{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46572/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46572","id":"gutenberg_46572","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46572","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Science - Chemistry/Biochemistry","Category: Science - Physics","Medicine -- History","Science -- History"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s notes:\n\nIn this transcription, paired _underscores_ denote _italicised text_\nand a ^ (caret) indicates that the next character was superscripted in\nthe original text. Footnotes are located at the end of the book.\n\nThe cover image of the book was created by the transcriber and is\nplaced in the public domain.\n\nPotential problems:\n\nThe text contains numerous foreign and uncommon typographic characters.\nIn addition to Greek, there are passages of Hebrew and Arabic text\n(which read from right-to-left and are normally right justified) that\nwill not necessarily display correctly with all devices. The book\nis most easily read with a browser using the HTML version of the\ntranscription. If some of the characters look abnormal, first ensure\nthat the \u2018character encoding\u2019 of your device/browser is set to Unicode\n(UTF-8). You might also need to change the default font. Standard\nfonts such as Times New Roman, Georgia or Lucida Sans Unicode are\nsometimes adequate, but it might be necessary to use a less-common\nfont such as Arial Unicode MS, DejaVu, Segoe UI Symbol or FreeSerif to\nsee all characters correctly. Right alignment of the Hebrew and Arabic\nparagraphs will generally only be apparent with a monospaced font such\nas DejaVuSansMono.\n\n\nSome diacritics don\u2019t display consistently. For example, the Greek\nletter \u03c5\u0311 occurs in several words and with some browsers and fonts the\ninverted breve is displaced towards the following letter; the same\nanomaly occurs with macrons above letters in some old English words.\nThe Hebrew passage contains several letters with single or double\noverhead dots (of uncertain significance) that can\u2019t be replicated on\nscreen \u2013 the HTML version has a hyperlinked image of the original for\nanyone wishing to see it.\n\nRoman numerals are widely used and often in archaic ways. Numerals\nfollowed by an italicised _l_, _s_, or _d_ indicate monetary values\nin imperial pounds shillings and pence units, e.g. xxxiii_l_. vi_s_.\nviii_d_. represents 33 pounds 6 shillings 8 pence (a space sometimes\nseparates the numeral from the unit). The last \u2018i\u2019 (\u2018one\u2019) in a roman\nnumeral was often represented by the letter \u2018j\u2019; hence iiij_d_ is\nequivalent to 4 pence, and \u2018ij holownesses\u2019 should be read as \u2018two\nholownesses\u2019.\n\nNumerous portions of text enclosed within square brackets were inserted\nby the author (not the transcriber) for clarification or translation,\nas were several (sic) entries in the Hebrew and Arabic texts.\n\nThe index has many references to both page numbers and footnote\nnumbers, e.g. 24 n. (a single unnumbered footnote), 93 n. 3, 126 nn. 4,\n5, (pages containing multiple footnotes), and also to numbered figures\nand plates. The original footnote numbering began afresh at 1. on each\npage, but in this transcription footnotes are numbered sequentially\nfrom the beginning of the book and the numbers no longer correspond\nto those shown in the index. Many of the illustrations have been\nmoved from their original location to be closer to the relevant text\ndiscussion.\n\nErrors and inconsistencies:\n\nPunctuation anomalies have been corrected silently (e.g. missing\nperiods, commas and semicolons, incorrect or missing quotation marks,\nunpaired parentheses).\n\nUnambiguous typographic errors such as the following, have been\ncorrected silently:\n\n Lexico nder-->Lexicon der\n Aa-->As [a matter of fact]\n Chiru gie-->Chirurgie\n Weisbaden-->Wiesbaden\n\n but inconsistent spellings such as those below have not been altered:\n paniculi/panniculi\n paniculo/panniculo\n fe\u00e7e/fece\n Literatur/Litteratur\n literae/litterae\n aligati/alligati\n cf./cp.\n dilatare/dillatare\n dilitano/dillitano\n diuidendo/dividendo\n judgement/judgment\n\nInconsistent capitalisation of Fig. and Plate has been standardised,\nas has inconsistent spacing of expressions such as A.D. i.e. and \u00a7 6\n(a paragraph number).\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n STUDIES\n\n IN THE\n\n HISTORY AND METHOD\n OF SCIENCE\n\n OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK\n TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY\n\n HUMPHREY MILFORD\n PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n[Illustration: WIESBADEN CODEX B, fo. 1 r\n\nPlate I. HILDEGARD RECEIVING THE LIGHT FROM HEAVEN]\n\n STUDIES\n IN THE\n HISTORY AND METHOD\n OF SCIENCE\n\n EDITED BY\n CHARLES SINGER\n\n OXFORD\n AT THE CLARENDON PRESS\n 1917\n\n PRINTED IN ENGLAND\n AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe record of men and of movements, History teaches us the growth and\ndevelopment of ideas. Our civilization is the final expression of the\ntwo great master-thoughts of the race. Seeking an explanation of the\npressing phenomena of life, man has peopled the world with spiritual\nbeings to whom he has assigned benign or malign influences, to be\ninvoked or propitiated. To the great \u2018uncharted region\u2019 (Gilbert\nMurray) with its mysteries, his religions offer a guide; and through\n\u2018a belief in spiritual beings\u2019 (Tylor\u2019s definition of religion) he has\nbuilt an altar of righteousness in his heart. The birth of the other\ndominant idea, long delayed, is comparatively recent. \u2018The discovery of\nthings as they really are\u2019 (Plato) by a study of nature was the great\ngift of the Greeks. Knowledge, _scientia_, knowledge of things we see,\npatiently acquired by searching out the secrets of nature, is the basis\nof our material civilization. The true and lawful goal of the sciences,\nseen dimly and so expressed by Bacon, is the acquisition of new powers\nby new discoveries--that goal has been reached. Niagara has been\nharnessed, and man\u2019s dominion has extended from earth and sea to the\nair. The progress of physics and of chemistry has revolutionized man\u2019s\nways and works, while the new biology has changed his mental outlook.\n\nThe greater part of this progress has taken place within the memory of\nthose living, and the mass of scientific work has accumulated at such a\nrate that specialism has become inevitable. While this has the obvious\nadvantage resulting from a division of labour, there is the penalty of\na narrowed horizon, and groups of men work side by side whose language\nis unintelligible to each other.\n\nHere is where the historian comes in, with two definite objects,\nteaching the method by which the knowledge has been gained, the\nevolution of the subject, and correlating the innumerable subdivisions\nin a philosophy at once, in Plato\u2019s words, a science in itself as well\nas of other sciences. For example, the student of physics may know\nCrookes\u2019s tubes and their relation to R\u00f6ntgen, but he cannot have a\ntrue conception of the atomic theory without a knowledge of Democritus;\nand the exponent of Madame Curie and of Sir J. J. Thomson will find\nhis happiest illustrations from the writings of Lucretius. It is\nunfortunate that the progress of science makes useless the very works\nthat made progress possible; and the student is too apt to think that\nbecause useless now they have never been of value.\n\nThe need of a comprehensive study of the methods of science is now\nwidely recognized, and to recognize this need important Journals have\nbeen started, notably _Isis_, published by our Belgian colleague George\nSarton, interrupted, temporarily we hope, by the war; and _Scientia_,\nan International Review of Scientific Synthesis published by our\nItalian Allies. The numerous good histories of science issued within\nthe past few years bear witness to a real demand for a wider knowledge\nof the methods by which the present status has been reached. Among\nworks from which the student may get a proper outlook on the whole\nquestion may be mentioned Dannemann\u2019s _Die Naturwissenschaften in ihrer\nEntwicklung und in ihrem Zusammenhange_, Bd. IV; _De la M\u00e9thode dans\nles Sciences_, edited by F\u00e9lix Thomas (Paris: Alcan); Marvin\u2019s _Living\nPast_, 3rd ed. (Clarendon Press, 1917); and Libby\u2019s _Introduction to\nthe History of Science_ (Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1917).\n\nThis volume of Essays is the outcome of a quiet movement on the part of\na few Oxford students to stimulate a study of the history of science.\nShortly after his appointment to the Philip Walker Studentship, Dr.\nCharles Singer (of Magdalen College) obtained leave from Bodley\u2019s\nLibrarian and the Curators to have a bay in the Radcliffe Camera set\napart for research work in the history of science and a safe installed\nto hold manuscripts; and (with Mrs. Singer) offered \u00a3100 a year for\nfive years to provide the necessary fittings, and special books not\nalready in the Library. The works relating to the subject have been\ncollected in the room, the objects of which are:\n\nFirst, to place at the disposal of the general student a collection\nthat will enable him to acquire a knowledge of the development of\nscience and scientific conceptions.\n\nSecondly, to assist the special student in research: (_a_) by placing\nhim in relationship with investigations already undertaken; (_b_)\nby collecting information on the sources and accessibility of his\nmaterial; and (_c_) by providing him with facilities to work up his\nmaterial.\n\nIn spite of the absence of Dr. Singer on military duty for the greater\npart of the time, the work has been carried on with conspicuous\nsuccess, to use the words of Bodley\u2019s Librarian. Ten special students\nhave used the room. Professor Ramsay Wright has made a study of an\ninteresting Persian medical manuscript. Professor William Libby,\nof Pittsburg, during the session of 1915-16, used the room in the\npreparation of his admirable _History of Science_ just issued. Dr. E.\nT. Withington, the well-known medical historian, is making a special\nstudy of the old Greek writers for the new edition of Liddell and\nScott\u2019s _Dictionary_. Miss Mildred Westland has helped Dr. Singer\nwith the Italian medical manuscripts. Mr. Reuben Levy has worked at\nthe Arabic medical manuscripts of Moses Maimonides. Mrs. Jenkinson\nis engaged on a study of early medicine and magic. Dr. J. L. E.\nDreyer, the distinguished historian of Astronomy, has used the room in\nconnexion with the preparation of the _Opera Omnia_ of Tycho Brahe.\nMiss Joan Evans is engaged upon a research on mediaeval lapidaries.\nMrs. Singer has begun a study of the English medical manuscripts,\nwith a view to a complete catalogue. How important this is may be\njudged from the first instalment of her work dealing with the plague\nmanuscripts in the British Museum. With rare enthusiasm and energy Dr.\nSinger has himself done a great deal of valuable work, and has proved\nan intellectual ferment working far beyond the confines of Oxford. I\nhave myself found the science history room of the greatest convenience,\nand it is most helpful to have easy access on the shelves to a large\ncollection of works on the subject. Had the war not interfered, we had\nhoped to start a _Journal of the History and Method of Science_ and to\norganize a summer school for special students--hopes we may perhaps see\nrealized in happier days.\n\nMeanwhile, this volume of essays (most of which were in course of\npreparation when war was declared) is issued as a _ballon d\u2019essai_.\n\nWILLIAM OSLER.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n CHARLES SINGER\n The Scientific Views and Visions of Saint Hildegard (1098-1180) 1\n\n J. W. JENKINSON\n Vitalism 59\n\n CHARLES SINGER\n A Study in Early Renaissance Anatomy, with a new text: The\n _ANOTHOMIA_ of Hieronymo Manfredi, transcribed and translated\n by A. Mildred Westland 79\n\n RAYMOND CRAWFURD\n The Blessing of Cramp-Rings; a Chapter in the History of the\n Treatment of Epilepsy 165\n\n E. T. WITHINGTON\n Dr. John Weyer and the Witch Mania 189\n\n REUBEN LEVY\n The \u2018Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum\u2019, attributed to\n Maimonides 225\n\n SCHILLER, F. C. S.\n Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof 235\n\n INDEX 291\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES\n\n\n PLATE FACING PAGE\n\n I. Hildegard receiving the Light from Heaven (Wiesbaden\n Codex B, fo. 1 _r_) _Frontispiece_\n\n II. The Three Scripts of the Wiesbaden Codex B (fo. 17 _r_,\n col. b; fo. 32 _v_, col. b; fo. 205 _r_, col. b) 4\n\n III. Title-page of the Heidelberg Codex of the _Scivias_ 5\n\n IV. The Universe (from the Heidelberg Codex of the _Scivias_) 12\n\n V. (_a_) Opening lines of the Copenhagen MS. of the _Causae\n et Curae_. (_b_) Opening lines of the Lucca MS. of\n the _Liber divinorum operum simplicis hominis_ 13\n\n VI. Nous pervaded by the Godhead and controlling Hyle\n (Lucca MS., fo. 1 _v_) 20\n\n VII. Nous pervaded by the Godhead embracing the Macrocosm with\n the Microcosm (Lucca MS., fo. 9 _r_) 21\n\n VIII. The Macrocosm, the Microcosm, and the Winds (Lucca MS.,\n fo. 27 _v_) 28\n\n IX. Celestial Influences on Men, Animals, and Plants (Lucca\n MS., fo. 371) 28\n\n X. A Crucifix in the Uffizi Gallery; about the middle of the\n thirteenth century 30\n\n XI. The Structure of the Mundane Sphere (Lucca MS.,\n fo. 86 _v_) 32\n\n XII. (_a_) Man\u2019s Fall and the Disturbance of the Elemental\n Harmony (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 4 _r_). (_b_) The New\n Heaven and the New Earth (Wiesbaden Codex B,\n fo. 224 _v_) 33\n\n XIII. The Last Judgement and Fate of the Elements (Wiesbaden\n Codex B, fo. 224 _r_) 36\n\n XIV. Diagram of the Relation of Human and Cosmic Phenomena:\n ninth century (Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale MS. lat. 5543,\n fo. 136 _r_) 37\n\n XV. An Eleventh-century French Melothesia (Biblioth\u00e8que\n Nationale MS. lat. 7028, fo. 154 _r_) 40\n\n XVI. A Melothesia of about 1400 (from Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale\n MS. lat. 11229, fo. 45 _v_) _Between_ 40 _and_ 41\n\n XVII. Facsimile from the _Symbolum Apostolicorum_, a German\n Block Book of the first half of the Fifteenth Century\n (Heidelberg University Library) _Between_ 40 _and_ 41\n\n XVIII. An Anatomical Diagram of about 1298 (Bodleian MS.\n Ashmole 399, fo. 18 _r_) 41\n\n XIX. Birth. The Arrival and Trials of the Soul (Wiesbaden\n Codex B, fo. 22 _r_) 44\n\n XX. Death. The Departure and Fate of the Soul (Wiesbaden\n Codex B, fo. 25 _r_) 45\n\n XXI. The Fall of the Angels (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 123 _r_) 46\n\n XXII. The Days of Creation and the Fall of Man (Wiesbaden\n Codex B, fo. 41 _v_) 48\n\n XXIII. The Vision of the Trinity (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 471) 50\n\n XXIV. (_a_) Sedens Lucidus (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 213 _v_).\n (_b_) Zelus Dei (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 153 _r_) 52\n\n XXV. The Heavenly City (Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 30 _r_) 54\n\n XXVI. John Wilfred Jenkinson 57\n\n XXVII. Mundinus (?) lecturing on Anatomy (from the 1493 edition\n of \u2018Ketham\u2019) 78\n\n XXVIII. (_a_) Four Diagrams, to illustrate the Anatomy of Henri\n de Mondeville (Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale MS. fr. 2030,\n written in 1314). (_b_) A Dissection Scene, _circa_ 1298\n (Bodleian MS. Ashmole 399, fo. 34 _r_) 79\n\n XXIX. A Post-Mortem Examination: late fourteenth century to\n illustrate Guy de Chauliac (Montpellier, Biblioth\u00e8que\n de la Facult\u00e9 de M\u00e9decine MS. fr. 184, fo. 14 _r_) 80\n\n XXX. (_a_) A Demonstration of Surface Markings: second half\n of fifteenth century (Vatican MS. Hispanice 4804,\n fo. 8 _r_). (_b_) A Demonstration of the Bones to\n illustrate Guy de Chauliac: first half of fifteenth\n century (Bristol Reference Library MS., fo. 25 _r_) 81\n\n XXXI. Anatomical Sketches from the MS. of Guy de Vigevano of\n 1345 at Chantilly 84\n\n XXXII. Anatomical Sketches from the MS. of Guy de Vigevano of\n 1345 at Chantilly 85\n\n XXXIII. The Five-Figure Series: Veins, &c., Arteries, Nerves,\n Bones, Muscles (Bodleian MS. Ashmole 399,\n fos. 18 _r_-22 _r_): about 1298 92\n\n XXXIV. Demonstrations of Anatomy: second half of fifteenth\n century (Dresden Galen MS.) 93\n\n XXXV. A View of the Internal Organs: Leonardo da Vinci (from\n a drawing in the Library, Windsor Castle) 96\n\n XXXVI. Two Persons dissecting, traditionally said to represent\n Michelangelo and Antonio della Torre (from a drawing\n in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, attributed to\n Bartolomeo Manfredi (1574?-1602)) 97\n\n XXXVII. Portrait of Giovanni Bentivoglio II, from his tomb in\n the Church of S. Giacomo Maggiore at Bologna 102\n\n XXXVIII. (_a_) Roger Bacon\u2019s Diagram of the Eye: thirteenth century\n (British Museum MS. Roy. 7 F. VIII, fo. 50 _v_).\n (_b_) Leonardo da Vinci\u2019s Diagram of the Heart: early\n sixteenth century (from a drawing in Windsor Castle) 103\n\n XXXIX. Miracles at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor, from\n Norman-French thirteenth-century MS. (University\n Library, Cambridge, MS. Ee. iii. 59) 166\n\n XL. Queen Mary Tudor blessing Cramp-Rings (from Queen\n Mary\u2019s Illuminated MS. Manual, in the Library of the\n Roman Catholic Cathedral at Westminster) 178\n\n XLI. Facsimile of the _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_,\n attributed to Maimonides (Bodleian MS., Marsh 379) 225\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS IN TEXT\n\nSCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND VISIONS OF SAINT HILDEGARD\n\n FIGURE PAGE\n\n 1. The Hildegard Country 3\n\n 2. Hildegard\u2019s First Scheme of the Universe (slightly simplified\n from the Wiesbaden Codex B, fo. 14 _r_) 9\n\n 3. Hildegard\u2019s Second Scheme of the Universe (reconstructed from\n her measurements) 29\n\n 4. Dante\u2019s Scheme of the Universe (slightly modified from\n Michelangelo Caetani, duca di Sermoneta, _La materia della\n Divina Commedia di Dante Allighieri dichiarata in VI tavole_) 31\n\n 5. Diagram of the Zones (from Herrade de Landsberg, _Hortus\n deliciarum_) 40\n\n 6, 7. Melothesiae (from R. Fludd, _Historia utriusque cosmi_, 1619) 41\n\n 8. The Microcosm (from R. Fludd, _Philosophia sacra seu astrologia\n cosmica_, 1628) 42\n\n 9. Diagram illustrating the relationship of the Planets to the Brain\n (from Herrade de Landsberg, _Hortus deliciarum_) 48\n\nA STUDY IN EARLY RENAISSANCE ANATOMY\n\n 1. The first printed picture of Dissection (from the French\n translation of Bartholomaeus Anglicus, 1482) 80\n\n 2. Dissection Scene in the open air (Title-page of Mellerstadt\u2019s\n edition of the _Anatomy_ of Mondino, 1493) 82\n\n 3. Dissection Scene (from the 1495 edition of \u2018Ketham\u2019) 83\n\n 4. The first picture of Dissection in an English-printed book\n (from the English translation of Bartholomaeus Anglicus,\n printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 1495) 85\n\n 5. A Lecture on Anatomy (from the 1535 edition of Berengar of\n Carpi\u2019s Commentary on Mondino) 85\n\n 6. Diagrams of the Internal Organs (after Bodleian MS. Ashmole\n 399, of about 1298) 88\n\n 7. A Female Figure laid open to show the Womb and other Organs\n (from the 1493 edition of \u2018Ketham\u2019) 91\n\n 8. The Abdominal Muscles (from Berengar of Carpi\u2019s Commentary\n on Mondino, 1521) 96\n\n 9. The first printed Map of England (from the 1472(?) Bologna\n _Ptolemy_, edited by Manfredi and others) 100\n\n 10. Facsimile of the last page of Manfredi\u2019s _Prognosticon ad\n annum 1479_ 102\n\n 11. Diagram showing the ten Layers of the Head, the Cerebral\n Ventricles and Cranial Nerves, and the Relation of the\n Nerves to the Senses (from M. Hundt, _Antropologium_, 1501) 112\n\n 12. The Layers of the Head (from the _Anatomia_ of Johannes\n Dryander, 1537) 112\n\n 13. Diagram showing the Ventricles of the Brain (from _Illustrissimi\n philosophi et theologi domini Alberti magni compendiosum\n insigne ac perutile opus Philosophiae naturalis_, 1496) 114\n\n 14. Diagram of the Senses, the Humours, the Cerebral Ventricles,\n and the Intellectual Faculties. To illustrate Roger Bacon,\n _De Scientia Perspectiva_, (British Museum MS. Sloane 2156,\n fo. 11 _r_) 116\n\n 15. Diagram illustrating the general ideas on Anatomy current at\n the Renaissance (from K. Peyligk. _Philosophiae naturalis\n compendium_, 1489) 116\n\n 16. Diagrams of the Cerebral Ventricles viewed from above and\n from the side (from K. Peyligk, _Philosophiae naturalis\n compendium_, 1489) 117\n\n 17. The Localization of Cerebral Functions (from the 1493 edition\n of \u2018Ketham\u2019) 117\n\n 18. Diagram of the Ventricles and the Senses, with their relation\n to the intellectual processes, according to the doctrine of\n the Renaissance anatomists (from G. Reisch, _Margarita\n philosophiae_, 1503) 117\n\n 19. The Anatomy of the Eye (from G. Reisch, _Margarita\n philosophiae_, 1503) 120\n\n 20. The Anatomy of the Eye (from Vesalius, _De humani corporis\n fabrica_, 1543) 121\n\n 21. The Heart (from the Roncioni MS., Pisa 99) 127\n\n 22. Diagram showing the two Lateral Ventricles and the \u2018Central\u2019\n Ventricle, (from Johannes Adelphus, _Mundini de omnibus\n humani corporis interioribus menbris Anathomia_, 1513) 128\n\n 23. The Heart (from Hans von Gersdorff, _Feldt- und Stattb\u00fcch\n bewerter Wundartznei_, 1556) 129\n\nDR. JOHN WEYER AND THE WITCH MANIA\n\n Portrait of Dr. John Weyer at the age of 60, 1576 189\n\n\n\n\n THE SCIENTIFIC VIEWS AND VISIONS OF SAINT HILDEGARD (1098-1180)\n\n By Charles Singer\n\n\n PAGE\n\n I. Introduction 1\n II. Life and Works 2\n III. Bibliographical Note 6\n IV. The Spurious Scientific Works of Hildegard 12\n V. Sources of Hildegard\u2019s Scientific Knowledge 15\n VI. The Structure of the Material Universe 22\n VII. Macrocosm and Microcosm 30\n VIII. Anatomy and Physiology 43\n IX. Birth and Death and the Nature of the Soul 49\n X. The Visions and their Pathological Basis 51\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nIn attempting to interpret the views of Hildegard on scientific\nsubjects, certain special difficulties present themselves. First is\nthe confusion arising from the writings to which her name has been\nerroneously attached. To obtain a true view of the scope of her work,\nit is necessary to discuss the authenticity of some of the material\nbefore us. A second difficulty is due to the receptivity of her mind,\nso that views and theories that she accepts in her earlier works\nbecome modified, altered, and developed in her later writings. A third\ndifficulty, perhaps less real than the others, is the visionary and\ninvolved form in which her thoughts are cast.\n\nBut a fourth and more vital difficulty is the attitude that she adopts\ntowards phenomena in general. To her mind there is no distinction\nbetween physical events, moral truths, and spiritual experiences. This\nview, which our children share with their mediaeval ancestors, was\ndeveloped but not transformed by the virile power of her intellect.\nHer fusion of internal and external universe links Hildegard indeed\nto a whole series of mediaeval visionaries, culminating with Dante.\nIn Hildegard, as in her fellow mystics, we find that ideas on Nature\nand Man, the Moral World and the Material Universe, the Spheres,\nthe Winds, and the Humours, Birth and Death, and even on the Soul,\nthe Resurrection of the Dead, and the Nature of God, are not only\ninterdependent, but closely interwoven. Nowadays we are well\naccustomed to separate our ideas into categories, scientific, ethical,\ntheological, philosophical, and so forth, and we even esteem it a\nvirtue to retain and restrain our thoughts within limits that we\ndeliberately set for them. To Hildegard such classification would have\nbeen impossible and probably incomprehensible. Nor do such terms as\n_parallelism_ or _allegory_ adequately cover her view of the relation\nof the material and spiritual. In her mind they are really interfused,\nor rather they have not yet been separated.\n\nTherefore, although in the following pages an attempt is made to\nestimate her scientific views, yet the writer is conscious that such a\nmethod must needs interpret her thought in a partial manner. Hildegard,\nindeed, presents to us scientific thought as an undifferentiated\nfactor, and an attempt is here made to separate it by the artificial\nbut not unscientific process of dissection from the organic matrix in\nwhich it is embedded.\n\nThe extensive literature that has risen around the life and works of\nHildegard has come from the hands of writers who have shown no interest\nin natural knowledge, while those who have occupied themselves with the\nhistory of science have, on their side, largely neglected the period\nto which Hildegard belongs, allured by the richer harvest of the full\nscholastic age which followed. This essay is an attempt to fill in a\nsmall part of the lacuna.\n\n\nII. LIFE AND WORKS\n\nHildegard of Bingen was born in 1098, of noble parentage, at\nB\u00f6ckelheim, on the river Nahe, near Sponheim. Destined from an early\nage to a religious life, she passed nearly all her days within the\nwalls of Benedictine houses. She was educated and commenced her career\nin the isolated convent of Disibodenberg, at the junction of the Nahe\nand the Glan, where she rose to be abbess. In 1147 she and some of her\nnuns migrated to a new convent on the Rupertsberg, a finely placed\nsite, where the smoky railway junction of Bingerbr\u00fcck now mars the\nlandscape. Between the little settlement and the important mediaeval\ntown of Bingen flowed the river Nahe, spanned by a bridge to which\nstill clung the name of the pagan Drusus (see Fig. 1). At this spot, a\nplace of ancient memories, secluded and yet linked to the world, our\nabbess passed the main portion of her life, and here she closed her\neyes in the eighty-second year of her age on September 17, 1180.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 1. THE HILDEGARD COUNTRY]\n\nHildegard was a woman of extraordinarily active and independent mind.\nShe was not only gifted with a thoroughly efficient intellect, but\nwas possessed of great energy and considerable literary power, and\nher writings cover a wide range, betraying the most varied activities\nand remarkable imaginative faculty. The best known, and in a literary\nsense the most valuable of her works, are the books of visions. She\nwas before all things an ecstatic, and both her _Scivias_ (1141-50)\nand her _Liber divinorum operum simplicis hominis_ (1163-70) contain\npassages of real power and beauty. Less valuable, perhaps, is her\nthird long mystical work (the second in point of time), the _Liber\nvitae meritorum_ (1158-62). She is credited with the authorship of an\ninteresting mystery-play and of a collection of musical compositions,\nwhile her life of St. Disibode, the Irish missionary (594-674) to\nwhom her part of the Rhineland owes its Christianity, and her account\nof St. Rupert, a local saint commemorated in the name \u2018Rupertsberg\u2019,\nboth bear witness alike to her narrative powers, her capacity for\nsystematic arrangement, and her historical interests. Her extensive\ncorrespondence demonstrates the influence that she wielded in her own\nday and country, while her _Quaestionum solutiones triginta octo_, her\n_Explanatio regulae sancti Benedicti_, and her _Explanatio symboli\nsancti Athanasii ad congregationem sororum suorum_ give us glimpses of\nher activities as head of a religious house.\n\nHer biographer, the monk Theodoric, records that she also busied\nherself with the treatment of the sick, and credits her with miraculous\npowers of healing.[1] Some of the cited instances of this faculty, as\nthe curing of a love-sick maid,[2] are, however, but manifestations of\npersonal ascendancy over weaker minds; notwithstanding her undoubted\nacquaintance with the science of her day, and the claims made for her\nas a pioneer of the hospital system, there is no serious evidence that\nher treatment extended beyond exorcism and prayer.\n\nFor her time and circumstance Hildegard had seen a fair amount of the\nworld. Living on the Rhine, the highway of Western Germany, she was\nwell placed for observing the traffic and activities of men. She had\njourneyed at least as far north as Cologne, and had traversed the\neastern tributary of the great river to Frankfort on the Main and\nto Rothenburg on Taube.[3] Her own country, the basin of the Nahe\nand the Glan, she knew intimately. She was, moreover, in constant\ncommunication with Mayence, the seat of the archbishopric in which\nBingen was situated, and there has survived an extensive correspondence\nwith the ecclesiastics of Cologne, Speyer, Hildesheim, Tr\u00e8ves, Bamberg,\nPrague, N\u00fcrnberg, Utrecht, and numerous other towns of Germany, the Low\nCountries, and Central Europe.\n\n[Illustration: Folio 17 r col. b Folio 32 v col. b Folio 205 r col. b\n\nPlate II. THE THREE SCRIPTS OF THE WIESBADEN CODEX B]\n\nHildegard\u2019s journeys, undertaken with the object of stimulating\nspiritual revival, were of the nature of religious progresses, but,\nlike those of her contemporary, Bernard of Clairvaux, they were in fact\nlargely directed against the heretical and most cruelly persecuted\nCathari, an Albigensian sect widely spread in the Rhine country of the\ntwelfth century, whom Hildegard regarded as \u2018worse than the Jews\u2019.[4]\nIn justice to her memory it is to be recalled that she herself was\never against the shedding of blood, and had her less ferocious views\nprevailed, some more substantial relic than the groans and tears of\nthis people had reached our time, while the annals of the Church had\nbeen spared the defilement of an inexpiable stain.\n\n[Illustration: Plate III. TITLE PAGE OF THE HEIDELBERG CODEX OF THE\n_SCIVIAS_]\n\nHildegard\u2019s correspondence with St. Bernard, then preaching his\ncrusade, with four popes, Eugenius III, Anastasius IV, Adrian IV, and\nAlexander III, and with the emperors Conrad and Frederic Barbarossa,\nbrings her into the current of general European history, while she\ncomes into some slight contact with the story of our own country by her\nhortatory letters to Henry II and to his consort Eleanor, the divorced\nwife of Louis VII.[5]\n\nTo complete a sketch of her literary activities, mention should\nperhaps be made of a secret script and language, the _lingua ignota_,\nattributed to her. It is a transparent and to modern eyes a foolishly\nempty device that hardly merits the dignity of the term \u2018mystical\u2019. It\nhas, however, exercised the ingenuity of several writers, and has been\nhonoured by analysis at the hands of Wilhelm Grimm.[6]\n\nAmple material exists for a full biography of Hildegard, and a number\nof accounts of her have appeared in the vulgar tongue. Nearly all are\nmarred by a lack of critical judgement that makes their perusal a\nweary task, and indeed it would need considerable skill to interest a\ndetached reader in the minutiae of monastic disputes that undoubtedly\nabsorbed a considerable part of her activities. Perhaps the best life\nof her is the earliest; it is certainly neither the least critical nor\nthe most credulous, and is by her contemporaries, the monks Godefrid\nand Theodoric.[7]\n\nThe title of \u2018saint\u2019 is usually given to Hildegard, but she was not\nin fact canonized. Attempts towards that end were made under Gregory\nIX (1237), Innocent IV (1243), and John XXII (1317). Miraculous cures\nand other works of wonder were claimed for her, but either they were\ninsufficiently miraculous or insufficiently attested.[8] Those who\nhave impartially traced her life in her documents will agree with the\nverdict of the Church. Hers was a fiery, a prophetic, in many ways a\nsingularly noble spirit, but she was not a saint in any intelligible\nsense of the word.\n\n\nIII. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\nThere is no complete edition of the works of Hildegard. For the\nmajority of readers the most convenient collection will doubtless be\nvol. 197 of Migne, _Patrologia Latina_. This can be supplemented from\nCardinal J. B. Pitra\u2019s well-edited _Analecta sacra_, the eighth volume\nof which contains certain otherwise inaccessible works of Hildegard,[9]\nand is the only available edition of the _Liber vitae meritorum per\nsimplicem hominem a vivente luce, revelatorum_.\n\nManuscripts of the writings of our abbess are numerous and are widely\nscattered over Europe. Four of them are of special importance for our\npurpose, and are here briefly described.\n\n(A) is a vast parchment of 480 folios in the Nassauische\nLandesbibliothek at Wiesbaden. This much-thumbed volume, still bearing\nthe chain that once tethered it to some monastic desk, is written in\na thirteenth-century script. There is evidence that it was prepared\nin the neighbourhood of Hildegard\u2019s convent, if not in that convent\nitself. It is interesting as a collection of those works that the\nimmediate local tradition attributed to her, and is thus useful as\na standard of genuineness.[10] Reference will be made to it in the\nfollowing pages as the _Wiesbaden Codex A._ Its contents are as follows:\n\n 1. Liber Scivias.\n\n 2. Liber _vitae_ meritorum.\n\n 3. Liber divinorum operum.\n\n 4. Ad praelatos moguntienses.\n\n 5. Vita sanctae Hildegardis. By Godefrid and Theodoric.\n\n 6. Liber epistolarum et orationum. This collection contains 292\n items, and includes the Explanatio symboli Athanasii, the\n Exposition of the Rule of St. Benedict, and the Lives of St.\n Disibode and St. Rupert.\n\n 7. Expositiones evangeliorum.\n\n 8. Ignota lingua and Ignotae litterae.\n\n 9. Litterae villarenses.\n\n 10. Symphonia harmoniae celestum revelationum.\n\n(B) is also at Wiesbaden, and will be cited here as the _Wiesbaden\nCodex B_. It contains the _Scivias_ only, and is a truly noble volume\nof 235 folios, beautifully illuminated, in excellent preservation,\nand of the highest value for the history of mediaeval art. It has\nbeen thoroughly investigated by the late Dom Louis Baillet,[11] who\nconcluded that it was written in or near Bingen between the dates 1160\nand 1180. Its miniatures help greatly in the interpretation of the\nvisions, illustrating them often in the minutest and most unexpected\ndetails. In view of the great difficulty of visualizing much of her\nnarrative, these miniatures afford to our mind strong evidence that the\nMS. was supervised by the prophetess herself, or was at least prepared\nunder her immediate tradition. This view is confirmed by comparing the\nminiatures with those of the somewhat similar but inferior Heidelberg\nMS. (C).\n\nBoth the miniatures and the script of the Wiesbaden Codex B are\nthe work of several hands. There are three distinct handwritings\ndiscernible (Plate II). The earliest is attributed by Baillet in\nhis careful work to the twelfth century, while the later writing is\nin thirteenth-century hands.[12] It thus appears to us that while\nHildegard herself probably supervised the earlier stages of the\npreparation of this volume, its completion took place subsequent to\nher death. This view is sustained by the fact that some of the later\nminiatures are far less successful than the earlier figures in aiding\nthe interpretation of her text.\n\nThe two Wiesbaden MSS. appear to have remained at the convent on the\nRupertsberg opposite Bingen until the seventeenth century. They were\nstudied there by Trithemius in the fifteenth century, and one of them\nat least was seen by the Mayence Commission of 1489. Later they were\nnoted by the theologians Osiander (1527) and Wicelius (Weitzel, 1554),\nand by the antiquary Nicolaus Serarius (1604). In 1632, during the\nThirty Years\u2019 War, the Rupertsberg buildings were destroyed, the MSS.\nbeing removed to a place of safety in the neighbouring settlement\nat Eibingen, where they were again recorded in 1660 by the Jesuits\nPapenbroch and Henschen.[13] At some unknown date they were transferred\nto Wiesbaden, where they were examined in 1814 by Goethe,[14] and a few\nyears later by Wilhelm Grimm,[15] and where they have since remained.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 2. HILDEGARD\u2019S FIRST SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE\n\nSlightly simplified from the Wiesbaden Codex B, folio 14 r.]\n\n(C) This MS. is at the University Library at Heidelberg. It also\ncontains only the _Scivias_, and it is the only known illuminated\nMS. of that work except the Wiesbaden Codex B. The Heidelberg MS.\nwas prepared with great care in the early thirteenth century, only a\nlittle later than its fellow, but its figures afford little aid in the\ninterpretation of the text. Thus, for instance, the Heidelberg diagram\nof the universe (Plate IV) is of a fairly conventional type which quite\nfails to illustrate the difficult description. The obscurities of the\ntext are, however, at once explained by a figure in the Wiesbaden\nCodex B (Fig. 2): we thus obtain further indirect evidence of the\npersonal influence of Hildegard in the preparation of that MS. The\nrepresentation of Hildegard in the Heidelberg MS. (Plate III) shows no\nresemblance to those in the Wiesbaden Codex B (Plate I) or in the Lucca\nMS. (Plates VI to IX), which will now be described.\n\n(D) is an illustrated codex of the _Liber divinorum operum simplicis\nhominis_ at the Municipal Library at Lucca. It contains ten beautiful\nminiatures, some of which are here reproduced (Plates VI to IX and XI),\nas they are of special value for the interpretation of Hildegard\u2019s\ntheories on the relation of macrocosm and microcosm.\n\nThis Lucca MS. was described and its text printed in 1761 by Giovanni\nDomenico Mansi,[16] a careful scholar, who was himself sometime\nArchbishop of Lucca. Mansi concluded that it was written at the\nend of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century. On\npalaeographical grounds a slightly later date would nowadays probably\nbe preferred (Plate V _b_).\n\nThe work consists of ten visions, each illustrated by a figure.\nThe date, character, and meaning of these miniatures raise special\nproblems to which only very superficial reference can here be made.\nUnfortunately but little work has been done on early Italian schools of\nminiaturists, and it is not a subject on which any exact knowledge can\nyet be said to exist.[17]\n\nOf these ten miniatures we may dismiss the last five in a few words.\nThe sixth to the tenth visions are of purely theological interest, and\nthe miniatures illustrating them are by a different hand to the rest.\nThey are all relatively crude products, which appear to us to resemble\nother Italian work of the period at which the MS. was written. We shall\nconcentrate our attention on the first five miniatures.\n\nThe first three miniatures of the Lucca MS. (Plates VI to VIII) may be\nattributed to the same hand on the following grounds:\n\n1. All have a very similar inset figure of the prophetess below the\nmain picture.\n\n2. The character of the principal figure of the first miniature\n(Plate VI) is almost identical with the curious universe-embracing\ndouble-headed figure of the second miniature (Plate VII).\n\n3. The features and draughtsmanship of the central figure of the second\nminiature (Plate VII) are identical with those of the third (Plate\nVIII).\n\n4. The beasts\u2019 heads arranged round the second miniature (Plate VII)\nare exactly reproduced in the third miniature (Plate VIII).\n\nNow although these three miniatures are in some respects unique, they\ncontain elements enabling us to date them with an approach to accuracy.\nThese elements are to be found especially in the central figure of the\nsecond and third miniatures (Plates VII and VIII).\n\nAbout the middle of the thirteenth century, as Venturi has shown,[18]\nthere was a well-marked change in Northern Italy in the traditional\nrepresentation of the form on the Cross. This change was followed with\nalmost slavish accuracy, and the new form is well represented by a\npainting in the Uffizi Gallery (Plate X). It is this figure of Christ\nwhich is reproduced by our miniaturist. The central figure of Plates\nVII and VIII resembles that of the Uffizi crucifix, for instance, in\nthe general pose of the body, in the position of the legs and of the\narms, in the treatment of the abdominal musculature, in the method of\noutlining the muscles of the legs and of the arms, and in a minute and\nvery constant detail by which the outline of the left side is continued\nwith the fold of the groin, thus giving an impression of the left thigh\nbeing advanced on the right. Furthermore, the somewhat Byzantine cast\nof countenance of the figure can be closely paralleled from Northern\nItalian work of the same period. We therefore regard these first three\nminiatures of the Lucca MS. as dating from about the middle of the\nthirteenth century.\n\nThe remaining two miniatures (Plates IX and XI) offer special\ndifficulties. Plate XI (illustrating the fifth vision) presents us with\nno complete human figures, except the small and probably copied inset\nof the prophetess below the miniature. The faces bear some resemblance\nto those of the last five miniatures; the wings, on the other hand, to\nthose of the first miniature (Plate VI). It is perhaps possible that\nthis miniature was the work of an early thirteenth-century artist, and\nthat the wings and some other details were added by a later hand. The\nabnormal orientation, east to the left and south above, suggests that\nwe have here to do with some special influence.\n\nThe most anomalous of all is, however, the beautiful fourth\nminiature (Plate IX). This picture has a general feeling of the\nearly Renaissance, though it is hard to find in it any definite\nhumanistic element. The nude female figure in the upper left quadrant\nis especially striking. No parallel to it is to be found in the\nthirteenth-century Italian miniatures that have so far been reproduced,\nand it appears to us difficult to date the miniature anterior to the\nfourteenth century at the very earliest. It is, in any event, by a\ndifferent hand to the others. The rashes on the patients in the two\nupper and the right lower quadrants are perhaps an attempt to render\nthe fatal \u2018God\u2019s tokens\u2019 of those waves of pestilence that devastated\nthe Italian peninsula in the fourteenth century.\n\nWhatever the date of these miniatures, however, they reproduce the\nmeaning of the text of the _Liber divinorum operum_ with a convincing\ncertainty and sureness of touch. This work is the most difficult\nof all Hildegard\u2019s mystical writings. Without the clues provided by\nthe miniatures, many passages in it are wholly incomprehensible. It\nappears to us therefore by no means improbable that the traditional\ninterpretation of Hildegard\u2019s works, thus preserved to our time by\nthese miniatures and by them alone, may have had its origin from\nthe mouth of the prophetess herself, perhaps through another set of\nminiatures that has disappeared or has not yet come to light.[19]\n\n\nIV. THE SPURIOUS SCIENTIFIC WORKS OF HILDEGARD\n\nThe scientific views of Hildegard are embedded in a theological\nsetting, and are mainly encountered in the _Scivias_ and the _Liber\ndivinorum operum simplicis hominis_. To a less extent they appear\noccasionally in her _Epistolae_ and in the _Liber vitae meritorum_.\n\n[Illustration: From the HEIDELBERG CODEX OF THE _SCIVIAS_\n\nPlate IV. THE UNIVERSE]\n\nTwo works of non-theological tone and definitely scientific character\nhave been printed in her name. One of these was recently edited\nunder the title _Beatae Hildegardis causae et curae_.[20] A single\nMS. only of this work is known to exist, and is now deposited in the\nRoyal Library of Copenhagen.[21] It is an ill-written document of the\nthirteenth century, and the original work probably dates from this\nperiod. It has none of the characteristics of the acknowledged work\nof Hildegard, and indeed the only link with her name is the title,\nwhich is written in a hand different from that of the text (Plate V\n_a_). Nothing could be more unlike the ecstatic but well-ordered and\nsystematic work of the prophetess of Bingen than the prosy disorder\nof the _Causae et curae_. Linguistically, also, it differs entirely\nfrom the typical writings of Hildegard, for it is full of Germanisms,\nwhich never interrupt the eloquence of her authentic works. Again,\nHildegard\u2019s tendency to theoretical speculation, as for instance on\nthe nature of the elements or on the form of the Universe, finds no\nplace in the scrappy paragraphs of this apocryphal compilation.\n\n[Illustration: Plate V a. OPENING LINES OF THE COPENHAGEN MS. OF THE\n_CAUSAE ET CURAE_]\n\n[Illustration: Plate V b. OPENING LINES OF THE LUCCA MS. OF THE _LIBER\nDIVINORUM OPERUM SIMPLICIS HOMINIS_]\n\nA second work, of somewhat similar character, is entitled _Subtilitatum\ndiversarumque creaturarum libri novem_. This is clearly a compilation,\nand numerous passages in it can be traced to such sources as Pliny,\nWalafrid Strabus, Marbod, Macer, the Physiologus, Isidore Hispalensis,\nConstantine the African, and the _Regimen Sanitatis Salerni_, only the\nlast three of which exerted a traceable influence on the genuine works\nof our authoress. Nevertheless this _Liber subtilitatum_ was early\nprinted as Hildegard\u2019s work, along with a treatise attributed with\nas little justification to another woman writer, Trotula, one of the\nladies of Salerno, whose name was also a household word in the Middle\nAges, and was freely attached to medical writings with which she had\nlittle or nothing to do.[22] It is true that Hildegard\u2019s contemporary\nbiographer, the monk Theodoric, assures us that she had written _De\nnatura hominis et elementorum, diversarumque creaturarum_,[23] but\nthere is nothing to suggest that the _Liber subtilitatum_ is intended\nthereby.\n\nThe modern scholars Daremberg and Reuss have edited the _Liber\nsubtilitatum_ as Hildegard\u2019s composition,[24] and the work attracted\nthe attention of Virchow,[25] but notwithstanding the authority of\nthese names, the objections which apply to the genuineness of the\n_Causae et curae_ are also valid here:\n\n(_a_) The _Liber subtilitatum_ is not included in the Wiesbaden Codex A.\n\n(_b_) The phrase _De natura hominis et elementorum diversarumque\ncreaturarum_, used by Theodoric as a description and by Reuss as a\ntitle,[26] would lead one to expect great emphasis on the nature of the\nelements and their entry into the human frame. Such emphasis is not, in\nfact, discoverable in the _Liber subtilitatum_, which, moreover, does\nnot treat of human anatomy or physiology.\n\n(_c_) On the other hand, the genuine _Liber divinorum operum simplicis\nhominis_ does lay stress on these points. This is possibly therefore\nthe work to which Theodoric refers, and to it his description certainly\napplies well.\n\n(_d_) As in the _Causae et curae_, there are linguistic difficulties\nthat prevent us attributing the _Liber subtilitatum_ to Hildegard.\nSuch, for instance, is the number of Germanisms as well as the marked\ndifference from the style and method of her acknowledged work.\n\n(_e_) There are statements in the _Liber subtilitatum_ that can\nscarcely be attributed to our authoress. Having largely explored the\nRhine basin, and corresponding constantly with writers beyond the Alps,\nhow could she possibly derive all rivers, Rhine and Danube, Meuse and\nMoselle, Nahe and Glan, from the same lake (of Constance) as does the\nauthor of the _Liber subtilitatum_?[27]\n\n(_f_) Furthermore, although that spurious work has a chapter _De\nelementis_, it reveals none of Hildegard\u2019s most peculiar and definite\nviews as to their nature, origin, and fate,[28] nor does it refer to\nthe sphericity of the earth, to the vascular system of man, to the\nhumours and their relation to the winds and the elements, or to a dozen\nother points on which, as we shall see, Hildegard had views of her own.\n\nBefore leaving the subject of Hildegard\u2019s apocryphal works, brief\nreference may be made to the _Speculum futurorum temporum,_ a\nspurious production to which her name is often attached. It exists\nin innumerable MSS., and has been frequently edited and translated.\nIt is the work of Gebeno, prior of Eberbach, who wrote it in 1220,\nclaiming that he extracted it from Hildegard\u2019s writings. Another\nwork erroneously attributed to Hildegard is entitled _Revelatio de\nfratribus quatuor mendicantium ordinum_, and is directed against\nthe four mendicant orders--Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, and\nAugustinians. It also has been printed, but is wholly spurious, and was\nprobably composed towards the latter part of the thirteenth century.\n\n\nV. SOURCES OF HILDEGARD\u2019S SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE\n\nIn the works of Hildegard we are dealing with the products of a\npeculiarly original intellect, and her imaginative power and mystical\ntendency make an exhaustive search into the origin of her ideas by\nno means an easy task. With her theological standpoint, as such, we\nare not here concerned, and unfortunately she does not herself refer\nto any of her sources other than the Biblical books; to have cited\nprofane writers would indeed have involved the abandonment of her claim\nthat her knowledge was derived by immediate inspiration from on high.\nNevertheless it is possible to form some idea, on internal evidence, of\nthe origin of many of her scientific conceptions.\n\nThe most striking point concerning the sources of Hildegard is\nnegative. There is no German linguistic element distinguishable in\nher writings, and they show little or no trace of native German\nfolk-lore.[29] It is true that Trithemius of Sponheim (1462-1516),\nwho is often a very inaccurate chronicler, tells us that Hildegard\n\u2018composed works in German as well as in Latin, although she had\nneither learned nor used the latter tongue except for simple\npsalmody\u2019.[30] But with the testimony before us of the writings\nthemselves and of her skilful use of Latin, the statement of Trithemius\nand even the hints of Hildegard[31] may be safely discounted and set\ndown to the wish to magnify the element of inspiration.[32] So far\nfrom her having been illiterate, we shall show that the structure and\ndetails of her works betray a considerable degree of learning and\nmuch painstaking study of the works of others. Thus, for instance,\nshe skilfully manipulates the Hippocratic doctrines of miasma and the\nhumours, and elaborates a theory of the interrelation of the two which,\nthough developed on a plan of her own, is yet clearly borrowed in its\nbroad outline from such a writer as Isidore of Seville. Again, as we\nshall see, some of her ideas on anatomy seem to have been derived from\nConstantine the African, who belonged to the Benedictine monastery of\nMonte Cassino.[33]\n\nHildegard lived at rather too early a date to drink from the broad\nstream of new knowledge that was soon to flow into Europe through\nParis from its reservoir in Moslem Spain. Such drops from that source\nas may have reached her must have trickled in either from the earlier\nItalian translators or from the Jews who had settled in the Upper\nRhineland, for it is very unlikely that she was influenced by the\nearlier twelfth-century translations of Averroes, Avicenna, Avicebron,\nand Avempace, that passed into France from the Jews of Marseilles,\nMontpellier, and Andalusia.[34] Her intellectual field was thus far\nmore patristic than would have been the case had her life-course been\neven a quarter of a century later.\n\nHer science is primarily of the usual degenerate Greek type,\ndisintegrated fragments of Aristotle and Galen coloured and altered\nby the customary mediaeval attempts to bring theory into line with\nscriptural phraseology, though a high degree of independence is\nobtained by the visionary form in which her views are set. She\nexhibits, like all mediaeval writers on science, the Aristotelian\ntheory of the elements, but her statement of the doctrine is\nilluminated by flashes of her own thoughts and is coloured by\nsuggestions from St. Augustine, Isidore Hispalensis, Bernard Sylvestris\nof Tours, and perhaps from writings attributed to Boethius.\n\nThe translator Gerard of Cremona (1114-87) was her contemporary, and\nhis labours made available for western readers a number of scientific\nworks which had previously circulated only among Arabic-speaking\npeoples.[35] Several of these works, notably Ptolemy\u2019s _Almagest_,\nMessahalah\u2019s _De Orbe_, and the Aristotelian _De Caelo et Mundo_,\ncontain material on the form of the universe and on the nature of the\nelements, and some of them probably reached the Rhineland in time to be\nused by Hildegard. The _Almagest_, however, was not translated until\n1175, and was thus inaccessible to Hildegard.[36] Moreover, as she\nnever uses an Arabic medical term, it is reasonably certain that she\ndid not consult Gerard\u2019s translation of Avicenna, which is crowded with\nArabisms.\n\nOn the other hand, the influence of the Salernitan school may be\ndiscerned in several of her scientific ideas. The _Regimen Sanitatis_\nof Salerno, written about 1101, was rapidly diffused throughout Europe,\nand must have reached the Rhineland at least a generation before the\n_Liber Divinorum Operum_ was composed. This cycle of verses may well\nhave reinforced some of her microcosmic ideas,[37] and suggested also\nher views on the generation of man,[38] on the effects of wind on\nhealth,[39] and on the influence of the stars.[40]\n\nOn the subject of the form of the earth Hildegard expressed herself\ndefinitely as a spherist,[41] a point of view more widely accepted\nin the earlier Middle Ages than is perhaps generally supposed. She\nconsiders in the usual mediaeval fashion that this globe is surrounded\nby celestial spheres that influence terrestrial events.[42] But while\nshe claims that human affairs, and especially human diseases, are\ncontrolled, under God, by the heavenly cosmos, she yet commits herself\nto none of that more detailed astrological doctrine that was developing\nin her time, and came to efflorescence in the following centuries.\nIn this respect she follows the earlier and somewhat more scientific\nspirit of such writers as Messahalah, rather than the wilder theories\nof her own age. The shortness and simplicity of Messahalah\u2019s tract on\nthe sphere made it very popular. It was probably one of the earliest\nto be translated into Latin; and its contents would account for the\nchange which, as we shall see, came over Hildegard\u2019s scientific views\nin her later years.\n\nThe general conception of the universe as a series of concentric\nelemental spheres had certainly penetrated to Western Europe centuries\nbefore Hildegard\u2019s time. Nevertheless the prophetess presents it to her\naudience as a new and striking revelation. We may thus suppose that\ntranslations of Messahalah, or of whatever other work she drew upon\nfor the purpose, did not reach the Upper Rhineland, or rather did not\nbecome accepted by the circles in which Hildegard moved, until about\nthe decade 1141-50, during which she was occupied in the composition of\nher _Scivias_.\n\nThere is another cosmic theory, the advent of which to her country,\nor at least to her circle, can be approximately dated from her work.\nHildegard exhibits in a pronounced but peculiar and original form\nthe doctrine of the macrocosm and microcosm. Hardly distinguishable\nin the _Scivias_ (1141-50), it appears definitely in the _Liber\nVitae Meritorum_ (1158-62),[43] in which work, however, it takes no\nvery prominent place, and is largely overlaid and concealed by other\nlines of thought. But in the _Liber Divinorum Operum_ (1163-70) this\nbelief is the main theme. The book is indeed an elaborate attempt to\ndemonstrate a similarity and relationship between the nature of the\nGodhead, the constitution of the universe, and the structure of man,\nand it thus forms a valuable compendium of the science of the day\nviewed from the standpoint of this theory.\n\nFrom whence did she derive the theory of macrocosm and microcosm? In\noutline its elements were easily accessible to her in Isidore\u2019s _De\nRerum Natura_ as well as in the Salernitan poems. But the work of\nBernard Sylvestris of Tours, _De mundi universitate sive megacosmus et\nmicrocosmus_,[44] corresponds so closely both in form, in spirit, and\nsometimes even in phraseology, to the _Liber Divinorum Operum_ that\nit appears to us certain that Hildegard must have had access to it\nalso. Bernard\u2019s work can be dated between the years 1145-53 from his\nreference to the papacy of Eugenius III. This would correspond well\nwith the appearance of his doctrines in the _Liber Vitae Meritorum_\n(1158-62) and their full development in the _Liber Divinorum Operum_\n(1163-70).\n\nAnother contemporary writer with whom Hildegard presents points of\ncontact is Hugh of St. Victor (1095-1141).[45] In his writings the\ndoctrine of the relation of macrocosm and microcosm is more veiled than\nwith Bernard Sylvestris. Nevertheless, his symbolic universe is on the\nlines of Hildegard\u2019s belief, and the plan of his _De arca Noe mystica_\npresents many parallels both to the _Scivias_ and to the _Liber\nDivinorum Operum_. If these do not owe anything directly to Hugh, they\nare at least products of the same mystical movement as were his works.\n\nWe may also recall that at Hildegard\u2019s date very complex cabalistic\nsystems involving the doctrine of macrocosm and microcosm were being\nelaborated by the Jews, and that she lived in a district where Rabbinic\nmysticism specially flourished.[46] Benjamin of Tudela, who visited\nBingen during Hildegard\u2019s lifetime, tells us that he found there a\ncongregation of his people. Since we know, moreover, that she was\nfamiliar with the Jews,[47] it is possible that she may have derived\nsome of the very complex macrocosmic conceptions with which her last\nwork is crowded from local Jewish students.\n\nThe Alsatian Herrade de Landsberg (died 1195), a contemporary of\nHildegard, developed the microcosm theory along lines similar to those\nof our abbess, and it is probable that the theory, in the form in which\nthese writers present it, reached the Upper Rhineland somewhere about\nthe middle or latter half of the twelfth century.\n\n[Illustration: From the LUCCA MS. fo. 1 v\n\nPlate VI. NOUS PERVADED BY THE GODHEAD AND CONTROLLING HYLE]\n\nApart from the Biblical books, the work which made the deepest\nimpression on Hildegard was probably Augustine\u2019s _De Civitate Dei_,\nwhich seems to form the background of a large part of the _Scivias_.\nThe books of Ezekiel and of Daniel, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the\nShepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse, all contain a lurid type of\nvision which her own spiritual experiences would enable her to\nutilize, and which fit in well with her microcosmic doctrines. Ideas on\nthe harmony and disharmony of the elements she may have picked up from\nsuch works as the Wisdom of Solomon and the Pauline writings, though it\nis obvious that Isidore of Seville and the _Regimen Sanitatis Salerni_\nwere also drawn upon by her.\n\n[Illustration: From the LUCCA MS. fo. 9 r\n\nPlate VII. NOUS PERVADED BY THE GODHEAD EMBRACING THE MACROCOSM WITH\nTHE MICROCOSM]\n\nHer figure of the Church in the _Scivias_ reminds us irresistibly of\nBoethius\u2019 vision of the gracious feminine form of Philosophy. Again,\nthe visions of the punishments of Hell which Hildegard recounts in\nthe _Liber Vitae Meritorum_[48] bear resemblance to the work of her\ncontemporary Benedictine, the monk Alberic the younger of Monte\nCassino, to whom Dante also became indebted.[49]\n\nHildegard repeatedly assures us that most of her knowledge was revealed\nto her in waking visions. Some of these we shall seek to show had a\npathological basis, probably of a migrainous character, and she was a\nsufferer from a condition that would nowadays probably be classified\nas hystero-epilepsy. Too much stress, however, can easily be laid on\nthe ecstatic presentment of her scientific views. Visions, it must\nbe remembered, were \u2018the fashion\u2019 at the period, and were a common\nliterary device. Her contemporary Benedictine sister, Elizabeth of\nSch\u00f6nau, as well as numerous successors, as for example Gertrude of\nRobersdorf, adopted the same mechanism. The use of the vision for\nthis purpose remained popular for centuries, and we may say of these\nwriters, as Amp\u00e8re says of Dante, that \u2018the visions gave not the genius\nnor the poetic inspiration, but the form merely in which they were\nrealized\u2019.\n\nThe contemporaries of Hildegard who provide the closest analogy to\nher are Elizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau (died 1165), whose visions are recounted\nin her life by Eckbertus;[50] and Herrade de Landsberg, Abbess of\nHohenburg in Alsace, the priceless MS. of whose _Hortus Deliciarum_ was\ndestroyed by the Germans in the siege of Strasbourg in 1870.[51] With\nElizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau, who lived in her neighbourhood, Hildegard was in\nfrequent correspondence. With Herrade she had, so far as is known, no\ndirect communication; but the two were contemporary, lived not very far\napart, and under similar political and cultural conditions. Elizabeth\u2019s\nvisions present some striking analogies to those of Hildegard, while\nthe figures of Herrade, of which copies have fortunately survived,\noften suggest the illustrations of the Wiesbaden or of the Lucca MSS.\n\n\nVI. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE\n\nTo the student of the history of science, Hildegard\u2019s beliefs as to the\nnature and structure of the universe are among the most interesting\nthat she has to impart. Her earlier theories are in some respects\nunique among mediaeval writers, and we possess in the Wiesbaden Codex\nB a diagram enabling us to interpret her views with a definiteness and\ncertainty that would otherwise be impossible.\n\nHildegard\u2019s universe is geocentric, and consists of a spherical\nearth,[52] around which are arranged a number of concentric shells or\nzones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval, and the outermost\nof all egg-shaped, with one end prolonged and more pointed than the\nother (Fig. 2). The concentric structure is a commonplace of mediaeval\nscience, and is encountered, for instance, in the works of Bede,\nIsidore, Alexander of Neckam, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, and Dante.\nTo all these writers, however, the universe is spherical. The egg-shape\nis peculiar to Hildegard. Many of the _Mappaemundi_ of the Beatus and\nother types exhibit the _surface_ of the habitable earth itself as\noval, and it was from such charts that Hildegard probably gained her\nconception of an oval universe. In her method of orientation also she\nfollows these maps, placing the east at the top of the page where we\nare accustomed to place the north.[53]\n\nIt is unfortunate that she does not deal with geography in the\nrestricted sense, and so we are not in full possession of her views\non the antipodes, a subject of frequent derision to patristic and\nof misconception to scholastic writers. She does, however, vaguely\nrefer to the inversion of seasons and climates in the opposite\nhemisphere,[54] though she confuses the issue by the adoption of a\ntheory widespread in the Middle Ages and reproduced in the _Divina\nCommedia_, that the antipodean surface of the earth is uninhabitable,\nsince it is either beneath the ocean or in the mouth of the Dragon[55]\n(Plate XI, cp. Fig. 4). The nature of the antipodean inversion of\nclimates was clearly grasped by her contemporary, Herrade de Landsberg\n(Fig. 5).\n\nHildegard\u2019s views as to the internal structure of the terrestrial\nsphere are also somewhat difficult to follow. Her obscure and confused\ndoctrine of Purgatory and Hell has puzzled other writers besides\nourselves,[56] nor need we consider it here, but she held that the\ninterior of the earth contained two vast spaces shaped like truncated\ncones, where punishment was meted out and whence many evil things had\nissue.[57] Her whole scheme presents analogies as well as contrasts\nto that of her kindred spirit Dante.[58] Hildegard, however, who died\nbefore the thirteenth century had dawned, presents us with a scheme far\nless definite and elaborated than that of her great successor, who had\nall the stores of the golden age of scholasticism on which to draw.\n\nIn Hildegard\u2019s first diagram of the universe, which is of the nature\nof an \u2018optical section\u2019, the world, the _sphaera elementorum_ of\nJohannes Sacro Bosco and other mediaeval writers, is diagrammatically\nrepresented as compounded of earth, air, fire, and water confusedly\nmixed in what her younger contemporary, Alexander of Neckam\n(1157-1217), calls \u2018a certain concordant discord of the elements\u2019. In\nthe illustrations to the Wiesbaden Codex B the four elements have each\na conventional method of representation, which appears again and again\nin the different miniatures (Fig. 2 and Plates XII and XIII).\n\nAround this world with its four elements is spread the atmosphere, the\n_aer lucidus_ or _alba pellis_, diagrammatically represented, like\nthe earth which it enwraps, as circular. Through this _alba pellis_\nno creature of earth can penetrate. Beyond are ranged in order four\nfurther shells or zones. Each zone contains one of the cardinal\nwinds, and each cardinal wind is accompanied by two accessory winds,\nrepresented in the traditional fashion by the breath of supernatural\nbeings.\n\nOf the four outer zones the first is the _aer aquosus_, also round,\nfrom which blows the east wind. In the outer part of the _aer aquosus_\nfloat the clouds, and according as they contract or expand or are blown\naside, the heavenly bodies above are revealed or concealed.\n\nEnwrapping the _aer aquosus_ is the _purus aether_, the widest of all\nthe zones. The long axis of this, as of the remaining outer shells,\nis in the direction from east to west, thus determining the path of\nmovement of the heavenly bodies. Scattered through the _purus aether_\nare the constellations of the fixed stars, and arranged along the long\naxis are the moon and the two inner planets. From this zone blows the\nwest wind. The position and constitution of this _purus aether_ is\nevidently the result of some misinterpretation of Aristotelian writings.\n\nThe next zone, the _umbrosa pellis_ or _ignis niger_, is a narrow dark\nshell, whence proceed the more dramatic meteorological events. Here,\nfollowing on the hints of the Wisdom of Solomon (chap. v) and the Book\nof Job (chap. xxxviii), are situated the diagrammatically portrayed\ntreasuries of lightning and of hail. From here the tempestuous north\nwind bursts forth. This _ignis niger_ is clearly comparable to the _dry\nearthy exhalation_ that works of the Peripatetic school regard as given\noff by the outer fiery zone. The presence of the _ignis niger_ thus\nsuggests some contact on the part of the authoress with the teaching of\nthe _Meteorologica_ of Aristotle.[59]\n\nThe outermost layer of all is a mass of flames, the _lucidus ignis_.\nHere are the sun and the three outer planets, and from here the south\nwind pours its scorching breath (Fig. 2).\n\nThe movements of the four outer zones around each other, carrying\nthe heavenly bodies with them, are attributed to the winds in each\nzone. The seasonal variations in the movements of the heavenly bodies,\nalong with the recurring seasons themselves, are also determined\nby the prevalent winds, which, acting as the motive power upon the\nvarious zones, form a celestial parallelogram of forces. In this way\nis ingeniously explained also why in spring the days lengthen and in\nautumn they shorten until in either case an equinox is reached (Fig. 2).\n\n \u2018I looked and behold the east and the south wind with their\n collaterals, moving the firmament by the power of their breath,\n caused it to revolve over the earth from east to west; and in the\n same way the west and north winds and their collaterals, receiving\n the impulse and projecting their blast, thrust it back again from\n west to east....\n\n \u2018I saw also that as the days began to lengthen, the south wind and\n his collaterals gradually raised the firmament in the southern\n zone upwards towards the north, until the days ceased to grow\n longer. Then when the days began to shorten, the north wind with\n his collaterals, shrinking from the brightness of the sun, drove\n the firmament back gradually southward until by reason of the\n lengthening days the south wind began yet again to raise it up\u2019[60]\n (Plates VII and VIII).\n\nIntimately bound up not only with her theory of the nature and\nstructure of the universe but also with her eschatological beliefs\nis Hildegard\u2019s doctrine of the elements. Before the fall of man\nthese were arranged in a harmony,[61] which was disturbed by that\ncatastrophe (Plate XII _a_),[62] so that they have since remained in\nthe state of mingled confusion in which we always encounter them on the\nterrestrial globe. This _mistio_, to use the mediaeval Aristotelian\nterm, is symbolized by the irregular manner in which the elements are\nrepresented in the central sphere of the diagram of the universe (Fig.\n2). Thus mingled they will remain until subjected to the melting-pot of\nthe Last Judgement (Plate XIII),[63] when they will emerge in a new\nand eternal harmony, no longer mixed as matter, but separate and pure,\nparts of the new heaven and the new earth (Plate XII _b_).[64]\n\n \u2018But the heavens and the earth, which are now,... are kept in\n store and reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and\n perdition of ungodly men.... But the day of the Lord will come ...\n in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and\n the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the\n works that are therein shall be burned up.... Nevertheless we,\n according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,\n wherein dwelleth righteousness\u2019 (2 Peter iii. 7, 10, and 13).\n\nSo Hildegard, acting on a scriptural hint, is enabled to dematerialize\nher doctrine of the after-things.\n\nBut although since man\u2019s fall the elements have lost their order and\ntheir harmony on this terrestrial orb, yet is that harmony still in\npart preserved in the celestial spheres that encircle and surround\nour globe; and water, air, earth, and fire have each their respective\nrepresentatives in the four concentric zones, the _aer aquosus_, the\n_purus aether_, the _umbrosa pellis_, and the _lucidus ignis_ (Fig.\n2). These are the \u2018superior elements\u2019 which still retain some at least\nof their individuality and primal purity. From each of their spheres\nblows, as we have seen, one of the cardinal winds, and each wind\npartakes of the elemental character of the zone whence it issues, and\nhas a corresponding influence on man\u2019s body, since each of the four\nhumours is specifically affected by the element to which it corresponds.\n\n \u2018Then I saw that by the diverse quality of the winds, and of the\n atmosphere as they in turn sweep through it, the humours in man\n are agitated and altered. For in each of the superior elements\n there is a breath of corresponding quality by which, through the\n power of the winds, the corresponding element [below] is forced to\n revolve in the atmosphere, and in no other way is it moved. And by\n one of those winds, with the agency of sun, moon, and stars, the\n atmosphere which tempers the world is breathed forth\u2019[65] (Plate\n VII).\n\nThis doctrine of the relation of the various winds to the four elements\nand through them to the four humours is found in the _De Rerum Natura_\nof Isidore of Seville, and is occasionally illustrated in European\nMSS. from the ninth century onward,[66] but we meet it set forth with\nspecial definiteness in the twelfth century in the translations from\nMessahalah. It is encountered also in the work of Herrade de Landsberg.\nIn and after the thirteenth century it had become a commonplace.\n\nThe description we have given of the universe was in the main set\nforth by Hildegard in her first work, the _Scivias_ (1141-50).[67]\nSubsequently she became dissatisfied with the account she had given,\nand while not withdrawing it, she sought in the _Liber Divinorum\nOperum_ (1163-70) so to modify the original presentment as to bring\nit more into line with accepted views. Thus she writes: \u2018There\nappeared to me in vision a _disk_ very like that object which I saw\ntwenty-eight years ago of the form of an _egg_, in the third vision\nof my book _Scivias_. In the outer part of the disk there was as it\nwere the _lucidus ignis_, and beneath it the circle of the _ignis\nniger_ was portrayed ... and these two circles were so joined as to\nbe one circle.\u2019 There was thus one outer zone representing the fire.\n\u2018Under the circle of the _ignis niger_ there was another circle in the\nlikeness of the _purus aether_ which was of the same width as the two\nconjoined [outer] fiery circles. And below this circle again was the\ncircle of the _aer aquosus_ as wide as the _lucidus ignis_. And below\nthis circle was yet another circle, the _fortis et albus lucidusque\naer_ ... the width whereof was as the width of the _ignis niger_, and\nthese circles were joined to make one circle which was thus again of\nwidth equal to the outer two. Again, under this last circle yet another\ncircle, the _aer tenuis_, was distinguishable, which could be seen to\nraise itself as a cloud, sometimes high and light, sometimes depressed\nand dark, and to diffuse itself as it were throughout the whole\ndisk.... The outermost fiery circle perfuses the other circles with its\nfire, while the watery circle saturates them with its moisture, [cp.\nWisdom of Solomon, xix. 18-20]. And from the extreme eastern part of\nthe disk to the extreme west a line is stretched out [i.e. the equator]\nwhich separates the northern zones from the others\u2019[68] (see Fig. 3 and\nPlates VII and VIII).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 3. HILDEGARD\u2019S SECOND SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE\n\nReconstructed from her measurements. AB, CD, and EF are all equal to\neach other, as are also GH, HK, and KL. The clouds are situated in the\nouter part of the _aer tenuis_, and form a prolongation downwards from\nthe _aer aquosus_ towards the earth.]\n\nThe earth lies concentrically with the _aer tenuis_, and its\nmeasurements are given thus: \u2018In the midst of the _aer tenuis_ a globe\nwas indicated, the circumference of which was everywhere equidistant\nfrom the _fortis et albus lucidusque aer_, and it was as far across\nas the depth of the space from the top of the highest circle to the\nextremity of the clouds, or from the extremity of the clouds to the\ncircumference of the inner globe\u2019[68] (Fig. 3).\n\nIn her earlier work, the _Scivias_, Hildegard had not apparently\nrealized the need of accounting for the independent movements of the\nplanets other than the sun and moon. She had thus placed the moon\nand two of the moving stars in the _purus aether_, and the sun and\nthe three remaining moving stars in the _lucidus ignis_. Since these\nspheres were moved by the winds, their contained planets would be\nsubject to the same influences. In the _Liber Divinorum Operum_,\nhowever, she has come to realize how independent the movements of the\nplanets really are, and she invokes a special cause for their vagaries.\n\u2018I looked and behold in the outer fire (_lucidus ignis_) there appeared\na circle which girt about the whole firmament from the east westward.\nFrom it a blast produced a movement from west to east in the opposite\ndirection to the movement of the firmament. But this blast did not give\nforth his breath earthward as did the other winds, but instead thereof\nit governed the course of the planets.\u2019[69] The source of the blast is\nrepresented in the Lucca MS. as the head of a supernatural being with a\nhuman face (Plate VIII).\n\n[Illustration: From the LUCCA MS. fo. 27 v\n\nPlate VIII. THE MACROCOSM THE MICROCOSM AND THE WINDS]\n\n[Illustration: Plate IX. From THE LUCCA MS fo. 37 r\n\nCELESTIAL INFLUENCES ON MEN ANIMALS AND PLANTS]\n\nThese curious passages were written at some date after 1163, when\nHildegard was at least 65 years old. They reveal our prophetess\nattempting to revise much of her earlier theory of the universe,\nand while seeking to justify her earlier views, endeavouring also to\nbring them into line with the new science that was now just beginning\nto reach her world. Note that (_a_) the universe has become round;\n(_b_) there is an attempt to arrange the zones according to their\ndensity, i.e. from without inwards, fire, air (ether), water, earth;\n(_c_) exact measurements are given; (_d_) the watery zone is continued\nearthward so as to mingle with the central circle. In all these and\nother respects she is joining the general current of mediaeval science\nthen beginning to be moulded by works translated from the Arabic.\nHer knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies is entirely\ninnocent of the doctrine of epicycles, but in other respects her\nviews have come to resemble those, for instance, of Messahalah, one\nof the simplest and easiest writers on the sphere available in her\nday. Furthermore, her conceptions have developed so as to fit in with\nthe macrocosm-microcosm scheme which she grasped about the year 1158.\nEven in her latest work, however, her theory of the universe exhibits\ndifferences from that adopted by the schoolmen, as may be seen by\ncomparing her diagram with, for example, the scheme of Dante (Fig. 4).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 4. DANTE\u2019S SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE\n\nSlightly modified from Michelangelo Caetani, duca di Sermoneta, _La\nmateria della Divina Commedia di Dante Allighieri dichiarata in VI\ntavole_, Monte Cassino, 1855.]\n\nLike many mediaeval writers, Hildegard would have liked to imagine an\nideal state of the elemental spheres in which the rarest, fire, was\nuppermost, and the densest, earth, undermost. Such a scheme was, in\nfact, purveyed by Bernard Sylvestris and by Messahalah. Her conceptions\nwere however disturbed by the awkward facts that water penetrated\nbelow the earth, and indeed sought the lowest level, while air and not\nwater lay immediately above the earth\u2019s surface. Mediaeval writers\nadopted various devices and expended a great amount of ingenuity in\ndealing with this discrepancy, which was a constant source of obscurity\nand confusion. Hildegard devotes much space and some highly involved\nallegory both in the _Scivias_ and in the _Liber Divinorum Operum_ to\nthe explanation of the difficulty, while Dante himself wrote a treatise\nin high scholastic style on this very subject.[70]\n\n[Illustration: Plate X. A CRUCIFIX IN THE UFFIZI GALLERY\n\nAbout the middle of the XIIIth Century.]\n\n\nVII. MACROCOSM AND MICROCOSM\n\nThe winds and elements of the outer universe, the macrocosm, become in\nHildegard\u2019s later schemes intimately related to structures and events\nwithin the body of man himself, the microcosm, the being around whom\nthe universe centres. The terms _macrocosm_ and _microcosm_ are not\nemployed by her, but in her last great work, the _Liber Divinorum\nOperum_, she succeeds in most eloquent and able fashion in synthesizing\ninto one great whole, centred around this doctrine, her theological\nbeliefs and her physiological knowledge, together with her conceptions\nof the working of the human mind and of the structure of the universe.\nThe work is thus an epitome of the science of the time viewed through\nthe distorting medium of this theory. In studying it the modern reader\nis necessarily hampered by the bizarre and visionary form into which\nthe whole subject is cast. Nevertheless the scheme, though complex\nand difficult, is neither incoherent nor insane, as at first sight it\nmay seem. On the contrary, it is a highly systematic and skilful\npresentment of a cosmic theory which for centuries dominated scientific\nthought.\n\nAs an explanation of the complexity of existence which thinkers of all\nages have sought to bring within the range of some simple formula, this\ntheory of the essential similarity of macrocosm and microcosm held in\nthe Middle Ages, during the Renaissance, and even into quite modern\ntimes, a position comparable to that of the theory of evolution in our\nown age. If at times it passed into folly and fantasy, it should be\nremembered that it also fulfilled a high purpose. It gave a meaning\nto the facts of nature and a formula to the naturalist, it unified\nphilosophic systems, it exercised the ingenuity of theologians, and\ngave a convenient framework to prophecy, while it seemed to illumine\nhistory and to provide a key and meaning to life itself. Even now it\nis not perhaps wholly devoid of message, but as a phenomenon in the\nhistory of human thought, a theory which appealed to such diverse\nscientific writers as Seneca, Albertus Magnus, Paracelsus, Gilbert,\nHarvey, Boyle, and Leibnitz, is surely worthy of attention.\n\nIn essaying to interpret the views of our authoress on this difficult\nsubject, we rely mainly on the text of the _Liber Divinorum Operum_,\nsupplemented by the beautiful illuminations of that work which adorn\nthe Lucca MS. The book opens with a truly remarkable vision (Plate VI):\n\n \u2018I saw a fair human form and the countenance thereof was of such\n beauty and brightness that it had been easier to gaze upon the\n sun. The head thereof was girt with a golden circlet through which\n appeared another face as of an aged man. From the neck of the\n figure on either side sprang a pinion which swept upward above the\n circlet and joined its fellow on high. And where on the right the\n wing turned upward, was portrayed an eagle\u2019s head with eyes of\n flame, wherein appeared as in a mirror the lightning of the angels,\n while from a man\u2019s head in the other wing the lightning of the\n stars did radiate. From either shoulder another wing reached to the\n knees. The figure was robed in brightness as of the sun, while the\n hands held a lamb shining with light. Beneath, the feet trampled a\n horrible black monster of revolting shape, upon the right ear of\n which a writhing serpent fixed itself.\u2019[71]\n\n[Illustration: From the LUCCA MS. fo. 86 v\n\nPlate XI. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MUNDANE SPHERE]\n\nThe image declares its identity in words reminiscent of the Wisdom\nliterature or of passages in the hermetic writings, but which seem in\nfact to be partly borrowed from Bernard Sylvestris.\n\n \u2018I am that supreme and fiery force that sends forth all the sparks\n of life. Death hath no part in me, yet do I allot it, wherefore I\n am girt about with wisdom as with wings. I am that living and fiery\n essence of the divine substance that glows in the beauty of the\n fields. I shine in the water, I burn in the sun and the moon and\n the stars. Mine is that mysterious force of the invisible wind. I\n sustain the breath of all living. I breathe in the verdure and in\n the flowers, and when the waters flow like living things, it is I.\n I formed those columns that support the whole earth.... I am the\n force that lies hid in the winds, from me they take their source,\n and as a man may move because he breathes so doth a fire burn but\n by my blast. All these live because I am in them and am of their\n life. I am wisdom. Mine is the blast of the thundered word by which\n all things were made. I permeate all things that they may not die.\n I am life.\u2019[72]\n\n[Illustration: WIESB. COD. B. fo. 4 r\n\nPlate XIIa. MAN\u2019S FALL AND THE DISTURBANCE OF THE ELEMENTAL HARMONY]\n\n[Illustration: WIESB. COD. B. fo. 224 v\n\nPlate XIIb. THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH]\n\nHildegard thus supposes that the whole universe is permeated by a\nsingle living spirit, the figure of the vision. This spirit of the\nmacrocosm, the _Nous_ or \u2018world spirit\u2019 of the hermetic and Neoplatonic\nliterature, the impersonated _Nature_, as we may perhaps render it,\nis in its turn controlled by the Godhead that pervades the form and\nis represented rising from its vertex as a second human face. Nature,\nthe spirit of the cosmic order, controls and holds in subjection the\nhideous monster, the principle of death and dissolution, the _Hyle_\nor primordial matter of the Neoplatonists, whose chaotic and anarchic\nforce would shatter and destroy this fair world unless fettered by a\nhigher power.\n\nWith the details of the visionary figure we need not delay,[73] but\nwe pass to the description of the structure of the macrocosm itself,\nto which the second vision is devoted (Plate VII). Here appears the\nsame figure of the macrocosmic spirit. But now the head and feet\nonly are visible, and the arms are outstretched to enclose the disk\nof the universe which conceals the body. Although the macrocosm now\ndescribed is considerably altered from Hildegard\u2019s original scheme\nof the universe, she yet declares, \u2018I saw in the bosom of the form\nthe appearance of a disk of like sort to that which twenty-eight\nyears before I had seen in the third vision, set forth in my book of\n_Scivias_\u2019.[74] The zones of this disk are then described (Plates VII,\nVIII, and XI and Fig. 2). They are from without inwards:\n\n (_a_) The _lucidus ignis_, containing the three outer planets, the\n sixteen principal fixed stars, and the south wind.\n\n (_b_) The _ignis niger_, containing the sun, the north wind, and the\n materials of thunder, lightning, and hail.\n\n (_c_) The _purus aether_, containing the west wind, the moon, the two\n inner planets, and certain fixed stars.\n\n (_d_) The _aer aquosus_, containing the east wind.\n\n (_e_) The _fortis et albus lucidusque aer_, where certain other fixed\n stars are placed.\n\n (_f_) The _aer tenuis_, or atmosphere, in the outer part of which is\n the zone of the clouds.\n\nFrom all these objects, from the spheres of the elements, from the\nsun, moon, and other planets, from the four winds each with their\ntwo collaterals, from the fixed stars, and from the clouds, descend\ninfluences, indicated by lines, towards the figure of the macrocosm.\n\nThe microcosm is then introduced.\n\n \u2018And again I heard the voice from heaven saying, \u201cGod, who created\n all things, wrought also man in his own image and similitude, and\n in him he traced [_signavit_] all created things, and he held him\n in such love that he destined him for the place from which the\n fallen angel had been cast.\u201d\u2019[75]\n\nThe various characters of the winds are expounded in a set of curious\npassages in which the doctrine of the macrocosm and microcosm is\nfurther mystically elaborated. An endeavour is made to attribute to\nthe winds derived from the different quarters of heaven qualities\nassociated with a number of animals.[76] The conception is illustrated\nand made comprehensible by the miniatures in the Lucca MS. (Plates VII\nand VIII).\n\n \u2018In the middle of the disk [of the universe] there appeared the\n form of a man, the crown of whose head and the soles of whose feet\n extended to the _fortis et albus lucidusque aer_, and his hands\n were outstretched right and left to the same circle.... Towards\n these parts was an appearance as of four heads; a leopard, a wolf,\n a lion, and a bear. Above the head of the figure in the zone of the\n _purus aether_, I saw the head of the leopard emitting a blast from\n its mouth, and on the right side of the mouth the blast, curving\n itself somewhat backwards, was formed into a crab\u2019s head ... with\n two chelae; while on the left side of the mouth a blast similarly\n curved ended in a stag\u2019s head. From the mouth of the crab\u2019s head,\n another blast went to the middle of the space between the leopard\n and the lion; and from the stag\u2019s head a similar blast to the\n middle of the space between the leopard and the bear ... and all\n the heads were breathing towards the figure of the man. Under his\n feet in the _aer aquosus_ there appeared as it were the head of a\n wolf, sending forth to the right a blast extending to the middle\n of the half space between its head and that of the bear, where it\n assumed the form of the stag\u2019s head; and from the stag\u2019s mouth\n there came, as it were, another breath which ended in the middle\n line. From the left of the wolf\u2019s mouth arose a breath which went\n to the midst of the half space between the wolf and the lion, where\n was depicted another crab\u2019s head ... from whose mouth another\n breath ended in the same middle line.... And the breath of all the\n heads extended sideways from one to another.... Moreover on the\n right hand of the figure in the _lucidus ignis_, from the head of\n the lion, issued a breath which passed laterally on the right into\n a serpent\u2019s head and on the left into a lamb\u2019s head ... similarly\n on the figure\u2019s left in the _ignis niger_ there issued a breath\n from the bear\u2019s head ending on its right in the head of [another]\n lamb, and on its left in another serpent\u2019s head.... And above the\n head of the figure the seven planets were ranged in order, three\n in the _lucidus ignis_, one projecting into the _ignis niger_ and\n three into the _purus aether_.... And in the circumference of the\n circle of the _lucidus ignis_ there appeared the sixteen principal\n stars, four in each quadrant between the heads.... Also the _purus\n aether_ and _the fortis et albus lucidusque aer_ seemed to be full\n of stars which sent forth their rays towards the clouds, whence ...\n tongues like rivers descended to the disk and towards the figure,\n which was thus surrounded and influenced by these signs.\u2019[77]\n\nThe third vision is devoted to an account of the human body, the\nmicrocosm (Plate VIII), with a comparison of its organs to the parts of\nthe macrocosmic scheme, together with a detailed account of the effects\nof the heavenly bodies on the humours in man, the whole brought into a\nstrongly theological setting. Some of these views are set forth below\nin the chapter on anatomy and physiology.\n\nThe fourth vision explains the influence of the heavenly bodies and\nof the superior elements on the power of nature as exhibited on the\nsurface of the earth. It is illustrated by a charming miniature in the\nLucca MS. (Plate IX).\n\n\u2018I saw that the upper fiery firmament was stirred, so that as it were\nashes were cast therefrom to earth, and they produced rashes and ulcers\nin men and animals and fruits.\u2019 These effects are shown in the left\nupper quadrant of Plate IX, where the ashes are seen proceeding from\nthe _lucidus ignis_, the \u2018upper fiery firmament\u2019. Two figures are seen,\na female semi-recumbent, who lifts a fruit to her mouth, and a male\nfigure fully recumbent, on whose legs a rash is displayed. The trees\nalso in this quadrant show the effects of the ashes, two of them being\ndenuded of fruit and foliage.\n\n\u2018Then I saw that from the _ignis niger_ certain vapours (_nebulae_)\ndescended, which withered the verdure and dried up the moisture of the\nfields. The _purus aether_, however, resisted these ashes and vapours,\nseeking to hold back these plagues.\u2019 These vapours may be seen in\nthe right upper quadrant of Plate IX. They descend from the _ignis\nniger_, attenuate for a space in the _purus aether_, and then descend\nthrough the other zones on to an arid and parched land. Here are two\nhusbandmen; one sits forlornly clasping his axe, while the other leans\ndisconsolately upon his hoe. On the legs of the latter a rash may be\ndistinguished.\n\n\u2018And looking again I saw that from the _fortis et albus lucidusque aer_\ncertain other clouds reached the earth and infected men and beasts with\nsore pestilence, so that they were subjected to many ills even to the\ndeath, but the _aer aquosus_ opposed that influence so that they were\nnot hurt beyond measure.\u2019 This scene is portrayed in the right lower\nquadrant of Plate IX. Here is a husbandman in mortal anguish. He has\ngathered his basket of fruit and now lies stricken with the pestilence.\nHis left hand is laid on his heart, while his right hangs listless on\nhis thigh, pointing to tokens of plague upon his legs. Beyond lies the\ndead body of a beast on which a carrion bird has settled.\n\n\u2018Again I saw that the moisture in the _aer tenuis_ was as it were\nboiling above the surface of the earth, awakening the force of the\nearth and making fruits to grow.\u2019[78] This happier scene is represented\nin the left lower quadrant of Plate IX. Here the beneficent fertilizing\ninfluence is falling on trees and herbs and the happy husbandmen are\nreaping its results.\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 224 r\n\nPlate XIII. THE LAST JUDGEMENT AND FATE OF THE ELEMENTS]\n\nThe main outline of the _Liber Divinorum Operum_ is, we believe,\nborrowed from the work of Bernard Sylvestris of Tours, _De mundi\nuniversitate libri duo sive megacosmus et microcosmus_.[79] In this\ncomposition by a teacher at the cathedral school of Chartres,[80] the\ngods and goddesses of the classical pantheon flit across the stage,\nfor all the world as though the writer were a pagan, and the work\nmight be thought to be the last one from which our pious authoress\nwould borrow. The _De mundi universitate_ is alternately in prose\nand verse and betrays an acquaintance with the classics very rare at\nits date. \u2018The rhythm of the hexameters is clearly that of Lucan,\nwhile the vocabulary is mainly of Ovid.\u2019[81] The mythology is founded\nmainly on the _Timaeus_. The eternal _seminaria_ of created things are\nmentioned, and it has been conjectured that the work exhibits traces\nof the influence of Lucretius,[82] but the general line of thought is\nclearly related to Neoplatonic literature. Thus the _anima universalis_\nof Neoplatonic writings can be identified with the _Nous_ or _Noys_\nof Bernard. This principle is contrasted with primordial matter or\n_Hyle_. The parallel character of the _Liber Divinorum Operum_ and\nthe _De mundi universitate_ can be illustrated by a few extracts from\nthe latter. It will be seen that although the general setting is\nchanged, yet Hildegard\u2019s figure of the spirit of the macrocosm is to be\nidentified with Bernard\u2019s _Noys_. _Hyle_, on the other hand, becomes\nin Hildegard\u2019s plan the monstrous form, the emblem of brute matter, on\nwhich the spirit of the universe tramples.\n\n[Illustration: From BIBL. NAT. MS. LAT. 5543 fo. 136 r\n\nPlate XIV. DIAGRAM OF THE RELATION OF HUMAN AND COSMIC PHENOMENA IXth\nCentury]\n\n \u2018In huius operis primo libro qui Megacosmus dicitur, id est\n maior mundus, Natura ad Noym, id est Dei providentiam, de primae\n materiae, id est hyles, confusione querimoniam quasi cum lacrimis\n agit et ut mundus pulchrius petit. Noys igitur eius mota precibus\n petitioni libenter annuit et ita quatuor elementa ab invicem\n seiungit. Novem ierarchias angelorum in coelo ponit. stellas\n in firmamento figit. signa disponit. sub signis orbes septem\n planetarum currere facit. quatuor ventos cardinales sibi invicem\n opponit. Sequitur genesis animantium et terrae situs medius....\n\n \u2018In secundo libro qui Microcosmus dicitur, id est minor mundus,\n Noys ad Naturam loquitur et de mundi expolitione gloriatur et in\n operis sui completione se hominem plasmaturam pollicetur. Iubet\n igitur Uraniam, quae siderum regina est, et Physin, quae rerum\n omnium est peritissima, sollicite perquirat. Natura protinus\n iubenti obsequitur et per caelestes circulos Uraniam quaeritans eam\n sideribus inhiantem reperit. eiusque itineris causa praecognita\n se operis et itineris comitem Urania pollicetur.... Subitoque ibi\n Noys affuit suoque velle eis ostenso trinas speculationes tribus\n assignando tribuit & ad hominis plasmationem eas impellit. Physis\n igitur de quatuor elementorum reliquiis hominem format et a capite\n incipiens membratim operando opus suum in pedibus consummat....\n\n \u2018Noys ego scientia et divinae voluntatis arbitraria ad\n dispositionem rerum, quem ad modum de consensu eius accipio, sic\n meae administrationis officia circumduco....\n\n \u2018(Noys) erat fons luminis, seminarium vitae, bonum bonitatis\n divinae, plenitude scientiae quae mens altissimi nominatur. Ea\n igitur noys summi & exsuperantissimi Dei est intellectus et ex\n eius divinitate nata natura.... Erat igitur videre velut in\n speculo tersiore quicquid generationi quicquid operi Dei secretior\n destinarat affectus.\u2019[83]\n\nHildegard\u2019s conception of macrocosm and microcosm, which was thus\nprobably borrowed from Bernard Sylvestris, has analogies also to those\nwell-known figures illustrating the supposed influence of the signs of\nthe zodiac on the different parts of the body.[84] Such figures, with\nthe zodiacal symbols arranged around a figure of Christ, may be seen\nin certain MSS. anterior to Hildegard,[85] while the influence of the\n\u2018Melothesia\u2019, to give it the name assigned by Porphyry, has been traced\nthrough its period of efflorescence at the Renaissance (Plates XV,[86]\nXVI,[87] and XVII,[88] compare with Plates VII and VIII) right down\nto our own age and country, where it still appeals to the ignorant and\nfoolish.[89]\n\nHildegard often interprets natural events by means of a peculiarly\ncrude form of the doctrine, as when she describes how \u2018if the excess of\nwaters below are drawn up to the clouds (by the just judgment of God\nin the requital of sinners), then the moisture from the _aer aquosus_\ntransudes through the _fortis et albus lucidusque aer_ as a draught\ndrunk into the urinary bladder; and the same waters descend in an\ninundation\u2019.[90]\n\nAgain, events in the body of man are most naively explained on the\nbasis of the nature of the external world as she has pictured it.\n\n \u2018The humours at times rage fiercely as a leopard and again they are\n softened, going backwards as a crab;[91] or they may show their\n diversity by leaping and goring as a stag, or they may be as a\n wolf in their ravening, and yet again they may invade the body of\n man after the manner of both wolf and crab. Or else they may show\n forth their strength unceasingly as a lion, or as a serpent they\n may go now softly, now violently, and at times they may be gentle\n as a lamb and at times again they may growl as an angered bear,\n and at times they may partake of the nature of the lamb and of the\n serpent.\u2019[92]\n\nHaving completed her general survey of the macrocosm (Vision II),\nand having investigated in detail the structure of man\u2019s body, the\nmicrocosm, in terms of the greater universe (Vision III), and discussed\nthe influence of the heavenly bodies on terrestrial events (Vision IV),\nHildegard turns to the internal structure of the terrestrial sphere\n(Vision V). This vision is illustrated by the figure in the Lucca MS.\nreproduced in Plate XI.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 5. From Herrade de Landsberg\u2019s _Hortus deliciarum_,\nafter Straub and Keller.]\n\nUpon the surface of the earth towards the east stands the building\nwhich symbolizes the _aedificium_ of the church, a favourite conception\nof our authoress. This church is surmounted by a halo, whence proceed\na pair of pinions which extend their shelter over a full half of the\nearth\u2019s circumference. As for the rest of the earth\u2019s surface, part\nis within the wide-opened jaws of a monster, the Destroyer, and the\nremainder is beneath the surface of the ocean. Within the earth are\nfive parts analogous, as she would have us believe, to the five senses.\nAn eastern clear arc and a western clouded one signify respectively\nthe excellence of the orient where Zion is situated, and the Cimmerian\ndarkness of the occidental regions over which the shadow of the\ndragon is cast. Centrally is a quadrate area divided into three zones\nwhere the qualities of heat and cold and of a third intermediate\n\u2018temperateness\u2019 (_temperies_) are stored. North and south of this are\ntwo areas where purgatory is situate. Each is shaped like a truncated\ncone and composed also of three sectors. Souls are seen suffering in\none sector the torment of flame, in another the torment of water, while\nin the third or intermediate sector lurk monsters and creeping\nthings which add to the miseries of purgatory or at times come forth to\nearth\u2019s surface to plague mankind. These northern and southern sections\nexhibit dimly by their identically reversed arrangement the belief in\nthe antipodean inversion of climate, an idea hinted several times in\nHildegard\u2019s writings, but more definitely illustrated by a figure of\nHerrade de Landsberg (Fig. 5).\n\n[Illustration: From BIBL. NAT. MS. LAT. 7028 fo. 154 r\n\nPlate XV. AN XIth CENTURY FRENCH MELOTHESIA]\n\n[Illustration: From BIBL. NAT. MS. LAT. 11229 fo. 45 v\n\nPlate XVI. A MELOTHESIA OF ABOUT 1400]\n\n[Illustration: From the _SYMBOLUM APOSTOLICORUM_\n\nPlate XVII. A GERMAN BLOCK BOOK\n\nFirst Half of XVth Century. Heidelberg University Library]\n\n[Illustration: From BODLEIAN MS. ASHMOLE 399 fo. 18 r\n\nPlate XVIII. AN ANATOMICAL DIAGRAM OF ABOUT 1298\n\nFrom the Five-Figure Series. Cp. Plate XXXIII]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 6.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 7.\n\nMELOTHESIAE\n\nFrom R. Fludd, _Historia utriusque cosmi_, Oppenheim, 1619, pp.\u00a0112 and\n113.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 8. THE MICROCOSM\n\nFrom R. Fludd, _Philosophia sacra seu astrologia cosmica_, Frankfurt,\n1628, p.\u00a052.]\n\nMacrocosmic schemes of the type illustrated by the text of Hildegard\nand by the figures of the Lucca MS. had a great vogue in mediaeval\ntimes, and were passed on to later ages. Some passages in Hildegard\u2019s\nwork read curiously like Paracelsus (1491-1541),[93] and it is not\nhard to find a link between these two difficult and mystical writers.\nTrithemius, the teacher of Paracelsus, was abbot of Sponheim, an\nimportant settlement almost within sight of Hildegard\u2019s convents on the\nRupertsberg and Disibodenberg. Trithemius studied Hildegard\u2019s writings\nwith great care and attached much importance to them, so that they may\nwell have influenced his pupil. The influence of mediaeval theories of\nthe relation of macrocosm and microcosm is encountered among numerous\nRenaissance writers besides Paracelsus, and is presented to us, for\ninstance, by such a cautious, balanced, and scientifically-minded\nhumanist as Fracastor. But as the years went on, the difficulty in\napplying the details of the theory became ever greater and greater.\nFacts were strained and mutilated more and more to make them fit the\nProcrustean bed of an outworn theory, which at length became untenable\nwhen the heliocentric system of Copernicus and Galileo replaced the\ngeocentric and anthropocentric systems of an earlier age. The idea\nof a close parallelism between the structure of man and of the wider\nuniverse was gradually abandoned by the scientific, while among the\nunscientific it degenerated and became little better than an insane\nobsession. As such it appears in the ingenious ravings of the English\nfollower of Paracelsus, the Rosicrucian, Robert Fludd, who reproduced,\noften with fidelity, the systems which had some novelty five centuries\nbefore his time (Figs. 6, 7, and 8). As a similar fantastic obsession\nthis once fruitful hypothesis still occasionally appears even in modern\nworks of learning and industry.[94]\n\n\nVIII. ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY\n\nHildegard\u2019s ideas on these subjects are set out in the fourth vision\nof the _Liber Divinorum Operum_, which is devoted to a description of\nman\u2019s body according to the macrocosmic scheme. This setting makes her\naccount by no means easy to read, while it increases the difficulty of\ntracing the origin of her views.\n\nThe list of works containing anatomical descriptions available to a\nGerman writer in the early Middle Ages is not long. Avicenna was hardly\nyet accessible, and only such scraps of Galen as appear in Constantine\nand the Salernitans. The available works may be enumerated thus:\n\n (_a_) The short _Anatomia porci_ of Copho of Salerno, dating from\n about 1085.