parisiis excommunicabantur -ante annum Domini 1237 propter aeternitatem mundi et temporis, et -propter librum ‘De divinatione somniorum’ qui est tractatus ‘De somno -et vigilia,’ et propter multa alia erronea translata.” It is found in -Rashdall’s edition of the _Compendium studii theologiae_ at pp. 33-4. - -[1895] III, i, 2. - -[1896] III, i, 1. - -[1897] III, i, 4. - -[1898] III, ii, 5. - -[1899] III, ii, 3-4. - -[1900] III, i, 8-9. - -[1901] III, ii, 6. - -[1902] III, ii, 9. - -[1903] VI, 12. - -[1904] III, i, 10. - -[1905] I have not seen CUL 1705, 14th century, fols. 181v-183, -“Albertus de naturis signorum,” opening, “Deus utitur corporibus -celestibus” and closing “Saturnus enim tenebras significat.” It is not -included in Albert’s printed works and is perhaps not by him. - -[1906] See chapter 62 below for bibliography. - -[1907] In his _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au XIIIe siècle, -deuxième édition revue et augmentée_, Louvain, 1911, I, 244-48; and -more fully in an article, “Roger Bacon et le ‘Speculum astronomiae,’” -in the _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, vol. 17, August, 1910. - -[1908] Theophilus Witzel in an otherwise excellent article on -Roger Bacon in the _Catholic Encyclopedia_; A. G. Little, _Roger -Bacon Essays_, Oxford, 1914, p. 25; Paschal Robinson, “The Seventh -Centenary of Roger Bacon,” _Catholic University Bulletin_, January, -1914. Professor Ch. V. Langlois, however, made some strictures upon -Mandonnet’s general method of arriving at conclusions, in his review of -the first edition of the _Siger de Brabant_ in _Revue de Paris_, Sept. -1, 1900, p. 71. - -[1909] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII, 323-24. - -[1910] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII (1910), 328. - -[1911] _Summa de Creaturis_, tract. III, q. 15. art. 2: _Opera omnia_, -ed. Borgnet, t. 34, p. 434. - -[1912] Petrus de Prussia (1621), caps. 13-15, pp. 137-50. - -[1913] Petrus de Prussia (1621), pp. 123, 131, 133; cited by Mandonnet -(1910), p. 329, note 1. - -[1914] _In Matth._, II, 1. - -[1915] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, I, i, 1. - -[1916] _Ibid._, II, i, 1. - -[1917] Borgnet, X, 1-2. - -[1918] _De meteoris_, I, i, 4. - -[1919] _Metaphysicorum_, XI, ii, 12. - -[1920] _Idem._ “Sicut manus est instrumentum intellectus practici -in artificialibus, ita totus coelestis circulus est instrumentum -huius intellectus ad totam materiam naturae quae ambit.” See also -_Metaphysicorum_, V, ii, 4; _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4, -“Sic totus coeli concentus refertur ad causam primam”; _De animalibus_, -XVI, i, 11, “Orbis autem revolvitur ab uno intellectu primo ad quem -referuntur alii motores”; _Liber de natura et origine animae_, I, 5, -“Intellectus qui est cum coelesti virtute, eo quod ipse coelum movet, -et movet virtutes coelestes quae sunt in materia generabilium, et est -intellectus purus et primus movens et informans omnia alia sub ipso -instrumentaliter agentia.” - -[1921] _De animalibus_, XX, ii, 2. - -[1922] _De causis et procreatione universi_, I, iv, 7, “Utrum coelum -moveatur ab anima vel a natura vel ab intelligentia.” - -[1923] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, I, ii, -9. - -[1924] _De animalibus_, XX, ii, 2. - -[1925] _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4. “Mediae autem causae -sunt motores orbium coelestium quos intelligentias coelestes vocaverunt -Philosophi. ... ideo melius intelligentes Philosophi totum unicum -motorem dixerunt habere, et inferiores motores ad sphaeras dixerunt -esse virtutes et membra primi coeli et sui motoris.” Yet in _De -coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5, he asserts again that the stars “sunt -instrumenta intellectuum moventium,” as if there were more than one -intelligence. - -[1926] See _De meteoris_, I, i, 4 and 7; _De causis et propriet. -element._, etc., I, ii, 2; _Mineralium_, II, iii, 3; _De causis et -procreat. universi_, II, ii, 23. - -[1927] _De natura locorum_, I, 6. - -[1928] _Meteor._, III, iii, 22. - -[1929] _De causis et propriet._, I, ii, 2. - -[1930] _Idem._ - -[1931] _Ibid._, I, ii, 9. - -[1932] _Ibid._, II, ii, 1. - -[1933] _Meteor._, I, iii, 11. - -[1934] _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4; also _De natura -et origine animae_, I, 5, “Et ideo complementum ultimum quod est -intellectualis formae et substantiae non per instrumentum neque ex -materia sed per lucem suam influit intellectus primae causae purus et -inmixtus.” - -[1935] Pars prima, Quaest. 68. - -[1936] II, iii, 3. - -[1937] _De intell. et intell._, I, 4. “Quod autem anima praecipue sub -motibus astrorum restringitur contra omnes est Peripateticos et contra -Ptolemaeum.” - -[1938] _De generatione et corruptione_, II, iii, 5. - -[1939] _Summa_, I, 68, _passim_. - -[1940] _De natura locorum_, I, 5. - -[1941] _De somno et vigilia_, III, ii, 5. - -[1942] I take it that _geomantici_ should be _genethliaci_ in the -passage (_De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5) given in Borgnet’s text -as follows: “Et hoc oportet relinquere scientiae electorum, quia -alio nomine vocantur geomantici eo quod principalius quod inquirunt -per stellarum figuras et effectus sunt nativitates ... et eventus -nascentium....” - -[1943] _De gener. et corrupt._, II, iii, 5. - -[1944] _De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5. - -[1945] Albert was of course also familiar with the _Tetrabiblos_ or -_Quadripartite_ of Ptolemy and with the _Centiloquium_ ascribed to him. -He names three commentators upon it, namely, the well-known Arabian and -Jewish authorities, Haly and Abraham, and a mysterious third, Bugaforus -(_Meteor._, I, iii, 5). - -[1946] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 1. The closest approach to the -passage that I have found in Galen occurs in the _De foetuum -formatione_ (Kühn, IV, 700-701) where Galen mentions approvingly the -theory of some Platonic masters that the world-soul is responsible for -the marvelous process of the formation of the foetus, but adds that -he regards it as impious and unfitting to ascribe the generation or -formation of scorpions, spiders, flies, fleas, worms, vipers, and the -like to the soul of the cosmos. - -[1947] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3. - -[1948] _De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5. - -[1949] _De animal._, XXII, i, 3. - -[1950] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3. “Est autem principium in ipsa scientia -omnia quaecunque fiunt a natura vel arte moveri a virtutibus -coelestibus primo; et hic de natura non est dubium. In arte etiam -constat, eo quod aliquid modo et non ante incitat cor hominum ad -faciendum; et hoc esse non potest nisi virtus coelestis, ut dicunt -sapientes praenominati.” Then follows immediately an admission of the -freedom of the human will which has already been cited. - -[1951] _De causis et propriet, element. et planet._, I, ii, 7. - -[1952] Liber II, Tractatus iii. - -[1953] II, iii, 3. - -[1954] II, iii, 5. - -[1955] _Summa_, Pars prima, Quaestio 68, _De fato_; in Borgnet, vol. -31, pp. 694-714. - -[1956] _Ibid._, p. 701. - -[1957] P. 696, “Unde sic dicere fatum, est haereticum.” - -[1958] P. 708. - -[1959] P. 698. - -[1960] P. 701. - -[1961] Pp. 698 and 702. - -[1962] Pp. 706 and 710. - -[1963] P. 696. - -[1964] Pp. 702, 704. - -[1965] Pp. 707, 711. - -[1966] Pp. 711-4. - -[1967] Albert, of course, has already upheld free will against the -doctrine of fatal necessity in nativities; it is therefore only the -support of these particular arguments of Augustine and Gregory that -seems strange. - -[1968] P. 698. - - - - -CHAPTER LX - -THOMAS AQUINAS - - - Bibliographical note--Precociousness of Aquinas--Early - life according to Thomas of Cantimpré--Is Thomas of - Cantimpré reliable?--Ptolemy of Lucca on Aquinas’ early - life--Date and place of his studies with Albert--His closing - years--His success as a theologian--His commentaries on - Aristotle--The spheres of theology and science--Aquinas as - a scientist--Inferior to Albert--His theological approach - to the subject of magic--Miracle distinguished--Reality - of magic affirmed--Magic not a science but due to - demons--And is evil--But some regard magic as a human art - or science--Aquinas’ belief in witchcraft--Divination--Lot - casting--Occult virtues--Alchemy and fascination--Amulets - and incantations--Attitude to astrology--Extent of and - limits to the influence of the stars on man--Power of - astrological images denied--The Magi and the star--Is _De - fato_ spurious?--Fate and the stars--Contradictions between - _De fato_ and other works of Aquinas. - - - _Bibliographical Note._ A critical biography of Aquinas has - not yet appeared. D. Prümmer began in 1911 to publish the - sources, when he edited the hitherto unprinted biography by - Peter Calo who wrote about 1300: _Fontes Vitae S. Thomae - Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati_, Fasc. I, - Toulouse, 1911. Peter Calo seems to have admitted a great - deal of legendary material. D. J. Kennedy’s “Thomas Aquinas” - in CE profits by this publication and contains perhaps - as good a brief sketch of Aquinas’ career as there is in - English. It also has a good bibliography. It is, however, - at variance on some points with Thomas of Cantimpré’s - statements, as I have indicated in the text. - - On the bibliography of Aquinas’ own works one may consult: - C. U. J. Chevalier, _Catalogue critique des œuvres de Saint - Thomas d’Aquin_, 1887; A. Miola, _Codices MSS operum S. - Thomae de Aquino et S. Bonaventurae in Regia Neapolitana - Bibliotheca_, 1874; P. Mandonnet, _Des Écrits Authentiques - de S. Thomas d’Aquin_, Fribourg, 1910. Latest and fullest, - but still leaving much to be desired despite its 252 pages, - is A. Michelitsch, _Thomasschriften_, 1913, vol. I; which - gives the sources for Aquinas’ biography but too briefly - with arbitrary omissions, the bare numbers of MSS containing - his works without indication of their date or contents, - the old lists of his writings, and a full analysis of the - printed editions. Fossi (1793-1795) II, 663-98, lists - such of Aquinas’ works printed before 1500 as are in the - Magliabechian library at Florence. - - Since the edition of the works of Aquinas begun by order of - Pope Leo XIII at Rome, 1886-1906, has never been completed, - the most useful edition and that which I have employed - remains that by E. Fretté and P. Maré, _Opera omnia_, Paris, - 1871-1880, in 34 volumes. - - I have not been much impressed by the worth of such - secondary works on Aquinas and his science as I have - happened upon: for some bibliography see Paetow (1917), - pp. 406, 408-9. Paetow does not mention A. Farges, _Études - philosophiques pour vulgariser les théories d’Aristote et - de S. Thomas et montrer leur accord avec les sciences_, - 1909; A. Fisichella, _S. Tommaso d’Aquino, Leone XIII e - la scienza_, 1880; T. Gaudenzi, _S. Tommaso d’Aquino e - la scienza_. 1874; Frohschammer, _Die Philosophie des - Thomas von Aquino_, Leipzig, 1889; nor G. M. Cornoldi - (1822-1892), _The Physical System of St. Thomas_, English - translation by E. H. Dering, London, 1893. The last is a - Roman Catholic defense of the natural philosophy of Aquinas - against modern science, which obscures the facts that Thomas - held fast to the theory of four elements and derived his - natural philosophy from Aristotle. Overworked as the words - “camouflage” and “propaganda” are, one is tempted to apply - them in the case of recent Aquinas literature. At the same - time it is remarkable how few libraries have a complete - and unexpurgated edition of his works. I have not seen - F. Tessen-Wesierski, _Die Grundlagen des Wunderbegriffes - nach Thomas von Aquino_, 1899, in _Jahrb. f. Philos, u. - Spekulative Theologie_. - - The relation of Aquinas to Dante has been the theme of more - than one work; an example is N. Busetto, _Saggi di varia - Psicologia Dantesca contribute allo studio delle relazioni - di Dante con Alberto Magno e con San Tommaso_, 1905. - -[Sidenote: Precociousness of Aquinas.] - -Thomas Aquinas was perhaps not so precocious a genius as some of his -fellow-countrymen who were artists during the Italian Renaissance. -But if he did not die quite as young as Masaccio or Raphael, he -nevertheless produced a vast amount of learned writing within a -comparatively short time. Whether we believe that he was born in 1225 -or 1227, he was not yet fifty when he died on the seventh of March, -1274. Ptolemy of Lucca, who states that he had often heard Aquinas’ -confession and had attended his lectures and been his friend for a -long time,[1969] says that Thomas became a Dominican at sixteen and -“lived in pure innocence” for about thirty-two years thereafter.[1970] -A passage in the _Compendium studii philosophiae_ of Roger Bacon sneers -at the theological teaching of “the boys of the two Orders,” such as -Albert and Thomas and the others who enter the Orders when twenty -years or under.[1971] Perhaps the names of Albert and Thomas were not -in the passage as originally penned by Bacon; Albert at least had -probably come of age before the friar orders started, and Bacon would -scarcely look back upon a man who was his senior as a boy. But the fact -remains that Thomas at least became a Dominican at an early age. - -[Sidenote: Early life according to Thomas of Cantimpré.] - -Thomas of Cantimpré tells[1972] how Aquinas entered the Dominican order -at Bologna against the wishes of his family--he was the son of the -count of Aquino and the countess of Teano--who secured a summons to the -papal court where he was ordered to put off the friar’s dress and be -invested with ecclesiastical office. When he refused, his two brothers -secretly seized him and shut him up in prison where he suffered from -want, cold, and poverty, and further from women whom his brothers -introduced to tempt him. He remained thus imprisoned “for two or three -years” according to Thomas of Cantimpré, until master John of the -Dominicans complained to the emperor Frederick II who secured Aquinas’ -release and would, according to Thomas of Cantimpré, have put his -brothers to death for their inhumanity but for master John’s further -intervention. Master John then shipped Aquinas off to Paris, but his -brothers and friends at the papal court had him again summoned thither, -and he was offered the post of abbot of Monte Cassino “under whom are -seven bishops and who himself exercises the pontifical office.” The -pope was ready to allow him to continue to wear the Dominican costume -in this position, but Aquinas fled a second time from the papal court -and came to Cologne and studied there until Albert was transferred -to Paris and given the chair of theology there for his incomparable -learning. “After whom,” continues Cantimpré, “also this same brother -Thomas gained a position and chair of similar importance.” The meaning -of this last sentence is somewhat doubtful. Is “after” used in the -sense of time or of precedence in dignity? Did Aquinas hold a position -at the same time with and second only to Albert, or did he obtain -the chair only after Albert had ceased to hold it? Chronological -considerations make the latter more probable. But was the chair in -question at Cologne or at Paris? - -[Sidenote: Is Thomas of Cantimpré’s account reliable?] - -This passage from Thomas of Cantimpré is at variance on a number of -points with the accounts usually given of Aquinas’ life. For instance, -it makes him join the Dominicans at Bologna, not at Naples, and -represents the pope as siding with his family in their efforts to keep -Aquinas out of the Dominican Order instead of delivering Aquinas from -the persecution of his family. But Thomas of Cantimpré apparently -penned his passage during Aquinas’ lifetime and it is probably a half -century nearer the events than the _Lives_ of Aquinas written in the -early fourteenth century and upon which most modern accounts are based. -At the same time it must be admitted that Cantimpré seems to write in -a loose and exaggerated manner which does not command much confidence. -But I suspect that he is the ultimate source of most of the later -accounts covering the same ground. - -[Sidenote: Ptolemy of Lucca on his early life.] - -Ptolemy of Lucca, who may be regarded as an independent witness in -view of his personal friendship with Aquinas, states that Thomas was -of noble origin and descended from great counts of the kingdom of -Apulia, that his family were faithful to the pope against the emperor -Frederick II, and that Thomas was educated as a boy in the monastery of -Monte Cassino. When he joined the Dominicans at sixteen, his relations -kidnapped him, but he escaped to Rome and from there went off to -Cologne to become Albert’s pupil. At the age of twenty-five he came to -Paris where before his thirtieth year he lectured on the _Sentences_ -and received his degree in theology. Before receiving the degree he -had written a commentary on the _Sentences_ and a treatise against -William of St. Amour. As William of St. Amour was not condemned by the -pope until October, 1256, and as the friars were not admitted to the -doctorate in theology at Paris until 1257 or 1258, Ptolemy’s statements -would indicate that Thomas was not born until 1227. - -[Sidenote: Date and place of his studies with Albert.] - -On the other hand, the assertions of both Cantimpré and Ptolemy of -Lucca that Aquinas studied with Albert at Cologne before Albert was -called to Paris, do not fit in any too well with the usual dating -of Albert’s Paris residence as from 1245 to 1248, when he is again -supposed to have returned to Cologne. Consequently Peter of Prussia in -his fifteenth century life of Albertus Magnus held that Aquinas spent -two periods of study with Albert at Cologne, one before and the other -after Albert’s teaching at Paris.[1973] Similarly von Hertling[1974] -gives 1245-1252 as the duration of Aquinas’ studies with Albert, after -which he returned to Paris alone. - -[Sidenote: His closing years.] - -Only sixteen or seventeen years of life remained to Aquinas after -he received his degree in theology. Ptolemy of Lucca states that he -remained in Paris for only three years after receiving the degree, -when he returned to Italy, where during the pontificates of Urban IV -(1261-1264) and Clement IV (1265-1268) he resided at Viterbo, Orvieto, -and Rome, and was offered but declined the archbishopric of Naples. -During these same years Ptolemy places most of his chief works. In 1268 -or 1269 he returned to Paris, but died in Italy in 1274. - -[Sidenote: His success as a theologian.] - -Aquinas rapidly attained great success as a teacher and authority as a -theologian during his lifetime and seems still to be regarded as the -greatest and most authoritative of the orthodox medieval theologians. -This success was probably due to the fact that he did just a little -better than anyone else what a great many had been and were trying to -do, and that was to combine all previous Christian thinking into one -systematic and consistent and moderate whole. Aquinas was probably not -the most brilliant or original mind of his generation, but probably -his teaching and writing were clearer to a greater number of students, -and seemed sounder to a greater number of the thinkers of the time -than the lectures or books of any other contemporary. He put matters -clearly, concisely, moderately, and convincingly; and struck the golden -mean as it were. We can see how he may have profited immensely by the -work of predecessors like William of Auvergne and Albertus Magnus, and -yet how his works would tend to supplant theirs. Moreover, the task -at which he had been working was not one which admitted of infinite -improvement. It was largely a problem of combining, classifying, -reconciling, and presenting the views of previous generations and -periods, and when this was once well done, there was no need of -doing it again. The attitude therefore of Aquinas toward magic and -witchcraft, astrology and divination, and other occult arts and -sciences, and also toward natural science is quite important for us to -note, since he summed up previous Christian thought so satisfactorily, -since he was both the most popular and the most moderate teacher of -his own time, and since his opinions upon these subjects remained -for centuries acceptable and authoritative to the Roman Catholic -Church.[1975] At the same time for these very reasons we must not -expect to find him putting forward any new and unusual views upon these -points. - -[Sidenote: His commentaries on Aristotle.] - -Aquinas was not merely a theologian in a narrow and restricted sense -of that word, but was also noted as a commentator on Aristotle.[1976] -Ptolemy of Lucca tells us that “he expounded practically all -philosophy, whether moral or natural, but especially ethics and -mathematics.” These lectures, however, were not all published. Thomas -did not comment on as many of the Aristotelian works as Albert did, and -several of his commentaries were left unfinished and were completed -by others such as Peter of Auvergne. Thomas has sometimes been given -credit for bringing about and using as the basis of his commentaries -a new translation of Aristotle, made directly from the Greek and -presumably executed by William of Moerbeke,[1977] although, as we have -already noted in the case of Peter of Prussia’s _Life of Albertus -Magnus_, some say by Thomas of Cantimpré. It is true that William -of Moerbeke translated some of the works of Aristotle, but I cannot -find that anyone has ever identified a signed translation by him with -the text used by Aquinas or otherwise adequately demonstrated that -they worked in concert.[1978] Even if Aquinas instigated William’s -translations from Aristotle, he could not have taken full advantage of -them, since some of William’s work of translation was executed after -Aquinas’ death.[1979] - -[Sidenote: The spheres of theology and science.] - -We must not think of Aquinas’ studies in secular philosophy and science -as simply aimed to render these subjects serviceable and innocuous to -Christian theology. He was too much a student of Albertus Magnus for -that, and his study of Greek thought and natural science broadened -his outlook beyond that of theology in a narrow sense. He believed, -moreover, that to a large extent the fields of theology and natural -science were distinct; that pure theologians should not try to settle -purely philosophical or scientific problems, of which they knew little. -Christians who deny as contrary to their faith the philosophical -solutions of problems which are really indifferent so far as the Faith -is concerned, simply bring Christianity, in Aquinas’ opinion, into -disrepute among the wise men of this world.[1980] Conversely every -theory of an ancient philosopher or hypothesis of science is not to be -accepted as of equal rank with religious dogmas. When John of Vercelli -submitted a list of questions upon which he desired, first, the -opinions of the saints, and secondly, the opinion of Aquinas himself, -Thomas protested at the start that some of the inquiries had nothing to -do with the Christian faith but were purely physical.[1981] - -[Sidenote: Aquinas as a scientist.] - -Furthermore we must keep in mind that Aquinas was something of a -scientist himself. It is interesting to note that after his death the -University of Paris wrote to the general chapter of the Dominicans, -not only lamenting his death as an irreparable loss and asking that -his bones might be sent to Paris for burial, but also requesting the -transmission of certain books begun by him while at the university -and not as yet completed upon his departure from Paris.[1982] What -were these writings: theological treatises, commentaries on the minor -prophets, or manuals of devotion? None of these. They were a commentary -on the philosopher Simplicius, another on the _De coelo et mundo_ of -Aristotle,[1983] a third on the _Timaeus_ of Plato, and finally a work -on irrigation and mechanical engineering.[1984] - -[Sidenote: Inferior to Albert.] - -Thomas, however, did no such important work in natural science as -Albert. His commentaries upon Aristotle follow the text closely -and do little more than expound it; they are not full of long -digressions and additions, as Albert’s are. Thomas did not found an -experimental school and had not himself devoted the long years of -personal experience and observation to nature that his master had. -And he seems to have had the less original and observant mind of -the two. But his wide reading, his clear thinking, his well-ordered -class-room presentation of material and arguments, and his broad yet -moderate views insured his instant and permanent success in the field -of theology, where the paths were already well trod, and it only -remained for someone to put everything into as perfect and final a -form as possible. In natural science, on the other hand, the labor -that awaited men was not merely the lucid combination of Aristotelian -and Arabic thinking with previous Christian thought, but the pioneer -work of personal observation and experiment and the far more difficult -combination of these with existing theories. Aquinas was a perfecter -according to the standards of his own age; Albert sometimes was a -pioneer in the spirit of the new age of science. - -[Sidenote: Aquinas’ theological approach to the subject of magic.] - -In view of this distinction between the two men it is perhaps not -surprising that what Aquinas has to say concerning magic, even in the -broad use of that term, occurs to a large extent in his theological -writings. Just as, although Albert was a distinguished theologian, -we viewed magic in his works largely as connected with science; so, -although Aquinas studied and wrote of secular philosophy and science, -we find in him a moderate, enlightened, and highly influential -statement of the attitude of Christian theological scholarship towards -magic, witchcraft, and astrology. In his account of magic so-called -in his _Summa_, _Contra Gentiles_, and _De potentia_, he seems to -follow Augustine a good deal, and like him he makes considerable use of -Porphyry’s _Letter to Anebo_. Aquinas accepts the essential features -of the previous theological definition of magic, as Albert did in his -_theological_ treatises. - -[Sidenote: Miracle distinguished.] - -Aquinas carefully distinguishes magic from miracle.[1985] A miracle -is contrary to the order of all created nature and can be performed by -God alone. Many things that seem marvelous to us or of which the cause -is hidden from us are not, strictly speaking, miraculous. An eclipse -seems a miracle to some ignorant people, but not to a philosopher who -understands its cause. Other seeming marvels which are not divine -miracles are the occult virtues of physical bodies “for which a -reason cannot be assigned by man,”[1986] and the effects produced in -our lower world by the influence of the constellations. Even more -difficult of human comprehension are the doings of demons, who, Aquinas -is convinced, can not only deceive the senses and affect the human -imagination, but also truly transform bodies. Yet even their feats are -not true miracles in violation of natural order; they simply add to the -marvelous virtues of physical objects and the potent influences of the -stars something of their own peculiar powers. After all, their feats -can be explained, they operate by means of art; God alone is a cause -absolutely hidden from every man. - -[Sidenote: Reality of magic affirmed.] - -As for magicians, in their feats they make use of herbs and other -physical bodies: of words, usually in the form of “invocations, -supplications, and adjurations”; they also employ figures and -characters, sacrifices and prostrations, images and rites, carefully -observed times, constellations, and other considerations.[1987] As a -result the whereabouts of stolen objects is disclosed, hidden treasure -is found, the future is revealed, closed doors mysteriously open, -men become invisible, inanimate bodies move and speak, apparitions -of rational beings are summoned and answer questions. Some contend -that such apparitions are imaginary, but Aquinas replies that on such -occasions third parties have been present whose senses were working -normally and who also witnessed the apparitions, and furthermore -that no phantom of our imagination could reveal things of which we -ourselves were ignorant. In the reality of such feats of magic, then, -Thomas firmly believes. - -[Sidenote: Magic not a science but due to demons.] - -But Aquinas will not admit that the magician and his materials are a -sufficient cause of the magic. He also denies that certain men are -especially endowed with magic power by the stars at their birth or -that the influence of the constellations can be controlled to perform -particular feats of magic. Demons in his opinion really perform the -magic. Words, figures, spells are mere signs to them; the poor magician -is their dupe. It looks, Thomas admits, as if spirits came only when -invoked, and as if they often came unwillingly, and sometimes performed -good deeds at the magician’s bidding which must be very distasteful -to them as evil beings. But in all this they are simply deceiving -mankind. “It is not true then,” says Aquinas, “that the magic arts are -sciences, but rather they are certain fallacies of the demons.”[1988] -In discussing the “notory art,” which professes to acquire knowledge by -fasting, prayers to God, figures, and strange words, he declares that -demons cannot illuminate the intellect, although they may express in -words some smattering of the sciences.[1989] - -[Sidenote: And is evil.] - -Aquinas further charges that the practitioners of magic are generally -criminals, perpetrating illicit deeds, adulteries, thefts, and -homicides, a fact which has gained for magicians the further name of -evil-doers, i. e. _malefici_ (sorcerers). At best magic does not aid -man in science or virtue, but in trivial matters such as the discovery -of stolen goods.[1990] Aquinas repeats the criticism of Porphyry in -_The Letter to Anebo_ that the methods of magic are immoral. Therefore -it is wrong to seek to learn “the magic sciences” in order to use them, -but permissible to study them in order to confute them. Aquinas then -makes haste to correct this phrase “magic sciences,” as we have already -noted above. - -[Sidenote: Some regard magic as a human art or science.] - -But by his own denial Aquinas makes it sufficiently evident that many -men of his time thought the magic arts sciences, and that magicians -believed themselves able by personal qualifications, by subtle use of -occult natural properties, by rites and ceremonies, and by the art of -astrology, either to work wonders directly and immediately or to coerce -demons to work wonders for them. - -[Sidenote: Aquinas believes in witchcraft.] - -In lending the authority of his name to an affirmation of the reality -of demon-magic, Aquinas must share together with many writers -before and after him responsibility for the witchcraft delusion and -executions. And yet he tells us that there were already some persons by -his time who denied that there was any such thing as witchcraft except -in men’s imaginations and fears. Such persons argued that where the -supposed sorcery was not entirely due to imaginary terror, it could -be explained as the natural effect of occult causes. But Aquinas, who -twice argues the question whether the consummation of marriage can be -prevented by sorcery,[1991] declares that the authority of the saints -and of the Catholic faith alike proclaim the reality of witchcraft -and its power to obstruct carnal union. Men who dispute this are the -same as denying the existence of the demons.[1992] Dear demons! What a -treasured legacy of theology from paganism! - -[Sidenote: Divination.] - -Aquinas also tends to follow ecclesiastical tradition in condemning -most arts of divination as the work of demons,[1993] and in carefully -distinguishing from them divine prophecy, which can speak with -certainty even of contingent matters.[1994] He grants, however, -that some arts of divination have a natural basis, and that natural -divination is permissible, if not extended to accidental occurrences -and to human acts due to the reason and will.[1995] It is possible to -forecast the future by interpretation of dreams which are produced -by natural causes either within or outside the sleeper’s body.[1996] -The commentary of Aquinas on Aristotle’s _De somno et vigilia_ is, -however, a perfunctory treatise, inferior to that by Albertus Magnus on -the same theme, and advances no ideas of Thomas’ own on the subject of -divination from dreams. Even augury may be natural divination, if the -acts of the animals under observation are governed by the positions and -movements of the stars.[1997] Aquinas also mentions chiromancy without -disapproval, but will not admit that geomancy comes under the head -of natural divination, since the figures upon which its predictions -are based are the outcome either of chance or of voluntary human -action.[1998] He condemns as superstitious the regarding as signs of -the future such trivial occurrences as a sneeze or a dog’s running -between two persons who are walking together.[1999] - -[Sidenote: Lot casting.] - -Lot casting of whatever sort is not natural divination. The Bible -tells us, however, that God often rules the casting of lots, and “if -practices which have a natural or human cause are blameless, much more -so are those which depend on divine aid.”[2000] But Aquinas cautions -against an appeal to God to decide the casting of lots unless there is -real necessity, or without due reverence and devotion, or for purely -human and worldly purposes, or in cases where direct divine inspiration -should be sought, as in ecclesiastical elections. As Bede pointed out, -it is true that Matthias was selected by lot before Pentecost, but -after the reception of the Holy Ghost the seven deacons were elected -by the disciples. And when men pry into hidden things more than they -should, whether by lot casting or other methods, it is Aquinas’ opinion -that demons are involved.[2001] - -[Sidenote: Occult virtues.] - -As Aquinas differentiated between natural divination and that due to -demons, so he distinguishes from illicit magic “the occult works of -nature.” On this theme he addressed a brief treatise to “a certain -knight.”[2002] Besides those properties of natural objects which -accord with the properties of their component elements and so have a -manifest origin, there are occult virtues for which men can give no -reason,[2003] as in the stock illustration of the magnet, as great a -favorite with medieval writers as electricity is with modern preachers -to inspire faith in the invisible and imperfectly known. Aquinas -accounts for the existence of such occult virtues by the influence of -the heavenly bodies upon the world of nature. In his _Meteorology_, -too, he attributes the wonderful powers of precious stones to “a -certain celestial and occult virtue.”[2004] In this he probably shows -the influence of his master Albertus Magnus. - -[Sidenote: Alchemy and fascination.] - -Aquinas declares that alchemy is a true, although difficult art, and -accounts for the efficacy of its operations by its utilization of -occult forces of celestial virtue.[2005] Pico della Mirandola noted -that while Thomas seemed to deny the art in his _Commentary on the -Sentences_, he approved it in his theological _Summa_, which Pico -accepted as his last word on the subject.[2006] Spurious works of -alchemy were, however, subsequently ascribed to Aquinas in manuscripts -of the fifteenth century. Fascination Aquinas also regards as a fact, -and practically explains it as due to the power of the evil eye. The -eye is affected by the strong imagination of the soul and then corrupts -and poisons the atmosphere so that tender bodies coming within its -range may be injuriously affected. It is thus that malicious old women -injure children,[2007]--another faggot added by Aquinas to the pyres of -the witchcraft delusion. - -[Sidenote: Amulets and incantations.] - -We have hitherto found the practices of wearing amulets and repeating -incantations apt to accompany the belief in occult virtues. Aquinas, -in discussing “the suspension of sacred words about the neck” cautions -that “in all incantations and suspensions of writings” what is written -should be seemly, should not be an invocation of demons, should contain -no unknown words which may have an evil meaning, and should contain no -characters other than the sign of the cross. He quotes the decretal -forbidding other observances in collecting medicinal herbs than the -sign of the cross and repetition of the Lord’s prayer. And he concludes -that “suspending divine words about the neck, assuming that they -contain nothing false or doubtful, is certainly permissible, but it -would be more laudable to abstain from such practices.”[2008] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to astrology.] - -Already a number of passages have shown incidentally that Thomas, like -his master Albert, ascribed an important place in natural science to -astrological theory. Although he refused to explain magic as worked -by the stars, he accounted for the occult works of nature and for -natural divination by astral influence. He grants the nobility and -incorruptibility of the heavenly bodies but, although aware that Plato -and Aristotle attributed souls and intelligences to them, insists -that they are material substances. But he regards the stars as -_media_ between “the separate intelligences” and our material world -and is inclined to answer affirmatively a question which was more -than once put to him, namely, Do the angels move the stars?[2009] He -also frequently affirms, both in the course of his chief works and in -briefer answers to special inquiries that God rules inferior through -superior creatures and earthly bodies by the stars.[2010] No wise man -doubts that all natural motions of inferior bodies are caused by the -movement of the celestial bodies.[2011] Reason and experience, saints -and philosophers, have proved it over and over again. Aquinas then -cites two passages from Augustine[2012] and Dionysius[2013] which do -not seem so sweeping as his own assertion: Augustine affirming merely -that “grosser and inferior bodies are ruled by subtler and superior -ones according to a certain order,” and Dionysius saying simply that -the rays of the sun aid in the generation of life and nourish and -increase and perfect it. Indeed, throughout his arguments for astrology -Aquinas, like Albert, seems to stretch authorities upon a Procrustean -bed of citation and to make church fathers who are famed for their -attacks on astrologers seem to favor the limited rule of the stars -over all nature. Aquinas further deems an art of judicial astrology -possible, asserting that, besides the crude prognostications which -sailors and farmers make from the sky, it is feasible “by some other -more occult observations of the stars to employ judicial astrology -concerning corporeal effects.”[2014] - -[Sidenote: Extent of and limits to the influence of the stars upon man.] - -But Aquinas declares that the human will is free and that the soul as -an intellectual substance cannot be coerced by corporeal substances, -however superior. He also opines that many occurrences are accidental -rather than due to the stars, “as when a man digging a grave finds -buried treasure.”[2015] And “no natural agent can incline one to -that which happens accidentally.” Aquinas like Albert is also aware, -however, that the astrologers themselves agree that the wise man rules -the stars, and conversely he himself recognizes that man is not purely -an intellectual being, that he often obeys sensual appetite, and that -even the mind derives its knowledge from the senses and consequently -in a condition disturbed by phantasy. Thus the stars may indirectly -affect the human intellect to a considerable extent.[2016] Aquinas is -also ready to admit that astrologers often make true predictions in -events where large numbers of men are concerned and the passions of the -majority override the wisdom and will of the few who are able to resist -such impulses. On the other hand, he holds that astrologers often err -in their predictions concerning individuals.[2017] This perhaps refers -only to prediction of nativities, for Peter of Prussia, in defending -Albertus Magnus against the charge of indulgence in too curious arts, -asserted that Aquinas “nowhere in his writings” reproved or attacked -astrological interrogations.[2018] - -[Sidenote: Power of astrological images denied.] - -The question remains, to what extent can men voluntarily avail -themselves of the celestial virtues? Aquinas takes the position that -men can make use of such virtues only as they find them already -existing in nature and that works of human art, as distinct from -natural objects, receive no new virtue from the stars but only from the -human operator,--“from the conception of the artificer.” It is for this -reason that Aquinas refuses to explain many operations of magicians -as produced by the aid of the constellations. In particular he denies -that gems engraved with astronomical figures receive any more virtue -from the stars than other gems of the same species without the carving. -Figures and characters and human words are immaterial and do not -exert force upon matter. If, therefore, astronomical or necromantic -or magic images and characters seem to produce marvelous effects, it -must be because they are illicitly employed as secret signs to demons -who really achieve the results.[2019] In short, Aquinas’ position -concerning images and characters is that of William of Auvergne rather -than that of Albertus Magnus. - -[Sidenote: The Magi and the star.] - -Aquinas discusses the problem of the star of Bethlehem both in his -_Commentary on Matthew_[2020] and in the _Summa_,[2021] and the -interest which such subjects had for his contemporaries is further -shown by these questions which were put to him, “Did the little hands -of the infant Jesus create stars?” and “Did the star which appeared -to the Magi have the shape of a cross or human form?”[2022] The -first question was probably suggested by the apocryphal gospels, the -second by the homily of the Pseudo-Chrysostom which we have already -considered. Aquinas’ discussion of the star and Magi is somewhat -fuller than that by Abelard but equally drawn from the fathers, -especially Chrysostom and Augustine.[2023] Like them he contends -that the incident lends no support to the doctrine of nativities. He -saves the Magi, however, from the imputation of being workers of magic -and dupes of the demons, adopting Jerome’s oft-repeated explanation -that while in common speech _magi_ are the same as enchanters, in the -Persian language the word designates philosophers and sages. In this -case Aquinas does not force his authorities at all; on the contrary -he makes no attempt to improve upon their captious, sophistical, and -unconvincing arguments. - -[Sidenote: Is the _De fato_ spurious?] - -The earliest bibliography of Aquinas’ works seems to be that which -Ptolemy of Lucca, who had known him personally, gives in his -_Ecclesiastical History_.[2024] Among the _Opuscula_, which Ptolemy -lists with considerable care, giving their _Incipits_ as well as their -titles, appears the treatise _De fato_.[2025] It also appears in the -_Table of writings of the Order of Preachers_, a bibliography completed -in the second quarter of the fourteenth century.[2026] It is not, -however, in the official list of Thomas’ works drawn up preliminary -to his canonization in 1323, and which Father Mandonnet would accept -as an absolute criterion of the authentic writings of Aquinas. Other -early catalogues of Aquinas’ writings are all derived from one of these -three prototypes.[2027] Our treatise has also been attributed to -Albertus Magnus,[2028] and much of its attitude toward astrology and -other occult arts is just the opposite of Thomas’ position elsewhere as -we have already noted it. I have therefore reserved the _De fato_ for -separate consideration. This problem of “fate” also sometimes formed -the subject of a section of theological _Summae_ or other long works, -as we have seen in the case of Albertus Magnus, and the manuscripts -contain other separate discussions of it[2029] than this one associated -with Aquinas. As might be expected there is a general resemblance -between the aspects of the problem considered and the authorities cited -in all these treatises. No doubt it was a common topic of scholastic -disputation. - -[Sidenote: Fate and the stars.] - -Fate is defined in our treatise as the power of the stars exercised -through their movements and relations to one another. After citing -in typical scholastic fashion a number of authorities _pro_ and -_con_,--Aristotle and Boethius are made to supply many arguments for -astrology; and after agreeing with most of the favoring arguments and -answering some of the opposing ones, the author finally concludes -that fate in this sense does prevail. But he distinguishes between -fate and fatal necessity, holding that the stars do not impose fatal -necessity upon inferiors. While their own motion is “necessary, -inevitable, and inalterable, ... in things generated it is received -mutably and contingently because of their changeable natures.” Like -Aquinas and other authors, he then approvingly quotes Ptolemy’s -familiar qualification that the stars exert their influence _per aliud -et per accidens_ and that “the wise man rules the stars.” Properties -of inferior objects may be used by man to counteract the effects of -the constellations, or imaginations of the mind may operate to weaken -their force. The author then argues that fate as he has defined it is -knowable, in other words that the art of astrology is practicable, that -the influence of the stars can be discerned and measured. He goes so -far as to defend the assertion of Ptolemy that “when the luminaries are -in the head of Algon, that is, of the Gorgon, if Mars shines in hostile -aspect, the child then born will be mutilated of hands and feet, and -crucified.” - -[Sidenote: Contradictions between _De fato_ and other works of Aquinas.] - -The _De fato_ seems at variance with the opinions of Aquinas as -expressed elsewhere upon the following points. It correctly cites -Boethius’ _De consolatione philosophiae_ that the incident of finding -hidden treasure while digging a grave is an example of “the inevitable -connection of causes which proceeds from the fount of the knowledge -of God,” whereas Aquinas incorrectly cited it as an illustration of -an accidental event. Again, the author of _De fato_ regards the story -of the Magi and the star of Bethlehem as an evidence of the truth of -astrology. He also seems to believe that “intelligence through the -motion of the sky rules and causes the intellectual operations of -the soul,” which Aquinas refused to concede. _De fato_ also explains -fascination somewhat differently from Aquinas. It appears to agree with -him that the soul of the person exercising the power of fascination -affects the person fascinated through the sense of sight; but it -suggests that the soul of the fascinator has been endowed by the stars -with power over the soul of the fascinated, whereas Aquinas denied -that certain men were made magicians by their nativities. Finally -_De fato_ does not, like Aquinas, reject astrological images, but -declares that celestial influence is received by artificial as well -as by natural objects, “and therefore the figures of magic images are -engraved according to the constellations.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1969] Ptolemy of Lucca, _Hist. Eccles._, XXIII, 7 (_Muratori_, XI, -1169), recounting the death of Aquinas remarks, “Unde cum multa -devotione et mentis puritate et corporis qua semper floruit et in -Ordine viguit, quemque ego probavi inter homines quos umquam novi qui -suam saepe confessionem audivi et cum ipso multo tempore conversatus -sum familiari ministerio ac ipsius auditor fui, ex hac luce transiit ad -Christum....” - -[1970] _Ibid._, XXII, 20 (_Muratori_, XI, 1152). - -[1971] Brewer (1859), p. 426. - -[1972] _Bonum universale de apibus_, I, 20, xi. - -[1973] Peter of Prussia (1621), pp. 90-104. - -[1974] v. Hertling (1914), p. 9, note, where, however, he says, -“Albert’s Lehrtätigkeit an der Universität Paris schloss sich -unmittelbar an jene von Strassburg,” which leaves no time for Aquinas -to come to Albert in the first instance at Cologne. - -[1975] Some measure of Aquinas’ hold upon the later middle ages may be -had from the list of his works printed before 1500 and contained in the -Magliabechian library at Florence: F. Fossi, _Catalogus codicum saeculo -XV impressorum qui in publica Bibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae -adservantur_, 1793-1795, II, 663-98. - -[1976] I have not had access to M. Grabmann, _Les Commentaires de Saint -Thomas d’Aquin sur les ouvrages d’Aristote_, in _Annales de l’Institut -Supérieur de Philosophie_, Louvain, III (1914), 229-82, nor to R. -Simiterre, _Sur les condemnations d’Aristote et de Saint Thomas d’Aquin -au XIIIe siècle_, in _Revue pratique d’Apologétique_, V (1907), 502-15. - -[1977] Thus Rashdall, _The Universities of Europe in the Middle -Ages_, 1895, I, 361, says, “Thomas Aquinas endeavored to procure -better translations from the original Greek, and his efforts were -seconded by Pope Urban IV. Special translations or special revisions -of the existing Graeco-Latin translations were prepared for his use -by a Dominican Friar of Greek birth, variously known as Wilhelmus -de Brabantia or Wilhelmus de Moerbeka. To him at least the common -tradition of the Middle Ages ascribes the _translatio nova_ of the -books of Natural and Moral Philosophy, which, in spite of many -imperfections, held its place in the schools as a kind of authorized -version of Aristotle till the dawn of the New Learning.” Citing -Jourdain, _Recherches_, p. 67, _et seq._; Denifle, _Archiv_, II, 226-7. -William the Fleming, as he is also called, was scarcely of Greek birth, -but of course finally became archbishop of Corinth. - -[1978] In the 14th century bibliography of writings by Dominicans, -Denifle (1886), p. 237, it is stated that William of Brabant, -archbishop of Corinth (he became so in 1277 after Aquinas’ death), -“translated all the books of natural and moral philosophy from Greek -into Latin at the instance of brother Thomas.” But of the numerous -signed translations by William extant very few are of works by -Aristotle. Moreover, is the Thomas here mentioned Aquinas? The very -next name in the bibliography in question to follow this Wilhelmus -Brabantinus is Thomas Brabantinus or Thomas of Cantimpré, who may have -been the person to suggest the translation to his fellow Fleming. -However, Aquinas and William were both connected with the popes in -Italy in the 1260’s, and Aquinas would seem to have had more interest -in a translation of Aristotle than Albert’s other “auditor,” Thomas of -Cantimpré. - -The following extracts from medieval chronicles specifically mention -Aquinas, but as their dates are obviously incorrect not much reliance -is to be placed upon them. - -_In Chronico Slavicorum apud Lindenbrogium ad annum 1249._ “Wilhelmus -de Brabantia Ordinis Praedicatorum transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis -de graeco in Latinum verbum a verbo (qua translatione scholares adhuc -hodierna die utuntur in scholis) ad instantiam sancti Thomae de Aquino -Doctoris.” - -_In Chronico Susati, quod MS servat Veneta SS. Ioannis et Pauli -bibliotheca._ “Anno Domini 1267 fr. Wilhelmus Brabantinus, -corinthiensis de Ordine fratrum Praedicatorum, rebus excessit humanis, -baccalarius in theologia. Hic transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis -Rationalis Naturalis et Moralis Philosophiae et Metaphysicae de graeco -in latinum, verbum a verbo, quibus nunc utimur in scholis ad instantiam -sancti Thomae de Aquino. Nam temporibus domini Alberti translatione -vetere omnes communiter utebantur.” “Albert’s day” was of course no -different from Aquinas’ whom he outlived by six years. - -In 1847 the _Histoire Littéraire_, XXI, 147, said, “Guillaume de -Meerbeke passe pour avoir traduit tous les livres d’Aristote, à la -prière de saint Thomas. Nous n’oserions affirmer ni cette intervention -du docteur angélique, ni cette immensité des travaux du traducteur -brabançon. Il s’en faut qu’on ait de lui une série si volumineuse de -versions latines.” - -[1979] As has been pointed out by HL XXI, 147, in the case of the “new -translation” of the Ethics, dated in the colophon in 1282, whereas -Aquinas died in 1274. Quetif and Echard (1719), I, 390, had argued, -however, that this date was when the MS was copied and not when the -translation was made; but this is far-fetched as most of William’s -translations are similarly dated. Certainly William’s labors as a -translator did not cease with his elevation to the archbishopric of -Corinth, since he translated Galen _De alimentis_ in 1277 and works by -Proclus in 1281. - -Quetif and Echard, in order to maintain the cooperation supposed to -exist between William and Aquinas, also hold that William’s translation -of the _Elementatio theologica_ of Proclus made at Viterbo in 1268 -was from the Arabic and not from the Greek, since Aquinas says in his -commentary on that work that the Greek text had not yet been found. -This conclusion is also drawn by HL XXI, 148. - -[1980] See Duhem II (1914), 394, for a like opinion expressed by -Augustine. - -[1981] _Opera_, 27, 248. - -[1982] _Chartularium univ. Paris._ (1889-1891), I, 504-5, dated May 2, -1274, “... humiliter supplicamus ut cum quaedam scripta ad phylosophiam -spectantia, Parisius inchoata ab eo, quae in suo recessu reliquerit -imperfecta, et ipsum credamus, ubi translatus fuerit, complevisse, -nobis benevolentia vestra cito communicari procuret, et specialiter -super librum Simplicii, super librum de celo et mundo; et expositionem -Tymei Platonis, ac librum de aquarum conductibus et ingeniis erigendis; -de quibus nobis mittendis speciali promissione fecerat mentionem.” - -[1983] Of this commentary the third and fourth books were finished by -Peter of Auvergne. - -[1984] Aquinas is even credited with an abridgement of the Almagest -in CLM 56, 1436 A. D., “Almagesti abbreviatum per magistrum Thomam -de Aquino”; cited by Björnbo (1911), p. 129. But this, I take it, is -the same as the abridgement of the Almagest which Averroes is said to -have made and which was translated by the order of Alfonso the Great: -see Digby 236, 14th century, fol. 190, where the writer of a prologue -to another work of Averroes remarks, “Scivit enim Averoys optime -Almagestum. Nam vidi per eum Almagesti abbreviatum, quem librum fecit -transferri Rex Alfonsus Magnus, et habetur Bononie et in Hispania.” - -[1985] _Summa_, Prima pars, Quaest. 110, Art. 4, and Quaest. 111, Art. -3; _Contra Gentiles_, III, 101-3; _De potentia_, VI, 5; _Sententiae_, -II, Dist. 7, Quaest. 2-3. - -[1986] _Summa_, Secundae secunda, Quaest. 96, Art. 2. - -[1987] _Contra Gentiles_, III, 101-5; _De potentia_, VI, 10; _Summa_, -Prima pars, Quaest. 115, Art. 5; _De substantiis separatis_, cap. 2. - -[1988] _Quodlibet_, IV, 16. - -[1989] _Summa_, Secundae secunda, Quest. 96, Art. 1. - -[1990] _Contra Gentiles_, III, 106. - -[1991] For the opinions of Hincmar, Gratian, Peter Lombard, and other -ecclesiastical authorities on this question of witchcraft and impotency -see Hansen (1900), p. 153. - -[1992] _Quodlibet_, XI, 10; _Comment. in Lib. IV Sententiarum_, Dist. -34, Art. 3. - -[1993] _In Isaiam_, cap. 3; _Summa_, II, ii, 95; _De sortibus_, -_passim_. - -[1994] _Contra Gentiles_, III, 154. - -[1995] _Summa_, II, ii, 95, art. 5. - -[1996] _Ibid._, art. 6. - -[1997] _Summa_, II, ii, 95, art. 7. - -[1998] _De sortibus_, caps. 3-4. - -[1999] _Summa_, II, ii, 95, art. 8, and 96. - -[2000] For the _Lots of the Saints or Apostles_ see: CLM 14846, 10th -century, fols. 106-21, “Sortilegia per literas et sacros libros -quorum meminit Gregorius Turonensis” (see _Historia Francorum_, -IV, 16); Egerton 821, fols. 54v-56r; BN nouv. acq. 4227, 13th -century, in Provençal (consult Felix Rocquain, _Bibl. d. l’École des -Chartes_, 1880, pp. 457-74; ed. by C. Chabaneau, with Latin original, -Montpellier, 1881, and _Revue des langues romanes_, XVIII-XIX); Vienna -2155, 14th century, fols. 54-56, _Sortes apostolorum_. - -[2001] Aquinas’ discussion occurs in his _De sortibus_, caps. 4-5. This -treatise, which he wrote for the duchess of Brabant, is apt to precede -or follow his equally brief _De occultis operibus_ in the MSS: as in -Corpus Christi 225, 14th century, fol. 232; Brussels (Library of Dukes -of Burgundy) 2471, 15th century; CLM 3754, 14-15th century, fol. 51. - -In Bologna University Library 1158, fols. 49v-52v, is a different _De -Sortibus_ from that of Aquinas. It has six or seven sections: the first -inquiring what lots are; the second whether they are good or bad, -permitted or prohibited; third, if prohibited, when, and if not always, -why not; fourth, whether to cast lots is to tempt God; fifth, whether -they were permissible before Christ but not since; sixth, why women are -often better at lot-casting than men. The last question, which appears -to have been whether the subjects of lot casting could be evil, seems -to be left unfinished. - -[2002] _Opera_, 27, 504-7, _De occultis operibus naturae ad quemdam -militem_. Other forms of the title found in the MSS are, _De -actionibus occultis naturae_, _De occultis actionibus rerum_, and _De -operationibus occultis_. MSS are numerous: for instance, at Paris -alone, BN 3899, 6738A, 6786, 16195; an anonymous _De operibus occultis_ -in BN 16096, 13th century, fols. 120v-122r, I find on examination to be -that of Aquinas. MSS of it at Munich are: CLM 402, 3754, 6942. - -[2003] _Summa_, II, ii, 96, art. 2, “Res autem naturales habent quasdam -virtutes occultas quarum ratio ab homine assignari non potest.” - -[2004] _Meteor._, III, 9. - -[2005] _Ibid._, “Unde etiam ipsi Alchimistae per veram artem -alchimiae sed tamen difficilem, propter occultas operationes virtutis -coelestis....” - -[2006] _Pico della Mirandola_ (1586), II. 6. p. 51. - -[2007] _Contra Gentiles_, III, 103; _Summa_ I, 117, 3. - -[2008] _Summa_, II, ii, 96, art. 4. - -[2009] _Responsio ad Magistrum Joannem de Vercellis. Responsio ad -lectorem Venetum_, Artic. 1-2. _De substantiis separatis._, cap. 1 -(_Opera_, 27, 275), “Ipsae etiam animae coelestium corporum si tamen -sint animata, inter Angelos sint connumerandae, ut Augustinus definit -in _Enchyridione_.” - -[2010] Besides the treatises mentioned in the preceding note, see the -_Summa_, _Tractatus de fide_, _Meteorologicorum libri IV_, _De judiciis -astrorum ad fratrem Reginaldum_, _Commentary on Matthew_. - -[2011] _Opera_, 27, 249, _Ad J. de Vercellis_. - -[2012] _De trinitate_, III. - -[2013] _De divinis nominibus_, IV. - -[2014] _De judiciis astrorum, Opera_ 27, 449. MSS of this treatise, -too, are numerous: for instance, at Paris BN 6786, 3109, 3899, 6512, -15690; and at Munich CLM 402, 5594, 27001, 3754, 6942. - -[2015] _De sortibus_, cap. 4. - -[2016] _Summa_ I, 115. 4. _De fide_, cap. 129. - -[2017] _Ibid._, and _De sortibus_, cap. 4. - -[2018] Peter of Prussia (1621), cap. 15. - -[2019] _Contra Gentiles_, III, 105; _Summa_, II, ii, 96, _artic._ 2; -_De occultis operibus._ - -[2020] _Comment. in Math._, cap. 2. - -[2021] _Summa_, III, 36. - -[2022] _Responsio de vi articulis ad lectorem Bisuntinum._ - -[2023] As we have already been over their arguments, Aquinas’ -presentation thereof may perhaps be better summarized here than in the -text. The Gospel account led the Priscillianists to subject all human -acts to fate and the Manicheans to repudiate the Book of Matthew as -inculcating a belief in fate. Against them are rehearsed the following -arguments. First, as Augustine says (_Contra Faustum_, II, 5), no -astrologer asserts that a star will leave its usual position at a -man’s birth and go to him, as the Gospel narrative asserts that the -star in the east did, and hence Matthew confounds rather than defends -the error of astrology. Aquinas then quotes with apparent approval -the erroneous assertion of Chrysostom (_Homily 6 in Matth._) that “it -is not astronomy’s task to tell from the stars who are being born, -but to predict the future from the hour of nativity.” He also notes -Chrysostom’s objection that it took the Magi over two years to travel -to Bethlehem so that the star must have appeared two years before -Christ’s birth. This, by the way, would make the date 4 B. C., usually -given for the birth of Christ, fit nicely into Münter’s date of 6 B. -C. for the constellation which portended it. Aquinas also repeats the -argument that the star was probably a new creation of God. - -But all these criticisms are really quite beside the point, since even -according to the Bible story, the Magi, who were evidently astronomers, -knew perfectly well what the star meant. Indeed, Aquinas himself -repeats the statement that the birth of Christ was announced to them -by a star, although to Simon and Anna and to the shepherds by other -methods, because they were used to stars. If it was a very unusual kind -of star and had a very unusual meaning, all that simply goes to show -that a good astrologer is equal to any emergency. Aquinas, indeed, or -rather, his authorities, sees the need of stating some other method -than astrological skill by which the Magi comprehended the significance -of the star. He adduces two explanations from Augustine (_Sermo 374 -de Epiphania_, and _De quaest. vet. et nov. test., Quaest. 63_); one -that they were admonished by angels, which makes us wonder why there -was any star at all; the other, that Balaam had left them a prediction -concerning the coming of the star. - -Aquinas also repeats something of what the fathers have said on the -allegorical significance of the Magi. But on the whole he, like -his authorities, fails signally to explain away the astrological -significance of the Magi. - -[2024] _Hist. eccles._ XXIII, 13 (Muratori XI, 1170). Michelitsch -_Thomasschriften_, I (1913), p. 126, dates Ptolemy’s list between 1312 -and 1317, but I do not know why. - -[2025] It is included in Fretté and Maré, _Opera_, 27, 454-64. - -[2026] Denifle (1886), p. 237. - -[2027] Pierre Mandonnet, O. P. _Des Écrits Authentiques de S. Thomas -d’Aquin_, Fribourg, 1910. - -[2028] See the list of writings ascribed to Albert in Borgnet’s edition -of his works, I, lxii. I have also seen the treatise ascribed to Albert -in the Explicit of Sloane 2156, 15th century, fols. 154-9. - -In Bologna University Library, 1158, 14th century, where the first -treatise in the MS at fols. 1-39 is the treatise of Aquinas against -William of St. Amour, our treatise together with another _De fato_ -which follows it and brief treatises on divination and lots are -catalogued together as fols. 41-52, “Magistri Alberti theotonici de -fato, de divinatione, de sortibus.” In the MS itself, however, the -only statements as to authorship are headings in the margin. That -at the beginning of our _De fato_ seems to be “Magri” (Magistri) -“Alrti” (or Alxri, rather than Alberti) and a third word which looks -like “Theotonici.” The second _De fato_ is headed “Magri (Magistri) -Alexandri” in the upper margin of fol. 45r, and the next treatise is -headed, fol. 47r, “Questio de divinatione Alexandri.” The anonymous _De -sortibus_ which follows it is also not Aquinas’. The second treatise on -fate considers six questions, of which the last is whether Christ was -physically subject to the influence of the constellations like other -men. - -[2029] In BN 16096, 13th century, fol. 138r-, is another which seems -different from either of the _De fato’s_ mentioned in the preceding -note. The catalogue questioningly assigns it to Alexander, but is -probably misled by a rubric at fol. 139v which seems to be simply -a citation (“in sic inscripto libro”) and which reads, “Alexandri -affridisei ad imperatores antoninum et severinum liber de fato.” In -this same MS at fols. 120v-122r occurs Aquinas’ _De occultis operibus_. - - - - -CHAPTER LXI - -ROGER BACON - - - Bibliographical note--Our method of considering him. - - I. _Life_ - - Birth, family, and early life--The years before 1267--Bacon - and the mariner’s compass--The papal mandate--The - composition of the three works--The injunction of - secrecy--Roger Bacon and the Franciscans--Bacon’s life after - 1267--His reported condemnation--Franciscans and science: - John Peckham--Was Bacon still writing in 1292? - - II. _His Criticism of and Part in Medieval Learning_ - - Aims and plan of the _Opus Maius_--Bacon’s theological - standpoint--His scholastic side--Attitude to Aristotle - and other authorities--Bacon’s critical bent--Criticism - easier than construction--Commonplaces of medieval - criticism--Debt of Bacon to earlier writers--Limitations - of his criticism--Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus--Bacon’s - criticism of education applies chiefly to the training - of the friars in theology--His other criticisms of - contemporary education--His personal motives--Inaccuracy - of much of his criticism--Bacon does not regard himself - as unique--Instances of ideas which were not new with - him--Bacon and the discovery of America--His historical - attitude--His “mathematical method”--Its crudity--Its debt - to others. - - III. _His Experimental Science_ - - Has been given undue prominence--“Experimental science” - distinct from other natural sciences--As a criterion of - truth--Lack of method--Bacon and inventions--Marvelous - results expected--Fantastic “experiments”--Credulity - essential--Good flying dragons--Experiment and magic. - - IV. _His Attitude Toward Magic and Astrology_ - - Magic and astrology--Magic in the past--Magicians and - their books still prevalent--Magic a delusion--Some truth - in magic--Magic and science--His belief in marvelous - “extraneous virtues”--Non-magical fascination--The power - of words--Magic and science again--The multiplication - of species--William of St. Cloud on works of art and - nature compared to magic--The two mathematics--Four - objections to the forbidden variety--The rule of the - stars--Astrological medicine--Influence of the stars upon - human conduct--Planetary conjunctions and religious - movements--Was Christ born under the stars?--Operative - astrology--Unlikelihood that Bacon was condemned for magic - or astrology--Error of Charles in thinking that any stigma - rested on Bacon’s memory--But his own statements may have - given rise to the legend. - - V. _Conclusion_ - - Characteristics of medieval books--Features of the _Opus - Maius_. - - Appendix I. The Study of Roger Bacon. - - Lack of early printed editions of his works--His popular - reputation as a magician--Jebb’s edition of the _Opus - Maius_--General misestimate of Bacon and of medieval - science--Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon--Legend of Roger’s - martyrdom for science--Works of Brewer and Charles--Minor - studies of the later nineteenth century--Recent editions of - Bacon’s works--Continued overestimate of Bacon--Beginnings - of adverse criticism--_The Commemoration Essays_. - - Appendix II. Roger Bacon and Gunpowder. - - -[Sidenote: Our method of considering him.] - -Contemporary with the three learned Dominicans of whom preceding -chapters have treated--Albert, Thomas, and Vincent--was the Franciscan -friar, Roger Bacon, who in modern times has received so much attention -and admiration at the expense of his contemporaries and his age.[2030] -Happily in the present volume we are in a better position to estimate -him fairly. The best, if not the only way to appreciate him aright is -by a detailed study of the writings and doctrines of his predecessors -and contemporaries. Roger Bacon has hitherto been studied too much -in isolation. He has been regarded as an exceptional individual; his -environment has been estimated at his own valuation of it or according -to some preconceived idea of his age; and his writings have not been -studied in relation to those of his predecessors and contemporaries. -Thought of as a precursor of modern science, he has been read to -find germs of modern ideas rather than scrutinized with a view to -discovering his sources. Yet his constant citing of authorities and the -helpful footnotes which Bridges, in his edition of the _Opus Maius_, -gives to explain these allusions to other scientists, point insistently -in the latter direction. When one has gone a step further and has read -for their own sake the works of men like Adelard of Bath, William of -Conches, and Daniel of Morley in the twelfth century, or William of -Auvergne, Robert Grosseteste and Albert Magnus in the early and middle -thirteenth century, the true position of Roger Bacon in the history of -thought grows clearer. One then re-reads his works with a new insight, -finds that a different interpretation may be put upon many a passage, -and realizes that even in his most boastful moments Roger himself never -made such claims to astounding originality as some modern writers -have made for him. Conversely, one is impelled to the conclusion that -Bacon’s writings, instead of being unpalatable to, neglected by, and -far in advance of, his times, give a most valuable picture of medieval -thought, summarizing, it is true, its most advanced stages, but also -including much that is most characteristic, and even revealing some of -its back currents. It is from this standpoint that we shall consider -Roger Bacon and endeavor to refute misconceptions that have grown up -concerning his life and learning. We shall also, in conformity with -our main theme, take particular note of his experimental science, long -regarded as the brightest gem in his crown, and of other aspects of his -learning which have hitherto not received special or proper treatment, -namely, the astrology and magic to which he gives so much space and -emphasis and which so seriously affect all his thought, but which -probably did not affect his life and the attitude of his age towards -him in the way that many have assumed. - - -I. _Life_ - -[Sidenote: Birth, family, and early life.] - -Past estimates of Bacon’s learning have been greatly affected by their -holders’ views of his life; but his biography is gradually being shorn -of fictions and losing that sensational and exceptional character -which gave countenance to the representation of his thought as far -in advance of his age. We cannot tell to which of several families -of Bacons mentioned in feudal registers and other documents of the -times he belonged, and the exact date and place of his birth are -uncertain.[2031] But he speaks of England as his native land, and in -1267 looks back upon a past of some forty years of study and twenty -years of specialization in his favorite branches of learning.[2032] In -another passage he mentions having spent all his spare time for ten -years upon the science of perspective.[2033] Also he speaks of one -brother as rich, of another as a student, and of his family’s suffering -exile for their support of Henry III against the barons.[2034] -He implies that up to 1267 he had not been outside France and -England,[2035] but he had sent across the seas for material to assist -his special investigations and had spent large sums of money.[2036] - -[Sidenote: The years before 1267.] - -Before he became a friar he had written text-books for students, and -had worked so hard that men wondered that he still lived. When or why -he joined the Franciscans we are not informed,[2037] but his doing -so is no cause for wonder, for both Orders were rich in learned men, -including students of natural science. Bacon tells us that after -becoming a friar he was able to study as much as before, but “did -not work so much,” probably because he now had less teaching to do. -For about ten years before 1267, instead of being imprisoned and -ill-treated by his order, as was once believed without foundation, he -was, as we now know from his own words discovered in 1897, in poor -health and “took no part in the outward affairs of the university.” -This abstention caused the report to spread that he was devoting all -his time to writing, especially since many were aware that he had long -intended to sum up his knowledge in a _magnum opus_, but he actually -“composed nothing except a few chapters, now about one science and now -about another, compiled in odd moments at the instance of friends.” -At least this is what he told the pope in 1267 when trying to excuse -himself for having had no completed work ready to submit to the supreme -pontiff.[2038] During these years he seems to have fallen into some -obscurity, since in the _Opus Tertium_ he compares his tone in the -_Opus Minus_ to that of Cicero, when recalled from exile, in the letter -in which he humbled himself and congratulated the Roman senate. So -Bacon, describing himself probably with some rhetorical exaggeration as -an exile for the past ten years from his former scholastic fame,[2039] -recognizes his own littleness and admires the wisdom of the pope, who -has deigned to seek works of scholarship “from me, now unheard by -anyone and as it were buried in oblivion.”[2040] - -[Sidenote: Bacon and the mariner’s compass.] - -R. H. Major’s _Prince Henry the Navigator_ is responsible for the -spread of the story that in 1258 Brunetto Latini saw Friar Bacon -at the Parliament at Oxford and was shown by him the secret of the -magnetic needle, which Roger dared not divulge for fear of being -accused of magic. The supposed letter of Brunetto Latini to the poet -Guido Cavalcanti, from which these data are drawn, seems to have -been a hoax or fanciful production appearing first in 1802 in the -_Monthly Magazine_[2041] among “Extracts from the Portfolio of a Man of -Letters,” who is said to have translated them from “the French patois -of the Romansch language.” Certainly the mariner’s compass was pretty -well known in Bacon’s time, nor are we informed of any case where it -involved its possessor in a trial for magic. Bacon says in one passage -that if the experiment of the magnet with respect to iron “were not -known to the world, it would seem a great miracle.”[2042] In another -place he grants that even the common herd of philosophers know of the -magnetic needle; he merely criticizes their belief that the needle -always turns towards the north star; Roger thinks that it can be made -to turn to any other point of the compass if only it has been properly -magnetized.[2043] Perhaps the Latini story was suggested by a third -passage, where Bacon says, in order to illustrate his statement that -philosophers have sometimes resorted to charms and incantations to hide -their secrets from the unworthy, “As if, for instance, it were quite -unknown that the magnetic needle attracts iron and someone wishing to -perform this operation before the people should make characters and -utter incantations, so that they might not see that the operation of -attraction was entirely natural.”[2044] - -[Sidenote: The papal mandate.] - -Bacon’s career centers about a papal mandate which was despatched to -him in the summer of 1266. Guy de Foulques, who became Clement IV on -February 5, 1265, had at some previous time requested Bacon to send -him the _scriptum principale_ or comprehensive work on philosophy -which he had been led to think was already written.[2045] On June 22, -1266, he repeated this request in the form of a papal mandate, which -is extant.[2046] The former letter is lost, but both Bacon and the -pope refer to it.[2047] Somehow writers on Bacon have paid little -heed to this first request, have assumed that Bacon wrote his three -works to the pope in about a year[2048] despite the “impediments” upon -which he dwells, and have therefore been filled with admiration at -the superhuman genius which could produce such works at such short -notice while laboring under such difficulties.[2049] But this is -assuming that Roger had done nothing in the considerable interval -between the two mandates. And why does he keep apologizing for “so -great delay in this matter,” and “Your Clemency’s impatience at hope -deferred.”[2050] Moreover, his excuses do not all apply to the same -period, and most of them are excuses for not having composed a full -exposition of philosophy rather than for not having composed sooner the -_Opus Maius_, which Roger regarded as a mere preamble to philosophy. -One set of excuses explains why he had no comprehensive work ready when -the first request arrived.[2051] A second set explains why he had not -written it in the interval between the two mandates.[2052] A third set -explains why he finally does not write it at all but sends instead an -introductory treatise, the _Opus Maius_, supplemented by two others, -the _Opus Minus_ and _Opus Tertium_. Of course some excuses hold -equally good for all three periods. But he states in the third treatise -that in writing the second he was free from some of the “impediments” -which had hampered his composition of the _Opus Maius_.[2053] As he -also says that one reason for writing the _Opus Minus_ was lest the -_Opus Maius_ be lost amid the great dangers of the roads at that time, -one infers that the latter work was despatched before the other. -Moreover, the _Opus Minus_ opens with a eulogy of the pope which is -absent in the _Opus Maius_,[2054] in which there are very few passages -to suggest that it is addressed to the pope, or written later than -1266.[2055] - -[Sidenote: The composition of the three works.] - -The _Opus Maius_, therefore, was practically finished, if not already -sent, when the papal mandate of 1266 reached Bacon. When Roger learned -that Foulques as pope was still interested in his work, visions of what -the apostolic see might do for his programme of learning and himself -flashed before his mind, and, after a fresh but vain effort at a -_scriptum principale_, which kept him busy until Epiphany, he composed -the supplementary treatise, the _Opus Minus_, with its adulatory -introduction to Clement IV, with its excuses for sending or having sent -a preambulatory treatise instead of a complete work of philosophy, with -its hints that such a final treatise can be successfully completed only -with the financial backing of the unlimited papal resources, with its -analysis of the preceding work for the benefit of the busy pope and -its suggestions as to what portions of it he might profitably omit, -and with its additions of matter which in the _Opus Maius_ Roger had -either forgotten or at that time had not been in a position to insert. -The third work, _Opus Tertium_, is of the same sort but apparently -more disorderly in arrangement, and looser and more extravagant in its -tone. Presumably it was undertaken to remind the pope again of Bacon’s -existence and proposals; it is even conceivable that Roger was a little -unstrung when he composed it; it has been suggested that it was left -unfinished and never sent to the pope, who died in 1268. A part at -least of the _Opus Tertium_ was written in 1267.[2056] - -[Sidenote: The injunction of secrecy.] - -The extant papal mandate orders Bacon not only to send his book but to -state “what remedies you think should be applied in those matters which -you recently intimated were of so great importance,” and to “do this -without delay as secretly as you can.”[2057] This allusion to matters -of importance and this injunction of secrecy have cast a certain veil -of mystery over the three works and the relations of Roger and the -pope. Observance of secrecy may have been intended to guard against -such frauds of copyists as we shall soon hear Bacon describe, or to -secure some alchemistic arcana or practical inventions which the -pope had been led to expect from him. Indeed, so far as alchemy was -concerned, Bacon observed the injunction of secrecy so strictly that he -divided his discussion of the subject among four different treatises -sent to the pope at different times and by different messengers, so -that no outsider might steal the precious truth. It must be added that -even after receiving all four instalments, the pope would not have been -much nearer the philosopher’s stone than before.[2058] - -[Sidenote: Roger Bacon and the Franciscans.] - -Another moot question in Bacon’s biography besides that of the -composition of the three works is that of his relations with the -Franciscan Order. We have seen that it was natural for him to join -it, and that the change, at first at least, seemed one for the -better. Bacon, however, found irksome the rule made by the order -in 1260, as a consequence of the publication in 1254 of Gerard’s -heretical _Introductorius in Evangelium Aeternum_, that in the future -no Franciscan should publish anything without permission.[2059] -Roger wished to employ amanuenses even in composing his works, and -these men, he tells the pope, would often divulge “the most secret -writings,”[2060] and so involve one in unintentional violation of the -above rule. “And therefore,” says Bacon, “I did not feel the least -bit like writing anything.”[2061] For a man so easily discouraged one -cannot feel much sympathy. There is however another important inference -from his statement: instead of his writings being neglected by his -age, they are so valued that they are pirated before they have been -published. Moreover, this rule of his order should not have hampered -Bacon much in writing for the pope; indeed, Roger himself implies that -he was exempted from this restriction in the earlier request from the -cardinal as well as in the later papal mandate. Raymond of Laon, Bacon -grants, had correctly informed “Your Magnificence, as both the mandates -state,” concerning this regulation, though he had given a wrong -impression as to what Bacon already had written.[2062] - -We have heard from Bacon’s own mouth that he did little public teaching -after becoming a friar, that he had as much time for private study as -ever, and that everybody supposed him to be at work at his _magnum -opus_. Yet in the _Opus Minus_ he grumbles that “his prelates were at -him every day to do other things”[2063] before he received the first -mandate from the cardinal, and that even thereafter he was unable to -excuse himself fully from their demands upon his time, “because Your -Lordship had ordered me to treat that business secretly, nor had Your -Glory given them any instructions.”[2064] In the _Opus Tertium_ he -describes the same situation in stronger language: “They pressed me -with unspeakable violence to obey their will as others did,” and “I -sustained so many and so great setbacks that I cannot tell them.”[2065] -On how we interpret a few such passages as these depends our estimate -of the attitude of the Franciscan Order before 1267 to Bacon and his -ideas and researches. He gives so many other reasons why he has no -comprehensive work of philosophy ready for the pope that this attitude -of his superiors seems a relatively slight factor. He needed much -money, he needed expensive instruments, he needed a large library, -he needed “plenty of parchment,” he needed a corps of assistant -investigators and another of copyists with skilled superintendents to -direct their efforts and insert figures and other delicate details. -It was a task beyond the powers of any one man; besides, he was in -ill-health, he felt languid, he composed very slowly. Shall we blame -his superiors for not providing him with this expensive equipment; -and are we surprised, when we remember that the mandates directed him -to send a book supposed to be already finished, that his superiors -continued to ask of him the performance of his usual duties as a friar? -Their attitude can scarcely be regarded as persecution of Bacon or -hostility to his science. On the other hand, Clement IV must be given -credit for his effort to elicit from Bacon a _scriptum principale_; and -it may well be doubted if Roger would have produced anything equivalent -to the _Opus Maius_, _Opus Minus_ and _Opus Tertium_ without this papal -encouragement. - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s life after 1267.] - -In 1272 in the _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_ Bacon lays bare the -failings of “the two orders” as if he belonged to neither, but he then -proceeds to refute indignantly those masters at Paris who have tried to -argue that the state of the higher secular clergy, such as bishops, is -more perfect than that of the religious.[2066] - -[Sidenote: His reported condemnation.] - -In 1277, however, we learn “solely on the very contestable authority -of the Chronicle of the XXIV Generals,”[2067] a work written about -1370, although containing earlier matter,[2068] that at the suggestion -of many friars the teaching of “Friar Roger Bacon of England, master -of sacred theology,” was condemned as containing “some suspected -novelties,” that Roger was sentenced to prison, and that the pope was -asked to help to suppress the dangerous doctrines in question. It has -been a favorite conjecture of students of Bacon that he incurred this -condemnation by his leanings toward astrology and magic; but, as we -shall see later, his views on these subjects were not novelties. He -shared them with Albertus Magnus and other contemporaries, and there -seems no good reason why they should have got him into trouble. Suffice -it here to note that the wording of the chronicle suggests nothing of -the sort, but rather some details of doctrine, whereas had Bacon been -charged with magic, we may be pretty sure that so sensational a feature -would not have passed unmentioned. - -[Sidenote: Franciscans and science: John Peckham.] - -How absurd it is to think that the Franciscan Order was opposed to -Bacon’s pursuit of natural and experimental science, or that he was -alone among the members of that order in the pursuit of such subjects, -may be inferred from a glance at the career of John Peckham who from -1279 to his death in 1292 was archbishop of Canterbury.[2069] According -to a letter of Bacon’s favorite, Adam Marsh, Peckham entered the -Franciscan Order about 1250. He had been educated in France but about -1270 became lector of his order at Oxford. He also became the ninth -provincial minister of the Franciscans in England, and had been called -to Rome by the pope to be _Lector sacri palatii_ before his nomination -by the pope to the archbishopric of Canterbury. Yet this Franciscan -who rose so high in the church was the author of a treatise on -Perspective, one of the five subjects which Bacon held could be of such -service to the church and yet were being so woefully neglected. In his -_Perspectiva communis_, which was printed at Venice in 1504, Peckham -talks of such matters as the reflection of visible rays and experiment. -A work on the sphere and a _Theory of the Planets_ which exists only -in manuscript are also attributed to him. It has even been suggested -that he was the bright lad John whom Bacon sent to explain his work to -the pope, but Peckham was evidently too old in 1267 to fill that rôle. -Bartholomew of England was another Franciscan interested, as we have -seen, both in natural science and astrology, and other Friar Preachers -than Albertus Magnus and Aquinas showed the same interest. - -[Sidenote: Was Bacon still writing in 1292?] - -This is about all that we know of Bacon’s life except the dates of -one or two more of his works. Mr. Little regards it as “certain that -Roger’s last dated work was written in 1292.”[2070] This was his -treatise on the study of theology, which in one passage gives the year -as 1292 and in another speaks of “forty years and more” as having -elapsed since 1250.[2071] It is rather surprising to find his literary -activity continuing so late, since in 1267 he wrote as if well along in -life. - - -II. _His Criticism of and Part in Medieval Learning_ - - -[Sidenote: Aims and plan of the _Opus Maius_.] - -We turn from Bacon’s life to his writings, and shall center our -attention upon his three works to the pope. In them he had his greatest -opportunity and did his best work both in style and substance. They -embody most of his ideas and knowledge. Much, for example, of the -celebrated “Epistle concerning the secret works of art and nature and -the nullity of magic” sounds like a later compilation from these three -works.[2072] Two of them are merely supplementary to the _Opus Maius_ -and are parallel to it in aims, plan, and contents. Its two chief aims -were to demonstrate the practical utility of “philosophy,” especially -to the Church, and secondly, to reform the present state of learning -according to Bacon’s idea of the relative importance of the sciences. -Having convinced himself that an exhaustive work on philosophy was not -yet possible, Roger substituted this introductory treatise, outlining -the paths along which future study and investigation should go. Of -the thirty divisions of philosophy he considers only the five which -he deems the most important and essential, namely, the languages, -“mathematics,” perspective or optic, “experimental science” (including -alchemy), and moral philosophy, which last he regards as “the noblest” -and “the mistress of them all.”[2073] Treated in this order, these -“sciences” form the themes of the last five of the seven sections of -the _Opus Maius_. Inasmuch as Roger regarded himself as a reformer of -the state of learning, he prefixed a first part on the causes of human -error to justify his divergence from the views of the multitude. His -second section develops his ideas as to the relations of “philosophy” -and theology. - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s theological standpoint.] - -The mere plan of the _Opus Maius_ thus indicates that it is not -exclusively devoted to natural science. “Divine wisdom,” or theology, -is the end that all human thought should serve, and morality is the -supreme science. Children should receive more education in the Bible -and the fundamentals of Christianity, and spend less time upon “the -fables and insanities” of Ovid and other poets who are full of errors -in faith and morals.[2074] In discussing other sciences Bacon’s eye is -ever fixed upon their utility “to the Church of God, to the republic -of the faithful, toward the conversion of infidels and the conquest of -such as cannot be converted.”[2075] This service is to be rendered not -merely by practical inventions or calendar reform or revision of the -Vulgate, but by aiding in most elaborate and far-fetched allegorical -interpretation of the Bible. To give a very simple example of this, it -is not enough for the interpreter of Scripture to know that the lion is -the king of beasts; he must be so thoroughly acquainted with all the -lion’s natural properties that he can tell whether in any particular -passage it is meant to typify Christ or the devil.[2076] Also the -marvels of human science strengthen our faith in divine miracles.[2077] -Bacon speaks of philosophy as the handmaid of “sacred wisdom”;[2078] -he asserts that all truth is contained in Scripture, though philosophy -and canon law are required for its comprehension and exposition, and -that anything alien therefrom is utterly erroneous.[2079] Nay more, the -Bible is surer ground than philosophy even in the latter’s own field of -the natures and properties of things.[2080] Furthermore, “philosophy -considered by itself is of no utility.”[2081] Bacon believed not -only that the active intellect (_intellectus agens_) by which our -minds are illuminated was from God and not an integral part of the -human mind,[2082] but that all philosophy had been revealed by God to -the sainted patriarchs and again to Solomon,[2083] and that it was -impossible for man by his own efforts to attain to “the great truths -of the arts and sciences.”[2084] Bacon alludes several times to sin as -an obstacle to the acquisition of science;[2085] on the other hand, -he observes that contemporary Christians are inferior morally to the -pagan philosophers, from whose books they might well take a leaf.[2086] -All this gives little evidence of an independent scientific spirit, -or of appreciation of experimental method as the one sure foundation -of scientific knowledge. We see how much of a medieval friar and -theologian and how little of a modern scientist Roger could be. It -must, of course, be remembered that he is trying to persuade the Church -to support scientific research; still, there seems to be no sufficient -reason for doubting his sincerity in the above statements, though we -must discount here as elsewhere his tendency to make emphatic and -sweeping assertions. - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s scholastic side.] - -Writers as far back as Cousin[2087] and Charles have recognized that -Bacon was interested in the scholasticism of his time as well as in -natural science. His separate works on the Metaphysics and Physics of -Aristotle are pretty much the usual sort of medieval commentary;[2088] -the tiresome dialectic of the _Questions on Aristotle’s Physics_ is -well brought out in Duhem’s essay, “Roger Bacon et l’Horreur du -Vide.”[2089] Bacon’s works dedicated to the pope, on the contrary, are -written to a considerable extent in a clear, direct, outspoken style; -and the subjects of linguistics, mathematics, and experimental science -seem at first glance to offer little opportunity for metaphysical -disquisitions or scholastic method. Yet, here too, much space is -devoted to intellectual battledore and shuttlecock with such concepts -as matter and form, moved and mover, agent and patient, element and -compound.[2090] Such current problems as the unity of the intellect, -the source of the _intellectus agens_, and the unity or infinity of -matter are introduced for discussion,[2091] although the question of -universals is briefly dismissed.[2092] - -[Sidenote: Attitude to Aristotle and other authorities.] - -Two other characteristic traits of scholasticism are found in the _Opus -Maius_, namely, continual use of authorities and the highest regard for -Aristotle, _summus philosophorum_,[2093] as Bacon calls him. Because -in one passage in his _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_ Bacon says in -his exaggerated way that he would burn all the Latin translations of -Aristotle if he could,[2094] it has sometimes been assumed that he -was opposed to the medieval study of Aristotle. Yet in the very next -sentence he declares that “Aristotle’s labors are the foundations of -all wisdom.” What he wanted was more, not less Aristotle. He believed -that Aristotle had written a thousand works.[2095] He complains quite -as much that certain works of Aristotle have not yet been translated -into Latin as he does that others have been translated incorrectly. -As a matter of fact, he himself seems to have made about as many -mistakes in connection with the study of Aristotle as did anyone else. -He thought many apocryphal writings genuine, such as the _Secret of -Secrets_,[2096] an astrological treatise entitled _De Impressionibus -Coelestibus_,[2097] and other writings concerning “the arcana of -science” and “marvels of nature.”[2098] He overestimated Aristotle -and blamed the translators for obscurities and difficulties which -abound in the Greek text itself. He declares that a few chapters -of Aristotle’s Laws are superior to the entire _corpus_ of Roman -law.[2099] His assertion that Robert Grosseteste paid no attention to -translations of Aristotle is regarded as misleading by Baur.[2100] -He nowhere gives credit to Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas for -their great commentaries on Aristotle[2101] which are superior to any -that he wrote. He bases some of his own views upon mistranslations of -Aristotle, substituting, for instance, “matter” for “substance”--a -mistranslation avoided by Albert and Thomas.[2102] - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s critical bent.] - -Despite its theological and scholastic proclivities, Bacon’s mind -had a decidedly critical bent. He was, like Petrarch, profoundly -pessimistic as to his own times. Church music, present-day sermons, -the immorality of monks and theologians, the misconduct of students at -Oxford and Paris, the wars and exactions of kings and feudal lords, -the prevalence of Roman Law--these are some of the faults he has to -find with his age.[2103] The _Opus Maius_ is largely devoted, not to -objective presentation of facts and discussion of theories, but to -subjective criticism of the state of learning and even of individual -contemporary scholars. This last is so unusual that Bacon excuses -himself for it to the pope in both the supplementary treatises.[2104] -Several other works of Bacon display the same critical tendency. -The _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_ enlarges upon the complaints -and criticisms of the three works. In the _Tractatus de Erroribus -Medicorum_ he detected in contemporary medicine “thirty-six great and -radical defects with infinite ramifications.”[2105] But in medicine, -too, his own contributions are of little account. In the _Compendium -Studii Theologiae_, after contemptuous allusion to the huge _Summae_ -of the past fifty years, he opens with an examination of the problems -of speculative philosophy which underlie the questions discussed by -contemporary theologians. As far as we know that is as far as he got. -And in the five neglected sciences to which his _Opus Maius_ was a -mere introduction he seems to have made little further progress than -is there recorded; it has yet to be proved that he made any definite -original contribution to any particular science. - -[Sidenote: Criticism easier than construction.] - -After all, we must keep in mind the fact that in ancient and medieval -times hostile criticism was more likely to hit the mark than were -attempts at constructive thought and collection of scientific details. -There were plenty of wrong ideas to knock down; it was not easy to -find a rock foundation to build upon, or materials without some hidden -flaw. The church fathers made many telling shots in their bombardment -of pagan thought; their own interpretation of nature and life less -commands our admiration. So Roger Bacon, by devoting much of his space -to criticism of the mistakes of others and writing “preambles” to -science and theology, avoided treacherous detail--a wise caution for -his times. Thus he constructed a sort of intellectual portico more -pretentious than he could have justified by his main building. To a -superficial observer this portico may seem a fitting entrance to the -temple of modern science, but a closer examination discovers that it -is built of the same faulty materials as the neglected ruins of his -contemporaries’ science. - -[Sidenote: Commonplaces of medieval criticism.] - -Merely to have assumed a critical point of view in the middle ages may -seem a distinction; but Abelard, Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, -and Daniel Morley were all critical, back in the twelfth century. -Moreover, our estimate of any critic must take into account how valid, -how accurate, how original and how consistent his criticisms were and -from what motives they proceeded. Some of Bacon’s complaints the reader -of medieval literature has often listened to before. What student of -philosophy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had not sighed at -the invasion of the Roman law into school and church and state? What -devotee of astronomy had failed to contrast its human interest and -divine relationships with the dry drubbing of the jurists? What learned -man had not expressed his preference for the wise and the experts -(_sapientes_) over the _vulgus_ or common herd? The great secrets of -learning and the danger of casting pearls before swine were also quite -familiar concepts. If Bacon goes a step farther and speaks of a _vulgus -studentium_ and even of a _vulgus medicorum_, he is only refining a -medical commonplace or quoting Galen. - -[Sidenote: Debt of Bacon to earlier writers.] - -In Bacon’s discussion of the four causes of human error his attack upon -undue reliance on authority has often seemed to modern readers most -unusual for his age. But all his arguments against authority are drawn -from authorities;[2106] and while he seems to have got a whiff of the -spirit of rationalism from such classical writers as Seneca and Cicero, -he also quotes the _Natural Questions_ of his fellow-countryman, -Adelard of Bath, who in the early twelfth century had found the -doctrine of the schools of Gaul as little to his liking as was that of -Paris to Roger’s taste, and whom we have heard reprove his nephew for -blind trust in authorities.[2107] Bacon’s fourth cause of human error, -the concealment of ignorance by a false show of learning, might well -have been suggested by Daniel Morley’s satire on the _bestiales_ who -occupied chairs in the schools of Paris “with grave authority,” and -reverently marked their Ulpians with daggers and asterisks, and seemed -wise as long as they concealed their ignorance by a statuesque silence, -but whom he found “most childish” when they tried to say anything. Or -by the same Daniel’s warning not to spurn Arabic clarity for Latin -obscurity; and his charge that it was owing to their ignorance and -inability to attain definite conclusions that Latin philosophers of his -day spun so many elaborate figments and hid “uncertain error under the -shadow of ambiguity.”[2108] - -[Sidenote: Limitations of his criticism.] - -Bacon’s criticisms have usually been taken to apply to medieval -learning as a whole, but a closer examination shows their application -to be much more limited. In the first place, he is thinking only of the -past “forty years” in making his complaints; in the good old days of -Grosseteste, Adam Marsh, William Wolf, and William of Shyrwood things -were different, and scholarship flowed smoothly, if not copiously, in -the channels marked out by the ancient sages;[2109] nor does Bacon deny -that there was a renaissance of natural science and an independent -scientific spirit still farther back in the twelfth century. - -Secondly, except for his tirades against the Italians and their civil -law, Bacon’s criticisms apply to but two countries, France and England, -and two universities, Oxford and Paris. Also those few contemporaries -whom he praises are either his old Oxford friends or scattered -individuals in France. Of the state of learning in Italy, Spain, and -Germany he says little and apparently knew little. Amid his sighing for -some prince or prelate to play the patron to science, he never mentions -Alfonso X of Castile, who was so interested in the “mathematics” and -occult science which were so dear to Bacon’s heart;[2110] Roger -even still employs the old Toletan astronomical tables of Arzachel -instead of the Alfonsine tables issued in 1252, the first year of -that monarch’s reign.[2111] His lamentation over the sad neglect of -astrology among the “Latins” is not borne out by our investigations of -their interest in that subject, and indicates that he was ignorant of -the work at the University of Bologna of the astrologer, Guido Bonatti, -whose voluminous Latin treatise on that art based on wide reading in -both classical and Arabian scholars did not indeed appear until after -1277,[2112] but must have already been in preparation when Bacon wrote, -since Guido was born at some time before 1223.[2113] Bacon grieves -at the neglect of the science of optic by his age, and says that it -has not yet been lectured on at Paris nor elsewhere among the Latins -except twice at Oxford;[2114] he does not mention the Pole, Witelo, -who traveled in Italy and whose important treatise on the subject was -produced at about this time.[2115] - -[Sidenote: Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus.] - -While complaining of the ignorance of the natures and properties -of animals, plants, and minerals which is shown by contemporary -theologians in their explanation of Scriptural passages, Bacon not -only slights the encyclopedias which several clergymen like Alexander -Neckam, Bartholomew of England, Thomas of Cantimpré and Vincent of -Beauvais had compiled; he also says nothing of the school at Cologne -of Albertus Magnus, whose reputation was already established by the -middle of the century, who personally investigated many animals, -especially those of the north, and often rectified the erroneous -assertions of classical zoologists, whom the historian of botany -has lauded, whose students too were curious to know not only the -theoretical botany that passed under the name of Aristotle, but also -the particular characteristics of plants, and who in his five books on -minerals discusses the alchemy and indulges in the same occult science -and astrology which Bacon deemed so important. Yet Albert was a noted -theologian and Biblical commentator as well as a student of nature. - -In saying that Bacon does not mention Albert’s work in natural science, -I of course do not mean to imply that he never mentions Albert. He -excuses his delay in answering the pope by declaring that the most -noted Christian scholars, such as Brother Albert of the Order of -Preachers, and Master William of Shyrwood, could not in ten years -produce such a work as he transmits; and he incidentally observes that -William is a far abler scholar than Albert.[2116] I am suspicious, -however, of the integrity of the passage[2117] where Bacon sneers at -the theological teaching of “the boys of the two Orders, such as Albert -and Thomas and the others who enter the Orders when twenty years or -under.” It seems incongruous for Bacon to speak of his probable senior, -Albert, as a boy. Other passages in Bacon’s works which have been taken -to apply to Albert, though he is not expressly named, seem to me not -to apply to him at all closely; and if meant for him, they show that -Bacon was an incompetent and unfair critic. Not only was Albert only -for a short time in Paris; he does not seem to have been in sympathy -with the conditions there which Bacon attacks. Nor can I see that Bacon -is meant in the passage at the close of Albert’s _Politics_,[2118] -where he declares that its doctrines, as in his books on physics, are -not his own theories but a faithful reflection of peripatetic opinion; -and that he makes this statement for the benefit of lazy persons who -occupy their idle hours in searching writings for things to criticize; -“Such men killed Socrates, drove Plato from Athens to the Academy, -and, plotting even against Aristotle, forced him into exile.” Such a -passage seems a commonplace one. Both Adelard of Bath and William of -Conches expressed the same fear of setting forth new ideas of their -own, and medieval writers not infrequently in their prefaces apprehend -with shrinking “the bite of envy” which both their Horace and personal -experience had taught would follow fast on publication. - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s criticism of education applies chiefly to the -training of the friars in theology.] - -Thirdly, while Bacon occasionally makes bitter remarks about the -present state of learning in general, it is the teaching of theology at -Paris and by the friars that he has most in mind and that he especially -desires to reform. Though himself a friar and master of theology, -he had been trained and had then himself specialized in the three -learned languages, Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, in optic and geometry, in -astronomy and astrology, in alchemy and “experimental science,” and -in the writings of the classical moralists. Consequently he thought -that no one could be a thorough theologian who did not go through the -same course of training; nay, it was enough to ruin the reputation of -any supposed scholar in Bacon’s sight, if he were unacquainted with -these indispensable subjects. Bacon held that it was not sufficient -preparation for theology merely to study “the common sciences, such as -Latin, grammar, logic, and a part of natural philosophy, and a little -metaphysics.”[2119] However, it was not that he objected to these -studies in themselves, nor to the ordinary university instruction in -the arts course; in fact, he complains that many young friars start -in to study theology at once and “presume to investigate philosophy -by themselves without a teacher.”[2120] Bacon has a low opinion of the -scholarship of Alexander of Hales, because his university education -had been completed before the chief authorities and commentaries in -natural philosophy and metaphysics had been translated. Against another -friar generally regarded by the academic world as its greatest living -authority Bacon brings the charge that “he never heard philosophy -in the schools,” and “was not instructed nor trained in listening, -reading and disputing, so that he must be ignorant of the common -sciences.”[2121] Such passages show that to represent Bacon’s writings -as full of “sweeping attacks” upon “the metaphysical subtleties and -verbal strifes” of his age is to exaggerate his position.[2122] There -are not many direct attacks upon scholastic method in his works. - -[Sidenote: His other criticisms of contemporary education.] - -It is true that Bacon complains of the lack of good teachers in his -day, saying in the _Opus Minus_ that he could impart to an apt pupil in -four years all the knowledge that it had taken himself forty years to -acquire,[2123] and in the _Opus Tertium_ that he could do it in a half -or a quarter of a year, and that he could teach a good student all the -Greek and Hebrew he need know in three days for each subject.[2124] -But aside from the young friars who presume to teach theology, the -teachers against whom he rails most are those in his favorite subject -of “mathematics.” Bacon could teach more useful geometry in a fortnight -than they do in ten or twenty years[2125]--a hint that much time was -given in those days to the study of mathematics. These boasts are -not, however, as wild as they may at first seem; after all Roger did -not know a vast amount of geometry and Greek and Hebrew, and he had -no intention of teaching any more of mathematics and the languages -than would be of service in his other sciences, in theology, and in -practical life. He complained that “the ordinary mathematician does -not consider that he knows anything unless he demonstrates it, and so -he takes from thirty to forty years” to master the subject, and that -“the text-books and the teachers of mathematics delight in multiplying -conclusions to such an extent that one has to give years of unnecessary -time to extracting the essentials,” and “this is one reason why -there are so few students of a science which is a prerequisite to all -knowledge.”[2126] Nor were such boasts unique in the age in which Bacon -lived. Another professor and Franciscan friar, who wrote at least no -later than the early fourteenth century, Bernard of Verdun, states that -his little book on astronomy takes the place of “innumerable works and -huge tomes,” and makes it possible for anyone acquainted with geometry -to learn in a short time not only the gist of books which two years -of steady reading could scarce suffice to cover, but also many points -which other books omit.[2127] - -[Sidenote: His personal motives.] - -It is easy to discern the personal motives which actuated Bacon in his -criticism. He was jealous of his more successful contemporaries and -desperately anxious to secure the pope as his patron. If, as Macaulay -said, Francis Bacon seeking the truth was a very different person -from Francis Bacon seeking the seals, we must remember that Roger -Bacon combined both attempts at once. He grieved to see the neglect by -his fellow theologians of the subjects in which he was particularly -interested, and to see himself second in reputation, influence and -advancement to the “boy theologians.” It angered him that these same -narrowly educated and narrow-minded men should “always teach against -these sciences in their lectures, sermons and conferences.”[2128] And -after all, as he tells the pope, he does not wish to revolutionize -the curriculum nor overthrow the existing educational system, “but -that from the table of the Lord, heaped with wisdom’s spoils, I, poor -fellow, may gather the falling crumbs I need.” - -[Sidenote: Inaccuracy of much of his criticism.] - -Bacon’s allusions to and dates for events in the history of medieval -learning are sometimes hard to fit in with what we learn from other -sources, and as we have seen he has been detected in misstatements of -the doctrines of other scholars.[2129] His personal diatribes against -the Latin translators of Greek and Arabian science seem overdrawn and -unfair, especially when he condemns the first translators for not -knowing the sciences in question before they ventured to translate, -whereas it is plain that the sciences could not be known to the Latin -world until the translations had been made. Indeed, it may be doubted -if Roger himself knew Arabic well enough to read scientific works -therein without a translation or interpreter. Especially unjustifiable -and ill advised seems his savage onslaught upon William of -Moerbeke,[2130] whom we are told Aquinas induced to translate Aristotle -from the Greek, who was like Bacon interested in occult science, and -to whom Witelo dedicated his treatise on optics. As William held the -confidential post of papal chaplain and penitentiary under Clement IV, -and as he became archbishop of Corinth about the time that Roger was -condemned to prison, there may have been some personal rivalry and -bitterness between them. - -[Sidenote: Bacon does not regard himself as unique.] - -It should be said to Bacon’s credit that his own statements do not -support the inference which others have drawn from them, that he was -alone in the advocacy or pursuit of the studies dear to him. In the -_Opus Minus_ he says to the pope, with rather unusual modesty it must -be admitted, “I confess that there are several men who can present to -Your Wisdom in a better way than I can these very subjects of which -I treat.”[2131] And though the secrets of the arts and sciences are -neglected by the crowd of students and their masters, “God always has -reserved some sages who know all the necessary elements of wisdom. Not -that anyone of them knows every detail, however, nor the majority of -them; but one knows one subject, another another, so that the knowledge -of such sages ought to be combined.”[2132] Combine it Bacon does for -the pope’s perusal, and he is not ashamed to speak on its behalf, for -though there are fewer Latins conversant with it than there should be, -there are many who would gladly receive it, if they were taught.[2133] -Thus he speaks not merely as an exponent of his own ideas, but as the -representative of a movement with a considerable following at least -outside of strictly theological circles. - -[Sidenote: Instances of ideas which were not new with him.] - -Bacon has been given great credit for pointing out the need of -calendar revision three centuries before the papacy achieved it; but -he says himself that not only wise astronomers but even ordinary -_computistae_ were already aware of the crying need for reform,[2134] -and his discussion of the calendar often coincides verbally with -Grosseteste’s _Computus_.[2135] When Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly over a -century later again urged the need of reform upon Pope John XXIII he -cited Grosseteste often, but Bacon seldom or never.[2136] The Parisian -version of the Bible, against which Bacon inveighs as a corruption of -the Vulgate, was in the first instance the work of a conscientious -Hebrew scholar;[2137] and the numerous corrections and changes made in -it since, though deplored by Bacon, show the prevalent interest in such -matters. While Bacon holds that there are very few men who understand -the theory of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic grammar, or the technique of the -sciences which have to be studied from those languages, he admits that -many men are found among the “Latins” who can speak those tongues and -that there are even plenty of teachers of Greek and Hebrew at Paris and -elsewhere in France and England.[2138] Thus Bacon was not so superior -linguistically to his age as he has sometimes been depicted. - -[Sidenote: Bacon and the discovery of America.] - -The treatment of geography in the _Opus Maius_ is simply an intelligent -compilation of well-known past writers, including the wretched -work of Ethicus, supplemented from writings of the friars who had -recently visited the Tartars. Roger Bacon’s name has sometimes been -connected with the discovery of America by Columbus on the ground -that Columbus was greatly influenced by the _Imago mundi_ of Pierre -d’Ailly and that a chapter in that work on the extent of the habitable -earth was copied in large measure without acknowledgment from Roger -Bacon.[2139] Cardinal d’Ailly, however, can scarcely be censured -for failing to mention Bacon in this context since he does cite him -elsewhere and since in this passage all that he borrows from Roger are -the statements of other writers whom Roger cites. That is, against -Ptolemy’s discouraging assertion that five-sixths of the earth’s -surface is covered with water he cites Aristotle, Seneca and Pliny -to prove that the distance west from Spain to India is not great and -the apocryphal book of Esdras to the effect that only one-seventh -of the earth’s surface is covered with water. But it is contended -that the _Imago Mundi_ was not published until 1487[2140] and that -Columbus did not read it until after his first voyage in 1492,[2141] -which is to be regarded as a continuation of the search after new -islands and lands in the western ocean already undertaken by various -Portuguese sailors.[2142] It is interesting to note one argument for -the propinquity of northwestern Africa to India employed by Bacon -which d’Ailly, firm believer in astrology as he was, did not copy. -Bacon argues that Aristotle and his commentator included northwestern -Africa in “Spain,” “since they say as proof of the narrowness of the -sea between Spain and India that there are elephants only in those two -places.” And “Aristotle says that there cannot be elephants in those -places unless they were of like complexion.”[2143]--i. e., under the -same constellations. - -[Sidenote: Bacon’s historical attitude.] - -If in many respects Bacon’s contribution to learning has been -overestimated, there is one side of his thought which has seldom been -emphasized but deserves some notice, namely, his historical attitude. -In one sense history was a weak point with Bacon as with most of his -contemporaries. He not only accepted the faulty accounts of the past -current in his day, but was apt to pounce upon the most sensational -and incredible details and use these to support his case. He had no -notion of historical criticism. Unfortunately he thought that he knew -a good deal about the history of philosophy, and his attitude to -science is colored by his false ideas of the history of intellectual -development. He of course knew nothing of evolution or of prehistoric -man. For him intellectual history commenced with a complete divine -revelation of philosophy to the patriarchs. Science then declined owing -to the sinfulness of mankind, the invention of magic by Zoroaster, and -further corruption of wisdom at the hands of Nimrod, Atlas, Prometheus, -Hermes Trismegistus, Aesculapius, and Apollo. Complete knowledge -and understanding were granted again by God to Solomon, after whom -succeeded another period of sinful decline, until with Thales began -the gradual upbuilding of Greek philosophy culminating in Aristotle. -Then night set in again, until Avicenna revived philosophy among the -Arabs. To him and Aristotle, however, as infidels, less complete -knowledge was vouchsafed than to the representatives of God’s chosen -people.[2144] Of the composition and development of Roman law Bacon had -so little notion that he thought it borrowed chiefly from Aristotle -and Theophrastus, except that the Twelve Tables were derived from the -laws of Solon.[2145] Though he saw the value of linguistics and textual -criticism, and sought with true humanistic ardor for a lost work like -the _Morals_ of Seneca, he accepted as genuine works of antiquity -spurious treatises like the _De Vetula_ ascribed to Ovid.[2146] He -believed that Paul had corresponded with Seneca and that Alexander’s -conquests were due to Aristotle’s experimental science. We shall -soon see how he used the astrological interpretation of history, -which was the medieval counterpart of our geographical and economic -interpretation. Yet Bacon deserves praise for so often opening his -discussion of a problem by an inquiry into its historical background; -he at least tried to adopt the historical point of view. And on the -whole his historical method makes about as close an approach to modern -research as do his mathematics and experimental science to their modern -parallels. - -[Sidenote: His “mathematical method.”] - -Yet the introduction of mathematical method into natural science has -often been attributed to Roger Bacon, in which respect he has been -favorably contrasted with Francis Bacon. Therefore it will be well to -note exactly what Roger says on this point and whether his observations -were notably in advance of the thought of his times. It will be -recalled that in his criticism of the teaching of mathematics Roger had -shown little appreciation of the labors of those pure mathematicians -who devoted a lifetime to painstaking demonstration and were satisfied -with nothing short of it. The discussion in the _Opus Maius_ opens -with strong assertions of the necessity for a knowledge of mathematics -in the study of natural science and of theology as well; and we are -told that neglect of mathematics for the past thirty or forty years -has been the ruin of Latin learning. This position is supported by -citation of various authorities and by some vague general arguments in -typical scholastic style. Grammar and logic must employ music, a branch -of mathematics, in prosody and persuasive periods. The categories of -time, place, and quantity require mathematical knowledge for their -comprehension. Mathematics must underlie other subjects because it is -by nature the most elementary and the easiest to learn and the first -discovered. Moreover, all our sense knowledge is received in space, in -time, and quantitatively. Also the certitude of mathematics makes it -desirable that other studies avail themselves of its aid. - -[Sidenote: Its crudity.] - -But now we come to the application of these glittering generalities -and we see what Bacon’s “mathematical method” really amounts to. -Briefly, it consists in expounding his physical and astronomical -theories by means of simple geometrical diagrams. The atomical doctrine -of Democritus cannot be true, since it involves the error that the -hypothenuse is of the same length as the side of a square. Geometry -satisfies Roger that there can be but one universe; otherwise we -should have a vacuum left. Plato’s assertion that the heavens and -four elements are made up each of one group of regular solids is also -subjected to geometrical scrutiny. Mathematics is further of service -in Biblical geography, in sacred chronology, and in allegorical -interpretation of the dimensions of the ark, temple, and tabernacle, -and of various numbers which occur in Scripture. But mathematics, -according to Bacon, plays its greatest rôle in astronomy or astrology -and in physics, and in his favorite theory of multiplication of species -or virtues, or, as modern writers have flatteringly termed it, the -propagation of force.[2147] - -[Sidenote: Its debt to others.] - -Astronomy and astrology had together long made up the world’s supreme -science; there was no originality in urging their importance, and -unfortunately it was astrology rather than astronomy which seemed to -Bacon by far the most important and practical part of mathematics. -In physics he borrowed his discussion of weights and falling bodies -from Jordanus, an earlier writer in the thirteenth century, and his -optics from Alhazen and Grosseteste and from treatises which passed -then under the names of Ptolemy and Euclid but were perhaps of more -recent origin.[2148] Bacon’s graphic expression of the multiplication -of species by lines and figures we find earlier in Grosseteste’s _De -Lineis, Angulis, et Figuris_.[2149] It does not seem, therefore, that -Bacon made any new suggestions of great importance concerning the -application of mathematical method in the sciences, and historians of -mathematics have recognized that “he contributed nothing to the pure -science,”[2150] of whose very meaning his notion was inadequate. - - -III. _His Experimental Science_ - -[Sidenote: Has been given undue prominence.] - -Let us next inquire what contributions, if any, Bacon made in the -direction of modern experimental method. Jebb’s edition of the _Opus -Maius_ in 1733 ended with the sixth part on “Experimental Science,” -which thus received undue prominence and seemed the climax of the -work. Bridges’ edition added the seventh part on “Moral Philosophy,” -“a science better than all the preceding,” and the text as now extant, -after listing various arguments for the superiority of Christianity -to other religions, concludes abruptly with an eight-page devout -justification and glorification of the mystery of the Eucharist. - -Our preceding chapters have similarly rectified the place of Bacon’s -discussion of experimental science in the history of thought. We -have already brought out the fact that he was not the first medieval -man to advocate experimentation, but that writers before him contain -“experiments,” rely on experience rather than mere authority, and -mention the existence of other “experimenters” and “experimental -books.” We have noted Petrus Hispanus’ discussion of “the experimental -method” (_via experiment_), Albertus Magnus’ experimental school -for the study of nature, Robert Grosseteste’s association of -experimentation with physics, and William of Auvergne’s association -of experiment with natural magic. We have described experiments of -Constantinus Africanus, Adelard of Bath, Pedro Alfonso, Bernard -Silvester, and many others. We have yet to describe experimental books, -many of which antedate Roger Bacon. His discussion will be found to do -little more than duplicate and reinforce the picture of the medieval -status of experimental method which we have already obtained from other -and earlier sources. He is not a lone herald of the experimental method -of modern science; he merely reveals and himself represents the merits -and the defects of an important movement of his time. - -[Sidenote: “Experimental science” distinct from other natural sciences.] - -Bacon’s discussion of “experimental science” and of experimental method -are not quite one and the same thing. He treats of “experimental -science” in a separate section of the _Opus Maius_, and seems to regard -it as something distinct from his other natural sciences, such as -optics, alchemy, astronomy and astrology, rather than as an inductive -method through regulated and purposive observation and experience to -the discovery of truth, which should underlie and form an essential -part of them all. Yet he also approaches the latter conception. But -note that, while the sixth part on “Experimental Science” is not -the last section of the _Opus Maius_, it is the last of the natural -sciences to be discussed by him there rather than the first. It is -not, like modern experimentation, the source but “the goal of all -speculation.” It is not so much an inductive method of discovering -scientific truth, as it is applied science, the putting the results of -the “speculative” natural sciences to the test of practical utility. -“Other sciences know how to discover their first principles through -experience, but reach their conclusions by arguments made from the -principles so discovered. But if they require a specific and final test -of their conclusions, then they ought to avail themselves of the aid of -this noble science.”[2151] “Natural philosophy narrates and argues but -does not experiment. The student of perspective and the astronomer put -many things to the test of experience, but not all nor sufficiently. -Hence complete experience is reserved for this science.”[2152] It -uses the other sciences to achieve definite practical results; as a -navigator orders a carpenter to build him a ship or a knight tells a -smith to make him a suit of armor, so the _experimentator_ uses his -knowledge of geometry to construct a burning-glass or outdoes alchemy -at its own specialty of gold-making.[2153] In working out these -practical inventions, however, the “experimenter” often happens on new -facts and truths of which the speculative sciences have not dreamed, -and in this way experimental science “by its own power investigates -the secrets of nature.” Thus Bacon begins to see the advisability of a -close alliance between “experimental science” and natural science, but -it is also clear that they are not yet identified. The artisans of the -gilds and the alchemists--Bacon includes a discussion of alchemy in -the same sixth section with his “experimental science,” although in a -way keeping the two distinct--seem to be engaging in this experimental -science more than do the scholars of the books and schools. As -William of Auvergne associated experimentation with magic rather than -with science, so Bacon seems to regard natural science as largely -speculative, and confirms the impression, which we have already derived -from many other sources, that magicians were the first to “experiment,” -and that “science,” originally speculative, has gradually taken -over the experimental method from magic. This impression will be -strengthened as we proceed to examine in more detail, first Bacon’s -“experimental science” and then what he has to say concerning magic. -From now on, however, we shall credit Bacon with all the traces of -experimental method that we can find anywhere in his writings, as well -as in his separate section on “experimental science” in the _Opus -Maius_ and his further allusions to the same subject in the _Opus -Minus_ and _Opus Tertium_. - -[Sidenote: As a criterion of truth.] - -Bacon not merely emphasizes the importance of experience in arriving -at the truth, but of all sciences regards his “experimental -science” as the best criterion of truth. “All sciences except this -either merely employ arguments to prove their conclusions, like -the purely speculative sciences, or have universal and imperfect -experiences”;[2154] while “It alone, in truth, has the means of -finding out to perfection what can be done by nature, what by the -industry of art, what by fraud”; for it alone can distinguish what is -true from what is false in “incantations, conjurations, invocations, -deprecations, and sacrifices.”[2155] - -[Sidenote: Lack of method.] - -But how is one to set about experimenting? On this point Bacon is -disappointing. His explanation of the rainbow, which is his longest -illustration of the value of experimental science, is based merely on -ordinary intelligent observation and reasoning, although he adds at the -close that tests with instruments are needed and that consequently he -will not assert that he has reached the full truth of the matter.[2156] -Elsewhere he speaks of astronomical experiments “by instruments -made for this purpose,” but seems to regard the unaided eyesight as -sufficient for the investigation of terrestrial phenomena. Bacon has -sent “over sea and to various other lands and to annual fairs, in order -that I might see the things of nature with my own eyes.”[2157] “And -those things which are not present in our locality we may know through -other sages who have experienced them, just as Aristotle by authority -of Alexander sent two thousand men to different regions to experience -all things on the face of the earth, as Pliny testifies in his Natural -History.”