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.