[95]\n\n (_b_) An anonymous Salernitan anatomy,[96] written about 1100 and\n largely based on Copho and Constantine.\n\n (_c_) The _Liber de humana natura_ of Constantine the African,\n written probably between 1070 and 1085 at Monte Cassino.[97]\n\n (_d_) Constantine\u2019s _De communibus medico cognitu necessariis locis_,\n written about the same time as the above.[98] This work is in\n four books, of which the second, third, and fourth are devoted\n to anatomy and physiology.\n\n (_e_) Here may be placed also Constantine\u2019s translation of the\n _Viaticum_ of Isaac Judeus. Both these latter works of\n Constantine are long and technical, and designed for the use of\n the trained physician.\n\nIn addition to these there was in the Middle Ages a definite anatomic\ntradition, which expressed itself constantly in:\n\n (_f_) A series of five anatomical diagrams representing respectively\n the arteries, veins, bones, nerves, and muscles[99] (see Plate\n XXXIII, opposite page 92 of the present volume). These diagrams\n were copied in the most servile fashion for centuries, and\n something very like them has remained in use to this day in\n Tibet.[100] The versions, whether in Persia or England, in\n Germany or Italy, were remarkably uniform.\n\n (_g_) In several MSS. there has been found attached to these\n remarkable diagrams a short text describing the five systems,\n arteries, veins, nerves, bones, and muscles. This text,\n however, purporting to be from Galen, has little relation to\n the figures, which it does not really explain, and it should\n therefore be regarded as a separate work.[101]\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 22 r\n\nPlate XIX. BIRTH. THE ARRIVAL AND TRIALS OF THE SOUL]\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 25 r\n\nPlate XX. DEATH. THE DEPARTURE AND FATE OF THE SOUL]\n\nOf these seven sources it appears to us that (_c_) and (_f_)--the short\n_De humana natura_ of Constantine, and the five-figure series--are\nthose on which Hildegard drew. The absence of Arabisms and the\nscarcity of technical anatomical terms in her writings, her failure to\ndistinguish between veins and arteries, the absence of anything of the\nnature of myology or osteology, together with the neglect of the spinal\nmarrow as an important organ, make it very unlikely that she consulted\nConstantine\u2019s longer works or the Salernitan authorities or the text of\nthe five-figure series. Her anatomical descriptions resemble those of\nConstantine\u2019s shorter work, on the other hand, in the description of\nthe three vesicles of the brain and their relations to the faculties\nof the mind, in the treatment of the five senses, in the view of\nthe influence of the planets on the child and the emphasis laid on\nepilepsy, as well as in the absence of any distinction between arteries\nand veins, and in the loose doctrines of the humours and of the causes\nof deformities and monstrosities. In some of these respects also her\naccount of the human body presents points of resemblance to the _De\nhominis membris ac partibus_ of Hugh of St. Victor,[102] with whom,\nhowever, her contact appears to be less close than with Constantine.\n\nWe may infer that Hildegard had consulted anatomical diagrams and was\naccustomed to this method of representing the organs from a passage\ndescriptive of the microcosm, in which she says that \u2018in the mouth of\nthe figure in whose body was the disk, I saw a light brighter than\nthe light of day, in the form of threads, some circular, some in\nother geometrical forms, and some shaped like human members belonging\nto the figure, which was clearly portrayed on the disk upright and\naccurately limned\u2019.[103] These \u2018circles and geometrical figures\u2019 fairly\ndescribe the highly diagrammatic manner in which the five-figure series\nrepresents the internal organs, and several points suggest that she\ndoes indeed refer to this series. Her description of the abdominal\nmuscles (_umbilicus_) \u2018covering the viscera like a cap\u2019, her general\ndescriptions of the vessels (_venae_) and the muscles, and especially\nher account of the vessels of the leg and of the intimate relations of\nthe main _venae_ to the organ of hearing, fits in perfectly with the\nform of these remarkable diagrams (Plate XVIII).\n\nWe here render some of the most important of her general anatomical\ndescriptions:\n\n \u2018The humours may pass to the liver, where wisdom is tested, having\n been already tempered in the brain by the strength of the spirit,\n and having absorbed its moisture so that now it is plump, strong,\n and healthy.\n\n \u2018In the right of man is the liver and its great heat, so that the\n right is swift to act and to work;[104] but towards the left are\n heart and lung, which fortify the body for its task and receive\n their heat from the liver as from a furnace. But the vessels of\n the liver, affected by the agitation of the humours, trouble the\n venules of the ear of man and sometimes confound the organ of\n hearing....\n\n \u2018I saw also that sometimes the humours seek the navel, which covers\n the viscera as a cap, and holds them in, lest they be dissipated,\n and maintains their course and preserves the heat both of them\n and of the veins.... But sometimes the humours seek the loins\n (_lumbos_),[105] which mock, deceive, and endanger the virile\n powers and which are held in place by nerves and other vessels; in\n which, nevertheless, reason nourishes so that man may know what to\n do and what to avoid....\n\n \u2018And the same humours go to the vessels of the reins and of other\n members, and pass in their turn to the vessels of the spleen, and\n then to the lungs and to the heart; and they meet the viscera\n on the left where they are warmed by the lungs, but the liver\n warms the right-hand side of the body. And the vessels of the\n brain, heart, lung, liver, and other parts carry strength to the\n reins, whose vessels descend to the legs, strengthening them; and\n returning along with the leg vessels, they unite with the virile\n organ or with the womb as the case may be.\n\n \u2018And as the stomach absorbs food, or as iron is sharpened on a\n stone, so do they bring the reproductive power to those parts.\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B, fo. 123 r\n\nPlate XXI. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS]\n\n \u2018Again, the muscles of the arms, legs, and thighs contain vessels\n full of humours; and just as the belly has within it viscera\n containing nourishment, so the muscles of arms, legs, and thighs\n have both vessels and the [contained] humours which preserve man\u2019s\n strength.... But when a man runs or walks quickly, the nerves about\n the knees and the venules in the knees become distended. And since\n they are united with the vessels of the legs, which are numerous\n and intercommunicate in a net-like manner, they conduct the fatigue\n to the vessels of the liver, and thus they reach the vessels of the\n brain, and so send the fatigue throughout the body. But the vessels\n from the reins pass rather to the left leg than to the right,\n because the right leg gets its strength more from the heat of the\n liver. And the vessels of the right leg ascend as far as the renal\n and kindred vessels, and these latter vessels unite with those of\n the kidney. And the liver warms the reins which lie in the fatness\n derived from the humours....\n\n \u2018The humours in man are distributed in just measure. But when they\n affect the veins of the liver, his humidity is decreased and also\n the humidity of the chest is attenuated; so that thus dried, he\n falls into disease of such a nature that the phlegm is dry and\n toxic and ascends to the brain. There it produces headache and pain\n in the eyes and wasting of the marrow, and thus if the moon is in\n default he may develop the falling evil [epilepsy].\n\n \u2018The humidity also which is in the umbilicus is dispersed by the\n same humours, and turned into dryness and hardness, so that the\n flesh becomes ulcerated and scabby as though he were leprous,\n if indeed he do not actually become so. And the vessels of his\n testicles, being adversely affected by these humours, similarly\n disturb the other vessels, so that the proper humidity is dried up\n within them; and thus, the humours being withdrawn, impetigos may\n arise ... and the marrow of the bones and the vessels of the flesh\n are dried up, and so the man becomes chronically ill, dragging out\n his days in languor.\n\n \u2018But sometimes the humours affect breast and liver ... so that\n various foolish thoughts arise ... and they ascend to the brain\n and infect it and again descend to the stomach and generate fevers\n there, so that the man is long sick. Yet again they vex the minor\n vessels of the ear with superfluity of phlegm; or with the same\n phlegm they infect the vessels of the lung, so that he coughs and\n can scarce breathe; and the phlegm may pass thence into the vessels\n of the heart and give him pain there, or the pain may pass into the\n side, exciting pleurisy; under such circumstances also, the moon\n being in defect, the man may lapse into the falling sickness.\u2019[106]\n #/\n\nSometimes Hildegard\u2019s anatomical ideas can be paralleled among her\ncontemporaries. Thus the following passage on the relationship of the\nplanets to the brain is well illustrated by a diagram of Herrade de\nLandsberg.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 9. From Herrade de Landsberg\u2019s _Hortus deliciarum_,\nafter Straub and Keller\u2019s reproduction.[107]]\n\n \u2018From the summit of the vessel of the brain to the extremity of the\n forehead seven equal spaces can be distinguished. Here the seven\n planets are designated, the uppermost planet in the highest part,\n the moon in front, the sun in the middle and the other planets\n distributed among the other spaces\u2019 (Fig. 9).\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 41 v\n\nPlate XXII. THE DAYS OF CREATION AND THE FALL OF MAN]\n\n\nIX. BIRTH AND DEATH AND THE NATURE OF THE SOUL\n\nThe method by which the soul enters the body is set forth in a very\nstriking vision in the _Scivias_ and is illustrated in the Wiesbaden\nCodex B by a no less remarkable miniature (Plate XIX). The soul, which\ncontains the element of wisdom, passes into the infant\u2019s body while\nyet within the mother\u2019s womb. The _Wisdom of God_ is represented\nas a four-square object, with its angles set to the four quarters\nof the earth, this form being the symbol of stability. From it a\nlong tube-like process descends into the mother\u2019s womb. Down this\nthere passes into the child a bright object, described variously as\n\u2018spherical\u2019 and as \u2018shapeless\u2019, which \u2018illumines the whole body\u2019 and\nbecomes or develops into the soul.\n\nThe birth scene is strikingly portrayed. In the foreground lies the\nmother with the head and shoulders supported and the right arm raised.\nIn her womb is the infant in the position known to obstetricians as a\n\u2018transverse presentation\u2019. Around the child may be distinguished clear\ntraces of the uterine membranes. Near the couch are ranged a group of\nten figures who carry vessels containing the various qualities of the\nchild. Above and to the left the Evil One may be seen pouring some\nnoxious substance into one of these vessels, or perhaps abstracting\nsome element of good. The whole scene suggests the familiar fairy tale\nin which, while all bring pleasant gifts to the child\u2019s birth, there\ncomes at last the old witch or the ill-used relative who adds a quota\nof spitefulness.\n\nThe scene is described and expounded as follows:\n\n \u2018Behold, I saw upon earth men carrying milk in earthen vessels\n and making cheeses therefrom. Some was of the thick kind from\n which firm cheese is made, some of the thinner sort from which\n more porous [_tenuis_] cheese is made, and some was mixed with\n corruption [_tabes_] and of the sort from which bitter cheese is\n made. And I saw the likeness of a woman having a complete human\n form within her womb. And then, by a secret disposition of the\n Most High Craftsman, a fiery sphere having none of the lineaments\n of a human body possessed the heart of the form, and reached the\n brain and transfused itself through all the members.... And I saw\n that many circling eddies possessed the sphere and brought it\n earthward, but with ever renewed force it returned upward and with\n wailing asked, \u201cI, wanderer that I am, where am I?\u201d \u201cIn death\u2019s\n shadow.\u201d \u201cAnd where go I?\u201d \u201cIn the way of sinners.\u201d \u201cAnd what is my\n hope?\u201d \u201cThat of all wanderers.\u201d\u2019[108] The vision is explained as\n follows: \u2018Those whom thou seest carrying milk in earthen vessels\n are in the world, men and women alike, having in their bodies the\n seed of mankind from which are procreated the various kinds of\n human beings. Part is thickened because the seed in its strength\n is well and truly concocted, and this produces forceful men to\n whom are allotted gifts both spiritual and carnal.... And some\n had cheeses less firmly curdled, for they in their feebleness\n have seed imperfectly tempered, and they raise offspring mostly\n stupid, feeble, and useless.... And some was mixed with corruption\n ... for the seed in that brew cannot be rightly raised, it is\n invalid and makes misshapen men who are bitter, distressed, and\n oppressed of heart, so that they may not lift their gaze to higher\n things....[109] And often in forgetfulness of God and by the\n mocking devil, a _mistio_ is made of the man and of the woman and\n the thing born therefrom is deformed, for parents who have sinned\n against me return to me crucified in their children.\u2019[110] (Compare\n Constantine _De humana natura_, sections \u2018De perfectione\u2019 and \u2018De\n impeditione\u2019.)\n\nHildegard thus supposes that the qualities and form of a child are\ninherited from its parents, but that two factors, the formless soul\nfrom the Almighty and the corrupt fluid instilled by the devil, also\ncontribute to the character of offspring. This is the usual mediaeval\nview and is broadly portrayed in the figure.\n\nThe strange conception of the body being formed from the seed, as\ncheese is precipitated and curdled from milk, is doubtless derived from\na passage in the Book of Job:\n\n \u2018Hast thou not poured me out as milk,\n And curdled me like cheese?\n Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh,\n And knit me together with bones and sinews\u2019 (Job x. 10, 11).[111]\n\nWhen the body has thus taken shape there enters into it the soul which,\nthough at first shapeless, gradually assumes the form of its host, the\nearthly tabernacle; and at death the soul departs through the mouth\nwith the last breath, as a fully developed naked human shape, to be\nreceived by devils or angels as the case may be (Plate XX).\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B. fo. 47 r\n\nPlate XXIII. THE VISION OF THE TRINITY]\n\nDuring its residence in the body the soul plays the part usually\nassigned to it in the earlier mediaeval psychology, before the ideas of\nNemesius and Ibn Ghazali had been elaborated and systematized by Albert\nand Aquinas. Hildegard regards the brain as having three chambers or\ndivisions, corresponding to the three parts of man\u2019s nature, an idea\nencountered in the writings of St. Augustine. Parallel to these there\nare, she tells us,\n\n \u2018three elements in man by which he shows life; to wit, soul\n (_anima_), body (_corpus_), and sense (_sensus_). The soul vivifies\n the body and inspires the senses; the body attracts the soul and\n reveals the senses; the senses affect the soul and allure the\n body. For the soul rules the body as a flame throws light into\n darkness, and it has two principal powers or limbs, the intellect\n (_intellectus_) and the will (_voluntas_); not indeed that the soul\n has limbs to move itself, but that it manifests itself thereby as\n the sun declares himself by his brightness.... For the intellect\n is attached to the soul as the arms to the body: for as the body\n is prolonged into arms with fingers and hands attached, so the\n intellect is produced from the soul by the operation of its various\n powers.\u2019[112]\n\nWe need follow Hildegard no further into her maze of micro-cosmology,\nin which an essential similarity and relationship is discovered\nbetween the qualities of the soul, the constitution of the external\ncosmos, and the structure of the body, a thought which appears as the\nculmination of her entire system and provides the clue to the otherwise\nincomprehensible whole.[113]\n\n\nX. THE VISIONS AND THEIR PATHOLOGICAL BASIS\n\nFor the physical accompaniments and phenomena of Hildegard\u2019s visions we\nhave three separate lines of evidence: her own account; the statements\nof her contemporary biographers, Theodoric and Godefrid; and the\nminiatures of the Wiesbaden Codex B, probably prepared under her\nsupervision.\n\nIt is clear that despite the length and activity of her life, Hildegard\ndid not enjoy normal health. From a very early age she was the subject\nof trances and visions, and from time to time she was prostrated with\nprotracted illness.\n\n \u2018God punished me for a time by laying me on a bed of sickness so\n that the blood was dried in my veins, the moisture in my flesh\n and the marrow in my bones, as though the spirit were about to\n depart from my body. In this affliction I lay thirty days while my\n body burned as with fever, and it was thought that this sickness\n was laid upon me for a punishment. And my spirit also was ailing,\n and yet was pinned to my flesh, so that while I did not die, yet\n did I not altogether live. And throughout those days I watched\n a procession of angels innumerable who fought with Michael and\n against the dragon and won the victory.... And one of them called\n out to me, \u201cEagle! Eagle![114] why sleepest thou?... All the eagles\n are watching thee.... Arise! for it is dawn, and eat and drink.\u201d\n And then the whole troop cried out with a mighty voice,... \u201cIs not\n the time for passing come? Arise, maiden, arise!\u201d Instantly my\n body and my senses came back into the world; and seeing this, my\n daughters who were weeping around me lifted me from the ground and\n placed me on my bed, and thus I began to get back my strength.\n\n \u2018But the affliction laid upon me did not fully cease; yet was my\n spirit daily strengthened.... I was yet weak of flesh, timid of\n mind, and fearful of pain ... but in my soul I said, \u201cLord! Lord!\n all that Thou puttest upon me I know to be good ... for have I not\n earned these things from my youth up?\u201d Yet was I assured He would\n not permit my soul to be thus tortured in the future life....[115]\n Thus was my body seethed as in a pot ... yet gave I thanks to God,\n for if this affliction had not been from Him I had surely not lived\n so long. But although I was thus tortured, yet did I, in supernal\n vision, often repeat, cry aloud, and write those things which the\n Holy Spirit willed to put before me.\n\n \u2018Three years were thus passed during which the Cherubim pursued me\n with a flaming sword ... and at length my spirit revived within me\n and my body was restored again as to its veins and marrows, and\n thus I was healed.\u2019[116]\n\nThis illness of Hildegard was the longest and the most typical, but\nby no means the only one through which she passed. She describes her\naffliction as continuing for long periods, but there can be little\ndoubt, from her history, that during much of the time she was able to\ncarry on some at least of her functions as head of a religious house.\n\n[Illustration: WIESB. COD. B. fo. 213 v\n\nSEDENS LUCIDUS]\n\n[Illustration: From WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 153 r\n\nPlate XXIV. ZELUS DEI]\n\nThe condition from which she was suffering was clearly a functional\nnervous disorder; this is sufficiently demonstrated by her repeated\ncomplete recoveries, her activity between the attacks, and the great\nage to which she lived. At first sight, the long procession of\nfigures and visions suggests that she might have been the victim of\na condition similar to that of which Jerome Cardan has left us so\ncomplete a personal record. But on reading the books of visions, the\nreader will easily convince himself that we are not here dealing with a\ndream-state. The visions are indeed essentially vivid. \u2018These visions\nwhich I saw\u2019, she repeatedly assures us, \u2018I beheld neither in sleep,\nnor in dream, nor in madness, nor with my carnal eyes, nor with the\nears of the flesh, nor in hidden places; but wakeful, alert, with the\neyes of the spirit and with the inward ears I perceived them in open\nview and according to the will of God. And how this was compassed is\nhard indeed for human flesh to search out.\u2019[117]\n\nNevertheless, though the visions exhibit great originality and creative\npower--the reader will often be reminded of William Blake--all or\nnearly all present certain characters in common. In all a prominent\nfeature is a point or a group of points of light, which shimmer and\nmove, usually in a wavelike manner, and are most often interpreted as\nstars or flaming eyes. In quite a number of cases one light, larger\nthan the rest, exhibits a series of concentric circular figures of\nwavering form; and often definite fortification figures are described,\nradiating in some cases from a coloured area. Often the lights gave\nthat impression of _working_, boiling or fermenting, described by so\nmany visionaries, from Ezekiel onwards.\n\nThis outline of the visions the saint herself variously interpreted.\nWe give examples from the more typical of these visions, in which\nthe medical reader or the sufferer from migraine will, we think,\neasily recognize the symptoms of scintillating scotoma. Some of the\nilluminations, here reproduced in their original colours, will confirm\nthis interpretation.\n\n \u2018I saw a great star most splendid and beautiful, and with it\n an exceeding multitude of falling sparks which with the star\n followed southward. And they examined Him upon His throne almost\n as something hostile, and turning from Him, they sought rather the\n north. And suddenly they were all annihilated, being turned into\n black coals ... and cast into the abyss that I could see them no\n more\u2019[118] (Plate XXI).\n\nThis vision, illustrated by the beautiful figure of stars falling into\nthe waves, is interpreted by her as signifying the _Fall of the Angels_.\n\nThe concentric circles appear in numerous visions, and notably in\nthat of the _Days of the Creation of the World and the Fall of Man_,\nillustrated by what is perhaps the most beautiful of all the miniatures\nof the Wiesbaden Codex B (lib. ii, vis. 1, Plate XXII). It is in this\nconcentric form that Hildegard most frequently pictures the Almighty,\nand the idea again appears in the eleventh miniature, here reproduced\nin its original colours, which she describes as \u2018a most shining light\nand within it the appearance of a human form of a sapphire colour which\nglittered with a gentle but sparkling glow\u2019 (lib. ii, vis. 2, Plate\nXXIII). Appearances of this type are recorded again and again.\n\nThe type with fortification figures is encountered in a whole series\nof visions, of which we reproduce the account and illumination of the\n_Zelus Dei_ (lib. iii, vis. 5, Plate XXIV, lower section).\n\n \u2018I looked and behold a head of marvellous form ... of the colour\n of flame and red as fire, and it had a terrible human face gazing\n northward in great wrath. From the neck downward I could see no\n further form, for the body was altogether concealed ... but the\n head itself I saw, like the bare form of a human head. Nor was it\n hairy like a man, nor indeed after the manner of a woman, but it\n was more like to a man than a woman, and very awful to look upon.\n\n \u2018It had three wings of marvellous length and breadth, white as a\n dazzling cloud. They were not raised erect but spread apart one\n from the other and the head rose slightly above them ... and at\n times they would beat terribly and again would be still. No word\n uttered the head, but remained altogether still, yet now and again\n beating with its extended wings.\u2019\n\nFrom the head extended a series of fortification lines, and this\npeculiar form of vision is reproduced on several occasions and\nvariously interpreted (Plate XXIV, upper section). It is united with\nsimilar visions in what we regard as a reconstructed conception of\nexceedingly complex structure. This she claims to see separately, and\nshe interprets it as the _aedificium_ of the city of God (Plate XXV).\nSuch reconstructed visions are clearly of a different type and origin\nto the simple group in which a shining light or group of lights is\nencountered and interpreted as a speaking figure.\n\n[Illustration: From THE WIESBADEN CODEX B fo. 30 r\n\nPlate XXV. THE HEAVENLY CITY]\n\nHildegard\u2019s visions, perhaps without exception, contain this element of\na blinding or glittering light, which she interprets in a more or less\nspiritual manner. We terminate our account with the passage in which\nshe sums up her experiences of it.\n\n \u2018From my infancy\u2019, she says, \u2018up to the present time, I being now\n more than seventy years of age, I have always seen this light in\n my spirit and not with external eyes, nor with any thoughts of my\n heart nor with help from the senses. But my outward eyes remain\n open and the other corporeal senses retain their activity. The\n light which I see is not located but yet is more brilliant than the\n sun, nor can I examine its height, length, or breadth, and I name\n it the \u201ccloud of the living light\u201d. And as sun, moon, and stars are\n reflected in water, so the writings, sayings, virtues, and works\n of men shine in it before me. And whatever I thus see in vision\n the memory thereof remains long with me. Likewise I see, hear, and\n understand almost in a moment and I set down what I thus learn....\n\n \u2018But sometimes I behold within this light another light which I\n name \u201cthe Living Light itself\u201d.... And when I look upon it every\n sadness and pain vanishes from my memory, so that I am again as a\n simple maid and not as an old woman....[119]\n\n \u2018And now that I am over seventy years old my spirit according\n to the will of God soars upward in vision to the highest heaven\n and to the farthest stretch of the air and spreads itself among\n different peoples to regions exceeding far from me here, and thence\n I can behold the changing clouds and the mutations of all created\n things; for all these I see not with the outward eye or ear, nor\n do I create them from the cogitations of my heart ... but within\n my spirit, my eyes being open, so that I have never suffered any\n terror when they left me.\u2019[120]\n\n NOTE.--The author\u2019s thanks are due to the Rev. H.\u00a0A. Wilson, Mr.\n C.\u00a0C.\u00a0J. Webb, and Mr. R.\u00a0R. Steele, who have read the proofs of this\n article and have made valuable suggestions; to Mr. J.\u00a0A. Herbert of\n the MS. Department of the British Museum, who drew his attention to\n the work of Herrade de Landsberg; and to Mr. M.\u00a0H. Spielmann, who\n brought to his notice the crucifix figured in Plate X. He owes a\n special debt of gratitude to the late Dom Louis Baillet of Oosterhoot\n for his courtesy and generosity in lending him reproductions of the\n illuminations of the Wiesbaden Codex. Baillet was a young scholar of\n great promise, whose early death is a severe loss to the knowledge of\n mediaeval science.\n\n The author has also to thank Professor Henrici of the Nassauische\n Landesbibliothek at Wiesbaden, Professor Wille and Professor Sillib\n of the Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek at Heidelberg, and Signor Boselli\n of the R. Bibliotica Governativa at Lucca, who have all given him\n exceptional facilities for the study of the treasures under their\n charge.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Signed photograph of John Wilfred Jenkinson]\n\nJOHN WILFRED JENKINSON\n\n\nJohn Wilfred Jenkinson was born in 1871, and came from Bradfield\nto Exeter College, Oxford, with a classical scholarship in 1890.\nAfter taking his degree in _Literae Humaniores_ he came, in 1894, to\nUniversity College, London, where he devoted himself with extraordinary\nand never-flagging energy to biological studies.\n\nWithout having had the usual preliminary scientific teaching, he\nbrought, on the other hand, a well-trained mind to bear on his new\nwork, and the rapidity and completeness with which he acquired his\nscientific equipment was one of the most striking and interesting\npoints in his career. Jenkinson very soon turned to original\ninvestigation, and from the first he showed a predilection for\nEmbryology.\n\nFor a short time he held a post at one of the great London hospitals,\nbut he soon returned to Oxford to join the teaching staff of the\nDepartment of Comparative Anatomy. He used the opportunity of\nUniversity vacations to work in the laboratory of the late Professor\nA.\u00a0A.\u00a0W. Hubrecht at Utrecht, where part of his first published\nresearch was written. During the fifteen years of life that remained\nto him, he established himself as the foremost English writer on\nEmbryology, devoting himself especially to its experimental aspect, a\nline of work in which he will rank as one of the pioneers.\n\nJenkinson became Doctor of Science in 1905, and in the same year he\nmarried Constance Stephenson. In 1906 he was appointed University\nLecturer in Embryology, and in 1909 he was elected to a Research\nFellowship at Exeter College.\n\nJenkinson\u2019s mind was not of the type that matures early, but one felt\nin him a power of solid intellect that gained in force from year to\nyear. The gap in the ranks of British Science caused by his death\nhas been generally recognized, but his loss seems greatest to those\npersonally acquainted with him, who know that he had by no means\nreached the zenith of his powers.\n\nJenkinson led a single-minded and unselfish life, wholly free from\nworldly and ignoble ambitions. Of simple and winning humour, happy in\nhis domestic life and absorbed in his studies, he represented the very\nbest type of scientific worker.\n\nHe was gifted with a powerful physique, and on the outbreak of war\nhe became an ardent member of the Oxford Volunteer Training Corps.\nHis qualities of calm courage and high sense of duty marked him out\nas a valuable officer. Although forty-three years of age, he took a\ncommission in the 12th Worcester Regiment in January, 1915, and was\npromoted Captain in the following April. On May 10 he left for the\nDardanelles, having been selected for service with the 2nd Royal\nFusiliers. He was killed in action on June 4, only ten days after his\narrival at the Gallipoli peninsula.\n\n\nBOOKS AND PAPERS BY J.\u00a0W. JENKINSON\n\n 1. \u2018A Re-investigation of the Early Stages of the Development of the\n Mouse.\u2019 _Quart. Jour. Micr. Science_, xliii. 1900.\n\n 2. \u2018Observations on the Histology and Physiology of the Placenta of\n the Mouse.\u2019 _Tijdschr. Nederland. Dierkund. Vereen._, vii (2).\n 1902.\n\n 3. \u2018Observations on the Maturation and Fertilization of the Egg of\n the Axolotl.\u2019 _Quart. Jour. Micr. Science_, xlviii. 1905.\n\n 4. \u2018Remarks on the Germinal Layers of Vertebrates and on the\n Significance of Germinal Layers in general.\u2019 _Mem. and Proc.\n Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc._, 1906.\n\n 5. \u2018Notes on the Histology and Physiology of the Placenta in\n Ungulata.\u2019 _Proc. Zool. Soc._ 1906.\n\n 6. \u2018On the Effects of certain Solutions upon the Development of the\n Frog\u2019s Egg.\u2019 _Arch. Ent.-Mech._, xxi. 1906.\n\n 7. \u2018On the Relation between the Symmetry of the Egg and the Symmetry\n of the Embryo in the Frog (_Rana temporaria_).\u2019 _Biometrika_, v.\n 1906.\n\n 8. _Experimental Embryology_. Oxford, 1909.\n\n 9. \u2018On the Relation between the Symmetry of the Egg, the Symmetry\n of Segmentation, and the Symmetry of the Embryo in the Frog.\u2019\n _Biometrika_, vii. 1909.\n\n 10. \u2018The Effects of Sodium Chloride on the Growth and Variability of\n the Tadpole of the Frog.\u2019 _Arch. Ent.-Mech._, xxx (2). 1910.\n\n 11. \u2018Vitalism.\u2019 _Hibbert Journal_. 1911.\n\n 12. \u2018On the Development of Isolated Pieces of the Gastrulae of the\n Sea-Urchin _Strongylocentrotus lividus_.\u2019 _Arch. Ent.-Mech._,\n xxxii. 1911.\n\n 13. \u2018On the Effect of certain Isotonic Solutions on the Development\n of the Frog.\u2019 _Arch. Ent.-Mech._, xxxii. 1911.\n\n 14. \u2018On the Origin of the Polar and Bilateral Structure of the Egg of\n the Sea-Urchin.\u2019 _Arch. Ent.-Mech._, xxxii. 1911.\n\n 15. \u2018The Development of the Ear-Bones in the Mouse.\u2019 _Jour. Anat. and\n Phys._, vi (3). 1911.\n\n 16. \u2018Growth, Variability, and Correlation in Young Trout.\u2019\n _Biometrika_, viii. 1912.\n\n 17. _Vertebrate Embryology_. Oxford, 1913.\n\n 18. \u2018The Effect of Centrifugal Force on the Structure and Development\n of the Egg of the Frog.\u2019 _Quart. Jour. Micr. Science._ 1914.\n\n 19. \u2018The Placenta of a Lemur.\u2019 _Quart. Jour. Micr. Science._ July\n 1915.\n\n 20. _Three Lectures on Experimental Embryology_. Oxford, 1917.\n\n\n\n\n VITALISM\n\n By J.\u00a0W. Jenkinson\n\n\nIn one of the oldest biological treatises in the world, the soul\nor life of an organism is defined in the most general way as an\nactivity of a natural organic living body--\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u0311\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u0311 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2--life being autonomous nutrition and\ngrowth and decay. The activity may, however, be latent or patent,\npassive or active, sleeping or waking, without losing its peculiar\ncharacters. It is substance (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), but substance as \u2018form\u2019 as opposed\nto the material substance of the body, and the living body is therefore\nalso a substance in a double sense.\n\nIt is not identical with the body; but as form, proportion (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2),\nactivity (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), essence (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03af \u1f20\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9), it is related\nto the body, mere matter (\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7), and potentiality (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2) in just\nthe same way as the seal is related to the wax; and the body is the\ninstrument whereby it effects its purposes; though subsequent in time,\nit is prior in thought to the body, as all activities are to the\nmaterials with which they operate.\n\nAt the same time neither it nor its parts are separable from the body,\nwith the exception, possibly, of mind (\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u0311\u03c2); it is indeed the actual\nor possible functioning of the body, like the seeing of the eye or\nthe cutting of the axe, and with the disappearance of the capacity of\nthis functioning the soul itself also perishes. Lastly, it is a cause\n(\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1) in a triple sense: first, as the source of motion;\nsecondly, as that for the sake of which the body exists; and thirdly,\nas its essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) or formal cause. The soul or life is of several\nkinds, which form together an ascending series each member of which is\nnecessarily involved in those above it.\n\nThe lowest is the nutritive soul (\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), found in all living\nthings, and the only soul possessed by plants. It is defined as motion\nin respect of nutrition, decay, and growth, processes which involve\nalteration (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) in the body; and its functions (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1) are to\nutilize food for the maintenance and reproduction of the form of the\nbody, and to control and limit growth.\n\nThe second is the perceptive soul (\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), the possession of\nwhich distinguishes animals from plants. This also is a kind of\nalteration (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2) and consists in being moved and affected.\nThe fundamental and indispensable perception is touch (\u1f01\u03c6\u03ae), for it is\nconcerned in the acquisition of the food. It is invariably present: the\nothers may or may not, some or all, coexist with it.\n\nThirdly, some animals are possessed of a capacity for locomotion, and\nthe performance of this function requires again a special kind of soul.\n\nLastly, there is the reasoning soul (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac) or mind (\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u0311\u03c2). This\nis found in man alone, unless there be other beings similar to him, or\neven nobler than he. Mind alone is eternal and separable from the body.\n\nThough the observation and experiment of modern science would doubtless\nfind much to alter in the details of these simple definitions, yet it\nmust be conceded that, by what is certainly a most fortunate guess if\nit is not the most wonderful insight, Aristotle has laid his finger\non the cardinal point of modern physiological doctrine. For, putting\naside for the moment the mental faculties, it is here laid down in\nthe clearest manner that not only the functions of growth and decay,\nnutrition, and reproduction, but also the capacity of responding to\nstimuli are to be ultimately resolved into some kind of movement of the\nparticles of which the body is composed. Life, in short, as we might\nsay with Virchow, is a mode of motion.\n\nThe biology of to-day distinguishes living from inanimate bodies by the\npossession and exercise of the three principal properties or functions\nof metabolism, irritability, and reproduction; and further, the body\nwhich performs these functions is not only composed of chemically\ncomplex substances--proteids--which are not found in things that are\nnot alive, but possesses a structure. In no case, even the simplest, is\nthe organism a mere homogeneous lump of protoplasm, but it has parts or\norgans, visibly different from one another, and obviously correlated\nwith the activities appropriated to each; and it is the preservation\nof that structure, in the individual and in the race, which is the end\ntowards which the collective performance of all these functions, or the\nlife of the organism, is apparently directed.\n\nSome of these peculiarities are shared by certain things that are\nnot commonly regarded as alive. Crystals have of course a definite\nstructure; they can divide, and when broken they can make good the\nmissing part, but they do not assimilate to the substance of their own\nbodies a food-material which is less complex than it, and they are not\nirritable.\n\nThe differences, indeed, between the living and the lifeless are so\nprofound, that it is not to be wondered at that there should have been\nin all ages natural philosophers who have held that living activities\nare phenomena _sui generis_, differing _toto caelo_ from the properties\nexhibited by lifeless bodies, and never by any conceivability to be\nexpressed in terms of these.\n\nThis doctrine is vitalism.\n\nIt exists in several varieties, but one at least is of very ancient\nlineage and can be traced back through mediaeval times to the\nbiological speculations of the Greeks.\n\nWhether Aristotle really held the vitalistic views which have since\nbeen attributed to him is a matter we shall have to discuss later on,\nbut it is certain that in the writings of Galen there is to be found\na theory of life which bears the stamp of Aristotelian influence, and\nwas destined to hand that influence on to future generations. Galen\nadmits the sensitive soul of Aristotle as the peculiarity of animals,\nand the rational soul for man, but substitutes for the nutritive soul\ncertain works of nature--attraction, repulsion, retention, alteration.\nAnd further, the rational soul is no longer immortal, but perishable,\nand is dependent on the body, where its seat is in the brain; it is\nmaterial or quasi-material, a \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, most efficient when dry.\n\nAfter a long interval this doctrine reappears in the sixteenth century\nin the writings of Vesalius, who tells us that the heart has a vital\nsoul, the liver a natural soul, while there is elaborated in the\nventricles of the brain an animal spirit or principal soul.\n\nMeanwhile, however, the conception of life as something material had\nbeen discarded by Paracelsus for the belief that the soul, or as he\ncalled it, the \u2018Archaeus\u2019, by which the chemical processes of the body\nare governed, is not a material but a spiritual force, a view restated\nby Stahl more than a hundred years afterwards. \u2018The events of the\nbody\u2019, says this author, \u2018may be rough-hewn by chemical and physical\nforces, but the soul will shape them to its own ends, and will do that\nby its instrument, motion.\u2019\n\nThis, of course, is vitalism, and vitalism in its extreme or\n\u2018animistic\u2019 form. The idea recurs later on in the biology of\nTreviranus. To be living is to have a soul, he tells us, and the\nconscious _Lebenskraft_ employs the forces of the material world to\nform the organism. \u2018Das Weitzenkorn hat allerdings Bewusstsein dessen,\nwas in ihm ist und aus ihm werden kann, und tr\u00e4umt wirklich davon.\u2019\nThough he adds quaintly enough, \u2018Sein Bewusstsein und seine Tr\u00e4ume\nm\u00f6gen dunkel genug sein\u2019. It is curious to observe the revival, at the\nbeginning of the twentieth century, of this mediaeval mysticism in the\nspeculative writings of so accomplished an experimentalist as Hans\nDriesch.\n\nDriesch is an embryologist who in his earlier days had enunciated an\ninvaluable analytical theory of development, a theory which suggests\nthat while the formation of the first or elementary organs that\nappear in the embryo or larva--such structures as the larval gut or\nsense-organ, or the germ-layers--depends upon the presence in the germ\nof certain specific organ-forming substances (and this is a fact which\nhas since been abundantly demonstrated by experiment), the origin of\nparts that appear later in development may be accounted for by the\naction of the first-formed structures upon one another, these actions\nbeing in the nature of physiological responses to stimuli; and for this\nalso some evidence has been produced. On this view differentiation is a\nmechanical process, set in motion by fertilization or some other cause,\nand, given a certain initial structure of the germ or ovum, given the\npresence in it of a certain number of parts or substances capable\nof acting upon one another with a fixed co-ordination or harmony of\nthe stimuli and the responses, given further a proper constitution\nof the external environment, then a definite result must follow, the\nproduction of an organism which is like the parents that gave it birth.\n\nBut in his later treatises this hypothesis has been repudiated, and, by\na remarkable _volte-face_, replaced by a dogma of a wholly different\nkind. For now it is urged that no merely material factors can possibly\naccount either for the harmony of development--the due co-ordination\nof mutually reacting parts; or for the secondary harmony of\ncomposition--the formation of complex organs by the union of tissues;\nor for the functional harmony seen in the activities of the adult.\n\nFor example, it is asserted that any fragment of an egg of a\nsea-urchin, if not too small (not less than 1/32 of the egg), can give\nrise to a whole and normal larva. We are told that the cells of the\nsegmented ovum may be disarranged to any extent by various means,\nsuch as raising the temperature, diluting the sea-water, removing the\ncalcium from the sea-water, or by shaking, without prejudice to the\nultimate normality of development. Each part of the ovum can therefore,\naccording to the needs of the case, give rise to any part of the\nresulting organism. \u2018Jeder Teil kann nach Bed\u00fcrfniss jedes.\u2019\n\nAnd thirdly, when the gastrula of a sea-urchin is transversely divided\ninto two, each half, it is stated, develops into a diminished whole\nlarva in which the gut becomes divided into the characteristic three\nregions, and all the other organs are formed in correct proportion.\n\nFor each of these acts of development in the whole uninjured larva an\nexplanation may conceivably be given in terms of formative stimuli\nexerted by the originally distinct parts of the egg and calling forth\nresponses in other parts. A mechanism may be thought of which, when\nset in motion, will achieve a certain end in accordance with its own\npre-established harmony; but a mechanism which can be subdivided _ad\nlibitum_, or almost _ad libitum_, and the parts of which will still\nachieve the same end, will still behave as wholes with their parts\nco-ordinated in the same ratio, temporally and spatially! Such a\nmechanism is inconceivable; for to ensure the uniform result, the\nrelative amounts and positions of the necessary substances must be\nimagined as identical in every possible fragment of the egg that\nis not too small. Something is therefore required to superintend,\nto co-ordinate the causes of development in the case not only of\nthe part but of the whole egg as well; and this something is not\nmaterial. A corroborative proof of the inadequacy of the purely\nmaterial explanation--the causal explanation in the ordinary sense\nof the phrase--may be derived from a consideration of certain other\nvital processes. The facts of acclimatization and immunity betray\nan extraordinary adaptability of the organism to a change in its\nenvironment; an organ will adapt itself structurally to an alteration,\nquantitative or qualitative, of function [Roux\u2019s \u2018Functional\nAdaptation\u2019]; lost parts can be regenerated; and then there is the\nphysiology of the nervous system.\n\nIn all these cases of \u2018regulation\u2019--and indeed in all other responses\nto stimuli--the same element, inexplicable in chemical and physical\nterms, exists and must exist in development. This entity is not a\nform of energy, but a vital constant, analogous to the constants\nor ultimate conceptions of mechanics and physics and chemistry and\ncrystallography, but not reducible to these, just as these cannot be\ntranslated into one another.\n\nDriesch describes it as a rudimentary feeling and willing, a\n\u2018psychoid\u2019, \u2018morphaesthetic\u2019 or perceptive of that form which is the\ndesired end towards which it controls and directs all the material\nelements of differentiation, like the grain of wheat of Treviranus,\ndreaming dimly of its destiny. It is thus a _vera causa_--an\nunconditional and invariable antecedent--a psychical factor which can\nintervene in the purely physical series of causes and effects, and for\nit he revives the Aristotelian term \u2018Entelechy\u2019.\n\nSuch is the \u2018vitalism\u2019 introduced by Hans Driesch, a teleological\ntheory clearly, but no mere metaphysical doctrine of final causes:\nrather a dynamic teleology which not only sees an end in every organic\nprocess, but postulates an immaterial entity to guide the merely\nmechanical forces towards the realization of that end.\n\nSuch a theory is open to very serious criticism from both the\nscientific and the philosophical side. But before we pass to that\ncriticism let us turn aside to examine some of the other aspects under\nwhich the Proteus of Vitalism presents himself.\n\nThus the modern physiologist Bunge, while owning that it would be a\nlack of intelligence to expect to make with our senses discoveries in\nliving nature of a different order to those revealed to us in inorganic\nnature, yet insists that we must transfer to the objects of our sensory\nperception, to the organs, to the tissue elements, and to every minute\ncell, something which we have acquired from our own consciousness,\nsomething, that is to say, which is not motion, and is not in space,\nbut is in time only.\n\nThe essence of vitalism, so Bunge would have it, lies in starting from\nwhat we know, the internal world, to explain what we do not know,\nthe external world. We can only remark that this position appears\nto rest upon an epistemological confusion, for Bunge has evidently\nfailed to distinguish between the idealism which teaches that the\nworld of nature, including our own bodies, only exists in so far as\nit is an object of knowledge, that reality is ultimately ideal, and\nthe \u2018animism\u2019 which, as we have seen, gives every object, at least\nevery living object, in nature a directive consciousness of its own.\nThe former does not lie immediately within the scope of the present\ninquiry; the latter we shall have occasion to discuss again.\n\nHow far the tenets of animism are to be attributed to Johannes M\u00fcller\nis not very clear. For while M\u00fcller maintained that an organism is due\nto an idea which regulates its structure, is the cause of its harmony,\nand is in action in the organism itself, exerting on it a formative\npower, yet he held that the process was unconscious. M\u00fcller indeed\ndistinguished explicitly between the vital and the mental or conscious\nprinciple, for in the operations of the former the manifestation of\ndesign is the result of necessity, not of choice. At the same time the\ntwo resemble one another in being homogeneous, in existing throughout\nthe mass of the organism which they animate, and in being divided\ntogether with the organism (as in regeneration) without suffering any\ndiminution or change of their powers.\n\nIn this conception of the unconscious idea there may possibly be some\nconfusion between the formal and the final cause, between the idea of\nthe end to be realized, present at the beginning in the mind of the\nartificer, and the end itself. The former is animism: the latter is\nsound enough as metaphysics, but is not science at all.\n\nThere is still another school of vitalists which, while not going so\nfar as to commit itself to a belief in a \u2018psychoid\u2019, yet proclaims\nin no uncertain voice the autonomy of the organism, and not content\nwith the assertion that at present we have not succeeded in reducing\nthe activities of the organism to chemical, physical, and mechanical\nprocesses, maintains the utter futility of such endeavour, and\npronounces over the hidden mysteries of life an eternal _Ignorabimus_.\n\nSome such view as this we must, I think, attribute to Dr. Haldane. \u2018In\nbiology\u2019, he says, \u2018the phenomena which are or ought to be observed\nfrom the very beginning are not physical and chemical phenomena as\nself-existent events, but these phenomena as expressions of the\nactivity of living organisms. It is the living organism, and not the\nphysical phenomenon, which is the reality for biology.\u2019 His belief in\norganic autonomy is based on the physiology of metabolism, secretion\nand absorption, the circulation of the blood, and the nervous system.\nThus in discussing the blood, after pointing to the constancy in its\nvolume and composition, he proceeds: \u2018Neither starvation nor ingestion\nof food and drink materially affect it: liquid injected into it is got\nrid of with remarkable rapidity; and any loss of blood by bleeding\nis soon replaced. This vital metabolism of the circulatory system is\ndoubtless due chiefly to the activity of its lining endothelium, which\nmost certainly does not play the mere mechanical part which has often\nbeen attributed to it. The other so-called \u201cmechanisms\u201d can likewise\nbe shown to have all the characteristics of the living body, inasmuch\nas they actively maintain their structure, just as the organism as a\nwhole does so. There is thus no warrant for calling them mechanisms,\nand thus ignoring what is one of their essential characteristics.\u2019 In\npassages such as these we seem to catch an echo of M\u00fcller\u2019s unconscious\nidea, and again we ask ourselves, Are we dealing with a final or a\nformal cause? Indeed, Dr. Haldane insists that his ground conception is\nteleological.\n\nThere is still one other vitalistic theory to which we must allude,\nalthough its interest is now merely historical. This is the belief in\na special vital material, unlike the material of which lifeless bodies\nare composed, and endowed with a special vital force, different from\nbut co-ordinate with the forces of mechanics and physics.\n\nIn his _Histoire G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Animaux_ Buffon, after referring to the\nobvious peculiarities of animals and vegetables--that their actions are\ndirected to an end, the conservation of a durable species--proceeds\nto elaborate a thesis in which it is held that they are composed\nof organic germs, and that germs of the same kind are distributed\nthroughout nature, lifeless as well as living. When an animal or plant\ndies, its body is dissolved into these germs, which are then scattered\nabroad; when it assimilates, it is by separating these ubiquitous\nparticles from the brute inorganic portion of the food. The former is\nutilized for its own growth, the latter it gets rid of by evacuation\nand excretion. Lifeless matter is therefore never converted into living\nmaterial.\n\nAnother advocate of the doctrine of a vital force, a property of the\ntissues of the body, and at perpetual war with those inorganic forms\nwhich tend to their destruction, was the physiologist Bichat, Such\na conception as this could not of course survive the rise of modern\nchemistry. Its death-knell was sounded when Lavoisier and Laplace\nshowed that the bodies of organisms were composed of the same elements\nas are found in inanimate nature, and it has long since passed into the\nlimbo of discredited speculations.\n\nApart from this, vitalistic theories would appear to be in the main of\ntwo kinds.\n\nFirst, there is the metaphysical vitalism which tells us we can never\nexplain the living in terms of the lifeless, insists on the permanent\nseparation of the sciences of biology on the one hand from chemistry\nand physics on the other, and preaches the autonomy of the organism\nwithout venturing to tell us in what that autonomy consists.\n\nSecondly, there is the psychological theory of animism which posits an\nautonomous psychical entity to preside over the chemical and mechanical\noperations of the body, whether already formed or in process of\ndevelopment, and to direct them towards its own ends, the conservation\nand reproduction of that body\u2019s specific form.\n\nA third party, halting between two opinions, suggests an unconscious\nidea, without, however, clearly explaining whether this is to be taken\nin a metaphysical or a psychological sense. Frankly opposed to vitalism\nin all its forms is the conception of the living body as a mechanism.\nThis has also an honourable ancestry behind it. How far the biology\nof Aristotle is to be looked upon as mechanistic we shall presently\nhave to inquire, but in Galen the soul is certainly material, or\nquasi-material, as we have already observed. It is, however, in the\nphysiology of Descartes that mechanism first appears unmistakably in\nits modern guise.\n\nFor Descartes the body is simply an earthly machine. The nerves are\ntubes up which--in sensation--the animal spirits flow to the brain only\nto be reflected (whence our term reflex action) down other tubes to the\nmuscles.\n\n\u2018All the functions of the body\u2019, he tells us, \u2018follow naturally from\nthe sole disposition of its organs, just in the same way that the\nmovements of a clock or other self-acting machine or automaton follow\nfrom the arrangement of its weights and wheels. So that there is no\nreason on account of its functions to conceive that there exists in\nthe body any soul, whether vegetative or sensitive, or any principle\nof movement other than the blood and its animal spirits agitated by\nthe heat of the fire which burns continually in the heart and does not\ndiffer in nature from any of the other fires which are met with in\ninanimate bodies.\u2019\n\nThe rational soul, the soul which thinks, that is, understands, wishes,\nimagines, remembers, and feels, is not material. Yet it always acts\nthrough the machine, though that machine can go on perfectly well\nwithout the soul. \u2018When the body has all its organs properly arranged\nfor a particular movement it has no need of the soul to carry them out.\nAll movements, even those which we call voluntary, depend principally\non the same disposition of the organs. One and the same cause renders\nthe dead body unfit to produce the movements and leads the soul to quit\nthe body.\u2019\n\nThe biology of Descartes appears to have been accepted by contemporary\nphysiologists like van Helmont and Borelli, and certainly commended\nitself to another philosopher of eminence, Leibnitz. Like Descartes,\nLeibnitz also affirms that the body is a machine or natural automaton;\nunlike Descartes, however, he refuses to believe that the mind directs\nthe machine in any way. Rather there is a complete series of psychical\nparallel to a complete series of physical events, and between the two a\npre-established harmony.\n\nAlthough the details of Cartesian physiology have long since been\nexploded, yet the mechanical principle which that philosophy enunciated\nso clearly has persisted and has indeed proved to be the rock on\nwhich modern physiological science has been built. For, when once the\nchemists had discovered animal and plant structure to be composed of\nelements found in lifeless bodies, and had proved that compounds found\nonly in the organism could yet be synthesized _in vitro_, there was\nno longer any reason why the properties of the compounds should be\nconsidered as of a different order to the properties of their component\nelements. A method applicable to one was applicable to the other, and\nas Claude Bernard has put it, mechanical, physical, and chemical forces\nare the only effective agents in the living body, and they are the only\nagencies of which the physiologist has to take account.\n\nThe substances of which the living body is made up are no doubt\nextremely complex, yet none the less--to quote a more recent writer,\nVerworn--\u2018physiology is in the last resort the chemistry of the\nproteids\u2019. This is the principle that has now for nearly a century\nguided and stimulated research into the functions of the organism:\nto this principle physiologists, too numerous to name, have not been\nashamed to subscribe: under its banner some of the proudest triumphs\nof the science have been won. Yet it is precisely this which modern or\nneo-vitalism has challenged and asks us to relinquish in favour of a\ntheory of psychoids or a pseudo-metaphysical view of life.\n\nThe vitalistic position may be assailed from two points, the scientific\nand the philosophical.\n\nIn the first place the vitalist asserts that mechanism is inadequate\nto explain the phenomena of metabolism, of transmission of nervous\nstimuli, or of development. It is upon the last of these that Driesch\nlays special stress.\n\nHe has urged, as we have seen, that although a mechanical explanation\nmight be given (such an explanation has indeed been put forward by\nhimself) of the specific differentiation of the organism by supposing\nthe first-formed elementary organs, developed out of the substances\ngiven in the initial structure of the germ, to act and react upon one\nanother in accordance with a certain harmony, provided for by the same\nstructure; yet a mechanism which can be subdivided _ad libitum_ or\nalmost _ad libitum_, and each part of which will still give rise to a\ncomplete organism, is not to be conceived. The answer to this objection\nhas, however, been supplied by the experiments of Driesch himself and\nof many others. For though it is true that each of the first two, four,\neight, or even in some cases each of the first sixteen cells into which\nthe fertilized ovum becomes segmented, can, when separated from its\nfellows, give rise to a complete organism, yet in all cases there comes\na time when the parts cease to be totipotent and produce not whole but\npartial structures.\n\nThis invariable restriction of potentialities, which occurs earlier\nin some cases than in others, and is not due to mere deficiency of\nsubstance, is not hard to account for.\n\nThose substances on the presence of which in the ovum, as experiment\nhas taught us, the formation of the elementary organs of the embryo or\nlarva depends, are arranged in different cases in different ways: and\nthey certainly may be, and very frequently are, so distributed that\nwhile each of the first four cells contains a like quantity of each of\nthese specific substances, arranged in it exactly as they were in the\nwhole ovum, the next division will sunder these materials in such a way\nthat of the resulting eight blastomeres four will have more of one of\nthe primary egg-substances, less of another; the amounts apportioned\nto the other four being in just the inverse ratio of this: and the\nresult will be a difference in the fate of the cells when they are\nisolated from one another. In those of the one group the proportions of\nthe organs developed out of these substances will not be the same as\nthey are in the other. This is precisely the result which experiment\nhas revealed; it is exactly this result which Driesch has ignored, or\nrather attempted to explain away.\n\nIt is evident, then, that to some extent the parts of this mechanism\nare interchangeable, that it can be subdivided, and that each part,\nbrought now under new conditions, will still possess the potentialities\nof the whole, just as such a mechanism as a rocket, out of which, under\nthe appropriate stimulus, a certain pattern of stars is developed,\nmight be subdivided into two or more rockets of half size or less.\nThere is, however, a limit to this interchangeability, while if the\nsubdivision be carried beyond a certain point the totipotence of the\nparts is lost.\n\nIf the number of these organ-forming substances given in the germ were\nvery large, as large, let us suppose, as the total number of separately\ninheritable characters, it might indeed be difficult to imagine a\nmechanism divisible into even two totipotent parts. But from the need\nfor this assumption we are saved by the second part of Driesch\u2019s own\n_Analytische Theorie_, which accounts for subsequent processes of\ndifferentiation by attributing the production of new parts to the\nmutual interactions of those that are the first to appear. For this\nalso experimental evidence, though meagre, is not lacking, while a\nclose parallel is found in the dependence of certain bodily functions\nupon substances--the hormones of Professor Starling--secreted by other\norgans.\n\nIn the second place the vitalist maintains that the processes of\nmetabolism defy, nay more, always will defy, chemical and physical\nanalysis. The first part of this statement may be a true description\nof the knowledge of to-day, but the existence in the living body of\nthe same elements as are met with elsewhere, the synthesis of complex\norganic substances, the establishment of the equivalence of the energy\nwhich leaves the body as mechanical work or heat to that which enters\nit in chemical form in the food, should surely make us hesitate before\nabandoning all hope of attaining to a chemistry of life.\n\nAnd thirdly, there are physiologists who believe that the complex\nphenomena presented to us in the activities of the nervous system are\nsusceptible of a purely mechanical explanation.\n\n\u2018A feature\u2019, says Gotch, \u2018which more particularly suggests spontaneous\ncellular activity is the well-known fact that centrifugal discharges\nmay continue after the obvious centripetal ones have ceased. This is\npre-eminently the case when the central mass is rendered extremely\nunstable by certain chemical compounds, such as strychnine, &c. There\nare, however, suggestive indications in connexion with such persistent\ndischarges. The more completely all the centripetal paths are blocked\nby severance and other means, the less perceptible is such persistent\ndischarge, and since nervous impulses are continually streaming into\nthe central mass from all parts, even from those in apparent repose,\nit would seem that could we completely isolate nerve-cells, their\ndischarge would probably altogether cease.\u2019 Even in the hyper-excitable\ncondition produced by strychnine the spinal motor nerve cells do not\ndischarge centrifugal impulses when cut off from the centripetal\nconnexions. The physiologist, therefore, has \u2018definite grounds for\nbelieving that, as far as present knowledge goes, both the production\nand cessation of central nervous discharges are the expression of\npropagated changes and that these changes reveal themselves as\nphysico-chemical alterations of an electrolytic character. The nervous\nprocess, which rightly seems to us so recondite, does not, in the light\nof this conception, owe its physiological mystery to a new form of\nenergy, but to the circumstance that a mode of energy displayed in the\nnon-living world occurs in colloidal electrolytic structures of great\nchemical complexity.\u2019\n\nTo all these considerations we must add the fact that life did once\noriginate upon this planet from matter which was not alive, and that\neven now some inorganic phenomena present at least remote analogies\nwith certain vital processes. Such are the structure, the spontaneous\ndivision, and the regeneration of crystals.\n\nWe turn now to the philosophical objections that may be raised to\nvitalistic speculations; and here we must be careful to distinguish\nwhat we may term the psychological from the metaphysical form of the\ntheory.\n\nDriesch has maintained that the belief in a morphaesthetic psychoid\nfinds support in the philosophies of Kant and Aristotle. Let us examine\nthe merits of this claim.\n\nLike the scientists of to-day, Kant, in his _Critique of the\nTeleological Judgement_, lays it down as a rule that the mechanical\nmethod, by which natural phenomena are brought under general laws of\ncausation and so explained, should in all cases be pushed as far as\nit will go, for this is a principle of the determinant judgement.\nThere are cases, however, in which this alone does not suffice. The\npossibility of the growth and nutrition, above all of the reproduction\nand regeneration of organisms, is only fully intelligible through\nanother quite distinct kind of causality, their purposiveness.\nOrganisms are not mere machines, for these have simply moving power.\nOrganisms possess in themselves formative power of a self-propagating\nkind, which they communicate to their materials. They are, in fact,\nnatural purposes, both cause and effect of themselves, in which the\nparts so combine that they are reciprocally both end and means,\nexisting not only by means of one another but for the sake of one\nanother and the whole. The whole is thus an end which determines the\nprocess, a final cause which brings together the required matter,\nmodifies it, forms it, and puts it in its appropriate place. Such\npurposiveness is internal, for the organism is at once its own cause\nand an end to itself, not merely a means to other ends, like a machine\nwhose purposiveness is relative and whose cause is external.\n\nSuch is the principle of the teleological judgement. It is a heuristic\nprinciple rightly brought to bear, at least problematically, upon the\ninvestigation of organic nature, by a distant analogy with our own\ncausality according to purposes generally, and indispensable to us, as\nanatomists, as a guiding thread if we wish to learn how to cognize the\nconstitution of organisms without aspiring to an investigation into\ntheir first origin.\n\nCould our cognitive faculties rest content with this maxim of the\nreflective judgement it would be impossible for them to conceive of the\nproduction of these things in any other fashion than by attributing\nthem to a cause working by design, to a Being which would be productive\nin a way analogous to the causality of intelligence. Natural science,\nhowever, needs not merely reflective but determinant principles\nwhich alone can inform us of the possibility of finding the ultimate\nexplanation of the world of organisms in a causal combination for\nwhich an understanding is not explicitly assumed, since the principle\nof purposes does not make the mode of origination of organic beings\nany more comprehensible. And then, in a passage remarkable for its\nprophetic insight, Kant proceeds to show how this might be. This\n\u2018analogy of forms\u2019, he says, \u2018which with all their difference seem to\nhave been produced according to a common original type, strengthens our\nsuspicion of an actual relationship between them in their production\nfrom a common parent, through the gradual approximation of one genus to\nanother--from those in which the principle of purposes seems to be best\nauthenticated, that is from man down to the polype, and again from this\ndown to mosses and lichens, and finally to the lowest stage of nature\nnoticeable by us, namely, crude matter\u2019. And so the whole technic of\nnature, which is so incomprehensible to us in organized beings that\nwe believe ourselves compelled to think a different principle for it,\nseems to be derived from matter and its powers according to mechanical\nlaws like those by which it operates in the formation of crystals. A\npurposiveness must, however, be attributed even to the crude matter,\notherwise it would not be possible to think the purposive form of\nanimals and plants.\n\nAlthough there are doubtless in the _Critique_ many obscurities and\ninconsistencies, to which we cannot allude now, the general meaning\nof Kant\u2019s reflections upon organisms is perfectly clear. He who would\n\u2018complete the perfect round\u2019 of his knowledge must think not only\nin beginnings but in ends. The end in the case of a living being is\napparently plain--it is the maintenance and reproduction of its form;\nthe end in the case of the cosmic process is to be sought in the\nethical, or, in Kantian phraseology, the \u2018practical\u2019 concept of the\nfreedom of the moral consciousness of man.\n\nSuch a position is quite intelligible, philosophically, but the\ntestimony it brings to the theory of the psychoid is of very doubtful\nvalue, as Driesch is well aware. He complains indeed that Kant\u2019s\nteleology is descriptive or \u2018static\u2019, rather than \u2018dynamic\u2019, as is\nperfectly true, except in the case of man, a point of which Driesch\nnaturally makes the most. There are, no doubt, passages where Kant\nspeaks of \u2018a cause which brings together the required matter, modifies\nit, forms it and puts it in its appropriate place\u2019; but against these\nmust be set the explicit statement \u2018that if the body has an alien\nprinciple (the soul) in communion with it, the body must either be\nthe instrument of the soul--which does not make the soul a whit more\ncomprehensible--or be made by the soul, in which case it would not be\ncorporeal at all.\u2019 Vitalism can glean small comfort from this. Let us\nturn, then, to the second authority.\n\nAs we have seen already, the souls or functions of nutrition and\nperception are, in the Aristotelian biology, ultimately to be expressed\nas alterations or movements of the particles of the body; mind alone is\nseparable from body and eternal.\n\nIn the development of the individual organism the mind comes in from\noutside, but the two souls of lower order are present in the \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1, or\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, as Aristotle calls it, which results from the commingling of the\nmale and female elements, or, as we should say, the fertilized ovum.\nThe material and efficient causes of development are not, however, both\ncontributed by each of the parents. \u0311\u0311 The teaching of Aristotle is\nthat the matter is provided by the female and the female alone. The\negg (or catamenia in mammals) is described as being mere matter (\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7),\nbody (\u03c3\u03c9\u0311\u03bc\u03b1), potentiality (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2), passive (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) and merely\nquantitative, although it is true that a sort of soul, the nutritive,\nis somewhat grudgingly conceded to it, since unfertilized eggs appear\nin some sense to be alive. The male element, on the other hand,\nprovides the principle of motion (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b7\u0311\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) and the form\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2); it is qualitative, it is activity, it produces the perceptive\nsoul, if it is not itself that soul, and it is responsible for the\n\u2018correct proportionality\u2019 (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) of the organization. The male element\ncontributes only motion, but no matter; it acts upon the female element\nas rennet acts when it coagulates milk, except that the analogy is\nincomplete, since the \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae brings about a qualitative and not merely\na quantitative change in the material on which it operates. To this\nit imparts the same kind of motion which itself possesses, the motion\nwhich was present in the particles of the food in its final form from\nwhich it was itself derived. The communication of this motion is enough\nto set going the machinery (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd); the rest then follows of itself\nin proper order.\n\nLastly, the sperm of the male acts like a cunning workman who makes a\nwork of art, using heat and cold as the workman uses his tools: for\nthis heat and this cold could never of themselves--by coagulations and\ncondensations--produce the form of the body as the older naturalists\nhad supposed, regarding only the efficient and ignoring the formal and\nthe final cause: for the organic body is not what it is because it is\nproduced in such and such a fashion, rather it is because it is to be\nsuch and such that it must be developed as it is.\n\nAnd here lies the kernel of the whole matter. For while Aristotle has\nmade it perfectly plain that, according to his idea, the soul, at\nleast its nutritive and perceptive faculties, is to be regarded as a\nfunction of matter and that this function may be ultimately expressed\nin terms of movement, and further that development is a mechanism\nwhich is set going by the communication of motion proceeding from the\n\u2018soul\u2019 of the male element and derivable eventually from the motions\ninto which the \u2018functions\u2019 or \u2018soul\u2019 of the parent can be resolved to\nthe mere matter which the female provides, it is equally evident that\nhe does not regard this mechanical explanation--in terms of material\nand efficient causes--as satisfactory or complete. But when we inquire\nwhy, he gives us no certain nor consistent answer. On the one hand,\nthere are passages in which he tells us that there must be something\nwhich controls the material forces and imposes on them a limit and\nproportionality of growth; that the soul makes use of them as the\nartist makes use of his implements, and such passages are naturally\ninterpreted by Driesch in the sense of a \u2018dynamic\u2019 teleology; it is the\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae which superintends and controls, and the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is \u2018entelechy\u2019.\n\nElsewhere, however, we are informed that even the proportionality of\nthe developing parts is simply the outcome of the motion imparted by\nthe male, which is _actu_ what the female element only is _potentia_.\n\nMoreover, it may be questioned whether Aristotle ever intended to\nimply more than an \u2018analogy with the causality of purpose\u2019 when he\nuses the figure of the workman and his implements to illustrate his\nmeaning of the formal cause. The formal cause of a work of art is an\nintelligible _vera causa_; it is the idea in the mind of the artist\nantecedent to the execution of the work; but the formal or final cause\nof an organism, the end which it apparently strives to attain, can\nonly be said by a metaphor to be prior in time to the existence of the\norganism itself. Prior in thought, however, it certainly is, for it\nis only the performance of its functions (\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) by the organism\ncomplete in all its parts that makes the mere mechanism of development\ncomprehensible to us; the process, therefore, exists for the sake of\nthe end. Only as efficient cause is the soul prior in time; only so far\nas it is prior in thought can it be said to be a final cause.\n\nSuch a teleology is, it is obvious, indistinguishable in principle from\nthe position in which Kant leaves us. It is the position adopted by\nDriesch himself in his earlier _Analytische Theorie_, but abandoned in\nthe _Vitalismus_ in favour of a theory of \u2018psychoids\u2019.\n\nNow quite apart from the meaning which Aristotle may or may not have\nintended to convey, there are grave objections to this belief. This\n\u2018psychoid\u2019, to which the name \u2018entelechy\u2019 is surely misapplied, this\nrudimentary feeling and willing, which is aware of the form it desires\nto produce, must be psychically at least as complex as the phenomena it\nis designed to account for, and stands, therefore, as much in need of\nexplanation as they; as Kant has observed, this will involve us at once\nin an infinite series of such entities. In fact it is only a photograph\nof the problem, and not a solution at all.\n\nAgain, when we ask what the _modus operandi_ of this cause is, we\nget no reply either from Driesch or from any other neovitalist. The\nobjection that the intervention of a psychical cause in a physical\nprocess is unintelligible, an objection which would probably appeal\nto many, may be waived, for in the last resort the connexion between\nany--even simple mechanical--causes and effects is equally hard to\nunderstand.\n\nIt may, however, be doubted whether these entities are not being\nmultiplied beyond necessity, and whether the progress of science would\nnot be better served by an adherence to a simpler philosophy. But even\nwhen it has discarded the psychoid we find vitalism still denying the\npossibility of mechanical explanation, still preaching the autonomy of\nthe organism. The \u2018dynamic\u2019 teleology of Driesch has only disappeared\nto be replaced by the metaphysical doctrine of the final cause.\n\nWe may point out, perhaps, in passing, that the organism is by no means\nas autonomous as might be desired. The end towards which the creature\nstrives, the maintenance and reproduction of its own specific form,\nis not a constant _terminus ad quem_, for species are as mortal as\nindividuals: nor is it always achieved; the autonomy of a worm, which,\nbisected in a certain way, regenerates a tail instead of a head, or of\na frog, which, after a particular injury, develops six legs instead\nof two, has surely renounced its rights. But, setting this aside, it\nmust be seriously questioned whether any good purpose is served in\nbiological discussion by decrying the value of mechanical conceptions\nor by confounding two distinct orders of thought. The questions are\ngrave ones: for the issue at stake is no less than the existence of\nphysiology as the science of the causes of living activities.\n\n\u2018Recte ponitur\u2019, said Francis Bacon, \u2018vere scire esse per causas\nscire.\u2019 The maxim of the great founder of modern inductive science has\nbeen the lode-star of biology in the past, and is still its watchword\nto-day. By exact observation and crucial experiment, utilizing every\ncanon of induction, the activities of the living organism are to\nbe brought under wide general laws of causation, which will be, in\nthe first instance, physiological laws--of response to stimuli, of\nmetabolism, and of growth: by means of these laws predictions can be\nmade, and verified as often as we please. But no bar can legitimately\nbe set to the scope of human inquiry; the thought process will not\nrest here, and ultimately it may be possible to state the widest\ngeneralizations of biology in chemical and physical, and these again in\npurely mechanical terms. The maintenance and evolution of form in the\nindividual, as well as the larger evolution of form in the race, become\nbut the final terms in a far vaster cosmic process, from \u2018homogeneity\nto heterogeneity\u2019.\n\nThe idea is, of course, perfectly familiar: it is the analysis of\npurely physical causes, carried to its extreme limit. Phenomena are\nthought out in terms not of origins merely, but of one origin, and that\none origin is the only mystery that remains. This unification of the\nsciences has always been and must still remain the dream and the faith\nand the inspiration of the scientific man, and could such an edifice\nof the intellect ever be realized, the task of science would have been\ncompleted. Only when this purely deterministic method has been pushed\nas far as it will go does science leave off; only where science leaves\noff does philosophy begin.\n\nThere is an order of time, and there is an order of thought. Science\nworks in the order of time, and necessarily so: for although science\ncan never say what constitutes the invariable link between antecedent\nand consequent which it terms causal, yet it rightly speaks of the\nfirst as cause, determining the second as effect, since it is its\nfunction to predict from the past which is known to the future which is\nnot.\n\nBut the outlook of philosophy is different. Dissatisfied with the\nendless regress of cause and effect, sceptical of first causes and\noriginal homogeneities, out of which by no conceivability could any\nheterogeneity have ever been developed, philosophy looks to the end.\n\nThe activities of living organisms at least appear to be directed to\nan end; they are apparently purposive, and it is this purposiveness\nwhich lends to biology, though built on the fundamental conceptions of\nchemistry and physics, peculiar features of its own, and is, of course,\nanswerable for the teleological language which biologists so frequently\nemploy. And by a knowledge of the end, the view of science, to which\n_qua_ science it cannot too rigidly confine itself, will doubtless be\nsupplemented and enlarged.\n\nBut, plain and definite though the end of an individual life may be,\nthe end of the race--of the human or any other race--the end of the\nuniverse, are things only to be guessed at, and all we are left with is\nan indefinite series of evolving systems emerging out of an infinite\npast and fading into an infinite future.\n\nIn the final issue, indeed, the last effect is as delusive an _ignis\nfatuus_ as the first cause. The philosophy which has rejected one must\ndivest itself of the other, and seek its end, if anywhere, in the\nlogical _prius_ of the mind, which, though last in time, is yet first\nin thought, since through it alone can that ordered knowledge of nature\nwhich we call science be born and brought to perfection.\n\n[Illustration: From the Italian translation of \u2018KETHAM\u2019, VENICE 1493\n\nPlate XXVII. MUNDINUS(?) LECTURING ON ANATOMY]\n\n[Illustration: BIBLIOTH\u00c8QUE NATIONALE MS. fr. 2030 Written in 1314\n\nTO ILLUSTRATE THE ANATOMY OF HENRI DE MONDEVILLE]\n\n[Illustration: BODLEIAN MS. ASHMOLE 399 fo. 34 r\n\nPlate XXVIII. A DISSECTION SCENE _circa_ 1298]\n\n\n\n\n A STUDY IN EARLY RENAISSANCE ANATOMY,\n\n WITH A NEW TEXT:\n\n THE ANOTHOMIA OF HIERONYMO MANFREDI (1490)\n\n By Charles Singer\n\n TEXT TRANSCRIBED AND TRANSLATED BY A. MILDRED WESTLAND\n\n\n I. Anatomy in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries 79\n\n II. Bolognese Works on Anatomy 92\n\n III. Hieronymo Manfredi, Professor at Bologna, 1463-93 97\n\n IV. The Manuscript _Anatomy_ of Manfredi 103\n\n V. Translation of Selected Passages from the _Anothomia_,\n with Commentary 106\n (a) The Brain, Cranial Nerves, &c. 106\n (b) The Eye 118\n (c) The Heart 122\n Italian Text of the _Anothomia_ 130\n\n\nI. ANATOMY IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES\n\nThere was little or no progress in the knowledge of anatomy between\nthe death of Mondino in 1327 and the sixteenth century. This appears\nthe more remarkable when we recall how widespread was the practice\nof dissection during the period. In France, at the University of\nMontpellier, public dissections were decreed in the year 1377,[121]\nand Catalonian Lerida followed suit in 1391.[122] At Bologna, where\ndissection had long been customary, it received official recognition\nin the University Statutes in 1405,[123] and the same event took place\nat Padua in 1429. Public anatomies were instituted at the University\nof Prague in 1460, of Paris in 1478, and of T\u00fcbingen in 1485.[124]\nFor these \u2018Anatomies\u2019 the bodies of executed criminals were usually\nemployed, and therefore the number of subjects available varied\ngreatly in different localities.[125] In addition to these regular\ndissections, there was certainly a considerable amount of post-mortem\nexamination, surreptitious (Plate XXVIII_b_[126]), or even open (Plate\nXXIX[127]), long before Benivieni published his memorable list of\ncases.[128]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 1. From the French translation of Bartholomaeus\nAnglicus, Lyons, 1482. The first printed picture of dissection.]\n\n[Illustration: MS. fr. 184 fo. 14 r\n\nPlate XXIX. A POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION. Late XIVth Century]\n\n[Illustration: VATICAN MS. HISPANICE 4804 fo. 8 r\n\nPlate XXX a. A DEMONSTRATION OF SURFACE MARKINGS]\n\n[Illustration: BRISTOL REFERENCE LIBRARY MS. fo. 25 r\n\nPlate XXX b. A DEMONSTRATION OF THE BONES TO ILLUSTRATE GUY DE CHAULIAC]\n\nThat so much industry was rewarded by so small an increase in knowledge\nmay probably be attributed to the method adopted. The so-called\n\u2018anatomies\u2019 were conducted in the most formal manner. Bertuccio, for\nexample, who succeeded Mondino as professor of Surgery at Bologna, was\naccustomed, as we learn from his pupil Guy de Chauliac, to give short\nsystematic anatomical demonstrations on a fixed and rigid method.[129]\nThe occupant of the chair at this period was indeed no professor in the\nmodern sense of the word. To expound the tradition of anatomy as it\nhad reached him was regarded as the limit of his duty. Of any attempt\nto extend the bounds of knowledge, of any systematic endeavour to\ncorrect or improve the anatomical views of his predecessors, we find\nlittle or no trace. Indeed, at Padua it was expressly laid down in the\nstatutes that the exposition of anatomy should follow the very words of\nMondino.[130]\n\nEarly figures portraying the teaching of anatomy (Plate XXVII and\nFigs. 1-3, 5) usually show us a medical doctor sitting at a desk, well\nremoved from the subject of dissection, and reading from his text-book\nthe description of the part. Meanwhile an assistant, who is usually\nalso a doctor, performs the actual work of dissection. The professor\nof Surgery, to whom the teaching of anatomy was entrusted, stands by\nwith a pointer to indicate the different organs.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 2. Title-page of Mellerstadt\u2019s edition of the\n_Anatomy_ of Mondino, Leipzig, 1493. The scene is laid in the open\nair.[131]]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 3. A DISSECTION SCENE\n\nFrom the Venice 1495 edition of \u2018Ketham\u2019 (compare Plate XXVII).]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 4. From the English translation of Bartholomaeus\nAnglicus, printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 1495. The first picture of\ndissection in an English-printed book.]\n\n[Illustration: VENETIIS ANNO .D.\u00a0M.CCCCC.XXXV.\n\nFig. 5. A LECTURE ON ANATOMY\n\nFrom the 1535 Venice edition of Berengar of Carpi\u2019s Commentary on\nMondino.]\n\nSometimes the professor changes places with the reader at the desk. In\nsome later MSS. the teacher is figured as himself handling the body\nand demonstrating to his pupil (Plate XXX _a_[132] and _b_[133]), but\nthere is evidence that the miniatures portraying this are the work of\nartists unfamiliar with dissection and with the teaching of anatomy.\n\nThe study of anatomy had to contend with two great difficulties, want\nof subjects for dissection, and faith in the written word.\n\nThus, at Bologna, where it was arranged that every medical student of\nover two years\u2019 standing should attend an _Anatomy_ once a year, no\nless than twenty students were admitted to see the anatomy of each\nman, and thirty to the anatomy of each woman.[134] This was all the\npractical instruction received. Some other Universities had to be\ncontent with the cadaver of a single criminal per annum for the whole\nbody of students.\n\nIn the _first_ period during which the human body was dissected in\nEurope, the thirteenth century, a certain amount of progress was\ncertainly made, despite the rarity of subjects. The rebirth of learning\nin the thirteenth century was not, however, as favourable to anatomical\nprogress as might have been hoped. Galen, indeed, ceased to be a mere\nname, and the Latin translations of his text, or of its adumbra in\nthe writings of the Arabians, became ever more familiar. On the other\nhand, with more authoritative texts in their hands, men were but the\nmore inclined to follow the evil scholastic way, and to trust rather\nto the written words of the master than to the evidence of their own\nsenses. Thus it came about that the _second_ period, which covers the\nfourteenth and most of the fifteenth century, was really stationary\nso far as the first-hand knowledge of anatomy was concerned. With\nthe last decade of the fifteenth century, however, there opens a new\nand _third_ period in the history of our subject. From that time\ndates the true era of anatomical renaissance, which may be regarded as\ncontinuing until the commencement of modern anatomy with the great work\nof Vesalius in 1543.\n\n[Illustration: Plate XXXI. From the MS. of GUY DE VIGEVANO of 1345 at\nCHANTILLY]\n\n[Illustration: Plate XXXII. From the MS. of GUY DE VIGEVANO of 1345 at\nCHANTILLY]\n\nWe have said that throughout the second period, the formal\ndemonstrations based on the declaimed text of Galen or Avicenna or\nMondino were practically the sole opportunities afforded to either\nteacher or pupil for the investigation of the minuter details of the\nhuman frame. But in making this statement concerning the arrest of\nanatomical progress, we must expressly exclude the products of the\nmighty genius of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), whose anatomical\nresearches were without influence, and remained long unnoticed.[135]\nWe must also omit evidence gathered from the work of such early\nRenaissance painters as Antonio Pollaiuolo (1429-98) or Andrea del\nVerrocchio (1435-88), for these pursued the study of anatomy in a\nspecial field and with a special object.[136] Furthermore, there\nare a number of artists of similar date of whose anatomical studies\nwe have no direct evidence, but who yet outlined the muscles of\nthe nude human figure in such a way as leads us to suppose that\nthey had investigated the superficial structures at least of flayed\nparts. Such is the suggestion of some of the work of Luca Signorelli\n(_c._\u20091442\u2013_c._\u20091524), and of Andrea Mantegna (died 1506). With\nsuch reservations, however, it is probably true that no evidence is\nforthcoming until the last decade of the fifteenth century of any\nadvance from the standpoint of Mondino.[137]\n\nBut if descriptive anatomy developed slowly in the hands of the\nphysicians, the art of graphic representation of anatomical structures\nwas still more backward. Several groups of anatomical drawings of\nmediaeval date have come down to our time, but examination of them\nshows that they have been drawn without direct reference to the human\nframe. Some of these figures are of the crude type known as the\n\u2018five-figure series\u2019 (Plate XXXIII), mere traditional diagrammatic\nsketches.[138] Hardly better or more instructive are the series of\ndissections which illustrate certain MS. works of Henri de Mondeville\n(Plate XXVIII _a_)[139] and Guido de Vigevano (Plates XXXI and XXXII),\n1345.[140] A few sketches representing the separate organs have also\nsurvived (Fig. 6),[141] but these never suggest that the draughtsman\nhad before him the structure which he seeks to depict, and the\ndrawings appear to have been made in order to illustrate contemporary\nphysiological theory rather than observed anatomical fact. Even the\nmagnificent illuminated Dresden Codex of Galen, prepared in France or\nFlanders as late as the second half of the fifteenth century, betrays\nnot the slightest first-hand knowledge of anatomy.[142] Although the\nillustrations of this MS. are prepared with the utmost technical skill,\nthey yet show us a teacher exhibiting to his pupils a heart of the form\nfound on playing-cards, and other anatomical figures scarcely more\nfaithful to the facts (Plate XXXIV).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 6. DIAGRAMS OF THE INTERNAL ORGANS\n\nAfter Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 399 of about 1298, fos. 23 recto\u201324\nrecto.]\n\nThe spirit of investigation of the artist who perforce went direct to\nnature, dissecting with his own hands and observing with his own eyes\n(Plate XXXVI), showed itself indeed far more fruitful than the tedious\n_ex cathedra_ methodization of the professor.[143] Yet the system of\nthe schools needed to be combined with the freedom of the artist for\nthe production of an effective anatomical work. What the projected\ntreatise of Marcantonio della Torre (1473\u20131506) might have been we may\nguess from the anatomical sketches of Leonardo da Vinci (Plate XXXV),\nwho was to have been associated with him in the work.[144] In the\nevent, however, the medical schools had to wait yet another generation\nbefore the subject was placed on a sound basis by Andr\u00e9 Vesale.\n\nThe Mondino pamphlet--for it is little more--used since its author\u2019s\ndeath in 1327 as a text-book in the schools of northern Italy, was\nfirst printed in 1478. Not until the last decade of the fifteenth\ncentury did there appear another work bearing evidence of the hand of\na practical anatomist. This was an Italian translation of Ketham\u2019s\n_Fasciculus medicinae_, impressed at Venice in the year 1493.[145] The\nvolume comprises Mondino\u2019s pamphlet and a collection of other medical\ntracts that were probably put together by Giorgio di Monteferrato from\nthe work of a writer of the previous century, for their contents are\ntraceable to a fourteenth-century MS.[146] The text is neither original\nnor remarkable, but the Venice volume derives its importance from\ncertain figures which appear in it for the first time.\n\nTwo of these plates are of great interest both intrinsically and also\nin relation to the history of anatomy. One of them is the magnificent\nrepresentation of a dissection scene, which is regarded as perhaps\nthe finest example of book illustration produced during the first\ncentury of typography[147] (Plate XXVII). This work of the \u2018ma\u00eetre aux\ndauphins\u2019, as the unknown artist is called by critics,[148] is doubly\ninteresting, for it is the subject of an experiment in colour printing,\nno less than four pigments being laid on by means of stencils. As\nearly as 1457 the method of stencilling was employed for colouring the\ninitials of a Psalter, and in 1485 Erhard Ratdolt in an astronomical\nwork added yellow to the earlier red and black. The figure from which\nour plate is taken represents, however, the first attempt at a complex\ncolour scheme and leads up to the work of Hugo da Carpi.[149]\n\nIn this picture the professor, a youthful figure perhaps intended to\nrepresent Mondino himself, is shown standing at a desk which hides\nhis book. Around a corpse, laid on a trestle table before him, there\ncluster a number of men in doctor\u2019s robes. Their valid faces are\nsufficient to convince us that the artist is here presenting us with\nportraits. One of the listeners has removed his robe and stands with\nupturned sleeves and knife in hand, ready to make the first incision\non the direction of the doctor, who points to the part with a wand\nheld in the left hand. In the impression of 1495 and in those of later\ndate, the book appears above the desk, the attitudes of the students\nare somewhat changed, and many other details are altered. In all these,\nhowever, the blocks have been recut and the result is artistically\ninferior[150] (Fig. 3).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 7. A FEMALE FIGURE LAID OPEN TO SHOW THE WOMB AND\nOTHER ORGANS\n\nFrom the 1493 Venice edition of \u2018Ketham\u2019 translated into Italian. This\nis the first printed anatomical figure drawn from the object.]\n\nThe second plate from the 1493 Ketham with which we are here concerned\nis the outline of a female body, in a traditional pose,[151] laid open\nto exhibit some of the internal organs (Fig. 7). These had clearly\nbeen sketched from the object, and therefore this drawing, the first\nprinted figure of its kind, may be said to introduce the new era for\nthe investigation of the human frame. The anatomical renaissance had\nbegun. Into a discussion of the full development of that age we cannot\nnow enter. But the MS. of Manfredi, with which we have here to deal,\nwas written at the very dawn of the new era and is itself one of its\nearliest documents.\n\n\nII. BOLOGNESE WORKS ON ANATOMY\n\nAn organized Medical Faculty existed at Bologna at least as early\nas 1156,[152] though the first record of dissection there is of\nconsiderably later date. In February 1302 a certain Azzolino died under\nsuspicious circumstances. Poison was suspected, an inquest was held\nand a post-mortem examination ordered. The investigation was conducted\nby two physicians and three surgeons, who unanimously agreed \u2018that\nthe said Azzolino assuredly met his death by no poison, but on the\ncontrary, we assert that the quantity of blood collected in the great\nvein known as the _vena chilis_ [vena cava][153] and in the veins of\nthe liver adjacent thereunto, has prevented the due movement of the\n_spiritus_ throughout the body, and has thus produced the diminution\nor rather extinction of the innate heat and thereby induced a rapid\npost-mortem discoloration. Of this condition we have assured ourselves\n_by the evidence of our own senses and by the anatomization of the\nparts_.\u2019[154]\n\nThe first anatomical document emanating from the University of Bologna\nis, however, of still earlier date, and is the work of William of\nSaliceto (1210?\u201380). This writer was educated at Bologna, and it is\nclaimed that he was the first to dissect the human body there.[155] His\n_Cyrurgia_, which was completed in 1275 (_editio princeps_, Piacenza,\n1476), is divided into five books, of which the fourth and shortest\nis devoted to anatomy. Its descriptions are brief and concise. They\nare often clearly the result of actual observation, and they show\nhardly any trace of the absurd and irritating teleology that the\ninfluence of the Arabians and of Galen made customary in early\nanatomical literature. The anatomy of Saliceto appears to us very\nsensible and so far as it goes practical. It betrays the method rather\nof the Salernitan than of the Arabian anatomical writings, and is on\nthe whole the best European work of the kind before the Renaissance.\nIt was, however, soon replaced by the text-book of Mondino di Luzzi\n(1285\u20131327),[156] which, though inferior to that of Saliceto, held the\nfield until the subject was revolutionized by Vesalius.\n\n[Illustration: Plate XXXIII. The FIVE-FIGURE SERIES BODLEIAN MS.\nASHMOLE 399, about 1292 Fos. 18\u00a0r\u201322\u00a0r\n\nVEINS, &c. ARTERIES NERVES BONES MUSCLES]\n\n[Illustration: From the DRESDEN GALEN MS.\n\nPlate XXXIV. DEMONSTRATIONS OF ANATOMY\n\nSecond half of XVth Century]\n\nMondino was professor at Bologna till his death in 1327. His work,\neasily accessible in one of its many editions, \u2018is corrupted by the\nbarbarous leaven of the Arabian schools, and his Latin defaced by\nthe exotic nomenclature of Avicenna and Rhazes\u2019.[157] But it is not\nthe language alone that has suffered. The schoolman\u2019s attitude, well\nfitted for the classification of ideas, is an ill instrument for the\ninvestigation of Nature, and in the scholastic Mondino the very basis\nof scientific judgement is undermined, so that he readily accepts the\nviews of the ancients against what must often have been the evidence\nof his own senses. The work, however useful to the contemporary\nstudent, was thus essentially reactionary as against the efforts of\nthe earlier Salernitan anatomists and of William of Saliceto. This is\nthe more remarkable because it is quite clear that he was accustomed\nto demonstrate on the actual body--a privilege denied to the early\nSalernitan school,--and he was, moreover, a popular and successful\nteacher. His work is a manual of dissection rather than a treatise on\nanatomy. This, added to its conciseness and brevity, strengthened its\nappeal to the \u2018practical\u2019 man--an epithet claimed then, as now, by the\nmajority of stupid and unpractical people. The personal influence and\nenthusiasm of its author no doubt helped also towards the phenomenal\nsuccess of this work, which for two hundred years held a position\nwithout rival as the text-book of the medical schools of Italy, where\neven as late as the sixteenth century Mondino \u2018was still worshipped by\nall the students as a very god\u2019.[158]\n\nMondino was succeeded in the chair of Surgery at Bologna by his pupil,\nthe Lombard Bertuccio, who died in the Black Death of 1347. Bertuccio\u2019s\nsurviving work is unnoteworthy, but he was the anatomical teacher of\nGuy de Chauliac, whose _Surgery_[159] is of great value and was very\ninfluential in standardizing practice, especially in the north and west\nof Europe. Nevertheless it appears to us that the anatomical section is\nthe weakest part of Guy\u2019s great work. The teleology that is a blot in\nMondino has here become a perfect plague, and Guy\u2019s anatomy consists\nof one-third description and two-thirds wearisomely reiterated reasons\nfor the existence of imperfectly described structures. Through Guy\nde Chauliac the anatomical tradition of Mondino passed over into the\nUniversity of Montpellier.\n\nA later fourteenth-century Bolognese writer was Tommaso di Garbo (died\n1370), who did little but comment on Avicenna. A surgeon of the next\ngeneration, however, Pietro d\u2019Argellata, deserves to be remembered for\nhis description of the examination of the body of Pope Alexander V, who\ndied suddenly at Bologna on May 4, 1410. His account throws light on\nthe customary procedure and may be rendered here.[160]\n\n \u2018I ordered the attendants\u2019, he says, \u2018first to cut the abdomen\n from the _pomegranate_ [i.e. the Adam\u2019s apple or laryngeal\n cartilage[161]] to the os pectinis [i.e. the symphysis pubis].\n Then, so that they should not rupture the intestines, I myself\n sought the rectum and ligatured it in two places and then cut it\n between. Next I removed all the intestines as far as the duodenum\n and dealt with them as with the rectum, and so I had the intestines\n clean and without fetor. After this I extracted the liver, seizing\n its ligaments; then the spleen and then the kidneys, and these\n were all placed together in a jar. I now passed to the spiritual\n members [i.e. the thorax] and removed lung and heart and all\n their ligaments. Then I ligatured the _meri_ [the Arabian term\n for oesophagus] and removed the stomach. When this had been done\n there were some who wished to remove the tongue but knew not how. I\n however cut under the chin and extracted the tongue through that\n hole, together with _trachea arteria_ [trachea] and _meri_. Then\n I passed to the _arteria adorti_ [aorta] and _vena chilis_ [vena\n cava]. Lastly I removed the ligatured remnant of the intestines as\n far as the anal margin.