[2158] The one contemporary who most nearly fulfills Bacon’s -ideal of what an experimental scientist should be, does not spend -his time merely in reading, attending lectures, and engaging in -disputations, but “is ashamed to have some layman or old wife or knight -or rustic know facts of which he is ignorant”; hence he goes out into -the world and observes the doings of common workingmen and even takes -hints from the operations of witches, enchanters and magicians.[2159] -Bacon even accepts the notion which we have already often met in other -writers, that valuable medicines can be discovered by observing what -remedies various animals employ. It would seem that experimental method -is in a low state of its development, if it takes lessons from common -human experience and from the actions of brutes. Bacon sufficiently -indicates, however, that it does not consist merely of observation and -casual experience, but includes purposive experimentation, and he often -speaks of “experimenters.” Undoubtedly he himself experimented. But the -fact remains that he gives no directions concerning either the proper -environment for experimenting or the proper conduct of experiments. Of -laboratory equipment, of scientific instruments, of exact measurements, -he has no more notion apparently than his contemporaries. - -[Sidenote: Bacon and inventions.] - -It cannot be shown that Roger Bacon actually anticipated any of our -modern inventions, nor that to him in particular were due any of the -medieval inventions which revolutionized domestic life such as chimney -flues and window panes, or navigation such as the rudder and mariner’s -compass, or public and ecclesiastical architecture such as the pointed -vault and flying buttress and stained glass, or reckoning and writing -such as the Hindu-Arabic numerals and paper, or reading and seeing -such as lenses and eye-glasses, or warfare such as gunpowder.[2160] -We probably are justified, however, in accepting such passages in his -works as the following, not merely as dreams that have been brought -true by modern mechanical inventions, but as further indications that -an interest existed in mechanical devices, and that men were already -beginning to struggle with the problems which have recently been solved. - -“Machines for navigation can be made without rowers so that the largest -ships on rivers or seas will be moved by a single man in charge with -greater velocity than if they were full of men. Also cars can be made -so that without animals they will move with unbelievable rapidity; -such we opine were the scythe-bearing chariots with which the men of -old fought. Also flying machines can be constructed so that a man sits -in the midst of the machine revolving some engine by which artificial -wings are made to beat the air like a flying bird. Also a machine small -in size for raising or lowering enormous weights, than which nothing -is more useful in emergencies. For by a machine three fingers high and -wide and of less size a man could free himself and his friends from -all danger of prison and rise and descend. Also a machine can easily -be made by which one man can draw a thousand to himself by violence -against their wills, and attract other things in like manner. Also -machines can be made for walking in the sea and rivers, even to the -bottom without danger. For Alexander the Great employed such, that he -might see the secrets of the deep, as Ethicus the astronomer tells. -These machines were made in antiquity and they have certainly been made -in our times, except possibly a flying machine which I have not seen -nor do I know any one who has, but I know an expert who has thought out -the way to make one. And such things can be made almost without limit, -for instance, bridges across rivers without piers or other supports, -and mechanisms, and unheard of engines.”[2161] Since Bacon’s authority -concerning Alexander is unreliable and his conjectures concerning -ancient scythe-bearing chariots unwarranted, we may also doubt if -steamboats and automobiles had “certainly been made” in his day; but -men may have been trying to accomplish such things. - -[Sidenote: Marvelous results expected.] - -Bacon says far more of the marvelous results which he expects -experimental science to achieve than he does of the methods by which -such results are to be attained. In the main marvelousness rather than -practicability characterizes the aims which he proposes for _scientia -experimentalis_. Indeed, of the three ways in which he represents it -as superior to all other sciences, while one is that it employs sure -proofs rather than mere arguments, two are that by it life may be -greatly lengthened, and that from it a better knowledge of the future -may be gained than even from astrology.[2162] Thus experimental method -is especially connected with alchemy and astrology. Bacon declares that -“it has been proved by certain experiments” that life can be greatly -prolonged “by secret experiences.”[2163] and he believes that Artephius -was enabled by such methods to live for a thousand and twenty-five -years.[2164] Or experimental science may predict the weather by -observing the behavior of animals.[2165] - -[Sidenote: Fantastic “experiments.”] - -Some of Bacon’s “experiments” are as fantastic as the aims are -marvelous. “A good experimenter says in the book _De regimine senum_” -that the following elixir will greatly prolong life: “that which is -temperate in the fourth degree, and what swims in the sea, and what -grows in the air, and what is cast up by the sea, and plant of India, -and what is found in the entrails of an animal of long life, and -those two serpents which are the food of the inhabitants of Tyre and -Ethiopia.”[2166] We also are told that “at Paris recently there was -a sage who asked for snakes and was given one and cut it into small -sections except that the skin of its belly on which it crawled remained -intact; and that snake crawled as best it could to a certain herb -by touching which it was instantly made whole. And the experimenter -collected an herb of wonderful virtue.”[2167] - -[Sidenote: Credulity essential.] - -Credulity, in contrast to the sceptical attitude of modern science -is a characteristic of Bacon’s experimental method. He declares, it -is true, that experiment disproves many false notions such as that -hot water freezes faster than cold, that adamant can be broken only -with the blood of a goat, and that the beaver when hunted castrates -itself to save its life;[2168] but we have already heard such beliefs -questioned by Albertus Magnus and others. On the other hand, Bacon -asserts that credulity is necessary to experimentation. “First one -should be credulous until experience follows second and reason comes -third.... At first one should believe those who have made experiments -or who have faithful testimony from others who have done so, nor should -one reject the truth because he is ignorant of it and because he has -no argument for it.”[2169] Taken as a plea for an open-minded attitude -toward scientific investigation on the part of the ordinary man and -of the ecclesiastical authorities, this utterance may be commended; -but as a prescription for the scientific investigator it is dangerous. -Many of Bacon’s “experiments” are copied from books, and the reproach -made against the Greek Empirics that they followed tradition, applies -also to him. Describing a certain marvel of nature, he exclaims, -“After I beheld this, there was nothing difficult for my mind to -believe, provided it had a reliable author.”[2170] In the midst of his -discussion of experimental science we encounter the following instance -of his gullibility: - -[Sidenote: Good flying dragons.] - -“It is certain that Ethiopian sages have come into Italy, Spain, -France, England, and those Christian lands where there are good flying -dragons; and by an occult art that they possess, excite the dragons -from their caves. And they have saddles and bridles ready, and they -ride the dragons, and drive them at top speed through the air, in -order to soften the rigidity and toughness of their flesh, just as -boars, bears, and bulls are hunted with dogs and beaten with many -blows before they are killed for eating. And when they have tamed -the dragons in this way, they have an art of preparing their flesh -... which they employ against the accidents of age and prolong life -and inspire the intellect beyond all estimation. For no education -which man can give will bestow such wisdom as does the eating of their -flesh, as we have learned without deceit or doubt from men of proved -trustworthiness.”[2171] - -Bacon’s discussion of experimental science, therefore, on its positive -side amounts to little more than a recognition of experience as a -criterion of truth and a promulgation of the phrase “Experimental -science” which, however, he himself ascribes to Ptolemy.[2172] - -[Sidenote: Experiment and magic.] - -On the other hand, the credulity, the superstition, the element of -marvelousness, which seem to vitiate the experimental tendencies of -Bacon, are to be explained as the result of a real connection between -experiment and magic. There is abundant evidence for this. Bacon, it -is true, asserts that experimental science exposes and shuns all the -follies of the magicians, but he admits that many persons confuse -it with magic because of the marvels which it works, and he himself -especially associates it with the occult sciences of alchemy and -astrology. It makes gold such as neither the art of alchemy nor nature -can produce; it can predict the future better than astrology.[2173] It -teaches one to choose the proper constellations for his undertakings, -and to use the right words at the proper times;[2174] it can construct -“philosophical images and incantations and characters” which are vastly -superior to those of magic;[2175] it can alter the world about us, -and incline and excite the human will, though without coercion.[2176] -Moreover, Bacon’s ideal experimental scientist does not scorn to -take hints from wizards, while Roger himself derives his hazel rod -experiment from the magicians. The snake experiment of his sage at -Paris sounds more like the trick of a Hindu conjurer than the procedure -of a modern laboratory. - - -IV. _His Attitude Toward Magic and Astrology_ - -[Sidenote: Magic and astrology.] - -Thus we are finally led to a consideration of the magic and astrology -which were evidently so closely connected with Bacon’s mathematics and -experimental science. Roger admits a certain connection between magic -and astrology, since he adopts Hugh of St. Victor’s fivefold division -of magic into _mantice_, _mathematica_, _sortilegium_, _praestigium_ -and _maleficium_.[2177] However, except for this superstitious -_mathematica_ he approves of astrology, whereas his attitude towards -magic is uniformly one of condemnation and contempt. We shall therefore -take up his treatments of the two subjects separately. - -[Sidenote: Magic in the past.] - -Bacon discusses or alludes to “magic” in a number of passages scattered -through his works, and to it is more particularly devoted the “Letter -on the secret works of art and nature and the nullity of magic,” -a treatise which faithfully reproduces his point of view whether -actually penned by him as it stands or not.[2178] Bacon had evidently -read a good deal about magic and gives a rather unusual account of -its position in the Roman Empire and early Christian period, but one -which is not so very far from the truth. His idea is that there were -three great conflicting and contending forces in the early centuries -of the Christian era, namely, Christianity, philosophy, and magic, -and that each one of these was then in opposition to the other two, -although there was no sufficient reason for the permanent hostility -of Christianity and philosophy, which have since become allies.[2179] -But at the time the result was that the philosophers often accused the -Christians of practicing magic, and that the early Christians similarly -confused philosophers with magicians, as indeed was often done by -uneducated men of the time who were not Christians. Moreover, Bacon -complains that this confusion still exists in his own time and that -contemporary theologians, Gratian in his work on Canon law, and “many -saints” have condemned many useful and splendid sciences along with -magic.[2180] - -[Sidenote: Magicians and their books still prevalent.] - -Roger himself, however, not only regards magic as rife in antiquity, -but as still prevalent in his own time. He often refers to contemporary -magicians and witches, old-wives and wizards. He declares that every -nation is full of their superstitions.[2181] He is another medieval -witness to the currency of a considerable body of occult literature, -of which he speaks especially in the second and third chapters of -the _Epistola de secretis operibus_, and again in his commentary on -_The Secret of Secrets_. “Books of the magicians” are in circulation -which are falsely attributed to Solomon and the ancient philosophers -and which “assume a grand-sounding style,” but which “ought all to be -prohibited by law, since they abound in so many lies that one cannot -distinguish the true from the false.”[2182] Such works as _De officiis -spirituum_, _De morte animae_, and _De arte notoria_ embody only -“figments of the magicians.” Yet these books of false _mathematici_ and -demons, ascribed to Adam, Moses, Solomon, Aristotle, and Hermes, have -seduced not only youths but mature and famous men of Bacon’s own time. - -[Sidenote: Magic a delusion.] - -Bacon, indeed, despite the prevalence of magic both in antiquity and -in his own time, regards it as essentially a delusion. It is “the -nullity of magic” that he especially attempts to demonstrate both in -the _Epistola de secretis operibus_ and elsewhere in his works. He is -medieval Christian enough, it is true, to grant that magic may perform -marvels by the aid of demons.[2183] But he also accepts the orthodox -belief that magicians cannot coerce the demons by their invocations, -sacrifices, and employment of the properties of natural objects, and -that the evil spirits in reality respond only with evil intent and -as God permits.[2184] But his emphasis is not, like Augustine’s upon -the “host of wonders” which magicians work by demon aid. He seems to -be sounding, not a religious retreat from magic, but a rational and -scientific attack upon it. Nor does he dwell much on the criminal -character of magic, although he calls the magicians _maledicti_--“of -evil repute.”[2185] What impresses him most about magic, and the charge -which he most often brings against it, is its fraud and futility. Twice -he speaks of things as “false and magical”;[2186] he mentions the -“figments of the magicians”;[2187] and associates magic and necromancy, -not like Albert with astronomy, but with deception.[2188] For him -magicians are neither _magni_ nor philosophers and astronomers; in half -a dozen passages he classes them with old-wives and witches.[2189] He -will not admit that they employ valid natural forces. He represents -magic as using sleight-of-hand, ventriloquism, subtle mechanism, -darkness and confederates to simulate results which it is unable -to perform.[2190] He further represents the magicians as “stupidly -trusting in characters and incantations,”[2191] and affirms that “the -human voice has not that power which magicians imagine it has.”[2192] -When words are employed in magic, “either the magician accomplishes -nothing, or the devil is the author of the feat.”[2193] Magical -incantations and formulae are made haphazard and at anyone’s pleasure; -they therefore possess no natural transforming power, and if they -seem to effect anything, this is really the work of demons.[2194] -Similarly Bacon regards as worthless the assertion of the magicians -and witches that sudden transformations may be produced by any man at -any time of day.[2195] He dismisses “fascination by word alone uttered -at haphazard” as “a stupid notion characteristic of magic and of -old-wives and beneath the notice of philosophers.” Here again nothing -is accomplished, “unless the devil because of men’s sins operates -unbeknownst.”[2196] - -[Sidenote: Some truth in magic.] - -In certain passages, however, Bacon suggests that magic is not utterly -worthless and that some truth may be derived from it. The experimental -scientist whom he most admired “investigated even the _experiments_ and -lot-castings of old women”--note that they too were experimenters--“and -their charms and those of all the magicians, and likewise the illusions -and devices of all the conjurers”; and he did so not merely that he -might be able to expose their deceptions, but also “so that nothing -that ought to be known might escape him.”[2197] And his experimental -science not merely “considered all the follies of the magicians, not -to confirm them but to shun them, just as logic deals with sophistry”; -but also “so that all falsity may be removed and the truth of the -art alone retained.”[2198] Roger himself in the case of the split -hazel rod discovered a natural phenomenon concealed by use of a magic -incantation. Bacon also granted that the books of the magicians “may -contain some truth.”[2199] It also was apparently very difficult to -distinguish them from other writings, since he states that many books -are reputed magical which are nothing of the sort but contain sound -learning;[2200] since he calls the magicians “corrupters of wisdom’s -records,”[2201] and charges them not only with fraudulently ascribing -various “enormities” to Solomon, but with misinterpreting and abusing -“enigmatical writings” which he believes Solomon really wrote;[2202] -and since he tells us that even true philosophers have sometimes made -use of meaningless incantations and characters in order to conceal -their meaning. He consequently concludes that experience will show -which books are good and which are bad, and that “if anyone finds the -work of nature and art in one of them, let him receive it; if not, -abandon the book as open to suspicion.”[2203] - -[Sidenote: Magic and science.] - -Indeed, Bacon seems to think that magic has taken such a hold upon men -that it can be uprooted only by scientific exposition of its tricks and -by scientific achievement of even greater marvels than it professes to -perform. Perhaps he realizes that religious censure or rationalistic -argument is not enough to turn men from these alluring arts, but that -science must show unto them yet a more excellent way, and afford -scope for that laudable curiosity, that inventive and exploring -instinct which magic pretends to gratify. He waxes enthusiastic over -“the secret works of art and nature,” and contends that the wonders -of nature and the possibilities of applied science far outshine the -feats of magicians.[2204] One reason why early Christian writers so -often confounded philosophy and magic together was, in his opinion, -that the philosophers by their marvelous exploitation of the forces of -nature equalled both the illusions of magic and the miracles of the -Christians.[2205] Science, in short, not merely attacks magic’s front; -it can turn its flank and cut it off from its base of supplies. - -[Sidenote: His belief in marvelous “extraneous virtues.”] - -But Bacon’s science is sometimes occult science. In the first place he -shared the common belief of his time that “herbs and stones and metals -and other things” possess “almost miraculous” powers.[2206] By thorough -investigation of such occult virtues Artephius prolonged his existence -to one thousand and twenty-five years. “Moreover, there are numerous -things which kill every venomous animal by the slightest contact; and -if a circle is drawn about such animals with objects of this sort, they -cannot get out but die without having been touched. And if a man is -stung by a venomous animal, he can be cured by a little powder scraped -from such objects, as Bede writes in his _Ecclesiastical History_ and -as we know by experience. And so there are innumerable things which -have extraneous virtues of this sort, of whose powers we are ignorant -from mere neglect of experimentation.”[2207] By calling such virtues -“extraneous” Bacon seems to imply that they cannot be accounted for -by the properties of the elements composing the objects, and perhaps -further that they are of celestial origin. This points on to his belief -in astrology. - -[Sidenote: Non-magical fascination.] - -But Bacon goes farther than that, for some of his “secret works of -art and nature” we must regard as plain cases of magic procedure, -and they would indeed be so classified by most of our authors. Bacon -really goes about as far as Albertus Magnus in credulous acceptance of -superstition, but will not admit, as Albert does, that such things are -magic or very closely related to it. The incantations and characters, -the fascination and marvelous transformations of magic Bacon condemns, -but he does not condemn all incantations and characters, nor disbelieve -in marvelous transformations and fascination. While he regards -haphazard fascination as magic, he holds that just as certain bodily -diseases are contagious, so if some malignant soul thinks hard of -infecting another, and desires this ardently, and has full confidence -in its own power to inflict such injury, “there is no doubt that nature -will obey thought, as Avicenna”--who seems to have been the leading -medieval authority on the subject of fascination--“shows in his eighth -book on animals and in his fourth book on the soul: ... and this much -is not magic.”[2208] - -[Sidenote: The power of words.] - -Bacon makes a close connection between fascination and the power of -words and of the human voice, since in his opinion both are largely due -to the rational soul. Words are the soul’s most appropriate instrument -and almost every miracle since the beginning of the world has been -performed by using them.[2209] “For where the attention, desire and -virtue of the rational soul, which is worthier than the stars, concur -with the power of the sky, it is inevitable that either a word or some -other instrument of marvelous power be produced which will alter the -things of this world, so that not only natural objects but also souls -will be inclined to those ends which the wise operator desires.”[2210] -Again in the _Opus Tertium_ we are told that, while the magician -accomplishes nothing by words, the wise man may for this reason. -“When words are uttered with deep thought and great desire and good -intention and firm confidence, they have great virtue. For when these -four qualities unite, the substance of the rational being is strongly -excited to radiate its own species and virtues from itself into its own -body and foreign matter.”[2211] The rational soul influences the voice, -which in turn affects the atmosphere and all objects contained therein. -The physical constitution of the speaker also has some influence, -and finally the positions of the stars must by all means be taken -into account.[2212] All this reasoning is equivalent to accepting the -power of incantations, for as Bacon states, “They are words brought -forth by the exertion of the rational soul, and receive the virtue of -the sky as they are pronounced.”[2213] Through their power bodies -are healed, venomous animals put to flight, and other such effects -produced. If incantations are made as described above, “then they are -philosophical and the work of a sage wisely enchanting, as David the -prophet says.”[2214] Bacon, however, recognizes that he is dealing -with a delicate matter in which it is hard to distinguish between -philosophy and magic.[2215] Of his further discussion of characters -and images, and effort to show that they need not be magical, we shall -treat presently in connection with his astrology. In his introduction -to _The Secret of Secrets_ he holds that the prayers and sacrifices of -Aristotle and other philosophers were licit and not idolatrous.[2216] - -[Sidenote: Magic and science again.] - -Thus Bacon fails in his attempt to draw the line between science and -magic, and shows, as William of Auvergne, Albertus Magnus, and others -have already shown, how inextricably the two subjects were intertwined -in his time. His own science still clings to many occult and magical -theories and practices, while he admits that the magicians often try -or pretend to use scientific books and methods, and that it is no -easy matter to tell which books and characters and images are which. -The experimental scientist not only exposes the frauds of magic but -discovers secrets of nature hidden beneath the husk of magical ceremony -and pretense. Also some men employ the marvels of philosophy for wicked -ends and so pervert it into a sort of magic. Finally in one passage -he forgets himself and speaks of “those magnificent sciences” which -properly employ “images, characters, charms, prayers, and deprecations” -as “magical sciences.”[2217] - -[Sidenote: The multiplication of species.] - -Bacon’s doctrine of the multiplication of species is a good -illustration of the combination of magic and science which we encounter -in his works. This theory has been praised by his admirers as the -propagation of force subject to mathematical law; and he has been -commended for describing the species which every agent causes in all -directions not, like the idols of Lucretius, as material films which -peel off from the agent and impress themselves on surrounding matter, -but as successive effects produced in that matter. Bacon usually -illustrates his theory by the radiation of light from the sun, and by -a discussion of the geometrical laws of reflection and refraction; -thus his theory seems at first sight a physical one. He believed, -however, that the occult influences of the planets upon nature and man -were exercised in the same way, and also such mysterious powers as -those of the evil eye and of fascination. Indeed, he asserts that this -multiplication of virtues is universal, and that spiritual beings as -well as corporeal objects affect in this manner everything about them -and may themselves be so affected by other objects and beings.[2218] -Viewed from this angle, his theory seems a magical one of occult -influence, though given a scientific guise by its assumption that such -forces proceed along mathematical lines after the analogy of rays -of light. This suggests that it is not fair merely to call Bacon’s -science superstitious; we must also note that he tries to make his -magic scientific. But finally we must note that this doctrine was not -original with Bacon; we have already met with it in Alkindi’s work on -stellar rays.[2219] - -[Sidenote: William of St. Cloud on works of art and nature compared to -magic.] - -It is interesting to find Bacon’s belief that the works of art and -nature can exceed those of magic, and his charge that unscientific -persons are confusing such works with magic, repeated by another -writer. William of St. Cloud composed astronomical tables based upon -his own observations during the period from about 1285 to 1321, in -which he detected errors in the earlier tables of Thebit, Toulouse, and -Toledo. This experimental astronomer, speaking of the powers of mirrors -and lenses, such as those of Archimedes, those by which Caesar saw -Britain from the shores of Gaul, and that by which Socrates discovered -a dragon in the air, says: “These marvels and many others have been -performed in ancient times, not by magic art, as some would have it, -who are ignorant of the secrets of nature and of scientific industry, -but solely by the force of nature and the aid of art.”[2220] - -[Sidenote: The two mathematics.] - -We now turn to Bacon’s attitude towards astrology, which we have -already seen was an important factor in his “secret works of art -and nature” as well as in his mathematics. He was aware that the -_mathematici_ or astrologers of the Roman Empire had been condemned -by some of the church fathers, and were classed as practitioners -of magic by more recent theologians and writers on Canon law. Like -Isidore, Albertus Magnus, and other authors whom we have already -discussed, Bacon gets around this by distinguishing two varieties of -mathematics, one of which he says is magic, condemned by Cicero in his -_De divinatione_ and by other classical authorities as well as by the -church fathers, the other a department of philosophy, a branch of which -Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, Cassiodorus, and Gregory all approved. In -the _Opus Maius_ and _Opus Tertium_ he states as usual that the “e” -is long in the magical art of divination, while the vowel is short in -the philosophical study; but in other writings he changed his mind and -declared that “all the Latins” were wrong in this opinion and that the -distinction was just the opposite.[2221] Bacon also cites Isidore’s -distinction between two kinds of “astronomy”; one natural science, the -other superstitious. Roger himself sometimes uses the words “astrology” -and “astronomy” indifferently; sometimes speaks of “astrology” as -speculative and “astronomy” as practical; sometimes distinguishes -between speculative and practical astrology, of which the last includes -judicial astrology.[2222] - -[Sidenote: Four objections to the forbidden variety.] - -Four features, to Bacon’s mind, distinguish the forbidden _mathematica_ -from legitimate judicial astrology.[2223] In the first place, it -ascribes fatal necessity to the influence of the stars, whereas Bacon -shows by an examination of the writings of Haly, Ptolemy, Avicenna, -Messahala, and Isaac that learned and legitimate astrologers have -never held any such tenet as fatal necessity, although common report -may ignorantly ascribe such doctrine to them.[2224] In the second -place, the practitioners of the magical variety of mathematics “invoke -demons by conjurations and sacrifices to supplement the influence of -the constellations, an execrable practice.” Third, “they mar their -astrological observations by the idlest sort of circles, figures, -and characters, and by the stupidest incantations and unreasonable -prayers in which they put their trust.” Finally they often resort to -fraud, employing confederates, darkness, deceptive mechanisms, and -sleight-of-hand. By such methods “in which they know there is illusion” -and “in which there is no virtue of the sky operating,” “they perform -many feats which seem marvelous to the stupid.”[2225] - -[Sidenote: The rule of the stars.] - -While thus censuring the _mathematica_ which is a subdivision of magic, -Bacon declared that “it is manifest to everyone that the celestial -bodies are the causes of generation and corruption in all inferior -things.”[2226] Had not Aristotle in his treatise on Generation and -Corruption said that the four terrestrial elements are related to the -heavens as tools to an artificer?[2227] Bacon regarded the stars as -ungenerated, incorruptible, and voluntary in their movements, which -were regulated by angelic intelligences.[2228] He also accepted the -usual technique of the astrological art in explaining the operation of -this celestial influence.[2229] - -[Sidenote: Astrological medicine.] - -Bacon naturally subjected the human body to the constellations and was -a firm believer in astrological medicine. If a doctor is ignorant of -“astronomy,” his medical treatment will be dependent upon “chance and -fortune.”[2230] Bacon holds not only that at conception and at birth -one’s fundamental “complexion,” or physical constitution, is determined -by the sky,[2231] but that with each changing hour our bodies are -governed by a different planet whose characteristics the physician -should know. Where Neckam[2232] had assigned six hours to the planet -after which the day was named, that is, the first three and last three -hours of the twenty-four, Bacon assigns it only four hours, namely, the -first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second. Then, in order to bring the -proper planet into control of the first hour of the succeeding day, he -is obliged to have them follow each other in a different order in their -rule of hours from that in which the days of the week are named.[2233] -Bacon also distributes the parts of the body among the signs of the -zodiac,[2234] and states that the physician must observe the moon -carefully.[2235] He cites Hippocrates, Galen, the _Centiloquium_ and -Haly concerning the great influence of the stars both upon health and -the administering of medicines.[2236] That the patriarchs of the Old -Testament lived so much longer than men do to-day has been explained by -many, Bacon says, as due to the stars. His explanation of the strange -case of a woman of Norwich who ate nothing for twenty years and yet was -during all that time in the best of health is that some constellation -must have reduced the concourse of the four elements in her body to a -self-sufficient harmony such as they seldom attain.[2237] Indeed, he -goes so far as to hold that the resurrected body will have that harmony -of the elements and so endure through eternity, no matter whether -raised to the bliss of heaven or subjected to the consuming torments of -hell. - -[Sidenote: Influence of the stars upon human conduct.] - -Bacon even held that the stars by their influence upon the human body -incline men to bad acts and evil arts or to good conduct and useful -sciences. Such natural inclinations might, however, be resisted by -effort of will, modified by divine grace, or strengthened by diabolic -tempting.[2238] But while the individual by an effort of will may -resist the force of the stars, in masses of men the power of the -constellations usually prevails; and the differences in peoples -inhabiting different parts of the earth are due to their being under -different aspects of the sky. Recent bloody wars might have been -avoided, had men harkened to warnings written in the sky. “Oh, how -great profit to the church of God might have been procured, if the -disposition of the sky for those times had been foreseen by the wise, -and known to prelates and princes, and restricted by zeal for peace! -Then there would not have been such slaughter of Christians nor so many -souls sent below.”[2239] The personality of the king, too, has such -great influence upon his kingdom that it is worth while to examine his -horoscope carefully.[2240] - -[Sidenote: Planetary conjunctions and religious movements.] - -Bacon was especially attracted by the doctrine of Albumasar concerning -conjunctions of the planets, and derived comforting evidence of -the superiority of the Christian faith to other religions from the -astrological explanation of the origin of religious sects according to -the successive conjunctions of the other planets with Jupiter.[2241] -He was pleased by the association of Christianity with Mercury, which -he calls the lord of wisdom and eloquence, of oracles and prophecies; -it is dominant only in the sign Virgo, which at once suggests the -Virgin Mary; and its orbit, difficult to trace because of epicycle and -eccentric, typifies well the Christian creed with its mysteries that -defy reason. Similarly the malign force of the moon, productive of -necromancy and magic, fits Antichrist exactly; and Venus corresponds -to the sensuality of Mohammedanism. Further astrological evidences -of Christianity are the coincidence six years before the birth of -Christ of an important conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter with a tenth -revolution of Saturn, which last occurs only at intervals of 320 -years, and always marks some great historical change like the advent -of Alexander or Manes or Mohammed. Astrology further assures us that -Islam can endure only 693 years, a prediction in close agreement with -the number of the beast in the Apocalypse, 663 (_sic_); the small -discrepancy of thirty years is readily accounted for by the dictum of -the venerable Bede that “Scripture in many places subtracts something -from the complete number, for that’s the way with Scripture.”[2242] - -[Sidenote: Was Christ born under the stars?] - -The astronomers, Bacon tells the pope, further assure us that even -the Virgin Birth of Christ and His Nativity were in accordance with -the constellations. They think that God willed so to order His works -that certain future events which He foresaw or predestined should be -revealed to the wise through the planets, in order that the human -mind, recognizing God’s marvelous works, might increase in love -towards Him. They grant that it is impossible that the Creator be -subject to a creature, or that the birth of Christ, in so far as it -was supernatural, should be subject in any way to the influence of -the stars, which in this respect could only be signs of the divine -work. But in so far as the birth of Jesus was a natural event and -His nature was human, they regard Him as under the influence of the -constellations, like the rest of humanity. Their statements in such -matters should, however, Bacon more cautiously adds, be brought into -conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic faith.[2243] - -[Sidenote: Operative astrology.] - -Bacon believed that by means of astrology not only could the future -be in large measure foretold, but also marvelous operations and -great alterations could be effected throughout the whole world, -especially by choosing favorable hours and by employing astronomical -amulets and characters--in other words, by the arts of elections and -of images.[2244] As the babe at birth receives from the stars that -fundamental physical constitution which lasts it through life, so any -new-made object is permanently affected by the disposition of the -constellations at the moment of its making.[2245] Especially by images, -“if they are engraved in accordance with the aspect of the sky in the -elect times, can all injuries be repelled and useful undertakings -promoted.”[2246] Bacon not only cites as authorities concerning them -Haly’s commentary on the _Centiloquium_ supposed to be by Ptolemy, -Thabit ben Corra, and the spurious _Secret of Secrets_ of Aristotle; -but believes that Moses and Solomon both made use of them.[2247] The -marvelous power of spoken words is also in part accounted for by Bacon -by the celestial influence prevalent at the moment of utterance. -“Although the efficacious employment of words is primarily the function -of the rational soul,” nevertheless “the astronomer can form words -in elect times which will possess unspeakable power” of transforming -natural objects and even inclining human minds to obey him.[2248] Thus -Bacon’s “astronomer” is really a magician and enchanter as well--one -more of the many indications we have met that there is no dividing line -between magic and astrology: divination is magic; astrology operates. -Bacon was very desirous that the church should avail itself of the -guidance and aid of astrology; and he feared the harm that Antichrist, -whose advent Bacon with many others of his century seems to have -believed was near at hand, or the Tartars with their astrologers, would -be able to do Christendom, if the church neglected this art.[2249] - -[Sidenote: Unlikelihood that Bacon was condemned for magic or -astrology.] - -Having considered Bacon’s position in regard to magic and astrology, -we are now prepared to inquire what likelihood there is that his -reported condemnation in 1278 for “some suspected novelties” was due -to either. Briefly it may be answered to begin with that his views -concerning these subjects were not novel; he shared them with Albert -and other contemporaries, and there seems to be no good reason why -they should have got him into trouble. His expressed attitude towards -“magic” is so hostile that it seems unlikely that he would have been -charged with it, when other clergymen like Albert and William of -Auvergne spoke of it with less hostility and yet escaped unscathed. -There is not a particle of evidence in his works that he ever invoked -spirits or attempted to do anyone an injury by occult methods, and -this was the only kind of magic that was likely to be punished at that -time.[2250] Towards astrology he was, it is true, more favorable than -some of his contemporaries. With his views on astrological images and -his attribution of religious sects to conjunctions of the planets -theologians like Aquinas and William of Auvergne would refuse to agree, -but Arabian astrology supported such doctrines, and the views of an -approved Christian thinker like Albertus Magnus concerning astrology -are almost identical with those of Bacon. We note elsewhere writings -on such subjects as astrological medicine by Franciscans; and such a -regulation as that of May 25, 1292, for Franciscans studying at Paris, -that they should not spend the alms given them to buy books with for -other purposes, nor cause curious books to be made, suggests that a -number of them were prone to consult superstitious works as well as -that the Order forbids this.[2251] And by “curious books” are doubtless -meant the sort that we have heard Bacon strongly censure. - -[Sidenote: Error of Charles in thinking that any stigma rested on -Bacon’s memory] - -Again therefore there is no reason why Bacon should have been -singled out for condemnation. Such a notion has arisen partly from -misapprehension as to the views of Bacon’s contemporaries and from -misstatements such as the passage in Charles’ life of Bacon,[2252] -where he declares that Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly in his treatise on -laws and sects condemns the doctrine of an English doctor concerning -religions and the conjunctions of planets, and approves the contrary -doctrine of William of Auvergne, but “does not dare” to name Bacon, to -whom he alludes with the bated breath of terror and repugnance. All -this, except the bare fact that d’Ailly criticizes this particular -doctrine of Bacon, is sheer fancy on Charles’ part. Had he consulted -a complete fifteenth-century edition of d’Ailly’s writings instead of -merely such of his treatises as were included in an eighteenth-century -edition of the works of Gerson, he would have known that elsewhere -the cardinal cites Bacon on astrology by name with respect and -admiration,[2253] and that the learned reformer even goes so far as -to agree boldly and explicitly with Bacon’s doctrine that Christ as -a son of man was under the stars.[2254] That Bacon’s astrology had -not been condemned in 1278 is also indicated soon after his death by -Pierre Dubois’ approving mention of his discussion of the utility of -“mathematics.”[2255] - -[Sidenote: But his own statements may have caused the legend.] - -It must be added, however, that there are passages in Bacon’s own -writings which are perhaps also partly responsible for the growth -of the idea that he was condemned for magic or astrology. Briefly, -these are the passages where he himself says that there is danger -of scientists being accused of magic. For instance, he tells us -that “scarcely anyone has dared” to speak of astronomical images in -public, “For those who are acquainted with them are immediately called -magicians, although really they are the wisest men.”[2256] It also -seems somewhat strange that Bacon should always be so condemnatory and -contemptuous in his allusions to magic and magicians, when both William -of Auvergne and Albertus Magnus allude to it as sometimes bordering -upon science, in which case they do not regard it unfavorably. The -suspicion occurs to one that Bacon perhaps protests a little too much, -that he is condemning magic from a fear that he may be accused of it. -But are not his apprehensions exaggerated? Does he not overstate the -hostility of canonists and theologians to his many splendid sciences, -and their tendency to confuse them with magic? Thomas of Cantimpré in -the _De natura rerum_ and Albert in the treatise on minerals and in -the _Speculum astronomiae_ dared to discuss astronomical images. And -finally, whether there is any real ground for Bacon’s apprehensions -or not, if he is afraid of being accused of magic, would not this -very fear keep him from going too far and from thereby incurring -condemnation in 1278 on this account? - - -V. _Conclusion_ - -[Sidenote: Characteristics of medieval books.] - -Such were Roger Bacon’s views bearing upon magic and experimental -science and their relations to Christian thought, as set forth -principally in his _Opus Maius_ and the two other treatises to the pope -which supplemented it. Most medieval books impress one as literary -mosaics where the method of arrangement may be new but most of the -fragments are familiar. One soon recognizes, however, that striking -similarity in two passages is no sure sign that one is copied from the -other. The authors may have used the same Arabic sources or simply be -repeating some commonplace thought of the times. Men began with the -same assumptions and general notions, read the same limited library, -reasoned by common methods, and naturally often reached the same -conclusions, especially since the field of knowledge was not yet so -extensive but that one man might try to cover it all, and since all -used the same medium of thought, the Latin language. New discoveries -were being made occasionally but slowly, perhaps also sporadically -and empirically. A collection of industrial and chemical recipes -in the thirteenth century may in the main be derived from a set of -the seventh century or Hellenistic age, but a few new ones have -somehow got added to the list in the interim. Thomas of Cantimpré’s -encyclopedia professes to be no more than a compilation, but it seems -to contain the first allusion we have to modern plumbing. - -[Sidenote: Features of Bacon’s _Opus Maius_.] - -Bacon’s chief book was a mosaic like the rest, but bears a strong -impress of his personality. Sometimes there is too much personality, -but if we allow for this, we find it a valuable, though not a -complete nor perfect, picture of medieval learning. Its ideas were -not brand-new; it was not centuries in advance of its age; but while -its contents may be found scattered in many other places, they will -scarcely be found altogether anywhere else, for it combines the most -diverse features. In the first place it is a “pious” production, if I -may employ that adjective in a somewhat objectionable colloquial sense -to indicate roughly a combination of religious, theological, and moral -points of view. In other words, Bacon continues the Christian attitude -of patristic literature to a certain extent; and his book is written by -a clergyman for clergymen, and in order to promote the welfare of the -Church and Christianity. There is no denying that, hail him as one may -as a herald of modern science. Secondly, he is frequently scholastic -and metaphysical; yet thirdly, is critical in numerous respects; and -fourthly, insists on practical utility as a standard by which science -and philosophy must be judged. Finally, he is an exponent of the aims -and methods of what we have called “the natural magic and experimental -school,” and as such he sometimes comes near to being scientific. So -there is no other book quite like the _Opus Maius_ in the Middle Ages, -nor has there been one like it since; yet it is true to its age and is -still readable to-day. It will therefore always remain one of the most -remarkable books of the remarkable thirteenth century. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2030] For bibliography of works on Roger Bacon see Theophilus Witzel’s -article in _The Catholic Encyclopedia_; G. Delorme, in Vacant and -Mangenot, _Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique_, Paris, 1910, II, 31; -Paetow, _Guide to the Study of Medieval History_, 1917, which gives the -more recent literature on the subject. The most recent bibliography of -Roger Bacon’s own writings, whether printed or in manuscript, is that -by A. G. Little in the Appendix, pp. 376-425 of _Roger Bacon Essays, -contributed by various writers on the occasion of the commemoration -of the seventh centenary of his birth_, collected and edited by A. -G. Little, Oxford, 1914--which will henceforth be cited as “Little, -_Essays_, (1914).” The following is simply a list of those editions -of Bacon’s writings which I shall have occasion to cite frequently in -the ensuing pages, giving the full titles and an abbreviated form for -purposes of future reference. - -_Fr. Rogeri Bacon, Opera quaedam hactenus inedita_ (ed. J. S. Brewer, -London, 1859) in RS Vol. XV. The volume includes part of Bacon’s _Opus -Tertium_, part of the _Opus Minus_, 313-89, part of the _Compendium -Studii Philosophiae_, 393-519, and the _Epistola de Secretis Operibus -Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae_, 523-51. This will henceforth -be cited as “Brewer.” - -_The Opus Maius of Roger Bacon._ Ed. J. H. Bridges, Vols. I and II, -Oxford, 1897; Vol. III (correcting numerous errors in I and II), 1900. -This work will be hereafter cited as “Bridges.” - -F. A. Gasquet, “An Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon,” EHR -XII, 502. This fragment published by Gasquet is evidently the first -part of the _Opus Minus_ and will henceforth be cited as “Gasquet.” - -_Part of the Opus Tertium of Roger Bacon_. Ed. A. G. Little, Aberdeen, -1912. This will be cited as “Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912).” It -includes Duhem’s fragment published also by Quaracchi, 1909, _Un -fragment inédit de l’Opus tertium de Roger Bacon précédé d’une étude -sur ce fragment_. - -_Fratris Rogeri Bacon Compendium Studii Theologiae._ Ed. H. Rashdall, -Aberdeen, 1911, in _British Society of Franciscan Studies_, Vol. III. -It will be cited as “Rashdall.” - -Robert Steele, _Opera Hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi_, Fasc. I, London, -1905; Fasc. II and III and IV and V (Oxon. 1909, 1911, 1913, 1920). -This will be cited as “Steele.” - -[2031] Charles Jourdain, “Discussion de Quelques Points de la -Biographie de Roger Bacon,” in his _Excursions Historiques et -Philosophiques à travers le Moyen Age_, Paris, 1888, 131-145. - -[2032] Brewer, 65 and 59. _Opus Tertium_, caps. 20 and 17. - -[2033] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 11, Brewer 38. - -[2034] _Opus Tertium_, caps. 3 and 2, Brewer, 16 and 13. Gasquet, 502. - -[2035] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 318. If, however, we accept as a genuine -work of Bacon the letter on retarding the accidents of old age which he -is supposed to have sent to Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254), we shall have -to admit that he had been “in partibus Romanis.” See Little, _Essays_, -4 and 399. - -[2036] Gasquet, 502. - -[2037] We are, however, told that he made his profession on the day -he entered the Order, i.e., underwent no probationary period. Brewer, -_Monumenta Franciscana_ (1858) RS IV, 56 and 550. - -[2038] Gasquet, 500 and _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 65. - -[2039] Albertus Magnus speaks more literally of himself as an exile -(_Mineralium_, III, i, 1, “Exul enim aliquando factus fui, longe vadens -ad loca metallica ut experiri possem naturas metallorum”): but no one -has ever inferred from this that he was persecuted. Perhaps, however, -Father Mandonnet would infer from the passage and from the favorable -attitude of the treatise on minerals towards astrological images that -Bacon was really the author. - -[2040] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 1, Brewer, 7. - -[2041] _The Monthly Magazine or British Register_, XIII, 449. - -[2042] Bridges, II, 218. - -[2043] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 383-384. - -[2044] _Epistola de Secretis Operibus_, cap. 2. Brewer, 525. - -[2045] Gasquet, 511: “Scripto principali, quod vestra postulat -reverentia.” _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 58: “Propter vestrae gloriae -mandatum, de quo confundor et doleo quod non adimplevi sub forma -verborum vestrorum, ut scriptum philosophiae mitterem principale.” -Also, p. 18. - -[2046] Brewer, 1; Bridges I, 1-2, note: Wadding, _Annal. Minor_, IV, -265; Martene, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, II 358; E. Jordan, _Les -registres de Clément_ IV (1265-1268) ... _d’après les manuscripts -originaux des archives du vatican_, Quatrième Fascicule, Paris, 1904, -Appendice II, p. 384, No. 1081. - -[2047] Brewer, 1: “Opus illud quod te dilecto filio Raymundo de Landuno -communicare rogavimus in minori officio constituti.” _Opus Tertium_, -Brewer, 14; Bacon says that Albert and William of Shyrwood could not -send the pope what he has written, “infra tantum tempus ... a vestro -mandato; et sicut nec ab ultimo, sic nec a primo.” Gasquet, 500: -“Sed licet pleno desiderio quod iniunctum est complere pro posse meo -sim teste Deo paratissimus, cum quoniam in minori officio constituti -postulatis non fuerunt composita que iussistis” and “utrumque mandatum” -and “antequam primum vestre dominationis recepi mandatum.” The -following sentence (_Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 13) also seems to refer -to the former mandate, despite the “ultimo,” “Non enim quando ultimo -scripsistis fuerunt composita quae iussistis, licet hoc credebatis.” - -[2048] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 11: “His first project was an -elaborate one, including a systematic and scientific treatment of -the various branches of knowledge; he worked at this, writing parts -of the _Communia Naturalium_ and _Communia Mathematicae_, for some -months (‘till after Epiphany,’ i.e., January 6, 1267), but found it -impossible. He then started again on a more modest scale, and wrote -in the next twelve months the preliminary treatise known as the _Opus -Maius_, which was supplemented by the _Opus Minus_, and subsequently, -by the _Opus Tertium_.” - -[2049] Brewer, xlv. - -[2050] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 14; “Non igitur mirandum si ego -dilationem tantam fecerim in hac parte.” _Ibid._, 16-17: “Multotiens -dimisi opus, et multotiens desperavi et neglexi procedere.” _Ibid._, -17: “Tanta dilatio in hoc negotio ... vestrae clementiae taedium pro -spe dilata,” and other passages. - -[2051] These excuses are listed in Gasquet, 500, to “antequam primum -vestre dominationis recepi mandatum”; and are repeated in part in _Opus -Tertium_, Brewer, 13. - -[2052] To this period the difficulties listed in _Opus Tertium_, -Brewer, 15-17 (middle), would seem to apply. In Brewer, 16, and -Gasquet, 502, Bacon states that to get money to meet the expenses -incident to the composition of his work he had sent to his rich brother -in England, but received no response because “exiles and enemies of -the king occupied the land of my birth,” while his own family had been -exiled as supporters of the crown and ruined financially. All this must -have occurred before the arrival of the second papal letter in 1266, -for Simon de Montfort had been slain and the barons defeated in 1265. - -[2053] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 5: “Et impedimentorum remedia priorum -nactus.” - -[2054] As Bacon himself states in the _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 7: “Primo -igitur in opere Secundo.” - -[2055] I cannot agree with Gasquet, 497, that it “is obvious from -numberless expressions in the work itself” that the _Opus Maius_ was -“addressed to the pope directly.” The last chapter of the first book in -Bridges’s text is evidently addressed to the pope, but it is identical -with a portion of the _Opus Minus_ and evidently does not belong in the -_Opus Maius_ and is not found in the two oldest manuscripts. Similarly -a passage of some 16 pages in Bridges on calendar reform, which gives -the present year as 1267, is practically identical with a chapter of -the _Opus Tertium_ and was evidently transferred from that work to the -_Opus Maius_ at some later date. When we have excluded these passages -the work is surprisingly free, compared to the other two works, from -passages suggesting that it is addressed to the pope. The one mention -of the “Apostolic See” (Bridges, I, 77; III, 94) is impersonal and does -not imply that Foulques was pope, and does not occur in one of the -manuscripts. Epithets such as “Your Wisdom” (Bridges, I, 17, 23, 305), -“Your Highness” (I, 210; II, 377), “Your Glory” (I, 305; III, 96), -“Your Reverence” (I, 376; II, 219), “Your Holiness” (I, 81; III, 101), -“Your Beatitude” (I, 2, 72; III, 88) do not occur frequently and are -equally applicable to a cardinal, or not found in all the manuscripts, -suggesting the possibility of their having been inserted later. - -[2056] Such seems to me the most plausible theory of the writing of the -three works and the one which agrees best with Bacon’s own statements; -but it is only a hypothesis from the printed texts of his works which -should be verified by examination of the manuscripts. Probably some of -Bacon’s statements can be interpreted to conflict with this hypothesis, -but they sometimes conflict with each other, and he could not even keep -the _scriptum principale_ and _Opus Maius_ distinct in his own mind -according to Brewer’s text (p. 3, “duo transmisi genera scripturarum: -quorum unum est principale,” and p. 5, “principalis scripturae,” -whereas at p. 60 we read, “Patet igitur quod scriptum principale non -potui mittere”). See also Gasquet, p. 503, and _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, -p. 58. I have been stimulated by but cannot accept the conclusions of -Father Mandonnet’s “Roger Bacon et la Composition des Trois ‘Opus’,” -_Revue Néo-Scolastique_ (Louvain, 1913), pp. 52-68 and 164-180. -Mandonnet holds that the _Opus Maius_ was written _after_ the other two -works, which were never finished nor sent, but from which Roger took -some passages to insert in the _Opus Maius_, which Mandonnet believes -was sent only in 1268. - -[2057] “Quae tibi videntur adhibenda remedia circa illa, quae nuper -esse (occasione?) tanti discriminis intimasti: et hoc quanto secretius -poteris facias indilate.” E. Jordan, _Les Registres de Clement IV_, -etc., gives “_esse_,” which would seem the correct reading rather than -the “_occasione_” of Martene and Brewer. If one follows their version, -as I did in “The True Roger Bacon,” 242-43, the passage would have to -be translated, “What remedies you think should be applied in those -matters indicated by you recently on so critical an occasion.” But -apparently there was no such crisis. - -[2058] Part of the _Opus Tertium_ of Roger Bacon (ed. A. G. Little, -Aberdeen, 1912), 80-82. This passage is the fourth one and in it -Bacon lists the three earlier statements: “Scripsi in tribus locis -Vestre Glorie de huiusmodi secretis.” Roger ultimately decides that -he will not reveal the whole secret even in this fourth instalment, -because alchemists never put the full truth into writing; he therefore -“reserves some points for word of mouth.” - -[2059] See the article on “Roger Bacon” by Theophilus Witzel in the -Catholic Encyclopedia. - -[2060] In our chapter on Galen we noted his similar complaints, and -in the coming chapter on Peter of Abano we shall speak of his similar -experience in having his _Phisionomia_ stolen. Daunou wrote of Vincent -of Beauvais in the _Histoire Littéraire_, XVIII (1835), p. 453: “il dit -des occupations pénibles qui interrompaient son travail d’écrivain, et -le forçaient à employer des copistes.” - -[2061] Gasquet, 500. “Et ideo componere penitus abhorrebam,” etc. - -[2062] Gasquet, 500. - -[2063] _Ibid._ - -[2064] _Ibid._, 502. - -[2065] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 15. - -[2066] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 399, 425, 431. - -[2067] G. Delorme, “Roger Bacon,” in Vacant and Mangenot, _Dictionnaire -de Théologie Catholique_, II (1910); “Ce fait basé uniquement sur -l’autorité fort contestable de la chronique des xxiv généraux,” -_Analecta Franciscana_ (Quaracchi, 1897), III, 460. - -[2068] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 6, note 1. - -[2069] For the facts of his career see DNB. - -[2070] _Essays_, 27; Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_ (second ed.) I, 248 -questions this date. - -[2071] Rashdall, 34 and 53. - -[2072] Compare, for instance, the opening paragraph of the sixth -chapter with Duhem, 153-54, and Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 50-51. - -[2073] Gasquet, 509. - -[2074] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 54-55. - -[2075] This was a favorite formula with Bacon; see _Opus Tertium_, -Brewer, 3-4, 20; Gasquet, 502, 509. - -[2076] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 388. - -[2077] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 52. - -[2078] Gasquet, 509. - -[2079] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 81. - -[2080] Bridges, I, 43. - -[2081] _Ibid._, 56. - -[2082] Bridges, I, 41. Bacon is believed to have rather misrepresented -the position of William of Auvergne on this point, when he says that -William twice reproved at Paris those who held the active intellect to -be part of the soul. N. Valois, _Guillaume d’Auvergne_ (Paris, 1880), -289-290; E. Charles, _Roger Bacon: sa Vie, ses Ouvrages, ses Doctrines_ -(Bordeaux, 1861), p. 327. - -[2083] Bridges, I, 45; Gasquet, 508; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 24. - -[2084] Bridges, I, 45. - -[2085] _Ibid._, II, 170; _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 405, -408. - -[2086] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50: “Mirum enim est de nobis -Christianis, qui sine comparatione sumus imperfectiores in moribus quam -philosophi infideles. Legantur decem libri Ethicorum Aristotelis et -innumerabiles Senecae, et Tullii, et aliorum, et inveniemus quod sumus -in abysso vitiorum.” - -[2087] V. Cousin, _Journal des Savants_ (1848), 467. - -[2088] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 4: “They are in the prevalent dialectic -style, and perhaps might be put into the class of works which Bacon -afterwards ridiculed as ‘horse-loads.’” - -[2089] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 241-284. - -[2090] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 360-367. - -[2091] Bridges, I, 38, 143; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 120. - -[2092] Bridges, I, 42. - -[2093] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 6. - -[2094] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 469. - -[2095] _Ibid._, 473. Rashdall, 34. - -[2096] He wrote a commentary on it; see Tanner MSS, 116, Bodleian -Library; ed. Steele (1920). - -[2097] Bridges, I, 389. - -[2098] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 473. - -[2099] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50; _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, -Brewer, 422. - -[2100] Ludwig Baur, _Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste_ -(Münster, 1912; Bd. IX in Baeumker’s _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos, d. -Mittelalters_), P. 15. - -[2101] Cousin, _Journal des Savants_ (1848), 300, concludes that -because Bacon asserts that the Politics of Aristotle is not yet in use -among the Latins, Albertus and Aquinas did not write their commentaries -on this work until after 1266. - -[2102] K. Werner, “Die Kosmologie und Allgemeine Naturlehre des Roger -Bacon,” in _Sitzungsberichte_ of the Vienna Academy, ph.-hist. Cl. -(Vienna, 1879), XCIV, 495. For further errors by Bacon concerning the -text of Aristotle see Duhem, “Roger Bacon et l’Horreur du Vide,” in -Little, _Essays_ (1914), 254 and 259. - -[2103] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 302-304; _Compendium Studii -Philosophiae_, Brewer, 412, 429, 399, 418 ff. and _Opus Tertium_, 84 ff. - -[2104] Gasquet, 503; Brewer, 29-30. - -[2105] E. Withington, “Roger Bacon and Medicine,” in Little, _Essays_ -(1914), 347. - -[2106] Rashdall says in the introduction to his edition of Bacon’s -_Compendium Studii Theologiae_ (Aberdeen, 1911), p. 3: “There is a -certain irony in the fact that the writer’s argument in favor of -independent thinking as against authority consists chiefly of a series -of citations.” - -[2107] Bridges, I, 5-6 and also p. 7, where Bacon quotes another -sentence from Adelard without naming him, “Et ideo multi ... cur a -tergo non scribitis.” - -[2108] See chapter 42 on Daniel Morley. - -[2109] Bridges, I, 17; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 70, 91, 187. - -[2110] Bacon’s ignorance of Spanish would probably in any case have -prevented him from securing Alfonso as a patron. - -[2111] Bridges, I, 192, 196, 271, 298, 299, note. Duhem, III (1915) -234, notes that in astronomical tables of 1232 for London tables for -other cities are also mentioned: Paris, Marseilles, Pisa, Palermo, -Constantinople, and Genoa, as well as Toledo. - -[2112] Since it mentions the battle of Valbona in that year. - -[2113] See Chapter 67. - -[2114] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 37. - -[2115] C. Baeumker, _Witelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII -Jahrhunderts_, Münster, 1906. See Chapter 55, Appendix I. - -[2116] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 14. - -[2117] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 426. - -[2118] _Opera_, ed. Borgnet, VIII, 803-804, and Mandonnet, _Siger de -Brabant_, p. 332. - -[2119] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 324. - -[2120] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 426. A century -before John of Salisbury (_Metalogicus_, I), had written similarly: -“Sed quia isti hesterni pueri, magistri hodierni, vapulantes in ferula, -hodie stoleti docentes in cathedra.” - -[2121] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 326-327. It seems unlikely that Albert or -Aquinas is meant. - -[2122] Bridges, I, xxx. - -[2123] Gasquet, 507. - -[2124] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 65. - -[2125] Gasquet, 507. - -[2126] The quotations are from Professor D. E. Smith’s translation of -Bacon’s _Communia Mathematica_ as contained in Digby MS 76, fol. 57 (p. -130) and fol. 56 (p. 126). - -[2127] From his _Tractatus optimus super totam astrologiam_ as -summarized in HL vol. 21, _Notices succinctes sur divers écrivains_, -No. 27. Besides BN 7333 and 7334 the work is found in Amplon. Folio -393, fols. 22-43, and perhaps is the same as Amplon. Folio 386, fols. -1-25, _speculum celeste_. According to the _Histoire Littéraire_ the -treatise contains no judicial astrology, the word _astrologiam_ being -used in the meaning “astronomy” here. - -[2128] Gasquet, 504-505; and Bridges, I, 31; see also _Opus Tertium_, -Brewer, 59. - -[2129] See page 632, note 1, and page 634, note 3. - -[2130] In the _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, written about 1272 -(Brewer, 472). Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, 40, rejects Bacon’s -aspersions upon William’s translations. On William’s career and -writings see HL XXI, 146. - -[2131] Gasquet, 505: “Quamvis autem fatear quod plures sunt qui hec -eadem que tracto possunt meliori modo quam ego vestre sapientie -referre.” - -[2132] Gasquet, 502. - -[2133] _Ibid._, 504. - -[2134] _Ibid._, 515; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 274, 275, 295. The writer -of some astronomical tables for London in 1232 complains that the -calendar year and feasts of the saints are in error: Duhem, III (1915), -234. - -[2135] L. Baur, “Der Einfluss des Robert Grosseteste auf die -Wissenschaftliche Richtung des Roger Bacon,” in Little, _Essays_ -(1914), 45. - -[2136] Petrus de Alliaco, _De Correctione Kalendarii_, in an edition of -the works of d’Ailly and Gerson printed about 1480. - -[2137] S. A. Hirsch, “Roger Bacon and Philology,” in Little, _Essays_ -(1914), 145. - -[2138] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 34, and _Compendium Studii -Philosophiae_, Brewer, 434. - -[2139] Bridges, I, 290, _note_, overstates the case, however, when -he says: “This paragraph including half of that which follows ... is -inserted without acknowledgment ...” etc., since much of it is omitted -or condensed by d’Ailly. - -[2140] Rather than 1480, as stated by Bridges, _Ibid._, and, with a -query, in the British Museum Catalogue. See L. Salembier, _Pierre -d’Ailly et la découverte de l’Amérique_, 1912, and his earlier works on -the same subject. - -[2141] Only in 1494, Salembier holds, did Columbus and his brother read -the _Imago mundi_ together, make their 898 notes in it, and form their -grand project of reaching oriental India by sailing west. - -[2142] Vinaud, _Histoire critique de la grande entreprise de Colomb._ -Almeida, _La découverte de l’Amérique, Extrait de la Revista de -Historia_, 1913. - -[2143] Bridges, I, 292, “Sed Aristotelis dicit quod elephantes in illis -locis esse non possunt nisi essent similis complexionis.” - -[2144] _Opus Maius_, Bridges, I, 20, 45-56 and 65; _Opus Tertium_, -Brewer, 24-25, 32. - -[2145] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50. - -[2146] Pierre d’Ailly in 1410 in _De Legibus et Sectis_, cap. 4, -pointed out that Bacon was relying upon a spurious work. - -[2147] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 16, quoting Adamson, _Roger Bacon: The -Philosophy of Science in the Middle Ages_ (1876), which is now out of -print. - -[2148] Ptolemy’s _Optics_ is known only in Latin form, supposedly -translated from the Arabic, edited by Govi (Turin, 1885); see Bridges, -I, lxx. The _Optica_ ascribed to Euclid is contained in Heiberg’s -edition (Leipzig, 1895). - -[2149] Baur, in Little, _Essays_ (1914), 46-47. - -[2150] D. E. Smith in Little, _Essays_ (1914), 171, citing Heilbronner -and other historians of mathematics. - -[2151] Bridges, II, 172-173; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 43. - -[2152] Little. _Part of Opus Tertium_ (1912), 44. - -[2153] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 44-45. - -[2154] Gasquet, 510.... scientie omnes preter hanc vel utuntur -argumentis tantum ad probationem conclusionum suarum, ut pure -speculative scientie, vel habent experientias universales et -imperfectas. - -[2155] Bridges, II, 172. Haec ergo sola novit perfecte experiri -quid potest fieri per naturam, quid per artis industriam, quid per -fraudem, quid volunt et somniant carmina conjurationes invocationes -deprecationes sacrificia.... - -[2156] _Ibid._, II, 201. - -[2157] Gasquet, 502. Unde multotiens ego misi ultra mare et ad diversas -alias regiones et ad nundinas sollemnes ut ipsas res naturales oculis -viderem et probarem veritatem creature per visum.... - -[2158] Bridges, II, 169. Et quae non sunt praesentia in locis in quibus -sumus, scimus per alios sapientes qui experti sunt. Sicut Aristoteles -auctoritate Alexandri misit duo millia hominum per diversa loca mundi -ut experirentur omnia quae sunt in superficie terrae, sicut Plinius -testatur in Naturalibus. - -[2159] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 46-47. Immo verecundatur si aliquis -laicus, vel vetula, vel miles, vel rusticus de rure sciat quae ipse -ignorat. - -[2160] See Appendix II, Roger Bacon and Gunpowder. - -[2161] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 4, Brewer, 533. There is a -similar passage in the _Communia mathematicae_, Sloane MS 2156, fol. 83. - -[2162] Gasquet, 510; and Bridges, _passim_. - -[2163] Bridges, II, 205. Praeterea certis experimentis probatum est, -quod ista festinatio nimia est retardata pluries, et longaevitas -prolongata per multos annos per experientias secretas. - -[2164] _Ibid._, 212; Steele (1920), 23-24. For some further account of -this Artephius or Artesius see the chapter on William of Auvergne, pp. -351-4. - -[2165] Steele (1920), p. 10. - -[2166] Bridges, II, 210. Et ideo dicit experimentator bonus in libro -de Regimine Senum, quod si illud quod est in quarto gradu temperatum -et quod natat in mari, et quod vegetatur in aere, et quod a mari -projicitur, et planta Indiae, et quod est in visceribus animalis longae -vitae, et duo serpentes quae sunt esca Tyrorum et Aethiopium.... - -[2167] _Ibid._, 208. Nam Parisius nuper fuit unus sapiens, qui -serpentes quaesivit et unum accepit et scidit eum in parva frusta, -nisi quod pellis ventris, super quam reperet, remansit integra, et -iste serpens repebat ut poterat ad herbam quandam, cuius tactu statim -sanabatur. Et experimentator collegit herbam admirandae virtutis. - -A Greek precursor of this tale may be found in the plot of the lost -_Polyidus_ of Euripides, as reproduced in Hyginus, _Fabulae_, 136. “... -draco repente ad corpus pueri processit, quod Polyidus, aestimans eum -velle consumere, gladio repente percussit et occidit. Altera serpens -parem quaerens vidit eam interfectam et progressa herbam attulit atque -eius tactu serpenti spiritum restituit....” Polyidus then resuscitated -the dead boy by the same method. - -Paris continued to be a center of experimental research after Bacon, -for in a Wolfenbüttel MS (2503, 15th century, fols. 271-82) we find -“Experiments collected by masters of Paris that are greatly praised, -and first concerning powders.” The Explicit dates the collection about -1331 A. D. See also Wolfenbüttel 2189, 15th century, fols. 174-5, -Quedam experimenta parisiis probata 25. - -[2168] Bridges, II, 168-9. - -[2169] _Ibid._, 202. Unde oportet primo credulitatem fieri, donec -secundo sequitur experientia, ut tertio ratio comitetur.... Et ideo -in principio debet credere his qui experti sunt, vel qui ab expertis -fideliter habuerunt, nec debet reprobare veritatem propter hoc, quod -eam ignorat, et quia ad eam non habet argumentum. - -[2170] _Ibid._, 219. Postquam enim hoc intuitus sum, nihil fuit meo -intellectui difficile ad credendum, dummodo habuit auctorem certum. - -[2171] Bridges, II, 211. Nam certum est quod Aethiopes sapientes -venerunt in Italiam et Hispaniam et Franciam et Angliam, et in istas -terras Christianorum in quibus sunt dracones boni volantes, et per -artem occultam quam habent excitant dracones de cavernis suis, et -habent sellas et froena in promptu, et equitant super eos et agitant -in aere volatu fortissimo, ut dometur rigiditas carnium et temperetur -durities, sicut apri et ursi et tauri agitantur canibus et variis -percussionibus flagellantur, antequam occidantur pro comestione. Cum -ergo sic domesticaverint eos, habent artem praeparandi carnes eorum ... -et utuntur eis contra accidentia senectutis, et vitam prolongant et -intellectum subtiliant ultra omnem aestimationem. Nam nulla doctrina -quae per hominem fieri potest tantam sapientiam inducere valet sicut -esus istarum carnium, secundum quod per homines probatae fidei -didicimus sine mendacio et dubitatione. - -[2172] Steele (1920) p. 9. - -[2173] Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 46; Gasquet, 510. - -[2174] Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 52. - -[2175] Little, _Opus Tertium_, 53. - -[2176] Gasquet, 510. Opera vero istius scientie quedam naturalia -sunt in alterationem mundi, quedam in excitationem et inclinationem -voluntatum sine coactione. - -[2177] Bridges, I, 240. - -[2178] See Appendix II for some question as to its authenticity. - -[2179] Bridges, I, 29, 241; _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9, Brewer 29. - -[2180] Bridges, I, 396. - -[2181] Bridges, I, 395. - -[2182] Brewer, 526, 531; Steele (1920), p. 6. - -[2183] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer 99; Bridges, I, 241, 396. - -[2184] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 1, Brewer, 52. - -[2185] Bridges, I, 395 and 399. - -[2186] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 47, 95. - -[2187] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 532. - -[2188] Bridges, I, 262. - -[2189] _Ibid._, 395-6, 398, 399; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 46-7, 95, 98. - -[2190] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 523. - -[2191] _Ibid._, cap. 2, Brewer, 525. - -[2192] _Ibid._, cap. 3, Brewer, 531. - -[2193] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 96. - -[2194] _Ibid._, 98-99. - -[2195] Bridges, I, 399. - -[2196] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 98. - -[2197] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 13, Brewer, 47, “... etiam experimenta -vetularum et sortilegia et carmina earum et omnium magicorum -consideravit et similiter omnium joculatorum illusiones et ingenia.” - -[2198] Bridges, II, 172. - -[2199] _Epístola de secretis operibus_, cap. 2, Brewer, 526. - -[2200] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 3, Brewer, 532. - -[2201] Bridges, I, 394. - -[2202] Bridges, I, 392. - -[2203] Brewer, 532. - -[2204] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 352-357. - -[2205] Bridges, I, 29, 241; _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9, Brewer, 29. - -[2206] Bridges, II, 208, “Et ideo insidiati sunt animalibus brutis -ut scirent vires herbarum et lapidum et metallorum et aliarum rerum, -quibus sua corpora rectificabant multis modis tanquam miraculosis.” - -[2207] Bridges, II, 218. - -[2208] Bridges, I, 398. - -[2209] _Idem_, and _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 96. - -[2210] Bridges, I, 395. - -[2211] Brewer, 96. - -[2212] _Ibid._ - -[2213] Bridges, I, 395. “Carmina sunt verba ex intentione animae -rationalis prolata, virtutem coeli in ipsa pronunciatione recipientia; -unde de mira potestate literarum ego facio mentionem in tertia parte. -Per hanc enim potestatem sanantur corpora, fugantur animalia venenosa, -advocantur ad manum bruta quaecunque....” - -[2214] _Opus Tert._, cap. 26, Brewer, 99. “Si vero fiunt secundum -species et conditiones dictas, tunc sunt philosophica et sapientis -incantantis sapienter; ut recitat David propheta.” - -[2215] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 3, Brewer, 531. “Et ideo -valde caute in his sentiendum est; nam de facili potest homo errare, et -multi errant in utramque partem; quia aliqui omnem operationem negant, -et alii superfluunt, et ad magica declinant.” - -[2216] Steele (1920), p. 8. - -[2217] Little, _Part of the Opus Tertium_ (1912), 17-18: “Et ideo si -ecclesia de studio ordinaret, possent homines boni et sancti laborare -in hujusmodi scientiis magicis auctoritate summi pontificis speciali.” - -[2218] Bridges, I, 111: “Omne enim efficiens agit per suam virtutem -quam facit in materiam subjectam, ut lux solis facit suam virtutem in -aere, quae est lumen diffusum per totum mundum a luce solari. Et haec -virtus vocatur similitudo, et imago, et species, et multis nominibus, -et hanc facit tam substantia quam accidens, et tam spiritualis quam -corporalis. Et substantia plus quam accidens, et spiritualis plus quam -corporalis. Et haec species facit omnem operationem hujus mundi; nam -operatur in sensum, in intellectum, et in totam mundi materiam pro -rerum generatione.” - -[2219] An interesting instance of its survival in the fifteenth century -and of the fact that Roger Bacon was not the only medieval clergyman -interested in astrological medicine, is provided by the treatise of -an archdeacon of Parma and doctor of medicine on “The domination and -projection of rays,” preserved in a Wolfenbüttel MS: 2816, fols. -186-200, “Explicit tractatus de denominatione et proiectione radiorum -magistri Mattaei de Guarimbertis de Parma, archydiaconi Parmensis, -artium et medicine doctoris, egregie, finitus in Burgo in Brecya -in domo magistri Petri Herlensis, in artibus et medicina eximii -professoris, anno Domini 1461 incompleto ante carnisprivium per me -Jacobum de Huerne.” - -[2220] William’s writings exist in manuscript in the Bibliothèque -Nationale, and are described HL 25: 64 ff. - -[2221] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9 (Brewer, 27); Bridges, I, 239 and note, -giving passages from Bacon’s unpublished writings, also I, 240 and 247. -Steele (1920), pp. viii, 3. - -[2222] _Opus Tertium_, caps. 9, 30 (Brewer, 27, 106); Bridges, I, 109, -242 note. - -[2223] Bridges, I, 241. - -[2224] _Ibid._, 242-45. - -[2225] _Ibid._, I, 241. “... mathematici isti daemones advocant -in adiutorium coelestium dispositionum per coniurationes et -sacrificia, quod est omnino nefandum; atque nihilominus maculant suas -considerationes in coelestibus per circulos et figuras et characteres -vanissimos et carmina stultissima et orationes irrationabiles in quibus -confidunt. Praeterea fraudes operum adiungunt, scilicet per consensum, -per tenebras, per instrumenta sophistica, per subtilitatem motionis -manualis, in quibus sciunt illusionem esse, et multa stultis miranda -faciunt per haec in quibus virtus coeli nihil operatur....” - -[2226] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 30, Brewer, 107. “Coelestia sunt causae -generationis et corruptionis omnium rerum inferiorum, ut manifestum est -cuilibet.” See also _Opus Tertium_, cap. 11, and Bridges, I, 110. - -[2227] Bridges, I, 379. - -[2228] Steele, I, 12; III, 228-39; Bridges, II, 450. - -[2229] Astrology is discussed by Bacon in Bridges, I, 138-148, -238-269, and 376-404; Gasquet, 512-516; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, -105-106, 271-272; _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 320-321; _Compendium Studii -Philosophiae_, Brewer, 421-422; Little, Part of the _Opus Tertium_, -1-19; Steele (1920), 1-24; and in many scattered passages. - -[2230] Gasquet, 516. - -[2231] Bridges, I, 396. - -[2232] See p. 202. - -[2233] Bridges, I, 382. - -[2234] _Ibid._, I, 381. - -[2235] _Ibid._, I, 384. - -[2236] _Ibid._, I. 386-7. - -[2237] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 373-4. “Aliqui diu vixerunt sine -nutrimento, ut nostris temporibus fuit una mulier in Anglia in diocesi -Norwicensi quae non commedit per XX annos et fuit pinguis et in bono -statu nullam superfluitatem emittens de corpore, sicut probavit -episcopus per fidelem examinationem. Nec fuit miraculum sed opus -naturae, nam aliqua constellatio fuit illo tempore potens elementa -reducere ad gradum aequalitatis propinquiorem quam ante fuerunt....” - -[2238] Bridges, I, 138-39. - -[2239] Bridges, I, 386. - -[2240] _Ibid._, 253. - -[2241] Both this doctrine and Albumasar’s reference to the birth of -Jesus are given in Steele, _Opera hactenus inedita_, fasc. I, 42-50 and -8-9, as well as in the passages listed in note 4, p. 670. - -[2242] Bridges, I, 266: “Et huic sententiae concordat apocalypsis xiii -capitulo. Nam dicit quo numerus bestiae est 663, qui numerus est minor -praedicto per xxx annos. Sed scriptura in multis locis subticet aliquid -de numero completo, nam hic est mos scripturae ut dicit Beda.” - -[2243] Bridges, I, 267-68. - -[2244] Brewer, 107, 526-27; Bridges, I, 300 ff. - -[2245] Bridges, I, 396. - -[2246] Bridges, I, 394. - -[2247] Bridges, I, 392-94. He cites Josephus’s _Antiquities_ as his -authority for the employment of such images by Moses. - -[2248] _Ibid._, 395; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 96-99. - -[2249] Bridges, I, 399-403. See Marco Polo, I, 61 and II, 33, -concerning the “crafty enchanters and astrologers” in the train of the -Great Khan and the five thousand astrologers and soothsayers in Peking. - -[2250] A good contemporary illustration is had in the charges brought -against Hubert de Burgh by Henry III: “... he had stolen from Henry and -given to the prince of Wales” (even Stubbs nods!) “a talisman which -rendered its wearer invulnerable; ... he had poisoned the earl of -Salisbury, the young earl Marshall, Falkes de Breauté, and Archbishop -Richard; he had kept the king under his influence by witchcraft”: -Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, 1906, II, 45-46, citing -Matthew Paris, III, 221-3. Thus Hubert was accused of theft, poisoning, -and sorcery. But there was nothing wrong in possessing such a magic -talisman. - -[2251] _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, II, 56-7, “... et -caveant ne elemosinas sibi missas pro libris in alios usus commutent, -nec libros fieri faciant curiosos.” - -[2252] P. 49. - -[2253] In his _Apologetica Defensio Astronomice Veritatis_ he cites -“Bacon magnus doctor anglicus in epistola ad Clementem papam”; in -his _Alia Secunda Apologetica Defensio eiusdem_, arguing that the -superstitution of certain astrologers does not invalidate the art, -he says, “Et hoc pulcre et diffuse probat Bacon in epistola ad papam -Clementem”; and in his _Elucidarius_ he definitely says that it was -Bacon whose theory of conjunctions and sects he discussed in the _De -Legibus et Sectis_. - -[2254] In the _Apologetica Defensio_ and again in the _Vigintiloquium_. - -[2255] _De Recuperatione Terre Sancte_ (ed. C. V. Langlois, Paris, -1891), 65. - -[2256] Bridges, I, 394. “Statim enim vocantur magici, cum tamen sint -sapientissimi qui haec sciunt.” - - - - -APPENDIX I - -THE STUDY OF ROGER BACON - - -[Sidenote: Lack of early printed editions of his works.] - -In addition to criticizing and refuting the over-estimate of Roger -Bacon which has been prevalent in modern times, it may be well to -indicate when and how this exaggerated estimate of his importance -and uniqueness originated, and also to trace the gradual growth of a -more critical attitude towards him in still more recent years. The -investigations of Mr. A. G. Little and several other contributors to -the _Roger Bacon Essays_ of 1914 have demonstrated that his writings -were not almost forgotten for centuries, but that they exerted a -continuous influence. However, owing perhaps to the unfinished state -and rather fragmentary, confused, and scattered form in which they have -survived in the manuscripts, they did not appear, as did many of the -works of medieval science which we have considered, immediately after -the invention of printing in early editions. No incunabula of them are -known and only a few brief treatises were printed in the course of the -sixteenth century,[2257] namely, some alchemistic tracts of doubtful -authorship, a treatise on how to postpone the ills of old age, and -the “Epistle concerning the secret works of nature and the nullity of -magic,” which became quite a favorite and was reprinted several times -in Latin and appeared twice both in English and in French translations -in the course of the seventeenth century.[2258] - -[Sidenote: His popular reputation as a magician.] - -Meanwhile, despite what was said of “the nullity of magic” in this -treatise on the secret works of nature,[2259] Friar Bacon had become -in popular tradition a nigromancer, conjurer, and magician. As such -he was presented about 1592 in Robert Greene’s play, the “Honourable -History of Frier Bacon and Frier Bungay,” with magic wand, perspective -glass, and speaking brazen head, and in the prose “Famous Historie of -Fryer Bacon” which appeared about the same time.[2260] In 1625 Naudé -included Roger Bacon among the great men of the past whose memory he -endeavored to clear of the false charge of magic.[2261] - -[Sidenote: Jebb’s edition of the _Opus Maius_.] - -Other medical and alchemistic tracts by Bacon were issued together in -1603,[2262] and some portions of his chief work, the _Opus Maius_, -and other similar fragments dealing with mathematics and optics were -published in 1614.[2263] But the _Opus Maius_ itself remained unprinted -until 1733, when Jebb issued his edition of the work upon which Bacon’s -fame has since largely rested. This edition,[2264] although to-day -become quite rare, was perhaps just late enough not to share the -neglect which with the advance of modern science befell the numerous -earlier editions of medieval physicians, alchemists, astrologers, -and natural scientists. On the other hand it was perhaps just early -enough to introduce Roger and his criticisms of the learning of his -contemporaries to an age whose historical interests were largely -dominated by classicism. And when interest in and study of the middle -ages developed in the course of the nineteenth century, for a time it -had the effect of only increasing the exaggerated emphasis laid upon -Roger Bacon. - -[Sidenote: General misestimate of Bacon and of medieval science.] - -As a result it came to be the fashion in works tracing the history -of this or that department of learning from the times of the ancient -Greeks or Egyptians to our own, in gliding rapidly and at a lofty -height over the generally unexplored medieval region, and airily -dropping a few bombs concerning the blighting effect of the church -upon freedom of thought and scientific investigation or anent the -inanities of scholasticism, to exclaim at the marvelous apparition of a -mind like Roger Bacon’s in such an age and to hail him as a herald of -a later and better civilization. There was the more excuse for doing -this, since Jebb’s version of the _Opus Maius_ had terminated the text -with the sixth part on “Experimental Science.”[2265] This theme thus -appeared to be the climax of the work, and the impression was given -that Roger Bacon was primarily a natural scientist and that he regarded -experimental method as the supreme thing in the study of nature. -Consequently he came to be regarded by many as the first rebel against -scholasticism and the first prophet of modern science. - -[Sidenote: Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon.] - -The fact that his name was Bacon also contributed to Roger’s celebrity, -as Francis Bacon was already a favorite with historians of science and -thought, and it now appeared that he had borrowed some of his ideas -from, or had at least been anteceded in them by, the thirteenth century -friar. Both had criticized scholastic method and urged the great -practical utility possible from applied science. Akin to the idols of -Francis were Roger’s four causes of human error. The program of endowed -scientific research--based upon an essentially medieval classification -of science and list of anticipated inventions--in which Francis tried -to interest the society of his time in his _New Atlantis_[2266] has a -general resemblance to the attempt of Roger to enlist the support of -the pope in the cause of science in his _Opus Maius_; while the “Workes -of Nature, Works of Art” of the _New Atlantis_, which made that isle -almost seem “a Land of Magicians,”[2267] are rather suggestive of the -treatise, “Of the Secret Works of Art and Nature and the Nullity of -Magic,” by Roger Bacon to whom indeed Francis seems to allude in the -_New Atlantis_ as “Your Monke that was the Inuentour of Ordnance, and -of Gunpowder.”[2268] Roger was by some indeed not only regarded as -superior to Francis Bacon in priority, but in having emphasized the -importance in scientific investigation of mathematical method whose -value Francis had failed to appreciate. - -[Sidenote: Legend of his martyrdom for science.] - -The next step in the development of the Baconian legend was to -supply Roger with a biography suited to his supposed position as a -modern experimental and mathematical scientist in the midst of an -age of religious bigotry and superstition, of gloomy monks and arid -theologians. Surely, especially in view of his later literary and -popular renown as a magician, he must have been persecuted and a martyr -to science. Abbé Feret has shown how through the nineteenth century -successive historians kept adding to the legend of Friar Bacon’s -persecution by the Franciscan Order without giving any references -to the sources for the details which they elaborated from their own -imaginations.[2269] - -[Sidenote: Works of Brewer and Charles.] - -The sources, however, became more accessible with the editing in 1859 -in the Rolls Series by Brewer of a number of Bacon’s minor treatises -hitherto unpublished. Brewer, however, was able from the manuscripts -at his disposal, to present only an incomplete text of the _Opus -Minus_, _Opus Tertium_, and _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_. These -served nevertheless to give a new stimulus to the interest in and the -study of Bacon, especially since two years later appeared Charles’ -book on Roger Bacon where were included further extracts from his -unpublished writings. Unfortunately Charles wrote without knowledge -of Brewer’s labors,[2270] and it must be added that several writers -on Bacon since have failed to keep abreast with the latest research -in the field.[2271] Charles also was guilty, as Abbé Feret has shown, -of swelling the story of Bacon’s imprisonments, and in other matters -he jumped to conclusions unwarranted by the sources or indulged in -undiluted imagination. - -[Sidenote: Minor studies of the later nineteenth century.] - -The works of Brewer and Charles educed a number of minor essays and -studies in the following decades. Two unsigned articles on “The life -and writings of Roger Bacon” and “The philosophy of Roger Bacon” which -appeared in _The Westminster Review_ in 1864, are worth noting as -combining a tendency towards a sane and critical estimate of what Bacon -had actually said and accomplished, with the inclination to regard -him as a voice crying in the wilderness of medieval scholasticism -and theology. The writer admitted that the merit of the _Opus Maius_ -“lies rather in the spirit in which it was written than in the facts -it records or in any merit which it may have as a scientific whole.” -He further asserted that “it can easily be shown that of the things -which Bacon is asserted to have invented, several were perfectly well -known before his time, and the rest are nowhere described in his -works.” The writer also cited some of Roger’s absurd experiments, and -said, “Notwithstanding his forcible language about the prerogatives of -experimental science and his bitter invective against frail authority, -we find him occasionally resting on authority with childlike faith, and -treating his favorite science as if its only prerogative was to provoke -a smile.” Yet he still maintained that “Bacon preached a philosophy -of which not half-a-dozen men in Europe saw the value, and of which -the majority of really good men feared the results,” and that “when -Roger Bacon was laid in his grave, the real philosophy was buried with -him.”[2272] Many of the articles which appeared in the years following -were of slight value, causing G. Delorme to say in 1910, “Monographs -or studies concerning Bacon are numerous, perhaps too numerous.”[2273] -As he proceeded to explain, in many of them Bacon was misunderstood and -misinterpreted, so that they must be read with the greatest caution. On -the other hand, in 1891 had appeared Abbé Feret’s valuable criticism of -the legends regarding Bacon’s imprisonments. - -[Sidenote: Recent editions of Bacon’s works.] - -Next came solid progress in additions to the catalogue of Roger’s -works and fragments by recent discoveries in the manuscripts, and in -new or first editions of a number of his previously known writings. In -1897 J. H. Bridges’ fuller, handier, and more correctly arranged two -volume edition of the _Opus Maius_ replaced Jebb’s now extremely rare -edition. Unfortunately, while supplied with a helpful introduction, -analytical table of contents, and footnotes, this new version was -so full of misreadings of the manuscripts and other mistakes in the -text due to an imperfect knowledge of Latin, that in 1900 a third and -supplementary volume of corrections was added to it. In 1897 Cardinal -(then Father) Gasquet discovered and published a new fragment, which -he regarded as an introduction to the _Opus Maius_, but which seems -to me evidently the first part of the _Opus Minus_, as Mr. Little has -already suggested.[2274] Passages in this fragment serve to render -even more untenable the story of Roger’s persecution before 1267. -In 1902 Nolan and Hirsch edited Bacon’s Greek Grammar. Then in 1909 -Professor Duhem gave to the world a newly discovered fragment of -the _Opus Tertium_; while in 1911 the British Society of Franciscan -Studies printed the _Compendium Studii Theologiae_, edited by Canon -(now Dean) Hastings Rashdall, and in 1912 more of the _Opus Tertium_, -edited by Mr. A. G. Little. Meanwhile Robert Steele, who in 1905 had -edited a fragment of Bacon’s _Metaphysics_, began in 1912 to produce -the _Communia Naturalium_ in sections. Other scholars had announced -new or first editions of other treatises, mathematical, medical or -alchemistic, as in preparation, and the discovery of a complete copy of -the _Metaphysics_ in the Vatican Library had just been announced when -the world war broke out and temporarily stayed their publication.[2275] -Recently, however, Mr. Steele has published another volume containing -Bacon’s introduction to and version of _The Secret of Secrets_, in the -preface of which he says: “Medieval students will be glad to learn that -the publication of the whole of Bacon’s work now seems assured.” - -[Sidenote: Continued over-estimate of Bacon.] - -As Bacon’s works thus became more generally known and as standards of -historical criticism grew more strict, not only the facts of his life, -but his doctrines, point of view, and personal equation were more -carefully examined and analyzed, and previous exaggerated estimates -of him were questioned or toned down, although still repeated in some -quarters. Indeed, the very writer who rejects some one legend may hold -fast to the old view of Bacon in other respects. Especially hard to -down has been the notion that Roger Bacon stood almost alone in the -middle ages in his advocacy of natural science. Such was still the -impression given by otherwise excellent recent estimates of Bacon, such -as those in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in Henry Osborn Taylor’s -_The Medieval Mind_,[2276] and such was still the frame of mind in -which preparations were made at more than one great university to -celebrate in 1914 the seventh centennial of his birth--preparations -which resulted at Oxford in the publication of an important volume -of commemoration essays by fourteen scholars from various lands and -fields of learning, five of whom were editors of Bacon’s writings, -while others had previously published books or articles concerning him, -and still others were authors of general histories of the department of -learning to which they were now to estimate Bacon’s contributions or -relation. - -[Sidenote: Beginnings of adverse criticism.] - -Already, however, before the appearance of this volume Roger Bacon’s -pre-eminence and superiority to his times had been questioned from -more than one quarter. Father Mandonnet in his work on Siger de -Brabant and Latin Averroism affirmed that Bacon’s importance had been -over-estimated in many ways. While Charles had held that, if Bacon’s -scientific worth had been exaggerated, his value as a school-man had -been lost sight of, Mandonnet declared that as a philosopher and -theologian he was behind rather than in the forefront of his age.[2277] -Rashdall had asserted in 1911 that “Bacon was more the child of his age -than he imagined himself to be.”[2278] W. H. V. Reade in the _English -Historical Review_ for October, 1912,[2279] hoped “that it is not an -article of faith with the Society of Franciscan Studies to accept all -of Roger Bacon’s statements. As regards the state of knowledge among -his contemporaries, his assertions are often of no greater value than -the similar assertions of his distinguished namesake in a later age.” -The next year Mr. Reade spoke in the same periodical of “the usual -Baconian atmosphere, in which science and superstition are happily or -unhappily compounded.”[2280] In May, 1914, in my paper on “Roger Bacon -and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages,”[2281] I discussed what -his “experimental science” really amounted to, and showed that it was -representative of the science of his time rather than in revolt against -it. - -[Sidenote: _The Commemoration Essays._] - -When the Oxford _Roger Bacon Essays_ appeared, many of them were marked -by a sane and critical attitude, were restrained and scientific in -tone, and did not indulge in glowing but unsubstantiated eulogies of -the noted friar. Professor David Eugene Smith gave warning that “one -is liable to be led away by enthusiasm, when writing upon the occasion -of the seven hundredth anniversary of any great leader, to read into -his works what is not there, and to ascribe to him abilities which -he never possessed.”[2282] But this tendency both he and most of his -fellow essayists successfully resisted, and the main achievement of -the volume was to point out Roger’s indebtedness to others for some -of the ideas upon which his fame has rested and to note his mistakes -and superstitions, rather than to bring to light anything new to -his credit.[2283] It became evident that a careful examination of -those treatises by Bacon which had been recently edited or were in -preparation for publication, and of those which have recently been -brought to light in manuscript form or are still difficult of access in -old editions, was unlikely to add much to his stock of ideas as found -in the now well-known _Opus Maius_, _Opus Minus_ and _Opus Tertium_. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2257] See Little’s lists of Bacon’s writings in the Appendix to the -_Roger Bacon Essays_. - -[2258] _Ibid._, 396. - -[2259] Or perhaps because of it, since “The famous historie of Fryer -Bacon” in prose takes two chapters word for word from the English -translation of “The Epistle concerning the secret works of nature and -the nullity of magic”--see Sandys, p. 365 in Little, _Essays_. - -[2260] See J. E. Sandys, “Roger Bacon in English Literature,” in -Little, _Essays_. - -[2261] Gabriel Naudé, _Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont -esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625. - -[2262] _Sanioris medicinae magistri D. Rogeri Baconis angli de arte -chymiae scripta_, etc., Frankfurt, 1603; reprinted 1620 as “_Thesaurus -Chemicus_,” etc. - -[2263] By Combach, _Specula mathematica_, etc., Frankfurt, 1614. - -[2264] Reprinted at Venice, 1750. - -[2265] So in a MS of the 16-17th century at Cambridge, Trinity 1119, -fols. 56v-68v (ends incompletely) “Here followeth the first part of the -great work namely the experimental science of Roger Bacon written to -Clemens ye Pope.” - -[2266] Ed. A. B. Gough, 1915, p. 14. - -[2267] _Ibid._, p. 15. - -[2268] Gough, 1915, p. 46. - -[2269] P. Feret, “Les emprisonnements de Roger Bacon,” _Revue des -questions historiques_, vol. 50 (1891), pp. 119-42. See also the -article on “Roger Bacon” by Theophilus Witzel in the _Catholic -Encyclopedia_, whereas the eleventh edition of the _Britannica_ still -preserves the old legends. - -[2270] So did Abbé Narbey twenty years later in his “Le moine Roger -Bacon et le mouvement scientifique au XIIIe siècle,” _Revue des -questions historiques_, vol. XXXV (1884), pp. 115-66. - -[2271] An extreme instance was A. Parrot, _Roger Bacon et ses -contemporains_, Paris, 1894, in which the legend of the persecution -of Bacon was pushed to the last extreme of exaggeration and the -author regretted (p. 51) that the _Opus Tertium_ still remained -unprinted--thirty-five years after Brewer had edited it. - -[2272] _Westminster Review_, vol. 81, pp. 12, 9, 241 and 252. - -[2273] Vacant and Mangenot, _Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique_, -Paris, 1910, II, 31. It is hardly necessary to list these monographs -here; for bibliography of writings on Bacon see also CE, “Roger Bacon.” - -[2274] _Essays_, 389. The phrase “_in hac epistola praeeunte_” which -Gasquet takes as a sign that the fragment is part of the _Opus Maius_, -occurs also in the _Opus Tertium_, cap. 1 (Brewer, 9). - -[2275] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 376 and 407. - -[2276] Taylor’s discussion of Bacon occurs in Vol. II, 483-508 of -the 1911 edition (2nd edition revised and enlarged, 1914). He goes -farther than the sources justify in some of his assertions concerning -Bacon’s life, though he is caution itself compared to some writers. -For instance, it cannot be shown that before 1266 Roger’s pursuit of -learning “had been obstructed by the Order of which he was an unhappy -and rebellious member”; nor that “he had evidently been forbidden to -write or spread his ideas; he had been disciplined at times with a diet -of bread and water.” - -[2277] _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au XIIIe siècle_, 2nd -edition, 1908-10, I, 40, 244-48. - -[2278] Rashdall, 3. - -[2279] P. 810. - -[2280] EHR, XXVIII, 805 (Oct., 1913). - -[2281] _Philosophical Review_, XXIII, 271-98. - -[2282] P. 182. - -[2283] In articles published in 1915 (“Adelard of Bath and the -Continuity of Universal Nature” in _Nature_, XCIV, 616-17; “Roger Bacon -and Gunpowder,” in _Science_, XLII, 799-800) I disputed Professor -Duhem’s crediting Bacon with originating the theory of universal nature -and Colonel Hime’s ascribing to him the invention of gunpowder. In the -present work these articles will be found embodied in the chapter on -Adelard of Bath and in Appendix II to this chapter. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -ROGER BACON AND GUNPOWDER - - -In his paper “Roger Bacon and Gunpowder” contributed to the _Roger -Bacon Commemoration Essays_, Colonel Hime tries to prove Roger Bacon -the inventor of gunpowder by the method employed to prove Francis Bacon -the author of Shakespeare’s plays--a cipher. Since other contributors -to the same volume refer favorably to this effort (Mr. A. G. Little, -p. 395, calls it an “ingenious explanation” and Mr. Patterson Muir, p. -301, says that “Colonel Hime establishes a large probability” in its -favor) it may be well to note some points against it quite apart from -the merits of the cipher itself. - -In the first place, the cipher is based upon chapters of the _Epistola -de secretis operibus naturae et de nullitate magiae_ not found in the -early manuscript of that work and considered doubtful by Charles in -his work on Roger Bacon. Indeed, the opening phrases of two chapters -“Transactis annis Arabum sexcentis et duobus,” and “Annis Arabum 630 -transactis” suggest their source. - -Secondly, Roger Bacon openly alludes to gunpowder in 1267 in his -_Opus Tertium_ as already in common use in children’s toy explosives. -Therefore Colonel Hime has to date the _De secretis_ in 1248, and to -hold that Bacon was at that time “driven to employ cryptic methods by -fear of the Inquisition” (p. 334), but that by 1267 “Circumstances had -totally changed in the lapse of years; the composition of gunpowder ... -had been divulged, and the first use made of the deadly mixture was for -the amusement of children” (p. 321). This transition from fear of the -inquisition to child’s play might seem in itself a sufficient _reductio -ad absurdum_. - -But is there any good reason for dating the _De secretis_ in 1248? Much -of it sounds like a brief popular compilation from Bacon’s three works -of 1266-7 concocted by some one else later; compare, for instance, -the first paragraph of the sixth chapter of the _De secretis_ with -Duhem, _Un fragment inédit de l’Opus Tertium_, 153-4, and Little, -_Part of the Opus Tertium_, 50-51. Charles considered the last five -chapters to be of dubious authenticity, and they are not found in the -oldest manuscript of the thirteenth century. The dedication of the _De -secretis_ to William, bishop of Paris, who died in 1249, occurs first -in the late edition of 1618 and has not been found by Little in any -manuscript. - -Then the inquisition bug-a-boo is negligible. Has any one ever shown -that the inquisition punished a practical invention? It was not for -having invented the telescope that Galileo was persecuted. Moreover, -Galileo’s was an exceptional case, and it can not be shown that in the -thirteenth century the church persecuted men of science. Rather, popes -and prelates were their patrons. Finally the inquisition seems to have -been set up in England on only one occasion during the middle ages. - -But even if we admit that Bacon wrote the _De secretis_ as we have it -in 1248 and was at that time afraid of the Inquisition, the question -remains: why in 1267-8, when mentioning the explosive in those works in -which he made such desperate efforts to secure the pope as his patron, -and boasted repeatedly of his own superiority to his contemporaries, -did he not claim the credit of the invention which he had set forth -in cipher twenty years before? The simple answer is: it was not his -invention. - -One instance must be added to show how Colonel Hime misinterprets the -text of the _De secretis_ in his eagerness to smell powder everywhere. -He writes (p. 324): “Now, towards the end of Chap. X., Bacon speaks -without disguise of charcoal under the name of the wood from which it -is made, and mentions the two trees, hazel and willow, which give the -best. He significantly adds that when charcoal is added to proper -proportions of certain other substances, something noteworthy happens. -Since, then, charcoal is one of the subjects of these two chapters, -it becomes all the more probable that saltpeter forms another.” In -a note Hime adds the Latin of the passage in question: _Si vero -partes virgulti coryli aut salicis multarum justa rerum serie apte -ordinaveris, unionem naturalem servabunt: et hoc non tradas oblivioni, -quia valet ad multa_. - -Let us note first that these last words do not mean, “something -noteworthy happens,” but “don’t forget this, because it’s valuable.” -Thus the true wording does not in the least suggest an explosion, as -Colonel Hime’s translation does. Rather it suggests if anything the -phraseology of mystical and magical works generally, like the closing -words of Thebit ben Corat’s treatise on Images, _Intellige quod exposui -tibi, et si queris ordinem invenies effectum ne dubites_. (Bodleian MS -463, fol. 77v, Explicit.) Secondly, the words _partes virgulti coryli -aut salicis_ probably do not denote charcoal but twigs or rods of hazel -or willow, as they do in Bacon’s account of the experiment performed by -magicians with a split hazel rod. It occurs both in the _Opus Maius_ -(Bridges, II, 219) and _Opus Tertium_ (Little, 49-50; Duhem, 153); I -quote the latter. _Unde magici accipiunt virgas coruli et salicum, et -dividunt eas secundum longitudinem, et faciunt eas distare secundum -quantitatem palmae, et addunt carmina sua, et coniungunt partes divise; -sed non propter carmina, sed ex naturali proprietate._ (Wherefore -magicians take rods of hazel and willow, and divide them lengthwise, -and hold them the breadth of a palm apart, and add their charms, and -the divided parts come together; but not on account of the charms, but -from their very natures.) Moreover, we have already heard this matter -of the split hazel rod discussed by William of Auvergne, and noted that -it was repeated by Albertus Magnus and John of St. Amand, a medieval -writer about 1261, as well as by Bacon. - -Thirdly, it is probably precisely this hazel-rod experiment to which -the writer of the passage quoted by Hime refers. _Multarum justa rerum -serie ordinaveris_ seems a hurried equivalent for the more specific -directions in the passages in the _Opus Maius_ and _Opus Tertium_, and -this bears out what I have already suggested, that the _De secretis_ -may be in part at least a brief popular compilation from Bacon’s other -works. Finally, the phrase _unionem naturalem servabunt_ applies better -to the bending together in the middle of two halves of a split hazel -rod held apart at the ends than it does to a mixture of saltpeter, -charcoal and sulphur. - -And now what becomes of Colonel Hime’s assertion, “Since therefore -charcoal is one of the subjects of these two chapters, it becomes all -the more probable that saltpeter forms another?” We may alter it to -read thus: since charcoal is not a subject of either of these chapters, -it becomes all the more improbable that a method of refining saltpeter -is disclosed in them in cipher. - - - - -CHAPTER LXII - -THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE - - - Who was its author?--Points in favor of Albert as - its author--Testimony of medieval manuscripts and - authors--Occasion for writing the _Speculum_--Defense of - astronomy--And of judicial astrology--The stars do not - possess senses or reason--Subdivisions of astrology--Evil - images--A second variety--Good astronomical images--The - question of free will--And elections--Free will and - nativities--Revolutions--Interrogations--Better not to - destroy the books of necromancy--Experimental books in - the arts of divination--Resemblance of the _Speculum_ to - Albert’s attitude to astrology--Is it more like Bacon on - the question of Christ’s relation to the stars?--Attitude - to magic of the _Speculum_ and Albert--Of Bacon and the - _Speculum_--Significance of the failure to mention magic - in the _Speculum_--Similarity of its citations to those - in other works of Albert--Is the _Speculum astronomiae_ - to be connected with the Paris condemnation of 1277?--The - _Speculum_ was written before 1277--Condemnation of Siger - de Brabant--Condemned opinions connected with astrology; - with science and religion--Other later moves against - magic at Paris--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the _Speculum - astronomiae_--Appendix II. Germath of Babylon, Gergis, and - Girgith. - - -[Sidenote: Who was its author?] - -The _Speculum astronomiae_[2284] has been reserved for separate -treatment, partly because it seems to be one of the most important -single treatises in the history of medieval astrology, and partly -because the traditional ascription of it to Albertus Magnus has been -recently questioned and the attempt made to attribute it to Roger -Bacon.[2285] This attempt has been supported by so little in the -way of real evidence for a Baconian authorship that it might be -passed by, were it not for the fact that, as sensational assertions -concerning either Roger or Francis Bacon are apt to do, it has -attracted widespread attention and been unquestioningly accepted by -other students of Roger Bacon.[2286] Father Mandonnet adduced no -manuscript evidence in favor of Bacon’s authorship and Gabriel Naudé -in the seventeenth century was the first person to suggest it.[2287] -Mandonnet’s argument for the Baconian authorship reduces simply to -this, that the views expressed in the work are Bacon’s rather than -Albert’s and that the writing of the _Speculum astronomiae_ could be -fitted better into Roger’s career.[2288] - -[Sidenote: Points in favor of Albert as its author.] - -We shall show, on the contrary, that the _Speculum_ is regularly -ascribed to Albertus Magnus in the medieval manuscripts and in -bibliographies by learned writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth -centuries, as well as by most students of Albertus Magnus or of -thirteenth century learning since then.[2289] The Latin style and the -method of presentation adopted in the _Speculum_ also more closely -resemble Albert’s style and method than they do Bacon’s.[2290] It -has already been demonstrated that Mandonnet was grossly in error in -representing Albert as an unqualified opponent of judicial astrology, -and our coming examination of the _Speculum astronomiae_ will show -that on most points its attitude to astrology is the same as that of -Albert, on some points even more conservative than his, and on only -one point less so and more like Bacon’s attitude. In the attitude of -the _Speculum_ toward other forms of magic or occult sciences than -astrology we shall find a closer approximation to the Albertine than -to the Baconian view-point, and also some internal textual evidence -which strongly supports the Albertine authorship. Finally we shall -argue that, if it is true that the _Speculum_ had some connection -with the condemnation at Paris in 1277 of 219 opinions attributed to -Siger of Brabant, it may have been written for that occasion by Albert -as appropriately as by Bacon. And we shall note some of the opinions -condemned on that occasion as constituting, with the _Speculum_ itself, -valuable evidence concerning the relations existing between theology -and astrology in the second half of the thirteenth century. - -[Sidenote: Testimony of medieval manuscripts and authors.] - -In so far as I have examined notices of manuscripts of the _Speculum -astronomiae_ in the catalogues or the manuscripts themselves, I have -found it in no case attributed to Roger Bacon and regularly ascribed -to Albertus Magnus, as the list of manuscripts given in the appendix -at the close of this chapter will show. In one or two cases another -hand than that in which the text of the _Speculum_ is written has -suggested “master Philip, chancellor of Paris,” as author instead -of Albert, but otherwise the manuscripts support the Albertine -authorship. The _Speculum_ is cited as Albert’s in a fourteenth century -manuscript.[2291] Also the list of writings by Dominicans drawn -up before the middle of the fourteenth century ascribed to Albert -both a _Contra librum nigromanticorum_ and a _Speculum astrobium_ -(or _astralabicum_).[2292] Later in the same century a contemporary -of Thomas of Pisa or Bologna, physician and astrologer to Charles -V the Wise of France, 1364-1380, cites “Albert the commentator -in his Mirror.”[2293] In 1412 Amplonius in the catalogue of his -manuscripts which he wrote with his own hand lists both a _Speculum -mathematicum Alberti Magni_ and a _Speculum domini Alberti de libris -mathematicis_;[2294] and Schum’s modern catalogue of the Amplonian -collection at Erfurt lists three manuscripts of the _Speculum -astronomiae_ of the fourteenth century and in every case ascribes it -to Albert.[2295] Early in the fifteenth century also Cardinal Pierre -d’Ailly more than once cited the _Speculum_ as by Albert,[2296], as did -Gerson and Nicholas of Denmark in the same century.[2297] Pignon and -Valleoletanus also ascribed it to Albert in their catalogues of the -writings of Dominicans.[2298] At the close of the fifteenth century -Pico della Mirandola in his work against astrology was almost the first -to question Albert’s authorship, which he did in an effort to weaken -the reliance of the adherents of astrology upon the authority of Albert -as a defender of that art.[2299] Pico apparently did not possess a -sufficiently extensive knowledge of Albert’s other writings to pass -upon the question of the authenticity of the _Speculum_, or he would -not have imagined that by questioning the Albertine authorship of -it, he could prevent the adherents of astrology from citing numerous -passages in Albert’s works in favor of their art. But now as to the -astrological doctrine of the _Speculum_ itself. - -[Sidenote: Occasion for writing the _Speculum_.] - -The _Proemium_ or opening chapter of the _Speculum astronomiae_, or -_Mirror of Astrology_, states the occasion for writing it, namely, -the existence of certain works hostile to Christianity, many of which -are actually concerned with necromancy but make false profession of -astronomy or astrology. On this account “some great men” have censured -other books which may be quite harmless, and noble volumes of astronomy -have been brought under suspicion and into disrepute. Therefore the -writer, who describes himself vaguely as a devotee both of the Faith -and of Philosophy, has made a critical bibliography of both kinds of -works, giving their authors’ names, their titles, opening words, and a -general notion of their contents. - -[Sidenote: Defense of astronomy.] - -In the next chapter the author takes up books which we should regard -as purely astronomical, and says that if these were to be suppressed, -“a great and truly noble part of philosophy would be buried for a time -at least, until owing to saner counsels it should rise again.” He adds -that those who have read these books know that there is not a single -word in them which is, or even appears to be, against the Catholic -Faith, and that it is not fair for those to judge them who have never -even handled them.[2300] Thus the writer seems to think that there is -some danger of an attack upon even the study of astronomy. - -[Sidenote: And of judicial astrology.] - -The author’s main concern, however, is with judicial astrology, which -in the third chapter he distinguishes from astronomy proper as “the -science of judgments of the stars.” Of it, too, he speaks in high -terms of praise. He declares that it turns man’s thoughts toward God, -revealing as it does the great Source of all things. Furthermore, it is -the bond between natural philosophy and mathematics. “For if the most -high God in His Supreme wisdom so ordained this world that He, who is -the living God of a lifeless heaven, wills to work in created things -which are found in these four inferior elements through deaf and dumb -stars as instruments, and if concerning these we have one science, -namely, mathematics which teaches us in things caused to consider -their Creator, and another natural science which teaches us to find by -experience in created things the Creator of creatures; what is more -desirable for the investigator than to have a third science to instruct -him how this and that change of things mundane is brought to pass by -the change of things celestial?” - -[Sidenote: The stars do not possess senses or reason.] - -It will be noted that the author of the _Speculum_ regards the stars as -“deaf and dumb” and the heaven as inanimate. In a later chapter[2301] -he condemns as “most evidently meriting censure” the assertion made by -Albumasar, apparently upon Aristotle’s authority, that “the planets -themselves are animated by a rational soul.” For him the stars are -mere divine instruments, deaf to would-be worshipers of them, and too -dumb--one would infer--to produce the music of the spheres. - -[Sidenote: Subdivisions of astrology.] - -The fourth chapter of the _Speculum_ speaks of the four familiar -sub-divisions of judicial astrology, namely, revolutions, nativities, -interrogations, and elections. To the last is annexed the science of -images, which the author regards as the acme or climax of “astronomy,” -but with which he admits are associated those necromantic books of evil -repute which he proposes carefully to distinguish from the others. -This at once reminds us of the passages in Albert’s _Minerals_ where -he spoke of the connection between such images engraved on stones and -necromancy, but where his associates were curious to know the doctrine -of images none the less, and he affirmed that it was good doctrine. -Now, after the fifth chapter, which may be described as a statement -of astrological theory and technique in a nutshell, he takes up -judicial astrology and its several sub-divisions in further successive -chapters,[2302] defining the field and describing the literature. A -majority of the books listed, good as well as bad, appear to be Latin -translations from the Arabic. - -[Sidenote: Evil images.] - -Of images the author describes three varieties, the first two of which -he severely condemns. The first kind is abominable, including the -images of Toz Graecus and Germath of Babylon, those connected with the -worship of Venus, and those of Belenus and Hermes. These are exorcized -by the names of fifty-four[2303] angels who are said to serve in the -circle of the moon,[2304] but are probably really the names of demons. -The names of seven are engraved forwards to procure a good result and -backwards in order to ward off evil fortune. Suffumigations also are -made with aloes, saffron, and balsam to achieve a good result, with -other woods for evil ends. The author explains that the spirits are not -truly coerced by such things, but sometimes God allows them to pretend -to be, in order to deceive sinful men. The practices associated with -this first kind of images he censures as the worst sort of idolatry, -although their practitioners, in order to retain something worthy -of belief, observe the twenty-eight mansions of the moon and other -seasons. - -[Sidenote: A second variety.] - -The second variety of images is a little less improper, but still -detestable. In it certain names are exorcized by the inscription of -characters. Such are the four rings of Solomon and the nine candelabra -and the three figures of spirits who are called the princes of the four -quarters of the world, and the Almandel of Solomon, the seven names -from the book _Uraharum_,[2305] the fifteen from _The Institutes of -Raziel_, and so on. “Far from us be this sort also,” says our author, -“for it is open to the suspicion that beneath the names in unknown -tongues may lie hidden something contrary to the purity of the Catholic -Faith.” - -[Sidenote: Good astronomical images.] - -The third variety of images, in which the author sees no harm but much -good, and which he has called “the sublimest part of astronomy,”[2306] -are purely astronomical images which derive their virtue from the -configurations of the sky but admit no other inscription of characters, -and neither exorcisms, invocations, nor suffumigations.[2307] In a -later chapter,[2308] however, he permits in addition to astronomical -figures and symbols the engraving of certain simple words and images -of objects of obvious meaning, such as a scorpion and the word -_Destruatur_ upon an image intended to drive scorpions away. - -[Sidenote: The question of free will.] - -Meanwhile, between these two chapters upon astronomical images, -the author returns in four chapters to the other sub-divisions -of astrology, mainly with the purpose of investigating whether -revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and elections are incompatible -with freedom of the human will,--a question upon which he has already -touched a little in previous chapters. He maintains the usual position -that the celestial influences make impressions according to the fitness -of matter to receive them, and that man by using his intellect can to a -considerable degree be master of his fate. As usual he cites Ptolemy’s -_dictum_ that “the astrologer can avert much evil from the operation of -the stars, if he knows the nature of the influence to be exerted upon -him and can prepare himself beforehand to receive it.”[2309] - -[Sidenote: And elections.] - -Therefore the author regards election of favorable hours as an -admission alike of freedom of the will and of astrological influence, -and affirms that “in entering upon great undertakings, it is rashness, -not freedom of the will, to despise election of the hour.”[2310] -Moreover, he asserts that “all philosophers are agreed in this, that -when we know the hour of impregnation of any woman, we thereby know -the history of the foetus until it breathes and comes forth from -the womb and until death.”[2311] Hence one should choose the moment -of conception as carefully as the hour for a surgical operation,--a -passage paralleled by Albert’s account elsewhere of the care exercised -by Nectanebus as to the hour of his intercourse with Olympias. - -[Sidenote: Free will and nativities.] - -Despite what he has just said about tracing the history of the foetus -until death, the author regards the doctrine of nativities as in large -measure inconsistent with freedom of the will.[2312] After the mental -and moral faculties have sufficiently developed, he believes in freedom -of choice, and so holds that the casting of horoscopes, especially in -regard to moral characteristics, infringes upon free will. Even when -such a matter as length of life is predicted from the constellations -for an individual, he contends that it does not mean that one must live -that long, but that one’s natural term of life cannot be prolonged -beyond that point. - -[Sidenote: Revolutions.] - -The author seems to think that the human will has very little control -over revolutions, by which “is indicated what God, the glorious, will -accomplish in a given year through the stars as His instruments” for -states and peoples; in other words, such general events as harvests, -wars, earthquakes, floods, and terrible prodigies. Events signified by -comets come under this head also. All such events the author seems to -regard as divinely ordered and he cites Ptolemy and Albumasar to the -effect that God’s plans are not changeable like those of children or -servants.[2313] - -[Sidenote: Interrogations.] - -As for the practice of interrogations, the author affirms that to -inquire of the stars what course of action one should pursue “does -not destroy, but rather rectifies free will.” Some questions asked -of astrologers, nevertheless, are very difficult to reconcile with -free will, for example, the question whether another person will -answer one’s request. If an astrologer is able to answer such a -question beforehand, it seems to indicate that the other person -has no freedom in the matter. After some juggling with the terms, -“necessity” and “possibility,” the author thinks that he has found a -mode of reconciliation in “the compossibility of free will with divine -providence,” since with the latter he identifies the significations -of the stars, and “God knew from eternity which course the man would -choose.” Our author hastens to add, however, that God may wish to -conceal some things from us, and that he will not assert that “whatever -does not escape divine providence is revealed in the heavens.”[2314] - -[Sidenote: Better not to destroy the books of necromancy.] - -In the seventeenth and last chapter the author returns to the subject -of books of necromancy and suggests that after all even these had -better be preserved rather than destroyed, because the time is now -perchance near when, for reasons which he will not now disclose, it may -be of advantage to consult them occasionally; “yet let those inspecting -them beware of abuse of them.” - -[Sidenote: Experimental books in the arts of divination.] - -The author adds that there are also “certain experimental books whose -names have the same ending as nigromancy,” namely, books in the -subjects of geomancy, hydromancy, aerimancy, pyromancy, and chiromancy. -Thus we have another example of the association of experiment and -magic. These arts, however, in his opinion “do not deserve to be called -sciences, but babblings (_garamantie_ or _garrimantiae_).”[2315] -Hydromancy consists in washing the entrails of animals and inspecting -the fibres. Pyromancy divines from the appearance of the fire by which -the sacrifice is consumed. Both these arts probably involve a sort of -idolatry. The author finds nothing idolatrous in geomancy, however, -which is based upon astrology and numbers. But aerimancy is frivolous, -though it may pretend to be based upon number. Chiromancy he does not -wish to judge hastily, because it may be a part of physiognomy which -in turn depends upon astrology, since in physiognomy both the physical -peculiarities and the personal characteristics inferred from them are -due to the stars. The author thus shows the common tendency of medieval -men of learning to justify only such methods of divination as they felt -could be based upon astrology. - -[Sidenote: Resemblance of the _Speculum_ to Albert’s attitude to -astrology.] - -The foregoing analysis of the _Speculum astronomiae_ has made it -evident that its attitude toward astrology is not at all a peculiar -one but just about the usual position of Christian scientists in the -twelfth and thirteenth centuries. On the subject of astrological -images, however, its view is that of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon -rather than that of William of Auvergne or Thomas Aquinas. In general -the astrological position of the _Speculum_ closely parallels the -attitudes of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, who in turn held almost -identical views. If anything, the _Speculum_ is somewhat less favorable -to astrological doctrine than Albertus. Whereas he in large measure -accepted the casting of horoscopes, although saving free will, it -emphasizes the conflict between free will and nativities. And it -more emphatically denies that the stars are animated, a point upon -which he seemed rather hazy in his scientific treatises. But there -is no actual contradiction between the _Speculum_ and other works of -Albert on these points, and we have already seen in the case of his -theological and Aristotelian works that Albert is likely to state the -same thing somewhat differently according to the point-of-view from -which he writes. The writer of the _Speculum_ is obviously desirous to -conciliate a theological opposition to or suspicion of “astronomy” and -therefore naturally inclines to be moderate and conservative in his -advocacy of astrological doctrine. - -[Sidenote: Is it more like Bacon on the question of Christ’s relation -to the stars?] - -On one point only does the _Speculum_ appear more radical in its -astrological theory than Albert elsewhere and more in accord with views -expressed by Roger Bacon. We have heard Albert in his _Summa_ deny -that Christ was born under the influence of the stars, while Bacon was -inclined to agree with the astrologers that He was, in so far as His -birth was natural and His nature human. The writer of the _Speculum_ -cites Albumasar to the effect that the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was -prefigured in the sky,[2316] and regards this assertion as a notable -confirmation of the true Faith, not that the Lord of all things was -under the stars but that what God had decreed was signified by the -stars. Thus there is after all perhaps no necessary conflict with -Albert’s attitude in the _Summa_, since both _Speculum_ and _Summa_ -deny that Christ is under the stars. However, the _Speculum_ gives -the impression that the birth of Christ was signified astrologically; -the _Summa_, that it was signified miraculously. But neither does the -_Speculum_ quite agree with Bacon who suggests that Christ’s body was -under the stars. And the fact that Bacon cites the same passage from -Albumasar is of little value as a sign that he is the author of the -_Speculum_, since the passage in Albumasar was a well-known one and is -cited in such a vernacular work as _The Romance of the Rose_.