A History of Magic and Experimental Science (Vol. II): During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A History of Magic and Experimental Science (Vol. II): During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era
Author: Thorndike, Lynn
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A History of Magic and Experimental Science (Vol. II): During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

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

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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A History of Magic and Experimental Science (Vol. II): During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era" ***

Home