\u2019\n\nGiovanni da Concoreggio (died 1438), who was lector in Surgery at\nBologna in the early part of the fifteenth century, left a few\nanatomical observations of little note,[162] and not very much more\ncan be said for his successors and Manfredi\u2019s contemporaries Gabriele\nGerbi (de Zerbis, died 1505) and Alessandro Achillini (1463-1512).\nGerbi[163] does little but repeat in the most verbose fashion the work\nof Mondino and of Avicenna, some of whose errors, however--e.g. the\nthree ventricles of the heart--he omits. He wrote also an anatomy of\nthe infant, or rather of the foetus,[164] and a treatise taken mainly\nfrom Avicenna\u2019s _De generatione embryonis_. Like all his work, these\nare in the full scholastic style of a professor of Logic, a position to\nwhich, in fact, he ultimately attained.\n\nAchillini\u2019s work[165] is but a slight advance on that of Gerbi. It is\nreally little else than a note-book for students, and gives the baldest\ndirections for dissection, accompanied by a few comments taken from\nAvicenna. Achillini occasionally ventures to criticize Mondino, and\nhis work has at least the advantage of brevity. He has a claim to be\nremembered in that he was the first to describe the duct of Wharton and\nis said to have been the first to describe the ear ossicles, malleus\nand incus. Achillini, like Gerbi, was a windy and very \u2018scholastic\u2019\ndisputator. He was best known to his contemporaries as a supporter of\nthe philosophy of Averroes. In 1506, when driven from Bologna with the\nother supporters of Bentivoglio, he became professor of Philosophy at\nPadua.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 8. THE ABDOMINAL MUSCLES\n\nFrom Berengar of Carpi\u2019s Commentary on Mondino, Bologna, 1521.]\n\nWith Giacomo Berengario da Carpi we come at length to one who\ndefinitely advanced the science, and who may be regarded as the\nfirst modern anatomist, so far as printed works are concerned. He\nwas professor of Surgery from 1502 to 1527, and during that period\npublished his great anatomical work.[166] This volume, though modestly\nput forward as a commentary on Mondino, is in reality an original\ncontribution of great value. It is the earliest anatomical treatise\nthat can properly be described as having figures illustrating the text\n(Fig. 8).[167] Carpi does not hesitate to criticize the work on which\nhe comments--as for instance when he denies the existence of the \u2018rete\nmirabile\u2019 below the brain, though descriptions of the \u2018rete mirabile\u2019\nhad been based on the statement of no less an authority than Galen.\nFurthermore he was the first to describe the vermiform appendix, and\nhe gave the earliest correct account of several other organs, e.g.\nthe choroid plexus and the olfactory nerves. He was an industrious\ndissector, and he tells us that he had examined more than a hundred\nbodies.\n\nWith Carpi we close our series of Bolognese anatomists. Into that\ngroup we now proceed to fit the writer with whom we are here specially\nconcerned, Hieronymo Manfredi.\n\n[Illustration: From a drawing in the Library, WINDSOR CASTLE\n\nPlate XXXV. VIEW OF THE INTERNAL ORGANS LEONARDO DA VINCI]\n\n[Illustration: From a Drawing in the ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OXFORD,\nattributed to BARTOLOMEO MANFREDI (1574?\u20131602)\n\nPlate XXXVI.\u2003THE TWO FIGURES DISSECTING ARE TRADITIONALLY SAID TO\nREPRESENT MICHELANGELO AND ANTONIO DELLA TORRE]\n\nIII. HIERONYMO MANFREDI\n\nHieronymo Manfredi was a member of a family that had already for more\nthan two centuries provided distinguished citizens, and especially\nphysicians, to the city of Bologna.[168] He was born about the year\n1430 and was educated at the University of Bologna. Here in 1455 he was\n_laureatus_ in Philosophy and Medicine, and here he became professor of\nthe latter subject in 1463.[169]\n\nDuring the second half of the fifteenth century, a perfect mania for\nthe study of astrology infected Italy and penetrated equally into the\nCourt, the Church, and the Academy. The profession of Medicine was\nfar from immune, and at the University of Bologna, where a chair of\nAstrology had long been established,[170] the study was pursued with\nardour and enthusiasm. Here Manfredi early devoted himself to that\nwill-o\u2019-the-wisp, the pursuit of which absorbed and sterilized many\nof the best intellects of his day. By the year 1469 he was already\nregarded as an authority on the vainest of studies,[171] and as the\nyears went on he seems to have devoted himself to it ever more and\nmore. The generally credulous character of Manfredi\u2019s astrological\nideas may be gathered from the page of his _Prognosticon ad annum\n1479_ which we here reproduce (Fig. 10).\n\nThe history of Manfredi\u2019s connexion with the University of Bologna may\nbe briefly told. He appears for the first time on the professorial\nroll in 1462, when we find him giving the \u2018extraordinary\u2019 lectures\non Philosophy, a subject then regarded as under especial charge of\nthe physicians. In 1465 he was conducting the \u2018ordinary\u2019 course\nin Philosophy, and at the same time giving occasional lectures\non Medicine. In the following year he was called to the chair of\nTheoretical Medicine, and in 1469 he helped the Faculty out of a\ndifficulty by giving lectures on \u2018Astronomia\u2019 in place of the aged\nprofessor Giovanni de Fundis. The latter died in 1474, and from\nthat date onward Manfredi assumed responsibility for the course on\n\u2018Astronomia\u2019. Among the colleagues who joined him were Gabriele\nde Gerbi, who became lecturer on Logic in 1476, Filippo Beroaldo,\nwho became lecturer on Rhetoric and Poetry in 1479, and Alessandro\nAchillini, who became lecturer on Logic in 1484.[172]\n\nSuch was the regard for Manfredi\u2019s powers of astrological prediction\nthat to all the University announcements of his course of lectures on\nAstronomy is added \u2018cum hoc quod faciat iudicium et tachuinum\u2019.[173]\nIn spite of his proficiency in the science, however, he was unable to\nforetell his own death. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola writes of him\nthus derisively:\n\n \u2018quo anno [1493] obiit omnimoda[m] uite incolumitate[m] fuerat\n pollicitus Hieronymus manfredus astrologus nostra aetate\n singularis: a quo tamen nihil mirandum minus praeuisam aliorum\n mortem: qui nec suam ipse praeuiderit: nam cum proxima estate\n uita sit functus: in istius tame[n] anni publico uaticinio qui\n s[cilicet] ei fuit fatalis: multa & mira sequenti anno dicturum\n se non semel pollicebatur. Qui nescio oppignoratam fidem quomodo\n reluet: nisi forte de caelo uerius nunc terrena despiciat q[uam] de\n terra oli[m] caelestia suspiciebat.\u2019[174]\n\nManfredi died in 1493 and was buried in the church of Santa Margarita\nin Bologna. This church no longer exists, but it contained in the\neighteenth century a tomb bearing the inscription:\n\n HIERON. MANFREDO BONON. PHILOSOPHO AC MEDICO\n SVAE AETATIS NEMINI SECVNDO ASTRONOMORVMQVE\n CITRA INVIDIAM FACILE PRIMARIO.\n POSVIT SVPERSTES IOAN. FILIVS\n SVISQVE POSTERIS.\n VALE ATQVE ILLVM\n VALERE OPTA.[175]\n\nManfredi left a widow, Anna, who was still living in 1496 with a\nhousehold of ten persons in the Via S. Margarita.[176] The houses on\none side of this street backed on the very walls of the buildings\nbelonging to the \u2018University of Medicine\u2019,[177] and we may suppose that\nHieronymo Manfredi had resided here on that account. His surviving son,\nGiovanni, lived hard by in the Via S. Antonio di Padoa.\n\nIt cannot be said that Manfredi\u2019s printed works suggest great\nscientific attainments. All are permeated by the same astrological\nobsession. They comprise the following:\n\n(_a_) The _editio princeps_ of Ptolemy\u2019s _Cosmographia_ and _Tabulae\nCosmographiae_, the best-known printed work to which Manfredi\u2019s name is\nattached. He was associated in its production with the famous scholar\nFilippo Beroaldo, and the finely produced volume was published at\nBologna in 1472 (?),[178] and dedicated to the memory of Pope Alexander\nV (died 1410). It is interesting as containing the first printed map of\nEngland (Fig. 9). At the end of the work we read:\n\n \u2018Accedit mirifica imprimendi tales tabulas ratio. Cuius\n inuentoris laus nihil illorum laude inferior. Qui primi litterarum\n imprimendarum artem pepererunt in admirationem sui studiosissimum\n quemque facillime conuertere potest. Opus utrumque summa adhibita\n diligentia duo Astrologiae peritissimi castigaueru[n]t Hieronimus\n Mamfredus & Petrus bonus. Nec minus curiose correxerunt summa\n eruditione prediti Galeottus Martius & Colla montanus. Extremam\n emendationis manum imposuit philippus b[e]roaldus.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: THE FIRST PRINTED MAP OF ENGLAND.\n\nFrom the 1472 (?) Bologna Ptolemy, edited by Manfredi and others.]\n\n(_b_) _Liber de homine: cuius su[n]t libri duo. Primus liber de\nconservatione sanitatis_.... [Liber secundus de causis in homine\ncirca compositione[m] eius], Bologna, 1474. The work is in Italian,\nand consists of a number of paragraphs, each beginning with the word\n\u2018perch\u00e8\u2019. There is a servile dedicatory epistle in Latin addressed\nto Giovanni Bentivoglio. The first book is concerned with diet, and\noccupies two-thirds of the volume. The second book answers questions\non the subject of physiognomy and bears resemblance in many passages\nto the _Anatomy_. It is taken in the main from the pseudo-Aristotelian\n_Problemata_. The book is without pagination or figures. It is well\nprinted, and illuminated examples are not infrequently encountered.\n\nThis work was very popular. In 1478, during the lifetime of its author,\nit was audaciously pirated at Naples with the following _incipit_:\n\u2018Incomenza el Libro chiamato della uita costumi natura & om[n]e altra\ncosa pertine[n]te tanto alla conservatione della sanita dellomo quanto\nalle cause et cose humane. Co[m]posto per _Alberto Magno_ filosofo\nexcellentissimo.\u2019\n\nIn 1497, after Manfredi\u2019s death, the work appeared in black-letter\nfolio at Bologna, with its author\u2019s original dedication slightly\naltered. The text in this edition commences, \u2018Perchel sophio nele cose\nche noi viuemo: & lo indebito modo del viuere nostro: induce in noi\negritudine\u2019.\n\nIn 1507 it appeared at Venice in small black-letter quarto as _Opera\nnoua intitulata Il perche utilissima ad intendere la cagione de molte\ncose_. By this title, _Il Perch\u00e8_, the work, which ran through numerous\neditions, has usually been known. It continued to be reprinted as late\nas 1668.\n\n(_c_) A treatise on the Plague: _Tractate degno & utile de la\npestile[n]tia co[m]posto p[er] el famosissimo philosopho medico &\nastrologo maestro Hieronymo di manfredi da Bologna_, Bologna, 1478.\nThis was translated into Latin by the author himself in the same year.\nThe work owes much to Avicenna, but contains some original clinical\nobservations, and shows a certain independence of the prevailing spirit\nof the age by quoting opinions of contemporary as well as of ancient\nphysicians. The remedies are similar to those recommended by John\nof Bourdeaux in his widely distributed tract on the plague, and are\nprobably derived ultimately from the _Regimen Sanitatis Salerni_.\n\n(_d_) _Prognosticon ad annum 1479_, Bologna, 1478. We reproduce the\nterminal page of this work (Fig. 10).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 10. The last page of Manfredi\u2019s _Prognosticon ad\nannum 1479_, Bologna, 1478.]\n\n[Illustration: From his tomb in the Church of S. Giacomo Maggiore at\nBologna\n\nPlate XXXVII. GIOVANNI BENTIVOGLIO II]\n\n[Illustration: BRIT. MUS. MS. ROY. 7 F VIII, fo. 50 v\n\nPlate XXXVIII a. ROGER BACON\u2019S DIAGRAM OF THE EYE.\n\nXIIIth Century]\n\n[Illustration: From a drawing in WINDSOR CASTLE\n\nPlate XXXVIII b. LEONARDO DA VINCI\u2019S DIAGRAM OF THE HEART\n\nEarly XVIth Century]\n\n(_e_) _Prognosticon anni 1481_, in which is embodied _Oratio contra\nturcos & hostes Christianorum_, s. 1. Jan. 1481.\n\n(_f_) _Centilogium de medicis et infirmis_, Bologna, 1488. With a\ndedication to Bentivoglio. This short work is wholly astrological, and\nconsists of one hundred precepts concerning the relationship of the\nstars to various diseases and conditions. Reprinted Venice, 1500, and\nNuremberg, 1530.\n\nThe following three works are attributed to Manfredi, but are not\nmentioned in Hain, Copinger, or Reichling\u2019s lists of Incunabula; we\nhave not seen any of them and their existence is doubtful.\n\n(_g_) _Ephemerides astrologicae operationes medicas spectantes_,\nmentioned in the _Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte_ of\nE. Gurlt and A. Hirsch. Possibly it represents another edition of (_e_).\n\n(_h_) _Quaestiones subtilissimae super librum aphorismorum_, Bologna,\n1480 (?), mentioned by Haller.[179] Possibly it represents another\nedition of (_b_).\n\n(_i_) _Chiromantia secundum naturae vires ad extra_, Padua, 1484,\nmentioned by Haller.[179]\n\n\nIV. THE MANUSCRIPT ANATOMY OF MANFREDI\n\nThe MS. of Manfredi\u2019s _Anatomy_ is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford\n(Canon. Ital. 237, Western 20287). It is a fairly preserved small\nquarto parchment, originally of forty-nine folios, of which the third\nand fourth are missing. The writing is in the fine Italian hand that\nthe printed type of the period was accustomed to imitate. There are no\nfigures or illuminations, but the titles are rubricated in burnished\ngold or in colours.\n\nThere is no reference to this work in any account of Manfredi, and the\nvolume itself appears to be quite unknown. Neither the man nor his work\nis mentioned in Medici\u2019s detailed history of the anatomical school at\nBologna[180] nor in Martinotti\u2019s recent study on the same topic,[181]\nnor is any MS. of Manfredi included in Mazzatinti\u2019s monumental\ncatalogue of the MSS. in the Italian libraries.[182]\n\nManfredi\u2019s MS. is written in the involved Italian of the day, with\nsentences of inordinate length. These general characters of style are\nencountered also in his published works. The dedication is in Latin, of\nthe same unpleasing quality, and is couched in the usual subservient\nmanner. It is addressed to Giovanni Bentivoglio, and in it Manfredi\nrelates that\n\n \u2018Your illustrious lordship Johannes Bentivolus in this present\n year 1490 with your usual humanity condescended on one occasion to\n watch the dissection of a corpse.... It was then that you saw the\n wonderful works of Nature in the anatomy ... and you parentally\n urged me, Hieronymo Manfredi, to inscribe to your most noble name\n this work on anatomy.... I therefore extracted this work as best I\n might from various works of antiquity and abbreviated it. I have\n not followed their order, but I have so composed it that the work\n should be pleasing to your lordship.\n\n \u2018Accept then, O great and powerful lord, this work on the anatomy\n of the human body inscribed to your noble name! Accept it with your\n customary benevolence and humanity and in a kindly and gracious\n spirit, for it will be pleasing to you and will delight you\n greatly, for it is a worthy work!\u2019\n\nThe Giovanni Bentivoglio (Plate XXXVII), with adulation of whom\nManfredi was thus accustomed to plaster his works, was the second of\nthe name and was the son of Annibale Bentivoglio. In the year 1462\nhe became head of the republic of Bologna, and played there much the\nsame r\u00f4le as did Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici at Florence. He adorned Bologna\nwith numerous buildings,[183] and acted as patron of the arts and the\nsciences. The Palazzo dei Bentivogli still stands as a memorial to him\nand his family. A stern and high-handed tyrant, he held his position\nuntil 1506, when he was expelled and the city reverted to the papacy.\nHe died two years later.\n\nIt is remarkable to find a man of Bentivoglio\u2019s eminence and position\ntaking an interest in the practical study of anatomy. Other Italian\nrulers, Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici among them, encouraged and legalized the\npractice of dissection, but probably Bentivoglio is the only one\nrecorded as having patronized an \u2018anatomy\u2019 in person. The interest\ntaken in the subject by the heads of states must have been of great\nvalue to the artists whose patrons they were.\n\nThe MS. is a unique copy, and was doubtless written for presentation to\nBentivoglio. That it was never printed is perhaps due to the fact that\nManfredi died within a comparatively short time of its composition. It\nrepresents the most satisfactory post-mediaeval account of the human\nframe until the appearance of the work of Berengario da Carpi in 1521.\nIt is more complete than the work of William of Saliceto or of Mondino\nor the anatomy erroneously attributed to Richardus Anglicus; it is more\nnatural than the book of Gabriele de Gerbi, and is far superior to the\ncrude contemporary sketches of Hundt, Peyligk, and Achillini, while\nit wastes less space than Guy de Chauliac on teleology, though it has\nnone of the charm of the work of that great surgeon. In one respect at\nleast, viz. the spirit in which it is written, Manfredi\u2019s _Anatomy_\nis original and probably unique for its age. There is no reason to\ndoubt the assurance of the dedication that it was composed for the\nedification of the tyrant of Bologna, and for the simple purpose of\nsetting forth the wonderful structure of man\u2019s body without thought of\nany medical application.\n\nThe sources of the MS. are obvious. It is in the main a rearranged\nand on the whole improved Mondino, but amplified by reference to\ntranslations from Galen, Rhazes, Haly Abbas, and Avicenna. Guy\nde Chauliac has perhaps also been used. The work gives a general\nimpression of being the product of a practical dissector, and it\nprovides us with a good example of early Renaissance anatomy as taught\nin the Italian schools before the reforms of Vesalius. It is perhaps\nthe first complete treatise on its subject written originally in the\nvernacular.[184] It exhibits, however, no other original features nor\nany considerable departures from its sources, and it may be taken to\nrepresent, with but little modification, the tradition of Mondino as\ndeveloped at his own University of Bologna at the end of the fifteenth\ncentury.\n\nManfredi\u2019s work, however, if not original is at least eclectic, and\nthe variety of its sources indicates a dawning consciousness of the\nunwisdom of trusting to the infallibility of any one writer. The work\nis thus in a sense intermediate between the early printed versions\nof Mondino, such as that of 1478, and the edition published in 1528\nby Berengario da Carpi with its frank commentary of the master.\nAll represent stages towards the freedom of the later Renaissance\ninvestigators.\n\nWe reproduce the text in full, and the passages on the head, on the\neye, and on the heart, are rendered into English. All are similar to\nthe accounts of Mondino. We are able to illustrate them by figures\nfrom contemporary works, and thus to give an idea of the limits of the\nanatomical knowledge of the day.\n\n\nV. TRANSLATION OF SELECTED PASSAGES FROM THE ANATOMY, WITH COMMENTARY\n\n(_a_) THE HEAD\n\nTractate i, Chapter 2\n\n(folio 5 verso) There are ten layers of the head.\n\nThe _first_ is the _hair_ made by nature for the better protection of\nthe head from external things, and also for beauty.\n\nThe _second_ part is the _skin_, which has here to be very thick, so\nthat the hair may be firmly embedded, having its roots thick and long;\nand also to be a better shield and covering for the bone and brain,\nsince there is no muscular part here.\n\nThe _third_ part is the _flesh_, developed only on the face, the\ntemples, and about the jaws, not on the other parts.\n\nThe _fourth_ part is an external membrane called _almochatim_ [Arabian\nterm for cranial periosteum] which, when the skin is raised, appears\nto be continuous and covers the whole cranium. And nature made this\nmembrane firstly so that the skin which is soft should not come into\ncontact with the hard bone, secondly that the bone of the head should\nhave sensation through it, and thirdly that the internal membrane of\nthe head, called _dura mater_, should, by means of this membrane, be\nattached to the bone of the cranium by certain nerves and ligaments.\nThese, issuing through the commissures of the bones, have thus their\norigin in the aforesaid internal membrane, while on emerging through\nthe bone, they weave themselves into or rather compose the external\nmembrane called _almochatim_.\n\nThe _fifth_ part is the _skull_. This is a bone like a cap, inside\nthe cavity of which is located the brain. In the skull are four bones\nsutured together. Nature made the skull not of one but of many pieces,\nfirstly, so that if harm should fall on one part it might not spread\nto the others; secondly, so that by their joints or rather sutures\n[Italian _cusiture_=sewings], the humours of the brain might be the\nbetter exhaled; and thirdly, so that when there is need of applying\nmedicines, these might the better penetrate to the parts within.\n\nHence it is that four pieces of bone are sutured and joined together\nby nature in a denticulate fashion, so that they might be the firmer\nand stronger. Nor are they bound with ligaments as are the joints, for\nthese would not have been so strong, and furthermore the bones of the\nhead do not need to move.\n\nThese sutures are five in number, three being true and two false.\nThe true sutures are those which pass right through the bone, while\nthe false do not. Of the true sutures one is in the anterior part\nand is called _coronal_; it is made like the letter C, and stretches\nfrom right to left of the head, the two wings of the C being directed\ntowards the forehead. The second true suture extends along the length\nof the head, beginning from the coronal and reaching the back part\nof the head. It is like a shaft or rather arrow that goes backwards\nfrom the brow, wherefore it is called _sagittal_ ----(. The third true\nsuture is in the posterior part and is called laudal, for it is made\nlike a \u039b, the letter called by the Greeks _lauda_. The sagittal suture\nextends from the coronal to the lauda \u276f----(.\n\nThe false sutures are two, one on each side. They are called _cortical_\nbecause they do not penetrate.\n\nNow if we consider these five sutures we shall see that there are four\nbones articulated together. One is the forehead bone [frontal] which\nbegins at the coronal and ends below at another suture, which itself\nbegins as a branch of the coronal suture and proceeds by way of the\neyebrow to the corresponding branch [of the other side] \u2c6d.\n\nA second bone is behind and terminates at the laudal suture. There are\ntwo other bones which form the temples. These terminate at the false\nsutures which themselves begin at the laudal and end at the coronal\nsuture.\n\nThe _sixth_ part [of the head] consists of two membranes. One of these\nis called _dura mater_, and lies in contact with the cranium. The other\nis called _pia mater_ and is in contact with and covers the brain.\nAnd nature contrived it thus, having great solicitude for this latter\nmember, that while close to the bone, it should yet not be touched\nby it. Wherefore, taking due precautions, she made the one [membrane]\nharder than the other. Furthermore she made two membranes, so that if\nharm befell one of them, it might not be communicated to the underlying\nbrain.\n\nIn the _pia mater_ are woven certain veins by which the brain is\nnourished. [The brain is] everywhere covered by it except on the\nposterior part; because this part being dry, it has no need of this\nmembrane, as have the anterior and middle parts. The two membranes in\nmany places penetrate the substance of the brain, dividing it into\na right and a left, a front and a back section. By this division,\ndivers cells or rather small chambers are made therein, in which the\nsoul (_anima_) performs its divers operations, for which reason it is\nnecessary that these parts should be of different structure.\n\nWhen the two membranes are raised, the _seventh_ part of the head,\nnamely the brain itself, appears. The brain is wrought by nature so\nthat the _vital spirit_ from the torrid heart should be tempered by\nits cold, for here it is converted into _animal spirit_, which is the\nbeginning of the perceptive (_cognoscitiue_) and motive processes.\n\nThe brain is of a substance like marrow, white, soft, and viscous, and\nfrom it the nerves arise. The anterior part is moister, softer, and\nless cold than the posterior because the senses [_sentimenti_ = senses\n+ mental processes], which are themselves moist and soft, have here\ntheir origin. In the posterior part the motor nerves arise, and it is\ntherefore drier and firmer.\n\nThe brain is divided into three parts or ventricles. The first\nventricle or anterior part is itself divided into two, right and left,\nand is moreover larger than any of the other ventricles, for in this\nfirst ventricle nature has placed the two faculties subservient to\nperception (_al cognoscere_). One of these is called _common sensation_\n(_senso comune_); in it the external senses terminate as at a centre\nand deliver the _images_ or rather _species_ of sensible things, so\nthat this faculty may perceive and distinguish between one sensible\nthing and another, and also comprehend the operations of particular\nsenses; which two things none of these [senses of themselves can do].\nThe other faculty of the first ventricle is called _fantasia_ and by\nsome _imagination_; it retains and preserves the _species_ of sensible\nthings in the absence of the material objects themselves.\n\nWhen thou examinest the first ventricle thou wilt see three things\nbefore thou comest to the second ventricle.\n\n[_a_] The first is itself double, and is formed of the very substance\nof the brain, so that it forms the base of the anterior ventricle both\nright and left [= corpora striata].\n\n[_b_] To the side of this is another thing like a subterranean worm,\nred as blood, yet tethered by certain ligaments and nervelets [=\nchoroid plexus and taenia semicircularis]. And this worm when it\nlengthens itself closes these passages, and thus blocks the path\nbetween the first ventricle and the second. Nature has wrought it thus,\nso that when a man wills he may cease from cogitation and thought; and\nsimilarly when, on the other hand, he would think and contemplate, this\nworm contracts itself again and opens these passages and thus frees the\nway between one ventricle and another.\n\n[_c_] The third structure is a little lower and is a _lacuna_ or\nrounded concavity [= infundibulum]. In the middle of this is a hole\nwhich passes down towards the palate, and this lacuna provides also\na direct passage which descends from the middle ventricle to its\n_colature_ [= sieve-like structure, i.e. certain parts of the sphenoid\nbone]. And this lacuna has around it certain large round eminences\nwhich support the veins and arteries that ascend to the ventricle. This\npassage is wide above and narrow below, and by it the first and second\nventricles purge themselves of their superfluities, but the anterior\npart [of the first ventricle] purges itself more by the colature of the\nnose [= cribriform plate]. Thus nature has made two passages to cleanse\nthe superfluities of the brain.\n\nWhen thou hast seen these three structures there will appear the\nsecond or middle ventricle which is as a passage and transit from the\nanterior to the posterior ventricle. Here are two faculties. One,\nthe _estimative_, deduces [Italian _elicere_] the insensible from\nthe sensible. The other, called the _cognitive_, comprehends both\nthings sensible and things insensible, synthesizing and analysing\nthem (_componendo e dividendo_). These [two] faculties in the middle\nventricle minister to the intellect. Now all the other faculties\ndescribed, and even the power of memory, are found in brute animals,\nbut this [intellectual power] is encountered in man alone.\n\nNow will appear the third ventricle in the posterior part; and it is\nhard, for it gives rise to the greater part of the motive nerves which\nare of a strong and firm nature. This ventricle is pyramidal in shape,\nand culminates in an apex directed upwards where images of visible\nthings (_spetie_) are conserved, for these are better stored in a\nstrait than in an ample space; but the part below is wide to receive\nthese images, which are better received in an ample than in a strait\nplace. This ventricle has two functions: it gives rise to the spinal\ncord [_nucha_, an Arabian term] and motor nerves; and it is also the\nstorehouse of the _memorative_ faculties.\n\nFrom what [has been said] it will be apparent that when the back of the\nhead is injured, the memory immediately suffers; when the middle part\nis injured, the estimative and cognitive faculties suffer; and when\nthe anterior part is injured, the faculties of common sensation and of\nimagination (_fantasia_) suffer. And thus it is that the doctors have\nbecome aware of the location of these powers.\n\nThis being disposed of, thou wilt next raise the brain carefully so as\nnot to break the nerves. Commencing now with the part in front, there\nwill first appear two small fleshy protuberances like two nipples, of\nlike substance to the brain in which they originate, and covered by a\nthin membrane, the pia mater. These are the olfactory organs, wherein\nis the sense of smell.\n\nFrom the brain arise seven pairs of nerves. Proceed therefore farther\nwith the anterior part, and thou wilt see the first pair of these\nnerves, which are large, and called the _nervi optici_. These have\ntheir origin in the front ventricle of the brain and proceed towards\nthe eyes. But before they pass through the pia mater, they join\ntogether, and at their place of union there is a perforated spot.\nGalen maintains that these nerves only join or rather unite, but do\nnot intersect, so that the nerve that comes from the right after union\nreturns again towards the right, and similarly with the nerve coming\nfrom the left, which after the union returns towards the left eye.[185]\nBut Rhazes maintains the contrary,[186] although the opinion of Galen\nis the more common. These nerves are subservient to sight, and they are\nunited so that the images of the things received by the two eyes and\nconveyed by the two nerves should return in unity; so that one thing\nshould not appear as two.\n\nAfter these two nerves, raise the brain towards its middle and thou\nwilt see another pair of nerves, thin and firm, which also go to the\neyes, to give them voluntary movement, controlling certain muscles.\n\nFarther on thou wilt see the third pair of nerves, one part of which\ngoes to the face to give it sensation and voluntary movement, while\nanother part goes to give taste to the tongue. Yet a third part of\nthese nerves mingles with the fourth[187] pair of nerves, and together\nthey descend to give sensation to the diaphragm, stomach, and other\nviscera. A certain part also of the fourth[187] pair of nerves goes to\ngive sensation to the palate.\n\nThen there is the fifth pair of nerves [which] go to the _petrous_ bone\naround the ear; and of these nerves there are framed in the ear-holes\ncertain membranes, which are the organs of hearing.\n\nNext there is the sixth pair of nerves, which divides into three parts.\nOne part goes to the muscles of the throat, the second to the muscles\nof the shoulders, and the third and largest descends to the epiglottis\nand to the diaphragm, and spreads into the chest, the heart, and the\nlungs, accompanying the nerves of the third pair. From the nerves of\nthis sixth pair which go to the epiglottis arise the nerves of the\nvoice, called _reversive_.\n\nThe seventh pair of nerves arise at the back of the brain and give\nvoluntary movement to the tongue.\n\nOf these seven pairs of nerves, the first two pairs originate in the\nanterior part of the brain, the third pair originates between the\nanterior and posterior parts, while the remaining four pairs originate\nin the posterior part.\n\nProceeding still farther, the brain may be completely raised, and\nthe eighth part of the head will appear, that is, the two membranes\nsituated below the brain. When these in turn are raised there will\nappear the ninth part, which is a certain net called _rethe mirabile_,\nbecause it is composed of exceedingly strong and marvellous texture,\naugmented by certain very fine arteries which are branches of arteries\nthat ascend from the heart, and are called the _apoplectic arteries_.\nIn these arteries of this net is contained the vital spirit, sent from\nthe heart to be changed to animal spirit. That the spirit may be the\nbetter modified and distributed, nature made these arteries very fine,\nand separated them into very small branches so that the spirit should\nbe minutely divided. Nature placed the rethe mirabile under the brain\nbecause it was necessary to guard its site carefully, and also that the\nmoist vapours of the brain which fall upon the net, obstructing it,\nshould induce natural sleep.\n\nAfter all these things thou wilt see the basal bone which is the tenth\nand last part of the head, and called _basilar_, because it is the\nbase and foundation of the whole head; and it was made hard so that\nthe superfluities which descend to it should not putrefy it. This bone\ncan be seen to be formed of many other bones articulated together.\nIt is divisible into the petrous bones and the bones of the nose and\neyes and two other lateral bones which can only be seen by means of\ndisarticulation. [Folio 10 verso, line 22.]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 11. From M. Hundt, _Antropologium, de hominis\ndignitate natura et proprietatibus_, Leipzig, 1501. The figure shows\nthe ten layers of the head, the cerebral ventricles and cranial nerves,\nand the relation of the nerves to the senses.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 12. THE LAYERS OF THE HEAD\n\nFrom the _Anatomia_ of Johannes Dryander, Marburg, 1537.]\n\nThe ten parts or layers of the head are a commonplace of the anatomy of\nthe period, taken from Avicenna. We may illustrate the division by the\ncrude contemporary diagram of Fig.\u00a011, which is improved in the later\ndrawing reproduced in Fig.\u00a012.\n\nManfredi\u2019s account of the brain itself is amplified from Mondino. The\ndivision of this organ into three ventricles, each associated with\na corresponding division of the mental functions, was very familiar\nto medical writers of the fifteenth century. The idea is found among\nWestern writers as early as St. Augustine (354-430), and is encountered\nin the writings of Roger Bacon (1214-94). It had long been popularized\nin mediaeval psychology by the writings of Albertus Magnus (1206-80).\nThe anatomical distinction is found in Haly Abbas, Avicenna, and\nRhazes, and in some of the best MSS. of the latter writer a rough\ndiagram of the ventricles is given.[188] These writers are all clearly\nindebted to the anatomy of Galen,[189] but on the psychological\nside Albertus Magnus probably drew mainly either from Ghazali[190]\n(1059-1111), who in turn derived his inspiration from Nemesius (fourth\ncentury) and Johannes Damascenus (died 756), or else from early\nwriters of the Salernitan tradition, such as Constantine[191] (eleventh\ncentury), or Petrocello[192] (twelfth century), who drew largely on\nTheophilus (seventh century).[193]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 13. From _Illustrissimi philosophi et theologi\ndomini Alberti magni compendiosum insigne ac perutile opus Philosophiae\nnaturalis_, Venice, 1496, showing the ventricles of the brain.]\n\nThis outline of a tripartite division of the brain and its cavities was\nclosely followed throughout the Middle Ages, as was also the curiously\nna\u00efve and excessively \u2018materialistic\u2019 psychology to which it gave rise,\nand which Manfredi adopts. We illustrate his views of the relationship\nof the different parts of the brain and their parallelism in mental\nprocesses, from a series of diagrams extracted from contemporary works\n(Figs. 13-18).\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 14. Diagram of the senses, the humours, the\ncerebral ventricles, and the intellectual faculties. MS. Sloane 2156,\nfolio 11 recto, in the British Museum, being a copy written in 1428 of\nthe _De Scientia Perpectiva_ of Roger Bacon]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 15. From K. Peyligk\u2019s _Philosophiae naturalis\ncompendium_, Leipzig, 1489. Illustrating the general ideas on anatomy\ncurrent at the Renaissance.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 16. The cerebral ventricles from above and from the\nside. According to K. Peyligk, _Philosophiae naturalis compendium_,\nLeipzig, 1489.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 17. The localization of cerebral functions. From\nthe Italian edition of \u2018Ketham\u2019, _Fasciculus Medicinae_, Venice, 1493.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 18. From G. Reisch, _Margarita philosophiae_,\nLeipzig,? 1503. Diagram of the ventricles and the senses with their\nrelation to the intellectual processes according to the doctrine of the\nRenaissance anatomists.]\n\nThe brain was regarded by mediaeval and early Renaissance anatomists\nas having two channels of discharge through which the _phlegm_, the\nespecial product of this organ, could be evacuated when in excess.\nOne of these channels communicated with the anterior ventricle of the\nbrain and poured its secretion into the nose. It may be identified\nwith the _anterior colature_ or cribriform plate. The second, the\n_lacuna_, led down from the second ventricle and poured its secretion\ninto the pharynx. It may be identified with the infundibulum, pituitary\nbody, and \u2018cella turcica\u2019. The term \u2018pituitary\u2019 which we still use is\nderived from its supposed association with the \u2018pituita\u2019 or phlegm. At\nan early date this process was connected with the four humours (Fig.\n14). The rest of the description of the brain can be easily followed.\nThe comparison of the choroid plexus to a worm is very common. The\nsuggestion originated with Galen and was developed by the Arabians.\n\nCOMPARATIVE TABLE OF ANCIENT AND MODERN NOMENCLATURE OF CRANIAL NERVES.\n\n _Mondino and Manfredi following Galen, |\n especially in the_ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd | _Modern usage._\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. _De usu partium |\n corporis humani._ |\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n Not regarded as separate nerves. | I. Olfactory nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n I. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u0311\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u0311\u03bd. | II. Optic nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n II. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c9\u0311\u03bd. | III. Oculomotor nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n Not mentioned. | IV. Trochlear nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n III. \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u2008\u2008\u200a} \u2009\u200a| V. Trigeminal nerves.\n IV. \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. } \u2009\u2009|\n Mondino and Manfredi confuse |\n Galen\u2019s fourth pair and Galen\u2019s |\n sixth pair. |\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n Not mentioned by Manfredi. By | VI. Abducent nerves.\n Galen probably united with II. |\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n V. \u03c0\u03ad\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u2008\u2008 |{ VII. Facial nerves.\n |{VIII. Auditory nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n VI. \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u200a\u2008| {IX. Glossopharyngeal\n | nerves.\n | { X. Vagi.\n | {XI. Accessory nerves of\n | Willis.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n VII. \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u2008\u2008\u2009\u2009| XII. Hypoglossal nerves.\n ---------------------------------------+----------------------------\n\nThe nomenclature of the cranial nerves adopted by Manfredi is taken\nfrom Mondino and is almost identical with that of Galen, whose\nclassification is summarized above.[194] Manfredi\u2019s description of\nGalen\u2019s fourth pair is confused and inadequate, but his account of\nGalen\u2019s sixth pair is an improvement upon Mondino.\n\nThe \u2018rete mirabile\u2019 is an interesting survival of Galenic anatomy.\nThis structure is hardly present in man, but is developed in the lower\nanimals, and especially in calves, upon whose bodies Galen worked. The\nfather of physiology regarded the \u2018rete mirabile\u2019 as the place where\nthe psychic pneuma was elaborated.[195] Galen\u2019s findings in the lower\nanimals were assiduously transferred to the human body, to which his\ndescriptions are much less applicable, while his views on the pneuma\nlasted in more or less misunderstood form well into the seventeenth\ncentury.\n\n\n(_b_) THE EYE\n\nTractate i, Chapter 3\n\n(folio 11 recto) The socket of the eye is not over-depressed, for it\nhas to receive the images (_spetie_) of visible things. Nor does it\nproject greatly, lest it should be liable to injury from exterior\nviolence. For the eyes of man being very soft and susceptible, nature\nprovided eyebrows as a shield above, and eyelids as protectors in\nfront, and made moreover the projections of the maxillae and the nose,\nso that the eyes should be guarded on every side. So great was the\nsolicitude of nature for these members.\n\nSeven are the tunics of the eye and three its humours. Three front\ncoatings join with three coatings at the back like six shields, the\nedges of every pair joining each to each, the outer being larger\nand containing the others. The seventh tunic is largest of all, and\nencloses the whole eye, and therefore it is called _conjunctiva_\nbecause it joins and surrounds the whole eye except the place where the\npupil is, and that small part [is covered] by the cornea. Now this\nfirst tunic where it covers the outside part is seen to be white.\n\nThe second tunic in its front part is called _cornea_ because it\nresembles horn in its substance and colour; and this covering is\ntransparent, so that the images of visible things may penetrate through\nit. And it is also solid and large and composed of four membranes, so\nthat being near external things it should not receive hurt. With this\n[corneal tunic] is united posteriorly another tunic [the third] called\n_sclerotic_, i.e. hard. These two coverings have their origin in the\nmembrane about the brain, that is in the dura mater, just as the first\ntunic arises from the membrane over the skull, called _almochatim_.\n\nThe fourth tunic as to its front part is called _uvea_ [because] it is\nlike a seed of a black grape, and in its midst is a hole called the\npupil. Nature made this tunic opaque so that the visual spirit should\nbe conserved and not dissipated by the light outside. Moreover nature\nmade the opening in the tunic that the image might penetrate freely;\nwhile it is narrow, so that the visual spirit should be concentrated.\nThus when the said pupil, or rather hole, dilates more than usual,\neither naturally or accidentally, the sight becomes imperfect. [The\nuveal tunic] joins posteriorly the fifth tunic, called _secundina_\nbecause it is made like the after-birth, i.e. the membrane in which the\nchild is enveloped in its mother\u2019s womb, and it arises from the pia\nmater.\n\nThe sixth coating in front is called _arachnoid_ because it is formed\nafter the manner of a spider\u2019s web, and posteriorly it joins the\nseventh coating, called _retina_, because it is made like a net.\n\nBetween the uvea and the arachnoid anteriorly there is a humour called\n_albugineus_, like the white of an egg, to moisten the eye and to\npreserve the convexity of the cornea. In a dead man this humour dries\nup, and the cornea falls and is flattened, and then the vulgar say that\nthere appears a curtain before the eyes which is an infallible sign of\ndeath. Also this humour holds the pupil open; therefore when it dries\nup the pupil contracts.\n\nBetween the two last tunics, i.e. the arachnoid and the retina, which\nhave their origin from the optic nerve, there are two humours. These\nare the _vitreous_ humour, so called from its likeness to liquified\nglass, and the _crystalline_ humour, from its likeness to a crystal.\nThis is also called the _grandid_, because it is like a hailstone;\nand it is somewhat hard and round, but flattened anteriorly where\nit receives the images of visible things, and posteriorly pyramidal\nshape and pointed. And here is completed the act of seeing. In the\nposterior part it is surrounded by the vitreous humours by which it is\nnourished. The crystalline humour is convex anteriorly and the vitreous\nposteriorly. And the optic nerves come to the eyes and convey the\nimages seen by the eyes to [the seat of] common sensation and to the\nother internal faculties. [Folio 12 verso, line 7.]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 19. THE ANATOMY OF THE EYE\n\nFrom G. Reisch, _Margarita philosophiae_, Leipzig,? 1503. Showing the\nseven tunics and three humours of the eye according to the doctrines of\nRenaissance anatomists.[196]]\n\nA great deal of attention was paid by the Arabians to the diseases and\nthe structure of the eye, and the essentials of Manfredi\u2019s description\nare to be found in Rhazes, Hunain ben Ishak, and Haly Abbas. The\ntradition presented by these writers passed early into Western\nscience, and is reproduced, for example, in the works of Constantine\nAfricanus and in the well-known anatomy to which the name of Richardus\nAnglicus (Richard of Wendover) has become attached[197] (cp. Fig.\n19). Avicenna\u2019s description of the eye is somewhat different, and\ngave rise to the tradition reproduced in the works of John of Peckham\nand of Roger Bacon (Plate XXXVIII _a_), and it influenced the views\nof Leonardo and even perhaps of Vesalius (Fig. 20). The views on the\nanatomy of the eye expressed by Rhazes, Hunain ben Ishak, and Haly\nAbbas were, on the whole, more widely accepted than those of Avicenna.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 20.\n\nTHE ANATOMY OF THE EYE\n\nFrom Vesalius, _De humani corporis fabrica_, Basel, 1543, p.\u00a0643.\nA, Crystalline humour; O, Albugineous humour; C, Vitreous humour;\nN, Cornea; Q, Conjunctiva; M, Sclerotica; G, Secundina; H, Uvea; K,\nArachnoidea; E, Retina.]\n\nThe treatment of the eye was always felt to be hardly within the range\nof the ordinary practitioner of surgery, and its structure, as we learn\nfrom Guy de Chauliac,[198] was not usually treated in the general\ncourse of anatomy. The custom was rather to refer the student to\nspecial works such as those of Jesu Aly or of Alcoatim.\n\nManfredi\u2019s description of the anatomy of the eye is that generally\naccepted at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth\ncenturies, and is unusually clear for its date. It represents\na considerable advance on such writers as Henri de Mondeville\n(1260-1320)[199] or the pseudo Richardus Anglicus, and is far superior\nto the descriptions of the eye dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth\ncenturies recently brought to light by Sudhoff.[200] We reproduce as\nillustrating Manfredi a diagram taken from the _Margarita philosophica_\nof Gregorius Reisch (died 1525). This represents the earliest printed\nfigure of any value of the anatomy of the eye (Fig. 19).[201] We give\nfor comparison the figure from a thirteenth-century MS. of Roger Bacon\n(Plate XXXVIII _a_), representing the rival tradition of Avicenna and\nAlhazen that influenced Leonardo da Vinci and other contemporaries of\nManfredi. These figures may be compared with that of Vesalius (1543,\nFig. 20), whose description of the eye is less free from traditional\nbias than are most parts of his epoch-making work.\n\nIn reading any early description of the eye, it is to be remembered\nthat until the nineteenth century the \u2018emanation theory\u2019 prevailed.\nLight was regarded as of the nature of a stream of particles emitted\nfrom the object seen, and the act of vision was considered as a\ncollision of this emanation with an emission of something from the eye\nitself, called in mediaeval writings the \u2018visual spirit\u2019.\n\n\n(_c_) THE HEART\n\nTractate ii, Chapter 3\n\n(folio 19 verso) Then you will see in the midst of the lung the heart,\ncovered by its membranes. [It is thus situated] that the air attracted\nby this lung should cool it, and that thus the heat and spirit of\nthe heart be tempered. This member is the most important of the four\n[principal members], because it is the first to live and the last to\ndie. It is of medium size compared with the other members of man, but\ncompared with the hearts of other animals it is very large, because\nman, in a quantitative and not an intensive sense, has more natural\nheat than other animals. It is pyramidal, that is in the form of a\nflame; because it is of excellent warmth, therefore it is necessary\nthat it should be of a shape resembling a flame. Its figure is also\ncalled \u2018pine-shaped\u2019, because it is wide below and narrow above, being\nthus formed that distinction could better be made between its cavities\nor ventricles; moreover, had it been made of a shape all uniform as is\nthe lower part, it would be too heavy and ponderous.\n\nThis member is situated in the middle of the entire body, measured in\nevery direction; that is, in the middle between the upper and lower\nparts: in the middle also between front and back and right and left,\nlike a king standing in the midst of his kingdom, and this was done\nthat it might give the strength of life equally to all the members; and\nalthough the heart as regards its foundation and base be in the middle,\nyet its point declines to the left below the left breast, so that it\nwarms the left side as the liver warms the right.\n\nThis member is sustained and strengthened by a certain cartilaginous\nbone. For since it is continually moving, it needs some point of\npurchase to support it in its movements. Moreover, it has a certain\nfatty layer on the outside which prevents the heart from drying and\nkeeps it moist: and there are certain veins and arteries dispersed\nthrough its substance: and it is formed also of a kind of hard flesh so\nthat it may sustain many and forceful movements; also it is formed of\nlongitudinal, latitudinal, and transverse fibres, so that it may have\nthe power to attract, retain, and expel.\n\nThis member has three ventricles or chambers, like the brain. One\nventricle is on the right side, the second on the left, and the third\nin between. The right ventricle towards the liver has two orifices. One\nis towards the liver and is very large. Into this there enters a vein\ncalled _vena chilis_, which arises in the convexity of the liver and\nbrings the blood from the liver to the heart. In that right ventricle\nthe blood is purified, and then sent by the heart to all the other\nmembers.\n\nNow since the heart attracts by this orifice of the _vena chilis_\nmore than it expels, therefore nature ordains that in the moment of\ncontraction when the blood is expelled this orifice closes, and when\nthe heart dilates it opens.\n\nMoreover there are three little valves (_hostiolitti_) or doors opening\nfrom without inward, and these valves are not very depressed; so that\nby this same orifice only part of the purified blood is expelled to\nthe other members, because part goes to the lungs and the remainder\nforms the vital spirit; therefore nature ordains that these valves do\nnot entirely close. From the _vena chilis_, before it enters the cavity\nof the heart, there arises another vein, which surrounds the root of\nthe heart; and from it are given off branches which disperse themselves\nthrough the substance of the heart, and from the blood of that vein the\nheart nourishes itself.\n\nThe right ventricle towards the lung has another orifice into which\nopens the _arterial vein_, bringing the blood from the heart to nourish\nthe lung: in this orifice also are three valves (_hostioli_) opening\nfrom within outward and closing from without inward, in the opposite\nway to the valves of the other orifice; and this is so that they should\nentirely close. Hence by this orifice the heart during the period of\ncontraction can expel, and yet during the period of its dilatation\ncannot attract anything through it as was done in the first orifice.\n\nThe left ventricle of the heart has its sides denser and thicker than\nthe sides or walls of the right ventricle; and this for three reasons:\nFirstly, because in the right ventricle is contained the blood, which\nis heavy, while in the left ventricle there is spirit, which is very\nlight; therefore in order that the heart should not be heavier and more\nponderous on one side than on the other, it was necessary to compensate\nin this manner, that is, that the left ventricle should be thicker in\nits walls than the right. In the second place, the spirit being more\nsubtil and more volatile (_resolubile_) than blood, it needs a stronger\nhabitation and better supports. Thirdly, the left ventricle is much\nwarmer than the right, because in it is generated the spirit from the\nblood, by a great heat which makes that blood more subtil; and heat is\nbetter preserved in a substance that is dense and thick.\n\nIn the cavity of this ventricle near its root are two orifices: one is\nthe orifice of an artery called _artharia adorti_ [=\u00a0aorta], because it\nhas immediate origin in the heart and because it is the source of all\nthe others: by this artery the heart sends the generated spirit to all\nthe members; and the very subtil blood is mixed with the spirit when\nthe heart contracts. For which reason there are at the entrance of this\norifice three valves, which close entirely from the outside inwards;\nand they open from the inside outwards, and this orifice is very deep.\n\nThe other orifice is that of the _venal artery_ which conveys the air\nfrom the lung to cool the heart and transports warm vapours from the\nheart to the lung as has been said above; and in this orifice are two\nvalves which do not entirely close: and they are well raised so that\nthey can better apply themselves to the sides [edges] of the heart\nwhen it sends out the spirit: these are marvellous works of nature,\nas is also the central ventricle of the heart, for this ventricle has\nnot one cavity but many; these are small but wide, and more numerous\non the right than on the left; and nature contrived thus, so that the\nblood which goes from the right ventricle to the left to be converted\ncontinually into spirit becomes thin in these cavities.\n\nAnd by this thou canst see that four things have birth in the heart.\nThe first is the artery called _adorti_, the second is the _vena\nchilis_, the third is the _arterial vein_, and the fourth the _venal\nartery_.\n\nAlso thou wilt see in the heart certain membranous parts like\n_auricles_, or rather like small ears, able to dilate or contract:\nthese are contrived by nature in order that when overmuch blood or\nspirit is generated the heart can dilate so as to contain it; and also\nthat the heart may contract when there is no such abundance.\n\nAnd it is here that Galen asks, Why did not nature make the heart so\nlarge that it could contain every increase of blood or spirit without\nthe addition of these membranes? Galen replies that this was first\nbecause the heart would have been too large and therefore too heavy;\nsecondly, because as it is not always generating a great quantity\nof blood and spirit, if the heart had been too large, its cavity\nwould usually have been empty: but these auricles dilate with the\naccumulation of blood or spirit, and contract with its decrease.\n\nThe heart is surrounded by a firm and nervous membrane, like a\nlittle house in which it is placed as in a tabernacle to defend it\nfrom accidents. This capsule is very dilated, that the heart in its\ndilations and movement may not be impeded thereby, and therefore nature\nmade this capsule so that it should contain a certain dewy moisture\nwith which the heart is bathed and moistened so that in its continual\nmovement it should not become dry. For when this water be dried up,\nthen the heart itself is desiccated, and emaciates and dries up all the\nbody.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe description of the heart follows Mondino closely. Occasionally a\nphrase or two is reminiscent of Mondeville. The trite conception of the\nheart as a king in its necessarily central position was very frequently\nrepeated by writers in the Middle Ages. To Harvey, who had a certain\nmediaeval element in his mentality, it seems to have appealed, and he\nused it in his _Prelectiones Anatomiae_,[202] and chose it to introduce\nhis great work on the circulation of the blood.[203] The heart was\nsimilarly described as \u2018flame-shaped\u2019, because it was regarded as the\nsource of animal heat. The idea that it is the first to live and the\nlast to die comes from Aristotle.[204] The _bone_ in the heart also\ncomes from Aristotle.[205] The idea was quite familiar to mediaeval\nanatomists, who frequently endeavoured to identify the _bone_ with the\nfirm tissue around the orifices of the aorta and pulmonary artery. The\nreader may be reminded that a true \u2018os cordis\u2019 is in fact to be found\nin some mammalia.\n\nMondino, followed by Manfredi, describes the action of the heart and\nblood-vessels mainly according to the views of Galen, but without any\nvery clear or connected statement. The \u2018third ventricle\u2019 especially has\nits origin in a misunderstanding.\n\nThis mythical structure is an attempt to combine the views of Aristotle\nand of Galen. Aristotle, who probably never dissected a human body,\nderived his anatomical conceptions largely from cold-blooded animals,\nin some of which the heart is provided with three cavities. He\nconsidered that the heart had three chambers, the largest being on the\nright, the smallest on the left, and one of intermediate size between\nthe two. As far as they can be identified, the largest was the right\nventricle plus the right auricle, the smallest or left chamber was the\nleft auricle, while the intermediate cavity appears to have been the\nleft ventricle.[206]\n\nGalen\u2019s description differed altogether from that of Aristotle. He\ntells us expressly and somewhat contemptuously that \u2018it is no marvel if\nAristotle erred in many anatomical matters, a man who thought forsooth\nthat the heart in the larger animals had three chambers\u2019.[207] Galen\nalways describes the heart as having but two chambers, the right and\nleft ventricles, a wholly subordinate part being assigned to the\nauricles. These latter were regarded as safety-valves, expanding to\nhold superfluous blood when the chambers of the heart to which they\ncorrespond become overfilled.\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 21. THE HEART\n\nFrom the Roncioni MS. (Pisa 99) after Sudhoff.]\n\nNo third ventricle is described by Rhazes or Haly Abbas,[208] but\nAvicenna, in his _Canon_, makes an effort to combine the views of\nAristotle and Galen. Speaking of the anatomy of the heart (lib. iii,\nfen. xi, chap.\u00a01) he describes the ventricular portion as follows:\n\u2018In the heart are three cavities, two large, and a third as it were\ncentral in position. So that the heart has [_a_] a receptacle [the\nright ventricle] for the nutriment with which it nourishes itself--this\nnutriment is thick and firm like the substance of the heart; [_b_] a\nplace where the pneuma is formed [the left ventricle], being engendered\nof the subtil blood; and [_c_], thirdly, a canal between the two.\u2019[209]\nA somewhat similar account is given in Constantine\u2019s translation of\nIsaac.[210] The idea soon crept into European medicine, for in a Pisan\nMS. dating from the first half of the thirteenth century[211] a crude\nfigure of a three-chambered heart is to be found (Fig. 21).\n\nThe first translator of the _Canon of Avicenna_, Gerard of Cremona,\nwhose work appeared towards the end of the twelfth century, improved\non his original. \u2018In it [the heart] are three ventricles; two are\nlarge, and the third as it were between, which Galen called the fovea\nor non-ventricular meatus, so that there may be a receptaculum for the\nthick and strong nourishment, like to the substance of the heart, with\nwhich it is nourished, and also a storehouse for the pneuma (spiritus)\ngenerated in it from the subtil blood. And between the two are channels\nor meatuses.\u2019[212] Henri de Mondeville (died about 1320), by going\ndirect to Galen, avoided some of the errors of Avicenna, with whom,\nhowever, he still describes three ventricles.[213] Mondino does little\nbut copy the Arabian, whom Manfredi also follows.\n\nWe may terminate our description of the mythical third ventricle by\nquoting from Bartholomew the Englishman. His encyclopaedia written\nabout 1260 was translated into English in 1397, and printed by Thomas\nBerthelet[214] in the 27th year of the reign of Henry VIII (1535), when\nBartholomew\u2019s work was still extremely popular. Berthelet\u2019s rendering\nruns as follows:\n\n \u2018And the hert hath ij holownesses, one in the left syde, that\n cometh sharpe: and one in the ryght side, that is within: And these\n two holownesses ben called the wombes of the hart. And betwene\n these two wombes is one hole, that some men call a veyne, other\n an holowe way. And this hole is brode afore the ryghte syde, and\n streyte afore the left syde. And that is nedefulle to make the\n bloode subtyll, that commeth from the ryght wombe to the lefte,\n and so the spirite of lyfe may be bredde the easelyer in the lefte\n wombe.\u2019\n\nIn order to understand why all these authors invoked the existence of\nthe third ventricle, regarded by some of them as a passage between\nthe other two, we must turn to the physiological beliefs of the age.\nIt must be recalled that before the demonstration of the circulatory\nmovement of the blood a certain amount of communication was believed\nto exist between right and left ventricles. The complicated nature\nof the ventricular cavities and the intricacy of the columnae\ncarneae promoted the idea of the presence of minute passages in the\ninterventricular septum. Even so astute an observer as Leonardo da\nVinci considered that \u2018the ventricles are separated by a _porous_ wall,\nthrough which the blood of the right ventricle penetrates into the left\nventricle, and when the right ventricle shuts, the left opens and draws\nin the blood which the right one gives forth\u2019 (Plate XXXVIII_b_).[215]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 22. From Johannes Adelphus, _Mundini de omnibus\nhumani corporis interioribus menbris Anathomia_, Strassburg, 1513. The\ndiagram shows the two lateral ventricles and the \u2018central\u2019 ventricle.\nBy a printer\u2019s error the letters _c_ and _d_ are transposed. The\n_arteria adorti_ is the aorta, the _arteria venalis_ the pulmonary\nvein, the _vena chilis_ the vena cava, and the _vena arterialis_ the\npulmonary artery. The auricles are ignored, as is frequently the case\nin works of the period, and the pulmonary veins are represented as\nopening directly into the ventricles.]\n\nAlthough the third ventricle is described in all the twenty-five\neditions of Mondino, many of which are illustrated, they present no\ndrawing of it except the wretched little diagram of J.\u00a0A. Muelich\n(Johannes Adelphus) in 1513, which we here reproduce (Fig. 22). The\nconfusion, however, to which the idea of a third ventricle gave rise\ninfluenced anatomy almost as late as the seventeenth century, and is\nillustrated in the anatomical figures of a late edition of Hans von\nGersdorff (1556),[216] where the trachea is actually shown opening into\nthe left ventricle (Fig. 23). It was Vesalius who took the first great\nstep towards the discovery of the circulation of the blood, by firmly\nmaintaining that the interventricular septum was solid and contained\nneither passages nor intermediate ventricle.[217]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 23. From Hans von Gersdorff, _Feldt und Stattb\u00fcch\nbewerter Wundartznei_, Frankfurt, 1556. The trachea (_d_) is\nrepresented as opening directly into the heart.]\n\n\nVI. ITALIAN TEXT\n\nMS. Canonici Ital. 237\n\n_Hyeronimi manfredi ad Magnificum & potentem dominum ac militem\nIohannem Bentiuolum insequens opus de corporis humani anothomia\nexordium._\n\n[folio 1 verso] Opportet de sapientia admirari creatoris ut XV\u00ba de\nutilitate particularum scribitur a Galieno. Cum enim membrorum nostri\ncorporis admirabilem Galienus aspiceret Armoniam predictum sermonem\nexplicauit: ut nos ad dei sublimis et gloriosi admiranda opera\ncommoueret: Quamuis nostra cognitio a dei compraehensione deficiat:\nunde et Seneca XL\u00aa epistola ad Lucillum ait quid deus sit incertum est\nhabitat in nobis: Sed deum mouemur inuocare eius sapientiam mirabiliter\ncontemplantes. Quanta enim fuerit summi opificis in producendo res\nsapientia quanta eius solicitudo et prudentia opera profecto nature\ndeclarant: unde et psalmista mirabilia sunt opera tua deus, et alibi\nceli enarrant gloriam dei et opera manuum eius annuntiat firmamentum.\nQuis enim talia et tanta inspitiens creatorem suum abneget et eius\npotentiam? Inscipiens quidem erit hic iuxta illud psalmiste dixit\ninscipiens in corde suo non est deus. Sublimis autem dei multiplitia\net diuersa fuere opera. Creauit enim duplitia entium genera scilicet\ncorruptibilia et incorruptibilia; et in utrisque suam admirabilem\nsapientiam, suamque [folio 2 recto] infinitam potentiam ostendit. Totam\nenim entis latitudinem nihil prorsus de spetiebus, quas ab aeterno in\nmente sua retinuit obmittens perfulciuit, et eas quas ab aeterno in\nsua habebat essentia ad aliud esse procreauit, ut in indiuiduis esse\nhaberent: quae in suae maiestatis lumine existebant: et uniuscuiusque\nspetiei modo perfecit ac uarietates per esse quod in singularibus\nhabent (natura mediante & cum lege) imposuit. Admirantur angelorum\ncaetus obstupent hominum intellectus tantae maiestatis opera mirabilia:\nut hoc summo bono: hoc perfectissimo ente nihil melius excogitari\npossit. O admirabilem maiestatem, O deitatem incompraehensibilem, O\ninefabilem potentiam: Quis te negliget? Quis te non insequetur? Quis in\noperibus tuis non delectabitur?\n\nOmnis igitur qui in operum dei gloriosi intuitu delectatur, hic prudens\net non inscipiens est: hic dignus homo: hic intellectu non caret.\nCum igitur tua illustris Dominatio Iohannes bentiuole magnanimis\npraesenti anno ex sui qua solet humanitate ad cuiusdam hominis defuncti\nanothomiam uno semel uidere non fuerit dedignata ob sui intellectus\ndignitatem qui semper alta intelligere concupiscit, cumque tu opera tam\nnaturae miranda in anothomizato incaepisti uidere corpore tunc haec\nintelligendi creuit animus tua digna [folio 2 verso] creuit uoluntas:\nEt me hyeronimum Manfredum ad hoc opus de anothomia intitulatum materno\nsermone tuo dignissimo nomini inscribere concitasti: (ut omnino sicut\ndebeor) rem gratam tuae faciam dominationi: In hoc enim tui agnoui\ndignitatem intellectus, tui ingenii solertiam quod in rebus naturae\nmirandis tuum peruoluas intellectum. Hoc enim opusculum quantum melius\npotui ex uariis antiquorum uoluminibus exserpsi ac id abreuiaui: nec\neumdem forte tenui ordinem ut illi: et ipsum materno composui sermone\nut opus hoc delectabilius tuae sit magnificentie.\n\nAccipe igitur magnifice et potens domine hoc opus de corporis humani\nanothomia tuo dignisimo nomini intitulatum, ea benignitate et\nhumanitate, qua soles: et animo illari ac gratioso id accepta: qui\nsatis tibi erit delectabile et perplacebit quia dignum est opus: Vale\nmiles magnanimis, et solito ama.\n\nFinis prohemii.\n\n[Here a folio is missing.]\n\n[folio 3 recto] a li nerui lequale hano origine da le extremita\ndi musculi: Unde e da sapere che li musculi sono compositi de\nnerui, corde, e ligamenti e carne facti da la natura a dare el moto\nuoluntario, Impero da le soe extrimita escono queste tale corde e\nuadono a membri che se debano mouere: e quando se retraheno li dicti\nmusculi consequenter se se retraheno le lor corde: & finaliter i\nmembri: et similiter quando se dilatano i musculi se dilatano etiam le\ncorde & consequenter i membri.\n\nLi ligamenti sono etiam simili a nerui facti a ligare le iuncture de le\nosse e non li dette la natura sentimento como fece a li nerui & a le\ncorde acio che per el molto mouimento e fricatione de le iuncture non\ndoleseno.\n\nLe Artarie sono de substantia neruosa & ligamentale in longo extense o\nconcaue: ne le quale se contene el sangue sutilissimo & depurato et el\nspirito uitale el quale e mandato dal core a dare uita a tuti i membri:\net hano origine da esso core: & impero hebeno doe tuniche acio chel\nsangue sutile & el spirito uitale non usisseno fuora.\n\nLe vene sono simile a lartarie ma sono quiete e non se moueno, ma hano\norigine dal figato et in esse se contene el sangue grosso cum li altri\nhumuri che non e cusi depurato ne [folio 3 verso] cusi sutile como e\nel sangue de le artarie: impero non li fece senon una tunicha: per\nche quelo sangue non era cosi sutile chel potesse penetrare fuora ne\nanche non bisognandose mouere non era suspitione de rompersi como ne le\nartarie che era neccessario a mouerse per refrigerare el core atrahendo\nlaiere frigido & expellendo fuora li fumi caldi da esso.\n\nLi panniculi sono composti e texuti de fili neruosi sutilissimi che\nnon se posseno uedere e sono questi paniculi spissi e sutili e sono de\nmolte manerie: Alcuni forno facti a continere o coprire a Alcuni membri\ne custodirli ne la sua figura e substantia como sono li paniculi che\ncopreno el cerebro e molti altri di li quali poi diremo: Alcuni altri\npanniculi sono facti a suspendere uno membro a laltro como li rognoni\nsono aligati a laschina mediante uno certo paniculo: Alcuni altri\npaniculi sono facti acio che alcuni membri che non hano sentimento\nrecceuano qualche sentimento per el panniculo: nel quale sono inuolti\ncomo sono el pulmone el figato la milza & i rognoni li quali sono\npriuati de sentimento impero la natura aciascuno di loro li fece uno\npanniculo doue fusseuo inuolti per la casone dicta.\n\nDa poi tuti questi membra hauendo la natura ordito el corpo de lhomo\nde [folio 4 recto] li predicti bisogno reimpire le uacuita e reimpille\nde carne: Fece aduncha la natura la carne per reimpire le uacuita che\nrimangono da lorditura de nerui uene & altri membri dicti.\n\nPraeterea e da sapere che la natura ha dato aciascuno di li predicti\nmembri quatro uirtu. Una e uirtu atratiua per laquale ha ad atrahere el\nnutrimento suo a se del quale el membro se ha a nutricare: La seconda\nuirtu e digegtiua per laquale el nutrimento atrato se digerisse &\nconuertese ne la sustantia del membro: La terza uirtu si e retentiua\nper laquale el nutrimento atrato se retiene debito tempo acio che la\nuirtu digestiua possa perficere la sua operatione circha quello: La\nquarta uirtu e expulsiua laquale ha expellere le superfluita che se\ngenerano dal nutrimento ne la digestione.\n\nAnche e da sapere che la natura nel corpo de lhuomo ha facto quatro\nmembri principali como quatro signori et aciascuno di loro li ha dato\nuna casa o uero uno palazo a sua custodia doue habite cum certe camare\no uero stantie che hano aseruirli al suo bisogno: El primo membro\nprincipale e signore e el cerebro al quale li fece la natura el capo\ncum le sue circumstantie per suo habitaculo e dette a questo membro\nche lui fusse principio e radice de tuto el sentimento e moto de tuto\nel [folio 4 verso] corpo: dal quale tuti li altri membri recceueno el\nsentire: e el mouere, & a questo membri li dette etiam cinque uirtu\ncognoscitiue exteriore cio e li cinque sentimenti e cinque altre uirtu\ncognoscitiue interiore che deserueno a lo intellecto.\n\nEl secondo membro principale e signore si e el Core alquale la natura\nha dato la sua casa cio e el pecto cum le sue adiacentie: et aquesto\nmembro li ha dato la uirtu de la uita dal quale proceda la uita in tuti\nli altri membri como da uno primo principio.\n\nEl terzo membro principale e signore e el Figato alquale dette la\nnatura per suo domicilio el uentre inferiore cum li altri membri\ncircumstanti che sono neccessarii a la sua operatione e dette a questo\nmembro la uirtu nutritiua chel fusse principio e radice del nutricare\nde tuti li membri.\n\nEl quarto membro principale fu li testiculi e la sua casa e la bursa\nlaquale li contene et aquilli deserueno piu altri membri como poi se\nuedera et a questi testiculi ha dato la natura la uirtu generatiua cio\ne de generare el sperma o uero seme el quale habia una uirtu generatiua\nche possa produre una cosa simile a colui dal quale se decide tale\nsperma: et questo fu facto per conseruare lhuomo in spetie non se\npossendo conseruare in indiuiduo.\n\nUltra questi quatro membri principali e suoi domicilii [folio 5 recto]\nha facto la natura alcuni altri membri cio e el collo cum la gola\nche fusse uia e transito dal primo membro principale cio e cerebro\nali altri membri principali et etiam a tute laltre parte & per altre\nutilita quale noi da poi diremo.\n\nItem ha facto la natura le braza e le mane che hauesseno a pigliare el\ncibo e mandarlo al luoco conueniente et etiam per che lhuomo solo uiue\nper arte lequale non se possono perficere senza le braza e mano.\n\nItem fece le cosse, gambe e piedi acio se potesse mouere da luocho a\nluocho secondo li soi bisogni.\n\nNoi aduncha poneremo la Anothomia de tuti li membri e parte dicte:\nComenciando per ordine dal cerebro e da la sua casa et consequenter\ndescendendo per insino apiedi.\n\n\n_Capitulum secundum, tractatus primi de anothomia capitis et omnium\ncontentorum in eo._\n\nFece la natura el capo ossuoso per magiore tutela del cerebro: el quale\nessendo inmobile non li bisogno hauere musculi: Et per che el cerebro\nne lhuomo e magiore che ne li altri animali secondo la sua grandeza\nimpero bisogno chel capo de lhuomo fusse etiamdio grande per rispecto\nde li altri animali: Et etiam bisogno li meati del capo ne lhuomo\nessere piu distincti essendo piu dedito al cognoscere.\n\nLa figura [folio 5 verso] del capo naturale e rotonda compressa da\ndui canti como sel fusse una cera rotonda compressa cum le mano da\nla parte drita e da la stancha faria doe eminentie una dinanzi e\nlaltra de drieto e la parte drita e stancha rimaneriano piane: Bisogno\nfusse rotondo acio fusse pin capace et etiam che fusse piu securo e\nrisguardato da nocumenti exteriori a li quali e molto exposito: Bisogno\netiam essere facto cum quelle eminentie acio che li meati del cerebro\nhauesseno megliore distinctione et acio che li cinque sentimenti\nexteriori hauesseno origine da la eminentia anteriore.\n\nDiece sono le parte del capo: La prima e li capilli quasi capitis pili\nfacti da la natura a magiore tutela del capo da le cose exteriore et\netiam per belleza: La seconda parte del capo e la cute la quale bisogno\nessere molto grossa acio che li capilli fusseno ben firmi hauendo le\nradice sue molte grosse e longhe et etiam che fusse megliore scuto e\ncooperimento de losso et del cerebro non li essendo parte musculose: La\nterza parte si e la carne laquale solo e ne la fronte e ne le tempie\ne circha le masselle e non in le altre parte: La quarta parte e uno\npanniculo exteriore chiamato almochatim elquale appare in continenti\ncomo e liuata su la cute e copre tuto losso del craneo de fuora: Et\nfece la natura questo panniculo [folio 6 recto] acio che lacute che e\nmolle non tochasse incontinenti losso che e duro: Et etiam acio che\nlosso del capo hauesse sentimento per questo panniculo: Et tertio anche\nacio che el paniculo interiore del capo chiamato Duramater mediante\nquesto panniculo stesse suspeso a losso del craneo cum certi nerui e\nligamenti che escono per le comissure del dicto osso et hano origine\ndal dicto panniculo interiore & uscendo fuora de losso texono o uero\ncomponeno quello panniculo exteriore dicto Almochatim: La quinta parte\ne el craneo cioe osso facto como uno capello nela concauita del quale\nglie locato el cerebro: & in questo craneo furno quatro ossa cusite\ninsieme e la natura non fece questo osso uno ma de piu pezi acio che\nachadando nocumento in una parte non comunicasse a laltre parte: Et\netiam acio che per quelle comissure o uero cusiture potesseno meglio\nexhalare fuora le fumusitade dal cerebro: Et tertio acio che bisognando\nla uirtu de le medicine applicate potesseno meglio penetrare ale parte\ndentro quisti aduncha quatro pezi de osso furno da la natura cusiti\net insieme ionti in modo de denti acio fusse piu fermi e forti et non\nfurno facti in modo che se potesseno uincare como fano le iunture per\nche non seriano state cusi forte: et etiam [folio 6 verso] per che non\nbisognaua a losso del capo mouerse: Et queste comissure sono cinque cio\ne tre uere e doe mendose: Le comissure uere sono quelle che passano\ntuto losso et le mendose non passano: De le uere comissure una si e\nne la parte anteriore chiamata coronale et e facta a modo de uno C\ne protende da la parte drita a la stancha del capo et ha li branchi\nuerso la fronte. La secunda comissura uera si protende per la longheza\ndel capo comencianda da la comissura coronale ala parte posteriore\ncomo una friza o uero sagitta che uene da larcho, impero e chiamata\nsagitale ----(. La terza comissura e ne la parte posteriore chiamata\nlaudale facta a modo de uno A, per abacho chiamato dal greco lauda: e\nla comissura sagittale protende da la coronale a la laudale \u276f----(.\n\nLe comissure mendose sono due da ciascaduno lato una cio e dal drito e\ndal stanco e sono dicte corticate per che non passano.\n\nEt se noi consideremo per queste cinque comissure hauemo quatro ossi\ncusiti insieme: Uno si e losso de la fronte che comenza dala comissura\ncoronale e termina uerso la parte inferiore a una altra comissura la\nquale comenza da uno brancho de la comissura coronale e procede a\npresso le ciglie de li ochii a laltro brancho \u2c6d. Laltro osso si e de\ndrieto el [folio 7 recto] quale se termina a la comissura laudale e dui\naltri ossi da le tempie che se terminano da le comissure mendose le\nquale comenzano da la comissura laudale a la comissura coronale.\n\nLa sexta parte sono doi paniculi uno chiamato Dura mater el quale e\nin continenti de poi el craneo: e laltro se chiama pia mater el quale\nincontinente copre el cerebro e questo fece la natura hauendo grande\nsolicitudine di questo membro acio che in continenti non fusse tocho\nda losso ma processe per piu mezi che uno fusse piu duro che laltro:\nEt anche fece dui panniculi acio che se la cadesse nocumento in uno de\nloro non comunicasse al cerebro in continente. Ne la pia matre sono\ntexute certe uene per le quale se nutrisse el cerebro e si lo copre\nper tuto excepto la parte posteriore per che essendo quella parte\nsicca non bisogno di questo paniculo como la parte anteriore e meza.\nQuesti dui panniculi in piu luochi penetrano la sustantia del cerebro\net se lo diuide in parte drita e parte sinistra et in parte anteriore\n& parte posteriore: et per queste tale diuisione furno fabrichate nel\ncapo diuerse celule o uero camerette ne le quale produce lanima diuerse\noperatione per che bisognaua che queste tale parte fuseno de diuerse\ncomplexione.\n\nE leuati adoncha questi dui panniculi apparera La [folio 7 verso]\nSeptima parte del capo: et e esso cerebro facta da la natura acio che\nel spirito uitale mandato dal core calidissimo sia contemperato da\nla frigidita de esso cerebro: et iue douenti spirito animale elquale\ne principio de le operatione cognoscitiue & motiue: e questo cerebro\ne una sustantia medulare biancha molle e uiscosa a cio che da essa\nhauesseno origine li nerui: ma la parte dinanci fu generata piu humida\ne molle & mancho frigida che la parte posteriore per che da la parte\nanteriore hano origine li sentimenti li quali sono molli & humidi ma da\nla parte posteriore hano origine li nerui motiui li quali bisognano\nessere piu sicci e forti: Questo cerebro aduncha se diuide in tri\nuintriculi oucro tre parte: El primo uentriculo o parte anteriore e\ndiuisa in doe, cio e dextra e sinistra: et e magiore che nesuno de\nli altri uentriculi: et in questo primo uentriculo li pose la natura\ndoe uirtu deseruente al cognoscere una se chiama senso comune doue se\nterminano li altri sensi exteriori como al suo centro et deferiscono\nle imagine o uero spetie de le cose sensiue a quello luocho acio che\nquella uirtu cognosca e distingua tra una cosa sensibile e laltra et\netiam cognosca le operatione di li sentimenti particulari lequale doe\ncose non puo fare nesuno de quilli.\n\nLaltra uirtu de questo primo uentriculo se [folio 8 recto] chiama\nfantasia et apresso alcuni se chiama imaginatiua laquale ha a retinere\net conseruare le spetie de le cose sensibile ne la absentia de le cose\nsensibile. Quando tu harai ueduto el uentriculo primo tu uederai tre\ncose inanzi che uegni al uentriculo secondo. La prima si e doe anche\ncio e una cosa facta de la sustantia del cerebro in modo de doe anche\nche sono fundamento del uentriculo anteriore cusi da la dextra como\nda la sinistra parte: et dal lato di ciascuna ancha glie una altra\ncosa facta a modo de uno uerme subterraneo rosa se sanguinea ligata\nde certi ligamenti e neruitti el quale uerme quando se alonga chiude\nquelle anche et consequenter chiude la uia tra el primo uentriculo et\nel secondo et questo fece la natura acio che lhuomo quando uole posse\ncessare da le cogitatione e dal considerare et similiter quando uole\nconsiderare e pensare questo uerme se contrahe et contrahendosi apre\nquelle anche et consequenter apre la uia che e tra uno uentriculo e\nlaltro: La terza cosa che tu uederai un poco piu de sotta e una lacuna\ncio e una certa conchauita rotonda che tra allongo nel mezio de laquale\nglie uno bucho che ua gioso al palato et a questo bucho li occorre una\nuia drita laquale descende dal uentriculo di mezo al colatorio e questa\nlacuna ha circumquaque eminentie grande rotonde facte a sustentare\n[folio 8 verso] le uene et artharie che ascendeno a dicti uentriculi: e\nquello bucho e lato di sopra e stretto in fonde e per questa lacuna el\nprimo e secondo uentriculo purgano le sue superfluitade benche la parte\nanteriore piu se purghi per li colatorii del naso: Unde queste doe uie\nfece la natura ad expurgare le superfluita del cerebro.\n\nQuando adoncha tu hauerai ueduto queste tre cose incontinente te\napparera el secondo uentriculo del mezo el quale e como una uia et uno\ntransito dal primo uentriculo al posteriore: in questo uentriculo sono\ndoe uirtu una chiamata extimatiua, laquale ha elicere cose insensate\nda le cose sensate. Laltra uirtu se chiama cogitatiua laquale cognosce\ncusi le cose sensate como le cose insensate componendo e diuidendo: e\nquesta uirtu in mediate deserue a lo intellecto: et tute le altre uirtu\ndicte et anche la uirtu memoratiua se ritrouano ne li animali bruti, ma\nquesta solo se retruoua ne lhuomo.\n\nDapoi te occorrera el terzo uentriculo situato ne la parte posteriore\nduro per che e principio de la piu parte di nerui motiui liquali\nbisogno essere piu forti e duri: Questo uentriculo e de figura\npyramidale cio e facto in ponta e la ponta si e ne la parte superiore\ndoue ha aconseruare le spetie per che meglio se riserua la cosa [folio\n9 recto] in stretto luocho che in amplo: e la parte di sotto e lata\nper che ha a receuere le spetie e meglio se receue in luocho amplo\nche stretto: Due adoncha utilita se ha da questo uentriculo una che e\nprincipio de la nucha e di li nerui mottiui. Laltra si e che e camera\nde la uirtu memoratiua.\n\nE per questo appare che quando e offesa la parte posteriore del capo in\ncontinenti se offende la memoria e quando se offende la parte de mezo\nse offende la uirtu extimatiua & cogitatiua & offesa la parte dinanzi\nse offende el senso comune e la fantasia et in questo modo ueneno in\ncognitione li medici de li luochi de le dicte uirtu.\n\nFacto questo tu leuarai el cerebro ligieramente chel non si rompa\nalcuno neruo e comezarai da la parte di nanzi & incontinenti te\napparerano doe carne picole in modo de doi capi de mamille simile ala\nsustantia de cerebro per che nascono da quello et sono coperte dal\npaniculo subtile cio e da la pia matre e queste sono lorgano de lo\noderato doue e la uirtu olphatiua.\n\nDal cerebro nascono septe para de nerui: procedi adoncha piu oltra ne\nla parte dinanci e uederai el primo paro de dicti nerui liquali sono\ngrandi chiamasi nerui obtitii de li quali la origine e dal cerebro\nne li uentriculi anteriori e procedeno uerso li ochii ma nanci che\nescano la pia matre se coniongeno [folio 9 verso] et in luocho de\nla sua unione sono perforati: Uolse Galieno che dicti nerui solo se\nconiongeseno o uero se unisseno e non se incrutiasseno ma quello neruo\nche uiene dala parte drita da poi la unione ritorna pure dala parte\ndrita et similiter quello che uiene da la parte sinestra da poi la\nunione ritorna uerso lochio sinistro: Ma Rasis uolse el contrario\nbenche la opinione de Galieno sia piu comune: questi nerui deserueno al\nuedere e fu necessario che se uniseno acio che le spetie de la cosa che\nse uede receuuta in doi ochii e portata per doi nerui ritorni a unita\nacio che una cosa non appara doe.\n\nDapoi li dicti nerui leua el cerebro secondo la sua medieta e uederai\nuno altro pare de nerui subtili et duri li quali uengono similiter a li\nochii a darli el mouimento uoluntario componendo certi musculi.\n\nDa poi tu uederai el terzo pare de nerui di quali una parte se ne ua\nala faza a darli el sentire e el mouere uoluntario et anche una parte\nde quisti ua a dare el gusto a la lengua: Un altra parte de dicti nerui\nse mescola insieme cum el quarto[218] pare de nerui et descendeno\ninsieme gioso a dare sentimento al Diafragma et al stomaco et alaltre\nuiscera: Una certa parte de li nerui del quarto[218] pare se ne ua a\ndare el sentimento al palato.\n\nDa poi e el quinto pare de nerui se ne ua a li ossi petrosi liquali\nsono apresso [folio 10 recto] le orechie e de questi nerui ne li buchi\nde lorechie se componeno certi panniculi liquali sono organo de lo\naudire.\n\nDa poi e el sexto pare de nerui che se diuide in tre parte una parte\nua ali musculi de la gola: Laltra parte ua ali musculi de le spalle la\nterza parte che e magiore de le altre descende gio a lo epyglotto e nel\ndiafragma se sparge nel pecto nel core e nel polmone a compagnandosi\ninsieme cum li nerui del terzo pare dicti: Et anche da li nerui di\nquesto sexto pare quali uadeno gio a lo epyglotto se generano li nerui\nde la uoce chiamati reuersiui dili quali piu disotto se uedera.\n\nDapoi e el septimo pare de nerui ha origine da la parte posteriore del\ncerebro e uadeno a dare el mouimento a la lingua uoluntario: De questi\nsepte para de nerui li primi doi pari hano origine da la anteriore\nparte del cerebro: el terzo pare ha origine dal mezo de lanteriore e\nposteriore parte: li altri quatro para de nerui hano origine da la\nparte posteriore.\n\nE dapoi quisti procedendo piu oltre leua tuto el cerebro & apparera\nla octaua parte del capo cioe doi panniculi posti sotto el cerebro li\nquali leuati apparerati la nona parte che e una certa rethe laquale se\nchiama rethe mirabile per che e contexta de una tessetura fortissima\net miraculosa multiplicata de certe artharie sutilissime: lequale\nsono [folio 10 verso] rami de alcune artharie che ascendeno dal core\nchiamate artharie apopletice: & in queste artharie di questa rethe se\ncontiene el spirito uitale mandate dal core acio che douenti animale:\net acio che questo spirito meglio se alterasse e disponesse fece la\nnatura quelle artharie sutilissime diuise per minime parte acio che\nquesto spirito fusse diuiso anche in minime parte: et pose la natura\nquesta rethe mirabile sotto el cerebro perche bisogno hauere de molta\ncustodia onde lo situo in luoco tutissimo et etiam acio che le humidita\nuaporese del cerebro che cadeno sopra questa rethe opilandola inducesse\nel somno naturale.\n\nDa poi tute queste cose uederai losso basilare che e la decima et\nultima parte del capo e chiamasi basilare per che e base e fondamento\nde tuto el capo e fu facto duro acio che le superfluita che descendono\na lui non lo putrefesse: e questo osso e diuiso in molti altri ossi\ncomo se puo uedere cociandelo. Onde se diuide ne le osse petrose e ne\nli ossi del naso e ne le ossi de li ochii & in doi altri ossi laterali\nli quali non se possono uedere se non per uia de decocione.\n\n\n_Capitulum tertium de anothomia oculorum et membrorum deseruientium\nuisui._\n\nLe ossa del naso forno cauernose e porrose acio che le superfluita\ndel cerebro possano meglio de [folio 11 recto] scendere e lo odore\nascendere.\n\nDapoi scinde tuti doi li ossi de gliochii e uederai la colligantia\nloro cum li nerui obtitii e cum li nerui motiui: e el loco de li ochii\nnon fu molto in profondo per che douca receuere le spetie de le cose\nuisibile: ne anche fu tropo eminente acio non receuesse lesione da le\ncose exteriore: Et essendo li ochii molto molli e passibili ne lhuomo\nfece la natura li supercilii acio fusseno custoditi da le cose che\ndescendeno de su in gioso e fece le palpebre che fuseno custoditi da\nle cose che uengono da fuora dentro: e fece le eminentie de le maxille\net anche el naso in mezo che da ogne lato e per ogne uerso fusseno\ncustoditi: tanto fu la solicitudine che hebe la natura di questo membro.\n\nSepte sono le tuniche e tri humori di liquali e composto lochio tre\ntuniche anteriore se coiongeno cum tre altre posteriore como se fusseno\nsei scutelle che cum la bocha ogne doe se coniongesseno e che doe\nfussene magiore che contineseno le altre doe e poi li e la septima\ntunica che e magiore de tute e contene tuto lochio: e pero se chiama\nconiontiua per che congionge e circunda tuto lochio excepto el luocho\nde la pupilla e quello pocho de la cornea che appare e questa e la\nprima tunicha comenzando da le parte de fuora et e biancha.\n\nLa seconda tunicha ne la parte dinanci se si chiama cornea, [folio 11\nverso] per che se asomiglia al corno quanto ala substantia e quanto\nal colore: e fu questa tunicha transparente acio che le spetie de le\ncose uisibile potesseno penetrare per essa e fu etiam sollida e grossa\ncomposita de quatro pellicule e questo fu per che e propinqua a le\ncose exteriore non receuesse nocumento da esse e cum questa tunicha\nne la parte posteriore se conionge un altra tunica dicta scliroticha\ncio e dura e queste doe tuniche hano origine dal paniculo di sotto el\ncraneo cio e da la dura matre cusi como la prima tunicha ha origine dal\npanniculo disopra el craneo dicto almochatim.\n\nLa quarta tunicha ne la parte dinanzi se chiama uuea a similitudine\nde uno grano de uua negra et in el mezo di quella glie uno buco che\nse chiama la pupilla: fece la natura questa tunica obscura acio\nchel spirito uisiuo se confortasse e che non si resoluesse dal lume\nexteriore: e fece quello buco in questa tunica acio che le spetie\npotesseno penetrare senza impedimento e fecelo stretto acio chel\nspirito uisiue fusse unito: Onde quando dicta pupilla o uero buco se\nalargha oltra el debito o per natura o per accidente se impedisse\nel uedere: e ne la parte de drieto se li coniongne la quinta tunica\ndicta secundina per che e facta a similitudine de la secondina cio e\npaniculo nel quale se inuoltano li putti nel uentre [folio 12 recto] de\nla matre et hano origine de la pia matre.\n\nLa sexta tunicha se chiama ne la parte dinanzi aranea per che e facta\nin modo de una tela de ragno a la quale ne la parte posteriore se li\nconiongne la septima tunicha chiamata arethina per che e facta in modo\nde una rethe: et in mezo de la tunicha uuea et de la aranea da la parte\ndinanzi glie uno humore dicto albugineo facto a similitudine de uno\nalbumo de ouo facto per humettare lochio et acio che la tunicha cornea\nstia suleuata impero in li homini che moreno quando questo humore se\ndesicca cade la cornea e se si spiana et a lhora dice el uulgo che\nappare una tela dinanzi da gliochii et e signo infalibile de la morte:\nEt anche questo humore tiene la pupilla apperta impero quando se sicca\nse stringe la pupilla: Nel meze de le due ultime tuniche cio e aranea\net arethina lequale hano origine da nerui obtitii li sono dui humuri\ncio e uno humore uitreo a similitudine de uno uetro liquefacto: Laltro\nhumore e dicto cristallino a similitudine del cristallo: dicto etiam\ngrandineo a similitudine de una grandine et e alquanto duro e rotondo\ncum una certa planitie ne la parte anteriore doue se receueno le spetie\nde le cose uisibile: e ne la parte posteriore e de figura pyramidale\ncio e che e facta in ponta: et iue se conpisse [folio 12 verso] lacto\ndel uedere: e ne la parte posteriore e circumdato da lhumore uitreo\ndal quale se nutrisse: e questo humore cristalino declina piu uerso la\nparte anteriore e lhumore uitreo uerso la parte posteriore. Et a li\nochii uengono li nerui obtitii per li quali se de portano le spetie\nuisibile da gliochii al senso comune et ali altri sensi interiori.\n\n\n_Capitulum quartum de anothomia aurium et membrorum deseruientium\nauditui._\n\nExpedito questo tu uederai le orechie poste da doi lati del capo in\nmezo de lanteriore parte e posteriore acio che la uoce o uero sono se\npotesse audire da ogne canto cio e da la parte drita e stancha dinanzi\ne de drieto de sopra e disotto: non furno situate da la parte dinanzi\nper che iue li sono gliochii el gusto e lolphato: non furno poste de\ndrieto per che seriano state tropo distante dal senso comune: forno\nposte sotto la tonsura di capilli per che se piu sopra fusene stato\nposte seriano state uelate da cepilli e da quelle cose che se portano\nin capo.\n\nFurno le orechie rotonde acio fusseno piu capace de laere sonoro: non\nfurno ossuose acio che per qualche percussione o caso non se rompeseno:\nforno adoncha carthilaginose acio che fusseno piu sonore: non furno\netiamdio carnose ne paniculare per che non hauerebeno seruata la figura\ne compositione [folio 13 recto] debita.\n\nHebbe uno buco ritorto e non dritto como quello de le limache acio\nche se facesse megliore reuerberatione de laiere sonoro in esse: et\nanche ne aiere disproportionato ne sono si tropo forte senza misura\nperuenisse a lorgano de laudito: e questo buco e uelato de uno paniculo\nduro texuto de fili neruosi che hano origine dal quinto pare de nerui\ndel cerebro et de fili ligamentali che hano origine da losso petroso al\nquale se termina el dicto buco: ne la concauita del quale li e el neruo\nauditiuo cio e nel quale se compisse laudito et e texuto in modo de\nuno panniculo: et e continuo a la dura matre nel quale se contiene uno\ncerto spirito auditiuo dal principio de la generatione iue complantato:\net apresso di quello li e una certa uisichetta ne laquale e posto un\ncerto aiere connaturale el quale deserue a laudito.\n\n\n_Capitulum quintum de anothomia nasi et aliorum membrorum deseruientium\nolphatui._\n\nLe osse de le maxille comenzano da la comissura che e tra el craneo\ne losso basilare in luocho che e ne la fine del sopracilio e de la\nfronte et procede uerso la parte posteriore a presso losso petroso doue\nse termina lorechia e terminano ne la parte di sotto a li denti: de\nliquali poi uederemo la nothomia.\n\nEl naso e composito de doi ossi figurati [folio 13 verso] secondo la\nforma de doi trianguli che hano le ponte in su uerso el collatorio:\net sono lati ne la parte de sotto. Onde el naso e piu largo di sotto\nche di sopra e queste ossa furno sutile acio che fusseno ligiere e non\ngraue: ne anche furno tropo dure per che non li bisognaua in quello\nluocho grande forteza.\n\nFu etiam el naso composto de tre carthilagine cio e doe ne lextremita\nde doi ossi acio che le parte molle cio e la cute e li musculi\ninmediate non fusseno tochi da le osse dure e che le nare stesseno\naperte e se potesseno dilatare e constringere secondo la neccessita\nde laiere atrato & expulso e questo non se harebe potuto fare se solo\nfusse stato ossuoso.\n\nLa terza carthilagine diuide el naso per mezo per el longo et e piu\ndura ne la parte superiore che ne la inferiore: Onde furno facti doi\nmeati e buchi acio che uscendo le superfluita per uno laltro deseruisse\na laiere atrahato et expulso: Onde essendo uno meato solo ne lexito de\nle superfluita harebbe impedito el transito de laiere: questi doe meati\nperuengono al collatorio cio [e] uno buco che e ne losso basilare et\nsimiliter iue sono perforati li dui panniculi che copriuano el cerebro\nper insino a le caronchole mamillare: lequale sono ne lextremita de le\ndue parte del uentriculo anteriore del cerebro como e stato dicto.\n\nEl naso etiam fu composto de doi musculi [folio 14 recto] picoli acio\nche essendo grandi non impedisseno glialtri musculi de la faza cio e\nquilli che sono ne le maxille che moueno i labri: et similiter glialtri\nmusculi.\n\nEl naso fu composto per molte rasone: prima per euentare el cerebro:\nSecundo ad atrahere laiere: nel quale sono le spetie de le cose\nodorabile: e cusi deserue a lolphato: Tertio acio che le littere\nprolate meglio se distinguano come el buco grande de la fistola o uero\nzalamella deserue ala distinctione di soni: Quarto acio che per questo\nmeato se expurgaseno le superfluita del cerebro.\n\n\n_Capitulum sextum de anothomia oris palati dentium uuulae faucum et\nlinguae._\n\nNe la bocha sono doi labri uno disotto e laltro si e disopra composti\nde nerui carne cute e panniculo de una mirabile comixtione in modo che\nla cute e la carne e li nerui et el panniculo non se posseno seperare\ninsieme: e questo fu facto acio che hauendo bisogno quisti labri di\nmouerse per ognie uerso bisogno che fusseno cusi composti per che non\nse posse fare in quello luocho musculi per la graueza grande che seria\nstata: el paniculo che copre i labri nasce da la tunicha intrinsecha\ndel meri cio e de la uia che ua a lo stomaco: et consequenter se\ncontinua per questo modo cum la tunicha interiore del stomaco cusi\ncomo etiam dio tute le altre parte de la bocha se [folio 14 verso]\ncontinuano acio chel sentimento del stomaco se conformi al sentimento\nde la bocha et per questo appare che quando el de uenire uomito a\nqualche uno trema lo labro inferiore.\n\nDa poi li labri sono trentadoi denti sedeci superiori et sedici\ninferiori: de li inferiori doi sono dicti duali: doi altri incisiui:\ndoi altri canini: quatro maxillari: et sei molari che sono in tuto\nsedici: & altratanti superiori. Forno facti li denti: prima per\nmasticare el cibo acio che meglio si digesta: secundo per la uoce et\ndistinctione de la eloquela cusi como furno facti li labri. Onde quilli\nche manchano de denti o de labri non proferiscono bene.\n\nDa poi tu uederai el palato el quale ha una certa concauita ne la\nsumittade acio che la uoce habbia el suo tono: et etiam chel cibo\nquando se masticha meglio si possa reuolgere per bocha:\n\nNe la fine del palato tu uederai una carne pendente in modo de uno\ngrano duua: impero si chiama uuula: et e de substantia rara e spongiosa\nper che fu facta principalmente a receuere la humidita che descende\ndal capo acio non descenda a membri inferiori impero spesso se tumefa\ndicta uuula: fu facta etiamdio acio che temperasse et modulasse la\nuoce refrangendo laiere che uiene dal polmone: et etiam che lo aiere\natrahato al polmone lo ritenga al quanto repercutiendolo acio che cusi\nfrigido non peruenga al polmone [folio 15 recto] ma alquanto alterato:\ne per questa rasone appare che quilli che hano tagliata la uuula sono\nmolto catarosi impero comandano i medici che non se taglie quando e\napostomata: ma che se cauterige cum fuoco.\n\nDapoi la uuula sono le fauce: e sono li luochi ampli glandosi disposti\na receuere le superfluitade del cerebro impero facilmente se apostemano.\n\nDapoi e la lingua laquale e fabricata et ligata a losso posteriore del\ncapo dicto lauda facto a modo de uno A per abacho e fu composta di\ncarne, panniculo, uene, artharie, et noue musculi: e forno facti tanti\nmusculi in essa per che se douea molto mouere per ogne uerso secondo\nel bisogno de la loquela: Et fu in essa piu uene artharie e nerui che\nin qualoncha altro membro rispetto de la sua grandeza: et fu facta la\nlingua acio che fusse organo del gusto per nerui che uengono dal terzo\npare di nerui gia dicto circa la sua radice: et sono de due facta nerui\nche uengono a la lingua cio e uno paro di nerui motiui a darli el moto:\net uno altro paro di nerui sensitiui a darli el gusto: et tu uederai\nche li nerui motiui piu se profondano ne la lingua per darli el mouere:\net li nerui sensitiui sono piu expansi ne la superficie: et nel suo\npanniculo a darli el gusto e el tacto: Fu etiam facto la lingua che\ndeseruisse al proferire de le parole: et etiam a reuolgere el cibo per\nbocha quando se masticha.\n\nCirca [folio 15 verso] la radice de la lingua da ciascuno lato sono\ncarne glandose facte acio che generasseno la humidita saliuale che\nhauesse a humetare la lengua acio che non se siccase per tanti\nmouimenti che ha in se: et in queste carne glandose sono dui buchi che\nporia intrare uno stile e per quilli buchi se distilla la humidita\nsaliuale. Sotto la lingua sono doe uene grande uiride da le quale poi\nprocedeno piu altre uene.\n\nEt nota che la megliore lingua quanto al deseruire al parlare e la\nlingua che e mediocre ne la longitudine e sua latitudine cio e che non\nsia tropo longa ne tropo larga: e che apresso de la ponta et extremita\nsua exteriore sia sutile per che la lingua che e longa larga e grossa o\nuero tropo picola non e conueniente al parlare.\n\nNota etiam che la lingua ha colligantia cum el cerebro mediante li\nnerui che uengono ad essa et cum el figato mediante le uene: et cum el\ncore mediante le artharie et cum el stomaco mediante el meri: et cum el\npolmono mediante la cana de esso polmone: impero in ciascuna infirmita\ni signi de la lengua sono molti efficaci a iudicare di tale infirmita:\ne quiue se finisse la anothomia del primo membro principale cio e [el]\ncerebro e del suo habitaculo.\n\n\n_Tractatus secundus de anothomia membrorum spiritualium et secundi\nmembri principalis: capitulum primum de anothomia gule et colli._\n\n[folio 16 recto] Finito el primo membro principale _e_ ueduta la\nanothomia del suo habitaculo e de le altre camare deseruente a quello\nresta a uedere la anothomia di gli altri membri principali: E prima\nuederemo la nothomia del collo e de la gola che e condutto e meato\ndal primo membro principale a glialtri. Diciamo adoncha che la gola\nsi e uno certo spatio nel quale sono doe uie una che mena el cibo al\nstomaco: e questa se chiama meri: Laltra uia mena laiere al pulmone a\nrifrigerare el core: & etiam mena fuora laiere e uapori caldi da esso\ncore: Onde se tu scarni el collo e la gola tu uederai certi musculi\nlongitudinali sopra liquali nota le uene da tuti doi li canti: et\neleuati quilli musculi tu uederai doe carne ala forma de doe mandole\nne la radice de la lingua: una da ciascuno lato: de le quale habiamo\ndicto parte disopra: et anche noi dicemo che sono como doe orechiette\npicole, e sono neruose acio [che] siano forte et aiuteno a fare\npenetrare laiere a la canna del polmone: et etiam queste tale amigdale\nhano a congregare una certa humidita per humettare la lingua como e\nstato dicto et per humetare etiam la canna del polmone acio [che] non\nse dessiccasse: et anche acio che reimpisseno i luochi uacui de la\ngola: et anche acio che fusseno scuto e tutella de le uene & artharie\nche ascendeno al capo: Onde per questo collo e gola passano le uene dal\nfigato ascendendo al cerebro a darli el nutrimento [folio 16 verso]\nper esso anche passano le artharie che ascendeno dal core al cerebro\na darli la uita: et acio chel spirito uitale per esse uada al rethe\nmirabile delquale e stato dicto douenti animale e chiamase queste\nartharie apopletice per che quando se opillano generano la poplesia cio\ne el male de la gozola prohibendo el transito del spirito. Per questo\netiam collo passano i nerui che descendeno dal capo ai membri inferiore\na darli el sentire et el mouere: e tute queste parte potrai uedere\nescarnando e tagliando el collo e la gola per lo longo.\n\n\n_Capitulum secundum de anothomia pulmonis et tracheae artharie; id est\ncane pulmonis._\n\nVediamo hora la anothomia del core el quale e laltro membro principale:\ne del suo domicilio nel quale e anche collocato el polmone como quello\nche serue ad esso core.