[2317] -Thus the astrological doctrine of the _Speculum_ offers little or no -reason for questioning the traditional ascription of that treatise to -Albertus Magnus. - -[Sidenote: Attitude to magic of the _Speculum_ and Albert.] - -We have next to inquire, does the attitude of the _Speculum_ to -other magic arts accord or conflict with that of Albert elsewhere? -Our study of Albert’s attitude toward magic in his other works has -made it abundantly evident that Mandonnet was mistaken in deeming -him too hostile to such superstition to have written the _Speculum_. -He is, on the contrary, too favorable, if anything, toward magic, -to have been the author of that treatise. Indeed, it was to the -_Speculum astronomiae_, which he accepted as a genuine work, that -Peter of Prussia appealed in his effort to prove Albert’s hostility to -necromancy and magic. Yet Mandonnet cites these very pages of Peter of -Prussia in his effort to show that Albert was too hostile to occult -arts to have written the _Speculum_! On the other hand, we saw that -Albert’s attitude to magic varied somewhat in his different works, so -it is no disproof of his authorship of the _Speculum_ that it seems -more hostile to magic than some of Albert’s utterances elsewhere. The -occasion of writing the treatise is probably sufficient to explain this. - -[Sidenote: Of Bacon and the _Speculum_.] - -We have to admit, however, that Roger Bacon almost invariably spoke of -“magic” unfavorably, whereas Albert a number of times used the word in -a good or neutral sense. Thus there might seem to be some reason for -ascribing the _Speculum_ to Bacon for the exactly opposite reason to -that advanced by Mandonnet, namely, that he displayed more hostility -than Albert to magic. Also there is a certain resemblance between the -attitude of the author of the _Speculum_ toward books of necromancy -and what we saw to be Bacon’s attitude toward books of magic in his -_De secretis operibus artis et naturae et de nullitate magiae_. But -there is also a difference, and when Mandonnet asserts, “Both authors -reject books of magic,”[2318] he gives a false impression and overlooks -an interesting point. For the _De secretis operibus_ not only tries -to distinguish between books of magic and others which are unjustly -regarded as magical, it also is largely devoted to an attack upon -“magic.” And such censure of magic is frequent in Bacon’s works. The -_Speculum_, on the other hand, distinguishes between “necromantic” and -“astronomical” works, and never mentions “magic.” - -[Sidenote: Significance of the failure to mention magic in the -_Speculum_.] - -Is not this significant? Had Bacon written the _Speculum_, would he -not have indulged in his usual censure of magicians and their follies? -But if Albert wrote the _Speculum_, is it surprising that he maintains -a discreet silence concerning that “magic” which he had coupled more -than once with astronomy and had spoken of as a field bordering upon -that of natural science? In undertaking the defense of “astronomical -images” against those who looked at them askance, would he deem it -prudent to repeat his assertion in the treatise on minerals that to -comprehend astronomical images one must go to “the science of the -magi”? In that treatise on minerals, it will be recalled, he had been -bold enough to propose to discuss the doctrine of images, even if it -was closely associated with necromancy, and he twice associated in the -same phrase “astronomy and magic and the necromantic sciences.” But -then he was writing for his pupils and associates who were eager to -learn of the images engraved on gems, even if they were connected with -necromancy. In the _Speculum_ he writes for a different audience, or -for an audience in a different mood,--men inclined to condemn books of -astronomy and astrology along with books of necromancy. Where before he -admitted an association, he now has to make a contrast and to give the -impression of a great gulf fixed between necromancy and astronomy. To -save astrology from hostile attack he gives up necromancy, and probably -willingly and sincerely enough, since his allusions to it even in the -treatise on minerals were rather unfavorable. Is it strange that he -says nothing of the connecting link, “magic,” which he perhaps does -not wish to condemn, yet does not feel it expedient to defend? May it -not be one of those reasons, which the author of the _Speculum_ says -he will not disclose, why even the books of necromancy had better be -preserved rather than destroyed? Thus the failure of the author of the -_Speculum astronomiae_ to use the word “magic” does not sound in the -least like Roger Bacon, but does seem to be just about what one might -expect in the circumstances from Albert, whose mentions moreover of -“magic” in his other works are brief and occasional. - -[Sidenote: Similarity of its citations to those in other works of -Albert.] - -Finally we may note a positive bit of evidence in favor of the -Albertine authorship of the _Speculum_ which has hitherto escaped -notice. His other writings mention some of the very books of necromancy -which the _Speculum_ lists and condemns. In his theological _Summa_, -when denouncing magic as concerned with evil spirits, he supported his -view not merely by the authority of the saints and common report, but -also by “the teachings of that branch of necromancy” which treats of -“images and rings and mirrors of Venus and seals of demons,” and is -expounded in the writings of Achot of Greece, Grema of Babylon, Hermes -the Egyptian, and other treatises which he mentions.[2319] Again in -the treatise on minerals, in investigating why gems are engraved with -images, he cites as authorities Magor Graecus, Germa Babylonicus, and -Hermes the Egyptian.[2320] The _Speculum_ also especially mentions in -its list of necromantic books on images Toz Graeci, Germath of Babylon, -Belenus, and Hermes.[2321] Leaving Belenus out of account, there can -be little doubt that the other three names are identical with the two -preceding trios. One also is impelled to believe that the same Albert -wrote _Summa_, _Mineralium_, and _Speculum_, and it may be added that -the variation in the attitude towards images and necromancy in the -latter two is no greater than the difference in the attitude towards -magic which we observed between the first two of those treatises. This -too makes it plausible that Albert should have adopted a third attitude -of silence concerning “magic” in the _Speculum_. - -[Sidenote: Is the _Speculum astronomiae_ to be connected with the -condemnation of 1277?] - -There remains the question, when and why was the _Speculum astronomiae_ -written? Its tone suggests that it is not merely a general defense of -astronomy and astrology but a specific reply to some particular attack -upon astrological literature made by a party inclined to connect and -condemn astrology together with necromancy and other forbidden occult -arts. Such an attack can perhaps be seen in the condemnation at Paris -in 1277 of two hundred and nineteen opinions attributed to Siger de -Brabant. Many of them are astrological and with them are condemned -a treatise of geomancy, works of necromancy, and books “containing -experiments of lot-casters, invocations of demons, and conjurations -perilous to the soul.”[2322] It is natural to associate the writing -of the _Speculum astronomiae_ with this affair, and the idea had -occurred to me before I read any of Mandonnet’s works. It is also -natural, especially if one holds the old view that Roger Bacon was -persecuted for science’s sake and suspected of magic, to wonder if -there is not some connection between the condemnation of 1277 and his -own condemnation in 1278 “on account of certain suspected novelties”; -and Mandonnet is not the first to do so.[2323] But he is the first -to suggest that Bacon was condemned in 1278 for having written the -_Speculum astronomiae_ in connection with the other condemnation of -1277. But we have seen that there is little reason for thinking that -Bacon’s condemnation was for astrology or magic. Second, it may be -doubted whether anyone would have been condemned for so mild a work -as the _Speculum astronomiae_, nor in 1277 could its contents have -been regarded as “novelties.” Third, we have shown that Albert and not -Bacon wrote the _Speculum_. Fourth, we have already heard that in 1270 -Albert sent a treatise to Paris to help Aquinas in connection with the -affair of Siger de Brabant, and that in 1277 he came to Paris himself -to defend his own Aristotelian teaching and the memory of Aquinas in -connection with the condemnation of the 219 articles. If so, who could -have been better fitted to write on that occasion as a representative -both of the Faith and of Philosophy than the venerable dean both of -Christian theologians and of Aristotelian scientists? - -[Sidenote: The _Speculum_ was written before 1277.] - -But there is a serious objection to dating the _Speculum astronomiae_ -as late as 1277, especially if Albert is its author, as we have shown -every reason to believe. It is that the writer of the _Speculum_ -speaks of the twelfth and thirteenth (meaning our thirteenth and -fourteenth) books of the _Metaphysics_ of Aristotle as “not yet -translated.”[2324] But Albert is acquainted with these books and -gives a paraphrase of them in his own Commentary on the Metaphysics, -which, as Mandonnet himself has elsewhere shown,[2325] was completed -in 1256. It is true that Aquinas in his _De unitate intellectus contra -Averroistas_, written in 1270, still seems to regard the last books -of the _Metaphysics_ as untranslated,[2326] which leads Grabmann to -argue that Albert must have revised his Commentary to include the last -books of the _Metaphysics_ after 1270.[2327] But this fails to explain -how Albert or anyone else writing in 1277 or 1278 could still speak of -these books as “not yet translated,” since Albert could neither have -translated nor commented upon them after 1277, since he died in 1280 -and Ptolemy of Lucca tells us that for about three years before his -death his intellectual faculties had declined. Thus the _Speculum -astronomiae_ was apparently written before 1277 and perhaps before 1256. - -[Sidenote: Condemnation of Siger de Brabant.] - -Although it thus appears to have no actual connection with the -_Speculum astronomiae_, we may nevertheless consider here as bearing -on the same topic of theological opposition to certain occult arts -and even to astrology, the condemnation in 1277 by Stephen, bishop of -Paris, and “doctors of sacred Scripture” of 219 opinions attributed -to “Siger de Brabant, Boetius of Denmark, and others.” Siger seems to -have been an Averroist of somewhat pronounced type and to have held -views more evidently incompatible with the Christian Faith than most -astrologers or occult scientists. It is possible, however, that his -opponents misinterpreted or exaggerated his views. Mandonnet holds that -he would have disowned many of the articles, and that, on the other -hand, his persecutors inserted also moderate opinions such as were held -by Albertus Magnus and Aquinas, in an effort to give the impression -that infidels, Averroists, and moderate Aristotelians were all alike, -and to discredit the reconciliation of Aristotle and Christian doctrine -which Albert and Aquinas fathered.[2328] Dante speaks well of Siger in -the _Paradiso_. - -[Sidenote: Condemned opinions connected with astrology; with science -and religion.] - -We may note those articles which bear upon astrology, a very -considerable number, with the addition of a few concerned with the -relations of science and theology. It will be observed that the -moderate thirtieth article is scarcely consistent with some others, and -that the last clause of the 207th article, which seems an explanation -inserted by the condemners, indicates that even they accept the -influence of the stars within certain limits. In any case, while it -is to be remembered that the condemnation is not primarily directed -against astrology, the articles are of interest as showing both what -adherents of astrology might believe and what its opponents might -accuse them of and condemn them for. - - “6. That when all the celestial bodies return to the same - point, which happens every 36,000 years, the same - effects will recur as now. - - 30. That superior intelligences create rational souls - without motion of the sky, but that inferior - intelligences create the vegetative and sensitive souls - by means of the motion of the sky. - - 38. That God could not have made first matter except by - means of a celestial body. - - 61. That God can do contrary things, that is, by means of a - heavenly body which is variable in its whereabouts. - - 65. That God or intelligence does not send science to the - human soul in sleep except by means of a heavenly body. - - 74. That the intelligence which moves the sky influences - the rational soul just as the body of the sky - influences the human body. - - 92. That the heavenly bodies are moved by an intrinsic - principle which is the soul; and that they are moved by - a soul and by appetitive virtue just like an animal. - - 94. That there are two eternal principles, namely, the body - of the sky and its soul. - - 102. That the soul of the sky is intelligence, and the - celestial circles are not instruments of intelligence - but organs. - - 112. That superior intelligences impress inferior ones - just as one soul impresses another; ... and by such - impression a certain enchanter by his mere gaze cast a - camel into a pit.[2329] - - 132. That the sky is the cause of the physician’s will, that - he cures. - - 133. That the will and intellect are not moved in acts - by themselves but by an eternal cause, namely, the - heavenly bodies. - - 142. That from diversities of places come the necessities of - events. - - 143. That from diverse signs of the sky are signified - diverse conditions in men, as well of spiritual gifts - as of temporal things. - - 150. That man ought not to be content with authority to gain - certitude on any point. - - 152. That the utterances of theology are founded on fables. - - 154. That philosophers are the world’s only wise men. - - 161. That the influences of the stars on free will are - occult. - - 162. That our wills are subject to the power of the heavenly - bodies. - - 163. That the will of necessity follows that course of whose - advisability the reason is firmly convinced, and that - it cannot abstain from that course of action which - reason dictates. This necessity is not compulsion but - the nature of the will. - - 164. That man in all his acts follows appetite and always - the greater. - - 167. That by certain signs men’s intentions and changes - of mind are known, and whether their intentions will - be achieved; and that by such figures are known the - outcome of journeys, the captivity of men, their - freedom from captivity, and whether they will become - sages or scoundrels. - - 174. That there are fables and false statements in Christian - Scripture as in others. - - 175. That Christianity hinders science. - - 189. That when intelligence is full of forms, it impresses - those forms on matter through the heavenly bodies as - through instruments.[2330] - - 195. That fate, which is the disposition of the universe, - proceeds from divine providence, not immediately but - by means of the motion of the superior bodies; and - that this fate does not impose necessity upon inferior - things, because they have contrariety, but upon - superiors.[2331] - - 206. That he attributes health, infirmity, life and death to - the position of the stars and the aspect of fortune, - saying that if fortune regard him, he will live; if - not, he will die. - - 207. That in the hour of a man’s generation, in his body - and hence in the mind which follows the body, there - exists in man from the order of superior and inferior - causes a disposition inclining him to certain actions - or results. An error, unless understood only of natural - results and by way of disposition.”[2332] - -In our chapter on Raymond Lull we shall speak of a treatise written by -him in 1297 in which he deals with some of these opinions condemned in -1277. - -[Sidenote: Other later moves against magic at Paris.] - -With the condemnation in 1277 along with the opinions of Siger of -Brabant of a geomancy, books of necromancy, and others containing -invocations of spirits, may be mentioned two later attempts of -authorities to discourage the study or practice of magic at Paris. -One, to which we have already alluded in our chapter on Roger Bacon, -is a constitution of the Franciscans on May 25, 1292, forbidding their -students at Paris to spend for other purposes the money sent them for -books or to have curious books copied.[2333] We are, however, more -pained than surprised to learn that such a regulation was necessary in -the Order. The other is a letter of April 3, 1318, or 1319, of Pope -John XXII to William, bishop of Paris, thanking him for a donation -received and urging him to attend to the improvement of the University -of Paris and especially to banish from it and from his diocese -“nigromancers, diviners, poisoners, and others engaged in reprehensible -arts of this sort,” whom the pope further describes as criminals.[2334] -There is nothing to suggest that astrologers and their writings are -included in either of these two later moves against superstitious arts -or black magic. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2284] Contained in Borgnet’s edition of Albert’s works, X, 629 _et -seq._ This text, however, has been severely criticized by F. Cumont, -_Cat. cod. astrol. graec._, V, i, 85, who says of it, “mendis scateat,” -and who gives a partial version from the MSS (_Ibid._, pp. 86-105.) - -An early edition among the incunabula of the British Museum (numbered -I A. 8201) bears the different title, _Liber Alberti magni de duabus -sapientiis et de recapitulatione omnium librorum astronomiae_. In the -MSS the title also varies considerably. - -For a list of some MSS of the _Speculum astronomiae_ see Appendix I at -the close of this chapter. - -[2285] P. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe -siècle, deuxième édition revue et augmentée_, Louvain, 1911, I, 244-8; -and more fully in an article, _Roger Bacon et le Speculum astronomiae_, -in _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, vol. 17 (August, 1910), pp. 313-35. - -[2286] Theophilus Witzel, in CE “Roger Bacon”; Paschal Robinson, -“The Seventh Centenary of Roger Bacon,” in _The Catholic University -Bulletin_, January, 1914; A. G. Little, _Roger Bacon Essays_, Oxford, -1914, p. 25. - -[2287] G. Naudé, _Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont -esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625, p. 526. Naudé’s -memory, however, misled him into asserting that Pico della Mirandola -had already asserted that Roger Bacon wrote the _Speculum astronomiae_, -whereas Pico had merely questioned whether Albert wrote it. - -[2288] Ch. V. Langlois, in reviewing the first edition of the _Siger de -Brabant_ (Fribourg, 1899) in _Revue de Paris_, Sept. 1, 1900, p. 71, -made some strictures upon Mandonnet’s general method of arriving at -conclusions which in my opinion were very well taken. - -[2289] The opinions of a number of late medieval and early modern -scholars as to the authorship of the treatise will be found prefaced to -the text in Borgnet’s edition. - -J. Sighart, _Albertus Magnus, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft_, -Regensburg, 1857, p. 341 _et seq._ (Paris, 1862, p. 454 _et seq._) -accepted Albert’s authorship. - -N. Valois, _Guillaume d’Auvergne_, Paris, 1880, p. 308 note, says, “Il -parait impossible de ne pas considérer cet ouvrage comme authentique.” - -See also M. Steinschneider, _Zum Speculum astronomicum des Albertus -Magnus über die darin angeführten Schriftsteller und Schriften_, in -_Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik_, XVI (1871), 357-96. - -[2290] am glad to see my view in this regard confirmed by Steele -(1920), 267, who says: “It has been suggested that this tract was -written by Bacon, but no one with an ear for style could accept the -suggestion for a moment.” - -[2291] Amplon. Quarto 377, first half of 14th century, fols. 25-36, -Tractatus de iudiciis astrorum Aristoteli attributus. “Incipit liber -quidam de iudiciis qui ab Alberto in Speculo dicitur esse Aristotelis -et primo de nativitatibus.” - -[2292] Denifle (1886), p. 236. - -[2293] BN 7337, p. 45, “albertus commentator in suo speculo dixit quod -predicte ymagines sunt mere naturales sicut recepte medicine.” - -[2294] Schum (1887), pp. 785-867, Math. 29, “Speculum mathematicum -Alberti Magni”; Math. 69, “Speculum domini Alberti de libris -mathematicis.” - -[2295] See Appendix I. - -[2296] Petrus de Alliaco, _Tractatus de ymagine mundi_ ... and other -treatises by both d’Ailly and Gerson, printed about 1480 (numbered -IB.49230 in the British Museum). - -In the _Elucidarius_, cap. 2, d’Ailly cites “Albertus Magnus in suo -speculo” two or three times. In the _Vigintiloquium de concordantia -astronomice veritatis cum theologia_, he says, “Unde Albertus -Magnus perutiliter etiam tractatum edidit in quo vere astronomie et -artis magice libros per eorum principia et fines distinxit.” In the -_Apologetica defensio astronomice veritatis_ he cites “Albertus Magnus -utique philosophus, astronomus, et theologus” concerning Albumasar’s -placing the birth of Christ under the sign Virgo, a passage alluded to -in the _Speculum_, but not, as far as I have noted, in Albert’s other -works. - -[2297] Borgnet, X, 629. - -[2298] Quetif and Echard (1719), I, 173. - -[2299] Toward the close of its first book in his works as published at -Venice in 1519 and in 1557: “Quod si mihi opponas Albertum theologum -praestantissimum fautorem tamen astrologorum, admonebo te primum multa -referri in Albertum quae Alberti non sunt, quod et supra tetigimus. -Tunc si mihi forte obicias librum de licitis et illicitis, in quo -reiicit quidem magos, astronomicos probat auctores, respondebo -existimari quidem a multis esse illud opus Alberti sed nec ipsum -Albertum nec libri inscriptionem usquequamquam hoc significare, cum -auctor ipse quodcumque demum fuerit nomen suum consulto et expresso -dissimulet.” - -After condemning certain statements in the _Speculum_ in favor of -astronomical images and that magic books be not utterly destroyed, as -unworthy of a learned man and a Christian, Pico concludes, “Quae utique -aut non scripsit Albertus, aut si scripsit, dicendum esse cum apostolo, -in aliis laudo, in hoc non laudo.” Pico could hardly have read Albert’s -discussion of astronomical images in the _Minerals_. - -[2300] Mandonnet (1910), p. 331, incorrectly cites this passage as a -defense of works of judicial astrology, a subject which is not broached -until the following chapter of the _Speculum_. - -[2301] Cap. 12. - -[2302] Caps. 6-11. - -[2303] Digby 228 gives the number as “LXXII.” - -[2304] The Incipit given by the author of the _Speculum astronomiae_ -shows that this is the _Liber lune_ of which we have treated in our -chapter on “Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages.” By a coincidence a -portion of it is found in the same MS, Digby 228, fols. 54v-55v, with -the _Speculum_. - -[2305] This word is variously spelled in different MSS, for instance, -in Digby 228, “Muhamethçaha”; in Canon. Misc. 517, “Vanhmec.” - -[2306] Cap. 4. - -[2307] Cap. 11. - -[2308] Cap. 16. - -[2309] Cap. 13. - -[2310] Cap. 15. - -[2311] _Ibid._, “Ceterum in hoc concordati sunt omnes philosophi quod -cum sciverimus horam impregnationis alicuius mulieris sciamus per eam -quid fiet de fetu donec inspiret et quid usquequo egrediatur ab vulvo -et quid fiet usque ad obitum.” - -[2312] Cap. 13. - -[2313] Caps. 7 and 12. - -[2314] Cap. 14. - -[2315] This sentence was omitted in Ashmole 345, but occurred in other -MSS which I examined. - -[2316] Cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 644), “figuratam esse in coelo nativitatem -Jesu Christi de Virgine.” - -[2317] Ed. F. Michel, Paris, 1864, v. 20109-18, - -“Albumasar néis tesmoigne Comment qu’il séust la besoigne, Que dedens -le virginal signe Nestroit une pucele digne, Qui sera, ce dist, virge -et mère, Et qui alètera son père Et ses maris lez li sera Qui jà point -ne la touchera. Ceste sentence puet savoir Qui vuet Albumasar avoir.” - - -[2318] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, 1910, XVII, 326. “Les deux auteurs -repoussent les livres de magie.” - -[2319] _Summa_, II, 30. - -[2320] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3. - -[2321] _Speculum_, cap. 11. For some further discussion of Germath of -Babylon, and Gergis or Girgith see Appendix II. - -[2322] Denifle and Chatelain, _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, -I, 543. - -[2323] See “The Life and Writings of Roger Bacon,” in _The Westminster -Review_, January, 1864, LXXXI, 13. - -[2324] _Spec. astron._, cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 643). - -[2325] In _Revue Thomiste_, V (1897), 95; cited by Grabmann (1916), p. -163. - -[2326] A fact which Mandonnet, _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII (1910), -318, actually attempts to use to show that the _Speculum_ was written -after 1270, holding that the passage in question in the _Speculum_ must -have been copied from Aquinas, since before 1270 no one but Aquinas -knew of the existence of the 13th and 14th books of the _Metaphysics_ -at all. Yet they are included in Albert’s _Commentary_, which Mandonnet -himself had dated in 1256! - -[2327] Grabmann (1916), pp. 163-9; the evidence presented for this view -is not very convincing. The fourteen books of the _Metaphysics_ are -found in Latin in MSS dated by the catalogues in the 13th century: S. -Marco X, 57, fols. 1-75, de metaphysica libri quatuordecim; Additional -17345, late 13th century, according to the catalogue the _antiqua -translatio_ ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré. - -[2328] Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe -siècle_, Fribourg, 1899, cap. 9. - -[2329] That this opinion was condemned in 1277 did not keep Peter -of Abano from stating in his _Conciliator_ of 1303 that by power of -fascination a man could be cast into a well and a camel into a hot -bath.--Differentia 135. Indeed William of Auvergne, a previous bishop -of Paris who had himself condemned “errors” in 1240, tells in his _De -universo_ (II, iii, 16, edition of 1591, p. 986) of a man who cast down -a camel by merely imagining its fall. - -[2330] Which seems to contradict 102, which stated that “the celestial -circles are not instruments of intelligence but organs.” - -[2331] This opinion is, however, that of Boethius and most of the other -discussions of fate which we have noted. - -[2332] The Latin text of the 219 opinions will be found in the -_Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, I, 543, _et seq._ - -[2333] _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, II, 56-7. - -[2334] _Chart. Univ. Paris._, II, 229. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE - - -The descriptions of the first group of MSS in the Amplonian collection -at Erfurt are drawn from Schum’s _Verzeichniss_. - - Amplon. Quarto 189, on the verge of the 13th-14th centuries, - following fols. 40-67 Alberti Magni liber de mineralibus - et lapidibus, fols. 67-8 Notae de coloribus (fortasse - Alberti Magni tribuendae), and fol. 68 Notae variae, come - in a new hand at fols. 68-70 De imaginibus astronomicis, - and fol. 70 Notae ex capitulis speculi Alberti quibus de - imaginibus et de commendatione astronomiae inscribitur - extractae. - - Amplon. Quarto 223, late 14th century, fols. 105-116, - Tractatus de nominibus librorum astronomie cui inscribitur - _Speculum Alberti_ (Magni). “Explicit liber de nominibus - librorum astronomie dictus Speculum Alberti.” - - Amplon. Quarto 348, 1393 A. D., fols. 114-125, “Incipit - liber Alberti Magni episcopi Ratisponensis de libris - mathematice facultatis licitis et illicitis Erphordie - conscriptus ... / ... Finitus est Erphordie liber Alberti - de libris mathematice facultatis licitis et illicitis 1393 - die 29 mensis Maii luna in capricorno et sole in geminis,” - etc. - - Amplon. Quarto 349, by two different hands of the mid-14th - century, fols. 98-108, “Liber de nominibus librorum - astronomie sive speculum domini Alberti.” - -The following MSS in the Bibliothèque Nationale and Bodleian are those -which I have personally examined: - - BN 7440, 14th century, fols. 1r-7r. The Speculum astronomiae - here opens without Titulus or Incipit but some later hand - has inserted, “Incipit speculum alberti prohemium.” Only - the bottom of the second column on fol. 1r is occupied - by the text of the Speculum, which is preceded by some - lines of text ending “Explicit liber hermetis” which are - the conclusion of the treatise on fifteen stars, stones, - and herbs at fols. 13v-16v. The Speculum is followed at - fol. 7r by the De urina non visa of William of England - or Marseilles and other astrological treatises. At fols. - 38v-40v and 25r-32v is an astrological passage from what - is called in the headings at the tops of the pages “Meth’a - Rog’i” (Metaphysics of Roger), which Mr. Steele has - printed in Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, Fasc. 1. - But the occurrence of this fragment in the same MS with - the Speculum can scarcely be adduced as any indication of - the Baconian authorship of the Speculum, since the same - later hand, which has here inserted “Incipit methafisica - Rogeri baconis de ordine predicatorum” (_sic!_), wrote in - the ascription of the Speculum to Albert. - - BN 7408, 15th century. Here the Speculum is bound at the - close of a MS containing astronomical and astrological - works. It is ascribed to Albert not only in the general - table of contents for the MS and in a Titulus written - at its beginning in another hand than its text, but the - text itself closes, “Expliciunt liber dicta speculum - alberti magni de nominibus librorum astronomie tam - demonstrativorum quam judicialium quem composuit frater - albertus ut sciatur qui libri sunt contra fidem et qui - non.” The same hand then goes on to cite Albert’s work on - minerals concerning images on stones. - - BN 7335, 15th century, fols. 108r-114v, “Incipit libellus - alberti magni de discretione astronomie a falsa aliter - intitulatus speculum ... / ... Explicit tractatus qui - dicitur speculum domini alberti.” - - Digby 228, 14th century, fol. 76-, no author is named in - the text itself of the Speculum but in the upper margin - of this page a hand of the same century has written the - following note: “Tractatus magistri Philippi cancellarii - Parisiensis de libris astronomie qui tenendi sunt secundum - integritatem fidei catholice et qui non.” This MS seems to - give a more correct text than any of the three following - other MSS in the Bodleian. - - Ashmole 345, later 14th century (the name, “Kenelme - Digby,” is written at the top of the first page of the - MS), fols. 14v-21, Tractatus in quo corriguntur errores - quorundam astrologorum et philosophorum fidei catholicae - repugnantes, “Occasione quorundam librorum apud quos non - est radix scientie ... / ... sed quod ambo inveniuntur ab - eodem creata. Explicit.” Although it opens as usual, it - omits much of the earlier chapters and bibliography of the - Speculum. No author seems to be named. - - Digby 81, on paper, fols. 102-18, “Explicit iste tractatus - quem composuit Albertus frater predicator.” But a hand of - the 17th century adds the note, “Albertus non fuit author - huius libri sed Philippus cancellarius Parisiensis, ut - ex vetustissimo exemplari manuscripto manifestum est,” - which I presume is a reference to the note to that effect - in Digby 228. As a table of contents for this portion of - the MS at fol. 101r shows, this “Albertus de scientiis - licitis et illicitis” was once followed by “Cosmographia - Rogeri Bacon”; but it will be noted that although the 17th - century hand questions Albert’s authorship, its writer was - not moved to ascribe the Speculum to Bacon. - - Canon. Misc. 517, 15th century, fols. 52v-59v, “Incipit - speculum alberti ... / ... finis Spectubili Alberti.” - Written in a print-like hand which is prettier than Digby - 228, but the text nevertheless contains a good many slips, - as in the omission of words from the Incipits in the - bibliographies of deserving and illicit books. Also it has - 19 chapters instead of the usual 17, as in Digby 228 and - the printed text. - -The following MSS I have not examined but list according to the various -catalogues: - - Arsenal 387, 13th century, fols. 16-31. Fols. 15-34 are - now missing but in the 16th century Claude de Grandrue - gave the description: “Liber Alberti magni de nominibus - librorum astronomie tam demonstrativum quam judicialium, - ut sciatur qui libri sunt contra fidem et qui non.” The - correspondence of this wording with BN 7408 is perhaps - worth noting. - - Brussels, Library of Dukes of Burgundy, 936, anno 1418, - Alberti Maqui Speculum astronomiae; 1030, 15th century, - Alberti Magni Speculum; 1466, 15th century, an abridgement - of the Speculum. - - Florence, Ashburnham 136, early 15th century, fols. 178-83, - Speculum Alberti Magni. - - Catania 87, 15th century, #13, Albertus Magnus, Summa - librorum astronomiae. - - S. Marco XI-71, 16th century, 19 fols., Alberti Magni - astronomiae speculum. Valentinelli remarks, “Opus Rogero - Baconi male tributum, recte sub Alberti Magni nomine - pluries editum est.” - - CLM 27, 14-15th century, fol. 55, Alberti Magni iudicium de - libris Messahallach sequentibus; presumably a fragment. - - CLM 221, 15th century, fols. 223-8, Speculum mathematicae. - - CLM 267, 14th century, fol. 91, de recapitulatione omnium - librorum astronomiae. - - CLM 8001, 14th century, fol. 145, where the Speculum occurs - in the same MS with Albert’s De vegetabilibus and other - commentaries on Aristotle. - - Berlin 963, 15th century, fol. 142, “Speculum dn̄i alberti - magni episcopi ratisponensis. Occasione quorundam - librorum....” - - Vienna 5508, 14-15th century, fols. 161v-180v, Speculum - geomanticum (the MS as a whole is largely devoted to - geomancy, but the opening words, “Occasione quorundam - librorum” identify it as our treatise). - - CU Trinity 1185, 16th century, fols. 1-7, Speculum Alberti - Magni, “Occasione quorundam librorum.” - - - - -APPENDIX II - -GERMATH OF BABYLON, GERGIS, AND GIRGITH - - -Germa or Grema or Germath of Babylon is a name to which I believe -I have met only one other reference, namely, in Ceceo d’Ascoli’s -_Commentary on the De principiis of Alchabitius_ (ed. Boffito, p. 19), -where for the assertion that the stone _anthrax_ keeps emitting water -and so also has to attract water to supply the loss are cited “Evax rex -arabum et Zot grecus et Germa babilonensis.” - -In another chapter of the _Speculum_ in listing licit works of -“astronomy” the author mentions Gergis, _De significatione planetarum -in domibus_, which opens, “Sol consurgit.” It is perhaps the same as -Ashmole 393, 15th century(?), fols. 68v-69v, “Gergis de significatione -planetarum ac capitis et caude in 12 domibus. Sol in ascendente -significat principatum ... / ... neque dimittas que dico tibi nec -proferes aliud. Explicit Jergis de significationibus planetarum in -domibus 12.” See also Steinschneider (1906) pp. 23-4, where other MSS -of this treatise are mentioned and also of a “Girgic, De mansionibus -lunae.” Other forms of the name than Gergis and Girgic mentioned -by Steinschneider are Zergis, Jergis, Jargus (Hyargus, Largus) and -Georgius; also Gugit. Steinschneider further notes that this author -appears in the alchemistic _Turba_; in which connection I may add -that Albertus Magnus in _Mineralium_ III, i, 4, speaks of a writer on -alchemy from that part of Spain which used to belong to the Arabs named -Gilgil (Gilgil in secretis suis). - -Steinschneider does not note Royal 12-C-XVIII where, following the work -of Thebit ben Corat on images, is “another tract on the same subject, -apparently by Jirgis ibn al-ʿAmid. Inc. ‘Dixit Balemiz qui Apollo -dicitur Ymago prima fit in prima hora.’ Ends, ‘nomen diei Saturni -hadah. Explicit.’” Here then Jirgis is associated with Belenus just as -Germath of Babylon was in the _Speculum_. - -In another MS not mentioned by Steinschneider a _Theory of Magic Art_, -which reminds one of the work of Alkindi by that title, is ascribed -to a Girgith. Amplon. Quarto 354, 14th century, fols. 60-62, Girgith, -Theorica de arte magica, “Cogitacio fuit: res que me ad hoc opusculum -... / ... operari voluerit et sic est finis huius tractatus. Deo -gratias.” - -And in the medieval catalogue of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, 1545, we -find listed “Documenta Girgith filie Circes,” preceded by “Tractatus de -sigillis planetarum.” That is, Girgith is represented as the daughter -of the enchantress Circe, and is apparently connected with magical -and astrological images. This community of astrological and magical -interest inclines one to believe that all the aforesaid authors are -one. - - - - -CHAPTER LXIII - -THREE TREATISES ASCRIBED TO ALBERTUS MAGNUS BUT USUALLY CONSIDERED -SPURIOUS: EXPERIMENTA ALBERTI, DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI, DE SECRETIS -MULIERUM - - - The three treatises--Are the two treatises on magic by - Albert?--Manuscripts of the _Experiments_--Manuscripts - of the _Marvels_--Evidence of a fourteenth century - bibliography--Opinions of modern writers--Meyer’s argument - against the authenticity of the _Experiments_--Difficulty - of the question--Introduction of the _Experiments_--Virtues - of herbs, stones, and animals--The heliotrope--The - lily--Two gems--The owl--Evax and Aaron, and the - crow--Observance of astrology--Emphasis upon experiment--_De - mirabilibus mundi_ more theoretical--How account for - magic?--Action of characters explained--Incredible - “experiments of authorities” upheld--Laws of nature and - of magic--Man’s magic power--A wonderful world--The - chief causes of marvels--Marvels proved by experience, - not by reason--Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of - Pseudo-Plato suggested by the authorities cited--Contents - of the _Marvels_ characterized--A mixture of chemistry - and magic--Two specimens of combustibles--Further - discussion of marvelousness in general--The _Marvels_ is - an experimental book--_De secretis mulierum_--The problem - of its authorship--Its citation of Albert, commentary, - opening--Nature of its contents--Medieval standards in such - matters--Some superstitious recipes--Astrology--Citations - of Albert and Avicenna--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the - _Experiments_ or _Secrets_--Appendix II. Manuscripts of the - _De secretis mulierum_. - - -[Sidenote: The three treatises.] - -If we have succeeded in showing that there is little reason for -questioning the traditional ascription of the _Speculum astronomiae_ -to Albertus Magnus, and still less reason for attributing it to anyone -else, it must on the other hand be admitted that the authenticity -of three other treatises current under his name is more dubious. -To the consideration of these three treatises we now come, namely, -the _Experimenta Alberti_, _De mirabilibus mundi_, and _De secretis -mulierum_. _The Experiments of Albert_, or _The Secrets of Albert_ -(_Secreta Alberti_), as it is usually called in the manuscripts, in the -printed editions is generally entitled _Liber aggregationis_, or the -book of secrets or virtues of certain herbs, animals, and stones. - -[Sidenote: Are the two treatises on magic by Albert?] - -When Albertus Magnus in his treatises on the works of Aristotle in -natural philosophy dismissed certain matters as pertaining to the -science of magic rather than to physical science, and said that they -should be considered in other treatises, it is just possible that -he intended to write such books himself. He does not, however, seem -to have cited any such writings of his own by title in any of his -undisputedly genuine works. Such writings are nevertheless extant -under his name, namely, the above-mentioned _Experiments of Albert_ -and _Marvels of the Universe_. These two treatises already circulated -under his name in the middle ages and appeared in numerous editions -in the early years of the printing-press.[2335] Indeed, a survey -of the catalogue in such a library as the British Museum indicates -that these treatises were published in about as many editions as all -Albert’s numerous other works put together. This suggests how much -more popular were these brief collections of superstitious experiments -and sensational marvels than Albert’s longer, more difficult and -argumentative, theological and scientific writings. - -[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Experiments_.] - -Of these two treatises the _Liber aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ or -_Secrets of Albert_ is found in a number of manuscripts of the British -Museum, Bodleian, and other libraries.[2336] These are dated in the -catalogues as mainly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth -centuries. The text is not uniform either in the printed editions or -the manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain only part of the treatise -or arrange its items in a different order, and sometimes foreign -matter is interpolated, but it is clear that they are all different -portions or versions of one work. Indeed the three Digby manuscripts -in the Bodleian contain practically the same text, and would seem to -be copies of one another or of a common original, since an illegible -phrase in one is apt to be equally unreadable in the rest. They also -all entitle the work the _Secrets_ rather than the _Experiments of -Albert_. Most of the manuscripts expressly attribute the work to Albert -who is variously styled “Albertus Magnus,” “Brother Albert,” “Brother -Albert of the Order of Preachers,” or “Brother Albert of Cologne of the -Order of Preaching Friars.” One manuscript says that Albertus Magnus -translated these experiments with herbs, stones, and animals from the -Greek and Arabic. Only one of the manuscripts, where a part of the -experiments with herbs are called _Jocalia Salamonis_, ascribes the -work to anyone else than Albert. Borgnet, who did not include either -the _De mirabilibus mundi_ or _Liber aggregationis_ in his edition of -Albert’s works, mentions another manuscript where the latter treatise -is ascribed to “Brother Albert of Saxony.” But aside from the fact -that the evidence of a single manuscript is worth little against so -many others, if we find the _Experiments_ and _Secrets_ in manuscripts -of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the work cannot -possibly be written by Albert of Saxony who did not flourish until -about 1351 to 1361. Moreover, in the fourteenth century manuscripts -our treatise is found with other experimental and occult treatises -of varied authors, so that it would appear to have been known for -some time and copied from earlier manuscripts into these collections. -Whether the treatise is by Albert or not, then, there seems no doubt -that it was generally ascribed to him in the later middle ages, and -that it was composed in the thirteenth century, or at least that the -nucleus of it existed then. - -[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Marvels_.] - -Of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ manuscripts seem much rarer.[2337] I -found none in the British Museum, although it contains so many of -the _Experiments of Albert_ which almost invariably accompanies the -_Marvels_ in the printed editions. It is also rather remarkable that -the former treatise is always called the _Experiments_ or _Secrets of -Albert_ in the manuscripts, and _Liber aggregationis_ in the printed -editions.[2338] - -[Sidenote: Evidence of a fourteenth century bibliography.] - -Further evidence that the _Experiments_ was at least attributed to -Albert at an early date and on the other hand that the _De mirabilibus -mundi_ was not, is afforded by the bibliography of works by learned -Dominicans drawn up in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. -Here we find listed among Albert’s writings[2339] a _De lapidibus -et herbis_ which may well be the _Experimenta_, since his _De -vegetabilibus et plantis_ and _De mineralibus_ are listed separately, -and a _Secretum secretorum Alberti_ which may indicate either the -_Experiments_ or _Secrets_ or perhaps the _De secretis mulierum_. On -the other hand, in the same bibliography we find a _De mirabilibus_ -listed not among the writings of Albertus Magnus but attributed to an -Arnold of Liège.[2340] Perhaps this is why Berthelot states, without -giving any reference or reason, that the _De mirabilibus mundi_ was -written in the fourteenth century by a pupil of Albertus Magnus.[2341] - -[Sidenote: Opinions of modern writers.] - -In modern times some writers have accepted these two treatises -as Albert’s, perhaps unthinkingly, while others have rejected -them as spurious. Thus Cockayne gives the description of the herb -_Heliotropium_ from the _De virtutibus herbarum_, another name for the -_Experiments_ or _Liber aggregationis_, as by Albertus Magnus.[2342] -And we find Hoefer reproving Haller and Sprengel for having judged -Albertus Magnus too severely on the basis of the same _De viribus -herbarum_, “a book of cabalistic recipes” which Hoefer asserts is not -his.[2343] Borgnet who, as has been said, excluded our two treatises -from his edition of Albert’s works, held that the “vain and futile -matters” which they contain are enough to prove that they cannot be -by Albert. Of this the reader may judge for himself by comparing -some of the passages concerning occult virtue, astrology, magic, -and experiments with toads and emeralds which we have already cited -from Albert’s works with those which we shall soon give from these -two treatises. As the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ says in its -article on Albert, “It must be confessed that all his treatises let -be seen too often his leaning toward the occult sciences; and they -contain, at least in part, the germ of the wretched productions falsely -published under his name.”[2344] - -[Sidenote: Meyer’s argument against the authenticity of the -_Experiments_.] - -Meyer in his _History of Botany_[2345] made more detailed objections -to the Albertine authorship of the _Liber aggregationis_. He argued -that Albert’s genuine works display a more elegant style and logical -arrangement, that the _Liber aggregationis_ does not depend on -Aristotle as the genuine scientific works do, and that Albert elsewhere -condemns the magic which he here expounds. But we have shown that -Albert does not always condemn even so-called magic in his other -writings, that it is not inconceivable that he may have written -treatises on natural magic himself, and that he follows Aristotle only -where he has works of Aristotle at hand to follow. Argument from style -is always dangerous, since style is apt to alter with the subject and -method of a treatise. Furthermore, Meyer seems to have judged the -style of the _Liber aggregationis_ from the printed text which often -differs in wording from the manuscripts. However, I do not know that -their style is any more elegant; the manuscripts are hard to read and -often seem incoherent. In any case the treatise is mainly a collection -of brief statements, largely excerpted from other writings, with -little room either for literary elegance or logical arrangement. Meyer -further noted, however, that the _Liber aggregationis_ gave a different -explanation of two names of herbs, _Quinquefolium_ and _Jusquiasmus_ -(or _Jusquiamus_), from that given in Albert’s _On vegetables and -plants_. Even this divergence might, however, be due to Albert’s -having followed different authorities in the two works; the _Liber -aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ seems to draw largely from _Kiranides_. - -[Sidenote: Difficulty of the question.] - -It may be admitted that the _Experiments_ and _Marvels_ seem in general -rather inferior to Albert’s undisputed works, which embody the same -sort of superstitions, it is true, but are less exclusively devoted to -that sort of thing. But we must expect treatises which deal expressly -with magic and marvels to be more superstitious than those which deal -professedly with Aristotelian theories and facts learned by experience -concerning the natural sciences. Compare the writings of Sir Oliver -Lodge on physics and on psychic research. And if the _Experiments_ and -most of the _Marvels_ seem naïve, simple, and unsophisticated compared -to the more elaborate arrangement and detail and scholastic argument -of the undisputed works of Albert, it is to be noted that they are -like other books of their kind, just as the others are like other -Aristotelian and scholastic treatises. But from these difficult and -hypothetical questions of authenticity or spuriousness let us turn to -the writings themselves. - -[Sidenote: Introduction of the _Experiments_.] - -Meyer said that in the _Liber aggregationis_ one did not find Albert’s -chief source, Aristotle. Yet the _Experiments of Albert_ open in the -manuscripts with the words, “As the philosopher says,” to which one -manuscript adds, “in the first book of the _Metaphysics_.”[2346] The -philosopher’s dictum was to the effect that all science is good but -that it may be employed either for good or evil ends. Our author then -affirms that “magical science”[2347] is not evil, since by knowledge -of it one can avoid evil and secure good. This is not unlike the way -in which Albert in his _Minerals_ justified the science of images as -good doctrine, even if it was a part of necromancy, or showed in other -passages that astrology was not contrary to freedom of the will since -it enabled one to avoid evils and to obtain goods. By this statement -the author also serves notice that magical science or the science of -magic is to be the subject of the present treatise. Continuing his -preface, he mentions “inspection of reasons and natural experiments” as -well as “ancient authors” or “doctors” as sources. He has tested many -of the statements of these authorities and has found truth in many of -them. In the present treatise he intends to make use of the book of -Kiranides and the book of Alcorath, later said to be by Hermes, and -to speak first of certain herbs, then of certain stones and certain -animals and of their virtues. The oldest manuscript that I have seen -also promises to treat of the virtue of words,[2348] but this promise -is not fulfilled and is omitted in the printed text. It may also be -remarked now that other authorities than Kiranides and Alcorath are -cited in the course of the treatise. - -[Sidenote: Virtues of herbs, stones, and animals.] - -The author then considers sixteen herbs,[2349] about forty-five -stones,[2350] and some eighteen animals,[2351] many of which are -birds. In the printed text and some manuscripts there are also given -the virtues of seven herbs according to the emperor Alexander, which -is really a distinct treatise of which we have spoken elsewhere. The -names are sometimes given in several languages after the manner of the -_Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius. Thus a treatise which began with -justification of magical science turns out to be simply a treatment -of the virtues of natural objects. But this shows the importance -of natural objects in magic, and the virtues here ascribed to them -are often indeed magical. One may become invisible, escape dangers, -travel in safety, conquer the enemy, win honors, not feel pain, boil -water instantly or freeze boiling water or kindle an inextinguishable -fire, make a rainbow appear or the sun seem blood-red, excite love -between two persons, or arouse joy, sadness, and other emotional and -intellectual states, overpower wild beasts, interpret any dream, and -prophesy concerning the future. In brief, by the aid of the occult -virtues of these natural objects one can accomplish almost anything -that any other form of magic could procure. Two or three examples may -be given in more detail. - -[Sidenote: The heliotrope.] - -The first herb discussed, the heliotrope, if plucked when the sun is -in the sign Leo in August and worn wrapped in a laurel leaf with the -tooth of a wolf, insures that the bearer of it will be addressed with -none but friendly words. If a person who has been robbed sleeps with -it beneath his pillow, he will see all the circumstances of the theft -repeated in his dreams. If it is placed in a temple, women who have -been unfaithful to their marriage vows will be unable to leave the -temple until this herb is removed. - -[Sidenote: The lily.] - -The lily is an herb which the _Magi_ have greatly lauded. It, too, -should be plucked when the sun is in Leo, then mixed with laurel juice -and buried beneath ordure until worms are generated therefrom. No one -can sleep in whose clothing or about whose neck is sprinkled some of -the powder made from these worms. Anyone anointed with this powder will -contract a fever. If this powder is put in a jar of milk covered with -the skin of a cow of one color, the entire herd will cease to give -milk. “And this has been tested in our time by certain sorcerers.”[2352] - -[Sidenote: Two gems.] - -The stone Optalmius, wrapped in a laurel leaf, renders one invisible, -as its virtue blinds the sight of onlookers. By its aid Constantine -became invisible in the thick of the fight. A test of virginity by the -stone Galerites is ascribed to Avicenna. In operating with stones the -bearer of the gem should be free from all pollution in order to secure -a good result, a magic commonplace. - -[Sidenote: The owl.] - -If the heart and right foot of an owl are placed upon a sleeper’s -breast, “he will tell whatever he has done and whatever you ask -him.”[2353] “And this was tested experimentally by our brothers -recently.”[2354] No dog will bark at a person who carries these same -parts of an owl in his armpit, and together with an owl’s wing they -will attract all sorts of birds to a tree where they are suspended. - -[Sidenote: Evax and Aaron, and the crow.] - -It is interesting to note that Evax and Aaron, who were cited in -Albert’s _Minerals_, are here cited for the virtues of animals as -well, the crow, taxo, and hare.[2355] Their crow story, however, also -concerns a stone. If a crow’s eggs are cooked and then replaced in the -nest, the bird flies away to the Red Sea and returns with a stone whose -touch turns the eggs raw again. This stone is valuable to human beings -for other purposes. Set in a ring with the usual laurel leaf, its touch -opens closed gates and frees prisoners from their chains. If one puts -it in one’s mouth, one can understand the language of the birds. One -manuscript[2356] speaks of this procedure with the crow’s eggs as an -experiment of a master Dacus, rather than of Aaron and Evax, and says -that the stone brought by the crow aids conception. To have a male -child the stone should be held in the right hand; in the left, for a -female. - -[Sidenote: Observance of astrology.] - -Astrological conditions had to be observed in some of the procedure -already recounted. In conclusion the general principle is also laid -down apart from any particular recipe, that to work a good effect -one should operate under the influence of a benevolent planet like -Jupiter or Venus, and to work an evil effect under a malevolent planet. -“Whoever observes this rule correctly will without doubt find truth and -the greatest efficacy in what we have said, as I have experienced with -our brothers.”[2357] - -[Sidenote: Emphasis upon experiment.] - -This last expression and others like it which have been previously -noted, together with the title, _Experimenta Alberti_, attest the -experimental character of our treatise, which is to be classed as -one of those “books of experiments” or “experimental books” which -we have heard so often mentioned and of which our next two chapters -will especially treat. This expression and its fellows further remind -us--perhaps are intended to remind us--of Albert’s allusions to the -personal experiences of himself or his _socii_ in his undisputed works. -If our treatise is not by Albert, there can at least be little doubt -that it pretends to be a product of his experimental school among the -Dominicans at Cologne. - -[Sidenote: _De mirabilibus mundi_ is more theoretical.] - -The _Marvels of the Universe_ contains more theoretical discussion -of much the usual scholastic sort than the _Experiments_, and so -approximates rather more nearly to the form of most of Albert’s works. -As against the brief introductory paragraph of the _Experiments_, the -_Marvels_ enters upon a long and learned preliminary discussion of the -validity, causes, and principles of magic before beginning its list of -particular marvels. - -[Sidenote: How account for magic?] - -The author states that after he knew “that the work of the wise man is -to make marvels cease” by scientific explanation of them, he searched -the writings of authorities until he understood the causes of most -marvelous works. One extremely marvelous thing, however, continued to -puzzle him, yet its existence he regards as evident to all men, even -the vulgar. This was the binding of men by incantations, characters, -sorcery, words, and by many quite common objects. For this he could -find no sufficient cause and it seemed impossible. But after he had -puzzled long, he found a plausible statement by Avicenna in the sixth -book of the _Naturalia_ that there exists in the human mind a certain -power of altering objects, and that other objects obey the human mind -when it is aroused to a great excess of love or hatred toward anyone -of them. In such circumstances manifest experience shows that the -mind can bind and alter objects as it desires. The author, however, -for a long time remained still incredulous. But when he came to read -books of necromancy and images and magic, he found in them this same -theory that the human soul can alter its own body or exterior objects, -especially if its influence concurs with a favorable astrological hour. -Moreover, men differ in their natural capacity to influence others or -to be influenced by them. Some men cannot be bewitched; others cannot -be freed from the power which another has established over them; still -others can both be bewitched and set free from sorcery. - -[Sidenote: Action of characters explained.] - -The discussion then turns for a time from magical influence in general -to that of characters in particular. Their force depends upon the power -of the mind of the operator and the celestial virtue at the time of -their construction. A distinction is made between characters written -blindly in a frenzy and those constructed scientifically with some -likeness to the object sought, as when embracing figures are placed in -a love charm. Such scientific characters our author prefers as more -rational and possessing greater virtue. He states that later he will -list from various books particular characters and words for making or -destroying this or that. - -[Sidenote: Incredible “experiments of authorities” upheld.] - -Resuming his more general discussion, the author defends “the many -experiments of authorities,”--a phrase which should warn us against -attempting sharply to distinguish between medieval trust in authorities -and medieval experimental tendencies. Some deem these “experiments -of authorities” incredible, but he supports them as “most certain -science.” His argument therefor is the too subtle and ingenious -plea that surely no philosopher would purposely write such apparent -falsehoods, unless he were sure of their truth, since even an ignorant -man does not willingly write what is manifestly false. Hence these -seemingly incredible statements must be true. - -[Sidenote: Laws of nature and of magic.] - -The author then lays down some general laws of nature such as that -every species seeks its kind, fire moving toward fire, and water -toward water. Also that an object is gradually changed into likeness -to its surroundings. Thus Avicenna says that an object turns to salt -when it has stood in salt for a long time; and if wild animals remain -long with men, they become domesticated. Philosophers have discovered -“the dispositions of natural entities,” such as heat, cold, boldness, -wrath, fear, sterility, the ardor of love, or any other virtue. For -instance, audacity is a quality innate in all members of the lion -species. Knowledge of these innate qualities is of great assistance in -marvelous and secret operations. Another great law is that like loves -like. Medical men, alchemists, and scientists generally verify this -assertion. Furthermore, “every nature, particular or general, has a -natural friendship or enmity for some other, and some have this for the -entire species and for all time, while others have it for an individual -only and for a fixed time.” Proof of this is to be seen in the case of -certain animals who hate each other in life and whose parts, even whose -hairs, retain this repugnance after death. Thus the lion’s skin injures -all other pelts; while sheepskin is consumed by wolfskin, and a drum -made of the latter silences one made of the former. - -[Sidenote: Man’s magic power.] - -The author then returns to the magic power in man. He believes that it -is clear to everyone that man is the end of all nature and should be -supreme over it. Man possesses all the marvelous virtues to be found -throughout the natural world; even the demons obey him; “and in the -very human body all the secret arts are worked and ... every marvel -issues from it.” All these powers, however, are not found in one man -at the same time, but in different individuals at different times. The -details of this relationship of man to the world of nature are revealed -not by reason but by experience,--a Galenic and Albertine distinction -of which the author of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ is quite fond. - -[Sidenote: A wonderful world.] - -Everything in nature is equally full of marvelous virtue. Fires are -not more marvelous than waters, the virtues of pepper are no greater -than those of jusquiam. One cannot dispute this, whether one attributes -marvelous virtues primarily to the action of heat and cold, or to love -and enmity between things, or to the influence of the stars, for all -things in nature are subject alike to these three forces. Now, “when -philosophers realized that everything was wonderful, they began to -experiment and to bring forth what there is in things.” - -[Sidenote: The chief causes of marvels.] - -The author, for his part, cannot agree with those philosophers and -medical men who have tried to explain everything in terms of hot and -cold, dry and moist. He declares that they met with many phenomena -in the course of their experience which they could not verify upon -this basis, so that “they marveled and were sorrowful incessantly, -and often denied something although they saw it.” On the other hand, -our author does not agree with the astrologers that everything can be -explained by the course of the stars. He prefers the view of “Plato and -Aristotle and the orthodox (_legitimi_) and all who pursue the ultimate -philosophy” that there are diverse causes or channels of marvelousness -(_mirabilibus_). Often marvels are produced by the impression of the -stars, often by heat and cold, often by the virtues of demons and -necromancers, often by virtues innate in objects and implanted with -their substantial forms, often by the relationship of things to one -another. This is why Plato says _in libro tegimenti_ (or, _regiminis_) -that one who is not trained in dialectic, natural science, astrology, -and necromancy--“in which are revealed the immaterial substances -which dispense and administer all that is in things for good or for -evil”--can explain neither what the philosophers have written nor -what the senses perceive, and will depart sadly, unable to solve -the problems of the marvelous. Our author also warns his readers to -distinguish between the effects, often contrary, of substance and -accident, and to remember that action is sometimes direct, sometimes -indirect. - -[Sidenote: Marvels proved by experience, not by reason.] - -Finally, before beginning his list of specific marvels, the author -reverts to his point concerning reason and experience, citing the -_liber tegimenti_ again to the effect that some things for which we can -give no reason are nevertheless manifest to the senses, while others -which we perceive by no sense or sensation are manifest to the reason. -As usual the power of the magnet is adduced as an example of things -proved by experience for which reason cannot account. “So no one should -deny what the philosophers have affirmed from experience until he has -tested it in the manner of the philosophers who discovered it.” It is -also pointed out that many of the ancients told marvelous things which -are now verified and generally accepted. “And I will tell you some in -order that you may strengthen your mind on them and be prepared to -believe what reason cannot confirm.” With this the list of particular -marvels opens. - -[Sidenote: Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of Pseudo-Plato suggested -by the authorities cited.] - -At first authorities are cited a good deal; philosophers in general, -Galen, Hermes, the Arabian medical writer _filius Mesue_ or Yuhanna -ibn Masawaih,[2358] the Pseudo-Aristotle and Alexander, whose feat -is mentioned of killing the vipers with the deadly glance by erecting -mirrors for them to look themselves to death in. Less familiar -names are Architas, Belbinus--who, however, is perhaps the same as -the Belenus of the _Speculum astronomiae_, Tabariensis, a _Book of -Decoration_, and the books of Archigenes and Cleopatra, two authors -cited by Galen. These same names of authors, with precisely the same -statements cited from each and with a similar preceding argument about -proving marvels by experience, occur also in the _Liber vaccae_ or -_Liber aggregationum anguemis_ or _Liber institutionum activorum_, -ascribed to Plato and Galen,[2359] and of which we shall treat in a -subsequent chapter. As this _Liber Anguemis_ seems to have been known -to William of Auvergne and to date back in Latin translation to the -twelfth century, the _De mirabilibus mundi_ would seem to have copied -from it, especially as its citations of _Plato in libro tegimenti_ (or -_regiminis_), which I suspected had some connection with Galen before -I became acquainted with the _Liber Anguemis_, may be meant for that -work, of which both Plato and Galen are reputed authors. It should -be noted, however, that these citations and the passage introductory -to them are entirely absent from one manuscript[2360] of the _Liber -vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_. - -[Sidenote: Contents of the _Marvels_ characterized.] - -In the specific marvels ligatures and suspensions are employed to a -large extent, as are parts of animals: the skin of a wolf or dog, the -blood of a hare, bird, bat, or male turtle, the urine of a mule, and -the wax from a dog’s left ear. There are a number of cures for quartan -fever and some for other diseases, and various methods are recommended -to prevent conception. The philosophers are represented as saying that -if flies are submerged in water, they appear dead, but if they are -buried in ashes, they will rise again. _The Book of Cleopatra_ advises -a husband whose wife does not love him to wear the marrow from a wolf’s -left foot, “and she will love none but you.” - -[Sidenote: A mixture of chemistry and magic.] - -Toward the end of the treatise authorities are no longer cited and many -of the recipes aim at magical or optical illusions and the fabrication -of marvelous candles, lights, and combustibles. Some are perhaps akin -to modern fireworks and chemical rather than magical. They terminate at -any rate with a recipe for Greek fire and other explosives, including -perhaps gunpowder. Instructions are given how to make men appear -headless or with three heads or with the face of a dog or the head of -an ass or any animal you wish, or in the form of angels or black men or -elephants and great horses. Also how to write letters which can be read -only at night, how to make a chicken or other animal dance in a dish, -how to make the whole house seem full of snakes, how to make oneself -seem on fire from head to foot, how to cast an object into the flames -without burning it, how to enable men to walk through fire or carry -a hot iron uninjured, how to extinguish a lamp by opening the hands -over it and how to light it by closing them. Other recipes enable one -to catch birds in the hands, to inward off dogs and snakes, to break -a love charm, to loose bonds, see the future in sleep, catch a mole, -and force a confession from a woman. To make a man forever a eunuch -one should give him a glow-worm in drink. “And they say that if anyone -is anointed with ass’s milk, all the fleas in the house will gather on -him.” - -[Sidenote: Two specimens of combustibles.] - -The following is a specimen of the more superstitious type of recipe -for a candle or combustible. From the first part of the human head, -called _sinciput_ by the philosophers, worms are generated soon after -death. After seven days the worms become flies and after fourteen days -they are great dragons whose bite is instantaneously fatal to man. “If -you take one of these and cook it with oil and make a candle of it with -a wick of crape, you will thereby behold with great fear a great thing -and indescribable forms.” In contrast to this recipe may be quoted -one of three for making “flying fire” out of sulphur, charcoal, and -saltpeter. “Take a pound of sulphur, two pounds of willow charcoal, six -pounds of saltpeter. Grind them very fine on a marble stone. Then put -some in a cover of flying-paper or thunder-making paper. The cover for -flying should be long, thin, and well filled with that powder, but for -thunder-making short, thick, and half filled.” Here we would seem to -have gunpowder and fireworks described. - -[Sidenote: Further discussion of marvelousness in general.] - -In three of the four _incunabula_ editions of the _De mirabilibus -mundi_ which I have examined there occurs toward the close of the -treatise another passage discussing marvelousness in general, most of -which is not contained in the later editions although they briefly -indicate its main point. The author says that now he understands that -a thing is marvelous only as long as most persons cannot detect its -cause, and that when a sufficient cause for it is shown, everyone -ceases to wonder at it. He then distinguishes three kinds of marvels: -first, those of rare occurrence in which not only is the cause unknown -but the phenomenon itself marvelous from its very rarity; second, those -whose cause is unknown, although the phenomena are neither new nor -unusual; third, those whose cause is not entirely unknown but seems -insufficient to account for the result. To produce any marvelous effect -the requisites are a strong agent and a well-disposed material or -patient. Sometimes, even when the agent is weak, the unusual aptitude -of the patient compensates for this. On the basis of this scholastic -generalization the author goes on to advise that, in working any marvel -in the presence of the vulgar, one should center their attention upon -some weak factor which alone is manifestly insufficient to produce -the desired result and conceal the other contributory factors in the -experiment as far as possible. - -[Sidenote: The _Marvels_ is an experimental book.] - -If the _Marvels_ is a more theoretical treatise than the _Experiments_, -it is none the less almost equally experimental in character. Its -particular marvels are also put in the form of experiments, and even -in the more scholastic and reasoned introduction and conclusion -the author, as we have seen, constantly appeals to experience, and -closely associates experimentation and magic by such phrases as “all -the marvelousness of experiments and marvels.” He also employs the -verb _experimentari_ as well as the classical form _experiri_, thus -suggesting definitely that he means “to experiment” and not merely -“to experience.” The _De mirabilibus mundi_, in fine, as well as the -_Experimenta Alberti,_ belongs to the category of “books of experiment” -or “experimental books” which we have heard William of Auvergne and -the _Speculum astronomiae_ mention, and to which our next two chapters -will be further devoted. Some of the items of the _De mirabilibus -mundi_ will be found duplicated or closely paralleled in these other -experimental books, as we have already noted in the case of the _Liber -vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_, and as Berthelot, in editing _The Book of -Fires_ of Marcus Grecus, noted that a number of its experiments were -found also in the _De mirabilibus mundi_.[2361] - -[Sidenote: _De secretis mulierum._] - -With the later editions of the _Liber aggregationis_ and _De -mirabilibus mundi_ there was usually published a third treatise -ascribed to Albertus Magnus which had already been printed separately, -namely, _The Secrets of Women_. I am not quite sure whether this -treatise was put on the _Index Expurgatorius_ because it had become too -popular, or whether its popularity was increased rather than diminished -by this official censure. At any rate the number of extant manuscripts -shows that it was well known before the _Index_ was ever instituted. -Possibly one reason for questioning the authenticity of the two -treatises which we have just considered was the ill-repute into which -they came in consequence of being so often bound with the _De secretis -mulierum_. Also its history and the question of its genuineness or -spuriousness may throw some light, if only by way of illustration and -analogy, upon the same problem in their case. Moreover, if the _De -secretis mulierum_ is by Albert or one of his disciples, it affords -some further illustrations of the belief in occult virtue and astrology -of himself or his pupils; and if not, it at least shows what a great -interest such doctrines had for a large number of readers during the -centuries from the fourteenth to eighteenth inclusive. It is not, -however, either a book of magic or an experimental book like the two -treatises which we have just considered. - -[Sidenote: The problem of its authorship.] - -_The Secrets of Women_ was printed before 1500[2362] and in all has -appeared in about as many editions as the other two treatises. Choulant -counted over thirty editions of each.[2363] The _De secretis mulierum_ -is found in several manuscripts, chiefly of the fourteenth century, -in the medieval collection of Amplonius at Erfurt, and in numerous -other manuscripts at Munich, Berlin, Wolfenbüttel, and Vienna.[2364] -Apparently the treatise originated in Germany, whether by the hand of -Albert or not, and remained a favorite there. A translation into German -was made for the Count Palatine of the Rhine.[2365] Although sometimes -no author is named in manuscripts of the _De secretis mulierum_, in the -case of those of Amplonius of the fourteenth century one infers from -Schum’s descriptions that the work is ascribed to Albertus Magnus and -to no one else. Thus no support is given by these early manuscripts -to the theory of Simlerus, Meyer, and Borgnet that the treatise -should be attributed to Henry of Saxony, a disciple of Albert whose -writings contain many excerpts from Albert’s, because in some old -printed editions the work is assigned to him.[2366] This ascription to -Henry of Saxony has already been well characterized by V. Rose in his -Catalogue of the Latin manuscripts at Berlin as “a pure invention of -the editor”[2367] of the printed edition of 1499, which the manuscripts -clearly contradict. Thomas of Cantimpré, who devotes some chapters of -his _De natura rerum_ to gynecology has also been suggested as author -of the _De secretis mulierum_, but for no further reason.[2368] - -[Sidenote: Its citation of Albert, commentary, opening.] - -Perhaps the best reason for doubting the authenticity of _The Secrets -of Women_ is that Albert seems to be cited in it, a point already -noted by Albert’s biographer, Peter of Prussia,[2369] towards the -close of the fifteenth century. It is, however, somewhat difficult -to distinguish the text of the original treatise from that of a -commentary upon it which both accompanies and envelopes it in both -the manuscripts and printed editions. In this commentary Albert is -often cited but apparently he also is cited in the text proper, from -which, however, the commentary after a time ceases to be adequately -distinguished in those copies which I have examined.[2370] Possibly -this commentary is by Henry of Saxony or perhaps it is the commentary -by Buridan mentioned in one of the manuscripts.[2371] It states that -Albert composed the treatise at the request of a priest (_sacerdos_), -and the text itself opens with a salutation “To his dearest friend and -associate in Christ,” after which ensues a divergence, due no doubt -to the carelessness of copyists, as to the name or initial letter of -the cleric in question, as to his place of residence, and as to his -ecclesiastical rank or position.[2372] But he appears to have been a -clerk from Erfurt who was studying at Paris. The text is in the form -of a letter to this clerk and the author states that it is written “in -part in physical and in part in medical style.” He asks the clerk not -to reveal it to any depraved person and promises to send him further -writings, “when providence permitting I have toiled further in the -art of medicine.”[2373] This fact that the _De secretis mulierum_ is -addressed to a clerk who seems to be studying at Paris suggests that -in the fourteenth century bibliography of writings by Dominicans the -title, _Determinationes quarumdam questionum ad clerum Parisiensem_, -as well as another title, _Secretum secretorum Alberti_, which are -ascribed to Albert, may refer to our treatise, although the exact -title, _De secretis mulierum_, does not appear in the bibliography. - -[Sidenote: Nature of its contents.] - -_The Secrets of Women_ scarcely deserved to be placed on the Index -aside from the suggestiveness of its title and perhaps the fact that it -had become too popular. Meyer, while regarding it as spurious, rightly -remarked that it shared the common medical knowledge of the time and -displayed a strong astrological superstition, but was neither immoral -nor indecent.[2374] As a matter of fact, its astrology is little -more extreme than what we have found in Albert’s undisputed works. -The article upon him in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_[2375] -declared that _The Secrets of Women_ was certainly not by him, but -added that he makes very similar statements in his commentary on the -fourth book of the _Sentences_, where he justifies such knowledge on -the part of a priest as essential to his comprehension of what he -is liable to be told in the confessional. This fits in nicely with -the statement that Albert composed the _De secretis mulierum_ at the -request of a priest. - -[Sidenote: Medieval standards in such matters.] - -_The Secrets of Women_ may seem indecent judged by modern standards, -but so do many discussions of sexual matters by monastic recluses, -theologians, and church fathers of the distant past. Peter of -Prussia, Albert’s fifteenth century biographer, although concerned -to establish the saintly character of his hero, did not question the -authenticity of the _De secretis mulierum_ on grounds of indecency -but thought it “useful and necessary to know the facts of nature, -even if indecent.”[2376] In the thirteenth century itself we find -a number of Latin works which are very similar to _The Secrets of -Women_. There is _The Secrets of Nature_ by Michael Scot and _The -Adornment of Women_[2377] by Arnald of Villanova, a physician of the -closing thirteenth century who also wrote on Antichrist, advocated -religious reform, and gave moral and religious exhortation as well -as medical care to his royal patients in Sicily and Aragon. This -_De ornatu mulierum_ was described by the _Histoire Littéraire de -la France_ as “one of Arnald’s most curious treatises, containing -very informing details concerning the arts by which medieval women -corrected the faults of nature or repaired the ravages of age. But we -say no more on this point. We would not venture the vaguest allusion -to the contents of some paragraphs. They taught publicly in the middle -ages things which respectable persons do not know and do not wish to -know.”[2378] Those who are offended at the idea of the blessed Albert’s -discussing such matters in the thirteenth century should read the -highly vivid, realistic, and matter-of-fact account of male sexual -passion in the _Causae et curae_ of St. Hildegard,[2379] the mystic -and ascetic, the abbess and prophetess, in the twelfth century, in -which work it follows a long and circumstantial account of the process -of conception and generation.[2380] Or they might note in a sixteenth -century manuscript at Paris that an oration by John Antony Alatus, -doctor of physic, royal and apostolic knight, delivered when he was -chosen orator to Pope Innocent, is immediately followed by a _Book of -the Secrets of Women_ by the same author.[2381] Of another thirteenth -century work which attained extraordinary popularity in almost every -European language and which was most appropriately entitled, _De omni -re scibili et quibusdam aliis_--“Of everything knowable and then some,” -the _Histoire Littéraire_ says,[2382] “The mysteries of generation -engage its attention more than anything else; like _Timeo_ it is very -detailed upon this point and often borders upon obscenity.” A fourth -work, _The Secret of Philosophers_, written in French by someone who -at least pretends to be a priest and doctor of theology, is also full -of unprintable passages upon sex and generation, and yet shows also, -according to the _Histoire Littéraire_,[2383] the spirit of scientific -philosophy. - -[Sidenote: Some superstitious recipes.] - -Our treatise contains some superstitious recipes akin to those of the -_Liber aggregationis_ and _De mirabilibus mundi_. To prevent conception -for a year women are advised to drink salvia cooked with wine for three -days; or to eat a bee, “and she will never conceive.” If hairs of -menstruating women are buried in rich soil where ordure lies in winter -time, the sun’s heat will generate a long and strong serpent there the -following spring or summer. To tell if the child will be male or female -one should pour a drop of the mother’s milk or blood into pure water -from a clear spring. If the drop goes to the bottom, the child will be -a boy; if it floats on the surface, a girl. - -[Sidenote: Astrology.] - -Astrology, however, is more prominent in this treatise than such -magical modes of divination. We are told that “all the virtues which -the soul comprehends in the body it draws from the supercelestial -spheres and bodies.”[2384] From the farthest sphere come the powers -of being and moving. From the sphere of the fixed stars the foetus -receives its individual personality. From the sphere of Saturn, the -virtue of discerning and reasoning; from that of Jupiter, magnanimity; -from that of Mars, animosity and irascibility; from the sun, the power -of learning and memorizing; and so on. We are also told how each -planet, starting with Saturn, rules for a month the formation of the -various physical members of the child in the womb, and the fact that -the heart is formed during the fourth month under the rule of the -sun is regarded as disproving Aristotle’s assertion that the heart -is generated first of all the members. The influence of each planet -at birth is also recorded, and we hear of “the influences of the -planets, whom the ancients called gods of nature, over man’s body and -soul.”[2385] Also that man’s intellectual power is not from matter -but from the sky. Saturn’s child is dark, hairy, well bearded, false, -malicious, wrathful, gloomy, wears unkempt clothing, and so forth. The -influences of the twelve signs are also considered, and the _magnus -annus_ with its repetition of history and Socrates reliving his life in -the same old Athens. The author also declares that divine sacrifice, -immolation of beasts, and the like cannot be removed from the action -of the celestial bodies which mete out life and death, which perhaps -suggests that even religion and prayer are under the stars. Monstrous -births, such as twins with separate heads and hands but one trunk and -pair of feet, are ascribed to some special constellation. - -[Sidenote: Citations of Albert and Avicenna.] - -Albert is cited, perhaps by the commentator, concerning twins of whom -one had such virtue in his right side that all bolts and locks on that -side of him were opened, while the virtue of the other’s left side -closed all open doors. This was due not only to a special constellation -but to a special disposition of matter to receive its influence. Peter -of Prussia (Cap. 12) cites the same passage from Albert’s _De motibus -animalium_. Other citations of Albert in the _De secretis mulierum_ -are one from a treatise on the sun and moon and the assertion that a -child was born with organs of either sex _ita quod potuit succumbere_. -Avicenna is credited with having stated in a book on deluges that a -flood might come and drown all living creatures, but that the virtue of -the sky would generate others. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2335] I have examined at the British Museum four incunabula editions -containing both treatises and numbered (at the time of my reading) -as follows: IA.6829 (_Impressum Auguste per Johannem schauren feria -secunda post Bartholomei_, 1496); IA.46455; IA.55455 (_per me Wilhelmum -de Mechlina Impressus in opulentissima civitate Londoniarum iuxta -pontem qui vulgariter dicitur Flete brigge_); 547 b. 1. (_Imprime pour -Thomas Laione Libraire Demourant a Rouen_). The text in these editions -is nearly identical except for some divergencies in the one printed at -Rouen. The edition printed at London is perhaps the most accurate of -the four. - -I have not seen the following edition: _Liber aggregationum sive -secretorum de virtutibus herbarum, lapidum, et animalium_, Naples, -1493-1494: nor an edition printed at Antwerp, 1485, in which the _Liber -aggregationis_ is bound with the _Quaestiones naturales_ of Adelard of -Bath. The _Liber aggregationis_ was published with the _De mirabilibus -mundi_ at Frankfurt in 1614, and with the _De secretis mulierum_ at -Amsterdam in 1643 and again in 1662, but I have not seen these three -editions. - -I have seen an edition of sixteen leaves containing both _Liber -secretorum_ and _Liber de mirabilibus mundi_, Venetiis per Marchio -Sessa, 1509. Also an edition of both these treatises preceded by the -_De secretis mulierum_ and followed by the _De secretis naturae_ of -Michael Scot, Strasburg, 1607, per Lazarum Zetzerum; an edition of -Amsterdam, 1740, containing the same four treatises; and an edition -of Lyons, 1615, where the _Speculum astronomiae_ replaced the work by -Michael Scot. - -[2336] For MSS of this treatise see Appendix I at the close of this -chapter. - -[2337] S. Marco XIV, 40, 14th century, fols. 3-18, _Collectio -secretorum mirabilium_; here the title is different and no author -is named, but the Incipit, “Postquam scivimus quod opus sapientis -est facere mirabilia eorum quae apparent in conspectu luminum,” and -Valentinelli’s description show it to be the _De mirabilibus_ or some -very similar treatise. - -Florence, Palat. 719, 15th century, 101 carte, Albertus Magnus, _Opus -de mirabilibus mundi; con qualche parte volgarizzata_; “Postquam -sciuimus quod opus sapientis est facere cessare mirabilia rerum quae -apparent in conspettu hominum / Et si sterilitas sit uitio mulieris, -inuenies uermes multos in olla sua; similiter in alia, si sit uitio -uiri.” - -BN 7287, 15th century, #12, Albertus Magnus, _De mirabilibus mundi_. - -Wolfenbüttel 3713, 13th century, fols. 50-122v, _Incerti auctoris -Christiani liber de mirabilibus mundi_; as Heinemann says that this is -falsely ascribed to Solinus, it is perhaps our treatise. - -[2338] In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that in at least -two MSS the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber anguemis_, ascribed to Plato and -Galen, but perhaps having some connection with our _De mirabilibus -mundi_ (see Chapter 65, pp. 777-780), bears the alternative title, -“Liber aggregationum”; Arundel 342, fols. 46-54, “Expletus est liber -aggregationum Anguemis Platonis”; Amplon. Quarto 188, fols. 103-104, -Liber vacce seu liber aggregacionum diversorum philosophorum. - -[2339] Denifle (1882), p. 236. - -[2340] _Ibid._, p. 233, “Arnoldus Leodiensis.” - -[2341] Berthelot (1893), I, 91. Albert’s pupils would have been more -likely to write in the thirteenth century. - -[2342] _Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms_, I, xxxii. - -[2343] Hoefer, _History of Botany_, p. 92. - -[2344] HL XIX, 378. - -[2345] _Gesch. d. Botanik_, IV, 81-2. - -[2346] Sloane 342, fol. 130r, “Sicut dicit philosophus, Omnis scientia -de genere bonorum operum est cuius opera aliquando bona aliquando mala -sunt prout scientia inutilis (?) per seriem aliquod operatur.” - -Sloane 3281, fol. 17r, “Sicut vult philosophus in pluribus locis, Omnis -scientia de genere bonorum. Verum operatur eius operatio aliis bona et -aliis mala.” - -Sloane 351, fol. 25r, “Sicut vult philosophus in primo metha.” - -Digby 37, 147, and 153 (all of the 14th century) read--variant readings -in parentheses: “Quia sicut vult (147, Sicut dicit) philosophus in -pluribus locis (147 omits locis) omnis scientia de genere bonorum est -verumptamen eius operatio aliquando bona aliquando mala (aliquando mala -in 147 only) est (in 153 only) prout scientia mutatur (so 147; 37, in -natura; 153, innata) ad malum sive ad bonum finem” (147, ad bonum vel -ad malam). - -These specimens, if I have correctly read the passages, may serve to -illustrate the variation in the MSS of the treatise and the faulty -grammar and syntax or careless copying in some of them. - -[2347] “Scientia magicalis” in the printed texts and all three Digby -MSS and in Sloane 3281. Sloane 342 has “scientia ymaginabilis”--which, -it is true, is apt to amount to the same thing--and Digby 37 at first -speaks of “scientia mathi^b” (?) but later of “scientia magicalis.” - -[2348] Sloane 342, fol. 130R. - -[2349] Elitropia, Urtica, Virga pastoris, Celidonia, Provinca -(or Parvinca or Pronenta), Nepta (Nepita, Hepica), Lingua canis, -Jusquiamus, Lilium, Viscus quercus, Centaurea, Salvia, Verbena, -Melisophilos (Mellisophilos), Rosa, Serpentina. The order of the list -varies. - -[2350] Magnes, Optalmius, Onix, Cristallus, Feripendamus, Siloyces -(Felonites), Topacion, Medo, Mephytes (Monfites, Menophites), Asbestos -(Albeston, Abaston, Abaton), Adamas, Agates (Gagates), Allectorius, -Smaragdus (Esmerendus), Amastitus (Amaticus), Berillus, Celonites -(Casmetes), Corallus, _Cristallus_, Lypercol, Crisolitus, Elitropia, -Epistrites (Ephisteos), Calcidonius, Celidonius, Gagates, Iena (Gena), -Istinos, Tabrices (Grabates, Gabrates), _Crisoletus_, Geratiden, -Nicomei (Nicomay), Quiriti (Quirini), Radianus, Urtices (Urites), Lapis -lazuli, Saleractus (Salaragdus, Smaragdus), Iris, Galasia, Galiates -(Galaites), Draconites, Echites (Etidia), _Epistretes_, Jacinctus, -Orites (Origes, Oziches), Saphirus, Sannus (Sampius). - -I have italicized repetitions and included variants in parentheses. -Sloane 351 and 3281 give only 43 names; Arundel 251 has 46. - -[2351] Aquila, Taxo, Bubo, Hircus, Camelus, Lepus, Asperolus -(Aspiriolus, Capriolus, Experiolus), Leo, Foca, Anguilla, Mustela, -Upupa, Pelicanus, Corvus. Milvus, Turtur, Talpa, Merula. - -[2352] This last clause occurs in the printed text, but not in all MSS. -Digby 147, for instance, omits it. - -[2353] In Sloane 342, fol. 131v, “will make him tell everything he has -done, even though you don’t ask him.” - -[2354] _Liber aggregationis_, III, 147, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus -expertum est moderno tempore”; Digby 37, fol. 53r, Digby 147, fol. -112r, and Digby 153, fol. 178r, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus certissime -expertum est moderno tempore”; Sloane 3281, fol. 20v, “Et hoc a -fratribus nostris percepi examen.” The expression is also used in the -account of the hoopoe (_upupa_) in Digby 37, and Digby 147. - -[2355] _Liber aggreg._, II, “In libro mineralium in Aaron et Evax multa -similia alia invenies.” This passage is omitted in Sloane 351 and 3281. -Sloane 351 does not cite Evax and Aaron for the following crow story, -but Sloane 3281 does. Sloane 342 ascribes the crow story to Dacus, but -cites Aaron concerning the taxo and Evax and Aaron concerning the hare. - -[2356] Sloane 342, fol. 131v. - -[2357] Arundel 251, fol. 35r, and the printed text, which adds a few -further words. - -[2358] Strictly speaking, he seems to have been a Christian who -served the caliph and died at Cairo in 1015. His existence has been -questioned, as Arabic works do not mention him, so that some regard -him as a Latin creation of the eleventh or twelfth century. His works -were printed at Venice in Latin in 1471, 1484, 1495, 1497, 1513, 1523, -1568, and 1623. Some distinguish an earlier writer (c 777-857) of the -same name, known also as John of Damascus, whose _Aphorisms_ and some -fragments are extant. - -[2359] The following passages, for instance, are identical in Digby 71, -where the _Liber vaccae_ occurs at fols. 36-56, and in the printed text -of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ (page references are to the Amsterdam -edition of 1740). Printed text, p. 176, “Filius Mesue in lib. de -animalibus. Si induit vestimentum viri mulier foeta, deinde induat -ipsum vir priusquam abluat ipsum, recedit ab ipso febris quartana.... -Et in libro de Tyriaca Galieni ...”; also the tale of Aristotle and -Alexander killing vipers by letting them stare themselves to death in -mirrors: all found in the same order in Digby 71, fol. 37v. - -Printed text, p. 177, “In lib. decorationis, accipe quantitatem fabae -de alcihi et infunde ipsam in urinam mulae et da mulieri ad potandum, -non concipiet”: Digby 71, fol. 37v, gives the same recipe but cites -“liber de conceptione” for it; however, for another recipe, “accipe -mirram et line pollicem ... nisi solum modo te” it too, fol. 38r-v, -cites the Liber decorationis. - -P. 177, “In libro Cleopatrae, quando mulier accipit omni mense de urina -mulae pondera duo et biberit, ipsa non concipiet”; p. 184 from same, -“si mulier non delectatur cum viro suo, accipe medullam lupi de pede -sinistro et porta eam et nullum diligit nisi te”; both at fol. 39v. - -P. 178, “In libro Archigenis, quando cor leporis suspenditur super eum -qui patitur cholicam, confert”: fol. 38r. - -Pp. 181 and 184, citations from Tabariensis opening, “si suspenditur -lapis spongiae in collo pueri ...” and “si lingua upupae suspendatur -super patientem”: fols. 38v and 39v, “Tagiarensis.” - -Pp. 182 and 183, citations from “Belbinus” opening, “quando accipis -albumen ovi ...” and “qui posuerit portulacam super lectum”: fol. 39r, -“Belleg,” but the margin says “Belenus.” - -[2360] Arundel 342 (14th century), fols. 46-54, whose Incipit does -not occur in Digby 71 until fol. 40v, after all the citations in -the preceding note; see Chapter 65, Appendix I, for a more detailed -description of the MSS of the _Liber vaccae_. - -[2361] Berthelot (1893), I, 91. - -[2362] Albertus Magnus, _De secretis mulierum_, Heinr. Knoblochtzer, -Strasburg, 1480. Also at Rome, 1499; and an edition dated 1428 by -mistake for 1478; and an undated edition where it is entitled _De -secretis mulierum et virorum_. I have used the 1480 edition and the one -of Amsterdam, 1740, where it is bound with the other two works ascribed -to Albert and with Michael Scot’s _De secretis naturae_. - -[2363] _Janus_, I (1846), p. 152, _et seq._; cited by Meyer (1855), IV, -78. - -[2364] For a list of the MSS see Appendix II at the close of this -chapter. - -[2365] Wolfenbüttel 2659, 16th century, fols. 1-51, Albertus Magnus -de secretis mulierum in der deutschen Bearbeitung des D. Hartlieb, -gewidmet dem Herzog Sigmund, Pfalzgrafen bei Rhein, mit Index. - -[2366] This is also suggested by the old catalogue of Royal MSS at -Paris in connection with BN 7148, 15th century, whose contents are -described as “#1. Alberti Magni sive potius Henrici de Saxonia Alberti -Magni discipuli de secretis mulierum, #2. Anatomia totius corporis -eodem authore,” etc. - -The MS itself, however, affords no ground for this attribution to -Henry of Saxony. On its cover is written in crowded medieval letters -and with abbreviations, “De secretis mulierum alberti, Anathomia -secundum albertum, Expositio de lepra.” In the text itself this last -is stated to be a gloss on Avicenna’s work on the cure of leprosy by -master Albert “de sangaciis” or “de zanchariis” of Bologna, a doctor -of the philosophical faculty. There seems, however, to be nothing to -connect his name with the two preceding treatises which respectively -open: “Incipit liber de secretis mulierum secundum Albertum magnum,” -and “Incipit Anathomia tocius corporis secundum Albertum Magnum.” A -Nicolaus has signed his name as scribe or copyist of the _Anatomy_ and -_De lepra_. - -[2367] V. Rose (1905), p. 1238. - -[2368] Ferckel (1912), pp. 1-2, 10. - -[2369] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 159. - -[2370] Rose, however, was of the opinion that Albert was repeatedly -cited in the text proper as well as the gloss. - -[2371] Amplon. Quarto 299, end of 14th century, #7. - -[2372] See Appendix II for the wording in the various MSS. In the -edition of 1480 the form is, “Dilecto sibi in Cristo socio et amico -N. clerico de tali loco verae sapientiae et augmentum continuum vitae -habentis....” - -[2373] BN 7148, fol. 1r, “cum arte medicinali prolixius insudavero -domine concedente.” - -[2374] Meyer (1855), IV, 79. - -[2375] HL XIX, 373. - -[2376] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 165. - -[2377] A treatise with the same title is attributed to a doctor of both -laws, Antonius de Rosellis, in Canon. Misc. 6, 15th century, fols. -79-91, “Explicit tractatus brevis sed utilis super ornatu mulierum -editus a domino Antonio de Rosellis utriusque juris doctore eximio.” -In this case, however, the discussion would appear to have been more -abstract, judging from the opening words, “Queritur primo utrum ornatus -mulierum secundum morem patriae, qui videtur vanus et superfluus.” - -[2378] HL XXII, 74-75. Not even this censorious description has seduced -me into reading the treatise itself, but I suspect that it would turn -out to be not nearly so bad as this mid-Victorian, if I may apply the -adjective to a French work of corresponding date, passage would have us -believe. - -[2379] Ed. Kaiser (1903), p. 71. - -[2380] _Ibid._, pp. 59-70. - -[2381] BN 3660A, #10 and #11. If Alatus discoursed to Innocent VIII on -this theme, he might be accused of bringing coals to Newcastle. - -[2382] HL XXXI, 296. - -[2383] HL XXX, 567-93. - -[2384] Edition of 1480, biiiir. - -[2385] _Ibid._, ciiiiv, “super hominem ex parte corporis et animae.” - - - - -APPENDIX I - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS OR SECRETS - - -_In the British Museum_ - - Sloane 342, 13th century, fols. 130-131, Experimenta fratris - Alberti de ordine Praedicatorum. Text incomplete. - - Sloane 3281, end of 13-14th century, fols. 17r-21v. - Expliciunt secreta fratris Alberti coloniensis de ordine - fratrum predicatorum. - - Additional 32622, early 14th century, fols. 84v-95r, - Experimenta Alberti. - - Arundel 251, 14th century, fols. 25r-35v, Expliciunt - experimenta Alberti magni. This Explicit, written in - enormous letters, is misplaced, as the _Experiments_ of - Albert really end at fol. 35r and fol. 35v is devoted to - the twelve experiments with snake-skin translated by John - Paulinus or John of Spain. - - Egerton 2852, mid 14th century, fol. 67-, Experimenta - Alberti. - - Sloane 3564, end of 14th century, fols. 34-38, Jocalia - Salamonis, is really part of our _Experiments_, covering - twelve herbs. - - Sloane 3545, 15th century, also contains a passage on twelve - herbs which seems to be a portion of our _Experiments_. - - Royal 12-B-XXV, 15th century, fol. 248r-, Incipiunt - experimenta naturalia fratris Alberti que dicta sunt - secreta philosophorum et primo de herbis. Text incomplete. - - Sloane 351, 15th and 13th centuries, fols. 25r-38r, - Incipit liber Alberti de diversis experimentis ... / ... - Expliciunt experimenta Alberti. - - Additional 30351, later 15th century, fol. 69-, Experimenta - Alberti de herbis. - - Sloane 2320, 16th century, fols. 65-69, what the catalogue - describes as “De arte magicali tractatus” turns out to be - Albert’s experiments with herbs. - -For the contents of the treatise I have not had time to use all these -MSS, but have checked the printed editions to a considerable extent by -Sloane 342, 351, and 3281, Arundel 251, and Royal 12-B-XXV; and have -also examined the three following Digby MSS at the Bodleian. - - -_At Oxford and Cambridge_ - - Digby 37, 14th century, fols. 46-55r, “Expliciunt Secreta - fratris Alberti de Colonia, ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, - super naturis quarundam herbarum lapidum, et animalium.” - - Digby 147, 14th century, fols. 107-113v, “Secreta fratris - Alberti de Colonia, ordinis fratrum Predicatorum super - naturis quorundam herbarum et lapidum et animalium - efficacia in diversis libris philosophorum reperta et in - unum collecta.” - - Digby 153, 14th century, fols. 175-179, “Secreta fratris - Alberti ordinis fratrum Predicatorum.” - - Bodleian 177 (Bernard 2072), late 14th century, fol. - 30r-32v, an incomplete text. - - CU Trinity 1351, late 15th century, fols. 33-39 (unfinished). - - -_In Continental Libraries_ - - Berlin 968, 14th century, from England, fol. 298-, - “Incipiunt secreta Alberti Coloniensis de ordine - predicatorum.... Expliciunt secreta Alberti Coloniensis de - ordine predicatorum.” - - Bologna University Library, MS 135, 14th century, fols. - 25r-31r, “Albertus Magnus, Liber aggregationis seu liber - secretorum.” - - Library of the Dukes of Burgundy, 5275, 14th century, - Alberti Teutonici, De tredecim herbis, “Sicut dicit - philosophus ...”; 10872, 16th century, Alberti Magni - Secreta, “Occurrit ante mihi ...” which is not the usual - Incipit. - - Wolfenbüttel 2650, 14-15th century, fols. 202 (or more - likely 206, as a portion of the de plantatione arborum - seems to have been confused in the catalogue of Heinemann - with the Secreta)-213, “Expliciunt secreta Alberti de - Colonia super naturis quorundam animalium, herbarum et - lapidum in diversis libris philosophorum respersa. Deo - gratias.” - - Clermont-Ferrand 171, 13th century, 129 double column - leaves, following fol. 1, de sensu et sensato, fol. 24, de - morte et vita, and fol. 29v-116, “Explicit septimus liber - vegetabilium,” comes at fols. 116-19, “Secreta fratris - Alberti Coloniensis (seu de Saxonia, adds the modern - catalogue) de ordine Fratrum Predicatorum. Sicut dicit - philosophus in pluribus locis/aliquid utilitatis inveniat. - Expliciunt secreta.” Then follows Albert’s Meteorology. - - CLM 453, fol. 197, Alberti Magni experimenta de herbis - lapidibus et animalibus expliciunt quae a graeco et - arabico in latinum transtulit. - - CLM 444, 14-15th century, fol. 197-, Alberti Magni - experimenta de herbis, lapidibus et animalibus. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE DE SECRETIS MULIERUM - - - Amplon. Quarto 15, early 13th and beginning and middle of - 14th century, partly from Italy, partly from Münster, - and partly from Erfurt, fols. 72-83, Libellus Alberti - de secretis mulierum, “Dilectissimo in Christo socio et - amico R. de tali loco B. talis loci rector. Cum vestra - favorabilitas....” - - Amplon. Quarto 234, first half 14th century, fols. 41-53, - Libellus domini Alberti de secretis mulierum, “Dilecto - sibi socio et amico G. de tali loco clerico camerario loci - litteraliter rector salutem....” - - Amplon. Octavo 79, 1341-1350 A. D., fols. 1-12, de secretis - mulierum Alberti Magni. “Dilecto sibi in Christo socio et - amico clerico Erphordie Io. de Villa Parisiensi.” V. Rose - comments on this last, “Ioh. Parisiensis ist bekanntlich - ein Mädchen für alles!” - - Amplon. Quarto 157, early 15th century, fols. 213-6, - libellus de secretis mulierum; fols. 227-68, Commentarius - de hoc libello scriptus. The former opens, “Dilectissimo - amico et clerico de tali loco Iohannes sanctorum talis - loci. Cum vestra favorabilitas.” - - Amplon. Quarto 299, end of 14th century, #7, Commentary of - Jean Buridan on the De secretis mulierum. - - Amplon. Quarto 342, late 14th century, fols. 14-15, - Abbrevacio de secretis mulierum. - - BN 7148, 15th century, fol. 1r-, “Incipit liber de secretis - mulierum secundum Albertum magnum. Precordialissimo sibi - in Christo socio et amico er. clerico erfordensi n. - scolaris Parisius vere sapiencie necnon huius mundane - continua incrementum. Cum tua favorabilitas.” - - Berlin 976, 1419-1420 A. D., fol. 218-, “Dilecto sibi in - Christo socio et amico renoldo dilecto de tali loco - Albertus scholaris(?) talis loci vere sciencie et vite(?) - presentis mundane in Christo ieshu continua incrementa(?). - Cum vestra favorabilis ac gratuita rogavit societas - ut quedam vobis de hiis que apud mulierum naturam et - condicionem sunt occulta et secreta librum manifestem - preclarius.” - - Berlin cod. lat. quarto 385. - - Wolfenbüttel 698, 14th century (1382, 1391 A. D.), fols. - 12-13. - - Vienna 2466, 14th century, fols. 150r-158v. - - Vienna 3287, 15th century, fols. 77-87, cum commento. - - Vienna 5315, 1436-1444 A. D., fols. 147-206. - - Vienna 5500, 15th century, fols. 1-37v, a commentary on the - De secretis mulierum. - - Bodleian Library, Bernard 2063, contains an “Expositio libri - Alberti Magni de secretis mulierum.” - - CLM 8484, 15th century, fol. 159-. - - CLM 14170, 15th century, fols. 60-96. - - CLM 14654, 15th century, fols. 95-142, cum commento. - - CLM 21107, 15th century, fols. 46-71, cum commento. - - CLM 22297, 14th century, fol. 22-, “Secreta mulierum - completa Herfordie anno 1320,” fol. 43-, laudatur Alberti - tractatus de menstruis mulierum. - - CLM 22300, 13th century, fols. 61-76, de secretis mulierum, - vel Liber generationis. - - CLM 23789, 15th century, fols. 94-143, Liber de secretis - mulierum ad Nicolaum clericum Erfordiensem directus, cum - commentario. - - CLM 14574, 15th century, fols. 1-40, Aristoteles de secretis - mulierum cum praefatione Philippi interpretis ad Guidonem - de Valencia, is presumably the pseudo-Aristotelian Secret - of Secrets and not the De secretis mulierum at all. - - CLM 444, 14-15th century, fol. 208-, Alberti de ornatu - mulierum secundum totum corpus, is possibly our treatise, - although it may be the work of that title by Arnald of - Villanova. - - - - -CHAPTER LXIV - -EXPERIMENTS AND SECRETS OF GALEN, RASIS, AND OTHERS: - -I. MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL - - - Books of “Experiments” or “Secrets”--Rasis on pains in the - joints--_Medical Experiments_ of Galen or Rasis--Value - of such medical experiments--Experimenters of many - lands and cities--Who was the Latin translator?--_The - Secrets of Galen_--Addressed to “friend Monteus”--Was - he William of Saliceto’s “friend Montheus”?--Patients - and prescriptions--_Liber medicinalis de secretis - Galieni_--Rasis _On sixty animals_--Eberus _On - the virtues of animals_--Galen and Honein _On - plants_--_Secrets_ or _Aphorisms_ of Rasis--A literal - translation of its preface--Contents of its six - chapters--_Experimentator_--_Experiments_ of Nicholas of - Poland and Montpellier--His _Antipocras_--Other works of - Nicholas--Appendix I. The manuscripts of the _Medical - Experiments_--Appendix II. The manuscripts of _The Secrets - of Galen_. - - -[Sidenote: Books of “experiments” or “secrets.”] - -In this chapter we continue our examination of the pseudo-literature -current in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by considering and -distinguishing one from another a number of books of “experiments” -or “secrets” which are mainly medicinal in character, although some -are concerned especially with the properties of animals, and most of -which are attributed either to Rasis or Galen or to both of them. Some -were included in the early printed editions of their works, others are -found frequently in medieval Latin manuscripts. Some of them perhaps -really are by Rasis or have some connection with his works. In the next -chapter we shall go on to books of experiments primarily of a chemical -and magical character but some of which also are ascribed to Rasis or -Galen. - -[Sidenote: Rasis on pains in the joints.] - -It is essential to distinguish these various treatises from one another -rather carefully, because a number of different writings are ascribed -to Galen or Rasis under the common title of “Book of Experiments” -or words to that effect.[2386] Thus Gilbert of England, a medical -writer of the first half of the thirteenth century, cites “the expert -experiments from Galen’s book of experiments” for the statement that -ammonia is a remedy for pains in the joints,[2387] while a fifteenth -century manuscript at Berlin, containing various extracts from medical -works, cites “a certain experimenter of whom Rasis writes in the book -of experiments, ‘He cured many afflictions by simple medicines.’”[2388] -We may first note that the title _Liber experimentorum_ or _Experimenta -Rasi_ is sometimes applied to what is probably a genuine work of -Rasis,[2389] namely, the treatise _On diseases of the Joints_ (_De -egritudinibus juncturarum_), which appears in both early printed -editions of Rasis’ works.[2390] I think that this treatise sometimes is -found alone in the manuscripts,[2391] but more often it is followed by, -or run together with, as if they formed a single work, another treatise -or portion of a treatise which more properly deserves the title, _Book -of Experiments_. - -[Sidenote: _Medical Experiments_ of Galen or Rasis.] - -This is the book of medicines tested by experiment or of medical -experimentation[2392] or of experiments of the altar. It constantly -talks about experimenters and its contents are arranged as experiments. -The work opens with the statement that the fire which descended upon -the altar burnt the books of the king or kings, and with these numerous -medical works, including some which the author himself had begun -to compose. This faintly suggests the fire of 192 A. D. mentioned -by Galen which destroyed the shrine of Peace and the libraries on -the Palatine hill and the first two books, which had already been -published, of his own work on compound medicines. It might therefore -seem that the present treatise is that of a forger trying to pass -himself off as Galen, and in the printed text of 1481 and many -manuscripts this opening statement is introduced by the words, “Said -Galen.” In other manuscripts there is no such mention of Galen and -the treatise is ascribed to Rasis, like the work on diseases of the -joints which so often precedes it. Between these two works there -often intervenes a brief treatise or chapter on the medical treatment -of children (_Practica puerorum_ or _parvorum_). Where the _Medical -Experimentation_ comes to an end is not easy to determine. It might -seem to be brought to a close by a sentence reading, “Said Galen”--or, -“Says Rasis”--“Now we have said our say in this book which we call the -book of the experimental testing of medicines, which we have proved -and have received from wiser men.” But after some further lines of -text, which scarcely seem the beginning of a new treatise, we meet -in some editions or manuscripts with an “Explicit” or “Expliciunt -experimenta Galenis,” while in others the text proceeds without a -break, although this sentence occurs, “Now moreover, of those medicines -we have mentioned in this treatise many tested by experience, but if we -acquire yet others, we will write them at the end of this treatise.” -This would seem to indicate that the work is not yet finished. The -text then often continues, as we have said, discussing such matters -as “How to take medicine without nausea; marvelous pills according -to Rasis,” “Medicines which beautify the face,” “The composition of -many oils,” soporifics invented by Rasis to cure his own insomnia -brought on by too intense application to the medical art, and other -remedies for varied complaints. In the 1497 edition of Rasis’ works, -which does not contain the _Medical Experimentation_ proper, most -of this supplementary material was combined in four chapters under -the separate title, _The Antidotarium of Rasis_,[2393] although that -title apparently belongs to another work, while a passage on the stone -was also printed as a distinct _Tractatus Rasis de preservatione ab -egritudine lapidis_. But in the 1481 edition and such manuscripts as -I have examined these chapters or paragraphs are not separated from -the _Medical Experimentation_, and the whole finally ends, “Expliciunt -experimenta rasis.” Possibly, therefore, everything that we have noted -so far, beginning with the _Diseases of the Joints_, should be regarded -as part of a composite treatise by Rasis, whose name occurs most often -and prominently. If so, it is a very omnibus work and loosely hung -together, nor when its parts are found together are they always in the -same sequence. - -[Sidenote: Value of such medical experiments.] - -If we consider that portion which may be described as the _Medical -Experimentation_ proper, we find that the Pseudo-Galen, or whoever -he is, goes on to say that he does not grieve so much over the -loss of other books in the fire as he does concerning some medical -experiments which were there and which he had acquired from certain -good experimenters (_a quibusdam bonis viris experimentatoribus_). For -a single one of those experiments he may have had to give in exchange -several good experiments of his own or perhaps a considerable sum of -money. Sometimes a man may make a fortune and get a name for great -learning by knowing just one experiment which will cure a single -disease. Such men are very reluctant to impart their secret to others -and sometimes it dies with them. Having thus secured the reader’s -sympathy, attention, and interest, the author discloses the fact that, -despite his losses in the fire which descended upon the altar, he -still has some experiments left. He affirms that he has composed the -present work of medicines tested by his own experience or received from -good medical men, and that he does not fill up his book with familiar -remedies like tyriac and opiates, but introduces medicines whose -existence is generally unknown. - -[Sidenote: Experimenters of many lands and cities.] - -Our author then proceeds to list one medical compound after another, -giving its ingredients and method of preparation, its effects on -various parts and processes of the human body, and the diseases which -it cures. Sometimes he explains the properties and operation of each -constituent. He usually gives the name and city of the experimenter -from whom he received the prescription, but these proper names are -difficult to decipher, as they vary in the printed editions and -manuscripts[2394] and are often abbreviated and probably misspelled in -both. Thus “the experiments of Yrini pigami romani” are perhaps the -same as “the experiments of Urcanus Romanus” which Gilbert of England -cites for some pills for sciatica.[2395] However, we seem to read of -Sacon or Socion, “the greatest of Greek medical men,” whose experiments -our author gets from his disciples; of Gargeus or Agarges, who was the -lord of all the wise men of his time; of Cateline, physician to King -Lithos; and of other physicians and medicines from Egypt, Macedonia, -and Sicily. Often a number of experiments are taken from a single -authority; eleven from Gereon the Greek which our author has put to -the test and found to be truly marvelous; thirty by Athaharan, an -experimenter of the city of Abthor, some of which our author apologizes -for as well known; three compound and thirty simple medicines by -Achaason, an experimenter of the city of Athens; twenty from Zeno of -Athens, a great physician whom our author says he had never seen -because not contemporary with him, but that his master had seen him -and got good experiments from him and passed them on to our author who -has proved them oftentimes and found them true. Our author especially -esteems the physicians of the altars, who are reputed superior to other -medical practitioners because they cure by means of the sacrificial -meats. Of a medicine which he received “from an Egyptian stranger,” -he exclaims that it has not its like and that this stranger had it -from one of the physicians of the altars. These allusions suggest -that our author is a pagan, perhaps a Sabian like Thebit ben Corat, -rather than a Mohammedan or Christian, but are perhaps a dodge of the -forger like his opening allusion to the fire which descended on the -altar--suggestive of fire-worship in Rasis’ own Persia. - -[Sidenote: Who was the Latin translator?] - -In several manuscripts[2396] the treatise which we have just been -discussing is ascribed to Galen rather than Rasis and is said to have -been translated from Greek into Arabic by John or Johannitius, that -is, by Honein ben Isʿhak or Hunain ibn Ishak, or Hunayn ibn Ishaq, -a Christian Arab who died in 873,[2397] and from Arabic into Latin -by a Franchinus or Farachius or Ferranus or Ferrarus or Frarthacius. -Steinschneider[2398] has explained the spellings, Franchinus, -Farachius, Faragut, Fararius, and Ferrarius, as all applying to -Faradj ben Salem, a Jew of Girgenti who was connected after 1279 with -Charles of Anjou as a translator. This Jew, commonly called Faragius -or Feragius in the Latin manuscripts, translated the _Continens_ of -Rasis[2399] and the medical treatise entitled _Tacuinum Dei_.[2400] But -can he be identified with the Ferrarius whom De Renzi[2401] classed -among the medical writers of the school of Salerno and whose works are -found in a manuscript dated as early as the twelfth century?[2402] Also -our treatise would seem to have been translated into Latin by the first -half of the thirteenth century, since there are several manuscripts -of it from that century, and since Gilbert of England cites either it -or the Rasis on pains of the joints which regularly accompanies it. -Perhaps Faragius made a re-translation, apparently not an uncommon -occurrence in the medieval period. It is also worth recalling that -Peter the Deacon listed among the works translated by Constantinus -Africanus a _De experimentis_. Can this have been the treatise ascribed -to Galen or Rasis, and can Franchinus and the other names possibly -be corruptions of Africanus? But this is not all. Just as Galen and -Rasis have ascribed to them both medical works and works of alchemy, -so one manuscript contains “Extracts from the treatise on the art of -alchemy of brother Ferrarius,” who, like that other friar inclined to -alchemy, Roger Bacon, “directs his letter to the Pope.”[2403] Nor do -these extracts seem to agree with the treatise in alchemy of Efferarius -which has been printed,[2404] although he too is described as a monk -who addresses _apostolicum quendam_.[2405] Probably, however, the same -alchemist is meant in both cases, but it also seems probable that -in general there was more than one writer named Ferrarius. But from -the perplexing problems of who was the translator of the _Medical -Experiments_ and of the identity or different personality indicated -by Ferrarius and other similar names let us turn to another work -attributed to Galen. - -[Sidenote: _The Secrets of Galen._] - -The _Secrets of Galen_, or _The Book of Secrets_, is a treatise which -seems to occur with fair frequency in the manuscripts[2406] and has -also appeared in print.[2407] It is perhaps most found with other -works of Galen, but also occurs in manuscripts containing experimental -books, and in particular the _Medical Experiments_ of Galen or Rasis -just considered, or in manuscripts with other works of Rasis. Gerard -of Cremona is often mentioned in the manuscripts as the translator of -the work from Arabic into Latin, and such a translation is included in -the list of Gerard’s works drawn up by his associates soon after his -death.[2408] At the close of the treatise occurs this statement: “Says -Hunayn, son of Isaac, ‘This is what we have found from the books (or, -book) of Galen for the use of the religious, and it is more glorious -and blessed than his other books, and of aid, so that if another book -were lost, I could supply it from this one.’”[2409] This statement -seems to indicate that this treatise, like the _Medical Experiments_, -had first been translated from the Greek to the Arabic by Honein ben -Ishak, or perhaps rather that Honein, who was a Christian Arab, has -made a compilation of extracts from the works of Galen for the use of -persons of religion. - -[Sidenote: Addressed to “friend Monteus.”] - -The opening words of the treatise are: “You have asked me, O friend -Monteus, to write you a book on the cure of diseases in accordance -with experimental medicine and rational considerations from those -numerous cases which I have wisely tested of good men of religion in -the service of the king (or, in the observance of the Faith).”[2410] -That these remarks are not the preface of a translator but the words -of the original author is indicated not only by the fact that in at -least one manuscript[2411] they are called, “The words of Galen,” but -also by the fact that, after the writer has made a few general medical -observations and allusions to his other writings on the elements, on -aid to the limbs, on disease and accidents, and on compound medicines, -he again addresses “brother Montheus” under the caption, “Words of -Galen commending his book.”[2412] Montheus is now told that “this is -the book of great assistance which I composed in medicine, for I have -tested all its contents many times in similar constitutions.” Galen, -or whoever the writer may be, regards this treatise as supplementing -and rectifying his work on compound medicines. In yet a third passage -“friend Monteus” is told of an “alcohol” which keeps the eyes in good -condition which the writer has used.[2413] - -[Sidenote: Was he William of Saliceto’s “friend Montheus”?] - -But here occurs a difficulty, for we find William of Saliceto, the -noted Italian surgeon of the thirteenth century, opening his work on -surgery with the words, “My intention is, friend Montheus, to publish -for you a work on manual operation in order to satisfy the petition of -our associates.”[2414] It would therefore appear either that William’s -work on surgery is a mere translation of some earlier treatise, or -that William is also largely responsible for the so-called _Secrets of -Galen_, and that he has throughout added new material and remarks of -his own to those of Honein and the genuine or pseudo-Galen. This would -not surprise us, for we have evidence that he was not the first to take -such liberties with the work of Galen and Honein. Moses Maimonides, -the Jewish writer of the twelfth century, says in his Aphorisms that -in the treatise of Hippocrates on diseases of women, upon which -Galen commented and which Johannitius translated, he has found many -interpolations of a marvelous character “which some other person than -Johannitius wrote and some other person than Galen expounded.”[2415] -But it would be difficult to explain why our treatise in the -manuscripts is quite generally said to have been translated into Latin -by Gerard of Cremona, while William of Saliceto is never mentioned. - -[Sidenote: Patients and prescriptions.] - -The _Secrets_ describes the writer’s treatment of such ills as stupor -and chills, frenzy, headache, sore eyes, white growths in the eyes, -earwigs, earache, bones stuck in the throat, nosebleed. His patients -are likewise regularly mentioned and include old men of seventy and -young men of twenty, one of the sons of the kings, a king’s daughter, -“a man from the kings of Alexandria,” and another “man from kings,” -orators, and “a man from one of the villas of the Romans” who was -troubled with sciatica. He also describes pills for pains in the joints -which he made for his young friend Glaucus,[2416] a philosopher of -Beneventum.[2417] But he tells especially, as he had been asked to -do, of his prescriptions for monks and ascetics, both men and women, -who had ruined their health by their austerities.[2418] Be he Honein -or Gerard of Cremona or William of Saliceto, the writer has no false -modesty and says of his “alcohol” for the eyes, for instance, “This is -the last word, and a great secret.” His recipes, however, are the usual -sort of compounds and are limited to medicinal purposes, so that there -is no reason for us to dwell upon them further. - -[Sidenote: _Liber Medicinales de Secretis Galieni._] - -From its title one might think that a _Medicinal Book of the Secrets -of Galen_ in an Oxford manuscript[2419] would turn out to be the -same treatise as the foregoing, but upon examination it is found to -consist chiefly of the medicinal virtues of animals and parts of -animals, beginning with man. The names of the animals are given in -a foreign language, which is probably meant to be Arabic, and the -text is accompanied by a series of spirited little miniatures of the -animals in the margin, ending with the transmarine eagle. The work -rather resembles that of Sextus Placitus on medicine from animals -which precedes it in this manuscript and which we have discussed in an -earlier chapter.[2420] The closing chapters of our text deal with the -four humors. The superstitious and fantastic uses to which the parts -of animals are put is indicated by the opening words of the treatise, -“Bind on the tooth of a dead man.” - -[Sidenote: Rasis _On sixty animals_.] - -A very similar work on sixty animals is ascribed to Rasis in the 1497 -edition of his works, and Albertus Magnus cites “the book of sixty -animals” to the effect that the flesh of the dog is hot and dry.[2421] -In reality in the treatise as it has reached us, only fifty-six -animals are discussed, the first being the lion, and the fifty-fifth -and fifty-sixth, man and woman.[2422] Most of the animals treated are -equally familiar, but some names have been left in Arabic. The work -does not describe the animals and their habits, still less draw moral -lessons or spiritual illustrations from them, but limits itself to -their medicinal properties, or in a few cases, such as ants or mad -dogs, to remedies against their bites. Much of the contents is of the -same sort as Pliny’s discussion of the medical virtues of parts of -animals, but the few authorities cited are Arabic or Greek,--Aristotle, -Dioscorides and Galen. The work is very superstitious. With the right -eye of a hedge-hog and other ingredients an eyewash is made which is -supposed to enable one to see in the dark, while if the left eye of the -same animal is fried in oil and a little of it inserted in a person’s -ear on the point of a stylus, he is supposed to drop off to sleep at -once.[2423] Eating a frog is recommended as a restraint upon sexual -passion and upon conception.[2424] It is said that everyone will be -terrified who enters a house that has been sprinkled with the water in -which the animal called _iaroboath_ has been drowned.[2425] If a man’s -tooth and a hoopoe’s wing are suspended over a sleeper, he will not -awake until they are removed.[2426] To cure tertian or quartan fever -one places on the back of one’s neck with the left hand a powder made -of a spider who has been captured while in the act of catching flies, -pulverized, and stored in linen.[2427] - -[Sidenote: Eberus _On the virtues of animals_.] - -Very similar to, indeed perhaps in large measure identical with one -or the other of the two foregoing treatises or with the _De medicina -ex animalibus_ of Sextus Placitus, judging from the description of -it given by Valentinelli, is a work on the virtues of about seventy -animals in a manuscript of the fifteenth century at Venice.[2428] Like -the work of Sextus Placitus it opens with “the little beast which some -call the _taxo_.” - -[Sidenote: Galen and Honein _On Plants_.] - -To Galen was ascribed not only the work on the occult medicinal virtues -of animals already noted, but also a like treatise on plants.[2429] -It was translated from the Arabic into Latin by _Grumerus Index de -Placentia_ (Grumerus, a judge of Piacenza) and Master Abraham the -physician, and is in the form of a Gloss or Commentary by Honein -ben Ishak or Johannitius, whom we again encounter as the translator -or adapter of Galen from the Greek. Honein states that Galen’s wish -in this work was to set down some medicines of marvelous properties -which he had collected in the course of his lifetime, and which Honein -too has often put to the test, “and experience never fails.” These -medicines are not commonly known, because Galen wished them divulged -only to men of wisdom and discretion. Others, however, before Honein -have translated the treatise from Greek into Arabic, and a preceding -glossator has dealt with it in a way of which Honein does not approve -and which he intends to rectify, including only what is true and what -he has himself tested. Forty-six specimens are then treated, of which a -few are stones or parts of animals rather than plants.[2430] Honein’s -gloss is mainly devoted to explaining what plant or tree Galen had in -mind in each case, or, where Galen does not give an exact name, to -stating its Arabic equivalent. In a few cases the opinion of Abraham -the Jew is briefly added. - -[Sidenote: _Secrets_ or _Aphorisms_ of Rasis.] - -To Rasis is attributed not only a work on animals much like that -ascribed to Galen; there also is a _Book of Secrets in Medicine_ -printed under his name.