\n\nVolse Aristotile chel core fusse el primo principio e cagione de tute\nle operatione del corpo: e che fusse principio del sentire e del mouere\ne del nutrire e del uiuere e che li era solo uno membro principale: e\nche el cerebro e el figato erano suoi ministri: ma questo non piaque a\nGalieno ne a li altri medici liquali per hora noi seguitemo.\n\nEl domicilio adoncha del core si e el luocho del pecto circundato da\nle coste dala parte dinanzi e da la parte de drieto [folio 17 recto]\nda uno certo panniculo chiamato mediastino e da la parte di sopra el\ncomenza dal principio de la canna del polmone et terminase ale parte di\nsotto a uno paniculo chiamato diafragma. Comentiamo aduncha ala parte\ndisopra cio e dal principio de la canna del polmone e diciamo che el\nmeri cio e la uia del cibo et la trachea artharia cioe la canna del\npolmone che e uia de lo hanelito comentiano in uno medesimo luocho:\nEt impero fece la natura uno coopertorio al principio de la canna del\npolmone de una carne carthilaginosa e panniculosa anexa al palato sotto\nluuula e questa carne copre lorificio de essa canna del polmone el\nquale orificio si chiama epiglotto: acio che ne lhora del transglutire\nniente del cibo e del poto descendesce a la uia del polmone per che\nindurebbe suffocatione: Impero aduiene che se uno ridendo transglutisse\nqualche cosa ua al polmone et appare che lhuomo se soffochi per che\nne lhora del ridere se apre lo epiglotto: Lieua adoncha el meri da la\ntrachea artharia acio che tu uidi la compositione sua: ma sapii che el\nmeri e la trachea facilmente se seperano per insino al epyglotto cio\ne al orificio de essa trachea ma circa lo epyglotto cum dificulta se\nseperano per che la tunica del meri si e dispersa ne lo epyglotto: e\nquesto fece la natura sagacemente acio che ne lhora del transglutire\ndel cibo quando [folio 17 verso] el meri se lieua uerso la bocha ad\natrahere el cibo anche lo epyglotto se lieua acio che remanendo gioso\nper la sua dureza non impedisse el transito del cibo.\n\nLa trachea artharia o uero canna del polmone e composita de anuli\ncarthilaginosi e panniculosi e de ligamenti che continuano quilli\nanuli insieme facta da la natura a transportare laiere al polmone\nper auentare el core: & a transportare fuora i uapori caldi da esso\net etiam fu facta a formare la uoce ne la sua extremita cio e ne lo\nepyglotto: Questa canna bisogno che fusse carthilaginosa et alquanto\ndura et non pelliculare e molle perche bisognaua stare aperta essendo\nuia de laiere: e non fu etiam ossuosa per che douea essere flexibile\nper la formatione de la uoce: et anche se fusse ossuosa impediria\nel transito del cibo per el meri quando fusse tropo: Et per questa\nragione la carthilagine di questa canna non fu una ma furno piu\ncontinuate per certe pellicole insieme: e queste sono facte como certi\nsemicirculi in modo de uno C per che se fusse una carthilagine seria\ndura e comprimirebbe el meri et impediria el transito del cibo. Onde\nquesta cana ne la parte anteriore e carthilaginosa per che uerso quella\nparte non tocha el meri et anche acio che sia piu difesa da le cose\nexteriore ma uerso la parte posteriore e pelliculare per insino a lo\nepyglotto: La quale poi tuta e carthilaginosa [folio 18 recto] per la\nragione dicta: e questa canna del pulmone non descende se non insino a\nla furcula sotto laquale e incontinenti situato el pulmone: et el sito\nde essa e ne la parte dinanzi: et dritamente procede e non storta acio\nche laiere habbia piu libero ingresso: et lo epyglotto che e principio\ndi questa canna si e tuto carthilaginoso acio che sia piu sonoro: et\ne apresso la bocha acio che sia instrumento dela uoce: laquale poi ne\nla bocha douenta locutione per che la uoce finalmente ne lhuomo se\nordina al parlare. Questo epyglotto e composto de tre carthilagine e\nuinti musculi: Una carthilagine si e ne la parte anteriore e chiamasi\nclipeale a modo de uno capello: Laltra si e ne la parte posteriore\nuerso el meri e questa non ha nome: La terza si e in mezo di queste\ndoe et in essa e una lenguetta in modo de una lingua de zalamella e\nchiamasi questa carthilagine fistula de lo epyglotto per che como la\nfistula se ordina nel sono cusi questa carthilagine si e ordinata al\ncanto e la melodia: Questo epyglotto etiam e composto de uinti musculi\na dare el moto uoluntario secondo el bisogno de formare la uoce: e\ndodeci di quisti sono da la parte di dentro e octo dala parte de fuori\net a quisti musculi uengono dui nerui che hano origine dal sexto pare\nde nerui del cerebro dicti: di quali una parte descende per insino\nal core e poi comenza a reascendere per insino a lo epyglotto impero\n[folio 18 verso] sono dicti nerui reuersiui li quali sono nerui de la\nuoce e quando sono alo epyglotto se spargeno inquisti uinti musculi\na darli el sentire e el mouere. Questi nerui forno reuersiui e non\ndirecti per molte cagione: prima acio [che] fusseno piu forti per che\nquanto el neruo e piu remoto dal cerebro tanto e piu sicco e forte: La\nseconda acio [che] fuseno facti a modo de uno freno da cauallo acio\nchel cerebro meglio mouesse lo epyglotto secondo lo imperio de la sua\nuolunta mediante questi nerui como lhuomo moue el cauallo al suo libito\nmediante el freno: La terza cagione e per che la uoce non solo depende\ndal cerebro como dal principio del moto uoluntario ma etiam depende\ndal core como da quello nel quale se formano i concepti del cerebro et\nconsequenter i concepti de la uoce: bisogno adoncha che dicti nerui\ncomunicasseno al core: La quarta cagione e per che quisti nerui douendo\nuegnire ali musculi predicti bisogno che uigniseno al principio de\ndicti musculi e non a la fine: et el principio di quisti musculi de lo\nepyglotto e ne la parte inferiore.\n\nDa poi la trachea artharia tu uederai el pulmone ala compositione del\nquale concorreno piu parte ramificate como fili sutili ad ordire la sua\nsubstantia: La prima parte che entra ne la substantia del polmone si e\nla trachea artharia laquale [folio 19 recto] como gionge a la furcula\ndel pecto se diuide in doe parte: una ua al dritto e laltra al sinistro\ndel pulmone e ciascuna di quelle se diuide in doe altre parte cio e\nsuperiore et inferiore: e ciascuno de quilli rami: se diuide etiam in\nrami minori e cusi diuidendosi peruengono a rami minimi como fili e\ncircundano tuta la substantia del pulmone. Una altra parte che ordisse\nla substantia del pulmone si e una certa uena che ha origine dal\nuentriculo dritto del core laquale porta el sangue sutile dal core a\nnutrire el pulmone: e chiamasi uena arthariale Vena per che non pichia\narthariale per che e composta de doe tuniche como sono le artharie: e\nquesta uena se ramifica ne la substantia del pulmone como la trachea\nartaria.\n\nLa terza parte che compone el pulmone si e una certa artharia che nasce\ndal sinistro uentriculo del core dicta artharia uenale: Artharia per\nche pichia Venale per che e composta de una tunica como le altre uene\net per questa artharia se transporta dal pulmone al core laiere che\nuiene da la trachea artharia a refrigerare esso core: Et perquesta\nartharia etiam se manda dal core al pulmone laiere e uapori caldi\ne dal polmone poi escono fuori per essa trachea e questa artharia\nsimiliter se ramifica como le altre doe parte predicte: Onde li rami\nde la trachea [folio 19 verso] e de lartharia uenale e uena arthariale\ncompongono tuto el pulmone in modo de una rethe: et i buchi de questa\nrethe reimpisse una certe carne molle spongiosa laquale proprio e\nsubstantia de esso pulmone: Et tute queste quatro parte predicte sono\ninuolute da uno certo panniculo che ha origine da uno panniculo che\ne sotto le coste chiamato pleura del quale poi se dira per questo\npanniculo ha el pulmone el sentimento per che el pulmone non sente\nsecondo la sua substantia.\n\nEt nota che li rami de la trachea artharia sono magiori che li rami de\nla uena arthariale, et de la artharia uenale per che nascono da magiore\ntroncho et etiam nota che el pulmone e magiore ne la parte dritta che\nne la stancha per che dal lato stancho glie el core che occupa quello\nluocho: Similiter e magiore ne la parte posteriore che ne la parte\nanteriore: Questo membro sie como flabello del core a refrigerarlo et\netiam a mondificarlo da li uapuri che continue se generano in esso:\nimpero e seruo e ministro del core.\n\n\n_Capitulum tertium de anothomia cordis quod est secundum membrum\nprincipale._\n\nDapoi te apparera el core nel mezo del pulmone cooperto da le sue\npenole acio che laiere atrahatto da esso pulmone lo refrigere, e\ndel suo caldo e spirito se tempri: Questo membro tra lialtri quatro\ne principalissimo per che e el primo che ne la generatione [folio\n20 recto] uiue et e lultimo che more. Questo membro e de mediocre\nquantita per rispecto di li altri membri de lhuomo: ma per rispecti\ndi li cori de lialtri animali e molto grande perche lhuomo ha piu del\ncaldo naturale che glialtri animali quantitatiue et non intensiue:\nEt e di figura pyramidale cio e de la forma del fuocho per che esso\ne de excellente calidita impero bisogno che fusse de una figura che\nasomigliasse a la figura del fuocho: e questa tale figura se chiama\npigneale cio e simile ala figura de una pigna laquale e lata disotto\ne strecta di sopra et di tale figura fu facto acio che meglio se\nfacessono distinctione de le sue cellule o uentriculi: et etiam se\nfusse stato de una figura tuta uniforme como e la parte disotto seria\nstato tropo graue e ponderoso. Questo membro e situato nel mezo de tuto\nel corpo tolti uia glie extremi cio e nel mezo de le parte superiore et\ninferiore: nel mezo de le parte dinanzi e de drieto, e nel mezo de la\nparte dritta e sinistra como uno re che sta nel mezo del suo regname e\nquesto fu facto acio [che] potesse equalmente dare la uirtu de la uita\na tuti membri: E benche el core sia quanto al suo fondamento et ala\nsua base nel mezo tamen secondo la sua ponta declina al lato stancho\nsotto la mamilla sinistra acio che riscaldasse la parte sinistra\ncomo el figato riscalda la parte dritta: e questo [folio 20 verso]\nmembro se sustenta e ferma de uno certo osso cartilaginoso per che e\nin continuo mouimento: bisogno aduncha che hauesse uno apogiamento\nalquale se fermasse nel suo mouimento: Et e etiam composto de una certa\npinguedine ne la parte exteriore acio che prohibisca chel core non se\ndesichi tenendolo humectato: Et e composto di certe uene et artharie\ndisperse per la sua substantia: et e composto etiamdio de una certa\ncarne dura per che haueua a sustignire de molti e forti mouimenti: Et\netiam fu composto de uili longitudinali latitudinali e transuersali per\nche bisognaua che hauesse uirtu de atrahere retignire et expellere: E\nquesto membro ha tri uentriculi o uero tre cellule como ha el cerebro.\nUno uentriculo e dal lato dritto e laltro dal lato stancho e el terzo\ne in mezo: el uentriculo dritto uerso el figato: el quale ha doi\norificii: uno e uerso el figato et e molto grande nel quale entra una\nuena chiamata uena chilis laquale nasce dal gibbo del figato e porta\nel sangue dal figato al core: Et in questo uentriculo dextro del core\nse puriffica quello sangue e cusi purificato poi lo manda el core a\ntuti li altri membri: e per che per questo orificio ha el core piu ad\natrahere che ad expellere impero ordino la natura che ne lhora de la\nconstrictione quando de expellere che questo orificio se chiudesse: e\nche [folio 21 recto] quando el core se dilatta se aprisse: Et iui sono\ntre hostiolitti o uero usitti liquali se apreno da fuora adentro: e\nquesti hostioli non sono molto depressi e per che per questo medesimo\norificio se expelle el sangue depurato aglialtri membri ma non tuto per\nche una parte ua al polmone e de laltra parte se ne fa spirito uitale:\nimpero ordino la natura che quisti hostioli non se chiudesseno in tuto:\nE da questa uena chilis inanzi che entri la concauita del core nasce\nun altra uena laquale circunda la radice del core e da quella nascono\nalcuni rami che se disparghono per la substantia del core: E del sangue\nde questa uena se nutrisse esso core.\n\nUno altro orificio ha questo uentriculo destro uerso el pulmone nel\nquale entra la uena arthariale che porta el sangue dal core a nutrire\nel pulmone: Et in questo orificio li sono etiam tri hostioli liquali se\napreno de la parte dentro a la parte difuori e se chiudeno da la parte\ndifuori a la parte di dentro per el contrario di li hostioli de laltro\norificio: e questo e per che in tuto se chiudeno: Onde per questo\norificio el core ne lhora de la constrictione solo ha ad expellere:\ne ne lhora de la sua dilatatione non ha ad atrahere alcuna cosa como\nfaceua nel primo orificio.\n\nEl uentriculo sinistro del core ha i lati piu densi e piu spissi che li\nlati o uero parieti del uentriculo dextro: e questo [folio 21 verso] fu\nper tre ragione: La prima per che nel uentriculo dextro se de contenere\nel sangue el quale e graue. E nel uentriculo sinistro se de continere\nel spirito el quale e molto ligiero: acio aduncha chel core non fusse\npiu graue e ponderoso da una parte che da laltra bisogno recompensare\nin questo modo cio e che lo uentriculo stancho hauesse piu groseza ne\nli suoi parieti che el dextro: La seconda cagione e che essendo el\nspirito piu suttile e piu resolubile chal sangue bisogno adoncha che\nel suo habitaculo hauesse piu grosso e de megliore sponde: La terza\ncagione si e per che el uentriculo sinistro e molto piu caldo cha el\ndextro per che iui se genera el spirito dal sangue per una grande\ncalidita che suttiglia quello sangue e la calidita meglio se conserua\nnel subiecto denso e grosso:\n\nNe la concauita di questo uentriculo circa la sua radice li sono dui\norificii: uno si e lorificio de una artharia chiamata artharia adorti\nper che inmediate ha origine dal core e per che e principio de la\norigine de tute le altre: per laquale artharia manda el core el spirito\ngenerato a tuti i membri: et etiam el sangue molto suttile insieme cum\nel spirito e questo fa quando el core se constringe: Onde nel principio\ndi questo orificio li sono tri hostioli liquali in tuto se chiudeno da\nla parte difuori a quella dentro: e se se apreno da la parte dentro a\nla parte difuori e questo [folio 22 recto] orificio e molto profundo.\n\nLaltro orificio si e de lartharia uenale laquale transporta laiere dal\npolmone a refrigerare el core e transporta i uapori caldi dal core al\npolmone como e stato dicto disopra: Et in questo orificio li sono doi\nhostioli che non se chiudeno altuto: Et sono molto eleuati acio che\nse apogiono melglio a la sponda del core quando el manda el spirito:\nQueste sono mirabile opere de la natura como anche mirabile opera fu\nnel uentriculo mezo del core per che questo uentriculo non ha una\nconcauita ma piu lequale sono picole ma larghe e piu nela drita parte\nche la sinistra: E questo fece la natura acio chel sangue che ua dal\ndrito uentriculo al sinistro per conuertersi in spirito continuamente\nse uegna suttigliando per quelle concauita.\n\nEt per questo tu poi uedere che dal core nascono quatro cose cio e\nlartharia chiamata adhorti: Laltra si e la uena chilis: la terza si e\nla uena arthariale: e la quarta si e artharia uenale.\n\nAnche uederai nel core certe parte pelliculare & in modo de auricule o\nuero orechiette apte a dillatarsi e constringersi facte da la natura\nacio che quando nel core se genera molto sangue o molto spirito se\npotesse el core dilatare a contenire quello sangue o quello spirito\nmultiplicato et anche se constrinza quando non glie tanta habundantia\ndi sangue o de spirito.\n\nE qui adimanda Galieno [folio 22 verso] per che non fece la natura\nel core si grande che potesse continere ogne multitudine di sangue\ne de spirito senza quilli adittamenti di quelle pellicule. Risponde\nGalieno che questo fu: prima perche el core seria stato tropo grande:\net consequenter tropo ponderoso: Secundario per che non se generando\nsempre molta quantita de sangue o de spirito sel core fusse stato tropo\ngrande per la piu parte de le uolte la concauita del core seria stata\nuacua: ma queste tale auricule se dillatano ne lo aduenimento del\nsangue o del spirito e cusi se stringono ne la paucita soa.\n\nQuesto core e circumdato da uno panniculo duro neruoso o uero\npelliculare facto in modo de una cassetta nel quale e posto el core\ncomo in uno suo tabernaculo a diffensarlo da le cose occurrente: Et e\nquesta capsula molto dilatata acio chel core ne la sua dillatatione e\nmouimento non fusse agrauato da essa: Et etiam fece la natura questa\ncapsula acio che continesse una certa aquosita rorida de laquale se\nbagnasse et humetasse el core acio che per el suo continuo mouimento\nnon se sichasse: Onde quando questa aqua che e ne la capsula del core\nsie desiccata etiam se desicca esso cuore et consequenter se demacra e\ndesicca tuto el corpo.\n\n\n_Capitulum quartum de anothomia trium panniculorum interiorum scilicet\nmediastine, pleure, & diafragmatis._\n\n[folio 23 recto] Tri sono li panniculi interiori diquesto domicilio del\ncore: Uno che se chiama mediastino che diuide la concauita del pecto\nper mezo cio e la parte dinanzi da la parte de drieto et consequenter\ndiuide el polmone per mezo: e questo panniculo non e neruoso ne anche\ne ueramente uno continuo como li altri paniculi: e questo ha facto la\nnatura per alcune utilita: prima acio che se una parte del polmone\nreceuesse nocumento di qualchi superflui humuri che se agregasseno in\nquella non peruegnisse el nocumento e non regurgitasse quella materia a\nlaltra parte; Secundario acio che tenesse suspeso e ligato el polmone\nal pecto.\n\nEl secondo panniculo chiamato pleura e uno panniculo duro e neruoso e\nmolto grande: el quale copre tute le coste da la parte dentro: impero\nha colligantia cum tuti li membri liquali se contengono ne la concauita\ndel pecto e questo panniculo fece la natura acio che cuprisse tuti\nquilli membri a sua tutela; et acio che li paniculi dili membri tuti\ndel pecto hauesseno principio et origine da quello.\n\nEl terzo panniculo se chiama Diafragma e da Aristotile e chiamato\ndiazona per che e como una cintura che cinge per mezo: Questo panniculo\ne musculoso cio e carnoso e neruoso et e situato ne la fine del pecto\ne de le coste e ne la parte dinanzi quanto a la parte sua [folio 23\nverso] carnosa e continuato cum le carthilagine de le coste mendose, e\nne la parte posteriore e continuato cum la duodecima spondile doue sono\nle rene: De le coste e di li spondili poi noi diremo.\n\nLa utilita de questo panniculo prima fu acio chel seperasse li membri\nspirituali da li membri naturali cio e el secondo domicilio dal terzo\nacio che li fumi leuati da le feze non peruegniseno a li membri\nspirituali: Secundario per che ha a mouere el pulmone al mouimento\nde lo hanelito: e questo panniculo benche cingha per mezo oblique\ntamen et non ex directo: e la cagione di questa obliquita sie che da\nquesto panniculo insieme cum el myrach del quale poi noi diremo se\ncomprimino le feze che sono ne lintestini ne lhora de la egestione\ncomo se fusseno tra doe asse de uno torchio: E quanto a la parte meza\ndi questo panniculo laquale e neruosa e panniculosa e colligato cum\nel pulmone per darli el mouimento como e stato dicto mediante i nerui\nquali uengono ad esso dal cerebro e da la nucha e per questo appare la\ncagione de la diuersita de el Diafragma e de li altri musculi per che\nli altri musculi nel luocho doue se congiongeno cum el membro quale\ndebeno mouere sono como corde e ne li altri luochi sono carnosi per\nche sono facti principaliter a mouere le osse: ma nel diafragma e tuto\nel contrario per che fu instituito principalmente [folio 24 recto] a\nmouere el pulmone e non le ossa, e per questo appare chel diafragma sie\nrotondo cum una certa longitudine e che la sua substantia e musculosa e\ncordosa e che le utilitade sue sono tre: Prima acio che sia principio\ndel moto de lo hanelito: Secundo acio che diuida tra membri spirituali\ne naturali: Tertio acio che aiuti el mirach ad expellere le superfluita\nquale sono ne lintestini.\n\n\n_Capitulum quintum de anothomia pectoris seu toracis continentis membra\nspiritualia._\n\nDicto di li membri che sono contenuti dentro dal pecto: poniamo\nadesso la anothomia de esso pecto: e disopra habiamo dicto che glie\nuno paniculo chiamato pleura quale copre tute le coste da la parte di\ndentro: Da poi quello panniculo tu uederai le ossa le quale sono di\ndoe maniere cio e le coste e li spondili che sono como sponde doue se\napogiano le coste lequale sono dodece da ciascuno lato cio e septe\nuere e cinque mendose: Le coste uere sono continuate cum li spondili\na coprire et perficere el pecto: ma le mendose non: et una costa non\nattinge laltra ne la extremita acio che meglio se possa dilatare e\nconstringere el pecto: Li spondili sono septe che se coniungono cum le\nsepte coste uere mediante certe cartilagine lequale sono tra luno e\nlaltro: e da queste carthilagine cum le sue ossa [folio 24 verso] se\ncompone uno membro chiamato la furcula del pecto facta a modo de una\nfurcula bifurchata; e ne la extremita sua li e una certa carthilagine\nfacta a modo de uno scuto a custodire la bocha del stomaco e chiamasi\npomo granato: Da li lati de le coste mendose sono certe carthilagine.\n\nDa poi uenendo a le parte de fuora: sono alcuni musculi di li quali\nalcuni sono a dillatare el pecto e sono dui musculi del Diafragma posti\nne le parte inferiore del pecto: et hano a dillatare el Diafragma\net consequenter el pecto ne la parte inferiore doue e una grande\nspaciosita: Item li sono dui altri musculi liquali sono nel collo et\nhano a dillatare la concauita superiore del pecto la quale e picola.\nItem sono altri musculi ne la schina doue e la origine de le coste,\ne comenzano apresso la origine de la prima costa: Item sono molti\naltri musculi picoli liquali cum difficulta se possono uedere ne la\nanothomia: e tuti quisti musculi predicti sono solo a dillatare.\n\nAlcuni altri musculi sono a dilatare e constringere e sono situati\ntra le coste perche tra ciascune doe coste li sono doi musculi di\nliquali uno ha li uili latitudinali a dillatare, e laltro ha li uili\ntransuersali a constringere.\n\nOltra questi musculi appare la pinguedine le mamille e la cute: La\ncute e la pinguedine e asai manifesta [folio 25 recto] impero solo noi\ndireme de la anothomia de le mamille e haueremo fornito la anothomia\ndel secondo domicilio e del secondo membro principale.\n\n\n_Capitulum sextum de anothomomia mamillarum et de utilitatibus earum._\n\nLa figura de le mamille si e in modo de una cucha rotonda per che\nbisognaua essere capace del sangue che se ha a connetere in lacte e la\nfigura rotonda e piu capace cha le altre: et etiam per che le mamille\nsono como scuto del core impero doueano hauere una figura piu secura da\nli nocumenti: e questa tale figura e la rotonda.\n\nLe mamille hebbeno doi capi picoli acio che la creatura potesse suciare\nel lacte: E la substantia sua si e certe carne glandose le quale de sua\nnatura sono frigide acio che el sangue douenti biancho in esse e questo\nnon se fa senon per infrigidatione del dicto sangue.\n\nLa quantita de le mamille ne la dona e magiore che nel maschio per che\nbisognaua generare el lacte ne la dona e non nel maschio. Et etiam\nessendo la femina piu frigida chel maschio bisogno essere magiore le\nmamille in esse acio che facesseno magiore reuerberatione del caldo al\ncore et per questa reuerberatione lo fortifficaseno.\n\nLe mamille ne lhuomo forno facte due como in tuti li altri animali che\ngenerano una o doe creature: ma ne [folio 25 verso] glialtri animali\nche generano piu figlioli sono facte piu mamille.\n\nNe lhuomo forno situate nel pecto e ne li altri animali nel uentre: e\nquesto fu per molte casone: La prima secondo Galieno e chel sangue del\nquale se genera el lacte deba essere ben digesto impero bisogno essere\npropinque al core ne lhuomo per la cui calidita quello sangue fusse\nmeglio digesto: ma ne li altri animali molta quantita de tale sangue\nsuperfluo ua a conuertirse in corni o in altri membri.\n\nLa seconda cagione asegna Aristotile che li altri animali hano le gambe\ndinanzi molto strette et impero hano el pecto molto stretto: ma ne\nlhuomo el pecto e amplo: onde non potete la natura situare le mamille\nne glialtri animali como ne lhuomo.\n\nLa terza cagione si e chel core de lhuomo hebbe bisogno de essere\npiu deffensato che el core de li altri animali li quali li hano pili\ndisopra impero fece la natura le mamille como defensaculo ne lhuomo che\nnon ha pili inquelle parte.\n\nLe mamille hano colligantia cum el core e cum el figato per una certa\nuena che ascende dal figato ad esse mamille: ha etiam dio colligantia\ncum la matrice mediante certe uene che uengono da la matrice ad esse e\nprocedeno quelle uene tortuose acio che continuamente se asuttiglie el\nsangue e meglio se digesta a conuertirse in lacte.\n\n\n[folio 26 recto] _Tractatus tertius de anothomia tertii membri\nprincipalis scilicet epatis et eidem deseruientibus: capitulum primum\nde anothomia stomaci._\n\nVeduto de doi membri principali et di li suoi ministri et etiam de li\nsuoi domicilii vediamo mo la anothomia do doi altri membri principali\ncio e figato e testiculi et di li membri che sono suoi ministri et\netiam de li suoi domicilii: E noi determinaremo de tuti dui quisti\ninquesto tractato per che li membri che deserueno a la generatione non\nhanno distincto domicilio da li membri nutritiui: E questo domicilio\ncomenza dal pomo granato che copre la bocha del stomaco del quale\nhabiamo dicto e dura per insino al petenechio inclusiue includendoli la\nuirga e li testiculi: et questo e quanto per lo longo, ma quanto per el\nlargo dura da uno fiancho a laltro e per el profondo dura da la cute de\nlombelico che copre el corpo dinanzi dale coste ingioso per insino a\nlaschina de drieto:\n\nInquesto domicilio li sono contenuti di molti membri cio e stomaco,\nintestini, figato, fele, milza misinterii, girbo, rognoni, vesica,\ntesticuli, vasi spermatici, matrice ne la femina, e la uirga ne lhuomo\nde liquali membri solo dui sono principali cio e el figato et li\ntesticuli secondo Galieno, o uasi spermatici secondo Aristotile.\n\nNoi adoncha sequitaremo secondo el nostro ordine consueto comentiando\na li membri superiori e descendendo a linferiori. Comentiaremo [folio\n26 verso] adoncha dal stomaco e dal meri che e uia del cibo ad esso\nstomaco, E noi habiamo dicto di sopra che como la cana del pulmone era\nconducto de laiere cusi el meri era conducto del cibo e del poto: E che\nla bocha de la cana del pulmone e la bocha del meri erano congionte\ninsieme per la rasone iue dicta.\n\nLa sustantia di questo meri sie pelliculare e molle como la cana del\npulmone e pelliculare e carthilaginosa e bisogno chel meri fusse molle\nacio potesse dilatarsi quando lhuomo piglia tropo cibo, et anche questo\nmeri non sta aperta como fa la cana del pulmone ma per la sua mollitie\nuna parte cade sopra laltra.\n\nLa subatantia del meri e composta de doe tuniche una intrinsecha che\nha certi uili o neruetti longitudinale che sono facti ad atrahere el\ncibo: e laltra sie exteriore lie laquale sono uili latitudinali facti\nad expellere quello che e stato atratto da la tunicha interiore: benche\nla prima tunicha sie piu principale che la seconda.\n\nLa quantita del meri e magiore che non e la quantita de la cana del\npulmone per che el meri ua piu longo che non fa essa cana: Onde el\nmeri ua per insino al diafragma e desotto da esso se continua cum la\nbocha del stomaco onde el stomaco e incontinenti sotto el diafragma: Et\nanche el meri e magiore in largheza per che hauea a passare per esso\ncosa piu grosa che non e [folio 27 recto] laiere.\n\nQuesto etiam Meri e posto piu nel profondo uerso le parte posteriore\ncio e uerso la schina doue ua a ritrouare la bocha del stomaco laquale\nbocha e uerso le parte posteriore: per che la bocha del stomaco e\nligata ala schina ex directo in el principio de la sua ligatura cio e\na la decima terza spondile sotto el diafragma: el quele se termina ala\nduodecima spondile e poi consequenter procede el stomaco aligandosi ali\nspondili de le rene.\n\nQuesto stomaco sie cella del cibo et e quasi in mezo de tuto el corpo\ncomo e stato dicto del core: per che essendo como lauezo doue se ha a\ncocere el cibo bisogno essere in mezo acio chel receuesse calore da\ntute le parte e da tuti li membri circumstanti: et non fu posto el\nstomaco apresso de la bocha per la rasone dicta: Tu uederai adoncha el\nstomaco hauere sopra si el core e el diafragma e desotto el misinterio\ne lintestini: da la parte dritta el figato el quale lo abraza cum\ncinque sue penole: da la parte sinistra la milza laquale li rende\ncalore mediante le sue artharie: da la parte dinanzi ha una rethe\nchiamata el Girbo: da la parte de drieto li musculi de la schina e una\nuena grande e una artharia che passa per la schina como poi se uedera:\nda tuti quisti membri receue calore el stomaco acio che coza bene el\ncibo.\n\nE ben chel stomaco sia situato sopra de la Schina niente di meno la\nparte sua superiore declina al [folio 27 verso] lato stancho, e la\nparte inferiore al lato drito: e questo fu per che ne la parte dritta\nli e el figato molto eleuato ne le parte superiore, e la milza ne la\nparte stancha e piu de pressa: impero la parte superiore del stomaco\nnon se potete locare ne la parte dritta per che el figato occupaua\nquello luocho ma ben se potete locare ne la sinistra cio e disopra dala\nmilza doue li era uacuita. Item per che disotto dal figato li sono\nglintestini suttili e gracili liquali occupano pocho luocho et iue\nremane una grande concanita impero fu locata la parte inferiore del\nstomaco iue a reimpire quella concauita: Et per che etiam ne la parte\nstancha disotto da la milza apresse de le rene glie uno intestino molto\ngrosso chiamato colon el quale occupa uno grande luocho impero non se\npotete locare dicta parte inferiore nel lato stancho.\n\nUna altra cagione per laquale el stomaco non fu posto a presso de\nla bocha e perche apresso de la bocha bisognorno essere i membri\nde lo hanelito ad atrahere laiere: Et anche per che el bisognaua\nche glintestini fusseno continuati cum el stomaco, e bisognaua che\nglintestini fusseno disotto dal diafragma.\n\nEt per questo appare che per molte cagione el stomac non fu locate per\nel dritto ma per lo storto e per lo obliquo: la prima si e gia dicta\nacio reimpisse la uacuita de la parte dritta e stancha: La seconda per\nche essendo lhuomo de statura dritta non retigniria bene el cibo [folio\n28 recto] ma subito uscirebe fuori per la bocha disotto: La terza\ncagione per che bisognaua chel stomaco receuesse da la milza quanto a\nla bocha superiore lhumore melenconico a darli lapetito: et quanto a\nla bocha disotto bisono che receuesse lhumore collerico dal figato: et\nimpero bisogno che la bocha superiore del stomaco fusse dal lato stanco\ndoue e la milza e la bocha inferiore fusse dal lato dritto doue e el\nfigato.\n\nE per questo appare chel stomaco ha colligantia cum la milza per\ncerte nene che portano lhumore melenconico ad esso: et ha similiter\ncolligantia cum el figato per molte altre uene che li portano el\nnutrimento dal figato: et ha colligantia cum el core mediante una\ngrande artharia che e posta sotto esso: et ha colligantia cum el\ncerebro mediante uno certo neruo el quale ua ala bocha del stomaco et\niue se sparge e diuidese circa la superiore parte de esso stomaco.\n\nLa figura del stomaco fu rotonda acio che fusse piu tuta da li\nnocumenti extrinseci et acio anche che fusse piu capace per che\nbisognaua continere di molto cibo: Ma non fu perfectamente rotonda per\nla rasone dicta per che bisognaua che una parte declinasse al lato\ndritto e laltra al lato stanco impero e di figura arcuale in modo de\nuna cucha ritorta e fu molto grande el stomaco acio potesse receuere\ngrande quantita de cibo.\n\nEl stomaco e composto de due tuniche: Una interiore laquale e neruosa\ne laltra [folio 28 verso] exteriore e carnosa: Et la prima tunica\nneruosa e piu grossa e spessa che la seconda per che hauea a tochare\nel cibo acio che non receuesse nocumento da esso e per che se potesse\ndilatare e constringere secondo el bisogno de la quantita del cibo: ma\nla tunicha exteriore fu piu suttile onde e da notare che la tunicha\ninteriore bisogno essere neruosa per molte rasone: prima per che in\nessa & de essere lapetito e el sentimento e non e dubio che meglio se\nsente la cosa quando senza mezo ocorre al sentimento: ma la exteriore\nfu carnosa facta a digerire et alterare el cibo: la alteratione e\ndigestione se puo ben fare per mezo e non occorrendo in mediate a la\ncosa: Questa tunicha adoncha exteriore e piu suttile che la interiore\nper che e aiutata dai membri circumstanti a digerere: non bisogno\nessere adoncha tropo grossa.\n\nLa tunicha interiore e deputata ad atrahere el cibo et a retignirlo\ndebito tempo per insino che se digestisse: impero ha alcuni uili\nlongitudinali ne la superficie interiore mediante li quali atrahe a\nse el cibo: e ne la superficie exteriore ha alcuni uili transuersali\nper liquali ritiene el cibo: Et la tunicha exteriore ha a digerire el\ncibo et consequenter ha ad expelerlo quando e digesto: impero in essa\ncerti uili latitudinali sono posti per liquali ha ad expellere el cibo\ndigesto:\n\nLa bocha del stomaco superiore e piu lata che non e la inferiore\nper che [folio 29 recto] per la bocha disopra hauea intrare el cibo\ngrosso indigesto e per la bocha disotto hauea uscire el cibo suttile\ne digesto: E quisti doi orificii non sono facti molto eminenti ma la\nparte inferiore del stomaco e piu disotto che la bocha inferiore acio\nchel cibo se retegna et similiter la parte superiore del stomaco e piu\neminente e piu insuso che non e la bocha superiore acio che essendo\nel stomaco pieno de cibo inclinandosi lhuomo cum la bocha in giu non\nritornasse el cibo fuora.\n\nDoe adoncha sono le utilita del stomaco: Una ad appetere el cibo\nnecessario per tuto el corpo: e questo fa per la tunicha neruosa\ninteriore e laltra e a digerere el cibo e questo fa per la tunica\nexteriore carnosa.\n\n\n_Capitulum secundum tractatus tertii de anothomia intestinorum et\nmisinterii_.\n\nDapoi il stomaco li sequitano glintestini li quali sono sei reuoluti\ncioe tri suttili e tri grossi et non fu ne lhuomo uno solo intestino\nrecto ma furno piu e circumuoluti acio chel cibo longo tempo se\ncontinesse nel stomaco et intestini per che se cusi non fusse\nbisogneria che lhuomo fusse in continua asumptione de cibo, et in\ncontinua egestione e seria stato lhuomo molto occupato in tale uile\noperatione: Et anche sel fusse stato uno solo intestino recto non seria\nstato tuto el cibo da ciascuna parte de lo [folio 29 verso] intestino\ntoco et consequenter non seria stato exsiccata tuta lhumiditade del\ncibo: Acio adoncha tuta la humidita del cibo sia desiccata et atratta\nal figato e che niente o pocha non rimanga ne le feze: Furno facti piu\nintestini circumuoluti: El primo adoncha intestino e chiamato duodeno\net e suttile e chiamasi duodeno perche e longo quanto e dodice uolte\nel dito grosso di quello tale: Et in questo intestino li entra el\ncibo como e digesto nel stomaco per la bocha de sotto de esso stomaco\nchiamata portonaria o uero pylerum cum la quale se continua questo\nintestino duodeno. Digesto andoncha el cibo nel stomaco se apre questo\nportonario e manda la uirtu expulsiua del stomaco questo tale cibo ne\nlo intestino duodeno: A questo intestino ua uno canale o uero condutto\ndal fele per el quale se porta la collera ad esso intestino. Da poi\nquesto intestino li sequitan uno altro intestino suttile chiamato\nieiuno perche e la piu parte del tempo uacuo per doe ragione: Prima per\nche e dritto e non inuoluto: La seconda per che una grande multitudine\nde collera pura uiene ad esso per quello medesimo condutto che ua al\nduodeno: e questa collera mordica lo intestino e fa descendere gioso el\ncibo.\n\nDapoi sequita el terzo intestino suttile chiamato ileon per che e\nsituato circa gli ilii id est li fianchi: Onde in questo intestino glie\nuiene el dolore iliaco cio e dolore de fianco e questo [folio 30 recto]\nintestino hebbe molte inuolutione, et anche ad esso peruengono de molte\nuene picole dal figato chiamate mesaraiche: E questo fece la natura\nacio che el figato atrahesse la humorosita dal cibo per quelle uene,\nonde a questo intestino li peruengono piu uene mesaraiche che nesuno di\nli altri.\n\nDapoi questi tri intestini sutili sucedeno li grossi: E questo fu facto\nper che quanto el cibo uiene piu descendendo tanto piu douentano dure\nle feze e piu grosse impero bisogno che glintestini inferiori fusseno\npiu ampli che li superiori.\n\nEl primo adoncha intestino grosso che sequita ali suttili si e chiamato\nmonoculo, non per che habia solo uno oreficio per che questo seria\nimpossibile anzi ne ha doi como li altri uno per elquale atrahe el\ncibo e laltro per elquale expelle: ma per che quisti doi oreficii\ninquesto intestino sono uno a presso de laltro como coiuncti e non\ndispartiti como ne glialtri impere appare hauere solo uno oreficio,\nonde per questo monoculo e chiamato: Et anche chiamato sacco per che\npende la sua concauita como un sacco stando li suoi orificii de sopra:\nQuesto intestino e situato ne la parte dritta apresso lancha e disotto\ndal rognone dritto. E fu facto acio che retinesse el cibo an\u00e7i lo\nreuerberase a li intestini superiori e prohibisse che non descendesse\nacio che in quilli intestini se esuccasse dal figato la sua humidita\ncomo e stato dicto.\n\nDa poi questo intestino sequita laltro grosso [folio 30 verso] chiamato\ncolon per che ha piu colli o uero cellule ne lequale el stercho recceue\nla sua forma.\n\nQuesto intestino ha de molte inuolutione circa el rognon stancho e poi\nascende e copre la milza e poi se declina a la parte dritta uendo piu\nuerso le parte exteriore e copre el stomaco.\n\nE per questo appare la cagione per che fu locato sopra del stomaco e de\nsopra tuti li altri intestini: questo fu per che era piu ignobile de\nlialtri, e como membro piu ignobile fu posto uerso le parte exteriore\net anche per che le feze se indurano in esso acio che hauesse qualche\nhumidita dal girbo del quale poi noi uederemo. Laltra cagione de cio e\nche essendo questo intestino facto a continere et expellere le feze ma\npiu ad expelere impero bisognaua ad esso uenire piu collera che hauesse\na stimulare la uirtu expulsiua piu che ne glialtri: impero sopra di\nquello ne la parte dritta una penula del figato doue e alligata la\ncesta del fele como appare al sentimento: e questo fu che de sopra de\nquesto intestini li peruenisse la collera oltra quella che ua a la sua\nconcauita como etiam ua a le concauita de glialtri intestini.\n\nLa substantia di questo intestino e grossa e sollida facta cusi per la\nuentosita grande che se genera in esso laquale fa dolore fortissimo\nchiamato dolore collico: Et in questo intestino se generano certi uermi\nlongi [folio 31 recto] et altre manerie de uermi chiamati lombrici.\n\nDa poi e lultimo intestino chiamato intestino dritto de el quale la\nextremita et oreficio inferiore se chiama ano o uero culo: e uasene\nuerso el fiancho stancho doue poi comenza lo intestino colon predicto.\nIn questo intestino recto li sono una grande moltitudine de uene\nmeserayce che uengono a sugare se qualche humidita fusse rimasta ne le\nfeze.\n\nQuisti sono adoncha li sei intestini liquali sono alligati a la schina\nmediante uno certo membro chiamato misinterio o uero intriglio quasi\ninteriora tenens che non solo glintestini ma tute le uiscere sono\nalligate per questo interiglio ala schina et impero questo membro fu\ncomposto de uene, corde, panniculi, e ligamenti acio potesse ligare li\npredicti membri: Et e etiam e composto de una sustantia seposa e pingue\nacio che li membri duri como sono li spondili non se congiongesseno\nsenza mezo cum li membri molli cio e cum li intestini e le altre\nuiscere acio che el molle non receuesse nocumento dal duro. Le altre\nuacuita di questo membro sono reimpite de certe sustantie glandose,\nfacte etiam acio che sustentino le uene meseraiche che sono disperse in\nquesto membro: et forse che sono facte etiam a generare la humidita che\nhumetti la feze de glintestini acio che piu tosto lubrichi: et impero\nuedemo che mangiando cibi duri [folio 31 verso] niente dimeno quello\nche nesce per egestione e liquido.\n\n\n_Capitulum tertium de anothomia epatis quod est tertium membrum\nprincipale: et de uenis orientibus ab eo._\n\nVediamo mo del terzo membro principale situato in questo palazo et e el\nfigato alquale deseueno tuti li altri membri che sono posti quiue. El\nfigato naturalmente e situato sotto el diafragma et non sotto le coste\nuere, ma una parte de esso sta sotto le parte mendose: benche ne lhuomo\nmorto appara essere locato tuto sotto le coste, e questo e per che li\nmembri spirituali ne lhumo morto sono molto anihilati et el figato ua a\nreimpire le uacuita derelicte: impero quando tu fai la anothomia tu dei\neleuare el corpo morte e tirare in gioso el figato acio chel uada al\nsuo luocho naturale.\n\nLa quantita del figato fu molto granda ne lhuomo per che e molto\nsanguineo e de natura calda e humida.\n\nEl figato sie composto de certe uene diuise e disperse in modo de una\nrethe et le uacuita sue reimpisse una certa carne rossa che e como\nsangue coagulato: Et per queste uene se si sparze el cibo digesto nel\nstomaco chiamato chile cio facto in modo de suco dorzo che cusi douenta\nnel stomaco, e questo fu facto acio che se diuidesse in parte picole\nche tuto el figato potesse tochare tuto quello chilo acio che meglio lo\nconuertisse in sangue: Ma nel stomaco non sono tal uene done se hauesse\na receuere el cibo ma solo [folio 32 recto] li fece una concauita per\nche li cibi che se pigliano sono molto grossi che non harebono potuto\npenetrare per dicte uene. Questa decocione che se fa nel figato a\nconuertere el chile in sangue piu se compisse ne la parte superiore: et\nimpero quella parte e piu solida e dura: Hebbe el figato cinque penule\nbenche ne lhuomo non siano sempre diuise che se possano uedere.\n\nQuesto figato ha doe parte cio e la parte gibosa e la parte concaua, et\nha colligantia cum el core per una certa uena che nasce dal suo gibo\ne uasene al core, et e chiamata uena chilis: Et etiam ha colligantia\ncum el diafragma alquale sta suspenso. Et similiter a li spondili de\nla schina ala quale e alligato mediante un certo paniculo: Onde ha dui\npanniculi uno chel suspende e liga al diafragma e ala schina e laltre\nchel copre e sel circunda. Dala gibosita sua nasce la uena chilis\nlaquale porta el sangue al core de laquale habiamo gia dicto. E da la\nparte sua concaua ne nasce unaltra chiamata porta o uero uena concaua\ne questa uena ha cinque rami: cusi como sono cinque penule del figato\nne le quale entrano quisti cinque rami. E poi quando escono fuora del\nfigato sono da poi otto de lequale doe sono molte picole che male se\npossono discernere ma si le altre sei: De lequale una ua ala dextra\nparte del stomaco a nutrire la tunicha sua exteriore et maxime la\nparte inferiore: Laltra uena ua a la milza et e asai grande de laquale\nnel mezo del [folio 32 verso] suo transito nasce un ramo che descende\ngioso a nutrire lintriglio e portali el sangue piu aquoso: Da poi\nquando questa uena sa proxima a la milza nasce un altro ramo el quale\nua a nutrire la parte sinistra inferiore del stomaco da poi sucede piu\noltra e uasene ala concauita de la milza et iue se diuide in doi rami\ncio e inferiore e superiore: linferiore ramo descende gioso a nutrire\nel girbo quanto ala parte sua sinistra: el ramo superiore passa per\nle concauita de la milza e diuidise in doi altri rami di liquali uno\nua a nutrire la parte superiore sinistra del stomaco, Laltro ua circa\nla bocha superiore del stomaco a portarli lhumore melenconicho per\nincitare lo apetito: Laltro ramo che rimane ua a la milza anutricarla.\n\nLa terza uena di queste sei sene ua al lato stancho e uaseno alo\nintestino recto a sucare se qualche humidita uiuatiua fusse rimasta ne\nle feze.\n\nLa quarta uena se ne ua a la superiore parte dritta del stomaco per\nnutrirla: La quinta u\u00e6na ha doe parte una ua a nutrire la dritta parte\ndel girbo, laltra parte se ne ua alo intestino colon a sucare quello\nche e rimasto ne le feze de humidita et anche a nutrirlo: et impero el\ngirbo molto se congionge cum lo intestino colon ne la parte dritta: La\nsexta uena sene ua alo intestine ieiuno et a lialtri intestini suttili\na sucarli e nutrirli.\n\nLa figura del figato debba [folio 33 recto] essere lunare in modo de\nuna luna quando e piu che meza. Questo membro ha quatro uirtu una\natratiua per la quale atrahe el chilo a se: La seconda retentiua per\nlaquale lo ritiene debito tempo acio che la terza uirtu che e digestiua\nlo conuerta in sangue: La quarta uirtu e expulsiua per laquale manda el\nsangue a tuti i membri a nutricarli: et cum esso sangue manda anche el\nspirito nutritiuo el quale se genera in esso figato.\n\n\n_Capitulum quartum. Tractatus tertii de anothomia chistis fellis._\n\nEl fele si ha uno uase como una cista doue se contiene lhumore\ncollerico et e apicata a la meza penula del figato acio che depuri\nel sangue da lhumore collerico: e fu situate nel concauo e non nel\ngibo acio che piu facilmente potesse mandare la colera aglintestini a\nincitare la uirtu expulsiua che mandi fuora le feze.\n\nEt ha doe parte cio e el collo che porta la collera e la uesica chela\ncontiene: El collo a certa distantia rimane uno: E dapoi se diuide\nin doi rami uno ua amezo del figato ad attrahere la collera da esso.\nLaltro ramo descende alo intestino duodeno et questo se diuide anche in\ndoi altri rami uno ua al fondo del stomaco a confortare la digestione\ne questo ramo e picolo per che non bisognaua [folio 33 verso] andare\ntropo collera al stomaco per non incitare tropo la uirtu expulsiua\ndel stomaco ad expellere, ma solo a confortare como e stato dicto: Et\nimpero quilli che hano questo rame molto grande sono chiamati da medici\ninfelici impero che sempre & al continuo regurgita su al stomaco la\ncollera:\n\nE per questo appare che questo membro ha colligantia cum el stomaco,\nintestini e figato e chel se nutrisse per certe uene et artharie che\nuadeno ad esso cio e a la sua concauita: et anche peruengono a lui\nalcuni nerui a darli el sentimento: Onde ha anche colligantia cum el\ncore e cum el cerebro.\n\nQuesto membro si e di figura oblonga cum una certa rotondita e la sua\nsubstantia e pelliculare cio e in modo de una pellicula facta per le\nutilita sopradicte.\n\n\n_Capitulum quintum de anothomia splenis et de eius uiuamentis._\n\nDal lato stanco sotto le coste mendose li e la milza laquale cum el suo\nconcauo al lato del stomaco stanco se glie apozia: E quanto ala parte\nsua gibosa e alligata ala Schina et al panniculo dicto siphae mediante\nalcuni panniculi sutili.\n\nEt non fu posta cusi insu o uero in luocho alto como el figato ma piu\ningioso: Et e di figura quadrangulare per che ha areimpire la concauita\nsinistra circumstante del stomaco che e di tale figura: ma e piu grossa\nne la parte disopra et e piu sutile ne la parte inferiore a modo de una\nlingua.\n\nE questo [folio 34 recto] membro e composto de una certe carne\nspongiosa acio che meglio receua lhumore grosso melenconico alquale\nfinalmente e ordinata, Et anche e composta di uene et artharie molte, &\nde uno paniculo che linuolge. Onde appare che la milza ha colligantia\ncum el figato, lintriglio, girbo, & cum el stomaco, cum le coste e\ncum el diafragma, et ha anche colligantia cum el core mediante certe\nartharie che uengono ad esse acio chel sangue grosso melenconico per el\ncalore di queste artharie se suttigliasse e digerisse: Et anche acio\nche riscaldasse la sinistra parte del stomaco a laquale lui se apogia.\n\nFu facto questo membro per molte utilita: Prima acio chel mondificasse\nel sangue da lhumore melenconico el quale atrahe asi: Secondo fu facto\na contra operare ala calidita del core e del figato: Tertio acio che\nexcitasse lo appetito transmitendo lhumore melenconico a la bocha de\nesso stomaco.\n\n\n_Capitulum sextum de anothomia girbi siue, rethis cooperientis stomacum\n& intestina._\n\nAppare uno certo panniculo chiamato el Girbo o uero la rethe el quale\ncopre el stomaco da la parte dinanzi: e ne lhuomo tuti glintestini:\ne non ne lialtri animali: E questo fu facto ne lhuomo per che tra\nglialtri animali de equale quantita la uirtu digestiua piu debile\nne lhuomo: et etiam per che glintestini suoi per la suttilita de la\ncute sono piu dispositi a [folio 34 verso] receuere li nocumenti\nexteriori: Et impero appare la utilita di questo membro per la quale fu\nprincipalmente facto: et e acio chel confortasse la uirtu digestiua nel\nstomaco e de glintestini reuerberando el caldo naturale ad essi: Onde\nnarro Galieno de uno che fu uulnerato e cauato li fu el girbo e da poi\nche fu guarito non potete mai ben padire.\n\nEt impero bisogno che fusse composto di tre sustantie cio e prima de\ndoi panniculi subtili acio che continesse glialtri membri et etiam per\nche douea essere ligiero e che se potesse dilatare: et anche fu spesso\nacio che reuerberasse piu la calidita ali membri predicti: Secundo e\ncomposto de una assungia seposa la quale hauesse ariscaldare essendo la\nnatura de lasongia molto propinqua al caldo: Tertio e composto di certe\nartharie e uene lequale molto riscaldano.\n\nEt per questo appare chel girbo ha colligantia cum el stomaco cum la\nmilza e cum glintestini, Et maxime cum lo intestino colon cum liquali\nlui si termina cooperendoli: Et etia ha colligantia cum li membri da\nliquali ha origine: onde nasce da uno certo panniculo carnoso da la\nschina tra el diafragma per che a questo panniculo seglie terminano\ndo extremita del panniculo chiamato siphac del quale poi noi diremo:\nLequale extremita compogono el girbo: Et etiam per che iue glie una\nuena grande et etiam artharia [folio 35 recto] de lequale apresso el\nstomaco nascono certe uene et artharie picole lequale componeno el\ngirbo: Ha etiam colligantia cum lintriglio dal quale nasce la sua\nsongia seposa laquale reimpie le sue uacuita.\n\nPer insino adoncha qui habiamo ueduto la anothomia del girbo, del\nstomaco, de glintestini, de lintriglio, del figato, del fele, e de la\nmilza andiamo mo a glialtri membri di questa terza casa.\n\n\n_Capitulum septimum de anothomia membrorum urine scilicet renum &\nuesice et aliorum membrorum deseruentium eis._\n\nVediamo la anothomia dele rene. Onde tu uederai che da la uena chilis\nche nasce dal gibo del figato se fa uno ramo grande che descende gioso\na le parte inferiore, e quando questo ramo e indritto de lerene se\ndiuide in doi altri rami di liquali uno ua al rognone dritto e laltro\nal rognone stanco cio e a le sue concauita e chiamase uene emulgente:\nE gliorificii di queste doe uene non sono indritto uno dilaltro ma uno\npiu elto et e quello del rognone dritto e laltro piu basso cio e quello\nche ua al rognone stanco: Et questo fu perche el rognone dritto si e\npiu de sopra per che el rognone dritto e piu caldo cha el stanco, e de\nnatura del caldo e distare disopra benche a le uolte acada chel rognone\nstanco sia disopra al dritto et alhora el rognone stanco uira essere\npiu caldo che el dritto: ben che questo sia [folio 35 verso] rare uolte.\n\nQueste uene deportano la aquosita del sangue che e inutile al\nnutrimento del corpo a le rene et consequenter ala uesica: laquale\nesce poi fuora per urina: E per che cum questa aquosita e mescolato\nanche del sangue impero bisogno fare a la natura che el se colasse ne\nle rene in modo chel sangue mescolato cum questa aquosita rimanesse,\ne laquosita sola pasasse ala uesica: et impero se tu scindi el rogne\nne la parte gibosa per lo longo per insino ala concauita tu uederai\nuno panniculo como uno panno raro per el quale puo passare la aquosita\nma el sangue non impero quilli che hano aperto questo panniculo o\nuero colatorio orinano sangue. E questo panniculo si genera da la\nuena emulgente dicta laquale intrando ne la concauita del rognone se\nrariffica in modo de uno colatorio.\n\nE bisognorno essere dui rognoni e non uno per che era molta quantita\ndaquosita laquale uno solo rognone non haueria potuto atrahere sel non\nfusse stato molto grande e non se seria posuto debitamente situare sel\nnon hauesse facto qualche eminentia in quello luoco che seria stato\nmolte deforme.\n\nQuisti rognoni sono picoli in comparatione de li altri membri interiori\ne sono de una figura alquanto rotonda acio che fusseno capaci di\nmagiore quantita, et etiam che fusse piu tuto da li nocumenti\nextrinseci: E furno etiam alquanto longhi acio che li suoi oreficii\ncio e el superiore, doue entra [folio 36 recto] laquosita e loreficio\ninferiore doue esce haueseno megliore distintione: a loreficio di sotto\nsegli continua uno porro chiamato Uritides cioe che porta la urina\nda le rene a la uesica: Onde sono dui porri uritides como sono doi\nrognoni: Et in quisti rognoni ale uolte se genera la preda de molte\nharenule per la calidita de le rene la quale desicca certa humidita\nfleumaticha laquale se genera nel stomaco per indigestione, e poi sene\nua al figato, et tandem se ne uiene ale rene, et iue per la calidita\nde esse rene se conuerte in harenule et tandem se conuerte in preda:\nlaquale poi si discerne dala preda generata ne la uesica per che la\npreda de le rene e rossa e quella de la uesica e biancha. Li homini\nadoncha che hano fredo el stomaco e calde le rene sono disposti ala\ngeneratione de la preda et maxime hauendo li meati de lurina stricti.\n\nLeuate adoncha le rene e ueduti i porri uritides tu uederai che\nterminano al mezo de la uesicha e non forano la uesicha ex directo cum\nuno bucho grande ma cum piu busitti picoli et obliqui facti tra una\ntunica e laltra de la uesica o uero tra el cooptorio e la tunica e non\nuno indritto de laltro, e questo fu acio che quando la uesica fusse\npiena de urina ritornasse la urina indrieto ale rene, anzi quanto la\nuesica e piu piena de urina tanto piu se chiudeno dicti buchi.\n\nLa uesica e composta de doe tuniche quanto al suo fundo ma quanto\nal [folio 36 verso] suo collo e composta de carne e musculo. Item e\ncomposta de nerui e de uene e de artharie ad atrahere laquosita dale\nrene et consequenter ad expellerla fuora per la uena.\n\nE per questo appare che tuti quisti membri dicti cioe uene emulgente\nrognoni porri uritides e la uesica sono facti de la natura a\nmondificare el sangue che de nutrire el corpo de la predicta aquosita e\nmandarla fuora per urina.\n\nEt impero li rognoni furno de sustantia _e_ carne dura acio non fusse\nmordicata et corrosa de lacuita de lurina e da alcuni humori acuti che\nmolte uolte se mescola cum essa urina.\n\nQuesti rognoni hebbeno dui paniculi uno che li copre e questo li da el\nsentimento, e laltro chel liga e suspende a la schina et anche questo\nli da el sentire: e ciascuno di questi doi panniculi e composto de uno\ncerto neruo che nasce da la nucha de li spondili de la schina in luocho\nchiamato alchatim che e luocho a lo indritto de le rene et etiam e\ncomposto de uno certo ligamento che nasce da quilli medesimi spondili.\n\nE per questo appare che hano colligantia cum el cerebro e la nucha\net cum la schina mediante li nerui di li predicti panniculi, et\nhanno colligantia cum el core mediante certe artharie che nascono da\nlartharia adorthi e cum el figato mediante le uene emulgente, e [folio\n37 recto] cum la uesica mediante li porri uritide liquali sono certi\ncanili stricti per liquali passa la aquosita urinale da le rene a la\nuesica como e stato dicto. E questa uesica ha una grande concauita\nlaquale e neruosa et el suo collo e carnoso e musculoso acio che quando\nbisogna lhuomo expella la urina e quando bisogna lui la ritengha et\ncongiongese el collo de la uesica cum la uirga ne li maschii, nel quale\ncollo insieme cum la uirga e uno bucho per loquale se urina: ma ne le\nfemine lextrimita del collo de lauesica se termina apresso a dua dita\nal oreficio de uulua: et el collo de la uesica ne li maschii e piu\nlongo che ne le done.\n\nE per questo appare che sel se incide la uesica nel collo se puo\nconsolidare ma se si taglia nel fondo non si puo saldare, per che el\ncollo e musculoso e carnoso, et el fonde da la uesica e neruoso.\n\nEt el collo de la uesica ne li homini ha tre tortuosita, ne le quale\nse ritiene lurina acio che facilmente non esca fuori senza uolunta\nde lhuomo ma ne le femine non ha sino una tortuosita, et el collo ne\nle femine e piu largo che ne li maschii: Et el fondo de la uesica e\ncomposto de doe tuniche como e stato dicto, e la tunica interiore e doe\nuolte piu grossa che la exteriore per che inmediate tocha la urina.\n\nA la uesica peruengono nerui da la nucha et anche le uene da la uena\nchilis et etiam certe artharie da la artharia adhorthi. Et nel collo\nsuo e solo uno [folio 37 verso] musculo che circunda esso collo del\nquale la utilita e a retinere la urina secondo el bisogno e la uolunta\nde lhuomo. E quando lhuomo uole urinare se relassa quello musculo: et\nalhora li musculi del uentre de liquali diremo constringeno la uesica e\nmediante la uirtu expulsiua mandano fuora lurina.\n\n\n_Tractatus quartus de anothomia membrorum generationis capitulum\nprimum, de anothomia matricis et uasorum spermaticorum in mulieribus._\n\nVeduto la anothomia de tri membri principali e signori li quali cum\nli soi ministri sono producti da la natura a conseruare lo indiuiduo\nponiamo adesso la anothomia del quarto membro principale el quale e\nfacto a conseruare la spetie. Et benche anche noi non habiamo fornito\nla anothomia del domicilio del terzo membro principale per che in uno\nmedesimo domicilio quasi sono locati dicti membri cum li suoi ministri.\nDiciamo adoncha che i membri de la generatione in alcune cose conuenene\nne li maschii e ne le femine: prima quanto a la origine per nascono\ncirca le rene in questo modo che li uasi che sono ne la parte sinistra\ne li uasi che sono ne la parte dritta nascono desopra de le rene, cio e\nle loro uene da la uena chilis e le lore artharie da lartharia adorthi.\nOnde appare per questo che li uasi spermatici ne li maschii e ne le\nfemine sono decusi da el core e da el figato e questa e la seconda\nconuenientia.\n\nMa etiam sono differenti per che ne le femine questi uasi se terminano\na la matrice [fol. 38 recto] nel luocho exteriore doue sono li loro te\ntesticulo anzi propriamente parlando non sono ueramente testiculi como\nne gli maschii anzi sono como testiculi de lepore. Onde fuora de la\nmatrice se riuolgono e se contexeno e le concauita diquella texitura se\nreimpiseno di certe carne minute glandose: E sono facti ne le femine\nacio che generino una certa humidita saliuale laquale e cagione de la\ndelectatione de cohito ne la femina.\n\nDa poi quisti uasi spermatici penetrano la matrice per insino a la\nconcauita e li suoi oreficii di quisti uasi ne la concauita de la\nmatrice se chiamano cotilidoni cio e legamenti per che mediante quilli\nsta ligata la creatura ala matrice: e per questi oreficii uene el\nsangue mestruo ala femina: Et alcuni di questi uasi peruengono a la\nbocha de la matrice a portar li la humidita saliuale gia dicto: Et\nda queste uene ramificate nascono doe uene da ciascun lato cio e una\nche penetra nel panniculo chiamato mirach et ascendeno per insina che\nperuengono ale mamille a deportare el sangue a quelle: Et nota che\nquanto piu ascendeno tanto piu se acostano a la cute di fuora: et sono\npiu manifeste: ma nel mirach sono piu oculte e questo e contrario ne\nla porcha o altri animali che hano le mamille nel mirach: Queste uene\nnascono da la matrice e se manifestano nel mirach doue sono poste le\nmamille.\n\nE dapoi queste uene ascende dal [folio 38 verso] profondo del pecto\nindrito al pomo granato una certe uena laquale uene ale mamille a\ncuocere el sangue che se de conuertire in lacto e non appare senon una\nuena.\n\nEl luocho de la matrice e che le situata ne la concauita del luocho\nchiamato alchatim, laquale concauita e circundata da certi spondili\ndela schina per insino a la cauda da la parte de drieto, ma da la\nparte dinanzi e circundata da la parte che se chiama petenechio: onde\nla matrice e locata inmediate tra lo intestino recto el quale e como\ncolcitra sua da la parte posteriore e fra la uesica da la parte dinanzi\net el collo de la uesica e piu eminente cha el collo de la matrice\nbenche la concauita de la matrice sia piu profonda che la concauita de\nla uesica: et la matrice e posta nel mezo preciso tra el lato dritto e\nel stanco.\n\nQuesta matrice ha colligantia quasi cum tuti li membri superi cio cum\nel core mediante certe artharie e cum el figato mediante certe uene, e\ncum el cerebro mediante molti nerui, e cum el stomaco mediante nerui e\nuene: et ha colligantia cum li membri di mezo cio e cum el diafragma\nle rene, et mirach: per che mediante quisti e alligata ali predicti\nha maxime colligantia cum le mamille como e stato dicto: Ha etiam\ncolligantia cum li membri inferiori cio e cum la uesica mediante el suo\ncollo: et e similiter cum lo intestino colon.\n\nEt e alligata a le [folio 39 recto] anche mediante alcuni ligamenti\ngrossi e forti li quali apresso de la matrice sono larghi e grossi\net apresso le anche sono suttili como corne che sono nel capo de\nglianimali et impero sono chiamati corni de la matrice.\n\nLa figura sua e quadrangulare cum certa rotondita: et ha el collo\ninferiore longo et hebbe questa figura acio che meglio se potesseno\ndistinguere le cellule o uero camerette che sono ne la sua concauita e\nsono septe tre ne la parte dritta e tre ne la parte stancha e una ne la\nsumita o uero mezo e queste celule sono certe concauita ne la matrice\nne lequale el sperma cum el sangue mestruo se possano continere et\ncoagulare et consequenter alligarsi a li oreficii de le uene.\n\nLa quantita de la matrice fu mediocre secondo la quantita de la uesica,\nma e magiore in una femina che in laltra per che la femina che fa\nfiglioli ha magiore matrice che la sterile et similiter la femina che\ne usa al cohito lha magiore che la uergene et similiter la matrice de\nla giouene e magiore che quella de la puta e de la uechia e per altre\ncagione narrate da medici puo essere questa diuersita.\n\nLa sua sustantia e neruosa e pelliculosa acio che se possa dillatare a\ncontinere la creatura: et e molto spessa e grossa.\n\nLe parte exteriore de la matrice sono queste cio e li lati difuori\naliquali sono alligati li testiculi e anche sono li uasi seminarii e\n[folio 39 verso] le sue corne di liquali tuti habiamo dicto: et el suo\ncollo del quale lextremita se chiama uulua: e questo collo e longo\nquanto e uno palmo como e la uirga de lhuomo et e lato e dillatabile:\net impero pelliculoso: Et ha le rughe o uero crespe in modo de sangue\nsughe acio che la uirga de lhuomo nela confricatione del cohito se le\ninduca tintalatione e consequenter dolceza: Et ne lextremita di questa\nuulua sono doe pellicole che se lieuano e deprimeno sopra el dicto\noreficio acio che prohibiscano lo introito de laiere o di qualche cosa\nextrinsecha nel collo de la matrice o uero uesica como la uirga de\nlhuomo e custodita da la pellicula del preputio.\n\nE la bocha de la matrice e molto neruosa facta in modo de una bocha de\nuno cagnolo nouamente nato o uero meglio a modo de una tench uechia: et\ne ualata de uno uele suttile ne le uergene e ne le uiolate se rompe et\nimpero se sanguina.\n\nFacto e adoncha questo membro da la natura per la conceptione: et ne\nlhomo fu facto anche acio che mondificasse tuto el corpo de la femina\ndal superfluo sangue indigesto el quale se genera in essa per la sua\nfrigidita, e nel maschio non e cusi: ma li altri animali non hano\nquesto fluxo mestruale per che tale superfluita che se genera in loro\nse conuerte in pelle in pili in unghie in rostri e penne e simili\nmembri di quali lhuomo e priuato.\n\n\n[folio 40 recto] _Capitulum secundum de anothomia uasorum spermaticorum\net testiculorum in viris seu masculis._\n\nDicto di uasi spermatici e testiculi de le femine diciamo di quilli\ndi li maschii: Onde e da sapere che li uasi spermatici sono de doe\nmanerie, alcuni sono uasi che preparano el sperma e quisti descendeno\nda luochi predicti ali testiculi & circa la parte superiore de essi se\ninuolgeno intanto che fano in modo de uno sacho o uero de una bursa e\nquesti non intrano la sustantia dili testiculi e questi sono uenosi e\nneruosi.\n\nAlcuni altri uasi sono dilatorii liquali portano el sperma preparato\nne li altri uasi dicti a li testiculi e questi se continuano cum li\npredicti et sono piu neruosi: e quanto uano piu ascendendo da li\ntesticuli sono tanto piu neruosi et ascendeno per insino a losso del\npetenechio: et alhora se profondano dentro apresso el collo de la\nuesica e finaliter procedeno al meato de la uirga nel luocho che e nel\nbucho de losso del petenechio e per doe meati che sono iue mandano el\nsperma fora da li testiculi el quale fu preparato prima negli altri\nuasi e mandano quello sperma nel canale de la uirga e poi la uirga el\nmanda fuori.\n\nEt li testiculi ne lhuomo maschio sono di fuora e non detro como e ne\nle femine onde li uasi spermatici del maschio non sono terminati dentro\ndal mirach o uero dentro dal corpo ma escono fuora e se copulano a li\n[folio 40 verso] testiculi como a doi suspensorii o uero contrapeso,\nEt quisti uasi sono cooperti & uelati de uno panniculo chiamato\ndidimo el quale nasce del paniculo siphach del quale poi noi diremo,\ne questo didimo se ha uno oreficio chiuso ne la fine de dicti uasi\net in processo se dillata e tanto procede dilatandosi che infine di\nquello se dillatta ala quantita de li testiculi et iue fa una bursa la\nquale se chiama borsa di testiculi: onde appare che questo didimo fu\nfacto a continere o custodire li testiculi: et li uasi spermatici che\nperuengono ad essi.\n\nEt in questa borsa glie sono posti doi testiculi facti de sustantia\nglandosa rotondi facti secondo li medici a generare e produre el\nsperma per che benche el sia preparato ne li uasi spermatici tamen\nnon recceue in essi la debita forma specifica ma da li testiculi. Et\nsecondo el philosopho Aristotile el sperma perfectamente se produce ne\nli uasi spermatici e che li testiculi furno facti como doi contrapesi a\nretinere i uasi aper ne la proiectione del sperma.\n\n\n_Capitulum tertium de anothomia uirgae et de musculis ani: & de quinque\nuenis emoroydalibus._\n\nUltimo e la uirga continuata cum lo collo de la uesica carnoso e e\ncontinuata cum esso cum molti ligamenti e corde lequale nascono da\nlosso del petenechio insieme cum certi nerui [folio 41 recto] che\nnascono da la nucha: et impero questo membro e molto sensibile et\nextensible; Et anche e continuata la uirga cum gran uene che nascono\ndal ramo de la uena che descende ale parte inferiore et similiter e\ncontinuata cum grande artharie lequale nascono da quella artharia\nlaquale se bifurcha ale doe anche: onde a la lingua et ala uirga\nuengono magiore uene et arthariae che a nesuno altro membro a tanto\npertanto: Et impero queste uene & artharie nel luocho chiamato\nperitoneon cio e tra loreficio del culo et el luocho di testiculi sono\ninuolute e sono molto grande: et iue e el principio de la uirga: Et per\nquesto la uirga e tuta cauernosa e le sue cauernosita se reimpino de\nuentuosita laquale se genera in quelle artharie et alhora se driza la\nuirga: Onde se tu scindi per lo longo la uirga insino al suo canale et\napparerano dui buchi predicti et etiam le sue cauernosita.\n\nLa quantita de la uirga o uero longheza sie duno palmo como e quello\ndel collo de la matrice.\n\nLa sustantia de la uirga sie neruosa excepto la extremita sua che se\nchiama preputio.\n\nDa poi a lextremita delo intestino recto chiamato anus tu trouerai\ncerti musculi che apreno & asera o quello oreficio et similiter ne\nlextremita del dicto oreficio li sono cinque uene terminato ad esso\nchiamate uene [folio 41 verso] emoroydale per lequale in alcuni homini\na certi tempi esce di molto sangue.\n\n\n_Capitulum quartum de anothomia mirach: quod est domicilium predictorum\nduorum membrorum principalium._\n\nDapoi che noi habiamo ueduto de doi membri principali uno che serue al\nnutrimento di li membri a conseruare el corpo e laltro a conseruare la\nspetie: et anche de li suoi ministri resta a uedere del suo domicilio\nel quale e comune a tuti quilli el quale se chiama mirach.\n\nQuesto mirach o uero questo domicilio si e composto de cinque parte cio\ne cute pinguedine uno certo panniculo carnoso e certi musculi cum le\nsue corde et el siphac: de tute queste cinque parte se constituisse uno\ncooperculo et una casa ne laquale se contengono li membri predicti.\n\nE questo tale domicilio fu posto di sotto da li altri per la ignobilita\ndi membri che se contengono in esso: Onde contiene alcuni membri\ndeputati a purgare le fe\u00e7e e le superfluita lequale essende graue\ndescendeno a le parte inferiore.\n\nQuesto domicilio non potette essere ossuoso ma fu carnoso et\npelliculoso acio che secondo li bisogni se potesse dillatare et\nintumescere como ne la femina pregnante o uero in colui che ha\npigliato troppo cibo o uero ne lo ydropico o per qualche altra cagione\nbisognasse infiare el uentre, sel fusse ossuoso non se potria fare\nquesto.\n\n[folio 42 recto] La prima parte di questo mirach si e la cute de fuora\ncirca laquale sono da considerare piu luochi: Uno si e corespondente\nala bocha del stomaco che una cartiligine che copre quello e chiamasi\npomo granato como e stato dicto.\n\nLaltro luocho si e la parte che e sopra el stomaco sopra de lombelico\ncirca a quatro dita.\n\nEl terzo luocho si e la parte umbelicale cio e doue e lombellico cum\nel quale sta alligata la creatura nela matrice cum le uene de essa\nmatrice: et impero ne le parte interiore de lombelico appare una certa\nuena che se continua cum esso, et passa per el gibo del figato e per\nquesta uena se porta el sangue da le uene de la matrice al figato de la\ncreatura et inquesto modo se nutrisse nel uentre de la matre: Ma questa\nuena quando lhuomo e nato se priua di sangue per che mancha la sua\noperatione quale facea alhora: Et impero continuamente se ua diminuendo\nquella uena, onde ne li uechii appare molte minore che ne li gioueni:\nEt similiter cum questa uena descende una certa artharia a lombelico\nde la creatura laquale quando e ne lombelico descende gioso e uasene\na lartharia adorthi apresso li spondili de le rene et di li fianchi e\nquesta artharia simelmente se ua deleguando e continue appare minore\ncomo e stato dicto de la predicta uena. E questa artharia tu uederai\nexscarnando apresso lombelico et apparerati in forma de uno neruo o\nde una corda [folio 42 verso]. El quarto luocho se chiama sumen, di\nsotto da lo imbilico quatro dita et e una parte ne laquale se terminano\nalcune uene ala cute per le quale la creatura nel uentre de la matre\nmanda fuora le sue aquosita: e queste uene e questa tale parte si e\npiu manifesta ne li puti che non sono nati che ne li perfecti perche\nessendo queste uene frustrate da la sua operatione se uadeno anullande.\n\nEl quinto luocho si e el petenechio doue sono li membri genitali.\n\nDa poi anche tu hai a considerare le parte laterale cioe li li fianchi\ne li ypocondrii uno da la parte dritto sotto el quale sta el figato e\nlaltro da la parte mancho doue e locata la milza.\n\nDapoi la cute apparerati incontinenti la pinguedine la quale e molto\npiu grande nel porcho che ne lhuomo.\n\nDapoi et tertio te apparera uno panniculo el quale e composto de carne\ne nerui.\n\nQuarto di sotto a questo panniculo li sono etiam octo musculi di\nliquali doi sono longitudinali che protendeno per el longo dal clipeo\nde la bocha del stomaco insino a lossa del petenechio, e quisti musculi\nnon hano gran corde senon ligamentale, Quatro altri sono transuersali\ndui superiori e dui inferiori: Li superiori nascono da le parte di\nsopra a presso le coste et terminano a certe corde circa le ossa\ndel petenechio inquesto modo che la corda [folio 43 recto] dritta\nua alingioso al musculo che uiene da la parte sinistra, et la corda\nstancha ua gioso al musculo che uiene da la parte dritta: Onde le corde\nse incrociano ne la parte inferiore. Li altri dui musculi transuersali\nsono inferiori per che comentiano da le ossa del petenechio et de le\nanche e se terminano a certe corde in questo medesimo modo che la corda\ndritta ua al musculo sinistro e la sinistra ua al musculo dritto, e le\ncorde se incrociano como e stato dicto.\n\nDoi altri sono latitudinali cusi dicti per che li fili di liquali se\ncomponeno protendendeno secondo el lato: Et uno di quisti musculi e dal\nlato dritto e laltro del lato stancho, e sono piu manifesti et anche\nla sua origine apresso de la schina uerso la parte superiore: e quisti\nmusculi latitudinali insieme cum li longitudinali se intersecano ne li\nanguli dritti.\n\nLa utilita di quisti musculi sie prima acio che deffendeseno li membri\ninteriori da li nocumenti extrinseci, et anche che li riscaldaseno\nreuerberando la loro calidita a le parte dentro. La seconda e acio che\naiutino ad expellere le superfluita dal pecto e le superfluita dele\nfeze et etiam ad expellere la creatura fuora, e queste sono utilita\ncomune a quisti octo musculi: Ma piu particularmente parlando Li\nmusculi [folio 43 verso] longitudinali sono facti primo ad atrahere,\nsecondo ad expellere, onde expelleno contrahendo li suoi uili liquali\ncontratti comprimeno glintestini uerso el diafragma como se fosseno tra\ndoe mane che li comprimeseno e per questo modo expelleno fuora le feze:\nEt per che glintestini hano bisogno maxime di queste doe operatione cio\ne de atrahere et expellere impero quisti musculi furno grandi.\n\nMa li musculi latitudinali sono solo facti ad expellere: & impero\nsono piu apresso glintestini et fano questa expulsione comprimendo la\nparte da laquale deno expellere: Et per che la expulsione se fa da\nsuso ingioso impero furno locati piu tosto ne le parte superiore che\ninferiore.\n\nLi transuersali furno facti a retinere e questo fano mediante li\nsuoi uili transuersali, E questo bisogno fare la natura acio che\nle superfluita gio descese non reascendeseno impero fece li dui\ntransuersali superiori et anche hebbe intentione che le fe\u00e7e non\ndescendeseno molto ueloce mente anzi se retignisseno tanto che el\nfigato le potesse bene esuccarle como e stato dicto impero fece\naltri du imusculi transuersali inferiori: liquali sono minori che li\nsuperiori per che magiore fu intentione de la natura a fare che le feze\nnon reascendeseno cha che uelocemente non descendeseno.\n\nLa quinta parte de questo mirach [folio 44 recto] si e uno panniculo\nsuttilissimo e molto duro chiamato siphac et fu facto acio chel\nprohibisse che li musculi dicti non comprimeseno i membri naturali\ne per questo fu neruoso acio che se possa dillatere e constringere\nquando quilli membri se dillateno e se constringeno. E fu sutile acio\nche quello non li agrauasse. Et fu duro acio che facilmente el non se\nrompesse per che quando se rompe accade quella passione che si chiama\ncrepatura.\n\nE fu facto etiam questo panniculo acio che el lighe glintestini a la\nschina et acio che tuti li panniculi de li altri membri interiori\nche se contengono in esso habiano origine da quello: Et etiam acio\nchel prohibisca che glintestini non se rompano quando se infiano de\nuentosita, e perquesto appare la anothomia de tuto el mirach el quale e\ndomicilio de tuti li altri membri gia dicti.\n\n\n_Tractatus quintus de anothomia partium extremarum & ossium Capitulum\nprimum de anothomia ossium et neruorum quae sunt a collo usque ad\ncaudam._\n\nExpediti li quatro membri principali cum li loro ministri e cum li loro\ndomicilii. Vediamo mo la anothomia de le parte extreme cio e braza cum\nle mano, et de le cosse cum li piedi ma prima uederemo de le ossa nerui\ne nucha comentiando dal collo per infino a la cauda.\n\nDiciamo adonca che el collo fu facto per el pulmone e per la sua cana\nne li animali che respirano: et inquesto collo sono septe [folio\n44 verso] ossa chiamati spondili, et sono piu suttili de glialtri\ninferiori per che sono sustentati da quilli: Et benche siano suttili\npur sono molto duri e firmamente congionti acio che non si dislacaseno,\net anche che non receuesseno nocumento da le cose extrinsece. Et quisti\nspondili benche siano piu suttili de li altri pur hano el bucho magiore\nper che la nucha e piu grossa nel collo che in alcuna pare di li altri\nspondili e questo fu per che iue ha la sua origine.\n\nDapoi quisti septe spondili li sono altri spondili che se chiamano\nspondili de le coste e sono dodece secondo el numero de le coste de\nlequale septe sono uere e cinque mendose.\n\nDa poi sono li spondili de le rene liquali sono cinque, e sono molto\ngrossi e grandi per che sono fondamento e sustentaculo de li altri\nspondili.\n\nDa poi sono alcuni altri spondili liquali sono ne plichatura che e\nda la schina a la cauda e sono tri minori di li predicti per che se\ndoueano congiongere cum li spondili de la cauda liquali sono picoli.\n\nUltimo sono li spondili de la cauda et quiui sono molte differentie de\nbuchi per liquali passano li nerui, e queste tale diuersitade se uedeno\nmeglio nel corpo cotto o uero perfectamente esiccato.\n\nEt in ciascuno spondile e posta la nucha la quale e una medula simile\nala substantia del cerebro senon che e piu uiscosa e piu salda et ha\n[folio 45 recto] origine da esso cerebro, el quale essendo diuise in\ndoe parte cio e ne la parte dritta e ne la parte mancha impero ne la\nsuperficie di questa nucha appare uno filo che la diuide per mezo cio e\nla parte dritta da la parte stancha: E fu facta da la natura acio desse\nel sentire e el mouere a tuto el corpo dal capo ingio onde la nucha e\nditta uicaria del cerebro.\n\nDa la nucha in ciascaduno spondile nasce uno pare de nerui che uanno\na dare el sentire e el mouere a certi e uarii membri. E per che li\nspondili sono intuto trenta impero sono trenta para de nerui secondo\nel numero di li spondili: et poi dala cauda ne nasce un altro pare de\nnerui onde sono intuto trentauno pare de nerui oltra quelli sei para\nditti disopra che nascono dal cerebro.\n\n\n_Capitulum secundum de anothomia brachiorum et manuum._\n\nLe braze e le mano sono composti de cute pinguedine, carne, uene,\ncorde, ligamenti, ossa.\n\nTu uederai una uena che penetra per sotto la lasina del brazo e procede\nper la parte domestica e uasene ala curuatura del brazo et appare ne\nla parte inferiore de gubito e chiamasi basilica e poi protende piu\noltra descendendo gioso a la mano ne la parte siluestra e uasene tra\ndoi digiti cio e el digito picolo chiamato auriculare et el suo proximo\ndigito [folio 45 verso] chiamato annulare, e chiamasi questa uena iue\nsylen e coresponde ala basilica como suo ramo.\n\nVederai simelmente un altra uena che uiene per la parte domestica del\nbrazo ne la parte superiore de gubito e chiamasi cephalica per che e\nuacua del capo et nasce da una uena che ascende al capo e questa uena\npiu oltra procede uerso la mano e uassene ne la siluestra parte tra\ne il dito grosso e lindice e chiamasi saluatella e corresponde a la\ncephalica.\n\nUn altra uena uederai ne la curuatiua del brazo in mezo de le predicte\ncomo uno ramo continuato cum tute doe e chiamase uena media o uero uena\ncomune.\n\nDa poi le uene tu uederai di molti musculi e molte corde grande e\ngrosse. Li musculi furno facti a dare el moto uoluntario al quale\ndeserueno etiam esse corde.\n\nDapoi tu uederai le ossa et comentiando ala spala tu uederai prima uno\nosso chiamato spatula de simile figura como e una spatula de legno el\nquale e largo disotto acio che non impedischa el pecto e le coste, et\ne strecto di sopra acio che cum laltro osso che tu uederai chiamato\naiutorio meglio se firme: et impero ne la extremita superiore di questa\nspatula glie una concauita superficiale rotonda acio che in esse sia\nsituata la extrimita de lo aiutorio rotonda del quale el capo primo\ne rotondo locato ne la extremita de losso de la spatula poi nel mezo\nse obliqua uerso la domestica parte acio che nel plicare et [folio 46\nrecto] amplexare de le cose sia piu habile: Et lo extremo di questo\naiutorio ha quasi doe eminentie per che se congionge cum dui ossi\nchiamati focilli, et in mezo de quelle parte eminente ha piu disopra\nuna certa concauita ne laquale entra lextremita del focille inferiore\nlaquale e facta a modo de uno instrumento da trare laqua acio che sia\npiu ferma la sua coniunctione et el focille inferiore e piu longo che\nel superiore per che linferiore sustenta el superiore: Ma tuti dui\nconuegono in questo che ne li extremi sono piu grossi che nel mezo per\nche da li extremi loro nascono ligamenti e iuncture, et nel mezo glie\nsono musculi che supliseno a la loro sutilita: Et el focille superiore\nnon procede dritamente como linferiore acio che sia cagione de plicare\nla mano et el brazo.\n\nDapoi questi do focilli glie la resetta de la mano ne la quale sono\nocto ossi in doe schiere cioe quatro per schiera: Dapoi sono le ossa\ndel pectine de la mano perche e facta ala forma de uno pectine e sono\nquatro correspondenti a quatro digiti per che al dito grosso non\ncorresponde alcuno osso di questo pectine per che non e in schiera cum\nli altri digiti.\n\nDapoi sono le ossa de li cinque digiti, et hano tre ossi per digito\nche sono intuto quindice: Da poi sono le corde che uano ale iuncture\net ultimo la carne laquale e molto piu ne la parte domestica, et da li\nlati ma pocha ne la parte siluestra per che plicandosi [folio 46 verso]\nne la parte domestica non recceuesse lesione per la dureza de li ossi e\nche non accadesse uacuita alcuna dai lati e da poi li sono le onghie a\ncoprire la cornosita che e ne lextremita de dicti digiti.\n\n\n_Capitulum tertium de anothomia cossarum tibiarum et pedum._\n\nVediamo mo ultimamente de la anothomia de le cosse, gambe e piedi.\nDiciamo adoncha che scorticando le cosse tu trouerai doe uene grande\nche sono ramificate dal troncho de la uena chilis che descende gioso el\nquale quando e nel fine de li spondili dele rene se diuide in doi rami\nuno ua ala gamba dritta e laltro ala stancha et similiter se ramifica\nel troncho de lartharia adorthi che descende: e ciascuno di quisti doi\nrami in ciascuna gamba se diuide in doi altri rami uno descende per el\ndritto e per la domestica parte de la gamba et chiamas Saphena per che\nflobotomata e uacua dai membri naturali e genitali et appare questa\nuena sopra del genochio e sopra la cauichia del piede, e desotto nel\ncalchagno et appare anche nel pectine del pede.\n\nUn altro ramo se obliqua et intra apresso la iunctura de la scia[219] o\ndel galbue[219] impero e chiamata siatica: ondo per la obliquatione che\nfa circa queste iuncture flobotomata uale ne le sue passione: Et appare\nquesta uena intuti i predicti [folio 47 recto] luochi como e dicto de\nla saphena.\n\nNe la parte siluestra ua escarnando e lieua su li musculi e le corde\ne uederai prima losso del petenechio sopra del quale sono fabricati\nli spondili de la schina et consequenter tuto el corpo ne la parte\ninferiore ha una concauita ne laquale e locata la extremita rotonda\nlaquale extremita se chiama uertebro e nel mezo di quisti doi da la\nparte dentro lie uno certo ligamento e questa iunctura di questi doi\nossi se chiama scia: et impero el dolore che uiene iui se chiama dolore\nsciatico.\n\nDapoi tu uederai losso grande de la cossa el quale e magiore de tute\nle ossa che sono nel corpo per che sustentaculo de tuto el corpo: Et\nhebbe una grande concauita acio che fusse piu ligiero e che hauesse\nmolta merolla. Et per che potesse meglio sustentare non lo fece dritto\nla natura ma ne la extremita fecelo pighato uerso la domestica parte: e\nnel mezo sie plicato e conuexo.\n\nDapoi questo osso nela iunctura del genochio sono dui ossi dicti\nfocilli de la gamba ma uerso la parte dinanzi di quella iunctura glie\nuno osso chiamato patella facto in modo de una patella acio che la\niunctura fusse piu forte: e questa iunctura e facta de ligamenti como\nfusse ligata per uno groppo. Et el focille che e ne la parte domestica\ne magiore e piu grosso per che ha piu a sustentar el peso [folio 47\nverso] del corpo e quello de la parte siluestra e piu sutile e curto\nfacto solo chel sia apogio del magiore.\n\nDa poi lie losso de la caichia cum el quale se congiongeno li dicti\nfocilli, et e losso del calcagno grosso quadrangulato sotto del quale e\nuna cute grossa e callosa molto.\n\nDa poi e uno osso facto in modo de una u nauicula quadrangulare\nalquanto longo.\n\nDapoi e la rasetta del pede composto de tri ossi e non de octo como fu\nla resetta de la mano perche el pede douea stare firmo e non mouersi a\nretinire qualche cosa como la mano.\n\nDa poi li e el pectine composto da cinque ossi per che el dito grosso e\ninschiera cum li altri.\n\nDa poi sono le ossa dili digiti che sono quatuordice cioe dui al dito\ngrosso e tri per ciascaduno de li altri. Da poi sono certi musculi e\nmolte corde a mouere contrahendo e dillatando i digiti et ultimo li\nsono le onghie che copreno la carnosita de li cime de li digiti como\n_e_ stato dicto di digiti de le mane. E cussi a laude de dio habiamo\ncompiuto quello che era nostra intentione e quello che dal principio\nnoi prometessimo di narrare.\n\n\n\n\n THE BLESSING OF CRAMP-RINGS\n\n A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF THE TREATMENT OF EPILEPSY\n\n by Raymond Crawfurd\n\n\nThe origin of this ceremony of blessing rings, by the kings and queens\nof England, for the cure of epilepsy and other spasmodic disorders,\nappears to be well attested by the evidence of many contemporary\nrecords. All alike refer it back to Edward the Confessor, or, to be\nmore exact, to the ring which was one of the sacred relics in the\nshrine of the Confessor in his abbey of Westminster. Caxton, in the\n_Golden Legend_,[220] tells the tale of this wonderful ring, as follows:\n\n \u2018When the blessed King Edward had lived many years, and was fallen\n into great age, it happened he came riding by a church in Essex\n called Havering, which was at that time in hallowing, and should\n be dedicated in the honour of our Lord and S. John the Evangelist;\n wherefore the king for great devotion lighted down and tarried,\n while the church was in hallowing. And in the time of procession,\n a fair old man came to the king and demanded of him alms in the\n worship of God and S. John the Evangelist. Then the king found\n nothing ready to give, ne his almoner was not present, but he took\n off the ring from his finger and gave it to the poor man, whom the\n poor man thanked and departed. And within certain years after, two\n pilgrims of England went into the holy land to visit holy places\n there, and as they had lost their way and were gone from their\n fellowship, and the night approached, and they sorrowed greatly as\n they that wist not whither to go, and dreaded sore to be perished\n among wild beasts; at the last they saw a fair company of men\n arrayed in white clothing, with two lights borne afore them, and\n behind them there came a fair ancient man with white hair for age.\n Then these pilgrims thought to follow the light and drew nigh.\n Then the old man asked them what they were, and of what region,\n and they answered that they were pilgrims of England, and had\n lost their fellowship and way also. Then this old man comforted\n them goodly, and brought them into a fair city where was a fair\n cenacle honestly arrayed with all manner of dainties, and when\n they had well refreshed them and rested there all night, on the\n morn this fair old man went with them, and brought them in the\n right way again. And he was glad to hear them talk of the welfare\n and holiness of their king S. Edward. And when he should depart\n from them, then he told them what he was and said: I am John the\n Evangelist, and say ye unto Edward your king that I greet him right\n well, by the token that he gave to me this ring with his own hands\n at the hallowing of my church, which ring ye shall deliver to him\n again. And say ye to him that he dispose his goods, for within\n six months he shall be in the joy of heaven with me, where he\n shall have his reward for his chastity and for his good living....\n And when he had delivered to them the ring he departed from them\n suddenly. And soon after they came home and did their message to\n the king, and delivered to him the ring, and said that S. John the\n Evangelist sent it to him.\u2019\n\nShortly after this Edward departed this life, and was laid in his\nabbey of Westminster, where the usual abundant harvest of miraculous\ncures was enacted at his shrine. In the above story we have also the\nexplanation of one synonym of epilepsy, the \u2018morbus sancti Iohannis\u2019.\n\nThe further history of the ring may be gleaned from several sources,\nbut notably from a MS. by one Richard Sporley, a monk of the abbey,\nentitled, \u2018De fundacione ecclesie Westm\u2019, dated A.D. 1450, and now in\nthe British Museum.[221]\n\nSt. Edward\u2019s ring was deposited with his corpse in the tomb in A.D.\n1066. He was translated at midnight of October 13, 1163, when his body\nwas found to be incorrupt. Abbot Lawrence took the robes from the body\nand made them into three copes, and gave the ring as a sacred relic to\nthe Abbey:\n\n \u2018Dompnus Laurentius quondam abbas huius loci ... sed et annulo\n eiusdem (Sancti Edwardi) quem Sancto Iohanni quondam tradidit,\n quem et ipse de paradiso remisit, elapsis annis duobus et dimidio,\n postea _in_ nocte translationis de digito regis tulit, et pro\n miraculo in loco isto custodiri iussit.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: From CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MS. Ec. iii. 59\n\nPlate XXXIX. MIRACLES AT THE TOMB OF EDWARD THE CONFESSOR\n\nXIIIth Century]\n\nThe story of the ring is also depicted in the miniatures of a beautiful\nilluminated Norman-French MS. Life of St. Edward the King, dating\nfrom the thirteenth century, and now in the University Library at\nCambridge.[222] The single miniature reproduced here (Plate XXXIX)\nshows seven blind men, restored to sight, kneeling at the shrine,\nwhile a priest reads the _Te Deum_. At the sides of the shrine are\nfigures on pillars of St. John as the palmer (left), and St. Edward\nwith his ring (right). No cure of epilepsy, so-called cramp, is\ndepicted among the many miraculous cures recorded in the MS. The\nearliest extant records of the use of the ring for this purpose date\nfrom the reign of Edward II.\n\nAnstis[223] cites the following entry from the last chapter of the\n_Constitutions of the Household of Edward II_: \u2018Item le Roi doit offrer\nde certein le jour de grant vendredi a crouce. v _s._ queux il est\nacustumez receivre devers lui a la mene le chapelein afair ent anulx\na donner pur medicine az divers gentz\u2019: the language, however, of\nthe entry leaves little room to doubt that the custom was already an\nestablished one. At his coronation, too, Edward II offered a pound of\ngold wrought into a figure representing St. Edward holding a ring, and\na mark of gold, or eight ounces, worked into the figure of a pilgrim\nputting forth his hand to receive the ring: and the presumption is that\nthis gold was to be converted into cramp-rings.\n\nWe have detailed accounts of the manner of this ceremony of hallowing\ncramp-rings dating from early Tudor times, and there is sufficient\nevidence in the brief notices of earlier date to show that the\nceremonial observed by the Plantagenet kings was essentially similar.\nOn Good Friday, when the king went to adore the cross, he used to\nmake an offering of money, which was redeemed by a sum of equivalent\nvalue: the money so received was converted into rings, which were\nsubsequently hallowed by the king. In Tudor times the hallowing of the\nrings took place on Good Friday, so that the offering of the money must\nhave been made at some previous time, or this part of the ritual may\nhave actually become obsolete. The change of custom was effected some\ntime between 9 Edward IV (1470-1) and 13 Henry VIII (1521-2), and was\nprobably therefore the work of Henry VII, who, as we know, materially\naltered the kindred ceremonial of Touching for the Evil.\n\nA MS. copy of the Orders of the King of England\u2019s Household, 13 Henry\nVIII, preserved in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris,[224] contains,\n\u2018The Order of the Kynge, on Good Friday, touching the cominge to\nService, Hallowinge of the Crampe Rings, and Offeringe and Creepinge to\nthe Crosse\u2019. It is quoted _in extenso_ in the Northumberland Household\nBook,[225] and also by Mansell in his _Monumenta Ritualia_.[226] It\nruns as follows:\n\n \u2018First the king to come to the closett or to the chappell with the\n lords and noblemen wayting on him, without any sword to bee borne\n before him on that day, and there to tarry in his travers till\n the bishop and deane have brought forth the crucifix out of the\n vestry (the almoner reading the service of the cramp rings) layd\n upon a cushion before the high altar, and then the huishers shall\n lay a carpet before y^t for ye king to creepe to the crosse upon:\n and y^t done, there shall be a fourme set upon the carpet before\n the crucifix, and a cushion layd before it for the king to kneele\n on; and the Master of the jewell house shal be ther ready with the\n crampe rings in a basin or basins of silver: the king shall kneele\n upon the sayd cushion before the fourme, and then must the clerke\n of the closett bee ready with the booke conteyninge ye service of\n the hallowing of the said rings, and the almoner must kneel upon\n the right hand of the king, holding of the sayd booke, and when\n y^t is done the king shall rise and go to the high altar, where\n an huisher must be ready with a cushion to lay for his grace to\n kneele upon, and the greatest Lord or Lords being then present\n shall take the basin or basins with the rings and bear them after\n the king, and then deliver them to the king to offer; and this done\n the queen shall come down out of her closett or travers into the\n chappell with ladies and gentlewomen wayters on her, and creepe to\n the crosse; and that done she shall returne againe into her closett\n or travers, and then the ladies shall come downe and creepe to the\n crosse, and when they have done, the Lords and noblemen shall in\n likewise.\u2019\n\nCreeping to the Cross seems to have been practised in noble households\nas well as in that of the king. The following entry is found in the\nNorthumberland Household Book[227] (_temp._ Henry VIII):\n\n \u2018Item my Lord useth and accustometh yerely when his Lordship is at\n home to cause to be delyveride for the Offerings of my Lordis Sone\n and Heire the Lord Percy upon the said Good Friday When he crepith\n the Crosse ij_d_. Ande for every of my Yonge Maisters my Lords\n Yonger Sonnes after j_d_. to every of them for their Offerings when\n they Crepe the Cross the said Good Friday iiij_d_.\u2019\n\nMany of the entries in the accounts of the Plantagenet kings show\nthat the homage was paid to the Gneyth Cross. This cross was held in\ngreat veneration, and, according to tradition, was made of wood from\nthe true Cross presented by a pilgrim to Richard C\u0153ur de Lion: no\nsatisfactory explanation of its name is forthcoming. It seems to have\nbeen transferred from place to place. Under Edward I we find it in the\nroyal chapel of the Priory of Plympton: under Edward II in the royal\nchapel within the Tower: under Edward III in the private chapel of the\nroyal Manor of Clipstone, and later in the same reign in St. George\u2019s\nChapel at Windsor, where it was in the time of Henry VII. The purpose\nof the ceremony is set forth in a Proclamation of February 26, 30 Henry\nVIII, now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries: \u2018On Good\nFriday it shall be declared howe creepyng of the Crosse signifyeth an\nhumblynge of ourselfe to Christe before the Crosse, and the kyssynge of\nit a memorie of our redemption made upon the Crosse.\u2019 When Convocation,\nin A.D. 1536, abolished some of the old ceremonies, on the ground that\nthey were superstitious, this of Creeping to the Cross was retained as\na laudable and edifying custom.\n\nThe following records, taken from the Household Books and Account Rolls\nof the times, serve to establish the continuity of the ceremonial\nsubsequent to its first mention in the time of Edward II.\n\nIn the Eleemosyna Roll of 9 Edward III[228] occurs the following entry:\n\n \u2018In oblacione domini Regis ad crucem de Gneythe die parasceues in\n capella sua, infra mannerium suum de Clipstone, in precium duorum\n florencium de Florencia, xiiii die Aprilis, vi_s._ viij_d._, et in\n denariis quos posuit pro dictis florenciis reassumptis pro annulis\n medicinalibus inde faciendis, eodem die, vi_s._: summa xii_s._\n viii_d._\u2019 [For the offering of the lord King to the Gneythe Cross\n on Good Friday in his chapel, in his manor of Clipstone, to the\n value of two florins, on the 14th day of April, vi_s._ viii_d._,\n and for the pence bestowed in redemption of the said florins for\n the making of medicinal rings, on the same day, vi_s._: total\n xii_s._ viii_d._]\n\nAgain, in the Eleemosyna Roll of the following year, 10 Edward III:[229]\n\n \u2018In oblacione domini Regis ad crucem de Gneyth in die parasceues\n apud Eltham, \u0305x\u0305x\u0305i\u0305x\u0305 die Marcii, v_s._, et pro iisdem denariis\n reassumptis pro annulis inde faciendis per manus Iohannis de\n Crokeford eodem die, x_s._\u2019\n\nIn this entry the name of the almoner is introduced, and the form of\nthe account is abbreviated by omitting repetition of the substituted\nv_s._\n\nAnd in 11 Edward III:[230]\n\n \u2018In oblacione domini regis ad crucem de Gneyth in capella sua in\n pc\u0127o de Wyndesore die parasceues, v_s._, et pro totidem denariis\n reassumptis pro annulis inde faciendis v_s._\u2019\n\nHere the sum total is omitted: the three entries, though mutually\nexplanatory, show how puzzling becomes a too strict economy of words.\n\nEntries substantially the same as these may be seen in the Wardrobe\nAccounts of 12-14 Edward III.[231]\n\nOne more entry from the Account Books of John de Ypres, 44 Edward III,\nis perhaps worth quoting, as it seems to point definitely to the rings\nbeing made in this instance of both gold and silver:\n\n \u2018In oblacionibus Regis factis adorando crucem in capella sua infra\n castrum suum de Wyndesore die parasceues in pretio trium nobilium\n auri et quinque solidorum sterling xxv_s._--In denariis solutis\n pro iisdem oblacionibus reassumptis pro annulis medicinalibus inde\n faciendis, eodem die xxv.\u2019\n\nThe offering of both gold and silver money would seem to bear out the\nsuggestion as to the material of the rings, as we know that in later\ntimes both metals were used. It is, of course, arguable that the larger\nsum of money indicates only a greater demand for the rings.\n\nRichard II\u2019s Account Books[232] show that he maintained the practice of\nhis grandfather. The following is from an account of the Controller of\nthe Wardrobe in his reign:\n\n \u2018in dena\u035er solu\u035et decano capelle Regis pro eisdem oblacionibus\n reassump\u035et pro anulis medicina\u019a inde faciendis, xxv_s._\u2019\n\nThe substituted money seems to have been actually laid on the altar,\nand removed thence to be made into rings: this will explain payment\nbeing made in this case to the Dean of the Chapel Royal.\n\nHenry IV could ill afford to dispense with any of the prerogatives of\nroyalty, and we find him offering 25 shillings in the chapel of the\npalace of Eltham for the making of medicinal rings.[233]\n\nIt is no matter for surprise that no mention should be forthcoming of\ncramp-rings in the reign of Henry V, most of which was spent beyond\nthe shores of England, and in the propagation rather than in the\nrelief of disease. A passage, however, in the literary remains of Sir\nJohn Fortescue[234] taken from a tract entitled _Defensio Iuris Domus\nLancastriae_, now to be seen in the Cotton Collection at the British\nMuseum, and referable to the year A.D. 1462, seems to show that the\npractice had not been allowed to lapse during his memory, which ranged\nover the reigns of Henry IV, V, and VI. The translated passage runs\nthus:\n\n \u2018Many duties likewise are incumbent on the Kings of England in\n virtue of the kingly office, which are inconsistent with a woman\u2019s\n nature, and Kings of England are endowed with certain powers by\n special grace from heaven, wherewith Queens in the same country are\n not endowed. The Kings of England at their very anointing receive\n such an infusion of grace from heaven, that by touch of their\n anointed hands they cleanse and cure those infected with a certain\n disease, that is commonly called the King\u2019s Evil, though they be\n pronounced otherwise incurable. Epileptics too, and persons subject\n to the falling sickness, are cured by means of gold and silver\n devoutly touched and offered by the sacred anointed hands of the\n kings of England upon Good Friday, during divine service (according\n to the ancient custom of the Kings of England); as has been proved\n by frequent trial of rings, made of the said gold and silver and\n placed on the fingers of sick persons in many parts of the world.\n The gift is not bestowed on Queens, as they are not anointed on the\n hands.\u2019\n\nThe passage also brings out the fact that the use of both gold and\nsilver rings had long been customary.\n\nWe have abundant evidence of the maintenance of the ceremony under\nEdward IV in a number of separate entries. Thus in an Eleemosyna Roll\nof 8 Edward IV is the following: \u2018Pro eleemosyna in die parasceves\nc. marc. et pro annulis de auro et argento pro eleemosyna Regis\neodem die.\u2019 And in a Liber Niger Domus Regis Edwardi IV: \u2018Item, to\nthe Kynge\u2019s offerings to the crosse on Good Friday, out from the\ncounting-house for medycinable rings of gold and silver, delyvered to\nthe jewell house xxv_s._\u2019 And again in a Privy Seal Account of 9 Edward\nIV: \u2018Item, paid for the King\u2019s Good Fryday rings of gold and silver\nxxxiii_l._ vi_s._ viii_d._\u2019 Edward IV seems to have aimed at fortifying\nhimself upon the throne by a liberal use of the Royal Gift of Healing,\nand I have elsewhere expressed my belief, in the absence of any written\nevidence, that it was in his reign, and not in that of Henry VII,\nas commonly believed, that the dole of the angel to those touched by\nthe King for the Evil was instituted. Cramp-rings are mentioned in\nthe Comptroller\u2019s Accounts of 20 Henry VII, but the Tudors certainly\ndevoted their healing powers chiefly to sufferers from the Evil.\n\nThere is a passage in the _Historia Anglicana_ of Polydore Vergil,[235]\nthe Italian, who came to live in England in A.D. 1502, and wrote his\nhistory during the reigns of Henry VII and VIII, which shows the nature\nof the patients for whom these sacred rings were used.\n\n \u2018Iste annulus in eodem templo (scil. Westmonasterii), mult\u00e2\n veneratione perdiu est servatus, quod salutaris esset membris\n stupentibus valeretque adversus comitialem morbum, cum tangeretur\n ab illis, qui eiusmodi tentarentur morbis. Hinc natum, ut reges\n postea Angliae consueverint in die Parasceues, mult\u00e2 coeremoni\u00e2\n sacrare annulos, quos qui induunt, hisce in morbis omnino nunquam\n sunt.\u2019\n\nBesides true epileptics, they were used for those who had palsied\nlimbs: this is interesting as suggesting the inclusion of Jacksonian\nepilepsy, and perhaps hemiplegia, and the resulting contractures\nin these conditions may have contributed to the confusion with\ncontractures from other causes, such as chronic rheumatism. We have\nto bridge over in some such way the gap between their conception of\n\u2018cramp\u2019 and ours.\n\nIn the will of John Baret of Bury St. Edmunds,[236] dated 1463, is a\nbequest to \u2018my lady Walgrave\u2019 of a \u2018rowund ryng of the Kynges silver\u2019;\nand also to \u2018Thomais Brews, esquiyer, my crampe ryng with blak innamel,\nand a part silvir and gilt.\u2019 And in 1535 Edmund Lee bequeaths to \u2018my\nnece Thwartow my gold ryng w^t a turkes, and a crampe ryng of gold w^t\nall.\u2019\n\nThere are even earlier bequests than this of healing-rings,[237]\nbut not specifically termed cramp-rings: they are simply spoken of\nas \u2018vertuosi\u2019. Thus Thomas de Hoton, rector of Kyrkebymisperton,\nin 1351, bequeathed to his chaplain \u2018j. zonam de serico, j. bonam\nbursam, j. firmaculum, et j. anulum vertuosum. Item, domino Thome de\nBouthum j. par de bedes de corall, j. anulum vertuosum.\u2019 Talismanic\nrings, inscribed with the names of the three Magi, Caspar, Melchior,\nBalthazar, were used as preservatives from epilepsy in Plantagenet\ntimes.\n\nThe royal cramp-rings enjoyed no monopoly in the cure of epilepsy,\nas is shown by an extract from a medical treatise written in the\nfourteenth century:[238]\n\n \u2018For the Crampe. Tak and ger gedine on Gude Friday, at fyfe\n parriche kirkes, fife of the first penyes that is offerd at the\n crosse, of ilk a kirk the first penye: than tak them al and ga\n before the crosse and say V. pater nosters in the worschip of fife\n wondes, and bere thaim on the V. dais, and say ilk a day als mekyl\n on the same wyse: and then gar mak a ryng thar of with owten alay\n of other metel, and writ with in Jasper, Batasar, Altrapa, and writ\n with outen Ih\u2019 c. nazarenus; and sithen tak it fra the goldsmyth\n upon a Fridai, and say V. pater nosters als thu did before and use\n it alway afterward.\u2019\n\nThe \u2018fife wondes\u2019 are, of course, the five wounds of the crucified\nJesus.\n\nA silver ring, made of five sixpences contributed by five different\nbachelors, conveyed by a bachelor to the hand of a smith that was also\na bachelor, was another reputed remedy for epilepsy; and its virtue was\nenhanced, if none of the bachelors knew for what purpose or to whom it\nwas given.[239]\n\nIn Berkshire, rings made from a piece of silver collected at the\nCommunion found favour, and they were more efficacious if collected\non Easter Sunday. Devonshire preferred a ring made of three nails or\nscrews that had been used to fasten a coffin, and that had been dug out\nof a churchyard.[240]\n\nCramp-rings hallowed by the King of England enjoyed repute beyond the\nshores of England.[241] Lord Berners, the translator of Froissart, when\nambassador to Charles V, writing to \u2018my Lorde Cardinall\u2019s grace from\nSaragoza, the xxi daie of June, 1510\u2019, says: \u2018If your grace remember\nme with some crampe rynges ye shall do a thynge muche looked for, and\nI trust to bestow thaym well, with Godd\u2019s grace, who evermor preserve\nand encrease your moste reverent astate.\u2019 Among various charms that\nCharles V carried about with him were \u2018gold rings from England against\ncramp\u2019.[242]\n\nIn A.D. 1518 we find the President of the College of Physicians lending\nhis patronage to the royal cramp-rings. In a letter to the Parisian\nscholar, Guillaume Bud\u00e9,[243] Thomas Linacre writes that he \u2018has sent\nhim some rings consecrated by the King as a charm against Spasms\u2019: and\non July 10, 1518, Bud\u00e9 replies to him from Paris that he has \u2018received\nhis letter with the rings on July 6\u2019, and has distributed among the\nwives of his relatives and friends the eighteen rings of silver and one\nof gold he received from Linacre, telling them that they were amulets\nagainst slander and calumny.\n\nEven the hard-headed Scot was not proof against the magnetism of the\nroyal rings. A letter from Dr. Thomas Magnus, Warden of Sibthorpe\nCollege, Nottinghamshire, to Cardinal Wolsey,[244] written in A.D. 1526\nsays:\n\n \u2018Pleas it your Grace to write that M. Wiat of his goodnes sent\n unto me for a present certaine cramp ringges, which I distributed\n and gave to sondery myne acquaintaunce at Edinburghe, amonges\n other to M. Adame Otterbourne, who, with oone of thayme, releved a\n mann lying in the falling sekenes, in the sight of myche people:\n sethenne which tyme many requestes have been made unto me for cramp\n ringges, at my departing there, and also sethenne my comyng from\n thennes. May it pleas your Grace therefore to show your gracious\n pleasure to the said M. Wyat, that some ringges may be kept and\n sent into Scottelande; whiche after my poore oppyniyoun shulde be a\n good dede, remembering the power and operacion of thaym is knowne\n and proved in Edinburgh, and that they be gretly required for the\n same cause both by grete personnages and other.\u2019\n\nWhen Bishop Gardiner was in Rome in A.D. 1529, Anne Boleyn wrote him\nthe following letter:[245]\n\n Master Stephyns,\n\n I thank you for my letter, wherein I perceive the willing and\n faithful mind that you have to do me pleasure, not doubting, but\n as much as is possible for man\u2019s wit to imagine, you will do. I\n pray God to send you well to speed in all your matters, so that\n you would put me to the study, how to reward your high service: I\n do trust in God you shall not repent it, and that the end of this\n journey shall be more pleasant to me than your first, for that was\n but a rejoicing hope, which causing the like of it, does put me to\n the more pain, and they that are partakers with me, as you do know:\n and therefore I do trust that this hard beginning shall make the\n better ending.\n\n Master Stephyns, I send you here cramp-rings for you and Master\n Gregory, and Mr. Peter, praying you to distribute them as you think\n best. And have me kindly recommended to them both, as she that you\n may assure them, will be glad to do them any pleasure, which shall\n be in my power. And thus I make an end, praying God send you good\n health.\n\n Written at Grenwiche, the 4th day of April,\n\n By your assured friend,\n Anne Boleyn.\n\n [To Master Stephyns this be delivered.]\n\nBurnet[246] refers to this letter, as follows:\n\n \u2018When he [Gardiner] went to Rome, in the year 1529, Anne Boleyn\n writ a very kind letter to him, which I have put in the Collection\n (Records No. 24). By it, the reader will clearly perceive that he\n was then in the secret of the King\u2019s designing to marry her as\n soon as the divorce was obtained. There is another particular in\n that letter, which corrects a conjecture which I had set down in\n the beginning of the former book concerning the cramp rings that\n were blessed by King Henry, which I thought might have been done by\n him after he was declared head of the Church.[247] That part was\n printed before I saw this letter: but this letter shows they were\n used to be blessed before the separation from Rome: for Anne Boleyn\n sent them as great presents thither. This use of them had been (it\n seems) discontinued in King Edward\u2019s time: but now, under Queen\n Mary, it was designed to be revived, and the office for it was\n written out in a fair MS. yet extant, of which I have put a copy\n in the Collection (No. 25). But the silence in the writers of that\n time makes me think it was seldom if ever practised.\u2019\n\nQueen Mary\u2019s Manual, of which we shall have more to say later, seems to\nhave been the source from which Burnet transcribed the Office. In his\ntime it was in the library of R. Smith, titular Bishop of Chalcedon.\n\nNumerous allusions in the records of the De Lisle family bear testimony\nto the popularity of cramp-rings in the reign of Henry VIII.[248]\nEdward Seymour, Earl of Hertford and afterwards Duke of Somerset,\nwrites to Lady Lisle, in 1537:\n\n \u2018Hussey told me you were very desirous to have some cramp-rings\n against the time that you should be brought a bedd.... I send by\n the present messenger 18 cramp-rings, which you should have had\n long ago.\u2019[249]\n\nJohn Husee writes from London on April 17, 1535, to his mistress, Lady\nLisle: \u2018I send you by Mr. Degory Gramefilld 59 cramp rings of silver,\nthat Christofer Morys giveth you, and one of gold\u2019;[250] and again, on\nMay 2, 1538: \u2018Cramp-rings I can get none out of the jewel-house. Mr.\nWyll^{m}s says the King had the most part of gold, but has promised me\ntwelve silver.\u2019[251]\n\nIn a letter of May 13, 1536, John Husee combines denunciation of Anne\nBoleyn with a promise of cramp-rings to Lady Lisle:\n\n \u2018Madam, I think verily that if all the books and cronycles were\n totally revolved and to the uttermost proscuted and tried, which\n against wymen hath been pennyd, contryvyd, and wryten, syns Adam\n and Eve, these same were I think verily nothing in comparison with\n that which hath been done and committed by Anne the Queen.... I\n think not the contrary but she and all they shall suffre. John\n Williams hath promised me some cramp rings for your Ladyship\u2019;[252]\n\nand again, six days after:\n\n \u2018Your ladyship shall receive of this berer 9 cramp-rings of silver.\n John Williams says he never had so few of gold as this year. The\n king had the most part himself: but next year he will make you\n amends.\u2019[253]\n\nThis day, May 19, 1536, was the day of Anne Boleyn\u2019s execution.\n\nMargaret Mylynton, in 1516, bequeaths to \u2018my dame Croche my best gown\nand a kercheve, and my cramp-ring\u2019.[254] There is nothing, however, to\nshow that it had received the royal benediction.\n\nAndrew Boorde, in his _Introduction of Knowledge_, says, \u2018the kynges\nof Englande doth halowe every yere crampe rynges, ye which rynges\nworne on ones fynger doth help them whych hath the crampe\u2019; and again,\nin his _Breviarie of Health_, published in 1547, but written during\nthe lifetime of Henry VIII: \u2018The kynges majesty hath a great helpe in\nthis matter, in hallowing crampe rynges, and so given without money\nor petition.\u2019 Boorde was medical attendant to Thomas, eighth Duke of\nNorfolk, Lord President of the Council and uncle of Anne Boleyn, and by\nhim was recommended to the notice of Henry VIII, who employed him much\nin State business, but not, so far as is known, in a medical capacity.\nHis testimony therefore is peculiarly reliable, and shows that Henry\nVIII maintained the ceremony throughout his reign, as is borne out\nby the scattered references we have adduced from other contemporary\nsources.\n\nIn 1547, after the death of Henry VIII, Gardiner sent a letter to\nRidley, which contains the following passage:\n\n \u2018The late king used to bless cramp rings both of gold and silver,\n which were much esteemed everywhere, and when he was abroad they\n were often desired from him. The gift he hoped the young king\n would not neglect. He believed the invocation of the name of God\n might give such a virtue to holy water as well as to the water of\n baptism,\u2019 and further he speaks of the rings as endued \u2018by the\n special gift of curation ministered to the king of this realm\u2019.[255]\n\nThat Edward VI did not relinquish the practice of blessing cramp-rings,\nas has been supposed, and as Burnet submits, is conclusively proved\nby an entry in the Household Accounts of the year 1553, before his\ndeath. Under the heading \u2018Oblations\u2019 is 25 shillings for the redemption\nof rings commonly called medicine rings, to be made of gold and\nsilver.[256]\n\nIt was little likely that Mary would allow a Catholic ceremonial to\nlapse for want of royal patronage. In the Appendix to _Illustrations\nof the manners and expences of antient times in England, in the 15th,\n16th, and 17th centuries, deduced from the accompts of churchwardens\nand other authentic documents, London, 1797, 4to_, printed in the same\nyear, is a list of the New Year\u2019s gifts presented by Queen Mary in\n1556, among which we find:\n\n \u2018Item, deliuerid by the queins commandement--to the said Robert\n Raynes, in broken golde, to make crampe rings, etc. Item, more\n deliuerid the same time, to make cramp ringes, in broke plate of\n silu\u2019 theise parcelles,\u2019 &c.\n\n[Illustration: Plate XL. QUEEN MARY TUDOR BLESSING CRAMP-RINGS\n\nFrom QUEEN MARY\u2019S MS. MANUAL fo. iv\n\nLibrary of the Roman Catholic Cathedral at WESTMINSTER]\n\nBut there is further the evidence of the actual existence of Queen\nMary\u2019s Illuminated MS. Manual, in the Library of the Roman Catholic\nCathedral of Westminster, giving the Office of the Blessing of\nCramp-rings in Latin, with rubrics in English showing it to be the\nform made use of by herself. It also contains a miniature painting of\nQueen Mary performing the service of consecration. The whole office is\ntranscribed below. A full description of the Manual will be found in\nthe _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries_,[257] at a meeting of\nwhom it was shown and described by Sir Henry Ellis. Sparrow Simpson has\nalso described it in the _Journal of the Archaeological Association_,\n1871. It is a \u2018small quarto volume, eight and a half inches in height\nby six and three-eighths in width\u2019. Cardinal Wiseman, to whom it\nformerly belonged, has written on the fly-leaf, \u2018Queen Mary\u2019s manual\nfor blessing cramp-rings and touching for the Evil. Bound 1850.\u2019 The\ncover is spangled with roses and fleurs-de-lis, together with the\nQueen\u2019s monogram MR. \u2018The volume consists of nineteen leaves of vellum,\neach surrounded with a rich border, and filled either with miniatures\nor with the two offices which it comprises. Then follow four ruled\nleaves and fifteen plain leaves without manuscript.... On the recto of\nleaf 1 the royal arms of Philip and Mary are emblazoned, surrounded\nby a garter and surmounted by a crown. A rich border containing the\nrose, the fleur-de-lis, and the pomegranate, together with a shield\nbearing the cross of St. George, completes the decorations of the\npage.\u2019 The red and white roses represent Queen Mary\u2019s double title\nto the throne of England as the heiress of the houses of Lancaster\nand York, the fleur-de-lis her claim to the throne of France, and\nthe pomegranate of Granada her descent from Ferdinand and Isabella.\nThe Cross of St. George is derived from the shield of the Order of\nthe Garter. \u2018On the verso of this leaf is an illumination (Plate XL)\nrepresenting the interior of a chapel with an altar furnished with\ncurtains, candlesticks, and crucifix. At a prayer-desk before the altar\nkneels the Queen; before her is an open book, and on either side two\ngolden basins containing cramp-rings.\u2019 Leaves 2 to 10 contain \u2018certayn\nprayo\u2019s to be vsed by the quenes heighnes in the consecration of the\ncrampe ryngs\u2019. A study of the rubrics, which are in English, suffices\n\u2018to show the essentials for the consecration of the rings: the prayers,\nthe royal touch, the holy water.... The recto of leaf 11 is filled\nwith an illumination of the Crucifixion with St. Mary and St. John. In\nthe border are the instruments of the Passion--the spear, the reed and\nsponge, the hammer and pincers, three nails, two scourges, and (a very\nunusual addition) a centre-bit of the same form as that now in use. On\nthe verso of this leaf is a very interesting full-page illumination.\nAt a prayer-desk, on which is an open book, kneels the Queen, turning\nto the right (the dexter side of the picture), wearing the head-dress\nfamiliar to us in all her portraits. Before her kneels a sufferer,\napparently a young man, whose bare and swollen neck the Queen holds\nbetween her two hands. Behind him, holding open the collar of the\npatient\u2019s coat, kneels the \u201cclarke of the closett\u201d in a cassock and\ngown, and with a tonsured head. On the left of the prayer-desk stands\n\u201cthe chaplen\u201d, a bald-headed, venerable man in a long cassock, a\nsomewhat short surplice with full sleeves, and the \u201cstole abowte his\nneck\u201d ordered in the rubric, reading the appointed office. The Queen\nwears a brown dress cut square at the neck, white sleeves, and a lace\nruff and waist-bands. The office for the healing follows, commencing on\nfolio _12a_, and ending on folio _19a_.\n\n\u2018The rubrics are in red ink, bright and fresh; and each page has a rich\nborder of scrolls, leaves, flowers, and fruit, with occasional figures\nof children, &c. I enumerate the most important subjects. Folio _1b_,\nDavid with head of Goliath, St. George and the Dragon, and a child\nwith a skull; folio _2b_, arms of the city of London; folio _3a_,\nVERITAS TEMPORIS FILIA (the Queen\u2019s favourite motto), with a sword and\nsceptre; folios _3b_ and _4a_, large terminal figures with grapes;\nfolio _4a_, arms of France and England quarterly; folio _4b_, D\u0305NS MIHI\nADIVTOR; folios _5a_ and _b_, portcullis and rose; folios _6a_ and _b_,\nPACIENTIA and PRVD\u0112TIA, with allegorical figures; folios _7a_ and _b_,\nCHARITAS and IVSTICIA; folios _8a_ and _b_, FIDES and SPES; folios _9a_\nand _b_, FORTITVDO and TEMPERANCIA.\u2019\n\nWith the death of Mary, the ceremonial seems finally to have fallen\ninto disuse. There is, however, a passage in the _Historia Anglicana\nEcclesiastica_ of Nicholas Harpsfield,[258] which was written entirely\nin the reign of Elizabeth, which seems to throw some doubt on the\npoint. The words are as follows:\n\n \u2018Quin et annulus ille, de quo diximus, magna in Westmonasteriensi\n Londini coenobio postea reverentia reservatus, adversus comitialem\n morbum multis profuit: indeque etiam ortum, ut ad sacram\n parasceuen Reges Angliae certos annulos statis quibusdam precibus\n et caerimoniis consecrare consueverint, adversus eundem morbum\n salutares. Quae consuetudo et ad nostra usque tempora perducta\n est, multique huiusmodi annulorum beneficium, nostra etiam aetate,\n senserunt.\u2019 [And further the above-mentioned ring was reverently\n preserved afterwards in the monastery of Westminster in London, and\n relieved many of epilepsy. That too was the origin of the custom\n of the Kings of England on Good Friday consecrating certain rings\n with set prayers and ceremonies, for the cure of the same disease.\n Which custom has persisted even down to our own times, and many\n even in our own lifetimes have derived benefit from rings of this\n kind.]\n\nNicholas Harpsfield, though he did not write till the reign of\nElizabeth, was born as early as A.D. 1519, so that his words are\nconsistent with discontinuance of the ceremony after the time of Queen\nMary.\n\nIt remains to consider what diseased states were embraced by the term\n\u2018cramp\u2019. Epilepsy, convulsions, and rheumatism certainly. All these\nterms have in common the idea of muscular contraction or spasm, and\ntheir relation in usage to one another may be represented graphically\nas under:\n\n Convulsion\n \\\n Cramp \u2550 Rheumatism.\n /\n Epilepsy\n\nConfusion of these terms is far more marked in medical than in\nlay writers; but at the same time there is little doubt that the\nconservative sentiment inspired by the royal ceremonial kept the term\n\u2018cramp\u2019 alive in a sense that was all but obsolete in the common\ndiction.\n\nChaucer applies \u2018crampe\u2019 to muscular spasm:\n\n But wel he felte about his herte crepe ...\n The crampe of death, to streyne him by the herte.[259]\n\nLinacre, as we have seen, speaks of cramp-rings, in 1518, as a charm\nagainst _spasms_, while about the same year Polydore Vergil speaks\nof the royal cramp-rings as a cure for the _morbus comitialis_. Each\nof these two writers clearly indicates epilepsy. In 1526 Magnus\nspeaks definitely of cramp-rings as relieving a man lying in the\n_falling-sickness_, a term habitually applied to epilepsy. Nicholas\nHarpsfield too, writing in the middle of the reign of Elizabeth,\nspeaks of cramp-rings blessed by the kings as remedies for the _morbus\ncomitialis_. In all probability royal cramp-rings were used for\nepilepsy and epilepsy only, but it is quite possible, and I am inclined\nto think probable, that other cramp-rings had a less exclusive use.\n\nBacon\u2019s description of cramp in his _Natural and Experimental History_\nis fairly explicit and obviously does not embrace epilepsy: \u2018The cramp\ncometh of contraction of sinews, which is manifest, in that it comes\neither by cold or dryness.\u2019\n\nShakespeare recognizes both epilepsy and rheumatism as entities apart\nfrom cramp. Epilepsy he seems to associate more with falling than with\nconvulsion: thus, of the fit that attacked Caesar when the crown was\noffered to him, he writes:\n\n _Casca._ He fell down in the market-place, and foamed at mouth, and\n was speechless.\n\n _Brutus._ \u2018Tis very like: he hath the falling-sickness.[260]\n\n\u2018Cramp\u2019 is used by Shakespeare for muscular spasms or contractures, and\nhe links the term on the one side to rheumatism, and on the other to\nconvulsions, in the following passages:\n\n For this, be sure, to-night thou shalt have cramps,\n Side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up.[261]\n\nParolles says:\n\n \u2018In a retreat he outruns any lackey: marry, in coming on he has the\n cramp.\u2019[262]\n\nProspero says:\n\n Go, charge my goblins that they grind their joints\n With dry convulsions; shorten up their sinews\n With aged cramps.[263]\n\nand\n\n \u2018Leander ... went but forth to wash him in the Hellespont, and\n being taken with the cramp was drowned.\u2019[264]\n\nRobert Bayford, in his _Enchiridion Medicum_ published in 1655,\nincludes both wry-neck and convulsions under the heading cramp, but he\ntreats epilepsy separately on the ground that, as we know to be the\ncase, it is not always associated with convulsions. He has no word\n\u2018rheumatism\u2019 at all.\n\nPepys (1664) carried about with him a hare\u2019s foot as a charm against\n_colic_, i.e. against muscular spasm. Among Indians, Norwegians, and\nCentral Africans, the foot of an elk was a charm against epilepsy.\nPepys also recites a charm against cramp:\n\n Cramp, be thou faintless\n As our Lady was sinless\n When she bare Jesus.\n\nIn this charm the word cramp seems to refer to the painful _muscular\nspasms_ of labour. Pepys, as we know, suffered from colic, but not\nfrom epilepsy, so in using a hare\u2019s foot as a charm against colic\nhe was probably employing a charm against epilepsy. In like manner\nthe \u2018rheumatic ring\u2019 of to-day seems to be the lineal descendant of\nthe cramp-ring of aforetime, and the confusion of nomenclature has\ndoubtless not affected its efficacy. Folk-medicine serves rather to\nconfirm than to elucidate the confusion, for in Suffolk moles\u2019 feet are\ncarried as a charm against rheumatism, but in Sussex against cramp. In\nDevonshire a dried frog is worn as a cure for fits.\n\nBoswell, in his description of Johnson at the time of their tour to\nthe Hebrides, uses the word \u2018cramp\u2019 in its earlier significance.\n\u2018His head,\u2019 he says, \u2018and sometimes also his body, shook with a kind\nof motion like the effect of a palsy: he appeared to be frequently\ndisturbed by cramps, or convulsive contractions, of the nature of that\ndistemper called St. Vitus\u2019s dance.\u2019\n\nIt may be asked how it came about that rings were used in the first\ninstance as a remedy for epilepsy. It has occurred to me that their\nuse may have originated in the time-honoured belief that an epileptic\nseizure may be aborted by ligature of a limb or part above the\nsituation in which the warning \u2018aura\u2019 commences. Galen, Alexander of\nTralles, Rhazes, and Avicenna, among the earlier writers on medicine,\nall recommend the measure.\n\n\nTHE OFFICE OF CONSECRATING THE CRAMP-RINGS\n\n_Certain prayers to be used by the queen\u2019s highness, in the\nconsecration of the cramp-rings._\n\nDeus misereatur nostri et benedicat nos Deus, illuminet vultum suum\nsuper nos et misereatur nostri.\n\nUt cognoscamus in terra viam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum.\n\nConfiteantur tibi populi Deus, confiteantur tibi populi omnes.\n\nLaetentur et exultent gentes, quoniam iudicas populos in aequitate, et\ngentes in terra dirigis.\n\nConfiteantur tibi populi Deus, confiteantur tibi populi omnes, terra\ndedit fructum suum.\n\nBenedicat nos Deus, Deus noster, benedicat nos Deus, et metuent eum\nomnes fines terrae.\n\nGloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.\n\nSicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum,\nAmen.\n\nOmnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ad solatium humani generis, varia ac\nmultiplicia miseriarum nostrarum levamenta uberrimis gratiae tuae\ndonis ab inexhausto benignitatis tuae fonte manantibus incessanter\ntribuere dignatus es, et quos ad regalis sublimitatis fastigium\nextulisti, insignioribus gratiis ornatos, donorumque tuorum organa\natque canales esse voluisti, ut sicut per te regnant aliisque praesunt,\nita te authore reliquis prosint, et tua in populum beneficia conferant:\npreces nostras propitius respice, et quae tibi vota humillime fundimus,\nbenignus admitte, ut quod a te maiores nostri de tua misericordia\nsperantes obtinuerunt, id nobis etiam pari fiducia postulantibus\nconcedere digneris. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\n_The rings lying in one bason, or more, this prayer to be said over\nthem._\n\nDeus coelestium terrestriumque conditor creaturarum, atque humani\ngeneris benignissime reparator, dator spiritualis gratiae, omniumque\nbenedictionum largitor, immitte Spiritum Sanctum tuum Paracletum de\ncoelis super hos annulos arte fabrili confectos, eosque magna tua\npotentia ita emundare digneris, ut omni nequitia lividi venenosique\nserpentis procul expulsa, metallum a te bono conditore creatum, a\ncunctis inimici sordibus maneat immune. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.\nAmen.\n\n_Benedictio annulorum._\n\nDeus Abraham, Deus Isaac, Deus Iacob, exaudi misericors preces nostras,\nparce metuentibus, propitiare supplicibus, et mittere digneris sanctum\nAngelum tuum de coelis qui sanctificet \u2720 et benedicat \u2720 annulos istos,\nut sint remedium salutare omnibus nomen tuum humiliter implorantibus,\nac semetipsos pro conscientia delictorum suorum accusantibus, atque\nante conspectum divinae clementiae tuae facinora sua deplorantibus, et\nserenissimam pietatem tuam humiliter obnixeque flagitantibus; prosint\ndenique per invocationem sancti tui nominis omnibus istos gestantibus,\nad corporis et animae sanitatem. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\n_Benedictio._\n\nDeus qui in morbis curandis maxima semper potentiae tuae miracula\ndeclarasti, quique annulos in Iuda patriarcha fidei arrabonem, in\nAarone sacerdotale ornamentum, in Dario fidelis custodiae symbolum,\net in hoc regno variorum morborum remedia esse voluisti, hos annulos\npropitius \u2720 benedicere et \u2720 sanctificare digneris: ut omnes qui eos\ngestabunt sint immunes ab omnibus Satanae insidiis, sint armati virtute\ncoelestis defensionis, nec eos infestet vel nervorum contractio, vel\ncomitialis morbi pericula, sed sentiant te opitulante in omni morborum\ngenere levamen. In nomine Patris \u2720 et Filii \u2720 et Spiritus Sancti \u2720.\nAmen.\n\nBenedic anima mea Domino: et omnia quae intra me sunt nomini sancto\neius. _Here follows the rest of that Psalm._\n\nImmensam clementiam tuam misericors Deus humiliter imploramus, ut\nqua animi fiducia et fidei sinceritate, ac certa mentis pietate, ad\nhaec impetranda accedimus, pari etiam devotione gratiae tuae symbola\nfideles prosequantur: facessat omnis superstitio, procul absit\ndiabolicae fraudis suspicio, et in gloria tui nominis omnia cedant: ut\nte largitorem bonorum omnium fideles tui intelligant, atque a te uno\nquicquid vel animis vel corporibus vere prosit, profectum sentiant et\nprofiteantur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\n_These prayers being said, the queen\u2019s highness rubbeth the rings\nbetween her hands, saying:_\n\nSanctifica Domine annulos istos, et rore tuae benedictionis benignus\nasperge, ac manuum nostrarum confricatione, quas, olei sacra infusione\nexterna, sanctificare dignatus es pro ministerii nostri modo, consecra,\nut quod natura metalli praestare non possit, gratiae tuae magnitudine\nefficiatur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\n_Then must holy water be cast on the rings, saying:_\n\nIn nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Domine Fili\nDei unigenite, Dei et hominum Mediator, Iesu Christe, in cuius unius\nnomine salus recte quaeritur, quique in te sperantibus facilem ad\nPatrem accessum conciliasti, quem quicquid in nomine tuo peteretur, id\nomne daturum, cum certissimo veritatis oraculo ab ore tuo sancto, quum\ninter homines versabaris homo pronunciasti, precibus nostris aures tuae\npietatis accommoda, ut ad thronum gratiae in tua fiducia accedentes,\nquod in nomine tuo humiliter postulavimus, id a nobis, te mediante,\nimpetratum fuisse, collatis per te beneficiis, fideles intelligant.\nQui vivis et regnas cum Deo patre in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus, per\nomnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.\n\nVota nostra quaesumus Domine, Spiritus Sanctus qui a te procedit,\naspirando praeveniat, et prosequatur, ut quod ad salutem fidelium\nconfidenter petimus, gratiae tuae dono efficaciter consequamur. Per\nChristum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\nMaiestatem tuam clementissime Deus, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus,\nsuppliciter exoramus, ut quod ad nominis tui sanctificationem piis hic\nceremoniis peragitur, ad corporis simul et animae tutelam valeat in\nterris, et ad uberiorem felicitatis fructum proficiat in coelis.\n\nQui vivis et regnas Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.\n\n\nTHE CEREMONIES OF BLESSING CRAMP-RINGS, ON GOOD FRIDAY, USED BY THE\nCATHOLICK KINGS OF ENGLAND\n\n_The psalme \u2018Deus misereatur nostri, etc.\u2019, with the \u2018Gloria Patri\u2019._\n\nMay God take pity upon us and blesse us: may he send forth the light of\nhis face upon us, and take pity on us.\n\nThat we may know thy ways on earth: among all nations thy salvation.\n\nMay people acknowledge thee, O God: may all people acknowledge thee.\n\nLet nations rejoice and be glad, because thou judgest people with\nequity: and doest guide nations on the earth.\n\nMay people acknowledge thee, O God, may all people acknowledge thee:\nthe earth has sent forth her fruit.\n\nMay God blesse us, that God who is ours: may that God blesse us: and\nmay all the bounds of the earth feare him.\n\nGlory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the holy Ghost.\n\nAs it was in the beginning, and now, and ever: and for ever and ever.\nAmen.\n\n_Then the king reades this prayer:_\n\nAlmighty eternal God, who by the most copious gifts of thy grace\nflowing from the unexhausted fountain of thy bounty, hast been\ngraciously pleased for the comfort of mankind, continually to grant us\nmany and various means to relieve us in our miseries, and art willing\nto make those the instruments and channels of thy gifts, and to grace\nthose persons with more excellent favours, whom thou hast raised to the\nroyal dignity; to the end that as by thee they reign and govern others,\nso by thee they may prove beneficial to them, and bestow thy favours on\nthe people: graciously heare our prayers and favourably receive those\nvows we powre forth with humility, that thou mayest grant to us, who\nbeg with the same confidence, the favour which our ancestors by their\nhopes in thy mercy have obtained, through Christ our Lord. Amen.\n\n_The rings lying in one bason, or more, this prayer is to be said over\nthem:_\n\nO God, the maker of heavenly and earthly creatures, and the most\ngracious restorer of mankind, the dispenser of spiritual grace, and the\norigin of all blessings: send downe from heaven thy holy Spirit the\nComforter upon these rings, artificially fram\u2019d by the workman, and by\nthy greate power purify them so, that all the malice of the fowle and\nvenomous serpent be driven out; and so the metal, which by thee was\ncreated, may remaine pure and free from all the dregs of the enemy,\nthrough Christ our Lord. Amen.\n\n_The blessing of the rings._\n\nO God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, heare mercifully our\nprayers. Spare those who feare thee. Be propitious to thy suppliants,\nand graciously be pleased to send downe from heaven thy holy angel:\nthat he may sanctify \u2720 and blesse \u2720 these rings: to the end they may\nprove a healthy remedy to such as implore thy name with humility, and\naccuse themselves of the sins which ly upon their conscience: who\ndeplore their crimes in the sight of thy divine clemency, and beseech\nwith earnestnes and humility thy most serene pity. May they in fine by\nthe invocation of thy holy name become profitable to all such as weare\nthem, for the health of their soule and body, through Christ our Lord.\nAmen.\n\n_A blessing._\n\nO God, who has manifested the greatest wonders of thy power by the\ncure of diseases, and who were pleased that rings should be a pledge\nof fidelity in the patriark Judah, a priestly ornament in Aaron, the\nmark of a faithful guardian in Darius, and in this kingdom a remedy\nfor divers diseases: graciously be pleased to blesse \u2720 and sanctify \u2720\nthese rings, to the end that all such as weare them may be free from\nall snares of the devil, may be defended by the power of celestial\narmour, and that no contraction of the nerves or any danger of the\nfalling-sickness may infest them, but that in all sort of diseases by\nthy help they may find relief. In the name of the Father, \u2720 and of the\nSon, \u2720 and of the Holy Ghost \u2720. Amen.\n\nBlesse, O my soule, the Lord: and let all things which are within me\npraise his holy name.\n\nBlesse, O my soule, the Lord: and do not forget all his favours.\n\nHe forgives all thy iniquities: he heales all thy infirmities.\n\nHe redeemes thy life from ruin: he crownes thee with mercy and\ncommiseration.\n\nHe fils thy desires with what is good: thy youth like that of the eagle\nshal be renewed.\n\nThe Lord is he who does mercy: and does justice to those who suffer\nwrong.\n\nThe merciful and pitying Lord: the long sufferer and most mighty\nmerciful.\n\nHe will not continue his anger for ever: neither wil he threaten for\never.\n\nHe has not dealt with us in proportion to our sins: nor has he rendred\nunto us according to our offences.\n\nBecause according to the distance of heaven from earth: so has he\nenforced his mercies upon those who feare him.\n\nAs far distant as the east is from the west: so far has he divided our\noffences from us.\n\nAfter the manner that a father takes pity of his sons; so has the Lord\ntaken pity of those who feare him: because he knows what we are made of.\n\nHe remembers that we are but dust: man like hey such are his days: like\nthe flower in the field so wil he fade away.\n\nBecause his breath wil passe away through him, and he wil not be able\nto subsist: and it wil find no longer its owne place.\n\nBut the mercy of the Lord is from all eternity: and will be for ever\nupon those who feare him.\n\nAnd his justice comes upon the children of their children: to those who\nkeep his wil.\n\nAnd are mindful of his commandements: to performe them.\n\nThe Lord in heaven has prepared himselfe a throne: and his kingdom\nshall reign over all.\n\nBlesse yee the Lord all yee angels of his, yee who are powerful in\nstrength: who execute his commands, at the hearing of his voice when he\nspeakes.\n\nBlesse yee the Lord all yee vertues of his: yee ministers who execute\nhis wil.\n\nBlesse yee the Lord all yee works of his throughout all places of his\ndominion: my soule praise thou the Lord.\n\nGlory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the holy Ghost.\n\nAs it was in the beginning, and now, and ever: and for ever and ever.\nAmen.\n\nWee humbly implore, O merciful God, thy infinit clemency: that as we\ncome to thee with a confident soule, and sincere faith, and a pious\nassurance of mind: with the like devotion thy beleevers may follow on\nthese tokens of thy grace. May all superstition be banished hence, far\nbe all suspicion of any diabolical fraud, and to the glory of thy name\nlet all things succeede: to the end thy beleevers may understand thee\nto be the dispenser of all good; and may be sensible and publish, that\nwhatsoever is profitable to soul or body, is derived from thee: through\nChrist our Lord. Amen.\n\n_These prayers being said, the king\u2019s highnes rubbeth the rings between\nhis hands, saying:_\n\nSanctify, O Lord, these rings, and graciously bedew them with the dew\nof thy benediction, and consecrate them by the rubbing of our hands,\nwhich thou hast been pleased according to our ministery to sanctify by\nan external effusion of holy oyle upon them; to the end that what the\nnature of the mettal is not able to performe, may be wrought by the\ngreatnes of thy grace: through Christ our Lord. Amen.\n\n_Then must holy water be cast on the rings, saying:_\n\nIn the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Amen.\n\nO Lord, the only begotten Son of God, mediatour of God and men, Jesus\nChrist, in whose name alone salvation is sought for, and to such as\nhope in thee givest an easy access to thy Father; who when conversing\namong men, thyself a man, didst promise by an assured oracle flowing\nfrom thy sacred mouth, that thy Father should grant whatever was asked\nin thy name; lend a gracious eare of pity to these prayers of ours: to\nthe end that approaching with confidence to the throne of thy grace,\nthe beleevers may find by the benefits conferrd upon them, that by thy\nmediation we have obteined, what we have most humbly beg\u2019d in thy Name;\nwho livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the holy\nGhost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.\n\nWee beseech thee, O Lord, that the Spirit, which proceedes from thee,\nmay prevent and follow on our desires; to the end that what we beg with\nconfidence for the good of the faithful, we may efficaciously obteine\nby thy gracious gift: through Christ our Lord. Amen.\n\nO most clement God; Father, Son, and holy Ghost: wee supplicate and\nbeseech Thee, that what is here performed by pious ceremonies to the\nsanctifying of thy name, may be prevalent to the defense of our soule\nand body on earth; and profitable to a more ample felicity in heaven.\nWho livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.\n\n\n\n\n DR. JOHN WEYER AND THE WITCH MANIA\n\n By E.\u00a0T. Withington\n\n\nThe value of every new truth or discovery is relative, and depends upon\nthe state of ideas or knowledge prevalent at the time. Should it go\ngreatly beyond this, it may lose much in practical effect, like good\nseed falling on unprepared soil; but the discoverer is no less worthy\nof praise though he be so far in advance of his fellows that they\nrefuse to accept his teaching, and persecute instead of honouring him.\nPosterity, however, often ignores former conditions, especially in an\nera of rapid progress, for the quicker the advance the sooner will the\nearly stages be forgotten, however important and difficult they may\nhave been.\n\n[Illustration: EFFIGIES IOANNIS WIERLANNO \u00c6TATIS LX SALVTIS M.D.LXXVI]\n\nAmong those who were so far beyond their age that the truths they\nproclaimed not only were rejected by the majority but brought them into\ndanger was Dr. John Weyer, the first serious opponent of the witch\nmania. He stood almost alone. His attack on the witch-hunters, though\nit marks the turn of the tide, was followed by more than a century of\ncruelty, injustice, and superstition; yet our ideas on the subject are\nnow so entirely altered that it is hard to imagine the value and danger\nof the service he performed, and his name was almost forgotten even by\nmembers of his own profession, when his biography was published by Dr.\nK. Binz in 1885.[265]\n\nLet us try to get some idea of the nature of the witch mania, that we\nmay better appreciate the courage and intelligence of this ancient\nphysician.\n\nIn the second half of the fifteenth century a new age began in\nWestern Europe. The revival of Greek, the invention of printing,\nand the discovery of America gave fresh ideas and new prospects to\nmankind. But, as the sun\u2019s rays were believed to breed serpents in\nfermenting matter, so amid this ferment of new life and light rose a\nhideous monster, more terrible than any fabled dragon of romance or\nsuperstition of the darkest ages, which for generations satiated itself\non the tears and blood of the innocent and helpless. This was the\nwitch mania. For two centuries the majority of theologians and jurists\nin Western Europe were convinced that vast numbers of their fellow\ncreatures, especially women, were in league with the devil, that they\nhad sexual intercourse with him or his imps, and that he bestowed on\nthem in exchange for their souls the power of injuring their neighbours\nin person or property. They thought it their duty to search out these\nwitches, to force from them, by the most terrible tortures they could\ndevise, not only confessions of their own guilt, but also denunciations\nof their associates, and finally to put them to death, preferably by\nburning. In consequence, many thousands of innocent persons of all ages\nand ranks, but especially poor women, were judicially murdered, after\nbeing first compelled by unspeakable torments to commit moral suicide\nby declaring themselves guilty of unmentionable crimes, and to involve\ntheir dearest friends and relations in a similar fate. There is no\nsadder scene in the whole tragicomedy of human history.\n\nThere had been nothing like it in the darkest of the dark ages, there\nwas nothing like it among the far more ignorant and superstitious\nadherents of the Eastern Church. The witch mania in its extreme form\nhas been manifested only by the Catholics and Protestants of the\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries and by some tribes of African\nsavages.\n\nIn early Christian times, witchcraft was recognized as a relic of\npaganism, but it was not feared. Christ had overcome the powers of\ndarkness, and His true followers need fear no harm from them. A canon\nof the Church, at least as early as the ninth century, declared that\nwomen who thought they rode through the air with Diana or Herodias were\nonly deluded by the devil, and that those who believed human beings\ncould create anything, or change themselves or others into animal\nforms, were infidels and worse than heathens; and confessors were\ninstructed to inquire into and inflict penance for the belief that\nwitches could enter closed doors, make hail-storms, or kill persons\nwithout visible means.[266]\n\nIn the enlightened sixteenth century, any one who professed his\ndisbelief that witches could ride through the air, change themselves\ninto cats, or make caterpillars and thunder-storms, would have had an\nexcellent chance of being burnt as a heretic or concealed sorcerer.\nSt. Boniface (680-755) classed belief in witches and were-wolves among\nthe works of the devil, and St. Agobard of Lyons (779-840) declared\nthe idea that witches caused hail and thunder-storms to be impious and\nabsurd.[267] The laws of Charlemagne made it murder to put any one to\ndeath on charge of witchcraft, and in the eleventh century King Coloman\nof Hungary asserted briefly, \u2018Let no one speak of witches, seeing there\nare none\u2019.[268] Few, indeed, were quite so sceptical as this; still\nwitchcraft was in the Middle Ages looked upon by the educated in a\nhalf-contemptuous fashion, and even those who openly professed sorcery\nfrequently escaped with no worse punishment than penance, banishment,\nor an ecclesiastical scourging.\n\nThis may be well illustrated by a story told in the life of the learned\nDominican, St. Vincent of Beauvais. An old woman once (1190-1264) came\nto a priest in his church and demanded money from him, saying she had\ndone him a great service, for that, when she and her companions, who\nwere witches, had entered his bedroom the previous night, she had\nprevented them from injuring him. \u2018But how\u2019, asked the priest, \u2018could\nyou enter my chamber, seeing that the door was locked?\u2019 \u2018Oh,\u2019 said\nthe witch, \u2018that matters naught to us, for we go through keyholes as\neasily as through open doors.\u2019 \u2018If what you say is true,\u2019 replied the\nholy man, \u2018you shall not lack a reward, but I must first have proof of\nit.\u2019 With these words, he locked the church door, and began vigorously\nto beat the old woman with the handle of the crucifix he carried,\nasking her, when she complained, why she did not escape through the\nkeyhole.[269]\n\nThe great Pope Nicholas I (died 867) strongly condemned the use of\ntorture to induce confessions, and Gregory VII (died 1085) forbade\ninquisition to be made for witches and sorcerers on occasions of plague\nor bad weather.[270] Later, the inquisitorial process, combined with\ntorture to enforce denunciations, became the chief agent in spreading\nand maintaining the witch mania.\n\nThe Eastern Church remained in this mediaeval stage, and never\ndeveloped a witch mania. In the West the change seems to have been\nbrought about mainly by two causes, the development of heresies and the\nincreasing prominence of the devil.\n\nThere is no doubt that the Albigensian and other heresies of the\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries contained Manichean elements. It\nwas taught that there were two divinities--one perfectly good, the\ncreator of the invisible spiritual world, the other the creator of\nthe material world, the Demiurgus, a being capable of evil passions,\nwrath, jealousy, &c., who was identified with the Jehovah of the Old\nTestament.[271] It required very little to confound this Demiurgus with\nSatan, the Prince of this world; after which it was easy to look upon\nSatan as a being not entirely evil, as Lucifer, son of the morning, the\ndisinherited son or brother of God, a natural object of worship for the\noppressed and discontented.[272]\n\nThe serfs, equally tyrannized over by bishop and noble, the relics\nof the persecuted sects Waldenses and Cathari,[273] sought refuge,\nlike Saul of old, in forbidden arts, and thus sects of Luciferans,\nor devil-worshippers, arose (especially in Germany and France) whose\nnumbers were exaggerated by the fear and horror of the orthodox.[274]\n\nAt the same time the devil acquired more importance in other ways.\nThat fearful calamity, the Black Death, seemed to display his power\nover both the just and the unjust; while the Great Schism in which each\npope excommunicated the other, handing him and his adherents over to\nSatan, put every one not absolutely certain of being on the right side\nin reasonable fear of the powers of darkness.\n\nThe belief in the great activity and power of the devil and his\nservants the sorcerers was further supported by the vast authority of\nSt. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), whose ingenuity enabled him to explain\naway those ancient canons which seemed opposed to the more extreme\nviews. Thus the synod of Bracara (A.D. 563) had declared the doctrine\nthat the devil can produce drought or thunder-storms to be heresy; to\nwhich the Doctor Angelicus replied that though it is doubtless heresy\nto believe the devil can make natural thunder-storms, it is by no means\ncontrary to the Catholic faith to hold that he may, by the permission\nof God, make artificial ones.[275]\n\nFor these and other reasons, the devil assumed greater prominence\nduring the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than ever before. Men\nbelieved that he might appear to them from behind every hedge or ruin,\nthat his action was to be seen in almost all pains and diseases, but\nthat he was to be dreaded most of all when he entered into a league\nwith some man or woman. Thus everything was ready for the outbreak\nof witch mania when, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII by his bull _Summis\ndesiderantes_ gave the sanction of the Church to the popular beliefs\nconcerning witches, such as sexual intercourse with devils, destruction\nof crops, and infliction of sterility and disease on man and beast.\n\nThe charge of sorcery had usually been employed in earlier times either\nto check learned men who seemed to be going too far, or tending to\nheresy in their researches, as in the case of the physicians Arnold\nof Villanova (1240-1312) and Peter of Abano (1250-1320), or to crush\nindividuals and societies who were politically dangerous, as with\nJoan of Arc, the Duchess of Gloucester, and the Templars--the Church\nbeing called in to aid the civil power. Now it was the Church which\ncalled upon the civil power to assist in a crusade against witches and\nsorcerers as being the worst and most dangerous of heretics.\n\nIn the Middle Ages it was held that a man who called up the devil,\nknowing it to be wrong, was not a heretic but merely a sinner. But\nif he thought it was not wrong, or that the devil would tell him the\ntruth, or that the devil could do anything without God\u2019s permission,\nhe was also a heretic, since these beliefs are contrary to Church\ndoctrine. In the fifteenth century it was taught that all sorcerers\nare heretics, _maleficus_ being, according to the learned authors of\nthe _Malleus Maleficarum_, a contraction of _male de fide sentiens_ or\nheretic.[276]\n\nNor was the identification of heresy and witchcraft illogical,\nwhatever we may think of the etymology. The Church is the kingdom of\nGod, heretics form the kingdom of the devil, and just as the Church\npossesses saints who see visions, work miracles, and commune with\nChrist face to face, so there are specially eminent heretics, saints of\nthe devil\u2019s church, who work miracles and have obscene intercourse with\ntheir master. All true Christians are potential saints, all heretics\npotential sorcerers, for all have committed treason against the divine\nMajesty, though only some may have entered into a definite compact\nwith the enemy. The former, if they repent, may hope for perpetual\nimprisonment; the latter are to be put to death whether they repent or\nnot.\n\nThis view was also of advantage to the Church, for it increased the\nhorror of heresy and facilitated its suppression. The laity had never\nentirely reconciled themselves to the sight of their apparently\nharmless neighbours being tortured and burnt for differences in\nabstract belief, but almost every one was ready to torture and burn a\nsorcerer, and local outbreaks of witch-hunting were frequently started\nby mob violence. In 1555 it was declared by the Peace of Augsburg\nthat no one should suffer in life and property for his religion; but\nto take a Lutheran, call him a sorcerer, confiscate his goods, and\nforce him by torture to confess that he was led into his errors by\nthe devil himself, seems to have been too great a temptation for the\nprince-bishops who headed the \u2018counter-reformation\u2019 in South Germany\nto resist. That this was partly the cause of the great witch-burnings\nin the bishoprics of W\u00fcrzburg, Bamberg, Fulda, and Tr\u00e8ves is evidenced\nby the large proportion of male victims, and by the frequent and\nsignificant appearance of the phrase \u2018is also Lutheran\u2019 in the\nofficial reports.\n\nAs soon as the Reformation was established, Protestants vied with\nCatholics as witch-hunters. Eager to show that they were in no way\ninferior to their opponents in zeal for the Lord and enmity against\nSatan and his servants, they had the advantage of being able to follow\nthe scriptural injunction, \u2018Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\u2019,\nwithout previously explaining away ancient canons and decrees of Church\nsynods which seemed to throw doubt on the very existence of the more\ntypical forms of witchcraft. Nor did they hesitate to attack their\nrivals with similar weapons. If Protestants were burnt as sorcerers at\nW\u00fcrzburg, we find the first Danish Lutheran bishop, Peter Palladius,\nrecommending the zealous members of his flock to seek out the so-called\nwise women of their neighbourhoods on pretence of having some disease.\nIf then the latter use paternosters, holy water, or invocations of\nsaints, they are probably not only Catholics but witches, and should be\ntreated accordingly.[277]\n\nAlmost all the victims of the witch mania were executed on their own\nconfession, extorted in the vast majority of instances by torture\nor the fear of torture. In England, where torture was theoretically\nillegal, confessions were comparatively rare, and nearly all died\nprotesting their innocence. The few exceptions prove the rule; thus\nElinor Shaw and Mary Philips, almost the last witches legally executed\nin England, 1705, confessed because they were threatened with death\nif they refused, and promised release if they pleaded guilty,[278]\nwhile others were induced to admit their guilt by being kept awake\nseveral nights, and forced to run up and down their cells till utterly\nexhausted, methods almost as effectual in producing \u2018a readiness to\nconfess\u2019 as the rack or the thumb-screw.[279]\n\nNearly all the confessions were to a similar effect. From Lisbon to\nLiegnitz, from Calabria to Caithness, the central point of the story\nwas the \u2018sabbat\u2019, an assembly of witches and sorcerers in some barren\nspot where they adored a visible devil, indulged in feasts, dances,\nand sexual orgies, reported what evil they had done and plotted more.\n\nA few examples will therefore suffice, and they may be best taken from\nthe _Daemanolatria_[280] of Nicholas Remy, Inquisitor of Lorraine, who\nburned nearly 900 witches and sorcerers in fifteen years, 1575-90.\n\nHe proves the reality of the witch dances as follows: A boy named John\nof Haimbach confessed that his mother took him to a sabbat to play the\nflute. He was told to climb up into a tree that he might be heard the\nbetter, and was so amazed by what he saw that he exclaimed: \u2018Good God!\nwhere did this crowd of fools and lunatics come from?\u2019 Thereupon he\nfell from the tree and found himself alone with a dislocated shoulder.\nOttilia Velvers, who was arrested soon after, confirmed the whole\nstory, as did also Eysarty Augnel, who was burnt the following year.\nSo too, Nicholas Langbernard, while going home in the early morning of\nJuly 21, 1590, saw in full daylight a number of men and women dancing\nback to back, some of them with cloven hoofs. He cried out \u2018Jesus\u2019 and\ncrossed himself, upon which all vanished except a woman called Pelter,\nwhose broomstick dropped, and who was then carried off by a whirlwind.\nThe grass was afterwards found to be beaten down in a circle with marks\nof hoof-prints. Pelter and two other women were arrested and confessed\nthey were present, as also did John Michael, who said he was playing\nthe flute in a tree, and fell down when Nicholas crossed himself, but\nwas carried off in a whirlwind, his broomstick not being at hand.\n\n\u2018What further evidence\u2019, asks the inquisitor, \u2018can any one require?\u2019\nThe only possible objection, viz. that they were phantoms or spirits of\npeople whose bodies were asleep in their beds, is worthless, \u2018it being\nthe pious and Christian belief that soul and body when once parted do\nnot reunite till the day of judgement\u2019.\n\nThe food at these sabbats usually included the flesh of unbaptized\nchildren, and was always abominable. A certain Morel said he was\nobliged to spit it out, at which the demon was much enraged. \u2018Dancing\nopens a large window to wickedness,\u2019 and is therefore specially\nencouraged by the devil, but the dances cause great exhaustion, just as\nhis feasts cause loathing, and his money changes to dung or potsherds.\n\u2018Barberina Rahel, and nearly all others, declared they had to lie in\nbed two days after a witch dance, but even the oldest cannot excuse\nthemselves, and the devil beats them if they are lazy.\u2019 The music is\nhorrible; every one sings or plays what he likes, a favourite method\nbeing to drum on horse skulls or trees. Sometimes the devil gives a\nconcert of his own, at which all are required to applaud and show\npleasure; those who do not are beaten so that they are sore for two\ndays, as Joanna Gransandeau confessed.\n\nAll are compelled to attend and give an account of their evil deeds\nunder heavy penalties. C.\u00a0G. said \u2018he was beaten till he nearly died\nfor failing to attend a sabbat, and for curing a girl whom he had been\ntold to poison. The devil also carried him up into the air over the\nriver Moselle, and threatened to drop him unless he swore to poison\na certain person.\u2019 The witch Belhoria was attacked by dropsy because\nshe refused to poison her husband. If they failed in their attempts on\nothers, they were compelled to poison their own children, or destroy\ntheir own property.\n\nAntonius Welch was asked to lend his garden for a witch dance. He\nrefused, and found it full of snails and caterpillars. Men of little\nfaith have objected that only God can create, for \u2018without Him nothing\nis made that was made\u2019; but why should not demons collect vast numbers\nof insects in a moment? Look at the well-known rain of frogs, blood,\n&c. This is doubtless done by devils out of mere sport: how much more\nwould they do for love of harm? The making of thunder-storms is harder\nto believe, but has been admitted by more than 200 condemned witches\nand sorcerers. Almost all confessed that they could creep into locked\nrooms and houses in the form of small animals, and resuming their\nnatural shape commit all sorts of crimes, showing, says Remy, what a\nperil they are to mankind.\n\nA worthy comrade of Remy was Peter Binsfeld, suffragan Bishop of Tr\u00e8ves\nand foremost opponent of John Weyer. He is said to have burnt no fewer\nthan 6,500 persons and to have so desolated his diocese that in many\nvillages round Tr\u00e8ves there was scarcely a woman left. His _Tractatus\nde confessionibus maleficorum_[281] begins with the following case,\nwhich with those mentioned above affords a complete view of the usual\nwitch confessions. John Kuno Meisenbein, a youth about eighteen years\nold, was studying \u2018poetry and the humaner letters\u2019 at the High School\nin Tr\u00e8ves, when he confessed to the authorities that his mother,\nbrother, sister, and self were all in league with the devil. He said\nthat in his ninth year his mother had initiated him as a sorcerer,\nand had carried him up the chimney on a goat to a heath near Tr\u00e8ves,\nwhere he took part in the usual sabbat and had intercourse with a\nfemale demon named Capribarba. The mother, Anna Meisenbein, a woman of\ngood position, had already escaped to Cologne, but a son and daughter\nwere arrested, strangled, and burned. \u2018They died with much sorrow and\npenitence.\u2019 The eldest son, John Kuno, thereupon urged the judges to\nuse all means to capture his mother, \u2018that by punishment and momentary\ndeath in this world she might escape eternal damnation\u2019.\n\nMoved by this most creditable and merciful petition (_honestissima et\nplenissima misericordiae petitione excitatus_), the prior wrote to his\nfriends at Cologne, and the unhappy woman was arrested and taken back\nto Tr\u00e8ves. At first she protested her innocence, \u2018but when more severe\ntortures were employed\u2019 she made the usual admissions. Having lost a\nbaby, she had, for a moment, doubted the goodness of God. Whereupon\na man in black raiment appeared at the side of the bed, and promised\nif she would renounce God and serve him he would give her peace of\nmind. She did so, and he became her lover, and gave her money, which\nhowever vanished. He called himself Fedderhans, and had asses\u2019 feet.\nThen follows the usual story of the sabbat. \u2018This woman\u2019, concludes\nthe bishop, \u2018was burnt alive October 20, 1590, and had a good end.\u2019\nThey offered to behead John Kuno as a reward for his filial piety\nand repentance, but he said he was unworthy of such a favour and was\ntherefore strangled and burnt. \u2018He had a most edifying end,\u2019 says\nthe bishop, who proceeds to comment upon sexual intercourse between\nwitches, sorcerers, and demons, \u2018which is so certain that it is an\nimpudence to deny it, as St. Augustine saith,[282] being supported by\nthe confessions of learned and unlearned, and by all the doctors of the\nChurch, though a few medical men, advocates of the devil\u2019s kingdom [an\nobvious reference to Weyer, whom he abuses in the preface], have dared\nto deny it\u2019.[283]\n\nIt is not our purpose to try and discover what amount of truth is\ncontained in the immense farrago of absurdities comprised in the witch\nconfessions. Actual nocturnal meetings of peasants, either to celebrate\nheathen rites or to plot against their oppressors, or merely to enjoy\nrude dances and music, as the negro in the Southern States was supposed\nto play the banjo nightly after his labours on the plantation, may or\nmay not have assisted in spreading and confirming the belief in the\nsabbat, but they were not necessary. The whole story of child murder,\nobscene worship of a demon, dances and sexual orgies, was ready to hand\nlong before. It had been applied in classic times to the worshippers\nof Isis and Bacchus, by the pagans to the early Christians, by the\northodox to the first heretics, to the Jews, to the Templars, and in\nour own day we have seen very similar charges brought against the\nFreemasons. All these sets of people had known meeting-places--the\nwitches had none; they must therefore meet on some barren moor or\nmountain and be carried there supernaturally. Once started, the belief\nspread rapidly. Indeed we know from contemporary writers that it was a\ncommon subject of village gossip, and if any wretched victim had any\ndoubt as to what she was expected to confess, the gaoler and judges\nwere always ready with hints or leading questions.\n\nOne learned German[284] has attributed the whole witch mania to the\n_Datura Stramonium_, or thorn-apple, a plant introduced into Europe\nabout this time. Women dosed themselves with this drug, or applied\nit in ointments, and forthwith had hallucinations of broomstick\nrides and witch dances. Others look upon belladonna as the principal\nagent, and one ardent investigator took dangerous doses of it in the\nhope of experiencing the adventures of a mediaeval sorcerer, but\nwithout definite effect. A similar experiment has recently been made\nby Kiesewetter, the historian of \u2018Spiritualism\u2019. He used the witch\nointments described by Baptista Porta and others, but could produce\nnothing more diabolical than dreams of travelling in an express\ntrain.[285] Others, again, have supposed that the badly baked rye bread\nof the period must have produced an immense amount of nightmare among\nthe poorer classes. The power of suggestion, doubtless, had a very real\ninfluence both on the victims and their judges, and with the aid of\nnarcotics may not infrequently have produced vivid dreams of dancing\nand other intercourse with demons.\n\nNo doubt many persons were quite ready to become witches or sorcerers,\nand some really believed they had acquired such powers. Cases are\nrecorded in which formal agreements, duly signed in blood, and awaiting\nthe devil\u2019s acceptance, were discovered, and resulted in the arrest and\nburning of the would-be wizard. Others took pleasure in the terror the\nreputed powers inspired, and may have sometimes caused or increased it\nby the use of actual poisons.\n\nBut these formed but a small minority of the vast army of victims; and\neven when some real criminal was arrested or some half-insane person\nvoluntarily \u2018confessed\u2019, she was encouraged or compelled to denounce\nher supposed associates, and thus often involved scores of innocent\nacquaintances in her own awful fate.\n\nThe witch-hunters are not to be blamed for believing in witchcraft,\nor even for carrying out the scriptural injunction \u2018Thou shalt not\nsuffer a witch to live\u2019. It is the methods they employed, compared with\nwhich the procedure of a Jeffreys or a Caiaphas was just and merciful,\nwhich cannot be excused by any talk about the spirit of the age, which\nbrought agony and death to many thousands of innocent men, women and\nlittle children, and which excited the fiery and righteous indignation\nof Dr. John Weyer.\n\nAccording to Pascal, men never do wrong so thoroughly and so cheerfully\nas when they are obeying the promptings of a false principle of\nconscience. To which we may add that men are never more cruel and\nunjust than when they are in a fright. The witch-hunters, most of\nthem at least, were pious and conscientious men. They appeal to God,\nthe Church, and the Bible at every step. Nicholas Remy, for instance,\nafter torturing and burning over 800 of his fellow creatures, retired\nfrom work thinking he had done God and man good service. But one thing\ntroubled his conscience. He had spared the lives of certain young\nchildren, and merely ordered them to be scourged naked three times\nround the place where their parents were burning. He is convinced\nthat this was wrong, and that they will all grow up into witches and\nsorcerers. Besides, if God sent two she-bears to slay the forty and two\nchildren who mocked Elisha, of how much greater punishment are those\nworthy who have done despite to God, His Mother, the saints, and the\nCatholic religion?[286] He hopes his sinful clemency will not become a\nprecedent--a fear which was quite unnecessary, for scores of children\nunder twelve were burnt for witchcraft; and the one plea which even\nthen respited the most atrocious murderess did not always avail a\nwitch, since it was believed that her future child, if not the actual\noffspring of the devil, would infallibly belong to his kingdom.\n\nBut the witch-hunters were urged on by fear as well as by piety, for\nnot only did they think themselves exposed to personal attacks from the\ndevil and his allies, but they believed there was a vast and increasing\nsociety of men and women in league with the evil one, and that the fate\nof the world depended on its suppression.\n\nAll the machinery, therefore, which the Roman emperors had devised for\ntheir protection against treason and the Church for the suppression\nof heresy was brought into action against the witches, for witchcraft\nwas the acme of treason and heresy, a _crimen laesae maiestatis\ndivinae_.[287]\n\nFor a description of the methods employed we cannot do better than\ngo to the _Malleus Maleficarum_,[288] the guide and handbook of the\nwitch-hunters.\n\nAll proceedings in cases of witchcraft, say the reverend authors,\nmust be on the plan recommended by Popes Clement V and Boniface VIII,\n\u2018summarie, simpliciter, et de plano, ac sine strepitu ac figura\niudicii\u2019, a harmless looking phrase which swept away at a stroke all\nthe safeguards which the lawyers of pagan Rome and the ruder justice\nof ancient Gaul and Germany had placed around accused persons. There\nare, says the _Malleus_,[289] two forms of criminal procedure: (1)\nthe old legal or _accusatorial_ form where the prosecutor offers to\nprove his charge and to accept the consequences of failure, which must\nbe carefully avoided as being dangerous and litigious; and (2) the\n_inquisitorial_, where a man denounces another either from zeal for\nthe faith, or because called upon to do so, but takes no further part\nnor offers to prove his charge, or where a man is suspected by common\nreport and the judge makes inquiry, and this method must always be\npreferred. The inquisitors, on entering a new district, should issue\na proclamation calling on all persons to give information against\nsuspected witches on pain of excommunication and temporal penalties.\nAny one may be compelled, by torture if necessary, to give evidence,\nand if he refuses must be punished as an obstinate heretic. Other\nsorcerers, or the man\u2019s wife and family, are lawful witnesses against,\nbut not for, the accused. Criminals and perjured persons, if they show\nzeal for the faith, may be admitted to give evidence. Priests, nobles,\ngraduates of universities, and others legally exempt from torture are\nnot exempt in the case of witch trials.[290]\n\n\u2018Delation,\u2019 the scandal of imperial Rome, was not only encouraged\nbut enforced, and in some places, as at Milan, boxes were put in the\nchurches, into which any one might drop an anonymous denunciation of\nhis neighbour.\n\nNames of informers are not to be revealed under penalty of\nexcommunication; the advocate, if there is one, need be told the\ncharges only. This advocate must not be chosen by the accused but\nby the inquisitor, and he must refuse the case if it seems to him\nunjust or hopeless. He must not use legal quibbles or make delays or\nappeals, and is to be specially warned that if he be found a protector\nof heretics or a hinderer of the inquisition, he will incur the usual\npenalties for those heinous crimes. If he reply that he defends the\nperson, not the error, this avails not, for he must make no defence\nwhich interferes with proceeding _summarie, simpliciter, et de\nplano_.[291] After this it is not surprising to find that those accused\nof witchcraft were rarely defended by an advocate.\n\nFaith need be kept with heretics and sorcerers \u2018for a time only\u2019.[292]\nTherefore an inquisitor may promise not to condemn a person if he\nconfesses, and then pass sentence after a few days, or if of very\ntender conscience by the mouth of another. It is also lawful to\nintroduce persons, _etiam mulieres honestae_, to the accused who\npromise to find means for their escape if they will teach them some\nform of witchcraft. This, say the authors, is a most successful method\nfor getting convictions.[293]\n\nTorture, though it may not be repeated on the same charge, may be\ncontinued as long as necessary, and any fresh evidence justifies a\nrepetition. Finally the accused may be burnt without confession if the\nevidence is strong enough, or he may be kept in prison for months\nor years, when the _squalor carceris_ may induce him to confess his\ncrimes.[294]\n\nSuch are the proceedings recommended against persons suspected of or\ndenounced for witchcraft, and they conclude appropriately with the\nhideously hypocritical formula with which they were delivered over to\nbe burnt: \u2018Relinquimus te potestati curiae secularis, deprecantes tamen\nillam ut erga te citra sanguinis effusionem et mortis periculum suam\nsententiam moderetur\u2019,[295] which means, according to the _Malleus_,\nthat sorcerers are to be burned even though they repent, while\nrepentant heretics may be imprisoned for life.\n\nWhat was meant by the _squalor carceris_ may be seen from the following\ndescription by an eye-witness, Pretorius:[296]\n\n \u2018Some [of the dungeons] are holes like cellars or wells, fifteen\n to thirty fathoms (?) deep with openings above, through which they\n let down the prisoners with ropes and draw them up when they will.\n Such prisons I have seen myself. Some sit in great cold, so that\n their feet are frost-bitten or frozen off, and afterwards, if they\n escape, they are crippled for life. Some lie in continual darkness,\n so that they never see a ray of sunlight, and know not whether it\n be night or day. All of them have their limbs confined so that they\n can hardly move, and are in continual unrest, and lie in their own\n refuse, far more filthy and wretched than cattle. They are badly\n fed, cannot sleep in peace, have much anxiety, heavy thoughts, bad\n dreams. And since they cannot move hands or feet, they are plagued\n and bitten by lice, rats, and other vermin, besides being daily\n abused and threatened by gaolers and executioners. And since all\n this sometimes lasts months or years, such persons, though at first\n they be courageous, rational, strong, and patient, at length become\n weak, timid, hopeless, and if not quite, at least half idiotic and\n desperate.\u2019\n\nYet all this was not considered torture, and if some poor wretch, after\na year of it, went mad, or preferred a quick death to a slow one, her\nconfession was described as being \u2018entirely voluntary and without\ntorture\u2019.\n\nAs to the torture itself, it combined all that the ferocity of savages\nand the ingenuity of civilized man had till then invented. Besides the\nordinary rack, thumb-screws, and leg-crushers or Spanish boots, there\nwere spiked wheels over which the victims were drawn with weights on\ntheir feet; boiling oil was poured on their legs, burning sulphur\ndropped on their bodies, and lighted candles held beneath their\narmpits. At Bamberg they were fed on salt fish and allowed no water,\nand then bathed in scalding water and quicklime. At Lindheim they were\nfixed to a revolving table and whirled round till they vomited and\nbecame unconscious, and on recovery remained in so dazed a state that\nthey were ready to confess anything.[297] At Neisse they were fastened\nnaked in a chair \u2018with 150 finger-long spikes in it\u2019 and kept there\nfor hours. And so effective were these tortures that nine out of ten\ninnocent persons preferred to die as confessed sorcerers rather than\nundergo a repetition of them.\n\nThe Jesuit Father Spee, a worthy successor of John Weyer, accompanied\nnearly two hundred victims to the stake at W\u00fcrzburg in less than two\nyears. At the end of this time his hair had turned grey and he seemed\ntwenty years older, and on being questioned as to the cause, declared\nthat he was convinced that all these persons were innocent. They had,\nhe said, at first repeated the usual confession, but on being tenderly\ndealt with had one and all protested their innocence, adjuring him at\nthe same time not to reveal this, for they would much rather die than\nbe tortured again. He added that he had received similar reports from\nother father confessors.[298] A few years later, 1631, he plucked up\ncourage to publish anonymously his _Cautio Criminalis_, in which he\nexclaims:\n\n \u2018Why do we search so diligently for sorcerers? I will show you\n at once where they are. Take the Capuchins, the Jesuits, all the\n religious orders, and torture them--they will confess. If some\n deny, repeat it a few times--they will confess. Should a few still\n be obstinate, exorcise them, shave them: they use sorcery, the\n devil hardens them, only keep on torturing--they will give in. If\n you want more, take the Canons, the Doctors, the Bishops of the\n Church--they will confess. How should the poor delicate creatures\n hold out? If you want still more, I will torture you and then you\n me. I will confess the crimes you will have confessed, and so we\n shall all be sorcerers together.\u2019[299]\n\nIn the most notorious of judicial murders, we read that the judges had\nsome difficulty owing to a disagreement between the witnesses. This\nrarely troubled the witch-hunters. At Lindheim a woman was accused\nof having dug up and carried off the body of an infant, which, under\ntorture, she admitted, denouncing four others as her accomplices.\nBut on the grave being opened, the body was found uninjured. The\ninquisitors at once decided that this must be a delusion of the devil,\nand all five women were burned. A man confessed, under torture, that\nhe was a were-wolf, and in that form had killed a calf belonging to a\nneighbour; the latter, however, said he had never lost a calf, though\ntwo or three years ago two hens had disappeared, he believed through\nwitchcraft. The accused was burnt, for what need had they of witnesses?\nHad they not heard his confession?[300]\n\nIt was even laid down as a principle that doubtful points must be\ndecided \u2018in favour of the faith\u2019--in other words, against the accused.\n\u2018If a sorcerer retracts his denunciations at the stake, it is not void,\nfor he may have been corrupted by friends of the accused. Also when\nwitnesses vary, as they often do, the positive assertion is always to\nbe believed,\u2019 says Bishop Covarivias, a prominent member of the Council\nof Trent. In which he is supported by the jurist Menochius of Padua,\n\u2018ne tam horrendum crimen occultum sit\u2019.\n\nAnything might start a witch-hunting, and once started it increased\nlike an avalanche. If an old woman happened to be out of doors in a\nthunder-storm; if the winter was prolonged; if there was a more than\nusual number of flies and caterpillars; if a woman had a spite against\nher neighbour, some one might be denounced and forced in turn to\ndenounce others. The prolonged winter of 1586 in Savoy, for instance,\nresulted in the burning of 113 women and two men, who confessed, after\ntorture, that it was due to their incantations.\n\nIt is thus not difficult to understand how, in the diocese of Como,\nwitches were burnt for many years at an average rate of 100 per annum;\nhow in that of Strassburg 5,000 were burnt in twenty years, 1615-35;\nhow in the small diocese of Neisse 1,000 suffered between 1640-50,\ninsomuch that they gave up the stake and pile as being too costly,\nand roasted them in a specially prepared oven; and how the Protestant\njurist Benedict Carpzov could boast not only of having read the Bible\nthrough fifty-three times, but also of having passed 20,000 death\nsentences, chiefly on witches and sorcerers.[301]\n\nOne of Carpzov\u2019s victims is specially interesting to medical men, the\nSaxon physician, Dr. Veit Pratzel, who on one occasion (1660) produced\ntwenty mice by sleight of hand in a public-house, probably for the\nsake of advertisement. He was denounced as a sorcerer, tortured and\nburnt, while his children were bled to death in a warm bath by the\nexecutioner, lest they should acquire similar diabolical powers.[302]\n\nA like fate befell the servant of a travelling dentist at Schwersenz\nin Poland. The dentist, John Plan, left his assistant in the town\nto attract attention by conjuring tricks, while he went to sell his\ninfallible toothache tinctures in the neighbouring villages. On\nhis return next evening, he was horrified to see the body of the\nunfortunate man hanging on the town gallows, and was told on inquiry\nthat he was an evident sorcerer who had made eggs, birds, and plants\nbefore everybody in the market-place. He had therefore been arrested,\nscourged, put on the rack, and otherwise tortured till he confessed\nhe was in league with the devil. Whereupon the town council, \u2018out\nof special grace and to save expense\u2019, had, instead of burning him,\nmercifully condemned him to be hanged. The dentist fled in terror to\nBreslau.[303]\n\nBut it was by no means necessary to be so foolhardy as this to fall\ninto the hands of the witch-hunters. A woman at Lindheim was noticed to\nrun into her barn as the inquisitorial officials came down the street.\nShe had never been accused or even suspected of witchcraft, but was\nnevertheless immediately arrested, and brought more dead than alive to\nthe chief inquisitor, Geiss,[304] who declared her flight justified the\nstrongest suspicion. Exposed to the most extreme torture, she confessed\nnothing, but at length, at the question whether she had made a compact\nwith the devil, one of the inquisitors declared he saw her nod her\nhead. This was enough; she was burnt; probably a happy fate under the\ncircumstances, for she thus escaped being forced by further tortures to\ngive details of her imaginary crime and to denounce her neighbours.\n\nOnce in the clutches of the witch-hunters, the unfortunate victim was\nconfronted by a series of dilemmas from which few escaped. A favourite\nbeginning was to ask whether he believed in witchcraft. If he said\n\u2018Yes\u2019, he evidently knew more of the subject; if \u2018No\u2019, he was _ipso\nfacto_ a heretic and slanderer of the inquisition; if in confusion he\ntried to distinguish, he was _varius in confessionibus_,[305] and a\nfit subject for immediate torture. If he confessed under torture, the\nmatter was, of course, settled; if he endured manfully, it was evident\nthat the devil must be aiding him. If a mark could be found on his body\nwhich was insensible and did not bleed when pricked, it was the devil\u2019s\nseal and a sure sign of guilt; but if there was none, his case was no\nbetter, for it was held that the devil only marked those whose fidelity\nhe doubted, so that a suspected person who had no such mark was in all\nprobability a specially eminent sorcerer.[306]\n\nThen came the water test, of which there is no better account than the\nreport sent by W. A. Scribonius, Professor of Philosophy at Marburg, to\nthe town council of Lemgo in 1583:\n\n \u2018When I came to you, most prudent and learned consules, 26th\n September, there were, two days later on St. Michael\u2019s eve, three\n witches burnt alive for divers and horrible crimes. The same day\n three others, denounced by those aforesaid, were arrested, and on\n the following day about 2\u00a0p.m. for further proving of the truth\n were thrown into water to see whether they would swim or not. Their\n clothes were removed and they were bound by the right thumb to\n the left big toe and vice versa, so that they could not move in\n the least. They were then cast three times into the water in the\n presence of some thousands of spectators, and floated like logs\n of wood, nor did one of them sink. And it is also remarkable that\n almost at the moment they touched the water a shower of rain then\n falling ceased, and the sun shone, but when they were taken out it\n started raining as before.\u2019\n\nOn request of the burgomaster, he investigated \u2018the philosophy\u2019 of\nthis, and, though he could find nothing definite, had no doubt of\nits value as a test of witchcraft. \u2018The physician Weyer rejects it\nas absurd and fallacious, but he can produce no good arguments or\nexamples against it, and may therefore be ignored.\u2019 Perhaps witches are\nmade lighter because possessed by demons who are \u2018powers of the air\u2019\nand often carry them through the air. All who float have afterwards\nconfessed, therefore though not scriptural nor of itself sufficient to\nconvict, the swimming test is not to be despised.[307]\n\nWith regard to the number of victims, even sober historians, such as\nSoldan, speak of millions, but if we take three-quarters of a million\nfor the two centuries 1500-1700, it will give a rate of ten executions\ndaily, at least eight of which were judicial murders.\n\nEven more pathetic than the notice of 800 condemned in one body by the\nsenate of Savoy[308] are the long lists of yearly executions preserved\nin the fragmentary records of small towns and villages. Thus at\nMeiningen, between 1610-31 and 1656-85, 106 suffered--in 1610 three,\n1611 twenty-two, 1612 four, &c. &c., the intervening records being\nomitted owing to war. Similar notices have survived at Waldsee, Thun in\nAlsace, and many other hamlets, where through a long series of years\nwe read of one to twenty persons burnt annually, some of them being\npreviously \u2018torn with red-hot pincers\u2019.[309]\n\nAt W\u00fcrzburg the Prince-bishop, Philip of Ehrenberg, is said to\nhave burnt 900 in five years (1627-31), and we have terrible lists\nof twenty-nine of the burnings, almost all of which include young\nchildren. Here are two of them:\n\n \u2018In the thirteenth burning, four persons: the old court smith, an\n old woman, a little girl of nine or ten years, a younger girl her\n sister.\u2019\n\n \u2018In the twentieth burning, six persons: Babelin Goebel, the\n prettiest girl in W\u00fcrzburg; a student in the fifth form who knew\n many languages and was an excellent musician, instrumental and\n vocal; two boys from the new minster, twelve years old; Babel\n Stepper\u2019s daughter; the caretaker on the bridge.\u2019[310]\n\nAt Bamberg the Prince-bishop, John George, 1625-30, burnt at least\n600 persons, and his predecessors had been hardly less vigorous\nwitch-hunters. He was ably seconded by his suffragan, Bishop F\u00f6rner,\nand two doctors of law, Braun and K\u00f6tzend\u00f6rffer, who besides the\nordinary torture implements, salt fish and quicklime baths, found a\nso-called prayer stool or bench covered with spikes, on which the\nvictim was forced to kneel, and a cage with a sharp ridged floor on\nwhich he could not stand, sit, or lie without torment, of great value\nin extorting confessions. The record of their deeds has been published\nby Dr. F. Leitschuh,[311] librarian of Bamberg, and contains, among\nother cases, that of the Burgomaster, John Junius, which throws more\nlight on the nature of the witch trials than do volumes of second-hand\nhistory.[312]\n\nJohn Junius, a man universally respected, had been five times\nBurgomaster of Bamberg, and held that office in June 1628, when he was\narrested on a charge of sorcery. He protested his innocence though\nsix witnesses declared, under torture, that they had seen him at the\nwitch dances. On June 30 he endured the torment of the thumb-screws and\nleg-crushers (Spanish boots) without confession. Then they stuck pins\nin him and found a \u2018devil\u2019s mark\u2019, and finally drew him up with his\narms twisted backwards, but he would admit nothing. Next day, however,\nwhen threatened with a repetition of the torture, he broke down, made\nthe usual confession (including intercourse with a female demon who\nturned into a he-goat), and denounced twenty-seven persons whose names\nand addresses are given.[313] He was condemned to be beheaded and\nburnt, but before his death wrote the following letter to his daughter:\n\n \u2018Many hundred thousand good-nights, my dearest daughter Veronica!\n Guiltless was I taken to prison, guiltless have I been tortured,\n guiltless I must die. For whoever comes here must either be a\n sorcerer, or is tortured until (God pity him) he makes up a\n confession of sorcery out of his head. I\u2019ll tell you how I fared.\n When I was questioned the first time, there were present Dr. Braun,\n Dr. K\u00f6tzend\u00f6rffer, and two strangers. Dr. Braun asked me, \u201cFriend,\n how came you hither?\u201d I answered, \u201cThrough lies and misfortune.\u201d\n \u201cHear you,\u201d said he, \u201cyou\u2019re a sorcerer. Confess it willingly or\n we\u2019ll bring witnesses and the executioner to you.\u201d I said, \u201cI am\n no sorcerer. I have a clear conscience on this matter, and care\n not for a thousand witnesses, but am ready to hear them.\u201d Then the\n chancellor\u2019s son, Dr. Haan, was brought out. I asked, \u201cHerr Doctor,\n what do you know of me? I never had anything to do with you, good\n or bad.\u201d He answered, \u201cSir, it is a judgement matter, excuse me\n for witnessing against you. I saw you at the dances.\u201d \u201cYes, but\n how?\u201d He did not know. Then I asked the commissioners to put him on\n oath, and examine him properly. \u201cThe thing is not to be arranged\n as you want it,\u201d said Dr. Braun; \u201cit is enough that he saw you.\u201d\n I said, \u201cWhat sort of witness is that? If things are so managed,\n you are as little safe as I or any other honourable person.\u201d Next\n came the chancellor and said the same as his son. He had seen me,\n but had not looked carefully to see who I was. Then Elsa Hopffen.\n She had seen me dancing on Haupt\u2019s moor. Then came the executioner\n and put on the thumb-screws, my hands being tied together, so that\n the blood spurted from under the nails, and I cannot use my hands\n these four weeks, as you may see by this writing. Then they tied\n my hands behind and drew me up. I thought heaven and earth were\n disappearing. Eight times they drew me up and let me fall so that I\n suffered horrible agony. All which time I was stark naked, for they\n had me stripped.\n\n \u2018But our Lord God helped me, and I said to them, \u201cGod forgive\n you for treating an innocent man like this; you want not only to\n destroy body and soul, but also to get the goods and chattels.\u201d [At\n Bamberg, two-thirds of the property of convicted sorcerers went to\n the bishop, and the rest to the inquisitors.] \u201cYou\u2019re a rascal,\u201d\n said Dr. Braun. I replied, \u201cI am no rascal, but as respectable as\n any of you; but if things go on like this, no respectable man in\n Bamberg will be safe, you as little as I or another.\u201d The doctor\n said he had no dealings with the devil. I said, \u201cNor have I. Your\n false witnesses are the devils, your horrible tortures. You let no\n one go, even though he has endured all your torments.\u201d\n\n \u2018It was Friday, 30th June, that, with God\u2019s help, I endured these\n tortures. I have ever since been unable to put my clothes on or use\n my hands, besides the other pains I had to suffer innocently.\n\n \u2018When the executioner took me back to prison, he said to me, \u201cSir,\n for God\u2019s sake confess something, whether true or not. Think a\n little. You can\u2019t stand the tortures they\u2019ll inflict on you, and\n even if you could you wouldn\u2019t escape, though you were a count, but\n they\u2019ll go through them again and again and never leave you till\n you say you are a sorcerer, as may be seen by all their judgements,\n for all end alike.\u201d Another came and said the bishop had determined\n to make an example of me which would astonish people, and begged me\n for God\u2019s sake to make up something, for I should not escape even\n though I were innocent, and so said Neudecker and others.\n\n \u2018Then I asked to see a priest, but could not get one.... And then\n this is my confession as follows, but all of it lies.\n\n \u2018Here follows, dearest child, what I confessed that I might escape\n the great torments and agonies, for I could not have endured them\n any longer. This is my confession, nothing but lies, that I had to\n make on threat of still greater tortures, and for which I must die.\n\n \u2018\u201cI went into my field, and sat down there in great melancholy,\n when a peasant girl came to me and said, \u2018Sir, what is the matter?\n Why are you so sorrowful?\u2019 I said I did not know, and then she sat\n down close to me, and suddenly changed into a he-goat and said,\n \u2018Now you know with whom you have to do.\u2019 He took me by the throat\n and said, \u2018You must be mine, or I\u2019ll kill you.\u2019 Then I said, \u2018God\n forbid.\u2019 Then he vanished and came back with two women and three\n men; bade me deny God, and I did so, denied God and the heavenly\n host. Then he baptized me and the two women were sponsors; gave me\n a ducat, which turned into a potsherd.\u201d\n\n \u2018Now I thought I had got it over, but they brought in the\n executioner, and asked where I went to the witch dances. I did not\n know what to say, but remembered that the chancellor and his son\n and Elsa Hopffen had mentioned Haupt\u2019s moor and other places, so I\n said the same. Then I was asked whom I had seen there. Replied I\n did not recognize any. \u201cYou old rascal, I must get the executioner\n to you. Was the chancellor there?\u201d Said \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cWho else?\u201d \u201cI\n recognized none.\u201d Then he said, \u201cTake street by street, beginning\n from the market.\u201d Then I had to name some persons. Then Long\n Street. I knew nobody; had to name eight persons.... Did I know\n any one in the castle? I must speak out boldly whoever it was.\n So they took me through all the streets till I could and would\n say no more. Then they gave me to the executioner to strip, shave\n off my hair, and torture me again. \u201cThe rascal knows a man in the\n market-place, goes about with him daily, and won\u2019t name him.\u201d They\n meant Dietmeyer, so I had to name him.\n\n \u2018Next they asked what evil I had done. I replied, \u201cNone.\u201d The\n devil bade me to, and beat me when I refused. \u201cPut the rascal on\n the rack.\u201d So I said I was told to murder my children but killed\n a horse instead. That wasn\u2019t enough for them. I had also taken a\n sacramental wafer and buried it. When I said this they left me in\n peace.\n\n \u2018There, dearest child, you have all my confession, for which I must\n die, and it is nothing but lies and made-up things, so God help me.\n For I had to say all this for fear of the tortures threatened me,\n besides all those I had gone through. For they go on torturing till\n one confesses something; be he as pious as he will, he must be a\n sorcerer. No one escapes, though he were a count. And if God does\n not interfere, all our friends and relations will be burnt, for\n each has to confess as I had.\n\n \u2018Dearest child, I know you are pious as I, but you have already had\n some trouble, and if I may advise, you had better take what money\n there is and go on a pilgrimage for six months, or somewhere where\n you can stay for a time outside the diocese till one sees what\n will happen. Many honourable men and women in Bamberg go to church\n and about their business, do no evil, and have clear consciences as\n I hitherto, as you know, yet they come to the witch prison, and if\n they have a tongue to confess, confess they must, true or not.\n\n \u2018Neudecker, the chancellor, his son, Candelgiesser, Hofmeister\u2019s\n daughter, and Elsa Hopffen all denounced me at once. I had no\n chance. Many are in the same case, and many more will be, unless\n God intervenes.\n\n \u2018Dear child, keep this letter secret so that nobody sees it, or I\n shall be horribly tortured and the gaoler will lose his head, so\n strict is the rule against it. You may let Cousin Stamer read it\n quickly in private. He will keep it secret. Dear child, give this\n man a thaler.\n\n \u2018I have taken some days to write this. Both my hands are lamed. I\n am in a sad state altogether. I entreat you by the last judgement,\n keep this letter secret, and pray for me after my death as for your\n martyred father ... but take care no one hears of this letter. Tell\n Anna Maria to pray for me too. You may take oath for me that I am\n no sorcerer, but a martyr.\n\n \u2018Good-night, for your father, John Junius, will see you never more.\n\n 24th July, 1628.\u2019\n\nOn the margin is written:\n\n \u2018Dear child, six denounced me: the chancellor, his son, Neudecker,\n Zaner, Ursula Hoffmaister, and Elsa Hopffen, all falsely and on\n compulsion as they all confessed. They begged my pardon for God\u2019s\n sake before they were executed. They said they knew nothing of me\n but what was good and loving. They were obliged to name me, as I\n should find out myself. I cannot have a priest, so take heed of\n what I have written, and keep this letter secret.\u2019\n\nThe letter is still preserved, with its crippled handwriting, in the\nlibrary at Bamberg. This case is beyond comment. It is like the trial\nof Faithful at Vanity Fair, but with rack and thumb-screw in place of\na jury. Yet it is but a moderate sample of those outrages on justice\nand humanity called witch trials. Men rarely held out long, but, did\nspace permit, we might tell stories of many heroic women who endured\nten, twenty, even fifty repetitions of torture, till they died on the\nrack or in the dungeon rather than falsely accuse themselves or their\nneighbours.[314]\n\nFor when once arrested, the victim had small hope of acquittal, and in\nthe most favourable cases, when there was no external evidence, and no\namount of torture could induce a \u2018confession\u2019, the accused was sent\nback friendless and crippled to her home, which she was forbidden to\nleave, having first sworn to have no more dealings with the devil, and\nto take no proceedings against her accusers. To acquit her would imply\nthat an innocent person had been tortured, a thing naturally repugnant\nto the tender consciences of the inquisitors.\n\nNor was the mania confined to any special class. Protestants vied with\nCatholics, and town councils with bishops in cruelty and injustice.\nAt N\u00f6rdlingen they had a special set of torture instruments which the\nProtestant town council lent to neighbouring district authorities, with\nthe pious observation that \u2018by these means, and more especially by the\nthumb-screw, God has often been graciously pleased to reveal the truth,\nif not at first, at any rate at the last\u2019.[315]\n\nIt is obvious from the above cases that the main cause of the\ncontinuance of the witch-burnings, and of the number of the victims,\nwas the use of torture to obtain denunciations. The instances in which\ninsane persons accused themselves or others seem to have been fewer\nthan we might have expected.\n\nThen, as now, there were melancholics who thought they had committed\nthe unpardonable sin, and in those days the unpardonable sin might\nbe represented by an imaginary compact with the devil. Then, as\nnow, the \u2018mania of persecution\u2019 was a prominent symptom in some\nforms of insanity, and the idea of being bewitched by some old woman\ncorresponded to the modern dread of detectives, electric batteries, or\ntelephones.\n\nSome of the supposed signs of witchcraft resemble those of mania and\nmelancholia. Thus maniacs sometimes collect dirt for money, and witches\noften confessed that the devil\u2019s money changed to dirt. Melancholics\nmutter to themselves, look on the ground, and avoid society, all of\nwhich were considered signs of witchcraft. But then red hair and\nleft-handedness were no less infallible indications.\n\nInsanity and crime were indeed present at the witch trials, but they\nwere at least as obvious in the accusers and judges as in the victims,\nand the first man who was bold enough to say so was Dr. John Weyer.\nThough a few feeble protests may have been made by others, it was from\nthe medical profession that the first determined opposition came.\nMystics like Paracelsus and Cardan might encourage the superstition;\npious and able members of the profession like Ambroise Par\u00e9 and Sir\nThomas Brown might give it their sanction, but it was the physician\nCornelius Agrippa who first successfully defended a witch at the\nrisk of his own life,[316] and it was his pupil John Weyer who first\ndeclared open war against the witch-hunters and invoked the vengeance\nof heaven upon their atrocities.\n\n \u2018The feareful abounding at this time in this countrie of those\n detestable slaves of the divell, the witches or enchanters hath\n moved me (beloved reader) to dispatch in post the following\n treatise of mine, not in any wise (as I protest) to serve for a\n shewe of my learning and ingine, but only (moved of conscience to\n preasse thereby) so far as I can, to resolve the doubting hearts\n of manie both that such assaults of Satan are most certainly\n practised, and that the instruments thereof merit most severely\n to be punished, against the damnable opinions of two principally\n in our age, whereof the one called Scot, an Englishman, is not\n ashamed in public print to denie that there can be such a thing\n as witchcraft and so maintains the old error of the Sadduces in\n denying of spirits, the other called Wierus, a German physition\n sets out a publike apologie for all these crafts-folks, whereby\n procuring for their impunity, he plainly bewrayes himself to have\n been of that profession.\u2019\n\nThus did our \u2018British Solomon\u2019, James I, commence his _Daemonologia_\n(1598), a work directed against the two men who alone up to that time\nhad made a bold and open protest against the witch mania and its\nabominations. Reginald Scot in his _Discovery of Witchcraft_ (1584)\ntook the view of a modern common-sense Englishman, that the whole thing\nis absurd, a mixture of roguery and false accusations. Weyer, on the\nother hand, his predecessor by twenty years, is a firm believer in the\nactivity of the devil, whose object, however, is not to get possession\nof the souls of crazy old women, but by deluding them, to convert pious\nand learned lawyers and theologians into torturers and murderers.\n\nBorn about 1516 at Grave in Brabant, the son of a dealer in hops and\nfaggots, Weyer was acquainted with the supernatural from his earliest\nyears, for they had a domestic \u2018house cobold\u2019 or _Poltergeist_, who was\nheard tumbling the hop-sacks about whenever a customer was expected. At\nseventeen years of age the boy was sent to study medicine as apprentice\nto Cornelius Agrippa, an extraordinary man, long held to be a sorcerer,\nwho had recently incurred yet stronger suspicion by his heroic and\nsuccessful defence of a woman accused of witchcraft at Metz, and by his\nfondness for a black dog called \u2018Monsieur\u2019 which scarcely ever left\nhim. The young Weyer used to take this animal out on a string, and\nsoon became convinced, to use his own words, that it was \u2018a perfectly\nnatural male dog\u2019.[317] He next went to Paris and thence to Orleans,\na university then famous for its medical school, where he took the\ndegree of M.D. in 1537. He commenced practice in Brabant, became public\nmedical officer at Arnheim in 1545, and in 1550 physician to Duke\nWilliam of Cleves. In 1563 he published his great work _De praestigiis\ndaemonum et incantationibus ac veneficiis_,[318] the object of which\nis to show that so-called witchcraft is usually due to delusions of\ndemons, who take advantage of the weaknesses and diseases of women to\nbring about impious and absurd superstitions, hatreds, cruelties, and\na vast outpouring of innocent blood, things in which they naturally\ndelight.\n\nHe proposes to treat the subject under four heads corresponding to\nthe four faculties, theology, philosophy, medicine, and law. In the\nfirst section he attempts to show that the Hebrew word _Kasaph_ does\nnot mean \u2018witch\u2019 but \u2018poisoner\u2019, or at any rate that Greek, Latin,\nand Rabbinical interpreters so vary, that no reliance can be placed\nupon them. Moreover the law of Moses was given to the Jews \u2018for the\nhardness of their hearts\u2019, and is by no means always to be used by\nChristians.[319] Magicians and sorcerers do indeed still exist, as\nin ancient Egypt, but these are always men, and usually rogues and\nswindlers, such as was Faust, of whom Weyer gives us one of the\nearliest and most authentic notices. Faust, he says, was once arrested\nby Baron Hermann of Batoburg, and given in charge of his chaplain, J.\nDursten, who hoping to see some sign or wonder, treated him with much\nkindness, giving him the best of wine. But all he got out of him was\na magic ointment to enable him to shave without a razor, containing\narsenic, and so strong that it brought not only the hair but the skin\nfrom the reverend gentleman\u2019s cheeks. \u2018The which he has told me more\nthan once with much indignation.\u2019[320]\n\nWeyer, however, firmly believes that the devil may assist sorcerers,\nsuch as Faust, in some of their feats, though he does this chiefly by\ndeluding the eyes of the spectators. He may also delude women into the\nbelief that they have been at witch dances and caused thunder-storms,\n&c., but his greatest deception is to make men believe in the reality\nof witchcraft and so torture and murder the innocent.[321] Women are\nmore liable to his deceptions owing to their greater instability both\nof mind and body, and the delusion may be favoured by the use of\ndrugs and ointments, especially those containing belladonna, lolium,\nhenbane, opium, and even more by herbs recently introduced from east\nand west, such as Indian hemp, datura, \u2018and the plant called by\nthe Indians \u201ctabacco\u201d, by the Portuguese \u201cpeto\u201d, and by the French\n\u201cnicotiana\u201d\u2019.[322]\n\nAs for the supposed compact with the devil, it is an absurdity only\nsurpassed by the belief in sexual intercourse with demons. This\ndelusion, Weyer points out, may be explained medically by the phenomena\nof nightmare and the effects of certain drugs, and is not sanctioned\nby Scripture. For, though holy men such as Lactantius, Justin Martyr,\nand Tertullian have maintained that the \u2018sons of God\u2019 mentioned in\nGenesis vi. 2 were spirits, this interpretation is opposed by still\nmore eminent theologians, such as Saints Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen,\nand Chrysostom, though he is obliged to admit that St. Augustine\nbelieved in _incubi_ and _succubae_,[323] and that distinguished living\ntheologians hold that Luther\u2019s father was literally the devil. This,\nhowever, says Weyer, is an unfair and prejudiced way of attacking the\nLutheran heresy.[324]\n\nPeople who fancy themselves bewitched are really possessed or assaulted\nby the devil, as were Job and the demoniacs of the New Testament. If\nthese demoniacs had lived in our days, he remarks, they would probably\nhave each cost the lives of numerous old women.[325] The strange\nobjects vomited by such persons are either deceptions or put into the\nperson\u2019s mouth by the devil, as is shown by there being no admixture\nof food, and the absence of pain or injury in spite of the size of the\nobjects.[326]\n\nA girl near Cleves fell into convulsions with clenched hands and teeth\nwhich, according to her father, could only be opened by making the sign\nof the cross. She also complained of pains for which it was necessary\nto buy a bottle of holy water from a priest at Amersfort, on drinking\nwhich she proceeded to vomit pins, needles, scraps of iron, and pieces\nof cloth. She spoke in an altered boyish voice, intended for that of a\ndemon, and declared the whole was caused by an \u2018in my opinion honest\nmatron\u2019, who was imprisoned with her mother and two other women.\n\nWeyer undertook the case, \u2018whereupon she said in her boy\u2019s voice she\nwould have nothing to do with me, and that I was a cunning fellow.\n\u201cLook what sharp eyes he has.\u201d\u2019 Weyer opened her hands and mouth,\nwithout making the sign of the cross, \u2018not that I would in any way\nspeak irreverently thereof\u2019. He also showed that the objects produced,\neven soon after eating, were free from admixture of food, and had\ntherefore never been farther than the mouth; and he thus obtained the\nrelease of the four women after a month\u2019s imprisonment.