[2431] But to avoid confusion with the two books -of secrets ascribed to Galen, we shall henceforth speak of Rasis’ -treatise by its alternative title of _Aphorisms_. The following is a -literal translation of its preface, interesting for its attitude to -science and books, and both original and at the same time occasionally -a bit incoherent and abrupt or strange and mystical in tone. Perhaps -these characteristics are to be partly accounted for by awkwardness of -the Latin translator in grappling with the Arabic, or, if we assume -that the work is by Rasis, to the coming on of old age, or perhaps -they are merely the mystic and boastful style characteristic of -pseudo-literature. - -[Sidenote: A literal translation of its preface.] - -“I have collected and classified diseases, and I have shown cures and -the natures of cures from the canons of the ancients and from treatises -and chapters to the best of my ability; and I beseech God to supply me -with the additional strength and power to complete this book and make -it a useful one. Already we have completed a compilation of things -tested by experience in the arts, namely, philosophy and physics, two -subjects in which words and facts are infinite. And men can never make -an end of those subjects (_Nec etiam homines in eis complementum habere -possunt_.) But our intention in this book is to show things useful to -humanity. And in this we differ from the ancients who hid things that -were essential to know and deprived of light the path of science and -virtue. And witness to this point is our big book of divine science, -which is the Book of Spirituals, and our book Of the Spirit. And our -discussion in the Book of Diets, namely, how indulgence may be removed -from these for all time. And I have condensed the language so that one -can get to the point more easily. And I expect retribution from God who -will furnish me aid. For without Him nothing has effect.” - -“Says Abu Bekr: the wise man is not occult and in every age, despite -frauds and concealments of the paths of science and of the ancient -arts, compilers have collected their doctrines and discovered their -ways whether hidden or manifest. And this book of ours is first and -is secret and is handy. And show it not to undeserving persons. In it -is contained reason, it adds something to the ancients, and as long -as there shall be days and years I shall live and gain through this -book of mine, and I have no doubt that this book of mine is something -secret. For it has been my plan to tell some secrets in it, both in -prognostics of the future and in confidential information and some of -my own cases. Said confidences I acquired and collected from the books -of sages who had not perfectly revealed them. And from what I have -experienced myself and acquired by my reason. And witness thereof is -my rational language, and I have spoken in collections of medicines -and foods, and I want to strike a golden mean between these and free -my words entirely from the accidental. And know that this is the pith -of all utility and the pearl of clarity which brings light out of -darkness. Which book the ancients would have praised had they lived -till now, and I have divided it into six chapters without superfluity; -with comprehensiveness and brevity I now begin to speak with my -excessive virtue and occult science.” - -[Sidenote: Contents of its six chapters.] - -The first chapter on prognostics deals with the weather as a sign or -cause of disease and also with bodily symptoms. The next two chapters -on experiments, confidences, and Rasis’ own cases, contain some close -resemblances to two treatises already described in this chapter, -listing marvelous oils, plasters, confections, and suffumigations like -the latter part of the _Experimental Medicines_ of Galen or Rasis, -making the same citations of Haly, and giving Rasis’s prescription for -his own insomnia; and also the alcohol (here spelt _alcofol_) for white -growths of the eyes of the _Secrets of Galen_, which is again called -“the last word” (_Scias quod hoc est ultimum_). The fourth chapter -speaks of the great force of occult virtues in natural substances, the -difficulty of measuring and comprehending such occult virtue, and the -consequent need of moderation and caution in the use of medicines and -the danger of rash experiment. The author’s advice that “of medicines -everyone should take less” was certainly sound amid the extravagances -of ancient and medieval pharmacy. He gives an interesting list of drugs -which may safely be employed.[2432] The fifth chapter, after a brief -introduction by Rasis, consists of the _Secrets_ or _Prognosticon_ of -Hippocrates, which we have already met following or in the midst of the -_Experimental Medicines_ of Galen. The sixth chapter is a collection -of miscellaneous aphorisms such as that in the practice of medicine -“Laymen and those would judge by their intuition and young men who -have not had practical experience are no better than murderers,”[2433] -and that “women who are accustomed to sleep a great deal on the right -side will hardly bear a female child.” In both the sixth and second -chapters the need of a doctor’s knowing astronomy and the importance of -observing the planets and the moon are touched on. Appeals for divine -aid and the rendition of thanks to God occur occasionally throughout -the treatise. - -[Sidenote: _Experimentator._] - -Withington states in his _Medical History_ that Rasis was sometimes -called _Experimentator_. Now among the many medieval “experimental -books” was one which is cited simply as _Experimentator_ by two -thirteenth century writers, Petrus Hispanus, afterwards Pope John -XXI, in his _Thesaurus Pauperum_,[2434] a medical compendium of great -popularity, and Thomas of Cantimpré in his encyclopedia entitled _De -natura rerum_.[2435] In his preface Thomas describes _Experimentator_ -as “a book without name of the author, which I have heard was compiled -in modern times.”[2436] No manuscript of a work so entitled seems to be -extant. The citations of Thomas and Peter from the work deal largely -with animals, their habits and semi-human characteristics, and the -virtues medicinal and otherwise of various parts of their carcasses. -_Experimentator’s_ prescriptions included eating the heart of a wolf -and the gall of a bear, taking a powder compounded of the burnt hoof -of an ass, the ashes of a weasel, and swallows burnt alive, touching -an aching tooth with that of a dead man, and even more disgusting -remedies. Some of these suggest the _Sixty Animals_ of Rasis, but it -will be remembered that that treatise did not touch upon the habits -of the animals but only their medicinal uses. Moreover, Peter of -Spain cites herbs and other non-animal remedies from _Experimentator_ -for paralysis of the tongue, toothache, and constipation, while -Thomas of Cantimpré repeats “the properties of air according to -_Experimentator_.” Thomas does well to speak of the book as _compiled_ -in modern times, for many of its statements have a familiar sound -and suggest use of such authors as Pliny and Marcellus Empiricus. -For instance, Thomas cites _Experimentator_ for the account found -in Pliny’s _Natural History_--and described by Pliny himself as an -“experiment”--of marking a dolphin’s tail in order to learn its age, if -it should chance to be caught again. On the whole, if neither Peter nor -Thomas knew who wrote the _Experimentator_, it is probably idle for us -to make surmises, unless possibly it may have been by Thomas himself, -whose authorship even of the _De natura rerum_ is seldom recognized -either in the manuscript catalogues or in the manuscripts themselves. - -[Sidenote: _Experiments_ of Nicholas of Poland and Montpellier.] - -Of medieval collections of experiments which are medicinal in character -we may further include some which do not fall under the head of -pseudo-literature but are ascribed to a writer of the thirteenth or -early fourteenth century.[2437] Such are “The Experiments of Brother -Nicholas, a physician of Poland, who was at Montpellier thirty (or, -twenty) years and who had such efficiency (or, was a man of so great -experience) that neither before him is there believed to have been his -like, nor is it hoped for the future, as is patent in his marvelous -works in divers provinces and regions in easily expediting great -and sudden cures.”[2438] Nicholas is here spoken of as “brother” -because he was a Dominican friar. In one manuscript this Nicholas of -Montpellier is further called “de Bodlys.” Serpents are used a great -deal in his experiments. Thus to break the stone in the reins or -bladder he recommends that the patient drink a little “snake-dust” -(_pulverem serpentis_)[2439] in wine early in the morning and late at -night. Or a pulverized toad or scorpion would be even more efficacious. - -[Sidenote: His _Antipocras_.] - -In one manuscript the _Experiments_ of Nicholas are immediately -followed by his _Antipocras_ or _Book of Empirical Remedies_.[2440] -This work, in form a poem with a prose prologue, in content is in part -an invective against the physicians of the Hippocratic school, who, -whether on rational grounds or from motives of professional jealousy, -have questioned the marvelous cures which Nicholas has wrought by -unusual pills or drugs, or by external applications in rings and -brooches. In part it is a listing of these empirical methods, ligatures -and suspensions, employment of occult virtues and amulets, by means of -which Nicholas asserts that he has wrought so many marvelous cures, -and which he declares are based on repeated experiment and solid -experience, whether they seem reasonable _a priori_ or not. He assails -the authority of Galen who said, “Physician, how can you cure, if you -are ignorant of the cause?” He makes much of the doctrine of occult -virtues in many things, and “more in despised than in precious and -famous things.” As authorities in his support he cites Tobias, Ptolemy, -Hermes and “master Albert.” The magnet, as usual, is brought forward as -a proof of the existence of occult virtue. - -[Sidenote: Other works of Nicholas.] - -A treatise entitled, _Fates of the Stars_, is ascribed to a Nicholas of -Poland in a manuscript at Munich, but if the date given, 1477 A. D., be -that of composing the treatise, the author is evidently too late to be -our Nicholas.[2441] Of chemical experiments attributed to some Nicholas -we shall speak in the following chapter. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2386] For instance, the following 14th century MSS at Munich and Paris -contain _Experimenta_ ascribed to Rasis along with his _Divisiones_, -_Antidotarium_, _Synonyms_, etc. CLM 13045, fol. 143; 13114, fol. -247; BN 6902, 6903, 6904, 6906. It is necessary to examine the MSS to -tell what the work or works thus designated may be, which I have been -unable to do in the case of the MSS at Munich. It is also impossible -to tell what _Experimenta_ of Rasis are meant in numbers 1227 and 1229 -(James) of the medieval catalogue of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury. -Other extant MSS which cannot be identified from the notices of them -in the catalogues are: Wolfenbüttel 479, 15th century, fols. 304-16, -Experimenta Rasis, and 3175, 15th century, fols. 181v-6v, Experimenta -magis famosa et magis usualia ex libro experimentorum generali Rasis; -Vienna 2364, 14th century, fols. 153-73, Rhasis, Experimenta, and 2387, -14th century, fols. 137-9, quaedam experimenta translata a “Guirardo.” - -[2387] Gilbertus Anglicus, _Compendium medicinae_, Lyons, 1510, fol. -328v. - -[2388] Berlin 908, fol. 62. - -[2389] In the Arabic list of 232 titles ascribed to Rasis published by -Ranking (1913), numbers 17 and 18 are works on gout. - -[2390] Milan, 1481; and Bergamo, 1497. - -[2391] Apparently so in CLM 12, 15th century, fols. 277-84; which, -however, I have not personally examined. The opening words of the _De -egritudinibus iuncturarum_ are, “Dicit Rasis volo in hoc capitulo -dicere medicinas que sunt necessarie in doloribus iuncturarum.” - -[2392] See Appendix I for a list of the MSS of it. - -[2393] At fols. 98v-101v: cap. 1, “De aptitudine medicinarum ut sine -horribilitate possint sumi secundum rasim pillule mirobalanorum”; cap. -2, “De medicinis que ornant faciem”; cap. 3, “Compositio multorum -oleorum”; cap. 4, containing remedies for various complaints, opens, -“Summa istius capituli. Post electionem specierum instrumentorum” and -ends, “cum sirupo cit(r?)oniorum.” But in both the edition of 1481 and -St. John’s 85, fol. 176v, recipes to induce sleep are headed “Chapter -Three.” - -[2394] For instance, the first compound is described in the 1481 -edition of Rasis as “ab afloīa experimentatore qui erat de civitate -teriste,” while in Arundel 115 we read “ab astarō experimentatore qui -erat de civitate tetith.” - -[2395] _Compendium medicinae_ (1510), fol. 328v. - -[2396] See Appendix I. Unfortunately I have not seen these particular -MSS. - -[2397] E. G. Browne (1921), pp. 24-26, repeats some good stories -concerning Hunayn ibn Ishaq from al-Quifti and the Fihrist, and says -(p. 26) “Generally, as we learn from the Fihrist, Hunayn translated the -Greek into Syriac, while (his pupil) Hubaysh translated from Syriac -into Arabic, the Arabic version being then revised by Hunayn, who, -however, sometimes translated directly from Greek into Arabic. All -three languages were known to most of these translators, and it is -probable, as Leclerc suggests, that whether the translation was made -into Syriac or Arabic depended on whether it was primarily designed for -Christian or Muslim readers.” - -Concerning Honein see further Suter (1900), pp. 21-23. - -[2398] Steinschneider (1905), p. 14. In Virchow’s _Archiv_, XXXIX -(1868) 317-23, he holds that a prologue by Farachius opening, “Friend, -may God grant you noble morals,” should precede the _Incipit_, “Said -Galen, ‘The fire that descended,’” but in the next chapter we shall -find reason for believing that this prologue belongs rather with the -_Liber Vaccae_, also ascribed to Galen and Honein. - -[2399] In two Vatican MSS of the 14th century, Urbin. Lat. 237 and 239, -are respectively books i-xi and xiv-xxv of the _Elhâwi_ (_El-hauy_) -of Rasis, which Feragius or Faragut is said to have translated from -Arabic into Latin at the mandate of King Charles at Naples. “Explicit -translatio ... facta de mandato excellentissimi regis Karoli ... -per manus magistri feragii Iudei filii magistri Dalem de aggregendo -(Salez de Agrigento) ... die lune xiii februarii septimae indictionis -apud Neapolim.” The variant readings in parentheses are from two 15th -century volumes of 537 and 471 double columned leaves respectively -which form MS 1091 in the library of the University of Bologna. - -[2400] Ed. J. Schott, Strasburg, 1532. The work divides into two -parts, _Tacuinum morborum_ and _Tacuinum sanitatis_. MSS are numerous -but often anonymous: Vienna 2322, 13th century, 26 fols.; Bologna -University Library 389, 14th century, 43 fols.; etc. In two Oxford MSS -of the 14th century, Magdalen 102 and Corpus Christi 65, and in Vendôme -233, 15th century, fol. 81, the work is said to have been translated -from Arabic into Latin “by the hands of master Faragius for King -Charles.” But in S. Marco XIV, 50, 14th century, it is said to have -been translated under Manfred (1258-1266), “Liber Tacuini translatus -de arabico in latinum in curia illustrissimi regis Manfredi scientiae -amatoris.” The Arabic original, Taqwímu’s-Sihha, was written by Ibn -Butlán who died about 1063 A. D. - -[2401] _Collectio Salernitana_, 1852-1859, I, 363, 369. - -[2402] Library of the Dukes of Burgundy (Brussels) 4567, 12th century, -Ferrarii, Tractatus de medicina, opening, “In tractatu nostro primo -videam.” But perhaps the MS is dated too early in the catalogue of -1842. In Digby 197, 13th century, fols. 57-69, opening “Febris ut -testatur Jo (annitius) est calor innaturalis,” and closing, “in qua -bullierint ar. dragna (?) liquir, et succus eius. Expliciunt febres M. -Ferrarii feliciter,” may be another translation from Honein. Coxe says -that there is another copy of it among the MSS of All Souls College. - -[2403] Digby 164, early 15th century, fol. 17, “Extracta de tractatu -fratris Ferrarii super arte alkymie. Dirigit epistolam suam Papae et -primo ponit artis impedimenta.” The same MS, as a matter of fact, -contains (fols. 8-12v) Bacon’s letter on the secret works of art and -nature and the nullity of magic. - -[2404] _Verae alchimiae doctrina_, Basel, 1561, pp. 232-7; also in -Zetzner, _Theatrum chemicum_, III (1613), 128-37. - -[2405] Steinschneider (1905), p. 14. - -[2406] They will be found listed in Appendix II to this chapter. - -[2407] In the edition of Galen’s works of Venice, 1609, VIII, _Spurii -libri_, fols. 101v-108v. - -[2408] Boncompagni (1851), pp. 3-4, following Cod. Vatican 2392, fols. -97v-98r. - -[2409] The Latin of the sentence reads in BN 7046, 13th century, fol. -54v, as follows, except that in parentheses variant readings are added -from Balliol 231, early 14th century, fol. 45r, in Roman type, and from -Berlin 166 (Phillips 1672) 14th century, fol. 34, in italics. - -“Inquit hunai (hunayn, _ymahin_) filius ysaac. Istud (id, _illud_) -est quod invenimus ex li. (libris, _libris_) utilitatis religiosorum -(religiosioris) galieni (Gal’) et est gloriosioris benedictionis quam -libri eius alii et iuvamenti (Berlin 166 omits _et iuvamenti_) quod si -ceciderit alius liber ab isto transferam (transferrem) ipsum.” - -Berlin 166 then adds another sentence: “Quamcunque medicinam non dixi -in hoc meo libro queratur in antidotario Unaym filii ysaac et illic -invenietur,” which indicates that Honein regards the _Secrets_ as his -own book and more than a mere translation of Galen. - -[2410] “Rogasti me, amice montee, ut scriberem (describerem) tibi -librum in medicatione egritudinum secundum experimentum medicinale et -consideraciones rationales ex eis que expertus sum in multis sapientum -religiosorum bonorum in cultu regis (legis).” - -[2411] Berlin 166. - -[2412] Reminding us of “the prologue of a certain doctor in -commendation of Aristotle” in _The Secret of Secrets_. - -[2413] BN 7406, fol. 49r; Balliol 231, fol. 40v. - -[2414] See the following MS at Venice, S. Marco XIV, 58, 14th century, -fols. 41-93, Mag. Guillelmi de Saliceto, chirurgiae tractatus quinque. -“Propositum est, amice Monthee, tibi edere librum de operatione manuali -ut satisfactio respondeat peticioni sociorum....” - -[2415] From a Latin translation of the Aphorisms of Moses ben Maimon -printed in 1489 (number IA.28878 in the British Museum), Particula 24. - -[2416] In the same MS, Balliol 231, fol. 389v, is Galen’s _Ad Glauconem -nepotem suam_ (desinit in libro VII). - -[2417] “Et eius regio benevetiti”; this suggests Gerard of Cremona or -William of Saliceto rather than Honein. - -[2418] This feature of the treatise reminds one somewhat of the -treatise _On Melancholy_ ascribed to Constantinus Africanus, see above, -I, 752. - -[2419] Rawlinson C-328, 15th century, fols. 147r-154v, “Liber -medicinalis de secretis Galieni. Dens hominis mortui ligetur ... / ... -alterius studiosus perpendet.” - -[2420] See above, Chapter 26. - -[2421] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 18, “Dicitur autem in libro sexaginta -animalium quod caro canis calida est et sicca.” - -[2422] In the table of contents of the printed edition of 1497 the work -is spoken of as “De proprietatibus iuvamentis et nocumentis sexaginta -animalium”; in the page headings it is briefly called, “De sexaginta -animalibus”; but at the opening of the work itself we read, “Liber -Rasis philosophi filii zacharie de proprietatibus membrorum et de -utilitatibus et nocumentis animalium aggregatus ex dictis antiquorum -secundum quod probaverunt antiqui, et continet sermones 56.” - -A “liber Rasis et diascorides de naturis animalium” is listed in the -fifteenth century catalogue of MSS of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. - -[2423] Cap. 23. - -[2424] Cap. 30. - -[2425] Cap. 33. - -[2426] Cap. 36. - -[2427] Cap. 54. - -[2428] S. Marco XIV, 45, written in 1467, fols. 1-56, Eberi de -virtutibus animalibus, opening, “De virtutibus quae sunt in animali -quod dicitur taxus vel thaximus.” Valentinelli, V, 119, infers that the -author’s name is Eberus from the statement at fol. 29, “at haec est -quam ego Eberus probavi.” - -[2429] In the Venice, 1609 edition of Galen’s works, VIII, _Libri -spurii_, fols. 120-22, Galeno adscriptus liber de plantis ... per -dominum Grumerum Iudicem de Placentia et per magistrum Abraham medicum -de Arabico in Latinum Marsiliae translatus ... Glossa Humain, idest -Ioannitii filii Isaac. - -[2430] See 32) _lapis qui vocatur generans aquileum_, 34) _lapis -demoniacus_, 35) the liver of a bird, 36) the brain of a bird, 40) -_lapis Indaicus_, 43) _piscis qui vocatur provocator menstruorum_, 46) -asphalt. - -[2431] In the edition of 1481 it occupies 21 pages, “Liber rasis -de secretis in medicina qui liber amphorismorum apellatur,” and -divides into six chapters: I) de pronosticis rerum futurarum, II) de -experiments et confidentiis, III) de casibus qui ipsi rasi acciderunt, -IV) de dietis medicinis et cibariis, V) de verbis ypocratis, VI) de -scientiis et intellectibus sine quibus rectus medicus esse non potest. - -[2432] “He sunt medicine salve cognite mirobolanis citrini kebuli -belerici emblici fudi berberum, reubarbarum, draganti, gummi arabicum, -aloes, acatia, cassia fistula, terrantabin cinnamomum, amomum -squinantum, calamus aromaticus cos costus darsesahon tralacta mastix -sandaraca karabe, lignum aloes, muscus, camphora, ambra, gariofilii -sandali spodium faufel carui nanoti sethet nux mascata, bolus armenus, -neika-beri, lapides sarri, ruzubet bezari thenet, lapis lazuli, lapis -iacinthus. Sisimbrium, menta, almarda dux fumus terre fenigemisch -seleni lilium album, lilium celi, nenufar celeste et palliodium -aliothinum rose viole virgeris ladion idest oculus bovis, virga -pastoris, iusquiamus. Iste sunt tres res medicinarum in quibus non -evenit timor et si cum cera vel oepo vel zucharo misceantur, raro vel -numquam egro lesionem efficiunt magnam. Numquam enim vidi vel audivi -quod aliquis qui his rebus medicaretur magnam lesionem inferret egris.” - -[2433] Layci et qui ex ingenio proprio volunt iudicare et iuvenes qui -res non sunt experti interfectores existunt. - -[2434] See Chapter 58. - -[2435] See Chapter 53. - -[2436] Invenies etiam librum quemdam suppresso auctoris nomine quem -modernis temporibus compilatum audivi cuius sententias ubicunque -repereris ex hoc cognosces quod hoc nomen Experimentator subsequentibus -invenies praelibatum. - -[2437] Since on the one hand he cites “master Albert”, while on the -other hand there are several fourteenth century MSS of his work. - -[2438] Sloane 1754, 14th century, fols. 28r-30r, “Experimenta Fratris -Nicholay de Polonia qui fuit in Monte Pessulano 30 annis,” etc. - -Berlin 166 (Phillips 1672), 14th century, fol. 21, “Incipiunt -experimenta de animalibus fratris nicholai de polonia,” etc. The -variant readings in parentheses are from this MS. - -CLM 534, 14th century, fol. 75, Experimenta fratris, etc., medici de -Polonia qui fuit in Montepessolano. - -Sloane 964, 15th century, fol. 82, “Experimentum M. Nicholai de Bodlys -qui fuit de Monte pessulano.” - -St. Augustine’s, Canterbury 1846 (now missing), Experimenta Nicholai de -polonia. - -Wolfenbüttel 3489, 14-15th century, fols. 83-135v, Experimenta magistri -cancellarii de Monte Pessulano, seems too long to be our treatise; -more likely it is the same as BN 7056, Experimenta magistri Gilberti -Cancellarii Montepessulani. - -[2439] I assume that the expression refers to the reptile itself -reduced to a powder rather than to the dust which it has crawled over. - -[2440] Berlin 166, 14th century, fols. 23-26, “Incipit antipocras -quem composuit et similiter noncupavit frater nicholaus fratrum -predicatorum, alio autem nomine appellatur liber empericorum.” I have -not seen the MS, but follow the description by V. Rose (1893) I, 371-2. - -In the 15th century catalogue of MSS in St. Augustine’s Abbey, -Canterbury, the Experiments follow the Antipocras in MS 1604, -Collecciones Michael’ de noragte.... Antipocras I liber empericorum -fratris N. experimenta fratris N de polonia. - -[2441] CLM 647, 15th century, fols. 51-71, Stellarum fata, anno 1477 -per Nicolaum de Polonia. Diels and Sudhoff have engaged in controversy -over the _Antipocras_ of Nicholas of Poland, which Sudhoff published, -_Archiv f. Gesch. d. Med._, IX (1915) 31-52, and Diels republished, -_Sitzb. d. Kgl. Preus. Akad. d. Wiss._, (1916) pp. 376-94. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS - - -The _Medical Experimentation_ is printed in the 1481 edition of Rasis -but not in that of 1497. It also is found in old editions of Galen, -such as that of Venice, 1609, VIII, Spurii libri, fols. 108v-113v; and -that of Renatus Charterius, Paris, 1679, X, 561-70. - -It occurs frequently in the MSS. In the following list I have -endeavored to indicate the other treatises accompanying it, since they -are perhaps all sections of one work. I note first those MSS which I -have personally examined. - - St. John’s College 85, late 13th century, fol. 157v-, - “Incipiunt experimenta rasi. Dicit rasis volo in hoc - capitulo dicere medicinas que sunt necessarie in doloribus - iuncturarum scilicet medicinas laxativas” ... (the Incipit - of the De egritudinibus iuncturarum): fol. 167r-, “De - experimentis altaris. Dixit G. quod ignis qui descendit - ...” (the Incipit of the De medicinis experimentatis): - fol. 172v-, “De aptatione medicine ut sine horribilitate - possit sumi secundum Rasim pillule mirabiles”: fol. - 178v, “Expliciunt experimenta rasis. amen dicant omnia.” - Steinschneider (1905), p. 12, was in error in describing - the “experiments” of Rasis in this MS as alchemistic; - nor do I understand why he said (1906), p. 47, “Ein - medizinisches liber Experimentorum von Razi ist sonst kaum - bekannt; wenn St. Johns Coll. 85 ein solcher enthält, so - ist wohl der Titel neu,” especially since he himself some - pages later (1906), p. 85, associates with the name of - Rasis a lib. Experimentorum in Wolfenbüttel 479, fols. - 304-16. - - Arundel 115, 1327 A. D., fol. 108v-, Practica puerorum; - fol. 110-, Tractatus de iuncturis dolorum curatione; fol. - 116v-, Liber experimentorum; fol. 121r- De aptatione - medicine ut sine horribilate sumi secundum Rasim pillule - mirabiles; fol. 125r, “Expliciunt experimenta rasys. deo - gratias.” - - Sloane 1933, 13th century, fol. 99r-, Antidotarium of - Rasis, some 50 or 60 chapters from diseases of the scalp - to sciatica, opening and closing, “Iam quidem pervenimus - ad expositionem resonis ... / ... imspissetur deinde - repone. xplicit antidotarium rasi”: fol. 105v-, “Incipiunt - experimenta rasi. Dixit rasis volo in hoc capitulo....” - The MS is imperfect, if not mutilated: at fols. 111-12 it - seems to run into the Practica puerorum and at fol. 114v - stops in the midst of the De medicinis experimentatis. - - BN 7046, 13th century, following the Divisiones and - Antidotarium of Rasis come at fol. 157-, Rasis de - iuncturarum egritudinibus; fol. 165-, Practica puerorum; - fol. 169-, Experimenta seu ipsius seu Galeni. - - BN 6906, 14th century, following the Antidotarium, at fol. - 164r-, de iuncturarum egritudinibus; fol. 175r, “Explicit - practica parvorum. Incipiunt experimenta;” fol. 188r, - “Explicit experimenta rasis.” - - Other Paris MSS where the Diseases of the Joints and Medical - Experiments are joined together as a single work are BN - 6902, fols. 106-129v; 6903, fols. 75r-92r; 6904, fols. - 141r-159v: all of the 14th century. In BN 6902, fol. - 117r, the caption, “Here Rasis begins to tell various - experiments which he acquired,” precedes the usual Incipit - of the Medical Experiments, “Said G(alen) Fire descended - on the altar....” In the other two MSS the usual Incipit - occurs alone and there is no rubric or break in the text - to mark it. - -The following MSS I have not seen: - - BN 6893, 14th century, #3 Rhazis experimenta de doloribus - juncturarum; #4 Galeni liber de medicinis experimentatis - sive experimentatio medicinalis e graeco sermone in - arabicum a Johannicio et ex arabico in Latinum a Magistro - Franchino conversa. - - Balliol 285, 13th century, fol. 198, Liber Galieni de - medicinis experimentatis qui intitulatur experimentatio - medicinalis quem transtulit Johannes de Greco in Latinum - (Arabicum?) et magister Farachius de Arabico in Latinum; - Incipit, “Dixit Galenus ignis qui descendit....” - - CLM 372, 15th century, fol. 185-, Galeni liber ... - “experimentatio medicinalis” quem transtulit Johannicius - de Greco in arabicum et mag. Ferranus de arabico in - latinum. - - CLM 666, 15th century, fol. 288-, Excerptum ex Galeni libro - de medicinis experimentatis a magistro Ferraro translato. - - CLM 19901, 15th century, fol. 209-, Liber Ga(leni) de - medicinis experimentatus qui intitulatur experimentatio - medicinalis quem transtulit Johannicius de Graeco in - Arabicum et mag. Frarthacius de Arabico in Latinum. - - Merton College 228, 14th century, fol. 51-, Avicennae liber - experimentorum, interprete Gerardo Cremonensi, but the - Incipit shows it to be the De medicinis experimentatis, - “Dixit Galienus; ignis qui descendit....” It is - interesting to note that it is preceded by the Divisiones - of Rasis and followed by his work to Almansor, which are - the only other treatises in the MS and are also said to be - translated by Gerard of Cremona. - - Amplon. Folio 260, 13-14th century, fols. 344-52, - experimenta de doloribus juncturarum, fols. 355-66, - Galieni experimentatio medicinalis (ab aliis Rasi - attributa). - - Amplon. Folio 265, early 14th century, fols, 111-19, liber - experimentorum Rasis, fols. 121-26, de cura dolorum - iuncturarum Rasis. It is unusual for the _Cure of Pains in - the Joints_ to follow the other treatise. - - Berlin 899, 13th century, fol. 89-, Experimenta, - or, De doloribus iuncturarum; fol. 96-, Liber G. - experimentationis medicinarum. This MS also has the usual - supplementary matter beginning with the “De aptatione - medicine ut sine horribilitate possit sumi,” etc., - although just before this another hand has inserted the - word “Explicit” and drawn a red line. - - CU Trinity 1473, 15th century, fols. 116-31, Experimenta - rasis, opens, “Dixit rasis volo in hoc capitulo ...” (the - Incipit of the Diseases of the Joints), closes, “... per - vias urinales” (the Explicit of Rasis’ passage on the cure - of the stone) “Expl. antidota.” (over an erasure) “Rasi et - cum hiis totus libellus Deo gracias.” - - Peterhouse 101, 13-14th century, fols. 98v-116, is like the - MS just described, except that it closes “... per vias - urinales. Expl. experimenta Rasis,” and then follows the - Antidotarium of Rasis. - - CLM 3520, 14th century, fol. 61-, Liber experimentorum - Rasis, fol. 63-, Medicinae Zenonis de Athenis, is - presumably simply a part of the former, since it includes - twenty experiments or recipes by Zeno of Athens. - - CLM 13026, 14th century, fol. 1, Liber de secretis G(alen)i; - but the Incipit, “Dixit G; ignis qui descendit ...” is - that of the Experiments. - - Wolfenbüttel 2156, 15th century, fols. 427-35, Experimenta - varia Rasis, Vsion Rision (qui erat de Armenia anteriori), - Asariton, Anuleth de Macedonia, Acharaan de civitate - Apthor, aliorumque medicorum. These seem to be some of the - authorities cited in the Medical Experiments. The same MS - also contains Rasis’ Divisiones and a part of the Secrets - of Galen of which we shall speak later. - - Vienna 2306, 14th century, fols. 9v-15r, Pseudo-Galenus, De - medicinis expertis. - - Vienna 5336, 15th century, fols. 24-27, Liber de medicinis - expertis, in fine mutilus. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SECRETS OF GALEN - - -I have examined the first two MSS in the list and derive the others -from the descriptions in MSS catalogues. In the two which I have seen -the mentions of Gerard are confined to the rubrics. - - BN 7046, 13th century, fols. 48r-54v, Incipiunt secreta - Galieni translata ab ysaac in omnibus egritudinibus. - It follows the _Flores_ of Avicenna and is followed by - his _Summa Antidotarii_ and by various works of Rasis - including the _De juncturis_ and _Experimenta_ above - mentioned. The table of contents indicates that the - MS once contained other medical treatises including - _Experimenta_ of “Gilbert, chancellor of Montpellier.” - - Balliol College 231, early 14th century, a ponderous folio - volume of Galen’s works in Latin translation; of 26 items - our treatise is #6 at fols. 39v-45r. - - Peterhouse 33, 13-14th century Italian hand, fols. 186-92, - Liber g. de Secretis Secretorum, “Rogasti me amice - montane.” - - Chartres 284, 13th century, Galeni opuscula, fols. 251v-258, - Secreta Galieni a magistro Girardo Cremonensi translata de - arabico in latinum. Incomplete at the end. - - Chartres 293, 14th century, Galeni opuscula, fols. 118-24, - Liber secretorum, “Rogasti me, amice, ut describerem.” - - Brussels, Library of the Dukes of Burgundy 8488, first third - of the 12th century (which would be too early for even - Gerard of Cremona), Galieni secretorum, “Rogasti me amice.” - - Berlin 166 (Phillips 1672), 14th century, fols. 26-34. The - following description is found in the margin, upper left - hand corner: “Secreta G. a magistro Girardo cremonensi - translata de arabico in latinum. Verba G. Incipiunt - secreta G.” - - Berlin 908, 15th century, fol. 279-, “Incipiunt Secreta - Galieni a magistro Gerhardo Cremonensi translata de - Arabico in Latinum in Toleto ... / ... Expliciunt - gloriosissima secreta galieni.” - - Vienna 2296, 13th century, fols. 116r-122r, Pseudo-Galenus, - Liber secretorum ad Monteum. - - Vienna 2395, 13th century, fols. 65r-72r, “Hec sunt secreta - Galeni a Gerardo Cremonensi translata de arabico in - latinum.” - - Vienna 2306, 14th century, fol. 27v, Pseudo-Galenus, Liber - in medicatione aegritudinum ad Monteum, “Rogasti me amice - montee.” - - Wolfenbüttel 1014, 15th century, fols. 72v-73v, Secreta - Galieni. Preceded by _Experimenta magistri Bernhardi_, - which is presumably the _Experimentarius_ of Bernard - Silvester, and followed by fols. 74-77, Experimenta varia - magistri ... (name erased), and fols. 79-81, Experimenta - ex libris medicinalibus diversis. In the same MS at fol. - 102, De libro Kyranidis Kyrani, regis Persarum. - - Wolfenbüttel 2156, _anno_ 1452, fols. 178-9, Quatordecim - experimenta de secretis Galeni ad amicum quendam. At fols. - 427-35 are the _Medical Experiments_ of Rasis. - - Wolfenbüttel 2841, _anno_ 1432, fols. 98v-107v, Liber - secretorum Galieni translatus ex Arabico in Latinum a - magistro Gerardino Cremonensi. - - Escorial H-III-2, 15th century, fols. 9-25, “Hec sunt - secreta galieni. Verba galieni. Rogasti me amice montee ut - describerem tibi librum ... / ... Quod si ceciderit alius - liber ab isto transferam ipsum. Explicit liber secretorum - Galieni.” - -The brief descriptions in the MSS catalogues do not always make clear -whether the _Secrets_ of Galen in question is our treatise or not. - - Bourges 299, 14th century, fols. 97v-105, “Liber de secretis - secretorum Gal.” is probably our treatise. This MS - contains minor medical works of Galen. - - Vienna 5435, 15th century, fols. 265-75, Pseudo-Galenus, - Liber secretorum; followed at fols. 276-83, by - Pseudo-Galenus, Liber experimentorum et secretorum. - Probably our treatise and the _Medical Experiments_. - - Vienna 5504, _anno_ 1464, fols. 147-8, Liber de secretis - secretorum Galeni secundum sententiam Hippocratis; fols. - 149-62, Galenus, De secretis secretorum. - - BN 7031, 15th century, fols. 1-17v, “Incipiunt secreta - Galieni canones quos misit ad moteum Regem assiriorum” - (Secrets of Galen, or Canons which he sent to Moteus, king - of the Assyrians), turns out upon examination to be an - entirely different treatise. - - - - -CHAPTER LXV - -EXPERIMENTS AND SECRETS OF GALEN, RASIS, AND OTHERS - -II. CHEMICAL AND MAGICAL - - - The _Liber Vaccae_--Its other titles--Its two - prologues--Experiments in magic generation and - rain-making--More magic with animals--Other marvelous - experiments--Plato as an alchemist--Galen as an - alchemist--_Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ of - Rasis--_Liber ignium_ of Marcus Grecus--Further - experiments--_Secretum philosophorum_--Experiments connected - with writing--Riddles: a trick with a knife--Deceiving - the senses--Tricks of jugglers--Mathematical - problems--Astronomy: experiments with air: the magnet--_Le - Secret aux Philosophes_--_Natural Experiments of - Solomon_--Experiments without author or title--Twelve - experiments with snakeskin of John Paulinus--Marvelous - virtues of snakeskin--Other treatises concerning the - virtues of snakes--Chemical experiments of Nicholas--Books - of waters--Colors--Necromantic experiments--_Experimentum - in dubiis_--_A natural experiment_--Variety of - experiments in medieval manuscripts--An experimental - manuscript--Experimental character of the Sloane MSS--Some - seventeenth century experiments--More recipes and - experiments--Magic experiments--Appendix I. Manuscripts - of the _Liber Vaccae_--Appendix II. Manuscripts of the - _Secretum Philosophorum_. - - -[Sidenote: The _Liber Vaccae_.] - -Of the books of experiments of a chemical or magical character which -we have to consider in this chapter the earliest, as far as our -available information goes, is the _Liber Vaccae_, with which the -name of Galen is associated and which is primarily a collection of -magical and necromantic experiments. The original author, however, -was the philosopher Plato whose work, according to a long, rambling, -and confused prefatory statement, Galen had revised and abbreviated. -Steinschneider held that our treatise was cited under the title _Liber -de prophetiis_ by Pedro Alfonso in the _Disciplina clericalis_ at the -close of the eleventh century,[2442] but perhaps Pedro knew it in -Arabic or Hebrew[2443] rather than Latin translation. The manuscripts -of the Latin translation, however, go back to the thirteenth, if not -to the twelfth century,[2444] while for most of the other treatises to -be considered in this chapter the oldest extant manuscripts seem to -be of the fourteenth century. Moreover, William of Auvergne refers to -our treatise in his work written in the first half of the thirteenth -century. - -[Sidenote: Its other titles.] - -The work has many other alternative titles besides _Liber Vaccae_, -which seems to be suggested by its first experiment which is concerned -with a cow, and _Liber de prophetiis_, which I do not remember to have -seen in any Latin manuscript. Another common title is _Liber Anguemis_ -or _Anequems_ or _Anegnems_ or _Anagnenis_,[2445] although the preface -explains that the treatise was not called the _Liber Anguemis_ in -the first place. The manuscripts also call it _The Book of Active -Institutes_ and _The Book of Aggregations of Divers Philosophers_. -William of Auvergne spoke with disapproval of our treatise as a book -of mixtures employed in magic, which was ascribed to Plato and called -_Liber Neumich_ or _Nevemich_, or the _Laws_ of Plato. “And,” adds -William sarcastically, “it is called the _Laws_ of Plato because it -is contrary to the laws of nature.”[2446] Steinschneider has pointed -out that in Arabic _Nawamis_ means “laws” and that both _Neumich_ and -_Anguemis_ are probably Latin corruptions of the Arabic word. And -of course _Laws_ and _Institutes_ are practically the same thing. -Pico della Mirandola, writing against astrology at the close of the -fifteenth century, refers to our treatise by the two titles _De vacca_ -and _Institutes_, warning his readers that astrologers palm off their -volumes as the writings of great authorities like Aristotle, “just -as magicians carry about the books of Plato _De vacca_ and what they -call the _Books of Institutes_, stuffed with execrable dreams and -figments.”[2447] - -[Sidenote: Its two prologues.] - -Honein ben Ishak again appears in connection with a supposititious -work of Galen. The long and repetitious prefatory statement, to which -we have already alluded, is professedly by him, and we are told what -Honein said and what Galen said and what Honein says Galen said -in great profusion. The Latin translator, however, not to mention -subsequent copyists, has perhaps taken liberties with the wording of -this preface and corrupted an original Arabic clarity. Who the Latin -translator is we are not told, but in some manuscripts the prefatory -statement to which we have thus far alluded is proceeded by an even -longer prologue which opens with the pious wish, “May God confer -noble morals upon you.” This is probably the same as a prologue by -“Farachius” opening, “Friend, may God grant you noble morals,” which -Steinschneider held belonged with the _Medical experiments_ of Galen or -Rasis.[2448] But our prologue seems to contain a direct allusion to the -following _Liber vaccae_[2449] as well as to be generally appropriate -to it. The name of the writer of this first prologue is not given in -the manuscripts I have seen, but he refers to his books concerning -animals and poisons and simple medicines, which last is also called -the _Book of Sustenance_ (_liber sustentationis_). He appears to have -been criticized for his propensity toward marvels and occult virtues -and his inconsistency in at the same time censuring vulgar suspensions, -incantations, and cures. His defense of occult properties is the usual -one that even if reason cannot account for them, they are supported -both by the testimony of the ancients and by experience. As usual the -property of the magnet is adduced; the Pseudo-Aristotle is cited “in -his books on stones,” and the genuine Aristotle in the _History of -Animals_ concerning the narce’s power of stupefying. The remainder of -the prologue consists chiefly of a series of citations from various -authors which are largely duplicated in the _De mirabilibus mundi_ -ascribed to Albertus Magnus. This first prologue cannot be by Honein, -since it cites not only Costa ben Luca but _filius messie_, that is, -Yuhanna ibn Masawaih who died at Cairo in 1015, or some Latin writer of -the eleventh or twelfth century who pretended to translate his works -from the Arabic. Presumably therefore it is by the Latin translator of -the _Liber vaccae_. This could not be Faradj ben Salem under Charles of -Anjou if the translation was known to William of Auvergne early in the -thirteenth century. - -[Sidenote: Experiments in magic generation and rainmaking.] - -The experiments of the _Liber vaccae_ are hardly such as can be -described in detail in English translation. Some of them are -elaborate experiments in unseemly generation and obstetrics, having -for their object “to make a rational animal” from a cow or ape or -other beast,[2450] or “to make bees.”[2451] By a similar procedure a -liniment is obtained which has such virtue that if one is anointed -with it, one feels no pain from blows, while it blunts the edge of -a sword with which one is struck. Or by suffumigations with it rain -may be produced.[2452] A less unmentionable method of rain-making is -that which is “famous among the wise” and which, the author says, some -employ in his own time. First a black crow without a speck upon it is -to be “submerged in water until it dies.” Then a very black dog is to -be imprisoned in a dark house and given the crow to eat and the water -in which it was drowned to drink on the third day. By the eleventh -day, we are assured, only the whites of his eyes will show and he will -be unable to bark. Then one takes a small tree called _mephus_ with -small leaves like rue and a flower like the bean, and gives the dog -about an ounce of its juice, which will cause him to recover his voice -and bark mightily. He should then be bound “hand and foot” (_manus et -pedes_) and boiled in a big pot. The broth thus obtained is to be used -to bring rain.[2453] Other procedures are described to stop a rainy -spell and restore fine weather.[2454] - -[Sidenote: More magic with animals] - -In order to see spirits a white cock with a round crest which is -concave in the middle is put in a place where neither the bark of a dog -nor the voice of a crow is heard, whereby this experiment is sharply -distinguished from the dog-and-crow procedure. For three successive -days the cock is to be fed on the eyes of three fish of the species -known as _alliataiu_, and the eyes must have been removed while the -fish were living. On the third day the cock will swell up and become -aggressive and his crest will grow inflamed. After three hours he is to -be decapitated and fed to a wild cat, which is then to be beheaded in -its turn. Its blood and gall are to be dried and from them a concoction -is to be prepared which will enable one to see spirits.[2455] A frog -figures as an ingredient in a mixture which, if one merely writes with -it on parchment and throws the same into a den of snakes or vipers, -will excoriate and kill them instantly.[2456] The congealed blood of an -ass is a constituent of a suffumigation which enables one to learn what -the future holds in store of good or evil.[2457] Indeed throughout the -work parts of animals are the favorite substances employed, although -stones and herbs are also used. - -[Sidenote: Other marvelous experiments.] - -The _Liber Vaccae_ abounds in suffumigations, marvelous houses, -golden or otherwise, and magic lamps and fires. One makes men appear -in any form desired;[2458] another makes a house seem to be full of -snakes;[2459] or a lamp is extinguished by opening the hands over it -and is relighted by closing them.[2460] Such marvels we shall find -frequently repeated in our following books of experiments. That of -holding fire in the hand and not being burnt by it is here described -as if quick-lime were used rather than alcohol.[2461] Other paragraphs -tell how to plant seed and have it grow instantly,[2462] how to -understand the language of the birds,[2463] how to answer questions -about persons who are absent,[2464] how to sit under a tree and cause -it to incline toward you.[2465] The last recipe calls for the teeth, -nose, and bones of a dead man. But perhaps we have sufficiently -illustrated the character of the _Liber Vaccae_. Its necromancy should -have at least “provoked the silent dust” of Plato and of Galen. - -[Sidenote: Plato as an alchemist.] - -To Plato and Galen, though never apparently again in partnership, were -also attributed various works of alchemy in the middle ages. Most -widespread would seem to have been _The Fourth Book_ or _Four Books_, -which is found both in the manuscripts and in print. In an Oxford -manuscript[2466] it opens by Thebit, presumably ben Corat, asking Hasam -to “tell us briefly what you have learned of the revelation of things -occult and expound the book of old Plato.” Thebit also introduces both -of the other parts of the book in this manuscript, but for the most -part Hames tells us what Plato said. This indirect form of presentation -is somewhat similar to that of the _Liber Vaccae_, and there is also -much talk of abbreviating even in the fuller and different printed -version,[2467] which is divided into four books, but the contents -are entirely alchemical and there is no mention of Galen. The work -seems to be a translation from the Arabic and not a Latin forgery. -Berthelot placed the Latin translation of the alchemical treatise of -the Pseudo-Plato about 1200.[2468] But there are in the manuscripts yet -other works of alchemy ascribed to Plato, one of which, _The Thirteen -Keys of Greater Wisdom_, is said to have been translated from Arabic -into Latin about 1301 A. D.[2469] - -[Sidenote: Galen as an alchemist] - -As for Galen, a _Commentary of Galen upon Hermes’ Book of -Secrets_[2470] turns out to be an alchemy of the incoherent and -mystical variety. A _Practice in the Secrets of Secrets of Nature_ -ascribed to him is obviously spurious, since it opens by citing Geber. -It is accompanied by a _Theorica_.[2471] Indeed, the _Practica_ is -really the same as the treatise usually ascribed to Archelaus.[2472] -There was perhaps a medieval alchemist named Galen, since a manuscript -at Paris states that “Master Galienus the writer who is used in the -episcopate is an alchemist and knows how to whiten _eramen_ so that it -is as white as ordinary silver.”[2473] - -[Sidenote: The _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ of Rasis.] - -The _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ of Rasis[2474] are not medical -but a series of magic tricks and chemical experiments. Yet they are -not only ascribed to Rasis, or at least are said to be a selection -from a larger work of his recently translated from Arabic into Latin -at Toledo,[2475] but the translator seems to be the same mysterious -Ferrarius[2476] of the _Experimental Medicines_, while the opening -words[2477] are very similar to those of the _Secrets_ of Galen which -Gerard of Cremona is supposed to have translated, except that here we -read, “You have asked me, friend Anselm” instead of Monteus.[2478] -Only fragments of the treatise seem to be extant but enough of the -eighty-eight experiments are preserved to illustrate their character. -Serpents are assembled at a given spot by placing a snake in a -perforated pot about which a slow fire is built in order to make him -hiss and attract his kind. Fish are made to congregate similarly -beneath the surface of a river by letting down into the water at -night a lighted lantern with glass windows in its four sides.[2479] -The property of alcohol (_aqua ardens_) of burning on the tip of a -finger or from a cloth which has been dipped in it without consuming -the cloth or burning the finger is termed magical. To cook an egg in -cold water, it is placed in quick-lime in a vessel, then cold water is -poured in and the vessel tightly closed. Other experiments are to make -a ring hop about the house like a locust, to carry live coals without -injury, to light a candle from the rays of the sun, to blacken the face -completely. More useful seem those experiments which consist in making -alcohol, turpentine, or Greek fire. - -[Sidenote: _Liber ignium_ of Marcus Grecus.] - -Following the three experiments just mentioned, in both the manuscripts -of the _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ which we have just been -describing, comes _The Book of Fires for Burning Enemies_ of Marcus -Grecus.[2480] Since it is also found in other manuscripts,[2481] it -would appear to be a distinct treatise from the _Eighty-eight Natural -Experiments_, although its form is similar. Berthelot already has -been impressed by the close association in this treatise of “purely -scientific compounds of combustible or phosphorescent substances -and the preparations of prestidigitateurs and magicians.”[2482] For -instance, in an effort to make an inextinguishable fire glow-worms -are pulverized and mixed with other substances and then warmed for a -certain number of days in horse manure.[2483] A lamp that will shed a -silvery light on everything in the house is obtained by smearing the -wick with a liquid similar to quicksilver supposed to be obtained by -cutting off a lizard’s tail.[2484] Or everything around will appear -green, if the brain of a bird is wrapped in cloth and burned with -olive oil on a green stone. If the hands are rubbed with an Indian -nut or chestnut and “water of camphor,” a candle may be extinguished -by opening them above it and relighted by closing the hands.[2485] -Other ointments are said to keep one from being burned by a flame -or by the red-hot iron in the ordeal.[2486] More scientific are the -recipes for oil of sulphur, gunpowder, Greek fire, alcohol.[2487] Two -of the more fantastic experiments are said to have been discovered by -Aristotle for Alexander,[2488] and another cites Hermes and Ptolemy -for its “prodigious and marvelous works.”[2489] The reader will have -noticed the recurrence of some of the matters treated in the _Natural -Experiments_ of Rasis. Such repetitions and resemblances are common in -the medieval collections of recipes and experiments. - -[Sidenote: Further experiments.] - -At the close of the _Book of Fires_ of Marcus Grecus, in one of the -two manuscripts[2490] where it follows the _Eighty-eight Natural -Experiments_ of Rasis, the listing of experiments of the same sort -continues without any new title and the consecutive numbering of them -in the margin goes on up to one hundred and forty-four in all. It is -doubtful, however, how far we may regard these additional experiments -as a resumption of the text of Rasis, which had been interrupted by -the work of Marcus Grecus, since we cannot arrive at an even number -of eighty-eight experiments by any combination. These additional -experiments instruct us how to paint an image on the wall from which a -candle may be lighted, how to write letters that cannot be read unless -the material upon which they are written is placed near a fire or -touched with a rod, how to make cooked meat seem raw and wormy.[2491] -This trick, which is found frequently in medieval manuscripts, is -performed by making mince meat of the heart or dried blood of some -animal and strewing the particles upon the piece of cooked flesh, whose -heat will make them move like worms, while their color is that of raw -meat. We are also instructed how to cook meat of a sudden, how to turn -a red rose white--apparently by fumigating it with sulphur, and how -to make “marvelous bottles” (_ad faciendum ampullas mirabiles_)--the -directions seem to tell how to blow soap bubbles.[2492] How to emit -fire from the mouth, to heat a bath, to construct an artificial mill -in a camp, and to make all the bystanders appear headless.[2493] A -score of experiments are concerned with colors and dyes.[2494] To make -a dog follow you, place a piece of bread and butter under your armpit, -“that it may receive the odor of the sweat,” and then feed it to the -dog.[2495] A magical experiment to deprive a man of his urine consists -in taking urine and earth on which someone has made water and enclosing -them together in the skin of a camel’s womb or a dog’s paw; “and he -will have no urine as long as the earth is enclosed in the skin.”[2496] -The last experiment, “that a wife may live a good life with her -husband,” involves writing an incantation upon parchment.[2497] - -[Sidenote: The _Secretum Philosophorum_.] - -Found together with the _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ of Rasis -in one of the two manuscripts[2498] containing that work, and in -other manuscripts together with the _Liber ignium_[2499] and _Liber -Vaccae_[2500] and _Experiments_ or _Secrets_ of Albert,[2501] is an -anonymous work entitled _The Secret of the Philosophers_. As it seems -to be found especially in English libraries,[2502] and mainly in -manuscripts of the fourteenth century,[2503] it was perhaps composed in -England in the thirteenth century. At any rate it claims no connection -with Galen or Rasis. It is longer than most medieval collections of -experiments and subdivides into seven sections, each named after one of -the liberal arts. - -[Sidenote: Experiments connected with writing.] - -Under the heading “Grammar” materials and instruments used in writing -are first spoken of, then methods of writing, especially those employed -by the wise to conceal their meaning, as when the alchemists use the -names of planets to denote the seven chief metals. Instructions are -given for making colors employed in illuminating, ink, white tablets, -and glues. We are told again how to write letters which are invisible -until touched with a rod or exposed to fire. Also how to write so -that the writing can be read only in a mirror, how to erase writing -without leaving any mark, how to engrave steel and other metals, and -how to color the letters so engraved. A paragraph on the right way of -speaking might seem to belong under the head of rhetoric rather than of -grammar, but just precedes the section of rhetoric in such manuscripts -as I have examined. It warns against much speaking, citing Aristotle’s -advice to Alexander in the _Secret of Secrets_, and ends with the -familiar couplet: - - “If you would be wise, observe my five commands, - What you say, where, of whom, to whom, and when.”[2504] - -[Sidenote: Riddles: a trick with a knife.] - -The section on “Rhetoric,” which is defined as speaking ornately, is -devoted to riddles, verbal deceits, quibbles, and catches. Under one of -its sub-heads, Of Weights, we are told how to balance a knife, although -its center is to project beyond the edge of a table and although a -weight is to be hung on this projecting end. “The way to fulfill the -doctrine of this thing is to fix the blade of the knife in the end of a -rod so that it makes an acute angle with the rod, and you will see how -the rod will hang with the knife.” - -[Sidenote: Deceiving the senses.] - -“Dialectic” is concerned in our treatise not with logical fallacies but -with deception of the senses by various tricks. To make water look and -taste like wine, a bottle half full of water should be held or left -inverted for a time over the orifice of a jar of wine. This procedure -is recommended in cases where a patient wants to drink wine and the -doctor knows that it would not be good for him. In order to determine -whether a patient is really dead and to prevent cases of burial alive, -it is recommended to hold a mirror to his nostrils and see if it will -be clouded by a faint breath. This comes under the sub-head, _De -olfactus deceptione_, breathing as well as the sense of smell evidently -being included under the olfactory organs. The sense of hearing is -deceived by an echo, and the sense of sight by mirrors which enlarge or -multiply objects or make an image appear outside the mirror. The use of -burning glasses is also discussed. - -[Sidenote: Tricks of jugglers.] - -Under the sub-head, “Sophistries called sleight-of-hand,” (_De -sophisticationibus que vocantur iugulationes_), come the tricks or -_cautelae_ of the jugglers. An apple is made to move on a table -by preparing a hole in the center beforehand and placing a beetle -inside. To construct a cross that will seem to turn to right or left -automatically in answer to questions put to it concerning hidden or -future matters, one builds it up of wax about the tail of some insect -or tiny animal[2505] which is also concealed in wax and irritated with -sage[2506] so that it wiggles its tail and the cross. Hands that have -been bound may be freed by cutting the rope against a prearranged -knife. Again we meet the experiments to make cooked meat seem raw -or full of worms and directions for blowing soap-bubbles, a process -which is spoken of as “making a golden sphere appear flying in the -air.” Other illusions under “Dialectic” are to seem on fire and not be -burned, to see stars in the daytime by multiplying the reflections of -the sun, to make a silver coin seem copper, and to deceive the sense of -touch by such methods as holding an object between two crossed fingers. - -[Sidenote: Mathematical problems.] - -The headings, Arithmetic, Music, and Geometry, are more exactly -appropriate to their contents than Dialectic was. One problem in -arithmetic is to tell how many knights, esquires, and pages will be -required to divide twenty loaves of bread, if each knight receives two -loaves, if two pages share a loaf, and if four esquires share a loaf. -Under geometry are calculated surfaces, the cubic contents of various -receptacles, and the altitudes of inaccessible objects. - -[Sidenote: Astronomy: experiments with air: the magnet.] - -Under “Astronomy” the rule of superiors over inferiors is affirmed and -the various attributes, properties, and effects of the planets are -listed. Then come “experiments with air” and many figures of vessels -partly filled with water or other liquids. Siphoning is explained under -the heading, “Of the ascent of water on account of the consumption of -the air lest a vacuum be left.” By employing the same principle that -Adelard of Bath observed in the magic water-jar of the enchantress, any -one of four different liquids that the spectators choose can be poured -from a single faucet. Inside the jar are four compartments each with -its own airhole above and outlet below, and beneath all four a common -chamber into which they open and from which the common faucet pours. -The four air-holes are covered with the fingers, and as one of these is -raised, the liquid will flow from the corresponding compartment. This -is illustrated by a diagram of the contrivance. The magnet is discussed -under “Astronomy” “because it bears in itself a likeness of the sky.” -This discussion of the magnet and some of the accompanying figures -resemble the treatise of Peter Peregrinus on the magnet, which was -written in the thirteenth century.[2507] Here the work ends in two of -the three manuscripts which I have used,[2508] but in the third further -experiments are added.[2509] Some of these have occurred before in the -_Secretum philosophorum_ itself, or in other experimental treatises of -which we have already spoken. Others are to make fireworks,[2510] to -soften steel, to drive away crows, and to tell whether a person is a -leper. - -[Sidenote: _Le Secret aux philosophes._] - -Not to be confused with the Latin _Secretum philosophorum_, which we -have just described and which seems to be of English origin, is a -work in the French vernacular written at the end of the thirteenth -century and entitled _Le Secret aux philosophes_.[2511] It is not a -collection of experiments but rather an encyclopedic discussion of -theological and metaphysical as well as natural problems in the form -of a dialogue, presumably imaginary, although sometimes represented as -a translation, between Placides, the promising son of a petty king, -and his master Timeo, who chose him as his pupil in preference to -the stupid son of a great emperor. Through this medium is retailed -for less learned perusal much of the knowledge and superstition, -especially astrological, to be found in the Latin and Arabic learning -of the time. Perhaps the resemblance is greater to the _Secret of -Secrets_ of the Pseudo-Aristotle than to any other treatise that we -have considered. The author, very weak and meager on theological -and metaphysical matters, shows a much greater interest in natural -science and something of the spirit of experimental research. Yet in -a prologue “the compiler” gives his name as Jehan de Bonnet, priest, -doctor of theology, and native of Paris. Ernest Renan was impressed -by the curiosity shown concerning problems of natural science, by the -“search after realities” and by the experimental spirit of the book. -The solutions, as in the _Natural Questions_ of Adelard of Bath, often -make one smile, but “this naïve composition ... is superior to many -scholastic treatises in Latin which deal purely with abstractions and -where modern thought has not its true antecedents.” In this treatise, -on the other hand, “the science of reality has taken the upper hand” -and “the idea of research is born.”[2512] But Renan was mistaken in -thinking such scientific curiosity a new thing as late as the close of -the thirteenth century, and perhaps on that account overestimated its -importance in this case. - -[Sidenote: _Natural Experiments of Solomon._] - -Returning to books of experiments, we may note a treatise whose -contents are very similar to the _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_ -of Rasis, the _Book of Fires_ of Marcus Grecus, and the _Secretum -philosophorum_, namely, _Some experiments which King Solomon composed -because of his love for, and the imploring of, a most excellent queen, -and they are experiments of nature_.[2513] Instead of the experiment -with the snake in the pot we now have rats in a cage, whose squealing -when a fire is heated is supposed to attract other rats. Again we are -told how to write invisible letters, how to make a candle burn in -water,[2514] how to light a candle from the mouth of an image painted -upon the wall. This is done by painting the mouth with sulphur and -turpentine and applying the wick of the candle to it just after the -candle has been blown out and before it has quite ceased to glow. -Quicklime as well as sulphur and turpentine are used in an image that -will illuminate and take fire when water is poured over it. Quicksilver -is placed with saltpeter and sulphur inside a ring in order that it may -hop about when put near a fire. - -[Sidenote: Experiments without title or author.] - -Such experiments sometimes occur without any title as well as -without name of author, as in a manuscript where there are a dozen -leaves filled with them between the treatise on plantations and the -experiments or secrets ascribed to Albert.[2515] Again we encounter the -jumping ring, the cooked meat turned raw, men made to appear headless, -and artificial thunder which seems produced by use of gunpowder. There -is much discussion of colors and alchemy and we are told how to make -_sal ammoniac_ and “the best bitumen.”[2516] But the virtues of herbs -and animals are not forgotten and many of the experiments are medical -or magical. Instructions are given for making a white crow by tampering -with the crow’s egg, and how to make human hair grow again by the -application of the ashes of a mole, burned in a new pot, mixed with -honey. A cure for diarrhoea is to drink milk in which a glowing iron -has been quenched. Suspending the tongue of a goose over a sleeper has -the appropriate effect of causing him to reveal all his secrets, while -the suspension of the head of a bat prevents his waking. The bearer of -the herb _aristologia_ is safe from demons whether awake or asleep. -To escape from chains one should employ an incantation which contains -allusions to the rescue of the apostle Peter from the sea and from -prison. - -[Sidenote: Twelve experiments with snakeskin of John Paulinus.] - -Frequently found in the manuscripts are twelve experiments with -pulverized snakeskin which John Paulinus or John of Spain excerpted -from the book in Arabic of the physician or physical scientist, -Allchamus or Alchanus or Alanus or Alganus, or whatever his name may -have been,[2517] a book entitled _Life-Saver_ (_Salus vitae_).[2518] -This work, as John further informs us at its beginning, he discovered -when he “was in Alexandria, a city of the Egyptians.”[2519] -Steinschneider listed this John Paulinus as a different person from -the well-known twelfth century translator, John of Spain, but at -least in one manuscript[2520] he is called both John of Spain and John -Paulinus.[2521] - -[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues of snakeskin.] - -Another manuscript[2522] presents our treatise under the amusing -caption, “Twelve experiments with snakeskin and some of them true.” All -due credit should be given for such partial scepticism but it might -well have been made more sweeping. The snakeskin is to be pulverized -when the moon is in the first degree of Aries, and one manuscript adds -that this must be the full moon.[2523] This powder will heal a wound in -the head, or will keep the head from being wounded, if it is sprinkled -on the hair. A face, washed with it and water, is terrible to foes and -secures the faithful allegiance of friends. If the powder is scattered -in an enemy’s house, he will be unable to remain there. To secure an -attentive hearing in a council, sprinkle a little at your feet. Place -some on the tip of the tongue, and you will be invincible in scientific -disputations. “And this has been tested many times.” This healing -and magic powder also enables one to see into the future, to learn -another’s secrets, to insure the fidelity of a servant or messenger, to -guard against poison, to win the love of a woman. If a leper eats some -of it, his disease will grow no worse. This last experiment is perhaps -suggested by Galen’s story of the cure of skin disease by drinking wine -in which a viper had died. - -[Sidenote: Other treatises concerning the virtues of snakes.] - -At the end of these twelve experiments one manuscript adds that “John -in the same book gives additional statements which Alcanus composed,” -and continues with further suggestions concerning the medicinal -preparation and uses of snakes and their skins and blood.[2524] -Similar are _Secrets concerning the Serpent_, which, according to a -manuscript of the fifteenth century in the Bodleian, Albertus Magnus -gave to a doctor of sacred theology of the order of Friars Minor at -Nürnberg,[2525] and which direct how to prepare snakes and recount -their medicinal virtues. It will be recalled, too, that in our -preceding chapter we treated of the _Experiments_ of Nicholas of Poland -which made considerable use of pulverized snakes or toads or scorpions, -and which are sometimes found in the same manuscripts[2526] as the -_Twelve Experiments with Snakeskin_. - -[Sidenote: Chemical experiments of Nicholas.] - -Perhaps this is the same Nicholas to whom chemical experiments are -attributed in two Oxford manuscripts.[2527] In the fuller manuscript -these experiments are numbered in the margin from one to twenty,[2528] -but sometimes more than one recipe or item is found under a -number.[2529] Besides some alchemistic generalizations, such as the -opening sentence which states that there are seven bodies, namely, -Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, and Moon, and a recipe or -two for making gold and silver, the treatise consists of instructions -for the preparation of such chemicals as _sal ammoniac_, quicksilver, -arsenic, sulphur, and common salt, and of other recipes similar -to those in the _Book of Fires_ of Marcus Grecus.[2530]The author -frequently cites the books and experiences of the philosophers but -also speaks of his own experiments. Once, for example, he supports the -assertions of the philosophers by adding, “And I, Nicholas, say that -I have tested these two operations experimentally”:[2531] in another -place he says of a powder recommended “by a very wise philosopher” that -he has not yet experienced it himself as the operation is long and -difficult.[2532] - -[Sidenote: Books of waters.] - -In addition to the _Book of Fires_ of Marcus Grecus and the experiments -with air in the _Secret of Philosophers_, we must not forget the -treatises in medieval manuscripts devoted to marvelous waters, -medical and chemical. We have already seen such works attributed to -Aristotle[2533] and to Peter of Spain.[2534] At that time, of course, -various liquid compounds and acids were known as “waters”; alcohol, -for instance, was called _aqua ardens_; and in one manuscript some -of the “waters” are really dry or solid.[2535] As in the case of the -treatises ascribed to Aristotle and Petrus Hispanus, twelve seems to be -the favorite number in these medieval collections of waters, but the -twelve are not always the same,[2536] and sometimes, while the title -says twelve, the text will include more than that number.[2537] Such -a collection of twelve waters is sometimes ascribed to Rasis,[2538] -and once to Vergil,[2539] but often occurs anonymously.[2540] -Other treatises on waters in general and the fountain of youth in -especial are ascribed to famous names, Albert Magnus,[2541] Arnald of -Villanova,[2542] and Thaddeus of Florence[2543] and of the University -of Bologna, a thirteenth century writer upon anatomy and medicine -who lived from 1223 to 1303. We also encounter _Nine Waters of the -Philosophers_,[2544] _Physical Waters_,[2545] and a _Book of Saint -Giles concerning the virtues of certain waters which he made while -dwelling in the desert_.[2546] The saint would scarcely seem to have -chosen the best place for the investigation of his subject. Such -are a few specimens of medieval works on waters; many more might be -collected.[2547] - -[Sidenote: Colors.] - -Experiments with colors are also of rather frequent occurrence in -medieval manuscripts, and seem to a large extent to be anonymous. I -have not sufficiently examined them to be able to say what additions -may be made in the manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth -centuries to the recipes already given in the _Compositiones ad -tingenda_, _Mappe clavicula_, and works of Heraclius and Theophilus of -which we have already spoken. Like the _Book of Twelve Waters_, but not -so widespread, is a treatise on twelve colors and their virtues,[2548] -while a Virgilius appears again as the author of _Pictorial Waters for -Painting on Linen and Cloth_.[2549] The works on colors of Peter of St. -Audemar, of John Alcerius, and of John le Bègue have been printed by -Mrs. Merrifield,[2550] but many brief anonymous collections of recipes -concerning colors still remain in manuscript.[2551] - -[Sidenote: Necromantic experiments.] - -Other examples of necromantic experiments are found in the manuscripts -than those of the _Liber sacratus_, _Picatrix_, and the _Liber Vaccae_, -or those which are attributed to Michael Scot and Peter of Abano. An -anonymous collection of “conjurations and invocations of spirits to -discover thefts and other things of the sort” contains “among many -other experiments” some concerning three angels in a crystal, a sibyl -in a candle, four kings in a crystal, “a bearded old man,” and the -_ars episcopalis_.[2552] A manuscript at Munich contains “A probable -experiment to provoke spirits from all four quarters of the universe, -whatever their condition, order, and station, by means of the mass.” “A -good experiment in astrology of Master John of Belton” turns out to be -necromantic, consisting largely in writing and repeating such words as -the Tetragrammaton.[2553] - -[Sidenote: _Experimentum in dubiis._] - -An “Experiment in cases of doubt” from an early thirteenth century -manuscript at Erfurt[2554] may perhaps be described more fully. It -should be begun during the March equinox early in the night with -psalms and prayers. Starting forth to a spot where potter’s clay -may be found, one repeats the Paternoster and Credo as one leaves -his house or church. On the road he repeats seven psalms, and if he -meets any passers-by, returns no answer to them. Having reached the -potter’s earth, he plants his heel upon it and turning successively to -the East, South, and North, repeats the magic word “Syos” to each of -those cardinal points. Turning to the East again, he utters a short -prayer beginning, “Force eternal, innumerable power, true presence of -things, I suppliantly beg your clemency.” Then with a trowel with a -white handle he cuts the earth about his heel, and digs up enough of -it for his purpose, repeating the while a “Te Deum” and “Gloria in -excelsis.” Having secured the clay by this ceremony, when he wishes to -settle any doubtful question, he writes the words “Yes” and “No” on two -bits of parchment, encloses these in pastilles of the clay, places a -dish of holy water between the two pastilles, saying, “In the name of -Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” and another pious phrase. Then he puts the -pastilles in the water, adjuring them by the names of Elias and Moses -to show him the truth of the matter in question, and opens for his -answer the first pastille which floats towards him. - -[Sidenote: “A natural experiment.”] - -What we should regard as specimens of downright sorcery and magic are -sometimes presented in the manuscripts not merely as “experiments,” -but as instances of purely scientific procedure. Under the title, “A -natural experiment,” which, however, is likewise called “ineffable,” a -writer in a Paris manuscript[2555] describes three _Practicae_ which -may be used against enemies or serpents. Of these practical experiments -the most interesting is the first, which the writer learned of when he -was at Paris from Thomas de Pisan. This Thomas is also spoken of as -of Bologna and as the physician of the French king. Evidently he is -the father of the poetess, Christine de Pisan, Thomas of Bologna, who -made astrological predictions and composed philters for the learned -king, Charles V of France, and the duke of Burgundy, and who also -wrote a letter on the philosopher’s stone.[2556] The object of Thomas’ -“experiment” was the expulsion of the English companies of mercenaries -from the French kingdom. He procured earth from the center and the -four quarters of France and under a selected constellation made five -images of lead or tin in the form of nude men. On the forehead of each -he wrote the name of the king of England or one of the captains of the -companies and on the jaw and breast astrological characters and names. -These images were hollow and were filled with the aforesaid earth and -at the proper astrological moment were buried in the five aforesaid -regions with an incantation to the effect that this was the perpetual -burial and total destruction and annihilation of the said captain and -king, and the permanent expulsion of him and every official or adherent -of his “so long as this work shall endure by God’s will, Amen.” The -images were buried face down with their hands behind their backs, “and -within a few months all the said companies had fled from the realm.” -The writer states that all three of his _Practicae_ are based on the -first _Practica_ of Thebit ben Corath, and notes that Albert the -commentator has said in his _Mirror_[2557] that such images are purely -natural like medical recipes. - -[Sidenote: Variety of experiments in medieval manuscripts.] - -It is hard to tell where to make an end of describing or even of -merely illustrating the many collections and isolated examples of -“experiments,” medical, chemical, culinary, artistic, magical, and -necromantic, both of spurious and of anonymous authorship, to be -found in medieval manuscripts. There are “experiments, good and -best” which include such illusions as making a river appear to flow -in a house;[2558] there are “some experiments in which occur many -words written in a mystic form with vowels omitted”;[2559] there is -an experiment to catch birds which begins by using the tongue of -a dog;[2560] there are “Sounds of trumpets and other mathematical -experiments,”[2561] and “A booklet of experiments for this and -that,” which opens with instructions how to dissolve phlegmatic -humors.[2562] In a single manuscript are “incantations and other -experiments,” “Experiments of Alexander,” “experiments from Galen’s -book of _Dinamidia_,” “general experiments,” “Experiments of Rusticus” -who is perhaps Rusticus Elpidus, physician to Theodoric, king of the -Ostrogoths, and “Experiments of Parisius, Abbot of St. Mark’s.”[2563] -A certain group of experiments seems to be associated in some way with -the emperor Frederick, presumably the Second.[2564] Another group of -perhaps twenty-five experiments was collected at Paris about 1331 and -“approved by divers doctors of the same dear university.”[2565] In an -Escorial manuscript are experiments of a chancellor and cardinal.[2566] - -[Sidenote: An experimental manuscript.] - -A manuscript which belonged to an English family in Northamptonshire -in the fifteenth century and received some additional entries in -the sixteenth provides a good example of the scope and character -of the experimental interest of those times. Omitting some brief -family records, we find its main contents to be a calendar, list of -eclipses, table and chart of the influences of planets and signs on -the human body, treatises on flebotomy, on colors, a problem credited -to Aristotle, verses on the seven liberal arts, medical recipes, a -_compotus_, arithmetics, a _Sphere of Pythagoras_, the treatise of John -Paul on experiments with snakeskin, Alfraganus on signs from thunder, -what seem to be extracts from the _Herbarium of Apuleius_ and perhaps -from the treatise of Sextus Papirius Placitus on animals which so often -accompanies it. This last is accompanied by a memorandum to the effect -that there are many true things here and also many false ones. Charms -and further recipes are followed by a treatise on the conduct of waters -and siphoning and how to learn the altitude of objects, which is not -unlikely to be an extract from the _Secretum philosophorum_. A treatise -on the moon in the twelve signs is followed by one “on philosophy -according to Aristotle with cases and experiments proving its thesis.” -It opens with the words, “In these things nature works in an occult -fashion.” Next comes a charm in English, then more recipes in Latin, -the _Physiognomy_ of Aristotle, a treatise of chiromancy, a _Dream -Book of Daniel_, a further discussion of colors, the familiar charm -to find a thief by means of a loaf of bread, and various tricks and -fireworks.[2567] - -[Sidenote: Experimental character of the Sloane manuscripts.] - -How long this experimental literature, which we have been describing -for the medieval period, retained its popularity, and how large a -place it had even in the esteem of celebrated scholars and scientists, -may be inferred from the very prominent place which it occupies in -the manuscript collection of Sir Hans Sloane, which with his books -and scientific collections formed the nucleus of the present British -Museum. Sir Hans Sloane, who lived for nearly a century from 1660 to -1753, won such a reputation both as a medical man and a naturalist -that in 1727 he became physician to the king and succeeded Sir Isaac -Newton as president of the Royal Society. Yet the manuscripts collected -by this distinguished scientist contain about as much alchemy and -astrology as they do medicine, while even in those of the seventeenth -century experiments of every sort continue to play as great a part -as ever before. Indeed the general tenor of the seventeenth century -manuscripts in the collection seems rather more superstitious than -in those of any previous century. This may be due to the fact that -superstition is being crowded out of the printed page by that time, and -finds a refuge only in private manuscripts, but I am doubtful if such -was the fact. We must remember that the seventeenth century was marked -by the witchcraft delusion, and even Boyle had not quite lost faith -in alchemy despite his _The Sceptical Chemist_. Perhaps, however, the -combined influences of the _Index Expurgatorius_, English censorship -of the press, and the natural tendency or pretense of alchemy and -magic to adopt secret and cryptic methods, were enough to keep a -number of works or “secrets” in manuscript form. Be that as it may, -it certainly seems as if the recipe notion dominated the catalogue of -the Sloane manuscripts and especially so in those of the seventeenth -century. I have not begun to note all the titles with the word or idea -of experiment in them, but I should like to run over a considerable -number of the subjects of seventeenth century manuscripts which I have -jotted down, and which I think will serve to illuminate the character -of the science of that time, and its relation to the preceding medieval -literature in the same field. - -[Sidenote: Some seventeenth century experiments.] - -We may begin with “Notable experimentall receipts taken out of the -booke of Hen. Rantzovius _de conservanda valetudine_.”[2568] We pass -on to “Small empirical experiments” in both German and Latin,[2569] -and to “Doctor Collette’s Experyment for the memory” and several -medical receipts.[2570] “A new system for an experimental college” is -dated 1680.[2571] In a long manuscript devoted to alchemy are found, -among other items, “the experiment of some unknown,” “some remarks -about the magic image in a Benedictine monastery near Florence,” -“a marvelous experiment from a book printed in Flanders, but in my -opinion a deceit,” and some other “sophistical experiments.”[2572] To -a manuscript in which are contained “Severall receipts of my mother’s -which she had chiefly in my Lord Berkeley’s family”[2573] soon succeeds -another in which four out of the six treatises are respectively -anatomical, chemical, medical, and philosophical experiments.[2574] “An -experiment with a mirror, for theft” and so forth, is explained by the -catalogue as being “rather sundry charms by which experiments may be -made.”[2575] - -[Sidenote: More recipes and experiments.] - -“Lady Rennelagh’s choise receipts, as also some of Capt. Willis, who -valued them above gold,”[2576] are probably not very different from “A -Booke of Receipts collected on Sundry occations, being for the moste -part such as are commonly used in shopps yett nott to be found in the -London Pharmacopaeia; with some other receipts of certaine Chymicall -preparations most in use in Apothecaries shopps with the way of makeing -them.”[2577] “L’arsenal des secrets,” besides recipes for making -potable gold and various elixirs, contains “Diverses secrets curieux” -in the way of directions how to stamp or cast metals, to make colors, -ink, and dyes.[2578] Thus we see that industrial processes are still -“mysteries.” A method of shooting guns without noise[2579] excites -our curiosity, but we recall that Thomas Browne classes among his -Vulgar Errors the belief in a “white powder that kills without report,” -concerning which, he wittily remarks, “there is no small noise in the -world.”[2580] We turn to “Experiments made at several times upon Oxe’s -galls,”[2581] to “Preparations and Experiments” and “Some excerpts from -the experiments of Andreas Michelius.”[2582] In a manuscript which -consists chiefly of recipes we find directions for making saltpeter and -gunpowder and various kinds of fireworks.[2583] An experimental remedy -for the gout[2584] carries our thoughts back to Alexander of Tralles, -while a manuscript written in 1579 consists of “A book of certain -experiments of physics, copied out of an old written book in old -English, bearing the date of 1329, by John Nettleton, with additions of -medical receipts and observations in a later hand.”[2585] - -[Sidenote: Magic experiments.] - -We come to the books of magic in the manuscripts of the seventeenth -century in the Sloane collection and find them full and running over -with “experiments.” “An excellent approved experiment to cause a thief -to come again with the goods.” “An experiment to call out spirits that -are keepers of treasure trove, either by an artificiall inchantment -magically, or otherwise by Divine justice.” “An introduction teaching -the use of the foregoing treates and thereby other experiments.”[2586] -Another manuscript has “some experiments and incantations and imperfect -conjurations written by John Evans,” “some experiments for sport,” -“an experiment with book and key to reveal the thief by the names of -the suspects,” and the equally superstitious experiments of William -Bacon.[2587] Elsewhere we meet “A magical treatise containing a -number of experiments and directions to those that will call any -spirit,”[2588] “Experiments for finding out stolen or hidden things by -the help of the Chrystal Stone,” “A noble experiment of King Solomon -with astrological tables,”[2589] “Experiments for love,” “Experiments -for all games,”[2590] “the doctrine of all experiments,”[2591] “some -magical experiments,” “many experiments of magic,”[2592] and so on and -so forth; in short, magic experiments galore. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2442] Steinschneider (1906), p. 44; (1862), p. 53. - -[2443] A Hebrew version is extant in a Munich MS (214, fol. 109v) -described by Steinschneider (1862), pp. 54-5. - -[2444] For a list of the MSS see Appendix I to this chapter. - -[2445] A _Liber tegimenti_ cited in the _De mirabilibus mundi_ -ascribed to Albertus Magnus perhaps refers to our treatise, of which -the _De mirabilibus_ seems to make further use. The citation from -the _Liber tegimenti_ is to the effect that a training in dialectic, -natural science, astrology, and nigromancy is necessary for one who -would thoroughly understand the world of nature and the books of the -philosophers. - -[2446] Cited by Steinschneider (1862), pp. 52-3, “Liber Neumich, sive -nevemich, et alio nomine vocant leges Platonis, qui totus liber est de -huiusmodi commixtionibus; et vocatur leges Platonis, quia contra leges -naturae est.” The passage was first noted by A. Jourdain. - -[2447] _Adversus astrologes_, lib. I, “sicut libros Platonis de vacca -magi circumferunt et quos vocant institutionum execrabilibus somniis -figmentisque refertos.” - -[2448] See above, p. 756, note 3. - -[2449] Digby 71, fol. 37r, “quare negas ergo quod si vacca sit -reliquarum rerum que suis proprietatibus agunt (?) donec experiaris et -certificis certitudine.” - -[2450] Arundel 342, fols. 47v-48r; Digby 71, fol. 42v; Corpus Christi -125, fol. 147r-v. - -[2451] The Hebrew version, according to Steinschneider (1862), p. 54, -devotes its first chapter to making bees from a calf and a calf from -bees rather than, like the Latin version, to the production of “a -rational animal.” - -[2452] Arundel 342, fol. 48v; Digby 71, fol. 43v; Corpus Christi 125, -fol. 148r. - -[2453] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 150r. - -[2454] _Ibid._, fol. 150r-v. As the three MSS which I used were all -difficult to decipher, I did not take time to locate each recipe in all -three, having satisfied myself of the essential identity of contents of -the two Oxford MSS at least, which I compared together. - -[2455] Arundel 342, fols. 50v-51r. - -[2456] _Ibid._, fol. 54v; Digby 71, fol. 56r; Corpus Christi 125, fol. -159v. - -[2457] Arundel 342, fols. 52v-53r. - -[2458] Arundel 342, fol. 53r. - -[2459] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 159v. - -[2460] Digby 71, fol. 56r. - -[2461] Arundel 342, fol. 54v; Corpus Christi 125, fol. 159v. - -[2462] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 157r. - -[2463] _Ibid._, fol. 151v. - -[2464] _Ibid._, fol. 152r. - -[2465] _Ibid._, fol. 151v. - -[2466] Digby 219, late 16th century, fols. 120-43, “Liber quartus -Platonis tribus partibus, explicatus ab Hamete filio Hasam rogatu -Thebeth,” opening “Dixit Thebeth Hames filio Hasam, Abrevia nobis -quod de revelatione occultorum intellexisti et expone librum senioris -Platonis,” and closing, “Dixit Plato et qui cognovit cognovit quod -quedam dictorum nostrorum, etc. Hic defiunt multa.” - -Other earlier MSS are: - -S. Marco XVI, 1, 14th century, fols. 43-6, Platonis quartus super -secretis naturae, opening, “Dixit Plato, cum res ex eodem genere -sint....” - -S. Marco XVI, 3, 15th century, fols. 291-303, Commentum tertiae partis -quarti de quartis Platonis, opening, “Haec scientia incipit a potentia -et pervenit ad actum....” - -Bologna University Library 138, 15th century, fols. 216v-21v, “Quartum -Platonis scolasticorum. Dixit Plato ... / ... omnibus diebus vite sue.” - -Bologna University Library 270, X, 15-16th century, fol. 185r, “Quartum -Platonis scolasticorum. In nomine Dei ... / ... intellige hoc.” - -[2467] Zetzner, _Theatrum Chemicum_, V (Strasburg, 1622), 114-208, “cum -commento Hebuhabes et Hamed philosophorum, explicatus ab Hestole.” -Concerning the Arabic original see Steinschneider (1906), p. 44. -Berthelot (1893) I, 247-8, spoke of it as “ouvrage juif.” - -[2468] Berthelot (1893) II, 398. Lippmann (1919), p. 480. - -[2469] S. Marco XVI, 1, 14th century, fols. 20-26, Incipit liber -Platonis de tredecim clavibus sapientiae maioris, translatus de arabico -in latinum anno. Dom. 1301. It opens, “Narraverunt quod in terra -Romanorum fuit quidam philosophus qui vocabatur in arabico Platon....” - -Examples of MSS of what seem to be still other Platonic alchemies are: - -Orléans 290, 16th century, fol. 207-, “Incipit summa Platonis alkymie -sic inquiens: Cum res ex eodem sunt....” - -Riccard. 119, fols. 1r-2v, “In nomine domini amen. Incipit liber -Platonis super aptationem lapidis pretiosi scribens filio suo ex dictis -philosophorum. In vii capitulis.” - -[2470] Corpus Christi 125, fols. 78-80r, Galeni super Hermetis librum -secretorum expositio. - -[2471] Riccard. 1165, 15th century, fols. 96-101, “Practica in secretis -secretorum naturae,” fols. 101-105, “Theorica.” - -[2472] J. Wood Brown (1897) 83, has pointed out that in Riccard. 119, -fols. 192v-195v, the _Liber Archelai Philosophi de arte alchimiae_ is -called also in the margin _Practica Galieni in Secretis secretorum_. - -[2473] BN 6514, but Brown (1897) 83, who quotes the Latin of the -passage fails to mention the folio of the MS. - -[2474] Both copies of this work of which I know seem to be fragmentary. -Amplon. Quarto 361, English cursive hand of early 14th century, fol. -24, I have not seen, and follow the description of it by V. Rose in -his “Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo,” _Hermes_, VIII, 338-40, -which is fuller than the notice in Schum. Rose knew of no other MS of -the treatise, but I have examined it in the following: Digby 67, 15th -century, fol. 32. - -Both MSS have the same prologue by Ferrarius, in which the number of -experiments is stated as eighty-eight, and both open with the same -experiment. Rose gives the headings of only fourteen others, and then -begins the Book of Fires of Marcus Grecus, “Nunc incipiet liber ignium -a marcho greco descriptus,” which, as Rose says, follows the same -form of a series of experiments as the preceding Rasis. Indeed, in -Digby 67 the experiments of both treatises are numbered continuously -in the margin. The Rasis seems to end with the experiment numbered -33, a circumstance which led Macray to describe it as containing 33 -instead of 88 experiments. Digby 67, however, does not at present -contain experiments 1-33 inclusive, but only 1-5 and 27-33; apparently -a sheet is missing. The _Liber ignium_, beginning at experiment 34 -and at the same juncture as in the Amplon. MS, since the preceding -experiments in both cases were concerned with alcohol (_aqua ardens_), -turpentine, and Greek fire, comprises twenty-five experiments, after -which miscellaneous experiments carry the total number recorded in the -margin up to one hundred and forty-four. In the Amplon. MS the _Liber -ignium_ is followed by another experimental treatise entitled _Secreta -philosophorum_, of which more will be said presently. - -[2475] “In Toleno” or “In Coleno.” - -[2476] “Suus suo amicus amico Anselmo ferarius.” - -[2477] Strictly speaking there are two other sentences before the -words, “Rogasti me, amice Anselme....” - -[2478] Professor D. B. Macdonald warns me, however, that these are -common opening words in Arabic treatises. - -[2479] This and the preceding experiment follow the _liber ignium_ of -Marcus Grecus in CLM 197, 1438 A. D.; see Berthelot (1893) I, 124. - -[2480] First printed in 1804 by La Porte du Theil at the wish of -Napoleon who had heard of the old recipes for Greek fire. Hoefer gave -a faulty edition of it in his _History of Chemistry_, 2nd edition, I, -517-24. I have employed the text printed by Berthelot (1893) I, 89-135, -from four continental MSS: BN 7156, 13-14th century; BN 7158, 15th -century; CLM 267, about 1300 A. D.; CLM 197, about 1438 A. D. This -text is accompanied by a French translation, introduction, and notes. -Berthelot’s discussion of Marcus Grecus suffers from his ignorance -of the existence of other collections of experiments similar to it -in MSS contemporary with it. He notes only its resemblance to the -_De mirabilibus mundi_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus and to the books -of secrets printed in the sixteenth century. Marcus Grecus seems not -the same as Mark, the canon of Toledo (Marcus Canonicus Toletanus) in -the twelfth century who translated into Latin the Koran and works of -Hippocrates, Galen, and Honein ben Ishak: see Steinschneider (1905), p. -54. - -[2481] Besides the MSS used in his text Berthelot alludes to some MS -of the _Liber ignium_ in England which belonged to a Mr. Richard Mead -(probably, Professor D. B. Macdonald suggests, Dr. Richard Mead, the -eighteenth century London physician, many of whose books are now in the -Hunterian Museum, Glasgow), but does not mention Digby 67 and Amplon. -Quarto 361, which we have described already; nor CU St. John’s 177, -14th century (Italian), fol. 15v, “Incipit liber ignium a marco greco -prescriptus”; nor Sloane 323, 14th century. fols. 162-5; nor Digby 153, -14th century, fol. 179v-, where it is reduced to ten experiments. There -may be other MSS of the _Liber ignium_ in the British Museum, as I have -not searched especially for them. In Arundel 164, 15th century, fol. -192v, are Recepta varia de praeparatione ignis graeci. - -[2482] Berthelot (1893) I, 131. - -[2483] _Ibid._, pp. 111, 120. - -[2484] _Ibid._, p. 114. - -[2485] _Ibid._, p. 115. - -[2486] _Ibid._, pp. 114-5. - -[2487] _Ibid._, pp. 117-8. - -[2488] _Ibid._, pp. 105-7. - -[2489] _Ibid._, p. 112. - -[2490] Digby 67. - -[2491] _Ibid._, Experiments 60, 71-72, 73-74. - -[2492] _Ibid._, Experiments 76, 77, 88. - -[2493] _Ibid._, Experiments 92, 95, 97, 127. - -[2494] _Ibid._, Experiments 104 _et seq._ - -[2495] _Ibid._, Experiment 136. - -[2496] Digby 67, Experiment 90. - -[2497] _Ibid._, Experiment 144. - -[2498] Amplon. Quarto 361. - -[2499] Also Digby 153. - -[2500] Digby 71 and Corpus Christi 132. - -[2501] Addit. 32622, Egerton 2852, Digby 37, 153, CU Trinity 1351. - -[2502] Of the two MSS at Erfurt one is in an English hand. - -[2503] See Appendix II to this chapter for a list of the MSS. - -[2504] - -“Si sapiens fore vis, sex(?) serva que tibi mando: Quid dices, et ubi, -de quo, cum quo, quando.” - - -[2505] Called _anena_ (?). - -[2506] _Safina_ (salvia?). - -[2507] Concerning Peter Peregrinus see S. P. Thompson, _Petrus -Peregrinus de Maricourt and his Epistola de Magnete_, 1907, and _The -Epistle of P. Peregrinus concerning the Magnet_, done into English by -S. P. Thompson, 1902. Thompson lists eleven editions and 28 MSS. Addit. -32622, fols. 71-77r, and Egerton 2852, which I have examined, are -briefer than the printed text of the _Epistola_. Addit. 32622 has the -better diagrams of these two MSS. - -[2508] Digby 37 and 153. - -[2509] Addit. 32622, fols. 77-84. - -[2510] _Ibid._, fol. 80v, _ad faciendum volantem_ seems to be a rocket, -and fol. 81r _ad faciendum tonitruum magnum et horribile_ to be some -sort of an explosive. - -[2511] The work is described in HL 30: 567-95. I have not seen the -treatise itself. It exists in two different manuscript versions and a -third repeatedly printed text for which no corresponding manuscript can -be found. - -[2512] HL 30: 576 and 593. - -[2513] Sloane 121, 15-16th century, fols. 90v-92r. - -[2514] The knowledge that sulphur and quicklime will burn when brought -into contact with water seems, as Berthelot has pointed out, (1893) I, -95, to antedate Livy who writes (XXXIX, 13), “Matrones Baccharum habitu -... cum ardentibus facibus decurrere ad Tiberim demissasque in aquam -faces, quia vivum sulfur cum calce insit, integra flamma efferre.” - -[2515] Arundel 251, 14th century, fols. 12-24. - -[2516] Possibly there is some connection with the chemical experiments -of James Hutton (1726-1797), the geologist, and his discovery of a -process for manufacturing _sal ammoniac_ from coal-soot. - -[2517] Steinschneider (1905), p. 51, also mentions _Alcharius_ and -_Alcaus_. The catalogue of MSS at Munich gives _Alchabitii_; in a -Bologna MS we read _Aichauus_. - -[2518] Steinschneider (1905), p. 51, notes only four of the following -MSS, namely, those starred: - -Sloane 1754, 14th century, fol. 30, “De pelle serpentis 12 experimenta -et quaedam vera.” No author or translator is mentioned: the treatise -immediately follows the Experiments of Nicholas of Poland. - -Royal 12-D-XII, late 14th century, fol. 111v. - -Arundel 251, 14th century, fol. 35v. - -CU Trinity 1081, 15th century, fol. 69. - -Bodleian 177 (Bernard 2072), late 14th century, fols. 29v-30r. - -* Ashmole 1437, 15th century, fol. 3v, “De corio serpentis.” John’s -prefatory statement is omitted and no author is mentioned. - -* Amplon. Folio 276, early 14th century, fol. 69. - -CLM 206, 15th century, fol. 38, De viribus corei serpentis pulverisati. - -* CLM 444, 14th century, fol. 200. - -* CLM 534, 14th century, fol. 42v. - -Bologna University Library 135, 14th century, fols. 31r-32r, “Aichauus, -Liber vitae.... Illum autem librum fecit Aichauus fysicus.” - -Arezzo 232, 15th century, fol. 80, “Secreta magistri Iohannis,” from -the fact that they follow the _Verbum abreviatum_ ascribed to Roger -Bacon are probably the alchemical treatise attributed to Bacon’s -disciple, the youth John, rather than our treatise. - -Sloane 3679, 17th century, fol. 96v--, “Sequuntur quaedam Experimenta -mirabilia de spolio serpentis quae Jo. Hispalensis ex Arabico -transtulit in Latinum ex libro salutis vitae Alcani philosophi Arabici.” - -[2519] “Hic incipiunt 12 experimenta naturalia de corio serpentis -translata a johanne paulino ab arabico in latinum ut predictus -philosophus dicit cum ego Johannes essem in alexandria civitate -egipsiorum reperi ... hoc qui salus vitae appellatur....” Bodleian 177. - -[2520] Arundel 251, “Cum ego Johannis hyspanicus....” - -[2521] At least he seems to have been a different person from John of -St. Paul’s, a medical writer whose works will be found in a number -of MSS in the collections of Amplonius and Sir Hans Sloane, and whom -Scott in his _Index_ to the Sloane MSS has identified both with the -translator of the snakeskin experiments and with John Platearius. - -And still different from any of these would seem to have been -“Ioannis Paulus de Fundis,” doctor of arts and lecturer on medicine -and astronomy in the university, and astrologer of the commune, of -Bologna, whose _Tacuinus astronomico-medicus_, written in his own hand -in February, 1435, is preserved in a MS of the University Library at -Bologna. Nor is this _Tacuinus_ to be confused with the earlier work of -that title translated by the Jew Faradj ben Salem for Charles of Anjou. - -[2522] Sloane 1754. - -[2523] Sloane 1754. These virtues ascribed to snakeskin are perhaps -to be connected with the belief that the serpent renews its youth by -changing its skin every year: see J. G. Frazer (1918) I, 66. - -[2524] Royal 12-D-XII, fols. 112r-113r. Sloane 1754 ends immediately -after the twelfth experiment with the powdered snakeskin, while Arundel -251 adds but one further sentence. - -[2525] Canon. Misc. 524, fol. 17r-v, “Secreta Alberti magni de serpente -dedita uno doctori sacre theologie ordinis minorum de Norenbergia.” - -[2526] Sloane 1754 and CLM 534. Sloane 1754 also contains the following -experimental works which have not yet been mentioned: fols. 80-82, -_Experimenta de sanguine_; fols. 197-201, 205-8, 212-8, 222-31, -_Chimica experimenta varia_. - -[2527] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 119-28, de experimentis chemicis -in viginti capitula distributis, opening, “Septem sunt corpora scilicet -Saturnus, Jupiter,” and closing, “Et sic finitur opus Nicholai.” - -Corpus Christi 125, 14-15th century, fols. 90r-91v. This has the -same _Incipit_ and some of the same experiments, but is briefer. It -addresses a certain William (fol. 90r) and cites Michael Scot (fol. -91r). - -Duhem, III (1915) 443, note, cites from Digby 164, which I have not -seen, “Chi sont les lettres de frère Nichole envoiiées à Bernard de -Verdun et les lettres de frère Bernard envoiiées à frère Nichole sur la -pierre des philosophes.” - -[2528] This marginal numbering goes on from 21 to 64 in succeeding -treatises, including one on twelve waters, numbered 25 to 36. - -[2529] For instance, under 9. _Aqua pro igne Greco_, _Ignis -inextinguabilis_, _Ignis quem invenit Aristoteles cum Alexandro_, _De 3 -generibus igneum_; under 10, _Ad accendendum ignem ad solem_, _Ut manus -ardere videatur nec ardeat_, _Ignis discurrens_, _Candele_, _Ignis ad -sagittandum_. - -[2530] See the headings in the preceding note, and other chapters, most -of which Black has already listed in his description of the MS, where -he says, “Some of the chapters are curious and highly deserve notice.” - -[2531] Ashmole 1448, p. 119. - -[2532] _Ibid._, pp. 125-6. - -[2533] See above p. 251. - -[2534] See above p. 500. - -[2535] BN 6514, fol. 40. - -[2536] In the Florentine MS, Palat. 887, 15-16th century, fols. 89-, -91-, 93-4, three different books of twelve waters occur in succession; -and Berthelot (1893) I, 70, has noted that the texts of the _Book of -Twelve Waters_ are different in MSS, BN 6514, fol. 40 and BN 7156, fol. -145v, and in the printed _Theatrum chemicum_, III, 104. Also in Ashmole -1448, 15th century, occur two different _Books of Twelve Waters_, at -pp. 130-40, “Incipit liber de aquis qui dicitur 12 aquarum ... / ... -explicit tractatus 12 aquarum;” at pp. 193-6, “Hic incipit liber 12 -aquarum Alkimie seu in Alkamica.” - -[2537] In the first _liber de aquis_ in Ashmole 1448 mentioned in the -preceding note there are paragraphs numbered from 25 to 57 and more -than twelve waters are mentioned. - -[2538] Digby 119, early 14th century, fols. 205-6, Liber Rasis de aquis -12 optimis, opening, “Aqua mollificatissima et nigrissima.” - -Sloane 1754, 14th century, fol. 112r, “Incipit liber rasis de 12 aquis -preciosis. Libelli huius series 12 splendet capitulis. Primum de aqua -rubicunda. Secundum de aqua penetrativa. Tertium de aqua mollificanti -et ingrediente. Quartum de aqua eiusdem ponderis et magni nominis. -Quintum de aqua ignita. Sextum de aqua sulphurea. Septimum de aqua -cineris. Octavum de aqua aurea. Nonum de aqua martis de albatione. -Decem de aqua almarcaside et argenti dissolutione. Undecimum de aqua in -mercurii congelatione et conglutinatione. Duodecimum de aqua perpetua.” - -In the same MS at fol. 78r-, “Incipit 12 aquarum liber. Libelli huius -series duodecim splendet capitulis. Primum de aqua rubicunda. Secundus -de rubicundo ere. 3m. de rubigine. 4m. de croceo ferreo. 5m. de -rubicundo lapide. 6 de aqua sulphurea. 7 de aqua cineris. 8 de gummi -rubicundo. 9 de aqua penetrativa, 10 de aqua marchaside in argenti -dissolutione. 11 de aqua vitrea. 12 de fermento.” - -As the _Incipits_ and chapter headings suggest, the two treatises are -in portions identical, elsewhere divergent. Such is also apt to be the -case where the work occurs in different manuscripts. - -[2539] Vienna 5230, 15-16th century, fols. 293-5, “Primo recapitulat -libellus ... / ... sulfuris et magnesie vocabulum assumit.” - -[2540] Some MSS are: - -Corpus Christi 125, 13-15th century, fols. 82-3. “Explicit liber -duodecim aquacionum.” - -Corpus Christi 277, 15th century, fol. 9, Liber duodecim aquarum. - -Digby 219, late 16th century, fol. 109v, “Libelli huius series 12 -splendet capitulis.” - -Ashmole 1485, fol. 173. - -CLM 405, 14-15th century, fol. 65, Liber aquarum; fol. 160, De XII -aquis. - -Bologna University Library 474, fols. 16r-19v, “Libelli huius -series....” - -Savignano di Romagna 44, 15th century. - -[2541] Vienna 5315, 15th century, fols. 128-33, de aqua vitae, “Inter -cetera domini Alberti magna aquarum experimenta ... / ... urina fractum -expellit.” - -[2542] CLM 666, 15th century, fol. 81-, Arnoldus de Villanova de aquis. - -[2543] _De virtutibus aquae vitae_, in both CLM 363, 1464-1466 A. D., -fol. 78; and CLM 666, 15th century, fols. 129-47. - -[2544] Vienna 5336, 15th century, fol. 29, “Prima recipe ysopi pulegii -... / ... natura provenientes.” - -[2545] Harleian 2258, fol. 189, de aquis physicalibus. - -[2546] Rawlinson C, 815, 15-16th century, fols. 25-7, “Libellus sancti -Egidii de virtutibus quarundam aquarum, quas ipse in deserto commorans -fecit.” - -[2547] Such as Digby 71, 14th century, fols. 81-4, _aqua vitae_; -Rawlinson D, 251, 14-15th century, fols. 64v-72, _de virtutibus -aquarum_; etc. - -[2548] Brussels, Library of Dukes of Burgundy 14746, 15th century, -Colores xii seu virtutes eorum, “Jaspis viridis et crassi....” - -[2549] BN 7105, 15th century, #2, Virgilii de pictorialibus aquis pro -depingendo super linteamina vel pannos; #3, Anon. de coloribus. - -[2550] _Original Treatises dating from the XIIth to XVIIIth centuries -on the arts of painting_, London, 1849, vol. I. - -[2551] Some of them may prove upon examination, however, to be works by -known authors or extracts from the same. - -BN 6552, 14th century, #2. - -BN 6742, 17th century. - -BN 6749, 1481 A. D. #9, 10. - -BN 7344A, 14th century, #3. - -BN 7400A, 14th century, #5, Modus faciendi colores et distemperandi; -#6, Varia experimenta chemica. - -Bernard 3623, #34, de diversitate colorum. - -Digby 147, 14th century, fols. 33-4, de coloribus. - -Cotton Julius D-V, end of the 13th century, fol. 156-, de viridi colore -faciendo ad usum scribendi. - -Julius D-VIII, fols. 77v-87, a treatise in English on colors, -medicines, etc.; following it are cooking recipes and directions for -making parchment, ink, and _si vis invisibilis fieri_. - -Titus D-XXIV, fol. 127, Latin and French, de distemperandis coloribus -ad scribendum vel illuminandum. - -Harleian 218, fol. 71, Experimenta bina Anglice: “For to rasone -parchement without knyffe” and “To make asure.” - -Sloane 342, 13th century, fol. 132, “Quidam Lumbardus socius concessit -mihi ista de libro suo qui intitulatur liber Massia de coloribus.” In -Egerton 840A the work of Theophilus was called _tractatus Lumbardicus_. - -Sloane 1698, 14th century, fols. 45-52. - -Amplon. Quarto 189, 13-14th century, fols. 67-8, Notae de coloribus. - -CLM 444, 14th century, fol. 214, de coloribus faciendis. - -CLM 27063, 15th century, fols. 37-8, de coloribus faciendis et remedia. - -Florence II-vi-54, 13th century, fols, 1-11, “Incipit de coloribus. -Simplices colorum sunt quecumque elementis consequentia ... / ... -Explicit de coloribus, incipit de mundo animalium.” - -S. Marco X-55, 14th century, fols. 1-4, “Simplices colorum sunt -quicumque elementis consequantur ut igni et aeri”; apparently the same -treatise as the foregoing. - -Vienna 5207, 15th century, fols. 112-6, is a treatise on colors -ascribed to Urso; “Primo videamus ... / ... et hec de coloribus -summariter dicta sufficiant secundum Ursonem.” - -[2552] Rawlinson D, 252, 15th century, fol. 98v. - -[2553] Sloane 314, 15th century, fol. 106v. - -[2554] Or at least this part of the MS is of the early 13th century. -The MS, Amplon. Octavo 32, 11th-14th century, is in part a palimpsest. -Our experiment, which occurs at fol. 89, has been printed in Haupt’s -_Zeitschrift f. d. Alterth._, III, 190. - -[2555] BN 7337, pp. 45-6, Experimentum naturale unicum (?) et -ineffabile. - -[2556] HL 24:468-71. According to Christine, her father was “doctorifié -à Bologna la Grasse en la science de la Médecine.” - -[2557] That is, the _Speculum astronomiae_. - -[2558] Digby 86, 13th century, fols. 34, 46-8. - -[2559] Digby 69, about 1300 A. D., fol. 201, Experimenta quaedam in -quibus occurrunt multa verba scripta in forma occulta omissis vocabulis. - -[2560] Amplon. Quarto 301, first half of the 15th century, fol. 100. - -[2561] Canon. Misc. 521, 15-16th century, fol. 37, de tubarum sonis -aliaque experimenta mathematica, partim ex Hugonis spiraminibus -confecta, figuris instructa (mutilated at the beginning). - -[2562] Merton College 324, 15th century, fols. 229v-234, Libellus -experimentorum pro diversis, opening “Ad dissolvendum flemmaticos -humores.” - -[2563] Additional 34111, 15th century (in English) fols. 70-, 77-, -114v-, 169-, 174-, 190v-. - -[2564] Vienna 5492, 15th century, fols. 1r-2v, Vididenus (?), “Liber -septem experimentorum ad imperatorem Fridericum. Cap. 1; accipe -sanguinem draconis....” Palatine 794, 15-16th century, fols. i-xxxii, -“In nomine domini Amen. Questi sono isperimenti tratti di più libri i -quali lo ’mperadore Federigho fece scriuere, i quali sono prouati e -ueri.” - -[2565] Wolfenbüttel 2189, 15th century, fols. 174-5, Quedam experimenta -Parisiis probata. Wolfenbüttel 2503, 15th century, fols. 271-82, -Experimenta collecta a magistris Parisiensibus collaudata et primo de -pulveribus/Explicit hoc opus laudabile collectum Parisius circa annos -Domini 1331 approbatum per diversos doctores eiusdem alme universitatis. - -[2566] Escorial P-II-5, 14th century, fols. 69v-74, Incipiunt -experimenta Cancellarii et Cardinalis. Possibly there is some -connection with BN 7056, Experimenta magistri Gilberti Cancellarii -Montepessulani, or with Wolfenbüttel 3489, 14-15th century, fols. -83-135v, Experimenta magistri cancellarii de Monte Pessulano. - -[2567] CU Trinity 1081, 15th century and later. I follow the analysis -of its contents by James, III, 54-7. CU Trinity 1109, 14th century, -with 63 items (described by James, III, 84-92), is much the same, -including various tracts of divination and astrology, and works on -waters, fires, herbs, stones, and animals, together with the more -reputable works of Sacrobosco, Jordanus, and Burley. - -[2568] Sloane 483, fols. 148-59; this and all the succeeding MSS, -unless otherwise stated, are of the 17th century. - -[2569] Sloane 733, fols. 1-10, “Parva experimenta empirica.” - -[2570] Sloane 744, 16th century, fols. 27-31. - -[2571] Sloane 1220, fols. 187-265, Novum systhema collegii -experimentalis. - -[2572] Sloane 1255, fols. 36-38, 144v, 240, 241v. - -[2573] Sloane 1289, fols. 80-95. - -[2574] Sloane 1292. - -[2575] Sloane 1317. - -[2576] Sloane 1367. - -[2577] Sloane 1501. - -[2578] Sloane 1512. - -[2579] Sloane 1731A, written about 1700, fol. 13. - -[2580] Browne, _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_, II, 5. - -[2581] Sloane 2039, fols. 112-14. - -[2582] Sloane 2046, fols. 67-76, 141-55. - -[2583] Sloane 2818, fols. 102-8, 140v-145. - -[2584] Sloane 3328, fol. 17. - -[2585] Sloane 3655, fol. 131. - -[2586] Sloane 3824, fols. 16-21, 89-120, 141-54. - -[2587] Sloane 3846, fols. 24-30, 30v, 79v-86, 93v-98. - -[2588] Sloane 3847, fols. 152-9. - -[2589] Sloane 3849, 15th-16th centuries, fols. 17-22, 30-38. - -[2590] Sloane 3851, fols. 140-4, 144v. - -[2591] Sloane 3853, fols. 3-45, “Thesaurum spirituum secundum -Robertum Turconem et Rogerum Bacon,” opens, “Haec est doctrina omnium -experimentorum;” fols. 176-219, a magic book called _Dannet_ opens, -“This is the doctryne of all experiments in generall.” - -[2592] Sloane 3853, fol. 266, Experimenta quaedam magica; fols. 54-63, -70-120, Experimenta plurima magicae. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LIBER VACCAE - - -The three first MSS in the list are those which I have used. -Steinschneider (1906), p. 43, listed four MSS: Digby 71, Corpus Christi -125 and 132, and Montpellier 277. The three which I examined were -wretchedly written and full of abbreviations. - - Arundel 342, 14th century, Italian hand, fols. 46r-54v. - The _Titulus_ is “Incipit liber institutionum activorum - (_sic_) Platonis in quo Humayn filius Zacarie sic loquitur - dicens.” The _Incipit_ is “Galienus cum praeparavit ut - abreviaret librum Platonis physici, qui nominatus est - liber anguemis.” The _Explicit_ is “Expletus est liber - aggregationum Anguemis Platonis cum expositione Humayn - filii Ysaach gratia Dei.” - - Digby 71, 14-16th century, fols. 36r-56, Liber Vaccae, - precepta et experimenta alchemica et magica, praemisso - prologo (ut videtur) longo. Incipit prologus, “Conferat - tibi Deus mores nobiles.” Incipit liber (fol. 40v) - “Galienus cum propter amatum voluit abbreviares (_sic_) - librum Platonis philosophi qui nominatus est liber - anequems.” Ad calcem (fol. 56) “Completur liber anequems - Platonis id est liber vacce.” - - Corpus Christi 125, 13-15th century, fols. 121v-141r - (141-60, according to the system of numbering which I have - followed in the foot-notes of the preceding chapter). - This MS repeats the first prologue, found in Digby 71 but - missing in Arundel 342. It ends, “Completus est liber - Anaguenis, id est, liber vaccae.” - - Corpus Christi 132, 15th century, fols. 139-66, has the same - title and opening as the preceding. - - CLM 22292, 12-13th century, fol. 68, Epistola de medicina, - opening, “Conferat tibi deus mores,” and ending, “Explicit - epistola Ameti” (a name which usually means the astrologer - Alfraganus); fol. 70, Prologus in librum Anguemis, of - which the text does not seem to follow, since at fol. - 72 comes a commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates. - In this early MS therefore we seem to have only the two - prologues. - - Amplon. Quarto 188, written in 1267 A. D., 1319, and - later, fols. 103-4, Liber vacce seu liber aggregacionis - diversorum philosophorum, opening, “Primor queritur - quare risus magis sequitur titillacionem,” and closing, - “significet fleubotomia predominari et odor debet et - etiam.” From its brevity and opening and closing words - this would seem to be only a fragment of our treatise. - Schum states that it was originally followed in the MS by - another treatise on nigromancy, since torn out, and that - in the sixteenth century the two works were given the - common title, “Liber vacce nigromanticus.” But perhaps it - is only a part of the _Liber Vacce_ that has been torn out. - - Florence II-iii-214, 15th century, fol. 57-, “Liber - institutionum activarum Platonis in quo Hunayn filius - Ysac sic loquitur;” fols. 59-72, “Inquit Hunayn, Galenus - dixit ... / ... completus est liber agregationis aneguemis - maioris et minoris Platonis cum expositione Unayn filii - Ysac et declaratione Galieni.” - - The treatise was once found in the library of St. - Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, 1275, vacca platonis. - - Among MSS which T. Allen had in 1622 but which are no longer - in the Digby collection was, in 16mo, Liber Anequems - Platonis, id est, Liber vaccae. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SECRETUM PHILOSOPHORUM - - -Of the following MSS I have chiefly used Additional 32622, Digby 37, -and Digby 153. - - CU Trinity 1214, good hand of late 12th century, fols. - 71-82, is perhaps an earlier precursor of our treatise, - judging from the following headings given by James: “De - aque ductibus, de puteis fodiendis, de probatione aque - ... de fistulis organicis ... de calce ... de fabrica - ville rustice disponenda, de balneis ... de coloribus ... - de norme institutione, de horologii institutione ... de - solidamentis, de altitudine arborum sive turrium probanda, - probacio auri, de arte multiplicandi, de arte organizandi.” - - Amplon. Quarto 330, mid 13th-early 14th century, fols. 1-23, - appears to be the earliest of the MSS of our treatise. - - Amplon. Quarto 361, English hand of early 14th century, - fols. 27-40. - - Additional 32622, small octavo written in England in early - 14th century, fols. 3-84, “Iste liber quem prae manibus - habemus vocatur Secretum philosophorum, et intitulatur - isto nomine quia in eo continentur quaedam secreta quae - reputatione vulgari sunt impossibilia, apud philosophos - secreta et necessaria.” - - Additional 18752, small quarto, 14-16th century, fols. 1-28, - “Secretum philosophorum,” imperfect. - - Sloane 2579, fol. 2-. - - Egerton 2852, mid 14th century, fols. 5v-49v. - - Digby 37, 14th century, fols. 4-43, “Secretum philosophorum.” - - Digby 71, 14-16th century, fols. 85-97, _Titulus_ as in - Addit. 32622, imperfect, leaving off in the midst of - “Arithmetic.” - - Digby 153, 14th century, fols. 148-67v. - - Rawlinson C, 7, 14th century, fols. 51-87, mutilated at - close. - - Corpus Christi 132, 15th century, fols. 1-59, _Titulus_ as - in Addit. 32622 and Digby 71. - - CU Trinity 1082, 15th century, fols. 1-110. - - CU Trinity 1144, late 15th century, fols. 9-54v. - - CU Trinity 1351, late 15th century, fols. 1-25, James gives - no general title, but his description is sufficient to - identify it with our treatise. - - Gonville and Caius 413, 15th century, #4, 31 fols. - - - - -CHAPTER LXVI - -PICATRIX - - - Problem of date and authorship--Law of Alfonso the Wise - concerning magic and astrology--Picatrix a confused - compilation--Its mentions of magic--Magic and science--Its - use of natural virtues--Magic compounds--Things required - of the magician--Magic procedure--Invocation of - spirits--Necromancy and astrology--Astronomical images--Aims - and results of magic--Appendix I. Manuscripts of _Picatrix_. - - _“Scientia ... semper acquirit et numquam diminuit; semper - elevat et numquam degenerat; semper apparet et numquam se - abscondit.”_ - - -[Sidenote: Problem of date and authorship.] - -Another celebrated medieval book of magic is that which usually goes by -the name of _Picatrix_, who is, however, cited in the work itself[2593] -and would seem to have been only one of its authors, translators, -compilers, or sources. Nevertheless he is mentioned as author in the -title, _Incipit_, and _Explicit_ of the manuscripts,[2594] and is -called “very wise,” “a philosopher,” “most skilled in mathematics,” and -“very learned in the arts of necromancy.” The treatise is also said to -have been compiled by Norbar the Arab in the twelfth century.[2595] The -Latin manuscripts state that in 1256 it was translated from Arabic into -Spanish by order of Alfonso the Wise; but when it was translated into -Latin is not stated. There seem to be no Latin manuscripts older than -the fifteenth century, and none of our thirteenth century Latin writers -seems to have been acquainted with the work. Peter of Abano, it is -true, is charged by Symphorien Champier, writing in 1514,[2596] with -having borrowed from _Picatrix_, but Champier does not substantiate -his charge and I have found no unmistakable evidence of it in Peter’s -works. Evidently, however, _Picatrix_ was well-known in Latin by 1514. -Rabelais, who lived from 1495 to 1553, speaks of “le reuerend pere en -Diable Picatris, recteur de la faculté diabolologique” at Toledo.[2597] -A Cambridge doctor about 1477 cites “Picatrix in his third book of -magic.”[2598] The work seems never to have been printed and J. Wood -Brown expresses the hope that it may never be translated into any -modern language.[2599] - -Law of Alfonso the Wise concerning magic and astrology. - -It was fitting that such a work should have been translated from the -Arabic under the patronage of Alfonso X, the Wise or Learned, who is -noted for his astronomical tables, and whose favorable attitude toward -astrology and magic may be seen from the law on those subjects in his -code of the Seven Parts.[2600] Divination of the future by the stars -is sanctioned in the case of persons properly trained in astronomy, -although other varieties of divination are forbidden. And while those -who conjure evil spirits or who make waxen, metallic, or other images -with the aim to harm their fellows are to be punished by death; those -who employ incantations with good intentions and good results are -pronounced deserving of reward rather than penalty. Thus no objection -is made to magic procedure but only to evil intentions and results. - -[Sidenote: _Picatrix_ a confused compilation.] - -_Picatrix_ divides into four books and is accompanied in the -manuscripts by tables of contents which, however, are not as helpful -as might be expected, since the work really has no plan and the -division into books and chapters is quite arbitrary.[2601] In short, -the work is a confused compilation of extracts from occult writings -and a hodgepodge of innumerable magical and astrological recipes. The -author states that he “has compiled this book,” that he intends to set -forth “in simple language” what past sages have concealed in cryptic -words, and that he has spent some six years in reading two hundred and -twenty-four books by “ancient sages.”[2602] Whenever modern compilers -of the notions of folk-lore and the magical customs of aborigines shall -have exhausted their resources, a rich mine will still await them in -this book of magic. We can give but a few specimens of its contents -here. - -[Sidenote: Mentions of magic.] - -For _Picatrix_ is openly and professedly a book of magic. At the close -of the first of its four books we are told that its contents are “the -roots of the magic art” and that “without them one cannot become -perfect in such arts.”[2603] Throughout all four books such phrases are -used as “magic works,” “magic effects,” “magical sciences,” and “the -operator of magic,” and books of magic are cited by Abrarem (Abraham?), -Geber, and Plato.[2604] It is true that the term necromancy is also -employed frequently and a chapter devoted to its definition,[2605] and -that astrological images and invocations of demons are the subjects -most discussed. So in a way the work is primarily a treatise of -astrological necromancy. But it is said on the supposed authority -of Aristotle that the first man to work with such images and to -whom spirits appeared was Caraphrebim, the inventor of the magic -art.[2606] It is also affirmed that the science of the stars is the -root of magic, that the forms of the planets or astronomical images -“have power and marvelous effects in magic operations;” while after -announcing his intention of listing “the secrets of ancient sages in -the magic art,” the first thing that our author divulges is that the -influence of Saturn exceeds the influence of the moon.[2607] Evidently -little distinction is made between astrology and magic. On the whole -then, although magic is not defined at length in _Picatrix_, it seems -justifiable to apply it as a general term covering the contents of the -book, and to regard astronomical images and invocations of demons as -two leading features of the magic art. - -[Sidenote: Magic and science.] - -Picatrix regards magic as a science, as a superior branch of learning, -to excel in which one must first master many other studies. He -believes that the greatest philosophers of antiquity, such as Plato -and Aristotle, have written books of magic. Hermes is also cited -frequently. Our author also has a high appreciation of science which -in his first chapter he declares to be God’s greatest gift to man. -“It always is making acquisitions and never diminishes; it ever -elevates and never degenerates; it is always clear and never conceals -itself.”[2608] - -[Sidenote: Use of natural virtues.] - -Much use of natural objects is made in the various recipes of -_Picatrix_. Here is one brief example: Adam the prophet says that if -you take fourteen grains of the fruit of the laurel tree, dry them -well and pulverize them and put the powder in a very clean dish in -vinegar, and beat it with a twig from a fig tree, you can make anyone -you wish possessed of demons by giving him this powder to drink.[2609] -One chapter is especially devoted to “the virtues of certain -substances produced from their own peculiar natures,” and the author -further explains that “in this section we shall state the marvelous -properties of simple things, as well of trees as of animals and of -minerals.”[2610] Hermes is quoted as saying that there are many marvels -for necromancy in the human body,[2611] and various parts thereof -are often employed by Picatrix. Thus in making a magic mirror a -suffumigation is employed of seven products of the human body, namely, -tears, blood, ear-wax, spittle, _sperma_, _stercus_, _urina_.[2612] -Indeed, vile and obscene substances are in great demand for purposes of -magic throughout the book. Picatrix, like the _De mirabilibus mundi_, -considers heat an important force in magic and mentions both elemental -and natural heat, the former referring to the use of the element fire -in sacrifice, suffumigation, and the preparation of magic compounds, -the latter designating the heat of digestion when simples or mixtures -must be eaten to take effect.[2613] - -[Sidenote: Magic compounds.] - -Although we have found one chapter devoted to the virtues of simples, -in actual magical procedure several things are generally combined, as -in a suffumigation with fourteen dead bats and twenty-four mice, to -give a comparatively simple example.[2614] On the supposed authority -of Aristotle in a book written to Alexander, detailed instructions -are given how to make four “stones” of great virtue and of elaborate -composition by procedure more or less alchemistic.[2615] Indeed, there -are listed all sorts of “confections,” compounds, and messes, either -to burn or to sacrifice or to eat or to drink or to smell of or to -anoint oneself with, in order to bring various wonders to pass. The -ingredients employed include different oils and drugs, butter, honey, -wine, sugar, incense, aloes, pepper, mandragora, twigs, branches, -adamant, lead, sulphur, gold, the brains of a hare, the blood of a -wolf, the urine of an ass, the filth of a leopard, and various portions -of such further animals as apes, cats, bears, and pigs. Besides the -actual ingredients all sorts of receptacles and material paraphernalia -are called into requisition: vessels, jars, vases, braziers, crosses, -candles, crowns, and so on. - -[Sidenote: Things required of the magician.] - -Much is said of the magician himself as well as of the materials which -he employs. He should have faith in his procedure, put himself into an -expectant and receptive mood, be diligent and solicitous.[2616] Often -chastity is requisite, sometimes fasting or dieting, sometimes the -wearing of certain garments.[2617] He must have studied a long list -of other sciences before he can attempt necromancy, but then he must -drop all other studies and devote himself to it exclusively. A little -knowledge of necromancy is a dangerous thing, and the ignorant meddler -therein is liable to be violently slain by indignant demons.[2618] -Much depends also upon the magician’s personality and natural fitness. -No one can succeed in the science of images unless his own nature is -inclined thereto by the stars. Some men are more subtle and spiritual, -less gross and corporeal than others, and hence more successful in -magic.[2619] The ancients, when they wished to employ a boy in magic, -used to test his fitness by fire as well as make sure that he was -physically sound.[2620] - -[Sidenote: Magic procedure.] - -It has already been implied that great stress is laid upon procedure -in _Picatrix_. Extensive use is made of images of the person or thing -concerned. Thus an image of a fish is employed to catch fish, and to -bewitch a girl a waxen image of her is made and dressed in clothes -like hers. In both cases, however, there is additional ceremony to be -observed. In the image of the fish the head should first be fashioned; -furthermore the image of the fish is to be poised on a slender rod of -silver and this is to be stood erect in a vessel filled with water. -This vessel is then to be hermetically sealed with wax and dropped to -the bottom of the stream in which it is proposed to fish.[2621] In the -bewitching of the girl, which is recounted as an actual occurrence, -the object was to make her come to a certain man. Hence another image -was made of him out of a pulverized stone mixed with gum, and the two -images of man and girl were placed facing each other in a vase where -seven twigs of specified trees had been arranged crosswise. The vase -was then buried under the hearth where there was a moderate fire and -a piece of ice. When the ice had melted, the vase was unearthed and -the girl was immediately seen approaching the house. In the reverse -process to free her from the spell a candle was lit on the hearth, the -two images were taken out and rudely torn apart and an incantation -uttered.[2622] To make a spring that is going dry flow more freely a -small and comely virgin should walk up and down beating a drum for -three hours, and then another small and good-looking girl should join -in with a tambourine for six hours more. To ward off hail storms a -company of people should go out in the fields, half of them tossing -handfuls of silk or cotton (_bombix_) toward the sky and the other -half clapping their hands and shouting as rustics do to frighten away -birds.[2623] Tying seven knots and saying an incantation over each is -another specimen of the ceremonial in _Picatrix_. - -[Sidenote: Invocation of spirits.] - -Ritual also plays an important part in the invocation of spirits. If -one wishes to invoke the spirit called “Complete Nature” he must enter -a spick and span room while the moon is in the first degree of Aries. -Various receptacles filled with different foods and combustibles must -be arranged in a certain way on a table. Then he must stand facing -the east and invoke the spirit by its four names seven times and -repeat a prescribed form of prayer for increase of knowledge and of -moral strength.[2624] To draw down the virtue and power of the moon -one crowns oneself in the favorable astrological hour and goes to a -green spot beside a stream. There he beheads with a bone--under no -circumstances employing iron--a cock with a divided crest. He stands -between two braziers filled with live coals on which he casts grains of -incense gradually until smoke arises; then, looking toward the moon, -he should say, “O moon, luminous and honored and beautiful, thou who -shatterest darkness by thy light, rising in the east and filling the -whole horizon with thy light and beauty, I come to thee humbly asking a -boon.” Having stated his wish, he withdraws ten paces, facing the moon -the while and repeating the above formula. Then more incense is burned -and a sacrifice performed and characters inscribed on a leaf with the -ashes of the sacrifice and a bit of saffron. This leaf is then burned, -and as its smoke rises the form of a well-dressed man will appear, who -will answer the petition.[2625] - -[Sidenote: Necromancy and astrology.] - -Throughout _Picatrix_ planets and spirits are closely associated. -Many instructions are given how to pray to each of the planets and -to work magic by their aid, just as if they were demons. It is hard -to say whether the spirits are more thought of as forces in nature -or the stars as gods. A necromancer who does not know astronomy is -helpless, and each planet has a list of personal names associated not -only with itself but with its every part and position.[2626] Lists are -also given of the boons which one may ask from each planet, and of -the stones, metals, animals, trees, colors, tinctures, odors, places, -suffumigations, and sacrifices appropriate to each planet and sign of -the zodiac, in order that one may use the proper materials, eat the -right food, and wear the right clothes when petitioning any one of -them.[2627] Let us remember, too, that the natural qualifications of -the magician depend upon his horoscope. - -[Sidenote: Astronomical images.] - -Finally _Picatrix_ devotes much space to astronomical images,[2628] -which, engraved preferably upon gems in accordance with the aspect -of the sky at some instant when the constellations are especially -favorable, are supposed to receive the celestial influences at their -maximum and store them up for future use. That they receive “the force -of the planets” and produce marvelous works, such as the invocation -of demons, is in our author’s opinion “proved by nature and by -experiment.” He lists images for forty-eight figures made from the -fixed stars, for the twenty-eight mansions of the moon, for the signs -of the zodiac and for the planets. One of the images for Saturn will -suffice as an example: “A man erect on a dragon, holding a sickle -in his right hand and a spear in his left hand, and clad in black -clothing and a panther skin.” This image “has power and marvelous -effects in magic works.”[2629] Characters composed of lines and -geometrical figures are also derived from the constellations and are -supposed to possess marvelous efficacy. - -[Sidenote: Aims and results of magic.] - -Some of the results attributed to images and characters are to -drive away mice, free captives, throw an army into a town, either -render buildings safe and stable or impede the erection of them, the -acquisition of wealth, making two persons fall in love, making men -loyal to their lord, making the king angry with someone, curing a -scorpion’s sting, walking on water, assuming any animal form, causing -rain in dry weather and preventing it in rainy weather, making the -stars fall or sun and moon appear divided into many parts. The -possessor of such images can further ascend into the air and take on -the form of a falling star, or speak with the dead, or destroy an enemy -or city, or traverse great distances in the twinkling of an eye. The -aims of incantations, invocations, and recipes are similar, as has -already been indicated in several cases. Ten “confections” are listed -that stop evil tongues; eight, that generate discord and enmity; six, -that cure impotency, if taken in food; seven, that induce a sleep like -unto death; ten, that induce a sleep from which one never wakes.[2630] -Others prevent dogs from barking at you, produce green tarantulas or -red snakes, remove bothersome frogs from pools, cause water to burn -and appear red, enable you to see small objects a long way off, make -the winds and tempests obey you, deprive others of memory or sense or -speech or sight or hearing, and so on through a long list. The aims are -infinitely varied, and are sometimes good, sometimes evil. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2593] II, 10, “Haec autem figurae planetarum quemadmodum translatas -invenimus in lapidario mercurii et in libro beelum (probably meant for -Beleni) et in libro spirituum et in ymaginibus quas transtulit sapiens -picatrix.” Magliabech. XX, 20, fol. 32v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 14v. - -[2594] For a list of MSS see Appendix I at the close of this chapter. - -[2595] J. Wood Brown (1897), p. 183; Arpenius, _De prodigiosis -naturae_, Hamburg, 1717, p. 106. - -[2596] In a criticism of Abano’s “errors” printed at the close of the -1526 edition of the Conciliator, fol. 248. - -[2597] _Pantagruel_, III, 23. - -[2598] Steinschneider (1905), p. 61, and Ashmole 1437; see Appendix I. - -[2599] Brown (1897), p. 183, note 1. - -[2600] _Los Códigos Españoles concordados y anotados: Código de -las siete partidas_, second edition, Madrid, 1872, vol. IV. _La -setena partida: Titulo_ XXIII, _Ley_ 1-3. There is an article on the -astronomical works of Alfonso X by A. Wegener in _Bibl. Math._ (1905), -129-85. - -[2601] J. Wood Brown (1897), p. 183, gives a wrong impression that the -work is systematically arranged. - -[2602] Magliabech. XX, 20, fols. 1v and 53r. Future citations in this -chapter, unless otherwise noted, will be from this MS. - -[2603] Fol. 15v. - -[2604] Fols. 7v, 44r, 44v, 22v, 23r, 28r, 40r, 50r, 51r, 99r. -Magliabech. XX, 21, fols. 78r and 79v. - -[2605] Liber I, cap. 2, which is much briefer in Magliabech. XX, 21 -than in XX, 20. - -[2606] Fol. 55v. - -[2607] Fols. 32v and 28r. - -[2608] “Semper acquirit et numquam diminuit; semper elevat et numquam -degenerat; semper apparet et numquam se abscondit.” - -[2609] Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 79v. - -[2610] IV, 8, fol. 108v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 86r. - -[2611] Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 60v. - -[2612] Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 22v. - -[2613] I, 2. - -[2614] Fol. 70r. - -[2615] III, 10, fol. 73v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 53r. - -[2616] I, 4. - -[2617] II, 12; III, 5 and 7 and 12. - -[2618] IV, 5. - -[2619] III, 6 and IV, 1. - -[2620] Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 47v. - -[2621] Fol. 10. - -[2622] Fol. 52. - -[2623] Fol. 103v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fols. 81v, 82r. - -[2624] III, 6. Fols. 54-55; Magliabech. XX, 21, fols. 32-34. - -[2625] IV, 2. MS. XX, 21, fol. 68v. - -[2626] III, 9. MS. XX, 20, fol. 71r. MS. XX, 21, fol. 50r. - -[2627] II, 5 and 10; III, 1 and 2. - -[2628] Liber II, _passim_: also I, 4-5 and IV, 9. - -[2629] II, 10; fol. 32v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 14v. - -[2630] III, 11; fol. 78v; Magliabech. XX, 21, fol. 58v. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -MANUSCRIPTS OF PICATRIX - - -I have chiefly used Magliabech. XX, 20 and XX, 21, two MSS now -preserved at the National Library at Florence and originally written at -Rome in 1536, as an identical colophon in either MS states. Otherwise, -however, their contents are often not identical although roughly -corresponding. I have also examined Sloane 1305 and found it in general -similar to the other two. - - Vienna 3317, 15th century, 114 fols., Picatrix, De magia, - “Ad laudem et gloriam altissimi ... / ... fel leonis est.” - - Magliabech. XX, 20, 1536 A. D., fols. 1-117v, “Liber - Piccatrix sapientissimi Philosophi in necromanticis - artibus excellentissimi de Arabico in Hispanicum primum - traductus postea in Latinum conversus. Alphonsus - Rex Hispaniae totiusque Andalutiae precepit primam - traductionem summa diligentia. Hoc autem opus perfectum - fuit Anno MCCCLVI” (probably should be 1256, referring to - the Spanish rather than Latin translation). The foregoing - occurs two leaves before the book proper begins and is - in a larger print-like hand than the text itself, which - opens: “Alibi incipit liber excellentissimi viri picatrix - picatrici Hispanensis.” The Proemium then opens, as also - in Sloane 1305 and 3679, “Ad laudem et gloriam altissimi - dispotentis (disponentis) Dei cuius est in vellariis - suis praedestinans feliciter secreta scientiarum ad - illustrationem et doctrinam latinorum quibus est inopia - librorum ab antiquis philosophis editorum Alfonsus Dei - gratia prosperrimus rex Hispaniae totiusque Andalitiae - igitur (ego) precepit hunc librum summo studio summaque - diligentia de Arabico in hispanicum transferri cuius - nominem (nomen) est piccatrix. Hoc autem opus perfectum - fuit anno Domini 1356 (1256) Caesaris 2285 (1295) - Alexandri 1569 (2568).” The parentheses inclose variant - readings from other MSS. The work closes, “Et sic finitur - liber sapientissimi piccatricis in Math. die vigesimo - primo mensis maii hora vigesima prima brasichelle in domo - que est in platea a duobus faciebus et iuxta pallacium - communis currentibus annis a salutifera nativitate - millesimo quingentesimo trigesimo sexto inditione nona - anno secundo pontificatus Pauli tertii ad dei laudem et - gloriam in infinita. - - Qui servare libris preciosum nescit honorem - Illius a manibus sit procul iste liber. - Telos.” - - Magliabech. XX, 21, 1536 A. D. - - Sloane 1305, 17th century, fols. 1-153, (Johannis) - Picatricis, Philosophi, Liber de Coelo, in partes quatuor - distinctus, cum prooemio, tabula uniuscuiusque libri - capitulorum et auctorum e quibus compilatur opus nominibus - praemissis. Praefigitur prooemio, “Alphonsus (X) Dei - gratia illustrissimus Rex Hispaniae totiusque Handulatiae - praecepit hunc librum summo studio summaque diligentia - de A(rabico) in Hispanicum transferri, cuius nomen est - Piccatrix. Hoc autem opus perfectum fuit anno Domini 1256, - Alexandri 1568, Caesaris 1295, Arabum 55, ex 200 libris - philosophia(e) et pluribus compilavit qui suo proprio - nomine nominavit.” Incipit prooemium, “Incipit liber quem - sapientissimus Philosophus Piccatrix in Necromanticis - artibus ex quam pluribus libris composuit. Ut sapiens - ait, primum quod agere debemus in omnibus rebus mundi est - Deum orare.” Incipit partis primae cap. I, “De scientia - cognoscendi in quo gradu es. Scias, O homo, quod maius - donum.” Desinit pars ultima, “et dum comburitur, legas - supradicta nomina et ex hoc amor et amicitia movebitur.” - “Et sic finitur Liber totus sapientis Piccatricis in - Mathematicis peritissimi. Deo optimo maximo; gratias in - aeternum agamus.” - - Sloane 3679, 17th century, fols. 1-73, in the usual four - parts and with a table of contents. - - Sloane 1309, 17th century, 69 fols., in Italian, “Delli - Experimenti di Gio Peccatrix.” - - BN 7340, 17th century, #1, Picatricis Hispani astrologia - tribus libris. - - BN 10272, 15th century, and 10273, 17th century, Traité de - nécromancie ‘Picatris.’ - - BN 13016 and 13017, 17th century, Liber Picatricis hispani, - two copies. - - BN 17871, early 16th century, Picatrix. - - Arsenal 1033, 17th century. - -Steinschneider (1905) p. 61, discusses Picatrix and calls attention -to Cod. Reg. Suec. 505 at the Vatican, but fails to note the Sloane -MSS or those at Florence and omits some of those at Paris--but adds a -Paris Supplem. 91--and incorrectly cites Ashmole 1179. He means Ashmole -1437, 15th century, a commonplace book of a Cambridge doctor, Johannis -Argentin, where there is a citation of “Picatricem (secundum) in tertio -libro sue magice.” “1179” is the number of the column in Black’s -Catalogue of the Ashmolean MSS, from which Steinschneider derived this -information, and I presume that he mistook it for the number of the MS -itself. Steinschneider notes that in Hanover 396, 17th century, a work -of magic in Italian, Picatrix is spoken of as a Hebrew philosopher, and -that in the aforesaid Ashmole MS are “Tabulae motionis octavae spherae -moventis ab occidente ad orientem octo gradus in 640 annos secundum -ordinem Picatricis.” - - - - -CHAPTER LXVII - -GUIDO BONATTI AND BARTHOLOMEW OF PARMA: AN ASTROLOGER AND A GEOMANCER - - - Guido Bonatti and Dante--The _Liber astronomicus_ of - Guido Bonatti--Career of Bonatti--Arrangement of the - _Liber astronomicus_--Astronomy and astrology--Truth of - astrology--Theological opposition--Bonatti’s defiant - rejoinder--Astrological predictions for Christians and the - clergy--Instances of Bonatti’s detailed treatment--The - planet Jupiter--An astrological image--The _Geomancy_ of - Bartholomew of Parma--How to proceed in geomancy--Questions - answered by geomancy--Appendix I. Some Manuscripts of the - _Liber Astronomicus_ of Guido Bonatti. - - “_Vedi Guido Bonatti...._” - --_Inferno, XX, 118._ - - -[Sidenote: Guido Bonatti and Dante.] - -With these words Vergil calls the attention of Dante and ourselves to -the presence of that astrologer in the fourth division of the eighth -circle of the Inferno among those spirits who in life had tried to pry -too far into the future and were condemned henceforth to look backwards -with turned heads. This is all that Dante says of Bonatti, although -Benvenuto of Imola, the fourteenth century commentator upon the _Divine -Comedy_, adds a number of tales concerning him, some of which may be -true but most of which are stock stories like that of the speaking -brazen head, told of many other medieval men of learning. But we may -perhaps associate Bonatti and Dante in our minds a little further. -Forlì, Bonatti’s native city, lies almost in a direct line between -Florence, where Dante lived his early life, and Ravenna, where he ended -his exile. Indeed, Filippo Villani[2631] and Fossi[2632] would persuade -us that Guido Bonatti, too, was born a Florentine but, like Dante, -became an exile from the town of his birth and called himself a native -of Forlì because he came to hate the place of his birth which he had -left on account of the strife of political factions. Finally, Bonatti -and Dante had a common interest in astronomy.[2633] - -[Sidenote: The _Liber astronomicus_ of Guido Bonatti.] - -The most important astrological work produced in Latin in the -thirteenth century seems to have been the _Liber astronomicus_ of -this Guido Bonatti,[2634] which is a voluminous work divided into -some ten or a dozen treatises.[2635] In the preface, after some of -the usual devout opening phrases of medieval authors, Guido states -that he writes the book particularly for the use of his nephew, that -the work will be “long and prolix” and that on this account he will -not include “disputations nor many proofs.” He proposes to compile a -work from past authors which can be understood by those who do not yet -know much of other sciences “and especially for your use, Bonatus, my -nephew.” Indeed, the annalist of Forlì states that Bonatti expounded -the doctrine of astrology so clearly in this book that “it seemed -as if he wished to teach women astrology.”[2636] Guido employs such -classical authorities as Ptolemy, Hermes, and Dorotheus, but still -more such Arabian astrologers as Alcabitius, Albumasar, Messahala, -and Thebit ben Corat.[2637] He also states that he has made additions -of his own,[2638] and many passages demonstrate that he has made -detailed practical application to the present problems of medieval -life of the principles of his art established in the past. The -popularity and influence of Guido’s work is attested by the numerous -manuscripts, including an interesting _de luxe_ manuscript of it and -other astrological treatises made for the use of Henry VII of England, -whose picture is given in the midst of Bonatti’s text.[2639] There are -also several printed editions of the Latin text and translations of the -work into several modern languages. There is an Italian translation -of it in a manuscript in the Laurentian library at Florence; a German -translation was printed at Basel in 1572; and an English translation by -William Lilly appeared in print at London in 1676.[2640] Thus Dante’s -consignment of Bonatti’s soul to hell does not seem to have kept people -from reading his _Liber astronomicus_. - -[Sidenote: Career of Bonatti.] - -The battle of Valbona, fought in 1277, seems to be the latest event -mentioned by Bonatti. He also speaks of having himself seen many -evidences of the cruelty of Ezzelino, and of that tyrant’s death, which -occurred in 1259. He was alive as early as 1223, when he mentions -having seen a certain man.[2641] Guido seems to have been a professor -at the university of Bologna. He must have died before 1300, when -Dante’s visit to the Inferno is supposed to have occurred. Bonatti’s -death, however, would seem to have been comparatively recent, since -the _Annals of Forlì_[2642] represent him as playing a prominent part -in the defense of that town in 1282 by the famous captain, Guido of -Montefeltro, against a large force sent by Pope Martin IV. Though -Bonatti himself was loyal, it was in a wheat field belonging to him -that conspirators gathered in a vain attempt to betray the town, while -the enemy later encamped outside the city in another field belonging to -him and called, “Of the oak tree.” - -Then Guido of Montefeltro, we are told, “captain of the people of -Forlì, together with lord Guido Bonatti, a citizen, philosopher, -and most eminent astrologer, having called the people together in -the public square,” instructed them as to the strategem of a mock -withdrawal from town and subsequent return by which he intended later -to take the superior forces of the enemy unawares after they had -entered the town in triumph and were overcome by feasting and drinking. -The strategem turned out a complete success, and the _Annals_ give much -of the credit to Bonatti, by whose counsel, art, and forecasting the -future it is said to have been planned. He was wounded in the battle, -while carrying medicines, but this too he had foreseen and foretold. -Later, when the pope sent more mercenary troops into Romagna, Forlì -deemed it prudent to submit, and Guido of Montefeltro transferred his -military activities elsewhere and finally, we are told, made his peace -with the pope and spent his declining years in the Franciscan Order. -Some say that Bonatti followed his patron into the convent, but it -seems very improbable in view of the hard things which he had said of -the friars. On the other hand, judging from the number of Franciscans -who have written works on astrology and astrological medicine, he might -not have found such retirement entirely uncongenial, and need scarcely -have surrendered his astrological views in consequence. - -[Sidenote: Arrangement of the _Liber astronomicus_.] - -But we turn to the contents of the _Liber astronomicus_. Bonatti’s -first treatise is a general introduction in which he defines his -subject, discusses its utility, and meets the objections of its -opponents. The second treatise[2643] deals with the signs of the -zodiac and their characteristics and subdivisions. The third treatise, -in two parts,[2644] deals with the planets, their influences on -things on earth and their effects on one another. The fourth treatise -deals chiefly with conjunctions. The remaining treatises comprise -146 considerations affecting astrological judgments, another brief -introduction of three chapters to the subject of judgments,[2645] -discussions of the four chief departments of astrological prediction, -interrogations, elections, revolutions, and nativities, and a final -treatise upon prognostication of changes in the weather.[2646] - -[Sidenote: Astronomy and astrology.] - -As the title, _Liber astronomicus_, shows, Bonatti generally uses the -word “astronomy” where we should say “astrology” and _vice versa_. He -states, for instance, that nativities, elections, interrogations, and -revolutions are four varieties of “astronomy,” which he distinguishes -from other forms of divination.[2647] He also says, however, that -the words “astronomy” and “astrology” may be used interchangeably. -He regards both as of great value in the study of first philosophy. -Through these sciences we come to know impassive and unalterable -creatures who cannot be changed into any other essence, and through -these creatures we can attain to as much knowledge of the Creator as -the human mind can reach. Nobler than the profession of the physician -who deals with the four inferior and corruptible elements is that of -the astrologer whose concern is with superior and incorruptible bodies -composed of the fifth essence.[2648] - -[Sidenote: Truth of astrology.] - -Bonatti asserts confidently and vehemently all the main suppositions -of the astrological art. He affirms that its principles ought not to -be proved but assumed, since they all reduce to one point which he -does not believe that anyone doubts, namely, that the motion of the -heavens surrounding the elements alters fire and air and that these -alter the other elements, earth and water.[2649] “All wise men agree -in this, that inferiors are ruled by superiors.”[2650] The astrologer -understands every motion of each heavenly body; therefore he knows what -impressions they make and what their significations are. “Therefore all -things which are being done now or have existed in the past or will be -done in the future, can be known by the astrologer.”[2651] - -[Sidenote: Theological opposition.] - -It will hardly be profitable for us to follow Bonatti’s rehearsal of -familiar arguments for and against the influence of the stars and -the practicability of the art of astrology. But we may well note -those passages in which he suggests the existence of a contemporary -ecclesiastical and theological opposition to his art. Bonatti at -least does not appear to have any fear of the clerical detractors of -astrology, of whom he speaks quite disdainfully, hurling back at them -the charges of heresy which they had perhaps directed at him. “I would -have you know,” he affirms in the introduction to his treatise on -Elections, “that fortune rules in everything, although some fools among -those wearing the tunic (that is, the friars) may say that fortune does -not exist, but only what God wills. But the wiser of them dissent from -this in secret, although they may seem to assent in public, rather -from fear that their Orders be thought less of than from a conviction -of its truth. For if fortune did not exist, who would be so stupid as -not to know how to acquire at will an abundance of the necessaries of -life? Yet we daily see quite the contrary. For do you not see wise men -of integrity and intelligence who do not have enough to eat?” Bonatti -consequently contends that those who deny the existence of fortune -“impute madness to their Creator, falsely representing Him as unjust, -and falling into a hateful heresy.” He then continues, “And although at -times many fools and idiots in tunics have arisen against me, declaring -elections to be of absolutely no value, nevertheless elections and the -other parts of astronomy have stood in their strength, nor has their -truth diminished any on this account.” - -[Sidenote: Bonatti’s defiant rejoinder.] - -As for those self-styled theologians who object that the stars are -so countless in number that their influence cannot be measured and -estimated, Bonatti assures them that astrologers know vastly more about -the stars than the theologians do about God, “Of Whom they none the -less preach daily.”[2652] He further asserts that the holy fathers of -old employed astrology, that Abraham taught it to the Egyptians, and -that Christ implied the truth of the doctrine of elections. For when -the disciples endeavored to dissuade Him from returning to Judea, -where recently He had been nearly stoned to death, He replied, “Are -there not twelve hours in the day?” meaning that He might now select -a more fortunate time than before. “And this makes it plain that -He used elections and did not blaspheme astronomy as some jealous -detractors do today.” Bonatti then mentions “some silly fools, of whom -that hypocrite, John of Vicenza, of the Order of Preaching Friars was -one, who said that astrology was neither an art nor a science.” Guido -scarcely thinks it worth while to notice such men.[2653] This John of -Vicenza mentioned by Bonatti was the well-known friar of that name to -whom manifold miracles were attributed and who in the Alleluia year of -1233 had been made duke of Vicenza, but so abused his power that he was -soon imprisoned and discredited. Bonatti complains that no one had ever -seen a single one of the eighteen men whom John was said to have raised -from the dead, and affirms that he himself long sought in vain for -anyone who had either been cured by John or had himself witnessed one -of John’s miracles.[2654] On the other hand, the friar Salimbene tells -us in his _Chronicle_ that Guido Bonatti, who reviled the preaching of -the friars, “was so confounded by” a “Brother Ugo before the university -and people of Forlì that he not only feared to speak, but even to show -himself during all the time that the Brother was in those parts.”[2655] -But perhaps Brother Hugo was one of those persons whom Guido thought it -scarcely worth while to notice. - -[Sidenote: Astrological predictions for Christians and the clergy.] - -Against these allusions to an opposition to astrology among the friars, -or at least, among the Dominicans, should be set other passages which -indicate that Bonatti’s book is intended for the use of Christians and -even of the clergy, whose preaching and practice anent astrology seem -divergent. One of the illustrations which he employs against those -who argue that it is better not to know the future, since to learn of -ills beforehand will only make one so much the sadder, is that even -if one learns that his disease is fatal, he is forewarned to make -his will and receive the last sacrament in season.[2656] Among the -interrogations which Bonatti lists are whether a bishopric or abbotship -or cardinalate, or other clerical dignity, rank, or order, even up to -the papacy, will be attained by the inquirer.[2657] In this connection -Guido grants that it may not seem honorable to seek ecclesiastical -offices, but that the fact is that many clergy do it and that it -is necessary for the astrologer to be prepared to answer them, if -they consult him as to their prospects. In the treatise on elections -instructions are given how to choose the favorable hour for building -churches as well as castles and cities. The treatise on revolutions -tells what will be the state during any year of the bishops and other -secular clergy or the religious and regular clergy, as well as of -other social classes such as kings or princes, rich men or magnates, -soldiers, women, merchants, populace, and serfs. Indeed, that even -a Preaching Friar in the middle ages was not necessarily opposed to -astrology, is seen from an Oxford manuscript of the fifteenth century, -where not far from _Rules one should know concerning various matters -relating to the sick, according to Guido Bonatti and others_, is a -treatise in astrological medicine by Nicholas of Aquila of the Order of -Preachers.[2658] - -[Sidenote: Instances of Bonatti’s detailed treatment.] - -We may not follow Bonatti through his long technical discussions -of houses and exaltations of the planets, of _triplicitates_ and -_termini_, of why the naming of the signs of the zodiac begins at -Aries and not at any other sign, or of what part of the body each -planet signifies in each sign, and a hundred other similar questions. -It must suffice to give a few suggestions of the thoroughness of his -detailed treatment. The treatise on nativities promises to reveal -everything which will “naturally”--a saving word for those who insist -on freedom of the will--befall the child from birth to death, “and -also what will be said of him after death.” Pursuant of his promise, -Guido considers such topics as length of life, physical and mental -qualities, offices and property to be held by the person concerned, -the fate of his brothers, parents, and children, serfs, and domestic -animals, his sickness or health, mental afflictions, marriage, feuds, -death, religion, learning, and journeys. The treatise on interrogations -answers questions on all sorts of matters from winning crowns or -gaining one’s freedom to learning how many courses and what kind of -food there will be at a dinner to which one has been invited and -which one is in a quandary whether to accept or not. The treatise -on elections selects favorable hours for any and every act of life -from weaning and circumcising infants to trimming one’s nails, hair, -and beard. The treatise on revolutions descends from the fate of -monarchs and nations during the year in question to such matters as the -prospects for a good crop of melons or cucumbers. - -[Sidenote: The planet Jupiter.] - -Some further idea of Bonatti’s method and content may be derived -from the following translation of his account of the properties, -significations, and effects of the planet Jupiter. - - “Alchabitius has said that Jupiter is fortunate, masculine, - diurnal; and is by nature significant of property, since - property is the second accident that happens to the child - after birth ... and Jupiter is second in the order of the - planets. Jupiter is likewise the second planet to exert - its influence on the child before birth, giving it spirit - and life. And its nature produces heat and moisture, and - is temperate, aerial, and sanguine. Of man’s age Jupiter - signifies the period called _iuventus_ from youth to the - prime of life, namely, from fourteen or twenty-one to forty - or forty-five years. It governs those offices pertaining to - law and just and honest judgments. And it attends when it - sees any persons engaged in altercation or litigation, and - makes peace between them and bestows harmony upon them, and - ever is engaged in good pursuits. And it signifies abundant - property. And such business occupations as are performed - without deceit. - - “It signifies spirit, life, joy, religion, truth, patience, - and every precept that is good, lovely, and precious, and - everything that is honorable. It indicates abundant charm. - Of infirmities it signifies those due to excess of blood.... - It is the planet of wisdom, of intellect, of sound practice. - Moreover, if Jupiter be well disposed and in the east and - at a favorable angle, the child will be of good quality, - benign, just; he will honor the aged, and will be a good - counselor, a helper of the needy, and of good repute. He - will cherish his friends; he will be of good intellect. - - “But if Jupiter shall be unfavorable, Ptolemy is witness - that the child will be ignorant of well doing, versed - in diabolical practices, that he will intrigue under a - hypocritical exterior, will linger in places of prayer, - will gladly live in crypts and caverns and caves, and there - will predict the future. He will love no one, though he may - have a few friends; he will abhor his children, will shun - human conversation, will seek no honors from anyone, will - be untrustworthy, and no one can depend on him. In fine, he - will be bad, weak, stupid, weary and heavy-laden, of evil - election.” - -Having thus considered the properties of Jupiter _per se_, Bonatti next -proceeds to record its tendencies when in conjunction with Saturn and -the other planets. - -[Sidenote: An astrological image.] - -One of the stories told of Bonatti may be noted in conclusion, since it -concerns an astrological image. Pitying a poor apothecary with whom he -used to play chess, Guido gave him a wax image of a ship, telling him -to keep it hid in a box in a secret place and he would grow rich, but -that if he removed it, he would grow poor again. True enough, the man -became wealthy, but then began to fear lest the image be the work of -witchcraft. So, having made his fortune, he decided to save his soul -and confessed concerning the image to a priest who bade him destroy it. -But then, as Bonatti had predicted, he rapidly lost his entire fortune. -He then begged Guido to make him another image, but Bonatti cursed him -and told him that the image had been no magic one but had derived its -virtue from constellations which would not recur for another fifty -years.[2659] - -[Sidenote: The geomancy of Bartholomew of Parma.] - -If the _Liber astronomicus_ of Guido Bonatti was the leading Latin work -on astrology in the thirteenth century, probably the most elaborate -treatise in the associated art of geomancy was that by another -Italian, Bartholomew of Parma, who appears to have written a long -_Summa_[2660] on the subject in 1288 in Bologna at the request of -Theodosius de Flisco, bishop-elect of Reggio in northern Italy;[2661] -and then in October, 1294, a briefer treatment for two German friends -and disciples named John and Paul,[2662] and again in November, 1295, -another abbreviated treatment for the beginner.[2663] Titles in -manuscripts at Vienna indicate that Bartholomew also wrote astrological -treatises,[2664] but perhaps they would prove to be merely extracts -from his longer work on geomancy, although Houzeau and Lancaster -give the date of a _Liber de occultis_ by him as 1280.[2665] None of -Bartholomew’s works seems to have been printed. The interest of the -canon of Laon and bishop elect of Reggio in the art of geomancy is -another of numerous indications that we have had that such occult and -superstitious arts were at least not consistently condemned by the -church and clergy. - -[Sidenote: How to proceed in geomancy.] - -Bartholomew of Parma tells us that the art of geomancy originated from -God and was taught to the sons of Noah by an angel who took on human -form before the time of the flood. Whoever intends to practice that art -should be “a friend of God” and a good man of praiseworthy life. No -one should make use of it without real necessity of knowing the future -and geomancers should beware of persons who try to catch them in error -by asking questions about sure things. On the other hand, in certain -cases one may ask questions for another person, and even without his -knowledge, and questions may be put at any time and place, for the -art of geomancy is simple and easy of operation. The only instrument -needed is something to make a series of points or marks with. These -dots should be set down in four rows like the four fingers of a hand, -but at random without noting how many dots one puts in each row or how -long the row is.[2666] These four rows indicate the elements, points -of the compass, and so on. Next one cancels the points in each line, -cancelling two at a time until only one or two points remain in each -line. When this is done we have one of the following sixteen possible -geomantic figures, which I have indicated numerically rather than -graphically: 2121, 2212, 1211, 1222, 2111, 2222, 2112, 2211, 1212, -2122, 1121, 2221, 1112, 1111, 1221, 1122. Of these the first eight are -favorable, the last eight are unfavorable. They bear such names as -gain, white, childhood, joy, head (_acquisitio_, _albus_, _pueritia_, -_laetitia_, _caput_). The first inventors of the art are supposed to -have worked out these figures “with great ingenuity and subtlety” from -careful observations of the stars and of the virtues of the sky. Hence -these figures have the property of signifying much concerning the -future. Each is associated with some particular sign of the zodiac and -with one of the planets. Also with a day, month, color, odor, taste, -stone, tree, metal, and human type.[2667] - -[Sidenote: Questions answered by geomancy.] - -Among the questions which geomancy undertakes to answer are how long -one will live, whether one will better one’s present position, whether -one should enter the clergy or remain a layman, whether a journey will -be dangerous, whether a rumor is true or false, whether to buy or not, -whether the year will be a fertile one, and concerning gain and loss, -hidden treasure, the condition of a city or castle, and which side -is stronger in a war. Whether a child will be born or not, of what -sex it will be, and whether it is legitimate or a bastard. Which of -two magistrates is superior in wisdom, whether a scholar can by study -become an honor to the convent or not, whether the soul of some dead -person is in paradise or before the doors of paradise or in purgatory -or in hell. In answering such questions the figure found by chance -from the points is compared with and related to figures appropriate to -the person inquiring and the thing sought, and a decision is rendered -according as enmity or friendship is found to exist between them. In -determining this the figures are reduced to terms of the twelve signs -of the zodiac, and the astrological aspects are thus investigated. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2631] Cited by Boncompagni (1851), p. 5. - -[2632] Fossi (1793-5), p. 395. - -[2633] Orr (1913). p. 4. says: “Where Dante speaks of appearances he is -remarkably accurate, far more so than most modern artists and writers -of fiction.” - -[2634] My citations, unless otherwise specified, will be to the -following edition of Augsburg, 1491: _Liber astronomicus Guidonis -Bonati de forlivio explicit feliciter. Magistri Johannis Angeli viri -peritissimi diligenti correctione Erhardique Ratdolt viri solertis -eximia industria et mira imprimendi arte qua nuper Veneciis nunc -Auguste Vindelicorum excellit nominatissimus. Septimo kal. Aprilis, -1491_. Quarto, 422 leaves, no pagination. There is a copy of this -edition at Columbia University in this country and not merely at Brown, -as stated in CFCB. - -Other editions of the Latin text were printed at Venice, 1506; and at -Basel in 1530 and 1550. - -For a list of MSS of the work see Appendix I to this chapter. - -[2635] The titles more often speak of ten treatises, but some of these -sub-divide into two or more lesser treatises. Such sub-division and -combination also varies in different editions and MSS, and the order -of the component treatises also varies. In the edition of 1550, for -instance, the work is divided into six parts, of which the first -contains what are usually listed as the first five or six of the ten or -twelve component treatises. But the order of the edition of 1550 is the -same as in that of 1491, while in Arundel 66 the order of the last six -treatises is different. - -[2636] Muratori, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, revised edition, Fasc. -20, 1903, p. 104. - -[2637] Some others mentioned are, II, ii, 1, Atezdegoz, Adila, -Al-hayat, Astaphan, Arastellus; these are probably indirect citations. -Elsewhere Aoma (Haomar) and Aboali (Haly) are mentioned. - -[2638] _Ibid._, “Et addendo ea quae mihi utilia videbuntur.” - -[2639] Arundel 66, membr. folio maximo, fols. 48-249. - -[2640] _Will. Lilly_, _Student in Astrology, Anima Astrologiae; or -a Guide for Astrologers: being the Considerations of the famous G. -Bonatus rendered into English: as also the choicest Aphorisms of -Cardan’s VII Segments_, London, 1676. - -[2641] For the sources of these events see _Della vita e delle opere di -Guido Bonatti astrologo ed astronomo del secolo decimoterzo, Notizie -raccolte da B. Boncompagni, Roma, 1851. Estratte dal Giornale Arcadico, -Tomo CXXIII-CXXIV_. - -[2642] Muratori, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, revised edition, Fasc. -20, 1903, pp. 37-8. - -[2643] In the 1491 edition it divides into three parts; in Arundel 66 -it is divided into two treatises listed as the second and third of the -work. - -[2644] In Arundel 66 these are listed as books 4 and 5, and have a -different division into chapters. - -[2645] If we wish to reckon only ten treatises, this must be combined -with the following treatise on interrogations. - -[2646] As has been stated in a previous note, the order varies in -different MSS. In Arundel 66 the 146 considerations come later between -nativities and revolutions. In Vienna 2359 the treatise on revolutions -follows that on weather prediction. - -[2647] I, 11-12. - -[2648] I, 1. - -[2649] I, 2. - -[2650] I, 5. - -[2651] I, 3. - -[2652] I, 4. - -[2653] I, 13. - -[2654] _Liber astronomicus_, 1491, fol. 99. - -[2655] MG _Scriptores_, vol. 32, p. 163. - -[2656] I, 9. - -[2657] In this connection it may be noted that Wolfenbüttel 2637, 15th -century, fols. 132-42v, contains “Prognostications for Pope Paul II’s -forty-eighth year (1466) according to Guido Bonatti,” and also other -astrological predictions which were sent to that pope: fols. 325-34, -Prognostica de rumoribus et motibus currentibus anni 1468 et anni 1469 -ad papam (Paulum II) missa. - -And as late as 1704 A. D. we find P. Ercole Corazzi arguing “against -the fallacious and superstitious art of a certain astrologer who dares -to predict and promise the promotion of cardinals”:--Bologna University -Library 963, #4. - -[2658] Canon. Misc. 46, fols. 68-79, Regulae ad sciendum de diversis -ad aegrotantes spectantibus secundum Guidonem Bonatum aliosque; fols. -51-61, Nicolai de Aquila, ord. Praed., tractatus in Astronomia qui -medicinalis scientiae compendium nuncupatur, praevia ad Jo. de Olegio -de Vicecomitibus de Mediolano praefatione. - -[2659] Muratori, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, revised edition, Fasc. -20, 1903. p. 105. - -[2660] Digby 134, 15th century, 128 fols, in an Italian hand, “Ars -Geomantie que docet hominem solvere omnes questiones de quibus vult -certificari divina virtute per istam artem ... / ... Compositus quidem -est iste presens liber a magistro Bartholomeo de Parma in Bononia ad -preces domini Tedesii de Flisco, qui erat tunc ellectus in episcopum -civitatis Regii, curentibus annis Domini MCCLXXXVIII.” - -See also CLM 436, 16th century, fol. 46-. - -Vienna 5523, 15-16th century, 208 fols. - -Emmanuel 70, 15th century, fol. 80-, gives the date as 1286 instead of -1288; “Inc. breviloquium mag. bartholomei nacione parmensis bononie -compilatum et confirmatum per prudentes viros de fructis tocius -astronomie ad preces domini Thedesii de fusco anno 1286.” - -[2661] Between 1283 and 1290 the bishopric of Reggio was vacant owing -to a disputed election between Franciscus de Fullano, a canon of -Reggio, and this Theodosius, who was a canon of Laon (Eubel, p. 439). - -[2662] CLM 489, 16th century, fol. 61, “Incipit breviloquium artis -Geomantiae noviter compilatae a mgro Batholomeo de Parma, quod -breviloquium extraxit de summa eius artis quam compilavit anno 1288 ad -partes (preces) nobilis viri Theoderici de flisco. Et sic complevisse -fatetur utrumque opus fideliter et verius quam scivit utilia scribens -et superflua relinquens in hoc opusculo ad preces duorum suorum -amicorum et discipulorum Johannes et Paulus Theutonicorum sub Anno -Domini 1494 (1294) de mense Octobris in Bononia.” - -Magliabech. XX, 13, 15th century, fols. 1-60, “Incomincia il libro -dell’ arte della geomançia nuovamente compilato da maestro Bartholomeo -da Parma a contemplatione de’ suoi scholari da Bologna anno Domini -MCCLXXXXIIII.” - -See also CLM 196, 15-16th century, fols. 1-10. - -CLM 240, 15th century. - -CLM 398, fol. 1-. - -CLM 192, 1544 A. D., fol. 3. - -[2663] CLM 489, fol. 1r-, “Incipit Prologus Libri Geomantiae editi -a mro Bartholomeo Parmensi Astrologo. Erba collecta de libro magno -Geomantiae quae introducunt novum discipulum ut sciat sufficienter -principia eiusdem artis per quae poterit cognoscere tot et tanta de -arte Geomantia quod per se sciat universales regulas artis doctrinae -ac questiones quaerentium generales iudicare absque errore si Deus -voluerit. Hoc quidem opus est Bartholomaei astrologi Natione Parmensis -Compilatum Anno Domini MCCLXXXXV Mense Novembris Sole existente in -primo gradu Sagittarii.” - -Also contained in CLM 192, 240, and 398. - -[2664] Vienna 3124, 15th century, fol. 198, “Liber de occultis. Secreta -scientia philosophorum est ... / ... et pauce utilitatis”; fol. 199, -“e libro de iudiciis astrologiae loci”; fol. 202, “Significationes -planetarum de libro consiliorum. Saturnus dicitur de antiquis deus ... -/ ... Item significat Lavatrices panni petisequas ruffianas monachas,” -etc. - -Vienna 5438, 15th century, fols. 116v-128r, Judicium particulare de -mutationibus aeris. “In coniunctione solis et lune considera ... / ... -sibi perhibet per naturam.” - -[2665] Houzeau et Lancaster, _Bibliographie générale de l’astronomie_, -Brussels, 1887. They ascribe other astrological works to him. - -[2666] “ad fortunam Dei sine certo numero et sine certa mensura -longitudinis linearum.” - -[2667] Thus in the _Geomancy_ ascribed to Michael Scot, from which I -happen to have notes on this point rather than from Bartholomew’s work, -_Acquisitio_ signifies a man of medium size, of handsome form, somewhat -tall, with pleasing eyes, delicate nostrils, a graceful forehead, a -subtle mind, a long neck, abundant hair, with his two front teeth -larger than the others; a man of luxurious tastes and fond of money and -ambitious for honor and power, kindly and loyal and giving many good -things to others. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LIBER ASTRONOMICUS OF GUIDO BONATTI - - -Boncompagni states that there are several MSS in the Bibliothèque -Nationale at Paris and the following are noted in the old catalogue: of -the 14th century, BN 7326 and 7327: of the 15th century BN 7328, 7329 -(a fragment), 7441 (defective), 7442 (containing only the treatises -on elections and revolutions), 7443 (only the treatise _De imbribus -et aeris mutationibus_). Perhaps the following also has reference to -Bonatti: BN 7316, 15th century, #20 (and last item), _Guidonis Bonafors -liber abbreviatus per Fratrem Hugolinum de Faventia ordinis sancti -Augustini qui ea tantum excerpsit quae ad astrologiam judiciariam -pertinebant_. - -Some MSS in English libraries are: - - Arundel 66, 15th century, fols. 48-249, membr. folio maximo, - a _de luxe_ MS made for the use of Henry VII, whose - portrait occurs at fol. 201. - - Additional 26768, 15th century. - - Savile 15 (Bernard 6561), a large MS in which it is the last - treatise. - - Peterhouse 86, 15th century. Here we have the _Liber - introductorius_ in two parts, then come Nativities, - Revolutions, Conjunctions, the 146 considerations, - weather prediction, _De partibus_, and finally _tractatus - principalis de electionibus_. - - CU Trinity 1418, 15th century, contains portions of - Bonatti’s work (James III, 445). - -Other MSS are: - - Vienna 2359, 14th century, fols. 1-38, _Guido Bonactus de - Foro Livii, Liber introductorius ad iudicia stellarum_: - fols. 39-50, _Considerationes super iudiciis ..._; - fols. 51-52, _Introductorium sub breviloquio ad - iudicia stellarum_; fols. 53-92, _Explicit tractatus - interrogationum seu questionum_; fols. 93-119, _Tractatus - de electionibus secundum dicta sapientum_; fol. 120v, - _Tabula magnitudinis et parvitatis diei_; fols. 121-61, - _Tractatus super nativitatibus_; fols. 162-6, _De imbribus - et de aeris mutationibus_; fols. 167-200, _De revolutione - annorum et mundi_; fols. 201-210, _Tractatus proiectionum - quarumlibet partium_. - - Vienna 3124, 15th century, some scattered parts from it. - - Wolfenbüttel 2734, 14-15th century, in several hands, _Liber - introductorias ad iudicia stellarum_ ... _editus a Guidone - Bonacco de Forlivio_.... - - Amplon. Folio 381. - - CLM 59, 15th century, contains some of its treatises. - - Arsenal 1129, 15th century, fol. 207, _Liber astronomicus_. - - Dukes of Burgundy 1462, 15th century, _Guidonis de Forlino_, - _De judiciis astrorum_, “_Ex hiis autem ad judicia_....” - - Magliabech. XX, 14, 15th century, mutilated, ending at VIII, - 18, in 129 fols. _Incipit liber introductorius ad iuditia - stellarum. Et est non solum introductorius ad iuditia set - est Iuditiorum astronomie. Editus a Guidone Bonatto de - Forlivio. Et collegit in eo ex dictis philosophorum ea que - visa sunt._ - - Ravenna 356, 15th century, 6 fols, containing _De imbribus - et de aeris mutationibus et que circa illa versantur_. - - Vienna 3276, 14th century, fols. 275-80, _Die kunst - augurium_, in German by _Guido Astronomus_, is perhaps an - extract from Bonatti. - - - - -CHAPTER LXVIII - -ARNALD OF VILLANOVA - - - Recent research into his life--His twofold - importance--Narrative of his life--In theological - difficulties--Events of 1305--The close of his life--Arnald - and the Inquisition--His works--Attitude to natural - science--Magic excluded from medicine--_Disapprobation - of Sorcerers_--The devices of sorcerers--Counter-magic - against them--Arnald’s works and the Inquisition - again--Incantations--Cures of old-wives--Ligatures - and suspensions--Marvelous virtues in nature--Occult - virtue defined--Due to the stars--Astrological - medicine--Bleeding and the moon--Bernard Gordon’s personal - experience--Operative astrology or magic--Seals or - images--Experimental method--Further foibles of Arnald’s - medicine--The affair of Bernard Délicieux. - - -[Sidenote: Recent research into his life.] - -Arnald of Villanova has been rather unusually fortunate among medieval -men of learning in the accurate research which within the last fifty -years scholars have made into the sources for the facts of his career. -Before that time all sorts of assertions and dates were current -concerning his life, although even then those who took the pains to -turn back to Astruc,[2668] could find in his work a tolerably correct -account of Arnald’s biography. But now we have a much fuller treatment -of his life and works by Hauréau in the _Histoire Littéraire de la -France_,[2669] while the researches of Menéndez Pelayo[2670] in the -Vatican library and the crown archives of Aragon have brought to light -new documents of importance. Subsequently Chabás has discovered an -old and authentic copy of Arnald’s last will and testament in the -cathedral archives of Valencia.[2671] Further materials bearing upon -his career appeared in Finke’s _Acta Aragonensia_,[2672] and have -been written up by Diepgen in a monograph on Arnald’s political and -theological activity after 1299.[2673] - -[Sidenote: His twofold importance.] - -Arnald’s personality and career have long attracted attention, not -only because of his prominence as a practicing physician and writer -on medicine and alchemy, and because of his close relations with -several kings and popes. He also is noted for his connection with -ecclesiastical history, his relations with the Spiritual Franciscans -and the theologians of Paris, and for his criticisms of existing -conditions in the church of his time,--criticisms which he combined -with Joachimite ideas of a speedy end of the world and coming of -Antichrist. These points long ago caused his inclusion in Matthias -Illyricus Flacius’s _Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before -our time attacked the primacy of the Roman pontiffs and the various -superstitions, errors, and impious frauds of Popery_,[2674] and more -recently in Menéndez Pelayo’s _Historia de los heterodoxos españoles_. -And it is true that Arnald composed a violent diatribe against the -regular clergy of his day and also a _Sword of Truth against the -Thomists_.[2675] - -[Sidenote: Narrative of his life.] - -Arnald was a Catalan, although Pope Clement V speaks of him as “a clerk -of Valencia.” Arnald writes of his youth as a time of hardship and -of himself as “a country practitioner” without literary culture. Yet -he came to shine at courts and to defy synods of learned doctors of -theology. He also mentions his early education in a Dominican convent -and his study of medicine at Naples under John Calamida. During his -entire life he seems to have been continually moving about, and his -works speak of observations and operations in many towns of Spain, -Italy, and France. Some of his treatises were written in Valencia, -others in Barcelona, others in Naples, or in Gascony, Piedmont, -Bologna, Rome, and even Africa. He was often called abroad to render -medical services to popes and other potentates and was frequently -employed in foreign diplomacy by the kings of Aragon and Sicily. By -1285 he had won a sufficient reputation as a physician to be called -from Barcelona to attend Peter III of Aragon in his last illness. Peter -gave him a castle in Tarragona. After that Arnald seems to have taught -at Montpellier which was then under the jurisdiction of Aragon. Three -later bulls of Clement V in 1309 making regulations for the medical -faculty at Montpellier mention Arnald of Villanova as one of the -persons by whom the pope has been advised in the matter, and speak of -him as having “once long ruled” in that university.[2676] Astruc tells -us that in the eighteenth century the house where he had lived was -still shown in Montpellier, ornamented with sculptured figures which -were interpreted as magic symbols.[2677] - -[Sidenote: In theological difficulties.] - -In 1292 Arnald composed a treatise on the significance of the -holy name, _Tetragrammaton_, both in Hebrew and Latin, and on the -declaration of the mystery of the Trinity. This and later essays of his -in the field of religion were not well received by most theologians, -who would have preferred that he confine his efforts to medicine. -In 1299 Arnald was sent to Paris with a message from James II of -Aragon to Philip the Fair. Here he was arrested by the inquisition, -but was bailed out the next day, Nogaret being among those who stood -security. Presently he was brought to trial before the bishop and -the theological faculty of Paris for a work predicting the coming of -Antichrist about the middle of the fourteenth century upon the basis of -passages in Daniel and the Erythrean sibyl, and his book was ordered -to be burned.[2678] Arnald protested to the king of France and later -to a crowd of distinguished people at the bishop’s palace and appealed -to Pope Boniface VIII. Finally he was allowed to leave France and in -November, 1301, is found at Genoa. - -Arnald submitted to Boniface VIII a slightly modified version of his -work on Antichrist, accompanied by a tone of pious self-abnegation -and considerable shrewd flattery of the pope as “Christ on earth” and -“God of gods.” The theologians of Paris, however, had sent a portion -of the original text to the pope with the result that Boniface kept -Arnald in prison for a time and forced him to abjure his work in -secret consistory, but finally said that Arnald had erred only in -not submitting the work to him in the first place. After Arnald had -treated Boniface successfully for the stone, that pontiff’s estimation -of him greatly improved, and he received favorably a new work which -predicted the history of the Mediterranean world for the next century -until the coming of Antichrist, bewailed the worldliness of the clergy, -but upheld the papal power, to which, of course, Arnald looked to -further the ecclesiastical reforms which he had at heart. Boniface -also presented Arnald with a castle at Anagni, but the sun proved too -hot there for Arnald’s head. Early in 1302 he left the papal curia, -in April he received permission from King James II to dispose of his -property in Valencia. His writings on Antichrist and against certain -of the clergy continued, and in February, 1304, he was at Marseilles -complaining before the bishop of some Dominicans who had attacked -his treatises. He then addressed himself to the new pope, Benedict -XI, at Perugia, but was not well received, and complained that the -pope had judged and punished him before hearing him. But Benedict’s -brief pontificate was soon over and Clement V showed himself more -gracious.[2679] - -[Sidenote: Events of 1305.] - -Meanwhile in April, 1305, Arnald returned to Barcelona where he -found James II sick abed and very glad to see him and to entrust -himself to his medical care rather than that of Ermengard Blasius (or -Blasii)[2680] who had hitherto attended James. About this time Arnald -seems to have interpreted a dream for James, but that monarch later -repudiated Arnald’s account of the affair and they were estranged for -a time.[2681] Arnald’s will, drawn up on July 20, 1305, by a public -notary of Barcelona, informs us concerning his library, other property, -generosity to the poor, and reveals the fact that he had a wife and -children. - -[Sidenote: The close of his life.] - -Arnald, however, still had several years of life before him. A -declaration has been preserved which he made in 1306 concerning the -observance of certain statutes at the University of Montpellier.[2682] -James II employed him in 1306-1307, and he corresponded with Clement -V and Philip IV. In 1308-1309 he interpreted a dream for Frederick of -Sicily and with him concocted a scheme for a crusade and reform of the -church, in pursuance whereof he went to Rome, Barcelona, and Avignon, -and carried letters back and forth between James and Frederick.[2683] -Arnald had been with Clement V at Bordeaux and seems to have been with -him again at Avignon in 1309, but he does not appear to have been the -pope’s official physician,[2684] although very probably he rendered him -some medical service. About this time he also seems to have written -several treatises in medicine and alchemy, including his _Preservation -of Youth_, for King Robert at Naples. Raymond Lull speaks of meeting -him there and acknowledges his debt to his friend Arnald for one of his -“Experiments.” A letter of December 6, 1311, from Escarrer at Naples -to King James shows that Arnald died in the closing months of that -year.[2685] In 1312 we find Clement V advertising by public letter for -a medical treatise by Arnald intended for his perusal but which the -death of the author had prevented from reaching its destination. - -[Sidenote: Arnald and the Inquisition.] - -Already during Arnald’s lifetime in 1305 the inquisitor of Valencia -forbade the possession or reading of his books, a decree against which -King James protested. Five years after Arnald’s death the inquisitor -and provost of the church at Tarragona declared some statements in -Arnald’s writings heretical, and Diepgen thinks that we have lost a -number of his religious writings in Catalan in consequence;[2686] but -this sentence appears to have no more lessened his medical influence -than his trial at Paris had prevented his having intimate relations -with the popes. - -[Sidenote: His works.] - -One indication of Arnald’s long continued influence in the learned -world is that some seven so-called complete editions of his works -were printed in the course of the sixteenth century.[2687] Besides -this, some of his writings were published separately or appeared -in miscellaneous collections, and some were translated into the -vernacular languages. Some, however, still remain in manuscript -form. The majority of his writings are medical, such as the _Mirror -of Medical Introductions_, _Breviary of Practice_, _Rule of Health_, -_General Rules for the Cure of Disease_, _Commentary on the Regimen -Salernitanum_, _Collection of Antidotes_, and special treatises on the -stone, gout, and epilepsy. But besides the works of alchemy ascribed -to him there are other treatises on themes of especial interest to -us, the _Disapprobation of Sorcerers_ (_Libellus de improbatione -maleficiorum_), _Remedies against Sorcery_, _Judgments of Infirmities -by the Motion of the Planets_, and the treatise on _Seals_ or -astrological images. Although Arnald interpreted dreams for kings, the -treatise on interpretation of dreams which is printed with his works is -in the manuscripts either anonymous or ascribed to William of Aragon. -Some of these other works too are perhaps not by him, but similar -themes are occasionally touched upon in his more purely medical works. -In the printed editions of his works is found a Latin translation of -the treatise of Costa ben Luca _On physical ligatures_, which we have -already discussed, and it is not unlikely that some of the aforesaid -works are translations from the Arabic and not original compositions by -Arnald. Some of his medical writings seem little more than repetitions -of Galen, whose works he cites a great deal. - -[Sidenote: His attitude to natural science.] - -In one of his medical works Arnald states that the proverbs of Solomon -show that what learned men have revealed in the world of nature can be -adapted by convenient metaphor to moral instruction. But from this one -should not jump to the conclusion that he thought that the chief use -of natural science was to point a moral. On the contrary in almost the -next sentence we find him affirming that “all true knowledge arises -from the senses” and that the education of youth should begin with -this sense knowledge, “graciously and efficiently demonstrated.” Thus -Arnald would assign to natural science a leading place in education. -As the mind went over this material, he thinks that it would reach -many abstract conclusions, and could gradually attain “to the -knowledge of insensible and occult and arduous and subtle things, as is -illustrated by the whole course of theology and by the whole course of -medicine.”[2688] - -[Sidenote: Magic excluded from medicine.] - -There are passages in Arnald’s works where, like Pliny, Galen, -and other writers since them, he professes to exclude everything -savoring of magic and superstition from his medicine. For instance, -in his chapter on _Those things whose use is permitted in the cure -of epilepsy_, a disease into whose treatment we have seen that magic -is especially liable to enter, he would “repel the ignominious” -enchanters, conjurers, and invokers of spirits, diviners and augurs, -from the field of medicine as a godless crew who are servants of the -devil. He cites the church fathers to show that all pagan divination -is by demon aid. In the same chapter he disapproves of any use of -“characters and superstitions” in medicine, and even forbids the use -of the sign of the cross or Lord’s Prayer in collecting medicinal -simples.[2689] - -[Sidenote: _Disapprobation of Sorcerers._] - -In his _Libellus de improbatione maleficiorum_[2690] Arnald questions -the power of sorcerers or necromancers to invoke demons and compel -them to give responses or to work wonders. By adopting a very similar -argumentation to that of the early fathers he arrives at the familiar -theological conclusion that men are purposely misled in these arts of -sorcery and necromancy by the demons who have invented the fiction -of an art and a procedure to cover their own iniquitous ends. Arnald -is not concerned to emphasize this conclusion especially, however; -his object is rather simply to show that demons cannot naturally be -compelled by man to obey him. He argues that the human mind, which -is joined to a body, is of inferior grade to separate or incorporeal -substances and so cannot command them. He also holds that demons who -are spiritual beings cannot be coerced by human use of natural objects -such as gems or even by human use of the influence of the stars. He -denies that demons are distributed in any particular quarters of the -heavens, or that they are subject to man at any particular hours of -the day. He denies that spirits can be coerced by the light of the -celestial bodies, asking, if this is so, why they are invoked at night -and in darkness rather than at midday. He admits that it is the opinion -of many that a spirit can be coerced by the special virtue of Saturn -or of Jupiter or some other star; but he questions whether man can -master this special virtue of a planet, “since no terrestrial substance -naturally governs a star, although some philosophers have said that -the human soul sometimes commands the nature of the elements.” He also -raises the familiar objection that the invokers of spirits are usually -inferior to other men in virtue and intelligence, whereas those who -lead pure and rational lives should by rights be the ones to control -the influence of the stars, if any men can. Arnald further denies -that artificial figures and characters or words uttered by man can -overpower demons, since these artificial products derive such virtues -as they have from things of inferior nature or the stars or the human -artificer, and he has already insisted that none of these can coerce -spirits. He justly observes that to contend that necromancers can -control the demons through superior demons is “stupidly said” and begs -the question. He therefore concludes that God alone can control the -evil spirits and that He would delegate His power, if at all, only to -saintly men and not to such wicked sinners as the invokers of demons -are. The _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, in its brief account of -this treatise, says, “It goes without saying that Arnald does not think -all sorceries purely imaginary; however, it should be stated that he -tries to demonstrate that demons are less at the beck and call of -sorcerers than is commonly thought, and that many so-called instances -of sorcery are merely pathological cases.” This last has reference to -the close of the treatise where Arnald makes the commonplace medieval -observation that persons suffering from melancholy are to be humored in -their delusions. - -[Sidenote: The devices of sorcerers.] - -That Arnald did not regard all sorceries as purely imaginary is further -indicated by the long list of remedies against them collected in his -_Remedia contra maleficia_. All but one or two of the suggestions -made by Petrus Hispanus in the chapter on counteracting witchcraft -and dispelling demons in the _Thesaurus pauperum_ are found again -in Arnald’s treatise. He also adds others and prefaces his list of -cures by a description of the devices employed by sorcerers to impede -conjugal relations. The sorcerer usually secretes in the mattress -or pillow of the nuptial bed such objects as the two halves of an -acorn, granulated beans, written characters, the filth of a bat, or -the testicles of a live cock. Arnald recommends that such articles be -searched for and removed, or preferably taken to a priest; or that the -couple sleep in another bed or house. - -[Sidenote: Counter-magic against them.] - -In the case of the divided acorn he more explicitly recognizes the -validity of the sorcerer’s sympathetic magic by prescribing an equally -magical counter-ceremony. The husband and wife are each to take -one-half of the nut and place the two halves together, and, after -an interval of six days, eat them. Apparently Arnald believes that -humans can be bewitched by use of natural substances and written -characters, although in the other treatise he denied that demons could -be so invoked. But now he goes farther and lists natural antidotes and -preventives against demons as well as sorcery. Thus keeping the heart -of a vulture or certain herbs in the house is said to cause demons to -flee, although we have heard him deny that demons can be attracted -by natural substances. Less surprising is the use of the sign of the -cross, of holy water, masses, and the writing of the Tetragrammaton -and other names. Interesting rites for the protection of newly married -couples against witchcraft of unknown origin are suffumigations of the -nuptial chamber with the gall of a certain fish, or the leaves and -fruit of a bramble bush, or the pulverized tooth of a dead man.[2691] - -[Sidenote: Arnald’s works and the Inquisition again.] - -The _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, remarking that this treatise -by Arnald was forbidden later by the Spanish Inquisition, adds, “No -one will hold that decision against them” (_On ne leur reprochera pas -cette décision_). But one wonders if the Inquisition also condemned the -_Thesaurus pauperum_ of Pope John XXI, which we have seen contained -many of the same remedies against witchcraft. Only another proof that -censors never know what is in the books that they condemn! But perhaps -the medieval or papal inquisition would not have made such a slip. -Certainly the Spanish Inquisition had grown very captious, if, as -the _Histoire Littéraire_ says, it also forbade Arnald’s treatise on -astrological medicine and some alchemistic works ascribed to him. - -[Sidenote: Incantations.] - -Arnald’s attitude in the matter of incantations is as inconsistent as -his position regarding the effect of natural substances on spirits. -In one passage of his _Breviarium_[2692] he condemns the incantations -employed in cases of childbirth by the old-wives of Salerno. Taking -three grains of pepper, the enchantress would say over each a Lord’s -prayer, substituting for the words, “Deliver us from evil,” the -request, “Deliver this woman from the pangs of childbirth.” Then she -would administer the grains one after another in wine or water so that -they should not touch the patient’s teeth, and finally she would repeat -thrice in the patient’s ear this incantation, accompanied each time by -a _Paternoster_, - - _Bizomie lamion lamium azerai vachina deus deus sabaoth,_ - _Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini, osanna in excelsis._ - -Arnald declares that such diabolical practices should be shunned by -all the faithful. Yet in the same treatise[2693] he tells of an almost -identical procedure by which a priest cured him of over a hundred warts -within ten days. The priest touched the warts, made the sign of the -cross, turned to a parietary and kneeling repeated the Lord’s prayer, -substituting for the words, “Deliver us from evil,” the request, -“Deliver Master Arnald from the wens and warts on his hands.” After -which, instead of the three peppercorns he plucked the tips of three -of the stalks of the parietary, at the same time repeating three -_Paternosters_, and placed those three tips in the ground in a damp and -secluded spot. “And,” concludes Arnald, “when they began to wither, -my warts began to disappear.” It is true that the couplet of jargon, -which perhaps Arnald regarded as alone diabolical, is omitted and that -a priest rather than a witch performed the rite, but the Lord’s prayer -is still used as an incantation and the ceremony with the stalks is a -clear case of magic transfer of disease and of sympathetic magic. In a -third passage of the same treatise[2694] Arnald suggests the following -“good prayer” against quinsy, “Lord Jesus Christ, truly our God, by the -power of thy name Jesus and by the prayer of thy servant Blasius,[2695] -deign to free A. thy servant.” The popularity of _The Breviary of -Practice from head to soles of feet_, in which these passages occur is -indicated by the fact that it had been printed three times during the -later fifteenth century before any complete edition of Arnald’s works -had been published.[2696] - -[Sidenote: Cures of old-wives.] - -Arnald does not always speak ill of the cures of the old-wives. At -Rome he saw a poor woman cure quinsy sore-throat with a plaster of her -own,[2697] and at Montpellier a good wife cured by some secret method a -man who was threatened with death by a continuous hemorrhage.[2698] - -[Sidenote: Ligatures and suspensions.] - -It was not inappropriate that Arnald should have translated the -treatise of Costa ben Luca on _Incantations, Adjurations, and -Suspension from the Neck_, or that at least that treatise should appear -among his works, in view of the specimens of prayers and formulae which -we have just given and of the more numerous instances of ligatures -and suspensions in his works which we shall next illustrate. In his -_De parte operativa_ he says that there are plants, stones, and parts -of animals which, if suspended about the neck or bound about the body -or sewn into the clothing, produce impotency, a belief which his -_Remedia contra maleficia_ have already illustrated. In his treatise on -wines he states that coral suspended from the neck so that it touches -the abdomen prevents disturbances of the stomach. In his work on -epilepsy[2699] among other suspensions he mentions some which he has -tried with boys, the wood of certain trees bound with silver. Kings are -taught to suspend an emerald about their children’s necks as soon as -they are born as a protection against epilepsy, or the gem may be worn -in a ring as an amulet against that disease. “Socrates recites this -marvelous experience,” of the two stones found in swallows’ gizzards -and how one may be worn in skin as an amulet. In his _Treatment for -Gout_ Arnald tells how “some experimenters” bind a frog’s legs on the -patient’s feet, right foot on right, and left on left; while “another -philosopher and experimenter” binds on the stone magnet, and still -others use the talon of an eagle or the foot of a tortoise. - -[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues in nature.] - -As these ligatures and suspensions suggest, Arnald was a believer in -marvelous virtues in stones, plants, animals, and human beings, and -he discusses the general subject of occult virtue at some length. He -accepts the notion that the magnet cannot attract iron in the presence -of adamant.[2700] A way to discover whether an epileptic has been cured -is to make him inhale smoke from burning horn of goat or pulverized -agate; if not perfectly cured, he will straightway fall in a fit.[2701] -Fumigation of a villa or manor with a cow’s left horn keeps away -locusts.[2702] Arnald enlarges upon the great virtue of wine in which -a heated gold plate has been extinguished four or five times. Some -persons merely hold a gold-piece in the mouth while drinking wine, but -Arnald deems it wiser to reduce the gold to potable form, although -he admits that there may be some efficacy in the other method, since -merely holding silver in the mouth quenches thirst and holding coral in -the mouth comforts the stomach.[2703] - -[Sidenote: Occult virtue defined.] - -In the eighteenth chapter of his _Mirror of Introductions to Medicine_ -Arnald defines occult virtue or _proprietas_, as he also calls it. -Briefly it is a property which is not immediately perceptible to the -senses as are heat and cold, color, odor, and taste, and also one for -which reason cannot account and whose existence cannot be learned by -reasoned experiment but only by chance discovery. This is because such -occult virtue depends on two things: the mixture of the elements in -the object possessing it and its “specific form.” But the ratio of -components in compounds “varies infinitely” and cannot be learned by -reason, and the same is true of their “specific forms.” Nor can they -be discovered by rational experiment which requires some objective -to aim at. Therefore the only way to discover the occult virtue of -an object is to happen upon its manifestation by chance. Again in -his _Repetitio super Canon ‘Vita Brevis_’[2704] Arnald declares that -“properties” cannot be learned by reason but only by experience or -revelation. - -[Sidenote: Due to the stars.] - -Such occult virtue, or at least the “specific form” upon which it -partly depends, is ascribed by Arnald as usual to the influence of the -stars. It is owing, for example, to “the specific influence of the -heavens” that gold is “something arcane, most perfect in its equable -temperament, composed of a marvelous proportion of the virtues of the -elements, and which has not its like among compounds.”[2705] The gold -made by alchemists may resemble it in color and substance but not in -this occult virtue. Arnald, indeed, holds what Aquinas and others -denied, that different individuals of the same species may be endowed -by the stars with diverse properties.[2706] This is in his opinion the -explanation why one sapphire will harm and another cleanse the human -eye. “It leaps into the eye and is received in its bosom without injury -and comes out loaded with foreign matter.” - -[Sidenote: Astrological medicine.] - -From the occult virtue of terrestrial objects we are thus led as usual -to the superior influence of the stars, which occupies a prominent, or -better, fundamental place in Arnald’s works. He affirms that “since it -is evident that God, the supreme artificer and begetter, has committed -the government of nature to the motions of the stars, their influence -upon the human body is no slight one.”[2707] Or he cites Galen as -saying that philosophers assert that all things on earth are formed -and fulfilled by the course and working of the heavenly bodies.[2708] -The hour of collecting medicines is often very important[2709] and -the physician should also know how the air about us is altered by the -stars.[2710] Astrological medicine is also found in Arnald’s treatise -on preserving youth and retarding age,[2711] and in his _Judgments of -Infirmities by the Motion of the Planets_, where he also associates the -members of the human body with the signs of the zodiac. This he does -for the seven planets in his treatise on epilepsy.[2712] - -[Sidenote: Bleeding and the moon.] - -Arnald alludes a number of times to the practice of bleeding -according to the phases of the moon. In his _Regulation of Health_ -he discusses how the age of the moon and its location, conjunctions, -and aspects must be taken into account.[2713] In his _General Rules -for the Cure of Disease_[2714] he says that the influence of the -moon should be regarded by physicians in their pharmacy as well as -their blood-letting, as anyone who operates long and intelligently -will find by experience. Astrological authors prove it, but medical -authors generally remain silent on this point. Arnald finds support, -however, in Galen’s _Critical Days_ and other works, and in the -more recent works of Gilbert of England, who cautions to observe -the moon in bleeding and advises against blood-letting in dog-days -or on Egyptian days. Arnald would also include cauterization, other -surgical operations, and the administration of drugs, and there is much -observance of dog-days in his _Treatise against the stone_. On the -other hand, Arnald rejects as false and worthless the statement in the -_Regimen Salernitanum_ that the months of April, May, and September are -lunar and that in them are the days on which bleeding is prohibited. - -[Sidenote: Bernard Gordon’s personal experience.] - -Bernard Gordon, a medical contemporary of Arnald, notes in his -_Phlebotomy_, written in 1307, that wise astronomers agree that -bleeding should not be practiced when the moon is in Gemini, because -at that time the vein will not give blood or it will open again or the -patient will die. He goes on to narrate, however, that once having -made all preparations to bleed himself, it suddenly occurred to him -that the moon was then in Gemini. He persisted with the operation, -however, which would seem to indicate that he did not really believe -that it would prove disastrous; and he records that as a matter of -fact that particular bleeding did him more good than any other one -he ever underwent. Yet as the _Histoire Littéraire_ notes,[2715] he -reproduced the opinion of the astronomers without comment in his -_Prognostications_. Which suggests that clergy who practiced in private -arts of divination which they condemned in their writings were not the -only ones whose preaching and practice might be divergent; Bernard -defies astrological medicine successfully in personal practice but he -continues to preach it in his writings. But to return to Arnald. - -[Sidenote: Operative astrology or magic.] - -Arnald believes that a human operator can accomplish great things by -availing himself of the influences of the stars, an idea which he -develops especially in the treatise entitled, _De parte operativa_. -In the first place, there is the negative consideration that the -force which pours forth unceasingly from the stars is not absorbed -unless bodies are in a condition to receive it, and that they may be -put into such a favorable condition by art as well as by nature. More -positively, everything produced by art or nature receives from the -sky some property of acting upon other bodies or of being acted upon -by them. So any man who knows the influences of the stars and how -to prepare objects to receive them, can produce great and marvelous -changes in inferior things. Arnald thinks that “the juggleries of the -magicians and the illusions of the enchanters” and the operations -of sorcerers and those who fascinate, have efficacy in no other -way, except of course as demons may lend their aid. In other words, -astrology is the basis of magic. - -[Sidenote: Seals or images.] - -Arnald speaks particularly of gems to which either Nature, the -marvel-worker, or some erudite artist has given efficacious powers by -engraving them with images in accordance with the constellations.[2716] -In his medical works he states that a lion on a lead seal prevents one -from feeling pain in an operation for the stone,[2717] and that an -image of a man holding a dead serpent in his right hand and its tail -in his left hand is an antidote for poison.[2718] That Arnald also -employed such methods in actual medical practice is shown from the -fact that Pope Boniface VIII set great store by a seal in the form of -a lion which Arnald had prepared for him when he was suffering from -the stone.[2719] Arnald’s separate treatise on seals gives detailed -directions for engraving one for each sign of the zodiac. The following -example is typical of the others and also further illustrates Arnald’s -propensity to pious incantations: “In the name of the living Father -of our Lord Jesus Christ, take the purest gold and melt it as the sun -enters Aries. Later form a round seal from it and say while so doing, -‘Arise, Jesus, light of the world, thou who art in truth the lamb that -taketh away the sins of the world and enlighteneth our darkness.’ And -repeat the Psalm, _Domine dominus noster_. After doing this much, put -the seal away, and later, when the moon is in Cancer or Leo and while -the sun is in Aries, engrave on one side the figure of a ram and on -the circumference _arahel tribus juda v et vii_, and elsewhere on the -circumference let these sacred words be engraved, ‘The Word was made -flesh and dwelt among us,’ and in the center, ‘Alpha and Omega and -Saint Peter.’” These instructions are perhaps some relic of gnosticism. -Arnald then states the virtues and powers of the seal: “Moreover, this -precious seal works against all demons and capital enemies and against -witchcraft, and is efficacious in winning gain and favor, and aids in -all dangers and financial difficulties (_vectigalibus_), and against -thunderbolts and storms and inundations, and against the force of the -winds and the pestilences of the air. Its bearer is honored and feared -in all his affairs. No harm can befall the building or occupants of -the house where it is. It benefits demoniacs, those suffering from -inflammation of the brain, maniacs, quinsy sore throat, and all -diseases of the head and eyes, and those in which rheum descends from -the head. And in general I say that it wards off all evils and confers -goods; and let its bearer abstain as far as possible from impurity and -luxury and other mortal sins, and let him wear it on his head with -reverence and honor.” - -[Sidenote: Experimental method.] - -Arnald’s pages have supplied some evidence of the continued vogue of -that “experimental knowledge” and “experimental science” of which -Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon and others of the early thirteenth -century wrote. In a passage not yet noted[2720] Arnald recognizes -the difficulty of medical experimentation and, like Petrus Hispanus -and John of St. Amand, makes some suggestions as to how it should be -conducted. They are, however, not novel. We have also heard him speak -of experimenters, of a “philosopher and experimenter,” of “the long -experience of any intelligent operator”, and of “rational experiment” -which “always presupposes a determined object.” We have also heard him -admit that the occult virtues of natural objects can be hit upon only -by chance experiment or by some sort of revelation. And since these -last two channels are as open to the common people as to the learned, -it is possible that knowledge of occult virtues should be attained -sooner by uneducated men than by others.[2721] This is not necessarily -the case, however, and in a third treatise he speaks of a truth -having been verified by experience until it has come to the notice of -illiterate men and women. This truth is that the weakened powers of -age can to some extent be restored, and as a proof of this assertion -Arnald presently adduces the invention of eye-glasses,[2722] which are -likewise mentioned by his contemporary, Bernard Gordon.[2723] We -also have observed in Arnald the usual inclination to base marvels upon -experience, as in “the marvelous and elect experiment” of Socrates or -the cure of gout by binding on frog’s legs. - -[Sidenote: Further foibles of Arnald’s medicine.] - -In conclusion some foibles of Arnald’s medicine may be noted which do -not exactly fall under any of the preceding heads. In the treatment -of mania in the _Breviarium_ he advises as a last resort that the -skin be cut in the form of a cross and the skull perforated so that -the noxious vapors may escape from the brain.[2724] In another place -he warns against washing the head too often, “since thereby many have -lost their sight before their time.”[2725] He advises to lave the -eyes not with cold but with tepid water, and recommends as especially -beneficial to the eyes washing with one’s own urine when one rises from -bed in the morning, or with one’s own saliva. Throughout this same -work he repeatedly recommends the most awful concoctions as remedies, -but perhaps the climax in the way of a series of complicated recipes -occurs in his _Treatise against the Stone_,[2726] a disease for which -he had treated the pope. In his collection of antidotes[2727] we again -run across the Potion of St. Paul and the opiates supposed to have been -discovered by the emperor Hadrian and the prophet Esdras. - -[Sidenote: The affair of Bernard Délicieux.] - -The trial of Bernard Délicieux[2728] before the inquisition should -perhaps be mentioned at this point as a connecting link between Arnald -of Villanova of whom we have just treated and Raymond Lull to whom -the next chapter will be devoted, especially as the tendency of this -affair would appear to be to bring both of them into disrepute with the -inquisition and under suspicion of magic. Thus two citizens of Albi -testified that on the eve of Benedict XI’s death Bernard Délicieux or -Delitiosi sent a leather chest wrapped in waxed cloth to Arnald of -Villanova at the papal court, the imputation being that Arnald helped -Bernard to poison the pope. Furthermore, Bernard was found to have -in his possession a book of nigromancy which he said Raymond Lull, a -Catalan of Majorca, had given to him at Rome. No doubt this evidence -against Raymond and Arnald is very flimsy; Bernard himself was freed of -the charge of poisoning;[2729] still, it may have done them some harm. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2668] Jean Astruc, _Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la Faculté de -Médecine de Montpellier_, Paris, 1767. A much cited book, but seemingly -rare in this country. - -[2669] HL 28, 26-104, with corrections and additions based on Menéndez -Pelayo’s researches at pp. 487-90. - -[2670] Menéndez Pelayo, _Arnaldo de Villanova médico Catalán del siglo -XIII_, Madrid, 1879; and _Historia de los heterodoxos españoles_, -Madrid, 1880, I, 449-87, 720-81. - -[2671] Roque Chabás, in _Boletín de la real Academia de la Historia_. -vol. 28, p. 87. I have not seen this, but have used Leopold Delisle, -_Testaments d’Arnaud de Villeneuve et de Raimond Lulle, 20 juillet 1305 -et 26 avril 1313. Extrait du Journal des Savants_, June, 1896. - -[2672] H. Finke, _Acta Aragonensia_, vol. II (1291-1327), 1908. - -[2673] P. Diepgen, _Arnald von Villanova als Politiker und -Laientheologe_, 1909, in _Abhandl. z. Mittl. u. Neuer. Gesch._, Heft 9. -Diepgen proposed to treat later of Arnald’s medicine and investigate -the genuineness of several works ascribed to him. - -[2674] _Catalogus testium veritatis qui ante nostram aetatem Pontificum -Romanorum Primatui Variisque Papismi superstitionibus erroribus ac -impiis fraudibus reclamarunt. Nova hac Editione emendatior_, etc., 1608. - -[2675] Vatican MS 3824, _Confessio ... de spurcitiis -pseudo-religiosorum. Eulogium de notitia verorum et pseudo-apostolorum. -Gladius veritatis adversus thomistas._ And other anti-clerical or -theological treatises. - -[2676] The bulls are printed by M. Fournier, _Les Statuts et Privilèges -des Universités Françaises_. II (1891), 21-3. - -[2677] Astruc (1767), p. 153 - -[2678] Diepgen (1909), 17-21. Denifle et Chatelain, _Chartularium -Universitatis Parisiensis_, II, 86-90, give Arnald’s letter notifying -James II of Aragon of his detention at Paris, and his appeal to the -pope, both dated in October, 1300. - -[2679] In this paragraph I have followed Diepgen (1909), pp. 23-36, -44-46. - -[2680] Noted as a translator; see _Translatio Canticorum Avicennae cum -commentario Averrois ex arabico in latinum_, Venetiis, 1492. This work -was executed in 1283 according to Peterhouse 101, 13-14th century, II. -In 1307 he translated the treatise on poisons of Moses Maimonides for -Clement V at Barcelona; see Peterhouse 101, III, and Corpus Christi -125, fols. 1r-13v. Before that in 1302 he had translated at Montpellier -another medical work of Maimonides, _De asinate_; see Gonville and -Caius 178, 14-15th century, fols. 130-65. - -Steinschneider (1905), p. 6, speaks of “Armengab (oder Armengaud, -nicht Armengand) Blasii, in Montpellier, Arzt Philipps des Schönen, -gest. 1314 übs. aus dem Hebr.” But Fabricius speaks of Armegandus -or Ermengardus Blasii, and the aforesaid MSS give such forms as -“dymengandus blasii,” “a mag. hermengaldo blasii,” “a mag. Armengando -blazini,” “a mag. Armegando blasii de monte pessulano magistro in -medicina.” - -[2681] Diepgen (1909), 83-88. - -[2682] Listed but not printed by Fournier, _Les Statuts et Privilèges -des Universités Françaises_, II (1891). - -[2683] Diepgen (1909), 48-82. - -[2684] One of the above-mentioned papal bulls of 1309 speaks of “our -cherished sons, masters William of Brixia and John of Alesto, our -physicians and chaplains, and also of Master Arnald of Villanova, -physician”; while the other two bulls speak of “our cherished sons, -Arnald of Villanova and John of Alesto, our physician and chaplain.” -Thus William and John, rather than Arnald, seem to be the pope’s -private physicians. - -[2685] Diepgen (1909), p. 94. - -[2686] _Ibid._, p. 99. - -[2687] They will be found listed in HL 28, 50-51. I have used the -edition published at Lyons, in 1532. - -[2688] _Regule Generales Curationis Morborum, Doctrina VI_. “Cum omnis -vera cognitio a sensu oriatur et ab his quae sensibilia sunt habeat -ortum, necessario ipsa sensibilia debent gratiose et efficaciter -demonstrari iuvenibus et adiscentibus, cum tunc intellectus discurrens -per ea abstrahit multa media et multas conclusiones. Unde per -sensibilia venit intellectus ad cognitionem insensibilium et occultorum -et arduorum et subtilium, ut declaratur per totum processum theologiae -et per totum processum medicinae.” - -[2689] _De epilepsia_, cap. 25. A similar passage in a work -contemporary with Arnald, Bernard Gordon’s _Tractatus de decem ingeniis -curandorum morborum_, pp. 228-9 of the Venice, 1496, edition, reads: -“Tertio quod medicus operatur secundum artem seu per canones Galenis -et Hippocratis et aliorum sapientium et in hoc condemnatur omnis ars -auguriandi sicut est ars geomantica et suspendendi herbas ad collum et -omnia emperica et forticinia et fassina et alia quam plurima quae non -est bonum revelare propter abutentes qui conscientia neglecta utuntur -magis et quibusdam ingeniis fatuis et cum omni sollertia pessima et -mala lege et multa similia quae non sunt tunc narrabilia.... Et testor -deum et nimirum quod numquam vidi hominem malitiosum in medicina qui -diu duraret dies suos.” - -[2690] Also rather inappropriately entitled in the MSS (BN 6971, -fol. 65; 7337, fol. 110; 17847, fol. 53), _Quaestio de possibilitate -et veritate imaginum astronomicarum_. The treatise is addressed to -“Reverendissimo patri et non ficte bonitatis exemplo dei provisione -presuli valentino....” - -I have somewhat altered the order of Arnald’s arguments in order to -make them more comprehensible and readable. - -[2691] Of these the first two are not given in the _Thesaurus pauperum_. - -[2692] _Breviarium_, III, 4. - -[2693] _Breviarium_, II, 45. - -[2694] _Ibid._, II, 1. Possibly this particular passage is a later -gloss, as it is marked _Additiones_, but HL 28, 62-3, regards it as -Arnald’s, and marvels that a man of his zeal for science and truth -should believe in the efficacy of such procedure. - -[2695] Presumably Ermengard Blasius, mentioned above, and his colleague -at Montpellier. - -[2696] _Breviarium practicae a capite usque ad plantam pedis, cum -capitulo generali de urinis et tractatu de omnibus febribus, peste, -empiala et liparia_, Milan, 1483; Venice, 1494 and 1497. - -[2697] _Compend. medic. pract._ II, 1; cited HL 28, 43. - -[2698] _Breviarium_, I, 38; cited HL 28, 34. - -[2699] _De epilepsia_, caps. 24 and 4. - -[2700] _De parte operativa_, fol. 127. - -[2701] _Breviarium_, I, 22. - -[2702] _De venenis._ - -[2703] _De vinis_, fol. 263v. - -[2704] Fol. 276. - -[2705] _De vinis_, fol. 263v. - -[2706] _De parte operativa_, fol. 127; _Antidotarium_, cap. 2. - -[2707] _De epilepsia_, cap. 1. - -[2708] _Regulae generales curationis morborum, Doctrina iv._ - -[2709] _Antidotarium_, cap. 3. - -[2710] _Medicinalium Introductionum Speculum_, cap. 13. - -[2711] _De conservanda iuventute et retardanda senectute._ - -[2712] _De epilepsia_, cap. 1. - -[2713] _De regimine sanitatis_, cap. 37, fol. 78v. - -[2714] _Doctrina iv._ - -[2715] HL, 25, 330. - -[2716] _Antidotarium_, cap. 3. - -[2717] _De parte operativa_, fol. 127. - -[2718] _Antidotarium_, cap. 3. - -[2719] Diepgen (1909), p. 25. - -[2720] _Medic. Introd. Spec._, cap. 20. - -[2721] _Repetitio super Canon ‘Vita Brevis’_, fol. 276. - -[2722] _De conserv. iuvent. et retard. senectute_, “Palam autem -est quia obiectum politicum et diaffanum est aggregatum visus eius -congregans disgregatum.” - -[2723] Bernard’s mention of eye-glasses in his _Lilium medicinae_, -Venice, 1496, Partic. III, cap. v, fol. 94, is both more incidental and -more specific. At the close of his “ninth experiment” for the eyes, a -formidable mixture, he says, “et est tantae virtutis quod decrepitum -faceret legere litteras minutas sine ocularibus.” Magnifying lenses -have of course been mentioned earlier by Grosseteste; see above p. 441. - -Bernard Gordon also mentions “experimenters,” _Lilium_ V, 12, fol. 159, -“et dicunt experimentatores.” - -[2724] _Breviarium_, I, 26. - -[2725] _Ibid._, I, 13. - -[2726] _Tractatus contra calculum._ - -[2727] _Antidotarium._ - -[2728] HL 29, 276; Lea, _Hist. of Inquisition of Middle Ages_ -(1888) III, 452; but especially B. Hauréau, _Bernard Délicieux et -l’Inquisition Albigeoise_, Paris, 1877. - -[2729] Diepgen (1909), pp. 36-7. The further articles by Diepgen -on Arnald, alluded to above on p. 842, note 3, appeared in _Arch. -f. Gesch. d. Med._, V., 397-9; VI (1913) 380-91; and in _Arch. -f. Kulturgesch._, IX (1912) 385-403, “Arnoldus de Villanova _de -improbatione maleficiorum_.” - - - - -CHAPTER LXIX - -RAYMOND LULL - - - Life and works--Orthodoxy questioned--His natural science - not unusual--His Art Universal--Circular figures employed - in theology--Figure of a tree used in medicine--Lull and - alchemy--His attitude to astrology--To the condemnation - of 1277 at Paris--His book on medicine and astrology--An - uncomplimentary allusion to thirteenth century - medicine--Necromancy and divine names. - - -[Sidenote: Life and works.] - -Ramon Lull or Raimond Lulle or Raymund Lull or Raymond Lully, to -mention some of the forms of his name which have prevailed in different -languages and times, appears to have been one of the most energetic -and versatile characters of the thirteenth and early fourteenth -century.[2730] Born in 1235 or 1236 or possibly a year or two earlier -at Palma in the island of Majorca, he seems to have spent his youth as -a pleasure-loving courtier, if not libertine, and to have initiated by -the composition of love verses the long series of poems and treatises -in Catalan which make him a prominent figure in the history of medieval -Spanish literature.[2731] At about the age of thirty he underwent a -conversion not unlike that of Saint Francis and thenceforth devoted -himself to learning and religion. This combination was characteristic -of him and he has been charged with holding that all the mysteries of -the Faith could be proved and comprehended by reason and with “removing -all distinction between natural and supernatural truth.”[2732] His -chief contribution to learning was the method of his Art, of which -more presently. But he was a voluminous writer upon a great variety -of themes, some of which border more closely on the field of our -investigation. Some of these works at first sight may seem to have -little connection with what appears to have been Lull’s main object in -life, namely, the conversion of the Mohammedan world and the rescue of -the holy sepulcher.[2733] But his crusading and missionary methods were -somewhat peculiar, involving not only a long preparatory educational -period, especially in the study of oriental languages, but also the -refutation of Arabian philosophy, particularly that of Averroes, and -toward that goal the conciliation of philosophy and theology in the -Christian world. In 1276 he persuaded the king of Aragon to establish a -school for the study of Arabic in Majorca, and in 1311 at the Council -of Vienne he persuaded the pope to authorize chairs in Greek, Hebrew, -Chaldean and Arabic at Rome, Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca. He -failed, however, in his effort at this council to obtain a prohibition -of Averroistic teaching in Christian universities. Lull himself, -besides teaching in his own school in Majorca, lectured on his Art -at Paris, Montpellier and elsewhere. But he also was an active field -missionary, converting Saracens not only in the Balearic Isles but also -in Cyprus and Armenia, while he went three times to North Africa. On -the first occasion he was imprisoned and then banished, on the last he -was stoned to death. This martyrdom, added to his fame as a poet and -scholar, has made him the national saint of the Balearic Isles, but -he actually has only been beatified and not canonized. He appears to -have been a member of the third order of St. Francis. His will, drawn -up in 1313 and brought again to light in 1896, shows that he had -children.[2734] His death occurred on the 29th of June, 1315. - -[Sidenote: Orthodoxy questioned.] - -The chief reason why Lull has never been canonized is the doubt that -has prevailed as to his complete orthodoxy, a matter more than once -questioned. Eymeric (1320-1399) when Inquisitor-General of Aragon -attacked the doctrines of Lull, listing five hundred passages in his -works as heretical and claiming that Gregory XI had condemned two -hundred in a bull of 1376,--which has not been found. It is thought -that the bull meant is one against a converted Jew, Raymond of Tárrega -who had turned renegade and written works on magic. At any rate in -1386 another inquisitor at Barcelona cleared the views of Lull from -suspicion. The University of Majorca established by King Ferdinand -the Catholic became a great center of Lullism. Then in the middle -of the sixteenth century Lull’s works were placed on the _Index -Expurgatorius_, but were removed before the close of the century. It -may seem strange that the relations between Lullism and the Inquisition -and Index were not more cordial, since they are often both represented -as pursuing the same quarry, Averroism, of which we are told, “Lullism -always provided its strongest foes.”[2735] But we rather suspect that -“Averroism” was in the nature of an air-drawn phantom whose assailants -were apt to injure one another. - -[Sidenote: His natural science not unusual.] - -Probst regards Lull as in advance of his age in his use of observation -and experimental science and his knowledge that the world was round -and acquaintance with the mariner’s compass.[2736] This knowledge, -however, he really shared with his times and we can scarcely regard him -as a precursor of Columbus nor even quite as an equal of Roger Bacon -in these respects, exaggerated as we believe the estimates to be which -have often been made of Roger’s importance. But Probst shows a similar -tendency to exaggerate the scientific importance of Lull at the expense -of his period. - -[Sidenote: His Art Universal.] - -Lull’s chief original contribution to medieval learning bore scant -relation indeed to the methods of observation and experiment. His -famous Art came to him as a sudden inspiration in the midst of long -study and reflection and was, he and his followers believed, received -by direct divine illumination. Hence his title, “the illuminated -Doctor.” In reality the method of his Art leads us to infer that it -occurred to him by some process of sub-conscious association with the -employment of the planisphere in astronomy or the use of a revolving -wheel and tables of combinations of letters of the alphabet such as -we have noted in the geomancies and modes of divination ascribed to -Socrates, Pythagoras, and other philosophers. Lull’s idea seems to -have been the invention of a logical machine which would constitute -the same sort of labor-saving device in a scholastic disputation or -medieval university as an adding machine in a modern bank or business -office. By properly arranging categories and concepts, subjects and -predicates in the first place, one could get the correct answer to such -propositions as might be put. Another advantage of this method would -be that a sceptical Arab, who might refuse to listen to or view with -suspicion the verbal arguments of a missionary, would be irresistibly -convinced of the truth of the doctrines of Christianity by this -machine, or at least mechanical method, which would impress him as -impartial and reliable Lull’s diagrams and mechanical devices included -a tree, intersecting triangles, and concentric circles divided into -compartments, of which one rotated something like the planet; in the -signs while the other remained stationary like the sphere of the fixed -stars. - -[Sidenote: Circular figures employed in theology.] - -In questions of theology a circle was employed whose center stood -for God while its circumference divided into sixteen “chambers” -representing kindness, grandeur, eternity, power, wisdom, will, virtue, -truth, glory, perfection, justice, beneficence, pity, humility, -dominion, and patience. One hundred and twenty more “chambers” were -formed by combining pairs of the foregoing. Another circle shows -the rational soul in the center represented by four squares and has -its circumference divided into sixteen compartments representing -appropriate qualities. A third circle, devoted to principles and -meanings, enclosed five triangles in a circumference of fifteen -compartments; while a fourth circle divided fourteen compartments -of its circumference between the seven virtues and seven vices -respectively rendered in blue and red. Other “figures” dealt with -predestination, fate, and free-will, truth, and falsity. The following -is a specific instance of the way in which these were combined. -When the rational soul is troubled and uncertain in the circle of -predestination, because the chambers of ignorance and merit, science -and fault, mingle together, it forms a third figure representing doubt. - -[Sidenote: Figure of a tree used in medicine.] - -In medicine the figure of a tree was employed. At its roots a wheel -divided into quarters signifying bile, blood, phlegm, and atrabile. -The tree had two trunks, on one of which bloomed the principles of -ancient medicine. Its first branch, the natural, bore seven flowers: -the elements, complexions, humors, members, faculties, operations, and -spirits; and four figures dependent on these, namely, ages, colors, -shapes, and sexes. The second non-natural branch produced six flowers: -air, exercise, food and drink, sleep and activity, emptiness and -surfeit, and the accidents of the mind. The third bough, or contrary -to nature, had three flowers: disease and its causes and results. The -other main trunk had two boughs. One divided into hot and cold, moist -and dry, and the four degrees of each. The other bore three triangles -and a square. The red triangle represented the source, the middle, -and the end; the green triangle stood for difference, agreement, and -contrariety; the yellow triangle comprised majority, minority, and -equality.[2737] The square divides into four colors: red for being; -black for privation; blue for perfection; green for imperfection.[2738] -Such are some of the diagrams of the Lullian art, intended presumably -to be worked by cranks or levers. There is really nothing magical about -them; they are purely mechanical and representative and illustrative. -But in their make-up they are certainly suggestive of a Gnostic or -Ophite diagram or of a geomantic wheel, and possibly may sometimes have -been suspected of being magical by outsiders. - -[Sidenote: Lull and alchemy.] - -The use of the word “Art” for this logical machinery and graphic -method of Raymond Lull perhaps also led to the notion that he was an -alchemist and exponent of the Hermetic art. Various works of alchemy -were ascribed to him but are regarded as spurious; perhaps some of -them are by the Jew, Raymond of Tárrega, already mentioned. No work of -alchemy is mentioned in the lists of his writings drawn up in 1311 and -1314,[2739] and the sixth part, devoted to metals, of his _Libre de -les Maravels_ is unfavorable to alchemy.[2740] In his Latin _Questions -Soluble by the Demonstrative or Inventive Art_ he again adduced -reasons against transmutation.[2741] De Luanco has collected other -passages from Raymond’s undisputed works unfavorable to alchemy and the -alchemists.[2742] We have seen, however, that a writer may criticize -most or all other alchemists sharply and question various doctrines -and methods of alchemy and yet have his own way of getting around the -difficulties whether theoretical, such as the permanence of species, -or practical. There is therefore something to be said for the position -of Barber who, while recognizing that the treatises current under -Raymond’s name are spurious, adds, “We can well believe that he wrote -as well as thought on alchemy.”[2743] And it was Berthelot’s opinion -that while the works ascribed to Raymond are spurious, “nevertheless -it is incontestable that those writings were composed by persons who -believed themselves his disciples.”[2744] These spurious works were in -existence at an early date and Raymond is cited as an alchemist from -the fourteenth century on. - -[Sidenote: His attitude to astrology.] - -If Lull was an opponent of the art of transmuting metals rather than -an adept in alchemy, he was at least a believer in astrology as -several of his works show. It is true, and this is the more important -to note as suggesting how Lull’s utterances on the subject of alchemy -may also have been misunderstood, that the _Histoire Littéraire de -la France_, in describing Raymond’s _Tractatus novus de astronomia_, -written in 1297, gives the impression that it is directed against -astrology, stating that Lull says that he has written it “to dissuade -princes and magnates from trusting in the divinations of astrologers,” -and adding, “Less worthy of praise is the second part of the work -where the author assumes to apply to astronomy the principles of -his art universal.”[2745] An examination of the treatise itself in -manuscript[2746] shows that it is only of certain astrologers and -diviners who deceive princes by false judgments from the stars that -Raymond would have royalty beware. He writes his book not because -“astronomy” (i.e. astrology) is false but because it is so difficult -that often judgments made by the art turn out false, and because he -wishes to investigate and discover new methods by which men can have -greater knowledge of “astronomy” and its judgments. When he comes to -speak of the properties of each planet, he remarks that “astronomers” -attribute many properties to Saturn but do not prove them. He intends -to employ his Art in investigating Saturn’s properties, and comes -to the conclusion that men born under that planet are, among other -traits, ponderously grave, suspicious by nature, disposed to toil and -to build great edifices, and ambitious to hold office.[2747] Later on -we find him spending many pages in listing different combinations of -the planets in the signs as fortunate or unfortunate.[2748] All this, -of course, is judicial astrology rather than astronomy. He “proves” -also that the sky is animated by a moving and circular soul or spirit, -and he states that “astronomers” recognize in their judgments that -this soul of the sky is the cause of things caused in our inferior -world.[2749] After a while, however, he does reprove “the philosophers -who invented the science of astronomy” for “certain points in this -science in which they have erred,” namely, in making it necessary and -inevitable. Lull holds that God can alter nature as the smith alters -the direction of his falling hammer, and that the human mind has free -will to resist the influence of the stars.[2750] But this criticism -of astrology is neither novel nor entirely justified. Lull never -disputes but always accepts the theory that the heavenly bodies shed -their influence and virtue upon inferiors. He does, however, speak -slightingly of the art of geomancy and its practitioners.[2751] - -[Sidenote: To the condemnation of 1277 at Paris.] - -In the same year 1297 in which Raymond wrote the treatise just -summarized he also published an imaginary dialogue dealing with the -219 opinions which had been condemned at Paris in 1277.[2752] In this -dialogue “Socrates” undertakes the defense of philosophy while Raymond -supports theology and the articles of condemnation. We have seen that -a number of the opinions condemned were astrological in character. -Raymond does not join in active condemnation of all of these, passing -over a number in silence and perhaps intentionally evading them. On -article 30, “that superior intelligences create rational souls without -the motion of the sky; but that inferior intelligences create the -vegetative and sensitive souls by means of the motion of the sky,” -Raymond’s comment is that creation is the proper function of God. To -Socrates’ repetition of the sixty-first article, “that God can do -contrary things, that is, by means of a celestial body which is diverse -in its whereabouts,” Raymond replies that God can act directly and -produce contraries without the intervention of any heavenly body, if He -wishes to, as He did in creating the four elements with their contrary -qualities of hot and cold, dry and moist. Raymond adds, however, that -God would not produce sins, since He is perfect in goodness. In reply -to articles 92 and 102, that the heavenly bodies are moved by a soul -and by appetitive virtue just like an animal, and that the soul of the -sky is intelligence, Raymond answers that in his opinion it is correct -to say that the sky has a motive soul but not a vegetative or sensitive -or imaginative or rational soul. “If, however, I am not speaking the -truth in this, I am prepared to receive correction; but I believe that -I am speaking truly.” Raymond also upholds human free will as in the -preceding treatise. The close of the present dialogue is, at least -on the surface, an edifying instance of submission to ecclesiastical -authority. Socrates asks Raymond if the theologians believe as he has -been saying. Raymond replies that he believes so, since he has proved -his own statements and believes them to be true, and he knows that -the venerable lords and doctors of theology who are pillars of the -Christian Faith believe only what is true. If, however, he has erred, -it is unwittingly and unintentionally, and he humbly supplicates those -most powerful masters to correct the words of their weak servant. -Socrates chimes in that he has merely been repeating for his part what -the ancient philosophers said, but that if any of it is contrary to -Christianity, he does not want to believe it. He therefore proposes -that they go to Paris and submit the book to the theologians there for -their approval or correction, as his desire is to see “great concord -between my lords the masters in theology and in philosophy.” It seems -evident that behind his humble tone Lull is trying to soften down -the condemnation of 1277 and substitute a somewhat more conciliatory -attitude. - -[Sidenote: The book of Raymond on medicine and astronomy.] - -Lull’s attitude to astrology is further illustrated by a treatise in -which he applies the method of his Art universal to the subject of -astrological medicine.[2753] “Since the science of medicine is very -difficult on account of its principles being so secret,” Raymond -proposes to investigate them by means of his Art. His treatise has -three divisions: the first, concerning the inferior world of the -elements and the body of the human patient; the second, concerning -the regions of the celestial bodies; and the third, consisting of -questions. Raymond denotes the four elements by the letters from a to -d, and the combinations of heat or cold with humidity and drought by -the letters from e to h. He then introduces a figure with two circles -representing the eighth sphere and the zodiac, since the motion of -the planets controls that of the human body. These two circles are -each divided into eight “houses,” which correspond to sixteen pairs of -letters consisting of each of the four elements joined with each of the -four letters denoting pairs of qualities, namely, ae, af, ag, ah, be, -bf, bg, bh, ce, cf, cg, ch, de, df, dg, and dh. Raymond then discusses -such topics as fevers, the pulse, evacuation, diet, bleeding, bathing, -the color of the urine, digestion and indigestion, pains, appetite, -and the method of grading medicines. The relation of his letters and -“houses” to these matters may be seen from his statement that the house -of _ae_ causes one kind of appetite, that of _be_ another, and so -on. Coming to the second section of his treatise, Lull treats of the -planets and signs and relates the conjunctions of the various planets -with one another to his eight letters and their combinations. In the -third part he puts illustrative problems and solves them by reference -to his preceding text. - -[Sidenote: An uncomplimentary allusion to thirteenth century medicine.] - -We might think Lull an opponent of medicine, if we attended only to -a passage in his _Contemplation of God_.[2754] Here he complains -that doctors of the body are more sought after, better paid, more -scrupulously obeyed than are physicians of the soul. They go well clad -on good steeds, and amass wealth by working all sorts of impositions -upon their patients, boasting of their knowledge of diseases of which -they are really ignorant, prolonging the period of illness in order -to increase their pay, and prescribing syrups and the like in large -quantities because they share in the profits of the apothecaries. -They try out potions on their patients which they would never take -themselves, and there is no other art in the world so risky and over -which there is so much disagreement. These remarks of Raymond are, -however, the sort of satirical observations on medical practice that -might be made at almost any period, so that it is difficult to tell if -they are especially applicable to the thirteenth century. - -[Sidenote: Necromancy and divine names.] - -In closing we may note two brief indications of Lull’s belief in two -other occult subjects, namely, necromancy and the power of divine -names. Of necromancy he of course did not approve but in the treatise -just cited he adduces the art of necromancy as evidence for the -existence of God, since it requires the services of demons and they -are no other beings than fallen angels who owe their existence to -God.[2755] This somewhat tortuous theistic argument we have already -heard advanced by Justin Martyr. In his treatise in Catalan on _The -Hundred Names of God_ Raymond asks, “Since God has put virtues in -words, plants, and stones, how will He not have put far greater virtue -into His names?”[2756] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2730] A number of works on Lull have appeared recently: M. André, _Le -bienheureux Raymond Lulle_, 3rd edition, Paris, 1900; S. M. Zwemer, -_Raymund Lull, First Missionary to the Moslems_, New York, 1902; W. T. -A. Barber, _Raymond Lull, the illuminated doctor: a study in medieval -missions_, London, 1903; J. H. Probst, _Caractère et origines des idées -du bienheureux Raymond Lulle_, Toulouse, 1912. By Barber also the -article “Lullists” in ERE. The fullest discussion of Raymond’s writings -seems to remain, however, that in HL 29: 1-386, which includes works -still in MSS. The most accessible edition of the works in print is -perhaps that of Salzinger, Mainz, 1721-1742, in ten folio volumes. The -_Revista Lulliana_ was started at Barcelona in 1901. - -[2731] A. Helfferich, _Raymond Lull und die Anfänge der catalonischen -Literatur_, Berlin, 1858. - -[2732] William Turner, in CE. - -[2733] A. Gottron, _Ramon Lulls Kreuzzugsideen_, Berlin, 1912. - -[2734] Don Francisco de Bofarull y Sans, _El Testamento de Ramón Lull -y la Escuela Luliana en Barcelona_, Madrid, 1896, 96 pp. Extract from -vol. 5 of _Memorias de la Real Acad. de Buenas Letras de Barcelona_. -L. Delisle, _Testaments d’Arnaud de Villeneuve et de Raimond Lulle, 20 -juillet 1305 et 26 avril 1313_; _Extrait du Journal des Savants_, June, -1896. - -[2735] Barber in ERE. - -[2736] Probst (1912) chapter 8, “Lulle Savant,” especially pp. 156-7, -164-5, 171. The chapter appears to be written almost entirely from -secondary sources and shows an insufficient knowledge of the middle -ages in general. - -[2737] I have seen in Digby 85, fols. 152r-86v, _Speculum medicine_ (of -Lull) which is mainly devoted to a discussion of these three triangles. - -[2738] For this and the preceding paragraph on the circles employed in -theology I have followed the descriptions in HL 29: 75 ff. and 87 ff. - -[2739] HL 29: 271. - -[2740] HL 29: 354. The work is in Catalan; the other nine parts treat -of God, angels, elements, sky, plants, beasts, men, Paradise, hell. - -[2741] HL 29: 139. _Quaestiones per artem demonstrativam seu inventivam -solubiles._ - -[2742] J. R. de Luanco, _Ramon Lull considerado como alquimista_, -Barcelona, 1870. - -[2743] “Lullists” in ERE. - -[2744] Berthelot, _La chimie au moyen âge_, vol. I. - -[2745] HL 29: 309. - -[2746] I have used CLM 10544, fols. 287r-368r, to which the following -citations apply, and CLM 10597, which includes only the portion -concerning the twelve signs and seven planets. - -[2747] Fol. 291v-292r. - -[2748] Fol. 342v _et seq._ - -[2749] Fol. 336r. - -[2750] Fols. 357-9. - -[2751] Fol. 360r. - -[2752] P. O. Reicher, _Raymundus Lullus und seine Stellung zur -Arabischen Philosophie, mit einem Anhang enthaltend die zum ersten -Male veröffentlichte “Declaratio Raymundi per modum dialogi edita”_ -(_contra aliquorum philosophorum et eorum sequacium opiniones erroneas -et damnatas a venerabili Patre Domino Episcopo Parisiensi_) pp. 95-221, -in _Beiträge_, VII, 4 and 5 (1909). - -[2753] Digby 85, early 15th century, fols. 131-49r, “Liber Raymundi -de medicina et astronomia” (In Antonius, _Bibl. Hisp. Vet._ II, -129, “Liber de regionibus infirmitatis et sanitatis”). According to -Macray the opening words are “Quoniam scientia medicine est multum -difficilis,” but the first word appears as “Quum” in my notes on the -MS. “Explicit Medicina Raymundi in Monte Pessulano anno Christi 1403,” -on which Macray comments, “(_sic_; _rectius_ 1303)” but perhaps 1403 is -the date of this copy. This MS contains other works by Lull on his Art -and on medicine. - -[2754] HL 29: 230. _Liber contemplationis in Deum._ - -[2755] HL 29: 233. - -[2756] HL 29: 265-6; _Els cent Noms de Deu_. - - - - -CHAPTER LXX - -PETER OF ABANO - - - Plan of this chapter--Birth and family--Travels abroad--At - Paris--His Latin version of Abraham Aben Ezra--Conversation - with Marco Polo--Translations from the Greek--Did he teach - at Bologna?--Return to Padua--Three works of astronomy - and astrology--Publications in the year 1310--Undated - and spurious works--Closing years of his life--Relations - with the church--Great reputation--Not a miracle in - a rude age--But completed the work of his period--No - mere compiler--The _Conciliator_ his masterpiece--Its - method--Specimens of its questions--Was Peter the founder - of Averroism at Padua?--Reputation for magic--Summary - of occult science in the _Conciliator_--Definition - of astronomy and astrology--Nature controlled by the - stars--Astrology a science--And not magic--Occult - virtues from the stars--Astrological medicine--The - stars and length of life--Nativities--Revolution of - the eighth sphere--Conjunctions--The astrological - interpretation of history--Chronology--Astrological - images--The stars and invocations, incantations, - and fascination--Stars and spirits--Were Peter’s - views heretical?--Fascination--Incantations--Number - mysticism--Poisoning and magic--The treatise _De - venenis_--Specific form or valence--An allusion to - alchemy--Mineral, vegetable, and animal poisons--How - poison takes effect--Safeguards against poison--The - Bezoar--Physiognomy--Astrology in his other - works--Attitude to “magic”--Magic books ascribed to - him--Geomancy--Conclusion. - - Appendix I. Previous accounts of Peter of Abano. - - Original sources--Michael Savonarola--Secondary accounts - since 1500. - -Appendix II. A Bibliography of Peter Abano’s writings. - - Arrangement--Translation of Abraham Aben Ezra, - 1293--The _Physiognomy_, 1295--_Problems_ of - Alexander of Aphrodisias--Translations of Galen--The - _Conciliator_, 1303--_On the astrolabe_--_On - the motion of the eighth sphere_, 1310--The - _Lucidator_, 1310--Commentary on the _Problems_ of - Aristotle, 1310--_On poisons_, 1316(?)--_Addition to - Mesuë_--Dioscorides--Pseudo-Hippocrates--Geomancy--Prophecies-- - _Heptameron_, or _Elements of magic_--_Elucidarium - necromanticum_--_Annulorum experimenta_--_Circulus - philosophicus_. - -Appendix III. Peter of Abano, Abraham Aben Ezra, and Henry Bate. - - French translation from the Hebrew--Peter’s Latin - version--Additional treatises in Peter’s version--A - Latin translation by Henry Bate--Other writings of Henry - Bate--Other works by Abraham. - -Appendix IV. Was Peter called to Treviso in 1314? - -Appendix V. Peter’s salary at Padua. - - Amount exaggerated--Why was it so far in arrears? - -Appendix VI. When did Peter die? - -Appendix VII. Was the _De venenis_ addressed to Pope John XXII? - - Survey of the editions and MSS--Inference from a citation of - Avenzoar--Popes and poisons. - -Appendix VIII. Peter and the Inquisition. - - His own statement in the Conciliator--His professions - of orthodoxy--Does his will show fear of the - Inquisition?--Gloria’s inference--Did Peter’s sons inherit - his property?--If so, how?--Burning of Peter’s bones for - heresy--The account of Michael Savonarola--Scardeone’s - account--Naudé’s statement. - - - “... _he reconciled conflicts, a wonderful warrior!_” - --_Tomasini (1630) p. 22._ - - -[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter] - -Peter of Abano, or Peter of Padua, as he was often called from the -larger city near his birthplace where he did much of his teaching, was -one of the most influential men of learning during the last years of -the thirteenth and the opening years of the fourteenth century. Of his -writings in medicine, philosophy, and astronomy many are extant, and -most of these in printed editions. Yet he has never been adequately -or accurately treated in English. In our language there have merely -been brief notices of or incidental references to him in histories -of science and medicine, or of the inquisition and of rationalism in -Europe, or in general encyclopedias. Such passages and parallel ones -in foreign languages[2757] often give dates of Peter’s life or death -incorrectly, or do injustice to his opinions from an insufficient or -very indirect knowledge of his works, or represent him as a victim of -the Inquisition and an example of the hostility of the medieval church -to science to an extent which the sources do not justify. There are, -however, in European languages, especially Italian, some secondary -studies of importance concerning Peter. It is upon these and a direct -examination of his works that the present chapter will be based. To -avoid prolixity of text and footnotes, details of bibliography[2758] -and a number of problems concerning his life which require to be -discussed at some length have been transferred to appendices at the -close of the chapter. In the present text, since most of Peter’s -works can be dated rather exactly and since they were among the chief -events of his life, we may combine biography and bibliography in large -measure. We shall then treat somewhat, although by no means adequately, -of his place in the history of science, and finally of his propensities -toward astrology and other varieties of magic. - -[Sidenote: Birth and family.] - -Peter’s own statements in his chief work, the _Conciliator_,[2759] -show that he wrote it in the year 1303, after having worked it over -in class-room lectures and discussions for ten years previously, and -that he was fifty-three years of age at that time. In other words, -he was born in 1250. On one point of his biography more precise and -scientific detail is forthcoming than is customary in the lives of the -great men of the past, for he confides exactly how long a time elapsed -before his birth, nine months and fourteen days, as he had learned by -astrological scrutiny and from his “most careful mother.”[2760] In his -will Peter gives his father’s name as Constantius of Abano,[2761] and -he was probably the notary of that name whose tombstone inscription has -been preserved.[2762] Scardeone stated that Peter had one son named -Benvenuto,[2763] whose name also appears in a list of inhabitants -of Padua in 1320[2764] and who took part in a street fight there in -1325.[2765] Gloria was the first to call attention to two other sons, -named Pietro and Zuffredo, whose names appear together with their -brother’s in deeds of sale and of inheritance of November 19, 1318, -and February 2, 1321. Gloria was of the opinion that these sons were -illegitimate, and Peter’s failure to make them his heirs in his will -may perhaps be so interpreted, but they are not called natural sons in -the documents. - -[Sidenote: Travels abroad.] - -At some time of unknown date Peter was in Sardinia, where he says -he saw a case of poisoning from “Pharaoh’s fig,”[2766] and at -Constantinople, where he discovered a volume of the _Problems_ of -Aristotle, which he translated into Latin for the first time. It was -probably there too that he saw a Greek version of Dioscorides arranged -alphabetically--his own edition of Dioscorides follows another text, -the medieval Latin version--and secured the works of Galen and other -treatises which Michael Savonarola[2767] says that he translated from -Greek into Latin. Peter is also said to have visited Spain, England, -and Scotland, but I have found no proof of this, although allusions to -such visits may possibly occur somewhere in his voluminous works. - -[Sidenote: At Paris.] - -A number of years of Peter’s life were spent at the University of -Paris, where Michael Savonarola states that he was regarded as a second -Aristotle and called “the great Lombard.” There he wrote his work on -Physiognomy (_liber compilationis phisonomie_) which he dedicated to -Bordelone Bonacossi who was captain-general of Mantua from 1292 to -1299. In the version which has reached us and which is dated 1295 Peter -alludes to an earlier draft which had gone astray and had failed to -reach its destination in Italy. - -[Sidenote: His Latin version of Abraham Aben Ezra.] - -In 1293 Peter found astrological writings of the Jew, Abraham Aben -Ezra, who had flourished at Toledo in the twelfth century, defectively -translated from Hebrew into French,[2768] and therefore published a -Latin revision of his own, apparently also adding treatises which had -not been included in the previous translation.[2769] This raises the -question whether Peter was acquainted with Hebrew and Arabic,[2770] -or whether he may have used a Greek version of Abraham’s treatises -in correcting the French one. At any rate Peter’s Latin version of -Abraham’s astrological works had a widespread influence, as it was -retranslated into various European vernaculars and apparently even back -again into Arabic.[2771] - -[Sidenote: Conversation with Marco Polo.] - -Peter talked with the famous oriental traveler, Marco Polo, at some -time between the latter’s return to Venice in 1295 and the completion -of the _Conciliator_, in which he cites Marco’s statements to him -concerning tropical countries near the equator.[2772] - -[Sidenote: Translations from the Greek.] - -A translation of the Problems of _Alexander medicus_ is ascribed to -Peter in the list of his works in a fifteenth century manuscript.[2773] -This can hardly refer to Alexander of Tralles. Perhaps what is meant is -a translation of the Problems of Alexander of Aphrodisias, of which I -know only one manuscript where it is dated 1302. Savonarola, however, -states that Peter translated the Aphorisms of Alexander and also the -Rhetoric of Aristotle, but the latter translation does not seem to be -extant. Some at least of Peter’s translations of Galen’s works would -appear to have been executed before 1303, since they are referred to -by him in the _Conciliator_. Also two of them are found in manuscripts -dated as early as 1304 and 1305, the latter containing Peter’s -completion of the translation of Galen’s _Therapeutic Method_ begun by -Burgundio of Pisa. - -[Sidenote: Did he teach at Bologna?] - -This last manuscript was written at Bologna in 1305 and is about the -only evidence we have to support the old tradition, which was already -questioned by Mazzuchelli, that Peter taught at Bologna.[2774] - -[Sidenote: Return to Padua.] - -Savonarola seems correct in stating that Peter completed the -_Conciliator_ and began the composition of his Commentary on the -Problems of Aristotle at Paris, and the _Explicit_ of the latter work -likewise states that Peter wrote part of it in Paris and finished it -at Padua in 1310. He left Paris therefore at some time after 1303 and -returned to Padua at some time before 1310. Apparently he might have -been in Bologna in 1305 but in 1307 he is listed as a member of a -gild in Padua.[2775] Grabmann in his recent researches concerning the -thirteenth century translations of Aristotle has called attention to -a translation of the History of Animals made from the Greek in 1260 -and of which Peter of Abano purchased a copy in 1309 from Francesco of -Mantua for the price of seven Venetian _soldi_.[2776] - -[Sidenote: Three works of astronomy and astrology.] - -In the _Conciliator_ Peter refers a number of times to three works -of his in the fields of astronomy and astrology, namely, a treatise -on the astrolabe, another on the motion of the eighth sphere, and a -work entitled _Lucidator_, of which the preface and a few chapters -are extant and which perhaps was never finished, since such allusions -to the work in the _Conciliator_ as I have noted are to these few -chapters, while from the nature of these same allusions to the -_Lucidator_ and from its own preface one would expect it to be of -somewhat the same length as the bulky _Conciliator_, since it was to -discuss disputed points in the fields of astronomy and astrology in the -same way that the _Conciliator_ discussed them in the field of medicine. - -[Sidenote: Publications in the year 1310.] - -But we now encounter the seeming difficulty that, while both the -_Lucidator_ and work on the motion of the eighth sphere are cited -in the _Conciliator_, which was finished in 1303, they both mention -1310 as the date of their composition. A further indication that the -_Lucidator_ was published after the _Conciliator_ is that in its -preface Peter states that its method and arrangement will be similar -to those of the _Conciliator_, which is also cited later in the text -itself.