[327]\n\nAs for the stories of men changed into animals, they are partly poetic\nand moral allegories, as the sailors of Ulysses, and partly a form of\ninsanity long recognized by physicians, and termed lycanthropy.[328]\n\nMany think they are possessed when they are only melancholic, and\nothers pretend to be so to excite interest and obtain money. Those who\nfancy themselves attacked by devils should, instead of accusing their\nneighbours, take to themselves the armour of God as described by St.\nPaul. Unfortunately, spiritual pastors, in their ignorance and greed,\nteach that not only diabolical possession, but even ordinary diseases\nare to be cured by charms, incantations, palm branches, consecrated\ncandles, and an execrable abuse of scriptural words. Cures are, indeed,\nsometimes so produced, but are really due to the imagination.\n\nPersons supposed to be possessed should first be taken to an\nintelligent physician, who should investigate and treat any bodily\ndisorder. Should spiritual disorders be also present he may then send\nthe patient to a pious minister of the Church, but this will often\nbe unnecessary. The devil is especially fond of attacking nuns, who\nshould be separated from the rest, and, if possible, sent home to their\nrelations.[329]\n\nHere Weyer inserts several instances in his own experience.\n\nPhilip Wesselich, a monk of Knechtenstein near Cologne, an honest,\nsimple-minded man, was miserably afflicted by a spirit about the year\n1550. Sometimes he was carried up to the roof, at others thrust in\namong the beams of the belfry, often carried unexpectedly through the\nwall (_plerumque per murum transferebatur inopinato_) and knocked about\ngenerally. At length the spirit declared he was Matthew Duren, a former\nabbot, condemned to penance for having paid an artist insufficiently\nfor a painting of the Blessed Virgin, so that the poor man went\nbankrupt and committed suicide, \u2018which was true\u2019. He could only be\nreleased if the monk went to Tr\u00e8ves and Aix and recited three masses in\nthe respective cathedrals. The theological faculty of Cologne advised\nthat he should do so, but the abbot Gerard, a man of firmness and\nintelligence, told the possessed man that he was a victim of diabolical\ndeceptions, and that unless he put his trust in God, and pulled himself\ntogether, he should be publicly whipped. Whereupon the monk did so, and\nthe devil left him and went elsewhere.[330]\n\nA similar case was that of a young woman known to Weyer, who had\nconvulsions in church whenever the \u2018Gloria in excelsis\u2019 was sung in\nGerman, and said she was possessed. It was observed, however, that she\nlooked about for a soft place to fall on. She was therefore sent for by\nWeyer\u2019s friend the Countess Anna of Virmont, who said she was about to\nsing the chant, and that if the demon attacked her she would soon drive\nhim out. The young woman fell in the usual fit, on which the countess,\n_prudens et cordata matrona_, with the aid of her daughter pulled up\nher dress and gave her a good whipping. \u2018She confessed to me afterwards\nthat it completely cured her.\u2019 Extreme diseases, adds Weyer, require,\naccording to Hippocrates, extreme remedies, but care should be taken to\ndistinguish suitable cases.[331]\n\nThe last and most important section of the book treats of the\npunishment of witches, who are to be carefully distinguished from\npoisoners and magicians, such as Faust, who are often wealthy men and\nspend much money in travel, books, &c., to learn diabolic arts; or\ndeceivers, such as the mason who buried wolves\u2019 dung in a cattle stall,\nand when the animals showed great excitement, said they were bewitched,\nand offered to cure them for a consideration. Such men, when proved to\nhave done serious harm, are to be severely punished. The less guilty\nshould be admonished, and among them are those who spread superstitious\npractices and persuade sick people that they are bewitched by some old\nwoman.\n\nThis is all that the laws of Church or State require, and is a\nvery different thing from seizing poor women possessed by diabolic\ndelusions, or on the malicious accusations or foolish suspicions of\nthe ignorant vulgar, and casting them into horrible dungeons, whence\nthey are dragged to be torn and crushed by every imaginable instrument\nof torture, till, however guiltless they are, they confess to sorcery,\nsince it is better to give their souls to God in innocence, even\nthrough flame, than longer endure the hideous torments of bloodthirsty\ntyrants. And should they die under torture or in prison, the accusers\nand judges cry out triumphantly that they have committed suicide, or\nthat the devil has broken their necks.\n\nHere follows a burst of indignant eloquence which would have cost Weyer\ndear had he fallen into the clutches of the witch-hunters, and which\nmay be given in the terse vigour of the original:\n\n \u2018Sed ubi tandem is apparuerit quem nihil latet, Scrutator cordium\n et renum, ipsius abstrusissimae etiam veritatis Cognitor et Iudex,\n vestri actus palam fient, O vos praefracti tyranni, O iudices\n sanguinarii, hominem exuti et caecitate ab omni misericordia\n procul remoti. Ad ipsius extremi iudicii tribunal iustissimum\n vos provoco, qui inter vos et me decernet ubi sepulta et culcata\n Veritas resurget vobisque in faciem resistet latrociniorum ultionem\n exactura.\u2019[332]\n\nTheir credulity almost equals their cruelty, as shown by the belief\nthat a certain old woman caused the excessive cold of the preceding\nwinter, and by the absurd swimming test. What effect can denial of\nfaith, evil intentions, or a corrupt fantasy have upon a person\u2019s\nspecific gravity, on which floating depends? Moreover, women usually\nfloat, since their specific gravity is less than that of men, as\nHippocrates pointed out.[333] But nothing is too absurd for a witch\ninquisitor. Some fishermen at Rotterdam drew up their nets full of\nstones but fishless. This was clearly witchcraft, so they seized an\nunfortunate woman who confessed in her terror that she had flown out\nof the window through a hole the size of a finger-end, dived under the\nsea in a mussel-shell,[334] and there terrified the fishes and put\nstones in the nets. The woman, says Weyer, was evidently mad or deluded\nby the devil, but they burnt her all the same. Treachery and cruelty\ngo together. A priest, having failed to make a witch confess, promised\nthat if she would admit some small act of sorcery, he would see that\nshe was released after some slight penance. Thereupon she confessed and\nwas burnt alive.[335]\n\nIn contrast to this, Weyer describes the method of dealing with\nwitchcraft in the duchy of Cleves. In 1563 a farmer, finding his cows\ngave less milk than usual, consulted a witch-finder, who told him that\none of his own daughters had bewitched them. The girl, deluded by the\ndevil, admitted this and accused sixteen other women of being her\naccomplices. The magistrate wrote to the duke proposing to imprison\nthem all, but the latter, probably at Weyer\u2019s instigation, replied that\nthe witch-finder was to be imprisoned, the girl to be instructed by\na priest and warned against the delusions of demons, and the sixteen\nwomen in no way to be molested.[336]\n\nAn old woman of eighty was arrested at Mons on charge of witchcraft,\nthe chief evidence being that her mother had long ago been tortured to\ndeath on a similar charge. To make her confess they poured boiling oil\nover her legs, which produced blisters and ulcers, and her son hearing\nof it sent her a roll of lint to put round them. This was supposed to\nmake magic bandages by the aid of which the woman might escape, and the\nson was promptly arrested. The mother was to be burnt in a few days,\nand her son would probably have followed, when Weyer, by permission of\nthe Duke of Cleves, visited Count William of Mons and explained his\nviews on witchcraft. He also examined the old woman, who was so broken\ndown that she fainted several times, and finally obtained the release\nof both.[337]\n\nTheologians (says Weyer in conclusion) may object that he is only a\nphysician and bid him keep to his last. He can only reply that St. Luke\nwas a physician, and that he is one of those who hope by the mercy of\nGod and grace of Christ to attain that royal priesthood of which St.\nPaul and St. John speak. Finally he is ready to submit all he has said\nto the judgement of the Church, and to recant any errors of which he\nmay be convicted.\n\nThe Church answered by putting his name on the _Index_ as an _auctor\nprimae classis_, that is, one whose opinions are so dangerous\nthat none of his works may be read by the faithful without special\npermission, while his book was solemnly burnt by the Protestant\nUniversity of Marburg.[338] The Duke of Alva, then engaged in his\nnotorious work in the Netherlands, used his influence to get Weyer\nremoved from his position at the court of Cleves. In this he was\naided by the duke\u2019s increasing melancholia and ill health, which were\nconsidered by many a judgement upon him for his protection of Weyer\nand neglect of witch-burning. In 1578 Weyer resigned his post to his\nson Galen, and in 1581 witch-hunting commenced in the duchy of Cleves.\nWeyer, however, as befitted the chivalrous defender of outraged\nwomanhood, enjoyed the friendship and protection of Countess Anna of\nTechlenburg, at whose residence he died, 1588, aged seventy-two.\n\nThe work on _The Deceptions of Demons_ has been aptly compared to a\ntorch thrown out into the darkness, which for a moment brightly illumes\na small space and then disappears. It made a temporary sensation, and\nwas welcomed by a few of the more enlightened spirits of the time;\nit saved the lives of some unfortunate women (being successfully\nquoted the very year after publication in defence of a young woman\nat Frankfort, who confessed she had flown through the air and had\nintercourse with the devil), and it marks the beginning of an open and\npersistent opposition to the witch mania. Spee also has a curious story\nshowing the influence of Weyer\u2019s book:\n\n \u2018A great prince invited two priests to his table, both men of\n learning and piety. He asked one of them whether he thought it\n right to arrest and torture persons on the evidence of 10 or 12\n witches. Might not the devil have deceived them in order to make\n rulers shed innocent blood, as certain learned men had lately\n argued, \u201cthereby causing us pangs of conscience\u201d? The priest\n stoutly maintained that these pangs were needless, for God would\n never allow the devil to bring innocent men to a shameful and\n horrible death in this way; and so he (the prince) might continue\n the witch trials as usual. He persisted in this, till the prince\n said, \u201cI am sorry, my father, you have condemned yourself and\n cannot complain were I to order your immediate arrest, for no less\n than 15 persons have sworn you were with them at the witch dances\u201d,\n and he produced the records of their trials in proof. Then the good\n man stood like butter in the sun in the dog-days, and had nothing\n more to say for himself.\u2019[339] #/\n\nBut it had little effect on the superstition itself, which reached\nits height during the following half-century; and the author is\ncompelled by his religious beliefs to admit so much that his position\nis hardly tenable. Indeed, his premisses had already been granted by\nthe witch-hunters themselves. The jurist Molitor, for instance, admits\nthat much witchcraft is imaginary and due to the deceptions of demons,\nbut while the physician argues that these deceptions are rendered\npossible by disease, and are themselves largely of the nature of\ndisease, so that the victims deserve pity and medical treatment rather\nthan burning, the lawyer asserts that a person can only be so deceived\nby his free will, and therefore a woman who believes she has made a\ncompact or had intercourse with the devil is as deserving of punishment\nas if she had actually done so.[340]\n\nJust over a century after the appearance of Weyer\u2019s book (1664)\n\n \u2018Sir Thomas Brown of Norwich, the famous physician of his time,\n was desired by my Lord Chief Baron [Hale] to give his judgement\n [in a case of witchcraft]. And he declared that he was clearly of\n opinion That the Fits were natural, but heightened by the devil\n co-operating with the malice of the witches at whose instance he\n did the villanies. And he added, That in Denmark there had been\n lately a great Discovery of Witches, who used the very same way of\n afflicting persons by conveying pins into them.\u2019\n\nThe jury \u2018having Sir Thomas Brown\u2019s Declaration about Denmark for their\nencouragement, in half an hour brought them in guilty.... They were\nhanged maintaining their innocence.\u2019[341]\n\nHad Brown been better acquainted with _The Deceptions of Demons_ he\nmight have hesitated to make that \u2018Declaration about Denmark\u2019, but\nWeyer\u2019s early opponent, Bishop Binsfeld, has no difficulties. Quoting\nOrigen (in Matt. xvii. 15) he exclaims, \u2018Physicians may say what they\nlike, we who believe the Gospel hold that devils cause lunacy\u2019 and\nmany other diseases.[342] But for a demon to cause disease or do other\nharm, two things are requisite, the permission of God and the free will\nof some malicious person, witch, or sorcerer. The physician, Weyer,\nhas denied the possibility of a compact with the devil, but is easily\nrefuted by Scripture and Church authority. Did not the devil try to\nmake a compact with Christ Himself?[343] Similarly he has no difficulty\nin showing that the Hebrew word for witch means much more than\n\u2018poisoner\u2019, and, given the almost universal beliefs of the age, it must\nbe admitted that Brown and the bishop have the best of the argument.\n\nIn the opening chapter of his well-known work on rationalism, Lecky\nsays that the decline of the belief in witchcraft \u2018presents a spectacle\nnot of argument and conflict, but of silent evanescence and decay\u2019;\nit was \u2018unargumentative and insensible\u2019. Scot\u2019s work \u2018exercised no\nappreciable influence\u2019, and, so far as the result was concerned, he,\nWeyer, and their like might as well have kept quiet and waited for\nthe change to be effected by \u2018what is called the spirit of the age\u2019,\nthat is, \u2018a gradual insensible yet profound modification of the habits\nof thought\u2019 due to \u2018the progress of civilization\u2019. This theory has\nbeen ably criticized elsewhere.[344] The truth it contains seems to\nbe that argument would not have sufficed to change public opinion\nabout witchcraft, without the aid of changes in other matters, and\nespecially the development and success of scientific investigation.\nSuch discoveries as the motion of the earth and circulation of the\nblood, when generally accepted (which was not till late in the\nseventeenth century), showed that the learned as well as the vulgar\nmight be utterly mistaken in important beliefs supported by apparently\ngood evidence, and that scientific methods of attaining truth differed\nwidely from those of the witch-hunters.\n\nThe progress of civilization by practically abolishing the use of\ntorture would alone have immensely diminished the number of victims,\nand of those \u2018confessions\u2019 on which the belief was fed. To use military\nlanguage, the witch mania was an ugly and formidable redoubt connected\nwith other forts and entrenchments. It suffered somewhat from the\nbombardment by Weyer and Scot, but could only be finally demolished by\na general advance of the forces of science and civilization. But if\nevery one had trusted to \u2018the spirit of the age\u2019 rather than disturb\nhis neighbours\u2019 beliefs, we might still be burning our grandmothers.\n\nThough born in what is now Holland and educated in France, German\nwriters claim Weyer as their countryman and compare him with Martin\nLuther. The monk of Wittenberg is indeed a fine figure with his \u2018Here\nstand I; I cannot otherwise, God help me!\u2019 But he had half Germany\nbehind him; both princes and populace were ready to protect him. Weyer\nstood practically alone, and if he escaped being burnt by jurists and\ntheologians, had a fair chance of being lynched by an enraged mob as a\nsorcerer and protector of witches. There was little to save him from\ntorture and death but the strength of mind of Duke William of Cleves,\nwho came of an insane family and already showed signs of melancholia.\n\nWeyer was happily spared such a trial of his fortitude, but none\nthe less does he deserve our admiration as the chivalrous champion\nof womanhood, who first, with vizor up and lance in rest, greeted,\nalas! not, like the knights of legend, by prayers and blessings but\nby threats and imprecations, went forth to do open battle with the\nhideous monster which had so long tortured and slain the innocent and\nhelpless.\n\n[Illustration: Plate XLI. THE BODLEIAN MANUSCRIPT\n\nMS. MARSH 379 fo. 73]\n\n\n\n\n THE \u2018TRACTATUS DE CAUSIS ET INDICIIS MORBORUM\u2019\n\n \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0644\u0627\u0645\u0627\u062a\n\n ATTRIBUTED TO MAIMONIDES\n\n By Reuben Levy\n\n\nAmong modern authorities on Arabian medicine, the opinion has been\nwidely held that the position of Maimonides as a medical writer must\ndepend mainly upon an unpublished work from his hand, known as the\n_Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_.[345] It is here sought\nto demonstrate that the Bodleian MS. (Marsh 379), hitherto regarded\nas containing this work, is in reality by another author, while the\nParis MS. (Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Ancien Fonds 411),[346] the only\nother alleged copy of the _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_,\ncontains in fact no such work. Moreover, evidence will be adduced\nshowing that it is not probable that Maimonides composed a treatise of\nthis scope.\n\nFor their information concerning the _Tractatus_, the modern\nbibliographers evidently rely entirely on entries in the catalogues of\nthe respective libraries. The 1739 Catalogue of Arabic and Hebrew MSS.\nin the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale contains the following entry:[347] \u2018Codex\nbombycinus, Aleppo in bibliothecam Colbertinam anno 1673 illatus, quo\ncontinetur R. Mosis Maemonidae de morborum causis et illorum curatione\ntractatus, Arabice, charactere Hebraico.\u2019 Careful examination of\nthe manuscript disclosed the fact that it contained no fewer than\nfour works of Maimonides, viz. on Poisons,[348] on Asthma,[349] the\n_Tractatus de Regimine Sanitatis_,[350] and the _Tractatus de Morbo\nRegis Aegypti_,[351] all bound together in confusion.[352] All these\nare known to be by Maimonides, and there is nothing besides them in the\nvolume.\n\nThere has always been a good deal of confusion about the works _de\nRegimine Sanitatis_ and _de Morbo Regis Aegypti_. The former is\nvariously known as _de Regimine Sanitatis, de Cibo et Alimento, de\nDietetica_, \u2018the letter to the Sultan\u2019, or as \u2018the Consultation\nconcerning (the Sultan) Al Af\u1e0dal\u2019.[353] The latter also has a number\nof titles, such as _de Causis Accidentium,[354] de Morborum Causis et\nCuratione_, and _Responsum ad Regem Raqqa_, in addition to its title\nof _de Morbo Regis Aegypti_. In 1514, in Venice the two treatises were\nprinted together in Latin as one work.[355]\n\nLeclerc[356] has made confusion worse confounded by saying that \u2018ce\nque l\u2019on a d\u00e9sign\u00e9 sous les titres, _De Morbo Regis Aegypti, De Causis\nAccidentium, De Causis et Indiciis Morborum, De Cibo et Alimento_,\nne sont autre chose que tout ou partie du m\u00eame ouvrage\u2019.[357] No\ndoubt he was led into making this statement partly by the fact that\nW\u00fcstenfeld[358] gives the title of _de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_\nboth to the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale MS. (which Leclerc knew as _de\nCausis Accidentium_) and to the Bodley MS.\n\nThe entry concerning the latter in Uri\u2019s Bodleian Catalogue of\n1787[359] reads as follows:\n\n \u2018Codex bombycinus, anno Hegirae 765, Christi 1363 exaratus, folia\n 116 implens. Comprehendit succinctum de omnium corporis humani\n morborum causis, signis et remediis tractatum ab Ibn Hobaish\n Hierosolymitano ex Hebraica lingua in Arabicam conversum, cui\n sectiones sex supra centum sunt. Initium fit a morbis capitis;\n finis in elephantiasi. Composuit Musa Ben Maimun Alcortubi,\n Israelita. [Marsh 379.]\u2019\n\nThe MS. bears upon one of its pages the title\n\n \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0644\u0627\u0645\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u062d\u0643\u064a\u0645\n \u2019\u0645\u0648\u0633\u0649 \u0628\u0646 \u0645\u064a\u0645\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0637\u0628\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0631\u0627\u064a\u0644\u064a\n\n\u2018This is the book of the causes and symptoms, by the Doctor M\u00fbsa ibn\nMaim\u00fbn the Cordovan, the Israelite.\u2019 (Plate XLI.)\n\nAs a matter of fact it is no such thing. This title, together with\nan extra title-page and colophon in the same hand, is a much later\naddition to the MS., which also has a fragment of some other medical\nwork--at present unidentified--bound up with it. The folios of the MS.\nwhich deal with the _Tractatus_ have been bound together in extreme\ndisorder, but examination of them has shown that they really form a\nfragment of the second book of \u202b\u0627\u0644\u0645\u062e\u062a\u0627\u0631 \u0642\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0637\u0628\u0651\u202c, the _Delectus de\nMedicina_, by \u202b\u0645\u0647\u0630\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u062f\u064a\u0646 \u0627\u0628\u0648 \u0627\u0644\u062d\u0633\u0646 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0628\u0646 \u0627\u062d\u0647\u062f \u0627\u0644\u0628\u063a\u062f\u0627\u062f\u064a\u202c, Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed\nDin Abu\u2019l Hasan Ali Ibn A\u1e25mad of Bagdad.[360]\n\nIbn Abi \u201bU\u1e63aibia (1203-1269)[361] gives a life of this writer and\na list of his works, which includes the _Delectus de Medicina_.\nAccording to him, Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din was born at Bagdad in A.H. 515 (=\nA.D. 1121), and after studying medicine and philosophy settled at\nMosul. Later he became the physician of the Shah Arman, chieftain\nof Khal\u0101t on Lake Van in Armenia, in whose service he amassed great\nwealth. He completed the _Delectus_ at Mosul in the year A.H. 560\n(= A.D. 1164), and died there in A.H. 610 (= A.D. 1213), with the\nreputation of being first physician of his time.\n\nAnother fragment of the same work of Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din, which includes\nmost of the contents of the Bodleian MS., besides a good deal of\nmaterial which has been lost from the latter, exists in the British\nMuseum.[362] The Leyden Library contains a unique copy of the work in\nthree books. This is claimed to be complete by the Catalogue of the\nlibrary,[363] although Bar Hebraeus [1226-1286]--Catholicus of the\nJacobite (Monophysite) Church[364]--says that the work ran into four\nparts.[365] The three books of the Leyden MS. treat (i) of generalities\n(i.e. Anatomy, Physiology, and the general causes of disease), (ii) of\nmedicaments, and (iii) of particular diseases and their treatment.\n\nThe Bodleian and British Museum MSS. contain part of the third book,\nwhich was probably in general use by itself as a dictionary of\nmedicine. The British Museum copy has only lost the earlier chapters\nof this third part, but the Bodleian MS., although possessing a few\nmore chapters at the beginning, is far less complete in the other\nportions.[366]\n\nW\u00fcstenfeld and the bibliographers that followed him have evidently\nderived their information concerning these MSS. from the catalogues of\nthe Bodleian Library and of the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale. No mediaeval\nbibliographer has up to the present been found who mentions this book\nof Maimonides.[367] W\u00fcstenfeld\u2019s usual authority for his statements\nis the great thirteenth-century medical biographer, Ibn Abi \u2018U\u1e63aibia.\nBut, though the latter gives a life of the Hebrew physician and a list\nof his writings,[368] he makes no mention of the _Tractatus de Causis\net Indiciis Morborum_. Moreover, this _Tractatus_ has no place in Haji\nKhalfa\u2019s admirable bibliography of Arabic works, which contains notices\nof four books bearing the title _De Causis et Indiciis Morborum_, not\none of which is by Maimonides. Lastly, neither the historian Al Qifty\nin his _Classes philosophorum et astronomorum et medicorum_,[369] nor\nBar Hebraeus, who is said to have plagiarized him,[370] notice the work\nin their sketches of the physician\u2019s life.\n\nThe Bodleian MS. alleged to contain the _Tractatus_ is one of a\ncollection of over seven hundred volumes bequeathed to the library\non his death, November 2, 1713, by Narcissus Marsh, Archbishop\nsuccessively of Cashel, Dublin, and Armagh. Most of his Oriental MSS.\nhad been procured for him either in the East by Robert Huntington,\nBishop of Raphoe and chaplain to the English merchants at Aleppo, or\nat the sale of Golius\u2019s library at Leyden in October 1696.[371] Golius\nwas a Dutch orientalist, born at Leyden in 1596. He studied medicine\nand Oriental languages at the University of Leyden, and after leaving\nit he accompanied a French embassy to Morocco in 1622. He remained in\nMorocco for two years, and while there collected various MSS. On his\nreturn in 1624 he was appointed to the Chair of Arabic at Leyden, but\nwas allowed a period of leave for travel in the East before taking up\nhis appointment. He took with him a grant of money for the purchase of\nMSS., and these to the number of over two hundred are now deposited\nin the University Library at Leyden. On several occasions during his\ntravels in Arabia attempts were made by Arab chiefs to detain him for\nhis medical knowledge, but he returned safely and later wrote a number\nof works mainly concerned with Arabic. He died in 1667.\n\nAmong the MSS. which Golius himself procured for the Leyden Library\nwas that of the _Delectus_. It is at least unlikely therefore that\nsuch a profound Arabist, who was also a medical man, would have bought\nthe Bodley fragment for a genuine work of Maimonides; the primary\nresponsibility for the error thus probably rests with Huntington.\nHowever that may be, it was Uri, in his catalogue of the Bodleian MSS.,\nwho first published the error, and from him it was passed on to the\nmodern bibliographers.\n\nJohn Uri was a Hungarian who had studied Oriental literature under\nSchultens at Leyden, and was recommended to Archbishop Secker for the\npurpose of cataloguing the Bodleian Oriental MSS., by Sir Joseph Yorke,\nthen ambassador in the Netherlands.[372] Many years were occupied in\nthe preparation of the work, which appears to have commenced in 1766\nand was not completed till 1787. In spite of the length of time which\nUri occupied in his task, his successor, Pusey, found sufficient errors\nin it to fill sixty closely printed pages. In his preface to the\nsecond volume of the Catalogue, issued in 1835,[373] Pusey complains\n\u2018Urius vero MSS. haud raro negligenter exscripsit\u2019, and says that on\nre-examination of Uri\u2019s work he discovered, \u2018besides the errors which\nUri himself would have admitted, that nearly all the purchasers of\nthese books, Pocock alone excepted, had had spurious works foisted\non them by wily Orientals. He therefore looked through all the books\nwhich Uri had enumerated, excepting the more common ones, to see if\nthey corresponded to their titles or not. By doing this he discovered\nvarious irregularities. In some cases the titles had been covered\nover with paper or obliterated with ink, or practically erased with a\nknife. In others, by slight changes in the authors\u2019 names, more famous\npeople were indicated as responsible for the works. Lastly, by changing\nthe pagination in some of the volumes fragments were represented as\ncomplete works, and a few pages of one work were even occasionally\nsewn on at the beginning of another.\u2019[374]\n\nUri\u2019s errors will be the more readily condoned when it is remembered\nthat he did not specialize on the Arabic MSS. alone, and that his\nwork seeks to catalogue, _for the first time_, a two hundred years\u2019\naccumulation of Oriental MSS., including Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac,\nAethiopic, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Coptic writings. Nevertheless,\nUri\u2019s entry with reference to the present MS. deserves some of Pusey\u2019s\ncriticism. The MS. has three parts, each written in a different hand,\nthe first and most important part being the supposed _Tractatus de\nCausis et Indiciis Morborum_, which covers folios 2-87. The second part\nis a fragment of some as yet unidentified medical work (folios 88-115);\nand the third, consisting of the first and last folios, gives us an\nintroduction and an end piece to the first part.\n\nThe alleged author and translator are named on the first page:\n\n \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0645\u0648\u0633\u0649 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0645\u064a\u0645\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0641\u0647\n \u0644\u0644\u0639\u0645\u0648\u0645 \u0642\u0627\u0637\u0628\u0627 \u0648\u0642\u062f \u0646\u0642\u0644\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0645\u064a\u0645\u064a\n\u2005 \u0627\u0644\u0634\u064a\u062e \u0633\u0644\u064a\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062d\u0628\u0634\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0643\u0646\u0627 \u0628\u0627\u0628\u0646 \u062d\u0628\u064a\u0634\n\u2005 \u0641\u064a \u0645\u0645\u0644\u0643\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u062f\u0633 \u0627\u0644\u0634\u0631\u064a\u063a\u0629\n \u062a\u0645\n\n \u2018This is the book of M\u00fbsa ibn Maim\u00fbn which he put together as a\n compilation for general use. Al Tamimi, the sheikh Sulaiman the\n Abyssinian, known as Ibn \u1e24ubaish,[375] translated it in the noble\n city of Jerusalem. Finis.\u2019\n\nOn the next page there is an introduction to the book which commences:\n\n \u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u064a\u0645\n \u0642\u0627\u0644 \u0645\u0648\u0633\u0649 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0645\u064a\u0645\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0637\u0628\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0631\u0627\u064a\u0644\u064a \u0627\u0644\u062e\n\n \u2018In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.\n So says M\u00fbsa ibn Maim\u00fbn, the Cordovan, the Israelite,\u2019 &c.\n\nThe whole of the passage is an extract from chapter vi of the Aphorisms\nof Maimonides, adapted as a kind of introduction, and runs as follows:\n\n\n \u0642\u062f \u0639\u0644\u0645\u062a \u0641\u064a \u0642\u0648\u0644\u064a \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0641\u064a \u0642\u0648\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0641\u0633\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0648\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u062d\u064a\u0648\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0648\u0629\n \u0627\u0644\u0637\u0628\u064a\u0639\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0644\u0646\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0646 \u0641\u064a \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0635\u0637\u0644\u0627\u062d \u062c\u0645\u064a\u0639 \u0627\u0641\u0639\u0627\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u062f\u0646\u064a\u0647\n \u0644\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0642\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0634\u0631\u0641 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0641\u0639\u0627\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0646\u0641\u0633 \u0648\u0628\u0639\u062f\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0628\u0637 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0627\u062d\u0633\u0627\u0633\n \u0648\u0627\u0634\u0631\u0641 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u062d\u0648\u0627\u0633 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u0635\u0631 \u062b\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0633\u0645\u0639 \u0648\u0628\u0639\u062f\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u062d\u0633\u0627\u0633 \u0634\u0647\u0648\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0637\u0639\u0627\u0645\n \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0634\u0631\u0627\u0628 \u0648\u0628\u0639\u062f \u0630\u0644\u0643 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u0644\u0627\u0645 \u0648\u0628\u0639\u062f \u0630\u0644\u0643 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0645\u064a\u064a\u0632 \u0627\u0639\u0646\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0630\u064a \u0628\u0647\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0641\u0644\u202d(_sic_)\u202c\n \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0641\u0643\u0631 \u0648\u0628\u0639\u062f \u0630\u0644\u0643 \u0627\u0644\u062d\u0644\u0627\u0641\u0647 \u0644\u0633\u0627\u064a\u0631 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0639\u0636\u0627\u0621 \u0639\u0644\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0639\u062a\u0627\u062f\u0629 \u0648\u0647\u0630\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062a\u0628\u0629\n \u0641\u064a \u0634\u0631\u0641 \u0627\u0646\u0645\u0627 \u0647\u064a \u0628\u062d\u0633\u0628 \u0636\u0631\u0648\u0631\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u062d\u064a\u0648\u0629 \u0627\u0648 \u0635\u0627\u0644\u062d\u064a\u0629 \u0641\u062a\u0639\u0644\u0645 \u0627\u0646\n \u0627\u0644\u0637\u0628\u064a\u0639\u0629 \u0627\u0633\u0645 \u0645\u0634\u062a\u0631\u0643 \u064a\u0642\u0627\u0644 \u0639\u0644\u064a \u0645\u0639\u0646\u0649 \u0643\u062b\u064a\u0631\u0629 \u0643\u0627\u0644\u0642\u0648\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062f\u0628\u0631\u0629\u202d (_sic_)\u202c\u0627\u0644\u062d\u064a\u0648\u0627\u0646\n \u0627\u064a\u0636\u0627 \u0637\u0628\u064a\u0639\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u0645\u0627 \u0647\u0648 \u0627\u0634\u0631\u0641 \u0648\u062a\u0645\u0633\u0643\u062a \u0644\u0644\u0627\u0634\u0631\u0641 \u0641\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0634\u0631\u0627\u0641 \u0648\u0647\u0630\u0647\n \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0630\u064a \u0642\u062f \u0631\u0627\u064a\u0646\u0627\u0647\u0627 \u0648\u0631\u062a\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0647\u0627 \u0648\u0647\u0648 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0628\u062a\u062f\u0627\u0621 \u0641\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0632\u0644\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0632\u0643\u0627\u0645\u064a\u0647\n \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u0627\u0633\n\n _Trans._ \u2018I teach in this discourse of mine concerning the animal\n power, the vital power, and the natural power, but we will here\n call all man\u2019s bodily functions by one name. There is a saying that\n the noblest of the functions is breathing, next the pulse, and\n lastly the senses. Of the senses, the noblest is sight, which is\n followed by hearing. Following on the senses is the appetite for\n food and drink, after it being speech and then the mind; I mean\n that which contains the reason and the intellect. Next comes the\n [?] allocation of [the various powers to] the other parts of the\n body according to the customary manner. This arrangement in order\n of nobility is only according to the requirements of life or [?]\n health.\n\n \u2018You will recognize that \u201cnature\u201d is an equivocal term which can\n be used in many meanings. [One of these meanings,] for example, is\n \u201cthe motive power of animals\u201d. So, too, is \u201cnatural\u201d.\n\n [??...] \u2018and that which is nobler. And you will retain the noblest\n of the noble [functions]. And these causes which we have noticed\n we have set down in their order; and the beginning is concerning\n catarrhal discharges from the head.\u2019\n\nCompare with this the real text of Maimonides:[376]\n\n \u05e7\u05d3 \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05d8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d5\u05d9\u05f3 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e1\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05d9\u05f3 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05d9\u05f3 \u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4.\u200f\u200e\n \u05d5\u05dc\u05e0\u05e4\u05e1 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05df \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e6\u05d8\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7 \u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d0\u05e4\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e0\u05e1\u05d0\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e4\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc\n \u05d0\u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4 [\u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e4\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05ea\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e0\u05d1\u05d8[377]] \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d7\u05e1\u05d0\u05e1.\u200f\u200e\n \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05d0\u05e1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d1\u05e6\u05e8. \u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05e1\u05de\u05e2 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e1\u05d0\u05e1 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d8\u05e2\u05d0\u05dd\n \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d1. \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d0\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05db\u05dc\u05d0\u05dd. \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d0\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05d9\u05d6. \u05d0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05ea\u05db\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc\n \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05db\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d0\u05dc\u05da \u05d7\u05d3\u05db\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e2\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05ea\u05d0\u05d3\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e8\u05d8\u05d1\u05d4\u202a(sic)[378]\u202c\n \u05e4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d0\u05e0\u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e1\u05d1 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05ea\u05de\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4\u05d0\u05f4\n \u05d5\u05d1\u05e2\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 \u05e4\u05dc\u05ea\u05e2\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1\u05dd \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05e8\u05da \u05d9\u05e7\u05d0\u05dc \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\n \u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05e8\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05df \u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d4 \u05ea\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05df \u05d0\u05dc\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05df\n \u05e4\u05d0\u05e0\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05d8\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9 \u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9 . . . . . .\u200f\u200e\n \u05e4\u05d0\u05df \u05d2\u05dc\u05d1\u05ea \u05e2\u05df \u05d3\u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05d3\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05d5\u05ea\u05de\u05e1\u05db\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3 \u05e4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05e3\n .\u05d5\u05d1\u05d7\u05e1\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d3\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05ea\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc\u05de\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d7\u05f3\n\n \u2018Thou knowest the opinion of the physicians [concerning] animal\n power, vital power, and natural power. But it is my intention\n here to call all the functions of man\u2019s body by the one name of\n \u201cbodily functions\u201d. [The noblest of the functions is breathing,\n next the pulse,[377]] and lastly the senses. Of the senses, the\n noblest is sight, which is followed by hearing. Following on the\n senses is the appetite for food and drink, after it being speech\n and then the mind, by which I mean the thoughts and the intellect.\n Next comes the motion of the other parts of the body according to\n their customary manner. This arrangement in order of nobility is\n only according to the requirements of life or the health of its\n faculties.\n\n \u2018From this preface you will recognize that \u201cnature\u201d is an equivocal\n term which can be used in many meanings. One of these meanings [for\n example] is \u201cthe motive power in the bodies of animals\u201d which the\n physicians call \u201cnature\u201d too.... And if you discover this, you will\n exchange that which is nobler and retain that which is noblest. By\n means of this process of arrangement, a disease can be recognized,\u2019\n &c.\n\nThis introduction was added when the folios stood in a state of\ndisorder different from their present one. The catchword at the bottom\nof the page [\u0648\u0647\u0630\u0627 = and this] points forward to the title already\nmentioned,[379] which appears on folio thirty-nine of the present\narrangement. The text below this title is part of the chapter on\ndischarges and catarrh, so that the folio once followed immediately on\nthe introduction, being then, too, out of its proper place.\n\nThe last page, written in the same hand as the introduction, bears a\npiece of some unidentified work and a colophon which reads:\n\n \u0648\u0642\u062f \u062a\u0645 \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0634\u0631\u064a\u0641 \u062a\u0627\u0644\u064a\u0641 \u0645\u0648\u0633\u0649 \u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0645\u064a\u0645\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0637\u0628\u0649\n \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0631\u0627\u064a\u0644\u0649 \u0631\u062d\u0645\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0645\u0645\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0641 \u0648\u062c\u0631\u0628 \u0647\u0630\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0628\u0627\u0631\u0643 \u0648\u0639\u062f\u062f \u0641\u0635\u0648\u0644\u0647\n \u0627\u0645\u0631\u0627\u0636 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u062f\u0646 \u0645\u0645\u0627 \u0631\u062a\u0628\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0648\u0636\u0627\u0639\u0647 (_sic_)\u0645\u0627\u0626\u0629 \u0648\u0633\u062a \u0641\u0635\u0648\u0644 \u0644\u0644\u062c\u0645\u064a\u0639\n \u0633\u0628\u0639 \u0645\u0627\u0644\u0629 \u0648\u062e\u0645\u0633\u0629 \u0648\u0633\u062a\u064a\u0646 (_sic_)\u0666\u0665\u0662\u0667 \u062a\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0641\u0649 \u0633\u0646\u0629\n\n \u2018This noble book is finished; the composition of M\u00fbsa ibn Maim\u00fbn\n the Cordovan, the Israelite, to whom God be gracious. This blessed\n book is part of that which he composed and tested. The number of\n its chapters is 106, dealing with all the diseases of the body,\n which he arranged in their proper order.\n\n \u2018The book was completed in the year 765.\u2019[380]\n\nThe number 106, which according to the colophon is the number of\nchapters in the book, is really the number of titles in the MS. written\nin large hand. Fragments of many chapters whose titles are lost still\nremain in it however, while many of the chapters that have preserved\ntheir titles are no longer complete.\n\nAgain it may be pointed out that all the known medical works of\nMaimonides were written in Arabic and therefore did not need to be\ntranslated into that language as the Bodleian MS. claims to have been.\nThe spurious title-page thus further betrays itself by saying that this\nwork was translated from _Hebrew_.\n\nFinally, the identification of the real contents of the Paris MS.\ndisposes of the last foundation of the idea that Maimonides wrote any\ncompendium of medicine known as \u202b\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0644\u0627\u0645\u0627\u062a\u202c (_Tractatus de\nCausis et Indiciis Morborum_), and clears up the confusion caused by\nthe faulty entries in the Paris and Bodleian catalogues.\n\n\n\n\n SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY AND LOGICAL PROOF\n\n By F. C. S. Schiller\n\n\n\u00a7\u00a01. Among the obstacles to scientific progress a high place must\ncertainly be assigned to the analysis of scientific procedure which\nLogic has provided. This analysis has not only been inadequate in\nitself, but has set itself a mistaken aim. It has not tried to describe\nthe methods by which the sciences have actually advanced, and to\nextract from their experience the logical rules which might be used to\nregulate scientific progress, but has treated scientific discoveries\nalmost entirely as illustrations of a preconceived ideal of proof,\nand so has freely rearranged the actual procedure in accordance with\nits prejudices. For the order of discovery there has been substituted\nan order of \u2018proof\u2019, and this substitution has been justified by the\nassumption that if discovery had taken the ideally best course, it\nwould have coincided with the process of proof. It followed, of course,\nthat the same logic would do for both, and that this logic was already\nin existence.\n\nThe damage thus inflicted upon Science was twofold. Not only were the\nlogicians given a plausible excuse for persisting in their profound\nmisapprehension of scientific inquiry and rendered incapable of giving\nany help or guidance in the solution of actual problems, but, what was\nmuch worse, the scientists themselves were misled about the nature of\ntheir operations.\n\nThe precise value of the service which a correct logical analysis\nof its procedure might have rendered to Science is perhaps open to\ndispute, though it must surely be beneficial to operate consciously,\nand with a full understanding of their nature, the methods which have\nbeen hit upon empirically; but even if logicians have commonly been\ntoo unfamiliar with the details of scientific problems to offer much\npractical advice, it would be difficult to overrate the mischiefs which\nmust have resulted from referring scientists to an incorrect analysis\nof their actual procedures. For the attempt to justify by such a false\nideal what they had actually done was bound to divert their attention\nfrom the methods that were actually effective and fruitful to others\nwhich were impracticable and sterile, to waste energy upon false aims\nand impossible ideals, and so to hamper scientists fatally in the\nexercise of their scientific rights and powers.\n\nHence it is not too much to say that the more deference men of science\nhave paid to Logic, the worse it has been for the scientific value of\ntheir reasoning, while the less they have troubled to know about the\ntheory of Science, the better it has been for their practice.\n\nFortunately for the world, however, the great men of science have\nusually been kept in salutary ignorance of the logical tradition\nand left to their own devices, by the accident that the historical\norganization of academic studies nearly everywhere confined \u2018logic\u2019\nto the literary curriculum. Nevertheless, the moral of this situation\nis not that it is right for science to neglect logic and for logic to\ndespise science, but that science should appeal from logic as it is to\nlogic as it ought to be, and should insist on being provided with a\n_reformed_ logic. For surely if a scientific education is to be more\nthan a narrow and technical specialty, and is to exert a \u2018liberalizing\u2019\nand broadening effect on the mind, it _ought_ to include a study of\nscientific method in its generality and a certain understanding of\nthe intellectual instruments by which all others are operated and\nconstructed.\n\nThe whole evidence for these contentions it will not, of course, be\npossible to marshal within the limits of this essay, but the systematic\ncriticism to which the whole traditional logic has been subjected\nin my _Formal Logic_[381] may perhaps absolve me from the duty of\nsubstantiating them exhaustively. It may suffice to indicate the extent\nof the scientific grievance against \u2018logic\u2019 by drawing up a list of\nproblems in the logic of science which the traditional logic has\nmisconceived, and then to select for fuller treatment a palmary example\nof the radical discrepancy between the two.\n\nThe traditional logic may be convicted of having gravely\nmisrepresented, (1) the value of classification and the formation\nof classes, scientific processes of which the real logic was only\nrevealed by the Darwinian theory, (2) the function of definition, (3)\nthe importance of analogy, (4) of hypothesis and (5) of fictions, (6)\nthe incomplete dependence of scientific results on the \u2018principles\u2019 by\nwhich they are (apparently) obtained, (7) the formation of scientific\n\u2018law\u2019 and its relation to its \u2018cases\u2019, (8) the nature of causal\nanalysis. Other important features of scientific procedure cannot\nbe said to have been recognized at all, e.g. (9) the problem of\ndetermining what is _relevant_ to an inquiry and what practically must\nbe, and safely may be, excluded, (10) the methods and justification of\n_selection_, (11) the essentially _experimental_ nature of all thought\nand consequent inevitableness of _risk_, (12) the necessity of so\nconceiving \u2018truth\u2019 and \u2018error\u2019 that it is possible to _discriminate_\nbetween them, and (13) the need for an inquiry into _meaning_ and into\nthe conditions of its communication.\n\n\nI\n\n\u00a7\u00a02. The most instructive, however, of the discrepancies between\n\u2018logic\u2019 and scientific procedure will appear if we compare the logical\nnotion of _proof_ with the scientific process of _discovery_, and\nexamine how far it can afford any means of regulating, stimulating, or\neven apprehending the latter. We shall find that the logical theory of\n\u2018proof\u2019 has no bearing on the scientific process of discovery, is not\nrelated to what the sciences call proof, and can only have a paralysing\ninfluence on any scientific activities which try to model themselves\nupon it. On the other hand, the study of the process of discovery will\npoint to an important correction in the notion of logic.\n\n\u00a7\u00a03. The scientific uselessness of the traditional logic should not,\nhowever, excite surprise. For what reason was there to expect that\nthe theory of proof should turn out to be adequate, or even relevant,\nto scientific procedure? It had sprung from a totally different\ninterest, proceeded on different assumptions, and aimed at different\nends. It did not spring from interest in the exploration of nature,\nand did not aim at its prediction and control. Nor did it presuppose\nan incomplete system of knowledge which it was desired to extend and\nimprove. It originated in a very special context, from the social need\nof regulating the practice of dialectical debate in the Greek schools,\nassemblies, and law-courts. It was necessary to draw up rules for\ndetermining which side had won, and which of the points that had been\nscored were good.\n\nThese were the aims Greek logic set itself, and successfully achieved.\nBut the impress of this origin remains stamped all over it, and the\naccounts given of logical proof ever since have retained essential\nfeatures of Greek dialectics.\n\nThus it was assumed that science could start from principles, as\nindisputable as are the current meanings of words in a dialectical\ndebate, and the end of the whole theory of proof was always conceived\nas being to secure the conviction (\u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) of one party to a dispute,\nwho was to be definitely crushed by the triumphant cogency of a\nsyllogistic demonstration, while the more real and fruitful analogy\nbetween scientific inquiry and debate, viz. that _there is always\nanother side_, to which also it is well to listen, was unfortunately\nobscured by Aristotle\u2019s discovery of the syllogistic form and its show\nof conclusiveness. But for the purpose of apprehending scientific\nprocedure the syllogism is a snare: by putting scientific reasoning\ninto syllogisms, the difference between the true and the false\nviews is made to appear qualitative and absolute, instead of being\na quantitative question of more or less of scientific value. Thus\ndogmatism is fostered at the expense of progressiveness, and the\nmistake is committed of approaching the discovery of truth in a party\nspirit. Hence its dialectical origin has become _fons et origo malorum_\nfor logic.\n\n\u00a7\u00a04. It is true that this mistake is very old, and has grown deeply\ninto the fabric of logic. For Aristotle had no sooner worked out the\nclassic formulation of the rules of dialectical proof than he proceeded\nto extend their scope by applying them to the theory of science, in\nthe _Posterior Analytics_. His instinct in so doing was sound enough;\nfor there is no better verification of a theory than its capacity to\nbear extension to analogous cases. And of course if this extension had\nbeen successful, it would have supported the belief that the theory of\ndiscovery could profitably be amalgamated with that of proof.\n\nUnfortunately, however, the verification only seemed to be successful.\nAristotle chose to exemplify his theory of scientific proof from the\nmathematical sciences. His choice was natural enough, because they\nwere the only sciences which had reached any considerable development\nin his day, and they had, moreover, an apparent necessity and\nuniversality and a fascinating appearance of exactness. But he had\nunwittingly chosen the most difficult and deceptive exemplification\nof scientific procedure. Because the mathematical sciences were in a\nrelatively advanced condition they seemed to lend themselves to his\ndesign. He could there find terms whose meaning, and principles whose\ntruth, was no longer in dispute. They could in consequence be argued\nfrom with as much assurance as debaters could assume the recognized\nmeanings of words. And the fact that results seemed to follow from\nmathematical definitions and premisses which were not merely verbal,\nshed a delusive glory on the forms of dialectical proof by which they\nhad been reached. Hence it easily escaped notice that the logical\nsuperiority of mathematics was an achievement, not a datum. Just\nbecause the mathematical sciences were very ancient, their origins had\nbeen forgotten, and with them the tentative gropings which had first\nselected, and subsequently confirmed, their principles. They had become\nimmediately certain and \u2018self-evident\u2019, and no one was disposed to\ndispute them. On this psychological fact the whole theory of logical\nproof was erected.\n\nAgain, it was natural to suppose that the true nature of scientific\nknowing must be revealed in its most perfect specimens: no one stopped\nto reflect that even so the real difficulties of making a science are\nmore keenly felt and more easily seen in the nascent stage than in one\nwhich has victoriously overcome them, and has rewritten its history in\nthe assurance of its prosperous issue.\n\nLastly, the subtle ambiguity which pervades all mathematical reasoning,\naccording as its terms are taken as _pure_ or as applied, was\noverlooked entirely--with the disastrous result that the universality,\ncertainty, and exactness pertaining (hypothetically) to the ideal\ncreations of \u2018pure\u2019 mathematics were erroneously transferred to their\n\u2018applied\u2019 counterparts. To this day logicians are found to argue\nthat real space is homogeneous because it is convenient in Euclidean\ngeometry to abstract from the multitudinous deformations to which\nbodies moving through it are subjected, and to leave them to be treated\nby physics;[382] nor are they aware of any lack of \u2018exactness\u2019 and\ndiscrimination when they identify the ideal triangle with the figures\nthey draw on the blackboard.\n\n\u00a7\u00a05. After its apparent success in analysing mathematical procedure\nthere was no more disputing the supremacy of the theory of \u2018proof\u2019.\nThe facts that its field of application was soon found to be much\nnarrower than that of science, and that it failed egregiously to apply\nto the procedures of the (openly) empirical sciences, and _a fortiori_\ncould not justify them, if they were noticed at all, were held merely\nto show that these sciences stood on a low level of thought, which\nfrom the loftier standpoint of logic could be contemplated only with\ncontempt; if they required help and got none, so much the worse for\nthem. Accordingly the whole theory of science was so interpreted,\nand the whole of logic was so constructed, as to lead up to the\nideal of demonstrative science, which in its turn rested on a false\nanalogy which assimilated it to the dialectics of \u2018proof\u2019. Does not\nthis mistake go far to account for the neglect of experience and the\nunprogressiveness of science for nearly 2,000 years after Aristotle?\n\n\u00a7\u00a06. Yet the deplorable consequences of this error should not render us\nunjust. The influence of Aristotelian logic on the theory of science\nwas natural, and in a sense deserved. For Aristotelian logic is perhaps\nthe mightiest discovery any man has achieved single-handed. Its\nmight is sufficiently attested by the length of its reign. Euclidean\ngeometry alone is comparable with it, and Euclid owed far more to his\npredecessors than Aristotle. Moreover, the Aristotelian logic may be\nsaid to have achieved its purpose. It was able to regulate dialectical\ndiscussion. The syllogism did determine whether a disputant had proved\nhis case, and for any one who had accepted its assumptions its decision\nwas final, while even its severest critics had to admit that it was an\nindisputable fact, the interpretation of which was a real problem.\n\nUnfortunately, there is not yet any agreement among logicians about\nthe solution of this problem. Aristotle\u2019s own analysis did not go back\nfar enough: he stopped short at the _Dictum de Omni_ and the reduction\nof syllogisms in the second and third figures to the first. He did\nnot penetrate to the ultimate assumptions which were implied in the\ndialectical purpose and social function of the syllogism. But the truth\nis that syllogistic reasoning presupposes quite a number of conventions\nwhich Aristotle did not state, and which can hardly be said to have\nbeen adequately recognized since.\n\n\u00a7\u00a07. (1) The first of these may be called the _Fixity of Terms_.\nSyllogistic reasoning manifestly depends on the assumption that the\nterms occurring in it have meanings sufficiently stable to stand\ntransplantation from one context to another; for only so can they\nestablish connexions between one context and another. Thus a syllogism\nin _Barbara_ argues that because _all M is P_ and _all S is M, all S\nmust be P_. But it can do this \u2018validly\u2019 only if _M_, its middle term,\nremains immutably itself, and is the same in both premisses. Doubt,\ndispute, or confute this assumption, and the cogency of the syllogism\nas a form of \u2018proof\u2019 is overthrown at once. If the sense in which _M is\nP_ is not the same as that in which _S is M_, the syllogism breaks in\ntwo, and its conclusion becomes precarious. Raise the question of how\nfar reality conforms to this assumption, and you get at once a subtle\nproblem of the applicability of the syllogistic form to the case in\nhand, which is precisely analogous to the question whether a theorem\nof pure mathematics is applicable to the behaviour of a real thing. In\neither case the cogency of the \u2018proof\u2019 which establishes the conclusion\nis impaired and ceases to be unconditional. The conclusion of a \u2018valid\u2019\nsyllogism will only follow _if_ the middle term can be known to be\nunambiguous, and if the objects designated by the terms do not change\nrapidly enough to defeat the inference. And that this is the case can\nusually be ascertained only by actual experience. The conclusion,\ntherefore, cannot be simply deduced; it has actually to _come true_,\nbefore we can be sure that the reasoning _was_ sound. Absolutely _a\npriori_ proof thus becomes impossible, if the assumption of the fixity\nof terms is contested: all proof becomes, in a sense, empirical.\n\nNevertheless, experience shows that the fixity of terms, though not a\n\u2018fact\u2019, is _a valid \u2018fiction\u2019_: in ordinary discussion the terms may\nusually be taken as fixed enough to render valid syllogisms common. An\nordinary debate proceeds upon the assumption that the meaning of the\nterms involved is fixed, and cannot be varied arbitrarily. To science,\nhowever, this assumption does not apply without restriction. In a\nprogressive science the meaning of terms often develops so rapidly that\nsuch verbal reasoning does _not_ suffice. Hence the mere occurrence of\nverbal contradictions in a scientific reasoning is no proof that the\nargument is unsound. It may show merely that its terms are _growing_.\n\nIt should be observed further that this same assumption is implied in\nthe fundamental \u2018laws of thought\u2019 on which the traditional logic rests.\nIndeed, the notorious \u2018Law of Identity\u2019 seems to be merely another\nstatement of it. It is usually formulated as \u2018_A is A_\u2019, but in its\nactual logical use it is really the assumption that \u2018everything _is_\nwhat it is called\u2019. It is, of course, anything but self-evident that\n\u2018_A_\u2019 _is A_, but _unless_ the _S_, _M_, and _P_ of the syllogism are\n_rightly_ so called, the syllogism will not hold. Similarly, the Law\nof Contradiction collapses at once if the terms to which it is applied\nare allowed to change. The inability of \u2018_A_\u2019 both to be _B_ and not to\nbe _B_ vanishes if \u2018_A_\u2019 is not fixed and may change its habits. And of\ncourse the real things known to science all change, and are fixed only\nby a fiction. Hence every application of the logical convention to real\nthings may be challenged: it involves a fiction and takes a risk, and\nboth of these may be bad. But the traditional logic ignores both the\nrisk and the fiction and the lack of cogency in its attitude.\n\n\u00a7\u00a08. (2) It is a further presupposition of the syllogism that the\nmeaning of its terms is _known_. When a discussion is begun the\nparties to it are supposed to understand each other, and not to have\nfirst to find out and form the meaning of the terms they use. This\nassumption also is roughly true in ordinary debate, and its convenience\nis manifest. If things are rightly named, and if this feat has been\naccomplished once for all--presumably by Adam and Eve before they were\nturned out of Paradise for trying to know too much--we shall escape\nmany of the most trying difficulties of scientific inquiry. We need\nno longer trouble whether the best names have been given, and whether\na name good for one purpose is equally good for another, nor need\nwe inquire whether our names may not unite what is alien on account\nof a superficial likeness, or separate what is akin on account of a\nsuperficial difference.\n\nIn science, on the other hand, the assumption that we know what\nmeanings our terms can convey is not made as a matter of course. We may\nbegin with roughly labelling objects of interest, and then inquiries\nmay be conducted into, e.g., \u2018electricity\u2019, \u2018elements\u2019, \u2018life\u2019,\n\u2018species\u2019, &c., in the hope of settling what these terms _shall_ mean,\nand of finding out _more_ about their meaning, and without making the\nassumption that whatever new facts are discovered about them must\nconform to our preconceptions and confirm our nomenclature. Thus\nto a man of science it will not be cogent to argue that because an\n\u2018element\u2019 is (by definition) an ultimate form of matter which cannot\nbe broken up, and \u2018radium\u2019 breaks up, \u2018radium\u2019 is not an \u2018element\u2019,\nor that because \u2018species\u2019 are eternal forms, and the Darwinian theory\nclaims that they are not immutable, it can be dismissed as involving\nthe \u2018contradiction\u2019 that a \u2018species\u2019 is not a species. Thus the best\nsyllogisms lose their cogency so soon as a question is raised whether\nthe verbal identity of their terms is an adequate guarantee of the\nreal identity of the things they are applied to.\n\n\u00a7\u00a09. (3) It is a further presupposition of the logician\u2019s conception of\n\u2018proof\u2019 that absolute truths exist, and that in the ideal demonstration\nthey form the premisses from which the conclusion follows. This\npresupposition is not stated, and is not implied in the form of the\nsyllogism. For a syllogism is no less \u2018valid\u2019 if its premisses are\ntrue only hypothetically, and not absolutely. Indeed, it is not\nthought to impair the \u2018validity\u2019 of a syllogism that its premisses\nshould be utterly false. At any rate we can _reason_ quite as well\nwith hypotheses and probabilities as with absolute truths, and this\nis in fact what we usually do, whether or not we are aware that our\npremisses are conditional and hypothetical. This ordinary practice,\nhowever, is resented by the traditional logic. For if our premisses are\nonly hypothetically true, how can they lead to conclusions which can\nbe declared absolutely true? And if our conclusions are not absolutely\ntrue, how can they be certain? Are they not bound to remain infected\nwith the doubts which beset their premisses?[383] As we value the\ncertainty of our conclusions, therefore, absolutely true and certain\npremisses must be procured. If they cannot be procured, even the best\nformal proofs will remain hypothetical, and all truth will become\ndependent on experience. For if nothing is true absolutely, and every\ntruth has originated humbly in a guess that has grown into a successful\nhypothesis, it can always be suggested that after all it may benefit by\na little more verification. It may be true enough psychologically and\nfor practical purposes, but it does not realize the ideal of \u2018logical\ncertainty\u2019.\n\n\u00a7\u00a010. This ideal Logic has formulated from the first. Aristotle\nalready was not content with merely analysing the form of reasoning;\nhe aspired to formulate the norm of scientific demonstration. The\n\u2018demonstrative syllogism\u2019, which he held to be the form of truly\nscientific reasoning, differs from the formal syllogism in two\nessential respects. Its premisses are absolutely true, and its middle\nterm states the real \u2018cause\u2019, which connects its terms and is not\nmerely a _ratio cognoscendi_. The reasoning proceeds, therefore, from\npremisses which are unambiguous, true, and certain, i.e. _necessarily_\ntrue and _absolutely_ certain. Nor does the conclusion lose any of this\nexcellence. Logic puts on a fine air of modesty, and merely claims\nthat the syllogistic form is a guarantee that no truth can be _lost_\non the way from the premisses to the conclusion in a \u2018valid\u2019 argument.\nIf, therefore, our thought is properly arranged, our conclusion will be\nas true and certain as were its premisses, and no man will be able to\ngainsay it. It is the great beauty and merit of the syllogistic form\nthat it is an arrangement which gives us this guarantee.\n\nIt was natural, therefore, that throughout the history of logic\nenormous importance should be attached to the acquisition of\nunquestionable starting-points. For the possession of \u2018valid forms\u2019 was\nnot enough. It only insured against loss of truth, it did not provide\nfor its acquisition. It seemed, however, to imply that truth could only\nbe generated out of truth, and handed down from the premisses to the\nconclusion. Hence the insistent demand for assured starting-points,\nself-evident \u2018principles\u2019, which the infallible method of syllogistic\ndeduction might conduct to equally certain conclusions.\n\nIn reality, however, this demand for certainty was extra-logical: it\nis not required for the purpose of analysing reasoning. For it is\njust as easy to reason from doubtful and probable premisses as from\ncertainties, nor need the doubt in the reasoner\u2019s mind affect the\nform of the reasoning. If, however, there is an imperative desire for\ncertainty, it must be somehow gratified by logic. And there seemed to\nbe no way of doing so except by ascribing absolute truth and certainty\nto the initial principles of science.\n\nOf course it was covertly assumed that certainty could only be reached\nby _starting_ from certainty, and that no possibility of a growth of\nassurance in the progress of the reasoning could be entertained. In a\nsense this assumption was correct (cf. \u00a7\u00a7\u00a027, 28), because it is true\nthat the gradual verification of scientific truths does not render them\nabsolute; but it led to neglect of all methods which appeared to start\nwith premisses initially doubtful and hardening into certainties by\ngradual confirmation. No doubt it was not strictly impossible to reason\nfrom premisses not known to be true, but such reasoning was despised\nas \u2018dialectical\u2019, and no inquiry was made into the frequency of its\noccurrence in actual science. Why, then, waste time upon so unworthy\na procedure, instead of fixing one\u2019s whole attention upon the truly\nlogical ideal, the absolute proof of absolute truth? Let us maintain,\nrather, the old Aristotelian[384] conviction that the truly scientific\nsyllogism proceeds from premisses that are true and underivative\n(because \u2018self-evident\u2019) and inerrant, and demonstrates its conclusion\nwith ineluctable necessity! Thus the attainment of _absolute truth_\nwas unobtrusively smuggled in as the aim of reasoning, and became an\nintegral feature of the ideal of \u2018demonstration\u2019.\n\n\u00a7\u00a011. From the standpoint of the scientific inquirer, however, this\nwhole theory of proof is open to the gravest objections. He finds\nfirst that it is impracticable, being composed throughout of counsels\nof perfection with which he cannot comply, and then that, even if he\ncould, they would be perfectly useless, and destructive of his aims.\n\n(1) It strikes him at once that the Fixity of Terms is an obvious\n_fiction_. He will of course be aware, from his scientific experience,\nthat fictions have their uses and are often indispensable; but he will\nknow also that not all fictions are useful, and that the adoption of a\nfiction has in each case to be justified by its usefulness. Moreover,\nit is not so much its immediate and prospective use which justifies it,\nthough this yields the usual motive for its adoption, as the ulterior\nuses ascertained _ex post facto_ by experience.\n\nHe will ask, therefore, for evidence that an _absolute_ fixity of terms\nis the vital necessity for logic it is declared to be. He will admit,\nof course, the familiar arguments for a certain _stability_ of meanings\nwhich have come down from the days of Plato, but he will suggest that\na _relative_ fixity of terms is quite sufficient to content them. He\nwill point out that in a progressive science any absolute fixity in its\nterms is precluded by the very progress of the science. For the terms\nin use must somehow manage to convey the _growing_ knowledge they are\nemployed to \u2018fix\u2019. The term \u2018gas\u2019, for example, must not be tied down\nto the meaning Van Helmont desired to convey when he invented it; it\nmust incorporate all that physics has discovered about \u2018gases\u2019 ever\nsince. Similarly, when Darwinism transforms the notion of \u2018species\u2019,\nand the discovery of radio-activity that of \u2018atom\u2019, these developments\nof meaning must be recognized as perfectly proper. To object to\nthese conceptions as modern science uses them, on the ground that,\nbecause to Plato and Aristotle species were eternal and immutable,\na \u2018species\u2019 that changes cannot be truly a species, or that because\nan \u2018atom\u2019 is etymologically \u2018indivisible\u2019, it becomes an impossible\nself-contradiction when it is made up out of \u2018electrons\u2019, will seem to\nhim to reveal only the fatuous pedantry of an utterly unscientific mind.\n\n\u00a7\u00a012. (2) If he is acquainted with psychology, he will perceive also\nthat the fiction of the fixity of terms is subject to a further\nrestriction. It is not only in science as such--for all sciences\nmust be conceived as progressive--that the fixity of terms cannot\nbe made absolute: a real fixity is strictly inconceivable for and\nin every human mind. For every term that is actually used to convey\na meaning must be held to form part of a _new_ truth,[385] i.e.\nof a truth that was not previously in being. It is not a question\nof principle whether the truth is supposed to be new only to the\nperson to whom it is addressed, or claims to be new to all, i.e. to\nscience. For no judgement would be made unless it had something new\nto say.[386] Hence _every real judgement_, as opposed to the verbal\nformulas which are called judgements in the logic-books, _more or\nless modifies the meaning of its terms_. If it succeeds in being a\nreal judgement and a new truth, it establishes a new and previously\nunknown relation between its subject and its predicate. \u2018_S_\u2019 is\nhenceforth an _S_-which-can-have-_P_-predicated-of-it, and \u2018_P_\u2019\na _P_-which-can-be-predicated-of-_S_. Thus both the psychological\nassociations and the logical associates of _S_ and _P_ are changed.\nThat logicians should not have noticed so obvious a fact can be\nattributed only to their inveterate habit of not using in their\nillustrations real judgements intended to cope with actual problems,\nbut operating with their verbal skeletons, which are not being used by\nany one to convey his meaning, and so do not have any _actual_ meaning.\n\nClearly, then, no science can interpret the fixity of terms quite\nliterally. Or rather, it can only interpret it literally--as a matter\nof the literal integrity of the _words_ that _may_ convey a meaning.\nBut in a scientific inquiry the convention of formal logic must be\nreversed; the fixity of terms must be _understood_ not to be absolute,\nbut to be merely _ad hoc_ and sufficient to convey a definite meaning,\nwhich it is desired to develop. Accordingly it must always be assumed\nthat the results of an inquiry are to modify its terms, and that it is\npermissible, and indeed inevitable, to develop their meaning, so long\nas they remain capable of expressing and conveying the new truth. We\nmust come to every inquiry with a willingness to learn and to expand\nour terms. The Fixity of Terms, as it is tacitly presupposed in the\ntraditional logic, is a scientific blunder of the gravest kind.\n\n\u00a7\u00a013. (3) To renounce it, however, entails further consequences. It\nappears to undermine the whole notion of _formal validity_. For if we\nadmit in principle that the meaning of terms depends vitally on that\nof the judgement in which they occur, how can we continue to rely\nabsolutely on the mere verbal identity of its terms to hold together a\nsyllogism? In any syllogism the middle term, _M_, may have one shade of\nmeaning in relation to _P_, another in relation to _S_. It may be quite\nright to call _M_ _P_ in one connexion, and to call _S_ _M_ in another;\nand yet, when the two assertions are put together, they may lead to\na conclusion which is an error or an absurdity. The man who (in his\nlaboratory) would rightly declare that \u2018all salt is soluble in water\u2019\nand (at his dinner table) as properly hold that \u2018all Cerebos is salt\u2019,\ncould not combine these assertions to draw the conclusion that \u2018all\nCerebos is soluble in water\u2019, without finding that the facts confuted\nhis anticipation.\n\nNo doubt, when this had happened, he might explain it, _ex post facto_\n(if he knew logic), by alleging a hidden \u2018ambiguity of the middle\nterm\u2019. We need not here discuss whether it is fair to treat as an\ninherent ambiguity what is really a juxtaposition of shades of meaning\nwhich were relative to different purposes and right in their original\ncontexts, thus manufacturing a fallacy by selecting the premisses: the\nimportant thing is that the logician should be driven to admit that\n_any_ middle term may become ambiguous in this way when a syllogism is\nconstructed, and that this completely stultifies his assumption that\nthe _verbal_ identity of the middle guarantees the _real_ identity of\nthe objects to which it refers.[387] If we call two things, which are\nand must be different if they are to be two, both \u2018_M_\u2019, we necessarily\ntake the risk that the differences are irrelevant for the purpose\nof our argument. We may legitimately assume this, but if we do, our\nhypothesis has to be confirmed in fact; it is na\u00efve to think that the\nverbal identity of the terms is quite enough. If, then, actual identity\ncannot be absolutely guaranteed, if there is _always_ a possibility\nthat the same term when put into a syllogism and used in reasoning may\ndevelop an ambiguity and become effectively two, it is evident that no\namount of formal validity will safeguard the truth of a conclusion,\neven when the premisses are in themselves severally true. The\nsyllogistic form is convicted of _losing_ truth which it started from,\nand this is the very thing it boasted it could never do. Moreover,\nits coercive \u2018cogency\u2019 is exploded: whoever wishes to deny a \u2018valid\u2019\nconclusion after admitting its premisses, has merely to suggest that by\nputting the premisses together a fatal ambiguity has been generated in\nthe middle term.\n\n\u00a7\u00a014. (4) The assumption that everything has been named rightly, and\nis what it is called, will scarcely commend itself to the scientific\nresearcher. He will know from much painful experience that language\nonly embodies the knowledge which has been acquired up to date, and too\noften is only a compendium of popular errors. Hence in any research\nwhich really breaks new ground the existing terminology will always\nprove inadequate, and new technical terms have usually to be devised\nin order to embody the new knowledge. The reason is obvious. _Ex\nhypothesi_ we are inquiring _farther_ into the subject, because our\nknowledge is felt to be insufficient. Accordingly the probable defects\nof the terminology we are initially forced to use must be borne in\nmind: we may expect it to omit what is unknown, to misdescribe and\nto classify wrongly what is partially known, putting together what\ndoes not belong together and separating what does, emphasizing the\nunimportant and slurring over the important, and generally failing to\nprovide the mind with words that give it a real apprehension of the\nobjects under inquiry. Hence the tacit assumption of Aristotelian logic\nthat the terms reasoned with are fully known, that adequate notions are\nalready extant, that truth has merely to be _disentangled_ by a verbal\ncriticism of existing opinions, and has not to be discovered outright,\nis false; nor can any argument from a verbal identity be taken as final.\n\n\u00a7\u00a015. (5) But of all the assumptions lurking in the theory of proof,\nthe belief that reasoning can and should start from certainty will\nseem the falsest and most pernicious to the man of science. For it\nmeans that we are committed to a search for absolutely certain\npremisses as a preliminary to every inquiry, and proscribes consciously\nhypothetical, i.e. truly experimental, reasoning altogether, or at\nleast condemns it as incapable of leading to certainty. This search,\nhowever, will either be perfunctory and uncritical, if it accepts false\nclaims to certainty; or else vain, if it is conscientious. For every\nattempt to prove a conclusion absolutely demands _two_ absolutely true\npremisses; hence the more we try to prove, the more we have to prove,\nand our search grows the more endless and futile, the longer it is\ncontinued. An immutable basis of absolutely certain truths, therefore,\nfor reasoning to start from, is nowhere to be found. In no science\nis it possible to _start_ with truths that are absolutely certain.\nIn every science the initial \u2018facts\u2019 are doubtful; they are alleged,\nbut not yet approved. They embody only unsystematic observation\nand prescientific experience of the subject, and so are probably\nthe products of inaccurate observation, bad interpretation, false\npreconceptions, and popular superstitions. To acquire any considerable\nscientific value, such material has to be thoroughly revised and\nrefined.\n\nThe validity of methods and the certainty of \u2018principles\u2019 are no more\nassured than the \u2018facts\u2019, initially. Every science has to work out its\nown appropriate methods experimentally; even if it borrows methods\nfrom another, it has to find out how and how far they apply to a new\nsubject. Neither does a science acquire its principles by divine\nrevelation; even if they fell from heaven ready-made, it would insist\non testing the authenticity of the revelation. But philosophers have\nbeen extremely reluctant to admit that the certainty of principles is\na gradual growth: for over 2,000 years they have been endeavouring to\ndiscover some way of securing an infallibility to principles which\nwould render them independent of the working of the sciences which use\nthem. But if their labours have proved anything, it is that no such way\ncan be found.\n\n(_a_) They have recognized many principles as \u2018_self-evident_\u2019, and\nequipped the mind with a variety of \u2018faculties\u2019, expressly invented to\nenable it to apprehend the \u2018self-evident\u2019 inerrantly. But they have not\nbeen able to agree upon a list of self-evident principles,[388] nor\neven to find any truth whose claims to self-evidence have not been\ndenied by competent critics. Nor have they been able to define their\nnotion of \u2018self-evidence\u2019 itself; they cannot discriminate between\nthe sound \u2018logical\u2019 self-evidence, which they conceived to guarantee\ntruth, and its merely \u2018psychological\u2019 \u2018mimic\u2019, which is certainly much\ncommoner, and becomes more intense and extensive the more unsound is\nthe mind that \u2018apprehends\u2019 it.[389] Hence an unprejudiced observer has\nno reason to put the \u2018intuitions\u2019 of philosophers and the \u2018faculties\u2019\nwhich apprehend them on a higher cognitive level than those of women\nor even lunatics. They all impose themselves psychologically; but this\nproves nothing as to their logical value, and science has to test them\njust the same.\n\n(_b_) The principles which are said to be _necessary_ or _logical_\n\u2018_presuppositions_\u2019 all turn out to be hypothetical when they are\nexamined. They are needed, no doubt, to solve the problem in hand, _if_\nthe particular way it is formulated is taken for granted. But if either\nthe order or the formulation of problems is altered, they cease to be\neither \u2018necessary\u2019 or \u2018presuppositions\u2019. For example, the \u2018axiom of\nparallels\u2019, _alias_ \u2018Euclid\u2019s postulate\u2019, is a necessary presupposition\nof geometry, if the existence of parallels is assumed. But if we\nprefer it, we can just as well (with Aristotle) make it our axiomatic\n\u2018presupposition\u2019 that the interior angles of a triangle are equal to\ntwo right angles, and can then deduce the existence of parallels. I.e.\nEuclid might have deduced what he assumed, and assumed what he deduced.\nIf, moreover, we do not desire to construct a Euclidean geometry at\nall, we can deny _both_ presuppositions, and proceed from _alternative_\npostulates, which lead to the various metageometries. The only things,\nin short, which all scientific principles presuppose are the desire to\nconstruct a science, and the desire to construct it in a particular\nway, which is simplest, or easiest, or most systematic, or most in\naccordance with the reigning prejudices. But these desires are the\nvery things which the logician\u2019s account of principles always omits to\nmention.\n\nAgain, the whole of Kant\u2019s scheme of _a priori_ presuppositions in\nthe theory of knowledge rests upon an arbitrary assumption, viz.\nthat mental data are to be conceived as originally discrete and\nare therefore in need of \u2018synthesis\u2019. But it is just as possible\nto conceive an analysis of knowledge which starts from the\n\u2018presupposition\u2019 of a continuum or flux, and proceeds to trace out the\nprinciples by means of which this continuum is broken up into a world\nof apparently distinct things and processes. Nor is it possible to say\nin advance of experience which of such \u2018presuppositions\u2019 is going to be\nmore convenient and more conducive to scientific progress.\n\n(_c_) It demands a high and rare degree of philosophic insight to\nperceive that very many principles are neither certain, necessary,\nnor probable, but simply _methodological_. Whether we think them true\nor not, we adopt them because of their eminent convenience. If they\nturn out to be false, candour compels us to call them _methodological\nfictions_; but they continue in use. Our belief in the trustworthiness\nof memory is a good example. For though we often find that our memory\nhas played us tricks, we continue to accept as true what we \u2018distinctly\nremember\u2019. If no limitations to the truth-claim of such assumptions\nare discovered, enthusiasts will probably insist on promoting them to\nthe rank of indisputable \u2018axioms\u2019, and hail them as absolute truths.\nBut their scientific value is not thereby enhanced, and the cautious\nwill eschew such exaggerations. For there is no real reason why the\nscientific rank of principles should not rest openly and entirely on\ntheir actual services, and why a \u2018methodological assumption\u2019 should\nnot rank higher than a \u2018self-evident truth\u2019. For the latter is at most\na fact of our mental organization which nothing has so far turned up\nin nature to set at naught, and as such a fact it is itself a thing to\nmarvel at rather than an explanation of other things. The scientific\nspirit will always hesitate to acquiesce in the limits which are set\nto inquiry by sheer brute facts, and if the absolute truth of certain\nprinciples were merely an ultimate fact which could neither be impugned\nnor explained, this would go far to make these principles appear\nunintelligible and would be a constant challenge to dispense with them,\nor somehow to evade them. A principle, then, should always be prepared\nto state the reasons a science had for adopting it: only the reasons\nwill appear from the actual working of the science. They will involve\na reference _forward_ to the facts it copes with, not _back_ to higher\nprinciples or to any claim that proves itself by its self-assertion.\n\n(_d_) Indisputable principles, then, are not consonant with the\nspirit of inquiry: it will gladly let them go, if it can attain truth\nand advance knowledge in other ways. It will not shrink even from\nrepudiating the ideal of absolutely true and demonstrated truth, if it\ncan be realized only by sacrificing the progressiveness of science; nor\nwill it be dismayed to find that this ideal is unrealizable. For when\nthe inquirer reflects upon his own procedure, he finds that it points\nto a radically different ideal, and that the existence of absolute\ntruths would only be a hindrance and a restriction upon his endeavour\n(cf. \u00a7\u00a028 (4)).\n\n\nII\n\n\u00a7\u00a016. Before, however, we attempt to delineate the logical ideal of\nthe discoverer, it will be necessary to encounter a serious objection\nwhich protests on principle against such an undertaking, and urges\nthat discovery by its very nature must elude logical treatment. It\nis contended, in the supposed interests of logic, that discovery is\na process so inherently and incurably psychological that no logical\naccount can ever be given of it. Discoveries are windfalls, and come\nas \u2018happy thoughts\u2019 to the gifted geniuses that make them, in a manner\nneither they nor any one else can account for or describe: they are\ntherefore logically fortuitous, and to set forth the ideal of proof by\nwhich the truth of discoveries is tested is all that need, or can, be\nthe concern of logic.\n\nCertainly the great majority of deductive logicians have taken up some\nsuch attitude towards the process of discovery. Aristotle contents\nhimself with a bare mention of \u2018sagacity\u2019 (\u1f00\u03b3\u03c7\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1), which is defined\nas the instantaneous apprehension of the suitable middle term for\nconstructing a demonstrative syllogism.[390] When one recollects the\nweary centuries of painful effort and continual failure which elapsed\nwhile the _\u00e9lite_ of the human race were seeking for clues to, e.g.,\nthe mysteries of disease and of physical happenings, before they hit\nupon the notions of microbes and the mechanical theory, this na\u00efve\nunderestimate of the most difficult and essential of scientific\nprocedures sounds like a mockery. Yet the whole Aristotelian school\npass over the problem as lightly. They all seem to believe that, while\nit is merely low cunning to make a discovery, it is a real proof of\nmental capacity to arrange it \u2018in logical order\u2019 after it has been\nmade, and to show how far short it falls of the logical ideal. Even the\ninductive logicians may be said to have participated in this attitude.\nFor they were not more anxious to propound methods of discovery than\nto contend that their conclusions were just as rigidly proved and just\nas formally valid as those of syllogisms. They did not see that they\nwere thereby accepting the demonstrative ideal of proof and giving away\ntheir own; what they should have shown was that this ideal was utterly\nnugatory, and that their own methods could never conduct to \u2018proof\u2019,\nbut only to something vastly superior.\n\n\u00a7\u00a017. In spite, however, of this wonderful consensus of logicians the\nabove argument depends essentially on a confusion. It has confused\ntwo things which are perfectly distinct, the actual procedure of\nthe individual discoverer, and the generalized description of the\nattitude of mind and procedures of discoverers, as they appear to\nsubsequent logical reflection. Both present problems to the logician,\nbut the problems are not the same. To anticipate the process of actual\ndiscovery may well be left to the prophets; it will transcend the\npowers of logic and indeed of any science, unless it be individual\npsychology, if it exists, or history, if it be a science.[391] It may\nreadily be admitted that anecdotes about the bath which fomented in\nthe mind of Archimedes the idea of specific gravity, and the streets\nof Syracuse through which he ran and cried \u2018_Heureka!_\u2019, or about\nthe apple-tree which shed its fruit upon Newton\u2019s receptive head,\nand stimulated his brain to frame the law of universal gravitation,\nare beneath the dignity of science. Their narration belongs to\nhistory, which can go as deeply into their details as the scale\nof the history and the purpose of the historian demand; but the\nparticular circumstances of a particular discovery may well be treated\nas \u2018accidental\u2019, and be smoothed out of the scientific record. But\nwhy does it follow that no common features can be traced in these\nhistories of discovery, and that there cannot be compiled out of a\nsufficient number of them a generalized account of what appears to be\nthe \u2018essential\u2019, i.e. really relevant, procedure of discoverers, which\nmay serve as a guide and model to subsequent discoverers? Why should\nthis be more difficult than to describe the method of lion-hunting\nfrom the records of lion hunts, or the treatment of a disease from the\nhistory of a number of cases? Indeed, it would seem that the thing has\nbeen done. Any discoverer may reflect upon his own discoveries, and,\nlike Poincar\u00e9,[392] formulate the method he has found successful. And\nif discoverers are not all perfectly unique in their methods, important\nuniformities will probably be found by comparing the methods of a\nnumber of discoverers.\n\nWhy again should it be assumed that the general account thus extracted\nfrom a retrospective study of discoveries must at once coincide with\nthe logical \u2018ideal of proof\u2019? Why should it even point to this, or\nbe related to it otherwise than by contrast? Surely the possibility\nshould be discussed that there are _two_ procedures for logic to\nconsider, of which the one describes how human knowers, starting\nfrom what they believe themselves to know, set about it to fortify\nand extend their knowledge, while the other moves on a superhuman\nplane and describes, with Platonic fervour, how ideal demonstration,\ndescending from absolutely certain principles, moulds into a closed\nand inexpugnable system all the truths which are deducible from these\nand alone intelligible. The two accounts must be distinct, for they\nhave different starting-points and work upon different material. Nor\nneed they ever have any point of contact. For it may well be that human\nknowing never attains to an absolute certainty and a completed system,\nwhile deductive proof never condescends to notice mundane fact.\n\nThis was certainly so in the first rapturous vision of _a priori_\n\u2018proof\u2019 which solaced Plato amid the elusiveness and opacity of the\nflow of happenings. The deduction of the intelligible order of the\nideal \u2018Forms\u2019 from their supreme ground and (_sole_!) premiss in the\n\u2018Idea of the Good\u2019 stopped short of facts and events at the _laws_ of\nminimum generality,[393] and recognized in all the happenings of the\nsensible world an ineradicable taint of \u2018not-being\u2019 which rendered\ntheir stability impossible and their prediction vain. Aristotle\nsimilarly distinguished between the procedure which started from the\n_notiora nobis_, the apparent facts of perception, and that which\nbegan with the _notiora naturae_, the self-evident principles which\ncould form the ultimate premisses of demonstrations. But that these two\nmethods must somehow coincide was assumed rather than proved, in a way\nthat should have discredited the doctrine. For Aristotle also was not\nable to explain how \u2018science\u2019, being of \u2018universals\u2019, could apply to\nparticulars, which nevertheless he would not with Plato stigmatize as\n\u2018unreal\u2019, while the ascent from the sensible fact to the \u2018universal\u2019,\nwhich was called the \u2018induction\u2019 of the \u2018principle\u2019, is hardly\nvalidated by the na\u00efve allegation of a mental faculty of \u2018intuitive\nreason\u2019 (\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u0311\u03c2) endowed with the special function of apprehending\nprinciples in their particular exemplifications. It is high time,\ntherefore, that this whole assumption that a necessary congruity exists\nbetween the logic of discovery and of proof should be subjected to a\nthorough examination.\n\n\nIII\n\n\u00a7\u00a018. Such an examination will speedily establish that the mental\nattitude of the discoverer is, and must be, quite different from that\nof the prover.\n\nIn the first place, the discoverer is not in possession of the\nknowledge he covets. It is for him a desire, an aspiration, an aim to\nbe attained. Proof, on the other hand, presupposes knowledge. Not only\nmust the demonstrator _know_ the assured truths he uses as premisses,\nnot only must he have a supply of absolutely certain truths if his\nproof is not to remain hypothetical (\u00a7\u00a09), but he must already _know_\nthe conclusion he exhibits. He cannot be ignorant, like the discoverer,\nof the result he is to arrive at. He is not engaged in _discovering_\nnew truth, he is only showing how it _follows from_ old truths. His\nretrospective contemplation has merely to retrace the history of its\nattainment, or rather to rearrange it in the more pleasing order\nwhich he calls \u2018logical\u2019. This order is not that in which it _was_\ndiscovered, nor even that in which it _could be_ discovered. For\nthere are such things as necessary errors, indispensable artifices,\nand indefensible fictions, and the way to a truth often lies through\nthem. Thus from time immemorial mathematicians have represented the\ncontinuous by the discrete, quantities by numbers, knowing full\nwell what fictions their practice involved. Again, mathematical\ncalculation of shapes, areas, and motions necessarily presupposes the\nfictions that bodies have the ideal and regular forms to which they\n\u2018approximate\u2019, and that their \u2018mass\u2019 is concentrated at their (ideal)\n\u2018centre of gravity\u2019. It is more than doubtful whether the notion of\nan \u2018evolution\u2019 of species could ever have been reached, except by\nstarting from the false notion of the fixity of species, or whether\nthe true nature of the mobility and development of meanings could have\nbeen understood except by correcting the Platonic theory of immutable\nand eternal \u2018universals\u2019. To \u2018proof\u2019 all these incidents and accidents\nof the history of discovery are irrelevant; all that has to be done\nis to show that the new truth can be deduced from the old, and that a\n\u2018logical connexion\u2019 exists between them.\n\n\u00a7\u00a019. Not only is this much easier to do than to make the discovery,\nbut it is very much easier to follow. Any one can see the connexion\nonce the data have been arranged in logical order. Hence the assumption\nthat this order somehow represents the actual process in a perfected\nform is natural enough. But it leads to contempt for the procedure\nof discovery. The discovery is made to look so easy that it becomes\nimpossible to appreciate its difficulty and its merit, and it seems\nastonishing that no one made it long before. For did not the \u2018facts\u2019\nall but force it upon the dullest mind? Who could have failed to see\nthat fossils must be (at least) as old as the rocks in which they are\nembedded, that obviously worked flints, similarly, attest the antiquity\nof man, that northern Europe is scratched all over with the marks of\na gigantic glaciation? It is forgotten that these \u2018facts\u2019 were _not_\nthere until there came a mind prepared to notice them. Hence none of\nthese discoveries were in fact easy to make, and they were preceded by\na long struggle of the human mind with false preconceptions and the\nillusory \u2018facts\u2019 which they had engendered.\n\nNor are discoveries easy to get recognized when they have been made.\nThe persecutions to which discoverers of new truth are subjected\nalways and everywhere (more or less) form as discreditable a chapter\nof human history as the persecution of moral reformers. Those may\ncount themselves fortunate who are simply ignored. Hence everything\nhas to be \u2018discovered\u2019 over and over again. Nothing new ever enters\nthe world, just as nothing old ever passes away, without infinite\npains and after a protracted struggle. One curious result of this\ninertia which deserves to rank among the great fundamental \u2018laws\u2019 of\nnature, is that when a discovery has finally won tardy recognition, it\nis usually found to have been anticipated, often with cogent reasons\nand in great detail. Darwinism, e.g., may be traced back through the\nages to Heraclitus and Anaximander. Thus it is true that there is\n\u2018nothing new under the sun\u2019; but only because when a new truth first\nappears it does not prevail: when after a hundred repetitions it is at\nlength recognized, it is no longer strictly _new_. Accordingly, the\n\u2018discovery\u2019 of a truth is only the beginning of its career, the first\nstep by which it makes its way in the world, and still very distant\nfrom the crowning \u2018proof\u2019 with which logic complacently adorns it _ex\npost facto_, when it has \u2018arrived\u2019. The slowness and difficulty, then,\nwith which the human race makes discoveries, and its blindness to the\nmost obvious facts, if it happens to be unprepared or unwilling to see\nthem, should suffice to show that there is something gravely wrong\nabout the logician\u2019s account of discovery.\n\n\u00a7 20. Quite apart from the difficulties which the psychological\nconstitution and social organization of man put in the way of\ninnovators, the making of a new truth which formulates a new \u2018fact\u2019\nis also intrinsically anxious work. It is not merely that its maker\ncan have no assurance that his enterprise will succeed, that he cannot\nstart with a feeling of certainty from established truths, and be\nwafted by an irresistible wave of logical necessity to the safe haven\nof a predestined conclusion. He _must_ start with a consciousness of\nignorance and an all-pervading feeling of doubt about every step of his\ninquiry. This doubt he should not, moreover, endeavour to disregard\nor to suppress; for it is the best guarantee that no way to the truth\nwill be passed by in his explorations. Doubt, therefore, should be\nrecognized on principle, and equipped with a technique of testing and\nexperimentation: the inquirer should be proud that he has to feel his\nway in fear and trembling to the very end.\n\nYet his condition will not contravene Aristotle\u2019s dictum that all\ninquiry and research proceed from knowledge previously acquired.[394]\nIn a sense he will still start from what he knows, or thinks he knows.\nFor it is psychologically impossible to do anything else. The knowledge\nhe believes himself to have cannot but affect all his ideas, and he\ncannot get away from it. His boldest speculations, his most hazardous\nhypotheses, will have _some_ relation, however subtle and recondite,\nto the knowledge at his disposal. It will influence all his thoughts\nand guide his guesses. As he cannot divest himself of his knowledge\nand the ideas it has rendered familiar to him, he has to accept its\nlimitations. His only problem is to use it as effectively as possible.\n\nBut it is clear that he cannot regard his knowledge with the same\nsort and amount of confidence as the believer in demonstrative proof.\nHe must conceive himself as an explorer, and his attitude must be\ntentative throughout. Knowing that his premisses are questionable and\nonly doubtfully true, he will recognize that his inferences are only\nprobable, and stand in need of confirmation. As a rule he can, no\ndoubt, find accepted truths to argue from; but these being relative to\nthe existing state of knowledge are known to be subject to correction.\nEven where he has started with premisses of the most superior kind,\nwhich are generally deemed absolutely self-evident and certain in\nthemselves, he will still be conscious of a doubt whether they will\nprove to be the right premisses _for his purpose_. If they are not,\ntheir truth is irrelevant and will lead him astray. In no case,\ntherefore, can he escape the responsibility of _choosing the right\nones_ from his limited stock of known truths and familiar ideas, as he\ncontemplates the infinite expanse of possible discovery. In whatever\ndirection he moves, the unknown lies before him; he may come upon\nsurprises or be stopped by unsuspected obstacles. In short, there is\nnothing of the irresistible about his progress; it has not the faintest\nresemblance to the majestic march from inevitable premisses to a\npredestined conclusion which so fascinates us in the theory of proof.\n\n\u00a7 21. But, it may be said, all this is not enough. The differences in\nthe attitudes assumed by the reasoner in discovery and in proof may\nbe only psychological. They do not prove any real logical difference\nbetween them; the logician\u2019s account may still be what the discoverer\nwould acknowledge to have been his best course, if he could have seen\nit. It has, therefore, to be shown that the differences in question\narise out of, and develop into, differences which are indisputably\nlogical.\n\nThus, the ignorance which the inquirer feels is doubtless a\npsychological fact, but the lack of knowledge which engenders it is\nsurely a logical fact of some importance. In general, the feelings of\ndoubt, expectancy, and perplexity which beset the mind of the inquirer,\nand contrast so distinctly with the feelings of confidence, knowledge,\ncertainty, and necessity which accompany a \u2018proof\u2019, originate in a\nlogical fact. Every inquiry starts from a _problem_, of which the\nsolution is not yet known. An _inquiry_ is, as the name implies, a\n_question_, put, not to nature at large and at random, but to some\n_part_ of it, which is taken to be relevant and to contain a possible\nanswer to the inquirer\u2019s question. Now this dependence of inquiry\nupon problems springs no doubt from the psychological fact that until\nthere is something put before it the mind cannot get to work upon it;\nbut it is surely a fact of the utmost logical significance, and it is\nastounding that the logical tradition should have slurred it over so\ncompletely.\n\nEspecially as in the very beginnings of logic some of the Greeks\ndistinctly caught a glimpse of it. For, having started their reflection\nupon reasoning from a desire to regulate debate and to argue a case\nat law, they naturally noticed that there are two sides (at least)\nto every question. Accordingly, Protagoras appears to have taught\nsystematically that there were always two reasonings (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9) to be\nconsidered,[395] Socrates, treated scientific inquiry as an extension\nof the art of cross-examination, and Plato conceived the search for\nideal truth as a \u2018dialectical\u2019 process, as a sort of dialogue of the\nsoul with itself. Now this whole doctrine is equally good as logic\nand as psychology. It is profoundly true of the inquirer\u2019s mind; he\nmust be keenly alive, not only to the evidence _for_, but also to\nthat _against_ his working theory. But it is also true of the logical\nnature of inquiry that it is a process of determining _which_ of the\nalleged \u2018facts\u2019 and of the theories to interpret them are real and\ntrue. Inquiry logically \u2018presupposes\u2019 a conflict between the data, and\na dispute about them.\n\nUnfortunately, however, the conception of scientific research as\nan inquiry lapses from the logical consciousness in consequence\nof Aristotle\u2019s work. His discovery of the forms and formulas of\ndemonstration overshadowed it, and restored the reign of dogma which is\nso congenial to the authorities everywhere.[396] The true conception of\ninquiry does not revive again until our days, when Mr. Alfred Sidgwick\nand Professor John Dewey have endeavoured, not with the success\nthey deserved, to reopen the eyes of logicians to the facts of the\nscientific situation.\n\n\u00a7\u00a022. To conceive an inquiry as a question then is, we see, implicitly\nto conceive it as having a plurality of answers, all of which have\nto be examined. All these answers are initially hypotheses, and a\nchoice has to be made between them. This renders the recognition of\nalternatives a paramount necessity for a logic of discovery, which\ncan no longer dismiss them with a jejune chapter on \u2018disjunctive\npropositions\u2019. Their existence is no longer to be treated as an\nannoying complication which delays the progress of science, but must be\ntaken to inhere in the logical nature of problems, and to be essential\nto their proper elucidation.\n\nLogic, therefore, should regard it as its duty to inquire (1) how the\ninquirer is furnished with an adequate supply of theories for analysing\nand testing the apparent facts of his subject, (2) what methods are\nused to sift hypotheses and to select the more valuable, and (3) if it\ncan, to add some hints as to how theories and methods _ought_ to be\nhandled.\n\n(1) To the first question there is no exhaustive answer. No logic can\nguarantee that _all_ the possible theories which concern the facts\nunder inquiry will be available. They may not yet have occurred to any\nhuman mind, and may never do so. This alone ought to be considered a\nfatal objection to all methods which presuppose exhaustiveness, and are\npressed by the logician upon the man of science. It ought to dispose of\nmethods which demand that _all_ the facts should be assembled before\ntheorizing is begun, or that _all_ the alternatives should be stated\nand the true one extracted by the successive elimination of the false\nones, or that define a \u2018cause\u2019 as reciprocating with its \u2018effect\u2019, and\nassume that the true cause has been discovered when no other has been\nthought of, or that if a theory works we may take it that it alone will\ndo so and is (absolutely) true. All these notions demand an impossible\nexhaustion of the alternatives, and try to convert a (psychological)\nfailure to think of any more into a logical proof that there are no\nmore. And they all regard the plurality of alternatives as a hindrance\nto be got rid of, and not as a safeguard and a help to proper inquiry.\n\nHence the real difficulty was not perceived, viz. that there is no\nformal guarantee that the supply of hypotheses for use upon the facts\nin any inquiry will be adequate. It may well be that for lack of a\ngood working theory to go upon, all the theorizing on a subject proves\nvain and sterile. In the beginnings of all the sciences this sort of\ncondition always exists and often lasts for centuries, and it is a main\nreason why some sciences make little progress even now.\n\nNevertheless, the difficulty is not in practice as fatal as it looks\non paper. It is probable that the inquirer will in fact usually have\na supply of alternatives to start from. For (_a_) he will naturally\nselect a subject in which there are disputed points. And (_b_), what\nis even more important, human minds are naturally various: they put,\ntherefore, different interpretations on the same facts and value them\ndifferently. Some are attracted by novelty, others by orthodoxy; some\nincline to one type of theory and method of inquiry, others to another.\nHence in any inquiry upon which a number of minds are actively engaged,\nthere will always be differences of opinion, and these will be most\nmarked in the rapidly growing regions of every progressive science,\nwhich, like the growing cells in the trunk of a tree, are always on the\noutskirts. There will always be a conservative and a liberal party,\neven in science, and the clash between their views will always provide\nalternative solutions of problems, the comparative merits of which the\ninquirer can examine. But the sciences owe their progress largely to\nthe man who raises new questions, and should provide for him in their\norganization.\n\n\u00a7\u00a023. It should be noted further that if this feature in discovery\nwere properly recognized and emphasized, it would have important\neducational and ethical effects. At present the study of logic can\nhardly be said to liberalize and broaden the mind or to improve the\ntemper. So long as its chief interest is in a theory of absolute proof\nand complete certainty, it will tend to breed pedants and bigots. The\neffect would be very different if an adequate logic of discovery had\nimbued the mind with an ever-present thought that every subject may and\nmust be considered from several points of view, and that an inquirer\nshould beware of letting his predilections and preconceptions blind\nhim to possible alternatives. The logical attitude of inquiry, when\nfully understood, demands a tolerant and open mind, and excludes the\nnarrow-mindedness and dogmatism which the theory of proof has fostered\nby its pretence of showing that there was but one truth and one\ninevitable way of reaching it. Moreover, the necessity of continually\nchoosing between a number of alternatives should cultivate a judicial\ntemper, conducing to fair-mindedness and consideration towards the\nviews of others. For a mind which is in the habit of choosing between\nalternatives must be impressed by the facts that there is something to\nbe said for the views it does not accept, that the view accepted is\noften not so very much superior to those rejected, and that new facts\nand new knowledge may always revive views which were supposed to be\ndefunct.\n\nOf course our natural dogmatism will take alarm at the flabby\ntoleration of ideas which this attitude seems to imply. It will be\nobjected that no one who can see the good and truth in beliefs he\ndoes not accept, can really be strenuous in upholding those he does.\nThe full answer to this bigots\u2019 argument can only be appreciated when\nthe attitude of progressive science is fully understood (cf. \u00a7\u00a033),\nbut in general it may be pointed out that a power of first weighing\nalternatives, choosing the best and acting upon it strenuously, is\nprecisely what life demands of us at every step. It should not,\ntherefore, be impossible to compass it in science.\n\n\u00a7\u00a024. (2) To the second question of \u00a7\u00a022, viz. what are the methods\nused by the inquirer in sifting the alternative hypotheses in the\nfield, and picking out the most valuable, the answer is comparatively\neasy. It is substantially the answer given by the pragmatist analysis\nof knowledge. That theory is preferred, and tends to be accepted as\ntrue, which for the time being _works_ best. The formula looks simple,\nbut needs more thinking out than its critics usually bestow upon it.\n\n(_a_) It implies, of course, that _all_ the alternatives (before the\nmind) \u2018work\u2019 more or less. They must be (or appear) scientifically\nplausible, and proffer a more or less satisfactory explanation of some\nor all of the admitted \u2018facts\u2019. This is why agencies like the Devil,\nwho could once be extensively alleged to explain anything unusual, have\ndropped out of the purview of science.\n\n(_b_) \u2018Working\u2019 must be conceived somewhat widely. Its _primary_\nappeal is to the accepted principles and recognized interests of the\nscience; practically to \u2018work\u2019 means to conduce to the development of\nthe science on the recognized lines, and the proper judges of what\n\u2018working\u2019 counts are the experts who cultivate each science.\n\n(_c_) But there will often be complications due to certain disputable\nworkings, of which the relevance is not yet established, and about\nthese there will legitimately be differences of opinion. These should\nnot be suppressed, but candidly argued out.\n\n(_d_) Moreover, every _new_ departure will be _pro tanto_ disputable,\nbecause it will conflict more or less with the vested interests of the\nestablished doctrines. One great factor in the \u2018working\u2019 of a new truth\nis the extent to which it upsets, or is thought to upset, the old, and\ndemands a reconstruction of beliefs, a correction of authorities, a\nrevision of text-books, a renewal of plant, &c. Hence what works best\nin the abstract may not do so under the actual conditions. It may \u2018pay\u2019\na professor better to be \u2018orthodox\u2019 than to be an innovator, and he\nis usually quite alive to this, though it does not render him a good\ninvestment scientifically for the institution that appoints him. If\nthen we looked at this side of the matter alone, the verdict would\nalways go against the novelty. For very few new truths are fortunate\nenough to find the field free and unoccupied. Usually they have to\nspring up in a soil densely overgrown with a rank growth of prejudices,\ndogmas, and superstitions, to which the world is accustomed and even\ndevoted. So they have to fight for an opening in which they can take\nroot and grow up.\n\n(_e_) The \u2018working\u2019, however, need not amount to a claim to represent\n\u2018the\u2019 truth. A discoverer may know that by reason of his deliberate use\nof fictions, his results have forfeited their claims to be strictly\ntrue; yet they may \u2018work\u2019 better than anything else in sight. The\ntypical example here is, of course, mathematics. When physical objects\nare treated mathematically, they are identified by a fiction with the\nobjects of pure mathematics, and it is only on this assumption that\ntheir behaviour can be calculated. They are, of course, vastly _more_\nthan mathematical objects, but their surplus meaning becomes irrelevant\nwherever objects admit of mathematical treatment. And apart from the\nrestriction of the claim to truth necessitated by the use of fictions,\nit should, of course, be recognized also that there are sound logical\nreasons for denying that truths which rest on their \u2018workings\u2019 can ever\nbe \u2018absolute\u2019 (\u00a7 26 _s.f._). Their truth is pragmatic, and is _optimi\niuris_ only if pragmatism establishes that no other and no better truth\nexists.\n\n(_f_) More specifically a very important form of working is the\nprediction of events. Knowledge of the future is an almost universal\nobject of human desire, which men have sought to compass by fair means\nand foul, and the calculation of the future is the avowed aim of many\nscientific inquiries. Hence there is nothing more potent to dispose\nthe mind to accept a theory than the success of the predictions it\nhas led to. Yet here again this form of \u2018working\u2019 differs generically\nfrom \u2018proof\u2019. It is clear that prediction is not strictly proof. For\npredictions may be made with considerable accuracy by the aid of\nhypotheses which turn out to be false or impossible. Thus eclipses\nand other celestial events were predicted for centuries by means of\nthe Ptolemaic astronomy, and they cannot be predicted even now with\nabsolute accuracy. Indeed, physically speaking, absolute accuracy is\nunthinkable. No instrument and no organ of observation can be conceived\nto measure to more than a finite degree of accuracy, and the _best\nvalue_ for any physical \u2018fact\u2019 will always be the mean of a number of\ngood observations after all the accessible sources of error have been\nallowed for.\n\nAt no point, then, does the test of \u2018working\u2019 conduct to the notion\nthat absolute truth is discoverable. But the right inference may be,\nnot that the test is worthless, but that absolute truth is a chimera.\n\n\u00a7\u00a025. (3) It cannot then be seriously disputed either that alternative\nhypotheses are always (more or less consciously) present to the mind\nof the inquirer, or that the working of a theory is in fact used, in\nall the sciences, to test its claim to be true. But does it follow that\nlogic should bow to scientific fact and recognize these practices?\nShould it set itself to devise a _technique_ for regulating the\nformation of hypotheses and the establishment of their truth by their\nworking? It is here that the traditional logic demurs, and disputes\nbegin. Nevertheless, strong reasons may be advanced for answering both\nquestions in the affirmative.\n\n(_a_) An abundance of hypotheses is a guarantee of great logical\nvalue that all the important facts will be properly observed. For it\nis evident that every theory will produce a certain _bias_ in the\nobserver. It will direct his attention upon those facts and those\nfeatures which are _relevant_ to his theory, and, more particularly,\nwhich _support_ it. This is usually an advantage, because it helps him\nto select what is relevant to his inquiry from the chaos of events; but\nit will _pari passu_ blind him to whatever does not seem to be related\nto, and to fit into, his theory. He will, therefore, fail to observe\nand to appreciate what will seem to him to have little or no scientific\ninterest. And in so thinking he may be quite wrong.\n\nThe old theory of \u2018induction,\u2019 thought to get over this difficulty by\nsaying, \u2018Well, of course, _all_ the facts must be observed\u2019. It did\nnot observe the fact that in practice this is impossible, and is never\ndone. Nothing is observed but what the knowledge and preconceptions\nof the time make visible to the scientific eye. Of what is visible at\nany time only a small part seems worthy of the scientific microscope.\nComplete observation, therefore, of literally all the facts is\nscientifically impracticable.\n\nAs a logical ideal also this notion of all-inclusiveness is absurd. If\nno inquiry could ever begin until _all_ the facts had been assembled,\nhow could anything be discovered until omniscience had been achieved,\ni.e. when there was nothing left to discover? For how are we to know\nthat our assembly of \u2018facts\u2019 really is complete? And if literally all\nthe facts have to be used as data in any inquiry, shall we not speedily\nfind that every fact ramifies into infinity, and drags in the totality\nof reality, and a knowledge of all things present, past, and future?\nThis \u2018logical ideal\u2019, therefore, renders inquiry impossible.\n\nIn point of fact the data of any inquiry are always a _selection_. They\nare such of the recognized facts as are thought to be _relevant_, i.e.\nto be truly \u2018facts\u2019 for the purpose in hand. But being a selection they\ninvolve us in the risk that we may have selected wrongly, and omitted\nwhat is important while admitting what is not. _From this risk there\nis no escape._ For we cannot effect a compromise by including merely\nso much of the facts as we can lay hold of. Not only does this yield\nno guarantee that everything that is needed has been included, but it\nmay be a positive hindrance to try to include too much. For if our data\ngrow into an unwieldy mass, they will not seem susceptible of any order\nor principle, and even the most penetrating inquirer will lose his way.\n\nIt is better, therefore, to give up altogether the idea of securing\nformal validity by postulating an all-inclusive exhaustiveness. The\nobvious alternative is to operate simultaneously with a plurality\nof theories, each of which means a certain ordering of the \u2018facts\u2019\nrelatively to what seems a relevant and promising point of view. Each\nwill involve a selection and induce a bias; but with any luck they will\nneutralize each other\u2019s bias, and so will increase the probability that\nno really relevant fact has escaped notice. This will not satisfy the\nlogical \u2018ideal\u2019, but in practice it means a good deal, and is enough\nfor scientific progress. Of course it must be understood that the\nhypotheses employed are in a general way relevant to the problems and\nthe condition of the sciences, and not random guesses. This proviso\nwill cut down their exuberance even more than the limitations of the\nhuman imagination, which seems to be psychologically incapable of\nreally departing very far from the suggestions of experience.\n\n\u00a7\u00a026. When logic has recognized the use and value of \u2018working\u2019 as\nthe test of truth, it must, however, make it clear to itself and to\nothers both what precisely this test is, and what it can, and cannot,\naccomplish.\n\nIn the first place, it must be made clear that it is _not_ a logical\nimplication of the test that \u2018whatever works is true\u2019, and the reasons\nfor disputing this dictum must be set forth. The fact is that we\nall have a strong psychological tendency to believe in the truth of\nwhat is found to work, without much criticism of the sort and extent\nof the \u2018working\u2019. But the logician should carefully investigate the\nvarious sorts of working that occur, and take special note of those\nwhich either do not themselves lay claim to full truth, or do not\n(ordinarily) have their claim conceded.\n\nFor example, \u2018_fictions_\u2019 are not supposed to be strictly true; but\nthey may \u2018work\u2019 and be \u2018as good as true\u2019, or \u2018pragmatically true\u2019, or\n\u2018sufficiently true for the purpose in hand\u2019. They work, in fact, within\nlimits; but these limits are _known_, and so they are not confused with\nfull-fledged truths, to the applicability of which there are no known\nlimits.\n\nThe case of \u2018_methodological assumptions_\u2019 is more difficult and\ninstructive, and is usually misconceived. In their case the existence\nof limits to their \u2018working\u2019 is either not known or not relevant,\nbecause they owe their adoption to their use and convenience in\nanalysing and organizing a subject of inquiry. Thus the principle of\nCausation, the assumption that every event has a cause which determines\nit fully, is properly to be regarded as methodological. It declares\nmerely that if we desire to calculate the course of events, it is\nscientifically convenient to treat events as if they had \u2018causes\u2019,\nfrom which their occurrence could be predicted, whether or not they\nhave them in fact. This assumption may be purely methodological; it\nneed not, and should not, be turned into a dogmatic, metaphysical\ndenial that there may be indeterminate happenings. There may even\nbe good reasons to suspect their occurrence, and indeterminism may\nbe ultimately true, and yet scientific method may rightly ignore\nthis possibility, because it would render the calculation of events\nimpossible.[397] Even an indeterminist then is fully entitled to\nreason _as if_ events were determined, and to search for \u2018causes\u2019, for\nthe purely methodological reason that this enables him to calculate\nevents, and that after all they may be calculable. So long as they\nwork for scientific purposes it is not, in the case of methodological\nprinciples, necessary to raise the question of their metaphysical truth.\n\nThe \u2018lie\u2019 again is a curious case of \u2018working\u2019. A lie, works, as a\nrule, only so long as it passes for truth, and is believed to have\nthe meaning and value its author claims for it; when it is \u2018found\nout\u2019, it ceases to work. Hence it can both work and fail to work at\nthe same time, according as it is, or is not, known to be a \u2018lie\u2019.\nClearly nothing can be made of the lie logically, until this double\naspect inherent in its nature is recognized; if the logician refuses to\ndistinguish between the _persons_ concerned in its making, acceptance,\nand rejection, it remains (like \u2018error\u2019 to Plato) an insoluble\n\u2018contradiction\u2019. It is, however, a mere prejudice to refuse to make\nthese distinctions.\n\nThe \u2018working\u2019 of hypotheses is by no means simple and unambiguous.\nIt admits of infinite gradations in amount and kind, and the \u2018truth\u2019\nwhich is implicated in \u2018working\u2019 is nothing essentially but an index\nof its logical value, and may vary in quantity between values which\ncannot be _psychologically_ discriminated from zero and from 100% or\n1 (= \u2018absolute\u2019 certainty). It is crude, therefore, to confront a\nscientific hypothesis with the rigid alternative \u2018either (absolutely)\ntrue, or (utterly) false\u2019; its \u2018truth\u2019 really rests on its greater\nvalue, as compared with its competitors. Its value, then, is a question\nof more or less. The more extensively, conveniently, and economically\na hypothesis works, the more value has it, i.e. the more likely is\nit to be called \u2018true\u2019, and to be supposed true absolutely: the more\ncontinuously and successfully the test of working has been applied to\na doctrine, the greater the confidence and affection with which it is\nregarded, and the greater the presumption that it will continue to\napprove itself as true.\n\nBut, as we anticipated in \u00a7 24 (_s.f._), it is vain to expect to\nestablish any absolute truth by this method. It provides truth with\never-growing probability, but never with absolute certainty. For,\nhowever well a theory works, the thought that one may hereafter be\nfound to work better can never logically be excluded. Even if every\none alive were perfectly satisfied, and no one could imagine any\nimprovement in an accepted truth--and these conditions are by no\nmeans often realized--such psychological considerations would not\ndisprove the logical possibility that the best known was not the best\nabsolutely, and logic would continue to distinguish between a truth\nthat was absolute, and one liable to one billionth chance of error. The\nlatter chance could be disregarded for all practical and scientific\npurposes, and would not have the slightest psychological effect on\nthe confidence with which the truth was regarded; but logically it\nwould still be there. Science, therefore, has to resign itself to the\nconclusion that its method cannot conceivably attain to absolute truth,\nand to make the best of it.\n\n\u00a7\u00a027. Curiously enough this conclusion is fully confirmed by Formal\nLogic. It prides itself on pointing out that there is a formal\nfallacy involved in establishing truth by \u2018working\u2019. The essence of\nthis method is to argue that if a theory is found to work (after the\nproper precautions have been taken), it is true. If e.g. the events\nanticipated by a theory occur, and nothing occurs that could not be\nanticipated, it grows more and more probable until it convinces every\none. But ought it logically to have done this? The logician declares\nemphatically, it ought not. For the argument suffers from an incurable\nflaw, which has been recorded as a \u2018fallacy\u2019 for over 2,000 years. It\nis a flagrant \u2018affirmation of the consequent\u2019; symbolically, it argues\nthat _if A is, B is, but B is, \u2234 A is_. Now this is not \u2018cogent\u2019 or\n\u2018valid\u2019. That _A is_ can be proved only from the premiss \u2018_only_ if A\nis, B is\u2019, i.e. if A is the _only_ theory which will account for the\nobserved consequences. But this the fallacious method did not assert,\nand indeed could not assert. For that the best known is the best\nabsolutely never can be proved (cf. \u00a7\u00a026); and even if they happened to\nbe identical, and we had somehow stumbled upon an absolute truth, we\nshould never know that this was so.\n\n\u00a7\u00a028. To the logician this fact only seems to prove the superiority\nof his conception of \u2018proof\u2019. He infers, consistently enough, that no\ninductive reasoning from \u2018facts\u2019, no verification of hypotheses by\nevents, can possibly amount to proof. What he seeks to impress upon\nhis pupils is that _verification is not proof and can never lead to it_.\n\nHe considers himself entitled to look down upon science accordingly,\nits evidence, its methods, and its reasonings, and to contrast them\nwith the absoluteness of his own ideal of demonstration. He upholds\nits validity in spite of all the failures of the sciences to realize\nit. As a rule he seems willing to grant that some mathematical proofs\namount to logical demonstration;[398] but if pressed he would confess\nthat scientific truth was only probable, whereas certain metaphysical\ntruths, such as the law of contradiction, alone were absolutely certain.\n\nThe scientist, of course, is not in a position to deny that the nature\nof his truth is such as has been stated: but he should not attempt to\ndo so. He should content himself with scientific truth, and contend\nthat at its best it is good enough for any one. And he can carry the\nwar into Africa by a vigorous counter-attack.\n\n(1) He can deny--for the reasons stated in \u00a7\u00a013--that the logician\u2019s\nformal \u2018proof\u2019 is as cogent and formally valid as the latter supposes,\nand show that after a conclusion has been \u2018_proved_\u2019 true, it has still\nto _come true_ before it can be trusted to be \u2018true\u2019.\n\n(2) He can point out that there is a serious _lacuna_ in the logician\u2019s\nplea for his notion of \u2018proof\u2019. The logician has assumed that the\nonly alternative to his belief in absolutely certain premisses is\ncomplete scepticism, arguing that it must be possible to start from\ncertainty, because otherwise no knowledge would be possible at all.\nHe then urged \u2018but there clearly _is_ knowledge--the sciences attest\nit\u2019, and consistently inferred that absolutely certain premisses must\nbe obtainable. The more or less obvious failure of his attempts to\nexplain their genesis by \u2018self-evidence\u2019, \u2018intuition\u2019, \u2018necessities of\nthought\u2019, &c. (\u00a7\u00a015), could not deter him from clinging to his belief,\nbecause the principles themselves seemed to him to be inevitable and to\nadmit of no alternative.\n\nIn fact, however, there _is_ a _via media_ between scepticism and\nabsolutism, and science safely pursues it, though logic has overlooked\nit. It is _not_ necessary to start with absolutely certain premisses,\nbecause it is possible to adopt premisses hypothetically, to take\nthem as true for the argument\u2019s sake and for the purposes of the\ninquiry, to experiment with them, and to revise them in the light of\nthe results of such experiments. Thus _their_ value may be judged and\nestablished, _after_ their adoption, by the experimental results,\nand they may come to depend logically upon these, and not upon the\nprocesses (analogies, suggestions, guesses, fancies, &c.) which led\nto their adoption. If they show themselves capable of advancing the\nscience and solving its problems, confidence in their \u2018truth\u2019 increases\nprogressively, and their initial assumption is justified. They _cease_\nto be \u2018hypotheses\u2019 and become \u2018facts\u2019, and even \u2018principles\u2019 beyond\ndispute. If they fail to \u2018work\u2019, they may be discarded in favour of\nothers which are tried in their turn and similarly tested. Hence it\nis not true that what is uncertain to begin with must always remain\nso, nor is it hard to understand that hypothesis, willingness to\nbelieve, and belief may be the psychological forerunners of logical\nproof, which, nevertheless, rests not upon them, but upon the solid\nvalue of the results subsequently reached by their means. The\ncertainty of scientific premisses then admits of indefinite growth,\nwhich at some point or other will overpower even the most obstinately\nsceptical temper. This point naturally lies at a greater distance from\nthe starting-point for some minds than for others, but when it is\nreached, and when the last doubts and scruples have been overcome, the\ntriumphant truth will _feel_ absolutely certain, and to all intents\nand purposes will function as such. But the \u2018practical certainty\u2019 thus\nachieved will still be distinguishable in thought from the absolute\ncertainty which logical theory mistakenly demanded. And logicians,\nfrom Plato downwards,[399] will be convicted of having failed to allow\nfor the possibility that the certainty of premisses and principles may\nbe a fruit of continuous experience and experiment, and to perceive\nthat this is the method the sciences have actually employed. In short,\nnecessary (needed) \u2018truths\u2019 need _not_ be regarded as \u2018_a priori_\u2019, if\nit is seen how hypotheses are consolidated by experience.\n\n(3) The scientist can deny that the ideal case, contemplated with so\nmuch satisfaction by the logician, can ever occur in actual knowing.\nHe can point out that if the logical apparatus of demonstration is\nto work, it must be supplied with premisses that are absolutely\ntrue. But whence is the logician to obtain them? The \u2018self-evident\u2019\nprinciples and \u2018necessary\u2019 axioms, for which so much has been claimed,\nhave been shown (\u00a7\u00a015) to be highly disputable, and are themselves\nin need of support and verification. The truths which the sciences\nsupply abundantly are all products of the method to which he takes\nexception. There are no scientific truths which have not to be, and\nhave not been, verified, and if verification is logically vicious,\nand cannot amount to proof, they are not absolutely true. But if the\npremisses of a demonstration are not absolutely true, neither can its\nconclusion be. What then becomes first of the value, and ultimately of\nthe \u2018validity\u2019, of an ideal of proof which can never be exemplified by\nactual reasoning, and serves only to condemn it?\n\n(4) The ideal of absolute certainty may be repudiated altogether, even\nas an ideal, for sound scientific reasons. It may be shown that if it\nwere possible it would be scientifically undesirable. For it would mean\nthe creation of absolute bars to scientific progress. If truths existed\nwhich were absolutely certain, this would mean that nothing more could\nbe learnt about them, and nothing could be done to strengthen their\nposition. No experience, no inquiry, no experiment, could any longer\naffect them, and add to or detract from their value. They could not,\ntherefore, form avenues to further knowledge. They would simply be\nstops which would arrest scientific inquiry. But how could such things\nform an ideal of scientific knowledge? How could it be in the spirit,\nand to the interest, of science to recognize them? They would merely\nbe for science brute facts which it was forbidden to investigate. And\nmust not science on principle hold out for the right to inquire into\neverything, to test every belief, however true it may seem? How, then,\ncan it be the ideal of science to adopt an ideal which would stop\ninquiry?\n\nNor will it suffice in reply to point to the fact that the sciences\ncontinually assume the truth of the premisses they argue from. For\nthough this is often a convenient assumption for the purpose in hand,\nit is one thing to assume the truth of premisses for the purposes of\nan inquiry, and quite another to assume it absolutely. For in the\nformer case our assumption may be, and should be, accompanied by a\nconsciousness that upon another and fitting occasion the premisses now\nassumed to be true may themselves be inquired into: to regard them,\ntherefore, as absolute is to misinterpret their logical condition.\n\nThere are no good reasons, then, why the sciences should surrender to\nthe arbitrary demands of the traditional logic, and sacrifice their\npractices which have been sanctified by the successes of 2,000 years to\ntheories which sprang from a misunderstanding of scientific procedure,\nand have since lost all contact with it. The original mistake was\npardonable, but it ought not to be regarded as an insult to logic to\nrequire it to understand the procedure by which the sciences actually\nprogress.\n\n\u00a7\u00a029. The scientist then should not be terrified by the charge that his\n\u2018truths\u2019 are \u2018only probable\u2019. For it is better to be satisfied with\nprobabilities than to demand impossibilities and starve. Moreover, a\nhigh degree of probability means \u2018practical certainty\u2019, i.e. confidence\nenough to move to action. Such certainty so convinces and satisfies\nthe mind that it cannot feel more certain about anything; the logical\ngap between it and absolute certainty is psychologically negligible.\nWe are sacrificing, therefore, nothing but a superstition, nothing\nthat has any value for us, by renouncing the demand for absolute truth\nand demonstrative \u2018proof\u2019, and we gain in return a charter of liberty.\nFor to admit the essential progressiveness of scientific truth and\nits indefinite capacity for improvement means unlimited freedom to\nresearch into truths which are infinitely perfectible, because they are\nnever \u2018absolute\u2019. The ideal of the infinite perfectibility of truth,\nand the infinite progressiveness of science, is more than an adequate\nsubstitute for the \u2018logical ideal\u2019 which is abandoned. For not only is\nit an ideal which works, but it really embodies a nobler aspiration\nthan that which represented science as \u2018resting\u2019 in absolute perfection\non fixed \u2018foundations\u2019 of \u2018eternal\u2019 truth. The sentiment which inspires\nthis group of metaphors is given away by the word \u2018rest\u2019. A science\nthat desires to _rest_ is one that is unwilling to _move_ and unable\nto _advance_. Fixed \u2018foundations\u2019 are needed only for standing firm\nand standing still, and it turns out that what is strictly meant\nby \u2018eternal\u2019 is not that truths last for ever, but that they are\nnot related to \u2018time\u2019 at all, and so have really no application to\n\u2018events\u2019.[400]\n\nOn the other hand, a science which sincerely desires to progress\nneeds fixed foundations as little as fixed ideas, and firm ground as\nlittle as assurances to \u2018rest\u2019 on. It needs only a starting-point,\nor jumping-off place, whence it can plunge into the unharvested\nseas of the unknown. Now the essence of a starting-point is to be a\nplace you want to get away from, and its excellence lies in being\nsuch as to prompt you to leave it as easily and eagerly as possible.\nIf, therefore, scientific \u2018principles\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af) are really to be\nstarting-points, they need not, and must not, be so comfortable and so\ndeceptively similar to \u2018absolute\u2019 truths as to tempt the scientific\nspirit to repose. They should be tentative assumptions which are gladly\nabandoned in the hope of reaching something better, stepping-stones to\nfarther and higher things, which are valued for their consequences,\nand logically dependent on the conclusions to which they formed\nthe premisses. The logic of science, therefore, has no reason to\npostulate stability or solidity for its initial principles: the most\nindispensable of them are only principles of method, and even of the\ntried and tested principles it arrives at the \u2018validity\u2019 (= strength)\ndemanded is merely that they should be able to float the accumulated\nwealth of knowledge down the stream of time.\n\n\nIV\n\n\u00a7\u00a030. It is clear, then, that the time has come when Science should\nbreak decisively with the logical tradition, and proclaim a logic\nof its own which has always been implicit in its procedure. It must\ndefinitely declare that what it needs is not a logic which describes\nonly the static relations of an unchanging system of knowledge, but\none which is open to perceive motion, and willing to appreciate the\ndynamic process of a knowledge that never ceases to grow, and is never\nreally stereotyped into a system. To show that such a logic is not\ninconceivable will be the endeavour of the concluding sections of this\nessay.\n\nWe have already had occasion to note many of the most important\nfeatures of this logic. We have seen that logical, i.e. critical,\nreflection upon discovery must start from, and be guided by, the\nconception of a scientific _problem_ with which the process of knowing\n_experiments_ (\u00a7\u00a021). This problem has, of course, to be attacked\nwith the existing resources of a science, i.e. with the knowledge it\npossesses up to date. These resources form the scientific _capital_\nwhich is necessarily _risked_ in research if it is to yield interest.\nIt comprises (_a_) approved principles, (_b_) known facts, and (_c_)\nestablished meanings of words. About each of them a little more may\nadvantageously be said.\n\n(_a_) We have seen (\u00a7\u00a015) that the principles of any science could not\nrightly be conceived as inscrutable, ultimate, absolute certainties\nof divine descent, and acknowledging no human ancestry. We saw that\nthey could be understood only as hypotheses which reflection upon a\nproblem had somehow suggested to an ingenious mind, which had been\nprovisionally adopted in order to explore and organize a subject of\ninquiry, and had finally been verified and confirmed by their success\n(\u00a7\u00a015 (_c_), \u00a7\u00a024).\n\nThe principles thus accepted by a science are often regarded\nas descriptive of fact when they are merely methodological and\nconvenient,[401] but this is a point of secondary importance. And even\nthe most amply verified principles never quite lose their hypothetical\ncharacter. So long as they are used, their meaning, scope, and truth\nare not absolutely fixed. They can be extended, restricted, and\nmodified by the working of the principles.\n\n\u00a7\u00a031. (_b_) It is really obvious to any critical reflection that when\na science appeals to \u2018facts\u2019, it is really appealing to the facts _as\nknown_, or supposed to be known. It cannot from the first presume its\nknowledge to be absolute, and, _pace_ some of our \u2018neo-realists\u2019,\nignore the question whether the alleged facts are facts at all, and so\npretend to start from \u2018the facts as they really are\u2019. Such uncritical\ntemerity would only conduct to insoluble pseudo-problems like that\nwith which King Charles plagued the nascent Royal Society, as to _why_\nthe weight of a bucket full of water was not increased when a fish was\nadded to it. If, however, it is acknowledged that the \u2018facts\u2019 involved\nin a scientific inquiry are always relative to a definite state and\ndate in the history of a science, several important corollaries follow.\n\n(1) Being dependent on the condition of the science, the facts of a\nscience will not all be \u2018facts\u2019. That is, not all that is relevant to\nthe interest of the science will actually be within its cognizance,\nnot all that turns out to be fact, and is antedated when it has been\ndiscovered, is as yet recognized as fact. It will be this fact,\nmoreover, which constitutes the science a field for inquiry and renders\nit progressive.\n\n(2) Though the \u2018facts\u2019 of the moment fail to include all the facts,\nthey often manage to include too much. The \u2018facts\u2019 are not all fact.\nThey include unknown, and often large, amounts of prejudice, illusion,\nerror, superstition, and other remnants of the lurid past and stormy\nyouth of every science. It is useless to repine at this inevitable\nconsequence of past history, and childish to try to purge it away\nby defining as science only what _ex hypothesi_ is free from such\ncontaminations. To restrict the logical interest to science _qua_\nscience, which is by definition infallible, is to forbid any logical\ntreatment of the sciences we actually possess. But the logician should\nsurely be encouraged to study the processes by which the sciences\ncorrect their initial errors and consolidate their acquisitions.\n\n(3) It follows on both these grounds that the \u2018facts\u2019 of which a\nscience takes cognizance will be subject to change. As the science\ngrows, \u2018new\u2019 facts will come into it, and old facts will be discarded\nas erroneous. In particular, facts which at first were only inferred\non theoretic grounds will be actually observed, even as \u2018Neptune\u2019 was\nthe fruit of a theory about the perturbations of Uranus. Hence the\nantithesis of \u2018theory\u2019 and \u2018fact\u2019 must not be taken as absolute: they\nmust be expected to play into each other\u2019s hands. It is the business of\ntheories to forecast \u2018facts\u2019, and of facts to form points of departure\nfor theories, which again, when verified by the new facts to which\nthey have successfully led, will extend the borders of knowledge.\nIncidentally, however, this interaction between fact and theory often\nrenders it difficult to decide whether a scientific doctrine is better\nregarded as a \u2018theory\u2019 or as a \u2018fact\u2019, and leads to differences of\nopinion. But it can hardly be wrong to advise the scientific mind to\npractise hospitality towards new facts, while it is no less fitting\nto show generosity towards old servants that have done their work and\ncan now advantageously be retired. It is ungrateful to abuse them as\n\u2018errors\u2019, and to despise them with the lofty contempt of the higher\nknowledge to which they have conducted. And in both cases the truly\nscientific attitude may be attained if an element of fanaticism is\nnot imported into the conception of truth by attributing to it an\nabsoluteness which no human truth in fact possesses.\n\n(4) The same need for tolerance is emphasized by a further corollary of\nthe conception of fact which has been advocated. It seems at first a\nparadox, but on reflection appears to be evident, that the \u2018facts\u2019 will\nnot only _look_ different but may really _be_ different from different\npoints of view and for different purposes. Once we permit ourselves to\nconsider this possibility we shall easily perceive that there often\nare conflicts between \u2018facts\u2019, such that they cannot coexist for an\nabstract logic, while, nevertheless, each of the conflicting facts\nmay be intelligible relatively to its own presuppositions and true\nunder its own conditions, so that the \u2018contradiction\u2019 between them is\ngenerated merely because the logical statement has abstracted from the\nspecial circumstances of the case.\n\nThis situation is, of course, recognized very familiarly and\nuniversally in the case of _value-judgements_. We are all willing to\nadmit that one man\u2019s meat may be another man\u2019s poison, that it is vain\nto dispute about tastes, and that the same mode of living does not\nsuit all constitutions and all circumstances. We recognize, too, that\nprofound differences of opinion and attitude exist, and always have\nexisted, among men. The temperamental differences which make e.g. one\nman indolent another enterprising, one man daring another prudent, one\na conservative another a radical, one an optimist another a pessimist,\nare so deeply rooted in human nature as to be, humanly speaking,\nineradicable. And if so, must it not be conceded that situations\noccur which will inevitably, consistently, _and rightly_, be judged\ndifferently by these different persons?\n\nAgain, it should be noted that these differences in valuation are not\nmerely subjective: they spring from objective differences in human\nnature, and are as objective as any other facts about it. For example,\nthat certain persons dislike pork (because they cannot digest it), and\nhate cats (because their presence makes them feel ill), rests as much\non a physiological fact of their constitution as that others suffer\nfrom \u2018hay fever\u2019. Similarly, it is quite plausible to contend that\n\u2018every little boy and girl that is born alive, is born a little liberal\nor a conservative\u2019, and certainly the normal growth of conservatism\nas the individual mind ages is proof enough that changes of belief\ndepend on psychological law, and are correlated with the hardening of\ntissue which is a general symptom of senescence. Again, is it possible\nto imagine a situation so bad or so good that it cannot be interpreted\neither optimistically or pessimistically? In most cases either\ninterpretation is quite easy, and the choice between them is effected\nby sheer temperamental bias. If, then, we succeed in doing what the\nnatural man will always find difficult, and regard such differences of\nopinion in a scientific and non-partisan way, must we not admit that\n_both_ the conflicting standpoints are inevitable and justifiable?\nNeither can be pronounced wrong in general and _per se_, though in\nregard to a particular problem or occasion either may be. Let us\nconclude, then, that it may really be a \u2018fact\u2019 that the \u2018facts\u2019 justify\none interpretation and attitude to one mind and another to another.\n\nThis argument is reinforced by the further consideration that even\nthe most objective statements of fact involve _value-judgements_\nin their ultimate analysis. For they express, often explicitly and\nalways implicitly, the choices and valuations by which a variety of\npretenders to reality have been examined and sifted, and the most\nvaluable have been declared \u2018truly real\u2019. We have seen that in a\nscientific inquiry the \u2018facts\u2019 must always be taken as _alleged_\nfacts, discovered up to date; hence a science must always be ready to\ndefend the \u2018facts\u2019 it recognizes, when they are challenged, and to\nshow wherein they excel conflicting allegations. The accepted \u2018facts\u2019\nof a science, therefore, are always allegations which are thought to\npossess greater _value_ than any known alternative; hence no sharp\nor absolute distinction between judgements of fact and judgements of\nvalue can be maintained. It becomes, moreover, quite possible that\nincompatible allegations of fact may in the actual state of a science\nbe so nearly balanced that there is no convincing reason to prefer\none to another, or at any rate none that could prevail against any\nordinary temperamental bias. Consequently, in such cases the bias\nwill condition the visibility of the \u2018fact\u2019; it will be bathed in a\n\u2018subjective\u2019 atmosphere, and the \u2018eye of faith\u2019 will be necessary to\nperceive it. No doubt such situations are inconvenient, and repellent\nto the scientific spirit; but they do not occur only in the misty\nregions of religion and philosophy, and scientific alternatives like\n\u2018chance\u2019 or \u2018design\u2019, \u2018miracle\u2019 or \u2018law\u2019, \u2018mechanism\u2019 or \u2018vitalism\u2019,\ndeterminism or indeterminism are essentially of this order. There is no\nreason, therefore, why logic should not recognize them and acknowledge\nthat the scientific \u2018facts\u2019 may be ambiguous, in the sense that further\nexperience and experiments are needed to determine their character.\nAs a rule, to judge by the past, further inquiry will resolve the\nambiguity; but it may well be an illusion to assume that it must do so,\nand in some of the most important cases the decision will certainly be\nlong in coming.\n\nThus the student of animal behaviour will probably long be left with\na choice between minimizing the displays of animal intelligence and\nassimilating them to the human, while it will probably always be\npossible to put a pessimistic or an optimistic interpretation upon the\nfacts of life as a whole.\n\nA scientific logic therefore should radically disabuse the mind of\nany excessive trust in \u2018facts\u2019. It is a superstition that \u2018facts\u2019 are\nplain, straightforward, and easy to discover; they are often subtle and\nrecondite and relative to circumstances, changing their aspect to suit\ntheir scientific environment like any chameleon.\n\n\u00a7\u00a032. (_c_) In considering the use of words in research, one cannot\nof course overlook the obvious fact that the employment of words is\nprimarily determined by their established meanings, and that these\ngreatly limit our freedom to use them as we please. Words naturally\nand inevitably suggest their established uses by their mere sounds,\nand should always be used with a proper respect for their past history\nand present meaning. To be sensitive to this appeal is the mark of\nthe educated scholar; but it does not require the investigator to\nexhaust his energies in vain attempts to stereotype absolutely the\ncurrent meanings, and so to deprive words of their essential function.\nFor their essential function is after all to be instruments for the\nconveying of actual meaning, and actual meanings are always more or\nless new (cf. \u00a7\u00a012). It occurs to a particular person in a particular\nsituation to express and convey a meaning which has never in its full\nconcreteness occurred before. If the novelty about this situation is\nappreciable and important, it may well be that the old words will\nnot fully succeed in conveying the new meaning; and yet we shall\nalways endeavour to use them, and select from the accumulated wealth\nof language the words which will suffice for our purpose. For the\nalternative is worse; we cannot always be coining new words for every\nnew meaning we may desire to convey; they would not be understood or\nremembered, and even if they were, a science that employed nothing\nbut technical terms, and was moreover compelled continually to\nchange them, because it would not use them to convey new meanings,\nwould speedily degenerate into an abstruse game, and could make no\nprogress. How impracticable such a policy would be may be gauged\nby the grave inconvenience which even now systematists cause by so\nfrequently changing the scientific names of plants and animals. It is\nindispensable, therefore, that words should retain a certain measure\nof plasticity, in virtue of which they can be transferred from old\nsituations to new and be used to convey new meanings. Nor is there\nusually any difficulty about thus imposing new duties on the old\nterms; under the particular circumstances of the situation even wide\ndepartures from the established meanings may remain intelligible, and\nso the progress of science is not impeded.\n\nThe traditional logic, however, cannot treat the matter so lightly.\nFor the plasticity of words may always engender a conflict between\nthe old meaning and the new, between the scientific use of terms and\nthe traditional conventions about their use. And this can always\nbe represented as a defiance of the \u2018laws of thought\u2019. For if the\nmeaning of \u2018_A_\u2019 may be altered by the growth of knowledge, it will\nno longer be true that everything once called \u2018_A_\u2019 is truly _A_,\nnor that what was once incompatible with _A_ will continue to be so\nfor all time. Hence it is no longer necessarily true that \u2018_A_ is\n_A_\u2019, and that _A_ cannot both be and not be _B_. It may be both in\ndifferent senses, and in what sense \u2018_A_\u2019 and \u2018_B_\u2019 should be taken\nmay be precisely the point at issue. Thus verbal contradiction ceases\nto be a clear proof of error; it may be only a much-needed warning\nthat our terms have been developing new meanings. Hence, the \u2018laws\u2019\nof Identity and Contradiction lose their last claims to be regarded\nas statements of fact, and have to be conceived as ideal postulates\nof just so much stability of meaning as is requisite for effective\nunderstanding.[402] They can be applied to reality only hypothetically,\ni.e. experimentally, to discover whether in a given situation the\nnatural growth in the meaning of the terms may _rightly_ be treated as\nirrelevant, and does not vitiate the conclusion which the reasoning\nforecasts. Now this problem can never be settled _a priori_ by\nreasoning, but only by subsequent experience. Reasoning may forecast a\nresult which experience fails to confirm; when we discover that comets\u2019\ntails are not attracted by the sun but repelled, we do not declare\nthe facts \u2018contradictory\u2019, but modify our notion of \u2018gravitation\u2019,\nand conceive it as inferior to \u2018light pressure\u2019 in its effects upon\nparticles of a certain minuteness.\n\nIt follows that no merely logical scrutiny of the terms of an\nargument can ever settle a scientific question. If a \u2018contradiction\u2019\nis real, it means either a difference of opinion between those\nwho make the incompatible assertions, or, in the case of a real\n\u2018self-contradiction\u2019, the uttering of \u2018nonsense\u2019 and a failure to\npropound a meaning at all. But even the most glaring \u2018contradictions\u2019\nmay only be apparent, i.e. verbal: when we inquire into their actual\nmeaning we may find that they refer to a context in which its terms are\nperfectly compatible. Thus the existence of a \u2018round square\u2019 may be\npredicated of London, and a \u2018triangle\u2019s\u2019 angles may equal or may exceed\ntwo right angles, according as it belongs to Euclid\u2019s geometry or to\nRiemann\u2019s.\n\n\u00a7\u00a033. The problem of discovery, therefore, is never one of which the\nsolution can be guaranteed in advance. The resources of a science are\nnever sufficient to assure us of a prosperous issue of the research,\nthough, rightly understood, they yield important safeguards. A\nrecognition of the instrumental value of words as ancillary to meaning,\nand of the limitations under which they labour, will guard the inquirer\nagainst the terrible verbalism to which logic has been enslaved. A\ncritical attitude towards allegations about \u2018facts\u2019 will enable him to\nminimize the dangers of error, deception, and bigotry. A conception\nof \u2018principles\u2019 as working hypotheses will discourage a servile and\nsuperstitious reverence for them, and justify the fullest freedom to\nexperiment with whatever ideas hold out hopes of verification and of\nscientific progress. Together these three considerations will pretty\nthoroughly emancipate inquiry from the shackles of any mechanical\nscheme of \u2018proof\u2019. Indeed, proof in the old formal sense will have\nbecome a chimera. It will no longer be possible to cherish the belief\nin a self-sufficing, self-satisfied form of absolute proof, of which\nthe pure logician imagined himself the possessor and retailer.\n\nScientific proof, on the other hand, will be neither absolute nor\nformal. It will not be absolute, because it will always be relative to\nthe actual condition of a science; it will not be formal, because it\nwill never be absolute. It will only be the best known interpretation,\nand will always imply alternatives, to some of which it may wrongly\nhave been preferred, while to others it may be destined to succumb\n(\u00a7\u00a7\u00a026, 27). It will be \u2018valid\u2019 so long as it is the strongest; but\nto it, as to the priest of Diana Nemorensis, as to Uranus and Cronus,\nwill come the day when it is invalidated and superseded by a stronger\nand better, descended, it may well be, from itself. Scientific proof\nthen will always be an _evaluation_ of evidence, a making the most of\nthe available resources of a science, a question of the _comparative\nvalues_ of rival interpretations.\n\nIt stands to reason that such an evaluation cannot operate merely\nwith the criteria of formal logic. Indeed, of the processes known\nto the traditional logic, only those which _cannot_ be represented\nas \u2018formally valid\u2019 will be exemplified in scientific knowing. It\nwill not be possible to find any genuine cases of absolute certainty\nor unconditional proof; but analogies, probabilities, hypotheses,\nalternatives, even fallacies and fictions, will abound, and will\nsomehow have to be discounted. Clearly the evaluation of such things\nwill be a delicate affair; it cannot be accomplished by reciting\n_Barbara Celarent_ and crudely applying a few simple mechanical\nformulas. It will demand the energetic co-operation of the whole\nintelligence, and indeed of the whole personality, and cannot scorn the\naid of psychological factors. For it is plain that the evaluation of\na complicated scientific situation will require both expert knowledge\nof scientific detail and philosophic grasp of general principles\nand connexions; it will need also \u2018tact\u2019, \u2018judgement\u2019, an \u2018eye from\nexperience\u2019, and a host of similar qualities that elude precise verbal\nformulation. It will no longer be practicable to flatter mediocrity and\ndullness, and to impede discovery, by proclaiming methods that dispense\nwith imagination, ingenuity, originality, boldness, enterprise, and\nvainly endeavour to put genius for discovery on a par with mindless\npedantry in applying stereotyped and sterile rules.\n\n\u00a7\u00a034. But just because a logic that recognizes the actual process of\ndiscovery does not presume to dictate formal methods to the discoverer,\nand leaves him a very free hand, it does not relieve him of any of the\nresponsibility for conducting his researches to a prosperous issue.\nAs there is no longer any pretence that any logical machinery can be\ndevised to guarantee success, success and failure become his personal\nachievements. If he fails, he can no longer plead that it is not his\nfault, seeing that he has kept every letter of the law and broken\nno logical rule. This may be precisely _why_ he failed. Perhaps he\nshould have taken risks. He may have gathered such enormous masses\nof fact that he could no longer see through them, nor select the few\nthat were relevant to his problem. He may have been so sensible of\nthe need for caution that he dared not speculate or move. He may have\ndevoted himself to unimportant problems or missed the important sides\nof important problems, or have wandered away into barren wastes of\ndialectics, or have got bogged in a mire of verbalism, or have pursued\nelusive phantoms of unverifiable speculations. For there are clearly\nmany ways of failing. Only in whatever way he fails, his personal\nfailure is _pro tanto_ a failure of science to progress. Every science\nhas somehow to get hold of a clue to guide it through the labyrinth of\nfact, and this clue has to lead it right, though it need not \u2018follow\nnecessarily\u2019 from previous knowledge.\n\nNevertheless, if, and in so far as, a researcher succeeds in making a\ndiscovery, some of his personal credit is reflected upon his methods\n_ex-post facto_. Their success does not, of course, establish their\nformal \u2018validity\u2019; but it stops the mouth of those who argued that what\nis \u2018invalid\u2019 must be worthless. Methods that succeed must have _value_,\na greater thing than \u2018validity\u2019, however far and however boldly they\ndeparted from the canons of formal proof. The success has shown that\n_in this case_ the inquirer was right to select the facts he fixed\nupon as significant, and to neglect the rest as irrelevant, to connect\nthem as he did by the \u2018laws\u2019 he applied to them, to theorize about\nthem as he did, to perceive the analogies, to weigh the chances, as he\ndid, to speculate and to run the risks he did. But only in this case.\nIn the very next case, which he takes to be \u2018essentially the same\u2019 as\nthe last, and as nearly analogous as is humanly possible, he may find\nthat the differences (which always exist between cases) are relevant,\nand that his methods and assumptions have to be modified to cope with\nit successfully. But he should not be discouraged. For the ultimate\nground of the whole cognitive procedure by which we analyse the flow\nof events is empirical. It is only an empirical fact that knowledge is\npossible, i.e. that the course of events is such that human minds can\nanalyse it at all, that is, can pick out and construct cases of \u2018the\nsame\u2019, of which the course can be predicted by means of the (verbally)\nstable formulas we call \u2018the laws of nature\u2019. For logic at any rate\nthese laws are neither supernatural behests nor metaphysical entities:\nthey are forms for classifying happenings, in which the blanks have to\nbe filled in with the variable values of the particular happenings.\nWhat the _right_ values are, and even what is the _right_ formula to\napply, will always depend on the particular case which forms the actual\nproblem. It is only the empirical fact that the differences between\nproblems may so often be treated as irrelevant which generates the\nillusion that problems may be solved in advance by general formulas: in\nreality every problem in its full concreteness is unique, and we are\nnever absolutely sure that it will submit to the rule we apply to it.\nHence it is solved only when we come to it and find it amenable to our\nmethods; in principle it eludes logical prediction, because it can be\nknown as a \u2018case\u2019 of the successful \u2018law\u2019 only _after_ the experiment\nhas confirmed the forecast. To the inquirer, therefore, no result can\nseem certain until it has occurred; it is only _ex post facto_ that\nthe logician can describe it as an indubitable case of some law from\nwhich it follows of necessity. But in so doing he has changed it, and\nrepudiated the duty of describing actual knowing. All he is doing is\nto rearrange a piece of knowledge, acquired without his aid by means\nhe condemns as illicit, in the order he is pleased to call \u2018logical\u2019.\nThis order has a certain aesthetic value, but it is emphatically _not_\nthe order of discovery, and throws no light on the process of acquiring\nknowledge.\n\n\u00a7\u00a035. What function then can be assigned to the logician\u2019s reflection\non the workings of science? In view of his failure to substantiate his\nclaim to have provided a model for inquiry in his scheme of \u2018proof\u2019,\nit might seem that he was either useless or pernicious. Useless, if\nhe merely devotes himself to constructing \u2018ideals of proof\u2019 which\nhe admits to have no relation to the actual problems of science;\npernicious, if he is prompted by these ideals to make demands with\nwhich no science can comply, and to deliver judgements which would\nparalyse the science that attempted to carry them into execution.\nFortunately, he cannot enforce them, and the sciences actually go\non their way, ignoring such \u2018logic\u2019. The proper inference from his\nimpotence is that he would do well to take up a position which is more\nuseful and more influential, if less pretentious.\n\nLet the logician then give up the pretence of dictating to the\nsciences and of judging the worth of scientific truth by rigid forms of\nabsolute proof; let him abandon the vain pursuit of \u2018validity\u2019. Nay,\nmore, let him renounce the claim to determine the scientific value of\nan argument by a mere inspection of its logical character. Let him\nconfess that what alone he can criticize is the incongruities in its\nverbal expression, and that its real value lies beyond his ken. If\nhe will concede all this, his reward will be that he has vindicated\nfor logic an important right of more real value than the claims he\nhas abandoned. For he will have obtained the right of summoning the\nsciences to state their results in intelligible and consistent terms,\nand to confront them with a problem when they do not. Just because he\ndoes not presume to condemn them, and no longer ventures to declare\nthat incompatible and verbally \u2018contradictory\u2019 results are necessarily\nwrong and worthless, but only urges that they are not intelligible as\nthey stand, and need to be reworded or inquired into farther, he gains\nthe right of _raising problems_, and stimulates the sciences to proceed\nto solve them.\n\nIt should be noted, moreover, that the problems thus raised are\ngeneral, not special, i.e. are properly logical. The problem about\n\u2018contradictory\u2019 results is one about meaning, for contradictory\nassertions cancel each other\u2019s (apparent) meaning. This enables\nthe logician to keep the sciences engaged upon the logical problem\nof solving the discrepancies between their results, so long as\nthe sciences do not form one complete and congruous system, i.e.\nindefinitely.\n\nSimilarly the denial that truth is absolute is a general truth that\naffects all the sciences. It should stimulate them all, for it means\nthat no statement is so perfect that it cannot be bettered and that no\nlimits can be set to the progress of science.\n\nOther topics which are \u2018logical\u2019, because they concern the general\nsignificance of scientific procedure and not the solution of particular\nproblems, are the nature and importance of selecting \u2018facts\u2019 and\nthe \u2018laws\u2019 they are taken to exemplify, the experimental attitude\nand the framing of hypotheses, the evaluation of probabilities and\nalternatives, the estimation of relevance and of verifications and of\nthe amounts of the latter which are requisite and the sorts of it which\nare relevant. On all these points logic has hitherto had little or\nnothing to say, mainly because they did not lend themselves to formal\ntreatment. Lastly, there are two extremely important subjects, which\nare so vital to the logic of discovery that a brief discussion of them\nmay fitly conclude this essay. We may call them the problem of Novelty\nand the problem of Risk.\n\n\u00a7\u00a036. In Logic we are not concerned with the metaphysics of Novelty,\ni.e. with the problem of whether there ever enter the world things\nthat are really and truly unforeseen and unpredictable, that pop into\nit from nowhere, and if so, whether and how we can understand such\nthings. This problem is deep and difficult, and so, until recently,\nphilosophers have fought shy of it, and used to settle it off-hand by\na flat denial that such things could be in a \u2018rational\u2019 universe. But\nnow that M. Bergson has given us a radically new metaphysic, and that\nwe are beginning to perceive that the principles used to dispose of the\nmatter, viz. causality and the conservation of energy, are essentially\nmethodological, the question has become an open one.\n\nLogic, however, has no need to probe it; it can treat it more simply.\nFor its purposes it can, and must, treat novelty as a real logical\nfact. It is a psychological fact, and logic must note it, that every\nmoment of our life has for us a certain flavour of newness; it is\nalso a fact that every real judgement that is ever made has a certain\nrelation to novelty.[403] Its maker believes, either that it embodies\na new truth, or that though known to him it is new to his hearers. If\nhe did not believe this he would have no motive to make it. It would\nbe stale repetition, devoid of interest or value alike to him and to\nothers, whom he would merely bore by telling them what they, too, knew\nalready.\n\nSo far, then, the logical nature of novelty seems simple. It gives\nrise to problems, however, when we consider the relation of the new\ntruth to the old. It is clear, in the first place, that the new\ntruth must affect the old. Even where we are willing to minimize its\nnovelty, and to call it merely an \u2018extension\u2019 of what we already\nknew, it must modify it and change its value. For in the light of\nthe new developments the old truth _means more_: it has relations in\nan enlarged field of knowledge. Moreover, the new truth is often not\nmerely an extension but also a _correction_, and the effect of the\ncorrection may sometimes be revolutionary. It may even seem to upset\nthe old beliefs altogether, though human ingenuity is far too fertile\nin building bridges (often only verbal) from the old to the new to\nallow this impression to be permanent. Still in all these cases there\nis more or less discrepancy between the new and the old.\n\nThe logician, however, should insist that this fact should not be\nblinked. He should recognize the discrepancy, and emphasize its\nsignificance, just because for other purposes it is usually convenient\nto ignore it. For it is not only the source of real ambiguity in\nthe facts of science, and of the important differences of opinion\namong men and of their obstinate persistence, but the justification\nof the policy of open-mindedness and toleration which he regards as\nnecessary to scientific progress. Inasmuch as of every discrepancy\nbetween the old truth and the new it will be possible to take two\nviews, and either to cling to the old or to put one\u2019s trust in\nthe new, there will always be a party of conservation and a party\nof innovation, or otherwise a conservative and a liberal bias, in\nscience as in politics. It is, moreover, futile to discuss, in the\nabstract, which of them is right: for it would clearly be fatal to go\nall lengths with either. Science could make no progress, either if\nevery novelty were at once condemned and suppressed because of its\nfailure to conform with the accepted doctrine, or if everything new\nwere hailed as true regardless of its concordance with the old truth,\nso that the course of science became a series of radical revolutions\nthat had no consistent direction. In concrete cases of course both\nsides are sometimes right, though historically the stronger bias men\nhave shown has been the conservative. What usually happens is that\nthe new truth is first denounced as an immoral invention which is\nsubversive of all intelligible order and cosmic rationality; it is then\nquietly assimilated and not infrequently converted in the end into\nthe strongest support of the beliefs it was alleged to subvert. But\nit would be a real gain if logic, by viewing this natural feature of\nknowing in its generality, could induce men of science to take it more\ncalmly. If it were generally recognized that every claim to new truth,\nhowever great the advantages it promises, necessarily entails certain\ninconveniences, because the old beliefs and notions have to be modified\nand readjusted, and this may involve too great an effort to be worth\nwhile, or an effort too great for certain minds, it would be seen that\nthere are two sides to every question, and that both may be in a way\nlegitimate. If, in addition, we recognize that the parties concerned\nusually have a bias which may render them dangerously blind to the case\nof the other side, and that both should be admonished to discount their\nbias duly, we shall have done not a little to secure fair-minded[404]\nconsideration, reasonable discussion, and intelligent choice between\nthe alternatives. And all this surely conduces to scientific progress.\n\nIt is clear, then, that the problem of relating the new to the old\nalways exists, and has a vital influence on the fortunes of every\nscience. But it is not capable of any formal or abstract solution _a\npriori_. Which is to be preferred is a matter which must be left to the\nexpert who is cognizant of the circumstances of the case: logic can\nhelp only by broadening his mind, and putting him on his guard against\nhis own personal bias, which might otherwise unconsciously determine\nhis decision.\n\n\u00a7\u00a037. To admit that scientific inquiries concern problems, and that to\nevery problem (at least) two solutions may be propounded, between which\na choice has to be made, is to admit that knowledge _must take risks_\nin order to progress. For there is always the risk of choosing the\nwrong solution of a problem, i.e. the one which works _less_ well, just\nas there are always risks of choosing a bad problem and of selecting\nthe wrong facts and the wrong theories to explain them withal.\nNevertheless, we ought not to resent this fact. For the taking of risks\nis inevitable: we cannot escape it either by refusing to inquire or by\nrefusing to decide. For in either case we run the risk of missing a\nvaluable truth.\n\nIt is better, therefore, to recognize that every act of knowing must\ninvolve risks, just as every act of living does; and this for the\nsimple reason that knowing is an activity comprised in living, and\nevery judgement is an _act_, which might have been left undone, or\nfor which another might have been substituted. The readiness of the\nnew conception of logic to emphasize the existence of risks in all\nreasoning, and to sanction the willingness to take them, contrasts\nmarkedly with the vain efforts of the old logic to play for safety, and\nto make no move that was not absolutely necessary (cf. \u00a7\u00a010). This was\nwhy it postulated absolutely certain premisses, and would contemplate\nnothing but \u2018valid\u2019 forms of reasoning. In its desire to elevate its\nproofs above the perplexities and vicissitudes of mundane problems, the\nold logic was expressing and comforting a deep-seated human craving:\nfor life is so replete with the most hideous risks that it is a natural\ninstinct to clutch at any promise of security. Hence the passionate and\nalmost religious reverence with which formal logic has been regarded\nfor over 2,000 years. Many philosophers still worship the syllogism,\nbecause it seems to them an incomparable exemplar of absolute security\nfirmly fixed in the sphere of immutable necessity far above the flux\nof phenomena, which it illumines with its steady radiance. But to\nexalt in this way its ideal of proof, the old logic had to pay a heavy\nprice. The price was cutting the ideal wholly adrift from the actual,\ncontemplating exclusively a situation which could never occur in\nreal life, and leaving all actual inquiry to its devices, unstudied,\nuncriticized, and unaided. Thus, the splendid aloofness of the logical\nideal was purchased by a total repudiation of actual science. To\nmany philosophic minds this price does not seem excessive. The more\nuseless truth is made to appear, the purer and more admirable it seems\nto them. An ideal, they think, should be like Aristotle\u2019s \u2018god\u2019; it\nshould attract, without uplifting, and without running the risk of\ncontamination by the dirty work of life.\n\nThese philosophers have always claimed for their attitude that it is\nphilosophic _par excellence_. But their claim, besides being based\non a somewhat rare personal idiosyncrasy, is not really sound. It is\nneither self-consistent nor a sound policy for life. An ideal which\nrepudiates the actual, and yet professes somehow to be its exemplar,\nis left in the impossible condition of the Platonic \u2018Idea\u2019. If it were\nas superhuman as it claims to be, no human mind could even speculate\nabout it. And we have seen (\u00a7\u00a013) that it is not in the end possible\nto devise a form of proof which is bomb-proof against the attacks of\nexperience and superior to verification.\n\nIs it not wiser, then, to admit that life has its claims upon science,\nand science upon logic? We simply _must_ have a science that can\nhandle human life and meet human needs, and does not degenerate into a\ngame with arbitrary and fantastic rules which depart from the actual\nconditions of life in any direction and to any distance unrestrained\nimagination carries them; and our logic must deign to study such\na science. If to do so it has to \u2018scrap\u2019 its antique \u2018ideals\u2019, to\nabandon its pose of an inhuman, impassible, infallible aloofness, and\nto interest itself in the doubting, questioning, guessing, trying,\nrisking, blundering, correcting, achieving that make up the sum of\nhuman knowledge, it will receive an ample reward in the gratitude of\nman for a logic that has entered his service, and in the salutary\ninfluence which it will exercise upon his actions.\n\n\n_Conclusions_\n\n(1) We have shown, negatively, that the notion of a form of proof, by\nwhich conclusions can be absolutely demonstrated by dint of pure logic\nalone, is a delusion. No such form can be constructed (\u00a7\u00a7\u00a013, 15), and\nif it could, it could neither find scientific material worthy of it\n(\u00a7\u00a028), nor contain the material which is fabricated by the sciences.\n\n(2) We have thereby shown that formal logic cannot represent the\nlogical nature of discovery or of any of the processes of actual\nknowing, and must condemn them all as \u2018invalid\u2019 (\u00a7\u00a7\u00a018, 20, 26, 28).\n\n(3) We have seen that a logic which attempts to understand actual\nknowing cannot prescribe to the sciences how they are to solve their\nproblems (\u00a7\u00a033).\n\n(4) But it _can_ grasp the general character of scientific procedure,\nappreciate its difficulties and dangers, understand the expedients for\nmeeting them, and trace it to its roots in the constitution of the\nhuman mind and in the needs of life (\u00a7\u00a035).\n\n(5) In virtue of its general grasp of the aim and method of the\nsciences a logic of science can at times offer advice to scientists:\nit may draw their attention to the general problems which their work\ninvolves, but which are apt to be overlooked by specialists, such as\nthe claims of consistency and novelty and the regulation of risks\n(\u00a7\u00a036). Or, better still, if they will study it themselves, it may\nbroaden their minds and enable them to handle these general problems\nfor themselves far more effectively than a pure logician could do it\nfor them.\n\n(6) By abandoning its pretensions to rigour and conclusiveness logic\ndoes not really lose: it gains immensely by coming into contact with\nscience and life, and becoming of use in the world.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n Abano: _see_ Peter of Abano.\n\n Abercrombie, John, _Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers_,\n 249 _n._\n\n Abi \u2018U\u1e63aibia, Ibn, 227 and _n._ 4, 228 _n._ 5, 229.\n\n Abu\u2019l Faraj Gregory, cited, 228 _n._ 3.\n\n Achillini, Alessandro, 95, 98, 105;\n _Annotationes anatomiae_, 95 _n._ 4.\n\n Adelphus, Johannes (J. A. Muelich), _Mundini de omnibus humani\n corporis interioribus membris Anathomia_, 93 _n._ 3,\n 96 _n._ 2, 128 fig.\u00a022.\n\n Adrian IV, Pope, St. Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Agobard, St., of Lyons, on witchcraft, 191.\n\n Agrippa, Cornelius, opposition to witch mania by, 214, 215.\n\n Al Afdal, Sultan, 226.\n\n Alberic the younger, Benedictine monk, of Monte Cassino, 21.\n\n Albertotti, G., _Nuove osservazioni sul \u2018Fasciculus medicinae\u2019 del\n Ketham_, 90 _n._ 3.\n\n Albertus Magnus, 22, 32, 51, 113, 114.\n\n Albigensian heresy, 192.\n\n Alcoatim, anatomical work by, 121.\n\n Alexander III, Pope, St. Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Alexander V, Pope, 99;\n post-mortem examination on, 94.\n\n Alexander of Neckam, 22, 23.\n\n Alexander of Tralles, 182.\n\n Alhazen, 122.\n\n \u2018Ali \u2018Abbas: _see_ Haly Abbas.\n\n Al Qifty, _Classes Philosophorum et astronomorum et medicorum_, 229\n and _n._ 3.\n\n Al Tamimi al Muqaddasi, 231 _n._ 2.\n\n Alva, Duke of, 221.\n\n Amp\u00e8re, cited, 21.\n\n _Analecta Bollandiana_, 6 _n._ 2.\n\n Anastasius IV, Pope, St. Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Anatomy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 79-86;\n Bolognese works on anatomy, 92-7;\n drawings of anatomical structures, &c., 44, 45, 46, 81, 83, 84,\n 87-91, 96, 105, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128,\n 129, 130, plates XVIII, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII,\n XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.\n _See also_ Manfredi, Hieronymo.\n\n Anaximander, 257.\n\n _Annalen des Vereins f\u00fcr Nassauische Alterthumskunde und\n Geschichtsforschung_, 13 _n._ 3.\n\n Anstis, John, _History of the Garter_, 167.\n\n Antipodes, the, mediaeval conception of, 22, 23.\n\n _Anzeiger f\u00fcr Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit_, 12 _n._ 2.\n\n Apocalypse, the, 20.\n\n Aquinas, 51, 193.\n\n Arabians, influence on early science and on medicine, 17, 18, 29, 84,\n 86, 92, 93, 115, 120, 121, 129, 225-34.\n\n _Archaeological Journal_ (British Archaeological Association),\n 166 _n._ 1, 172 _n._ 3, 178.\n\n Archimedes, 253.\n\n _Archiv f\u00fcr die Geschichte der Medizin_, 38 _n._ 4, 44 _nn._ 4, 5,\n 45 _n._ 1, 87_nn._1, 3, 4, 89 _n._ 2, 114 _n._ 3, 121 _n._ 1,\n 122 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 5.\n\n _Archiv f\u00fcr die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik_,\n 121 _n._ 1.\n\n _Archiv f\u00fcr die zeichnenden K\u00fcnste_, 87 _n._ 5.\n\n _Archiv f\u00fcr Pathologie_, 13 _n._ 4, 226 _n._ 1.\n\n Argellata, Pietro d\u2019, description of the examination of the body of\n Pope Alexander V, 94 and _n._ 2.\n\n Aristippus, translation of Aristotle\u2019s _Meteorologica,_ 24 _n._\n\n Aristotle, 288;\n anatomical conceptions of, 46 _n._, 126, 127;\n logic and dialectics, 238, 240, 243, 245, 248, 250, 252, 254, 255,\n 257, 259;\n physiological theories, 50 _n._ 4, 60, 61, 71, 73, 75;\n theory of the elements, 17, 25.\n Works cited:\n _Analytica posteriora_, 238, 245 _n._, 252 _n._, 257 _n._;\n _De caelo et mundo_, 17;\n _De partibus animalium_, 46 _n._ 1, 126 _nn._ 4, 5;\n _Historia animalium_, 126 _nn._ 3, 4, 5;\n _Meteorologica_, 24.\n\n Armengaud de Blaise, Latin translation of Maimonides on Poisons,\n 226 _n._ 1.\n\n Arnald of Villanova, charge of sorcery against, 193.\n\n Astrology, 38, 47, 97, 98.\n\n Athanasius, St., 4, 7.\n\n _Atti e Memorie della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie\n di Romagna_, 99 _n._ 2.\n\n Augsburg, Peace of, 194.\n\n Augustine, St., 17, 20, 51, 113, 198, 216.\n\n Avempace, 17.\n\n Averroes, 17, 95.\n\n Avicebron, 17, 43 _n._ 1.\n\n Avicenna, 17, 18, 86, 93, 94, 95, 101, 105, 113, 121, 122, 127, 129,\n 182.\n\n Azzolino, first recorded case of dissection at Bologna, 92.\n\n\n Bacher, W., _Moses ben Maimon_, 229 _n._ 1.\n\n Bacon, Francis, _Natural and Experimental History_, 180.\n\n Bacon, Roger, anatomical writings and drawings by, 113, 116, 121,\n 122, plate XXXVIII (_a_);\n on the structure of the universe, 22.\n\n Baillet, Dom Louis, 55 _n._;\n _Les Miniatures du Scivias de sainte Hildegarde_, 7 _nn._ 1, 2,\n 12 _n._ 1.\n\n Baker, F., cited, 79 _n._ 2.\n\n Balgi, Vincenzo, cited, 30 _n._\n\n Baluze, \u00c9tienne, _Miscellanea novo ordine digesta et non paucis\n ineditis monumentis opportunisque animadversionibus aucta\n opera ac studio J.\u00a0D. Mansi_, 9 _n._\n\n Bamberg, witch-burning in the bishopric of, 194, 204, 208-10, 212.\n\n Barach, C. S., cited, 19 _n._ 2, 37 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 1.\n\n Baret, John, of Bury St. Edmunds, 172.\n\n Bar Hebraeus, cited, 228, 229.\n\n Bartholomaeus Anglicus (Bartholomaeus de Glanvilla), anatomical\n drawings of, 80 fig.\u00a01, 85 fig.\u00a04;\n _De Proprietatibus Rerum_, 129 _n._ 2.\n\n Battandier, Albert, _Sainte Hildegarde, sa vie et ses \u0153uvres_,\n 5 _n._ 3;\n cited, 16 _n._ 3, 21 _n._ 3, 23 _n._ 5.\n\n Bayford, Robert, _Enchiridion Medicum_, 181.\n\n Beck, Theodor, _Die Galenischen Hirnnerven in moderner Beleuchtung_,\n 118 _n._ 1.\n\n Bede, the Venerable, 22.\n\n _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters_,\n 113 _n._ 3.\n\n Benedict, St., 4, 7.\n\n Benivieni, Antonio, _De abditis nonnullis ac mirandis morborum et\n sanationum causis_, 81 and _n._ 3.\n\n Benjamin of Tudela, 20.\n\n Bentivoglio, Annibale, 104.\n\n Bentivoglio II, Giovanni:\n Manfredi\u2019s dedications to, 101, 103, 104, 105, 130;\n portrait of, 104, plate XXXVII.\n\n Bergson, Henri Louis, 285.\n\n Berkshire, ancient custom concerning rings and the cure of epilepsy,\n 173.\n\n Berlin: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Bernard, Claude, 68.\n\n Bernard of Chartres, 37 _n._ 1.\n\n Bernard, St., abbot of Clairvaux, 4;\n St. Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Bernard Sylvestris: _see_ Sylvestris.\n\n Berners, Lord, _Cloister Life of Charles V_, 173 and _n._ 3.\n\n Beroaldo, Filippo, 98, 99.\n\n Berthelet, Thomas (printer), 129.\n\n Bertuccio (professor of surgery at Bologna), anatomical demonstrations\n by, 82, 94.\n\n Bichat, X., 66.\n\n Bingen, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 20.\n\n Binsfeld, Peter, Bishop of Tr\u00e8ves, persecution of witches by, 197,\n 198, 222;\n _Tractatus de confessionibus maleficorum_, 197, 198 _n._ 2,\n 222 _n._ 2.\n\n Binz, Dr. K., biography of Dr. John Weyer, 189.\n\n Biological theories, 59 ff.\n\n Birth and death and the nature of the soul, Hildegard\u2019s views on,\n 49, 50, plates XIX, XX.\n\n Black Death, the, 193.\n\n Blaise: _see_ Armengaud de Blaise.\n\n Blake, William, 53.\n\n B\u00f6ckelheim, 2, 3.\n\n Boethius, 17, 21.\n\n B\u00f6hmer, J. H., _Ius ecclesiasticum_, 206 _n._ 2.\n\n Boleyn, Anne, and the use of cramp-rings, 174, 175, 176.\n\n Bologna, anatomical studies at, in the fifteenth century, 78, 79,\n 81 _n._, 82, 84;\n anatomical works emanating from, 92-7;\n astrology at, 97-8;\n colleagues of Manfredi at University, 98;\n Manfredi\u2019s house, 99;\n Medical Faculty at, 92;\n Palazzo dei Bentivoglio, 104.\n\n Boncompagni, Baldassare, _Della vita e delle opere di Gherardo\n Cremonese, &c._, 17 _n._ 2.\n\n Boniface, St., on witchcraft, 191.\n\n Boniface VIII, Pope, 201.\n\n Boorde, Andrew, on the blessing of cramp-rings, 176;\n _Breviarie of Health_, ibid.;\n _Introduction of Knowledge_, ibid.\n\n Borelli, J. A., 68.\n\n Bosco: _see_ Johannes Sacro Bosco.\n\n Boselli, E., 55 _n._\n\n Boswell, James, cited, 182.\n\n _Botanik in kulturhistorischer Entwickelung_, 12 _n._ 2.\n\n Bourdeaux: _see_ John of Bourdeaux.\n\n Boyle, Robert, 32.\n\n Bracara, synod of, 193.\n\n Brand, J., _Popular Antiquities_, 173 _n._ 3.\n\n Braun, Dr., torture of witches by, 208, 209, 210.\n\n Brewer, J. S., _State Papers: Budaei Epistolae_, 173 _n._ 6.\n\n Bristol: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Brockelmann, K., _Geschichte der arabischen_ _Litteratur_, 225 _n._ 1,\n 228 _n._ 5, 229 _n._ 3.\n\n Brown, Sir Thomas, on witchcraft, 214, 222, 223.\n\n Bud\u00e9, Guillaume, and the use of cramp-rings, 173, 174.\n\n Buffon, _Histoire G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Animaux_, 66.\n\n _Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise d\u2019histoire de la m\u00e9decine_,\n 39 _n._ 2.\n\n _Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital_, 79 _n._ 2.\n\n Bunge, Gustav, physiological views of, 64.\n\n Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, _History of the Reformation_, on the blessing\n of cramp-rings, 174, 175, 177.\n\n _Bury Wills_ (Camden Society), 172 _n._ 2.\n\n Burzio, Niccol\u00f2, _Bononia illustrata_, 97 _n._ 4.\n\n\n Cabalistic systems of the Jews, 20.\n\n Caetani, Michelangelo, duca di Sermoneta, _La materia della Divina\n Commedia di Dante Allighieri dichiarata in VI tavole_,\n 31 fig.\u00a04.\n\n Cambridge: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Cardan, Jerome, 214.\n\n Carpi, Giacomo Berengario da, 95-7, 105, 106;\n _Anathomia Mundini_, 96 _n._ 1;\n _Commentaria cum amplissimis additionibus super anatomia Mundini_,\n 96 _n._ 1.\n\n Carpi, Hugo da, anatomical drawings of, 90.\n\n Carpzov, Benedict, death-sentences on witches and sorcerers by, 206.\n\n Cartesian physiology, principles of, 68.\n\n _Cartulaire de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Montpellier_, 79 _n._ 1.\n\n Cathari (Albigensian sect), persecution of, 4, 192.\n\n Cavazza, Francesco, _Le Scuole dell\u2019 antico studio bolognese_,\n 99 _n._ 3.\n\n Caxton, William, story of Edward the Confessor and his ring in the\n _Golden Legend_, 165-6.\n\n Cervetto, G., _Di alcuni illustri anatomici italiani del decimoquinto\n secolo_, 89 _n._ 2.\n\n Chantilly: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Charlemagne, laws of, regarding witchcraft, 191.\n\n Charles I, 126 _n._ 2.\n\n Charles II and the Royal Society, 274.\n\n Charles V, Emperor of Germany and King of Spain, use of cramp-rings\n by, 173.\n\n Charms against diseases, 181, 182. _See also_ Cramp-rings.\n\n Chartres, Bernard of: _see_ Bernard.\n\n Chaucer\u2019s use of the word \u2018cramp\u2019, 180.\n\n Chauliac, Guy de, _Grande Chirurgie_, 81 _n._ 2, 82, 83 _n._,\n 84 _n._ 1, 94, 105, 121,\n plates XXIX, XXX;\n fourteenth-century post-mortem scene from, 81 _n._ 2.\n\n Choulant, L., _Geschichte und Bibliographie der anatomischen Abbildung\n nach ihrer Beziehung auf anatomische Wissenschaft und bildende\n Kunst_, 87 _n._ 5, 89 _n._ 2.\n\n Christian view of witchcraft: early times, 190, 191, 198, 216;\n mediaeval age, 191-4, 201;\n Reformation period, 190, 191, 194-6, 213, 220, 221;\n later times, 195, 204, 222.\n\n Chrysostom, St., 216.\n\n Clement V, Pope, 201.\n\n Clerval, A., _Les \u00c9coles de Chartres au Moyen \u00c2ge_, 19 _n._ 2,\n 37 _n._ 2.\n\n Cleves, Duke William of, 215, 220, 221, 224.\n\n Cleves, witchcraft in the duchy of, 220.\n\n Colle, Francesco Maria, _Storia scientifico-letteraria dello Studio\n di Padova_, 82 _n._ 2.\n\n Coloman, King of Hungary, on witchcraft, 191.\n\n Como, witch-burning in the diocese of, 205.\n\n Concoreggio, Giovanni da, _Lucidarium et Flos Medicinae_, 95 and\n _n._ 1.\n\n Conrad, Emperor, Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Conrad of Marburg, cited, 192 _n._ 6.\n\n Constantine Africanus, medical writings of, 13, 16, 43, 121, 127;\n _De communibus medico cognitu necessariis locis_, 44 and _n._ 2,\n 114 _n._ 1;\n _De humana natura_, 45, 50;\n _Pantechni. Theorice_, 127 _n._ 4.\n\n Conybeare, F. C., _Key of Truth_, 192 _n._ 4.\n\n Copenhagen: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Copernicus, 43.\n\n Copho of Salerno, _Anatomia porci_, 43, 44.\n\n _Cotta\u2019s Jubil\u00e4ums-Ausgabe_, 8 _n._ 2.\n\n Craigie, Dr., _History of Anatomy_, 93 _n._ 2.\n\n Cramp, early use of the term, 180-2.\n\n Cramp-rings, the blessing of, by the kings and queens of England,\n 165-87;\n ceremonies of blessing cramp-rings used on Good Friday, 184-7;\n office of consecration used by Queen Mary, 177-9, 182-4;\n origin of the ceremony, 165, 179, 180, 182;\n ceremonial observed, 167, 168, 171, 178, 179;\n its disuse, 179, 180;\n bequests of cramp-rings, 172, 176;\n diseases covered by the word \u2018cramp\u2019, 180-2.\n\n Crawfurd, Raymond: The Blessing of Cramp-rings; a chapter in the\n history of the treatment of epilepsy, 165-87;\n _King\u2019s Evil_, cited, 171 _n._\n\n Cremona, Gerard of: _see_ Gerard.\n\n Cross, ceremonial of offering and creeping to the, 167, 168, 169.\n\n Cuyer, E., _Histoire de l\u2019Anatomie plastique_, 86 _n._ 2.\n\n\n Dallari, Umberto, _I rotuli dei lettori legisti e artisti dello\n studio bolognese dal 1384 al 1799_, 98 _n._ 1.\n\n Dalton, J. C., _Doctrines of the Circulation_, 130 _n._ 3.\n\n Damascenus, Johannes, 113.\n\n Daniel, Book of, 20.\n\n Dante, _Divina Commedia_, 23;\n _Quaestio de aqua et terra_, 30 _n._;\n scheme of the universe, 1, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31.\n\n Daremberg, C., editor of _Liber subtilitatum_, 13;\n _\u0152uvres anatomiques, physiologiques et m\u00e9dicales de Galien_,\n 118 _n._ 1.\n\n Darwinian theory, 236, 242, 245, 257.\n\n _Datura Stramonium_, or thorn-apple, 199.\n\n _De caelo et mundo_, 17.\n\n Delation, 202.\n\n Demiurgus, the, 192.\n\n Demoniacs, 199, 215-22.\n _See also_ Witchcraft.\n\n Denmark, witchcraft in, 222.\n\n _De sagarum natura et potestate, &c._, 208 _n._ 1.\n\n Descartes, biological theories of, 67, 68.\n\n Devil, mediaeval views of the, 190, 192-4, 207, 216.\n\n Devonshire, ancient custom concerning rings and the cure of epilepsy,\n 173;\n charm against fits, 182.\n\n Dewey, Professor John, 259.\n\n Dialectical proof in relation to scientific discovery, 238.\n\n _Dictionary of National Biography_, 230 _n._ 1.\n\n Diefenbach, J., _Der Hexenwahn_, 195 _n._ 1, 221 _n._ 1.\n\n Diogenes Laertius, 259 _n._\n\n Disibode, St., Hildegard\u2019s life of, 3.\n\n Disibodenberg, convent of, 2, 42.\n\n Dissection: _see_ Anatomy.\n\n Dresden: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Driesch, Hans, biological theories of, 62-4, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75;\n _Analytische Theorie_, 62, 70, 75;\n _Vitalismus_, 75.\n\n Dryander, Johannes, _Anatomia_, 95 _n._ 3, 112.\n\n Duval, M., _Histoire de l\u2019Anatomie plastique_, 86 _n._ 2.\n\n\n Edward the Confessor and his ring, story of, 165, 166.\n\n Edward II and the blessing of cramp-rings, 167, 169.\n\n Edward III and the blessing of cramp-rings, 169, 170.\n\n Edward IV and the blessing of cramp-rings, 171.\n\n Edward VI and the blessing of cramp-rings, 175, 177.\n\n Ehrenberg: _see_ Philip of Ehrenberg.\n\n Eibingen, 8.\n\n Eleemosyna Rolls of Edward III, 169, 170.\n\n Elements, mediaeval theories of the, 25-30.\n\n Elizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau, visions of, 21, 22.\n\n Ellis, Sir Henry, 178.\n\n England, first printed map of, 99, 100.\n\n Epilepsy and other spasmodic disorders, blessing of cramp-rings for\n the cure of, 165-87.\n\n Essling, Prince d\u2019, _Les livres \u00e0 figures v\u00e9nitiens de la fin du\n XV^e si\u00e8cle et du commencement du XVI^e_, 89 _n._ 5.\n\n Euclidean geometry, 239, 240, 250, 280.\n\n Eugenius III, Pope, Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Eye, anatomy of the, 118-22.\n\n Ezekiel, Book of, 20.\n\n\n Fantuzzi, Giovanni, _Notizie degli scrittori bolognesi_, 97 _n._ 2,\n 99 _n._ 1.\n\n Faust, magic feats of, 215, 216, 218.\n\n Ferckel, Christoph, cited, 121 _n._ 1.\n\n Ferrari, H. M., _Une Chaire de M\u00e9decine\n au XV^e si\u00e8cle; Un professeur \u00e0 l\u2019universit\u00e9\n de Pavie de 1432 \u00e0 1472_, 86 _n._ 3.\n\n Florence, Uffizi Gallery, painted representation of the Cross, 10,\n 11, plate X.\n\n Fludd, Robert, _Historia utriusque cosmi_, 41 figs. 6, 7, 43;\n _Philosophia sacra seu astrologia cosmica_, 42 fig.\u00a08, 43.\n\n Fonahm, A., cited, 86 _n._ 1, 130 _n._ 1.\n\n F\u00f6rner, Bishop, witch-burning by, 208.\n\n Fortescue, Sir John, _Defensio Iuris Domus Lancastriae_, 171.\n\n Fracastor, 43.\n\n Frankfort, witchcraft at, 221.\n\n Frati, Ludovico, _La vita privata di Bologna dal secolo XIII al XVII_,\n 84 _n._ 2.\n\n Frederic Barbarossa, Emperor, Hildegard\u2019s correspondence with, 5.\n\n Froissart, 173.\n\n Fulda, witch-burning in the bishopric of, 194.\n\n Fundis, Giovanni de, 98.\n\n\n Gabotto, Ferdinando, _Bartolomeo Manfredi e l\u2019Astrologia alla Corte\n di Mantova_, 97 _n._ 4.\n\n Galen, 17, 43, 44, 46 _n._ 1, 61, 67, 84, 86, 87, 97, 105, 110,\n 111 _n._, 113 and _n._ 2, 115, 118, 125, 126, 127, 128,\n 136 _n._, 182;\n _De usu partium corporis humani_, 110 _n._ 1, 118 _n._ 2;\n _De Hippocratis et Platonis decretis_, 118 _n._ 2;\n illuminated codex of, 87, 88, plate XXXIV;\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, 127 _n._ 1.\n\n Galileo, 43.\n\n Garbo, Tommaso di, 94.\n\n Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester, and the use of cramp-rings,\n 174, 175, 177.\n\n Garrod, H. W., _Manili Astronomicon_, 39 _n._\n\n Garter, Order of the, 178.\n\n Gebeno, prior of Eberbach, mediaeval writer, 15.\n\n Geffcken, J., _Dr. Johann Weyer_, 189 _n._\n\n _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, 169 _nn._ 1, 2, 173 _nn._ 1, 2, 4, 174 _n._ 1.\n\n _Geographical Journal_, 99 _n._ 4.\n\n George, John, prince-bishop, witch-burning by, 208.\n\n Gerard of Cremona, scientific works of, 17, 18, 128.\n\n Gerbi, Gabriele de (de Zerbis), 95, 98, 105;\n _Liber Anatomiae corporis humani et singulorum membrorum illius_,\n 95 _n._ 2.\n\n German block book (_Symbolum Apostolicorum_) of the fifteenth century,\n 39, plate XVII.\n\n Gersdorff, Hans von, _Feldt- und Stattb\u00fcch bewerter Wundartznei_,\n anatomical drawings, 129 fig.\u00a023, 130 _n._ 2.\n\n Gertrude of Robersdorf, visions of, 21.\n\n Ghazali, Ibn, 51, 113.\n\n Gilbert, William, 32.\n\n Glanvilla, Bartholomaeus de: _see_ Bartholomaeus Anglicus.\n\n Glaubrecht, O., _Die Schreckensjahre von Lindheim_, 204 _n._ 1.\n\n Gloucester, Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of, charged with witchcraft, 193.\n\n Gneyth Cross, homage paid to the, 168, 169, 170.\n\n Godefrid, the monk, biography of St. Hildegard by, 5, 7, 51.\n\n Goeje, M. J. de, _Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library at\n Leyden_, 228 _n._ 2.\n\n Goelicke, A. O., _Introductio in historiam litterariam anatomes_,\n 81 _n._\n\n Goethe, _Am Rhein, Main und Neckar_, 8 _n._ 2.\n\n Golius, James, collection of Oriental MSS., 229, 230.\n\n Good Friday, the hallowing of cramp-rings on, and offering and\n creeping to the cross, 167-9, 171, 179, 184-7.\n\n Gotch, F., on biological phenomena, 70, 71.\n\n Grado, Giammatteo Ferrari da (Matthaeus de Gradibus), _Expositiones\n super vigesimam secundam Fen tertii canonis Avicennae_,\n 86 _n._ 3;\n _Practica_, ibid.\n\n Great Schism, the, 193.\n\n Greek dialectics, 237, 238, 259.\n\n Greeks, biological speculations of the, 61.\n\n Gregory VII, Pope, forbids inquisition for witches and sorcerers, 192.\n\n Gregory IX, Pope, 6.\n\n Gregory XI, Pope, 192 _n._ 6.\n\n Gregory Nazianzen, St., 216.\n\n Grimm, Wilhelm, _Wiesbader Glossen_, 5 _n._ 2, 8 _n._ 3.\n\n Guibert, the monk, life of St. Hildegard by, 5 _n._ 3, 16 _n._ 3.\n\n Guido de Vigevano: _see_ Vigevano.\n\n Gurlt, E., _Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte_, 103.\n\n Guy de Chauliac: _see_ Chauliac.\n\n\n Haeser, H., _Geschichte der Medizin_, 225 _n._ 1, 226 _n._ 10.\n\n Haldane, J. S., on biological phenomena, 65, 66.\n\n Haller, Albrecht von, _Bibliotheca anatomica_, 81 _n._, 103 _n._ 1.\n\n Haly Abbas, 105, 113, 121, 127.\n\n _Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin_, 92 _n._ 4.\n\n Hardouin, Jean (Harduinus), _Collectio regia maxima conciliorum\n graecorum et latinorum_, 191 _n._ 1.\n\n Harpsfield, Nicholas, _Historia Anglicana Ecclesiastica_, on the\n blessing of cramp-rings, 179, 180.\n\n _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, 18 _n._ 1.\n\n Harvey, William, 32;\n _Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis_, 126 _n._ 2;\n _Prelectiones anatomiae universalis_, 126 and _n._ 1.\n\n Haskins, C. H., cited, 18 _n._ 1.\n\n Haupt, Moriz, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsches Alterthum_, 5 _n._ 2,\n 8 _n._ 3.\n\n Head, anatomy of the, 106-18.\n\n Heart, anatomy of the, 122-30.\n\n Heavenly city, Hildegard\u2019s vision of the, 54, plate XXV.\n\n Heidelberg: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Helmont, F. M. van, 68.\n\n Helmreich, \u0393\u0391\u0394\u0397\u039d\u039f\u03a5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, 118 _n._ 1.\n\n Henri de Mondeville: _see_ Mondeville.\n\n Henrici, Professor, 55 _n._\n\n Henry II (of England) and his consort, Hildegard\u2019s hortatory letters\n to, 5.\n\n Henry IV and the blessing of cramp-rings, 170.\n\n Henry VII and the blessing of cramp-rings, and the ceremonial of\n touching for the evil, 167, 168, 172.\n\n Henry VIII and the blessing of cramp-rings, 175, 176, 177.\n\n Henschen, Godfrey, 8.\n\n Heppe, H., _Geschichte der Hexenprocesse_, 191 _n._ 1, 192 _n._ 2,\n 193 _n._, 203 _n._ 3, 206 _nn._ 1, 2, 208 _n._ 4.\n\n Heraclitus, 256.\n\n Herbert, J. A., 55 _n._;\n _Illuminated Manuscripts_, 10 _n._ 1.\n\n Heresy and witchcraft, identification of, by the Church, 192-4, 201,\n 220, 221.\n\n Hermann the Dalmatian, 17 _n._ 1.\n\n Hermas, Shepherd of, 20.\n\n _Hermes_, 24 _n._\n\n Herrade de Landsberg, _Hortus deliciarum_, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27,\n 40 fig.\u00a05, 42, 48 fig.\u00a09, 55 _n._\n\n Hertford, Edward Seymour, Earl of, present of cramp-rings by, 175.\n\n Hilaire the Great, St., of Poitiers, 38 _n._ 4.\n\n Hildegard, St. (1098-1180), The Scientific Views and Visions of, 1-55.\n Biographical details, 2-6, 51-2;\n bibliographical note, 6-12;\n canonization, proposals for, 6;\n correspondence, 3-5;\n journeys, 4;\n language, 12, 15, 16;\n miniatures, 7, 8, 10-12, 34, 35, 49, 51, plates I, III, VI-IX, XI;\n musical compositions, 3;\n pathological basis of visions, 51-3;\n patristic influence, 17;\n sources of scientific knowledge, 15-22;\n visions, 3, 7, 10, 11, 16 _n._ 3, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 32, 33, 34,\n 35, 36, 40, 43, 51-5.\n Hildegard\u2019s views on--anatomy and physiology, 14, 18, 30, 43-8;\n astrology, 18, 34;\n birth and death and the nature of the soul, 49-51;\n elements, the, 25-30;\n macrocosm and microcosm, 9, 16 _n._, 18, 19, 20, 30-43, 45, 51;\n structure of the material universe, 8, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21,\n 22-30, 39;\n winds, 25-7, 34.\n Works: _Ad praelatos Moguntienses_, 7;\n _Explanatio regulae sancti Benedicti_, 4, 7;\n _Explanatio symboli sancti Athanasii ad congregationem sororum\n suorum_, 4;\n _Expositiones evangeliorum_, 7;\n _Ignota lingua_, 5, 7, 15 _n._;\n _Ignotae litterae_, 7;\n _Liber divinorum operum simplicis hominis_, 3, 7, 8-12, 14,\n 16 _n._, 18, 19, 20, 22 _n._, 24 _n._, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32,\n 34, 35, 36, 39 _n._, 40, 42, 51, plates V (_b_), VI, VII,\n VIII, IX, XI;\n _Liber epistolarum_, 7, 12;\n _Liber orationum_, 7;\n _Liber vitae meritorum per simplicem hominem a vivente luce\n revelatorum_, 3, 6, 12, 14 _n._, 19, 20, 21;\n _Litterae villarenses_, 7;\n _Lives_ of St. Disibode and St. Rupert, 3, 7;\n _Quaestionum solutiones triginta octo_, 4;\n _Scivias_, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 _n._, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 _n._, 27,\n 28, 30, 34, 42 _n._, 49, 53, plates III, IV;\n _Symphonia harmoniae celestum revelationum_, 7.\n Spurious scientific works: _Beatae Hildegardis causae et curae_,\n 12, 14, plate V (_a_);\n _Revelatio de fratribus quatuor mendicantium ordinum_, 15;\n _Speculum futurorum temporum_, 15;\n _Subtilitatum diversarumque creaturarum libri novem_, 13, 14.\n\n Hippocrates, 218, 219.\n\n Hirsch, A., _Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte_, 103,\n 225 _n._ 1.\n\n Hopstock, H., cited, 86 _n._ 1, 130 _n._ 1.\n\n Horst, G. C., cited, 204, 205, 206;\n _D\u00e4monomagie_, 204 _n._ 1, 205 _n._, 206 _n._ 4;\n _Zauberbibliothek_, 204 _n._ 1, 205 _n._\n\n Hoton, Thomas de, rector of Kyrkebymisperton (Yorkshire), 172.\n\n Hubrecht, A. A. W., 57.\n\n Hugh of St. Victor, _De arca Noe mystica_, 20;\n _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, 45 and _n._ 2, 46 _n._ 2.\n\n Hunain ben Ishak, anatomical writings of, 120, 121.\n\n Hundt, M., anatomical drawings of, 96 _n._ 2, 105;\n _Antropologium, de hominis dignitate natura et proprietatibus_,\n 112 fig.\u00a011.\n\n Huntington, Robert, Bishop of Raphoe, 229, 230.\n\n Husee, John, and the use of cramp-rings, 175, 176.\n\n Hutchinson, F., _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_,\n 195 _n._ 3, 222 _n._ 2.\n\n\n _Illustrations of the manners and expences of antient times in\n England_, 177.\n\n Innocent IV, Pope, 6.\n\n Innocent VIII, Pope, bull of, concerning witchcraft, 193.\n\n Institoris, H., _Malleus Maleficarum_, 194 and _n._, 201-3.\n\n Isaac Judaeus, _Viaticum_, 44.\n\n Isidore Hispalensis, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27.\n\n Italian miniatures, mediaeval, 10, 11.\n\n\n James I, _Daemonologia_, 214.\n\n Janssen, J., _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, 190 _n._, 212 _n._\n\n _Janus_, 113 _n._ 2.\n\n Jenkinson, John Wilfred: Vitalism, 59-78.\n\n ---- biographical notice of, 57-8;\n list of books and papers by, 58;\n portrait of, plate XXVI.\n\n Jerome, St., 216.\n\n Jessen, C., cited, 12 _n._ 2.\n\n Jesu Aly, anatomical work by, 121.\n\n _Jewish Quarterly Review_, 20 _n._ 2.\n\n Jews, dissemination of scientific knowledge in the Middle Ages by,\n 17, 20.\n\n Joan of Arc, 193.\n\n Job, Book of, 24, 50, 216.\n\n Johannes Sacro Bosco, 23.\n\n John XXII, Pope, 6.\n\n John of Bourdeaux, tract on the plague by, 102.\n\n John of Peckham, anatomical writings of, 121.\n\n Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 182.\n\n Jong, P. de, _Catalogue of Arabic MSS. in the Library at Leyden_,\n 228 _n._ 2.\n\n Joseph, H. W. B., _Logic_, 239 _n._\n\n Jourdain, Charles, _Dissertation sur l\u2019\u00e9tat de la philosophie\n naturelle ... pendant la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du XII^e si\u00e8cle_,\n 19 _n._ 2.\n\n _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 44 _n._ 5.\n\n Judaeus: _see_ Isaac Judaeus.\n\n Junius, John, burgomaster of Bamberg, account of his trial for\n witchcraft, 209-12.\n\n Justin Martyr, 216.\n\n\n Kaiser, Paul, _Hildegardis causae et curae_, 12 _n._ 2.\n\n Kant, _Critique of the Teleological Judgement_, 71-3, 75;\n scheme of _a priori_, 250.\n\n Keller, G., edition of Herrade de Landsberg\u2019s _Hortus deliciarum_,\n 21 _n._ 4, 40 fig.\u00a05, 48 fig.\u00a09.\n\n \u2018Ketham\u2019, _Fasciculus medicinae_, anatomical drawings, 89, 90,\n 91 fig.\u00a07, 96 _n._ 2, 117 fig.\u00a017, plate XXVII.\n\n Khalfa, Haji, bibliography of Arabic works, 228 _n._ 5, 229.\n\n Kiesewetter, K., _Die Geheimwissenschaften_, 199 _n._ 2.\n\n King\u2019s Evil, touching for the, 167, 171, 172, 178.\n\n Koning, P. de, _Trait\u00e9 sur le calcul_, 228 _n._ 5;\n _Trois Trait\u00e9s d\u2019Anatomie arabes_, 113 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 3.\n\n K\u00f6tzend\u00f6rffer, Dr., torture of witches by, 208, 209.\n\n Kraut, G., _Experimentarius medicinae continens Trotulae curandarum\n Aegritudinum muliebrium ... item quatuor Hildegardis de\n elementorum, etc._, 13 _n._ 1.\n\n\n Laboulb\u00e8ne, A., _Les anatomistes anciens_, 92 _n._ 4.\n\n Lactantius, 216.\n\n Landsberg: _see_ Herrade de Landsberg.\n\n Laplace, P. S., 66.\n\n Laufer, Berthold, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntnis der Tibetanischen Medizin_,\n 44 _n._ 5.\n\n Lavoisier, 66.\n\n Lawrence, abbot of Westminster, 166.\n\n Lea, H. C., _History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_,\n 191 _nn._ 1, 2, 192 _nn._ 1, 3, 6, 193 _n._, 208 _n._ 2,\n 214 _n._\n\n Lecky, W. E. H., on witchcraft, 223.\n\n Leclerc, L., 227; _Histoire de la m\u00e9decine arabe_, 226 _n._ 5,\n 229 _n._ 4.\n\n Leersum, E. C. van, _Miniaturen der lateinischen Galenos-Handschrift\n der kgl. \u00f6ffentl. Bibliothek in Dresden_, 87-8 _n._\n\n Leibnitz, 32, 68.\n\n Leitschuh, Dr. F., _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Hexenwesens in\n Franken_, 209 and _nn._ 1-3.\n\n Lemgo, witch persecution at, 207.\n\n Leonardo da Vinci: _see_ Vinci.\n\n Lerida, public anatomies at, in the fourteenth century, 79.\n\n Levy, Reuben: The _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_\n attributed to Maimonides, 225-34.\n\n Leyden: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Linacre, Thomas, and the use of cramp-rings, 173, 174, 180.\n\n Linde, Antonius van der, _Die Handschriften der K\u00f6niglichen\n Landesbibliothek in Wiesbaden_, 6 _n._ 3, 8 _n._ 1.\n\n Lindheim, persecutions for witchcraft at, 204, 205, 206.\n\n Lisle, Lady, and the use of cramp-rings, 175, 176.\n\n _Lisle Papers_, 175 _nn._ 3, 4, 176 _nn._ 1-4.\n\n Lockwood, D. P., _The Sicilian Translators of the Twelfth Century\n and the First Latin Version of Ptolemy\u2019s \u2018Almagest\u2019_,\n 18 _n._ 1.\n\n Logical proof and scientific discovery, 235-89.\n\n Lones, T. E., _Aristotle\u2019s Researches in Natural Science_, 126 _n._ 5.\n\n Louis VII, 5.\n\n Lucca: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Luciferans, or devil worshippers, sects of, 192.\n\n Luther, Martin, 216, 224.\n\n Lutherans, persecution of, 194, 195.\n\n Luzzi, Mondino di: _see_ Mondino.\n\n\n Macer, Floridus, 13.\n\n Macray, W. D., _Annals of the Bodleian_, 229 _n._ 5, 230 _n._ 1.\n\n Macrocosm, mediaeval and Renaissance theories of the, 32, 38, 43;\n Hildegard\u2019s views on, 9, 16 _n._, 18, 19, 20, 30-43,\n plates VII, VIII.\n\n Madrid: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Magicians, 215, 218.\n _See also_ Witchcraft.\n\n Magnus, Dr. Thomas, and the use of cramp-rings, 174, 180.\n\n Maimonides, the _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_ attributed\n to, 225-34;\n other works: Aphorisms, 232, 233;\n on Asthma and on Poisons, 226;\n _Tractatus de Morbo Regis Aegypti_, 226;\n _Tractatus de Regimine, Sanitatis_, 226.\n\n Malagola, Carlo, _statuti dell\u2019 Universit\u00e0 e dei collegi dello Studio\n bolognese_, 79 _n._ 3.\n\n Manfredi, Bartolomeo, anatomical drawing attributed to, 88,\n plate XXXVI.\n\n Manfredi, Giovanni, 99.\n\n Manfredi, Hieronymo, professor of medicine at Bologna (1463-93):\n account of his career, 97-9;\n astrological studies, 97-9, 102, 103.\n Manuscript _Anothomia_ of Manfredi, 103-64;\n translation of selected passages, with commentary:\n the brain, 107-15;\n cranial nerves, 110, 111, 118;\n eye, 118-22;\n head, 106-18;\n heart, 122-30;\n skull, 106, 107;\n Italian text of the _Anothomia_, 130-64.\n Printed works, 99-103;\n _Centilogium de medicis et infirmis_, 102;\n _Editio princeps_ of Ptolemy, 99;\n _Liber de homine: cuius sunt libri duo. Primus liber de\n conservatione sanitatis (\u2018Il Perch\u00e8\u2019)_, 101;\n _Prognosticon ad annum 1479_, 98, 102;\n _Prognosticon anni 1481_, 102;\n _Tractato degno et utile de la pestilentia_, 101.\n Other works attributed to Manfredi:\n _Chiromantia secundum naturae vires ad extra_, 103;\n _Ephemerides astrologicae operationes medicas spectantes_, 103;\n _Quaestiones subtilissimae super librum aphorismorum_, 103.\n\n Manichean heresy, 192.\n\n Mansell, _Monumenta Ritualia_, 168.\n\n Mansi, Giovanni Domenico, Archbishop of Lucca, 9.\n\n Mantegna, Andrea, anatomical studies of, 86.\n\n Manuscripts:\n Berlin:\n Al Qifty, _Classes philosophorum et astronomorum et medicorum_,\n 229 _n._ 3.\n Bristol Reference Library:\n French MS. of the _Grande Chirurgie_ of Guy de Chauliac, 84 _n._,\n plate XXX (_b_).\n British Museum:\n Al Qifty, _Classes philosophorum et astronomorum et medicorum_,\n 229 _n._ 3;\n Bacon, Roger, _De scientia perspectiva_, 116 fig.\u00a014;\n diagram of the eye, 122, plate XXXVIII (_a_);\n cramp-ring made from offertory pennies, 173;\n _De fundacione ecclesie Westm\u2019_, 166;\n Eleemosyna Rolls of Edward III, 169, 170;\n Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din, _Delectus de Medicina_, fragment, 228;\n Household Accounts of Henry IV, 170.\n _Bury Wills_ (published by the Camden Society), 172 _n._ 2.\n Cambridge, University Library:\n Life of Edward the Confessor, 166, plate XXXIX.\n Chantilly:\n anatomical sketches from the MS. of Guy de Vigevano, 87,\n plates XXXI, XXXII.\n Copenhagen, Royal Library:\n _Beatae Hildegardis causae et curae_, 12, plate V (_a_).\n Dresden:\n illuminated codex of Galen, 87, 88, plate XXXIV.\n Heidelberg, University Library:\n illuminated MS. of the _Scivias_ of St. Hildegard, 8,\n plates III, IV.\n Leyden, University Library:\n Al Qifty, _Classes philosophorum et astronomorum et medicorum_,\n 229 _n._ 3;\n Golius\u2019s Oriental MSS., 230;\n Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din, _Delectus de Medicina_, 228, 230.\n London Society of Antiquaries:\n Proclamation on the Creepyng of the Crosse, 169.\n\n Lucca, Municipal Library: illustrated codex of the _Liber divinorum\n operum simplicis hominis_ of St. Hildegard, 8-12, 22, 25, 28,\n 32, 34, 35, 39 _n._, 40, 42, plates V (_b_), VI-IX, XI.\n Madrid, Escurial: Al Qifty, _Classes philosophorum et astronomorum\n et medicorum_, 229 _n._ 3.\n Montpellier, Biblioth\u00e8que de la Facult\u00e9 de M\u00e9decine: French MS. of\n the _Grande Chirurgie_ of Guy de Chauliac, 81 _n._ 2,\n plate XXIX.\n Munich, 87 _n._ 1.\n Oxford, Bodleian Library: astrological work translated from the\n Arabic by Hermann the Dalmatian, 17 _n._;\n diagrams of internal organs, 87, 88;\n dissection scene, _c_. 1298, 81, plate XXVIII (_b_);\n \u2018Five Figure\u2019 anatomical series, 44, 87 _n._, 88 fig.\u00a06,\n plates XVIII, XXXIII;\n Hieronymo Manfredi, _Anothomia,_ 90, 103-6, 130-64;\n Marsh\u2019s Oriental MSS., 229;\n Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din, _Delectus de Medicina_, 227, 228;\n _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_, attributed to\n Maimonides, 225, 227, 229, 231, 234, plate XLI.\n Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que nationale: ninth-century MS. with diagram\n showing relation of human and cosmic phenomena, plate XIV;\n MSS. with figures illustrating signs of the Zodiac, 38, 39,\n plates XV, XVI;\n illustrating the anatomy of Henri de Mondeville, 87,\n plate XXVIII (_a_);\n Orders of the King of England\u2019s household, 13 Henry VIII, 167,\n 168;\n _Tractatus de Causis et Indiciis Morborum_, alleged copy, 225;\n tracts by Maimonides, 225, 226, 227, 229, 234.\n Pisa University Library (Roncioni MS.): anatomical drawings,\n 87 _n._ 4, 127 fig.\u00a021.\n Raudnitz: Library of Count F. Zdenho von Lobkowicz, anatomical\n drawings, 87 _n._ 1.\n Record Office, London: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward III, 170;\n Account Books of Richard II, 170.\n Rome, Vatican Library: Proven\u00e7al translation of the _Grande\n Chirurgie_ of Guy de Chauliac, 83 _n._, plate XXX (_a_).\n Westminster, Library of the Roman Catholic Cathedral: Manual of\n Queen Mary Tudor, 175, 177-9, plate XL.\n Wiesbaden, Nassauische Landesbibliothek: works of St. Hildegard,\n 6-8, 9 fig.\u00a02, 12 _n._, 14, 22, 23, 49, 51, 54, plates I-IV,\n XII (_a_, _b_), XIII, XIX-XXV.\n\n Manuscripts, illuminated, 7, 8, 10-12, 166, 177-9, plates I-IV,\n V (_b_), VI-IX, XI-XIII, XIX-XXV, XXXIX, XL.\n\n _Mappaemundi_, 22.\n\n Marbod of Anjou, 13.\n\n Marburg: _see_ Conrad of Marburg.\n\n Marburg, Protestant University of, 221.\n\n Marsh, Narcissus, Archbishop of Armagh, collection of Oriental MSS.,\n 229.\n\n Martin, W., _Miniaturen der lateinischen Galenos-Handschrift der kgl.\n \u00f6ffentl. Bibliothek in Dresden_, 88 _n._\n\n Martinotti, G., _L\u2019insegnamento dell\u2019 Anatomia in Bologna prima del\n secolo XIX_, 92 _n._ 4, 103 _n._ 2.\n\n Mary I, Queen, and the blessing of cramp-rings, 175, 177;\n the Queen\u2019s Manual, with the Office of Blessing, 175, 177-9;\n miniature of, 177-9, plate XL.\n\n Mathematics and scientific proof, 238, 239, 241, 255, 263, 269.\n\n Mathews, Norris, _Early Printed Books and MSS. in the Bristol\n Reference Library_, 84 _n._ 1.\n\n Mayence Commission (1489), 8.\n\n Mazzatinti, _Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche d\u2019Italia_,\n 103 _n._ 4.\n\n Medici, Lorenzo de\u2019, 104.\n\n Medici, Michele, _Compendio storico della scuola anatomica di Bologna\n dal Rinascimento delle Scienze e delle Lettere a tutto il Secolo\n XVIII_, 92 _n._ 1, 103 _n._ 2;\n _Della vita e degli scritti degli anatomici e medici fioriti in\n Bologna dal comincio del secolo XIII_, 92 _n._ 1, 93 _n._ 1,\n 97 _n._ 1.\n\n Meiningen, witch-burning at, 208.\n\n Melancholia, 213, 217, 221.\n\n \u2018Melothesia\u2019, 38, 39 _n._., 41 figs. 6, 7, plates XV, XVI.\n\n Messahalah, writings of, 19, 27, 30, 39 _n._ 3;\n _De Orbe_, 17, 18, 29.\n\n Metabolism, 60, 65, 68, 70, 76.\n\n Methodological assumptions, 266, 267;\n fictions, 251.\n\n _Methodus medendi certa clara et brevis_, 44 _n._ 2.\n\n Metz, witchcraft at, 215.\n\n Meyer, L., _Die Periode der Hexenprocesse_, 199 _n._ 1.\n\n Microcosm, mediaeval and Renaissance theories of the, 32, 38, 43;\n Hildegard\u2019s views on, 9, 16 _n._, 18, 19, 20, 30-43;\n drawings, 42 fig.\u00a08, plate VIII.\n\n Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, 4 _n._, 6, 13 _n._ and ff.\n\n Miniatures: miracles at the tomb of Edward the Confessor, in\n Norman-French MS., 166, plate XXXIX;\n of Queen Mary Tudor, 177-9, plate XL;\n of St. Hildegard, 7, 8, 10-12, 34, 35, 49, 51, plates I, III,\n VI-IX, XI.\n\n Mirandola, Johannes Franciscus Picus, _Disputationes adversus\n astrologos_, 98 and _n._ 3.\n\n Molitor, U., _Tractatus de lamiis_, 222 and _n._ 1.\n\n _Monatshefte der Comenius-Gesellschaft_, 189 _n._\n\n Mondeville, Henri de, drawings of dissections in works of, 87,\n plate XXVIII (_a_);\n on the anatomy of the eye, 121;\n writings of, 126, 128-9.\n\n Mondino de Luzzi, professor of surgery at Bologna, 79, 82, 85, 86,\n 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 105, 106, 111 _n._, 113, 115, 118, 126,\n 130, 136 _n._\n\n Mons, Count William of, 220.\n\n Mons, witchcraft at, 220.\n\n Monte Cassino, monastery of, 16, 21, 44.\n\n Monteferrato, Giorgio di, collection of medical tracts by, 89.\n\n Montpellier, anatomical teaching at, in the fourteenth century, 79,\n 94. _See also_ Manuscripts.\n\n _Monuments et M\u00e9moires publi\u00e9s par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions et\n Belles-Lettres_, 7 _n._ 1.\n\n Moses ibn Tibbon, 226 _n._ 3.\n\n Muelich, J. A.: _see_ Adelphus, Johannes.\n\n Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din Abu\u2019l Hasan Ali ibn A\u1e25mad, _Delectus de Medicina_,\n 227, 228, 230.\n\n M\u00fcller, A., 227 _n._ 4.\n\n M\u00fcller, Johannes, on vitalism, 65, 66.\n\n M\u00fbsa ibn Maim\u00fbn, 227, 231, 232, 234.\n\n Myer, Isaac, _Qabbalah: the philosophical writings of Solomon ben\n Yehudah ibn Gebirol_, 43 _n._ 1.\n\n\n Nahe, river, 2, 3.\n\n Nardi, Luigi, _Chartularium Studii Bononiensis_, 98 _n._ 1.\n\n Neckam: _see_ Alexander of Neckam.\n\n Neisse, persecutions for witchcraft at, 204, 205.\n\n Nemesius, 51, 113.\n\n Neoplatonism, 33, 37.\n\n Neo-vitalism: _see_ Vitalism.\n\n Newton, Isaac, 253.\n\n Nicaise, E., _La Grande Chirurgie de Guy de Chauliac_, 82 _n._ 1,\n 121 _n._ 2.\n\n Nicholas I, Pope, condemns torture of witches, 192.\n\n Nicodemus, Gospel of, 20.\n\n Nicoll, A., Catalogue of Oriental MSS. in the Bodleian Library,\n 230 _n._ 2.\n\n Nixon, J. A., _A New Guy de Chauliac MS._, 84 _n._ 1.\n\n Nordenski\u00f6ld, A. E., _Facsimile Atlas till Kartografiens \u00e4ldesta\n Historia_, 99 _n._ 4.\n\n N\u00f6rdlingen, torture of witches at, 213.\n\n Norfolk, Thomas Howard, eighth Duke of, 176.\n\n _Northamptonshire, Rare and Curious Tracts Illustrative of the\n History of_, 195 _n._ 2.\n\n Northumberland Household Book, cited, 168.\n\n Norwich, Registry of Wills, 176 _n._ 5.\n\n _Notes and Queries_, 175 _n._ 3.\n\n\n Origen, 222.\n\n Orioli, Emilio, _Chartularium Studii Bononiensis_, 98 _n._ 1.\n\n Orlandi, P. A., _Notizie degli scrittori bolognesi_, 98 _n._ 2.\n\n Osiander, Andrew, 8.\n\n Oxford, Ashmolean Museum: drawing of dissection scene attributed to\n Bartolomeo Manfredi, 88, plate XXXVI. _See also_ Manuscripts.\n\n\n Padua, public anatomies at, in the fifteenth century, 79, 81 _n._, 82.\n\n Pagel, J. L., _Die Anatomie des Heinrich von Mondeville_, 121 _n._ 3;\n _Die Chirurgie des Heinrich von Mondeville_, 129 _n._ 1;\n _Maimuni als medizinischer Schriftsteller_, 229 _n._ 1.\n\n Painters, early Renaissance, anatomical studies of, 86.\n\n Palladius, Peter, on the treatment of witches, 195.\n\n Papenbroch, Daniel, 8.\n\n Paracelsus, 32, 42, 43, 61, 214;\n _Labyrinthus medicorum errantium_, 42 _n._\n\n Par\u00e9, Ambroise, 214.\n\n Paris, public anatomies at, in the fifteenth century. _See also_\n Manuscripts.\n\n Pascal, on principles of conscience, 200.\n\n Pastor, L., _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, 190 _n._\n\n Paulicians, the, of Armenia, 192 _n._ 4.\n\n Pauline writings, 21.\n\n Peckham: _see_ John of Peckham.\n\n Pepys, Samuel, 181.\n\n Peter of Abano, charge of sorcery against, 193.\n\n Petrocello, psychological writings of, 114.\n\n Petrus, Henricus, 44 _nn._ 2, 3, 114 _n._ 1.\n\n Peyligk, K., anatomical drawings of, 96 _n._ 2, 105;\n _Philosophiae naturalis compendium_, 116 fig.\u00a015, 122 _n._ 2.\n\n Philip of Ehrenberg, prince-bishop, witch-burning by, 208.\n\n Philips, Mary, executed for witchcraft, 195.\n\n Physicians, College of, 173.\n\n Physiological theories, 59 ff.\n\n _Physiologus_, 13.\n\n Piot, Eug\u00e8ne, _Le Cabinet de l\u2019amateur_, 90 _n._ 1.\n\n Pisa: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Pitra, Cardinal J. B., 16 _n._ 3;\n _Analecta sacra_, 4 _n._ 4, 5 _n._ 1, 6, 12 _n._ 2, 14 _n._ 3,\n 19 _n._ 1, 20 _n._ 2, 21 _n._ 1.\n\n Plague, Manfredi\u2019s treatise on the, 101, 102.\n\n Plato, 245, 255, 256, 259, 270, 288.\n\n Pliny, 13.\n\n Pocock, Edward, 230, 231 _n._ 1;\n editor of Bar Hebraeus\u2019s works, 228 _nn._ 4, 5.\n\n Poincar\u00e9, M., _Science et M\u00e9thode_, 254 _n._ 1.\n\n Pollaiuolo, Antonio, anatomical studies of, 86.\n\n Polydore Vergil and the use of cramp-rings, 172, 180.\n\n Poole, R. Lane, _Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought\n in the Departments of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics_,\n 19 _n._ 2, 37 _n._ 4.\n\n Porphyry, 38.\n\n Porta, Baptista, 199.\n\n Portal, A., _Histoire de l\u2019Anatomie et Chirurgie_, 81 _n._\n\n Post-mortem examinations in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,\n 81, plates XXVIII (_b_), XXIX.\n\n Power, Maura, _An Irish Astronomical Text_, 39 _n._ 3.\n\n Prague, public anatomies at, in the fifteenth century, 79.\n\n Pratzel, Dr. Veit, burnt for witchcraft, 206.\n\n Pretorius, _Von Zauberei und Zauberern_, 203 _n._ 3.\n\n _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine,_ 81 _n._ 1.\n\n _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries_, 177-8.\n\n Proof, logical, and scientific discovery, 235-89.\n\n Protagoras, 259.\n\n Psychoids, theory of, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76.\n\n Psychology, mediaeval, 51.\n\n Ptolemy, _Almagest_, 17, 18;\n astronomy of, 264; Manfredi\u2019s edition of the _Cosmographia_ and\n _Tabulae Cosmographiae_, 99.\n\n Pusey, E. B., Catalogue of Oriental MSS. in the Bodleian Library,\n 230, 231.\n\n\n _Quaderni d\u2019anatomia_, 86 _n._ 1.\n\n\n Rabbinowicz, J. M., _Trait\u00e9 des Poisons de Maimonide_, 226 _n._ 1.\n\n Rashdall, Hastings, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_,\n 97 _n._ 3.\n\n Ratdolt, Erhard, experiment in colour printing by, 90.\n\n Raudnitz: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n _Regimen sanitatis Salerni_, 13, 18, 21.\n\n Reisch, Gregorius, _Margarita philosophiae_, anatomical drawings,\n 117 fig.\u00a018, 120 fig.\u00a019, 122 and _n._ 2.\n\n Remy, Nicholas, inquisitor of Lorraine, account of witch-trials,\n 196-8, 200;\n _Daemanolatria_, 196, 200 _n._ 1.\n\n Renaissance anatomy: _see_ Anatomy.\n\n Renzi, S. de, _Collectio Salernitana_, 13 _n._ 1, 18 _nn._ 1-5,\n 39 _n._, 43 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 1, 114 _n._ 2.\n\n Reuss, F. A., 14 _n._ 1;\n _De Libris physicis S. Hildegardis commentatio historico-medica_,\n 13 _n._ 3;\n _Der heiligen Hildegard Subtilitatum diversarum naturarum\n creaturarum libri novem, &c._, 13 _n._ 3.\n\n _Revue des questions historiques_, 5 _n._ 3, 16 _n._ 3, 21 _n._ 3,\n 23 _n._ 5.\n\n _Revue scientifique pour la France et pour l\u2019\u00c9tranger_, 92 _n._ 4.\n\n Rhazes, 93, 105, 110, 113, 120, 121, 127, 182;\n _Almansur_, 110 _n._ 2.\n\n \u2018Rheumatic rings\u2019, 182.\n\n Rhineland, spread of scientific knowledge in the, 17-20.\n\n Richard II and the blessing of cramp-rings, 170.\n\n Richardus Anglicus (Richard of Wendover), anatomical work by, 105,\n 121.\n\n Rieu, C., _Supplement to the Arabic MSS. in the British Museum_,\n 228 _n._ 1.\n\n Rivoli, Duc de, _Bibliographie des livres \u00e0 figures v\u00e9nitiens_,\n 90 _n._ 2.\n\n Robersdorf: _see_ Gertrude of Robersdorf.\n\n Robertson, J. M., _Letters on Reasoning_, 223 _n._ 2.\n\n Rome: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Rondelet, William, anatomizes his son, 81 _n._\n\n Rose, Valentine, cited, 24 _n._\n\n Roth, F. W. E., account of St. Hildegard, 5 _n._ 3;\n _Lieder und unbekannte Sprache der h. Hildegardis_, 5 _n._ 2.\n\n Rotterdam, witch-burning at, 219, 220.\n\n Roux, Wilhelm, 63.\n\n Rupert, St., Hildegard\u2019s life of, 3, 7.\n\n Rupertsberg, convent of, 2, 3, 8, 42.\n\n\n Sacro Bosco: _see_ Johannes Sacro Bosco.\n\n St. George\u2019s Cross, 178.\n\n St. Victor: _see_ Hugh of St. Victor.\n\n St. Vincent of Beauvais, 191.\n\n Salerno, 13, 18, 43, 44, 45, 93, 114.\n _See also_ Copho _and_ Trotula.\n\n Saliceto: _see_ William of Saliceto.\n\n Sandys, J. E., _History of Classical Scholarship_, 19 _n._ 2,\n 37 _n._ 3.\n\n Santini, U., _Cenni statistici sulla Popolazione del Quartiere di\n S. Proclo in Bologna_, 99 _n._ 2.\n\n Saphir ben Levi, Jacob, 226 _n._ 3.\n\n Savoy, senate of, witches condemned by, 208.\n\n S\u00e4xinger, J., _Ueber die Entwickelung des medizinischen Unterrichts\n an der T\u00fcbinger Hochschule_, 79 _n._ 4, 81 _n._\n\n Schiller, F. C. S.: Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof, 235-89;\n _Formal Logic_, 236, 246 _n._ 2, 273 _n._, 274 _n._, 279 _n._,\n 285 _n._;\n _Humanism_, 274 _n._;\n _Studies in Humanism_, 274 _n._\n\n Schmelzeis, J. P., _Das Leben und Wirken der heiligen Hildegardis_,\n 5 _n._ 2.\n\n Schneider, A., _Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen_, 113 _n._ 3.\n\n Sch\u00f6nau: _see_ Elizabeth of Sch\u00f6nau.\n\n Scientific discovery and logical proof, 235-89.\n\n Scot, Reginald, _Discovery of Witchcraft_, 214, 223.\n\n Scribonius, W. A., Professor of Philosophy at Marburg, on testing\n witchcraft by water, 207.\n\n Secker, Archbishop,\u00a0230.\n\n Seidel, Ernst, _Drei weitere anatomische F\u00fcnfbilderserien aus\n Abendland und Morgenland_, 44 _n._ 4, 87 _n._ 1.\n\n Seneca, 32.\n\n Serarius, Nicolaus, 8.\n\n Sermoneta, duca di: _see_ Caetani, Michelangelo.\n\n Seville, Isidore of: _see_ Isidore Hispalensis.\n\n Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford: _see_ Hertford.\n\n Shakespeare\u2019s use of the word \u2018cramp\u2019, 181.\n\n Shaw, Elinor, executed for witchcraft, 195.\n\n Sidgwick, Alfred, cited, 247 _n._, 259.\n\n Sighinolfi, Lino, _L\u2019Architettura Bentivolesca in Bologna e il\n Palazzo del Podest\u00e0_, 104 _n._\n\n Signorelli, Luca, anatomical studies of, 86.\n\n Sillib, Professor, 55 _n._\n\n Simpson, Sparrow, 178.\n\n Singer, Charles: A Study in Early Renaissance Anatomy, with a new\n text: the _Anothomia_ of Hieronymo Manfredi (1490), 79-164.\n ---- The Scientific Views and Visions of Saint Hildegard, 1-55.\n ---- _Allegorical Representation of the Synagogue, in a Twelfth-\n century Illuminated MS. of Hildegard_, 20 _n._ 2;\n _Thirteenth-century Miniature illustrating Medical Practice_,\n 81 _n._ 1;\n _The Figures of the Bristol Guy de Chauliac MS._, 84 _n._ 1.\n\n _Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften_,\n 12 _n._ 2.\n\n Smith, R., titular bishop of Chalcedon, 175.\n\n Socrates, 259.\n\n Soldan, W. G., _Geschichte der Hexenprocesse_, 191 _n._ 1, 192 _n._ 2,\n 193 _n._, 203 _n._ 3, 206 _nn._ 1, 2, 208 _n._ 4.\n\n Solomon, Wisdom of, 21, 24, 28.\n\n Sorbelli, Albano, _I Primordi della Stampa in Bologna_, 99 _n._ 4;\n _La Signoria di Giovanni Visconti a Bologna_, 97 _n._ 1;\n _Le Croniche Bolognesi del Secolo XIV_, 97 _n._ 1.\n\n Sorcerers, 192-8, 200, 202, 204-6, 215.\n _See also_ Witchcraft.\n\n Soul, nature of the, biological definition of, 59-61;\n Hildegard\u2019s views on, 1, 50, 51.\n _See also_ Vitalism.\n\n Spee, Father, _Cautio Criminalis_, on trials for witchcraft, 204\n and _n._ 2, 207 _n._ 2, 221 _n._ 2.\n\n Spielmann, M. H., 55 _n._\n\n Sponheim, 2, 3.\n\n Sporley, Richard, monk of Westminster, 166.\n\n Sprenger, J., _Malleus Maleficarum_, 194 and _n._, 201-3.\n\n Stahl, George Ernest, 61.\n\n Starling, Professor E. H., 70.\n\n Steele, R. R., 55 _n._\n\n Steinschneider, M., _Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca\n Bodleiana_, 226 _n._ 10, 231 _n._ 2;\n _Die hebr\u00e4ischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als\n Dolmetscher_, 226 _nn._ 3, 10;\n _Gifte und ihre Heilung, eine Abhandlung des Moses Maimonides_,\n 226 _n._ 1.\n\n Strabus, Walafrid, 13.\n\n Strassburg, witch-burning at, 205.\n\n Straub, A., edition of Herrade de Landsberg\u2019s _Hortus deliciarum_,\n 21 _n._ 4, 40 fig.\u00a05, 48 fig.\u00a09.\n\n _Studi e Memorie per la Storia dell\u2019 Universit\u00e0 di Bologna_,\n 92 _n._ 4, 103 _n._ 2.\n\n Stumpff, F. G. A., _Historia nervorum cerebralium ab antiquissimis\n temporibus usque ad Willisium nec non Vieussensium_, 118 _n._ 1.\n\n Sudhoff, Karl, cited, 38 _nn._ 2, 5, 45 _n._ 1, 87 _n._ 4, 121 _n._ 1,\n 127 _n._ 5;\n _Abermals eine neue Handschrift der anatomischen F\u00fcnfbilderserie_,\n 44 _n._ 4;\n _Augendurchschnittsbilder aus Abendland und Morgenland_, 122 _n._ 1;\n _Die kurze \u2018Vita\u2019 und das Verzeichnis der Arbeiten Gerhards von\n Cremona, von seinen Sch\u00fclern und Studiengenossen kurz nach dem\n Tode des Meisters (1187) zu Toledo verabfasst_, 17 _n._ 2;\n _Drei weitere anatomische F\u00fcnfbilderserien aus Abendland und\n Morgenland_, 44 _n._ 4, 87 _n._ 1;\n _Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Anatomie im Mittelalter_, 44 _n._ 4,\n 87 _n._ 2, 105 _n._;\n _Eine Pariser \u2018Ketham\u2019 Handschrift aus der Zeit K\u00f6nig Karls VI_,\n 89 _n._ 4;\n _Illustrationen medizinischer Handschriften und Fr\u00fchdrucke_,\n 122 _n._ 1;\n _Neue Beitr\u00e4ge zur Vorgeschichte des Ketham_, 89 _n._ 4;\n _Tradition und Naturbeobachtung_, 44 _n._ 4, 90 _n._ 4;\n _Weibliche Situsbilder von ca. 1400-1543_, 90 _n._ 4;\n _Weitere Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Anatomie im Mittelalter_,\n 44 _n._ 5.\n\n Sudhoff, Walther, _Die Lehre von den Hirnventrikeln_, 114 _n._ 3.\n\n Suffolk charm against rheumatism, 182.\n\n _Summi in omni philosophia viri Constantini africani medici operum\n reliqua_, 44 _n._ 3.\n\n Syllogism, the, as a form of proof, 238, 240-50, 253, 288.\n\n Sylvestris, Bernard, of Tours, 37 _n._ 1;\n _De mundi universitate sive megacosmus et microcosmus_, 17, 19, 20,\n 30, 32, 36, 38.\n\n _Symbolum Apostolicorum_, 39 _n._ 1, plate XVII.\n\n\n Taylor, H. Osborn, _The Mediaeval Mind_, 23 _nn._ 3, 5.\n\n Techlenburg, Countess Anna of, 221.\n\n Teleology, 64, 66, 71-3, 75-7, 94, 105.\n\n Templars, the, charges against, 193, 199.\n\n Tertullian, 216.\n\n Theodoric, the monk, life of St. Hildegard by, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14,\n 15 _n._, 51.\n\n Theophilus, psychological writings of, 114.\n\n Thun, in Alsace, witch-burning at, 208.\n\n T\u00f6ply, Robert Ritter von, 92 _n._ 4;\n _Anatomia Richardi Anglici_, 121 _n._ 1.\n\n Torre, Marcantonio della, projected anatomical treatise of, 89.\n\n Tralles: _see_ Alexander of Tralles.\n\n _Transactions of the Seventeenth International Congress of Medicine_\n (Sect. XXIII, History of Medicine), 27 _n._ 2, 38 _n._ 3,\n 84 _n._ 1.\n\n _Tredici Foglie della Royal Library di Windsor_, 86 _n._ 1.\n\n Tr\u00e8ves, witch-burning in the bishopric of, 194, 197, 198.\n\n Treviranus, 62, 64.\n\n Triaire, P., _Les le\u00e7ons d\u2019anatomie et les peintres hollandais aux\n XVI^e et XVII^e si\u00e8cles_, 89 _n._ 1.\n\n Trinity, Hildegard\u2019s vision of the, 54, plate XXIII.\n\n Trithemius, Johannes, abbot of Sponheim, 8, 42;\n _Chronicon insigne Monasterii Hirsaugensis, Ordinis St. Benedicti_,\n 15, 16 _n._ 1.\n\n Trotula, medical writings of, 13.\n\n T\u00fcbingen, public anatomies at, in the fifteenth century, 79, 81 _n._\n\n Tudela: _see_ Benjamin of Tudela.\n\n\n Universe, material structure of the, mediaeval views on, 22-30,\n plates IV, XI.\n\n Uri, John, Catalogue of Oriental MSS. in the Bodleian Library,\n 227, 230, 231 and _n._ 2.\n\n\n Vangesten, O. C. L., cited, 86 _n._ 1, 130 _n._ 1.\n\n Varignana, Gulielmo, professor of medicine at Bologna, 93 _n._ 1.\n\n Venturi, A., _Storia dell\u2019 arte italiana_, 10 _n._ 2.\n\n Vergil, Polydore, 172, 180.\n\n Verrocchio, Andrea del, anatomical studies of, 86 and _n._ 2.\n\n Verworn, Max, 68.\n\n Vesalius, Andreas, 61, 86, 89, 93, 105, 130;\n _De humani corporis fabrica_, 92 _n._ 2, 121 fig.\u00a020, 122.\n\n Vigevano, Guido de, anatomical drawings in works of, 87,\n plates XXXI, XXXII.\n\n Villanova: _see_ Arnald of Villanova.\n\n Villiers, J. A. J. de, _Famous Maps in the British Museum_, 99 _n._ 4.\n\n Vincent, St., of Beauvais, his treatment of a witch, 191.\n\n Vinci, Leonardo da, anatomical researches of, 86, 121, 122, 130;\n anatomical sketches, 89, plates XXXV, XXXVIII (_b_).\n\n Virchow, Rudolf, cited, 13, 60, 226 _n._\n\n Virmont, Countess Anna of, 218.\n\n Vitalism, 59-78;\n animism, 61, 64, 65;\n biological definitions, 59-61;\n crystals, 60;\n differentiation, 62;\n embryo, 62, 63, 69, 70;\n \u2018entelechy\u2019, 64, 75;\n germ, 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 74;\n heterogeneity, 77;\n homogeneity, 65, 77;\n larva, 62, 63, 69;\n mechanisms and mechanical theories, 64, 65, 67-70, 74-6;\n metabolism, 60, 65, 68, 70, 76;\n metaphysical theory, 66, 67, 76;\n mind separate and eternal, 60, 73;\n morphaesthetic, 64, 71;\n neo-vitalism, 68, 76;\n nutritive soul, the, 59, 60, 73, 74;\n organic autonomy, 65;\n organism, life of the, 59 ff.;\n perceptive soul, the, 60, 73, 74;\n philosophical objections, 68, 71-5;\n psychoid, 64, 65, 75;\n psychological theory, 67, 68, 76;\n rational soul, the, 60, 61, 67;\n scientific objections, 68-71;\n special vital force, theory of, 66.\n\n Vivo, Catello de, _La Visione di Alberico, ristampata, tradotta e\n camparata con la Divina Commedia_, 21 _n._ 2.\n\n\n Waldenses, persecution of, 192.\n\n Waldsee, witch-burning at, 208.\n\n Walsh, E. H. C., _Tibetan Anatomical System_, 44 _n._ 5.\n\n Webb, C. C. J., 55 _n._\n\n Welch, Antonius, 197.\n\n Wendover, Richard of: _see_ Richardus Anglicus.\n\n Wesselich, Philip, of Knechtenstein, case of witchcraft, 218.\n\n Westland, A. Mildred, transcription of the _Anothomia_ of Hieronymo\n Manfredi, 130-64;\n translation of selected passages, 106-25.\n\n Westminster Abbey, miraculous cures at the shrine of Edward the\n Confessor, 166.\n\n Weyer, Dr. John, and the witch mania, 189-224;\n _De praestigiis daemonum et incantationibus ac veneficiis_, 215-22.\n\n Wharton, duct of, 95.\n\n Wiberg, J., _Anatomy of the Brain in the Works of Galen and \u2018Ali\n \u2018Abbas_, 113 _n._ 2.\n\n Wicelius (Weitzel), Georgius, 8.\n\n Wickersheimer, Ernest, _Figures m\u00e9dico-astrologiques des neuvi\u00e8me,\n dixi\u00e8me et onzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cles_, 27 _n._ 2, 38 _n._ 3;\n _La m\u00e9decine astrologique dans les almanachs populaires du XX^e\n si\u00e8cle_, 39 _n._ 2;\n _L\u2019Anatomie de Guido de Vigevano, m\u00e9decin de la reine Jeanne de\n Bourgogne_, 87 _n._ 3.\n\n Wiesbaden: _see_ Manuscripts.\n\n Wille, Professor, 55 _n._\n\n William of Saliceto, 92, 93, 105.\n\n Wilson, Rev. H. A., 55 _n._\n\n Winds, relation of, to the elements, 25-7, 34.\n\n Winternitz, _Di\u00e4tetisches Sendschreiben des Maimonides_, 226 _n._ 3.\n\n Wiseman, Cardinal, 178.\n\n Witchcraft and witch mania, 189-224;\n bewitchment of animals, 193, 197, 218, 220;\n burnings for witchcraft, 190, 194, 196, 197, 200, 202-8, 213, 221;\n children tortured and burnt, 200, 201, 208;\n confessions, 195, 197-200, 204, 205, 207, 209-13, 219, 220, 223;\n \u2018delation\u2019, 202;\n denunciations, 190, 192, 201, 202, 206, 209-13;\n executions, 190, 194, 195, 206, 208;\n informers, 202;\n inquisitions (or witch-trials), 192, 196, 197, 201-13;\n nature of the witch mania, 190, 191, 199, 205;\n number of victims, 208;\n opposition of Dr. John Weyer to persecution for witchcraft, 189,\n 200, 207, 214-24;\n popular beliefs concerning witchcraft and demonology, 190-3,\n 195-7, 199, 217;\n results of scientific investigations, 223;\n \u2018sabbat\u2019, the, 195-9;\n sexual orgies, 190, 193, 196, 198, 199, 209, 211, 216;\n torture of victims, 190, 192, 195, 200, 202-13;\n water test, 207, 219;\n witch-dances, 196, 197, 199, 210, 211, 216, 221;\n witch-hunters, 189, 192, 195-8, 200, 201, 205-8, 214, 219, 220;\n witch-ointments, 199, 216;\n witnesses, 202, 205, 209-12.\n\n Withington, E. T.: Dr. John Weyer and the Witch Mania, 189-224.\n\n Wolsey, Cardinal, 174.\n\n Worde, Wynkyn de, printer, 85 fig.\u00a04.\n\n Wrobel, J., cited, 19 _n._ 2, 37 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 1.\n\n W\u00fcrzburg, witch-burning in the bishopric of, 194, 195, 204, 208.\n\n W\u00fcstenfeld, H. F., _Geschichte d. arabischen Aerzte_, 227 and _n._ 1,\n 228 _nn._ 3, 5, 229.\n\n\n Yorke, Sir Joseph, 230.\n\n Ypres, John de, quotation from the account books of, 170.\n\n\n _Zeitschrift der Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, 226 _n._ 10.\n\n _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben_,\n 5 _n._ 3.\n\n Zelus Dei, account and illumination of, 54, plate XXIV (_b_).\n\n Zerbis, de: _see_ Gerbi, Gabriele de.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _Vita Sanctae Hildegardis auctoribus Godefrido et Theodorico\nmonachis_, lib. iii, cap. 1. The work has been frequently reprinted and\nis in Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. 197, col. 91\u00a0ff. This volume\nwill be quoted here simply as \u2018Migne\u2019.\n\n[2] Migne, col. 119.\n\n[3] The erroneous statement in some of her biographies that she\njourneyed to Paris is based on a misunderstanding.\n\n[4] Cardinal J. B. Pitra, _Analecta sacra_, vol. viii, p.\u00a0350, Paris,\n1882. This volume will here be quoted simply as \u2018Pitra\u2019.\n\n[5] Pitra, p.\u00a0556.\n\n[6] Wilhelm Grimm, \u2018Wiesbader Glossen\u2019, in Moriz Haupt\u2019s _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr deutsches Alterthum_, Leipzig, 1848, vol. vi, p.\u00a0321. The script is\nreproduced in the ill-arranged and irritating work of J. P. Schmelzeis,\n_Das Leben und Wirken der heiligen Hildegardis_, Freiburg im Breisgau,\n1879; and in Pitra, p.\u00a0497. The subject has been summarized by F. W.\nE. Roth in his _Lieder und unbekannte Sprache der h. Hildegardis_,\nWiesbaden, 1880.\n\n[7] A short sketch of her life of yet earlier date has survived. It is\nfrom the hand of the monk Guibert and was probably written in 1180:\nPitra, p.\u00a0407. The best modern account of her is by F. W. E. Roth in\nthe _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben_,\nvol. ix, p.\u00a0453, Leipzig, 1888. Less critical but more readable is the\nessay by Albert Battandier, \u2018Sainte Hildegarde, sa vie et ses \u0153uvres\u2019,\nin the _Revue des questions historiques_, vol. xxxiii, pp.\u00a0395-425,\nParis, 1883.\n\n[8] The \u2018Acta inquisitionis de virtutibus et miraculis sanctae\nHildegardis\u2019 are reprinted in Migne, col. 131.\n\n[9] This volume is supplemented by \u2018Annotationes ad Nova S. Hildegardis\nOpera\u2019 in _Analecta Bollandiana_, vol. i, p.\u00a0597, Brussels, 1882.\n\n[10] This Wiesbaden MS. has been fully described by Antonius van\nder Linde, _Die Handschriften der K\u00f6niglichen Landesbibliothek in\nWiesbaden_, Wiesbaden, 1877.\n\n[11] Louis Baillet, \u2018Les Miniatures du Scivias de sainte Hildegarde\u2019,\nin the _Monuments et M\u00e9moires publi\u00e9s par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions\net Belles-Lettres_, Paris, 1912, especially pp.\u00a0139 and 145.\n\n[12] We are inclined to place the preparation of this remarkable MS.\nat a slightly later date than that attributed to it by Baillet. As\nWiesbaden is at present inaccessible we have reproduced the facsimiles\nin Plate II from Baillet\u2019s monograph.\n\n[13] For the history of these MSS. see A. van der Linde, loc. cit.,\npp.\u00a030-6.\n\n[14] Goethe, \u2018Am Rhein, Main und Neckar\u2019, _Cotta\u2019s Jubil\u00e4ums-Ausgabe_,\nvol. xxix, p.\u00a0258.\n\n[15] Wilhelm Grimm in M. Haupt\u2019s _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsches Alterthum_,\nvi, p.\u00a0321, Leipzig, 1847.\n\n[16] In \u00c9tienne Baluze, _Miscellanea novo ordine digesta et non paucis\nineditis monumentis opportunisque animadversionibus aucta opera ac\nstudio J.\u00a0D. Mansi_, 4 vols., Lucca, 1761-6; see vol. ii, p.\u00a0377.\n\n[17] Cf. J.\u00a0A. Herbert, _Illuminated Manuscripts_, London, 1911, p.\u00a0160.\n\n[18] A. Venturi, _Storia dell\u2019 arte italiana_, Milan, _in progress_,\nvol. v, p.\u00a016.\n\n[19] We are unable to concur with Baillet, however, that there is\nenough evidence to suggest that the miniaturists of the Lucca MS. had\nconsulted the Wiesbaden illuminations. Baillet, loc. cit., p.\u00a0147.\n\n[20] _Hildegardis causae et curae edidit Paulus Kaiser_, Leipzig,\nB.\u00a0G. Teubner, 1903. The MS. was brought to light by C. Jessen in\nthe _Sitzungsberichte der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften,\nMathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse_, Band xlv, Heft 1,\np.\u00a097, Vienna, 1862. See also the same author in _Botanik in\nkulturhistorischer Entwickelung_, pp.\u00a0124-6, Leipzig, 1862, and in the\n_Anzeiger f\u00fcr Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit_, 1875, p.\u00a0175. An imperfect\nedition appeared in 1882 in Pitra, p.\u00a0468, under the title _Liber\ncompositae medicinae de aegritudinum causis signis atque curis_.\n\n[21] Royal Library of Copenhagen, MS. Ny. Kgl. Saml., No. 90 b.\n\n[22] _Experimentarius medicinae continens Trotulae curandarum\nAegritudinum muliebrium ... item quatuor Hildegardis de elementorum,\nfluminum aliquot Germaniae, metallorum,... herbarum, piscium &\nanimantium terrae, naturis et operationibus_. Edited by G. Kraut,\nStrasbourg, J. Schott, 1544. The work often ascribed to Trotula is\nsomewhat similar to the spurious medical works of Hildegard. Like\nthem, it was probably written early in the thirteenth century. Trotula\nherself lived in the eleventh century, a generation or two before\nHildegard. On Trotula see Salvatore de Renzi, _Collectio Salernitana_,\nvol. i, p.\u00a0149, Naples, 1852.\n\n[23] In the _Vita_, lib. ii, cap.\u00a01; Migne, col. 101.\n\n[24] Migne, col. 1125. See also F.\u00a0A. Reuss, _De Libris physicis S.\nHildegardis commentatio historico-medica_, W\u00fcrzburg, 1835, and \u2018Der\nheiligen Hildegard Subtilitatum diversarum naturarum creaturarum\nlibri novem, die werthvollste Urkunde deutscher Natur- und Heilkunde\naus dem Mittelalter\u2019 in the _Annalen des Vereins f\u00fcr Nassauische\nAlterthumskunde und Geschichtsforschung_, Band vi, Heft 1, Wiesbaden,\n1859.\n\n[25] Rudolf Virchow, \u2018Zur Geschichte des Aussatzes und der Spit\u00e4ler,\nbesonders in Deutschland\u2019, in Virchow\u2019s _Archiv f\u00fcr Pathologie_, vol.\nxviii, p.\u00a0285, &c., Berlin, 1860.\n\n[26] Reuss, in Migne, cols. 1121 and 1122, states on Theodoric\u2019s\nauthority that Hildegard had written a _book_ on this subject: \u2018Exstat\ninter libros virginis fatidicae superstites opus argumenti partim\nphysici partim medici, \u201cDe natura hominis, elementorum diversarumque\ncreaturarum\u201d in quo, ut Theodoricus idem fusius exponit, secreta\nnaturae prophetico spiritu manifestavit.\u2019 But Theodoric does not\nin fact anywhere speak of a _special work_ with this title or of\nthis character. What he does write is as follows (_Vita_, lib. ii,\ncap. i, Migne, col. 101): \u2018Igitur beata virgo ... librum visionum\n... consummavit et _quaedam_ de natura hominis et elementorum,\ndiversarumque creaturarum, et quomodo homini ex his succurrendum sit,\naliaque multa secreta prophetico spiritu manifestavit.\u2019\n\n[27] Migne, cols. 1212 and 1213.\n\n[28] As detailed in the _Liber vitae meritorum_, Pitra, p.\u00a0228, and in\nmany places in the _Liber divinorum operum_ and _Scivias_.\n\n[29] An exception must be made for the _lingua ignota_, which is\npresumably hers. The absence of Germanisms in her other writings may\nbe partly due to the work of an editor. See the _Vita_ by Theodoric,\nMigne, col. 101. Also the birth scene (see chapter ix below) is perhaps\nadapted from a German folk-tale.\n\n[30] Johannes Trithemius, _Chronicon insigne Monasterii Hirsaugensis,\nOrdinis St. Benedicti_, Basel, 1559, p.\u00a0174.\n\n[31] Migne, col. 384.\n\n[32] It is not enough to suppose with some of her biographers that the\nvisions were dictated by Hildegard and were latinized by a secretary.\nThe visions imply a good deal of study and considerable book-learning.\nAmong many reasons for believing that she had a very serviceable\nknowledge of Latin are the following:\n\n(_a_) She was well acquainted with the Biblical writings and quotes\nthem aptly and frequently.\n\n(_b_) She was regarded by her contemporaries as an authority on\nscriptural interpretation and on Church discipline, and was frequently\nconsulted by them on these subjects.\n\n(_c_) She pleaded in person before clerical tribunals.\n\n(_d_) One of the least remarkable and most credible of her \u2018miracles\u2019,\nthe expounding of certain letters found upon an altar-cloth (Migne,\ncol. 121), depends entirely on a knowledge of Latin.\n\n(_e_) In the _Liber divinorum operum_ (Migne, col. 922) she writes\n\u2018firmamentum _celum_ nominavit quoniam omnia _excellit_\u2019, a derivation\ntaken from Isidore and incomprehensible to one ignorant of Latin. There\nare many other passages in her works in which the sense depends on the\nLatin usage of a word.\n\n(_f_) No mention of this ignorance is made by Guibert in the short\nsketch of her life that he wrote almost immediately after her death\n(1180; see Pitra, p.\u00a0407). On the contrary, he suggests that she had\nbeen an industrious student.\n\n(_g_) The _Liber divinorum operum_ may especially be pointed out\namong her works as betraying a very considerable degree of learning.\nNotably her elaborate doctrine of the macrocosm and microcosm must have\ninvolved extensive reading.\n\nThe general question of Hildegard\u2019s knowledge of Latin has also been\ndiscussed by Pitra and by Albert Battandier in the _Revue des questions\nhistoriques_, vol. xxxiii, p.\u00a0395, Paris, 1883.\n\n[33] See chapter viii.\n\n[34] It is, however, just possible that she had consulted the\nastrological work that had been translated from the Arabic by Hermann\nthe Dalmatian for Bernard Sylvestris, and is represented in the\nBodleian MSS. Digby 46 and Ashmole 304.\n\n[35] See Baldassare Boncompagni, _Della vita e delle opere di\nGherardo Cremonese, Traduttore del secolo duodecimo, e di Gherardo di\nSabbionetta, Astronomo del secolo decimoterzo_, Rome, 1851; also K.\nSudhoff, \u2018Die kurze \u201cVita\u201d und das Verzeichnis der Arbeiten Gerhards\nvon Cremona, von seinen Sch\u00fclern und Studiengenossen kurz nach dem Tode\ndes Meisters (1187) zu Toledo verabfasst\u2019, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte\nder Medizin_, Bd. viii, p.\u00a073, November 1914.\n\n[36] Another translation of the _Almagest_ was made in Sicily in 1160,\ndirect from the Greek. See C.\u00a0H. Haskins and D.\u00a0P. Lockwood, \u2018The\nSicilian Translators of the Twelfth Century and the First Latin Version\nof Ptolemy\u2019s _Almagest_\u2019, in _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_,\nxi. 75, Cambridge, Mass., 1910. It is wholly improbable that Hildegard\nhad access to this rendering, which is only known from a single MS. of\nthe fourteenth century.\n\n[37] De Renzi, _Collectio Salernitana_, vol. i, p.\u00a0485, and vol. v,\np.\u00a050.\n\n[38] De Renzi, i. 486 and 495; v. 51 and 70.\n\n[39] De Renzi, i. 446; v. 3.\n\n[40] De Renzi, i. 485-6; v. 50-2.\n\n[41] _Scivias_, Migne, col. 403, and _Liber Divinorum Operum_, Migne,\ncol. 868 and elsewhere.\n\n[42] _Scivias_, Migne, col. 404, and throughout the _Liber Divinorum\nOperum_.\n\n[43] Pitra, pp.\u00a08, 114-16, 156, and 216.\n\n[44] The work of Bernard Sylvestris has been printed by C.\u00a0S. Barach\nand J. Wrobel, Innsbruck, 1876. His identity, his sources, and his\nviews are discussed by Charles Jourdain, _Dissertation sur l\u2019\u00e9tat de la\nphilosophie naturelle ... pendant la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du XII^e si\u00e8cle_;\nby A. Clerval, _Les \u00c9coles de Chartres au Moyen \u00c2ge_, Paris, 1895,\np.\u00a0259, &c.; by R.\u00a0L. Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval\nThought_, London, 1884, p.\u00a0116, &c.; and by J.\u00a0E. Sandys, _History of\nClassical Scholarship_, Cambridge, 1903, vol. i, p.\u00a0513, &c.\n\n[45] The works of Hugh of St. Victor are published in Migne,\n_Patrologia Latina_, clxxv-clxxvii.\n\n[46] The Kalonymos family furnished prominent examples.\n\n[47] Charles Singer, \u2018Allegorical Representation of the Synagogue, in\na Twelfth-Century Illuminated MS. of Hildegard of Bingen\u2019, _Jewish\nQuarterly Review_, new series, vol. v, p.\u00a0268, Philadelphia, 1915. For\nfurther evidence of Hildegard\u2019s acquaintance with the Jews see Pitra,\np.\u00a0216; and Migne, cols. 967 and 1020-36.\n\n[48] Pitra, p.\u00a051 et seq.\n\n[49] Catello de Vivo, _La Visione di Alberico, ristampata, tradotta e\ncomparata con la Divina Commedia_, Ariano, 1899. For a comparison of\nDante\u2019s visions and those of Hildegard see Albert Battandier in the\n_Revue des questions historiques_, vol. xxxiii, p.\u00a0422, Paris, 1883.\n\n[50] Reprinted in Migne, vol. 195.\n\n[51] Herrade de Landsberg, _Hortus Deliciarum_, by A. Straub and G.\nKeller, Strasbourg, 1901, with two supplements.\n\n[52] For sphericity of earth see especially Migne, cols. 868 and 903.\n\n[53] In her later _Liber Divinorum Simplicis Hominis_ this method\nof orientation is varied both in the text and also in the Lucca\nillustrations.\n\n[54] Migne, col. 906.\n\n[55] Migne, cols. 903-4.\n\n[56] See H. Osborn Taylor, _The Mediaeval Mind_, vol. i, p.\u00a0472,\nLondon, 1911.\n\n[57] Migne, cols. 904-6.\n\n[58] H. Osborn Taylor, _The Mediaeval Mind_, i. 468, 471; ii. 569. See\nalso A. Battandier, _Revue des questions historiques_, vol. xxxiii,\np.\u00a0422, Paris, 1883.\n\n[59] The _Meteorologica_ had been translated about 1150 by Aristippus,\nthe minister of William the Bad of Sicily. The version of Aristippus\npassed quickly into circulation (Valentine Rose, \u2018Die L\u00fccke im Diogenes\nLa\u00ebrtus und der alte \u00dcbersetzer\u2019 in _Hermes_, i. 376, Berlin, 1866),\nbut hardly soon enough for Hildegard\u2019s _Scivias_, which was completed\nabout 1150. It is, of course, possible that the references to the\n_ignis niger_ are later interpolations, but this is very unlikely\nin view of the way in which she speaks of this vision in the _Liber\nDivinorum Operum_.\n\n[60] Migne, cols. 789-91.\n\n[61] Migne, col. 389.\n\n[62] Plate XII _a_. The elements are represented in their original\norder undisturbed by the Fall. Uppermost is the _purus aether_ or _aer\nlucidus_ containing the stars and representing the element _air_ in\nHildegard\u2019s cosmic system. Next comes _water_. Below, and to the left,\nis a dark mass separating into tongues, one of which is formed into a\nserpent\u2019s head. These tongues are flames of _fire_. Below, and to the\nright, are plants and flowers emblematical of _earth_. The serpent,\nthe enemy, vomits over a cloud of stars (signifying the fallen angels)\nthat are borne downward by the falling Adam. In the four corners of the\nminiature the symbols of the elements are again displayed.\n\n[63] Plate XIII. Above, in a circle, sits the Heavenly Judge. He is\nflanked on either side by groups of angels bearing the cross and\nother symbols. The lower circle exhibits the final destruction of\nthe elemental Universe. The four winds and their collaterals are\nhere subjecting the elements to the crucible heat of their combined\nblasts. Strewn among the elements can be seen men, plants, and animals.\nBetween the circles is an angel sounding the last trump, and holding\nthe recording roll of good and evil deeds. He faces the throng of the\nrighteous who are rising from their bones, while he turns his back\non the weeping crowd of those doomed to torment. Below these latter\ncrouches Satan, now enchained.\n\n[64] Plate XII _b_. In the highest circle is the Trinity flanked to\nthe left by the Virgin and to the right by the Baptist, with Cherubim\nbelow. In the middle circle are two groups, the Saints above and the\nProphets and Apostles below. In the lowest circle are the elements, now\nrearranged in their eternal harmony; uppermost of these is the _purus\naether_ now separated from the _aer lucidus_ and containing the stars;\non either side are light-coloured flame-like processes representing the\n_air_; below the aether is _water_, indicated by a zone of undulating\nlines; then comes the _earth_ symbolized, as usual, by a group of\nplants. Below and to the side of _earth_ are dark-coloured flames of\nfire, now controlled and confined to this lowest rung.\n\n[65] Migne, col. 791.\n\n[66] See Ernest Wickersheimer, \u2018Figures m\u00e9dico-astrologiques des\nneuvi\u00e8me, dixi\u00e8me et onzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cles\u2019, in the _Transactions of the\nSeventeenth International Congress of Medicine, Section XXIII, History\nof Medicine_, p.\u00a0313, London, 1913.\n\n[67] Migne, cols. 403-14.\n\n[68] Migne, col. 751.\n\n[69] Migne, col. 791.\n\n[70] The _Quaestio de Aqua et Terra_ is doubtless a genuine, albeit\nthe least pleasing, production of the great poet. The genuineness is\nestablished by Vincenzo Balgi in his edition, Modena, 1907.\n\n[71] Migne, col. 741.\n\n[72] Migne, col. 743.\n\n[73] It is outside our purpose to attempt a full elucidation of\nHildegard\u2019s allegory. The eagle in the right wing signifies the power\nof divine grace, while the human head in the left wing indicates the\npowers of the natural man. To the bosom of the figure is clasped the\nLamb of God.\n\n[74] Migne, col. 751.\n\n[75] Migne, col. 744.\n\n[76] _Liber Divinorum Operum_, part i, visions 2 and 3.\n\n[77] Migne, cols. 752-5.\n\n[78] Migne, col. 807.\n\n[79] The work is printed by C. S. Barach and J. Wrobel, Innsbruck,\n1876. The writers, however, confuse Bernard Sylvestris of Tours with\nhis somewhat older contemporary, Bernard of Chartres.\n\n[80] A. Clerval, _Les \u00c9coles de Chartres au Moyen \u00c2ge_, Paris, 1895.\n\n[81] J.\u00a0E. Sandys, _History of Classical Scholarship_, Cambridge, 1903,\nvol. i, p.\u00a0515.\n\n[82] R. Lane Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought\nin the Departments of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics_, Oxford,\n1884, pp.\u00a0118, 219.\n\n[83] Barach and Wrobel, _loc. cit._, pp.\u00a05-6, 9 and 13.\n\n[84] For a general consideration of these figures see K. Sudhoff,\n_Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Medizin_, i. 157, 219; ii. 84.\n\n[85] E. Wickersheimer, \u2018Figures m\u00e9dico-astrologiques des neuvi\u00e8me,\ndixi\u00e8me et onzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cles\u2019, _Transactions of the Seventeenth\nInternational Congress of Medicine, Section XXIII, History of\nMedicine_, p.\u00a0313, London, 1913.\n\n[86] The MS. from which Plate XV is taken _(Paris, Bibl. nat., Latin_\n7028) is entitled _Scholium de duodecim zodiaci signis et de ventis_.\nIt was once the property of St. Hilaire the Great of Poitiers. The\nlegend above our figure reads, \u2018Secundum philosophorum deliramenta\nnotantur duodecim signa ita ab ariete incipiamus\u2019. The relation of the\nsigns to the parts of the body is different in this eleventh-century\nMS. from that which was widely accepted in the astrology of the\nthirteenth and fourteenth centuries as illustrated in Plate XVI.\n\n[87] The MS. from which Plate XVI is taken (_Paris, Bibl. nat., Latin_\n11229) was written about the end of the fourteenth century. It has been\ndescribed by K. Sudhoff, _Arch. f. Gesch. d. Med._, ii. 84, Leipzig,\n1910. The relation of the central figure to the signs of the zodiac in\nthis plate bears a manifest resemblance to the relation of the central\nfigure to the beasts\u2019 heads in Plate vii. The lines which cross and\nrecross the figure in Plate VII are analogous also to the lines of\ninfluence of Plate XVI. The verse above the figure in Plate XVI is\ntaken from the _Flos medicinae scholae Salerni_; cp. de Renzi, loc.\ncit., i. 486. This Melothesia and that of the next figure is identical\nwith that propounded in Manilius, ii. 453 (edition of H. W. Garrod,\nOxford, 1911).\n\n[88] Plate XVII is from an early German block book. It exhibits a\nscheme closely parallel to Plate VII. The universe in Plate XVII is\nrepresented as a series of concentric spheres, _earth_ innermost,\nfollowed by _water_, _air_, and _fire_. In the outermost zone hover the\nangels who have replaced the beast\u2019s head of Hildegard\u2019s scheme. The\nwhole world is embraced by the figure of the Almighty, much as in Plate\nVII.\n\n[89] See E. Wickersheimer, \u2018La m\u00e9decine astrologique dans les almanachs\npopulaires du xx^{e} si\u00e8cle\u2019, _Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise\nd\u2019histoire de la m\u00e9decine_, x (1911), pp.\u00a026-39.\n\n[90] Migne, col. 757. This phrase is reproduced in a mediaeval\nIrish version of the work of Messahalah. See Maura Power, _An Irish\nAstronomical Text_, Irish Text Society, London, 1912.\n\n[91] The word _cancer_ is here used, but the crab goes sideways, not\nbackwards. By _cancer_ Hildegard, who had never seen the sea, probably\nmeans the crayfish, an animal fairly common in the Rhine basin. It is\nthe head of a crayfish or lobster that is figured in the miniatures of\nthe vision of the macrocosm in the Lucca MS., and a similar organism\nfrequently serves for the sign Cancer in the mediaeval zodiacal medical\nfigures, as in Plate XV of this essay.\n\n[92] Migne, cols. 3, 791-2.\n\n[93] An illustration of this parallelism between Paracelsus and\nHildegard is afforded by certain passages in the _Labyrinthus medicorum\nerrantium_ and the _Scivias_, lib. i, vis. 4. Especially compare p.\u00a0279\net seq. of Huser\u2019s edition of the _Opera_, Strasbourg, 1603, with\nMigne, col. 428.\n\n[94] A good example is furnished by a work of Isaac Myer, _Qabbalah.\nThe philosophical writings of Solomon ben Yehudah ibn Gebirol or\nAvicebron and their connection with the Hebrew Qabbalah and Sepher\nha-Zohar_, Philadelphia, 1888.\n\n[95] The most accessible edition is in S. de Renzi\u2019s _Collectio\nSalernitana_, vol. ii, p.\u00a0388.\n\n[96] Printed in de Renzi, vol. ii, p.\u00a0391.\n\n[97] Printed in _Methodus medendi certa clara et brevis_, Basel,\nHenricus Petrus, 1541, p.\u00a0313.\n\n[98] Printed in _Summi in omni philosophia viri constantini africani\nmedici operum reliqua_, Basel, Henricus Petrus, 1539, p.\u00a024.\n\n[99] Karl Sudhoff, _Tradition und Naturbeobachtung_, Leipzig, 1907;\n_Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Anatomie im Mittelalter_, Leipzig,\n1908; \u2018Drei weitere anatomische F\u00fcnfbilderserien aus Abendland und\nMorgenland\u2019 (with Ernst Seidel) and \u2018Abermals eine neue Handschrift der\nanatomischen F\u00fcnfbilderserie\u2019 in _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Medizin_,\nLeipzig, 1910 and 1914.\n\n[100] E. H. C. Walsh, \u2018The Tibetan Anatomical System\u2019, in the _Journal\nof the Royal Asiatic Society_, London, October 1910, p.\u00a01215; Berthold\nLaufer, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntnis der Tibetanischen Medizin_, Berlin,\n1900; and K. Sudhoff, \u2018Weitere Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Anatomie im\nMittelalter\u2019, in the _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Medizin_, vol. viii,\np.\u00a0143, Leipzig, 1914.\n\n[101] This text, critically treated, has been printed by K. Sudhoff,\nwho, however, regards it as related to the figures: _Archiv f\u00fcr\nGeschichte der Medizin_, vol. iii, p.\u00a0361, Leipzig, 1910.\n\n[102] Hugh of St. Victor, _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, iii. 60.\n\n[103] Migne, col. 755.\n\n[104] An idea that occurs in Aristotle, _Parts of Animals_, ii, c. 2,\nbut is rejected by Galen.\n\n[105] Early mediaeval writers held that the _lumbus_, which we have\nrendered _loin_, was intimately connected with the sexual faculties.\nThus Hugh of St. Victor (1095-1141), _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, iii.\n60 \u2018Lumbi a libidinis lascivia dicti, quia in viris causa corporeae\nvoluptatis in ipsis est, sicut in umbilico feminis. Unde et ab Iob in\nexordio sermonis dictum est, _accinge sicut vir lumbos tuos_, ut in his\nesset resistendi praeparatio, in quibus est libidinis usitata dominandi\noccasio.\u2019\n\n[106] Migne, cols. 792-3.\n\n[107] The legend reads as follows: \u2018Minor mundus scilicet homo.\n_Microcosmus_. [Then on the head the names of the seven planets.] Caput\nmicrocosmi est rotundum in celestis spere modum in quo duo oculi ut duo\nluminaria in celo micant quod & septem foramina ut septem celi armonie\nornant. In pectore sunt flatus & tussis ut in aere uenti & tonitrua.\nIn uentrem omnia fluunt ut in mare flumina. Os lapides ungues arbos\ndant gramina crines Ut pede mole[m] corporis sic terra sustinet omnia.\n[At the four corners the following legends:] Aer huic donat quod flat.\nsonat. audit. odorat. Ignis feruorem dat uisum mobilitatem. Aqua. Munus\naque gustus humorem sanguinis usus. Ex terra carnem tactum trahit &\ngravitatem.\u2019\n\n[108] Migne, col. 415.\n\n[109] Migne, col. 421.\n\n[110] Migne, col. 424.\n\n[111] The Aristotelian writings also compare the transformation of the\nmaterial humours into the child\u2019s body with the solidification of milk\nin the formation of cheese.\n\n[112] Migne, col. 425.\n\n[113] Especially in the _Liber Divinorum Operum_, pars 1. vis. iv.\n\n[114] The eagle is frequently in mediaeval writings a symbol of the\npower of divine grace.\n\n[115] Migne, col. 110.\n\n[116] Migne, col. 111.\n\n[117] Migne, col. 384.\n\n[118] _Scivias_, lib. iii, vis. 1; Migne, col. 565.\n\n[119] Migne, col. 18.\n\n[120] Migne, col. 18.\n\n[121] _Cartulaire de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Montpellier (1180-1518)_,\nMontpellier, 1894, p.\u00a021.\n\n[122] Dates of the institution of dissection at this and other\nUniversities are given by F. Baker in _Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins\nHospital_, vol. xx, p.\u00a0331, Baltimore, 1909.\n\n[123] Statuti dell\u2019 Universit\u00e0 di Medicina e di Arti del 1405, Rubr.\nlxxxxvi (\u2018De anothomia quolibet anno fienda\u2019) in the _Statuti delle\nUniversit\u00e0 e dei collegi dello Studio bolognese_, edited by Carlo\nMalagola, Bologna, 1888, p.\u00a0289.\n\n[124] J. S\u00e4xinger, _Ueber die Entwickelung des medizinischen\nUnterrichts an der T\u00fcbinger Hochschule_, T\u00fcbingen, 1884, pp.\u00a05 and 10.\n\n[125] How rarely dissections were conducted in some of the Universities\nmay be gathered from the first statutes of the medical faculty of\nT\u00fcbingen, dated 1497. These ordain a dissection _every three or four\nyears_. Not till 1601 was an anatomy held at T\u00fcbingen even once a year\n(see S\u00e4xinger, loc. cit.). Even at Montpellier in the sixteenth century\nthe scarcity was so great that Rondelet (1507-66) was on one occasion\nreduced to dissect the body of his son. For this terrible incident see\nA. Portal, _Histoire de l\u2019Anatomie et Chirurgie_, Paris, 1770, vol. i,\np.\u00a0522; A. Haller, _Bibliotheca anatomica_, Lib. iv, \u00a7 clxxxiv, Leyden,\n1774, vol. i, p.\u00a0205; and A.\u00a0O. Goelicke, _Introductio in historiam\nlitterariam anatomes_, Frankfurt, 1738, p.\u00a0136. There was, however, a\nrelatively plentiful supply of subjects in the Italian Universities\nand especially at Bologna and Padua in the fourteenth, fifteenth,\nand sixteenth centuries (cp. A. Haller, _Bibliotheca anatomica_,\nintroduction to Lib. v, p.\u00a0218). This was perhaps due to the utterly\ndepraved state of public and private morals to which the peoples of\nthe peninsula had been reduced by the excesses of the tyrants and the\ncondottieri.\n\n[126] Plate XXVIII _b_ is perhaps the earliest representation of the\npractice of dissection yet brought to light. It is described in Charles\nSinger, \u2018Thirteenth-Century Miniatures illustrating Medical Practice\u2019,\n_Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Section of the History\nof Medicine_, 1916, vol. ix, pp.\u00a029-42.\n\n[127] Plate XXIX: a post-mortem scene in the late fourteenth century,\nfrom a French MS. of the _Grande Chirurgie_ of Guy de Chauliac,\nBiblioth\u00e8que de la Facult\u00e9 de M\u00e9decine de Montpellier, MS. 184\nfran\u00e7ais, folio 14 recto. The scene is laid in the bedroom of the\ndeceased. In the left-hand top corner is the bed, by the side of\nwhich a female figure, partly obliterated, is praying. Below and to\nthe left are two other female figures, and a man richly dressed in an\nermine-trimmed robe. These are presumably the relatives of the dead.\nThe corpse, that of a woman, has been placed on a bare table and is\nopened from the larynx to the symphysis pubis. In front stands a lad\nholding a round wooden vessel for the reception of the viscera, and\nfarther to the right is a stool on which are placed two or three\ninstruments. The physician, in full canonicals, is at the extreme right\nof the picture. The actual process of examination is being made by\nthree of his assistants. To the left the first of these deepens, with\na knife, the incision that has already been made over the sternum, the\nsecond is grasping with his two hands and rolling up the great omentum\nso as to display the viscera beneath, and the third holds a wand in his\nright hand, with which he points to the abdomen, while in his left he\ncarries a book. Five others throng into the room from a passage which\nopens into it.\n\n[128] Antonio Benivieni, _De abditis nonnullis ac mirandis morborum\net sanationum causis_, Florence, 1506. In the description of Case 32,\nBenivieni expresses surprise at having been refused permission to\nperform a post-mortem examination, as though it were unusual for him\nto meet rebuffs of the kind. \u2018Experimento comprobare volentes, corpus\nincidere tentavimus sed nescio qua superstitione negantibus cognatis,\nvoti compotes fieri nequivimus.\u2019\n\n[129] See E. Nicaise, _La Grande Chirurgie de Guy de Chauliac_, p.\u00a030,\nParis, 1890.\n\n[130] \u2018Ut Anatomici explicationem ipsius Mundini sequantur\u2019, Francesco\nMaria Colle, _Storia scientifico-letteraria dello Studio di Padova_, 4\nvols., Padua, 1824-5, vol. iii, p.\u00a0108.\n\n[131] Martin von Mellerstadt, also called Pollich or Polich.\n\n[132] Plate XXX _a_, from a late fifteenth-century Proven\u00e7al\ntranslation of the _Grande Chirurgie_ of Guy de Chauliac. Vatican\nLibrary, MS. hispanice 4804, folio 8 recto. A professor and pupil are\nexamining a wasted corpse placed on a trestle in the open air. The\nteacher is pointing out the surface markings.\n\n[133] Plate XXX _b_, from the French Guy de Chauliac MS. in the Bristol\nReference Library, folio 25 recto. The MS. dates from between the years\n1420 and 1435; cp. Norris Mathews, _Early Printed Books and MSS. in the\nBristol Reference Library_, Bristol, 1899, p.\u00a070; J.\u00a0A. Nixon, \u2018A New\nGuy de Chauliac MS.\u2019, in _Transactions of the XVIIth Internal. Cong.\nof Med., Sect. of Hist. of Med._, London, 1914, p.\u00a0419; and Charles\nSinger, \u2018The Figures of the Bristol Guy de Chauliac MS. _circa_ 1430\u2019,\n_Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Section of the History\nof Medicine_, 1917, vol. x, pp.\u00a071-91. The figure shows a professor and\npupil. The former is demonstrating the bones of a skeleton.\n\n[134] The number of female criminals being less than the number of\nmale criminals, Ludovico Frati states (_La vita privata di Bologna\ndal secolo XIII al XVII_, Bologna, 1900, pp.\u00a0116-18) that only two\nanatomies _in all_ were held each year, and thirty students admitted\nto the female and twenty to the male dissection. This would mean far\nless than _two dissections a year for each student_ of over two years\u2019\nstanding.\n\n[135] The anatomical works of Leonardo have now been rendered\naccessible in _Tredici Foglie delta Royal Library di Windsor. Leonardo\nda Vinci, Quaderni d\u2019anatomia ... Pubblicati da O.\u00a0C.\u00a0L. Vangensten, A.\nFonahm, H. Hopstock_, Christiania, 1911, &c.\n\n[136] Pollaiuolo and Verrocchio only studied surface anatomy, so far as\nis known. For a summary of the anatomical work of these painters see M.\nDuval and E. Cuyer, _Histoire de l\u2019Anatomie plastique_, p.\u00a020, Paris,\n1898.\n\n[137] It has been suggested that Giammatteo Ferrari da Grado (Matthaeus\nde Gradibus), who was professor of Medicine at Pavia 1432-72, made\noriginal contributions to anatomy. He wrote no separate work on\nanatomy, but his observations on the ovaries (which he was perhaps the\nfirst to call by that name) appear in his _Practica_, Milan, 1471,\nand in his _Expositiones super vigesimam secundam Fen tertii canonis\nAvicennae_, Milan, 1494. An interesting account of Ferrari\u2019s life and\nwork is given by his descendant, H.\u00a0M. Ferrari, in _Une Chaire de\nM\u00e9decine au XV^{e} si\u00e8cle; Un professeur a l\u2019universit\u00e9 de Pavie de\n1432 \u00e0 1472_, Paris, 1899. In this work the claim that De Gradibus was\nan original and independent observer is effectively disposed of.\n\n[138] At least six Western copies of this series, besides three or more\nof oriental origin, have now been detected. The Western MSS. and their\ndates are as follows:\n\n(_a_) Munich, Hof- und Staatsbibliothek, Cod. lat. monacensis 13002,\nbefore 1158.\n\n(_b_) Munich, Hof- und Staatsbibliothek, Cod. lat. monacensis 17403,\n_circa_ 1250.\n\n(_c_) Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 399, _circa_ 1290.\n\n(_d_) Dresden, Kgl. \u00d6ffentl. Bibliothek, Codex 310, before 1323.\n\n(_e_) Bodleian Library, MS. e Museo 19, before 1344.\n\n(_f_) Library of Count F. Zdenho von Lobkowicz in Raudnitz, of 1399.\n\nSee E. Seidel and K. Sudhoff, especially \u2018Drei weitere anatomische\nF\u00fcnfbilderserien aus Abendland und Morgenland\u2019, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Gesch.\nder Med._, iii, p.\u00a0165, Leipzig, 1910.\n\n[139] Cp. K. Sudhoff in _Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Anatomie im\nMittelalter_, Leipzig, 1908.\n\n[140] E. Wickersheimer, \u2018L\u2019Anatomie de Guido de Vigevano, m\u00e9decin de la\nreine Jeanne de Bourgogne (1345)\u2019, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Med._,\nvii. 1, Leipzig, 1914. M. Wickersheimer has kindly given permission for\nthe reproduction of the figures in Plates XXXI and XXXII.\n\n[141] Notably the MS. Roncioni 99, dating from the first half of the\ntwelfth century, in the University Library of Pisa, reproduced by K.\nSudhoff in the _Archiv f\u00fcr Gesch. der Med._, vii, Tafel xiv, 1914. Also\nseparate organs are depicted in the Bodleian MS. Ashmole 399, dating\nfrom the end of the thirteenth century, reproduced in Fig. 6.\n\n[142] The miniatures of the Dresden Codex have been studied by L.\nChoulant, _Geschichte und Bibliographie der anatomischen Abbildung\nnach ihrer Beziehung auf anatomische Wissenschaft und bildende Kunst_,\nLeipzig, 1852, and in the _Archiv f\u00fcr die zeichnenden K\u00fcnste_, II.\nJahrgang, Leipzig, 1856, p.\u00a0264. More recently the MS. has been most\ncarefully described and its miniatures reproduced by E. C. van Leersum\nand W. Martin, _Miniaturen der lateinischen Galenos-Handschrift der\nkgl. \u00f6ffentl. Bibliothek in Dresden, in phototypischer Reproduktion_,\nLeyden, 1910. We have to thank Dr. Van Leersum of Leyden for kind\npermission to reproduce the figures of Plate XXXIV.\n\n[143] Cp. P. Triaire, _Les le\u00e7ons d\u2019anatomie et les peintres hollandais\naux XVI^{e} et XVII^{e} si\u00e8cles_, Paris, 1887.\n\n[144] For della Torre and his projected work on anatomy, see G.\nCervetto, _Di alcuni illustri anatomici italiani del decimoquinto\nsecolo_, p.\u00a046, Verona, 1842; also L. Choulant, _Geschichte der\nanatomischen Abbildung_, p.\u00a05, Leipzig, 1852.\n\n[145] The first edition appeared in Venice in 1491 and is in Latin. It\nis of less typographical interest.\n\n[146] K. Sudhoff, \u2018Eine Pariser \u201cKetham\u201d Handschrift aus der Zeit K\u00f6nig\nKarls VI (1380-1422)\u2019, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Medizin_, vol. ii,\np.\u00a084, Leipzig, 1909; \u2018Neue Beitr\u00e4ge zur Vorgeschichte des Ketham\u2019, in\n_Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Medizin_, vol. v, p.\u00a0280, Leipzig, 1912.\n\n[147] Prince d\u2019Essling, _Les livres \u00e0 figures v\u00e9nitiens de la fin du\nXV^{e} si\u00e8cle et du commencement du XVI^{e}_, part i, vol. ii, p.\u00a056,\nFlorence and Paris, 1908.\n\n[148] Eug\u00e8ne Piot, _Le Cabinet de l\u2019amateur_, nouv. s\u00e9rie, Paris, 1861,\n\u2018Le ma\u00eetre aux dauphins\u2019, p.\u00a0354 et seq. The dolphins are seen on\neither side of the chair in Plate XXVII.\n\n[149] Duc de Rivoli, _Bibliographie des livres \u00e0 figures v\u00e9n\u00e9tiens_,\np.\u00a0110, Paris, 1893.\n\n[150] Cp. G. Albertotti, _Nuove osservazioni sul \u2018Fasciculus medicinae\u2019\ndel Ketham_, Padua, 1910.\n\n[151] See K. Sudhoff, \u2018Weibliche Situsbilder von ca. 1400-1543\u2019, in\n_Tradition und Naturbeobachtung_, p.\u00a079, Leipzig, 1907. The number and\ncharacter of the indication lines attached to this figure suggest that\nthe block from which the impression has been taken had previously been\nused for some other publication. This work, however, if it exists, has\nnot yet come to light.\n\n[152] Michele Medici, _Della vita e degli scritti degli anatomici e\nmedici fioriti in Bologna dal comincio del secolo XIII_, Bologna, 1853;\n_Compendio storico della scuola anatomica di Bologna dal Rinascimento\ndelle Scienze e delle Lettere a tutto il Secolo XVIII_, Bologna, 1857.\n\n[153] The mediaeval term, \u2018vena chilis\u2019, lasted in anatomy until\nthe end of the sixteenth century and probably later. \u2018_Chilis_\u2019 is\na corruption of the Greek \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u03b7. This hybrid name was abandoned by\nVesalius (_Fabrica_, 1543 Basle edition, p.\u00a0376) in favour of the title\n\u2018vena cava\u2019.\n\n[154] The passage is translated from Michele Medici, _Compendio\nstorico_, pp.\u00a010-11.\n\n[155] See A. Laboulb\u00e8ne, \u2018Les anatomistes anciens\u2019, in _Revue\nscientifique pour la France et pour l\u2019\u00c9tranger_, vol. xxxviii,\np.\u00a0641, Paris, 1886; Robert Ritter von T\u00f6ply in Puschmann, Pagel, and\nNeuburger, _Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin_, vol. ii, p.\u00a0197,\nJena, 1903; G. Martinotti, \u2018L\u2019insegnamento dell\u2019 Anatomia in Bologna\nprima del secolo xix\u2019, in _Studi e Memorie per la storia dell\u2019\nuniversit\u00e0 di Bologna_, vol. ii, p.\u00a051, Bologna, 1911.\n\n[156] An intermediate anatomist was Gulielmo Varignana, who was\nprofessor of Medicine in Bologna, and is recorded as having opened for\njudicial purposes, on February 15, 1302, the corpse of one alleged to\nhave been poisoned. See Michele Medici, op. cit. The investigation is\nreferred to above.\n\n[157] Dr. Craigie in his excellent account of the History of Anatomy,\nin the ninth and subsequent editions of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.\n\n[158] \u2018Mundinus quem omnis studentium universitas colit ut deum\u2019, J.\nAdelphus in his edition of Mondino, Strassburg, 1513.\n\n[159] _Editio princeps_, Lyons, 1478.\n\n[160] Pietro de Argellata, _Cirurgia_, \u2018Incipit liber primus cirurgie\nmagistri Petri de la Cerlata\u2019 (!), Venice, 1492. Quotation from lib.\nv, tract. 12, chap.\u00a03. An earlier edition which we have not seen was\nprinted in Venice in 1480.\n\n[161] The \u2018pomegranate\u2019 sometimes also means the xiphisternum. It is\nnot clear which is implied here.\n\n[162] Giovanni da Concoreggio, _Lucidarium et Flos Medicinae_, Giunta,\nFlorence, 1521. It contains a few scattered anatomical points.\n\n[163] De Zerbis, _Liber Anatomiae corporis humani et singulorum\nmembrorum illius_, Venice, 1502.\n\n[164] Reprinted in the _Anatomia_ of Johannes Dryander, Marburg, 1537.\n\n[165] Alessandro Achillini, _Annotationes anatomiae_, Bologna, 1520.\nThis work is also included in the 1502 edition of De Zerbis\u2019 _Liber\nAnatomiae_.\n\n[166] _Carpi commentaria cum amplissimis additionibus super anatomia\nmundini una cum textu eiusdem in pristinum et verum nitorem redacto_,\nBologna, 1521. An earlier and less important edition of Carpi was the\n_Anathomia Mundini noviter impressa ac per Carpum castigata_ that\nappeared at Bologna in 1514.\n\n[167] The figures in Ketham and in the wretched productions of Johannes\nAdelphus (J.\u00a0A. Muelich), of Hundt, and of Peyligk can hardly be said\nto illustrate the text of anatomical treatises.\n\n[168] Albano Sorbelli, _Le Croniche Bolognesi del Secolo XIV_, Bologna,\n1900; _La Signoria di Giovanni Visconti a Bologna_, Bologna, 1901;\nMichele Medici, loc. cit., p.\u00a04.\n\n[169] Giovanni Fantuzzi, _Notizie degli scrittori bolognesi_, Tom. v,\np.\u00a0196, Bologna, 1786.\n\n[170] Hastings Rashdall, _The Universities of Europe in the Middle\nAges_, 3 vols., Oxford, 1895, vol. i, p.\u00a0244.\n\n[171] He is mentioned in this capacity by Niccol\u00f2 Burzio, _Bononia\nillustrata_, Bologna, 1494. We have been unable to consult this work,\nwhich is quoted by Fantuzzi, loc. cit. See also Ferdinando Gabotto,\n_Bartolomeo Manfredi e l\u2019Astrologia alla Corte di Mantova_, Torino,\n1891, p.\u00a019.\n\n[172] Manfredi\u2019s University career is extracted from Umberto Dallari,\n_I rotuli dei lettori legisti e artisti dello studio bolognese dal 1384\nal 1799_, Bologna, vol. i, 1888, and Luigi Nardi and Emilio Orioli,\n_Chartularium Studii Bononiensis_, Imola, vol. i, 1907.\n\n[173] See also P.\u00a0A. Orlandi, _Notizie degli scrittori bolognesi_,\nBologna, 1714.\n\n[174] Johannes Franciscus Picus Mirandula, _Disputationes adversus\nastrologos_, Lib. ii, cap.\u00a09, Bologna, 1495. Our quotation is from\nthe original 1495 edition, not from the slightly variant _\u00e9dition\ncontrefaite_.\n\n[175] G. Fantuzzi, loc. cit., p.\u00a0197.\n\n[176] U. Santini, \u2018Cenni statistici sulla Popolazione del Quartiere\ndi S. Proclo in Bologna\u2019, in _Atti e Memorie della R. Deputazione di\nStoria Patria per le Provincie di Romagna_, series 3, vol. xxxiv,\npp.\u00a0366 and 367, Bologna, 1906.\n\n[177] See map of the old University buildings of Bologna prefixed to\nFrancesco Cavazza, _Le Scuole dell\u2019 antico studio bolognese_, Milan,\n1896.\n\n[178] The date 1462, clearly printed on this edition, is certainly\nerroneous, since there was no printing-press at Bologna till 1471.\nA.\u00a0E. Nordenski\u00f6ld (_Facsimile Atlas till Kartografiens \u00e4ldesta\nHistoria_, Stockholm, 1889, p.\u00a012) consider that 1472 is the true date,\nbut the point is not yet finally settled. See J.\u00a0A.\u00a0J. de Villiers,\n\u2018Famous Maps in the British Museum\u2019, in _Geographical Journal_, vol.\nliv, London, August 1914, p.\u00a0173. Albano Sorbelli, in his authoritative\n_I Primordi della Stampa in Bologna_, Bologna, 1908, does not mention\nManfredi\u2019s edition of Ptolemy among the earliest printed Bolognese\nworks (1471-5).\n\n[179] Albrecht von Haller, _Bibliotheca anatomica_, Z\u00fcrich, 1774-7,\nvol. ii, p.\u00a0738.\n\n[180] Michele Medici, _Compendio storico della Scuola anatomica di\nBologna dal Rinascimento delle Scienze e delle Lettere a tutto il\nSecolo XVIII_, Bologna, 1857, folio.\n\n[181] G. Martinotti, \u2018L\u2019insegnamento dell\u2019 anatomia in Bologna prima\ndel secolo XIX\u2019, in _Studi e Memorie per la Storia dell\u2019 Universit\u00e0 di\nBologna_, vol. ii. Bologna, 1911.\n\n[182] Mazzatinti, _Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche\nd\u2019Italia_, Forli & Firenze, 1890-1915, vols. i to xxiii, in progress.\n\n[183] Lino Sighinolfi, _L\u2019Architettura Bentivolesca in Bologna e il\nPalazzo del Podest\u00e0_, Bologna, 1909.\n\n[184] Several short sketches or tractates on anatomy in the vernacular\nare however known. Thus a Proven\u00e7al anatomical tractate of the\nthirteenth century has been published by K. Sudhoff in his _Beitrag zur\nGesch. der Anatomie im Mittelalter_, Leipzig, 1908.\n\n[185] Cf. Galen, _De usu partium corporis humani_, Lib. x, chap.\u00a012.\n\n[186] Cf. Rhazes, _Almansur_, i. 4.\n\n[187] Manfredi here follows Mondino, who confuses Galen\u2019s fourth pair\nwith Galen\u2019s sixth pair of nerves.\n\n[188] See P. de Koning, _Trois Trait\u00e9s d\u2019Anatomie arabes_, Leyden,\n1903, p.\u00a047.\n\n[189] See J. Wiberg, \u2018The Anatomy of the Brain in the Works of Galen\nand \u2018Ali \u2018Abbas; a comparative historical-anatomical study\u2019, _Janus_,\nvol. xix, p.\u00a017 and p.\u00a084, Leyden, January and March, 1914.\n\n[190] See A. Schneider, \u2018Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen\u2019, p.\u00a0160,\nin _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters_, Band iv,\nHeft 5, Munich, 1903.\n\n[191] Constantine Africanus, _De communibus medico cognitu necessariis\nlocis_, Lib. iii, cap.\u00a011, Edition Henricus Petrus, Basel, 1541.\n\n[192] _Practica Petrocelli Salernitani. Epistola. Quot annis latuit\nmedicina_. S. de Renzi, _Collectio Salernitana_. Naples, 1852-9, vol.\niv, p.\u00a0189.\n\n[193] A very elaborate study of the doctrine of the three vesicles of\nthe brain has recently been made by Walther Sudhoff, \u2018Die Lehre von den\nHirnventrikeln\u2019, in the _Archiv f\u00fcr Gesch. der Med._, Leipzig, 1914,\nvol. vii, p.\u00a0149.\n\n[194] See F. G. A. Stumpff, _Historia nervorum cerebralium ab\nantiquissimis temporibus usque ad Willisium nec non Vieussensium.\nDissertatio inauguralis_, Berlin, 1841; C. Daremberg, _\u0152uvres\nanatomiques, physiologiques et m\u00e9dicales de Galien_, Paris, 1854,\np.\u00a0583, &c.; G. Helmreich, \u0393\u0391\u039b\u0397\u039d\u039f\u03a5, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, Leipzig, 1909;\nand Theodor Beck, \u2018Die Galenischen Hirnnerven in moderner Beleuchtung\u2019,\nin _Arch. f\u00fcr Gesch. der Med_., vol. iii, p.\u00a0110, Leipzig, 1910.\n\n[195] Galen, _De usu partium_, ix. 4; _De Hippocratis et Platonis\ndecretis_, vii. 3.\n\n[196] The first edition of the work appeared in 1496.\n\n[197] The so-called _Anatomia Richardi Anglici_, which has been printed\nby Robert Ritter von T\u00f6ply (Vienna, 1902), is really the same as the\npseudo-Galenic _Anatomia vivorum_, to which Richard\u2019s name was not\nattached until the fourteenth century. See Christoph Ferckel, _Archiv\nf\u00fcr die Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik_, vol. vi,\np.\u00a078, Leipzig, 1912, and K. Sudhoff, _Archiv f\u00fcr Gesch. der Medizin_,\nvol. viii, p.\u00a071, Leipzig, 1915.\n\n[198] E. Nicaise, _La Grande Chirurgie de Guy de Chauliac_, p.\u00a045,\nParis, 1890.\n\n[199] J. Pagel, _Die Anatomie des Heinrich von Mondeville_, Berlin,\n1889, p.\u00a037.\n\n[200] For the whole question of early figures of the eye consult K.\nSudhoff, \u2018Augenanatomiebilder im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert\u2019 in his\n_Illustrationen medizinischer Handschriften und Fr\u00fchdrucke_. Leipzig,\n1907; and the same writer\u2019s recent article on \u2018Augendurchschnittsbilder\naus Abendland und Morgenland\u2019 in _Archiv f\u00fcr Gesch. der Medizin_, vol.\nviii, p.\u00a01, Leipzig, 1915.\n\n[201] Our figure from the _Margarita philosophiae_ has been taken from\nthe 1503 edition, the earliest to which we have had access. A figure in\nthe _Philosophiae naturalis compendium_ of K. Peyligk, dated Leipzig,\n1489, is so inferior as to be negligible in this connexion.\n\n[202] W. Harvey, _Prelectiones anatomiae universalis_, reproduced in\nfacsimile from the author\u2019s MS. notes, London, 1886, folio 72 recto.\n\n[203] W. Harvey, _Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis_,\nFrankfort, 1628. The opening passage of the dedication to Charles I may\nbe translated as follows: \u2018Most serene king, the heart of animals is\nthe basis of their life, the sun of their microcosm, that from which\nall strength proceeds. The king is in like manner the basis of his\nkingdom, the sun of his world, the heart of the commonwealth, whence\nall power derives, all grace appears.\u2019\n\n[204] _Historia animalium_, vi. 3.\n\n[205] _Historia animalium_, ii. 11; _De Partibus animalium_, iii. 4.\n\n[206] _Historia animalium_, i. 14 and iii. 3; _De Partibus animalium_,\niii. 4. The question of the identity of these chambers is a difficult\none. We have followed T. E. Lones, _Aristotle\u2019s Researches in Natural\nScience_, London, 1912, p.\u00a0137, where the conflicting views are\nsummarized.\n\n[207] Galen, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, Book 7 (157); \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u1fbd\u0391\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u0311\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u0311\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u0311\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c9\u0311\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b6\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, K\u00fchn,\nii. 62.\n\n[208] Haly Abbas expressly denies its existence, chap.\u00a021.\n\n[209] P. Koning, _Trois trait\u00e9s d\u2019anatomie arabes_, Leyden, 1903, 687,\nrenders the passage as follows: \u2018Dans le c\u0153ur il y a trois cavit\u00e9s,\ndeux grandes et une autre qui se trouve pour ainsi dire au milieu,\nafin que le c\u0153ur ait un d\u00e9p\u00f4t pour la nourriture avec laquelle il se\nnourrit, nourriture \u00e9paisse et forte, semblable \u00e0 la substance du c\u0153ur,\nensuite un endroit o\u00f9 se forme un pneuma qui y est engendr\u00e9 d\u2019un sang\nsubtil et enfin un canal entre ces deux.\u2019\n\n[210] _Pantechni, Theorice_, lib. iii, cap.\u00a022. Here, however, only\ntwo _concauitates_ are described and between them a _foramen: quod a\nquibusdam vocatur tertia concauitas: sed non est ita_.\n\n[211] The MS. Roncioni 99, reproduced by K. Sudhoff in _Archiv f\u00fcr\nGesch. der Med._, vol. vii, Tafel XIV, Leipzig, 1914.\n\n[212] The passage in the _Editio princeps_ of Gerard of Cremona\u2019s\ntranslation runs as follows (folio 96 recto): \u2018Et in ipso sunt\ntres ventres, scilicet duo ventres magni et venter quasi medius\nquem Galienus nominavit foveam aut meatum non ventrem, ut sit ei\nreceptaculum nutrimenti quo nutriatur spissum forte simile substantiae\nipsius & minera spiritus generati in ipso a sanguine subtili. Et inter\nambos sunt viae ut meatus.\u2019\n\n[213] J.\u00a0L. Pagel, _Die Chirurgie des Heinrich von Mondeville_, Berlin,\n1892, p.\u00a045.\n\n[214] Bartholomaeus Anglicus, _De Proprietatibus Rerum_, London, 1535,\nOur quotation is from p. liiii.\n\n[215] Leonardo da Vinci, _Quaderni d\u2019anatomia ... Pubblicati da O. C.\nL. Vangensten, A. Fonahn, H. Hopstock_, Christiania, 1911.\n\n[216] Hans von Gersdorff, _Feldt und Stattb\u00fcch bewerter Wundartznei_,\nedition Frankfurt, 1556.\n\n[217] Ancient views on the cardiac system, including those of Mondino,\nare admirably reviewed by J.\u00a0C. Dalton in his _Doctrines of the\nCirculation_, Philadelphia, 1884.\n\n[218] Manfredi here follows Mondino, who confuses Galen\u2019s fourth pair\nwith Galen\u2019s sixth pair of nerves.\n\n[219] These four words are very indistinct. The last is half erased and\nscia is written _si\u1dd7a_.\n\u1ddb\u1ddb\u1dd7\u1ddb\n[220] Life of St. Edward.\n\n[221] British Museum MS. Cotton. Claud. A. viii, ff. 32, 33, and\n_Archaeol. Journal_, London, June, 1864.\n\n[222] MS. Ee. iii. 59.\n\n[223] _History of the Garter_, vol. i.\n\n[224] MS. 9986.\n\n[225] p.\u00a036.\n\n[226] Vol. iii.\n\n[227] p.\u00a0334.\n\n[228] _Gent\u2019s. Mag._, N.S., vol. i; British Museum MS. Cotton Nero C.\nviii. f. 209.\n\n[229] MS. Cotton Nero C. viii, ff. 212, 213b, and _Gent\u2019s. Mag._, N.S.,\nvol. i.\n\n[230] loc. cit.\n\n[231] Record Office, Exchqr. Tr. of R., Mis. Book 203, pp.\u00a0150-3.\n\n[232] Record Office, Exchqr. Q.\u00a0R., Accounts 403/10.\n\n[233] British Museum Harleian MS. 319: Household Accounts of Henry IV,\n1405-6.\n\n[234] See R. Crawfurd, _King\u2019s Evil_, p.\u00a045, Oxford, 1911.\n\n[235] Lib. i, chap.\u00a08.\n\n[236] _Bury Wills_, p.\u00a035, Camden Soc., ed. Tymms.\n\n[237] _Archaeol. Journal_, London, vol. iv, p.\u00a078.\n\n[238] British Museum MS. Arundel, fol. 23b, and _Gent\u2019s. Mag_., N.S.,\nvol. i, p.\u00a049.\n\n[239] _Gent\u2019s. Mag._, 1794.\n\n[240] Brand, _Pop. Antiq._, ii. 598.\n\n[241] _Gent\u2019s. Mag._, N.S., vol. i, p.\u00a049.\n\n[242] _Cloister Life of Charles V_, p.\u00a0109.\n\n[243] Brewer, _State Papers; Budaei Epistolae_, June 10, 1518, 4223.\n\n[244] _Gent\u2019s. Mag._, loc. cit., and British Museum MS. Cotton Calig.\nB. ii, fol. 112.\n\n[245] Burnet, _Hist. of Reformation_, part ii, book ii, record 24.\n\n[246] _Hist. of Reformation_, part ii, book ii.\n\n[247] A.D. 1534.\n\n[248] _Lisle Papers_ and _Notes and Queries_, 5th series, vol. ix,\np.\u00a0514.\n\n[249] _Lisle Papers_, xi. 15.\n\n[250] _Lisle Papers_, xi. 111.\n\n[251] _Ibid._, xii. 43.\n\n[252] _Ibid._, xii. 58.\n\n[253] _Ibid._, xii. 60.\n\n[254] Registry of Wills, Archdeaconry of Norwich.\n\n[255] Burnet, _Hist. of Reformation_, part ii, book i, \u00a7\u00a012.\n\n[256] British Museum Additional MS. 35184, Household Account, 1553.\n\n[257] Series i, vol. ii, p.\u00a0292.\n\n[258] Ed. 1622, p.\u00a0219.\n\n[259] _Troilus_, book iii, 1069.\n\n[260] _Julius Caesar_, I. ii.\n\n[261] _Tempest_, I. ii.\n\n[262] _All\u2019s Well that Ends Well_, IV. iii.\n\n[263] _Tempest_, IV. i.\n\n[264] _As You Like It_, IV. i.\n\n[265] _Dr. Johann Weyer, der erster Bek\u00e4mpfer des Hexenwahns_, Bonn,\n1885, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1896. Also J. Geffcken, \u2018Dr. Johann Weyer\u2019\nin _Monatshefte der Comenius Gesellschaft_ 3, 1904; J. Janssen and\nL. Pastor, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, 8 vols., Freiburg im\nBreisgau, 1898-1903, viii. 600\u00a0ff.\n\n[266] Jean Hardouin (Harduinus), _Collectio regia maxima conciliorum\ngraecorum et latinorum_, 12 vols., Paris, 1715, i. 1506; H.\u00a0C. Lea,\n_History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_, 2nd ed., 3 vols.,\nLondon, 1906, iii. 494; W.\u00a0G. Soldan and H. Heppe, _Geschichte der\nHexenprocesse_, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1880, i. 132.\n\n[267] Lea, loc. cit., iii. 414.\n\n[268] Soldan and Heppe, loc. cit., i. 128, 139.\n\n[269] See also Lea, loc. cit., iii. 434, on this mildness of the Church\nup to the fourteenth century.\n\n[270] Soldan and Heppe, loc. cit., i. 136.\n\n[271] Lea, loc. cit., i. 91.\n\n[272] The Paulicians were accused of teaching that the devil created\nthis world, but seem merely to have taken such texts as John xii.\n31, xiv. 30; 2 Cor. iv. 4 \u2018in their plain and obvious sense\u2019. F.\u00a0C.\nConybeare, _Key of Truth, A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia_,\nOxford, 1898, 46.\n\n[273] The term \u2018Cathari\u2019 was said to come \u2018from their kissing Lucifer\nunder the tail in the shape of a cat\u2019. Lea, loc. cit., iii. 495.\n\n[274] Lea, loc. cit., i. 105, ii. 334, &c. The main evidence is Conrad\nof Marburg\u2019s report to Pope Gregory XI, 1233: \u2018A tissue of inventions\u2019,\nbut \u2018apparently doubted by no one\u2019.\n\n[275] Quodlibet, xi. 10; Soldan and Heppe, loc. cit., i. 143; Lea, loc.\ncit., iii. 415.\n\n[276] H. Institoris and J. Sprenger, _Malleus Maleficarum_, editio\nprinceps, Cologne, 1486, and frequently reprinted until the end of the\nseventeenth century. See especially pars 1, quaestio 2.\n\n[277] J. Diefenbach, _Der Hexenwahn_, Mainz, 1886, p.\u00a0299.\n\n[278] The story of Elinor Shaw and Mary Philips, as well as many other\naccounts of witchcraft, may be read in two volumes entitled _Rare\nand Curious Tracts illustrative of the History of Northamptonshire_,\nNorthampton, 1876 and 1881.\n\n[279] F. Hutchinson, _Historical Essay_, London, 1718, cap. iv.\n\n[280] _Daemonolatriae libri tres_, Lyons, 1595.\n\n[281] Tr\u00e8ves, 1595.\n\n[282] _Civ. Dei_, xv. 23.\n\n[283] Peter Binsfeld. _Tractatus de confessionibus maleficorum_,\nTr\u00e8ves, 1595, pp.\u00a037-44, 230, &c. Binsfeld often refers to this case as\nproving the reality of disputed forms of witchcraft and the soul-saving\nwork of the witch-hunters.\n\n[284] L. Meyer, _Die Periode der Hexenprocesse_, Hannover, 1882.\n\n[285] K. Kiesewetter, _Die Geheimwissenschaften_, Leipzig, 1895, p.\u00a0579\nf.\n\n[286] Op. cit., ii. 2 (p.\u00a0200).\n\n[287] _Malleus_, pars i, quaestio 1, p.\u00a06, edit. 1596.\n\n[288] By H. Institoris and J. Sprenger. Between 1486 and 1596 several\neditions were printed in specially small form \u2018that inquisitors might\ncarry it in their pockets and read it under the table\u2019.\n\n[289] iii. 1 (p.\u00a0337 f.).\n\n[290] _Malleus_, iii. 4, p.\u00a0344.\n\n[291] iii. 10.\n\n[292] iii. 14.\n\n[293] iii. 16.\n\n[294] iii. 14.\n\n[295] iii. 29-31, repeated with slight variations.\n\n[296] _Von Zauberei und Zauberern_, p.\u00a0211; Soldan and Heppe, i. 347.\n\n[297] The Lindheim cases are recorded by G.\u00a0C. Horst, afterwards pastor\nof the place, in his _D\u00e4monomagie_, 2 vols., Frankfort, 1818, and\n_Zauberbibliothek_, 6 vols., Mainz, 1821-6. See also O. Glaubrecht,\n_Die Schreckensjahre von Lindheim_, 1886.\n\n[298] _Cautio Criminalis_, Rinteln, 1631, Dubium xix (p.\u00a0128). He calls\nhimself \u2018Sacerdos quidam\u2019.\n\n[299] Dubium xx (p.\u00a0153).\n\n[300] Horst, _Zauberbibliothek_, ii. 374, and _D\u00e4monomagie_, ii. 412.\n\n[301] Soldan and Heppe, ii. 209.\n\n[302] Soldan and Heppe, ii. 130.\n\n[303] J.\u00a0H. B\u00f6hmer, _Ius ecclesiasticum_, 5 vols., Halle, 1738-43, v.\n35.\n\n[304] Horst, _D\u00e4monomagie_, ii. 377.\n\n[305] _Malleus_, iii. 14 (p.\u00a0370).\n\n[306] Father Spee gives a long list of these dilemmas, _Cautio\nCriminalis_, Dubium li.\n\n[307] _De sagarum natura et potestate, deque his recte cognoscendis et\npuniendis deque purgatione earum per aquam frigidam epistola_, Lemgo,\n1583. Also in Sawr, _Theatrum de Veneficiis_, 1856.\n\n[308] Lea, iii. 549.\n\n[309] Haas, _Die Hexenprocesse_, T\u00fcbingen, 1865.\n\n[310] Soldan and Heppe, ii. 46, and elsewhere.\n\n[311] _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Hexenwesens in Franken_, Bamberg,\n1883.\n\n[312] 48 ff.\n\n[313] Official report, given by Leitschuh in appendix.\n\n[314] Maria Hollin at N\u00f6rdlingen (1593) withstood fifty-six repetitions\nof torture, and was finally \u2018dismissed\u2019 on the terms mentioned\n(Janssen, op. cit., viii. 719).\n\n[315] The N\u00f6rdlingen authorities acquired an evil eminence in this\nfrightfulness, which they termed \u2018eine heilsame Tortur\u2019 (Soldan, ii.\n470).\n\n[316] Lea, iii. 545, and references there given.\n\n[317] _De praestigiis_, &c., ii. 5.\n\n[318] The privilege for publication is dated November 4, 1562; three\neditions appeared before the end of 1564, and a sixth in 1583.\n\n[319] Op. cit., ii. 1.\n\n[320] Op. cit., ii. 4.\n\n[321] iii. 6.\n\n[322] iii. 18.\n\n[323] iii. 21.\n\n[324] iii. 23.\n\n[325] iv. 1.\n\n[326] iv. 2.\n\n[327] iv. 3.\n\n[328] iv. 23.\n\n[329] iv. 10.\n\n[330] Op. cit., v. 34.\n\n[331] v. 35.\n\n[332] vi. 4.\n\n[333] vi. 9.\n\n[334] \u2018Mossel-scolp nostratibus dicitur.\u2019\n\n[335] Op. cit., vi. 15.\n\n[336] vi. 16.\n\n[337] vi. 16.\n\n[338] Diefenbach, p.\u00a0241.\n\n[339] _Cautio Criminalis_, Dubium xlviii.\n\n[340] U. Molitor, _Tractatus de lamiis_, 1561, p.\u00a027.\n\n[341] Hutchinson, _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, London,\n1718, pp.\u00a040, 118, 120.\n\n[342] Op. cit., Preludium, i.\n\n[343] Preludium, vi.\n\n[344] J. M. Robertson, _Letters on Reasoning_, London, 1905, cap. vi.\n\n[345] See (_a_) H. Haeser, _Geschichte der Medizin_, Jena, 1875-82,\nvol. i, p.\u00a0596; (_b_) A. Hirsch, _Biographisches Lexicon der\nhervorragenden Aerzte_, Leipzig, 1884, art. \u2018Maimonides\u2019, vol. i,\np.\u00a0178\u00a0f.; (c) K. Brockelmann, _Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur_,\nWeimar, 1897-1902, vol. i, p.\u00a0490.\n\n[346] = No. 1211 in Zotenberg\u2019s Catalogue, Paris, 1866.\n\n[347] Vol. i, p.\u00a040, Cod. 411.\n\n[348] \u202b\u0641\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0633\u0645\u0648\u0645\u202c. Translated into Latin by Armengaud de Blaise of\nMontpellier; into French by J. M. Rabbinowicz, _Trait\u00e9 des Poisons de\nMaimonide_, Paris, 1865, and into German by M. Steinschneider, _Gifte\nund ihre Heilung, eine Abhandlung des Moses Maimonides_. Virchow\u2019s\n_Archiv_, LVII, vol. i, pp.\u00a092-109.\n\n[349] \u202b\u0641\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0631\u0628\u0648\u202c. Unprinted. We hope shortly to issue this work.\n\n[350] \u202b\u0641\u064a \u062a\u062f\u0628\u064a\u0631 \u0627\u0644\u0635\u062d\u0629\u202c otherwise \u202b\u0631\u0633\u0627\u0644\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0641\u0636\u0644\u064a\u0651\u0629\u202c. \u2018Letter to [the Sultan]\nal Af\u1e0dal.\u2019 Printed in Latin at Florence, n.d.; Venice, 1514, 1521, &c.;\nLeyden, 1535; in the Hebrew translation of Moses ibn Tibbon edited by\nJacob Saphir ben Levi, Jerusalem, 1885; and in German by Winternitz,\n_Di\u00e4tetisches Sendschreiben des Maimonides_, &c., Vienna, 1843.\n\n[351] Printed in the Latin edition [Venice, 1514] of the _de Regimine\nSanitatis_ as Tractatus V of that work.\n\n[352] See L. Leclerc, _Histoire de la m\u00e9decine arabe_, Paris, 1876,\nvol. ii, p.\u00a060, and M. Steinschneider, _Die hebr\u00e4ischen Uebersetzungen\ndes Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher_, Berlin, 1893, pp.\u00a0767,\n772, 773.\n\n[353] \u202b\u0631\u0633\u0627\u0644\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0641\u0636\u0644\u064a\u0651\u0629\u202c.\n\n[354] \u202b\u0641\u064a \u0627\u0633\u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0639\u0631\u0627\u0636\u202c and also \u202b\u0641\u064a \u0628\u064a\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0639\u0631\u0627\u0636\u202c = on the diagnosis of\naccidents.\n\n[355] See note 4.\n\n[356] Op. cit., vol. ii, p.\u00a061.\n\n[357] See Steinschneider, _Hebr\u00e4ische Uebersetzungen_, p.\u00a0770, and\nhis _Catologus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibl. Bodl._, Berlin (1852-60),\np.\u00a01921. In the _Zeitschrift der Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellsch._, vol.\nxxx, p.\u00a0145, he makes the bare statement that the _Tractatus de Causis\net Indiciis Morborum_--the _Hauptwerk_ of Maimonides, as it is called\nby Haeser--rests upon an error. In his catalogue of Bodleian books\n(p.\u00a01926) he puts the book down as a bookseller\u2019s fraud after what is\nobviously only a cursory glance. He says \u2018fraude bibliopolae ex variis\nopp. imperfectis confictus est, in quibus an Nostri sit aliquid non\nfacile eruendum est\u2019.\n\n[358] H.\u00a0F. W\u00fcstenfeld, _Geschichte d. arabischen Aerzte_, G\u00f6ttingen,\n1840, \u00a7\u00a0198, No. 7.\n\n[359] _Bibliothecae Bodleianae codicum manuscriptorum Orientalium ...\ncatalogus a Joanne Uri confectus_, Oxford, 1787, vol. i, p.\u00a0140, No.\n594.\n\n[360] Also known as \u202b\u0627\u0644\u0627\u062e\u0644\u0627\u0637\u0649\u202c (of Akhlat) or \u202b\u0627\u0644\u062a\u0628\u0631\u064a\u0632\u064a\u202c (of Tibriz) and as\n\u0627\u0628\u0646 \u0647\u0628\u0644 (Ibn Hubal).\n\n[361] Ibn Abi \u201bU\u1e63aibia wrote an invaluable dictionary of the lives of\nthe most noted physicians, entitled \u202b\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0639\u064a\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0623\u0646\u0628\u0627\u0621 \u0642\u064a \u0637\u0628\u0642\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0623\u0637\u0628\u0627\u0621\u202c\n(= The book of the sources of information concerning the various\nclasses of physicians). It is especially full on the lives of Arab\nphysicians. See the edition of A. M\u00fcller, K\u00f6nigsberg, 1884, vol. i,\npp.\u00a0304-6.\n\n[362] C. Rieu, _Supplement to the Arabic MSS. in the Brit. Mus._,\nLondon, 1894, No. 796, II.\n\n[363] Vol. iii, p.\u00a0242 of the Catalogue of Arabic MSS. compiled by P.\nde Jong and M.\u00a0J. de Goeje, Leyden, 1865-6.\n\n[364] Abu\u2019l Faraj Gregory, Bar Hebraeus (W\u00fcstenfeld, op. cit., No. 240).\n\n[365] In his work entitled \u202b\u062a\u0627\u0631\u0628\u062e \u0645\u062e\u062a\u0645\u0631 \u0641\u064a \u0627\u0644\u062f\u0648\u0644\u202c, \u2018Compendious History\nof the Dynasties\u2019 (edited and translated by E. Pocock, Oxford, 1663),\np.\u00a0457 f. of the Arabic and p.\u00a0300 of the Latin. Beyrout edition, 1890,\np.\u00a0420.\n\n[366] Two MSS. of the work are mentioned in the Catalogue of the\nKhedive\u2019s library, \u202b\u0641\u0647\u0631\u0633\u062a \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628\u062e\u0627\u0646\u0647 \u062e\u062f\u064a\u0648\u064a\u0629\u202c, vol. vi, p.\u00a038. For\nfurther references concerning Muha\u1e0f\u1e0fib ed Din and his works, see\n(_a_) W\u00fcstenfeld, op. cit., \u00a7\u00a0202; (_b_) Brockelmann, op. cit, vol.\ni, p.\u00a0490; (_c_) P. de Koning, _Trait\u00e9 sur le calcul_, Leyden,\npp.\u00a0186-228. The more important Arab authors other than Ibn Abi\n\u2018U\u1e63aibia are: (_d_) Bar Hebraeus, Pocock\u2019s edition, p.\u00a0457 of the\nArabic part and p.\u00a0300 of the Latin part, Beyrout edition, p.\u00a0420;\n(_e_) Haji Khalfa, G. Fluegel\u2019s edition, Leipzig and London, 1835-58,\nvol. v, p.\u00a0436, No. 11584.\n\n[367] See J. Pagel, \u2018Maimuni als medizinischer Schriftsteller\u2019, in the\nvolume of studies on \u2018Moses ben Maimon\u2019 edited by W. Bacher and others,\nLeipzig, 1908, vol. i, p.\u00a0232.\n\n[368] Op. cit., vol. ii, p.\u00a0117.\n\n[369] \u202b\u0637\u0628\u0642\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u062d\u0643\u0645\u0627\u0621 \u0648\u0627\u0635\u062d\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u062c\u0648\u0645 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0623\u0637\u0628\u0627\u0621\u202c in MS. at British Museum\n(see Catalogue of Oriental MSS. at the British Museum, London, 1846,\npart II, No. 1503, p.\u00a0684), Leyden, Berlin, Escurial, and elsewhere.\nSee Brockelmann, op. cit., vol. i, p.\u00a0325.\n\n[370] See Leclerc, op. cit., vol. i, p.\u00a05.\n\n[371] See W.\u00a0D. Macray, _Annals of the Bodleian_, Oxford, 1890. p.\u00a0270.\n\n[372] See Macray\u2019s _Annals of the Bodleian_, p.\u00a0271, and the _Dict. of\nNational Biography_.\n\n[373] _Bibliothecae Bodleianae codicum manuscriptorum ... catalogus_,\nvol. ii, ed. A. Nicoll and E. B. Pusey, Oxford, 1835, p. iv.\n\n[374] \u2018Praeter errores enim quos ipse admiserit Urius, deprehendi\nomnibus fere horum librorum emptoribus, uno Pocockio excepto, libros\nsupposititios pro veris subinde venditasse vafros Orientales. Codices\nergo fere universos Arabicos, quos recensuit Urius (vulgatioribus\nquibusdam exceptis) oculis perlustravi, quo certius scirem titulisne\nresponderent an non. Quo facto varias errorum formas deprehendi,\ntitulis nunc charta coopertis, nunc atramento oblitis, nunc cultro\npaene abrasis; auctorum porro nominibus paullulum immutatis quo notiora\nquaedam referrent, numeris etiam quibus singula volumina signata sunt\npermutatis, quo quis opus imperfectum pro integro habeat, paginis\ndenique pauculis operi alieno a fronte assutis.\u2019\n\n[375] Steinschneider (_Cat. Libr. Hebr. in Bibl. Bodl._, p.\u00a01926)\nsays this title is invented and no doubt suggested by the name of Al\nTamimi al Muqaddasi (the Jerusalemite), a doctor of the tenth century\n(W\u00fcstenfeld, \u00a7\u00a0112) often praised by Maimonides in the Aphorisms, e.g.\nat the end of chap.\u00a020. Pusey\u2019s only note on Uri\u2019s entry in the MS.\nis concerned with this title (vol. ii, p.\u00a0588): \u2018Translator in Cod.\nappellatur Alsheikh Soleiman Alhabashi, notus in terra Hierosolymitana\nnomine Ibn Hubaish. Opus autem A.D. 1363 ex Hebraico transtulit.\u2019\n\n[376] From the text of the Aphorisms as given in the Bodleian MS.\nPocock 319.\n\n[377] Omitted from the MS. obviously by accident.\n\n[378] No doubt for \u05d4\u05e8\u05ea\u05d1.\n\n[379] See p.\u00a0227.\n\n[380] = A.D. 1363. The numerals which accompany the written figures are\nequivalent to 6,527 and are meaningless.\n\n[381] Published by Macmillans, 1912.\n\n[382] Cf. Mr. H.\u00a0W.\u00a0B. Joseph\u2019s _Logic_^2, p.\u00a0548.\n\n[383] Cf. \u00a7\u00a7\u00a010, 28.\n\n[384] _Post. Anal._ i. 2. 71 b 20.\n\n[385] i.e. truth-claim.\n\n[386] Cf. _Formal Logic_, p.\u00a0173.\n\n[387] Mr. Alfred Sidgwick has been pointing out for the past twenty\nyears how fatal this difficulty is to the traditional notion of formal\nvalidity; nor has any logician confuted his argument, or even shown\nthat he apprehended its meaning and scope. It would seem, therefore,\nthat the condition of formal logic is so precarious that its only\nchance of survival lies in hushing up all the vital objections to its\nstereotyped doctrines. But is not the policy of ignoring unanswerable\nobjections the sure mark of a pseudo-science?\n\n[388] The latest I have noticed occurs in Abercrombie\u2019s _Inquiries\nconcerning the Intellectual Powers_ (1830); it reads very strangely now.\n\n[389] Controversially the criticism of \u2018self-evidence\u2019 has been met in\nthe same way as that of the \u2018validity\u2019 of the syllogism, i.e. by total\nsilence.\n\n[390] _Anal. Post._ i. 34.\n\n[391] It may be suggested that there is a similar confusion on this\nquestion: when history is called a science, it is often forgotten that\nits data are essentially such that they can only occur once, while the\nmaterial of the other sciences is such that cases of \u2018the same\u2019 may\nalways be found in it. But neither need it be denied on this account\nthat history can, and should, be written in a scientific spirit.\n\n[392] _Science et M\u00e9thode_, ch. iii, L\u2019Invention math\u00e9matique.\n\n[393] _Republic_, 511 c.\n\n[394] _Anal. Post._ i. 1.\n\n[395] Diogenes Laertius, ix. 51.\n\n[396] Cf. \u00a7 3.\n\n[397] Or more difficult, if the indetermination is conceived as limited.\n\n[398] This we saw (\u00a7 4) is really a mistake: mathematical proofs are\nreally hypothetical, and deduced from the initial postulates and\ndefinitions. They hold of the ideal objects of mathematics, but that\nthey can be advantageously applied to reality is merely an empirical\nfact, and it is not inconceivable that the world should grow _more_\nrecalcitrant to mathematical treatment, though actually it has grown\n_less_ so.\n\n[399] In _Republic_ vi his whole argument for the existence of\nmetaphysical truth, culminating in a supreme \u2018Idea of the Good\u2019,\ndepends on the assumption that the \u2018hypotheses\u2019 of the sciences,\nbeing insecure originally, remain so until they are deduced from a\n(self-proving) \u2018unhypothetical principle\u2019. This assumes, of course,\nthat they cannot be confirmed empirically by the results of their\nworking, and exhibits the _lacuna_ of logic in a typical way.\n\n[400] _Formal Logic_, ch. xxi, \u00a7\u00a07.\n\n[401] e.g. the \u2018accidental\u2019 distribution of variations in biology, for\nwhich see _Humanism_, pp.\u00a0146-50, and the postulates of causality and\ndeterminism in science generally (_Formal Logic_, ch. xx, \u00a7\u00a06, and\n_Studies in Humanism_, ch. xviii, \u00a7\u00a04).\n\n[402] Cf. \u00a7\u00a08 and _Formal Logic_, ch. x.\n\n[403] The \u2018novelty\u2019 which is claimed for the conclusion of a syllogism\nis only one case of this: in the traditional interpretation it is\nhopelessly at variance with the demand that it shall also follow from\nits premisses of necessity. Cf. _Formal Logic_, ch. xvi, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a08-10.\n\n[404] Usually, but wrongly, called \u2018dispassionate\u2019 or \u2018disinterested\u2019.\nWhat is wanted is, not that the inquiring mind should take no interest\nin the conclusions it considers, but that, though it cares keenly\nand even passionately for one of them, it should yet be capable of\nsufficient self-control to consider fairly the case _against_ the\nconclusion it favours. This mental attitude is probably best secured\nby caring more for truth than for a party victory, and is denominated\na \u2018disinterested love of truth for its own sake\u2019. But even so we love\nwhat we deem the truth, because it is the _best_ thing to believe,\nand better (on the whole and in the end) than anything else that is\npropounded.","title":"Studies in the History and Method of Science, vol. 1 (of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":133252}