[2777] Apparently, therefore, Peter had written first drafts -of the two astronomical works before he finished the _Conciliator_ in -1303, but did not complete or publish them until 1310. In that same -year, as we have seen, he completed his Commentary on the Problems of -Aristotle. - -[Sidenote: Undated and spurious works.] - -No definite date can be assigned for some of Peter’s works, namely, -his continuation of the _Grabadin_ of the Arabian physician, Yuhanna -ibn Masawaih, to whose second book on remedies appropriate to diseases -of particular parts of the body he added a discussion of remedies for -complaints of the heart and digestive organs, and his edition of the -medieval Latin version of the _Materia medica_ of Dioscorides, of which -we have treated in an earlier chapter.[2778] Peter is also credited -with a Latin edition of the little tract on astrological medicine, or -prognostication of diseases according to the motion of the moon in the -signs; but a Latin translation of the same work is also attributed to -William of Moerbeke who lived a little earlier. Some other medical -treatises that have been ascribed to Peter, like the Questions on -Fevers, listed in Mazzuchelli’s bibliography, are really portions of -the _Conciliator_. Works of geomancy and magic attributed to Peter and -probably spurious will be described more fully later in connection with -those subjects. - -[Sidenote: Closing years of his life.] - -It has been stated by more than one author that Peter went to Treviso -to teach medicine in 1314, but it is doubtful if he even received -a definite call from that city, although it had his name under -consideration.[2779] His salary at Padua has repeatedly been stated at -the high figure of five hundred pounds or lire a month but this amount -really represents his annual stipend.[2780] He must, however, have been -fairly well-to-do--we have hints that his practice was lucrative--for -in 1315 when he made his will he had not been paid any salary for three -or four years, and yet had considerable property. Peter was dead before -the close of 1318,[2781] but the apparent attribution of his work on -poisons to Pope John XXII[2782] makes it seem that he lived beyond -August, 1316. One manuscript of that treatise speaks of Peter as acting -dean of Montpellier at that time, but this is unlikely.[2783] - -[Sidenote: Relations with the church.] - -We have dubious stories and more reliable data to show both that Peter -had intimate and friendly relations with popes, whom he seems to have -served in a medical capacity and from whom he received patronage and -protection, and on the other hand that he was in difficulties with -the Inquisition.[2784] Besides the fact that his work on poisons was -certainly written for some pope, if not for John XXII, we have the -tale that he was physician to Pope Honorius IV (1285-1287) and charged -him one hundred florins a day.[2785] On the other hand, we have the -assertion of Thomas of Strasburg, Prior-General of the Augustinian -Friars from 1345 to 1357 that he was present in Padua when the bones -of Peter of Abano were burned for his heretical errors, and the -statements of still later writers, which are perhaps after all merely -unwarrantable inferences from Thomas’s assertion and from Peter’s -own words in his will and the _Conciliator_, that Peter died while -under trial a second time by the Inquisition, which had once before -instituted proceedings against him unsuccessfully. But these matters -require a longer discussion than seems advisable now and so will be -treated of more fully in Appendix VIII to this chapter. - -[Sidenote: Great reputation.] - -The promptness with which Peter’s works appeared in book form after the -invention of printing and the number of times that the _Conciliator_ -and some others were reprinted attest his long continued reputation -and popularity as a medical authority and man of broad general -learning. Regiomontanus, the renowned mathematician of the fifteenth -century, when lecturing on Alfraganus at Padua, delivered a public -panegyric upon Peter of Abano.[2786] It was perhaps to be expected -that Michael Savonarola, grandfather of the famous friar who tried to -reform Florence and himself a physician and medical writer of some -note, should belaud Peter in his work on the great citizens of Padua -in the past, which he wrote about 1445; and that these eulogies should -be repeated in such books as Scardeone’s _On the Antiquity of the -City of Padua_, Naudé’s _Apology for Great Men who have been falsely -suspected of Magic_, Tomasini’s _Eulogies of Illustrious Men adorned -with pictures_, and Duchastel’s _Lives of Illustrious Physicians_. But -Peter’s reputation at the close of the middle ages is also attested -in a criticism of some of his views by Symphorien Champier which -was written in 1514 and is found appended to the 1526 edition of -the _Conciliator_. Champier’s object is to correct Abano’s errors, -that is to say, those passages in the _Conciliator_ where he regards -Peter’s views as bordering too closely upon magic or of too extreme an -astrological character for a Christian. But he admits Peter’s great -medical reputation, stating that the most learned physicians praise the -medical and philosophical views of the _Conciliator_ and that Peter is -believed to have surpassed all other Christian physicians in his study -of medicine and advancement of truth. But, as Horace says, even Homer -nods; hence Champier will correct Peter in a few points in order to -enable lovers of Peter’s doctrines to get the benefit of them without -falling into his occasional errors. - -[Sidenote: Not a miracle in a rude age.] - -The writers of the Renaissance and of early modern times became so -enthusiastic over Peter of Abano, and at the same time so failed to -appreciate the character and accomplishments of medieval learning in -general, that they were wont to depict him as a miracle of learning -in a rude age--just as more recent scholars have over-estimated Roger -Bacon’s superiority to his time--and to regard the physician of Padua, -like the author of the _Divine Comedy_, as a precursor of their own -period rather than as a final representative and product of a rich -earlier period of culture. Thus Scardeone in the sixteenth century -spoke of him as the first medical translator from Greek into Latin -since Roman days, forgetting earlier medieval translators of Greek -medicine like Burgundio of Pisa and William of Moerbeke. And in the -seventeenth century Tomasini called Peter “a man most illustrious, in -genius, doctrine, and merits, in a rude and unhappy age,” while Naudé -declared him “a man who appeared as a prodigy and a miracle in his -age.” This depreciation of the times in which Peter had lived became -accentuated, as in the similar case of Roger Bacon, by the report that -he had been persecuted by the medieval church. - -[Sidenote: But completed the work of his period.] - -As a matter of fact, as Dante really closed the medieval period of the -flourishing of vernacular literature and the age of romance, so Peter -of Abano came in a sense at the close of a period or movement in the -history of science. He thus not unnaturally occupied himself especially -in supplementing, correcting, and reconciling the work of his -predecessors. Some works that had been unsatisfactorily translated, -he retranslated. Such important works of Aristotle, Galen, and others -as he could find that had not yet been translated, he translated from -Greek into Latin. He filled in the missing portion of the medical work -of Yuhanna ibn Masawaih. And in his _Conciliator_, a tome of enormous -bulk, he endeavored to reconcile and harmonize the conflicting opinions -of the medical men and philosophers who had gone before him. - -[Sidenote: No mere compiler.] - -Pico della Mirandola at the close of the fifteenth century made a -trenchant criticism of Peter’s erudition, when he characterized him as -“a man fitted by nature to collect rather than to digest.” But this -judgment was also too severe, for Peter was no mere compiler, but -something of an experimental astronomer as well as a painstaking and -critical translator, voluminous commentator upon Aristotle, and great -medical authority. In the _Conciliator_ he makes several references to -his personal astronomical observations and to other treatises which he -has composed upon astronomical topics and which are at least in part -extant. He did not hesitate to correct the astronomical calculations -of Ptolemy, and appreciated the margin of error in astronomical -observations caused by variations in the construction of instruments -as well as in their employment by the human observer.[2787] His -_Lucidator_, we have seen, was intended to parallel in the field of -astronomy and astrology the achievement of the _Conciliator_ in that of -medicine; but the portion completed or extant is not a great addition -to Peter’s science, since it covers about the same ground already -discussed in portions of the _Conciliator_ and more especially in the -treatise on the motion of the eighth sphere. - -[Sidenote: The _Conciliator_ his masterpiece.] - -The _Conciliator_ therefore remains his chief work and the one -for which he is most famous, his masterpiece and most influential -writing. Like the _Opus Maius_ of Roger Bacon, it to a large extent -covers his views as expressed elsewhere and is representative of his -philosophy and learning as a whole. It is in many ways a valuable -historical document, providing a good example of scholastic method, a -broad picture of the state of medieval medicine, and much incidental -illustration of the more general knowledge of Peter’s times, as when -he alludes to the overland travelers and to the ocean voyages of the -thirteenth century. He learned from Marco Polo that there was human -life in the Antipodes, he cites a letter of John of Monte Corvino from -India “in the coasts where lies the body of the Apostle Thomas,” he -alludes to the attempt of two Genoese galleys to reach India by sea -“almost thirty years ago”[2788]--two centuries before Vasco da Gama and -Columbus. The _Conciliator_ does not, however, quite cover the entire -field of medieval science. The subjects of “geometry and perspective,” -for instance, Peter rather avoids, explaining, “The arguments taken -from the books of geometricians and students of perspective, such as -Euclid, Alhazen, and others, and marked out by letters of the alphabet, -I omit because most of those for whom I am writing are unfamiliar with -that sort of thing.”[2789] - -[Sidenote: Its method.] - -The _Conciliator_ is made up of over two hundred questions or -“Differences” which Peter and his associates have been investigating -publicly for the past ten years. Each problem is stated and any -doubtful terminology is explained; the utterances of past authorities -anent the question are reviewed; the true solution is then reached -and the reasons for it given; fourth and finally, hostile objections -are answered. This rigid scheme of argumentation does not, however, -prevent Peter from indulging in a deal of rather rambling digression. -This makes a very long volume, especially as supplementary questions or -corollaries are added to some of the two hundred odd _Differentiae_. -Also it is, like most works in scholastic form, hard and tiresome -reading, as one has to keep in mind all the authorities and objections -which Peter has cited and raised until he finally gets around to -answering them. Many of the questions concern purely medical matters -and admit little debate between philosophers and physicians. The first -ten, however, deal with general questions such as whether medicine -is a science, whether a doctor ought to be a logician, whether the -human body is amenable to medicine, and whether the physician can help -the sick by a knowledge of astronomy. Nearly a hundred distinctions -are then concerned with medical theory concerning the elements, the -physical constitution, generation, the members of the human body, -fevers, and kindred questions. The last odd hundred distinctions deal -with matters of medical practice and personal hygiene. - -[Sidenote: Specimens of its questions.] - -The mere list of these questions is interesting and illuminating, and -a few of them may be reproduced here to show the kind of questions -then debated by doctors--some of them are identical with the questions -put by Petrus Hispanus in his _Commentary on the Diets of Isaac_--and -to illustrate the broader scientific and philosophical interests of -Peter’s volume and time. - - 11. Is the number of the elements four or otherwise? - - 14. Has air weight in its own sphere? - - 23. Is the brain of hot or moist complexion? - - 28. Is manhood hotter than childhood or youth? - - 30. Does blood alone nourish? - - 42. Is the flesh or the heart the organ of touch?[2790] - - 52. Does the marrow nourish the bones? - - 57. Is vital virtue something different from natural and - animal virtue? - - 66. Is spring temperate? - - 67. Is life possible below the equator? - - 69. Is the white of an egg hot and the yolk cold? - - 70. (Supplement). Is wine good for children? - - 72. Is there a mean between health and sickness? - - 77. Is pain felt? - - 79. Is a small head a better sign than a large one? - - 80. Are the arteries dilated when the heart is and - constricted also when it is? - - 81. Is there attraction exercised when the arteries dilate - and a loosening when they are constricted? - - 83. Is musical consonance found in the pulse? - - 101. Can a worm be generated in the belly? - - 103. (Supplement). Is death more likely to occur by day or - night? - - 110. (Supplement). Are eggs beneficial in fevers? - - 114. Does the air alter us more than food or drink does? - - 115. Is life shortened more in autumn than other seasons? - - 118. (Supplement). Should one take exercise before or after - meals? - - 119. Should heavy food be taken before light? - - 120. Should one eat once, twice, or several times a day? - - 121. Should dinner be at noon or night?[2791] - - 122. Should one drink on top of fruit? - - 123. Should one sleep on the right or left side? - - 135. Does confidence of the patient in the doctor assist the - cure? - - 153. Is every cure by contrary? - - 154. Should treatment begin with strong or weak medicine? - - 157. Does sleep help the cure? - - 171. Is cold water good in fevers? - - 182. (Supplement). Can fever coincide with apoplexy? - - 183. Is paralysis of the right side harder to cure than that - of the left? - - 193. Can consumption be cured? - - 194. Does milk agree with consumptives? - - 204. Is a narcotic good for colic? - - 206. Is blood-letting from the left hand a proper treatment - for gout in the right foot? - -[Sidenote: Was Peter the founder of Averroism at Padua?] - -Peter has often been called a disciple of Averroes and the founder of -Averroism in Italy at Padua,[2792] but I have noticed little in his -works to substantiate this. Renan admits that Peter knew neither the -_Colliget_ nor the medical works of Averroes, while the doctrine of -religious change according to astrological conjunctions which he takes -as a sign of Averroism[2793] in Peter came of course from much earlier -Arabian astrologers. Indeed, it would seem that most of the points of -view which are loosely designated by the word “Averroism” had been -common enough among earlier Arabic writers and had even in considerable -measure been taken from other sources than Averroes himself by the -Latin world. Only if we accept the very dubious and loose assertion -of Renan that “medicine, Arabism, Averroism, astrology, incredulity, -became almost synonymous terms,”[2794] can we connect Peter of Abano -with Averroism and even then we have the obstacles that Peter often -makes profession of Christian faith and that Steinschneider asserts -that he made no translations from the Arabic.[2795] And if astrological -medicine be Averroistic, Peter was certainly not the first Averroist in -Italy. - -[Sidenote: Reputation for magic.] - -Along with his reputation among the learned as a medical authority -Peter acquired a popular reputation as a magician and nigromancer. -This reputation had become established by the middle of the fifteenth -century, when Michael Savonarola tells us that Peter’s great knowledge -of astronomy enabled him to make such predictions that men thought -he employed magic, and that the present tradition among his fellow -townsmen is that Abano was most skilled in the magic art. Of Peter’s -astrological skill Savonarola tells the story that, noting the approach -of an unusually favorable constellation, he advised the immediate -building of a new Padua in order to make her the queen of all cities. -Similarly Scardeone ascribed to Peter the idea of the numerous -astrological pictures illustrating the influence of the planets and -signs upon terrestrial life with which the ceiling of the Palazzo della -Ragione at Padua is adorned.[2796] A different story and on the whole -perhaps the most incredible one is told by Benvenuto of Imola,[2797] -perhaps seventy years after Peter’s death. About to die, Peter said -that his life had been especially devoted to three noble sciences, of -which one, philosophy, made him subtle; the second, medicine, made him -rich; and the third, astrology, made him a liar. - -But to return to Peter’s reputation as a magician. Savonarola, whom -we were quoting and who evidently has a favorable opinion of magic, -continues, “Moreover, this helps to round out his teaching, nor -is it contrary to his other sciences, but makes the man the more -illustrious.” Naudé,[2798] on the contrary, endeavored to exculpate -Peter from the charge of magic and regarded “the common opinion of -almost all authors” that he “was the greatest magician of his age and -learned the seven liberal arts from seven familiar spirits whom he held -captive in a crystal,” as a legend developed from Peter’s astrological -predictions and from his own statements concerning incantations in the -156th _Differentia_ of the _Conciliator_. As for the story of seven -familiar spirits, already before Naudé Giovan Francesco Pico[2799] had -noted the incongruity between the universal reputation of Peter of -Abano as a magician and the doctrine attributed to him that there are -no demons. Among the authors whom Naudé had in mind was doubtless the -learned Bodin who in the sixteenth century declared that Peter of Abano -was proved to have been easily the chief of Italy’s magicians. Naudé -admitted that Peter had left treatises in physiognomy, geomancy, and -chiromancy, but held that he had then abandoned “the idle curiosity -of his youth to devote himself wholly to philosophy, medicine, and -astrology.”[2800] We have already stated that Champier’s criticisms of -Peter’s teachings largely related to astrology and magic. Let us now -turn to Peter’s own works and see what his attitude in regard to such -matters really was. - -[Sidenote: Summary of occult science in the _Conciliator_.] - -In the _Conciliator_, as in most of his writings, Peter manifests -a marked weakness for astrology and an extensive familiarity with -that art. His penchant displays itself in the very prologue where he -mentions “the power of genesis in the stars” (_vim geneseos sydeream_) -in stating that most men are slaves not only in body but also in the -nature of their minds. Peter also occasionally displays a credulous -interest in dreams, fascination, incantations, and other varieties of -magic. The sections of the _Conciliator_ in which he has most to say of -such matters are as follows. In the ninth Difference, “Whether human -nature is weakened from what it was of old?” he appeals to astronomy -and astrology for support of his views and digresses to speak of his -own astronomical researches and publications and of the influence of -the stars. The tenth _Differentia_, “Whether a doctor to-day can help -the sick by his knowledge of astronomy?” discusses at considerable -length the arguments against the art of astrology and argues in favor -of astrological medicine. Question one hundred and thirteen, “Whether -natural death can be retarded by any benefit?” involves further -astrological discussion. In Difference one hundred and fifty-six the -efficacy of incantations in medicine is considered. We shall have -occasion, however, to cite many other _Differentiae_ than these four. - -[Sidenote: Definition of astronomy and astrology.] - -By Peter’s time the words “astronomy” and “astrology” were beginning to -be used in about their present meaning. He is at pains to explain that -their derivation from the similar Greek words, _nomos_ and _logos_, -does not justify this distinction. But he accepts the division of the -science of the heavens into two parts, one descriptive and dealing -with the measurement and motion of the stars, the other judicial and -studying their effects. This latter is subdivided as usual into the -branches of revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and elections, -which last includes the science of images. Conjunctions go with -revolutions. - -[Sidenote: Nature controlled by the stars.] - -In the tenth _Differentia_ of the _Conciliator_ Peter lists and -replies to a number of arguments against the art of astrology, such -as that the distances involved are too great, the number of stars too -numerous, their influences too diverse and conflicting, the instant of -nativity too minute, to admit of accurate calculation and prediction. -These objections remind us of those raised by Sextus Empiricus. -Against such objections Peter adduces not only arguments of his own, -but the opinions of philosophers, astrologers, and physicians. All -wise men agree, he says, that aside from God, the celestial bodies -are the first causes of happenings in this world. Aristotle and the -Commentator,[2801] indeed, hold that God does not act directly upon -our lower world, and that all operations here are through mediums and -instruments; but the true Christian Faith contends that the Creator -can, if He will, affect His creatures “immediately and without motion -and alteration.”[2802] Of the general law, however, that the natural -world is universally controlled by the heavenly bodies there can be no -doubt in Peter’s opinion. In another chapter[2803] he cites in favor -of this view the assertion of Hermes, Enoch, or Mercury that each sand -of the sea has its star influencing it, and that of the _Centiloquium_ -ascribed to Ptolemy that the face of this world is subject to the face -of the heavens. - -[Sidenote: Astrology a science.] - -The only question is, how far are we able to follow the workings of -this general law in individual cases? The perfect astrologer would -require a thorough acquaintance with all the infinite detail of nature -and the powers of mind and body. Often therefore astrologers can only -approximately and not precisely predict what the stars signify. -But the science of astrology should not be abused because certain -men who call themselves astrologers or physicians but are really -diviners and liars err in their judgments. But astrology proper is -neither deceitful nor idle, and the astrologer “speaks the truth in -most cases and very rarely fails of correct prognostication except in -certain particulars.”[2804] Peter’s confidence in astrology despite -the complexity of the problems involved reminds one a little of the -confidence of the political or social scientist of the present in his -methods compared to those of the mere politician or indiscriminate -philanthropist. - -[Sidenote: And not magic.] - -Again in the first _Differentia_ of the _Lucidator_ Peter argues the -question whether astronomy or astrology is a science and meets various -arguments raised against the study of the stars.[2805] He holds that, -while difficult and laborious, it is noble and honorable, a beautiful -discipline adapted to the loftiest intellects, an entirely lawful and -licit science. Like Michael Scot, Peter lists and defines various other -arts of divination and magic in order to show that the science of the -stars is in no way superstitious, as some of them are, and that it -neither conjures spirits nor employs exorcisms and suffumigations, as -do some arts of divination which try to justify themselves by claiming -a connection with the highly reputable science of the stars. Like Guido -Bonatti, Peter characterizes as “hypocrites” those who under pretense -of defending God’s prerogatives attack judicial astrology as derogating -from divine majesty and involving necessity and compulsion. Those who -detest such a science should rather be detested themselves, he says, -together with those vulgar deceivers and charlatans whom they mistake -for astrologers. - -[Sidenote: Occult virtues from the stars.] - -Indeed, if the perfect astrologer should know nature and man -thoroughly, it is also true in Peter’s opinion that astrology helps one -to solve the problems of natural science. “We see,” he writes,[2806] -“that precious stones and medicines have marvelous and occult virtues -which cannot come from the qualities and natures of the elements -(constituting them), since nothing acts beyond its species and every -agent produces an effect in matter commensurate with itself.” It -is useless to try to argue _a priori_ from the qualities of the -constituent elements what these occult properties of particular objects -will be; they can be investigated only by experience. And it seems -evident to Peter that they can be accounted for only as products of -the influence of the stars. Indeed, the same species of plant, grown -under a different quarter of the heavens, may acquire new virtues. -All inferior objects, he affirms in another chapter,[2807] are filled -by the action of those superior bodies with demoniac functions and -virtues, so that Aristotle in _De coelo et mundo_ says that some of -the ancients held that all these objects are full of gods. An indeed -suggestive passage from Aristotle, and more so than Peter of Abano or -the Stagirite himself realized, tracing back the conception of occult -virtue to its origin in fetishism and animism, whence too the gods -sprang! - -[Sidenote: Astrological medicine.] - -Peter was convinced that a knowledge of astronomy and astrology was not -only valuable but necessary in the practice of medicine. “Those who -pursue medicine as they should and who industriously study the writings -of their predecessors, these grant that this science of astronomy is -not only useful but absolutely essential to medicine.”[2808] Peter -cites Hippocrates and Haly in his support and advises the medical -practitioner to look up the nativity of the patient, or, if this -is impracticable, to address an interrogation on the case to an -astrologer. By astronomy one can also foretell changes in the weather -and regulate the treatment of the case accordingly. Diet and drink, -purgatives and drugs, should all be administered with due regard to -the constellations. Two _Differentiae_[2809] of the _Conciliator_ -discuss at length the theme of critical days and their relation to the -phases of the moon, which planet, as Peter more than once explains, -is assumed to represent the influence of all the others, while to -it is especially delegated the control of generation and corruption. -The doctor should therefore keep his eye especially upon the moon, -a point further emphasized in the pseudo-Hippocratic treatise of -astrological medicine which Peter is said to have translated. In still -another chapter of the _Conciliator_[2810] the question at issue is -whether blood-letting is preferable in the first or some other quarter -of the moon. Surgeons, too, should not operate when the stars are -unpropitious and should note the apportionment of the members of the -human body among the signs of the zodiac. When the patient’s symptoms -are ambiguous, the perplexed doctor may bridge the gap in his medical -prognostication by recourse to astrology. This will tend to increase -his reputation with his patients who will marvel at his power of -prognostication. While thus discussing his tenth question, whether a -doctor should know astronomy, Peter adds that astrology is useful in -metaphysics as well as in medicine, giving as an example the fact that -Aristotle appeals to astrologers at one point of his _Metaphysics_. - -[Sidenote: The stars and length of life.] - -Peter more than once touches upon the influence of the stars upon -the length of human life: in Difference 9, for example, where he is -inquiring whether men lived longer in ancient times than in his own -day; in Difference 21, where the point at issue is whether a temperate -“complexion” is more conducive to longevity, and where he indulges -in considerable detail about the control of the planets over the -process of generation; and in Difference 113, where the question is -whether there is any way of putting off natural death. According to -the astrologers, one hundred and twenty years--the length of a greater -solar year--was the natural term of life, a considerable reduction from -the age of the patriarchs of the Old Testament, but much longer than -most men lived in Peter’s time. He thinks that the people of India live -longer because their climate is subject to Saturn. In Difference 26 -Peter divides the life of man into seven ages under the seven planets. - -[Sidenote: Nativities.] - -It is clear from many passages in the _Conciliator_ that Peter -believes that much of a man’s life and character can be inferred from -his horoscope. The geniture of a prince may involve the slaughter of -vast multitudes in war, although their own horoscopes may not have -definitely indicated this fate for them but only a certain inclination -in that direction.[2811] Peter devotes considerable space and pains -to the process of generation and the problem of measuring the time of -nativity. He gives physiological explanations why twins, even before -birth, are not under the same astrological influence and approvingly -quotes the lines of Lucan:[2812] - - _Stant gemini fratres fecundae gloria matris_ - _Quos eadem variis genuerunt viscera fatis._ - -[Sidenote: Revolution of the eighth sphere.] - -In connection with the subdivision of judicial astrology known as -revolutions Peter was especially interested in the motion of the -eighth sphere of the fixed stars, concerning which we have seen he -wrote a distinct treatise[2813] and of which he treats in both the -_Lucidator_[2814] and _Conciliator_.[2815] Ptolemy had reckoned that -the sphere of the fixed stars moved one degree in a hundred years and -that consequently the eighth sphere made a complete revolution every -36,000 years. Albategni’s estimate was 23,760 years for a complete -revolution or a motion of one degree in the course of sixty-six years. -Peter’s own calculation was that one degree was accomplished in seventy -years. He regarded this as a matter of great importance because of the -vast changes which he believed the revolution of the eighth sphere -brought about. Its influence could even change dry land into sea, -as the story of the lost island of Atlantis showed. Peter mentions -the doctrine of the _magnus annus_, held by “certain Stoics and -Pythagoreans” that history would repeat itself as soon as the eighth -sphere had accomplished a complete revolution. His own favorite theory, -set forth three times in the aforesaid three works, was that when the -heads of the equinoctial and tropical signs of the mobile zodiac come -directly under the heads of the same signs of the immobile zodiac in -the heaven of the fixed stars, then virtue from the First Cause passes -in a more perfect manner through the mediate causes or heavens and -men live longer and are stronger. For some five hundred years before -and after the period of exact coincidence a golden age occurs, men of -genius appear in large numbers, and the world tends to unite under one -government. Such a period in Peter’s opinion was that of classical -antiquity, when there were great rulers like Darius, Alexander, -and Julius Caesar; great minds like Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, -Stoics and Peripatetics, Euclid, Abrachys, Ptolemy, Galen, Cicero, -and Vergil; and when both the Roman law and the Christian religion -were promulgated. But then gradually, as the discrepancy between the -mobile and immobile signs increases, all is changed to the contrary, -human nature deteriorates, the span of life is shortened, monarchy is -corrupted, faith and law are made light of, the people are oppressed, -and true sages are rare indeed. - -[Sidenote: Conjunctions.] - -In a number of places in the _Conciliator_ Peter discusses the subject -of the effects of conjunctions of the planets. He states[2816] that -very rarely at long intervals of time, when a greatest conjunction of -Saturn and Jupiter occurs in the beginning of the sign of the ram, a -well-balanced type of constitution[2817] is produced, but never more -than a single specimen at one time. Such a man becomes “a prophet, -introducing a new law or religion, and teaching sages and men.” Such -a man, according to Isaac Amaraan, Avicenna, and Algazetes, is midway -between angels and sages, and some say that Moses and Christ were such -men. Peter also hints at a coincidence between the length of time -that astrology teaches that such a perfectly proportioned physical -constitution will last and the duration of Christ’s life. Champier -included this passage in his list of Peter’s errors. Champier further -attacked the astrological doctrine of great conjunctions and censured -Peter for connecting Noah’s flood and the advent of Mohammed with them. -In another passage[2818] concerning this same conjunction of Saturn and -Jupiter in the first degree of _Aries_[2819] Peter asserted that it -not only altered the strength of human nature and affected the length -of life but produced new kingdoms and religions, as in the case of -the respective advents of Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, -Christ, and Mohammed. - -[Sidenote: The astrological interpretation of history.] - -This astrological interpretation of history Peter carries out in -further detail. As he had divided man’s life into seven ages, so he -distributed periods of history among the seven planets. Each presides -in turn over human affairs for a period of 354 years and four lunar -months, a term analogous to the number of days in the lunar year. When -Mars governed the world, the flood occurred because of a greatest -conjunction of the planets in the sign _Pisces_. Under the Moon’s -supremacy happened the dispersion of tongues, overthrow of Sodom and -Gomorrah, and escape of the children of Israel from Egypt. Peter also -alludes to the less significant minor conjunctions which happen every -twenty years, to the moderate ones which take place every 240 or 260 -years, and to the effects following eclipses. A solar eclipse seventy -years ago, he says, was followed by sterility of the soil, movements -of phantasms and of good demons and bad demons, intercourse of incubi -and succubi, a weakening of human nature and increase of avarice and -cupidity. - -[Sidenote: Chronology.] - -The chronology of some of Peter’s astrological periods of history -has been sharply criticized. Thus Lea remarks, “Even worse was his -Averrhoistic indifference to religion manifested in the statement that -the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the head of Aries, which -occurs every 960 years, causes change in the monarchies and religions -of the world as appears in the advent of Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, -Alexander the Great, Christ, and Mahomet--a speculation whose -infidelity was even worse than its chronology.”[2820] The printed -editions of the _Conciliator_ which I have consulted also give the time -as 960 years, but it would seem as if the figure must have been wrongly -copied in or from the manuscripts, since in the _Lucidator_,[2821] -which I have examined in manuscript, Peter shows acquaintance with -different systems of chronology, stating, for example, that Ptolemy -and Galen flourished under Antoninus Pius in the year 886 of the era -of Nebuchadnezzar or in 141 A. D. Peter therefore would appear to have -known perfectly well that no such period as 960 years had elapsed -between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Christ, to say nothing of -Alexander and Christ. In another passage of the _Conciliator_,[2822] -moreover, Peter explains that conjunctions may precede by many years -the events which they signify and produce but which are long in the -making. Thus the conjunction for the flood preceded it by 287 years -and the conjunction connected with Mohammed came fifty years before -him, as Albumasar and Alchabitius state. In his treatise on the eighth -sphere Peter stated that his theory of its motion and influence holds -good independently of the question whether the world is eternal, as -all the philosophers except Plato held, or had a beginning and when -that beginning was. He gives, however, a list of various estimates of -the number of years since creation, such as Bede’s estimate of 5259; -Abraham Judaeus’ of 5071; the Septuagint, 7270; Josephus, 5262; and -so on up to the enormous figure of 1,474,346,290 years given by the -Indians and Persians.[2823] - -[Sidenote: Astrological images.] - -Peter believed not only that astrologers could predict the future -with considerable assurance of success, but also that they could -influence the future to suit themselves and perhaps change threatening -misfortune into good fortune by applying to earthly objects the occult -virtue of the heavenly bodies. The way to capture and store up such -celestial influence is by means of images made by human art with due -reference to the constellations. Of such astrological images Peter -speaks frequently in the _Conciliator_.[2824] Physicians are advised -to construct such images at the proper time when “the vivifying and -health-exciting celestial light” will flow freely into them, as is -illustrated by the astronomical images of Ptolemy, Thebith ben Chorat, -and others. The figure of a scorpion made as the moon is leaving the -sign of the scorpion cures that reptile’s bite.[2825] Human life can -be prolonged by such images which add to the influx of astral force -received at birth.[2826] On the other hand, Peter elsewhere states the -theory that the impulse to construct an image was received at birth -from the stars,[2827] and so does not really alter their influence. He -usually, however, speaks as if the employment of images was a matter of -choice. They are more often made by night than by day, so that the rays -of the sun may not obscure and dissolve those of the other heavenly -bodies.[2828] The astronomers of India employ allegorical images.[2829] -Peter himself “has tested to remove pain in the intestines the figure -of a lion impressed on gold when the sun was in mid-sky, with the -heart of a lion, when Jupiter or Venus was in aspect and the evil -unfortunate stars were declining.” He bound this amulet “on the bare -flesh with a string made of sea calf’s hide and a clasp from the bone -of a male whale.”[2830] What could be more magical? In another passage -Peter notes that theologians attribute the efficacy of such images to -demons, but he sets aside this suggestion as not in accord with his -present method, which apparently takes into account only natural and -not spiritual forces, although he suggests that the celestial light and -force may be regarded as the instruments of intelligences.[2831] In the -_Lucidator_ Peter makes much the same distinction between astronomical -and necromantic images as Albertus Magnus had made in the _Speculum -astronomiae_. Notes by Peter on astrological images are contained in -the _Astrolabium planum_, published in 1488.[2832] - -[Sidenote: The stars and invocations, incantations, and fascination.] - -Peter refers twice in the _Conciliator_[2833] to his success with an -invocation to God to acquire knowledge, when the head of the dragon and -Jupiter were together in mid-sky and the moon was approaching them. He -also cites _Albumasar in Sadam_ for a similar practice by “the kings of -the Greeks,” when they wished to ask God for anything. Elsewhere[2834] -he states that the defenders of fascination and incantations aver that -their potency consists in the virtue which the soul of the operator -receives from the stars, just as an image receives their motion and -light. The horoscope of the person uttering the invocation is a factor -of some importance, but not the preponderating influence.[2835] Not a -few of the Magi invoke Jupiter, Saturn, or another heavenly body by the -name of the intelligence which guides it.[2836] - -[Sidenote: Stars and spirits.] - -This last passage and one or two others already cited show that -Peter was inclined to associate spirits and intelligences with the -heavenly bodies. Once he describes a celestial body as “perpetual and -incorruptible, leading through all eternity a life most sufficient unto -itself, nor ever growing old.” In the same chapter[2837] he tells us -that when Aristotle wished to investigate the number of Intelligences, -he betook himself to two famous astrologers and according to the number -of spheres as stated by them calculated the number of Intelligences. In -the preceding chapter[2838] he had repeated from Averroes the following -association of seven intelligences or angels with the planets: Saturn -and Cassiel, Jupiter and Sachiel, Mars and Samael, the Sun and Michael, -Venus and Anael, Mercury and Raphael, the Moon and Gabriel. - -[Sidenote: Were Peter’s views heretical?] - -This passage and Peter’s invocation are a dangerously close approach -to astrological necromancy. Enough so perhaps to justify the -reproach which Champier repeated from some “recent authority” that -Peter borrowed a great deal from Picatrix, “a very idle book full -of superstitious prayers to planets and evil spirits.” Champier, -however, cited no specific passages to substantiate this charge, and -I doubt if it can be shown that the _Conciliator_ either cites or -makes unacknowledged quotation from Picatrix. It will also be observed -that Peter does not assert that the stars themselves are spirits or -intelligences or gods, and that both Aquinas and Albert were inclined -to agree that angels or heavenly intelligences moved the stars. That -Peter’s views were objectionable to some persons, however, is indicated -by the closing passage of this ninth _Differentia_, in which he has -associated seven spirits with the planets, the rise of prophets and -new religions with great conjunctions, and activity of demons with -solar eclipses. Some malicious persons have long troubled him, he says, -but his utterances in nothing derogate from divine wisdom but rather -confirm it, and at last an apostolic mandate has snatched him and his -truth from the hands of his detractors. In other words, the pope has -protected him. Peter’s astrology sometimes seems to show scant regard -for human free will, but he recognized it as an essential Christian -doctrine.[2839] - -[Sidenote: Fascination.] - -Peter alludes several times[2840] to the subject of fascination in -connection with images and incantations. It seems evident that he is -here trying to account among other things for hypnotic power. In the -_Lucidator_ he defines _maleficium_, the usual word for sorcery, as -a sort of fascination, “taking possession of one’s powers so that -one loses self-control,” and “impeding sexual intercourse.”[2841] -In opposing the theory that vision is by extramission of rays Peter -explains the deadly glance of the basilisk as due to corrupting vapor -and not to visual rays, and fascination as caused by some more occult -force than the evil eye in a literal sense.[2842] And when arguing that -the confidence of the patient in the doctor is a factor in the cure -Peter emphasizes the power of a strong will impressed in an occult -fashion.[2843] Some men, it is true, like the followers of Asclepius, -deny any virtue of the mind and regard their fellow-men as swayed like -beasts by the passions of the senses, deeming wisdom, sobriety and -continence a jest, calling human affection and altruism into question, -and further despising dreams, divinations, prudent counsels and the -whole subject of astrology. But Peter believes in the power of one -mind over another or over matter. Such a mind can cure the sick or -even cast a man into a well or cause a camel to enter a Turkish bath -(_caldarium_). It is also one of the causes of prophetic power. The -believers in fascination and incantations say that such marvelous -virtues of the mind are derived from the stars. But Christians regard -prophetic power as directly inspired by God, an opinion which seems -ridiculous to the Peripatetics. - -[Sidenote: Incantations.] - -In much the same way Peter discusses incantations.[2844] He lists -several definitions of an incantation, such as that ascribed to -Socrates, “words deceiving human minds,” or “an utterance put forth -with astounding influence in aid of an enchanted person who is -especially confiding,” or “an utterance at discretion of meaningless -words, which since it has to do with the strange and occult is esteemed -the more by the person enchanted and so helps him the more.” An -incantation may be either spoken, or written and bound on the body. -The enchanter should be astute, credulous, and strong-willed; the -person enchanted should be eager, hopeful, and disposed in every way -to forward the success of the operation. Incantations are especially -effective in sleep or in the case of women and simple folk who have -the more faith in them. Peter tells an amusing anecdote of a noble who -taught a poor old woman to repeat as an incantation the sentence, -“Two and three make five and so do three and two.” He thought her a -witch, however, and when a fish bone stuck fast in his throat, sent for -her to remove it. When he found that she really knew no magic except -the absurd incantation which he had himself taught her, he laughed so -heartily that the bone was dislodged and he was thus cured by his own -incantation after all. - -All this sounds rather sceptical on Peter’s part, and he also -recalls Galen’s detestation of certain medical authors who wrote -down superstitious words and fables such as old-wives and witches -are wont to repeat and stupid gypsies who utter fascinations. “For -they conjured and sprinkled and suffumigated medicines as if divine, -when they plucked the herbs from the soil or when they suspended them -about the neck or elsewhere like a phylactery, all which is false -and stupid and offensive to the art of medicine.” But while Peter -joins in condemnation of such superstitious medicine, he yet believes -in the efficacy of incantations and represents their opponents as -incredulous and materialistic persons who will accept only action -by gross material contact. He admits that there is no property in -the incantation itself nor in its sound when uttered to explain its -marvelous effects. We must look rather to the virtue of the mind of -the person repeating the charm, to faith on the part of the person to -be benefited, and to divine, angelic, demonic, or sidereal assistance. -At any rate experience demonstrates the validity of incantations and -spoken words, as in the case of the Eucharist, or of the divine names -employed in the notory art, or the restoration to life of a dead man -which was performed in Peter’s presence by magic words which the -enchanter uttered in the ear of the corpse. Peter goes on to speak of -the movement of the holy wafer or Psalter or sieve towards a thief who -enters a church. Other wonders wrought by incantations which he lists -are the ability to endure torture without giving signs of pain or to -walk over sharp swords and hot coals without injury, to lift another -man or raise a great weight with a single finger, to stupefy snakes -and tame wild horses, cause insomnia, reveal the future, painlessly -extract arrows that are so deeply embedded in the bone that they could -not be pulled out. Paroxysms of epilepsy may be quieted by pronouncing -the names of the three Magi in the patient’s ear. Peter also repeats -the cure for epilepsy found in so many medieval authors and involving -religious ceremonial and repetition of a verse from the Bible. Anent -Peter’s allusion to the employment of divine names in the notory art, -we may note that a work on that subject is listed among evil books in -his _Lucidator_.[2845] - -[Sidenote: Number mysticism.] - -The superstitious esteem for certain numbers which prevailed both -in ancient and medieval times does not pass unnoticed in the -_Conciliator_. Arguing the question whether the child born in the -eighth month will live,[2846] Peter discusses the subject of perfect -and imperfect numbers for three columns, stating that this is the -doctrine of Pythagoras and of arithmeticians in general. In a later -chapter,[2847] however, he declares that natural phenomena cannot be -proved by arithmetical numbers since they are not caused by them, and -alludes to Aristotle’s strictures upon Pythagoras. - -[Sidenote: Poisoning and magic.] - -Poisoning and magic were often scarcely distinguished in antiquity. The -Greek word φάρμακον and the Latin _veneficium_ or _veneficus_ might -have reference either to poisoning or sorcery, either to a poisoner or -enchanter. Plato states in his _Laws_[2848] that there are two kinds of -poison employed by men which cannot be clearly distinguished, although -one variety injures the body “according to natural law,” while the -other “persuades overbold men that they can work injury by sorceries -and incantations.” The Latin poet Lucan centuries later drew a sharper -distinction when he declared, “The mind which is enchanted perishes -without foul trace of poisoned draught,” and this dictum we have found -embodied in more than one medieval definition and description of -magic. However, all magic is not enchantment; the poisoner and magician -worked in the same secret and sinister style, sought similar injurious -ends, and availed themselves of the same powerful occult virtues -in natural objects. Poisoning and bewitching seemed very similar -processes, especially at a time when men believed in the existence -of poisons which could act at a distance or after a long interval of -time. In one passage of the _Conciliator_[2849] Peter uses the word -_veneficus_ rather in the sense of an enchanter or magician than a -poisoner, when he says that, if you wish to injure another person or to -make him love you, the _venefici_ direct you to gaze fixedly at him at -the same time uttering a certain incantation. But let us now turn to -the treatise _De venenis_, in which Peter has much more to say on the -subject of poisons. - -[Sidenote: The treatise _De venenis_.] - -It will be recalled that Peter’s treatise on poisons was written for -the pope. The topics considered in its six main chapters are: the -classification of poisons, how they act upon the body, how to guard -against them, the effects and cures of a long list of particular -poisons, and finally the problem of a panacea or _bezoar_ against -all poisons. Peter classifies poisons according as they come from -animals, vegetables, or minerals, and as they take effect internally or -externally. Those which take effect internally are usually administered -in food or drink, or swallowed without admixture. But one may be -poisoned externally not only by contact, as in the case of snake-bite, -but through the sense of sight, as when the glance of the basilisk -kills, and through the sense of hearing, as when the _regulus_[2850] -kills bird or beast by its hiss. In fact, poisoning may be through any -one of the five senses. Some snake-bites Peter classifies under the -sense of taste rather than touch. Other serpents emit a poisonous odor, -or kill a person who touches them only with the tip of a long lance. -The hands and arms of fishermen become paralyzed when they take hold -of nets in which a certain fish has become entangled. These last are -perhaps exaggerated accounts based upon electrical shock. - -[Sidenote: Specific form or valence.] - -Poisons may also be classified according to the form of their -species (_forma specifica_). Some prove fatal owing to the excessive -preponderance of one quality, being excessively hot or cold or moist or -dry. Others are deadly because their entire composition, the very form -of their species, is fatal. Peter then gives an interesting definition -of this “specific form.” “It is nothing else than the value or valence -(_meritum_) which any object composed of the four elements acquires -from the proportions of those elements existing in this compound -and from the influence of the fixed stars which regard the species -of inferior compounds.” Through the light of the stars streaming -down in straight lines pyramids of astral force concentrate upon -terrestrial objects,--the same doctrine of stellar rays, emanation, -and multiplication of species that we have met already in Alkindi, -Grosseteste, and Roger Bacon. Peter adds that this specific form of any -compound is not easy to discover except as human experience gradually -reveals it empirically, “because we do not know and we never shall know -the quantities and the weights of the elements in the compounds.” That -is to say, Peter sees the desirability but despairs of the possibility -of any such discovery as that of atomic weights and valences, and -consequently of a true science of chemistry. His despair is not -surprising in view of the fact that medieval men were still trying to -conduct their scientific researches upon the outworn Greek hypothesis -of only four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, all of which are -really compounds and indeed in the middle ages were not supposed to be -ever found in their pure state. Desperation like Peter’s was needed -before science could be induced to take a fresh start, and, like Arnald -of Villanova, he is to be given credit for an approach to the chemical -conception of valence. - -[Sidenote: An allusion to alchemy.] - -With the subject of alchemy, it may be remarked in passing, Peter -appears to have had little to do, and not even any spurious treatises -on the subject are extant under his name, as they are in the cases -of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Arnald of Villanova, -and Raymond Lull. Colle,[2851] however, noted a passage in the -_Conciliator_[2852] where Peter speaks of two friends of his who had -told him that they had succeeded “by the art of decoction” in making -silver which was true to every examination but from which they had not -profited much openly. - -[Sidenote: Mineral, vegetable, and animal poisons.] - -In his second chapter Peter discusses various mineral, vegetable, and -animal poisons under the caption, “Of each poison in particular” (_De -unoquoque veneno in speciali_). Quicksilver made by the art of alchemy -he declares a more deadly poison than natural mercury. He is either -an early advocate of inoculation and homeopathy, or else is guilty of -silly reasoning based upon sympathetic magic, when he states that the -magnet taken internally produces melancholy and lunacy and that doctors -employ it with other medicines to cure melancholy. Incidentally he -mentions two kinds of magnet, one which attracts iron toward the north -pole, another which draws human flesh toward the south pole. Vegetable -poisons may be the juices of herbs, the fruit of trees, or seeds. Some -animals have poison in their brains; some, in their tails; some, in the -blood; some, in the saliva and spittle; some, in the gall; and some, in -their entire bodies. - -[Sidenote: How poison takes effect.] - -The question, how poison takes effect upon the human body, occasions -Peter considerable difficulty, since he is unwilling to admit either -that the heart naturally attracts poison or that poison runs naturally -to the heart. Avicenna says that a man with a hot heart offers the best -resistance to poison, but Peter adds that much depends upon the human -soul and the constellations. He notes that the action of poison is very -similar to that of medicine and thinks that the art of medicine was -suggested by the action of poisons. Incidentally he repeats from his -authorities statements that there are trees whose shade is poisonous -to sleep in or to bathe beneath, and that a man was killed by the -vapor from wood cut near the caverns of serpents which was used as -fuel in heating his bath. He also repeats the tale of Socrates and the -dragon.[2853] - -[Sidenote: Safeguards against poison.] - -The fourth chapter is concerned with safeguards against poison, which -often take the form of amulets and charms and are, if anything, even -closer akin to magic than the poisons themselves. There are the horns -of a serpent which sweat at the advent of certain poisons but not -of others. There is the gem that ceases to gleam in the presence of -poison. There is the stone which Alexander wore in his belt until -a jealous snake stole it while he was bathing in the Euphrates. -There is the following image recommended in the book of the Persian -kings--possibly the _Kiranides_. Engrave the gem Ematites with a -kneeling man girded by a serpent whose head he holds in his right hand -and tail in the left.[2854] Set this stone in a gold ring and under the -gem place a dried root of _serpentaria_. Either Peter or the author of -the book of the Persian kings affirms that he wears such a ring and -has been preserved from poisoning by it. An emerald is another good -safeguard against poison. Peter perhaps has a confused recollection -of a story told by Albertus Magnus[2855] when he adds that it has -been proved that a toad’s eyes will crack if it gazes at an emerald. -There are seven herbs, namely: Ipericon, “which Achilles is said to -have found in the Trojan army by the oracle of Apollo,” Vincetoxicum, -Enula, Rafanus, Diptamus, Aristologia, and Lactucella, which will cure -any poison. This virtue is not due to the elements composing them -but to the force of the seven planets. Peter’s antidotes are not all -occult or talismanic. He also prescribes the more commonplace methods -of a drink of butter and hot water to provoke vomiting, the use of a -syringe to clear the intestines, the application of a relay of hot -fowls to the wound, or the sucking of it “by the mouth of some slave -or servant”--_sclavi vel servi_, an interesting bit of etymological -evidence of the medieval transition from the Latin _servus_ to the -modern word “slave,” and for the derivation of the latter from the -Slavs who were sold in southern and western Europe. Peter also mentions -the famous _terra sigillata_ which, he says, causes vomiting if there -is any poison in the stomach. Kings and princes in the west[2856] take -it with their meals as a safeguard, and it is called _terra sigillata_ -because stamped with the king’s seal. Now, however, the seals are no -longer trustworthy and Peter cautions the pope against what may be -offered him as _terra sigillata_.[2857] Over seventy brief chapters are -next devoted to enumeration of the effects produced by as many poisons -and how to remedy them. The poisons include the blood of a rubicund, -choleric man, the bite of a fasting man, the gall of a leopard, and -the salamander. Among the remedies are duck’s fat and pulverized mouse -dung. The remedies operate against the poison either by “breaking -its sharpness,” or “resolving its substance,” or “expelling it,” or -“corrupting it and utterly taking away its virtue.” - -[Sidenote: The bezoar.] - -Finally Peter comes to the discussion of “bezoartic virtues” which free -from death by occult and divine virtue rather than by their natural -composition. Under this head he proposes to deal with two difficult -questions: first, whether theriac is a bezoar (i. e., antidote or -panacea) and medicine for every poison; second, whether there is any -poison which can be set to act at a given time, so that the victim -will die from it then and not before. In those copies of the _De -venenis_ which I have seen the discussion of this second question is -never reached. Perhaps it was intended only for the pope’s ear and not -published. As for the former question, some believe in a bezoar or -stone that frees from all poisons without medical assistance. Edward -I of England, when wounded by the Sultan’s poisoned sword, is said to -have been cured by such a stone which “the general preceptor of the -Temple gave him, and I have seen one like it.” It is red, purulent, -light as a sponge, and fragile as gypsum. But Peter inclines to believe -that each poison has its own antidote which is the best cure for it. -Like Galen, however, he extols that “divine and noble” artificial -compound, theriac, a mixture of all the single medicines which break -or dissolve or expel poisons. It may, he thinks, deservedly be called -_Bezoar_, since it is good against all poisons, although for any -particular poison there may be a superior particular remedy. After -Peter’s treatise has apparently ended with the words, _Deo gratias_, -there is added a note from the Pandects concerning the stone _Begaar_ -or Bezoar, asserting its reality and superiority to any simple antidote -or any of the compound theriacs.[2858] - -[Sidenote: Physiognomy.] - -Peter’s treatise on physiognomy mentions Philemon, Aristotle, Palemon, -and Loxius as the founders of the art, and Rasis, Zacharias, and -Avicenna as Arabian authorities. Peter proposes to combine their -separate contributions to the subject “into one lucid and perfect -doctrine.” The first draft intended for the captain-general of Mantua -has got into “the hands of some rascal who scorns to communicate -it to me or others.” At the sollicitation of his friends and lest -invidious detractors envying another’s work gain glory from it, Peter -has written another draft which he flatters himself is longer and -better. “So praise be,” he piously ejaculates, “to God, the better -producer of everything, who from that evil has created this good and -best!” Peter’s treatise differs from other Physiognomies mainly in its -emphasis upon astrology, to which its third book is largely devoted. -He gives the influence of each sign and planet upon the physique and -character of the person born under it, and discusses in considerable -detail the process of generation, the influence of heredity as well as -of the stars, and the effect upon the babe of any strong imagination, -especially on the part of the mother, during the period of generation. - -[Sidenote: Astrology in his other works.] - -Peter’s penchant for astrology is further evidenced by his Latin -version of the various astrological treatises of Abraham Aben Ezra, -and his translation of the brief treatise attributed to Hippocrates on -the prognostication of diseases according to the moon. Peter or some -previous translator or editor opens it by saying that while reading the -works of Hippocrates he found this book, “small but of great utility -and very essential to all physicians. Whoever is well acquainted -with it can pronounce health, death, or life in every infirmity.” -Peter brings in astrology even in his commentary on the Problems of -Aristotle. When Aristotle mentions an astronomer or astrologer in -a derogatory manner in the same breath with a juggler or mime or -pipe-player or rhetorician, Peter is at pains to explain that in -Aristotle’s time the science of judicial astrology had not yet attained -its present perfection. - -[Sidenote: Attitude to “magic.”] - -In those of his works which are certainly genuine Peter seldom uses the -word “magic” and never, I think, speaks of it approvingly, although -Michael Savonarola could see no reason why he should not do so. Despite -his reputation for magic, the longest discussion of such arts in his -admittedly genuine works occurs in the _Lucidator_,[2859] where, after -the manner of Michael Scot and Albert in the _Speculum astronomiae_, -he is chiefly concerned to distinguish astrology favorably from these -other forms of divination and magic. With occasionally some additional -detail he mainly repeats the old account of the origin of magic with -Zoroaster or Cham, the son of Noah, and with Hermes or Enoch or -Mercurius; and the old classification of the occult arts found in -Isidore and Hugo of St. Victor. - -[Sidenote: Magic books ascribed to him.] - -Naudé states, on the authority of Castellan, that when Peter was -burned in effigy after his death, the reading was forbidden of three -superstitious and abominable books which he had composed, entitled -respectively, _Heptameron_, _Elucidarium Necromanticum_, and _Liber -experimentorum mirabilium de annulis secundum 28 mansiones lunae_ (Book -of marvelous experiments with rings according to the twenty-eight -mansions of the moon).[2860] Naudé adds, however, that Trithemius -and Symphorien Champier could find no books on magic by Peter of -Abano.[2861] Such treatises, however, exist both in print and in -manuscripts, which last are mainly of late date, and will be found -listed in Appendix II. Prophecies ascribed to “the most reverend -nigromancer, Peter of Abano,” were printed in Bologna in Italian about -1495 and occur also in Latin in a Vatican manuscript. The printed -_Heptameron_ or _Elements of Magic_ consists entirely of specific -directions how to invoke demons, and if genuine, might account for -Champier’s charge that Peter borrowed from Picatrix. The reader is -instructed in the construction of the magic circle, in the names of the -angels, and concerning benedictions, fumigations, exorcisms, prayers to -God, visions, apparitions, and conjurations for each day of the week. -The work seems quite certainly spurious. - -[Sidenote: Geomancy.] - -It is more probable that Peter may have written a geomancy in view -of his devotion to astrology and Naudé’s statement that he had left -treatises in “physiognomy, geomancy, and chiromancy.” At any rate -a geomancy exists under his name in several printed editions and -manuscripts. In the _Conciliator_ he asserted that the future and what -was absent could be predicted by means of characters “as geomancy -teaches.”[2862] In the _Lucidator_ he concisely described the method -of geomancy, and admitted that its figures were produced under the -influence of the constellations and that not infrequently its judgments -were verified, but he regarded it as a very difficult science of -prediction and one requiring long experience and practice, although -many persons tried their hand at it because it looked easy.[2863] - -[Sidenote: Conclusion.] - -Such was the attitude of the learned and influential Peter of Abano -at the close of the thirteenth and opening of the fourteenth century -toward the subjects which we are investigating. We may well agree -with Tomasini that he combined medicine and philosophy, astrology -and natural magic, in the closest union. He amassed a great deal of -the lore of the past, Greek, Arabic, and the writings of his Latin -predecessors. Indeed, when he repeats what earlier Latin writers in the -thirteenth century had said, just as they had repeated what the Arabs -said, we rather begin to weary of the subjects under discussion and to -feel that medieval Latin learning is growing stagnant or stereotyped. -Pico della Mirandola spoke of Peter not only as “a man fitted by nature -to collect rather than to digest,” but also as one “whom alas the less -learned are wont to admire most when he lies most.” In other words, -Peter’s failings continued general for some time. The Latin epitaph -which Tomasini in the seventeenth century drew up to accompany the -portrait of Peter in his book on illustrious men, although containing -one or two erroneous statements which we have already corrected, sums -up rather well the salient points of both Peter’s learning and occult -science. It may be translated thus: - -“From a rural locality, of auspicious cognomen, a man most illustrious -in genius, doctrine, and merits, in a rude and unhappy age became the -most fortunate and learned physician. Now too he shines with rays -eternal, investigator of all natural forces. He gave the secrets of -the Greek tongue to the Latin idiom by his power of assiduous practice -and constant reading. Employing the virtues of herbs and stones, the -sure aspects of the sky, stated hours and moments, by the crowd he was -reputed to fascinate men. He opened the arcana of the art medical; he -reconciled conflicts, a wonderful warrior! The name of Conciliator he -won by uniting medicine and philosophy, astrology and natural magic, in -the closest bond. Born for study, he died studying. A. D. 1316, aged -66.”[2864] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2757] As distinguished a scholar as Steinschneider (1905), pp. 58-9, -for example, gives the date of his birth as 1253 or 1246. - -[2758] Appendix I, “Previous Accounts of Peter of Abano,” describes the -sources and secondary accounts. Appendix II, “A Bibliography of Peter -of Abano’s Writings,” lists the editions and MSS of his works used in -this chapter and some others. - -[2759] Preface and Diff. 9. - -[2760] Diff. 49. - -[2761] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, p. 116. - -[2762] Salomoni, _Inscriptiones Urbis Patavinae_, p. 323; Scardeone -(1560), p. 202; Mazzuchelli (1741), pp. v-vi; Colle (1825) III, 128. - -[2763] (1560), p. 202, “Huic unicus fuit filius Beneventus nomine.” - -[2764] Gloria (1884), p. 587. - -[2765] _Chronicon Patavinum, anno_ 1325, in _Muratori, Antiquitates_ -(1778), XII, 252. - -[2766] _De venenis_, cap. 47. - -[2767] In Muratori, _Scriptores_, XXIV, 1135-8. Savonarola’s account of -Peter is so brief that it does not seem necessary to cite it further by -page. - -[2768] HL XXI, 500-3. - -[2769] The problem of Peter’s and other translations of Abraham is -discussed more fully in Appendix III. - -[2770] Steinschneider (1905), pp. 58-9, asserted that Peter did not -translate Abraham either from Arabic or Hebrew. Peter himself uses -the verb “ordinavi” rather than “transtuli” of his version; see his -_Tractatus de motu octave spere_, II, 3, in Canon. Misc. 190, “Unde -abraam evenere cuius libros in linguam ordinavi latinam.” - -[2771] Steinschneider (1880), p. 126. He further states that what -seems to be a partially divergent Spanish translation of some works -of Abraham (Rodriguez de Castro, _Bibl. Españ._ I, 25-6) was “again -translated into Latin by the Spaniard Louis of Angulo (Wolf, _Bibl. -Hebr._, I, 83, now Cod. Paris 734)”. But BN 734 contains only a “Liber -ordinis pontificalis per Gulielmum Durantum.” What is probably meant -is BN 7321, fols. 87-116, “Explicit tractatus de nativitatibus abrahe -avenzre translata de ydyomate cathalano in latinum a lodovico de angulo -hyspano in civitate lugdunensi anno Christi 1448.” - -[2772] Conciliator, Diff. 67. - -[2773] Canon. Misc. 46, fol. 30v. “Item transtulit problemata Alexandri -medici dria. gnta” (differentiae quinquaginta). - -[2774] Mazzuchelli (1741), p. xi. He was not, however, aware that in -a 1555 edition of the _De venenis_ a prefatory note states that Peter -taught at Bologna. - -[2775] Gloria (1888), II. 10. - -[2776] _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters_ (1916), p. 247, -citing Zassari, _Cesena MSS_ (1887), p. 316, Cod. Plut. IV-n-4, S. XIII. - -[2777] BN 2598, fol. 102r. - -[2778] See above, chapter 26. I. 610. - -[2779] See Appendix IV for a fuller discussion of this matter. - -[2780] See Appendix V. - -[2781] See Appendix VI for further discussion of the date of his death. - -[2782] See Appendix VII. John XXII was elected August 7, 1316. - -[2783] Bibl. Naz. Turin H-II-16, 15th century, fol. 115v, “... temporis -decano studii montispessulani....” The records of the University of -Montpellier are unfortunately not well preserved for this period. - -[2784] See Appendix VIII, “Peter and the Inquisition.” - -[2785] The sum has become 400 ducats in Hoefer, _Histoire de la -Chimie_, Paris, 1842, I, 135, and Pouchet (1853), pp. 532-3. Colle -(1823), p. 17, questioned the story on the ground that Peter at the -age of thirty-five or thirty-seven would be too young to charge such -a fee, and for the better reason that the chronicler Filippo Villani -tells the same tale of a Florentine physician. A prefatory note to -the 1555 edition of the _De venenis_ states that when Peter taught at -Bologna--which he probably did not do--he would not visit a patient -outside of that town for less than fifty florins, so great was his -reputation. Honorius IV therefore at first promised him a fee of one -hundred florins but gave him one thousand when he recovered his health -as a result of Peter’s ministrations. - -[2786] Naudé (1625), p. 382. - -[2787] See his treatise on the motion of the eighth sphere, _Distinctio -II_, cap. 3, in Canon. Misc. 190, fol. 80r. - -[2788] Diff. 67. - -[2789] Diff. 64. - -[2790] In Diff. 1 Peter had held that “the regulative power of the body -resides in the brain,” and in Diff. 18 that “the brain is the seat of -sensation and motion”:--“Virtus corporis regitiva habitaculum habet -in cerebro” and “Cerebrum est fundamentum sensuum et motuum,” cited -by Colle (1825) III, 144-5, in a list of what he considered Peter’s -notable contributions to natural science. - -[2791] _An prandium cena debeat esse maius?_ - -[2792] This can perhaps be traced back to a passage in Tiraboschi -(1775) V, 147, “_Il primo, ch’io sappia, a commentare tra gl’Italiani -le opere di Averroe, e a farne uso scrivendo, fu Pietro d’Abano che nel -suo Conciliatore assai spesso lo vien citando or sotto il vero suo nome -or sotto quello per eccellenza adattatogli di Comentatore._” Renan (see -note 2) has already pointed out that Peter was not the first Italian to -cite Averroes. - -[2793] E. Renan. _Averroès et L’Averroïsme_, fifth edition, pp. 326-7. -Yet Renan admits that Averroes was then regarded as an opponent of -astrology. We shall see, however, that Peter cites Averroes for the -association of seven spirits with the planets, a point not noted by -Renan. - -[2794] _Ibid._, p. 327. - -[2795] Steinschneider (1905), pp. 58-9. - -[2796] The paintings do not seem to have been executed until about 1400. - -[2797] Muratori, _Antiquitates Italicae_, III, 374-5. - -[2798] Naudé (1625), pp. 381-91. - -[2799] _De rerum praenotione_, VII, 7, cited by Mazzuchelli (1741), p. -xxvii. - -[2800] Naudé (1625), pp. 380-1. - -[2801] If this means Averroes, it will be noted that Peter does not -sustain him against the Christian Faith. - -[2802] This passage is from Diff. 135. - -[2803] Diff. 101. - -[2804] Diff. 113. - -[2805] BN 2598, fols. 99-107. - -[2806] Diff. 60. - -[2807] Diff. 101. - -[2808] Diff. 10; see also Diff. 113. - -[2809] 104 and 105. - -[2810] Diff. 168. - -[2811] Diff. 64. - -[2812] Diff. 23. - -[2813] Canon. Misc. 190, fols. 78r-83r. - -[2814] Diff. 2, BN 2598, fol. 109v. - -[2815] Diff. 9 and 18. - -[2816] Diff. 18. - -[2817] “Complexio temperata.” - -[2818] Diff. 9. - -[2819] Peter thus is the precursor of recent writers in preferring a -conjunction in Aries to one in Pisces as the sign of the Messiah: see -chapter 20, I, 473. - -[2820] H. C. Lea, _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_, -III, 440. - -[2821] Diff. 2, BN 2598, fol. 109r. - -[2822] Diff. 113. - -[2823] Canon. Misc. 190, fol. 83r. Some of the figures may very likely -have been miscopied by the writer of the MS. - -[2824] See Diff. 9, 10, 16, 64, 101, 113. - -[2825] Diff. 10. - -[2826] Diff. 113. - -[2827] Diff. 64. - -[2828] _Idem._ - -[2829] Diff. 9. - -[2830] Diff. 10. - -[2831] Diff. 64. - -[2832] _Firmicus Maternus_, ed. Kroll et Skutsch, II (1913), p. xxxii. - -[2833] Diff. 113 and 156. - -[2834] Diff. 135. - -[2835] Diff. 64 and 156. - -[2836] Diff. 9 and 156. - -[2837] Diff. 10. - -[2838] Diff. 9. - -[2839] _De motu octave spere_, IV, 2, in Canon. Misc. 190, fol. 83r, -“ut veritas fidei credere nos compellit cum agens liberius potentiam -habeat super materiam omnifariam.” - -[2840] _Conciliator_, Diff. 64, 113, 135. - -[2841] BN 2598, fol. 101v, “fascinatio animalis occupans vires ut sui -compos esse non valeat, actum venereum impediens.” It is hard to say if -_animalis_ should be translated “animal” or “of the soul.” - -[2842] _Conciliator_, Diff. 64. - -[2843] _Ibid._, Diff. 135, “confidentia est intentio vehementer -apprehensioni occulte impressa.” - -[2844] _Ibid._, Diff. 156. - -[2845] BN 2598, fol. 101r, “ars dicta notaria fortunati.” - -[2846] Diff. 49. - -[2847] Diff. 105. - -[2848] Book XI, p. 933 (Stephanus). - -[2849] Diff. 64. - -[2850] A serpent of Nubia of the thickness of two fists, with a -sharp-pointed head and of green color. - -[2851] Colle (1824) III, 146. - -[2852] Diff. 178. “Et iam testificati sunt mihi duo amicorum fideles -argentum arte decoctionis fecisse verum omni examine non tamen valde -lucrari aperte.” - -[2853] See above pp. 262-3. - -[2854] For a similar image mentioned by Arnald of Villanova see above, -p. 858. - -[2855] See above p. 546. - -[2856] “De partibus occidentalibus”; this may be a slip of the copyist, -or a careless retention by Peter of the wording of some Arabic writer. - -[2857] Addit. 37079, fol. 106r, “Nunc autem periit fides sigillorum. -Nota bene. Quoniam tam illegalis quam allegans ad vos sigillata -portatur.” - -[2858] J. G. Frazer (1911) I, 305, gives some instances from Mongolia -of use of “bezoar stones as instruments of rain” combined with -incantations. Here “bezoar” is used in the sense of a stone found in -the stomach or intestines of an animal. - -[2859] Diff. 1. - -[2860] Naudé (1625), p. 381. - -[2861] _Ibid._, p. 390. - -[2862] Diff. 156. - -[2863] Diff. 1. - -[2864] Tomasini (1630), p. 22. - - - - -APPENDIX I - -PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS OF PETER OF ABANO - - -[Sidenote: Original sources.] - -As is usually the case with past authors and scholars, Peter of Abano’s -own works[2865] are the best source concerning the events of his life -as well as his learning and superstition. Another important document -is his will, published by Verci, whose _History of the Trevisan Mark_ -includes some other documents bearing upon Peter’s career.[2866] -Other contemporary source-material connected with Peter or members -of his family has been noted by Gloria in his collection of material -concerning the University of Padua,[2867] or by even more recent -investigators. Less valuable are the inscriptions, chiefly sepulchral -or eulogistic, which older writers reported but whose dates are late or -uncertain. In a MS of the fifteenth century[2868] a page between two of -Peter’s treatises is devoted to a “Catalogue of writings which Peter -of Abano partly composed himself, partly translated from the Greek.” -The list has not, I think, been noted by previous writers on Peter of -Abano, but adds little to our knowledge of his compositions. What the -sources for Peter’s life are, however, appears in more detail in the -appendices which follow and in the notes to the text. - -[Sidenote: Michael Savonarola.] - -What we have to consider further at present are the previous secondary -accounts of Peter which may be reckoned as of some importance. The -first occurs in the work on great citizens of Padua composed about -the middle of the fifteenth century[2869] by Michael Savonarola, the -noted physician and medical writer and grandfather of the Florentine -reformer, Girolamo Savonarola. Michael at least appreciated Peter’s -learning and shared in many respects his point of view, and, while he -makes some assertions which we must regard as extremely exaggerated, -if not entirely legendary, seems to have had access to documents -which we no longer possess as well as to local tradition. He states -that he treasures in his possession the original manuscript of the -_Conciliator_ in Peter’s own handwriting; and he mentions having -read with great pleasure an abundance of letters by which the people -of Padua had recalled Peter from Paris to their midst. Savonarola’s -account, however, is brief.[2870] - -[Sidenote: Secondary accounts since 1500.] - -Scardeone, who wrote in the sixteenth century _On the Antiquity of the -City of Padua_,[2871] can scarcely be regarded as so good an authority -as Savonarola, but he makes new assertions concerning Peter’s life and -his account has been much followed by modern writers. In the early -seventeenth century Naudé included Peter in his defense of great men -who had been charged with magic,[2872] but incorrectly gave the date of -his death as 1305, while Tomasini gave 1316 as the date and included -a portrait of Peter in his _Eulogies of Illustrious Men adorned with -pictures_.[2873] I have not seen the account of Peter in Duchastel’s -_Lives of Illustrious Physicians_,[2874] published at Antwerp in -1618, nor Goulin’s _A Historical and Critical Notice on the Life of -Abano_,[2875] printed in 1715; but have used an article with a similar -title which Count Gian-Maria Mazzuchelli[2876] published in 1741 and -which included a bibliography of Peter’s works. Tiraboschi, in his -_History of Italian Literature_,[2877] corrected and supplemented -Mazzuchelli on a number of points and in general displayed a sounder -judgment than previous writers, although he still retained some of -their errors. A further step in the study of Peter of Abano was taken -by Colle who published a monograph concerning him in 1823,[2878] which -he reprinted in 1825 with some variations in his _Scientific and -Literary History of the University of Padua_.[2879] A monograph by -Ronzoni in 1878[2880] does not seem to have made any new contributions, -but in 1884 Gloria adduced new source-material in his _Monuments of the -University of Padua_,[2881] and pointed out errors in Colle’s account. -Sante Ferrari discussed Peter’s contributions to biology in a pamphlet -published in 1900,[2882] when it was stated that he would soon issue -a volume upon Peter, which has been supplemented in 1918 by a further -study. Meanwhile in 1912 B. Nardi discussed “The theory of the soul -and the generation of forms according to Peter of Abano,”[2883] and -in 1916 Antonio Favaro wrote on “Pietro d’Abano ed suo ‘Lucidator -astrologiae’.”[2884] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2865] An account of the editions and MSS of them will be found in -Appendix II. - -[2866] G. B. Verci, _Storia della Marchia Trevigiana e Veronese_, -Venice, 1786-1791, in Tome VII (not VIII, as it is usually incorrectly -cited). - -[2867] Andrea Gloria, _Monumenti della Università di Padova -(1222-1318), Presentata il 29 dicembre 1884, Memorie del Reale Istituto -Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti_, vol. XXII, pp. 583-9. This -publication, however, is rather an account from the monuments than the -monuments themselves, of which Gloria printed only a limited number of -copies and which I have not seen. - -[2868] Canon. Misc. 46, fol. 30v. - -[2869] Muratori estimated that Savonarola completed the _Libellus de -magnificis ornamentis regiae civitatis Paduae_ soon after 1445. - -[2870] It is contained in Muratori, _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_, -XXIV, 1135-8. - -[2871] Bernardino Scardeone, _De antiquitate urbis Patavii et claris -civibus Patavinis libri tres ... eiusdem appendix de sepulchris -insignibus exterorum Patavii iacentium_, Venice, Volgrisi, 1558. I have -used the edition of Basel, 1560, where the account of Peter occurs at -pp. 260-2. It is also printed in Graevius, _Thesaurus antiquitatum et -historiarum Italiae_, 1725, Tom. VI, Pars. 3. - -[2872] Gabriel Naudé, _Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont -esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625, pp. 380-91. - -[2873] Jac. Phil. Tomasini, _Illustrium virorum elogia iconibus -exornata_, Padua, 1630, p. 20. - -[2874] Duchastel, _Vitae illustrium medicorum qui toto orbe ad haec -usque tempora floruerunt_, Anvers, 1618. I presume this is the -“Castellan” whom Naudé cites. - -[2875] Goulin, _Notice historique et critique sur la vie d’Abano, -in Mémoires littéraires et critiques pour servir à l’histoire de la -médecine_, Paris, 1715, p. 15. - -[2876] Mazzuchelli, _Notizie storiche e critiche intorno alla vita di -Pietro d’Abano, in Raccolta d’opuscoli scientifici e fisiologici_, vol. -XXIII, Venice, 1741. - -[2877] Tiraboschi, _Storia della Letteratura Italiana_, Modena, -1772-1795, vol. V (1775), pp. 152-9. - -[2878] Francesco Maria Colle, _Notizie sulla vita e sulle opere di -Pietro d’Abano, in Opuscoli Filologici_, Padua, 1823, pp. 7-36. - -[2879] Colle, _Storia Scientifico-Letteraria dello Studio di Padova_, -Padua, 1824, four vols., III (1825), 128-55. - -[2880] Ronzoni, _Della vita e delle opere di Pietro d’Abano_, Rome, -1878, in _Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, serie terza, Memorie -della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche_, II (1878), -526-50. - -[2881] See above, p. 914, note 3. - -[2882] Sante Ferrari, _Contribuzioni alla storia della biologia_; -_Pietro d’Abano_, Genoa, Ciminago, 1900, 23 pp. - -[2883] B. Nardi, _La teoria dell’ anima e la generazione delle forme -secondo Pietro d’Abano_, in _Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica_, IV -(1912), 723-37. - -[2884] _Atti del R. Istituto Veneto_, LXXV, 515-27. - - - - -APPENDIX II - -A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PETER OF ABANO’S WRITINGS - - -[Sidenote: Arrangement.] - -The following order will be observed in this list of Peter’s works. -First those to which an exact or probable date can be assigned will -be taken up in chronological order. Next will be listed those which -are undated but undoubtedly genuine. Last will be mentioned those -of dubious or spurious authorship. As Peter’s translations of the -astrological treatises of Abraham Aben Ezra are closely connected with -those of Henry Bate, and as Abraham and Bate are names of considerable -importance in the history of astrological literature, a separate -appendix following this one will be devoted to them and Peter’s -relations to their work. The following lists of MSS for Peter’s various -works can probably be greatly added to, but the present bibliography is -fuller than any preceding one. - -[Sidenote: Translation of Abraham Aben Ezra, 1293.] - -Aside from Latin editions of single works (such as the _De -nativitatibus_, Ratdolt, 1485, Cologne, 1537, which is not Peter’s -original Latin version anyway; and the _De luminaribus et criticis -diebus_, 1508, 1544; _de criticis diebus_, 1496, 1550) the only -inclusive edition seems to be: - - Abrahe Avenaris Judei ... in re judiciali opera, ab - excellentissimo Philosopho Petro de Abano post accuratam - castigationem in Latinum traducta, Ex officina Petri - Liechtenstein, Venetiis, 1507. For further account of this - edition and the MSS see Appendix III. - -[Sidenote: The _Physiognomy_, 1295.] - - Incipit liber compilationis phisonomie a Petro padubanensi - in civitate Parisiensi.... Viro fulgenti domino Bardeloni - de bocosis mantue honorandissimo capitaneo generali Petrus - padubanensis parisius philosophie minimus alumnorum grata - agere cum salute. Ed. Padua, 1474. - - Decisiones Physionomiae ... a Blondo medico ... compertae - inque lucem productae. Venice, 1548. - -The earliest MS that I have seen is - - BN 16089, 13-14th century, fols. 98r-113, “Incipit liber - compilationis physonomie a magistro petro de padua in - civitate parisiensi.... Nobilitate generis urbanitatum - titulis viro fulgenti domino bardelloni mantue - honorabilissimo capitaneo generali de bona coxis petrus de - padua parisius philosofie minimus alumpnorum grata agere - cum salute.” - -Practically the same is - - BN 2598, fols. 87r-98r, “Explicit liber compilationis - physonomie per petrum de padua anno domini millesimo - ducentesimo nonagesimo quinto.” - -Other MSS, all of the 15th century, are: - - BM Addit. 37079, fols. 3r-81v. Here the captain-general’s - name is spelled “Bardeloni ... de Bonaconsis” and the - Explicit gives the precise date, May 23, 1295. - - BL Canon. Misc. 46, fols. 1-30, “Liber Physionomiae - clarissimi viri Petri de Appono Patavini ab eo in civitate - Parisiensi aeditus.” - - CLM 637, fols. 12-66. - - Vienna 5307, fols. 23-32. - -The work is listed in the catalogue of the MSS of Amplonius at -Erfurt, written in 1412, “Math. 29, Egregius liber Petri Paduani de -phisionomia,” but seems to have disappeared from that collection since -then. - -[Sidenote: _Problems_ of Alexander of Aphrodisias.] - - Escorial f-I-11, 14th century (here we first have the - Problems of Aristotle, or perhaps Peter’s commentary - on them “secundum speciem compilationis” and “secundum - novam translationem,” then), fols. 31-42, “Incipiunt - problemata alexandri affrodiseos translata p. M. petrum - Aponensem padue de greco in latinum. Archo. tr. unico - ... / ... aut diversa inferiorum et superiorum molle - figuratione. Explicit liber problematum alexandrii - affrodiseos translatus per petrum padubanensem padue de - greco in latinum MCCC secundo XV die decembris et sunt - omnia problemata numero 197.” On the other hand, the list - of Peter’s works contained in Canon. Misc. 46, speaks of - these Problems as having “differentiae quinquaginta.” - -[Sidenote: Translations of Galen.] - - CLM 5, written in 1304 A. D., fol. 181, Galeni de optima - corporis nostri compositione et bona habitudine translatus - per Petrum medicum Paduanum. - - S. Marco XIV, 6, written at Bologna in 1305 A. D., fols. - 68-106, contains Peter’s completion of the translation of - the Therapeutic Method, begun by Burgundio of Pisa. - - Vienna 2294, 14th century, fols. 1-82v, De ingenio sanitatis - quod deficiebat de translatione Burgundionis (usque ad - libri xiv, c. 12) complete translatum per P. de Albano de - Padua. - -In the list of his works in Canon. Misc. 46 Peter is credited with the -translation of six of Galen’s treatises, namely: de cholera nigra, -de utilitate particularium, de optima compositione, de tabe, liber -creticorum, and a sixth title which I did not clearly make out, “Item -transtulit librum eiusdem de re fa (or sa, perhaps sanitate) de verbo -ad verbum non sicut ille abreviatur.” This last translation was in 18 -chapters. - -[Sidenote: The _Conciliator_, 1303.] - - Conciliator differentiarum philosophorum et precipue - medicorum. Printed eight times before 1500 and several - times thereafter. Most editions are to be found in the - British Museum, but it does not have the first edition - of 1471, Venetiis apud Octavianum Scotum, although it - possesses the Venetian editions of 1521 and 1526, which - are omitted from the bibliographies of Mazzuchelli and - Colle. I have chiefly used, at the John Crerar Library, - Chicago, the edition of 1526, and at the British Museum - the very rare second edition, Mantua, 1472. The editions - of 1476, 1483, 1490, and 1496 are also found in America - (CFCB). - - Quaestiones de febribus, pp. 217-40, in a collection of - various authors on fevers printed in 1576, are simply nine - Differentiae from the Conciliator. - -Not many MSS appear to have survived; some are: - - BN 6961, 1384 A. D., conciliator discordiarum medicinalium. - - BN 6962, 15th century. - - Library of the Dukes of Burgundy, 10871, early 16th century, - Petri de Abano, Conciliator de medicinis, “Ad melius - intelligendum.” - - Medic. 54, “Egregie questiones Petri Paduani consiliatoris,” - in the 1412 A. D. catalogue of Amplonius, seems no longer - in that collection. - - Harleian 3747, 15th century, fol. 233, Petri de Ebano de - balneis, is probably an extract from the Conciliator. - - Vienna 5289, 15th century, fol. 15r, Cura epidimiae, “Recipe - radices pedis corvini ... / ... adiustionem prohibitum,” - ascribed to Peter and immediately followed by his De - venenis, is perhaps also an extract from the Conciliator. - -[Sidenote: _On the astrolabe._] - -It appears to have been printed twice but I have not seen either -edition: - - Astrolabium planum in tabulis ascendens continens - qualibet hora atque minuto aequationes domorum coeli - significationes imaginum moram nati in utero matris cum - quodam tractatus nativitatum necnon horas inaequales pro - quolibet climate mundi, Venice, 1488; and 1502 (Luc’ - Antonio de Giunta). - -Perhaps it is the same as the following work ascribed to Peter in a MS -at Munich which I have been unable to inspect: - - CLM 22048, 15th century, 176 fols., De signis celestibus - eorumque significatione et potestate, cum multis tabulis - astronomicis. - -Kroll and Skutsch, in their edition of Julius Firmicus Maternus, II -(1913), xxviii, list what appears to be another edition of the same -year, 1488, at Augsburg, and which they say was reprinted in 1494 and -often thereafter. - - Opus Astrolabii plani in tabulis: a Iohanne Angeli artium - liberalium magistro a nouo elaboratum; explicit feliciter. - Erhardi ratdolt Augustensis viri solertis: eximia - industria: et mira imprimendi arte: qua nuper veneciis: - nunc Auguste vindelicorum excellet nominatissimus. - Vigesimoseptimo kalendas Novembris. M. CCCC. LXXXVIII. - Laus deo. - -This edition, Kroll and Skutsch state, contained portions of the -Mathesis of Firmicus, and some notes which Peter of Abano had added to -the astrological images (Kroll et Skutsch, II, xxxii). Whether these -brief notes are Peter’s sole connection with the Astrolabium planum, -they do not make clear. - -[Sidenote: _On the motion of the eighth sphere_, 1310.] - -I have seen it stated somewhere that it forms a part of the preceding -work. I have read the treatise in the first of the following MSS: - - Canon. Misc. 190, 1445 A. D., fols. 78r-83v, Tractatus motus - octave spere. - - Cod. Vatic. Palat. Lat. 1377, 14-15th century, fols. - 1r-5r, “Incipit tractatus quem composuit magister Petrus - Paduanus in motu octave spere et sequitur capitulum primum - prohemiale in operis causa et ipsius intentione. Quoniam - iuxta Ptholomeum rerum quippe causas ... / ... inde causa - existit prefati. Explicit tractatus motus octave spere - ordinatus a magistro Petro Paduanensi anno gratiae 1310.” - - Vienna 5498, 15th century, fols. 60r-70v, “Libellus in motu - octave sphere.” - -[Sidenote: The _Lucidator_, 1310.] - -The fuller title, “Lucidator dubitabilium astronomie,” is used by Peter -himself in citing the work in the Prohemium to his treatise on the -motion of the eighth sphere. - - BN 2598, following the Physonomia, fols. 99r-125v, “Quoniam - astrologyce considerationis ambiguitates....” At fol. 125v - the copyist, Petrus Collensis, whom Duhem characterizes - as “scribe aussi maladroit qu’ignorant latiniste,” adds - his name and a table of contents comprising ten questions. - But the last four of these do not seem to be discussed in - the text, of which the last three pages contain rather - the beginning of the treatise on the motion of the eighth - sphere. Therefore we have only the preface and first six - Differentiae of the Lucidator. No copy of the Lucidator - was known before Duhem, Études sur Léonard de Vinci, - 1906-1909, I, 50-51, called attention to this MS. - -[Sidenote: Commentary on the _Problems_ of Aristotle, 1310.] - - Expositio in librum problematum Aristotelis, Mantua 1475; - Padua, 1482, 1501, 1520. The editio princeps of 1475 is - not in the British Museum, although it has the other three - editions, but copies of it exist in America (CFCB). The - 1482 edition is said to have really been printed at Venice - by Herbort. I have consulted the edition of 1482 in this - country at the Columbia University Library. The Incipit - in the 1482 edition reads, “Expositio praeclarissimi - atque eximii artium ac medicinae doctoris Petri de Ebano - Patavini in librum Problematum Aristotelis feliciter - incipit.” - - But the Explicit is given imperfectly in this 1482 edition - and may better be repeated after a Venetian MS, S. Marco - XII, 84, 14th century, fols. 1-139, “Explicit expositio - succincta compilationis problematum Aristotelis quam - Petrus edidit Padubanensis et a nullo prius interpretante; - incepta quidem Parisius et laudabiliter Paduae terminata - anno legis Christianorum millesimo trecentesimo decimo - cum laude Dei altissimi cuius nomen sit benedictum per - saecula, amen.” The Explicit as given in the first - edition similarly stated that Peter composed the work - partly in Paris and finished it in Padua in 1310. The - Venetian MS just mentioned omits the text of Aristotle and - gives only Peter’s commentary. - - BN 6540. An illuminated MS with a picture at the beginning - of a smooth-shaven man in gown and hood which is possibly - meant for Peter. This MS would presumably be the - autograph, were the MSS Catalogue right in dating it in - 1310 A. D.; but I think that the date when the Explicit - states that the work was completed has been incorrectly - assumed to be the time when the MS was written. There - seems to be nothing about the MS to indicate that it was - written as early as 1310. - - BN 6541, 14th century. - - BN 6541A, 15th century. - - BN 6542, 1385 A. D., per m. de Jenduno (i.e. Jean de Jandun) - elucidata et declarata. - - BN 6543, 14th century. - - Arsenal 723, 15th century, 286 fols. This also begins with - the prologue of Jean de Jandun who lectured on the work at - Paris from a copy of Peter’s Commentary given him by the - famous Marsiglio of Padua. - - Mazarine 3520, 14th century. According to the MSS Catalogue, - the prologue differs from that in the 1519 (1520?) - edition, but the text is the same except that it stops in - the midst of the 28th problem under Particula X. - - Digby 77, 14th century, fols. 57-82, Summa Problematum - Aristotelis “secundum Petrum Paduanensem.” - - BM Addit. 21978, 1477 A. D. Two other translations of - Aristotle’s Problems accompany Peter’s work in this MS. - - Peterhouse 79, 14th century, “Expl. prior exposicio huius - libri per petrum padubanensem incepta parisius et finita - padue cum gaudio magno, deo sit honor.” - -[Sidenote: _On poisons_, 1316 (?).] - - Tractatus de venenis (also in the MSS, “Pollex de venenis” - or “Pollex venenorum”), Mantua 1472 (or 1473?); Padua, - 1473; also in 1484, 1490, 1495, 1515, 1555, and, with the - Conciliator, in 1476, 1496, 1499, and 1521. CFCB also - lists separate editions of 1475, 1487, 1498, and 1500. - - Amplon. Q. 222, mid. 14th century, fols. 227-37. - - CLM 77, 1386 A. D., fols. 142-5. - - CLM 184, 1439-1444 A. D., fol. 272-. - - CLM 257, 15th century, fol. 111-. - - Berlin 909, 15th century, fol. 107-. - - Vienna 2358, fols. 150-7; 4751, fols. 218-37; 5289, fols. - 16r-19v; 5398, fols. 197-204; all of 15th century. - - BM Addit. 37079, 15th century, fols. 83r-131v. - - Canon. Misc. 46, fol. 31-; 455, fols. 176-83; both 15th - century. - - Bodleian 484 (Bernard 2063, #26), fols. 206-26. - - Vendôme 243, 18 Jan. 1441, fols. 176-83. - - Arsenal 873, 15th century, fol. 97-. - - BN nouv. acq. 1789, moyen format, fols. 99-110. - - Library of Dukes of Burgundy, 8554, 15th century. - - Bibl. Naz. Turin H-II-16, 15th century, fol. 115v. - - Naples XII-G-78, 15th century, in Italian. - - Vicenza 328, in Italian. - - Volterra 1, 16th century. - - Florence, Nelli 243, 16th century; 374, 18th century. - - Riccard. 1177, 15th century, fols. 7-13. - -[Sidenote: _Addition to Mesue._] - - Petri Apponi in librum J. Mesue (Yuhanna ibn Masawaih) - additio, fols. 100r-129 in the 1471 edition of Yuhanna ibn - Masawaih, fols. 111-21 in the 1495 edition. Also printed - in 1485, 1491, 1497, 1513, 1523, 1531, 1541, 1551, 1602, - 1623. - - S. Marco XIV, 42, 14th century, fols. 194-222. - - CLM 8, completus Paduae ann. 1464, fols. 120-38, Additiones - libri Mesuae ut communiter traditur Francisci pede - montium, immo Conciliatoris. In the 1495 edition additions - by Francis of Piedmont follow those of Peter of Abano. - - CLM 13, fol. 223-; 81, 14-15th century; 25061, 15th century, - fols. 337-8. - - Sloane 3124, 15th century, fols. 276-323. - -[Sidenote: Dioscorides.] - - Dioscorides, De materia medica, Colle, 1478. “Explicit - dyascorides quem petrus paduanensis legendo corexit et - exponendo que utiliora sunt in lucem deduxit.” - - Dioscorides digestus alphabetico ordine additis - annotatiunculis brevibus et tractatu de aquarum natura, - Lugduni, 1512. This is said to be a reproduction of the - 1478 edition. - - BN 6820, 14th century, fols. 1-72r, words the Explicit a - little differently from the edition of 1478: “Explicit - dyascorides quem petrus paduanensis legendo correxit et - exponendo que occultiora in lucem deduxit.” - -There are said to be a number of MSS of this medieval enlarged Latin -Dioscorides, which indeed Wellman (“Dioskurides” in PW) calls “the -most widely-disseminated handbook of pharmacy, which dominated the -whole later middle ages,” but Peter’s edition of it is not well -distinguished from preceding ones. Wellmann, for example, says nothing -of Peter’s commentary and corrections. - -[Sidenote: Pseudo-Hippocrates.] - - Libellus de medicorum astrologia a Petro de Abbano in - latinum traductus, Venice, Ratdolt, 1485 (in “Opusculum - repertorii pronosticon in mutationes aeris”). Many copies - in America (CFCB). - - Tractatulus Hypocratis medicorum optimi De aspectibus - planetarum versus Lunam (a Petro de abbano in latinum - traductus), Leipzig, 1505. - - Printed with Magninus, Regimen Sanitatis, 1500, 1517, 1524. - - Printed in 1585 and 1626 by Z. T. Bovio. - - Also found with the works of Hippocrates and Galen in - various editions and in the 1497 edition of Rasis. - -MSS are also numerous, but catalogues usually do not state whether -William of Moerbeke or Peter of Abano is the translator. It is ascribed -to the former, however, in - - BN 7337, pp. 78-84, Liber hyppocratis de prognosticationibus - egritudinum secundum motum lune traductus a domino fratre - Guglielmo de Morbercha archiepiscopo Corintino ordinis - predicatorum. - - Vienna 5498, 15th century, fols. 53-59, our treatise - precedes that of Peter on the motion of the eighth sphere. - - Vienna 5275, 16th century, fol. 195, Pseudo-Hippocrates, - Fragmentum libri de medicorum astrologia a Petro de Abano - in latinum sermonem traducti. - - Sloane 780, 15th century, fols. 55v-58v, “De iudiciis a - lune observatione formandis de sanitate vita et morte - infirmiorum,” is the Peter of Abano version, opening, “Cum - legerem libros hypocratis medicorum optimi inveni hunc - parvum sed magne utilitatis librum....” - - Sloane 636, 15th century, fols. 98v-102v, has the Incipit - of William of Moerbeke’s translation (Quetif and Echard, - 1719, I, 390), “Sapientissimus ypocras omnium medicorum - peritissimus ait, Inscius medicus est qui astronomiam - ignorat....” This is also the Incipit of Digby 29, 15th - century, fols. 167-72. - -The recently revised catalogue of the Royal MSS notes that a third -version, which apparently is neither by William of Moerbeke nor Peter, -is found in - - Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century, fols. 33v-36r, which opens, - “Dixit ypocras qui fuit medicus et magister optimus et - medicus non est qui astronomiam ignorat”; - - Sloane 3171, fols. 104v-116, which opens, “Dixit ypocras - medicorum optimus cuiusmodi medicus est qui astrononiam - ignorat”; - - Sloane 3282, fols. 89v-90, which opens, “Dixit ypocras qui - fuit medicus et magister optimus cuiusmodi medicus est qui - non astronomiam nossit”; - - Cotton Appendix VI, fols. 5r-8r, which opens, “Dixit ypocras - qui fuit medicus et magister optimus cuiusmodi medicus est - qui astronomiam ignorat.” - - Digby 28, early 14th century, fols. 81v-85, which opens, - “Dixit Ypo. non est medicus qui astronomiam non novit,” is - perhaps the same version; at any rate Coxe says that it - differs from Digby 29, William of Moerbeke’s translation. - -[Sidenote: Geomancy.] - - Geomantia, in Latin according to Mazzuchelli, Venice, 1549 - and 1586. I have not seen either. - - Geomantia di Pietro d’Abano nuovamente tradotta di Latino in - volgare per il Tricasso Mantuano, Venice, 1542. - - Novamente dall’ eccell. M. S. Musio da Capoa ricorsa, 2 - pts., Vinegia, 1546-1550. Another edition, Venice, 1550. - - Comincia la Geomantia di P. d’Abano tradotta di Lattina - lingua, Venice, 1556. - - CLM 392, 15th century, fol. 69-. - - CLM 489, 16th century, fols. 222-33, “Desideravi verum et - certum Iudicium dare secundum gloriosam et venerabilem - scientiam Geomantiae ... / ... Explicit liber Petri de - Abano. P.” - - Sandaniele del Friuli 240, 15th century, “Incipit modum - iudicandi questiones geomantie sive modum magistri Petri. - Considerantibus (?) verum et certum ... / ... veluti - nocturna. Explicit liber Geomantiae. Deo gratias Amen.” - -[Sidenote: Prophecies.] - - Questa sie la profetia composta per el reverendissimo - negromante piero dabano ... Bologna, 1495. - - Vatican 5356, fol. 28, Variae prophetiae Magistri Petri - Patavini de Abano. - -[Sidenote: _Heptameron_, or _Elements of magic_.] - - Kiesewetter, Der Occultismus des Alterthums, mentions a - Latin edition, Venice, 1496, which I have neither seen nor - found mentioned elsewhere. - - It was printed together with the Occult Philosophy of Henry - Cornelius Agrippa in Latin at Paris, 1565, and in 1600 and - 1655 in English translation. - - Also in J. Scheible, Kleiner Wunder-Schauplatz, Theil 10, - 1855. - - In French as Les Oeuvres Magiques de Henri-Corneille - Agrippa, par Pierre d’Aban (Heptameron ou les élémens - magiques de Pierre Aban, Philosophe, Disciple de - Henri-Corneille Agrippa), Liège, 1788. - - Sloane 3850, 17th century, fols. 13v-23. - - CLM 24936, 17th century, pp. 94-131, Petri de Abano doctoris - urbis Pataviae Magia. - - Vienna 11294, 17th century, fols. 41r-74v. - - BN 17870, 18th century. - -[Sidenote: _Elucidarium necromanticum._] - - Vatican, Regina Sueviae 2014, according to Mazzuchelli - (1741) p. liii, who, like Naudé, lists this as a separate - treatise different from the Heptameron. - -[Sidenote: _Annulorum experimenta._] - - BN 7337, 15th century, pp. 131-8, “Peritissimi artium ac - medicine doctoris in omnibusque scientiis excellentissimi - magistri Petri de abbano annulorum experimenta - feliciter incipiunt. Primo et principaliter in hac arte - considerandum est quod 28 sunt mansiones lune.” This seems - to be the work described by Naudé as “Liber experimentorum - mirabilium de annulis secundum 28 mansiones Lunae.” - -[Sidenote: _Circulus philosophicus._] - - CLM 17711, 17th century, fols. 284-307, is perhaps identical - with one of the three preceding works. - - - - -APPENDIX III - -PETER OF ABANO, ABRAHAM ABEN EZRA, AND HENRY BATE - - -[Sidenote: French translation from the Hebrew.] - -The French translation from the Hebrew of astrological treatises by -Abraham Aben Ezra is preserved in BN, fonds de Sorbonne, 1825. I have -not seen the MS but infer from the description in HL XXI, 500-3 that -it includes only five of Abraham’s treatises, The Beginning of Wisdom, -Nativities, Revolutions, Elections, and Interrogations. At the close of -The Beginning of Wisdom we are told that it was written down by Obers -de Montdidier from the dictation of Hagins the Jew in the house of Sire -Henri Bate at Malines and finished December 22, 1273. - -[Sidenote: Peter of Abano’s Latin version.] - -One MS of Peter of Abano’s version, BN supplem. lat. 151, is partially -described in HL 21, 501. Others which I have examined are BN 7336, -BN 7438, Canon. Misc. 190. I have seen various other MSS noted in -catalogues and elsewhere, but such notices seldom seem to give a full -and accurate list of the treatises. They were printed in 1507 by Peter -Liechtenstein as noted in Appendix II. All copies which I have seen -contain at the close of the first treatise, the _Liber Introductorius_ -or Beginning of Wisdom, the passage, of which HL 21, 501 has already -quoted the Latin, stating that when Peter of Abano the Paduan found -this work “in Gallic idiom, through the unskilfulness of the translator -from the Hebrew defective in many ways, corrupt, and sometimes poorly -arranged and failing to make sense, as far as he could he brought it -back in the Latin tongue to Abraham’s original meaning.” The date is -then given as 1293. Peter is also usually named as the translator at -the beginning or end of the other treatises. - -[Sidenote: Additional treatises in Peter’s version.] - -In the Latin versions of Abraham’s astrological treatises besides -the five named by the Histoire Littéraire are found the _Liber -rationum_,[2885] the _Liber luminarium et de cognitione diei -cretici_,[2886] and _Tractatus particulares_, which are really three -treatises, namely: (1) “Incipit alius tractatus particulare. Incipit -tractatus de partibus horarum in interrogationibus”;[2887] (2) -“Tractatus in tredecim manieribus planetarum”;[2888] and (3) “Tractatus -de significationibus planetarum in duodecim domibus Abrahe.”[2889] -The _De consuetudinibus in judiciis astrorum et est centiloquium -Bethen_, which occurs in the midst of Abraham’s treatises in the MSS, -is probably not by him and is placed last in the 1507 edition. The -_Tractatus particulares_ are not included by Steinschneider in his -list of Abraham’s astrological writings.[2890] - -[Sidenote: A Latin translation by Henry Bate.] - -While in general the Latin translation of Abraham’s astrological -treatises is ascribed to Peter, in all the editions and manuscripts -that I have seen,[2891] one of them, entitled _De mundo vel seculo_ -and dealing with conjunctions and revolutions, is ascribed to Henry -Bate, the same under whose patronage the French translations were -made.[2892] It would therefore seem that Peter found Henry Bate’s own -Latin translation of 1281 more satisfactory than the French translation -made at Bate’s house in 1273,[2893] and did not attempt to revise it. -In some manuscripts Bate is also credited with a Latin translation of -The Beginning of Wisdom or _Liber introductorius_, made in 1292.[2894] - -[Sidenote: Other writings of Henry Bate.] - -This Henry Bate was called by Pico della Mirandola “a disciple of -Albertus Magnus.”[2895] In 1274 at Malines and in fulfilment of a -promise made to William of Moerbeke, the noted translator of the -Dominican Order and at that time papal chaplain and penitentiary, -when they were together in Lyons, Bate composed a treatise on the -astrolabe.[2896] Later Bate also wrote an account of his own horoscope -and destiny.[2897] It gives the year of his birth as 1244. He was a -canon, doctor of theology, and university professor; and seems to -have spent his life mainly at Malines, Liège, and Paris. He also -wrote on errors in the Alfonsine astronomical tables.[2898] Another -unpublished work of his is entitled _Speculum divinorum et quorundam -naturalium_.[2899] - -[Sidenote: Other works by Abraham.] - -There were also Latin versions of other astronomical and astrological -works by Abraham than those translated by Bate or Peter.[2900] One -cannot, however, be sure that “Abraham Judaeus” always refers to -Abraham Avenezra, as there was a translator or translators of the -thirteenth century by that name. Simon Cordo of Genoa was assisted in -his Latin translation of the medical works of Serapion by an Abraham -Judaeus of Tortosa;[2901] and Alfonso X of Castile employed a Jew named -Abraham in astronomical translation from Arabic into Spanish.[2902] An -Abraham Iudeus of Barcelona translated Haly on Elections from Arabic -into Latin,[2903] and was perhaps the same as Abraham Bar Chasdai, -a rabbi of Barcelona who translated the supposititious Aristotelian -work _De pomo_ from Arabic into Hebrew, after which Manfred, the -illegitimate son of Emperor Frederick II, translated it or had it -translated from Hebrew into Latin. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2885] Incipit liber de rationibus habrabe avenerze quem transtulit -petrus paduanus.... Explicit translatio libri de rationibus per petrum -paduanum. - -[2886] Explicit liber luminarium Abrabe Avenare quem Petrus de Padua -Lombardus ordinavit quam melius potuit in planum ydioma latinum, qui -liber potest de cognitione cause crisis intitulari. It was printed -separately by Ratdolt, Venice, 1482. - -[2887] This Titulus is wanting in the printed edition (1507), fol. -lxxxv recto, but is found in BN 7336, fol. 109r and 7438. fol. 168v. - -[2888] Or “Incipit liber significationum septem planetarum et earum -generibus vel maneriebus.” - -[2889] At its close “Finis quorundam tractatuum particularium Abrahe -Avenare quos Petrus Paduanus ordinavit in latinum.” - -[2890] In his article “Abraham Ibn Ezra” in _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. -Math. Wiss._ III, 2 (1880), p. 127, Steinschneider devoted only the -four closing pages of this long article to Abraham’s astronomy and -astrology, promising a future article on that subject, but I do not -know if it ever appeared. - -[2891] According to the recent catalogue of the Royal MSS, “_Elecciones -Abraham_” in Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century, fols. 26-30, is “not the -same translation as that (by Pietro of Abano) printed, Venice, 1507,” -and this seems to be the case, although by a coincidence the opening -and closing words are the same, “_Sapientes legis_” and “_dixerunt -antiqui_.” - -[2892] “Explicit liber de mundo vel seculo completus die lune hore -post festum beati luce hora diei quasi 10, anno domini 1281, inceptus -in leodio, perfectus in machilinia, translatus a magistro Henrico bate -de hebreo in latinum”:--ed. of 1507, fol. lxxxv recto; BN 7336, fol. -1O9r; Canon. Misc. 190, fol. 69; Digby 114, fol. 175; Vienna 4146, fol. -264. CU Emmanuel 70, 15th century, fols. 137v-44, however, gives the -date as 1292, “Expl. lib. de mundo et seculo completus die Jovis post -fest. S. barnabe Ap. sub ascendente scorpionis a. d. 1292 in perside -(?) translatus autem a mag. Henr. dicto bate de machelia de hebreo in -latinum.” Sloane 312, 15th century, fols. 7Ov-97. - -[2893] Apparently in the eight intervening years Bate had learned -enough Hebrew to translate Abraham himself. - -[2894] Cod. Lips. un. 1466, fols. 1-24; Berlin 963, 15th century, -fols. 152-63; Vatic. Palat. Lat. 1377, 14th century, fols. 21r-37v, -“Translatus est hic liber a magistro Henrico de Malinis dicto Bate -cantore Leodiensis, et est hec translatio perfecta in urbe veteri a. d. -1292”; Wolfenbüttel 2816, anno 1461, fols. 84-111, “Abraham avenezre -initium sapientiae.... Translatus est a magistro Henrico de Malynis -dicto Bate, cantore Leodiensi. Perfecta est hec translatio in Urbe -Veteri anno Domini 1292.” In this last MS follows a _De fortitudine -planetarum_, said to have been translated “in the old city by master -Henry of Malines, called Bate,” but the date is given as 1272. I have -been unable to examine any of these MSS to see if the translation is -really the same as that usually ascribed to Peter of Abano, but Björnbo -(_Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math. Wiss._, XXVI, 1911, p. 135) gives that -impression. - -[2895] _Adversus astrologos_, IX, 3. - -[2896] Digby, 48, 15th century, fols. 143v-152r. “Magistratus -composicio astrolabi hanrici bate ... quod vobis promissum est cum apud -vos essem Lugduniensis.... Expletum est hoc opusculum ab Hanrico Bate -in villa Machliniensi Luna coniuncta Jovi in domo septima ascendente -luna a. d. MCCLXXIIII quinto idus Octobris ad peticionem fratris -Vuilhelmi de Morbeca, ordinis Predicatorum, domini pape penitenciarii -et capellani”; also printed by Erhard Ratdolt, Venice, 1485, with a _De -natiuitatibus_ ascribed to Abraham Judaeus (printed again, Cologne, -1537) which is quite different from the treatise on Revolutions and -Nativities translated by Abano. - -[2897] Contained in BN 7324, _Nativitas magistri Henrici Mechlinensis -cum quibusdam revolutionibus_, and described in HL 26, 561-2. - -[2898] HL 26, 558-61 and Wolfenbüttel 2816, anno 1461, fols. 9-12, -“Tractatus in quo ostenditur defectus tabularum Alfonsi, compositus a -magistro Henrico Bate de Machlinia A. D. 1347” (_sic_). - -[2899] Library of Dukes of Burgundy 7500, 15th century, or, as it -is entitled in two St. Omer MSS (Maurice de Wolf, “Henri de Bate de -Malines” in _Bulletins de l’Académie Royale Belgique, Classe des -lettres_, 1909), “Speculum divinarum humanarumque rerum.” - -[2900] BN 7377A, No. 4 and BN 9335, 14th century, fols. 126v-135, -liber augmenti et diminutionis qui vocatur numeratio divinationis -secundum Indos. BN 16648, 13th century, fols. 106-46, liber qui dicitur -abrahismus.... “Dixit habraham iudeus, cognitum est corpus solare....” - -[2901] See the printed editions, _Liber Serapionis aggregatus in -medicinis simplicibus_, 1479; _liber Servitoris liber xxviii_, 1471; -etc. - -[2902] Canon. Misc. 45, 15th century, 56 fols. “Abulhaze Abnelaiitan -liber de mundo et coelo, de notibus planetarum, etc., in partes duas -distinctus per Abraham Hebraeum jubente Alphonso Hispaniae rege de -Arabico in Hispanum, postea ab anonymo quodam in Latinum versus cum -figuris praeviis capitulorum elencho et Alphonso epistola.” Arundel -377, 13th century, fols. 56v-68, Magistri Habrahe de tabulis planetarum. - -[2903] Sloane 312, 15th century, fols. 252-5, 215-51. The same MS -contains two works by Abraham Avenezra with whom Scott, in his Index of -the Sloane MSS has identified--probably incorrectly--this Abraham the -translator. - - - - -APPENDIX IV - -WAS PETER CALLED TO TREVISO IN 1314? - - -It was stated by Bonifazio in his _History of Treviso_,[2904] and -repeated by Mazzuchelli[2905] and Tiraboschi,[2906] that on August 7, -1314, the Trevisans, wishing to establish a university, brought Peter -to their city, where he taught and practiced medicine for a year. -Colle[2907] agreed that he received a call but doubted if he accepted -it because his will, drawn up in 1315, makes it appear that he is -still in the employ of Padua. But it is not quite certain that he even -received a call, if we judge from the extant original documents,[2908] -a decree issued by the government of Treviso on August 9, 1314, and -letters of the 15th and 16th of that month. The decree indeed aims at -the institution of professorial chairs in the two laws and medicine -(_phisica_) at Treviso, namely, Ordinary Lecturers in Civil and Canon -Law, and Extraordinary Lecturers in Civil Law and Medicine. Under each -of these four heads it lists three names, and that of “Master Peter -of Abano” heads those in medicine. But the decree further states that -“the doctors named below” are to be balloted upon, and apparently by -lot,[2909] and thus arranged in order of first, second, and third -choice. The position is then to be offered to the first one chosen; -if he refuses, to the second; and so on. It is also stated that the -incumbents “are to lecture and teach through three years continuously -after their arrival,” not for one year. The normal salary is set at -four hundred petty pounds annually, although the Council of Three -Hundred are left some liberty in increasing or diminishing this amount. -Moreover, we have a letter of August sixteenth notifying Peter of -Suzara of his final appointment after he had indicated that he would -accept the election. Similar letters were sent to five others of the -twelve men named in the decree, and the name of Peter of Abano is not -found among the five, the professor named in medicine being Henzelerius -or Hengelerius. Either therefore Peter of Abano had not been elected or -had refused to accept the appointment. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2904] Bonifazio, _Storia di Trevigi_, 1591, P. 354. - -[2905] Mazzuchelli (1741), p. xxii. - -[2906] Tiraboschi (1775) V, 51 and 156. - -[2907] Colle (1825) III, 133. - -[2908] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, pp. 39-40, 43-4, 46-7 (from -Raccolta Scotti, IV, 376, 342, 388). - -[2909] “... quod infrascripti Doctores per sortem eligantur ... quod -illi qui scripti sunt inferius ad lecturam ordinariam per se sortiri -debeant unus contra alium ad buffolos et ballotas.... Et simili -forma observetur et debeat observari in scriptis ad extraordinariam -lecturam....” - - - - -APPENDIX V - -PETER’S SALARY AT PADUA - - -[Sidenote: Amount exaggerated.] - -The amount of salary offered at Treviso was worth mentioning because -the statement has been made over and over again that Peter in his will -of 1315 bequeathed to the town government of Padua fifteen hundred lire -or pounds that were due him for his past three months’ salary. From -this it was inferred that his annual stipend was either six thousand -pounds, or four thousand if reckoned on the basis of an academic year -of eight months. This seemed to show that he was the highest paid -professor of his own, not to mention our, age. On turning, however, -to the will as printed by Verci[2910] we discover that the fifteen -hundred pounds represent three years of back pay, and that Peter -further bequeaths to the commune of Padua five hundred pounds of small -_denarii_ due on his salary, presumably for the current year.[2911] - -[Sidenote: Why was it so far in arrears?] - -This puts an entirely different aspect upon the matter. It not only -shows that Peter’s stipend was scarcely a tithe of what had been -supposed, although a good salary for the times, as a comparison with -that offered at Treviso and with the amounts of the other legacies made -by Peter in his will indicates. It also raises the question, why was -the payment of Peter’s salary some four years in arrears? And why does -Peter make a distinction between five hundred pounds for which he holds -papers (_Bulletas_) from the town officials and the fifteen hundred -pounds due him for the previous three years and for which he apparently -has nothing to show. Is there some question as to his claim for salary -for those three years or even as to his having been in the Commune’s -employ? Probably the simplest explanation is that after failing to -receive his salary for these years Peter took the precaution to get a -definite statement concerning it for the fourth. This might also serve -to explain why Treviso had hopes of getting him away from Padua in -1314, and why he stayed on in 1315. The years just preceding 1315 seem -to have been a troublous time for the city of Padua, which incurred a -heavy sentence from the emperor Henry VII, and had wars with Vicenza -and Can Grande, not to mention civil strife such as that of April, -1314, when another Peter--_Judex de Altichino_--was slain with his sons -in the public square by the people, their goods confiscated, and the -family banished to the fourth generation.[2912] - -There seems to be no quarrel between Peter and the Commune of Padua, -for he goes on in his will to entrust himself, his children, and his -property to its tutelage and defense, besides leaving the Commune the -two thousand pounds in question. Also as Peter makes his will in Padua, -where most of his legatees live, where he still has his residence, and -where he intends to be buried, it appears that in May, 1315, he still -is in the employ of that city and has been for years past. So he has -not yet gone to Treviso or elsewhere. Nor is his bequeathing the two -thousand pounds arrears to the city a sure indication that he does not -intend to teach there any more, either because he expects to die soon, -or to accept a position in another university, or to cease teaching -entirely because of old age. These arrears are an asset and he has to -dispose of them somehow in making his will; he evidently has continued -to teach when one and two years’ pay was owing him, and he may continue -to do so now when three or four years’ salary is in arrears. However, -it must be said that he shows no hope of ever recovering these arrears, -nor is there any evidence that he ever did. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2910] Which Colle, although he wrote after the publication of Verci’s -work, did not take the trouble to do. Gloria was apparently the first -to note that the time was three years and not three months. - -[2911] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, 117-8. “Item reliquit Communi -Padue libras quingentas denariorum parvorum quas habere debebat a dicto -Communi Padue pro suo debito salario de quo habebat Bulletas dominorum -Potestatis Ancianorum et Gastaldionum Communis Padue supradicti. -Item reliquit eidem Communi Padue libras mille et quingentas quas -habere debebat a dicto Communi Padue pro suo salario de tribus annis -retroactis.” - -[2912] _Chronicon Patavinum ab 1174-1390_ in Muratori, _Antiquitates_ -(1741) IV, 1156-7 (covering the years 1311-1315). - - - - -APPENDIX VI - -WHEN DID PETER DIE? - - -The date of Peter’s death may be placed between May 25, 1315, when -he made his will, and November 19, 1318, when the record of a legal -transaction in which his sons were concerned appears to speak of -him as dead.[2913] It has usually been assumed that he died in 1315 -or 1316 and these dates are given in epitaphs,[2914] which, however, -were composed long afterwards and cannot be accepted as sure proof. -Peter’s making his will has been taken as a sign that he was at -death’s door and died almost immediately afterward, but this inference -does not seem necessarily to follow either from the will proper or -from the accompanying confession of faith which he made on the day -preceding. Arnald of Villanova, it will be recalled, made his will in -1305 but lived on until 1311. Peter concludes his confession of faith -by affirming that such has been his belief in the past, is now, “and -will be to the very end of his life.”[2915] Unless we assume that this -last clause is added simply as a matter of form or as a safeguard -against the possibility of the Inquisition’s making the charge that -immediately after his confession Peter became a heretic or relapsed -into his previous heresy--unless we make such an assumption, which may -be entirely unwarranted--the natural conclusion is that Peter did not -expect to die immediately. - -The language of the will itself points in the same direction. Peter, “a -provident and discreet man,” contemplating the unstable condition of -human nature and noting that “those things which have the appearance of -lasting for a long time” nevertheless “tend visibly toward their end,” -has decided to meet such perils half-way and happily anticipate the -last day of life by a will made when in full possession of his senses -and intellectual faculties.[2916] No mention is made of his being -in ill health, unlike another will of the same period quoted in the -same volume of Verci, in which the testator speaks of himself as “of -sound mind, although afflicted body, not wishing to depart this world -intestate.”[2917] - -Other indications that Peter not only did not die immediately after -making his will, but continued to teach and write, are the fairly -strong evidence and probability that the pope to whom his treatise on -poisons is addressed is John XXII, who was not elected until August 7, -1316; and the dubious assertion in a fifteenth century manuscript that -Peter was acting dean of Montpellier at that time. We might also add -that a prefatory note in the 1555 edition of the _De venenis_ states -that he lived to be almost an octogenarian. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2913] Gloria (1884), p. 587, note 6, “Mill. trec. decimo octavo ind. -prima die decimo nono mens. Nov. cora, d. B. (Bernardo) Dei gratia -venerab. abbate monast. S. Marie de Pratalea--Benvenutus q. fil. mag. -Petri fisici olim ser Constancii de Abano pro se--et vice Petri et -Zifredi suorum fratrum q. eiusd. d. Petri et suorum heredum--vendidit.” - -[2914] Mazzuchelli (1741), pp. xxxv-xxxvi; Gloria (1884), p. 586; -Tomasini (1630), p. 22. - -[2915] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, 119, “et in hac credulitate fuit, -est, et erit usque ad extremum vite exitum.” - -[2916] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, 116. “Providus et discretus vir -Magister Petrus filius qu. domini Constancii de Abano de contrata -Sancte Lucie de Padua, Artis Medicine Philosophie et Astrologie -professor, attendens et considerans quod instabilis sit humane nature -status et condicio et quod ea que verisimiliter diu duratura habere -videntur essentiam tendunt visibiliter ad non esse. Ideoque tantis -periculis occurrere cupiens et dispositione Testamentaria vite diem -extremum feliciter et salubriter prevenire sana integra et plena mentis -sensus et intellectus cognitione ut quieti corporis et anime sue -provideat et saluti tale de suis bonis per nuncupationem suam condidit -Testamentum sic dicens....” - -[2917] Verci (1787) VII, 77, “... sane mentis, tamen de corpore -gravatus, nolens de hoc mundo decedere intestatus.” - - - - -APPENDIX VII - -WAS THE DE VENENIS ADDRESSED TO POPE JOHN XXII (1316-1334)? - - -[Sidenote: Survey of the editions and MSS] - -In some nine printed editions which I have examined the pope addressed -is denoted simply by the letter “N”; and most of the MSS do not -specify the pope by name, or if they do, it is not so stated in the -catalogues. Giacosa[2918] says that the treatise is dedicated in some -MSS to Pope Honorius IV, but he does not specify them, and I do not -know of any such. Where the pope is named, he is either John without -enumeration,[2919] or John XXII.[2920] It is perhaps worth noting that -there never was any John XX, and that John XXI is sometimes called -John XX, and John XXII is called John XXI, but that the converse is -impossible. In view of this uncertainty in the enumeration, it would -also not be surprising to find either John XXI or XXII named without -enumeration. Scardeone[2921] in the sixteenth century asserted that -the _De venenis_ was dedicated to John XXII, although this conflicts -with his statement that Peter died in 1315. Mazzuchelli[2922] spoke -of an Italian translation in which the pope is called Giacomo. There -never was a pope so styled, but both Honorius IV and John XXII (called -John XXI by Mazzuchelli owing to the error above noted) bore the name -Giacomo before they assumed their pontifical designations. Another -cogent reason for dismissing John XXI (1276-1277) from consideration is -that Peter at the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven would neither have -adopted the authoritative tone that he employs in the _De venenis_ in -addressing a pope who had himself, as Petrus Hispanus, been a medical -writer of note, nor have failed to advert to that pope’s own medical -works. - -[Sidenote: Inference from a citation of Avenzoar.] - -In the _De venenis_[2923] Peter cites the Latin translation of a -treatise by Avenzoar (ʿAbd al Malik ibn Zuhr ibn ʿAbd al Malik, Abu -Marwan) concerning the power of a powdered emerald as an antidote -against poison. In the printed editions Avenzoar’s work is referred to -as that translated for Pope Boniface.[2924] If we could only rely upon -this as Peter’s original wording, it would mean that he was himself -addressing some pope later than Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and so would -support the other evidence that the _De venenis_ was addressed to John -XXII. But in at least one manuscript of the _De venenis_ the work of -Avenzoar is said to have been translated “for the Roman people.”[2925] -Moreover, the Latin translation of Avenzoar in question is extant -and in the printed version[2926] we read at the close that it was -translated at Venice, August 21, 1281, from Hebrew into Latin by a -master of medicine from Padua[2927] with the aid of a Jew named Jacob. -The work would thus seem to have been translated long before Boniface -became pope. In a Paris manuscript,[2928] however, the translator -gives his name as John of Capua, a baptized Jew, of whom we know as a -translator of other works from Hebrew into Latin,[2929] and addresses -his present translation to the archbishop of Braga in Portugal,[2930] -whom Hartwig believed to be Martin de Oliviera who held that office -from 1292 to 1313. Now this John of Capua also translated the work on -Diets of Maimonides, at the suggestion of William of Brescia who was -Pope Boniface VIII’s physician, and Hartwig believes that he met the -archbishop of Braga at Rome. But more than this, in a Vienna manuscript -the translation of Avenzoar is addressed to Pope Boniface VIII -himself.[2931] Apparently therefore there is justification for Peter -of Abano’s speaking of the work as translated for Boniface VIII. And -whether it was or not, in any case it was translated at too late a date -for Peter to have cited it in his _De venenis_, had that treatise been -addressed to Pope John XXI who died in 1277. So if we admit that the -_De venenis_ was addressed to a Pope John, it must have been addressed -to John XXII who became pope on August 7, 1316. - -[Sidenote: Popes and poisons.] - -Returning for a moment to Boniface VIII, it may be remarked that he was -presumably the pope who, as Peter himself states in the _Conciliator_, -had protected him from certain persecutors. That there was nothing -strange in addressing a work on poisons to a pope of that time is shown -by the fact that Ermengard Blasius (or Blasii)[2932] of Montpellier, -physician of Philip the Fair of France, translated the work of Moses -Maimonides on poisons for Clement V, the predecessor of John XXII, in -1307.[2933] But there is no evidence so far as I know to indicate that -Peter of Abano addressed his work on poisons to Clement V, although -chronologically it is possible. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2918] P. Giacosa, _Magistri Salernitani nondum editi_, 1901, p. 495. - -[2919] Addit. 37079, 15th century, fols. 83r-131v, “Pollex incipit -de venenis editus a petro de abano peritissimo pad. Sanctissimo ac -Reverendissimo in Christo domino Domino Johanni divi providentia pape -et summo pontifici.” Some later hand, presumably Protestant, has drawn -a line through the words _pape_ and _summo_. - -Amplon. Q. 222, mid 14th century, fols. 227-37, “Reverendissimo in -Christo patri Iohanni divina providentia summo pontifici.” - -Riccard. 1177, 15th century, fols. 7-13, is said to be written at the -request of Pope John. - -[2920] Bibl. Naz. Turin H-II-16, 15th century, fols. 111-115v, “Incipit -tractatus de venenis et eorum medicinis appropriatis transmissis summo -pontifici Joh. XXII.” “Explicit tractatus de venenis et eorum medicinis -appropriatis qui pollox (_sic_) venenorum appellatur. Compillatus ab -egregio artium et medicine doctore petro de ebano et temporis decano -studii montisspessulani directus sanctissimo in Xo patri et domino -domino Johanni divina providentia pape XXII. Deo gratias amen.” I -take this description of the MS from Giacosa (1901), p. 495. The MS -was somewhat damaged in the fire of 1904 and in the description of -it in the catalogue of MSS which survived the fire, published in the -same year, Abano’s treatise is not mentioned: “Marsilia Sancta Sophia -Receptae super prima quarti Avicennae De febribus; et alia.” - -Canon. Misc. 46, 15th century, fols. 31-47r, described by Coxe as, -“Eiusdem Petri libellus de venenis ad Johannem Papam XXII,” but the -pope’s name does not appear in the MS itself. - -[2921] Scardeone (1560), p. 201. - -[2922] Mazzuchelli (1741), p. xlii. - -[2923] In the fourth chapter or fifth, if, as in most printed editions, -the preface is reckoned as chapter one. - -[2924] “Et ego quandoque sum expertus et avenzoar hec invenit ut in -libro translato Papae Bonifacio scriptum est.” Once in an edition of -1555 the pope’s name appears in full, but more often is abbreviated to -“pape Bon.,” as in the 1521 edition, or “pape Bo.” as in the earliest -editions. - -[2925] Addit. 37079, 15th century, fol. 102r, “et avenzoar hec invenit -ut in libro populo romano.” It is easy to see, however, how the Latin -abbreviations for _Papa Bonifacius_ and _populus Romanus_ might be -confused by a copyist. Unfortunately I have not been able to trace this -point further in other MSS. - -[2926] _Liber Theizir Dahalmodana Vahaltadabir_, II, i, 5 (Venice, -1553), for the passage cited on the emerald. There are also editions -before 1500. - -[2927] Can this be meant for Petrus Paduanus himself? - -[2928] BN 6948, fols. 1-102: see the extracts made from its -preface and Explicit by Delisle at the request of Otto Hartwig, -in the latter’s _Die Uebersetzungsliteratur Unteritaliens in der -normannisch-staufischen Epoche_, in _Centralblatt f. Bibliothekwesen_, -III (1886), pp. 188-9. - -[2929] _Ibid._, p. 187. - -[2930] It is somewhat of a coincidence that Petrus Hispanus was -archbishop of Braga before he became Pope John XXI. - -[2931] Hartwig (1886), p. 188, “sanctissimi patris domine pape B. VIII.” - -[2932] See Chapter 68, p. 845, note 2. - -[2933] Peterhouse 101, 13-14th century, No. III, fol. 6r, “Expl. lib. -Rabynoisis cordubensis translatus barthinone a mag. hermengaldo blasii -in honorem reverentissimi summi pontificis Clementis quinto (_sic_) -anno ab incarnacione verbi 1307.” - - - - -APPENDIX VIII - -PETER AND THE INQUISITION - - -[Sidenote: His own statement in the _Conciliator_.] - -The relations of Peter of Abano with the church and the Inquisition -and the question whether he was accused, tried, or condemned for -heresy, magic, or astrology, are matters which have seldom been either -carefully investigated or correctly stated, although allusions are -often made to these points as if they were definitely settled. We shall -inquire here what real evidence there is. In the _Conciliator_, written -in 1303, occurs a germane statement by Peter himself at the close of -a chapter in which he has discussed the determination of periods in -history and the rise of new prophets and religions by the courses of -the stars, and the connection of seven angelic intelligences with the -seven planets. After this somewhat bold indulgence in astrology Peter -concludes, “So much then has been said as can be comprehended by reason -concerning this according to the skill of the world’s scholars, in no -way derogating from divine wisdom in what has been written but rather -confirming it in all points since it alone is truth and life. In this -matter, however, some mischief-makers, unwilling or rather unable to -hear, for a long time have freely vexed me, from whose hands at last -the said Truth has laudably snatched me and mine, with the intervention -too of an apostolic mandate.”[2934] Before 1303, therefore, Peter’s -astrology had aroused considerable opposition, perhaps at Paris, which -however was checked at least for the time being by papal protection, -and to which Peter does not so far as I know allude again in his -subsequent works. - -[Sidenote: His professions of orthodoxy.] - -In many passages of his works, however, Peter recognizes that the -Peripatetic philosophy and Christian dogma do not agree, and, while -stating the philosophical position, gives his adhesion to the orthodox -Faith.[2935] In the preface to the _Conciliator_ he states that the -work is divided into three parts in honor of the Trinity. In the -_Addition to Mesuë_ he argues that trust in God is of avail in the art -of medicine. Pious phralses such as _Si deo placet_ and _Deo gratias_ -occur with fair frequency in his works. Finally, in his will of 1315, -or rather in a statement made the day before the will was drawn up, he -makes profession of firm faith in the Trinity, Creed, and articles of -faith, and declares that he believes “in all respects just as Holy -Mother Church believes and teaches,” and that he has always so believed -and will until his last breath. “And if it should be found that he has -ever said anything contrary to the Faith, he said it not because he -believed it, but probably for purposes of disputation.”[2936] - -[Sidenote: Does his will show fear of the Inquisition?] - -There is perhaps no sufficient reason for doubting the sincerity and -spontaneity of these professions of faith, but the question arises -whether Peter did not make this confession of faith in order to -demonstrate that he was no heretic and so secure the validity of the -will which he made on the day following. This would be a prudent step -on his part if he had any fear of future action by the Inquisition, -since the property of a heretic who was condemned to life imprisonment -or to the stake was subject to confiscation. Moreover, the number of -judgments of confiscation against deceased persons was “relatively -high.”[2937] We now turn to the will itself to inquire if there is -anything in it to suggest fear of the Inquisition on Peter’s part. -The most, if not the only, extraordinary feature of the will is the -attitude shown by Peter toward his sons. We have seen that three -survived him and were concerned in legal transactions in 1318 and 1321. -There is, however, only one or at most two mentions[2938] of them in -the will. After a list of legacies for various purposes and to various -persons, including his nephews and grandnieces, and the bequest of -two thousand pounds of back salary to the Commune of Padua, the will -continues, “Also he has commended himself, his sons, and his property -to the Commune and men of the city of Padua as if it were the tutelage -and infallible defense of their own sons and property.” Then he names -the executors of his will (_suos fideicommissarios_) and as his heirs -_Jacobum qu. domini Marsilii de Carrara de Padua_ and _Conradum qu. -domini Bonzanelli da Viguntia_, whom he describes as “trustworthy men -and of eminent virtue and repute.” Jacobus became captain-general of -Padua in 1318. - -[Sidenote: Gloria’s inference.] - -From these passages Gloria concludes that Peter entrusts his body, his -children, and his property to the Commune of Padua in order to save -them from the Inquisition,--his body from being burned after his death, -his property from being confiscated; and that he names “two rich and -powerful citizens” as his heirs in order to enlist their aid and with -the secret understanding that they shall later transmit the residue -of his property, after his other legacies are paid, to his children. -It should, however, be realized that the confiscation of the property -of a heretic was absolute. “Forfeiture occurred _ipso facto_ as soon -as the crime of heresy was committed, the heretic could convey no -legal title and any assignments which he might have made were void, no -matter through how many hands the property might have passed.”[2939] -Whether, therefore, Peter’s sons received their inheritance directly -or indirectly, it could be taken from them, if he were condemned as -a heretic either before or after his death. On the other hand, there -is this to be said in favor of Gloria’s interpretation of the will. -If Peter’s property were confiscated as that of a heretic, it would -naturally be confiscated by the Commune of Padua, the same secular -power to whom he would be handed over for execution in case he were -condemned to the stake. By making a generous legacy to the city, -by appealing to it for protection of himself and children, and by -naming leading citizens as his heirs, Peter may have hoped to enlist -public opinion on his side, to prevent any Paduan from accusing him -of heresy to the Inquisition or supporting such a charge, or, in case -the Inquisition does condemn him and the city government of Padua does -confiscate his property, to induce the Commune at least to provide -for his children. And certainly the sentence in which Peter entrusts -himself, his children, and his goods to the infallible defense of the -Commune of Padua does not sound as if he meant to disinherit his sons -in favor of other heirs. - -[Sidenote: Did Peter’s sons inherit his property?] - -The next question is: what evidence is there to show that the sons ever -received their father’s property, if this was his intention? Gloria -holds that Peter’s sons are called his heirs in documents recording -legal transactions of 1318 and 1321, that consequently he meant them -to be his real heirs when he drew up his will in 1315, and that the -nominal heirs, true to their trust, have duly turned over the estate -after the funeral expenses and other legacies have been met. If this -last assumption is true and if Peter’s sons are in 1318 openly called -his heirs, whereas in 1315 he did not dare to call them his heirs, it -would appear probable either that there has been in the interval a -trial for heresy and that Peter has been acquitted, or that there has -been no trial and is not likely to be one. But I am not so sure that -the documents mentioned describe Peter’s sons as _his_ heirs.[2940] - -[Sidenote: If so, how?] - -If, however, they are openly called his heirs in 1318, or if, whether -called his heirs or not, they are in possession of his property after -his death, there are other possible explanations of this than that -the heirs named in his will of 1315 have voluntarily turned over the -estate to them. Either the will may have been set aside for other -reasons--it will be noted that at its close Peter states, “if it is -not valid by the law of testaments, let it have force and hold by -the law of codicils or any other law by which it may the better and -more efficaciously have force and hold good.”[2941] Or the will may -have been annulled by the sons, angry at being disinherited, having -themselves informed against their father as a heretic. For note the one -exception to the law that the confiscation of the property of a heretic -is absolute even at the expense of his innocent widow and children. -“Frederick II and Innocent IV both decreed that children could inherit -their father’s property, if they denounced him for heresy.”[2942] But -this sensational possibility[2943] seems to be excluded by another -bit of evidence which Gloria did not note but which supports his -interpretation of the will. In 1325 Marsilius de Carrara, nephew of the -Jacobus named as one of Peter of Abano’s heirs and almost as prominent -as his uncle in the town politics, was knocked off his horse and -trodden under foot in a street fight in Padua, and was in danger of his -life, but was helped to his feet by “Benvenutus of Abano, son of master -Peter, and others of his men.”[2944] Thus whatever disposition was -made of Peter’s property, his nominal heirs and his sons seem to have -remained on good terms. - -[Sidenote: Burning of Peter’s bones for heresy.] - -If Peter’s children were provided for, there is evidence that the men -of Padua were not equally successful in protecting his corpse from the -Inquisition. Thomas of Strasburg, Prior-General of the Augustinian -Friars from 1345 to 1357, in his _Commentary on the Sentences_[2945] -calls Peter a heretic, although he admits that he was a most capable -physician. Thomas affirms that Peter denied the miracles by which -Christ and the saints raised the dead, arguing that men who were -afflicted by a certain disease often fell into a trance for three -complete revolutions of the sky. And when asked if Lazarus was not in -the tomb four days, he would say that it was only for three full days -since the first and fourth days were incomplete. Thomas does not affirm -that Peter ventured to deny the resurrection of Christ Himself, but -concludes his allusion to Peter by saying, “But in this his iniquity he -was deceived and received the reward of his error. For I was present -when in the city of Padua his bones were burned for these and his other -errors.” The inference which has been drawn from this brief statement -is that at some time after Peter’s death his bones were disinterred and -burned. This much may perhaps be accepted as the fact, since Thomas -asserts he was an eye-witness, but such gossipy reminiscence as this by -medieval monks and friars, especially when heretics or saints are the -theme, is notoriously unreliable, as Salimbene and the astounding yarns -in Thomas of Cantimpré’s work on bees show in the thirteenth century. -At any rate Thomas of Strasburg gives no hint that the “other errors” -of Peter of Abano were connected with magic or astrology. Indeed Thomas -displays a considerable faith in astrology himself in other passages -of this work we have cited.[2946] He asserts that the sky itself has a -real action on inferior objects except for free will. Upon it the stars -cannot act directly but they may affect it indirectly owing to the -radical union in us of sense appetite and intellectual appetite. - -[Sidenote: The account of Michael Savonarola.] - -A century later Michael Savonarola supplements with further detail -the general impression of trouble between Peter and at least a certain -party in the church which we obtained from Abano’s own statement and -from Thomas of Strasburg, and suggests that Peter’s inclination toward -magic, or at least reputation for magic, led the Dominican inquisitor -to denounce him as a heretic at Paris and try to bring him to prison -and the flames. “But he was held in so great veneration by royal -majesty and the entire university that means were not supplied the -inquisitor to take him.” Savonarola goes on to say that, when Peter -learned of this, he induced the king and university to call a council -of doctors of Holy Scripture, whom he convinced by forty-five arguments -that not he but the Dominicans were heretics. “And after sentence had -been so given,” continues Savonarola, “if the story is to be believed, -it was brought about that the Dominicans were driven from Paris as -heretics and exiles and were unable to reside there for thirty-two -years.”[2947] But of course we do not believe any such story, which is -mentioned nowhere else, and therefore Savonarola’s entire account has -to be suspiciously regarded as “a story.” - -Savonarola proceeds to say, however, that then the case was appealed -to Rome and that by intervention of the pope peace was at last made -between Peter and the Dominicans; and that in his testament, “which is -held in great veneration by many Paduans,” Peter left his body to be -interred among the Dominicans as a sign to God and the world how he -had kept the peace with them. As a matter of fact, however, it is in -the church of St. Anthony the Confessor belonging to the Friars Minor -or Franciscans of Padua that Peter’s will directs he shall be buried, -while two Franciscans and no Dominicans are listed among the witnesses -to his confession of faith. Again therefore we find Savonarola’s -account unreliable. He concludes, “But the Dominican Inquisitor, full -of venom and breaking the truce to which he had sworn--an action the -more detestable in a clergyman, in the silence of the night opened -the sepulcher, burned the body, and gave the ashes to the wind. O -unspeakable crime!” - -[Sidenote: Scardeone’s account.] - -As we recede further from Peter of Abano’s own time to Scardeone in -the sixteenth century, more specific details concerning his life -accumulate. Scardeone perverts Savonarola’s statement that Peter’s -astrological predictions won him a reputation as a magician and that -this got him into trouble with the Dominicans at Paris, into the -assertion that Peter’s devotion to mathematical disciplines at Paris -caused him on his return to Padua to be suspected of magic. He adds -that a rival physician, Peter of Reggio, jealous of Abano’s science and -fame, reported him to the Inquisition as a heretic and necromancer. -That the Inquisition twice instituted proceedings against him: in 1306, -when three illustrious men, whom Scardeone mentions by name,[2948] were -his patrons and, since nothing was proved against him at the trial, he -was freed from this calumny; and again in 1315, when he died during the -trial--Scardeone, however, says nothing to suggest that this was due to -application of torture--and was buried in the church of St. Anthony. -The Inquisition, however, went on to condemn him upon the basis of -his writings, but meanwhile either his friends or his housekeeper -Marietta had removed and hidden his body, which the inquisitors had to -be content to burn in effigy. “This,” coolly continues Scardeone, “is -why Thomas of Strasburg wrote that he saw the bones of Peter of Abano -burned in the square of Padua.” Thus Scardeone not merely makes new -assertions based upon no one knows what, but contradicts statements -of Savonarola who was nearer to the events and Thomas of Strasburg -who claims to be an eye-witness. It is on Scardeone’s account, -nevertheless, that most modern allusions to Peter of Abano and his fate -are based. - -[Sidenote: Naudé’s statement.] - -It is hardly worth while to pursue the matter further in later writers -except perhaps to note an inscription upon a statue of Peter of Abano -in Padua which Naudé mentions in 1625.[2949] “Petrus Aponus of Padua, -most learned in philosophy and medicine, and on that account winner -of the name of Conciliator; in astrology indeed so skilled that he -incurred suspicion of magic, and, falsely accused of heresy, was -acquitted.” Thus only one trial is mentioned and that resulting in an -acquittal. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2934] _Conciliator_, Diff. 9. - -[2935] See, for instance, _Conciliator_, Diffs. 9, 13, 64, 135, 156. - -[2936] Verci (1787) VII, _Documenti_, 118-9. - -[2937] CE, “Inquisition.” - -[2938] The doubtful passage is, “_Item reliquit domine Marie quondam -Bartolomei a Sancto Gregorio de contrata Sancte Lucie de Padua libras -centum parvorum et pro quolibet anno libras vigintiquinque parvorum pro -suo labore dispensandi domum et pueros suos dum vixerit._” - -The question is, does Peter leave Maria one hundred petty pounds -outright and an annuity of twenty-five pounds “for her labor in -managing the house and her children as long as she lives,” or “for -(i.e., in return for) her labor in managing the house and his children -as long as she lives”? - -The words “_dum vixerit_” must mean “as long as she lives,” because -they are similarly used in the next sentence of another recipient of an -annuity. Could they mean, “while he (i.e., Peter) lived,” there would -be less difficulty in translating “_pueros suos_” as “his children.” - -Later legend (Scardeone, 1560, p. 201) stated that Peter had a -housekeeper named Marietta who saved his corpse from the Inquisition -by hiding it for a time. It is also possible that Maria was Peter’s -mistress as well as housekeeper, and that the “_pueros suos_” were -“their children.” - -[2939] H. C. Lea, _A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages_, I, -520. - -[2940] Again it is a question of the translation of a reflexive pronoun. - -In the passage, “_Benvenutus q. fil. mag. Petri fisici olim ser -Constancii de Abano pro se et vice Petri et Zifredi suorum fratrum q. -eiusd. d. Petri et suorum heredum vendidit_” (Gloria, p. 587), does -“_suorum heredum_” mean Peter’s heirs or, like “_suorum fratrum_,” -Benvenuto’s heirs? - -The other document of 1321, “... _in villa Abani coheret a mane -Benvenutus q. magistri Petri de Abano cum Petro et Zufredo fratribus -suis_,” shows that they have just inherited some property in Abano -together, but scarcely from their father who has been dead at least -three years according to the other document. - -[2941] Verci, VII, _Documenti_, p. 118, “et si non posset valere iure -testamenti valeat et teneat iure codicillorum vel quocumque alio iure -quo melius et efficacius valere et tenere possit.” - -[2942] E. Vacandard, _The Inquisition_, 1908, p. 246. - -[2943] It is also barely possible that Peter, in drawing up his will, -had planned to have his sons denounce him in order to inherit. - -[2944] _Chronicon Patavinum_, anno 1325, in Muratori, _Antiquitates_ -(1778) XII, 252. - -It is worth noting that the Chronicle is silent as to any heresy trial -or punishment of “master Peter.” - -[2945] _Thomae ab Argentina, Commentaria in IIII libros sententiarum, -Genuae_, 1585, Book IV, Distinctio 37 and 38, Article 4, which in this -edition is vol. II, fol. 171r. This passage has been incorrectly cited -by Colle and others, so that I had difficulty in finding it, especially -since it is buried under the heading, “De impedimento praecedentis -conjugii.” - -[2946] Liber II, Dist. 14, Quaestio I and Artic. III. - -[2947] Perhaps Savonarola uses the word “Dominicans” here merely in the -sense of inquisitors. - -[2948] One of them, Jacopo Alvarotto, was one of the witnesses to -Peter’s profession of faith in 1315 and one of the executors named in -his will. - -[2949] _Apologie_, pp. 386-7. Eighty-two statues of “illustrious -Paduans and university men” still adorn the Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II -(formerly the Prato della Valle) at Padua. - - - - -CHAPTER LXXI - -CECCO D’ASCOLI - - - Reasons for his celebrity--An astrologer burned by the - Inquisition--Works by Cecco to be considered here--Other - sources--The sentence by the Inquisition--Villani’s - account--The later manuscripts--Astrology for cities--The - fate of individuals--Influence of stars and signs--How mind - and soul are affected--The stars and dreams--Astrological - images--Did Cecco deny human free will?--Founders of - new religions said to be born of incubi and succubi at - astrological periods--Birth of Christ and darkness during - His passion were both miraculous--Christian qualification of - Albumasar--Cecco’s astrology not the most extreme--Charge - that he taught astrological necromancy--His attitude - toward magic--His frequent citation of books of magic and - necromancy--Necromancy employs evil spirits--Cecco unduly - curious rather than heretical in this regard--Was his - death due to personal enemies?--His execution of little - significance. - - -[Sidenote: Reasons for his celebrity.] - -The name of Cecco d’Ascoli has perhaps received more attention and is -better known than the writings and actual achievements of its owner -deserve. If so, this is mainly for two reasons; first, that his poem -_l’Acerba_ has been associated with the study of Dante; second, that he -was condemned by the Inquisition and burned at the stake in Florence in -1327. Doubtless Cecco should receive some attention in the histories -both of literature and science as one who was both an Italian poet -and a Latin teacher and writer of astronomy and astrology. But his -works and personality would perhaps have been long since forgotten -but for the fact that his learned poem, _l’Acerba_, was taken to be -an invidious parody of Dante’s _Divine Comedy_, and that both it and -his astrological work in Latin were ordered to be burned at the same -time with himself, while all persons retaining copies of them were to -be excommunicated. Recently, it is true, it has been held that Cecco -imitated Dante out of admiration for him and not from any desire -to cast aspersion upon the _Divine Comedy_,[2950] but in any case -their names have long been coupled. As for the condemnation by the -Inquisition, its chief effect seems to have been to raise a rather -ordinary astrologer to the position of a martyr for science and a -reproach to the medieval church. Many apologies for and eulogies of -Cecco have been penned through the centuries since, while a few writers -have tried to justify the action of the Inquisition, to discredit -Cecco, and to question his scientific reputation.[2951] Certainly the -condemnation by the Inquisition seems to have advertised rather than -repressed his writings, since not only has the poem _l’Acerba_ survived -but also two works on astrology. Of these three the two that the -Inquisition probably meant to forbid were both in print before 1500 and -the Protestant Revolt. The third, which the Inquisitors seem to have -overlooked, was also neglected by publishers until the present century. - -[Sidenote: An astrologer burned by the Inquisition.] - -Hitherto in our survey of medieval learning, more particularly of the -twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we have found little or no evidence -in support of the old view, or rather assumption, that every medieval -scientist was persecuted by the church. Signs of a theological party -hostile to the growing interest in natural science we have seen, but -much more evidence of this growing interest itself, and that too among -bishops, friars, Franciscan as well as Dominican, and even popes. We -have seen that the scientific attitude of William of Conches prevailed -in the long run, that it is very doubtful if Roger Bacon was in any -sense persecuted by the church for devotion to natural science, -and that Peter of Abano did not have to die in order to escape the -Inquisition but that it had to wait until after his death before it -could do him any harm. But now in Cecco d’Ascoli we come at last, and -it is not until the fourteenth century, to a well authenticated case of -an astrologer of some learning being put to death through the agency -of the Inquisition. This makes his writings the more important for us -to note, although we do not find their contents such as to entitle him -to any high rank as a natural scientist. - -[Sidenote: Works by Cecco to be considered here.] - -It is hard to see any reason for the condemnation of _l’Acerba_ by the -Inquisition except that it was written by Cecco. Its superstition is so -slight as not to call for notice here, nor is its natural science more -remarkable than that of other vernacular poems such as the _Romance -of the Rose_. Our discussion will center about his two extant Latin -works which are in the form of commentaries upon the _Sphere_ of -Sacrobosco[2952] and the _Principia_ of Alcabitius.[2953] Both seem to -be in the form of class-room lectures and were presumably delivered -by Cecco at Bologna. As we shall see, it is reasonably certain that -the Latin work condemned by the Inquisition was the commentary on the -Sphere and not that on Alcabitius, although why the latter should be -overlooked when the innocuous _l’Acerba_ was condemned is difficult -to explain except by the usual ignorance and stupidity of censors and -persecutors. It is unlikely that either of the Latin works has been -altered from Cecco’s original either by himself or others in order to -render it less objectionable from the theological point of view, after -the Inquisition had condemned his book on astrology _in toto_. It would -be more likely if anything to be touched up in the other direction. In -any case these two works are what we have from Cecco’s pen to show what -were the views of an astrologer condemned by the Inquisition. - -[Sidenote: Other sources.] - -We have, it is true, some documentary evidence other than Cecco’s own -works to show what his views were and why he was condemned by the -Inquisition, but it is not very satisfactory. Boffito, who in recent -times has made the most specialized study of Cecco d’Ascoli and his -works, editing the commentary on Alcabitius hitherto unprinted and -investigating the problem, “Why was the astrologer Cecco d’Ascoli -condemned to be burned?”[2954] accepts outside of Cecco’s own writings -only two sources as at all original and reliable, namely, the account -in Giovanni Villani’s contemporary chronicle[2955] and a Latin -manuscript in the Riccardian library at Florence[2956] which contains a -summary of the inquisitorial sentence against Cecco. This manuscript is -on paper and I should say is certainly not earlier than the fifteenth -century. Boffito views with suspicion the longer sentence in Italian -which was reproduced by Cantù[2957] and made use of in Lea’s _History -of the Inquisition_,[2958] since it is not found earlier than in a -manuscript of the seventeenth century. - -[Sidenote: The sentence by the Inquisition.] - -According to the Riccardian manuscript Cecco’s astrology was the -reason, or at least the pretext, for his condemnation, but it does -not make clear just what was found objectionable in his astrological -teaching. It brings out further, however, that he was not put to death -for a first offense but was burned at Florence as a relapsed heretic -on the ground that he had violated the terms of a previous sentence -imposed upon him by the inquisitor at Bologna. In 1324 the Bolognese -inquisitor had found Cecco guilty of improper utterances concerning -the Catholic Faith and had imposed upon him a penance of fifteen days -of confession, daily recital of thirty Paternosters and as many Ave -Marias, occasional fasting for a year, and the hearing every Sabbath -of a sermon by the friars. He furthermore took from Cecco “all his -astrological books, great and small,” forbade him ever again to teach -astrology at Bologna or elsewhere, publicly or privately, deprived him -indefinitely of his professorial chair and doctor’s degree, and fined -him seventy pounds Bolognese. Taken altogether, this sentence, while -it did not condemn Cecco to death, would seem to have deprived him -rather effectually of future means of livelihood. Three years later the -inquisitor at Florence received the account of the foregoing process -against Cecco at Bologna, summoned him before himself, pronounced him -a heretic, and handed him over to the secular arm to be burned at -the stake. This part of the sentence was duly executed by the ducal -_Vicarius_, Lord Jacob of Brescia. It was further decreed that Cecco’s -astrological book in Latin and his poem _l’Acerba_ in Italian should -be burned and that all persons retaining copies of them should be -excommunicated. - -[Sidenote: Villani’s account.] - -Villani adds a number of further details. He states that it was the -_Commentary on the Sphere_ which had caused Cecco’s condemnation at -Bologna, that he had been forbidden to make further use of it, and -that at Florence it was charged that he had violated this prohibition. -But Cecco denied this and attributed his arrest at Florence to the -hostility of a Friar Minor who was both bishop of Aversa and chancellor -to Charles of Calabria, who was at that time duke of Florence and whose -astrologer Cecco seems to have become after leaving Bologna. In this -new position, Villani says, Cecco had made many true predictions of -political events, but although a great astrologer he was a vain man and -of worldly life. The friar-bishop-chancellor regarded Cecco’s presence -at Florence as court astrologer as an abomination. Villani, however, -like Cecco himself, does not appear to regard his practicing astrology -at Florence as necessarily a violation of the decree of the inquisitor -at Bologna; but if the Riccardian manuscript correctly reproduces the -Bologna sentence, Cecco would certainly seem to have violated it. -Villani volunteers more information than the Riccardian manuscript as -to the respects in which Cecco’s teaching or practice of astrology -was found objectionable. He makes the general assertion, which is too -vague to be of much value, that Cecco was too bold in exercising his -science in things prohibited and untrue, “since the influence of the -stars does not constrain of necessity” nor against human free will and -divine prescience. Villani, indeed, perhaps added this qualification, -after having stated that Cecco made many true political predictions, in -order to save himself from possible censure. But he more specifically -states that Cecco ascribed the force of necessity to the stars; that -in his treatise on the _Sphere_ he asserted that there were evil -spirits generated in the sky who could be coerced by incantations under -certain constellations to perform many marvels; and that he taught -that Christ came to earth in accordance with the will of God and with -the principles of astrology, and ought from his nativity to live with -His disciples _come poltrone_ and to die the death that He did, while -Antichrist would come according to the courses of the planets in rich -raiment and power. Cecco also, Villani vaguely adds, taught “many other -idle things and contrary to the Faith.” - -[Sidenote: The later manuscripts.] - -The later manuscripts incorporate these charges of Villani in the -inquisitorial sentence against Cecco, using suspiciously similar -wording in the passage concerning Christ and Antichrist, and charging -that Cecco has taught his work on the _Sphere_ in the schools contrary -to his promise and oath. These manuscripts further assert that Cecco -has confessed to teaching publicly that men born under certain -constellations must necessarily be rich or poor or decapitated, that -God would not change the course of nature, and that in the fourth and -eighth sections[2959] of his _Commentary on the Sphere_ he said that -under certain constellations happy divine men would be born like Moses, -Hermes, Merlin, and Simon Magus. Like Villani the later manuscripts -mention Cecco’s political predictions at Florence and state that he -had prophesied concerning “the Bavarian.”[2960] They also mention -the stress laid by Cecco upon the importance of the constellations -that cities are founded under. Such of the statements of these late -manuscripts[2961] concerning Cecco’s astrological teachings as are not -found in Villani will be found to rest upon certain passages in his -own works or upon a misapprehension of them.[2962] They also mention -his _Commentary on Alcabitius_, whereas the older form of the sentence -condemns only one Latin book on astrology by him. Another suspicious -circumstance about the longer form of inquisitorial sentence preserved -in these late manuscripts is that the Inquisition is represented as -itself condemning Cecco to death[2963] instead of handing him over to -the secular arm. - -[Sidenote: Astrology for cities.] - -Let us next turn to Cecco’s two commentaries in Latin and see what -foundation there is in them for the astrological teachings ascribed to -him by Villani and the longer form of inquisitorial sentence preserved -only in very late and suspiciously worded manuscripts. It is true that -Cecco emphasizes the control exercised by the stars over the fate -of cities. The laying of the first stone of a city is a moment as -influential over all its future history as is the date of conception in -the case of an individual. Romans and Tuscans are so corrupt because of -the ascendancy of Venus over them, the Lombards are scientific through -the influence of Mercury.[2964] If cities are to endure, they should be -built under the fixed signs.[2965] It is best for a man to live in a -city with the same guiding star as his own planet.[2966] - -[Sidenote: The fate of individuals.] - -In the notes which I took on the astrological statements in Cecco’s -commentaries there seems to be no single direct assertion that -under certain constellations men _must necessarily_ be rich or poor -or decapitated. Cecco does tell his students, however, “You ought -to know another thing, that when Jupiter is in the signs of Mars, -forsooth Aries or Scorpion, the person born will be bound with the -girdle of poverty, infamous, and injured by the powerful.”[2967] The -word “decapitated” perhaps is reminiscent of an anecdote which Cecco -tells in discussing the fulfilment of dreams and their dependence on -the constellations. A certain malefactor went to a meadow with his -associates with a scythe to cut down grass and saw beetles rolling up -dung in the road. This reminded him of a dream which he had had the -night before that these beetles would decapitate him, and he started -in to kill them. But as he struck at them with the handle of the -scythe, the blade which was over his own neck cut off his head. “And -the moon was in Taurus in conjunction with the fixed star which is -called Aldebaran; such is the story told me by my master whom may God -pardon.”[2968] This conjunction, however, would seem to have been that -prevailing when the malefactor had his dream and not the constellation -under which he was born. Cecco in another passage, however, not only -cites Zael to the effect that a horoscope when Mars is lord of the -ascendant and in a favorable angle of the sky bestows power and dignity -along with impiety and the greatest cruelty, and, unless he is regarded -by some favorable planet, will cause the possessor of the horoscope -to lose his power soon; but Cecco also adduces the recent tyrant of -Ascoli, John Venibene, as a specific example who ruled for three years -very cruelly and then was expelled and died abroad.[2969] In the case, -on the other hand, of a constellation under which are born lords of the -whole earth, such as emperors, kings, and princes, Cecco warns that the -sons born to peasants in this constellation will not become kings but -simply leaders among men of their class, “since the intractability of -the material weakens the celestial force” and “the vices and virtues -of the parents are transmitted to their heirs.”[2970] Elsewhere he -states that certain planets called superior are especially appropriated -to kings, nobles, and magistrates, while the inferior planets signify -concerning the populace.[2971] - -[Sidenote: Influence of stars and signs.] - -Cecco grants that the celestial bodies are inanimate but holds that -by virtue of their substances and the mediation of the intelligences -moving them they “have properties in different parts of the sky in -which they are said to rejoice and sadden effectively in us, that is, -by disposing us to good and to evil.”[2972] Cecco believes that each -herb has its appropriate planet and sign, and that doctors should be -careful to note the positions of planets in administering herbs.[2973] -The parts of the human body and regions of the globe he also parcels -out among the signs.[2974] In connection with the common topic of the -influence of the stars upon the formation of the child in the womb he -makes the less common observation that sometimes the influence of the -stars is too strong, as is seen in the case of infants who talk when -only two months old or have marvelous discretion beyond their years--or -rather, months--and die young.[2975] - -[Sidenote: How mind and soul are affected] - -The heavens influence the human mind as well as body, therefore. -The stars alter the elements, through these our bodies, and through -these our souls.[2976] Certain signs of the zodiac are called human -or rational “because they dispose man to reason” and “he will possess -eloquence mingled with reason.” A person who is born under one of the -vicious and tortuous signs, namely, the ram, crab, bull, scorpion, and -goat, will have a tortuous and vicious disposition, plotting evil and -detracting from others, such a person as the physician Gualfridinus, by -which name, as Boffito has already suggested, Dino del Garbo, the noted -medical writer of Florence, is probably indicated. When the moon is in -one of the common signs, Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, or Pisces, persons -who make advances to you are liable to prove fraudulent; marriages -contracted then are liable to be dissolved; if one escapes from prison, -it will be only to be retaken; but if one is accused of some crime, he -will soon be acquitted; and so on. In some signs secrets will be kept, -in others immediately revealed. When the moon is in the first _facies_ -of Scorpion, all news reports are false.[2977] The influence of the -stars explains the puzzling fact, concerning which his fellow-townsmen -of Ascoli have often questioned Cecco, why a man will choose a -silly girl of low birth as his wife rather than another who is more -beautiful, noble, and intelligent. The answer is that when the stars of -two persons come into certain positions relative to each other, love -which cannot be dissolved except by death results, regardless of beauty -and social rank.[2978] - -[Sidenote: The stars and dreams.] - -Cecco also ascribes the prophetic quality of dreams to astrological -influence, which permits the union of the soul of the dreamer with -the superior intelligences or spirits of the sky. Such revelation is, -however, impressed upon the soul of the dreamer “under some similitude -or figure.” Dreams come true when the moon is in the fixed signs, -Taurus, Leo, Aquarius, and Scorpio; when the moon is in the common -signs, dreams are partly true and partly false. The length of time to -elapse before the dream is fulfilled can also often be determined. -Cecco says that “minds ill-constituted and false and homicidal do not -have true dreams because they are indisposed to receive the action -of the intelligences.” Robbers and homicides may, however, have true -dreams prophetic of their own deaths as in the tale of the malefactor, -the beetles, and the scythe already recounted, and in the case of a -native of Ascoli whom Cecco knew personally and “who was named Angelus -and consequently was a devil.” Dreaming when the moon was in Leo that -he would be hanged in Roman territory, he became so frightened that he -turned friar, but after two years was dismissed from the Order, went to -Viterbo, robbed a man, and was there hanged for it.[2979] - -[Sidenote: Astrological images.] - -Cecco alludes to astrological images twice in his commentary on the -_De principiis_ of Alcabitius. To illustrate how images work which are -made as love charms, or to gain honor, and the like, he states that if -an image for purposes of love is made in the hour of Venus when that -planet is in Pisces or in Taurus, as the tin is poured out it acquires -under the moulding influence of that constellation the due proportion -of the elements essential to produce the desired property.[2980] Later -Cecco tells us of an image which Vergil made at Naples to drive away -flies. When the second _facies_ of Aquarius is in the ascendant an -image of a fly should be engraved on the stone in a ring.[2981] In -his _Commentary on the Sphere_ Cecco even goes so far as to tell how -to construct an astronomical image which will enable one to receive -responses from demons.[2982] - -[Sidenote: Did Cecco deny human free will?] - -Returning to the charges made against Cecco’s astrological teaching by -Villani and the later manuscripts, especially the assertion that he -ascribed necessity to the stars, we have to note that, although many of -the astrological teachings just listed may seem to ascribe something -closely approaching to necessity to the stars, nevertheless Cecco -expressly asserted that he believed in freedom of the will. Many of the -statements from his commentaries which we have thus far presented are -cited by him from Ptolemy, Hermes, Zaël and other astrological writers, -and perhaps are not always to be taken as his own opinion, especially -when he quotes Hermes as saying, “The heavens are the cause of moral -virtues and of all.”[2983] At any rate he now informs his students -that according to “our and the true Faith” the circle of the zodiac, -“though it may be the cause of life, yet is not the cause of our will -or intellect except as a tendency (_nisi dispositive_), and so I hold -and truly believe, although other astrologers hold the contrary, saying -that all things which are generated and corrupted and renovated in -the inferior world of generation and corruption have efficient causes -in the superior world which is ungenerated and incorruptible.... That -argument I will overthrow in my glosses to the _Centiloquium_”[2984]--a -work by Cecco which seems to have been lost or never completed. - -[Sidenote: Founders of new religions said to be born of incubi and -succubi at astrological periods.] - -The charge that in his _Commentary on the Sphere_ Cecco said that -under certain constellations happy divine men would be born like -Moses, Hermes, Merlin, and Simon Magus, and that Christ and -Antichrist were alike under the rule of the stars, appears from the -text of the Commentary as it has reached us to be an unjust one. -Cecco, it is true, quotes Hipparchus in the book on hierarchies of -spirits to the effect that in the _coluri_, or circles whose purpose -according to Sacrobosco is to distinguish the solstice and equinox, -there are incubi and succubi by whose virtue there are born in a -major conjunction as if from the deity men who seem divine and who -establish religions in the world and work miracles. Such a man was -Merlin and such an one will be Antichrist who will be conceived by a -virgin and work many miracles.[2985] Of Antichrist Cecco promises to -say more at the close of his lecture and he there quotes a treatise -by Zoroaster on quarter-revolutions of the eighth sphere. According -to this Pseudo-Zoroaster, whenever the eighth sphere completes one -quarter of a revolution, which happens once in twelve thousand years, -there are born by the virtue of incubi and succubi men supported by -divinity who introduce new religions and by whose death even the -heaven is perturbed. At the end of twelve thousand years the Mosaic -law was terminated thus by the Christian religion, and “ours would -be terminated in this way by Antichrist.”[2986] But Cecco does not -necessarily subscribe to these statements of Hipparchus and Zoroaster. -Indeed he has already declared the art of the latter contrary to the -Christian faith and he now continues, “Whence that beast Zoroaster and -some following him say that Christ was born under the dominion of those -quarter-revolutions from the virtue of incubi and succubi, of whom I -have spoken to you above, but it seems horrible to me even to write -such words.”[2987] - -[Sidenote: Birth of Christ and darkness during His passion were both -miraculous.] - -Cecco goes on to affirm that “Christ our Lord” was the true son of -God who came into the glorious Virgin and was not made by the nature -of the celestial bodies. That He rather was the Maker of celestial -natures many things show us. One is that the Magi, who were superior -astrologers and acquainted with the secrets of universal nature, adored -him as king and son of God, seeing this in the star which appeared to -them with the figure of a crowned child beneath it.[2988] Cecco also -argues that the period of darkness during Christ’s passion was a true -miracle and not due to a natural eclipse, nor to the interposition of a -comet called Milex, nor to the occult virtue of the stone heliotrope. -The comet Milex is supposed to presage religious change and injury to -kings and potentates, but Cecco argues that its interposition would -not cut off the sun’s light and further that it is not found at the -altitude necessary to interpose. The stone heliotrope is green with -blood-colored drops, and when it is placed in a shell full of water in -the rays of the sun, vapors arise from it which obscure the horizon -in that city. Cecco does not dispute this occult virtue in the gem, -which is commonly called “orfanella” and which renders a man invisible -by affecting the eyes of others. But he argues that the eclipse -during Christ’s passion was universal and not confined to the city of -Jerusalem. Some say that an interposition of Venus and Mercury caused -the darkness, but Cecco affirms that this would be astronomically -impossible and in itself a miracle and subversion of natural order. -Cecco, however, adds that while miraculous, the eclipse was also in a -sense natural, since God is the First and Universal Cause and can alter -the heavens which are a secondary universal cause.[2989] - -[Sidenote: Christian qualification of Albumasar.] - -Cecco also pretends that where Albumasar speaks of _creatio_ as the -work of the stars, he must really mean _generatio_, since the act -of creation pertains to God alone, although generation is under the -stars.[2990] As for Albumasar’s aphorism, “If anyone asks anything -of God when the head of the dragon is in conjunction with Jupiter -and the moon in mid-sky, his prayer will be fulfilled”--which Peter -of Abano said he had tested twice with success; Cecco declares that -it is not proper to interpret this as meaning that prayers to God -will be infallibly answered in certain constellations, but that the -word _deus_ is to be taken here as indicating the king or other chief -magistrate in the state.[2991] Thus Cecco seems at considerable pains -to say nothing that might be offensive to the church, and he closes his -_Commentary on the Sphere_ with the statement that if in it or other -writings of his aught is found to criticize, he will gladly submit -it to the correction of the very holy Roman church. Possibly this -remark and others like it represent a revision of his works undertaken -after his first condemnation at Bologna. According to one of the late -manuscripts,[2992] Cecco, when summoned before the Inquisition at -Florence, claimed that his book had been corrected by the inquisitor of -Lombardy. This defense was not allowed, however, and the terms of the -sentence at Bologna would seem to preclude it. And since the sentence -given at Florence absolutely forbade anyone to possess the book, there -does not seem much reason why a revised rather than the original -version should survive. - -[Sidenote: Cecco’s astrology not the most extreme.] - -On the whole, then, it would be surprising if Cecco’s condemnation -were due merely or primarily to his astrological teachings. As -Tiraboschi[2993] noted nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, he -upholds human free will, though attributing to the stars a natural -inclination to vice or virtue, and holding other superstitions common -to the astrologers of his time. Tiraboschi also noted his submissive -tone to the church and was unable to see in the _Commentary on the -Sphere_ the errors which had been charged to Cecco’s account. More -than this, in a number of respects Cecco did not go as far as some of -his predecessors or subsequent writers. Christ and Antichrist had been -partially subjected to the stars by writers before him who do not seem -to have been assailed by the Inquisition for their views, and Pierre -d’Ailly, the great cardinal and reformer, went much farther in this -direction than Cecco in the next century. Peter of Abano had held views -concerning the influence of the constellations on the appearance of -new religions and on prayers to God which Cecco rejects. But all in -vain the concessions made to the Christian standpoint by Cecco at the -expense of astrological doctrine; of him alone we know surely that he -was condemned by the Inquisition, and he went to the stake. - -[Sidenote: Charge that he taught astrological necromancy.] - -We have not yet, however, discussed Villani’s charge that in his -_Commentary on the Sphere_ Cecco asserted that there were evil spirits -generated in the sky who could be coerced by incantations under certain -constellations to perform many marvels. Villani perhaps has reference -to the passage in which Cecco gives astronomical directions to be -followed by anyone who wishes to make an image by means of which he -may receive responses from spirits.[2994] There is indeed a good deal -of information concerning spirits in the heavens in Cecco’s commentary -on Sacrobosco’s manual, and he shows a wide acquaintance with books of -magic. We turn, therefore, from his astrology proper to his attitude to -magic and to astrological necromancy. - -[Sidenote: His attitude toward magic.] - -Cecco’s attitude to magic so-called is the usual one of condemnation. -He repeats that Zoroaster was “the first inventor of the magic art,” -and gives a classification of the magic arts almost identical with that -of Hugh of Saint Victor, but states that he derives it from the _Liber -de vinculo spiritus_ of Hipparchus, a book of necromancy. Cecco says -that magic is “emphatically censured by holy mother church,”[2995] and -he does not directly question or qualify this condemnation. He says -nothing of a natural magic which is harmless. His chief concern with -magic, as in the cases of Michael Scot and Peter of Abano, seems to be -to distinguish astrology from it as a reputable science, and to hold -that one can learn of the future better as well as more legitimately by -astrology. - -[Sidenote: His frequent citation of books of magic and necromancy.] - -The fact, however, that the church disapproves of magic and -“vituperates” it, does not restrain Cecco from frequent citation of -books of magic, such as the _Liber artis magicae_ of Apollonius,[2996] -nor from retailing to his students much information concerning -spirits in the sky and necromancy. Thus when Sacrobosco mentions the -four points of the compass, Cecco is reminded of a statement in the -_Liber de ordine intelligentiarum_ of Hipparchus that certain princes -of the demons “occupy the four parts beneath the sky. For expelled -from heaven, they occupy the air and the four elements.”[2997] When -Sacrobosco speaks of the zenith and poles in a purely astronomical -way, Cecco again quotes Hipparchus as saying, “O wonderful zenith and -godlike nature,”[2998] etc., after the manner of an invocation, and -Solomon in the _Liber de umbris idearum_ as exclaiming, “O arctic -Manes! O antarctics propelled by divinity! Why do natures so great -and noble seem to be enclosed in mineral species?” This last remark, -Cecco explains, refers to the responses given by these spirits in -metal mirrors.[2999] When Sacrobosco treats of climates, Cecco -remarks that the word may be understood necromantically as well as -astronomically. Zoroaster, the inventor of the magic art, uses the -word in the necromantic sense when he says, “For those climates are -to be marveled at, which with flesh of corpses and human blood give -responses trustworthily.” “By this,” continues Cecco, “you should -understand those four spirits of great virtue who stand _in cruciatis -locis_, that is, in east, west, north, and south, whose names are -Oriens, Amaymon, Paymon, and Egim,[3000] spirits who are of the major -hierarchy and who have under them twenty-five legions of spirits each. -Therefore because of their noble nature these seek sacrifice from human -blood and likewise from the flesh of a dead man or cat.[3001] But this -Zoroastrian art cannot be carried on without great peril, fastings, -prayers, and all things which are contrary to our Faith.”[3002] - -[Sidenote: Necromancy employs evil spirits.] - -This last word of warning may seem a bit belated and perhaps somewhat -perfunctory, but shows Cecco still consistent in recognizing that -magic and necromancy are contrary to the Christian religion. In other -passages he calls these spirits demons and diabolical,[3003] and -affirms with Augustine that “spirits who are outside the order of -grace” cannot truly transmute bodies, nor raise the dead, nor do any -marvels and feats of magic except those which can be accounted for by -the occult virtues of nature.[3004] And in speaking of a demon named -Floron, who was mentioned by Solomon in the _Book of the Shadows of -Ideas_, who was of the hierarchy of cherubim, who was confined in a -steel mirror by a major invocation, who knew many secrets of nature, -and who deceived King Manfred and others by ambiguous oracles in -modern times,--Cecco concludes, “So beware of these demons because -their ultimate intention is to deceive Christians to the discredit of -our Lord Jesus Christ.” Cecco tells a story of a man of Ferrara who -consulted this demon Floron as to hidden treasure and was told that he -would find enough in a certain spot to last him for the rest of his -life. He dug in the cavern indicated and uncovered only four ounces -of gold, but as an avalanche crushed him immediately afterward, the -oracle was fulfilled.[3005] Yet on the next page we find Cecco giving -the instructions already mentioned for making an astronomical image -in order to obtain responses from a spirit. And several pages further -on he cites a response of this same Floron as to the time when demons -are least liable to deceive one and when as a consequence it is best -to consult them, and again as to the divinity of Christ, of whom this -demon Floron said, “He took upon Him human flesh that all flesh through -Him might be saved.”[3006] - -[Sidenote: Cecco unduly curious rather than heretical in this regard.] - -Thus, much of Cecco’s work seems less a commentary upon Sacrobosco’s -text than a manual of astrological necromancy. His citations from -the books of magic and necromancy well illustrate those relations -between astronomy, magic, and necromancy to which we have before -had allusions in the writings of Albertus Magnus and elsewhere. We -remember the distinction drawn in the _Speculum astronomiae_ between -commendable works of astronomy and injurious works of necromancy, -and we wonder if the cause of Cecco’s condemnation may not have been -that instead of sticking to the field of astrology he made these -dangerous excursions into the subject of necromancy. It might well be -held that he was leading his students into temptation by the numerous -references to demons, the magic art, and astrological necromancy in -his _Commentary on the Sphere_. At the same time it must be remembered -that such pillars of the Christian Faith and learning as William of -Auvergne and Albertus Magnus had read and cited books of magic and -necromancy. Cecco’s passages concerning astrological necromancy are -almost all quotations or citations from other authors. When he speaks -in his own name it is usually to declare magic and necromancy contrary -to Christianity and to censure the passages which he has just cited. -Moreover, the notion of hierarchies of spirits, of their presence in -sky and air and elements, of their power to work marvels,--all these -were orthodox enough Christian doctrines. And Cecco does not, like -William and Albert, hint at a natural variety of magic apart from -demons which is not idolatrous and unchristian. Of indiscreet curiosity -concerning such matters and undue mention of them he might be found -guilty, but scarcely of any direct heresy so far as his extant written -works are concerned. - -[Sidenote: Was Cecco’s death due to personal enemies?] - -If neither Cecco’s astrology nor his citation of books of magic -and necromancy seems sufficiently extreme to account alone for his -condemnation by the Inquisition, we may perhaps find the clue in the -hypothesis of personal enemies, which has already been more than -once advanced by writers on Cecco. That he would have made bitter -personal enemies one can well imagine from the sharp personalities -in which he indulges in his works. That such personalities were not -unwelcome to the taste of that time, however, is indicated by Dante’s -frequent allusions to the recent dead in his _Inferno_. Cecco with -less discretion directed his gibes against the living. Thus he states -that the head and tail of the dragon are the intersections of circles, -and not stars forming the shape of a dragon in the sky “as a certain -physician of ours of Ascoli (?) argued together with his mother who -was as big a fool as himself.”[3007] We have already mentioned Cecco’s -insulting words concerning the physician Gualfridinus, who seems -the same as Dino del Garbo. Now while Villani tells us that Cecco -attributed his arrest at Florence to the chancellor of the duke, in -the very next chapter, in mentioning the death of Master Dino del -Garbo, whom he calls a very celebrated physician and a man learned in -natural science and philosophy, who wrote “several noble books” at the -request of King Robert of Naples, Villani adds that Dino “was a great -cause of Cecco’s death, attacking as erroneous the book from which -he had lectured at Bologna; and many said that he did this through -envy.”[3008] Padre Appiani, a Jesuit who wrote an apology for Cecco in -the seventeenth century, attributed his persecution at Bologna to the -son, Tommaso del Garbo, and that at Florence to Dino.[3009] Tiraboschi -in the eighteenth century came to the conclusion that “envy had no -small part in the condemnation of this unhappy astrologer, and that -he would not have perished so wretchedly if he had not had powerful -enemies who conspired to his ruin.”[3010] Nothing is said by Villani -of Cecco’s having offended the duke of Florence, Charles of Calabria, -and so forfeited his favor and protection, but this would seem likely, -though of course it would account only for his second sentence at -Florence. - -[Sidenote: His execution of little significance.] - -The condemnation of Cecco, therefore, may be a good example of the -way in which the Inquisition could be manipulated for private ends, -but it does not seem a sign of any general attack by the church and -Inquisition on astrology or on learned men who showed an interest -in occult science. The charges repeated, or invented, against Cecco -by Villani and the late manuscripts are loose and exaggerated. Why -Cecco d’Ascoli was burned at the stake is a problem that has puzzled -more than one investigator, and none of the explanations offered is -entirely satisfactory. It is, however, fairly evident that the process -against Cecco was a failure as an attempt to check his teachings and -simply advertised him and his writings. It came late in the medieval -period and apparently was not soon repeated. Everything tends to -indicate that his execution was an exceptional and sensational, but not -especially significant event. The attitudes toward astrology of Thomas -Aquinas, whom the church canonized, and of Albertus Magnus, who was -beatified, are much more important and more characteristic of medieval -ecclesiastical culture. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[2950] G. Castelli, _La vita e le opere di Cecco d’Ascoli_, 1892, -chapter 12. - -[2951] For an account of this literature see Castelli’s opening -chapters. - -The important contributions of G. Boffito will be mentioned presently. -W. St. C. Baddeley, _Cecco d’Ascoli, Poet, Astrologer, Physician_, -1894, is a worthless popular essay. - -[2952] _Sphera Mundi cum tribus Commentis nuper editis videlicet -Cicchi Esculani, Francisci Capuani de Manfredonia, Iacobi Fabri -Stapulensis.... Impressum Venetiis per Simonem Papiensem dictum -Bivilaquam_, 1499. As the leaves are unnumbered in this edition, the -following references will follow the foliation of the 1518 edition, -_sphera cum commentis_, etc., which will be cited as _Sphera_. - -BN 7337, 15th century, pp. 32-41, _Caeci Aesculani super sphaeram_, -seems to contain only portions of Cecco’s commentary and to omit -Sacrobosco’s text entirely. - -[2953] _Il Commento di Cecco d’Ascoli all’ Alcabizzo_, edito a cura del -P. G. Boffito, 1905. This will be referred to as _Alcabizzo_. - -[2954] _Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto, Publicazione periodice -dell’ accademia di conferenza Storico-Giuridichi, Roma_, XX (1899), -357-82, “_Perchè fu condamnato al fuoco l’astrologo Cecco d’Ascoli?_” - -[2955] Muratori, _Scriptores_, tome 13, X, 39-40. - -[2956] Riccard. 673 (M-I-25), fol. 111r-v, “De magistro Cecco de asculo -quare combustus sit.” - -[2957] _Gli Eretici d’Italia_, Turin, 1865, I, 151. - -[2958] H. C. Lea, _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_, -III, 444. - -Lea’s sources for his account of Cecco would seem somewhat dubious from -his own description of them, since he says, “I owe many of the above -details to a sketch of Cecco’s life in a Florentine MS which I judge -from the handwriting to be of the seventeenth century and of which the -anonymous author appears to be well informed; also to a MS copy of the -elaborate sentence, much more full than the fragments given by Lami and -Cantù.” Lea supplied no further means of identifying these MSS, but -presumably he had reference to two of the following: - -Poppi 199, 18th century folio, _Vita e morte di Cecco d’Ascoli_. - -Panciatichiani 117, 18th century, p. 50--“_Abiura di Cecco d’Ascoli -e sua morte seguita in Firenze l’anno 1328, con altre notizie -appartenenti alla sua vita._” _Precede una nota sul padre Accursio -Buonfantini Inquisitore, che esaminò e condannò Cecco d’Ascoli_; pp. -51-9, _Esame e condanna di Cecco d’Ascoli_, “_Al nome de Dio amen. -Noi frate Accursio ... / ... Familiari e servitori dell’ Inquisizione -e molte altre persone_”; pp. 60-3, _Memorie della vita e morte di -Cecco d’Ascoli_, “_Nella città d’ascoli nella marca fu un artigiano -assai commodo ... / ... che troppo dalla credenzia della vera fede si -allontanano_”; pp. 63-4, _Altre notizie date dal Sig. A. M. Manni, -“Maestro Cecco fu cittadino ascolano, filosofo et astrologo ... / ... -delle Virtù delle Pietre, manoscritto del sig. Alessandro Cherubini._” - -Palat. 895, 17th century, carte 15, _Sentenzia contro a maestro Cecco -di maestro Simone degli Stabili da Ascoli, data in Firenze l’anno di -nostro Signore_ 1328, “_Noi frate Accursio di Firenze, dell’ ordine -de’ frati minori, per autorità appostolica Inquisitorre della eretica -malignità della prouincia de Toscana ... / ... come in Firenze è -pubblico è notorio per l’euidenza del fatto manifesto._” - -Castelli, p. 42, says that the number of copies of the sentence and -relation of the death of Cecco found in the libraries of Italy is -incredible, but he mentions only two. - -[2959] Cecco’s _Commentary_ is not divided into such sections in the -two editions and MS which I have seen. - -[2960] “_del Bavaro_”; the illusion is presumably to the emperor, Louis -of Bavaria. - -[2961] Listed above, p. 951, note 5. Panciatich. 117 is very similar to -Palat. 895, but the wording is not identical, and from fol. 56v on the -former omits much of the diffuse moralizing of the latter on how wicked -it is to pry into the future and to destroy faith in freedom of the -will, the basis of all morality (see Palat. 895, fol. 9r-v). - -[2962] Such as ascribing to Cecco views which he cites from other -authors only to condemn immediately. - -[2963] In Palat. 895, for instance, fol. 12v, “_Deliberarono condannare -alla morte il detto maestro Cecco_”; fol. 13v, “_lo condanniamo alla -morte come merita_.” - -[2964] _Sphera_, fol. 11; BN 7337, p. 33. Cecco also uses the -inhabitants of Ferrara and Bologna to illustrate his point. Each city -or state, however, has a triple influence exerted on it by the stars, -according to its climate, its province, and the moment of its building. -See also fol. 14. - -[2965] _Alcabizzo_, ed. Boffito (1905), pp. 31-2. - -[2966] _Ibid._, 53-4. - -[2967] _Ibid._, pp. 58-9. - -[2968] _Alcabizzo_, p. 31. - -[2969] _Sphera_, fol. 20; BN 7337, p. 37. - -[2970] _Alcabizzo_, pp. 9-10. - -[2971] _Sphera_, fol. 11. - -[2972] _Alcabizzo_, p. 20. - -[2973] _Ibid._, 23-4, 49-50. - -[2974] _Ibid._, 50. - -[2975] _Ibid._, p. 23. - -[2976] _Sphera_, fol. 7, “... elementa alterant complexiones, -complexionibus alteratis alterantur animae que in nobis sunt quia anime -consequuntur corpora ut dicit philosophus in principio sue physionomie.” - -[2977] _Alcabizzo_, pp. 32, 43, 46-8. - -[2978] _Alcabizzo_, pp. 34 and 36. - -[2979] _Ibid._, 29-31. - -[2980] _Alcabizzo_, p. 26. - -[2981] _Ibid._, p. 43. - -[2982] _Sphera_, fol. 18. - -[2983] _Ibid._, fol. 4; BN 7337, p. 32. - -[2984] _Ibid._, fol. 12. - -[2985] _Sphera_, fol. 14; BN 7337, p. 34. - -[2986] _Ibid._, fols. 22-23; BN 7337, p. 39. - -[2987] “Unde iste bestia zoroastes et aliqui eum sequentes dicunt quod -Christus fuit ortus in dominio istarum quartarum ex virtute incuborum -et succuborum de quibus supra dixi vobis quod horribile mihi videtur -scribere ista verba.” - -[2988] BN 7337, p. 39. - -[2989] _Sphera_, fol. 23. - -[2990] _Alcabizzo_, p. 49. - -[2991] _Alcabizzo_, p. 17. In the _Sphera_, fol. 22 (BN 7337, p. -38), he had promised to treat of this matter in the commentary on -Alcabitius’ _De principiis_. - -[2992] Palat. 895, 17th century, fols. 10v-11r. - -[2993] Tiraboschi (1775), V, 165. - -[2994] _Sphera_, fol. 18. - -[2995] _Ibid._, fol. 3, “a sancta matre ecclesia vituperabiliter -improbata.” - -[2996] Or _Liber de angelica factura_, (or perhaps _factione_) as it is -called in BN 7337, p. 35. - -[2997] _Sphera_, fol. 15; BN 7337, p. 34. - -[2998] _Sphera_, fol. 20. - -[2999] _Sphera_, fol. 17. - -[3000] In BN 7337, p. 37, these names are spelled, “Orion, Agimon, -pagimon, et egin.” - -[3001] “_vel gatti_” in the printed text; “_vel capti_” in BN 7337. - -[3002] _Sphera_, fol. 21. - -[3003] _Sphera_, fols. 17 and 22. - -[3004] _Sphera_, fol. 16. - -[3005] _Sphera_, fol. 17; BN 7337, p. 35. - -[3006] _Sphera_, fol. 22; BN 7337, p. 39. - -[3007] _Alcabizzo_, p. 16, “sicut silogizabit quidam noster medicus -exculanus cum matre sua fatua sicut ipse.” If the reading were “patre -suo fatuus,” one might be tempted to try to see in it a reference to -Dino del Garbo and his son, Tommaso del Garbo. - -[3008] Villani, X, 40. - -[3009] Cited by Castelli; I have not seen the work. - -[3010] Tiraboschi (1775), V, 165. - - - - -CHAPTER LXXII - -CONCLUSION - - - The end of our period--Science not stagnant during - it--Nor a mere handmaid of religion--The belief in - occult virtue--Dominance of astrology--Definition of - magic--Difficulty of reducing magic to one principle--Human - fondness for the fallacious--Utility is not magic’s - strongest appeal--The spirit of magic is not the scientific - spirit--Magic and experimental science--Science is a gradual - evolution, not a modern creation--Its medieval stage of - development--Does magic survive in modern learning?--Or in - other sides of present life?--Importance of the history of - experimental science--Prominence of magic in the history - of science--How the human mind works--Indestructibility of - thought. - - -[Sidenote: The end of our period.] - -Our survey of some thirteen centuries of thought draws to a close. -As has been said in discussing Peter of Abano, the period of the -medieval revival of learning, as of other phases of civilization, -seems to have spent its force by the close of the first quarter of the -fourteenth century. On the other hand, the works which we have studied -were reproduced again and again in manuscript form in the fourteenth -and fifteenth centuries and then in printed form in the fifteenth -and sixteenth centuries, as has been pointed out in many instances. -Some topics, like that of experimental books, we have traced on as -late as into the seventeenth century. In short, the conceptions whose -prevalence we have depicted in some detail for thirteen centuries of -thought continued to have weight for a long time thereafter. On the -occult and magical side, moreover, later writers like Henry Cornelius -Agrippa, Trithemius, or Cardan were to add little or nothing to -what had been often repeated before. In the field of experimental -science, on the other hand, a period of greater progress came later. -Gradually, too,--very gradually it would seem until almost our own -time--scepticism was to come to prevail among scientists as to the -possibility of magic in any of its forms in the world of nature. A -great task still awaits him who shall trace the slow rise of effective -scepticism through such writings against astrology as those of -Nicholas Oresme in the fourteenth, and Pico della Mirandola, who at -the same time believed in magic, in the fifteenth century, and in such -criticisms of pseudo-science in general as Sir Thomas Browne’s _History -of Vulgar Errors_ in the seventeenth century;[3011] and likewise the -gradual dislodgment of the conception of occult virtue and influence by -that of natural law through the disclosure of many of nature’s former -secrets by scientific instruments and research. - -[Sidenote: Science not stagnant during it.] - -However, the disclosure of such secrets had already begun when the -period of our investigation opened and it continued during our period -of thirteen centuries, which was no such age of retrogression or -stagnation as it has formerly been depicted. The ideas and discoveries -of Hellenic, not to say oriental, science persisted and were preserved -by medieval men to a greater extent than has been generally recognized; -and to them the medieval men added questions, observations, and even -discoveries of their own. Not only did curiosity concerning nature’s -secrets continue, but the authority of the ancients was often received -with scepticism; and a marked tendency runs through our period to -rely upon rationalism and experimental method. I have exposed the -_Physiologus_ myth, the _Florilegia_ myth, the legend of Roger Bacon as -a lone herald of modern experimental science, the notion that Vincent -of Beauvais adequately sums up all medieval science, and a number of -other modern “vulgar errors” concerning medieval learning. I have shown -that medieval men were wider readers than has often been thought, that -the scholastics presented their material in a more systematic way than -classical writers, that the Latin of the thirteenth century has a -clearer style and shows more direct thinking than the vernaculars of -the fifteenth century. Should we, moreover, go on to examine in detail -the writings of the early modern centuries, I suspect that we would -find them repeating the medieval authors just as these had repeated -the classical authorities. Gesner, for instance, in his _History of -Animals_, 1551-1587, copied Albertus Magnus as well as Aristotle. And -of the scientific notions with which the men of the sixteenth century -have been credited by their admirers many might be found on closer -scrutiny and comparison to date back to classical or medieval authors. - -[Sidenote: Nor a mere handmaid of religion.] - -Nor can I agree that natural science in the middle ages, as has been -said of medieval philosophy, was a mere handmaid of religion. Friar -Bacon pointed out, it is true, how experimental science might serve -the Church, but he also wished the Church to advance the study of -science. And in many ways the Church did so, while its opposition -to scientific research at that time has been grossly exaggerated. -It is true that the Biblical and Christian conception of a created -universe was generally accepted, but the Aristotelian and astrological -conception of the heavenly bodies as eternal and incorruptible was -scarcely less influential, and many writers held both conceptions, -however inconsistent this may seem to us. We have met with some extreme -instances of the religious point of view affecting the attitude -toward nature, notably the idea that human sin affects or even upsets -the course of nature; but we have also seen that the moralizing and -allegorizing supposed to characterize medieval nature-study have been -greatly over-estimated. For ancient pagans like Pliny and Seneca the -study of nature seems to have taken the place of religion in large -measure, but the introduction of Christianity did not result in the -discontinuance or estoppal of the study of nature, nor in its reduction -to a state of servitude. Medieval science was somewhat under the wing -of the Church, as were so many other activities now purely secular, but -science even in the middle ages was learning to use its own wings. Both -in Mohammedan and Christian society profane learning in general and -science in particular made progress, and the remains of Arabic science -would be much scantier than they are, were it not for the fact that -many works are preserved solely in Latin translations. - -[Sidenote: The belief in occult virtue.] - -But many secrets of nature still remained undiscovered in our period, -and hence it is not surprising that the conception of occult virtue -in nature, of occult influence exerted by animals, herbs, and gems, -or by stars and spirits, still prevailed to such an extent among -men of the highest scientific attainments then possible. How potent -this conception was, has been shown by the continued use of amulets, -of ligatures and suspensions, by the general belief in fascination, -physiognomy, number mysticism, and divination from dreams. Some still -countenanced the occult force of words, figures, characters, and -images, or of this and that rite, ceremonial, and form. Especially -surprising is the prevalence of lot-casting under the pseudo-scientific -form of geomancy. But others had begun to doubt the efficacy of -some or most of these things. Animism had pretty much had its day; -necromancy and the notory art received relatively little attention, -although the Church appears to have rather encouraged them by insisting -upon the existence and power of evil spirits. But even the fathers -and theologians made the point that demons work their marvels largely -through their superior knowledge of natural forces. Much more in -science and medicine have we seen the notion of spiritual force -displaced by that of occult natural virtue, and use made of natural -substances rather than of incantations. Some of our authors would -explain the results achieved by incantations entirely by the force -of suggestion. Of the later witchcraft delusion which overpowered -the learned as well as the populace we have found relatively few -harbingers. The discussion of sorcery and witchcraft has been less in -our medieval than in our ancient authors, and less among our scientists -than among our theologians. The subject has been broached chiefly in -connection with formal definitions of magic arts or the practical -problem of impotency after marriage. - -[Sidenote: Dominance of astrology.] - -We have also repeatedly seen magic itself becoming more scientific or -pseudo-scientific in method and appearance. This is well illustrated by -the fact that in our authors of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -astrology is the most widespread, as it is the most pseudo-scientific -of any variety of the magic arts. Indeed, it has ceased to be merely -one method of divination and claims to study and disclose the universal -law of nature in the rule of the stars, by which every fact in nature -and every occult influence in magic may be explained. If this doctrine -were true, all other sciences and magic arts would be reduced to -branches of the supreme science and art of astronomy or astrology. But -it is not true, and hence I prefer to classify astrology as a magic art -along with other arts of divination. And this brings us back to the -question of the definition of magic. - -[Sidenote: Definition of magic.] - -The results of this investigation seem to me to have justified the -selection of the word, “magic,” as a generic term to include all -superstitious arts and occult sciences, and to designate a great -primary division or phase of human thought and activity. Magic is -subordinate to no other superstition or occult art; they are more often -regarded as subdivisions of it. The attempts of some of our authors to -distinguish between magic and astrology, or magic and divination, or -good and bad magic, or natural magic and sorcery, or witchcraft and -counter-magic, have all been exceedingly illogical and unconvincing. -Magic appears, in our period at least, as a way of looking at the world -which is reflected in a human art or group of arts employing varied -materials in varied rites, often fantastic, to work a great variety of -marvelous results, which offer man a release from his physical, social, -and intellectual limitations, not by the imaginative and sentimental -methods of music, melodrama, fiction, and romance, or by religious -experience or asceticism, but by operations supposed to be efficacious -here in the world of external reality. Some writers, chiefly -theologians, lay great stress on resort to spirits in magic, some -upon the influence of the heavens, some on both these forces, which -yet others almost identify; but, except as theological dogma insists -upon the demoniacal character of magic, or as astrological doctrine -insists on the rule of the stars, it cannot be said that spirits or -stars are thought of as always necessary in magic. The _sine qua non_ -seems to be a human operator, materials, rites, and an aim that borders -on the impossible, either in itself, such as predicting the future or -curing incurable diseases or becoming invisible, or in relation to the -apparently inadequate means employed. - -[Sidenote: Difficulty of reducing magic to one principle.] - -In our authors it has been difficult to account for the particular -occult properties attributed to things and acts, or to detect any -one underlying principle, such as sympathy, symbolism, imitation, -contagion, resemblance, or association, guiding the selection of -materials and rites for magic. This is either because there never was -such a principle, and magic from the start was empirical and complex, -or because we deal with a late stage in its development, when the -superstitions of different peoples have coalesced, when the peculiar -customs of folk-lore have become confused with those of science and -religion, after the primitive methods of magic have been artificially -over-elaborated, and after many usages have become gradually corrupted -and their original meaning has been forgotten. Whether magic is good or -evil, true or false, is with our authors a matter of opinion, in which -the majority hold it to be true but evil. Every shade of opinion is -represented, however; but furthermore few can avoid a wholesome feeling -that there is something false about magic somewhere. This sounds the -signal, as it were, for magic’s doom. - -[Sidenote: Human fondness for the fallacious.] - -However, I suspect that it is not so much that magic has been shown -to be false, as it is that men have come to set a greater value upon -truth, that accounts for magic’s decline. As I survey the practice -and “beliefs” of primitive and savage tribes or the columns of modern -newspapers and much of modern literature, I become convinced that men -have a natural tendency to assert, and craving to hear the sensational, -exaggerated, and impossible, and to fly in the face both of reason and -experience. People take pleasure in affirming the extravagant and in -believing the incredible, in saying that they have seen or done what no -one else has seen or done. Cows, for instance, seldom or never burst, -as everyone knows perfectly well, primitive man probably better than -civilized; that is what makes it interesting to mention circumstances -under which they will burst. “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief,” -is a good picture of the mental attitude supporting much of magic, -which may be not so much a matter of belief as of make-believe. - -[Sidenote: Utility is not magic’s strongest appeal.] - -To turn from “belief” to practice, I suspect that much magic is -done from want of anything better or else to do, rather than from -complete conviction of its efficacy. When Pamphile in the pages of -Apuleius anointed herself from top to toe in order to turn into an -owl, it was because this was the best way of which she could think -to enable herself to fly far, far away. But had an airplane been at -hand, I fancy she would have had more confidence in it for purposes -of flight. Inventions in artificial lighting have probably done more -than sermons, arguments, and laws to dispel the works of darkness with -which magicians whiled away the night-time. Had electric light been -invented in Pamphile’s age, she would probably have spent her evenings -in jazz or at a movie. It was probably not during the hunting season -that cave-men drew their magic pictures of wild boars and bulls. The -telepathy practiced by savages in war and hunting[3012] is perhaps less -from firm faith in its potency than because the women left at home want -to do something and to share somehow in the crucial operations, and -furthermore are expected “to do their bit” by the men in the field. -Perhaps such telepathic magic had almost as great actual efficacy -toward its end as some of the desperate expedients, prompted more by -patriotic emotion than discreet calculation, which were adopted to -help “win the war” or to “maintain morale” by those who stayed at home -during the recent great conflict. I should doubt if most men ever -believed that rain falls only as a result of magic. It seems more -likely that they are aware that the rain will come some time, and hence -are ready to do almost anything which may hurry it up or relieve their -own feelings and inaction in the meantime. As no modern scientist has -brought to their attention any more efficacious method of altering the -weather, they continue their time-honored rite regardless of our jeers. -It does as well as any. But where some prehistoric genius introduced -artificial irrigation, rainmaking magic probably promptly declined in -popularity. - -[Sidenote: The spirit of magic is not the scientific spirit.] - -In the case of rain-making there is evidently much truth in Sir James -Frazer’s statement that “the fallacy of magic is not easy to detect, -because nature herself generally produces sooner or later the effects -which the magician fancies he produces by his art.”[3013] But the -dictum cannot be stretched to cover magic in general. In some cases -the fallacy of magic is all too evident, but men love it, or there -is as yet no truth discovered to take its place. Rational scepticism -is needed to dispel the former; repeated experiment, to arrive at the -latter. Believers in and practitioners of magic probably at no time in -its history either even flattered themselves on so sound a basis of -theory, or were so severely practical in their aims and methods, as not -to delight in the marvelous and incredible and impossible for their own -sake. Rather in providing or attempting to provide for practical wants -and emergencies, considerations of credibility and possibility often -were apt to be cast to the winds. Thus the spirit of magic is different -from the scientific spirit. - -[Sidenote: Magic and experimental science.] - -Yet our material has conclusively shown that the history of magic -is bound up with the history of science as well as with folk-lore, -primitive culture, and the history of religion. Sometimes our authors -have spoken of natural magic, but I rather wonder whether there could -well be any other kind, since man must always reckon with his natural -environment. It is not without reason that the Magi stand out in -Pliny’s pages not as mere sorcerers or enchanters but as those who have -gone farthest and in most detail--too curiously, in his opinion--into -the study of nature. It is not without reason that we have found -experimentation and magic so constantly associated throughout our -period. After all it is not surprising that magic, which was both -curious and tried to accomplish things, should investigate nature and -should experiment. It is even possible that magicians were the first to -experiment, or shared that province with the first inventors and the -useful arts, and that natural science, originally philosophical and -speculative, took over experimental method in a crude form, as well -as the conception of occult virtue, from magic. As Sir James Frazer -has said, “Here is a body of men relieved, at least in the higher -stages of savagery, from the need of earning their livelihood by hard -manual toil, and allowed, nay, expected and encouraged, to prosecute -researches into the secret ways of nature.”[3014] It is therefore -perhaps not surprising that men like Galen, Apuleius, Apollonius, -and Dunstan were accused of magic by their contemporaries; that men -like Gerbert, Michael Scot, and Albertus Magnus were represented as -magicians in later, if not contemporary legend; that _Lithica_ and -Roger Bacon tell us of the danger of sages being accused of magic; that -the _Book of Enoch_, Cyprian, Firmicus, and Picatrix confuse magic with -other arts and sciences; and that no one of our authors, try as he may, -succeeds in keeping magic entirely out of science or science entirely -out of magic. - -[Sidenote: Science is a gradual evolution, not a modern creation.] - -Be that as it may, if the anthropologists are correct in asserting -that magic forms a great part of the life and thought of early man and -of all primitive peoples, it is evident that only gradually would the -science and thought of civilized peoples free themselves from the old -habits and instincts. Modern science cannot exempt itself from its own -theory of evolution as Julius Firmicus exempted the Roman emperor from -the rule of the stars. Science did not come down from above nor invade -from without. It grew up in the very midst of superstition and mental -anarchy, just as the states of modern Europe had their beginnings in -feudal society. As the kings in the middle ages had to govern under -feudal limitations and even by feudal means, so science for a long -time not merely was opposed by the unscientific attitude, but was -itself tinged by fantastic theories and false data. It is scarcely a -paradox to say that during our Roman and medieval period the laws of -magic were better defined and understood than those of science. Yet the -scientific attitude, like the spirit of nationality, was at work in -the seeming chaos; gradually it shook itself free from error, and, by -the increasing application of truly scientific methods, won a similar -triumph to that which the sovereign political power gained by its -gradual development of governmental institutions. - -[Sidenote: Its medieval stage of development.] - -This was the process going on in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. -When men still believed in demons and witches and divination from -dreams, it is not surprising that they believed also in natural magic. -Only a small part of nature’s secrets were revealed to them; of the -rest they felt that almost anything might turn out to be true. It was -a time when “one vast realm of wonder spreads around.” They had to -struggle against a huge burden of error and superstition which Greece -and Rome and the Arabs handed down to them; yet they must try to -assimilate what was of value in Aristotle, Galen, Pliny, Ptolemy, and -the rest. Crude naïve beginners they were in many respects. Yet they -show an interest in nature and its problems; they are drawing the line -between science and religion; they make some progress in mathematics, -geography, physics and chemistry; they not only talk about experimental -method, they actually make some inventions and discoveries of use in -the future advance of science. Moreover, they themselves feel that -they are making progress. They do not hesitate to disagree with their -ancient authorities, when they know something better. Roger Bacon -affirms that many scientific facts and truths are known in his time of -which Plato and Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen, were ignorant. The -ancients, says Peter of Spain in effect, were philosophers, but we are -experimenters. Magic still lingers but the march of modern science has -begun. - -[Sidenote: Does magic survive in modern learning?] - -Are there other sides of our life and thought to-day where magic still -lingers and no such march as that of modern natural and experimental -science has been begun or progressed so far? We fear that there are. -One can well imagine that a future age may regard much of the learning -even of our time as almost as futile, superstitious, fantastic in -method, and irrelevant to the ends sought, as were primitive man’s -methods of producing rain, Egyptian amulets to cure disease, or -medieval blood-letting according to the phases of the moon. Ptolemy -believed in astrology, but how many archaeologists and philologists and -students of early religion and mythology and folk-lore there are who -fail to observe his great law that one should always adopt the simplest -possible hypothesis consistent with the observed facts! How some -ransack the latest and remotest sources for some one brief annotation -by a scholiast that may support some ingenious theory concerning the -earliest origins of a language, a cult, or a deity,--which theory too -often has only this to recommend it, that no one has ever thought of -it before! How to prove a point concerning some single country and -restricted period they bring together word-forms, coins, fragments of -vases, customs, and folk-tales from the most outlandish regions and -widely separated eras, and pile up a huge collection of most erudite -looking footnotes, full of abbreviated formulae denoting German -periodicals which have all the appearance of the unintelligible jargon -of some ancient incantation! As one reflects upon the respect and -admiration with which such “scholarship” and “research” is regarded -by many in our own time, can one wonder that in the middle ages and -antiquity the pharmacist who added to his compound herb after herb from -India and other romantic lands, or part after part from the carcasses -of fabulous animals, in a frantic effort to improve upon a remedy that -was wrong to start with,--can one wonder if he was hailed in his day -as a discoverer and public benefactor, if his compound was copied in -book after book and century after century, and, while he perhaps had -devised it against some one ailment, if it came in time to be regarded -as a panacea for all ills? How many historical generalizations, which -originated in superficial association of ideas on no sounder a basis -than that supposed by some to lie behind magic, are not only still -current, but are glibly and unquestioningly assumed as themselves -a basis for what might otherwise be considered truly scientific -investigation of more detailed and less important points! - -[Sidenote: Or in other sides of present life?] - -We might carry our comparison from the world of scholarship, which at -least displays industry and ingenuity in its superstitions, to the -cruder and lazier conceptions and assumptions of social and civil life. -Often enough has the connection of religion with magic been pointed -out, but what side of life is there that is free from it? If not -sheer intolerance, what else than survivals or revivals of ritual are -all those conventions of dress and etiquette which are supposed to -distinguish ladies and gentlemen from their fellow human beings? “Good -form” is one of the last lines of trenches by which stupidity endeavors -to hold its conquest or inheritance or--shall we say?--native soil of -respectability. And how much we are forced to hear of literary or of -social charm! Is such charm any less fleeting and fallacious than the -magic charm from which it takes its name? Does it advance truth or -retard civilization? Is not the man without it, who has to be twice as -efficient in order to secure the same position as the man with it, the -true builder? Does such personal charm add any more to its possessor’s -real value to society than the incantation of the ancient artisan did -to his industrial process? We believe that it does, but so did he. -Or who can marvel at past belief in the magic power of words, who -hears statesmen speak and millions shout of Militarism, Unconditional -Surrender, Nationality, Democracy, Prohibition, Socialism, and -Bolsheviki? What fears, what hopes, what passions, what prejudices, -what sacrifices these words elicit! And how little agreement there is -as to their meaning! If our illustrations are somewhat frivolous and -superficial, let us measure the amount of magic in present civilization -by Plotinus’ standard. He who yields to the charms of love and family -affection or seeks political power or aught else than Truth and true -beauty, or even he who searches for beauty in inferior things; he who -is deceived by appearances, he who follows irrational inclinations, -is as truly bewitched as if he were the victim of magic and _goetia_ -so-called. The life of reason is alone free from magic. Measuring -our age by such a standard, we shall be tempted to cry out, Magic of -magics, all is magic! What else is there to write about? - -[Sidenote: Importance of the history of experimental science.] - -At least one thing, and that is experimental science. “It always is -making acquisitions and never grows less; it ever elevates and never -degenerates; it is always clear and never conceals itself.” Of its -relations to magic through some thirteen centuries of thought I have -deemed it worth while to attempt a somewhat detailed picture in the -foregoing pages, presenting not only a survey of occult science but -of the lives and writings of some pioneers, now too forgotten, in -science’s earlier and less successful days. Originally magic alone was -the object of my investigation, and experimental science an unexpected -by-product which forced its importance during our period increasingly -upon the attention. For this reason, while the magic of the learned -has perhaps been treated here about as fully as it deserves, a -complete and thorough history of experimental science through these -thirteen centuries has not been attempted, and much new material in -all probability still awaits discovery in the period of which we have -treated. And while I have not yet had time to do much reading in -works of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, I suspect that while -the writers on occult subjects have little or nothing new to say, -experimentation probably continued its evolution and that there may -even be disclosed in obscure writers of that time germs of some of the -discoveries usually ascribed to later and greater names. - -[Sidenote: Prominence of magic in the history of science.] - -On the other hand, I have found little to suggest that medieval men -themselves purposely concealed scientific discoveries which they -had made, although it is true that some of them believed that the -ancients had done this, and although some of them pretended to do so -themselves. Above all I have demonstrated that when ancient or medieval -authors are apparently superstitious, they are really so, and that -it is far-fetched to attempt to explain such passages as cryptograms -or allegories or flights of poetical imagination or interpolations -or signs of spurious authorship. Our authors do not intentionally -employ occult science to hide truths of natural science or inventions -in applied science. Rather it is characteristic of magic and occult -science to make a pretense of hidden truth and of marvel-working which -they cannot substantiate. And the fact concerning our authors has been -that they cannot yet consistently discriminate between occult science -and natural science, between magic and applied science. - -[Sidenote: How the human mind works.] - -If this investigation has shed some light on the biographies and -bibliography of past scholars and scientists, on the textual history -and criticism of particular works or the general condition of the -manuscript material, perhaps it has also supplied data that may prove -of value to philosophers and psychologists in determining the laws of -human thought and our intellectual processes. Instead, say, of giving -a so-called intelligence test to some hundreds of immature school -children to discover which ones are well-nigh imbecile or idiotic, -I have set forth for comparison the mature, carefully considered -thoughts on certain topics of a number of the world’s intellectual -leaders through centuries. We have seen the same old ideas continually -recurring,[3015] new ideas appearing with exceeding slowness, men of -the same given period holding a common stock of notions and being for -the most part in remarkable agreement. Even the most intellectual -men seem to have a limited number of ideas, just as humanity has a -limited number of domesticated animals. Not only is man unable by -taking thought to add one cubit to his stature, he usually equally -fails to add one new idea to humanity’s small collection. Often men -seem to be repeating the ideas like parrots. And this is not merely -patristic, or scholastic; it is everlastingly human. Yet it has been -evident that some of our authors were more original, resourceful, -ingenious, inquisitive than others. There is curiosity, occasionally -a new question is asked, an old thought put in a novel way, or a new -experiment tried. - -[Sidenote: Indestructibility of thought.] - -As I have pursued this investigation, my wonder has grown at the number -of learned men of whom memory has been preserved from a distant past -even to our day, at the voluminousness of their extant writings, at -the many small details of their daily life which are known to us. -Sometimes their respective lives and thoughts intertwine and cross and -coincide so that a learned world and society seems to stand out entire. -Moreover, what might be found out concerning them by exhausting the -manuscript material would doubtless be much greater than scholars have -as yet established. At any rate the records are abundant, more so than -for any other phase of human life except perhaps art; they permit of -detailed examination; no severed fragments or dead bones, they throb -with life. Some species may lay more eggs, or multiply more rapidly, -but manuscripts survive. Neckam’s book has withstood the worms better -than its master, but he, too, still lives in and through it and his -other books. If matter is indestructible and energy is conserved, may -we not paraphrase Adelard of Bath and say in closing: “And certainly in -my judgment nothing in this world of thought ever perishes utterly, or -is less to-day than when it was created. If any concept is dissolved -from one union, it does not perish but is joined to some other group.” -Magic and experiment yesterday; science and experiment to-day. Long -live Thought! and may it some day regroup itself into Truth! - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[3011] On Nicolas Oresme, Bishop of Lisieux, see Francis Meunier, -_Essai sur la vie et les ouvrages de Nicole Oresme_, Paris, 1857, -where many treatises by him against astrology are listed, and Charles -Jourdain (1888), pp. 559-587, _Nicholas Oresme et les astrologues de la -cour de Charles V_. - -In Sloane 2156, 15th century, fols. 209v-224, I have read a -treatise by Oresme which Jourdain does not mention, namely, _Contra -conjunctionistas de futurorum eventibus_, copied in 1430. In BN 10271, -fols. 63-153, is a defense of astrology against Oresme’s criticisms by -John Lauratius de Fundis, writing at Bologna in 1451. - -For Pico’s twelve books against astrology, his twenty-six conclusions -concerning magic, and his _Apology_, in which he again defends natural -magic, see his works as published at Venice in 1519 or 1557. He accepts -the church’s condemnation of magic as usually practiced, but upholds -natural magic. A preliminary paragraph of praise in these printed -editions credits Pico with having destroyed astrology root and branch, -whereas after previous attacks it had sprung up again, but this is -exaggerated praise in view of the later favorable attitude toward -astrology of such distinguished astronomers as Kepler and Tycho Brahe, -or rather, it shows that the “astrology” attacked by Pico did not -comprise everything that we should classify under that head. Pico’s -attack, such as it was, was countered by Lucius Bellantius in a defense -of astrology published in 1502: _Defensio astrologiae contra Ioannem -Picum Mirandulam Lucii Bellantii Senensis Mathematici ac Physici Liber -de Astrologica Veritate et in Disputationes Ioannis Pici Adversus -Astrologos Responsiones.... Venetiis per Bernardinum Venetum de -Vitalibus Anno a natali Christiano Mcccccii._ - -I have read Browne’s _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_, which was finished in -1646, in an edition of 1650. - -[3012] J. G. Frazer (1911), I, 119-26. - -[3013] J. G. Frazer (1911), I, 242. - -[3014] J. G. Frazer (1911), I, 246-7. - -[3015] Sometimes I have called attention to such parallel passages in -the text, but an examination of the index will reveal others. - - - - -GENERAL INDEX - - - Abbreviations, 937 - - Abraham the patriarch, and astrology, 91, 449, 831; - oak-tree of, 387 - - Abscess, 561, 565 - - Accusation of magic, against Roger Bacon, 31, 628-9, 676-7, 680; - Albertus Magnus, 549; - Trithemius, 550; - philosophers and scientists, 660, 676-7; - Hubert de Burgh, 675; - Arnald of Villanova, 843; - Bernard Délicieux, 860-1; - Abano, 882, 888-90, 945-6, 978 - - _Achates_, a gem, 143, 364, 420 - - Achilles, 908 - - Acorn, 850 - - Adam, first man, 135-6, 154, 197, 201, 241, 292, 325, 327, 475 - - Adamant, mill worked by, 243; - magnetic force of, 387, 566, 573, 817; - breakable only by blood of goat, 546, 657 - - Adfar, 214, 216 - - Adultery, 728 - - Aerimancy or Aeromancy, 87, 320, 701-2 - - Agate, 331, 364, 469, 854 - - Agent, and patient, 738 - - Ages of man, 154, 834, 895; - golden age, 896 - - _Agnus Dei_, 352 - - Agriculture, 6, 80, 82, 177, 470 - - _Agrimonia_, an herb, 142 - - Air, 420, 504, 579, 768, 790, 886-7; - seven regions of, 324, 392-3 - - Alchemy, chaps, xlv, lxv, 80, 90, 177, 251, 433, 817; - Adelard and, 22-3; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 249, 251, 277; - Michael Scot, 319-20, 327, 333-7; - Franciscans, 335; - Grosseteste, 447, 452-3; - Vincent, 471; - Albertus Magnus, 545, 557, 562, 567-73, 588; - Aquinas, 607; - Roger Bacon, 626, 639, 651, 658, 679; - Arnald, 851, 855; - Lull, 867-8; - Abano, 906-7 - - Alcohol, 219, 501, 760, 766, 782, 784ff., 797 - - Alexander the Great, 301, 64 653-4, 786, 896-7, 908; - and see other index - - Alexander IV, pope, 525 - - Alexandria, 74, 83, 214, 264, 322, 761, 794 - - Algebra, 89, 237 - - Alive, animal from which part taken, to remain, 781 - - Allegorical interpretation, of Bible, 11, 134, 207-8, 631, 648; - of nature, 131, 192, 376, 847; - in alchemy, 27, 217; - in zoology, 386, 434; - images, 899; - and see Personification, Symbolism - - Alleluia year, 831 - - _Alliataiu_, a fish, 781 - - Almohades, 206 - - Aloes, 698, 817 - - Alphabetical order, 294ff., 302, 406, 420, 536, 877 - - Alps, 46, 133, 156 - - Alsace, 425 - - Altar, experiments and physicians of, 481, 752, 756 - - Alum, 335 - - Alvarotto, Jacopo, 946 - - America, discovery of, 645, 865 - - Ammonia, 573, 752 - - Amorites, 322 - - Amulet, 147, 209, 264, 276, 433, 769; - and see Ligatures and Suspensions - - Amusements, 808 - - Anaesthetics, 860, 887 - - Anatomy, 130, 376, 537 - - _Androsimon_, 276 - - _Anena_(?), 790 - - Anglo-Saxon, 67 - - Animals, 31, 56-7, 231, 727; - intelligence, jealousy, remedies discovered by, 11, 35, 146, 200, - 266, 423, 433, 473, 508-9, 563, 653, 908; - use of parts of, 496, 498, 761, 764, 781, 817; - and see names of individual animals - - Anselm, “friend,” 784 - - Ant, 243 - - Ant-hill, 147 - - Anthony, St. 380; - church of, in Padua, 945-6 - - Antichrist, 138, 248, 460, 672, 674, 743, 842, 844, 954, 960 - - Antidote, 384, 858; - and see Poison, and, in other index, _Antidotarium_ under various - medical authors - - Antioch, 46, 245, 270 - - Antipathy, 144, 349, 732 - - Antipodes, 199, 332, 538, 885-6 - - Ape, 384, 780; - eaten by sick lion, 563 - - _Aplanon_, 41 - - Apollo, 646, 908 - - Apoplexy, 887 - - Apothecary, 835, 872 - - Apparition, 345, 358, 381, 470, 528, 559, 603, 912; - and see Spirit - - Apple, 244, 506, 789 - - Applied science, 81, 190, 275, 601; - Roger Bacon and, 651, 663 - - Apulia, 156, 426 - - _Aqua ardens_, see Alcohol - - Arabic language and learning, 24-8, 206, 211, 310-2, 349, 449, 499, - 582, 589, 640, 643-4, 647, 762, 778, 863, 888, 972 - - Archaeology, 279 - - Architecture, 82 - - _Argenteus_, 226 - - _Ariolus_, 553 - - _Aristologia_, an herb, 794, 908 - - Arithmetic, 70, 449, 790, 904 - - Armenia and Armenian, 239, 262, 863 - - Arms and armor, 82 - - Aromatics, 350; - and see Spice, Unguent - - Arrow, 344, 561 - - Arsenic, 471, 573, 797 - - Art, stars and, 587, 610, 673, 857 - - Art, Universal, of Lull, 863, 865-7, 871-2 - - Artemisia, 565 - - Artery, 298, 887 - - Artisan, 326, 536, 544, 651; - and see Gild - - Asbestos, 242 - - Asclepius, 290, 902 - - Ascoli, 956, 958, 967 - - Ash, reduced to, 386, 413, 433, 562, 767, 793 - - Ass, 57, 145, 345, 384, 482, 767, 781, 817 - - _Assidios_, 240-1 - - Astrolabe, 21-2, 45, 68, 112, 116, 865 - - _Astrologia_, medieval meaning of, 11, 81, 829, 890 - - Astrological medicine, 6, 72, 92, 323-4, 498-9, 513, 670-1, 767, - 851, - 855-6, 871-2, 890, 893ff., 957 - - Astrology, chaps, xxxviii, xxxix, xlii, li, lxii, lxvii, lxx, lxxi; - also discussed by, Abelard, 5-7; - Hugh of St. Victor, 11-13; - Adelard, 40-2; - William of Conches, 55-8, 61; - Hildegard, 143, 148-54; - John of Salisbury, 164-6; - Neckam, 202-3; - Maimonides, 211-2; - _Kiranides_,233-4; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 253-9, 274-8; - Pseudo-Solomon, 283; - _Sworn-Book_, 287; - William of Auvergne, 366-71; - Thomas of Cantimpré, 393; - Bartholomew, 416-9, 423; - Grosseteste, 445-7, 451-2; - Vincent, 467-9; - Albert, 535, 577-92; - Aquinas, 608-15; - Bacon, 638-9, 655, 658-9, 664, 668-77; - Pseudo-Albert, 730, 739, 742, 744; - Sloane MSS, 805-8; - Arnald, 855-8; - Lull, 868-72; - relation to magic, 148, 343, 556, 558, 674, 816, 857, 892; - to other divination, 148, 298ff., 892; - to alchemy, 588; - writings against, 970; - dominance of, 973 - - _Astronomia_, medieval meaning of, 11, 81, 319, 577, 669, 790, 829, - 890 - - Astronomy, of twelfth century, 70-1, 83, 198; - history of, 320-1; - defense of, 696-7; - of Dante, 826; - of Abano, 890; - of Sacrobosco, 964 - - Athens, 284, 332, 428, 639, 755 - - Atlantis, 895 - - Atlas, the giant, and astronomy, 322, 646 - - Atom, Atomic theory, etc., 61, 462, 648, 906 - - Augury, 149, 319, 329, 365, 576-7, 601 - - Augustinian Order, 8, 189, 882 - - Authority and Authorities, attitude to, and citation of, Abelard, 6; - Adelard, 28-9; - Athelardus, 42-3; - William of Conches, 60; - Pedro Alfonso, 71; - John of Spain, 78; - Robert Kilwardby, 82; - Daniel of Morley, 172-5; - Neckam, 193-6, 199; - Cantimpré, 373, 377-80; - Bartholomew, 403-5, 422-3, 432; - Arnold of Saxony, 430-2; - Grosseteste’s _Summa_, 448-51; - Vincent, 461-6; - Peter of Spain, 494-6, 502; - Albert, 536, 541-2; - Aquinas, 609; - _De fato_, 613; - Bacon, 633-6, 647, 657, 683; - Pseudo-Albert, 727, 731-4; - Picatrix, 815-6; - Bonatti, 826-7; - Abano, 885, 910; - miscellaneous, 241, 481, 677, 710, 732 - - _Ave Maria_, 117, 296, 952 - - Averroism, 709, 863-4, 887-8 - - Azure, 573 - - - Babylon and Babylonia, 240, 257, 357, 359 - - Balaam, 318 - - _Balagius_, a gem, 469 - - Baldness, 31, 561 - - Balearic Isles, 863 - - Ballot, 931 - - Balsam, 239, 698 - - Baptism, 198, 391 - - Barber, 426 - - _Barbo_, a fish, 144 - - Barcelona, 83, 207, 845, 862, 930 - - Barley, 234 - - Barnacle bird, 200, 464 - - Basilisk, 202, 347, 361, 433, 562, 901, 905; - and cock, 201, 562 - - Bat, 195, 288, 498, 736, 795, 817, 850 - - Bath, 224, 227, 480, 500, 787; - Turkish, 273, 902 - - Bean, 850 - - Bear, 145, 767 - - Beard, 834 - - Beast, number of the, 672 - - Beasts, wild, 16, 232 - - Beatitudes, 325 - - Beaver, castration of, 199, 380, 433, 513, 540, 657 - - Becket, Thomas, St., chap. xli - - Bed, taking a thing to, 142-3 - - Bee, 224, 744, 780 - - Beef, 147 - - Beet-juice, 563 - - Beetle, 790, 956 - - Belt, see Girdle - - Benedict XI, pope, 844, 860 - - Benvenuto of Abano, 942-3 - - Berkeley, Lord, 806 - - Betony, 555-6 - - Bezoar, animal, 210, 909; - mineral, 909-10 - - Bibliographies, medieval, 88, 353-4, 403, 405, 408, 612, 693, 696, - 867; - Dominican, 374, 395, 571, 599, 612, 694-5, 724, 741 - - Bird, 118, 145, 224, 265, 327, 507; - edible, 147; - of prey, 484, 504; - to catch, 803; - prediction by, 160; - nest, 365, 420, 473 - - _Bisemum_, 140 - - Bishop, Richard, 50, 156 - - Bitumen, 793 - - Black, color used, 484, 497, 574, 780 - - Black Art, 319; - and see Necromancy - - Black Death, 406 - - Black, Joseph, 36 - - Blanche of Castile, 339 - - Bleeding, 275, 324, 412, 476, 480, 804, 856, 887, 894 - - Blind and Blindness, 365, 860 - - Blood, human, 137, 299, 319, 504, 834; - use of, 144, 227, 320, 332, 817, 886, 909; - of animals, used, 147, 226, 232, 288, 321, 332, 386, 421-2, 433, - 484, 496-8, 507, 546, 561, 563, 736, 781 - - Blotches, 561 - - Boar, 202 - - Bohel, a spirit, 289 - - Bologna, and university of, 525, 638, 795, 801, 827, 863, 879, 950, - 952, 955, 967 - - Bonacossi, Bordelone, 877 - - Bones, used, 143, 496, 819, 899; - discussed, 886 - - Boniface VIII, pope, 844, 857, 937-8 - - Book and Books, Neckam’s, 203-4, 984; - trade in, 405; - of magic, 279, 284, 660, 662, 696, 701, 704, 731, 861 - - Botany, 532 - - Bottle, 321 - - Bow, magic, 344 - - Box, 231, 264, 835 - - Boxwood, 506 - - Boy and Boys, story of two, 275; - medieval, 410; - virtue of parts of, 336; - used in divination and other magic, 365, 586-7, 818 - - Brabant, 427 - - Brahmans, 378 - - Brain, physiology of, 39, 48, 298-9, 408, 500, 857, 860, 886; - poison in, 907; - of animals, used, 393, 496, 555, 561, 764, 786, 817 - - Bramble bush, 851 - - Bread, wheaten loaf, 141 - - Breastplate of high priest, 389, 399 - - Bridge, 655 - - Brindisi, 426 - - Britain, British Isles, and Britons, 364, 428 - - Brittany, 428 - - Bronze, 279 - - Brooch, 769 - - Building materials, 427 - - Bull, tamed by figtree, 202 - - Bungay, Friar, 680 - - Burgundy, 424 - - Burial, for purposes of magic, 145, 370, 483, 736, 802 - - Burned, in effigy, 946; - bones, 943-4; - at stake, 949, 952 - - Burning glass, 442, 455-6, 651, 789 - - Business courses, 82 - - Butter, 142, 434, 505, 817, 908 - - Byzantine, 38, 238, 300, 390 - - - Cabbage, 496-7 - - Caesar, Julius, 668 - - Cairo, 190, 206, 734 - - Calendar, Christian, 92; - reform, 444, 631, 644 - - Caliph, 390, 734 - - Calixtus II, pope, 239, 241 - - Camel, 362, 383, 710, 788, 902; - humps of, 145 - - _Camelea_ or _Cameleon_, an herb, 472 - - Camphor, 142, 786 - - Can Grande, 933 - - Candelabrum, 699 - - Candle, magic, 231, 280, 345, 561, 736-7, 782, 786ff., 793, 800 - - Candlestick, seven-branched, 370 - - Canonization, 127-8, 612 - - Cap, 145 - - Carbuncle, 236, 565 - - Carnelian, 388 - - Cask, 263 - - Casket, 224, 227, 860 - - Castle, 832, 838, 843-4; - magic, 346 - - Castration, 506; - and see Beaver - - Casziel (or Cassiel), a spirit, 289, 900 - - Cat, 781, 964 - - Catalan, chap. lxviii, 862, 867, 873 - - Cataract, 563 - - Cauldron, 279 - - Cauterization, 856 - - Censorship, 805, 851, 950 - - Ceremonial, in magic and medicine, 141ff., 344, 482-3, 496, 801, - 818-9, 904 - - Ceruse, 573 - - Chaldean, 92, 162, 208, 270, 286, 298, 349, 423, 449, 863 - - Cham, see Ham - - Chance, experience, 499, 854; - and fate, 212, 830-1 - - Channel, English, 190 - - Characters, 227, 279, 351, 552, 556, 603, 608, 622, 659, 661, 663, - 669, 731-2, 802, 820, 848-50 - - Charcoal, 689, 737 - - Chariot, scythe-bearing, 654 - - Charlemagne, 241 - - Charles V, king of France, 256, 405, 695, 801 - - Charles of Anjou, king of Naples, 460, 757, 795 - - Charles of Calabria, duke of Florence, 953, 967 - - Chartres, 52, 100, 155 - - Chastity, 242, 364, 388, 470, 817; - and see Virgin - - Cheese, 434, 507 - - _Chelidonia_, see Swallow-wort - - _Chelidonius_, 420-1 - - Chemical and Chemistry, chap. lxv, 38, 484, 500, 566, 573, 906 - - Chess, 835 - - Chestnut, 786 - - Chick, to make dance, 736 - - Chicken meat, 502-3 - - Child-birth, 135, 144, 316, 329, 376, 470, 482, 493, 586, 767, 851; - formation of foetus, 418, 469, 484, 700, 744, 876, 957; - born after eight months, dies, 329, 904; - monstrous birth, 745 - - Chimaera, 138, 537 - - Chinese dictionary, 448 - - Chiromancy, 166-7, 266, 329, 331, 575, 606, 701-2, 804, 890 - - Christ, 299, 327, 965; - birth of, and astrology, 105, 148ff., 371, 452, 579, 590-1, 672-3, - 676, 703, 896-7, 953-4, 960-1; - and astrological elections, 831; - effect of birth of on magic, 236, 607; - power of name of, 483; - child, 611 - - Christian and Christianity, 216, 244, 649, 672, 678, 891, 896; - and see Magic, Religion, Theology - - Chronology, 92, 648, 897-8 - - Church fathers, 174, 589, 635, 848-9 - - Churl and Bird, tale of, 73 - - Cicada, 541 - - Cinnamon, 472 - - Cipher, 335, 688, 788 - - Circe, 719 - - Circle, magic, 227, 288, 321, 343, 345, 664, 669, 912; - in Lull’s Art, 865-6 - - Circumcision, 834 - - Cistercian, 458 - - Cithara, 44-5 - - Citron, 544 - - City, fortune of, predicted, 331, 832, 838, 954-5 - - _Claretum_, a drink, 434 - - Classical heritage, 51, 157, 191 - - Classification of the sciences, 10-11, 79-82, 475, 630, 681 - - Clement IV, pope, 256, 458, 597, 622-8 - - Clement V, pope, 207, 842-6, 938 - - Clergy, interest of, in divination, 121, 170, 832, 836; - as translators, 230; - attacked, 306, 844; - regular, 628, 759 - - Cloak, virtue of, 35, 160 - - Clock, see Time - - Clothing, 82, 352, 391, 428, 818; - incombustible, 242; - and see the names of individual garments - - Coal, 420; - soot, 793 - - Cock, 201, 383, 498, 781, 819, 850; - cock-crow, 263 - - Cold, the disease, 761 - - Colic, 887 - - Cologne, 523, 525-6, 544-5, 595ff., 638 - - Color and Colors, discussed, 42, 434, 793, 804; - making of, and experiments with, 787-8, 799-800, 806; - in magic, 288, 729 - - Combustible compounds, see Candle - - Comet, 7, 58, 320, 371, 446-8, 452-3, 459, 469, 524, 583, 701, 961 - - Commune, 932, 941ff. - - Compass, mariner’s, 31, 190, 199, 324, 387-8, 430, 621, 864 - - Compass, points of, observed, 140, 287, 343, 801, 819, 837, 964 - - Complexion, meaning physical constitution, 670, 886, 894, 896 - - Compostela, 488, 499 - - _Compotus_ or _Computus_, 444, 644, 804 - - Compounds, medicinal, magical, etc., 480-2, 504, 508, 755, 769, 805, - 817, 854 - - Conception, to aid, 730; - to prevent, 470, 736, 744, 763; - and the stars, 152, 316, 328-9, 876 - - Confederate, used in magic, 661, 669 - - Confessional, 742, 835 - - Conjunction, astrological, 146, 255, 583, 672, 872, 888, 896-7, 956, - 960 - - Conjuration, see Incantation, and Spirit, invocation of - - Consecration, of bells, books, gems, spirits, etc., chap. xlix, 243, - 321, 353, 470, 556, 567 - - Constantine the Great, emperor, 729 - - Constantinople, 190, 230, 313, 638, 877 - - Constantius of Abano, 876 - - Constipation, 768 - - Consumption, 887 - - Contingent event, 12, 516, 559, 605 - - Contrary, cure by, 887 - - Cooking recipes, 799, 802 - - Copper, 545 - - _Copprea_, 143 - - Coptic, 214 - - Copyists, use of, and mistakes and frauds by, 171, 225, 297, 301, - 427-8, 458, 464, 625-7, 742, 779, 909, 938 - - Coral, 470, 853-4 - - Cordova, 22, 205, 310 - - Cormorant, 473 - - _Cornu cerastis_, 242 - - Corpse, 32, 39, 192, 482, 496, 556, 762, 767, 782, 851; - and see Necromancy, Resurrection - - Cotton, 561, 819 - - Cow, 57-8, 412, 729, 778, 780, 854 - - Crab, 362, 413 - - Crane, 144 - - Crape, 737 - - Creation, 58-61, 175, 181, 288, 317, 439, 461, 869, 962 - - Credulity and Scepticism, of Pedro Alfonso, 72; - John of Salisbury, 157; - Neckam, 199-200; - Maimonides, 208; - Michael Scot, 315; - of medical men concerning spirits, 359, 369, 889; - Cantimpré, 380-1; - Bartholomew, 433; - Vincent, 464-6; - Albert, 464, 539, 543-6, 562, 566; - Frederick II, 465; - William of Auvergne, 349, 358, 360-3; - Gilbert of England, 480-1; - Aristotle, 576; - Bacon, 656-7; - Pseudo-Albert, 731, 734; - Abano, 889, 903; - other medieval, 116, 234, 238, 276, 513, 795, 804, 806, 856-7, - 969-70; - modern, 236 - - Critical days, 893 - - Criticism dreaded, 159, 634ff., 640, 643 - - Cross, sign of, 141, 143, 288, 321, 381, 467, 470, 483, 528, 608, - 848, 850; - wood of, 549; - in form of, 860; - magic, 790 - - Crow, 193, 413, 496, 729, 791; - white, 793 - - Crusades, 239, 525, 845, 863 - - Crystal, 800, 808, 889 - - Cucumber, 834 - - Cummin seed, 148 - - Cyme, 231 - - - Dacdel, a spirit, 289 - - Daily life, medieval, 406 - - Danube, 525, 541 - - Darius, 896 - - Date, of life or works of, Adelard, chap. xxxvi, app. i; - William of Conches, 50-2; - John of Spain, 74ff.; - Hildegard, 127-8; - Michael Scot, 310-11; - Sacrobosco, 332; - Cantimpré and Bartholomew, 373-4, 402-3; - Grosseteste, 438; - Witelo, 456; - Vincent, 458-61; - Gilbert of England, 478; - John of St. Amand, 510; - Albert and Aquinas, 461, 522ff., 594ff.; - Roger Bacon, 619ff., 628-30; - Picatrix, 813; - Abano, 876, 880, 933-5; - of introduction of Aristotle, 194-5, 312-3, 708; - of _Sompniale dilucidarium Pharaonis_, 296; - of _Speculum astronomiae_, 707-9 - - Day and Days, observance of, 42, 116, 150, 283, 296, 301, 319, 420; - length of, 185 - - Deafness, 145-6 - - Death, time of, 887 - - Decans, 118, 221 - - Deer (including Doeskin, Roebuck, Stag), 144, 148, 210, 496, 508 - - Degree, medical, 504 - - Delphic oracle, 167 - - Desert, spirits in, 43, 344, 357; - writings in, 43, 399-400 - - Design, argument from, 30 - - Desire, as a factor in magic, 665 - - Devil, 6, 134, 138, 208, 284, 318; - and see Spirit - - Dew, 144, 324 - - _Diacodos_, a stone, 556 - - _Diadochos_, a stone, 556 - - Diagram, 116, 249, 282-3, 323, 627, 648, 790-1, 865, 867 - - Dialectic, 24, 29, 70, 88, 734, 789 - - Dialogue, 23, 50 - - Diarrhoea, 513, 793 - - Dice, 158 - - Dictionary, 448, 458 - - Diet, 82, 201, 273, 300, 383, 480, 500, 546, 560, 818, 887 - - Digestion, 145, 880; - effect on dreams, 330 - - Dinner, 411, 833, 887 - - _Dioptra_, 112 - - Diplomacy, 843 - - Direction, observed, 231, 698; - and see Compass, points of - - Disc, 279 - - Disease, 126, 480; - magic transfer of, 499, 852; - and see Spirit, Woman - - Dispensation, 311-12 - - Divination, chap. xxxix, 72, 286, 835, 902; - and magic, 319, 559; - by demons, 358, 407; - natural, 154, 168, 212, 349, 605; - by opening Psalter, 295-6; - by eating parts of animals, 497-8, 658; - by polished surfaces, 158-9, 168, 320, 354, 364-5, 964; - by shoulder blades, 86; - by lots, numbers, names, 277, 319; - from clouds, 320; - from Kalends, 326; - forbidden varieties of, 814, 848; - other varieties, 14, 81, 158; - and see Dream, Liver, Moon, Sieve, Thunder; also Aerimancy, Augury - Chiromancy, Geomancy, Hydromancy, Lot-casting, Pyromancy, etc. - - Divining-rod, 557 - - Dog, 348, 385, 762; - to keep from barking, 729, 821; - to cause to follow you, 787; - use of parts of, 209, 332, 496-7, 500, 562-4, 574, 736, 788, 803; - mad, 210, 413, 563, 762 - - Dog-days, 252, 484, 856 - - Dolphin, 423, 505, 768 - - Domestic science, 409, 503ff. - - Dominicans, 305, 339, 374, 453, 525, 594ff., 629, 832-3, 843-4, 945; - and see Bibliographies - - Door, used in magic, 603; - affected by magic, 287, 558, 729, 744 - - Dove, 15, 321, 507, 539 - - Dragon, 236, 262ff., 352, 380, 737; - use of, 242; - combat with elephant, 562; - flying, 242, 433, 562, 657-8, 668; - the constellation, 418, 967 - - Dreams, and interpretation of, chap. l, 40, 272, 276, 487, 605, 708, - 710, 728, 902; - Hildegard on, 154; - John of Salisbury, 161-4; - Michael Scot, 319, 326, 330; - Bartholomew, 412; - Vincent, 467; - Albert, 558-9, 575-7; - Arnald, 845, 847; - Cecco, 955-6, 958 - - Dreaming-places, 290 - - Dromedary, 318 - - Dropsy, 470, 473, 485, 588 - - Drugs, 766, 769, 817 - - Drum, 603, 819 - - Duck, 147, 909 - - Dung, 209, 232, 496, 561, 728, 850, 909 - - Dyes, 573, 787, 806 - - - Eagle, 195, 242, 301, 364, 420, 473, 487, 541, 544, 761, 854 - - Ear, 505 - - Earache, 761 - - Earth, sphericity of the, 35, 439-40, 864; - virtue of, 140, 142, 147-8, 801-2; - not allowing things to touch the ground, 421 - - Earthquake, 294 - - Ear-wax, 561, 736, 817 - - Earwig, 761 - - Eccentric, of planet, 176, 444, 446, 672 - - Ecclesiastical elections, 606; - offices, 833 - - Echeneis or Echinus, 361, 379 - - Echo, 789 - - Eclipse, 68, 151, 223, 294, 325, 603, 804, 897; - during Christ’s passion, 160, 371, 961 - - Economics, 11, 426 - - Eden, Garden of, see Paradise - - Editions, especially early printed, William of Conches, 53, 63; - Daniel Morley, 172-3; - Neckam, 189, 191; - Morienus, 215; - Prester John, 239; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 248, 267-8; - Artemidorus, 290-1; - Dream-Books of Daniel and Joseph, 294; - _Morale Sompnium Pharaonis_, 296; - Michael Scot, 307-8, 333; - William of Auvergne, 338; - Bartholomew, 401-3; - Vincent, 457; - _Thesaurus pauperum_, 490-1; - John of St. Amand, 510; - Aquinas, 594, 598; - Bacon, 617-8, 679; - Pseudo-Albert, 571, 721, 735, 737, 739; - Bonatti, 826; - Arnald, 846, 853; - Lull, 862; - Abano, 875, 882, 917-26, 935; - Abraham Aben Ezra, 927-8 - - Education, as experienced or discussed by, Hugh of St. Victor, 8-10; - Adelard, 20-24; - William of Conches, 50-55, 61; - Gerard of Cremona, 87-9; - John of Salisbury, 155ff.; - Daniel Morley, 172-4; - Neckam, 188-90; - Cantimpré, 374; - Bartholomew, 403; - Grosseteste, 437-8; - Vincent, 458; - Gilbert, 481; - Peter of Spain, 488-90; - Albert, 522-6; - Aquinas, 595-8, 601-2; - Bacon, 619-21, 627, 630ff., 640-2; - Peckham, 629; - Arnald, 843, 847; - Lull, 863; - Abano, 876-7, 879; - Cecco, 950, 952, 954 - - Edward I, king of England, 309, 483, 909 - - Eel, 541 - - Egg, 886-7 - - Egypt, 42, 83, 162, 174, 190, 216, 293, 300, 349, 449, 755, 831 - - Egyptian Days, 420, 469, 484, 856 - - Elder tree, 563 - - Elections, astrological, 148, 183-4, 186, 255, 325, 390, 587, 673-4, - 700, 831, 833-4; - and see Ecclesiastical - - Electricity, 906 - - Elements, 41-2, 56-7, 131, 136, 175-6, 242, 253, 275, 332, 334, 341, - 360, 394, 420, 447, 462, 480, 564, 580, 594, 830, 836, 871, - 886, 906; - not found pure, 34, 53, 175, 231; - harmony of, 671 - - Elephant, 403, 562, 646 - - Elijah, 801 - - Elysium, 12 - - _Ematites_, a gem, 908 - - Embassies, 238, 293, 843 - - Emerald, 143, 210, 236, 239, 363, 546-7, 553, 853, 908, 937 - - Empiricism, 209-10, 362, 482, 538, 657 - - Encyclopedias, medieval, chaps. liii, liv, lvi, 193, 315; - modern, 382-5 - - Endor, witch of, 167 - - England and English, chaps. xxxvi, xli, xlii, xliii, liv, 156, 375, - 428, 619-20, 788, 799-800, 802-3, 811 - - _Ephialtes_, 360 - - Epicurean, 61, 165, 582 - - Epidaurus, 290 - - Epilepsy, 143, 145-7, 151, 209, 349, 413, 470, 496-7, 515, 847-8, - 904 - - Epitaph, 522, 913, 934 - - Error, causes of, 630-1, 636, 681 - - Errors, lists of condemned, 355, 571, 694, 707-12, 869-71, 882-3 - - Esau, see Jacob and - - Eschinus, see Echineis - - Esculapides, 269 - - Ethics, 630-1 - - Ethiopia and Ethiopic, 433, 562, 592, 656-7 - - Etruscan, 11 - - Etymology, 192, 315, 481, 572 - - Eucharist, 549, 649, 903 - - Eugenics, 151, 587 - - Eugenius III, pope, 126 - - Eunuch, 737 - - Euphrates, 265 - - Evangelists, four, 160 - - Eve, first woman, 60, 474-5 - - Excrement, human, 484 - - Exercise, physical, 409, 887 - - Exorcism, 168, 227, 320, 352, 359, 365, 439, 699, 892, 912 - - Experience, Experimental method, etc., chaps. lxiii, lxiv, lxv; - and magic, 8, 227-8, 292, 343, 345, 347, 353, 546-9, 561, 658-9, - 701, 707, 738, 820, 899, 977, 982; - and divination, 115, 118, 161, 168, 301, 320; - in 12th century astronomy and astrology, 67-71, 77-8, 87, 183-5; - medical, 15, 412; - in alchemy, 336; - of India, 237; - with worms, 386; - at Paris, 657; - of Adelard, 38-40; - Neckam, 192, 196-7, 200, 202; - Maimonides, 209-10; - _Kiranides_, 229; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 247, 249, 251, 257, 277; - Michael Scot, 316, 321, 329; - William of Auvergne, 341, 343, 345, 355, 360-4; - Bartholomew, 433; - Grosseteste, 439ff., 451; - Witelo, 454-5; - Peter of Spain, 494-5, 498-500, 507-10; - John of St. Amand, 510-13; - Albertus Magnus, 532, 534, 536, 538-48, 564, 566-72, 576; - Roger Bacon, 306, 335, 647-59, 662, 664, 666, 681, 683; - Arnald, 853-6, 859-60; - Bernard Gordon, 856-7; - Lull, 864; - Abano, 884, 893, 899, 906, 912 - - Eye, structure of, 498; - complaints and cures, 144, 363, 421, 469-70, 472, 484, 498, 506-7, - 762, 766, 855, 860 - - Eyebrow, 144, 153, 498 - - Eye-glasses, 859 - - Eyelash, 144 - - Ezzelino, 827 - - - Faith, requisite in magic, 160, 665, 817; - in medicine, 887; - and Reason, see Religion and science - - Falcon and Falconry, 464, 562 - - Fame, love of, 273 - - Fascination, 169, 202, 248, 385, 553, 558, 574, 607-8, 614, 662, - 664-5, 710, 900-2 - - Fasting, 143, 211, 227, 242, 413, 561, 604, 818, 909 - - Fat, 384, 504, 560, 909 - - Fate, 165, 462, 589-92, 613-5, 712, 866 - - Faun, 358 - - Feather, 144 - - Fee, physician’s, 881 - - Fennel, 508, 563 - - Ferdinand the Catholic, 864 - - Ferrara, 955, 965 - - Feudal, 30, 241, 424, 427, 634 - - Fever, 143-4, 151, 470, 504, 588, 886-7 - - Fig tree, 816 - - _Filcrum coarton_, a gem, 262 - - Finger and Fingers, middle, 140; - two, 231; - crossed, 790 - - Finland, magic of, 429 - - Fir tree, 139, 142-3, 200 - - Fire, the element, 41, 394, 420, 506, 817; - marvelous, 252; - use of, 144; - at Rome in 192 A. D., 752; - universal, 57; - ordeal of, 818 - - Fireworks, 736-7, 791, 804, 807 - - Fish, 135, 143-4, 263, 327, 360, 423, 466, 504-8, 851 - - Flea, 147, 737 - - Flood, 57, 136, 222, 452, 582, 745, 897 - - Florence, 825, 952-4, 967-8 - - Floron, a spirit, 965 - - Flowers of St. John, 536-7 - - Fly and Flies, 484, 736-7, 763, 959 - - Flying machine, 654-5 - - _Foca_, 232 - - Foliot, Gilbert, 181 - - Folk-lore, 380, 815 - - Foot, 729 - - Footprint, 332 - - Forlì, 825ff. - - Form, 420; - specific, 565, 567, 854, 906; - and see Good - - Fountain, 349; - marvelous, 180, 244; - of youth, 219, 242, 798 - - Fox, 194, 209, 500 - - France, 70, 376, 427, 453 - - Francesco of Mantua, 879 - - Francis, St., 862 - - Franciscans, 305, 335, 403, 415, 418, 617, 620, 626-9, 642, 675, - 682, - 712, 796, 863, 945 - - Franciscus de Fullano, 836 - - Frankincense, 556 - - Frederick I, Barbarossa, 240, 271 - - Frederick II, emperor, see other index - - Frederick of Sicily, 845 - - Frenzy, 412, 761 - - Freudian theory, 468 - - Friars, 305, 373, 501, 830, 958 - - Frog, 347, 359, 482, 497, 545, 762, 781, 854 - - Fruit, 505-6, 887 - - Fumigation, 135, 224ff., 288, 482, 560, 698, 766, 780-1, 817, 850-1, - 854, 892, 912 - - Fungi, 506 - - Furnace, 572 - - - Gabriel, angel, 900 - - _Galerites_, 729 - - Gall, 484, 496, 504, 561, 767, 781, 807, 850, 909 - Ganges, 236 - - Gascony, 426 - - Gaul, 4, 20, 24, 28, 50, 87, 156, 375, 386 - - Gems, Hildegard on, 142-3; - Neckam, 202; - of India, 236, 242ff.; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 252, 261ff., 275-6; - William of Auvergne, 363; - Thomas of Cantimpré, 387ff.; - Bartholomew and Arnold of Saxony, 430-2; - Vincent, 469-70; - Albert, 566-7, 727; - Abano, 908; - found in animals, 210, 386, 421, 544; - used by animals, 473 - - Generation, of various animals, 144, 359, 382, 386, - and corruption, 417, 446, 670, 894; - spontaneous, 137, 347, 465, 543, 728, 736-7, 744; - human, 328-9, 886, 894, 910-1; - magic, 353, 780 - - Genethlialogy, 451, 585 - - Genius, a kind of spirit, 104 - - Genoa, 638, 885 - - Gentian, 413 - - Gentiles, 174, 299, 462 - - Geocentric theory, 176 - - Geoffrey Plantagenet, 51 - - Geography, of Bartholomew, 406, 424-9; - Bacon, 645, 648; - other medieval, 396 - - Geomancy, chap. xxxix, 90, 237, 294, 319, 331, 445, 588, 606, 701-2, - 707, 712, 835-8, 865, 869, 890, 912 - - Geometry, 83, 88, 299, 456, 485, 641, 648, 651, 790, 885 - - Geranium, 140 - - German language, 128, 540-1; - scholarship, 518-9 - - Germany, 375, 403, 405, 525, 558, 740 - - _Gesha_, a gem, 261 - - Gesticulation, 209 - - Gild, 651, 879; - and see Artisan - - Girdle, 143-8, 265-6 - - Girl, magic power, 146; - medieval, 411; - who ate spiders, 544; - and see Virgin - - Glass, mirror, 190, 199; - chapel, 244; - cask, cave, or submarine, 263; - vessels, 321, 372, 387; - spheres and tigress, 543; - perspective-, 680; - lantern, 785 - - Glaucus of Beneventum, 761 - - Gloss and Glossator, 327, 764 - - Glow-worm, 737, 786 - - Glue, 788 - - Gnostic, 857, 867 - - Goat, 385, 546, 854 - - Goat-milker, 473 - God and gods, celestial, 530; - terrestrial, 350; - factitious, 350; - name of, 224, 352, 391, 407, 873; - Adelard avoids discussion of, 41; - Lull on, 865, 872; - miscellaneous, 893; - and stars, see Star and Astrology; - and nature, see Religion and Science - - Gold, 202, 224, 236, 817, 855, 858, 899, 908; - potable, 806, 854 - - “Good form,” 981 - - Goose, 147, 505, 793 - - Gothic cathedrals, 536 - - Gout, 482, 807, 847, 887 - - Grammar, 52, 72, 129, 156, 325, 439, 644, 648, 788 - - Gravitation, force of, 35-6 - - Greece, 20, 184, 546 - - Greek, 178, 241, 437, 640-1, 644-5 - - Greek fire, 31, 736, 784ff. - - Green, 35 - - Gregory VIII, pope, 76 - - Gregory IX, pope, 231-2 - - Gregory X, pope, 490 - - Gregory XI, pope, 864 - - Griffin, 236, 420, 541, 546 - - Gualfridinus, 957 - - Guido of Montefeltro, 828 - - Guido of Valencia, bishop of Tripoli, 270 - - Gunpowder, 31, 688-91, 736, 786, 793; - noiseless, 807 - - Gurkhan of Kara Khitai, 240 - - Guy de Foulques, 622; - and see Clement IV - - Gymnosophists, 378 - - Gypsum, 910 - - - Hadrian, emperor, 860 - - Hair, 331, 483, 496, 563, 744, 834; - tonic, 565, 793 - - Ham, son of Noah, first magician, 321, 449, 911 - - Hand, 31; - clapping, 819 - - Hardewin the Teuton, 156 - - Hare, 736, 817 - - Harlot, 348 - - Harpy, 541 - - _Haruspex_, 166, 319, 553 - - Hawk, 15, 200 - - Hazel rod, 361, 512, 659, 662, 690 - - Head, magic, speaking, etc., 680, 825 - - Headache, 144, 146, 412, 761 - - Hearsay, 381, 542 - - Heart, physiology of, 298-9, 513, 907; - use of, 144-7, 232, 362, 384, 422, 497-8, 555, 574, 729, 767, 851; - disease, 508, 880 - - Heat and Hot, 142, 817 - Heaven and Heavens, one or many? 131ff., 176-7, 275, 322, 332, - 414-6, - 581; - animated? 287, 333, 367; - empyrean, 355-6, 414-5; - revolution of eighth sphere, 871, 895-6; - and see Stars, Music of Spheres, Waters above firmament - - Hebrew and Hebrews, 67, 120, 174, 192, chap. xliv, 261, 268, 272, - 286, 312, 363, 437, 495, 640-1, 644-5, 778, 780, 824, 863, - 877-8, 926, 930, 937 - - Hecate, 279 - - Hedge-hog, 762 - - Heliotrope, an herb, 724, 728; - a gem, 361, 363, 429, 470, 961 - - Hellenistic, 678 - - _Helun_, a beast, 148 - - Hemorrhage, 469, 853 - - Hemorrhoids, 432 - - Hen, 484 - - Henry VII, emperor, 933 - - Henry I, king of England, 23, 48, 69, 72 - - Henry II, king of England, 21, 49, 51, 65, 156, 160 - - Henry III, king of England, 619, 675 - - Henry VII, king of England, 181, 827 - - Henry of Eastry, 25 - - Herbs, Hildegard on, 141-2; - _Kiranides_, 231, 233-4; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 275-6; - William of Auvergne, 362; - Vincent, 472-3; - Albert, 555-6, 564-6, 727; - in sculpture, 536-7; - miscellaneous, 505, 656, 851; - plucking of, 140-1, 160, 209, 234, 466, 472, 482, 556, 608, 728 - - Heredity, 910, 956 - - Heresy, 127, 239, 531, 831, 944; - and see Errors, Inquisition - - Hermaphrodite, 109, 329, 376 - - Heron, 144-5, 513 - - Herring fisheries, 386 - - Hippocratic school, 769; - for Hippocrates see other index - - History, Hugh of St. Victor on, 11; - Bacon on, 646-7; - modern critical, 685, - uncritical, 980; - ages of, 475; - and astrology, 42, 647, 897, - and see Conjunctions; - of astronomy, 321-2; - of science, 533-4, 681; - of magic, 647, 659-60 - - Hole, 482 - - Holm oak, 135 - - Holy Ghost, 152, 367 - Holy salt, 353 - - Holy wafer, 903 - - Holy water, 353, 850 - - Homeopathy, 907 - - Honey, 324, 393, 434, 506, 565, 795, 817 - - Honorius III, pope, 311 - - Honorius IV, pope, 881, 935 - - Hoopoe, 288, 362, 421-2, 497, 555, 729, 763 - - Horaeus, 52 - - Horn and Horns, used, 496, 854; - magic, 264; - why men don’t have, 30 - - Horoscope, 14, 107, 672, 956 - - Horse, 262, 359, 390; - meat, 506; - wild, 904 - - Hour, observance of, 201-3, 293, 300, 327, 344, 670-1, 819, 855; - length of, 185 - - House, astrological, 5, 486, 871-2; - marvelous, 782 - - Howard, Thomas, Earl of Arundel, 172 - - Howard, William, Lord, 172 - - Hubert de Burgh, 675 - - Hubert Walter, 478 - - Hugo Eterianus, 292 - - Human body, physiology of, 57, 152, 192, 311, 499-500, 886; - virtue of, 734, 907; - use of parts of, 142-3, 474, 480, 496, 816-7; - is human flesh nutritious?, 503; - how poisoned?, 907 - - Humanism of twelfth century, 51, 191 - - Humors, 150-2, 762 - - Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, 121 - - Hundred Years War, 406 - - Hunting, 157 - - Hydromancy, 86, 320, 701-2 - - Hyena, 199, 544 - - Hygiene, 886 - - Hyperborean, 440 - - Hypnotism, 346, 467, 901 - - Hyssop, 227 - - - Ice, 148, 818 - - Idolatry, 343-4, 698, 702 - - Idols, of Lucretius, 667; - of Francis Bacon, 681 - - Illuminated manuscripts, 15, 111-2, 117-8, 121, 263, 286, 322, 761, - 788, 827 - - Illumination of mind and soul, 362, 865 - - Image, engraved and astrological, 158, 164-5, 177, 220, 223ff., - 231-2, 251, 257-8, 275-6, 280, 287ff., 327, 351, 370, 388ff., - 399-400, 469-70, 549, 579, 588, 603, 615, 658, 673-4, 676, - 731, - 802, 815ff.; - Albert on, 567; - Aquinas, 610-1; - _Speculum astronomiae_, 696, 698ff.; - Bonatti, 835; - Arnald, 857-9; - Abano, 898-900, 908; - Cecco, 958-9; - wax, 814, 818, 835; - other magic, 264, 349, 806 - - Imagination, power of, 608, 614, 911 - - Impotence, 605, 821, 850, 853 - - Incantation, chap. lxvi, 141ff., 160, 232, 237, 242-3, 258, 275-6, - 320; - in Vincent, 466, 470; - in 13th century medicine, 482-3, 498, 851-2, 858; - Albert, 563, 574; - Aquinas on, 608; - Bacon, 621, 652, 661-5, 669; - Abano, 889-90, 900, 902-4; - Cecco, 953; - in books of experiments, 731, 780, 788, 802-3, 807; - experiments that work as well without, 361, 513, 662; - and see Notory Art; Words, power of - - Incense, 817, 820 - - Incubus, 299, 353, 358, 897, 960 - - India, chap. xlviii, 92, 224, 236-7, 293, 300, 325, 336, 346-7, 433, - 588, 645-6, 656, 786, 885, 894, 898-9 - - _Indicum_, 434 - - Infancy and Infant, 32, 332, 834, 957; - and see Child-birth - - Ink, 288, 788, 800, 806; - invisible, 467; - and see Writing - - Innocent IV, pope, 309, 459, 943 - - Innocent V, pope, 525 - - Innocent VIII, pope, 743 - - Inoculation, 907 - - Inquisition, 206-7, 368; - Bacon and, 31, 688-9; - Arnald and, 843, 846; - Spanish, 851; - Délicieux and, 860-1; - Lull, 864; - Abano, 875, 881, 934, 938-47; - Cecco, chap. lxxi - - Insanity, 142-3 - - Insect, 537 - - Insomnia, of Rasis, 754, 766 - - Instruments, scientific, 29-30, 454, 627, 652-3, 884; - musical, see Music - - Intellect, active, 631, 633; - unity of, 633 - - Intent, as a factor in magic, 665 - - Interpolations, 240, 461-6, 492, 722 - - Interrogations, astrological, 183-6, 255, 326, 370, 390, 579, 701, - 711, 832-3, 893; - of geomancy, 838 - - Intestines, 470, 899 - Inventions, church and, 30-1; - Roger Bacon and, 651, 654-5, 682-3; - Francis Bacon and, 681; - magic and, 975-6 - - Invisible, to become, 232, 287, 363, 387, 470, 603, 729, 800, 961; - and see Writing - - Ionicon, 322 - - Ireland and Irish, 190, 236, 408 - - Iron, use of, 232, 793; - taboo of, 386, 496, 819; - oriental, 392 - - Irrigation, 249, 601 - - Israelites, 389 - - Italy and Italian, chaps, lxvii, lxx, lxxi, 824, 925 - - - Jacinth, 141 - - Jacob and Esau, 469, 591 - - Jacob of Brescia, 952 - - Jacob of Padua, 941 - - James II, king of Aragon, 843-6 - - Jasper, 135, 331, 364, 389, 470 - - Jaundice, 482, 561 - - Jealousy, 54, 248, 769, 910, 967 - - Jerusalem, 160, 216, 239 - - Jew and Jewish, chap. xliv, 42, 195, 278, 288, 290, 299, 314, 389 - - Joachimite ideas, 842 - - John the Baptist, feast of, 483, 537 - - John XXII, pope, 713, 881, 935-8 - - John XXIII, pope, 644 - - John, bishop of Norwich, 174 - - John, patriarch of India, 239 - - John Orbelian, 240 - - John Venibene, 956 - - John of Vicenza, 831-2 - - John, see Prester, and other index - - Joints, of fingers and toes, 324; - pains in, 752 - - Joseph’s divining cup, 159 - - Judges in schemes of divination, 113ff. - - Juggler, 789 - - Julian, father of Peter of Spain, 488 - - Julius Caesar, 896 - - Juno, used for planet Venus, 109 - - Jupiter, the planet, 418, 583, 672, 834-5 - - Jusquiam, an herb, 496, 556, 725, 733 - - - Kathariel, spirit of Saturn, 323 - - Katherine, St., 327 - - King and Kingship, discussed, 268, 272-3, 909; - as patron of learning, 189; - predictions for, 296, 302, 583-4, 672, 895-6 - Knife, 111, 789 - - Knot, in magic and divination, 429, 819 - - - Laboratory, 216, 538, 572, 653 - - Ladder of Hermes, 481 - - Lamp, experiment with, 737, 782; - marvelous, 786 - - Land and water on earth’s surface, 645 - - Langton, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, 311-2 - - Language and Languages, 728; - scientific study of, 81, 192, 630, 640, 644-7, 863; - of animals or birds, 730, 782 - - Lantern, 785 - - Laon, 47 - - Lar, 357 - - Lateran Council, Second, 31; - Fourth, 465 - - Latin, learning, 70-1, 174, 375, 644, 677; - and see Education, Scholasticism, Style, Textual criticism, - Translation - - Laudanum, 324-5 - - Laurel, 506, 728, 816 - - Law, canon, 158, 189, 329-30, 631, 668, 931; - Mosaic, 162, 208, 212, 345, 371, 386; - Roman, 172-3, 179, 189, 193, 634, 636, 647, 896, 931; - miscellaneous, 273, 733, 834; - and see Inquisition, Legislation, Trial - - Laxative, 275, 504, 565 - - Lead, 224, 392, 802, 817, 857; - pencil, 173 - - Leather, 860 - - Left hand, etc., used or preferred, 231-2, 329, 482, 736, 762-3, - 854, 887 - - Legislation, concerning magic, 284, 660, 814 - - Lemon pips, 210 - - Lens, magnifying, 440-1, 456, 668 - - Lent, 465 - - Leopard, 145, 817, 909 - - Leprosy, 147, 331, 413, 573, 791 - - Lettuce, 564 - - Levitation, 359, 821, 904 - - Liberal arts, seven, 8, 23, 72, 190, 449, 788ff., 889; - and see Quadrivium - - Libraries, medieval, 62, 462, 627, 677, 845 - - Ligatures and suspensions, 14, 140, 142-3, 160, 209, 433, 470, 482, - 494, 496, 498, 561, 573, 608, 736, 762-3, 769, 779, 793, - 853-4, - 902 - - Light, 332, 344, 456, 591-2, 899 - Lightning, 564 - - Like loves like, 732 - - Lily, 728 - - Lincoln cathedral, 536 - - Linen, 391, 763 - - Liniment, 780 - - Lion, 57, 145, 361, 631, 732, 762; - Thomas of Cantimpré on, 381-5; - use of parts of, 243, 433, 560, 732-3; - figure of, 857-8, 899 - - Lioness, amours of, 384, 563 - - Liturgy, 292, 801 - - Liver, disease, 565; - divination, 299, 486; - use of, 135, 145, 148, 393, 484, 496-7, 561, 764 - - Livonia, 403 - - Lizard, 484, 786 - - Locusts, to avert, 854 - - Logic, 4, 155-7, 247, 489, 648, 865, 886; - magic, 144-7 - - Longevity, 655, 658, 894, 899; - predictable, 149, 701; - and see Fountain of youth - - Loosing bonds, 729, 737 - - Lord’s Prayer, 116, 120, 296, 467, 482, 608, 801, 848, 851-2, 952 - - Lorraine, 427 - - Lot-casting, 111ff., 320, 606-7, 662, 707; - and see Geomancy, and in other index _Sortes sanctorum_ - - Louis IX, St., king of France, 448, 458-9 - - Louis of Bavaria, emperor, 954 - - Love, 349, 731, 958; - charms and potions, 291, 555, 731, 736-7, 802, 808 - - Lunacy, 145, 907 - - Lung, 143, 145, 412, 565 - - Lynx, 200 - - Lyons, Council of, 526 - - - Machinery, 654-5 - - Magi, who came to Christ child, 6, 111, 239, 318, 483, 497, 553, - 591, - 611-2, 614, 904, 961; - of Persia and east, 291; - Prester John and, 239; - Michael Scot on, 318 - - Magic, chaps, lxiii, lxv, lxvi; - discussed by Hugh of St. Victor, 13-5; - Hildegard, 138-9; - John of Salisbury, 157; - Maimonides, 208-9; - Michael Scot, 318-21; - William of Auvergne, 341-9, 353-4; - Albert, 548-60, 704-6; - Aquinas, 602-5; - Bacon, 659-63, 704-6; - Cecco, 963-4; - Pico della Mirandola, 970; - as an art, 605; - use or abuse of nature, 139; - materials employed, 138-9, 227, 603; - personal requirements of magician, 209, 604-5, 733, 817-8; - relation to science and medicine, 8, 79-80, 138-9, 559-60, 604-5, - 663, 666, 816, 848, 977, 982; - reality of, 319-20, 603; - fraud and illusion of, 14, 343, 345, 349, 358, 585, 660-1, 669, - 821, 975; - evil, 319-20, 604, 713; - good or natural, 237, 339, 343, 346-7, 550, 554, 970; - immunity from, 352-3, 553, 731; - marvelous results of, 603, 821; - history of, 647, 659-60, 911; - final definition, 973ff.; - of the present, 979-81; - and see Accusation, Legislation, _Maleficium_, Necromancy, - Sorcery, - Witchcraft, etc. - - Magna Graecia, 46 - - Magnet, 48, 143, 261, 316, 359, 361, 388, 482, 524, 556, 566, 607, - 734, 769, 791, 854, 907; - magnetic poles, 907 - - _Magnus annus_, 203, 370, 418, 589, 710, 744, 895 - - Majorca, 862-64 - - _Maleficium_, 14, 158, 320, 347, 551, 604, 901; - personified, 138-9 - - Mallow plant, 140 - - Mandragora, 135, 139, 142, 817 - - Manfred, king of Sicily, 221, 254, 757, 930, 965 - - Mani and Manicheism, 60, 611, 672 - - Mania, 408, 858 - - Manna, 243, 324-5, 393 - - Mansions of sun or moon, 113ff., 183, 223, 699, 820 - - _Mantike_, 14 - - Manuel Comnenus, emperor, 230, 240, 292 - - Manuscripts, are discussed too frequently in notes and text to - index; - for individual MSS see Index of Manuscripts; - for Illuminated MSS see Illumination - - Maps, 426 - - Marble, 386, 737 - - Marduch, 298 - - Maria or Marietta, Abano’s housekeeper, 940, 946 - - _Maria_, a star, 387 - - Mariner’s compass, see Compass - - Marriage, 605, 850 - - Mars, the planet, 418, 583 - - Marseilles, 91-3, 181, 206, 486-7, 638, 844 - - Marsilius de Carrara, 943 - - Martin IV, pope, 828 - - Martin de Oliviera, 937 - - Martyr and Martyrdom, 333, 682, 863, 949 - - Marvels, chap. lxiii; - of Toledo, 174; - of Prester John, 241ff.; - and experience, 655, 734; - of art and nature, 663-8, 733-4, 737-8; - cures, 768-9 - - Mary, the Virgin, 355, 549, 672 - - Mass, sacrament of, 800, 851 - - _Matesis_, see _Mathesis_ - - _Mathematica_, 14 - - Mathematical method, 647-9, 682 - - Mathematics, 438, 630, 803, 813; - teaching of, 641 - - _Mathematicus_, 11, 148, 309, 418, 445, 553, 580, 669 - - _Mathesis_, 11, 158, 319, 580, 669 - - Matilda, wife of Henry I of England, 45 - - Matter, 181, 368, 420, 581, 633, 699; - eternity or indestructibility of, 36, 208 - - Mead, 434 - - Meal, 148, 506 - - Measurement, 653 - - Meat, cooked made to appear raw, 787 - - Mechanical devices, 654, 661, 669, 865 - - Medicine, chaps. lvii, lviii, lxiv, lxviii, lxx, 289, 533-6, 542, - 802, 804, 807, 828; - of Hildegard, 126, 130; - _Secret of Secrets_, 273; - Michael Scot, 331; - Bartholomew, 412-3; - Lull, 866-7, 872; - theological attitude toward, 15, 168, 364, 369; - and see Astrological, History of, etc. - - Melancholy, 137, 145, 408, 506, 850, 907 - - Melon, 834 - - Memory, 34, 584 - - Menstrual fluid, 329, 332, 470 - - _Mephus_, a tree, 781 - - Mercenaries, English companies of, 802 - - Merchant, 273, 349 - - Mercury, metal, 471, 573, - and see Quicksilver; - planet, 234, 325, 672, 955 - - Merlin, 190, 331, 954, 960 - - Mermaid, 544 - - _Meropis_, an herb, 555 - - Metals and Metallurgy, 32, 217, 392, 459, 572, 788, 806; - and see Planets and, Alchemy - - Meteor, 562 - - Methodism, in medicine, 499 - - Michael, the angel, 288, 900 - - Michael, bishop of Tarazona, 86-7, 257 - - Microcosm, 153, 174, 325, 377, 446, 577, 586 - - Microscope, 112, 441 - - Middle ages, influence in, of early Christian literature, 53, 157; - Adelard, 43; - William of Conches, 61-2; - Daniel of Morley, 180-1; - and see Classical Heritage - - Midnight, 140, 144 - - Milk, cow’s, 434, 728-9, 793, 887; - woman’s, 32, 505, 563, 744; - other, 496, 505, 737 - - Mill, 351, 787 - - Millionaires, 349 - - Mind, occult virtue of, 557, 731, 849, 902 - - Mining, 545 - - Mineralogy, 261, 545, 573 - - _Minium_, 434, 573 - - Miracle, 552, 631; - of apostle Thomas, 238-9; - John of Vicenza, 831; - distinguished from magic, 148, 160-1, 602-3; - denied, 944 - - Mirror, 177, 190, 199, 262, 442; - comic and magic, 243, 287, 789, 806, 817; - and see Divination by polished surfaces, Optics - - _Miserere_, 296 - - Missionary, 863 - - Mob, see Populace - - Modern, 25-6, 58, 86-7, 91, 210, 413, 450-1, 464, 495, 548, 729 - - Modesty or lack of, in writers, 406, 499, 643, 761, 764 - - Mohammed and Mohammedanism, 20, 42, 672, 863, 897-8 - - Mole, 147, 288, 336, 341, 545, 737, 793 - - Monasticism, 14, 189ff., 299, 363, 381, 437, 487, 490, 634, 758, - 761, - 806, 838 - - Monster, 264, 358, 433, 537; - and see Chimaera - - Monstrous races, 241, 376 - - Monte Cassino, 595-6 - - Monteus, “friend,” 759-60 - - Montfort, Simon de, 448, 622 - - Month, specified, 856 - - Montheus, see Monteus - - Montpellier, 190, 200, 336, 525, 843, 845, 852-3, 863, 881, 935 - - Moon, controls generation and corruption, 145, 150-1, 164, 326, 329, - 393; - observance of, 113, 116, 143, 148, 152-3, 209, 234, 319, 323, 325, - 467, 569, 588, 671, 795, 856; - relation to other planets and to signs, 484-5, 804; - man in, 192; - addressed, 819; - and see Bleeding, Mansions of - - Moonbeam, 72, 202 - - Moon-tree, 389 - - _Morea_, 231 - - Morphea, a disease, 471 - - Moth, 560 - - Mouse, 146, 393, 817, 909 - - Mountain, 236, 424 - - Mouth, holding in, 143 - - Moving picture, 384 - - Murder, 482 - - Muscle, 158, 565 - - Music, 790; - divisions of, 37; - and astrology, 40; - and medicine, 445, 887; - instruments, 45, 363, 435; - of the spheres, 203, 325 - - Myrtle, 506 - - Mysticism, 9, 272, 764 - - Mythology, 57, 191 - - - Nahe river, 126, 132 - - Nail, metal, 148, 209 - - Nail parings, 483, 834 - - Names, see Christ, God, Place, and Words, power of - - Naples, 284, 314, 596-7, 757, 843, 959 - - Napoleon, 785 - - Narce, 780 - - Narcotic, 559; - and see Anaesthetic - - Nasturtium, 565 - - Nativities, 152, 212, 255, 300, 326, 369, 585, 700, 893, 895, 955-6 - - Nature, 733, 857; - nothing impure in, 30; - medieval love of, 537 - - Navigation, 80, 177, 236, 654; - and see Compass - - Nebuchadnezzar, 299, 449, 897-8; - era of, 898 - - Necromancy, chap. lxvi, 166; - Michael Scot on, 319, 322, 327; - William of Auvergne, 343, 358; - Albert, 549-52, 555-6, 579; - Bacon, 661; - at Paris, 707, 713; - in experimental books, 782, 800, 803; - Arnald on, 848-50; - Lull and theistic argument from, 861, 872-3; - relation to science, 72, 80, 177, 346, 734; - images of, 258, 280, 356, 696, 698, 701, 705-6, 731, 899-900; - Abano and, 912, 946; - Cecco and, 963-6 - - Nectanebus, 246, 264, 350, 587, 700 - - Needle, 227 - - Neo-Platonism, 531 - - Nero, emperor, 134 - - Nestorians, 239 - - Nightingale, 144 - - Night time, and magic, 319, 899, 976; - and see Midnight - - Nigromancy, see Necromancy - - Nile, 583 - - Nine, 143, 280, 496, 563 - - Nitrate, 484 - - Noah, 254; - as one of three Hermeses, 215, 222; - sons of, 837 - - Nogaret, 843 - - Noiseless guns and powder, 807 - - Noon, 140 - - Norman and Normandy, 45, 51 - - Nose, why above mouth, 30 - - Nosebleed, 761 - - Notebook, 264 - - Notory art, chap. xlix, 235, 319, 604, 903-4 - - Nudity, 802 - - Number, observed and perfect, 53, 276-7, 366, 444, 485, 702, 904 - - Numerals, Hindu-Arabic, 237, 312 - - Nymph, 357 - - - Oak, 387 - - Obscenity, in magic or medicine, 561, 743-4, 817 - - Observation, by Adelard, 39; - medieval astronomers, 186, 262; - Bartholomew, 406; - Witelo, 456; - Albert, 532, 534, 539-41, 547; - sculptors, 536-7; - Bacon, 652; - reputed Chaldean, 838; - Arnald, 843, 864; - Abano, 884 - - Occult virtue, discussed in general by, John of Salisbury, 160-1; - Neckam, 201-2; - Maimonides, 209-10; - Michael Scot, 324, 331; - William of Auvergne, 361ff.; - Thomas of Cantimpré, 387-8; - Peter of Spain, 494, 507, 511; - Albert, 565-6; - Aquinas, 607; - Bacon, 664, 667; - Arnald, 854-5; - Abano, 892-3; - relation to fetishism and animism, 893; - miscellaneous, 766, 769, 779, 972 - - Octave, 203, 325 - - Odor, 434, 905 - - Oil, 413, 484, 505-6, 561, 737, 753, 762, 766, 786, 817 - - Old men, death of, desired, 526 - - Old-wives, 351, 358, 482, 608, 662, 851, 853; - and see Witch - - Oliviera, Martin de, 937 - - Olympias, mother of Alexander, 587 - - Olympus, Mt., 242 - - Omens and portents, 159-60, 301 - - _Onager_, or wild ass, 474 - - Onocentaur, 380 - - Onyx, 243 - - Ophites, a Gnostic sect, 867 - - _Opthalmius_, a gem, 729 - - “Opinion,” in animals, 35 - - Opium, 496, 755 - - Optics, 80, 89, 409, 592; - Grosseteste, 438, 440-3; - Witelo, 454-6; - Roger Bacon, 619, 629-30, 638, 649, 667-8; - optical illusions, 561, 736, 787, 885 - - Oracle, 269, 291, 298 - - Orbelian, John, 240 - - Ordeal, 736-7, 786, 903 - - Originality, 10, 53, 131, 618, 635, 764 - - _Origanum_, an herb, 508, 564 - - Ostia, 279 - - Ostrich, 386, 541 - - Ouija board, 110 - - Owl, 195, 336, 729 - - Ox, 807 - - Oxford, 190, 355, 438, 525, 621, 629, 634, 637-8, 685-6, 863 - - Oyster, 191 - - - Padua, 456, 523, 875-6, 879-83, 888-9, 914-6, 930-3, 941-7 - - Paganism, 102, 141, 288 - - Pain, 886 - - Painting, 889 - - Palazzo della Ragione, 889 - - Palermo, 638 - - Palestine, 244 - - Palmistry, 282; - and see Chiromancy - - Pamphile, a witch, 975-6 - - Pan, a kind of spirit, 104 - - Panacea, 471 - - Papacy, 238-9, 596; - and poisons, 905, 909, 938; - papal physicians, 244-5, 479, 490, chap. lviii, 844-6, 881; - other patronage of science, 311-2, 622ff., 643, 689, 758, 881, - 901, - 939, 945; - abuses at papal court, 437 - - Paradise, 198, 238, 242, 387, 462, 474 - - Paralysis, 145, 506, 560, 588, 768, 887 - - Parchment, 227, 288, 482, 627, 788, 800 - - Pard, 382 - - Parietary, 852 - - Paris, and university of, 4, 52, 155, 172-3, 189, 237, 306, 313-4, - 339, 355, 362, 374, 381, 403, 405, 415, 427, 489-90, 523-8, - 545, 576, 595ff., 601, 628, 634, 637-40, 645, 657, 675, 694, - 707, 712, 742, 792, 801, 803, 842-4, 863, 869-71, 877, 915, - 929 - - Parliament, 621 - - Parrot, 473 - - Parsley, 508, 565 - - Partridge, 496 - - _Paternoster_, see Lord’s prayer - - Patriarchs, 283, 632, 646, 671, 894 - - Paul, apostle, 333; - potion of, 481, 860 - - Paul II, pope, 832 - - Peacock, 195 - - Pearl, 513 - - Peking, 674 - - Pelican, 542 - - Penalty, 273 - - Penance, 391, 952 - - Penates, 358 - - Pentagon, 280, 288, 351 - - Peony, 209, 359 - - People, 273 - - Pepper, 472, 506, 733, 817, 851 - - Peripatetic, 37, 70, 450, 584, 896, 902, 939 - - Persecution, reputed cases of, 31, 311, 620ff., 628, 674-7, 682, - 685, - 707 - - Persia and Persian, 228, 239-40, 261, 278, 293, 299-300, 449, 612, - 898 - - Persian fire, 565 - - Personification, 23, 48, 102 - - Perspective, see Optics - - Peter III, king of Aragon, 843 - - Peter, _Judex de Altichino_, 933 - - Pharaoh’s fig, 877; - magicians, 8, 296, 350, 408, 552 - - Pharmacy, 480, 856 - - Philip of Macedon, 262 - - Philip IV, the Fair, king of France, 843, 938 - - Philology, see Etymology, and Languages, scientific study of - - Philosopher’s stone, 215ff., 802 - - Philosophy, Greek, 25, 30, 174, 179, 195, 480; - history of, 448-50, 646-7; - medieval, 53, 70, 157, 340, 522, 630, 635, 637, 765, 889-91; - divisions of, 283; - and magic, 72, 663 - - Phison river, 239 - - Phoenix, 532 - - Phoenicia, 361 - - _Physica_, 10, 160 - - Physics, 72, 89, 198, 591, 649, 765 - - _Physicus_, 422 - - Physiognomy, 169, 328-9, 485, 575, 887, 890, 910 - - Physiology, 408 - - Pie, 505 - - Pietro di Tarantasia, see Innocent V - - Pig, 57, 325, 412, 505, 764, 766 - - Pill, 140, 331, 482, 753, 761, 769 - - Pisa, 638 - - Pith, 563 - - Place names, 30 - - Placides, 791 - - Plagiarism, 88, 216, 626-7 - - Plagues of Egypt, 223, 352, 583 - - Planetary week, 203 - - Planets, motion, 195; - properties, 57, 417-8, 820, 829, 834-5, 849, 868-9; - and metals, 42, 323, 335, 445, 452, 797; - and herbs, 908; - and human body, 486, 833, 855-6; - and religious change, 42, 370, 672, - and see Conjunctions; - spirits of, 323, 820, 888, 900 - - Plantagenet, an herb, 139, 482 - - Plaster, 324, 412, 480, 766, 852 - - Plate, metal, 854 - - Platonism, 5, 55, 178 - - Plumbing, 392, 678 - - Plurality of benefices, 312 - - Poetry, 100, 191, 862 - - Poison, Maimonides on, 210-1; - Abano, 904-10; - poisonous human beings, 277, 483, 544; - other cases of, 413, 483, 504, 714, 861; - safeguards against, 144, 242, 386, - and see Antidote - - Poland, 454, 526, 545 - - Politics, 11, 953-4 - - Poplar, 506 - - Populace and Popular risings, control of stars over, 369, 586, 610, - 671, 890; - and see _Vulgus_ - - Pork, 147, 505 - - Pottery, 34, 572, 801 - - _Practica_, 801-2 - - Practical utility, Roger Bacon’s insistence on, 630, 641, 651, 678, - 681 - - Practice, medical, 480, 575, 684, 740, 761, 881 - - _Praestigium_, 15, 320, 551, 556 - - Prayer, 55, 126, 274, 327, 369, 549, 666; - and see Incantation, Lord’s Prayer, Notory art - - Predestination, 866 - - Prester John, chap. xlvii, 270 - - Priest, 39, 391, 497, 740-2, 835, 850 - - Priscillianists, 611 - - Private parts, 480, 561 - - Professions, learned, 54, 317, 769 - - Prometheus, 647 - - Prophecy, 168, 212, 354, 357, 359, 461, 558, 902 - - Providence, 166, 589 - - Psychology, 408, 461, 497 - - Pulse, 887 - - Pun, 189 - - Purgatory, 286, 325 - - Purification, 142, 288, 320, 352, 729 - - Purple, 231, 421 - - Pygmy, 357 - - Pyrenees, 322 - - Pyrites, 431 - - Pyromancy, 86, 701-2 - - Pythagorean, 487, 566, 574, 895 - - - _Quadrivium_, 10, 22, 80, 156 - - Quadruped, 145ff. - - Qualities, four, 34, 54, 480, 507, 733, 871, 886; - innate, 732 - - Quicklime, 782, 785, 793 - - Quicksilver, 263, 499, 500, 573, 793, 797, 907; - and see Mercury - - _Quinquefolium_, an herb, 725 - - Quinsy, 852-3, 858 - - - Rabbi, 206, 209 - - Races, monstrous, 241, 376 - - Radiation of force, light, etc., 443, 455, 648, 667, 906 - - Rainbow, 440, 547, 652 - - Rain-making, 780-1, 910, 976 - - Rain-water, 133 - - Raphael, the angel, 288, 900 - - Rat, 792 - - Raymond, archbishop of Laon, 33, 627 - - Raymond, archbishop of Toledo, 73, 76 - - Readers and Reading, medieval, 10, 481 - - Reason, process of, 299, 317, 983; - and experience, 28-9, 78, 298-301, 499, 508ff., 727, 734, 765, - 854-5; - life of, 981 - - Red, used, 231, 413, 482 - - Red Sea, 236, 387, 729 - - Reed, 363, 497 - - Reformed churches, 845 - - Reflection and Refraction, see Optics - - _Regulus_, a serpent, 905 - - Reims, 340 - - Relics, 601 - - Religion, medieval attitude, 192, 493, 528, 571, 649, 678, 764-7, - 779, 826, 888, 939; - and magic and astrology, 42, 284, 370, 962; - and science, 28, 31, 58-62, 131, 168-9, 175, 179ff., 197-8, - 207-8, - 305-6, 327-8, 340ff., 415, 439, 530-1, 600ff., 631-2, 640, - 644, - 709-13, 863, 939, 971-2; - and see Theology - - Renaissance, 273, 593, 883 - - Reputation for magic, see Accusation of - - Resurrection of the body, 355-6, 671, 944 - - Resuscitation of corpses, 287, 656, 831, 903 - - Revelation, 647, 855 - - Revolutions, astrological, 700, 832-4, 895-6, 960 - - Rhetoric, 24, 72, 100, 296-7, 341, 788-9 - - Rheum, 858 - - Rialto, 244 - - Rich, Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, 459 - - Richard I, king of England, 188 - - Richard, bishop of Bayeux, 21, 44ff. - - Riddles, 789 - - Right, hand, etc., used or preferred, 144-6, 231, 329, 421, 482, - 508, 729-30, 762, 767, 854, 887 - - Ring, 143, 280, 321, 351, 387, 793, 853, 908, 959 - - Ringworm, 473 - - River, 132-3, 802 - - Roads, medieval, 623 - - Robbers, 232, 574 - - Robert, king of Naples, 846, 967 - - Romances, medieval vernacular, 263 - - Rome, 189, 239, 525, 596-7, 629, 861, 863 - - Rose, 561, 787; - oil of, 384 - - Royal Society, 804 - - Ruddy complexion, 336 - - Rue, 386; - eaten by weasel, 506 - - Ruins excavated, 526 - - Rustic experience, 509 - - - Sabians, 756 - - Sacrament, last, 832 - - Sacrifice, 228, 288, 321, 347, 556, 603, 652, 666, 669, 755, 817, - 820; - human, 319-21, 964 - - Saffron, 140, 820 - - Saga, Norse, 540 - - Sage, the spice, 790 - - Saint, see Canonization, Relics - - St. Albans, 188 - - Saladin, 206 - - Sal ammoniac, 472, 793, 797 - - Salamander, 242, 473, 909 - - Salary, professor’s, 931-3 - - Salerno, 46, 190, 200, 210, 482, 757, 851 - - Saliva, 142ff., 202, 211, 277, 360, 483, 561, 817, 860 - - Salmon, 143 - - Salt, 336, 453, 483, 573, 797; - and see Holy - - Saltpeter, 690, 737, 793, 807 - - Salvia, 386, 744, 790 - - Sanjar the Seljuk, 240 - - Sapphire, 242, 363, 431, 553, 566, 855 - - Sardonix, a gem, 242 - - Sarpedon, 290 - - _Satia_, a spirit, 358 - - Satire, 872 - - Saturn, the planet, 57, 289, 418, 820, 869, 894 - - Satyr, 358 - - Saxony, 526, 545 - - Scab, 473 - - Scammony, 511 - - Scarification, 412 - - Scepticism, see Credulity and - - Schism, papal, 126 - - Scholasticism, chap. xxxv, 19, 26, 272, 315, 502, 613, 632-3, 641, - 647, 681, 730, 738, 885 - - Scholiast and Scholium, 232 - - Sciatica, 761 - - Scientific spirit, curiosity, etc., 27, 31ff., 139, 196-7, 406, - 503ff., 535ff., 657, 663, 792, 816, 886, 891-2, 970-1, 978-9; - and see Experience, Observation, Religion and science - - Scorpion, 210, 383, 413, 561, 699, 768, 796, 899 - - Scot and Scotland, 428 - - Sculpture, 536-7 - - Sea, 132, 341; - of sand, 242 - - Sea-calf, 899; - fowl, 190; - serpent, 544 - - Seasons, four, 300, 886-7 - - Secrecy, 197, 224, 258, 265, 267, 271, 284, 299, 320, 571, 621, 625, - 636, 663, 754, 761, 763, 765, 805, 835, 905, 982 - - Seed, grows instantly, 782 - - _Semen_, 332, 345 - - Sense, deceived, 789; - of nature, 348, 350, 361, 407; - origin of all ideas, 847 - - Sepulcher, 423 - - Serf and Servant, 410 - - Sermon, 375-6, 634, 952 - - _Serpentaria_, a root, 908 - - Seven, 41, 72, 111, 153, 224, 276, 323, 392, 498, 563, 737, 788, - 817-9, 866 - - Seven Sleepers, 725, 759 - - Sex and Sexual, observed in magic, 147, 353, 494, 563, 736, 899; - predicted, 329, 469, 590, 744, 838; - controlled, 730; - medieval and modern attitude to discussion of, 742-3; - of snake, 413; - of palms, 361; - of planets, 164, 417; - intercourse, 224, 329, 331, 353, 358, 382, 546, 561, 901 - - Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, 298 - - Shaving the head, 142, 412, 563 - - Sheep, 190, 348, 733 - - Sheepskin, 147 - - Shem, 321, 449 - - Ship, 349, 835 - - Shipwreck, 232 - - Shirt, 483 - - Shoe, 143 - - Sicily, 30, 45, 309-10, 341 - - Sick room, 506 - - Siena, 489 - - Sieve, 903 - - Sigmund, Count Palatine, 740 - - Silence, observed, 482, 487 - - Silk, 231, 819 - - Silvanus, 104 - - Silver, 202, 224, 470, 818, 853-4, 907 - - Simon Magus, 320, 954 - - Simples, 510, 816-7 - - Sin, 286, 324, 328, 474-5, 858, 870; - effect on nature, 136, 192, 201; - as an obstacle to science, 632 - - _Sinciput_, 737 - - Siphon, 199, 249, 790, 804 - - Siren, 380 - - Skin, 143, 145, 484, 560; - changing, 795 - - Skull, 859 - - Slav and Slave, 909 - - Sleep, 887 - - Sleight-of-hand, 343, 345, 661, 669, 789 - - Smallpox, 482-3 - - Smoke, 362 - - Snake, Alexander and, 262, 266; - experiments with, 656, 785, 794-6; - charming, 904; - safeguards against, 420, 483, 506, 539, 561; - medicinal and other use of, 226, 413, 484, 513, 769; - skin of, 74, 345, 363, 498; - poison of, 905, 908 - - Sneeze, divination from, 330, 606 - - Soap bubble, 787, 790 - - Socrates, 112, 262ff., 278, 908; - and see other index - - Sodom, apples of, 387 - - Solids, regular, 648 - - Solon, 647 - - Soporific, 262, 753 - - Sorcery, 7, 265, 319, 332, 423, 731, 848-50; - counter-magic against, 139-40, 497, 850-1; - and see Witchcraft - - _Sortilegi_, 14 - - Soul, human, discussions of, 376, 408, 485, 735; - Plato on, 104, 865; - immorality of, 255, 462, 838; - power of, 574-5, 664-5, 674, 849; - from stars, 40, 211; - or from God?, 329, 584; - relation to stars, 590, 614, 710; - other than human, 35, 348, 362, 564-6, 584, 710; - and see World - - Sound, 32 - - Spain and Spanish, chap. xxxviii, 172-3, 181, 322, 813, 862; - era of, 74 - - Sparrow, 505 - - Spatulamancy, 86 - - Species, 443, 732, 855, 893, 906; - permanence of, 533, 867; - for Specific form, see Form - - Spice, 472 - - Spider, 348, 413, 544, 763 - - Spirits, good or evil, discussed by, Athelardus, 42-3; - William of Conches, 55, 61; - Bernard Silvester, 104; - Hildegard, 134ff.; - Maimonides, 208; - Pseudo-Aristotle, 259-60; - William of Auvergne, 353ff.; - Thomas of Cantimpré, 393; - Bartholomew, 407; - Vincent, 462, 468; - Roger Bacon, 667; - Abano, 889; - Cecco, 963-6; - expulsion of, and power over, 135, 143, 232, 357, 359-60, 387, - 965, - and see Exorcism; - fall of, 55, 104, 130, 134, 136, 357; - in the air, 55, 104, 135, 139, 323, 357, 394, 466; - in heavens and stars, 55, 136, 287, 289, 323, 343, 355-6, 468, - 581-2, 608, 670, 710, 849, 897, 899, 953, 958, 963; - in the moon, 323, 698; - in nature, 7, 135ff., 355, 358-60, 387; - invocation of, 280, 320ff., 327, 422, 556, 674, 712, 781, 807, - chap. lxvi, 848-9, 892, 912, 953, 959, 963, - and see Necromancy, Notory art; - magic, astrology, arts and sciences ascribed to, 6, 138, 154, 158, - 160, 298, 319ff., 343, 551-2, 603-6, 661, 669, 733-4, 818, - 899; - mediums between God or gods and man, 55, 208, 227, 461; - orders of, 55, 104, 285, 317, 357-8; - possession by, 355, 497, 816; - safeguards against, 135, 148, 241-2, 261, 470 - - Spiritual Franciscans, 842 - - _Spiritus_, 33, 298, 385 - - Spleen, 470, 504, 565 - - Spring, water, 133, 744; - caused to flow, 819; - and see Fountain, Seasons - - Stars, nature of, 5, 40-1, 48, 103, 149, 208, 366, 381, 697; - as signs and not causes, especially of evil, 149ff., 316, 367; - affected by magic, 225-6; - fixed, 368, 418, 820; - shooting, 320; - and see Astrology, Planets, etc. - - State, 157 - - Statue, of Abano, 947; - animated, 351; - and see Head, speaking - - Steel, 135, 392, 453, 788, 791 - - Stephen, St., 160, 327-8 - - Stoic, 582, 895-6 - - Stomach, 145, 470, 472, 504, 565, 853-4 - - Stone, the disease, 546, 844, 847, 857-8 - - Stork, 422 - - Storm-averting magic, 232, 287, 353, 469-70, 821 - - Strasburg, 597 - - Stupor, 761 - - Style, literary, 54, 129, 157, 191, 216, 261, 290, 410, 693, 725, - 764 - - Stylus, 227, 762 - - Submarine, 263, 654 - - Substance and accident, 734 - - Succubus, 358, 897, 960 - - Sucking out poison, 908 - - Suffumigation, see Fumigation - - Sugar, 325, 817 - - Suggestion, force of, 346 - - Suicide, 107 - - Sulphur, 471, 573, 737, 786, 793, 797, 817 - - Sun, and magic, 153, 470, 728; - rising, 140; - before sunrise, 232, 472; - before sunset, 140, 232; - miraculous suns, 318; - variations in heat of, 368; - oracle of, 269; - tree of, 387 - - Surgery, 480, 760, 856, 894 - - Swallow, 420-1, 767, 853; - wort and stone, 420-1 - - Swan, 145 - - Sweat, 135 - - Sword, magic, 227; - poisoned, 561, 910 - - Symbolism, 137, 198, 402; - in alchemy, 217, 562 - - Sympathetic magic, 202, 497, 561, 852, 907 - - Symptoms, 766 - - Syria, Syriac, and Syrian, 66, 231, 237, 239, 244, 248, 261, 294, - 756 - - Syringe, 908 - - - Tables, astronomical, 68, 92, 262, 638, 644, 668, 814; - of contents, 130-1 - - Talisman, 264, 675; - and see Amulet, Image - - Tambourine, 819 - - Tape-worm, 887 - - Tarasia, queen, 76 - - Tarragona, 843, 846 - - Tartars, 645, 674 - - _Taxo_, a beast, 336 - - Teacher and Teaching, see Education - - Tears, 345, 817; - and see Weeping - - Telescope, 112, 441 - - Temistius, horn of, 265 - - Templars, 910 - - Ten, 444, 819 - - _Terra sigillata_, 210, 909 - - Testicles, 561, 850; - and see Beaver - - Tetragrammaton, 210, 800, 857 - - Text, Textual criticism and history, 213, 230, 240, 268ff., 450, - 460-3, 491-2, 519, 647, 722, 739; - and see Interpolation - - Textbooks, 406, 456, 489, 491, 620, 641 - - Thamur, or worm of Solomon, 386-7 - - Thaumaturgy, 456 - - Theater, 32, 82, 158 - - Thebes, 284 - - Theft, discovery of, or recovery of stolen objects, 287, 348, 603, - 728, 800, 804, 806-8, 903; - prevention of, 143, 348-9 - - Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, 156 - - Theobald, king of Navarre, 296 - - Theodoric the East Goth, 803 - - Theodosius de Flisco, 836 - - Theology, attitude, chap. lii. 3, 169, 317, 462, 466, 530-1, 602, - 631-2, 792; - teaching of, 11, 156, 375, 475, 595-8, 639-40, 848, 865-6; - boy theologians, 11, 639; - grades of theologians, 451; - criticism of, 634, 638-41, 831; - and magic, 660; - and astrology and astronomy, 90-1, 621, 694, 703, 709ff., 830-3, - 869-71, 892, 899, 901, 949; - Arnald and, 843-5; - and see Religion - - Theriac, 210, 361, 473, 755, 909-10 - - Theurgy, 286 - - Thomas, apostle, chap. xlvii, 475, 477 - - Thorn, 483 - - Thoth, god, 227 - - Thought, freedom of, 103; - indestructibility of, 983-4 - - Three, 142-3, 140, 277, 496, 744, 851-2 - - Threshold, 497 - - Throat, 492 - - Thunder, divination from, 223, 320, 351, 804; - miscellaneous, 326, 562, 583 - - Tide, 57, 366 - - Tiger, 542 - - Tigris river, 239 - - Time, ways of telling, 68, 223, 325; - divisions of, 419; - observed in magic, 209, 293, 300, 365, 603, 800; - and see Day, Month, Moon, Sun, Calendar, etc. - - Timeo, 743, 791 - - Tin, 392, 802, 959 - - Toad, 201, 336, 352, 381, 386, 545-7, 768, 796, 909 - - Toledo, 87-88, 171ff., 179-80, 262, 284, 310, 638, 668, 784, 814 - - Tongue, 231, 408, 555 - - Tooth, 209, 273, 470, 482, 560, 574, 728, 762-3, 767, 782, 851 - - Toothache, cures for, 144, 492, 496, 561, 565, 767-8 - - Toothpowder, 496 - - Topaz, 331, 363 - - Torpedo, 361 - - Tortoise, 362, 564, 854 - - Torture, 273, 903 - - Touch, 886, 905 - - Toulouse, 156, 262, 668 - - Tours, 46, 100 - - Tradition, see Authority, Textual history - - Transformation, magic, 320, 345, 603, 662, 674, 736, 821, 965 - - Translation, chaps. xxxviii, lxiv, lxv; - from Greek into Arabic, 213, 249, 260, 759, 764; - vernacular, 66, 74, 241, 405-6, 480, 490-1, 677, 827, 846, 877, - 926; - pretended Latin, 26-7, 66, 240; - of Aristotle and the Psuedo-Aristotle, 194-5, 247ff., 269ff., 276, - 310ff., 394-5, 576, 598-600, 633, 708; - Roger Bacon on, 633-4, 643; - by Abano, 877-9, 883-4, 888, 927; - miscellaneous Latin, 20ff., 100, 111-2, 119-20, 205-7, 214ff., - 229-30, 233, 291ff., 310ff., 394-5, 438, 455-6, 487, 643, - 708, - 778-9, 847, 929-30, 972 - - Travel, 45, 156, 238, 481, 541, 843, 877 - - Treasure, hidden, 557, 603, 807, 838, 965 - - Tree, 139, 231, 296, 325, 387, 539, 817, 853; - of life, 266; - of sun and moon, 474; - figure of, in Lull’s Art, 867; - poisonous, 907 - - Tree-toad, 139 - - Treviso, 880-1, 930-1 - - Trials for heresy and magic, 674-7, 843-5, 860-1, 938, 942-7, chap. - lxxi; - and see Accusation, Inquisition - - Trinity, 53, 58-60, 317-8, 407, 462, 493 - - _Trivium_, 10 - - Trophonius, 290 - - Tropics, 583, 878 - - Trumpet, 803 - - Truth, 25, 211, 489, 642, 652, 662-3, 732 - - Tunny fish, 143 - - Turk, 294; - see Bath for Turkish bath - - Turpentine, 784, 793 - - Turquoise, 431 - - Turtle, 541, 736 - - Twins, marvelous, 557, 745; - and astrology, 895 - - Tyriac, see Theriac - - - Ugo, brother, 832 - - Ulcer, 470, 472, 566 - - Underworld, 13, 356, 671, 827 - - Unguent, 142, 144, 480, 561 - - Unicorn, 146 - - Universals and particulars, 535, 633 - - Universe, theories of, 12-3, 35-8, 129ff., 150ff., 175ff., 275, 366, - 413, 439, 462; - duration of, 255, 317, 341, 648, 898 - - Universities, see names of cities, as Paris, Oxford, Treviso, - Bologna - - Urban IV, pope, 94, 453, 459, 597, 599 - - Urine, use of, 251, 331, 336, 360, 392, 487, 506, 563, 736, 788, - 817, - 860 - - Uucathon, a spirit, 289 - - - Vacuum, 37, 196, 199, 648 - - Valbona, battle of, 638, 827 - - Valence, 906 - - Valencia, 842, 844 - - Vein, 131 - - _Veneficus_, 904-5 - - Venibene, John, tyrant of Ascoli, 956 - - Venice, 426, 523 - - Ventriloquism, 651 - - Venus, the planet, 109, 260, 356, 552, 672, 955 - - Verbena or Vervain, 555 - - Villa, 183, 525 - - Vinegar, 412, 816 - - Viper, 413, 483, 564 - - Virgin and Virginity, 365, 382, 386, 729, 819 - - Virtue, animal, natural, and vital, 886; - and see Occult - - Virtues, seven, 886 - - Vision, theories of, 32-3, 409, 440, 456, 901 - - Visions, 126ff., 155, 212, 549, 559, 577 - - Viterbo, 456, 597 - - Vitriol, 336 - - Vivisection, 487 - - Voice, 359, 661, 665 - - Vomiting, 273, 510, 908 - - _Vulgus_, 54, 190, 369, 621, 631, 636, 731, 738, 859 - - _Vultivoli_, 158 - - Vulture, 144, 262, 348, 496-7, 851 - - - Wager of battle, 241 - - Wall of house, 199, 497 - - Walrus, 144 - - Wand, magic, 680 - - War, 196, 273, 275, 469, 634, 671, 838; - decried, 30, 136 - - Warts, to get rid of, 852 - - Washing, feet, 500; - head, 860 - - Water, 199, 508; - bodies of, 423; - drinking, 133-4, 507, 887; - in which washed, 147, 500; - soaked in, 143-6; - dissolves magic, 139-40; - made to appear by magic, 344; - hot thought to freeze faster, 656; - jar, organ, and works, 38-9, 196, 790; - waters above firmament, 57-8, 133, 355, 413, 464; - marvelous, medical, and chemical, 251ff., 320, 326, 500-1, 797-9; - and see Fountain, Holy, Sea, etc. - - Wax, images in magic, 227, 264, 349, 353, 790, 818; - used in medicine, 146, 345; - light, 359; - cloth, 860 - - Weasel, 146, 200, 231, 506, 767 - - Weather, prediction, 160, 164, 294, 325, 445, 473, 586, 656, 766, - 893; - and see Rain-making, Storm-averting magic - - Weeping for joy and as a salutation, 34, 154 - - Weights, 435, 649, 654, 789 - - Well, 349, 523 - - Wenzel II, king of Bohemia, 263, 266 - - Werwolf, 359 - - Whale, 423-4, 505, 540, 899 - - Wheat, 234 - - Wheel, divining, 116 - - White, 321, 801 - - Wick, 561 - - Will, free, 16, 152, 574, 866; - and astrology, 6, 12, 106, 164, 203, 212, 311, 326, 369, 393, 446, - 452, 469, 584, 609ff., 669, 671, 699-701, 711, 833, 869-70, - 901, 953, 959, 962; - power, and magic, 665, 902; - and experimental science, 659; - last wills and testaments, 832; - of Arnald, 845, 934; - Lull, 863-4; - Abano, 881-2, 931-5, 940-3 - - William the Bad of Sicily, 89 - - William, bishop of Syracuse, 21, 44ff. - - Wind, 132, 150, 223, 323, 429 - - Wine, 140, 144, 191, 231, 320, 326, 413, 473, 504, 546, 768, 789, - 817, 854, 886 - - Witch and Witchcraft, 38, 162, 497, 605, 608, 653, 675, 805, 903, - 973 - - Wolf, 202, 348, 385, 393, 433, 497, 560, 728, 733, 736, 767, 817 - - Woman, 60, 607; - of Norwich, 671; - diseases of, 213, 378, 739-45; - adornment of, 742-3 - - Wood, 344, 698 - - Wool, 426 - - Words, power of, 140-1, 148, 202, 232, 282ff., 351-2, 361, 603-4, - 610-1, 658, 661, 665-6, 674, 731, 801, 849, 873, 981 - - World soul, 53, 341, 366-7, 566, 586, 710 - - Worms, 348, 386, 473, 484, 543 - - Wormwood, 472 - - Wound, 505, 795 - - Wren, 200 - - Writing, materials, 111, 173, 227, 788; - invisible, 736, 787-8, 792; - legible in mirror, 788 - - - Youth, perpetual or renewed, see Elixir, Fountain, and Longevity - - - Zodiac, 150, 332, 582, 671, 829, 858, 871; - and parts of human body, 177, 324, 417, 833, 856, 871, 894, 957 - - - - -BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX - - -Titles and periodicals in italics. Abbreviations such as CE, EB, HL, -PL, are not indexed. In the abbreviated titles such opening words as -_De_ and _Liber_ are omitted to facilitate alphabetical arrangement. In -proper names _De_ and _Von_ are usually designated by _d._ and _v._, -and are treated as initials. - - Aaron and Evax, 430, 729 - - Abano, Peter of, chap. lxx; - works listed in appendix ii; 120, 316, 362, 477, 800, 961-2 - _Abraham Aben Ezra_, 911, 917, 927 - _Addition to Mesue_, 880, 923, 939 - _Alexander of Aphrodisias_, 878, 918 - _Astrolabe_, 879, 900, 920 - _Conciliator_, 362, 710, 814, chap. lxx - _Dioscorides_, 877, 880, 923-4 - _Galen_, 877, 879, 918-9 - _Lucidator_, 258, 879-80, 884, 892, 895, 898-9, 901, 904, 911-2, - 921 - _Motu octave spere_, 878-80, 898, 901, 920-1 - _Phisionomia_, 626, 877, 910, 917-8 - _Poisons_, see _Venenis_ - _Problems of Aristotle_, 877, 879-80, 911, 921-2 - _Pseudo-Hippocrates_, 894, 911, 924 - _Venenis_, 255, 262-5, 277, 877, 879, 881, 905-10, 922-3, 935-8 - dubious or spurious, - _Annulorum experimenta_, 912, 926 - _Circulus philosophicus_, 926 - _Elucidarium necromanticum_, 911-2, 926 - _Geomantia_, 880, 912, 925 - _Heptameron_, 911-2, 925-6 - _Prophecies_, 912, 925 - - Abdallah, 119 - - Abelard, Peter, chap. xxxv, 59, 156, 611 - - Abenragel, 77 - - _Abhandl. d. Bayr. Akad._, 247 - - _Abhandl. d. Sächs. Gesell._, 238 - - _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math. Wiss._, 22, 87, 929 - - _Abhandl. z. Mittl. u. Neuer. Gesch._, 842 - - Abrachys, 449, 896 - - Abraham Aben Ezra (Avenezra), works listed, chap. lxx., app. iii, - 326, 586, 877-8 - - Abraham Bar Chasdai, 930 - - Abraham of Barcelona, 930 - - Abraham Judaeus, 764, 898, 929, 930 - - Abraham the patriarch, 445 - - Abraham the physician, 763 - - Abrarem, 815 - - Abu-Shâker, 264 - - _Accad. dei Lincei, Atti d._, 916 - - Achaason, 755 - - Achillini, 277 - - Achmet, 291ff., 300 - - Achot of Greece, 226, 552, 706 - - _Act. Acad. Vindob._, 129 - - _Acta Sanctorum_, 125, 129 - - Actor (Auctor?), 462 - - Adam, first man and prophet, works ascribed to, 660, 816 - - Adam Marsh, 437, 629 - - Adams, G. B., 45 - - Adamson, 648 - - Adelard of Bath, chap. xxxvi; - works listed, 19-22; - other mentions of him, 50, 53, 172, 175, 179, 201, 650, 984; - of his _Questiones naturales_, 172, 196, 379, 464, 503, 636, 721, - 792 - - Adelinus, 382 - - Aeschylus, 421 - - Aesculapius, 496, 556, 646 - _Membris_, 432-3 - - Aesop, 193-4 - - Aëtius, 479 - - Agarges, 755 - - Agrippa, H. C., 119, 925, 969 - - Ahmed ben Sirin, 291ff. - - Ahmetus filius Ameti, 292 - - Ahrens, K., 248 - - Ailly, Pierre d’, various works of cited, 255, 444, 644-7, 675-6, - 695, 962 - - Alanus, 794 - - Alatus, J. A., 743 - - Albategni (Al-Battani), 42, 86, 895 - - Albedatus, 119 - - Alberic des Trois Fontaines, 52 - - Albericus, 191 - - Albert of Bologna, 740 - - Albert of Saxony, 722 - - Albert, P. P., 520 - - Albertus Bohemus (or, Beham), 264 - - Albertus Magnus, chaps, lix, lxii, lxiii, 207, 266, 346, 374-5, 377, - 381, 394-5, 397, 404, 448, 450-2, 467, 489-90, 495, 594-5, - 598, - 600, 607, 611, 622, 634, 638-9, 650, 664, 666, 668, 674, 690, - 768-9, 909, 929, 971 - _Animalibus_, 219, 422, 461, 524ff., 540-5, 562ff., 574, 762 - _Apprehensione_, 577 - _Causis et procreat._, 529ff., 577ff. - _Causis et propriet._, 255, 262, 526, 529ff., 569, 578, 581ff. - _Coelo et mundo_, 528ff., 577, 585ff. - _Creaturis_, 577 - _Daniel_, 553-4 - _Generat. et corrupt._, 563, 585 - _Intellectu et intelligibili_, 581ff. - _Luke_, 552 - _Matthew_, 553-4, 580 - _Meteor._, 314-5, 523-4, 528ff., 547-8, 577, 581ff. - _Metaphysics_, 581, 708 - _Micah_, 551 - _Mineral._, 226, 237, 250, 255, 261, 430, 459, 523-4, 529ff., - 545-6, 556-7, 566ff., 574, 583, 621, 696, 698, 705, 714, 718, - 729 - _Motibus animalium_, 558, 745 - _Natura et origine animae_, 581 - _Natura locorum_, 526, 529ff., 538, 585. - _Physics_, 528ff. - _Politics_, 526, 545, 639 - _Principiis motus processivi_, 527 - _Sensu et sensato_, 524 - _Sententiae_, 461, 523, 552, 554, 557-9, 742 - _Somno et vigilia_, 268, 461, 524, 528ff., 558-9, 574-7, 585 - _Speculum astronomiae_, chap. lxii, 74, 76, 118, 220, 223, 226, - 234, 256, 258, 280, 321, 390, 419, 522, 530, 578ff., 677, - 800, - 900, 911, 966 - _Summa theologiae_, 525, 531, 552, 554, 559, 577, 579, 584, - 589ff., - 703, 706 - _Veget. et plantis_, 230, 260, 461, 529ff., 539, 547, 555-6, - 564ff., 581, 717 - dubious or spurious, chap. lxiii - _Aggregationis_, see _Experimenta_ - _Alchimia_ (and other treatises of alchemy), 569-71, 798 - _Almagest_, 529 - _Anathomia_, 741 - _Catoptric_, 529 - _Chiromancy_, 575 - _Determinationes_, 741 - _Experimenta_, chap. lxiii, 220, 530, 788 - _Fato_, 613 - _Lapidibus_, 567 - _Lapidibus et herbis_, 724 - _Mirabilibus mundi_, chap. lxiii, 422, 530, 778, 780, 817 - _Naturis signorum_, 578 - _Perspective_, 529 - _Philosophia pauperum_, 529 - _Plantationibus_, 529, 747 - _Secreta_, see _Experimenta_ - _Secreta de serpente_, 796 - _Secretis mulierum_, chap. lxiii, 308, 395, 530 - _Secretum secretorum_, 724 - - Albohali, 75, 82 - - Albucasis, 82, 89 - - Albumasar, 41, 77, 111, 292, 379, 404, 418, 449, 452, 463, 469, 583, - 672, 695, 697, 701, 703, 827, 898, 961 - _Greater Introduction_, 84-5 - _Lesser Introduction_, 22 - _Rains_, 86-7 - _Sadan_, 900 - - Alcabitius, 77, 97, 221, 322, 827, 898 - - Alcanus, 795 - - Alcerius, John, 799 - - Alchabitius, see Alcabitius - - Alchandianus, 115 - - Alchanus, 794 - - Alcherius, 119 - - Alchemist, 472 - - Alchiranus, 232 - - Alchyldis, 432 - - Alcorath, 727 - - Aldhelm, 379, 542 - - Alexander - _Divinatione_, 575, 613 - _Experimenta_, 893 - _Fato_, 575, 613 - - Alexander the Great, alchemistic and astrological, 233, 253, 259, - 728 - _Mirabilibus Indiae_, 246, 378, 387 - - Alexander III, pope, - _Letter to Prester John_, 244, 271 - - Alexander of Aphrodisias, 566, 568-9, 878 - - Alexander of Hales, 207, 404, 414-5, 448, 450, 526, 640 - - Alexander of Tralles, 160, 378, 806, 878 - - Alexius Affricus, 233 - - Al-Farabi, 79-80, 89, 177, 346 - - Alfonso X, the Wise, of Castile, 69, 96, 601, 637, 813-4, 929-30 - - Alfonso, Pedro, see Pedro - - Alfonso of Toledo, 69 - - Alfraganus, 74, 86, 177, 195, 198, 292, 379, 418, 804, 809, 882 - - Alfred of England (or of Sarchel or Sareshel), 195, 404, 450 - _Meteorology_, 249, 313 - _Motu cordis_, 187, 196 - _Vegetabilibus_, 181, 187, 260, 313, 461 - - Alganus, 794 - - Algazetes, 896 - - Algazel, 449, 551, 558, 574 - - Al-Hazen, 33, 89, 442, 454, 456, 649, 885 - - Alkandrinus, 259 - - Alkardianus, 115ff. - - Alkindi, 77, 258 - _Geomancy_, 119-20 - _Radiis stellicis_, 443, 667, 719 - - Al-Khowarizmi, 21ff., 40, 237 - - Allchamus, 794 - - Allen, T., 810 - - Almansor, 82 - - Al-Masʿûdî, 214, 264 - - Almeida, F.d., 646 - - Alpetragius or Alpetrangi, 310, 314 - - Alpharinus, 119 - - Alphraganus, see Alfraganus - - Al-Quifti, 756 - - _Amalricus_, 115ff. - - Ambrose, 382, 385 - _Hexaemeron_, 377-80, 473 - - Amplonius, 695, 795 - - _Analecta Franciscana_, 629 - - Anaxagoras, 112, 115 - - André, M., 862 - - Andreas Michelius, 806 - - Andrew the Jew, 314 - - Angelus, J., 826 - - _Annal. Boland._, 520 - - _Annalen d. Vereins f. Nassau_, 125 - - _Annalen d. hist. Vereins f. d. Niederrhein_, 520 - - _Annales de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie_, 598 - - _Annals of Forlì_, 826, 828 - - Anselm, St., 62, 194 - - Anselm, bishop of Havelberg and Ravenna, 240 - - _Antimaquis_, 224, 260 - - Antiochus, 257 - - Antiphon, 290 - - Antonius _Bibl. Hisp. Vet._, 871 - - Antonius de Rosellis, 742 - - _Anzeiger f. Kunde d. deutschen Vorzeit_, 125 - - Aomar, 75, 827 - - _Apocrypha_, 611 - - Apollonius, - _Angelica factione_, 282, 964 - _Artis magicae_, 282, 964 - _Golden Flowers_, 282 - _Secrets of Nature_, 43 - - Apollonius of Pergamum, 235 - - Apollonius of Thebes, 41 - - Apollonius of Tyana, 235 - - Appiani, Padre, 967 - - Apuleius of Madaura, 158, 194, 221, 407, 466, 582 - _Herbarium_ (pseudo-), 473, 728, 804 - - Aquinas, Thomas, chap. lx, 152, 207, 313, 316, 374, 394-5, 461, 467, - 522, 524, 526, 529, 532, 578-80, 634, 639, 702, 707, 709, 901 - _Contra Gentiles_, 602ff., 608, 611 - _Divinibus nominibus_, 609 - _Fide_, 609ff. - _Isaiah_, 605 - _Judiciis astrorum_, 609ff. - _Matthew_, 609, 611 - _Meteor._, 607 - _Occultis operibus_, 606-7, 613 - _Potentia_, 602ff. - _Quodlibet_, 604ff. - _Responsio ad Joannem de Vercellis_, 609 - _Responsio ad lectorem Bisuntinum_, 611 - _Responsio ad lectorem Venetum_, 609 - _Sententiae_, 596, 602, 605, 607 - _Somno et vigilia_, 605 - _Sortibus_, 605-7, 610ff. - _Substantiis separatis_, 603, 609 - _Summa_, 602ff., 607ff. - _Trinitate_, 609 - _Unitate intellectus_, 708 dubious or spurious, - alchemistic treatises, 608 - _Almagest_, 531 - _Fato_, 575, 612-5 - - Aratus, 56 - - _Archaeologia_, 237 - - Archelaus, 783 - - Archigenes, 735 - - Archimedes, 89, 110, 199, 449, 668 - - Architas, 734 - - _Archiv f. Gesch. d. Medizin_, 87, 770, 861 - - _Archiv f. Gesch. d. Naturwiss. u. d. Technik_, 173, 315 - - _Archiv f. Kulturgesch._, 861 - - _Archiv f. Naturgesch._, 521 - - Aristippus, 67, 249, 313 - - Aristotle, chap. lxviii, 48, 84, 107, 134, 174, 191, 197, 201, 207, - 306, 312ff., 353, 356, 366-7, 377, 380, 394, 404, 408, 411, - 415, 421, 423, 430-4, 437, 441, 445, 449, 467-8, 485, 502, - 508, - 528, 533, 544, 575, 581, 589, 594, 598-9, 608, 613, 633-4, - 639, - 646-7, 653, 697, 725, 733, 762, 779, 786, 804, 815-7, 884, - 896, - 900, 904, 971 - _Anima_, 195, 314 - _Animals, History of_, 194, 260, 310, 314, 324, 379-84, 393, 440, - 508, 780, 879 - _Auditu naturali_, 172, 177 - _Coelo et mundo_, 89, 172, 177, 194, 314, 416, 893 - _Ethics_, 599 - _Generatione et corruptione_, 89, 195, 258, 670 - _Laws_, 634 - _Metaphysics_, 195, 254, 312ff., 395, 478, 708, 726, 894 - _Meteorology_, 89, 195, 249, 253, 313, 324, 333, 393, 471 - _Organon_, 314 - _Physics_, 37, 89, 172, 313 - _Politics_, 634 - _Posterior Analytics_, 89 - _Problems_, 30-1, 503; and see Abano - _Rhetoric_, 878 - _Sensu et sensato_, 172, 177 - _Somno et vigilia_, 301, 558 dubious or spurious, - alchemistic treatises, 218, 251, 391 - _Antimaquis_, 260 - astrological treatises, 256 - _Causis proprietatum_, 90, 255, 416 - _Chiromancy_, 266 - _Colors_, 249-50 - _Epistola ad Alexandrum_, 252 - Images, works on, 257-8 - _Impressionibus coelestibus_, 248, 256, 633 - _Lapidary_, 90, 260-3, 469-70, 780 - _Mineralibus_, 250 - _Morte animae_, 258, 525 - _Natura serpentum_, 265 - _Perfecto magisterio_, 252 - _Physiognomy_, 266, 804, 910 - _Pomo_, 254, 930 - _Secret of Secrets_, 132, 219, 244-5, 257, 264-78, 310, 313, 328, - 587, 633, 674, 750, 789, 792 - _Speculo adurenti_, 172, 177 - _Theology_, 248, 254 - _Twelve Waters_, 251 - _255 Books of the Indians_, 85-7, 256 - _Vegetabilibus_, 195, 313 - - Aristoteles Milesius, 255 - - Arnald of Villanova, chap. lxviii, 218, 301, 477, 511, 798, 906, 934 - _Antichrist_, 844 - _Antidotarium_, 847, 855, 857-8, 860 - _Breviarium_, 315, 847, 851-4, 860 - _Compendium_, 853 - _Conservanda iuventute_, 846, 855, 858 - _Contra calculum_, 847, 856, 860 - _Epilepsia_, 847-8, 853-6 - _Improbatione maleficiorum_, 847-8 - _Judiciis_, 847 - _Medic. introd. speculum_, 847, 855, 858 - _Ornatu mulierum_, 742, 750 - _Parte operativa_, 853-7 - _Regimen podagre_, 847, 853 - _Regimen Salernitanum_, 847 - _Regimen sanitatis_, 847, 856 - _Regulae generates_, 484, 847-8, 855 - _Remedia contra maleficia_, 422, 847, 850, 853 - _Repetitio_, 855, 858 - _Sigilla_, 847 - _Sword of Truth_, 842 - _Tetragrammaton_, 843 - _Venenis_, 854 - _Vinis_, 854-5 - - Arnold of Barcelona, 67 - - Arnold of Liège, 724 - - Arnold of Saxony, 261, 430, 469-70 - - Arpenius, 813 - - _Ars episcopalis_, 800 - - _Ars experimentorum_, 570 - - _Arsenal des secrets, L’_, 806 - - Artemidorus, _Oneirocritica_, chap. l - - Artemon, 290 - - Artephius or Artesius, 351-4, 655, 664 - - _Artis Auriferae_, 215, 252 - - _Artis Chemicae Principes_, 472 - - _Asclepius_, see Hermes - - Ashmole, E., _Theatrum chem. Brit._, 218, 334 - - _Assoc. des Études grecques_, 247 - - Astrampsychos, 291 - - _Astrolabium planum_, 900, 920 - - Astruc, J., 841ff. - - Athaharan, 755 - - Athelardus, 41 - - _Atti d. R. Accad. d. Lincei_, 916 - - _Atti d. R. Istituto Veneto_, 916 - - Augustine, 166, 169, 175, 320, 369, 389, 407-9, 449, 466, 469, - 589-92, 602, 609, 661, 668 - _Anima_, 378 - _Civitate Dei_, 387, 446 - _Contra Faustum_, 611 - _Doctrina Christiana_, 159, 375 - _Enchiridion_, 5 - _Genesi ad litteram_, 33, 39 - _Quaest. vet. et nov. test._, 612 - _Retractiones_, 5 - _Sermones_, 612 - _Trinitate_, 609 - - Augustinus Justinianus, 207 - - Autolycus, 89 - - Avenalpetras, 451 - - Avenzoar, 936-8 - - Averroes, 69, 84, 313-4, 322, 379, 464, 478, 576, 601, 887-8, 900 - - Avezac d’, 238ff. - - Avicenbros, 354-5 - - Avicenna, 89, 249-50, 252, 266, 277, 313, 366, 408, 413, 423, 432, - 437, 450, 463, 467, 473, 495, 508, 551, 557-8. 562, 564, 567, - 574, 647, 665, 669, 721, 745, 910 - _Anima_, 74, 310, 471, 665 - _Cantica_, 845 - _Flores_, 775 - _Generatione lapidum_, 250 - _Lepra_, 740 - _Meteorology_, 250 - _Naturalia_, 731 - - Azarchel, 92, 638 - - - Bacher, W., 205 - - Bacon, Francis, 642, 647, 681, 688 - _New Atlantis_, 681-2 - - Bacon, Roger, chap. lxi, 14, 31, 36, 84, 91, 194, 196, 218, 243, - 247, 252, 256, 263, 279, 314, 334, 354, 419, 437, 443-4, 451, - 475, 510, 522, 527, 534, 538, 547, 560, 692-4, 703 - Commentaries on Aristotle, 632 - _Communia mathematicae_, 22, 622 - _Communia naturalium_, 622 - _Compend. studii philos._, 248, 576, 635, 639, 685, etc. - _Compend. studii theol._, 618, 635 - _Cosmographia_, 716 - _Erroribus medicorum_, 635 - _Greek Grammar_, 684 - _Metaphysics_, 685 - _Opus maius_, 11, 80, 312, chap. lxi, 884 - _Opus minus_, 219, chap. lxi - _Opus tertium_, 12, chap. lxi - _Sanioris medicinae_, 680 - _Scriptum principale_, 622, 624ff. - _Secretis operibus_, chap. lxi, 259, 704, 758 - _Secret of Secrets_, 132, 257-8, 268ff., 666, 685 - _Thesaurum spirituum_, 808 - _Verbum abreviatum_, 794 - - Bacon, William, 807 - - Baddeley, W. St. C., 949 - - Baeumker, C., 195, 454, 520, 530-1, 638 - - Bale, 478 - - Balenuch, 223 - - Barber, W. T. A., 862, 867-8 - - Baronius, 126 - - Bartholomew of England, chap. liv, 315, 372-3, 438, 476, 478, 629, - 638 - - Bartholomew of Messina, 67, 314 - - Bartholomew of Parma, 120-1, 835-8 - - _Baruch, Book of_, 195 - - Basil, 34, 194, 201, 379-80, 409, 415-6, 422, 668 - - Bate, Henri, works listed chap. lxx, app. iii - - Battandier, A., 125 - - Baumgartner, 248 - - Baumgartner, M., 339 - - Baur, L., chap. lv, 78ff., 634, 644, 649 - - Becket, Thomas, _Letters_, 126 - - Beckman, _History of Inventions_, 199 - - Bede, 62-3, 175, 194, 414, 464, 606, 664, 672, 898 - - Belbinus, 735 - - Belenus, 234, 698, 706, 719 - - Bellantius, L., 970 - - Benedict, S. R., 237 - - Benvenuto of Imola, 825 - - Berachya, _Dodi Ve-Nechdi_, 19 - - Berengarius, 113 - - Bernard of Chartres, 51-2, 99 - - Bernard of Clairvaux, 18, 59, 83, 100, 126, 316, 462 - - Bernard Délicieux, 860-1 - - Bernard Gordon, see Gordon - - Bernard de Moelan, 100 - - Bernard of Provence, 740 - - Bernard, Silvester, chap. xxxix, 62, 195-6, 199, 650 - _Experimentarius_, 100, 110ff., 120, 776 - _Mathematicus_, 101, 106ff. - _Mundi universitate_, 99, 101ff., 124 - - Berthelot, P. E. M., 476 - _Archéologie_ (1906), 23 - _Chimie au moyen âge_ (1893), 27, 215ff., 235, 252, 308, 335, 472, - 524, 569, 724, 738, 783ff., 795, 797, 868 - _Origines_ (1885), 229, 251 - - Berthelot et Ruelle (1887-1888), 251 - - _Bible_, 53, 59, 197, 207, 320-1, 403, 406, 424, 467, 631, 644, 648, - 711, 904; - and see individual books of - - _Bibl. Chem. Curiosa_, 215, 250 - - _Bibliotheca Mathematica_, 96, 814 - - _Bibl. d. l’École des Chartes_, 99 - - _Biologisches Zentralblatt_, 126 - - Birkenmajer, 94, 173 - - Björnbo, A. A., 84, 529 - - Björnbo and Vogl (1911), 87, 602, 928 - - Black, _Ashmolean MSS._, 112, 229, 797, 824 - - Blainville, M. H. d., 533 - - Blasius, see Ermengard - - Blochet, E., 260 - - Bodin, 889 - - Bodlys, see Nicholas of Poland - - Boethius, 52, 54, 194, 322, 366, 379, 407, 450, 589, 613, 712 - - Boetius of Denmark, 709 - - Bofarull y Sans, 864 - - Boffito, P. G., chap. lxxi, 718 - - Boll, F., 308-9, 326 - - _Boletín d. l. real Acad. d. l. Hist._, - 842 - - Bonafors, Guido, 839 - - Bonatti, Guido, chap. lxvii, 121, 638, 892 - - Bonaventura, 218, 501 - - Boncompagni, B. - _Bonatti_, 825, 839 - _Gherardo Cremonese_, 87-8, 758 - _Leonardo Pisano_, 312 - _Regule abaci_, 21 - - Bonifazio, _Storia di Trevigi_, 930 - - Bonnet, Jehan de, 792 - - _Book of Decoration_, 735 - - _Book of Seventy_, 251 - - Borgnet, A., chap. lix, 722, 724, 740 - - Bormans, 372 - - Bostock and Riley, 134, 421 - - Bouché-Leclercq, 109 - - Bouquet, _Recueil_, 52 - - Bourassé, 108 - - Bourgeat, J. B., 457 - - Boutaric, E., 457, 463 - - Bovio, Z. T., 924 - - Boyle, Robert, 805 - - Brambilla, 89 - - Brann, M., 205 - - Brewer, J. S., - _Monumento Franciscana_, 620 - _Roger Bacon, Works of_, chap. lxi, 196, 256, 684 - - Bridges, R. H., chap. lxi, 11, 256, 684 - - Brinkmann, J., 75 - - _British Medical Journal_, 478 - - _British Register_, 621 - - _British Society of Franciscan Studies_, 684, 686 - - Brown, J. Wood, chaps. li, lxvi, 74, 76, 250, 270, 783, 813 - - Browne, E. G., 756 - - Browne, Thomas, _Vulgar Errors_, 229, 806, 970 - - Brunetto Latini, 621 - - Bruun, 240 - - Budé, 362 - - Budge, E. A. W., 264 - - Bugaforus, 586 - - _Bull. d. l’Acad. roy. Belgique_, 372, 929 - - _Bull. d. l’Acad. d. Sciences d. Cracovie_, 94 - - _Bull. d. Bibl. e d. Storia d. Scienze Matem._, 21 - - _Bull. of American Mathematical Society_, 237 - - _Bull. Senese d. Storia Patria_, 488 - - Burchard of Worms, 163 - - Burgh, see Lydgate and - - Burgundio of Pisa, 67, 178, 432, 879, 883 - - Buridan, Jean, 741, 749 - - Burley, 804 - - Busetto, N., 594 - - Butler and Owen, 194 - - - Caesar, J., see Weber and - - Caesar, Julius, 545 - - Caesar of Heisterbach, 339 - - Cahier, 422 - - Callisthenes (alchemist), 449, 570 - - Callisthenes, Pseudo-, 246, 350 - - Camerarius (1638), 79 - - Cantor, M., 309, 332 - - Cantù, _Eretici d’Italia_, 951 - - Caraphrebim, 815 - - Cardan, 827, 969 - - Carini, S. A., 334 - - Carra de Vaux, 248 - - Carus, P., 373 - - Cassiodorus, 25, 194, 199, 408, 668 - - Castellan, 911, 915 - - Castellani, P. N. d., 248 - - Castelli, G., 949, 952, 967 - - Cateline, 755 - - Catenus, 93, 487 - - _Catalogue Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum_, 229 - - _Catholic Encyclopedia_, 128, 526, 553 - - _Catholic University Bulletin_, 578, 693 - - Cavalcanti, Guido, 621 - - Ceceo d’Ascoli, chap. lxxi, 226, 280, 718 - _Acerba_, 948-50, 953 - _Alcabitius_, 220, 950-67 - _Sphere_, 282, 950-66 - - _Centralblatt f. Bibliothekwesen_, 267, 937 - - Cesalpini, A., 532 - - Chabaneau, C., 606 - - Chabás, R., 841 - - Chalcidius, 178 - - Champier, S., 814, 882, 890, 896-7, 901, 912 - - Charles, E., 576, 578-9, 631, 675-6, 682, 686, 688-9 - - Charles, R. H., and Morfill, 416 - - Charma, A., 50 - - Charterius, R., 771 - - _Chartularium Univ. Paris._, see Denifle et Chatelain - - Chatelain, see Denifle and Chevalier, C. U. J., 593 - - _Chimica experimenta varia_, 796 - - Cholmeley, H. P., 479, 490 - - Choulant, L., 521, 739 - - Christian, archbishop of Mainz, 240 - - Christine de Pisan, 31, 801-2 - - _Chronicle of the XXIV Generals_, 629 - - _Chronicon Patavinum_, 876, 933, 943 - - _Chronicon Slavicorum_, 599 - - _Chronicon Susati_, 599 - - Chrysostom, John, 416 - _Liturgia_, 292 - _Sixth Homily on Matthew_, 469, 611 - _Spurious Homily_, 7, 318, 611 - - _Churl and Bird_, 72 - - Cicero, 25, 51, 63, 111, 115, 433, 620, 636, 896 - _Divinatione_, 159, 668 - - _Classical Philology_, 90 - - Claude de Grandrue, 716 - - Claudian, 193 - - Clement, Pseudo-, 201, 216 - - Cleopatra, 378, 735 - - Clerval, A., 84, 99, 101, 112 - - Cockayne, O., 290, 724 - - Cocogrecus, 353 - - _Codigos Españoles_, 814 - - Colle, F. M., 876, 881, 907, 916, 919, 932, 944 - - _Collectio errorum_, 355 - - Collette, Dr., 806 - - _Columba deargentata_, see Hugh of St. Victor - - Combach, _Specula mathematica_, 680 - - Comestor, Peter, 474 - - _Compositiones ad tingenda_, 799 - - _Compotus_ or _Computus_, 444 - - _Congress, International, of History of Sciences_, 229 - - Constantine Damascenus, 270 - - Constantinus Africanus, 19, 34, 53, 72, 196, 266, 297, 379, 408, - 412, - 433, 449-50, 464, 468, 473, 495, 566, 650, 758 - - Corazzi, E., 832 - - Cordier, H., see Yule - - Cordo, see Simon of Genoa - - Cornarius, 290 - - Cornoldi, G. M., 594 - - Costa ben Luca, 237, 261, 449, 566, 573-4, 780 - _Differentiae spiritus et animae_, 32, 73 - _Physical Ligatures_, 555, 847, 853 - - Coulton, G. C., 374, 400, 409 - - Courteille, P. d., see Maynard and - - Cousin, V., 5, 11, 53, 632, 634 - - Coxe, H. O., 172, 757, 925, 936 - - Craster, H. H. E., 75 - - _Crates, Book of_, 214 - - Cratippus, 290 - - Cumont, F., 692 - - Curtze, 22 - - Cuvier, _Hist. d. Poissons_, 466 - - Cyprian, Brother, 334 - - Cyril the Carmelite, 479 - - - Dacus, 729-30 - - Daniel, the prophet, 91, 844 - _Dream-Book_, chap. l, 162-3, 278, 804 - _Experiments_, 295 - - Daniel of Morley, chap. xlii, 219, 226, 346, 419, 637 - - _Dannet_, 808 - - Dante, 99, 356, 594, 709, 825ff., 883, 948-9, 967 - - Darwin, C. R., 532 - - d’Avezac, 238ff. - - David, the prophet, 433, 666 - - _De aluminibus et salibus_, 471 - - _De arte notoria_, 660 - - _De congelatione_, 250 - - _De differentiis vocabulorum_, 12 - - _De mirabilibus Indiae_, 241 - - _De morte animae_, 660 - - _De occultis naturae_, 570 - - _De officiis spirituum_, 660 - - _De omni re scibili_, 742 - - _De regimine senum_, 656 - - _De sortibus_, 575, 613 - - _De speculis_, 592 - - Dedalus philosophus, 336 - - Delisle, L., 373, 385-6, 428, 842, 937 - - Delorme, G., 617, 628, 683-4 - - Democritus, 173, 257, 577, 648 - - Denifle, H., 571, 599, 601, 612, 675, 724 - - Denifle et Chatelain, 121, 311-2, 314, 707, 712, 844 - - Dering, E. H., 594 - - _Deuteronomy_, 387 - - _Dict. d’hist. et d. géog. ecclés._, 526 - - _Dict. Theol. Cath._, see Vacant et Mangenot - - Diels, H., 770 - - Diepgen, P., 290, chap. lxviii - - Dieterici, F., 248 - - Digby, K., 715 - - Dino del Garbo, 957, 967 - - Diocles Carystes (Carystius), 268 - - Diogenes Laertius, 291 - - Dionysius the Areopagite, 333, 409, 609 - - Dionysius of Rhodes, 290 - - Dioscorides, 194, 413, 432-3, 473, 496, 762, 877, 880 - _Lapidibus_, 261, 430-1 - - Dittmeyer, 508 - - Dixon, 519 - - Doronius, 77, 257 - - Dorotheus, 77, 223, 322, 378, 827 - - _Dream-Books_, chap. l. - - Drexl (Drexel?), 292 - - Du Boulay, 310 - - _Dublin Review_, 178 - - Dubois, Pierre, 676 - - Ducange, 241 - - Duchastel, 882, 915 - - Duhem, P. - _Léonard de Vinci_, 921 - _Physique d’Aristote_, 313 - _Roger Bacon_, 37-8, 618, 630, 633-4, 684, 687 - _Système du Monde_, 94-8, 332, 437, 486, 638, 644, 796 - - Dümmler, 294 - - Duns Scotus, 266 - - - _Early English Text Society_, 219 - - Eberhart de Bethune, 101 - - Eberus, 763 - - _Ecclesiastes_, 193 - - Efferarius, 758 - - Egidius de Tebaldis, 67, 182 - - El-Biruni, 86 - - Elias, Brother, 218, 252, 308, 334-5 - - Ellis, 442 - - Empedocles, 449, 568 - - Emuth, 348 - - _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 382-5, 682 - - Endres, J. A., 520 - - _English Historical Review_, 686 - - Enoch, 136, 201, 215, 220, 222, 234, 891 - - Epicharmus, 290 - - Epicurus, 405 - - Epiphanius, 262 - - _Erh Ya_, 448 - - Ermengard Blasius, 67, 205, 207, 845, 852, 938 - - Escarrer, 846 - - Esdras, 645, 860 - - Esposito, M., 191 - - Ethicus, 263, 645, 655 - - Eubel, C., 836 - - Euclid, 112, 184, 238, 449, 569, 885, 896 - _Geometry_, 22 - _Notory Art_, 282, 284 - _Optica_, 649 - - Eugene of Palermo, 33 - - Eugenius Toletanus, 67 - - Euripides, _Polyidus_, 656 - - Evans, John, 807 - - Evax, 226, 300, 379, 430, 718, 729-30 - - _Experimenta Cancelarii_, 478-9, 803 - - _Experiments_, 796, 800 - - _Experimentator_, 378, 384-5, 422, 495, 767 - - _Expositio somniorum_, 297 - - Eymeric, 864 - - - Fabricius, 296, 463 - - Fachy, 94 - - _Famous Historie of Fryer Bacon_, 680 - - Farachius, 756, 779 - - Faradj ben Salem, 757, 795 - - Faragius or Faragut, 757 - - Farges, A., 594 - - Favaro, A., 916 - - Favé, see Reinaud et - - Felder, H., 305 - - Fellner, A., 521 - - Felten, J., 436-7 - - Ferckel, C., 372-3, 379, 395, 397, 740 - - Feret, P., 306, 682-4 - - Ferragius, 60-1 - - Ferrari, S., 916 - - Ferrarius, 758, 784 - - _Fihrist_, 214, 756 - - Finke, H., 842 - - Finkelscherer, 134, 205 - - Firmicus Maternus, Julius, 56, 194, 449, 978 - - Fisichella, A., 594 - - Flaccus Africanus, 233, 258 - - Fobes, F. H., 89 - - _Forschungen z. deutschen Gesch._, 307-9 - - _Forschungen z. Gesch. Bayerns_, 521 - - Forster, see Loveday and - - Förster, R., 76, 266ff. - - Fossi, F., 593, 598, 825 - - Fournier, M., 845 - - Franchinus, 756 - - Frazer, J. G., 266, 795, 910, 976-8 - - Frederick II, 270, 309, 313-7, 326, 334-5, 448, 489, 524, 595ff, - 803, - 942 - _Arte venandi_, 314, 465, 525, 540, 563 - - _Freiburg Dioces. Archiv_, 520 - - Fretté et Maré, chap. lx. - - Friedländer, M., 205 - - Friend, John, 478 - - Frohschammer, 594 - - Fulgentius, 410 - - Funeius, 482 - - Furnival, F. J., 219 - - - Gaddesden, John of, 479, 483 - - Galen, 34, 88, 134, 173, 189, 208ff., 229-30, 378, 400, 470, 508, - 626, 671, 734, 769, 795, 809, 847, 855, 896, 898, 903, 910, - 924 - _Ad Glauconem_, 761 - _Alimentorum facultatibus_, 600 - _Ars parva_, 501 - _Compound medicines_, 752 - _Critical Days_, 856 - _Dinamidis_, 803 - _Euporista_, 491 - _Foetuum formatione_, 586 - _Medicinal Simples_, 510 - _Microtegni_, 501 - _Semine_, 586 - _Therapeutic Method_, 879 - dubious or spurious, chaps. lxiv, lxv, 87 - alchemistic, 783-4 - _Experiments_, 752ff., 766, 771-4 - _Medicinalis_, 761-2, 784 - _Plantis_, 763-4 - _Secrets_, 89, 758, 766, 775-6, 784 - _Spermate_, 586 - _Vaccae_, 723, 735, 756, 777ff. - - Galfridus de Vino Salvo, 529 - - Galienus, Master, 784 - - Galileo, 689 - - Galippus (Ibn Ghâlib), 88-9, 172 - - Gallaeus, S., 291 - - Garbo, see Dino and Tommaso del - - Gargeus, 755 - - Gariopontus, 297 - - Gasquet, F. A., 178, 247, 617, 684 - - Gaster, M., 267ff., 281ff. - - Gaudenzi, T., 594 - - Gebenon of Eberbach, 127 - - Geber, 38, 218, 250-1, 557, 783, 815 - - _Genesis_, 58, 193, 266 - - Geoffrey of Waterford, 276 - - Gerard, _Introd. in Evang. Aeternum_, 626 - - Gerard or Giraldus Cambrensis, 437 - - Gerard of Cremona, 79, 87-90, 119-20, 171, 180, 249, 261, 270, 277, - 313, 390, 758-9, 773, 784 - - Gerard or Gerardus de Sabloneta, 90 - - Gerbert (Silvester II), 20-1, 27, 322, 404 - - Gereon, 83, 755 - - Gergis, 718-9 - - Germa (Germath or Grema) of Babylon, 226-7, 552, 556, 698, 706, - 716-9 - - Gerson, 675, 695 - - Gervaise of Tilbury, 102, 339 - - Gesner, _History of Animals_, 971 - - Ghellinck, J. d., 432 - - Giacosa, P., 269, 935-6 - - Gidel, C., 247 - - Gilbert the cardinal, 479 - - Gilbert of England, chap. lvii, 277, 404, 489, 493, 495, 498, 752, - 755, 757, 856 - - Gilbert de la Porrée, 61 - - Gilbert of Montpellier, 478, 776 - - “Gilbertus,” 322, 404 - - Gildemeister, 354 - - Giles, _Verses on Urines_, 479 - - Giles, Brother, _On comets_, 453 - - Giles, St., 799 - - Giles, see Egidius de Tebaldis - - _Gilgamesh Epic_, 266 - - Gilgil, 568, 718-9 - - Ginsburg, J., 237 - - Giovan Francesco Pico, 889 - - Giraldus, see Gerard - - Girgith, 718-9 - - Glandiger of Athens, 234 - - Gloria, A., 876-7, 879, 914, 932, 934, 941, 943 - - Godefridus et Theodoricus, 125 - - _Glosses_, 474 - - Gollancz, H., 20 - - Gordon, Bernard, 492 - _Decem ingeniis_, 848 - _Lilium_, 479-80, 859 - _Phlebotomy_, 856 - _Prognostications_, 857 - - Gottheil, R. J. H., 205, 207 - - Gottron, A., 863 - - Gough, A. B., 681-2 - - Goulin, 915-6 - - Govi, G., 649 - - Gower, John, 221 - - Grabmann, M., 84, 195, 248, 314, 531, 598, 708, 879 - - Graevius, _Thesaurus_, 915 - - Grandrue, C. d., 716 - - Gratian, _Decretum_, 163, 605, 660 - - Gray, Thomas, 188 - - Greene, R., 680 - - Gregory I, the Great, pope, 89, 166, 194, 381, 467, 469, 668 - - Gregory of Nyssa, 589-91 - - Gregory of Tours, 606 - - Gremmgus, 237 - - Grosseteste, Robert, chap. lv, 248, 404, 522, 634, 649-50, 859 - _Artibus liberalibus_, 439 - _Comets_, 439, 441, 446-7 - _Computus_, 644 - _Finitate_, 439 - _Generatione stellarum_, 440 - _Greek Grammar_, 248 - _Impressionibus_, 438, 445 - _Iride_, 440 - _Iudiciis_, 453 - _Letters_, 438 - _Libero arbitrio_, 439 - _Lineis_, 443, 649 - _Luce_, 444 - _Natura locorum_, 440, 444 - _Ordine emanandi_, 439 - _Quod homo sit minor mundus_, 446 - _Sphaera_, 439, 444 - dubious or spurious, - _Herbs_, 447 - _Summa philosophiae_, 448-56, 527, 567 - - Grumerus of Piacenza, 60-7, 763 - - Gundissalinus, 73, 78-82, 177, 180, 346, 449 - - Guttman, J., 205 - - - Haenel, 119, 237 - - Haeser, _Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Medicin_, 478 - - Hagins the Jew, 926 - - Hain, 405 - - Haller, 724 - - Halliwell, J. O., 172 - - Haly, 495, 669, 671, 674, 827, 893 - - Haly Heben Rodan, 82, 222, 369, 586 - _Elections_, 400, 930 - _Judgments_, 182 - _Nativities_, 82-3 - _Ptolemy_, 257 - - Hames, son of Hasam, 782-3 - - Hammer-Jensen, 249-50 - - Handerson, H. E., chap. lvii - - Hansen, J., 605 - - Hanus ben Hanne, 257 - - Haomar, see Aomar - - Hardouin, 156 - - Harpocration, 228, 230, 232 - - Hartlieb, D., 740 - - Hartwig, O., 937-8 - - _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, 191 - - Haskins, C. H., chaps, xxxvi, xxxviii, 51, 181, 191, 195, 215, 292, - 314, 316, 322, 465 - - Haskins and Lockwood, 90, 293 - - Hauck, A., 128 - - Haupt, 800 - - Hauréau, B., 9, 50-1, 61, 82, 99-101, 106-9, 841ff., 860 - - Haya Gaon, 281 - - Hearnshaw, F. J. C., 456 - - Heiberg, J. L., 90, 649 - - Heidel, W. E., 550 - - Heinemann, 123, 723, 747 - - Helfferich, A., 862 - - Helinandus, 470 - - Heller, A., 249 - - Helpericus, 56 - - Henry of Avranches, 307 - - Henry of Cologne, 311 - - Henry of Hereford, 523 - - Henry of Saxony, 740-1 - - Henzelerius, 931 - - Heraclius, 799 - - Herbort, 921 - - Hercher, R., 290 - - Hermann (Hermannus) Alemannus, 84 - - Hermannus Contractus, 84, 111 - - Hermann of Dalmatia, 83-5, 111, 390 - - Hermannus Theutonicus, 84 - - _Hermas_, 198 - - _Hermes_, 87-90, 172, 219, 234, 249, 784 - - Hermes Trismegistus, chap. xlv, 41, 138, 173, 177, 230, 253, 257, - 260, 322, 335, 339, 353, 355, 361, 366, 449, 481, 551, 555, - 557, 562, 567, 573-4, 589, 646, 660, 706, 727, 734, 769, 786, - 816, 826, 891, 911, 959 - alchemistic, 218 - _Asclepius_, 219, 221, 574 - astrological, 77, 220ff. - _Centiloquium_, 221 - _Deo deorum_, 219, 350 - _Emerald Table_, 277 - _Experiments_, 228 - _Golden Bough_, 222 - _Hellera_, 219, 350 - images and incantations, books of, 220, 223ff. - _Lune_, 223, 698 - _Sacred Book_, see _Asclepius_ - _Speculis et luce_, 220 - _Six Principles_, 222-3, 283 - - Hermippus of Beirut, 290 - - Hermogenes, 219, 253 - - Hero of Alexandria, 32, 39-40, 112, 455-6 - - Herodotus the geographer, 429 - - Herophilus, 449 - - Hertling, G. F. v., 78, 519-20, 525ff., 597 - - Hertz, W., 247, 278 - - Herwegen, 126 - - Hildebrand, 194 - - Hildegard of Bingen, chap. xl, 9, 201, 344, 390, 743 - _Causae et curae_, chap. xl - _Divinorum operum_, chap. xl - _Scivias_, chap. xl - _Subtilitates_, chap. xl - _Vitae meritorum_, chap. xl - - Hilka and Söderhjelm, 72 - - Hime, H. W. L., 687-91 - - Hincmar of Reims, 605 - - Hipparchus, - _Hierarchiis spirituum_, 960 - _Ordine intelligentiarum_, 964 - _Vinculo spiritus_, 963 - - Hippocrates, 134, 173, 189, 213, 273, 449, 574, 592, 671, 785, 896 - _Aphorisms_, 501, 810 - _Astrology_, 893-4, 911, 924 - _Prognosticon_ or _Secrets_, 766 - _Prognostics_, 501 - - Hirsch, S. A., 178, 644 - - Hirschfeld, R., 96 - - _Hist.-polit. Blätter_, 520 - - _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, 108, 302, 396-7, 403-4, 533, - 550, - 600, 642, 724-5, 742-3, 841, 850-1, 857, 868, 927, etc. - - _Hist. Jahrbuch_, 520 - - _Hist. Zeitschrift_, 307 - - _History of the Britons_, 380 - - Hoefer, Ferdinand, 724, 785, 881 - - Holywood, John, see Sacrobosco - - Homer, 449, 883 - - Honein ben Ishak, 212, 260, 501, chap. lxiv, 779, 785 - - Honorius of Autun, _Imago mundi_, 296, 418 - - Honorius of Thebes, _Sworn Book_, chap. xlix - - Horace, 640, 883 - - Houzeau et Lancaster, 837 - - Hugh (Hugo) of Folieto, 19 - - Hugh of St. Victor, chap. xxxv, 82, 319-20, 407, 659, 911, 963 - _Didascalicon_, 9ff., 36 - _Bestiis_ (dubious), 15-8, 422 - - Hugh of Santalla, 85-7, 119, 230, 257 - - Hugolinus de Faventia, 839 - - Hulme, W. H., 72 - - Hunain ibn Ishak, see Honein ben - - Hunt and Poole, 45 - - Hutton, James, 793 - - Hyginus, _Fabulae_, 56, 109, 656 - - - Ibn Butlán, 759 - - _Incantator_, 555-6 - - _Index Expurgatorius_, 739, 742, 805, 864 - - Inge, W. R., 37 - - Innocent III, pope, 309, 407, 465 - - Isaac Amaraan, 896 - - Isaac Israeli, 88, 432, 434, 473, 489, 495, 502-10, 669 - - _Isaiah_, 605 - - Isidore of Seville, 10, 14-5, 82, 158-9, 171, 175, 192, 194, 199, - 322, 377, 380, 405, 407, 422-33, 462, 473, 553, 668, 911 - - _Isis_, 173, 237 - - _Iudicia Herefordensis_, 186 - - - Jacob the Jew, 336, 937 - - Jacobus de Dondis, 234 - - Jacobus de Huerne, 668 - - Jacobus de Vitriaco (Jacques de Vitry), 373, 377, 380, 382, 465 - - Jacobus de Voragine, _Golden Legend_, 427, 435, 475 - - Jacobus de Zuzato, 394 - - _Jahrb. f. Philos, u. Spekulat. Theol._, 594 - - James, M. R., 281 - _Canterbury and Dover_, 26, 121 - _Cambridge MSS._, 17, 86, 117, 263, 804, 812 - - Jammy, R. P., 571 - - _Janus_, 478, 739 - - Jean Clopinel, 442 - - Jean de Jandun, 922 - - Jean, and see John - - Jebb, S., 312, 649, 680 - - Jehan de Bonnet, 792 - - Jerome, 194, 236, 433, 553, 612 - - Jessen, C., 123, 128, 531 - - _Jewish Encyclopedia_, 205, 208 - - _Jocalia Salamonis_, 722, 746 - - Joel, D., 205 - - Joel, M., 207 - - Johannitius, see Honein ben Ishak - - John XXI, pope, see Peter of Spain - - John XXII, pope, 713 - - John Alcerius, 799 - - John Alesto, 846 - - John Angelus, 826 - - John Argentin, 824 - - John Avendeath, 73 - - John of Belton, 800 - - John Calamida, 843 - - John of Capua, 937 - - John of Damascus, 432, 735 - - John of Gaddesden, see Gaddesden - - John Lauratius de Fundis, 970 - - John le Begue, 799 - - John of Limoges, 296 - - John Lodoycus Tetrapharmacus, 67 - - John Monk, Brother, 282 - - John of Monte Corvino, 885 - - John Paulinus, 74, 746, 794-6, 804 - - John Paulus de Fundis, 795 - - John Peckham, see Peckham - - John the Peripatetic, 449 - - John of St. Amand, 478, 510ff., 690 - - John of St. Paul’s, 795 - - John of Salisbury, chap. xli, 55, 61, 99, 293, 370 - _Metalogicus_, chap. xli, 50, 640 - _Polycraticus_, chap. xli, 11, 52, 100 - - John of Seville, 74 - - John Shaures, 721 - - John of Spain, 33, 97, 322, 794-6 - _Cyromancia_, 77 - _Epitome totius astrologiae_, 74ff., 183-4 - Translations, 73-8, 269ff., 378 - - John of Toledo, 74-6 - - John David of Toledo, 76 - - John of Vercelli, 601 - - John, see chap. xxxviii, app. i, for a list mentioning other - medieval - Johns - - Jonson, Ben, 281, 284, 286 - - Jorach or Jorath, 404, 423-4, 431, 542 - - Jordan, E., 622, 625 - - Jordanus Nemorarius, 238, 649, 804 - - Joret, P. L. C. R., 76 - - Joseph, _Dream-Book_, chap. l, 162, 279 - - Josephus, 674, 898 - - _Joshua_, 370 - - Jourdain, A., 67, 73, 310, 315, 599, 778 - - Jourdain, C., 5, 52, 108, 171, 254, 619, 970 - - _Journal Asiatique_, 237 - - _Journal des Savants_, 632, 634, 842 - - _Journal of English and Germanic Philology_, 401 - - _Journal of Palestine Oriental Society_, 279 - - _Journal of Royal Asiatic Society_, 267 - - Julius Caesar, 194 - - Julius Firmicus Maternus, see Firmicus - - Julius of Salerno, 270 - - Justin Martyr, 873 - - Juvenal, 51, 193, 433 - - - Kaiser, P., 123, 125, 130, 743 - - Kaltenbrunner, 444 - - Karpinski, L. C., 79, 84, 96, 215, 237; and see Smith and - - Kästner, 332 - - Kaufman, A., 372, 374 - - Keicher, P. O., 869 - - Kennedy, D. J., 593 - - Kepler, 970 - - Khalid ibn Jazid, 214 - - Kiesewetter, 925 - - Killermann, S., 521 - - Kilwardby, Robert, 13, 81-2 - - _Kiranides_ (of Kiranus), chap. xlvi, 93, 269, 496, 726-7, 908 - - _Kirchengesch. Abhandl._, 306 - - _Kirchengesch. Studien_, 488 - - Klein, G., 373 - - Knoblochtzer, H., 739 - - Knöpfler, 488 - - Koburger, A., 457 - - Koehler, J. T., 488 - - _Koran_, 83, 785 - - Kraut, G., 125 - - Kretschmer, C., 425 - - Kroll, W., 230 - - Kroll et Skutsch, 900, 920 - - Krumbacher, K., 292 - - - _La France Littéraire_, 248 - - La Porte du Theil, 785 - - Lami, G., 951 - - Lacroix, P., 263 - - Laione, T., 721 - - Lane-Poole, S., 190 - - Langlois, C. V., 99ff., 430, 578, 676, 693 - - _Lapidarius_, 421, 432, 495 - - Lauchert, F., 434 - - Lea, H. C., 860, 898, 941, 951 - - Leclerc, L., 756 - - Leland, J., 181, 478 - - Leo, emperor, 294 - - Leo XIII, pope, 313, 594 - - Leo Tuscus, 291ff., 300 - - Leonardo of Pisa, 237, 312 - - Lévy, L. G., chap. xliv, 134 - - _Liber de natura rerum_, 495 - - _Liber xii aquarum_, 569 - - _Liber Neumich_, 778 - - _Liber quartus_, 782 - - _Liber rerum_, 378, 383, 386 - - _Liber sacratus_, 283-90, 800 - - _Liber sustentationis_, 779 - - _Liber Theizer Dahalmodana Vahaltadabir_, 937 - - Liechtenstein, P., 390, 917, 927 - - Liechty, R. d., 521 - - Lilly, Wm., 827 - - Linde, v. d., 125 - - _Linnaea_, 520, 531 - - Lippmann, E. O. v., 214ff., 335, 354, 373 - - Little, A. G., 37, 578, chap. lxi, 693 - - Littré, E., 480 - - Liutprand the Lombard, 293 - - Livy, 793 - - Lockwood, see Haskins and - - Lodge, O., 726 - - Loë, P. v., 520 - - _London Pharmacopeia_, 806 - - Louis à Valleoleti, 458; and see Valleoletanus - - Louis of Angulo, 878 - - Loveday and Forster, 249-50 - - Loxius, 910 - - Luanco, J. R. d., 867 - - Luard, H. R., 437 - - Luca ben Serapion, 261 - - Lucan, 51, 101, 193, 895, 904 - - Lucian, 424 - - Lucretius, 101, 667 - - Luitprand the Lombard, 293 - - _Luke, Gospel of_, 149 - - Lull, Raymond, chap. lxix, 712, 846, 860-1 - _Contemplationis in Deum_, 872 - _Declaratio per modum dialogi_, 869-71 - _Els cent Noms de Deu_, 873 - _Maravels_, 867 - _Medicina et astronomia_, 871 - _Quaestiones per artem_, 867 - _Speculum medicinae_, 867 - _Tractatus novus de astronomia_, 868 - - _Lumen luminis_, 252 - - _Lumen luminum_, 308, 334ff. - - Luquet, G. H., 248-9 - - Lydgate and Burgh, 267-8 - - - Macaulay, 642 - - Macdonald, D. B., 785-6 - - Macer, Floridus, 194 - - Macer, Theophilus, 450 - - Machineus, 282 - - Macray, _Digby MSS_, 115, 223, 784, 871 - - Macrobius, 30, 56, 71, 421 - - Madan, 326 - - Magninus, _Regimen Sanitatis_, 924 - - Magor Graecus, see Toz Grecus - - Mago, 378 - - Maimonides, Moses, chap. xliv, 93, 134, 344, 450, 452 - _Aphorisms_, 208, 213, 760 - _Asinate_, 845 - _Astrologia_, 206, 211 - _Iteratio legis_, 206 - _Mishnah_, 205 - _More Nevochim_, 205ff. - _Poisons_, 206, 845, 938 - _Precepts_, 205 - _Yad-Hachazakah_, 205, 213 - - Major, R. H., 621 - - Mâle, E., 476, 536 - - Mandonnet, P., 519, 523, 525, 578ff., 593, 612, 621, 625, 630, 639, - 643, 686, chap. lxii - - Manget, J. J., 215, 250 - - Manitius, M., 487 - - _Mappe clavicula_, 22, 799 - - Marbod, 93, 202, 300, 378, 469, 566 - _Lapidum_, 387, 421, 430 - - Marcellus Empiricus, 160, 421, 482, 768 - - Marchio Sessa, 721 - - Marco Polo, 242, 674, 878, 885 - - Marcus Grecus, _Liber ignium_, 252, 738, 784ff., 797 - - Marcus of Toledo, 67, 785 - - Maré, P., see Fretté E. and - - Marlo, 172 - - Marsh, see Adam - - Marsiglio of Padua, 922 - - Martene, _Thesaurus novus_, 622, 625 - - Martens, E. v., 521 - - Martial, 193 - - Martianus Capella, 23, 56, 102, 104, 176, 379, 393, 432, 439 - - Martin of Burgos, 121 - - Martin of Poland, 459 - - Maslama, 22 - - Masʿûdî, see Al-Masʿûdî - - Mattaeus de Guarimbertis, 668 - - _Matthew, Gospel of_, 611 - - Matthew Paris, 437, 675 - - Matthew of Vendôme, 109 - - Matthew of Westminster, 128, 130 - - Matthias Illyricus Flacius, 842 - - Maupied, F. L. M., 533 - - Maynard, B. d and Courteille, P. d., 264 - - Mazzuchelli, G. M., 876, 879-80, 889, 916, 919, 925-6, 930, 934, 936 - - McCabe, J., 4 - - McCown, C. C., 279 - - Mead, Richard, 786 - - Mély, F. d., 250 - - Memroth, 56 - - Menander, 378 - - Mendel, 329 - - Menéndez Pelayo, 841 - - Merrifield, Mrs., 119, 799 - - Messahala, 75-8, 82, 86, 89, 256, 322, 418, 669, 827 - - Mesue, or, _filius Mesue_, (Yuhanna ibn Masawaih), 734-5, 780, 880, - 884 - - Meunier, F., 970 - - Meyer, E. H. F., 520, 531, 538, 725, 739-40, 742 - - Michael, E., 520 - - Michael Scot, chap. li, 195, 243, 373, 378, 393, 404, 418, 478, 796, - 800, 892, 911 - alchemistic treatises, 252, 308, 334ff. - _Chiromancy_, 331 - _Decem kathegoriis_, 308 - _Geomancy_, 119, 331, 838 - _Introductorius_, chap. li - _Mensa philosophica_, 308 - _Particularis_, chap. li - _Phisionomia_, 308, 328-30 - _Pills_, 331 - _Secretis naturae_, 308, 721, 739, 742 - _Sphere_, 308, 315, 332-3 - _Urines_, 331 - - Michel, F., 703 - - Michelitsch, A., 594, 612 - - Michelius, A., 806 - - Millot-Carpentier, 488, 490, 498-9 - - Miola, A., 593 - - _Mischna Commentary_, 134 - - Monk, Brother John, 282 - - _Monthly Magazine_, 621 - - Morgenstern, J., 265 - - Morienus Romanus, 83, 214ff., 222, 252 - - Moses the law-giver, 6, 91, 162, 208, 299, 322, 660, 674, 896-7 - - Moses ben Maimon, or, of Cordova, see Maimonides - - Moses of Salerno, 207 - - Muhammad b. Musa al-Hwarazmi, 237; and see Al-Khowarizmi - - Muir, P., 688 - - Munk, 248 - - Münter, _Stern der Weisen_, 611 - - Muratori, _Scriptores_, 826ff. - - Myers, E., 9 - - - Narbey, Abbé, 682 - - Nardi, B., 916 - - _Nation_ (New York), 279 - - _Natur und Kultur_, 373 - - _Nature_, 687 - - Nau, F., 86, 237 - - Naudé, G., 550, 679-80, 693, 882-3, 889-90, 911-2, 915, 926, 946-7 - - Neckam, Alexander, chap. xliii, 313, 379, 430, 638, 670, 984 - _Corrogationes Promethei_, 191 - _Laudibus_, 194 - _Naturis rerum_, chap. xliii, 187, 247, 263, 372, 387-8, 540 - - Nemroth, see Nimrod - - Nettleton, J., 807 - - _Neue Archiv_, 128 - - Newton, Sir Isaac, 804 - - Nicephorus, 290 - - Nicholas (or, Nicolaus), _Antidotarium_, 495, 510 - - Nicholas of Aquila, 833 - - Nicholas, a copyist, 740 - - Nicholas Damascenus, 259 - - Nicholas of Denmark, 695 - - Nicholas Oresme, see Oresme - - Nicholas of Poland, Montpellier, or de Bodlys, - _Antipocras_, 769 - _Experiments_, 253, 768, 794, 796-7 - _Stellarum fata_, 770 - - Nicholas of Reggio, 67 - - Niese, H., 310 - - Nimrod the astronomer, 56, 321-2, 647 - - _Nine Waters of the Philosophers_, 799 - - Ninus Delphicus, 404 - - Nolan, E., and Hirsch, S. A., 178, 684 - - Norbar the Arab, 813 - - Nussey, D., see Mâle, E. - - - Obers de Montdidier, 926 - - Odo of St. Rémy, 238 - - Olympiodorus, 228 - - Oppert, 239 - - Oresme, Nicholas, 970 - - Orr, M. A., 825 - - Otto of Freising, 239 - - Ovid, 101, 191, 193, 631, 647 - - - Paetow, L. J., 594, 617 - - Pagel, J. L., 510 - - Palemon, 910 - - Pangerl, A., 520, 531 - - Pansier, P., 478 - - Papias, 432 - - Parisius, Abbot, 803 - - Parrot, A., 682 - - Paul, the apostle, 648 - - Payne, J. F., 478 - - Peckham, John, 629 - - Pedro Alfonso, 68-71, 650 - _Dialogi cum ludeo_, 69 - _Disciplina clericalis_, 69-71, 777 - _Dracone_, 68-9 - _Epistola ad Peripateticos_, 70-1 - - Pegge, S., 436, 438 - - Pelster, F., 520 - - Perro, G., 488 - - Persius, 51 - - _Peter, Second Epistle of_, 198 - - Peter (or, Petrus), see Abano, Pedro Alfonso, and Comestor - - Peter of Auvergne, 599, 601 - - Peter of Berenico, 270 - - Peter Calo, 593 - - Peter Cantor, 102 - - Peter Collensis, 921 - - Peter de Crescentiis, 529 - - Peter the Deacon, 408, 757 - - Peter Herlensis, 668 - - Peter Lombard, 466, 605 - - Peter of Milan, 459 - - Peter Peregrinus, 791 - - Peter of Prussia, 394, 519, 523ff., 549ff., 558, 568, 579, 599ff., - 610, 704, 740-2 - - Peter of Reggio, 946 - - Peter Riga, 108 - - Peter of St. Audemar, 799 - - Peter of Spain (John XXI), chap. lviii, 306, 373, 477-8, 521, 523, - 650, 936, 938, 979 - _Conservanda sanitate_, 488, 499-500 - _Isaac on Diets_, 502-10, 886 - _Logic_, 489 - _Morbis oculorum_, 498 - _Rule of Health_, 489, 501 - _Thesaurus pauperum_, chap. lviii, 422, 767, 850-1 - _Waters_, 500-1 - other treatises, 494, 501 - - Peter of Suzara, 931 - - Peter of Tuscany, 492 - - Peter the Venerable, 83 - - Peter de Vineis, 314 - - Petrarch, 634 - - Petronius, 109 - - Petrus, see Peter - - Philaretus, 449, 501 - - Philemon, 910 - - Philetus, 552 - - Philip of Byblos, 270 - - Philip, chancellor of Paris, 694, 715 - - Philip of Salerno, 270, 310 - - Philip of Spain, 67 - - Philip of Tripoli, 67, 230, 245, 270ff., 310, 750 - - Philip, papal physician, 244 - - Philo of Byzantium, 249 - - Philo Judaeus, 208, 474 - - Philochoros, 290 - - _Philologus_, 422 - - _Philosophical Review_, 686 - - Philostratus, 201 - - _Physiologus_, 4, 15, 379, 433-4, 474, 542, 566 - - Picatrix, chap. lxvi, 800, 901 - - Pico della Mirandola, 255, 607, 693-6, 884, 913, 929, 970 - - Pignon, 571, 695 - - _Pipe Roll for 1130_, 21, 45 - - Pitra, J. B. - _Analecta sacra_, 122, 138 - _Spicilegium_, 372, 379, 389 - - Pits, 478 - - Platearius (cited), 379, 413, 432-3, 473, 495 - - Platearius, John, 795 - - Plato, 5, 112, 174, 193, 218, 251, 365-6, 449, 471, 485, 567, 577, - 584, 586, 608, 639, 648, 733, 815-6, 896, 898 - _Laws_, 778, 904 - _Republic_, 333 - _Timaeus_, 23, 30, 33, 40, 53, 56, 507, 601 - spurious, 257 - _Quartus_, 782-3 - _Tegimenti_, 734-5, 778 - _Tredecim clavibus_, 783 - _Vaccae_, 723, 735, 767, 783, 800, 809-10 - - Plato of Tivoli, 75, 82-3, 85, 119, 449 - - Pliny the Elder, 33, 133, 158, 169, 194, 242, 247, 377, 382-4, 405, - 421-3, 433, 440, 460, 463, 469-70, 474, 496, 538, 542-4, 546, - 560, 562, 645, 653, 768, 977 - _Medicina_ (Pseudo), 496, 543 - - Plotinus, 37, 165, 248, 443, 981 - - Plutarch, 36, 200-1 - - Polemon, 266 - - Pollard, A. F., 173 - - Polybius, 112 - - Poole, R. L., 21, 50ff., 98-101, 155; and see Hunt and - - Porphyry, 601, 604 - - Posidonius, 592 - - Potthast, A., 460 - - Pouchet, F. A., 521, 523, 532, 538, 548, 881 - - Prantl, K. v., 250, 489 - - _Prenostica Pitagorice_, 117-8 - - _Prenostica Socratis Basilei_, 115-7 - - Prester John, _Letter_, chap. xlvii, 230 - - Preyer, _Gesch. d. deutsch. Mystik_, 128 - - Probst, J. H., 862, 864 - - Proclus, _Elementatio theologica_, 600 - - Profatius Judaeus, 94 - - Prümmer, D., 593 - - _Psalms_, 168, 191, 858 - - _Psalter_, 295, 528, 549, 903 - - Psellus, Michael, 489 - - Ptolemy, 41, 56, 77-8, 115, 179, 194, 256-7, 274, 291, 322, 336, - 369, - 440, 451, 556-7, 584ff., 589, 614, 669, 674, 700-1, 769, 786, - 826, 835, 884, 895-6, 898-9, 959, 979 - _Accidentibus magnis_, 586 - _Accidentibus parvis_, 586 - _Almagest_, 88-91, 172-3, 176, 178, 257, 314, 529 - _Centiloquium_, 85, 301, 487, 586, 891, 959 - _Geography_, 645 - _Optics_, 33, 91 - _Planisphere_, 84 - _Quadripartitum_ or _Tetrabiblos_, 82, 257, 586, 591 - - Ptolemy of Lucca, 458ff., 488ff., 522ff., 538, 594ff., 612, 649 - - Pythagoras, 112, 115, 422, 444, 485, 904 - _Book of the Romans_, 405, 431, 433 - _Prenostica_, 117 - - - _Quaestio curiosa_, 334 - - Quetif and Echard, 455, 600, 695 - - Quintilian, Pseudo-, 106 - - - Rabanus Maurus, 379, 414-5, 417, 470 - - Rabbinowicz, I. M., 206 - - Rabelais, 814 - - _Raccolta Scotti_, 930 - - Ralph of Toulouse, 120 - - Ramsay, Wm., 36 - - Rantzovius, H., 805 - - Rashdall, H., 306, 576, 599, 618, 630, 684, 686 - - Rasis (or Rhazes), 89, 252, 308, 334, 463, 498, 798, chap. lxiv, - 910, - 924 - _Aluminibus et salibus_, 470 - _Antidotarium_, 754, 772 - _Aphorisms_, 764 - _Diets_, 765 - _Divisions_, 772 - _Egritudinibus juncturarum_, 752, 754, 772 - _Eighty-eight Natural Experiments_, 784ff. - _Elhâwi_, 757 - _Medical Experiments_, 752ff., 771-4 - _Practica puerorum_, 753, 772 - _Sixty Animals_, 574, 762 - _Spirit_, 765 - _Spirituals_, 765 - - Ratdolt, E., 826, 917, 920, 924, 929 - - Raymond Lull, see Lull - - Raymond of Marseilles, 92 - - Raymond of Tárrega, 864, 867 - - Raziel, 699 - - Reade, W. H. V., 686 - - _Regimen Salernitanum_, 856 - - _Regimen senum_, 656 - - Regiomontanus, 882 - - Reinaud et Favé, 31 - - Remigius, 91 - - Renan, E., 314, 792, 888 - - Rennelagh, Lady, 806 - - Renzi, S. d., 97, 315, 757 - - Reuss, F. A., 125 - - Reuter, H. F., 50 - - _Revelation, Book of_, 672 - - _Revista Lulliana_, 862 - - _Revue d. Études Grecques_, 250 - - _Rev. d. Langues Romanes_, 606 - - _Rev. d. l’Orient Chrétien_, 86 - - _Rev. d. Paris_, 578, 693 - - _Rev. d. Philosophie_, 313 - - _Rev. d. Questions Historiques_, 125, 457, 463, 682 - - _Rev. Néo-Scolastique_, 578, 625, 693, 704, 708 - - _Rev. Pratique d’ Apologétique_, 598 - - _Rev. Thomiste_, 708 - - Richard, 495 - - Richard Bordeniensis, 439 - - Richard of St. Victor, 407 - - Richard of Salerno, 478 - - Richard of Wendover, 478 - - Rigaltius, N., 290 - - Rigord, 313 - - Risner, F., 454 - - _Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica_, 916 - - _Rivista degli studi orientali_, 260 - - Robert, 498 - - Robert Anglicus, 437 - - Robert of Chester, 83, 85, 215, 220 - - Robert of Lincoln, see Grosseteste - - Robert Scriptor, see Scriptor - - Robert Turco, 808 - - Robinson, P., 578, 693 - - Rocquain, F., 606 - - Rodriguez de Castro, _Bibl. Espan._, 878 - - Roger Bacon, see Bacon - - Roger of Hereford, 181-7, 260 - _Astrology in four parts_, 181-5 - _Iudicia Herefordensis_, 186 - _Three General Judgments_, 185-6 - other works listed, 181-2 - - Roger of Parma, 67, 479 - - Rohner, A., 207 - - _Romance of the Rose_, 442, 703, 950 - - _Romanic Review_, 85, 322 - - Ronzoni, 916 - - Rose, V., 89, 219, 248-9, 459, 476 - _Aristoteles De lapidibus_, 90, 260ff., 373, 430-1 - _Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus_, 248 - _Handschriften-Verzeichnisse_, 76, 399, 741, 749, 769 - _Medicina Plinii_, 179 - _Ptolemaeus_, 87, 172, 784 - - Rose, W. D., 249 - - Roth, F. W. E., 125 - - _Roxburghe Club Publications_, 265 - - Ruffus, 483 - - Rufus, 277 - - Ruska, J., 237, 260, 430 - - Rusticus (Elpidus?), 803 - - - Sacon, 755 - - Sacrobosco, 280, 332-3, 439, 804, 960, 964 - - Sainctes, C. d., 292 - - Salembier, 645 - - Saliceto, see William de - - Salimbene, _Chronicle_, 402, 832, 944 - - Salio of Padua, 67, 221 - - Salomoni, 876 - - _Salus vitae_, 794 - - Salzinger, 862 - - Sandys, J. E., 101, 679 - - Savasorda, 82 - - Savonarola, Michael, 877-9, 882, 888-9, 911, 915, 944-6 - - Scardeone, B., 876, 882-3, 889, 915, 936, 940, 946 - - Scheible, J., 925 - - Schmelzeis, J. P., 125, 130 - - Schneider, A., 530-1 - - Schott, J., 125, 130, 757 - - Schum, W., 68, 256, 267, 515, 695, 714, 740, 784, 810 - - Schwab, _Bibliog. d’Aristote_, 249 - - _Science_, 687 - - Scipio Africanus, 404 - - Scott, _Index to Sloane MSS_, 78, 514, 795, 930 - - Scriptor, Ro., 120 - - Se Boyar, G. E., 402 - - _Secret aux philosophes_, 277, 743-4, 791-2 - - _Secret of Secrets_, see Aristotle, Pseudo- - - _Secretum philosophorum_, 784, 788-91, 804, 811-2 - - Secundus, _Dicta_, 487 - - _Sefer ha-Yashar_, 281 - - Selous, 383 - - Semerion, 562 - - _Semita recta_, 569-71 - - Seneca, 30, 51, 316, 374, 396, 398, 548, 636, 645, 647 - - Seppelt, F. X., 306 - - Septuagint, 898 - - Serapion, 290, 929 - - Sessa Marchio, 721 - - Seth, 7 - - _Seven Parts, Code of_, 814 - - _Seventy Precepts_, 251-2 - - Severus Sebokht, 237 - - Sextus Empiricus, 891 - - Sextus Papirius Placidus, 762-3, 804 - - Shakespeare, 687 - - Shute, R., 248 - - _Sibylline Books_, 161, 293, 331, 844 - - _Siete Partidas_, 814 - - Siger of Brabant, 362, 526, 686, 694, 707-12 - - Sighart, J., 519, 693 - - Silvester II, pope, see Gerbert - - Simarchardus, 300 - - Simiterre, R., 598 - - Simlerus, 740 - - Simon Cordo of Genoa, 929 - - Simonsen, D., 205 - - Simplicius, 601 - - Singer, C., 89, 124ff., 173, 456 - - _Sitzungsberichte_ (Bavaria), 195, 527, 532 - - _Sitzungsberichte_ (Berlin), 770 - - _Sitzungsberichte_ (Heidelberg), 237 - - _Sitzungsberichte_ (Vienna), 125, 292, 634 - - Sloane, Sir Hans, 217, 795, 803-8 - - Smarchas, 300 - - Smith, D. E., 22, 642, 649, 687 - - Smith, D. E., and Karpinski, L. C., 237 - - Socion, 755 - - Socrates, 115ff., 573, 576-7, 589-90, 639, 668, 853, 902 - - “Socrates,” 869-70 - - Söderhjelm, see Hilka and - - Solinus, 169, 194, 199, 377, 382-3, 421, 432-3, 440, 473, 540, 542, - 724 - - Solomon, chap. xlix, 227, 353, 386-7, 393, 437, 449, 632, 646, 660, - 663, 674, 847 - alchemistic, 283 - _Almandel_ or _Mandel_, 280, 351, 552, 699 - _Ars notoria_, 281, 660 - astrological, 283 - _Cephar Raziel_, 281 - _Clavicula_, 280 - _Experiments_, 282, 792, 808 - _Idea et entocta_, 280, 351 - _Jocalia_, 722, 746 - _Novem candariis_, 280 - _Palmistry_, 283 - _Pentagon_, 280, 351 - _Philosophy_, 283 - _Quatuor annulis_, 280 - _Sacratus_, chap. xlix - _Song of Songs_, 191 - _Umbris idearum_, 280, 964-5 - - _Sortes apostolorum_, 606 - - _Sortes sanctorum_, 606 - - Souchier, H., 270 - - _Speculum secretorum_, 569 - - Sprengel, K., 724 - - Stadler, H., 315, 373, 519, 521, 527, 534 - - Stapper, R., chap. lviii - - Steele, R., 12, 132, 258, 265, 268ff., 296, 401, chap. lxi, 694 - - Steinschneider, M., chap. xxxviii, 206, 250, 269, 272, 292, 390, - 693, - 718, 756, 758, 771, 777-8, 780, 785, 794, 809, 823-4, 845, - 875, - 878, 888, 928 - - Stephen of Bourbon, 339 - - Stephen of Messina, 67, 221 - - Stephen of Paris, or Tempier, 526, 709 - - Stevenson, F., 437 - - Strato, 249, 290 - - Strbachan, 300 - - Stubbs, W., 675 - - _Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto_, 951 - - Sudhoff, K., 75, 87, 173, 179, 770 - - Suter, H., 20-1, 84-5, 757 - - _Sworn-Book_, chap. xlix - - Symphorien Champier, see Champier - - - Tabariensis, 735 - - _Tacuinum Dei_, 757 - - _Talmud_, 208, 339, 525 - - Tanner, T., 96 - - Tannery, P., 229 - - Taylor, H. O., 685 - - _Temple Classics_, 442 - - Tertullian, 166 - - Tessen-Wesierski, F., 594 - - Thaddeus of Florence, 96, 798 - - Thales, 173, 646 - - _Theatrum chemicum Britannicum_, 218, 334 - - _Theatrum chymicum_, see Zetzner - - Thebit ben Corat, 22, 77, 89, 223, 262, 322, 439, 449, 556-7, 668, - 673, 690, 718, 756, 782, 802, 827, 899 - - Theiner, 312 - - Themistius, 89 - - Theodoric of Chartres, 341 - - Theodosius, 41, 89 - - Theophilus, _Schedula_, 799 - - Theophilus, _Urines_, 501 - - Theophilus Macer, see Macer - - Theophrastus, 432, 532, 647 - - Thessalus, 233-4 - - Thetel, 377, 389 ff., 399-400, 469-70, 567; and see Zael - - Thoemes, N., 519 - - Thomas, see Aquinas, Laione - - Thomas of Cantimpré (or, Brabant), chap. liii, 469, 476, 530, 560, - 593, 599, 638 - _Bonum universale_, chap. liii, 528, 595ff., 944 - _Natura rerum_, chap. liii, 202, 243, 251-2, 315, 324, 422, 465, - 515, 567, 676-8, 741, 767 - - Thomas del Garbo, 967 - - Thomas of Pisa (or, Bologna), 695, 801-2 - - Thomas of Strasburg, _Commentary on the Sentences_, 881-2, 943-4, - 946 - - Thompson, D’Arcy W., 30, 422 - - Thompson, S. P., 791 - - Thorndike, L., 686-7 - - _Times_ (London), 24, 36 - - Tiraboschi, G., 888, 916, 930, 962, 967 - - Tobias, 769 - - Tomasinus, 78 - - Tomasini, J. P., 882, 913, 915, 934 - - Tommaso, see Thomas - - Torror, 482 - - Toz Grecus, 172, 177, 224ff., 353, 355, 557, 698, 706, 718 - - Trevisa, 410 - - Trithemius, 550, 912, 969 - - _Turba philosophorum_, 234 - - Turner, W., 863 - - _Twelve Colors_, 799 - - _Twelve Tables_, 647 - - _Twelve Waters_, 251, 501, 797-8 - - Twyne, Brian, 172, 181 - - Tycho Brahe, 970 - - - Ulpian, 173 - - Ulrich Engelbert, 527, 548-9 - - _Uraharum_, 699 - - Urcanus Romanus, 755 - - Urso, 800 - - _Ut episcopi_, 163 - - - Vacandard, E., _Inquisition_, 943 - - Vacant et Mangenot, 519, 523, 617, 628, 684 - - Valencia, a king of, cited, 563 - - Valentinelli, J., 77, 232, 716, 723, 763 - - Valerius, _To Rufinus_, 102 - - Valleoletanus, 695 - - Valois, N., chap. lii, 632, 693 - - Velbetus, 432 - - _Verae alchemiae_, 252, 758 - - Verci, G. B., 876, 914, 930, 932, 934, 940, 943 - - Vergil, 100, 159, 193, 825, 896, 959 - _Pictorial Waters_, 799 - _Twelve Waters_, 798 - - Villani, Filippo, 825, 881 - - Villani, Giovanni, 951, 953-5, 963, 967 - - Villard de Honnecourt, 537 - - Vinaud, Colomb, 646 - - Vincent of Beauvais, chap. lvi, 102, 207, 315, 373, 521, 523, 626, - 638 - _Consolatory Letter_, 458 - _Education of Royal Children_, 458 - _Memoriale omnium temporum_, 460 - _Speculum doctrinale_, 8-9, 79, chap. lvi - _Speculum historiale_, 130, 250, chap. lvi - _Speculum morale_ (spurious), 457 - _Speculum naturale_, 403, 422, 430, chap. lvi, 524, 531 - - Virchow’s _Archiv_, 756 - - Vitruvius, 32, 133, 199 - - Vogl, S., see Björnbo and - - Vossius, 332 - - _Vulgate_, 631, 644 - - - Wadding, 335, 403, 622 - - Wagenseil, J. C., 296 - - Walcher, prior of Malvern, 68-9, 187 - - Walter, a medical writer, 495, 497 - - Walter the Breton, 120 - - Walter of St. Victor, 61 - - Warner, _Library_, 205 - - Wasmann, E., 126 - - Waters, treatises on, 797-9 - - Webb, C. C. I., chap. xli - - Wedel, T. O., 186-7 - - Wegener, A., 814 - - Weiss, M., 519 - - Wellmann, 923-4 - - Werner, K., 634 - - Werner, M. K., 341 - - Westenburgh, John, 550 - - _Westminster Review_, 683, 707 - - _Western Reserve University Bulletin_, 72 - - Wharton, _Anglia sacra_, 439 - - Whytefeld, J., 117 - - William, king of Sicily, 563 - - William of Aragon, - _Centiloquium_, 301, 487 - _Dreams_, 300-2, 847 - - William of Auvergne, chap. lii, 219-20, 223, 374, 512, 522, 548, - 553, - 598, 611, 632, 650, 666, 674, 676, 689-90, 702, 735, 778, 966 - _Fide_, chap. lii - _Legibus_, 279-81, 287, chap. lii - _Moribus_, 339 - _Universo_, 226, 236-7, 260, chap. lii, 466, 711 - - William, Brother, _Summa_, 466 - - William of Brescia, 937-8 - - William of Brixia, 846 - - William of Champeaux, 8 - - William of Conches, chap. xxxvii, 86, 103, 156, 171-2, 179, 341, - 414, - 464, 535 - _Commentary on Boethius_, 53 - _Dragmaticon_, chap. xxxvii - _Glosses_, 11 - _Honesto et utili_, 52 - _Philosophia_, chap. xxxvii, 175, 297, 379 - - William Durantus, 878 - - William of England, 92 - _Pactis_, 486 - _Urina non visa_, 222, 301, 485-7 - _Virtute aquilae_, 487 - - William of Hirschau, 62-4 - - William of Mechlin, 721 - - William of Moerbeke, 67, 119, 395, 454-5, 599, 643, 880, 883, 924, - 929 - - William of Provence, 487 - - William of St. Amour, 525, 596 - - William of St. Cloud, 262, 668 - - William of St. Thierry, 59 - - William de Saliceto, 120, 760-1 - - William of Shyrwood, 527, 622, 639 - - William Wolf, 637 - - Willis, Capt., 806 - - Willner, H., chap. xxxvi - - Wimmer, J., 521; and see Aubert and - - Winterfeld, v., 128 - - Witelo, 454-6, 638, 643 - - Withington, E., 635, 767 - - Witzel, T., 578, 617, 626, 682, 693 - - Wolf, _Bibl. Hebr._, 878 - - Wolf, H., 222 - - Wolf, M. d., 929 - - Wright, Thomas, 172, 189-93, 197-199 - - Wrobel and Barach, 101 - - - Yuhanna ibn el-Batrik, 269 - - Yuhanna ibn Masawaih, see Mesue - - Yule, Sir Henry, - _Marco Polo_, 240, 242 - _Prester John_, 239 - - - Zael or Zahel, 223, 256, 322, 380, 956, 959 - _Fatidica_, 84, 390 - _Seals_, 389ff., 399-400; and see Thetel - - Zarncke, F., chap. xlvii - - Zassari, _Cesena MSS_, 879 - - Zdekauer, L., 488 - - Zebel, Pseudo-, 391 - - _Zeitschrift f. d. Alterthum_, 800 - - _Zeitsch. f. Assyriol._, 266 - - _Zeitsch. f. deutsch. Alterthum_, 90, 260, 430 - - _Zeitsch. f. deutsch. Morgendl. Gesell._, 292, 354 - - _Zeitsch. f. kath. Theol._, 520 - - _Zeitsch. f. kirchl. Wiss. u. Leben_, 125 - - _Zeitsch. f. Math. u. Physik_, 693 - - Zeno of Athens, 755 - - Zeno, _De naturalibus_, 432 - - Zetzner, _Theatrum chemicum_, 354, 758, 783, 797 - - Zoroaster, 321, 449, 647, 911, 960, 963-4 - - Zwemer, S. M., 862 - - - - -INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS - - - Additional 8790, p. 118 - - Additional 9600, p. 118 - - Additional 9702, p. 294 - - Additional 11676, p. 64 - - Additional 15236, pp. 115ff., 266ff. - - Additional 17345, pp. 395, 708 - - Additional 18210, p. 65 - - Additional 18752, p. 811 - - Additional 21978, p. 922 - - Additional 22636, pp. 491, 514 - - Additional 22668, p. 97 - - Additional 22772, p. 94 - - Additional 22773, p. 94 - - Additional 24068, p. 331 - - Additional 25000, pp. 491, 515 - - Additional 26768, p. 839 - - Additional 26779, p. 64 - - Additional 30351, p. 746 - - Additional 32622, pp. 492ff., 500, 515, 746, 788, 791, 811 - - Additional 34111, pp. 101, 803 - - Additional 35112, p. 101 - - Additional 37079, pp. 909, 918, 923, 935, 937 - - Alger 1517, p. 294 - - Alger 1518, p. 294 - - All Souls 68, p. 88 - - All Souls 81, p. 233 - - Ambros. L. 92, p. 308 - - Amplon. Duodecimo 17, p. 118 - - Amplon. Folio 37, p. 486 - - Amplon. Folio 179, p. 308 - - Amplon. Folio 260, p. 773 - - Amplon. Folio 265, p. 773 - - Amplon. Folio 271, p. 515 - - Amplon. Folio 272, p. 98 - - Amplon. Folio 276, p. 794 - - Amplon. Folio 303, p. 515 - - Amplon. Folio 381, p. 840 - - Amplon. Folio 386, p. 642 - - Amplon. Folio 387, p. 97 - - Amplon. Folio 389, pp. 97, 119 - - Amplon. Folio 393, p. 642 - - Amplon. Octavo 32, p. 800 - - Amplon. Octavo 62, pp. 515, 800 - - Amplon. Octavo 79, pp. 76, 282, 749 - - Amplon. Octavo 84, pp. 75, 282 - - Amplon. Octavo 85, p. 64 - - Amplon. Octavo 87, p. 64 - - Amplon. Octavo 88, pp. 118-9 - - Amplon. Quarto 15, p. 749 - - Amplon. Quarto 28, p. 282 - - Amplon. Quarto 35, p. 97 - - Amplon. Quarto 157, p. 749 - - Amplon. Quarto 174, p. 118 - - Amplon. Quarto 186, p. 267 - - Amplon. Quarto 188, pp. 723, 810 - - Amplon. Quarto 189, pp. 524, 714, 800 - - Amplon. Quarto 193, p. 515 - - Amplon. Quarto 196, p. 486 - - Amplon. Quarto 217, pp. 233-4 - - Amplon. Quarto 222, pp. 922, 936 - - Amplon. Quarto 223, p. 714 - - Amplon. Quarto 234, p. 749 - - Amplon. Quarto 293, p. 524 - - Amplon. Quarto 296, p. 524 - - Amplon. Quarto 299, pp. 740, 749 - - Amplon. Quarto 301, p. 803 - - Amplon. Quarto 330, p. 811 - - Amplon. Quarto 342, p. 749 - - Amplon. Quarto 345, pp. 118, 486 - - Amplon. Quarto 348, p. 714 - - Amplon. Quarto 349, pp. 95, 714 - - Amplon. Quarto 351, p. 68 - - Amplon. Quarto 354, pp. 97, 221, 719 - - Amplon. Quarto 357, p. 486 - - Amplon. Quarto 361, pp. 118, 391, 486, 784-6, 788, 811 - - Amplon. Quarto 365, pp. 74, 118 - - Amplon. Quarto 368, p. 118 - - Amplon. Quarto 371, p. 76 - - Amplon. Quarto 373, p. 119ff. - - Amplon. Quarto 374, p. 118 - - Amplon. Quarto 377, pp. 75, 118, 120, 256, 694 - - Amplon. Quarto 380, pp. 119, 282 - - Amplon. Quarto 381, p. 220 - - Amplon. Quarto 384, p. 120 - - Amplon. Quarto 391, p. 486 - - Amplon. Math. 8, pp. 119, 226 - - Amplon. Math. 9, p. 220 - - Amplon. Math. 29, pp. 695, 918 - - Amplon. Math. 47, p. 119 - - Amplon. Math. 50, p. 281 - - Amplon. Math. 53, p. 220 - - Amplon. Math. 54, pp. 220, 282 - - Amplon. Math. 69, p. 695 - - Amplon. Medic. 54, p. 919 - - Arezzo 232, pp. 219, 253, 794 - - Arsenal 379A, p. 240 - - Arsenal 387, p. 716 - - Arsenal 723, p. 922 - - Arsenal 748A, p. 250 - - Arsenal 873, pp. 823, 923 - - Arsenal 1033, p. 823 - - Arsenal 1035, p. 310 - - Arsenal 1129, p. 840 - - Arundel 66, pp. 119, 121, chap. lxvii - - Arundel 115, pp. 755, 771 - - Arundel 142, p. 397 - - Arundel 164, pp. 372, 397, 570, 786 - - Arundel 165, p. 248 - - Arundel 251, pp. 74, 529, 730, 746, 793-5 - - Arundel 268, p. 77 - - Arundel 270, p. 70 - - Arundel 298, p. 397 - - Arundel 323, pp. 372, 374, 380, 382, 384, 396-7 - - Arundel 342, pp. 225, 228, 723, 736, 809 - - Arundel 344, p. 530 - - Arundel 377. p. 65, 87, chap. xlii, 219, 930 - - Arundel 382, p. 780ff. - - Ashburnham (Florence), 98, p. 65 - - Ashburnham (Florence) 115, p. 398 - - Ashburnham (Florence) 136, p. 716 - - Ashburnham (Florence) 143, p. 498 - - Ashmole 179, p. 293 - - Ashmole 191, p. 322 - - Ashmole 192, p. 186 - - Ashmole 304, pp. 112, 114ff. - - Ashmole 341, p. 221 - - Ashmole 342, pp. 114, 122 - - Ashmole 345, pp. 110, 123, 486, 702, 715 - - Ashmole 357, p. 87 - - Ashmole 360, p. 121 - - Ashmole 361, p. 296 - - Ashmole 369, p. 259 - - Ashmole 393, pp. 456, 524, 718 - - Ashmole 399, pp. 114, 122 - - Ashmole 1384, p. 253 - - Ashmole 1416, p. 283 - - Ashmole 1437, pp. 794, 814, 824 - - Ashmole 1446, p. 95 - - Ashmole 1448, pp. 233-4, 251, 253, 259, 796-8 - - Ashmole 1450, pp. 233, 253 - - Ashmole 1471, pp. 220, 228, 230, 392, 400, 524, 529 - - Ashmole 1485, p. 798 - - Ashmole 1515, p. 282 - - Ashmole 1741, p. 259 - - Assisi 283, p. 250 - - Assisi 292, p. 501 - - Avranches 232, p. 74 - - - Balliol 3, pp. 13, 82 - - Balliol 96, p. 172 - - Balliol 231, pp. 759-60, 775 - - Balliol 285, p. 772 - - Berlin 166, pp. 759, 768-9, 775 - - Berlin 193, p. 102 - - Berlin 387, p. 171 - - Berlin 899, p. 773 - - Berlin 905, p. 76 - - Berlin 908, pp. 752, 775 - - Berlin 909, p. 922 - - Berlin 921, p. 65 - - Berlin 934, p. 95 - - Berlin 956, pp. 218, 236, 353, 399 - - Berlin 963, pp. 486, 717, 928 - - Berlin 964, p. 184 - - Berlin 965, pp. 119, 391 - - Berlin 968, p. 747 - - Berlin 969, p. 121 - - Berlin 976, p. 749 - - Berlin Latin Octavo 42, p. 233 - - Berlin Theol. Octavo 94, p. 101 - - Berlin Latin Quarto 385, p. 750 - - Berlin Latin Quarto 387, p. 171 - - Berlin Folio 573, p. 234 - - Bernard 2019, p. 191 - - Bernard 2063, pp. 750, 923 - - Bernard 2581, p. 191 - - Bernard 2596, p. 64 - - Bernard 3565, p. 65 - - Bernard 3623, pp. 64, 799 - - Bernard 4056, p. 64 - - Bernard 4094, p. 191 - - Bibl. Alex. (Rome) 102, p. 65 - - Bibl. Alex. (Rome) 172, p. 127 - - Bibl. Angelica (Rome) 1481, p. 269 - - Bibl. Palat. Parma 1065, p. 501 - - BN nouv. acq. 433, p. 361 - - BN nouv. acq. 1401, p. 307 - - BN nouv. acq. 1429, p. 13 - - BN nouv. acq. 4227, p. 606 - - BN nouv. acq. moyen format 1789, p. 923 - - BN (Latin) 347, pp. 402, 428, 434 - - BN 347B, pp. 372, 422 - - BN 523A, p. 372 - - BN 734, p. 878 - - BN 1002, p. 293 - - BN 2342, p. 241ff. - - BN 2389, pp. 20, 48 - - BN 2598, pp. 258, 880, 892, 895, 898, 901, 918, 921 - - BN 2772, p. 261 - - BN 3109, p. 609 - - BN 3195, p. 100 - - BN 3245, p. 101 - - BN 3282, p. 294 - - BN 3359, p. 241ff. - - BN 3446, p. 98 - - BN 3660A, p. 743 - - BN 3718, p. 101 - - BN 3899, pp. 607, 609 - - BN 4694, p. 65 - - BN 5129, p. 101 - - BN 5698, p. 100 - - BN 6244A, p. 240 - - BN 6296, p. 74 - - BN 6298, p. 80 - - BN 6325, p. 250 - - BN 6395, p. 100 - - BN 6415, pp. 19, 65, 100-1, 172 - - BN 6477, p. 100 - - BN 6480, p. 100 - - BN 6506, p. 78 - - BN 6512, p. 609 - - BN 6514, pp. 218, 525, 784, 787 - - BN 6517, p. 308 - - BN 6540, p. 922 - - BN 6541, p. 922 - - BN 6541A, p. 922 - - BN 6542, p. 922 - - BN 6543, p. 922 - - BN 6552, p. 799 - - BN 6584, p. 269ff. - - BN 6656, p. 64 - - BN 6738A, p. 607 - - BN 6742, p. 799 - - BN 6749, p. 799 - - BN 6752A, p. 101 - - BN 6786, pp. 607, 609 - - BN 6820, p. 924 - - BN 6893, p. 772 - - BN 6902 to 6904, pp. 752, 772 - - BN 6906, pp. 752, 772 - - BN 6948, pp. 94, 937 - - BN 6956, p. 501 - - BN 6957, pp. 490, 500 - - BN 6961, p. 919 - - BN 6962, p. 919 - - BN 6971, p. 848 - - BN 6978, p. 76 - - BN 7031, p. 776 - - BN 7046, pp. 759-60, 772, 775 - - BN 7054, p. 101 - - BN 7056, pp. 478, 769, 803 - - BN 7105, p. 799 - - BN 7148, pp. 740-1, 749 - - BN 7152, p. 282 - - BN 7153, p. 281 - - BN 7156, pp. 218, 308, 524, 785, 797 - - BN 7158, p. 785 - - BN 7170A, p. 282 - - BN 7197, p. 97 - - BN 7268 to 7271, p. 94 - - BN 7281, pp. 95, 97-8 - - BN 7282, p. 95 - - BN 7285, p. 95 - - BN 7286, pp. 94, 97 - - BN 7287, p. 723 - - BN 7293A, p. 96 - - BN 7295, p. 95 - - BN 7295A, pp. 95, 97 - - BN 7298, pp. 96, 486 - - BN 7316, p. 839 - - BN 7321, pp. 75, 77, 878 - - BN 7322, p. 95 - - BN 7324, p. 929 - - BN 7326, p. 839 - - BN 7327, p. 839 - - BN 7328, pp. 486, 839 - - BN 7329, pp. 95, 839 - - BN 7333, p. 642 - - BN 7334, p. 642 - - BN 7335, p. 715 - - BN 7336, pp. 221, 927 - - BN 7337, pp. 293, 695, 801, 848, 924, 926, 950-65 - - BN 7340, p. 823 - - BN 7344A, p. 799 - - BN 7349, pp. 280, 295, 500 - - BN 7377A, p. 929 - - BN 7377B, p. 75 - - BN 7378A, p. 95 - - BN 7400A, p. 799 - - BN 7405, p. 95 - - BN 7406, p. 98 - - BN 7408, p. 714 - - BN 7413, pp. 95, 486 - - BN 7414, p. 96 - - BN 7416, p. 486 - - BN 7416A, p. 94 - - BN 7416B, p. 96 - - BN 7420A, pp. 117, 266, 575 - - BN 7437, pp. 96, 184 - - BN 7438, pp. 326, 927 - - BN 7440, pp. 221, 486, 714-5 - - BN 7441 to 7443, p. 839 - - BN 7446, pp. 489, 501 - - BN 7453, pp. 86, 295 - - BN 7475, p. 524 - - BN 7486, pp. 115, 119, 123, 300-1 - - BN 7994, p. 101 - - BN 8299, p. 101 - - BN 8320, p. 101 - - BN 8454, p. 399 - - BN 8513, p. 101 - - BN 8654, p. 515 - - BN 8751C, p. 101 - - BN 8808A, p. 101 - - BN 9328, p. 529 - - BN 9335, p. 929 - - BN 9336, p. 282 - - BN 10271, pp. 182, 970 - - BN 10272, p. 823 - - BN 12321, p. 18 - - BN 13016, p. 823 - - BN 13017, p. 823 - - BN 13334, p. 9 - - BN 13951, p. 283 - - BN 14070, p. 308 - - BN 14700, p. 80 - - BN 14704, p. 91 - - BN 14717, p. 250 - - BN 14719, p. 250 - - BN 14951, p. 86 - - BN 15009, p. 101 - - BN 15025, p. 64 - - BN 15127, p. 227 - - BN 15171, p. 191 - - BN 15256, p. 9 - - BN 15690, p. 609 - - BN 16089, p. 918 - - BN 16096, pp. 607, 613 - - BN 16098, pp. 402, 428, 434-5 - - BN 16099, pp. 402, 408, 422, 434-5 - - BN 16142, p. 250 - - BN 16195, p. 607 - - BN 16204, pp. 390, 399 - - BN 16207, p. 64 - - BN 16208, p. 256 - - BN 16222, pp. 76, 530 - - BN 16246, p. 100 - - BN 16610, pp. 297, 300 - - BN 16633, p. 250 - - BN 16635, p. 530 - - BN 16648, p. 929 - - BN 16654, p. 310 - - BN 17155, p. 314 - - BN 17847, p. 848 - - BN 17870, p. 926 - - BN 17871, p. 823 - - Bodleian A-44, p. 101 - - Bodleian 67, pp. 219, 253, 257-8 268ff. - - Bodleian 177, pp. 294, 747, 794 - - Bodleian 266, chap. li, pp. 664, 710 - - Bodleian 463, pp. 224, 690 - - Bodleian 464, p. 222 - - Bodleian 484, p. 923 - - Bodleian 550, p. 191 - - Bodleian 786, p. 97 - - Bodleian 3004, p. 294 - - Bodleian Auct. F. 1.9, p. 68 - - Bodleian Auct. F. 3.13, pp. 110, 123 - - Bologna (University Library) 135, pp. 747, 794 - - Bologna 138, p. 569 - - Bologna 139, p. 569 - - Bologna 270, pp. 570, 582 - - Bologna 389, p. 757 - - Bologna 449, p. 119 - - Bologna 474, p. 798 - - Bologna 693, p. 310 - - Bologna 963, p. 832 - - Bologna 1091, p. 757 - - Bologna 1158, pp. 575, 607, 613 - - Bourges 121, p. 18 - - Bourges 299, p. 776 - - Brussels (Library of Dukes of Burgundy) 936, p. 716 - - Brussels 1030, p. 716 - - Brussels 1462, p. 840 - - Brussels 1466, p. 716 - - Brussels 2471, pp. 606-7 - - Brussels 4274, p. 218 - - Brussels 4275, p. 218 - - Brussels 4567, p. 757 - - Brussels 5275, p. 747 - - Brussels 7500, p. 929 - - Brussels 8488, p. 776 - - Brussels 8554, p. 923 - - Brussels 10871, p. 919 - - Brussels 10872, p. 747 - - Brussels 11040, p. 263 - - Brussels 14746, p. 799 - - - Cambrai 875, p. 101 - - Canon. Misc. 6, p. 742 - - Canon. Misc. 45, p. 930 - - Canon. Misc. 46, pp. 486, 833, 878, 914, 918-9, 923, 936 - - Canon. Misc. 190, pp. 878, 884, 895, 898, 901, 920, 927-8 - - Canon. Misc. 285, pp. 392, 400 - - Canon. Misc. 356, p. 397 - - Canon. Misc. 455, p. 923 - - Canon. Misc. 517, pp. 699, 716 - - Canon. Misc. 521, p. 803 - - Canon. Misc. 524, p. 796 - - Canon. Misc. 555, chap. li - - Catania 87, p. 716 - - Cesena Plut. IV-n-4, p. 879 - - Chartres 90, p. 295 - - Chartres 284, p. 775 - - Chartres 293, p. 775 - - Clermont-Ferrand 171, p. 747 - - CLM 5, p. 918 - - CLM 8, p. 923 - - CLM 12, p. 752 - - CLM 13, p. 923 - - CLM 23, p. 101 - - CLM 27, p. 716 - - CLM 40, p. 489 - - CLM 51, p. 221 - - CLM 56, pp. 529, 601 - - CLM 59, p. 840 - - CLM 77, p. 922 - - CLM 184, p. 922 - - CLM 192, pp. 118, 836 - - CLM 196, pp. 118, 836 - - CLM 197, p. 785 - - CLM 206, p. 794 - - CLM 221, p. 716 - - CLM 240, pp. 118, 836 - - CLM 242, p. 118 - - CLM 257, p. 922 - - CLM 267, pp. 486, 716, 785 - - CLM 268, p. 282 - - CLM 276, pp. 118-9, 282 - - CLM 321, p. 516 - - CLM 326, p. 398 - - CLM 353, pp. 524, 567 - - CLM 363, p. 798 - - CLM 372, p. 772 - - CLM 381, p. 489 - - CLM 392, pp. 118ff., 925 - - CLM 398, pp. 118ff., 836 - - CLM 402, pp. 607, 609 - - CLM 405, pp. 233, 798 - - CLM 421, p. 118 - - CLM 436, pp. 118, 836 - - CLM 438, pp. 490, 516 - - CLM 444, pp. 748, 750, 794, 800 - - CLM 453, pp. 529, 747 - - CLM 456, p. 118 - - CLM 457, p. 494 - - CLM 458, p. 118 - - CLM 483, p. 118 - - CLM 489, pp. 118ff., 331, 836, 925 - - CLM 534, pp. 768, 794, 796 - - CLM 540A, p. 524 - - CLM 541, p. 118 - - CLM 547, p. 118 - - CLM 564, p. 64 - - CLM 588, pp. 118, 120, 486 - - CLM 615, p. 489 - - CLM 637, p. 918 - - CLM 647, p. 770 - - CLM 666, pp. 772, 798 - - CLM 671, p. 118 - - CLM 677, p. 118 - - CLM 905, pp. 118, 120 - - CLM 916, p. 575 - - CLM 2572, p. 13 - - CLM 2574B, p. 265 - - CLM 2594, p. 64 - - CLM 2595, pp. 60, 65 - - CLM 2619, p. 127 - - CLM 2655, pp. 64, 398 - - CLM 3206, p. 398 - - CLM 3520, p. 773 - - CLM 3754, pp. 607, 609 - - CLM 5594, p. 609 - - CLM 6908, pp. 376, 398 - - CLM 6942, pp. 607, 609 - - CLM 7770, p. 65 - - CLM 7806, p. 295 - - CLM 8001, p. 716 - - CLM 8439, p. 398 - - CLM 8484, p. 750 - - CLM 8742, p. 516 - - CLM 9528, p. 487 - - CLM 10268, pp. 307, 309 - - CLM 10544, p. 868 - - CLM 10597, p. 868 - - CLM 10663, p. 308 - - CLM 11481, p. 398 - - CLM 11998, p. 118ff. - - CLM 12026, pp. 251, 569 - - CLM 13026, p. 773 - - CLM 13045, p. 752 - - CLM 13114, p. 752 - - CLM 13582, p. 398 - - CLM 14156, p. 64 - - CLM 14170, p. 750 - - CLM 14340, p. 398 - - CLM 14574, pp. 499, 750 - - CLM 14654, p. 750 - - CLM 14689, p. 64 - - CLM 14846, p. 606 - - CLM 15181, p. 526 - - CLM 15407, pp. 18, 65 - - CLM 16103, p. 65 - - CLM 16129, pp. 524, 567 - - CLM 17711, p. 926 - - CLM 18368, p. 18 - - CLM 18757, p. 487 - - CLM 18918, p. 65 - - CLM 19413, p. 281 - - CLM 19488, p. 12 - - CLM 19608, p. 522 - - CLM 19901, p. 772 - - CLM 21008, p. 398 - - CLM 21107, p. 750 - - CLM 22048, p. 920 - - CLM 22292, pp. 65, 809 - - CLM 22297, p. 750 - - CLM 22300, p. 750 - - CLM 23434, p. 101 - - CLM 23538, p. 524 - - CLM 23789, p. 750 - - CLM 23879, p. 398 - - CLM 24936, p. 926 - - CLM 24940, p. 118 - - CLM 25010, p. 252 - - CLM 25110, p. 252 - - CLM 25113, p. 252 - - CLM 26061, p. 118 - - CLM 26062, p. 118 - - CLM 27001, p. 609 - - CLM 27006, pp. 97, 398 - - CLM 27029, p. 522 - - CLM 27063, p. 800 - - Corpus Christi 45, p. 193 - - Corpus Christi 65, p. 757 - - Corpus Christi 95, pp. 65, 171 - - Corpus Christi 125, pp. 205, 207, 218, 221, 223, 308, 334-7, 529, - 783, 796, 798, 809, 845 - - Corpus Christi 132, pp. 788, 809, 811 - - Corpus Christi 149, p. 268 - - Corpus Christi 190, p. 121 - - Corpus Christi 221, pp. 378, 397, 400 - - Corpus Christi 223, p. 9 - - Corpus Christi 224, p. 74 - - Corpus Christi 225, p. 606 - - Corpus Christi 226, p. 571 - - Corpus Christi 243, p. 501 - - Corpus Christi 263, pp. 171, 181 - - Corpus Christi 274, p. 397 - - Corpus Christi 277, p. 798 - - Corpus Christi 283, p. 69 - - Cortona 35, p. 13 - - Cotton Appendix VI, pp. 76, 82, 255-6, 485-6, 925 - - Cotton Cleopatra A, XIV, p. 101 - - Cotton Julius D, V, p. 799 - - Cotton Julius D, VII, p. 98 - - Cotton Julius D, VIII, pp. 267, 799 - - Cotton Tiberius A, III, p. 295 - - Cotton Titus D, IV, p. 41ff. - - Cotton Titus D, XX, p. 101 - - Cotton Titus D, XXIV, p. 800 - - Cotton Titus D, XXVI, p. 295 - - Cotton Vespasian B, X, 79 - - CUL 186, p. 487 - - CUL 220, p. 570 - - CUL 1175, p. 567 - - CUL 1391, pp. 400, 487 - - CUL 1572, p. 96 - - CUL 1574, p. 17 - - CUL 1693, p. 185ff. - - CUL 1705, p. 578 - - CUL 1707, p. 96 - - CUL 1711, p. 207 - - CUL 1767, p. 96 - - CUL 1823, p. 17 - - CUL 1824, p. 241 - - CUL 1935, p. 171 - - CUL 2022, pp. 83, 390, 453 - - CUL 2040, p. 17 - - CUL Dd-iv-35, p. 296 - - CUL Ii-vi-11, p. 70 - - CUL Ii-vi-34, p. 296 - - CU Clare 15, pp. 74, 75, 84 - - CU Corpus 243, p. 567 - - CU Emmanuel 70, pp. 836, 928 - - CU McLean 165, pp. 20, 92 - - CU Magdalene 27, pp. 86, 119ff., 237 - - CU St. John’s 99, p. 479 - - CU St. John’s 177, p. 786 - - CU Sidney Sussex 100, p. 17 - - CU Trinity 1058, pp. 376, 397 - - CU Trinity 1081, pp. 794, 804 - - CU Trinity 1082, p. 811 - - CU Trinity 1109, pp. 283, 804 - - CU Trinity 1119, p. 680 - - CU Trinity 1120 (III), p. 479 - - CU Trinity 1122, p. 95 - - CU Trinity 1144, p. 812 - - CU Trinity 1185, p. 717 - - CU Trinity 1214, p. 811 - - CU Trinity 1313, p. 221 - - CU Trinity 1335, p. 101 - - CU Trinity 1351, pp. 747, 788, 812 - - CU Trinity 1352, p. 112 - - CU Trinity 1368 (II), p. 101 - - CU Trinity 1404 (II), p. 114 - - CU Trinity 1404 (IV), pp. 117, 122, 280 - - CU Trinity 1406, p. 486 - - CU Trinity 1411, p. 501 - - CU Trinity 1418, p. 839 - - CU Trinity 1419, p. 281 - - CU Trinity 1446, p. 263 - - CU Trinity 1447, p. 120 - - CU Trinity 1473, p. 773 - - - Digby 1, p. 65 - - Digby 28, p. 925 - - Digby 29, pp. 924-5 - - Digby 37, pp. 726, 729, 788, 791, 811 - - Digby 40, p. 181 - - Digby 46, pp. 111, 114ff. - - Digby 48, p. 929 - - Digby 53, p. 110 - - Digby 67, pp. 221, 784, 786ff. - - Digby 68, p. 22 - - Digby 69, p. 802 - - Digby 71, pp. 735, 779ff., 788, 799, 809, 811 - - Digby 74, p. 119 - - Digby 76, p. 642 - - Digby 77, p. 922 - - Digby 79, p. 400 - - Digby 81, pp. 715-6 - - Digby 85, pp. 867, 871 - - Digby 86, pp. 294, 802 - - Digby 103, p. 292 - - Digby 104, p. 64 - - Digby 107, p. 65 - - Digby 114, pp. 84, 390, 928 - - Digby 119, pp. 524, 798 - - Digby 134, p. 836 - - Digby 147, pp. 500, 726, 729, 747, 799 - - Digby 149, p. 184 - - Digby 153, pp. 726, 729, 747, 786, 788, 791, 811 - - Digby 158, pp. 240, 242ff. - - Digby 159, pp. 85, 257 - - Digby 162, pp. 214, 218, 250 - - Digby 164, pp. 758, 796 - - Digby 190, p. 74 - - Digby 193, p. 400 - - Digby 194, p. 74 - - Digby 197, p. 757 - - Digby 219, pp. 782, 798 - - Digby 221, p. 191 - - Digby 228, pp. 223, 269, 698-9, 715 - - Digby 236, pp. 69, 601 - - Dijon 1045, pp. 83, 185ff. - - Dijon anciens fonds 225, p. 17 - - Dôle 173 to 180, p. 398 - - Dover Priory 409, pp. 117, 445 - - - Egerton 821, p. 606 - - Egerton 830, p. 65 - - Egerton 840A, p. 800 - - Egerton 847, p. 267 - - Egerton 935, p. 64 - - Egerton 1984, pp. 64, 252, 372, 378-84, 396-7 - - Egerton 2676, p. 268ff. - - Egerton 2852, pp. 267, 500, 746, 788, 791, 811 - - E Musaeo 181, p. 185ff. - - Escorial E-III-15, p. 308 - - Escorial F-I-11, p. 918 - - Escorial F-III-8, p. 307 - - Escorial H-III-2, p. 776 - - Escorial P-II-5, pp. 479, 803 - - Eton 161, Bl.6.16, p. 20 - - Evreux 72, p. 191 - - - Florence II, iii, 22, p. 96 - - Florence II, iii, 24, pp. 96, 280 - - Florence II, iii, 214, pp. 223, 225, 810 - - Florence II, vi, 2, p. 65 - - Florence II, vi, 54, p. 800 - - Florence II, vi, 62, p. 515 - - - Gonville and Caius 35, p. 397 - - Gonville and Caius 95, p. 76 - - Gonville and Caius 109, pp. 310, 316 - - Gonville and Caius 110, p. 95 - - Gonville and Caius 178, p. 845 - - Gonville and Caius 379, pp. 479, 498 - - Gonville and Caius 385, p. 191 - - Gonville and Caius 388, p. 479 - - Gonville and Caius 413, p. 812 - - Gonville and Caius 414, p. 397 - - Grenoble 246, p. 9 - - Grenoble 814, p. 256 - - - Hanover 396, p. 824 - - Harleian 1, pp. 95, 301 - - Harleian 80, pp. 221, 223, 390 - - Harleian 181, p. 281 - - Harleian 218, p. 800 - - Harleian 536, p. 530 - - Harleian 671, p. 118 - - Harleian 1612, p. 221 - - Harleian 1725, p. 126 - - Harleian 1887, p. 501 - - Harleian 2258, pp. 501, 799 - - Harleian 2269, p. 486 - - Harleian 2404, pp. 120, 237 - - Harleian 3017, p. 294 - - Harleian 3487, p. 259 - - Harleian 3536, pp. 280-1 - - Harleian 3703, p. 253 - - Harleian 3731, p. 221 - - Harleian 3737, p. 193 - - Harleian 3747, p. 919 - - Harleian 3969, pp. 194, 267 - - Harleian 4025, p. 293 - - Harleian 4166, p. 118 - - Harleian 4870, p. 530 - - Harleian 5218, pp. 489-90, 494, 514 - - Hunterian V, 6, 18, p. 567 - - - Jesus 35, pp. 9, 13 - - Jesus 94, p. 203 - - - Laon 413, p. 88 - - Laud. Misc. 112, p. 191 - - Laud. Misc. 594, pp. 75, 186 - - Laud. Misc. 620, p. 95 - - Laud. Misc. 708, p. 252 - - Laurentianus II, 85, Plut. 30, c. 29, p. 85 - - Laurentianus Plut. 89, p. 89 - - Laurentianus p. lxxxix, sup. cod. 38, p. 310 - - Liège 77, p. 261 - - Lincoln 57, pp. 376, 397 - - Lips. un. 1466, p. 928 - - - Magdalen 102, p. 757 - - Magdalen 174, p. 524 - - Magliabech. XI, 22, p. 95 - - Magliabech. XVI, 66, p. 95 - - Magliabech. XX, 13, pp. 119ff., 836 - - Magliabech. XX, 14, p. 840 - - Magliabech. XX, 20, chap. lxvi - - Magliabech. XX, 21, chap. lxvi - - Mazarine 717, p. 13 - - Mazarine 3458, pp. 249-50 - - Mazarine 3459, p. 250 - - Mazarine 3460, p. 250 - - Mazarine 3461, p. 250 - - Mazarine 3520, p. 922 - - Merton 160, p. 127 - - Merton 228, p. 773 - - Merton 254, p. 191 - - Merton 261, pp. 13, 81 - - Merton 285, p. 524 - - Merton 324, pp. 93, 803 - - Montpellier 277, pp. 234, 259, 261, 809 - - Montpellier École de Méd. 145, p. 65 - - Munich Hebrew 214, p. 778 - - Naples VIII-G-100, p. 515 - - Naples XII-G-78, p. 923 - - Nelli 243, p. 923 - - New College 144, p. 9 - - Nürnberg Centur. V. 59, p. 249 - - - Oriel 7, pp. 171, 180 - - Orléans 290, p. 783 - - - Palat. (Florence) 719, p. 723 - - Palat. 887, p. 797 - - Palat. 895, p. 952 - - Palat. lat. 311, p. 127 - - Palat. lat. 794, p. 803 - - Panciatichiani 117, p. 951 - - Paris, ancien fonds 7399, p. 310 - - Paris, fonds de Sorbonne, 1820, p. 310 - - Paris, fonds de Sorbonne 1825, p. 926 - - Paris Supplem. 91, p. 824 - - Paris Supplem. lat. 151, p. 926 - - Pembroke 227, p. 453 - - Perugia 316, p. 331 - - Perugia 683, p. 76 - - Perugia 1004, p. 94 - - Perugia 1227, p. 516 - - Peterhouse 33, p. 775 - - Peterhouse 79, p. 922 - - Peterhouse 86, p. 839 - - Peterhouse 101, pp. 773, 845, 938 - - Poppi 199, p. 951 - - - Ravenna 356, p. 840 - - Rawlinson C-7, p. 811 - - Rawlinson C-328, p. 761 - - Rawlinson C-815, p. 799 - - Rawlinson D-251, p. 799 - - Rawlinson D-252, p. 800 - - Riccard. 119, pp. 219, 308, 570, 783 - - Riccard. 673, p. 951 - - Riccard. 1165, p. 252 - - Riccard. 1177, pp. 923, 936 - - Royal 7-D-II, p. 283 - - Royal 9-A-XIV, p. 64 - - Royal 12-B-III, pp. 491ff., 515 - - Royal 12-B-XXV, p. 746 - - Royal 12-C-12, pp. 114, 122 - - Royal 12-C-XVI, p. 118 - - Royal 12-C-XVIII, pp. 75, 221, 234, 718, 925, 928 - - Royal 12-D-XII, pp. 794, 796 - - Royal 12-E-XVII, pp. 372, 379, 384, 396-7 - - Royal 12-E-XXV, p. 98 - - Royal 12-F-VI, pp. 372, 379, 384, 389, 396-7 - - Royal 12-F-XVII, pp. 182, 186 - - Royal 13-A-VII, pp. 489, 499 - - Royal 13-A-XIV, p. 64 - - Royal 15-A-XXXII, p. 101 - - Royal 15-C-IV, p. 22 - - Royal 17-A-XLII, pp. 286, 289 - - - St. Augustine’s 1175, p. 79 - - St. Augustine’s 1227, p. 752 - - St. Augustine’s 1229, p. 752 - - St. Augustine’s 1275, p. 810 - - St. Augustine’s 1482, p. 102 - - St. Augustine’s 1545, pp. 300, 719 - - St. Augustine’s 1604, p. 769 - - St. Augustine’s 1846, p. 768 - - Ste. Geneviève 2200, p. 64 - - Ste. Geneviève 2235, p. 515 - - Ste. Geneviève 2237, p. 515 - - St. John’s 85, pp. 754, 771 - - St. John’s 98, pp. 9, 13 - - St. John’s 99, p. 479 - - St. John’s 172, pp. 296, 300ff. - - St. John’s 178, p. 65 - - St. John’s 188, p. 75 - - S. Marco VIII, 22, p. 322 - - S. Marco X, 55, p. 800 - - S. Marco X, 57, pp. 74, 250, 708 - - S. Marco XI, 71, p. 716 - - S. Marco XI, 102, p. 75 - - S. Marco XI, 104, pp. 75, 77 - - S. Marco XI, 105, p. 77 - - S. Marco XI, 110, p. 221 - - S. Marco XII, 65, p. 398 - - S. Marco XII, 84, p. 921 - - S. Marco XIII, 18, p. 524 - - S. Marco XIV, 6, p. 919 - - S. Marco XIV, 37, p. 232 - - S. Marco XIV, 38, p. 95 - - S. Marco XIV, 40, p. 723 - - S. Marco XIV, 42, p. 923 - - S. Marco XIV, 45, p, 763 - - S. Marco XIV, 50, p. 757 - - S. Marco XIV, 58, p. 760 - - S. Marco XVI, 1, pp. 782-3 - - S. Marco XVI, 3, p. 782 - - Sandaniele del Friuli 240, p. 925 - - Savignano di Romagna 44, p. 798 - - Savile 15, pp. 257, 839 - - Selden supra 72, p. 172 - - Selden supra 75, p. 397 - - Selden supra 76 (Bernard 3464), pp. 184ff., 400 - - Selden supra 77, p. 172 - - Selden supra 79, p. 172 - - Sloane 73, p. 233 - - Sloane 75, p. 233 - - Sloane 121, p. 792 - - Sloane 282, p. 514 - - Sloane 284, pp. 491-2, 514 - - Sloane 310, p. 119 - - Sloane 312, pp. 928, 930 - - Sloane 313, pp. 281, 286 - - Sloane 314, pp. 94, 120, 237, 800 - - Sloane 323, pp. 570, 786 - - Sloane 342, pp. 726-7, 729, 746, 800 - - Sloane 351, pp. 726-7, 746 - - Sloane 405, p. 397 - - Sloane 475, p. 294 - - Sloane 477, pp. 491ff., 514 - - Sloane 483, p. 806 - - Sloane 521, pp. 491-2, 514 - - Sloane 568, p. 501 - - Sloane 636, p. 924 - - Sloane 733, p. 806 - - Sloane 744, p. 806 - - Sloane 780, p. 924 - - Sloane 887, p. 118 - - Sloane 964, p. 768 - - Sloane 976, p. 96 - - Sloane 1069, p. 96 - - Sloane 1118, p. 354 - - Sloane 1214, pp. 489, 498 - - Sloane 1220, p. 806 - - Sloane 1255, p. 806 - - Sloane 1289, p. 806 - - Sloane 1292, p. 806 - - Sloane 1305, pp. 822-3 - - Sloane 1307, p. 281 - - Sloane 1309, p. 823 - - Sloane 1317, p. 806 - - Sloane 1367, p. 806 - - Sloane 1437, p. 118 - - Sloane 1501, p. 806 - - Sloane 1512, p. 806 - - Sloane 1698, pp. 218, 800 - - Sloane 1712, p. 282 - - Sloane 1731A, p. 807 - - Sloane 1754, pp. 233, 514, 768, 794-798 - - Sloane 1933, p. 772 - - Sloane 2030, pp. 249, 266ff., 391 - - Sloane 2039, p. 807 - - Sloane 2046, p. 807 - - Sloane 2135, p. 219 - - Sloane 2156, pp. 613, 655, 970 - - Sloane 2186, p. 118 - - Sloane 2268, pp. 489, 498-500 - - Sloane 2320, p. 746 - - Sloane 2327, p. 219 - - Sloane 2424, p. 65 - - Sloane 2428, p. 397 - - Sloane 2459, p. 261 - - Sloane 2461, p. 79 - - Sloane 2472, pp. 118, 122 - - Sloane 2477, p. 101 - - Sloane 2479, pp. 491ff., 514 - - Sloane 2579, p. 811 - - Sloane 2818, p. 807 - - Sloane 2946, p. 78 - - Sloane 3008, p. 282 - - Sloane 3092, p. 233 - - Sloane 3124, p. 923 - - Sloane 3171, p. 925 - - Sloane 3281, pp. 118, 267, 294, 296, 486, 726-9, 746 - - Sloane 3282, p. 925 - - Sloane 3328, p. 807 - - Sloane 3468, p. 447 - - Sloane 3487, p. 120 - - Sloane 3545, p. 746 - - Sloane 3554, pp. 114ff., 122 - - Sloane 3564, p. 746 - - Sloane 3584, p. 267 - - Sloane 3655, p. 807 - - Sloane 3679, pp. 794, 823 - - Sloane 3697, p. 215 - - Sloane 3824, p. 807 - - Sloane 3825, p. 281 - - Sloane 3826, pp. 234, 281 - - Sloane 3846, p. 281, 807 - - Sloane 3847, pp. 221, 280-1, 391, 808 - - Sloane 3848, p. 234 - - Sloane, 3849, pp. 282, 808 - - Sloane 3850, pp. 280, 926 - - Sloane 3851, pp. 280, 808 - - Sloane 3853, pp. 280-1, 808 - - Sloane 3854, pp. 260, 281, 286, 289 - - Sloane 3857, p. 114ff. - - Sloane 3883, pp. 224ff., 281 - - Sloane 3885, p. 281 - - Speciale 44, p. 334 - - - Tanner 116, pp. 268, 633 - - Tours 300, p. 101 - - Trivulz. 657, p. 515 - - Troyes 1342, p. 65 - - Turin F-V-25, p. 515 - - Turin H-II-16, pp. 881, 923, 936 - - - University College 6, p. 64 - - - Vatican Lat. 344, p. 101 - - Vatican Lat. 370, p. 101 - - Vatican Lat. 2392, pp. 88, 758 - - Vatican Lat. 3824, p. 842 - - Vatican Lat. 4087, p. 308 - - Vatican Lat. 4094, p. 292 - - Vatican Lat. 5356, p. 925 - - Vatican Palat. Lat. 330, p. 294 - - Vatican Palat. Lat. 841, p. 13 - - Vatican Palat. Lat. 1377, pp. 921, 928 - - Vatican Palat. Lat. 1417, p. 322 - - Vatican Urb. Lat. 237, p. 757 - - Vatican Urb. Lat. 239, p. 757 - - Vatican Urb. Lat. 262, p. 119 - - Vatican Reg. Suev. 505, p. 824 - - Vatican Reg. Suev. 1159, p. 331 - - Vatican Reg. Suev. 1440, p. 101 - - Vatican Reg. Suev. 2014, p. 926 - - Vendôme 156, p. 17 - - Vendôme 189, p. 65 - - Vendôme 233, p. 757 - - Vendôme 243, p. 923 - - Vienna 526, p. 101 - - Vienna 550, p. 119 - - Vienna 2155, p. 606 - - Vienna 2294, p. 919 - - Vienna 2296, p. 775 - - Vienna 2301, p. 261 - - Vienna 2306, pp. 774, 776 - - Vienna 2322, p. 757 - - Vienna 2357, p. 398 - - Vienna 2358, p. 923 - - Vienna 2359, pp. 829, 839 - - Vienna 2364, p. 752 - - Vienna 2376, p. 64 - - Vienna 2387, p. 752 - - Vienna 2395, p. 776 - - Vienna 2436, p. 84 - - Vienna 2448, p. 575 - - Vienna 2466, pp. 219, 750 - - Vienna 2507, p. 84 - - Vienna 2520, p. 97 - - Vienna 3124, pp. 221, 234, 282, 308, 836, 840 - - Vienna 3276, p. 840 - - Vienna 3287, p. 750 - - Vienna 3317, p. 822 - - Vienna 4146, p. 928 - - Vienna 4751, pp. 501, 923 - - Vienna 5207, pp. 485, 800 - - Vienna 5221, p. 293 - - Vienna 5230, p. 798 - - Vienna 5275, p. 924 - - Vienna 5289, pp. 919, 923 - - Vienna 5292, pp. 65, 529 - - Vienna 5307, pp. 222, 918 - - Vienna 5309, p. 529 - - Vienna 5311, pp. 76, 221, 486 - - Vienna 5315, pp. 750, 798 - - Vienna 5327, p. 86 - - Vienna 5336, pp. 774, 799 - - Vienna 5371, p. 398 - - Vienna 5398, p. 923 - - Vienna 5435, p. 776 - - Vienna 5438, p. 837 - - Vienna 5442, p. 75 - - Vienna 5492, p. 803 - - Vienna 5498, pp. 921, 924 - - Vienna 5500, p. 750 - - Vienna 5504, p. 776 - - Vienna 5508, pp. 86, 120, 714 - - Vienna 5523, p. 836 - - Vienna 11267, p. 228 - - Vienna 11294, p. 926 - - Vitry-le-François 19, p. 13 - - Vitry-le-François 23, p. 17 - - Vitry-le-François 63, p. 18 - - Volterra 1, p. 923 - - Volterra 19, p. 250 - - - Wolfenbüttel 479, pp. 752, 771 - - Wolfenbüttel 676, p. 570 - - Wolfenbüttel 698, p. 750 - - Wolfenbüttel 1014, pp. 229, 776 - - Wolfenbüttel 1053, p. 125 - - Wolfenbüttel 2156, pp. 773, 776 - - Wolfenbüttel 2189, pp. 656, 803 - - Wolfenbüttel 2503, pp. 656, 803 - - Wolfenbüttel 2637, p. 832 - - Wolfenbüttel 2650, p. 747 - - Wolfenbüttel 2659, p. 738 - - Wolfenbüttel 2725, p. 120 - - Wolfenbüttel 2734, p. 840 - - Wolfenbüttel 2794, p. 490 - - Wolfenbüttel 2816, pp. 668, 928-9 - - Wolfenbüttel 2841, pp. 219, 222, 776 - - Wolfenbüttel 2917, p. 292 - - Wolfenbüttel 3050, p. 516 - - Wolfenbüttel 3175, p. 752 - - Wolfenbüttel 3338, p. 228 - - Wolfenbüttel 3489, pp. 768, 803 - - Wolfenbüttel 3591, p. 129 - - Wolfenbüttel 3713, p. 723 - - Wolfenbüttel 4499, pp. 376, 398 - - Wolfenbüttel 4504, p. 516 - - Wolfenbüttel 4610, p. 65 - - Worcester cathedral MS, p. 72 - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -A number of typographical errors were corrected silently. - -Cover image is in the public domain. - -Anchor for footnote 2179 was not found in original text. It’s location -in this transcription is approximate and believed to be accurate -within two sentences. - -Original text of footnote 326 on page 119 was “See note 5.” -Text was changed to “See note 324.” so it would be correctly referenced. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF MAGIC AND -EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE (VOL. II) *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |