{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67792/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67792","id":"gutenberg_67792","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67792","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: History - Other","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Magic -- History","Science -- History"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations\nin hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other\nspelling and punctuation remains unchanged.\n\nOn Chapter 52 page 313 \u201csees no reason why divination in darkness, in a wall, or\nin sunlight, or by potions and incantations,\u201d while well seems more\nlikely than wall the original text is unchanged.\n\nFootnote 1477: century, fols. 156-74 has been replaced by 56-74.\n\nThe table of contents lists the contents of volume 2 as well as volume\n1.\n\nThe footnotes have been placed at the end of the book.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_, and superscripts thus y^{en}.\n\n\n\n\n A\n HISTORY OF MAGIC AND\n EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE\n\n _VOLUME I_\n\n\n\n\n A\n HISTORY OF MAGIC AND\n EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE\n\n DURING THE FIRST THIRTEEN\n CENTURIES OF OUR ERA\n\n BY LYNN THORNDIKE\n\n\n VOLUME I\n\n\n COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS\n NEW YORK AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\n Copyright 1923 Columbia University Press\n First published by The Macmillan Company 1923\n\n\n ISBN 0-231-08794-2\n Manufactured in the United States of America\n 10 9 8 7\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n PREFACE ix\n\n ABBREVIATIONS xiii\n\n DESIGNATION OF MANUSCRIPTS xv\n\n LIST OF WORKS FREQUENTLY CITED BY AUTHOR AND DATE OF\n PUBLICATION OR BRIEF TITLE xvii\n\n CHAPTER\n\n 1. INTRODUCTION 1\n\n\n BOOK I. THE ROMAN EMPIRE\n\n FOREWORD 39\n\n 2. PLINY\u2019S NATURAL HISTORY 41\n\n I. Its Place in the History of Science 42\n II. Its Experimental Tendency 53\n III. Pliny\u2019s Account of Magic 58\n IV. The Science of the Magi 64\n V. Pliny\u2019s Magical Science 72\n\n 3. SENECA AND PTOLEMY: NATURAL DIVINATION AND ASTROLOGY 100\n\n 4. GALEN 117\n\n I. The Man and His Times 119\n II. His Medicine and Experimental Science 139\n III. His Attitude Toward Magic 165\n\n 5. ANCIENT APPLIED SCIENCE AND MAGIC: VITRUVIUS,\n HERO, AND THE GREEK ALCHEMISTS 182\n\n 6. PLUTARCH\u2019S ESSAYS 200\n\n 7. APULEIUS OF MADAURA 221\n\n 8. PHILOSTRATUS\u2019S LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 242\n\n 9. LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ATTACKS UPON SUPERSTITION:\n CICERO, FAVORINUS, SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, LUCIAN 268\n\n 10. SPURIOUS MYSTIC WRITINGS OF HERMES, ORPHEUS, AND\n ZOROASTER 287\n\n 11. NEO-PLATONISM AND ITS RELATIONS TO ASTROLOGY AND\n THEURGY 298\n\n 12. AELIAN, SOLINUS, AND HORAPOLLO 322\n\n\n BOOK II. EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT\n\n FOREWORD 337\n\n 13. THE BOOK OF ENOCH 340\n\n 14. PHILO JUDAEUS 348\n\n 15. THE GNOSTICS 360\n\n 16. THE CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA 385\n\n 17. THE RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT AND SIMON MAGUS 400\n\n 18. THE CONFESSION OF CYPRIAN AND SOME SIMILAR STORIES 428\n\n 19. ORIGEN AND CELSUS 436\n\n 20. OTHER CHRISTIAN DISCUSSION OF MAGIC BEFORE AUGUSTINE 462\n\n 21. CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL SCIENCE: BASIL, EPIPHANIUS,\n AND THE PHYSIOLOGUS 480\n\n 22. AUGUSTINE ON MAGIC AND ASTROLOGY 504\n\n 23. THE FUSION OF PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN\n THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES 523\n\n\n BOOK III. THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES\n\n 24. THE STORY OF NECTANEBUS, OR THE ALEXANDER LEGEND\n IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES 551\n\n 25. POST-CLASSICAL MEDICINE 566\n\n 26. PSEUDO-LITERATURE IN NATURAL SCIENCE 594\n\n 27. OTHER EARLY MEDIEVAL LEARNING: BOETHIUS, ISIDORE,\n BEDE, GREGORY 616\n\n 28. ARABIC OCCULT SCIENCE OF THE NINTH CENTURY 641\n\n 29. LATIN ASTROLOGY AND DIVINATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE\n NINTH, TENTH, AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES 672\n\n 30. GERBERT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF ARABIC ASTROLOGY 697\n\n 31. ANGLO-SAXON, SALERNITAN AND OTHER LATIN MEDICINE\n IN MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE NINTH TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY 719\n\n 32. CONSTANTINUS AFRICANUS (c. 1015-1087) 742\n\n 33. TREATISES ON THE ARTS BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF\n ARABIC ALCHEMY 760\n\n 34. MARBOD 775\n\n INDICES:\n\n General 783\n Bibliographical 811\n Manuscripts 831\n\n\n BOOK IV. THE TWELFTH CENTURY\n\n 35. THE EARLY SCHOLASTICS: PETER ABELARD AND HUGH\n OF ST. VICTOR 3\n\n 36. ADELARD OF BATH 14\n\n 37. WILLIAM OF CONCHES 50\n\n 38. SOME TWELFTH CENTURY TRANSLATORS, CHIEFLY OF\n ASTROLOGY FROM THE ARABIC 66\n\n 39. BERNARD SILVESTER; ASTROLOGY AND GEOMANCY 99\n\n 40. SAINT HILDEGARD OF BINGEN 124\n\n 41. JOHN OF SALISBURY 155\n\n 42. DANIEL OF MORLEY AND ROGER OF HEREFORD 171\n\n 43. ALEXANDER NECKAM ON THE NATURES OF THINGS 188\n\n 44. MOSES MAIMONIDES 205\n\n 45. HERMETIC BOOKS IN THE MIDDLE AGES 214\n\n 46. KIRANIDES 229\n\n 47. PRESTER JOHN AND THE MARVELS OF INDIA 236\n\n 48. THE PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE 246\n\n 49. SOLOMON AND THE ARS NOTORIA 279\n\n 50. ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL DREAM-BOOKS 290\n\n\n BOOK V. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY\n\n FOREWORD 305\n\n 51. MICHAEL SCOT 307\n\n 52. WILLIAM OF AUVERGNE 338\n\n 53. THOMAS OF CANTIMPR\u00c9 372\n\n 54. BARTHOLOMEW OF ENGLAND 401\n\n 55. ROBERT GROSSETESTE 436\n\n 56. VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS 457\n\n 57. EARLY THIRTEENTH CENTURY MEDICINE: GILBERT OF\n ENGLAND AND WILLIAM OF ENGLAND 477\n\n 58. PETRUS HISPANUS 488\n\n 59. ALBERTUS MAGNUS 517\n\n I. Life 521\n II. As a Scientist 528\n III. His Allusions to Magic 548\n IV. Marvelous Virtues in Nature 560\n V. Attitude Toward Astrology 577\n\n 60. THOMAS AQUINAS 593\n\n 61. ROGER BACON 616\n\n I. Life 619\n II. Criticism of and Part in Medieval Learning 630\n III. Experimental Science 649\n IV. Attitude Toward Magic and Astrology 659\n\n 62. THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE 692\n\n 63. THREE TREATISES ASCRIBED TO ALBERT 720\n\n 64. EXPERIMENTS AND SECRETS: MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 751\n\n 65. EXPERIMENTS AND SECRETS: CHEMICAL AND MAGICAL 777\n\n 66. PICATRIX 813\n\n 67. GUIDO BONATTI AND BARTHOLOMEW OF PARMA 825\n\n 68. ARNALD OF VILLANOVA 841\n\n 69. RAYMOND LULL 862\n\n 70. PETER OF ABANO 874\n\n 71. CECCO D\u2019ASCOLI 948\n\n 72. CONCLUSION 969\n\n INDICES:\n\n General 985\n Bibliographical 1007\n Manuscripts 1027\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nThis work has been long in preparation\u2014ever since in 1902-1903\nProfessor James Harvey Robinson, when my mind was still in the making,\nsuggested the study of magic in medieval universities as the subject\nof my thesis for the master\u2019s degree at Columbia University\u2014and has\nbeen foreshadowed by other publications, some of which are listed\nunder my name in the preliminary bibliography. Since this was set up\nin type there have also appeared: \u201cGalen: the Man and His Times,\u201d\nin _The Scientific Monthly_, January, 1922; \u201cEarly Christianity and\nNatural Science,\u201d in _The Biblical Review_, July, 1922; \u201cThe Latin\nPseudo-Aristotle and Medieval Occult Science,\u201d in _The Journal of\nEnglish and Germanic Philology_, April, 1922; and notes on Daniel\nof Morley and Gundissalinus in _The English Historical Review_. For\npermission to make use of these previous publications in the present\nwork I am indebted to the editors of the periodicals just mentioned,\nand also to the editors of _The Columbia University Studies in\nHistory, Economics, and Public Law_, _The American Historical Review_,\n_Classical Philology_, _The Monist_, _Nature_, _The Philosophical\nReview_, and _Science_. The form, however, of these previous\npublications has often been altered in embodying them in this book,\nand, taken together, they constitute but a fraction of it. Book I\ngreatly amplifies the account of magic in the Roman Empire contained\nin my doctoral dissertation. Over ten years ago I prepared an account\nof magic and science in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries based on\nmaterial available in print in libraries of this country and arranged\ntopically, but I did not publish it, as it seemed advisable to\nsupplement it by study abroad and of the manuscript material, and to\nadopt an arrangement by authors. The result is Books IV and V of the\npresent work.\n\nMy examination of manuscripts has been done especially at the British\nMuseum, whose rich collections, perhaps because somewhat inaccessibly\ncatalogued, have been less used by students of medieval learning than\nsuch libraries as the Bodleian and Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale. I have\nworked also, however, at both Oxford and Paris, at Munich, Florence,\nBologna, and elsewhere; but it has of course been impossible to examine\nall the thousands of manuscripts bearing upon the subject, and the\nwar prevented me from visiting some libraries, such as the important\nmedieval collection of Amplonius at Erfurt. However, a fairly wide\nsurvey of the catalogues of collections of manuscripts has convinced\nme that I have read a representative selection. Such classified lists\nof medieval manuscripts as Mrs. Dorothea Singer has undertaken for\nthe British Isles should greatly facilitate the future labors of\ninvestigators in this field.\n\nAlthough working in a rather new field, I have been aided by editions\nof medieval writers produced by modern scholarship, and by various\nseries, books, and articles tending, at least, in the same direction\nas mine. Some such publications have appeared or come to my notice\ntoo late for use or even for mention in the text: for instance,\nanother edition of the _De medicamentis_ of Marcellus Empiricus by M.\nNiedermann; the printing of the _Twelve Experiments with Snakeskin_\nof John Paulinus by J. W. S. Johnsson in _Bull. d. l. soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7.\nd\u2019hist. d. l. m\u00e9d._, XII, 257-67; the detailed studies of Sante Ferrari\non Peter of Abano; and A. Franz, _Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im\nMittelalter_, 1909, 2 vols. The breeding place of the eel (to which I\nallude at I, 491) is now, as a result of recent investigation by Dr. J.\nSchmidt, placed \u201cabout 2500 miles from the mouth of the English Channel\nand 500 miles north-east of the Leeward Islands\u201d (_Discovery_, Oct.,\n1922, p. 256) instead of in the Mediterranean.\n\nA man who once wrote in Dublin[1] complained of the difficulty of\ncomposing a learned work so far from the Bodleian and British Museum,\nand I have often felt the same way. When able to visit foreign\ncollections or the largest libraries in this country, or when books\nhave been sent for my use for a limited period, I have spent all\nthe available time in the collection of material, which has been\nwritten up later as opportunity offered. Naturally one then finds\nmany small and some important points which require verification or\nfurther investigation, but which must be postponed until one\u2019s next\nvacation or trip abroad, by which time some of the smaller points are\napt to be forgotten. Of such loose threads I fear that more remain\nthan could be desired. And I have so often caught myself in the act\nof misinterpretation, misplaced emphasis, and other mistakes, that\nI have no doubt there are other errors as well as omissions which\nother scholars will be able to point out and which I trust they will.\nDespite this prospect, I have been bold in affirming my independent\nopinion on any point where I have one, even if it conflicts with that\nof specialists or puts me in the position of criticizing my betters.\nConstant questioning, criticism, new points of view, and conflict of\nopinion are essential in the pursuit of truth.\n\nAfter some hesitation I decided, because of the expense, the length of\nthe work, and the increasing unfamiliarity of readers with Greek and\nLatin, as a rule not to give in the footnotes the original language\nof passages used in the text. I have, however, usually supplied the\nLatin or Greek when I have made a free translation or one with which I\nfelt that others might not agree. But in such cases I advise critics\nnot to reject my rendering utterly without some further examination of\nthe context and line of thought of the author or treatise in question,\nsince the wording of particular passages in texts and manuscripts\nis liable to be corrupt, and since my purpose in quoting particular\npassages is to illustrate the general attitude of the author or\ntreatise. In describing manuscripts I have employed quotation marks\nwhen I knew from personal examination or otherwise that the Latin was\nthat of the manuscript itself, and have omitted quotation marks where\nthe Latin seemed rather to be that of the description in the catalogue.\nUsually I have let the faulty spelling and syntax of medieval copyists\nstand without comment. But as I am not an expert in palaeography\nand have examined a large number of manuscripts primarily for their\nsubstance, the reader should not regard my Latin quotations from them\nas exact transliterations or carefully considered texts. He should also\nremember that there is little uniformity in the manuscripts themselves.\nI have tried to reduce the bulk of the footnotes by the briefest forms\nof reference consistent with clearness\u2014consult lists of abbreviations\nand of works frequently cited by author and date of publication\u2014and by\nuse of appendices at the close of certain chapters.\n\nWithin the limits of a preface I may not enumerate all the libraries\nwhere I have been permitted to work or which have generously sent\nbooks\u2014sometimes rare volumes\u2014to Cleveland for my use, or all the\nlibrarians who have personally assisted my researches or courteously\nand carefully answered my written inquiries, or the other scholars\nwho have aided or encouraged the preparation of this work, but I hope\nthey may feel that their kindness has not been in vain. In library\nmatters I have perhaps most frequently imposed upon the good nature\nof Mr. Frederic C. Erb of the Columbia University Library, Mr. Gordon\nW. Thayer, in charge of the John G. White collection in the Cleveland\nPublic Library, and Mr. George F. Strong, librarian of Adelbert\nCollege, Western Reserve University; and I cannot forbear to mention\nthe interest shown in my work by Dr. R. L. Poole at the Bodleian. For\nletters facilitating my studies abroad before the war or application\nfor a passport immediately after the war I am indebted to the Hon.\nPhilander C. Knox, then Secretary of State, to Frederick P. Keppel,\nthen Assistant Secretary of War, to Drs. J. Franklin Jameson and\nCharles F. Thwing, and to Professors Henry E. Bourne and Henry Crew.\nProfessors C. H. Haskins,[2] L. C. Karpinski, W. G. Leutner, W. A.\nLocy, D. B. Macdonald, L. J. Paetow, S. B. Platner, E. C. Richardson,\nJames Harvey Robinson, David Eugene Smith, D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson, A. H.\nThorndike, E. L. Thorndike, T. Wingate Todd, and Hutton Webster, and\nDrs. Charles Singer and Se Boyar have kindly read various chapters\nin manuscript or proof and offered helpful suggestions. The burden\nof proof-reading has been generously shared with me by Professors B.\nP. Bourland, C. D. Lamberton, and Walter Libby, and especially by\nProfessor Harold North Fowler who has corrected proof for practically\nthe entire work. After receiving such expert aid and sound counsel I\nmust assume all the deeper guilt for such faults and indiscretions as\nthe book may display.\n\n\n\n\n ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\n Abhandl. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematischen\n Wissenschaften, begr\u00fcndet von M.\n Cantor, Teubner, Leipzig.\n\n Addit. Additional Manuscripts in the British Museum.\n\n Amplon. Manuscript collection of Amplonius Ratinck at\n Erfurt.\n\n AN Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Reprint of the\n Edinburgh edition, in 9 vols., 1913.\n\n AS Acta sanctorum.\n\n Beitr\u00e4ge Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des\n Mittelalters, ed. by C. Baeumker, G.\u202fv. Hertling,\n M. Baumgartner, et al., M\u00fcnster, 1891-.\n\n BL Bodleian Library, Oxford.\n\n BM British Museum, London.\n\n BN Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Paris.\n\n Borgnet Augustus Borgnet, ed. B. Alberti Magni Opera\n omnia, Paris, 1890-1899, in 38 vols.\n\n Brewer Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quaedam hactenus inedita,\n ed. J.\u202fS. Brewer, London, 1859, in RS,\n XV.\n\n Bridges The Opus Maius of Roger Bacon, ed. J.\u202fH.\n Bridges, I-II, Oxford, 1897; III, 1900.\n\n CCAG Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, ed.\n F. Cumont, W. Kroll, F. Boll, et al., 1898.\n\n CE Catholic Encyclopedia.\n\n CFCB Census of Fifteenth Century Books Owned in\n America, compiled by a committee of the Bibliographical\n Society of America, New York,\n 1919.\n\n CLM Codex Latinus Monacensis (Latin MS at Munich).\n\n CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum,\n Vienna, 1866-.\n\n CU Cambridge University (used to distinguish MSS\n in colleges having the same names as those at\n Oxford).\n\n CUL Cambridge University Library.\n\n DNB Dictionary of National Biography.\n\n EB Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition.\n\n EETS Early English Text Society Publications.\n\n EHR English Historical Review.\n\n ERE Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J.\n Hastings et al., 1908-.\n\n HL Histoire Litt\u00e9raire de la France.\n\n HZ Historische Zeitschrift, Munich, 1859-.\n\n K\u00fchn Medici Graeci, ed. C.\u202fJ. K\u00fchn, Leipzig, 1829,\n containing the works of Galen, Dioscorides,\n etc.\n\n MG Monumenta Germaniae.\n\n MS Manuscript.\n\n MSS Manuscripts.\n\n Muratori Rerum Italicarum scriptores ab anno aerae christianae\n 500 ad 1500, ed. L.\u202fA. Muratori, 1723-1751.\n\n NH C. Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historia (Pliny\u2019s\n Natural History).\n\n PG Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series\n graeca.\n\n PL Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series\n latina.\n\n PN The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second\n Series, ed. Wace and Schaff, 1890-1900, 14\n vols.\n\n PW Pauly and Wissowa, Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen\n Altertumswissenschaft.\n\n RS \u201cRolls Series,\u201d or Rerum Britannicarum medii\n aevi scriptores, 99 works in 244 vols., London,\n 1858-1896.\n\n TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der\n altchristlichen Literatur, ed. Gebhardt und\n Harnack.\n\n\nDESIGNATION OF MANUSCRIPTS\n\nIndividual manuscripts are usually briefly designated in the ensuing\nnotes and appendices by a single word indicating the place or\ncollection where the MS is found and the number or shelf-mark of the\nindividual MS. So many of the catalogues of MSS collections which I\nconsulted were undated and without name of author that I have decided\nto attempt no catalogue of them. The brief designations that I give\nwill be sufficient for anyone who is interested in MSS. In giving Latin\ntitles, _Incipits_, and the like of MSS I employ quotation marks when\nI know from personal examination or otherwise that the wording is that\nof the MS itself, and omit the marks where the Latin seems rather to\nbe that of the description in the manuscript catalogue or other source\nof information. In the following _List of Works Frequently Cited_ are\nincluded a few MSS catalogues whose authors I shall have occasion to\nrefer to by name.\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF WORKS FREQUENTLY CITED BY AUTHOR AND DATE OF PUBLICATION OR\n BRIEF TITLE\n\n\nFor more detailed bibliography on specific topics and for editions\nor manuscripts of the texts used see the bibliographies, references,\nand appendices to individual chapters. I also include here some works\nof general interest or of rather cursory character which I have not\nhad occasion to mention elsewhere; and I usually add, for purposes\nof differentiation, other works in our field by an author than those\nworks by him which are frequently cited. Of the many histories of the\nsciences, medicine, and magic that have appeared since the invention\nof printing I have included but a small selection. Almost without\nexception they have to be used with the greatest caution.\n\nAbano, Peter of, Conciliator differentiarum philosophorum et praecipue\n medicorum, 1472, 1476, 1521, 1526, etc. De venenis, 1472, 1476, 1484,\n 1490, 1515, 1521, etc.\n\nAbel, ed. Orphica, 1885.\n\nAbelard, Peter. Opera hactenus seorsim edita, ed. V. Cousin, Paris,\n 1849-1859, 2 vols.\n\nOuvrages in\u00e9dits, ed. V. Cousin, 1835.\n\nAbt, Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Zauberei,\n Giessen, 1908.\n\nAchmetis Oneirocriticon, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1603.\n\nAdelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales, 1480, 1485, etc. De eodem et\n diverso, ed. H. Willner, M\u00fcnster, 1903.\n\nAhrens, K. Das Buch der Naturgegenst\u00e4nde, 1892.\n Zur Geschichte des sogenannten Physiologus, 1885.\n\nAilly, Pierre d\u2019, Tractatus de ymagine mundi (and other works), 1480\n (?).\n\nAlbertus Magnus, Opera omnia, ed. A. Borgnet, Paris, 1890-1899, 38\n vols.\n\nAllbutt, Sir T. Clifford. The Historical Relations of Medicine and\n Surgery to the End of the Sixteenth Century, London, 1905, 122 pp.; an\n address delivered at the St. Louis Congress in 1904.\n The Rise of the Experimental Method in Oxford, London, 1902, 53 pp.,\n from Journal of the Oxford University Junior Scientific Club, May,\n 1902, being the ninth Robert Boyle Lecture.\n Science and Medieval Thought, London, 1901, 116 brief pages. The\n Harveian Oration delivered before the Royal College of Physicians.\n\nAllendy, R. F. L\u2019Alchimie et la M\u00e9decine; \u00c9tude sur les th\u00e9ories\n herm\u00e9tiques dans l\u2019histoire de la m\u00e9decine, Paris, 1912, 155 pp.\n\nAnz, W. Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus, Leipzig, 1897.\n\nAquinas, Thomas. Opera omnia, ed. E. Frett\u00e9 et P. Mar\u00e9, Paris,\n 1871-1880, 34 vols.\n\nAristotle, De animalibus historia, ed. Dittmeyer, 1907; English\n translations by R. Creswell, 1848, and D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson, Oxford,\n 1910.\n\nPseudo-Aristotle. Lapidarius, Merszborg, 1473.\n Secretum secretorum, Latin translation from the Arabic by Philip of\n Tripoli in many editions; and see Gaster.\n\nArnald of Villanova, Opera, Lyons, 1532.\n\nArtemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi F. Oneirocritica; Astrampsychi\n et Nicephori versus etiam Oneirocritici; Nicolai Rigaltii ad\n Artemidorum Notae, Paris, 1603.\n\nAshmole, Elias, Theatrum chemicum Britannicum, 1652.\n\nAstruc, Jean. M\u00e9moires pour servir \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la Facult\u00e9 de\n M\u00e9decine de Montpellier, Paris, 1767.\n\nAuriferae artis quam chemiam vocant antiquissimi auctores, Basel, 1572.\n\nBarach et Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, 1876-1878,\n 2 vols.\n\nBartholomew of England, De proprietatibus rerum, Lingelbach,\n Heidelberg, 1488, and other editions.\n\nBauhin, De plantis a divis sanctisve nomen habentibus, Basel, 1591.\n\nBaur, Ludwig, ed. Gundissalinus De divisione philosophiae, M\u00fcnster,\n 1903.\n Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, M\u00fcnster, 1912.\n\nBeazley, C. R. The Dawn of Modern Geography, London, 1897-1906, 3 vols.\n\nBernard, E. Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in\n unum collecti (The old catalogue of the Bodleian MSS), Tom. I, Pars 1,\n Oxford, 1697.\n\nBerthelot, P. E. M. Arch\u00e9ologie et histoire des sciences avec\n publication nouvelle du papyrus grec chimique de Leyde et impression\n originale du Liber de septuaginta de Geber, Paris, 1906.\n Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, 1887-1888, 3 vols.\n Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de la chimie des anciens et du moyen \u00e2ge, 1889.\n La chimie au moyen \u00e2ge, 1893, 3 vols.\n Les origines de l\u2019alchimie, 1885.\n Sur les voyages de Galien et de Zosime dans l\u2019Archipel et en Asie,\n et sur la mati\u00e8re m\u00e9dicale dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9, in Journal des Savants,\n 1895, pp. 382-7.\n\nBezold, F. von, Astrologische Geschichtsconstruction im Mittelalter,\n in Deutsche Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Geschichtswissenschaft, VIII (1892) 29ff.\n\nBibliotheca Chemica. See Borel and Manget.\n\nBj\u00f6rnbo, A. A. und Vogl, S. Alkindi, Tideus, und Pseudo-Euklid; drei\n optische Werke, Leipzig, 1911.\n\nBlack, W. H. Catalogue of the Ashmolean Manuscripts, Oxford, 1845.\n\nBoffito, P. G. Il Commento di Cecco d\u2019Ascoli all\u2019Alcabizzo, Florence,\n 1905.\n Il De principiis astrologiae di Cecco d\u2019Ascoli, in Giornale Storico\n della Letteratura Italiana, Suppl. 6, Turin, 1903.\n Perch\u00e8 fu condannato al fuoco l\u2019astrologo Cecco d\u2019Ascoli, in Studi e\n Documenti di Storia e Diritto, Publicazione periodica dell\u2019accademia\n de conferenza Storico-Giuridiche, Rome, XX (1899).\n\nBoll, Franz. Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie, in Neue Jahrb. f.\n d. klass. Altert., XI (1908) 103-26.\n Eine arabisch-byzantische Quelle des Dialogs Hermippus, in Sitzb.\n Heidelberg Akad., Philos. Hist. Classe (1912) No. 18, 28 pp.\n Sphaera, Leipzig, 1903.\n Studien \u00fcber Claudius Ptolemaeus, in Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., Suppl.\n Bd. XXI.\n Zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte d. griech. Astrologie u. Astronomie, in\n M\u00fcnch. Akad. Sitzb., 1899.\n\nBoll und Bezold, Sternglauben, Leipzig, 1918; I have not seen.\n\nBonatti, Guido. Liber astronomicus, Ratdolt, Augsburg, 1491.\n\nBoncompagni, B. Della vita e delle Opere di Gherardo Cremonese\n traduttore del secolo duodecimo e di Gherardo da Sabbionetta astronomo\n del secolo decimoterzo, Rome, 1851.\n Della vita e delle opere di Guido Bonatti astrologo ed astronomo del\n secolo decimoterzo, Rome, 1851.\n Estratte dal Giornale Arcadico, Tomo CXXIII-CXXIV. Della vita e delle\n opere di Leonardo Pisano, Rome, 1852.\n Intorno ad alcune opere di Leonardo Pisano, Rome, 1854.\n\nBorel, P. Bibliotheca Chimica seu catalogus librorum philosophicorum\n hermeticorum usque ad annum 1653, Paris, 1654.\n\nBostock, J. and Riley, H. T. The Natural History of Pliny, translated\n with copious notes, London, 1855; reprinted 1887.\n\nBouch\u00e9-Leclercq, A. L\u2019astrologie dans le monde romain, in Revue\n Historique, vol. 65 (1897) 241-99.\n L\u2019astrologie grecque, Paris, 1899, 658 pp.\n Histoire de la divination dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9, 1879-1882, 4 vols.\n\nBreasted, J. H. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt,\n New York, 1912.\n A History of Egypt, 1905; second ed., 1909.\n\nBrehaut, E. An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages; Isidore of Seville, in\n Columbia University Studies in History, etc., vol. 48 (1912) 1-274.\n\nBrewer, J. S. Monumenta Franciscana (RS IV, 1), London, 1858.\n\nBrown, J. Wood. An inquiry into the life and legend of Michael Scot,\n Edinburgh, 1897.\n\nBrowne, Edward G. Arabian Medicine (the Fitzpatrick Lectures of 1919\n and 1920), Cambridge University Press, 1921.\n\nBrowne, Sir Thomas. Pseudodoxia Epidemica, 1650.\n\nBubnov, N. ed. Gerberti opera mathematica, Berlin, 1899.\n\nBudge, E. A. W. Egyptian Magic, London, 1899.\n Ethiopic Histories of Alexander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes and other\n writers, Cambridge University Press, 1896.\n Syriac Version of Pseudo-Callisthenes, Cambridge, 1889.\n Syrian Anatomy, Pathology, and Therapeutics, London, 1913, 2 vols.\n\nBunbury, E. H. A History of Ancient Geography, London, 1879, 2 vols.\n\nCahier et Martin, M\u00e9langes d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie, d\u2019histoire et de\n litt\u00e9rature, Paris, 1847-1856, 4 folio vols.\n\nCajori, F. History of Mathematics; second edition, revised and\n enlarged, 1919.\n\nCantor, M. Vorlesungen \u00fcber Geschichte der Mathematik, 3rd edition,\n Leipzig, 1899-1908, 4 vols. Reprint of vol. II in 1913.\n\nCarini, S. I. Sulle Scienze Occulte nel Medio Evo, Palermo, 1872; I\n have not seen.\n\nCauzons, Th. de. La magie et la sorcellerie en France, 1910, 4 vols.;\n largely compiled from secondary sources.\n\nCharles, E. Roger Bacon: sa vie, ses ouvrages, ses doctrines,\n Bordeaux, 1861.\n\nCharles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,\n English translation with introductions and critical and explanatory\n notes in conjunction with many scholars, Oxford, 1913, 2 large vols.\n Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, and reprinted in 1917.\n The Book of Enoch, Oxford, 1893; translated anew, 1912.\n\nCharles, R. H. and Morfill, W. R. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,\n Oxford, 1896.\n\nCharterius, Renatus ed. Galeni opera, Paris, 1679, 13 vols.\n\nChartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, see Denifle et Chatelain.\n\nChassang, A. Le merveilleux dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9, 1882; I have not seen.\n\nChoulant, Ludwig. Albertus Magnus in seiner Bedeutung f\u00fcr die\n Naturwissenschaften historisch und bibliographisch dargestellt, in\n Janus, I (1846) 152ff.\n Die Anf\u00e4nge wissenschaftlicher Naturgeschichte und naturhistorischer\n Abbildung, Dresden, 1856.\n Handbuch der B\u00fccherkunde f\u00fcr die \u00e4ltere Medicin, 2nd edition, Leipzig,\n 1841; like the foregoing, slighter than the title leads one to hope.\n ed. Macer Floridus de viribus herbarum una cum Walafridi Strabonis,\n Othonis Cremonensis et Ioannis Folcz carminibus similis argumenti,\n 1832.\n\nChrist, W. Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur; see W. Schmid.\n\nChwolson, D. Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, Petrograd, 1856, 2 vols.\n\nCl\u00e9ment-Mullet, J. J. Essai sur la min\u00e9ralogie arabe, Paris, 1868, in\n Journal asiatique, Tome XI, S\u00e8rie VI.\n Trait\u00e9 des poisons de Maimonide, 1865.\n\nClerval, Hermann le Dalmate, Paris, 1891, eleven pp.\n Les \u00e9coles de Chartres au moyen \u00e2ge, Chartres, 1895.\n\nCockayne, O. Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England,\n in RS XXXV, London, 1864-1866, 3 vols.\n Narratiunculae anglice conscriptae, 1861.\n\nCongr\u00e8s P\u00e9riodique International des Sciences M\u00e9dicales, 17th Session,\n London, Section XXIII, History of Medicine, 1913.\n\nCousin, V. See Abelard.\n\nCoxe, H. O. Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae\n Pars Secunda Codices Latinos et Miscellaneos Laudianos complectens,\n Oxford, 1858-1885.\n Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae Pars Tertia\n Codices Graecos et Latinos Canonicianos complectens, Oxford, 1854.\n Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum qui in collegiis aulisque\n Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur, 1852, 2 vols.\n\nCumont, F. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, 1912, 2\n vols. And see CCAG under Abbreviations.\n\nDaremberg, Ch. V. Exposition des connaissances de Galien sur\n l\u2019anatomie, la physiologie, et la pathologie du syst\u00e8me nerveux,\n Paris, 1841.\n Histoire des sciences m\u00e9dicales, Paris, 1870, 2 vols.\n La m\u00e9decine; histoire et doctrines, Paris, 1865.\n Notices et extraits des manuscrits m\u00e9dicaux, 1853.\n\nDelambre, J. B. J. Histoire de l\u2019astronomie du moyen \u00e2ge, Paris, 1819.\n\nDelisle, L. Inventaire des manuscrits latins conserv\u00e9s \u00e0 la\n biblioth\u00e8que nationale sous les num\u00e9ros 8823-18613 et faisant suite \u00e0\n la s\u00e9rie dont la catalogue a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 en 1744, Paris, 1863-1871.\n\nDenifle, H. Quellen zur Gelehrtengeschichte des Predigerordens\n im 13 und 14 Jahrhundert, in Archiv f. Lit. u. Kirchengesch. d.\n Mittelalters, Berlin, II (1886) 165-248.\n\nDenifle et Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Paris,\n 1889-1891, 2 vols.\n\nDenis, F. Le monde enchant\u00e9, cosmographie et histoire naturelles\n fantastiques du moyen \u00e2ge, Paris, 1843. A curious little volume with a\n bibliography of works now forgotten.\n\nDoutt\u00e9, E. Magie et religion dans l\u2019Afrique du Nord, Alger, 1909.\n\nDuhem, Pierre. Le Syst\u00e8me du Monde: Histoire des Doctrines\n Cosmologiques de Platon \u00e0 Copernic, 5 vols., Paris, 1913-1917.\n\nDu Prel, C. Die Magie als Naturwissenschaft, 1899, 2 vols. Occult\n speculation, not historical treatment; the author seems to have no\n direct acquaintance with sources earlier than Agrippa in the sixteenth\n century.\n\nEaster, D. B. A Study of the Magic Elements in the romans d\u2019aventure\n and the romans bretons, Johns Hopkins, 1906.\n\nEnnemoser, J. History of Magic, London, 1854.\n\nEnoch, Book of. See Charles.\n\nEpiphanius. Opera ed. G. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1859-1862, 5 vols.\n\nEvans, H. R. The Old and New Magic, Chicago, 1906.\n\nFabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, 1711.\n Bibliotheca Latina Mediae et Infimae Aetatis, 1734-1746, 6 vols.\n Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, 1713-1733.\n\nFarnell, L. R. Greece and Babylon; a comparative sketch of\n Mesopotamian, Anatolian, and Hellenic Religions, Edinburgh, 1911.\n The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion, New York, 1912.\n\nFerckel, C. Die Gyn\u00e4kologie des Thomas von Brabants, ausgew\u00e4hlte\n Kapitel aus Buch I de naturis rerum beendet um 1240, Munich, 1912, in\n G. Klein, Alte Meister d. Medizin u. Naturkunde.\n\nFerguson, John. Bibliotheca Chemica, a catalogue of alchemical,\n chemical and pharmaceutical books in the collection of the late James\n Young, Glasgow, 1906.\n\nFort, G. F. Medical Economy; a contribution to the history of European\n morals from the Roman Empire to 1400, New York, 1883.\n\nFossi, F. Catalogus codicum saeculo XV impressorum qui in publica\n Bibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae adservantur, 1793-1795.\n\nFrazer, Sir J. G. Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, 3 vols., 1918.\n Golden Bough, edition of 1894, 2 vols.\n Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings, 2 vols., 1911.\n Some Popular Superstitions of the Ancients, in Folk-Lore, 1890.\n Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild, 2 vols., 1912.\n\nGarinet. Histoire de la Magie en France.\n\nGarrison, F. H. An Introduction to the History of Medicine, 2nd\n edition, Philadelphia, 1917.\n\nGaster, M. A Hebrew Version of the Secretum secretorum, published for\n the first time, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1907,\n pp. 879-913; 1908, pp. 111-62, 1065-84.\n\nGerland, E. Geschichte der Physik von den \u00e4ltesten Zeiten bis zum\n Ausgange des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts, in K\u00f6nigl. Akad. d. Wiss., XXIV\n (1913) Munich and Berlin.\n\nGerland und Traum\u00fcller, Geschichte der Physikalischen\n Experimentierkunst, Leipzig, 1899.\n\nGiacosa, P. Magistri Salernitani nondum editi, Turin, 1901.\n\nGilbert of England, Compendium medicinae, Lyons, 1510.\n\nGloria, Andrea. Monumenti della Universit\u00e0 di Padova, 1222-1318, in\n Memorie del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, XXII\n (1884).\n Monumenti della Universit\u00e0 di Padova, 1318-1405, 1888.\n\nGordon, Bernard. Lilium medicinae, Venice, 1496, etc.\n Practica (and other treatises), 1521.\n\nGrabmann, Martin. Forschungen \u00fcber die lateinischen\n Aristoteles-Uebersetzungen des XIII Jahrhunderts, M\u00fcnster, 1916.\n Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode, Freiburg, 1909-1911, 2 vols.\n\nGraesse, J. G. T. Bibliotheca magica, 1843; of little service to me.\n\nGrenfell, B. P. The Present Position of Papyrology, in Bulletin of\n John Rylands Library, Manchester, VI (1921) 142-62.\n\nHaeser, H. Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medicin und der\n Volkskrankheiten, Dritte Bearbeitung, 1875-1882.\n\nHalle, J. Zur Geschichte der Medizin von Hippokrates bis zum\n XVIII Jahrhundert, Munich, 1909, 199 pp.; too brief, but suggests\n interesting topics.\n\nHalliwell, J. O. Rara Mathematica, 1839.\n\nHammer-Jensen. Das sogennannte IV Buch der Meteorologie des\n Aristoteles, in Hermes, L (1915) 113-36.\n Ptolemaios und Heron, Ibid., XLVIII (1913), 224ff.\n\nHansen, J. Zauberwahn, Inquisition, und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter,\n Munich and Leipzig, 1900.\n\nHaskins, C. H. Adelard of Bath, in EHR XXVI (1911) 491-8; XXVIII\n (1913), 515-6.\n Leo Tuscus, in EHR XXXIII (1918), 492-6.\n The \u201cDe Arte Venandi cum Avibus\u201d of the Emperor Frederick II, EHR\n XXXVI (1921) 334-55.\n The Reception of Arabic Science in England, EHR XXX (1915), 56-69.\n The Greek Element in the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, in\n American Historical Review, XXV (1920) 603-15.\n The Translations of Hugo Sanctelliensis, in Romanic Review, II (1911)\n 1-15.\n Nimrod the Astronomer, Ibid., V (1914) 203-12.\n A List of Text-books from the Close of the Twelfth Century, in Harvard\n Studies in Classical Philology, XX (1909) 75-94.\n\nHaskins and Lockwood. The Sicilian Translators of the Twelfth Century\n and the First Latin Versions of Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest, Ibid., XXI (1910),\n 75-102.\n\nHaur\u00e9au, B. Bernard D\u00e9licieux et l\u2019inquisition albigeoise, Paris, 1887.\n Histoire de la philosophie scolastique, 1872-1880.\n Le Mathematicus de Bernard Silvestris, Paris, 1895.\n Les \u0153uvres de Hugues de Saint Victor, essai critique, nouvelle\n \u00e9dition, Paris, 1886.\n M\u00e9langes po\u00e9tiques d\u2019Hildebert de Lavardin.\n Notices et extraits de quelques mss latins de la biblioth\u00e8que\n nationale, 1890-1893, 6 vols.\n Singularit\u00e9s historiques et litt\u00e9raires, Paris, 1861.\n\nHearnshaw, F. J. C. Medieval Contributions to Modern Civilization, 1921.\n\nHeilbronner, J. C. Historia Matheseos universae praecipuorum\n mathematicorum vitas dogmata scripta et manuscripta complexa, Leipzig,\n 1742.\n\nHeim, R. De rebus magicis Marcelli medici, in Schedae philol. Hermanno\n Usener oblatae, 1891, pp. 119-37.\n Incantamenta magica graeca latina, in Jahrb. f. cl. Philol., 19 suppl.\n bd., Leipzig, 1893, pp. 463-576.\n\nHeller, A. Geschichte der Physik von Aristoteles bis auf die neueste\n Zeit, Stuttgart, 1882-1884, 2 vols.\n\nHendrie, R. Theophili Libri III de diversis artibus, translated by,\n London, 1847.\n\nHengstenberg, E. W. Die Geschichte Bileams und seine Weissagungen,\n Berlin, 1842.\n\nHenry, V. La magie dans l\u2019Inde antique, 1904.\n\nHenslow, G. Medical Works of the Fourteenth Century, London, 1899.\n\nHercher, ed. Aeliani opera, 1864.\n ed. Artemidori Oneirocritica, Leipzig, 1864.\n ed. Astrampsychi oculorum decades, Berlin, 1863.\n\nHertling, G. von, Albertus Magnus; Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner W\u00fcrdigung,\n revised edition with help of Baeumker and Endres, M\u00fcnster, 1914.\n\nHubert, H. Magia, in Daremberg-Saglio.\n\nHubert et Mauss, Esquisse d\u2019une Th\u00e9orie G\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la Magie, in Ann\u00e9e\n Sociologique, 1902-1903, pp. 1-146.\n\nHusik, I. A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, 1916.\n\nIshak ibn Sulaiman, Opera, 1515.\n\nJames, M. R. A Descriptive Catalogue of the McClean Collection of MSS\n in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 1912.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 1895.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Corpus Christi\n College, Cambridge, 1912, 2 vols.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Gonville and\n Caius College, 1907-1908, 2 vols.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Pembroke College,\n 1905.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Peterhouse, 1899.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of St. John\u2019s\n College, Cambridge, 1913.\n A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS in the Library of Sidney Sussex\n College, Cambridge, 1895.\n The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, 1903.\n The Western MSS in the Library of Emmanuel College, 1904.\n The Western MSS in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge,\n 1900-1904, 4 vols.\n\nJanus, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Geschichte und Literatur der Medizin, 1846-.\n\nJenaer medizin-historische Beitr\u00e4ge, herausg. von T. M. Steineg, 1912-.\n\nJo\u00ebl, D. Der Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu demselben,\n 1881.\n\nJohn of Salisbury, Metalogicus, in Migne PL vol. 199.\n Polycraticus sive de nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum, Ibid.\n and also ed. C. C. I. Webb, Oxford, 1909.\n\nJoret, Les plantes dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et au moyen \u00e2ge, 2 vols., Paris,\n 1897 and 1904.\n\nJourdain, A. Recherches critiques sur l\u2019\u00e2ge et l\u2019origine des\n traductions latines d\u2019Aristote, Paris, 1819; 2nd edition, 1843.\n\nJourdain, C. Dissertation sur l\u2019\u00e9tat de la philosophie naturelle en\n occident et principalement en France pendant la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du\n XIIe si\u00e8cle, Paris, 1838.\n Excursions historiques et philosophiques \u00e0 travers le moyen \u00e2ge,\n Paris, 1888.\n\nKarpinski, L. C. Hindu Science, in American Mathematical Monthly, XXVI\n (1919) pp. 298-300.\n Robert of Chester\u2019s Latin translation of the Algebra of al-Khowarizmi,\n with introduction, critical notes, and an English version, New York,\n 1915.\n The \u201cQuadripartitum numerorum\u201d of John of Meurs, in Bibliotheca\n Mathematica, III Folge, XIII Bd. (1913) 99-114.\n\nKaufmann, A. Thomas von Chantimpr\u00e9, Cologne, 1899.\n\nKing, C. W. The Gnostics and their Remains, ancient and medieval,\n London, 1887.\n\nThe Natural History, ancient and modern, of Precious Stones and Gems,\n London, 1855.\n\nKopp, H. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Chemie, Brunswick, 1869-1875.\n Ueber den Zustand der Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter, 1869.\n\nKretschmer, C. Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen Mittelalter, 1889.\n\nKrumbacher, K. Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 527-1453 A.\u202fD.,\n2nd edition, Munich, 1897.\n\nKunz, G. F. The Curious Lore of Precious Stones, Philadelphia, 1913.\n Magic of Jewels and Charms, Philadelphia, 1915.\n\nLanglois, Ch. V. La connaissance de la nature et du monde au moyen \u00e2ge\n d\u2019apr\u00e8s quelques \u00e9crits fran\u00e7ais \u00e0 l\u2019usage des la\u00efcs, Paris, 1911.\n Ma\u00eetre Bernard, in Bibl. de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Chartes, LIV (1893) 225-50,\n 795.\n\nLauchert, F. Geschichte des Physiologus, Strassburg, 1889.\n\nLea, H. C. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York,\n 1883, 3 vols.\n\nLe Brun. Histoire critique des pratiques superstitieuses, Amsterdam,\n 1733.\n\nLecky, W. E. H. History of European Morals from Augustus to\n Charlemagne, 1870, 2 vols.\n History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in\n Europe, revised edition, London, 1870.\n\nLehmann, A. Aberglaube und Zauberei von den \u00e4ltesten Zeiten an bis in\n die Gegenwart; deutsche autorisierte Uebersetzung von I. Petersen,\n Stuttgart, 1908. The historical treatment is scanty.\n\nLeminne, J. Les quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, in M\u00e9moires couronn\u00e9s par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie\n Royale de Belgique, vol. 65, Brussels, 1903.\n\nL\u00e9vy, L. G. Maimonide, 1911.\n\nLiechty, R. de. Albert le Grand et saint Thomas d\u2019Aquin, ou la science\n au moyen \u00e2ge, Paris, 1880.\n\nLippmann, E. O. von. Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie, 1919.\n\nLittle, A. G. Initia operum Latinorum quae saeculis XIII, XIV, XV,\n attribuuntur, Manchester, 1904.\n ed. Roger Bacon Essays, contributed by various writers on the occasion\n of the commemoration of the seventh centenary of his birth, Oxford,\n 1914.\n ed. Part of the Opus Tertium of Roger Bacon, including a Fragment now\n printed for the first time, Aberdeen, 1912, in British Society of\n Franciscan Studies, IV.\n\nLoisy. Magie, science et religion, in \u00c0 propos d\u2019histoire des\n religions, 1911, p. 166ff.\n\nMacdonald, D. B. The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, Chicago,\n1909.\n\nMacray, Catalogus codicum MSS Bibliothecae Bodleianae,\n V, Codices Rawlinsonianae, 1862-1900, 5 fascs.; IX, Codices\n Digbeianae, 1883.\n\nMai, A. Classici Auctores, 1835.\n\nM\u00e2le, E. Religious Art in France in the Thirteenth Century, translated\n from the third edition by Dora Nussey, 1913.\n\nMandonnet, P. Des \u00e9crits authentiques de S. Thomas d\u2019Aquin, Fribourg,\n 1910.\n Roger Bacon et la composition des trois Opus, in Revue\n N\u00e9o-Scolastique, Louvain, 1913, pp. 52-68, 164-80.\n Roger Bacon et la Speculum astronomiae, Ibid., XVII (1910) 313-35.\n Siger de Brabant et l\u2019averro\u00efsme latin au XIIIme si\u00e8cle, Fribourg,\n 1899; 2nd edition, Louvain, 1908-1910, 2 vols.\n\nManget, J. J. Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, Geneva, 1702, 2 vols.\n\nManitius, Max. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters,\n Erster Teil, Von Justinian bis zur Mitte des zehnten Jahrhunderts,\n Munich, 1911, in M\u00fcller\u2019s Handbuch d. kl. Alt. Wiss. IX, 2, i.\n\nMann, M. F. Der Bestiaire Divin des Guillaume le Clerc, 1888.\n Der Physiologus des Philipp von Thaon und seine Quellen, 1884.\n\nMappae clavicula, ed. M. A. Way in Archaeologia, London, XXXII (1847)\n 183-244.\n\nMaury, Alfred. La magie et l\u2019astrologie dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et au moyen\n \u00e2ge, 1877. Brief as it is, perhaps the best general history of magic.\n\nMead, G. R. S. Apollonius of Tyana; a critical study of the only\n existing record of his life, 1901.\n Echoes from the Gnosis, 1906, eleven vols.\n Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, 1900.\n Pistis-Sophia, now for the first time Englished, 1896.\n Plotinus, Select Works of, with preface and bibliography, 1909.\n Simon Magus, 1892.\n Thrice Great Hermes, London, 1906, 3 vols.\n\nMedicae artis principes post Hippocratem et Galenum Graeci Latinitate\n donati, ed. Stephanus, 1567.\n\nMedici antiqui omnes qui latinis litteris ... Aldus, Venice, 1547.\n\nM\u00e9ly, F. de et Ruelle, C. E. Les lapidaires de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et du moyen\n \u00e2ge, Paris, 1896. M\u00e9ly has published many other works on gems and\n lapidaries of the past.\n\nMerrifield, Mrs. M. P. Ancient Practice of Painting, or Original\n Treatises dating from the XIIth to XVIIIth centuries on the arts of\n painting, London, 1849.\n\nMeyer, E. Albertus Magnus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Botanik im\n XIII Jahrhundert, in Linnaea, X (1836) 641-741, XI (1837) 545.\n\nMeyer, Karl. Der Aberglaube des Mittelalters und der n\u00e4chstfolgenden\n Jahrhunderte, Basel, 1856.\n\nMigne, Dictionnaire des Apocryphes, Paris, 1856.\n See also under Abbreviations.\n\nMillot-Carpentier, La M\u00e9decine au XIIIe si\u00e8cle, in Annales\n Internationales d\u2019Histoire, Congr\u00e8s de Paris, 1900, 5e Section,\n Histoire des Sciences, pp. 171-96; a chapter from a history of medicine\n which the author\u2019s death unfortunately kept him from completing.\n\nMilward, E. A Letter to the Honourable Sir Hans Sloane, Bart., in\n vindication of the character of those Greek writers in physick that\n flourished after Galen ... particularly that of Alexander Trallian,\n 1733; reprinted as Trallianus Reviviscens, 1734.\n\nMommsen, Th. ed. C. Iulii Solini Collectanea rerum memorabilium, 1895.\n\nMoore, Sir Norman, History of the Study of Medicine in the British\n Isles, 1908.\n The History of St. Bartholomew\u2019s Hospital, London, 1918, 2 vols.\n The Physician in English History, 1913. A popular lecture.\n\nMuratori, L. A. Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, Milan,\n 1738-1742, 6 vols. Edition of 1778 in more vols. Index, Turin, 1885.\n See also under Abbreviations.\n\nNaud\u00e9, Gabriel. Apologie pour tous les grands personnages qui ont est\u00e9\n faussement soup\u00e7onnez de Magie, Paris, 1625.\n\nNeckam, Alexander. De naturis rerum, ed. T. Wright, in RS vol. 34, 1863.\n\nOmont, H. Nouvelles acquisitions du d\u00e9partment des manuscrits pendant\n les ann\u00e9es 1891-1910, Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Paris.\n\nOrr, M. A. (Mrs. John Evershed) Dante and the Early Astronomers,\n London, 1913.\n\nPaetow, L. J. Guide to the Study of Medieval History, University of\n California Press, 1917.\n\nPagel, J. L. Die Concordanciae des Joannes de Sancto Amando, 1894.\n Geschichte der Medizin im Mittelalter, in Puschmann\u2019s Handbuch der\n Geschichte der Medizin, ed. Neuburger u. Pagel, I (1902) 622-752.\n Neue litterarische Beitr\u00e4ge zur mittelalterlichen Medicin, Berlin,\n 1896.\n\nPangerl, A. Studien \u00fcber Albert den Grossen, in Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n katholische Theologie, XXII (1912) 304-46, 512-49, 784-800.\n\nPannier, L. Les lapidaires fran\u00e7ais du moyen \u00e2ge, Paris, 1882.\n\nPayne, J. F. English Medicine in Anglo-Saxon Times, 1904.\n The Relation of Harvey to his Predecessors and especially to Galen:\n Harveian oration of 1896, in The Lancet, Oct. 24, 1896, 1136ff.\n\nPerna. Artis quam chemiam vocant antiquissimi auctores, Basel, 1572.\n\nPerrier, T. La m\u00e9decine astrologique, Lyons, 1905, 88 pp. Slight.\n\nPetrus de Prussia. Vita B. Alberti Magni, 1621.\n\nPetrus Hispanus. Summa experimentorum sive thesaurus pauperum,\n Antwerp, 1497.\n\nPhilips, H. Medicine and Astrology, 1867.\n\nPicavet, F. Esquisse d\u2019une histoire compar\u00e9e des philosophies\n m\u00e9di\u00e9vales, 2nd edition, Paris, 1907.\n\nPico della Mirandola. Opera omnia, 1519.\n\nPistis-Sophia, ed. Schwartze und Petermann, Coptic and Latin, 1851.\n Now for the first time Englished, by G. R. S. Mead, 1896.\n\nPitra, J. B. Analecta novissima, 1885-1888.\n Analecta sacra, 1876-1882.\n Spicilegium solesmense, 1852-1858.\n\nPoisson, Th\u00e9ories et symboles des Alchimistes, Paris, 1891.\n\nPoole, R. L. Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought in the\n Departments of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics, 1884; revised\n edition, 1920.\n The Masters of the Schools at Paris and Chartres in John of\n Salisbury\u2019s Time, in EHR XXXV (1920) 321-42.\n\nPouchet, F. A. Histoire des sciences naturelles au moyen \u00e2ge, ou Albert\n le Grand et son \u00e9poque consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme point de d\u00e9part de l\u2019\u00e9cole\n exp\u00e9rimentale, Paris, 1853.\n\nPtolemy. Quadripartitum, 1484, and other editions.\n Optica, ed. G. Govi, Turin, 1885.\n\nPuccinotti, F. Storia della Medicina, 1850-1870, 3 vols.\n\nPuschmann, Th. Alexander von Tralles, Originaltext und Uebersetzung\n nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung, Vienna, 1878-1879.\n Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin, Jena, 1902-1905, 3 vols. Really\n a cooperative work under the editorship of Max Neuburger and Julius\n Pagel after Puschmann\u2019s death.\n A History of Medical Education from the most remote to the most recent\n times, London, 1891, English translation.\n\nQuetif, J. et Echard J. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, Paris, 1719.\n\nRambosson, A. Histoire et l\u00e9gendes des plantes, Paris, 1887.\n\nRashdall, H. ed. Fratris Rogeri Bacon Compendium Studii Theologiae,\n 1911.\n The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1895, 3 vols.\n in 2.\n\nRasis (Muhammad ibn Zakariya) Opera, Milan, 1481, and Bergamo, 1497.\n\nRegnault, J. La sorcellerie: ses rapports avec les sciences\n biologiques, 1897, 345 pp.\n\nReitzenstein, R. Poimandres, Leipzig, 1904.\n\nRenzi, S. de. Collectio Salernitana, 1852-1859, 5 vols.\n\nRose, Valentin. Anecdota graeca et graeco-latina, Berlin, 1864.\n Aristoteles De lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo, in Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n deutsches Alterthum, XVIII (1875) 321-447.\n Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo, in Hermes, VIII (1874) 327-49.\n ed. Plinii Secundi Iunioris de medicina libri tres, Leipzig, 1875.\n Ueber die Medicina Plinii, in Hermes, VIII (1874) 19-66.\n Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der K. Bibliothek zu\n Berlin, Band XII (1893), XIII (1902-1903-1905).\n\nRuska, J. Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles ... nach der arabischen\n Handschrift, Heidelberg, 1912.\n Der diamant in der Medizin, in Deutsche Gesell. f. Gesch. d. Mediz. u.\n d. Naturwiss., Zwanzig Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Mediz., 1908.\n Zur \u00e4lteren arabischen Algebra und Rechenkunst, Heidelberg, 1917.\n\nRydberg, V. The Magic of the Middle Ages, 1879, translated from the\n Swedish. Popular.\n\nSalverte, E. Des sciences occultes, ou essai sur la magie, Paris, 1843.\n\nS\u00e1nchez P\u00e9rez, J. A. Biograf\u00edas de Matem\u00e1ticos \u00c1rabes que florecieron\n en Espa\u00f1a, Madrid, 1921.\n\nSchanz, M. Geschichte der R\u00f6mischen Litteratur, Dritter Teil, Munich,\n 1905; Vierter Teil, Erste H\u00e4lfte, Munich, 1914, in M\u00fcller\u2019s Handbuch\n d. klass. Alt. Wiss., VIII, 3.\n\nSchepss, G. ed. Priscilliani quae supersunt, 1889.\n\nSchindler. Der Aberglaube des Mittelalters, Breslau, 1858.\n\nSchmid, W. Die Nachklassiche Periode der Griechischen Litteratur,\n 1913, in M\u00fcller\u2019s Handb. d. kl. Alt. Wiss., VII, ii, 2.\n\nSchum, W. Beschriebendes Verzeichnis der Amplonianischen\n Handschriften-Sammlung zu Erfurt, Berlin, 1887.\n\nSighart, J. Albertus Magnus: sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft,\n Ratisbon, 1857; French translation, Paris, 1862; partial English\n translation by T. A. Dixon, London, 1876.\n\nSinger, Charles. Early English Magic and Medicine, 1920, 34 pp.\n\n\u201cScience,\u201d pp. 106-48 in \u201cMedieval Contributions to Modern\n Civilization,\u201d ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw, 1921.\n\nStudies in the History and Method of Science, Oxford, 1917; a second\n volume appeared in May, 1921.\n\nStapper, Richard. Papst Johannes XXI, M\u00fcnster, 1898, in Kirchengesch.\n Studien herausg. v. Dr. Kn\u00f6pfler, IV, 4.\n\nSteele, R. Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, 1905-1920.\n\nSteinschneider, Moritz. Abraham ibn Ezra, in Abhandl., (1880) 57-128.\n Apollonius von Thyana (oder Balinas) bei den Arabern, in Zeitschrift\n d. deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft, XLV (1891) 439-46.\n Arabische Lapidarien, Ibid., XLIX (1895).\n Constantinus Africanus und seine arabischen Quellen, in Virchow\u2019s\n Archiv f\u00fcr pathologische Anatomie, etc., Berlin, XXXVII (1866) 351-410.\n Der Aberglaube, Hamburg, 1900, 34 pp.\n Die europ\u00e4ischen Uebersetzungen aus dem Arabischen bis Mitte des 17\n Jahrhunderts, in Sitzungsberichte d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.\n Hist. Klasse, Vienna, CXLIX, 4 (1905); CLI, 1 (1906).\n Lapidarien, ein culturgeschichtlicher Versuch, in Semitic Studies in\n memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, Berlin, 1897, pp. 42-72.\n Maschallah, in Zeitsch. d. deut. morgenl. Gesell., LIII (1899), 434-40.\n Zum Speculum astronomicum des Albertus Magnus \u00fcber die darin\n angef\u00fchrten Schriftsteller und Schriften, in Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n Mathematik und Physik, Leipzig, XVI (1871) 357-96.\n Zur alchimistischen Literatur der Araber, in Zeitsch. d. deut.\n morgenl. Gesell., LVIII (1904) 299-315.\n Zur pseudepigraphischen Literatur insbesondere der geheimen\n Wissenschaften des Mittelalters; aus hebr\u00e4ischen und arabischen\n Quellen, Berlin, 1862.\n\nStephanus, H. Medicae artis principes post Hippocratem et Galenum\n Graeci Latinitate donati, et Latini, 1567.\n\nStrunz, Franz. Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter,\n Stuttgart, 1910, 120 pp. Without index or references.\n\nStudien zur Geschichte der Medizin herausgegeben von der\n Puschmann-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Leipzig, 1907-.\n\nSudhoff, Karl. His various articles in the foregoing publication\n and other periodicals of which he is an editor lie in large measure\n just outside our period and field, but some will be noted later in\n particular chapters.\n\nSuter, H. Die Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber, in Abhandl., X\n (1900) 1-277; XIV (1902) 257-85.\n Die astronomischen Tafeln des Muhammed ibn Musa-al-Khwarizmi,\n Copenhagen, 1914.\n\nTanner, T. Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, London, 1748. Still much\n cited but largely antiquated and unreliable.\n\nTavenner, E. Studies in Magic from Latin Literature, New York, 1916.\n\nTaylor, H. O. The Classical Heritage, 1901.\n The Medieval Mind, 2nd edition, 1914, 2 vols; 3rd edition, 1919.\n\nTheatrum chemicum. See Zetzner.\n\nTheatrum chemicum Britannicum. See Ashmole.\n\nTheophilus Presbyter, Schedula diversarum artium, ed. A. Ilg, Vienna,\n 1874; English translation by R. Hendrie, London, 1847.\n\nThomas of Cantimpr\u00e9, Bonum universale de apibus, 1516.\n\nThompson, D\u2019Arcy W. Aristotle as a Biologist, 1913.\n Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford, 1895.\n Historia animalium, Oxford, 1910; vol. IV in the English translation\n of The Works of Aristotle edited by J. A. Smith and W. D. Ross.\n\nThorndike, Lynn. Adelard of Bath and the Continuity of Universal\n Nature, in Nature, XCIV (1915) 616-7.\n A Roman Astrologer as a Historical Source: Julius Firmicus Maternus,\n in Classical Philology, VIII (1913) 415-35.\n Natural Science in the Middle Ages, in Popular Science Monthly (now\n The Scientific Monthly), LXXXVII (1915) 271-91.\n Roger Bacon and Gunpowder, in Science, XLII (1915), 799-800.\n Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages, in The\n Philosophical Review, XXIII (1914), 271-98.\n Some Medieval Conceptions of Magic, in The Monist, XXV (1915), 107-39.\n The Attitude of Origen and Augustine toward Magic, in The Monist, XIX\n (1908), 46-66.\n The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe, Columbia\n University Press, 1905.\n The True Roger Bacon, in American Historical Review, XXI (1916),\n 237-57, 468-80.\n\nTiraboschi. Storia della Letteratura Italiana, Modena, 1772-1795.\n\nTischendorf, C. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, Leipzig, 1851.\n Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipzig, 1876.\n\nT\u00f6ply, R. von. Studien zur Geschichte der Anatomie im Mittelalter, 1898.\n\nUnger, F. Die Pflanze als Zaubermittel, Vienna, 1859.\n\nVacant, A. et Mangenot, E. Dictionnaire de th\u00e9ologie catholique, Paris,\n 1909-.\n\nValentinelli, J. Bibliotheca manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum,\n Venice, 1868-1876, 6 vols.\n\nValois, No\u00ebl. Guillaume d\u2019Auvergne, \u00e9v\u00eaque de Paris, 1228-1249. Sa vie\n et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1880.\n\nVincent of Beauvais. Speculum doctrinale, 1472 (?).\n Speculum historiale, 1473.\n Speculum naturale, Anth. Koburger, N\u00fcrnberg, 1485.\n\nVossius, G. J. De Universae Matheseos natura et constitutione liber,\n Amsterdam, 1650.\n\nWalsh, J. J. Medieval Medicine, 1920, 221 pp.\n Old Time Makers of Medicine; the story of the students and teachers\n of the sciences related to medicine during the middle ages, New York,\n 1911. Popular.\n The Popes and Science, 1908.\n\nWebb, C. C. I. See John of Salisbury.\n\nWebster, Hutton. Rest Days, 1916.\n\nWedel, T. C. The Medieval Attitude toward Astrology particularly in\n England, Yale University Press, 1920.\n\nWellmann, Max. ed. Dioscorides de materia medica, 1907, 1906.\n Die Schrift des Dioskurides \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, 1914.\n\nWhite, A.\u202fD. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in\n Christendom, New York, 1896, 2 vols.\n\nWickersheimer, Ernest. Figures m\u00e9dico-astrologiques des neuvi\u00e8me,\n dixi\u00e8me et onzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cles, in Transactions of the Seventeenth\n International Congress of Medicine,\n Section XXIII, History of Medicine, London, 1913, p. 313 ff.\n\nWilliam of Auvergne. Opera omnia, Venice, 1591.\n\nWithington, E. T. Medical History from the Earliest Times, London,\n 1894.\n\nWright, Thomas. Popular Treatises on Science written during the middle\n ages in Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and English, London, 1841.\n ed. Alexander Neckam De naturis rerum, in RS vol. 34, 1863.\n\nWulf, M. de. History of Medieval Philosophy, 1909, English translation.\n\nW\u00fcstenfeld, F. Geschichte der Arabischen Aerzte und Naturforscher,\n G\u00f6ttingen, 1840.\n\nYule, Sir Henry. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, third edition revised by\n Henri Cordier, 2 vols., London, 1903.\n\nZarncke, F. Der Priester Johannes, in Abhandl. d. philol.-hist. Classe,\n Kgl. S\u00e4chs. Gesell. d. Wiss., VII (1879), 627-1030; VIII (1883), 1-186.\n\nZetzner, L. Theatrum chemicum, 1613-1622, 6 vols.\n\n\n\n\n A HISTORY OF MAGIC AND EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE\n\n _VOLUME I_\n\n\n\n\n A HISTORY OF MAGIC AND EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE AND THEIR RELATION TO\n CHRISTIAN THOUGHT DURING THE FIRST THIRTEEN CENTURIES OF OUR ERA\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Aim of this book\u2014Period covered\u2014How to study the history of\n thought\u2014Definition of magic\u2014Magic of primitive man; does civilization\n originate in magic?\u2014Divination in early China\u2014Magic in ancient\n Egypt\u2014Magic and Egyptian religion\u2014Mortuary magic\u2014Magic in daily\n life\u2014Power of words, images, amulets\u2014Magic in Egyptian medicine\u2014Demons\n and disease\u2014Magic and science\u2014Magic and industry\u2014Alchemy\u2014Divination\n and astrology\u2014The sources for Assyrian and Babylonian magic\u2014Was\n astrology Sumerian or Chaldean?\u2014The number seven in early\n Babylonia\u2014Incantation texts older than astrological\u2014Other divination\n than astrology\u2014Incantations against sorcery and demons\u2014A specimen\n incantation\u2014Materials and devices of magic\u2014Greek culture not free from\n magic\u2014Magic in myth, literature, and history\u2014Simultaneous increase\n of learning and occult science\u2014Magic origin urged for Greek religion\n and drama\u2014Magic in Greek philosophy\u2014Plato\u2019s attitude toward magic and\n astrology\u2014Aristotle on stars and spirits\u2014Folk-lore in the _History\n of Animals_\u2014Differing modes of transmission of ancient oriental and\n Greek literature\u2014More magical character of directly transmitted\n Greek remains\u2014Progress of science among the Greeks\u2014Archimedes and\n Aristotle\u2014Exaggerated view of the scientific achievement of the\n Hellenistic age\u2014Appendix I. Some works on Magic, Religion, and\n Astronomy in Babylonia and Assyria.\n\n \u201c_Magic has existed among all peoples and at every\n period._\u201d\u2014_Hegel._[3]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Aim of this book.]\n\nThis book aims to treat the history of magic and experimental science\nand their relations to Christian thought during the first thirteen\ncenturies of our era, with especial emphasis upon the twelfth and\nthirteenth centuries. No adequate survey of the history of either\nmagic or experimental science exists for this period, and considerable\nuse of manuscript material has been necessary for the medieval period.\nMagic is here understood in the broadest sense of the word, as\nincluding all occult arts and sciences, superstitions, and folk-lore.\nI shall endeavor to justify this use of the word from the sources as\nI proceed. My idea is that magic and experimental science have been\nconnected in their development; that magicians were perhaps the first\nto experiment; and that the history of both magic and experimental\nscience can be better understood by studying them together. I also\ndesire to make clearer than it has been to most scholars the Latin\nlearning of the medieval period, whose leading personalities even\nare generally inaccurately known, and on perhaps no one point is\nillumination more needed than on that covered by our investigation.\nThe subject of laws against magic, popular practice of magic, the\nwitchcraft delusion and persecution lie outside of the scope of this\nbook.[4]\n\n[Sidenote: Period covered.]\n\nAt first my plan was to limit this investigation to the twelfth and\nthirteenth centuries, the time of greatest medieval productivity, but I\nbecame convinced that this period could be best understood by viewing\nit in the setting of the Greek, Latin, and early Christian writers to\nwhom it owed so much. If the student of the Byzantine Empire needs\nto know old Rome, the student of the medieval church to comprehend\nearly Christianity, the student of Romance languages to understand\nLatin, still more must the reader of Constantinus Africanus, Vincent\nof Beauvais, Guido Bonatti, and Thomas Aquinas be familiar with the\nPliny, Galen, and Ptolemy, the Origen and Augustine, the Alkindi and\nAlbumasar from whom they drew. It would indeed be difficult to draw a\nline anywhere between them. The ancient authors are generally extant\nonly in their medieval form; in some cases there is reason to suspect\nthat they have undergone alteration or addition; sometimes new works\nwere fathered upon them. In any case they have been preserved to us\nbecause the middle ages studied and cherished them, and to a great\nextent made them their own. I begin with the first century of our\nera, because Christian thought begins then, and then appeared Pliny\u2019s\n_Natural History_ which seems to me the best starting point of a\nsurvey of ancient science and magic.[5] I close with the thirteenth\ncentury, or, more strictly speaking, in the course of the fourteenth,\nbecause by then the medieval revival of learning had spent its force.\nAttention is centred on magic and experimental science in western Latin\nliterature and learning, Greek and Arabic works being considered as\nthey contributed thereto, and vernacular literature being omitted as\neither derived from Latin works or unlearned and unscientific.\n\n[Sidenote: How to study the history of thought.]\n\nVery probably I have tried to cover too much ground and have made\nserious omissions. It is probably true that for the history of thought\nas for the history of art the evidence and source material is more\nabundant than for political or economic history. But fortunately it is\nmore reliable, since the pursuit of truth or beauty does not encourage\ndeception and prejudice as does the pursuit of wealth or power. Also\nthe history of thought is more unified and consistent, steadier and\nmore regular, than the fluctuations and diversities of political\nhistory; and for this reason its general outlines can be discerned\nwith reasonable sureness by the examination of even a limited number\nof examples, provided they are properly selected from a period of\nsufficient duration. Moreover, it seems to me that in the present stage\nof research into and knowledge of our subject sounder conclusions and\neven more novel ones can be drawn by a wide comparative survey than by\na minutely intensive and exhaustive study of one man or of a few years.\nThe danger is of writing from too narrow a viewpoint, magnifying unduly\nthe importance of some one man or theory, and failing to evaluate the\nfacts in their full historical setting. No medieval writer whether on\nscience or magic can be understood by himself, but must be measured in\nrespect to his surroundings and antecedents.\n\n[Sidenote: Definition of magic.]\n\nSome may think it strange that I associate magic so closely with the\nhistory of thought, but the word comes from the _Magi_ or wise men of\nPersia or Babylon, to whose lore and practices the name was applied\nby the Greeks and Romans, or possibly we may trace its etymology a\nlittle farther back to the Sumerian or Turanian word _imga_ or _unga_,\nmeaning deep or profound. The exact meaning of the word, \u201cmagic,\u201d was\na matter of much uncertainty even in classical and medieval times,\nas we shall see. There can be no doubt, however, that it was then\napplied not merely to an operative art, but also to a mass of ideas or\ndoctrine, and that it represented a way of looking at the world. This\nside of magic has sometimes been lost sight of in hasty or assumed\nmodern definitions which seem to regard magic as merely a collection\nof rites and feats. In the case of primitive men and savages it is\npossible that little thought accompanies their actions. But until these\nacts are based upon or related to some imaginative, purposive, and\nrational thinking, the doings of early man cannot be distinguished as\neither religious or scientific or magical. Beavers build dams, birds\nbuild nests, ants excavate, but they have no magic just as they have\nno science or religion. Magic implies a mental state and so may be\nviewed from the standpoint of the history of thought. In process of\ntime, as the learned and educated lost faith in magic, it was degraded\nto the low practices and beliefs of the ignorant and vulgar. It was\nthis use of the term that was taken up by anthropologists and by them\napplied to analogous doings and notions of primitive men and savages.\nBut we may go too far in regarding magic as a purely social product\nof tribal society: magicians may be, in Sir James Frazer\u2019s words,[6]\n\u201cthe only professional class\u201d among the lowest savages, but note that\nthey rank as a learned profession from the start. It will be chiefly\nthrough the writings of learned men that something of their later\nhistory and of the growth of interest in experimental science will be\ntraced in this work. Let me add that in this investigation all arts of\ndivination, including astrology, will be reckoned as magic; I have been\nquite unable to separate the two either in fact or logic, as I shall\nillustrate repeatedly by particular cases.[7]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic of primitive man: does civilization originate in\nmagic?]\n\nMagic is very old, and it will perhaps be well in this introductory\nchapter to present it to the reader, if not in its infancy\u2014for its\norigins are much disputed and perhaps antecede all record and escape\nall observation\u2014at least some centuries before its Roman and medieval\ndays. Sir J. G. Frazer, in a passage of _The Golden Bough_ to which\nwe have already referred, remarks that \u201csorcerers are found in every\nsavage tribe known to us; and among the lowest savages ... they are\nthe only professional class that exists.\u201d[8] Lenormant affirmed in his\n_Chaldean Magic and Sorcery_[9] that \u201call magic rests upon a system\nof religious belief,\u201d but recent sociologists and anthropologists\nhave inclined to regard magic as older than a belief in gods. At any\nrate some of the most primitive features of historical religions seem\nto have originated from magic. Moreover, religious cults, rites, and\npriesthoods are not the only things that have been declared inferior\nin antiquity to magic and largely indebted to it for their origins.\nCombarieu in his _Music and Magic_[10] asserts that the incantation\nis universally employed in all the circumstances of primitive life\nand that from it, by the medium it is true of religious poetry, all\nmodern music has developed. The magic incantation is, in short,\n\u201cthe oldest fact in the history of civilization.\u201d Although the\nmagician chants without thought of \u00e6sthetic form or an artistically\nappreciative audience, yet his spell contains in embryo all that later\nconstitutes the art of music.[11] M. Paul Huvelin, after asserting with\nsimilar confidence that poetry,[12] the plastic arts,[13] medicine,\nmathematics, astronomy, and chemistry \u201chave easily discernable magic\nsources,\u201d states that he will demonstrate that the same is true of\nlaw.[14] Very recently, however, there has been something of a reaction\nagainst this tendency to regard the life of primitive man as made up\nentirely of magic and to trace back every phase of civilization to a\nmagical origin. But R. R. Marett still sees a higher standard of value\nin primitive man\u2019s magic than in his warfare and brutal exploitation of\nhis fellows and believes that the \u201chigher plane of experience for which\n_mana_ stands is one in which spiritual enlargement is appreciated for\nits own sake.\u201d[15]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination in early China.]\n\nOf the five classics included in the Confucian Canon, _The Book of\nChanges_ (_I Ching_ or _Yi-King_), regarded by some as the oldest work\nin Chinese literature and dated back as early as 3000 B.C., in its\nrudimentary form appears to have been a method of divination by means\nof eight possible combinations in triplets of a line and a broken line.\nThus, if _a_ be a line and _b_ a broken line, we may have _aaa_, _bbb_,\n_aab_, _bba_, _abb_, _baa_, _aba_, and _bab_. Possibly there is a\nconnection with the use of knotted cords which, Chinese writers state,\npreceded written characters, like the method used in ancient Peru. More\ncertain would seem the resemblance to the medieval method of divination\nknown as geomancy, which we shall encounter later in our Latin authors.\nMagic and astrology might, of course, be traced all through Chinese\nhistory and literature. But, contenting ourselves with this single\nexample of the antiquity of such arts in the civilization of the far\neast, let us turn to other ancient cultures which had a closer and more\nunmistakable influence upon the western world.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in ancient Egypt.]\n\nOf the ancient Egyptians Budge writes, \u201cThe belief in magic influenced\ntheir minds ... from the earliest to the latest period of their history\n... in a manner which, at this stage in the history of the world, is\nvery difficult to understand.\u201d[16] To the ordinary historical student\nthe evidence for this assertion does not seem quite so overwhelming\nas the Egyptologists would have us think. It looks thinner when we\nbegin to spread it out over a stretch of four thousand years, and it\nscarcely seems scientific to adduce details from medieval Arabic tales\nor from the late Greek fiction of the Pseudo-Callisthenes or from\npapyri of the Christian era concerning the magic of early Egypt. And it\nmay be questioned whether two stories preserved in the Westcar papyrus,\nwritten many centuries afterwards, are alone \u201csufficient to prove that\nalready in the Fourth Dynasty the working of magic was a recognized art\namong the Egyptians.\u201d[17]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and Egyptian religion.]\n\nAt any rate we are told that the belief in magic not only was\npredynastic and prehistoric, but was \u201colder in Egypt than the belief\nin God.\u201d[18] In the later religion of the Egyptians, along with more\nlofty and intellectual conceptions, magic was still a principal\ningredient.[19] Their mythology was affected by it[20] and they not\nonly combated demons with magical formulae but believed that they could\nterrify and coerce the very gods by the same method, compelling them to\nappear, to violate the course of nature by miracles, or to admit the\nhuman soul to an equality with themselves.[21]\n\n[Sidenote: Mortuary magic.]\n\nMagic was as essential in the future life as here on earth among the\nliving. Many, if not most, of the observances and objects connected\nwith embalming and burial had a magic purpose or mode of operation; for\ninstance, the \u201cmagic eyes placed over the opening in the side of the\nbody through which the embalmer removed the intestines,\u201d[22] or the\nmannikins and models of houses buried with the dead. In the process of\nembalming the wrapping of each bandage was accompanied by the utterance\nof magic words.[23] In \u201cthe oldest chapter of human thought extant\u201d\u2014the\nPyramid Texts written in hieroglyphic at the tombs at Sakkara of\nPharaohs of the fifth and sixth dynasties (c. 2625-2475 B.C.), magic\nis so manifest that some have averred \u201cthat the whole body of Pyramid\nTexts is simply a collection of magical charms.\u201d[24] The scenes and\nobjects painted on the walls of the tombs, such as those of nobles in\nthe fifth and sixth dynasties, were employed with magic intent and were\nmeant to be realized in the future life; and with the twelfth dynasty\nthe Egyptians began to paint on the insides of the coffins the objects\nthat were formerly actually placed within.[25] Under the Empire the\nfamous _Book of the Dead_ is a collection of magic pictures, charms,\nand incantations for the use of the deceased in the hereafter,[26] and\nwhile it is not of the early period, we hear that \u201ca book with words of\nmagic power\u201d was buried with a pharaoh of the Old Kingdom. Budge has\n\u201cno doubt that the object of every religious text ever written on tomb,\nstele, amulet, coffin, papyrus, etc., was to bring the gods under the\npower of the deceased, so that he might be able to compel them to do\nhis will.\u201d[27] Breasted, on the other hand, thinks that the amount and\ncomplexity of this mortuary magic increased greatly in the later period\nunder popular and priestly influence.[28]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in daily life.]\n\nBreasted nevertheless believes that magic had played a great part in\ndaily life throughout the whole course of Egyptian history. He writes,\n\u201cIt is difficult for the modern mind to understand how completely the\nbelief in magic penetrated the whole substance of life, dominating\npopular custom and constantly appearing in the simplest acts of the\ndaily household routine, as much a matter of course as sleep or the\npreparation of food. It constituted the very atmosphere in which the\nmen of the early oriental world lived. Without the saving and salutary\ninfluence of such magical agencies constantly invoked, the life of an\nancient household in the East was unthinkable.\u201d[29]\n\n[Sidenote: Power of words, images, amulets.]\n\nMost of the main features and varieties of magic known to us at\nother times and places appear somewhere in the course of Egypt\u2019s\nlong history. For one thing we find the ascription of magic power to\nwords and names. The power of words, says Budge, was thought to be\npractically unlimited, and \u201cthe Egyptians invoked their aid in the\nsmallest as well as in the greatest events of their life.\u201d[30] Words\nmight be spoken, in which case they \u201cmust be uttered in a proper\ntone of voice by a duly qualified man,\u201d or they might be written,\nin which case the material upon which they were written might be of\nimportance.[31] In speaking of mortuary magic we have already noted the\nemployment of pictures, models, mannikins, and other images, figures,\nand objects. Wax figures were also used in sorcery,[32] and amulets\nare found from the first, although their particular forms seem to have\naltered with different periods.[33] Scarabs are of course the most\nfamiliar example.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in Egyptian medicine.]\n\nEgyptian medicine was full of magic and ritual and its therapeusis\nconsisted mainly of \u201ccollections of incantations and weird random\nmixtures of roots and refuse.\u201d[34] Already we find the recipe and\nthe occult virtue conceptions, the elaborate polypharmacy and the\naccompanying hocus-pocus which we shall meet in Pliny and the middle\nages. The Egyptian doctors used herbs from other countries and\npreferred compound medicines containing a dozen ingredients to simple\nmedicines.[35] Already we find such magic logic as that the hair of\na black calf will keep one from growing gray.[36] Already the parts\nof animals are a favorite ingredient in medical compounds, especially\nthose connected with the organs of generation, on which account they\nwere presumably looked upon as life-giving, or those which were\nrecommended mainly by their nastiness and were probably thought to\nexpel the demons of disease by their disagreeable properties.\n\n[Sidenote: Demons and disease.]\n\nIn ancient Egypt, however, disease seems not to have been identified\nwith possession by demons to the extent that it was in ancient Assyria\nand Babylonia. While Breasted asserts that \u201cdisease was due to hostile\nspirits and against these only magic could avail,\u201d[37] Budge contents\nhimself with the more cautious statement that there is \u201cgood reason\nfor thinking that some diseases were attributed to ... evil spirits\n... entering ... human bodies ... but the texts do not afford much\ninformation\u201d[38] on this point. Certainly the beliefs in evil spirits\nand in magic do not always have to go together, and magic might be\nemployed against disease whether or not it was ascribed to a demon.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and science.]\n\nIn the case of medicine as in that of religion Breasted takes the view\nthat the amount of magic became greater in the Middle and New Kingdoms\nthan in the Old Kingdom. This is true so far as the amount of space\noccupied by it in extant records is concerned. But it would be rash to\nassume that this marks a decline from a more rational and scientific\nattitude in the Old Kingdom. Yet Breasted rather gives this impression\nwhen he writes concerning the Old Kingdom that many of its recipes\nwere useful and rational, that \u201cmedicine was already in the possession\nof much empirical wisdom, displaying close and accurate observation,\u201d\nand that what \u201cprecluded any progress toward real science was the\nbelief in magic, which later began to dominate all the practice of the\nphysician.\u201d[39] Berthelot probably places the emphasis more correctly\nwhen he states that the later medical papyri \u201cinclude traditional\nrecipes, founded on an empiricism which is not always correct, mystic\nremedies, based upon the most bizarre analogies, and magic practices\nthat date back to the remotest antiquity.\u201d[40] The recent efforts of\nSethe and Wilcken, of Elliot Smith, M\u00fcller, and Hooten to show that the\nancient Egyptians possessed a considerable amount of medical knowledge\nand of surgical and dental skill, have been held by Todd to rest on\nslight and dubious evidence. Indeed, some of this evidence seems rather\nto suggest the ritualistic practices still employed by uncivilized\nAfrican tribes. Certainly the evidence for any real scientific\ndevelopment in ancient Egypt has been very meager compared with the\nabundant indications of the prevalence of magic.[41]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and industry.]\n\nEarly Egypt was the home of many arts and industries, but not in so\nadvanced a stage as has sometimes been suggested. Blown glass, for\nexample, was unknown until late Greek and Roman times, and the supposed\nglass-blowers depicted on the early monuments are really smiths engaged\nin stirring their fires by blowing through reeds tipped with clay.[42]\nOn the other hand, Professor Breasted informs me that there is no basis\nfor Berthelot\u2019s statement that \u201cevery sort of chemical process as well\nas medical treatment was executed with an accompaniment of religious\nformulae, of prayers and incantations, regarded as essential to the\nsuccess of operations as well as the cure of maladies.\u201d[43]\n\n[Sidenote: Alchemy.]\n\nAlchemy perhaps originated on the one hand from the practices of\nEgyptian goldsmiths and workers in metals, who experimented with\nalloys,[44] and on the other hand from the theories of the Greek\nphilosophers concerning world-grounds, first matter, and the\nelements.[45] The words, alchemy and chemistry, are derived ultimately\nfrom the name of Egypt itself, Kamt or Qemt, meaning literally black,\nand applied to the Nile mud. The word was also applied to the black\npowder produced by quicksilver in Egyptian metallurgical processes.\nThis powder, Budge says, was supposed to be the ground of all metals\nand to possess marvelous virtue, \u201cand was mystically identified with\nthe body which Osiris possessed in the underworld, and both were\nthought to be sources of life and power.\u201d[46] The analogy to the\nsacrament of the mass and the marvelous powers ascribed to the host\nby medieval preachers like Stephen of Bourbon scarcely needs remark.\nThe later writers on alchemy in Greek appear to have borrowed signs\nand phraseology from the Egyptian priests, and are fond of speaking\nof their art as the monopoly of Egyptian kings and priests who carved\nits secrets on ancient steles and obelisks. In a treatise dating from\nthe twelfth dynasty a scribe recommends to his son a work entitled\n_Chemi_, but there is no proof that it was concerned with chemistry\nor alchemy.[47] The papyri containing treatises of alchemy are of the\nthird century of the Christian era.\n\n[Sidenote: Divination and astrology.]\n\nEvidences of divination in general and of astrology in particular do\nnot appear as early in Egyptian records as examples of other varieties\nof magic. Yet the early date at which Egypt had a calendar suggests\nastronomical interest, and even those who deny that seven planets were\ndistinguished in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley until the last millennium\nbefore Christ, admit that they were known in Egypt as far back as\nthe Old Kingdom, although they deny the existence of a science of\nastronomy or an art of astrology then.[48] A dream of Thotmes IV is\npreserved from 1450 B.C. or thereabouts, and the incantations employed\nby magicians in order to procure divining dreams for their customers\nattest the close connection of divination and magic.[49] Belief in\nlucky and unlucky days is shown in a papyrus calendar of about 1300\nB.C.,[50] and we shall see later that \u201cEgyptian Days\u201d continued to be\na favorite superstition of the middle ages. Tables of the risings of\nstars which may have an astrological significance have been found in\ngraves, and there were gods for every month, every day of the month,\nand every hour of the day.[51] Such numbers as seven and twelve are\nfrequently emphasized in the tombs and elsewhere, and if the vaulted\nceiling in the tenth chamber of the tomb of Sethos is really of his\ntime, we seem to find the signs of the zodiac under the nineteenth\ndynasty. If Boll is correct in suggesting that the zodiac originated in\nthe transfer of animal gods to the sky,[52] no fitter place than Egypt\ncould be found for the transfer. But there have not yet been discovered\nin Egypt lists of omens and appearances of constellations on days of\ndisaster such as are found in the literature of the Tigris-Euphrates\nvalley and in the Roman historians. Budge speaks of the seven Hathor\ngoddesses who predict the death that the infant must some time die, and\naffirms that \u201cthe Egyptians believed that a man\u2019s fate ... was decided\nbefore he was born, and that he had no power to alter it.\u201d[53] But I\ncannot agree that \u201cwe have good reason for assigning the birthplace of\nthe horoscope to Egypt,\u201d[54] since the evidence seems to be limited to\nthe almost medieval Pseudo-Callisthenes and a Greek horoscope in the\nBritish Museum to which is attached the letter of an astrologer urging\nhis pupil to study the ancient Egyptians carefully. The later Greek and\nLatin tradition that astrology was the invention of the divine men of\nEgypt and Babylon probably has a basis of fact, but more contemporary\nevidence is needed if Egypt is to contest the claim of Babylon to\nprecedence in that art.\n\n[Sidenote: The sources for Assyrian and Babylonian magic.]\n\nIn the written remains of Babylonian and Assyrian civilization[55] the\nmagic cuneiform tablets play a large part and give us the impression\nthat fear of demons was a leading feature of Assyrian and Babylonian\nreligion and that daily thought and life were constantly affected by\nmagic. The bulk of the religious and magical texts are preserved in\nthe library of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria from 668 to 626 B.C.\nBut he collected his library from the ancient temple cities, the\nscribes tell us that they are copying very ancient texts, and the\nSumerian language is still largely employed.[56] Eridu, one of the\nmain centers of early Sumerian culture, \u201cwas an immemorial home of\nancient wisdom, that is to say, magic.\u201d[57] It is, however, difficult\nin the library of Assurbanipal to distinguish what is Babylonian from\nwhat is Assyrian or what is Sumerian from what is Semitic. Thus we are\ntold that \u201cwith the exception of some very ancient texts, the Sumerian\nliterature, consisting largely of religious material such as hymns\nand incantations, shows a number of Semitic loanwords and grammatical\nSemitisms, and in many cases, although not always, is quite patently\na translation of Semitic ideas by Semitic priests into the formal\nreligious Sumerian language.\u201d[58]\n\n[Sidenote: Was astrology Sumerian or Chaldean?]\n\nThe chief point in dispute, over which great controversy has taken\nplace recently among German scholars, is as to the antiquity of both\nastronomical knowledge and astrological doctrine, including astral\ntheology, among the dwellers in the Tigris-Euphrates region. Briefly,\nsuch writers as Winckler, St\u00fccken, and Jeremias held that the religion\nof the early Babylonians was largely based on astrology and that all\ntheir thought was permeated by it, and that they had probably by an\nearly date made astronomical observations and acquired astronomical\nknowledge which was lost in the decline of their culture. Opposing\nthis view, such scholars as Kugler, Bezold, Boll, and Schiaparelli\nhave shown the lack of certain evidence for either any considerable\nastronomical knowledge or astrological theory in the Tigris-Euphrates\nValley until the late appearance of the Chaldeans. It is even denied\nthat the seven planets were distinguished in the early period, much\nless the signs of the zodiac or the planetary week,[59] which last,\ntogether with any real advance in astronomy, is reserved for the\nHellenistic period.\n\n[Sidenote: The number seven in early Babylonia.]\n\nYet the prominence of the number seven in myth, religion, and magic\nis indisputable in the third millennium before our era. For instance,\nin the old Babylonian epic of creation there are seven winds, seven\nspirits of storms, seven evil diseases, seven divisions of the\nunderworld closed by seven doors, seven zones of the upper world\nand sky, and so on. We are told, however, that the staged towers of\nBabylonia, which are said to have symbolized for millenniums the\nsacred Hebdomad, did not always have seven stages.[60] But the number\nseven was undoubtedly of frequent occurrence, of a sacred and mystic\ncharacter, and virtue and perfection were ascribed to it. And no one\nhas succeeded in giving any satisfactory explanation for this other\nthan the rule of the seven planets over our world. This also applies\nto the sanctity of the number seven in the Old Testament[61] and\nthe emphasis upon it in Hesiod, the Odyssey, and other early Greek\nsources.[62]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantation texts older than the astrological.]\n\nHowever that may be, the tendency prevailing at present is to regard\nastrology as a relatively late development introduced by the Semitic\nChaldeans. Lenormant held that writing and magic were a Turanian or\nSumerian (Accadian) contribution to Babylonian civilization, but that\nastronomy and astrology were Semitic innovations. Jastrow thinks that\nthere was slight difference between the religion of Assyria and that of\nBabylonia, and that astral theology played a great part in both; but\nhe grants that the older incantation texts are less influenced by this\nastral theology. L. W. King says, \u201cMagic and divination bulk largely in\nthe texts recovered, and in their case there is nothing to suggest an\nunderlying astrological element.\u201d[63]\n\n[Sidenote: Other divination than astrology.]\n\nWhatever its date and origin, the magic literature may be classified\nin three main groups. There are the astrological texts in which the\nstars are looked upon as gods and predictions are made especially for\nthe king.[64] Then there are the tablets connected with other methods\nof foretelling the future, especially liver divination, although\ninterpretation of dreams, augury, and divination by mixing oil and\nwater were also practiced.[65] Fossey has further noted the close\nconnection of operative magic with divination among the Assyrians,\nand calls divination \u201cthe indispensable auxiliary of magic.\u201d Many\nfeats of magic imply a precedent knowledge of the future or begin by\nconsultation of a diviner, or a favorable day and hour should be chosen\nfor the magic rite.[66]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations against sorcery and demons.]\n\nThird, there are the collections of incantations, not however those\nemployed by the sorcerers, which were presumably illicit and hence\nnot publicly preserved\u2014in an incantation which we shall soon quote\nsorcery is called evil and is said to employ \u201cimpure things\u201d\u2014but rather\ndefensive measures against them and exorcisms of evil demons.[67] But\ndoubtless this counter magic reflects the original procedure to a great\nextent. Inasmuch as diseases generally were regarded as due to demons,\nwho had to be exorcized by incantations, medicine was simply a branch\nof magic. Evil spirits were also held responsible for disturbances in\nnature, and frequent incantations were thought necessary to keep them\nfrom upsetting the natural order entirely.[68] The various incantations\nare arranged in series of tablets: the _Maklu_ or burning, _Ti\u2019i_ or\nheadaches, _Asakki mars\u00fbti_ or fever, _Labartu_ or hag-demon, and _Nis\nkati_ or raising of the hand. Besides these tablets there are numerous\nceremonial and medical texts which contain magical practice.[69] Also\nhymns of praise and religious epics which at first sight one would\nnot classify as incantations seem to have had their magical uses, and\nFarnell suggests that \u201ca magic origin for the practice of theological\nexegesis may be obscurely traced.\u201d[70] Good spirits are represented\nas employing magic and exorcisms against the demons.[71] As a last\nresort when good spirits as well as human magic had failed to check the\ndemons, the aid might be requisitioned of the god Ea, regarded as the\nrepository of all science and who \u201calone was possessed of the magic\nsecrets by means of which they could be conquered and repulsed.\u201d[72]\n\n[Sidenote: A specimen incantation.]\n\nThe incantations themselves show that other factors than the power of\nwords entered into the magic, as may be illustrated by quoting one of\nthem.\n\n \u201cArise ye great gods, hear my complaint,\n Grant me justice, take cognizance of my condition.\n I have made an image of my sorcerer and sorceress;\n I have humbled myself before you and bring to you my cause,\n Because of the evil they have done,\n Of the impure things which they have handled.\n May she die! Let me live!\n May her charm, her witchcraft, her sorcery be broken.\n May the plucked sprig of the _binu_ tree purify me;\n May it release me; may the evil odor of my mouth be scattered to\n the winds.\n May the _mashtakal_ herb which fills the earth cleanse me.\n Before you let me shine like the _kankal_ herb,\n Let me be brilliant and pure as the _lardu_ herb.\n The charm of the sorceress is evil;\n May her words return to her mouth, her tongue be cut off.\n Because of her witchcraft may the gods of night smite her,\n The three watches of the night break her evil charm.\n May her mouth be wax; her tongue, honey.\n May the word causing my misfortune that she has spoken dissolve\n like wax.\n May the charm she had wound up melt like honey,\n So that her magic knot be cut in twain, her work destroyed.\u201d[73]\n\n[Sidenote: Materials and devices employed in the magic.]\n\nIt is evident from this incantation that use was made of magic images\nand knots, and of the properties of trees and herbs. Magic images were\nmade of clay, wax, tallow, and other substances and were employed in\nvarious ways. Thus directions are given for making a tallow image of\nan enemy of the king and binding its face with a cord in order to\ndeprive the person whom it represents of speech and willpower.[74]\nImages were also constructed in order that disease demons might be\nmagically transferred into them,[75] and sometimes the images are\nslain and buried.[76] In the above incantation the magic knot was\nemployed only by the sorceress, but Fossey states that knots were\nalso used as counter-charms against the demons.[77] In the above\nincantation the names of herbs were left untranslated and it is not\npossible to say much concerning the pharmacy of the Assyrians and\nBabylonians because of our lack of a lexicon for their botanical\nand mineralogical terminology.[78] However, from what scholars have\nbeen able to translate it appears that common rather than rare and\noutlandish substances were the ones most employed. Wine and oil, salt\nand dates, and onions and saliva are the sort of things used. There\nis also evidence of the employment of a magic wand.[79] Gems and\nanimal substances were used as well as herbs; all sorts of philters\nwere concocted; and varied rites and ceremonies were employed such as\nablutions and fumigations. In the account of the ark of the Babylonian\nNoah we are told of the magic significance of its various parts; thus\nthe mast and cabin ceiling were made of cedar, a wood that counteracts\nsorceries.[80]\n\n[Sidenote: Greek culture not free from magic.]\n\nOne remarkable corollary of the so-called Italian Renaissance or\nHumanistic movement at the close of the middle ages with its too\nexclusive glorification of ancient Greece and Rome has been the\nstrange notion that the ancient Hellenes were unusually free from\nmagic compared with other periods and peoples. It would have been\ntoo much to claim any such immunity for the primitive Romans, whose\nentire religion was originally little else than magic and whose daily\nlife, public and private, was hedged in by superstitious observances\nand fears. But they, too, were supposed to have risen later under the\ninfluence of Hellenic culture to a more enlightened stage,[81] only to\nrelapse again into magic in the declining empire and middle ages under\noriental influence. Incidentally let me add that this notion that in\n_the past_ orientals were more superstitious and fond of marvels than\nwesterners in the same stage of civilization and that the orient must\nneeds be the source of every superstitious cult and romantic tale is a\nglib assumption which I do not intend to make and which our subsequent\ninvestigation will scarcely substantiate. But to return to the supposed\nimmunity of the Hellenes from magic; so far has this hypothesis been\ncarried that textual critics have repeatedly rejected passages as later\ninterpolations or even called entire treatises spurious for no other\nreason than that they seemed to them too superstitious for a reputable\nclassical author. Even so specialized and recent a student of ancient\nastrology, superstition, and religion as Cumont still clings to this\ndubious generalization and affirms that \u201cthe limpid Hellenic genius\nalways turned away from the misty speculations of magic.\u201d[82] But, as\nI suggested some sixteen years since, \u201cthe fantasticalness of medieval\nscience was due to \u2018the clear light of Hellas\u2019 as well as to the gloom\nof the \u2018dark ages.\u2019\u201d[83]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in myth, literature, and history.]\n\nIt is not difficult to call to mind evidence of the presence of magic\nin Hellenic religion, literature, and history. One has only to think\nof the many marvelous metamorphoses in Greek mythology and of its\ncountless other absurdities; of the witches, Circe and Medea, and the\nnecromancy of Odysseus; or the priest-magician of Apollo in the _Iliad_\nwho could stop the plague, if he wished; of the lucky and unlucky\ndays and other agricultural magic in Hesiod.[84] Then there were\nthe Spartans, whose so-called constitution and method of education,\nmuch admired by the Greek philosophers, were largely a retention of\nthe life of the primitive tribe with its ritual and taboos. Or we\nremember Herodotus and his childish delight in ambiguous oracles or\nhis tale of seceders from Gela brought back by Telines single-handed\nbecause he \u201cwas possessed of certain mysterious visible symbols of the\npowers beneath the earth which were deemed to be of wonder-working\npower.\u201d[85] We recall Xenophon\u2019s punctilious records of sacrifices,\ndivinations, sneezes, and dreams; Nicias, as afraid of eclipses as\nif he had been a Spartan; and the matter-of-fact mentions of charms,\nphilters, and incantations in even such enlightened writers as\nEuripides and Plato. Among the titles of ancient Greek comedies magic\nis represented by the _Goetes_ of Aristophanes, the _Mandragorizomene_\nof Alexis, the _Pharmacomantis_ of Anaxandrides, the _Circe_ of\nAnaxilas, and the _Thettale_ of Menander.[86] When we candidly estimate\nthe significance of such evidence as this, we realize that the Hellenes\nwere not much less inclined to magic than other peoples and periods,\nand that we need not wait for Theocritus and the Greek romances or for\nthe magical papyri for proof of the existence of magic in ancient Greek\ncivilization.[87]\n\n[Sidenote: Simultaneous increase of learning and occult science.]\n\nIf astrology and some other occult sciences do not appear in a\ndeveloped form until the Hellenistic period, it is not because the\nearlier period was more enlightened, but because it was less learned.\nAnd the magic which Osthanes is said to have introduced to the Greek\nworld about the time of the Persian wars was not so much an innovation\nas an improvement upon their coarse and ancient rites of _Goetia_.[88]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic origin urged for Greek religion and drama.]\n\nThis magic element which existed from the start in Greek culture is\nnow being traced out by students of anthropology and early religion as\nwell as of the classics. Miss Jane E. Harrison, in _Themis, a study of\nthe social origins of Greek religion_, suggests a magical explanation\nfor many a myth and festival, and even for the Olympic games and Greek\ndrama.[89] The last point has been developed in more detail by F.\nM. Cornford\u2019s _Origin of Attic Comedy_, where much magic is detected\nmasquerading in the comedies of Aristophanes.[90] And Mr. A. B. Cook\nsees the magician in Zeus, who transforms himself to pursue his amours,\nand contends that \u201cthe real prototype of the heavenly weather-king\nwas the earthly\u201d magician or rain-maker, that the pre-Homeric \u201cfixed\nepithets\u201d of Zeus retained in the Homeric poems \u201care simply redolent\nof the magician,\u201d and that the cult of Zeus Lykaios was connected\nwith the belief in werwolves.[91] In still more recent publications\nDr. Rendel Harris[92] has connected Greek gods in their origins with\nthe woodpecker and mistletoe, associated the cult of Apollo with the\nmedicinal virtues of mice and snakes, and in other ways emphasized the\nimportance in early Greek religion and culture of the magic properties\nof animals and herbs.\n\nThese writers have probably pressed their point too far, but at\nleast their work serves as a reaction against the old attitude of\nintellectual idolatry of the classics. Their views may be offset by\nthose of Mr. Farnell, who states that \u201cwhile the knowledge of early\nBabylonian magic is beginning to be considerable, we cannot say that\nwe know anything definite concerning the practices in this department\nof the Hellenic and adjacent peoples in the early period with which we\nare dealing.\u201d And again, \u201cBut while Babylonian magic proclaims itself\nloudly in the great religious literature and highest temple ritual,\nGreek magic is barely mentioned in the older literature of Greece,\nplays no part at all in the hymns, and can only with difficulty be\ndiscovered as latent in the higher ritual. Again, Babylonian magic\nis essentially demoniac; but we have no evidence that the pre-Homeric\nGreek was demon-ridden, or that demonology and exorcism were leading\nfactors in his consciousness and practice.\u201d Even Mr. Farnell admits,\nhowever, that \u201cthe earliest Hellene, as the later, was fully sensitive\nto the magico-divine efficacy of names.\u201d[93] Now to believe in the\npower of names before one believes in the existence of demons is the\nbest possible evidence of the antiquity of magic in a society, since it\nindicates that the speaker has confidence in the operative power of his\nown words without any spiritual or divine assistance.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in Greek philosophy.]\n\nMoreover, in one sense the advocates of Greek magic have not gone far\nenough. They hold that magic lies back of the comedies of Aristophanes;\nwhat they might contend is that it was also contemporary with them.[94]\nThey hold that classical Greek religion had its origins in magic; what\nthey might argue is that Greek philosophy never freed itself from\nmagic. \u201cThat Empedocles believed himself capable of magical powers\nis,\u201d says Zeller, \u201cproved by his own writings.\u201d He himself \u201cdeclares\nthat he possesses the power to heal old age and sickness, to raise and\ncalm the winds, to summon rain and drought, and to recall the dead to\nlife.\u201d[95] If the pre-Homeric fixed epithets of Zeus are redolent of\nmagic, Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_ is equally redolent of occult science and\nastrology; and if we see the weather-making magician in the Olympian\nZeus of Phidias, we cannot explain away the vagaries of the _Timaeus_\nas flights of poetic imagination or try to make out Aristotle a modern\nscientist by mutilating the text of the _History of Animals_.\n\n[Sidenote: Plato\u2019s attitude toward magic and astrology.]\n\nToward magic so-called Plato\u2019s attitude in his _Laws_ is cautious.\nHe maintains that medical men and prophets and diviners can alone\nunderstand the nature of poisons (or spells) which work naturally,\nand of such things as incantations, magic knots, and wax images; and\nthat since other men have no certain knowledge of such matters, they\nought not to fear but to despise them. He admits nevertheless that\nthere is no use in trying to convince most men of this and that it\nis necessary to legislate against sorcery.[96] Yet his own view of\nnature seems impregnated, if not actually with doctrines borrowed\nfrom the _Magi_ of the east, at least with notions cognate to those\nof magic rather than of modern science and with doctrines favorable\nto astrology. He humanized material objects and confused material and\nspiritual characteristics. He also, like authors of whom we shall\ntreat later, attempted to give a natural or rational explanation for\nmagic, accounting, for example, for liver divination on the ground\nthat the liver was a sort of mirror on which the thoughts of the mind\nfell and in which the images of the soul were reflected; but that\nthey ceased after death.[97] He spoke of harmonious love between the\nelements as the source of health and plenty for vegetation, beasts, and\nmen, and their \u201cwanton love\u201d as the cause of pestilence and disease.\nTo understand both varieties of love \u201cin relation to the revolutions\nof the heavenly bodies and the seasons of the year is termed\nastronomy,\u201d[98] or, as we should say, astrology, whose fundamental law\nis the control of inferior creation by the motion of the stars. Plato\nspoke of the stars as \u201cdivine and eternal animals, ever abiding,\u201d[99]\nan expression which we shall hear reiterated in the middle ages. \u201cThe\nlower gods,\u201d whom he largely identified with the heavenly bodies,\nform men, who, if they live good lives, return after death each to\na happy existence in his proper star.[100] Such a doctrine is not\nidentical with that of nativities and the horoscope, but like it\nexalts the importance of the stars and suggests their control of\nhuman life. And when at the close of his _Republic_ Plato speaks of\nthe harmony or music of the spheres of the seven planets and the\neighth sphere of the fixed stars, and of \u201cthe spindle of Necessity on\nwhich all the revolutions turn,\u201d he suggests that when once the human\nsoul has entered upon this life, its destiny is henceforth subject\nto the courses of the stars. When in the _Timaeus_ he says, \u201cThere\nis no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfills\nthe perfect year when all the eight revolutions ... are accomplished\ntogether and attain their completion at the same time,\u201d[101] he seems\nto suggest the astrological doctrine of the _magnus annus_, that\nhistory begins to repeat itself in every detail when the heavenly\nbodies have all regained their original positions.\n\n[Sidenote: Aristotle on stars and spirits.]\n\nFor Aristotle, too, the stars were \u201cbeings of superhuman intelligence,\nincorporate deities. They appeared to him as the purer forms, those\nmore like the deity, and from them a purposive rational influence upon\nthe lower life of the earth seemed to proceed,\u2014a thought which became\nthe root of medieval astrology.\u201d[102] Moreover, \u201chis theory of the\nsubordinate gods of the spheres of the planets ... provided for a later\ndemonology.\u201d[103]\n\n[Sidenote: Folk-lore in the _History of Animals_.]\n\nAside from bits of physiognomy and of Pythagorean superstition, or\nmysticism, Aristotle\u2019s _History of Animals_ contains much on the\ninfluence of the stars on animal life, the medicines employed by\nanimals, and their friendships and enmities, and other folk-lore and\npseudo-science.[104] But the oldest extant manuscript of that work\ndates only from the twelfth or thirteenth century and lacks the tenth\nbook. Editors of the text have also rejected books seven and nine, the\nlatter part of book eight, and have questioned various other passages.\nHowever, these expurgations save the face of Aristotle rather than of\nHellenic science or philosophy generally, as the spurious seventh book\nis held to be drawn largely from Hippocratic writings and the ninth\nfrom Theophrastus.[105]\n\n[Sidenote: Differing modes of transmission of ancient oriental and\nGreek literature.]\n\nThere is another point to be kept in mind in any comparison of Egypt\nand Babylon or Assyria with Greece in the matter of magic. Our evidence\nproving the great part played by magic in the ancient oriental\ncivilizations comes directly from them to us without intervening\ntampering or alteration except in the case of the early periods. But\nclassical literature and philosophy come to us as edited by Alexandrian\nlibrarians[106] and philologers, as censored and selected by Christian\nand Byzantine readers, as copied or translated by medieval monks and\nItalian humanists. And the question is not merely, what have they\nadded? but also, what have they altered? what have they rejected?\nInstead of questioning superstitious passages in extant works on the\nground that they are later interpolations, it would very likely be more\nto the point to insert a goodly number on the ground that they have\nbeen omitted as pagan or idolatrous superstitions.\n\n[Sidenote: More magical character of directly transmitted Greek\nremains.]\n\nSuppose we turn to those writings which have been unearthed just as\nthey were in ancient Greek; to the papyri, the lead tablets, the\nso-called Gnostic gems. How does the proportion of magic in these\ncompare with that in the indirectly transmitted literary remains? If\nit is objected that the magic papyri[107] are mainly of late date and\nthat they are found in Egypt, it may be replied that they are as old\nas or older than any other manuscripts we have of classical literature\nand that its chief storehouse, too, was in Egypt at Alexandria. As for\nthe magical curses written on lead tablets,[108] they date from the\nfourth century before our era to the sixth after, and fourteen come\nfrom Athens and sixteen from Cnidus as against one from Alexandria and\neleven from Carthage. And although some display extreme illiteracy,\nothers are written by persons of rank and education. And what a wealth\nof astrological manuscripts in the Greek language has been unearthed in\nEuropean libraries by the editors of the _Catalogus Codicum Graecorum\nAstrologorum_![109] And occasionally archaeologists report the\ndiscovery of magical apparatus[110] or of representations of magic in\nworks of art.\n\n[Sidenote: Progress of science among the Greeks.]\n\nIn thus contending that Hellenic culture was not free from magic\nand that even the philosophy and science of the ancient Greeks show\ntraces of superstition, I would not, however, obscure the fact that\nof extant literary remains the Greek are the first to present us with\nany very considerable body either of systematic rational speculation\nor of classified collection of observed facts concerning nature.\nDespite the rapid progress in recent years in knowledge of prehistoric\nman and Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, the Hellenic title\nto the primacy in philosophy and science has hardly been called in\nquestion, and no earlier works have been discovered that can compare\nin medicine with those ascribed to Hippocrates, in biology with those\nof Aristotle and Theophrastus, or in mathematics and physics with\nthose of Euclid and Archimedes. Undoubtedly such men and writings had\ntheir predecessors, probably they owed something to ancient oriental\ncivilization, but, taking them as we have them, they seem to be marked\nby great original power. Whatever may lie concealed beneath the surface\nof the past, or whatever signs or hints of scientific investigation and\nknowledge we may think we can detect and read between the lines, as\nit were, in other phases of older civilizations, in these works solid\nbeginnings of experimental and mathematical science stand unmistakably\nforth.\n\n[Sidenote: Archimedes and Aristotle.]\n\n\u201cAn extraordinarily large proportion of the subject matter of the\nwritings of Archimedes,\u201d says Heath, \u201crepresents entirely new\ndiscoveries of his own. Though his range of subjects was almost\nencyclop\u00e6dic, embracing geometry (plane and solid), arithmetic,\nmechanics, hydrostatics and astronomy, he was no compiler, no writer of\ntext-books.... His objective is always some new thing, some definite\naddition to the sum of knowledge, and his complete originality cannot\nfail to strike anyone who reads his works intelligently, without any\ncorroborative evidence such as is found in the introductory letters\nprefixed to most of them.... In some of his subjects Archimedes had\nno forerunners, _e. g._, in hydrostatics, where he invented the whole\nscience, and (so far as mathematical demonstration was concerned) in\nhis mechanical investigations.\u201d[111] Aristotle\u2019s _History of Animals_\nis still highly esteemed by historians of biology[112] and often\nevidences \u201ca large amount of personal observations,\u201d[113] \u201cgreat\naccuracy,\u201d and \u201cminute inquiry,\u201d as in his account of the vascular\nsystem[114] or observations on the embryology of the chick.[115] \u201cMost\nwonderful of all, perhaps, are those portions of his book in which he\nspeaks of fishes, their diversities, their structure, their wanderings,\nand their food. Here we may read of fishes that have only recently\nbeen rediscovered, of structures only lately reinvestigated, of habits\nonly of late made known.\u201d[116] But of the achievements of Hellenic\nphilosophy and Hellenistic science the reader may be safely assumed\nalready to have some notion.\n\n[Sidenote: Exaggerated view of the scientific achievement of the\nHellenistic age.]\n\nBut in closing this brief preliminary sketch of the period before our\ninvestigation proper begins, I would take exception to the tendency,\nprevalent especially among German scholars, to center in and confine\nto Aristotle and the Hellenistic age almost all progress in natural\nscience made before modern times. The contributions of the Egyptians\nand Babylonians are reduced to a minimum on the one hand, while on the\nother the scientific writings of the Roman Empire, which are extant\nin far greater abundance than those of the Hellenistic period, are\nregarded as inferior imitations of great authors whose works are not\nextant; Posidonius, for example, to whom it has been the fashion of\nthe writers of German dissertations to attribute this, that, and every\ntheory in later writers. But it is contrary to the law of gradual\nand painful acquisition of scientific knowledge and improvement of\nscientific method that one period of a few centuries should thus have\ndiscovered everything. We have disputed the similar notion of a golden\nage of early Egyptian science from which the Middle and New Kingdoms\ndeclined, and have not held that either the Egyptians or Babylonians\nhad made great advances in science before the Greeks. But that is not\nsaying that they had not made some advance. As Professor Karpinski has\nrecently written:\n\n\u201cTo deny to Babylon, to Egypt, and to India, their part in the\ndevelopment of science and scientific thinking is to defy the\ntestimony of the ancients, supported by the discoveries of the modern\nauthorities. The efforts which have been made to ascribe to Greek\ninfluence the science of Egypt, of later Babylon, of India, and that\nof the Arabs do not add to the glory that was Greece. How could the\nBabylonians of the golden age of Greece or the Hindus, a little later,\nhave taken over the developments of Greek astronomy? This would only\nhave been possible if they had arrived at a state of development in\nastronomy which would have enabled them properly to estimate and\nappreciate the work which was to be absorbed.... The admission that the\nGreek astronomy immediately affected the astronomical theories of India\ncarries with it the implication that this science had attained somewhat\nthe same level in India as in Greece. Without serious questioning we\nmay assume that a fundamental part of the science of Babylon and Egypt\nand India, developed during the times which we think of as Greek, was\nindigenous science.\u201d[117]\n\nNor am I ready to admit that the great scientists of the early Roman\nEmpire merely copied from, or were distinctly inferior to, their\nHellenistic predecessors. Aristarchus may have held the heliocentric\ntheory[118] but Ptolemy must have been an abler scientist and have\nsupported his incorrect hypothesis with more accurate measurements\nand calculations or the ancients would have adopted the sounder view.\nAnd if Herophilus had really demonstrated the circulation of the\nblood, so keen an intelligence as Galen\u2019s would not have cast his\ndiscovery aside. And if Ptolemy copied Hipparchus, are we to imagine\nthat Hipparchus copied from no one? But of the incessant tradition\nfrom authority to authority and yet of the gradual accumulation of new\nmatter from personal observation and experience our ensuing survey of\nthirteen centuries of thought and writing will afford more detailed\nillustration.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX I\n\n SOME WORKS ON MAGIC, RELIGION, AND ASTRONOMY IN BABYLONIA\n AND ASSYRIA\n\n\nThe following books deal expressly with the magic of Assyria and\nBabylonia:\n\n Fossey, C. La magie assyrienne; \u00e9tude suivie de textes magiques,\n Paris, 1902.\n\n King, L. W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, being \u201cThe Prayers of the\n Lifting of the Hand,\u201d London, 1896.\n\n Laurent, A. La magie et la divination chez les Chald\u00e9o-Assyriens,\n Paris, 1894.\n\n Lenormant, F. Chaldean Magic and Sorcery, English translation, London,\n 1878.\n\n Schwab, M., in Proc. Bibl. Arch\u00e6ology (1890), pp. 292-342, on magic\n bowls from Assyria and Babylonia.\n\n Tallquist, K. L. Die Assyrische Beschw\u00f6rungsserie Maql\u00fb, Leipzig, 1895.\n\n Thompson, R. C. The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of\n Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum, London, 1900. Texts and\n translations\u2014all but three are astrological.\n\n The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, London, 1904.\n\n Semitic Magic, London, 1908.\n\n Weber, O. D\u00e4monenbeschw\u00f6rung bei den Babyloniern und Assyrern, 1906.\n Eine Skizze (37 pp.), in Der Alte Orient.\n\n Zimmern. Die Beschw\u00f6rungstafeln Surpu.\n\nMuch concerning magic will also be found in works on Babylonian and\nAssyrian religion.\n\n Craig, J. A. Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, Leipzig, 1895-7.\n\n Curtiss, S. I. Primitive Semitic Religion Today, 1902.\n\n Dhorme, P. Choix des textes religieux Assyriens Babyloniens, 1907.\n\n La religion Assyro-Babylonienne, Paris, 1910.\n\n Gray, C. D. The Samas Religious Texts.\n\n Jastrow, Morris. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898.\n Revised and enlarged as Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, Giessen,\n 1904.\n\n Jeremias. Babylon. Assyr. Vorstellungen von dem Leben nach Tode,\n Leipzig, 1887.\n\n H\u00f6lle und Paradies, and other works.\n\n Knudtzon, J. A. Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott, Leipzig, 1893.\n\n Lagrange, M. J. \u00c9tudes sur les religions s\u00e9mitiques, Paris, 1905.\n\n Langdon, S. Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms, Paris, 1909.\n\n Reisner, G. A. Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen, Berlin, 1896.\n\n Robertson Smith, W. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, London,\n 1907.\n\n Roscher, Lexicon, for various articles.\n\n Zimmern. Babylonische Hymnen und Gebete in Auswahl, 32 pp., 1905 (Der\n Alte Orient).\n\n Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntniss der Babyl. Religion, Leipzig, 1901.\n\n On the astronomy and astrology of the Babylonians one may consult:\n\n Bezold, C. Astronomie, Himmelschau und Astrallehre bei den\n Babyloniern. (Sitzb. Akad. Heidelberg, 1911, Abh. 2).\n\n Boissier, A. Documents assyriens relatifs aux pr\u00e9sages, Paris,\n 1894-1897.\n\n Choix de textes relatifs \u00e0 la divination assyro-babylonienne, Geneva,\n 1905-1906.\n\n Craig, J. A. Astrological-Astronomical Texts, Leipzig, 1892.\n\n Cumont, F. Babylon und die griechische Astrologie. (Neue Jahrb. f\u00fcr das\n klass. Altertum, XXVII, 1911).\n\n Epping, J., and Strassmeier, J. N. Astronomisches aus Babylon, 1889.\n\n Ginzel, F. K. Die astronomischen Kentnisse der Babylonier, 1901.\n\n Hehn, J. Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten\n Testament, 1907.\n\n Jensen, P. Kosmologie der Babylonier, 1890.\n\n Jeremias. Das Alter der babylonischen Astronomie, 1908.\n\n Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, 1913.\n\n Kugler, F. X. Die Babylonische Mondrechnung, 1900.\n\n Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, Freiburg, 1907-1913. To be\n completed in four vols.\n\n Im Bannkreis Babels, 1910.\n\n Oppert, J. Die astronomischen Angaben der assyrischen Keilinschriften,\n in Sitzb. d. Wien. Akad. Math.-Nat. Classe, 1885, pp. 894-906.\n\n Un texte Babylonien astronomique et sa traduction grecque par Cl.\n Ptol\u00e9me\u00e9, in Zeitsch. f. Assyriol. VI (1891), pp. 103-23.\n\n Sayce, A. H. The astronomy and astrology of the Babylonians, with\n translations of the tablets relating to the subject, in Transactions of\n the Society of Biblical Archaeology, III (1874), 145-339; the first and\n until recently the best guide to the subject.\n\n Schiaparelli, G. V. I Primordi ed i Progressi dell\u2019 Astronomia presso i\n Babilonesi, Bologna, 1908.\n\n Astronomy in the Old Testament, 1905.\n\n St\u00fccken, Astralmythen, 1896-1907.\n\n Virolleaud, Ch. L\u2019Astrologie chald\u00e9enne, Paris, 1905-; to be completed\n in eight parts, texts and translations.\n\n Winckler, Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der\n Weltanschauung und Mythologie aller V\u00f6lker, in Der alte Orient, III,\n 2-3.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK I. THE ROMAN EMPIRE\n\n Foreword.\n\n Chapter 2. Pliny\u2019s Natural History.\n I. Its place in the history of science.\n II. Its experimental tendency.\n III. Pliny\u2019s account of magic.\n IV. The science of the _Magi_.\n V. Pliny\u2019s magical science.\n\n \u201d 3. Seneca and Ptolemy: Natural Divination and Astrology.\n\n \u201d 4. Galen.\n I. The man and his times.\n II. His medicine and experimental science.\n III. His attitude toward magic.\n\n \u201d 5. Ancient Applied Science and Magic.\n\n \u201d 6. Plutarch\u2019s Essays.\n\n \u201d 7. Apuleius of Madaura.\n\n \u201d 8. Philostratus\u2019s _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_.\n\n \u201d 9. Literary and Philosophical Attacks upon Superstition.\n\n \u201d 10. The Spurious Mystic Writings of Hermes, Orpheus, and\n Zoroaster.\n\n \u201d 11. Neo-Platonism and its Relations to Astrology and Theurgy.\n\n \u201d 12. Aelian, Solinus, and Horapollo.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK I. THE ROMAN EMPIRE\n\n FOREWORD\n\n\n[Sidenote: A trio of great names.]\n\nA trio of great names, Pliny, Galen, and Ptolemy, stand out above all\nothers in the history of science under the Roman Empire. In the use\nor criticism which they make of earlier writers and investigators\nthey are also our chief sources for the science of the preceding\nHellenistic period. By their voluminousness, their generous scope in\nground covered, and their broad, liberal, personal outlooks, they have\npainted, in colors for the most part imperishable, extensive canvasses\nof the scientific spirit and acquisitions of their own time. Pliny\npursued politics and literature as well as natural science; Ptolemy\nwas at once mathematician, astronomer, physicist, and geographer;\nGalen knew philosophy as well as medicine. The two latter men,\nmoreover, made original contributions of their own of the very first\norder to scientific knowledge and method. It is characteristic of the\nhomogeneous and widespread culture of the Roman Empire that these three\nrepresentatives of different, although overlapping, fields of science\nwere natives of the three continents that enclose the Mediterranean\nSea. Pliny was born at Como where Italy verges on transalpine lands;\nPtolemy, born somewhere in Egypt, did his work at Alexandria; Galen\ncame from Pergamum in Asia Minor. Finally, these men were, after\nAristotle, the three ancient scientists who directly or indirectly\nmost powerfully influenced the middle ages. Thus they illuminate past,\npresent, and future.\n\n[Sidenote: Plan of this section.]\n\nWe shall therefore open the present section of our investigation\nby considering in turn chronologically, Pliny, Ptolemy, and Galen,\ncoupling, however, with our consideration of Ptolemy the work of\nSeneca on _Natural Questions_ which shows the same combination of\nnatural science and natural divination. Next we shall consider some\nrepresentatives of ancient applied science and its relations to\nmagic, and the more miscellaneous writings of Plutarch, Apuleius, and\nPhilostratus\u2019s _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_. From the hospitable\nattitude toward magic and occult science displayed by these last\nwriters we shall then turn back again to consider some examples of\nliterary and philosophical attacks upon superstition, before proceeding\nlastly to spurious mystic writings of the Roman Empire, Neo-Platonism\nand its relations to astrology and theurgy, and the works of Aelian,\nSolinus, and Horapollo.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n PLINY\u2019S NATURAL HISTORY\n\nI. _Its Place in the History of Science_\n\nIts importance in our investigation\u2014As a collection of miscellaneous\ninformation\u2014As a repository of ancient natural science\u2014As a source for\nmagic\u2014Pliny\u2019s career\u2014His writings\u2014His own description of the _Natural\nHistory_\u2014His devotion to science\u2014Conflict of science and religion\u2014Pliny\nnot a trained naturalist\u2014His use of authorities\u2014His lack of arrangement\nand classification\u2014His scepticism and credulity\u2014A guide to ancient\nscience\u2014His medieval influence\u2014Early printed editions.\n\nII. _Its Experimental Tendency_\n\nImportance of observation and experience\u2014Use of the word\n_experimentum_\u2014Experiments due to scientific curiosity\u2014Medical\nexperimentation\u2014Chance experience and divine revelation\u2014Marvels proved\nby experience.\n\nIII. _Pliny\u2019s Account of Magic_\n\nOriental origin of magic\u2014Its spread to the Greeks\u2014Its spread outside\nthe Graeco-Roman world\u2014Failure to understand its true origin\u2014Magic\nand divination\u2014Magic and religion\u2014Magic and medicine\u2014Magic and\nphilosophy\u2014Falseness of magic\u2014Crimes of magic\u2014Pliny\u2019s censure of magic\nis mainly intellectual\u2014Vagueness of Pliny\u2019s scepticism\u2014Magic and\nscience indistinguishable.\n\nIV. _The Science of the Magi_\n\nMagicians as investigators of nature\u2014The _Magi_ on herbs\u2014Marvelous\nvirtues of herbs\u2014Animals and parts of animals\u2014Further instances\u2014Magic\nrites with animals and parts of animals\u2014Marvels wrought with parts\nof animals\u2014The _Magi_ on stones\u2014Other magical recipes\u2014Summary of the\nstatements of the _Magi_.\n\nV. _Pliny\u2019s Magical Science_\n\nFrom the _Magi_ to Pliny\u2019s magic\u2014Habits of animals\u2014Remedies discovered\nby animals\u2014Jealousy of animals\u2014Occult virtues of animals\u2014The virtues of\nherbs\u2014Plucking herbs\u2014Agricultural magic\u2014Virtue of stones\u2014Other minerals\nand metals\u2014Virtues of human parts\u2014Virtues of human saliva\u2014The human\noperator\u2014Absence of medical compounds\u2014Sympathetic magic\u2014Antipathies\nbetween animals\u2014Love and hatred between inanimate objects\u2014Sympathy\nbetween animate and inanimate objects\u2014Like cures like\u2014The principle of\nassociation\u2014Magic transfer of disease\u2014Amulets\u2014Position or direction\u2014The\ntime element\u2014Observance of number\u2014Relation between operator and\npatient\u2014Incantations\u2014Attitude towards love-charms and birth\ncontrol\u2014Pliny and astrology\u2014Celestial portents\u2014The stars and the world\nof nature\u2014Astrological medicine\u2014Conclusion: magic unity of Pliny\u2019s\nsuperstitions.\n\n \u201c_Salve, parens rerum omnium Natura, teque nobis Quiritium solis\n celebratam esse numeris omnibus tuis fave!_\u201d\n \u2014_Closing words of the Natural History._[119]\n\n\nI. _Its Place in the History of Science_\n\n[Sidenote: Important in our investigation.]\n\nWe should have to search long before finding a better starting-point\nfor the consideration of the union of magic with the science of the\nRoman Empire, and of the way in which that union influenced the middle\nages, than Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_.[120] The foregoing sentence, with\nwhich years ago I opened a chapter on the _Natural History_ of Pliny\nthe Elder in my briefer preliminary study of magic in the intellectual\nhistory of the Roman Empire, seems as true as ever; and although I\nthere considered his confusion of magic and science at some length, I\ndo not see how I can make the present work well-rounded and complete\nwithout including in it a yet more detailed analysis of the contents of\nPliny\u2019s book.\n\n[Sidenote: As a collection of miscellaneous information.]\n\nPliny\u2019s _Natural History_, which appeared about 77 A.\u202fD. and is\ndedicated to the Emperor Titus, is perhaps the most important single\nsource extant for the history of ancient civilization. Its thirty-seven\nbooks, written in a very compact style, constitute a vast collection\nof the most miscellaneous information. Whether one is investigating\nancient painting, sculpture, and other fine arts; or the geography\nof the Roman Empire; or Roman triumphs, gladiatorial contests, and\ntheatrical exhibitions; or the industrial processes of antiquity; or\nMediterranean trade; or Italian agriculture; or mining in ancient\nSpain; or the history of Roman coinage; or the fluctuation of prices\nin antiquity; or the Roman attitude towards usury; or the pagan\nattitude towards immortality; or the nature of ancient beverages; or\nthe religious usages of the ancient Romans; or any of a number of other\ntopics; one will find something concerning all of them in Pliny. He is\napt both to depict such conditions in his own time and to trace them\nback to their origins. Furthermore he repeats many detailed incidents\nof interest to the political or narrative historian of Rome as well as\nto the student of the economic, social, artistic, and religious life of\nantiquity. Probably there is no place where an isolated point is more\nlikely to be run down by the investigator, and it is regrettable that\nexhaustive analytical indices of the work are not available. We may\nadd that, although the work is supposedly a collection of facts, Pliny\ncontrives to introduce many moral reflections and sharp comments on the\nluxury, vice, and unintellectual character of his times, suggesting\nJuvenal\u2019s picture of degenerate Roman society and his own lofty moral\nstandards.\n\n[Sidenote: As a repository of ancient natural science.]\n\nIndeed, Pliny\u2019s title, _Naturalis Historia_, or at least the common\nEnglish translation of it, \u201cNatural History,\u201d has been criticized as\ntoo limited in scope, and the work has been described as \u201crather a vast\nencyclopedia of ancient knowledge and belief upon almost every known\nsubject.\u201d[121] Pliny himself mentions in his preface the Greek word\n\u201cencyclopedia\u201d as indicative of his scope. Nevertheless, his work is\nprimarily an account of nature rather than of civilization, and much\nof its information concerning such matters as the arts and business\nis incidental. Most of its books bear such titles as Aquatic Animals,\nExotic Trees, Medicines from Forest Trees, The Natures of Metals. After\nan introductory book containing the preface and a table of contents and\nlists of authorities for each of the subsequent books, the second book\ntreats of the universe, heavenly bodies, meteorology, and the chief\nchanges, such as earthquakes and tides, in the land and water forming\nthe earth\u2019s surface. After four books devoted to geography, the seventh\ndeals with man and human inventions. Four more follow on terrestrial\nand aquatic animals, birds, and insects. Sixteen more are concerned\nwith plants, trees, vines, and other vegetation, and the medicinal\nsimples derived from them. Five books discuss the medicinal simples\nderived from animals, including the human body; and the last five books\ntreat of metals and minerals and the arts in which they are employed.\nIt is thus evident that in the main Pliny is concerned with natural\nscience, and that, if his work is a mine of miscellaneous historical\ninformation, it should even more prove a rich treasure-house\u2014\u201c_quoniam,\nut ait Domitius Piso, thesauros oportet esse non libros_\u201d[122]\u2014for an\ninvestigation concerned as intimately as is ours with the history of\nscience.\n\n[Sidenote: As a source for magic.]\n\nThe _Natural History_ is a great storehouse of misinformation as well\nas of information, for Pliny\u2019s credulity and lack of discrimination\nharvested the tares of legend and magic along with the wheat of\nhistorical fact and ancient science in his voluminous granary. This may\nput other historical investigators upon their guard in accepting its\nstatements, but only increases its value for our purpose. Perhaps it is\neven more valuable as a collection of ancient errors than it is as a\nrepository of ancient science. It touches upon many of the varieties,\nand illustrates most of the characteristics, of magic. Moreover, Pliny\noften mentions the _Magi_ or magicians and discusses \u201cmagic\u201d expressly\nat some length in the opening chapters of his thirtieth book\u2014one of\nthe most important passages on the theme in any ancient writer.\n\n[Sidenote: Pliny\u2019s career.]\n\nPliny the Elder, as we learn from his own statements in the _Natural\nHistory_ and from one or two letters concerning him written by his\nnephew, Pliny the Younger, whom he adopted, went through the usual\nmilitary, forensic, and official career of the Roman of good family,\nand spent his life largely in the service of the emperors. He visited\nvarious Mediterranean lands, such as Spain, Africa, Greece, and Egypt,\nand fought in Germany. He was in charge of the Roman fleet on the\nwest coast of Italy when he met his death at the age of fifty-six by\nsuffocation as he was trying to rescue others from the fumes and vapors\nfrom the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.\n\n[Sidenote: His writings.]\n\nOf Pliny\u2019s writings the _Natural History_ is alone extant, but other\ntitles have been preserved which serve to show his great literary\nindustry and the extent of his interests. He wrote on the use of\nthe javelin by cavalry, a life of his friend Pomponius, an account\nin twenty books of all the wars waged by the Romans in Germany, a\nrather long work on oratory called _The Student_, a grammatical or\nphilological work in eight books entitled _De dubio sermone_, and a\ncontinuation of the _History_ of Aufidius Bassus in thirty-one books.\nYet in the dedication of the _Natural History_ to the emperor Titus\nhe states that his days were taken up with official business and only\nhis nights were free for literary labor. This statement is supported\nby a letter of his nephew telling how he used to study by candle-light\nboth late at night and before daybreak. Pliny the Younger narrates\nseveral incidents to illustrate how jealous and economical of every\nspare moment his uncle was. He would dictate or have books read to him\nwhile lying down or in the bath, and on journeys a secretary was always\nby his side with books and tablets. If the weather was very cold, the\namanuensis wore gloves so that his hands might not become too numb to\nwrite. Pliny always took notes on what he read, and at his death left\nhis nephew one hundred and sixty notebooks written in a small hand on\nboth sides.\n\n[Sidenote: His own description of the _Natural History_.]\n\nSuch were the conditions under which, and the methods by which, Pliny\ncompiled his encyclopedia on nature. No single writer either Greek or\nLatin, he tells us, had ever before attempted so extensive a task. He\nadds that he treats of some twenty thousand topics gleaned from the\nperusal of about two thousand volumes by one hundred authors.[123]\nJudging from his bibliographies and citations, however, he would\nseem to have utilized more than one hundred authors. But possibly\nhe had not read all the writers mentioned in his bibliographies. He\naffirms that previous students have had access to but few of the\nvolumes which he has used, and that he adds many things unknown to his\nancient authorities and recently discovered. Occasionally he shows an\nacquaintance with beliefs and practices of the Gauls and Druids. Thus\nhis work assumes to be something more than a compilation from other\nbooks. He says, however, that no doubt he has omitted much, since he\nis only human and has had many other demands upon his time. He admits\nthat his subject is dry (_sterilis materia_) and does not lend itself\nto literary exhibitions, nor include matters stimulating to write about\nand pleasant to read about, like speeches and marvelous occurrences and\nvaried incidents. Nor does it permit purity and elegance of diction,\nsince one must at times employ the terminology of rustics, foreigners,\nand even barbarians. Furthermore, \u201cit is an arduous task to give\nnovelty to what is ancient, authority to what is new, interest to what\nis obsolete, light to what is obscure, charm to what is loathsome\u201d\u2014as\nmany of his medicinal simples undoubtedly are\u2014\u201ccredit to what is\ndubious.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: His devotion to science.]\n\nIt is a great comfort to Pliny, however, in his immense task, when\nmany laugh at him as wasting his time over worthless trifles, to\nreflect that he is being spurned along with Nature.[124] In another\npassage[125] he contrasts the blood and slaughter of military history\nwith the benefits bestowed upon mankind by astronomers. In a third\npassage[126] he looks back regretfully at the widespread interest\nin science among the Greeks, although those were times of political\ndisunion and strife and although communication between different lands\nwas interrupted by piracy as well as war, whereas now, with the whole\nempire at peace, not only is no new scientific inquiry undertaken, but\nmen do not even thoroughly study the works of the ancients, and are\nintent on the acquisition of lucre rather than learning. These and\nother passages which might be cited attest Pliny\u2019s devotion to science.\n\n[Sidenote: Conflict of science and religion.]\n\nIn Pliny we also detect signs of the conflict between science and\nreligion. In a single chapter on God he says pretty much all that the\nchurch fathers later repeated at much greater length against paganism\nand polytheism. But his discussion would hardly satisfy a Christian.\nHe asserts that \u201cit is God for man to aid his fellow man,[127] and\nthis is the path to eternal glory,\u201d but he turns this noble sentiment\nto justify deification of the emperors who have done so much for\nmankind. He questions whether God is concerned with human affairs;\nslyly suggests that if so, God must be too busy to punish all crimes\npromptly; and points out that there are some things which God cannot\ndo. He cannot commit suicide as men can, nor alter past events, nor\nmake twice ten anything else than twenty. Pliny then concludes: \u201cBy\nwhich is revealed in no uncertain wise the power of Nature, and that\nis what we call God.\u201d In many other passages he exclaims at Nature\u2019s\nbenignity or providence. He believed that the soul had no separate\nexistence from the body,[128] and that after death there was no more\nsense left in body or soul than was there before birth. The hope of\npersonal immortality he scorned as \u201cpuerile ravings\u201d produced by the\nfear of death, and he believed still less in the possibility of any\nresurrection of the body. In short, natural law, mechanical force, and\nfacts capable of scientific investigation would seem to be all that\nhe will admit and to suffice to satisfy his strong intellect. Yet we\nshall later find him having the greatest difficulty in distinguishing\nbetween science and magic, and giving credence to many details in\nscience which seem to us quite as superstitious as the pagan beliefs\nconcerning the gods which he rejected. But if any reader is inclined to\nbelittle Pliny for this, let him first stop and think how Pliny would\nridicule some modern scientists for their religious beliefs, or for\ntheir spiritualism or psychic research.\n\n[Sidenote: Pliny not a trained naturalist.]\n\nIt is desirable, however, to form some estimate of Pliny\u2019s fitness for\nhis task in order to judge how accurate a picture of ancient science\nhis work is. He does not seem to have had much detailed training\nor experience in the natural sciences himself. He writes not as a\nnaturalist who has observed widely and profoundly the phenomena and\noperations of nature, but as an omnivorous reader and voluminous\nnote-taker who owes his knowledge largely to books or hearsay, although\noccasionally he says \u201cI know\u201d instead of \u201cthey say,\u201d or gives the\nresults of his own observation and experience. In the main he is not\na scientist himself but only a historian of science or nature; after\nall, his title, _Natural History_, is a very fitting one. The question,\nof course, arises whether he has sufficient scientific training to\nevaluate properly the work of the past. Has he read the best authors,\nhas he noted their best passages, has he understood their meaning?\nDoes he repeat inferior theories and omit the correcter views of\ncertain Alexandrian scientists? These questions are hard to answer.\nOn his behalf it may be said that he deals little with abstruse\nscientific theory and mainly with simple substances and geographical\nplaces, matters in which it seems difficult for him to go far astray.\nScientific specialists were not numerous in those days, anyway, and\nscience had not yet so far advanced and ramified that one man might not\nhope to cover the entire field and do it substantial justice. Pliny the\nYounger was perhaps a partial judge, but he described the _Natural\nHistory_ as \u201ca work remarkable for its comprehensiveness and erudition,\nand not less varied than Nature herself.\u201d[129]\n\n[Sidenote: His use of authorities.]\n\nOne thing in Pliny\u2019s favor as a compiler, besides his personal\nindustry, unflagging interest, and apparently abundant supply\nof clerical assistance, is his full and honest statement of his\nauthorities, although he adds that he has caught many authors\ntranscribing others verbatim without acknowledgment. He has, however,\ngreat admiration for many of his authorities, exclaiming more than once\nat the care and diligence of the men of the past who have left nothing\nuntried or unexperienced, from trackless mountain tops to the roots\nof herbs.[130] Sometimes, nevertheless, he disputes their assertions.\nFor instance, Hippocrates said that the appearance of jaundice on the\nseventh day in fever is a fatal sign, \u201cbut we know some who have lived\neven after this.\u201d[131] Pliny also scolds Sophocles for his falsehoods\nconcerning amber.[132] It may seem surprising that he should expect\nstrict scientific truth from a dramatic poet, but Pliny, like many\nmedieval writers, seems to regard poets as good scientific authorities.\nIn another passage he accepts Sophocles\u2019 statement that a certain\nplant is poisonous, rather than the contrary view of other writers,\nsaying \u201cthe authority of so prominent a man moves me against their\nopinions.\u201d[133] He also cites Menander concerning fish and, like almost\nall the ancients, regards Homer as an authority on all matters.[134]\nPliny sometimes cites the works of King Juba of Numidia, than whom\nthere hardly seems to have been a greater liar in antiquity.[135] He\nstated among other things in a work which he wrote for Gaius Caesar,\nthe son of Augustus, that a whale six hundred feet long and three\nhundred and sixty feet broad had entered a river in Arabia.[136] But\nwhere should Pliny turn for sober truth? The Stoic Chrysippus prated of\namulets;[137] treatises ascribed to the great philosophers Democritus\nand Pythagoras[138] were full of magic; and in the works of Cicero\nhe read of a man who could see for a distance of one hundred and\nthirty-five miles, and in Varro that this man, standing on a Sicilian\npromontory, could count the number of ships sailing out of the harbor\nof Carthage.[139]\n\n[Sidenote: His lack of arrangement and classification.]\n\nThe _Natural History_ has been criticized as poorly arranged and\nlacking in scientific classification, but this is a criticism which can\nbe made of many works of the classical period. Their presentation is\napt to be rambling and discursive rather than logical and systematic.\nEven Aristotle\u2019s _History of Animals_ is described by Lewes[140] as\nunclassified in its arrangement and careless in its selection of\nmaterial. I have often thought that the scholastic centuries did\nmankind at least one service, that of teaching lecturers and writers\nhow to arrange their material. Pliny seems rather in advance of his\ntimes in supplying full tables of contents for the busy emperor\u2019s\nconvenience. Valerius Soranus seems to have been the only previous\nRoman writer to do this. One indication of haste in composition and\nfailure to sift and compare his material is the fact that Pliny\nsometimes makes or includes contradictory statements, probably taken\nfrom different authorities. On the other hand, he not infrequently\nalludes to previous passages in his own work, thus showing that he has\nhis material fairly well in hand.\n\n[Sidenote: His scepticism and credulity.]\n\nPliny once said that there was no book so bad but what some good\nmight be got from it,[141] and to the modern reader he seems almost\nincredibly credulous and indiscriminate in his selection of material,\nand to lack any standard of judgment between the true and the false.\nYet he often assumes an air of scepticism and censures others sharply\nfor their credulity or exaggeration. \u201c\u2019Tis strange,\u201d he remarks _\u00e0\npropos_ of some tales of men transformed into wolves for nine or ten\nyears, \u201chow far Greek credulity has gone. No lie is so impudent that it\nlacks a voucher.\u201d[142] Once he expresses his determination to include\nonly those points on which his authorities are in agreement.[143]\n\n[Sidenote: A guide to ancient science.]\n\nOn the whole, while to us to-day the _Natural History_ seems a\ndisorderly and indiscriminate conglomeration of fact and fiction,\nits defects are probably to a great extent those of its age and of\nthe writers from whom it has borrowed. If it does not reflect the\nhighest achievements and clearest thinking of the best scientists of\nantiquity\u2014and be it said that there are a number of the Hellenistic\nage of whom we should know less than we do but for Pliny\u2014it probably\nis a fairly faithful epitome of science and error concerning nature in\nhis own time and the centuries preceding. At any rate it is the best\nportrayal that has reached us. From it we can get our background of the\nconfusion of magic and science in the Hellenistic age, and then reveal\nagainst this setting the development of them both in the course of\nthe Roman Empire and middle ages. Pliny gives so many items upon each\npoint, and is so much fuller than the average ancient or medieval book\nof science, that he serves as a reference book, being the likeliest\nplace to look to find duplicated some statement concerning nature by\na later writer. This of course shows that such a statement did not\noriginate with the later writer, but is not a sure sign that he copied\nfrom Pliny; they may both have used the same authorities, as seems the\ncase with Greek authors later in the empire who probably did not know\nof Pliny\u2019s work.\n\n[Sidenote: His medieval influence.]\n\nIn the middle ages, however, Pliny had an undoubted direct\ninfluence.[144] Manuscripts of the _Natural History_ are numerous,\nalthough in a scarcely legible condition owing to corrections and\nemendations which enhance the obscurity of the text and perhaps do\nPliny grave injustice in other respects.[145] Also many manuscripts\ncontain only a few books or fragments of the text, so that it is\npossible that many medieval scholars knew their Pliny only in\npart.[146] This, however, can scarcely be argued from their failure\nto include more from him in their own works; for that might be due to\ntheir knowing the _Natural History_ so well that they took its contents\nfor granted and tried to include other material in their own works. In\na later chapter we shall treat of _The Medicine of Pliny_, a treatise\nderived from the _Natural History_. Pliny\u2019s phrase _rerum natura_\nfigures as the title of several medieval encyclopedias of somewhat\nsimilar scope. And his own name was too well known in the middle\nages to escape having a work on the philosopher\u2019s stone ascribed to\nhim.[147]\n\n[Sidenote: Early printed edition.]\n\nThat the _Natural History_ was well known as a whole at least by\nthe close of the middle ages is shown by the numerous editions,\nsome of them magnificently printed, which were turned off from the\nItalian presses immediately after the invention of printing. In the\nMagliabechian Library of Florence alone are editions printed at\nVenice in 1469 and 1472, at Rome in 1473 and Parma in 1481, again at\nVenice in 1487, 1491, and 1499, not to mention Italian translations\nwhich appeared at Venice in 1476 and 1489.[148] These editions were\naccompanied by some published criticism of Pliny\u2019s statements, since in\n1492 appeared at Ferrara a treatise _On the Errors of Pliny and Others\nin Medicine_ by Nicholas Leonicenus of Vicenza with a dedication to\nPolitian.[149] But two years later Pliny found a defender in Pandulph\nCollenucius.[150]\n\nBut Pliny\u2019s future influence will come out repeatedly in later\nchapters. We shall now inquire, first, what signs of experimental\nscience he shows, either derived from the past or added by himself.\nSecond, what he defines as magic and what he has to say about it.\nThird, how much of what he supposes to be natural science must we\nregard as essentially magic?\n\n\nII. Its Experimental Tendency\n\n[Sidenote: Importance of observation and experience.]\n\nIt is probably only a coincidence that two medieval manuscripts close\nthe _Natural History_ in the midst of the seventy-sixth chapter of the\nlast book with the words, \u201c_Experimenta pluribus modis constant....\nPrimum pondere._\u201d[151] But although from the very nature of his work\nPliny makes extensive use of authorities, he not infrequently manifests\na realization, as one dealing with the facts of nature should, of the\nimportance of observation and experience as means of reaching the\ntruth. The claims of many Romans of high rank to have carried their\narms as far as Mount Atlas, which Pliny declares has been repeatedly\nshown by experience to be most fallacious, leads him to the further\nreflection that nowhere is a lapse of one\u2019s credulity easier than where\na dignified author supports a false statement.[152] In other passages\nhe calls experience the best teacher in all things,[153] and contrasts\nunfavorably garrulity of words and sitting in schools with going to\nsolitudes and seeking herbs at their appropriate seasons. That upon our\nglobe the land is entirely surrounded by water does not require, he\nsays, investigation by arguments, but is now known by experience.[154]\nAnd if the salamander really extinguished fire, it would have been\ntried at Rome long ago.[155] On the other hand, we find some assertions\nin the _Natural History_ which Pliny might easily have tested himself\nand found false, such as his statement that an egg-shell cannot be\nbroken by force or any weight unless it is tipped a little to one\nside.[156] Sometimes he gives his personal experience,[157] but also\nmentions experience in many other connections.\n\n[Sidenote: Use of the word _experimentum_.]\n\nThe word employed most of the time by Pliny to denote experience is\n_experimentum_.[158] In many passages the word does not indicate\nanything like a purposive, prearranged, scientific experiment in\nour sense of that word, but simply the ordinary experience of daily\nlife.[159] We are also told what _experti_,[160] or men of experience,\nadvise. In a number of passages, however, _experimentum_ is used in\na sense somewhat more closely approaching our \u201cexperiment.\u201d These\nare cases where something is being tested. For instance, a method of\ndetermining whether an egg is fresh or rotten by putting it in water\nand watching if it floats or sinks is called an _experimentum_.[161]\nThat horses would whinny at no other painting of a horse than that by\nApelles is spoken of as _illius experimentum artis_, a test of, or\ntestimony to, his art.[162] The expression _religionis experimento_\nis applied to a religious test or ordeal by which the virginity of\nClaudia was vindicated.[163] The word is also used of ways of telling\nif unguents are good[164] and if wine is beginning to turn;[165]\nand of various tests of the genuineness of drugs, gems, earths, and\nmetals.[166] It is also twice used of letting down a lighted lamp\ninto a huge wine cask or into wells to discover if there is danger at\nthe bottom from noxious vapors.[167] If the lamp was extinguished, it\nwas a sign of peril to human life. Pliny further suggests purposive\nexperimentation in speaking of _experimenta_ to discover water under\nground[168] and in grafting trees.[169]\n\n[Sidenote: Experiments due to scientific curiosity.]\n\nMost of the tests and experiences thus far mentioned have been\npractical operations connected with husbandry and industry. But\nPliny recounts one or two others which seem to have been dictated\nsolely by scientific curiosity. He classifies the following as\n_experimenta_:[170] the sinking of a well to prove by its complete\nillumination that the sun casts no shadow at noon of the summer\nsolstice; the marking of a dolphin\u2019s tail in order to throw some light\nupon its length of life, should it ever be captured again, as it was\nthree hundred years later\u2014perhaps the experiment of longest duration on\nrecord;[171] and the casting of a man into a pit of serpents at Rome\nto determine if he was really immune from their stings.[172]\n\n[Sidenote: Medical experimentation.]\n\n_Experimentum_ is employed by Pliny in a medical sense which becomes\nvery common in the middle ages. He calls some remedies for toothache\nand inflamed eyes _certa experimenta_\u2014sure experiences.[173] Later\n_experimentum_ came to be applied to almost any recipe or remedy.\nPliny, indeed, speaks of the doctors as learning at our risk and\ngetting experience through our deaths.[174] In another passage he\nstates more favorably that \u201cthere is no end to experimenting with\neverything so that even poisons are forced to cure us.\u201d[175] He also\nbriefly mentions the medical sect of Empirics, of whom we shall\nhear more from Galen. He says that they so name themselves from\nexperiences[176] and originated at Agrigentum in Sicily under Acron and\nEmpedocles.\n\n[Sidenote: Chance experience and divine revelation.]\n\nPliny is puzzled how some things which he finds stated in \u201cauthors\nfamous for wisdom\u201d were ever learned by experience, for example,\nthat the star-fish has such fiery fervor that it burns everything in\nthe sea which it touches, and digests its food instantly.[177] That\nadamant can be broken only by goat\u2019s blood he thinks must have been\ndivinely revealed, for it would hardly have been discovered by chance,\nand he cannot imagine that anyone would ever have thought of testing\na substance of immense value in a fluid of one of the foulest of\nanimals.[178] In several other passages he suggests chance, accident,\ndreams,[179] or divine revelation as the ways in which the medicinal\nvirtues of certain simples were discovered. Recently, for example,\nit was discovered that the root of the wild rose is a remedy for\nhydrophobia by the mother of a soldier in the praetorian guard, who was\nwarned in a dream to send her son this root, which cured him and many\nothers who have tried it since.[180] And a soldier in Pompey\u2019s time\naccidentally discovered a cure for elephantiasis when he hid his face\nfor shame in some wild mint leaves.[181] Another herb was accidentally\nfound to be a cure for disorders of the spleen when the entrails of a\nsacrificial victim happened to be thrown on it and it entirely consumed\nthe milt.[182] The healing properties of vinegar for the sting of\nthe asp were discovered by chance in this wise. A man who was stung\nby an asp while carrying a leather bottle of vinegar noticed that he\nfelt the sting only when he set the bottle down.[183] He therefore\ndecided to try the effects of a drink of the liquid and was thereby\nfully cured.[184] Other remedies are learned through the experience of\nrustics and illiterate persons, and yet others may be discovered by\nobserving animals who cure their ills by them.[185] Pliny\u2019s opinion is\nthat the animals have hit upon them by chance.\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels proved by experience.]\n\nPliny represents a number of marvelous and to us incredible things\nas proved by experience. Divination from thunder, for instance, is\nsupported by innumerable experiences, public and private. In two\npassages out of the three mentioning _experti_ which I cited above,\nthose experienced persons recommended a decidedly magical sort of\nprocedure.[186] In another passage \u201cthe experience of many\u201d supports\n\u201ca strange observance\u201d in plucking a bud.[187] A fourth bit of magical\nprocedure is called \u201cmarvelous but easily tested.\u201d[188] Thus the\ntransition is an easy one from signs of experimental science in the\n_Natural History_ to our next topic, Pliny\u2019s account of magic.\n\n\nIII. _Pliny\u2019s Account of Magic._\n\n[Sidenote: Oriental origin of magic.]\n\nPliny supplies some account of the origin and spread of magic[189]\nbut a rather confused and possibly unreliable one, as he mentions two\nZoroasters separated by an interval of five or six thousand years,\nand two Osthaneses, one of whom accompanied Xerxes, and the other\nAlexander, in their respective expeditions. He says, indeed, that it is\nnot clear whether one or two Zoroasters existed. In any case magic has\nflourished greatly the world over for many centuries, and was founded\nin Persia by Zoroaster. Some other magicians of Media, Babylonia,\nand Assyria are mere names to Pliny; later he mentions others like\nApollobeches and Dardanus. Although he thus derives magic from the\norient, he appears to make no distinction, as we shall find other\nwriters doing, between the _Magi_ of Persia and ordinary magicians,\nnor does he employ the word magic in two senses. He makes it evident,\nhowever, that there have been other men who have regarded magic more\nfavorably than he does.\n\n[Sidenote: Its spread to the Greeks.]\n\nPliny next traces the spread of magic among the Greeks. He marvels at\nthe lack of it in the Iliad and the abundance of it in the Odyssey.\nHe is uncertain whether to class Orpheus as a magician, and mentions\nThessaly as famous for its witches at least as early as the time of\nMenander who named one of his comedies after them. But he regards the\nOsthanes who accompanied Xerxes as the prime introducer of magic to the\nGreek-speaking world, which straightway went mad over it. In order to\nlearn more of it, the philosophers Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus,\nand Plato went into distant exile and on their return disseminated\ntheir lore. Pliny regards the works of Democritus as the greatest\nsingle factor in that dissemination of the doctrines of magic which\noccurred at about the same time that medicine was being developed by\nthe works of Hippocrates. Some regarded the books on magic ascribed to\nDemocritus as spurious, but Pliny insists that they are genuine.[190]\n\n[Sidenote: Its spread outside the Graeco-Roman world.]\n\nOutside of the Greek-speaking world, whence of course magic spread to\nRome, Pliny mentions Jewish magic, represented by such names as Moses,\nJannes, and Lotapes. But he holds that magic did not originate among\nthe Hebrews until long after Zoroaster. He also speaks of the magic of\nCyprus; of the Druids, who were the magicians, diviners, and medicine\nmen of Gaul until the emperor Tiberius suppressed them; and of distant\nBritain.[191] Thus discordant nations and even those ignorant of one\nanother\u2019s existence agree the world over in their devotion to magic.\nFrom what Pliny tells us elsewhere of the Scythians we can see that the\nnomads of the Russian steppes and Turkestan were devoted to magic too.\n\n[Sidenote: Failure to understand its true origin.]\n\nIt has been shown that Pliny regarded magic as a mass of doctrines\nformulated by a single founder and not as a gradual social evolution,\njust as the Greeks and Romans ascribed their laws and customs to some\nsingle legislator. He admits in a way, however, the great antiquity\nclaimed by magic for itself, although he questions how the bulky dicta\nof Zoroaster and Dardanus could have been handed down by memory during\nso long a period. This remark again shows how little he thinks of magic\nas a set of social customs and attitudes perpetuated through constant\nand universal practice from generation to generation. Yet what he says\nof its widespread prevalence among unconnected peoples goes to prove\nthis.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and divination.]\n\nPliny has a clearer comprehension of the extensive scope of magic and\nof its essential characteristics, at least as it was in his day. \u201cNo\none should wonder,\u201d he says, \u201cthat its authority has been very great,\nsince alone of the arts it has embraced and united with itself the\nthree other subjects which make the greatest appeal to the human mind,\u201d\nnamely, medicine, religion, and the arts of divination, especially\nastrology. That his phrase _artes mathematicas_ has reference to\nastrology is shown by his immediately continuing, \u201csince there is no\none who is not eager to learn the future about himself and who does not\nthink that this is most truly revealed by the sky.\u201d But magic further\n\u201cpromises to reveal the future by water and spheres and air and stars\nand lamps and basins and the blades of axes and by many other methods,\nbesides conferences with shades from the infernal regions.\u201d There can\ntherefore be no doubt that Pliny regards the various arts of divination\nas parts of magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and religion.]\n\nWhile we have heard Pliny assert in general the close connection\nbetween magic and religion, the character of the _Natural History_,\nwhich deals with natural rather than religious matters, does not lead\nhim to enter into much further detail upon this point. His occasional\nmention of religious usages in his own day, however, supports our\ninformation from other sources that the original Roman religion was\nvery largely composed of magic forces, rules, and ceremonial.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and medicine.]\n\nNearly half the books of the _Natural History_ deal in whole or in\npart with remedies for diseases, and it is therefore of the relations\nbetween magic and natural science, and more particularly between magic\nand medicine, that Pliny gives us the most detailed information.\nIndeed, he asserts that \u201cno one doubts\u201d that magic \u201coriginally sprang\nfrom medicine and crept in under the show of promoting health as a\nloftier and more sacred medicine.\u201d Magic and medicine have developed\ntogether, and the latter is now in imminent danger of being overwhelmed\nby the follies of magic, which have made men doubt whether plants\npossess any medicinal properties.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and philosophy.]\n\nIn the opinion of many, however, magic is sound and beneficial\nlearning. In antiquity, and for that matter at almost all times,\nthe height of literary fame and glory has been sought from that\nscience.[192] Eudoxus would have it the most noted and useful of all\nschools of philosophy. Empedocles and Plato studied it; Pythagoras and\nDemocritus perpetuated it in their writings.\n\n[Sidenote: Falseness of magic.]\n\nBut Pliny himself feels that the assertions of the books of magic are\nfantastic, exaggerated, and untrue. He repeatedly brands the _magi_\nor magicians as fools or impostors, and their statements as absurd\nand impudent tissues of lies.[193] _Vanitas_, or \u201cnonsense,\u201d is his\nstock-word for their beliefs.[194] Some of their writings must, in his\nopinion, have been dictated by a feeling of contempt and derision for\nhumanity.[195] Nero proved the falseness of the art, for although he\nstudied magic eagerly and with his unlimited wealth and power had every\nopportunity to become a skilful practitioner, he was unable to work any\nmarvels and abandoned the attempt.[196] Pliny therefore comes to the\nconclusion that magic is \u201cinvalid and empty, yet has some shadows of\ntruth, which however are due more to poisons than to magic.\u201d[197]\n\n[Sidenote: Crimes of magic.]\n\nThe last remark brings us to charges of evil practices made against the\nmagicians. Besides poisons, they specialize in love-potions and drugs\nto produce abortions;[198] and some of their operations are inhuman or\nobscene and abominable. They attempt baleful sorcery or the transfer of\ndisease from one person to another.[199] Osthanes and even Democritus\npropound such remedies as drinking human blood or utilizing in magic\ncompounds and ceremonies parts of the corpses of men who have been\nviolently slain.[200] Pliny thinks that humanity owes a great debt to\nthe Roman government for abolishing those monstrous rites of human\nsacrifice, \u201cin which to slay a man was thought most pious; nay more, to\neat men was thought most wholesome.\u201d[201]\n\n[Sidenote: Pliny\u2019s censure of magic is mainly intellectual.]\n\nPliny nevertheless lays less stress upon the moral argument against\nmagic as criminal or indecent than he does upon the intellectual\nobjection to it as untrue and unscientific. Indeed, so far as decency\nis concerned, his own medicine will be seen to be far from prudish,\nwhile he elsewhere gives instances of magicians guarding against\ndefilement.[202] Moreover, among the methods employed and the results\nsought by magic which he frequently mentions there are comparatively\nfew that are morally objectionable, although they seem without\nexception false. But many of their recipes aim at the cure of disease\nand other worthy, or at least admissible, objects. Possibly Pliny has\nsomewhat censored their lore and tried to exclude all criminal secrets,\nbut his censure seems more intellectual than moral. For instance, he\nfills a long chapter with extracts from a treatise on the virtues of\nthe chameleon and its parts by Democritus, whom he regards as a leading\npurveyor of magic lore.[203] In opening the chapter Pliny hails \u201cwith\ngreat pleasure\u201d the opportunity to expose \u201cthe lies of Greek vanity,\u201d\nbut at its close he expresses a wish that Democritus himself had been\ntouched with the branch of a palm which he said prevents immoderate\nloquacity. Pliny then adds more charitably, \u201cIt is evident that this\nman, who in other respects was a wise and most useful member of\nsociety, has erred from too great zeal in serving humanity.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Vagueness of Pliny\u2019s scepticism.]\n\nPliny himself fails to maintain a consistently sceptical attitude\ntowards magic. His exact attitude is often hard to determine. Often it\nis difficult to say whether he is speaking in sober earnest or in a\ntone of light and easy pleasantry and sarcasm, as in the passage just\ncited concerning Democritus. Another puzzling point is his frequent\nexcuse that he will list certain assertions of the magicians in order\nto expose or confute them. But really he usually simply sets them\nforth, apparently expecting that their inherent and patent absurdity\nwill prove a sufficient refutation of them. On the rare occasions\nwhen he undertakes to indicate in what the absurdity consists his\nreasoning is scarcely scientific or convincing. Thus he affirms that\n\u201cit is a peculiar proof of the vanity of the magicians that of all\nanimals they most admire moles who are condemned by nature in so\nmany ways, to perpetual blindness and to dig in the darkness as if\nthey were buried.\u201d[204] And he assails the belief of the _magi_[205]\nthat an owl\u2019s egg is good for diseases of the scalp by asking, \u201cWho,\nI beg, could ever have seen an owl\u2019s egg, since it is a prodigy to\nsee the bird itself?\u201d Moreover, he sometimes cites assertions of the\nmagicians without any censure, apology, or expression of disbelief;\nand there are many other passages where it is practically impossible\nto tell whether he is citing the magicians or not. Sometimes he will\napparently continue to refer to them by a pronoun in chapters where\nthey have not been mentioned by name at all.[206] In other places he\nwill imperceptibly cease to quote the _magi_ and after an interval\nperhaps as imperceptibly resume citation of their doctrines.[207] It\nis also difficult to determine just when writers like Democritus and\nPythagoras are to be regarded as representatives of magic and when\ntheir statements are accepted by Pliny as those of sound philosophers.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and science indistinguishable.]\n\nPerhaps, despite Pliny\u2019s occasional brave efforts to withstand and even\nridicule the assertions of the magicians, he could not free himself\nfrom a secret liking for them and more than half believed them. At\nany rate he believed very similar things. Even more likely is it that\nprevious works on nature were so full of such material and the readers\nof his own day so interested in it, that he could not but include\nmuch of it. Once he explains[208] that certain statements are scarcely\nto be taken seriously, yet should not be omitted, because they have\nbeen transmitted from the past. Again he begs the reader\u2019s indulgence\nfor similar \u201cvanities of the Greeks,\u201d \u201cbecause this too has its value\nthat we should know whatever marvels they have transmitted.\u201d[209] The\ntruth of the matter probably is that Pliny rejected some assertions of\nthe magicians but found others acceptable; that he gets his occasional\nattitude of scepticism and ridicule of their doctrines from one set\nof authorities, and his moments of unquestioning acceptance of their\nstatements from other authors on whom he relies. Very likely in the\nbooks which he used it often was no clearer than it is in the _Natural\nHistory_ whether a statement was to be ascribed to the _magi_ or not.\nVery possibly Pliny was as confused in his own mind concerning the\nentire business as he seems to be to us. He could no more keep magic\nout of his _Natural History_ than poor Mr. Dick could keep Charles the\nFirst\u2019s head out of his book. One fact at any rate stands out clearly,\nthe prominence of magic in his encyclopedia and in the learning of his\nage.\n\n\nIV. _The Science of the Magi_\n\n[Sidenote: Magicians as investigators of nature.]\n\nLet us now further examine Pliny\u2019s picture of magic, not as he\nexpressly defines or censures it, but as he reflects its own assertions\nand purposes in his fairly numerous citations from its literature and\nperhaps its practice. Here I shall rather strictly limit my survey\nto those statements which Pliny definitely ascribes by name to the\n_magi_ or magic art. The most striking fact is that the magicians are\ncited again and again concerning the supposed properties, virtues, and\neffects of things in nature\u2014herbs, animals, and stones. These virtues\nare, it is true, often employed in an effort to produce wonderful\nresults, and often too they are combined with some fantastic rite or\nsuperstitious ceremonial performed by a human agent. But in many cases\neither no rite at all is suggested or merely some simple medicinal\napplication; and in a few cases there is no mention of any particular\noperation or result, the magicians are cited simply as authorities\nconcerning the great but unspecified virtues of natural objects.\nIndeed, they stand out in Pliny\u2019s pages not as mere sorcerers or\nenchanters or wonder-workers, but as those who have gone the farthest\nand in most detail\u2014too far and too curiously in Pliny\u2019s opinion\u2014into\nthe study of medicine and of nature. Sometimes their statements,\ncited without censure, supplement others concerning the species under\ndiscussion;[210] sometimes they are his sole source of information on\nthe subject in hand.[211]\n\n[Sidenote: The _magi_ on herbs.]\n\nPliny connects the origin of botany rather closely with magic,\nmentioning Medea and Circe as early investigators of plants and Orpheus\namong the first writers on the subject.[212] Moreover, Pythagoras and\nDemocritus borrowed from the _magi_ of the orient in their works on the\nproperties of plants.[213] There would be little profit in repeating\nthe names of the herbs concerning which Pliny gives opinions of the\nmagicians, inasmuch as few of them can be associated with any plants\nknown to-day.[214] Suffice it to say that Pliny makes no objection to\nthe herbs which they employed. Nor does he criticize their methods of\nemploying them, although some seem superstitious enough to the modern\nreader. A chaplet is worn of one herb,[215] others are plucked with the\nleft hand and with a statement of what they are to be used for, and in\none case without looking backward.[216] The anemone is to be plucked\nwhen it first appears that year with a statement of its intended use,\nand then is to be wrapped in a red cloth and kept in the shade, and,\nwhenever anyone falls sick of tertian or quartan fever, is to be bound\non the patient\u2019s body.[217] The heliotrope is not to be plucked at all\nbut tied in three or four knots with a prayer that the patient may\nrecover to untie the knots.[218]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues of herbs.]\n\nPliny does not even object to the marvelous results which the\n_magi_ think can be gained by use of herbs until towards the close\nof his twenty-fourth book, although already in his twentieth and\ntwenty-first books such powers have been claimed for herbs as to\nmake one well-favored and enable one to attain one\u2019s desires,[219]\nor to give one grace and glory.[220] At the end of his twenty-fourth\nbook[221] he states that Pythagoras and Democritus, following the\n_magi_, ascribe to herbs unusually marvelous virtues such as to freeze\nwater, invoke spirits, force the guilty to confess by frightening them\nwith apparitions, and impart the gift of divination. Early in his\ntwenty-fifth book[222] Pliny suggests that some incredible effects have\nbeen attributed to herbs by the _magi_ and their disciples, and in a\nlater chapter[223] he describes the _magi_ as so mad about vervain\nthat they think that if they are anointed with it, they can gain their\nwishes, drive away fevers and other diseases, and make friendships. The\nherb should be plucked about the rising of the dog-star when there is\nneither sun nor moon. Honey and honeycomb should be offered to appease\nthe earth; then the plant should be dug around with iron with the left\nhand and raised aloft. By the time he reaches his twenty-sixth book\nPliny\u2019s courage has risen, so to speak, enough to cause him at last to\nenter upon quite a tirade against \u201cmagical vanities which have been\ncarried so far that they might destroy faith in herbs entirely.\u201d[224]\nAs examples he mentions herbs supposed to dry up rivers and swamps,\nopen barred doors at their touch, turn hostile armies to flight, and\nsupply all the needs of the ambassadors of the Persian kings. He\nwonders why such herbs have never been employed in Roman warfare or\nItalian drainage. Pliny\u2019s only objection to magic herbs therefore\nseems to be the excessive powers which are claimed for some of them.\nHe adds that it would be strange that the credulity which arose from\nsuch wholesome beginnings had reached such a pitch, if human ingenuity\nobserved moderation in anything and if the much more recent system of\nmedicine which Asclepiades founded could not be shown to have been\ncarried even beyond the magicians. Here again we see Pliny failing\nto recognize magic as a primitive social product and regarding it\nas a degeneration from ancient science rather than science as a\ncomparatively modern development from it. But he may well be right in\nthinking that many particular far-fetched recipes and rites were the\nlate, artificial product of over-scholarly magicians. Thus he brands as\nfalse and magical the assertion of a recent grammarian, Apion, that the\nherb cynocephalia is divine and a safeguard against poison, but kills\nthe man who uproots it entirely.[225]\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and parts of animals.]\n\nIn a few cases Pliny objects to the animals or parts of animals\nemployed by the _magi_, as in the passage already cited where he\ncomplains that they admire moles more than any other animals.[226] But\nhis assertion is inconsistent, since he has already affirmed that they\nhold the hyena in most admiration of all animals on the ground that it\nworks magic upon men.[227] Their promise of readier favor with peoples\nand kings to those who anoint themselves with lion\u2019s fat, especially\nthat between the eyebrows, he criticizes by declaring that no fat\ncan be found there.[228] He also twits the _magi_ for magnifying the\nimportance of so nasty a creature as the tick.[229] They are attracted\nto it by the fact that it has no outlet to its body and can live\nonly seven days even if it fasts. Whether there is any astrological\nsignificance in the number seven here Pliny does not say. He does\ninform us, however, that the cricket is employed in magic because it\nmoves backward.[230] A very bizarre object employed by the Druids\nand other magicians is a sort of egg produced by the hissing or foam\nof snakes.[231] The blood of the basilisk may also be classed as a\nrarity. Apparently animals in some way unusual are preferred in magic,\nlike a black sheep,[232] but the logic in the reasons given by Pliny\nfor their selection is not clear in every instance. In some other cases\nnot criticized by Pliny[233] we have plainly enough sympathetic magic\nor the principle of like cures like, as when the milt of a calf or\nsheep is used to cure diseases of the human spleen.\n\n[Sidenote: Further instances.]\n\nThe magicians, however, do not scorn to use familiar and easily\nobtainable animals like the goat and dog and cat. The liver and dung\nof a cat, a puppy\u2019s brains, the blood and genitals of a dog, and the\ngall of a black male dog are among the animal substances employed.[234]\nSuch substances as those just named are equally in demand from other\nanimals.[235] Minute parts of animals are frequently employed by the\nmagicians, such as the toe of an owl, the liver of a mouse given in\na fig, the tooth of a live mole, the stones from young swallows\u2019\ngizzards, the eyes of river crabs.[236] Sometimes the part employed\nis reduced to ashes, perhaps a relic of sacrificial custom. Thus for\ntoothache the _magi_ inject into the ear nearer the tooth the ashes\nof the head of a mad dog and oil of Cyprus, while they prescribe for\naffections of the sinews the ashes of an owl\u2019s head in honied wine\nwith lily root.[237] Other living creatures which Pliny mentions as\nused by the _magi_ are the salamander, earthworm, bat, scarab with\nreflex horns, lizard, tortoise, bed-bug, frog, and sea-urchin.[238] The\ndragon\u2019s tail wrapped in a gazelle\u2019s skin and bound on with deer-sinews\ncures epilepsy,[239] and a mixture of the dragon\u2019s tongue, eyes, gall,\nand intestines, boiled in oil, cooled in the night air, and rubbed on\nmorning and evening, frees one from nocturnal apparitions.[240]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic rites with animals and parts of animals.]\n\nSometimes the parts of animals are bound on outside the patient\u2019s\nbody, sometimes the injured portion of his body is merely touched\nwith them. Once the whole house is to be fumigated with the substance\nin question;[241] once the walls are to be sprinkled with it; once it\nis to be buried under the threshold. Some instances follow of more\nelaborate magic ritual connected with the use of animals or parts of\nanimals. The hyena is more easily captured by a hunter who ties seven\nknots in his girdle and horsewhip, and it should be captured when\nthe moon is in the sign of Gemini and without the loss of a single\nhair.[242] Another bit of astrology dispensed by the _magi_ is that the\ncat, whose salted liver is taken with wine for quartan fever, should\nhave been killed under a waning moon.[243] To cure incontinence of\nurine one not only drinks ashes of a boar\u2019s genitals in sweet wine, but\nafterwards urinates in a dog kennel and repeats the formula, \u201cThat I\nmay not urinate like a dog in its kennel.\u201d[244] The magicians insist\nthat the sex of the patient be observed in administering burnt cow-dung\nor bull-dung in honied wine for cases of dropsy.[245] For infantile\nailments the brains of a she-goat should be passed through a gold ring\nand dropped in the baby\u2019s mouth before it is given its milk.[246] After\nthe fresh milt of a sheep has been applied to the patient with the\nwords, \u201cThis I do for the cure of the spleen,\u201d it should be plastered\ninto the bedroom wall and sealed with a ring, while the charm should\nbe repeated twenty-seven times.[247] In treating sciatica[248] an\nearthworm should be placed in a broken wooden dish mended with an\niron band, the dish should be filled with water, the worm should\nbe buried again where it was dug up, and the water should be drunk\nby the patient. The eyes of river crabs are to be attached to the\npatient\u2019s person before sunrise and the blinded crabs put back into the\nwater.[249] After it has been carried around the house thrice a bat may\nbe nailed head down outside a window as an amulet.[250] For epilepsy\ngoat\u2019s flesh should be given which has been roasted on a funeral pyre,\nand the animal\u2019s gall should not be allowed to touch the ground.[251]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels wrought with parts of animals.]\n\nPliny occasionally speaks in a vague general way of his citations\nfrom the _magi_ concerning the virtues of parts of animals as lies\nor nonsense or \u201cportentous,\u201d but he does not specifically criticize\ntheir procedure any more than he did their methods of employing herbs,\nand he does not criticize their promised results as much as he did\nbefore. Indeed, as we have already indicated, the object in a majority\nof cases is purely medicinal. The purpose of others is pastoral or\nagricultural, such as preventing goats from straying or causing swine\nto follow you.[252] The blood of the basilisk, however, is said to\nprocure answers to petitions made to the powerful and prayers addressed\nto the gods, and to act as a safeguard against poison or sorcery\n(_veneficiorum amuleta_).[253] Invincibility is promised the wearer of\nthe head and tail of a dragon, hairs from a lion\u2019s forehead, a lion\u2019s\nmarrow, the foam of a winning horse, a dog\u2019s claw bound in deer-skin,\nand the muscles alternately of a deer and a gazelle.[254] A woman will\ntell secrets in her sleep if the heart of an owl is applied to her\nright breast, and power of divination is gained by eating the still\npalpitating heart of a mole.[255]\n\n[Sidenote: The _magi_ on stones.]\n\nIn the case of stones the names are again, as in the case of herbs, of\nlittle significance for us.[256] The accompanying ritual is slight.\nThere are one or two suspensions from the neck or elsewhere by such\nmeans as a lion\u2019s mane\u2014the hair of the hyena will not do at all\u2014nor\nthe hair of the cynocephalus and swallows\u2019 feathers.[257] There is\nsome use of incantations with the stones, a setting of iron for one\nstone, burial of another beneath a tree that it may not dull the axe,\nand placing another on the tongue after rinsing the mouth with honey\nat certain days and hours of the moon in order to acquire the gift\nof divination.[258] Indeed, the results promised are all marvelous.\nThe stones benefit public speakers, admit to the presence of royalty,\ncounteract fascination and sorcery, avert hail, thunderbolts, storms,\nlocusts, and scorpions; chill boiling water, produce family discord,\nrender athletes invincible, quench anger and violence, make one\ninvisible, evoke images of the gods and shades from the infernal\nregions.\n\n[Sidenote: Other magical recipes.]\n\nWe have yet to mention a group of magical recipes and remedies which\nPliny for some reason collects in one chapter[259] but which hardly\nfall under any one head. A whetstone on which iron tools are sharpened,\nif placed without his knowledge under the pillow of a man who has been\npoisoned, will cause him to reveal all the circumstances of the crime.\nIf you turn a man who has been struck by lightning over on his injured\nside, he will speak at once. To cure tumors in the groin, tie seven\nor nine knots in the remnant of a weaver\u2019s web, naming some widow as\neach knot is tied. The pain is assuaged by binding to the body the nail\nthat has been trod on. To get rid of warts, on the twentieth day of the\nmoon lie flat in a path gazing at the moon, stretch the hands above the\nhead and rub the warts with anything that comes to hand. A corn may\nbe extracted successfully at the moment a star shoots. Headache may\nbe relieved by a liniment made by pouring vinegar on door hinges or\nby binding a hangman\u2019s noose about the patient\u2019s temples. To dislodge\na fish-bone stuck in the throat, plunge the feet into cold water; to\ndislodge some other sort of bone, place bones on the head; to dislodge\na morsel of bread, stuff bits of bread into both ears. We may add from\na neighboring chapter a very magical remedy for fevers, although Pliny\ncalls it \u201cthe most modest of their promises.\u201d[260] Toe and finger\nnail parings mixed with wax are to be attached ere sunrise to another\nperson\u2019s door in order to transfer the disease from the patient to him.\nOr they may be placed near an ant-hill, in which case the first ant who\ntries to drag one inside the hill should be captured and suspended\nfrom the patient\u2019s neck.\n\n[Sidenote: Summary of the statements of the _magi_.]\n\nSuch is the picture we derive from numerous passages in the _Natural\nHistory_ of the magic art, its materials and rites, the effects it\nseeks to produce, and its general attitude towards nature. Besides\nthe natural materials employed and the marvelous results sought, we\nhave noted the frequent use of ligatures, suspensions, and amulets,\nthe observance of astrological conditions, of certain times and\nnumbers, rules for plucking herbs and tying knots, stress on the use\nof the right or left hand\u2014in other words, on position or direction,\nsome employment of incantations, some sacrifice and fumigation, some\nspecimens of sympathetic magic, of the theory that \u201clike cures like,\u201d\nand of other types of magic logic.\n\n\nV. _Pliny\u2019s Magical Science_\n\n[Sidenote: From the _magi_ to Pliny\u2019s magic.]\n\nWe may now turn to the still more numerous passages of the _Natural\nHistory_ where the _magi_ are not cited and compare the virtues there\nascribed to the things of nature and the methods employed in medicine\nand agriculture with those of the magicians. We shall find many\nstriking resemblances and shall soon come to a realization that there\nis more magic in the _Natural History_ which is not attributed to\nthe _magi_ than there is that is. Pliny did not need to warn us that\nmedicine had been corrupted by magic; his own medicine proves it. It\nis this fact, that virtually his entire work is crammed with marvelous\nproperties and fantastic ceremonial, which makes it so difficult in\nsome places to tell when he begins to draw material from the _magi_ and\nwhen he leaves off. By a detailed analysis of this remaining material\nwe shall now attempt to classify the substances of which Pliny makes\nuse and the virtues which he ascribes to them, the rites and methods\nof procedure by which they are employed, and certain superstitious\ndoctrines and notions which are involved. We shall thus find that\nalmost precisely the same factors are present in his science as in the\nlore of the magicians.\n\n[Sidenote: Habits of animals.]\n\nOf substances we may begin with animals,[261] and, before we note the\nhuman use of their virtues with its strong suggestion of magic, may\nremark another unscientific and superstitious feature which was very\ncommon both in ancient and medieval times. This is the tendency to\nhumanize animals, ascribing to them conscious motives, habits, and\nruses, or even moral standards and religious veneration. We shall have\noccasion to note the same thing in other authors and so will give but\na few specimens from the many in the _Natural History_. Such qualities\nare attributed by Pliny especially to elephants, whom he ranks next to\nman in intelligence, and whom he represents as worshiping the stars,\nlearning difficult tricks, and as having a sense of justice, feeling\nof mercy, and so on.[262] Similarly the lion has noble courage and a\nsense of gratitude, while the lioness is wily in the devices by which\nshe conceals her amours with the pard.[263] A number of the devices\nof fishes to escape hooks and nets are repeated by Pliny from Ovid\u2019s\n_Halieuticon_, extant only in fragments.[264] The crocodile opens\nits jaws to have its teeth picked by a friendly bird; but sometimes\nwhile this operation is being performed the ichneumon \u201cdarts down its\nthroat like a javelin and eats away its intestines.\u201d[265] Pliny also\nmarvels at the cleverness displayed by the dragon and the elephant in\ntheir combats with one another,[266] which, however, almost invariably\nterminate fatally to both combatants, the elephant falling exhausted in\nthe dragon\u2019s coils and crushing the serpent by its weight. Others say\nthat in the hot summer the dragons thirst for the blood of the elephant\nwhich is very cold; in their combat the elephant falls drained of its\nblood and crushes the dragon who is intoxicated by the same.\n\n[Sidenote: Remedies discovered by animals.]\n\nThe dragon\u2019s apparent knowledge that the elephant is cold-blooded\nleads us to a kindred topic, the remedies used by animals and often\ndiscovered by men only by seeing animals use them. This notion\ncontinued in the middle ages, as we shall see, and of course it did not\noriginate with Pliny. As he says himself, \u201cThe ancients have recorded\nthe remedies of wild beasts and shown how they are healed even when\npoisoned.\u201d[267] Against aconite the scorpion eats white hellebore as\nan antidote, while the panther employs human excrement.[268] Animals\nprepare themselves for combats with poisonous snakes by eating certain\nherbs; the weasel eats rue, the tortoise and deer use two other plants,\nwhile field mice who have been stung by snakes eat _condrion_.[269]\nThe hawk tears open the hawkweed and sprinkles its eyes with the\njuice.[270] The serpent tastes fennel when it sheds its old skin.[271]\nSick bears cure themselves by a diet of ants.[272] Swallows restore\nthe sight of their young with chelidonia or swallow-wort,[273] and the\nhistorian Xanthus says that the dragon restores its dead offspring\nto life with an herb called _balis_.[274] The hippopotamus was the\noriginal discoverer of bleeding,[275] opening a vein in his leg by\nwounding himself on sharp reeds along the shore, and afterwards\nchecking the flow of blood by plastering the place with mud.[276]\nPliny, however, states in one passage that animals hit upon all these\nremedies by chance and even have to rediscover them by accident in\neach new case, \u201csince,\u201d he continues in conformity with recent animal\npsychologists, \u201creason and practice cannot be transmitted between wild\nbeasts.\u201d[277]\n\n[Sidenote: Jealousy of animals.]\n\nYet in another passage Pliny deplores the spitefulness of the dog\nwhich, while men are looking, will not pluck the herb by which it\ncures itself of snake-bite.[278] Probably Pliny is using different\nauthorities in the two passages. Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle,\nhad written a work on _Jealous Animals_. More excusable than the\nspitefulness of the dog is the attitude of the dragon, from whose\nbrain the gem _draconitis_ must be taken while the dragon is alive and\npreferably asleep. For if the dragon feels that it is mortally wounded,\nit takes revenge by spoiling the gem.[279] Elephants know that men hunt\nthem only for their tusks, and so bury these when they fall off.[280]\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtues of animals.]\n\nAnimals have marvelous virtues of their own other than the medicinal\nuses to which men have put them. For instance, the mere glance of\nthe basilisk is fatal, and its breath burns up vegetation and breaks\nrocks.[281] But the medicinal effects which Pliny ascribes to animals\nand parts of animals are well nigh infinite. Many animal substances\nwill have to be introduced in other connections so that we need\nmention now but a very few: the heads and blood of flies, honey in\nwhich bees have died, _cinere genitalis asini_, chicks in the egg,\nand thrice seven centipedes diluted with Attic honey,[282]\u2014this last\na prescription for asthma and to be taken through a reed because it\nblackens every dish by its contact. Another passage advises eating\na rat or shrew-mouse in order to bear a baby with black eyes.[283]\nThese items are enough to convince us that the animals and parts of\nanimals employed by the magicians were not one whit more bizarre and\nnauseating than the others found in the _Natural History_, nor were the\ncures which they were expected to work any more improbable. In order\nto illustrate, however, the delicate distinctions which were imagined\nto exist not only between the virtues of different parts of the same\nanimal, but also between slightly varied uses of the same part, we may\nnote that scales scraped from the topmost part of a tortoise\u2019s shell\nand administered in drink check sexual desire, considering which, it\nis, as Pliny remarks, the more marvelous that a powder made of the\nentire shell is reported to arouse lust.[284] But love turns readily to\nhatred in magic as well as in romance, and it is nothing very unusual,\nas we shall find in other authors, for the same thing on slight\nprovocation to work in exactly opposite ways.\n\n[Sidenote: The virtues of herbs.]\n\nPig grease, Pliny somewhere informs us, possesses especially strong\nvirtue, \u201cbecause that animal feeds on the roots of herbs.\u201d[285] From\nthe virtues of animals, therefore, let us turn to those of herbs.[286]\nPliny met on every hand assertion of their wonderful powers. The\nempire-builders of Rome employed the sacred herbs _sagmina_ and\n_verbenae_ in their embassies and legations. The Gauls, too, use the\nverbena in lot-casting and prophetic responses.[287] Pliny also states\nmore sceptically that there is another root which diviners take in\ndrink in order to feign inspiration.[288] The Scythians know of a plant\nwhich prevents hunger and thirst if held in the mouth, and of another\nwhich has the same effect upon their horses, so that they can go for\ntwelve days without meat or drink,[289]\u2014an exaggerated estimate of\nthe hardihood of the mounted Asiatic nomads and their steeds. Musaeus\nand Hesiod say that one anointed with _polion_ will attain fame and\ndignities.[290]\n\nPliny perhaps did not intend to subscribe fully to such statements,\nalthough he cannot be said to call many of them into question. He did\ncomplain that some writers had asserted incredible powers of herbs,\nsuch as to restore dragons or men to life or withdraw wedges from\ntrees,[291] yet he seems on the whole in sympathy with the opinion of\nthe majority that there is practically nothing which the force of herbs\ncannot accomplish. Herophilus, illustrious in medicine, had said that\ncertain herbs were beneficial if merely trod upon, and Pliny himself\nsays the same of more than one plant. He tells us further that binding\nthe wild fig tree about their necks makes the fiercest bulls stand\nimmobile;[292] that another plant subjects fractious beasts of burden\nto the yoke;[293] while cows who eat _buprestis_ burst asunder.[294]\nAnother herb _contacto genitali_ kills any female animal.[295] Betony\nis considered an amulet for houses,[296] and fishermen in Pliny\u2019s\nneighborhood mix a plant with chalk and scatter it on the waves.[297]\n\u201cThe fish dart towards it with marvelous desire and straightway float\nlifeless on the surface.\u201d Dogs will not bark at persons carrying\n_peristereos_.[298] The \u201cimpious plant\u201d prevents any human being who\ntastes it from having quinsy, while swine are sure to have that disease\nif they do not eat it. Some place it in birds\u2019 nests to prevent the\nvoracious nestlings from strangling. Bitter almonds provide another\namusing combination of effects. Eating five of them permits one to\ndrink without experiencing intoxication, but if foxes eat them they\nwill die unless they find water near by to drink.[299] There are some\nherbs which have a medicinal effect, if one merely looks at them.[300]\nIn two cases the masculine or feminine variety of a herb is used to\nsecure the birth of a child of the desired sex.[301]\n\n[Sidenote: Plucking herbs.]\n\nThat the plucking of herbs and digging up of roots was a process very\napt to be attended by magical procedure we find abundant evidence\nin the _Natural History_. Often plants should be plucked before\nsunrise.[302] Twice Pliny tells us that the peony should be uprooted\nby night lest the woodpecker of Mars try to pick the digger\u2019s eyes\nout.[303] The state of the moon is another point to be observed,[304]\nand once an herb is to be gathered before thunder is heard.[305] A\ncommon instruction is to pick the plant with the left hand,[306] and\nonce with the thumb and fourth finger of the left hand.[307] Once\nthe right hand should be stretched covertly after the fashion of a\npickpocket through the left sleeve in order to pluck the plant.[308]\nSometimes one faces east in plucking herbs; sometimes, west; again one\nis careful not to face the wind.[309] Sometimes the gatherer must not\nglance behind him. Sometimes he must fast before he takes the plant\nfrom the ground;[310] again he must observe a state of chastity.[311]\nSometimes he should be barefoot and clothed in white; again he should\nremove every stitch of clothing and even his rings.[312] Sometimes the\nuse of iron implements is forbidden; again gold or some other material\nis prescribed;[313] once the herb is to be dug with a nail.[314]\nSometimes circles are traced about the plant with the point of a\nsword.[315] Often the plant must not touch the ground again after it is\npicked,[316] presumably from a fear that its virtue would run off like\nan electric current. Pliny alludes at least three times[317] to the\npractice of herbalists of retaining portions of the herbs they sell,\nand then, if they are not paid in full, replanting the herb in the same\nspot with the idea that thereby the disease will return to plague the\ndelinquent patient. Frequently one is directed to state why one plucks\nthe herb or for whom it is intended.[318] In one case the digger says,\n\u201cThis is the herb Argemon which Minerva discovered was a remedy for\nswine who taste it.\u201d[319] In another case one should salute the plant\nand extract its juice before saying a word; thus its virtue will be\nmuch greater.[320] In other cases, as an offering to appease the earth,\nthe soil about the plant is soaked with hydromel three months before\nplucking it, or the hole left by pulling it up is filled with different\nkinds of grain.[321] Sometimes one sacrifices beforehand with bread\nand wine or prays to the gods for permission to gather the herb.[322]\nThe customs of the Druids in gathering herbs are mentioned more than\nonce.[323] In gathering the sacred mistletoe on the sixth day of the\nmoon they hold sacrifices and a banquet beneath the tree.[324] Two\nwhite bulls are the victims; a priest clad in white cuts the mistletoe\nwith a golden sickle and receives it in a white cloak.[325]\n\n[Sidenote: Agricultural magic.]\n\nTo Pliny\u2019s discussion of herbs we may append some specimens of the\nemployment of magic procedure in agriculture and of the superstitions\nof the peasantry in which his pages abound. To guard against diseases\nof grain the seeds before planting should be steeped in wine, the\njuice of a certain herb, the gall of a cow, or human urine, or should\nbe touched with the shoulders of a mole[326]\u2014the animal whose use\nby the _magi_ we heard Pliny ridicule. One should sow at the moon\u2019s\nconjunction. Before the field is hoed, a frog should be carried around\nit and then buried in the center in an earthen vessel. But it should be\ndisinterred before harvest lest the millet be bitter. Birds may be kept\naway from the grain by planting in the four corners of the field an\nherb whose name is unfortunately unknown to Pliny.[327] Mice are kept\nout by the ashes of a weasel, mildew by laurel branches, caterpillars\nby placing the skull of a female beast of burden upon a stick in the\ngarden.[328] To ward off fogs and storms from orchards and vineyards\na frog may be buried as directed above, or live crabs may be burnt\nin the trees, or a painted grape may be consecrated.[329] Suspending\na frog in the granary preserves the corn stored there.[330] To keep\nwolves away catch one, break its legs, attach it to the ploughshare,\nand thus scatter its blood about the boundaries of the field; then bury\nthe carcass at the starting-point.[331] Or consecrate at the altar of\nthe Lar the ploughshare with which the first furrow was traced. Foxes\nwill not touch poultry who have eaten the dried liver of a fox or who\nwear a bit of its skin about their necks. Fern will not spring up again\nif it is mowed with the edge of a reed or uprooted by a ploughshare\nupon which a reed has been placed.[332] Of the use of incantations in\nagriculture we shall treat later.\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues of stones.]\n\nPliny appears to have much less faith in the possession of marvelous\nvirtues by gems than by herbs and parts of animals. He not only\ncharacterizes the powers attributed to gems by the _magi_ and\nDemocritus and Pythagoras as \u201cterrible lies\u201d and \u201cunspeakable\nnonsense\u201d;[333] but refrains from mentioning many such himself or\ninserts a cautious \u201cif we believe it\u201d or \u201cif they tell the truth.\u201d[334]\nOf the gem supposed to be produced from the urine of the lynx he\nsays, \u201cI think that this is quite false and no gem of that name has\nbeen seen in our time. What is stated concerning its medicinal virtue\nis also false.\u201d[335] To other stones, however, he ascribes various\nmedicinal virtues, either when taken pulverized in drink or when worn\nas amulets.[336] A few other occult properties are stated without\nreservation, as that _amiantus_ resists all sorceries,[337] that\nadamant expels idle fears from the mind, that _sideritis_ produces\ndiscord and litigation, and that _eumeces_, placed beneath one\u2019s pillow\nat night, causes oracular visions.[338] Magnets are said to differ\nin sex, and the belief of Theophrastus and Mucianus is repeated that\ncertain stones bear offspring.[339]\n\n[Sidenote: Other minerals and metals.]\n\nOf the metals iron sometimes figures in Pliny\u2019s magical procedure, as\nwhen he either prescribes or taboos the use of it in cutting herbs or\nkilling animals. In Arcadia the yew-tree is a fatal poison to persons\nsleeping beneath it, but driving a copper nail into the tree makes\nit harmless.[340] Pliny says that gold is medicinal in many ways\nand in particular is applied to wounded persons and to infants as a\nsafeguard against witchcraft.[341] Earth itself is often used to work\nmarvels, but usually some particular portion, such as that between\ncart ruts or that thrown up by ants, beetles, and moles, or in the\nright footprint where one first heard a cuckoo sing.[342] However,\nthe rule that an object should not touch the ground is enforced in\nmany other connections[343] than the plucking of herbs, and Pliny\ntwice states that the earth will not permit a serpent who has stung\na human being to re-enter its hole.[344] In his discussion of metals\nPliny does not allude to transmutation or alchemy, unless it be in his\naccounts of various fraudulent practices of workers in metal and how\nCaligula extracted gold from orpiment. But the following directions\nfor preparing antimony show how closely akin to magic the procedure\nin ancient metallurgy might be. The antimony should be coated with\ncow-flap and burnt in furnaces, then quenched in woman\u2019s milk and\npounded in mortars with an admixture of rain-water.[345]\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues of human parts.]\n\nVarious parts and products of the human body are credited with\nremarkable virtues as the mention just made of woman\u2019s milk suggests.\nOther passages recommend more especially the milk of a woman just\ndelivered of a male child, but most of all that of the mother\nof twins.[346] _Sed nihil facile reperiatur mulierum profluvio\nmagis monstrificum_, as Pliny proceeds to illustrate by numerous\nexamples.[347] Great virtues are also attributed to the urine,\nparticularly of a chaste boy.[348] A few other instances of remedies\ndrawn from the human body are ear-wax or a powdered tooth against\nstings of scorpions and bites of snakes,[349] a man\u2019s hair for the bite\nof a dog, the first hairs from a boy\u2019s head for gout.[350] Diseases\nof women are prevented by wearing constantly in a bracelet the first\ntooth a boy loses, provided it has not touched the ground. Simply tying\ntwo fingers or toes together is recommended for tumors in the groin,\ncatarrh, and sore eyes.[351] Or the eyes may be touched thrice with\nwater in which the feet have been washed. Scrofula and throat diseases\nmay be cured by the touch of the hand of one who has died an early\ndeath, although some authorities do not insist upon the circumstance\nof early death but direct that the corpse be of the same sex as the\npatient and that the diseased spot be touched with the back of the left\ndead hand.\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues of human saliva.]\n\nOf all fluids and excretions of the human body the saliva is\nperhaps used most often in ancient and medieval medicine, as the\ncustom of spitting once or thrice in administering other remedies\nor performing ceremonies goes to prove. The spittle of a fasting\nperson is the more efficacious. In a chapter devoted particularly to\nthe properties of human saliva Pliny lists many diseases and woes\nwhich it alleviates.[352] In this connection he makes the following\nabsurd assertion which he nevertheless declares is easily tested by\nexperiment. \u201cIf a person repents of a blow given from a distance or\nhand-to-hand, let him spit into the palm of the hand with which he\nstruck, and the person who has been struck will feel no resentment.\nThis is often proved by beasts of burden who are induced to mend their\npace by this method after the use of the whip has failed.\u201d Pliny\nadds, however, that some persons try to increase the force of their\nblows by thus spitting on the hands beforehand. He also mentions as\ncounter-charms against sorcery the practices of spitting into one\u2019s\nurine or right shoe, or when crossing a dangerous spot.\n\n[Sidenote: The human operator.]\n\nThe importance of the human operator as a factor in the performance\nof marvels, be they medical or magical, is attested by the frequent\ninjunctions of chastity, virginity, nudity, or a state of fasting\nupon persons concerned in Pliny\u2019s procedure. Sometimes they are not\nto glance behind them, sometimes they are to speak to no one during\nthe operation. Pliny also mentions men who have a special capacity for\nwonder-working, such as Pyrrhus, the touch of whose toe had healing\npower,[353] those whose eyes exert strong fascination, whole tribes\nof serpent-charmers and venom-curers, and others whose mere presence\naddles the eggs beneath a setting hen.[354] The power of words spoken\nby men will be considered separately under the head of incantations.\n\n[Sidenote: Absence of medical compounds.]\n\nWhile Pliny attributes the most extreme medicinal virtues to simples,\nhe excludes from his _Natural History_ the strange and elaborate\ncompounds which were nevertheless so popular in the pharmacy of his\nage. Of one simple, _laser_, he says that it would be an immense\ntask to attempt to list all the uses that it is supposed to have\nin compounds.[355] His position is that the simple remedies alone\nare the direct work of nature, while the mixtures, tablets, pills,\nplasters, washes are artificial inventions of the apothecaries. Once\nwhen he describes a compound called \u201cHermesias\u201d which aids in the\ngeneration of good and beautiful children, it seems to be borrowed\nby Democritus from the _magi_.[356] Furthermore, Pliny thinks that\nhealth can be sufficiently preserved or restored by nature\u2019s simple\nremedies. Compounds are the invention of human conjecture, avarice,\nand impudence. Such conjecture is often false, not sufficiently taking\ninto account the natural sympathies and antipathies of the numerous\ningredients. Often compounds are inexplicable. Pliny also deplores\nresort to imported drugs from India, Arabia, and the Red Sea, when\nthere are homely remedies at hand for the poorest man.[357]\n\n[Sidenote: Sympathetic magic.]\n\nWe have just heard Pliny refer to the sympathies and antipathies\nof natural simples, and he often explains the marvelous effects of\nnatural objects upon one another by this relation of love and hatred,\nfriendship or repugnance, discord or concord which exists between them,\nwhich the Greeks call sympathy or antipathy, and which Heracleitus was\nperhaps the first philosopher to insist upon.[358] Some modern students\nof magic have tried to account for all magic on this theory, and Pliny\nstates that medicine and medicines originated from it.[359]\n\n[Sidenote: Antipathies between animals.]\n\nThis relationship exists between animals,\u2014deer and snakes, for\nexample. So great a force is it that stags track snakes to their\nholes and extract them thence despite all resistance by the power\nof their breath. This antipathy continues after death, for the\nsovereign remedy for snake-bite is the rennet of a fawn killed in its\nmother\u2019s womb, while serpents flee from a man who wears the tooth of\na deer. But antipathy may change to sympathy, for Pliny adds that\nin some cases certain parts of deer treated in certain ways attract\nserpents.[360] This force of antipathy is indeed capable of taking\nthe strangest turn. Bed-bugs, foul and disgusting as they are, heal\nthe bite of snakes, especially asps, and sows can eat the poisonous\nsalamander.[361] The antipathy between goats and snakes would seem\nalmost as potent as that between deer and snakes,[362] since we are\ntold that snake-bitten persons recover more quickly, if they frequent\nthe stalls where goats are kept or wear as an amulet the paunch of a\nshe-goat.\n\n[Sidenote: Love and hatred between inanimate objects.]\n\nThere is also \u201cthe hatred and friendship of deaf and insensible\nthings.\u201d[363] Instances are the magnet\u2019s attraction for iron and the\nfact that adamant can be broken only by the blood of a he-goat, two\nstock examples of occult influence and natural marvels which continued\nclassic in the medieval period.[364] Pliny indeed regards this last\nas the clearest illustration possible of the potency of sympathy and\nantipathy, since a substance which defies iron and fire, nature\u2019s two\nmost violent agents, yields to the blood of a foul animal.[365]\n\n[Sidenote: Sympathy between animate and inanimate objects.]\n\nThere is furthermore sympathy and antipathy between animate and\ninanimate objects. So marvelous is the antipathy of the tamarisk tree\nfor the spleen alone of internal organs, that pigs who drink from\ntroughs of this wood are found when slaughtered to be without spleen,\nand hence splenetic patients are fed from vessels of tamarisk.[366]\nThe spleenless pig, it may be interpolated, is another commonplace of\nancient and medieval science. Smearing the hives with cow dung kills\nother insects but stimulates the bees who have an affinity for it\n(_cognatum hoc iis_),[367] probably, although Pliny does not say so,\non the theory that they are spontaneously generated from it. That\nthe wild cabbage is hostile to dogs is evidenced by the statement of\nEpicharmus that it cures the bite of a mad dog but kills a dog if he\neats it when given to him with meat.[368] Snakes hate the ash-tree\nso, that if they are hemmed in by its foliage on one side and fire on\nthe other, they flee by preference into the flames.[369] Betony, too,\nis so antipathetic to snakes that they lash themselves to death when\na circle of it is drawn about them.[370] Scorpions cannot survive in\nthe air of Sicily.[371] Perhaps antipathy is also the explanation of\nPliny\u2019s absurd statement that loads of apples and pears, even if there\nare only a few of them, are very heavy for beasts of burden.[372] Here,\nhowever, the condition may be remedied and perhaps a relationship of\nsympathy established by showing the beasts how few fruit there really\nare or by giving them some to eat. That sympathy may even attach to\nplaces or religious circumstances Pliny infers from the belief that the\npriestess of the earth at Aegira, when about to descend into the cave\nand predict, drinks without injury bull\u2019s blood which is supposed to be\na fatal poison.[373]\n\n[Sidenote: Like cures like.]\n\nThat like cures like, or more precisely and paradoxically that the\ncause of the disease will cure its own result, is another notion which\nPliny\u2019s medicine shares with magic. This is seen in the use of parts\nof the mad dog to cure its bite,[374] or in rubbing thighs chafed by\nhorse-back riding with the foam from a horse\u2019s mouth.[375] The bite of\nthe shrew-mouse, too, is best healed by imposition of the very animal\nwhich bit you, but another shrew-mouse will do and they are kept ready\nin oil and mud for this purpose.[376] The sting of the _phalangium_ may\nbe cured by merely looking at another insect of that species, whether\nit be dead or alive.\n\nFrom cases in which the cure for the disease is identical with its\ncause it is but a short step to remedies similar to or in some way\nassociated with the ailment. It seems obvious to Pliny that stone in\nthe bladder can be broken by the herb on which grow what look exactly\nlike pearls. \u201cIn the case of no other herb is it so evident for what\nmedicine it is intended; its species is such that it can be recognized\nat once by sight without book knowledge.\u201d[377] Similarly _ophites_,\na marble with serpentine streaks, is used as an amulet against\nsnake-bite.[378] Mithridates discovered that the blood of Pontic\nducks should be mixed in antidotes because they live on poison.[379]\nHeliotrope seed looks like a scorpion\u2019s tail; if scorpions are touched\nwith a sprig of heliotrope they die, and they will not enter ground\nwhich has been circumscribed by it.[380] To accelerate a woman\u2019s\ndelivery her lover should take off his belt and gird her with it, then\nuntie it, saying that he has bound her and will unloose her, and then\nhe should go away.[381] An epileptic may be cured by driving an iron\nnail into the spot where his head rested when he fell in the fit.[382]\n\n[Sidenote: The principle of association.]\n\nOther instances of association are when the remedy employed is\nsome part of an animal who is free from the disease in question or\nmarked by an opposite state of health. Goats and gazelles never have\nophthalmia, hence various portions of their bodies are prescribed for\neye diseases.[383] Eagles can gaze at the sun, therefore their gall is\nefficacious in eye-salves.[384] The bird called ossifrage has a single\nintestine which digests anything; the end of this intestine serves as\nan amulet against colic, and indigestion may be cured by merely holding\nthe crop of the bird in one hand.[385] But do not hold it too long or\nyour flesh will waste away. The virus of mares is an ingredient in a\ncandle which makes heads of horses seem to appear when it burns;[386]\nwhile ink of the _sepia_ is used in a candle which causes Ethiopians\nto be seen when it is lighted.[387] These magic candles are borrowed\nby Pliny from the works of Anaxilaus, and we shall find them a feature\nof medieval collections of experiments. Earth from a cart-wheel rut\nis thought a remedy against the bite of the shrew-mouse because that\ncreature is too torpid to cross such a rut;[388] and Pliny believes\nthat none of the virtues attributed to moles by the magicians is\nmore probable than that they are an antidote to the bite of the\nshrew-mouse, which shuns even ruts, whereas moles burrow freely through\nthe soil.[389] Pliny finds incredible the assertion made by some that\na ship will move more slowly if it has the right foot of a tortoise\naboard,[390] but the logic of the magic seems evident enough.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic transfer of disease.]\n\nIn Pliny\u2019s medicine there are a number of examples of what may be\ncalled magic transfer, in which the aim of the procedure is not to\ncure the disease outright but to rid the patient of it by transferring\nit from him to some other animal or object. Intestinal disease may be\ntransferred to puppies who have not yet opened their eyes by pressing\nthem to the body and giving them milk from the patient\u2019s mouth. They\nwill die of the disease, when its cause and exact nature may be\ndetermined by dissecting them. But finally they must be buried.[391]\nGriping pains in the bowels will also pass to a duck that is held\nagainst the abdomen. One may be rid of a cough by spitting in a frog\u2019s\nmouth or cure catarrh by kissing a mule,[392] although in these cases\nwe are left uninformed whether the disease passes to the animal. But if\na person who has been stung by a scorpion whispers the news in the ear\nof an ass, the ill will be transferred to the ass.[393] A boil may be\nremoved by rubbing nine grains of barley around it, each grain thrice\nwith the left hand, and then throwing them all into the fire.[394]\nWarts are banished by touching each with a grain of the chickpea and\nthen tying the grains up in a linen cloth and throwing them behind\none.[395] If a root of asphodel is applied to sores and then hung\nup in smoke, the sores will dry up along with the root.[396] To cure\nscrofulous sores some bind on as many earthworms as there are sores\nand let them dry up together.[397] A tooth will cease aching if the\nherb _erigeron_ is dug up with iron and the patient thrice alternately\ntouches the tooth with the root and spits, and if he then replaces\nthe herb in the same spot and it lives.[398] If this last is a case\nof magic transfer, perhaps we may trace the same notion in some of\nthe numerous instances in which Pliny directs that an animal shall be\nreleased alive after some part of it has been removed or some other\nmedicinal use made of it.\n\n[Sidenote: Amulets.]\n\nA common characteristic of magic force and occult virtue is that it\nwill often act at a distance or without any physical contact or direct\napplication. This is manifested in the practice of carrying or wearing\namulets, or, what is the same thing, of ligatures and suspensions, in\nwhich objects are hung from the neck or bound to some part of the body\nin order to ward off danger from without or cure internal disease.\nInstances of such practices in the _Natural History_ are well nigh\ninnumerable. Roots are suspended from the neck by a thread;[399] the\ntongue of a fox is worn in a bracelet;[400] for quinsy the throat\nis wound thrice with a thong of dog-skin and catarrh is relieved by\nwinding the same about the fingers.[401] A tooth stops aching when\nworms are taken from a certain prickly plant, put with some bread\nin a pill-box, and bound to the arm on the same side of the body as\nthe aching tooth.[402] Two bed-bugs bound to the left arm in wool\nstolen from shepherds are a charm against nocturnal fevers; against\ndiurnal fevers, if wrapped in russet cloth instead.[403] The heart\nof a vulture is an amulet against snakes, wild beasts, robbers, and\nroyal wrath.[404] The traveler who carries the herb _artemisia_ feels\nno fatigue.[405] Injurious drugs cannot cross one\u2019s threshold and\ndo injury in one\u2019s household, if a sea-star is smeared with the\nblood of a fox and attached to the lintel or door-post with a copper\nnail.[406] Not only is a wreath of herbs worn for headache,[407]\nbut a sprig of poplar held in the hand prevents chafing between the\nthighs.[408] Often objects are placed under one\u2019s pillow, especially\nfor insomnia,[409] but any psychological effect is precluded in the\ncase where this is to be done without the patient\u2019s knowledge.[410] All\nsorts of specifications are given as to the color and kind of string,\ncloth, skin, box, nail, ring, bracelet, and the like in which should be\nplaced, or with which should be bound on, the various gems, herbs, and\nparts of animals which serve as amulets. But when we are told that a\nremedy for headache which always helps many consists of a little bone\nfrom a snail found between two cart ruts, passed through gold, silver,\nand ivory, and attached to the body with dog-skin; or that one may bind\non the head with a linen cloth the head of a snail decapitated with a\nreed when feeding in the morning especially at full moon;[411] we feel\nthat we have passed beyond mere amulets, ligatures, and suspensions to\nmore elaborate minutiae of magic procedure.\n\n[Sidenote: Position or direction.]\n\nPosition or direction is often an important matter in Pliny\u2019s, as\nin magic, ceremonial. It perhaps comes out most frequently in his\nspecification of right or left. An aching tooth should be scarified\nwith the left eye-tooth of a dog; a spider which is placed with oil\nin the ear should be caught with the left hand;[412] epilepsy may be\ncured if a virgin touches the sufferer with her right thumb;[413] for\nophthalmia of the right eye suspend the right eye of a frog from the\npatient\u2019s neck, and the left eye for the left eye;[414] for lumbago\ntear off an eagle\u2019s feet away from the joint, and use the right foot\nfor the right side and the left for pain in the left side.[415] But\nwe have met other examples already, and also cases of the use of the\nupper or lower part of this or that according to the corresponding\nlocation of an aching tooth in the upper or lower jaw.[416] Tracing\ncircles with and about objects, facing towards this or that point\nof the compass, the prohibition against glancing behind one, and\nthe stress laid upon finding things or killing animals between the\nruts of cart wheels, are other examples of taking into consideration\nposition and direction which we have already met with incidentally\nto the treatment of other topics. The prescription of a plant which\nhas grown on the head of a statue and of another which has taken root\nin a sieve thrown into a hedge[417] also seem to take mere position\nlargely into account, more so than the accompanying recommendation of\nan herb growing on the banks of a stream and of another growing upon a\ndunghill.[418]\n\n[Sidenote: The time element.]\n\nThe element of time is also important. Operations should be performed\nbefore sunrise, early in the morning, at night, and so on. The moon is\nespecially regarded in such directions.[419] When we are informed that\nsufferers from quartan fever should be rubbed all over with the fat of\na tortoise, we are also told that the tortoise will be fattest on the\nfifteenth day of the moon and that the patient should be anointed on\nthe sixteenth.[420] But this waxing and waning of the tortoise with the\nmoon is primarily a matter of astrology and planetary influence, under\nwhich heading we shall also later speak of Pliny\u2019s observance of the\nrising of the dog-star.\n\n[Sidenote: Observance of number.]\n\nObservance of number is another feature in Pliny\u2019s ceremonial, of\nwhich we have already met instances. He also alludes to the writings\nof Pythagoras on the subject and ascribes to Democritus a work on the\nnumber four. Pliny\u2019s recipes frequently recommend that the operation be\nthrice repeated. In the case of curing scrofula by the ashes of vipers\nhe prescribes three fingers thereof taken in drink for thrice seven\ndays.[421] In another application of a Gallic herb with old axle-grease\nwhich has not touched iron, not only must the patient spit thrice to\nthe right, but the remedy is more efficacious if three men representing\nthree different nations anoint the right side with it.[422] The virtue\nof the number one is not, however, entirely slighted. Importance is\nattached to the death of a stag from a single wound.[423] Sometimes\nthree and one are joined in the same operation, as when child-birth is\naided by hurling through the house a stone or weapon by which three\nanimals, a man, a boar, and a bear, have been killed with single\nblows. One of the discoveries of Pythagoras which seldom fails is that\nan odd number of vowels in a child\u2019s given name portends lameness,\nblindness, and like incapacitation on the right side of its body, and\nan even number, injuries on the left side.[424] In a crown of smilax\nfor headache there should be an odd number of leaves,[425] and in a\ndiet of snails prescribed for stomach trouble an odd number are to\nbe eaten.[426] For a head-wash ten green lizards are boiled in ten\n_sextarii_ of oil,[427] and for an application to prevent eyelashes\nfrom growing again when they have been pulled out fifteen frogs are\nimpaled on fifteen bulrushes.[428] The person who has tied on a certain\namulet is thereafter excluded from the patient\u2019s sight for five\ndays.[429] And so on.\n\n[Sidenote: Relation between operator and patient.]\n\nThis last item suggests a further intangible factor in Pliny\u2019s\nprocedure, the doing of things to or for the patient without his\nknowledge. But this and any other incorporeal relationships existing\nbetween operator and patient should perhaps be classed under the head\nof sympathy and antipathy.\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations.]\n\nClosely akin to the power of numbers is that of words. Pliny once\nsays of an incantation employed to avert hail-storms that he would\nnot dare in seriousness to insert its words, although Cato in his\nwork on agriculture prescribed a similar formula of meaningless words\nfor the cure of fractured limbs.[430] But Pliny does not object to\nthe repetition of incantations or prayers if the words spoken have\nsome meaning. He informs us that _ocimum_ is sown with curses and\nmaledictions and that when cummin seed is rammed down into the soil,\nthe sowers pray it not to come up.[431] In another case the sower is\nto be naked and to pray for himself and his neighbors.[432] In a third\ncase in which a poultice is to be applied to an inflammatory tumor,\nPliny says that persons of experience regard it as very important\nthat the poultice be put on by a naked virgin and that both she and\nthe patient be fasting. Touching the sufferer with the back of her\nhand she is to say, \u201cApollo forbids a disease to increase which a\nnaked virgin restrains.\u201d Then, withdrawing her hand, she is to repeat\nthe same words thrice and to join with the patient in spitting on\nthe ground each time.[433] Indeed, in another passage Pliny states\nthat it is the universal custom in medicine to spit three times\nwith incantations.[434] Perhaps the power of the words is thought\nto be increased or renewed by clearing the throat. Words were also\noccasionally spoken in plucking herbs. Ring-worm or tetter is treated\nby spitting upon and rubbing together two stones covered with a\ndry white moss, and by repeating a Greek incantation which may be\ntranslated, \u201cFlee, Cantharides, a wild wolf seeks your blood.\u201d[435]\nAbscesses and inflammations are treated with the herb _reseda_ and a\nLatin translation which seems irrelevant, if not quite senseless, and\nwhich may be translated, \u201cReseda, make disease recede. Don\u2019t you know,\ndon\u2019t you know what chick has dug up these roots? May they have neither\nhead nor feet.\u201d[436] In the book following this passage Pliny raises\nthe general question of the power of words to heal diseases.[437]\nHe gives many instances of belief in incantations from contemporary\npopular superstition, from Roman religion, and from the annals of\nhistory. He does not doubt that Romans in the past have believed in the\npower of words, and thinks that if we accept set forms of prayer and\nreligious formulae, we must also admit the force of incantations. But\nhe adds that the wisest individuals believe in neither.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude to love-charms and birth-control.]\n\nPliny\u2019s recipes and operations are mainly connected with either\nmedicine or agriculture, but he also introduces as we have seen\nmagical procedure employed in child-birth, safeguards against poisons\nand reptiles, and counter-charms against sorcery. He more than once\navers that love-charms (_amatoria_) lie outside his province,[438]\nin one passage alleging as a reason that the illustrious general\nLucullus was killed by one,[439] but he includes a great many of them\nnevertheless.[440] Some herbs are so employed because of a resemblance\nin shape to the sexual organs,[441] another instance of association\nby similarity. Pliny declared against abortive drugs as well as\nlove-charms,[442] but cited from the _Commentaries_ of Caecilius\none recipe for birth-control for the benefit of over-fecund women,\nconsisting of a ligature of two little worms found in the body of a\ncertain species of spider and bound on in deer-skin before sunrise.\nAfter a year the virtue of this charm expires.[443]\n\n[Sidenote: Pliny and astrology.]\n\nPliny devotes but a small fraction of his work to the stars and heavens\nas against terrestrial phenomena, and therefore has less occasion to\nspeak of astrology than of magic. However, had he been a great believer\nin astrology he doubtless would have devoted more space to the stars\nand their influence on terrestrial phenomena. He recognizes none\nthe less, as we have seen, that magic and astrology are intimately\nrelated and that \u201cthere is no one who is not eager to learn his own\nfuture and who does not think that this is shown most truly by the\nheavens.\u201d[444] Parenthetically it may be remarked that the general\nliterature of the time only confirms this assertion of the widespread\nprevalence of astrology; allusions of poets imply a technical knowledge\nof the art on their readers\u2019 part; the very emperors who occasionally\nbanished astrologers from Rome themselves consulted other adepts. In\nanother passage Pliny speaks of men who \u201cassign events each to its star\naccording to the rules of nativities and believe that God decreed the\nfuture once for all and has never interfered with the course of events\nsince.\u201d[445] This way of thinking has caught learned and vulgar alike\nin its current and has led to such further methods of divination as\nthose by lightning, oracles, haruspices, and even such petty auguries\nas from sneezes and shifting of the feet. Furthermore in Pliny\u2019s list\nof men prominent in the various arts and sciences we find Berosus of\nwhom a statue was erected by the Athenians in honor of his skill in\nastrological prognostication.[446] In another place where he speaks for\na moment of \u201cthe science of the stars\u201d Pliny disputes the theories of\nBerosus, Nechepso, and Petosiris that length of human life is ordered\nby the stars, and also makes the trite objection to the doctrine of\nnativities that masters and slaves, kings and beggars are born at the\nsame moment.[447] He also is rather inclined to ridicule the enormous\nfigures of 720,000 or 490,000 years set by Epigenes and Berosus and\nCritodemus for the duration of astronomical observations recorded\nby the Babylonians.[448] From such passages we get the impression\nthat astrology is widely accepted as a science but that the art of\nnativities at least is not regarded by Pliny with favor. But it\nwould not be safe to say that he denies the control of the stars over\nhuman destiny. Indeed, in one chapter he declares that the astronomer\nHipparchus can never be praised enough because more than any other man\nhe proved the relationship of man with the stars and that our souls\nare part of the sky.[449] When Pliny disputes the vulgar notion that\neach man has a star varying in brightness according to his fortune,\nrising when he is born, and fading or falling when he dies, he is not\nattacking even the doctrine of nativities; he is denying that the stars\nare controlled by man\u2019s fate rather than that man\u2019s life is ordered by\nthe stars.[450]\n\n[Sidenote: Celestial portents.]\n\nIf Pliny thus leaves us uncertain as to the relation of man to the\nstars, we also receive conflicting impressions from his discussion\nof various celestial phenomena regarded as portentous. In one\npassage he speaks of the debt of gratitude owed by mankind to those\ngreat astronomical geniuses who have freed men from their former\nsuperstitious fear of eclipses.[451] But he explains thunderbolts as\ncelestial fire vomited forth from the planet Venus and \u201cbearing omens\nof the future.\u201d[452] He also gives instances from Roman history of\ncomets which signaled disaster, and he expounds the theory of their\nsignifying the future.[453] What they portend may be determined from\nthe direction in which they move and the heavenly body whose power they\nreceive, and more particularly from the shapes they assume and their\nposition in relation to the signs of the zodiac. Indeed, Pliny even\ngives examples of ominous eclipses of the sun, although it is true that\nthey were also of unusual length.[454] He also tells us that many of\nthe common people still believed that women could produce eclipses \u201cby\nsorceries and herbs.\u201d[455]\n\n[Sidenote: The stars and the world of nature.]\n\nAside from the question of the control of human destiny by the\nconstellations at birth, Pliny\u2019s general theories of the universe and\nof the influence of the stars upon terrestrial nature are roughly\nsimilar to those of astrology. For him the universe itself is God,\n\u201choly, eternal, vast, all in all, nay, in truth itself all;\u201d[456]\nand the sun is the mind and soul of the whole world and the chief\ngovernor of nature.[457] The planets affect one another. A cold\nstar renders another approaching it pale; a hot star causes its\nneighbor to redden; a windy planet gives those near it a lowering\nappearance.[458] At certain points in their orbits the planets are\ndeflected from their regular course by the rays of the sun,\u2014an\nunwitting concession to heliocentric theory.[459] Pliny ascribes the\nusual astrological qualities to the planets.[460] Saturn is cold\nand rigid; Mars, a flaming fire; Jupiter, located between them, is\ntemperate and salubrious. Besides their effects upon one another, the\nplanets especially influence the earth.[461] Venus, for instance,\nrules the process of generation in all terrestrial beings.[462]\nFollowing the _Georgics_ of Vergil somewhat, Pliny asserts that the\nstars give indubitable signs of the weather and expounds the utility\nof the constellations to farmers.[463] He tells how Democritus by\nhis knowledge of astronomy was able to corner the olive crop and put\nto shame business men who had been decrying philosophy;[464] and\nhow on another occasion he gave his brother timely warning of an\nimpending storm.[465] But Pliny does not accept all the theories of\nthe astrologers as to control of the stars over terrestrial nature. He\nrepeats, but without definitely accepting it, the ascription by the\nBabylonians of earthquakes to three of the planets in particular,[466]\nand the notion that the gem _sandastros_ or _garamantica_, employed\nby Chaldeans in their ceremonies, is intimately connected with the\nstars.[467] He is openly incredulous about the gem _glossopetra_,\nshaped like a human tongue and supposed to fall from the sky during an\neclipse of the moon and to be invaluable in selenomancy.[468]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological medicine.]\n\nPliny tells how the physician Crinas of Marseilles made a fortune by\nregulating diet and observing hours according to the motion of the\nstars.[469] But he does not show much faith in astrological medicine\nhimself, rejecting entirely the elaborate classification of diseases\nand remedies which the astrologers had by his time already worked out\nfor the revolutions of the sun and moon in the twelve signs of the\nzodiac.[470] In his own recipes, however, astrological considerations\nare sometimes observed, as we have already seen, especially the rising\nof the dog-star and the phases of the moon. Pliny, indeed, states\nthat the dog-star exerts an extensive influence upon the earth.[471]\nAs for the moon, the blood in the human body augments and decreases\nwith its waxing and waning as shell-fish and other things in nature\ndo.[472] Indeed, painstaking men of research had discovered that even\nthe entrails of the field-mouse corresponded in number to the days of\nthe moon, that the ant stopped working during the interlunar days, and\nthat diseases of the eyes of certain beasts of burden also increased\nand decreased with the moon.[473] But on the whole Pliny\u2019s medicine and\nscience do not seem nearly so immersed in and saturated with astrology\nas with other forms of magic. This gap was for the middle ages amply\nfilled by the authority of Ptolemy, of whose belief in astrology we\nshall treat in the next chapter.\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion: magic unity of Pliny\u2019s superstitions.]\n\nWe have tried to analyze the contents of the _Natural History_,\nbringing out certain main divisions and underlying principles of\nmagic in Pliny\u2019s agriculture, medicine, and natural science. This\nis, however, an artificial and difficult task, since it is not easy\nto sever materials from ceremonial or the virtues of objects from\nthe relations of sympathy or antipathy between them. Often the same\npassage might serve to illustrate several points. Take for example\nthe following sentence: \u201cThrasyllus is authority that nothing is so\nhostile to serpents as crabs; swine who are stung cure themselves by\nthis food, and when the sun is in Cancer, serpents are in pain.\u201d[474]\nHere we have at once antipathy, the remedies used by animals, the\nreasoning, characteristic of magic, from association and similarity,\nand the belief in astrology. And this confusion, to illustrate which a\nhundred other examples might be collected from the _Natural History_,\ndemonstrates how indissolubly interwoven are all the varied threads\nthat we have been tracing. They all go naturally together, they belong\nto the same long period of thought, they represent the same stage in\nmental development, they all are parts of magic.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n SENECA AND PTOLEMY: NATURAL DIVINATION AND ASTROLOGY\n\n Seneca\u2019s _Natural Questions_\u2014Nature study as an ethical substitute\n for existing religion\u2014Limited field of Seneca\u2019s work\u2014Marvels\n accepted, questioned, or denied\u2014Belief in natural divination\n and astrology\u2014Divination from thunder\u2014Ptolemy\u2014His two chief\n works\u2014His mathematical method\u2014Attitude towards authority and\n observation\u2014The _Optics_\u2014Medieval translations of _Almagest_\u2014_Tetrabiblos_\n or _Quadripartitum_\u2014A genuine reflection of Ptolemy\u2019s approval\n of astrology\u2014Validity of Astrology\u2014Influence of the stars\n not inevitable\u2014Astrology as natural science\u2014Properties\n of the planets\u2014Remaining contents of Book One\u2014Book Two:\n regions\u2014Nativities\u2014Future influence of the _Tetrabiblos_.\n\n \u201c_When the stars twinkle through the loops of time._\u201d\n \u2014_Byron._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Seneca\u2019s _Natural Questions_.]\n\nIn this chapter we shall preface the main theme of Ptolemy and his\nsanction of astrology by a consideration of another and earlier ancient\nwriter on natural science who was very favorable to divination of the\nfuture, namely, the famous philosopher, statesman, man of letters, and\ntutor of Nero, Lucius Annaeus Seneca. In point of time his _Natural\nQuestions_, or _Problems of Nature_, is a work slightly antedating even\nthe _Natural History_ of Pliny, but it is hardly of such importance\nin the history of science as the more voluminous works of the three\ngreat representatives of ancient science, Pliny, Galen, and Ptolemy.\nNevertheless Seneca was well known and much cited in the middle ages as\nan ethical or moral philosopher, and the title, _Natural Questions_,\nwas to be employed by one of the first medieval pioneers of natural\nscience, Adelard of Bath. Seneca in any case is a name of which ancient\nscience need not be ashamed. He tells us that in his youth he had\nalready written a treatise on earthquakes;[475] and in the present\ntreatise his aim is to inquire into the natural causes of phenomena; he\nwants to know why things are so. He is aware that his own age has only\nentered the vestibule of the knowledge of natural phenomena and forces,\nthat it has but just begun to know five of the many stars, that \u201cthere\nwill come a time when our descendants will wonder that we were ignorant\nof matters so evident.\u201d[476]\n\n[Sidenote: Study of nature as an ethical substitute for existing\nreligion.]\n\nIn one passage Seneca perhaps expresses his consciousness of the very\nimperfect scientific knowledge of his own age a little too mystically.\n\u201cThere are sacred things which are not revealed all at once. Eleusis\nreserves sights for those who revisit her. Nature does not disclose her\nmysteries in a moment. We think ourselves initiated; we stand but at\nher portal. Those secrets open not promiscuously nor to every comer.\nThey are remote of access, enshrined in the inner sanctuary.\u201d[477]\nIndeed, he shows a tendency to regard scientific research as a sort of\nreligious exercise or perhaps as a substitute for existing religion\nand a basis for moral philosophy. He relates physics to ethics. His\nenthusiasm in the study of natural forces appears largely due to the\nfact that he believes them to be of a sublime and divine character\nand above the petty affairs of men. He also as constantly and more\nfulsomely than Pliny inveighs against the luxury, vice, and immorality\nof his own day, and moralizes as to the beneficent influence which\nnatural law and phenomena should exert upon human conduct. It is\ninteresting to note that this habit of drawing moral lessons from the\nfacts of nature was not peculiar to medieval or Christian writers.\n\n[Sidenote: Limited field of Seneca\u2019s work.]\n\nWith such subjects as zoology, botany, and mineralogy Seneca\u2019s work has\nlittle to do; it does not, like Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_, include\nmedicine and the industrial arts; neither does he, like Pliny, cite\nthe lore of the _magi_. The phenomena of which he treats are mainly\nmeteorological manifestations, such as winds, rain, hail, snow, comets,\nrainbows, and what he regards as allied subjects, earthquakes, springs,\nand rivers. Perhaps he would not have regarded the study of vegetables,\nanimals, and minerals as so lofty and sublime a pursuit. At any rate,\nin consequence of the restricted field which Seneca covers we find very\nlittle of the marvelous medicinal and magical properties of plants,\nanimals, and other objects, or the superstitious procedure which fill\nthe pages of Pliny.\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels accepted, questioned, or denied.]\n\nSeneca nevertheless has occasion to repeat some tall stories, such as\nthat the river Alpheus of Greece reappears as the Arethusa in Sicily\nand there every four years casts up filth from its depths on the very\ndays when victims are slaughtered at the Olympic games.[478] He also\naffirms that living beings are generated in fire; he believes in\nsuch effects of lightning as removing the venom from snakes which it\nstrikes; and he recounts the old stories of floating islands and of\nwaters with the virtue of turning white sheep black.[479] On the other\nhand, he qualifies by the phrases, \u201cit is believed\u201d and \u201cthey say,\u201d the\nassertions that certain waters produce foul skin-diseases and that dew\nin particular, if collected in any quantity, has this evil property;\nand he doubts whether bathing in the Nile would enable a woman to bear\nmore children.[480] He ridicules the custom of the city which had\npublic watchmen appointed to warn the inhabitants of the approach of\nhail-storms, so that they might avert the danger by timely sacrifice\nor simply by pricking their own fingers so that they bled a trifle. He\nadds that some suggest that blood may possess some occult property of\nrepelling storm-clouds, but he does not see how there can be such force\nin a drop or two and thinks it simpler to regard the whole thing as\nfalse. In the same chapter he states that uncivilized antiquity used to\nbelieve that rain could be brought on or driven off by incantations,\nbut that now-a-days no one needs a philosopher to teach him that this\nis impossible.[481]\n\n[Sidenote: Belief in natural divination and astrology.]\n\nBut while he thus rejects incantations and is practically silent\non the subject of natural magic, Seneca accepts natural divination\nin well-nigh all its branches: sacrificial, augury, astrology, and\ndivination from thunder. He believes that whatever is caused is a\nsign of some future event.[482] Only Seneca holds that every flight\nof a bird is not caused by a direct act of God, nor the vitals of the\nvictim altered under the axe by divine interference, but that all has\nbeen prearranged in a fatal and causal series.[483] He believes that\nall unusual celestial phenomena are to be looked upon as prodigies\nand portents. A meteor \u201cas big as the moon appeared when Paulus was\nengaged in the war against Perseus\u201d; similar portents marked the death\nof Augustus and execution of Sejanus, and gave warning of the death of\nGermanicus.[484] But no less truly do the planets in their unvarying\ncourses signify the future. The stars are of divine nature, and we\nought to approach the discussion of them with as reverent an air as\nwhen with lowered countenance we enter the temples for worship.[485]\nNot only do the stars influence the upper atmosphere as earth\u2019s\nexhalations affect the lower, but they announce what is to occur.[486]\nSeneca employs the statement of Aristotle that comets signify the\ncoming of storms and winds and foul weather to prove that they are\nstars; and declares that a comet is a portent of bad weather during\nthe ensuing year in the same way that the Chaldeans or astrologers say\nthat a man\u2019s natal star determines the whole course of his life.[487]\nIn fact, Seneca\u2019s chief, if not sole, objection to the Chaldeans or\nastrologers would seem to be that in their predictions they take only\nfive stars[488] into account. \u201cWhat? Think you so many thousand\nstars shine on in vain? What else, indeed, is it which causes those\nskilled in nativities to err than that they assign us to a few stars,\nalthough all those that are above us have a share in the control of our\nfate? Perhaps those which are nearer direct their influence upon us\nmore closely; perhaps those of more rapid motion look down on us and\nother animals from more varied aspects. But even those stars that are\nmotionless, or because of their speed keep equal pace with the rest of\nthe universe and seem not to move, are not without rule and dominion\nover us.\u201d[489] Seneca accepts the theory of Berosus that whenever all\nthe stars are in conjunction in the sign of Cancer there will be a\nuniversal conflagration, and a second deluge when they all unite in\nCapricorn.[490]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination from thunder.]\n\nIt is on thunderbolts as portents of the future that Seneca dwells\nlongest, however.[491] \u201cThey give,\u201d he declares, \u201cnot signs of this or\nthat event merely, but often announce a whole series of events destined\nto occur, and that by manifest decrees and ones far clearer than if\nthey were set down in writing.\u201d[492] He will not accept, however,\nthe theory that lightning has such great power that its intervention\nnullifies any previous and contradictory portents. He insists that\ndivination by other methods is of equal truth, though possibly of\nminor importance and significance. Next he attempts to explain how the\ndangers of which we are warned by divination may be averted by prayer,\nexpiation, or sacrifice, and yet the chain of events wrought by destiny\nnot be broken. He maintains that just as we employ the services of\ndoctors to preserve our health, despite any belief we may have in fate,\nso it is useful to consult a _haruspex_. Then he goes on to speak of\nvarious classifications of thunderbolts according to the nature of the\nwarnings or encouragements which they bring.\n\n[Sidenote: Ptolemy.]\n\nWe pass on from Seneca to a later and greater exponent of natural\nscience and divination, Ptolemy, in the following century. He was\nperhaps born at Ptolema\u00efs in Egypt but lived at Alexandria. The exact\nyears of his birth and death are unknown, and very little is recorded\nof his life or personality. The time when he flourished is sufficiently\nindicated, however, by the fact that his first recorded astronomical\nobservation was in 127 and his last in 151 A.\u202fD. Thus most of his\nwork was probably done during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus\nPius, but he appears to have lived on into the reign of Marcus\nAurelius. His strictly scientific style scorns rhetorical devices and\nliterary felicities, and while it is clear and correct, is dry and\nimpersonal.[493]\n\n[Sidenote: His two chief works.]\n\nPtolemy\u2019s two chief works, the _Geography_ in eight books, and \u1f21\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, or _Almagest_ (al-\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7) as the Arabs called\nit, in thirteen books, have been so often described in histories of\nmathematics, astronomy, geography, and discovery that such outline\nof their contents need not be repeated here. The erroneous Ptolemaic\ntheories of a geocentric universe and of an earth\u2019s surface on which\ndry land preponderated are equally well known. What is more to the\npoint at present is to note that one of these theories was so well\nfitted to actual scientific observations and the other was thought to\nbe so similarly based, that they stood the test of theory, criticism,\nand practice for over a thousand years.[494] It should, however, be\nsaid that the _Geography_ does not seem to have been translated into\nLatin until the opening of the fifteenth century,[495] when Jacobus\nAngelus made a translation for Pope Alexander V, (1409-1410), which is\nextant in many manuscripts[496] as well as in print.[497] It therefore\ndid not have the influence and fame in the Latin middle ages that\nthe _Almagest_ did or the briefer astrological writings, genuine and\nspurious, current under Ptolemy\u2019s name.\n\n[Sidenote: His mathematical method.]\n\nWe may briefly state one or two of Ptolemy\u2019s greatest contributions\nto mathematical and natural science and his probable position in the\nhistory of experimental method. Perhaps of greater consequence in the\nhistory of science than any one specific thing he did was his continual\nreliance upon mathematical method both in his astronomy and his\ngeography. In particular may be noted his important contribution to\ntrigonometry in his table of chords, which modern scholars have found\ncorrect to five decimal places, and his contribution to the science of\ncartography by his successful projection of spherical surfaces upon\nflat maps.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude towards authority and observation.]\n\nPtolemy based his two great works partly upon the results already\nattained by earlier scientists, following Hipparchus especially in\nastronomy and Marinus in geography. He duly acknowledged his debts\nto these and other writers; praised Hipparchus and recounted his\ndiscoveries; and where he corrected Marinus, did so with reason. But\nwhile Ptolemy used previous authorities, he was far from relying upon\nthem solely. In the _Geography_ he adds a good deal concerning the\norient and northern lands from the reports of Roman merchants and\nsoldiers. His intention was to repeat briefly what the ancients had\nalready made clear, and to devote his works chiefly to points which had\nremained obscure. His ideal was to rest his conclusions upon the surest\npossible observation; and where such materials were meager, as in the\ncase of the _Geography_, he says so at the start. He also recognized\nthat delicate observations should be repeated at long intervals in\norder to minimize the possibility of error. He devised and described\nsome scientific instruments and conducted a long series of astronomical\nobservations. He anteceded Comte in holding that one should adopt the\nsimplest possible hypothesis consistent with the facts to be explained.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Optics_.]\n\nBesides some minor astronomical works and a treatise on music which\nseems to be largely a compilation an important work on optics is\nascribed to Ptolemy.[498] It is the most experimental in method of his\nwritings, although Alexander von Humboldt\u2019s characterization of it as\nthe only work in ancient literature which reveals an investigator of\nnature in the act of physical experimentation[499] must be regarded\nas an exaggeration in view of our knowledge of the writings of other\nAlexandrines such as Hero and Ctesibius. As in the case of some of\nPtolemy\u2019s other minor works, the Greek original is lost and also\nthe Arabic text from which was presumably made the medieval Latin\nversion which alone has come down to us. Yet there are at least\nsixteen manuscripts of this Latin version still in existence.[500]\nThe translation was made in the twelfth century by Eugene of Palermo,\nadmiral of Sicily, whose name is attached to other translations and\nwho was also the author of a number of Greek poems.[501] Heller\nstates that the _Optics_ was lost at the beginning of the seventeenth\ncentury but that manuscripts of it were rediscovered by Laplace and\nDelambre.[502] At any rate the first of the five books is no longer\nextant, although Bridges thinks that Roger Bacon was acquainted with\nit in the thirteenth century.[503] It dealt with the relations between\nthe eye and light. In the second book conditions of visibility are\ndiscussed and the dependence of the apparent size of bodies upon the\nangle of vision. The third and fourth books deal with different kinds\nof mirrors, plane, convex, concave, conical, and pyramidical. Most\nimportant of all is the fifth and last book, in which dioptrics and\nrefraction are discussed for the first and only time in any extant\nwork of antiquity,[504] provided the _Optics_ has really come down in\nits present form from the time of Ptolemy. His authorship has been\nquestioned because the subject of refraction is not mentioned in the\n_Almagest_, although even astronomical refraction is discussed in the\n_Optics_.[505] De Morgan also objects that the author of the _Optics_\nis inferior to Ptolemy in knowledge of geometry.[506] Possibly a work\nby Ptolemy has received medieval additions, either Arabic or Latin,\nin the version now extant; maybe the entire fifth book is such a\nsupplement. That works which were not Ptolemy\u2019s might be attributed to\nhim in the middle ages is seen from the case of Hero\u2019s _Catoptrica_,\nthe Latin translation of which from the Greek is entitled in the\nmanuscripts _Ptolemaei de speculis_.[507]\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval translations of _Almagest_.]\n\nIf there is, as in other parallel cases, the possibility that the\nmedieval period passed off recent discoveries of its own under the\nauthoritative name of Ptolemy, there also is the certainty that it made\nPtolemy\u2019s genuine works very much its own. This may be illustrated\nby the case of the _Almagest_. On the verge of the medieval period\nthe work was commented upon by Pappus and Theon at Alexandria in the\nfourth, and by Proclus in the fifth century. The Latin translation\nby Boethius is not extant, but the book was in great repute among\nthe Arabs, was translated at Bagdad early in the ninth century and\nrevised later in the same century by Tabit ben Corra. During the\ntwelfth century it was translated into Latin both from the Greek and\nthe Arabic. The translation most familiar in the middle ages was\nthat completed at Toledo in 1175 by the famous translator, Gerard of\nCremona. There has recently been discovered, however, by Professors\nHaskins and Lockwood[508] a Sicilian translation made direct from the\nGreek text some ten or twelve years before Gerard\u2019s translation. There\nare two manuscripts of this Sicilian translation in the Vatican and\none at Florence, showing that it had at least some Italian currency.\nGerard\u2019s reputation and his many other astronomical and astrological\ntranslations probably account for the greater prevalence of his\nversion, or possibly the theological opposition to natural science of\nwhich the anonymous Sicilian translator speaks in his preface had some\neffect in preventing the spread of his version.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Tetrabiblos_ or _Quadripartitum_.]\n\nOf Ptolemy\u2019s genuine works the most germane to and significant for\nour investigation is his _Tetrabiblos_, _Quadripartitum_, or four\nbooks on the control of human life by the stars. It seems to have\nbeen translated into Latin by Plato of Tivoli in the first half of\nthe twelfth century[509] before _Almagest_ or _Geography_ appeared in\nLatin. In the middle of the thirteenth century Egidius de Tebaldis,\na Lombard of the city of Parma, further translated the commentary of\nHaly Heben Rodan upon the _Quadripartitum_.[510] In the early Latin\neditions[511] the text is that of the medieval translation; in the\nfew editions giving a Greek text there is a different Latin version\ntranslated directly from this Greek text.[512]\n\n[Sidenote: A genuine reflection of Ptolemy\u2019s approval of astrology.]\n\nIn the _Tetrabiblos_ the art of astrology receives sanction and\nexposition from perhaps the ablest mathematician and closest scientific\nobserver of the day or at least from one who seemed so to succeeding\ngenerations. Hence from that time on astrology was able to take\nshelter from any criticism under the aegis of his authority. Not that\nit lacked other exponents and defenders of great name and ability.\nNaturally the authenticity of the _Tetrabiblos_ has been questioned\nby modern admirers of Hellenic philosophy and science who would keep\nthe reputations of the great men of the past free from all smudge of\nsuperstition. But Franz Boll has shown that it is by Ptolemy by a\nclose comparison of it with his other works.[513] The astrological\n_Centiloquium_ or _Karpos_, and other treatises on divination and\nastrological images ascribed to Ptolemy in medieval Latin manuscripts\nare probably spurious, but there is no doubt of his belief in\nastrology. German research as usual regards its favorite Posidonius as\nthe ultimate source of much of the _Tetrabiblos_, but this is not a\nmatter of much consequence for our present investigation.\n\n[Sidenote: Validity of astrology.]\n\nIn the _Tetrabiblos_ Ptolemy first engages in argument as to the\nvalidity of the art of judicial astrology. If his remarks in this\nconnection were not already trite contentions, they soon came to be\nregarded as truisms. The laws of astronomy are beyond dispute, says\nPtolemy, but the art of prediction of human affairs from the courses\nof the stars may be assailed with more show of reason. Opponents of\nastrology object that the art is uncertain, and that it is useless\nsince the events decreed by the force of the stars are inevitable.\nPtolemy opens his argument in favor of the art by assuming as evident\nthat a certain force is diffused from the heavens over all things\non earth. If ignorant sailors are able to judge the future weather\nfrom the sky, a highly trained astronomer should be able to predict\nconcerning its influence on man. The art itself should not be rejected\nbecause impostors frequently abuse it, and Ptolemy admits that it has\nnot yet been brought to the point of perfection and that even the\nskilful investigator often makes mistakes owing to the incomplete\nstate of human science. For one thing, Ptolemy regards the doctrine\nof the nature of matter held in his time as hypothetical rather than\ncertain. Another difficulty is that old configurations of the stars\ncannot safely be used as the basis of present day predictions. Indeed,\nso manifold are the different possible positions of the stars and the\ndifferent possible arrangements of terrestrial matter in relation to\nthe stars that it is difficult to collect enough observations on which\nto base rules of general judgment. Moreover, such considerations as\ndiversity of place, of custom, and of education must be taken into\naccount in foretelling the future of different persons born under the\nsame stars. But although for these reasons predictions frequently fail,\nyet the art is not to be condemned any more than one rejects the art of\nnavigation because of frequent shipwrecks.\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of the stars not inevitable.]\n\nNor is it true that the art is useless because the decrees of the stars\nare inevitable. It is often an advantage to have previous knowledge\neven of what cannot be avoided. Even the prediction of disaster serves\nto break the news gently. But not all predictions are inevitable and\nimmutable; this is true only of the motion of the sky itself and events\nin which it is exclusively concerned. \u201cBut other events which do not\narise solely from the sky\u2019s motion, are easily altered by application\nof opposite remedies,\u201d just as we can in part remedy the hurt of wounds\nand diseases or counteract the heat of summer by use of cooling things.\nThe Egyptians have always found astrology useful in the practice of\nmedicine.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology as natural science.]\n\nPtolemy next proceeds to set forth the natures and powers of the\nstars \u201caccording to the observations of the ancients and conformably\nto natural science.\u201d Later, when he comes to the prediction of\nparticulars, he still professes \u201cto follow everywhere the law of\nnatural causation,\u201d and in a third passage he states that he \u201cwill omit\nall those things which do not have a probable natural cause, which many\nnevertheless scrutinize curiously and to excess: nor will I pile up\ndivinations by lot-castings or from numbers, which are unscientific,\nbut I will treat of those which have an investigated certainty\nbased on the positions of the stars and the properties of places.\u201d\nConnecting the positions of the stars with earthly regions,\u2014it\nis an art that fits in well with Ptolemy\u2019s other occupations of\nastronomer and geographer! The _Tetrabiblos_ has been called \u201cScience\u2019s\nsurrender,\u201d[514] but was it not more truly divination purified and made\nscientific?\n\n[Sidenote: Properties of the planets.]\n\nTaking up first the properties of the seven planets, Ptolemy associates\nwith each one or more of the four elemental qualities, hot, cold, dry,\nand moist. Thus the sun warms and to some extent dries, for the nearer\nit comes to our pole the more heat and drought it produces. The moon\nis moist, since it is close to the earth and is affected by the vapors\nfrom the latter, while its influence renders other bodies soft and\ncauses putrefaction. But it also warms a little owing to the rays it\nreceives from the sun. Saturn chills and to some extent dries, for it\nis remote from the sun\u2019s heat and earth\u2019s damp vapors. Mars emits a\nparching heat, as its color and proximity to the sun indicate. Jupiter,\nsituated between cold Saturn and burning Mars, is of a rather lukewarm\nnature but tends more to warmth and moisture than to their opposites.\nSo does Venus, but conversely, for it warms less than Jupiter does\nbut moistens more, its large surface catching many vapors from the\nneighboring earth. In Mercury, situated near sun, moon, and earth\nalike, neither drought nor dampness predominates, but the velocity of\nthat planet makes it a potent cause of sudden changes. In general, the\nplanets exert a good or evil influence as they abound in the two rich\nand vivifying qualities, heat and moisture, or in the detrimental ones,\ncold and drought. Wet stars like the moon and Venus, are feminine;\nMercury is neuter; the other planets are masculine. The sex of a planet\nmay also, however, be reckoned according to its position in relation\nto the sun and the horizon; and changes in the influences exerted\nby the planets are noted according to their position or relation to\nthe sun. This discussion of the properties of the planets is neither\nconvincing nor scientific. It seems arguing in a circle to make their\neffects upon the earth depend to such an extent upon themselves being\naffected by vapors from the earth. Indeed we are rather surprised that\nan astronomer like Ptolemy should represent vapors from the earth\nas affecting the planets at all. But his discussion is at least an\neffort, albeit a feeble one, to express the potencies of the planets in\nphysical terms.\n\n[Sidenote: Remaining contents of Book One.]\n\nPtolemy goes on to discuss the powers of the fixed stars which seem to\ndepend upon their positions in constellations and their relations to\nthe planets. Then he treats of the influence of the four seasons of\nthe year and four cardinal points, each of which he relates to one of\nthe four qualities, hot, cold, dry, and moist. With a discussion of\nthe signs of the zodiac and their division into Houses and relation in\n_Trigones_ or _Triplicitates_ or groups of three connected with the\nfour qualities, of the exaltation of the planets in the signs and of\nother divisions of the signs and relations of the planets to them, the\nfirst book ends.\n\n[Sidenote: Book Two: Regions.]\n\nThe second book begins by distinguishing prediction of events for whole\nregions or countries, such as wars, pestilences, famines, earthquakes,\nwinds, drought, and weather, from the prediction of events in the lives\nof individuals. Ptolemy holds that events which affect large areas or\nwhole peoples and cities are produced by greater and more valid causes\nthan are the acts of individual men, and also that in order to predict\naright concerning the individual it is necessary to know his region\nand nationality. He characterizes the inhabitants of the three great\nclimatic zones,[515] quarters the inhabited world into Europe, Libya,\nand two parts for Asia in the style of the T maps, and subdivides these\ninto different countries whose peoples are described, including such\nraces as the Amazons. The effects of the stars vary according to time\nas well as place, so that the period in which any individual lives is\nas important to take into account as his nationality. Ptolemy also\ndiscusses how the heavenly bodies influence the _genus_ of events, a\nmatter which depends largely upon the signs of the zodiac, and also\nhow they determine their quality, good or bad, and species, which\ndepends on the dominant stars and their conjunctions. Consequently he\ngives a list of the things which belong under the rule of each planet.\nThe remainder of the second book is concerned chiefly with prediction\nof wind and weather through the year and with other meteorological\nphenomena such as comets.\n\n[Sidenote: Nativities.]\n\nThe last two books take up the prediction of events in the lives of\nindividuals from the stars, in other words the science of nativities\nor genethlialogy. The third book discusses conception and birth,\nhow to take the horoscope\u2014Ptolemy insists that the astrolabe is the\nonly reliable instrument for determining the exact time; sun-dials\nor water-clocks will not do\u2014and how to predict concerning parents,\nbrothers and sisters, sex, twins, monstrous births, length of life, the\nphysical constitution of the child born and what accidents and diseases\nmay befall it, and finally concerning mental traits and defects. The\nfourth book deals less with the nature of the individual and more with\nthe prediction of external events which befall the individual: honors,\noffice, marriage, offspring, slaves, travel, and the sort of death that\nhe will die. Ptolemy in opening the fourth book makes the distinction\nthat, while in the third book he treated of matters antecedent to birth\nor immediately related to birth or which concern the temperament of the\nindividual, now he will deal with those external to the body and which\nhappen to the individual from without. But of course it is difficult to\nmaintain such a distinction with entire consistency.\n\n[Sidenote: Future influence of the _Tetrabiblos_.]\n\nThe great influence of the _Tetrabiblos_ is shown not only in medieval\nArabic commentaries and Latin translations, but more immediately in\nthe astrological writings of the declining Roman Empire, when such\nastrologers as Hephaestion of Thebes,[516] Paul of Alexandria, and\nJulius Firmicus Maternus cite it as a leading authoritative work. Only\nthe opponents of astrology appear to have remained ignorant of the\n_Tetrabiblos_, continuing to make criticisms of the art which do not\napply to Ptolemy\u2019s presentation of it or which had been specifically\nanswered by him. Thus Sextus Empiricus, attacking astrology about\n200 A.\u202fD., does not mention the _Tetrabiblos_ and some of the\nChristian critics of astrology apparently had not read it. Whether the\nNeo-Platonists, Porphyry and Proclus, wrote an introduction to and\ncommentary upon it is disputed.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n GALEN\n\nI. _The Man and His Times_\n\n Recent ignorance of Galen\u2014His voluminous works\u2014The manuscript\n tradition of his works\u2014His vivid personality\u2014Birth and\n parentage\u2014Education in philosophy and medicine\u2014First visit to\n Rome\u2014Relations with the emperors; later life\u2014His unfavorable picture\n of the learned world\u2014Corruption of the medical profession\u2014Lack of real\n search for truth\u2014Poor doctors and medical students\u2014Medical discovery\n in his time\u2014The drug trade\u2014The imperial stores\u2014Galen\u2019s private\n supply of drugs\u2014Mediterranean commerce\u2014Frauds of dealers in wild\n beasts\u2014Galen\u2019s ideal of anonymity\u2014The ancient book trade\u2014Falsification\n and mistakes in manuscripts\u2014Galen as a historical source\u2014Ancient\n slavery\u2014Social life; food and wine\u2014Allusions to Judaism and\n Christianity\u2014Galen\u2019s monotheism\u2014Christian readers of Galen.\n\nII. _His Medicine and Experimental Science_\n\n Four elements and four qualities\u2014His criticism of atomism\u2014Application\n of the theory of four qualities in medicine\u2014His therapeutics\n obsolete\u2014Some of his medical notions\u2014Two of his cases\u2014His power of\n rapid observation and inference\u2014His happy guesses\u2014Tendency toward\n scientific measurement\u2014Psychological tests with the pulse\u2014Galen\u2019s\n anatomy and physiology\u2014Experiments in dissection\u2014Did he ever dissect\n human bodies?\u2014Dissection of animals\u2014Surgical operations\u2014Galen\u2019s\n argument from design\u2014Queries concerning the soul\u2014No supernatural\n force in medicine\u2014Galen\u2019s experimental instinct\u2014His attitude\n toward authorities\u2014Adverse criticism of past writers\u2014His estimate\n of Dioscorides\u2014Galen\u2019s dogmatism; logic and experience\u2014His\n account of the Empirics\u2014How the Empirics might have criticized\n Galen\u2014Galen\u2019s standard of reason and experience\u2014Simples knowable\n only through experience\u2014Experience and food science\u2014Experience and\n compounds\u2014Suggestions of experimental method\u2014Difficulty of medical\n experiment\u2014Empirical remedies\u2014Galen\u2019s influence upon medieval\n experiment\u2014His more general medieval influence.\n\nIII. _His Attitude Toward Magic_\n\n Accusations of magic against Galen\u2014His charges of magic against\n others\u2014Charms and wonder-workers\u2014Animal substances inadmissible\n in medicine\u2014Nastiness of ancient medicine\u2014Parts of animals\u2014Some\n scepticism\u2014Doctrine of occult virtue\u2014Virtue of the flesh of\n vipers\u2014Theriac\u2014Magical compounds\u2014Amulets\u2014Incantations and\n characters\u2014Belief in magic dies hard\u2014_On Easily Procurable\n Remedies_\u2014Specimens of its superstitious contents\u2014External signs of\n the temperaments of internal organs\u2014Marvelous statements repeated\n by Maimonides\u2014Dreams\u2014Absence of astrology in most of Galen\u2019s\n medicine\u2014_The Prognostication of Disease by Astrology_\u2014Critical\n days\u2014_On the History of Philosophy_\u2014Divination and demons\u2014Celestial\n bodies.\n\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f50\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f43 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5.\n K\u00fchn, IV, 513.\n\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u1f82\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03be\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u1f80\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 ...\n K\u00fchn, XIII, 96-1.\n\n \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03bd\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n K\u00fchn, II, 179.\n\n \u201cBut if anyone charges me therewith, I confess my disease from which I\n have suffered all my life long, to trust none of those who make such\n statements until I have tested them for myself in so far as it has\n been possible for me to put them to the test.\u201d\n\n \u201cSo if anyone after me becomes like me fond of work and zealous for\n truth, let him not conclude hastily from two or three cases. For often\n he will be enlightened through long experience, just as I have been.\u201d\n (It is remarkable that Ptolemy spoke similarly of his predecessor,\n Hipparchus, as a \u201clover of toil and truth\u201d\u2014\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1,\n quoted by Orr (1913), 122.)\n\n \u201cFor one who is to understand any matter better than most men do must\n straightway differ much from other persons in his nature and earliest\n education. And when he becomes a lad he must be madly in love with the\n truth and carried away by enthusiasm for it, and not let up by day\n or by night but press on and stretch every nerve to learn whatever\n the ancients of most repute have said. But having learned it, he\n must judge the same and put it to the test for a long, long time and\n observe what agrees with visible phenomena and what disagrees, and so\n accept the one and reject the other.\u201d\n\n\nI. _The Man and His Times_\n\n[Sidenote: Recent ignorance of Galen.]\n\nAt the close of the nineteenth century one English student of the\nhistory of medicine said, \u201cGalen is so inaccessible to English readers\nthat it is difficult to learn about him at first hand.\u201d[517] Another\nwrote, \u201cThere is, perhaps, no other instance of a man of equal\nintellectual rank who has been so persistently misunderstood and even\nmisinterpreted.\u201d[518] A third obstacle to the ready comprehension of\nGalen has been that while more critical editions of some single works\nhave been published by Helmreich and others in recent times,[519] no\ncomplete edition of his works has appeared since that of K\u00fchn a century\nago,[520] which is now regarded as very faulty.[521] A fourth reason\nfor neglect or misunderstanding of Galen is probably that there is so\nmuch by him to be read.\n\n[Sidenote: His voluminous works.]\n\nAthenaeus stated that Galen wrote more treatises than any other Greek,\nand although many are now lost, more particularly of his logical and\nphilosophical writings, his collected extant works in Greek text and\nLatin translation fill some twenty volumes averaging a thousand pages\neach. When we add that often there are no chapter headings or other\nbrief clues to the contents,[522] which must be ploughed through slowly\nand thoroughly, since some of the most valuable bits of information\ncome in quite incidentally or by way of unlooked-for digression; that\nerrors in the printed text, and the technical vocabulary with numerous\nwords not found in most classical dictionaries increase the reader\u2019s\ndifficulties;[523] and that little if any of the text possesses any\npresent medical value, while much of it is dreary enough reading\neven for one animated by historical interest, especially if one has\nno technical knowledge of medicine and surgery:\u2014when we consider all\nthese deterrents, we are not surprised that Galen is little known. \u201cFew\nphysicians or even scholars in the present day,\u201d continues the English\nhistorian of medicine quoted above, \u201ccan claim to have read through\nthis vast collection; I certainly least of all. I can only pretend to\nhave touched the fringe, especially of the anatomical and physiological\nworks.\u201d[524]\n\n[Sidenote: The manuscript tradition of Galen\u2019s works.]\n\nAlthough the works of Galen are so voluminous, they have reached us\nfor the most part in comparatively late manuscripts,[525] and to some\nextent perhaps only in their medieval form. The extant manuscripts\nof the Greek text are mostly of the fifteenth century and represent\nthe enthusiasm of humanists who hoped by reviving the study of Galen\nin the original to get something new and better out of him than the\nschoolmen had. In this expectation they seem to have been for the most\npart disappointed; the middle ages had already absorbed Galen too\nthoroughly. If it be true, as Dr. Payne contends,[526] that the chief\noriginal contributions to medical science of the Renaissance period\nwere the work of men trained in Greek scholarship, this was because,\nwhen they failed to get any new ideas from the Greek texts, they turned\nto the more promising path of experimental research which both Galen\nand the middle ages had already advocated. The bulky medieval Latin\ntranslations[527] of Galen are older than most of the extant Greek\ntexts; there are also versions in Arabic and Syriac.[528] For the last\nfive books of the _Anatomical Exercises_ the only extant text is an\nArabic manuscript not yet published.[529]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s vivid personality.]\n\nIf so comparatively little is generally known about Galen, it is not\nbecause he had an unattractive personality. Nor is it difficult to make\nout the main events of his life. His works supply an unusual amount\nof personal information, and throughout his writings, unless he is\nmerely transcribing past prescriptions, he talks like a living man,\ndetailing incidents of daily life and making upon the reader a vivid\nand unaffected impression of reality. Daremberg asserts[530] that the\nexuberance of his imagination and his vanity frequently make us smile.\nIt is true that his pharmacology and therapeutics often strike us as\nridiculous, but he did not imagine them, they were the medicine of his\nage. It is true that he mentions cases which he has cured and those in\nwhich other physicians have been at fault, but official war despatches\ndo the same with their own victories and the enemy\u2019s defeats. _Vae\nvictis!_ In Galen\u2019s case, at least, posterity long confirmed his own\nverdict. And dull or obsolete as his medicine now is, his scholarly\nand intellectual ideals and love of hard work at his art are still\na living force, while the reader of his pages often feels himself\ncarried back to the Roman world of the second century. Thus \u201cthe magic\nof literature,\u201d to quote a fine sentence by Payne, \u201cbrings together\nthinkers widely separated in space and time.\u201d[531]\n\n[Sidenote: Birth and parentage.]\n\nGalen\u2014he does not seem to have been called Claudius until the time\nof the Renaissance\u2014was born about 129 A.\u202fD.[532] at Pergamum in Asia\nMinor. His father, Nikon, was an architect and mathematician, trained\nin arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. Much of this education he\ntransmitted to his son, but even more valuable, in Galen\u2019s opinion,\nwere his precepts to follow no one sect or party but to hear and judge\nthem all, to despise honor and glory, and to magnify truth alone. To\nthis teaching Galen attributes his own peaceful and painless passage\nthrough life. He has never grieved over losses of property but managed\nto get along somehow. He has not minded much when some have vituperated\nhim, thinking instead of those who praise him. In later life Galen\nlooked back with great affection upon his father and spoke of his own\ngreat good fortune in having as a parent that gentlest, justest, most\nhonest and humane of men. On the other hand, the chief thing that he\nlearned from his mother was to avoid her failings of a sharp temper and\ntongue, with which she made life miserable for their household slaves\nand scolded his father worse than Xanthippe ever did Socrates.[533]\n\n[Sidenote: Education in philosophy and medicine.]\n\nIn one of his works Galen speaks of the passionate love and enthusiasm\nfor truth which has possessed him since boyhood, so that he has not\nstopped either by day or by night from quest of it.[534] He realized\nthat to become a true scholar required both high natural qualifications\nand a superior type of education from the start. After his fourteenth\nyear he heard the lectures of various philosophers, Platonist and\nPeripatetic, Stoic and Epicurean; but when about seventeen, warned by\na dream of his father,[535] he turned to the study of medicine. This\nincident of the dream shows that neither Galen nor his father, despite\ntheir education and intellectual standards, were free from the current\nbelief in occult influences, of which we shall find many more instances\nin Galen\u2019s works. Galen first studied medicine for four years under\nSatyrus in his native city of Pergamum, then under Pelops at Smyrna,\nlater under Numisianus at Corinth and Alexandria.[536] This was about\nthe time that the great mathematician and astronomer, Ptolemy, was\ncompleting his observations[537] in the neighborhood of Alexandria, but\nGalen does not mention him, despite his own belief that a first-rate\nphysician should also know such subjects as geometry and astronomy,\nmusic and rhetoric.[538] Galen\u2019s interest in philosophy continued,\nhowever, and he wrote many logical and philosophical treatises, most\nof which are lost.[539] His father died when he was twenty, and it was\nafter this that he went to other cities to study.\n\n[Sidenote: First visit to Rome.]\n\nGalen returned to Pergamum to practice and was, when but twenty-nine,\nmade the doctor for the gladiators by five successive pontiffs.[540]\nDuring his thirties came his first residence at Rome.[541] The article\non Galen in Pauly-Wissowa states that he was driven away from Rome by\nthe plague, and in _De libris propriis_ he does say that, \u201cwhen the\ngreat plague broke out there, I hurriedly departed from the city for\nmy native land.\u201d[542] But in _De prognosticatione ad Epigenem_ his\nexplanation is that he became disgusted with the malice of the envious\nphysicians of the capital, and determined to return home as soon as the\nsedition there was over.[543] Meanwhile he stayed on and gained great\nfame by his cures but their jealousy and opposition multiplied, so that\npresently, when he learned that the sedition was over, he went back to\nPergamum.\n\n[Sidenote: Relations with the emperors: later life.]\n\nHis fame, however, had come to the imperial ears and he was soon\nsummoned to Aquileia to meet the emperors on their way north against\nthe invading Germans. An outbreak of the plague there prevented their\nproceeding with the campaign immediately,[544] and Galen states that\nthe emperors fled for Rome with a few troops, leaving the rest to\nsuffer from the plague and cold winter. On the way Lucius Verus died,\nand when Marcus Aurelius finally returned to the front, he allowed\nGalen to go back to Rome as court physician to Commodus.[545] The\nprevalence of the plague at this time is illustrated by a third\nencounter which Galen had with it in Asia, when he claims to have\nsaved himself and others by thorough venesection.[546] The war lasted\nmuch longer than had been anticipated and meanwhile Galen was occupied\nchiefly in literary labors, completing a number of works. In 192 some\nof his writings and other treasures were lost in a fire which destroyed\nthe Temple of Peace on the Sacred Way. Of some of the works which thus\nperished he had no other copy himself. In one of his works on compound\nmedicines he explains that some persons may possess the first two books\nwhich had already been published, but that these had perished with\nothers in a shop on the Sacra Via when the whole shrine of peace and\nthe great libraries on the Palatine hill were consumed, and that his\nfriends, none of whom possessed copies, had besought him to begin the\nwork all over again.[547] Galen was still alive and writing during the\nearly years of the dynasty of the Severi, and probably died about 200.\n\n[Sidenote: His unfavorable picture of the learned world.]\n\nAlthough the envy of other physicians at Rome and their accusing him of\nresort to magic arts and divination in his marvelous prognostications\nand cures were perhaps neither the sole nor the true reason for Galen\u2019s\ntemporary withdrawal from the capital, there probably is a great\ndeal of truth in the picture he paints of the medical profession and\nlearned world of his day. There are too many other ancient witnesses,\nfrom the encyclopedist Pliny and the satirist Juvenal to the fourth\ncentury lawyer and astrologer, Firmicus, who substantiate his charges\nto permit us to explain them away as the product of personal bitterness\nor pessimism. We feel that these men lived in an intellectual society\nwhere faction and villainy, superstition and petty-mindedness and\npersonal enmity, were more manifest than in the quieter and, let\nus hope, more tolerant learned world of our time. Selfishness and\npretense, personal likes and dislikes, undoubtedly still play their\npart, but there is not passionate animosity and open war to the knife\non every hand. The _status belli_ may still be characteristic of\npolitics and the business world, but scholars seem able to live in\nsubstantial peace. Perhaps it is because there is less prospect of\nworldly gain for members of the learned professions than in Galen\u2019s\nday. Perhaps it is due to the growth of the impartial scientific\nspirit, of unwritten codes of courtesy and ethics within the leading\nlearned professions, and of state laws concerning such matters as\npatents, copyright, professional degrees, pure food, and pure drugs.\nPerhaps, in the unsatisfactory relations between those who should have\nbeen the best educated and most enlightened men of that time we may see\nan important symptom of the intellectual and ethical decline of the\nancient world.\n\n[Sidenote: Corruption of the medical profession.]\n\nGalen states that many tire of the long struggle with crafty and wicked\nmen which they have tried to carry on, relying upon their erudition\nand honest toil alone, and withdraw disgusted from the madding crowd\nto save themselves in dignified retirement. He especially marvels at\nthe evil-mindedness of physicians of reputation at Rome. Though they\nlive in the city, they are a band of robbers as truly as the brigands\nof the mountains. He is inclined to account for the roguery of Roman\nphysicians compared to those of a smaller city by the facts that\nelsewhere men are not so tempted by the magnitude of possible gain\nand that in a smaller town everyone is known by everyone else and\nquestionable practices cannot escape general notice. The rich men of\nRome fall easy prey to these unscrupulous practitioners who are ready\nto flatter them and play up to their weaknesses. These rich men can see\nthe use of arithmetic and geometry, which enable them to keep their\nbooks straight and to build houses for their domestic comfort, and of\ndivination and astrology, from which they seek to learn whose heirs\nthey will be, but they have no appreciation of pure philosophy apart\nfrom rhetorical sophistry.[548]\n\n[Sidenote: Lack of real search for truth.]\n\nGalen more than once complains that there are no real seekers after\ntruth in his time, but that all are intent upon money, political power,\nor pleasure. You know very well, he says to one of his friends in the\n_De methodo medendi_, that not five men of all those whom we have met\nprefer to be rather than to seem wise.[549] Many make a great outward\ndisplay and pretense in medicine and other arts who have no real\nknowledge.[550] Galen several times expresses his scorn for those who\nspend their mornings in going about saluting their friends, and their\nevenings in drinking bouts or in dining with the rich and powerful.\nYet even his friends have reproached him for studying too much and not\ngoing out more. But while they have wasted their hours thus, he has\nspent his, first in learning all that the ancients have discovered\nthat is of value, then in testing and practicing the same.[551]\nMoreover, now-a-days many are trying to teach others what they have\nnever accomplished themselves.[552] Thessalus not only toadied to the\nrich but secured many pupils by offering to teach them medicine in\nsix months.[553] Hence it is that tailors and dyers and smiths are\nabandoning their arts to become physicians. Thessalus himself, Galen\nungenerously taunts, was educated by a father who plucked wool badly\nin the women\u2019s apartments.[554] Indeed, Galen himself, by the violence\nof his invective and the occasional passionateness of his animosity\nin his controversies with other individuals or schools of medicine,\nillustrates that state of war in the intellectual world of his age to\nwhich we have adverted.\n\n[Sidenote: Poor doctors and medical students.]\n\nWe suggested the possibility that learning compared to other\noccupations was more remunerative in Galen\u2019s day than in our own, but\nthere were poor physicians and medical students then, as well as those\ngreedy for gain or who associated with the rich. Many doctors could\nnot afford to use the rarer or stronger simples and limited themselves\nto easily procured, inexpensive, and homely medicaments.[555] Many of\nhis fellow-students regarded as a counsel of perfection unattainable\nby them Galen\u2019s plan of hearing all the different medical sects and\ncomparing their merits and testing their validity.[556] They said\ntearfully that this course was all very well for him with his acute\ngenius and his wealthy father behind him, but that they lacked the\nmoney to pursue an advanced education, perhaps had already lost\nvaluable time under unsatisfactory teachers, or felt that they did not\npossess the discrimination to select for themselves what was profitable\nfrom several conflicting schools.\n\n[Sidenote: Medical discovery in Galen\u2019s time.]\n\nGalen was, it has already been made apparent, an intellectual\naristocrat, and possessed little patience with those stupid men who\nnever learn anything for themselves, though they see a myriad cures\nworked before their eyes. But that, apart from his own work, the\nmedical profession was not entirely stagnant in his time, he admits\nwhen he asserts that many things are known to-day which had not been\ndiscovered before, and when he mentions some curative methods recently\ninvented at Rome.[557]\n\n[Sidenote: The drug trade.]\n\nGalen supplies considerable information concerning the drug trade\nin Rome itself and throughout the empire. He often complains of\nadulteration and fraud. The physician must know the medicinal simples\nand their properties himself and be able to detect adulterated\nmedicines, or the merchants, perfumers, and _herbarii_ will deceive\nhim.[558] Galen refuses to reveal the methods employed in adulterating\nopobalsam, which he had investigated personally, lest the evil\npractice spread further.[559] At Rome at least there were dealers in\nunguents who corresponded roughly to our druggists. Galen says there\nis not an unguent-dealer in Rome who is unacquainted with herbs from\nCrete, but he asserts that there are equally good medicinal plants\ngrowing in the very suburbs of Rome of which they are totally ignorant,\nand he taxes even those who prepare drugs for the emperors with the\nsame oversight. He tells how the herbs from Crete come wrapped in\ncartons with the name of the herb written on the outside and sometimes\nthe further statement that it is _campestris_.[560] These Roman drug\nstores seem not to have kept open at night, for Galen in describing a\ncase speaks of the impossibility of procuring the medicines needed at\nonce because \u201cthe lamps were already lighted.\u201d[561]\n\n[Sidenote: The imperial stores.]\n\nThe emperors kept a special store of drugs of their own and had\nbotanists in Sicily, Crete, and Africa who supplied not only them\nwith medicinal herbs, but also the city of Rome as well, Galen says.\nHowever, the emperors appear to have reserved a large supply of the\nfinest and rarest simples for their own use. Galen mentions a large\namount of Hymettus honey in the imperial stores\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,[562] whence our word \u201capothecary.\u201d[563] He proves that\ncinnamon[564] loses its potency with time by his own experience as\nimperial physician. An assignment of the spice sent to Marcus Aurelius\nfrom the land of the barbarians (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5) was superior to what\nhad stood stored in wooden jars from the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian,\nand Antoninus Pius. Commodus exhausted all the recent supply, and when\nGalen was forced to turn to what had been on hand in preparing an\nantidote for Severus, he found it much weaker than before, although not\nthirty years had elapsed. That cinnamon was a commodity little known to\nthe populace is indicated by Galen\u2019s mentioning his loss in the fire of\n192 of a few precious bits of bark he had stored away in a chest with\nother treasures.[565] He praises the Severi, however, for permitting\nothers to use theriac, a noted medicine and antidote of which we\nshall have more to say presently. Thus, he says, not only have they\nas emperors received power from the gods, but in sharing their goods\nfreely they are like the gods, who rejoice the more, the more people\nthey save.[566]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s private supply of drugs: _terra sigillata_.]\n\nGalen himself, and apparently other physicians, were not content to\nrely for medicines either upon the unguent-sellers or the bounty of\nthe imperial stores. Galen stored away oil and fat and left them\nto age until he had enough to last for a hundred years, including\nsome from his father\u2019s lifetime. He used some forty years old in one\nprescription.[567] He also traveled to many parts of the Roman Empire\nand procured rare drugs in the places where they were produced. Very\ninteresting is his account of going out of his way in journeying\nback and forth between Rome and Pergamum in order to stop at Lemnos\nand procure a supply of the famous _terra sigillata_, a reddish clay\nstamped into pellets with the sacred seal of Diana.[568] On the way\nto Rome, instead of journeying on foot through Thrace and Macedonia,\nhe took ship from the Troad to Thessalonica; but the vessel stopped\nin Lemnos at Myrine on the wrong side of the island, which Galen had\nnot realized possessed more than one port, and the captain would not\ndelay the voyage long enough to enable him to cross the island to the\nspot where the _terra sigillata_ was to be found. Upon his return from\nRome through Macedonia, however, he took pains to visit the right port,\nand for the benefit of future travelers gives careful instructions\nconcerning the route to follow and the distances between stated points.\nHe describes the solemn procedure by which the priestess from the\nneighboring city gathered the red earth from the hill where it was\nfound, sacrificing no animals, but wheat and barley to the earth. He\nbrought away with him some twenty thousand of the little discs or\nseals which were supposed to cure even lethal poisons and the bite of\nmad dogs. The inhabitants laughed, however, at the assertion which\nGalen had read in Dioscorides that the seals were made by mixing the\nblood of a goat with the earth. Berthelot, the historian of chemistry,\nbelieved that this earth was \u201can oxide of iron more or less hydrated\nand impure.\u201d[569] In another passage Galen advises his readers,\nif they are ever in Pamphylia, to lay in a good supply of the drug\n_carpesium_.[570] In the ninth book of his work on medicinal simples he\ntells of three strata of sory, chalcite, and misy, which he had seen\nin a mine in Cyprus thirty years before and from which he had brought\naway a supply, and of the surprising chemical change which the misy\nunderwent in the course of these years.[571]\n\n[Sidenote: Mediterranean commerce.]\n\nGalen speaks of receiving other drugs from Great Syria, Palestine,\nEgypt, Cappadocia, Pontus, Macedonia, Gaul, Spain, and Mauretania,\nfrom the Celts, and even from India.[572] He names other places in\nGreece and Asia Minor than Mount Hymettus where good honey may be\nhad, and states that much so-called Attic honey is really from the\nCyclades, although it is brought to Athens and there sold or reshipped.\nSimilarly, genuine Falernian wine is produced only in a small part of\nItaly, but other wines like it are prepared by those who are skilled\nin such knavery. As the best iris is that of Illyricum and the best\nasphalt is from Judea, so the best _petroselinon_ is that of Macedonia,\nand merchants export it to almost the entire world just as they do\nAttic honey and Falernian wine. But the _petroselinon_ crop of Epirus\nis sent to Thessalonica and there passed off for Macedonian. The best\nturpentine is that of Chios but a good variety may be obtained from\nLibya or Pontus. The manufacture of drugs has spread recently as well\nas the commerce in them. The best form of unguent was formerly made\nonly in Laodicea, but now it is similarly compounded in many other\ncities of Asia Minor.[573]\n\n[Sidenote: Frauds of dealers in wild beasts.]\n\nWe are reminded that parts of animals as well as herbs and minerals\nwere important constituents in ancient pharmacy by Galen\u2019s invective\nagainst the frauds of hunters and dealers in wild beasts as well as\nof unguent-sellers. They do not hunt them at the proper season for\nsecuring their medicinal virtues, but when they are no longer in\ntheir prime or just after their long period of hibernation, when they\nare emaciated. Then they fatten them upon improper food, feed them\nbarley cakes to stuff up and dull their teeth, or force them to bite\nfrequently so that virus will run out of their mouths.[574]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s ideal of anonymity.]\n\nBesides the ancient drug trade, Galen gives us some interesting\nglimpses of the publishing trade, if we may so term it, of his time.\nWriting in old age in the _De methodo medendi_,[575] he says that he\nhas never attached his name to one of his works, never written for the\npopular ear or for fame, but fired by zeal for science and truth, or\nat the urgent request of friends, or as a useful exercise for himself,\nor, as now, in order to forget his old age. Popular fame is only an\nimpediment to those who desire to live tranquilly and enjoy the fruits\nof philosophy. He asks Eugenianus, whom he addresses in this passage,\nnot to praise him immoderately before men, as he has been wont to do,\nand not to inscribe his name in his works. His friends nevertheless\nprevailed upon him to write two treatises listing his works,[576] and\nhe also is free enough in many of his books in mentioning others which\nare essential to read before perusing the present volume.[577] Perhaps\nhe felt differently at different times on the question of fame and\nanonymity. He also objected to those who read his works, not to learn\nanything from them, but only in order to calumniate them.[578]\n\n[Sidenote: The ancient book trade.]\n\nIt was in a shop on the Sacra Via that most of the copies of some of\nGalen\u2019s works were stored when they, together with the great libraries\nupon the Palatine, were consumed in the fire of 192. But in another\npassage Galen states that the street of the Sandal-makers is where\nmost of the bookstores in Rome are located.[579] There he saw some men\ndisputing whether a certain treatise was his. It was duly inscribed\n_Galenus medicus_ and one man, because the title was unfamiliar to him,\nbought it as a new work by Galen. But another man who was something\nof a philologer asked to see the introduction, and, after reading a\nfew lines, declared that the book was not one of Galen\u2019s works. When\nGalen was still young, he wrote three commentaries on the throat and\nlungs for a fellow student who wished to have something to pass off\nas his own work upon his return home. This friend died, however, and\nthe books got into circulation.[580] Galen also complains that notes\nof his lectures which he has not intended for publication have got\nabroad,[581] that his servants have stolen and published some of\nhis manuscripts, and that others have been altered, corrupted, and\nmutilated by those into whose possession they have come, or have been\npassed off by them in other lands as their own productions.[582] On the\nother hand, some of his pupils keep his teachings to themselves and are\nunwilling to give others the benefit of them, so that if they should\ndie suddenly, his doctrines would be lost.[583] But his own ideal has\nalways been to share his knowledge freely with those who sought it,\nand if possible with all mankind. At least one of Galen\u2019s works was\ntaken down from his dictation by short-hand writers, when, after his\nconvincing demonstration by dissection concerning respiration and the\nvoice, Bo\u00ebthus asked him for commentaries on the subject and sent for\nstenographers.[584] Although Galen in his travels often purchased and\ncarried home with him large quantities of drugs, when he made his first\ntrip to Rome he left all his books in Asia.[585]\n\n[Sidenote: Falsification and mistakes in manuscripts.]\n\nGalen dates the falsification of title pages and contents of books\nback to the time when kings Ptolemy of Egypt and Attalus of Pergamum\nwere bidding against each other for volumes for their respective\nlibraries.[586] Works were often interpolated then in order to make\nthem larger and so bring a better price. Galen speaks more than once of\nthe deplorable ease with which numbers, signs, and other abbreviations\nare altered in manuscripts.[587] A single stroke of the pen or slight\nerasure will completely change the meaning of a medical prescription.\nHe thinks that such alterations are sometimes malicious and not mere\nmistakes. So common were they that Menecrates composed a medical\nwork written out entirely in complete words and entitled _Autocrator\nHologrammatos_ because it was also dedicated to the emperor. Another\nwriter, Damocrates, from whom Galen often quotes long passages,\ncomposed his book of medicaments in metrical form so that there might\nbe no mistake made even in complete words.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen as a historical source.]\n\nGalen\u2019s works contain occasional historical information concerning many\nother matters than books and drugs. Clinton in his _Fasti Romani_ made\nmuch use of Galen for the chronology of the period in which he lived.\nHis allusions to several of the emperors with whom he had personal\nrelations are valuable bits of source-material. Trajan was, of course,\nbefore his time, but he testifies to the great improvement of the\nroads in Italy which that emperor had effected.[588] Galen sheds a\nlittle light on the vexed question of the population of the empire, if\nPergamum is the place he refers to in his estimate of forty thousand\ncitizens or one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants, including\nwomen and slaves but perhaps not children.[589]\n\n[Sidenote: Ancient slavery.]\n\nGalen illustrates for us the evils of ancient slavery in an incident\nwhich he relates to show the inadvisability of giving way to one\u2019s\npassions, especially anger.[590] Returning from Rome, Galen fell in\nwith a traveler from Gortyna in Crete. When they reached Corinth,\nthe Cretan sent his baggage and slaves from Cenchrea[591] to Athens\nby boat, but himself with a hired vehicle and two slaves went by\nland with Galen through Megara, Eleusis, and Thriasa. On the way the\nCretan became so angry at the two slaves that he hit them with his\nsheathed sword so hard that the sheath broke and they were badly\nwounded. Fearing that they would die, he then made off to escape the\nconsequences of his act, leaving Galen to look after the wounded.\nBut later he rejoined Galen in penitent mood and insisted that Galen\nadminister a beating to him for his cruelty. Galen adds that he\nhimself, like his father, had never struck a slave with his own hand\nand had reproved friends who had broken their slaves\u2019 teeth with blows\nof their fists. Others go farther and kick their slaves or gouge their\neyes out. The emperor Hadrian in a moment of anger is said to have\nblinded a slave with a stylus which he had in his hand. He, too, was\nsorry afterwards and offered the slave money, but the latter refused\nit, telling the emperor that nothing could compensate him for the loss\nof an eye. In another passage Galen discusses how many slaves and\n\u201cclothes\u201d one really needs.[592]\n\n[Sidenote: Social life: food and wine.]\n\nGalen also depicts the easy-going, sociable, and pleasure-loving\nsociety of his time. Not only physicians but men generally begin\nthe day with salutations and calls, then separate again, some to\nthe market-place and law courts, others to watch the dancers or\ncharioteers.[593] Others play at dice or pursue love affairs, or pass\nthe hours at the baths or in eating and drinking or some other bodily\npleasure. In the evening they all come together again at symposia which\nbear no resemblance to the intellectual feasts of Socrates and Plato\nbut are mere drinking bouts. Galen had no objection, however, to the\nuse of wine in moderation and mentions the varieties from different\nparts of the Mediterranean world which were especially noted for their\nmedicinal properties.[594] He believed that drinking wine discreetly\nrelieved the mind from all worry and melancholy and refreshed it. \u201cFor\nwe use it every day.\u201d[595] He affirmed that taken in moderation wine\naided digestion and the blood.[596] He classed wine with such boons\nto humanity as medicines, \u201ca sober and decent mode of life,\u201d and \u201cthe\nstudy of literature and liberal disciplines.\u201d[597] Galen\u2019s treatise in\nthree books on food values (_De alimentorum facultatibus_) supplies\ninformation concerning the ancient table and dietary science.\n\n[Sidenote: Allusions to Judaism and Christianity.]\n\nGalen\u2019s allusions to Judaism and Christianity are of considerable\ninterest. He scarcely seems to have distinguished between them. In\ntwo passages in his treatise on differences in the pulse he makes\nincidental allusion to the followers of Moses and Christ, in both\ncases speaking of them rather lightly, not to say contemptuously. In\ncriticizing Archigenes for using vague and unintelligible language\nand not giving a sufficient explanation of the point in question,\nGalen says that it is \u201cas if one had come to a school of Moses and\nChrist and had heard undemonstrated laws.\u201d[598] And in criticizing\nopposing sects for their obstinacy he remarks that it would be easier\nto win over the followers of Moses and Christ.[599] Later we shall\nspeak more fully of a third passage in _De usu partium_[600] where\nGalen criticizes the Mosaic view of the relation of God to nature,\nrepresenting it as the opposite extreme to the Epicurean doctrine of\na purely mechanistic and materialistic universe. This suggests that\nGalen had read some of the Old Testament, but he might have learned\nfrom other sources of the Dead Sea and of salts of Sodom, of which he\nspeaks in yet another context.[601] According to a thirteenth century\nArabian biographer of Galen, he spoke more favorably of Christians in\na lost commentary upon Plato\u2019s _Republic_, admiring their morals and\nadmitting their miracles.[602] This last, as we shall see, is unlikely,\nsince Galen believed in a supreme Being who worked only through natural\nlaw. \u201cA confection of Ioachos, the martyr or metropolitan,\u201d and \u201cA\nremedy for headache of the monk Barlama\u201d occur in the third book of\nthe _De remediis parabilibus_ ascribed to Galen, but this third book\nis greatly interpolated or entirely spurious, citing Galen himself as\nwell as Alexander of Tralles, the sixth century writer, and mentioning\nthe Saracens. Wellmann regards it as composed between the seventh and\neleventh centuries of our era.[603]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s monotheism.]\n\nLike most thoughtful men of his time, Galen tended to believe in one\nsupreme deity, but he appears to have derived this conception from\nGreek rather than Hebraic sources. It was to philosophy and the Greek\nmysteries that he turned for revelation of the deity, as we shall\nsee. Hopeless criminals were for him those whom neither the Muses\nnor Socrates could reform.[604] It is Plato, not Christ, whom in\nanother treatise he cites as describing the first and greatest God as\nungenerated and good. \u201cAnd we all naturally love Him, being such as He\nis from eternity.\u201d[605]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s Christian readers.]\n\nBut while Galen\u2019s monotheism cannot be regarded as of Christian or\nJewish origin, it is possible that his argument from design and\nsupporting theology by anatomy made him more acceptable to both\nMohammedan and Christian readers. At any rate he had Christian\nreaders at Rome at the opening of the third century, when a hostile\ncontroversialist complains that some of them even worship Galen.[606]\nThese early Christian enthusiasts for natural science, who also devoted\nmuch time to Aristotle and Euclid, were finally excommunicated; but\nAristotle, Euclid, and Galen were to return in triumph in medieval\nlearning.\n\n\nII. _His Medicine and Experimental Science_\n\n[Sidenote: Four elements and four qualities.]\n\nGalen held as his fundamental theory of nature the view which was\nto prevail through the middle ages, that all natural objects upon\nthis globe are composed of four elements, earth, air, fire, and\nwater,[607] and the cognate view, which he says Hippocrates first\nintroduced and Aristotle later demonstrated, that all natural objects\nare characterized by four qualities, hot, cold, dry, and moist.\nFrom the combinations of these four are produced various secondary\nqualities.[608] Neither hypothesis was as yet universally accepted,\nhowever, and Galen felt it incumbent upon him to argue against those\nwho contended that the human body and world of nature were made from\nbut one element.[609] There were others who ridiculed the four quality\nhypothesis, saying that hot and cold were words for bath-keepers, not\nfor physicians to deal with.[610] Galen explains that philosophers\ndo not regard any particular variety of earth or any other mineral\nsubstance as representing the pure element earth, which in the\nphilosophical sense is an extremely cold and dry substance to which\nadamant and rocks make perhaps the closest approach. But the earths\nthat we see are all compound bodies.[611]\n\n[Sidenote: Criticism of atomism.]\n\nGalen rejected the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus, in which the\natoms were indivisible particles differing in shape and size, but not\ndiffering in quality as chemical atoms are supposed to do. He credits\nDemocritus with the view that such qualities as color and taste are\nsensed by us from the concourse of atoms, but do not reside in the\natoms themselves.[612] Galen also makes the criticism that the mere\nregrouping of \u201cimpassive and immutable\u201d atoms is not enough to account\nfor the new properties of the compound, which are often very different\nfrom those of the constituents, as when \u201cwe alter the qualities of\nmedicines in artificial mixtures.\u201d[613] Thus he virtually says that the\npurely physical atomism of Democritus will not account for what to-day\nwe call chemical change. He also, as we shall see, rejected Epicurus\u2019\ntheory of a world of nature ruled by blind chance.\n\n[Sidenote: Application of the theory of four qualities in medicine.]\n\nGalen of course thought that a dry medicine was good for a moist\ndisease, and that in a compound medicine, by mixing a very cold with\na slightly cold drug in varying proportions a medicine of any desired\ndegree of coldness might be obtained.[614] In general he regarded\nsolids like stones and metals as dry and cold, while he thought that\nhot and moist objects tended to evaporate rapidly into air.[615] So he\ndeclared that dryness of solid bodies was incurable, while he believed\nthat children\u2019s bodies were more easily dissolved than adults\u2019 because\nmoister and warmer.[616] The Stoics and many physicians believed that\nheat prolonged life, but Asclepiades pointed out that the Ethiopians\nare old at thirty because the hot sun dries up their bodies so, while\nthe inhabitants of Britain sometimes live to be one hundred and twenty\nyears old. This last, however, was regarded as probably due to the fact\nthat their thicker skins conserved their innate heat longer.[617]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s therapeutics obsolete.]\n\nAs an offset to the evidence which will be presented later of the\ntraces of occult virtues, magic, and astrology in Galen\u2019s therapeutics\nI should like to be able to indicate the good points in it. But his\nentire system, like the four quality theory upon which it is largely\nbased, seems now obsolete, and what evidenced his superiority to other\nphysicians in his own day would probably strike the modern reader\nonly as a token of his distinct inferiority to present practice.\nEighty odd years of modern medical progress since have added further\nemphasis to Daremberg\u2019s declaration that we have had to throw overboard\n\u201cmuch of his physiology, nearly all of his pathology and general\ntherapeutics.\u201d[618]\n\n[Sidenote: Some of his medical notions.]\n\nNevertheless, we may note a few specimens which perhaps represent\nhis ordinary theory and practice as distinguished from passages in\nwhich the influence of magic enters. He holds that bleeding and\ncold drink are the two chief remedies for fever.[619] He notes that\nchildren occasionally resemble their grandparents rather than their\nparents.[620] He disputes the assertion of Epicurus\u2014one by which some\nof his followers failed to be guided\u2014that there is no benefit to health\nin Aphrodite, and contends that at certain intervals and in certain\nindividuals and circumstances sexual intercourse is beneficial.[621]\nHis discussion of anodynes and stupor or sleep-producing medicines\nshows that the ancients had anaesthetics of a sort.[622] He recognized\nthe importance of breathing plenty of fresh, invigorating, and\nunpolluted air, free from any intermixture of impurity from mines,\npits, or ovens, or of putridity from decaying vegetable or animal\nmatter, or of noxious vapors from stagnant water, swamps, and\nrivers.[623] As was usual in ancient and medieval times, he attributes\nplagues to the corruption of the air, which poisons men breathing\nit, and tells how Hippocrates tried to allay a plague at Athens by\npurifying the air by fumigation with fires, odors, and unguents.[624]\n\n[Sidenote: Two of Galen\u2019s cases.]\n\nTwo specimens may be given of Galen\u2019s accounts of his own cases. In\nthe first, some cheese, which he had told his servants to take away as\ntoo sharp, when mixed with boiled salt pork and applied to the joints,\nproved very helpful to a gouty patient and to several others whom he\ninduced to try it.[625] In the second case Galen administered the\nfollowing heroic treatment to a woman at Rome who was afflicted with\ncatarrh to the point of throwing up blood.[626] He did not deem it wise\nto bleed her, since for four days past she had gone almost without\nfood. Instead he ordered a sharp clyster, rubbed and bound her hands\nand feet with a hot drug, shaved her head and put on it a medicament\nmade of doves\u2019 dung. After three hours she was bathed, care being taken\nthat nothing oily touched her head, which was then covered up. At first\nhe fed her only gruel, afterwards some bitter autumn fruit, and as she\nwas about to go to sleep he administered a medicament made from vipers\nfour months before. On the second day came more rubbing and binding\nexcept the head, and at evening a somewhat smaller dose of the viper\nremedy. Again she slept well and in the morning he gave her a large\ndose of cooked honey. Again her body was well rubbed and she was given\nbarley water and a little bread to eat. On the fourth day an older and\ntherefore stronger variety of viper-remedy was administered and her\nhead was covered with the same medicament as before. Its properties,\nGalen explains, are vehemently drying and heating. Again she was given\na bath and a little food. On the fifth day Galen ventured to purge her\nlungs, but he returned at intervals to the imposition upon her head.\nMeanwhile he continued the process of rubbing, bathing, and dieting,\nuntil finally the patient was well again,\u2014a truly remarkable cure!\n\n[Sidenote: His power of rapid observation and inference.]\n\nThese two cases, however, do not give us a just comprehension of\nGalen\u2019s abilities at their best. In his medical practice he could be as\nquick and comprehensive an observer and as shrewd in drawing inferences\nfrom what he observed as the famous Sherlock Holmes, so that some of\nhis slower-witted contemporaries accused him of possessing the gift\nof divination. His immediate diagnosis of the case of the Sicilian\nphysician by noting as he entered the house the excrements in a vessel\nwhich a servant was carrying out to the dungheap, and as he entered the\nsick-room a medicine set on the window-sill which the patient-physician\nhad been preparing for himself, amazed the patient and the philosopher\nGlaucon[627] more than, let us hope in this case in view of his\nprofession, they would have amazed the estimable Dr. Watson.\n\n[Sidenote: His happy guesses.]\n\nPuschmann has pointed out that Galen employs certain expressions\nwhich seem happy guesses at later discoveries. He writes: \u201cGalen was\nsupported in his researches by an extremely happy imaginative faculty\nwhich put the proper word in his mouth even in cases where he could not\npossibly arrive at a full understanding of the matter,\u2014where he could\nonly conjecture the truth. When, for instance, he declares that sound\nis carried \u2018like a wave\u2019 (K\u00fchn, III, 644), or expresses the conjecture\nthat the constituent of the atmosphere which is important for breathing\nalso acts by burning (IV, 687), he expresses thoughts which startle us,\nfor it was only possible nearly two thousand years later to understand\ntheir full significance.\u201d[628]\n\n[Sidenote: Tendency towards scientific measurement.]\n\nGalen was keenly alive to the need of exactness in weights and\nmeasurements. He often criticizes past writers for not stating\nprecisely what ailment the medicament recommended is good for, and in\nwhat proportions the ingredients are to be mixed. He also frequently\ncomplains because they do not specify whether they are using the\nGreek or Roman system of weights, or the Attic, Alexandrine, or\nEphesian variety of a certain measure.[629] Moreover, he saw the\ndesirability of more accurate means of measuring the passage of\ntime.[630] When he states that even some illustrious physicians of his\nacquaintance mistake the speed of the pulse and are unable to tell\nwhether it is slow, fast, or normal, we begin to realize something\nof the difficulties under which medical practice and any sort of\nexperimentation labored before watches were invented, and how much\ndepended upon the accuracy of human machinery and judgment. Yet Galen\nestimates that the chief progress made in medical prognostication since\nHippocrates is the gradual development of the art of inferring from the\npulse.[631] Galen tried to improve the time-pieces in use in his age.\nHe states that in any city the inhabitants want to know the time of\nday accurately, not merely conjecturally; and he gives directions how\nto divide the day into twelve hours by a combination of a sun-dial and\na _clepsydra_, and how on the water clock to mark the duration of the\nlongest, shortest, and equinoctial days of the year.[632]\n\n[Sidenote: Psychological tests with the pulse.]\n\nDelicate and difficult as was the task of measuring the pulse in\nGalen\u2019s time, he was clever enough to anticipate by seventeen centuries\nsome of the tests which modern psychologists have urged should be\napplied in criminal trials. He detected the fact that a female patient\nwas not ill but in love by the quickening of her pulse when someone\ncame in from the theater and announced that he had just seen Pylades\ndance. When she came again the next day, Galen had purposely arranged\nthat someone should enter and say that he had seen Morphus dancing.\nThis and a similar test on the third day produced no perceptible\nquickening in the woman\u2019s pulse. But it bounded again when on the\nfourth day Pylades\u2019 name was again spoken. After recounting another\nanalogous incident where he had been able to read the patient\u2019s mind,\nGalen asks why former physicians have never availed themselves of\nthese methods. He thinks that they must have had no conception of\nhow the bodily health in general and the pulse in particular can be\naffected by the \u201cpsyche\u2019s\u201d suffering.[633] We might then call Galen the\nfirst experimental psychologist as well as the first to elaborate the\nphysiology of the nervous system.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s anatomy and physiology.]\n\nIt would scarcely be fair to discuss Galen\u2019s science at all without\nsaying something of his remarkable work in anatomy and physiology.\nDaremberg went so far as to hold that all there is good or bad in his\nwritings comes from good or bad physiology, and regarded his discussion\nof the bones and muscles as especially good.[634] He is generally\nconsidered the greatest anatomist of antiquity, but it is barely\npossible that he may have owed more to predecessors and contemporaries\nand less to personal research than is apparent from his own writings,\nwhich are the most complete anatomical treatises that have reached us\nfrom antiquity. Herophilus, for example, who was born at Chalcedon in\nthe closing fourth century B. C. and flourished at Alexandria under\nthe first Ptolemy, discovered the nerves and distinguished them from\nthe sinews, and thought the brain the center of the nervous system, so\nthat it is perhaps questionable whether Payne is justified in calling\nGalen \u201cthe founder of the physiology of the nervous system,\u201d and in\ndeclaring that \u201cin physiological diagnosis he stands alone among the\nancients.\u201d[635] However, if Galen owed something to Herophilus, we owe\nmuch of our knowledge of the earlier physiologist to Galen.[636]\n\n[Sidenote: Experiments in dissection.]\n\nAristotle had held that the heart was the seat of the sensitive\nsoul[637] and the source of nervous action, \u201cwhile the brain was of\nsecondary importance, being the coldest part of the body, devoid of\nblood, and having for its chief or only function to cool the heart.\u201d\nGalen attacked this theory by showing experimentally that \u201call the\nnerves originated in the brain, either directly or by means of the\nspinal cord, which he thought to be a conducting organ merely, not\na center.\u201d \u201cA thousand times,\u201d he says, \u201cI have demonstrated by\ndissection that the cords in the heart called nerves by Aristotle\nare not nerves and have no connection with nerves.\u201d He found that\nsensation and movement were stopped and even the voice and breathing\nwere affected by injuries to the brain, and that an injury to one\nside of the brain affected the opposite side of the body. His\npublic demonstration by dissection, performed in the presence of\nvarious philosophers and medical men, of the connection between\nthe brain and voice and respiration and the commentaries which he\nimmediately afterwards dictated on this point were so convincing,\nhe tells us fifteen years later, that no one has ventured openly to\ndispute them.[638] His \u201cexperimental investigation of the spinal\ncord by sections at different levels and by half sections was still\nmore remarkable.\u201d[639] Galen opposed these experimental proofs to\nsuch unscientific arguments on the part of the Stoic philosopher,\nChrysippus, and others, as that the heart must be the chief organ\nbecause it is in the center of the body, or because one lays one\u2019s\nhand on one\u2019s heart to indicate oneself, or because the lips are\nmoved in a certain way in saying \u201cI\u201d (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce).[640] Another noteworthy\nexperiment by Galen was that in which, by binding up a section of the\nfemoral artery he proved that the arteries contain blood and not air\nor _spiritus_ as had been generally supposed.[641] He failed, however,\nto perform any experiments with the pulmonary veins, and so the notion\npersisted that these conveyed \u201cspirit\u201d and not blood from the lungs to\nthe heart.[642]\n\n[Sidenote: Did Galen ever dissect human bodies?]\n\nIt has usually been stated that Galen never dissected the human body\nand that his inferences by analogy from his dissection of animals\ninvolved him in serious error concerning human anatomy and physiology.\nCertainly he speaks as if opportunities to secure human cadavers or\neven skeletons were rare.[643] He mentions, however, the possibility\nof obtaining the bodies of criminals condemned to death or cast to\nbeasts in the arena, or the corpses of robbers which lie unburied in\nthe mountains, or the bodies of infants exposed by their parents.[644]\nIt is not sufficient, he states in another passage,[645] to read books\nabout human bones; one should have them before one\u2019s eyes. Alexandria\nis the best place for the student to go to see actual exhibitions of\nthis sort made by the teachers.[646] But even if one cannot go there,\none may be able to procure human bones for oneself, as Galen did from a\nskeleton which had been washed out of a grave by a flooded stream and\nfrom the corpse of a robber slain in the mountains. If one cannot get\nto see a human skeleton by these means or some other, he should dissect\nmonkeys and apes.\n\n[Sidenote: Dissection of animals.]\n\nIndeed Galen advises the student to dissect apes in any case, in order\nto prepare himself for intelligent dissection of the human body, should\nhe ever have the opportunity. From lack of such previous experience the\ndoctors with the army of Marcus Aurelius, who dissected the body of a\ndead German, learned nothing except the position of the entrails. Galen\nat any rate dissected a great many animals. Tiny animals and insects\nhe let alone, for the microscope was not yet discovered, but besides\napes and quadrupeds he cut up many reptiles, mice, weasels, birds, and\nfish.[647] He also gives an amusing account of the medical men at Rome\ngathering to observe the dissection of an elephant in order to discover\nwhether the heart had one or two vertices and two or three ventricles.\nGalen assured them beforehand that it would be found similar to the\nheart of any other breathing animal. This particular dissection was\nnot, however, performed exclusively in the interests of science, since\nit was scarcely accomplished when the heart was carried off, not to\na scientific museum, but by the imperial cooks to their master\u2019s\ntable.[648] Galen sometimes dissected animals the moment he killed\nthem. Thus he observed that the lungs always sensibly shrank from the\ndiaphragm in a dying animal, whether he killed it by suffocation in\nwater, or strangling with a noose, or severing the spinal medulla near\nthe first vertebrae, or cutting the large arteries or veins.[649]\n\n[Sidenote: Surgical operations.]\n\nSurgical operations and medical practice were a third way of learning\nthe human anatomy, and Galen complains of the carelessness of those\nphysicians and surgeons who do not take pains to observe it before\nperforming an operation or cure. He himself had had one case where\nthe human heart was laid bare and yet the patient recovered.[650]\nAs a young practitioner before he came to Rome Galen worked out so\nsuccessful a method of treating wounds of the sinews that the care\nof the health of the gladiators in his native city of Pergamum was\nentrusted to him by several successive pontifices[651] and he hardly\nlost a life. In the same passage he again speaks contemptuously of\nthe doctors in the war with the Germans who were allowed to cut open\nthe bodies of the barbarians but learned no more thereby than a cook\nwould. When Galen came from Pergamum to Rome he found the professions\nof physicians and surgeons distinct and left cases to the latter which\nhe before had attended to himself.[652] We may note finally that he\ninvented a new form of surgical knife.[653]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s argument from design.]\n\nIn Galen\u2019s opinion the study of anatomy was important for the\nphilosopher as well as for the physician. An understanding of the\nuse of the parts of the body is helpful to the doctor, he says, but\nmuch more so to \u201cthe philosopher of medicine who strives to obtain\nknowledge of all nature.\u201d[654] In the _De usu partium_[655] he came to\nthe conclusion that in the structure of any animal we have the mark\nof a wise workman or demiurge, and of a celestial mind; and that \u201cthe\ninvestigation of the use of the parts of the body lays the foundation\nof a truly scientific theology which is much greater and more precious\nthan all medicine,\u201d and which reveals the divinity more clearly than\neven the Eleusinian mysteries or Samothracian orgies. Thus Galen adopts\nthe argument from design for the existence of God. The modern doctrine\nof evolution is of course subversive of his premise that the parts of\nthe body are so well constructed for and marvelously adapted to their\nfunctions that nothing better is possible, and consequently of his\nconclusion that this necessitates a divine maker and planner.\n\nIn the treatise _De foetuum formatione_ Galen displays a similar\ninclination but more tentatively and timidly. He thinks that the human\nbody attests the wisdom and power of its maker,[656] whom he wishes the\nphilosophers would reveal to him more clearly and tell him \u201cwhether he\nis some wise and powerful god.\u201d[657] The process of the formation of\nthe child in the womb, the complex human muscular system, the human\ntongue alone, seem to him so wonderful that he will not subscribe to\nthe Epicurean denial of any all-ruling providence.[658] He thinks that\nnature alone cannot show such wisdom. He has, however, sought vainly\nfrom philosopher after philosopher for a satisfactory demonstration of\nthe existence of God, and is by no means certain himself.[659]\n\n[Sidenote: Queries concerning the soul.]\n\nGalen is also at a loss concerning the existence and substance of the\nsoul. He points out that puppies try to bite before their teeth come\nand that calves try to hook before their horns grow, as if the soul\nknew the use of these parts beforehand. It might be argued that the\nsoul itself causes the parts to grow,[660] but Galen questions this,\nnor is he ready to accept the Platonic world-soul theory of a divine\nforce permeating all nature.[661] It offends his instinctive piety and\nsense of fitness to think of the world-soul in such things as reptiles,\nvermin, and putrefying corpses. On the other hand, he disagrees with\nthose who deny any innate knowledge or standards to the soul and\nattribute everything to sense perception and certain imaginations and\nmemories based thereon. Some even deny the existence of the reasoning\nfaculty, he says, and affirm that we are led by the affections of\nthe senses like cattle. For these men courage, prudence, temperance,\ncontinence are mere names.[662]\n\n[Sidenote: No supernatural force in medicine.]\n\nIn commenting upon the works of Hippocrates, Galen insists that in\nspeaking of \u201csomething divine\u201d in diseases Hippocrates could not have\nmeant supernatural influence, which he never admits into medicine in\nother passages. Galen tries to explain away the expression as having\nreference to the effect of the surrounding air.[663] Thus while Galen\nmight look upon nature or certain things in nature as a divine work,\nhe would not admit any supernatural force in science or medicine, or\nanything bordering upon special providence. In the _De usu partium_\nGalen states that he agrees with Moses that \u201cthe beginning of genesis\nin all things generated\u201d was \u201cfrom the demiurge,\u201d but that he does not\nagree with him that anything is possible with God and that God can\nsuddenly turn a stone into a man or make a horse or cow from ashes.\n\u201cIn this matter our opinion and that of Plato and of others among the\nGreeks who have written correctly concerning natural science differs\nfrom the view of Moses.\u201d In Galen\u2019s view God attempts nothing contrary\nto nature but of all possible natural courses invariably chooses the\nbest. Thus Galen expresses his admiration at nature\u2019s providence in\nkeeping the eyebrows and eyelashes of the same length and not letting\nthem grow long like the beard or hair, but this is because a harder\ncartilaginous flesh is provided for them to grow in, and the mere will\nof God would not keep hairs from growing in soft flesh. If God had not\nprovided the cartilaginous substance for the eyelashes, \u201che would have\nbeen more careless, not merely than Moses but than a worthless general\nwho builds a wall in a swamp.\u201d[664] As between the views on God of\nMoses and Epicurus, Galen prefers to steer a middle course.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s experimental instinct.]\n\nAlready in describing Galen\u2019s dissections and tests with the pulse\nwe have seen evidence of the accurate observation and experimental\ninstincts which accompanied his zest for hard work and zeal for truth.\nIn one of his treatises he confesses that it was a passion of his\nalways to test everything for himself. \u201cAnd if anyone accuses me of\nthis, I will confess my disease, from which I have suffered all my\nlife long, that I have trusted no one of those who narrate such things\nuntil I have tested it myself, if it was possible for me to have\nexperience of it.\u201d[665] Galen also recognized that general theories\nwere not sufficient for exact knowledge and that specific examples\nseen with one\u2019s own eyes were indispensable.[666] He maintains that,\nif all teachers and writers would realize and observe this, they\nwould make comparatively few false statements. He saw the danger of\nmaking absolute assertions and the need of noting the particular\ncircumstances of each individual case.[667] Galen more than once\ndeclared that things, not names, were important and refused to waste\ntime in disputing about terminology and definitions which might be\nspent in \u201cpursuing the knowledge of things themselves.\u201d[668] Thus we\nsee in Galen a pragmatic scientist intent upon concrete facts and exact\nknowledge; but at the same time it must be recognized that he accepted\nsome universal theorems and general views.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude towards authorities.]\n\nGalen did not believe in merely repeating in new books the statements\nof previous authorities. Ever since boyhood, he writes in his\n_Anatomical Administrations_, it has seemed to him that one should\nrecord in writing only one\u2019s new discoveries and not repeat what\nhas been said already.[669] Nevertheless in some of his writings he\ncollects the prescriptions of past physicians at great length, and\na previous treatise by Archigenes is practically embodied in one of\nGalen\u2019s works on compound medicines. On another occasion, however,\nafter stating that Crito had combined previous treatises upon\ncosmetics, including the work of Cleopatra, into four books of his\nown which constitute a well-nigh exhaustive treatment of the subject,\nGalen says that he sees no profit in copying Crito\u2019s work again and\nmerely reproduces its table of contents.[670] On the other hand, as\nthis passage shows, Galen thought that the ancients had stated many\nthings admirably and he had little patience with contemporaries who\nwould learn nothing from them but were always ambitiously weaving new\nand complicated dogmas, or misinterpreting and perverting the teachings\nof the ancients.[671] His method was rather first to \u201cmake haste and\nstretch every nerve to learn what the most celebrated of the ancients\nhave said;\u201d[672] then, having mastered this teaching, to judge it and\nput it to the test for a long time and determine by observation how\nmuch of it agrees and how much disagrees with actual phenomena, and\nthen embrace the former portion and reject the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: Adverse criticism of past writers.]\n\nThis critical employment of past authorities is frequently illustrated\nin Galen\u2019s works. He mentions a great many names of past physicians\nand writers, thereby shedding some light upon the history of Greek\nmedicine; but at times he criticizes his predecessors, not sparing\neven Empedocles and Aristotle. Although he cites Aristotle a great\ndeal, he declares that it is not surprising that Aristotle made many\nerrors in the anatomy of animals, since he thought that the heart\nin large animals had a third ventricle.[673] As we have already\nseen in discussing the topic of weights and measurements, Galen\nespecially objects to the vagueness and inaccuracy of many past\nmedical writers,[674] or praises individuals like Heras who give\nspecific information.[675] He also shows a preference for writers who\ngive first-hand information, commending Heraclides of Tarentum as a\ntrustworthy man, if there ever was one, who set down only those things\nproved by his own experience.[676] Galen declares that one could\nspend a lifetime in reading the books that have already been written\nupon medicinal simples. He urges his readers, however, to abstain\nfrom Andreas and other liars of that stamp, and above all to eschew\nPamphilus who never saw even in a dream the herbs which he describes.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s estimate of Dioscorides.]\n\nOf all previous writers upon _materia medica_ Galen preferred\nDioscorides. He writes, \u201cBut Anazarbensis Dioscorides in five books\ndiscussed all useful material not only of herbs but of trees and fruits\nand juices and liquors, treating besides both all metals and the\nparts of animals.\u201d[677] Yet he does not hesitate to criticize certain\nstatements of Dioscorides, such as the story of mixing goat\u2019s blood\nwith the _terra sigillata_ of Lemnos. Dioscorides had also attributed\nmarvelous virtues to the stone Gagates which he said came from a river\nof that name in Lycia; Galen\u2019s comment is that he has skirted the\nentire coast of Lycia in a small boat and found no such stream.[678]\nHe also wonders that Dioscorides described butter as made of the milk\nof sheep and goats, and correctly states that \u201cthis drug\u201d is made from\ncows\u2019 milk.[679] Galen does not mention its use as a food in his work\non medicinal simples, and in his treatise upon food values he alludes\nto butter rather incidentally in the chapter on milk, stating that it\nis a fatty substance and easily recognized by tasting it, that it has\nmany of the properties of oil, and in cold countries is sometimes used\nin baths in place of oil.[680] Galen further criticizes Dioscorides for\nhis unfamiliarity with the Greek language and consequent failure to\ngrasp the significance of many Greek names.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s dogmatism: logic and experience.]\n\nDaremberg said of Galen that he represented at the same time the most\nexaggerated dogmatism and the most advanced experimental school. There\nis some justification for the paradox, though the latter part seems to\nme the truer. But Galen was proud of his training in philosophy and\nlogic and mathematics; he stood fast by many Hippocratic dogmas such\nas the four qualities theory, he thought[681] that in medicine as in\ngeometry there were a certain number of self-evident maxims upon which\nreason, conforming to the rules of logic, might build up a scientific\nstructure. In the _De methodo medendi_[682] he makes a distinction\nbetween the discovery of drugs and medicines, simple or compound, by\nexperience and the methodical treatment of disease which he now sets\nforth and which should proceed logically and independently of mere\nempiricism, and he wishes that other medical writers would make it\nclear when they are relying merely on experience and when exclusively\nupon reason.[683] At the same time he expresses his dislike for mere\ndogmatizers who shout their _ipse dixits_ like tyrants without the\nsupport either of reason or experience.[684] He also grants that the\nordinary man, taught by nature alone, often instinctively pursues a\nbetter course of action for his health than \u201cthe sophists\u201d are able\nto advise.[685] Indeed, he is of the opinion that some doctors would\ndo well to stick to experience alone and not try to mix in reasoning,\nsince they are not trained in logic, and when they endeavor to divide\nor analyze a theme, perform like unskilled carvers who fail to find the\njoints and mutilate the roast.[686] Later on in the same work[687] he\nagain affirms that persons who will not read and profit by the books of\nmedical authorities and whose own reasoning is defective, should limit\nthemselves to experience.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s account of the Empirics.]\n\nNormally, however, Galen upholds both reason and experience as\ncriteria of truth against the opposing schools of Dogmatics and\nEmpirics. The former attacked experience as uncertain and impossible\nto regulate, slow and unmethodical. The latter replied that experience\nwas consistent, adaptable to art, and proof enough.[688] Galen\u2019s\nchief objection to the Empirics is that they reject reason as a\ncriterion of truth and wish the medical art to be irrational.[689]\n\u201cThe Empirics say that all things are discovered by experience, but\nwe say that some are found by experience and some by reason.\u201d[690]\nGalen also objects to Herodotus\u2019s explanation of the medical art as\noriginating in the conversation of patients exposed at crossroads who\ntold one another of their complaints and recoveries and thus evolved\na fund of common experience.[691] Galen criticizes such experience\nas irrational and not yet put into scientific form (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Of\nthe Empirics he tells us further that they regard phenomena only and\nignore causes and put no trust in reasoning. They hold that there is\nno system or necessary order in medical discovery or doctrine, and\nthat some remedies have been discovered by dreams, others by chance.\nThey also accepted written accounts of past experiences and thus to\na certain extent trusted in tradition. Galen argues that they should\ntest these statements of past authorities by reason.[692] His further\ncontention that, if they test them by experience, they might as well\nreject all writings and trust only to present experience from the\nstart, is a sophistical quibble unworthy of him. He adds, however,\nthat the Empirics themselves say that past tradition or \u201chistory\u201d\n(\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) should not be judged by experience, but it is unlikely that\nhe represents their view correctly in this particular. In another\npassage[693] he says that they distinguish three kinds of experience,\nchance or accidental, offhand or impromptu, and imitative or the\nrepetition of the same thing. In a third passage[694] he repeats that\nthey held that observation of one or two instances was not enough,\nbut that oft-repeated observation was needed with all conditions the\nsame each time. In yet another place[695] he says that the Empirics\nobserve coincidences in things joined by experience. He himself defines\nexperience as the comprehending and remembering of something seen\noften and in the same condition,[696] and makes the good point that\none cannot observe satisfactorily without use of reason.[697] He also\nadmits in one place that some Empirics are ready to employ reason as\nwell as experience.[698]\n\n[Sidenote: How the Empirics might have criticized Galen.]\n\nHaving noted Galen\u2019s criticism of the Empirics, we may imagine what\ntheir attitude would be towards his medicine. They would probably\nreject all his theories\u2014which we, too, have finally discarded\u2014of\nfour elements and four qualities and the like, and would accept only\nhis specific recommendations for the cure of disease based upon\nhis medical experience; except that they would also be credulous\nconcerning anything which he assured them was based upon his own\nor another\u2019s experience, whether it truly was or not. They would,\nhowever, have probably questioned much of his anatomical inference\nfrom the dissection of the lower animals, since he tells us that they\n\u201chave written whole books against anatomy.\u201d[699] Considering the\nstate of knowledge in their time, their refusal to attempt any large\ngeneralizations or to hazard any scientific hypotheses or to build any\nrisky medical system was in a way commendable, but their credulity as\nto particulars was a weakness.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s standard of reason and experience.]\n\nOn the whole Galen\u2019s attitude towards experience seems an improvement\nupon theirs. He was apparently more critical towards the \u201cexperiences\u201d\nof past writers than the average Empiric, and in his combination of\nreason and experience he came a little nearer to modern experimental\nmethod. Reason alone, he says, discovers some things, experience alone\ndiscovers some, but to find others requires use of both experience and\nreason.[700] In his treatise upon critical days he keeps reiterating\nthat their existence is proved both by reason and experience. These\ntwo instruments in judging things given us by nature supplement each\nother.[701] \u201cLogical methods have force in finding what is sought, but\nin believing what has been well found there are two criteria for all\nmen, reason and experience.\u201d[702] \u201cWhat can you do with men who cannot\nbe persuaded either by reason or by practice?\u201d[703] Galen also speaks\nof discovering a truth by logic and being thereby encouraged to try it\nin practice and of then verifying it by experience.[704] This, however,\nis not quite the same thing as saying that the scientist should aim to\ndiscover new truth by purposive experiments, or that from a number of\nexperiences reason may infer some general law of nature.\n\n[Sidenote: Simples knowable only from experience.]\n\nIt is perhaps in his work on medicinal simples that Galen lays most\nstress upon the importance of experience. Indeed he sees no other way\nto learn the properties of natural objects than through the experience\nof the senses.[705] \u201cFor by the gods,\u201d he exclaims, \u201chow is it that\nwe know that fire is hot? Are we taught it by some syllogism or\npersuaded of it by some demonstration? And how do we learn that ice\nis cold except from the senses?\u201d[706] And Galen sees no advantage\nin spending further time in arguments and hair-splitting where one\ncan learn the truth at once from the senses. This thought he keeps\nrepeating through the treatise, saying, for example, \u201cThe surest judge\nof all will be experience alone, and those who abandon it and reason\non any other basis not only are deceived but destroy the value of\nthe treatise.\u201d[707] Moreover, he restricts his account of medicinal\nsimples to those with which he is personally acquainted. In the three\nbooks treating of plants he does not mention all those found in all\nparts of the world, but only as many as it has been his privilege to\nknow by experience.[708] He proposes to follow the same rule in the\nensuing discussion of animals and to say nothing of virtues which he\nhas not tested or of substances mentioned in the writings of past\nphysicians but unknown to him. He dares not trust their statements when\nhe reflects how some have lied in such matters. In the middle ages\nAlbertus Magnus talks in much the same strain in his works on animals,\nplants, and minerals, and perhaps he was stimulated to such ideals,\nconsciously or unconsciously, directly by reading Galen or indirectly\nthrough Arabic works, by Galen\u2019s earlier expression of them. Galen\nmentions some virtues ascribed to substances which he has tested by\nexperience and found false, such as the medicinal properties attributed\nto the belly of a seagull[709] and some of those claimed for the marine\nanimal called torpedo.[710] Anointing the place with frog\u2019s blood or\ndog\u2019s milk will not prevent eyebrows that have been plucked out from\ngrowing again, nor will bat\u2019s blood and viper\u2019s fat remove hair from\nthe arm-pits.[711] Also the brain of a hare is only fairly good for\nboys\u2019 teeth.[712]\n\n[Sidenote: Experience and food science.]\n\nIn beginning his work on food values[713] Galen states that many have\ndiscussed the properties of aliments, some on the basis of reason\nalone, some on the basis of experience alone, but that their statements\ndo not agree. On the whole, since reasoning is not easy for everyone,\nrequiring natural sagacity and training from childhood, he thinks it\nbetter to start from experience, especially since not a few physicians\nare of the opinion that only thus can the properties of foods be\nlearned.\n\n[Sidenote: Experience and compounds.]\n\nThe Empirics contended that most compound medicines had been hit upon\nby chance, and Galen grants that the Dogmatics usually are unable to\ngive reasons for the ingredients of their doses and find difficulty\nin reproducing a lost prescription.[714] But he holds that reasons\ncan be given for the constituents of the compound and that the\nlogical discovery of such remedies differs from the empirical.[715]\nHis own method was to learn the nature of each disease and the\nvaried properties of simples, and then prepare a compound suited\nto the disease and to the patient.[716] On the other hand, we see\nhow much depends upon experience from his confession that sometimes\nhe has hastily prepared a compound from a few simples, sometimes\nfrom more, sometimes from a great variety. If the compound worked\nwell, he would continue to use it, sometimes making it stronger\nand sometimes weaker.[717] For as you cannot put together compounds\nwithout rational method, so you cannot tell their strength certainly\nand accurately without experience.[718] He admits that no one can\ntell the exact quantity of each ingredient to employ without the\naid of experience,[719] and says, \u201cThe proper proportions in the\nmixture we shall find conjecturally before experience, scientifically\nafter experience.\u201d[720] In these treatises upon compound medicines,\nunlike that on medicinal simples, Galen gives the prescriptions of\nformer physicians as well as some tested by his own experience.[721]\nSometimes, however, he expresses a preference for the medicines of\nthose writers who were \u201cmost experienced\u201d; and once says that he will\ngive some compounds of the more recent writers, who in their turn had\nselected the best from older writers of long experience and added later\ndiscoveries.[722] We suspect, however, that some of these prescriptions\nhad not been tested for centuries.\n\n[Sidenote: Suggestions of experimental method.]\n\nGalen gives a few directions how to regulate medical observation and\nexperience, although they cannot be said to carry us very far on\nthe road to modern laboratory research. He saw the value of \u201clong\nexperience,\u201d a phrase which he often employs.[723] He states that one\nexperience is enough to learn how to prepare a drug, but to learn to\nknow the best medicines in each kind and in different places many\nexperiences are required.[724] Medicinal simples should be frequently\ninspected, \u201csince the knowledge of things perceived by the senses is\nstrengthened by careful examination.\u201d[725] Galen advises the student\nof medicine to study herbs, trees, and fruit as they grow, to find\nout when it is best to pluck them, how to preserve them, and so on.\nBut elsewhere he states that it is possible to estimate the general\nvirtue of the simple from one or two experiences.[726] However, he\nsuggests that their effect be noted in the three cases of a perfectly\nhealthy person, a slightly ailing patient, and a really sick man.[727]\nIn the last case one should further note their varying effects as the\ndisease is marked by any excess of heat, cold, dryness, or moisture.\nCare should be taken that the simples themselves are pure and free\nfrom any admixture of a foreign substance.[728] \u201cIt is also essential\nto test the relation to the nature of the patient of all those things\nof which great use is made in the medical art.\u201d[729] One condition\nto be observed in experimental investigation of critical days is to\ncount no cases where any slip has been made by physician or patient\nor bystanders or where any other foreign factor has done harm.[730]\nGalen was acquainted with physical experiments in siphoning, for he\nsays that, if one withdraws the air from a vessel containing sand and\nwater, the sand will follow before the water, which is the heavier\n(_sic?_).[731]\n\n[Sidenote: Difficulty of medical experiment.]\n\nGalen also points out some of the difficulties of medical\nexperimentation. One is the extreme unlikelihood of ever being able\nto observe in even two cases the same combination of symptoms and\ncircumstances.[732] The other is the danger to the life of the patient\nfrom rash experimenting.[733] Thus Galen more than once tells us of\nabstaining from testing some remedy because he had others of whose\neffects he was surer.\n\n[Sidenote: Empirical remedies.]\n\nIn the treatise on easily procurable remedies ascribed to Galen,[734]\nin which we have already seen evidence of later interpolation or\nauthorship, some recipes are concluded by such expressions as,\n\u201cThis has been experienced; it works unceasingly,\u201d[735] or \u201cAnother\nremedy tested by us in many cases.\u201d[736] This became a custom in many\nsubsequent medical works, including those of the middle ages. One\nrecipe is introduced by the caution, \u201cBut don\u2019t cure anybody unless you\nhave been paid first, for this has been tested in many cases.\u201d[737] But\nwe are left in some doubt whether we should infer that remedies tested\nby experience are so superior that they call for cash payment rather\nthan credit, or so uncertain that it is advisable that the physician\nsecure his fee before the outcome is known. In the middle ages the\nword _experimentum_ was used a great deal as a synonym for any medical\ntreatment, recipe, or prescription. Galen approaches this usage, which\nwe have already noticed in Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_, when he describes\n\u201ca very important experiment\u201d in bleeding performed by certain doctors\nat Rome.[738]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen\u2019s influence upon medieval experiment.]\n\nIndeed Galen appears to have exerted a great influence in the middle\nages by his passages concerning experience in particular as well as by\nhis medicine in general. Medieval writers cite him as an authority for\nthe recognition of experience and reason as criteria of truth.[739]\nGilbert of England cites \u201cexperiences from the book of experiments\nexperienced by Galen,\u201d[740] and we shall find more than one such\napocryphal work ascribed to Galen in the middle ages. John of St.\nAmand seems to have developed seven rules[741] which he gives for\ndiscovering experimentally the properties of medicinal simples from\nwhat we have heard Galen say on the subject, and in another work, the\n_Concordances_, John collects a number of passages about experience\nfrom the works of Galen.[742] Peter of Spain, who died as Pope John\nXXI in 1277, cites Galen in his discussion of \u201cthe way of experience\u201d\nand \u201cthe way of reason\u201d in his _Commentaries on Isaac on Diets_.[743]\nWe have already suggested Galen\u2019s possible influence upon Albertus\nMagnus, and we might add Roger Bacon who wrote some treatises on\nmedicine. But it is hardly possible to tell whether such ideas were in\nthe air, or were due to Galen individually either in their origin or\ntheir transmission. But he made a rather close approach to the medieval\nattitude in his equal regard for logic and for experimentation.\n\n[Sidenote: His more general medieval influence.]\n\nThe more general influence of Galen upon all sides of the medicine\nof the following fifteen centuries has often been stated in sweeping\nterms, but is difficult to exaggerate. His general theories, his\nparticular cures, his occasional marvelous stories, were often repeated\nor paraphrased. Oribasius has been called \u201cthe ape of Galen,\u201d and we\nshall see that the epithet might with equal reason be applied to A\u00ebtius\nof Amida. Indeed, as in the case of Pliny, we shall find plenty of\ninstances of Galen\u2019s influence in our later chapters. Perhaps as good\na single instance of medieval study of Galen as could be given is from\nthe _Concordances_ of John of St. Amand already mentioned, which bear\nthe alternative title, \u201cRecalled to Mind\u201d (_Revocativum memoriae_),\nsince they were written to \u201crelieve from toil and worry scholars who\noften spend sleepless nights in searching for points in the books of\nGalen.\u201d[744] Or we may note how the associates of the twelfth century\ntranslator from the Arabic, Gerard of Cremona, added a list of his\nworks at the close of his translation of Galen\u2019s _Tegni_, \u201cimitating\nGalen in the commemoration of his books at the end of the same\ntreatise,\u201d as they themselves state.[745]\n\nNot that medieval men did not make additions of their own to Galen.\nFor instance, the noted Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, in adding\nhis collection of medical _Aphorisms_ to the many previous compilations\nof this sort by Hippocrates, Rasis (Muhammad ibn Zakariya), Mesu\u00eb\n(Yuhanna ibn Masawaih), and others, states that he has drawn them\nmainly from the works of Galen, but that he supplements these with some\nin his own name and some by other \u201cmoderns.\u201d[746] Not that Galen was\nnot sometimes criticized or questioned. A later Greek writer, Symeon\nSeth, ventured to devote a special treatise to a refutation of some\nof Galen\u2019s physiological views. In it, addressing himself to those\n\u201cpersons who regard you, O Galen, as a god,\u201d he endeavored to make\nthem realize that no human being is infallible.[747] Among the medical\ntreatises of Gentile da Foligno, who was papal physician and performed\na public dissection at Padua in 1341,[748] is found a brief argument\nagainst Galen\u2019s fifth aphorism.[749] But such criticism or opposition\nonly shows how generally Galen was accepted as an authority.\n\n\nIII. _His Attitude Towards Magic_\n\nFrom Galen\u2019s habits of critical estimation rather than blind\nacceptation of authority, of scientific observation, careful\nmeasurement, and personal experiment, from his brilliant demonstrations\nby dissection, and his medical prognostication and therapeutics, sane\nand shrewd for his time,\u2014from these we have now to turn to the other\nside of the picture, and examine what information his works afford us\nconcerning the magic and astrology in ancient medicine, concerning the\nbelief in occult virtues, suspensions, characters, incantations, and\nthe like. We may first consider what he has to say concerning magic and\ndivination as he understands those words, and then take up his attitude\nto those other matters which we look upon as almost equally deserving\nclassification under those heads.\n\n[Sidenote: Accusations of magic against Galen.]\n\nApollonius of Tyana and Apuleius of Madaura were not the only\ncelebrated men of learning in the early Roman Empire to be accused of\nmagic; we have already alluded to the charges of magic made against\nGalen by the envious physicians of Rome during his first residence\nin that city. It is hard to escape the conviction that at that time\nlearned men were very liable to be suspected or accused of magic.\nIndeed, Galen makes the general assertion that when a physician\nprognosticates aright concerning the future course of a malady, this\nseems so marvelous to most men that they would receive him with great\naffection, if they did not often regard him as a wizard.[750] Soon\nafter saying this, Galen begins the story of the prognostications\nhe made and the cure he wrought, when all the other doctors took an\nopposite view of the case.[751] One of them then jealously suggested\nthat Galen\u2019s diagnosis was due to divination.[752] When asked by what\nkind of divination, he gave different answers at different times\nand to different persons, sometimes saying by dreams, sometimes by\nsacrificing, again by symbols, or by astrology. Afterwards such charges\nagainst Galen kept multiplying.[753] As a result, Galen says that\nsince then he has not gone about advertising his prognostications\nlike a herald, lest the physicians and philosophers hate him the more\nand slander him as a wizard and diviner, but that he now reveals his\ndiscoveries only to his friends.[754] In another treatise he represents\nHippocrates as saying that a proficient doctor should be able to\nprognosticate the course of diseases, but adds that contemporary\nphysicians call such a doctor a sorcerer and wonder-worker (\u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd).[755] Again in his work on medicinal simples[756]\nhe states that he abstained from testing the supposed virtue of\ncrocodile\u2019s blood in sharpening the vision, and the blood of house mice\nin removing warts, partly because he had other reliable eye-medicines\nand cures for warts\u2014such as _myrmecia_, a gem with wart-like lumps,\npartly because by employing such substances he feared to incur the\nreputation of a sorcerer, since jealous physicians were already\nslandering his medical prognostications as divination. This last\npassage affords a good illustration of the close connection with magic\nof certain natural substances supposed to possess marvelous virtues,\nwhile Galen\u2019s wart stone also seems magical to the modern reader.\n\n[Sidenote: His charges of magic against others.]\n\nGalen himself sometimes calls other physicians magicians. Certain men\nwith whom he does not agree are called by him \u201cliars or wizards or I\ndon\u2019t know what to say,\u201d[757] and another man who used mouse dung to\nexcess he calls superstitious and a sorcerer.[758] In the same work\non simples[759] he says that he will list herbs in alphabetical order\nas Pamphilus did, but that he will not like him descend to old wives\u2019\ntales, Egyptian sorceries and incantations, amulets and other magical\ndevices, which not only do not belong in the medical art but are\nutterly false. Pamphilus never saw most of the herbs he mentioned,\nmuch less tested their virtues, but copied anything he found, piling\nup names, incantations, and wizardry. Galen accuses Xenocrates\nAphrodisiensis also of not having eschewed sorcery, and he notes\nthat medical writers have either said nothing about sweat or what is\nsuperstitious and bordering upon magic.[760]\n\n[Sidenote: Charms and wonder-workers.]\n\nPhilters, love-charms, dream-draughts, and imprecations Galen regards\nas impossible or injurious, and intends to have nothing to do with\nthem. He thinks it ridiculous to believe that by such spells one can\nbewitch one\u2019s adversaries so that they cannot plead in court, or\nconceive or bear children. He considers it worse to advertise and\nperpetuate such false or criminal notions in writings than to practice\nsuch a crime but once.[761] In one passage,[762] however, to illustrate\nhis theory that the gods prepare the sperms of plants and animals, and\nset them going as it were, and afterwards leave them to themselves,\nGalen compares them to the wonder-workers\u2014who were perhaps not\nmagicians but men similar to our sidewalk fakirs who exhibit mechanical\ntoys\u2014who start things moving and then go away themselves while what\nthey have prepared moves on artificially for a time.\n\n[Sidenote: Animal substance inadmissible in medicine.]\n\nGalen\u2019s own works are not entirely free from the magical devices of\nwhich he accuses others. We may begin with animal substances, since\nhe himself has testified that the use of sweat, crocodile\u2019s blood,\nand mouse\u2019s dung is suggestive of magic. Moreover, he attributes more\nbizarre virtues to the parts of animals than to herbs or stones. In\na passage somewhat similar to that in which Pliny[763] expressed his\nhorror at the use of human blood, entrails, and skulls as medicines,\nGalen declares that he will not mention the abominable and detestable,\nas Xenocrates and some others have done. The Roman law has long\nforbidden eating human flesh, while Galen regards even the mention of\ncertain secretions and excrements of the human body as offensive to\nmodest ears.[764] Nevertheless, before long he offends against his\nown standard and describes how he administered to patients the very\nsubstance which he had before characterized as most unmentionable.[765]\nIt may also be noted that he repeats unquestioningly such a tale as\nthat the cubs of the bear are born unformed and licked into shape by\ntheir mother.[766]\n\n[Sidenote: Nastiness of ancient medicine.]\n\nFurther milder illustrations of the fact that such nasty substances\nwere then not merely recommended in books but freely employed in actual\nmedical practice, are seen in the frequent use by one of Galen\u2019s\nteachers of the dung of dogs who for two days before had eaten nothing\nbut bones,[767] in Galen\u2019s own wonderfully successful treatment of a\ntumor on a rustic\u2019s knee with goat dung\u2014which is, however, too sharp\nfor the skins of children or city ladies,[768] and in his discovery by\nrepeated experience that the dung of doves who take little exercise\nis less potent than that of those who take much,[769] Galen also says\nthat he has known of doctors who have cured many persons by giving them\nburnt human bones in drink without their knowledge.[770]\n\n[Sidenote: Parts of animals.]\n\nGalen\u2019s medicinal simples include the bile of bulls, hyenas, cocks,\npartridges, and other animals.[771] A digestive oil can be manufactured\nby cooking foxes and hyenas, some alive and some dead, whole in\noil.[772] Galen discusses with perfect seriousness the relative\nstrength of various animal fats, those of the goose, hen, hyena, goat,\npig, and so forth.[773] He decides that lion\u2019s fat is by far the\nmost potent, with that of the pard next. Among his simples are also\nfound the slough of a snake, a sheepskin, the lichens of horses, a\nspider\u2019s web,[774] and burnt young swallows, for whose introduction\ninto medicine he gives Asclepiades credit.[775] Of Archigenes\u2019\nprescriptions for toothache he repeats that which recommended holding\nfor some time in the mouth a frog boiled in water and vinegar, or a\ndog\u2019s tooth, burnt, pulverized, and boiled in vinegar.[776] Cavities\nmay be filled with toasted earthworms or spiders\u2019 eggs diluted with\nunguent of nard. Teething infants are benefited, if their gums are\nmoistened with dog\u2019s milk or anointed with hare\u2019s brains.[777] For\ncolic he recommends dried cicadas with three, five, or seven grains of\npepper.[778]\n\n[Sidenote: Some scepticism.]\n\nGalen is less confident as to the efficacy for earache of the\nmultipedes which roll themselves up into a ball, and which, cooked in\noil, are employed especially by rural doctors.[779] He is still more\nsceptical whether the liver of a mad dog will cure its bite.[780] Many\nsay so, and he knows of some who have tried it and survived, but they\ntook other remedies too.[781] Galen has heard that some who trusted to\nit alone died. In one treatise[782] Galen discusses the strange virtues\nof the basilisk in much the usual way, but in his work on simples[783]\nhe remarks drily that it is obviously impossible to employ it in\npharmacy, since, if the tales about it be true, men cannot see it and\nlive or even approach it without danger. He therefore will not include\nit or elephants or Nile horses (hippopotamuses?) or any other animals\nof which he has had no personal experience.\n\n[Sidenote: Doctrine of occult virtue.]\n\nGalen tries to find some satisfactory explanation of the strange\nproperties which he believes exist in so many things. The attractive\npower of the magnet and of drugs suggests to him that nature in us is\ndivine, as Homer says, and leads like to like and thus shows its divine\nvirtues.[784] Galen rejects Epicurus\u2019s explanation of the magnet\u2019s\nattractive power.[785] It was that the atoms flowing off from both the\nmagnet and iron fit one another so closely that the two substances\nare drawn together. Galen objects that this does not explain how a\nwhole series of rings can be suspended in a row from a magnet. Galen\u2019s\nteacher Pelops, who claimed to be able to tell the cause of everything,\nexplained why ashes of river crabs are used for the bite of a mad dog\nas follows.[786] The crab is efficacious against hydrophobia because it\nis an aquatic animal. River crabs are better for this purpose than salt\nwater crabs because salt dries up moisture. He also thought the ashes\nof crabs very potent in absorbing the venom. But this type of reasoning\nis unsatisfactory to Galen, who finds the best explanation of all such\naction in the peculiar property, or occult virtue, of the substance\nas a whole. Upon this subject[787] he proposes to write a separate\ntreatise, and in the fragment _De substantia facultatum naturalium_\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd) he again discusses the matter.[788]\n\n[Sidenote: Virtue of the flesh of vipers.]\n\nAmong parts of animals Galen regarded the flesh of vipers as especially\nmedicinal, particularly as an antidote to poisons. Of the following\ncures wrought by vipers\u2019 flesh which Galen narrates[789] two were\nrepeated without giving him credit by A\u00ebtius of Amida in the sixth,\nand Bartholomew of England in the thirteenth century, and doubtless by\nother writers. When Galen was a youth in Asia, some reapers found a\ndead viper in their jug of wine and so were afraid to drink any of it.\nInstead they gave it to a man near by who suffered from the terrible\nskin disease elephantiasis and whom they thought it would be a mercy to\nput quietly out of his misery. He drank the wine but instead of dying\nrecovered from his disease. A similarly unexpected cure was effected\nwhen a slave wife in Mysia tried to kill her husband by offering him\na like drink. A third case was that of a patient whom Galen told of\nthese two previous cures. After resorting to augury to learn if he too\nshould try it and receiving a favorable response, the patient drank\nwine infected by venom with the result that his elephantiasis changed\ninto leprosy, which Galen cured a little later with the usual drugs.\nA fourth man, while hunting vipers, was stung by one. Galen bled him,\nextracted black bile with a drug, and then made him eat the vipers\nwhich he had caught and which were prepared in oil like eels. A fifth\nman, warned by a dream, came from Thrace to Pergamum. Another dream\ninstructed him both to drink, and to anoint himself with, a concoction\nof vipers. This changed his disease into leprosy which in its turn was\ncured by drugs which the god prescribed.\n\n[Sidenote: Theriac.]\n\nThe flesh of vipers was an important ingredient in the famous antidote\nand remedy called theriac, concerning which Galen wrote two special\ntreatises[790] besides discussing it in his works on simples and\nantidotes. Mithridates, like King Attalus in Galen\u2019s native land,\nhad tested the effects of various drugs upon condemned criminals,\nand had thus discovered antidotes against spiders, scorpions,\nsea-hares, aconite, and other poisons. He then combined the results\nof his research into one grand compound which should be an antidote\nagainst any and every poison. But he did not include the flesh of the\nviper, which was added with some other changes by Andromachus, chief\nphysician to Nero.[791] The divine Marcus Aurelius used to take a dose\nof theriac daily and it had since come into general use.[792] Galen\ngives a long list of ills which it will cure, including the plague\nand hydrophobia,[793] and adds that it is beneficial in keeping a man\nin good health.[794] He advises its use when traveling or in wintry\nweather, and tells Piso that it will prolong his life.[795] He explains\nmore than once[796] how to prepare the viper\u2019s flesh, why the head\nand tail must be cut off, how it is cleaned and boiled until the flesh\nfalls from the backbone, how it is mixed with pounded bread into pills,\nhow the flesh of the viper is best in early summer. Galen also accepts\nthe legend,[797] quoting six lines of verse from Nicander to that\neffect, that the viper conceives in the mouth and then bites off the\nmale\u2019s head, and that the young viper avenges its father\u2019s death by\ngnawing its way out of its mother\u2019s vitals. The _Marsi_ at Rome denied\nthe existence of the _dipsas_ or snake whose bite causes one to die of\nthirst, but Galen is not quite sure whether to agree with them.\n\n[Sidenote: Magical compounds.]\n\nAlready we have had occasion to refer to Galen\u2019s two works on compound\nmedicines which occupy the better part of two bulky volumes in K\u00fchn\u2019s\nedition and contain a vast number of prescriptions. It is not uncommon\nfor one of these to contain as many as twenty-five ingredients.\nIt seems unlikely that such elaborate concoctions would have been\ndiscovered by chance, as the Empirics held, but the modern reader is\nready to agree that it was chance, if anyone was ever cured of anything\nby one of them. Yet Galen, as we have seen, believes that reasons can\nbe given for the ingredients and would not for a moment admit that they\nare no better than the messes of witches\u2019 cauldrons. He argues that, if\nall diseases could be cured by simples, no one would use compounds, but\nthat they are essential for some diseases, especially such as require\nthe simultaneous application of contrary virtues.[798] Also where a\nsimple is too strong or weak, it can be toned up or down to just the\nright strength in a compound. Plasters and poultices seem always to be\ncompounds. Of panaceas Galen is somewhat more chary, except in the case\nof theriac; he opines that a medicine which is good for a number of\nills cannot be very good for any one of them.[799]\n\n[Sidenote: Amulets.]\n\nProcedure as well as substances suggestive of magic is found to some\nextent in Galen\u2019s works. He instructs, for example, to pluck an\nherb with the left hand before sunrise.[800] He also recommends the\nsuspension of a peony to cure epilepsy.[801] He saw a boy who wore this\nroot remain free from that disease for eight months, when the root\nhappened to drop off and the boy soon fell in a fit. When another peony\nroot was hung about his neck, he remained in good health until Galen\nfor the sake of experiment removed it a second time, whereupon another\nepileptic fit ensued as before. In this case Galen suggests that\nperhaps some particles from the root were drawn in by the patient\u2019s\nbreathing or altered the surrounding air. In another passage he holds\nthat there is no medical reason to account for the virtues of amulets,\nbut that those who have tested them by experience say that they act by\nsome marvelous antipathy unknown to man.[802] A ligature recommended by\nGalen is to bind about the neck of the patient a viper which has been\nsuffocated by tying several strings, preferably of marine purple, about\nits neck.[803] Galen marvels that _stercus lupinum_, even when simply\nsuspended from the neck, \u201csometimes evidently is beneficial.\u201d[804] It\nshould not have touched the ground but should have been taken from\ntrees or bushes. It also works better, as Galen has found in his own\npractice, if suspended by the wool of a sheep who has been torn by a\nwolf.\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations and characters.]\n\nWhile Galen thus employs ligatures and suspensions and sanctions\nmagic logic, he draws the line at use of images, characters, and\nincantations. In the passage just cited he goes on to say that he has\nfound other suspended substances efficacious, but not the barbarous\nnames such as wizards use. Some say that the gem jasper comforts the\nstomach if bound about the abdomen,[805] and some wear it in a ring\nengraved with a dragon and rays,[806] as King Nechepso directs in his\nfourteenth book. Galen has employed it suspended about the neck without\nany engraving upon it and found it equally beneficial. In illustrating\nthe virtue of human saliva, especially that of a fasting man, Galen\ntells of a man who promised him to kill a scorpion by means of an\nincantation which he repeated thrice. But at each repetition he spat\non the scorpion and Galen afterwards killed one by the same procedure\nwithout any incantation, and more quickly with the spittle of a fasting\nthan of a full man.[807]\n\n[Sidenote: Belief in magic dies hard.]\n\nThe preceding paragraph gives a good illustration of the slow\nprogress of human thought away from magic and towards science. Men\nare discovering that marvels can be worked as well without characters\nand incantations. Similar passages may be found in Arabic and Latin\nmedieval writers. But while Galen questions images and incantations,\nhe still clings to the notions of marvelous virtue in a fasting man\u2019s\nspittle or in a gem suspended about the neck. And these and other\npassages in which he clung to old superstitions were unfortunately\nequally influential upon succeeding writers, who sometimes, we fear,\ntook them as an excuse for further indulgence in magic. Indeed, we\nshall find Alexander of Tralles in the sixth century arguing that Galen\nfinally became a believer in the efficacy of incantations. Thus the old\nnotions and practices die hard.\n\n[Sidenote: _On easily procurable remedies._]\n\nIn the treatise on easily procurable remedies, where popular and rustic\nremedies enter rather more largely than in Galen\u2019s other writings,\nsuperstitious recipes are also met with more frequently, and, if that\nbe possible, the doses become even more calculated to make one\u2019s\ngorge rise, it being felt that the unfastidious tastes and crude\nconstitutions of peasants and the poorer classes can stand more than\ndaintier city patients. Another reason for separate consideration of\nthe contents of this treatise is the possibility, already mentioned,\nthat it is interpolated and misarranged, and the fact that it is in\npart of much later date than Galen.\n\n[Sidenote: Specimens of its superstitious contents.]\n\nWe must limit ourselves to a hasty survey of a few specimens of its\nprescriptions. Following Archigenes, ligatures and crowns are employed\nfor headaches.[808] In contrast to Galen\u2019s previous scepticism\nconcerning depilatories for eyebrows we now find a number mentioned,\nincluding the blood of a bed-bug.[809] To cure lumbago,[810] if the\npain is in the right foot, reduce to powder with your right hand the\nwings of a swallow. Then make an incision in the swallow\u2019s leg and draw\noff all its blood. Skin it and roast it and eat it entire. Then anoint\nyourself all over with the oil for three days and you will marvel at\nthe result. \u201cThis has been often proved by experience.\u201d To prevent\nhair from falling out take many bees and burn them and mix with oil\nand use as an ointment.[811] For a sty in the eye catch flies, cut\noff their heads, and rub the sty with the rest of their bodies.[812]\nA cooked black chameleon performs the double duty of curing toothache\nand killing mice.[813] To extract a tooth in the upper jaw surround it\nwith the worms found in the tops of cabbages; for a lower tooth use the\nworms on the lower parts of the leaves.[814] Pain in the intestines\nwill vanish, if the patient drinks water in which his feet have been\nwashed.[815] A net transferred from a woman\u2019s hair to the patient\u2019s\nhead acts as a laxative, especially if the net is first heated.[816]\nVarious superstitious devices are suggested to insure the birth of a\nchild of the sex desired.[817] Bituminous trefoil,[818] boiled and\napplied hot, cures snake or spider bite, but let no one use it who\nis not so afflicted or it will make him feel as if he was.[819] For\ncataract is recommended a mixture of equal parts of mouse\u2019s blood,\ncock\u2019s gall, and woman\u2019s milk, dried.[820] For pain on one side of\nthe head or face smear with fifteen earthworms and fifteen grains of\npepper powdered in vinegar.[821] To stop a cough wear the tongue of\nan eagle as an amulet.[822] Wearing a root of rhododendron makes one\nfearless of dogs and would cure a mad dog itself, if it could be tied\non the animal.[823] A \u201cconfection\u201d covering three pages is said to\nprolong life, to have been used by the emperors, and to have enabled\nPythagoras, its inventor, who began to make use of it at the age of\nfifty, to live to be one hundred and seventeen without disease. \u201cAnd he\nwas a philosopher and unable to lie about it.\u201d[824]\n\n[Sidenote: External signs of the temperaments of internal organs.]\n\nIt remains to note what there is in Galen\u2019s works in the way of\ndivination and astrology. We are not entirely surprised that\ncontemporary doctors confused his medical prognostic with divination,\nwhen we read what he has to say concerning the outward signs of hot\nor cold internal organs. In the treatise, entitled _The Healing Art_\n(\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae),[825] which Mewaldt says was the most studied of\nGalen\u2019s works and spread in a vast number of medieval Latin manuscript\ntranslations,[826] he devotes a number of chapters to such subjects\nas signs of a hot and dry heart, signs of a hot liver, and signs of a\ncold lung. Among the signs of a cold brain are excessive excrements\nfrom the head, stiff straight red hair, a late birth, mal-nutrition,\nsusceptibility to injury from cold causes and to catarrh, and\nsomnolence.[827]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvelous statements repeated by Maimonides.]\n\nIn his commentary on the _Aphorisms_ of Hippocrates Galen adds\nother signs by which it may be foretold whether the child will be a\nboy or girl to those signs already mentioned by Hippocrates.[828]\nSome of these seem superstitious enough to us. And it was a case of\nthe evil that men do living after them, for Moses Maimonides, the\nnoted Jewish physician of Cordova in the twelfth century, in his\ncollection of _Aphorisms_, drawn chiefly from the works of Galen,\nrepeats the following method of prognostication: _Puerum cum primo\nspermatizat perscrutare, quem si invenis habere testiculum dextrum\nmaiorem sinistro_, you will know that his first child will be a male,\notherwise female. The same may be determined in the case of a girl\nby a comparison of the size of her breasts. Maimonides also repeats,\nfrom Galen\u2019s work to Caesar on theriac,[829] the story of the ugly man\nwho secured a beautiful son by having a beautiful boy painted on the\nwall and making his wife keep her eyes fixed upon it. Maimonides also\nrepeats from Galen[830] the story of the bear\u2019s licking its unformed\ncubs into shape.[831]\n\n[Sidenote: Dreams.]\n\nIn another treatise on _Diagnosis from Dreams_ Galen makes a closer\napproach to the arts of divination.[832] He states that dreams\nare affected by our daily life and thought, and describes a few\ncorresponding to bodily states or caused by them. He thinks that if\nyou dream you see fire, you are troubled by yellow bile, and if you\ndream of vapor or darkness, by black bile. In diagnosing dreams one\nshould note when they occurred and what had been eaten. But Galen also\nbelieves that to some extent the future can be predicted from dreams,\nas has been testified, he says, by experience.[833] We have already\nmentioned the effect of his father\u2019s dream upon Galen\u2019s career. In\nthe Hippocratic commentaries[834] he says that some scorn dreams and\nomens and signs, but that he has often learned from dreams how to\nprognosticate or cure diseases. Once a dream instructed him to let\nblood between the index and great fingers of the right hand until\nthe flow of blood stopped of its own accord. \u201cIt is necessary,\u201d he\nconcludes, \u201cto observe dreams accurately both as to what is seen and\nwhat is done in sleep in order that you may prognosticate and heal\nsatisfactorily.\u201d Perhaps he had a dim idea along Freudian lines.\n\n[Sidenote: Lack of astrology in most of Galen\u2019s medicine.]\n\nIn the ordinary run of Galen\u2019s pharmacy and therapeutics there is very\nlittle mention or observance of astrological conditions, although\nHippocrates is cited as having said that a study of geometry and\nastronomy\u2014which may well mean astrology\u2014is essential in medicine.[835]\nIn the _De methodo medendi_ he often urges the importance of the time\nof year, the region, and the state of the sky.[836] But this expression\nseems to refer to the weather rather than to the position of the\nconstellations. The dog-star is also occasionally mentioned,[837] and\none passage[838] tells how \u201cAeschrion the Empiric, ... an old man most\nexperienced in drugs and our fellow citizen and teacher,\u201d burned live\nriver crabs on a plate of red bronze after the rise of the dog-star\nwhen the sun entered Leo and on the eighteenth day of the moon. We are\nalso informed that many Romans are in the habit of taking theriac on\nthe first or fourth day of the moon.[839] But Galen ridicules Pamphilus\nfor his thirty-six sacred herbs of the horoscope\u2014or decans, taken from\nan Egyptian Hermes book.[840] On the other hand, one of his objections\nto the atomists is that \u201cthey despise augury, dreams, portents, and all\nastrology,\u201d as well as that they deny a divine artificer of the world\nand an innate moral law to the soul.[841] Thus atheism and disbelief in\nastrology are put on much the same plane.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Prognostication of Disease by Astrology._]\n\nWhereas there is so little to suggest a belief in astrology in most\nof Galen\u2019s works, we find among them two devoted especially to\nastrological medicine, namely, a treatise on critical days in which the\ninfluence of the moon upon disease is assumed, and the _Prognostication\nof Disease by Astrology_. In the latter he states that the Stoics\nfavored astrology, that Diodes Carystius represented the ancients as\nemploying the course of the moon in prognostications, and that, if\nHippocrates said that physicians should know physiognomy, they ought\nmuch more to learn astrology, of which physiognomy is but a part.[842]\nThere follows a statement of the influence of the moon in each sign\nof the zodiac and in its relations to the other planets.[843] On this\nbasis is foretold what diseases a man will have, what medical treatment\nto apply, whether the patient will die or not, and if so in how many\ndays. This treatise is the same as that ascribed in many medieval\nmanuscripts to Hippocrates and translated into Latin by both William of\nMoerbeke and Peter of Abano.\n\n[Sidenote: Critical days.]\n\nThe treatise on critical days discusses them not by reason or dogma,\nlest sophists befog the plain facts, but solely, we are told, upon the\nbasis of clear experience.[844] Having premised that \u201cwe receive the\nforce of all the stars above,\u201d[845] the author presents indications of\nthe especially great influence of sun and moon. The latter he regards\nnot as superior to the other planets in power, but as especially\ngoverning the earth because of its nearness.[846] He then discusses\nthe moon\u2019s phases, holding that it causes great changes in the air,\nrules conceptions and birth, and \u201call beginnings of actions.\u201d[847] Its\nrelations to the other planets and to the signs of the zodiac are also\nconsidered and much astrological technical detail is introduced.[848]\nBut the Pythagorean theory that the numbers of the critical days are\nthemselves the cause of their significance in medicine is ridiculed,\nas is the doctrine that odd numbers are masculine and even numbers\nfeminine.[849] Later the author also ridicules those who talk of seven\nPleiades and seven stars in either Bear and the seven gates of Thebes\nor seven mouths of the Nile.[850] Thus he will not accept the doctrine\nof perfect or magic numbers along with his astrological theory. Much\nof this rather long treatise is devoted to a discussion of the\nduration of a moon, and it is shown that one of the moon\u2019s quarters\nis not exactly seven days in length and that the fractions affect the\nincidence of the critical days.\n\n[Sidenote: _On the history of philosophy._]\n\nA treatise on the history of philosophy, which is marked \u201cspurious\u201d in\nK\u00fchn\u2019s edition, I have also discovered among the essays of Plutarch\nwhere, too, it is classed as spurious.[851] In some ways it is\nsuggestive of the middle ages. After an account of the history of Greek\nphilosophy somewhat in the style of the brief reviews of the same to\nbe found in the church fathers, it adds a sketch of the universe and\nnatural phenomena not dissimilar to some medieval treatises of like\nscope. There are chapters on the universe, God, the sky, the stars, the\nsun, the moon, the _magnus annus_, the earth, the sea, the Nile, the\nsenses, vision and mirrors, hearing, smell and taste, the voice, the\nsoul, breathing, the processes of generation, and so on.\n\n[Sidenote: Divination and demons.]\n\nIn discussing divination[852] the treatise states that Plato and the\nStoics attributed it to God and to divinity of the spirit in ecstasy,\nor to interpretation of dreams or astrology or augury. Xenophanes and\nEpicurus denied it entirely. Pythagoras admitted only divination by\n_haruspices_ or by sacrifice. Aristotle and Dicaearchus admit only\ndivination by enthusiasm and by dreams. For although they deny that\nthe human soul is immortal, they think that there is something divine\nabout it. Herophilus said that dreams sent by God must come true.\nOther dreams are natural, when the mind forms images of things useful\nto it or about to happen to it. Still others are fortuitous or mere\nreflections of our desires. The treatise also takes up the subject of\nheroes and demons.[853] Epicurus denied the existence of either, but\nThales, Plato, Pythagoras, and the Stoics agree that demons are natural\nsubstances, while heroes are souls separate from bodies, and are good\nor bad according to the lives of the men who lived in those bodies.\n\n[Sidenote: Celestial bodies.]\n\nThe treatise also gives the opinions of various Greek philosophers on\nthe question whether the universe or its component spheres are either\nanimals or animated. Fate is defined on the authority of Heracleitus\nas \u201cthe heavenly body, the seed of the genesis of all things.\u201d[854]\nThe question is asked why babies born after seven months live, while\nthose born after eight months die.[855] On the other hand, a very brief\ndiscussion of how the stars prognosticate does not go into particulars\nbeyond their indication of seasons and weather, and even this\nAnaximenes ascribed to the effect of the sun alone.[856] Philolaus the\nPythagorean is quoted concerning some lunar water about the stars[857]\nwhich reminds one of the waters above the firmament in the first\nchapter of Genesis.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n ANCIENT APPLIED SCIENCE AND MAGIC: VITRUVIUS, HERO, AND THE GREEK\n ALCHEMISTS\n\n The sources\u2014Vitruvius depicts architecture as free from magic\u2014But\n himself believes in occult virtues and perfect numbers\u2014Also\n in astrology\u2014Divergence between theory and practice, learning\n and art\u2014Evils in contemporary learning\u2014Authorities and\n inventions\u2014Machines and Ctesibius\u2014Hero of Alexandria\u2014Medieval working\n over of the texts\u2014Hero\u2019s thaumaturgy\u2014Instances of experimental\n proof\u2014Magic jugs and drinking animals\u2014Various automatons and\n devices\u2014Magic mirrors\u2014Astrology and occult virtue\u2014Date of extant\n Greek alchemy\u2014Legend that Diocletian burned the books of the\n alchemists\u2014Alchemists\u2019 own accounts of the history of their\n art\u2014Close association of Greek alchemy with magic\u2014Mystery and\n allegory\u2014Experiment: relation to science and philosophy.\n\n \u201c_doctum ex omnibus solum neque in alienis locis peregrinum ... sed in\n omni civitate esse civem._\u201d\n \u2014_Vitruvius, VI, Introd. 2._\n\n\n[Sidenote: The sources.]\n\nThis chapter will examine what may be called ancient applied science\nand its relations to magic, taking observations at three different\npoints, the ten books of Vitruvius on architecture, the collection\nof writings which pass under the name of Hero of Alexandria, and the\ncompositions of the Greek alchemists. The remains of Greek and Roman\nliterature in the field of applied science are scanty, not because\nthey were not treasured, and even added to, by the periods following,\nbut apparently because there had thus far been so little development\nin the way of machinery or of power other than manual and animal. So\nwe must make the best of what we have. The writings to be considered\nare none of them earlier than the period of the Roman Empire but like\nother writings of that time they more or less reflect the scientific\nachievements or the occult lore of the preceding Hellenistic period.\n\n[Sidenote: Vitruvius depicts architecture as free from magic.]\n\nVitruvius lived just at the beginning of the Empire under Julius and\nAugustus Caesar. He is not much of a writer, but architecture as\nset forth in his book appears sane, straightforward, and solid. The\narchitect is represented as going about his business with scarcely any\nadmixture of magical procedure or striving after marvelous results.\nThe combined guidance of practical utility and of high standards of\nart\u2014Vitruvius stresses reality and propriety now and again, and has\nlittle patience with mere show\u2014perhaps accounts for this high degree\nof freedom from superstition. Perhaps permanent building is an honest,\ndownright, open, constructive art where error is at once apparent and\nsuperstition finds little hold. If so, one wonders how there came to be\nso much mystery enveloping Free-Masonry. At any rate, not only in his\nbuilding directions, but even in his instructions for the preparation\nof lime, stucco, and bricks, or his discussion of colors, natural and\nartificial, Vitruvius seldom or never embodies anything that can be\ncalled magical.[858]\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtue and number.]\n\nThis is the more noteworthy because passages in the very same work show\nhim to have accepted some of the theories which we have associated\nwith magic. Thus he appears to believe in occult virtues and marvelous\nproperties of things in nature, since he affirms that, while Africa in\ngeneral abounds in serpents, no snake can live within the boundaries\nof the African city of Ismuc, and that this is a property of the soil\nof that locality which it retains when exported.[859] Vitruvius also\nmentions some marvelous waters. One breaks every metallic receptacle\nand can be retained only in a mule\u2019s hoof. Some springs intoxicate;\nothers take away the taste for wine. Others produce fine singing\nvoices.[860] Vitruvius furthermore speaks of six and ten as perfect\nnumbers and contends that the human body is symmetrical in the sense\nthat the distances between the different parts are exact fractions of\nthe whole.[861] He also tells how the Pythagoreans composed books on\nthe analogy of the cube, allowing in any one treatise no more than\nthree books of 216 lines each.[862]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology.]\n\nVitruvius also more than once implies his confidence in the art of\nastrology. In mapping out the ground-plan of his theater he advises\ninscribing four equilateral triangles within the circumference of\na circle, \u201cas the astrologers do in a figure of the twelve signs\nof the zodiac, when they are making computations from the musical\nharmony of the stars.\u201d[863] I cannot make out that there is any\nastrological significance or magical virtue in this so far as the\narrangement of the theater is concerned, but it shows that Vitruvius\nand his readers are familiar with the technique of astrology and the\n_trigona_ of the signs. In another passage, comparing the physical\ncharacteristics and temperaments of northern and southern races, which\nastrologers generally interpreted as evidence of the influence of the\nconstellations upon mankind, Vitruvius patriotically contends that the\ninhabitants of Italy, and especially the Romans, represent a happy\nmedium between north and south, combining the greater courage of the\nnortherners with the keener intellects of the southerners, just as\nthe planet Jupiter is a golden mean between the extreme influences of\nMars and Saturn. So the Romans are fitted for world rule, overcoming\nbarbarian valor by their superior intelligence and the devices of\nthe southerners by their valor.[864] In a third passage Vitruvius\nsays more expressly of the art of astrology: \u201cAs for the branch of\nastronomy which concerns the influences of the twelve signs, the five\nstars, the sun, and the moon upon human life, we must leave all this\nto the calculations of the Chaldeans, to whom belongs the art of\ncasting nativities, which enables them to declare the past and the\nfuture by means of calculations based on the stars. These discoveries\nhave been transmitted by men of genius and great acuteness who sprang\ndirectly from the nations of the Chaldeans; first of all, by Berosus,\nwho settled in the island state of Cos, and there opened a school.\nAfterwards Antipater pursued the subject; then there was Archinapolus,\nwho also left rules for casting nativities, based not on the moment\nof birth but on that of conception.\u201d After listing a number of\nnatural philosophers and other astronomers and astrologers, Vitruvius\nconcludes: \u201cTheir learning deserves the admiration of mankind; for they\nwere so solicitous as even to be able to predict, long beforehand, with\ndivining mind, the signs of the weather which was to follow in the\nfuture.\u201d[865]\n\n[Sidenote: Divergence between theory and practice, learning and art.]\n\nSuch a passage demonstrates plainly enough Vitruvius\u2019 full confidence\nin the art of casting nativities and of weather prediction, but it has\nno integral connection with his practical architecture or even any\nnecessary connection with the construction of a sun-dial, which is what\nhe is actually driving at. But Vitruvius believed that an architect\nshould not be a mere craftsman but broadly educated in history,\nmedicine, and philosophy, geometry, music, and astronomy, in order\nto understand the origin and significance of details inherited from\nthe art of the past, to assure a healthy building, proper acoustics,\nand the like. It is in an attempt to air his learning and in the\ntheoretical portions of his work that he is prone to occult science.\nBut the practical processes of architecture and military engineering\nare free from it.\n\n[Sidenote: Evils in contemporary learning.]\n\nThe attitude of Vitruvius towards other architects of his own age,\nto past authorities, and to personal experimentation is of interest\nto note, and roughly parallels the attitude of Galen in the field of\nmedicine. Like Galen he complains that the artist must plunge into\nthe social life of the day in order to gain professional success and\nrecognition.[866] \u201cAnd since I observe that the unlearned rather than\nthe learned are held in high favor, deeming it beneath me to struggle\nfor honors with the unlearned, I will rather demonstrate the virtue\nof our science by this publication.\u201d[867] He also objects to the\nself-assertion and advertising of themselves in which many architects\nof his time indulge.[868] He recognizes, however, that the state of\naffairs was much the same in time past, since he tells a story how the\nMacedonian architect, Dinocrates, forced himself upon the attention of\nAlexander the Great solely by his handsome and stately appearance,[869]\nand since he asserts that the most famous artists of the past owe their\ncelebrity to their good fortune in working for great states or men,\nwhile other artists of equal merit are seldom heard of.[870] He also\nspeaks of those who plagiarize the writings of others, especially of\nthe men of the past.[871] But all this does not lead him to despair of\nart and learning; rather it confirms him in the conviction that they\nalone are really worth while, and he quotes several philosophers to\nthat effect, including the saying of Theophrastus that \u201cthe learned man\nalone of all others is no stranger even in foreign lands ... but is a\ncitizen in every city.\u201d[872]\n\n[Sidenote: Authorities and inventions.]\n\nIn contradistinction to the plagiarists Vitruvius expresses his\ndeep gratitude to the men of the past who have written books, and\ngives lists of his authorities,[873] and declares that \u201cthe opinions\nof learned authors ... gain strength as time goes on.\u201d[874]\n\u201cRelying upon such authorities, we venture to produce new systems\nof instruction.\u201d[875] Or, as he says in discussing the properties\nof waters, \u201cSome of these things I have seen for myself, others I\nhave found written in Greek books.\u201d[876] But in describing sun-dials\nhe frankly remarks, \u201cI will state by whom the different classes and\ndesigns of dials have been invented. For I cannot invent new kinds\nmyself at this late day, nor do I think that I ought to display the\ninventions of others as my own.\u201d[877] He also gives an account of a\nnumber of notable miscellaneous discoveries and experiments by past\nmathematicians and physicists.[878] Also he sometimes repeats the\ninstruction which he had received from his teachers. Like Pliny a\nlittle later he thinks that in some respects artistic standards have\nbeen lowered in his own time, notably in fresco-painting.[879] But\nalso, like Galen, he once admits that there are still good men in his\nown profession besides himself, affirming that \u201cour architects in the\nold days, and a good many even in our own times, have been as great as\nthose of the Greeks.\u201d[880] He describes a basilica which he himself had\nbuilt at Fano.[881]\n\n[Sidenote: Machines and Ctesibius.]\n\nVitruvius\u2019s last book is devoted to machines and military engines.\nHere he makes a feeble effort to introduce the factor of astrological\ninfluence, asserting that \u201call machinery is derived from nature, and\nis founded on the teaching and instruction of the revolution of the\nfirmament.\u201d[882] Among the devices described is the pump of Ctesibius\nof Alexandria, the son of a barber.[883] He had already been mentioned\nin the preceding book[884] for the improvements which he introduced\nin water-clocks, especially regulating their flow according to the\nchanging length of the hours of the day in summer and winter. Vitruvius\nalso asserts that he constructed the first water organs, that he\n\u201cdiscovered the natural pressure of the air and pneumatic principles,\n... devised methods of raising water, automatic contrivances, and\namusing things of many kinds, ... blackbirds singing by means of\nwaterworks, and _angobatae_, and figures that drink and move, and\nother things that have been found to be pleasing to the eye and the\near.\u201d[885] Vitruvius states that of these he has selected those that\nseemed most useful and necessary and that the reader may turn to\nCtesibius\u2019s own works for those which are merely amusing. Pliny more\nbriefly mentions the invention of pneumatics and water organs by\nCtesibius.[886]\n\n[Sidenote: Hero of Alexandria.]\n\nThis characterization by Vitruvius of the writings of Ctesibius\nalso applies with astonishing fitness to some of the works current\nunder the name of Hero of Alexandria,[887] who is indeed in a Vienna\nmanuscript of the _Belopoiika_ spoken of as the disciple or follower\nof Ctesibius.[888] Hero, however, is not mentioned either by Vitruvius\nor Pliny, and it is now generally agreed as a result of recent studies\nthat he belongs to the second century of our era.[889] His writings\nare objective and impersonal and tell us much less about himself than\nVitruvius\u2019s introductions to the ten books of _De architectura_. The\nsimilarity in content of his writings to those of the much earlier\nCtesibius as well as the character of his terminology suggest that\nhe stands at the end of a long development. He speaks of his own\ndiscoveries, but perhaps in the main simply continues and works over\nthe previous principles and mechanisms of men like Ctesibius. As things\nstand, however, his works constitute our most important, and often our\nonly, source for the history of exact science and of technology in\nantiquity.[890]\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval working over of the texts.]\n\nNot only does Hero seem to have been in large measure a compiler\nand continuer of previous science, his works also have evidently\nbeen worked over and added to in subsequent periods and bear marks\nof the Byzantine, Arabian, and medieval Latin periods as well as of\nthe Hellenistic and Roman. Indeed Heiberg regards the _Geometry_ and\n_De stereometricis_ and _De mensuris_ as later Byzantine collections\nwhich have perhaps made some use of the works of Hero, while the\n_De geodaesia_ is an epitome of, or extract from, a pseudo-Heronic\ncollection. The _Catoptrica_ is known only from the Latin translation\nof 1269, probably by William of Moerbeke, and long known as _Ptolemy on\nMirrors_. It appears, however, to be directly translated from the Greek\nand not from the Arabic. The _Mechanics_, on the other hand, is known\nonly from the Arabic translation by Costa ben Luca. Of the _Pneumatics_\nwe have Greek, Arabic, and Latin versions. It was apparently known to\nthe author of the thirteenth century _Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to\nRobert Grosseteste, since he speaks of the investigations of vacuums\nmade by \u201cHero, that eminent philosopher, with the aid of water-clocks,\nsiphons, and other instruments.\u201d[891] Scholars are of the opinion that\nthe Arabic adaptation, which is of popular character and limited to\nthe entertaining side, comes closer to the original Greek version of\nHero\u2019s time than does the Latin version which devotes more attention to\nexperimental physics. The _Automatic Theater_, for which there is the\nsame chief manuscript as for the _Pneumatics_, also seems to have been\nworked over and added to a great deal.\n\n[Sidenote: Hero\u2019s thaumaturgy.]\n\nFrom Vitruvius\u2019s allusions to the works of Ctesibius and from a\nsurvey of those works current under Hero\u2019s name which are chiefly\nconcerned with mechanical contrivances and devices, the modern reader\ngets the impression that, aside from military engines and lifting\nappliances, the science of antiquity was applied largely to purposes\nof entertainment rather than practical usefulness. However, in Hero\u2019s\ncase at least there is something more than this. His apparatus and\nexperiments are not intended so much to divert as to deceive the\nspectator, and not so much to amuse as to astound him. The mechanism is\nusually concealed; the cause acts indirectly, intermediately, or from\na distance to produce an apparently marvelous result. It is a case of\nthaumaturgy, as Hero himself says,[892] of apparent magic. In fine,\nthe experimental and applied scientist is largely interested in vying\nwith the feats of the magicians or supplying the temples and altars of\nreligion with pseudo-miracles.\n\n[Sidenote: Instances of experimental proof.]\n\nThe introduction or proemium to the _Pneumatics_ is rather more truly\nscientific and has been called an unusual instance in antiquity of the\nuse as proof of purposive observation of nature and experiment. Thus\nthe existence of air is demonstrated by the experiment of pressing an\ninverted vessel, kept carefully upright, into water, which will not\nenter the vessel because of the resistance offered by the air already\nwithin the vessel. Or the elasticity of air and the existence of empty\nspaces between its particles is shown by the experiment of blowing\nmore air into a globe through a siphon, and then holding one\u2019s finger\nover the orifice. As soon as the finger is removed the surplus air\nrushes out with a loud report. Along with such admirable experimental\nproof, however, the introduction contains some astonishingly erroneous\nassertions, such as that \u201cslime and mud are transformations of water\ninto earth,\u201d and that air released from a vessel under water \u201cis\ntransformed so as to become water.\u201d Hero believes that heat and light\nrays are particles of matter which penetrate the interstices between\nthe particles composing air and water.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic jugs and drinking animals.]\n\nThe _Pneumatics_ consist of some seventy-eight theorems or experiments\nor tricks, call them what you will, which in different manuscripts\nand editions are variously grouped in a single book or two books.\nThe same idea or method, however, is often repeated in the different\nchapters. Thus we encounter over half a dozen times the magic water-jar\nor drinking horn from which either wine or water or a mixture of both\ncan be poured, or a choice of other liquids. And in all these cases\nthe explanation of the trick is the same. When the air-hole in the top\nof the vessel is closed so that no air can enter, the liquid will not\nflow out through the narrow orifice in the bottom. Changes are rung on\nthis principle by means of inner compartments and connecting tubes.\nDifferent kinds of siphons, the bent, the enclosed, and the uniform\ndischarge, are described in the opening chapters and are utilized in\nworking the ensuing wonders, such as statues of animals which drink\nwater offered to them, inexhaustible goblets or those that will not\noverflow, and harmonious jars. By this last expression is meant pairs\nof vessels, secretly connected by tubes and so arranged that nothing\nwill flow from one until the other is filled, when wine will pour from\none jar and water from the other. Or when water is poured into one jar,\nwine or mixed wine and water flows from the other. Or, when water is\ndrawn off from one jar, wine flows from the other. Other vessels are\nmade to commence or cease to pour out wine or water, when a little\nwater is poured in. Others will receive no more water once you have\nceased pouring it in, no matter how little may have been poured in, or,\nwhen you cease for a moment to pour water in and then begin again, will\nnot resume their outpour until half full. In another case the water\nwill not flow out of a hole in the bottom of the vessel at all until\nthe vessel is entirely filled. Others are made to flow by dropping\na coin in a slot or working a lever, or turning a wheel. In the last\ncase the vessel of water is concealed behind the entrance column of a\ntemple. In one magic drinking horn the flow of water from the bottom is\nchecked by putting a cover over the open top. When another pitcher is\ntipped up, the same amount of liquid will always flow out.\n\n[Sidenote: Various automatons and devices.]\n\nIn half a dozen chapters mechanical birds are made to sing by driving\nair through a pipe by the pressure of flowing water. In other chapters\na dragon is made to hiss and a thyrsus to whistle by similar methods.\nBy the force of compressed air water is made to spurt forth and\nautomatons to sound trumpets. The heat of the sun\u2019s rays is used to\nwarm air which expands and causes water to trickle out. In a number of\ncases as long as a fire burns on an altar the expansion of enclosed\nair caused thereby opens temple doors by the aid of pulleys, or causes\nstatues to pour libations, dancing figures to revolve, and a serpent to\nhiss. The force of steam is used to support a ball in mid-air, revolve\na sphere, and make a bird sing or a statue blow a horn. Inexhaustible\nlamps are described as well as inexhaustible goblets, and a\nself-trimmed lamp in which a float resting on the oil turns a cog-wheel\nwhich pushes up the wick as it and the oil are consumed. Floats and\ncog-wheels are also used in some of the tricks already mentioned. In\nanother the flow of a liquid from a vessel is regulated by a float and\na lever. Cog-wheels are also employed in constructing the neck of an\nautomaton so that it can be cut completely through with a knife and\nyet the head not be severed from the body. A cupping glass, a syringe,\na fire engine pump with valves and pistons, a hydraulic organ and one\nworked by wind pretty much exhaust the contents of the _Pneumatics_.\nIn its introduction Hero alludes to his treatise in four books on\nwater-clocks, but this is not extant. Hero\u2019s water-organ is regarded as\nmore primitive than that described by Vitruvius.[893]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic mirrors.]\n\nIf magic jugs and marvelous automatons make up most of the contents\nof the _Pneumatics_ and _Automatic Theater_, comic and magic mirrors\nplay a prominent part in the _Catoptrics_. The spectator sees himself\nupside down, with three eyes, two noses, or an otherwise distorted\ncountenance. By means of two rectangular mirrors which open and\nclose on a common axis Pallas is made to spring from the head of\nZeus. Instructions are given how to place mirrors so that the person\napproaching will see no reflection of himself but only whatever\napparition you select for him to see. Thus a divinity can be made\nsuddenly to appear in a temple. Clocks are also described where figures\nappear to announce the hours.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology and occult virtue.]\n\nHero displays a slight tendency in the direction of astrology,\ndiscussing the music of the spheres in the first chapters of the\n_Catoptrics_, and in the _Pneumatics_ describing an absurdly simple\nrepresentation of the cosmos by means of a small sphere placed in a\ncircular hole in the partition between two halves of a transparent\nsphere of glass. One hemisphere is to be filled with water, probably\nin order to support the ball in the center.[894] The marvelous virtues\nof animals other than automatons are rather out of his line, but he\nalludes to the virtue of the marine torpedo which can penetrate bronze,\niron, and other bodies.\n\n[Sidenote: Date of extant Greek alchemy.]\n\nAlthough we have seen some indications of its earlier existence in\nEgypt, alchemy seems to have made its appearance in the ancient\nGreek-speaking and Latin world only at a late date. There seems to be\nno allusion to the subject in classical literature before the Christian\nera, the first mention being Pliny\u2019s statement that Caligula made gold\nfrom orpiment.[895] The papyri containing alchemistic texts are of the\nthird century, and the manuscripts containing Greek works of alchemy,\nof which the oldest is one of the eleventh century in the Library of\nSt. Mark\u2019s, seem to consist of works or remnants of works written\nin the third century and later, many being Byzantine compilations,\nexcerpts, or additions. Also Syncellus, the polygraph of the eighth\ncentury, gives some extracts from the alchemists.\n\n[Sidenote: Legend that Diocletian burned the books of the alchemists.]\n\nSyncellus and other late writers[896] are our only extant sources\nfor the statement that Diocletian burned the books of the alchemists\nin Egypt, so that they might not finance future revolts against him.\nIf the report be true, one would fancy that the imperial edict would\nbe more effective as a testimonial to the truth of transmutation in\nencouraging the art than it would be in discouraging it by destroying\na certain amount of its literature. Thus the edict would resemble the\noccasional laws of earlier emperors banishing the astrologers\u2014except\ntheir own\u2014from Rome or Italy because they had been too free in\npredicting the death of the emperor, which only serve to show what\na hold astrology had both on emperors and people. But the report\nconcerning Diocletian sounds improbable on the face of it and must\nbe doubted for want of contemporary evidence. Certainly we are not\njustified in explaining the air of secrecy so often assumed by writers\non alchemy as due to the fear of persecution which this action of\nDiocletian[897] or the fear of being accused of magic aroused in them.\nPersons who wish to keep matters secret do not rush into publication,\nand the air of secrecy of the alchemists is too often evidently assumed\nfor purposes of show and to impress the reader with the idea that they\nreally have something to hide. Sometimes the alchemists themselves\nrealize that this adoption of an air of secrecy has been overdone.\nThus Olympiodorus wrote in the early fifth century, \u201cThe ancients were\naccustomed to hide the truth, to veil or obscure by allegories what\nis clear and evident to everybody.\u201d[898] Nor can we accept the story\nof Diocletian\u2019s burning the books of alchemy as the reason why none\nhave reached us which can be certainly dated as earlier than the third\ncentury.\n\n[Sidenote: Alchemists\u2019 own accounts of the history of their art.]\n\nThe alchemists themselves, of course, claimed for their art the highest\nantiquity. Zosimus of Panopolis, who seems to have written in the third\ncentury, says that the fallen angels instructed men in alchemy as\nwell as in the other arts, and that it was the divine and sacred art\nof the priests and kings of Egypt, who kept it secret. We also have\nan address of Isis to her son Horus repeating the revelation made by\nAmnael, the first of the angels and prophets. To Moses are ascribed\ntreatises on domestic chemistry and doubling the weight of gold.[899]\nThe manuscripts of the Byzantine period discuss what \u201cthe ancients\u201d\nmeant by this or that, or purport to repeat what someone else said of\nsome other person. Zosimus seems fond of citing himself in the texts\nreproduced by Berthelot, so that it may be questioned how much of\nhis original works has been preserved. Hermes is often cited by the\nalchemists, although no work of alchemy ascribed to him has reached us\nfrom this early period. To Agathodaemon is ascribed a commentary on\nthe oracle of Orpheus addressed to Osiris, dealing with the whitening\nand yellowing of metals and other alchemical recipes. Other favorite\nauthorities are Ostanes, whom we have elsewhere heard represented as\nthe introducer of magic into the Greek world, and the philosopher\nDemocritus, whom the alchemists represent as the pupil of Ostanes\nand whom we have already heard Pliny charge with devotion to magic.\nSeneca says in one of his letters that Democritus discovered a process\nto soften ivory, that he prepared artificial emerald, and colored\nvitrified substances. Diogenes Laertius ascribes to him a work on the\njuices of plants, on stones, minerals, metals, colors, and coloring\nglass. This was possibly the same as the four books on coloring gold,\nsilver, stones, and purple ascribed to Democritus by Synesius in the\nfifth, and Syncellus in the eighth, century. More recent presumably\nthan Ostanes and Democritus are the female alchemists, Cleopatra\nand Mary the Jewess, although one text represents Ostanes and his\ncompanions as conversing with Cleopatra. A few of the spurious works\nascribed to these authors may have come into existence as early as\nthe Hellenistic period, but those which have reached us, at least in\ntheir present form, seem to bear the marks of the Christian era and\nlater centuries of the Roman Empire, if not of the early medieval and\nByzantine periods. And those authors whose names seem genuine: Zosimus,\nSynesius, Olympiodorus, Stephanus, are of the third, fourth and fifth\ncenturies, at the earliest.\n\n[Sidenote: Close association of Greek alchemy with magic.]\n\nThe associations of the names above cited and the fact that\npseudo-literature forms so large a part of the early literature of\nalchemy suggest its close connection at that time with magic. Whereas\nVitruvius, although not personally inhospitable to occult theory,\nshowed us the art of architecture free from magic, and Hero told how\nto perform apparent magic by means of mechanical devices and deceits,\nthe Greek alchemists display entire faith in magic procedure with\nwhich their art is indissolubly intermingled. Indeed the papyri in\nwhich works of alchemy occur are primarily magic papyri, so that\nalchemy may be said to spring from the brow of magic. The same is\nonly somewhat less true of the manuscripts. In the earliest one of\nthe eleventh century the alchemy is in the company of a treatise\non the interpretation of dreams, a sphere of divination of life or\ndeath, and magic alphabets. The treatises of alchemy themselves are\nequally impregnated with magic detail. Cleopatra\u2019s art of making gold\nemploys concentric circles, a serpent, an eight-rayed star, and other\nmagic figures. _Physica et mystica_, ascribed to Democritus, after a\npurely technical fragment on purple dye, invokes his master Ostanes\nfrom Hades, and then plunges into alchemical recipes. There are also\nfrequent bits of astrology and suggestions of Gnostic influence.\nOften the encircling serpent Ouroboros, who bites or swallows his\ntail, is referred to.[900] Sometimes the alchemist puts a little gold\ninto his mixture to act as a sort of nest egg, or mother of gold, and\nencourage the remaining substance to become gold too.[901] Or we read\nin a work ascribed to Ostanes of \u201ca divine water\u201d which \u201crevives the\ndead and kills the living, enlightens obscurity and obscures what\nis clear, calms the sea and quenches fire. A few drops of it give\nlead the appearance of gold with the aid of God, the invisible and\nall-powerful....\u201d[902]\n\n[Sidenote: Mystery and allegory.]\n\nThese early alchemists are also greatly given to mystery and allegory.\n\u201cTouch not the philosopher\u2019s stone with your hands,\u201d warns Mary\nthe Jewess, \u201cyou are not of our race, you are not of the race of\nAbraham.\u201d[903] In a tract concerning the serpent Ouroboros we read, \u201cA\nserpent is stretched out guarding the temple. Let his conqueror begin\nby sacrifice, then skin him, and after having removed his flesh to the\nvery bones, make a stepping-stone of it to enter the temple. Mount\nupon it and you will find the object sought. For the priest, at first\na man of copper, has changed his color and nature and become a man of\nsilver; a few days later, if you wish, you will find him changed into\na man of gold.\u201d[904] Or in the preparation of the aforesaid divine\nwater Ostanes tells us to take the eggs of the serpent of oak who\ndwells in the month of August in the mountains of Olympus, Libya, and\nthe Taurus.[905] Synesius tells that Democritus was initiated in Egypt\nat the temple of Memphis by Ostanes, and Zosimus cites the instruction\nof Ostanes, \u201cGo towards the stream of the Nile; you\u2019ll find there a\nstone; cut it in two, put in your hand, and take out its heart, for its\nsoul is in its heart.\u201d[906] Zosimus himself often resorts to symbolic\njargon to obscure his meaning, as in the description of the vision of\na priest who was torn to pieces and who mutilated himself.[907] He,\ntoo, personifies the metals and talks of a man of gold, a tin man,\nand so on.[908] A brief example of his style will have to suffice, as\nthese allegories of the alchemists are insufferably tedious reading.\n\u201cFinally I had the longing to mount the seven steps and see the seven\nchastisements, and one day, as it chanced, I hit upon the path up.\nAfter several attempts I traversed the path, but on my return I lost\nmy way and, profoundly discouraged, seeing no way out, I fell asleep.\nIn my dream I saw a little man, a barber, clothed in purple robe and\nroyal raiment, standing outside the place of punishment, and he said to\nme....\u201d[909] When Zosimus was not dreaming dreams and seeing visions,\nhe was usually citing ancient authorities.\n\n[Sidenote: Experimentation in alchemy: relation to science and\nphilosophy.]\n\nAt the same time even these early alchemists cannot be denied a certain\nscientific character, or at least a connection with natural science.\nBehind alchemy existed a constant experimental progress. \u201cAlchemy,\u201d\nsaid Berthelot, \u201crested upon a certain mass of practical facts that\nwere known in antiquity and that had to do with the preparation\nof metals, their alloys, and that of artificial precious stones;\nit had there an experimental side which did not cease to progress\nduring the entire medieval period until positive modern chemistry\nemerged from it.\u201d[910] The various treatises of the Greek alchemists\ndescribe apparatus and experiments which are real but with which they\nassociated results which were impossible and visionary. Their theories\nof matter seem indebted to the earlier Greek philosophers, while in the\ndescription of nature Berthelot noted a \u201cdirect and intimate\u201d relation\nbetween them and the works of Dioscorides, Vitruvius, and Pliny.[911]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n PLUTARCH\u2019S ESSAYS\n\n Themes of ensuing chapters\u2014Life of Plutarch\u2014Superstition in Plutarch\u2019s\n _Lives_\u2014His _Morals_ or _Essays_\u2014Question of their authenticity\u2014Magic\n in Plutarch\u2014_Essay on Superstition_\u2014Plutarch hospitable toward some\n superstitions\u2014The oracles of Delphi and of Trophonius\u2014Divination\n justified\u2014Demons as mediators between gods and men\u2014Demons in the moon:\n migration of the soul\u2014Demons mortal: some evil\u2014Men and demons\u2014Relation\n of Plutarch\u2019s to other conceptions of demons\u2014The astrologer\n Tarrutius\u2014_De fato_\u2014Other bits of astrology\u2014Cosmic mysticism\u2014Number\n mysticism\u2014Occult virtues in nature\u2014Asbestos\u2014_On Rivers and\n Mountains_\u2014Magic herbs\u2014Stones found in plants and fish\u2014Virtues of\n other stones\u2014Fascination\u2014Animal sagacity and remedies\u2014Theories and\n queries about nature\u2014The Antipodes.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Themes of ensuing chapters.]\n\nHaving noted the presence of magic in works so especially devoted to\nnatural science as those of Pliny, Galen, and Ptolemy, we have now to\nillustrate the prominence both of natural science and of magic in the\nlife and thought of the Roman Empire by a consideration of some writers\nof a more miscellaneous character, who should reflect for us something\nof the interests of the average cultured reader of that time. Of this\ntype are Plutarch, Apuleius and Philostratus, whom we shall consider in\nthe coming chapters in the order named, which also roughly corresponds\nto their chronological sequence.\n\n[Sidenote: Life of Plutarch.]\n\nPlutarch flourished during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian at the turn\nof the first and second centuries, but _The Letter on the Education of\na Prince to Trajan_[912] probably is not by him, and the legend that\nHadrian was his pupil is a medieval invention. He was born in Boeotia\nabout 46-48 A.\u202fD. and was educated in rhetoric and philosophy, science\nand mathematics, at Athens, where he was a student when Nero visited\nGreece in 66 A.\u202fD. He also made several visits to Rome and resided\nthere for some time. He held various public positions in the province\nof Achaea and in his small native town of Chaeronea, and had official\nconnections with the Delphic oracle and amphictyony. Artemidorus in the\n_Oneirocriticon_ states that Plutarch\u2019s death was foreshadowed in a\ndream.[913]\n\n[Sidenote: Superstition in Plutarch\u2019s _Lives_.]\n\nWith Plutarch\u2019s celebrated _Lives of Illustrious Men_, as with\nnarrative histories in general, we shall not be much concerned,\nalthough they of course abound in omens and portents, in bits of\npseudo-science which details in his narrative bring to the mind of the\nbiographer, and in cases of divination and magic. Thus theories are\nadvanced to explain why birds dropped dead from mid-air at the shout\nset up by the Greeks at the Isthmian games when Flamininus proclaimed\ntheir freedom. Or we are told how Sulla received from the Chaldeans\npredictions of his future greatness, how in the dedication to his\n_Memoirs_ he admonished Lucullus to trust in dreams, and how Lucullus\u2019s\nmind was deranged by a love philter administered by his freedman in\nthe hope of increasing his master\u2019s affection towards him.[914] Such\nallusions and incidents abound also of course in Dio Cassius, Tacitus,\nand other Roman historians.\n\n[Sidenote: His _Morals_ or _Essays_.]\n\nBut we shall be concerned rather with Plutarch\u2019s other writings, which\nare usually grouped together under the title of _Morals_, or, more\nappropriately, _Miscellanies and Essays_. Not only is there great\nvariety in their titles, but in any given essay the attention is\nusually not strictly held to one theme or problem but the discussion\ndiverges to other points. Some are by their very titles and form\nrambling dialogues, symposiacs, and table-talk, where the conversation\nlightly flits from one topic to other entirely different ones, never\ndwelling for long upon any one point and never returning to its\nstarting-point. This dinner-table and drinking-bout type of cultured\nand semi-learned discourse has other extant ancient examples such\nas the _Attic Nights_ of Aulus Gellius and the _Deipnosophists_ of\nAthenaeus, but Plutarch will have to serve as our main illustration\nof it. His _Essays_ reflect in motley guise and disordered array\nthe fruits of extensive reading and a retentive memory in ancient\nphilosophy, science, history, and literature.\n\n[Sidenote: Question of their authenticity.]\n\nThe authenticity of some of the essays attributed to him has been\nquestioned, and very likely with propriety, but for our purpose it is\nnot important that they should all be by the same author so long as\nthey represent approximately the same period and type of literature.\nThe spurious treatise, _De placitis philosophorum_, we have already\nconsidered in the chapter on Galen, to whom it has also been ascribed.\nThe essay _On Rivers and Mountains_ we shall treat by itself in the\npresent chapter. The _De fato_ has also been called spurious.[915]\nSuperstitious content is not a sufficient reason for denying that a\ntreatise is by Plutarch,[916] since he is superstitious in writings of\nundoubted genuineness and since we have found the leading scientists\nof the time unable to exclude superstition from their works entirely.\nMoreover, many of the essays are in the form of conversations\nexpressing the divergent views of different speakers, and it is not\nalways possible to tell which shade of opinion Plutarch himself favors.\nSuffice it that the views expressed are those of men of education.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in Plutarch.]\n\nPlutarch does not specifically discuss magic under that name at any\nlength in any of his essays, but does treat of such subjects as\nsuperstition in general, dreams, oracles, demons, number, fate, the\ncraftiness of animals, and other \u201cnatural questions.\u201d Certain vulgar\nforms of magic, at least, were regarded by him with disapproval or\nincredulity.[917] He rejects as a fiction the statement that the women\nof Thessaly can draw down the moon by their spells, but thinks that the\nnotion perhaps originated in the fact or story that Aglaonice, daughter\nof Hegetor, was so skilful in astrology or astronomy as to be able to\nforesee the occurrence of lunar eclipses, and that she deluded the\npeople into believing that at such times she brought down the moon from\nheaven by charms and enchantments.[918] Thus we have one more instance\nof the union of magic and science, this time of pseudo-magic with real\nscience as at other times of magic with pseudo-science.\n\n[Sidenote: Essay on superstition.]\n\nThe essay entitled \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 deals with superstition in the\nusual Greek sense of dread or excessive fear of demons and gods. We\nare accustomed to think of Hellenic paganism as a cheerful faith, full\nof naturalism, in which the gods were humanized and made familiar.\nPlutarch apparently regards normal religion as of this sort, and\nattacks the superstitious dread of the supernatural. He contends that\nsuch fear is worse, if anything, than atheism, for it makes men more\nunhappy and is an equal offense against the divinity, since it is at\nleast as bad to believe ill of the gods as not to believe in them at\nall. Nothing indeed encourages the growth of atheism so much as the\nabsurd practices and beliefs of such superstitious persons, \u201ctheir\nwords and motions, their sorceries and magics, their runnings to and\nfro and beatings of drums, their impure rites and their purifications,\ntheir filthiness and chastity, their barbarian and illegal\nchastisements and abuse.\u201d[919] Plutarch seems to be in part animated by\nthe common prejudice against all other religions than one\u2019s own, and\nspeaks twice with distaste of Jewish Sabbaths. He also, however, as the\npassage just quoted shows, is opposed to the more extreme and debasing\nforms of magic, and declares that the superstitious man becomes a mere\npeg or post upon which all the old-wives hang any amulets and ligatures\nupon which they may chance.[920] He further condemns such historic\ninstances of superstition as Nicias\u2019s suspension of military operations\nduring a lunar eclipse on the Sicilian expedition.[921] There was\nnothing terrible, says Plutarch, with his usual felicity of antithesis,\nin the periodic recurrence of the earth\u2019s shadow upon the moon; but it\nwas a terrible calamity that the shadow of superstition should thus\ndarken the mind of a general at the very moment when a great crisis\nrequired the fullest use of his reason.\n\nIn the essay upon the demon of Socrates one of the speakers, attacking\nfaith in dreams and apparitions, commends Socrates as one who did not\nreject the worship of the gods but who did purify philosophy, which\nhe had received from Pythagoras and Empedocles full of phantasms and\nmyths and the dread of demons, and reeling like a Bacchanal, and\nreduced it to facts and reason and truth.[922] Another of the company,\nhowever, objects that the demon of Socrates outdid the divination\nof Pythagoras.[923] These conflicting opinions may be applied in\nsome measure to Plutarch himself. His censure of dread of demons and\nexcessive superstition is not to be taken as a sign of scepticism on\nhis part in oracles, dreams, or the demons themselves. To these matters\nwe next turn.\n\n[Sidenote: The oracles of Delphi and of Trophonius.]\n\nPlutarch\u2019s faith and interest in oracles in general and in the Delphian\noracle of Apollo in particular are attested by three of his essays,\nthe _De defectu oraculorum_, _De Pythiae oraculis_ and _De Ei apud\nDelphos_. At the same time these essays attest the decline of the\noracles from their earlier popularity and greatness. The oracular cave\nof Trophonius, of which we shall hear again in the _Life of Apollonius\nof Tyana_, also comes into Plutarch\u2019s works, and the prophetic and\napocalyptic vision is described of a youth who spent two nights\nand a day there in an endeavor to learn the nature of the demon of\nSocrates.[924]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination justified.]\n\nPlutarch further had faith in divination in general, whether by\ndreams, sneezes or other omens: but he attempted to give a dignified\nphilosophical and theological explanation of it. Few men receive direct\ndivine revelation, in his opinion, but to many signs are given on which\ndivination may be based.[925] He held that the human soul had a natural\nfaculty of divination which might be exercised at favorable times and\nwhen the bodily state was not unfavorable.[926] A speaker in one of\nhis dialogues justifies divination even from sneezes and like trivial\noccurrences upon the ground that as the faint beat of the pulse has\nmeaning for the physician and a small cloud in the sky is for a skilful\npilot a sign of impending storm, so the least thing may be a clue to\nthe truly prophetic soul.[927] The extent of Plutarch\u2019s faith in dreams\nmay be inferred from his discussion of the problem, Why are dreams in\nautumn the least reliable?[928] First there is Aristotle\u2019s suggestion\nthat eating autumn fruit so disturbs the digestion that the soul is\nleft little opportunity to exercise its prophetic faculty undistracted.\nIf we accept the doctrine of Democritus that dreams are caused by\nimages from other bodies and even minds or souls, which enter the body\nof the sleeper through the open pores and affect the mind, revealing\nto it the present passions and future designs of others,\u2014if we accept\nthis theory, it may be that the falling leaves in autumn disturb the\nair and ruffle these extremely thin and film-like emanations. A third\nexplanation offered is that in the declining months of the year all\nour faculties, including that of natural divination, are in a state of\ndecline. In the case of oracles like that at Delphi it is suggested\nthat the Pythia\u2019s natural faculty of divination is stimulated by\n\u201cthe prophetical exhalations from the earth\u201d which induce a bodily\nstate favorable to divination.[929] The god or demon, however, is the\nunderlying and directing cause of the oracle.[930]\n\n[Sidenote: Demons as mediators between gods and men.]\n\nTo the demons and their relations to the gods and to men we therefore\nnext come. Plutarch\u2019s view is that they are essential mediators between\nthe gods and men. Just as one who should remove the air from between\nthe earth and moon would destroy the continuity of the universe, so\nthose who deny that there is a race of demons break off all intercourse\nbetween gods and men.[931] On the other hand, the theory of demons\nsolves many doubts and difficulties.[932] When and where this doctrine\noriginated is uncertain, whether among the _magi_ about Zoroaster, or\nin Thrace with Orpheus, or in Egypt or Phrygia. Plutarch likens the\ngods to an equilateral, the demons to an isosceles, and human beings to\na scalene triangle; and again compares the gods to sun and stars, the\ndemons to the moon, and men to comets and meteors.[933] In the youth\u2019s\nvision in the cave of Trophonius the moon appeared to belong to earthly\ndemons, while those stars which have a regular motion were the demons\nof sages, and the wandering and falling stars the demons of men who\nhave yielded to irrational passions.[934]\n\n[Sidenote: Demons in the moon: migration of the soul.]\n\nThese suggestions that the moon and the air between earth and moon are\nthe abode of the demons and this reminiscence of the Platonic doctrine\nof the soul and its migrations receive further confirmation in a\ndiscussion whether the moon is inhabited in the essay, _On the Face in\nthe Moon_. A story is there told[935] of a man who visited islands five\ndays\u2019 sail west of Britain, where Saturn is imprisoned and where there\nare demons serving him. This man who acquired great skill in astrology\nduring his stay there stated upon his return to Europe that every\nsoul after leaving the human body wanders for a time between earth\nand moon, but finally reaches the latter planet, where the Elysian\nfields are located, and there becomes a demon.[936] The demons do not\nalways remain in the moon, however, but may come to earth to care for\noracles or be imprisoned in a human body again for some crime.[937]\nThe man who repeats the stranger\u2019s story leaves it to his hearers,\nhowever, to believe it or not. But the struggle upward of human souls\nto the estate of demons is again described in the essay on the demon\nof Socrates,[938] where it is explained that those souls which have\nsucceeded in freeing themselves from all union with the flesh become\nguardian demons and help those of their fellows whom they can reach,\njust as men on shore wade out as far as they can into the waves to\nrescue those sea-tossed, ship-wrecked mariners who have succeeded in\nstruggling almost to land. The soul is plunged into the body, the\nuncorrupted mind or demon remains without.[939]\n\n[Sidenote: Demons mortal: some evil.]\n\nThe demons differ from the gods in that they are mortal, though much\nlonger-lived than men. Hesiod said that crows live nine times as long\nas men, stags four times as long as crows, ravens three times as long\nas stags, a phoenix nine times as long as a raven, and the nymphs ten\ntimes as long as the phoenix.[940] There are storms in the isles off\nBritain whenever one of the demons residing there dies.[941] Some\ndemons are good spirits and others are evil; some are more passive and\nirrational than others; some delight in gloomy festivals, foul words,\nand even human sacrifice.[942]\n\n[Sidenote: Men and demons.]\n\nOnce a year in the neighborhood of the Red Sea a man is seen who spends\nthe remainder of his time among \u201cnymphs, nomads and demons.\u201d[943] At\nhis annual appearance many princes and great men come to consult him\nconcerning the future. He also has the gift of tongues to the extent of\nunderstanding several languages perfectly. His speech is like sweetest\nmusic, his breath sweet and fragrant, his person the most graceful that\nhis interlocutor had ever seen. He also was never afflicted with any\ndisease, for once a month he ate the bitter fruit of a medicinal herb.\nAs to the exact nature of Socrates\u2019 demon there is some diversity of\nopinion. One man suggests that it was merely the sneezing of himself\nor others, sneezes on the left hand warning him to desist from his\nintended course of action, while a sneeze in any other quarter was\ninterpreted by him as a favorable sign.[944] The weight of opinion,\nhowever, inclines towards the view that his demon did not appear to\nhim as an apparition or phantasm, or even communicate with him as an\naudible voice, but by immediate impression upon his mind.[945]\n\n[Sidenote: Relation of Plutarch\u2019s to other conceptions of demons.]\n\nPlutarch\u2019s account of demons is the first of a number which we shall\nhave occasion to note. As the discussion of them by Apuleius in\nthe next chapter and the rather crude representation of them given\nin Philostratus\u2019s _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ will show, there\nwas as yet among non-Christian writers no unanimity of opinion\nconcerning demons. On the other hand there are several conceptions in\nPlutarch\u2019s essays which were to be continued later by Christians and\nNeo-Platonists: namely, the conception of a mediate class of beings\nbetween God and men, the hypothesis of a world of spirits in close\ntouch with human life, the association of divination and oracles with\ndemons, and the location of spirits in the sphere of the moon or the\nair between earth and moon,\u2014although Plutarch sometimes connected\ndemons with the stars above the moon. This occasional association of\nstars with spirits and of sinning souls with falling stars bears some\nresemblance to the depiction of certain stars as sinners in the Hebraic\n_Book of Enoch_, which was written before Plutarch\u2019s time and which we\nshall consider in our next book as an influence upon the development of\nearly Christian thought.\n\n[Sidenote: The astrologer Tarrutius.]\n\nAs for the stars apart from demons, Plutarch discusses the art of\nastrology as little as he does \u201cmagic\u201d by that name. Mentions of\nindividuals as skilled in \u201castrology\u201d may simply mean that they were\ntrained astronomers. When a veritable astrologer in our sense of the\nword is mentioned in one of Plutarch\u2019s _Lives_,[946] he is described\nas a \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u2014a word often used for a caster of horoscopes and\npredicter of the future. Here, however, it carries no reproach of\ncharlatanism, since in the same phrase he is called a philosopher.\nThis Tarrutius was a friend of Varro, who asked him to work out the\nhoroscope of Romulus backward from what was known of the later life and\ncharacter of the founder of Rome. \u201cFor it was possible for the same\nscience which predicted man\u2019s life from the time of his birth to infer\nthe time of his birth from the events of his life.\u201d Tarrutius set to\nwork and from the data at his disposal figured out that Romulus was\nconceived in the first year of the second Olympiad, on the twenty-third\nday of the Egyptian month Khoeak at the third hour when there was a\ntotal eclipse of the sun; and that he was born on the twenty-first\nday of the month Thoth about sunrise. He further estimated that Rome\nwas founded by him on the ninth day of the month Pharmuthi between\nthe second and third hour. For, adds Plutarch, they think that the\nfortunes of cities are also controlled by the hour of their genesis.\nPlutarch, however, seems to look upon such doctrines as rather strange\nand fabulous.[947] Varro, on the other hand, may have regarded it as\nthe most scientific method possible of settling disputed questions of\nhistorical chronology\n\n[Sidenote: The _De fato_.]\n\nA favorable attitude towards astrology is found mainly in those essays\nby Plutarch which are suspected of being spurious, the _De fato_ and\n_De placitis philosophorum_. Of the latter we have already treated\nunder Galen. In the former fate is described as \u201cthe soul of the\nuniverse,\u201d and the three main divisions of the universe, namely, the\nimmovable heaven, the moving spheres and heavenly bodies, and the\nregion about the earth, are associated with the three Fates, Clotho,\nAtropos, and Lachesis.[948] It is similarly stated in the essay on\nthe demon of Socrates[949] that of the four principles of all things,\nlife, motion, genesis or generation, and corruption, the first two\nare joined by the One indivisibly, the second and third Mind unites\nthrough the sun; the third and fourth Nature joins through the moon.\nAnd over each of these three bonds presides one of the three Fates,\nAtropos, Clotho, and Lachesis. In other words, the one God or first\ncause, invisible and unmoved, in whom is life, sets in motion the\nheavenly spheres and bodies, through whose instrumentality generation\nand corruption upon earth are produced and regulated,\u2014which is\nsubstantially the Aristotelian view of the universe. Returning to the\n_De fato_ we may note that it repeats the Stoic theory of the _magnus\nannus_ when the heavenly bodies resume their rounds and all history\nrepeats itself.[950] Despite this apparent admission that human life\nis subject to the movements of the stars, the author of the _De fato_\nseems to think that accident, fortune or chance, the contingent, and\n\u201cwhat is in us\u201d or free-will, can all co-exist with fate, which he\npractically identifies with the motion of the heavenly bodies.[951]\nFate is also comprehended by divine Providence but this fact does not\nmilitate against astrology, since Providence itself divides into that\nof the first God, that of the secondary gods or stars \u201cwho move through\nthe heavens regulating mortal affairs, and that of the demons who act\nas guardians of men.\u201d[952]\n\n[Sidenote: Other bits of astrology.]\n\nOne or two bits of astrology may be noted in Plutarch\u2019s other essays.\nThe man who learned \u201castrology\u201d among demons in the isle beyond Britain\naffirmed that in human generation earth supplies the body, the moon\nfurnishes the soul, and the sun provides the intellect.[953] In the\n_Symposiacs_[954] the opinion of the mythographers is repeated that\nmonstrous animals were produced during the war with the giants because\nthe moon turned from its course then and rose in unaccustomed quarters.\nPlutarch was, by the way, inclined to distinguish the moon from other\nheavenly bodies as passive and imperfect, a sort of celestial earth\nor terrestrial star. Such a separation of the moon from the other\nstars and planets would have, however, no necessary contrariety with\nastrological theory, which usually ascribed a peculiar place to the\nmoon and represented it as the medium through which the more distant\nplanets exerted their effects upon the earth.\n\n[Sidenote: Cosmic mysticism.]\n\nSometimes Plutarch\u2019s cosmology carries Platonism to the verge of\nGnosticism, a subject of which we shall treat in a later chapter. The\ndiviner who had communed with demons, nomads, and nymphs in the desert\nasserted that there was not one world, but one hundred and eighty-three\nworlds arranged in the form of a triangle with sixty to each side and\none at each angle. Within this triangle of worlds lay the plain of\ntruth where were the ideas and models of all things that had been or\nwere to be, and about these was eternity from which time flowed off\nlike a river to the one hundred and eighty-three worlds. The vision\ndelectable of those ideas is granted to men only once in a myriad of\nyears, if they live well, and is the goal toward which all philosophy\nstrives. The stranger, we are informed, told this tale artlessly, like\none in the mysteries, and produced no demonstration or proof of what\nhe said. We have already heard Plutarch liken gods, demons, and men to\ndifferent kinds of triangles; he also repeats Plato\u2019s association of\nthe five regular solids with the elements, earth, air, fire, water,\nand ether.[955] He states that the nature of fire is quite apparent\nin the pyramid from \u201cthe slenderness of its decreasing sides and the\nsharpness of its angles,\u201d[956] and that fire is engendered from air\nwhen the octahedron is dissolved into pyramids, and air produced from\nfire when the pyramids are compressed into an octahedron.[957]\n\n[Sidenote: Number mysticism.]\n\nThese geometrical fancies are naturally accompanied by considerable\nnumber mysticism. In this particular passage the merits of the number\nfive are enlarged upon and a long list is given of things that are\nfive in number.[958] Five is again extolled in the essay on _The Ei at\nDelphi_,[959] but there one of the company remarks with much reason\nthat it is possible to praise any number in many ways, but that he\nprefers to five \u201cthe sacred seven of Apollo.\u201d[960] Platonic geometrical\nreveries and Pythagorean number mysticism are indulged in even more\nextensively in the essay _On the Procreation of the Soul in Timaeus_.\nThe number and proportion existing in planets, stars and spheres are\ntouched on,[961] and it is stated that the divine demiurge produced\nthe marvelous virtues of drugs and organs by employing harmonies and\nnumbers.[962] Thus in the potency of number and numerical relations is\nsuggested a possible explanation of astrology and magic force in nature.\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtues in nature.]\n\nPlutarch, indeed, shows the same faith in the existence of occult\nvirtues in natural objects and in what may be called natural magic as\nmost of his contemporaries. At his symposium when one man avers that he\nsaw the tiny fish _echene\u00efs_ stop the ship upon which he was sailing\nuntil the lookout man picked it off,[963] some laugh at his credulity\nbut others narrate other cases of strange antipathies in nature. Mad\nelephants are quieted by the sight of a ram; vipers will not move if\ntouched with a leaf from a beech tree; wild bulls become tame when tied\nto a fig tree;[964] if light objects are oiled, amber fails to attract\nthem as usual; and iron rubbed with garlic does not respond to the\nmagnet. \u201cThese things are proved by experience but it is difficult if\nnot quite impossible to learn their cause.\u201d At the Symposium[965] the\nquestion also is raised why salt is called divine, and it is suggested\nthat it may be because it preserves bodies from decay after the soul\nhas left them, or because mice conceive without sexual intercourse by\nmerely licking salt. In _The Delay of the Deity_ Plutarch again treats\nof occult virtues.[966] They pass from body to body with incredible\nswiftness or to an incredible distance. He wonders why it is that if\na goat takes a piece of sea-holly in her mouth, the entire herd will\nstand still until the goatherd removes it. We see once more how closely\nsuch notions are associated with magical practices, when in the same\nparagraph he mentions the custom of making the children of those who\nhave died of consumption or dropsy sit soaking their feet in water\nuntil the corpse has been buried so that they may not catch their\nparent\u2019s disease.\n\n[Sidenote: Asbestos.]\n\nOn the other hand, how difficult it must have been with the limited\nscientific knowledge of that time to distinguish true from false\nmarvelous properties may be inferred from Plutarch\u2019s description[967]\nof a certain soft and pliable stone that used to be produced at\nCarystus and from which handkerchiefs and hair-nets were made which\ncould not be burnt and were cleaned by exposure to fire,\u2014a description,\nit would seem, of our asbestos, although Plutarch does not give the\nstone any name. Strabo also ascribes similar properties to a stone\nfrom Carystus without naming it.[968] Dioscorides and other Greek\nauthors, we are told,[969] apply the word \u201casbestos\u201d to quick-lime, but\nPliny in the _Natural History_[970] describes what he says the Greeks\ncall \u1f00\u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd much as Plutarch does. He adds that it is employed in\nmaking shrouds for royal funerals to separate the ashes of the corpse\nfrom those of the pyre.[971] But he seems to regard it as a plant,\nnot a stone, listing it as a variety of linen in one of his books on\nvegetation. He also states incorrectly that it is found but rarely\nand in desert and arid regions of India where there is no rain and a\nhot sun and amid terrible serpents[972]. Probably Pliny or his source\nargued that anything which resisted the action of fire must have been\ninured by growth under fiery suns and among serpents. Furthermore it\nobviously should possess other marvelous properties, so we are not\nsurprised to find Anaxilaus cited to the effect that if this \u201clinen\u201d\nis tied around a tree trunk, the blows with which the tree is felled\ncannot be heard. It was thus that imaginations inured to magic enlarged\nupon unusual natural properties.\n\n[Sidenote: _On rivers and mountains._]\n\nA treatise upon rivers and mountains in which the marvelous virtues of\nherbs and stones figure very prominently has sometimes been included\namong the works of Plutarch, but also has been omitted entirely from\nsome editions.[973] Some have ascribed it to Parthenius of the time of\nNero. It is made up of some thirty-five chapters in each of which a\nriver and a mountain are mentioned. Usually some myth or tragic history\nis recounted, from which the river took its name or with which it was\notherwise intimately connected. A similar procedure is followed in\nthe case of the mountain. The writer, whoever he may be, makes a show\nof extensive reading, citing over forty authorities, most of whom are\nGreek and not mentioned in the full bibliographies of Pliny\u2019s _Natural\nHistory_. The titles cited have to do largely with stones, rivers, and\ndifferent countries. It has been questioned, however, whether these\ncitations are not bogus.[974]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic herbs.]\n\nThe properties attributed to herbs and stones in this treatise are to\na large extent magical. A white reed found in the river Phasis while\none is sacrificing at dawn to Hecate, if strewn in a wife\u2019s bedroom,\ndrives mad any adulterer who enters and makes him confess his sin.[975]\nAnother herb mentioned in the same chapter was used by Medea to protect\nJason from her father. In a later chapter[976] we are told how Hera\ncalled upon Selene to aid her in securing her revenge upon Heracles,\nand how the moon goddess filled a large chest with froth and foam by\nher magic spells until presently a huge lion leaped out of the chest.\nReturning from such sorceresses as Hecate, Medea, and Selene to herbs\nalone, in other rivers are plants which test the purity of gold, aid\ndim sight or blind one, wither at the mention of the word \u201cstep-mother\u201d\nor burst into flames whenever a step-mother has evil designs against\nher step-son, free their bearers from fear of apparitions, operate as\ncharms in love-making and childbirth, cure madmen of their frenzy,\ncheck quartan agues if applied to the breasts, protect virginity\nor wither at a virgin\u2019s touch, turn wine into water except that it\nretains its bouquet, or preserve persons anointed with their juice from\nsickness to their dying day.\n\n[Sidenote: Stones found in plants and fish.]\n\nAn easy transition from the theme of magic herbs to that of stones\nis afforded by a sort of poppy which grows in a river of Mysia and\nbears black, harp-shaped stones which the natives gather and scatter\nover their ploughed fields.[977] If these stones then lie still where\nthey have fallen, it is taken as a sign of a barren year; but if they\nfly away like locusts, this prognosticates a plentiful harvest. Other\nmarvelous stones are found in the head of a fish in the river Arar, a\ntributary of the Rhone. The fish is itself quite wonderful since it is\nwhite while the moon waxes and black when it wanes.[978] Presumably\nfor this reason the stone cures quartan agues, if applied to the left\nside of the body while the moon is waning. There is another stone\nwhich must be sought after under a waxing moon with pipers playing\ncontinually.[979]\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues of other stones.]\n\nOther stones guard treasuries by sounding a trumpet-like alarm at\nthe approach of thieves; or change color four times a day and are\nordinarily visible only to young girls. But if a virgin of marriageable\nage chances to see this stone, she is safe from attempts upon her\nchastity henceforth.[980] Some stones drive men mad and are connected\nwith the Mother of the Gods or are found only during the celebration of\nthe mysteries.[981] Others stop dogs from barking, expel demons, grow\nblack in the hands of false witnesses, protect from wild beasts, and\nhave varied medicinal powers or other effects similar to those already\nmentioned in the case of herbs.[982] In a river where the Spartans\nwere defeated is a stone which leaps towards the bank, if it hears a\ntrumpet, but sinks at the mention of the Athenians.[983] Certainly a\nmarvelous stone, capable of both hearing and motion!\n\n[Sidenote: Fascination.]\n\nLeaving the treatise on rivers and mountains, for the occult virtue\nof human beings we may turn to a discussion of fascination in the\n_Symposiacs_.[984] Some of the company ridiculed the idea, but their\nhost asserted that a myriad of events went to prove it and that if you\nreject a thing simply because you cannot give a reason for it, you\n\u201ctake away the marvelous from all things.\u201d He pointed out that some men\nhurt little and tender children by looking at them, and argued that,\nas the plumes of other birds are ruined when mixed with those of the\neagle, so men may injure by their touch or mere glance. Plutarch, who\nwas of the company, suggested effluvia or emanations from the body as\na possible explanation, pointing out that love begins with glances,\nthat no disease is more contagious than sore eyes, and that gazing upon\nthe curlew cures jaundice. The bird appears to attract the disease to\nitself, and averts its head and closes its eyes, not, as some think,\nbecause it is jealous of the remedy sought from it, but because it\nfeels wounded as if from a blow. Others of the company contended that\nthe passions and affections of the soul may have a powerful effect\nthrough the eyes and glance upon other persons, and argued that the\nsufferings of the soul strengthen the powers of the body, and that\nthe same counter-charms are efficacious against envy as against\nfascination. The emanations which Democritus believed that envious\nand malicious persons sent forth are also mentioned; fathers have\nfascinated their own children, and it is even possible that one might\ninjure oneself by reflection of one\u2019s gaze. It is suggested that young\nchildren may sometimes be fascinated in this manner rather than by the\nglance of others.\n\n[Sidenote: Animal sagacity and remedies.]\n\nPlutarch devotes two essays to the familiar theme of the craftiness and\nsagacity of animals and the remedies used by them. In one essay[985] a\ncompanion of Odysseus refuses to allow Circe to turn him back from a\npig to human form. He boasts among other things that beasts know how\nto cure themselves. Without ever having been taught swine when sick\nrun to rivers to search for craw-fish; tortoises physic themselves\nwith origanum after eating vipers; and Cretan goats devour dittany\nto extract arrows and darts which have been shot into their bodies.\nIn the other essay[986] on the cleverness of animals we find many\nfamiliar stories repeated, including some of the inevitable excerpts\nfrom Juba on elephants. We meet again the dolphins with their love for\nmankind,[987] the bird who picks the crocodile\u2019s teeth and warns him\nof the ichneumon,[988] the fish who rescue one another by biting the\nline or dragging one another by the tail out of nets,[989] the trained\nelephant who was slow to learn and was beaten for it and was afterwards\nseen practicing his exercises by himself in the moonlight,[990] the\nsentinel cranes who stand on one foot and hold a stone in the other to\nawaken them if they let it drop.[991] More novel perhaps is the story\nhow herons open oysters by first swallowing them, shells and all, until\nthey are relaxed by the internal heat of the bird, which then vomits\nthem up and eats them out of the shells. Or the account of the tunny\nfish who needs no astrological canons and is familiar with arithmetic,\n\u201cYes, by Zeus, and with optics, too.\u201d[992]\n\n[Sidenote: Theories and queries about nature.]\n\nPlutarch\u2019s essays bring out yet other interests and defects of\nthe science of the time. One on _The Principle of Cold_ is a good\nillustration of the failings of the ancient hypothesis of four elements\nand four qualities and of the silly, limited arguing which usually\nand almost of necessity accompanied it. He denies that cold is mere\nprivation of heat, since it seems to act positively upon fluids and\nsolids and exists in different degrees. After considering various\nassertions such as that air becomes cold when it becomes dark; that\nair whitens things and water blackens them; that cold objects are\nalways heavy; he finally associates the element earth especially with\nthe quality cold. In another essay[993] he states that there are no\nfemales of a certain type of beetle which was engraved as a charm upon\nthe rings warriors wore to battle, but that the males begat offspring\nby rolling up balls of earth. He declares that \u201cdiseases do not have\ndistinct germs\u201d in a discussion in the _Symposiacs_ whether there can\nbe new diseases.[994] Other natural questions discussed in the treatise\nof that name and the _Symposiacs_ are: Why a man who often passes near\ndewy trees contracts leprosy in those limbs which touch the wood? Why\nthe Dorians pray for bad hay-making? Why bears\u2019 paws are the sweetest\nand most palatable food? Why the tracks of wild beasts smell worse at\nthe full of the moon? Why bees are more apt to sting fornicators than\nother persons?[995] Why the flesh of sheep bitten by wolves is sweeter\nthan that of other sheep? Why mushrooms are thought to be produced by\nthunder? Why flesh decays sooner in moonlight than sunlight? Whether\nJews abstain from pork because they worship the pig or because they\nhave an antipathy towards it?[996]\n\n[Sidenote: The Antipodes.]\n\nPlutarch sometimes shows evidence of considerable astronomical\nknowledge. For instance, he knows that the mathematicians figure\nthat the distance from sun to earth is immense, and that Aristarchus\ndemonstrated the sun to be eighteen or twenty times as far off as the\nmoon, which is distant fifty-six times the earth\u2019s radius at the lowest\nestimate.[997] Yet in the same essay[998] Plutarch has scoffed at the\nidea of a spherical earth and of antipodes, and at the assertion that\nbars weighing a thousand talents would stop falling at the earth\u2019s\ncenter, if a hole were opened up through the earth, or that two men\nwith their feet in opposite directions at the center of the earth\nmight nevertheless both be right side up, or that one man whose middle\nwas at the center might be half right side up and half upside down.\nHe admits, however, that the philosophers think so. Thus we see that\nChristian fathers like Lactantius were not the first to ridicule the\nnotion of the Antipodes; apparently as well educated and omnivorous a\npagan reader as Plutarch could do the same.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n APULEIUS OF MADAURA\n\nI. _Life and Works_\n\n Magic and the man\u2014Stylistic reasons for regarding the _Metamorphoses_\n as his first work\u2014Biographical reasons\u2014No mention of the\n _Metamorphoses_ in the _Apology_.\n\nII. _Magic in the Metamorphoses_\n\n Powers claimed for magic\u2014Its actual performances\u2014Its\n limitations\u2014The crimes of witches\u2014Male magicians\u2014Magic as an art\n and discipline\u2014Materials employed\u2014Incantations and rites\u2014Quacks and\n charlatans\u2014Various superstitions\u2014Bits of science and religion\u2014Magic in\n other Greek romances.\n\nIII. _Magic in the Apology_\n\n Form of the _Apologia_\u2014Philosophy and magic\u2014Magic defined\u2014Good and\n bad magic\u2014Magic and religion\u2014Magic and science\u2014Medical and scientific\n knowledge of Apuleius\u2014He repeats familiar errors\u2014Apparent ignorance of\n magic and occult virtue\u2014Despite an assumption of knowledge\u2014Attitude\n toward astronomy\u2014His theory of demons\u2014Apuleius in the middle ages.\n\n\nI. _His Life and Works_\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and the man as reflected in his works.]\n\nOne of the fullest and most vivid pictures of magic in the ancient\nMediterranean world which has reached us is provided by the writings\nof Apuleius. He lived in the second century of our era and was not\nmerely a rhetorician of great note in his day and the writer of a\nromance which has ever since fascinated men, but also a Platonic\nphilosopher, an initiate into many religious cults and mysteries, and\na student of natural science and medicine. To him has been ascribed\nthe Latin version of _Asclepius_, a supposititious dialogue of Hermes\nTrismegistus. No author perhaps ever more readily and complacently\ntalked of himself than Apuleius, yet it is no easy task to make out\nthe precise facts of his life, partly because in his romance, _The\nMetamorphoses_, or _The Golden Ass_, he has hopelessly confused himself\nwith the hero Lucius and introduced an autobiographical element of\nuncertain extent into what is in the main a work of fiction; partly\nbecause his _Apology_, or defense when tried on the charge of magic at\nOea in Africa, is more in the nature of special pleading intended to\nrefute and confound his accusers than of a frank confession or accurate\nhistory of his career. However, he appears to have been born at Madaura\nin North Africa, to have studied first at Carthage and then at Athens,\nto have visited Rome and wandered rather widely about the Mediterranean\nworld, but to have spent more time altogether at Carthage than at any\nother one place.\n\n[Sidenote: Stylistic reasons for regarding the _Metamorphoses_ as his\nfirst work.]\n\nBesides the _Metamorphoses_ and _Apologia_, with which we shall be\nchiefly concerned, four other works are extant which are regarded\nas genuine, _The God of Socrates_, _The Dogma of Plato_, _Florida_,\nand _On the Universe_. The order in which these works were written\nis uncertain, but it seems almost sure that the _Metamorphoses_ was\nthe first. In it Apuleius not only more or less identifies himself\nwith the hero Lucius, who is represented as quite a young man, he\nalso apologizes for his Latin and speaks of the difficulty with which\nhe had acquired that language at Rome. But in the _Florida_[999] we\nfind him repeating a hymn and a dialogue in both Latin and Greek, or,\nafter delivering half an address in Greek, finishing it in Latin, or\nboasting that he writes poems, satires, riddles, histories, scientific\ntreatises, orations, and philosophical dialogues with equal facility in\neither language.[1000] Instead now of craving pardon if he offends by\nhis rude, exotic, and forensic speech, he feels that his reputation for\nliterary refinement and elegance has become such that his audience will\nnot pardon him a solitary solecism or a single syllable pronounced with\na barbarous accent.[1001] It therefore looks as if the _Metamorphoses_\nwas his first published effort in Latin and as if his peculiar style\nhad proved so popular that he did not find it necessary to apologize\nfor it again. In the _Apology_ he seems supremely confident of his\nrhetorical powers in the Latin language, and even the accusers describe\nhim as a philosopher of great eloquence both in Greek and Latin.[1002]\nThree years before in the same town his first public discourse had been\ngreeted with shouts of \u201cInsigniter,\u201d and many in the audience at the\ntime of his trial can still repeat a passage from it on the greatness\nof Aesculapius.[1003] In the _Apology_, too, he displays a more\nextensive learning than in the _Metamorphoses_ and has written already\npoems and scientific treatises as well as orations. Indeed, practically\nall the doctrines set forth in his other philosophical works may be\nfound in brief in the _Apology_.\n\n[Sidenote: Biographical reasons.]\n\nMoreover, while in the _Metamorphoses_ Apuleius ends the narrative\nwith what seems to be his own comparatively recent initiation into\nthe mysteries of Isis in Greece and of Osiris at Rome, in the\n_Apology_[1004] he speaks of having been initiated in the past into\nall sorts of sacred rites, although he does not mention Rome or Isis\nand Osiris specifically. It is implied, however, that he has been at\nRome in more than one passage of the _Apology_. Pontianus, his future\nstep-son, with whom Apuleius had become acquainted at Athens \u201cnot so\nmany years ago,\u201d was \u201can adult at Rome\u201d before Apuleius came to Oea.\nAfter they had met again at Oea and had both married there, Apuleius\ngave Pontianus a letter of introduction to the proconsul Lollianus\nAvitus at Carthage, of whom he says, \u201cI have known intimately many\ncultured men of Roman name in the course of my life, but have never\nadmired anyone as much as him.\u201d Perhaps Apuleius may have met Lollianus\nat Carthage, but in the _Florida_,[1005] in a panegyric on Scipio\nOrfitus, proconsul of Africa in 163-164 A.\u202fD., he alludes to the time\n\u201cwhen I moved among your friends in Rome.\u201d All this fits in nicely\nwith the statements in the closing chapters of the _Metamorphoses_\nconcerning his rising fame as an orator in the courts of law and \u201cthe\nlaborious doctrine of my studies\u201d at Rome. We may therefore reconstruct\nthe course of events as follows. After meeting Pontianus at Athens\nand concluding his studies in Greece, Apuleius came to Rome, where\nhe remained for some time, perfecting his Latin style, engaging in\nforensic oratory, and publishing the _Metamorphoses_. Pontianus, who\nwas younger than Apuleius, either accompanied or followed his friend to\nRome, in which city he was still residing after Apuleius had returned\nto Africa. But Pontianus, too, had left Rome and come back to his\nAfrican city of Oea to settle the question of his mother\u2019s proposed\nsecond marriage, before Apuleius, who had probably revisited Carthage\nin the meantime and was now traveling east again with the intention of\nvisiting Alexandria, arrived at Oea and was induced to wed the widow,\nwho was considerably older than he. On the delicate question of this\nlady\u2019s exact age depends our dating of the birth of Apuleius and the\nchronology of his entire career. At the trial of Apuleius for magic\nAemilianus, the accuser, declared that she was sixty when she married\nApuleius, and he had previously proposed to marry her to his brother,\nClarus, whom Apuleius calls \u201ca decrepit old man.\u201d[1006] On the other\nhand, Apuleius asserts that the records, which he produces in court, of\nher being accepted in infancy by her father as his child show that she\nis \u201cnot much over forty,\u201d[1007]\u2014a tactful ambiguity which, inasmuch as\nwe no longer have the records, it would probably be idle to attempt to\nfathom.\n\n[Sidenote: No mention of the _Metamorphoses_ in the _Apology_.]\n\nThe chief, if not the only, objection to dating the _Metamorphoses_\nbefore the _Apology_ is that nothing is said of it in the latter.[1008]\nBut obviously Apuleius, when on trial for magic, would not mention\nthe _Metamorphoses_ unless his accusers forced him to do so. They\nmay not have yet heard of it or it may at first have been published\nanonymously, although the probability is that Apuleius would not\nhave spent three years at Oea without bringing it to his admirers\u2019\nattention. Or they may know of it, but the judge may not have admitted\nit as evidence on the ground that they must prove that Apuleius has\npracticed magic. The _Metamorphoses_ does not recount any personal\nparticipation of Apuleius himself in magic arts, unless one identifies\nhim throughout with the hero Lucius; it purports to be a Latin\nrendition of Milesian tales[1009] and does not seem to have been taken\nvery seriously until the church fathers began to cite it. Or the\naccusers may have dwelt upon it and Apuleius simply have failed to\ntake notice of their charge. All these suppositions may not seem very\nplausible, but on the other hand we may ask, how would Apuleius dare\nto write a work like the _Metamorphoses_ after he had been accused and\ntried of magic? One would expect him then to drop the subject rather\nthan to display an increasing interest in it. But let us turn to his\ntreatment of that theme in both those works, and first consider the\n_Metamorphoses_.\n\n\nII. _Magic in the Metamorphoses_\n\n[Sidenote: Powers claimed for magic.]\n\nVast power over nature and spirits is attributed to magic and its\npractitioners in the opening chapters of the _Metamorphoses_. \u201cBy\nmagic\u2019s mutterings swift streams are reversed, the sea is calmed, the\nsun stopped, foam drawn from the moon, the stars torn from the sky,\nand day turned into night.\u201d[1010] While such assertions are received\nwith some scepticism by one listener, they are largely borne out by\nthe subsequent experiences of the characters in the story and by the\nfeats which witches are made to perform. These are sometimes humorously\nand extravagantly presented, but as crime and ferocious cruelty are\ntreated in the same spirit, this light vein cannot be regarded as an\nadmission of magic\u2019s unreality. On the contrary, the magic of Thessaly\nis celebrated with one accord the world over.[1011] Mero\u00eb the witch\ncan \u201cdisplace the sky, elevate the earth, freeze fountains, melt\nmountains, raise ghosts, bring down the gods, extinguish the stars, and\nilluminate the bottomless pit.\u201d[1012] Submerging the light of starry\nheaven to the lowest depths of hell is a power also attributed to\nthe witch Pamphile.[1013] \u201cBy her marvelous secrets she makes ghosts\nand elements obey and serve her, disturbs the stars and coerces the\ndivinities.\u201d[1014]\n\n[Sidenote: Its actual performances.]\n\nIn none of the episodes recorded in _The Golden Ass_, however, do\nthe witches find it necessary or advisable to go to quite so great\nlengths as these, although Pamphile once threatens the sun with eternal\ndarkness because he is so slow in yielding to night when she may ply\nher sorcery and amours.[1015] The witches content themselves with such\naccomplishments as carrying on love affairs with inhabitants of distant\nIndia, Ethopia, and even the Antipodes,\u2014\u201ctrifles of the art these and\nmere bagatelles\u201d;[1016] with transforming their enemies into animal\nforms or imprisoning them helpless in their homes, or transporting them\nhouse and all to a spot a hundred miles off;[1017] and, on the other\nhand, with breaking down bolted doors to murder their victims,[1018] or\nassuming themselves the shape of weasels, birds, dogs, mice, and even\ninsects in order to work their mischief unobserved;[1019] they then\ncast their victims into a deep sleep and cut their throats or hang them\nor mutilate them.[1020] They often know what is being said about them\nwhen apparently absent, and they sometimes indulge in divination of the\nfuture.[1021] But to whatever fields of activity they may extend or\nconfine themselves, their violent power is irresistible, and we are\ngiven to understand that it is useless to try to fight against it or\nto escape it. Its secret and occult character is also emphasized, and\nthe adjective _caeca_ or noun _latebrae_ are more than once employed to\ndescribe it.[1022]\n\n[Sidenote: Its limitations.]\n\nYet there are also suggested certain limitations to the power of\nmagic. The witches seem to break down the bolted doors, but these\nresume their former place when the hags have departed, and are to all\nappearances as intact as before. The man, too, whose throat they have\ncut, whose blood they have drained off, and whose heart they have\nremoved, awakes apparently alive the next morning and resumes his\njourney. All the events of the preceding night seem to have been merely\nan unpleasant dream. The witches had stuffed a sponge into the wound\nof his throat[1023] with the adjuration, \u201cOh you sponge, born in the\nsea, beware of crossing running water.\u201d In the morning his traveling\ncompanion can see no sign of wound or sponge on his friend\u2019s throat.\nBut when he stoops to drink from a brook, out falls the sponge and he\ndrops dead. The inference, although Apuleius draws none, is obvious;\nwitches can make a corpse seem alive for a while but not for long, and\nmagic ceases to work when you cross running water. We also get the\nimpression that there is something deceptive and illusive about the\nmagic of the witches, and that only the lusts and crimes are real which\ntheir magic enables them or their employers to commit and gratify.\nThey may seem to draw down the sun, but it is found shining next day\nas usual. When Lucius is transformed into an ass, he retains his human\nappetite and tenderness of skin,[1024]\u2014a deplorable state of mind and\nbody which must be attributed to the imperfections of the magic art as\nwell as to the humorous cruelty of the author.\n\n[Sidenote: The crimes of witches.]\n\nIn _The Golden Ass_ the practitioners of magic are usually witches and\nold and repulsive. We have to deal with wonders worked by old-wives\nand not by _Magi_ of Persia or Babylon. As we have seen and shall see\nyet further, their deeds are regarded as illicit and criminal. They\nare \u201cmost wicked women\u201d (_nequissimae mulieres_),[1025] intent upon\nlust and crime. They practice _devotiones_, injurious imprecations and\nceremonies.[1026]\n\n[Sidenote: Male magicians.]\n\nMale practitioners of magic are represented in a less unfavorable\nlight. An Egyptian, who in return for a large sum of money engages to\ninvoke the spirit of a dead man and restore the corpse momentarily to\nlife, is called a prophet and a priest, though he seems a manifest\nnecromancer and is himself adjured to lend his aid and to \u201chave pity\nby the stars of heaven, by the infernal deities, by the elements of\nnature, and by the silence of night,\u201d[1027]\u2014expressions which are\ncertainly suggestive of the magic powers elsewhere ascribed to witches.\nThe hero of the story, Lucius, is animated in his dabblings in the\nmagic art by idle curiosity combined with thirst for learning, but not\nby any criminal motive.[1028] Yet after he has been transformed into\nan ass by magic, he fears to resume his human form suddenly in public,\nlest he be put to death on suspicion of practicing the magic art.[1029]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic as an art and discipline.]\n\nMagic is depicted not merely as irresistible or occult or criminal\nor fallacious; it is also regularly called an art and a discipline.\nEven the practices of the witches are so dignified. Pamphile has\nnothing less than a laboratory on the roof of her house,\u2014a wooden\nshelter, concealed from view but open to the winds of heaven and to\nthe four points of the compass,\u2014where she may ply her secret arts\nand where she spreads out her \u201ccustomary apparatus.\u201d[1030] This\nconsists of all sorts of aromatic herbs, of metal plates inscribed\nwith cryptic characters, a chest filled with little boxes containing\nvarious ointments,[1031] and portions of human corpses obtained from\nsepulchers, shipwrecks (or birds of prey, according as the reading\nis _navium_ or _avium_), public executions, and the victims of wild\nbeasts.[1032] It will be recalled that Galen represented medical\nstudents as most likely to secure human skeletons or bodies to dissect\nfrom somewhat similar sources; and possibly they might incur suspicion\nof magic thereby.\n\n[Sidenote: Materials employed.]\n\nAll this makes it clear that to work magic one must have materials.\nThe witches seem especially avid for parts of the human body. Pamphile\nsends her maid, Fotis, to the barber\u2019s shop to try to steal some\ncuttings of the hair of a youth of whom she is enamoured;[1033] and\nanother story is told of witches who by mistake cut off and replaced\nwith wax the nose and ears of a man guarding the corpse instead\nof those of the dead body.[1034] Other witches who murdered a man\ncarefully collected his blood in a bladder and took it away with\nthem.[1035] But parts of other animals are also employed in their\nmagic, and stones as well as varied herbs and twigs.[1036] In trying\nto entice the beloved Boeotian youth Pamphile used still quivering\nentrails and poured libations of spring water, milk, and honey, as well\nas placing the hairs\u2014which she supposed were his\u2014with many kinds of\nincense upon live coals.[1037] To turn herself into an owl she anointed\nherself from top to toe with ointment from one of her little boxes,\nand also made much use of a lamp.[1038] To regain her human form she\nhas only to drink, and bathe in, spring water mixed with anise and\nlaurel leaf,\u2014\u201cSee how great a result is attained by such small and\ninsignificant herbs!\u201d[1039]\u2014while Lucius is told that eating roses will\nrestore him from asinine to human form.[1040] The Egyptian prophet\nmakes use of herbs in his necromancy, placing one on the face and\nanother on the breast of the corpse; and he himself wears linen robes\nand sandals of palm leaves.[1041]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations and rites.]\n\nBesides materials, incantations are much employed,[1042] while the\nEgyptian prophet turns towards the east and \u201csilently imprecates\u201d the\nrising sun. As this last suggests, careful observance of rite and\nceremony also play their part, and Pamphile\u2019s painstaking procedure is\ndescribed in precise detail. Divine aid is once mentioned[1043] and is\nperhaps another essential for success. More than one witch is called\n_divina_,[1044] and magic is termed a divine discipline.[1045] But we\nhave also heard the witches spoken of as coercing the gods rather than\ndepending upon them for assistance. Their magic seems to be performed\nmainly by using things and words in the right ways.\n\n[Sidenote: Quacks and charlatans.]\n\nBesides the witches (_magae_ or _sagae_) and what Apuleius calls\nmagic by name, a number of other charlatans and superstitions of a\nkindred nature are mentioned in _The Golden Ass_. Such a one is the\nEgyptian \u201cprophet\u201d already described. Such was the Chaldean who for\na time astounded Corinth by his wonderful predictions, but had been\nunable to foresee his own shipwreck.[1046] On learning this last fact,\na business man who was about to pay him one hundred _denarii_ for a\nprognostication snatched up his money again and made off. Such were\nthe painted disreputable crew of the Syrian goddess who went about\nanswering all inquiries concerning the future with the same ambiguous\ncouplet.[1047] Such were the jugglers whom Lucius saw at Athens\nswallowing swords or balancing a spear in the throat while a boy\nclimbed to the top of it.[1048] Such were the physicians who turned\npoisoners.[1049]\n\n[Sidenote: Various superstitions.]\n\nOther passages allude to astrology[1050] besides that already cited\nconcerning the Chaldean. Divination from dreams is also discussed. In\nthe fourth book the old female servant tells the captive maiden not\nto be terrified \u201cby the idle figments of dreams\u201d and explains that\nthey often go by contraries; but in the last book the hero is several\ntimes guided or forewarned by dreams. Omens are believed in. Starting\nleft foot first loses a man a business opportunity,[1051] and another\nis kicked out of a house for his ill-omened words.[1052] The violent\ndeaths of all three sons of the owner of another house are presaged by\nthe following remarkable conglomeration of untoward portents: a hen\nlays a chick instead of an egg; blood spurts up from under the table; a\nservant rushes in to announce that the wine is boiling in all the jars\nin the cellar; a weasel is seen dragging a dead snake out-of-doors; a\ngreen frog leaps from the sheep-dog\u2019s mouth and then a ram tears open\nthe dog\u2019s throat at one bite.[1053]\n\n[Sidenote: Some bits of science and religion.]\n\nOf scientific discussion or information there is little in the\n_Metamorphoses_. When Pamphile foretells the weather for the next day\nby inspection of her lamp, Lucius suggests that this artificial flame\nmay retain some properties from its heavenly original.[1054] The herb\nmandragora is described as inducing a sleep similar to death, but\nas not fatal; and the beaver is said to emasculate itself in order\nto escape its hunters.[1055] We should feel lost without mention of\na dragon in a book of this sort, and one is introduced who is large\nenough to devour a man.[1056] It is interesting to note for purposes\nof comparison,\u2014inasmuch as we shall presently take up the _Life of\nApollonius of Tyana_, a Neo-Pythagorean, and later shall learn from\nthe _Recognitions of Clement_ that the apostle Peter was accustomed to\nbathe at dawn in the sea,\u2014that Lucius, while still in the form of an\nass, in his zeal for purification plunged into the sea and submerged\nhis head beneath the wave seven times, because the divine Pythagoras\nhad proclaimed that number as especially appropriate to religious\nrites.[1057] \u201cIt has been said that _The Golden Ass_ is the first book\nin European literature showing piety in the modern sense, and the\nmost disreputable adventures of Lucius lead, it is true, in the end\nto a religious climax.\u201d But, adds Professor Duncan B. Macdonald, \u201cFew\nbooks, in spite of fantastic gleams of color and light, move under such\nleaden-weighted skies as _The Golden Ass_. There is no real God in that\nworld; all things are in the hands of enchanters; man is without hope\nfor here and hereafter; full of yearnings he struggles and takes refuge\nin strange cults.\u201d[1058]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in other Greek romances.]\n\nWhile magic plays a larger part in _The Golden Ass_ than in any other\nextant Greek romance, it is not unusual in the others to find the hero\nand heroine exposed to perils from magicians, or themselves falsely\ncharged with magic, as in the _Aethiopica_ of Heliodorus, where\nCharicles is \u201ccondemned to be burned on a charge of poisoning.\u201d[1059]\nIn the Christian romances, too, as the _Recognitions_ will show us\nlater, there are plenty of allusions to magic and demons. Meanwhile we\nare reminded that in the Roman Empire accusations of magic were made\nnot merely in story books but in real life by the trial for magic of\nthe author of the _Metamorphoses_ himself, and we next turn to the\n_Apology_ which he delivered upon that occasion.\n\n\nIII. _Magic in the Apology_\n\n[Sidenote: Form of the _Apologia_.]\n\nThe _Apologia_ has every appearance of being preserved just as it was\ndelivered and perhaps as it was taken down by short-hand writers;\nit does not seem to have undergone the subsequent revision to which\nCicero subjected some of his orations. It must have been hastily\ncomposed, since Apuleius states that it has been only five or six\ndays since the charges were suddenly brought against him, while he was\noccupied in defending another lawsuit brought against his wife.[1060]\nThere also are numerous apparently extempore passages in the oration,\nnotably those where Apuleius alludes to the effect which his statements\nproduce, now upon his accusers, now upon the proconsul sitting in\njudgment. From the _Florida_ we know that Apuleius was accustomed to\nimprovise.[1061] Moreover, in the _Apology_ certain statements are made\nby Apuleius which might be turned against him with damaging effect and\nwhich he probably would have omitted, had he had the leisure to go over\nhis speech carefully before the trial. For instance, in denying the\ncharge that he had caused to be made for himself secretly out of the\nfinest wood a horrible magic figure in the form of a ghost or skeleton,\nhe declares that it is only a little image of Mercury made openly by a\nwell-known artisan of the town.[1062] But he has earlier stated that\n\u201cMercury, carrier of incantations,\u201d is one of the deities invoked in\nmagic rites;[1063] and in another passage[1064] has recounted how the\noutcome of the Mithridatic war was investigated at Tralles by magic,\nand how a boy, gazing at an image of Mercury in water, had predicted\nthe future in one hundred and sixty verses. But this is not all. In a\nthird passage[1065] he actually quotes Pythagoras to the effect that\nMercury ought not to be carved out of every kind of wood.\n\n[Sidenote: Philosophy and magic.]\n\nIf in the _Metamorphoses_ the practice of magic is imputed chiefly to\nold-wives, in the _Apology_ a main concern of Apuleius is to defend\nphilosophers in general[1066] and himself in particular from \u201cthe\ncalumny of magic.\u201d[1067] Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Ostanes,\nEmpedocles, Socrates, and Plato have been so suspected, and it\nconsoles Apuleius in his own trial to reflect that he is but sharing\nthe undeserved fate of \u201cso many and such great men.\u201d[1068] In this\nconnection he states that those philosophers who have taken an especial\ninterest in theology, \u201cwho investigate the providence of the universe\ntoo curiously and celebrate the gods too enthusiastically,\u201d are the\nones to be suspected of magic; while those who devote themselves\nto natural science pure and simple are more liable to be called\nirreligious atheists.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic defined.]\n\nBut what is it to be a magician, Apuleius asks the accusers,[1069]\nand therewith we face again the question of the definition of magic,\nand Apuleius gradually answers his own query in the course of the\noration. Magic, in the ordinary use of the word, is described in\nmuch the same way as in the _Metamorphoses_. It has been proscribed\nby Roman law since the Twelve Tables; it is hideous and horrible; it\nis secret and solitary; it murmurs its incantations in the darkness\nof the night.[1070] It is an art of ill repute, of illicit evil\ndeeds, of crimes and enormities.[1071] Instead of simply calling it\n_magia_, Apuleius often applies to it the double expression, _magica\nmaleficia_.[1072] Perhaps he does this intentionally. In one passage\nhe states that he will refute certain charges which the accusers have\nbrought against him, first, by showing that the things he has been\ncharged with have nothing to do with magic; and second, by proving\nthat, even if he were a magician, there was no cause or occasion for\nhis having committed any _maleficium_ in this connection.[1073] That\nis to say, _maleficium_, literally \u201can evil deed,\u201d means an injury done\nanother by means of magic art. The proconsul sitting in judgment takes\na similar view and has asked the accusers, Apuleius tells us,[1074]\nwhen they asserted that a woman had fallen into an epileptic fit in his\npresence and that this was due to his having bewitched her, whether\nthe woman died or what good her having a fit did Apuleius. This is\nsignificant as hinting that Roman law did not condemn a man for magic\nunless he were proved to have committed some crime or made some unjust\ngain thereby.\n\n[Sidenote: Good and bad magic.]\n\nDoes Apuleius for his part mean to suggest a distinction between\n_magia_ and _magica maleficia_, and to hint, as he did not do in the\n_Metamorphoses_, that there is a good as well as a bad magic? He\ncannot be said to maintain any such distinction consistently; often\nin the _Apology_ _magia_ alone as well as _maleficium_ is used in a bad\nsense. But he does suggest such a thought and once voices it quite\nexplicitly.[1075] \u201cIf,\u201d he says, \u201cas I have read in many authors,\n_magus_ in the Persian language corresponds to the word _sacerdos_\nin ours, what crime, pray, is it to be a priest and duly know and\nunderstand and cherish the rules of ceremonial, the sacred customs,\nthe laws of religion?\u201d Plato describes magic as part of the education\nof the young Persian prince by the four wisest and best men of the\nrealm, one of whom instructs him in the magic of Zoroaster which is\nthe worship of the gods. \u201cDo you hear, you who rashly charge me with\nmagic, that this art is acceptable to the immortal gods, consists in\ncelebrating and reverencing them, is pious and prophetic, and long\nsince was held by Zoroaster and Oromazes, its authors, to be noble and\ndivine?\u201d[1076] In common speech, however, Apuleius recognizes that\na magician is one \u201cwho by his power of addressing the immortal gods\nis able to accomplish whatever he will by an almost incredible force\nof incantations.\u201d But anyone who believes that another man possesses\nsuch a power as this should be afraid to accuse him, says Apuleius,\nwho thinks by this ingenious dilemma to prove the insincerity of his\naccusers. Nevertheless he presently mentions that Mercury, Venus, Luna,\nand Trivia are the deities usually summoned in the ceremonies of the\nmagicians.[1077]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and religion.]\n\nIt will be noted that Apuleius connects magic with the gods and\nreligion more in the _Apology_ than in the _Metamorphoses_. There\nhis emphasis was on the natural materials employed by the witches\nand their almost scientific laboratories. But in the _Apology_ both\nPersian _Magi_ and common magicians are associated with the worship\nor invocation of the gods, and it is theologians rather than natural\nphilosophers who incur suspicion of magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and science.]\n\nBut it may be that the reason why Apuleius abstains in the _Apology_\nfrom suggesting any connection or confusion between magic and natural\nscience is that the accusers have already laid far too much stress upon\nthis point for his liking. He has been charged with the composition of\na tooth-powder,[1078] with use of a mirror,[1079] with the purchase\nof a sea-hare, a poisonous mollusc, and two other fish appropriate\nfrom their obscene shapes and names for use as love-charms.[1080]\nHe is said to have had a horrible wooden image or seal constructed\nsecretly for use in his magic,[1081] to keep other instruments of his\nart mysteriously wrapped in a handkerchief in the house,[1082] and\nto have left in the vestibule of another house where he lodged \u201cmany\nfeathers of birds\u201d and much soot on the walls.[1083] All these charges\nmake it evident that natural and artificial objects are, as in the\n_Metamorphoses_, considered essential or at least usual in performing\nmagic. Moreover, so ready have the accusers shown themselves to\ninterpret the interest of Apuleius in natural science as an evidence of\nthe practice of magic by him, that he sarcastically remarks[1084] that\nhe is glad that they were unaware that he had read Theophrastus _On\nbeasts that bite and sting_ and Nicander _On the bites of wild beasts_\n(usually called _Theriaca_),[1085] or they would have accused him of\nbeing a poisoner as well as a magician.\n\n[Sidenote: Medical and scientific knowledge of Apuleius.]\n\nApuleius shows that he really is a student, if not an authority,\nin medicine and natural science. The gift of the tooth-powder and\nthe falling of the woman in a fit were incidents of his occasional\npractice of medicine, and he also sees no harm in his seeking\ncertain remedies from fish.[1086] He repeats Plato\u2019s theory of\ndisease from the _Timaeus_ and cites Theophrastus\u2019s admirable work\n_On Epileptics_.[1087] Mention of the mirror starts him off upon an\noptical disquisition in which he remarks upon theories of vision and\nreflection, upon liquid and solid, flat and convex and concave mirrors,\nand cites the _Catoptrica_ of Archimedes.[1088] He also regards himself\nas an experimental zoologist and has conducted all his researches\npublicly.[1089] He procures fish in order to study them scientifically\nas Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Lycon, and other pupils of Plato\ndid.[1090] He has read innumerable books of this sort and sees no harm\nin testing by experience what has been written. Indeed he is himself\nwriting in both Greek and Latin a work on _Natural Questions_ in\nwhich he hopes to add what has been omitted in earlier books and to\nremedy some of their defects and to arrange all in a handier and more\nsystematic fashion. He has passages from the section on fishes in this\nwork read aloud in court.\n\n[Sidenote: He repeats familiar errors.]\n\nThroughout the _Apology_ Apuleius occasionally airs his scientific\nattainments by specific statements and illustrations from the\nzoological and other scientific fields. Indeed the presence of such\nallusions is as noticeable in the _Apology_ as was their absence from\nthe _Metamorphoses_. But they go to show that his knowledge was greater\nthan his discretion, since for the most part they repeat familiar\nerrors of contemporary science. We are told\u2014the story is also in\nAristotle, Pliny, and Aelian\u2014how the crocodile opens its jaws to have\nits teeth picked by a friendly bird,[1091] that the viper gnaws its way\nout of its mother\u2019s womb,[1092] that fish are spontaneously generated\nfrom slime,[1093] and that burning the stone _gagates_ will cause an\nepileptic to have a fit.[1094] On the other hand, the skin shed by a\nspotted lizard is a remedy for epilepsy, but you must snatch it up\nspeedily or the lizard will turn and devour it, either from natural\nappetite or just because he knows that you want it.[1095] This tale, so\ncharacteristic of the virtues attributed to parts of animals and the\nhuman motives ascribed to the animals themselves, is taken by Apuleius\nfrom a treatise by Theophrastus entitled _Jealous Animals_.\n\n[Sidenote: Apparent ignorance of magic and occult virtue.]\n\nIn defending what he terms his scientific investigations from the\naspersion of magic Apuleius is at times either a trifle disingenuous\nand inclined to trade upon the ignorance of his judge and accusers,\nor else not as well informed himself as he might be in matters of\nnatural science and of occult science. He contends that fish are not\nemployed in magic arts, asks mockingly if fish alone possess some\nproperty hidden from other men and known to magicians, and affirms that\nif the accuser knows of any such he must be a magician rather than\nApuleius.[1096] He insists that he did not make use of a sea-hare and\ndescribes the \u201cfish\u201d in question in detail,[1097] but this description,\nas is pointed out in Butler and Owen\u2019s edition of the _Apology_,[1098]\ntends to convince us that it really was a sea-hare. In the case of the\ntwo fish with obscene names, he ridicules the arguing from similarity\nof names to similarity of powers in the things so designated, as if\nthat were not what magicians and astrologers and believers in sympathy\nand antipathy were always doing. You might as well say, he declares,\nthat a pebble is good for the stone and a crab for an ulcer,[1099] as\nif precisely these remedies for those diseases were not found in the\nPseudo-Dioscorides and in Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_.[1100]\n\n[Sidenote: Despite an assumption of knowledge.]\n\nIt is hardly probable that in the passages just cited Apuleius\nwas pretending to be ignorant of matters with which he was really\nacquainted, since as a rule he is eager to show off his knowledge even\nof magic itself. Thus the accusers affirmed that he had bewitched a boy\nby incantations in a secret place with an altar and a lamp; Apuleius\ncriticizes their story by saying that they should have added that he\nemployed the boy for purposes of divination, citing tales which he\nhas read to this effect in Varro and many other authors.[1101] And he\nhimself is ready to believe that the human soul, especially in one\nwho is still young and innocent, may, if soothed and distracted by\nincantations and odors, forget the present, return to its divine and\nimmortal nature, and predict the future. When he reads some technical\nGreek names from his treatise on fishes, he suspects that the accuser\nwill protest that he is uttering magic names in some Egyptian or\nBabylonian rite.[1102] And as a matter of fact, when later he mentioned\nthe names of a number of celebrated magicians,[1103] the accusers\nappear to have raised such a tumult that Apuleius deemed it prudent\nto assure the judge that he had simply read them in reputable books\nin public libraries, and that to know such names was one thing, to\npractice the magic art quite another matter.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude toward astrology.]\n\nApuleius affirms that one of his accusers had consulted he knows not\nwhat Chaldeans how he might profitably marry off his daughter, and that\nthey had prophesied truthfully that her first husband would die within\na few months. \u201cAs for what she would inherit from him, they fixed that\nup, as they usually do, to suit the person consulting them.\u201d[1104] But\nin this respect their prediction turned out to be quite incorrect. We\nare left in some doubt, however, whether their failure in the second\ncase is not regarded as due merely to their knavery, and their first\nsuccessful prediction to the rule of the stars. Elsewhere, however,\nApuleius does state that belief in fate and in magic are incompatible,\nsince there is no place left for the force of spells and incantations,\nif everything is ruled by fate.[1105] But in other extant works[1106]\nhe speaks of the heavenly bodies as visible gods, and Laurentius Lydus\nattributes astrological treatises to him.[1107]\n\n[Sidenote: His theory of demons.]\n\nIn one passage of the _Apology_ Apuleius affirms his belief with Plato\nin the existence of certain intermediate beings or powers between\ngods and men, who govern all divinations and the miracles of the\nmagicians.[1108] In the treatise on the god or demon of Socrates[1109]\nhe repeats this thought and tells us more of these mediators or demons.\nTheir native element is the air, which Apuleius thought extended as far\nas the moon,[1110] just as Aristotle[1111] tells of animals who live in\nfire and are extinguished with it, and just as the fifth element, that\n\u201cdivine and inviolable\u201d ether, contains the divine bodies of the stars.\nWith the superior gods the demons have immortality in common, but like\nmortals they are subject to passions and to feeling and capable of\nreason.[1112] But their bodies are very light and like clouds, a point\npeculiar to themselves.[1113] Since both Plutarch and Apuleius wrote\nessays on the demon of Socrates and both derived, or thought that they\nderived, their theories concerning demons from Plato, it is interesting\nto note some divergences between their accounts. Apuleius confines them\nto the atmosphere beneath the moon more exclusively than Plutarch does;\nunlike Plutarch he represents them as immortal, not merely long-lived;\nand he has more to say about the substance of their bodies and less\nconcerning their relations with disembodied souls.\n\n[Sidenote: Apuleius in the middle ages.]\n\nApuleius would have been a well-known name in the middle ages, if only\nindirectly through the use made by Augustine in _The City of God_[1114]\nof the _Metamorphoses_ in describing magic and of the _De deo Socratis_\nin discussing demons.[1115] He also speaks of Apuleius in three of\nhis letters,[1116] declaring that for all his magic arts he could win\nneither a throne nor judicial power. Augustine was not quite sure\nwhether Apuleius had actually been transformed into an ass or not. A\ncentury earlier Lactantius[1117] spoke of the many marvels remembered\nof Apuleius. That manuscripts of the _Metamorphoses_, _Apology_ and\n_Florida_ were not numerous until after the twelfth and thirteenth\ncenturies may be inferred from the fact that all the extant manuscripts\nseem to be derived from a single one of the later eleventh century,\nwritten in a Lombard hand and perhaps from Monte Cassino.[1118]\nThe article on Apuleius in Pauly and Wissowa states that the best\nmanuscripts of his other works are an eleventh century codex at\nBrussels and a twelfth century manuscript at Munich,[1119] but does not\nmention a twelfth century manuscript of the _De deo Socratis_ in the\nBritish Museum.[1120] Another indication that in the twelfth century\nthere were manuscripts of Apuleius in England or at Chartres and Paris\nis that John of Salisbury borrows from the _De dogmate Platonis_ in\nhis _De nugis curialium_.[1121] In the earlier middle ages there was\nascribed to Apuleius a work on herbs of which we shall treat later.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n PHILOSTRATUS\u2019S LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA\n\n Compared with Apuleius\u2014Philostratus\u2019s sources\u2014Time and space\n covered\u2014Philostratus\u2019s audience\u2014Object of the _Life_\u2014Apollonius\n charged with magic\u2014A confusion of terms\u2014The _Magi_ and\n magic\u2014Apollonius and the _Magi_\u2014Philostratus on wizards\u2014Apollonius\n and wizards\u2014Quacks and old-wives\u2014The Brahmans\u2014Marvels of the\n Brahmans\u2014Magical methods of the Brahmans\u2014Medicine of the\n Brahmans\u2014Some signs of astrology\u2014Interest in natural science\u2014Natural\n law or special providence?\u2014Cases of scepticism\u2014Anecdotes of\n animals\u2014Dragons of India\u2014Occult virtues of gems\u2014Absence of\n number mysticism\u2014_Mantike_ or the art of divination\u2014Divining\n power of Apollonius\u2014Dreams\u2014Interpretation of omens\u2014Animals and\n divination\u2014Divination by fire\u2014Other so-called predictions\u2014Apollonius\n and the demons\u2014Not all demons are evil\u2014Philostratus\u2019s faith in\n demons\u2014The ghost of Achilles\u2014Healing the sick and raising the\n dead\u2014Other marvels\u2014Golden wrynecks and the _iunx_\u2014Why named\n _iunx_?\u2014Apollonius in the middle ages.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Compared with Apuleius.]\n\nSome fifty years after the birth of Apuleius occurred that of\nPhilostratus, whose career and interests were somewhat similar,\nalthough he came from the Aegean island of Lemnos instead of the\nneighborhood of Carthage and wrote in Greek rather than Latin. But\nlike Apuleius he was a student of rhetoric and went first to Athens\nand then to Rome. The resemblance is perhaps closer between Apuleius\nand Apollonius of Tyana, whose life Philostratus wrote and of whom\nwe know more than of his biographer. Like Apuleius Apollonius had\nto defend himself in court against the accusation of magic, and\nPhilostratus gives us what purports to be his apology on that occasion.\nTwo centuries afterwards Augustine in one of his letters[1122] names\nApollonius and Apuleius as examples of men who were addicted to the\nmagic art and who, the pagans said, performed greater miracles than\nChrist did. A century before Augustine Lactantius states[1123] that a\ncertain philosopher who had \u201cvomited forth\u201d three books \u201cagainst the\nChristian religion and name\u201d had compared the miracles of Apollonius\nfavorably with those of Christ; Lactantius marvels that he did not\nmention Apuleius as well. Like Apuleius, Apollonius was a man of broad\nlearning who traveled widely and sought initiation into mysteries and\ncults. Apuleius was a Platonist; Apollonius, a Pythagorean. We may\nalso note a resemblance between the _Metamorphoses_ and the _Life of\nApollonius_. Both seem to elaborate earlier writings and both have\nmuch to say of transformations, wizards, demons, and the occult. The\n_Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, however, must be taken more seriously\nthan the _Metamorphoses_. If the African\u2019s work is a rhetorical\nromance embodying a certain autobiographical element, a Milesian tale\nto which personal religious experiences are annexed, then the work by\nPhilostratus is a rhetorical biography with a tinge of romance and a\ngood deal of sermonizing.\n\n[Sidenote: Philostratus\u2019s sources.]\n\nPhilostratus[1124] composed the _Life of Apollonius_ about 217 A.\u202fD. at\nthe request of the learned wife of the emperor Septimius Severus, to\nwhose literary circle he belonged. The empress had come into possession\nof some hitherto unknown memoirs of Apollonius by a certain Damis of\nNineveh, who had been his disciple and had accompanied him upon many of\nhis travels. Some member of Damis\u2019s family had brought these documents\nto the empress\u2019s attention. Some scholars incline to the view that she\nwas deceived by an impostor, but it hardly seems that there would be\nsufficient profit in the venture to induce anyone to take the pains\nto forge such memoirs. Also I can see no reason why a contemporary\nof Apollonius should not have said and believed everything which\nPhilostratus represents Damis as saying; on the contrary it seems to me\njust what would be said by a na\u00eff, gullible, and devoted disciple, who\nwas inclined to exaggerate the abilities and achievements of his master\nand to take literally everything that Apollonius uttered ironically or\nfiguratively. Other accounts of Apollonius were already in existence\nby a Maximus of Aegae, where Apollonius had spent part of his life,\nand by Moeragenes, but the memoirs of Damis seem to have offered much\nnew material. Philostratus accordingly wrote a new life based largely\nupon Damis, but also making use of the will and epistles of Apollonius,\nmany of which the emperor Hadrian had earlier collected, and of the\ntraditions still current in the cities and temples which Apollonius had\nfrequented and which Philostratus now took the trouble to visit. It\nhas sometimes been suggested, chiefly by Christian writers intent upon\ndiscrediting the career of Apollonius, that Philostratus invented Damis\nand his memoirs. But Philostratus seems straightforward in describing\nthe pains he has been to in preparing the _Life_, and certainly is\nmore explicit and systematic in stating his sources than other ancient\nbiographers like Plutarch and Suetonius are. He appears to follow his\nsources rather closely and not to invent new incidents, although he\nmay, like Thucydides and other ancient historians, have taken liberties\nwith the speeches and arguments put into his characters\u2019 mouths. And\nthrough the work, despite his belief in demons and marvels, he now and\nthen gives evidence of a moderate and sceptical mind, at least for his\ntimes.\n\n[Sidenote: Time and space covered.]\n\nApollonius lived in the first century of our era and died during the\nreign of Nerva well advanced in years. It is therefore of a period\nover a century before his own that Philostratus writes. He is said to\ncommit a number of errors in history and geography,[1125] but we must\nremember that mistakes in geography were a failing of the best ancient\nhistorians such as Polybius, and the general picture drawn of the\nemperors and politics of Apollonius\u2019s time is not far wrong. It is\ntrue that Philostratus also makes use of tradition which has gradually\nformed since the death of Apollonius, and introduces explanations or\ncomments of his own on various matters. It is, however, not the facts\neither of Apollonius\u2019s career or of his times that concern us but the\nbeliefs and superstitions which we find in Philostratus\u2019s _Life_ of\nhim. Whether these are of the first, second, or early third century is\nscarcely necessary or possible for us to distinguish. If Damis records\nthem, Philostratus accepts them, and the probability is that they\napply not only to all three centuries but to a long period before and\nafter. The territory covered in the _Life_ is almost as extensive; it\nranges all over the Roman Empire, alludes occasionally to the Celts\nand Scythians, and opens up Ethiopia and India[1126] to our gaze.\nApollonius was a great traveler and there are many interesting and\ninforming passages concerning ships, sailing, pilots, merchants and\nsea-trade.[1127]\n\n[Sidenote: Philostratus\u2019s audience.]\n\nIf we ask further, for what class of readers was the _Life_ intended,\nthe answer is, for the intellectual and learned. Apollonius himself\nwas distinctly a Hellene. Philostratus represents him as often quoting\nHomer and other bygone Greek authors, or mentioning names from early\nGreek history such as Lycurgus and Aristides. One of his aims was to\nrestore the degenerate Greek cities of his own day to their ancient\nmorality. Furthermore, Apollonius never cared for many disciples, and\nneither required them to observe all the rules of life which he himself\nfollowed, nor admitted them to all his interviews with other sages and\nhis initiations into sacred mysteries. This aloofness of the sage is\nsomewhat reflected in his biographer. The _Life_ is an attempt not to\npopularize the teachings of Apollonius but to justify him before the\nlearned world.\n\n[Sidenote: Object of the _Life_.]\n\nThe charge had been frequently made that Apollonius came illegitimately\nby his wisdom and acquired it violently by magic. Philostratus would\nrestore him to the ranks of true philosophers who gained wisdom by\nworthy and licit methods. He declares that he was not a wizard, as\nmany suppose, but a notable Pythagorean, a man of broad culture, an\nintellectual and moral teacher, a religious ascetic and reformer,\nprobably even a prophet of divine and superhuman nature. It is not\nnow so generally held by Christian writers as it used to be that\nPhilostratus wrote the _Life_ with the Gospel story of Christ in\nmind, and that his purpose was to imitate or to parody or to oppose\na rival narrative to the Christian story and teaching. At no point\nin the _Life_ does Philostratus betray unmistakably even a passing\nacquaintance with the Gospels, much less display any sign of animus\nagainst them. Moreover, the Christian historian and apologist,\nEusebius, who lived in the century following Philostratus and was\nfamiliar with his _Life_ of Apollonius, in writing a reply to a\ntreatise in which Hierocles, a provincial governor under Diocletian,\nhad compared Apollonius with Jesus, distinctly states that Hierocles\nwas the first to suggest such an idea.[1128] Such similarities then as\nmay exist between the _Life_ and the Gospels must be taken as examples\nof beliefs common to that age.\n\n[Sidenote: Apollonius charged with magic.]\n\nApollonius was accused of sorcery or magic during his lifetime by the\nrival philosopher Euphrates. The four books on Apollonius written\nby Moeragenes also portrayed him as a wizard;[1129] and Eusebius in\nhis reply to Hierocles ascribed the miracles wrought by Apollonius\nto sorcery and the aid of evil demons.[1130] Earlier the satirist\nLucian described Alexander the pseudo-prophet as having been in his\nyouth an apprentice to \u201cone of the charlatans who deal in magic and\nmystic incantations, ... a native of Tyana, an associate of the great\nApollonius, and acquainted with all his heroics.\u201d[1131]\n\n[Sidenote: A confusion of terms]\n\nIn defending his hero against these charges Philostratus is guilty\nhimself both of some ambiguous use of terms and of some loose thinking.\nThe same ambiguous terminology, however, will be found in other\ndiscussions of magic. In a few passages Philostratus denies that\nApollonius was a \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 but much oftener exculpates him from the charge\nof being a \u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2 or \u03b3\u03bf\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. With the latter word or words there is no\ndifficulty. It means a wizard, sorcerer, or enchanter, and is always\nemployed in a sinister or disreputable sense. With the term \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 the\ncase is different, as with the Latin _magus_. It may signify an evil\nmagician, or it may refer to one of the Magi of the East, who are\ngenerally regarded as wise and good men. This delicate distinction,\nhowever, is not easy to maintain and Philostratus fails to do so,\nwhile Mr. Conybeare in his English translation[1132] makes confusion\nworse confounded not only by translating \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 as \u201cwizard\u201d instead\nof \u201cmagician,\u201d but by sometimes doing this when it really should be\nrendered as \u201cone of the Magi.\u201d It may also be noted that Philostratus\nlocates the Magi in Babylonia as well as in Persia.\n\n[Sidenote: The Magi and magic]\n\nTo begin with, in his second chapter Philostratus says that some\nconsider Apollonius a magician \u201cbecause he consorted with the\nMagi of the Babylonians, and the Brahmans of the Indians, and the\nGymnosophists in Egypt.\u201d But they are wrong in this. \u201cFor Empedocles\nand Pythagoras himself and Democritus, although they associated with\nthe Magi and spake many divine utterances, yet did not stoop to the\nart\u201d (of magic). Plato, too, he goes on to say, although he visited\nEgypt and its priests and prophets, was never regarded as a magician.\nIn this passage, then, Philostratus closely associates the Magi with\nthe magic art, and I am not sure whether the last \u201cMagi\u201d should not\nbe \u201cmagicians.\u201d On the other hand his acquittal of Democritus and\nPythagoras from the charge of magic does not agree with Pliny, who\nascribed a large amount of magic to them both.\n\n[Sidenote: Apollonius and the Magi.]\n\nApollonius himself evidently did not regard the Magi whom he met in\nBabylon and Susa as evil magicians. One of the chief aims of his scheme\nof oriental travel \u201cwas to acquaint himself thoroughly with their\nlore.\u201d He wished to discover whether they were wise in divine things,\nas they were said to be[1133]. Sacrifices and religious rites were\nperformed under their supervision[1134]. Apollonius did not permit\nDamis to accompany him when he visited the Magi at noon and again about\nmidnight and conversed with them[1135]. But Apollonius himself said\nthat he learned some things from them and taught them some things;\nhe told Damis that they were \u201cwise men, but not in all respects\u201d; on\nleaving their country he asked the king to give the presents which\nthe monarch had intended for Apollonius himself to the Magi, whom\nhe described then as \u201cmen who both are wise and wholly devoted to\nyou.\u201d[1136]\n\n[Sidenote: Philostratus on wizards.]\n\nQuite different is the attitude towards witchcraft and wizards of both\nApollonius and his biographer. In the opinion of Philostratus wizards\nare of all men most wretched[1137]. They try to violate nature and\nto overcome fate by such methods as inquisition of spirits, barbaric\nsacrifices, incantations and besmearings. Simple-minded folk attribute\ngreat powers to them; and athletes desirous of winning victories,\nshopkeepers intent upon success in business ventures, and lovers in\nespecial are continually resorting to them and apparently never lose\nfaith in them despite repeated failures, despite occasional exposure\nor ridicule of their methods in books and writing, and despite the\ncondemnation of witchcraft both by law and nature.[1138] Apollonius\nwas certainly no wizard, argues Philostratus, for he never opposed the\nFates but only predicted what they would bring to pass, and he acquired\nthis foreknowledge not by sorcery but by divine revelation.[1139]\n\n[Sidenote: Apollonius and wizards.]\n\nNevertheless Apollonius is frequently accused of being a wizard\nby others in the pages of Philostratus. At Athens he was refused\ninitiation into the mysteries on this ground,[1140] and at Lebadea the\npriests wished to exclude him from the oracular cave of Trophonius for\nthe same reason.[1141] When the dogs guarding the temple of Dictynna\nin Crete fawned upon him instead of barking at his approach, the\nguardians of the shrine arrested him as a wizard and would-be temple\nrobber who had bewitched the dogs by something that he had given\nthem to eat.[1142] Apollonius also had to defend himself against the\naccusation of witchcraft in his hearing or trial before Domitian.[1143]\nHe then denied that one is a wizard merely because one has prescience,\nor that wearing linen garments proves one a sorcerer. Wizards shun the\nshrines and temples of the gods; they make use of trenches dug in the\nearth and invoke the gods of the lower world. They are greedy for gain\nand pseudo-philosophers. They possess no true science, depending for\nsuccess in their art upon the stupidity of their dupes and devotees.\nThey imagine what does not exist and disbelieve the truth. They work\ntheir sorcery by night and in darkness when those employing them\ncannot see or hear well. Apollonius himself was accused to Domitian\nof having sacrificed an Arcadian boy at night and consulted his\nentrails with Nerva in order to determine the latter\u2019s prospects of\nbecoming emperor.[1144] When before his trial Domitian was about to\nput Apollonius in fetters, the sage proposed the dilemma that if he\nwere a wizard he could not be kept in bonds, or that if Domitian were\nable to fetter him, he was obviously no wizard.[1145] This need not\nimply, however, that Apollonius believed that wizards really could free\nthemselves, for he was at times ironical. If so, Domitian replied in\nkind by assuring him that he would at least keep him in fetters until\nhe transformed himself into water or a wild beast or a tree.\n\n[Sidenote: Quacks and old-wives.]\n\nClosely akin to the _go\u00ebtes_ or wizards are the old hags and\nquack-doctors who offer one Indian spices or boxes supposed to contain\nbits of stone taken from the moon, stars, or depths of earth.[1146]\nLikewise the divining old-wives who go about with sieves in their hands\nand pretend by means of their divination to heal sick animals for\nshepherds and cowherds.[1147] We also read that Apollonius expelled\nfrom the cities along the Hellespont various Egyptians and Chaldeans\nwho were collecting money on the pretense of offering sacrifices to\navert the earthquakes which were then occurring.[1148]\n\n[Sidenote: The Brahmans.]\n\nWe have heard Philostratus mention the Brahmans of India in the same\nbreath with the Magi of Persia and imply that Apollonius\u2019s association\nwith them contributed to his reputation as a magician.[1149] In another\npassage[1150] Philostratus places _go\u00ebtes_ and Brahmans in unfortunate\njuxtaposition, and, immediately after condemning the wizards and\ndefending Apollonius from the charge of sorcery, goes on to say that\nwhen he saw the automatic tripods and cup-bearers of the Indians, he\ndid not ask how they were operated. \u201cHe applauded them, it is true, but\ndid not think fit to imitate them.\u201d But of course Apollonius should not\neven have applauded these automatons, which set food and poured wine\nbefore the guests of the Brahmans, if they were the contrivances of\nwizards. And in another passage,[1151] where he defends the signs and\nwonders wrought by the Brahmans against the aspersions cast upon them\nby the Gymnosophists of Ethiopia, Apollonius explains their practice of\nlevitation as an act of worship and communion with the sun god, and\nhence far removed from the rites performed in deep trenches and hollows\nof the earth to the gods of the lower world which we have heard him\nmention before as a practice characteristic of wizards.\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels of the Brahmans.]\n\nNevertheless the feats ascribed to the Brahmans are certainly\nsufficiently akin to magic to excuse Philostratus for mentioning them\nalong with the Magi and wizards and to justify us in considering them.\nIndeed, modern scholarship informs us that in the Vedic texts the word\n\u201cbr\u00e1hman\u201d in the neuter means a \u201ccharm, rite, formulary, prayer,\u201d\nand \u201cthat the caste of the Brahmans is nothing but the men who have\n_br\u00e1hman_ or magic power.\u201d[1152] In marked contrast to the taciturnity\nof Apollonius as to his interviews with the Magi of Babylon and Susa\nis the long account repeated by Philostratus from Damis of the sayings\nand doings of the sages of India. As for Apollonius himself, \u201che was\nalways recounting to everyone what the Indians said and did.\u201d[1153]\nThey knew that he was approaching when he was yet afar off and sent a\nmessenger who greeted him by name.[1154] Iarchas, their chief, also\nknew that Apollonius had a letter for him and that a delta was missing\nin it, and he told Apollonius many events of his past life. \u201cWe see, O\nApollonius,\u201d he said, \u201cthe signs of the soul, tracing them by a myriad\nsymbols.\u201d[1155] The Brahmans lived in a castle concealed by clouds,\nwhere they rendered themselves invisible at will. The rocks along the\npath up to their abode were still marked by the cloven feet, beards,\nfaces, and backs of the Pans who had tried to scale the height under\nthe leadership of Dionysus and Heracles, but had been hurled down\nheadlong.[1156] Here too was a well for testing oaths, a purifying\nfire, and the jars in which the winds and rain were bottled up.\n\n[Sidenote: Magical methods of the Brahmans.]\n\nWhen the messenger of the Brahmans greeted Apollonius by name, the\nlatter remarked to the astounded Damis, \u201cWe have come to men who\nare wise without art (\u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2), for they seem to have the gift of\nforeknowledge.\u201d[1157] As a matter of fact, however, most of the\nsubsequent wonders wrought by the Brahmans were not performed without\nthe use of paraphernalia and rites very similar to those of magic.\nEach Brahman carries a staff\u2014or magic wand\u2014and wears a ring, which\nare both prized for their occult virtue by which the Brahmans can\naccomplish anything they wish.[1158] They clothe themselves in sacred\ngarments made of \u201ca wool that springs wild from the ground\u201d (cotton?)\nand which the earth will not permit anyone else to pluck. Iarchas also\nshowed Apollonius and Damis a marvelous stone called _Pantarbe_, which\nattracted and bound other stones to itself and which, although only\nthe size of his finger-nail and formed in earth four fathoms deep, had\nsuch virtue that it broke the earth open.[1159] But it required great\nskill to secure this gem. \u201cWe only,\u201d said the Brahman, \u201ccan obtain this\n_pantarbe_, partly by doing things and partly by saying things,\u201d in\nother words by incantations and magical operations. Before performing\ntheir rite of levitation they bathed and anointed themselves with a\ncertain drug. \u201cThen they stood like a chorus with Iarchas as leader\nand with their rods uplifted struck the earth, which heaving like the\nsea-wave raised them up in the air two cubits high.\u201d[1160] The metallic\ntripods and cup-bearers which served the king of the country when he\ncame to visit the Brahmans appeared from nowhere laden with food and\nwine exactly as if by magic.[1161]\n\n[Sidenote: Medicine of the Brahmans.]\n\nThe medical practice, if we may so call it, of the Brahmans was tinged,\nto say the least, with magic. A dislocated hip, indeed, they appear to\nhave cured by massage, and a blind man and a paralytic are healed by\nunspecified methods.[1162] But a boy is cured of inherited alcoholism\nby chewing owl\u2019s eggs that have been boiled; a woman who complains\nthat her sixteen-year-old son has for two years been vexed by a demon\nis sent away with a letter full of threats or incantations to employ\nagainst the spirit; and another woman\u2019s sufferings in childbirth are\nprevented by directing her husband to enter her chamber with a live\nhare concealed in his bosom and to release the hare after he has\nwalked around his wife once. Iarchas, indeed, attributed the origin\nof medicine to divination or divine revelation.[1163] His theory was\nthat Asclepius, as the son of Apollo, learned by oracles what drugs to\nemploy for the different diseases, in what amounts to mix the drugs,\nwhat the antidotes for poisons were, and how to use even poisons as\nremedies. This last especially he affirmed that no one would dare\nattempt without foreknowledge.\n\n[Sidenote: Some signs of astrology.]\n\nThe Brahmans seem to have made some use of astrology in working their\nfeats of magic. Damis at any rate said that when Apollonius bade\nfarewell to the sages, Iarchas made him a present of seven rings named\nafter the planets, which he wore in turn upon the appropriate days of\nthe week.[1164] Perhaps, too, the seven swords of adamant which Iarchas\nhad rediscovered as a child had some connection with the planets.[1165]\nMoeragenes ascribed four books on foretelling the future by the\nstars to Apollonius himself, but Philostratus was unable to find any\nsuch work by Apollonius extant in his day.[1166] And unless it be an\nallusion to Chaldeans which we have already noted, there is no further\nmention of astrology in Philostratus\u2019s _Life_\u2014a rather remarkable fact\nconsidering that he wrote for the court of Septimius Severus, the\nbuilder of the Septizonium.\n\n[Sidenote: Interest in natural science.]\n\nThe philosopher Euphrates, who is represented by Philostratus as\njealous of Apollonius, once advised the emperor Vespasian, when\nApollonius was present, to embrace natural philosophy\u2014or a philosophy\nin accordance with natural law\u2014but to beware of philosophers who\npretended to have secret intercourse with the gods.[1167] There was\njustification in the latter charge against Apollonius, but it should\nnot be assumed that his mysticism rendered him unfavorable to natural\nscience. On the contrary he is frequently represented by Philostratus\nas whiling away the time along the road by discussing with Damis such\nnatural problems as the delta of the Nile or the tides at the mouth\nof the Guadalquivir. He was especially interested in the habits of\nanimals and the properties of gems. Vespasian was fond of listening\nto \u201chis graphic stories of the rivers of India and the animals\u201d of\nthat country, as well as to \u201chis statements of what the gods revealed\nconcerning the empire.\u201d[1168] Some of the questions which Apollonius\nput to the Brahmans concerned nature.[1169] He asked of what the world\nwas composed, and when they said, \u201cOf elements,\u201d he asked if there were\nfour. They believed, however, in a fifth element, ether, from which the\ngods had been generated and which they breathe as men breathe air. They\nalso regarded the universe as a living animal. He further inquired of\nthem whether land or sea predominated on the earth\u2019s surface,[1170] and\nthis same attitude of scientific inquiry and of curiosity about natural\nforces and objects is frequently met in the _Life_.\n\n[Sidenote: Natural law or special providence?]\n\nApollonius believed, as we shall see, in omens and portents, and\ninterpreted an earthquake at Antioch as a divine warning to the\ninhabitants.[1171] The Brahman sages, moreover, regarded prolonged\ndrought as a punishment visited by the world soul upon human\nsinfulness.[1172] On the other hand, Apollonius gave a natural\nexplanation of volcanoes and denied the myths concerning Enceladus\nbeing imprisoned under Mount Aetna and the battle of the gods and\ngiants.[1173] And in the case of the earthquake the people had already\naccepted it as a portent and were praying in terror, when Apollonius\ntook the opportunity to warn them to cease from their civil factions.\nAs a matter of fact, both Apollonius and Philostratus appear to regard\nportents as an extraordinary sort of natural phenomena. A knowledge of\nnatural science helps in recognizing them and in interpreting them.\nWhen a lioness of enormous size with eight whelps in her is slain\nby hunters, Apollonius at once recognizes the event as portentous\nbecause as a rule lionesses have whelps only thrice and only three\nof them on the first occasion, two in the second litter, and finally\nbut a single whelp, \u201cbut I believe a very big one and preternaturally\nfierce.\u201d[1174] Here Apollonius is not in strict agreement with Pliny\nand Aristotle[1175] who say that the lioness produces five whelps at\nthe first birth and one less every succeeding year.\n\n[Sidenote: Cases of scepticism]\n\nThe scepticism of Apollonius concerning the Aetna myth is not an\nisolated instance. At Sardis he ridiculed the notion that trees\ncould be older than earth,[1176] and he was one of the few ancients\nto question the swan\u2019s song.[1177] He denied \u201cthe silly story that\nthe young of vipers are brought into the world without mothers\u201d as\n\u201cconsistent neither with nature nor experience,\u201d[1178] and also the\ntale that the whelps of the lioness claw their way out into the\nworld.[1179] In India Apollonius saw a wild ass or unicorn from whose\nsingle horn a magic drinking horn was made.[1180] A draught from this\nhorn was supposed to protect one for that day from disease, wounds,\nfire, or poison, and on that account the king alone was permitted to\nhunt the animal and to drink from the horn. When Damis asked Apollonius\nif he credited this story, the sage ironically replied that he would\nbelieve it if he found the king of the country to be immortal. Either,\nhowever, the scepticism of Apollonius, as was the case with so many\nother ancients and medieval men, was sporadic and inconsistent, or\nit came to be overlaid with the credulity of Damis and Philostratus,\nas the following example suggests. Iarchas told Damis and Apollonius\nflatly that the races described by Scylax of men with long heads or\nhuge feet with which they were said to shade themselves did not exist\nin India or anywhere else; yet in a later book Philostratus states that\nthe shadow-footed people are a tribe in Ethiopia.[1181]\n\n[Sidenote: Anecdotes of animals.]\n\nAt any rate the marvels of India are more frequently credited than\ncriticized in the _Life_ by Philostratus, and the same holds true of\nthe extraordinary conduct and well-nigh human intelligence attributed\nto animals. Especially delightful reading are six chapters on the\nremarkable sagacity of elephants and their love for mankind.[1182]\nOn this point, as by Pliny, use is made of the work of Juba. We read\nagain of sick lions eating apes, of the lioness\u2019s love affair with\nthe panther, of the fondness of leopards for the fragrant gum of a\ncertain tree and of goats for the cinnamon tree; of apes who are made\nto collect pepper for men by appealing to their instinct towards\nmimicry;[1183] and of the tiger, whose loins alone are eaten by the\nIndians. \u201cFor they decline to eat the other parts of this animal,\nbecause they say that as soon as it is born it lifts up its front paws\nto the rising sun.\u201d[1184] In the river Hyphasis is a creature like a\nwhite worm which yields when melted down a fat or oil that once set\nafire cannot be extinguished and which the king uses to burn walls and\ncapture cities.[1185] In India are griffins who quarry gold with their\npowerful beaks, and the luminous phoenix with its nest of spices and\nswan-like funeral song.[1186]\n\n[Sidenote: Dragons of India.]\n\nEspecially remarkable are the snakes or dragons with which all India\nis filled and which often are of enormous size, thirty or even seventy\ncubits long.[1187] Those found in the marshes are sluggish and have\nno crests; but those on the hills and ridges move faster than the\nswiftest rivers and have both beards and crests.[1188] Those in the\nplain engage in combats with elephants which terminate fatally for\nboth parties as we have already learned from Pliny.[1189] The mountain\ndragons have bushy beards, fiery crests, golden scales, and a ferocious\nglance.[1190] They burrow into the earth, making a noise like clashing\nbrass, or go hissing down to the shore and swim far out to sea.\nTerrifying as they are, the Indians charm them by showing them golden\ncharacters embroidered on a cloak of scarlet and by incantations of a\nsecret wisdom. They eat the dragon\u2019s heart and liver in order to be\nable to understand the language and thoughts of animals.[1191]\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtues of gems.]\n\nThe dragons, however, are prized more for the precious stones in their\nheads, which the Indians quickly cut off as soon as they have bewitched\nthem. The pupils of the eyes of the hill dragons are a fiery stone\npossessing irresistible virtue for many occult purposes,[1192] while in\nthe heads of the mountain dragons are many brilliant stones of flashing\ncolors which exert occult virtue if set in a ring, \u201cand they say that\nGyges had such a ring.\u201d[1193] But there are many marvelous stones\noutside the heads of dragons. \u201cWho does not know the habits of birds,\u201d\nsays Apollonius to Damis in one of his disquisitions upon natural\nphenomena,[1194] \u201cand that eagles and storks will not build their nests\nwithout placing in them, the one the stone _aetites_, and the other the\n_lychnites_, as aids in hatching and to drive snakes away?\u201d On parting\nfrom the Indian king Phraotes, Apollonius as usual refused to accept\nmoney presents but picked up one of the gems that were offered him with\nthe exclamation, \u201cO rare stone, how opportunely and providentially have\nI found you!\u201d[1195] Philostratus supposes that he detected some occult\nand divine power in this particular stone. The Brahmans had gems so\nhuge that from one of them a goblet could be carved large enough to\nslake the thirst of four men in midsummer, but in this case nothing is\nsaid of occult virtue.[1196] The Brahman Iarchas felt sure that he was\nthe reincarnation of the hero Ganges, son of the river Ganges, because\nas a mere child he knew where to dig for the seven swords of adamant\nwhich Ganges had fixed in the earth.[1197] Presumably these were magic\nswords and their virtue in part due to the stone adamant of which they\nwere made. Less is said in the _Life_ of the virtues of herbs than of\ngems, but the Indians made a nuptial ointment or love-charm from balm\ndistilled from trees,[1198] and drugs and poisons are mentioned more\nthan once, mandragora being described as a soporific drug rather than a\ndeadly poison.[1199]\n\n[Sidenote: Absence of number mysticism.]\n\nConsidering that Apollonius was a Pythagorean, there is surprisingly\nlittle said concerning perfect numbers and their mystic significance.\nAside from the seven rings and seven swords already mentioned, about\nthe only instance is the question asked by Apollonius whether eighteen,\nthe number of the Brahman sages at the time of his visit, had any\nespecial importance.[1200] He remarked that eighteen was not a square,\nnor a number usually held in esteem and honor like ten, twelve, and\nsixteen. The Brahmans agreed that there was no particular significance\nin eighteen, and further informed him that they maintained no fixed\nnumber of members but had varied from only one to as many as seventy\naccording to the available supply of worthy men.\n\n[Sidenote: _Mantike_ or the art of divination.]\n\nIf Philostratus denies that Apollonius was a magician, he does depict\nhim as endowed with prophetic gifts, with power over demons, and with\n\u201csecret wisdom.\u201d He rather likes to give the impression that the sage\nforetold things by innate prophetic gift or divine inspiration, but\neven \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae or the art of divination is not condemned as \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\nor witchcraft was. Iarchas the Brahman says that those who delight\nin _mantike_ become divine thereby and contribute to the safety\nof mankind.[1201] Apollonius himself, when condemning wizards as\npseudo-wise, made the reservation that _mantike_, if true in its\npredictions, was not a pseudo-science, although he professed ignorance\nwhether it could be called an art or not.[1202] He denied that he\npracticed it, when he was examined by Tigellinus, the favorite of Nero,\nwho was persecuting philosophers on the ground that they were addicted\nto _mantike_.[1203] His accusers before Domitian again adduced his\nalleged practice of divination as evidence that he was a wizard.[1204]\n\n[Sidenote: Divining power of Apollonius.]\n\nIf Apollonius practiced neither wizardry nor _mantike_, the question\narises how he was able to foretell the future. In his trial before\nDomitian he did not attempt to deny that he had predicted the plague\nat Ephesus, but attributed his \u201csense of the coming disaster\u201d to his\nabstemious diet, which kept his senses clear and enabled him to see as\nin an unclouded mirror \u201call that is happening or about to occur.\u201d[1205]\nFor he was credited with knowledge of distant events the moment they\noccurred as well as with foreknowledge of the future. Thus at Ephesus\nhe was aware of the assassination of Domitian at Rome; and at Tarsus,\nalthough he arrived after the incident had occurred, he was able to\ndescribe and to find the mad dog by whom a boy had been bitten.[1206]\nIarchas told Apollonius that health and purity were requisite for\ndivination;[1207] and Apollonius in turn, in recounting his life story\nto the naked sages of Egypt, represented the Pythagorean philosophy\nas appearing before him and promising, \u201cAnd when you are pure, I will\ngrant you the faculty of foreknowledge.\u201d[1208]\n\n[Sidenote: Dreams.]\n\nApollonius often was warned by dreams. When he dreamt of fish who were\ncast gasping upon dry land and who appealed for succour to a dolphin\nswimming by, he knew that he ought to visit and restore the graves and\nassist the descendants of the Eretrians whom Darius had taken captive\nto the Persian kingdom over five centuries before.[1209] Another dream\nhe interpreted as a command to visit Crete.[1210] In defending his\nlinen apparel before Domitian he declared, \u201cIt is a pure substance\nunder which to sleep at night, for to those who live as I do dreams\nbring the truest of their revelations.\u201d[1211] He was not the only\ndreamer of the time, however, and when some of his followers were\nafraid to accompany him to Rome in Nero\u2019s reign, they made warning\ndreams their excuse for deserting him.[1212]\n\n[Sidenote: Interpretation of omens.]\n\nIt has been seen that Apollonius not only had prophetic dreams but was\nskilful in interpreting them. He was equally adept in explaining the\nmeaning of omens. The dead lion with her eight unborn whelps he took as\na sign that Damis and he would remain a year and eight months in that\nland.[1213] When Damis objected that Homer interpreted the sparrow and\nher eight nestlings whom the snake devoured as nine years\u2019 duration of\nthe Trojan war, Apollonius retorted that the birds had been hatched but\nthat the whelps, being yet unborn, could not signify complete years. On\nanother occasion he interpreted the birth of a three-headed child as a\nsign of the year of the three emperors.[1214]\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and divination.]\n\nSuch interpretation of dreams and omens suggests an art or arts of\ndivination rather than foreknowledge by direct divine inspiration. So\ndoes the passage in which Apollonius informs Domitian, when accused\nbefore him of having divined the future by sacrificing a boy, that\nhuman entrails are inferior to those of animals for purposes of\ndivination, since the beasts are less perturbed by knowledge of their\napproaching death.[1215] Apollonius himself would not sacrifice even\nanimal victims, but he enlarged his powers of divination during his\nsojourn among the Arab tribes by learning to understand the language of\nanimals and to listen to the birds as these predict the future.[1216]\nThe Arabs acquire this power by eating, some say the heart, others the\nliver, of dragons,\u2014a fact which gave the church historian Eusebius an\nopportunity to charge Apollonius with having broken his taboo of animal\nflesh.\n\n[Sidenote: Divination by fire.]\n\nAlthough he did not sacrifice animals and divine from their entrails,\nApollonius appears to have employed practices akin to those of the\nart of pyromancy when he threw a handful of frankincense into the\nsacrificial fire with a prayer to the sun, \u201cand watched to see how\nthe smoke of it curled upwards, and how it grew turbid, and in how\nmany points it shot up; and in a manner he caught the meaning of the\nfire, and observed how it appeared of good omen and pure.\u201d[1217] Again\nhe visited an Egyptian temple and sacrificed an image of a bull made\nof frankincense and told the priest that if he really understood the\nscience of divination by fire (\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), he would see many\nthings revealed in the circle of the rising sun.[1218]\n\n[Sidenote: Other so-called predictions.]\n\nIt should be added that only a very ardent admirer of Apollonius or an\nequally ardent seeker after prophecies would see anything prophetic\nin some of the apparently chance remarks of the sage which have been\nperverted into predictions. At Ephesus he did not actually predict the\nplague, which had already begun to spread judging from the account\nof Philostratus, but rather warned the heedless population to take\nmeasures to prevent its becoming general.[1219] When visiting the\nisthmus of Corinth he began to say that it would be cut through, an\nidea which had doubtless occurred again and again to many; but then\nsaid that it would not be cut through.[1220] This sane, if somewhat\nvacillating, state of mind received confirmation soon afterwards when\nNero attempted an Isthmian canal but left it uncompleted. Another\nsimilarly ambiguous utterance was elicited from Apollonius by an\neclipse of the sun accompanied by thunder: \u201cThere shall be some great\nevent and there shall not be.\u201d[1221] This was believed to receive\nmiraculous fulfillment three days later when a thunderbolt dashed\nthe cup out of which Nero was drinking from his hands but left him\nunharmed. Once Apollonius saved his life by changing from a ship which\nsank soon afterwards to another vessel.[1222] An instance of more\nspecific prophecy is the case of the consul Aelian, who testified that\nwhen he was but a tribune under Vespasian, Apollonius took him aside\nand told him his name and country and parentage, \u201cand you foretold\nto me that I should hold this high office which is accounted by the\nmultitude the highest of all.\u201d[1223] But Aelian may have exaggerated\nthe accuracy of Apollonius\u2019s prediction, or the latter may have made a\nshrewd guess that Aelian was likely to rise to high office.\n\n[Sidenote: Apollonius and the demons.]\n\nThe divining faculty of Apollonius enabled him to detect the presence\nand influence of demons, phantoms, and goblins, whose ways he\nunderstood as well as the language of the birds. At Ephesus he detected\nthe true cause of the plague in a ragged old beggar whom he ordered\nthe people to stone to death.[1224] At this command the blinking eyes\nof the aged mendicant suddenly shot forth malevolent and fiery gleams\nand revealed his demon character. Afterwards, when the people removed\nthe stones, they found underneath, pounded to a pulp, an enormous hound\nstill vomiting foam as mad dogs do. Later, when accused of magic\nbefore Domitian, Apollonius requested that the emperor question him\nin private about the causes of this pestilence at Ephesus, which he\nsaid were too deep to be discussed publicly.[1225] And earlier in the\nreign of Nero, when asked by Tigellinus how he got the better of demons\nand phantasms, he evaded the question by a saucy retort.[1226] On one\noccasion, however, we are told that he got rid of a ghostly apparition\nby heaping abuse upon it;[1227] and a satyr, who remained invisible\nbut created annoyance by running amuck through the camp, he disposed\nof by the expedient of filling a trough with wine and letting the\nspirit get drunk on it. When the wine had all disappeared, Apollonius\nled his companions to the cave of the nymphs where the satyr was now\nvisible in a drunken sleep.[1228] He also reformed the character of a\nlicentious youth by expelling a demon from him,[1229] and at Corinth\nexposed a lamia who, under the disguise of a dainty and wealthy lady,\nwas fattening up a beautiful youth named Menippus with the intention of\neventually devouring his blood.[1230] On his return by sea from India\nApollonius passed a sacred island where lived a sea nymph or female\ndemon who was as destructive to mariners as Scylla or the Sirens were\nof old.\n\n[Sidenote: Not all demons are evil]\n\nBut the word \u201cdemon\u201d is not always employed by Philostratus in the\nsense of an evil spirit. The annunciation of the birth of Apollonius\nwas made to his mother by Proteus in the form of an Egyptian\ndemon.[1231] Damis looked upon Apollonius himself as a demon and\nworshiped him as such, when he heard him say that he comprehended not\nonly all human languages but also those things concerning which men\nmaintain silence.[1232] In a letter to Euphrates[1233] Apollonius\naffirms that the all-wise Pythagoras should be classed among demons.\nBut when Domitian, on first meeting Apollonius said that he looked\nlike a demon, the sage replied that the emperor was confusing demons\nand human beings.[1234]\n\n[Sidenote: Philostratus\u2019s faith in demons.]\n\nPhilostratus adds his own bit of personal testimony to the existence of\ndemons, although it cannot be said to be very convincing. After telling\nthe satyr story he warns his readers not to be incredulous as to the\nexistence of satyrs or to doubt that they make love. For they should\nnot mistrust what is supported by experience and by Philostratus\u2019s own\nword. For he knew in Lemnos a youth of his own age whose mother was\nsaid to be visited by a satyr, and such he probably was, since he wore\na fawn skin tied around his neck by the two front paws.[1235]\n\n[Sidenote: The ghost of Achilles.]\n\nApollonius had an interview with the ghost of Achilles which strongly\nsuggests necromancy. He sent his companions on board ship and passed\nthe night alone at the hero\u2019s tomb. Nor did he allude to what had\nhappened until questioned by the curious Damis. He then averred that\nhis method of invoking the dead had not been that of Odysseus, but\nthat he had prayed to Achilles much as the Indians do to their heroes.\nA slight earthquake then occurred and Achilles appeared. At first he\nwas five cubits tall but gradually increased to some twelve cubits in\nheight. At cock-crow he vanished in a flash of summer lightning.[1236]\n\n[Sidenote: Healing the sick and raising the dead.]\n\nApollonius, as well as the Brahmans, wrought some cures. One was of a\nboy who had been bitten by a mad dog and consequently \u201cbehaved exactly\nlike a dog, for he barked and howled and went on all fours.\u201d[1237]\nApollonius first found and quieted the dog, and then made it lick\nthe wound, a homeopathic treatment which cured the boy. It now only\nremained to cure the dog, too, and this the philosopher effected by\npraying to the river which was near by and then making the dog swim\nacross it. \u201cFor,\u201d concludes Philostratus, \u201ca drink of water will cure a\nmad dog if he only can be induced to take it.\u201d The modern reader will\nsuspect that the dog was not mad to begin with and that Apollonius\ncleverly cured the boy\u2019s complaint by the same force that had induced\nit\u2014suggestion. Apollonius once revived a maiden who was being borne to\nthe grave by touching her and saying something to her, but Philostratus\nhonestly admits that he is not sure whether he restored her to life\nor detected signs of life in the body which had escaped the notice of\neveryone else.[1238]\n\n[Sidenote: Other marvels.]\n\nWhen Apollonius was brought before Tigellinus, the scroll on which\nthe charges against him had been written was found to have become\nquite blank when Tigellinus unrolled it.[1239] Upon that occasion\nand again before Domitian he intimated that his body could not be\nbound or slain against his will.[1240] The former contention he\nproved to the satisfaction of Damis, who visited him in prison, by\nsuddenly removing his leg from the fetters and then inserting it\nagain.[1241] Damis regarded this exhibition as a divine miracle, since\nApollonius performed it without magical ceremony or incantations. He\nis also represented as escaping from his bonds at about midnight when\nimprisoned later in life in Crete.[1242] Philostratus, too, implies\nthat he vanished miraculously from the courtroom of Domitian and that\nhe sometimes passed from one place to another in an incredibly short\ntime, and is somewhat doubtful whether he ever died. But we have seen\nthat even on the testimony of Damis and Philostratus themselves many\nof the marvels and predictions of Apollonius were not \u201cartless\u201d but\ninvolved a knowledge of contemporary natural science and medicine,\nor of arts of divination, or the employment, in a way not unlike the\nprocedure of magic, of forces and materials outside himself, namely,\nthe occult virtues of things in nature or incantations, rites, and\nceremonies.\n\n[Sidenote: Golden wrynecks and the _iunx_.]\n\nSo much for Apollonius and his magic, but the _Life_ contains some\ninteresting allusions to the \u1f34\u03c5\u03b3\u03be or wryneck, which throw light upon\nthe use of that bird in Greek magic, but which have seldom been\nnoted and then not correctly interpreted.[1243] The wryneck was so\nmuch employed in Greek magic, as references to it from Pindar to\nTheocritus show, that the word _iunx_ was sometimes used as a synonym\nor figurative expression for spells or charms in general. Philostratus,\ntoo, employs it in this sense, representing the Gymnosophists\nas accusing the Brahmans of \u201cappealing to the crowd with varied\nenchantments (or _iunges_).\u201d[1244] But in other passages he makes it\nclear that the wryneck is still employed as a magic bird. Describing\nthe royal palace at Babylon[1245] he states that the Magi have hung\nfour golden wrynecks, which they themselves attune and which they\ncall the tongues of the gods, from the ceiling of the judgment hall\nto remind the king of divine judgment and not to set himself above\nmankind. Golden wrynecks were also suspended in the Pythian temple at\nDelphi, and in this connection they are said to possess some of the\nvirtue of the Sirens,[1246] or, as Mr. Cook translates it, \u201cto echo\nthe persuasive note of siren voices.\u201d These two passages seem to point\nclearly to the employment of mechanical metal birds which sang and\nmoved as if by magic. The Greek mathematician Hero in his explanation\nof mechanical devices employed in temples tells how to make a bird turn\nitself about and whistle by turning a wheel.[1247]\n\n[Sidenote: Why named _iunx_?]\n\nNow this is precisely what the wryneck does in its \u201cwonderful way\nof writhing its head and neck\u201d and emitting hissing sounds. The\nbird\u2019s \u201cunmistakable note\u201d is \u201cque, que, que, repeated many times\nin succession, at first rapidly, but gradually slowing and in a\ncontinually falling key.\u201d[1248] I would therefore suggest that as the\nEnglish name for the bird is derived from its writhing its neck, so the\nGreek name comes from its cry, for \u201cque\u201d and the root \u1f30\u03c5\u03b3, if repeated\nrapidly many times in succession, sound much alike.[1249]\n\n[Sidenote: Apollonius in the middle ages.]\n\nThe name, Apollonius, continued to be associated with magic in the\nmiddle ages, when the _Golden Flowers_ of Apollonius, a work on the\nnotory art or theurgy,[1250] is found in the manuscripts. And we shall\nfind Cecco d\u2019Ascoli[1251] in the early fourteenth century citing a\n\u201cbook of magic art\u201d by Apollonius and also a treatise on spirits, _De\nangelica factione_. In 1412 Amplonius listed in the catalogue of his\nmanuscripts a \u201cbook of Apollonius the magician or philosopher which is\ncalled Elizinus.\u201d[1252] Works on the causes and properties of things\nare also ascribed to Apollonius in medieval manuscripts,[1253] and\na Balenus or Belenus to whom works on astrological images and seals\nare ascribed in the manuscripts[1254] is perhaps a corruption for\nApollonius.[1255]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ATTACKS UPON SUPERSTITION: CICERO,\n FAVORINUS, SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, AND LUCIAN\n\n Authors to be considered\u2014Their standpoint\u2014_De divinatione_; argument\n of Quintus\u2014Cicero attacks past authority\u2014Divination distinct from\n natural science\u2014Unreasonable in method\u2014Requires violation of natural\n law\u2014Cicero and astrology\u2014His crude historical criticism\u2014Favorinus\n against astrologers\u2014Sextus Empiricus\u2014_Lucius_, or _The Ass_: is it\n by Lucian?\u2014Career of Lucian\u2014_Alexander the pseudo-prophet_\u2014Magical\n procedure in medicine satirized\u2014Snake-charming\u2014A Hyperborean\n magician\u2014Some ghost stories\u2014Pancrates, the magician\u2014Credulity and\n scepticism\u2014_Menippus_, or _Necromancy_\u2014Astrological interpretation\n of Greek myth\u2014History and defense of astrology\u2014Lucian not always\n sceptical\u2014Lucian and medicine\u2014Inevitable intermingling of scepticism\n and superstition\u2014Lucian on writing history.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Authors to be considered.]\n\nHaving noted the large amount of magic that still existed both in the\nleading works of natural science of the early Roman empire and in\nthe more general literature of that period, it is only fair that we\nshould note such extremes of scepticism towards the superstitions then\ncurrent as can be found during the same period. They are, however,\nfew and far between, and we shall have to go back to the close of\nthe Republican period for the best instance in the _De divinatione_\nof Cicero. As Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_ was mainly a compilation of\nearlier Greek science, so Cicero\u2019s arguments against divination were\nnot entirely original with him. As his other philosophical writings\nare largely indebted to the Greeks, so his attack upon divination\nis supposed to be under considerable obligations to Clitomachus and\nPanaetius,[1256] philosophers of the New Academy and the Stoic school\nwho flourished respectively at Carthage and Athens and at Rhodes and\nRome in the second century before our era. We shall next briefly\nnote the criticisms of astrologers and astrology made by Favorinus,\na rhetorician from Gaul who resided at Rome under Hadrian and was a\nfriend of Plutarch but whose argument against the astrologers has been\npreserved only in the _Attic Nights_ of Aulus Gellius,[1257] and by\nSextus Empiricus,[1258] a sceptical philosopher who wrote about 200.\nFinally we shall consider Lucian\u2019s satirical depiction of various\nsuperstitions of his time.\n\n[Sidenote: Their standpoint.]\n\nIt will be noticed that no one of these critics of magic, if we may so\ndesignate them, is primarily a natural scientist. Cicero and Lucian and\nFavorinus are primarily men of letters and rhetoricians. And all four\nof our critics write to a greater or less extent from the professed\nstandpoint of a general sceptical attitude in all matters of philosophy\nand not merely in the matter of superstition. Thus the attack of\nSextus Empiricus upon astrology occurs in a work which is directed\nagainst learning in general, and in which he assails grammarians,\nrhetoricians, geometricians, arithmeticians, students of music,\nlogicians, physicists, and students of ethics, as well as the casters\nof horoscopes. Aulus Gellius did not know whether to take the arguments\nof Favorinus against the astrologers seriously or not. He says that he\nheard Favorinus make the speech the substance of which he repeats, but\nthat he is unable to state whether the philosopher really meant what he\nsaid or argued merely in order to exercise and to display his genius.\nThere was reason for this perplexity of Aulus Gellius, since Favorinus\nwas inclined to such _tours de force_ as eulogies of Thersites or of\nQuartan Fever.\n\n[Sidenote: _De divinatione_: argument of Quintus.]\n\n_De divinatione_ takes the form of a supposititious conversation, or\nbetter, informal debate, between the author and his brother Quintus.\nIn the first book Quintus, in a rather rambling and leisurely fashion\nand with occasional repetition of ideas, upholds divination to the\nbest of his ability, citing many reported instances of successful\nrecourse to it in antiquity. In the second book Tully proceeds with a\nsomewhat patronizing air to pull entirely to pieces the arguments of\nhis brother who assents with cheerful readiness to their demolition.\nOn the whole the appeal to the past is the main point in the argument\nof Quintus. What race or state, he asks, has not believed in some form\nof divination? \u201cFor before the revelation of philosophy, which was\ndiscovered but recently, public opinion had no doubt of the truth of\nthis art; and after philosophy emerged no philosopher of authority\nthought otherwise. I have mentioned Pythagoras, Democritus, Socrates.\nI have left out no one of the ancients save Xenophanes. I have\nadded the Old Academy, the Peripatetics, the Stoics. Epicurus alone\ndissented.\u201d[1259] Quintus closes his long argument in favor of the\ntruth of divination by solemnly asserting that he does not approve of\nsorcerers, nor of those who prophesy for the sake of gain, nor of the\npractice of questioning the spirits of the dead\u2014which nevertheless, he\nsays, was a custom of his brother\u2019s friend Appius.[1260]\n\n[Sidenote: Cicero attacks past authority.]\n\nWhen Tully\u2019s turn to speak comes, he rudely disturbs his brother\u2019s\nreliance upon tradition. \u201cI think it not the part of a philosopher\nto employ witnesses, who are only haply true and often purposely\nfalse and deceiving. He ought to show why a thing is so by arguments\nand reasons, not by events, especially those I cannot credit.\u201d[1261]\n\u201cAntiquity,\u201d Cicero declares later, \u201chas erred in many respects.\u201d[1262]\nThe existence of the art of divination in every age and nation has\nlittle effect upon him. There is nothing, he asserts, so widespread as\nignorance.[1263]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination distinct from natural science.]\n\nBoth brothers distinguish divination as a separate subject from the\nnatural or even the applied sciences. Quintus says that medical men,\npilots, and farmers foresee many things, yet their arts are not\ndivination. \u201cNot even Pherecydes, that famous Pythagorean master, who\npredicted an earthquake when he saw that the water had disappeared from\na well which usually was well filled, should be regarded as a diviner\nrather than a physicist.\u201d[1264] Tully carries the distinction a step\nfurther and asserts that the sick seek a doctor, not a soothsayer; that\ndiviners cannot instruct us in astronomy; that no one consults them\nconcerning philosophic problems or ethical questions; that they can\ngive us no light on the problems of the natural universe; and that they\nare of no service in logic, dialectic, or political science.[1265] An\nadmirable declaration of independence of natural science and medicine\nand other arts and constructive forms of thought from the methods\nof divination! But also one more easy to state in general terms of\ntheory than to enforce in details of practice, as Pliny, Galen, and\nPtolemy have already shown us. None the less it is indeed a noteworthy\nrestriction of the field of divination when Cicero remarks to his\nbrother, \u201cFor those things which can be perceived beforehand either by\nart or reason or experience or conjecture you regard as not the affair\nof diviners but of scientists.\u201d[1266] But the question remains whether\ntoo large powers of prediction may not be claimed by \u201cscience.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Unreasonable in method.]\n\nCicero proceeds to attack the methods and assumptions of divination as\nneither reasonable nor scientific. Why, he asks, did Calchas deduce\nfrom the devoured sparrows that the Trojan war would last ten years\nrather than ten weeks or ten months?[1267] He points out that the art\nis conducted in different places according to quite different rules of\nprocedure, even to the extent that a favorable omen in one locality\nis a sinister warning elsewhere.[1268] He refuses to believe in any\nextraordinary bonds of sympathy between things which, in so far as\nour daily experience and our knowledge of the workings of nature can\ninform us, have no causal connection. What intimate connection, he\nasks, what bond of natural causality can there be between the liver\nor heart or lung of a fat bull and the divine eternal cause of all\nwhich rules the universe?[1269] \u201cThat anything certain is signified\nby uncertain things, is not this the last thing a scientist should\nadmit?\u201d[1270] He refuses to accept dreams as fit channels either of\nnatural divination or divine revelation.[1271] The Sibylline Books,\nlike most oracles, are vague and the evident product of labored\ningenuity.[1272]\n\n[Sidenote: Requires violation of natural law.]\n\nMoreover, divination asserts the existence of phenomena which science\ndenies. Such a figment, Cicero scornfully affirms, as that the heart\nwill vanish from the carcass of a victim is not believed even by\nold-wives now-a-days. How can the heart vanish from the body? Surely\nit must be there as long as life lasts, and how can it disappear\nin an instant? \u201cBelieve me, you are abandoning the citadel of\nphilosophy while you defend its outposts. For in your effort to prove\nsoothsaying true you utterly pervert physiology.... For there will be\nsomething which either springs from nothing or suddenly vanishes into\nnothingness. What scientist ever said that? The soothsayers say so? Are\nthey then, do you think, to be trusted rather than scientists?\u201d[1273]\nCicero makes other arguments against divination such as the stock\ncontentions that it is useless to know predetermined events beforehand\nsince they cannot be avoided, and that even if we can learn the future,\nwe shall be happier not to do it, but his outstanding argument is that\nit is unscientific.\n\n[Sidenote: Cicero and astrology.]\n\nCicero\u2019s attack upon divination is mainly directed against liver\ndivination and analogous methods of predicting the future, but he\ndevotes a few chapters[1274] to the doctrines of the Chaldeans. They\npostulate a certain force in the constellations called the zodiac and\nhold that between man and the position of the stars and planets at\nthe moment of his birth there exists a relation of sympathy so that\nhis personality and all the events of his life are thereby determined.\nDiogenes the Stoic limited this influence to the determination of one\u2019s\naptitude and vocation, but Cicero regards even this much as going too\nfar. The immense spaces intervening between the different planets seem\nto him a reason for rejecting the contentions of the Chaldeans. His\nfurther criticism that they insist that all men born at the same moment\nare alike in character regardless of horizons and different aspects\nof the sky in different places is one that at least did not hold good\npermanently against astrology and is not true of Ptolemy. He asks if\nall the men who perished at Cannae were born beneath the same star and\nhow it came about that there was only one Homer if several men are\nborn every instant. He also adduces the stock argument from twins. He\nattacks the practice, which we shall find continued in the middle ages,\nof astrological prediction of the fate of cities. He says that if all\nanimals are to be subjected to the stars, then inanimate things must\nbe, too, than which nothing can be more absurd. This suggests that he\nhardly conceives of the fundamental hypothesis of medieval science that\nall inferior nature is under the influence of the celestial bodies and\ntheir motion and light. At any rate his arguments are directed against\nthe casting of horoscopes or genethlialogy. And in the matter of the\ninfluence of the planets upon man he was not entirely antagonistic, at\nleast in other writings than the _De divinatione_, for in the _Dream\nof Scipio_ he speaks of Jupiter as a star wholesome and favorable to\nthe human race, of Mars as most unfavorable. He further calls seven\nand eight perfect numbers and speaks of their product, fifty-six, as\nsignifying the fatal year in Scipio\u2019s life. Incidentally, as another\ninstance that Cicero was not always sceptical, it may be recalled that\nit was in Cicero that Pliny read of a man who could see one hundred and\nthirty-five miles.[1275]\n\n[Sidenote: His crude historical criticism.]\n\nSuch apparent inconsistency is perhaps a sign of somewhat\nindiscriminating eclecticism on Cicero\u2019s part. We experience something\nof a shock, although perhaps we should not be surprised, to find\nhim in his _Republic_[1276] arguing as seriously in favor of the\nascension or apotheosis of Romulus as a historic fact as a professor\nof natural science in a denominational college might argue in favor\nof the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. Although in the _De\ndivinatione_ he impatiently brushed aside the testimony of so great a\ncloud of witnesses and of most philosophers in favor of divination, he\nnow argues that the opinion that Romulus had become a god \u201ccould not\nhave prevailed so universally unless there had been some extraordinary\nmanifestation of power,\u201d and that \u201cthis is the more remarkable because\nother men, said to have become gods, lived in less learned times when\nthe mind was prone to invent and the inexperienced were easily led to\nbelieve,\u201d whereas Romulus lived only six centuries ago when literature\nand learning had already made great progress in removing error, when\n\u201cGreece was already full of poets and musicians, and little faith was\nplaced in legends unless they concerned remote antiquity.\u201d Yet a few\nchapters later Cicero notes that Numa could not have been a pupil of\nPythagoras, since the latter did not come to Italy until 140 years\nafter his death;[1277] and in a third chapter[1278] when Laelius\nremarks, \u201cThat king is indeed praised but Roman History is obscure,\nfor although we know the mother of this king, we are ignorant of his\nfather,\u201d Scipio replies, \u201cThat is so; but in those times it was almost\nenough if only the names of the kings were recorded.\u201d We can only add,\n\u201cConsistency, thou art a jewel!\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Favorinus against astrologers.]\n\nFavorinus denied that the doctrine of nativities was the work of\nthe Chaldeans and regarded it as the more recent invention of\nmarvel-mongers, tricksters, and mountebanks. He regards the inference\nfrom the effect of the moon on tides to that of the stars on every\nincident of our daily life as unwarranted. He further objects that if\nthe Chaldeans did record astronomical observations these would apply\nonly to their own region and that observations extended over a vast\nlapse of time would be necessary to establish any system of astrology,\nsince it requires ages before the stars return to their previous\npositions. Like Cicero, Favorinus probably manifests his ignorance of\nthe technique of astrology in complaining that astrologers do not allow\nfor the different influence of different constellations in different\nparts of the earth. More cogent is his suggestion that there may be\nother stars equal in power to the planets which men cannot see either\nfor their excess of splendor or because of their position. He also\nobjects that the position of the stars is not the same at the time of\nconception and the time of birth, and that, if the different fate of\ntwins may be explained by the fact that after all they are not born at\nprecisely the same moment, the time of birth and the position of the\nstars must be measured with an exactness practically impossible. He\nalso contends that it is not for human beings to predict the future\nand that the subjection of man not merely in matters of external\nfortune but in his own acts of will to the stars is not to be borne.\nThese two arguments of the divine prerogative and of human free will\nbecame Christian favorites. He complains that the astrologers predict\ngreat events like battles but cannot predict small ones, and declares\nthat they may congratulate themselves that he does not propose such a\nquestion to them as that of astral influence on minute animals. This\nand his further question why, out of all the grand works of nature, the\nastrologers limit their attention to petty human fortune, suggest that\nlike Cicero he did not realize that astrology was or would become a\ntheory of all nature and not mere genethlialogy.\n\n[Sidenote: Sextus Empiricus.]\n\nTo the arguments against nativities that men die the same death who\nwere not born at the same time and that men who are born at the same\ntime are not identical in character or fortune Sextus Empiricus adds\nthe derisive question whether a man and an ass born in the same\ninstant would suffer exactly the same destiny. Ptolemy would of course\nreply that while the influence of the stars is constant in both cases\nit is variably received by men and donkeys; and Sextus\u2019s query does\nnot show him very well versed in astrology. He mentions the obstacle\nof free will to astrological theory but does not make very much of\nit. The chief point which he makes is that even if the stars do rule\nhuman destiny, their effect cannot be accurately measured. He lays\nstress on the difficulty of exactly determining the date of birth or of\nconception, or the precise moment when a star passes into a new sign of\nthe zodiac. He notes the variability and unreliability of water-clocks.\nHe calls attention to the fact that observers at varying altitudes as\nwell as in different localities would arrive at different conclusions.\nDifferences in eyesight would also affect results, and it is difficult\nto tell just when the sun sets or any sign of the zodiac drops below\nthe horizon owing to reflection and refraction of rays. Sextus thus\nleaves us somewhat in doubt whether his objections are to be taken\nas indicative of a spirit of captious criticism towards an art, the\nfundamental principles of which he tacitly recognizes as well-nigh\nincontestable, or whether he is simply trying to make his case doubly\nsure by showing astrology to be impracticable as well as unreasonable.\nIn any case we shall find his argument that the influence of the stars\ncannot be measured accurately repeated by Christian writers.\n\n[Sidenote: _Lucius_ or _The Ass_: is it by Lucian?]\n\nThe main plot of the _Metamorphoses_ of Apuleius appears, shorn\nof the many additional stories, the religious mysticism, and the\nautobiographical element which characterize his narrative, in a brief\nand perhaps epitomized Greek version, entitled _Lucius_ or _The Ass_,\namong the works of Lucian of Samosata, the contemporary of Apuleius and\nnoted satirist. The work is now commonly regarded as spurious, since\nthe style seems different from that of Lucian and the Attic Greek less\npure. The narrative, too, is bare, at least compared with the exuberant\nfancy of Apuleius, and seems to avoid the marvelous and romantic\ndetails in which he abounds. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in\nthe ninth century, who regarded the work as Lucian\u2019s, said that he\nwrote in it as one deriding the extravagance of superstition. Whether\nthis be true of _The Ass_ or not, it is true of other satires by Lucian\nof undisputed genuineness, in which he ridicules the impostures of the\nmagic and pseudo-science of his day. In place of the genial humor and\nfantastic imagination with which his African contemporary credulously\nwelcomed the magic and occult science of his time, the Syrian satirist\nprobes the same with the cool mockery of his keen and sceptical wit.\n\n[Sidenote: Career of Lucian.]\n\nLucian was born at Samosata near Antioch about 120 or 125 A.\u202fD. and\nafter an unsuccessful beginning as a sculptor\u2019s apprentice turned to\nliterature and philosophy. He practiced in the law courts at Antioch\nfor some time and also wrote speeches for others. For a considerable\nperiod of his life he roamed about the Mediterranean world from\nPaphlagonia to Gaul as a rhetorician, and like Apuleius resided both at\nAthens and Rome. After forty he ceased teaching rhetoric and devoted\nhimself to literary production, living at Athens. Towards the close\nof his life, \u201cwhen he already had one foot in Charon\u2019s boat,\u201d[1279]\nhe was holding a well paid and important legal position in Egypt.\nHis death occurred perhaps about 200 A.\u202fD. Some ascribe it to gout,\nprobably because he wrote two satires on that disease. Suidas states\nthat Lucian was torn to pieces by dogs as a punishment for his attacks\nupon Christianity, which again is probably a perversion of Lucian\u2019s own\nstatement in _Peregrinus_ that he narrowly escaped being torn to pieces\nby the Cynics.\n\n[Sidenote: _Alexander the pseudo-prophet._]\n\nIt was at the request of that same adversary of Christianity against\nwhom Origen composed the _Reply to Celsus_ that Lucian wrote his\naccount of the impostor, Alexander of Abonutichus, a pseudo-prophet of\nPaphlagonia. This Alexander pretended to discover the god Asclepius\nin the form of a small viper which he had sealed up in a goose egg.\nHe then replaced the tiny viper by a huge tame serpent which he had\npurchased at Pella in Macedon and which was trained to hide its head\nin Alexander\u2019s armpit, while to the crowd, who were also permitted to\ntouch the tail and body of the real snake, was shown a false serpent\u2019s\nhead made of linen with human features and a mouth that opened and\nshut and a tongue that could be made to dart in and out. Having thus\nconvinced the people that the viper had really been a god and had\nmiraculously increased in size, Alexander proceeded to sell oracular\nresponses as from the god. Inquirers submitted their questions in\nsealed packages which were later returned to them with appropriate\nanswers and with the seals unbroken and apparently untouched.\nSimilarly Plutarch tells of a sceptical opponent of oracles who became\nconverted into their ardent supporter by receiving such an answer\nto a sealed letter.[1280] Lucian, however, explains that Alexander\nsometimes used a hot needle to melt the seal and then restore it to\npractically its original shape, or employed other methods by which he\ntook exact impressions of the seal, then boldly broke it, read the\nquestion, and afterwards replaced the seal by an exact replica of the\noriginal made in the mould. Lucian adds that there are plenty of other\ndevices of this sort which he does not need to repeat to Celsus who\nhas already made a sufficient collection of them in his \u201cexcellent\ntreatises against the magicians.\u201d Lucian tells later, however, how\nAlexander made his god seem to speak by attaching a tube made of the\nwindpipes of cranes to the artificial head and having an assistant\noutside speak through this concealed tube. In our later discussion of\nthe church father Hippolytus we shall find that he apparently made\nuse of this expos\u00e9 of magic by Lucian as well as of the arguments of\nSextus Empiricus against astrology. Lucian\u2019s personal experiences with\nthis Alexander were quite interesting but are less germane to our\ninvestigation.\n\n[Sidenote: Magical procedure in medicine satirized.]\n\nWe must not fail, however, to note another essay, _Philopseudes_ or\n_Apiston_, in which the superstition and pseudo-science of antiquity\nare sharply satirized in what purports to be a conversation of several\nphilosophers, including a Stoic, a Peripatetic, and a Platonist, and\na representative of ancient medicine in the person of Antigonus, a\ndoctor. Some of the magical procedure then employed in curing diseases\nis first satirized. Cleodemus the Peripatetic advises as a remedy for\ngout to take in the left hand the tooth of a field mouse which has\nbeen killed in a prescribed manner, to wrap it in the skin of a lion\nfreshly-flayed, and thus to bind it about the ailing foot. He affirms\nthat it will give instant relief. Dinomachus the Stoic admits that\nthe occult virtue of the lion is very great and that its fat or right\nfore-paw or the bristles of its beard, if combined with the proper\nincantations, have wonderful efficacy. But he holds that for the cure\nof gout the skin of a virgin hind would be superior on the ground that\nthe hind is speedier than the lion and so more beneficial to the feet.\nCleodemus retorts that he used to think the same, but that a Libyan has\nconvinced him that the lion can run faster than the hind or it would\nnever catch one. The sceptical reporter of this conversation states\nthat he vainly attempted to convince them that an internal disease\ncould not be cured by external attachments or by incantations, methods\nwhich he regards as the veriest sorcery (_goetia_).\n\n[Sidenote: Snake-charming.]\n\nHis protests, however, merely lead Ion the Platonist to recount how a\nMagus, a Chaldean of Babylonia, cured his father\u2019s gardener who had\nbeen stung by an adder on the great toe and was already all swollen up\nand nearly dead. The magician\u2019s method was to apply a splinter of stone\nfrom the statue of a virgin to the toe, uttering at the same time an\nincantation. He then led the way to the field where the gardener had\nbeen stung; pronounced seven sacred names from an ancient volume, and\nfumigated the place thrice with torches and sulphur. All the snakes in\nthe field then came forth from their holes with the exception of one\nvery aged and decrepit serpent, whom the magician sent a young snake\nback to fetch. Having thus assembled every last serpent, he blew upon\nthem, and they all vanished into thin air.\n\n[Sidenote: A Hyperborean magician.]\n\nThis tale reminds the Stoic of another magician, a barbarian and\nHyperborean, who could walk through fire or upon water and even fly\nthrough the air. He could also \u201cmake people fall in love, call up\nspirits, resuscitate corpses, bring down the moon, and show you Hecate\nherself as large as life.\u201d[1281] More specific illustration of the\nexercise of these powers is given in an account of a love spell which\nhe performed for a young man for a big fee. Digging a trench, he raised\nthe ghost of the youth\u2019s father and also summoned Hecate, Cerberus,\nand the Moon. The last named appeared in three successive forms of a\nwoman, an ox, and a puppy. The sorcerer then constructed a clay image\nof the god of love and sent it to fetch the girl, who came and stayed\nuntil cock-crow, when all the apparitions vanished with her. In vain\nthe sceptic argues that the girl in question would have come willingly\nenough without any magic. The Platonist matches the previous story with\none of a Syrian from Palestine who cast out demons.\n\n[Sidenote: Some ghost stories.]\n\nThe discussion then further degenerates into ghost stories and tales\nof statuettes that leave their pedestals after the household has\nretired for the night. One speaker says that he no longer has any\nfear of ghosts since an Arab gave him a magic ring made of nails from\ncrosses and taught him an incantation to use against spooks. At this\njuncture a Pythagorean philosopher of great repute enters and adds his\ntestimony in the form of an account of how he laid a ghost at Corinth\nby employing an Egyptian incantation.\n\n[Sidenote: Pancrates, the magician.]\n\nEucrates, the host, then tells of Pancrates, whom he had met in Egypt\nand who \u201chad spent twenty-three years underground learning magic from\nIsis,\u201d and whom crocodiles would allow to ride on their backs. They\ntraveled a time together without a servant, since Pancrates was able\nto dress up the door-bar or a broom or pestle, turn it into human\nform, and make it wait upon them. There follows the familiar story\nof Eucrates\u2019 overhearing the incantation of three syllables which\nPancrates employed and of trying it out himself when the magician was\nabsent. The pestle turned into human form all right enough and obeyed\nhis order to bring in water, but then he discovered that he could not\nmake it stop, and when he seized an axe and chopped it in two, the only\neffect was to produce two water-carriers in place of one.\n\n[Sidenote: Credulity and scepticism.]\n\nThe conversation is turning to the subject of oracles when the sceptic\ncan stand it no longer and retires in disgust. As he tells what he has\nheard to a friend, he remarks upon the childish credulity of \u201cthese\nadmired teachers from whom our youth are to learn wisdom.\u201d At the same\ntime, the stories seem to have made a considerable impression even upon\nhim, and he wishes that he had some lethal drug to make him forget all\nthese monsters, demons, and Hecates that he seems still to see before\nhim. His friend, too, declares that he has filled him with demons.\nTheir dialogue then concludes with the consoling reflection that truth\nand sound reason are the best drugs for the cure of such empty lies.\n\n[Sidenote: _Menippus_, or _Necromancy_.]\n\nThe _Menippus_ or _Necromancy_, while an obvious imitation and parody\nof Odysseus\u2019 mode of descent to the underworld to consult Teiresias,\nalso throws some light on the magic of Lucian\u2019s time. In order to reach\nthe other world Menippus went to Babylon and consulted Mithrobarzanes,\none of the Magi and followers of Zoroaster. He is also called one of\nthe Chaldeans. Besides a final sacrifice similar to that of Odysseus,\nthe procedure by which the magician procured their passage to the other\nworld included on his part muttered incantations and invocations,\nfor the most part unintelligible to Menippus, spitting thrice in the\nlatter\u2019s face, waving torches about, drawing a magic circle, and\nwearing a magic robe. As for Menippus, he had to bathe in the Euphrates\nat sunrise every morning for the full twenty-nine days of a moon, after\nwhich he was purified at midnight in the Tigris and by fumigation. He\nhad to sleep out-of-doors and observe a special diet, not look anyone\nin the eye on his way home, walk backwards, and so on. The ultimate\nresult of all these preparations was that the earth was burst asunder\nby the final incantation and the way to the underworld laid open. When\nit came time to return Menippus crawled up with difficulty, like Dante\ngoing from the Inferno to Purgatory, through a narrow tunnel which\nopened on the shrine of Trophonius.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological interpretation of Greek myth.]\n\nAn essay on astrology ascribed to Lucian is usually regarded as\nspurious.[1282] Denial of its authenticity, however, should rest on\nsuch grounds as its literary style and the manuscript history of the\nwork rather than upon its\u2014to modern eyes\u2014superstitious character. In\nantiquity a man might be sceptical about most superstitions and yet\nbelieve in astrology as a science. Lucian\u2019s sceptical friend Celsus,\nfor example, as we shall see in our chapter on Origen\u2019s _Reply to\nCelsus_, believed that the future could be foretold from the stars.\nAnd whether the present essay is genuine or spurious, it is certainly\nnoteworthy that for all his mockery of other superstition Lucian does\nnot attack astrology in any of his essays. Moreover, this essay on\nastrology is very sceptical in one way, since it denies the literal\ntruth of various Greek myths and gives an astrological interpretation\nof them, as in the case of Zeus and Kronos and the so-called adultery\nof Mars. This is not inconsistent with Lucian\u2019s ridicule elsewhere of\nthe anthropomorphic Olympian divinities. What Orpheus taught the Greeks\nwas astrology, and the planets were signified by the seven strings of\nhis lyre. Teiresias taught them further to distinguish which stars\nwere masculine and which feminine in character and influence. A proper\ninterpretation of the myth of Atreus and Thyestes also shows the Greeks\nat an early date acquainted with astrological doctrine. Bellerophon\nsoared to the sky, not on a horse but by the scientific power of his\nmind. Daedalus taught Icarus astrology and the fable of Pha\u00ebthon is to\nbe similarly interpreted. Aeneas was not really the son of the goddess\nVenus, nor Minos of Jupiter, nor Aesculapius of Mars, nor Autolycus of\nMercury. These are to be taken simply as the planets under whose rule\nthey were born. The author also connects Egyptian animal worship with\nthe signs of the zodiac.\n\n[Sidenote: History and defense of astrology.]\n\nThe author of the essay also delves into the history of astrology,\nto which he assigns a high antiquity. The Ethiopians were the first\nto cultivate it and handed it on in a still imperfect stage to the\nEgyptians who developed it. The Babylonians claim to have studied it\nbefore other peoples, but our author thinks that they did so long\nafter the Ethiopians and Egyptians. The Greeks were instructed in\nthe art neither by the Ethiopians nor the Egyptians, but, as we have\nseen, by Orpheus. Our author not only states that the ancient Greeks\nnever built towns or walls or got married without first resorting to\ndivination, but even asserts that astrology was their sole method of\ndivination, that the Pythia at Delphi was the type of celestial purity\nand that the snake under the tripod represented the dragon among the\nconstellations. Lycurgus taught his Lacedaemonians to observe the moon,\nand only the uncultured Arcadians held themselves aloof from astrology.\nYet at the present day some oppose the art, declaring either that the\nstars have naught to do with human affairs or that astrology is useless\nsince what is fated cannot be avoided. To the latter objection our\nauthor makes the usual retort that forewarned is forearmed; as for the\nformer denial, if a horse stirs the stones in the road as it runs,\nif a passing breath of wind moves straws to and fro, if a tiny flame\nburns the finger, will not the courses and deflexions of the brilliant\ncelestial bodies have their influence upon earth and mankind?\n\n[Sidenote: Lucian not always sceptical.]\n\nThe manner of the essay does not seem like Lucian\u2019s usual style, and\nthe astrological interpretation of religious myth was characteristic of\nthe Stoic philosophy, whereas Lucian\u2019s philosophical affinities, if he\ncan be said to have any, are perhaps rather with the Epicureans. But\nCelsus was an Epicurean and yet believed in astrology. It must not be\nthought, however, that Lucian in his other essays is always sceptical\nin regard to what we should classify as superstition. He tells us how\nhis career was determined by a dream in the autobiographical essay of\nthat title. In the _Dialogues of the Gods_ magic is mentioned as a\nmatter-of-course, Zeus complaining that he has to resort to magic in\norder to win women and Athene warning Paris to have Aphrodite remove\nher girdle, since it is drugged or enchanted and may bewitch him.\n\n[Sidenote: Lucian and medicine.]\n\nThe writings of Lucian contain many allusions to the doctors, diseases,\nand medicines of his time.[1283] On the whole he confirms Galen\u2019s\npicture. Numerous passages show that the medical profession was held in\nhigh esteem, and Lucian himself first went to Rome in order to consult\nan oculist. At the same time Lucian satirizes the quacks and medical\nsuperstition of the time, as we have already seen, and describes\nseveral statues which were believed to possess healing powers. In\nthe burlesque tragedy on gout, _Tragodopodagra_, whose authenticity,\nhowever, is questioned, the disease personified is triumphant, and the\nmoral seems to be that all the remedies which men have tried are of no\navail. On the other hand, Lucian wrote seriously of the African snake\nwhose bite causes one to die of thirst (_De dipsadibus_). He admits\nthat he has never seen anyone in this condition and has not even been\nin Libya where these snakes are found, but a friend has assured him\nthat he has seen the tombstone epitaph of a man who had died thus, a\nrather indirect mode of proof which we are surprised should satisfy the\nauthor of _How to Write History_. Lucian also repeats the common notion\nthat persons bitten by a mad dog can be cured only by a hair or other\nportion of the same animal.[1284]\n\n[Sidenote: Inevitable intermingling of scepticism and superstition.]\n\nOur chapter which set out to note cases of scepticism in regard to\nsuperstition has ended by including a great deal of such superstition.\nThe sceptics themselves seem credulous on some points, and Lucian\u2019s\nsatire perhaps more reveals than refutes the prevalence of superstition\namong even the highly educated. The same is true of other literary\nsatirists of the Roman Empire whose jibes against the astrologers and\ntheir devotees only attest the popularity of the art and who themselves\nvery probably meant only to ridicule its more extreme pretensions\nand were perhaps at bottom themselves believers in the fundamentals\nof the art. Our authors to some extent, as we have pointed out,\nprovided an arsenal of arguments from which later Christian writers\ntook weapons for their assaults upon pagan magic and astrology. But\nsometimes subsequent writers confused scepticism with credulity, and\nthe influence of our authors upon them became just the opposite of\nwhat they intended. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus, the soldier-historian\nof the falling Roman Empire upon whom Gibbon placed so much reliance,\nwas so attached to divination that he even quoted its arch-opponent,\nCicero, in support of it. For he actually concludes his discussion of\nthe subject in these words: \u201cWherefore in this as in other matters\nTully says most admirably,\u2018Signs of future events are shown by the\ngods.\u2019\u201d[1285]\n\n[Sidenote: Lucian on writing history.]\n\nBut in order to conclude our chapter on scepticism with a less\nobscurantist passage, let us return to Lucian. His essay, _How to\nWrite History_, gives serious expression to those ideals of truth and\nimpartiality which also lie behind his mockery of impostors and the\nover-credulous. \u201cThe historian\u2019s one task,\u201d in his estimation, \u201cis to\ntell the thing as it happened.\u201d He should be \u201cfearless, incorruptible,\nindependent, a believer in frankness, ... an impartial judge, kind\nto all but too kind to none.\u201d \u201cHe has to make of his brain a mirror,\nunclouded, bright, and true of surface.\u201d \u201cFacts are not to be collected\nat haphazard but with careful, laborious, repeated investigation.\u201d\n\u201cPrefer the disinterested account.\u201d[1286] Such sentences and phrases as\nthese reveal a scientific and critical spirit of high order and seem a\nvast improvement upon the frailty of Cicero\u2019s historical criticism. But\nhow far Lucian would have been able to follow his own advice is perhaps\nanother matter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n THE SPURIOUS MYSTIC WRITINGS OF HERMES, ORPHEUS, AND ZOROASTER\n\n Mystic works of revelation\u2014The Hermetic books\u2014_Poimandres_ and the\n Hermetic _Corpus_\u2014Astrological treatises ascribed to Hermes\u2014Hermetic\n works of alchemy\u2014Nechepso and Petosiris\u2014Manetho\u2014The _Lithica_ of\n Orpheus\u2014Argument of the poem\u2014Magic powers of stones\u2014Magic rites to\n gain powers of divination\u2014Power of gems compared with herbs\u2014Magic\n herbs and demons in Orphic rites\u2014Books ascribed to Zoroaster\u2014_The\n Chaldean Oracles_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mystic works of revelation.]\n\nThere were in circulation in the Roman Empire many writings which\npurported to be of divine origin and authorship, or at least the work\nof ancient culture-heroes and founders of religions who were of divine\ndescent and divinely inspired. These oracular and mystic compositions\nusually pretend to great antiquity and often claim as their home such\nhoary lands as Egypt and Chaldea, although in the Hellenic past Apollo\nand in the Roman past the Sibylline books[1287] also afford convenient\ncenters about which forgeries cluster. Assuming as these writings do\nto disclose the secrets of ancient priesthoods and to publish what\nshould not be revealed to the vulgar crowd, they may be confidently\nexpected to embody a great deal of superstition and magic along with\ntheir expositions of mystic theologies. Also the authors, editors, or\npublishers of astrological, alchemistic, and other pseudo-scientific\ntreatises could not be expected to resist the temptation of claiming a\nvenerable and cryptic origin for some of their books. Moreover, such\npseudo-literature was not entirely unjustified in its affirmation of\nhigh antiquity. Few things in intellectual history antedate magic,\nand these spurious compositions are not especially distinguished by\nnew ideas, although they to some extent reflect the progress made in\nlearning, occult as well as scientific, in the Hellenistic age. It must\nbe added that much of their contents depends for its effect entirely\nupon its claim to eminent authorship and great antiquity and upon\nthe impressionability of its public. To-day most of it seems trivial\ncommonplace or marked by the empty vagueness characteristic of oracular\nutterances. I shall attempt no complete exposition or exhaustive\ntreatment of such writings[1288] but touch upon a few examples which\nbear upon the relations of science and magic.\n\n[Sidenote: The Hermetic books.]\n\nChief among these are the Hermetic books or writings attributed\nto Hermes the Egyptian or Trismegistus. \u201cUnder this name,\u201d wrote\nSteinschneider in 1906, \u201cthere exists in many languages a literature,\nfor the most part superstitious, which seems to have not yet been\ntreated in its totality.\u201d[1289] The Egyptian god Thoth or Tehuti,\nknown in Greek as \u0398\u03c9\u03cd\u03b8, \u0398\u03ce\u03b8, and \u03a4\u03ac\u03c4, was identified with Hermes,\nand the epithet \u201cthrice-great\u201d is also derived from the Egyptian _a\u0101\na\u0101_, \u201cthe great Great.\u201d Citations of works ascribed to this Hermes\nTrismegistus can be traced back as early as the first century of our\nera.[1290] He is also mentioned or quoted by various church fathers\nfrom Athenagoras to Augustine and often figures in the magical papyri.\nThe historian Ammianus Marcellinus[1291] in the fourth century ranks\nhim with the great sages of the past such as Pythagoras, Socrates, and\nApollonius of Tyana. Our two chief descriptions of the Hermetic books\nfrom the period of the Roman Empire are found in the _Stromata_[1292]\nof the Christian Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 220 A.\u202fD.) and in the\n_De mysteriis_[1293] ascribed to the Neo-Platonist Iamblichus (died\nabout 330 A.\u202fD.). Clement speaks of forty-two books by Hermes which\nare regarded as \u201cindispensable.\u201d Of these ten are called \u201cHieratic\u201d\nand deal with the laws, the gods, and the training of the priests. Ten\nothers detail the sacrifices, prayers, processions, festivals, and\nother rites of Egyptian worship. Two contain hymns to the gods and\nrules for the king. Six are medical, \u201ctreating of the structure of\nthe body and of diseases and instruments and medicines and about the\neyes and the last about women.\u201d Four are astronomical or astrological,\nand the remaining ten deal with cosmography and geography or with the\nequipment of the priests and the paraphernalia of the sacred rites.\nClement does not say so, but from his brief summary one can imagine\nhow full these volumes probably were of occult virtues of natural\nsubstances, of magical procedure, and of intimate relations and\ninteractions between nature, stars, and spirits. Iamblichus repeats\nthe statement of Seleucus that Hermes wrote twenty thousand volumes\nand the assertion of Manetho that there were 36,525 books, a number\ndoubtless connected with the supposed length of the year, three hundred\nand sixty-five and one-quarter days.[1294] Iamblichus adds that Hermes\nwrote one hundred treatises on the ethereal gods and one thousand\nconcerning the celestial gods.[1295] He is aware, however, that most\nbooks attributed to Hermes were not really composed by him, since in\nother passages he speaks of \u201cthe books which are circulated under the\nname of Hermes,\u201d[1296] and explains that \u201cour ancestors ... inscribed\nall their own writings with the name of Hermes,\u201d[1297] thus dedicating\nthem to him as the patron deity of language and theology. By the time\nof Iamblichus these books had been translated from the Egyptian tongue\ninto Greek.\n\n[Sidenote: _Poimandres_ and the Hermetic _Corpus_.]\n\nThere has come down to us under the name of Hermes a collection of\nseventeen or eighteen fragments which is generally known as the\nHermetic _Corpus_. Of the fragments the first and chief is entitled\n_Poimandres_ (\u03a0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2), a name which is sometimes applied to the\nentire _Corpus_. Another fragment entitled _Asclepius_, since it is\nin the form of a dialogue between him and \u201cMercurius Trismegistus,\u201d\nexists in a Latin form which has been ascribed probably incorrectly to\nApuleius of Madaura as translator (_Asclepius ... Mercurii trismegisti\ndialogus Lucio Apuleio Madaurensi philosopho Platonico interprete_).\nNone of the Greek manuscripts of the _Corpus_ seems older than the\nfourteenth century, although Reitzenstein thinks that they may all be\nderived from the version which Michael Psellus had before him in the\neleventh century.[1298] But the concluding prayer of the _Poimandres_\nexists in a third century papyrus, and the alchemist Zosimus in the\nfourth century seems acquainted with the entire collection. The\ntreatises in this _Corpus_ are concerned primarily with religious\nphilosophy or theosophy, with doctrines similar to those of Plato\nconcerning the soul and to the teachings of the Gnostics. The moral\nand religious instruction is associated, however, with a physics and\ncosmology very favorable to astrology and magic. Of magic in the\nnarrow sense there is little in the _Corpus_, but a Hermetic fragment\npreserved by Stobaeus affirms that \u201cphilosophy and magic nourish the\nsoul.\u201d Astrology plays a much more prominent part, and the stars are\nranked as visible gods, of whom the sun is by far the greatest. All\nseven planets nevertheless control the changes in the world of nature;\nthere are seven human types corresponding to them; and the twelve\nsigns of the zodiac also govern the human body. Only the chosen few\nwho possess _gnosis_ or are capable of receiving _nous_ can escape the\ndecrees of fate as administered by the stars and ultimately return to\nthe spiritual world, passing through \u201cchoruses of demons\u201d and \u201ccourses\nof stars\u201d and reaching the Ogdoad or eighth heaven above and beyond\nthe spheres of the seven planets.[1299] Such Gnostic cosmology and\ndemonology, especially the location of demons amid the planetary\nspheres, provides favorable ground for the development of astrological\nnecromancy.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological treatises ascribed to Hermes.]\n\nNot only is a belief in astrology implied throughout the _Poimandres_,\nbut a number of separate astrological treatises are extant in whole or\npart under the name of Hermes Trismegistus,[1300] and he is frequently\ncited as an authority in other Greek astrological manuscripts.[1301]\nThe treatises attributed to him comprise one upon general method,[1302]\none on the names and powers of the twelve signs, one on astrological\nmedicine addressed to Ammon the Egyptian,[1303] one on thunder and\nlightning, and some hexameters on the relation of earthquakes to the\nsigns of the zodiac. This last is also ascribed to Orpheus.[1304]\nThere are various allusions to and versions of tracts concerning the\nrelation of herbs to the planets or signs of the zodiac or thirty-six\ndecans.[1305] These treatises attribute magic virtues to plants,\ninclude a prayer to be repeated when plucking each herb, and tell how\nto use the astrological figures of the decans, engraved on stones, as\nhealing amulets.\n\n[Sidenote: Hermetic works of alchemy.]\n\nWorks under the name of Hermes Trismegistus are cited by Greek\nalchemists of the closing Roman Empire, such as Zosimus, Stephanus, and\nOlympiodorus, but those Hermetic treatises of alchemy which are extant\nare of late date and much altered.[1306] Some treatises are preserved\nonly in Arabic; others are medieval Latin fabrications. The Greek\nalchemists, however, seem to have recited the mystic hymn of Hermes\nfrom the _Poimandres_.[1307]\n\n[Sidenote: Nechepso and Petosiris.]\n\nHellenistic and Roman astrology sought to extend its roots far back\ninto Egyptian antiquity by putting forth spurious treatises under\nthe names, not only of Hermes Trismegistus, but also of Nechepso\nand Petosiris,[1308] who were regarded respectively as an Egyptian\nking and an Egyptian priest who had lived at least seven centuries\nbefore Christ. Indeed, they were held to be the recipients of divine\nrevelation from Hermes and Asclepius. A lengthy astrological treatise,\nwhich Pliny[1309] is the first to cite and from a fourteenth book of\nwhich Galen[1310] mentions a magic ring of jasper engraved with a\ndragon and rays, seems to have appeared in their names probably at\nAlexandria in the Hellenistic period. Only fragments and citations\nascribed to Nechepso and Petosiris are now extant.[1311]\n\n[Sidenote: Manetho.]\n\nYet another astrological work which claims to be drawn from the secret\nsacred books and cryptic monuments of ancient Egypt is ascribed to\nManetho. It is a compilation in verse of prognostications from the\nvarious constellations and is regarded as the work of several writers,\nof whom the oldest is placed in the reign of Alexander Severus in the\nthird century.[1312]\n\n[Sidenote: The _Lithica_ of Orpheus.]\n\nOrpheus is another author more cited than preserved by classical\nantiquity. Pliny called him the first writer on herbs and suspected\nhim of magic. Ernest Riess affirms that Rohde (_Psyche_, p. 398)\n\u201chas abundantly proved that Orpheus\u2019 followers were among the chief\npromulgators of purifications and charms against evil spirits.\u201d[1313]\nAmong poems of some length extant under Orpheus\u2019 name the one of most\ninterest to us is the _Lithica_, where in 770 lines the virtues of some\nthirty gems are set forth with considerable allusion to magic.[1314]\nThe authorship is uncertain, but the verse is supposed to follow the\nprose treatise by Damigeron who lived in the second century B. C. The\ndate of the poem is now generally fixed in the fourth century of our\nera, although King[1315] argued for an earlier date. I agree with him\nthat the allusion in lines 71-74 to decapitation on the charge of\nmagic is, taken alone, too vague and blind to be associated with any\nparticular event or time; editors since Tyrwhitt have connected it with\nthe law of Constantius against magic and the persecution of magicians\nin 371 A.\u202fD. But King\u2019s contention that the _Lithica_ is by the same\nauthor as the _Argonautica_, also ascribed to Orpheus, and is therefore\nof early date, falls to the ground since the _Argonautica_, too, is now\ndated in the fourth century.\n\n[Sidenote: Argument of the poem.]\n\nThe _Lithica_ opens by representing Hermes as bestowing upon mankind\nthe precious lore of the marvelous virtues of gems. In his cave are\nstored stones which banish ghosts, robbers, and snakes, which bring\nhealth, happiness, victory in war and games, honor at courts and\nsuccess in love, and which insure safety on journeys, the favor of\nthe gods, and enable one to read the hidden thoughts of others and to\nunderstand the language of the birds as they predict the future. Few\npersons, however, avail themselves of this mystic lore, and those who\ndo so are liable to be executed on the charge of magic. After this\nintroduction, which may be regarded as a piquant appetizer to whet the\nreader\u2019s taste for further details, the virtues of individual stones\nare described, first in the words of Theodamas, a wise and divine\nman[1316] whom the author meets on his way to perform annual sacrifice\nat an altar of the Sun, where as a child he narrowly escaped from a\ndeadly snake, and then in a speech of the seer Helenus to Philoctetes\nwhich Theodamas quotes. Greek gods are often mentioned; as the poem\nproceeds the virtues of a number of gems are attributed to Apollo\nrather than Hermes; and there are allusions to Greek mythology and the\nTrojan war. Some gems are found in animals, for instance, in the viper\nor the brain of the stag.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic powers of stones.]\n\nLet us turn to some examples of the marvelous virtues of particular\nstones. The crystal wins favorable answers from the gods to prayers;\nkindles fire, if held over sticks, yet itself remains cold; as a\nligature benefits kidney trouble. Sacrifices in which the adamant is\nemployed win the favor of the gods; it is also called Lethaean because\nit makes one forget worries, or the milk-stone (_galactis_) because it\nrenews the milk of sheep or goats when powdered in brine and sprinkled\nover them. Worn as an amulet it counteracts the evil eye and gains\nroyal favor for its bearer. The agate is an agricultural amulet and\nshould be attached to the plowman\u2019s arm and the horns of the oxen.\nOther stones help vineyards, bring rain or avert hail and pests from\nthe crops. _Lychnis_ prevents a pot from boiling on a fire and makes\nit boil when the fire is dead. The magnet was used by the witches Circe\nand Medea in their spells; an unchaste wife is unable to remain in the\nbed where this stone has been placed with an incantation. Other stones\ncure snake-bite and various diseases, serve as love-charms or aids in\nchild-birth, or counteract incantations and enchantments.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic rites to gain powers of divination.]\n\nTo make the gem _sideritis_ or _oreites_ utter vocal oracles the\noperator must abstain for three weeks from animal food, the public\nbaths, and the marriage bed; he is then to wash and clothe the gem\nlike an infant and employ various sacrifices, incantations, and\nilluminations. The gem _Liparaios_, known to the learned Magi of\nAssyria, when burnt on a bloodless altar with hymns to the Sun and\nEarth attracts snakes from their holes to the flame. Three youths\nrobed in white and carrying two-edged swords should cut up the snake\nwho comes nearest the fire into nine pieces, three for the Sun, three\nfor the earth, three for the wise and prophetic maiden. These pieces\nare then to be cooked with wine, salt, and spices and eaten by those\nwho wish to learn the language of birds and beasts. But further the\ngods must be invoked by their secret names and libations poured of\nmilk, wine, oil, and honey. What is not eaten must be buried, and the\nparticipants in the feast are then to return home wearing chaplets but\notherwise naked and speaking to no one whom they may meet. On their\narrival home they are to sacrifice mixed spices. It will be recalled\nthat Apollonius of Tyana and the Arabs also learned the language of the\nbirds by eating snake-flesh.\n\n[Sidenote: Powers of gems compared with herbs.]\n\nThus gems are potent in religion and divination, love-charms and\nchild-birth, medicine and agriculture. The poem fails, however, to\ntouch upon their uses in alchemy or relations to the stars, nor does\nit contain much of anything that can be called necromancy. But the\nauthor ranks the virtues of stones above those of herbs, whose powers\ndisappear with age. Moreover, some plants are injurious, whereas the\nmarvelous virtues of stones are almost all beneficial as well as\npermanent. \u201cThere is great force in herbs,\u201d he says, \u201cbut far greater\nin stones,\u201d[1317] an observation often repeated in the middle ages.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic herbs and demons in Orphic rites.]\n\nMore stress is laid upon the power of demons and herbs in a description\nwhich has been left us by Saint Cyprian,[1318] bishop of Antioch in\nthe third century, of some pagan mysteries upon Mount Olympus into\nwhich he was initiated when a boy of fifteen and which have been\nexplained as Orphic rites. His initiation was under the charge of seven\nhierophants, lasted for forty days, and included instruction in the\nvirtues of magic herbs and visions of the operations of demons. He was\nalso taught the meaning of musical notes and harmonies, and saw how\ntimes and seasons were governed by good and evil spirits. In short,\nmagic, pseudo-science, occult virtue, and perhaps astrology formed an\nimportant part of Orphic lore.\n\n[Sidenote: Books ascribed to Zoroaster.]\n\nCumont states in his _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_ that\n\u201ctowards the end of the Alexandrine period the books ascribed to the\nhalf-mythical masters of the Persian science, Zoroaster, Hosthanes and\nHystaspes, were translated into Greek, and until the end of paganism\nthose names enjoyed a prodigious authority.\u201d[1319] Pliny regarded\nZoroaster as the founder of magic and we have met other examples of his\nreputation as a magician. Later we shall find him cited several times\nin the Byzantine _Geoponica_ which seems to use a book ascribed to him\non the sympathy and antipathy existing between natural objects.[1320]\nNaturally a number of pseudo-Zoroastrian books were in circulation,\nsome of which Porphyry, the Neo-Platonist, is said to have suppressed.\nAt least he tells us in his _Life of Plotinus_[1321] that certain\nChristians and other men claimed to possess certain revelations of\nZoroaster, but that he advanced many arguments to show that their book\nwas not written by Zoroaster but was a recent composition.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Chaldean Oracles._]\n\nThere has been preserved, however, in the writings of the\nNeo-Platonists a collection of passages known as the Zoroastrian Logia\nor Chaldean Oracles[1322] and which \u201cpresent ... a heterogeneous mass,\nnow obscure and again bombastic, of commingled Platonic, Pythagorean,\nStoic, Gnostic, and Persian tenets.\u201d[1323] Not only are these often\ncited by the Neo-Platonists, but Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus\ncomposed commentaries upon them.[1324] Some think that these citations\nand commentaries have reference to a single work put together by\nJulian the Chaldean in the period of the Antonines. This \u201cmass of\noriental superstitions, a medley of magic, theurgy, and delirious\nmetaphysics,\u201d[1325] was reverenced by the Neo-Platonists of the\nfollowing centuries as a sacred authority equal to the _Timaeus_ of\nPlato. Our next chapter will therefore deal with the writings of the\nNeo-Platonists upon whom this spurious mystic literature had so much\ninfluence.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n NEO-PLATONISM AND ITS RELATIONS TO ASTROLOGY AND THEURGY\n\n Neo-Platonism and the occult\u2014Plotinus on magic\u2014The life of reason is\n alone free from magic\u2014Plotinus unharmed by magic\u2014Invoking the demon of\n Plotinus\u2014Rite of strangling birds\u2014Plotinus and astrology\u2014The stars as\n signs\u2014The divine star-souls\u2014How do the stars cause and signify?\u2014Other\n causes and signs than the stars\u2014Stars not the cause of evil\u2014Against\n the astrology of the Gnostics\u2014Fate and free-will\u2014Summary of the\n attitude of Plotinus to astrology\u2014Porphyry\u2019s _Letter to Anebo_\u2014Its\n main argument\u2014Questions concerning divine natures\u2014Orders of spiritual\n beings\u2014Nature of demons\u2014The art of theurgy\u2014Invocations and the power\n of words\u2014Magic a human art: theurgy divine\u2014Magic\u2019s abuse of nature\u2019s\n forces\u2014Its evil character\u2014Its deceit and unreality\u2014Porphyry on modes\n of divination\u2014Iamblichus on divination\u2014Are the stars gods?\u2014Is there an\n art of astrology?\u2014Porphyry and astrology\u2014Astrological images\u2014Number\n mysticism\u2014Porphyry as reported by Eusebius\u2014The emperor Julian on\n theurgy and astrology\u2014Julian and divination\u2014Scientific divination\n according to Ammianus Marcellinus\u2014Proclus on theurgy\u2014Neo-Platonic\n account of magic borrowed by Christians\u2014Neo-Platonists and alchemy.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Neo-Platonism and the occult.]\n\nThat the Neo-Platonists were much given to the occult has been a\ncommon impression among those who have written upon the period of the\ndecline of the Roman Empire, of the end of paganism, and the passing\nof classical philosophy. This is perhaps in some measure the result\nof Christian viewpoint and hostility; probably the Christians of the\nperiod would seem equally superstitious to a modern Neo-Platonist. If\nthe lives of the philosophers by Eunapius sound like fairy tales,[1326]\nwhat do the lives of the saints of the same period sound like? If\nthe Neo-Platonists were like our mediums, what were the Christian\nexorcists like? But let us turn to the writings of the leading\nNeo-Platonists themselves, the only accurate mirror of their views.\n\n[Sidenote: Plotinus on magic.]\n\nPlotinus,[1327] who lived from about 204 to 270 A.\u202fD. and is generally\nregarded as the founder of Neo-Platonism, was apparently less given to\noccult sciences than some of his successors.[1328] One of his charges\nagainst the Gnostics[1329] is that they believe that they can move the\nhigher and incorporeal powers by writing incantations and by spoken\nwords and various other vocal utterances, all which he censures as\nmere magic and sorcery. He also attacks their belief that diseases\nare demons and can be expelled by words. This wins them a following\namong the crowd who are wont to marvel at the powers of magicians, but\nPlotinus insists that diseases are due to natural causes.[1330] Even\nhe, however, accepted incantations and the charms of sorcerers and\nmagicians as valid, and accounted for their potency by the sympathy\nor love and hatred which he said existed between different objects in\nnature, which operates even at a distance, and which is an expression\nof one world-soul animating the universe.[1331]\n\n[Sidenote: The life of reason is alone free from magic.]\n\nPlotinus held further, however, that only the physical and irrational\nside of man\u2019s nature was affected by drugs and sorcery, just as \u201ceven\ndemons are not impassive in their irrational part,\u201d[1332] and so\nare to some extent subject to magic. But the rational soul may free\nitself from all influence of magic.[1333] Moreover, remorselessly adds\nthe clear-headed Plotinus with a burst of insight that may well be\nattributed to Hellenic genius, he who yields to the charms of love and\nfamily affection or seeks political power or aught else than Truth and\ntrue beauty, or even he who searches for beauty in inferior things; he\nwho is deceived by appearances, he who follows irrational inclinations,\nis as truly bewitched as if he were the victim of magic and _goetia_\nso-called. The life of reason is alone free from magic.[1334] Whereat\none is tempted to paraphrase a remark of Aelian[1335] and exclaim,\n\u201cWhat do you think of that definition of magic, my dear anthropologists\nand sociologists and modern students of folk-lore?\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Plotinus unharmed by magic.]\n\nThis immunity of the true philosopher and sincere follower of truth\nfrom magic received illustration, according to Porphyry,[1336] in the\ncase of Plotinus himself, who suffered no harm from the magic arts\nwhich his enemy, Alexandrinus Olympius, directed against him. Instead\nthe baleful defluxions from the stars which Olympius had tried to draw\ndown upon Plotinus were turned upon himself. Porphyry also states[1337]\nthat Plotinus was aware at the time of the \u201csidereal enchantments\u201d of\nOlympius against him. Incidentally the episode provides one more proof\nof the essential unity of astrology and magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Invoking the demon of Plotinus.]\n\nPlotinus, indeed, was regarded by his admirers as divinely inspired,\nas another incident from the _Life_ by Porphyry will illustrate.[1338]\nAn Egyptian priest had little difficulty in persuading Plotinus, who\nalthough of Roman parentage had been born in Egypt, to allow him to try\nto invoke his familiar demon. Plotinus was then teaching in Rome where\nhe resided for twenty-six years, and the temple of Isis was the only\npure place in the city which the priest could find for the ceremony.\nWhen the invocation had been duly performed, there appeared not a\nmere demon but a god. The apparition was not long enduring, however,\nnor would the priest permit them to question it, on the ground that\none of the friends of Plotinus present had marred the success of the\noperation. This man had feared he might suffer some injury when the\ndemon appeared and as a counter-charm had brought some birds which he\nheld in his hands, apparently by the necks, for at the critical moment\nwhen the apparition appeared he suffocated them, whether from fright or\nfrom envy of Plotinus Porphyry declares himself unable to state.\n\n[Sidenote: The rite of strangling birds.]\n\nThis practice of grasping birds by the necks in both hands is shown\nby a number of works of art to have been a custom of great antiquity.\nWe may see a winged Gorgon strangling a goose in either hand upon\na plate of the seventh century B.C. from Rhodes now in the British\nMuseum.[1339] A gold pendant of the ninth century B.C. from Aegina, now\nalso in the British Museum, consists of a figure holding a water-bird\nby the neck in either hand, while from its thighs pairs of serpents\nissue on whose folds the birds stand with their bills touching the\nfangs of the snakes.[1340] There also is a figure of a winged goddess\ngrasping two water-birds by the necks upon an ivory fibula excavated at\nSparta.[1341]\n\n[Sidenote: Plotinus and astrology.]\n\nPorphyry also tells us in the _Life_ that Plotinus devoted considerable\nattention to the stars and refuted in his writings the unwarrantable\nclaims of the casters of horoscopes.[1342] Such passages are found\nin the treatises on fate and on the soul, while one of his treatises\nis devoted entirely to the question, \u201cWhether the stars effect\nanything?\u201d[1343] This was one of four treatises which Plotinus a little\nbefore his death sent to Porphyry, and which are regarded as rather\ninferior to those composed by him when in the prime of life. In the\nnext century the astrologer, Julius Firmicus Maternus, regards Plotinus\nas an enemy of astrology and represents him as dying a horrible and\nloathsome death from gangrene.[1344]\n\n[Sidenote: The stars as signs.]\n\nAs a matter of fact the criticisms made by Plotinus were not\nnecessarily destructive to the art of astrology, but rather suggested a\nseries of amendments by which it might be made more compatible with a\nPlatonic view of the universe, deity, and human soul. These amendments\nalso tended to meet Christian objections to the art. His criticisms\nwere not new; Philo Judaeus had made similar ones over two centuries\nbefore.[1345] But the great influence of Plotinus gave added emphasis\nto these criticisms. For instance, the point made by him several times\nthat the motion of the stars \u201cdoes not cause everything but signifies\nthe future concerning each\u201d[1346] man and thing, is noted by Macrobius\nboth in the _Saturnalia_[1347] and the _Dream of Scipio_;[1348] while\nin the twelfth century John of Salisbury, arguing against astrology,\nfears that its devotees will take refuge in the authority of Plotinus\nand say that they detract nothing from the Creator\u2019s power, since\nHe established once for all an unalterable natural law and disposed\nall future events as He foresaw them. Thus the stars are merely His\ninstruments.[1349]\n\n[Sidenote: The divine star-souls.]\n\nBut let us see what Plotinus says himself rather than what others took\nto be his meaning. Like Plato, who regarded the stars as happy, divine,\nand eternal animals, Plotinus not only believes that the stars have\nsouls but that their intellectual processes are far above the frailties\nof the human mind and nearer the omniscience of the world-soul. Memory,\nfor example, is of no use to them,[1350] nor do they hear the prayers\nwhich men address to them.[1351] Plotinus often calls them gods. They\nare, however, parts of the universe, subordinate to the world-soul,\nand they cannot alter the fundamental principles of the universe, nor\ndeprive other beings of their individuality, although they are able to\nmake other beings better or worse.[1352]\n\n[Sidenote: How do the stars cause and signify?]\n\nIn his discussion of problems concerning the soul Plotinus says that\n\u201cit is abundantly evident ... that the motion of the heavens affects\nthings on earth and not only in bodies but also the dispositions of\nthe soul,\u201d[1353] and that each part of the heavens affects terrestrial\nand inferior objects. He does not, however, think that all this\ninfluence can be accounted for \u201cexclusively by heat or cold,\u201d\u2014perhaps\na dig at Ptolemy\u2019s _Tetrabiblos_.[1354] He also objects to ascribing\nthe crimes of men to the will of the stars or every human act to a\nsidereal decision,[1355] and to speaking of friendships and enmities\nas existing between the planets according as they are in this or that\naspect towards one another.[1356] If then the admittedly vast influence\nof the stars cannot be satisfactorily accounted for either as material\neffects caused by them as bodies or as voluntary action taken by them,\nhow is it to be explained? Plotinus accounts for it by the relation of\nsympathy which exists between all parts of the universe, that single\nliving animal, and by the fact that the universe expresses itself in\nthe figures formed by the movements of the celestial bodies, which\n\u201cexert what influence they do exert on things here below through\ncontemplation of the intelligible world.\u201d[1357] These figures, or\nconstellations in the astrological sense, have other powers than those\nof the bodies which participate in them, just as many plants and\nstones \u201camong us\u201d have marvelous occult powers for which heat and cold\nwill not account.[1358] They both exert influence effectively and are\nsigns of the future through their relation to the universal whole. In\nmany things they are both causes and signs, in others they are signs\nonly.[1359]\n\n[Sidenote: Other causes and signs than the stars.]\n\nFor Plotinus, however, the universe is not a mechanical one where\nbut one force prevails, namely, that produced by or represented by\nthe constellations. The universe is full of variety with countless\ndifferent powers, and the whole would not be a living animal unless\neach living thing in it lived its own life, and unless life were\nlatent even in inanimate objects. It is true that some powers are more\neffective than others, and that those of the sky are more so than those\nof earth, and that many things lie under their power. Nevertheless\nPlotinus sees in the reproduction of life and species in the universe a\nforce independent of the stars. In the generation of any animal, for\nexample, the stars contribute something, but the species must follow\nthat of its forebears.[1360] And after they have been produced or\nbegotten, terrestrial beings add something of their own. Nor are the\nstars the sole signs of the future. Plotinus holds that \u201call things are\nfull of signs,\u201d and that the sage can not merely predict from stars or\nbirds, but infer one thing from another by virtue of the harmony and\nsympathy existing between all parts of the universe.[1361]\n\n[Sidenote: Stars not the cause of evil.]\n\nNor can the gods or stars be said to cause evil on earth, since their\ninfluence is affected by other forces which mingle with it. Like the\nearlier Jewish Platonist, Philo, Plotinus denies that the planets are\nthe cause of evil or change their own natures from good to evil as\nthey enter new signs of the zodiac or take up different positions in\nrelation to one another. He argues that they are not changeable beings,\nthat they would not willingly injure men, or, if it is contended that\nthey are mere bodies and have no wills, he replies that then they can\nproduce only corporeal effects. He then solves the problem of evil in\nthe usual manner by ascribing it to matter, in which reason and the\ncelestial force are received unevenly, as light is broken and refracted\nin passing through water.[1362]\n\n[Sidenote: Against the astrology of the Gnostics.]\n\nPlotinus repeats much the same line of argument in his book against the\nGnostics, where he protests against \u201cthe tragedy of terrors which they\nthink exists in the spheres of the universe,\u201d[1363] and the tyranny\nthey ascribe to the heavenly bodies. His belief is that the celestial\nspheres are in perfect harmony both with the universe as a whole and\nwith our globe, completing the whole and constituting a great part of\nit, supplying beauty and order. And often they are to be regarded as\nsigns rather than causes of the future. Their natures are constant,\nbut the sequence of events may be varied by chance circumstances,\nsuch as different hours of nativities, place of residence, and the\ndispositions of individual souls. Amid all this diversity one must also\nexpect both good and evil, but not on that account call nature or the\nstars either evil themselves or the cause of evil.\n\n[Sidenote: Fate and free-will.]\n\nAs the allusion just made in the preceding paragraph to \u201cthe\ndispositions of individual souls\u201d shows, Plotinus made a distinction\nbetween the extent of the control exercised by the stars over\ninanimate, animate, and rational beings. The stars signify all things\nin the sensible world but the soul is free unless it slips and is\nstained by the body and so comes under their control. Fate or the force\nof the stars is like a wind which shakes and tosses the ship of the\nbody in which the soul makes its passage. Man as a part of the world\ndoes some things and suffers many things in accordance with destiny.\nSome men become slaves to this world and to external influences, as\nif they were bewitched. Others look to their inner souls and strive\nto free themselves from the sensible world and to rise above demonic\nnature and all fate of nativities and all necessity of this world, and\nto live in the intelligible world above[1364].\n\n[Sidenote: Summary of the attitude of Plotinus to astrology.]\n\nThus Plotinus arrives at practically what was to be the usual Christian\nposition in the middle ages regarding the influence of the stars,\nmaintaining the freedom of the human will and yet allowing a large\nfield to astrological prediction. He is evidently more concerned to\ncombat the notion that the stars cause evil or are to be feared as\nevil powers than he is to combat the belief in their influence and\nsignifications. His speaking of the stars both as signs and causes in\na way doubles the possibility of prediction from them. If he attacked\nthe language used by astrologers of the planets, and perhaps to a\ncertain extent the technique of their art, he supported astrology by\nreconciling the existence of evil and of human freedom with a great\ninfluence of the stars and by his emphasis upon the importance of\nthe figures made by the movements of the heavenly bodies above any\npurely physical effects of their bodies as such. Thus he reinforced\nthe conception of occult virtue, always one of the chief pillars, if\nnot the chief support, of occult science and magic. On the other hand,\nmen were not likely to reform a language and technique sanctioned\nby as great an astronomer as Ptolemy merely because a Neo-Platonist\nquestioned its propriety.\n\n[Sidenote: Porphyry\u2019s _Letter to Anebo_.]\n\nAlthough Plotinus denied that diseases were due to demons, we once\nheard him speak of \u201cdemonic nature,\u201d and one of the _Enneads_ discusses\n_Each man\u2019s own demon_. Here, however, the discussion is limited to\nthe power presiding in each human soul, and nothing is said of magic.\nFor the connection of demons with magic and for the art of theurgy we\nmust turn to the writings of Porphyry and Iamblichus, and especially\nto _The Letter to Anebo_ of Porphyry, who lived from about 233 to 305,\nand the reply thereto of the master Abammon, a work which is otherwise\nknown as _Liber de mysteriis_[1365]. The attribution of the latter\nwork to Iamblichus, who died about 330, is based upon an anonymous\nassertion prefixed to an ancient manuscript of Proclus and upon the\nfact that Proclus himself quotes a passage from the _De mysteriis_ as\nthe words of Iamblichus. This attribution has been questioned, but if\nnot by Iamblichus, the work seems to be at least by some disciple of\nhis with similar views[1366]. Other works of Iamblichus are largely\nphilosophical and mathematical; among the chief works of Porphyry,\napart from his literary work in connection with Plotinus, were his\ncommentaries on Aristotle and fifteen books against the Christians.\n\n[Sidenote: Its main argument.]\n\nThe _Letter to Anebo_ inquires concerning the nature of the gods,\nthe demons, and the stars; asks for an explanation of divination and\nastrology, of the power of names and incantations; and questions the\nemployment of invocations and sacrifice. Other topics brought up are\nthe rule of spirits over the world of nature, partitioned out among\nthem for this purpose; the divine inspiration or demoniacal possession\nof human beings; and the occult sympathy between different things in\nthe material universe. In especial the art of theurgy, a word said to\nbe used now for the first time by Porphyry,[1367] is discussed. It\nmay be roughly defined for the moment as a sort of pious necromancy\nor magical cult of the gods. Porphyry raises various objections to\nthe procedure and logic of the theurgists, diviners, enchanters, and\nastrologers, which Iamblichus, as we shall henceforth call the author\nof the _De mysteriis_ as a matter of convenience if not of certainty,\nendeavors to answer, and to justify the art of theurgy.\n\n[Sidenote: Questions concerning divine natures.]\n\nWe may first note the theory of demons which is elicited from\nIamblichus in response to Porphyry\u2019s trenchant and searching questions.\nThe latter, declaring that ignorance and disingenuousness concerning\ndivine natures are no less reprehensible than impiety and impurity,\ndemands a scientific discussion of the gods as a holy and beneficial\nact. He asks why, if the divine power is infinite, indivisible, and\nincomprehensible, different places and different parts of the body\nare allotted to different gods. Why, if the gods are pure intellects,\nthey are represented as having passions, are worshiped with phallic\nritual, and are tempted with invocations and sacred offerings? Why\nboastful speech and fantastic action are taken as indications of the\ndivine presence; and why, if the gods dwell in the heavens, theurgists\ninvoke only terrestrial and subterranean deities? How superior beings\ncan be invoked with commands by their inferiors, why the Sun and Moon\nare threatened, why the man must be just and chaste who invokes spirits\nin order to secure unjust ends or gratify lust, and why the worshiper\nmust abstain from animal food and not touch a corpse when sacrifices\nto the gods consist of the bodies of dead victims? Porphyry wishes\nfurther an explanation of the various _genera_ of gods, visible and\ninvisible, corporeal and incorporeal, beneficent and malicious, aquatic\nand aerial. He wants to know whether the stars are not gods, how gods\ndiffer from demons, and what the distinction is between souls and\nheroes.\n\n[Sidenote: Orders of spiritual beings.]\n\nIamblichus in reply states that as heroes are elevated above souls,\nso demons are inferior and subservient to the gods and translate\nthe infinite, ineffable, and invisible divine transcendent goodness\ninto terms of visible forms, energy, and reason.[1368] He further\ndistinguishes \u201cthe etherial, empyrean, and celestial gods,\u201d and angels,\narchangels, and archons.[1369] As for corporeal, visible, aerial, and\naquatic gods, he affirms that the gods have no bodies and no particular\nallotments of space, but that natural objects participate in or are\nrelated to the gods etherially or aerially or aquatically, each\naccording to its nature.[1370] \u201cThe celestial divinities,\u201d for example,\n\u201care not comprehended by bodies but contain bodies in their divine\nlives and energies. They are not themselves converted to body, but\nthey have a body which is converted to its divine cause, and that body\ndoes not impede their intellectual and incorporeal perfection.\u201d[1371]\nIamblichus denies that there are any maleficent gods, saying that \u201cit\nis much better to acknowledge our inability to explain the occurrence\nof evil than to admit anything impossible and false concerning the\ngods.\u201d[1372] But he admits the existence of both good and evil demons\nand makes of the latter a convenient scapegoat upon whom to saddle any\ninconsistencies or impurities in religious rites and magical ceremony.\n\n[Sidenote: Nature of demons.]\n\nIamblichus does not, however, hold the view of Apuleius that demons\nare subject to passions. They are impassive and incapable of\nsuffering.[1373] He scorns the notion that even the worst demons can\nbe allured by the vapors of animal sacrifice or that petty mortals can\nsupply such beings with anything;[1374] it is rather in the consumption\nof foul matter by pure fire in the act of sacrifice that they take\ndelight. Demons are not, however, like the gods entirely separated\nfrom bodies. The world is divided up into prefectures among them and\nthey are more or less inseparable from and identified with the natural\nobjects which they govern.[1375] Thus they may serve to enmesh the\nsoul in the bonds of matter and of fate, and to afflict the body with\ndisease.[1376] Also the evil demons \u201care surrounded by certain noxious,\nblood-devouring, and fierce wild beasts,\u201d probably of the type of\nvampires and _empousas_.[1377] Iamblichus further holds that there is\na class of demons who are without judgment and reason, each of whom\nhas some one function to perform and is not adapted to do anything\nelse.[1378] Such demons or forces in nature men may well address as\nsuperiors in invoking them, since they are superior to men in their\none special function; but when they have once been invoked, man as a\nrational being may also well issue commands to them as his irrational\ninferiors.[1379]\n\n[Sidenote: The art of theurgy.]\n\nIamblichus also undertakes the defense of theurgy and carefully\ndistinguishes it from magic, as we shall soon see. It is also different\nfrom science, since it does not merely employ the physical forces of\nthe natural universe,[1380] and from philosophy, since its ineffable\nworks are beyond the reach of mere intelligence, and those who\nmerely philosophize theoretically cannot hope for a theurgic union\nor communion with the gods.[1381] Even theurgists cannot as a rule\nendure the light of spiritual beings higher than heroes, demons, and\nangels,[1382] and it is an exceedingly rare occurrence for one of them\nto be united with the supramundane gods.[1383] This theurgy, or \u201cthe\nart of divine works,\u201d operates by means of \u201carcane signatures\u201d and\n\u201cthe power of inexplicable symbols.\u201d[1384] It is thus that Iamblichus\nexplains away most of the details in sacred rites and sacrifices to\nwhich Porphyry had objected as obscene or material and as implying\nthat the gods themselves were passive and passionate. They are mystic\nsymbols, \u201cconsecrated from eternity\u201d for some hidden reason \u201cwhich\nis more excellent than reason.\u201d[1385] Occult virtues indeed! We have\nalready heard Iamblichus state that natural objects participate in\nor are related to the gods etherially or aerially or aquatically;\ntheurgists therefore quite properly employ in their art certain stones,\nherbs, aromatics, and sacred animals.[1386] By employing such potent\nsymbols mere man takes on such a sacred character himself that he is\nable to command many spiritual powers.[1387]\n\n[Sidenote: Invocations and the power of words.]\n\nInvocations and prayers are also much used in theurgical operations.\nBut such invocations do not draw down the impassive and pure gods\nto this world; rather they purify those who employ them from their\npassions and impurity and exalt them to union with the pure and the\ndivine.[1388] These prayers are symbolic, too. They do not appeal to\nhuman passions or reason, \u201cfor they are perfectly unknown and arcane\nand are alone known to the God whom they invoke.\u201d[1389] In another\npassage[1390] Iamblichus replies to Porphyry\u2019s objection that such\nprayers are often composed of meaningless words and names without\nsignification by declaring\u2014somewhat inconsistently with his previous\nassertion that these invocations are \u201cperfectly unknown\u201d\u2014that some of\nthe names \u201cwhich we can scientifically analyze\u201d comprehend \u201cthe whole\ndivine essence, power and order.\u201d Moreover, if translated into another\nlanguage, they do not have exactly the same meaning, and even if they\ndo, they no longer retain the same power as in the original tongue.\nWe shall meet a similar passage concerning the power of words and\ndivine names in the church father Origen who lived earlier in the third\ncentury than Porphyry and Iamblichus. Iamblichus concludes that \u201cit is\nnecessary that ancient prayers ... should be preserved invariably the\nsame.\u201d[1391]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic a human art: theurgy divine.]\n\nNeither Porphyry nor Iamblichus, I believe, employs the word, \u201cmagic,\u201d\nbut they both often allude to its practitioners and methods by such\nexpressions as \u201cjugglers\u201d and \u201cenchanters\u201d or by contrasting what is\ndone \u201cartificially\u201d or by means of art with theurgical operations.\nIn the last case the distinction is between what on the one hand is\nregarded as a divine mystery or revelation and what on the other hand\nis looked upon as a mere human art and contrivance. And \u201cnothing ...\nwhich is fashioned by human art is genuine and pure.\u201d[1392] Christian\nwriters drew a like distinction between prophecy or miracle and\ndivination or magic. Sometimes, however, Iamblichus speaks of theurgy\nitself as an art, an involuntary admission of the close resemblance\nbetween its methods and those of magic. We are also told that if the\ntheurgist makes a slip in his procedure, he thereby reduces it to the\nlevel of magic.[1393]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic\u2019s abuse of nature\u2019s forces.]\n\nAnother distinction is that theurgy aims at communion with the\ngods while magic has to do rather with \u201cthe physical or corporeal\npowers of the universe.\u201d[1394] Both Porphyry and Iamblichus believed\nthat harmony, sympathy, and mutual attraction existed between the\nvarious objects in the universe, which Iamblichus asserted was one\nanimal.[1395] Thus it is possible for man to draw distant things to\nhimself or to unite them to, or separate them from, one another.[1396]\nBut art may also use this force of sympathy between objects in an\nextreme and unseemly manner, and this disorderly forcing of nature, we\nare left to infer, constitutes an essential feature of magic, whose\nprocedure is not truly natural or scientific.\n\n[Sidenote: Its evil character.]\n\nMagic not only disorders the law and harmony, and makes a perverse and\ncontrary use of natural forces. Its practitioners are also represented\nas aiming at evil ends and as themselves of evil character.[1397]\nThey may try by their illicit and impure procedure to have intercourse\nwith the gods or with pure spirits, but they are unable to accomplish\nthis. All that they succeed in doing is to secure the alliance of\nevil demons by associating with whom they become more depraved than\never. Such wicked demons may pose as angels of light by requiring that\nthose who invoke them should be just or chaste, but afterwards they\nshow their true colors by assisting in crimes and the gratification\nof lusts.[1398] It is they, too, who assuming the guise of superior\nspirits are responsible for the boastful and arrogant utterances\nof which Porphyry complained in persons supposed to be divinely\ninspired.[1399]\n\n[Sidenote: Its deceit and unreality.]\n\nFinally magic is unstable and fantastic. \u201cThe imaginations artificially\nproduced by enchantment\u201d are not real objects. Those who foretell the\nfuture by \u201cstanding on characters\u201d are no theurgists, but employ a\nsuperficial, false, and deceptive procedure which can attract only\nevil demons.[1400] These demons are themselves deceitful and produce\n\u201cfictitious images.\u201d[1401] Porphyry in the _Letter to Anebo_ also\nalluded to the frauds of \u201cjugglers.\u201d Although the attitude both of\nPorphyry and Iamblichus is thus professedly unfavorable to the magic\narts, we find that one of Iamblichus\u2019s disciples, named Sopater,\nwas executed under Constantine on a charge of having charmed the\nwinds.[1402]\n\n[Sidenote: Porphyry on modes of divination.]\n\nHow is divination to be placed in reference to magic and theurgy?\nPorphyry had inquired concerning various methods of divination: in\nsleep, in trances, and when fully conscious; in ecstasy, in disease,\nand in states of mental aberration or enchantment. He mentioned\ndivination on hearing drums and cymbals, by drinking water and other\npotions, by inhaling vapor; divination in darkness, in a wall, in the\nopen air or in the sunlight; by observing entrails or the flight of\nbirds or the motion of the stars, or even by means of meal. Yet other\nmodes of determining the future which he lists are by characters,\nimages, incantations, and invocations, with which the use of stones and\nherbs is often combined. These details make it evident how impossible\nit is to draw any dividing line between the methods of magic and\ndivination, and Porphyry himself states that those who invoke the gods\nconcerning the future not only \u201chave about them stones and herbs,\u201d\nbut are able to bind and to free from bonds, to open closed doors,\nand to change men\u2019s intentions. Among the virtues of parts of animals\nmentioned in his treatise upon abstinence from animal food are the\npowers of divination which may be obtained by eating the heart of a\nhawk or crow.[1403]\n\n[Sidenote: Iamblichus on divination.]\n\nPorphyry states that all diviners attribute their predictions to gods\nor demons, but that he wonders if foreknowledge may not be a power of\nthe human soul or perhaps accountable for by the sympathy which exists\nbetween different parts of the universe. Iamblichus holds, however,\nthat divination is neither a human art nor the work of nature but\nof divine origin.[1404] He perhaps regards it as little more than a\nbranch of theurgy. He distinguishes between human dreams which are\nsometimes true, sometimes false, and dreams and visions divinely\nsent.[1405] If one is able to predict the future by drinking water,\nit is because the water has been divinely illuminated.[1406] That\nwe can predict when the mind is diseased and disordered, and that\nstupid or simple-minded men are often better able to prophesy than the\nwise and learned, are for him but further proofs that foreknowledge\nis a divine gift and not a human science, while divination by such\nmeans as rods, pebbles, grains of corn and wheat simply excites the\nmore his pious admiration at the greatness of divine power.[1407] He\ndisapproves of divination by standing on characters,[1408] but sees no\nreason why divination in darkness, in a wall, or in sunlight, or by\npotions and incantations, may not be divinely directed. He will not,\nhowever, connect the disordered imaginations excited by disease with\ndivine presentiments.[1409] From true divination he also separates\nthe \u201cnatural prescience\u201d of certain animals whose acuteness of sense\nor occult sympathy with other parts and forces of nature enables them\nto perceive some coming events before men do. Their power resembles\nprophecy, \u201cyet falls short of it in stability and truth.\u201d[1410] Augury\nis an art whose conjectures have great probability, but they are based\nupon divine signs or portents effected in nature by the agency of\ndemons.[1411]\n\n[Sidenote: Are the stars gods?]\n\nThe stars are on a totally different plane from the other substances\nemployed in divination. To Porphyry\u2019s question whether they are not\ngods Iamblichus is not content to reply that the celestial divinities\ncomprehend these heavenly bodies and that the bodies in no way impede\n\u201ctheir intellectual and incorporeal perfection.\u201d[1412] He must needs go\non to argue that the stars themselves, as simple indivisible bodies,\nunchanging in quality and uniform in movement, closely approach to \u201cthe\nincorporeal essence of the gods.\u201d He then triumphantly if illogically\nconcludes, \u201cThus therefore the visible celestials are all of them gods\nand after a certain manner incorporeal.\u201d We may add the opinion of\nChaeremon and others, noted by Porphyry, that the only gods were the\nphysical ones of the Egyptians and the planets, signs of the zodiac,\ndecans, and horoscope; all religious myths were explained by Chaeremon\nas astrological allegories.\n\n[Sidenote: Is there an art of astrology?]\n\nPorphyry objected that those who thus reduce religion to astrology\nsubmit everything to fate and leave the human soul no freedom, and\nfurthermore that in any case astrology is an unattainable science.\nIamblichus defends it against these objections, insisting that the\nuniverse is divided under the rule of planets, signs, and decans;[1413]\nthat the Egyptians do not make everything physical but ascribe\ntwo souls to man, one of which obeys the revolutions of the stars,\nwhile the other is intellectual and free;[1414] and that there is a\nsystematic art of astrology based on divine revelation and the long\nobservations of the Chaldeans, although like any other science it may\nat times degenerate and become contaminated by error.[1415] Iamblichus\nfurther regards as ridiculous the contention of those \u201cwho ascribe\ndepravity to the celestial bodies because their participants sometimes\nproduce evil.\u201d[1416] In the brief separate treatise, _De fato_,[1417]\nhe again holds that all things are bound by the indissoluble chain of\nnecessity which men call fate, but that the gods can loose the bonds\nof fate, and that the human mind, too, has power to rise above nature,\nunite with the gods, and enjoy eternal life.\n\n[Sidenote: Porphyry and astrology.]\n\nWhether Porphyry in his other extant works evidences a belief\nin astrology or not, and whether he wrote an _Introduction to\nthe Tetrabiblos_ or astrological handbook of Ptolemy, has been\ndisputed.[1418] This _Introduction_ ascribed to Porphyry was much cited\nby subsequent astrologers[1419] and was printed in 1559 together with\na much longer anonymous commentary on the _Tetrabiblos_ which some\nascribe to Proclus.[1420]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological images.]\n\nTowards astrological images at least, Porphyry shows himself in the\n_Letter to Anebo_ more favorable than Iamblichus, saying, \u201cNor are the\nartificers of efficacious images to be despised, for they observe the\nmotion of celestial bodies.\u201d Iamblichus, on the other hand, rather\ngrudgingly admits that \u201cthe image-making art attracts a certain very\nobscure genesiurgic portion from the celestial effluxions.\u201d[1421] He\nseems to have the same feeling against images as against characters,\nperhaps regarding both as bordering upon idolatry.[1422]\n\n[Sidenote: Number mysticism.]\n\nPlotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were all given to number mysticism.\nThe sixth book of the sixth _Ennead_ is entirely devoted to this\nsubject, while Porphyry and Iamblichus both wrote _Lives_ of Pythagoras\nand treatises upon his doctrine of number.\n\n[Sidenote: Porphyry as reported by Eusebius.]\n\nOther works by Porphyry than the _Letter to Anebo_ are cited or quoted\na good deal by Eusebius in _Praeparatio evangelica_, especially\nhis \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, but the extracts are made for\nEusebius\u2019s own purposes, which are to discredit pagan religion,\nand neither express Porphyry\u2019s complete thought nor probably even\ntend to prove his original point. Besides showing that Porphyry was\ninconsistent in distinguishing the different victims to be sacrificed\nto terrestrial and subterranean, aerial, celestial, and sea gods in the\nabove-mentioned work, when in his _De abstinentia a rebus animatis_ he\nheld that beings who delighted in animal sacrifice were no gods but\nmere demons, Eusebius quotes him a good deal to show that the pagan\ngods were nothing but demons, that they themselves might be called\nmagicians and astrologers, that they loved characters, and that they\nmade their predictions of the future not from their own foreknowledge\nbut from the stars by the art of astrology, and that like men they\ncould not even always read the decrees of the stars aright. The belief\nis also mentioned that the fate foretold from the stars may be avoided\nby resort to magic.[1423]\n\n[Sidenote: The Emperor Julian on theurgy and astrology.]\n\nThe Emperor Julian was an enthusiastic follower of Iamblichus whom\nhe praises[1424] in his _Hymn to the Sovereign Sun_ delivered at the\nSaturnalia of 361 A.\u202fD. He also describes \u201cthe blessed theurgists\u201d as\nable to comprehend unspeakable mysteries which are hidden from the\ncrowd, such as Julian the Chaldean prophesied concerning the god of\nthe seven rays.[1425] The emperor tells us that from his youth he was\nregarded as over-curious (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a word which almost implies\nthe practice of magic) and as a diviner by the stars (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd). His\n_Hymn to the Sun_ contains a good deal of astrological detail, speaks\nof the universe as eternal and divine, and regards planets, signs, and\ndecans as \u201cthe visible gods.\u201d In short, \u201cthere is in the heavens a\ngreat multitude of gods.\u201d[1426] The Sun, however, is superior to the\nother planets, and as Aristotle has pointed out \u201cmakes the simplest\nmovement of all the heavenly bodies that travel in a direction opposite\nto the whole.\u201d[1427] The Sun is also the link between the visible\nuniverse and the intelligible world, and Julian infers from his middle\nstation among the planets that he is also king among the intellectual\ngods.[1428] For behind his visible self is the great Invisible. He\nfrees our souls entirely from the power of \u201cGenesis,\u201d or the force of\nthe stars exercised at nativity, and lifts them to the world of the\npure intellect.[1429]\n\n[Sidenote: Julian and divination.]\n\nJulian believed in almost every form of pagan divination as well as\nin astrology. To the oracles of Apollo he ascribed the civilizing of\nthe greater part of the world through the foundation of Greek colonies\nand the revelation of religious and political law.[1430] The historian\nAmmianus Marcellinus[1431] tells us that Julian was continually\ninspecting entrails of victims and interpreting dreams and omens, and\nthat he even proposed to re-open a prophetic fountain whose predictions\nwere supposed to have enabled Hadrian to become emperor, after which\nthat emperor blocked it up from fear that someone else might supplant\nhim through its instrumentality. In another passage[1432] he defends\nJulian from the charge of magic, saying, \u201cInasmuch as malicious persons\nhave attributed the use of evil arts to learn the future to this ruler\nwho was a learned inquirer into all branches of knowledge, we shall\nbriefly indicate how a wise man is able to acquire this by no means\ntrivial variety of learning. The spirit behind all the elements, seeing\nthat it is incessantly and everywhere active in the prophetic movement\nof perennial bodies, bestows upon us the gift of divination by the\ndifferent arts which we employ; and the forces of nature, propitiated\nby varied rites, as from exhaustless springs provide mankind with\nprophetic utterances.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Scientific divination.]\n\nAmmianus thus regards the arts of divination as serious sciences\nbased upon natural forces, although of course in the characteristic\nNeo-Platonic way of thinking he confuses the spiritual and physical and\nsubstitutes propitiatory rites for scientific experiments. His phrase,\n\u201cthe prophetic movement of perennial bodies\u201d almost certainly means\nthe stars and shows his belief in astrology. In another passage[1433]\nhe indicates the widespread trust in astrology among the Roman nobles\nof his time, the later fourth century, by saying that even those \u201cwho\ndeny that there are superior powers in the sky,\u201d nevertheless think it\nimprudent to appear in public or dine or bathe without having first\nconsulted an almanac as to the whereabouts of Mercury or the exact\nposition of the moon in Cancer. The passage is satirical, no doubt, but\nAmmianus probably objects quite as much to their disbelief in superior\npowers in the sky as he does to the excess of their superstition.\nThat astrology and divination may be studied scientifically he again\nindicates in a description of learning at Alexandria. Besides praising\nthe medical training to be had there, and mentioning the study of\ngeometry, music, astronomy, and arithmetic, he says, \u201cIn addition to\nthese subjects they cultivate the science which reveals the ways of the\nfates.\u201d[1434]\n\n[Sidenote: Proclus on theurgy.]\n\nIamblichus\u2019s account of theurgy is repeated in more condensed form by\nProclus (412-485) in a brief treatise or fragment which is extant only\nin its Latin translation by the Florentine humanist Ficinus, entitled\n_De sacrificio et magia_.[1435] Neither magic nor theurgy, however, is\nmentioned by name in the Latin text. Proclus states that the priests\nof old built up their sacred science by observing the sympathy existing\nbetween natural objects and by arguing from manifest to occult powers.\nThey saw how things on earth were associated with things in the heavens\nand further discovered how to bring down divine virtue to this lower\nworld by the force of likeness which binds things together. Proclus\ngives several examples of plants, stones, and animals which evidence\nsuch association. The cock, for instance, is reverenced by the lion\nbecause both are under the same planet, the sun, but the cock even\nmore so than the lion. Therefore demons who appear with the heads of\nlions (_leonina fronte_) vanish suddenly at the sight of a cock unless\nthey chance to be demons of the solar order. After thus indicating\nthe importance of astrology as well as occult virtue in theurgy or\nmagic, Proclus tells how demons are invoked. Sometimes a single herb\nor stone \u201csuffices for the divine work\u201d; sometimes several substances\nand rites must be combined \u201cto summon that divinity.\u201d When they had\nsecured the presence of the demons, the priests proceeded, partly under\nthe instruction of the demons and partly by their own industrious\ninterpretation of symbols, to a study of the gods. \u201cFinally, leaving\nbehind natural objects and forces and even to a great extent the\ndemons, they won communion with the gods.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Neo-Platonic account of magic borrowed by Christians.]\n\nDespite the writings of Porphyry and other Neo-Platonists against\nChristianity, much use was made by Christian theologians of the fourth\nand fifth centuries of the Neo-Platonic accounts of magic, astrology,\nand divination, especially of Porphyry\u2019s _Letter to Anebo_. Eusebius\nin his _Praeparatio Evangelica_[1436] made large extracts from it on\nthese themes and also from Porphyry\u2019s work on the Chaldean oracles.\nAugustine in _The City of God_[1437] accepted Porphyry as an authority\non the subjects of theurgy and magic. On the other hand, we do not find\nthe Christian writers repeating the attitude of Plotinus that the life\nof reason is alone free from magic, except as they substitute the word\n\u201cChristianity\u201d for \u201cthe life of reason.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Neo-Platonists and alchemy.]\n\nThe Neo-Platonists showed some interest in alchemy as well as in\ntheurgy and astrology. Berthelot published in his _Collection des\nAlchimistes Grecs_ \u201ca little tract of positive chemistry\u201d which is\nextant under the name of Iamblichus; and Proclus treated of the\nrelations between the metals and planets and the generation of the\nmetals under the influence of the stars.[1438] Of Synesius, who was\nboth a Neo-Platonist and a Christian bishop, and who seems to have\nwritten works of alchemy, we shall treat in a later chapter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n AELIAN, SOLINUS AND HORAPOLLO\n\n Aelian _On the Nature of Animals_\u2014General character of the work\u2014Its\n hodge-podge of unclassified detail\u2014Solinus in the middle ages\u2014His\n date\u2014General character of his work; its relation to Pliny\u2014Animals\n and gems\u2014Occult medicine\u2014Democritus and Zoroaster not regarded\n as magicians\u2014Some bits of astrology\u2014Alexander the Great\u2014The\n _Hieroglyphics_ of Horapollo\u2014Marvels of animals\u2014Animals and\n astrology\u2014The cynocephalus\u2014Horapollo the cosmopolitan.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Aelian _On the Nature of Animals_.]\n\nFrom mystic and theurgic compositions we return to works of the\ndeclining Roman Empire which deal more directly with nature but,\nit must be confessed, in a manner somewhat fantastic. About the\nbeginning of the third century, Aelian of Praeneste, who is included\nby Philostratus in his _Lives of the Sophists_, wrote _On the Nature\nof Animals_.[1439] Its seventeen books, written in Greek, which Aelian\nused fluently despite his Latin birth, are believed to have reached us\npartly in interpolated form through two families of manuscripts, of\nwhich the older and less interpolated text is found in a thirteenth\ncentury manuscript at Paris and a somewhat earlier Vatican codex.[1440]\nA number of its chapters are similar to and perhaps borrowed from\nPliny\u2019s _Natural History_; at any rate they are commonplaces of ancient\nscience; but the work also has a marked individuality. Parallels have\nalso been noted between this work and the later _Hexaemeron_ of the\nchurch father Basil. Aelian was much cited in Byzantine literature and\nlearning, and if he was not directly used in the Latin west, at least\nthe attitude toward animals which he displays and his selection of\nmaterial concerning them are as apt precursors of medieval Latin as of\nmedieval Greek scientific literature.\n\n[Sidenote: General character of the work.]\n\nIn preface and epilogue Aelian himself adequately indicates\nthe character of his work. He is impressed by the customs and\ncharacteristics of animals, and marvels at their wisdom and native\nshrewdness, their justice and modesty, their affection and piety, which\nshould put human beings to blush. Thus Aelian\u2019s work is marked by that\ntendency which runs through ancient and medieval literature to admire\nactions in the irrational brutes which seem to indicate almost human\nintelligence and virtue on their part, and to moralize therefrom at the\nexpense of human beings. Another striking feature of his work is its\nutterly whimsical and haphazard order. He mentions things simply as\nthey happen to occur to him. This fact, too, he recognizes, but refuses\nto apologize for, stating that it suits him, if it does not suit anyone\nelse, and that he regards a mixed-up order as more motley, variegated,\nand pleasing. Not only does he attempt no classification whatever of\nhis animals and mention snakes and quadrupeds and birds in the same\nbreath; he also does not complete the treatment of a given animal in\none passage but may scatter detached items about it throughout his\nwork. There is, for instance, probably at least one chapter concerning\nelephants in each of his seventeen books.\n\n[Sidenote: Its hodge-podge of unclassified detail.]\n\nIt would therefore be absurd for us to attempt any logical arrangement\nin discussing his contents; we may do justice to him most adequately by\nadopting his own lack of method and noting a few items and topics taken\nmore or less at random from his work. Ants never go out in the new\nmoon. Yet they neither gaze at the sky, nor count the number of days\non their fingers, like the learned Babylonians and Chaldeans, but have\nthis marvelous gift from nature.[1441] In sexual intercourse the female\nviper conceives through the mouth and bites off the head of the male;\nafterwards her young gnaw their way out of her vitals. \u201cWhat have your\nOresteses and Alcmaeons to say to that, my dear tragedians?\u201d[1442]\nDoves put laurel boughs in their nests to guard against fascination and\nthe evil eye, and the hoopoe similarly employs \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03b1v\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd or \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\nas an amulet;[1443] and other unreasoning animals guard against sorcery\nby some mystic and marvelous natural power. Another chapter treats\nof divinations from the crow and how hairs are dyed black with its\neggs.[1444] Others tell us of the generation of serpents from the\nmarrow of a dead man\u2019s spine,[1445] and of venomous women like Medea\nand Circe who are worse than the asp with its incurable sting, since\nthey kill by mere touch.[1446]\n\nWe go on to read of swift little beasts called _Pyrigoni_ who are\ngenerated from fire and live in it, of salamanders who extinguish\nflames, of the remedies used by the tortoise against snakes, of the\nchastity of doves whose marriages never result in divorce, and of the\nincontinence of the partridge.[1447] Also of the jealousies of certain\nanimals like the stag which hides its right horn, the lizard who\ndevours its cast-off skin, and the mare who eats the hippomanes from\nits colt, lest men obtain these precious substances.[1448] Of the care\ntaken by storks, herons, and pelicans of their aged parents.[1449] How\nthe swallow by the virtue of an herb gives sight to its young who are\nborn blind, and how a hoopoe found an herb whose virtue dissolved the\nmud with which the caretaker of a building had plugged up the hole in\nthe wall which it used for its nest.[1450] How the lion and basilisk\nfear the cock, and of a lake without fish in a place where the cocks do\nnot crow.[1451]\n\nHow elephants venerate the waxing moon; how the weasel eats rue when\nabout to fight the snake; and of the jealousy of the hedgehog and\nlynx, the latter concealing his precious urine, the other watering\nhis own hide when he is captured in order to spoil it.[1452] How\nthe Indians fight griffins when collecting gold.[1453] How the\npresence of a cock aids a woman\u2019s delivery.[1454] Of unnamed beasts\nin Libya who know how to count and leave an eleventh part of their\nprey untouched.[1455] That the sea dragon is easily captured with\nthe left hand but not with the right.[1456] Dragons know the force\nof herbs and cure themselves with some and increase their venom with\nothers.[1457] How dogs, cows, and other animals sense a famine or\nplague beforehand.[1458] How the Egyptians by their magic charm birds\nfrom the sky and snakes from their holes.[1459] When it rains in Egypt,\nmice are born from the small drops and plague the country. Traps and\nfences and ditches are of no avail against them, as they can leap over\ntrenches and walls. Consequently the Egyptians are forced to pray God\nto end the calamity,[1460]\u2014an interesting variant on the Old Testament\naccount of the plagues of Egypt.\n\nIn dogs there exists a certain dialectical faculty of\nratiocination.[1461] The weather may be predicted from birds,\nquadrupeds, and flies.[1462] The she-goat can cure suffusion of its\neyes.[1463] Eagles drop tortoises on rocks to break their shells\nand the bald-headed poet Aeschylus met his death by having his pate\nmistaken thus for a smooth round stone.[1464] Some predict the future\nby birds, others by entrails, or by grains, sieves, and cheeses; the\nLycians practice divination by fish.[1465] A stork whom a widow of\nTarentum helped when it was too young to fly brought her a luminous\nprecious stone the following year.[1466] Solon did not have to enact\na law ordering children to support their aged parents in the case\nof lions, whose cubs are taught by nature filial piety toward their\nelders.[1467] Only the horn of the Scythian ass can hold the water of\nthe Arcadian river Styx; Alexander the Great sent a sample of it to\nDelphi with some accompanying verses which Aelian quotes.[1468] In\nEpirus dragons sacred to Apollo are employed in divination, and in the\nLavinian Grove dragons spit out again the frumenty offered them by\nunchaste virgins.[1469] By flying beneath it an eagle saved the life of\nits young one who had been thrown down from a tower.[1470] Different\nfish eat different sea herbs.[1471] There are fish who live in boiling\nwater.[1472] There are scattered mentions of the marvels of India\nthroughout Aelian\u2019s work, and in his sixteenth book the first fourteen\nchapters are almost exclusively concerned with the animals of that land.\n\n[Sidenote: Solinus in the middle ages.]\n\nA well-known work in the middle ages dating from the period of the\nRoman Empire was the _Collectanea rerum memorabilium_ or _Polyhistor_\nof Solinus. Mommsen\u2019s edition lists 153 manuscripts from 32\nplaces,[1473] and we shall find many citations of Solinus in our later\nmedieval authors. Martianus Capella and Isidore were the first to make\nextensive use of his work. In the thirteenth century Albertus Magnus\nhad little respect for Solinus as an authority and expressed more\nthan once the quite accurate opinion that his work was full of lies.\nNevertheless copies of it continued to abound in the fourteenth and\nfifteenth centuries, and by 1554 five printed editions had appeared.\n\u201cFrom it directly come most of the fables in works of object so\ndifferent as those of Dicuil, Isidore, Capella, and Priscian.\u201d[1474]\n\n[Sidenote: His date.]\n\nThe first extant author to make use of Solinus is Augustine in\n_The City of God_, while he is first named in the _Genealogus_ of\n455 A.\u202fD. None of the manuscripts of the work antedate the ninth\ncentury, but many of them have copied an earlier subscription from a\nmanuscript written \u201cby the zeal and diligence of our lord Theodosius,\nthe unconquered prince.\u201d This is taken to refer to the emperor\nTheodosius II, 401-450. The work itself, however, has no Christian\ncharacteristics; on the contrary it is very fond of mentioning places\nfamed in pagan religion and Greek mythology and of recounting miracles\nand marvels connected with heathen shrines and rites. Indeed, Solinus\nseldom, if ever, mentions anything later than the first century of\nour era. He speaks of Byzantium, not of Constantinople, and makes no\nmention of the Roman provinces as divided in the system of Diocletian.\nHis book, however, is a compilation from earlier writings so that we\nneed not expect allusions to his own age. The Latin style and general\nliterary make-up of the work are characteristic of the declining empire\nand early medieval period. Mommsen was inclined to date Solinus in the\nthird rather than the fourth century, but the work seems to have been\nrevised about the sixth century, after which date it became customary\nto call it the _Polyhistor_ rather than the _Collectanea rerum\nmemorabilium_. It is also referred to, however, as _De mirabilibus\nmundi_, or _Wonders of the World_.\n\n[Sidenote: General character of his work: its relation to Pliny.]\n\nThe work is primarily a geography and is arranged by countries and\nplaces, beginning with Rome and Italy. As each locality is considered,\nSolinus sometimes tells a little of its history, but is especially\ninclined to recount miraculous religious events or natural marvels\nassociated with that particular region. Thus in describing two lakes\nhe rather apologizes for mentioning the first at all because it\ncan scarcely be called miraculous, but assures us that the second\n\u201cis regarded as very extraordinary.\u201d[1475] Sometimes he digresses\nto other topics such as calendar reform.[1476] Solinus draws both\nhis geographical data and further details very largely from Pliny\u2019s\n_Natural History_; but inasmuch as Pliny treated of these matters\nin separate books, Solinus has to re-organize the material. He\nalso selects simply a few particulars from Pliny\u2019s wealth of detail\non any given subject, and furthermore considerably alters Pliny\u2019s\nwording, sometimes condensing the thought, sometimes amplifying the\nphraseology\u2014apparently in an effort to make the point clearer and\neasier reading. Of Pliny\u2019s thirty-seven books only those from the third\nto the thirteenth inclusive and the last book are used to any extent\nby Solinus. That is to say, he either was acquainted with only, or\nconfined himself to, those books dealing with geography, man and other\nanimals, and gems, omitting almost entirely, except for the twelfth\nand thirteenth books, Pliny\u2019s elaborate treatment of vegetation and of\nmedicinal simples[1477] and discussion of metals and the fine arts.\nSolinus does not acknowledge his great debt to Pliny in particular,\nalthough he keeps alluding to the fulness with which everything has\nalready been discussed by past authors, and although he cites other\nwriters who are almost unknown to us. Of his known sources Pomponius\nMela is the chief after Pliny but is used much less. On the other hand,\nthe number of passages for which Mommsen was unable to give any source\nis not inconsiderable. As may have been already inferred, the work\nof Solinus is brief; the text alone would scarcely fill one hundred\npages.[1478]\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and gems.]\n\nIt would perhaps be rash to conjecture which quality commended the\nbook most to the following period: its handy size, or its easy style\nand fairly systematic arrangement, or its emphasis upon marvels. The\nlast characteristic is at least the most germane to our investigation.\nSolinus rendered the service, if we may so term it, of reducing Pliny\u2019s\ntreatment of animals and precious stones in particular to a few common\nexamples, which either were already the best known or became so as\na result of his selection. Indeed, King was of the opinion that the\ndescriptions of gems in Solinus were more precise, technical, and\nsystematic than those in Pliny, and found his notices \u201coften extremely\nuseful.\u201d[1479] Solinus describes such animals as the wolf, lynx, bear,\nlion, hyena, _onager_ or wild ass, basilisk, crocodile, hippopotamus,\nphoenix, dolphin, and chameleon; and recounts the marvelous properties\nof such gems as _achates_ or agate, _galactites_, _catochites_,\ncrystal, _gagates_, adamant, heliotrope, hyacinth, and _paeanites_.\nThe dragons of India and Ethiopia also occupy his attention, as they\ndid that of Philostratus in the _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_; indeed,\nhe repeats in different words the statement found in Philostratus that\nthey swim far out to sea.[1480] In Sardinia, on the contrary, there are\nno snakes, but a poisonous ant exists there. Fortunately there are also\nhealing waters there with which to counteract its venom, but there is\nalso native to Sardinia an herb called _Sardonia_ which causes those\nwho eat it to die of laughter.[1481]\n\n[Sidenote: Occult medicine.]\n\nAlthough Solinus makes no use of Pliny\u2019s medical books, he shows\nconsiderable interest in the healing properties of simples and in\nmedicine. He tells us that those who slept in the shrine of Aesculapius\nat Epidaurus were warned in dreams how to heal their diseases,[1482]\nand that the third daughter of Aeetes, named Angitia, devoted herself\n\u201cto resisting disease by the salubrious science\u201d of medicine.[1483]\nAccording to Solinus Circe as well as Medea was a daughter of Aeetes,\nbut usually in Greek mythology she is represented as his sister.\n\n[Sidenote: Democritus and Zoroaster not regarded as magicians.]\n\nThis allusion to Circe and Medea shows that magic, to which medicine\nand pharmacy are apparently akin, does not pass unnoticed in Solinus\u2019s\npage. He copies from Mela the account of the periodical transformation\nof the _Neuri_ into wolves.[1484] But instead of accusing Democritus\nof having employed magic, as Pliny does, Solinus represents him as\nengaging in contests with the _Magi_, in which he made frequent use\nof the stone _catochites_ in order to demonstrate the occult power\nof nature.[1485] That is to say, Democritus was apparently opposing\nscience to magic and showing that all the latter\u2019s feats could be\nduplicated or improved upon by employing natural forces. In two other\npassages[1486] Solinus calls Democritus _physicus_, or scientist, and\naffirms that his birth in Abdera did more to make that town famous than\nany other thing connected with it, despite the fact that it was founded\nby and named after the sister of Diomedes. Zoroaster, too, whom Pliny\ncalled the founder of the magic art, is not spoken of as a magician by\nSolinus, although he is mentioned three times and is described as \u201cmost\nskilled in the best arts,\u201d and is cited concerning the power of coral\nand of the gem _aetites_.[1487]\n\n[Sidenote: Some bits of astrology.]\n\nIt is not part of Solinus\u2019s plan to describe the heavens, but he\noccasionally alludes to \u201cthe discipline of the stars,\u201d[1488] as he\ncalls astronomy or astrology. On the authority of L. Tarrutius, \u201cmost\nrenowned of astrologers,\u201d[1489] he tells us that the foundations of the\nwalls of Rome were laid by Romulus in his twenty-second year on the\neleventh day of the kalends of May between the second and third hours,\nwhen Jupiter was in Pisces, the sun in Taurus, the moon in Libra, and\nthe other four planets in the sign of the scorpion. He also speaks of\nthe star Arcturus destroying the Argive fleet off Euboea on its return\nfrom Ilium.[1490]\n\n[Sidenote: Alexander the Great.]\n\nAlexander the Great figures prominently in the pages of Alexander\nSolinus, being mentioned a score of times, and this too corresponds to\nthe medieval interest in the Macedonian conqueror. Stories concerning\nhim are repeated from Pliny, but Solinus also displays further\ninformation. He insists that Philip was truly his father, although he\nadds that Olympias strove to acquire a nobler father for him, when\nshe affirmed that she had had intercourse with a dragon, and that\nAlexander tried to have himself considered of divine descent.[1491]\nThe statement concerning Olympias suggests the story of Nectanebus,\nof which a later chapter will treat, but that individual is not\nmentioned, although Aristotle and Callisthenes are spoken of as\nAlexander\u2019s tutors, so that it is doubtful if Solinus was acquainted\nwith the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_. He describes Alexander\u2019s line of march\nwith fair accuracy and not in the totally incorrect manner of the\n_Pseudo-Callisthenes_.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Hieroglyphics_ of Horapollo.]\n\nIn seeking a third text and author of the same type as Aelian and\nSolinus to round out the present chapter, our choice unhesitatingly\nfalls upon the _Hieroglyphics_ of Horapollo, a work which pretends to\nexplain the meaning of the written symbols employed by the ancient\nEgyptian priests, but which is really principally concerned with\nthe same marvelous habits and properties of animals of which Aelian\ntreated. In brief the idea is that these characteristics of animals\nmust be known in order to comprehend the significance of the animal\nfigures in the ancient hieroglyphic writing. Horapollo is supposed to\nhave written in the Egyptian language in perhaps the fourth or fifth\ncentury of our era,[1492] but his work is extant only in the Greek\ntranslation of it made by a Philip who lived a century or two later and\nwho seems to have made some additions of his own.[1493]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels of animals.]\n\nThe zoology of Horapollo is for the most part not novel, but repeats\nthe same erroneous notions that may be found in Aristotle\u2019s _History\nof Animals_, Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_, Aelian, and other ancient\nauthors. Again we hear of the basilisk\u2019s fatal breath, of the beaver\u2019s\ndiscarded testicles, of the unnatural methods of conception of the\nweasel and viper, of the bear\u2019s licking its cubs into shape, of the\nkindness of storks to their parents, of wasps generated from a dead\nhorse, of the phoenix, of the swan\u2019s song, of the sick lion\u2019s eating\nan ape to cure himself, of the bull tamed by tying it to the branch of\na wild fig tree, of the elephant\u2019s fear of a ram or a dog and how it\nburies its tusks.[1494] Less familiar perhaps are the assertions that\nthe mare miscarries, if she merely treads on a wolf\u2019s tracks;[1495]\nthat the pigeon cures itself by placing laurel in its nest;[1496] that\nputting the wings of a bat on an ant-hill will prevent the ants from\ncoming out.[1497] The statement that if the hyena, when hunted, turns\nto the right, it will slay its pursuer, while if it turns to the left,\nit will be slain by him, is also found in Pliny.[1498] But his long\nenumeration of virtues ascribed to parts of the hyena by the _Magi_\ndoes not include the assertion in Horapollo\u2019s next chapter[1499] that a\nman girded with a hyena skin can pass through the ranks of his enemies\nwithout injury, although it ascribes somewhat similar virtues to the\nanimal\u2019s skin. In Horapollo it is the hawk rather than the eagle which\nsurpasses other winged creatures in its ability to gaze at the sun;\nhence physicians use the hawkweed in eye-cures.[1500]\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and astrology.]\n\nAnimals also serve as astronomical or astrological symbols in the\nsystem of hieroglyphic writing as interpreted by Horapollo. Not only\ndoes a palm tree represent the year because it puts forth a new branch\nevery new moon,[1501] but the phoenix denotes the _magnus annus_ in the\ncourse of which the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions.[1502]\nThe scarab rolls his ball of dung from east to west and gives it\nthe shape of the universe.[1503] He buries it for twenty-eight days\nconformably to the course of the moon through the zodiac, but he\nhas thirty toes to correspond to the days of the month. As there is\nno female scarab, so there is no male vulture. The female vulture\nsymbolizes the Egyptian year by spending five days in conceiving by\nthe wind, one hundred and twenty in pregnancy, the same period in\nrearing its young, and the remaining one hundred and twenty days in\npreparing itself to repeat the process.[1504] The vulture also visits\nbattlefields seven days in advance and by the direction of its glance\nindicates which army will be defeated.\n\n[Sidenote: The cynocephalus.]\n\nThe cynocephalus, dog-headed ape, or baboon, was mentioned several\ntimes by Pliny, but Horapollo gives more specific information\nconcerning it, chiefly of an astrological character. It is born\ncircumcised and is reared in temples in order to learn from it the\nexact hour of lunar eclipses, at which times it neither sees nor\neats, while the female _ex genitalibus sanguinem emittit_. The\ncynocephalus represents the inhabitable world which has seventy-two\nprimitive parts, because the animal dies and is buried piecemeal by\nthe priests during a period of as many days, until at the end of the\nseventy-second day life has entirely departed from the last remnant of\nits carcass.[1505] The cynocephalus not only marks the time of eclipses\nbut at the equinoxes makes water twelve times by day and by night,\nmarking off the hours; hence a figure of it is carved by the Egyptians\non their water-clocks.[1506] Horapollo associates together the god of\nthe universe and fate and the stars which are five in number, for he\nbelieves that five planets carry out the economy of the universe and\nthat they are subject to God\u2019s government.[1507]\n\n[Sidenote: Horapollo the cosmopolitan.]\n\nHorapollo cannot be given high rank either as a zoologist and\nastronomer, or a philologer and archaeologist; but at least he was no\nnarrow nationalist and had some respect for history. The Egyptians,\nhe says, \u201cdenote a man who has never left his own country by a human\nfigure with the head of an ass, because he neither hears any history\nnor knows of what is going on abroad.\u201d[1508]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II. EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT\n\n Foreword.\n Chapter 13. The Book of Enoch.\n \u201d 14. Philo Judaeus.\n \u201d 15. The Gnostics.\n \u201d 16. The Christian Apocrypha.\n \u201d 17. The Recognitions of Clement and Simon Magus.\n \u201d 18. The Confession of Cyprian and some similar stories.\n \u201d 19. Origen and Celsus.\n \u201d 20. Other Christian Discussion of Magic before Augustine.\n \u201d 21. Christianity and Natural Science; Basil, Epiphanius, and the\n Physiologus.\n \u201d 22. Augustine on Magic and Astrology.\n \u201d 23. The Fusion of Pagan and Christian Thought in the Fourth\n and Fifth Centuries.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II. EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT\n\n FOREWORD\n\n\nWe now turn back chronologically to the point from which we started\nin our survey of classical science and magic in order to trace the\ndevelopment of Christian thought in regard to the same subjects. How\nfar did Christianity break with ancient science and superstition? To\nwhat extent did it borrow from them?\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and religion.]\n\nIt has often been remarked that, as a new religion comes to prevail in\na society, the old rites are discredited and prohibited as magic. The\nfaith and ceremonies of the majority, performed publicly, are called\nreligion: the discarded cult, now practiced only privately and covertly\nby a minority, is stigmatized as magic and contrary to the general\ngood. Thus we shall hear Christian writers condemn the pagan oracles\nand auguries as arts of divination, and classify the ancient gods as\ndemons of the same sort as those invoked in the magic arts. Conversely,\nwhen a new religion is being introduced, is as yet regarded as a\nforeign faith, and is still only the private worship of a minority,\nthe majority regard it as outlandish magic. And this we shall find\nillustrated by the accusations of sorcery and magic heaped upon Jesus\nby the Jews, and upon the Jews and the early Christians by a world long\naccustomed to pagan rites. The same bandying back and forth of the\ncharge of magic occurred between Mohammed and the Meccans.[1509]\n\n[Sidenote: Relation between early Christian and medieval literature.]\n\nIt is perhaps generally assumed that the men of the middle ages were\nwidely read in and deeply influenced by the fathers of the early\nchurch, but at least for our subject this influence has hardly been\ntreated either broadly or in detail. Indeed, the predilection of the\nhumanists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries for anything written\nin Greek and their aversion to medieval Latin has too long operated\nas a bar to the study of medieval literature in general. And scholars\nwho have edited or studied the Greek, Syriac, and other ancient texts\nconnected with early Christianity have perhaps too often neglected the\nLatin versions preserved in medieval manuscripts, or, while treasuring\nup every hint that Photius lets fall, have failed to note the citations\nand allusions in medieval Latin encyclopedists. Yet it is often the\ncase that the manuscripts containing the Latin versions are of earlier\ndate than those which seem to preserve the Greek original text.\n\n[Sidenote: Method of presenting early Christian thought.]\n\nThere is so much repetition and resemblance between the numerous\nChristian writers in Greek and Latin of the Roman Empire that I have\neven less than in the case of their classical contemporaries attempted\na complete presentation of them, but, while not intending to omit any\naccount of the first importance in the history of magic or experimental\nscience, have aimed to make a selection of representative persons\nand typical passages. At the same time, in the case of those authors\nand works which are discussed, the aim is to present their thought\nin sufficiently specific detail to enable the reader to estimate for\nhimself their scientific or superstitious character and their relations\nto classical thought on the one hand and medieval thought on the other.\n\nBefore we treat of Christian writings themselves it is essential to\nnotice some related lines of thought and groups of writings which\neither preceded or accompanied the development of Christian thought\nand literature, and which either influenced even orthodox thought\npowerfully, or illustrate foreign elements, aberrations, side-currents,\nand undertows which none the less cannot be disregarded in tracing\nthe main current of Christian belief. We therefore shall successively\ntreat of the literature extant under the name of Enoch, of the works\nof Philo Judaeus, of the doctrines of the Gnostics, of the Christian\n_Apocrypha_, of the _Pseudo-Clementines_ and Simon Magus, and of the\n_Confession_ of Cyprian and some similar stories. We shall then make\nOrigen\u2019s _Reply to Celsus_, in which the conflict of classical and\nChristian conceptions is well illustrated, our point of departure in\nan examination of the attitude of the early fathers towards magic and\nscience. Succeeding chapters will treat of the attitude toward magic\nof other fathers before Augustine, of Christianity and natural science\nas shown in Basil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_, Epiphanius\u2019 _Panarion_, and the\n_Physiologus_, and of Augustine himself. A final chapter on the fusion\nof paganism and Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries will\nterminate this second division of our investigation and also serve as a\nsupplement to the preceding division and an introduction to the third\nbook on the early middle ages. Our arrangement is thus in part topical\nrather than strictly chronological. The dates of many authors and works\nare too dubious, there is too much of the apocryphal and interpolated,\nand we have to rely too much upon later writers for the views of\nearlier ones, to make a strictly or even primarily chronological\narrangement either advisable or feasible.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n THE BOOK OF ENOCH\n\n Enoch\u2019s reputation as an astrologer in the middle ages\u2014Date and\n influence of the literature ascribed to Enoch\u2014Angels governing the\n universe; stars and angels\u2014The fallen angels teach men magic and\n other arts\u2014The stars as sinners\u2014Effect of sin upon nature\u2014Celestial\n phenomena\u2014Mountains and metals\u2014Strange animals.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Enoch\u2019s reputation as an astrologer in the middle ages.]\n\nIn collections of medieval manuscripts there often is found a treatise\non fifteen stars, fifteen herbs, fifteen stones, and fifteen figures\nengraved upon them, which is attributed sometimes to Hermes, presumably\nTrismegistus, and sometimes to Enoch, the patriarch, who \u201cwalked with\nGod and was not.\u201d[1510] Indeed in the prologue to a Hermetic work on\nastrology in a medieval manuscript we are told that Enoch and the\nfirst of the three Hermeses or Mercuries are identical.[1511] This\ntreatise probably has no direct relation to the _Book of Enoch_,\nwhich we shall discuss in this chapter and which was composed in the\npre-Christian period. But it is interesting to observe that the same\nreputation for astrology, which led the middle ages sometimes to\nascribe this treatise to Enoch, is likewise found in \u201cthe first notice\nof a book of Enoch,\u201d which \u201cappears to be due to a Jewish or Samaritan\nHellenist,\u201d which \u201chas come down to us successively through Alexander\nPolyhistor and Eusebius,\u201d and which states that Enoch was the founder\nof astrology.[1512] The statement in Genesis that Enoch lived three\nhundred and sixty-five years would also lead men to associate him with\nthe solar year and stars.\n\n[Sidenote: Date and influence of the literature ascribed to Enoch.]\n\nThe _Book of Enoch_ is \u201cthe precipitate of a literature, once very\nactive, which revolved ... round Enoch,\u201d and in the form which has\ncome down to us is a patchwork from \u201cseveral originally independent\nbooks.\u201d[1513] It is extant in the form of Greek fragments preserved in\nthe _Chronography_ of G. Syncellus,[1514] or but lately discovered in\n(Upper) Egypt, and in more complete but also more recent manuscripts\ngiving an Ethiopic and a Slavonic version.[1515] These last two\nversions are quite different both in language and content, while some\nof the citations of Enoch in ancient writers apply to neither of these\nversions. While \u201cEthiopic did not exist as a literary language before\n350 A.\u202fD.,\u201d[1516] and none of the extant manuscripts of the Ethiopic\nversion is earlier than the fifteenth century,[1517] Charles believes\nthat they are based upon a Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic\noriginal, and that even the interpolations in this were made by an\neditor living before the Christian era. He asserts that \u201cnearly all the\nwriters of the New Testament were familiar with it,\u201d and influenced by\nit,\u2014in fact that its influence on the New Testament was greater than\nthat of all the other apocrypha together, and that it \u201chad all the\nweight of a canonical book\u201d with the early church fathers.[1518] After\n300 A.\u202fD., however, it became discredited, except as we have seen among\nEthiopic and Slavonic Christians. Before 300 Origen in his _Reply to\nCelsus_[1519] accuses his opponent of quoting the _Book of Enoch_ as\na Christian authority concerning the fallen angels. Origen objects\nthat \u201cthe books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate\nin the Churches as divine.\u201d Augustine, in the _City of God_,[1520]\nwritten between 413 and 426, admits that Enoch \u201cleft some divine\nwritings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical\nepistle.\u201d But he doubts if any of the writings current in his own day\nare genuine and thinks that they have been wisely excluded from the\ncourse of Scripture. Lods writes that after the ninth century in the\neast and from a much earlier date in the west, the _Book of Enoch_ is\nnot mentioned, \u201cAt the most some medieval rabbis seem still to know of\nit.\u201d[1521] Yet Alexander Neckam, in the twelfth century, speaks as if\nLatin Christendom of that date had some acquaintance with the Enoch\nliterature. We shall note some passages in Saint Hildegard which seem\nparallel to others in the _Book of Enoch_, while Vincent of Beauvais\nin his _Speculum naturale_ in the thirteenth century, in justifying a\ncertain discriminating use of the apocryphal books, points out that\nJude quotes Enoch whose book is now called apocryphal.[1522]\n\n[Sidenote: Angels governing the universe: stars and angels.]\n\nThe Enoch literature has much to say concerning angels, and implies\ntheir control of nature, man, and the future. We hear of Raphael,\n\u201cwho is set over all the diseases and wounds of the children of men\u201d;\nGabriel, \u201cwho is set over all the powers\u201d; Phanuel, \u201cwho is set over\nthe repentance and hope of those who inherit eternal life.\u201d[1523] The\nrevolution of the stars is described as \u201caccording to the number of\nthe angels,\u201d and in the Slavonic version the number of those angels\nis stated as two hundred.[1524] Indeed the stars themselves are often\npersonified and we read \u201chow they keep faith with each other\u201d and even\nof \u201call the stars whose privy members are like those of horses.\u201d[1525]\nThe Ethiopic version also speaks of the angels or spirits of\nhoar-frost, dew, hail, snow and so forth.[1526] In the Slavonic version\nEnoch finds in the sixth heaven the angels who attend to the phases of\nthe moon and the revolutions of stars and sun and who superintend the\ngood or evil condition of the world. He finds angels set over the years\nand seasons, the rivers and sea, the fruits of the earth, and even an\nangel over every herb.[1527]\n\n[Sidenote: The fallen angels teach men magic and other arts.]\n\nThe fallen angels in particular are mentioned in the _Book of Enoch_.\nTwo hundred angels lusted after the comely daughters of men and bound\nthemselves by oaths to marry them.[1528] After having thus taken\nunto themselves wives, they instructed the human race in the art of\nmagic and the science of botany\u2014or to be more exact, \u201ccharms and\nenchantments\u201d and \u201cthe cutting of roots and of woods.\u201d In another\nchapter various individual angels are named who taught respectively\nthe enchanters and botanists, the breaking of charms, astrology, and\nvarious branches thereof.[1529] In the Greek fragment preserved by\nSyncellus there are further mentioned pharmacy, and what probably\ndenote geomancy (\u201csign of the earth\u201d) and aeromancy (_aeroskopia_).\nThrough this revelation of mysteries which should have been kept hid\nwe are told that men \u201cknow all the secrets of the angels, and all the\nviolence of the Satans, and all their occult power, and all the power\nof those who practice sorcery, and the power of witchcraft, and the\npower of those who make molten images for the whole earth.\u201d[1530]\nThe revelation included, moreover, not only magic arts, witchcraft,\ndivination, and astrology, but also natural sciences, such as botany\nand pharmacy\u2014which, however, are apparently regarded as closely akin\nto magic\u2014and useful arts such as mining metals, manufacturing armor\nand weapons, and \u201cwriting with ink and paper\u201d\u2014\u201cand thereby many sinned\nfrom eternity to eternity and until this day.\u201d[1531] As the preceding\nremark indicates, the author is decidedly of the opinion that men were\nnot created to the end that they should write with pen and ink. \u201cFor\nman was created exactly like the angels to the intent that he should\ncontinue righteous and pure, ... but through this their knowledge men\nare perishing.\u201d[1532] Perhaps the writer means to censure writing as\nmagical and thinks of it only as mystic signs and characters. Magic\nis always regarded as evil in the Enoch literature, and witchcraft,\nenchantments, and \u201cdevilish magic\u201d are given a prominent place in a\nlist in the Slavonic version[1533] of evil deeds done upon earth.\n\n[Sidenote: The stars as sinners.]\n\nIn connection with the fallen angels we find the stars regarded as\ncapable of sin as well as personified. In the Ethiopic version there\nis more than one mention of seven stars that transgressed the command\nof God and are bound against the day of judgment or for the space of\nten thousand years.[1534] One passage tells how \u201cjudgment was held\nfirst over the stars, and they were judged and found guilty, and went\nto the place of condemnation, and they were cast into an abyss.\u201d[1535]\nA similar identification of the stars with the fallen angels is found\nin one of the visions of Saint Hildegard in the twelfth century. She\nwrites, \u201cI saw a great star most splendid and beautiful, and with it\nan exceeding multitude of falling sparks which with the star followed\nsouthward. And they examined Him upon His throne almost as something\nhostile, and turning from Him, they sought rather the north. And\nsuddenly they were all annihilated, being turned into black coals ...\nand cast into the abyss that I could see them no more.\u201d[1536] She then\ninterprets the vision as signifying the fall of the angels.\n\n[Sidenote: Effect of sin upon nature.]\n\nAn idea which we shall find a number of times in other ancient and\nmedieval writers appears also in the _Book of Enoch_. It is that human\nsin upsets the world of nature, and in this particular case, even the\nperiod of the moon and the orbits of the stars.[1537] Hildegard again\nroughly parallels the Enoch literature by holding that the original\nharmony of the four elements upon this earth was changed into a\nconfused and disorderly mixture after the fall of man.[1538]\n\n[Sidenote: Celestial phenomena]\n\nThe natural world, although intimately associated with the spiritual\nworld and hardly distinguished from it in the Enoch literature,\nreceives considerable attention, and much of the discussion in both\nthe Ethiopic and Slavonic versions is of a scientific rather than\nethical or apocalyptic character. One section of the Ethiopic version\nis described by Charles[1539] as the _Book of Celestial Physics_ and\nupholds a calendar based upon the lunar year. The Slavonic version,\non the other hand, while mentioning the lunar year of 354 days and\nthe solar year of 365 and \u00bc days, seems to prefer the latter, since\nthe years of Enoch\u2019s life are given as 365, and he writes 366 books\nconcerning what he has seen in his visions and voyages.[1540] The\n_Book of Enoch_ supposes a plurality of heavens.[1541] In the Slavonic\nversion Enoch is taken through the seven heavens, or ten heavens\nin one manuscript, with the signs of the zodiac in the eighth and\nninth. An account is also given of the creation, and the waters above\nthe firmament, which were to give the early Christian apologists and\nmedieval clerical scientists so much difficulty, are described as\nfollows: \u201cAnd thus I made firm the waters, that is, the depths, and I\nsurrounded the waters with light, and I created seven circles, and I\nfashioned them like crystal, moist and dry, that is to say, like glass\nand ice, and as for the waters and also the other elements I showed\neach of them their paths, (viz.) to the seven stars, each of them in\ntheir heaven, how they should go.\u201d[1542] The order of the seven planets\nin their circles is given as follows: in the first and highest circle\nthe star Kruno, then Aphrodite or Venus, Ares (Mars), the sun, Zeus\n(Jupiter), Hermes (Mercury), and the moon.[1543] God also tells Enoch\nthat the duration of the world will be for a week of years, that is,\nseven thousand, after which \u201clet there be at the beginning of the\neighth thousand a time when there is no computation and no end; neither\nyears nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.\u201d[1544]\n\n[Sidenote: Mountains and metals.]\n\nTurning from celestial physics to terrestrial phenomena, we may note a\nfew allusions to minerals, vegetation, and animals. \u201cSeven mountains\nof magnificent stones\u201d are more than once mentioned in the Ethiopic\nversion and are described as each different from the other.[1545]\nAnother passage speaks of \u201cseven mountains full of choice nard and\naromatic trees and cinnamon and pepper.\u201d[1546] But whether these\ngroups of seven mountains are to be astrologically related to the seven\nplanets is not definitely stated. We are also left in doubt whether\nthe following passage may have some astrological or even alchemical\nsignificance, or whether it is merely a figurative prophecy like that\nin the Book of Daniel concerning the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar in\nhis dream. \u201cThere mine eyes saw all the hidden things of heaven that\nshall be, an iron mountain, and one of copper, and one of silver, and\none of gold, and one of soft metal, and one of lead.\u201d[1547] At any rate\nEnoch has come very near to listing the seven metals usually associated\nwith the seven planets. In another passage we are informed that while\nsilver and \u201csoft metal\u201d come from the earth, lead and tin are produced\nby a fountain in which an eminent angel stands.[1548]\n\n[Sidenote: Strange animals.]\n\nAs for animals we are informed that Behemoth is male and Leviathan\nfemale.[1549] When Enoch went to the ends of the earth he saw there\ngreat beasts and birds who differed in appearance, beauty, and\nvoice.[1550] In the Slavonic version we hear a good deal of phoenixes\nand _chalkydri_, who seem to be flying dragons. These creatures are\ndescribed as \u201cstrange in appearance with the feet and tails of lions\nand the heads of crocodiles. Their appearance was of a purple color\nlike the rainbow; their size, nine hundred measures. Their wings were\nlike those of angels, each with twelve, and they attend the chariot of\nthe sun, and go with him, bringing heat and dew as they are ordered by\nGod.\u201d[1551]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n PHILO JUDAEUS\n\n Bibliographical note\u2014Philo the mediator between Hellenistic and\n Jewish-Christian thought\u2014His influence upon the middle ages was\n indirect\u2014Good and bad magic\u2014Stars not gods nor first causes\u2014But\n rational and virtuous animals, and God\u2019s viceroys over inferiors\u2014They\n do not cause evil; but it is possible to predict the future from\n their motions\u2014Jewish astrology\u2014Perfection of the number seven\u2014And\n of fifty\u2014Also of four and six\u2014Spirits of the air\u2014Interpretation\n of dreams\u2014Politics are akin to magic\u2014A thought repeated by Moses\n Maimonides and Albertus Magnus.\n\n \u201c_But since every city in which laws are properly established has a\n regular constitution, it became necessary for this citizen of the\n world to adopt the same constitution as that which prevailed in the\n universal world. And this constitution is the right reason of nature._\u201d\n \u2014_On Creation_, cap. 50.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Philo the mediator between Hellenistic and Jewish-Christian\nthought.]\n\nThere probably is no other man who marks so well the fusion of\nHellenic and Hebrew ideas and the transition from them to Christian\nthought as Philo Judaeus.[1552] He flourished at Alexandria in the\nfirst years of our era\u2014the exact dates both of his birth and of his\ndeath are uncertain\u2014and speaks of himself as an old man at the time\nof his participation in the embassy of Jews to the Emperor Gaius or\nCaligula in 40 A.\u202fD. He repeats the doctrines of the Greek philosophers\nand anticipates much that the church fathers discuss. Before the\nNeo-Platonists he regards matter as the source of all evil and feels\nthe necessity of mediators, angels or demons, between God and man.\nBefore the medieval revival of Aristotle and natural philosophy he\ntries to reconcile the Mosaic account of creation with belief in a\nworld soul, and monotheism with astrology. Before the rise of Christian\nmonasticism he describes in his treatise _On the Contemplative Life_\nan ascetic community of _Therapeutae_ at Lake Maerotis.[1553] After\nPythagoras he enlarges upon the mystic significance of numbers. After\nPlato he repeats the conception of an ideal city of God which was to\ngain such a hold upon Christian imagination.[1554] After the Stoics he\nproclaims the doctrine of the law of nature, holds that the institution\nof human slavery is absolutely contrary to it, and writes \u201ca treatise\nto prove that every virtuous man is free\u201d and that to be virtuous is to\nlive in conformity to nature.[1555] He had previously written another\ntreatise designed to show that \u201cevery wicked man was a slave,\u201d[1556]\nand he held a theory which we met in the Enoch literature and shall\nmeet again in a number of subsequent writers that sin was punished\nnaturally by forces of nature such as floods and thunderbolts. He did\nnot originate the practice of allegorical interpretation of the Bible\nbut he is our first great extant example thereof. He even went so far\nas to regard the tree of life and the story of the serpent tempting\nEve as purely symbolical, an attitude which found little favor with\nChristian writers.[1557] His effort by means of the allegorical method\nto find in the books of the Pentateuch all the attractive concepts\nand theories which he had learned from the Greeks became later in\nthe Christian apologists an assertion that Plato and Pythagoras had\nborrowed their doctrines from Abraham and Moses. His doctrine of the\n_logos_ had a powerful influence upon the writers of the New Testament\nand the theology of the early church.[1558] Yet Philo affirms that no\nmore perfect good than philosophy exists in human life and in both\nliterary style and erudition he is a Hellene to his very finger tips.\nThe recent tendency, seen especially in German scholarship, to deny the\nwriters of the Roman Empire any capacity for original thought and to\ntrace back their ideas to unextant authors of a supposedly much more\nproductive Hellenistic age has perhaps been carried too far. But if we\nmay not regard Philo as a great originator, and it is evident that he\nborrowed many of his ideas, he was at any rate a great transmitter of\nthought, a mediator after his own heart between Jews and Greeks, and\nbetween them both and the Christian writers to come. Standing at the\nclose of the Hellenistic age and at the opening of the Roman period,\nhe occupies in the history of speculative and theological thought an\nanalogous position to that of Pliny the Elder in the history of natural\nscience, gathering up the lore of the past, perhaps improving it with\nsome additions of his own, and exercising a profound influence upon the\nage to come.\n\n[Sidenote: His influence upon the middle ages was indirect.]\n\nPhilo\u2019s medieval influence, however, was probably more indirect than\nPliny\u2019s and passed itself on through yet other mediators to the more\nremote times. Comparatively speaking, the _Natural History_ of Pliny\nprobably was more important in the middle ages than in the early Roman\nEmpire when other authorities prevailed in the Greek-speaking world.\nPhilo\u2019s influence on the other hand must soon be transmitted through\nChristian, and then again through Latin, mediums. This is indicated by\nthe fact that to-day many of his works are wholly lost or extant only\nin fragments[1559] or in Armenian versions,[1560] and that we have no\nsure information as to the order in which they were composed.[1561] But\nhis initial force is none the less of the greatest moment, and seems\namply sufficient to justify us in selecting his writings as one of our\nstarting points. The extent to which one is apt to find in the writings\nof Philo passages which are forerunners of the statements of subsequent\nwriters, may be illustrated by the familiar story of King Canute and\nthe tide. Philo in his work _On Dreams_[1562] speaks of the custom of\nthe Germans of charging the incoming tide with their drawn swords. But\nwhat especially concern us are Philo\u2019s statements concerning magic,\nastrology, the stars, the perfection and power of numbers, demons, and\nthe interpretation of dreams.\n\n[Sidenote: Good and bad magic.]\n\nPhilo draws a distinction between magic in the good and bad sense.\nThe former and true magical art is the lore of learned Persians\ncalled _Magi_ who investigate nature more minutely and deeply than is\nusual and explain divine virtues clearly.[1563] The latter magic is a\nspurious imitation of the other, practised by quacks and impostors,\nold-wives and slaves, who by means of incantations and the like\nprocedure profess to change men from love to hatred or vice versa and\nwho \u201cdeceive unsuspecting persons and waste whole families away by\ndegrees and without making any noise.\u201d It is to this adulterated and\nevil magic that Philo again refers when he likens political life to\nJoseph\u2019s coat of many colors, stained with the blood of wars, and in\nwhich a very little truth is mixed up with a great deal of sophistry\nakin to that of the augurs, ventriloquists, sorcerers, jugglers and\nenchanters, \u201cfrom whose treacherous arts it is very difficult to\nescape.\u201d[1564] This distinction between a magic of the wise and of\nnature and that of vulgar impostors is one which we shall find in\nmany subsequent writers, although it was not recognized by Pliny.\nPhilo also antecedes numerous Christian commentators upon the Book of\nNumbers[1565] in considering the vexed question whether Balaam was an\nevil enchanter and diviner, or a divine prophet, or whether he combined\nmagic and prophecy, and thus indicated that the former art is not evil\nbut has divine approval. Philo\u2019s conclusion is the more usual one that\nBalaam was a celebrated diviner and magician, and that it is impossible\nthat \u201choly inspiration should be combined with magic,\u201d but that in the\nparticular case of his blessing Israel the spirit of divine prophecy\ntook possession of him and \u201cdrove all his artificial system of cunning\ndivination out of his soul.\u201d[1566]\n\n[Sidenote: Stars not gods nor first causes.]\n\nPhilo has considerably more to say upon the subject of astrology than\nupon that of magic. He was especially concerned to deny that the stars\nwere first causes or independent gods. He chided the Chaldean adepts\nin genethlialogy for recognizing no other god than the universe and no\nother causes than those apparent to the senses, and for regarding fate\nand necessity as gods and the periodical revolutions of the heavenly\nbodies as the cause of all good and evil.[1567] Philo more than once\nexhorts the reader to follow Abraham\u2019s example in leaving Chaldea and\nthe science of genethlialogy and coming to Charran to a comprehension\nof the true nature of God.[1568] He agreed with Moses that the stars\nshould not be worshiped and that they had been created by God, and more\nthan that, not created until the fourth day, in order that it might\nbe perfectly clear to men that they were not the primary causes of\nthings.[1569]\n\n[Sidenote: But rational and virtuous animals: and God\u2019s viceroys over\ninferiors.]\n\nPhilo, nevertheless, despite his attack on the Chaldeans, believed\nin much which we should call astrological. The stars, although not\nindependent gods, are nevertheless divine images of surpassing beauty\nand possess divine natures, although they are not incorporeal beings.\nPhilo distinguishes between the stars, men, and other animals as\nfollows. The beasts are capable of neither virtue nor vice; human\nbeings are capable of both; the stars are intelligent animals, but\nincapable of any evil and wholly virtuous.[1570] They were native-born\ncitizens of the world long before its first human citizen had been\nnaturalized.[1571] God, moreover, did not postpone their creation\nuntil the fourth day because superiors are subject to inferiors. On\nthe contrary they are the viceroys of the Father of all and in the\nvast city of this universe the ruling class is made up of the planets\nand fixed stars, and the subject class consists of all the natures\nbeneath the moon.[1572] A relation of natural sympathy exists between\nthe different parts of the universe, and all things upon the earth are\ndependent upon the stars.[1573]\n\n[Sidenote: They do not cause evil: but it is possible to predict the\nfuture from their motions.]\n\nPhilo of course will not admit that evil is caused either by the\nvirtuous stars or by God working through them. As has been said,\nhe attributed evil to matter or to \u201cthe natural changes of the\nelements,\u201d[1574] drawing a line between God and nature in much the\nfashion of the church fathers later. But he granted that \u201cbefore now\nsome men have conjecturally predicted disturbances and commotions of\nthe earth from the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and innumerable\nother events which have turned out most exactly true.\u201d[1575] Philo\u2019s\ninterest in astronomy and astrology is further suggested by his\ninterpretation of the eleven stars of Joseph\u2019s dream as referring to\nthe signs of the zodiac,[1576] Joseph himself making the twelfth; and\nby his interpreting the ladder in Jacob\u2019s dream which stretched between\nearth and heaven as referring to the air,[1577] into which earth\u2019s\nevaporations dissolve, while the moon is not pure ether like the other\nstars but itself contains some air. This accounts, Philo thinks, for\nthe spots upon the moon\u2014an explanation which I do not remember having\nmet in subsequent writers.\n\n[Sidenote: Jewish astrology.]\n\nJosephus[1578] and the Jews in general of Philo\u2019s time were equally\ndevoted to astrology according to M\u00fcnter, who says: \u201cOnly their\nastrology was subordinated to theism. The one God always appeared as\nthe master of the host of heaven. But they regarded the stars as living\ndivine beings and powers of heaven.\u201d[1579] In the Talmud later we read\nthat the hour of Abraham\u2019s birth was announced by the stars and that\nhe feared from his observations of the constellations that he would go\nchildless. M\u00fcnter also gives examples of the belief of the rabbis in\nthe influence of the stars upon the destiny of the Jewish people and\nupon the fate of individual men, and of their belief that a star would\nannounce the coming of the Messiah.[1580]\n\n[Sidenote: Perfection of the number seven.]\n\nFrom Philo\u2019s astrology it is an easy step to his frequent reveries\nconcerning the perfection and mystic significance of certain numbers,\u2014a\ntrain of thought which was continued by many of the church fathers,\nand is also found in various pagan writers of the Roman Empire.[1581]\nThomas Browne in his enquiry into \u201cVulgar Errors\u201d[1582] was inclined\nto hold Philo even more responsible than Pythagoras or Plato for\nthe dissemination of such doctrines. Philo himself recognizes the\nclose connection between astrology and number mysticism, when, after\naffirming the dependence of all earthly things upon the heavenly\nbodies, he adds: \u201cIt is in heaven, too, that the ratio of the number\nseven began.\u201d[1583] Philo doubts if it is possible to express\nadequately the glories of the number seven, but he feels that he\nought at least to attempt it and devotes a dozen chapters of his\ntreatise on the creation of the world to it,[1584] to say nothing of\nother passages. He notes that there are seven planets, seven circles\nof heaven, four quarters of the moon of seven days each, that such\nconstellations as the Pleiades and Ursa Major consist of seven stars,\nand that children born at the end of seven months live, while those\nwho see the light in the eighth month die. In diseases the seventh\nis a critical day. Also there are either seven ages of man\u2019s life,\nas Hippocrates says, or, in accordance with Solon\u2019s lines, man\u2019s\nthree-score years and ten may be subdivided into ten periods of seven\nyears each. The lyre of seven strings corresponds to the seven planets,\nand in speech there are seven vowels. There are seven divisions of the\nhead\u2014eyes, ears, nostrils, and mouth, seven divisions of the body,\nseven kinds of motion, seven things seen, and even the senses are seven\nrather than five if we add the vocal and generative organs.[1585]\n\n[Sidenote: And of fifty.]\n\nPhilo\u2019s ideal sect, the _Therapeutae_, are wont to assemble as a\nprelude to their greatest feast at the end of seven weeks, \u201cvenerating\nnot only the simple week of seven days but also its multiplied\npower,\u201d[1586] but the chief festival itself occurs on the fiftieth day,\n\u201cthe most holy and natural of numbers, being compounded of the power of\nthe right-angled triangle, which is the principle of the origination\nand condition of the whole.\u201d[1587]\n\n[Sidenote: Also of four and six.]\n\nThe numbers four and six, however, yield little to seven and fifty in\nthe matter of perfection. It was the fourth day that God chose for\nthe creation of the heavenly bodies, and He did not need six days for\nthe entire work of creation, but it was fitting that that perfect\nwork should be accomplished in a perfect number of days. Six is the\nproduct of the first female number, two, and the first male number,\nthree. Indeed, the first three numbers, one, two, and three, whether\nadded or multiplied, give six.[1588] As for four, there are that many\nelements and seasons; it is the only number produced by the same\nnumber\u2014two\u2014whether added to itself or multiplied by itself; it is the\nfirst square and as such the emblem of justice and equality; it also\nrepresents the cube or solid, as the number one stands for a point,\ntwo for a line, and three for a surface.[1589] Furthermore four is\nthe source of \u201cthe all-perfect decade,\u201d since one and two and three\nand four make ten. At this we begin to suspect, and with considerable\njustification, as the writings of other devotees of the philosophy of\nnumbers would show, that the number of perfect numbers is legion. We\nmay not, however, follow Philo much farther on this topic. Suffice it\nto add that he finds the fifth day fitting for the creation of animals\npossessed of five senses,[1590] while he divides the ten plagues of\nEgypt into three dealing with the more solid elements, earth and water,\nand performed by Aaron; three dealing with air and fire which were\nentrusted to Moses; the seventh was committed to both Aaron and Moses;\nwhile the other three God reserved for Himself.[1591]\n\n[Sidenote: Spirits of the air.]\n\nPhilo believed in a world of spirits, both the angels of the Jews and\nthe demons of the Greeks. When God said: \u201cLet us make man,\u201d Philo\nbelieved that He was addressing those assistant spirits who should be\nheld responsible for the viciousness to which man alone of all creation\nis liable.[1592] Of the divine rational natures Philo regarded some as\nincorporeal, others like the stars as possessed of bodies.[1593] He\nalso believed that there were spirits in the air as well as afar off in\nheaven. He could not see why the air should not be inhabited when there\nwere stars in the ether and fish in the sea as well as other animals\nupon land.[1594] Indeed he argued that it would be absurd that the\nelement which was essential for the vitality even of land and aquatic\nanimals should have no living beings of its own. That these spirits of\nthe air must be invisible did not trouble him, since the human soul is\nalso invisible.\n\n[Sidenote: Interpretation of dreams.]\n\nOf Philo\u2019s five books on dreams only two are extant. They suffice to\nshow, however, that he accepted the art of divination from dreams. Of\ndreams he distinguished three varieties: those direct from God which\nrequire no interpretation; those in which the dreamer\u2019s mind moves\nin unison with the world soul, and which are neither entirely clear\nnor yet very obscure\u2014an instance is Jacob\u2019s vision of the ladder; and\nthird, those in which the mind is moved by a prophetic frenzy of its\nown, and which require the science of interpretation\u2014such dreams were\nJoseph\u2019s concerning his brothers, and those of the butler and the baker\nat Pharaoh\u2019s court.[1595]\n\n[Sidenote: Politics akin to magic.]\n\nThe recent war and its accompaniments and sequels have brought home\nto some the conviction that our modern civilization is after all\nnot vastly superior to that of some preceding ages. To those who\nstill imagine that because modern science has freed us from much\npast superstition concerning nature, we are therefore free from\npolitical fakirs, from social absurdities, and from fallacious\nprocedure and reasoning in many departments of life, the reading may\nbe recommended of a passage in Philo\u2019s treatise on dreams,[1596] in\nwhich he classifies the art of politics along with that of magic. He\ncompares Joseph\u2019s coat of many colors to \u201cthe much-variegated web of\npolitical affairs\u201d where along with \u201cthe smallest possible portion of\ntruth\u201d falsehoods of every shade of plausibility are interwoven; and\nhe compares politicians and statesmen to augurs, ventriloquists, and\nsorcerers, \u201cmen skilful in juggling and in incantations and in tricks\nof all kinds, from whose treacherous arts it is very difficult to\nescape.\u201d He adds that Moses very naturally represented Joseph\u2019s coat as\nblood-stained, since all statecraft is tainted with wars and bloodshed.\n\n[Sidenote: A thought repeated by Moses Maimonides and Albertus Magnus.]\n\nTwelve centuries later we find Philo\u2019s association of politicians with\nmagicians repeated by his compatriot Moses Maimonides in the _More\nNevochim_ or _Guide for the Perplexed_,[1597] a work which appeared\nalmost immediately in Latin translation and from which this very\npassage is cited by Albertus Magnus in his discussion of divination by\ndreams.[1598] There are some men, says Albert, in whom the intellect\nis abundant and active and clear. Such men are akin to the superior\nsubstances, that is, to the angels and stars, and therefore Moses of\nEgypt, _i.e._, Maimonides, calls them sages. But there are others\nwho, according to Albert, confound true wisdom with sophistry and are\ncontent with mere probabilities and imaginations and are at home in\n\u201crhetorical and civil matters.\u201d Maimonides, however, described this\nclass a little differently, saying that in them the imaginative faculty\nis preponderant and the rational faculty imperfect. \u201cWhence arises\nthe sect of politicians, of legislators, of diviners, of enchanters,\nof dreamers, ... and of prestidigiteurs who work marvels by strange\ncunning and occult arts.\u201d[1599]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n THE GNOSTICS\n\n Difficulty in defining Gnosticism\u2014Magic and astrology in\n Gnosticism\u2014Simon Magus as a Gnostic\u2014Simon\u2019s Helen\u2014The number thirty\n and the moon\u2014Ophites and Sethians\u2014A magical diagram\u2014Employment\n of names and formulae\u2014Seven metals and planets\u2014Magic of Simon\u2019s\n followers\u2014Magic of Marcus in the Eucharist\u2014Other magic and occult\n lore of Marcus\u2014Name and number magic\u2014The magic vowels\u2014Magic of\n Carpocrates\u2014The Abraxas and the number 365\u2014Astrology of Basilides\u2014_The\n Book of Helxai_\u2014Epiphanius on the Elchasaites\u2014_The Book of the Laws\n of Countries_\u2014Personality of Bardesanes\u2014Sin possible for men, angels,\n and stars\u2014Does fate in the astrological sense prevail?\u2014National\n laws and customs as a proof of free will\u2014_Pistis-Sophia_; attitude\n to astrology\u2014\u201cMagic\u201d condemned\u2014Power of names and rites\u2014Interest\n in natural science\u2014\u201cGnostic gems\u201d and astrology\u2014The planets in\n early Christian art\u2014Gnostic amulets in Spain\u2014Syriac Christian\n charms\u2014Priscillian executed for magic\u2014Manichean manuscripts\u2014The\n Mandaeans.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Difficulty in defining Gnosticism.]\n\nGnosticism[1600] is not easy to define and the term Gnostic appears\nto have been applied to a great variety of sects with a confusing\ndiversity of beliefs. Many of the constituents and roots at least of\nGnosticism were older than Christianity, and it is now the custom to\nassociate the Gnosis or superior knowledge and revelation, which gives\nthe movement its name, not with Greek philosophy or mysteries but\nwith oriental speculation and religions. Anz[1601] has been impressed\nby its connection with Babylonian star-worship; Am\u00e9lineau[1602] has\nurged its debt to Egyptian magic and religion; Bousset[1603] has\nargued for Persian origins. The main features of the great oriental\nreligions which swept westward over the Roman Empire were shared by\nGnosticism: the redeemer god, even the great mother goddess conception\nto some extent, the divinely revealed mysteries, the secret symbols,\nthe dualism, and the cosmic theory. Gnosticism as it is known to us,\nhowever, is more closely connected with Christianity than with any\nother oriental religion or body of thought, for the extant sources\nconsist almost entirely either of Gnostic treatises which pretend to be\nChristian Scriptures and were almost entirely written in Coptic in the\nsecond or third century of our era,[1604] or of hostile descriptions of\nGnostic heresies by the early church fathers. However, the philosopher\nPlotinus also criticized the Gnostics, as we have seen.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and astrology in Gnosticism.]\n\nWhat especially concerns our investigation is the great use made, or\nsaid to be made, by the Gnostics of sacred formulae, symbols, and names\nof demons, and the prevalence among them of astrological theory as\nshown by their widespread notion of the seven planets as the powers\nwho have created our inferior and material world and who rule over\nits affairs. Gnosticism was deeply influenced by, albeit it to some\nextent represents a reaction against, the Babylonian star-worship\nand incantation of spirits. The seven planets and the demons occupy\nan important place in Gnostic myth because they intervene between\nour world and the world of supreme light, and their spheres must be\ntraversed\u2014much as in the _Book of Enoch_ and Dante\u2019s _Paradiso_\u2014both\nby the redeeming god in his descent and return and by any human soul\nthat would escape from this world of fate, darkness, and matter. What\nencouragement there is for such views in the canonical Scriptures\nthemselves may be inferred from the following passage in which Christ\nforetells His second coming: \u201cImmediately after the tribulation of\nthose days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her\nlight, and the stars shall fall from heaven, _and the powers of the\nheavens shall be shaken_. And then shall appear _the sign_ of the Son\nof man _in heaven_; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,\nand they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with\npower and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound\nof a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four\nwinds, from one end of heaven to the other.\u201d[1605] But in order to pass\nthe demons and the spheres of the planets, who are usually represented\nas opposed to this, one must, as in the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_,\nknow the passwords, the names of the spirits, the sacred formulae, the\nappropriate symbols, and all the other apparatus suggestive of magic\nand necromancy which forms so large a part of the _gnosis_ that gives\nits name to the system. This will become the more apparent from the\nfollowing particular accounts of Gnostic sects and doctrines found\nin the works of the Christian fathers and in the scanty remains of\nthe Gnostics themselves. The philosopher Plotinus we have already\nheard charge the Gnostics with resort to magic and sorcery, and with\nascribing evil and fatal influence to the stars. At the same time we\nshrewdly suspect that Gnosticism has been made a scapegoat for the sins\nin these regards of both early Christianity and pagan philosophy.\n\n[Sidenote: Simon Magus as a Gnostic.]\n\nSimon Magus, of whose magical exploits as recorded by many a Christian\nwriter we shall treat in another chapter, is also represented by\nthe fathers as holding Gnostic doctrine, although some writers have\ncontended that Simon the magician named in _Acts_ was an entirely\ndifferent person from Simon the heretic and author of _The Great\nDeclaration_.[1606] Simon declared himself the Great Power of God, or\nthe Being who was over all, who had appeared in Samaria as the Father,\nin Judea as the Son, and to other nations as the Holy Spirit.[1607] In\nthe _Pseudo-Clementines_ Simon is represented as arguing against Peter\nin characteristically Gnostic style that \u201che who framed the world is\nnot the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is\ngood and who has remained unknown up to this time.\u201d[1608] According\nto Epiphanius Simon claimed to have descended from heaven through the\nplanetary spheres and spirits in the manner of the Gnostic redeemer.\nHe is quoted as saying, \u201cBut in each heaven I changed my form in\naccordance with the form of those who were in each heaven, that I might\nescape the notice of my angelic powers and come down to the Thought,\nwho is none other than she who is likewise called Prounikon and the\nHoly Spirit.\u201d Epiphanius further informs us that Simon believed in a\nplurality of heavens, assigned certain powers to each firmament and\nheaven, and applied barbaric names to these spirits or cosmic forces.\n\u201cNor,\u201d adds Epiphanius, \u201ccan anyone be saved unless he learns this\nmystic lore and offers such sacrifices to the Father of all through\nthese archons and authorities.\u201d[1609]\n\n[Sidenote: Simon\u2019s Helen.]\n\nThe fathers tell us that Simon went about with a woman called Helena\nor Helen, who Justin Martyr says had formerly been a prostitute.[1610]\nSimon is said to have called her the mother of all, through whom God\nhad created the angels and aeons, who in their turn had formed the\nworld and men. These cosmic powers had then, however, cast her down\nto earth, where she had been confined in various successive human and\nanimal bodies. She seems to have obtained her name of Helen from the\nfact that it was for her that the Trojan war had been fought, an event\nwhich Simon seems to have subjected to much allegorical interpretation.\nHe also spoke of Helen as \u201cthe lost sheep,\u201d whom he, the Great Power,\nhad descended from heaven to release from the bonds of the flesh. She\nwas that Thought or Holy Spirit which we have heard him say he came\ndown to recover. Simon\u2019s Helen also corresponds to Pistis-Sophia, who\nin the extant Gnostic work named after her descends through the twelve\naeons, deceived by a lion-faced power whom they have formed to mislead\nher, and then reascends by the aid of Jesus or the true light. It\nseems fairly evident that the fathers[1611] have taken literally and\ntravestied by a scandalous application to an actual woman a beautiful\nGnostic myth or allegory concerning the human soul. At the same time\nSimon\u2019s Helen reminds us of Jesus\u2019s relations with the woman taken in\nadultery, the woman of Samaria, and Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene, it\nmay be noted, in the Gnostic writing, _Pistis-Sophia_, takes a r\u00f4le\nsuperior to the twelve disciples, a fact of which Peter complains to\nhis Lord more than once. But Simon\u2019s Helen was that spirit of truth\nwhich lies latent in the human mind and which he endeavored to release\nby means of the philosophy, astrology, and magic of his time. May\nmodern scientific method prove more successful in setting the prisoner\nfree!\n\n[Sidenote: The number thirty and the moon.]\n\nWe find in the _Pseudo-Clementines_ other details concerning Simon and\nHelen which bring out the astrological side of Gnosticism. We are told\nthat John the Baptist had thirty disciples, a number suggestive of\nthe days of the moon and also of the thirty aeons of the Gnostics of\nwhom we elsewhere hear a great deal.[1612] But the revolution of the\nmoon does not occupy thirty full days, so that we are not surprised to\nlearn that one of these disciples was a woman and furthermore that she\nwas the very Helen of whom we have been speaking. At least, she is so\ncalled in the _Homilies_ of the Pseudo-Clement; in the _Recognitions_\nshe is actually called Luna or the Moon.[1613] After the death of John\nthe Baptist Simon by his magic power supplanted Dositheus as leader\nof the thirty, and then fell in love with Luna and went about with\nher, proclaiming that she was Wisdom or Truth, \u201cbrought down ... from\nthe highest heavens to this world.\u201d[1614] The number thirty is again\nassociated with Simon and Dositheus in a curiously insistent, although\napparently unconscious, manner by Origen, who in one passage of his\n_Reply to Celsus_, written in the first half of the third century,\nexpresses doubt whether thirty followers of Simon, the Samaritan\nmagician, can be found in all the world, and in a second passage, while\nasserting that \u201cSimonians are found nowhere throughout the world,\u201d adds\nthat of the followers of Dositheus there are now not more than thirty\nin all.[1615]\n\n[Sidenote: Ophites and Sethians.]\n\nSimilar to Simon\u2019s account of the heavens and of his descent through\nthem were the teachings of the Ophites and Sethians who, according\nto Irenaeus,[1616] held that Christ \u201cdescended through the seven\nheavens, having assumed the likeness of their sons, and gradually\nemptied them of their power.\u201d These heretics also represented the\n\u201cheavens, potentates, powers, angels, and creators as sitting in\ntheir proper order in heaven, according to their generation, and as\ninvisibly ruling over things celestial and terrestrial.\u201d All ruling\nspirits were not invisible, however, since the Ophites and Sethians\nidentified with the seven planets their Holy Hebdomad, consisting of\nIaldabaoth, Iao, Sabaoth, Adonaus (or, Adonai), Eloeus, Oreus, and\nAstanphaeus,\u2014names often employed in the Greek magical papyri,[1617]\nin medieval incantations, and in the Jewish Cabbala. The Ophites and\nSethians further asserted that when the serpent was cast down into\nthe lower world by the Father, he begat six sons who, with himself,\nconstitute a group of seven corresponding and in contrast to the Holy\nHebdomad which surround the Father. They are the seven mundane demons\nwho are ever hostile to humanity. The Sethians of course took their\nname from Seth, son of Adam, who in the middle ages was regarded\nsometimes, like Enoch, as the especial recipient of divine revelation\nand as the author of sacred books. The historian Josephus states in his\n_Jewish Antiquities_ that Seth and his descendants discovered the art\nof astronomy and that one of the two pillars on which they recorded\ntheir findings was still extant in his time, the first century.[1618]\nUnder the caption, _Sethian Tablets of Curses_, W\u00fcnsch has published\nsome magical imprecations scratched on lead tablets between 390 and 420\nA.\u202fD. at Rome.[1619] Eight revelations ascribed to Adam and Seth are\nalso extant in Armenian.[1620]\n\n[Sidenote: A magical diagram.]\n\nIn Origen\u2019s _Reply to Celsus_ is described a mystic diagram with\ndetails redolent of magic and astrological necromancy,[1621] which\nCelsus had laid to the charge of Christians generally but which Origen\ndeclares is probably the product of the \u201cvery insignificant sect called\nOphites.\u201d Origen himself has seen this diagram or one something like\nit, and assures his readers that \u201cwe know the depth of these unhallowed\nmysteries,\u201d but he declares that he has never met anybody anywhere\nwho put any faith in this diagram. Obviously, however, such a diagram\nwould not have been in existence if no one had ever had faith in it.\nFurthermore, its survival into Origen\u2019s time, when he asserts that men\nhad ceased to use it, is evidence of the antiquity of the sect and\nthe superstition. In this diagram ten distinct circles were united\nby a single circle representing the soul of all things and called\nLeviathan. Celsus spoke of the upper circles, of which at least some\nwere in colors, as \u201cthose that are above the heavens.\u201d On these were\ninscribed such words and phrases as \u201cFather and Son,\u201d \u201cLove,\u201d \u201cLife,\u201d\n\u201cKnowledge,\u201d and \u201cUnderstanding.\u201d Then there were \u201cthe seven circles of\narchontic demons,\u201d who are probably to be connected with the spheres\nof the seven planets. These seven ruling demons were represented by\nanimal heads or figures, somewhat resembling the symbols of the four\nevangelists to be seen in the mosaics at Ravenna and elsewhere in\nChristian art. The angel Michael was depicted by a sort of chimaera,\nthe words of Celsus being, \u201cThe goat was shaped like a lion\u201d; Suriel,\nby a bull; Raphael, by a dragon; Gabriel, by an eagle; Thautabaoth, by\na bear; Erataoth, by a dog; and Thaphabaoth or Onoel, by an ass. The\ndiagram was divided by a thick black line called Gehenna and beneath\nthe lowest circle was placed \u201cthe being named Behemoth.\u201d There was also\n\u201ca square pattern\u201d with inscriptions concerning the gates of paradise,\na flaming circle with a flaming sword as its diameter guarding the\ntree of knowledge and of life, \u201ca barrier inscribed in the shape of a\nhatchet,\u201d and a rhomboid with the words, \u201cThe foresight of wisdom.\u201d\nCelsus further mentioned a seal with which the Father impresses the\nSon, who says, \u201cI have been anointed with white ointment from the tree\nof life,\u201d and seven angels who contend with the seven ruling demons for\nthe soul of the dying body.\n\n[Sidenote: Employment of names and formulae.]\n\nOrigen further informs us of the forms of salutation to each ruling\nspirit employed by \u201cthose sorcerers,\u201d as they pass through \u201cthe fence\nof wickedness\u201d or the gate to the realm of each spirit. The names of\nthe spirits are now given as Ialdabaoth, who is the lion-like archon\nand with whom the planet Saturn is in sympathy, Iao or Jah, Sabaoth,\nAdonaeus, Astaphaeus, Aloaeus or Eloaeus, and Horaeus. The following\nis an example of the salutations or invocations addressed to these\nspirits: \u201cThou, O second Iao, who shinest by night, who art the ruler\nof the secret mysteries of Son and Father, first prince of death, and\nportion of the innocent, bearing now thine own beard as symbol, I am\nready to pass through thy realm, having strengthened him who is born of\nthee by the living word. Grace be with me; Father, let it be with me!\u201d\nOrigen also states that the makers of this diagram have borrowed from\nmagic the names Ialdabaoth, Astaphaeus, and Horaeus, while the other\nfour are names of God drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures.\n\n[Sidenote: Seven metals and planets.]\n\nIt is worth noting that immediately before this account of the diagram\nCelsus had described similar Persian mysteries of Mithras, in which\nseven heavens through which the soul has to pass were arranged in an\nascending scale like a ladder.[1622] Each successive heaven was entered\nby a gate of a metal corresponding to the planet in question, lead\nfor Saturn, tin for Venus, copper for Jupiter, iron for Mercury, a\nmixed metal for Mars, silver for the moon, and gold for the sun. This\nassociation of metals and planets became a common feature of medieval\nalchemy. At the same time the passage is said to be our chief literary\nsource for the mysteries of Mithras.[1623]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic of Simon\u2019s followers.]\n\nThe Simonians, according to Irenaeus, were as addicted to magic\nas their founder had been, employing exorcisms and incantations,\nlove-philters and enchantments, familiar spirits and \u201cdream-senders.\u201d\n\u201cAnd whatever other curious arts may be resorted to are eagerly\nemployed by them.\u201d Menander, the immediate successor of Simon in\nSamaria, was \u201ca perfect adept in the practice of magic\u201d and taught\nthat by means of it one could overcome the angels who had created this\nworld.[1624] In a treatise on rebaptism, falsely ascribed to Cyprian\nbut very likely contemporary with him, it is stated that the Simonians\nregard their baptism as superior to that of orthodox Christians,\nbecause when they descend into the water fire appears upon its surface.\nThe writer thinks that this is done by some trick, or that there is\nsome natural explanation of it, or that they merely imagine that\nthey see a flame on the water, or that it is the work of some evil\none and of magic power.[1625] Epiphanius states that Simon employed\nsuch obscene substances as _semen_ and _menstruum_ in his magic,[1626]\nbut this seems to be a slander, at least against Gnosticism, since\nin a passage of the Gnostic _Book of the Saviour_, adjoined to the\n_Pistis-Sophia_, Thomas asks Jesus what shall be the punishment of men\nwho eat \u201c_semen maris et menstruum feminae_\u201d mixed with lentils, saying\nas they do so, \u201cWe believe in Esau and Jacob,\u201d and is told that this\nis the worst of sins and that the souls of those committing it will be\nabsolutely blotted out.[1627]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic of Marcus in the Eucharist.]\n\nNext to Simon Magus, Marcus was the Gnostic and heretic most notorious\nas a practitioner of the magic arts, as Irenaeus states at the close of\nthe second century, and Hippolytus and Epiphanius repeat in the third\nand fourth centuries respectively.[1628] In performing the Eucharist he\nwould change white wine placed in three wine cups into three different\ncolors, one blood-red, one purple, and one dark blue, according to\nEpiphanius, while Irenaeus and Hippolytus more vaguely state, although\nthey lived closer to Marcus\u2019s time, that he gave the wine a purple\nor reddish hue as if it had been changed into blood, an alteration\nwhich Marcus himself regarded as a manifestation of divine grace.\nEpiphanius attributes the change to an incantation muttered by Marcus\nwhile pretending to perform the Eucharist. Hippolytus, who ascribes\nMarcus\u2019s feats partly to sleight-of-hand and partly to demons, in this\ncase charges that he furtively dropped some drug into the wine. Marcus\nwas also accustomed to fill a large cup from a smaller one so that it\nwould overflow, a marvel which Hippolytus again tries to account for\nby stating that \u201cvery many drugs, when mingled in this way with liquid\nsubstances\u201d temporarily increase their volume, \u201cespecially when diluted\nin wine.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Other magic and occult lore of Marcus.]\n\nIrenaeus, who is quoted verbatim by Epiphanius, further states that\nMarcus had a familiar demon by whose aid he was able to prophesy, and\nthat he pretended to confer this gift upon others. He also accuses\nMarcus of seducing women by means of philters and love potions which he\ncompounded. Hippolytus does not make these charges, but unites with the\nothers in describing at length Marcus\u2019s theory of mystic names and his\nsymbolical and mystical interpretation of the letters of the alphabet\nand of numbers. Marcus made various calculations based upon the number\nof letters in a name, the number of letters in the name of each letter,\nand so on. When Christ, whose ineffable name has thirty letters, said,\n\u201cI am Alpha and Omega,\u201d He was believed by Marcus to have displayed\nthe dove, whose number is 801. These reveries \u201care mere bits,\u201d as\nHippolytus says, of astrological theory and Pythagorean philosophy.\nWe shall find them perpetuated in the middle ages in the method of\ndivination known as the Sphere of Pythagoras.\n\n[Sidenote: Name and number magic.]\n\nSuch symbolism and mysticism concerning numbers and letters seldom\nindeed remain a matter of mere theory but readily lend themselves\nto operative magic. Thus Hippolytus can speak in the same breath of\n\u201cmagical arts and Pythagorean numbers\u201d or tell that Pythagoras himself\n\u201calso touched on magic, as they say, and himself discovered an art of\nphysiognomy, laying down as a basis certain numbers and measures.\u201d Or\nnote a third passage where Hippolytus is discussing Egyptian theology\nbased on the theory of numbers.[1629] After treating of the monad,\nduad, and enneads, of the four elements in pairs, of the 360 parts of\nthe circle, of \u201cascending and beneficent and masculine names\u201d which\nend in odd numbers, and of feminine and malicious and descending names\nwhich terminate in even numbers, Hippolytus continues, \u201cMoreover, they\nassert that they have calculated the word, \u2018Deity.\u2019 Now this name\nis an even number, and they write it down and attach it to the body\nand accomplish cures by it. In the same way an herb which terminates\nin this number is bound around the body and operates by reason of a\nsimilar calculation of the number. Nay, even a doctor cures the sick by\nsuch calculations.\u201c Similarly Censorinus states that the number seven\nis ascribed to Apollo and used in the cure of bodily ills, while nine\nis associated with the Muses and heals mental diseases.[1630] But to\nreturn to Gnosticism.\n\n[Sidenote: The magic vowels.]\n\nThe seven vowels were much employed by the Gnostics, undoubtedly as\nsymbols for the seven planets and the spirits associated with them, but\nas symbols possessed of magic power as well as of mystic significance.\n\u201cThe Saviour and His disciples are supposed in the midst of their\nsentences to have broken out in an interminable gibberish of only\nvowels; magic spells have come down to us consisting of vowels by the\nfourscore; on amulets the seven vowels, repeated according to all sorts\nof artifices, form a very common inscription.\u201d[1631] As the seven\nplanets made the music of the spheres, so the seven vowels seem to have\nrepresented the musical scale, \u201cand many a Gnostic sheet of vowels is\nin fact a sheet of music.\u201d[1632]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic of Carpocrates.]\n\nOther heretics with Gnostic views who were accused of magic by the\nfathers were the followers of Carpocrates, who employed incantations\nand spells, philters and potions, who attracted spirits to themselves\nand made light of the cosmic angels, and who pretended to have great\npower over all things so that they were able by their magic to satisfy\nevery desire.[1633]\n\n[Sidenote: The Abraxas and the number 365.]\n\nSaturninus and Basilides were charged with \u201cpracticing magic, and\nemploying images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of\ncurious art.\u201d They also believed in a supreme power named Abrasax or\nAbraxas, whose number was 365; and they contended that there were 365\nheavens and as many bones in the human body; \u201cand they strive to set\nforth the names, principles, angels, and powers of the 365 imagined\nheavens.\u201d[1634]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology of Basilides.]\n\nHippolytus gives further indication of the astrological leanings of\nBasilides, who held that each thing had its own particular time, and\nsupported his view by citing the _Magi_ gazing wistfully at the star\nof Bethlehem and the remark of Christ Himself, \u201cMine hour is not yet\ncome.\u201d[1635] I suppose that by this Hippolytus means to suggest that\nBasilides held the astrological doctrine of elections; Basilides\nfurther affirmed, according to Hippolytus, that Jesus was \u201cmentally\npreconceived at the time of the generation of the stars; and of the\ncomplete return to their starting point of all the seasons in the\nvast conglomeration,\u201d that is, at the end of the astronomical _magnus\nannus_, variously reckoned as of 36,000 or 15,000 years in duration.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Book of Helxai._]\n\nIn his _Refutation of all Heresies_[1636] Hippolytus tells of an\nAlcibiades from Apamea in Syria who in his time brought to Rome a\nbook supposed to contain revelations made to a holy man, Elchasai or\nHelxai, by an angel ninety-six miles in height and from sixteen to\ntwenty-four miles in breadth and leaving a footprint fourteen miles\nlong. This angel was the Son of God, and was accompanied by a female\nof corresponding size who was the Holy Spirit. This apparition and\nrevelation was accompanied by a preaching of a new remission of sins\nin the third year of Trajan\u2019s reign, at which time we are led to\nsuppose that the _Book of Helxai_ came into existence. It imposed\nsecrecy upon those initiated into its mysteries. The sect, according\nto Hippolytus, were much given to magic, astrology, and the number\nmysticism of Pythagoras. The Elchasaites employed incantations and\nformulae to cure persons bitten by mad dogs or afflicted with disease.\nIn such cases and also in the case of rebaptism for the remission of\nsins it was customary with them to invoke or adjure \u201cseven witnesses,\u201d\nnot however in this case the planets, but \u201cthe heaven, and the water,\nand the holy spirits, and the angels of prayer, and the oil (or, the\nolive), and the salt, and the earth.\u201d Hippolytus declares that their\nformulae of this sort were \u201cvery numerous and very ridiculous.\u201d They\ndipped consumptives and persons possessed by demons in cold water forty\ntimes in seven days. They believed in the astrological doctrine of\nelections, since their sacred book warned them not to baptize or begin\nother important undertakings upon those days which were governed by\nthe evil stars. They also seem to have predicted political events from\nthe stars, foretelling that three years after Trajan\u2019s subjugation of\nthe Parthians \u201cwar rages between the impious angels of the northern\n(constellations), and on this account all kingdoms of impiety are in\nconfusion.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Epiphanius on the Elchasaites.]\n\nIn the next century Epiphanius adds one or two further details to\nHippolytus\u2019 account of the Elchasaites. Besides the list of seven\nwitnesses already given he mentions another slightly different one:\nsalt, water, earth, wheat, heaven, ether, and wind. He also tells\nof two sisters in the time of Constantine who were supposed to be\ndescendants of Helxai. One of them was still alive the last Epiphanius\nknew, and crowds followed \u201cthis witch\u201d to collect the dust of her\nfootprints or her spittle to use in curing diseases.[1637]\n\n[Sidenote: _The Book of the Laws of Countries._]\n\nWe possess an important document for the attitude of early Christianity\nand Gnosticism towards astrology in _The Dialogue concerning Fate_ or\n_The Book of the Laws of Countries_ of Bardesanes or Bardaisan.[1638]\nThe complete Syriac text is extant;[1639] there is a long and somewhat\nmodified extract adopted from it in the Latin _Recognitions_ of\nClement,[1640] and briefer fragments in the Greek fathers. Strictly\nspeaking, the text seems to be written by some follower of Bardesanes\nnamed Philip who represents his master as discussing the problem of\nhuman free will with Avida, himself, and other disciples. The bulk of\nthe treatise is in any case put in Bardesanes\u2019 mouth and it probably\nreflects his views with fair accuracy. Eusebius ascribed it to\nBardesanes himself.\n\n[Sidenote: Personality of Bardesanes]\n\nBardesanes (154-222 A.\u202fD.) was born in Edessa. He spent most of his\nlife in Mesopotamia but for a time went to Armenia as a missionary.\nHis many works in Syriac included apologies for Christianity, attacks\nupon heresies, and numerous hymns, but the only work extant is the\ntreatise we are about to examine, with the possible exception of _The\nHymn of the Soul_[1641] ascribed to him and contained in the Syriac\n_Acts of St. Thomas_. His doctrines were regarded by Ephraem Syrus and\nothers as tainted with Gnostic heresy. He is often represented as a\nfollower of Valentinus, but the ancient authorities, such as Epiphanius\nand Eusebius, disagree as to whether he degenerated from orthodoxy to\nValentinianism or reformed in the opposite direction. In the dialogue\nwhich we consider he is represented as a Christian, but his remarks\nhave often been thought to have a Gnostic flavor. F. Nau, however, has\nargued that he was not a Gnostic and that the statements in question in\nthe dialogue can be explained as purely astrological.[1642]\n\n[Sidenote: Sin possible for men, angels, and stars.]\n\nThe treatise opens with the query, why did not God make men so that\nthey could not sin? The reply of course is that moral freedom for good\nor evil is a greater gift of God than compulsory morality. By virtue of\nhis individual freedom of action man is equal to the angels, some of\nwhom, too, have sinned with the daughters of men and fallen, and is\nsuperior even to the sun, moon, and signs of the zodiac which are fixed\nin their courses. The stars, however, as in _The Book of Enoch_, \u201care\nnot absolutely destitute of all freedom\u201d and will be held responsible\nat the day of judgment. Presently some of them are called evil.\n\n[Sidenote: Does fate in the astrological sense prevail?]\n\nAfter some discussion whether man does wrong from his nature, the\ntreatise turns to the question, how far are men controlled by fate,\nthat is, by the power of the seven planets in accordance with the\ndoctrine of the Chaldeans, which is the term here usually employed for\nastrologers. Some men attack astrology as \u201ca lying invention\u201d and hold\nthat the human will is free and that such evils as man cannot avoid are\ndue to chance or to divine punishment but not to the stars. Between\nthese extremes Bardesanes takes middle ground. He believes that there\nis such a force in the stars, whom he refers to as Potentates and\nGovernors, as the fate of which the astrologers speak, but that this\nfate evidently does not rule everything, since it is itself established\nby the one God who imposed upon the stars and elements that motion in\nconformity with which \u201cintelligences undergo change when they descend\nto the soul, and souls undergo change when they descend to bodies,\u201d a\nstatement which appears to have a Gnostic flavor. This fate furthermore\nis limited by nature on the one hand and human free will on the other\nhand. The vital processes and periods which are common to all men,\nsuch as birth, generation, child-bearing, eating, drinking, old age,\nand death, Bardesanes regards as governed by nature. \u201cThe body,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cis neither hindered nor helped by fate in the several acts it\nperforms,\u201d a view which most astrologers would probably not accept.\nOn the contrary, in Bardesanes\u2019 opinion wealth and honors, power and\nsubjection, sickness and health, are controlled by fate which often\ndisturbs the regular course of nature. This is because in genesis\nor the nativity the stars, some of which work with and some against\nnature, are in conflict. In short, some stars are good and some are\nevil.\n\n[Sidenote: National laws and customs as a proof of free will.]\n\nIf nature is thus often upset by the stars, fate in its turn may be\nresisted and overpowered by man\u2019s exercise of will. This assertion\nBardesanes proceeds to prove by the argument which has given to the\ndialogue the title, _The Book of the Laws of the Countries_, and which\nwe find much repeated in subsequent writers. Briefly it is that in\nvarious nations certain laws are enforced upon, or customs observed by\nall the people alike regardless of their diverse individual horoscopes.\nIn illustration of this are listed various prohibitions and practices\nfondly supposed by Bardesanes and his audience to characterize the\nSeres, Brahmans, Persians, Geli, Bactrians, Arabs, Britons, Parthians,\nAmazons, and other peoples. Savage tribes are mentioned among whom\nthere are no artists, bankers, perfumers, musicians, and poets to\nfit the nativities decreed by the constellations for certain times.\nBardesanes is aware of the astrological theory of seven zones or\nclimes, by which the science of individual horoscopes is corrected\nand modified, but he contends that there are many different laws in\neach of these zones, and would be, even if the number were raised to\ntwelve according to the number of the signs or to thirty-six after\nthe decans. He also contends that men retain their laws or customs\nwhen they migrate to other climes, and adduces the fidelity of Jews\nand Christians to the commandments of their respective religions as\na further illustration of the triumph of free will over the stars.\nHe concedes, however, as before that \u201cin every country and in every\nnation there are rich and poor, and rulers and subjects, and people\nin health and those who are sick, each one according as fate and his\nnativity have affected him.\u201d Incidentally to the foregoing discussion\nit is affirmed that the astrology of Egypt and that of the Chaldeans\nin Babylon are identical. At the close of the treatise is appended a\nnote stating that Bardesanes estimated the duration of the world at six\nthousand years on the basis of sixty as the least number of years in\nwhich the seven planets complete an even number of revolutions.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Pistis-Sophia_: attitude to astrology.]\n\nIf the work ascribed to Bardesanes is not certainly Gnostic, the\n_Pistis-Sophia_ is, and we turn next to it and first of all to its\nattitude towards astrology. This treatise is extant in a Coptic codex\nof the fifth or sixth century;[1643] the Greek original text was\nprobably written in the second half of the third century. It gives\nthe revelations made by Jesus to his disciples after He had ascended\nto heaven and returned again to them. When He ascended through the\nheavens, He changed the fatal influence of the lords of the spheres and\nmade the planets turn to the right for six months of the year, whereas\nbefore they had faced the left continually.[1644] In a long passage\nnear the close of the _Pistis-Sophia_ proper[1645] Jesus asserts the\nabsolute control of human destiny hitherto by \u201cthe rulers of the fate\u201d\nand describes how they fashion the new soul, control the process of\ngeneration and of the formation of the child in the womb, and decree\nevery event of life down to the day and manner of death. Only by the\nGnostic key to the mysteries can one escape their control.[1646] In the\nfollowing _Book of the Saviour_, moreover, even the finding of this\nkey is subjected to astral control, since a constellation is described\nunder which all souls descending to this world will be just and good\nand will discover the mysteries of light.[1647]\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cMagic\u201d condemned.]\n\nThe _Pistis-Sophia_ assumes the usual attitude of condemnation of magic\nso-called. Among the evils which Jesus warns his followers to renounce\nare superstition and invocations and drugs or magic potions.[1648]\nOne object of his reducing by one-third the power of the lords of the\nspheres when He ascended through the heavens was that men might not\nhenceforth invoke them by magic rites for evil purposes. Marvels may\nstill, however, be accomplished by \u201cthose who know the mysteries of the\nmagic of the thirteenth aeon\u201d or power above the spheres.[1649]\n\n[Sidenote: Power of names and rites.]\n\nBut while magic is renounced, great faith is shown in the power of\nnames and rites. Thus after a description of the dragon of outer\ndarkness and the twelve main dungeons into which it divides and the\nanimal faces and names of the twelve rulers thereof, who evidently\nrepresent in an inaccurate fashion the signs of the zodiac, it is added\nthat even unrepentant sinners, if they know the mystery of any one of\nthese twelve names, can escape from these dungeons.[1650] In the _Book\nof the Saviour_ Jesus not only utters several long lists of strange\nand presumably magic words by way of invocation to the Power or powers\nabove, but these are accompanied by careful observance of ceremonial.\nOn both occasions Jesus and the disciples are clad in linen.[1651] In\nthe first case the disciples are carefully grouped with reference to\nthe points of the compass, towards which Jesus turns successively as He\nutters the magic words standing at a sacrificial altar. The result of\nthis ceremony and invocation was that the heavens were displaced and\nthe earth left behind and that Jesus and the disciples found themselves\nin the region of mid-air. Before uttering the other invocation Jesus\ncommanded that fire and vine branches be brought, placed an offering\non the flame, and carefully arranged two vessels of wine, two cups of\nwater, and as many pieces of bread as there were disciples. In this\ncase the object was to remit the sins of the disciples. In the _Book of\nJe\u00fb_ in the Bruce Papyrus there is a perfect riot of such magic names\nand invocations, seals and diagrams, and accompanying ceremonial.[1652]\n\n[Sidenote: Interest in natural science.]\n\nThe interest of the Gnostics in natural science is seen in the list of\nthings that will be known by one who has penetrated all the mysteries\nand fully entered upon the inheritance of the kingdom of light. Not\nonly will he understand why there is light and darkness, and why sin\nand vice exist and life and death, but also why there are reptiles and\nwild beasts and why they shall be destroyed, why there are birds and\nbeasts of burden, why there are gems and precious metals, why there are\nbrass, iron and steel, lead, glass, wax, herbs, waters, \u201cand why the\nwild denizens of the sea.\u201d Why there are four points of the compass,\nwhy demons and men, why heat and cold, stars, winds, and clouds, frost,\nsnow, planets, aeons, decans, and so on and so forth.[1653]\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cGnostic gems\u201d and astrology.]\n\nKing has shown that many of the so-called \u201cGnostic gems\u201d are purely\nastrological talismans and that \u201conly a very small minority amidst\ntheir multitude present any traces of the influence of Christian\ndoctrines.\u201d[1654] Many are for medicinal or magical purposes rather\nthan of a religious character. Some nevertheless are engraved with\nthe truly Gnostic figure of Pantheus Abraxas which King regards as\n\u201cthe actual invention of Basilides.\u201d Another common symbol, borrowed\nfrom Egypt, is the Agathodaemon, which by the third century had become\nthe popular designation of the hooded snake of Egypt, or Chnuphis or\nChneph, a great serpent with a lion\u2019s head encircled by a crown of\nseven or twelve rays, representing the planets or signs. Often the\nseven Greek vowels are placed at the tips of the seven rays. On the\nobverse of the gem the letter \u201cs\u201d is engraved thrice and traversed by a\nstraight rod, a design probably meant to depict a snake twisting about\na wand. We are reminded, not only with King of the club of Aesculapius,\nbut of Aaron\u2019s rod, the magicians of Pharaoh, and the serpent lifted\nup in the wilderness; also of Lucian\u2019s tale of the pretended discovery\nof the god Asclepius by the pseudo-prophet, Alexander. At least one\n\u201cGnostic amulet\u201d has on the back the legend \u201cIao Sabao\u201d (th).[1655]\n\n[Sidenote: The planets in early Christian art.]\n\nThe influence of astrology may be seen in other and more certainly\ngenuine works of early Christian art than many of the so-called Gnostic\ngems. On a lamp in the catacombs Christ is depicted as the good\nshepherd with a lamb on His shoulder. Above His head are the seven\nplanets, although the sun and moon are shown again at either side, and\nabout His feet press seven lambs, perhaps an indication that He is\nfreeing the peoples of the seven climes from the fatal influence of the\nstars. In the _Poemander_ attributed to Hermes it is stated that there\nare seven peoples from the seven planets. On a gem of perhaps the third\ncentury a similar scene is engraved except that the sun and moon are\nnot shown apart from the seven planets, and that the lamb on Christ\u2019s\nshoulders is counted as one of the seven, so that there are but six at\nHis feet.[1656]\n\n[Sidenote: Gnostic amulets in Spain.]\n\n\u201cGnostic amulets and other works of art\u201d are occasionally found in\nSpain, especially the Asturian northwest which remained Christian at\nthe time of the Mohammedan conquest of the rest of the peninsula. One\nring is inscribed with the sentence, \u201cZeus, Serapis, and Iao are one.\u201d\nOn another octagonal ring are Greek letters signifying the Gnostic\n_Anthropos_ or father of wisdom. A stone is carved with a candelabrum\nand the seven planets, \u201cthe sacred hebdomad of the Chaldeans.\u201d[1657]\n\n[Sidenote: Syriac Christian charms.]\n\nGollancz in his _Selection of Charms from Syriac Manuscripts_ presents\na number of spells and incantations which, whether any of them are\nGnostic or not, certainly seem to be Christian, since they mention\nthe divine persons of Christianity, Mary, and various Biblical\ncharacters.[1658]\n\n[Sidenote: Priscillian executed for magic.]\n\nAt the close of the fourth century the views of the Gnostics were\nrevived in Gaul and Spain by Priscillian, who seems to have been\nmuch influenced by astrology and who was put to death at Treves in\n385 A.\u202fD. on a charge of magic. He confessed under torture, but was\nafterwards thought innocent. We are not told, however, what the magical\npractices were of which he was accused.[1659] Both Sulpicius Severus\nand Isidore of Seville[1660] state that he was accused of _maleficium_,\nwhich should mean witchcraft, sorcery, or magical operations with the\nintent to injure someone. But further details are wanting, except that\nSulpicius calls Priscillian a man \u201cmore puffed up than was right with\nthe knowledge of profane things, and who was further believed to have\npracticed magic arts since adolescence,\u201d while Isidore states that\nBishop Itacius (Ithaicus), who was largely responsible for pushing the\ncharges against Priscillian, showed in a book which he wrote against\nPriscillian\u2019s heresy that \u201ca certain Marcus of Memphis, most learned\nin magic art, was a disciple of Mani and master of Priscillian.\u201d\nPriscillian himself states in his extant works that Itacius had accused\nhim of magic in 380. As the final trial proceeded, Itacius gave way\nas accuser to a public prosecutor (_fisci patronus_) who continued\nthe case on behalf of the emperor Maximus who seems to have had his\neye upon Priscillian\u2019s large fortune. St. Martin of Tours in vain\nobtained from Maximus a promise that Priscillian should not be put to\ndeath.[1661] But his execution brought his persecutor Itacius into such\nbad odor that he was excommunicated and condemned to exile for the rest\nof his life.\n\n[Sidenote: Manichean Manuscripts]\n\nWe have just heard that Priscillian was taught by a disciple of\nMani, while Ephraem Syrus states that Bardesanes was the teacher of\nMani. Augustine in his youth, when a follower of the Manicheans, had\nbeen devoted to astrology. This connection between Gnosticism and\nastrology and Manicheism has been further attested by the fragments of\nManichean manuscripts recently discovered in central Asia.[1662] In\nthem the sun-god and moon-god and five other planets play a prominent\npart. Besides the five planets we have five elements\u2014ether, wind,\nlight, fire, and water\u2014five plants, five trees, and five beings with\nsouls\u2014man, quadrupeds, reptiles, aquatic, and flying animals. The five\ngods or luminous bodies are represented as good forces who imprisoned\nfive kinds of demons; but the devil had his revenge by imprisoning\nluminous forces in man, whom he made a microcosm of the universe. And\nwhereas the good spirit had created sun and moon, the devil formed male\nand female. The great sage of beneficent light then appeared in the\nworld and brought forth from his own five members five liberators\u2014pity,\ncontentment, patience, wisdom, and good faith\u2014corresponding to the\nfive elements just as among the Christians we shall find four virtues\nand four elements. Then ensued the struggle of the old man with the\nnew man. Although we are commonly told that idolatry and magic were\nstrictly prohibited by the Manicheans, the envoy of light is in one\ntext represented as \u201cemploying great magic prayers\u201d in his effort to\ndeliver living beings. When men eat living beings, they offend against\nthe five gods, the earth dry and moist, the five orders of animate\nbeings, the five different herbs and five trees. Other numbers than\nfive appear in these Manichean fragments: four seals of light and four\npraises, four courts with iron barriers; three vestments and three\nwheels and three calamities; ten vows and ten layers of heavens above,\nand eight layers of earth beneath; twelve great kings and twelve\nevil natures; thirteen great luminous forces and thirteen parts of\nthe carnal body and thirteen vices,\u2014elsewhere fourteen parts; fifteen\nenumerations of sins for which forgiveness is sought; fifty days in the\nyear to be observed; and so on.\n\n[Sidenote: The Mandaeans.]\n\nA sect derived either from Gnosticism or from common sources\nseems still to exist in the case of the Mandaeans of southern\nBabylonia.[1663] They believe that the earth and man were formed by a\nDemiurge, who corresponds to the Ialdabaoth of the Ophites, and who was\naided by the spirits of the seven planets. They divide the history of\nthe world into seven ages and represent Jesus Christ as a false prophet\nand magician produced by the planet Mercury. The lower world consists\nof four vestibules and three hells proper and has seven iron and seven\ngolden walls. A dying Mandaean is clothed in a holy dress of seven\npieces. The spirits of the planets, however, are represented as evil\nbeings, and the first two of three sets of progeny borne by the spirit\nof hell fire were the seven planets and the twelve signs of the zodiac.\nThe influence of these two numbers, seven and twelve, may be further\nseen in the regulation that a candidate for the priesthood should be\nat least nineteen years old and have had twelve years of previous\ntraining, which we infer would normally begin when he reached his\nseventh year and not before. Other prominent numbers in Mandaean lore\nare five,[1664] perhaps indicative of the planets other than sun and\nmoon, and three hundred and sixty, suggestive of the number of degrees\nin the circle of the zodiac. Thus the main manifestations of the primal\nlight are five, and the third generation produced by the spirit of\nhell fire was of like number. The number of aeons is often stated as\nthree hundred and sixty, and the delivering deity or Messiah of the\nMandaeans is said to have sent forth that number of disciples before\nhis return to the realm of light. We hear of yet other numbers, such\nas 480,000 years for the duration of the world, 60,000, and 240, but\nthese too are commensurate, if not identical, with astrological periods\nsuch as those of conjunctions and the _magnus annus_. A peculiarity of\nMandaean astronomy and astrology is that the other heavenly bodies are\nall believed to rotate about the polar star. Mandaeans always face it\nwhen praying; their sanctuaries are built so that persons entering face\nit; and even the dying man is placed so that his feet point and eyes\ngaze in its direction. Like the Gnostics, the Mandaeans invoke by many\nstrange names their spirits and aeons who are divided into numerous\norders. Their names for the planets seem to be of Babylonian origin.\nPassages from their sacred books are recited like incantations and are\nconsidered more effective in danger and distress than prayer in the\nordinary sense of the word. Such recitations are also employed to aid\nthe souls of the dead to ascend through various stages or prisons to\nthe world of light. Earthenware vessels have recently been brought to\nlight with Mandaean inscriptions and incantations to avert evil.[1665]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n THE CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA\n\n Magic in the Bible\u2014Apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy\u2014Question of\n their date\u2014Their medieval influence\u2014Resemblances to Apuleius and\n Apollonius in the Arabic _Gospel of the Infancy_\u2014Counteracting magic\n and demons\u2014Other miracles and magic by the Christ child\u2014Sometimes with\n injurious results\u2014Further marvels from the _Pseudo-Matthew_\u2014Learning\n of the Christ child\u2014Other charges of magic against Christ and\n the apostles\u2014The _Magi_ and the star\u2014Allegorical zoology of\n Barnabas\u2014Traces of Gnosticism in the apocryphal Acts\u2014Legend of St.\n John\u2014Legend of St. Sousnyos\u2014Old Testament Apocrypha of the Christian\n era.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Magic in the Bible.]\n\nIt is hardly necessary to rehearse here in detail the numerous\nallusions to, prohibitions of, and descriptions of the practice\nof magic, witchcraft, and astrology, enchantments and exorcisms,\ndivination and interpretation of dreams, which are to be found\nscattered through the pages of the Old and New Testaments. Such\npassages had a profound influence upon Christian thought on such themes\nin the early church and during the middle ages, and we shall have\noccasion to mention many, if not most, of such scriptural passages, in\nconnection with this later discussion of them by the church fathers and\nothers. For instance, Pharaoh\u2019s magicians and their contests with Moses\nand Aaron; Balaam and his imprecations and enchantments and prediction\nthat a star would come out of Jacob and a scepter out of Israel; the\nwitch of Endor or ventriloquist and her invocation of what seemed to be\nthe ghost of Samuel; the repeated use of the numbers seven and twelve,\nsuggestive of the planets and signs of the zodiac, as in the twelve\ncakes of showbread and candlestick with seven branches; the dreams\nand interpretation of dreams of Joseph and Daniel, not to mention\nthe former\u2019s silver divining cup;[1666] the wise men who saw Christ\u2019s\nstar in the east; Christ\u2019s own allusion to the shaking of \u201cthe powers\nof the heavens\u201d and the gathering of His elect from the four winds\nat His second coming; the accusation against Christ that He cast out\ndemons by the aid of the prince of demons; the eclipse of the sun at\nthe time of the crucifixion; the adventures of the apostles with Simon\nMagus, with Elymas the sorcerer, and with the damsel possessed with a\nspirit of divination who brought her master much gain by soothsaying;\nthe burning of their books of magic by the vagabond Jewish exorcists;\nthe prohibitions of heathen divination and witchcraft by the Mosaic\nlaw and by the prophets; the penalties prescribed for sorcerers in\nthe Book of Revelation; at the same time the legalized practice of\nsimilar superstitions, such as the ordeal to test a wife\u2019s faithfulness\nby making her drink \u201cthe bitter water that causeth the curse,\u201d[1667]\nthe engraved gold plate upon the high priest\u2019s forehead,[1668] or the\nuse of Paul\u2019s handkerchief and underwear to cure the sick and dispel\ndemons; the promise to believers in the closing verses or appendix of\n_The Gospel according to St. Mark_ that they shall cast out devils,\nspeak with new tongues, handle serpents and drink poison without\ninjury, and cure the sick by laying on of hands. The foregoing scarcely\nexhaust the obvious allusions or analogies to astrology and other magic\narts in the Bible, to say nothing of less explicit passages[1669]\nwhich were later taken to justify certain occult arts, as Exodus XIII,\n9, to support chiromancy, and the Gospel of John XI, 9, to support\nthe astrological doctrine of elections. Suffice it for the present to\nsay that the prevailing atmosphere of the Bible is one of prophecy,\nvision, and miracle, and that with these go, like the obverse face of a\ncoin or medal, their inevitable accompaniments of divination, demons,\nand magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Apocryphal gospels of the infancy.]\n\nThis is also the case in apocryphal literature of the New Testament\nwhich is now so much less familiar and accessible especially to English\nreaders,[1670] but which had wide currency in the early Christian and\nmedieval periods. We may begin with the apocryphal gospels and more\nparticularly those dealing with the infancy and childhood of Christ.\nOf these two are believed to date from the second century, namely,\nthe Gospel of James or \u201cGospel of the Infancy\u201d (_Protoevangelium\nIacobi_)[1671] and the Gospel of St. Thomas, which is mentioned\nby Hippolytus. However, he cites a sentence which is not in the\npresent text\u2014of which the manuscripts are scanty and for the most\npart of late date[1672]\u2014and the gospel as we have it is not Gnostic,\nas he says it is, so that our version has probably been altered\nby some Catholic.[1673] Later in date is the Latin gospel of the\nPseudo-Matthew\u2014perhaps of the fourth or fifth century\u2014and the Arabic\nGospel of the Infancy, which is believed to be a translation from a\nlost Syriac original. We are the worst off of all for manuscripts of\nits text and apparently there is no Latin manuscript of it now extant,\nalthough a Latin text has reached us through the printed editions.\nTischendorf was, however, \u201cunwilling to omit in this new collection\nof the apocryphal gospels that ancient and memorable monument of the\nsuperstition of oriental Christians,\u201d and for the same reason we\nshall survey its medley of miracle and magic in the present chapter.\nSpeaking of the flight into Egypt this gospel says, \u201cAnd the Lord Jesus\nperformed a great many miracles in Egypt which are not found recorded\neither in the Gospel of the Infancy or in the Perfect Gospel.\u201d[1674]\nTischendorf noted the close resemblance of its first nine chapters to\nthe Gospel of James and of chapters 36-55 to the Gospel of Thomas,\nwhile the intervening chapters \u201ccontain especially fables of the sort\nyou may fittingly call oriental, filled with allusions to Satan and\ndemons and sorceries and magic arts.\u201d[1675] We find, however, the same\nsort of fables in the other three apocryphal gospels; there are simply\nmore of them in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. It appears to be a\ncompilation and may embody other earlier sources no longer extant as\nwell as passages from the pseudo-James and pseudo-Thomas.\n\n[Sidenote: Question of their date.]\n\nThere is a tendency on the part of orthodox Christian scholars to\ndefer the writing of apocryphal works to as late a date as possible,\nand they seem to have a notion that they can save the credibility or\npurity of the miracles of the New Testament[1676] by representing such\nmiracles as those recorded of the infancy of Christ as the inventions\nof a later age. And it is probably true that all these marvels were not\nthe invention of a single century but of a succession of centuries.\nOn the other hand, I know of no reason for thinking Christians of the\nfirst century any less credulous than Christians of the fifth century;\nit was not until the latter century that Pope Gelasius\u2019 condemnation\nof apocryphal books was drawn up, but apocryphal books had long been\nin existence before that time; nor for thinking the Christians of\nthe thirteenth century any more credulous than those of the other\ntwo centuries. It is only in our own age that Christians have become\nreally critical of such matters. Moreover, these unacceptable miracles,\nwhenever they were invented, were presumably invented by and accepted\nby Christians, who must bear the discredit for them. Whatever the\ncentury was, the same men believed in them who believed in the miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament. If the plant has flowered into such rank\nsuperstition, can the original seed escape responsibility? The Arabic\nGospel of the Infancy is no doubt an extreme instance of Christian\ncredence in magic, but it is an instance that cannot be overlooked,\nwhatever its date, place, or language.\n\n[Sidenote: Their medieval influence.]\n\nThese apocryphal gospels of the Infancy, which are in part extant\nonly in Latin, continued to be influential in the medieval period.\nAt the beginning of it we find included in Pope Gelasius\u2019 list of\napocryphal works, published at a synod at Rome in 494,[1677] besides\napocryphal gospels of Matthew and of Thomas\u2014which last we are told,\n\u201cthe Manicheans use\u201d\u2014a _Liber de infantia Salvatoris_ and a _Liber de\nnativitate Salvatoris et de Maria et obstetrice_. There are numerous\nmanuscripts of such gospels in the later medieval centuries but it\nwould not be safe to attempt to identify or classify them without\nexamining each in detail. As Tischendorf said, the Latins do not seem\nto have long remained content with mere translations of the Greek\npseudo-gospel of James but combined the stories told there with others\nfrom the Pseudo-Thomas or other sources into new apocryphal treatises.\nThus the extant Latin apocrypha in no case reproduce the Gospel of\nJames accurately but rather are imitated after it, and include some of\nit, omit some of it, embellish some of its tales, and add to it.[1678]\nM\u00e2le states in his work on religious art in France in the thirteenth\ncentury that _The Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew_ and _The Gospel\nof Nicodemus_ or _Acts of Pilate_ were the two apocryphal gospels\nespecially used in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.[1679]\n\n[Sidenote: Resemblances to Apuleius and Apollonius in the Arabic Gospel\nof the Infancy.]\n\nThat the fables of the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy were at least\nnot fresh from the orient is indicated by the way in which some of\nthe incidents in the stories of Apuleius and Apollonius of Tyana are\nclosely paralleled.[1680] In the parlor of a well furnished house where\nlived two sisters with their widowed mother stood a mule caparisoned\nin silk and with an ebony collar about his neck, \u201cwhom they kissed and\nwere feeding.\u201d[1681] He was their brother, transformed into a mule by\nthe sorcery of a jealous woman one night a little before daybreak,\nalthough all the doors of the house were locked at the time. \u201cAnd we,\u201d\nthey tell a girl who had been instantly cured of leprosy by use of\nperfumed water in which the Christ child had been washed and who had\nthen become the maid-servant of the virgin Mary,[1682] \u201chave applied to\nall the wise men, magicians, and diviners in the world, but they have\nbeen of no service to us.\u201d[1683] The girl recommends them to consult\nMary, who restores their brother to human form by placing the Christ\nchild upon his back. This romantic episode is then brought to a fitting\nconclusion by the marriage of the brother to the girl who had assisted\nin his restoration to his right body. As the demon, who in the form of\nan artful beggar was causing the plague at Ephesus and whom Apollonius\nhad stoned to death, turned at the last moment into a mad dog, so\nSatan, when forced by the presence of the Christ child to leave the\nboy Judas, ran away like a mad dog.[1684] The reviving of a corpse by\nan Egyptian prophet in the _Metamorphoses_ in order that the dead man\nmay tell who murdered him is paralleled in both the Arabic Infancy and\nthe gospels of Thomas and the Pseudo-Matthew by the conduct of Jesus\nwhen accused of throwing another boy down from a house-top. The text\nreads: \u201cThen the Lord Jesus going down stood over the dead boy and said\nwith a loud voice, \u2018Zeno, Zeno, who threw you down from the house-top?\u2019\nThen the dead boy answered, \u2018Lord, thou didst not throw me down, but\nso-and-so did.\u2019\u201d[1685]\n\n[Sidenote: Counteracting magic and demons.]\n\nMany were the occasions upon which the Christ child or his mother\ncounteracted the operations of magic or relieved persons who were\npossessed by demons. Kissing him cured a bride whom sorcerers had made\ndumb at her wedding,[1686] and a bridegroom who was kept by sorcery\nfrom enjoying his wife was cured of his impotence by the mere presence\nof the holy family who lodged in his house for the night.[1687] Mary\u2019s\npitying glance was sufficient to expel Satan from a woman possessed by\ndemons.[1688] Another upright woman who was often vexed by Satan in\nthe form of a serpent when she went to bathe in the river,[1689] which\nreminds one somewhat of Olympias and Nectanebus,[1690] was permanently\ncured by kissing the Christ child. And a girl, whose blood Satan\nused to suck, miraculously discomfited him when he appeared in the\nshape of a huge dragon by putting upon her head and about her eyes a\nswaddling cloth of Jesus which Mary had given to her. Fire then went\nforth and was scattered upon the dragon\u2019s head and eyes, as from the\nblinking eyes of the artful beggar who caused the plague in the _Life\nof Apollonius of Tyana_, and he fled in a panic.[1691] A priest\u2019s\nthree-year-old son who was possessed by a great multitude of devils,\nwho uttered many strange things, and who threw stones at everybody, was\nlikewise cured by placing on his head one of Christ\u2019s swaddling clothes\nwhich Mary had hung out to dry. In this case the devils made their\nescape through his mouth \u201cin the shape of crows and serpents.\u201d[1692]\nSuch marvels may offend modern taste but have their probable prototype\nin the miracles wrought by use of Paul\u2019s handkerchief and underwear in\nthe New Testament and illustrate, like the placing of spittle on the\neyes of the blind man, the great healing virtue then ascribed to the\nperspiration and other secretions and excretions of the human body.\n\n[Sidenote: Other miracles and magic by the Christ child.]\n\nSick children as well as lepers were cured by the water in which Jesus\nhad bathed or by wearing coats made of his swaddling clothes,[1693]\nwhile the child Bartholomew was snatched from the very jaws of death\nby the mere smell of the Christ child\u2019s garments the moment he was\nplaced on Jesus\u2019 bed.[1694] On the road to Egypt is a balsam which\nwas produced \u201cfrom the sweat which ran down there from the Lord\nJesus.\u201d[1695] The Christ child cured snake-bite, in the case of his\nbrother James by blowing on it, in the case of his playfellow, Simon\nthe Canaanite, by forcing the serpent who had stung him to come out of\nits hole and suck all the poison from the wound, after which he cursed\nthe snake \u201cso that it immediately burst asunder and died.\u201d[1696] When\nthe boy Jesus took all the cloths waiting to be dyed with different\ncolors in a dyer\u2019s shop and threw them into the furnace, the dyer began\nto scold him for this mischief, but the cloths all came out of the\ndesired colors.[1697] Jesus also miraculously remedied the defective\ncarpentry of Joseph, who had worked for two years on a throne for\nthe king of Jerusalem and made it too short. Jesus and Joseph took\nhold of the opposite sides and pulled the throne out to the required\ndimensions.[1698]\n\n[Sidenote: Sometimes with injurious results.]\n\nThe usual result of the Christ child\u2019s miracles was that all the\nbystanders united in praising God. But when his little playmates went\nhome and told their parents how he had made his clay animals walk and\nhis clay birds fly, eat, and drink, their elders said, \u201cTake heed,\nchildren, for the future of his company, for he is a sorcerer; shun\nand avoid him, and from henceforth never play with him.\u201d[1699] Indeed,\nif the theory of the fathers is correct that the surest hall-mark by\nwhich divine miracles may be distinguished from feats of magic is that\nthe former are never wrought for any evil end while the latter are, it\nmust be admitted that his contemporaries were sometimes justified in\nsuspecting the Christ child of resort to magic. After his playmates\nhad been thus forbidden to associate with Jesus, they hid from him in\na furnace, and some women at a house near by told him that there were\nnot boys but kids in the furnace. Jesus then actually transformed them\ninto kids who came skipping forth at his command.[1700] It is true that\nhe soon changed them back into human form, and that the women worshiped\nChrist and asserted their conviction that he was \u201ccome to save and not\nto destroy.\u201d But on several subsequent occasions Jesus is represented\nin the apocryphal gospels of the infancy as causing the death of his\nplaymates. When another boy broke a little fish-pool which Jesus had\nconstructed on the Sabbath day, he said to him, \u201cIn like manner as this\nwater has vanished, so shall thy life vanish,\u201d and the boy presently\ndied.[1701] When a third boy ran into Jesus and knocked him down, he\nsaid, \u201cAs thou hast thrown me down, so shalt thou fall, nor ever rise;\u201d\nand that instant the boy fell down and died.[1702] When Jesus\u2019 teacher\nstarted to whip him, his hand withered and he died. After which we\nare not surprised to hear Joseph say to Mary, \u201cHenceforth we will not\nallow him to go out of the house; for everyone who displeases him is\nkilled.\u201d[1703]\n\n[Sidenote: Further marvels from the _Pseudo-Matthew_.]\n\nAs has been indicated in the footnotes many of the foregoing marvels\nare recounted in the Pseudo-Matthew and Latin Gospel of Thomas as\nwell as in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. The Pseudo-Matthew also\ntells how lions adored the Christ child and were bade by him to go in\npeace.[1704] And how he \u201ctook a dead child by the ear and suspended him\nfrom the earth in the sight of all. And they saw Jesus speaking with\nhim like a father with his son. And his spirit returned unto him and\nhe lived again. And all marveled thereat.\u201d[1705] When a rich man named\nJoseph died and was lamented, Jesus asked his father Joseph why he did\nnot help his dead namesake. When Joseph asked what there was that he\ncould do, Jesus replied, \u201cTake the handkerchief which is on your head\nand go and put it over the face of the corpse and say to him, \u2018May\nChrist save you.\u2019\u201d Joseph followed these instructions except that he\nsaid, \u201c_Salvet te Iesus_,\u201d instead of \u201c_Salvet te Christus_,\u201d which\nwas possibly the reason why the dead man upon reviving asked, \u201cWho is\nJesus?\u201d[1706]\n\n[Sidenote: Learning of the Christ child.]\n\nWhile no very elaborate paraphernalia or ceremonial were involved in\nthe miracles ascribed to the Christ child in the Arabic Gospel of the\nInfancy, it is perhaps worth noting that he was already possessed of\nall learning and nonplussed his masters, when they tried to teach him\nthe alphabet, by asking the most abstruse questions. And when he\nappeared before the doctors in the temple, he expounded to them not\nonly the books of the law,[1707] but natural philosophy, astronomy,\nphysics and metaphysics, physiology, anatomy, and psychology. He is\nrepresented as telling them \u201cthe number of the spheres and heavenly\nbodies, as also their triangular, square, and sextile aspect; their\nprogressive and retrograde motion; their twenty-fourths and sixtieths\nof twenty-fourths\u201d (perhaps corresponding to our hours and minutes!)\n\u201cand other things which the reason of man had never discovered.\u201d\nFurthermore, \u201cthe powers also of the body, its humors and their\neffects; also the number of its members, and bones, veins, arteries,\nand nerves; the several constitutions of the body, hot and dry, cold\nand moist, and the tendencies of them; how the soul operates upon\nthe body; what its various sensations and faculties are; the faculty\nof speaking, anger, desire; and lastly, the manner of the body\u2019s\ncomposition and dissolution, and other things which the understanding\nof no creature had ever reached.\u201d[1708] It may be added that in the\napocryphal epistles supposed to have been interchanged between Christ\nand Abgarus, king of Edessa, that monarch writes to Christ, \u201cI have\nbeen informed about you and your cures, which are performed without the\nuse of herbs and medicines.\u201d[1709]\n\n[Sidenote: Other charges of magic against Christ and the apostles.]\n\nJesus is again accused of magic in _The Gospel of Nicodemus_ or _Acts\nof Pontius Pilate_, where the Jews tell Pilate that he is a conjurer.\nAfter Pilate has been warned by his wife, the Jews repeat, \u201cDid we not\nsay unto thee, He is a magician? Behold, he hath caused thy wife to\ndream.\u201d[1710] In the _Acts of Paul and Thecla_, to which Tertullian\nrefers and which are now seen to be an excerpt from the apocryphal\n_Acts of Paul_, discovered in 1899 in a Coptic papyrus,[1711] the mob\nsimilarly cries out against Paul, \u201cHe is a magician; away with him.\u201d\nIn the _Acts of Peter and Andrew_[1712] they are both accused of\nbeing sorcerers by Onesiphorus, who also, however, denies that Peter\ncan make a camel go through the eye of a needle. Nor is he satisfied\nwhen the feat is successfully performed with a needle and camel of\nPeter\u2019s selection, but insists upon its being repeated with an animal\nand instrument of his own selection. Onesiphorus also has \u201ca polluted\nwoman\u201d ride upon his camel\u2019s back, apparently with the idea that this\nwill break the magic spell. But Peter sends the camel through the\neye of the needle, \u201cwhich opened up like a gate,\u201d as successfully as\nbefore, and also back again through it once more from the opposite\ndirection.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Magi_ and the star.]\n\nSome details are added by the apocrypha to the account of the star at\nChrist\u2019s birth. The Arabic Gospel states that Zoroaster (Zeraduscht)\nhad predicted the coming of the _Magi_, that Mary gave the _Magi_ one\nof Christ\u2019s swaddling clothes, that they were guided on their homeward\njourney by an angel in the form of the star which had led them to\nBethlehem, and that after their return they found that the swaddling\ncloth would not burn in fire.[1713] The _Epistle of Ignatius to the\nEphesians_ states that this star shone with a brightness far exceeding\nall others, filling men with fear, and that with its coming the power\nof magic was destroyed and the new kingdom of God ushered in.[1714]\n\n[Sidenote: Allegorical zoology of Barnabas.]\n\nIn the apocryphal _Epistle of Barnabas_ occurs some of that allegorical\nzoology which we are apt to associate especially with the Physiologus.\nIn its ninth chapter the hyena and weasel are adduced as examples of\nits contention that the Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean\nanimals has a spiritual meaning. Thus the command not to eat the hyena\nmeans not to be an adulterer or corrupter of others, for the hyena\nchanges its sex annually. The weasel which conceives with its mouth\nsignifies persons with unclean mouths. In the _Acts of Barnabas_ he\ncures the sick of Cyprus by laying a copy of the _Gospel of Matthew_\nupon their bodies.[1715]\n\n[Sidenote: Traces of Gnosticism in the apocryphal Acts.]\n\nIf we turn again to the various apocryphal Acts, where we have already\nnoted charges of magic made against the apostles, we may find traces\nof gnosticism which have already been noted by Anz.[1716] In the _Acts\nof Thomas_ the Holy Ghost is called the pitying mother of seven houses\nwhose rest is the eighth house of heaven. In the _Acts of Philip_\nthat apostle prays, \u201cCome now, Jesus, and give me the eternal crown\nof victory over every hostile power ... Lord Jesus Christ ... lead me\non ... until I overcome all the cosmic powers and the evil dragon who\nopposes us. Now therefore Lord Jesus Christ make me to come to Thee\nin the air.\u201d _The Acts of John_, too, speak of overcoming fire and\ndarkness and angels and demons and archons and powers of darkness who\nseparate man from God.\n\n[Sidenote: Legend of John.]\n\nWe deal in another chapter with the struggle of the apostles with Simon\nMagus as recounted in the apocryphal _Acts of Peter and Paul_, and with\nsimilar legends of the contests of other apostles with magicians. Here,\nhowever, we may mention some of the marvels in the apocryphal legend\nof St. John, supposed to have been written by his disciple Procharus\nand \u201cwhich deluded the Greek Church by its air of sincerity and its\nextreme precision of detail,\u201d[1717] although it does not seem to have\nreached the west until the sixteenth century. John is represented\nas drinking without injury a poison which had killed two criminals,\nand as reviving two corpses without going near them by directing an\nincredulous pagan to lay his cloak over them. A Stoic philosopher had\npersuaded some young men to embrace the life of poverty by converting\ntheir property into gems and then pounding the gems to pieces. John\nmade the criticism that this wealth might have better been distributed\namong the poor, and when challenged to do so by the Stoic, prayed to\nGod and had the gems made whole again. Later when the young men longed\nfor their departed wealth, he turned the pebbles on the seashore into\ngold and precious stones, a miracle which is said to have persuaded the\nmedieval alchemists that he possessed the secret of the philosopher\u2019s\nstone.[1718] At any rate Adam of St. Victor in the twelfth century\nwrote the following lines concerning St. John in a chant to be used in\nthe church service:\n\n Cum gemmarum partes fractas\n Solidasset, has distractas\n Tribuit pauperibus;\n Inexhaustum fert thesaurum\n Qui de virgis fecit aurum,\n Gemmas de lapidibus.[1719]\n\n[Sidenote: Legend of St. Sousnyos.]\n\nThe brief legend of St. Sousnyos, which Basset has included in his\nedition of Ethiopian Apocrypha,[1720] is all magic, beginning with\nan incantation or magic prayer against disease and demons. There is\nalso a Slavonic version. This Sousnyos is presumably the same as\nthe Sisinnios who is said by the author of the apocryphal _Acts of\nArchelaus_,[1721] forged about 330-340 A.\u202fD., to have abandoned Mani,\nembraced Christianity, and revealed to Archelaus secret teachings which\nenabled him to triumph over his adversary.\n\n[Sidenote: Old Testament apocrypha of the Christian era.]\n\nWhile on the subject, mention may be made of two works which properly\nbelong to the apocrypha of the Old Testament, but which first appear\nduring the Christian era and so fall within our period. _The Ascension\nof Isaiah_,[1722] of which the old Latin version was printed at Venice\nin 1522, and which dates back to the second century, is something like\nthe _Book of Enoch_, describing Isaiah\u2019s ascent through the seven\nheavens and vision of the mission of Christ. In the _Book of Baruch_,\nof which the original version was written in Greek by a Christian of\nthe third or fourth century,[1723] the most interesting episode is the\nmagic sleep into which, like Rip Van Winkle, Abimelech falls during the\ndestruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. In the legend of Jeremiah\nthe prophet\u2019s soul is absent from his body on one occasion for three\ndays, while on another occasion he dresses up a stone to impersonate\nhimself before the populace who are trying to stone him to death, in\norder that he may gain time to make certain revelations to Abimelech\nand Baruch. When he has had his say, the stone asks the people why they\npersist in stoning it instead of Jeremiah, against whom they then turn\ntheir missiles.[1724]\n\nSuch is no exhaustive listing but rather a few examples of the\nencouragement given to belief in magic by the Christian Apocrypha.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n THE RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT AND SIMON MAGUS\n\n The Pseudo-Clementines\u2014Was Rufinus the sole medieval version?\u2014Previous\n Greek versions\u2014Date of the original version\u2014Internal\n evidence\u2014Resemblances to Apuleius and Philostratus\u2014Science and\n religion\u2014Interest in natural science\u2014God and nature\u2014Sin and\n nature\u2014Attitude to astrology\u2014Arguments against genethlialogy\u2014The\n virtuous Seres\u2014Theory of demons\u2014Origin of magic\u2014Frequent accusations\n of magic\u2014Marvels of magic\u2014How distinguish miracle from magic?\u2014Deceit\n in magic\u2014Murder of a boy\u2014Magic is evil\u2014Magic is an art\u2014Other accounts\n of Simon Magus: Justin Martyr to Hippolytus\u2014Peter\u2019s account in the\n _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_\u2014Arnobius, Cyril, and\n Philastrius\u2014Apocryphal _Acts of Peter and Paul_\u2014An account ascribed to\n Marcellus\u2014Hegesippus\u2014A sermon on Simon\u2019s fall\u2014Simon Magus in medieval\n art.\n\n \u201c_The Truth herself shall receive thee a wanderer and a stranger, and\n enroll thee a citizen of her own city._\u201d\n \u2014_Recognitions_ I, 13.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Pseudo-Clementines.]\n\nThe starting-point and chief source for this chapter will be the\nwritings known as the _Pseudo-Clementines_ and more particularly\nthe Latin version commonly called _The Recognitions_. We shall then\nnote other accounts of its villain-hero, Simon Magus, in patristic\nliterature.[1725] The _Pseudo-Clementines_, as the name implies, are\nworks or different versions of one work ascribed to Clement of Rome,\nwho is represented as writing to James, the brother of the Lord, an\naccount of events and discussions in which he and the apostle Peter had\nparticipated not long after the crucifixion. This Pseudo-Clementine\nliterature has a double character, combining romantic narrative\nconcerning Peter, Simon Magus, and the family of Clement with long,\nargumentative, didactic, and doctrinal discussions and dialogues in\nwhich the same persons participate but Peter takes the leading and\nmost authoritative part. Not only the authorship, origin, and date,\nbut even the title or titles and the make-up and arrangement of the\nvarious versions and their original are doubtful or disputed matters.\nThe versions now extant and published seem by no means to have been\nthe only ones, but we will describe them first. In Greek we have the\nversion known as _The Homilies_ in twenty books, in which the didactic\nelement preponderates. It is extant in only two manuscripts of the\ntwelfth and fourteenth centuries at Paris and Rome,[1726] but is also\npreserved in part in epitomes. Different from it is the Latin version\nin which the narrative element plays a greater part.\n\n[Sidenote: Was Rufinus the sole medieval version?]\n\nThis Latin version, now usually referred to as _The Recognitions_,\nbecause the main point in its plot is the successive bringing together\nagain of, and recognition of one another by, the members of a family\nlong separated, is the translation made by Rufinus, who is last heard\nfrom in 410. It is usually divided into ten books. Numerous manuscripts\nof this version attest its popularity and influence in the middle\nages, when we early find Isidore of Seville quoting Clement several\ntimes as an authority on natural science.[1727] Arevalus, however,\nthought that Isidore used some other version of the Pseudo-Clementines\nthan that of Rufinus,[1728] and in the medieval period another title\nwas common, namely, _The Itinerary of Clement_, or _The Itinerary of\nPeter_.[1729] William of Auvergne, for instance, in the first half of\nthe thirteenth century cites the _Itinerarium Clementis_ or \u201cBook of\nthe disputations of Peter against Simon Magus.\u201d[1730] This _Itinerary\nof Clement_ also heads the list of works condemned as apocryphal by\nPope Gelasius at a synod at Rome in 494,[1731] a list reproduced by\nVincent of Beauvais in his _Speculum naturale_ in the thirteenth\ncentury[1732] and in the previous century rather more accurately by\nHugh of St. Victor in his _Didascalicon_.[1733] In all three cases\nthe full title is given in practically the same words, \u201cThe Itinerary\nby the name of the Apostle Peter which is called Saint Clement\u2019s, an\napocryphal work in eight books.\u201d[1734] Here we encounter a difficulty,\nsince as we have said _The Recognitions_ are in ten books. We find,\nhowever, that in another passage[1735] Vincent correctly cites the\nninth book of _The Recognitions_ as Clement\u2019s ninth book, and that the\nnumber of books into which _The Recognitions_ is divided varies in the\nmanuscripts, and that they, too, more often call it _The Itinerary of\nClement_ or even apply other designations. Rabanus Maurus in the ninth\ncentury quotes an utterance of the apostle Peter from _The History of\nSaint Clement_, but the passage is found in _The Recognitions_.[1736]\nVincent of Beauvais also quotes \u201cthe blessed apostle Peter in a\ncertain letter attached to _The Itinerary of Clement_.\u201d No letter by\nPeter is prefaced to the printed text of _The Recognitions_, nor does\nRufinus mention such a letter, although he does speak in his preface of\na letter by Clement which he has already translated elsewhere. Prefixed\nto the printed _Homilies_, however, and in the manuscripts found also\nwith _The Recognitions_, are letters of Peter and Clement respectively\nto James. But the passage quoted by Vincent does not occur in either,\nbut comes from the tenth book of _The Recognitions_.[1737] It would\nseem, therefore, despite variations in the number of books and in the\narrangement of material, that the Latin version by Rufinus was the only\none current in the middle ages, but we cannot be sure of this until all\nthe extant manuscripts have been more carefully examined.[1738]\n\n[Sidenote: Previous Greek versions.]\n\nThe version by Rufinus differed from previous ones not only in being in\nLatin but also in various omissions which he admits he made and perhaps\nother changes to suit it to his Latin audience. That there was already\nmore than one version in Greek he shows in his preface by describing\nanother text than that upon which his translation or adaptation was\nbased. Neither of these two Greek texts appears to have been the same\nas the present _Homilies_.[1739] Yet _The Homilies_ were apparently in\nexistence at that time, since a Syriac manuscript of 411 A.\u202fD. contains\nfour books of _The Homilies_ and three of _The Recognitions_,[1740]\nthus in itself furnishing an illustration of the ease with which new\nversions might be compounded from old. Both _The Homilies_ and _The\nRecognitions_ as they have reached us would seem to be confusions and\nperversions of this sort, as their incidents are obviously not arranged\nin correct order. For instance, when the story of _The Recognitions_\nbegins Christ is still alive and reports of His miracles are reaching\nRome; the same year Barnabas pays a visit to Rome and Clement almost\nimmediately follows him back to Syria, making the passage from Rome to\nCaesarea in fifteen days;[1741] but on his arrival there he meets Peter\nwho tells him that \u201ca week of years\u201d have elapsed since the crucifixion\nand of other intervening events involving a considerable lapse of time.\nOr again, in the third book of _The Recognitions_ Simon is said to have\nsunk his magical paraphernalia in the sea and gone to Rome, but as late\nas the tenth and last book we find him still in Antioch and with enough\nparaphernalia left to transform the countenance of Faustus.\n\n[Sidenote: Date of the original version.]\n\nYet this late and misarranged version on which Rufinus bases his\ntext must have been already in existence for some time, since he\nconfesses that he has been a long while about his translation. The\nvirgin Sylvia who \u201conce enjoined it upon\u201d him to \u201crender Clement into\nour language\u201d is now spoken of as \u201cof venerable memory,\u201d and it is to\nBishop Gaudentius that Rufinus \u201cafter many delays\u201d in his old age \u201cat\nlength\u201d presents the work. We might thus infer that the original and\npresumably more self-consistent Pseudo-Clementine narrative, which\nRufinus evidently does not use, must date back to a much earlier\nperiod. We hear from other sources of _The Circuits_ or _Periodoi of\nPeter_ by Clement, but this may have been the version translated by\nRufinus.[1742] Conservative Christian scholars regard as the oldest\nunmistakable allusion to the Pseudo-Clementines that by Eusebius early\nin the fourth century, who, without giving any specific titles, speaks\nof certain \u201cverbose and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter\nforsooth and Apion,\u201d which are ascribed to Clement but are really\nof recent origin. As for the date of the original work from which\n_Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are derived,[1743] from 200 to 280 A.\u202fD.\nis suggested by Harnack and his school, who take middle ground between\nthe extreme contentions of Hilgenfeld and Chapman. But the original\nPseudo-Clement is supposed to have utilized _The Teachings of Peter_\nand _The Acts of Peter_, which Waitz would date between 135 and 210 A.\nD.[1744]\n\n[Sidenote: Internal evidence.]\n\nThe work itself, even in the perverted form preserved by Rufinus,\nmakes pretensions to the highest Christian antiquity. Not only is it\naddressed to James and put into the mouth of Clement, but Paul is never\nmentioned, and no book of the New Testament is cited by name, while\nsayings of Jesus are cited which are not found in the Bible. Christ is\noften alluded to in a veiled and mystic fashion as \u201cthe true prophet,\u201d\nwho had appeared aforetime to Abraham and Moses, and interesting and\nvivid incidental glimpses are given of what purports to be the life\nof an early Christian community and perhaps is that of the Ebionites,\nEssenes, or some Gnostic sect. Emphasis is laid upon the purifying\npower of baptism, upon Peter\u2019s practice of bathing early every morning,\npreferably in the sea or running water, upon secret prayers and\nmeetings, a separate table for the initiated, esoteric discussions of\nreligion at cock-crow and in the night, and upon power over demons. All\nthis may be mere clever invention, but there certainly is an atmosphere\nof verisimilitude about it; and it is rather odd that a later writer\nshould be \u201cvery careful to avoid anachronisms,\u201d in whose account as it\nnow stands are such glaring chronological confusions as those already\nnoted concerning Clement\u2019s voyage to Caesarea and Simon\u2019s departure for\nRome. But, as in the case of the New Testament Apocrypha, the exact\ndate of composition makes little difference for our purpose, for which\nit is enough that the _Pseudo-Clementines_ played an important part in\nthe first thirteen centuries of Christian thought viewed as a whole.\nEusebius and Epiphanius may find them unpalatable in certain respects\nand reject them as heretical, but Basil and Gregory utilize their\narguments against astrology. Gelasius may classify them as apocryphal,\nbut Vincent of Beauvais justifies a discriminating use of the\napocryphal books in general and cites this one in particular more than\nonce as an authority, and the incidents of its story were embodied, as\nwe shall see, in medieval art.\n\n[Sidenote: Resemblances to Apuleius and Philostratus.]\n\nThe same resemblance to the works of Apuleius and Philostratus that\nwe noted in the case of an apocryphal gospel is observable in the\n_Pseudo-Clementines_. We see in _The Recognitions_ the same mixed\ninterest in natural science and in magic combined with religion and\nromantic incident that characterized the variegated and motley page\nof the author of the _Metamorphoses_ and the biographer of Apollonius\nof Tyana. It is probably only a coincidence that two of the works of\nApuleius are dedicated to a Faustinus whom he calls \u201cmy son,\u201d while\nClement\u2019s father is named Faustus or Faustinianus, and the legend of\nFaust is believed to originate with him and the episodes in which he is\nconcerned.[1745] Less accidental may be the connection between Peter\u2019s\nreligious sea-bathing and that purification in the sea by which the\nhero of the _Metamorphoses_ began the process by which he succeeded\nin regaining his lost human form. More considerable are the detailed\nparallels to the work of Philostratus.[1746] Peter corresponds roughly\nto Apollonius and Clement to Damis, while the wizards and _magi_ are\nably personified by the famous Simon Magus. If Apollonius abstained\nfrom all meat and wine and wore linen garments, Peter lives upon \u201cbread\nalone, with olives, and seldom even with pot-herbs; and my dress,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cis what you see, a tunic with a pallium: and having these,\nI require nothing more.\u201d[1747] Like Philostratus the Pseudo-Clement\nspeaks of bones of enormous size which are still to be seen as proof\nof the existence of giants in former ages;[1748] and the accounts of\nthe Brahmans and allusions to the Scythians in the _Life of Apollonius\nof Tyana_ are paralleled in _The Recognitions_ by a series of brief\nchapters on these and other strange races.[1749] Peter is, of course,\na Jew, not a Hellene like Apollonius, but in his train are men who are\nthoroughly trained in Greek philosophy and capable of discussing its\nproblems at length. They also are not without appreciation of pagan\nart and turn aside, with Peter\u2019s consent, to visit a temple upon an\nisland and \u201cto gaze earnestly\u201d upon \u201cthe wonderful columns\u201d and \u201cvery\nmagnificent works of Phidias.\u201d[1750] Just as Apollonius knew all\nlanguages without having ever studied them, so Peter is so filled with\nthe Spirit of God that he is \u201cfull of all knowledge\u201d and \u201cnot ignorant\neven of Greek learning\u201d; but to descend from his usual divine themes to\ndiscuss it is considered to be rather beneath him. Clement, however,\nfelt the need of coaching Peter up a little in Greek mythology.[1751]\nThis mingled attitude of contempt for \u201cthe babblings of the Greeks\u201d\nwhen compared to divine revelation, and of respect for Greek philosophy\nwhen compared with anything else is, it is hardly necessary to say, a\nvery common one with Christian writers throughout the Roman Empire.\n\n[Sidenote: Science and religion.]\n\nThe same attitude prevails toward natural science. At the very\nbeginning of the Clementines the curiosity of the ancient world in\nregard to things of nature is shown by the question which someone\npropounded to Barnabas when he began to preach, at Rome according to\n_The Recognitions_, at Alexandria according to _The Homilies_, of the\nSon of God. The heckler wanted to know why so small a creature as a\nfly has not only six feet but wings in addition, while the elephant,\ndespite its enormous bulk, has only four feet and no wings at all.\nBarnabas did not answer the question, although he asserted that he\ncould if he wished to, making the excuse that it was not fitting to\nspeak of mere creatures to those who were still ignorant of their\nCreator.[1752]\n\n[Sidenote: Interest in natural science.]\n\nThis unwillingness to discuss natural questions by no means continues\ncharacteristic of the Clementines, however. Not only does Peter\nexplain to Clement the creation of the world and propound the\nextraordinary[1753] doctrine that after completing the process of\ncreation God \u201cset an angel as chief over the angels, a spirit over the\nspirits, a star over the stars, a demon over the demons, a bird over\nthe birds, a beast over the beasts, a serpent over the serpents, a fish\nover the fishes,\u201d and \u201cover men a man who is Christ Jesus.\u201d[1754] Not\nonly does he later in public defend baptism with water on the ground\nthat \u201call things are produced from waters\u201d and that waters were first\ncreated.[1755] We also find Niceta accepting the Greek hypothesis of\nfour elements, of the sphericity of the universe, and of the motions\nof the heavenly bodies \u201cassigned to them by fixed laws and periods,\u201d\nciting Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_, mentioning Aristotle\u2019s introduction of a\nfifth element,[1756] disputing the atomic theory of Epicurus,[1757]\nand alluding to \u201cmechanical science.\u201d[1758] He further discusses the\ngeneration of plants, animals, and human beings as evidences of divine\ndesign and providence,[1759] in which connection he collects a number\nof examples of marvelous gen eration of animals such as moles from\nearth and vipers from ashes, and affirms that \u201cthe crow conceives\nthrough the mouth and the weasel generates through the ear.\u201d[1760]\nSimon Magus declared himself immortal on the theory, which we shall\nfind cropping out again in the thirteenth century in Roger Bacon and\nPeter of Abano, that his flesh was \u201cso compacted by the power of his\ndivinity that it can endure to eternity.\u201d[1761] On the other hand,\nNiceta describes the action of the intestines in a fairly intelligent\nmanner,[1762] and tells how the blood flows like water from a fountain,\n\u201cand first borne along in one channel, and then spreading through\ninnumerable veins as through canals, irrigates the entire territory\nof the human body with vital streams.\u201d[1763] A little later on Aquila\ngives a natural explanation of rainbows.[1764]\n\n[Sidenote: God and nature.]\n\nThere is noticeable, it is true, a tendency, common in patristic\nliterature and found even among those fathers who hold the dualism\nof the Manichees in the deepest detestation, to make a distinction\nbetween God and nature and to attribute any flaws in the universe to\nthe latter.[1765] Niceta cannot agree with \u201cthose who speak of nature\ninstead of God and declare that all things were made by nature\u201d; he\nholds that God created the universe. But Aquila, who supports his\nbrother in the discussion, seems to think that God\u2019s responsibility\nfor the universe ceased, at least in part, after it was once created.\nAt any rate he admits that \u201cin this world some things are done in an\norderly and some in a disorderly fashion. Those things therefore,\u201d he\ncontinues, \u201cthat are done rationally, believe that they are done by\nProvidence; but those that are done irrationally and inordinately,\nbelieve that they befall naturally and happen accidentally.\u201d[1766]\n\n[Sidenote: Sin and nature.]\n\nBut even nature sometimes rises up against the sins of mankind\naccording to Peter and his associates. Aquila believes that the sins\nof men are the cause of pestilences;[1767] that \u201cwhen chastisement\nis inflicted upon men according to the will of God, he\u201d (i. e. the\nSun, already called \u201cthat good servant\u201d and whom the early Christians\nfound it difficult to cease to personify) \u201cglows more fiercely and\nburns up the world with more vehement fires\u201d;[1768] and that \u201cthose\nwho have become acquainted with prophetic discourse know when and for\nwhat reason blight, hail, pestilence, and such like have occurred\nin every generation, and for what sins these have been sent as a\npunishment.\u201d[1769] Peter gives the impression that nature sometimes\nacts rather independently of God in thus punishing the wicked. He says:\n\u201cBut this also I would have you know, that upon such souls God does not\ntake vengeance directly, but His whole creation rises up and inflicts\npunishments upon the impious. And although in the present world the\ngoodness of God bestows the light of the world and the services of the\nearth alike upon the pious and the impious, yet not without grief does\nthe Sun afford his light and the other elements perform their services\nto the impious. And, in short, sometimes even in opposition to the\ngoodness of the Creator, the elements are worn out by the crimes of the\nwicked; and hence it is that either the fruit of the earth is blighted,\nor the composition of the air is vitiated, or the heat of the sun is\nincreased beyond measure, or there is an excess of rain or cold.\u201d[1770]\nThis is a close approach to the notion of _The Book of Enoch_ that\nhuman sin upsets the world of nature, and an even closer approach to\nthe theory of the Brahmans in _The Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ that\nprolonged drought is a punishment visited by the world-soul upon human\nsinfulness.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude to astrology.]\n\nSuch vestiges of the world-soul doctrine, such a tendency to ascribe\nemotion and will to the elements and planets, to personify them, and to\nthink of God as ruling the world indirectly through them, prepare us\nto find an attitude rather favorable to astrological theory. Indeed,\nin the first book of _The Recognitions_[1771] we are told in so many\nwords that the Creator adorned the visible heaven with stars, sun, and\nmoon in order that \u201cthey might be for an indication of things past,\npresent, and future,\u201d and that these celestial signs, while seen by\nall, are \u201cunderstood only by the learned and intelligent.\u201d Astrology is\nrespectfully described as \u201cthe science of mathesis,\u201d[1772] and, as was\ncommon in the Roman Empire, astrologers are called _mathematici_.[1773]\nA defender even of the most extreme pretensions of the art is not\nabused as a charlatan but is courteously greeted as \u201cso learned a\nman,\u201d[1774] and all admire his eloquence, grave manners, and calm\nspeech, and accord him a respectful hearing.[1775] Astrology, far\nfrom being regarded as necessarily contrary to religion, is thought\nto furnish arguments for the existence of God, and it is said that\nAbraham, \u201cbeing an astrologer, was able from the rational system of the\nstars to recognize the Creator, while all other men were in error, and\nunderstood that all things are regulated by His Providence.\u201d[1776] The\nnumber seven is somewhat emphasized[1777] and the twelve apostles are\ncalled the twelve months of Christ who is the acceptable year of the\nLord.[1778] Somewhat similarly the Gnostic followers of the heretic\nValentinus made much of the Duodecad, a group of twelve aeons, and\nbelieved, according to Irenaeus, \u201cthat Christ suffered in the twelfth\nmonth. For their opinion is that He continued to preach for one year\nonly after His baptism.\u201d[1779] Peter, too, has a group of twelve\ndisciples.[1780] Niceta speaks of \u201cman who is a microcosm in the great\nworld.\u201d[1781] It is admitted that the stars exert evil as well as\ngood influence,[1782] and that the astrologer \u201ccan indicate the evil\ndesire which malign virtue produces.\u201d[1783] But it is contended that,\n\u201cpossessing freedom of the will, we sometimes resist our desires and\nsometimes yield to them,\u201d and that no astrologer can predict beforehand\nwhich course we will take.\n\n[Sidenote: Arguments against genethlialogy.]\n\nIn fine, astrology is criticized adversely only when it goes to the\nlength of contending that \u201cthere is neither any God, nor any worship,\nneither is there any Providence in the world, but all things are done\nby fortuitous chance and _genesis_\u201d; that \u201cwhatever your _genesis_\ncontains, that shall befall you\u201d;[1784] and that the constellations\nforce men to commit murder, adultery, and other crimes.[1785] On\nthis point Niceta and Aquila, and finally Clement himself, have long\ndiscussions with an aged adept in genethlialogy which fill a large\nportion of the last three books of _The Recognitions_, and include a\ndozen chapters which are little more than an extract from _The Laws\nof Countries_ of Bardesanes. Divine Providence and human free will\nare defended, and genethlialogy is represented as an error which has\nreceived confirmation through the operations of demons.[1786] It\nis asserted that men can be kept from committing crimes by fear of\npunishment and by law, even if they are naturally so inclined, and\nraces like the Seres (Chinese) and Brahmans are adduced as examples\nof entire races of men who never commit the crimes into which men are\nsupposed to be forced by the constellations. The argument is also\nadvanced, \u201cSince God is righteous and since He Himself made human\nnature, how could it be that He should place _genesis_ in opposition to\nus, which should compel us to sin, and then that He should punish us\nwhen we do sin?\u201d[1787] It is further charged that the constellations\nare so complicated, that for any given moment one astrologer may infer\na favorable and another a disastrous influence,[1788] and that most\nsuccessful explanations of the effects of the stars are made after\nthe event, like dreams of which men can make nothing at the time, but\n\u201cwhen any event occurs, then they adapt what they saw in the dream to\nwhat has occurred.\u201d[1789] Finally the aged defender of _genesis_, who\nbelieved that his own fate and that of his wife had been accurately\nprescribed by their horoscopes, turns out to be Faustinianus (called\nFaustus in _The Homilies_), the long-lost father of Clement, Niceta,\nand Aquila; is also restored to his wife; and learns that his previous\ninterpretation of events from the stars was quite erroneous.[1790]\n\n[Sidenote: The virtuous Seres.]\n\nThe ideal picture of the Seres or Chinese, \u201cwho dwell at the beginning\nof the world,\u201d which _The Recognitions_ apparently borrows from\nBardesanes, is perhaps worth repeating here as an odd admission that\na non-Christian people can attain a state of moral perfection and\nsinlessness, as well as an interesting bit of ancient ethnology. \u201cIn\nall that country which is very large there is neither temple nor\nimage nor harlot nor adulteress, nor is any thief brought to trial.\nBut neither is any man ever slain there.... For this reason they are\nnot chastened with those plagues of which we have spoken; they live\nto extreme old age, and die without sickness.\u201d[1791] Perhaps these\nvirtuous Seres are the blameless Hyperboreans in another guise.\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of demons.]\n\nDemons and angels abound in _The Recognitions_. One may be rebuked\nand scourged at night by an angel of God.[1792] Peter says that every\nnation has an angel, since God has divided the earth into seventy-two\nsections and appointed an angel as governor and prince of each.[1793]\nOnce, before beginning to preach, Peter expelled demons from a number\nof persons in the audience.[1794] In another passage is described\nthe cure of a girl of twenty-seven who for twenty years had been\nvexed by an unclean spirit and had been shut up in a closet in chains\nbecause of her violence and superhuman strength. The mere presence\nof Peter put this demon to rout and the chains fell off the girl\nof their own accord.[1795] Besides these personal encounters with\ndemons, the theory of demoniacal possession is discussed more than\nonce, and anything of which the author does not approve, such as the\nart of horoscopes, heathen oracles, the excesses of pagan rites and\nfestivals, and the animal gods of the Egyptians, is attributed to\nthe influence of demons.[1796] One becomes susceptible to demoniacal\npossession who eats meat sacrificed to idols or who merely eats and\ndrinks immoderately.[1797] Demons are apt to get into the very bowels\nof those who frequent drunken banquets.[1798] Incontinence, too, is\naccompanied by demons whose \u201cnoxious breath\u201d produces \u201can intemperate\nand vicious progeny.... And therefore parents are responsible for their\nchildren\u2019s defects of this sort, because they have not observed the law\nof intercourse.\u201d[1799] As much care should be taken in human generation\nas in the sowing of crops. But while demons abound, God has given every\nChristian power over them, since they may be driven out by uttering\n\u201cthe threefold name of blessedness.\u201d[1800] Moreover, \u201cwhat is spoken by\nthe true God, whether by prophets or varied visions, is always true;\nbut what is foretold by demons is not always true.\u201d[1801]\n\n[Sidenote: Origin of magic.]\n\nWith demons is associated the origin of the magic art. \u201cCertain angels\n... taught men that demons could be made to obey man by certain\narts, that is, by magical invocations.\u201d[1802] The first magicians\nwere Ham and his son Mesraim, from whom the Egyptians, Babylonians,\nand Assyrians are descended, and who tried to draw sparks from the\nstars[1803] but set himself on fire \u201cand was consumed by the demon\nwhom he had accosted with too great importunity.\u201d[1804] But on this\naccount he was called Zoroaster or \u201cliving star\u201d after his death.\nMoreover, the magic art did not perish but was transmitted to Nimrod\n\u201cas by a flash.\u201d[1805] With this may be compared the slightly different\naccount of the origin of magic given by Epiphanius in the _Panarion_,\nwritten about 374-375 A.\u202fD. Magic is older than heresy and was already\nin existence before the time of Ham or Mesraim in the antediluvian\ndays of Jared, when it coexisted with \u201cpharmacy,\u201d a term here used to\ncover sorcery and poisoning, licentiousness, adultery, and injustice.\nAfter the flood Epiphanius mentions Nimrod (\u039d\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4) as the first tyrant\nand the inventor of the evil disciplines of astrology and magic. He\nstates that the Greeks incorrectly confuse him with Zoroaster whom they\nregard as the founder of magic and astrology. According to Epiphanius,\n\u201cpharmacy\u201d and magic passed from Egypt to Greece in the time of\nCecrops.[1806]\n\n[Sidenote: Frequent accusations of magic.]\n\nIn _The Recognitions_ everyone, Christian, heretic, pagan, and\nphilosopher, condemns or professes to condemn magic, and reference\nis made to the laws of the Roman emperors against it.[1807] But\nChristians, pagans, and heretics, while claiming divine power and\nprotection for themselves, freely accuse one another of the practice\nof magic. An unnamed person, by whom Paul is perhaps meant, stirs up\nthe people of Jerusalem to persecute the apostolic community there as\n\u201cmost miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician.\u201d[1808] The\nguards at the sepulcher, unable to prevent the resurrection, said that\nJesus was a magician, a charge which is repeated by one of the scribes\nand by Simon Magus. Simon also calls Peter a magician on more than\none occasion.[1809] Peter, of course, makes similar charges against\nSimon; he had been especially sent by James to Caesarea in order to\nrefute this magician who was giving himself out to be the _Stans_ or\nChrist.[1810] The gods of Greek mythology, too, are accused of having\nresorted to magic transformations and sorcery.[1811] Philosophy,\nhowever, escapes the accusation of magic in _The Recognitions_,[1812]\nand it was a philosopher who deterred Clement, before the latter had\nbecome a Christian, from his plan of investigating the problem of\nthe immortality of the soul by hiring an Egyptian magician to evoke\na soul from the infernal regions by the art of necromancy.[1813]\nThe philosopher condemned such an attempt as unlawful, impious, and\n\u201chateful to the Divinity.\u201d[1814]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels of magic.]\n\nBut while magic is condemned, its great powers are admitted. Simon\nMagus makes great boasts of the marvels which he can perform. These\ninclude becoming invisible, boring through rocks and mountains as if\nthey were clay, passing through fire without being burned, flying\nthrough the air, loosing bonds and barriers, transformation into animal\nshapes, animation of statues, production of new plants or trees in a\nmoment, and growing beards upon little boys.[1815] He also asserted\nthat he had formed a boy by turning air into water and the water into\nblood, and then solidifying this into flesh, a feat which he regarded\nas superior to the creation of Adam from earth. Later Simon unmade him\nand restored him to the air, \u201cbut not until I had placed his image and\npicture in my bedchamber as a proof and memorial of my work.\u201d[1816]\nNot only does Simon himself make such boasts; Niceta and Aquila, who\nhad been his disciples before their conversion by Zaccheus, also\nbear witness to his amazing feats. \u201cWho would not be astonished at\nthe wonderful things which he does? Who would not think that he was\na god come down from heaven for the salvation of men?\u201d[1817] He can\nfly through the air, or so mingle himself with fire as to become one\nbody with it, he can make statues walk and dogs of brass bark. \u201cYea,\nhe has also been seen to make bread of stones.\u201d[1818] When Dositheus\ntried to beat Simon, the rod passed through his body as if it had\nbeen smoke.[1819] The woman called Luna who goes about with Simon was\nseen by a crowd to look out of all the windows of a tower at the same\ntime,[1820] an illusion possibly produced by mirrors. When Simon fears\narrest, he transforms the face of Faustinianus into the likeness of his\nown, in order that Faustinianus may be arrested in his place.[1821]\n\n[Sidenote: How distinguish miracle from magic?]\n\nSo great, indeed, are the marvels wrought by Simon and by magicians\ngenerally that Niceta asks Peter how they may be distinguished from\ndivine signs and Christian miracles, and in what respect anyone sins\nwho infers from the similarity of these signs and wonders either that\nSimon Magus is divine or that Christ was a magician. Speaking first\nof Pharaoh\u2019s magicians, Niceta asks, \u201cFor if I had been there, should\nI not have thought, from the fact that the magicians did like things\n(to those which Moses did), either that Moses was a magician, or that\nthe feats displayed by the magicians were divinely wrought?... But if\nhe sins who believes those who work signs, how shall it appear that\nhe also does not sin who has believed on our Lord for His signs and\noccult virtues?\u201d Peter\u2019s reply is that Simon\u2019s magic does not benefit\nanyone, while the Christian miracles of healing the sick and expelling\ndemons are performed for the good of humanity. To Antichrist alone\namong workers of magic will it be permitted at the end of the world to\nmix in some beneficial acts with his evil marvels. Moreover, \u201cby this\nmeans going beyond his bounds, and being divided against himself,\nand fighting against himself, he shall be destroyed.\u201d[1822] Later in\n_The Recognitions_, however, Aquila states that even the magic of\nthe present has found ways of imitating by contraries the expulsion\nof demons by the word of God, that it can counteract the poisons\nof serpents by incantations, and can effect cures \u201ccontrary to the\nword and power of God.\u201d He adds, \u201cThe magic art has also discovered\nministries contrary to the angels of God, placing the evocation of\nsouls and the figments of demons in opposition to these.\u201d[1823]\n\n[Sidenote: Deceit in magic.]\n\nBut while the marvels of magic are admitted, there is a feeling that\nthere is something deceitful and unreal about them. The teachings\nof the true prophet, we are told, \u201ccontain nothing subtle, nothing\ncomposed by magic art to deceive,\u201d[1824] while Simon is \u201ca deceiver and\nmagician.\u201d[1825] Nor is he deceitful merely in his religious teaching\nand his opposition to Peter; even his boasts of magic power are partly\nfalse. Aquila, his former disciple, says, \u201cBut when he spoke thus of\nthe production of sprouts and the perforation of the mountain, I was\nconfounded on this account, because he wished to deceive even us, in\nwhom he seemed to place confidence; for we knew that those things had\nbeen from the days of our fathers, which he represented as having been\ndone by himself lately.\u201d[1826] Moreover, not only does Simon deceive\nothers; he is himself deceived by demons as Peter twice asserts:[1827]\n\u201cHe is deluded by demons, yet he thinks that he sees the very substance\nof the soul.\u201d \u201cAlthough in this he is deluded by demons, yet he has\npersuaded himself that he has the soul of a murdered boy ministering to\nhim in whatever he pleases to employ it.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Murder of a boy.]\n\nThis story of having sacrificed a pure boy for purposes of magic or\ndivination was a stock charge, which we have previously heard made\nagainst Apollonius of Tyana and which was also told of the early\nChristians by their pagan enemies and of the Jews and heretics in the\nmiddle ages. Simon is said to have confessed to Niceta and Aquila,\nwhen they asked how he worked his magic, that he received assistance\nfrom \u201cthe soul of a boy, unsullied and violently slain, and invoked\nby unutterable adjurations.\u201d He went on to explain that \u201cthe soul of\nman holds the next place after God, when once it is set free from\nthe darkness of the body. And immediately it acquires prescience,\nwherefore it is invoked in necromancy.\u201d When Aquila asked why the\nsoul did not take vengeance upon its slayer instead of performing the\nbehests of magicians, Simon answered that the soul now had the last\njudgment too vividly before it to indulge in vengeance, and that the\nangels presiding over such souls do not permit them to return to earth\nunless \u201cadjured by someone greater than themselves.\u201d[1828] Niceta then\nindignantly interposed, \u201cAnd do you not fear the day of judgment, who\ndo violence to angels and invoke souls?\u201d As a matter of fact, the\ncharge that Simon had murdered or violently slain a boy is rather\noverdrawn, since the boy in question was the one whom he had made from\nair in the first place and whom he simply turned back into air again,\nclaiming, however, to have thereby produced an unsullied human soul.\nAccording to _The Homilies_, however, he presently confided to Niceta\nand Aquila that the human soul did not survive the death of the body\nand that a demon really responded to his invocations.[1829]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic is evil.]\n\nNevertheless, the charge of murder thus made against Simon illustrates\nthe criminal character here as usually ascribed to magic. Simon is said\nto be \u201cwicked above measure,\u201d and to depend upon \u201cmagic arts and wicked\ndevices,\u201d and Peter accuses him of \u201cacting by nefarious arts.\u201d[1830]\nSimon in his turn calls Peter \u201ca magician, a godless man, injurious,\ncunning, ignorant, and professing impossibilities,\u201d and again \u201ca\nmagician, a sorcerer, a murderer.\u201d[1831]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic is an art.]\n\nA further characteristic of magic which comes out clearly in _The\nRecognitions_ is that it is an art. Demons and souls of the dead\nmay have a great deal to do with it, but it also requires a human\noperator and makes use of materials drawn from the world of nature.\nIt was by anointing his face with an ointment which the magician had\ncompounded that the countenance of Faustinianus was transformed into\nthe likeness of Simon, while Appion and Anubion, who anointed their\nfaces with the juice of a certain herb, were thereby enabled still to\nrecognize Faustinianus as himself.[1832] In another passage one of\nSimon\u2019s disciples who has deserted him and come to Peter tells how\nSimon had made him carry on his back to the seashore a bundle \u201cof his\npolluted and accursed secret things.\u201d Simon took the bundle out to sea\nin a boat and later returned without it.[1833] Simon not only employed\nnatural materials in his magic, but was regarded as a learned man,\neven by his enemies. He is \u201cby profession a magician, yet exceedingly\nwell trained in Greek literature.\u201d[1834] He is \u201ca most vehement\norator, trained in the dialectic art, and in the meshes of syllogisms;\nand what is most serious of all, he is greatly skilled in the magic\nart.\u201d[1835] And he engages with Peter in theological debates. It is\nalso interesting to note as an illustration of the connection between\nmagic and experimental science that Simon, in boasting of his feats\nof magic, says, \u201cFor already I have achieved many things by way of\nexperiment.\u201d[1836]\n\n[Sidenote: Other accounts of Simon Magus: Justin Martyr to Hippolytus.]\n\nIn the Pseudo-Clementines we are told that Simon intended to go to\nRome, but _The Recognitions_ and _The Homilies_ deal only with the\nconflicts between Peter and Simon in various Syrian cities and do not\nfollow them to Rome, where, as other Christian writers tell us, they\nhad yet other encounters in which Simon finally came to his bitter end.\nJustin Martyr, writing about the middle of the second century, states\nthat Simon, a Samaritan of Gitto, came to Rome in the reign of Claudius\nand performed such feats of magic by demon aid that a statue was\nerected to him as a god. In this matter of the statue Justin is thought\nto have confused Semo Sancus, a Sabine deity, with Simon. Justin adds\nthat almost all Samaritans and a few persons from other nations still\nbelieve in Simon as the first God, and that a disciple of his, named\nMenander, deceived many by magic at Antioch. Justin complains that\nthe followers of these men are still called Christians and on the\nother hand that the emperors do not persecute them as they do other\nChristians, although Justin charges them with practicing promiscuous\nsexual intercourse as well as magic.[1837] Irenaeus gives a very\nsimilar account.[1838] Origen, as we have seen, denied that there were\nmore than thirty of Simon\u2019s followers left,[1839] but his contemporary\nTertullian wrote, \u201cAt this very time even the heretical dupes of this\nsame Simon are so much elated by the extravagant pretensions of their\nart, that they undertake to bring up from Hades the souls of the\nprophets themselves. And I suppose that they can do so under cover\nof a lying wonder.\u201d[1840] But Origen and Tertullian add nothing to\nthe story of Simon Magus himself. Hippolytus, too, implies that Simon\nstill has followers, since he devotes a number of chapters to stating\nand refuting Simon\u2019s doctrines and to \u201cteaching anew the parrots of\nSimon that Christ ... was not Simon.\u201d[1841] But Hippolytus also gives\nfurther details concerning Simon\u2019s visit to Rome, stating that he there\nencountered the apostles and was repeatedly opposed by Peter, until\nfinally Simon declared that if he were buried alive he would rise again\nupon the third day. His disciples buried him, as they were directed,\nbut he never reappeared, \u201cfor he was not the Christ.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Peter\u2019s account in the _Didascalia et Constitutiones\nApostolorum_.]\n\nPeter himself is represented as briefly recounting his struggle at\nRome with Simon Magus in the _Didascalia Apostolorum_, an apocryphal\nwork of probably the third century, extant in Syriac and Latin, and\nmore fully in the parallel passage of the Greek _Constitutiones\nApostolorum_, written perhaps about 400 A.\u202fD.[1842] Peter found\nSimon at Rome drawing many away from the church as well as seducing\nthe Gentiles by his \u201cmagic operation and virtues,\u201d or, in the Greek\nversion, \u201cmagic experiments and the working of demons.\u201d[1843] In the\nSyriac and Latin account Peter then states that one day he saw Simon\nflying through the air. \u201cAnd standing beneath I said, \u2018In the virtue\nof the holy name, Jesus, I cut off your virtues.\u2019 And so falling he\nbroke the arch (thigh?) of his foot (leg?).\u201d[1844] But he did not die,\nsince Peter goes on to say that while \u201cmany then departed from him,\nothers who were worthy of him remained with him.\u201d In the longer Greek\nversion Simon announced his flight in the theater. While all eyes were\nturned on Simon, Peter prayed against him. Meanwhile Simon mounted\naloft into mid-air, borne up, Peter says, by demons, and telling\nthe people that he was ascending to heaven, whence he would return\nbringing them good tidings. The people applauded him as a god, but\nPeter stretched forth his hands to heaven, supplicating God through\nthe Lord Jesus to dash down the corrupter and curtail the power of the\ndemons. He asked further, however, that Simon might not be killed by\nhis fall but merely bruised. Peter also addressed Simon and the evil\npowers who were supporting him, requiring that he might fall and become\na laughing-stock to those who had been deceived by him. Thereupon\nSimon fell with a great commotion and bruised his bottom and the\nsoles of his feet. It will be noted that here, as in the accounts by\nsome other authors, Peter alone struggles with Simon Magus, lending\ncolor to the T\u00fcbingen theory once suggested in connection with the\nPseudo-Clementines, that Simon Magus is meant to represent the apostle\nPaul.\n\n[Sidenote: Arnobius, Cyril, and Philastrius.]\n\nArnobius, writing about 300 A.\u202fD., gives a somewhat different account\nof Simon\u2019s mode of flight and fall. He says that the people of Rome\n\u201csaw the chariot of Simon Magus and his four fiery horses blown away\nby the mouth of Peter and vanish at the name of Christ. They saw, I\nsay, him who had trusted false gods and been betrayed by them in their\nfright precipitated by his own weight and lying with broken legs.\nThen, after he had been carried to Brunda, worn out by his shame and\nsufferings, he again hurled himself down from the highest ridge of the\nroof.\u201d[1845] Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-386 A.\u202fD., also speaks of Simon\u2019s\nbeing borne in air in the chariot of demons, \u201cand is not surprised\nthat the combined prayers of Peter and Paul brought him down, since\nin addition to Jesus\u2019s promise to answer the petition of two or three\ngathered together it is to be remembered that Peter carried the keys\nof heaven and that Paul had been rapt to the third heaven and heard\nsecret words.\u201d[1846] Philastrius, another writer of the fourth century,\ndescribes Simon\u2019s death more vaguely, stating that after Peter had\ndriven him from Jerusalem he came to Rome where they engaged in another\ncontest before Nero. Simon was worsted by Peter on every point of\nargument, and, \u201csmitten by an angel died a merited death in order that\nthe falsity of his magic might be evident to all men.\u201d[1847] But it\nis hardly worth while to pile up such brief allusions to Simon in the\nwritings of the fathers.[1848]\n\n[Sidenote: Apocryphal _Acts of Peter and Paul_.]\n\nOther fuller accounts of Simon\u2019s doings at Rome are contained in the\nSyriac _Teaching of Simon Cephas_[1849] and in the apocryphal _Acts of\nPeter and Paul_.[1850] In the former Peter urges the people of Rome\nnot to allow the sorcerer Simon to delude them by semblances which\nare not realities, and he raises a dead man to life after Simon has\nfailed to do so. In the latter work Simon opposes Peter and Paul in\nthe presence of Nero and as usual they charge one another with being\nmagicians. Simon also as usual affirms that he is Christ, and we are\ntold that the chief priests had called Jesus a wizard. Simon had\nalready made a great impression upon Nero by causing brazen serpents\nto move and stone statues to laugh, and by altering both his face and\nstature and changing first to a child and then to an old man. Nero\nalso asserts that Simon has raised a dead man and that Simon himself\nrose on the third day after being beheaded. It is later explained,\nhowever, that Simon had arranged to have the beheading take place in a\ndark corner and through his magic had substituted a ram for himself.\nThe ram appeared to be Simon until after it had been decapitated, when\nthe executioner discovered that the head was that of a ram but did not\ndare report the fact to Nero. When Simon met the apostles in Nero\u2019s\npresence, he caused great dogs to rush suddenly at Peter, but Peter\nmade them vanish into air by showing them some bread which he had been\nsecretly blessing and breaking. As a final test Simon promised to\nascend to heaven if Nero would build him a tower in the Campus Martius,\nwhere \u201cmy angels may find me in the air, for they cannot come to me\nupon earth among sinners.\u201d The tower was duly provided, and Simon,\ncrowned with laurel, began to fly successfully until Peter, tearfully\nentreated by Paul to make haste, adjured the angels of Satan who were\nsupporting Simon to let him drop. Simon then fell upon the _Sacra Via_\nand his body was broken into four parts.[1851] Nero, however, chose to\nregard the apostles as Simon\u2019s murderers and put them to death, after\nwhich a Marcellus, who had been Simon\u2019s disciple but left him to join\nPeter, secretly buried Peter\u2019s body.\n\n[Sidenote: An account ascribed to Marcellus.]\n\nTo this Marcellus is ascribed a very similar narrative which is found\nin an early medieval manuscript and was perhaps written in the seventh\nor eighth century.[1852] Fabricius and Florentinus give its title as,\n_Of the marvelous deeds and acts of the blessed Peter and Paul and of\nSimon\u2019s magic arts_.[1853] I have read it in a Latin pamphlet printed\nat some time before 1500, where the full title runs: _The Passion of\nthe Apostles Peter and Paul, and their disputation before the emperor\nNero against Simon, a certain magician, who, when he saw that he could\nnot resist the utterances of St. Peter, cast all his books of magic\ninto the sea lest he be adjudged a magician. Then when the same Simon\nMagus presumed to ascend to heaven, overcome by St. Peter he fell to\nearth and perished most miserably._ At its close occurs the statement,\n\u201cI, Marcellus, a disciple of my lord, the apostle Peter, have written\nwhat I saw.\u201d When this Marcellus began to desert his former master,\nSimon, to follow Peter, Simon procured a big dog to keep Peter away\nfrom Marcellus, but at Peter\u2019s order the dog turned upon Simon himself.\nPeter then humanely forbade the beast to do Simon any serious bodily\ninjury, but the dog tore the magician\u2019s clothing off his back, and\nSimon was chased from town by the mob and did not venture to return\nuntil after a year\u2019s time.[1854]\n\n[Sidenote: Hegesippus.]\n\nA chapter is devoted to Simon Magus in the _History of the Jewish War_\nof the so-called Hegesippus, a name which is thought to be a corruption\nof Josephus, since the work in large measure reproduces that historian.\nAt any rate it was not written until the fourth century and is probably\na translation or adaptation by Ambrose. Its account of Simon Magus\ncombines the story of his competition with Peter in raising the dead,\n\u201cfor in such works Peter was held most celebrated,\u201d with that of his\nflight and fall. He is represented as launching his flight from the\nCapitoline Hill and leaping off the Tarpeian rock. The people marveled\nat his flight, some remarking that Christ had never performed such\na feat as this. But when Peter prayed against him, \u201cstraightway his\npropeller was tangled up in Peter\u2019s voice, and he fell, nor was he\nkilled, but, weakened by a broken leg, withdrew to Aricia and died\nthere.\u201d[1855]\n\n[Sidenote: A sermon on Simon\u2019s fall.]\n\nFinally, passing over other Latin accounts of the contest between the\napostles and Simon Magus to be found in the _Apostolic Histories_ of\nthe Pseudo-Abdias[1856] and in a work ascribed to Pope Linus,[1857] we\nmay note a sermon which has been variously ascribed in the manuscripts\nand printed editions to Augustine, Ambrose, and Maximus.[1858] This\nsermon, intended for the anniversary of the day of martyrdom of Peter\nand Paul, proceeds to inquire the cause of their death and finds it in\nthe fact that among other marvels they \u201cprostrated by their prayers\nthat magician Simon in a headlong fall from the empty air. For when the\nsame Simon called himself Christ and asserted that as the Son he could\nascend unto the Father by flying, and, suddenly raised up by magic\narts, began to fly, then Peter on his knees prayed the Lord, and by\nsacred prayer overcame the magical levitation. For the prayer ascended\nto the Lord before the flier, and the just petition arrived ere the\niniquitous presumption. Peter, I say, though placed on the ground,\nobtained what he sought before Simon reached the heaven towards which\nhe was tending. So then Peter brought him down like a captive from high\nin air, and, falling precipitately upon a rock, he broke his legs. And\nthis in contumely of his feat, so that he who just before had tried to\nfly, of a sudden could not even walk, and he who had assumed wings lost\neven his feet. But lest it appear strange that, while the apostle was\npresent, that magician should fly through the air even for a while, let\nit be explained that this was due to Peter\u2019s patience. For he let him\nsoar the higher in order that he might fall the farther; for he wished\nhim to be carried aloft where everyone could see him, in order that all\nmight see him when he fell from on high.\u201d The preacher then draws the\nmoral that pride goes before a fall.\n\n[Sidenote: Simon Magus in medieval art.]\n\nThe struggle of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus at Rome appears in\n_The Golden Legend_, compiled by Jacopo de Voragine in the thirteenth\ncentury, and was likewise a favorite theme of Gothic stained glass.\nAt Chartres and Angers Peter may be seen routing Simon\u2019s dogs by\nblessing bread; at Bourges and Lyons Simon and Peter compete in raising\nthe dead; while windows at Chartres, Bourges, Tours, Reims, and\nPoitiers show the apostles praying and Simon falling and breaking his\nneck.[1859] This last scene and also the disputation before Nero are\nrepresented in the earlier mosaics of the eleventh or twelfth century\nwhich the Norman rulers of Sicily had executed in the cathedral of\nMonreale and the royal chapel of their castle at Palermo.[1860]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n THE CONFESSION OF CYPRIAN AND SOME SIMILAR STORIES\n\n The _Confession_ of Cyprian\u2014His initiation into mysteries\u2014His thorough\n study of nature, divination, and magic\u2014The lore of Egypt\u2014And of\n Chaldea\u2014Cyprian\u2019s practice of magic at Antioch\u2014A Christian virgin\n defeats the magic of the demons\u2014Summary of Cyprian\u2019s picture of\n magic\u2014Christians accused of magic\u2014A story from Epiphanius\u2014Joseph\u2019s\n experience of miracle and magic\u2014Legend of St. James and Hermogenes\n the magician\u2014Other contests of apostles and magicians in _The Golden\n Legend_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The _Confession_ of Cyprian.]\n\nTo the accounts of the contests of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus\nwhich were recorded in our last chapter we shall add in this some other\nencounters of early Christians with magicians, and to the picture of\nmagic contained in the Pseudo-Clementines that presented by Cyprian in\nhis _Confession_. If Simon Magus died impenitent in the midst of his\nmagic, very different was the end of Cyprian, a magician by profession\nin the third century, who, after being educated from childhood in\nheathen mysteries and the magic art, repented and was baptized, became\nbishop of Antioch, and finally achieved a martyr\u2019s crown. In the\n_Confession_[1861] current under his name and which most critics agree\nwas composed before the time of Constantine[1862] is described his\neducation in and subsequent practice of magic. For us perhaps the most\ninteresting feature of his account of his education is the association\nof magic, not only with pagan mysteries and the operations of demons,\nbut also with natural science.\n\n[Sidenote: His initiation into mysteries.]\n\n\u201cI am Cyprian,\u201d says the author, \u201cwho from a tender age was consecrated\na gift to Apollo and while yet a child was initiated into the arts of\nthe dragon.\u201d When not yet seven years old, he entered the mysteries of\nMithra, and at ten his parents enrolled him a citizen at Athens, and\nhe carried a torch in the mysteries of Demeter and \u201cministered to the\ndragon on the citadel of Pallas.\u201d When not yet fifteen, he also visited\nMount Olympus for forty days, and \u201cwas initiated into sonorous speeches\nand noisy narrations.\u201d[1863] There he saw in phantasy trees and herbs\nwhich seemed to be moved by the presence of the gods, spirits who\nregulated the passage of time, and choruses of demons who sang, while\nothers waged war or plotted, deceived, and permeated.[1864] He saw the\nphalanx of each god and goddess, and how from Mount Olympus as from a\npalace spirits were despatched to every nation of the earth. He was fed\nonly after sunset and upon fruits, and was taught the efficacy of each\nof them by seven hierophants.\n\n[Sidenote: His thorough study of nature, divination, and magic.]\n\nCyprian\u2019s parents were determined that he should learn whatever there\nwas in earth and air and sea, and not merely the natural generation\nand corruption of herbs and trees and bodies, but also the virtues\nimplanted in all these, which the prince of this world impressed upon\nthem in order that he might oppose the divine constitution. Cyprian\nalso participated at Argos in the sacred rites of Hera, and saw the\nunion of air with ether and of ether with air, also of earth with\nwater, and water with air. He penetrated the Troad and to Artemis\nTauropolos who is at Lacedaemon to learn how matter was confused and\ndivided \u201cand the profundities of sinister and cruel legends.\u201d From the\nPhrygians he learned liver divination; among the barbarians he studied\nauspices and the significance of the movements of quadrupeds, and how\nto interpret omens and the language of birds, and the sounds made by\nevery kind of wood and stone, or by the dead in tombs and the creaking\nof doors. He became acquainted with the palpitations of the limbs,\nthe movement of the blood and pulse in bodies, all the extensions\nand corollaries of ratios and numbers, diseases simulated as well as\nnatural, \u201cand oaths which are heard yet are not audible, and pacts for\ndiscord.\u201d There was, in fine, nothing whatever in earth or sea or air\nthat he did not know, whether it was a matter of science or phantasy,\nof mechanics or artifice, \u201ceven down to the magic translation of\nwritings and other things of that sort.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: The lore of Egypt.]\n\nAt twenty Cyprian was admitted to the shrines at ancient Memphis in\nEgypt and learned what communication and relationship existed between\ndemons and earthly things and \u201cin what stars and laws and objects they\ndelight.\u201d He witnessed imitations of earthquakes, rain, and storms\nat sea. He saw the souls of giants held in darkness and fancied that\nthey sustained the earth as a load on their shoulders. He saw the\ncommunications of serpents with demons, ideas of transfigurations,\nimpious piety, science without reason, iniquitous justice, and\nthings topsy-turvy generally. Besides the forms of various sins and\nvices, such as fornication and avarice, which suggest the medieval\npersonification of the seven deadly sins, he saw the three hundred\nand sixty-five varieties of ailments, \u201cand the empty glory and the\nempty virtue\u201d with which the priests of Egypt had deceived the Greek\nphilosophers.\n\n[Sidenote: And of Chaldea.]\n\nAt thirty Cyprian left Egypt for Chaldea in order to acquire its\nlore concerning air, fire, and light. Here he was instructed in the\nqualities of stars as well as of herbs, and their \u201cchoruses like\ndrawn-up battle lines.\u201d He was taught the house and relationships of\neach star and its appropriate food and drink. Also the meetings of\nspirits with men in light, the three hundred and sixty-five demons who\ndivide as many parts of the ether between them, and the sacrifices,\nlibations, and words appropriate to each. Cyprian\u2019s education had now\nadvanced to such a point that the devil himself hailed him, mere youth\nas he was, as a new Jambres, a skilful and reliable practitioner, and\nworthy of communication with himself. Cyprian again explains at this\npoint that in all the stars and plants and other works of God the devil\nhas bound to himself likenesses in preparation to wage war with God\nand His angels, but these likenesses are shadowy images, not solid\nsubstances. The devil\u2019s rain is not water, his fire does not burn, his\nfish are not food, and his gold is not genuine. The devil obtains the\nmaterial for his products from the vapors of sacrifices.\n\n[Sidenote: Cyprian\u2019s practice of magic at Antioch.]\n\nCyprian now returned from Chaldea and wrought marvels at Antioch \u201clike\none of the ancients,\u201d and \u201cmade many experiments of magic and became\ncelebrated as a magician and philosopher endowed with vast knowledge\nof things invisible.\u201d Men came to him to be taught magic or to secure\ntheir ends by his assistance. And he easily helped them all, some to\nthe gratification of pleasure, others to triumph over their adversaries\nor even to slay their rivals. His conscience sometimes pricked him at\nthe evil deeds which he thus wrought with the aid of demons, but as yet\nhe did not doubt that the devil was all powerful.\n\n[Sidenote: A Christian virgin defeats the magic of the demons.]\n\nBut then the case of the Christian girl Justina revealed to him the\nweakness and fraud of the devil. Determined to dedicate herself to a\nlife of virginity, Justina repulsed the love of the youth Agla\u00efdes, who\nsought Cyprian\u2019s assistance. But in vain: the demon failed to alter\nJustina\u2019s determination and was not even able to give another girl the\nform of Justina and so deceive Agla\u00efdes. Justina was shown the form of\nher lover, but she called upon the Virgin, and the devil was forced to\nvanish in smoke. Nor did disease and other plagues and torments affect\nher resolution. Her parents, however, were similarly afflicted until\nthey besought her to marry Agla\u00efdes, but instead she cured them of\ntheir ailments by the sign of the cross. The devil then inflicted a\nplague on the entire community and delivered an oracle to the effect\nthat the pest could be stayed only by the marriage of Justina and\nAgla\u00efdes, but her prayers turned the wrath of the public from herself\nagainst Cyprian. When the magician in disgust cursed the demon for the\nevil pass to which he had thus brought him, the demon made a ferocious\nattack upon him, from which Cyprian saved himself just in the nick of\ntime by calling upon God for aid and making the sign of the cross. He\nthen publicly confessed his crimes as a magician, burned his books of\nmagic, and was baptized into the Christian faith.[1865]\n\n[Sidenote: Summary of Cyprian\u2019s picture of magic.]\n\nCyprian\u2019s _Confession_ thus represents magic as a very elaborate art,\nrequiring long study and a thorough knowledge of natural objects and\nprocesses. The magician has his books, and he must also be able to read\nthe book of nature. Astrology and other arts of divination are integral\nparts of magic. But magic is also represented as the work of evil\nspirits. This involves not merely a Neo-Platonic sort of association of\ndemons with natural forces and regions of earth or sky, but also the\nspecific association of the devil for evil purposes with objects in\nnature, a doctrine which we shall find again in the works of a medieval\nsaint, Hildegard of Bingen. Furthermore, magic aids in the commission\nof crime and is dangerous even to the magician against whom the devil\nmay turn. While magic involves study of nature and use of natural\nforces and associations, and we also hear of \u201cmany experiments of\nmagic,\u201d it is scarcely represented as operating scientifically in the\n_Confession_. It is mystic, confused, shadowy, imitative, imaginary,\nlacking in solidity and reality, fraudulent and deceptive. Finally,\nthis complex art, this universal system of knowledge, is easily balked\nand overthrown by the far simpler counter-magic of Christianity, by\nsuch methods as a prayer to the Virgin, calling on the name of God, or\nmerely making the sign of the cross.\n\n[Sidenote: Christians accused of magic.]\n\nSuch counter-magic was apt to be regarded as magic by the pagans, and\nthe account of the martyrdom of Cyprian states that the devil, that\n\u201cvery bad serpent,\u201d suggested to the Count of the Orient that Cyprian,\ntogether with a certain virgin who is assumed to be Justina, was\ndestroying the ancient worship of the gods by his magic tricks as well\nas stirring up the orient and the whole world by his epistles. He was\naccordingly arrested and finally beheaded. According to one account\nhe and Justina were first placed together in a cauldron of tallow and\npitch over a fire. But when they sang a hymn, the flames left them\nuninjured and instead shot out and caused the death of an unreformed\nmagician who happened to be standing near by.[1866] Another case of\nChristian martyrs who were probably accused of magic is found in Spain\nabout 287 A.\u202fD. Two Christian sisters who were dealers in pottery\nrefused to sell their earthenware for purposes of pagan worship. One\nday, as a pagan religious procession passed by their shop, the crowd\ntrampled upon their wares which were exposed for sale. But thereupon\nthe idol which was being borne in the procession fell and broke in\npieces. \u201cBeing probably suspected of magical practices,\u201d the two\nsisters were arrested; one died in prison and the other was strangled;\nwhereupon the bishop rescued their bones, and these were cherished as\nthe remains of martyrs.[1867]\n\n[Sidenote: A story from Epiphanius.]\n\nEpiphanius in the next century tells a story similar to that of\nCyprian, Agla\u00efdes, and Justina, of a youth who was led astray by evil\ncompanions who employed magic arts, love philters, and incantations\nto force free women to gratify their licentious desires. By means of\nmagic the youth went through the air to a very beautiful woman in the\npublic bath, but she repelled him by making the sign of the cross.\nHis companions then tried to devise some more powerful magic for his\nbenefit, and took him at sunset to a cemetery full of caves where for\nthree successive nights the wizards vainly plied their arts in the\nattempt to gratify his lust. But in every instance they were foiled by\nthe name of Christ and the sign of the cross.[1868]\n\n[Sidenote: Joseph\u2019s experience of miracle and magic.]\n\nJoseph, the guardian of this same young man, finally became converted\nto Christianity after Christ had appeared repeatedly to him in dreams\nand cured him of diseases and after he himself, by employing the name\nof Jesus, had cured a man of a demoniacal possession which made him\ngo shamelessly about the town in a nude state. After his conversion,\nJoseph started to complete as a Christian church an unfinished\nstructure in Tiberias called the Adrianaion, which the citizens\npreviously had tried to convert into a public bath. When the Jews\nendeavored to ruin his undertaking by bewitching the furnaces which he\nhad erected for the preparation of quick-lime, he counteracted their\nmagic by making the sign of the cross, sprinkling his furnaces with\nholy water, and saying in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, \u201cLet there be\npower in this water to counteract all pharmacy and magic employed by\nthese men and to instill sufficient energy into the fire to complete\nthe house of the Lord.\u201d With that his fires blazed up violently.[1869]\n\n[Sidenote: Legend of St. James and Hermogenes the magician.]\n\nVery similar both to the _Confession_ of Cyprian and the story of\nSimon Magus is the legend of St. James the Great and Hermogenes the\nmagician, which is found in _The Golden Legend_ and which was often\nreproduced in medieval stained glass windows.[1870] James converted\nto Christianity a disciple of Hermogenes whom the magician had sent\nagainst him when he was preaching in Judea. When the angry wizard cast\na spell over his erstwhile disciple, the latter was freed by means of\nSt. James\u2019s cloak. When the magician sent demons to fetch both the\nconvert and the saint, James made them bring Hermogenes to him instead,\nbut then set him free, telling him that Christians returned good for\nevil. Hermogenes now feared the vengeance that the demons would take\nupon himself, and so James gave his staff to him to protect himself\nwith. Soon afterwards Hermogenes threw all his books of magic into the\nsea and was baptized.\n\n[Sidenote: Other contests of apostles and magicians in _The Golden\nLegend_.]\n\n\u201cIn _The Golden Legend_,\u201d in fact, as M\u00e2le says, \u201calmost all the\napostles have to contend with magicians. But it is St. Simon and\nSt. Jude who strive with the most formidable of sorcerers, and they\nchallenge him even in the very sanctuary of magic art, the temple of\nthe Sun at Suanir, near Babylon. Undismayed by the science of Zoroaster\nand Aphaxad, they foretell the future, they cause a new-born babe to\nspeak, they subdue tigers and serpents, and from a statue they cast\nout a demon, which shows itself in the shape of a black Ethiopian and\nflees uttering raucous cries.\u201d[1871] If this last exorcism reminds\nus somewhat of the exploits of Apollonius of Tyana, still more do\nthe performances of St. Andrew, who \u201cmust surpass all the marvels of\nthe magicians before he can convert Asia and Greece. He drives away\nseven demons who in the shape of seven great dogs desolate the town of\nNicaea, and he exorcises a spirit which dwells in the _thermae_ and is\nwont to strangle the bathers.\u201d[1872]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n ORIGEN AND CELSUS\n\n Celsus\u2019 charges of magic against Christianity\u2014Hebrew magic as depicted\n by Celsus\u2014Various recriminations of magic\u2014Origen\u2019s distinction between\n miracles and magic\u2014Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the\n charge of magic\u2014Celsus\u2019 sceptical description of magic\u2014Celsus suggests\n a connection between magic and occult virtues in nature\u2014Celsus on\n magicians and demons\u2014Origen ascribes magic to demons\u2014Magic is an\n elaborate art\u2014The Magi of Scripture were not different from other\n magicians\u2014Origen\u2019s Biblical commentaries\u2014Balaam and the power of\n words\u2014Limitations to the power of Pharaoh\u2019s magicians\u2014Was Balaam a\n prophet of God or a magician?\u2014Balaam\u2019s magic experiments\u2014Limitations\n to his magic power\u2014Divine prophecy distinct from magic and\n divination\u2014The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul\u2014Christians\n less affected by magic than philosophers are\u2014Their superstitious\n methods against magic\u2014Incantations\u2014The power of words\u2014Origen\n admits a connection between the power of words and magic\u2014Jewish\n and Christian employment of powerful names is really magic\u2014Celsus\u2019\n theory of demons\u2014Origen calls demons wicked\u2014But believes in presiding\n angels\u2014A law of spiritual gravitation\u2014Attitude of Celsus toward\n astrology\u2014Attitude of Origen toward astrology\u2014Further discussion in\n his _Commentary on Genesis_\u2014Problems of the waters above the firmament\n and of one or more heavens\u2014Augury, dreams, and prophecy\u2014Animals and\n gems\u2014Origen later accused of countenancing magic.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Celsus\u2019 charges of magic against Christianity.]\n\nIn the celebrated work of Origen _Against Celsus_,[1873] written in the\nfirst half of the third century, the subject of magic is often touched\nupon, largely because Celsus in his _True Discourse_ had so frequently\nbrought charges of magic against Jesus, His Christian followers,\nand the Jewish people from whom they had sprung. Celsus had called\nJesus \u201ca wicked and God-hated sorcerer\u201d;[1874] had contended that His\nmiracles were wrought by magic, not by divine power;[1875] and had\ncompared them unfavorably, as less wonderful, to the tricks performed\nby jugglers and Egyptians in the middle of market-places.[1876] It\nwas the opinion of Celsus that Jesus in warning His disciples that\n\u201cthere shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show\ngreat signs and wonders,\u201d had tacitly convicted Himself of the same\nmagical practices.[1877] Celsus, for his part, warned the Christians\nthat they \u201cmust shun all deceivers and jugglers who will introduce\nyou to phantoms\u201d;[1878] he accused them of employing incantations\nand the names of certain demons;[1879] he asserted that he had seen\nin the hands of Christian presbyters \u201cbarbarous books containing the\nnames and marvelous operations of demons,\u201d and that these presbyters\n\u201cprofessed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human\nbeings.\u201d[1880]\n\n[Sidenote: Hebrew magic as depicted by Celsus]\n\nCelsus regarded Moses equally with Jesus as a wizard,[1881] and he\nevidently, like Juvenal and other classical writers, considered\nthe Jews and Syrians as a race of charlatans, especially given to\nsuperstition, sorcery, incantations, ambiguous oracles and conjuration\nof spirits. \u201cThey worship angels,\u201d he declared, \u201cand are addicted to\nsorcery, in which Moses was their instructor.\u201d[1882] He stated that\nthe Jews traced back their origin to \u201cthe first generation of lying\nwizards,\u201d by which phrase Origen thinks he referred to Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob, whose names Origen admits are much employed in the magic\narts.[1883] Celsus further characterized the Jews as \u201cblinded by some\ncrooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through the influence of shadowy\nspecters,\u201d[1884] and as \u201cinduced to bow down to the angels in heaven by\nthe incantations employed by jugglery and sorcery, in consequence of\nwhich certain phantoms appear in obedience to the spells employed by\nthe magicians.\u201d[1885] Celsus, also, in describing the many self-styled\nprophets, Redeemers, and Sons of God in the Phoenicia and Palestine\nof his own time, states that they make use of \u201cstrange, fanatical,\nand quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find\nany meaning,\u201d[1886] and that those prophets whom he himself had\nheard had afterwards confessed to him that these words \u201creally meant\nnothing.\u201d[1887] Yet even the Christians\u2014Celsus complains\u2014who condemn\nall other oracles, regard as marvelous and accept unquestioningly\n\u201cthose sayings which were uttered or were not uttered in Judea after\nthe manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among\nthe peoples of Phoenicia and Palestine.\u201d[1888]\n\n[Sidenote: Various recriminations of magic.]\n\nTo these accusations of Celsus Origen himself adds that the Jews affirm\nthat Jesus passed Himself off as Christ by means of sorcery,[1889]\nwhile the Egyptians charge Moses and the Hebrews with the practice of\nsorcery during their stay in Egypt.[1890] Origen, on the other hand,\nspeaks of \u201cthe magical arts and rites of the Egyptians\u201d and holds that\nit was by divine aid and not by superior magic that Moses prevailed\nover Pharaoh\u2019s magicians.[1891] Celsus for his part had accused Jesus\nduring His residence in Egypt of \u201chaving there acquired some miraculous\npowers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves.\u201d[1892]\n\n[Sidenote: Origen\u2019s distinction between miracles and magic.]\n\nOrigen repudiates the charges of magic made against Christ and His\nfollowers as slanders. He asserts that Christianity on the contrary\nstrictly forbids the practice of magic arts,[1893] and that these\nlost much of their force at the birth of Christ.[1894] He contends\nthat no magician would teach such noble doctrines as those of\nChristianity.[1895] Origen goes so far as to deny that even the \u201cfalse\nChrists and false prophets,\u201d who \u201cshall show great signs and wonders,\u201d\nwill be sorcerers, and he states that no sorcerer has ever claimed to\nbe Christ[1896]\u2014an amazing assertion in view of his own allusions to\nSimon Magus. Works of magic and miracles, Origen affirms, are no more\nalike than are a wolf and a dog or a wood-pigeon and a dove. They are,\nhowever, so closely related that if one admits the reality of magic\nhe must also believe in divine miracles, just as the existence of\nsophistry proves that there is such a thing as sound argument and an\nart of dialectic.[1897] Moreover, in one passage Origen admits that\n\u201cthere would indeed be a resemblance\u201d between miracles and magic, \u201cif\nJesus, like the dealers in magic arts, had performed His works only\nfor show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his\nproceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains\nthose to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who\ntries to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified by\nGod.\u201d[1898] On the contrary, Origen asserts that the magicians\u2019 \u201cown\nlives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the charge of\nmagic.]\n\nSince it is one of Origen\u2019s chief concerns to uphold Hebrew prophecy\nas a proof of Christ\u2019s divinity, although Celsus subjects the argument\nfrom prophecy to ridicule; to defend the Old Testament against\nCelsus\u2019 attacks as an inspired record of greater antiquity than Greek\nphilosophy, history, and literature, which he asserts have stolen\ntruths from it; and to maintain that \u201cthere is no discrepancy between\nthe God of the Gospel and the God of the Law\u201d:[1899]\u2014since this is so,\nit is incumbent upon him to rebut also the accusations of magic laid\nby Celsus at the door of the Jews. Origen therefore asserts that the\nJews \u201cdespised all kinds of divination as that which bewitches men to\nno purpose,\u201d and cites the prohibition of _Leviticus_ (xix, 31) against\nwizards and familiar spirits.[1900]\n\n[Sidenote: Celsus\u2019 sceptical description of magic.]\n\nThe _Reply to Celsus_ is of especial interest to us because it presents\nas it were in parallel columns for our inspection the classical and\nthe Christian conceptions of and attitudes towards magic. Before\nproceeding, therefore, to inquire how far justified Origen seems to\nbe in thus acquitting, or Celsus, on the other hand, in condemning\nChristians and Jews on the charge of magic, it is essential to note\nwhat magic means for either author. Both evidently regard it as a\nterm of reproach and as usually evil in character.[1901] Celsus lists\nas feats of magic the expelling of demons and diseases from men, or\nthe sudden production of tables, dishes, and food as for an expensive\nbanquet, or of animals who move about as if alive. Celsus, however,\nseems to speak with a sneer of \u201ctheir most venerated arts\u201d and\ndescribes the banquet dishes as \u201cdainties having no real existence\u201d and\nthe animals as \u201cnot really living but having only the appearance of\nlife.\u201d Therefore the ensuing comment of Origen seems unusually stupid\nor unfair, when he tries to convict Celsus of inconsistency on the\nground that \u201cby these expressions he allows as it were the existence of\nmagic,\u201d whereas Origen hints that it was he \u201cwho wrote several books\nagainst it.\u201d \u201cThese expressions\u201d are, on the contrary, precisely those\nwhich a man who had attacked magic as deceptive would use. Celsus\nfurther stated that an Egyptian named Dionysius had told him that magic\narts had power \u201conly over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals,\u201d\nbut had no effect upon philosophers, \u201cbecause they were careful to\nobserve a healthy manner of life.\u201d[1902] Celsus himself observed\nthat \u201cthose who in market-places perform most disreputable tricks\nand collect crowds around them ... would never approach an assembly\nof wise men.\u201d[1903] It was at the request of a Celsus, moreover,\nthat the second century satirist Lucian wrote his _Alexander_ or\n_Pseudomantis_[1904] in which some of the tricks of a magician-impostor\nand oracle-monger are exposed, and in which allusion is made to the\n\u201cexcellent treatises against the magicians\u201d written by Celsus himself.\nIt seems reasonably certain that the Celsus of Lucian and the Celsus\nof Origen are identical, as there are no chronological difficulties\nand the same point of view is ascribed in either case to Celsus, whom\nboth Lucian and Origen regard as an Epicurean or at least in sympathy\nwith the Epicureans. Galen, in a treatise in which he lists his own\nwritings, mentions an \u201cEpistle to Celsus the Epicurean.\u201d[1905] This,\ntoo, might be the same man.\n\n[Sidenote: Celsus suggests a connection between magic and occult\nvirtues in nature.]\n\nAnother passage in which Celsus, according to Origen at least, \u201cmixed\nup together matters which belong to magic and sorcery\u201d runs as\nfollows: \u201cWhat need to number up all those who have taught methods\nof purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or\nimages, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of antidotes\nagainst poison in clothing, or in numbers, or stones, or plants, or\nroots, or generally in all kinds of things?\u201d[1906] In another passage\nCelsus again closely connected sorcery with the knowledge of occult\nvirtues in nature, arguing that men need not pride themselves upon\ntheir power of sorcery when serpents and eagles know of antidotes to\npoisons and amulets and the virtues of certain stones which help to\npreserve their young.[1907] Origen objects that it is not customary\nto use the word sorcery (\u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) for such things, and suggests that\nCelsus is such an \u201cEpicurean,\u201d i. e., so sceptical, that he wishes to\ndiscredit all those other beliefs and practices \u201cas resting only on\nthe professions of sorcerers.\u201d But we have already had proof enough in\nother chapters that Celsus was not unjustified in connecting the occult\nvirtue of natural objects with magic, if not with sorcery.\n\n[Sidenote: Celsus on magicians and demons.]\n\nCelsus, as we shall see, believed in the existence of demons whom,\nhowever, he did not regard as necessarily evil spirits, and whom he\nprobably regarded as above any connection with magic. Origen once says\nthat if Celsus \u201chad been acquainted with the nature of demons\u201d and\ntheir operations in the magic arts, he would not have blamed Christians\nfor not worshiping them.[1908] The natural inference from this\nstatement is that Celsus did not associate demons with magic. Origen,\nhowever, depicts him as \u201cspeaking of those who employ the arts of magic\nand sorcery and who invoke the barbarous names of demons,\u201d[1909] and\nwe have already heard him censure certain Christian presbyters for\ntheir \u201cbarbarous books containing the names and marvelous doings of\ndemons.\u201d[1910] It therefore becomes evident that magicians attempt to\navail themselves of the aid of demons, whether Celsus believes that\nthey succeed in their attempt or not.\n\n[Sidenote: Origen ascribes magic to demons.]\n\nOrigen at any rate believes that magicians are aided by evil spirits,\nand for him demons became the paramount factor in magic, just as it\nis they who are worshiped in pagan temples as gods and who inspire\nthe pagan oracles.[1911] Indeed, just as Celsus has kept calling the\nChristians sorcerers, so Origen is inclined to label all heathen\nreligions, rites, and ceremonies as magic. He quotes the Psalmist\nas saying that \u201call the gods of the heathen are demons.\u201d[1912] He\nstates that the dedication of pagan temples, statues, and the like are\naccompanied by \u201ccurious magical incantations ... performed by those\nwho zealously serve the demons with magic arts.\u201d[1913] Divination in\ngeneral, he believes, \u201cproceeds rather from wicked demons than from\nanything of a better nature.\u201d[1914] He does not think of magic as a\ndeception, he does not endeavor to expose its frauds, he accepts its\nmarvels as facts, but declares that \u201cmagic and sorcery are produced\nby wicked spirits, held spellbound by elaborate incantations and\nyielding themselves to sorcerers.\u201d[1915] Origen seems in doubt whether\nthe demons are coerced by the spells and charms of magic or yield\nthemselves willingly.[1916]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic is an elaborate art.]\n\nAs we shall see, Origen is at least ready to attribute great power to\nincantations, and he does not deny that magic is an elaborate art. With\nsuch various arts of magic he contrasts the simplicity of Christian\nprayers and adjurations \u201cwhich the plainest person can use,\u201d or the\nChristian casting out of demons which is performed for the most part\nby \u201cunlettered persons.\u201d[1917] Origen also suggests that the natural\nproperties of plants and animals are a factor in magic, when he cites\nNumenius the Pythagorean\u2019s description of the Egyptian deity Serapis.\n\u201cHe partakes of the essence of all the animals and plants that are\nunder the control of nature, that he may appear to have been fashioned\ninto a god, not only by the image-makers with the aid of profane\nmysteries and juggling tricks employed to invoke demons, but also by\nmagicians and sorcerers (\u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd) and those demons who are\nbewitched by their incantations.\u201d[1918] Another passage pointing in the\nsame direction is Origen\u2019s description of \u201cthe man who is curiously\ninquisitive about the names of demons, their powers and agency, the\nincantations, the herbs proper to them, and the stones with the\ninscriptions graven on them, corresponding symbolically or otherwise to\ntheir traditional shapes.\u201d[1919] Thus although Origen lays the emphasis\nupon demons, we see that he admits most of the other customary elements\nin magic.\n\n[Sidenote: The Magi of Scripture were not different from other\nmagicians.]\n\nOrigen does not, like Philo Judaeus, Apuleius and some Christian\nwriters, distinguish two uses of the word magic, one good and one evil.\nHe does not differentiate between vulgar magic and malignant sorcery\non the one hand and the lore of learned Magi of the east on the other\nhand. He simply says that the art of magic gets its name from the\nMagi and that from them its evil influence has been transmitted to\nother nations.[1920] Celsus had ranked the Magi among divinely inspired\nnations but Origen objects to this. Yet he recognizes that the wise\nmen of the east who followed the star of Bethlehem and came to worship\nthe infant Christ were Magi.[1921] But he seems to regard them as\nordinary magicians, who were accustomed to invoke evil spirits.[1922]\nHe thinks that the coming of Christ dispelled the demons and hindered\nthe Magi\u2019s spells and charms from working as usual. Trying to find the\nreason for this, they would note the new star in the sky. Origen will\nnot admit that they could do all this by means of astrology, nor even\nthat they were astrologers at all; he accuses Celsus of blundering\nin calling them Chaldeans or astrologers.[1923] Rather he thinks\nthat they could find an explanation of the star in the prophecies\nof Balaam[1924] which they possessed and which predicted, as Moses\ntoo records,[1925] \u201cThere shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man\n(or, as in the King James\u2019 version, a scepter) shall rise up out of\nIsrael.\u201d[1926] In another treatise than the _Reply to Celsus_ Origen\nfurther explains that the Magi were descended from Balaam and so owned\nhis written prophecies.[1927] Balaam was perhaps alluding to these very\nMagi descended from him who came to adore Jesus when he prophesied that\nhis seed should be as the seed of the just.[1928] Origen seems to\nhave been the first of the church fathers to state the number of these\nMagi as three, which he does in one of his homilies on the Book of\nGenesis.[1929]\n\n[Sidenote: Origen\u2019s Biblical commentaries.]\n\nAt this point indeed, we may well turn for a little while from the\n_Reply to Celsus_ to those Biblical commentaries of Origen where he\ndiscusses such Old Testament passages connected with magic as the\nstories of Balaam and of the witch of Endor or ventriloquist. The\ncommentary of Origen upon the Book of Numbers is extant only in the\nLatin translation by Rufinus, who literally snatched it for posterity\nas a brand from the burning, for he did not refrain from this learned\nand literary labor, although as he plied his pen in Messina in 410 A.\nD. he could see the invading barbarians ravaging the fields and burning\nReggio just across the narrow strait which separates Sicily from\nItaly.[1930]\n\n[Sidenote: Balaam and the power of words.]\n\nIn commencing to speak of Balaam and his ass[1931] Origen implies\nthat much has already been written on this thorny theme and that\nhe approaches it with considerable diffidence. He prays God again\nand again for grace to be able to explain it, not by means of\nfabulous Jewish narrations\u2014by which expression he perhaps alludes to\ncommentaries of the rabbis such as have reached us in the Talmud\u2014but in\na sense that shall be reasonable and worthy of the divine law. To begin\nwith he admits the power of words, and not merely that of holy words\nor words of God, but of certain words used by men. That such words\nare in some respects more powerful than bodies is shown by the fact\nthat Balaam\u2019s cursing could accomplish what armies and weapons could\nnot effect. This calls to mind one of the Mohammedan tales concerning\nBalaam to the effect that by reading the books of Abraham he learned\n\u201cthe name Yahweh by virtue of which he predicted the future, and got\nfrom God whatever he wished.\u201d[1932]\n\n[Sidenote: Limitations to the power of Pharaoh\u2019s magicians.]\n\nThe magicians of Egypt, too, who withstood Moses and Aaron before\nPharaoh, were able to turn rods into snakes and water into blood, feats\nwhich no man could accomplish by mere bodily strength. Indeed, because\nthe king of Egypt knew that his magicians could do such things by a\nhuman art of words, he thought, at first at least, that Moses too was\ndoing the same things not by the help of God but by the magic art.\nThere was, however, a very serious limitation to the magicians\u2019 power.\nBy the aid of demons they could turn good into evil but they could not\nrepair the damage which they had done or restore the evil to good. The\nrod of Moses, on the other hand, not only devoured theirs but turned\nback from a snake into its original form,[1933] and it was necessary\nfor Moses to pray to God in order to stay the other plagues.\n\n[Sidenote: Was Balaam a prophet of God or a magician?]\n\nOrigen classifies Balaam as a magician, not as a prophet. This seems\nto have been the prevalent patristic and medieval view, although the\nBiblical account in Numbers represents Balaam as in close and constant\ncommunication with God and the Second Epistle of Peter[1934] calls him\na prophet although it condemns his temporary madness in seeking \u201cthe\nwages of unrighteousness.\u201d Josephus too calls him the best prophet of\nhis time but one who yielded to temptation.[1935] A fifteenth century\ntreatise on the translation of the relics of the three kings to Cologne\ntells us that \u201cconcerning this Balaam there is an altercation in the\neast between the Christians and the Jews\u201d; the Jews holding that he\nwas no prophet but a diviner who predicted by magic and diabolical\narts, the Christians asserting that he was the first prophet of the\nGentiles.[1936] The problem continued to exercise the ingenuity of\nLutherans and theologians of the Reformed Churches, and in 1842 was\nthe main theme of a treatise of 290 pages in which Hebrew words and\nquotations from Calvin abound.[1937]\n\n[Sidenote: Balaam\u2019s magic experiments.]\n\nOrigen remarks that magicians differ in the amount of power they\npossess. Balaam was a very famous and expert one, known throughout the\nwhole orient. He had given many experimental proofs (_experimenta_)\nof his skill and Balak had frequently employed him. The translator\nRufinus\u2019s repeated use of the words _experimenta_ and _expertus_ here\nis an interesting indication of the close connection between magic and\nexperiment.[1938]\n\n[Sidenote: Limitation to his magic power.]\n\nGreat, however, as was Balaam\u2019s fame and power, he could only curse and\nnot bless, an indication that he operated by the agency of demons who\nalso only work evil and not good. It is true that King Balak said to\nhim: \u201cI know that whom you bless will be blessed,\u201d but Origen regards\nthis as false flattery. Magicians employ the services of evil spirits,\nbut cannot invoke such angels as Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, much\nless God or Christ. Christians alone have the power to do this, and\nthey must cease entirely from the invocation of demons or the Holy\nSpirit will flee from them.\n\n[Sidenote: Divine prophecy distinct from magic and divination.]\n\nIt is true also that God in the end did speak through the mouth of\nBalaam and that he blessed instead of cursed Israel. Origen will not\nadmit, however, that Balaam was worthy of this, or that a man can be\nboth a magician and a prophet; if God spake through Balaam, it was only\nto prevent the demons from coming and helping Balaam to curse Israel.\nOrigen also attempts to solve the difficulties and inconsistencies\ninvolved in the repeated appearances and conflicting commands of God\nand the angel to Balaam. Finally we may note that Origen sees the\nsimilarity between the use of cauldron-shaped tripods in human arts\nof divination and the donning of the ephod by the prophets described\nin the Old Testament.[1939] But he affirms that divine prophecy and\ndivination are two different things and cites the Biblical prohibition\nof the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul.]\n\nIn his commentary upon the First Book of Samuel,[1940] Origen takes\nthe ground that when Saul consulted the witch or ventriloquist\n(\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), Samuel\u2019s ghost really appeared and spoke to Saul, for\nthe Scriptural account plainly says that the woman saw Samuel[1941]\nand that Samuel spoke to Saul. Consequently Origen cannot agree with\nthose who have held that the woman deceived Saul or that both she and\nhe were deluded by a demon who assumed the guise of Samuel. No demon,\nhe thinks, could have prophesied that the kingdom would pass to David.\nIt has been objected that the enchantress could not raise the spirit of\nSamuel from the infernal regions because he was a good man, but Origen\nholds that even Christ descended to hell and that all before Him had\ntheir abode there until He came to release them. From this position not\neven the parable of Dives and of Lazarus in Abraham\u2019s bosom with the\ngreat gulf fixed between them can shake Origen.\n\n[Sidenote: Christians less affected by magic than philosophers are.]\n\nOrigen disputes the statement of Celsus that philosophers are not\naffected by the magic arts by pointing out that in Moiragenes\u2019s _Life\nof Apollonius of Tyana_, who was himself both a philosopher and\nmagician, it is affirmed that other philosophers were won over by his\nmagic power \u201cand resorted to him as a sorcerer.\u201d[1942] On the other\nhand Origen makes the counter-assertion that the followers of Christ\n\u201cwho live according to His gospel, using night and day continuously\nand becomingly the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by\nmagic or demons.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Their superstitious methods against magic.]\n\nIf these \u201cprescribed prayers\u201d were set forms of words, they would seem\nnot far removed in character from the incantations of the magicians\nwhich they were supposed to counteract. An even clearer example of\npreventive magic is seen in Origen\u2019s explanation that the practice of\ncircumcision was a safeguard against some angel (_sic_) hostile to the\nJewish race.[1943]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations.]\n\nIf demons are for Origen of primary importance in magic, incantations\nrun a close second, since it is chiefly through them that men are\nable to utilize the power of the demons. Some of the barbarians,\nOrigen tells us, \u201care admired for their marvelous powers of\nincantation.\u201d[1944] And when he mentions the miraculous releases of\nPeter and Paul and Silas from prison, he adds that if Celsus had\nread of these events he \u201cwould probably say in reply that there are\ncertain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and\nto open doors.\u201d[1945] But Celsus did not say this; we must therefore\nattribute the thought rather to Origen himself. Speaking elsewhere in\nhis own person Origen more than once informs us that \u201calmost all those\nwho occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites\u201d and \u201cmany\nwho conjure evil spirits\u201d employ in their spells and incantations\nsuch expressions as \u201cGod of Abraham.\u201d[1946] Origen grants that these\nphrases are used by the Jews themselves in their prayers to God and\nexorcisms, and that the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possess\ngreat efficacy \u201cwhen united with the word of God.\u201d[1947] Yet he will\nnot acknowledge that the Jews practice magic. He also denies the charge\nof Celsus that Christians use incantations and the names of certain\ndemons, although he admits that Christians ward off magic by regular\nuse of prescribed prayers and frequently expel demons by repetition\nof \u201cthe simple name of Jesus, and _certain other words_ in which they\nrepose faith, according to the holy Scriptures,\u201d or \u201cthe name of Jesus\naccompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him\u201d\n(presumably a repetition of the names of the four Evangelists).[1948]\nIt is even possible for persons who are not true Christians to make use\nof the name of Jesus to work wonders just as magicians use the Hebrew\nnames.[1949]\n\n[Sidenote: The power of words.]\n\nOrigen, however, does not try to justify these Hebrew and Christian\nformulae, adjurations, and exorcisms on the ground that they are\nsimply prayers to God, who Himself then performs the cure or miracle\nwithout compulsion. Origen believes that there is power in the words\nthemselves, as we have already heard him state in speaking of Balaam.\nThis is seen from the fact that when translated into another language\nthey lose their operative force, as those who are skilled in the use\nof incantations have noted.[1950] Thus not what is signified by the\nwords, but the qualities and peculiarities of the words themselves, are\npotent for this or that effect. It seems strange that Origen should\nthus cite enchanters, when in the sentence just preceding he had spoken\nof \u201cour Jesus, whose name has been manifestly seen to have driven out\ndemons from souls and bodies....\u201d Was the divine name alone and not God\nthe cause of the miracle? It may be added, however, that Origen denied\nthat languages were of human origin.[1951] But he has already gone\nfar along this line and in the previous chapter has stated that \u201cthe\nnature of powerful names\u201d is a \u201cdeep and mysterious subject.\u201d[1952]\nSome such names, he goes on to say, \u201care used by the learned amongst\nthe Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian\nphilosophers called Brahmans.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Origen admits a connection between the power of words and\nmagic.]\n\nLater on in the work, in a passage which we have already cited,\nOrigen waxed indignant with Celsus for speaking favorably of the\nMagi, inventors of the destructive magic art. But now he speaks\nalmost in a tone of respect of magic, stating that if \u201cthe so-called\nmagic also is not, as followers of Epicurus\u201d (i. e., men like Celsus\nwhom Origen accuses of being an Epicurean) \u201cand Aristotle think, an\nentirely chaotic affair but, as those skilled in such matters show, a\nconnected system comprising words known to very few persons,\u201d then such\nnames as Adonai and Sabaoth \u201cpertain to some mystic theology,\u201d and,\n\u201cwhen pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is\nappropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Jewish and Christian employment of powerful names is really\nmagic.]\n\nThese last clauses make it clear that Jews and Christians were guilty\nboth of incantations and magic, however much Origen may protest to the\ncontrary. It can hardly be argued that Origen means to distinguish\nthis \u201cso-called magic\u201d from the magic art which he condemns in other\npassages, for not only is it evident that the followers of Epicurus\nand Aristotle make no such distinction, but Origen himself in other\npassages ascribes the employment of such Hebrew names to ordinary\nmagicians and declares that such invocations of God are \u201cfound in\ntreatises on magic in many countries.\u201d[1953] Origen also states in his\n_Commentary upon Matthew_[1954] that the Jews are regarded as adepts\nin adjuration of demons and that they employ adjurations in the Hebrew\nlanguage drawn from the books of Solomon. Moreover, he continues in\nthe present passage, \u201cAnd other names, again, current in the Egyptian\ntongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain\nthings; and others in the Persian language have corresponding power\nover other spirits; and so on in every different nation, for different\npurposes.\u201d \u201c ... And when one is able to philosophize about the mystery\nof names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the\nangels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel,\nand another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge\nin the world. And a similar philosophy of names applies also to our\nJesus.\u201d Between such mystic theology and philosophy of names, the\nGnostic diagram of the Ophites,[1955] and the downright incantations of\nthe magicians, there is surely little to choose.\n\n[Sidenote: Celsus\u2019 theory of demons.]\n\nFrom the names of God and angels, by uttering which such wonders may\nbe performed, we turn to the spirits themselves. Celsus seems to think\nof demons as spiritual beings who act as intermediaries between the\nsupreme Deity and the world of nature and human society. He believes\nthat \u201cin all probability the various quarters of the earth were from\nthe beginning allotted to different superintending spirits.\u201d[1956] He\nwarns the Christians that it is absurd for them to think that they\ncan escape the demons by simply refusing to eat the meat that has\nbeen offered to idols; the demons are everywhere in nature, and one\ncannot eat bread or drink wine or taste fruit or breathe the very air\nwithout receiving these gifts of nature from the demons to whom the\nvarious provinces of nature have been assigned.[1957] The Egyptians\nteach that even the most insignificant objects are committed to demon\ncare, and they divide the human body into thirty-six parts, each in\ncharge of a demon of the air who should be invoked in order to cure\nan ailment of that particular part.[1958] Celsus mentions some of the\nnames of these thirty-six demons: Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat,\nBiou, Erou, and others. Celsus, however, does not accept this Egyptian\ndoctrine without qualification. He suspects, Origen tells us, that it\nleads toward magic, and hence adds \u201cthe opinion of those wise men who\nsay that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence,\nblood, odors, sweet sounds and other such sensual things; and therefore\nthey are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes\nof men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal\nlife.\u201d[1959] Celsus himself, however, seems as unwilling to accept this\nEgyptian view as he is to condone magic, and concludes that \u201cthe more\njust opinion is that the demons desire nothing and need nothing, but\nthat they take pleasure in those who discharge toward them offices of\npiety.\u201d[1960] Celsus believes that divine providence regulates the acts\nof the demons and so asks: \u201cWhy are we not to serve demons?\u201d[1961]\n\n[Sidenote: Origen calls demons wicked.]\n\nOrigen\u2019s reply to this question is that the demons are wicked spirits\nand concerned with magic and idolatry. He maintains that not only\nChristians \u201cbut almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons\u201d\nregard them as evil spirits.[1962] His own attitude toward them is\ninvariably one of hostility. The thirty-six spirits who, as the\nEgyptians believe, have charge of different parts of the human body,\nOrigen spurns as \u201cthirty-six barbarous demons whom the Egyptian Magi\nalone call upon in some unknown way.\u201d[1963] Really we probably have\nhere to do with the astrological decans or sub-divisions of the signs\nof the zodiac into sections of ten degrees each.\n\n[Sidenote: But believes in presiding angels.]\n\nYet Origen\u2019s notion of the spiritual world rather closely resembles\nthat of Celsus, for he is ready to ascribe to angels or other good\ninvisible beings much the same functions which Celsus attributed to\ndemons. He does not, for example, dispute the theory that different\nparts of the earth and of nature are assigned to different spirits.\nInstead he \u201cventures to lay down some considerations of a profounder\nkind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original\ndistribution of the various quarters of the earth among different\nsuperintending spirits.\u201d[1964] He quotes the Septuagint version of\nDeuteronomy, \u201cWhen the most High divided the nations.... He set\nthe bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of\nGod.\u201d[1965] He narrates how after Babel, men \u201cwere conducted by those\nangels who imprinted on each his native language to the different\nparts of the earth according to their deserts.\u201d[1966] He concludes\nby saying, \u201cThese remarks are to be understood as being made by us\nwith a concealed meaning,\u201d[1967] but there seems little doubt as to\nhis substantial agreement with the view of Celsus. Indeed, later when\nCelsus asserts that Christians cannot eat, drink, or breathe without\nbeing indebted to demons, Origen responds, \u201cWe indeed also maintain ...\nthe agency and control of certain beings whom we may call invisible\nhusbandmen and guardians; ... but we deny that those invisible agents\nare demons.\u201d[1968]\n\nIn his fourteenth homily on Numbers, as extant in Rufinus\u2019s\ntranslation,[1969] Origen again speaks of presiding angels in these\nwords. \u201cAnd what is so pleasant, what is so magnificent as the work\nof the sun or moon by whom the world is illuminated? Yet there is\nwork in the world itself too for angels who are over beasts and for\nangels who preside over earthly armies. There is work for angels who\npreside over the nativity of animals, of seedlings, of plantations,\nand many other growths. And again there is work for angels who preside\nover holy works, who teach the comprehension of eternal light and the\nknowledge of God\u2019s secrets and the science of divine things.\u201d How this\npassage might be used to encourage a belief in magic is made evident\nby the paraphrase of it in _The Occult Philosophy_ of Henry Cornelius\nAgrippa,[1970] written in 1510 at the close of the middle ages. He\nrepresents Origen as saying, \u201cThere is work in the world itself for\nangels who preside over earthly armies, kingdoms, provinces, men,\nbeasts, the nativity and growth of animals, shoots, plants, and other\nthings, giving that virtue which they say is in things from their\noccult property.\u201d\n\nIn the treatise _De Principiis_,[1971] Origen states that particular\noffices are assigned to individual angels, as curing diseases to\nRaphael, and the conduct of wars to Gabriel. This notion he perhaps\nderived from the _Book of Enoch_ which, however, he states in\nhis _Reply to Celsus_ is not accepted by the churches as divinely\ninspired.[1972] He further declares on the authority of passages in\nthe New Testament that to one angel the Church of the Ephesians was\nentrusted; to another, that of Smyrna; that Peter had his angel and\nPaul his,\u2014nay that \u201cevery one of the little ones of the Church\u201d has his\nangel who daily beholds the face of God.[1973]\n\n[Sidenote: A law of spiritual gravitation.]\n\nOrigen advances a further theory concerning spirits, which may be\ndescribed as a sort of law of spiritual gravitation. It is that when\nsouls are pure and \u201cnot weighted down with sin as with a weight of\nlead,\u201d they ascend on high where other pure and ethereal bodies and\nspirits dwell, \u201cleaving here below their grosser bodies along with\ntheir impurities.\u201d Polluted souls, on the contrary, have to stay\nclose to earth where they wander about sepulchers as ghosts and\napparitions.[1974] Origen therefore infers that pagan gods \u201cwho are\nattached for entire ages to particular dwellings and places\u201d on earth,\nare wicked and polluted spirits. Origen of course will not admit that\nChristians or Jews bow down even to angels; such worship they reserve\nfor God alone.[1975]\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude of Celsus toward astrology.]\n\nBoth Celsus and Origen closely associate with the world of invisible\nspirits, whether these be angels or demons, the visible heavenly\nbodies, and thus lead us from magic, which Origen makes so dependent\nupon demons, to the kindred subject of astrology, the pseudo-science\nof the stars. Celsus had censured the Jews and by implication the\nChristians for worshiping heaven and the angels, and even apparitions\nproduced by sorcery and enchantment, and yet at the same time\nneglecting what in his opinion formed the holiest and most powerful\npart of the heaven, namely, the fixed stars and the planets, \u201cwho\nprophesy to everyone so distinctly, through whom all productiveness\nresults, the most conspicuous of supernal heralds, real heavenly\nangels.\u201d[1976] This shows that Celsus was much more favorably inclined\ntoward astrology than toward magic and less sceptical concerning its\nvalidity. Origen also represents Celsus\u2014and furthermore the Stoics,\nPlatonists, and Pythagoreans\u2014as believing in the theory of the _magnus\nannus_, according to which, when the celestial bodies all return to\ntheir original positions after the lapse of some thousands of years,\nhistory will begin to repeat itself and the same events will occur and\nthe same persons live over again.[1977] Origen also complains that\nCelsus regards as a divinely-inspired nation the Chaldeans, who were\nthe founders of \u201cdeceitful genethlialogy,\u201d[1978] as well as the Magi\nwhom Celsus elsewhere identified with the Chaldeans or astrologers, but\nwhom Origen as we have seen regards rather as the founders of magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude of Origen toward astrology.]\n\nOrigen is opposed both to this art of casting horoscopes and\ndetermining the entire life of the individual from his nativity, and to\nthe theory of the _magnus annus_,[1979] because he is convinced that to\nadmit their truth is to annihilate free-will. But he is far from having\nfreed himself fundamentally from the astrological attitude toward the\nstars; indeed he still shows vestiges of the old pagan tendency to\nworship them as divinities. He is convinced that the celestial bodies\nare not mere fiery masses, as Anaxagoras teaches.[1980] The body of\na star is material, it is true, but also ethereal. But furthermore\nOrigen is inclined to agree, both in the _De principiis_[1981] and in\nthe _Contra Celsum_,[1982] that the stars are rational beings (\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u2014the latter word had already been applied to them by Philo\nJudaeus) possessed of free-will and \u201cilluminated with the light of\nknowledge by that wisdom which is the reflection of everlasting light.\u201d\nHe interprets a passage in Deuteronomy[1983] to mean that the stars\nhave in general been assigned by God to all the nations beneath the\nheaven, but asserts that from this system of astral satrapies God\u2019s\nchosen people were exempted. He is willing to admit that the stars\nforetell many things, and puts especial faith in comets as omens.[1984]\nHe states that they have appeared on the eve of dynastic changes, great\nwars, and other disasters, and inclines also to agree with Chaeremon\nthe Stoic that they may come as signs of future good, as in the case of\nthe star announcing the birth of Christ.[1985] But while Origen will\ngrant reasoning faculties and a certain amount of prophetic power to\nthe stars, he refuses to permit worship of them. Rather he is persuaded\n\u201cthat the sun himself and moon and stars pray to the supreme God\nthrough his only begotten Son.\u201d[1986]\n\nPierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721), the learned bishop of Avranches and\neditor of Origen, in his commentaries upon Origen[1987] cites other\nworks, commentaries on Matthew, the Psalms, the Epistle to the Romans,\nand Ezekiel, in which Origen again states that the stars are reasoning\nbeings, honor God, praise and pray to Him, and even that they are\ncapable of sin, a point upon which he agrees with the _Book of Enoch_\nand Bardesanes but not with Philo Judaeus. Nicephorus[1988] states\nthat Origen was condemned in the fifth synod for his error concerning\nthe stars being animated. Sometimes, however, Huet points out, Origen\nleaves it an open question whether the heavenly bodies are animated\nor not.[1989] Huet also asserts that in his own time such great men\nas Tycho Brahe and Kepler have defended the view that the stars are\nanimated beings.\n\n[Sidenote: Further discussion in his _Commentary on Genesis_.]\n\nIn a fragment from Origen\u2019s _Commentary on Genesis_ preserved by\nEusebius we have a further discussion of the stars and astrology.[1990]\nHere he represents even Christians as troubled by the doctrine that\nthe stars control human affairs absolutely. This theory he attacks as\ndestructive to all morality, as rendering prayer to God of no avail,\nand as subjecting even such events as the birth of Christ and the\nconversion of each individual to Christianity to fatal necessity.\nLike Philo Judaeus Origen holds that the stars are merely signs\ninstituted by God, not causes of the future, and quotes passages from\nthe Old Testament in support of his view; like the _Book of Enoch_ he\nholds that men were instructed in the interpretation of the stars\u2019\nsignifications by the fallen angels. He argues at length that divine\nforeknowledge does not impose necessity. While, however, God instituted\nthe stars as signs of the future, He intended that only the angels\nshould be able to read them, and deemed it best for mankind to remain\nin ignorance of the future. \u201cFor it is a much greater task than lies\nwithin human power to learn truly from the motion of the stars what\neach person will do and suffer.\u201d[1991] The evil spirits have, however,\ntaught men the art of astrology, but Origen believes that it is so\ndifficult and requires such superhuman accuracy that the predictions\nof astrologers are more likely to be wrong than right. His tone toward\nastrology is thus distinctly more unfavorable here than in the _Reply\nto Celsus_. In arguing that the stars are merely signs, Origen asks why\nmen admit that the flight of birds and condition of entrails in augury\nand liver-divination are only signs and yet insist that the stars are\ncauses of future events.[1992] The answer, of course, is simple enough:\nall nature is under the control of the stars which alike produce the\nevents signified and the action of the birds or condition of the liver\nsignifying them. But the question is notable because it was also put by\nPlotinus a little later in the same century.\n\n[Sidenote: Problems of the waters above the firmament and of one or\nmore heavens.]\n\nIn explaining the Book of Genesis Origen said that celestial and\ninfernal virtues were represented by the waters above and below the\nfirmament respectively. This figurative interpretation gave offence\nto many later Christian writers, although some of them were ready to\ninterpret the waters above as celestial virtues, but not to take the\nwaters below as signifying evil spirits.[1993] Concerning the question\nof a plurality of heavens Origen says in the _Reply to Celsus_, \u201cThe\nScriptures which are current in the Churches of God do not speak of\nseven heavens or of any definite number at all, but they do appear\nto teach the existence of heavens, whether that means the spheres\nof those bodies which the Greeks call planets or something more\nmysterious.\u201d[1994]\n\n[Sidenote: Augury, dreams, and prophecy.]\n\nOf other pagan methods of divination than astrology Origen disapproved\nand classed them, as we have seen, as the work of demons. He was\nimpressed by the weight of testimony to the validity of augury,[1995]\nalthough he states that it has been disputed whether there is any\nsuch art, but he attributed the truth of the predictions to demons\nacting through the animals and pointed out that the Mosaic law forbade\naugury[1996] and classified as unclean the animals commonly employed\nin divination. The true God, he held, would not employ irrational\nanimals at all to reveal the future, nor even any chance human being,\nbut only the purest of prophetic souls. Origen would appear for the\nmoment to have forgotten Balaam\u2019s ass! Moreover, he himself accepted\nother channels of foreknowledge than holy prophecy, and believed that\ndreams often were of value in this respect. When Celsus, criticizing\nthe Scriptural story of the flight into Egypt, stated that an angel\ndescended from heaven to warn Joseph and Mary of the danger threatening\nthe Christ child, Origen retorted that the angelic warning came rather\nin a dream\u2014an occurrence which seemed in no way marvelous to him, since\n\u201cin many other cases it has happened that a dream has shown persons\nthe proper course of action.\u201d[1997] Origen grants that all men desire\nto ascertain the future and argues that the Jews must have had divine\nprophets, or, since they were forbidden by the Mosaic law to consult\n\u201cobservers of times and diviners,\u201d they would have had no means of\nsatisfying this universal human craving. It was to slake this popular\ncuriosity concerning the future, Origen thinks, that the Hebrew seers\nsometimes predicted things of no religious significance or other\nlasting importance.[1998] Once Origen alludes to physiognomy, saying,\n\u201cIf there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists, whether\nZopyrus or Loxus or Polemon.\u201d[1999]\n\n[Sidenote: Animals and gems.]\n\nThe allusions to natural science in the _Reply to Celsus_ are not\nnumerous. There are a few passages where animals or gems are mentioned.\nThe remarks concerning animals mention the usual favorites and embody\nfamiliar notions which we either have already met or shall meet\nagain and again. Celsus speaks[2000] of the knowledge of poisons and\nmedicines possessed by animals, of predictions by birds, of assemblies\nheld by other animals, of the fidelity with which elephants observe\noaths, of the filial affection of the stork, and of the Arabian bird,\nthe phoenix.[2001] Origen implies the belief that the weasel conceives\nthrough its mouth when he says, \u201cObserve, moreover, to what pitch of\nwickedness the demons proceed, so that they even assume the bodies\nof weasels in order to reveal the future.\u201d[2002] Origen also adduces\nthe marvelous methods of generation of several kinds of animals in\nsupport of the virgin birth of Jesus.[2003] Origen\u2019s allusions to\ngems can scarcely be classified as natural science. He contends that\nPlato\u2019s statement that our precious stones are a reflection of gems\nin that better land is taken from Isaiah\u2019s description of the city of\nGod.[2004] In another passage Origen again quotes Isaiah regarding\nthe walls, foundations, battlements, and gates of various precious\nstones, but states that he cannot stop to examine their spiritual\nmeaning at present.[2005] In one of his homilies on the Book of\nNumbers Origen displays a favorable attitude towards medical and\npharmaceutical investigation, saying, \u201cFor if there is any science\nfrom God, what will be more from Him than the science of health, in\nwhich too the virtues of herbs and the diverse properties of juices are\ndetermined.\u201d[2006]\n\n[Sidenote: Origen later accused of countenancing magic.]\n\nOrigen\u2019s belief that the stars were rational beings continued to be\nheld by the sect called Origenists and also by the heretic Priscillian\nand his followers in the later fourth century. Priscillian, as we have\nseen, was accused of magic and executed in 385. But we are surprised\nto find Theophilus of Alexandria, who attacked some of Origen\u2019s views\nas heretical and persuaded Pope Anastasius to do the same, accusing\nOrigen in a letter written in 405 and translated into Latin by Jerome,\nof having defended magic.[2007] Theophilus states that Origen has\nwritten in one of his treatises, \u201cThe magic art seems to me a name for\nsomething which does not exist\u201d\u2014a bold and admirable assertion, but one\nwhich, as we have seen, the Epicurean Celsus would have been much more\nlikely to make than the Christian Origen\u2014\u201cbut if it does, it is not the\nname of an evil work.\u201d Theophilus cannot understand how Origen, who\nvaunts himself a Christian, can thus make himself a protector of Elymas\nthe magician who opposed the apostles and of Jamnes and Mambres who\nresisted Moses. Huet, the learned seventeenth century editor of Origen,\nknew of no such passage in his extant works as that which Theophilus\nprofesses to quote.[2008]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n OTHER CHRISTIAN DISCUSSION OF MAGIC BEFORE AUGUSTINE\n\n Plan of this chapter\u2014Tertullian on magic\u2014Astrology\n attacked\u2014Resemblance to Minucius Felix\u2014Lactantius\u2014Hippolytus on magic\n and astrology\u2014Frauds of magicians in answering questions\u2014Other tricks\n and illusions\u2014Defects and merits of Hippolytus\u2019 exposure of magic\n and of magic itself\u2014Hippolytus\u2019 sources\u2014Justin Martyr and others\n on the witch of Endor\u2014Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning\n the ventriloquist\u2014Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_\u2014Astrology and the\n birth of Christ\u2014Chrysostom on the star of the Magi\u2014_Sixth Homily\n on Matthew_\u2014The spurious homily\u2014Number, names, and home of the\n Magi\u2014Liturgical drama of the Magi; _Three Kings of Cologne_\u2014Another\n homily on the Magi\u2014Priscillianists answered\u2014Number and race of the\n Magi again.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.]\n\nIn this chapter we shall supplement the picture of the Christian\nattitude towards magic supplied us in preceding chapters by some\naccounts of magic in other Christian writers of the period before\nAugustine. After giving the opinions of a few Latin fathers, Minucius\nFelix, Tertullian, and Lactantius, we shall consider the exposure\nof magic devices in Hippolytus\u2019 _Refutation of All Heresies_, then\ncompare the utterances of other fathers concerning the witch of Endor\nwith those of Origen, and finally discuss the treatment of the Magi\nand the star of Bethlehem in both the genuine and the spurious homily\nof Chrysostom on that theme, adding some account of the medieval\ndevelopment of the legend of the three Magi, although leaving until\nlater the statements of medieval theologians and astronomers concerning\nthe star of the Magi. This makes a rather omnibus chapter, but its\ncomponent parts are too brief to separate as distinct chapters and they\nall supplement the preceding chapter on Origen and Celsus.\n\n[Sidenote: Tertullian on magic.]\n\nSome important features of Origen\u2019s account of magic are duplicated\nin the writings of the western church father, Tertullian, who wrote\nat about the same time or perhaps a few years before Origen. Again\nthe Jews are represented as calling Christ a magician,[2009] and when\nTertullian challenges the emperors to allow a Christian exorcist\nto appear before them and attempt to expel a demon from someone so\npossessed and force the spirit to confess its evil character, he\nexpects that his Christian exorcist will be accused of employing\nmagic.[2010] Again divination and magic are attributed to the fallen\nangels; in fact, Tertullian follows the _Book of Enoch_ in stating that\nmen were instructed by the fallen angels in metallurgy and botany as\nwell as in incantations and astrology.[2011] The demons are represented\nas invisible and \u201ceverywhere in a moment.\u201d Living as they do in the air\nnear the clouds and stars, they are enabled to predict the weather.\nThey send diseases and then pretend to cure them by the recommendation\nof novel remedies or prescriptions quite contrary to accepted medical\npractice.[2012] \u201cThere is hardly a human being who is unattended by\na demon.\u201d[2013] Magicians are described by Tertullian as producing\nphantasms, insulting the souls of the dead, injuring boys for purposes\nof divination, sending dreams, and performing many miraculous feats\nby their complicated jugglery.[2014] \u201cThe science of magic\u201d is well\ndefined as \u201ca multiform contagion of the human mind, an artificer\nof every error, a destroyer of safety and soul.\u201d As examples of\nwell-known magicians Tertullian lists Ostanes and Typhon and Dardanus\nand Damigeron[2015] and Nectabis[2016] and Berenice. Tertullian\nstates that a literature is current which promises to evoke ghosts\nfrom the infernal regions, but that in such cases the dead are really\nimpersonated by demons, as was the fact when the pythoness seemed to\nshow Samuel to Saul, a point on which Tertullian disagrees with Origen.\nMagic is therefore fallacious, a point which Tertullian emphasizes more\nthan Origen did, although Tertullian is not very explicit. He avers\nthat \u201cit is no great task to deceive the outer eye of him whose mental\ninsight it is easy to blind.\u201d The rods of Pharaoh\u2019s magicians seemed to\nturn into snakes, \u201cbut Moses\u2019[2017] reality devoured their deceit.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology attacked.]\n\nTertullian further diverges from Origen in definitely classifying\nastrology as a species of magic along with that other variety of\nmagic which works miracles. Astrology is an art which was invented by\nthe fallen angels and with which Christians should have nothing to\ndo. Tertullian would not mention it but for the fact that recently a\ncertain person has defended his persistence in that profession, that\nis, presumably after he had become a Christian. Tertullian states,\nagain unlike Origen, that the Magi who came from the east to the Christ\nchild were astrologers\u2014\u201cWe know the union existing between magic and\nastrology\u201d\u2014but that Christ\u2019s followers are under no obligation to\nastrology on their account, although he again implies the existence of\nChristian astrologers in the sarcastic remark, \u201cAstrology now-a-days,\nforsooth, treats of Christ; is the science of the stars of Christ, not\nof Saturn and Mars.\u201d As Origen affirmed that the power of the demons\nand of magic was greatly weakened by the birth of Christ, so Tertullian\naffirms that the science of the stars was allowed to exist until the\ncoming of the Gospel, but that since Christ\u2019s birth no one should\ncast nativities. \u201cFor since the Gospel you will never find sophist\nor Chaldean or enchanter or diviner or magician who has not been\nmanifestly punished.\u201d[2018] Tertullian rejoices that the _mathematici_\nor astrologers are forbidden to enter Rome or Italy, the reason being,\nas he states in another passage,[2019] that they are consulted so much\nin regard to the life of the emperor.\n\n[Sidenote: Resemblance to Minucius Felix.]\n\nTertullian\u2019s account of magic is perhaps borrowed from the dialogue\nentitled _Octavius_ by M. Minucius Felix,[2020] which is generally\nregarded as the oldest extant work of Christian Latin literature and\nwas probably written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Some of the\nwords and phrases used by Tertullian and Minucius Felix in describing\nmagic are almost identical,[2021] and a third passage of the same sort\nappears in Cyprian of Carthage in the third century.[2022] Ostanes,\none of Tertullian\u2019s list of magicians, is also mentioned as the first\nprominent magician by both Minucius Felix and Cyprian. Minucius Felix\nascribes magic to demons and seems to regard it as a deceptive and\nrather unreal art, saying, \u201cThe magicians not only are acquainted with\ndemons, but whatever miraculous feats they perform, they do through\ndemons; under their influence and inspiration they produce illusions,\nmaking things seem to be which are not, or making real things seem\nnon-existent.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Lactantius.]\n\nA century after Tertullian Lactantius of Gaul treats of magic and\ndemons in about the same way in his _Divine Institutes_,[2023] written\nat the opening of the fourth century. He denies that Christ was a\nmagician and declares that His miracles differed from those attributed\nto Apuleius and Apollonius of Tyana in that they were announced\nbeforehand by the prophets. \u201cHe worked marvels,\u201d Lactantius says to his\nopponents, \u201cand we should have thought Him a magician, as you think\nnow and as the Jews thought at the time, had not all the prophets with\none accord predicted that Christ would do these very things.\u201d[2024]\nLactantius believes that the offspring of the fallen angels and \u201cthe\ndaughters of men\u201d were a different variety of demon from their fathers\nand more terrestrial. Be that as it may, he affirms that the entire\nart and power of the magicians consist in invocations of demons who\n\u201cdeceive human vision by blinding illusions so that men do not see\nwhat does exist and think that they see what does not exist,\u201d[2025]\nthe very expression that we have just heard from Minucius Felix. More\nspecifically Lactantius regards necromancy, oracles, liver-divination,\naugury, and astrology as all invented by the demons.[2026] Like Origen\nhe emphasizes the power of the sign of the cross and the name of Jesus\nagainst the evil spirits,[2027] and he implies the power of the names\nof spirits when he states that, although demons may masquerade under\nother forms and names in pagan temples and worships, in magic and\nsorcery they are always summoned by their true names, those celestial\nones which are read in sacred literature.[2028]\n\n[Sidenote: Hippolytus on magic and astrology.]\n\nFrom these accounts of magic in Latin fathers, which do little more\nthan reinforce the impressions which we had already gained concerning\nthe Christian attitude, we come to a very different discussion by\nHippolytus who wrote in Greek although he lived in Italy. Eusebius\nand Jerome state that Origen as a young man heard Hippolytus preach\nat Rome; in 235 he was exiled to Sardinia; the next year his body was\nbrought back to Rome for burial. In Hippolytus, instead of attacks\nupon astrology as impious, immoral, and fatalistic, and upon magic as\nevil and the work of demons, we have an attempt to prove astrology\nirrational and impracticable, and to show that magic is based upon\nimposture and deceit. In the first four of the nine books of his\n_Philosophumena_ or _Refutation of All Heresies_[2029] Hippolytus\nset forth the tenets of the Greek philosophers, the system of the\nastrologers, and the practice of the magicians in order later to be\nable to show how much the various heretics had borrowed from these\nsources. His second and third books are not extant; it is in the fourth\nbook or what is left of it that we have portions of his discussion of\nastrology and magic.[2030]\n\n[Sidenote: Frauds of magicians in answering questions.]\n\nIn exposing the frauds of magicians Hippolytus uses the word \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\nand not \u03b3\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2, a sorcerer. He tells how the magicians pretend that\nthe spirits give response through a medium to questions which those\nconsulting them have written on papyrus, perhaps in invisible ink, and\nfolded up, after which the papyrus is placed on coals and burned. The\nmagician, however, operating in semi-darkness and making a great noise\nand diversion and pretending to invoke the demon, is really occupied\nin sprinkling the burnt papyrus with a mixture of water and copperas\n(vitriol?) or fumigating it with vapor of a gall nut or employing\nother methods to make the concealed letters visible. Having by some\nsuch method discovered the question, he instructs the medium, who is\nnow supposed to be possessed of demons and is reclining upon a couch,\nwhat answer to give by whispering to him through a long hidden tube\nconstructed out of the windpipe of a crane or ten brass pipes fitted\ntogether. It will be recalled that it was by such a tube made of the\nwindpipes of cranes that Alexander the false prophet, according to\nLucian, caused the artificial head of his god to give forth oracles.\nHippolytus adds that at the same time the magician produces alarming\nflames and liquids by such chemical mixtures as fossil salts and\nEtruscan wax and a grain of salt. \u201cAnd when this is consumed, the salts\nbound upward and give the impression of a strange vision.\u201d[2031]\n\n[Sidenote: Other tricks and illusions.]\n\nHippolytus also reveals how magicians secretly fill eggs with dyes, how\nthey cause sheep to behead themselves against a sword by smearing their\nthroats with a drug which makes them itch, how a ram dies if its head\nis merely bent back facing the sun, how they obstruct the ears of goats\nwith wax so that they cannot breathe and presently die of suffocation,\nhow out of sea foam they make a compound which, like alcohol, will\nitself burn but not consume the objects over which it is poured.[2032]\nHe tells how the magician produces stage thunder, how he is able to\nplunge his hand into a boiling cauldron or walk over hot coals without\nbeing burnt, and how he can set a seeming pyramid of stone on fire. He\ntells how the magicians loosen seals and seal them up again, just as\nLucian did in his _Alexander_ or _The Pseudo-Prophet_; how by means\nof trap-doors, mirrors, and the like devices they show demons in a\ncauldron; how they pretend to show flaming demons by igniting drawings\nwhich they have sketched on the wall with some inflammable substance\nor by loosing a bird which has been set on fire. They make the moon\nappear indoors and imitate the starry sky by attaching fish scales to\nthe ceiling. They produce the sensation of an earthquake by burning\nthe ordure of a weasel with the stone magnet upon an open fire. They\nconstruct a false skull from the caul of an ox, some wax, and some gum,\nmake it speak by means of a hidden tube, and then cause it suddenly to\ncollapse and disappear or to burn up.[2033]\n\n[Sidenote: Defects and merits of Hippolytus\u2019 exposure of magic and of\nmagic itself.]\n\nThis exposition of the frauds of the magicians by Hippolytus is rather\nbroken and incoherent, at least in the form in which his text has\nreached us.[2034] Also we do not have much more faith in some of the\nmethods by which he says the feats of magic are really done than he has\nin the ways by which the magicians claim to perform them. But while\nhis notions of the chemical action of certain substances and of the\noccult virtue of others may be incorrect, the noteworthy point is that\nhe endeavors to explain magic either as a deception or as employing\nnatural substances and forces to simulate supernatural action, and that\nhis exposure of magic devices leaves no place for the action of demons.\nMoreover, we see that magic fraud involves chemical experiment and\nconsiderable knowledge or error in the field of natural science. Under\nthe guise or tyranny of magic experimental science is at work.\n\n[Sidenote: Hippolytus\u2019 sources.]\n\nThe question then arises whether Hippolytus himself discovered\nthese tricks of the magicians or whether he is simply copying his\nexplanations of them from some previous work. An examination of\nthe earlier chapters of his fourth book is sufficient to solve\nthe question. His arguments against the practice of the Chaldean\nastrologers of predicting man\u2019s life from his horoscope at the time\nof his birth are drawn from the pages of the sceptical philosopher,\nSextus Empiricus, whom he follows so closely that his editors are\nable to rectify his text by reference to the parallel passage in\nSextus. We are therefore probably safe in assuming, especially in\nview of the resemblances to the _Alexander_ of Lucian which have\nalready been noted, that Hippolytus\u2019 attack on magic is also largely\nindebted to some classical work, possibly to that very treatise against\nmagic by Celsus to which both Origen and Lucian refer, or perhaps\nto some account of apparatus with which to work marvels like Hero\u2019s\n_Pneumatics_.\n\n[Sidenote: Justin Martyr and others on the witch of Endor.]\n\nTurning back now to the subject of the witch of Endor, we find that\nsome of the church fathers agree with Origen rather than Tertullian\nthat the witch really invoked Samuel. Before Origen\u2019s time Justin\nMartyr in _The Dialogue with Trypho_[2035] had mentioned as a proof\nof the immortality of the soul \u201cthe fact that the soul of Samuel\nwas called up by the witch, as Saul demanded.\u201d Huet, who edited the\nwritings of Origen, lists other Christian authors[2036] who agreed\nwith Origen on this question, and further informs us that the ancient\nrabbis were wont to say that a soul invoked within a year after\nits death as Samuel\u2019s was, would be seen by the ventriloquist but\nnot heard, and heard by the person consulting it but not seen, an\nobservation which suggests that Saul was deceived by ventriloquism,\nwhile by others present the ghost would be neither seen nor heard.\n\n[Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa and Eustathius concerning the\nventriloquist.]\n\nTwo ecclesiastics of the fourth century composed special treatises upon\nthe ventriloquist or witch of Endor in which they took the opposite\nview from that of Origen. The briefer of these two treatises is by\nGregory of Nyssa[2037] who states, without mentioning Origen by name,\nthat some previous writers have contended that Samuel was truly invoked\nby magic with divine permission in order that he might see his mistake\nin having called Saul the enemy of ventriloquists. But Gregory believes\nthat Samuel was already in paradise and hence could not be invoked\nfrom the infernal regions; but that it was a demon from the infernal\nregions who predicted to Saul, \u201cTo-morrow you and Jonathan shall be\nwith me.\u201d The longer treatise of Eustathius of Antioch is a direct\nanswer to Origen\u2019s argument as its title, _Concerning the Ventriloquist\nagainst Origen_,[2038] indicates. Eustathius holds that it was illegal\nto consult ventriloquists in view of Saul\u2019s own previous action against\nthem and other prohibitions in Scripture, and that Origen\u2019s remarks are\nto be deplored as tending to encourage simple men to resort to arts of\ndivination. Eustathius contends that the witch did not invoke Samuel\nbut only made Saul think that she did, and that Saul himself did not\nsee Samuel. Pharaoh\u2019s magicians similarly deceived the imagination with\nshadows and specters when they pretended to turn rods into snakes and\nwater into blood. Eustathius does not agree with Origen that Samuel\nwas in hell. He holds that the predictions made by the pseudo-Samuel\nwere not impossible for a demon to make, and indeed were not strictly\naccurate, since Saul did not die the very next day but the day after\nit, and since not only Jonathan but his three sons were slain with\nhim.[2039] Furthermore, David was already so prominent in public\naffairs that a demon might easily guess that he would succeed Saul.\n\n[Sidenote: Gregory of Nyssa _Against Fate_.]\n\nGregory of Nyssa also composed a treatise, entitled _Against\nFate_,[2040] in the form of a disputation between a pagan philosopher\nand himself at Constantinople in 382 A.\u202fD. His opponent holds that\nthe life of man is determined by the constellations at his nativity,\nupon whose decree even conversion to Christianity would thus be made\ndependent. Gregory assumes the position of one hitherto ignorant of\nthe principles of the art of astrology, of which the philosopher has\nto inform him, but on general grounds it seems very unlikely that he\nreally was as ignorant as this of such a widespread superstition.\nFurthermore, he is sufficiently read in the subject to incorporate some\nof Bardesanes\u2019 arguments, of whose treatise both Gregory\u2019s title and\ndialogue form are reminiscent. Some of Gregory\u2019s reasoning, however,\nmight well be that of a tyro and is scarcely worth elaborating here.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology and the birth of Christ.]\n\nWhen the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew included the story\nof the wise men from the east who had seen the star, there can be\nlittle or no doubt that he inserted it and that it had been formulated\nin the first place, not merely in order to satisfy the ordinary,\nunlearned reader with portents connected with the birth of Jesus, but\nto secure the appearance of support for the kingship of Jesus from that\nart or science of astrology which so many persons then held in high\nesteem. To an age whose sublimest science was star-gazing it would seem\nfitting and almost inevitable that God should have announced the coming\nof the Prince of Peace in this manner, and the account in the Gospel of\nMatthew is in a sense an attempt to present the birth of Christ in a\nway to comply with the most searching tests of contemporary science.\nBut the early Christians were relatively rude and unlettered, and this\neffort to construct a royal horoscope for Jesus is a crude and faulty\none from the astrological standpoint. For this, however, the author\nof the Gospel and not the art of astrology is obviously responsible.\nAs a result, however, of the Gnostic reaction against astrological\nfatalism or of an orthodox Christian opposition to both Gnostics and\nastrologers, most of the early fathers of the church denied that this\npassage implied any recognition of the truth of astrology and attempted\nto explain away its obvious meaning. In doing this they often made the\ncrude and imperfect astrology of the Gospel a criterion for criticizing\nthe art of astrology itself.\n\n[Sidenote: Chrysostom on the star of the Magi.]\n\nOf patristic commentaries upon the passage in the Gospel of Matthew\ndealing with the Magi and the star of Bethlehem one of the fullest\nand most frequently cited by medieval writers is that attributed to\nChrysostom. I say \u201cattributed,\u201d because in addition to his genuine\nsixth homily upon Matthew[2041] there was generally ascribed to\nChrysostom in the middle ages another homily which is extant only in\nLatin[2042] and has been thought to be the work of some Arian. The\nfamous St. John Chrysostom was born at Antioch about 347 A.\u202fD. and\nthere studied rhetoric under the noted sophist Libanius. From 398 to\n404 he held the office of patriarch of Constantinople; then he was\nexiled to Cappadocia where he died in 407. One detail of his boyhood\nmay be noted because of its connection with magic. When he was a lad,\nthe tyrants in the city became suspicious of plots against them and\nsent soldiers to search for books of magic and sorcery. One of the\nmen who was arrested and put to death had tried to rid himself of the\ndamaging possession of a book of magic by throwing it into the river.\nChrysostom and a playmate later unsuspectingly fished an object out of\nthe water which turned out to be this very book, and when a soldier\nhappened to pass by just then, they were very frightened lest he should\nsee what they had and they should be severely punished for it.[2043]\n\n[Sidenote: Sixth homily on Matthew.]\n\nIn his sixth homily upon Matthew Chrysostom recognizes the difficulties\npresented by the Scriptural account of the Magi and the star, and\napproaches the task of expounding it with prayers to God for aid.\nSome, he informs us, take the passage as an admission of the truth\nof astrology. It is this opinion which he is concerned to refute. He\nargues that it is not the function of astronomy to learn from the\nstars who are being born but merely to predict from the hour of birth\nwhat is going to happen, which seems a quite fallacious distinction\nupon his part. He also criticizes the Magi for calling Jesus the king\nof the Jews, when as Christ told Pilate His kingdom was not of this\nworld. He further criticizes them for coming to Christ\u2019s birthplace\nwhen they might have known that it would cause difficulties with Herod,\nthe existing king, and for coming, making trouble, and then immediately\ngoing back home again. But these shortcomings would seem to be those\nof the Scriptural narrative rather than of the art of astrology,\nalthough of course Chrysostom is trying to make the point that the Magi\nhad not foreseen what would happen to themselves. He further argues\nthat the star of Bethlehem was not like other stars nor even a star\nat all,[2044] as was proved by its peculiar itinerary, its shining by\nday, its rare intelligence in hiding itself at the right time, and its\nmiraculous ability in standing over the head of the child. Chrysostom\ntherefore concludes that some invisible virtue put on the form of a\nstar. He thinks that the star appeared to the Magi as a reflection\nupon the Jews, who had rejected prophet after prophet, whereas the\napparition of a single star was sufficient to bring barbarian Magi to\nthe feet of Christ. At the same time he believes that God especially\nfavored the Magi in vouchsafing them a star, a sign to which they were\naccustomed, as the mode of announcement. Thus he comes dangerously near\nto admitting tacitly what he has just been denying, namely, that the\nstars are signs of the future and that there is something in the art\nof astrology. In short, the star appeared to the Magi because they as\nastrologers would comprehend its meaning. Chrysostom denies this openly\nand does his best to think up arguments against it, but he cannot rid\nhis subconscious thought of the idea.\n\n[Sidenote: The spurious homily.]\n\nThe other homily ascribed to Chrysostom repeats some of the points\nmade in the genuine homily, but adds others. The preacher has read\nsomewhere, perhaps in Origen where we have already met the suggestion,\nthat the Magi had learned that the star would appear from the books\nof the diviner Balaam, \u201cwhose divination is also put into the Old\nTestament: \u2018A star shall arise from Jacob and a man shall come forth\nfrom Israel, and he shall rule all nations.\u2019\u201d But the preacher does\nnot state why it is any better to have such a prediction made by a\ndiviner than by an astrologer. The preacher has also heard some cite\na writing, which is not surely authentic but yet is not destructive\nto the Faith and rather pleasing, to the effect that in the extreme\neast on the shores of the ocean live a people who possess a writing\ninscribed with the name of Seth and dealing with the appearance of this\nstar and the gifts to be offered. This writing was handed down from\nfather to son through successive generations, and twelve of the most\nstudious men of their number were chosen to watch for the coming of\nthe star, and whenever one died, another was chosen in his place. They\nwere called Magi in their language because they glorified God silently.\nEvery year after the threshing of the harvest they climbed a mountain\nto a cave with delightful springs shaded by carefully selected trees.\nThere they washed themselves and for three days in silence prayed and\npraised God. Finally one year the star appeared in the form of a little\nchild with the likeness of a cross above it; and it spoke with them\nand taught them and instructed them to set out for Judea.[2045] When\nthey had set out, it went before them for two years, during which time\nfood and drink were never lacking in their wallets. On their return\nthey worshiped and glorified God more sedulously than ever and preached\nto their people. Finally, after the resurrection, the apostle Thomas\nvisited that region and they were baptized by him and were made his\nassistant preachers. This tale is indeed pleasing enough, and it saves\nthe Magi from all imputation of magic arts and employment of demons and\neven denies that they were astrologers. But as a device to escape the\nnatural inference from the Gospel story that the birth of Christ was\nannounced by the stars and in a way which astronomers could comprehend\nit is certainly far-fetched, and shows how Christian theologians were\nput to it to find a way out of the difficulty. The homily goes on to\nadvance some of the usual arguments against astrology, such as that\nthe stars cannot cause evil, that the human will is free, and that a\nscience of individual horoscopes cannot account for all men worshiping\nidols before Christ and abandoning idolatry and other ancient customs\nthereafter, or for the perishing in the deluge of all men except the\nfamily of Noah, or for national customs such as circumcision among the\nJews and incest among the Persians. Here we again probably see the\ninfluence of Bardesanes.\n\n[Sidenote: Number, names, and home of the Magi.]\n\nWe have already noted that Origen seems to have been the first of\nthe fathers to state the number of the Magi as three, whereas the\nhomily just considered implies that there were twelve of them. Their\nrepresentation in art as three in number did not become general\nuntil the fourth century,[2046] while the depiction of them as kings\nwas also a gradual and, according to Kehrer, later growth.[2047]\nBouch\u00e9-Leclercq, citing an earlier monograph,[2048] states that the\nroyalty of the Magi was invented towards the sixth century to show\nthe fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies,[2049] and that Bede is\nthe first who knows their names. But M\u00e2le says, \u201cTheir mysterious\nnames are first found in a Greek chronicle of the beginning of the\nsixth century translated into Latin by a Merovingian monk,\u201d and are\n\u201cBithisarea, Melichior, Gathaspa.\u201d[2050] The provenance of the Magi was\nvariously stated by the Christian fathers:[2051] Arabia according to\nJustin Martyr, Epiphanius, and Tertullian or Pseudo-Tertullian; Persia\naccording to Clement of Alexandria, Basil, and Cyril; Persia or Chaldea\naccording to Chrysostom and Diodorus of Tarsus; Chaldea according to\nJerome and Augustine and the philosopher Chalcidius in his commentary\nupon Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_.[2052] The homily which we were just considering\ngave the impression that they came from India.\n\n[Sidenote: Liturgical drama of the Magi: _The Three Kings of Cologne_.]\n\nIn the middle ages the Magi appeared in liturgical drama as well as in\nart. An early instance is a tenth century lectionary from Compi\u00e8gne,\nnow preserved at Paris,[2053] where after homilies by various fathers\nthere is added in a hand only slightly later the liturgical drama of\nthe adoration of the Magi. In the later middle ages there came into\nexistence the _History_ or _Deeds of the Three Kings of Cologne_, as\nthe Magi came to be called from the supposed translation of their\nrelics to that city. Their bodies were said to have been brought by\nthe empress Helena from India to Constantinople, whence they were\ntransferred to Milan, and after its destruction by Barbarossa, to\nCologne. This \u201cfabulous narration,\u201d as it has well been entitled,[2054]\nalso has much to say of the miracles of the apostle Thomas in India and\nof Prester John, to whom we shall devote a later chapter. It asserts\nthat the three kings reached Jerusalem on the thirteenth day after\nChrist\u2019s birth by a miraculously rapid transit by day and by night of\nthemselves and their armies to the marvel of the inhabitants of the\ntowns through which they passed, or rather, flew.[2055] After they had\nreturned home and had successively migrated to Christ above, another\napparition of a star marked this fact.[2056] The treatise exists in\nmany manuscripts[2057] and was printed more than once before 1500.\n\n[Sidenote: Another homily on the Magi.]\n\nFinally we may note the contents of the homily on the Magi which\nimmediately precedes the liturgical drama concerning them in the\nabove mentioned tenth century lectionary.[2058] The Magi are said to\nhave come on the thirteenth day of Christ\u2019s nativity. That they came\nfrom the Orient was fitting since they sought one of whom it had been\nwritten, _Ecce vir oriens_. It was also fitting that Christ\u2019s coming\nshould be announced to shepherds of Israel by a rational angel, to\nGentile Magi by an irrational star. This star appeared neither in the\nstarry heaven nor on earth but in the air; it had not existed before\nand ceased to exist after it had fulfilled its function. Although he\nhas just said that the star appeared in the air and not in the sky,\nthe preacher now adds that when a new man was born in the world it was\nfitting that a new star should appear in the sky. He also, in pointing\nout how all the elements recognized that their Creator had come into\nthe world, states that the sky sent a star, the sea allowed Him to walk\nupon it, the sun was darkened, stones were broken and the earth quaked\nwhen He died.\n\n[Sidenote: Priscillianists answered.]\n\nSince the heretics known as Priscillianists have adduced the star at\nChrist\u2019s birth to prove that every man is born under the fates of the\nstars, the preacher endeavors to answer them. He holds that since the\nstar came to where Jesus lay He controlled it rather than vice versa.\nThen follow the usual arguments against genethlialogy that many men\nborn under the sign Aquarius are not fishermen, that sons of serfs are\nborn at the same time as princes, and the case of Jacob and Esau. The\nstar was merely a sign to the Magi and by its twinkling illuminated\ntheir minds to seek the new-born babe. It seems scarcely consistent\nthat a star which the preacher has called irrational should illuminate\nminds.\n\n[Sidenote: Number and race of the Magi again.]\n\nThe homily goes on to say that opinions differ as to who the Magi were\nand whence they came. Owing to the prophecy that the kings of Tarsus\nand the isles offer presents, the kings of the Arabs and Sheba bring\ngifts, some regard Tarsus, Arabia, and Sheba as the homes of the Magi.\nOthers call them Persians or Chaldeans, since Chaldeans are skilled in\nastronomy. Others say that they were descendants of Balaam. At any rate\nthey were the first Gentiles to seek Christ and they are well said to\nhave been three, symbolizing faith in the Trinity, the three virtues,\nfaith, hope and charity, the three safeguards against evil, thoughts,\nwords and works, and the three Gentile contributions to the Faith of\nphysics, ethics, and logic, or natural, moral, and rational philosophy.\nThe preacher then indulges in further allegorical interpretation anent\nHerod and what was typified by the gifts of the Magi.[2059]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL SCIENCE: BASIL, EPIPHANIUS, AND THE\n PHYSIOLOGUS\n\n Lactantius not a fair example\u2014Commentaries on the Biblical account of\n creation\u2014Date and delivery of Basil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_\u2014The _Hexaemeron_\n of Ambrose\u2014Basil\u2019s medieval influence\u2014Science and religion\u2014Scientific\n curiosity of Basil\u2019s audience\u2014Allusions to amusements\u2014Conflicts\n with Greek science\u2014Agreement with Greek science\u2014Qualification of\n the Scriptural account of creation\u2014The four elements and four\n qualities\u2014Enthusiasm for nature as God\u2019s work\u2014Sin and nature\u2014Habits\n of animals\u2014Marvels of nature\u2014Spontaneous generation\u2014Lack of\n scientific scepticism\u2014Sun worship and astrology\u2014Permanence of\n species\u2014Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_\u2014The _Medicine Chest_\n of Epiphanius\u2014Gems in the high priest\u2019s breastplate\u2014Some other\n gems\u2014The so-called _Physiologus_; problem of its origin\u2014Does the\n title apply to any one particular treatise?\u2014And to what sort of a\n treatise?\u2014Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the\n _Physiologus_\u2014_Physiologus_ was more natural scientist than allegorist.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Lactantius not a fair example.]\n\nThe opposition of early Christian thought to natural science has been\nrather unduly exaggerated. For instance, Lactantius, one of the least\nfavorable to Greek philosophy and natural science of the fathers,\nshould hardly be cited as typical of early Christian attitude in\nsuch matters. Nor does his opposition impress one as weighty.[2060]\nHe ridicules the theory of the Antipodes,[2061] which he perhaps\nunderstands none too well, asking if anyone can be so inept as to\nthink that there are men whose feet are above their heads, although\nhe knows very well that Greek science teaches that all weights fall\ntowards the center of the earth, and that consequently if the feet are\nnearer the center of the earth that they must be below the head. He\ncontinues, however, to insist that the philosophers are either very\nstupid, or just joking, or arguing for the sake of arguing, and he\ndeclares that he could show by many arguments that the heaven cannot\npossibly be lower than the earth\u2014which no one has asserted except\nhimself\u2014if it were not already time to close his third book and begin\nthe fourth. Apparently Lactantius is the one who is arguing for the\nsake of arguing, or just joking, or else very stupid, and I fear it\nis the last. But other Christian fathers were less dense, and we\nalready have heard the cultured pagan Plutarch scoff at the notion of\na spherical earth and of antipodes. We may grant, however, that the\necclesiastical writers of the Roman Empire and early medieval period\nnormally treat of spiritual rather than material themes and discuss\nthem in a religious rather than a scientific manner.\n\n[Sidenote: Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation.]\n\nBut in the commentaries upon the books of the Bible which the fathers\nmultiplied so voluminously it was necessary for them, if they began\ntheir labors with _Genesis_, to deal at the very start in the first\nverses of the first book of the Bible with an explanation of nature\nwhich at several points was in disagreement with the accepted theories\nof Greek philosophy and ancient science. Such comment upon the opening\nverses of _Genesis_ sometimes developed into a separate treatise\ncalled _Hexaemeron_ from the works of the six days of creation which\nit discussed. Of the various treatises of this type the _Hexaemeron_\nof Basil[2062] seems to have been both the best[2063] and the most\ninfluential, and will be considered by us as an example of Christian\nattitude towards the natural science and, to some extent, the\nsuperstition of the ancient world.\n\n[Sidenote: Date and delivery of Basil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_.]\n\nBasil died on the first day of January, 379 A.\u202fD., and was born about\n329. When or where the nine homilies which compose his _Hexaemeron_\nwere preached is not known, but from an allusion to his bodily\ninfirmity in the seventh homily and his forgetfulness the next day in\nHomily VIII we might infer that it was late in life. To all appearances\nthese sermons were taken down and have reached us just as they were\ndelivered to the people, to whose daily life Basil frequently adverts.\nThe sermons were delivered early in the morning before the artisans\nin the audience went to their work and again at the close of the day\nand before the evening meal, since Basil sometimes speaks of the\napproach of darkness surprising him and of its consequently being time\nto stop.[2064] One of the surest indications either that the sermons\nwere delivered extemporaneously, or that Basil was repeating with\nvariations to suit the occasion and present audience sermons which he\nhad delivered so often as to have practically memorized, occurs in the\neighth homily where he starts to discuss land animals, forgetting that\nthe last day he did not get to birds, but is presently brought to a\nrealization of his omission by the actions of his audience and, after a\npause and an apology, makes a fresh start upon birds. The _Hexaemeron_\nwas highly praised by Basil\u2019s contemporaries and was regarded as the\nbest of his works by later Byzantine literary collectors and critics.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose.]\n\nBasil\u2019s work, however, was not the first of its kind, as Hippolytus and\nOrigen, at least, are known to have earlier composed similar treatises,\nand still earlier in the treatise of Theophilus _To Autolycus_ we\nfind a few chapters[2065] devoted to the six days of creation. In one\nof his letters Jerome states that \u201cAmbrose recently so compiled the\n_Hexaemeron_ of Origen that he rather followed the views of Hippolytus\nand Basil.\u201d[2066] This Latin work of Ambrose is extant and seems to me\nto follow Basil very closely. At times the order of presentation is\nslightly varied and the work of Ambrose is longer, but this is due to\nits more verbose rhetoric and greater indulgence in Biblical quotation,\nand not to the introduction of new ideas. The Benedictine editors of\nAmbrose admit that he has taken a great deal from Basil but deny that\nhe has servilely imitated him.[2067] But a striking instance of such\nservile imitation is seen in Ambrose\u2019s duplicating even Basil\u2019s mistake\nin omitting to discuss birds and then apologizing for it, reminding\none of the Chinese workman who made all the new dinner plates with a\ncrack and a toothpick stuck in it, like the old broken plate which\nhe had been given as a model. It is true that Ambrose does not first\ndiscuss land animals for a page as Basil did, but makes his apology\nmore immediately. The opening words of the eighth sermon in the twelfth\nchapter of his fifth book are, \u201cAnd after he had remained silent for\na moment, again resuming his discourse, he said....\u201d Then comes his\napology, expressed in different terms from Basil\u2019s and to the effect\nthat in his previous discourse upon fishes he became so immersed in\nthe depths of the sea as to forget all about birds. Thus the incident\nwhich in Basil had every appearance of a natural mistake, in Ambrose\nhas all the earmarks of an affected imitation. It is barely possible,\nhowever, that Origen made the original mistake and that Basil and\nAmbrose have both imitated him in it. On the other hand, we are told\nthat the _Hexaemerons_ of Origen and Basil differed fundamentally in\nthis respect, that Origen indulged to a great extent in allegorical\ninterpretation of the Mosaic account of creation,[2068] while Basil\ndeclares that he \u201ctakes all in the literal sense,\u201d is \u201cnot ashamed of\nthe Gospel,\u201d and \u201cadmits the common sense of the Scriptures.\u201d[2069]\n\n[Sidenote: Basil\u2019s medieval influence.]\n\nAt any rate, Basil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_ seems to have supplanted all such\nprevious treatises in Greek, while its western influence is shown not\nonly by Ambrose\u2019s imitation of it so soon after its production, but by\nLatin translations of it by Eustathius Afer in the fifth, and perhaps\nby Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century. Medieval manuscripts of it\nare fairly numerous and sometimes of early date,[2070] and include\nan Anglo-Saxon epitome ascribed to Aelfric in the Bodleian Library.\nBartholomew of England[2071] in the thirteenth century quotes \u201cRabanus\nwho uses the words of Basil in the _Hexaemeron_\u201d for a description\nof the empyrean heaven which I have been unable to find in the\nworks of either Rabanus or Basil. Bede, in a similar, though much\nabbreviated, work of his own, states that while many have said many\nthings concerning the beginning of the _Book of Genesis_, the chief\nauthorities, so far as he has been able to discover, are Basil of\nCaesarea, whom Eustathius translated from Greek into Latin, Ambrose of\nMilan, and Augustine, bishop of Hippo. These works, however, were so\nlong and expensive that only the rich could afford to purchase them and\nso profound that only the learned could read and understand them. Bede\nhad accordingly been requested to compose a brief rendition of them,\nwhich he does partly in his own words, partly in theirs.[2072]\n\n[Sidenote: Science and religion.]\n\nThe general tenor of Basil\u2019s treatise may be described as follows.\nHe accepts the literal sense of the first chapter of _Genesis_ as a\ncorrect account of the universe, and, when he finds Greek philosophy\nand science in disagreement with the Biblical narrative, inveighs\nagainst the futilities and follies and conflicting theories and\nexcessive elaborations of the philosophers. On such occasions the\nsimple statements of Scripture are sufficient for him. \u201cUpon the\nessence of the heavens we are contented with what Isaiah says.... In\nthe same way, as concerns the earth, let us resolve not to torment\nourselves by trying to find out its essence.... At all events let us\nprefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.\u201d[2073]\nThese three quotations illustrate his attitude at such times. But at\nall other times he is apt to follow Greek science rather implicitly,\naccepting without question its hypothesis of four elements and four\nqualities, and taking all his details about birds, beasts, and fish\nfrom the same source.\n\n[Sidenote: Scientific curiosity of Basil\u2019s audience.]\n\nMoreover, while Basil may affirm that the edification of the church\nis his sole aim and interest, it is evident that his audience are\npossessed by a lively scientific curiosity, and that they wish to hear\na great deal more about natural phenomena than Isaiah or any other\nBiblical author has to offer them. \u201cWhat trouble you have given me\nin my previous discourses,\u201d exclaims Basil in his fourth homily, \u201cby\nasking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally\nendued with color, and why all color comes under the sense of sight?\nAnd perhaps my reason did not appear sufficient to you.... Perhaps you\nwill ask me new questions.\u201d Basil gratifies this curiosity concerning\nthe world of nature with many details not mentioned in the Bible but\ndrawn from such works as Aristotle\u2019s _Meteorology_ and _History of\nAnimals_. This scientific curiosity displayed by Basil\u2019s hearers is\nthe more interesting in that artisans who had to labor for their daily\nbread appear to have made up a large element in his audience.[2074]\nIt is perhaps on their account that Basil often speaks of God as the\nsupreme artisan or artificer or artist,[2075] or calls their attention\nto \u201cthe vast and varied workshop of divine creation,\u201d[2076] and makes\nother flattering allusions to arts which support life or produce\nenduring work, and to waterways and sea trade.[2077] He also seems to\nhave a sincere appreciation of the arts and admiration of beauty, which\nhe twice defines.[2078]\n\n[Sidenote: Allusions to amusements.]\n\nAt the risk of digression, it is perhaps worth noting further that\nBasil\u2019s hearers seem to have been very familiar with, not to say fond\nof, the amusements common in the cities of the Roman Empire. Twice he\nopens his sermons with allusions to the athletes of the circus and\nactors of the theater,[2079] apparently as the surest way of quickly\ncatching the attention of his audience, while on a third occasion, in\nconcluding his morning address on what appears to have been a holiday,\nhe remarks that if he had dismissed them earlier, some would have spent\nthe rest of the day gambling with dice, and that \u201cthe longer I keep\nyou, the longer you are out of the way of mischief.\u201d[2080] He also\nalludes to the spinning of tops and to what was apparently the game of\npush-ball.[2081]\n\n[Sidenote: Conflicts with Greek science.]\n\nTaking up the contents of the _Hexaemeron_ more in detail, we may\nfirst note those points upon which Basil supports the statements of\nthe Bible against Greek science and philosophy. He of course insists\nthat the universe was created by God and is not co-existent, much\nless identical, with Him.[2082] He also denies that the form of the\nworld alone is due to God and that matter is of separate origin.[2083]\nNor will he accept the arguments of the philosophers who \u201cwould\nrather lose their tongues\u201d than admit that there is more than one\nheaven. Basil is ready to believe not merely in a second, but a third\nheaven, such as the apostle Paul speaks of being rapt to. He regards\na plurality of heavens as no more difficult to credit than the seven\nconcentric spheres of the planets, and as much more probable than the\nphilosophic theory of the music of the spheres which he decries as\n\u201cingenious frivolity, the untruth of which is evident from the first\nword.\u201d[2084] He also defends the statement of Scripture that there are\nwaters above the firmament, not only against the doctrines of ancient\nastronomy,[2085] but also against \u201ccertain writers in the church,\u201d\namong whom he probably has Origen in mind, who interpret the passage\nfiguratively and assert that the waters stand for \u201cspiritual and\nincorporeal powers,\u201d those above the firmament representing good angels\nand those below the firmament standing for evil demons. \u201cLet us reject\nthese theories as we would the interpretations of dreams and old-wives\u2019\ntales.\u201d[2086]\n\nIn connection with Basil\u2019s defense of the plurality of the heavens\nit may be noted that R. H. Charles presents evidence to show \u201cthat\nspeculations or definitely formulated views on the plurality of the\nheavens were rife in the very cradle of Christendom and throughout\nits entire development,\u201d and that \u201cthe prevailing view was that of\nthe sevenfold division of the heavens.\u201d[2087] He fails, however,\nto discriminate between the doctrine of Greek philosophy that the\nuniverse was one, although the circles of the planets are seven, and\nthe plurality of the heavens, which Basil insists that the philosophers\ndeny; and very probably the Jewish and early Christian notions of\nsuccessive heavens full of angels and spirits developed from the\nspheres of the planets. Among the various early heresies described by\nthe fathers are also found, of course, many allusions to these seven\nspheres or heavens. The disciples of Valentinus, for example, according\nto Irenaeus and Epiphanius, \u201caffirm that these seven heavens are\nintelligent and speak of them as angels ... and declare that Paradise,\nsituated above the third heaven, is a powerful angel.\u201d[2088]\n\n[Sidenote: Agreement with Greek science.]\n\nOn the other hand, we may note some points where Basil is in accord\nwith Greek science. He warns his hearers not to \u201cbe surprised that the\nworld never falls; it occupies the center of the universe, its natural\nplace.\u201d[2089] He advances numerous proofs of the immense size of the\nsun and moon.[2090] He accepts the hypothesis of four elements but\nabstains from passing judgment upon the question of a fifth element of\nwhich the heavens and celestial bodies may be composed.[2091] He thinks\nthat \u201cit needs not the space of a moment for light to pass through\u201d the\nether.[2092]\n\n[Sidenote: Qualification of the Scriptural account of creation.]\n\nMoreover, Basil finds it necessary to qualify some of the statements\nin the first chapter of _Genesis_. He interprets the command, \u201cLet\nthe waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,\u201d\nto apply only to the sea or ocean, which he contends is one body of\nwater, and not to pools and lakes,[2093] recognizing that otherwise\n\u201cour explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to\nexperience, because it is evident that all the waters did not flow\ntogether in one place.\u201d In this connection he states that \u201calthough\nsome authorities think that the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed\nin their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they\ncommunicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the\nGreat Sea.\u201d He speaks of \u201cthe vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators,\nwhich surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain.\u201d[2094] Later\nhe contends that \u201csea water is the source of all the moisture of the\nearth.\u201d[2095] He has also to meet the following objection made to the\neleventh and twelfth verses of the first chapter of _Genesis_: \u201cHow\nthen, they say, can Scripture describe all the plants of the earth as\nseed-bearing, when the reed, couch-grass, mint, crocus, garlic, and the\nflowering rush and countless other species produce no seed? To this we\nreply that many vegetables have their seminal virtue in the lower part\nand in the roots.\u201d[2096]\n\n[Sidenote: The four elements and four qualities.]\n\nBasil regards the words of _Genesis_, \u201cGod called the dry land earth,\u201d\nas a recognition of the fact that drought is the primal property of\nearth, as humidity is of air; cold, of water; and heat, of fire. He\nadds, however, that \u201cour eyes and senses can find nothing which is\ncompletely singular, simple, and pure. Earth is at the same time dry\nand cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and\ndry.\u201d[2097] Indeed, as he has already stated in the previous homily,\nthe mixture of elements in actual objects is even more intricate\nthan this last sentence might seem to indicate. Every element is in\nevery other, and we not only do not perceive with our senses any pure\nelements but not even any compounds of two elements only.[2098]\n\n[Sidenote: Enthusiasm for nature as God\u2019s work.]\n\nBasil is alive to the absorbing interest of the world of nature and\nto the marvelous intricacies of natural science. He tells his hearers\nthat as \u201canyone not knowing a town is taken by the hand and led through\nit,\u201d so he will guide them \u201cthrough the mysterious marvels of this\ngreat city of the universe.\u201d[2099] As he had said in the preceding\nhomily, \u201cA single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all\nyour intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced\nit.\u201d[2100] He sees \u201cgreat wisdom in small things.\u201d[2101] Thus by the\nargument from design he is apt to work back from nature to the Creator,\nso that his enthusiasm cannot be regarded as purely scientific. Going a\nstep farther than Galen\u2019s argument from design, he contends that \u201cnot\na single thing has been created without reason; not a single thing is\nuseless.\u201d[2102]\n\n[Sidenote: Sin and nature.]\n\nBasil also cherishes the notion, which we have already found both in\npagan and Christian writers, that human sin leaves its stain or has its\neffect upon nature. The rose was without thorns before the fall of man,\nand their addition to its beauty serves to remind us that \u201csorrow is\nvery near to pleasure.\u201d[2103]\n\n[Sidenote: Habits of animals.]\n\nBasil discusses the habits of animals largely in order to draw moral\nlessons from them for human beings and he has several passages in the\nstyle supposed to be characteristic of the _Physiologus_. But he also\nrefers in a number of places to the ability of animals to find remedies\nwith which to cure themselves of ailments and injuries, or to their\npower of divining the future. The sea-urchin foretells storms; sheep\nand goats discern danger by instinct alone. The starling eats hemlock\nand digests it \u201cbefore its chill can attack the vital parts\u201d; and the\nquail is able to feed on hellebore. The wounded bear nurses himself,\nfilling his wounds with mullein, an astringent plant; \u201cthe fox heals\nhis wounds with droppings from the pine tree\u201d; the tortoise counteracts\nthe venom of the vipers it has eaten by means of the herb marjoram; and\n\u201cthe serpent heals sore eyes by eating fennel.\u201d[2104]\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels of nature.]\n\nIndeed, far from being led by his acquaintance with Greek science into\ndoubting the marvelous, Basil finds \u201cin nature a thousand reasons for\nbelieving in the marvelous.\u201d[2105] He is ready to ascribe astounding\npowers to animals, and believes, like Pliny, that \u201cthe greatest\nvessels, sailing with full sails, are easily stopped by a tiny\nfish.\u201d[2106] He tells us that nature endowed the lion with such loud\nand forceful vocal organs \u201cthat often much swifter animals are caught\nby his roaring alone.\u201d[2107] He also repeats in charming style the\nfamiliar story of the halcyon days. The halcyon lays its eggs along the\nshore in mid-winter when violent winds dash the waves against the land.\nYet winds are hushed and waves are calm during the seven days that the\nhalcyon sits, and then, after its young are hatched and in need of\nfood, \u201cGod in his munificence grants another seven days to this tiny\nanimal. All sailors know this and call these days halcyon days.\u201d[2108]\n\n[Sidenote: Spontaneous generation.]\n\nLike most ancient scientists, Basil believes that some animals are\nspontaneously generated. \u201cMany birds have no need of union with males\nto conceive,\u201d a circumstance which should make it easy for us to\nbelieve in the Virgin birth of Christ.[2109] Grasshoppers and other\nnameless insects and sometimes frogs and mice are \u201cborn from the earth\nitself,\u201d and \u201cmud alone produces eels,\u201d[2110] a theory not much more\namazing than the assertion of modern biologists that eels spawn only in\nthe Mediterranean Sea. Basil states that \u201cin the environs of Thebes in\nEgypt after abundant rain in hot weather the country is covered with\nfield mice,\u201d but without noting that abundant rain in upper Egypt in\nhot weather would itself be in the nature of a miracle.\n\n[Sidenote: Lack of scientific scepticism.]\n\nBasil is less sceptical than Apollonius of Tyana in regard to the\nbirth of lions and of vipers, repeating unquestioningly the statement\nthat the viper gnaws its way out of its mother\u2019s womb, and that\nthe lioness bears only one whelp because it tears her with its\nclaws.[2111] Of purely scientific scepticism there is, indeed, little\nin the _Hexaemeron_. Basil does, however, question one of the powers\nascribed to magicians, and this is his only mention of the magic art.\nDiscussing the immense size of the moon and its great influence upon\nterrestrial nature, he declares ridiculous the old-wives\u2019 tales which\nhave been circulated everywhere that magic incantations \u201ccan remove the\nmoon from its place and make it descend to the earth.\u201d[2112]\n\n[Sidenote: Sun worship and astrology.]\n\nSun worship still existed in Basil\u2019s time and he hails the fact that\nthe sun was not created until the fourth day, after both light and\nvegetation were in existence, as a severe blow to those who reverence\nthe sun as the source of life.[2113] However, he does \u201cnot pretend to\nbe able to separate light from the body of the sun.\u201d[2114] Theophilus\nin his earlier discussion of creation had stated, perhaps copying\nPhilo Judaeus, that the luminaries were not created until the fourth\nday, \u201cbecause God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of\nthe vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things\nwhich grow on earth are produced from the heavenly bodies\u201d\u2014which is,\nindeed, a fundamental hypothesis of astrology\u2014\u201cso as to exclude God.\nIn order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and\nseeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior\ncannot produce that which is prior.\u201d[2115] Basil does not make this\npoint against the rule of inferior creation by the heavenly bodies,\nbut in a succeeding homily he feels it necessary to devote several\nparagraphs[2116] to refutation of the \u201cvain science\u201d of casting\nnativities, which some persons have justified by the words of God\nconcerning sun, moon, and stars in the first chapter of _Genesis_,\n\u201cAnd let them be for signs.\u201d Basil questions if it be possible to\ndetermine the exact instant of birth, declares that to attribute to the\nconstellations and signs of the zodiac the characteristics of animals\nis to subject them to external influences, and defends human free\nwill in much the usual fashion. He is ready, however, to grant that\n\u201cthe variations of the moon do not take place without exerting great\ninfluence upon the organization of animals and of all living things,\u201d\nand that the moon makes \u201call nature participate in her changes.\u201d[2117]\n\n[Sidenote: Permanence of species.]\n\nBasil\u2019s utterances concerning the world of nature are not always\nconsistent. In describing the creation of vegetation he asserts that\nspecies are unchanging, affirming that \u201call which sprang from the\nearth in the first bringing forth is kept the same to our time, thanks\nto the constant reproduction of kind.\u201d[2118] Yet a few paragraphs\nlater we find him saying, \u201cIt has been observed that pines, cut down\nor even submitted to the action of fire, are changed into a forest\nof oaks.\u201d[2119] Nevertheless in the last homily he again asserts\nthat \u201cnature, once put in motion by divine command, ... keeps up the\nsuccession of kinds through resemblance to the last. Nature always\nmakes a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an\neagle, and preserving each animal by these uninterrupted successions\nshe transmits it to the end of all things. Animals do not see their\npeculiarities destroyed or effaced by any length of time; their nature,\nas though it had just been constituted, follows the course of ages\nforever young.\u201d[2120]\n\n[Sidenote: Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_.]\n\nConcerning Basil in conclusion we may say that while he can scarcely\nbe called much of a scientist, he is a pretty good scientist for a\npreacher. His knowledge of, and errors concerning, the world of nature\nwill probably compare quite as well with the science of his day as\nthose of most modern sermons will with the science of our days. His\noccasional flings at Greek philosophy are probably not to be taken too\nseriously. But what interests us rather more than Basil\u2019s attitude\nis that of his audience, curious concerning nature. Just as it is\nevident that many of them go to theaters and circuses, or play with\ndice, despite Basil\u2019s denunciation of the immoral songs of the stage\nand the evils of gambling; just so, we suspect, it was the attractive\nmorsels of Greek astronomy, botany, and zoology which he offered them\nthat induced them to come and listen further to his argument from\ndesign and his moral lessons based upon these natural phenomena. Nor\nwere they likely to observe his censure of incantations and nativities\nmore closely than his condemnation of theater and gaming. It would\nbe rash to infer that they always practiced what he preached. By\nthe same token, even if the church fathers had opposed scientific\ninvestigation\u2014and it hardly appears that they did\u2014they would probably\nhave been no more successful in checking it than they were in checking\nthe commerce of Constantinople, although \u201cS. Ambrose regards the gains\nof merchants as for the most part fraudulent, and S. Chrysostom\u2019s\nlanguage has been generally appealed to in a similar sense.\u201d[2121]\n\n[Sidenote: _The Medicine Chest_ of Epiphanius.]\n\nThe same recognition of an interest in nature on the part of his\naudience and the same appeal to their scientific curiosity, which\nwe have seen in Basil\u2019s sermons, is shown by Epiphanius of Cyprus\n(315-403) writing in 374-375 A.\u202fD.[2122] He calls his work against\nheresies the _Panarion_, or \u201cMedicine Chest,\u201d his idea being to\nprovide antidotes and healing herbs in the form of salubrious doctrine\nagainst the venom of heretics whose enigmas he compares to the bites\nof serpents or wild beasts. This metaphor is more or less adhered to\nthroughout the work, and particular heresies are compared to the asp,\nbasilisk, dipsas,[2123] buprestis,[2124] lizard, dog-fish or shark,\nmole, centipede, scorpion, and various vipers. We are further told of\nsubstances that drive away serpents, such as the herbs _dictamnon_,\n_abrotonum_, and _libanotis_, the gum _storax_,[2125] and the stone\n_gagates_. As his authorities in such matters Epiphanius states that he\nuses Nicander for the natures of beasts and reptiles, and for roots and\nplants Dioscorides, Pamphilus, Mithridates the king, Callisthenes and\nPhilo, Iolaos the Bithynian, Heraclides of Tarentum, and a number of\nother names.[2126]\n\n[Sidenote: Gems in the high priest\u2019s breastplate.]\n\nIf in his _Panarion_ Epiphanius makes use of ancient botany, medicine,\nand zoology for purposes of comparison, in his treatise on the twelve\ngems in the breastplate of the Hebrew high priest[2127] he perhaps\ngives an excuse and sets the fashion for the Christian medieval\n_Lapidaries_. This work was probably composed after the _Panarion_,\nand in the opinion of Fogginius even later than 392 A.\u202fD.[2128]\nThis treatise probably was better known in the middle ages than the\n_Panarion_, since the fullest version of it extant is the old Latin\none, while the Greek text which has survived seems only a very brief\nepitome. The Greek version, however, embodies a good deal of what\nis said concerning the gems themselves and their virtues, but omits\nentirely the long effort to identify each of the twelve stones with\none of the twelve tribes of Israel, which is left unfinished even in\nthe Latin version. Epiphanius shows himself rather chary in regard to\nsuch virtues attributed to gems as to calm storms, make men pacific,\nand confer the power of divination. He does not go so far as to omit\nthem entirely, but he usually qualifies them as the assertion of \u201cthose\nwho construct fables\u201d or \u201cthose who believe fables.\u201d It is without any\nsuch qualification, however, that he declares that the topaz,[2129]\nwhen ground on a physician\u2019s grindstone, although red itself, emits a\nwhite milky fluid, and, moreover, that as many vessels as one wishes\nmay be filled with this fluid without changing the appearance or shape\nor lessening the weight of the stone. Skilled physicians also attribute\nto this liquid a healing effect in eye troubles, in hydrophobia, and in\nthe case of those who have gone mad from eating grape-fish.\n\n[Sidenote: Some other gems.]\n\nEpiphanius mentions a few other gems than those in the high priest\u2019s\nbreastplate. Among these is the stone hyacinth[2130] which, when\nplaced upon live coals, extinguishes them without injury to itself\nand which is also beneficial to women in childbirth, and drives away\nphantasms. Certain varieties of it are found in the north among the\nbarbarous Scythians. The gems lie at the bottom of a deep valley which\nis inaccessible to men because walled in completely by mountains, and\nmoreover from the summits one cannot see into the valley because of a\ndark mist which covers it. How men ever became cognizant of the fact\nthat there are gems there may well be wondered but is a point which\nEpiphanius does not take into consideration. He simply tells us that\nwhen men are sent to obtain some of these stones, they skin sheep and\nhurl the carcasses into the valley where some of the gems adhere to the\nflesh. The odor of the raw meat then attracts the eagles, whose keener\nsight is perhaps able to penetrate the mist, although Epiphanius does\nnot say so, and they carry the carrion to their nests in the mountains.\nThe men watch where the eagles have taken the meat and go there and\nfind the gems which have been brought out with it. In the middle ages\nwe find this same story in a slightly different form told of Alexander\nthe Great on his expedition to India. Epiphanius has one thing to tell\nof India himself in connection with gems, which is that a temple of\nFather Liber (Bacchus) is located there which is said to have three\nhundred and sixty-five steps,\u2014all of sapphire.[2131]\n\n[Sidenote: The so-called _Physiologus_: problem of its origin.]\n\nThe problem of an early Christian work entitled _Physiologus_ is no\neasy one, although much has been written concerning it[2132] and more\nhas been taken for granted. For instance, one often meets such wild\nand sweeping statements as that \u201cthe name Physiologus\u201d was \u201cgiven to a\ncyclopedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds,\nbeasts, and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative\nsource of information on these matters and was translated into every\nEuropean tongue.\u201d[2133] My later treatment of medieval science will\nmake patent the inaccuracy of such a statement. But to return to the\nproblem of the origin of Physiologus. The original Greek text,[2134]\nwhich some would put back in the first half of the second century of\nour era, if it ever existed, is now lost, and its previous existence\nand character are inferred from numerous apparent citations of it,\npossible extracts from it, and what are taken to be imitations,\nabbreviations, amplifications, adaptations, and translations of it in\nother languages and of later date. Thus we have versions or fragments\nin Armenian,[2135] Syriac,[2136] Ethiopian,[2137] and Arabic;[2138]\na Greek text from medieval manuscripts, mostly of late date;[2139]\nvarious Latin versions in numerous manuscripts from the eighth century\non;[2140] in Old High German a prose translation of about 1000 A.\u202fD.\nand a poetical version later in the same language;[2141] and Bestiaries\nsuch as those of Philip of Thaon[2142] and William the Clerk[2143]\nin the Romance languages[2144] and other vernaculars.[2145] The\n_Physiologus_ has been thought to have originated in Alexandria because\nof its use of the Egyptian names for the months and because Clement\nof Alexandria and Origen are supposed to have made use of it. But it\nis difficult to determine whether the church fathers drew passages\nconcerning animals and nature from some such work or whether it was a\ncollection of passages from their writings upon such themes. Ahrens,\nwho thought he found the original form of the work in a Syriac _Book\nof the Things of Nature_,[2146] regarded Origen as its author. In a\nmedical manuscript at Vienna is a _Physiologus_ in Greek ascribed\nto Epiphanius of Cyprus,[2147] of whom we have just been treating,\nwhile we hear that Pope Gelasius at a synod of 496 condemned as\napocryphal a _Physiologus_ which was written by heretics and ascribed\nto Ambrose,[2148] who so closely duplicated the _Hexaemeron_ of\nBasil. A work on the natures of animals is also attributed to John\nChrysostom.[2149] I am not sure whether a _Physiologus_ ascribed\nto John the Scot in a tenth century Latin manuscript is the same\nwork.[2150]\n\n[Sidenote: Does the title apply to any one particular treatise?]\n\nThe _Physiologus_ is commonly described as a symbolic bestiary, in\nwhich the characteristics and properties of animals are accompanied\nby Christian allegories and instruction. Some have almost gone so far\nas to hold that any passages of this sort are evidence of an author\u2019s\nhaving employed the _Physiologus_, which some have held influenced\nthe middle ages more than any other book except the Bible. But\nPitra\u2019s point is well taken that the _Physiologus_ is one thing and\nthe allegorical interpretation thereof another. In the case of the\ndiscordant versions or fragments which he gathered and published from\ndifferent manuscripts, centuries, and languages, he noted one common\nfeature, that the allegorical interpretation was sharply separated\nfrom the extracts from _Physiologus_ and sometimes omitted entirely.\nThis is what one would naturally expect since a _physiologus_ is a\nnatural scientist on whose statements concerning this or that the\nallegorical interpretation is presumably based and added thereto. But\nthis suggests another difficulty in identifying _Physiologus_ as a\nsingle work. The abbreviations for the word in medieval manuscripts\nare very easily confused with those for philosophers or _phisici_\n(physical scientists), and just as medieval writers often cite what\nthe philosophers say or the _phisici_ say without having reference to\nany particular book, so may they not cite what _physiologi_ or even\n_physiologus_ says without having any particular writer in mind? In the\n_De bestiis_ ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor of the twelfth century\n_physici_ are cited[2151] as well as _Physiologus_. When Albertus\nMagnus states in the thirteenth century in his work on minerals\nthat the _physiologi_ have assigned very different causes for the\nmarvelous occult virtue in stones, he evidently simply alludes to the\nopinions of scientists in general and has no such work or works as the\nso-called _Physiologus_ in mind.[2152] This is also clearly the case\nin a fragment from the introduction to a Latin translation from the\nArabic of some treatise on the astrolabe, in which we find _phisiologi_\ncited as astronomical authorities.[2153] Furthermore, even in works\nwhich deal with the natures of animals and which either have the word\n_Physiologus_ in their titles or cite it now and then in the course of\ntheir texts, there exists such diversity that it becomes fairly evident\nnot only that it is impossible to deduce from them the list of animals\ntreated in the original _Physiologus_ or the details which it gave\nconcerning each, but also that it is highly probable that the title\n_Physiologus_ has been applied to different treatises which did not\nnecessarily have a common origin. Or at least the greatest liberties\nwere taken with the original text and title,[2154] so that the word\n_Physiologus_ came to apply less to any particular book, author, or\nauthority than to almost any treatment of animals in a certain style.\n\n[Sidenote: And to what sort of a treatise?]\n\nBut of what style? It has too often been assumed that theology\ndominated all medieval thought and that natural science was employed\nonly for purposes of religious symbolism. Of this general assumption\nthe _Physiologus_ has been seized upon as an apt illustration and\nit has been represented as a symbolic bestiary which influenced the\nmiddle ages more than any other book except the Bible[2155] and whose\nallegories accounted for the animal sculpture of the Gothic cathedrals\nand the strange or familiar beasts in the borders of the Bayeux\nTapestry, the margins of illuminated manuscripts, and so on and so\nforth.\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the\n_Physiologus_.]\n\nThe more recent scientific study of medieval art has largely dissipated\nthis latter notion. It has become evident that in the main medieval\nmen represented animals in art because they were fond of animals,\nnot because they were fond of allegories. Their art was natural, not\nsymbolic. They were, says M\u00e2le, \u201ccraftsmen who delighted in nature for\nits own sake, sometimes lovingly copying the living forms, sometimes\nplaying with them, combining and contorting them as they were led by\ntheir own caprice.\u201d St. Bernard, although \u201cthe prince of allegorists,\u201d\nsaw no sense in the animal sculptures in Romanesque cloisters and\ninveighed against them. In short, with the exception of the symbols of\nthe four evangelists, \u201cthere are few cases in which it is permissible\nto assign symbolic meaning to animal forms,\u201d and it is \u201cevident that\nthe fauna and flora of medieval art, natural or fantastic, have in\nmost cases a value that is purely decorative.\u201d \u201cTo sum up,\u201d concludes\nM\u00e2le, \u201cwe are of the opinion that the Bestiaries of which we hear so\nmuch from the archaeologists had no real influence on art until their\nsubstance passed into Honorius of Autun\u2019s book (_Speculum ecclesiae_,\nc. 1090-1120) and from that book into sermons. I have searched in vain\n(with but two exceptions) for representations of the hedgehog, beaver,\ntiger, and other animals which figure in the Bestiaries but which are\nnot mentioned by Honorius.\u201d[2156]\n\n[Sidenote: Physiologus was more natural scientist than allegorist.]\n\nThese assertions concerning medieval art hold true also to a large\nextent of medieval literature and medieval science, although they were\nperhaps less natural and original than it and more dependent on past\ntradition and authority. But medieval men, as we shall see, studied\nnature from scientific curiosity and not in search for spiritual\nallegories, and even Goldstaub recognizes that by the thirteenth\ncentury the scientific zoology of Aristotle submerged that of the\n_Physiologus_ in writers like Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9 and Albertus Magnus\nwho, although they may still embody portions of the _Physiologus_,\ndivest it of its characteristic religious elements.[2157] But were\nits characteristic elements ever religious? Were they not always\nscientific or pseudo-scientific? Ahrens holds that the title was taken\nfrom Aristotle in the first place, and that Pliny was the chief source\nfor the contents. The allegories do not appear in such early texts as\nthe Syriac version or the fragments preserved in the Latin Glossary\nof Ansileubus. Not even the introductory scriptural texts appear in\nthe Greek version ascribed to Epiphanius. Moreover, in the Bestiaries\nwhere the allegorical applications are included, it is for the natures\nof the animals, the supposedly scientific facts on which the symbolism\nis based, and for these alone that _Physiologus_ is cited in the text.\nThus the symbolism would appear to be somewhat adventitious, while\nthe pseudo-science is constant. It is obvious that the allegorical\napplications cannot do without the supposed facts concerning animals;\non the other hand, the supposedly scientific information can and\ndoes frequently dispense with the allegories. We do not know who was\nresponsible for the allegorical interpretations in the first instance.\nHommel would carry the origin of their symbolism back of the Christian\nera to the animal worship of Persia, India, and Egypt.[2158] But we are\nassured over and over again that Natural Scientist or _Physiologus_\nvouches for the statements concerning the natures of animals. Thus the\nsymbolic significance of the literature that has been grouped under the\ntitle _Physiologus_ has been exaggerated, while the respect for and\ninterest in natural science to which it testifies have too often been\nlost sight of.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nAUGUSTINE ON MAGIC AND ASTROLOGY\n\n Date and influence of Augustine\u2014Christianity and magic\u2014Censure of\n magic and theurgy as well as _Goetia_\u2014Magic due to demons\u2014Marvels\n wrought by magic\u2014Cannot be equalled by most Christians\u2014Miracles of\n heretics\u2014Theory of demons\u2014Limitations to the power of magic\u2014Its\n fantastic character\u2014Samuel and the witch of Endor\u2014Natural\n marvels\u2014Relation between magic and science\u2014Superstitions akin to\n magic\u2014Survival of pagan superstition among the laity\u2014Augustine\u2019s\n attack upon astrology\u2014Fate and free will\u2014Argument from twins\u2014Defense\n of the astrologers\u2014Elections\u2014Are animals and plants under the\n stars?\u2014Failure to disprove the control of nature by the stars\u2014Natural\n divination and prophetic visions\u2014The star at Christ\u2019s birth\u2014Nature of\n the stars\u2014Orosius on the Priscillianists and Origenists\u2014Augustine\u2019s\n letter\u2014Attitude toward astronomy\u2014Perfect numbers.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Date and influence of Augustine.]\n\nThe utterances of Augustine concerning magic and astrology have been\nreserved for separate treatment in this chapter, partly because of\nhis late date, 354 to 430 A.\u202fD., partly because of the voluminousness\nof his writings, but especially because of his approach to and\ninfluence upon the thought of the middle ages. It is, moreover, in\nhis epoch-making book, _The City of God_, which better than any other\nsingle event marks, or at least sums up, the transition from classical\nto medieval civilization, from the life of the ancient city to that of\nthe medieval church, that he descants with especial fulness upon magic,\ndemons, and astrology, although he often also refers to these themes\nin his other treatises, which we shall cite as well. I separate the\nwords, magic and astrology, here because Augustine, like most of the\nfathers, does so. Of Augustine\u2019s discussion of the Biblical account\nof creation in his _Confessions_ and _De Genesi ad litteram_ I shall\nnot treat, having already presented Basil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_ as an example\nof this type of work and of the Christian attitude toward natural\nscience.[2159] But later in treating of medieval writers on nature I\nmay have occasion to point out certain passages in which they may have\nbeen influenced by Augustine.\n\n[Sidenote: Christianity and magic.]\n\nEven though writing in the fifth century Augustine still finds it\nnecessary to defend Christ against those who imagine that He has\nconverted peoples to Himself by means of the magic art.[2160] And he\ntells us of books of magic which are ascribed to Christ Himself or\nto the apostles Peter and Paul.[2161] In reply to such charges or\nassertions he insists that Christians have nothing to do with magic,\nand that their miracles \u201cwere wrought by simple confidence and devout\nfaith, not by incantations and spells compounded by an art of depraved\ncuriosity.\u201d[2162] And he brings the counter-charge against Roman\nreligion that King Numa, its founder, learned its secrets and sacred\nrites by means of hydromancy or necromancy.[2163] He admits, however,\nthat condemnation of magic and legislation against it had begun before\nChristianity.[2164]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and theurgy censured as well as _Goetia_.]\n\nAugustine uniformly speaks of magic with censure and several times\nadverts to \u201cthe crimes of magicians.\u201d[2165] He speaks, however, of\n_goetia_ or sorcery as \u201ca more detestable name\u201d than _magia_ and of\n\u201ctheurgy\u201d as \u201can honorable name.\u201d He also states that some persons draw\na distinction between the _malefici_ or sorcerers or practitioners of\n_goetia_, whom they call truly guilty of illicit arts and deserving\nof condemnation, and those who practice theurgy, whom they call\npraiseworthy. Porphyry, for instance, had stated that theurgy was\nuseful to purge the soul and prepare it to receive spirits and to\nsee God. Augustine, however, holds that in other passages Porphyry\ncondemned theurgy, and in any case he himself refuses to sanction\nit.[2166] He stoutly denies that \u201csouls are purged and reconciled to\nGod through sacrilegious likenesses and impious curiosity and magic\nconsecrations.\u201d[2167] Very possibly Augustine would have classed as\nimproper theurgy some of the use of powerful names described by Origen.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic due to demons.]\n\nAt any rate Augustine declares that theurgists and sorcerers alike \u201care\nentangled in the deceitful rites of demons who may masquerade under the\nnames of angels.\u201d[2168] For it is to demons that Augustine, like most\nof our Christian writers, attributes both the origin and the success of\nmagic. The demons are enticed by men to work marvels, not by offerings\nof food, as if they were animals, but by symbols which conform to the\nindividual taste of each as a spirit, namely, various stones, plants,\ntrees, animals, incantations, and ceremonies,[2169]\u2014a good brief\nsummary of the materials and methods of magic. Augustine believes that\nthe spirits had first to instruct men what rites to perform and by what\nnames to call them in order to summon them.\n\n[Sidenote: Marvels wrought by magic.]\n\nBut when once the demons have revealed their secrets, henceforth the\ncharms of the magic art have efficacy. Of the marvels worked by means\nof magic Augustine has little doubt; to deny them would indeed in his\nopinion be to deny the truth of the Scriptures, to whose accounts of\nPharaoh\u2019s magicians,[2170] the witch of Endor, and the Magi and the\nstar, he adverts many times in his various works. If actors in the\ntheater and performers in spectacles are able by art and exercise to\ndisplay astounding alterations in the appearance of their earthly\nbodies, why may not the demons with their aerial bodies produce\nmarvelous changes in elementary substances or by occult influence\nconstruct phantom images to delude human senses?[2171] Augustine even\ngrants that the magicians are able to terrify the inferior spirits into\nobedience to their commands by adjuring them by the names of superior\nspirits, and thereby with divine permission \u201cto exhibit to the eye of\nsense certain results which seem great and marvelous to men who through\nweakness of the flesh are incapable of beholding things eternal.\u201d He\ndoes not regard this as inconsistent with the assertion of Jesus that\nSatan cannot cast out Satan, since while it may be that thus demons are\nexpelled from sick bodies, the evil one thereby only the more surely\ntakes possession of the soul.[2172]\n\n[Sidenote: Cannot be equalled by most Christians.]\n\nAugustine further grants that magicians, although stained with crime,\ncan at present work miracles which most Christians and even most saints\ncannot perform. For this, however, he finds Scriptural precedent.\nPharaoh\u2019s magicians performed feats which none of the Children of\nIsrael could equal except Moses who excelled them by divine aid.\nAugustine, like earlier fathers, usually fails to mention Aaron in this\nconnection.[2173] This superiority of magicians to most Christians\nin working marvels Augustine believes is divinely ordained so that\nChristians may remain humble and practice works of justice rather than\nseek to perform miracles. Magicians seek their own glory; the saints\nstrive only for the glory of God. And the more marvelous are the feats\nof magic, the more Christians should shun them; the greater the power\nof the demons, the closer Christians should cling to that Mediator who\nalone can raise men from the lowest depths.[2174]\n\n[Sidenote: Miracles of heretics.]\n\nLike Origen, Augustine further distinguishes the miracles wrought by\nheretics both from magic and from the miracles of true Christians. He\nholds that every soul in part controls itself and exercises as it were\na private jurisdiction, in part is subject to the laws of the universe\njust as any citizen is amenable to public jurisdiction. Therefore\nmagicians perform their marvels by private contracts with demons; good\nChristians perform theirs by public justice; bad Christians perform\ntheirs by the appearance or signs of public justice.[2175] This view\nwould seem to indicate that God, like the demons, regards the signs\nalone and not the character and purpose of the performer, so that\nChristian miracles, if they can be duplicated by heretics, would appear\nto be largely a matter of procedure and art, like magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of demons.]\n\nFor his theory of demons and their characteristics Augustine seems\nlargely indebted to Apuleius, whom he cites in several chapters of the\neighth and ninth books of _The City of God_. In his separate treatise,\n_The Divination of Demons_,[2176] he explains their ability to predict\nthe future and to perform marvels by the keenness of their sense, their\nrapidity of movement, their long experience of nature and life, and\nthe subtlety of their aerial bodies. This last quality enables them to\npenetrate human bodies or affect the thoughts of men without men being\naware of their presence. Augustine, however, of course does not believe\nthat the world of nature is completely under the control of the demons.\nGod alone created it and He still governs it, and the demons are able\nto do only as much as He permits.[2177]\n\n[Sidenote: Limitations to the power of magic.]\n\nThere were, for example, some things which Pharaoh\u2019s magicians could\nnot do and in which Moses clearly excelled them. They were able to\nchange their rods into snakes but his snake devoured theirs. How the\nmagicians got their rods back, if at all, neither Augustine nor the\nBook of Exodus informs us. But whether with or without their magic\nwands, they were still able to duplicate one or two of the plagues\nsent upon Egypt. Augustine explains that neither they nor the demons\nwho helped them really created snakes and frogs, but that there are\ncertain seeds of life hidden away in the elemental bodies of this\nworld of which they made use. But their magic failed them when it came\nto the reproduction of minute insects.[2178] Augustine furthermore has\nsome hesitation about accepting the stories of magic transformations\nof men into animals, which he represents as current in his own day as\nwell as in times past, so that certain female inn-keepers in Italy are\nsaid to transform travelers into beasts of burden by a magic potion\nadministered in the cheese, just as Circe transformed the companions of\nUlysses and as Apuleius says happened to himself in the book that he\nwrote under the title, _The Golden Ass_. These stories, in Augustine\u2019s\nopinion, \u201care either false or such uncommon occurrences that they are\njustly discredited.\u201d[2179] He does not believe that demons can truly\ntransform the human body into the limbs and lineaments of beasts, but\nthe strange personal experiences of reliable persons have convinced him\nthat men are deceived by dreams, hallucinations, and fantastic images.\n\n[Sidenote: Its fantastic character.]\n\nThus, as we have already seen over and over again, the fantastic and\ndeceptive character of magic is dimly realized. Usually, however, when\nAugustine represents \u201cthe powers of the air\u201d as deceiving men by magic,\nthe deceit consists merely in the magicians\u2019 imagining that they are\nworking the marvels which are really performed by demons, or in men\nbeing lured into subjection to Satan and to their ultimate and eternal\ndamnation through the attractions of the magic art.[2180]\n\n[Sidenote: Samuel and the witch of Endor.]\n\nAugustine twice responded to questions concerning the witch of Endor\u2019s\napparent invocation of the spirit of Samuel, repeating in his _De octo\nDulcitii quaestionibus_[2181] what he had already said in _De diversis\nquaestionibus ad Simplicianum_.[2182] In certain respects Augustine\u2019s\ntreatment of the problem differs from those which we have previously\nexamined. What, he asks, if the impure spirit which possessed the\n_pythonissa_ was able to raise the very soul of Samuel from the\ndead? Is it not much more strange that Satan was allowed to converse\npersonally with God concerning the tempting of Job, and to raise the\nvery Christ aloft upon a pinnacle of the temple? Why then may not the\nsoul of Samuel have appeared to Saul, not unwillingly and coerced by\nmagic power but voluntarily under some hidden divine dispensation?\nAugustine, however, also thinks it possible that the soul of Samuel\ndid not appear but was impersonated by some phantasm and imaginary\nillusion made by diabolical machinations. He can see no deceit in the\nScripture\u2019s calling such a phantom Samuel, since we are accustomed to\ncall paintings, statues, and images seen in dreams by the names of\nthe actual persons whom they represent. Nor does it trouble him that\nthe spirit of Samuel or pretended spirit predicted truly to Saul, for\ndemons have a limited power of that sort. Thus they recognized Christ\nwhen the Jews knew Him not, and the damsel possessed of a spirit of\ndivination in _The Acts_ testified to Paul\u2019s divine mission. Augustine\nleaves, however, as beyond the limits of his time and strength the\nfurther problem whether the human soul after death can be so evoked\nby magic incantations that it is not only seen but recognized by the\nliving. In his answer to Dulcitius he further calls attention to the\npassage in _Ecclesiasticus_ (XLVI, 23) where Samuel is praised as\nprophesying from the dead. And if this passage be rejected because\nthe book is not in the Hebrew canon, what shall we say of Moses who\nappeared to the living long after his death?\n\n[Sidenote: Natural marvels.]\n\nAugustine had some acquaintance with ancient natural science and in one\npassage rehearses a number of natural marvels which are found in the\npages of Pliny and Solinus in order to show pagans their inconsistency\nin accepting such wonders and yet remaining incredulous in regard to\nanalogous phenomena mentioned in the Bible. So Augustine rehearses the\nstrange properties of the magnet; asserts that adamant can be broken\nneither by steel nor fire but only by application of the blood of a\ngoat; tells of Cappadocian mares who conceive from the wind; and hails\nthe ability of the salamander to live in the midst of flames as a token\nthat the bodies of sinners can subsist in hell fire. Augustine also\nadmits \u201cthe virtue of stones and other objects and the craft of men\nwho employ these in marvelous ways.\u201d[2183] He denies, however, that\nthe Marsi who charm snakes by their incantations are really understood\nby the serpents. There is some diabolical force behind their magic, as\nwhen Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent.[2184]\n\n[Sidenote: Relation between magic and science.]\n\nOnce at least, however, Augustine associates science and magic. In his\n_Confessions_, after speaking of sensual pleasure he also censures \u201cthe\nvain and curious desire of investigation\u201d through the senses, which is\n\u201cpalliated under the name of knowledge and science.\u201d This is apt to\nlead one not only into scrutinizing secrets of nature which are beyond\none and which it does one no good to know and which men want to know\njust for the sake of knowledge, but also \u201cinto searching through magic\narts into the confines of perverse science.\u201d[2185]\n\n[Sidenote: Superstitions akin to magic.]\n\nOf this dangerous borderland between magic and science Augustine\nhas more to say in some chapters of his _Christian Doctrine_.[2186]\nAfter mentioning as prime instances of human superstition idolatry,\nother false religions, and the magic arts, he next lists the books of\nsoothsayers (_aruspices_) and augurs as of the same class, \u201cthough\nseemingly a more permissible vanity.\u201d In his _Confessions_,[2187]\nhowever, he tells of a soothsayer who offered not only to consult\nthe future for him, but to insure him success in a poetical contest\nin which he was to engage in the theater. The incident is a good\nillustration of the fact that prediction of the future and attempting\nto influence events go naturally together, and that arts of divination\ncannot be separated either in theory or practice from magic arts.\nIn the _Christian Doctrine_ Augustine is inclined further to put in\nthe same class all use of invocations, incantations, and characters,\nwhich he regards as signs implying pacts with evil spirits, and the\nuse of which in working cures he asserts is condemned by the medical\nprofession. He is also suspicious of ligatures and suspensions, and\nstates that it is one thing to say, \u201cIf you drink the juice of this\nherb, your stomach will not ache,\u201d and is another thing to say, \u201cIf you\nsuspend this herb from the neck, your stomach will not ache. For in\none case a healing application is worthy of approval, in the other a\nsuperstitious signification is to be censured.\u201d Augustine recognizes,\nhowever, that such ligatures and suspensions are called \u201cby the milder\nname of natural remedies (_physica_)\u201d; and if they are applied without\nincantations or characters, possibly they may heal the body naturally\nby mere attachment, in which case it is lawful to employ them. But they\nmay involve some signal to demons, in which case the more efficacious\nthey are, the more a Christian should avoid them.\n\n[Sidenote: Survival of pagan superstition among the laity.]\n\nThe same attitude toward superstitious medicine is shown in a sermon\nattributed to Augustine but probably spurious.[2188] Here a tempter\nis represented as coming to the sick man and saying, \u201cIf you had\nonly employed that enchanter, you would be well now; if you would\nattach these characters to your body, you could recover your health.\u201d\nOr another comes and says, \u201cSend your girdle to that diviner; he\nwill measure and scrutinize it and tell you what to do and whether\nyou can recover.\u201d Or a third visitor may recommend someone who is\nskilled in fumigation. The preacher warns his hearers not to succumb\nto such advice or they will be sacrificing to the devil; whereas if\nthey refuse such treatment and die, it will be a glorious martyr\u2019s\ndeath. The preacher, however, is not over-sanguine that his advice\nwill be heeded, as he has often before admonished his hearers against\npagan superstitions, and yet reports keep coming to him that some\nare continuing such practices. He therefore \u201cwarns them again and\nagain\u201d to forsake all diviners, _aruspices_, enchanters, phylacteries,\naugury, and observance of days, or they will lose all benefit of the\nsacrament of baptism and will be eternally damned unless they perform\na vast amount of penance. The observance of days other than the\nLord\u2019s Day is here condemned on the ground that God made the other\nsix days without distinction. In another supposititious sermon[2189]\nthe practice of diligently observing on which day of the week to set\nout on a journey is censured as equivalent to worshiping the planets,\nor rather the pagan gods whose names they bear and who are said here\nto have originally been bad men and women who lived at the time that\nthe Children of Israel were in Egypt. The preacher is even opposed to\nnaming the days of the week after such persons or planets and exhorts\nhis hearers to speak simply of the first day, second day, and so on.\n\n[Sidenote: Augustine\u2019s attack upon astrology.]\n\nNor will Augustine, to return to his remarks in the _Christian\nDoctrine_,[2190] exempt \u201cfrom this genus of pernicious superstition\nthose who are called _genethliaci_ from their consideration of natal\ndays and now are also popularly termed _mathematici_.\u201d He holds\nthat they enslave human free will by predicting a man\u2019s character\nand life from the stars, and that their art is a presumptuous and\nfallacious human invention, and that if their predictions come\ntrue, this is due either to chance or to demons who wish to confirm\nmankind in its error.[2191] In his youth, when a follower of the\nManichean sect, Augustine had been a believer in astrology and thereby\n\u201csacrificed himself to demons\u201d at the same time that, owing to his\nManichean scruples against animal sacrifice, he refused to employ a\n_haruspex_.[2192] Perhaps on this account he felt the more bound to\nwarn his readers against astrology in his old age. He often attacks\nthe casters of horoscopes in his works and especially in the opening\nchapters of the fifth book of _The City of God_, on which we may\ncenter our attention as being a rather more elaborate discussion than\nthe other passages and including almost all the arguments which he\nadvances elsewhere. These arguments are not original with him, but his\npresentation of them was perhaps better known in the middle ages than\nany other.[2193]\n\n[Sidenote: Fate and free will.]\n\nThe objection to astrology as fatalistic does not come with the best\ngrace from Augustine, the great advocate of divine prescience and\nof predestination, and in his discussion in _The City of God_ he is\nforced to recognize this fact. He holds that the world is not governed\nby chance or by fate, a word which for most men means the force of\nthe constellations, but by divine providence. He starts to accuse the\nastrologers of attributing to the spotless stars, or to the God whose\norders the stars obediently execute, the causing of human sin and evil;\nbut then recognizes that the astrologers will answer that the stars\nsimply signify and in no way cause evil, just as God foresees but does\nnot compel human sinfulness.\n\n[Sidenote: Argument from twins.]\n\nThus thwarted in his attempt to show that the astrologers enslave the\nhuman will, although in other passages he still gives us to understand\nthat they do,[2194] Augustine adopts another line of argument, that\nfrom twins, an old favorite, which he twists first one way and then\nanother, proposing to the astrologers a series of dilemmas as he\nfinds them likely to escape from each preceding one. He seems to have\nbeen much impressed by the thought that at the same instant and hence\nwith the same horoscope persons were born whose subsequent lives\nand characters were different. He brings forward Esau and Jacob as\nexamples, and states that he himself has known of twins of dissimilar\nsex and life. Moreover, he tells us in his _Confessions_ that he was\nfinally induced to abandon his study of the books of the astrologers,\nfrom which the arguments of \u201cVindicianus, a keen old man, and of\nNebridius, a youth of remarkable intellect,\u201d had failed to win him, by\nhearing from another youth that his father, a man of wealth and rank,\nhad been born at precisely the same moment as a certain wretched slave\non the estate.[2195]\n\n[Sidenote: Defense of the astrologers.]\n\nBut the astrologers reply that even twins are not born at precisely the\nsame instant and do not have the same horoscope, but are born under\ndifferent constellations, so rapidly do the heavens revolve, as the\nastrologer Nigidius Figulus neatly illustrated by striking a rapidly\nrevolving potter\u2019s wheel two successive blows as quickly as he could\nin what appeared to be the same spot. But when the wheel was stopped\nand examined, the two marks were found to be far apart. Augustine\u2019s\ncounter argument is that if astrologers must take into account such\nsmall intervals of time, their observations and predictions can never\nattain sufficient accuracy to insure correct prediction; and that\nif so brief an instant of time is sufficient to alter the horoscope\ntotally, then twins should not be as much alike as they are nor have\nas much in common as they do,\u2014for instance, falling ill and recovering\nsimultaneously. To this the astrologers are likely to respond that\ntwins are alike because conceived at the same instant, but somewhat\ndissimilar in their life because of the difference in their times of\nbirth. Augustine retorts that if two persons conceived simultaneously\nin the same womb may be born at different times and have different\nfates after birth, he sees no reason why persons who are born of\ndifferent mothers at the same instant with the same horoscope may\nnot die at different dates and lead different lives. But he does\nnot recognize that very likely the astrologers would agree with him\nin this, since they often held that the influence of the stars was\nreceived variously by matter. He also asks why a certain sage is\nsaid to have selected a certain hour for intercourse with his wife in\norder to beget a marvelous son\u2014possibly an inaccurate allusion to the\nstory of Nectanebus[2196]\u2014unless the hour of conception controls the\nhour of birth, and consequently twins conceived together must have the\nsame horoscope. He also objects that if twins fall sick at the same\ntime because of their simultaneous conception, they should not be of\nopposite sex as sometimes happens.\n\n[Sidenote: Elections.]\n\nWith this Augustine turns from the case of twins to urge the\ninconsistency of the astrological doctrine of elections, suggested by\nthe story of the sage who chose the favorable moment for intercourse\nwith his wife. He holds that this practice of choosing favorable times\nis inconsistent with the belief in nativities which are supposed to\nhave determined and predicted the individual\u2019s fate already. He also\ninquires why men choose certain days for setting out trees and shrubs\nor breeding animals, if men alone are subject to the constellations.\n\n[Sidenote: Are animals and plants under the stars]\n\nThis last clause indicates how exclusively Augustine\u2019s attacks are\ndirected against the prediction of man\u2019s life from the stars, and how\nlittle he has to say regarding the stars\u2019 control of the world of\nnature in general. He now goes on to consider this latter possibility,\nbut interprets it too in the narrow sense of horoscope-casting, and\nas implying that every herb and beast must have its fate absolutely\ndetermined by the constellations at its moment of birth. This appears,\nhowever, to have been a widespread belief then, since he tells us that\nmen are accustomed to test the skill of astrologers by submitting to\nthem the horoscopes of dumb animals, and that the best astrologers\nare able not only to recognize that the reported constellations mark\nthe birth of a beast rather than that of a human being, but also\nto state whether it was a horse, cow, dog, or sheep. Nevertheless,\nAugustine feels that he has reduced the art of casting horoscopes to\nan absurdity, as he feels sure that beasts and plants which are so\nnumerous must frequently be born at precisely the same instant as\nhuman beings. Furthermore, it is plain that crops which are sown and\nripen simultaneously meet with very diverse fates in the end. Augustine\nthinks that by this argument he will force the astrologers to say that\nmen alone are subject to the stars, and then he will triumphantly ask\nhow this can be, when God has endowed man alone of all creatures with\nfree will. Having thus argued more or less in a circle, Augustine\nregains the point from which he had started, or rather, retreated.\n\n[Sidenote: Failure to disprove the control of nature by the stars.]\n\nAugustine cannot then be said to have advanced any telling arguments\nagainst some sort of control of inferior nature by the motions\nand influence of the heavenly bodies. He leaves the fundamental\nhypothesis of astrology unrebutted. His attention is concentrated\nupon genethlialogy, the superstition that the time and place of birth\nand nothing else determine with mathematical certainty and mechanical\nrigidity the entirety of one\u2019s life. This seems nevertheless to have\nbeen a superstition which was very much alive in his time, which he\nfelt he must take pains repeatedly to refute, and to which he himself\nhad once been in bondage. But he could not have studied the books of\nthe astrologers very deeply, as he ascribes views to them which many of\nthem did not hold. Also he seems never to have read the _Tetrabiblos_\nof Ptolemy. His attack upon and criticism of astrology was therefore\nnarrow, partial, and inadequate, and did not prevent medieval men\nfrom devoting themselves to that subject, although they might cite\nhis objections against ascribing to the constellations an influence\nsubversive of human free will. But he cannot be said to have admitted\nthe control of the stars over the world of nature. Apparently the most\nthat he was willing to concede was that it was not absurd to say that\nthe influence of the stars might produce changes in material things, as\nin the varying seasons of the year caused by the sun\u2019s course and the\nalternating augmentation and diminution of tides and shell-fish due, as\nhe supposed, to the moon\u2019s phases. He concludes his discussion of the\nsubject in _The City of God_ by saying that, all things considered, if\nthe astrologers make many marvelously true predictions, they do so by\nthe aid and inspiration of the demons and not by the art of noting and\ninspecting horoscopes, which has no sound basis.\n\n[Sidenote: Natural divination and prophetic visions.]\n\nIn another work Augustine tells of some young men who, while traveling,\nas a boyish prank pretended to be astrologers and either by mere chance\nor by natural and innate power of divination hit upon the truth in the\npredictions which they supposed that they were inventing. In the same\ncontext he proceeds to discuss in a credulous way the possibility of\nmarvelous prophetic visions, concerning which he tells one or two other\ntall tales from his personal experience. He is, however, doubtful how\nfar the human soul itself possesses the power of divination, which he\nis inclined to attribute rather to spirits, good or bad. But owing to\nSatan\u2019s ability in disguising himself as an angel of light it is often\nvery difficult to tell to which sort of spirit to ascribe the vision in\nquestion.[2197]\n\n[Sidenote: The star at Christ\u2019s birth.]\n\nIn Augustine\u2019s time there were those who held that Christ Himself had\nbeen \u201cborn under the decree of the stars,\u201d because of the statement in\nthe Gospel according to Matthew that the Magi had seen His star in the\neast. Of this matter Augustine treats in several of his works.[2198]\nHe denies that this would be true even if other men were subject to\nthe fatal influence of the stars, which he denies as usual on the\nground of free will. He contends that the star was not one of the\nplanets or constellations but a special creation, since it did not\nkeep to a regular course or orbit, but came to where the child lay.\nBut how did the Magi know that it was the star of Christ when they saw\nit in the east, unless by astrology? Augustine can only suggest that\nthis was revealed to them by spirits, whether good or bad he does not\nknow.[2199] Augustine further affirms that the star did not cause\nChrist to live a marvelous life, but Christ caused the star to make its\nmarvelous appearance. \u201cFor, when born of a mother, He showed earth a\nnew star in the sky, Who, when born of the Father, formed both heaven\nand earth.\u201d And, \u201cwhen He is born, new light is revealed in a star;\nwhen He dies, old light is veiled in the sun.\u201d But these rhetorical\nflourishes and antitheses seem to attest rather than dispute the\nsignificance of celestial phenomena, so that Augustine cannot be said\nto have answered the astrological contention anent Christ\u2019s birth very\nsatisfactorily.\n\n[Sidenote: Nature of the stars.]\n\nThe problem of the nature of the stars is one which Augustine\nprefers to leave unsolved, although it comes up several times in his\nwritings.[2200] Whether they are simply lucid bodies without sense or\nintelligence, as some think; or have happy intellectual souls of their\nown, as Plato taught; whether they are to be classed with the Seats,\nDominions, Principalities, and Powers of whom the apostle speaks; and\nwhether they are ruled and animated by spirits: all these are questions\nwhich Augustine puts, but concerning whose answers he feels uncertain.\nHis fullest discussion of the matter is in a letter against the\nPriscillianists to which we now come.\n\n[Sidenote: Orosius on the Priscillianists and Origenists.]\n\nAn interchange of letters between Augustine and his Spanish\ndisciple Orosius deals with the error of the Priscillianists and\nOrigenists.[2201] Nothing is said to convict them of magic, which\nwas, however, the charge on which Priscillian was put to death,\nbut astrological tenets are ascribed to them. Orosius states that\nPriscillian taught that the soul was born of God and instructed by\nangels, but that it descended through certain circles of the heavens\nand was caught by evil principalities and thrust into different\nbodies; and that it remained subject to _Mathesis_ or the laws of\nastrology until Christ set it free by His passion on the cross. Like\nthe astrologers, continues Orosius, Priscillian associated the signs\nof the zodiac with the different members of the human body, Aries and\nthe head, Taurus and the neck, and so on;[2202] and he also taught that\nthe names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes were \u201cmembers of the\nsoul,\u201d Reuben in the head, Judah in the breast, Levi in the heart, and\nso on. Orosius adds that the Origenists regard the sun, moon, and stars\nnot as elemental luminaries but as rational powers; and we have seen\nthat Origen himself did so.\n\n[Sidenote: Augustine\u2019s letter.]\n\nAugustine in his reply states that we can see that the sun, moon, and\nstars are celestial bodies, but not that they are animated. He agrees\nfirmly with Paul that there are Seats, Dominions, Principalities,\nand Powers in the heavens, \u201cbut I do not know what they are or what\nthe difference is between them.\u201d On the whole, Augustine is inclined\nto regard this state of ignorance as a blissful one. He is somewhat\ntroubled by the verses in the Book of Job, \u201cHow shall man be just in\nthe sight of God, or how shall one born of woman purify himself? If\nHe commands the moon and it does not shine, and if the stars are not\npure before Him, how much more is man rottenness and the son of man a\nworm?\u201d From this passage the Priscillianists infer that the stars have\na rational spirit and are not free from sin, yet are placed in the\nheaven because their fault is less than that of sinful mankind. Origen\ntoo had argued, \u201cIf the stars are living and rational beings, there\nwill undoubtedly appear among them both an advance and a falling back.\nFor the language of Job, \u2018the stars are not clean in His sight,\u2019 seems\nto me to convey some such idea.\u201d[2203] Augustine evades this difficulty\nby questioning whether this passage is to be received as of divine\nauthority, since it is uttered by one of Job\u2019s comforters and not by\nJob himself, of whom alone it is said that he had not sinned with his\nlips against God.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude towards astronomy.]\n\nSo set is Augustine against astrology that he even holds that\nChristians may well leave the subject of astronomy alone, \u201cbecause it\nis related to the most pernicious error of those who utter a fatuous\nfatalism,\u201d although he recognizes that there is nothing superstitious\nin predicting the future positions of the stars themselves from\nknowledge of their past movements. But except that to know the course\nof the moon is useful in determining the date of Easter, knowledge\nof the stars is of little or no help in interpreting the divine\nScriptures.[2204] In another passage Augustine is somewhat perturbed\nby the assertion of astronomers that there are many stars equal to or\ngreater than the sun in size, but which seem smaller because they are\nfarther off,\u2014an assertion which seems to conflict with the statement of\nGenesis that in creating the sun and moon \u201cGod made two great lights.\u201d\nAugustine, however, does not stop to contest the point at length but\nleaves it with the excuse that Christians have many better and more\nserious matters to occupy their time than such subtle investigations\nconcerning the relative magnitude of the stars and the intervals of\nspace between them.[2205]\n\n[Sidenote: Perfect numbers.]\n\nAugustine himself, however, was not above occupying his readers\u2019 time\nwith discussion of the occult significance of numbers, towards belief\nin which he shows himself inclined. Six was a perfect number in his\nestimation, since God had created the world in six days, although He\nmight have taken less or more time; and the Psalmist made no idle\nremark in saying that the Deity had ordered all things according to\nmeasure, number, and weight. Also six is the first number which can\nbe obtained from adding together its factors: one, two, and three.\nAugustine was going on to say that seven was also a perfect number,\nwhen he checked himself lest he digress at too great length and seem\n\u201ctoo eager to display his smattering of science.\u201d Hence he merely\nadded that one indication of seven\u2019s perfection was its composition\nof the first complete odd number, three, and the first complete even\nnumber, four.[2206] It is therefore not surprising to find ascribed to\nAugustine a sermon on the correspondence between the ten plagues of\nEgypt and the ten commandments which opens by remarking that it is not\nwithout cause that the number of precepts in God\u2019s law is the same as\nthe number of plagues with which Egypt was afflicted.[2207]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n THE FUSION OF PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH\n CENTURIES\n\n Need of qualifying the patristic attitude\u2014Plan of this chapter\u2014Julius\n Firmicus Maternus\u2014Date of the _Mathesis_\u2014Are the attitudes in\n Firmicus\u2019 two works incompatible?\u2014_De errore_ is not unfavorable to\n astrology\u2014Attitude of both works to the emperors\u2014Religious attitude\n of the _Mathesis_\u2014An astrologer\u2019s prayer\u2014Christian objections\n to astrology met\u2014Astrology proved experimentally\u2014Information to\n be gained from the third and fourth books\u2014Religion and magic;\n exorcists\u2014Divination\u2014Magic as a branch of learning\u2014Interest in\n science\u2014Diseases in antiquity\u2014Place of Firmicus in the history\n of astrology\u2014Libanius accused of magic\u2014Declamation against a\n magician\u2014Faith of Libanius in divination\u2014Magic and astrology in\n Pseudo-Quintilian declamations\u2014Fusion of Christianity and paganism\n in Synesius of Cyrene\u2014His career\u2014His interest in science\u2014Belief in\n occult sympathy between natural objects\u2014Synesius on divination and\n astrology\u2014Synesius as an alchemist\u2014Macrobius on number, dreams, and\n stars\u2014Martianus Capella\u2014Absence of astrology\u2014Orders of spirits\u2014_The\n Celestial Hierarchy_ of Dionysius the Areopagite.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Need of qualifying the patristic attitude.]\n\nIn reading the writings of the Christian fathers one is impressed by\nthe fact that their tone is almost invariably that of the preacher.\nIn estimating therefore the practical effect of their utterances it\nis well to remember that these are counsels of perfection which were\nprobably often not realized even by those who gave utterance to them.\nThis is not to accuse the fathers of being pharisaical, but to suggest\nthat as both clerics and apologists they were professionally bound to\ntake up an irreproachable position morally and dogmatically. Basil\nhas shown us that the audience who listened to his sermons were still\nunder the spell of Roman amusements, dice, theater, and arena. And the\naverage lay Christian mind was probably more easy-going in its attitude\ntoward magic and superstition than Augustine. Not merely laymen,\nmoreover, but Christian clergy and apologists of the declining Roman\nEmpire might still hold to divination and astrology. It was a time, as\nhas often been remarked, of religious syncretism, of fusion of pagan\nand Christian thought, when it is not always easy to tell whether the\nauthor of an extant writing is Christian or Neo-Platonist or both.\nMr. Gwatkin states that \u201cthe surface thought\u201d of Constantine\u2019s time,\n\u201cChristian as well as heathen, tended to a vague monotheism which\nlooked on Christ and the sun as almost equally good symbols of the\nSupreme.\u201d[2208] Others believed that astrology was the truth back of\nall religions.[2209]\n\n[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.]\n\nIn this chapter we shall therefore consider some writers of the fourth\nand fifth century who attest the existence of magic and astrology\nthen, the influence of paganism on Christianity and of Christianity\non paganism, and the fusion of Neo-Platonism, Christianity, and\nastrological theory. This, indeed, we have already done to some extent,\nas our previous chapters on Neo-Platonism and on the Christian fathers\nhave carried us more or less into those centuries. But now as an offset\nto Augustine we take up other writers who have not yet been treated:\nFirmicus, the Latin Christian apologist and the astrologer of the\nmid-fourth century; Libanius, the Greek sophist of the same century;\nMacrobius and Synesius, Neo-Platonists writing respectively in Latin\nand Greek at the beginning of the fifth century, and of whom one was\na Christian bishop; and probably in the same century the discussion\nof spirits by Martianus Capella in Latin and the Pseudo-Dionysius the\nAreopagite in Greek. Except for Libanius and Synesius, these authors\nwere very influential in medieval Latin learning and might serve as\nwell for an introduction to our following book on _The Early Middle\nAges_ as for a conclusion to this.\n\n[Sidenote: Julius Firmicus Maternus]\n\nJulius Firmicus Maternus[2210] flourished during the reigns of\nConstantine the Great and his sons. Sicily was his native land; he\nwas of senatorial rank and very well educated for his time, showing\ninterest in natural philosophy, literature, and rhetoric. Two works are\nextant under his name: one, _On the Error of Profane Religions_,[2211]\nis addressed to Constantius and Constans, 340-350 A.\u202fD., and urges\nthem to eradicate pagan cults. The other, _Mathesis_,[2212] is a work\nof astrology written at the request of a similarly cultured friend,\nLollianus or Mavortius, who is spoken of in the preface as _ordinario\nconsuli designato_,[2213] an office which we know that he held in 355\nA.\u202fD. The writing of two such works by one man has long given critics\npause, and is a splendid warning against taking anything for granted in\nour study of the past. Not long ago the general opinion was that there\nmust have been two different authors by the name of Firmicus. This very\nunlikely theory has now been universally abandoned, as unmistakable\nsimilarities in style and wording have been noted in the two works.\nBut it is still maintained that \u201cthere is no question but that he was\na pagan when he wrote his astrological book.\u201d[2214] This involves two\nconsiderations, whether the attitude expressed in the two works is\nreally incompatible and whether the _Mathesis_ was written before or\nafter the _De errore_.\n\n[Sidenote: Date of the _Mathesis_.]\n\nMommsen contended that \u201cit is beyond doubt\u201d[2215] that the _Mathesis_\nwas written between 334 and 337 A.\u202fD., relying chiefly upon several\napparent mentions of Constantine the Great as still living. The\nnames, Constantine and Constantius are frequently confused in the\nsources, however,[2216] and even while the words, \u201c_Constantinum\nmaximum principem et huius invictissimos liberos, domines et\nCaesares nostros_,\u201d seem to refer unmistakably to Constantine, it\nmust be remembered that they occur in a prayer to the planets and\nto the supreme God that Constantine and his children may \u201crule over\nour posterity and the posterity of our posterity through infinite\nsuccession of ages.\u201d As this is simply equivalent to expressing a\nhope that the dynasty may never become extinct, it is scarcely proof\npositive that Constantine the Great was still living when Firmicus\npublished his book. On the other hand, to maintain the early date\nMommsen was forced to treat the mention of Lollianus as _ordinario\nconsuli designato_ as mere prophetic flattery or as an appointment\nheld up by Constantius for eighteen years. We know that Firmicus\naddressed the _De errore_ to Constantius and Constans, probably\nbetween 345 and 350; we know that Lollianus was city prefect of Rome\nin 342, _consul ordinarius_ in 355, and praetorian prefect in the\nfollowing year; whereas we know nothing certainly of either of them\nbefore 337. Furthermore Firmicus explicitly states that the writing of\nthe _Mathesis_ has been long delayed,[2217] and when the promise to\ncompose it was first made, it is evident that neither he nor Lollianus\nwas a young man. Lollianus was already _consularis_ of Campania and\naccording to inscriptions had previously held a number of other\noffices; while still in this position Lollianus had frequently to spur\nhis friend on to the task which Firmicus as frequently \u201cgave up in\ndespair.\u201d Then Lollianus became Count of all the Orient and continued\nhis importunities. Finally, after Lollianus has become proconsul and\nordinary consul elect, Firmicus completes the work and presents it\nto him. Meanwhile Firmicus himself\u2014who had formerly \u201cresisted with\nunbending confidence and firmness\u201d factious and wicked and avaricious\nmen, \u201cwho from fear of law-suits seemed terrible to the unfortunate\u201d;\nand who \u201cwith liberal mind, despising forensic gains, to men in trouble\n... displayed a pure and faithful defense in the courts of law,\u201d by\nwhich upright conduct he incurred much enmity and danger;[2218]\u2014has\nretired from the sordid sphere of law courts and forum to spend his\nleisure with the divine men of old of Egypt and Babylon and to purify\nhis spirit by contemplation of the everlasting stars and of the God who\nworks through them. Yet we are asked to believe\u2014if we accept a date\nbefore 337 for the _Mathesis_\u2014not merely that he writes a vehement\ninvective against \u201cprofane religions\u201d a decade later, but also that\ntwenty years after Lollianus is still a vigorous administrator.[2219]\nIt is possible, but seems unlikely.\n\n[Sidenote: Are the attitudes in Firmicus\u2019 two works incompatible?]\n\nCertainly the date of the _Mathesis_ should be determined without\nany assumption as to what Firmicus\u2019 religion was when he wrote it.\nFor, if we regard his attitudes in _Mathesis_ and _De errore_ as\nincompatible, it will be as difficult to explain how he could write\nthe _De errore_ after having composed the _Mathesis_ as _vice versa_.\nAfter the steadfast affirmation of astrological principles in the\n_Mathesis_ it is no easier to explain the fierce spirit of intolerance\ntoward paganism in the _De errore_ than it is after the mention of\nChrist in the _De errore_ to explain the omission of that name in the\n_Mathesis_. But are the two works really incompatible? My answer is,\nNo. The divergences are such as may be explained by the different\ncharacter of the two works and the different circumstances under which\nthey were written. _De errore_ is an impassioned polemic very possibly\ndelivered as an oration before the emperors; _Mathesis_ is a learned\ncompilation on a pseudo-scientific subject composed at leisure for a\nfriend with the help of previous treatises on the subject. Why should\nFirmicus mention Christ in the _Mathesis_? Does Boethius, after nearly\ntwo centuries more of Christian growth and although he wrote a work\non the Trinity, mention Christ in _The Consolation of Philosophy_?\nSome apparent petty inconsistencies there may be between Firmicus\u2019 two\nworks, but if we accept a host of contradictions in Constantine the\nGreat, the first Christian emperor, why balk at some inconsistency in a\nwriter who urges Constantine\u2019s children against profane cults? On the\nother hand, there are some striking correspondences between the _De\nerrore_ and _Mathesis_.\n\n[Sidenote: _De errore_ is not unfavorable to astrology.]\n\nIt is noteworthy in the first place that in the _De errore_ Firmicus\ndoes not attack astrology. But if he had been converted to Christianity\nsince writing the _Mathesis_ and had abandoned the astrological\ndoctrine there expounded, would he have failed to attack the error\nof that art like Augustine who testified that he had once believed\nin nativities? It is therefore obvious that Firmicus does not regard\nastrology as an error even at the time when he is penning the _De\nerrore_ as a Christian apologist. Moreover, his view of nature in the\n_De errore_ is quite in accord with that of the astrologer, and he\nmanifests the respect for natural science or _physica ratio_ which\none would expect from the author of the _Mathesis_. Thus we find him\ncriticizing certain pagan cults as sharply for their incorrect physical\nnotions as he does others for travestying Christian mysteries. In its\nopening chapters certain oriental religions are criticized for exalting\neach some one of the four elements above the others, and for neglecting\nthat superior control of the world of terrestrial nature in which both\nChristian and astrologer confided. Another argument against pagan\nworships is that they include human and immoral elements which cannot\nbe explained as based upon natural law[2220] and the rule of that\nsupreme God or \u201cGod the fabricator,\u201d \u201cwho composed all things by the\norderly method of divine workmanship,\u201d\u2014phrases which, as Ziegler has\nshown,[2221] occur both in the _De errore_ and _Mathesis_. Furthermore,\nin the _De errore_ Firmicus\u2019 allusions to the planets, which include\na representation of the Sun making a reproachful address to certain\npagans,[2222] indicate that he regarded the stars as of immense\nimportance in the administration of the universe.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude of both works to the emperors.]\n\nIt is also worth remarking that in both works Firmicus sets the\nemperors above the rest of mankind and closely associates them with the\ncelestial bodies and \u201cthe supreme God.\u201d If in _Mathesis_ he prays for\nthe perpetuation of the line of Constantine and forbids astrologers to\nmake predictions concerning the emperor on the ground that his fate is\nnot subject to the stars but directly to the supreme God, \u201cand inasmuch\nas the whole surface of the earth is subject to the emperor, he too is\nreckoned in the number of those gods whom the principal divinity has\nestablished to perform and preserve all things\u201d:[2223]\u2014if he says this\nin _Mathesis_, in _De errore_ he repeatedly addresses the emperors as\n\u201cmost holy\u201d[2224] and in one passage says, \u201cYou now, O Constantius and\nConstans, most holy emperors, and the virtue of your venerated faith\nmust be implored. It is erected above men and, separated from earthly\nfrailty, joins in alliance with things celestial and in all its acts so\nfar as it can follows the will of the supreme God.... Your felicity is\njoined with God\u2019s virtue, with Christ fighting at your side you have\ntriumphed on behalf of human safety.\u201d[2225]\n\n[Sidenote: Religious attitude of the _Mathesis_.]\n\nIf the author of _De errore_ is not unfavorable to astrology the\nauthor of the _Mathesis_ is strongly inclined towards monotheism\nand decidedly religious. He indignantly repels the accusation that\nastrology, which teaches that \u201call our acts are arranged by the divine\ncourses of the stars,\u201d draws men away \u201cfrom the cult of the gods and\nof religions.\u201d \u201cWe cause the gods to be feared and worshiped, we\ndemonstrate their might and majesty.\u201d[2226] The passage just quoted\nand some others are suggestive of polytheism, and Firmicus frequently\nspeaks of the planets as \u201cgods.\u201d Probably in this he is reproducing the\nphraseology and reflecting the attitude of the astrological works which\nhe uses as his authorities and which belong to the period of the pagan\npast. His _apotelesmata_, too, or predictions of nativities for various\nhoroscopes, give little or no indication of being especially adapted\nto a Christian society, although in some other respects they fit his\nown age.[2227] But while the work contains a considerable residue of\npaganism, its prevailing conception of deity is one supreme God, the\nrector of the planets, \u201cwho composed all things by the arrangement of\neverlasting law,\u201d[2228] and who made man the microcosm from the four\nelements.[2229] He is prayed to thus:\n\n[Sidenote: An astrologer\u2019s prayer.]\n\n\u201cBut lest my words be bereft of divine aid and the envy of some\nhateful man impugn them by hostile attacks, whoever thou art, God,\nwho continuest day after day the course of the heavens in rapid\nrotation, who perpetuatest the mobile agitation of ocean\u2019s tides,\nwho strengthenest earth\u2019s solidity in the immovable strength of\nits foundations, who refreshest with night\u2019s sleep the toil of our\nearthly bodies, who when our strength is renewed returnest the grace\nof sweetest light, who stirrest all the substance of thy work by the\nsalutary breath of the winds, who pourest forth the waves of streams\nand fountains in tireless force, who revolvest the varied seasons by\nsure periods of days: sole Governor and Prince of all, sole Emperor and\nLord, whom all the celestial forces serve, whose will is the substance\nof perfect work, by whose faultless laws all nature is forever adorned\nand regulated; thou Father alike and Mother of every thing, thou bound\nto thyself, Father and Son, by one bond of relationship; to Thee we\nextend suppliant hands, Thee with trembling supplication we venerate;\ngrant us grace to attempt the explanation of the courses of thy stars;\nthine is the power that somehow impels us to that interpretation. With\na mind pure and separated from all earthly thoughts and purged from\nevery stain of sin we have written these books for thy Romans.\u201d[2230]\nDoubtless these words might have been written by a Neo-Platonist or a\npagan, but it also seems likely that they were penned by a Christian\nastrologer.\n\n[Sidenote: Christian objections to astrology met.]\n\nFirmicus provides not only for divine government of the universe and\ncreation of the world and man, but also for prayer to God and for\nhuman free will,[2231] since by the divinity of the soul we are able\nto resist in some measure the decrees of the stars. He also holds that\nhuman laws and moral standards are not rendered of no avail by the\nforce of the stars but are very useful to the soul in its struggle\nby the power of the divine mind against the vices of the body.[2232]\nIndeed, not only is the astrologer himself urged at considerable length\nto lead a pure, upright, and unselfish life, but \u201cto show the right way\nof living to sinful men, so that, reformed by your teaching, they may\nbe freed from the errors of their past life.\u201d[2233] The human soul is\nalso immortal, a spark of that same divine mind which through the stars\nexerts its influence upon terrestrial bodies.[2234] All this may be\nconsistent or not both with itself and with the art of astrology, but\nit meets the chief objections that Christians might make and had made\nto the art.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology proved experimentally.]\n\nThese and other objections to the art of nativities are the theme to\nwhich the first of the eight books of the _Mathesis_ is devoted.\nFirmicus points out that some of the other objections to astrology do\nnot correctly state the doctrines of that art; others he admits are\ningenious arguments which sound well on paper but he insists that if\nthe opponents of astrology, instead of protesting that the influence\nof the stars at a given instant is incalculable, would put the matter\nto the test experimentally,[2235] they would soon be convinced of the\ntruth of astrologers\u2019 predictions, although he grants that unskilful\nastrologers sometimes give wrong responses. But he insists that persons\nwho have not tested astrology experimentally are unfit to pass upon its\nmerits.[2236] He affirms that the human spirit which has discovered\nso many other sciences and to which so much of divinity and religion\nhas been revealed is capable also of casting horoscopes, and that\nastrological prediction is a relatively easy task compared to the\nmapping out of the whole heavens and courses of the stars which the\n_mathematici_ have already performed so successfully.[2237] And he\ndoes not see why anyone persists in denying the power of fate in human\naffairs when all about him he can see the innocent suffering and the\nguilty escaping; the best men such as Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras\nmeeting an ill fate; and unprincipled persons like Alcibiades and Sulla\nprospering.[2238]\n\n[Sidenote: Information to be gained from the third and fourth books.]\n\nThe remaining seven books of the _Mathesis_ are given over to the art\nof horoscope casting. The second book consists chiefly of preliminary\ndirections, but the others state what men will be born under various\nconstellations. Of these the last four books are extant only in\nmanuscripts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, while the first\nfour are found in manuscripts going back to the eleventh century.\nMoreover, although books five to eight cover more pages than books\nthree and four, they do not supply so many details or so satisfactory a\npicture of human society in their predictions. These divergences, which\nare mainly ones of omission, do not invalidate the results which we\ngain from an analysis of the third and fourth books, but do raise the\nquestion whether the later books, especially the fifth and sixth, are\ngenuine. In them the wording becomes vaguer, little knowledge is shown\nof conditions at the time that Firmicus wrote, the predictions are more\nsensational and rhetorical. Only the latter part of the eighth book\ncarries the conviction of reality that books three and four do. These\ntwo books are both independent units and through their predictions of\nthe future supply a general picture of human society, presumably that\nof Firmicus\u2019 own time or not long before. One naturally assumes that\nthose matters to which Firmicus devotes most space and emphasis are\nthe prominent features of his age. Let us see what his picture is of\nreligion, divination, the occult science and magic, natural science and\nmedicine.[2239]\n\n[Sidenote: Religion and magic; exorcists.]\n\nTo religion Firmicus gives less space than to politics. There are\nno clear references to Christianity, but there are few allusions to\nany particular cults. Firmicus, however, indicates the existence\nof many cults, speaking five times of the heads of religions, and\ncharacterizing men as \u201cthose who regard all religions and gods with a\ncertain trepidation,\u201d \u201cthose devoted to certain religions,\u201d \u201cthose who\ncherish the greatest religions,\u201d and so on. Temples,[2240] priests, and\ndivination[2241] are the three features of religion that he mentions\nmost. Magic and religion are closely associated in his predictions,\nfor instance, \u201ctemple priests ever famed in magic lore.\u201d Sacred or\nreligious literatures and persons devoted to them are mentioned\nthrice, while in a fourth passage we hear of men \u201cinvestigating the\nsecrets of all religions and of heaven itself.\u201d Other interesting\ndescriptions[2242] are of those who \u201cstay in temples in an unkempt\nstate and always walk abroad thus, and never cut their hair, and who\nwould announce something to men as if said by the gods, such as are\nwont to be in temples, who are accustomed to predict the future\u201d; and\nof \u201cmen terrible to the gods and who despise all kinds of perjuries.\nMoreover, they will be terrible to all demons, and at their approach\nthe wicked spirits of demons flee; and they free men who are thus\ntroubled, not by force of words but by their mere appearing; and\nhowever violent the demon may be who shakes the body and spirit of\nman, whether he be aerial or terrestrial or infernal, he flees at the\nbidding of this sort of man and fears his precepts with a certain\nveneration. These are they who are called exorcists by the people.\u201d\nReligious games and contests are mentioned four times: the carving,\nconsecrating, adoring, and clothing of images of the gods, twice\neach; porters at religious ceremonies, thrice; hymn singers, twice;\npipe-players once. Five passages represent persons professionally\nengaged in religion as growing rich thereby.\n\n[Sidenote: Divination.]\n\nWe are told that men \u201cpredict the future either by the divinity of\ntheir own minds or by the admonition of the gods or from oracles or\nby the venerable discipline of some art.\u201d[2243] Augurs, _aruspices_,\ninterpreters of dreams, _mathematici_ (astrologers), diviners, and\nprophets are mentioned. Once Firmicus alludes to false divination but\nhe usually implies that it is a valid art.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic as a branch of learning.]\n\nFrom religion and divination we easily pass to the occult arts and\nsciences, and thence to learning and literature in general, from\nwhich occult learning is scarcely distinguished in the _Mathesis_.\nMagicians or magic arts are mentioned no less than seven times in\nvaried relations with religion, philosophy, medicine, and astronomy or\nastrology, showing that magic was not invariably regarded as evil in\nthat age, and that it was confused and intermingled with the arts and\nphilosophy as well as with the religion of the times.[2244] There are\na number of other allusions to secret and illicit arts or writings;\nthese, however, appear to be more unfavorably regarded and probably\nlargely consist of witchcraft and poisoning.\n\n[Sidenote: Interest in science.]\n\nThe evidence of the _Mathesis_ suggests that the civilization of\ndeclining Rome was at least not conscious of the intellectual decadence\nand lack of scientific interest so generally imputed to it. We find\nthree descriptions of intellectual pioneers who learn what no master\nhas ever taught them, and one other instance of men who pretend to\ndo so. We also hear of \u201cthose learning much and knowing all, also\ninventors,\u201d and of those \u201clearning everything,\u201d and \u201cdesiring to\nlearn the secrets of all arts.\u201d This curiosity, it is true, seems to\nbe largely devoted to occult science, but it also seems plain that\nmathematics and medicine were important factors in fourth-century\nculture as well as the rhetorical studies whose r\u00f4le has perhaps been\noverestimated. Let us compare the statistics. Oratory is mentioned\neighteen times, and it is to be noted that literary attainments and\nlearning as well as mere eloquence are regarded as essential in an\norator. Men of letters other than orators are found in six passages,\nand poets in only three. A passage reading \u201cphilologists or those\nskilled in laborious letters\u201d suggests that four instances of the\nphrase _difficiles litterae_ should perhaps be classed under linguistic\nrather than occult studies. There are four allusions to grammarians and\ntwo to masters of grammar, as against one description of \u201ccontentious,\ncontradictory dialecticians, professing that they know what no\nteaching has acquainted them with, mischievous fellows, but unable to\ndo any effective thinking.\u201d[2245] On the other hand, there are fourteen\nallusions to astronomy and astrology (not including the _mathematici_\nalready listed under divination), three to geometry, and six to other\nvarieties of mathematics.[2246] Philosophers are mentioned five times;\npractitioners of medicine, eleven times;[2247] surgeons, once; and\nbotanists, twice. These professions seem to be well paid and are spoken\nof in complimentary terms.\n\n[Sidenote: Diseases in antiquity.]\n\nDeath, injury, and disease loom up large in Firmicus\u2019 prospectus for\nthe human race, making us realize the benefits of nineteenth-century\nmedicine as well as of modern peace.[2248] No less than 174 passages\ndeal with disease and many of them list two or more ills. Mental\ndisorders are mentioned in 37 places;[2249] physical deformities in\nsix. Other specific ailments mentioned are as follows: blindness and\neye troubles, 10; deafness and ear troubles, 5; impediments of speech,\n4; baldness, 1; foul odors, 1; dyspeptics, 4; other stomach complaints,\n7; dysentery, 2; liver trouble, 1; jaundice, 1; dropsy, 5; spleen\ndisorders, 1; gonorrhoea, 2; other diseases of the urinary bladder and\nprivate parts, 6; consumption and lung troubles, 6; hemorrhages, 6;\napoplexy, 3; spasms, 5; ills attributed to bad or excessive humors,\n12; leprosy and other skin diseases, 6; ague, 1; fever, 1; pains in\nvarious parts of the body, 6; internal pains and hidden diseases, 9;\ndiseases of women, 5. There remain a large number of vague allusions to\nill-health: 21 to debility, 12 to languor, 3 to invalids, and 49 other\npassages. Only eight passages allude to the cure of disease. Among the\nmethods suggested are cauterizing, incantations, ordinary remedies,\nand seeking divine aid, which last is mentioned most often. The eleven\nreferences to medical practitioners should, however, be recalled here.\nThe predictions as to length of life are inadequate to the drawing of\nconclusions on that point.\n\n[Sidenote: Place of Firmicus in the history of astrology.]\n\nFirmicus regards his work as a new contribution so far as the\nLatin-speaking world is concerned.[2250] Not that there had not\nbeen previous writing in Latin on the subject. Fronto \u201chad written\npredictions very accurately,\u201d but \u201cas if he were addressing persons\nalready perfect and skilled in the art, and without first instructing\nin the elements and practice of the art.\u201d[2251] Firmicus supplies this\nessential preliminary instruction, which hardly anyone of the Latins\nhad given, and corrects Fronto\u2019s faulty presentation of _antiscia_,\nin which he followed Hipparchus, by the correcter method of Navigius\n(Nigidius?) and Ptolemy.[2252] Firmicus gives no systematic account of\nhis authorities[2253] but occasionally cites them for some particular\npoint and in general professes to follow not only the Greeks but the\ndivine men of Egypt and Babylon, chief among whom seem to be Nechepso\nand Petosiris and the Hermetic works to or by Aesculapius and Hanubius.\nAn Abram or Abraham is also cited several times. But Firmicus also\ngives the _Sphaera Barbarica_, \u201cunknown to all the Romans and to\nmany Greeks,\u201d and which escaped the notice even of Petosiris and\nNechepso.[2254] Firmicus himself is named by no ancient author[2255]\nbut was well known in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as we shall\nsee. In the _Mathesis_ he cites two previous astrological treatises of\nhis own[2256] and expresses his intention of composing another work\nin twelve books on the subject of _Myriogenesis_.[2257] The astrologer\nHephaestion of Thebes, who wrote later in the fourth century, seems\nalso to have been a Christian, so that Firmicus was not a solitary case\nor an anomaly.[2258]\n\n[Sidenote: Libanius accused of magic.]\n\nThe writings of Libanius, 314-391 A.\u202fD., the sophist and rhetorician,\nthrow some light on the relations between magic and learning in\nthe fourth century, show that sorcery and divination were actually\npracticed, and largely duplicate impressions already received from\nApuleius, Apollonius, and Galen, and a Christian like John Chrysostom\nas well as just now from Firmicus. Libanius tells us how Bemarchius,\na rival of his at Athens, who would have poisoned him if he could,\ninstead circulated reports that he (Bemarchius) was the victim of\nenchantments, and that Libanius had consulted against him an astrologer\nwho was able to control the stars, so that he could confer benefits\nupon one man and work sorcery against another. This incidentally is\nanother good illustration of how easily astrology passed from mere\nprediction of the future to operative magic, and of the essential unity\nof all magic arts. The mob was aroused against Libanius and a praetor\nwho tried to protect him was ousted and another installed at daybreak\nwho was ready to put Libanius to death. Torture was prepared and\nLibanius was advised to leave Athens, if he did not wish to die there,\nand took the advice and left.[2259]\n\n[Sidenote: Declamation against a magician.]\n\nAmong the declamations of Libanius is one against a magician,[2260]\nsupposed to have been delivered under the following circumstances. The\ncity was afflicted with a pestilence and finally sent an embassy to\nthe Delphic oracle to learn how to escape the scourge. Apollo replied\nthat they must sacrifice the son of one of the inhabitants who should\nbe determined by lot, and the lot fell to the son of a magician. The\nfather then offered to stay the plague by means of his magic art, if\nthey would agree to spare his son. Against this proposal Libanius\nargues, urging the people to carry out their original decision and not\nto anger the Delphic god by violating his oracle, whose reliability\nis attested by \u201clong time and much experience and common testimony.\u201d\nHe declares that magic is an evil art, and that magicians make no one\nhappy but many wretched, ruining homes, bringing disaster to persons\nwho have never harmed them, and disturbing even the spirits of the\ndead. He also censures the magician for not having offered to save the\ncity from the plague before, and expresses some scepticism as to his\nmagic power, asking why he did not prevent the fatal lot from falling\nto his son, or why he does not save him now by causing him to vanish\nfrom sight, or vouchsafe some other unmistakable sign of his magic\npower. It appears that the magician had asked a delay, saying that he\nmust wait for the moon before he could operate against the plague.\nLibanius points out that meanwhile the citizens are perishing and that\nfulfillment of Apollo\u2019s oracle will bring instant relief. It would\nseem, however, that some of the citizens had more faith in the magician\nthan in the god, which supports the oft-made general assertion that the\nmagic arts waxed as pagan religion and its superstitious observances\nwaned. Libanius concludes his oration or imaginary oration with the\ncutting and heartless witticism that the magician can lose his son more\neasily than can anyone else, since he will of course still be able to\ninvoke his spirit from the dead.\n\n[Sidenote: Faith of Libanius in divination.]\n\nLibanius\u2019 own faith in divination is not only suggested by the attitude\ntoward the Delphic oracle in the foregoing declamation but is attested\nby two passages in his autobiography. His great-great-grandfather had\nso excelled in _mantike_ that he foresaw that his children would die\nby steel, although they would be handsome and great and good speakers.\nIt also was rumored that a celebrated sophist had predicted many things\nconcerning Libanius himself, which Libanius assures us had since come\nto pass.[2261]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and astrology in the pseudo-Quintilian declamations.]\n\nOf the same type as Libanius\u2019 declamation against the magician\nis the fourth pseudo-Quintilian declamation in Latin concerning\nan astrologer\u2019s prediction, which we shall later in the twelfth\ncentury find Bernard Silvester enlarging upon in his poem entitled\n_Mathematicus_. In another of the pseudo-Quintilian declamations\nthe word _experimentum_ is used of a magician\u2019s feat. \u201cO harsh and\ncruel magician, O manufacturer of our tears, I would that you had not\ngiven so great an experiment! We are angry at you, yet we must cajole\nyou. While you imprison the ghost, we know that you alone can evoke\nit.\u201d[2262]\n\n[Sidenote: Fusion of Christianity and paganism in Synesius of Cyrene.]\n\nThat more than fifty years after Firmicus adherence to Christianity\nmight be combined with trust in divination of the future, occult\nscience, and magical invocation of spirits, and with various other\npagan and Neo-Platonic beliefs, is well illustrated by the case\nof Synesius of Cyrene,[2263] a fellow-African and contemporary of\nAugustine. Synesius, however, traced his descent from the Heracleidae,\nwrote in Greek, and displayed a Hellenism unusual for his time,[2264]\nand, while he did not find the Athens of his day entirely to his\ntaste, continued the philosophical and rhetorical traditions of the\nsophists of the Roman Empire, like Libanius of whom we have just\nspoken. His extant letters show that Hypatia was numbered among his\nfriends and had been his teacher at the Neo-Platonic and mathematical\nschool of Alexandria. Hypatia was murdered by the fanatical Christian\nmob of that city in 415. But very different was the attitude of\nthe people of Ptolemais to the like-minded Synesius. A few years\nbefore they had elected him bishop![2265] Moreover, he distinctly\nstipulated[2266] that he should not renounce his wife and family nor\nhis philosophical opinions, which seem to have involved a sceptical\nattitude towards miracles and the resurrection, and a belief in the\neternity of the world and pre-existence of the soul rather than in\ncreation,[2267] in addition to the views which we are about to set\nforth. It has been observed also that his doctrine of the Trinity is\nmore Neo-Platonic than Christian.[2268]\n\n[Sidenote: Career of Synesius.]\n\nThe dates of Synesius\u2019 birth and death are uncertain. He seems to have\nbeen born about 370. His last dateable letter appears to be written\nin 412, but some give the date of his death as late as 430. Others\ncontend that he did not live to hear of Hypatia\u2019s murder. Before he\nwas made bishop he had been to Constantinople on a mission to the\nemperor to secure alleviation of the oppressive taxation in Cyrene. He\nhad lived in Athens and Alexandria as a student, and in Cyrene on his\ncountry estate. Here, if in his fondness for books and philosophy he\nconstituted a survival of the past, in his fondness for the chase and\ndogs and horses and his repulsion of an invasion of Libyan marauders\nhe was the forerunner of many a medieval feudal bishop. And after he\nbecame bishop, he launched an excommunication against the tyrannical\nprefect Andronicus.\n\n[Sidenote: His interest in science.]\n\nBut our particular interest is less in his political and more purely\nliterary activities than in his taste for mathematics and science. He\nknew some medicine and was well acquainted with geometry and astronomy.\nHe believed himself to be the inventor of an astrolabe and of a\nhydroscope.\n\n[Sidenote: Belief in occult sympathies between natural objects.]\n\nWith this interest in natural and mathematical science went an interest\nin occult science and divination. His belief that the universe was a\nunit and all its parts closely correlated not only led him to maintain,\nlike Seneca, that whatever had a cause was a sign of some future event,\nor to hold with Plotinus that in any and every object the sage might\ndiscern the future of every other, and that the birds themselves, if\nendowed with sufficient intelligence, would be able to predict the\nfuture by observing the movements of human bipeds.[2269] It led him\nalso to the conclusion that the various parts of the universe were\nmore than passive mirrors in which one might see the future of the\nother parts; that they further exerted, by virtue of the magic sympathy\nwhich united all parts of the universe, a potent active influence over\nother objects and occurrences. The wise man might not only predict\nthe future; he might, to a great extent, control it. \u201cFor it must be,\nI think, that of this whole, so joined in sympathy and in agreement,\nthe parts are closely connected as if members of a single body. And\ndoes not this explain the spells of the magi? For things, besides\nbeing signs of each other, have magic power over each other. The wise\nman, then, is he who knows the relationships of the parts of the\nuniverse. For he draws one object under his control by means of another\nobject, holding what is at hand as a pledge for what is far away,\nand working through sounds and material substances and forms.\u201d[2270]\nSynesius explained that plants and stones are related by bonds of\noccult sympathy to the gods who are within the universe and who form a\npart of it, that plants and stones have magic power over these gods,\nand that one may by means of such material substances attract those\ndeities.[2271] He evidently believed that it was quite legitimate to\ncontrol the processes of nature by invoking demons.\n\n[Sidenote: Synesius on divination and astrology.]\n\nThe devotion of Synesius to divination has been already implied. He\nregarded it as among the noblest of human pursuits.[2272] Dreams, on\nwhich he wrote a treatise, he viewed as significant and very useful\nevents. They aided him, he wrote, in his every-day life, and had upon\none occasion saved him from magic devices against his life.[2273]\nWarned by a dream that he would have a son, he wrote a treatise for the\nchild before it was born.[2274] Of course, he had faith in astrology.\nThe stars were well-nigh ever present in his thought. In his _Praise\nof Baldness_ he characterized comets as fatal omens, as harbingers of\nthe worst public disasters.[2275] In _On Providence_ he explained the\nsupposed fact that history repeats itself by the periodical return to\ntheir former positions of the stars which govern our life.[2276] In\n_On the Gift of an Astrolabe_ he declared that \u201castronomy\u201d besides\nbeing itself a noble science, prepared men for the diviner mysteries of\ntheology.[2277]\n\n[Sidenote: Synesius as an alchemist.]\n\nFinally, he held the view common among students of magic that knowledge\nshould be esoteric; that its mysteries and marvels should be confined\nto the few fitted to receive them and that they should be expressed in\nlanguage incomprehensible to the vulgar crowd.[2278] It is perhaps on\nthis account that one of the oldest extant treatises of Greek alchemy\nis ascribed to him. Berthelot, however, accepted it as his, stating\nthat \u201cthere is nothing surprising in Synesius\u2019 having really written on\nalchemy.\u201d[2279]\n\n[Sidenote: Macrobius on number, dreams, and stars.]\n\nSynesius influenced the Byzantine period but probably not the western\nmedieval world. But the Commentary of Macrobius on _The Dream of\nScipio_ by Cicero is one of the treatises most frequently encountered\nin early medieval Latin manuscripts. In the twelfth century Abelard\nmade frequent reference to Macrobius and called him \u201cno mean\nphilosopher\u201d; in the thirteenth Aquinas cited him as an authority for\nthe doctrines of Neo-Platonism.[2280] Macrobius himself affirmed that\nVergil contained practically all necessary knowledge[2281] and that\nCicero\u2019s _Dream of Scipio_ was a work second to none and contained\nthe entire substance of philosophy.[2282] Macrobius believed that\nnumbers possess occult power. He dilated at considerable length\nupon every number from one to eight, emphasizing the perfection and\nfar-reaching significance of each. He held the Pythagorean doctrine\nthat the world-soul consists of number, that number rules the harmony\nof the celestial bodies, and that from the music of the spheres we\nderive the numerical values proper to musical consonance.[2283] His\nopinion was that dreams and other striking occurrences will reveal an\noccult meaning to the careful investigator.[2284] As for astrology,\nhe regarded the stars as signs but not causes of future events,\njust as birds by their flight or song reveal matters of which they\nthemselves are ignorant.[2285] So the sun and other planets, though\nin a way divine, are but material bodies, and it is not from them\nbut from the world-soul (pure mind), whence they too come, that the\nhuman spirit takes its origin.[2286] In his sole other extant work,\nthe _Saturnalia_, Macrobius displays some belief in occult virtues in\nnatural objects, as when Disaurius the physician answers such questions\nas why a copper knife stuck in game prevents decay.[2287]\n\n[Sidenote: Martianus Capella.]\n\nThe medieval vogue of the fifth century work of Martianus Capella, The\n_Nuptials of Philology and Mercury, and the Seven Liberal Arts_,[2288]\nhas been too frequently demonstrated to require further emphasis\nhere, although it is still a puzzle just why a monastic Christian\nworld should have selected for a text book in the liberal arts a work\nwhich contained so much pagan mythology, to say nothing of a marriage\nceremony. Nor need we repeat its fulsome allegorical plot and meager\nlearned content. Cassiodorus tells us that the author was a native of\nMadaura, the birthplace of Apuleius, in North Africa, and he appears to\nbe a Neo-Platonist who has much to say of the sky, stars, and old pagan\ngods, often, however, by way of brief and vague poetical allusion.\n\n[Sidenote: Absence of astrology.]\n\nOf astrology there is very little trace in Capella\u2019s work. In a\ndiscussion of perfect numbers in the second book the number seven\nevokes allusion to the fatal courses of the stars and their influence\nupon the formation of the child in the womb; but the eighth book, which\nis devoted to the theme of astronomy as one of the liberal arts, is\nlimited to a purely astronomical description of the heavens.\n\n[Sidenote: Orders of spirits.]\n\nThe chief thing for us to note in the work is the account of the\nvarious orders of spiritual beings and their respective location in\nreference to the heavenly bodies.[2289] Juno leads the virgin Philology\nto the aerial citadels and there instructs her in the multiplicity of\ndiverse powers. From highest ether to the solar circle are beings of a\nfiery and flaming substance. These are the celestial gods who prepare\nthe secrets of occult causes. They are pure and impassive and immortal\nand have little or no direct relation with mankind. Between sun and\nmoon come spirits who have especial charge of soothsaying, dreams,\nprodigies, omens, and divination from entrails and auguries. They often\nutter warning voices or admonish those who consult their oracles by\nthe course of the stars or the hurling of thunderbolts. To this class\nbelong the Genii associated with individual mortals and angels \u201cwho\nannounce secret thoughts to the superior power.\u201d All these the Greeks\ncall demons. Their splendor is less lucid than that of the celestials,\nbut their bodies are not sufficiently corporeal to enable men to see\nthem. Lares and purer human souls after death also come under this\ncategory. Between moon and earth the spirits subdivide into three\nclasses. In the upper atmosphere are demi-gods. \u201cThese have celestial\nsouls and holy minds and are begotten in human form to the profit of\nthe whole world.\u201d Such were Hercules, Ammon, Dionysus, Osiris, Isis,\nTriptolemus, and Asclepius. Others of this class become sibyls and\nseers. From mid-air to the mountain-tops are found heroes and Manes.\nFinally the earth itself is inhabited by a long-lived race of dwellers\nin woods and groves, in fountains and lakes and streams, called Pans,\nFauns, satyrs, Silvani, nymphs, and by other names. They finally die\nas men do, but possess great power of foresight and of inflicting\ninjury.[2290] It is evident that Capella\u2019s spiritual world is one well\nfitted for astrology, divination, and magic.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Celestial Hierarchy_ of Dionysius the Areopagite.]\n\nVery different are the orders of spirits described in _The Celestial\nHierarchy_, supposed to be the work of Dionysius the Areopagite, where\nare set forth nine orders of spirits in three groups of three each:\nSeraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; Dominions, Virtues, and Powers;\nPrinces, Archangels, and Angels. The threefold division reminds us of\nCapella, but there the resemblance ceases. The pseudo-Dionysius takes\nall his suggestions from the Old and New Testaments, rather than from\nclassical mythology and such previous classifications of spirits as\nthat of Apuleius. And while his starting from such verses of the Bible\nas \u201cEvery good gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending\nfrom the Father of lights,\u201d and \u201cJesus Christ the true light that\nlighteth every man that cometh into the world,\u201d and his using such\nphrases as \u201carchifotic Father\u201d and \u201cthearchic ray,\u201d lead us to expect\nsome Gnostic-like scheme of association of the spirits with the various\nheavens and celestial bodies, in fact he throughout speaks of the\nspirits solely as celestial and deiform and hypercosmic _minds_, and\nunspeakable and sacred enigmas of whose invisibility, transcendence,\ninfinity, and incomprehensibility any description can be merely\nsymbolic and figurative. Their functions seem to consist chiefly in\ncontemplation of the deity or their superior orders and illumination\nof man and their inferior orders. They are not specifically associated\nby Dionysius with the celestial bodies, much less with any terrestrial\nobjects, and so his account lays no foundation for magic and astrology,\nunless as its transcendent mysticism might pique some curious person\nto attempt some very immaterial variety of theurgy and sublimated\ntheosophy. Although the Pseudo-Dionysius wrote in Greek,[2291] his work\nwas made available for the Latin middle ages by the translation of John\nthe Scot in the ninth century.[2292]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK III. THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES\n\n Chapter 24. The Story of Nectanebus.\n\n \u201d 25. Post-Classical Medicine.\n\n \u201d 26. Pseudo-Literature in Natural Science of the Early Middle\n Ages.\n\n \u201d 27. Other Early Medieval Learning.\n\n \u201d 28. Arabic Occult Science of the Ninth Century.\n\n \u201d 29. Latin Astrology and Divination, Especially in the Ninth,\n Tenth, and Eleventh Centuries.\n\n \u201d 30. Gerbert and the Introduction of Arabic Astrology.\n\n \u201d 31. Anglo-Saxon, Salernitan, and other Latin Medicine in\n Manuscripts from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century.\n\n \u201d 32. Constantinus Africanus.\n\n \u201d 33. Treatises on the Arts before the Introduction of Arabic\n Alchemy.\n\n \u201d 34. Marbod.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n THE STORY OF NECTANEBUS\n OR\n THE ALEXANDER LEGEND IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES[2293]\n\n The _Pseudo-Callisthenes_\u2014Its unhistoric character\u2014Julius\n Valerius\u2014Oriental versions\u2014Medieval epitomes of Julius\n Valerius\u2014Letters of Alexander\u2014Leo\u2019s _Historia de praeliis_\u2014Medieval\n metamorphosis of ancient tradition\u2014Survival of magical and\n scientific features\u2014Who was Nectanebus?\u2014A scientific key-note\u2014Magic\n of Nectanebus\u2014Nectanebus as an astrologer\u2014A magic dream\u2014Lucian on\n Olympias and the serpent\u2014More dream-sending; magic transformation\u2014An\n omen interpreted\u2014The birth of Alexander\u2014The death of Nectanebus\u2014The\n Amazons and Gymnosophists\u2014_The Letter to Aristotle_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The _Pseudo-Callisthenes_.]\n\nThe oldest version of the legend or romance of Alexander is naturally\nbelieved to have been written in the Greek language but is thought to\nhave been produced in Egypt at Alexandria. But the Greek manuscripts\nof the story are all of the medieval or Renaissance period; indeed,\nnone of them antedates the eleventh or twelfth century. Furthermore,\nthey differ very considerably in content and arrangement, so that\nthe problem of distinguishing or recovering the original text of the\n_Pseudo-Callisthenes_, as the work is commonly called, and of dating\nit, is one with which various scholars have grappled. It has been held\nthat the original Greek text which lies back of the later versions\nwas written not later than 200 A.\u202fD. But Basil, writing in Greek in\nthe fourth century and well-versed in Greek culture, is apparently\nunfamiliar with the story of Nectanebus, since he says, \u201cWithout doubt\nthere has never been a king who has taken measures to have his son born\nunder the star of royalty.\u201d[2294] Fortunately we are less interested in\nthe original version than in the medieval development of the tradition.\nIt should, however, perhaps be premised that certain features of the\nAlexander legend may be detected in embryo in Plutarch\u2019s _Life_ of him.\n\nThe true Callisthenes was a historian who accompanied Alexander upon\nhis Asiatic campaigns but then offended the conqueror by opposing\nhis adoption of oriental dress, absolutism, and deification, and\nwas therefore cast into prison on a charge of treason, and there\ndied in 328 B. C. either from ill treatment or disease.[2295] Since\nCallisthenes was also a relative and pupil of Aristotle, his name was\nan excellent one upon which to father the romance. However, the oldest\nLatin version of it professes to employ a Greek text by one Aesopus,\npossibly because Aesop\u2019s fables accompany the story of Alexander in\nsome of the manuscripts. Yet other versions cite an Onesicritus,[2296]\nand the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ has also been attributed to Antisthenes,\nAristotle, and Arrian.\n\n[Sidenote: Its unhistoric character.]\n\nPerhaps no better single illustration of the totally unhistorical and\nromantic character of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ can be given than the\nperversion of Alexander\u2019s line of march in most of the Greek and all of\nthe Latin versions. He is represented as first proceeding to Italy and\nreceiving royal honors at Rome; then he goes to Carthage and reaches\nthe shrine of Ammon by traversing Libya; next he passes through Egypt\ninto Syria and destroys Tyre, after which he crosses Arabia and has his\nfirst battle with Darius. Presently he is found back in Greece sacking\nThebes and dealing with Corinth, Athens, and Sparta. Then his Asiatic\nconquests are resumed.\n\n[Sidenote: Julius Valerius.]\n\nThe oldest Latin version of the Alexander romance is the _Res gestae\nAlexandri Macedonis_ of Julius Valerius. Who he was and when he lived\nare matters still veiled in obscurity; but it is customary to place\nhim in the early fourth century on the basis of Zacher\u2019s contention\nthat the _Res gestae_ is copied in certain portions of the _Itinerarium\nAlexandri_, which was written during the years 340-345 A.\u202fD. This\ndating would also serve to explain why Basil, writing in Greek before\n379, had never heard of a king who had taken steps to have his son born\nunder the star of royalty, while Augustine, writing in Latin between\n413 and 426, mentions the story of a sage who selected a certain hour\nfor intercourse with his wife in order that he might beget a marvelous\nson. This would also suggest that the Latin version was older than\nthe Greek, as in fact the extant manuscripts of it are. The oldest\nmanuscript of Valerius, however, is a badly damaged palimpsest of the\nseventh century at Turin. Other manuscripts are one at Milan of the\ntenth century and another at Paris dating about 1200.[2297] The text of\nValerius differs considerably from the Greek _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ and\nwas to undergo further alteration in later medieval Latin versions.\n\n[Sidenote: Oriental versions.]\n\nBefore speaking of these we may mention other oriental versions of the\nstory. An Armenian text dates from the fifth century. A Syriac version,\nwhich dates from the seventh or eighth century and was \u201cmuch read by\nthe Nestorians,\u201d was itself derived from an earlier Persian rendering.\nIt seems to make use of both the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes and Julius\nValerius since it includes incidents from either which are not found\nin the other. And it omits a considerable section of the Greek version\nbesides adding episodes which are not found in it, although contained\nin Julius Valerius. We hear further of Arabic and Hebrew versions\nof the romance, while manuscripts of recent date supply an Ethiopic\nversion of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ of unknown authorship and date,\ntogether with other Ethiopic histories and romances of Alexander. These\nare based partly upon Arabic and Jewish works but take great liberties\nwith their sources in making alterations to suit a Christian audience,\nomitting for example, as Budge points out, Alexander\u2019s victory in the\nchariot race, and transforming Philip and Alexander into Christian\nmartyrs, or the Greek gods into patriarchs and prophets like Enoch\nand Elijah. Even the Greek version did not remain unaltered in the\nByzantine period when two recensions in prose and two more in verse\nare distinguished. Indeed, none of the Greek manuscripts of the work\nantedates the eleventh or twelfth century, they differ greatly, and\nsome of them ascribe the romance to Alexander himself.\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval epitomes of Julius Valerius.]\n\nSuch variations in the eastern versions of the story of Alexander\nillustrate how the middle ages made the classical heritage their own\nand prepare us for similar alterations in the Latin account current\nin western Europe. The work of Julius Valerius, though written in\nthe rhetorical style characteristic of the declining Roman Empire\nand composed almost on the verge of the middle ages, was to undergo\nfurther alterations to adapt it more closely to medieval taste and\nuse. By the ninth century, if not earlier, two epitomes of it had been\nmade, and, beginning with that century, manuscripts of the shorter of\nthese epitomes become far more numerous than those of the original\nValerius.[2298]\n\n[Sidenote: Letters of Alexander.]\n\nTwo sections of the Alexander legend were omitted in the Epitome,\nnot because medieval men had lost interest in them but because they\nhad become so fond of them as to enlarge upon them and issue them as\ndistinct works. They often, however, accompany the Epitome in the\nmanuscripts. One of these was the Letter of Alexander to Aristotle\non the Marvels of India.[2299] It is longer than the corresponding\nchapter of Valerius[2300] where a letter of Alexander to Aristotle\nis quoted and also differs from any known Greek text. The fact that\nreference is made to it in the longer Epitome leads to the conclusion\nthat the Letter is older. This would also seem to be the case with the\nother work, a short series of letters interchanged between Alexander\nand Dindimus, the king of the Brahmans, since the Epitome omits the\ntwo chapters of Valerius which tell of Alexander\u2019s interview with the\nBrahmans. It is believed that Alcuin, who died in 804, in one of his\nletters to Charlemagne speaks of sending these epistles exchanged\nbetween Alexander and Dindimus along with the equally apocryphal\ncorrespondence of the apostle Paul and the philosopher Seneca. No such\nletters are found in the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_, for the ten chapters\non the Brahmans found in one Greek codex are interpolated from the\ntreatise of Palladius, likewise in the form of a correspondence.[2301]\nJulius Valerius does not even mention Dindimus, but a third epistolary\ndiscussion of the Brahmans exists in Latin, _De moribus Brachmannorum_,\nascribed to St. Ambrose.[2302]\n\n[Sidenote: Leo\u2019s _Historia de praeliis_.]\n\nLeo, an archpriest of Naples, who went to Constantinople about 941-944\non an embassy for two dukes of Campania, John and Marinus, brought back\nwith him a _History containing the conflicts and victories of Alexander\nthe Great, King of Macedon_. Later Duke John, who was fond of science,\nhad Leo translate this work from Greek into Latin, in which tongue\nit is entitled _Historia de praeliis_. We learn these facts from its\nprologue which is found only in the oldest extant manuscript, a Bamberg\ncodex of the eleventh century,[2303] and in a manuscript of the twelfth\nor thirteenth century at Munich. The location of these two manuscripts\nsuggests that the work was early carried from Italy to Germany, lands\nthen connected in the Holy Roman Empire. Of the _De praeliis_ apart\nfrom the prologue there came to be many copies, but most of them\ndate from the later middle ages, and the importance of the work as\na source for the vernacular romances of Alexander has been somewhat\noverestimated, since Meyer has shown that no manuscript of it is found\nin France until the thirteenth century and since the manuscripts of the\nEpitome are far more numerous.[2304]\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval metamorphosis of ancient tradition.]\n\nIn the foregoing observations we may seem to have digressed too far\nfrom our main theme of science and magic into the domain of literary\nhistory. But the development of the Alexander legend, which happens\nto have been traced more thoroughly than perhaps any other one thread\nin the medieval metamorphosis of ancient tradition, throws light at\nleast by analogy upon many matters in which we are interested: the\nstate of medieval manuscript material, the continuity and yet the\nalteration of ancient culture during the early middle ages, the process\nof translation from the Greek which went on even then, and the varying\nrapidity or slowness with which books circulated and ideas permeated.\n\n[Sidenote: Survival of magical and scientific features.]\n\nMoreover, the story of Alexander, especially as adapted by the middle\nages, contained a large amount of magic and science, more especially\nthe former. The Epitome might omit a great deal else, but it kept\nintact the opening portion of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ and of Julius\nValerius concerning the adventures of Nectanebus, the sage and magician\nfrom Egypt, the astrologer and the natural father of Alexander. Indeed,\nthe titles in some manuscripts suggest that Nectanebus came to rival\nAlexander for medieval readers as the hero of the story. Thus we find\na _History of Alexander, King of Macedon, and of Nectanebo, King of\nEgypt_,[2305] or an account _Of the Life and Deeds of Neptanabus,\nastronomer of Egypt_,[2306] or a Latin metrical version by \u201cUilikinus\u201d\nor Aretinus Quilichinus of Spoleto in 1236 entitled, _The History\nof the Science of the Egyptians and of Neptanabus their king who\nafterwards was the true father of Alexander_.[2307]\n\n[Sidenote: Who was Nectanebus?]\n\nPliny in the _Natural History_ describes the obelisk of Necthebis,\nking of Egypt, whom he places five centuries before Alexander the\nGreat.[2308] Plutarch, however, in his life of Agesilaus and Nepos in\nhis life of Chabrias mention a Nectanebus II who struggled against\nPersia for the throne of Egypt about 361 B. C. and later was forced\nto flee to Ethiopia. In the Alexander romance, however, it is to\nMacedon that Nectanebus retreats. A Nectabis is listed as a magician\nalong with Ostanes, Typhon, Dardanus, Damigeron, and Berenice, by\nTertullian, writing about 200 A.\u202fD.[2309] As a matter of fact, in\nthe Thirtieth Dynasty were two kings named respectively Nektanebes\nor _Nekht-Har-ehb\u0113t_, who ruled 378 to 361 B. C., and Nektanebos or\n_Nekhte-nebof_, who ruled 358 to 341 B. C. Both have left considerable\nbuildings.[2310] It is the latter who was forced by the Persians to\nflee to Ethiopia nine years before Alexander conquered Egypt and who is\nthe hero of our story. The stele of Metternich is covered with magical\nformulae ascribed to Nectanebo.[2311]\n\n[Sidenote: A scientific key-note.]\n\nA note suggestive of both natural science and occult science is struck\nby the opening passage of the Latin epitomes and of the oldest Greek\nmanuscript; the first page of Julius Valerius is missing and has to\nbe supplied from the epitomes. The first words are \u201cThe Egyptian\nsages,\u201d and the first sentence describes their scientific ability in\nmeasuring the earth and in tracing the revolutions of the heavens and\nnumbering the stars. \u201cAnd of them all Nectanabus is recognized to have\nbeen the most prudent ... for the elements of the universe obeyed\nhim.\u201d In the opening sentences of the oldest Greek version and of\nthe Ethiopic version even more emphasis is laid than in the Epitomes\nupon the learning of the Egyptians in general and of Nectanebus in\nparticular, and of the close connection of that learning with astrology\nand magic.[2312] We read, \u201cNow there lived in the land of Egypt a king\nwho was called Bektanis, and he was a famous magician and a sage, and\nhe was deeply learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians. And he had more\nknowledge than all the wise men who knew what was in the depths of\nthe Nile and in the abysses, and who were skilled in the knowledge of\nthe stars and of their seasons and in the knowledge of the astrolabe\nand in the casting of nativities.... And by his learning and by his\nobservations of the stars Nectanebus was able to predict what would\nbefall anyone who was about to be born.\u201d[2313] In one Latin manuscript\nof the fifteenth century the _History of Alexander the Great_ begins\nwith the\n\n5 sentence, \u201cBooks tell us how powerful the race of the Egyptians were\nin mathematics and the magic art.\u201d[2314]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic of Nectanebus.]\n\nNext we are told, and the account is practically the same in all\nthe versions of the story, how by means of his basin filled with\nwater, his wax images of ships and men, his rod or wand of ebony, and\nthe incantations with which he addressed the gods above and below,\nNectanebus had been hitherto able to destroy all the armies and to sink\nall the fleets that had come against him. But when one day he found his\nmagic unavailing to save him, he shaved his head and beard and fled to\nMacedon, where in linen garb he plied the trade of an astrologer.\n\n[Sidenote: Nectanebus as an astrologer.]\n\nIn this he soon became so celebrated that the fame of his predictions\nreached the ears of the queen Olympias, who consulted him during an\nabsence of Philip. When she asked Nectanebus by means of what art\nhe divined the future so truthfully, he answered that there were\nmany varieties of divination. Julius Valerius and the Latin epitomes\nmention specifically only interpreters of dreams and astrologers,\nbut the Greek, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions give more elaborate\nlists of various kinds of diviners.[2315] Nectanebus next produced an\nastrological tablet adorned with gold and ivory and with each planet\nand the horoscope represented by a different stone or metal. With the\naid of this he read the queen\u2019s horoscope and told her that she would\nhave a son by the God Ammon and would be forewarned soon to that effect\nin a dream. Olympias replied that if such a dream came to her, she\nwould no longer employ Nectanebus as a _magus_ but honor him as a god.\n\n[Sidenote: A magic dream.]\n\nNectanebus thereupon sought for herbs useful to command dreams, plucked\nthem, and pressed a syrup out of them. He placed a wax image of the\nqueen inscribed with her name upon a little couch, lighted lamps,\nand poured his syrup over the wax figure, muttering a secret and\nefficacious incantation the while. By this means he brought it about\nthat the queen would dream or think she dreamed whatever he said to the\nwax image of her. Later Nectanebus himself played the part of the god\nAmmon, announcing his coming beforehand to Olympias by making by his\n\u201cscience\u201d a dragon which glided into her presence.\n\n[Sidenote: Lucian on Olympias and the serpent.]\n\nLucian of Samosata in the second century tells us that it was a\ncommon story in his time that Olympias had lain with a serpent before\ngiving birth to Alexander. He suggests as the explanation of how\nthis tale originated the fact that at Pella in Macedonia there is a\nbreed of large serpents, \u201cso tame and gentle that women make pets of\nthem, children take them to bed, they will let you tread on them,\nhave no objection to being squeezed, and will draw milk from the\nbreasts like infants.... It was doubtless one of these that was her\nbedfellow.\u201d[2316] As is apt to be the case in ancient efforts to give a\nnatural explanation of what purports to be miraculous or supernatural,\nLucian\u2019s biology is only slightly less incredible than Nectanebus\u2019s\nmagic transformations.\n\n[Sidenote: More dream-sending: magic transformation.]\n\nAs the queen became pregnant, \u201cNectanebus consecrated a hawk and told\nit to go to Philip,\u201d who was still absent, \u201cto stand by him through\nthe night and to instruct him in a dream as it was ordered.\u201d[2317]\nThe vision in question was explained by an interpreter of dreams to\nPhilip as signifying that his wife would have a son by the god Ammon.\nNevertheless Philip was somewhat suspicious and hastened to bring his\nwars to a close and hurry home. Nectanebus, however, rendering himself\ninvisible by means of the magic art, continued to deceive both king\nand queen. Once he terrified the court by appearing again in the form\nof a huge hissing serpent, but put his head in Olympias\u2019s lap and then\nkissed her. Thereupon he turned from a serpent into an eagle and flew\naway. Philip was then really convinced that his wife\u2019s lover was the\ngod Ammon.\n\n[Sidenote: An omen interpreted.]\n\nBefore the birth of Alexander the following omen befell Philip. As he\nsat absorbed in thought in a place where there were many birds flying\nabout, one of them laid an egg in his lap. It rolled to the ground, the\nshell broke, and a snake issued forth. It circled about the egg-shell\nbut when it tried to re-enter the shell was prevented by death. When\nAntiphon, the interpreter of omens, was consulted concerning this\nportent, he said that it signified that a son should be born who would\nconquer the world but die before he could regain his native land.\n\n[Sidenote: The birth of Alexander.]\n\nThe day of Olympias\u2019s delivery now approached and Nectanebus, in his\noffice of astrologer, stood by her side to tell her when the favorable\nmoment had arrived for the birth of her child. Once he urged her to\nwait, since a child born at that moment would be a slave and a captive.\nAgain he bade her restrain herself, for at that moment an effeminate\nwould be born. At last the favorable instant came for the birth of a\nworld conqueror, and Alexander was born amid an earthquake, thunder,\nand lightning. In this case, therefore, the moment of birth is regarded\nas controlling the destiny. Many astrologers, however, considered the\nmoment of conception as of greater importance; we have already heard\nAugustine tell of the sage who chose a certain hour for intercourse\nwith his wife in order to beget a marvelous son; and in the thirteenth\ncentury Albertus Magnus, in his treatise on animals, informs us that\n\u201cNectanebus, the natural father of Alexander, in having intercourse\nwith his mother Olympias, observed the time when the sun was entering\nLeo and Saturn was in Taurus, since he wished his son to receive the\nform and power of those planets.\u201d[2318]\n\n[Sidenote: The death of Nectanebus.]\n\nThe death of Nectanebus was as closely in accord with the stars as was\nthe birth of Alexander. At the age of twelve Alexander found Nectanebus\nin consultation with Olympias and, attracted by his astrological\ntablet, made him promise to show him the stars at night. Then as\nNectanebus walked along star-gazing, Alexander pushed him into a steep\npit which they chanced to pass, and Nectanebus lay there with a broken\nneck. When he asked Alexander the reason for his act, the boy replied\nthat it was in order to convince him of the futility of his art, since\nhe gazed at the stars unmindful of what threatened him from the ground.\nBut Nectanebus rebuts this revised version of the maid servant\u2019s taunt\nto Thales by telling Alexander that he had been forewarned by the stars\nthat he should be killed by his own son, and by revealing to Alexander\nthe secret of his birth.[2319]\n\nIn concluding the story of Nectanebus it is perhaps worth while to\nemphasize the fact that the epitomes and Julius Valerius often use the\nword _magus_ of Nectanebus as an astrologer and that in general magic,\nastrology, and divination are indissolubly connected.\n\n[Sidenote: The Amazons and Gymnosophists.]\n\nSome account is given both in Julius Valerius and the longer epitome\nof Alexander\u2019s exchange of letters with the Amazons and of questions\nwhich he put to the Gymnosophists of India (i. e. the Brahmans) and\ntheir replies. Neither of these promising themes, however, results in\nthe introduction of any magic or occult science. We also find in the\n_Stromata_ of Clement of Alexandria[2320] a list of ten questions which\nAlexander propounded to ten of the Gymnosophists of India and their\ningenious answers given under pain of death if their responses proved\nunsatisfactory.\n\n[Sidenote: The letter to Aristotle.]\n\nNor does Alexander\u2019s letter to Aristotle on the marvels of India reveal\nmany specific instances of superstition that are at all interesting.\nFor the most part it recounts his marches, the sufferings of his army\nfrom thirst, combats with wild beasts, serpents, and hippopotamuses,\nand the treasures which he captured. Alexander states that \u201cin former\nletters I informed you about the eclipse of the sun and moon and the\nconstancy of the stars and the signs of the air.\u201d[2321] He tells now,\nhowever, of a place where there are two trees of the sun and moon,\nspeaking Indian and Greek, one masculine and the other feminine, from\nwhich one may learn what the future has in store for good or evil. As\nto this Alexander was inclined to be incredulous, but the natives swore\nthat it was true, and his companions urged him \u201cnot to be defrauded\nof the experience of so great a thing.\u201d Accordingly he made his way\nto the spot despite the innumerable beasts and snakes which beset\nhis path. Chastity was essential in order to approach the trees, and\nhe also had to lay aside his rings, royal robes, and shoes. The sun\ntree then told him at dawn that he would never see home or his mother\nand sisters again. At eventide the moon tree added that he would\ndie at Babylon.[2322] The third and final response, vouchsafed by\nthe sun tree, was that his death would be from poison, but the name\nof the poisoner the oracular tree refused to divulge lest Alexander\ntry to kill him first and thus cheat the three Fates. Alexander has\nconsequently had to content himself, as he informs Aristotle in the\nclosing sentence of his letter, with building a monument to perpetuate\nhis name among all mortals.[2323]\n\nOf other spurious treatises ascribed to Alexander in the middle ages,\nworks of alchemy and works of astrology, we shall treat in a later\nchapter on the Pseudo-Aristotle.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n POST-CLASSICAL MEDICINE\n\n Three representatives of post-classical medicine\u2014Bibliographical\n note\u2014Medical compendiums: Oribasius and Paul of Aegina\u2014A\u00ebtius of\n Amida\u2014How superstitious are A\u00ebtius and Alexander of Tralles?\u2014Compound\n medicines\u2014A\u00ebtius merely reproduces the superstition of Galen\u2014Occult\n science mixed with some scepticism\u2014Alexander of Tralles\u2014Originality\n of his work\u2014His medieval influence\u2014His personal experience\u2014Extent\n of his superstition\u2014_Physica_\u2014Occult virtue of substances applied\n externally\u2014Other things used as ligatures and amulets\u2014Astrology and\n sculpture of rings\u2014Incantations\u2014Conjuration of an herb\u2014Medieval\n version seems less superstitious than the original text\u2014Marcellus:\n date and identity\u2014\u201cMarcellus Empiricus\u201d\u2014Superstitious character\n of his medicine\u2014Preparation of goat\u2019s blood\u2014A rabbit\u2019s foot\u2014Magic\n transfer of disease\u2014Pliny and Marcellus compared on green lizards as\n eye-cures\u2014More lizardry\u2014Use of stones and an herb\u2014Right and left:\n number\u2014Incantations and characters\u2014The art of medicine survives the\n barbarian invasions.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Three representatives of post-classical medicine.]\n\nIn this chapter as representatives of post-classical medicine and\nits influence upon medieval Latin medicine we shall consider three\nwriters whose works date from the close of the fourth to the middle\nof the sixth century, Marcellus of Bordeaux or Marcellus Empiricus,\nA\u00ebtius of Amida in Mesopotamia, and Alexander of Tralles in Asia\nMinor.[2324] They have just been mentioned in their chronological\norder, but although Marcellus antedates the other two by a full\ncentury, we shall consider him last, since he wrote in Latin while\nthey wrote in Greek, and since he includes Celtic words and probably\nCeltic folk-lore, and since he seems to have been a native of Gaul,\nif not of Bordeaux,[2325] and thus is geographically closer to the\nscene of medieval Latin learning. A\u00ebtius and Alexander have the closer\nconnection not only with the eastern and Greek world but also with the\npast classical medicine of Galen and so will provide a better point of\ndeparture. Presumably from the places and periods in which they lived,\nall three of our authors were Christians, but it must be said that the\nchief evidence of Christianity in their works is the use of Christian\nor Hebrew proper names in incantations, and there are some analogous\nrelics of pagan superstition.\n\n[Sidenote: Medical compendiums: Oribasius and Paul of Aegina.]\n\nAs Tribonian and Justinian boiled down the voluminous legal literature\nof Rome into one _Digest_, so there was a similar tendency to reduce\nthe past medical writings of the Greeks into one compendious work.\nPaul of Aegina, writing in the seventh century, observes in his\npreface[2326] that it is not right, when lawyers who usually have\nplenty of time to reflect over their cases have handy summaries of\ntheir subject to which they can refer, that physicians whose cases\noften require immediate action should not also have some convenient\nhandbook, and the more so since many of them are called upon to\nexercise their profession not in large cities with easy access to\nlibraries, but in the country, in desert places, or on shipboard.\nOribasius, friend and physician of the emperor Julian, 361-363 A.\nD., had made such a compendium by that emperor\u2019s order. In this he\nembodied so much of Galen\u2019s teachings that he became known as \u201cthe\nape of Galen,\u201d[2327] although he also used more recent writers. But\nPaul of Aegina regarded this work of Oribasius as too bulky, since\nit originally comprised seventy-two books although only twenty-five\nare now extant, and so essayed a briefer compilation of his own. Two\ncenturies ago, however, Friend and Milward protested against regarding\nPaul, A\u00ebtius, and Alexander as mere compilers and maintained that they\n\u201cwere really men of great learning and experience\u201d[2328] who \u201chave\ndescribed distempers which were omitted before; taught a new method of\ntreating old ones; given an account of new medicines, both simple and\ncompound; and made large additions to the practice of surgery.\u201d[2329]\nPuschmann more recently states that Paul\u2019s compendium was \u201ccomposed\nwith great originality and independence\u201d and is of great value\n\u201cparticularly in its surgical sections.\u201d[2330] After Paul, however,\nthe Byzantine medical writers, such as Palladius, Theophilus, Stephen\nof Alexandria, Nonus, and Psellus, were of an inferior caliber.[2331]\nWith Paul\u2019s work, however, we are not now further concerned, nor with\nthat of Oribasius, but with the somewhat similar compendiums of A\u00ebtius\nand Alexander which lie chronologically between these other two. It is\nA\u00ebtius and Alexander whom Payne accuses of \u201cintroducing into classical\nmedicine the magical elements derived from the East\u201d[2332] and whom\nwe might therefore expect to possess an especial interest for our\ninvestigation.\n\n[Sidenote: A\u00ebtius of Amida.]\n\nOf the life and personality of A\u00ebtius we know very little, but inasmuch\nas he mentions St. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, and Peter the\nArchiater, a physician of Theodoric, while he himself is cited by\nAlexander of Tralles, he seems to have lived at the end of the fifth\nand beginning of the sixth century.[2333] And since Alexander cites him\nonly in his book on fevers which seems to have been composed after the\nrest of his work, it seems probable that A\u00ebtius was almost contemporary\nwith him and wrote in the sixth rather than the fifth century. His\n_Tetrabiblos_\u2014each of the four books subdivides into four sections and\noften these are spoken of as sixteen books\u2014occupies a middle position\nnot only in time but in length between the works of Oribasius and Paul,\nand resembles the latter in making a great deal of use of the former.\nA\u00ebtius\u2019 extracts from the older writers are shorter than those of\nOribasius, however, and he also differs from him in combining several\nauthorities in a single chapter, the method usually adopted by the\nmedieval Latin encyclopedists. It has been noted that the wording of\nthe original authorities was often preserved in the oldest medieval\nmanuscripts of A\u00ebtius, until the copyists of the time of the Italian\nRenaissance began to touch up the style in accordance with their\nerroneous notions of what constituted classical Greek.[2334] It may\nalso be said that these systematically arranged handbooks of Oribasius,\nA\u00ebtius, and the rest, where one could find what one was looking after,\nwere far superior in systematic and orderly presentation to the\ndiscursive works of Galen which, like many other classical writings,\noften seem rambling and without any particular plan.[2335] This more\nlogical, if somewhat cut-and-dried method, was also to be a virtue of\nmedieval Latin learning. Whether A\u00ebtius directly influenced the Latin\nmiddle ages is doubtful, since no early Latin translation of him seems\nto be known.[2336] The work of Oribasius, however, exists in Latin\ntranslation in manuscripts of the seventh century as well as in others\nof the ninth and twelfth.[2337]\n\n[Sidenote: How superstitious are A\u00ebtius and Alexander?]\n\nThe works of A\u00ebtius and Alexander of Tralles do not impress me as\ncontaining an unusually large amount of superstitious medicine. Much\nless am I inclined to agree with Payne that they are responsible for\nthe introduction into classical medicine of magical elements derived\nfrom the east. These elements, whether derived from the orient any more\nthan any other feature of classical civilization or not, at any rate\nhad been a prominent feature of classical medicine long before the days\nof A\u00ebtius and Alexander, as Pliny\u2019s review of medicine before his time\nabundantly proved and as is also shown by the extraordinary virtues\nwhich Pliny himself, his contemporary Dioscorides, and even the great\nGalen attributed to medicinal simples.\n\n[Sidenote: Compound medicines.]\n\nIt is true that A\u00ebtius and Alexander abound in recipes for elaborate\nmedical compounds composed of numerous ingredients. Of such concoctions\none example must suffice, a plaster which A\u00ebtius recommends for tumors,\nhard lumps, and gout. \u201cOf the terebinth-tree, of the stone of Asia, of\nbitumen three hundred and sixty drams each; of washing-soda (_spumae\nnitri_), calf-fat, wax, laurel berries, ammonia, and thyme three\nhundred and forty drams each; of the stone pyrites and quick-lime one\nhundred and twenty drams each; of the ashes of asps which have been\nburned alive one hundred and forty drams; of old oil two pounds. First\nliquefy the oil and wax, then the bitumen, which should have first\nbeen pulverized. Add to these the fat, and presently the ammonia and\nterebinth; and when these are taken off the fire mix in the lime and\nstone of Asia, then the laurel berries and washing-soda, and finally\nafter the medicament has cooled sprinkle the ashes of asps upon\nit.\u201d[2338] Such concoctions are to a large extent borrowed by A\u00ebtius,\nAlexander, and Marcellus from earlier writers. Moreover, while Pliny\nhad excluded such compounds from the pages of his _Natural History_, he\nhad also made it abundantly evident that they were already in general\nuse by his time, and they are to be found in great numbers in the works\nof Galen who cites many from preceding writers.\n\n[Sidenote: A\u00ebtius merely reproduces the superstition of Galen.]\n\nIndeed, it was from Galen himself and not from the east that A\u00ebtius\nat least derived his most strikingly superstitious passages. This\nwas accidentally and convincingly proven by my own experience. It so\nhappened that I wrote an account of the passages in the _Tetrabiblos_\nof A\u00ebtius before I had read extensively in Galen\u2019s works. When I came\nto do so, I found that almost every passage that I had selected to\nillustrate the superstitious side of A\u00ebtius was contained in Galen:\nfor example, the use as an amulet of a green jasper suspended from the\nneck by a thread so as to touch the abdomen;[2339] the story of the\nreapers who found the dead viper in their wine and cured instead of\nkilling the sufferer from elephantiasis to whom they gave the wine to\ndrink;[2340] the tale of his preceptor who roasted river crabs to an\nash in a red copper dish in August during dog-days on the eighteenth\nday of the moon, and administered the powder daily for forty days to\npersons bitten by mad dogs.[2341] Such passages are usually repeated\nby A\u00ebtius in such a way as to lead the reader to think them his own\nexperiences, a fact which warns us not to accept the assertions of\nancient and medieval authors that they have experienced this or that\nat their face value, and which makes us wonder if Friend and Milward\nwere not too generous in regarding A\u00ebtius at least as more than a\ncompiler. He also repeats some of Galen\u2019s general observations anent\nexperience as that the virtues of simples are best discovered thus,\nand that he will not discuss all plants but only those \u201cof which we\nhave information by experience.\u201d[2342] He further reproduces Galen\u2019s\nattitude of mingled credulity and scepticism concerning the basilisk,\ncombining the two passages into one;[2343] also Galen\u2019s questioning the\nefficacy of incantations and telling of having seen a scorpion killed\nby the mere spittle of a fasting man without any incantation.[2344]\nLike Galen again, he omits all injurious medicaments and expresses\nthe opinion that men who spread the knowledge of such drugs do more\nharm than actual poisoners who perhaps cause but a single death.[2345]\nLike Galen he announces his intention to omit all \u201cabominable and\ndetestable recipes and those which are prohibited by law,\u201d mentioning\nas instances the eating of human flesh and drinking urine or _menses\nmuliebres_.[2346] But also like Galen, he devotes several chapters to\nthe virtues of human and animal excrement, especially recommending\nthat of dogs after they have been fed on bones for two days.[2347]\nSomewhat similar to Galen\u2019s recommendation to fill cavities in the\nteeth with roasted earthworms is the recipe of A\u00ebtius for painless\nextraction of teeth \u201cwithout iron.\u201d The tooth must first be thoroughly\nscraped or the gum cut loose about it, and then sprinkled with the\nashes of earthworms. \u201cTherefore use this remedy with confidence, for\nit has already often been celebrated as a mystery.\u201d[2348] Such use of\nearthworms continued a feature of medieval dentistry.\n\n[Sidenote: Occult science mixed with some scepticism.]\n\nOf my original selections from A\u00ebtius very few are now left, and it is\nnot unlikely that they too might be found somewhere in Galen\u2019s works if\none looked long enough. A\u00ebtius asserts that drinking bitumen or asphalt\nin water will prevent hydrophobia from developing,[2349] and recommends\nfor wounds inflicted by sea serpents an application of lead with a\nslice of the serpent itself.[2350] He takes the following prescription\nfrom Oribasius. To cure impotency anoint the big toe of the right foot\nwith oil in which the pulverized ashes of a lizard have been mixed. To\ncheck the operation of this powerful stimulant one has merely to wash\noff the ointment from the toe.[2351] On the other hand, an instance of\na sceptical tendency is the citation of the view of Posidonius that\nthe so-called _incubus_ is not a demon but a disease akin to epilepsy\nand insanity and marked by suffocation, loss of voice, heaviness,\nand immobility.[2352] It may also be noted that in discussing the\nmedicinal virtues of the beaver\u2019s testicles A\u00ebtius does not include\nthe story of its biting them off in order to escape its hunters.[2353]\nHe does, however, cite several authorities, Piso, Menelbus, Simonides,\nAristodemus, and Pherecydes for instances of the remarkable powers of\ncertain animals in discovering the presence of poisons and preserving\nthemselves and their owners from this danger: a partridge who made\na great noise and fuss whenever any medicament or poison was being\nprepared in the house; a pet eagle who would attack anyone in the house\nwho even plotted such a thing; a peacock who would go to the place\nwhere the dose had been prepared and raise a clamor, or upset the\nreceptacle containing the potion, or dig up a charm, if it had been\nburied underground; and a pet ichneumon and parrot who were endowed\nwith very similar gifts.[2354] A\u00ebtius shows a slight tendency in the\ndirection of astrological medicine, giving a list of \u201ctimes ordained by\nGod\u201d for the risings and settings of various stars, since these affect\nthe air and winds, and since \u201cthe bodies of persons in good health, and\nmuch more so those of the sick, are altered according to the state of\nthe air.\u201d[2355] But on the whole, of our three authors, A\u00ebtius seems to\ncontain the smallest proportional amount of superstitious medicine and\noccult science.\n\n[Sidenote: Alexander of Tralles.]\n\nAlexander of Tralles was the son of a physician and, according to the\nByzantine historian, Agathias,[2356] the youngest of a group of five\ndistinguished brothers, including Anthemius of Tralles, architect of\nSt. Sophia at Constantinople, and Metrodorus the grammarian, whom\nJustinian summoned also to his court. Alexander had visited Italy,\nGaul, and Spain as well as all parts of Greece[2357] before settling\ndown in old age, when he could no longer engage in active medical\npractice,[2358] to the composition of his _magnum opus_ in twelve books\nbeginning with the head, eyes, and ears, and ending with gout and\nfever. Aside from his citation of A\u00ebtius in the book on fevers, the\nlatest writer named by Alexander is Jacobus Psychrestus, physician to\nLeo the Great about 474.[2359] It seems rather strange that Alexander\nsays nothing of the pestilence of 542.[2360]\n\n[Sidenote: Originality of his work.]\n\nAlexander embodied the results of his own practice to a much greater\nextent than Oribasius and A\u00ebtius. His book is more a record of his\nown medical observations and experiences than a compilation from past\nwritings, a fact recognized in the first edition which entitled it\n_Practica_, and \u201cthough he pays a due deference to the ancients,\nyet he is so far from putting an implicit faith in what they have\nadvanced that he very often dissents from their doctrines.\u201d[2361]\nPuschmann regarded him as the first doctor for a long time who had\ndone any original thinking,[2362] and esteemed his pathology as\nhighly as his therapeutics had been esteemed by his sixteenth century\ntranslator, Guinther of Andernach.[2363] Friend wrote of him in the\nearly eighteenth century, \u201cHis method is extremely rational and just\nand after all our discoveries and improvements in physick scarce\nanything can be added to it.\u201d[2364] Alexander seems to have been a\npractitioner of much resource and ingenuity, stopping hemorrhage of the\nnose by blowing down or fuzz up the nostrils through a hollow reed,\nand directing patients, a thousand years before the discovery of the\nEustachian tube, to sneeze with mouth and nose stopped up in order to\ndislodge a foreign object from the ear.[2365] According to Milward,\nAlexander was the first Greek medical writer to mention rhubarb and\ntape-worms, and the first practitioner to open the jugular veins.[2366]\nIndeed, Alexander advises blood-letting a great deal, but Milward,\nwhose age still approved of that practice, notes that he was \u201cno ways\naddicted to those superstitious rules of opening this or that vein in\nparticular cases which several of the ancients and some even among the\nmoderns have been so very fond of.\u201d[2367] Finally, Alexander\u2019s concise\nand orderly method of presentation compares favorably with that of the\nclassical medical writers.\n\n[Sidenote: His medieval influence.]\n\nAlexander\u2019s book traveled west, as its author had done, and was current\nin a free and abbreviated Latin translation from an early date.[2368]\nIn fact, it was from the Latin version that the work was translated\ninto Hebrew and Syriac.[2369] Not only are Latin manuscripts of\nAlexander\u2019s work as a whole or of extracts from it[2370] found from\nthe ninth century on, while printed editions in Latin were numerous\nthrough the sixteenth century, but it was much used and cited by\nmedieval writers such as Constantinus Africanus, Gariopontus,[2371] and\nGilbert of England.[2372] It is not, however, always safe to assume\nthat citations of _Alexander medicus_, encountered in thirteenth\ncentury writers on the nature of things like Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9 and\nBartholomew of England, have reference to Alexander of Tralles, since a\ntreatise on fevers is also ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias,[2373]\nwhile a work on the pulse and urine in fevers is thought to be by\nsome medieval Alexander.[2374] And medical treatises are sometimes\nascribed even to Alexander the Great of Macedon in the medieval\nmanuscripts.[2375]\n\n[Sidenote: His personal experience.]\n\nWe have already said that Alexander is no mere compiler but embodies\nthe results of his own observation and experience during a long period\nof travel and medical practice. He frequently asserts that he has\ntested this or that for himself, or that the prescription in question\nhas been \u201capproved by long use and experience,\u201d[2376] so that it\nis not surprising that we find the name Alexander still associated\nwith medical \u201cexperiments\u201d in manuscripts dating from the twelfth to\nfifteenth centuries.[2377] One of his cures for epilepsy he learned\n\u201cfrom a rustic in Tuscany\u201d (_Thuscia?_) but afterwards often employed\nwith success himself.[2378] \u201cIt is a marvelous and exceptional medicine\nwhich you will communicate to no one,\u201d concludes Alexander, a rather\nsurprising prohibition in view of the fact that it was a popular remedy\nto begin with. Folk-lore, however, is often supposed to be kept secret.\nAnother general rule which holds true in Alexander\u2019s case is that these\nempirical remedies are apt to be the most superstitious, and conversely\nthat marvels are apt to be supported by solemn assurance of their\nexperimental testing.\n\n[Sidenote: Extent of his superstition.]\n\nTwo centuries ago Milward wrote of Alexander of Tralles, \u201cBut there\nis another objection to our author\u2019s character which I cannot pretend\nto say much in defence of, and that is, his being addicted to charms\nand amulets. It is very surprising that one who discovers so much\njudgment in other matters should show so much weakness in this.\u201d[2379]\nAlexander certainly devotes more space to superstition relatively to\nthe length of his book than A\u00ebtius does and also is hospitable to a\nwider range of more or less magical notions and practices. One notices,\nhowever, in his book that the treatment of certain diseases, such as\nepilepsy, colic, gout, and quartan fever, is more likely to involve\nmagical and astrological procedure than that of other ailments such as\nearache and disorder of the spleen. This is also apt to be the case\nwith other ancient and medieval medical works. But it is doubtful if\nthe distinction can be sharply drawn that magic was resorted to more in\nthose diseases which seemed most mysterious and incurable.\n\n[Sidenote: _Physica._]\n\nThe chief circumstance which renders some parts of Alexander\u2019s work\nmore superstitious than others is that he sometimes, after concluding\nthe usual medical description of the disease and prescriptions for\nit, adds a list of what he calls physical or natural medicines\n(\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac), which are for the most part ligatures and suspensions but\ninvolve also the employment of incantations and engraved images or\ncharacters. Apparently he calls these remedies _physica_, because\nthey supposedly act by some peculiar property or occult virtue of the\nsubstance which is bound on or suspended and constitute a sort of\nnatural magic. Alexander explains that \u201csince some cannot observe a\ndiet nor endure medicine, they compel us in the case of gout to employ\nphysical remedies and ligatures; and in order that the well-trained\nphysician may be instructed in every side of his art and able to help\nall sick persons in every way, I come to this subject.\u201d[2380] This\nrather apologetic tone and the fact that he separates the _physica_\nfrom his other remedies show that he regards them as not quite on the\nsame level with normal medical procedure. He goes on to say, however,\nthat although there are many of these \u201cphysical\u201d remedies which are\nefficacious, he will write down only those proved true by long use.\nIn discussing fevers he again justifies the inclusion of _physica_ in\nmuch the same way and says that those now mentioned were learned by him\nduring a long-extended practice and experience.[2381] It is to be noted\nthat some of these chapters on physical ligatures do not appear in the\nLatin version in three books, at least as it was printed in 1504.\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtue of substances applied externally.]\n\nOne ligature which is \u201cquite celebrated and approved by many\u201d and\nwhich instantly lessens the pain of ulcers in the feet, makes use of\nmuscles from a wild ass, a wild boar, and a stork, binding the right\nmuscles about the patient\u2019s right foot and the left muscles about the\nleft foot. Some persons, however, do not intertwine the muscles of\nthe stork with the others but put them separately into the skin of\na sea-calf. Also they take care to bind the other muscles about the\npatient\u2019s feet when the moon is in the west or in a sterile sign and\napproaching Saturn. Others bind on the tendons and claws of a vulture,\nor the feet of a hare who should remain alive.[2382] Alexander seems\nto regard the carcass of the ass as especially remedial in the case of\nepilepsy. In Spain he learned to use the skull of an ass reduced to\nashes and he recommends employing the forehead and brain of an ass as\namulets.[2383] A suspension for quartan fever consists of a live beetle\nfirmly fastened on the outside of a red linen cloth and hung about\nthe neck. \u201cThis is true and often tested by experience,\u201d Alexander\nassures us. Also excellent for this purpose are hairs from a goat\u2019s\ncheek or a green lizard combined with clippings of the patient\u2019s finger\nnails and toe nails. It is confirmed by the testimony of all \u201cnatural\u201d\nphysicians that the blood _qui primus a virgine fuerit excretus_ is\nnaturally hostile to quartan fever. Even if the girl is not chaste,\nthe blood will be efficacious, if applied to the patient\u2019s right hand\nor arm.[2384] Alexander knew a man who treated quartan fever by giving\nan undergarment of the patient to a woman in childbirth to wear, after\nwhich the patient wore it again and was cured \u201cmiraculously by some\nantipathy and occult influence.\u201d[2385]\n\n[Sidenote: Other things used as ligatures and in amulets.]\n\nThe materials employed in Alexander\u2019s therapeutics are sometimes those\nwhich we associate especially with magic arts, such as the hair and\nnail-parings already mentioned. Against epilepsy he employs nails from\na cross or wrecked ship, or the blood-stained shirt of a gladiator\nor criminal who has been slain. The nails are bound to the patient\u2019s\narm; the shirt is burned and the patient given the ashes in wine\nseven times. The use of a nail from a cross is a method ascribed to\nAsclepiades. Other materials recommended by Alexander against gout and\nepilepsy include the herb night-shade, the stones magnet and aetites,\nblood of a swallow and urine of a boy, chameleons in varied forms, and\nthe stones found in dissected swallows of which we have heard before\nand shall hear yet again. For Alexander these stones are black and\nwhite, but he states that they are not found in all young swallows\nbut are said to appear only in the first-born, so that one often has\nto dissect a great many birds before one finds any. In these passages\non _Physica_ Alexander cites such authors of magical reputation as\nOstanes and Democritus, and tells how the latter suffered in youth from\nepilepsy until an oracle from Delphi instructed him to make use of the\nworms in goats\u2019 brains. When a goat sneezes violently, some of these\nworms are expelled into his nostrils, whence they should be carefully\nextracted in a cloth without allowing them to touch the ground. Either\none or three of them should then be worn about the epileptic\u2019s neck\nwrapped in the thin skin of a black sheep.[2386]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology and sculpture of rings.]\n\nOne passage has already been cited where astrological conditions were\nobserved. Alexander sometimes prescribes the day of the month upon\nwhich things shall be done; an oil, for instance, is to be prepared\non the fifth of March.[2387] In one place Alexander advises engraving\nupon a copper die a lion, a half-moon, a star, and the name of the\nbeast. This is to be worn enclosed in a gold ring upon the fourth\nfinger.[2388] That the lion may not stand for a sign of the zodiac is\nsuggested by another instruction concerning an engraved stone to be set\nin a gold ring, and which is to be carved with a figure of Hercules\nsuffocating a lion.[2389] For gout, however, one writes a verse of\nHomer on a copper plate when the moon is in Libra or Leo.[2390] For\ncolic one inscribes upon an iron ring with an octangular circumference\na charm beginning, \u201cFlee, flee, colic.\u201d[2391]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations.]\n\nThe employment of such incantations is expressly justified by\nAlexander, who maintains that even \u201cthe most divine\u201d Galen, who once\nthought that incantations were of no avail, came after a long time\nand much experience to be convinced that they were of great efficacy.\nAlexander then quotes from a treatise which is not extant but which\nhe asserts is a work by Galen entitled, _On medical treatment in\nHomer_.[2392] \u201cSo some think that incantations are like old-wives\u2019\ntales and so I thought for a long while, but in process of time from\nperfectly plain instances I have become persuaded that there is force\nin them, for I have experienced their aid in the case of persons stung\nby scorpions. And no less in the case of bones stuck in the throat,\nwhich were straightway expelled by an incantation.\u201d Alexander himself\nthereupon continues, \u201cIf such is the testimony of divinest Galen and\nmany other ancients, what prevents us too from communicating to you\nthose which we have learned from experience and which we have received\nfrom trustworthy friends?\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Conjuration of an herb.]\n\nBoth incantations and observance of astrological conditions play an\nimportant part in the instructions given by Alexander for digging and\nplucking with imprecations an herb to be used in the treatment of\nfluxions of hands or feet. \u201cWhen the moon is in Aquarius under Pisces,\ndig before sunset, not touching the root. After digging with two\nfingers of the left hand, namely, the thumb and middle finger, say,\n\u2018I address you, I address you, sacred herb. I summon you to-morrow to\nthe house of Philia to stay the fluxion of feet and hands of this man\nor this woman. But I adjure you by the great name, Iaoth, Sabaoth, God\nwho established the earth and fixed the sea abounding in fluid floods,\nwho desiccated Lot\u2019s wife and made her a statue of salt, receive the\nspirit of thy mother earth and its powers, and dry up this fluxion of\nfeet or of hands of this man or woman.\u2019 On the morrow ere sunrise,\ntaking the bone of some dead animal, dig up the root, and holding it\nsay, \u2018I adjure you by the sacred names, Iaoth, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloi,\u2019\nand sprinkle a pinch of salt on that root, saying, \u2018As this salt is not\nincreased, so be not the ailment of this man or of this woman.\u2019 Then\nbind one end of the root to the patient, taking care that it is not\nmoist, and suspend the rest of it over the fire for 360 days.\u201d[2393]\nThe mention of mother earth in this charm perhaps indicates an ultimate\npagan origin, but the allusions to one God, and to incidents in the Old\nTestament, and the use of names of spirits show Jewish or Christian\ninfluence, while the number 360 perhaps points to the Gnostics.\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval version seems less superstitious than the original\ntext.]\n\nWhile in conformity with the character of our investigation we have\nemphasized those passages in Alexander which are suggestive of magic\nand its methods, it should be said that many of the passages which\nwe have cited are apparently[2394] not found in the medieval Latin\nversions which seem to omit many, although not all, of the chapters\ndevoted to physical ligatures. Here then apparently is a case where\nthe early medieval translator and adapter, instead of retaining and\nemphasizing the superstition of the past, has largely purged his text\nof it. But we have next to consider a Latin work, written apparently\nabout the year 400 A.\u202fD. and known to us through two manuscripts of the\nninth century, in which magic is far more rampant than in any version\nof Alexander of Tralles. Judging, however, from the small number of\nextant manuscripts, it was less influential through the medieval period\nthan was Alexander\u2019s book.\n\n[Sidenote: Marcellus: date and identity.]\n\nThe _De medicamentis_ opens in one of the two extant manuscripts with\na dedicatory letter from \u201cMarcellus, an illustrious man of the main\noffice of Theodosius the Elder (?)\u201d to his sons.[2395] This ascription\nis generally accepted as genuine, and Grimm believed this to be the\nsame Marcellus as the physician who is gratefully mentioned, together\nwith his sons, then mere infants, in the letters of Libanius, whose\nsevere headaches Marcellus had alleviated, and as the _Marcellus\nmagister officiorum_ who is mentioned twice in the Theodosian Code\nunder the year 395. The date of the _De medicamentis_ may be further\nfixed from its including \u201ca singular remedy for spleen which the\npatriarch Gamaliel recently revealed from proved experiments.\u201d This\nGamaliel was Jewish patriarch at Constantinople from some time before\n395 on to 415 or later. The question, however, of Marcellus\u2019 authorship\nis complicated by the fact that he is twice cited in the work itself.\nOne of these passages concerns an \u201coxyporium which Nero used for the\ndigestion, which Marcellus the eminent physician revealed, which we too\nhave tested in practice.\u201d[2396] This sounds as if some later person had\nhad a hand in the work as it has reached us, since Marcellus himself\nwould scarcely have cited another person of the same name without\nsome distinguishing epithet. Furthermore A\u00ebtius cites a Marcellus for\na passage which does not appear in the _De medicamentis_ concerning\nwolfish or canine insanity, in which men imagine themselves to be\nwolves or dogs and act like them during the night in the month of\nFebruary. But the _De medicamentis_ as a whole is of the character\npromised by Marcellus in the introductory letter to his sons and so may\nbe taken as his work.\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cMarcellus Empiricus.\u201d]\n\nThe empiricism which we have already noted in Alexander of Tralles\nbecomes most pronounced and most extreme in Marcellus, who indeed\nis often called Marcellus Empiricus on this account, and many of\nwhose chapter and other headings[2397] terminate with these words\ndescriptive of their contents, \u201cvarious rational and natural remedies\nlearned by experience\u201d (_remedia rationabilia et physica diversa de\nexperimentis_). In his preface, too, he speaks of his book not as _De\nmedicamentis_ but as _De empiricis_. He has, it is true, utilized \u201cthe\nold authorities of the medical art set down in the Latin language,\u201d and\nlikewise more recent writers and \u201cthe works of studious men\u201d who were\nnot especially trained in medicine; but he also includes what he has\nlearned from hearsay or from personal experience, and \u201ceven remedies\nchanced upon by rustics and the populace and simples which they have\ntested by experience.\u201d One prescription, which he characterizes as\nefficacious beyond human hope and incapable of being satisfactorily\nlauded, he purchased from an old-wife of Africa who cured many at\nRome by it, while the author himself has employed it in the cure of\n\u201cseveral persons neither of humble rank nor unknown, whose names it is\nsuperfluous to mention.\u201d This remedy is a concoction of such things as\nashes of deer-horn, nine grains of white pepper, a little myrrh, and an\nAfrican snail pounded shell and all while still alive in a mortar and\nthen mixed with Falernian wine. Very detailed and explicit directions\nare given as to its preparation and administration, including an\ninstruction to drink the dose facing towards the east.[2398] In\nanother passage Marcellus says of certain compounds, \u201cIf there is any\nfaith, both I myself have always found them by experience to be useful\nremedies and I can state that others are of the same mind; and I will\nadd this, that other medicines can not compare to this liniment, which\nin similar cases several of my friends, whom I trust as I do myself,\nhave affirmed on oath they have found by experience a remarkable\ncure.\u201d[2399] Of an eye-remedy he remarks, \u201cAnd that we may believe the\nauthor of this remedy from experience, he states that after he had been\nblind for twelve years it restored his sight within twenty days.\u201d[2400]\nMarcellus also frequently couples marvelousness with experimentation,\nsaying, \u201cYou will experience a wonderful remedy.\u201d In one passage he\nuses the word \u201cexperiment\u201d as a verb rather than as a noun, coining\na new expression, _experimentatum remedium_,[2401] but his commonest\nexpressions are _de experimento_ or _de experimentis_, _expertum_, and\n_experieris_ or _experietur_.[2402] Some of his \u201cexperiences\u201d really\nare purposive experiments, as where one discovers whether a tumor is\nscrofulous by applying an earthworm to it. Then put the worm on a leaf\nand if the tumor was scrofulous, the worm will turn into earth.[2403]\nThe following experiment indicates that sufferers from spleen should\ndrink in vinegar the root or dried leaves of the tamarisk. Give\ntamarisk to a pig to eat for nine days, then kill the animal and you\nwill find it without a spleen.[2404]\n\n[Sidenote: Superstitious character of his medicine.]\n\nAs Marcellus appeals the most to experience, so he is by far the most\ngiven to superstition and folk-lore of our three authors. Practically\nhis entire work is of the character of the passages devoted to\n_Physica_ by Alexander of Tralles. He indulges in no medical theory, he\ndoes not diagnose diseases, nor prescribe a regimen of health in the\nform of bathing, diet, and exercise. His work is wholly composed of\nmedicaments and for the most part empirical ones. Besides the elaborate\ncompounds which were so frequent in A\u00ebtius and Alexander, he is\nextremely addicted to absurd rigmarole and all sorts of superstitious\npractices in the application or administration of medicinal simples.\nHis pharmacy includes not only herbs and gems, to which he attributes\noccult virtue and which he sometimes directs to have engraven with\ncharacters and figures, such as SSS or a dragon surrounded with seven\nrays[2405]\u2014the emblem of the Agathodaemon, but also all kinds of\nanimals, reptiles, and parts of the same, after the fashion of Pliny\u2019s\nmedicine. He is constantly calling into requisition such things as\nthe ashes of a mole, the blood of a bat, the brains of a mouse, the\ngall of a hyena, the hoofs of a live ass, the liver of a wolf, woman\u2019s\nmilk, sea-hares, a white spider with very long legs, and centipedes\nor multipedes, especially the variety that rolls up into a ball when\ntouched. But it is scarcely feasible to separate Marcellus\u2019 materials\nfrom his procedure, so we will begin to consider them together in some\nprescriptions where animals play the leading part.\n\n[Sidenote: Preparation of goat\u2019s blood.]\n\nFor those suffering from stone is recommended a remedy prepared in\nthe following fashion. In August shut up in a dry place for three\ndays a goat, preferably a wild one who is one year old, and feed him\non nothing but laurel and give him no water to drink; finally on the\nthird day, which should fall on a Thursday or Sunday, kill him. Both\nthe person who kills the goat and the patient should be chaste and\npure. Cut the goat\u2019s throat and collect his blood\u2014it is best if the\nblood is collected by naked boys\u2014and burn it to an ash in an earthen\npot. After combining it with various herbs and drugs, there are further\ndirections to follow as to how it may best be administered to the\npatient. Marcellus, by the way, affirms that adamant can be broken only\nby goat\u2019s blood.[2406]\n\n[Sidenote: A rabbit\u2019s foot.]\n\nThe following prescription involves the familiar superstition that a\nrabbit\u2019s foot is lucky: \u201cCut off the foot of a live rabbit and take\nhairs from under its belly and let it go. Of those hairs or wool make\na strong thread and with it bind the rabbit\u2019s foot to the body of the\npatient and you will find a marvelous remedy. But the remedy will be\neven more efficacious, so that it is hardly credible, if by chance\nyou find that bone, namely, the rabbit\u2019s ankle-bone, in the dung of\na wolf, which you should guard so that it neither touches the earth\nnor is touched by woman. Nor should any woman touch that thread made\nof the rabbit\u2019s wool.\u201d Marcellus further recommends that in releasing\nthe rabbit after taking its wool you should say, \u201cFlee, flee, little\nrabbit, and take the pain away with you.\u201d[2407]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic transfer of disease.]\n\nOf such magical transfer of disease to other animals or objects there\nare a number of examples. Toothache may be stopped by standing on the\nground under the open sky and spitting in a frog\u2019s mouth and asking it\nto take the toothache away with it and then releasing it.[2408] Even\nconsumptives who seem certain to die and who labor continually with\nan unbearable cough, may be cured by giving them to drink for three\ndays the saliva or foam of a horse. \u201cYou will indeed cure the patient\nwithout delay, but the horse will die suddenly.\u201d[2409] Splenetic\npersons are benefited by imposing any one of three kinds of fish upon\nthe spleen and then replacing the fish alive in the sea.[2410] Warts\nmay be got rid of by rubbing them with something the moment you see a\nstar falling in the sky; but if you rub them with your bare hand, you\nwill simply transfer them to it.[2411] Another superstition connected\nwith falling stars which Marcellus records is that one will be free\nfrom sore eyes for as many years as he can count numbers while a star\nis falling.[2412] The first time you hear or see a swallow, hasten\nsilently to a spring or well and anoint your eyes with the water and\npray God that you may not have sore eyes that year, and the swallows\nwill bear away all pain from your eyes.[2413] With slight variations\nthe same procedure may be employed to prevent toothache. In this case\nyou fill your mouth with water, rub your teeth with the middle fingers\nof both hands, and say, \u201cSwallow, I say to you, as this will not again\nbe in my beak, so may my teeth not ache all year long.\u201d[2414] Marcellus\nadvises anyone whose nose is stuffed up to blow it on a piece of\nparchment, and, folding this up like a letter, cast it into the public\nway,[2415]\u2014which would very likely spread the germs, if not take away\nthe cold.\n\n[Sidenote: Pliny and Marcellus compared on green lizards as eye cures.]\n\nIn his preface Marcellus refers to Pliny as one of his authorities\nand many of his quaint animal remedies will be found substantially\nduplicated in the _Natural History_. Both, for example, state that one\ncan stop one\u2019s nose from running by kissing a mule.[2416] Marcellus,\nhowever, adds much from other sources or of his own. This may be\nillustrated by comparing their accounts of the use of lizards to cure\neye diseases.[2417] Marcellus omits the following portion of Pliny\u2019s\naccount: \u201cSome shut up a green lizard in a new earthen pot, and they\nmark the little stones called _cinaedia_, which are bound on for tumors\nof the groin, with nine signs and take out one daily. On the ninth day\nthey let the lizard go, and keep the pebbles for pains of the eyes.\u201d\nPliny next proceeds: \u201cOthers put earth under a green lizard that has\nbeen blinded and shut it up in a glass vase with rings of solid iron\nor gold. When through the glass the lizard is seen to have recovered\nits sight, it is released and the rings are used for sore eyes.\u201d This\nrecipe is in Marcellus who, however, words it differently and adds\nthat the lizard must be blinded with a copper needle, that the rings\nmay be of silver, electrum, or copper, that the vase must be carefully\nsealed and opened on the fifth or seventh day following, and that one\nshould not only wear the rings afterwards on one\u2019s fingers but also\nfrequently apply them to one\u2019s eyes and strengthen the sight by looking\nthrough them. He further cautions to leave the vase in a clean grassy\nspot, to collect the rings only after the lizard has departed, to catch\nthe lizard in the first place on a Thursday in September between the\nnineteenth and twenty-fifth day of the moon, and to have the operation\nperformed by a very pure and chaste man. Marcellus also states that an\namulet made either of the eyes of the said lizard enclosed in a lead\nbull or gold coin, or of its blood caught on clean wool and wrapped in\npurple cloth will effectually prevent eye diseases. Meanwhile Pliny for\nhis part has gone on to tell how efficacious the ashes of green lizards\nare.\n\n[Sidenote: More lizardry.]\n\nMarcellus employs green lizards in other connections which are not\nparalleled in Pliny. To stay colic one binds about the patient three\ntimes with an incantation a string with which a copper needle has been\nthreaded and drawn through a lizard\u2019s eyes, after which the reptile\nis released at the same point where it was captured.[2418] In another\npassage Marcellus recommends the drawing by a silver needle of threads\nof nine different colors other than black or white through the eyes of\na new-born puppy before they open and _ita ut per anum eius exeant_,\nafter which the puppy is to be thrown into the river.[2419] But to\nreturn to our lizards. For those suffering from liver complaint the\nliver of a lizard is to be extracted with the point of a reed and bound\nin purple or black cloth to the patient\u2019s right side or suspended\nfrom his arm, while the lizard is to be dismissed alive with these\nwords, \u201cLo, I send you away alive; see to it that no one whom I touch\nhenceforth has liver complaint.\u201d[2420] To insure a wife\u2019s fidelity one\ntouches her with the tip of a lizard\u2019s tail which has been cut off by\nthe left hand.[2421] Here again the lizard is released but apparently\nis not expected to survive for long, since one is instructed to \u201chold\nthe tail shut in the palm of the same hand until it dies.\u201d In a fourth\nexample the lizard is neither mutilated nor released but hung in the\ndoorway of a splenetic\u2019s bedroom where it will touch his head and left\nhand as he comes and goes.[2422]\n\n[Sidenote: Use of stones and an herb.]\n\nOne or two other prescriptions may be added where the procedure is\nconnected with herbs or stones rather than with animals. On entering\na city one is advised to pick up some of the pebbles lying in the\nroad before the city gate, stating that they are being collected for\nheadache. Then bind one of them on the head and throw the others behind\nyour back without looking around.[2423] A certain herb must be gathered\non Thursday in a waning moon. When it is administered in drink, the\nrecipient must take it standing and facing the east. He receives the\ncup from the right hand and then, in order not to look back, returns it\nto the left to him who gave it. Only these two persons should touch the\ndrink.[2424]\n\n[Sidenote: Right and left number.]\n\nRight and left, as just illustrated, are much observed in Marcellus\u2019\nmedicine. When a tooth aches on the left side of the mouth, a hot\ncooked dried bean is applied to the right elbow for three days, a\nprocess which is reversed if the tooth is on the right side.[2425]\nThe following exercise recommended for a stiff neck would seem to\nstand more chance of success than most of Marcellus\u2019 prescriptions.\nWhile fasting the patient should spit on his right hand and rub his\nright thigh, and then do the same with his left hand and thigh. Thrice\nrepeated this is warranted to work an immediate cure.[2426] A ring worn\non the middle finger of the left hand is said to stop hiccough.[2427]\nThe power of the planets or of mere number is indicated in the advice,\ngiven several times, to make seven knots in a string.[2428] Once\ninstructions are given to make as many knots as there are letters in\nthe patient\u2019s name.[2429]\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations and characters.]\n\nIncantations and characters, as has already been incidentally\nillustrated, abound in Marcellus\u2019 pages. Some are in Greek, some in\nLatin, some perhaps in Celtic; many, as we have seen, are coherent\nstatements, commands, or requests; many others are to all appearance\na jargon of meaningless words, like the jingle, _Argidam, margidam,\nsturgidam_,[2430] which is to be repeated seven times on Tuesday and\nThursday in a waning moon to cure toothache. Marcellus well calls one\nof these _carmen idioticum_.[2431] For stomach and intestinal troubles\nhe recommends pressing the abdomen with the left thumb and saying,\n\u201cAdam, bedam, alam, betur, alem, botum.\u201d This is to be repeated nine\ntimes, then one touches the earth with the same thumb and spits, then\nsays the charm nine more times, and again for a third series of nine,\ntouching the ground and spitting nine times also. _Alabanda, alabandi,\nalambo_ is another incantation, variously repeated thrice with hands\nclasped above and below the abdomen. Yet another consists in rubbing\nthe abdomen with the left thumb and two little fingers and saying,\n\u201cA tree stood in the middle of the sea and there hung an urn full of\nhuman intestines; three virgins went around it, two make it fast, one\nrevolves it.\u201d As you repeat this thrice, you touch the ground thrice\nand spit, but if the charm is for veterinary purposes, for the words\n\u201chuman intestines\u201d should be substituted \u201cthe intestines of mules\u201d or\nhorses or asses as the case may be.[2432] The following is a specimen\nof the characters prescribed by Marcellus:[2433]\n\n \u039b\u03a8\u039c\u0398\u039a\u0399\u0391\n \u039b\u03a8\u039c\u0398\u039a\u0399\u0391\n \u039b\u03a8\u039c\u0398\u039a\u0399\u0391\n\n[Sidenote: The art of medicine survives the barbarian invasions.]\n\nIt is perhaps worth while to point out in concluding this chapter\nthat apparently at no time during the period of barbarian invasions\nand early medieval centuries did medical practice or literature cease\nentirely in the west. We have seen that there is reason to suspect\nthat portions of the work ascribed to Marcellus may be contributions\nof the centuries following him, and that there were early medieval\nLatin translations of the works of Oribasius and Alexander of Tralles.\nFurthermore, the laws of the German kingdoms, the allusions of\ncontemporary chroniclers and men of letters, the advice of Gregory the\nGreat to a sick archbishop to seek medical assistance, and many other\nbits of evidence[2434] show that physicians were fairly numerous and in\ngood repute, and that medieval Christians at no time depended entirely\nupon the healing virtues of relics of the saints or other miraculous\npowers credited to the church or divine answer to prayer.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n PSEUDO-LITERATURE IN NATURAL SCIENCE OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES\n\n General character\u2014_Medicine of Pliny_\u2014_Herbarium of\n Apuleius_\u2014Specimens of its occult science\u2014A \u201cPrecantation of all\n herbs\u201d\u2014Other treatises accompanying the _Herbarium_\u2014_Cosmography\n of Aethicus_\u2014Its medieval influence\u2014Character of the work\u2014Its\n attitude to marvels\u2014The _Geoponica_\u2014Magic and astrology\n therein\u2014Dioscorides\u2014Textual history of the _De materia\n medica_\u2014Alterations made in the Greek text\u2014Dioscorides little known\n to Latins before the middle ages\u2014Partial versions in Latin\u2014_De\n herbis femininis_\u2014The fuller Latin versions\u2014Peter of Abano\u2019s account\n of the medieval versions\u2014Pseudo-Dioscorides on stones\u2014Conclusions\n from the textual history of Dioscorides\u2014Macer on herbs; its\n great currency\u2014Problem of date and author\u2014Virtues ascribed to\n herbs\u2014_Experiments of Macer_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: General character.]\n\nA class of writings which seems to have been very characteristic\nof the waning culture of the declining Roman Empire and the scanty\nerudition of the early medieval period were the brief epitomes of,\nor disorderly collections of fragments from, the writers of the\nclassical period. Such works often passed under the name of some famous\nauthor of the previous period and sometimes are more or less based\nupon his writings. Most of the works in the field of natural science\nare of such derivative or pseudo-authorship: the _Medicine_ of the\nPseudo-Pliny, the _Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius, the geographical\nwork ascribed to Aethicus, the _Geoponica_, the treatises on herbs\nattributed to Macer and Dioscorides. Indeed, the whole textual history\nof the latter\u2019s _De materia medica_ is so full of vicissitudes and\nuncertainties that I have postponed its treatment until this chapter.\nThe names of the actual compilers or abbreviators of these works are\nusually unknown and it is also usually impossible to date them with any\napproach to accuracy. Roughly speaking of them as a whole, they may\nbe said to have gradually taken on their present form at almost any\ntime between the third and tenth centuries. In the case of these works\nof natural science at least, it is not quite fair to class them all as\nbrief epitomes or disorderly collections. In some we see an obvious\nattempt to rearrange the old materials in a form more convenient for\npresent use. In others to the stage of abbreviation from ancient\nauthors has succeeded another stage of later additions from other\nsources.\n\n[Sidenote: _Medicine of Pliny._]\n\nThe _Medicina_, or _Art of Medicine_, of the Pseudo-Pliny[2435]\nconsists of three books in which medical passages, drawn from Pliny\u2019s\n_Natural History_, are rearranged according to diseases instead of,\nas in the genuine Pliny, by simples. The first two books deal with\ndiseases of the human body in descending order from top to toe and\nfrom headache to gout, a favorite arrangement throughout the course of\nmedieval medicine. The last book then considers afflictions which are\nnot necessarily connected with any particular part of the body, such\nas wounds and fevers. Thus this compilation attests Pliny\u2019s medieval\ninfluence and the practical use made of his work, while it of course\ncontinues much of his medical magic and superstition. The compiler\u2019s\nrearrangement is an essential one, if the medical recommendations of\nthe _Natural History_ were to be made available for ready reference.\nIn this case, therefore, the epitomizer has rather improved upon\nthan disordered the arrangement of the original. This compilation is\nbelieved to have been used by Marcellus Empiricus, and a _Letter of\nPlinius Secundus to his friends about medicine_, which Marcellus gives\nalong with other medical epistles, is thought to be the preface of the\nabbreviator, who in that case depicts himself as composing his volume\nso that his friends and himself when traveling may avoid the payment\nof exorbitant fees asked by strange physicians. If we can regard\neverything in the work of Marcellus as we have it as having been\nwritten by 400, the _Medicine of Pliny_ must have been written during\nthe declining Roman Empire. The manuscripts used by Rose in his edition\nwere of the tenth and twelfth centuries. There is also a later version\nof the _Medicine of Pliny_ in five books,[2436] of which the two last\nare entirely new additions, the fifth being an extract from the old\nLatin translation of Alexander of Tralles. And in the first three\nbooks the earlier Pseudo-Pliny has been worked over with additions.\nThe Pseudo-Pliny is also embodied with alterations and accompanied by\nsome prayers and incantations in a tenth century manuscript at St.\nGall.[2437]\n\n[Sidenote: _The Herbarium of Apuleius._]\n\nSeveral works besides the six commonly regarded as genuine[2438]\nwere attributed to Apuleius in the middle ages, grammatical[2439]\nand rhetorical[2440] treatises, the Hermetic _Asclepius_,[2441] a\ntreatise on physiognomy,[2442] and the very widespread _Sphere of\nLife and Death_, of which we shall treat in another chapter.[2443] We\nshall now consider the _Herbarium of Apuleius_,[2444] the one of his\nspurious works, which has most to do with the world of nature, and,\nwith the exception of the brief _Sphere_, the one which occurs most\noften in the manuscripts. The _Herbarium_ was first printed about\n1480 by the physician of Pope Sixtus IV from a manuscript at Monte\nCassino, and then, after various other editions, was included in 1547\nin the collection of ancient Latin medical writers issued by the Aldine\nPress. We are told, however, that with the close of the fifteenth\ncentury the Apuleius began to be superseded by German herbals. The\nmedieval manuscripts of the _Herbarium_ are often noteworthy for their\nilluminations of the herbs in vivid colors. Those of the mandragora\nroot are especially interesting, showing it as a man standing on the\nback of a dog or a human form with leaves growing on the head and\nled by a dog chained to his waist.[2445] The oldest manuscripts are\nof the sixth century, and there are some in Anglo-Saxon, but as one\nwould expect, the work underwent many additions and alterations, and\ndifferent manuscripts of it vary considerably. The author is usually\nspoken of as Apuleius the Platonist and is sometimes said to have\nreceived his work from the centaur Chiron, the master of Achilles, and\nfrom Esculapius.[2446]\n\n[Sidenote: Specimens of its occult science.]\n\nIn the _Herbarium_ the plants are listed and described and their\nvirtues, especially medicinal, stated. Usually the names for each\nherb in several languages or regions are given\u2014Latin, Greek, Punic,\nBiblical (by the Prophets), Egyptian, Syrian, Gallic, Dacian, Spanish,\nPhrygian, Tuscan. By no means all of these are listed in every case,\nhowever. The virtues of the herbs often operate in an occult manner,\nor procedure suggestive of magic is involved in collecting or applying\nthem. Often diseases are cured merely by holding an herb in the hand,\nwearing it with a string about the neck, or placing it behind one ear,\nor wearing it in a ring. Lunatics, for example, are treated by binding\nan herb about the neck with red cloth when the moon is waxing in the\nsign of the bull or the first part of the scorpion. Not only does\nobservance of astrology assist the medicinal application of herbs;\nplants are in turn of assistance in the pursuit of astrology. To learn\nunder the rule of what star you are, be in a state of purity, pluck the\nherb Montaster, keep it in a bit of clean linen until you find a whole\ngrain of wheat in a loaf of bread, then place this with the herb under\nyour pillow and pray to the seven planets to reveal your guardian star\nto you in your sleep. Indeed prayers and incantations are frequently\nemployed and in one case must be repeated nine times. Sometimes the\nherb itself is addressed, as in the conjuration, \u201cHerb Erystion, I\nimplore you to aid me and cheerfully afford me all your virtues and\ncure and make whole all those ills which Aesculapius and Chiron the\ncentaur, masters of medicine, healed by means of you.\u201d Sometimes the\nearth is conjured as in the prayer beginning, \u201cHoly goddess Earth.\u201d\nSuch prayers are scarcely consonant with Christianity and in some\nmanuscripts have been omitted and replaced by the Lord\u2019s Prayer or\nother Christian forms, or left in with their wording slightly altered\nto avoid paganism.[2447] Personal purity and clean clothing are often\nenjoined upon those gathering the herbs and such instructions are\nadded as to mark the circle about the plant with gold, silver, ivory,\nthe tooth of a wild boar, and the horn of a bull, or to fill the hole\nwith honeyed fruits. Some herbs protect their bearers from all serpents\nor even from all evils. Others, like asparagus if you use a dry root\nof it to sprinkle the patient with spring water, break the spell of\nwitchcraft. Asparagus is also beneficial for toothache and wonderfully\nrelieves a tumor or bladder trouble, if it is boiled in water and drunk\nby the patient fasting for seven days and also used in bathing for\na number of days. But one must be careful not to go out in the cold\nduring this time nor to take cold drinks.[2448]\n\n[Sidenote: A \u201cPrecantation of All Herbs.\u201d]\n\nIn some manuscripts a \u201cPrecantation of all herbs\u201d is placed at the\nbeginning of the treatise.[2449] It prescribes such procedure as\nholding a mirror over the herb before plucking it before sunrise\nunder a waning moon. The person plucking the herb and uttering the\nincantation must be barefoot, ungirded, chaste, and wear no ring. The\nplant is adjured not only \u201cby the living God\u201d and \u201cthe holy name of\nGod, Sabaoth,\u201d but also by Seia, the Roman goddess of sowing, and by\n\u201cGS,\u201d which presumably stands for _Gaia Seia_, an expression which is\nonce written out in full. Some meaningless words are also repeated.\n\n[Sidenote: Other treatises accompanying the _Herbarium_.]\n\nThe _Herbarium_ is often accompanied in the manuscripts by other\ntreatises on herbs ascribed to Dioscorides and Macer, of which we shall\nspeak presently; by a work on the medicinal properties of animals, or\nmore particularly of quadrupeds, by Sextus Papirius Placidus[2450]\nActor[2451]\u2014an otherwise quite unknown personage;[2452] by a \u201cletter\nconcerning a little beast\u201d from the king of Egypt or Aesculapius to\nthe emperor Octavian Augustus;[2453] and by introductory letters, such\nas we find prefaced to the _De medicamentis_ of Marcellus Empiricus,\nof \u201cHippocrates to his Moecenas\u201d[2454] and \u201cAntonius Musus to Moecenas\nAgrippa.\u201d The epistle of the Egyptian king or Aesculapius to Augustus,\nhowever, really forms the introduction or opening chapter to the\ntreatise of Sextus Papirius Placidus on the medicinal properties of\nanimals, and after the little beast or quadruped called _mela_ or\n_taxo_[2455] follow fast the stag, serpent, fox, hare, scorpion, and\nso forth. As for the _taxo_, Augustus is told that by means of it he\ncan protect himself from sorcerers, avoid defections in his army, and\npreserve his troops from the pestilence which the barbarians bring,\nand the city of Rome from both pestilences and fires. To this end a\nlustration should be performed with its flesh, and it should then be\nburied at the city gates. One way to appropriate its virtue is to\nextract its large teeth, repeating a jargon of strange words the while.\n\n[Sidenote: _Cosmography_ of Aethicus.]\n\nAnother characteristic product of declining antique learning and\nof early medieval effort is found in the field of geography in the\n_Cosmography_ of Aethicus Istricus, translated into Latin by the priest\nJerome (_Hieronymus Presbyter_). The oldest manuscript is one of the\neighth century in the British Museum,[2456] where it is also found in\nseveral other fairly early manuscripts[2457] in the respectable company\nof Vitruvius, Vegetius, Sallust, and Suetonius,[2458] as well as with\nthe more congenial work of Solinus. This _Cosmographia_ was not printed\nuntil 1852, when it was edited at Paris by M. d\u2019Avezac and again in\n1854 at Leipzig by M. H. Wuttke. It is an entirely different work\nfrom what had hitherto been repeatedly printed as the _Cosmography_\nof Aethicus but is really to be identified with fragments of Julian\nHonorius and Orosius. The Latin translator of our treatise had been\nidentified in the middle ages with St. Jerome, the church father,\nand Wuttke still ascribed it to him, but Bunbury protested against\nthis,[2459] and Mommsen placed our treatise not earlier than the\nseventh century.[2460]\n\n[Sidenote: Its medieval influence]\n\nBunbury added, however, that the _Cosmography_ \u201cappears to have been\nmuch read in the middle ages, and is therefore not without literary\ninterest.\u201d The apparent greatness of the names on the title page seems\nto have given the middle ages an exaggerated notion of the work\u2019s\nimportance. Aethicus himself is spoken of as from Istria and according\nto the _Explicit_ of at least one manuscript[2461] was a Scythian, but\nthis does not mean that his attitude towards learning was that of a\nHun, for the same _Explicit_ goes on to inform us that he was of noble\nlineage and, if I correctly interpret the faulty syntax of its Latin,\nthat from him the ethical philosophy of other sages drew its origins.\nSomewhat later Roger Bacon said in discussing faults in the study of\ntheology in his day, \u201cFrom the authorities of the philosophers whom\nthe saints cite I shall abstain, except that I will strengthen the\nutterances of Ethicus the astronomer and Alchimus the philosopher by\nthe authority of the blessed Jerome, since no one could credit that\nthey had said so many marvelous things about Christ and the angels and\ndemons and men who are to be glorified or damned unless Jerome or some\nother saint proved that they had said so.\u201d[2462]\n\n[Sidenote: Character of the work.]\n\nAs Bacon\u2019s words indicate, Christian influence is manifest in the\n_Cosmography_, although, as they also indicate, the original Aethicus\nis not supposed to have been a Christian, but, as one manuscript\ninforms us, an Academic philosopher.[2463] Oriental influence, too,\nis perhaps shown in flights of poetical language and unrestrained\nimagination, in a number of allusions to Alexander the Great, and in\nan extraordinary ignorance of early Roman history which leads the\nauthor to tell how Romulus invaded Pannonia and fought against the\nLacedaemonians. \u201cHow great carnage,\u201d he exclaims, \u201cin Lacedaemonia,\nNoricum and Pannonia, Istria and Albania, northern regions near my\nhome, first at the hands of the Romans and the tyrant Numitor, then\nunder the brothers Romulus and Remus, and later under the first\nTarquin, the Proud.\u201d The author eulogizes Athens as well as Alexander,\nand mentions a people called _Turchi_, but whether or not he has Turks\nin mind would be hard to say.\n\n[Sidenote: Its attitude to marvels.]\n\nAs we have it, the _Cosmography_ cites both the Ethicus and the\nAlchimus to whom Roger Bacon referred. Indeed, our treatise does not\npretend to be the original work of Aethicus, which it repeatedly\ncites, but is apparently the work of some epitomizer or abbreviator\nwho intersperses remarks and comments of his own, and, according to\none manuscript, makes the statements of Aethicus conform to Christian\nScripture. From the volumes of the original work he makes only a\nfew excerpts, professing to omit what is unheard of or unknown or\nseems too formidable, and including only with hesitancy a few bits\nconcerning unknown races on the testimony of hearsay. The enigmas of\nAethicus and other philosophers often give our abbreviator pause, and\nhe regards as incredible the story of Aethicus that the Amazons nurse\nyoung minotaurs and centaurs who fight for them in return. Aethicus\nalso tells of the wonderful armor of the Amazons which they treat with\nbitumen and the blood of their own offspring. In Crete Aethicus found\nherbs unknown in other lands which ward off famine. Very beautiful gems\nare mentioned, including those extracted from the brains of immense\ndragons and basilisks, but little is said of their virtues, occult\nor otherwise. Indeed, the amount either of specific information or\nspecific misinformation in the book is very scanty. It deals largely in\nuncouth rhetoric, glittering generalities, and obscure allusion anent\nthe wanderings of Aethicus over the face of the earth and the strange\nmarvels which he encountered in distant lands. He is described as well\nversed in astrology and as reproving the astrologers of Scythia(?)\nand Mantua(?), and one passage vaguely speaks of the stars as signs\nof the present and future; but otherwise the abbreviator gives little\nevidence of knowledge of the subject, although Roger Bacon[2464] cited\n_Ethicus Astronomicus in Cosmographia_ as one of his authorities when\ndiscussing the question of Jesus Christ\u2019s nativity and its relation to\nthe stars, and although Pico della Mirandola ranked the _Cosmography_\nas one of the most absurd of astrological works.[2465] As for magic, in\none passage _malefici_ and _magi_ are censured along with idolaters,\nand the author presently speaks of vain characters and superstitious\ndoctrines. But elsewhere a magician (_Pirronius magus_) is named as\nthe inventor of ships and discoverer of purple. On the whole, in its\nloose and hazy way the _Cosmography_ not only is romantic and religious\nenough to appeal to medieval readers, it also is of a character to\noffer encouragement, if not data, to a later and more detailed interest\nin alchemy, occult virtues, astrology, and magic.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Geoponica_.]\n\nUpon the subject of agriculture in the early middle ages we have the\ncollection known as the _Geoponica_. It properly belongs to Byzantine\nliterature and perhaps had little direct influence upon western Europe.\nNevertheless at least a portion of it upon vineyards was translated\ninto Latin by Burgundio of Pisa in the twelfth century.[2466] In any\ncase as the \u201conly formal treatise on Greek agriculture\u201d extant it\nis a rather important historical source; it also is a good specimen\nof early medieval compilations from classical works; and in its\ninclusion of superstitious and magical details it is probably roughly\nrepresentative of the period, whether in east or west. In the form\nwhich we now possess it was published about 950 A.\u202fD. and dedicated to\nthe Byzantine emperor, Constantine VII or Porphyrygennetos. But this\nissue was perhaps little more than an abbreviated revision of the work\nof Cassianus Bassus of the sixth century, whose introductory words to\nhis son are still given at the beginning of the seventh book. Cassianus\nis believed in his turn to have been especially indebted to two fourth\ncentury writers, Vindanius Anatolius of Beirut, whose agricultural\nteaching was of a sober and rational sort, and Didymus of Alexandria,\nwho was more given to superstition and magic.[2467]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic and astrology therein.]\n\nNevertheless, magic and astrology find no place in the index to the\nmost recent edition of the work.[2468] A survey, however, of the\ntext itself reveals some indications of the presence of both. The\nvery first of its twenty books deals with astrological prediction\nof the weather and cites some spurious work or works by Zoroaster a\ngreat deal. In later books, too, Zoroaster is sometimes cited for\nsemi-astrological advice, such as guarding wine jars against sun or\nmoon-beams when opening them, or testing seed by exposing it to the\nrays of the dog-star.[2469] Zoroaster is also used as an authority on\nthe sympathy and antipathy existing between natural objects.[2470]\nDamigeron and Democritus are other names cited which are suggestive\nof the occult and magical.[2471] There are not, however, many cases\nof extreme superstition in the _Geoponica_. Something is said of the\nmarvelous properties of gems, of the effect of a hyena\u2019s shadow falling\nupon a dog by moonlight, and how dogs will not attack a person who\nholds a hyena\u2019s tongue in his hand.[2472] Incantations of a sort are\noccasionally recommended.[2473] To keep wine from turning sour one is\ndirected to write the divine words, \u201cTaste and see that the Lord is\ngood\u201d upon the wine-jar.[2474] Another passage advises a person who\nfinds himself in a place full of fleas to cry, \u201cOuch! Ouch!\u201d and then\nthey will not bite him.[2475]\n\n[Sidenote: Dioscorides.]\n\nPerhaps the chief ancient work on pharmacology was the _De materia\nmedica_ or \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 of Pedanius Dioscorides of Anazarba.\nGalen, as we have seen, found things to criticize in it but\nnevertheless made great use of it in his own work on medicinal simples.\nDioscorides of course had his previous sources but seems to have\nsurpassed them in fulness and orderliness of arrangement. Of the man\nhimself his preface tells us all that we know, and his dedication shows\nthat he probably wrote during the reign of Nero. He was born in Cilicia\nnear Tarsus, he had traveled in many lands as a soldier, and his work\nwas based partly upon personal observation and experience as well as\nprevious books.\n\n[Sidenote: Textual history of the _De materia medica_.]\n\nDioscorides\u2019 influence continued and even increased as time went on;\nbut if future centuries were deeply influenced by his book, it was\nalso seriously affected by them, for it seems to have been subjected\nto a long series of repeated abbreviations and omissions, additions\nand interpolations, changes in form and in order. Thus all sorts of\nversions of what was called Dioscorides came into being, but which in\nsome cases can hardly be regarded as more than compilations from all\nthe favorite pharmacies of the time, in which the genuine Dioscorides\nconstituted but a remnant or a core. Thus most early printed editions\nof what purports to be the _De materia medica_ must be handled with\ngreat caution, and it may perhaps be doubted if even the latest effort\nof Max Wellmann to recover the original Greek text has been entirely\nsuccessful.[2476] Of the five books regarded as genuine and original\nthe first dealt with spices, salves, and oils; the second, with parts\nof animals and animal products like milk and honey, with grains,\nvegetables, and pot-herbs. Other plants and roots were considered\nin the third and fourth books, while the last dealt with wines and\nminerals.[2477]\n\n[Sidenote: Alterations made in the Greek text.]\n\nWhether we now possess Dioscorides\u2019 original text or not, at any rate\nthe oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain it, but only that portion\ndealing with herbs. Moreover, this has been rearranged in alphabetical\norder and has been adapted to fit a set of pictures of plants which\nwere perhaps taken over from the work of Crateuas, one of Dioscorides\u2019\nchief sources. Such is the famous early sixth century illuminated\nmanuscript made for Juliana Anicia, daughter of the emperor Olybrius\n(472 A.\u202fD.) and wife of the consul Areobindus (about 512 A.\u202fD.).[2478]\nThe alphabetical rearrangement of the Greek text of Dioscorides was\nmade at some time between Galen and Oribasius, who cites from it in\nthe fourth century. Not only were the five books of the genuine _De\nmateria medica_ interpolated, but additional spurious books were added\n\u201cOn Harmful Drugs\u201d and \u201cOn Poisons.\u201d[2479] The work on medicinal\nsimples attributed to Dioscorides is extant in no manuscript earlier\nthan the fourteenth century and some versions of it are much more\ninterpolated than others. As Galen does not cite it while Oribasius\nand A\u00ebtius do use it, it is assumed that it was composed in the third\nor early fourth century with a forged dedication to a contemporary\nof Dioscorides, but that it made considerable use of the genuine\nDioscorides, to which it bore much the same relation as the _Medicina\nPlinii_ did to the _Historia Naturalis_. Later, however, some Byzantine\ncompiler of the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth century introduced a\ngreat deal of new material from Galen\u2019s genuine and spurious works in\nthat field and from John of Damascus.[2480]\n\n[Sidenote: Dioscorides little known to Latins before the middle ages.]\n\nWhat more especially concern us are the medieval Latin versions of\nDioscorides. As a matter of fact, although the _De materia medica_ was\nfrom the start highly regarded and widely used by Greek physicians, it\nseems to have been little known to Latin writers until the verge of the\nmedieval period. Gargilius Martialis, a Roman writer on agriculture in\nthe third century of our era, was the only old Latin author to cite\nDioscorides, which he did, however, no less than eighteen times in\nhis _Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis_. This has led to the suggestion\nthat he was perhaps responsible for the first Latin translation or\nversion of Dioscorides; but it seems unlikely that the work had been\nput into Latin as early as his time, since it is not cited again by a\nLatin writer until the sixth century and is not used by such medical\nauthors as Serenus Sammonicus, Cassius Felix, Theodorus Priscianus, and\nMarcellus Empiricus.\n\n[Sidenote: Partial versions in Latin.]\n\nBut at least a portion of Dioscorides seems to have been translated\ninto Latin by the time of Cassiodorus, who, writing in the first half\nof the sixth century, states that those who cannot read Greek may\nconsult the _Herbarium Dioscoridis_.[2481] This naturally suggests\na version limited to medicinal plants like the early Greek text in\nthe manuscript of Juliana Anicia. This impression is confirmed by\nthe preface to some early Latin version of Dioscorides, which Rose\ndiscovered in one of the manuscripts of the _Herbarium of Apuleius_\nin the British Museum.[2482] This preface implies that the translation\nwhich it introduced was limited to the botanical books of Dioscorides\nand states that it was accompanied by illustrations of herbs.\n\n[Sidenote: _De herbis femininis._]\n\nBased upon this partial translation rather than identical with it\nis believed to have been the _De herbis femininis_,[2483] which was\nascribed to Dioscorides in the middle ages and which often accompanies\nthe _Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius in the manuscripts. In this case\nthe herbs of the Pseudo-Apuleius are sometimes called masculine, but\nas a matter of fact only a minority of those in the Pseudo-Dioscorides\nseem to be distinctly feminine. Of seventy-one plants Kaestner classed\nfifteen or sixteen as feminine, while in only thirty cases are they\nprescribed for female complaints. Rose dated this work before Isidore\nof Seville by whom he believed it was used.[2484] It seems to combine\na free Latin translation of excerpts from the genuine Dioscorides with\nnumerous additions from other sources.\n\n[Sidenote: The fuller Latin versions.]\n\nBesides such abbreviated and interpolated Latin versions or perversions\nof Dioscorides, there was also in existence in the early middle ages\na literal translation of all five books of the _De materia medica_.\nIt is full of Latinisms and barbarisms but otherwise reproduces the\ncomplete and genuine Dioscorides, or is supposed to do so. Rose and\nWellmann[2485] say that it was current from the sixth century on,\nand the few extant manuscripts of it date from the early medieval\nperiod.[2486] One reason for this seems to be that this literal\ntranslation was replaced by another Latin version which in a Bamberg\nmanuscript[2487] is ascribed to Constantinus Africanus, the medical\ntranslator and writer of the eleventh century. In this version the\nitems are arranged alphabetically, and additions are embodied from\nother sources. This version apparently became much better known\nthan the earlier literal translation and has been called \u201cthe\nmost widely disseminated handbook of pharmacy of the whole later\nmiddle ages.\u201d[2488] It is stated by Rose to be identical with the\n\u201cDyascorides,\u201d upon which Peter of Abano lectured and commented about\n1300 and which was printed at Colle in 1478 and again at Lyons in\n1512.[2489]\n\n[Sidenote: Peter of Abano\u2019s account of the medieval versions.]\n\nPeter of Abano tells us in his preface[2490] that in his time there\nwere current two different versions, although both had the same\npreface. One of these was in five books with a great many short\nchapters, so short in fact that often the treatment of a single thing\nwas scattered over several chapters. This version was rare in Latin.\nThe other version contained fewer but longer chapters with material\nadded from Galen, Pliny, and other writers. This version was arranged\nalphabetically. It was this version which _Aggregator_[2491] had\nfollowed and imitated, but sometimes there were chapters in either\n\u201cDyascorides\u201d which were missing in _Aggregator_. Peter had also seen\nan alphabetical version of Dioscorides in Greek.\n\n[Sidenote: Pseudo-Dioscorides on stones.]\n\nThere seems also to have been current, at least in the later middle\nages, a Pseudo-Dioscorides on stones, drawn in part, like the _Feminine\nHerbs_, from the genuine _De materia medica_, whose discussion of the\nvirtues of stones is incredible enough.[2492] This _Dioscorides on\nStones_ is cited by Arnold of Saxony and Bartholomew of England in\nthe thirteenth century, and portions at least of the work are extant\nin manuscripts at Erfurt and Montpellier.[2493] A work on physical\nligatures is ascribed to Dioscorides in a late manuscript,[2494] but is\nreally a collection of items from various authors since Dioscorides on\nthe marvelous virtues of animals, herbs, and stones, especially when\nbound on the body, held in the hand, or worn around the neck.\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusions from the textual history of Dioscorides.]\n\nThe history of the medieval versions of Dioscorides, even in the brief\nand incomplete outline given here, is instructive, showing us in\ngeneral the vicissitudes to which the transmission of the text of any\nancient author may have been subjected, but more especially proving\nthat the middle ages, whether Latin or Byzantine, were ready to take\ngreat liberties with ancient authorities and to adapt them to their own\ntaste and requirements. And indeed, why should they not rearrange and\nmake additions to their Dioscorides? After all it was a compilation to\nbegin with. But the case of Dioscorides has also taught us that we do\nnot have to wait until the medieval period for the appearance of new\nversions of an ancient author.\n\n[Sidenote: Macer on herbs; its great currency.]\n\nWith the possible exception of the _Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius,\nprobably the best known single and distinct treatment of the virtues\nof herbs produced during the middle ages was the poem _De viribus\nherbarum_ which circulated under the name of Macer Floridus.[2495] It\nwas often cited by the medieval encyclopedists and other writers on\nnature and medicine in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.[2496] It\nis found in an Anglo-Saxon version[2497] and was even translated into\nDanish in the early thirteenth century.[2498] Manuscripts of it are\nvery numerous[2499] and there are many early printed editions.[2500]\nEven as recently as the first half of the nineteenth century a\nhistorian of medicine and natural science, in the preface of his\nedition of Macer, stated as one argument for the modern study of\nmedieval medicine that much might be learned from writings of that\nperiod concerning the virtues of herbs.[2501]\n\n[Sidenote: Problem of date and author]\n\nThe poem was certainly not written by the classical poet, Aemilius\nMacer, who was a friend of Vergil and Ovid, and whose descriptions of\nplants, birds, and reptiles are cited by Pliny in his _Natural History_\nand also preserved in some extracts by the grammarians. Proof of this\nis that our poem cites Pliny; in fact, it cites him more frequently\nthan any other author. It also cites Galen six times, Dioscorides\nfour, and as late an author as Oribasius twice.[2502] But Oribasius is\nnot the latest author cited since Walafrid Strabo is also used.[2503]\nStrabo was born about 806, became abbot of Reichenau in 842, and died\nin 849. In his _Hortulus_, a poem dedicated to Grimoald, the abbot of\nSt. Gall, he described twenty-three herbs in 444 hexameters.[2504]\nIndeed Stadler holds that the Pseudo-Macer uses the _De gradibus_\nof Constantinus Africanus who did not die until 1087.[2505] The\ntrue author of our poem ascribed to Macer is said on the authority\nof certain manuscripts to have been an Odo of Meung on the Loire,\napparently the same town as the birthplace of Jean Clopinel or de\nMeun, the learned author of the latter portion of _The Romance of the\nRose_. Choulant, however, did not regard this as sufficiently proved,\nand Stadler has recently noted that some manuscripts ascribe the poem\nto a physician, Odo of Verona; and others to the Cistercian, Odo of\nMorimont, who died in 1161.[2506] In any case, unless the mentions\nof Strabo are later interpolations, the author must be regarded as\npost-Carolingian, while he cannot be later than the eleventh century\nin view of a remark of Sigebertus Gemblacensis in 1112,[2507] the\nAnglo-Saxon version, the many twelfth century manuscripts, and the\nfrequent use of his poem in the _Regimen Salernitanum_.[2508] Although\nMacer seems a pseudonym to begin with, the original poem, consisting of\n2269 lines in which 77 herbs are discussed, is sometimes accompanied by\nadditional lines regarded as spurious.[2509]\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues ascribed to herbs.]\n\nOur poet does not appear to have much of his own to offer on the\nsubject of the virtues of herbs. When he does not cite his authority\nby name, he usually qualifies the statement made by a vaguer \u201cthey\nsay\u201d or \u201cit is said.\u201d He does not connect certain herbs with certain\nstars or otherwise introduce anything that can be called astrological.\nHe repeats Pliny\u2019s statement of the powers ascribed to vervain by\nthe _magi_, such as to gain one\u2019s desires, win the friendship of the\npowerful, and dispel disease and fever. Pliny had spoken of the _magi_\nas \u201craving about this herb\u201d; our poet says:\n\n \u201cAlthough potent Nature can grant such virtues,\n Yet they really seem to us idle old-wives\u2019 tales.\u201d[2510]\n\nNevertheless he himself about fifteen lines before had said of the\nvervain:\n\n \u201cIf, holding this herb in the hand, you ask the patient,\n \u2018Say, brother, how are you?\u2019 and the patient answers, \u2018Well,\u2019\n He will live; but if he says \u2018Ill,\u2019 there is no hope of safety.\u201d[2511]\n\nOur poet not only thus associates with herbs the virtue of divination,\nbut is guilty of sympathetic magic when he believes that the ancients\nlearned by experience that _Dragontea_ or snake-weed dispels poisons,\nwards off snakes, and is good for snake-bite from observing the\nsimilarity between the spotted rind of the herb and the skin of a\nsnake.[2512] Odo or Macer repeats Galen\u2019s story of curing an epileptic\nboy by suspending a root of peony about his neck,[2513] and later\nasserts the same virtue for the herb _pyrethrum_.[2514] Even more\nmagical is the ceremony for curing toothache which he takes from\nPliny and which consists in digging up the herb _Senecion_ without\nuse of iron, touching the aching tooth with it three times, and then\nreplacing the plant in the place where it came from so that it will\ngrow again.[2515] Pliny is also cited concerning the swallow\u2019s\nrestoring the sight of its young by swallow-wort.[2516] Our poet\nalso repeats such beliefs as that the herb _Buglossa_ preserves the\nmemory,[2517] or that the smoke of _Aristochia_ dispels demons and\nexhilarates infants.[2518] If the hives are anointed with the juice of\nthe herb _Barrocus_, the bees will not desert them; while carrying that\nplant with one is a protection against the stings of bees, wasps, and\nspiders.[2519] Among the virtues most frequently attributed to herbs\nare expelling or killing worms, curing pestiferous bites or poisons,\nand provoking urine or vomiting. On the whole, \u201cMacer\u201d contains only a\nmoderate amount of superstition, although rather more proportionally\nthan Walafrid Strabo.\n\n[Sidenote: _Experiments of Macer._]\n\nAlthough Odo or Macer seems to make no original contribution to botany,\ncites authorities frequently, and speaks often of the ancients or men\nof old, he also at least once cites \u201cexperts\u201d[2520] and we have also\nseen his belief that the ancients had tested the virtues of plants\nby experience. This rather slight experimental character of the work\nis further emphasized in some manuscripts of it, where the title is\n\u201cExperiments of Macer\u201d and the matter seems to have been rearranged\nunder diseases instead of by herbs.[2521]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n OTHER EARLY MEDIEVAL LEARNING: BOETHIUS, ISIDORE, BEDE, GREGORY THE\n GREAT\n\n Aridity of early medieval learning\u2014Historic importance of _The\n Consolation of Philosophy_\u2014Medieval reading\u2014Influence of the works\n of Boethius\u2014His relation to antiquity and middle ages\u2014Attitude to\n the stars\u2014Fate and free will\u2014Music of the stars and universe\u2014Isidore\n of Seville\u2014Method of the _Etymologies_\u2014Its sources\u2014Natural\n marvels\u2014Isidore is rather less hospitable to superstition than\n Pliny\u2014Portent\u2014Words and numbers\u2014History of magic\u2014Definition of\n magic\u2014Future influence of Isidore\u2019s account of magic\u2014Attitude to\n astrology\u2014In the _De natura rerum_\u2014Bede\u2019s scanty science\u2014Bede\u2019s _De\n natura rerum_\u2014Divination by thunder\u2014Riddles of Aldhelm\u2014Gregory\u2019s\n _Dialogues_\u2014Signs and wonders wrought by saints\u2014More monkish\n miracles\u2014A monastic snake-charmer\u2014Basilius the magician\u2014A demon\n salad\u2014Incantations in Old Irish\u2014The _Fili_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Aridity of early medieval learning.]\n\nThe erudite fortitude of students of the Merovingian period commands\nour admiration, but sometimes inclines us to wonder whether anyone\nwithout a somewhat dry-as-dust constitution could penetrate far or\ntarry long in the desert of early medieval Latin learning without\nperishing of intellectual thirst. As a rule the writings of the\ntime show no originality whatever, and least of all any scientific\ninvestigation; they are of value merely as an indication of what\npast books men still read and what parts of past science they still\npossessed some interest in. Under the same category of condemnation may\nbe placed most of the Carolingian period so far as our investigation is\nconcerned. We shall therefore traverse rapidly this period of sparse\nscientific productivity and shall be doing it ample justice, if from\nits meager list of writers we select for consideration Boethius of\nItaly at the opening of the sixth century and Gregory the Great at\nits close, Isidore of Spain at the opening of the seventh century,\nand Bede in England at the beginning of the eighth century, with some\nbrief allusion to the riddles of Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, and to\nOld Irish literature. We should gain little or nothing by adding to\nthe list Alcuin at the close of the eighth century and Rabanus Maurus\nin the ninth century, although it may be noted now that later medieval\nwriters cite Rabanus for statements which I have failed to find in his\nprinted works. In general it may be said that the writers whom we shall\nconsider are those during the period who are most cited by the later\nmedieval authors.\n\n[Sidenote: Historic importance of _The Consolation of Philosophy_.]\n\nOf the distinguished family and political career of Boethius who lived\nfrom about 480 to 524 A.\u202fD., and his final exile, imprisonment, and\nexecution by Theodoric the East Goth, we need scarcely speak here. Our\nconcern is with his little book, _The Consolation of Philosophy_, one\nof those memorable writings which, like _The City of God_ of Augustine,\nstand out as historical landmarks and seem to have been written on\nthe right subject by the right man at the most dramatic moment. The\ntimely appearance of such works, produced in both these cases not under\nthe stimulus of triumphant victory but the sting of bitter defeat,\nis nevertheless perhaps less surprising than is their subsequent\npreservation and enormous influence. We often are alternately amused\nand amazed by the mistakes concerning historical and chronological\ndetail found in medieval writers. Yet medieval readers showed\nconsiderable appreciation of the course of history, of its fundamental\ntendencies, and of its crucial moments by the works which they included\nin their meager libraries.\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval reading.]\n\nBut were medieval libraries as meager as we are wont to assume?\nBede and Alcuin both tell of the existence of sizeable libraries in\nEngland,[2522] and Cassiodorus urged those monks whose duty it was\nto tend the sick to read a number of standard medical works.[2523] I\nsometimes wonder if too much attention has not been given to medieval\nwriting and too little to medieval reading, of which so much medieval\nwriting, in Latin at least, is little more than a reflection. We get\ntheir image, faint perhaps and partial; but they had the real object.\nIt has been assumed by some modern scholars that medieval writers had\nusually not read the works, especially of classical antiquity, which\nthey profess to cite and quote, but relied largely upon anthologies and\n_florilegia_. In the case of various later medieval authors we shall\nhave occasion to discuss this question further. For the present I may\nsay that in going through the catalogues of collections of medieval\nmanuscripts I have noticed few _florilegia_ or anthologies from the\nclassics in medieval Latin manuscripts,\u2014perhaps Byzantine ones from\nGreek literature are more common\u2014and few indeed compared to the number\nof manuscripts of the old Latin writers themselves. We owe the very\npreservation of the Latin classics to medieval scribes who copied them\nin the ninth and tenth centuries; why deny that they read them? Latin\n_florilegia_ of any sort do not exist in impressive numbers, but other\nkinds are as often met with as are those from classic poets or prose\nwriters, for instance, selections from the church fathers themselves.\nOn the whole, the impression I have received is that those authors\nincluded in _florilegia_, commonplace books, and other manuscripts made\nup of miscellaneous extracts, were likewise the authors most read _in\ntoto_. I am therefore inclined to regard the _florilegia_ as a proof\nthat the authors included were read rather than that they were not.\nBut from extant Latin manuscripts one gets the impression that the\nwhole matter of _florilegia_ is of very slight importance, and that the\ntheory hitherto based upon them is a survival of the prejudice of the\nclassical renaissance against \u201cthe dark ages.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of the works of Boethius.]\n\nAt any rate, however scanty medieval libraries may have been, they\nwere apt to include a copy of _The Consolation of Philosophy_, and\nhowever little read some of their volumes may have been, its pages\nwere certainly well thumbed. Lists of its commentators, translators,\nand imitators, and other indications of its vast medieval influence\nmay be found in Peiper\u2019s edition.[2524] Other writings of Boethius\nwere also well known in the middle ages and increased his reputation\nthen. His translations and commentaries upon the Aristotelian logical\ntreatises[2525] are of course of great importance in the history of\nmedieval scholasticism. His translations and adaptations of Greek\ntreatises in arithmetic, geometry, and music occupy a similar place\nin the history of medieval mathematical studies.[2526] Indeed, his\ntreatise on music is said to have \u201ccontinued to be the staple requisite\nfor the musical degree at Oxford until far into the eighteenth\ncentury.\u201d[2527] The work on the Trinity and some other theological\ntracts, attributed to Boethius by Cassiodorus and through the middle\nages, are now again accepted as genuine by modern scholars and place\nBoethius\u2019 Christianity beyond question.[2528]\n\n[Sidenote: His relation to antiquity and middle ages.]\n\nBoethius has often been regarded as a last representative of Roman\nstatesmanship and of classical civilization. His defense of Roman\nprovincials against the greed of the Goths, his stand even unto\ndeath against Theodoric on behalf of the rights of the Roman senate\nand people, his preservation through translation of the learned\ntreatises of expiring antiquity, and the almost classical Latin\nstyle and numerous allusions to pagan mythology of _The Consolation\nof Philosophy_:\u2014all these combine to support this view. But the\nmiddle ages also made Boethius their own, and several points may\nbe noted in which _The Consolation of Philosophy_ in particular\nforeshadowed their attitude and profoundly influenced them. Both a\nChristian and a classicist, both a theologian and a philosopher,\nBoethius set a standard which subsequent thought was to follow for a\nlong time. The very form of his work, a dialogue part in prose and\npart in verse, remained a medieval favorite. And the fact that this\nsixth century author of a work on the Trinity consoled his last hours\nwith a work in which Christ and the Trinity are not mentioned, but\nwhere Phoebus is often named and where Philosophy is the author\u2019s\nsole interlocutor:\u2014this fact, combined with Boethius\u2019 great medieval\npopularity, gave perpetual license to those medieval writers who chose\nto discuss philosophy and theology as separate subjects and from\ndistinct points of view. The great medieval influence of Aristotle and\nPlato, and in particular of the latter\u2019s _Timaeus_, also is already\nmanifest in _The Consolation of Philosophy_. Aristotle, it is true,\nappears to be incorrectly credited by Boethius with the assertion that\nthe eye of the lynx can see through solid objects,[2529] but this\nascription of spurious statements to the Stagirite also corresponds to\nthe attribution of entire spurious treatises to him later in the middle\nages.\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude to the stars.]\n\nOf the ways in which _The Consolation of Philosophy_ influenced\nmedieval thought that which is most germane to our investigation is\nits attitude toward the stars and the problem of fate and free will.\nThe heavenly bodies are apparently ever present in Boethius\u2019 thought\nin this work, and especially in the poetical interludes he keeps\nmentioning Phoebus, the moon, the universe, the sky, and the starry\nconstellations. _Per ardua ad astra_ was a true saying for those last\ndays in which he solaced his disgrace and pain with philosophy. It is\nby contemplation of the heavens that he raises his thought to lofty\nphilosophic reflection; his mind may don swift wings and fly far above\nearthly things\n\n \u201cUntil it reaches starry mansions\n And joins paths with Phoebus.\u201d[2530]\n\nHe loves to think of God as ruling the universe by perpetual reason and\ncertain order, as sowing stars in the sky, as binding the elements by\nnumber, as Himself immovable, yet revolving the spheres and decreeing\nnatural events in a fixed series.[2531] The attitude is like that\nof the _Timaeus_ and Aristotle\u2019s _Metaphysics_, closely associating\nastronomy and theology, favorable to belief in astrology, in support of\nwhich later scholastic writers cite Boethius.\n\n[Sidenote: Fate and free will.]\n\nWe may further note the main points in Boethius\u2019 argument concerning\nfate and free will, providence and predestination,[2532] which was\noften cited by later writers. He declares that all generation and\nchange and movement proceed from the divine mind or Providence,[2533]\nwhile fate is the regular arrangement inherent in movable objects\nby which divine providence is realized.[2534] Fate may be exercised\nthrough spirits, angelic or daemonic, through the soul or through the\naid of all nature or \u201cby the celestial motion of the stars.\u201d[2535] It\nis with the last that Boethius seems most inclined to identify _fati\nseries mobilis_. \u201cThat series moves sky and stars, harmonizes the\nelements one with another, and transforms them from one to another.\u201d\nMore than that, \u201cIt constrains human fortunes in an indissoluble\nchain of causes, which, since it starts from the decree of immovable\nProvidence, must needs itself also be immutable.\u201d[2536] Boethius,\nhowever, does not believe in a complete fatalism, astrological or\notherwise. He holds that nothing escapes divine providence, to which\nthere is no distinction between past, present, and future.[2537] As the\nhuman reason can conceive universals, although sense and imagination\nare able to deal only with particulars, so the divine mind can foresee\nthe future as well as the present. But there are some things which are\nunder divine providence but which are not subject to fate.[2538] Divine\nprovidence imposes no fatal necessity upon the human will, which is\nfree to choose its course.[2539] The world of nature, however, existing\nwithout will or reason of its own, conforms absolutely to the fatal\nseries provided for it. As for chance, Boethius agrees with Aristotle\u2019s\n_Physics_ that there is really no such thing, but that what is commonly\nascribed to chance really results from an unexpected coincidence of\ncauses, as when a man plowing a field finds a treasure which another\nhas buried there.[2540] Thus Boethius maintains the co-existence of the\nfatal series expressed in the stars, divine providence, and human free\nwill, a thesis likely to reassure Christians inclined to astrology who\nhad been somewhat disturbed by the fulminations of the fathers against\nthe _genethliaci_, just as his constant rhapsodizing over the stars and\nheavens would lead them to regard the science of the stars as second\nonly to divine worship. Indeed, his position was the usual one in the\nsubsequent middle ages.\n\n[Sidenote: Music of the stars and universe.]\n\nThe stars also come into Boethius\u2019 treatise on music, where one of the\nthree varieties of music is described as mundane, where the music of\nthe spheres is declared to exist although inaudible to us, and where\neach planet is connected with a musical chord. Plato is quoted as\nhaving said, not in vain, that the world soul is compounded of musical\nharmony, and it is affirmed that the four different and contrary\nelements could never be united in one system unless some harmony joined\nthem.[2541]\n\n[Sidenote: Isidore of Seville.]\n\nIsidore was born about 560 or 570, became bishop of Seville in 599\nor 600, and died in the year 636. Although mention should perhaps be\nmade of his briefer _De natura rerum_,[2542] a treatise dedicated to\nKing Sisebut who reigned from 612 to 620, Isidore\u2019s chief work from\nour standpoint is the _Etymologiae_.[2543] His friend, bishop Braulio,\nwriting after Isidore\u2019s death, says that he had left unfinished the\ncopy of this work which he made at his request, but this was apparently\na second edition, since in a letter written to Isidore probably in\n630, Braulio speaks of copies as already in circulation, although he\ndescribes their text as corrupt and abbreviated. But apparently the\nwork had been composed seven years before this.[2544] The _Etymologies_\nwas undoubtedly a work of great importance and influence in the middle\nages, but one should not be led, as some writers have been, into\nexaggerated praise of Isidore\u2019s erudition on this account.[2545] For\nthe work\u2019s importance consists chiefly in showing how scanty was the\nknowledge of the early middle ages. Its influence also would seem not\nto have been entirely beneficial, since writers continued to cite it as\nan authority as late as the thirteenth century, when it might have been\nexpected to have outlived its usefulness. We suspect that it proved too\nhandy and convenient and tended to encourage intellectual laziness and\nstagnation more than any anthology of literary quotations did. Arevalus\nlisted ten printed editions of it before 1527, showing that it was as\npopular in the time of the Renaissance as in the middle ages.\n\n[Sidenote: Method of the _Etymologies_.]\n\nThe _Etymologies_ is little more than a dictionary, in which words\nare not listed alphabetically but under subjects with an average of\nfrom one to a half dozen lines of derivation and definition for each\nterm. The method is, as Brehaut well says, \u201cto treat each subject\nby ... defining the terms belonging to it.\u201d[2546] Pursuing this\nmethod, Isidore treats of various arts and sciences, human interests\nand natural phenomena: the seven liberal arts, medicine, and law;\nchronology and bibliography; the church, religion, and theology; the\nstate and family, physiology, zoology, botany, mineralogy, geography,\nand astronomy; architecture and agriculture; war and sport; arms and\narmor; ships and costume and various utensils of domestic life. Such is\nthe classification which later medieval writers were to adopt or adapt\nrather than the arrangement followed in Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_.\nIsidore\u2019s association of words and definitions under topics makes an\napproach, at least, to the articles of encyclopedias: sometimes there\nis a brief discussion of the general topic before the particular terms\nand names are considered; sometimes there are chronological tables,\nfamily trees, or lists of signs and abbreviations. In short, Isidore\nforms a connecting link between Pliny and the encyclopedists of the\nthirteenth century.\n\n[Sidenote: Its sources.]\n\nIn a prefatory word to Braulio Isidore describes the _Etymologies_ as a\ncollection made from his recollection and notes of old authors,[2547]\nof whom he cites a large number in the course of the work. It has been\nsuspected that some of these writers were known to Isidore only at\nsecond or third hand; at any rate he has not made a very discriminating\nselection from their works and he has been accused more than once\nof not clearly understanding what he tried to abridge. On the other\nhand, Isidore seems to me to display a notable power of brief\ngeneralization, of terse expression and telling use of words. We should\nnot have to go back to the middle ages for textbook writers who have\nwritten more and said less. This power of condensed expression probably\naccounts for Isidore\u2019s being so much cited. Many of the derivations\nproposed for words are so patently absurd that we would fain ascribe\nthem to Isidore\u2019s own perverse ingenuity, but it is doubtful if he\npossessed even that much originality, and they are probably all taken\nfrom classical grammarians such as Varro.[2548] Isidore, however, still\ndisplays a considerable knowledge of the Greek language. And again\nit may be said in excuse of Isidore and his sources that the absurd\netymologies are usually proposed in the case of words whose derivation\nis still problematic.\n\nIn the passages dealing with natural phenomena and science Isidore\nborrows chiefly from Pliny and Solinus, sometimes from Dioscorides,\ngiving us a faint adumbration of their much fuller confusion of science\nand superstition. Occasionally bits of information or misinformation\nare borrowed through the medium of the church fathers. A work of\nGalen, for instance, is cited[2549] through the letter of Jerome to\nFuria against widows remarrying. Galen, indeed, is seldom mentioned by\nIsidore who draws his unusually brief fourth book on medicine chiefly\nfrom Caelius Aurelianus.[2550]\n\n[Sidenote: Natural marvels.]\n\nIn his treatment of things in nature Isidore seldom gives their\nmedicinal properties as Pliny does, and this reduces correspondingly\nthe amount of space devoted to marvelous virtues. Indeed, of the\ntwenty books of the _Etymologies_ but one is devoted to animals other\nthan man, one to vegetation which is combined in the same book with\nagriculture, and one to metals and minerals. The book on animals is\nthe longest and is subdivided under the topics of domestic animals,\nwild beasts, minute animals, serpents, worms, fish, birds, and minute\nflying creatures. Isidore also tends to ascribe more marvelous virtues\nto animals than to plants or stones. From Pliny and Solinus are\nrepeated the tales of the basilisk, echeneis, and the like,[2551]\nwhile Augustine\u2019s _Commentary on the Psalms_ is cited for the story\nof the asp resisting the incantations of its charmers by laying one\near to the ground and stopping up the other ear with the end of its\ntail.[2552] On the other hand, Isidore omits Pliny\u2019s superstitious\nassertions concerning the river tortoise and gives only his criticism\nthat the statement that ships move more slowly if they have the foot of\na tortoise aboard is incredible.[2553] Even in the books on minerals\nand vegetation we still hear of animal marvels:[2554] how the coloring\nmatter, cinnabar, is composed of the blood shed by the dragon in its\ndeath struggle with the elephant, how the fiercest bulls grow tame\nunder the Egyptian fig-tree, how swallows restore the sight of their\nyoung with the swallow-wort, or of the use of fennel and rue by the\nsnake and weasel respectively, the former tasting fennel to enable him\nto shed his old skin, and the latter eating rue to make him immune from\nvenom in fighting the snake. All these items, too, are from Pliny.\n\n[Sidenote: Isidore is rather less hospitable to superstition than\nPliny.]\n\nBut on the whole I should estimate that Isidore contains less\nsuperstitious matter even proportionally to his meager content than\nPliny does in connection with the virtues of animals, plants, and\nstones. In discussing plants he says nothing of ceremonial plucking\nof them and he contains practically no traces of agricultural magic.\nHe describes as a superstition of the Gentiles the notion that the\nherb _scylla_, suspended whole at the threshold, drives away all\nevils.[2555] He mentions the use of mandragora as an anaesthetic in\nsurgical operations, and remarks that its root is of human form, but\nsays nothing of its applications in magic.[2556] In his discussion\nof stones he repeats after Pliny and Solinus the marvelous virtues\nascribed to a number of them, but follows Pliny\u2019s method of making\nthe magicians responsible for these assertions or of inserting a word\nof caution such as \u201cif this is to be believed\u201d with each statement.\nFinally he introduces together a number of cases of marvelous powers\nascribed to stones with the introduction, \u201cThere are certain gems\nemployed by the Gentiles in their superstitions.\u201d[2557]\n\n[Sidenote: Portents.]\n\nIsidore lists a number of mythical monsters as well as cases of\nportentous births in the third chapter, _De portentis_, of his eleventh\nbook. He there affirms that God sometimes wishes to signify future\nevents by means of monstrous births as well as by dreams and oracles,\nand declares that this \u201chas been proved by numerous experiences.\u201d[2558]\n\n[Sidenote: Words and numbers.]\n\nBrehaut is impressed by Isidore\u2019s \u201cconfidence in words,\u201d which he\nthinks \u201creally amounted to a belief, strong though perhaps somewhat\ninarticulate, that words were transcendental entities.\u201d[2559] Isidore\u2019s\nfaith in the power of words does not seem, however, to have led him to\nrecommend the use of any incantations; he was content with etymologies\nand allegorical interpretation. He was also a great believer in the\nmystic significance of numbers and wrote a separate treatise upon those\nnumbers which occur in the sacred Scriptures. In the _Etymologies_,\ntoo, he more than once dwells upon the perfection of certain numbers.\nWe have already heard how perfect most of the numbers up to twelve\nare, but this is our first opportunity to hear the Pythagorean\nmethod applied to the number twenty-two. However, Isidore is not the\nfirst to do this; he is, indeed, simply quoting one of the fathers,\nEpiphanius.[2560] \u201cThe _modius_ is so-called because it is of perfect\nmode. For this measure contains forty-four pounds, that is, twenty-two\n_sextarii_. And the reason for this number is that in the beginning\nGod performed twenty-two works. For on the first day He made seven\nworks, namely, unformed matter, angels, light, the upper heavens,\nearth, water, and air. On the second day only one work, the firmament.\nOn the third day four things: the seas, seeds, grass, and trees. On\nthe fourth day three things: sun and moon and stars. On the fifth day\nthree: fish and aquatic reptiles and flying creatures. On the sixth\nday four: beasts, domestic animals, land reptiles, and man. And all\ntwenty-two kinds were made in six days.[2561] And there are twenty-two\ngenerations from Adam to Jacob.... And twenty-two books of the Old\nTestament.... And there are twenty-two letters from which the doctrine\nof the divine law is composed. Therefore in accordance with these\nexamples the _modius_ of twenty-two _sextarii_ was established by Moses\nfollowing the measure of sacred law. And although various peoples have\nadded something to or ignorantly subtracted something from its weight,\nit is divinely preserved among the Hebrews for such reasons.\u201d With such\nmental magic and pious \u201carithmetic,\u201d as Isidore\u2019s friend Braulio called\nit, might the Christian attempt to sate the inherited thirst within him\nfor the operative magic and pagan divination in which his conscience\nand church no longer allowed him to indulge.\n\n[Sidenote: History of magic.]\n\nIsidore\u2019s chapter on the _Magi_ or magicians, which occurs in his\neighth book on the church and divers sects, is a notable one, of whose\ngreat future influence we shall presently speak. His own borrowing\nhere is only in small part from Pliny\u2019s famous passage on the same\ntheme. On such a subject Isidore naturally has recourse mainly to\nChristian writers: Augustine, Jerome, Lactantius, Tertullian. From the\noccasional similarity of his wording to these authors it seems fairly\ncertain that his account is a patchwork from their works, and the\ncontext is too Christian to have been drawn _in toto_ from some Roman\nencyclopedist now lost to us. Perhaps the most noteworthy point about\nIsidore\u2019s chapter is that he has made magic and magicians the general\nand inclusive head under which he presently lists various other minor\noccult arts and their practitioners for separate definition. But first\nwe have a longer discussion, though long only by comparison, of magic\nin general. Its history is sketched; Zoroaster and Democritus, as in\nPliny, are mentioned as its founders, but it is not forgotten that the\nbad angels were really responsible for its dissemination. From the\nfirst Isidore identifies magic and divination; after stating that the\nmagic arts abounded among the Assyrians, he quotes a passage from Lucan\nwhich speaks of the prevalence of liver divination, augury, divination\nfrom thunder, and astrology in Assyria. Also the magic arts are said to\nhave prevailed over the whole world for many centuries through their\nprediction of the future and invocation of the dead. Brief allusion is\nfurther made to Moses and Pharaoh\u2019s magicians, to the invocation of\nSamuel by the witch of Endor, to Circe and the comrades of Ulysses, and\nto several other passages in classical literature anent magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Definition of magic.]\n\nNext comes a formal definition of the _Magi_. They are \u201cthose who are\npopularly called _malefici_ or sorcerers on account of the magnitude\n(a characteristic bit of derivation) of their crimes. They agitate\nthe elements, disturb men\u2019s minds, and slay merely by force of\nincantation without any poisoned draught. Hence Lucan writes, \u2018The\nmind, though polluted by no venom of poisoned draught, perishes by\nenchantment.\u2019[2562] For, summoning demons, they dare to work their\nmagic so that anyone may kill his enemies by evil arts. They also use\nblood and victims and sometimes corpses.\u201c After this very unfavorable,\nalthough sufficiently credulous, definition of magic, which is\nrepresented as seeking the worst ends by the worst means, Isidore goes\non to list and briefly define a number of subordinate or kindred occult\narts. First come necromancers; then hydromancy, geomancy, aeromancy,\nand pyromancy; next diviners, those employing incantations, _arioli_,\n_aruspices_, augurs, _auspices_, _pythones_, astrologers and their\ncognates, the _genethliaci_ and _mathematici_, who as Isidore notes\nare spoken of in the Gospel as _Magi_, and _horoscopi_. \u201d_Sortilegi_\nare those who profess the science of divination under the pretended\nguise of religion through certain devices called _sortes sanctorum_ and\npredict by inspection of certain scriptures.\u201d _Salisatores_ are those\nwho predict from the jerks of their limbs. To this list of magic arts\nIsidore adds in the words of Augustine all ligatures and suspensions,\nincantations and characters, which the art of medicine condemns and\nwhich are simply the work of the devil. With mention of the origin\nof augury among the Phrygians, the discovery of _praestigium_ which\ndeceives the eye by Mercury, and the revelation of _aruspicina_ by\nTagus to the Etruscans, Isidore closes the chapter. Some of its items\nwill be found again in his _De differentiis verborum_,[2563] listed\nunder the appropriate letters of the alphabet. It may also be noted\nthat he briefly treats of transformations worked by magic in the fourth\nchapter of the eleventh book of the _Etymologies_.\n\n[Sidenote: Future influence of Isidore\u2019s account of magic.]\n\nWe turn to the future influence of this account of magic which seems\nto have been first patched together by Isidore. Juiceless as it is,\nit seems to have become a sort of stock or stereotyped treatment of\nthe subject with succeeding Christian writers down into the twelfth\ncentury. Somewhat altered by omission of poetical quotations or\nthe insertion of transitional sentences, it was otherwise copied\nalmost word for word by Rabanus Maurus (about 784 to 856), in his\n_De consanguineorum nuptiis et de magorum praestigiis falsisque\ndivinationibus tractatus_, and by Burchard of Worms and Ivo of Chartres\n(died 1115) in their respective collections of _Decreta_, while\nHincmar of Rheims in his _De divortio Lotharii et Tetbergae_ copied it\nwith more omissions.[2564] It was also in substance retained in the\n_Decretum_ of Gratian in the twelfth century, when, too, Hugh of St.\nVictor probably made use of it and John of Salisbury made it the basis\nof his fuller discussion of the subject. Isidore\u2019s account of magic,\nlike his discussion of many other topics, sounds as if he had ceased\nthinking on the subject, and it must have meant still less to those\nwho copied it. John of Salisbury is the first of them to put any life\ninto the subject and give us any assurance that such arts were still\npracticed in his day. We have, however, other evidence that magic\ncontinued to be practiced in the interval. And such practices as the\n_sortes sanctorum_, though included in Isidore\u2019s stock definition of\nmagic, were probably not generally regarded as reprehensible.[2565]\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude to astrology.]\n\nIsidore\u2019s repetition of the views of the fathers concerning demons is\nso brief and trite[2566] that we need not further notice it, but turn\nto his attitude toward astrology. We have just heard him associate\nastrologers with practitioners of the magic arts, but in his third\nbook in discussing the _quadrivium_ he states that astrology is only\npartly superstitious and partly a natural science. The superstitious\nvariety is that pursued by the _mathematici_ who augur the future\nfrom the stars, assign the parts of the soul and body to the signs of\nthe zodiac, and try to predict the nativities and characters of men\nfrom the course of the stars. Such superstitions \u201care without doubt\ncontrary to our faith; Christians should so ignore them that they shall\nnot even appear to have been written.\u201d _Mathesis_, or the attempt\nto predict future events from the stars, is denounced, according to\nIsidore, \u201cnot only by doctors of the Christian religion but also of\nthe Gentiles,\u2014Plato, Aristotle, and others.\u201d Isidore also states that\nthere is a distinction between astronomy and astrology, but what it\nis, especially between astronomy and natural astrology, he fails to\nelucidate.[2567]\n\n[Sidenote: In the _De natura rerum_.]\n\nIn the preface to his _De natura rerum_, which deals chiefly with\nastronomical and meteorological phenomena, Isidore asserts that \u201cit is\nnot superstitious science to know the nature of these things, if only\nthey are considered from the standpoint of sane and sober doctrine.\u201d\nHe also states that his treatise is a brief sketch of what has been\nwritten by the men of old and especially in the works of Catholics.\nIn it some of the stock questions which gave difficulty to Christian\nscientists are briefly discussed, for instance, \u201cConcerning the waters\nwhich are above the heavens,\u201d and \u201cWhether the stars have souls?\u201d[2568]\nIsidore rejects as \u201cabsurd fictions\u201d imagined by the stupidity of the\nGentiles their naming the days of the week from the planets, \u201cbecause\nby the same they thought that some effect was produced in themselves,\nsaying that from the sun they received the spirit, from the moon the\nbody, from Mercury speech and wisdom, from Venus pleasure, from Mars\nardor, from Jupiter temperance, from Saturn slowness.\u201d[2569] Yet later\nin the same treatise we find him saying that everything in nature grows\nand increases according to the waxing and waning of the moon.[2570]\nMoreover, he calls Saturn a cold star and explains that the planets are\ncalled _errantia_, not because they wander themselves but because they\ncause men to err.[2571] He also describes man as a microcosm.[2572]\nLike most ecclesiastical writers, no matter how hostile they may be\nto astrologers, he is ready to assert that comets signify political\nrevolutions, wars, and pestilences.[2573] In the _Etymologies_ he not\nonly attributes racial and temperamental differences among the peoples\nof different regions to \u201cforce of the star\u201d[2574] and \u201cdiversity of the\nsky,\u201d[2575] phrases which seem to imply astrological influence rather\nthan the mere influence of climate in our sense. He also encourages\nastrological medicine when he says that the doctor should know\nastronomy, since human bodies change with the qualities of the stars\nand the change of times.[2576] Isidore might as well have taken the\nplanets as signs in the astrological sense as have ascribed to them the\nabsurd allegorical significance in passages of Scripture that he did.\nHe states that the moon is sometimes to be taken as a symbol of this\nworld, sometimes as the church, which is illuminated by Christ as the\nmoon receives its light from the sun, and which has seven meritorious\ngraces corresponding to the seven forms of the moon.[2577]\n\n[Sidenote: Bede\u2019s scanty science.]\n\nThe scientific acquisitions of Bede have too often been referred to in\nexaggerated terms. Sharon Turner said of him, \u201cHe collected and taught\nmore natural truths with fewer errors than any Roman book on the same\nsubjects had accomplished. Thus his work displays an advance, not a\nretrogradation of human knowledge; and from its judicious selection\nand concentration of the best natural philosophy of the Roman Empire\nit does high credit to the Anglo-Saxon good sense.\u201d[2578] Dr. R. L.\nPoole more moderately says of Bede, \u201cHe shows an extent of knowledge\nin classical literature and natural science entirely unrivalled in his\nown day and probably not surpassed for many generations to come.\u201d[2579]\nBede perhaps knew more natural science than anyone else of his time,\nbut if so, the others must have known practically nothing; his\nknowledge can in no sense be called extensive. As a matter of fact,\nwe have evidence that his extremely brief and elementary treatises in\nthis field were not full enough to satisfy even his contemporaries. In\nthe preface to his _De temporum ratione_[2580] he says that previously\nhe had composed two treatises, _De natura rerum_ and _De ratione\ntemporum_, in brief style as he thought fitting for pupils, but that\nwhen he began to teach them to some of the brethren, they objected that\nthey were reduced to a much briefer form than they wished, especially\nthe _De temporibus_, which Bede now proceeds to revise and amplify. It\nis noteworthy that in order to fulfill the monks\u2019 desire for a fuller\ntreatment of the subject he found it necessary to do some further\nreading in the fathers. In addition to Bede\u2019s own statement of his aim,\nthe frequency with which we find manuscripts of early date[2581] of the\n_De natura rerum_ and _De temporibus_ suggests that they were employed\nas text-books in the monastic schools of the early middle ages. As the\nCarolingian poet expressed it,\n\n _Beda dei famulus nostri didasculus evi\n Falce pia sophie veterum sata lata peragrans._\n\n[Sidenote: Bede\u2019s _De natura rerum_.]\n\nOf Bede\u2019s _Hexaemeron_ we spoke in an earlier chapter. His chief extant\ngenuine scientific treatise is the aforesaid _De natura rerum_,[2582]\na very curtailed discussion of astronomy and meteorology. It is very\nsimilar to Isidore\u2019s treatise of the same title, but is even briefer,\nomitting for the most part the mention of authorities and the Biblical\nquotations and allegorical applications which make up a considerable\nportion of Isidore\u2019s brief work. One of the few authorities whom Bede\ndoes cite is Pliny in a discussion of the circles of the planets.[2583]\nLike Isidore he accepts comets as signs of war and political change, of\ntempests and pestilence.[2584] He also states that the air is inhabited\nby evil spirits who there await the worse torments of the day of\njudgment.[2585] In his Biblical commentaries Bede briefly echoes some\nof the views of the fathers concerning magic and demons, for instance,\nin his treatment of the witch of Endor.[2586]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination by thunder.]\n\nBede also translated into Latin a treatise on divination from thunder,\nperhaps from the works of the sixth century Greek writer, John Lydus.\nIn the preface to Herefridus, at whose request he had undertaken the\ntranslation, he speaks of it as a laborious and dangerous task, sure\nto expose him to the attacks of the invidious and detractors who\nwill perhaps insinuate that he is possessed of an evil spirit or is\na practitioner of magic. The three chapters of the treatise give the\nsignificance of thunder for the four points of the compass, the twelve\nmonths of the year, and the seven days of the week. For instance, if\nthunder arises in the east, according to the traditions of subtle\nphilosophers there will be in the course of that year copious effusion\nof human blood. Each signification is introduced with some bombastic\nphraseology concerning the agile genius or sagacious investigation of\nthe philosophers who discovered it.[2587] Other tracts on divination\nwhich were attributed to Bede are probably spurious and will for the\nmost part be considered later in connection with other treatises of the\nsame sort.[2588]\n\n[Sidenote: Riddles of Aldhelm.]\n\nSome interest in and knowledge of natural science is displayed in the\nmetrical riddles[2589] of St. Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury and bishop\nof Sherborne, who died in 709, \u201cthe first Englishman who cultivated\nclassical learning with any success and the first of whom any literary\nremains are preserved.\u201d Most of them are concerned with animals, such\nas silkworms, peacock, salamander, bee, swan, lion, ostrich, dove,\nfish, basilisk, camel, eagle, taxo, beaver, weasel, swallow, cat,\ncrow, unicorn, minotaur, Scylla, and elephant; or with herbs and\ntrees, such as heliotrope, pepper, nettles, hellebore, and palm; or\nwith minerals, such as salt, adamant, and magnet; or with terrestrial\nand celestial phenomena, such as earth, wind, cloud, rainbow, moon,\nPleiades, Arcturus, Lucifer, and night. There is a close resemblance\nbetween some of these riddles and a score of citations from an Adhelmus\nmade in the thirteenth century by Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9 in his _De natura\nrerum_.[2590] Pitra,[2591] however, suggested that the Adhelmus cited\nby Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9 was a brother of John the Scot of the ninth\ncentury.\n\n[Sidenote: Gregory\u2019s _Dialogues_.]\n\nThe total lack of originality and the extremely abbreviated character\nof the infrequent scientific writing in the west is not, however, a\nfair example of the total thought and writing of early medieval Latin\nChristendom. When we turn to the lives of the saints, to the miracles\nrecorded of contemporary monks and missionaries, we find that in the\nfield of its own supreme interests the pious imagination of the time\ncould display considerable inventiveness and was by no means satisfied\nwith brief compendiums from the Bible and earlier Fathers. Here too\nthe superstition and credulity, which had been held back by fear of\npaganism in the case of natural and occult science, ran luxuriant\nriot. Such literature lies rather outside the strict field of this\ninvestigation, but it is so characteristic of the Christian thought of\nthe period that we may consider one prominent specimen, the _Dialogues_\nof Gregory the Great,[2592] pope from 590 to 604. We shall sufficiently\nillustrate the nature of this farrago of pious folk-lore by a r\u00e9sum\u00e9\nof the contents of the opening pages of the first of its four books.\nWe need not dwell upon the importance of Gregory in the history of the\npapacy, of monasticism, and of patristic literature, further than to\nemphasize the point that so distinguished, influential, and for his\ntimes great, a man should have been capable of writing such a book.\nSimilar citations which might be multiplied from other authors of the\nperiod could not add much force to this one impressive instance of the\nna\u00efve pious credulity and superstition of the best Christian minds\nof that age. Not only were the _Dialogues_ well known throughout the\nmedieval period in the Latin reading world, but they were translated\ninto Greek at an early date and in 779 from that language into Arabic,\nwhile King Alfred made an Anglo-Saxon translation of the Latin in the\nclosing ninth century.\n\n[Sidenote: Signs and wonders wrought by saints.]\n\nIn the _Dialogues_ Gregory narrates to Peter the Deacon some of the\nvirtues, signs, and marvelous works of saintly men in Italy which\nhe has learned either by personal experience or indirectly from the\nstatements of good and trustworthy witnesses. The first story is of\nHonoratus, the son of a _colonus_ on a villa in Samnium. When the lad\nevinced his piety by abstaining from meat at a banquet given by his\nparents, they ridiculed him, declaring that he would find no fish to\neat in those mountains. But when the servant presently went out to draw\nsome water, he poured a fish out of the pitcher upon his return which\nprovided the boy with enough food for the entire day. Subsequently the\nlad was given his freedom and founded a monastery on the spot. Still\nlater he saved this monastery from an impending avalanche by frequent\ncalling upon the name of Christ and use of the sign of the cross. By\nthese means he stopped the landslide in mid-course and the rocks may\nstill be seen looking as if they were sure to fall.\n\n[Sidenote: More monkish miracles.]\n\nA tale follows of Goths who stole a monk\u2019s horse, but found themselves\nunable to force their own horses to cross the next river to which they\ncame until they had restored his horse to the monk. In another case\nwhere Franks came to plunder this same monk, he remained invisible to\nthem. This same monk was a disciple of the afore-mentioned Honoratus\nand once raised a woman\u2019s child from the dead by placing upon its\nbreast an old shoe of his master which he cherished as a souvenir. Thus\nhe contrived to satisfy the mother\u2019s pleading and at the same time\npreserve his own modesty and humility. Gregory does not doubt that the\nwoman\u2019s faith also contributed to the miracle. Gregory adds, however,\nthat he thinks the virtue of patience greater than signs and miracles\nand tells another story of the same monk to illustrate that virtue.\n\n[Sidenote: A monastic snake-charmer.]\n\nWe may pass on, however, to the third chapter which contains a story of\nthe gardener of a monastery who set a snake to catch a thief who had\nmade depredations upon the garden, adjuring the snake as follows: \u201cIn\nthe name of Jesus I command you to guard this approach and not permit\nthe thief to enter here.\u201d The serpent obediently stretched its length\nacross the path, and when the gardener returned later, he found the\nthief hanging head first from the hedge, in which his foot had caught\nas he was climbing over it and had been surprised by the sight of the\nserpent. The monk of course then freely gave the thief what he had come\nto steal, but also of course gave him a brief moral lecture which was\nperhaps less welcome.\n\n[Sidenote: Basilius the magician.]\n\nAfter a brief account of a miraculous release from sexual passion\nGregory comes to a tale of Basilius the magician. This is the same man\nconcerning whose arrest and trial on the charge of practicing magic\nand sinister arts we find directions given in two of the letters of\nCassiodorus.[2593] According to Gregory he took refuge with the aid of\na bishop in a monastery, although the abbot saw something diabolical\nabout him from the very start. Soon a virgin who was under the charge\nof the monastery became so infatuated with Basilius as to call publicly\nfor him, declaring that she should die unless he came to her aid. The\nabbot then expelled him from the monastery, on which occasion Basilius\nconfessed that he had often by his magic arts suspended the monastery\nin mid-air but that he had never been able to injure anyone who was\nin it. This is more detailed information concerning the nature of\nBasilius\u2019 magic than Cassiodorus gives us. Gregory further adds that\nnot long after Basilius was burned to death at Rome by the zeal of the\nChristian people.\n\n[Sidenote: A demon salad.]\n\nA female servant of this same monastery once ate a lettuce in the\ngarden without making the sign of the cross first, and became possessed\nof a demon straightway. When the abbot was summoned, the demon\nattempted to excuse himself, exclaiming, \u201cWhat have I done? what have I\ndone? I was just sitting on a lettuce when she came along and ate me.\u201d\nThe abbot nevertheless indignantly proceeded to drive the evil spirit\nout of his serf.\n\nSuch are a few specimens of the monkish magic that was considered\nperfectly legitimate and rapturously admired at the same time that\nmen like Basilius were burned at the stake on charges of magic by the\nzealous Christian populace.\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations in Old Irish.]\n\nWe may add a word at this point concerning Old Irish literature[2594]\nwhich, as it has reached us, is almost entirely religious in\ncharacter,[2595] produced and preserved by the Christian clergy. Yet we\nfind a number of traces of magic in these remains of Celtic learning\nand literature during the dark ages. Indeed, the sole document in\nthe Irish language which is ascribed to St. Patrick is a _Hymn_ or\nincantation in which he invokes the Trinity and the powers of nature\nto aid him against the enchantments of women, smiths, and wizards. By\nrepeating this rhythmical formula Patrick and his companions are said\nto have become invisible to King Loigaire and his Druids. The spell is\nperhaps as old as Patrick\u2019s time. Three other incantations for urinary\ndisease, sore eyes, and to extract a thorn are contained in the Stowe\nMissal. An Irish manuscript of the eighth or ninth century in the\nmonastery of St. Gall has four spells for similar purposes and another\nis found in a ninth century codex preserved in Carinthia.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Fili_.]\n\nThe Irish had their _Fili_ corresponding somewhat to the Druids of\nGaul or Britain. They were perhaps less closely connected with heathen\nrites, since the church seems to have been less opposed to them than\nto the Druids. They were poets and learned men, and a large part of\ntheir learning, at least originally, seems to have consisted of magic\nand divination. There are many instances in Irish literature of their\ndisfiguring the faces of their enemies by raising blotches upon them by\nthe power of words which they uttered. St. Patrick forbade two of their\nthree methods of divination.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n ARABIC OCCULT SCIENCE OF THE NINTH CENTURY\n\n Plan of the chapter\u2014Works of Alkindi\u2014_On Stellar Rays_, or\n _The Theory of the Magic Art_\u2014Radiation of occult force from\n the stars\u2014Magic power of words\u2014Problem of prayer\u2014Figures,\n characters, and sacrifice\u2014Experiment and magic\u2014Alkindi\u2019s\n medieval influence\u2014Divination by visions and dreams\u2014Weather\n prediction\u2014Alkindi as an astrologer\u2014Alkindi on conjunctions\u2014Alkindi\n and alchemy\u2014Astrological works of Albumasar\u2014The _Experiments_ of\n Albumasar\u2014_Albumasar in Sadan_\u2014_Book of Rains_\u2014Costa ben Luca\u2019s\n translation of Hero\u2019s _Mechanica_\u2014Latin versions of his _Epistle\n concerning Incantation_\u2014Form of the epistle\u2014Incantations directly\n affect the mind alone\u2014Men imagine themselves bewitched\u2014How are amulets\n effective?\u2014Citations from the lapidary of the Pseudo-Aristotle\u2014From\n Galen and Dioscorides\u2014Occult virtue\u2014_On the Difference between\n Soul and Spirit_\u2014The nature of _spiritus_\u2014Thought explained\n physiologically\u2014Views of other medieval writers\u2014Thebit ben Corat\u2014The\n Sabians\u2014Thebit\u2019s Relations to Sabianism\u2014Thebit as encyclopedist,\n philosopher, astronomer\u2014His occult science\u2014Astrological and magic\n images\u2014Life of Rasis\u2014His 232 works\u2014Charlatans discussed\u2014His interest\n in natural science\u2014Rasis and alchemy\u2014Titles suggestive of astrology\n and magic\u2014Conclusion.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Plan of the chapter.]\n\nIn this chapter we shall consider a number of learned men who wrote\nin Arabic or other oriental languages in the ninth and early tenth\ncentury: Alkindi, Albumasar, Costa ben Luca, Thebit ben Corat, and\nRasis\u2014to mention for the present only the brief and convenient form\nof their names by which they were commonly designated in medieval\nLatin learning. Not all of these men were Mohammedans; not one was\nan Arab, strictly speaking; but they lived under Mohammedan rule and\nwrote in Arabic. We shall note especially those of their works which\ndeal with occult science and which were plainly influential upon the\nlater medieval Latin learning. Indeed, most of the works of which we\nshall treat seem to be extant only in Latin translation. This chapter\naims at no exhaustive treatment of Arabic science and magic in the\nninth century, but merely, by presenting a few prominent examples, to\ngive some idea of it and of its influence upon the middle ages. In\nsubsequent chapters we shall have occasion to mention many other such\nmedieval translations from Arabic and other oriental languages.\n\n[Sidenote: Works of Alkindi.]\n\nOne of the great names in the history of Arabic learning is that\nof Alkindi (Ya\u2018k\u00fbb ibn Ish\u00e2k ibn Sabb\u00e2h al-Kind\u00ee), who died about\n850 or 873 A.\u202fD.[2596] Comparatively few of his writings have come\nto us, however, although some two hundred titles prove that he\ncovered the whole field of knowledge in his own day. He translated\nthe works of Aristotle and other Greeks into Arabic, and wrote upon\nphilosophy, politics, mathematics, medicine, music, astronomy, and\nastrology, discriminating little between science and superstition in\nhis enthusiasm for extensive knowledge. The first treatise of his\nto appear in print was an astrological one on weather prediction in\nLatin translation.[2597] In 1875 Loth printed an Arabic text of his\ntreatise on the theory of conjunctions. More recently Nagy has edited\nLatin versions of some of his philosophical opuscula, and Bj\u00f6rnbo has\npublished an optical treatise by him entitled _De spectaculis_.\n\n[Sidenote: _On Stellar Rays_, or _The Theory of the Magic Art_.]\n\nIn a manuscript of the closing fourteenth century are contained several\nsets of errors of Aristotle and various Arabs, also others condemned at\nParis in 1348 and 1363, at Oxford in 1376, and so on. Among these are\nlisted the _Errors of Alkindi in the Magic Art_.[2598] The allusion\nis to a treatise by Alkindi, variously styled _The Theory of the Magic\nArt_ or _On Stellar Rays_, which is found in Latin version in a number\nof medieval manuscripts,[2599] but which has never been published or\ndescribed at all fully.\n\n[Sidenote: Radiation of occult force from the stars.]\n\nAlkindi begins the treatise by asserting the astrological doctrine\nof radiation of occult influence from the stars. The diversity of\nobjects in nature depends upon two things, the diversity of matter\nand the varying influence exerted by the rays from the stars. Each\nstar has its own peculiar force and certain objects are especially\nunder its influence, while the movement of the stars to new positions\nand \u201cthe collision of their rays\u201d produce such an infinite variety of\ncombinations that no two things in this world are ever found alike in\nall respects. The stars, however, are no the only objects which emit\nrays; everything in the world of the elements radiates force, too.\nFire, color, and sound are examples of this. The science of physics\nconsiders the action of objects upon one another by contact, but the\nsages know of a more occult interaction of remote objects suggested by\nthe power of the magnet and the reflection of an image in a mirror.\nAll such emanations, however, are in the last analysis caused by the\ncelestial harmony, which governs by necessity all the changes in this\nworld. Thus the men of old, by experiments and by close scrutiny of the\nsecrets of both superior and inferior nature and of the disposition of\nthe sky, came to comprehend many hidden things in the world of nature\nand were able to discover the names of those who had committed theft\nand adultery.\n\n[Sidenote: The border-line between science and magic.]\n\nAlkindi has thus prepared the reader\u2019s mind for the consideration of\nphenomena beyond the realm of ordinary physical action. At the same\ntime he has approached the occult by arguing on the analogy of natural\nphenomena and he has laid down as a fundamental scientific premise what\nwe now regard as a superstition of astrologers. In other words, he is\nnot unaware of a difference in method and character between physics and\nastrology, between science and superstition, yet he tries to formulate\na scientific basis for what is really a belief in magic.\n\n[Sidenote: Magic power of words.]\n\nAlthough Alkindi does not, as I recall, use the word magic, he next\nargues in favor of what is commonly called the magic power of words.\nHe affirms that the human imagination can form concepts and then\nemit rays which will affect exterior objects just as would the thing\nitself whose image the mind has conceived. Muscular movement and\nspeech are the two channels by which the mind\u2019s conceptions can be\ntransformed into action. Frequent experiments have proven clearly the\npotency of words when uttered in exact accordance with imagination\nand intention, and when accompanied by due solemnity, firm faith, and\nstrong desire. The effect produced by words and voices is heightened\nif they are uttered under favorable astrological conditions. Some go\nbest with Saturn, others with the planet Jupiter, some with one sign\nof the zodiac and others with another. The four elements are variously\naffected by different voices; some voices, for instance, affect fire\nmost powerfully. Some especially stir trees or some one kind of tree.\nThus by words motion is started, accelerated, or impeded; animal life\nis generated or destroyed; images are made to appear in mirrors;\nflames and lightnings are produced; and other feats and illusions are\nperformed which seem marvelous to the mob.\n\n[Sidenote: Problem of prayer.]\n\nAlkindi even ventures to touch upon the subject of prayer. He states\nthat the rays emitted by the human mind and voice become the more\nefficacious in moving matter, if the speaker has fixed his mind upon\nand names God or some powerful angel. Human ignorance of the harmony\nof nature also often necessitates appeal to a higher power in order\nto attain good and to avoid evil. Faith, and observance of the proper\ntime and place and attendant circumstances have their bearing, however,\nupon the success or failure of prayer as well as of other utterances.\nAnd there are some authorities who would exclude spiritual influence\nentirely in such matters and who believe that words and images and\nprayers as well as herbs and gems are completely under the universal\ncontrol exercised by the stars.\n\n[Sidenote: Figures, characters, and sacrifice.]\n\nThe treatise concludes by discussing the virtues of figures,\ncharacters, images, and sacrifices in much the same way as it has\ntreated of the power of words. We are assured that \u201cThe sages have\nproved by frequent experiments that figures and characters inscribed\nby the hand of man on various materials with intention and due\nsolemnity of place and time and other circumstances have the effect\nof motion upon external objects.\u201d Every such figure emits rays having\nthe peculiar virtue which has been impressed upon it by the stars and\nsigns. There are characters which can be employed to cure disease\nor to induce it in men or animals. Images constructed in conformity\nwith the constellations emit rays having something of the virtue of\nthe celestial harmony. Alkindi also defends the practice of animal\nsacrifice. Whether God or spirits are placated thereby or not, none the\nless the sacrifice is efficacious, if made with human intent and due\nsolemnity and in accordance with the celestial harmony. The star and\nsign which are dominant when any voluntary act of this sort is begun,\nrule that work to its finish. The material and forms employed should\nbe appropriate to the constellation, or the effect produced will be\ndiscordant and perverted.\n\n[Sidenote: Experiment and magic.]\n\nIt will have been noted that Alkindi more than once asserts that his\nconclusions have been demonstrated experimentally. Thus we have one\nmore example of the connection, supposititious or real, between magic\nand experimental method.\n\n[Sidenote: Alkindi\u2019s medieval influence.]\n\nThe doctrine here set forth by Alkindi of the radiation of force and\nhis explanation of magic by astrology were both to be very influential\nconceptions in Latin medieval learning. We shall find Roger Bacon,\nfor example, repeating the same views in almost the same language\nconcerning stellar rays and the power of words, and it is appropriate\nthat in two manuscripts his utterances are placed together with those\nof Alkindi.[2600]\n\n[Sidenote: Divination by visions and dreams.]\n\nAlkindi\u2019s treatise _De somno et visione_, as we have it in the Latin\ntranslation by Gerard of Cremona,[2601] accepts clairvoyance and\ndivination by dreams as true and asks why we see some things before\nthey happen, why we see other things which require interpretation\nbefore they reveal the future, and why at other times we foresee the\ncontrary of what is to be.[2602] His answer is that the mind or soul\nhas innate natural knowledge of these things, and that \u201cit is itself\nthe seat of all species sensible and rational.\u201d Vision is when the\nsoul dismisses the senses and employs thought, and the formative or\nimaginative virtue of the mind is more active in sleep, the sensitive\nfaculties when one is awake.\n\n[Sidenote: Weather prediction.]\n\nWhile by some persons, at least, opinions of Alkindi in his _Theory\nof the Magic Art_ were regarded as erroneous, Albertus Magnus in\nhis _Speculum astronomiae_ listed among works on judicial astrology\nwith which he thought that the church could find no fault \u201ca book\nof Alchindi\u201d which opened with the words _Rogatus fui_.[2603] This\nis a work on weather prediction which still exists in a number of\nmanuscripts[2604] and was printed in 1507 at Venice, and in 1540 at\nParis, together with a treatise on the same theme by Albumasar, of whom\nwe shall say more presently.[2605]\n\n[Sidenote: Alkindi as an astrologer.]\n\nA majority, indeed, of the works by Alkindi extant in Latin translation\nare astrological.[2606] Several were translated by Gerard of Cremona,\nand one or two by John of Spain and Robert of Chester.[2607] Geomancies\nare attributed to Alkindi in manuscripts at Munich.[2608] Loth notes\nconcerning Alkindi\u2019s astrology what we have already found to be the\ncase in his theories of radiation and magic art and of divination by\ndreams; namely, that while he believes in astrology unconditionally,\nhe tries to pursue it as a science in a scientific way, observing\nmathematical method and physical laws\u2014as they seemed to him\u2014while he\nattacked the vulgar superstitions which were popularly regarded as\nastrology.\n\n[Sidenote: Alkindi on conjunctions.]\n\nThe astrological treatise by Alkindi, of which Loth edited the Arabic\ntext, is a letter on the duration of the empire of the Arabs. This bit\nof political prediction was, as far as Loth knew, the first instance of\nthe theory of conjunctions in Arabian astrology. The theory was that\nlesser conjunctions of the planets, which occur every twenty years,\nmiddling conjunctions which come every two hundred and forty years, and\ngreat conjunctions which occur only every nine hundred and sixty years,\nexert a great influence not only upon the world of nature but upon\npolitical and religious events, and, especially the great conjunctions,\nopen new periods in history. Thus, as Loth says, the conjunction is\nfor the macrocosmos what the horoscope is for man the microcosmos; the\none forecasts the fate of the individual; the other, that of society.\nLoth knew of no Latin translation of Alkindi\u2019s letter, and medieval\nwriters in Latin cite Albumasar usually as their authority on the\nsubject of conjunctions. But Loth held that Albumasar, who was a pupil\nof Alkindi, merely developed and popularized the astrological theories\nof his master, and Loth showed that Albumasar embodied our letter on\nthe duration of the Arabian empire in large part in his work _On Great\nConjunctions_ without mentioning Alkindi as his authority.\n\n[Sidenote: Alkindi and alchemy.]\n\nAlthough a believer in astrology to the point of magic, and not\nunacquainted with metals as his work _On the Properties of Swords_\nshows, Alkindi regarded the art of alchemy as a deception and the\npretended transmutation of other metals into gold as false.[2609] He\naffirmed this especially in his treatise entitled, _The Deceits of the\nAlchemists_, but also in his other writings.[2610]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological works of Albumasar.]\n\nSomething further should be said concerning the astrological treatises\nof Albumasar (Abu Ma\u0617\u2019shar Ja\u2019far ben Muhammad al-Balkh\u00ee) whence also\nhis briefer appellations, Japhar and Dja\u2019far. He died in 886 and\nhas been called the most celebrated of all the ninth century Bagdad\nastrologers, although he has also been accused of plagiarism, as we\nhave seen. In 1489 at Augsburg Erhard Ratdolt published three of his\nworks, the _Greater Introduction to Astronomy_ in eight books, the\n_Flowers_\u2014which Roger Bacon cites as severely condemning physicians\nwho do not study astrology[2611]\u2014and the eight books concerning great\nconjunctions and revolutions of the years. Of these the _Introduction_\nwas translated both by John of Spain and Hermann of Dalmatia, but\nthe former translation, although found in many manuscripts, remains\nunprinted. The _Flores_ is found in numerous manuscripts and was\nreprinted in 1495. The work on conjunctions and revolutions was\nprinted again in 1515 and also exists in many manuscripts.[2612] A\nFrench translation which Hagins the Jew, working for Henri Bate of\nMalines, made in 1273 of \u201cLe livre des revolutions de si\u00e8cle,\u201d of whose\nsix chapters he translated only four,[2613] probably applied to a part\nof this work.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Experiments_ of Albumasar.]\n\nAlbertus Magnus in the _Speculum astronomiae_, in listing\nirreproachable works of astronomy and astrology, mentions a \u201cBook of\nExperiments\u201d by Albumasar instead of the Conjunctions and Revolutions\nalong with his _Flowers_ and _Introduction_.[2614] This book of\nexperiments by Albumasar is often met with in the manuscripts. It is a\ndifferent and shorter work than that in eight parts on Conjunctions,\nbut itself deals with the subject of revolutions. It is not, however,\nto be confused with still another work by Albumasar on revolutions as\nconnected with nativities.[2615]\n\n[Sidenote: _Albumasar in Sadan._]\n\nAnother work on astrology with which the name of Albumasar is connected\nis cited by medieval writers, notably Peter of Abano,[2616] as\n_Albumasar in Sadan_ (or Sadam), and is also found in Latin manuscripts\nwhere it is also called \u201cExcerpts from the Secrets of Albumasar.\u201d[2617]\nSteinschneider regarded the Latin translation as a shortened or\nincomplete version of an Arabic original entitled _al-Mudsakaret_, or\n_Memorabilia_ by Abu Sa\u2019id Sch\u00e2ds\u00e2n, who wrote down the answers of his\nteacher to his questions.[2618] There is also a Greek text, entitled\n_Mysteries_, which differs considerably from the Latin and of which\nSadan perhaps made use.[2619] The Latin version might be described as\na miscellaneous collection of astrological teachings, anecdotes, and\nactual cases of Albumasar gathered up by his disciples and somewhat\nresembling Luther\u2019s _Table-Talk_ in form.\n\n[Sidenote: _Book of rains._]\n\nWe have already alluded to the treatise on weather prediction by\nAlbumasar which was printed with a similar work by Alkindi in 1507\nand 1540, and also often accompanies it in the manuscripts. In this\n\u201cbook of rains according to the Indians\u201d[2620] Albumasar is variously\ndisguised under the names of Gaphar, Jafar, and Iafar and is called\nan Indian, Egyptian, or Babylonian.[2621] In his Latin translation of\nit Hugo Sanctellensis tells his patron, the \u201cantistes Michael\u201d that\nthe treatise was written by Gaphar, an ancient astrologer of India,\nand has since been abbreviated by a Tillemus or Cilenius or Cylenius\nMercurius.[2622] To Japhar is also attributed a _Minor Isagoga_ to\nastronomy in seven lectures or _sermones_, which Adelard of Bath is\nsaid to have translated from the Arabic.[2623]\n\n[Sidenote: Costa ben Luca\u2019s translation of Hero\u2019s _Mechanica_.]\n\nWe turn next to Costa ben Luca, or Qust\u00e1 ibn L\u016bq\u00e1, of Baalbek, and\nespecially to his treatise _On Physical Ligatures_, or more fully, _The\nEpistle concerning Incantations, Adjurations, and Suspensions from the\nNeck_. The scientific importance of Costa ben Luca may be seen from the\ncircumstance that the _Mechanica_ of Hero of Alexandria, of which the\nGreek text is for the most part lost, has been preserved in the Arabic\ntranslation which Costa prepared in 862-866 for the caliph al-Musta.\nSeveral manuscripts of this Arabic text are still extant at Cairo,\nConstantinople, Leyden, and London, and it has been twice printed.[2624]\n\n[Sidenote: Latin versions of his _Epistle concerning Incantation, etc._]\n\nThe work in which we are more especially interested has also been\nprinted in editions of the works of Galen, of Constantinus Africanus,\nof Arnald of Villanova, and of Henry Cornelius Agrippa.[2625]\nThe treatise is also attributed to Rasis in the library at\nMontpellier.[2626] Its inclusion among Galen\u2019s works is a manifest\nerror; in the edition of Agrippa it is appended as _The Letter of\nan Unknown Author_ (_Epistola incerti authoris_); while Arnald is\nrepresented as translating the work from Greek\u2014a language of which he\nwas ignorant\u2014into Latin. He could read Arabic, however, and perhaps\nrendered the treatise from that language.[2627] But it had certainly\nbeen translated before his time, the end of the thirteenth century, and\npresumably by Constantinus Africanus, c1015-1087, since it not merely\nappears in his printed works but is found together with an imperfect\ncopy of his _Pantegni_ in a manuscript of the twelfth century.[2628]\nIn a fifteenth century manuscript Unayn or Honein ben Ishak is named\nas the author of our treatise, but this seems to be a mistake.[2629]\nAlbertus Magnus in the middle of the thirteenth century cites our\ntreatise both in his _Vegetables and Plants_,[2630] where he alludes to\n\u201cthe books of incantations of Hermes the philosopher and of Costa ben\nLuca the philosopher, and the books of physical ligatures,\u201d and in his\n_Minerals_,[2631] where the _Liber de ligaturis physicis_, as he calls\nit, is the source whence he has borrowed statements concerning gems\nascribed to Aristotle and Dioscorides.\n\n[Sidenote: Form of the epistle.]\n\nOur treatise is in the form of a reply by Costa ben Luca to someone\nwhom he addresses as \u201cdearest son\u201d and who has asked him what validity\nthere is in incantations, adjurations, and suspensions from one\u2019s\nneck, and what the books of the Greeks and Indians have to say upon\nthese matters. The wording of Costa\u2019s epistle varies considerably in\nthe printed editions owing probably to careless interpretation of the\nmanuscripts or careless copying by the earlier scribes, but its general\ntenor is the same.\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations directly affect the mind alone.]\n\nCosta first affirms that all the ancients have agreed that the virtue\nof the mind affects the state of the body. Galen in particular is\ncited as to the effect of passions upon health and the advisability\nof the physician\u2019s cheering the minds of gloomy patients even by\nresort to deception to a limited extent, if it seems necessary. A\nperfect mind generally goes with a perfect body and an imperfect mind\nwith an imperfect body, as is seen in the case of children, old men,\nand women, or in the inhabitants of the intemperate zones, either\ntorrid Ethiopia or the frozen north. Here one text specifies Scotland\n(_Scotie_); another, _Schytie_, which is perhaps intended for Scythia.\nCosta therefore argues that if anyone believes that an incantation\nwill help him, he will at least be benefited by his own confidence.\nAnd if a person is constantly afraid that incantations may be directed\nagainst him, he may easily fret himself into a fever. This, Costa\nthinks, was what Socrates had in mind when he described incantations\nas \u201cwords deceiving rational souls by their interpretation or by the\nfear they produce or by despair.\u201d According to Albertus Magnus, who\nembodies a good deal of Costa\u2019s _Epistle_ in his _Minerals_, Socrates\nsaid more fully that incantations, or perhaps better, enchantments,\nwere made in four ways, namely, by suspending or binding on objects,\nby imprecations or adjurations, by characters, and by images; and that\nthey dement rational souls so that they fall into fear and despair or\nrise to joy and confidence; and that through these accidents of the\nmind bodies are altered either in the direction of health or of chronic\ninfirmity.[2632] Costa states that the medical men of India believe\nthat incantations and adjurations are beneficial. But he says nothing\nto indicate that they, much less the Greeks or himself, have faith in\nthe efficacy of incantations or words to work changes in matter _per\nse_ or directly, nor does he say anything to indicate that demons may\nbe summoned and given orders by this method. Perhaps his discussion of\nincantations is a trifle constrained and not sufficiently outspoken,\nbut it is moderate and scientific and shows a fair degree of scepticism\nfor that period, especially when we compare it with Alkindi\u2019s attitude\ntowards the power of words.\n\n[Sidenote: Men imagine themselves bewitched.]\n\nCosta ben Luca\u2019s attitude towards sorcery seems the same as towards\nincantations. He concludes his discussion of this point by a story\nof \u201ca certain great noble of our country\u201d who had convinced himself\nthat he had been bewitched and consequently became impotent. After\nvainly endeavoring to convince him that this was simply due to his\nimagination, Costa decided that there was nothing to do but humor\nhim in his delusion. He therefore showed him a passage in _The Book\nof Cleopatra_ which prescribed as an aphrodisiac the anointing of\nthe entire body with the gall of a crow mixed with sesame.[2633] The\nnoble followed the prescription and had so much faith in it that his\nimaginary complaint disappeared.\n\n[Sidenote: How are amulets effective?]\n\nFinally Costa considers the question of the validity of amulets, or\nligatures and suspensions, which we have heard Socrates class with\nincantations, adjurations, characters, and images. Costa says that he\nhas read in many works by the ancients that objects suspended from the\nneck are potent not through their natural, but their occult properties.\nHe will not deny that this may be so, but is inclined as before\nto attribute the result rather to the comforting effect which such\nthings have upon one\u2019s mind. He proceeds, however, to list a number of\nsuspensions recommended by ancient writers.\n\n[Sidenote: Citations from the lapidary of the Pseudo-Aristotle.]\n\nFirst he cites from \u201cAristotle in the Book of Stones,\u201d a spurious\ntreatise of which we shall have more to say in the chapter on Aristotle\nin the middle ages, a number of examples of the marvelous powers of\ngems worn suspended from the neck or set in a ring upon the finger.\nOne augments the flow of saliva, another checks the flow of blood. The\nstone hyacinth enables its bearer to pass safely through a pestilent\nregion, and makes him honored in men\u2019s thoughts and procures the\ngranting of his petitions by rulers. The emerald wards off epilepsy,\n\u201cwherefore we often prescribe to nobles that their children should wear\nthis stone hung about the neck lest they incur this infirmity.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: From Galen and Dioscorides.]\n\nCosta also cites some recommendations of ligatures and suspensions\nfrom Galen, such as curing stomach-ache by suspending coral about the\nneck or abdomen, or the dung of wolves who have eaten bones, which\nshould preferably be bound on with a thread made from the wool of a\nsheep eaten by that wolf. To Dioscorides are attributed such amulets\nas the teeth of a mad dog who has bit a man, which will safeguard\ntheir wearer from ever being so bitten\u2014and it would be somewhat of a\ncoincidence, if he were\u2014and the seed of wild saffron which, held in the\nhand or worn about the neck, is good for the stings of scorpions. The\nIndians are cited for what is a recipe rather than an amulet: _stercum\nelephantinum cum melle mixtum et in vulva mulieris positum numquam\npermittit concipere_. And some say that a woman who spits thrice in a\nfrog\u2019s mouth will not conceive for a year. A number of other examples\nare given without mention of any particular authority. Some of them,\nindeed, are very familiar and could be found in many authors, and we\nshall meet them in other contexts.\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtue.]\n\nCosta concludes by saying that he himself has not tested these\nstatements extracted from the works of the ancients, but that\nneither will he deny them, since there exist in nature many strange\nphenomena and inexplicable forces. We would not believe that the\nmagnet attracts iron, if we had not seen it. Similarly lead breaks\nadamant which iron cannot break. There is a stone which no furnace can\nconsume and a fish which paralyzes the hand of the person catching\nit. These strange properties act in some subtle and mighty fashion\nwhich is not perceptible to our senses and which we cannot account\nfor by reasoning.[2634] But it is noteworthy that as in discussing\nincantations Costa said nothing of demons, so he fails to ascribe\noccult virtue to the influence of the stars.\n\n[Sidenote: _On the Difference between Soul and Spirit._]\n\nAnother treatise by Costa ben Luca, _On the Difference between Soul\nand Spirit_,[2635] has little to do with occult science, but gives\ntoo good a glimpse of medieval notions in the field of physiological\npsychology to pass it by. It was translated into Latin by John of\nSpain for Archbishop Raymond of Toledo in the twelfth century,[2636]\nand is found in many manuscripts, often together with the works of\nAristotle.[2637] Probably by a confusion of the names Costa ben Luca\nand Constantinus[2638] it was printed among the latter\u2019s works,[2639]\nand indeed we find very similar views in his _Pantegni_[2640] and\nin his treatise _On Melancholy_. The work has also been ascribed\nto Augustine,[2641] Isaac,[2642] Avicenna,[2643] Alexander Neckam,\nThomas of Cantimpr\u00e9, and Albertus Magnus.[2644] A different work with\na similar title and somewhat similar contents is the _De spiritu\net anima_, which is printed with the works of Augustine[2645] but\nwhich cites such later authors as Boethius, Isidore, Bede, Alcuin,\nSt. Bernard, and Hugh of St. Victor, to whom also it has been\nattributed.[2646] Thomas Aquinas called it the work of an anonymous\nCistercian.[2647] But to return to our treatise.\n\n[Sidenote: The nature of _spiritus_.]\n\nCosta ben Luca has, as we have hinted, some diverting passages in the\nfields of physiological psychology. He believes in the existence of\n_spiritus_, which is not spirit in one of our senses of that word, but\n\u201ca subtle body,\u201d unlike the soul which is incorporeal. This subtle\n_spiritus_ perishes when separated from the body and it operates most\nof the vital processes of the body such as breathing and the pulse,\nsensation and movement. The two former processes are operated by\n_spiritus_ \u201carising from the heart and borne in the pulsating veins to\nvivify the body.\u201d The two latter processes are caused by _spiritus_\nwhich arises from the brain and operates through the nerves. Thus\n_spiritus_ is the cause of life in the body and it leaves this mortal\nframe with our dying gasp. The clearer and more subtle this _spiritus_\nis, the more readily it lends itself to mental processes, while the\nmore perfect the human body, the more perfect the _spiritus_ and the\nhuman mind. Hence the intellectual powers of children and women are\ninferior, and the same is true of races subjected to excessive heat\nor cold like the Ethiopians or Slavs. Here we have the same views\nrepeated as in the _Epistle concerning Incantation_. Some physicians\nand philosophers think that there are two vessels in the heart and that\nthere is more _spiritus_ than blood in the left hand vessel and more\nblood than _spiritus_ in the right hand vessel. The _spiritus_ in the\nbrain becomes more subtle and apt to receive the virtues of the soul by\nits passage from one cavity of the brain to another. The less subtle\n_spiritus_ the brain uses for the five senses; Costa speaks of \u201chollow\nnerves\u201d from the brain to the eye through which the _spiritus_ passes\nfor the purpose of vision. The most subtle _spiritus_ is employed in\nthe higher mental processes such as imagination, memory, and reason.\n\n[Sidenote: Thought explained physiologically.]\n\nCosta ben Luca gives an amusing explanation of how these processes take\nplace in the brain. The opening between the anterior and posterior\nventricles of the brain is closed by a sort of valve which he describes\nas \u201ca particle of the body of the brain similar to a worm.\u201d When a\nman is in the act of recalling something to memory, this valve opens\nand the _spiritus_ passes from the anterior to the posterior cavity.\nMoreover, the speed with which this valve works or responds differs\nin different brains, and this fact explains why some men are of slow\nmemory and why others answer a question so much sooner. The habit of\ninclining the head when deep in cogitation is also to be explained\nas tending to open this valve. However, the relative subtlety of the\n_spiritus_ is another important factor in intellectual ability.\n\n[Sidenote: Views of other medieval writers.]\n\nOther medieval writers differed somewhat from these views of Costa ben\nLuca as to the nature of _spiritus_ and the cavities of the brain. For\ninstance, Constantinus Africanus in his treatise _On Melancholy_ states\nthat the _spiritus_ of the brain is called the rational soul, which\nis inconsistent with the distinction drawn between soul and spirit in\nthe other treatise. In the eleventh century both Constantinus in his\n_Pantegni_ and _Anatomy_ or _De humana natura_,[2648] and Petrocellus\nthe Salernitan in his _Practica_;[2649] in the twelfth century both\nHildegard of Bingen[2650] and the Pseudo-Augustinian _Liber de spiritu\net anima_;[2651] in the thirteenth century both Bartholomew of England,\nwho seems to cite Johannitius (Hunain ibn Ishak) on this point,[2652]\nand Vincent of Beauvais agree that the brain has three main cavities.\nThe first is phantastic, from which the senses are controlled, where\nthe sensations are registered, and where the process of imagination\ngoes on. The middle cell is logical or rational, and there the forms\nreceived from the senses and imagination are examined and judged. The\nthird cell retains such forms as pass this examination and so is the\nseat of memory.[2653] The Pseudo-Augustine, however, represents it\nfurther as the source of motor activity. Constantinus and Vincent of\nBeauvais, who quotes him in the thirteenth century, further distinguish\nthe phantastic cavity as hot and dry, the logical cell as cold and\nmoist, and the seat of memory as cold and dry. Moreover, the phantastic\ncell which multiplies forms contains a great deal of _spiritus_ and\nvery little medulla, while the cell of memory which retains the smaller\nnumber of forms selected by reason contains much medulla and little\n_spiritus_. Thus the general point of view of these other authors\nresembles that of Costa ben Luca despite the divergence from him in\ndetails. They perhaps also owe something to Augustine, who in his\ngenuine works speaks of the three cells of the brain but makes the\nhind-brain the center of motor activity, and the mid-brain the seat of\nmemory.[2654]\n\n[Sidenote: Thebit ben Corat.]\n\nThabit ibn Kurrah ibn Marwan ibn Karaya ibn Ibrahim ibn Marinos ibn\nSalamanos (Abu Al Hasan) Al Harrani or Thabit ben Corrah ben Zahrun el\nHarrani, or Tabit ibn Qorra ibn Merwan, Abu\u2019l-Hasan, el-Harrani, or\nThabit ben Qorrah or Thabit ibn Qurra, or Tabit ibn Korrah, or Thabit\nben Korra, as he is variously designated by modern scholars;[2655] or\nThebit ben Corat, or Thebith ben Corath, or Thebit filius Core, or\nThebites filius Chori, also Tabith, Tebith, Thabit, Thebeth, Thebyth,\nand Benchorac, ben corach, etc., as we find it in the medieval Latin\nversions\u2014Thebit ben Corat seems the prevalent medieval spelling and\nso will be adopted here\u2014was born at Harran in Mesopotamia about 836,\nspent much of his life at Bagdad, and lived until about 901.[2656] He\nwrote in Arabic as well as Syriac, but was not a Mohammedan, and Roger\nBacon alludes to him as \u201cthe supreme philosopher among all Christians,\nwho has added in many respects, speculative as well as practical, to\nthe work of Ptolemy.\u201d[2657] As a matter of fact, he was a heathen or\npagan, a member of the sect of Sabians, whose chief seat was at his\nbirthplace, Harran.\n\n[Sidenote: The Sabians.]\n\nThe Sabians appear to have continued the paganism and astrology of\nBabylonia, but also to have accepted the Agathodaemon and Hermes\nof Egypt,[2658] and to have had relations with Gnosticism and\nNeo-Platonism. They seem to have laid especial stress upon the spirits\nof the planets,[2659] to whom they made prayers, sacrifices, and\nsuffumigations,[2660] while days on which the planets reached their\nculminating-points were celebrated as festivals.[2661] They observed\nthe houses and stations of the planets, their risings and settings,\nconjunctions and oppositions, and rule over certain hours of the\nday and night.[2662] Some planets were masculine, others feminine;\nsome lucky, others unlucky;[2663] they were related to different\nmetals;[2664] the different members of the human body were placed under\ndifferent signs of the zodiac;[2665] and in general each planet had its\nown appropriate figures and forms, and ruled over certain climates,\nregions, and things[2666] in nature. Most of this, however, is\nastrological commonplace whether of pagans, Mohammedans, or Christians.\nNor were the Sabians peculiar in associating intellectual substances\nor spirits with the planets.[2667] It was only in worshiping these and\ndenying the existence of one God and in their practice of sacrificial\ndivination that they could be distinguished as heathen or pagan.\nHowever, they seem to have devoted a rather unusual amount of attention\nto astrology and other forms of magic such as oracular heads,[2668]\nmagic knots and figures,[2669] and seal-rings carved with peculiar\nanimal figures. These last they often buried with the dead for a time\nin order to increase their virtue.[2670]\n\n[Sidenote: Thebit\u2019s relations to Sabianism.]\n\nThebit, at any rate, seems to have prided himself upon being a\ndescendant of pagan antiquity. In a passage praising his native town\nhe said, \u201cWe are the heirs and posterity of heathenism,\u201d[2671] and he\ndescribed with veneration a ruined Greek temple at Antioch.[2672] He\nhad, however, some religious disagreement with the Sabians of Harran\nand was finally forced to leave.[2673] He met a philosopher who took\nhim to Bagdad where he became one of the Caliph\u2019s astronomers[2674]\nand founded there a Sabian community to his own taste. His numerous\nreligious writings show the value which he attached to various Sabian\nusages and rites: ceremonials at burials, hours of prayer, rules of\npurity and impurity and concerning the animals to be sacrificed,\nreadings in honor of the different planets.[2675]\n\n[Sidenote: Thebit as encyclopedist, philosopher, astronomer.]\n\nThebit was a writer of encyclopedic range and translated from the\nGreek[2676] into Arabic or Syriac such authors as Apollonius,\nArchimedes, Aristotle, Euclid, Hippocrates, and Galen. He \u201cwas famed\nabove all as a philosopher,\u201d[2677] but most of his philosophical\nworks are lost, but some geometrical treatises by him are extant,\nand a work on weights appears in Latin translation.[2678] A group of\nfour astronomical treatises by him also occurs with fair frequency in\nmedieval manuscripts.[2679] On the basis of these specimens of his\nastronomy Delambre was not moved to assign him any great place in\nthe history of the science;[2680] Chwolson objects that they are too\nbrief to do him justice,[2681] but they are probably the cream of his\nown contributions to the subject or the middle ages would not have\ntranslated and preserved them so sedulously.\n\n[Sidenote: His occult science.]\n\nWhatever Thebit\u2019s contributions to positive knowledge may or may not\nhave been, there is no dispute as to the fact that he was given to\noccult science and even superstition. His attitude towards alchemy,\nindeed, is doubtful, as a work of alchemy is ascribed to him in one\nmanuscript of the fourteenth century and some notes against the\nart in another[2682]. But of his adhesion to astrology there is no\ndoubt[2683], and Chwolson notes his interest in the mystic power of\nletters and magic combinations of them[2684]. But the one outstanding\nexample of his occult science is his treatise on images, which seems to\nhave been a favorite with the Latin middle ages, since it appears to\nhave been translated into Latin twice, by Adelard of Bath[2685] and by\nJohn of Seville[2686], since the manuscripts of it are numerous,[2687]\nand it also was printed,[2688] and since Thebit is cited as an\nauthority on the subject of images by such medieval writers as Roger\nBacon, Albertus Magnus,[2689] the author of _Picatrix_,[2690] Peter of\nAbano,[2691] and Cecco d\u2019Ascoli.[2692]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological and magic images.]\n\nThe work begins by emphasizing the need of a knowledge of astronomy in\norder to perform feats of magic (_praestigia_). The images described\nare astronomical or astrological and must be constructed under\nprescribed constellations in order to fulfill the end sought. Often,\nhowever, they are human forms rather than astronomical figures. It is\nnot necessary to engrave them upon gems; Thebit expressly states that\nthe material of which they are made or upon which they are engraved\nis unimportant, and that lead or tin or bronze or gold or silver or\nwax or mud or anything you please will do. The essential thing and\n\u201cthe perfection of mastery\u201d is careful conformity to astrological\nconditions. This science of images is indeed, as Aristotle and Ptolemy\nhave testified, the acme of astrology. Nevertheless, after the image\nhas been properly constructed, there is usually some non-astrological\nceremony to be executed in connection with it which savors of magic.\nOften the image is to be buried, not however in a grave as in the case\nof the ancient curses upon lead tablets, but in the house of someone\nconcerned. Once two images are to be placed facing each other and\nwrapped in a clean cloth before burying them. Instructions are also\ngiven as to the direction in which the person burying the image should\nface. Also forms of words are prescribed which are to be repeated as\nthe image is buried. Once the name of the person whom it is desired\nto injure is to be written with \u201cnames of hate on the back of the\nimage.\u201d Among the objects supposed to be achieved by such images are\ndriving off scorpions, destroying a given region, causing misfortunes\nto happen to others, recovery of stolen objects, success in business\nor politics, protection from possible injury at the hands of the king,\nor the causing of an enemy\u2019s death by bringing him into disfavor with\nthe monarch. The treatise closes, at least in the printed text, with an\nadmission of its essentially magic character by saying, \u201cAnd this is\nwhat God the highest wished to reveal to his servants concerning magic,\nthat His name may be honored and praised and ever exalted through the\nages.\u201d But no mention is made of demons, unless an instruction to name\none image \u201cby a famous name\u201d alludes to some spirit.\n\nWe shall now conclude the present survey with some account of Rasis and\nhis writings, with the exception of a number of books of experiments\nascribed to him, but which it is impossible to separate from those\nascribed to Galen and other authors, and of which we shall treat later\nunder the head of such experimental literature.\n\n[Sidenote: Life of Rasis.]\n\nThe full name of Rasis or Rhazes was Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya\nar-Razi,[2693] the last word indicating his birthplace in Persia. The\ndate of his birth is uncertain, perhaps about 850. He died in 923 or\n924.[2694] For the facts of his life we are dependent upon two Arabic\nwriters of the thirteenth century[2695] who do little except tell one\n\u201cgood\u201d story after another about him, or quote his famous sayings, most\nof which sound as if culled from the works of Galen. When about thirty\nyears of age Rasis came to Bagdad and is said to have been attracted to\nthe study of medicine by hearing how an inflamed and swollen forearm\nwhich gave great pain was marvelously cured by the application of an\nherb, which came to be called \u201cthe vivifier of the world.\u201d In the early\nyears of the tenth century Rasis served as physician in the hospital at\nBagdad. According to Withington he has been called \u201cthe first and most\noriginal of the great Moslem physicians.\u201d He also was interested in\nphilosophy and alchemy, as his writings will show.\n\n[Sidenote: His 232 works.]\n\nThere has come down to us a list of some 232 works ascribed to\nRasis.[2696] Some of them are probably merely different wordings of the\nsame title, others are very likely chapters repeated from his longer\nworks, but at any rate they serve to give us some idea of his interests\nand the ground he covered, although of course some may be incorrectly\nattributed to him. Editions of the Latin translations of some of his\nchief medical works were printed before the end of the fifteenth\ncentury at Milan in 1481 and Bergamo in 1497.[2697] These contain the\nfamous _Liber Almansoris_ or _Liber El-Mansuri dictus_ with its ten\nsubordinate treatises: (1) introduction to medicine and discussion\nof human anatomy, (2) the doctrine of temperaments and humors and a\ndiscussion of the art of physiognomy,[2698] with a chapter on how to\nselect slaves, (3) diet and drugs, (4) hygiene, (5) cosmetics, (6)\nrules of health and medicines for travelers, (7) surgery or \u201cthe art of\nbinding up broken bones and concerning wounds and ulcers,\u201d (8) poisons,\n(9) treatment of diseases from head to foot, (10) fevers. Following\nthis in both editions come his works on Divisions, on diseases of the\njoints, on the diseases of children, and his Aphorisms or six books\nof medicinal secrets. Other writings by Rasis found in one or both of\nthe printed editions are a brief treatise on Surgery, Cautery, and\nLeeches,[2699] the book of Synonyms, the table of antidotes, and some\nothers which we shall have occasion to mention later. His treatise on\nthe pestilence or on smallpox and measles was printed many times from\nthe fifteenth to sixteenth century.\n\n[Sidenote: Charlatans discussed.]\n\nIn the list of 232 titles are three works which all seem to bear on the\nsame point and are perhaps different descriptions of one treatise, or\nelse show that this was a favorite theme with Rasis. The idea in all\nthree seems to be that no physician is perfect or can cure all diseases\nof all patients, that this is why many persons go to charlatans,\nand why sometimes quacks, old-wives, and popular practice succeed in\ncertain cases where the most learned doctors have failed.[2700]\n\n[Sidenote: His interest in natural science.]\n\nOther titles show that Rasis was interested in natural science and not\nmerely in the practice of medicine. Besides what would appear to have\nbeen a general treatise entitled, _Opinions concerning Natural Things_,\nhe wrote on optics, holding that vision was not by rays sent forth\nfrom the eye, and discussing some of the figures in the work on optics\nascribed to Euclid. In a letter he inquired into the reason for the\ncreation of wild beasts and venomous reptiles; and in a third treatise\nwrote of the magnet\u2019s attraction for iron and of vacuums.[2701]\nHis interest in natural philosophy of a rather theoretical sort is\nindicated by an _Explanation of the book of Plutarch or commentary\non the book of Timaeus_.[2702] Other titles attest his experimental\ntendency.[2703]\n\n[Sidenote: Rasis and alchemy.]\n\nEight titles deal with alchemy[2704] and show that Rasis regarded\ntransmutation as possible. One is a reply to Alkindi who held the\nopposite opinion.[2705] None of these writings seem to be extant in\nArabic, however, and the Latin works of alchemy ascribed to Rasis are\ngenerally regarded as spurious. The thirteenth century encyclopedist,\nVincent of Beauvais, made a number of citations from the treatise\n_De salibus et aluminibus_ attributed to Rasis, but Berthelot[2706]\nregarded this work as later than Rasis and it is not found among our\neight titles. The _Lumen luminis_, which is ascribed to Rasis[2707]\nand seems to have been translated by Michael Scot[2708] in the early\nthirteenth century, is also mainly devoted to these two substances,\nsalts and alums. A _Book of Seventy_ is ascribed to Rasis as well as to\nGeber. Berthelot was inclined to think that a _Book of Secrets_ perhaps\nwent back to Rasis. At least some good stories are told by Arabic\nchroniclers of Rasis\u2019 connection with alchemy. One is to the effect\nthat he abandoned the art as a result of a sound beating to which the\ncaliph subjected him when he failed to transmute metals at order.\nAnother states that in preparing the elixir he injured his eyes with\nits vapors and was cured by a physician who charged him a fee of five\nhundred _dinars_. Rasis paid the doctor\u2019s bill, but, remarking that\nat last he had discovered the true alchemy and the best art of making\ngold, devoted the remainder of his life to the study and practice of\nmedicine.[2709]\n\n[Sidenote: Titles suggestive of astrology and magic.]\n\nRasis also wrote treatises on mathematics and the stars but it is not\nalways easy to infer their contents from the titles which have alone\nreached us or to tell when _mathematica_ means astrology. In one work\nhe seems to have shown the excellence and utility of _mathematica_,\nbut to have confuted those who extolled it beyond measure.[2710] In\na letter he denied that the rising and setting of the sun and other\nplanets was because of the earth\u2019s motion and held that it was due to\nthe movement of the celestial orb.[2711] In another letter he discussed\nthe opinion of natural philosophers concerning the sciences of the\nstars and whether or not the stars were living beings.[2712] Rasis\nalso discussed the difference between dreams from which the future\ncan be forecast and other dreams.[2713] The title, _Of exorcisms,\nfascinations, and incantations_, under which, according to Negri\u2019s\nLatin translation Rasis discussed the causes and cures of diseases by\nthese methods and magic arts, should, in Ranking\u2019s opinion, be more\naccurately translated as _The Book of Divisions and Branches_.[2714] A\nwork _On the Necessity of Prayer_ is also included in the list of 232\nworks ascribed to Rasis,[2715] while a Lapidary produced for Wenzel\nII of Bohemia (1278-1305) cites Rasis _On the virtues of words and\ncharacters_.[2716]\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion.]\n\nHerewith we conclude our present survey of Arabian occult science\nespecially in the ninth century, although in the following chapters\nwe shall frequently encounter its influence. We have found the occult\nscience closely associated with natural science and difficult to\nsever from it. In the authors and works reviewed we have found both\nscepticism and superstition, both rationalism and empiricism. But\nperhaps the most impressive point is that even superstition pretends to\nbe or attempts to be scientific.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIX\n\n LATIN ASTROLOGY AND DIVINATION: ESPECIALLY IN THE NINTH, TENTH, AND\n ELEVENTH CENTURIES\n\n Astrology in Gaul before the twelfth century\u2014Figures of astrological\n medicine\u2014The divine quaternities of Raoul Glaber\u2014Celestial portents\n and other marvels\u2014An eleventh century calendar\u2014Astrology and\n divination in ecclesiastical _compoti_\u2014Notker on the mystic date of\n Easter\u2014Prediction from the Kalends of January\u2014Other divination by\n the day of the week\u2014Divination by the day of the moon\u2014Authorship\n of moon-books\u2014Spheres of life and death: in Greek\u2014Medieval\n Latin versions\u2014Survival of such methods in medical practice of\n about 1400\u2014Egyptian days\u2014Their history\u2014Medieval attempts to\n explain them\u2014Other perilous days\u2014Firmicus read by an archbishop\n of York\u2014Relation of Latin astrology to Arabic\u2014Appendix I. Some\n manuscripts of the Sphere of Pythagoras or Apuleius\u2014Appendix II.\n Egyptian days in early medieval manuscripts.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology in Gaul before the twelfth century.]\n\nAstrology had continued to flourish in Gaul in the last declining days\nof the Roman Empire, despite the strictures of Christian writers and\nclergy,[2717] and it was one of the first subjects to revive after\nthe darkness of the Merovingian period. Two centuries ago Goujet in\na treatise on the state of the sciences in France from the death\nof Charlemagne to that of King Robert noted that from the reign of\nCharlemagne astronomy continued to be increasingly studied. \u201cThe\ncouncils in their decrees, the bishops in their statutes, the kings\nin their capitularies, expressly recommended the study of it to the\nclergy.\u201d[2718] With the study of astronomy naturally developed a\nbelief in astrology. According to the _Histoire Litt\u00e9raire de la\nFrance_ it became quite the fashion during the reign of Louis the\nPious, Charlemagne\u2019s successor, when we are told that there was no\ngreat lord but had his own astrologer. Adalmus, before he became abbot\nof Castres, wasted much time upon this pseudo-science, and Rabanus\nMaurus showed tendencies in that direction. In the tenth century such\ncelestial phenomena as comets and eclipses were feared as sinister\nportents, and men resorted to enchantments, auguries, and other forms\nof divination.[2719] A brief treatise in a manuscript of the ninth\ncentury in the Vatican library also develops the thesis that comets\nsignify disasters.[2720] In the eleventh century Engelbert, a monk of\nLi\u00e8ge, and Odo, teacher at Tournai, were devoted to the study of the\nstars; and Gilbert Maminot, bishop of Lisieux, and for a time chaplain\nand physician to William the Conqueror, would rather spend his nights\nin star-gazing than in sleep. \u201cBut what was the outcome of all this\ntoil and study?\u201d inquires the _Histoire Litt\u00e9raire_ and replies to its\nown question, \u201cThe making of some wretched astrologers and not a single\ntrue astronomer!\u201d[2721]\n\n[Sidenote: Figures of astrological medicine.]\n\nThese words were written nearly two hundred years ago, but such a\nrecent investigation of manuscripts in French libraries as that of\nWickersheimer on figures illustrative of astrological medicine from\nthe ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries has on the whole confirmed\nthe importance of astrology in the meager learning of that time.[2722]\nThe manuscripts in English libraries, I have found, tell a similar\nstory. Of the human figures marked with the twelve signs of the zodiac,\nwhich become so common in the manuscripts by the fourteenth century,\nand in which the head rests upon the Ram, the feet on Pisces, while\nthe intervening members of the body are marked by their respective\nsigns,\u2014of these Wickersheimer found none before the twelfth century.\nBut in a medical manuscript of the eleventh century the twelve signs\nwith their names and the names of the parts of the human body to which\nthey apply are grouped about a half figure of Christ, who has His right\nhand raised to bless, while about His head is a halo or sun-disk with\ntwelve rays.[2723] Less favorable to astrology is the accompanying\nlegend, \u201cAccording to the ravings of the philosophers the twelve signs\nare thus denoted.\u201d On the page following the text describes the twelve\nsigns \u201caccording to the Gentiles.\u201d Schemes in which the world, the\nyear, and man were associated, and where are shown the four elements,\nfour seasons, four humors, four temperaments, four ages, four cardinal\npoints, and four winds, are frequently found in extant manuscripts of\nthe ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.[2724]\n\n[Sidenote: The divine quaternities of Raoul Glaber.]\n\nSuch association reminds one of the opening of the chronicle of Raoul\nGlaber, written in the eleventh century, \u201cSince we are to treat of\nevents in the four quarters of the earth, it will be well to touch\nfirst upon the power of divine and abstract quaternity.\u201d There are\nfour elements, he gives us to understand, four virtues and four\nsenses. There are four Gospels and they have their relation to the\nfour elements. Matthew, dealing with Christ\u2019s incarnation, corresponds\nto earth; Mark to water, since it emphasizes baptism; Luke to air,\nbecause it is the longest Gospel; and John to fire or ether as the\nmost spiritual. In like manner can be associated with the four cardinal\nvirtues those four famous rivers which had their sources in Paradise:\nPhison and prudence, Geon and temperance, the Tigris and fortitude,\nthe Euphrates and justice. Finally the ages of the world are found to\nbe four by Raoul, instead of the six eras corresponding to the days of\ncreation which we find in Isidore, Bede, and other medieval historians;\nand these four ages also relate to the four virtues. The days of Abel,\nEnoch, and Noah were days of prudence; but on leaving Noah we have\ntemperance marking the age of Abraham and the patriarchs; fortitude\nis the feature of the time of Moses and the prophets; while justice\ncharacterizes the period since the incarnation of the Word.\n\n[Sidenote: Celestial portents and other marvels.]\n\nThe faith of Raoul and his contemporaries in the mystic significance\nof numbers, if not also in astrology, and the fact that they were\nconstantly on the lookout for portents and prodigies, are further\nattested by the stress laid in his chronicle upon the thousandth\nanniversaries of Christ\u2019s birth and of His passion. Says Raoul, \u201cAfter\nthe multiplicity of prodigies which, although some came a little\nbefore and some a trifle afterwards, happened in the world around the\nthousandth year of Christ the Lord, there were many industrious men of\nsagacious mind who prophesied that there would be others not inferior\nto these in the thousandth year of our Lord\u2019s passion.\u201d That they were\nnot mistaken in this premonition he shows later by several chapters,\nincluding an account of the eclipse of the sun in that year. Like many\nanother medieval historian, Raoul is careful to note the appearance\nof comets\u2014in the Bayeux tapestry of the same century one marks the\ndeath of Edward the Confessor; Raoul also believes that if a living\nperson is visited by spirits, either good or evil, it is a sign of his\napproaching death; he holds the usual view that demons may sometimes\nwork marvels by divine permission, and tells of a magician-impostor\nwhom he saw work miracles upon pseudo-relics. But from the\nsuperstition of medieval chroniclers we must turn back to astrological\nmanuscripts proper.\n\n[Sidenote: An eleventh century calendar.]\n\nAn eleventh century calendar at Amiens[2725] reveals both a simple form\nof astrological medicine and a belief in some peculiar significance of\nthe number seven, whether as a sacred or an astrological number. At\nthe head of each month are brief instructions as to what herbs to use\nduring that month, as to bleeding and bathing, and what disease may\nmost easily be cured then.[2726] In the same manuscript one miniature\nshows someone striking seven bells with a hammer, perhaps as notes in a\nscale, and another miniature represents a seven-branched candlestick,\nof which the branches are respectively labeled, \u201cSpirit of piety,\nSpirit of fortitude, Spirit of intellect, Spirit of wisdom, Spirit of\nprudence, Spirit of science, Spirit of the fear of God.\u201d[2727]\n\n[Sidenote: Astrology and divination in ecclesiastical _Compoti_.]\n\nIndeed works of astrology and divination are especially likely to\nbe found in the same manuscripts with ecclesiastical calendars and\n_computi_. _Computus_ or _compotus_, as one manuscript states, was \u201cthe\nscience considering times.\u201d[2728] For example, in a brief _compotus_ of\nthe ninth century[2729] a divining sphere of Pythagoras occurs twice,\nand we have also a moon book, an account of the Egyptian days, and a\nmethod of divination from winds. In a twelfth century manuscript,[2730]\nsandwiched in between calendars and reckonings of Easter and eclipses\nand Bede\u2019s work _On the Natures of Things_, are a sphere of divination,\nan account of Egyptian days, a method of divination from thunder, and\na portion of a work on judicial astrology beginning with the eleventh\nchapter which tells how to determine whether anyone will be poor or\nrich by inspection of the planet in his nativity.[2731]\n\n[Sidenote: Notker on the mystic date of Easter.]\n\nThe very dating of Easter itself might be the occasion for indulging in\nmystic speculation of a semi-astrological nature. Thus Notker Labeo, c\n950-1022, the well-known monk of St. Gall,[2732] in a treatise to his\ndisciple Erkenhard on four questions of _compotus_,[2733] states that\nthe principal problem, with which all others are connected, is that of\nthe date of Easter. He gives the time as in the first full moon after\nthe vernal equinox, but adds that this is because of a certain mystery.\nFor if there were no mystery connected with the date of Easter, and it\nmerely celebrated like other festivals the memory of an event which\nonce happened, there is no doubt but that it would occur every year\nwithout variation upon the twenty-seventh of March, which was the\nday of the Lord\u2019s resurrection. But as after the vernal equinox the\ndays grow longer than the nights, and as at the full of the moon its\nsplendor is revolved on high, so we should overcome the darkness of\nsin by the light of piety and faith and turn our minds from earthly to\ncelestial things, if we wish to celebrate Easter worthily.\n\n[Sidenote: Prediction from the Kalends of January.]\n\nBut let us consider in more detail the methods of divination found\nin such manuscripts. Simplest of all perhaps are predictions as to\nthe character of the ensuing year according to the day of the week\nupon which the first of January falls. For example, \u201cIf the kalends\nof January shall be on the Lord\u2019s day, the winter will be good and\nmild and warm, the spring windy, and the summer dry. Good vintage,\nincreasing flocks; honey will be abundant; the old men will die; and\npeace will be made.\u201d[2734] In some manuscripts these predictions\nconcerning the weather, crops, wars, and king for the ensuing year are\ncalled _Supputatio Esdrae_ or signs which God revealed to the prophet\nEsdras.[2735] In another manuscript[2736] the weather for winter\nand summer is predicted according to the day of the week upon which\nChristmas falls and Lent begins. Christmas of course was sometimes\nregarded as the first day of the new year and in any case it falls on\nthe same day of the week as the following first of January. In a ninth\ncentury manuscript[2737] predictions for the ensuing year are made\naccording as there is wind in the night on Christmas eve and the eleven\nnights following. For instance, \u201cIf there is wind in the night on the\nnight of the natal day of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that year kings\nand pontiffs will perish,\u201d and \u201cIf on twelfth night there shall be\nwind, kings will perish in war.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Other divination by the day of the week]\n\nDivination from thunder is another form of judicial astrology, if\nit may so be called, found in these early manuscripts. Perhaps the\nsimplest variety of it is according to the day of the week on which\nthunder is heard.[2738] Predictions were also made according to the\nmonth in which thunder was heard,[2739] or the direction from which\nit was heard.[2740] It may be recalled that the three chapters of\nBede\u2019s translation of some work on divination from thunder had been\nrespectively devoted to these three methods by the direction from which\nthe thunder is heard, the month, and the day of the week. Nativities of\ninfants are also given according to the day of the week on which they\nare born, and further taking into account whether the hour of birth\nis diurnal or nocturnal.[2741] It is also regarded as important to\nnote upon which day of the week the new moon occurs,[2742] and we are\nfurther informed of the various hours of the days of the week when it\nis advisable to perform blood-letting.[2743] In a method of divination\naccording to the day of the week and the letters in the boy\u2019s or girl\u2019s\nname the Lord\u2019s day is assigned the number thirteen, the day \u201cof the\nmoon\u201d eighteen, and that \u201cof Mars\u201d fifteen.[2744] Since the days of\nthe week bore the names of the planets, it was not strange that they\nshould have been credited with something of the virtues of the stars.\n\n[Sidenote: Divination by the day of the moon.]\n\nA commoner method of divination and one more nearly approaching\napproved astrological doctrine was that by the day of the month or\nmoon. Briefest of such moon-books is that which merely designates each\nof the thirty days as favorable or unfavorable.[2745] We also find a\n_Lunarium_ for the sick, stating the patient\u2019s prospects from the day\nof the moon on which he contracted his illness;[2746] a work ascribed\nto \u201cSaint Daniel\u201d on nativities by the day of the moon;[2747] and an\nequally brief interpretation of dreams upon the same basis.[2748] Or\nall these matters may be considered in the same treatise and each of\nthem somewhat more fully, and we may be told whether the day is a\ngood one on which to buy and sell, to board a ship, to enter a city,\nto operate upon a patient, to send children off to school, to breed\nanimals, to build an aqueduct or mill, or whether it is best to\nabstain on it from most business. Also such predictions as that the boy\nborn on that day will be illustrious, astute, wise, and lettered; that\nhe will encounter danger on the water, but will live to old age if he\nescapes; while the girl born on the same day will be \u201cchaste, benign,\ngood-looking, and pleasing to men.\u201d That anyone who takes to his bed on\nthat day will suffer a long sickness, but that it is a favorable day\nfor blood-letting, and that one should not worry about dreams he has\nthen, since they possess no significance either for good or evil. Also\nwhat chance there is of recovering articles stolen on that day.[2749]\nIn later manuscripts at least it is further stated that certain\nBiblical characters were born on this day or that day of the moon: Adam\non the first, Eve on the second, Cain on the third, Abel on the fourth,\nand so on.[2750]\n\n[Sidenote: Authorship of moon-books.]\n\nIn the early manuscripts moon-books are anonymous or ascribed to\nDaniel, but in later medieval manuscripts other authors are named.\nThe name of Adam is coupled with that of Daniel in both of two rather\nelaborate moon-books in a fourteenth century manuscript,[2751] where\nAdam is said to have worked out these \u201clunations\u201d \u201cby true experience.\u201d\nA fifteenth century one is attributed to a philosopher, astrologer,\nand physician named Edris,[2752] perhaps the Esdras of the method of\ndivination by the kalends of January rather than the Arab Edrisi. It\nbriefly predicts from the relation of the moon to the twelve signs\nwhether patients will recover and captives escape. In a sixteenth\ncentury manuscript at Paris are \u201cSignifications of the days of the moon\nwhich the most excellent astronomer Bezogar revealed to his disciples\nand transmitted to them as a very great secret and most precious\ngift.\u201d[2753] But such an ascription is rather obviously a late fiction.\n\n[Sidenote: Spheres of life and death: in Greek.]\n\nDetermining the fate of the patient from the day of the moon upon\nwhich his illness was incurred enters also into certain spheres of\nlife and death which were much employed in the early middle ages. But\nin these the number of the day of the moon is combined with a second\nnumber obtained by a numerical evaluation of the letters forming the\npatient\u2019s name. This method came down from the ancient Greek-speaking\nworld, as in a \u201cSphere of Democritus, prognostic of life and death\u201d\nfound in a Leyden papyrus,[2754] while the very similar _Sphere of\nPetosiris_, the mythical Egyptian astrologer, is variously dated by\nW. Kroll from the second century before Christ, by E. Riess from the\nfirst century before Christ, and by F. Boll in the first century of our\nera.[2755] The so-called \u201cSphere\u201d is really only a wheel of fortune,\ncircle, or other plane figure divided into compartments where different\nnumbers are grouped under such headings as \u201cLife\u201d and \u201cDeath.\u201d Having\ncalculated the value of a person\u2019s name by adding together the Greek\nnumerals represented by its component letters, and having further added\nin the day of the moon, one divides the sum by some given divisor and\nlooks for the quotient in the compartments. This method of divination\nwas also employed in regard to fugitive slaves and the outcome of\ngladiatorial combats.[2756]\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval Latin versions.]\n\nIn the medieval Latin versions of these Spheres of life and death the\nnumerical value of the Greek letters was naturally usually lost and\narbitrary numerical equivalents were assigned to the Roman letters\nor some other method of calculation was substituted. The _Sphere of\nPetosiris_ was perpetuated in the form of a letter by him to Nechepso,\nking of Egypt.[2757] But more common than this in manuscripts of\nthe ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries was the Sphere of life and\ndeath of Apuleius or Pythagoras or both[2758] which replaced that of\nDemocritus. Like it, it consisted of the numbers from one to thirty\narranged in six compartments, three above a line each containing six\nnumbers, and three below the line having four each. John of Salisbury,\nin the twelfth century, presumably refers to it when he speaks of\ndivination or lot-casting \u201cby inspection of the so-called Pythagorean\ntable\u201d;[2759] and it continues to be found with great frequency in the\nmanuscripts of subsequent centuries.[2760] It is not to be confused,\nhowever, with the _Prenostica Pitagorice_, a more elaborate, although\nsomewhat similar, method of divination by means of geomantic tables,\nof which we shall treat later in the chapter on Bernard Silvester. A\nSphere ascribed to St. Donatus in a twelfth century manuscript includes\ninstructions how to determine the sign of the zodiac under which a\nperson was born by computing the difference between his name and his\nmother\u2019s name. If this amounts to four letters, he was born under the\nfourth sign, and so on.[2761]\n\n[Sidenote: Survival of such methods in medical practice of about 1400.]\n\nThe survival of such superstitious methods of divination into the later\nmiddle ages is attested not only by the frequent recurrence of the\n_Sphere of Apuleius_ and the divinations from the kalends of January\nin manuscripts of the later centuries, but by the medical notebook,\nwritten in middle English, of John Crophill, who practiced medicine\nin Suffolk under Henry IV.[2762] Besides a record of his patients and\nthe sums of money due from them, rules of dieting and blood-letting\nfor the twelve months of the year, and his \u201cmore regular and masterly\nobservations upon Urin,\u201d his notes include a treatise on astrological\nmedicine which, in the sarcastic language of the old catalogue of the\nHarleian Manuscripts, concludes \u201cwith a masterpiece of art, namely,\na tretys or chapter of \u2018Calculation to know what thou wilt,\u2019 and\nthis by observation of persons\u2019 names.\u201d The notebook also contains\n\u201cOracular Answers prepared beforehand by this great Doctor for those\nof both Sexes who shall come to consult him in the momentous affair of\nMatrimony; according to the several Months of the year wherein they\nshould apply themselves.\u201d Further contents are an incantation in Latin\nfor women in child-birth, and \u201cThe names of the 12 signs with such\nmarks as shew that this John Crophill was a dabbler in Geomancy.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Egyptian days.]\n\nBrief lists of \u201cEgyptian Days\u201d are of rather common occurrence in both\nLatin and Anglo-Saxon manuscripts of the ninth, tenth, and succeeding\ncenturies.[2763] Often it is merely stated what days of the year they\nare; sometimes it is simply added that the doctor should not bleed\nthe patient upon them. As early as a ninth century manuscript,[2764]\nhowever, we are further warned not to take a walk or plant or carry on\na lawsuit or do any work upon these days. And under no circumstances,\nno matter what the seeming necessity, is it permitted to bleed man or\nbeast on these days. Two Egyptian days are then listed for each month,\none reckoned as so many days from the beginning and the other as so\nmany days before the close of the month. Eleven days is the farthest\nremoved that any Egyptian day is from the first of the month and twelve\nthe most from the close, so that they never fall in the middle of a\nmonth nor on the very first or last day. Our ninth century manuscript\nthen mentions three of these days in April, August, and December as\nespecially dangerous. Whoever falls ill or receives a potion on them\nis sure to die soon. Whoever, male or female, is born on one of them\nwill die an evil and painful death. \u201cAnd if one drinks water on those\nthree days, he will die within forty days.\u201d The account then closes\nwith the statement that on the Egyptian days the people of Egypt were\ncursed with Pharaoh. In another ninth century manuscript a bare list\nof the Egyptian days is followed by a somewhat similar account of the\nthree which must be observed with especial care.[2765] In a calendar\nof saints\u2019 days in this same manuscript only the third of March and\nthe third of July are marked _dies egiptiagus_.[2766] Egyptian days\nare also marked in the calendar of Marianus Scotus, the well-known\nchronicler and chronologist.[2767] A somewhat different account in a\ntwelfth century manuscript states that \u201cthese are the days which God\nsent without mercy.\u201d It also, however, lists two of them for each\nmonth and distinguishes the three in April, August, and December as\nespecially dangerous.[2768]\n\n[Sidenote: Their history.]\n\nThere seems to be no doubt that these Egyptian days were a relic of the\nunlucky days in the ancient Egyptian calendar,[2769] of which we learn\nfrom several papyri, although of course the ancient Egyptians were also\naccustomed to distinguish further the three divisions of each day as\nlucky or unlucky. The Egyptian days are noted in official calendars\nof the Roman Empire about 354 A.\u202fD., and in the _Fasti Philocaliani_\nthere are twenty-five in all, of which three fall in January. In the\nmiddle ages, as has already been illustrated, there were usually but\ntwenty-four, two to each month.[2770] They were mentioned in the _Life\nof Proclus_ by Marinus, and both Ambrose and Augustine testified that\nmany Christians still had faith in them.[2771] Indeed, they passed into\nthe ecclesiastical calendar, as the Franciscan, Bartholomew of England,\nstates in the thirteenth century.[2772]\n\n[Sidenote: Medieval attempts to explain them.]\n\nBy that time the notion had become prevalent that they were\nanniversaries of the days upon which God afflicted Egypt with plagues,\nas our citations from the manuscripts have shown. Bartholomew, indeed,\nis at pains to explain that the days are placed in the church calendar,\n\u201cnot because one should omit anything upon them more than upon other\ndays, but in order that God\u2019s miracles may be recalled to memory.\u201d\nThe circumstance that there are twenty-four days does not embarrass\nhim; he simply explains that this proves that God sent more plagues\nupon Egypt than the ten which are especially famed. Our citations from\nearlier manuscripts have shown that most people would not agree with\nBartholomew that nothing should be omitted on these days. Moreover,\nother explanations of their origin had been already given in the middle\nages than that from the plagues of Egypt. Honorius of Autun stated in\nthe twelfth century that they were called Egyptian days because they\nhad been discovered by the Egyptians, and since Egypt means dark,[2773]\nthey are called _tenebrosi_, because they are declared to bring the\nincautious to the shadows of death.[2774] The Dominican, Vincent of\nBeauvais,[2775] who probably wrote his encyclopedia soon after that\nof Bartholomew, did not find the discrepancy between ten plagues and\ntwenty-four days so easy to explain away. He states that of the two\nEgyptian days in each month one comes near the beginning and the other\nnear the close, as we have already learned. He adds that some call them\nlucky days, while others say that the astrologers of Egypt discovered\nthat they were unlucky. Yet another explanation of their origin is that\non these days the Egyptians were accustomed to sacrifice to demons\nwith their own blood, a circumstance which would not seem to recommend\nthem for inclusion in the ecclesiastical calendar. Bernard Gordon, a\nmedical writer at the end of the thirteenth century, reverts to the\nposition that the Egyptian days were in memory of the plagues in Egypt.\nHe declares that there is no sense in the prohibition of blood-letting\nupon these days, since they have no astrological significance, but\nare the anniversaries of miracles worked by special providence.[2776]\nGilbert of England, earlier in the thirteenth century, had advised\nagainst bleeding on Egyptian days, if the moon was then influenced by\nany evil planet.[2777]\n\n[Sidenote: Other perilous days.]\n\nOn the other hand, not only did the twenty-four Egyptian days and the\nthree in April, August, and December which were considered especially\ndangerous, continue to be listed in the fourteenth and fifteenth\ncentury manuscripts, but imitations of them appeared. Thus in a\nfourteenth century manuscript we read of forty perilous days which\nshould be observed with the utmost care and which Greek masters have\ntested by experience;[2778] while in a second manuscript of the closing\nmedieval period appear fifty-eight dangerous days \u201caccording to the\nArabs.\u201d[2779] Of the Greek days only twenty-nine are actually listed,\nseven in January, three in February, and so on, omitting the months\nof July and August entirely, which perhaps should contain the missing\neleven days.[2780] The Arabic days vary in number per month from seven\nin March, which is the first month listed, to three in February. \u201cAnd\nthere are four other days and nights according to Bede on which no one\nis ever born or conceived, and if by chance a male is conceived or\nborn, its body will never be freed from putridity.\u201d[2781]\n\n[Sidenote: Firmicus read by an archbishop of York.]\n\nThat astrological knowledge in England, at least soon after the\nNorman conquest, was not limited to such meager and simple treatises\nas the moon-books described above from Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, is\nseen from the closing incident in the career of Gerard, a learned and\neloquent man, bishop of Hereford under William Rufus and archbishop\nof York under Henry I, whom he supported in the investiture struggle\nwith Anselm and the pope. The story goes that Gerard, who had been\nfeeling slightly indisposed, lay down to rest and enjoy the fresh air\nand fragrance of the flowers in a garden near his palace, asking his\nchaplains to leave him for a while. On their return after dinner they\nfound him dead, and beneath the cushion upon which his head rested was\na copy of the astrological work of Julius Firmicus Maternus. Gerard\nhad not been popular with the inhabitants of York, and when his corpse\nwas brought back to town, boys stoned the bier and the canons refused\nit burial within the cathedral, which, however, his successor granted.\n\u201cHis enemies,\u201d we are told, \u201cinterpreted his death, without the rites\nof the church, as a divine judgment for his addiction to magical and\nforbidden arts.\u201d At any rate the story shows that the work of Firmicus\nwas well known by this time; it is from the eleventh century that\nthe oldest manuscripts of it date; and we suspect that some of his\nenemies were rather hypocritical in the horror which they expressed\nat a bishop\u2019s reading such a book. \u201cToo independent a thinker for his\ncontemporaries,\u201d writes Miss Bateson, \u201chis opponents held up their\nhands in horror that an astrological work by Julius Firmicus Maternus\nshould be found under his pillow when he died.\u201d[2782] The style of\nFirmicus is much imitated by the anonymous author of _The Laws of Henry\nI_ and another legal work entitled _Quadripartitus_ written in 1114.\nF. Liebermann states that the author was in the service of archbishop\nGerard aforesaid.[2783]\n\n[Sidenote: Relation of Latin astrology to Arabic.]\n\nCharles Jourdain once made the generalization that before the\ntranslation of the _Quadripartite_ of Ptolemy and the works of the\nArabian astrologers into Latin in the twelfth century, astrology had\nlittle hold among men of learning in western Europe.[2784] An even\nmore erroneous assertion was that in Burckhardt\u2019s _Die Kultur der\nRenaissance in Italien_ that \u201cat the beginning of the thirteenth\ncentury\u201d the superstition of astrology \u201csuddenly appeared in the\nforeground of Italian life.\u201d[2785] Even Jourdain\u2019s assertion the entire\npresent chapter tends to disprove, but since it has been quoted with\napproval by a subsequent writer on the thirteenth century,[2786] we\nmay deal with it a little farther. The reason which Jourdain added in\nsupport of his generalization was that before the translations from\nthe Arabic \u201cthose who cultivated astrology had no other guides than\nCensorinus, Manilius, and Julius Firmicus, who might indeed seduce\na few isolated dreamers but did not have enough weight to convince\nphilosophers. Ptolemy and the Arabs, on the contrary, appeared as\nmasters of a regular science having its own principles and method.\u201d\nThis sounds as if Jourdain had not read Firmicus who gives a more\nelaborate presentation of the art of astrology than the elementary\n_Quadripartite_ of Ptolemy. It is true that Ptolemy had a great\nscientific reputation from his other writings, but Manilius is a poet\nof no small merit, and there would be no reason why an age which\naccepted Ovid and Vergil as authorities concerning nature and regarded\nsuch works as _De vetula_ and the _Secret of Secrets_ as genuine works\nof Ovid and Aristotle, should draw delicate distinctions between\nFirmicus and Albumasar or Manilius and Alkindi. It was because reading\nFirmicus and even practicing the cruder modes of divination which we\nhave described had already aroused an interest in astrology that other\nworks in the field were sought out and translated. Moreover, there is\nan even more cogent objection to Jourdain\u2019s generalization which will\nbe developed in the following chapter, and it is that the taking over\nof Arabic astrology had already begun long before the twelfth century.\nWe have, indeed, in the present chapter told only half the story of\nastrology in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and must now turn back\nto Gerbert and the introduction of Arabic astrology.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX I\n\n SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SPHERE OF PYTHAGORAS OR APULEIUS\n\n\nBesides the copies noted by Wickersheimer (1913) in French manuscripts\nfrom the ninth to the eleventh centuries, such as Laon 407, Orl\u00e9ans\n276, and BN nouv. acq. 1616, where in fact it occurs twice: at fol. 7v,\n\u201cRatio spere phytagor philosophi quem epulegus descripsit,\u201d and at fol.\n14r, \u201cRatio pitagere de infirmis,\u201d\u2014the following may be listed.\n\n BN 5239, 10th century, # 12.\n\n Harleian 3017, 10th century, fol. 58r, \u201cRatio spherae Pythagorae\n philosophi quam Apuleius descripsit.\u201d\n\n Cotton Tiberius C, VI, 11th century, fol. 6v, Imagines vitae et\n mortis quarum utraque rotulum tenet longum literis et numeris quae\n ad sphaeram Apuleii ad latera adscriptis, cum versibus pagina\n circumscriptis. The figures are of _Vita_ with halo, robes, and\n angelic face, and of _Mors_, who wears only a pair of drawers, whose\n ribs show through his flesh, and who has wings like a demon. One has\n to turn the page upside down in order to read some of it.\n\n CU Trinity 1369, 11th century, fol. 1r, just before the Calendar of\n Marianus Scotus, \u201cRacio spere pytagorice quam apuleius descripsit.\u201d\n\n Chartres 113, 9th century, fol. 99, following works by Alcuin, \u201cSpera\n Apuleii Platonis.\u201d\n\n Ivrea 19, 10th century, # 5, De spera Putagorae.\n\n CLM 22307, 10-11th century, fol. 194, Ratio sphaerae Phitagoreae\n philosophi quam Apulegius descripsit, \u201cPetosiris philosophus Micipso\n regi salutem ...\u201d, where it would seem to be confused with the letter\n of Petosiris to Nechepso.\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 176, 10th century, fol. 162v, \u201cEulogii ratio\n sperae Pitagorae philosophi,\u201d in a MS containing works of Jerome,\n Augustine, and Ambrose.\n\n Vatican Urb. Lat. 290, 11-13th century, fol. 2v, Ratio spere Pitagoras\n quam Apuleius descripsit; fol. 3, Petosiris Micipso regi salutem.\n\nI suspect that the following would also prove upon examination to be\none of these Spheres of life and death.\n\n CLM 18629, 10th century, fol. 95, Characteres literarum secretarum,\n item incantationes. Alphabetum Graecorum et numeri per tabulam\n dispositi; fol. 106, Tractatus de literis alphabeti (mysticus).\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 485, 9th century, fol. 14, Litterae graecae cum\n interpretatione alphabetica et numerica.\n\n Vatican 644, 10-11th century, fol. 16v.\n\nOf the numerous occurrences of the _Sphere of Pythagoras_ or of\nApuleius in MSS later than the eleventh century I have noted only a few\nexamples.\n\n Vienna 2532, 12th century, fols. 1-2, Tractatus astrologicus de\n divinando exitu morborum e positionibus lune et de sphere Pythagore.\n\n Vatican 642, 12th century, fol. 82, a somewhat different mode of\n divination, by which one tells what another is thinking or is holding\n in his hand, is attributed to Bede.\n\n Madrid 10016, early 13th century, fol. 3, \u201cspera de morte vel vita\u201d;\n fol. 85v, the letter of Petosiris to Nechepso. It is interesting to\n note that this MS originally belonged to an English Cluniac monastery:\n Haskins, EHR (1915), p. 65.\n\n BN 7486, 14th century, fol. 66v, \u201cCanon supra rotam Pictagore,\u201d\n opens, \u201cPictagoras is said to have written thus to Nasurius, king\n of the Chaldees;\u201d then at fol. 67r comes \u201cThe Sphere of Pictagoras\n the philosopher which Epuleus Platonicus briefly described;\u201d which\n is followed at fol. 68r by a long treatise ascribed to Ptolemy,\n _Exortatio ad artem prescientie ptholomei regis egypti_, in which\n various questions are answered by numerical and alphabetical\n calculations and one is also by the same method referred to nativities\n arranged under the 28 mansions of the moon.\n\n CU Trinity 1109, 14th century, fol. 15, Spera apulei et platonici;\n fol. 20, \u201cRatio spere pictagis philosophe quod apollonius scripsit;\u201d\n fol. 392, S(p)era Fortune.\n\n Digby, 58, 14th century, fol. 1v, \u201cSpera philosophorum.\u201d\n\n\n Bodleian 26 (Bernard 1871), 13-14th century, fols. 207 and 216v.\n\n Bodleian 177 (Bernard 2072), late 14th century, # 1, Pythagorae\n sphaera quam Apuleius exaravit ut scias an aeger convalescat; # 14,\n fol. 22r, Apuleii Platonici Sphaera de vita et morte et de omnibus\n negotiis quae inquirere volueris.\n\n Amplon. Quarto 380, 14th century, at the close of a Geomancy by\n Abdallah, \u201cSpera Apuley de vita et morte vel de omnibus negociis de\n quibus scire volueris; sic facias....\u201d\n\n Additional 15236, 13-14th century, fol. 108, \u201cSpera (Pictagore) de\n vita et morte sive de re alia quacunque secundum Apuleium.\u201d\n\n Harleian 5311, 15th century, folder i, \u201cSpera Apullei.\u201d\n\n S. Marco XI, 111, 16th century, ascribes a wheel of life and death to\n \u201cBede the presbyter,\u201d and another to Apollonius and Pythagoras.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX II\n\n EGYPTIAN DAYS IN EARLY MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPTS\n\n\nThe following citations could probably be greatly multiplied.\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1616, 9th century, fol. 12r.\n\n Digby 63, end of 9th century, Anglo-Saxon minuscule, fol. 36, \u201cDies\n Egiptiachi.\u201d\n\n Berlin 131 (Phillips 1869, Trier), 9th century, fol. 12r.\n\n Lucca 236, about 900 A.\u202fD., on its last 3 leaves are Egyptian days and\n a dream-book; described by Giacosa (1901), p. 349.\n\n Harleian 3017, 10th century, fol. 59r, De diebus Egiptiacis qui mali\n sunt in anno circulo. The catalogue dates this MS as 920 A.\u202fD. but\n at fol. 66r the date is given as DCCClxii or DCCCClxii (962 A.\u202fD.)\u2014a\n letter seems to have been erased which probably was the fourth C.\n\n Harleian 3271, 10th century (?), fol. 121, Versus ad dies Egyptiacas\n inveniendas. See also Baehrens, _Poet. lat. min._ V, 354-6; Mommsen\n CIL I, 411.\n\n Sloane 475, this portion of the MS 10-11th century, fol. 216v, Versus\n de significatione dierum mensis, opening, \u201cTenebrae Aegyptus Grecos\n sermone vocantur....\u201d\n\n Additional 22398, 10th century, fol. 104.\n\n Cotton Caligula A, XV, written mostly in Gaul before 1000 A.\u202fD.,\n fol. 126, a list of lucky and unlucky days for medical purposes, in\n Anglo-Saxon.\n\n Cotton Titus D, XXVI, 10th century, fol. 3v.\n\n Cotton Vitellius A, XII, fol. 39v.\n\n Cotton Vitellius C, VIII, in Anglo-Saxon, fol. 23, de tribus anni\n diebus Aegyptiacis.\n\n CU Trinity 945, early 11th century, fol. 37.\n\n CU Trinity 1369, 11th century (perhaps 1086 A.\u202fD.), fol. 1v.\n\n Vatican 644, 10-11th century, fol. 77r, versus duodecim de diebus\n aegyptiis, and a fragment \u201cde tribus diebus aegyptiis.\u201d\n\n Dijon 448, 10-12th century, fol. 88, Calendrier, avec jours\n \u00e9gyptiaques ajout\u00e9s; fol. 191, \u201cDe Egyptiacis diebus.\u201d Bede\u2019s _De\n temporibus_ and _De natura rerum_ occur twice in this MS and at fol.\n 181 is an incantation for use in fevers.\n\n Harleian 1585 and Sloane 1975, where the Egyptian days are found with\n the _Herbarium_ of Apuleius, are both 12th century but probably copied\n from earlier MSS.\n\n So in Chalons-sur-Marne 7, 13th century, fol. 41, verses on the\n Egyptian days occur with the _Ars calculatoria_ of Helpericus of\n Auxerre who wrote in the ninth century.\n\nI have usually not noted the occurrence of the Egyptian days in later\nmanuscripts. A few exceptions are:\n\n BN 7299A, 12th century, fol. 37r.\n\n CLM 23390, 12-13th century, the last item is, \u201cVerses concerning the\n twelve signs and the Egyptian days.\u201d The previous contents were mainly\n religious.\n\n Cambrai 195, fol. 208; 229, fol. 56; 829, fol. 54; all three MSS of\n the 12th century.\n\n Cambrai 861, early 13th century, fol. 56.\n\n Sloane 2461, end of 13th century, fols. 62r-64v.\n\nThe verses concerning the ten plagues of Egypt contained in CLM 18629,\n10th century, fol. 93, and ascribed by the catalogue to Eugenius\nToletanus have, I presume, no connection with the Egyptian days.\nSuch proved to be the case with BN 16216, 13th century, fol. 251v,\nde decem plagis Egyptiorum et de vii diebus, although from the fact\nthat it follows \u201cPrecepta Pithagore\u201d I suspected before examining it\nthat it might have something to do with divination. But not even the\nPythagorean precepts have in this case.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXX\n\n GERBERT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF ARABIC ASTROLOGY\n\nArabic influence in early manuscripts\u2014A preface and twenty-one\nchapters on the astrolabe\u2014Are they parts of one work?\u2014Their relation\nto Gerbert and the Arabic\u2014Hermann\u2019s _De mensura astrolabii_\u2014Attitude\ntowards astrology in the preface\u2014Question of Gerbert\u2019s attitude\ntowards astrology\u2014His posthumous reputation as a magician\u2014An anonymous\nastronomical treatise; its possible relation to Gerbert\u2014Contents of its\nfirst two books\u2014Attitude towards astrology\u2014The fourth book\u2014Citations:\nArabic names\u2014_Mathematica_ of Alchandrus or Alhandreus\u2014An\naccount of its contents\u2014Astrological doctrine\u2014Nativities and\nname-calculations\u2014Interrogations and more name-calculations\u2014Alchandrus\nor Alhandreus not the same as Alexander\u2014Alkandrinus or Alchandrinus on\nnativities according to the mansions of the moon\u2014Albandinus\u2014Geomancy of\nAlkardianus or Alchandianus\u2014An anonymous treatise or fragment of the\ntenth century.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Arabic influence in early manuscripts.]\n\nThe usual view has been that western Latin learning was not affected\nby Arabic science until the twelfth or even the thirteenth century. We\nshall see in other chapters that the translations of the Aristotelian\nbooks of natural philosophy were current rather earlier than has been\nrecognized, that in medicine a period of Neo-Latin Salernitan tradition\ncan scarcely be distinguished from one of Arabic influence, and that\nin chemistry owing to the misinterpretation of the date of Robert of\nChester\u2019s translation of the book of Morienus Romanus\u2014in which Robert\nsays that the Latin world does not yet know what alchemy is\u2014Berthelot\nin his history of medieval alchemy placed the introduction of Arabic\ninfluence half a century too late. In the present chapter we shall see\nthat the voluminous work of translation of Arabic astrologers which\nwent on in the twelfth century\u2014and to which another chapter will later\nbe devoted\u2014was preceded in the eleventh and even tenth centuries by\nnumerous signs of Arabic influence in works of astronomy and astrology\nand also by translations of Arabic authors. I was somewhat startled\nwhen I first found works by Arabic authors and use of astronomical\nterminology drawn from the Arabic in a manuscript of the eleventh\ncentury in the British Museum[2787] and Wickersheimer was similarly\nsurprised at the traces of Arabic influence in a similar but still\nearlier manuscript of the tenth century at Paris.[2788] Bubnov,\nhowever, had already noted this Paris manuscript as a proof that Arabic\nbooks were being translated into Latin in Gerbert\u2019s time,[2789] and one\nof Gerbert\u2019s letters, written in 984 to a Lupitus of Barcelona (_Lupito\nBarchinonensi_), asking him to send Gerbert a book on \u201castrology\u201d which\nhe had translated, points in the same direction. In the present chapter\nwe shall discuss the contents of the early manuscripts just mentioned\nand of some others which seem to have some connection either with\nGerbert or the introduction of Arabic astrology into Latin learning.\n\n[Sidenote: A preface and twenty-one chapters on the astrolabe.]\n\nIn an eleventh century manuscript at Munich[2790] the astrological\nwork of Firmicus is preceded by writings in a different hand upon the\nastrolabe. One of these, in its present state an anonymous fragment, is\na stilted and florid introduction to a translation from the Arabic of\na work on the astrolabe.[2791] Another is a treatise on the astrolabe\nin twenty-one chapters and containing many Arabic names.[2792] Bubnov\nlists three other copies of the introductory fragment, and they are\nall in manuscripts where the second treatise is also included;[2793]\nit, however, is often found in other manuscripts where the anonymous\nfragment does not appear, and it must be admitted that its omission is\nno great loss.\n\n[Sidenote: Are they parts of one work?]\n\nAlthough the fragment precedes the other treatise in only one\nmanuscript mentioned by Bubnov, there is reason to think that they\nbelong together, since both are concerned with the _Wazzalcora_ or\nplanisphere or _astrolapsus_ of Ptolemy, and since the plan outlined\nby the writer of the introduction is followed in the treatise of\ntwenty-one chapters except that it ends incompletely. Bubnov recognized\nthis, yet did not unite them as a single work.[2794] In 984 Gerbert\nwrote to a _Lupito Barchinonensi_ asking Lupitus to send him a work\non \u201castrology\u201d which Lupitus had translated.[2795] If Lupitus was\nof Barcelona, his translation was probably from the Arabic, and as\nsuch translations were presumably not common in the tenth century, it\nis natural to wonder if he may not be the above-mentioned anonymous\ntranslator. This Bubnov suggested in the case of the introductory\nfragment,[2796] but the treatise in twenty-one chapters he placed among\nthe doubtful works of Gerbert,[2797] because a monastic catalogue\ncomposed before 1084 speaks of a work of Gerbert on the astrolabe,\nwhile six manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,\nalthough none earlier to his knowledge, ascribe this very treatise\nof twenty-one chapters to Gerbert. Bubnov believed that whoever the\nauthor of the treatise in twenty-one chapters was, he had utilized\nthe full work of the anonymous translator. But this seems a rather\nunnecessary refinement. For what has become of that translation? Why\nis only its wordy and rhetorical preface extant? If the writer of the\ntwenty-one chapters destroyed its text after plagiarizing it, why did\nhe not also make away with the preface? It seems more plausible that\nthe twenty-one chapters are the original translation from the Arabic,\nand that many makers of manuscripts have copied it alone and omitted\nthe wordy and rather worthless preface of the translator. If, as Bubnov\nsuggested, the treatise in twenty-one chapters is Gerbert\u2019s revision\nand polishing up of Lupitus\u2019 translation,[2798] why did he not prefix a\nnew introduction of his own? And why should anyone try to polish up the\nstyle of so rhetorical a writer as he who penned the extant anonymous\nintroduction?\n\n[Sidenote: Their relation to Gerbert and the Arabic.]\n\nIf we accept this anonymous introduction as the preface to the\ntwenty-one chapters, Gerbert would be the most likely person to ascribe\nboth to, unless we argue that he could not make a translation from\nthe Arabic and that his letter asking to see a translation from the\nArabic by Lupitus is a proof of this. If Gerbert is not the author,\nLupitus would perhaps be the next most likely person, but the hint\ncontained in Gerbert\u2019s letter is all that points to Lupitus, and indeed\nthe only mention that we have of him. If the translator is some third\nunknown person, at least he is not later than the eleventh century.\nIf, on the other hand, we regard the introduction of the translator\nand the twenty-one chapters as by different persons, who perhaps had\nno connection with each other, and Gerbert\u2019s letter of 984 as having\nnothing to do with either, we have the more evidence of an early and\nwidespread interest in astronomy and knowledge of Arabic in the\nwestern Latin learned world.\n\n[Sidenote: Hermann\u2019s _De mensura astrolabii_.]\n\nOne reason why the treatise on the astrolabe in twenty-one chapters\nis so seldom found in the manuscripts preceded by the introduction of\nthe translator may be that it is more often found with and preceded\nby another treatise on the astrolabe, sometimes entitled _De mensura\nastrolabii_, and attributed to a Hermann who modestly calls himself\n\u201cthe offscouring of Christ\u2019s poor and the butt of mere tyros in\nphilosophy.\u201d[2799] This treatise tells how to construct an astrolabe,\nthus filling in the deficiency left by the incomplete ending of the\ntreatise in twenty-one chapters, which fails to carry out fully this\nlast item in the plan of the introductory fragment. A note in one\nmanuscript, reproduced in part by Macray in his catalogue of the Digby\nManuscripts in the Bodleian Library, states that the treatise in\ntwenty-one chapters is by Gerbert and that when a certain Berengarius\nread it, he found it told how to exercise the art but not to make the\ninstrument and asked Hermann to tell him how to make one. Hermann\ntherefore composed the work in question, dedicated it to Berengarius,\nand prefixed it to Gerbert\u2019s treatise.[2800] Of late there has been\na tendency to identify this Hermann with Hermann of Dalmatia, the\ntwelfth century translator from the Arabic,[2801] rather than with\nHermann the Lame, the chronicler, who died in 1054, but if Bubnov is\ncorrect in dating two manuscripts[2802] containing Hermann\u2019s treatise\non the astrolabe in the eleventh century, they could not be the work\nof Hermann the translator of the next century.[2803] Moreover, in the\nthirteenth century the treatise seems to have been regarded as the work\nof Hermann the Lame.[2804] The author\u2019s self-depreciatory description\nof himself is also a mark of Hermann the Lame, who in another treatise\naddressed to his friend Herrandus and discussing the length of a moon\ncalls himself \u201cof Christ\u2019s poor a vile abortion.\u201d[2805]\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude towards astrology in the preface.]\n\nIn the treatise of twenty-one chapters, which simply tells how to use\nthe astrolabe, there is naturally no reference to judicial astrology.\nBut in the introduction of the anonymous writer to his translation from\nthe Arabic of a work on the astrolabe there is mention of the influence\nof the stars. Their \u201cconcord with all mundane creatures in all things\u201d\nis regarded as established by \u201csecret institution of divinity and by\nnatural law\u201d and testified to by scientists.[2806] Not only is the\neffect of the moon on tides adduced as usual as an example, but God is\nbelieved to have set the seal of His approval upon \u201cthis discipline,\u201d\nwhen He made miraculous use of the stars and heavens to mark the\nbirth and passion of His Son. The writer, however, stigmatizes as a\n\u201cfrivolous superstition\u201d the doctrine of the Chaldean _genethlialogi_,\n\u201cwho account for the entire life of man by astrological reasons\u201d and\n\u201ctry to explain conceptions and nativities, character, prosperity and\nadversity from the courses of the stars.\u201d Something nevertheless is\nto be conceded to them, provided all things are recognized as under\ndivine disposition. But their doctrine is an egg which is not to be\nsucked unless rid of the bad odors of error.[2807] The translator urges\nthe importance of a knowledge of astronomy in determining the date of\nchurch festivals and canonical hours. He cites Josephus concerning\nAbraham\u2019s instruction of the Egyptians in arithmetic and astronomy,\nbut regards Ptolemy as the most illustrious of all astronomers and the\nastrolabe as the invention of his \u201cdivine mind.\u201d The translator wishes\nhis readers to understand that he is offering them nothing new but only\nreviving the discoveries of the past, and that he is simply presenting\nwhat he finds in the Arabic.\n\n[Sidenote: Question of Gerbert\u2019s attitude toward astrology.]\n\nIf Gerbert could be shown to be the translator who wrote this\nintroduction, it would be a more valuable bit of evidence as to his\nattitude toward astrology than anything that we have at present. His\nsurely genuine mathematical works, as edited by Bubnov, consist solely\nof a short geometry and a few of his letters in which mathematical\ntopics, mainly the abacus, are touched upon. His contemporary and\ndisciple, the historian Richer, tells in the well-known passage[2808]\nhow Borellus, \u201cthe duke of Hither Spain,\u201d took Gerbert as a youth\nfrom the monastery at Aurillac in Auvergne back with him across the\nPyrenees and entrusted his education to Hatto, bishop of Vich, in\nthe north-eastern part of the peninsula. Whether Gerbert studied\nArabic or not Richer does not state. Since he is still described as\n_adolescens_ when the duke and bishop take him with them to Italy and\nleave him there with the pope, one would infer that he probably had\nnot engaged in the work of translation from the Arabic. Another almost\ncontemporary writer, alluding very briefly to Gerbert, makes him visit\nCordova, but is perhaps mistaken.[2809] Richer does, however, state\nthat Berbert especially studied _mathesis_, a word which, as various\nmedieval writers inform us, may mean either mathematics or divination.\nApparently Richer uses it in the former sense, for later he mentions\nonly Gerbert\u2019s achievements in arithmetic, geometry, music, and\nastronomy.[2810] But Robert, king of France, 987-1031, whose teacher\nGerbert had been, seems to refer to him as \u201cthat master Neptanebus\u201d in\nsome verses,[2811] a name which certainly suggests an astrologer, as\nwell as an instructor of royalty, if not also a magician.\n\n[Sidenote: His posthumous reputation as a magician.]\n\nBut Gerbert\u2019s reputation for magic seems to start with William of\nMalmesbury in the first half of the twelfth century, who makes him flee\nby night from his monastery to Spain to study \u201castrology\u201d and other\narts with the Saracens, until he came to surpass Julius Firmicus in\nhis knowledge of fate. There too, according to William of Malmesbury,\n\u201che learned what the song and flight of birds portend, to summon\nghostly figures from the lower world, and whatever human curiosity\nhas encompassed whether harmful or salutary.\u201d William then adds some\nmore sober facts concerning Gerbert\u2019s mathematical achievements and\nassociates.[2812] Michael Scot in his _Introduction to Astrology_ in\nthe early thirteenth century speaks of a master _Gilbertus_ who was\nthe best nigromancer in France and whom the demons obeyed in all that\nhe required of them day and night because of the great sacrifices\nwhich he offered and his prayers and fastings and magic books and\ngreat diversity of rings and candles. Having succeeded in borrowing\nan astrolabe for a short time he made the demons explain its purpose,\nhow to operate it, and how to make another one. Later he reformed and\nbecame bishop of Ravenna and pope.[2813] In a manuscript early in the\nthirteenth century is a statement that Gerbert became archbishop and\npope by demon aid and had a spirit enclosed in a golden head whom\nhe consulted as to knotty problems in composing his commentary on\narithmetic. When the demon expounded a certain very difficult place\nbadly, Gerbert skipped it, and hence that unexplained passage is called\nthe _Saltus Gilberti_.[2814]\n\n[Sidenote: An anonymous astronomical treatise; its possible relation to\nGerbert.]\n\nIn a manuscript in the Bodleian library which seems to have been\nwritten early in the twelfth century[2815] is an astronomical treatise\nin four books which Macray suggested might be the _Liber de planetis\net mundi climatibus_ which Ethelwold, bishop of Winchester from 963\nto 984, is said to have composed.[2816] The present treatise indeed\nembodies a _Letter of Ethelwold to Pope Gerbert_ on squaring the\ncircle.[2817] It seems, however, that this letter on squaring the\ncircle was really written by Adelbold, bishop of Utrecht from 1010\nto 1027.[2818] Adelbold speaks of himself in the letter as a young\nman[2819] and of course wrote it before Gerbert\u2019s death in 1003, and\nvery probably before Gerbert became Pope Silvester II in 999. But he\ncould scarcely have written the letter early enough to have it included\nin a work written by Ethelwold who died in 984. Our astronomical\ntreatise in four books is therefore not by Ethelwold, unless the\nletter be a later interpolation, but it is possibly by Adelbold or by\nGerbert.[2820] Its opening words, \u201cQuicumque mundane spere rationem et\nastrorum legem ...,\u201d are similar to those of the treatise on the uses\nof the astrolabe which has often been ascribed to Gerbert, \u201cQuicumque\nastronomice peritiam discipline....\u201d[2821]\n\n[Sidenote: Contents of its first two books.]\n\nOur treatise then may be by Gerbert or it may be a specimen of the\nastronomy of the eleventh or early twelfth century. As it appears to be\nlittle known and never to have been published, it may be well to give\na brief summary of its contents. An introductory paragraph outlines\nsome of the chief points with which the treatise will be concerned,\nsuch as the twelve signs of the zodiac, their positions, \u201cmost varied\nqualities,\u201d the reasons for their names, and the diverse opinions of\ngentile philosophers and Catholics as to their significations; the\nfour elements; and the seven planets. In the text which follows, these\ntopics are considered in rather the reverse order to that in which they\nwere named in the preface. After some discussion of \u201cthe founders of\nastronomy and the doctors of astrology,\u201d the first book is occupied\nwith a description of the sphere or heavens. The second book is largely\ngeographical, beginning with the question of the size of the earth, the\nzones, the ocean, and how to draw a T map. This geographical digression\nthe author justifies in the prologue to his third book by the statement\nthat often the position of the stars can be determined from the\nlocation of countries, and that if the habitat of peoples is known one\ncan more easily arrive at the effect of the stars.[2822]\n\n[Sidenote: Attitude towards astrology.]\n\nThis suggests that the author believes in astrological influence,\nand in the two following books he states a number of astrological\ndoctrines, not, however, as his own convictions but as the opinions\nof the _genethliaci_ or astrologers, or \u201cthose who will have it that\nprosperity and adversity in human life are due to these stars.\u201d[2823]\nOn the other hand, he seldom subjects the astrologers to any adverse\ncriticism. Indeed, early in the third book, he states that the\nbelief of the _genethliaci_ that human wealth and honors, poverty\nand obscurity, depend upon the stars, pertains to another subject\nthan that which he is at present discussing; namely, prognostication,\nconcerning which he will treat fully in later chapters. But I cannot\nsee that he fulfills this promise in the present manuscript, which\nseems to end rather abruptly,[2824] so that possibly there is something\nmissing. In the previous passage, however, he immediately proceeded\nto admit that the sun and moon greatly affect our life and to tell\nfurther how it is connected with the other five planets. In the star of\nSaturn the soul is said to busy itself especially with reasoning and\nintelligence, logic and theory. Jupiter is practical and represents\nthe power of action. Mars signifies animosity; Venus, desire; Mercury,\ninterpretation. Men have proved the moon\u2019s moist influence by sleeping\nout-of-doors and finding that more humor collected in their heads\nwhen they slept in the moonlight than when they did not.[2825] After\nmentioning the twelve signs, \u201cthrough which the aforesaid planets\nrevolving exert varied influences, and even, according to the\n_genethliaci_, make a good man in some nativities and a bad man in\nothers,\u201d[2826] the author goes on to tell which signs are masculine\nand which are feminine, to relate them to the four cardinal points and\nto the four elements, to define the twenty-eight mansions and their\ndistribution among the twelve signs and seven planets,[2827] and to\ntell how the planets differ in quality.[2828] All this is providing at\nleast the basis for astrological prediction.\n\n[Sidenote: The fourth book.]\n\nThe fourth book of the treatise is mainly taken up with descriptions\nand figures of the constellations, concerning which the author often\nrepeats the fables of antiquity. After discussing the six ages of the\nworld, the author intended to insert a figure on what is the next to\nlast page of the present text to show \u201cthe harmony of the elements,\nclimates of the sky, times of the year, and humors of the human\nbody,\u201d for, as he goes on to say, man is called a microcosm by the\nphilosophers. This missing figure or figures would have been analogous\nto those which Wickersheimer investigated in the early medieval\nmanuscripts in the libraries of France.\n\n[Sidenote: Citations: Arabic names.]\n\nOur author does not make many citations, but among them are\nEratosthenes,[2829] Aratus, Ptolemy, Macrobius, and Martianus Capella.\nSome of these authors are perhaps known to him only indirectly, and\nhe seems to make use of Isidore and Pliny without mentioning them. He\nshows, however, an acquaintance with foreign languages, listing the\nseven heavens as \u201coleth, lothen, ethat, edim, eliyd, hachim, atarpha,\u201d\nand giving Greek, Hebrew, and \u201cSaracen\u201d names for the seven planets, as\nwell as a \u201cSimilitudo,\u201d or corresponding metal, and \u201cInterpretatio,\u201d\nor quality such as \u201cObscurus, Clarus, Igneus.\u201d[2830] He also gives the\nArabic names for the twenty-eight mansions into which the circle of\nthe zodiac subdivides.[2831] We now turn to another treatise, found in\ntenth and eleventh century manuscripts, in which Arabian influence is\napparent.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Mathematica_ of Alchandrus or Alhandreus.]\n\nWilliam of Malmesbury, writing in the first half of the twelfth century\nconcerning Gerbert\u2019s studies in Spain, says, probably with a great\ndeal of exaggeration, that Gerbert surpassed Ptolemy in his knowledge\nof the astrolabe, Alandraeus in his knowledge of the distances between\nthe stars, and Julius Firmicus in his knowledge of fate.[2832] It is\nrather remarkable that a work ascribed to Alhandreus or Alcandrus,\n\u201csupreme astrologer,\u201d should be found in two manuscripts of the\neleventh century[2833] in both of which occurs also the work on the\nastrolabe which is perhaps by Gerbert, while in one is found also the\n_Mathesis_ of Julius Firmicus Maternus. Alchadrinus or Archandrinus is\ncited in Michael Scot\u2019s long _Introduction to Astrology_ as the author\nof a \u201cbook of fortune making mention of the three _facies_ of the\nsigns and the planets ruling in them,\u201d and Michael adds that a similar\nmethod of divination is employed in general among the Arabs and Indians\nas can be seen in the streets and alleys of Messina where \u201clearned\nwomen\u201d answer the questions of merchants.[2834] Peter of Abano in his\n_Lucidator astronomiae_,[2835] written in 1310, mentions Alchandrus as\na successor of Hermes Trismegistus in the science of astronomy but as\nflourishing before the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Alchandrus was probably\nscarcely as ancient as that, but the treatise ascribed to him also\nexists in Latin in a manuscript of the tenth century,[2836] and seems\nto be a translation from the Arabic. In any case it is full of Arabic\nand Hebrew words, and professes to cite the opinions of Egyptians,\nIshmaelites, and Chaldeans in general as well as those of Ascalu the\nIshmaelite and Arfarfan or Argafalan or Argafalaus[2837] the Chaldean\nin particular. Since the name Alchandrus or Alhandreus is found so\nfar as I know in no historian or bibliographer of Arabian literature\nor learning,[2838] we shall treat somewhat fully of the work and its\nauthor here.\n\n[Sidenote: An account of its contents.]\n\nThe \u201cMathematic of Alhandreus, supreme astrologer,\u201d as it is entitled\nin one manuscript, opens somewhat abruptly with a terse statement of\nthe qualities of the planets. Two estimates of the number of years\nbetween creation and the birth of Christ are then given, one \u201caccording\nto the Hebrews,\u201d the other \u201caccording to others.\u201d[2839] There follow\nletters of the Greek alphabet with Roman numerals expressing their\nrespective numerical values, perhaps for future reference in connection\nwith some sphere of life or death. Next is considered the division of\nthe zodiac into twelve signs for which Hebrew as well as Latin names\nare given. The movements of the planets through the signs are then\ndiscussed, and it is explained in the usual astrological style that\nLeo is the house of the sun, Cancer of the moon, while two signs are\nassigned to each of the other five planets. Every planet is erect in\nsome one sign and falls in its opposite, and any planet is friendly\nto another in whose house it is erect and hostile to another in\nwhose house it declines. Presently the author treats of \u201cthe order\nof the planets according to nature and their names according to the\nHebrews,\u201d[2840] and then of their sex and courses, which last leads to\nconsiderable digressions anent the solar and lunar calendars.[2841]\nThen the twelve signs are related to the four \u201cclimates\u201d and elements.\n\n[Sidenote: Astrological doctrine.]\n\nAll this implies a favorable attitude to astrology, and the author has\nalready expressed his conviction more than once that human affairs are\ndisposed by the seven planets according to the will of God.[2842] Since\nman like the world is composed of the four elements it is no false\nopinion which persuades us that under God\u2019s government human affairs\nare principally regulated by the celestial bodies.[2843] To make this\nplainer the author proposes to insert an astrological figure \u201cwhich\nAlexander of Macedon composed most diligently,\u201d and which presumably\nwould have been of the microcosmus or Melothesia type, but the space\nfor it remains blank in the manuscript. Next comes a paragraph on the\nsex of the signs and their rising and setting, and then lists of the\nhours of the day and night governed by the signs and by each planet for\nall the days of the week.[2844]\n\n[Sidenote: Nativities and name-calculations.]\n\nThen we read, \u201cThese are the twenty-eight principal parts or stars\n(i.e. constellations) through which the fates of all are disposed and\npronounced indubitably, future as well as present. Anyone may with\ndiligence forecast goings and returnings, origins and endings, by the\nmost agreeable aid of these horoscopes.\u201d[2845] These twenty-eight parts\nare of course the sub-divisions of the zodiac into mansions of the sun\nor moon which we have already encountered, and Arabic names are given\nfor them beginning with _Alnait_, the first part of the sign Aries.\nFirst, however, we are instructed how to determine under which one of\nthem anyone was born by a numerical calculation of the value of his\nname and that of his natural mother similar to that of the spheres of\nlife and death except that it is based upon Hebrew instead of Greek\nletters.[2846] Then follow statements of the sort of men who are born\nunder each of the twenty-eight mansions, their physical, mental, and\nmoral characteristics, and any especial marks upon the body,\u2014either\nbirth-marks or inflicted subsequently by such means as hot irons\nand dog-bite,\u2014their health or sickness, term of life, and manner of\ndeath,\u2014which in the case of Alnait, the first mansion, will be \u201cby the\nmachinations or imaginations of the magic arts.\u201d[2847] Also the number\nof their children is roughly predicted.\n\n[Sidenote: Interrogations and more name-calculations.]\n\nNext is discussed the course of the planets through the signs,\nthe houses of the planets, and their positions in the signs at\ncreation.[2848] The author then turns to the influence of the planets\nupon men and gives another method of numerical calculation of a man\u2019s\nname in order to determine which planet he is under.[2849] Under\nthe heading \u201cExcerpts from the books of Alexander, the astrologer\nking,\u201d[2850] directions are given for the recovery of lost or stolen\narticles and descriptions of the thief are provided for the hour of\neach planet. The letter of Argafalaus to Alexander instructs how to\nread men\u2019s secret thoughts as Plato the Philosopher used to do, and\nhow to tell what is hidden in a person\u2019s hand by means of the hours\nof the planets.[2851] After some further discussion of astrological\ninterrogations the manuscript at the British Museum closes with the\nBreviary of Alhandreus, supreme astrologer[2852], for learning anything\nunknown by a method of computation from Hebrew and Arabic letters.\n\n[Sidenote: Alchandrus or Alhandreus not the same as Alexander.]\n\nSomeone may wonder if the names Alhandreus and Alchandrus may not be\nmere corruptions of Alexander who is cited and quoted even more than\nhas yet been indicated[2853], and if some careless head-line writer has\nnot inserted the name _Alchandri_ or _Alhandrei_ instead of _Alexandri_\nin the _Titulus_. But this would leave the statements of William of\nMalmesbury and of Peter of Abano to be explained away. Or, if it is\nargued that the name of Alhandreus should be attached only to the\nBreviary, it must be remembered that in the earliest manuscript, which\ndoes not contain the Breviary, the treatise is none the less called the\nBook of Alchandreus. As a matter of fact there is found also in the\nmanuscripts a \u201cMathematica Alexandri summi astrologi,\u201d[2854] but while\nthe title is the same, the contents are different from the \u201cMathematica\nAlhandrei summi astrologi.\u201d\n\nHowever, the treatise itself is found together with the _Mathematica\nAlhandrei_ in a tenth century manuscript.[2855] But no author is\nmentioned, and instead of _Mathematica_ the title reads \u201cIncipiunt\nproportiones cppfcfntfs knkstrprx indxstrkb,\u201d which may be deciphered\nas \u201cIncipiunt proportiones competentes in astrorum industria.\u201d[2856]\nPossibly therefore this treatise is a part of the work of Alchander,\nand the title _Mathematica Alexandri_ is an error for _Mathematica\nAlhandrei_.\n\n[Sidenote: Alkandrinus or Alchandrinus on nativities according to the\nmansions of the moon.]\n\nMoreover, in later manuscripts we encounter authors with names very\nsimilar to Alchandrus and works by them of the same sort as that we\nhave just considered. In a fifteenth century manuscript at Oxford we\nfind ascribed to Alkandrinus an account of the types of men born in\neach of the twenty-eight mansions of the moon[2857] such as we have\nseen formed a part of the _Mathematica Alhandrei_. And in a fifteenth\ncentury manuscript at Paris occurs under the name of Alchandrinus what\nseems to be a Christian revision of that same part of the _Mathematica\nAlhandrei_.[2858] What appears to be another revision and working over\nof this same discussion of nativities according to the twenty-eight\nmansions of the moon[2859] appeared in print a number of times in\nthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and in French and English\ntranslations as well as Latin. The author\u2019s name in these printed\neditions is usually given as Arcandam, but the English edition of 1626\nadds \u201cor Alchandrin.\u201d[2860]\n\n[Sidenote: Albandinus.]\n\nTwo other manuscripts at Paris[2861] contain under the name of\nAlbandinus a \u201cbook of similitudes of the sons of Adam, fortunate and\nunfortunate, of life or death, according to nations, that is, their\nnativities according to the twelve signs.\u201d The treatise opens with\na method of calculating a person\u2019s nativity from the letters in his\nown and his mother\u2019s name similar to that which occurs in the course\nof the _Mathematica Alhandrei_, but then applies it directly to the\ntwelve signs rather than to the twenty-eight mansions of the moon.\nIt also does not bother with the Hebrew alphabet but gives numerical\nequivalents directly for the Latin letters. Some treatise by Albandinus\non sickness and the signs in a manuscript at Munich[2862] is perhaps\nidentical with the foregoing.\n\n[Sidenote: Geomancy of Alkardianus or Alchandiandus.]\n\nTo an Alkardianus or Alchandiandus is ascribed a geomancy,[2863] and\nsince it also is arranged according to the twenty-eight divisions of\nthe zodiac with 28 judges and 28 chapters each consisting of 28 lines\nin answer to as many questions, it would seem almost certain that it is\nby the same author who treated of the influences of the 28 houses or\n_facies_ of the twelve signs upon those born under them. Moreover, this\nAlkardianus or Alchandiandus states in his preface that he has composed\ncertain books on the dispositions of the signs and the courses of the\nplanets and on prediction of the future from them. \u201cBut since moderns\nalways rejoice in brevity,\u201d he has added this handy and rapid geomantic\nmeans of answering questions and ascertaining the decrees of the stars.\nThe 28 tables of 28 lines each of this Alkardianus or Alchandiandus are\nidentical with one of the two such sets[2864] commonly included in the\n_Experimentarius_[2865] of Bernard Silvester, a work of geomancy which\nhe is said to have translated from the Arabic.[2866] He lived in the\ntwelfth century and will be the subject of one of our later chapters.\n\n[Sidenote: An anonymous treatise or fragment of the tenth century.]\n\nIt still remains to speak of a portion of our tenth century\nmanuscript at Paris which begins, after the book of Alchandrus seems\nto have concluded, with the words, \u201cQuicunque nosse desiderat legem\nastrorum....\u201d[2867] This _Incipit_ is so similar to that of the\ntwenty-one chapters on the astrolabe, \u201cQuicumque astronomiam peritiam\ndisciplinae ...\u201d and to that of the four books of astronomy, \u201cQuicumque\nmundane spere rationem et astrorum,\u201d that one is tempted to imply some\nrelation between them, and, in view of the tenth century date of the\none at present in question, to connect it like the others with the name\nof Gerbert. Our present treatise or fragment of a treatise is largely\nastrological in character, \u201cfollowing for the present the wisdom of\nthe _mathematici_ who think that mundane affairs are carried on under\nthe rule of the constellations.\u201d This refusal to accept personal\nresponsibility for astrological doctrine is similar to the attitude of\nthe author of the four books of astronomy, so that perhaps the present\ntext is the missing fragment required to fulfil his promise to treat of\nthe subject of prognostication in later chapters. If so it indulges in\nsome repetition, as it goes into the relations existing between signs,\nplanets, and elements, and gives the \u201cSaracen\u201d names[2868] for the\ntwenty-eight mansions of the moon. It includes a way to detect theft\nfor each planet and a method of determining if a patient will recover\nby computation of the numerical value of the letters in his name. These\nfeatures are suggestive of the _Mathematical_ of Alchandrus.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXI\n\n ANGLO-SAXON, SALERNITAN, AND OTHER LATIN MEDICINE IN MANUSCRIPTS FROM\n THE NINTH TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY\n\n Plan of this chapter\u2014Instances of early medieval additions to\n ancient medicine\u2014_Leech-Book of Bald and Cild_\u2014Magical procedure and\n incantations\u2014A superstitious compound\u2014Summary\u2014Cauterization\u2014Treatment\n of demoniacs\u2014Incantations and characters\u2014In a twelfth century\n manuscript\u2014Magic with a split hazel rod\u2014More incantations and the\n virtues of a vulture\u2014_Lots of the saints_\u2014Superstitious veterinary\n and medical practice\u2014Two Paris manuscripts\u2014Blood-letting\u2014Resemblances\n to Egerton 821\u2014Virtues of blood\u2014Pious incantations and magical\n procedure\u2014More superstitious veterinary practice\u2014The School of\n Salerno\u2014Was Salernitan medicine free from superstition?\u2014The _Practica_\n of Petrocellus\u2014Its sources\u2014Fourfold origin of medicine\u2014Therapeutics of\n Petrocellus\u2014The _Regimen Salernitanum_\u2014Its superstition\u2014The _Practica_\n of Archimatthaeus\u2014A Salernitan treatise of about 1200\u2014The wives of\n Salerno.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Plan of this chapter.]\n\nIn this chapter our purpose is to treat of early medieval medicine\nas distinct on the one hand from post-classical medicine, to which\nwe have already devoted a chapter, and on the other hand from later\nmedieval medicine as affected by translations from the Arabic and other\noriental influence. Perhaps one of the outcomes of our discussion will\nbe to suggest that any such distinctions cannot be at all sharply or\nchronologically drawn. However, the writings which we shall discuss\nnow are contained mainly in manuscripts dating from the ninth to the\ntwelfth century, although some of them may have been first composed\nat an earlier date than that of the manuscript in which they chance\nto be preserved. Some are in Anglo-Saxon; more, in Latin. Some it has\nbeen customary to classify under the caption of Salernitan. We shall\npostpone until the next chapter our consideration of Constantinus\nAfricanus, although the dates of his life fall within the eleventh\ncentury, because he already at that early date represents the\nintroduction of Arabic medicine to the western world.\n\n[Sidenote: Instances of early medieval additions to ancient medicine.]\n\nA good instance of the working over by men of the early medieval\nperiod of the medical writings of the late Roman period is provided\nby a manuscript of the ninth or tenth century at Berlin.[2869] It\nnow consists of a number of fragments whose original order can no\nlonger be determined. These are made up of extracts from different\nsources or from other collections, but the collection also bears the\nmark of its last compiler who has introduced new remedies of his own\nand words derived from the vernacular of his day. Even extracts on\nfevers taken from the old Latin adaptation of Galen[2870] are added to\nby some Christian physician, who introduces among other things some\nincantations, such as, \u201cI adjure you, spots, that you go away and\nrecede from and be destroyed from the eye of the servant of God.\u201d[2871]\nThe manuscript also comprises more than one tract on how dreams or the\nfate of the patient or child born can be foretold from the day of the\nmoon.[2872] Another tract[2873] tells how God made the first man out of\neight parts, of which the first was the mud of the earth and the last\nthe light of the world. This would seem to be rather a novel departure\nfrom the usual four element theory but perhaps involves ancient Gnostic\nerror. The author further argues that individual divergences of\ncharacter depend upon the preponderance of one or another of the eight\nconstituents of the body.\n\n[Sidenote: _Leech-Book of Bald and Cild._]\n\nThe Anglo-Saxon _Leech-Book of Bald and Cild_[2874] has been called\n\u201cthe first medical treatise written in western Europe which can be\nsaid to belong to modern history.\u201d[2875] It was produced in the tenth\ncentury. However, it extracts a good deal from late Greek medical\nwriters, such as Paul of Aegina and Alexander of Tralles, and cites\nPliny, \u201cthe mickle leech,\u201d for the cure of baldness by application of\ndead bees burnt to ashes,[2876] a remedy also found in the _Euporista_\nascribed to Galen. On the whole, however, it uses parts of animals\nsomewhat less than Pliny, although sometimes a powdered earthworm is\nrecommended, or a man stung by an adder is to drink holy water in which\na black snail has been washed, or the bite of a viper is to be smeared\nwith ear-wax while thrice repeating \u201cthe prayer of Saint John.\u201d[2877]\nAnd a man about to engage in combat is advised to eat swallow nestlings\nboiled in wine.[2878] Herbs are as useful against a woman\u2019s tongue as\nbirds against a foeman\u2019s steel, for we are told: \u201cAgainst a woman\u2019s\nchatter; taste at night fasting a root of radish; that day the chatter\ncannot harm thee.\u201d[2879] There are directions for plucking herbs\nsimilar to those in Pliny,[2880] and the significance which he ascribed\nto cart ruts is paralleled by the injunction, after one has treated\na venomous bite by striking five scarifications, one on the bite and\nfour around it, to \u201cthrow the blood with a spoon silently over a wagon\nway.\u201d[2881] Eight virtues of the stone agate are enumerated.[2882]\n\n[Sidenote: Magical procedure and incantations.]\n\nNot only such occult virtues of animals, vegetables, and minerals,\nbut also magical procedure and incantations abound in the work. In a\nprescription \u201cfor flying venom and every venomous swelling\u201d butter is\nto be churned on a Friday from the milk of a \u201cneat or hind all of one\ncolor,\u201d and a litany, paternoster, and incantation of strange words are\nto be repeated nine times each.[2883] A great deal of superstitious\nuse is made of such Christian symbols, names, and forms of prayer\nas the sign of the cross, the names of the four evangelists, and\nmasses, psalms, and exorcisms. Fear of witchcraft and enchantment\nis manifested, and the ills both of man and beast are frequently\nattributed to evil spirits. \u201cA drink for a fiend-sick man\u201d is on one\noccasion \u201cto be drunk out of a church bell,\u201d with the accompaniment\nof much additional ecclesiastical hocus-pocus.[2884] \u201cIf a horse is\nelf-shot, then take the knife of which the haft is horn of a fallow\nox, and on which are three brass nails. Then write upon the horse\u2019s\nforehead Christ\u2019s mark, and on each of the limbs which thou may feel\nat. Then take the left ear; prick a hole in it in silence. This thou\nshalt do; then take a yerd, strike the horse on the back, then it will\nbe whole. And write upon the horn of the knife these words, _Benedicite\nomnia opera domini dominum_. Be the elf what it may, this is mighty for\nhim to amends.\u201d[2885]\n\n[Sidenote: A superstitious compound.]\n\nNeither Bald and Cild nor their continuator shared Pliny\u2019s prejudice\nagainst compound medicines. In the third book by the continuator is\ndescribed \u201ca salve against the elfin race and nocturnal visitors, and\nfor women with whom the devil hath carnal commerce.\u201d One takes the ewe\nhop plant, wormwood, bishopwort, lupin, ashthroat, henbane, harewort,\nviper\u2019s bugloss, heatherberry plants, cropleek, garlic, grains of\nhedgerife, githrife, and fennel. These herbs are put in a vessel and\nplaced beneath the altar where nine masses are sung over them. They\nare then boiled in butter and mutton fat; much holy salt is added; the\nsalve is strained through a cloth; and what remains of the worts is\nthrown into running water. The patient\u2019s forehead and eyes are to be\nsmeared with this ointment and he is further to be censed with incense\nand signed often with the sign of the cross.[2886]\n\n[Sidenote: Summary.]\n\nThe \u201cmodern\u201d character of Bald\u2019s and Cild\u2019s book cannot be said to\nhave produced any diminution of superstition as against the writings\nof antiquity. But we do find native herbs introduced, also popular\nmedicine, and probably a considerable amount of Teutonic and perhaps\nalso Celtic folk-lore, which, however, has been more or less\nChristianized. Indeed the connection between medicine and religion is\nremarkably close.\n\n[Sidenote: Cauterization.]\n\nThe medicine of this period may be further illustrated by two Latin\nmanuscripts of the eleventh century in the Sloane collection of the\nBritish Museum.[2887] One contains a brief treatise which illustrates\nthe common tendency at that time to employ cauterization not only for\nsurgical purposes in connection with wounds, but as a medical means of\ngiving relief to internal diseases and trivial complaints with which\ncauterization could have no connection. That the practice was very\nlargely a superstition is further evident from the fact that one part\nof the body often was cauterized for a complaint in another or opposite\nportion or member. In the present example, under the alluring names of\nApollonius and Galen as professed authors,[2888] are presented a series\nof human figures showing where the cautery should be applied. These\npictures of naked patients marked all over their anatomy with spots\nwhere the red-hot iron should be applied, or submitting with smiling or\nwry faces to its actual administration in the most tender places, are\nboth amusing and, when we reflect that this useless pain was actually\nrepeatedly inflicted through long centuries, pathetic.[2889]\n\n[Sidenote: Treatment of demoniacs.]\n\nIn a general and much longer work on diseases and their remedies which\nfollows in the same manuscript and which is professedly compiled from\nHippocrates, Galen, and Apollonius, the treatment prescribed for\ndemoniacs,[2890] who, it states, are in Greek called _epilemptici_\n(epileptics), includes among other things vaporization between the\nshoulder blades with various mixtures, scarification and bleeding,\napplication of leeches to the \u201cstomach where you ought not to operate\nwith iron,\u201d[2891] shaving and \u201cimbrocating\u201d[2892] the scalp, and\nanointing the hands and feet with oil. Both our manuscripts contain\nrecipes for expelling or routing demons.[2893] For this purpose such\nsubstances are employed as the stone _gagates_ and holy water, and\nelsewhere the usual confidence is reposed in the virtues of herbs and\nsuch parts of animals as the liver of a vulture.\n\n[Sidenote: Incantations and characters.]\n\nIn one of the manuscripts is a treatise in which much use is made of\nincantations and characters. There are prayers to \u201cLord Jesus and Holy\nMary\u201d to heal the sick, while characters, sometimes engraved upon lead\nplates, are employed not only for medical purposes, but to prevent\nwomen from conceiving, to make fruit trees bear well, and against\nenemies.[2894] Later on in the manuscript instructions for plucking a\nmedicinal herb include facing east and reciting a paternoster.[2895]\n\n[Sidenote: In a twelfth century manuscript.]\n\nThe twelfth century portion of this same manuscript consists mainly of\na long medical medley with no definitely marked beginning or ending but\napparently originally in five books.[2896] Towards its close occur a\nnumber of incantations and characters quite in the style of Marcellus\nEmpiricus.[2897] Indeed, \u201ca marvelous charm\u201d for toothache is an exact\ncopy of his instructions to repeat seven times in a waning moon on\nTuesday or Thursday an incantation beginning, \u201cAridam, margidam,\nsturgidam.\u201d[2898] To make all his enemies fear him a man should gather\nthe herb verbena on a Thursday, repeating seven times a formula in\nwhich the plant is personally addressed and the desire expressed to\ntriumph over all foes as the verbena conquers winds and rains, hail and\nstorms.[2899] If here the influence of pagan religion is still present,\nmany of the incantations are in Christian form and expressed in the\nname of God or the Father. To find a thief characters are employed\ntogether with the incantation, \u201cAbraham bound, Isaac held, Jacob\nbrought back to the house.\u201d[2900] A charm against fever opens, \u201cChrist\nwas born and suffered; Christ Jesus rose from the dead and ascended\nunto heaven; Christ will come at the day of judgment. Christ says,\nAccording to your faith it shall be done.\u201d Then the sign of the cross\nis employed and \u201csacred words,\u201d which seem, however, to include not\nonly Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but Maximianus, Dionysius, John,\nSerapion, and Constantinus. As we have to do with a twelfth century\nmanuscript the last two names might be presumed to have reference to\nthe medical writers of the eleventh century, but another manuscript\nwhich contains a similar incantation states that they are the names\nof the seven sleepers.[2901] Our charm then continues \u201cIn the name\nof Christ\u201d and with a prayer to God to free from sickness anyone who\n\u201cbears this writing in Thy name.\u201d[2902]\n\n[Sidenote: Magic with a split hazel rod.]\n\nIn the same work occurs the earliest instance of which I am aware\nof the magical \u201cexperiment\u201d with a split rod and an incantation, to\nwhich we shall hear William of Auvergne, Albertus Magnus, John of St.\nAmand, and Roger Bacon refer in the thirteenth century. A rod of four\ncubits length is to be cut with repetition of the Lord\u2019s Prayer. It\nis to be split, and the two halves are to be held apart at the ends\nby two men. Then, making the sign of the cross, one should repeat the\nfollowing incantation, \u201cEllum sat upon ella and held a green rod in his\nhand and said, Rod of green reunite again,\u201d[2903] together with the\nLord\u2019s Prayer until the two split halves bend together in the middle.\nOne then seizes them in one\u2019s fist at the junction point, cuts off the\nrest of the rods, and makes magic use of the section remaining in one\u2019s\ngrasp.[2904]\n\n[Sidenote: More incantations and the virtues of a vulture.]\n\nAnother manuscript of the twelfth century[2905] contains many similar\ncharms, incantations, prayers, and characters for healing purposes.\nOne formula employed is, \u201cChrist conquers, Christ reigns, Christ\ncommands.\u201d In cases of miscarriage a drink of verbena is recommended\nand repetition of the following incantation with three Paternosters,\n\u201cSaisa, laisa, relaisa, because so Saint Mary did when she bore the\nSon of God.\u201d Presently a paragraph opens with the assertion that the\nhuman race does not know how great virtue the vulture[2906] possesses\nand how much it improves health. But certain ceremonial directions\nmust be observed in making use of it. The bird should be killed in the\nvery hour in which it is caught and with a sharp reed rather than a\nsword. Before beheading it, one should utter an incantation containing\nsuch names as Adonai and Abraam. Various healing virtues appertain\nto the different parts of its carcass, although here again there are\ninstructions to be observed. The bones of its head should be bound in\nhyena skin; its eyes should be suspended from the neck in wolf\u2019s skin.\nBinding its wings on the left foot of a woman struggling in child-birth\nproduces a quick delivery. One who wears its tongue will receive the\nadoration of all his enemies; if one has its heart bound in the skin of\na lion or wolf, all demons will avoid one and robbers will only worship\none. Its gall taken in quite a mixture cures epileptics and lunatics;\nits lung in another compound cures fevers; and so on.\n\n[Sidenote: _Lots of the saints._]\n\nThere follow _Sortes sanctorum_, introduced by a page and a half of\nprayers of this tenor, \u201cIn the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we ask\nFather and Son and Holy Ghost, Three and One; we ask Saint Mary, the\nmother of our Lord Jesus Christ; we ask the nine orders of angels;\nwe ask the whole chorus of patriarchs; we ask the whole chorus of\napostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins, and the whole chorus of\nGod\u2019s faithful that they deign to reveal to us these lots which we\nseek, and that no seduction of the devil may deceive us.\u201d The treatise\ncloses, \u201cThese are the lots of the saints which never fail; so ask God\nand obtain what you desire.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Superstitious veterinary and medical practice.]\n\nThe next items in the manuscript are some cases of superstitious\nveterinary practice, with such pious incantations as \u201cMay God who saved\nthe thief on the cross save this beast!\u201d[2907] and with instructions\nconcerning the religious invocations and written characters to be\nemployed in blessing the food and salt to be given to domestic animals\nin order to keep them in good health. Characters are also mentioned\nwhich will prevent the blood of a pig from flowing when it is\nslaughtered, provided they are bound upon the breast or are written on\nthe knife with which the pig is to be stuck.[2908] Holy water and bread\nthat has been blessed are used for medical purposes and instructions\nare given on what days medicinal herbs should be gathered. The prayers\nemployed are usually put in Christian form, but one for the cure of\ntoothache has slipped by at least partially uncensored. It opens with\nthe words \u201cO lady Moon, free me....\u201d[2909]\n\n[Sidenote: Two Paris manuscripts.]\n\nIf we turn from medical manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth\ncenturies in the British Museum to those of the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale,\nwe find the same occurrence of superstitious passages. In an eleventh\ncentury codex which contains parts of the medical work of Celsus and\nthe _De dinamidis_ of Galen are also found prayers to God for the\nmedicinal aid of the angel Raphael against the treacherous attacks of\nthe demons, a work on the virtues of stones which has much to say of\ntheir marvelous properties, and figures and text concerning the twelve\nsigns of the zodiac and twelve winds.[2910] Much more superstitious,\nhowever, is an anonymous treatise occupying the first ten leaves of a\ntwelfth century manuscript[2911] which is apparently of German origin\nfrom the number of German words and phrases introduced near its close.\nThis treatise is followed in the manuscript by the works of Notker,\nHermann the Lame, and others on _computus_ and the astrolabe.\n\n[Sidenote: Blood-letting.]\n\nAfter discussing the effect of food upon health, listing potions of\nherbs to be drunk in each month of the year,[2912] treating of the\nveins and of the four winds, four seasons, and four humors, and the\nrelations existing between the two last-named, the author enumerates\nthe many advantages of blood-letting in a long passage which is worth\nquoting in part. \u201cIt contains the beginning of health, it makes the\nmind sincere, it aids the memory, it purges the brain, it reforms the\nbladder, it warms the marrow, it opens the hearing, it checks tears,\nit removes nausea, it benefits the stomach, it invites digestion, it\nevokes the voice, it builds up the sense, it moves the bowels, it\nenriches sleep, it removes anxiety, it nourishes good health ...\u201d:\nand so on. The operation of bleeding should not be performed on the\ntenth, fifteenth, twenty-fifth, or thirtieth day of the moon, nor\nshould a potion be taken then. The Egyptian days and dog-days are to be\nsimilarly observed. The hours of the day when each humor predominates\nare then given.\n\n[Sidenote: Resemblances to Egerton 821.]\n\nThere then is introduced rather abruptly an account of the medicinal\nvirtues of the vulture almost identical with that in the British Museum\nmanuscript. Once again, too, herbs are to be plucked with repetition of\nthe Lord\u2019s Prayer.[2913] The use of characters to prevent a slaughtered\npig from bleeding is introduced somewhat otherwise than in the other\nmanuscript. Having first recommended as a cure for human sufferers from\nflux of blood the binding about the abdomen of a parchment inscribed\nwith the characters in question, the author adds, \u201cAnd if you don\u2019t\nbelieve it, write them on a knife and kill a pig with it, and you will\nsee no blood flow from the wound.\u201d[2914]\n\n[Sidenote: Virtues of blood.]\n\nConsiderable medicinal use is made of blood in this treatise. For\ncataract is recommended instilling in the eye the blood which flows\nfrom a certain worm (_oudehsam?_) when \u201cyou cut it in two near the\ntail.\u201d[2915] To break the stone one employs goat\u2019s blood caught in\na glass vessel in a waning moon and dried eight days in the sun\ntogether with the pulverized skin of a rabbit caught in a waning moon\nand roasted over marble. These are to be mixed in wine and given\nin the name of the Lord to the patient to drink while he is in the\nbath.[2916] Another remedy consists of three drops of the milk of a\nwoman nursing a male child given in a raw egg to the patient without\nhis knowledge.[2917]\n\n[Sidenote: Pious incantations and magical procedure.]\n\nThe work abounds in characters and in incantations which consist either\nof seemingly meaningless words or of Biblical phrases and allusions.\nThese are very much like those in the manuscripts already considered\nand are often accompanied by elaborate procedure. For example, the\nprayer, \u201cO Lord, spare your servant N., so that chastised with deserved\nstripes he may rest in your mercy,\u201d is to be written on five holy\nwafers which are then to be placed on the five wounds of a figure of\nChrist on a crucifix. The patient is to approach barefoot, eat the\nwafers, and say: \u201cAlmighty God, who saved all the human race, save\nme and free me from these fevers and from all my languors. By God\nChrist was announced, and Christ was born, and Christ was wrapped\nin swaddling clothes, and Christ was placed in a manger, and Christ\nwas circumcised, and Christ was adored by the Magi, and Christ was\nbaptized, and Christ was tempted, and Christ was betrayed, and Christ\nwas flogged, and Christ was spat upon, and Christ was given gall and\nvinegar to drink, and Christ was pierced with a lance, and Christ was\ncrucified, and Christ died, and Christ was buried, and Christ rose\nagain, and Christ ascended unto heaven. In the name of the Father and\nof the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Jesus, rising from the synagogue,\nentered the house of Simon. Moreover, Simon\u2019s daughter was sick with\na high fever. And they entreated Him on her behalf. And standing over\nher He commanded the fever and it departed.\u201d[2918] To cure epilepsy an\ninteresting combination of scriptural incantation and rather unusual\nmagic procedure is recommended. Before the attack comes on, the words\nof the Gospel of Matthew, \u201cJesus was led by the spirit into the desert;\nand angels came and ministered unto Him,\u201d are to be written on a wooden\ntablet with some black substance which will wash off readily. Then,\nwhen the fit comes on, this writing is to be washed off into a vessel\nwith still water and given to the patient to drink in the name of\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost. \u201cIf you do this three times, God helping\nthe patient will be cured.\u201d[2919]\n\n[Sidenote: More superstitious veterinary practice.]\n\nOur manuscript further resembles Egerton 821 of the British Museum in\ncontaining remedies for beast as well as man. If a horse suffers from\nover-eating, one should learn his name and procure some hazel rods.\nThen one is to whisper in his right ear an incantation consisting of\noutlandish words accompanied by the Lord\u2019s Prayer, and is to bind his\nthighs and feet with the rods. This ceremony, too, is to be repeated\nthrice.[2920]\n\n[Sidenote: The School of Salerno.]\n\nWe now come to the consideration of treatises supposed to have been\nproduced by the school of medicine at Salerno. But not only are the\norigins of the so-called School of Salerno \u201cveiled in impenetrable\nobscurity,\u201d[2921] much of its later history is scarcely less uncertain,\nand it is no easy matter to say what men and what writings may be\nproperly called Salernitan, or when they lived or were composed.\nThe manuscripts of Salernitan writings seem to have been found more\nfrequently north of the Alps than in Italian libraries. It would\nperhaps be carrying scepticism too far to doubt if medicine developed\nmuch earlier or more rapidly at Salerno than elsewhere, since it seems\ncertain that the town was famous for its physicians at an early date,\nand that we have medical writings of Salernitans produced in the early\neleventh century. But one is inclined to view with some scepticism the\nassumption of historians of medicine[2922] that the word Salernitan\nrepresents a separate body of doctrine, or of method in practice,\nwhich may be sharply distinguished from Arabic medicine or from later\nmedieval medicine as affected by Arabic influence. Rather the medical\nliterature and practice of Salerno is an integral and scarcely\ndistinguishable part of medieval medicine as a whole. Many Salernitan\ntreatises themselves belong to the later medieval period, and very\nfew of them can be shown to antedate Constantinus Africanus, whose\ntranslations seem to mark the beginning of Arabic influence. And on the\nother hand there are equally early medieval medical treatises, such as\nthose we have hitherto been considering, which are not Salernitan and\nyet show no sign of Arabic influence. Thus the word Salernitan cannot\naccurately be identified with a first period of medieval Latin medicine\nbased upon early or Neo-Latin translations of Greek medical authors\nand upon independent medical practice. Such activity was not confined\nto Salerno. But if we so employ the word Salernitan for a moment,\nthere seems no reason for thinking that such a development would be\nvery different from the Arabic and Byzantine continuations of Greek\nmedicine. A place so open to Saracen and Byzantine influence as the\ncoast of southern Italy is hardly the spot where we should look for a\ntotally distinct medical development, and the influence of Celtic and\nTeutonic folk-lore upon medical practice would presumably be more felt\nnorth of the Alps. And it is to Salerno that Constantinus Africanus,\nthe earliest known importer of Arabic medicine, comes.\n\n[Sidenote: Was Salernitan medicine free from superstition?]\n\nThe notion, too, that the Salernitan or early medieval Latin medical\npractice was sound and straightforward and sensible and free from the\nsuperstition with which the holders of this opinion represent Arabic\nand later medieval medicine as overburdened, is also probably illusory.\nWe have already seen evidence of rather extreme superstition in early\nmedieval Latin medicine which shows no trace of Arabic influence,\nand the medical practitioners of Salerno are sometimes represented\nin the sources as empiricists or old-wives. The place was peculiarly\nnoted for its female practitioners, of whom more anon; and one of the\nearliest mentions of a physician of Salerno is the account in Richer\u2019s\nchronicle[2923] of the mutual poisoning of two rival physicians\nin 946 A.\u202fD. Here the Salernitan is described as lacking in Latin\nbook-knowledge and skilful from natural talent and much experience.\nHe was the queen\u2019s favorite physician, but was worsted by another\nroyal physician, Bishop Deroldus, in a debate which the king, Louis\nIV, instituted in order to find out \u201cwhich of them knew more of the\nnatures of things.\u201d The defeated Salernitan then \u201cprepared sorcery\u201d and\ntried to poison the bishop, who cured himself with theriac and secretly\npoisoned his rival in turn. The Salernitan was then reduced to the\nhumiliating position of being forced to beseech the prelate to cure\nhim, but in his case the theriac only drove the poison into his foot,\nwhich had to be amputated by a surgeon. This tale, be it true or not,\nsuggests that there were good Latin physicians and surgeons outside of\nSalerno at an early date as well as that Salernitan medicine was far\nfrom being free from magic and empiricism.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Practica_ of Petrocellus.]\n\nIt is fairer, however, to judge Salerno by its own best written\nproductions rather than by the stories of perhaps jealous\nnortherners, and we may note Payne\u2019s comparison of the _Practica_ of\nPetrocellus,[2924] written probably in the early eleventh century,\nwith the earlier _Leech-Book of Bald and Cild_. Selected recipes,\nit may first be said, were translated from the _Practica_ into\nAnglo-Saxon.[2925] Dr. Payne was impressed by \u201cthe complete freedom\nof the former from the magic and superstition which tainted the\nAnglo-Saxon and all other European medicine of the time.\u201d Payne noted\nthat the compounds of Petrocellus contained fewer ingredients, and\nregarded the Salernitan selection of drugs as \u201cmore intelligent.\u201d\nThe Salernitan formulae are \u201cclear, simple, and written on a uniform\nsystem which implies traditional skill and culture.\u201d[2926] \u201cThe\npharmacy is generally very simple; and, as might be expected, there\nis an entire absence of charms and superstitious rites.\u201d[2927] Such\nsimplicity, however, is at best a negative sort of virtue; and we\nwonder if this early specimen of the School of Salerno is free from\nelaborate superstition for the very reason that the work is simple and\nelementary. The less medicine, the less superstition perhaps. Moreover,\nsuperstition is not quite absent, since Payne himself quotes the\nfollowing recipe: \u201cFor those who cannot see from sunrise to sunset....\nThis is the leechcraft which thereto belongeth. Take a kneecap of a\nbuck[2928] and roast it, and, when the roast sweats, then take the\nsweat and therewith smear the eyes, and after that let him eat the same\nroast; and then take fresh asses\u2019 dung and squeeze it, and smear the\neyes therewith, and it will soon be better with them.\u201d[2929]\n\n[Sidenote: Its sources.]\n\nPetrocellus is thought to have used Greek writings directly without\nthe intermediary of Arabic versions.[2930] He says in the introductory\nletter which opens the _Practica_ that he reduces to brief form in the\nLatin language those \u201cauthors who have culled the dogmas of all cases\nfrom Greek places.\u201d[2931] But these words might be taken to indicate\nthat he has used Greek sources only indirectly, while the fact that\nthe person to whom the work is addressed is called \u201cdearest son\u201d and\n\u201csweetest son\u201d is rather in the style of Arabian and Hebrew medieval\nwriters. He goes on to assure this person that everything in the work\nhas been tested by experience and that nothing should be added to or\nsubtracted from it.\n\n[Sidenote: Fourfold origin of medicine.]\n\nThis introductory epistle also embodies an account of the origin of\nmedicine which, while not exactly superstitious, is quite in the usual\nna\u00efve and uncritical style so often employed by both ancient and\nmedieval writers in treating of a distant past. Apollo and his son\nEsculapius, Asclepius and \u201cYpocras\u201d are named as the four founders\nof the medical art. Apollo discovered _methoyca_, which presumably\nmeans methodism, but which Petrocellus proceeds to identify with\nsurgery. Esculapius invented _empirica_, which is described as\npharmacy rather than empiricism, although perhaps the distinction _is_\nslight. Asclepius founded _loyca_, which is probably meant for the\ndogmatic school. Hippocrates\u2019 contribution was _theoperica_, which\nmay mean therapeutics but is further described as the prognostication\nor \u201cprevision of diseases.\u201d It is in this same introductory epistle\nthat Petrocellus makes the division of the brain into three cells\nof which we spoke in the chapter on Arabic occult science. Besides\ndistinguishing the three cells as phantastic, logical, and mnemonic, he\nadds that good and evil are distinguished in the middle cell and that\nthe soul is in the posterior one.\n\n[Sidenote: Therapeutics of Petrocellus.]\n\nIn the _Practica_ proper the method of Petrocellus is to take up one\ndisease at a time, tell what the Greeks call it, and briefly describe\nit, sometimes listing its symptoms or causes, but devoting most of his\nspace to such methods of curing it as diet and bleeding, simples and\ncompounds. I saw no instance of astrological medicine nor of resort\nto amulets and incantations in the version published by Renzi from a\ntwelfth century manuscript at Paris. But in a fragment of the work from\na Milan manuscript where twenty-six lines are devoted to the treatment\nof epilepsy instead of but seven as in the other text,[2932] one is\nadvised to use antimony in the holy water \u201cwhich the Greeks bless on\nEpiphany\u201d and to chant the Lord\u2019s Prayer three times. If this passage\nbe a later addition, it shows that Petrocellus was less inclined\nto superstitious methods than others and that his injunction that\nnothing should be subtracted from or added to his work was not well\nobserved. But in any case it illustrates my previous point that the\nmore medicine, the more superstition. In twenty-six lines on epilepsy\none is much more likely to find something superstitious than in seven.\nIndeed, the treatment of epilepsy was so generally superstitious that\nmy recollection is that any account of it of any considerable length\nwhich I have seen in medieval writings contained some superstition. In\nfact, even if Petrocellus wrote the longer passage, he could be praised\nfor having resorted to charms and formulae only in the case of that\nmysterious disease.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Regimen Salernitanum_.]\n\nThe work most generally known as a characteristic product of the\nSchool of Salerno is the Latin poem[2933] which opens with the line,\n\u201cTo the King of the English writes the whole School of Salerno.\u201d[2934]\nThis poem has been variously entitled _Schola Salernitana_, _Regimen\nSalernitanum_, and _Flos medicinae_. How much more influential and\nwidespread it was than the _Practica_ of Petrocellus may be seen\nfrom the fact that manuscripts of the text of the latter are rare,\nthough the introductory letter is more common, and that it was first\npublished by Renzi in the nineteenth century, whereas about one\nhundred manuscripts and two hundred and fifty printed editions of\nthe poem have been found. It was known chiefly through the brief\nversion of 362 verses, upon which Arnald of Villanova commented at the\nclose of the thirteenth century, until as a result of the researches\nof Baudry de Balzac, Renzi, and Daremberg the number of lines was\nincreased to 3526. This patchwork from many manuscripts can scarcely\nbe regarded as the work of any one author, time, or even school,\nand it may be seriously questioned how many of the verses really\nemanated from Salerno. Certainly it is not free from Arabic influence,\nsince it cites Alfraganus as well as Ptolemy.[2935] Pliny is used a\ngreat deal for the virtues of herbs. Much of it sounds like a late\nversification of commonplaces for mnemonic purposes. Sudhoff has\nrecently pointed out that it was not generally known until the middle\nof the thirteenth century, before which time Frederick II, the cultured\nmonarch, and Giles de Corbeil, the medical poet, appear unaware of its\nexistence.[2936]\n\n[Sidenote: Its superstition.]\n\nThe brief version of the poem commented upon by Arnald of Villanova\nnaturally contains only one-tenth of the superstition found in the\nfuller text which is ten times longer. In some respects this brief\nversion might pass as a restrained, though quaint, early set of\ndirections how to preserve health, to which later writers have added\nsuperstitious recipes. But as a matter of fact it is too superstitious\nfor even one as hospitable to theories of occult influence as Arnald,\nwho rejects as false and worthless[2937] its assertion that the months\nof April, May, and September are lunar and that in them consequently\nfall the days upon which bleeding is prohibited. In the lines upon\nwhich Arnald comments marvelous properties are mentioned in the case\nof the plant rue, but the fuller text has many mentions of the occult\nvirtues of herbs, stones, and animals. Almost at a glance we read that\nthe urine of a dog or the blood of a mouse cures warts; that juice of\nbetony should be gathered on the eve of St. John the Baptist, that\nrubbing the soles of the feet cures a stiff neck, and that pearls\nor the stone found in a crab\u2019s head are of equal virtue for heart\ntrouble.[2938] And not far away is a passage[2939] on the virtue of the\n_Agnus Dei_, made of balsam, pure wax, and the Chrism. It protects\nagainst lightning and the waves of the sea, aids women in child-birth,\nsaves from sudden death, and in short from \u201cevery kind of evil.\u201d\nAstrology is by no means omitted from the _Regimen Salernitanum_; in\nfact Balzac seems to have taken the fact that verses were astrological\nin character as a sign that they belonged in the Salernitan collection.\n\n[Sidenote: The _Practica_ of Archimatthaeus.]\n\nA third work which may be considered as an example of the medicine\nof Salerno is the _Practica_ of Archimatthaeus which Renzi placed\nin the twelfth century and conjectured to be the work of Matthaeus\nPlatearius the Elder.[2940] One or two expressions, however, might\nbe taken as indications that the writer is neither of early date nor\nhimself a Salernitan. He speaks of curing pleurisy in a different way\nfrom the treatment recommended in the _Practica\u2019s_ and tells how the\nSalernitans try to prevent their hair from falling out by reason of\ntheir pores opening too wide when they frequent the bath.[2941] Renzi\nhailed this treatise with delight as \u201ca true medical clinic,\u201d[2942]\nsince the author describes some twenty-two specific cases. He states at\nthe beginning that he does not propose to write a systematic treatise\nor to deal with every variety of disease, but only with those in which\nhe has learned new and better methods by experience, \u201cand in which\nGod has put the desired effect in my hand.\u201d[2943] Through the work\nwe encounter such phrases as _expertum est, aliud probatissimum_, \u201cI\ntell you what I have proved,\u201d \u201cWe have tested this by experience and\nrejoiced at the result.\u201d These utterances seem really to refer to the\nwriter\u2019s own experience and not to be copied from previous authors.\nThe following is an example of his cases. \u201cA certain lady incurred\nparalysis of the face during sleep after the bath,\u201d which he attributes\nto dissolution of humors which affected the muscles. First he bled the\ncephalic vein, hoping thereby to draw off somewhat the humors from\nthe afflicted place. Then for three successive days he gave her \u201cthe\npotion of St. Paul with wine of a decoction of salvia and castoria\nwhich in part prevent dissolution, in part consume it.\u201d He also had\nher hold that wine in her mouth for a long time before swallowing it.\nAt length he gave her a purgative with pills of yerapiga (_sacrum\namarum_), mixed with golden pills. \u201cAfterwards we injected pills of\ndiacastoria into her nostrils and placed her near the fire. Finally\nwe gave _opopira_ (bread free from furfure) with the aforesaid wine,\nand so she was cured, only a certain tumor remained in her face and\nmade her eye water. We anointed her face with golden unguent and the\npotion of St. Paul mixed together and the tumor disappeared; for the\ntears we gave golden Alexandrina and they were checked; and thus it was\nthat this year in your presence we cured a certain paralytic.\u201d[2944]\nLike Galen\u2019s accounts of his actual cases this makes us realize that\nall the gruesome mixtures of which we read in the books were actually\nforced upon patients, often several of them upon one poor sick person,\nand that medical practice was rather worse than medical theory. An\ninteresting observation concerning the lot of the lower classes is let\nfall by our author when, in discussing involuntary emission of urine,\nhe states that serfs and handmaids are especially subject to this\nailment, since they go about ill-clad and with bare feet and become\nthoroughly chilled.[2945]\n\n[Sidenote: A Salernitan treatise of about 1200.]\n\nGiacosa classed one of the treatises which he published as Salernitan\nbecause it was written in a Lombard or Monte Cassino hand of about\n1200.[2946] He described its contents as purely therapeutical and\nregarded its author as showing \u201ca certain repugnance\u201d to the popular\nremedies and superstitions recommended by other contemporary treatises.\nFor this conclusion the chief evidence seems to be a passage where the\nauthor, after listing such means to prevent a woman from conceiving as\nbinding her head with a red ribbon or holding the stone found in the\nhead of an ass, says that he thinks that such remedies \u201coperate more\nby faith than reason.\u201d[2947] But he makes much use of parts of animals\nand of suffumigations, advising for example on the same page that\nafter conception there should be fumigation with a root of mandragora\nor peony or the excrement of an ass mixed with flour, an operation\nwhich he characterizes as _expertissimum_. And on the preceding page,\nas Giacosa has noted, he recommends a procedure which is even more\nimprobable than it is immoral, whereby patients who show themselves\nungrateful to the physician after they have been cured may be made to\nsuffer again.[2948]\n\n[Sidenote: The wives of Salerno.]\n\nWe promised to say something of the female practitioners of Salerno.\nTrotula is no longer believed to be a woman and we have to judge the\nwomen of Salerno mainly by what others say of them. In a commentary\nof a Master Bernard of Provence, who I suspect may be Bernard Gordon,\nthe medical writer at Montpellier of the closing thirteenth century,\nare a number of practices attributed to the women of Salerno which\nRenzi has already brought together.[2949] In these cases the practices\nare chiefly those employed by the women themselves in child-birth.\nWe may note three from the list that savor strongly of magic. \u201cThe\nwomen of Salerno cook doves with the acorns which the doves eat;\nthen they remove the acorns from the gizzard and eat them, whence\nthe retentive virtue is much comforted.\u201d \u201cWhen the women of Salerno\nfear abortion, they carry with them the pregnant stone,\u201d which our\nauthor explains is not the magnet. The other recipe had perhaps better\nremain untranslated: _Stercus asini comedunt mulieres Salernitanae\nin crispellis et dant viris suis ut melius retineant sperma et sic\nconcipiant_. As we shall see in our chapter on Arnald of Villanova,\nanother medical writer of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth\ncentury, he condemned the use of incantations in cases of child-birth\nby old-wives of Salerno but approved of a very similar procedure by\nwhich a priest had cured him of warts, and also mentioned favorably the\ncures wrought by female practitioners at Rome and Montpellier.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXII\n\n CONSTANTINUS AFRICANUS: C. 1015-1087.\n\n Reputation and influence\u2014His studies in the Orient\u2014His later life in\n Italy\u2014His works were mainly translations\u2014_Pantegni_\u2014_Viaticum_\u2014Other\n translations\u2014_The book of degrees_\u2014_On melancholy_\u2014_On disorders\n of the stomach_\u2014Medical works ascribed to Alfanus\u2014Constantinus\n and experiment\u2014\u201cExperiments\u201d involving incantations\u2014Superstition\n comparatively rare in Constantinus\u2014And of Greek rather than Arabic\n origin\u2014Some signs of astrology and alchemy\u2014Constantinus and the\n School of Salerno\u2014_Liber aureus_ and John Afflacius\u2014Afflacius more\n superstitious than his master.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Reputation and influence.]\n\nConstantinus Africanus will be here considered at perhaps greater\nlength than his connection with the history either of magic or\nexperimental science requires, but which his general importance in\nthe history of medicine and the lack of any good treatment of him in\nEnglish may justify.[2950] Our discussion of him as an importer of\nArabic medicine will also serve to support our attitude towards the\nSchool of Salerno. Daremberg wrote in 1853, \u201cWe owe a great debt of\ngratitude to Constantinus because he thus opened for Latin lands the\ntreasures of the east and consequently those of Greece. He has received\nand he deserves from every point of view the title of restorer of\nmedical literature in the west.\u201d[2951] Daremberg proceeded to propose\nthat a statue of Constantinus be erected in the center of the Gulf\nof Salerno or on the summit of Monte Cassino. Yet in 1870 he made\nthe surprising assertion that \u201cthe voice of Constantinus towards the\nclose of the eleventh century is an isolated voice and almost without\nan echo.\u201d[2952] But as a matter of fact Constantinus was a much cited\nauthority during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the works both\nof medicine and of natural science produced in Latin in western Europe,\nand his translations were cited under his own name rather than those of\ntheir original authors.[2953]\n\n[Sidenote: His studies in the Orient.]\n\nA brief sketch of Constantinus\u2019 career and a list of his works[2954]\nis twice supplied us by Peter the Deacon, who wrote in the next\ncentury,[2955] and who treats of Constantinus both in the chronicle of\nMonte Cassino, which he continued to the year 1138,[2956] and in his\nwork on the illustrious men of Monte Cassino.[2957] Peter tells that\nConstantinus was born at Carthage, by which he probably means Tunis,\nsince Carthage was no longer in existence, but went to Babylon, by\nwhich Cairo is presumably designated, since Babylon had ages before\nbeen reduced to a dust heap,[2958] to improve his education. His birth\nmust have been in about 1015. There he is said to have studied grammar,\ndialectic, geometry, arithmetic, \u201cmathematics,\u201d astronomy, and physics\nor medicine (_physica_). To this curriculum in the _Chronicle_ Peter\nadds in the _Lives of Illustrious Men_ the subjects of music and\nnecromancy. When so little was said of spirits in the occult science\nof the Arabic authors of the ninth century whom we considered in an\nearlier chapter, it is rather a surprise to hear that Constantinus\nstudied necromancy, but that subject is listed along with mathematical\nand natural sciences by Al-Farabi in his _De ortu scientiarum_,[2959]\nand we shall find this classification reproduced by two western\nChristian scholars of the twelfth century.[2960] The _mathematica_\nand astronomy which Constantinus studied very likely also included\nconsiderable astrology and divination. At any rate we are told that he\nnot only pursued his studies among \u201cthe Chaldeans, Arabs, Persians, and\nSaracens,\u201d and was fully imbued with \u201call the arts of the Egyptians,\u201d\nbut even, like Apollonius of Tyana, visited India and Ethiopia in\nhis quest for learning. It was only after a lapse of thirty-nine or\nforty years that he returned to North Africa. Most modern secondary\naccounts here state that Constantinus was soon forced to flee from\nNorth Africa because of the jealousy of other physicians who accused\nhim of magic,[2961] or from fear that his fellow citizens would kill\nhim as a wizard. In view of his study of necromancy, this may well\nhave been the case. Peter the Deacon, however, simply states that when\nthe Africans saw him so fully instructed in the studies of all nations,\nthey plotted to kill him,[2962] and gives no further indication of\ntheir motives.\n\n[Sidenote: His later life in Italy.]\n\nConstantinus secretly boarded ship and made his escape to Salerno,\nwhere he lived for some time in poverty, until a brother of the caliph\n(_regis Babiloniorum_) who chanced to come there recognized him, after\nwhich he was held in great honor by Duke Robert Guiscard. The secondary\naccounts say that he became Robert\u2019s confidential secretary and that\nhe had previously occupied a similar position under the Byzantine\nemperor, Constantine Monomachos,[2963] but of these matters again Peter\nthe Deacon is silent. When Constantinus left the Norman court, it was\nto become a monk at Monte Cassino, where he remained until his death\nin 1087. In a work addressed to the archbishop of Salerno he speaks\nof himself as _Constantinus Africanus Cassinensis_[2964] and Albertus\nMagnus cites him as _Constantinus Cassianensis_.[2965] What purports\nto be a picture of Constantinus is preserved in a manuscript of the\nfifteenth century at Oxford.[2966]\n\n[Sidenote: His works were mainly translations.]\n\nPeter the Deacon states both in the _Chronicle_ and in the _Illustrious\nMen_ that while at the monastery of Monte Cassino Constantinus\nAfricanus \u201ctranslated a great number of books from the languages\nof various peoples.\u201d Peter then lists the chief of these. It is\ninteresting to note, in view of the fact that Constantinus in prefaces\nand introductions appears to claim some of the works as his own, and\nthat he was accused of fraud and plagiarism by medieval writers who\nfollowed him as well as by modern investigators, that Peter the Deacon\nspeaks of _all_ his writings as translations from other languages.\nPeter does not, however, give us much information as to who the Greek\nor Arabic authorities were whom Constantine translated. It may be added\nthat if Constantinus claimed for himself the credit for Latin versions\nwhich were essentially translations, he was merely continuing a\npractice of which Arabic authors themselves had been repeatedly guilty.\nIndeed, we are told that they sometimes even destroyed earlier works\nwhich they had copied in order to receive sole credit for ideas which\nwere not their own.[2967]\n\n[Sidenote: _Pantegni._]\n\nThe longest of Constantinus\u2019 translations and the one most often cited\nin the middle ages was the _Pantechni_ or _Pantegni_, comprising ten\nbooks of theory and ten of practice as printed in 1515 with the works\nof Isaac,[2968] although Peter the Deacon speaks of Constantinus\u2019\ndividing the _Pantegni_ into twelve books and then of a _Practica_\nwhich also consisted of twelve books. What is the ninth book of the\n_Practica_ in this printed version is listed as a separate book on\nsurgery by Peter in his _Illustrious Men_, although omitted from his\nlist in the _Chronicle_, and was so printed in the 1536 edition of the\nworks of Constantinus.[2969] And the _Antidotarium_ which Peter lists\nas a separate title is probably simply the tenth book of the _Practica_\nas printed with the works of Isaac.[2970] The _Pantegni_, however,\nis not a translation of any work by Isaac, but an adaptation of the\n_Khitaab el Maleki_, or Royal Art of Medicine, of Ali Ibn Abbas. The\npreface of Constantinus[2971] says nothing of Ali but tells the abbot\nDesiderius that, failing to find in the many works of the Latins or\neven in \u201cour own writers, ancient and modern,\u201d such as Hippocrates,\nGalen, Oribasius, Paulus, and Alexander, exactly the sort of treatise\ndesired, he has composed \u201cthis little work of our own\u201d (_hoc nostrum\nopusculum_). But Stephen of Pisa, who also translated Ali into Latin\nin 1127,[2972] accused Constantinus of having suppressed both the\nauthor\u2019s name and title of the book and of having made many omissions\nand changes of order both in preface and text but without really adding\nany new contributions of his own.[2973] Stephen further justified his\nown translation by asserting that not only had the first part of _The\nRoyal Art of Medicine_ of Ali Ibn Abbas been \u201ccorrupted by the shrewd\nfraud of its translator,\u201d but also that the last and greater portion\nwas missing in the version by Constantinus.[2974] Also Ferrarius\nsaid in his gloss to the _Universal Diets_ of Isaac that Constantinus\nhad completed the translation of only three books of the _Practica_,\nlosing the rest in a shipwreck.[2975] A third medieval writer, Giraldus\nBituricensis, adds[2976] that Constantinus substituted in its place\nthe _Liber simplicis medicinae_ and _Liber graduum_, and that it was\nStephen of Pisa who translated the remainder of the work of Ali ben\nAbbas which is called the _Practica Pantegni et Stephanonis_. Stephen\u2019s\ntranslation is indeed different from the ten books of the _Practica_\nprinted with the works of Isaac. From these facts and from an\nexamination of the manuscripts of the _Practica_ Rose concluded[2977]\nthat Constantinus wrote only its first two books[2978] and the first\npart of the ninth, which is roughly the same as the _Surgery_ published\nseparately among Constantinus\u2019 works. The rest of this ninth book was\ntranslated into Latin at the time of the expedition to besiege Majorca,\nthat is, in 1114-1115, by a John[2979] who had recently been converted\nto Christianity[2980] and whom Rose was inclined to identify with\nJohn Afflacius, \u201ca disciple of Constantinus,\u201d of whom we shall have\nmore to say presently. Rose further held that this John completed the\n_Practica_[2981] commonly ascribed to Constantinus with the exception\nof its tenth book which, as we have suggested, seems originally to have\nbeen a distinct _Antidotarium_. Different from the _Pantegni_ is the\n_Compendium megategni Galeni_ by Constantinus published with the works\nof Isaac, and the _Librum Tegni_, _Megategni_, _Microtegni_ listed by\nPeter the Deacon.\n\n[Sidenote: _Viaticum._]\n\nPerhaps the next best known and the most frequently printed[2982]\nof Constantinus\u2019 translations or adaptations from the Arabic is his\n_Viaticum_ which, as Peter the Deacon states, is divided into seven\nbooks. In the preface Constantinus states that the _Pantegni_ was for\nmore advanced students, this is a brief manual for others. He also adds\nthat he appends his own name to it because there are persons who profit\nby the labors of others and, \u201cwhen the work of someone else has come\ninto their hands, furtively and like thieves inscribe their own names.\u201d\nDaremberg designated Abu Jafar Ahmed Ibn-al-Jezzar as author of the\nArabic original of the _Viaticum_. Moses Ibn Tibbon, who made a Hebrew\ntranslation in 1259, criticized the Latin version of Constantinus as\noften abbreviated, obscure, and seriously altered in arrangement.[2983]\nConstantinus seems to be alluded to in the _Ephodia_ or Greek version\nof the same work.[2984]\n\n[Sidenote: Other translations.]\n\nIf neither the original of the _Pantegni_ nor of the _Viaticum_ is\nto be assigned to Isaac, Constantinus nevertheless did translate\nsome of his works, namely, those on diets, urines, and fevers.[2985]\nMoreover, Constantinus himself admits that these Latin works are\ntranslations, stating in the preface to the treatise on urines that,\nfinding no satisfactory treatment of the subject in Latin, he turned to\nthe Arabic language and translated the work which Isaac had compiled\nfrom the ancients. Constantinus also states that he translated the\ntreatise on fevers from the Arabic. We have already seen that the\nalphabetical Latin version of Dioscorides which had most currency in\nthe middle ages is ascribed in at least one manuscript to Constantinus.\nHe also translated some treatises ascribed to Hippocrates and Galen,\nsuch as Galen\u2019s commentary on the _Aphorisms_ and _Prognostics_ of\nHippocrates[2986] and the _Tegni_ of Galen. Constantinus has also been\ncredited with translating works of Galen on the eyes, on diseases of\nwomen, and on human nature, but these are not genuine works of Galen.\n\n[Sidenote: _The book of degrees._]\n\nIn his list of the works which Constantinus translated from various\nlanguages.[2987] Peter the Deacon includes _The book of degrees_, but\nit has not yet been discovered from what earlier author, if any, it is\ncopied or adapted. The work is a development of Galen\u2019s doctrine that\nvarious medicinal simples are hot or cold, dry or moist, in varying\ndegrees. Constantinus presupposes four gradations of this sort. Thus\na food or medicine is hot in the first degree if its heating power is\nbelow that of the normal human body; if it is of the same temperature\nas the body, it ranks as of the second degree; if its heat is somewhat\ngreater than that of the body, it is of the third degree; if its heat\nis extreme and unbearable, it is of the fourth degree. The rose is\ncold in the first degree, is dry towards the end of the second degree,\nwhile the violet is cold towards the end of the first degree and moist\nin the beginning of the second degree. Thus Constantinus distinguishes\nnot only four degrees but a beginning, middle and end of each degree,\nand Peter the Deacon once gives the title of the work as _The book of\ntwelve degrees_.[2988] This interesting though crude beginning in the\ndirection of scientific thermometry and hydrometry unfortunately rested\nupon incorrect assumptions as to the nature and causation of heat and\nmoisture, and so was perhaps destined to do more harm than good.\n\n[Sidenote: _On melancholy._]\n\nA glossary of herbs and species and a work on the pulse, which\nPeter the Deacon includes in both his lists of Constantinus\u2019 works\nor translations, do not seem to have been printed or identified as\nConstantinus\u2019. On the other hand, the printed edition of the works of\nConstantinus includes treatises on melancholy and on the stomach[2989]\nwhich are not mentioned in Peter\u2019s list. In a preface to the _De\nmelancholia_ which is not included in the printed edition[2990]\nConstantinus Africanus speaks of himself as a monk of Monte Cassino and\nstates that, while he has often touched on the disease of melancholy\nin the many medical books which he has added to the Latin language, he\nhas decided also to write a separate brochure on the subject because\nit is an important malady and because it is especially prevalent \u201cin\nthese regions.\u201d \u201cTherefore I have collected this booklet from many\nvolumes of our adepts in this art.\u201d Whether the word \u201cour\u201d here refers\nto Greek or Arabic writers would be hard to say. Constantinus states\nthat melancholy is a disease to which those are especially liable who\nare always intent on study and books of philosophy, \u201cbecause of their\nscientific investigations and tiring their memories and grieving over\nthe failure of their minds.\u201d This ailment also afflicts \u201cthose who lose\ntheir beloved possessions, such as their children and dearest friends\nor some precious thing which cannot be restored, as when scholars\nsuddenly lose their books.\u201d Constantinus also describes the melancholy\nof \u201cmany religious persons who live lives to be revered, but fall into\nthis disease from their fear of God and contemplation of the last\njudgment and desire of seeing the _summum bonum_. Such persons think of\nnothing and seek for nothing save to love and fear God alone, and they\nincur this complaint and become drunk as it were with their excessive\nanxiety and vanity.\u201d[2991] Such passages would seem to describe\nConstantinus\u2019 own associates and environment, but they may possibly be\na mere translation of some work of an earlier Christian Arab, such as\nHonein ben Ishak who translated or pretended to translate a number of\nworks of Greek medicine into Arabic. In a later chapter[2992] we shall\nfind that Honein perhaps had something to do with another work called\n_The Secrets of Galen_, in which remedies for religious ascetics who\nhave ruined their health by their austerities form a rather prominent\nfeature.\n\n[Sidenote: _On disorders of the stomach._]\n\nThat the treatise on disorders of the stomach is Constantinus\u2019 own work\nis indicated by its preface, which is addressed to Alfanus, archbishop\nof Salerno from 1058 to 1087 and earlier a monk of Monte Cassino.\nAlfanus had himself translated Nemesius \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5[2993]\nand was the center of a group of learned writers: the dialectician,\nAlberic the Deacon, the historian, Amatus of Salerno, and the\nmathematician and astronomer, Pandulf of Capua.[2994] Constantinus\nstates that he writes this treatise for Alfanus as a compensation for\nhis recent failure to relieve a stomach-ache with which that prelate\nwas afflicted. Such instances of self-confessed failure, be it noted in\npassing, are rare indeed in ancient and medieval medicine, and for this\nreason we are the more inclined to deal charitably with the charges of\nliterary plagiarism which have been preferred against Constantinus. He\ngoes on to say that he has sought with great care but in vain among\nancient writings for any treatise devoted exclusively to the stomach,\nand has only succeeded in finding here and there scattered discussions\nwhich he now presumably combines in the present special treatise.\n\n[Sidenote: Medical works ascribed to Alfanus.]\n\nThis archbishop Alfanus appears to have written on medicine himself,\nsince _A treatise of Alfanus of Salerno concerning certain medical\nquestions_ was listed among the books at Christchurch, Canterbury\nabout 1300.[2995] Also a collection of recipes entitled, _Experiments\nof an archbishop of Salerno_, in a manuscript of the early twelfth\ncentury are very likely by him.[2996] They follow a treatise on\nmelancholy which does not, however, appear to be that of Constantinus\nAfricanus.[2997]\n\n[Sidenote: Constantinus and experiment.]\n\nPeter the Deacon\u2019s bibliography of the works of Constantinus includes\na _De experimentis_ which, if extant, has not been identified as\nConstantinus\u2019. In such works of his as are available, however, we find\na number of mentions of experience and its value. It is of course to\nbe remembered that such expressions as \u201cwe state what we have tested\nand what our authorities have used,\u201d[2998] and \u201cwe have had personal\nexperience of the confection which we now mention,\u201d[2999] may refer to\nthe experience of the past authors whose works Constantinus is using\nor translating rather than to his own. In the _Pantegni_[3000] \u201cancient\nmedical writers\u201d are divided into _experientes_ and _rationabiles_,\nand we are told that the empirics declare that compound medicines can\nbe discovered only in dreams and by chance, while the rationalists\nhold that these can be deduced from a knowledge of the virtues and\nqualities and accidents of bodies and diseases. This much is of\ncourse simply Galen over again. Constantinus occasionally gives\nmedical \u201cexperiments,\u201d as in the case of \u201cproved experiments to eject\nreptiles from the body,\u201d[3001] or the placing of a live chicken on the\nplace bitten by a mad dog. The chicken will then die while the man\nwill be cured \u201cbeyond a doubt.\u201d[3002] Such medical \u201cexperiments\u201d by\nConstantinus were often cited by subsequent medieval writers.\n\n[Sidenote: \u201cExperiments\u201d involving incantations.]\n\nIncantations are involved in some of these \u201cexperiments.\u201d One approved\nexperiment, we are told, consists in whispering in the ear of the\npatient the words, _Recede demon quia dee fanolcri precipiunt_. The\neffect of this procedure is that when the epileptic rises, after\nremaining like one dead for an hour, he will answer any question that\nmay be put to him. Another experiment to cure epilepsy is frequently\ncited by subsequent medieval medical writers from Constantinus, and,\nwhile it may not have originated with him, is apparently of Christian\nrather than Greek or Mohammedan origin. If the epileptic has parents\nliving, they are to take him to church on the day of the four seasons\nand have him hear mass on the sixth day and also on Saturday. When he\ncomes again on Sunday the priest is to write down the passage in the\nGospel where it says, \u201cThis kind is not cast out save by fasting and\nprayer.\u201d Presumably the epileptic is to wear this writing, in which\ncase a sure cure is promised, \u201cbe he epileptic or lunatic or demoniac.\u201d\nBut it is added that the charm will not work in the case of persons\nborn of incestuous marriages.[3003]\n\n[Sidenote: Superstition comparatively rare in Constantinus.]\n\nBut as a rule incantations and superstitious ceremony are comparatively\nrare in the works of Constantinus, which contain little to justify\nthe charge of magic said to have been made against him in Africa or\nthe charge of superstition made against the Arabic medicine which his\nwritings so largely reflect. Also these superstitious passages seem\nlimited to the treatment of certain ailments of a mysterious character\nlike epilepsy and insanity, which, Constantinus says, the populace\ncall _divinatio_ and account for by possession by demons.[3004] It is\nagainst epilepsy and phantasy that it is recommended to give a child to\nswallow before it has been weaned the brains of a goat drawn through a\ngolden ring. And it is for epilepsy that we find such suspensions as\nhairs from an entirely white dog or the small red stones in swallows\u2019\ngizzards, from which they must have been removed at midday. When\nConstantinus is treating of eye and ear troubles, or even of paralysis\nof the tongue and toothache, use of amulets is infrequent and there\nis only an occasional suggestion of marvelous virtue. Gout is treated\nwith unguents and recipes but without the superstitious ligatures\noften found in medieval works of medicine.[3005] Parts of animals are\nemployed a good deal: thus if you anoint the entire body with lion fat,\nyou will have no fear of serpents, and binding on the head the fresh\nlung of an ox is good for frenzy.[3006] But Constantinus more often\nexplains the action of things in nature from their four qualities of\nhot, cold, moist, and dry, than he does by assuming the existence of\noccult virtues.\n\n[Sidenote: And of Greek rather than Arabic origin.]\n\nIt is also to be noted that those passages where Constantinus\u2019 medicine\nborders most closely upon magic are apt to be borrowed from, or at\nleast credited to, Galen and Dioscorides. Neither Constantinus nor his\nArabic authorities introduced most of these superstitious elements into\nmedicine. In his work on degrees Constantinus repeats Galen\u2019s story of\nthe boy who fell into an epileptic fit whenever the suspended peony was\nremoved from his neck.[3007] In the _Viaticum_[3008] he ascribes the\nsuspension of a white dog\u2019s hairs and the use of various other parts of\nanimals for epileptics to Dioscorides, but they do not seem to be found\nin that author\u2019s extant works. Water in which blacksmiths have quenched\ntheir irons is another remedy prescribed for various disorders upon the\nauthority of Dioscorides and Galen.[3009] Theriac and _terra sigillata_\nare of course not forgotten. That there is a magnetic mountain on the\nshore of the Indian Ocean which draws all the iron nails out of passing\nships, and that the magnet extracts arrows from wounds is stated on the\nauthority of the _Lapidary of Aristotle_, a spurious work. Constantinus\nadds that Rufus says that the magnet comforts those afflicted with\nmelancholy and removes their fears and suspicions.[3010] However, it\nis without citation of other authors that Constantinus states that the\nplant _agnus castus_ will mortify lust if it is merely suspended over\nthe sleeper.[3011]\n\n[Sidenote: Some signs of astrology and alchemy.]\n\nThere is not a great deal of astrological medicine in the works of\nConstantinus Africanus. There are some allusions to the moon and\ndog-days,[3012] Galen being twice cited to the effect that epilepsy\nin a waxing moon is a very moist disease, while in a waning moon it\nis very cold. In a chapter of the _Pantegni_[3013] the relation of\ncritical days to the course of the moon and also to the nature of\nnumber is discussed. In another passage of the same work[3014] we\nread that if other remedies fail in the case of a patient who cannot\nhold his water while in bed, he should eat the bladder of a river\nfish for eight days while the moon is waxing and waning and he will\nbe freed from the complaint. But Hippocrates testifies that in old\nmen the ailment is incurable. But the principal astrological passage\nthat I have found in the works of Constantinus is that in _De humana\nnatura_[3015] where he traces the formation of the child in the womb\nand the influence of the planets upon the successive months of the\nprocess, and explains why children born in the seventh or ninth month\nlive while those born in the eighth month die. This passage was cited\nby Vincent of Beauvais in his _Speculum naturale_.[3016] Belief in\nalchemy is suggested when Constantinus repeats the assertion of some\nbook on stones that lead would be silver except for its smell, its\nsoftness, and its inability to endure fire.[3017]\n\n[Sidenote: Constantinus and the School of Salerno.]\n\nThe relation of Constantinus Africanus to the School of Salerno has\nbeen the subject of much dispute and of divergent views. Some have\nheld that Salerno\u2019s medical importance practically began with him;\nothers have tried to maintain for Salernitan medicine a Neo-Latin\ncharacter quite distinct from Constantinus\u2019 introduction of Arabic\ninfluence. From the fact that Constantinus passed from Salerno to\nMonte Cassino, where most, if not all, of his writing seems to have\nbeen done, it has been assumed that there was an intimate connection\nbetween the monks and the rise of a medical school at Salerno. On the\nother hand, Renzi and Rashdall have ridiculed the notion, declaring\nthe distance and difficulty of communication between the two places\nto be an insurmountable difficulty. It must be remembered, however,\nthat Constantinus himself both attended the archbishop of Salerno in\na case of stomach trouble and sent a treatise on the subject to him\nafterwards. A strong personal influence by him upon the practice and\nstill more upon the literature of Salernitan medicine is therefore\nnot precluded, though his stay at Salerno may have been brief and his\nliterary labor performed entirely at the monastery. In any case a\nMaster John Afflacius, who is associated with other Salernitan writers\nin a compilation from their works, was a disciple of Constantinus and,\nas we are about to see, perhaps the author of some of the treatises\nwhich have been published under Constantinus\u2019 name. It certainly would\nseem that Constantinus and his disciple have as good a right to be\ncalled Salernitan as most of the authors included in Renzi\u2019s collection.\n\n[Sidenote: _Liber aureus_ and John Afflacius.]\n\nIn a medical manuscript which Henschel discovered at Breslau in\n1837[3018] and which he regarded as a composition of the School of\nSalerno and dated in the twelfth century, he found in the case of\ntwo works compiled from various authors[3019] that the passages\nascribed to a Master John Afflacius, who was described as \u201ca disciple\nof Constantinus,\u201d[3020] were identical with passages in the _Liber\naureus_ or _De remediorum et aegritudinum cognitione_ published as a\nwork of Constantinus in the Basel edition of 1536. He also identified\na _Liber urinarum_ attributed to the same John Afflacius, disciple of\nConstantinus, in the Breslau manuscript with the _De urinis_ which\nfollows the _Liber aureus_ in the printed edition of Constantinus\u2019\nworks. Thus either the pupil appropriated or completed and published\nthe work of his master, or Constantinus had the same good fortune in\nhaving his own name attached to the compositions of his pupil[3021] as\nin the case of the writings of his Arabic predecessors.\n\n[Sidenote: Afflacius more superstitious than his master.]\n\nIt may be further noted that the disciple seems to have been more\nsuperstitious than the master, for in one of the passages ascribed\nto Afflacius in the aforesaid compilation, after the correspondence\nwith the _Liber aureus_ has ceased, the text goes on to prescribe the\nsuspension of goat\u2019s horn over one\u2019s head as a soporific and gives\nthe following \u201cprognostic of life or death.\u201d Smear the forehead of\nthe patient from ear to ear with _musam eneam_. \u201cIf he sleeps, he\nwill live; but if not, he will die; and this has been tested in acute\nfevers.\u201d Another method is to try if the patient\u2019s urine will mix with\nthe milk of a woman who is suckling a male child. If it will, he will\nlive. Another procedure to induce sleep is then given, which consists\nin reading the first verse of the Gospel of John nine times over the\npatient\u2019s head, placing beneath his head a missal or psalter and the\nnames of the seven sleepers written on a scroll. This is not the first\ninstance of such Christian magic that we have encountered in connection\nwith the School of Salerno and we begin to suspect that it was rather\ncharacteristic. At any rate it was not uncommon in medieval medicine in\ngeneral and was almost certainly introduced before Innocent III who in\n1215 forbade ordeals and who frowned on other superstitious practices.\nProbably such Christian magic dates from a period before Arabic\ninfluence began to be felt. Thus again we have reason to doubt whether\nearly medieval medicine or Salernitan medicine was less superstitious\nthan Arabic medicine or than medieval medicine after the introduction\nof Arabic medicine. At least Constantinus Africanus who represents the\nintroduction of translations from the Arabic is comparatively free from\nsuperstition.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII\n\n TREATISES ON THE ARTS BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF ARABIC ALCHEMY\n\n Latin treatises on the arts and colors\u2014Progress of the\n arts even during the early middle ages\u2014Scantiness of the\n sources\u2014Character of Arabic alchemy\u2014Different character of our\n Latin treatises\u2014_Compositiones ad tingenda_\u2014_Mappe Clavicula_\u2014Some\n of its recipes\u2014Question of symbolic nomenclature\u2014Magical procedure\n with goats: in _Mappe Clavicula_\u2014Similar passages in Heraclius\u2014And\n Theophilus\u2014A magic figure\u2014Use of an incantation in tenth century\n alchemy\u2014Experimental character of the work of Theophilus\u2014How to make\n Spanish gold\u2014The question of symbolic terminology again\u2014Alchemy in the\n eleventh century\u2014St. Dunstan and alchemy and magic\u2014Introduction of\n Arabic alchemy in the twelfth century.\n\n \u201c ... _campum latissimum diversarum artium perscrutari_....\u201d\n \u2014_Theophilus, Schedula, I, Praefatio._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Latin treatises on the arts and colors.]\n\nWe come to the consideration of several treatises dealing with colors\nand the arts and dating from about the eighth to the twelfth centuries\nand probably in part of earlier origin. These are the _Compositiones ad\ntingenda_ in a manuscript of the eighth or ninth century, the _Mappe\nclavicula_ found in part in a tenth century manuscript and more fully\nin one of the twelfth century, the poem of Heraclius on _The colors\nand arts of the Romans_, and the remarkable treatise of Theophilus\n_On diverse arts_ in three books.[3022] The oldest known manuscripts\nof Theophilus are of the twelfth century and he has been dated at the\nbeginning of that century or end of the eleventh, and Heraclius, from\nwhom he takes a number of his chapters, still earlier. But it scarcely\nseems that some of Theophilus\u2019 descriptions of ecclesiastical art\nwould have been written before the twelfth century. Mrs. Merrifield\nregarded only the first two metrical books of _The colors and arts of\nthe Romans_ as the work of Heraclius, and the third book in prose as\na later addition of the twelfth or thirteenth century and probably\nwritten by a Frenchman, whereas she believed that Heraclius wrote in\nsouthern Italy under Byzantine influence.[3023] His poem sounds to\nme like an attempt to imitate Lucretius, while one also is inclined\nto associate it with the perhaps nearly contemporary poems in which\nthe so-called Macer and Marbod recounted in verse form some of the\nproperties of herbs and stones which they had learned from ancient\nwriters.\n\n[Sidenote: Progress of the arts even during the early middle ages.]\n\nBerthelot regarded these treatises on the arts as proof that the\nknowledge of industrial and alchemical processes continued unbroken\neven in western Europe from Egypt to the middle ages, although he\nheld that the theories of transmutation and the like reached the west\nonly in the twelfth century through the Arabs.[3024] Moreover, there\nis progress in the technical processes just as there was progress in\nRomanesque and Gothic art. New items and recipes appear in the lists.\nEven in the declining Roman Empire and earliest middle age we have\nevidence of new discoveries. The artificial fabrication of cinnabar\nbecomes known at some time after Dioscorides and Pliny and before the\neighth century.[3025] The hydrostatic balance is described not only in\nthe _Mappe clavicula_ but in the _Carmen de ponderibus_ of Priscian\nor of Q. Remnius Fannius Palaemo of the fourth or fifth century A.\nD.[3026] Heraclius speaks more than once in his poem with admiration\nof the works of art of the Roman \u201ckings\u201d and people, and asks, \u201cWho\nnow is capable of investigating these arts, is able to reveal to us\nwhat those potent artificers of immense intellect discovered for\nthemselves?\u201d[3027] However, his aim is to resurrect these arts; he\nassures the reader that he writes nothing which he has not first\nproved himself;[3028] and he tells in particular how he discovered\nby close scrutiny of a piece of Roman glass that there was gold-leaf\nplaced between two layers of glass, a work which he successfully\nimitated.[3029] On the other hand, lead glazing, according to Alexandre\nBrongniart, director of the S\u00e8vres manufactory, is not found in\nEuropean pottery before the twelfth century, when it was applied in\nPesaro about 1100 and is found on pottery in a tomb at Jumi\u00e8ges of\nabout 1120.[3030]\n\n[Sidenote: Scantiness of the sources.]\n\nDuring the early medieval centuries the Byzantine Empire, Syria\nand Egypt after they were conquered by the Arabs, the busy streets\nof Bagdad and Cordova, and Persia undoubtedly produced a far more\nflourishing activity in the fine arts and the industrial arts than\nwas the case in backward western Christian Europe. Yet the surviving\nevidence for such activity is disappointing, and seems limited to some\nnotices and allusions in Arabian and Jewish travelers and historians,\nand to the dust-heaps of ruined cities like Fostat, Rai, and Rakka. As\nthe finest early specimens of Byzantine mosaics are preserved in Italy\nat Ravenna, so our Latin treatises concerning the arts are perhaps the\nbest extant for the early medieval period up to the twelfth century.\n\n[Sidenote: Character of Arabic alchemy.]\n\nA number of treatises on alchemy in Arabic have reached us but they,\nlike the Byzantine, chiefly continue the fantastic mysticism and\nobscurity, the astrology and magic, of the ancient Greek alchemists.\nThus in the _Book of Crates_ we have a virgin priestess of the temple\nof Serapis at Alexandria, and the snake Ouroburos, also a vision of\nthe seven heavens of the planets. The _Book of Alhabib_ invokes Hermes\nTrismegistus and says that the sages have not revealed the secret\nof transmutation for fear of the anger of the demons. The _Book of\nOstanes_, in which Andalusia is mentioned, has eighty-four different\nnames for the philosopher\u2019s stone, and a fantastic dream concerning\nseven doors and three inscriptions in Egyptian, concerning the Persian\nMagi, and a citation from an Indian sage concerning the healing virtues\nof the urine of a white elephant. The _Book of Like Weights_ of Geber\nstates that the sage can discern the mixture of the four elements in\nanimals, plants, and stones by astrology and many other signs involving\nvaried superstition. His _Book of Sympathy_ again emphasizes the seven\nplanets as the key to alchemy and has much about the spirit in matter.\nHis _Book on Quicksilver_, although it promises clarity, is the most\nmystic and incomprehensible of all. In it we read of raising the dead\nand of use of such liquids as \u201ca divine water\u201d and the milk of an\nuncorrupted virgin.[3031]\n\n[Sidenote: Different character of our Latin treatises.]\n\nOur Latin treatises are as free from mysticism and obscurity, from\ndreams and visions, as they are from theoretical discussion. They are\ncollections of recipes and directions which are supposed at least to be\npractical and which are written in a simple and straightforward style.\nThey are not, however, taken together, by any means entirely free\nfrom astrological directions or belief in occult virtue or yet other\nsuperstition, and they include recipes for making gold. Of this there\nis least in the first treatise we have to consider.\n\n[Sidenote: _Compositiones ad tingenda._]\n\nThe _Compositiones ad tingenda_,[3032] a treatise or collection of\nnotes and recipes preserved in a manuscript dating from the time of\nCharlemagne, throws some light on the technical processes preserved in\nthe Latin west in the early middle ages and on the amount of knowledge\nof natural phenomena preserved in connection with the arts,\u2014applied\nscience in other words. It tells how to color glass and make mosaics,\nand describes a glass furnace; how to dye skins and make parchment; how\nto make gold-leaf, gold-thread, silver-leaf and tin-leaf; how to give\ncopper the color of gold; it gives various directions and preparations\nfor painting and gilding; and a description of various minerals and\nherbs employed in the above processes. Much is repeated that is found\nalready in Pliny and Dioscorides, or in Aristotle and the Greek\nalchemists. But several things are mentioned, at least so far as we\nknow, for the first time, although Berthelot believed that the compiler\nof the _Compositiones ad tingenda_ had copied them from earlier works,\nvery probably Byzantine or late Roman, and not invented them himself.\nWe find here the first mention of vitriol and of \u201cbronze,\u201d\u2014a word\napparently derived from Brundisium. _Amor aquae_ is used for the first\ntime for the scum formed on waters containing iron salts and other\nmetals, and we also meet the first instance of the preparation of\ncinnabar by means of sulphur and mercury. The work contains very little\nsuperstition with the exception of one passage which Berthelot has\nalready noted.[3033] Once a stone is spoken of as having solar virtue;\nlead is distinguished as masculine and feminine; the gall of a tortoise\nis used in a composition for writing golden letters, and pig\u2019s blood\nis employed in another connection. But these are trifling signs of\noccult science.\n\n[Sidenote: _Mappe Clavicula._]\n\nMore alchemistic in character is the _Mappe Clavicula_,[3034] which,\nin its fuller twelfth century form, embodies the _Compositiones ad\ntingenda_ in a different order,[3035] and adds about twice as many\nmore recipes for making gold, making colors, writing with gold, glues\nand various other matters, including building directions. Berthelot\nregarded two items instructing how to make images of the gods as\nsigns of an ancient pagan origin for the work.[3036] One of these\nitems occurs in the twelfth century text, the other in the tenth\ncentury table of contents. On the other hand Berthelot believed that\nthe twelfth century version contained the oldest directions for the\ndistillation of alcohol.[3037] The _Mappe Clavicula_ adds a good deal\nthat is of a superstitious character to the _Compositiones ad tingenda_\nwhich it includes, and at the same time lays considerable stress upon\nexperimental method.\n\n[Sidenote: Some of its recipes.]\n\nIt opens with a recipe \u201cfor making the best gold,\u201d the first of a long\nseries. One of the ingredients in this case is \u201ca bit of moon-earth,\nwhich the Greeks call _Affroselinum_.\u201d The third recipe advises one to\nexperiment at first with only a little of the compound in question,\nuntil one learns the process more thoroughly.[3038] The ingredients\nfor gold-making in the sixth recipe include the gall of a goat and of\na bull, and saffron from Lycia or Arabia, which is to be pounded in a\nTheban mortar in the sun in dog-days. At the close of the fourteenth\nrecipe, into which the gall of a bull again enters we have one of the\ninjunctions to secrecy so dear to the alchemist: \u201cHide the sacred\nsecret which should be transmitted to no one, nor give to anyone the\nprophetic.\u201d[3039] It is also implied that alchemy is a religious or\ndivine art in the twentieth recipe where it is said that operators\nshould concede all things to divine works. But such mystic allusions\nare infrequent as well as brief. In the same twentieth item gold is\nsupposed to be made from a mixture of iron rust, magnet, foreign alum,\nmyrrh, gold, and wine. It is also stated that those who will not credit\nthe great utility that there is in humors are those who do not make\ndemonstration for themselves, another instance of the experimental\ncharacter of the work. The forty-first recipe states that gold may be\ndissolved in order to write with it by dipping it in the blood of an\nIndian dragon, placing it in a glass vessel, and surrounding it with\ncoals. In the sixty-ninth item the blood of a dragon or of a cock is\nmixed with urine and the stone _celidonius_. The gall of a bull and the\nblood of a pig are used again in recipes sixty-eight and one hundred\nand twenty-eight.\n\n[Sidenote: Question of symbolic nomenclature.]\n\nIt has sometimes been contended, chiefly by persons who did not\nrealize how universal was the ascription of great virtue to the parts\nof animals in ancient and medieval science and their use as remedies\nin the medicine of the same periods, that they are not to be taken\nliterally in alchemical recipes but are to be understood symbolically\nand are cryptic designations for common mineral substances. Thus\nBerthelot cites a passage from the Latin _De anima_, ascribed to\nAvicenna, which says, \u201cI am going to tell you a secret: the eye of\na man or bull or cow or deer signifies mercury,\u201d and so on.[3040]\nBut despite what Berthelot goes on to say about the \u201cold prophetic\nnomenclature\u201d of the Egyptians, I am inclined to think that such\nsymbolism is mainly a refinement of later alchemists, and that\noriginally most such expressions were intended literally. Certainly\nit would be impossible to explain all the medicinal use of parts of\nanimals in Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_ as either symbolic or derived from\nthe Egyptian priests. Like the suggestion that Roger Bacon wrote in\ncipher, the symbolic nomenclature theory is based on the assumption\nthat the men of old concealed great secrets under an appearance of\nerror. And where such cryptograms and symbols were employed, it was\nalmost invariably done, we may be sure, with the object of impressing\nthe reader with an exaggerated notion of the importance of what was\nwritten rather than because the writer really had any great discovery\nthat he wished to conceal. That symbolic language was employed by\nalchemists, especially in the latest middle age and early modern\ncenturies, is not to be questioned. The use of the names of the planets\nfor the corresponding metals is a familiar example. But most such\nsymbolic nomenclature is equally obvious, while there is no reason\nfor not taking the use of parts of animals literally. Indeed, in\nmany passages it must be so taken, as in a later item of the _Mappe\nClavicula_[3041] which has no concern with alchemy and where in order\nto poison an arrow for use in battle, we are instructed to dip it in\nthe sweat from the right side of a horse between the hip-bones. The\nfollowing experiments with goats also illustrate the great value set\nupon animal fluids and substances.\n\n[Sidenote: Magical procedure with goats in the _Mappe Clavicula_.]\n\nWe are reminded of the directions given by Marcellus Empiricus for the\npreparation of goat\u2019s blood by a recipe for making figures of crystal\nwhich occurs near the close of the _Mappe Clavicida_.[3042] A he-goat\nwhich has never indulged in sexual intercourse is to be shut up in a\ncask for three days until he has completely digested everything that\nhe had in his belly. He is then to be fed on ivy for four days, at the\nend of which time he is to be slain and his blood mixed with his urine\nwhich is now collected from the cask. By soaking the crystal overnight\nin this mixture it can be moulded or carved at will. This experiment is\nimmediately preceded by a somewhat similar procedure for cutting glass\nwith steel.[3043] The glass is to be softened and the steel is to be\ntempered by placing them either in the milk of a Saracen she-goat, who\nhas been fed upon ivy and milked by scratching her udders with nettles,\nor in the lotion of a small girl of ruddy complexion, which must be\ntaken before sunrise.\n\n[Sidenote: Similar passages in Heraclius.]\n\nVery similar passages are found in the works of Heraclius and\nTheophilus, the former of whom gives the following directions for glass\nengraving: \u201cOh! all you artists who wish to engrave glass correctly,\nnow I will show you just as I myself have proven. I sought the fat\nworms which the plow turns up from the earth, and the useful art in\nsuch matters bade me at the same time seek vinegar and the hot blood of\na huge he-goat, which I had taken pains to tie up under cover and to\nfeed on strong ivy for a while. Next I mixed the worms and vinegar with\nthe warm blood and anointed all the bright shining phial. This done, I\ntried to engrave the glass with the hard stone called pyrites.\u201d[3044]\nIn another passage Heraclius recommends the use of the urine and blood\nof a goat in engraving gems,[3045] and he also states that the blood of\na goat makes crystal easier to carve.[3046]\n\n[Sidenote: And Theophilus.]\n\nTheophilus states that poets and artificers have greatly cherished\nthe ivy, \u201cbecause they recognized the occult powers which it contains\nwithin itself.\u201d[3047] He also affirms that the blood of a goat makes\ncrystal easier to carve, but he recommends the blood of a living\ngoat two or three years old and repeated insertion of the crystal\nin an incision between the animal\u2019s breast and abdomen.[3048] He\nalso recommends a somewhat similar procedure to that of the _Mappe\nClavicula_ with a goat and a cask.[3049] In this case the goat should\nbe three years old, and after being bound for three days without food\nshould be fed for two days on nothing but fern. The following night he\nshould be shut up in a cask with holes in the bottom through which his\nurine can be collected in another vessel for two or three nights, when\nthe goat may be released and the urine employed to temper iron tools.\nOr the urine of a small red-headed boy may be employed, as it is better\nfor tempering than plain water. Indeed, both Theophilus and Heraclius\nmake much use of parts of animals in the arts: various animals\u2019 teeth\nto shine and polish things with, horse dung mixed with clay, skins and\nbladders, saliva and ear-wax to polish niello, and so forth.\n\n[Sidenote: A magic figure.]\n\nReturning to the _Mappe Clavicula_ we note the employment of a magic\nfigure called _arragab_, which Berthelot thinks is a small lead\nimage.[3050] By means of it the flow of a spring may be stopped; a cup\nmay be made either to retain or to empty its contents; if the cows\ndrink first from the trough, there will be enough water for both the\ncows and the horses, but if the horses drink first, there will not be\nenough for either. The same figure enables one to fill a pitcher from\na cask without diminishing the amount of liquid in the cask, or to\nconstruct a lamp which will produce phantoms. It also makes soldiers\nleave their camp without their spears and yet return with them. After\nthis flight into the realm of magic we come back to a more plausibly\nphysical basis for marvels in a description of four revolving hoops or\ncircles within which a vessel may be revolved in any direction without\nspilling its contents.[3051]\n\n[Sidenote: Use of an incantation in tenth century alchemy.]\n\nThe passages which we have just noted in the _Mappe Clavicula_ cannot\nbe surely traced back earlier than the twelfth century version of it\nand do not appear in the table of contents which is preserved in the\ntenth century Schlestadt manuscript and which covers only a portion of\nthe chapters of the twelfth century manuscript, but also some other\nchapters which are not extant. But that magic was not entirely absent\nfrom the earlier version to which this table of contents seems to apply\nis evidenced by the fact that one of the chapter headings dealing with\nthe fabrication of gold mentions a prayer or incantation to be recited\nduring the process.[3052]\n\n[Sidenote: Experimental character of the work of Theophilus.]\n\nThe great importance of the work of Theophilus in the history of art\nis too generally recognized to need elaboration here. Our purpose is\nrather to point out that in it information of great value is found\nside by side with a considerable amount of misguided natural theory\nand magical ceremony. The stress laid by Theophilus upon personal\nobservation, experience, and experimental method should not, however,\npass unnoticed. He has scrutinized the works of art in the church of\nSt. Sophia one by one \u201cwith diligent experience,\u201d has tested everything\nby eye and hand, has as a \u201ccurious explorer\u201d made all sorts of\nexperiments, and appears to represent transparent stained glass as his\nown discovery or idea.[3053] Nor is he the only experimenter; he also\nspeaks of \u201cmodern workmen\u201d who deceive many incautious persons by their\nimitation of the appearance of most precious Arabian gold which \u201cis\nfrequently found employed in the most ancient vases.\u201d[3054]\n\n[Sidenote: How to make Spanish gold.]\n\nTheophilus, however, believes that other metals can really be\ntransmuted into gold, and we may repeat his amusing account of how\nSpanish gold \u201cis made from red copper and powdered basilisk and human\nblood and vinegar.\u201d \u201cFor the Gentiles, whose skill in this art is well\nknown, create basilisks in this wise. They have an underground chamber\ncompletely walled in on all sides with stone, and with two windows so\nsmall as scarcely to admit any light. In this they put two cocks of\ntwelve or fifteen years and give them plenty of food. These, when they\nhave grown fat, from the heat of their fat have commerce together and\nlay eggs. As soon as the eggs are laid the cocks are ejected and toads\nare put in to sit on the eggs and are fed upon bread. When the eggs are\nhatched chicks come forth who look like young roosters, but after seven\ndays they grow serpents\u2019 tails and would straightway burrow into the\nground, were the chamber not paved with stone. Guarding against this,\ntheir masters have round brazen vessels of great amplitude, perforated\non all sides, with narrow mouths, in which they put the chicks and\nclose the mouths with copper covers and bury them underground, and the\nchicks are nourished for six months by the subtle earth which enters\nthrough the perforations. After this they uncover them and apply a\nstrong fire until the beasts within are totally consumed. When this\nis over and it has cooled off, they remove and carefully pulverize\nthem, adding a third part of the blood of a ruddy man, which blood\nis dried and powdered. Having compounded these two they temper them\nwith strong vinegar in a clean vessel; then they take very thin plates\nof the purest red copper and spread this mixture over them on both\nsides and place them in the fire. And when they grow white hot, they\ntake them out and quench and wash them in the same mixture, and this\nprocess they repeat until the mixture has eaten through the copper, and\nso obtain the weight and color of gold. This gold is suited for all\noperations.\u201d[3055]\n\n[Sidenote: The question of symbolic terminology again.]\n\nMr. Hendrie held that Theophilus was here describing in symbolic\nlanguage a process \u201cfor procuring pure gold by the means of the mineral\nacids;\u201d and that \u201cthe toads of Theophilus which hatch the eggs are\nprobably fragments of the mineral salt, nitrate of potash; ... the\nblood of a red man ... probably a nitrate of ammonia; fine earth, a\nmuriate of soda (common salt); the cocks, the sulphates of copper and\niron; the eggs, gold ore; the hatched chickens, which require a stone\npavement, sulphuric acid produced by burning these in a stone vessel,\ncollecting the fumes.... The elements of nitro-muriatic acid are all\nhere, the solvent for gold.\u201d[3056] Mr. Hendrie leaves, however, a\nnumber of details unexplained and he admits that \u201cUnfortunately each\nchemist appears to have varied the symbols in use.\u201d Certainly one\nwould have to vary them in almost every case to make any sense out of\nsuch procedures as this of Theophilus. On the other hand, there is\nnothing very surprising in his procedure taken literally to one who\nis acquainted with the beliefs of ancient and medieval science and\nmagic. And certainly Shakespeare\u2019s line concerning the precious jewel\nin the toad\u2019s head, which Hendrie quotes in this connection, is much\nmore likely to be meant literally than to be the symbolic \u201cjargon of\nthe alchemist.\u201d Later we shall hear again from Alexander Neckam, in a\npassage which has no connection with alchemy, of the basilisk hatched\nby a toad from an egg laid by a cock, and we shall hear from Albertus\nMagnus of an experiment in which a toad\u2019s eye was proved superior in\nvirtue to an emerald.\n\n[Sidenote: Alchemy in the eleventh century.]\n\nThe treatises which we have been considering appear, at least for the\nmost part, to antedate the Latin translations of works of alchemy\nfrom the Arabic, although it is possible that, just as the first\ntranslations of mathematical and astronomical works from the Arabic go\nback to the tenth century at least, so the reception of Arabic alchemy\nmay have begun in a small way before the twelfth century. At any rate\nwe find that in the eleventh century not only were Michael Psellus and\nother Byzantine scholars spreading the doctrines of alchemy,[3057] but\na scholium to Adam of Bremen records the presence at the court of\nBishop Adalbert of Bremen of an alchemist in the person of a baptized\nJew.[3058]\n\n[Sidenote: St. Dunstan and alchemy and magic.]\n\nTo St. Dunstan, the famous abbot of Glastonbury, archbishop of\nCanterbury, and statesman of the tenth century (924 or 925 to 988), is\nattributed a treatise on the philosopher\u2019s stone contained in a Corpus\nChristi manuscript of the fifteenth century at Oxford and printed at\nCassel in 1649. No genuine works by him seem to be extant, however, but\nit is interesting to note that along with his reputation for learning\nand mechanical skill went the association of his name with magic. In\nhis studious youth he was accused of magic, driven from court, and\nthrown into a muddy pond. His contemporary biographer also narrates how\nthe devil appeared to him in various animal and other terrifying forms.\nHis favorite studies were mathematics and music, and he was said to own\na magic harp which played while hanging by itself on the wall.[3059]\n\n[Sidenote: Introduction of Arabic alchemy in the twelfth century.]\n\nBerthelot has associated the introduction of Arabic alchemy into\nChristian western Europe with the Latin translation by Robert of\nChester of _The Book of Morienus_, but incorrectly dated it in 1182\nA.\u202fD.,[3060] whereas the mention of that date in the manuscripts has\nreference to the Spanish era and denotes the year 1144 A.\u202fD.[3061]\nThe main reason for regarding Robert\u2019s translation as one of the\nearliest is that he remarks in his preface, \u201cWhat alchemy is and\nwhat is its composition, your Latin world does not yet know truly.\u201d\nOf the work translated by Robert we shall treat more fully in a\nlater chapter on _Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages_. Here we may\nfurther note the existence of a work of alchemy in another twelfth\ncentury manuscript.[3062] It is a brief work in four chapters and its\nsuperstitious character may be inferred from its opening instruction\nto \u201ctake four hundred hen\u2019s eggs laid in the month of March,\u201d and\nits citation of Artesius concerning divination by the reflection or\nrefraction of the sun\u2019s rays or moon-beams in liquids or a mirror.\nSince the treatise bears the title _Alchamia_, it is probably safe to\nassume that it represents Arabic influence.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIV\n\n MARBOD, BISHOP OF RENNES, 1035\u20141123\n\n Career of Marbod\u2014Relation of his _Liber lapidum_ to the prose\n _Evax_\u2014Problem of Marbod\u2019s sources\u2014Influence of the _Liber\n lapidum_\u2014Occult virtue of gems\u2014_Liber lapidum_ meant seriously\u2014_De\n fato et genesi_.\n\n \u201c_Nec dubium cuiquam debet falsumque videri\n Quin sua sit gemmis divinitus insita virtus;\n Ingens est herbis virtus data, maxima gemmis._\u201d\n \u2014_Marbod, Liber lapidum._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Career of Marbod.]\n\nOf medieval Latin Lapidaries the earliest and what also seems to have\nbeen the classic on the subject of the marvelous properties of stones\nis the _Liber lapidum seu de gemmis_ by Marbod, bishop of Rennes,[3063]\nwho lived from 1035 to 1123 and so had very likely completed this\nwork before the close of the eleventh century. Indeed one manuscript\nof it seems to date from that century[3064] and there are numerous\ntwelfth century manuscripts. These early manuscripts bear his name\nand the style is the same as in his other writings. Born in the\ncounty of Anjou, Marbod attended the church school there, became the\nschoolmaster himself from 1067 to 1081, during which time he probably\ncomposed the _Liber lapidum_, then served as archdeacon under three\nsuccessive bishops, and finally himself became a bishop in 1096. He\nattended church councils in 1103 and 1104 and died in September,\n1123, in an Angevin monastery, whose monks issued a eulogistic\nencyclical letter on that occasion, while two archdeacons celebrated\nhis integrity, learning, and eloquence in admiring verse. Marbod\u2019s own\nproductions are also in poetical form. It is interesting to note that\ndespite his early date he was eulogized not as a lone man of letters in\nan uncultured age but as \u201cthe king of orators, although at that time\nall Gaul resounded with varied studies.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: Relation of the _Liber lapidum_ to the prose _Evax_.]\n\nThe _Liber lapidum_ is a Latin poem of 734 hexameters describing sixty\nstones. In the opening lines Marbod writes:\n\n \u201cEvax, king of the Arabs, is said to have written to Nero,\n Who after Augustus ruled next in the city.[3065]\n How many the species of stones, what names, and what colors,\n From what regions they came, and how great the power of each one.\u201d\n\nMaking use of this worthy book, Marbod has decided to compose a\nbriefer account for himself and a few friends only, believing that he\nwho popularizes mysteries lessens their majesty. As a result of this\nopening line and the fact that in some manuscripts Marbod\u2019s own name\nis not given, his poem is sometimes listed in the catalogues as the\nwork of Evax.[3066] There is also, however, extant a work in Latin\nprose which opens, \u201cEvax, king of Arabia, to the emperor Tiberius\ngreeting.\u201d[3067] But as this prose work is not much longer than\nMarbod\u2019s poem, and seems to be known only from a single manuscript\nof the fourteenth century, it is doubtful if it is the work which he\nprofessed to abbreviate. This prose work is also ascribed to Amigeron\nor Damigeron,[3068] to whom we have already seen that the author of\n_Lithica_ was supposed to be indebted and whose name was regarded as\nthat of a famous magician. After alluding to the magnificent gifts\nwhich the emperor had sent to Evax by the centurion Lucinius Fronto\nand offering this book in return, the author of the prose version\nlists seven stones appropriate, not, strangely enough, to the seven\nplanets, but to seven of the signs of the zodiac.[3069] Fifty chapters\nare then devoted to as many stones, beginning with _Aetites_, which is\ntwenty-fifth in Marbod\u2019s list, and ending with _Sardo_, while _Sardius_\ncomes tenth in Marbod\u2019s poem. Marbod\u2019s own order, however, sometimes\nvaries in the manuscripts.[3070]\n\n[Sidenote: Problem of Marbod\u2019s sources.]\n\nKing, and Rose after him, asserted[3071] that despite Marbod\u2019s\nprofessed abridgement of a work which Evax was supposed to have\npresented to Tiberius, he drew largely from Isidore of Seville\u2019s\n_Etymologies_. Rose thought that some of the descriptions of stones\nwere from Solinus, the rest from Isidore, but that the account of their\nvirtues was from Evax. King also noted occasional extracts from the\nOrphic work, _Lithica_, which is not surprising in view of the fact\nthat both Evax and the _Lithica_ seem based on Damigeron. This question\nof sources and ultimate origins is, however, as usual of relatively\nlittle moment to our investigation. My own impression would be that in\nantiquity and the middle age there exists a sort of common fund of\ninformation and stock of beliefs concerning gems which naturally is\ndrawn upon and appears in every individual treatise upon them. But the\nnumber of gems discussed and the order in which they are considered\nor classified varies with each new author, and there is apt to be a\nsimilar variation in the number of statements made concerning any\nparticular stone and the way in which these are arranged. In fine, all\nancient and medieval accounts of the natures and virtues of stones bear\na general resemblance to one another which is more impressive than\nis the similarity between any two given accounts, and testify to a\nconsensus of opinion and to a common learned tradition concerning gems\nwhich is more significant than the possible borrowings of individual\nauthors from one another.\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of the _Liber lapidum_.]\n\nHowever, there seems to be little doubt that the poem of Marbod is\nitself an outstanding work among medieval accounts of precious stones,\nfirst because of the early date of its authorship, and second because\nof its late persistence and popularity, which is indicated by the\nfourteen editions that appeared after the invention of printing.[3072]\nIts convenient form perhaps accounts to a considerable extent for\nits popularity. At any rate the manuscripts of it are numerous, and\nit was much used by subsequent writers of the twelfth and thirteenth\ncenturies, although citations of _Lapidarius_ cannot always be assumed\nto refer to Marbod. But at least the notions concerning gems which we\nfind in his poem are a fair sample of what we should find in any Latin\ntreatment of the same subject for several centuries to come. It is\nfound also in a medieval French version.\n\n[Sidenote: Occult virtue of gems.]\n\nIt does not make much difference where we begin or what stones we\nselect from Marbod\u2019s list as examples, since the same sort of marvelous\npowers are ascribed to all of them. In his prologue Marbod describes\nthe occult virtues of gems as those \u201cwhose hidden cause gives manifest\neffects.\u201d No one should doubt them or think them false, \u201csince the\nvirtue in gems is divinely implanted. Enormous virtue is given to\nherbs, but the greatest to gems.\u201d\n\nAdamant, hard as it is, cracks when heated with goat\u2019s blood. It\ncounteracts the action of the magnet. It is used in the magic arts and\nmakes its bearer indomitable. It drives off nocturnal specters and idle\ndreams. It routs black venom, heals quarrels and contentions, cures the\ninsane, and repels fierce foes.\n\nAllectory, found inside cocks, slakes thirst. Milo overcame other\nathletes, and kings have won battles by its aid. It restores promptly\nthose who have been banished, enables orators to speak with a flow of\nlanguage, makes one welcome on every occasion, and endears a wife to\nher husband. It is advised to carry it concealed in the mouth.\n\nThe sapphire nourishes the body and preserves the limbs whole. Its\nbearer, who should be most chaste, cannot be harmed by fraud or envy\nand is unmoved by any terror. It leads those in bonds from prison.\nIt placates God and makes Him favorable to prayers. It is good for\npeace-making and reconciliation. It is preferred to other gems in\nhydromancy, since prophetic responses can be obtained by it. As for\nmedicinal qualities, it cools internal heat, checks perspiration,\npowdered and applied with milk it heals ulcers, cleanses the eyes,\nstops headache, and cures diseases of the tongue.\n\nGagates, worn as an amulet, benefits dropsy; diluted with water,\nit prevents loose teeth from falling out; fumigation with it is\ngood for epileptics and it is thought to be hostile to demons; it\nremedies indigestion and constipation and overcomes magical illusions\n(_praestigia_) and evil incantations. Also\n\n _Per suffumigium mulieri menstrua reddit_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Et solet, ut perhibent, deprehendere virginitatem.\n Praegnans potest aquam triduo qua mersus habetur\n Quo vexabatur partum cito libera fundit._\n\nGagates burns when washed with water; is extinguished by anointing it\nwith olive oil.\n\nThe magnet is especially used in the illusions of magic. The great\nDeendor is said to have first used it, realizing that there was no more\npotent force in magic, and after him the famous witch Circe employed\nit. Among the Medes experience revealed still further virtues of the\nstone. It is used to test a wife\u2019s chastity while she is sleeping; if\nshe is unchaste, she will fall out of bed when the gem is applied to\nher head. A burglar can commit theft unmolested by sprinkling it over\nhot coals and so driving away all the occupants of the house.\n\nIn the case of _Chelonitis_ Marbod\u2019s account is very similar to that\nin Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_,[3073] citing the Magi for the power of\ndivination it bestows when carried under the tongue at certain times\nof the moon, according to whose phases its power varies. Of the gems\nhitherto described only in the case of adamant and gagates was there\nany resemblance between Marbod and Pliny and there only partial.\n\nPliny also briefly states that the stone _diadochos_ resembles beryl,\nbut does not have Marbod\u2019s statements that it is employed in water\ndivination to show varied images of demons, \u201cnor is there other stone\nstronger to evoke shades.\u201d But if by chance it comes in contact with a\ncorpse, it loses its wonted force, since the stone is sacred and abhors\ndead bodies.[3074]\n\n[Sidenote: _Liber lapidum_ was meant to be taken seriously.]\n\nThe vast powers, not only medicinal and physical, but of divination\nand magic, over the mind and affections, miraculous and supernatural,\neven over God, as in the statement that the sapphire can be employed to\nsecure a more favorable answer to prayer, which Marbod assigns to gems\nwithout a sign of scruple or scepticism or disapproval on his part,\nhave so shocked some moderns that suggestions have been made, in order\nto explain away the acceptance of talismanic powers of gems to such a\ndegree by a Christian clergyman who became a bishop, that Marbod must\nhave composed his poem when quite young and lived to repent it, or\nthat he regarded it merely as a poetical flight and exercise, not as\nan exposition of scientific fact. But wherefore then was it not only\nwidely read in the literary twelfth century but also widely cited as an\nauthority in the scientific and equally Christian thirteenth century?\nNo; everyone else took it precisely as Marbod meant it, as a serious\nstatement of the marvelous powers which had been divinely implanted\nin gems. And why should not God be more easily reached through the\ninstrumentality of gems, since He had endowed them with their marvelous\nvirtues? Marbod affirms his own faith in the great virtues of gems not\nonly at the beginning but the close of his poem, stating that while\nsome have doubted the marvelous properties attributed to them, this has\nbeen due to the fact that so many imitation gems are made of glass,\nwhich deceive the unwary but of course lack the occult virtues of the\ngenuine stones. If the stones are genuine and duly consecrated, the\nmarvelous effects will without a doubt follow.\n\n[Sidenote: _De fato et genesi._]\n\nMarbod\u2019s belief in the almost boundless talismanic virtues of gems\nis thrown into the higher relief by the fact that in another of his\npoems he makes an attack upon genethlialogy or the prediction of the\nentire life of the individual from the constellations at his birth.\nIn _De fato et genesi_ he writes against \u201cthe common notion\u201d (_opinio\nvulgi_) that all things are ruled by fate, that the hour of nativity\ncontrols man\u2019s entire life, and the contention of the _mathematici_\nthat the seven planets control not only the external forces with which\nman comes in contact but also human character. He objects to such a\ndoctrine as that, when Venus and Mars appear in certain relations to\nthe sun, the babe born under that constellation will be destined to\ncommit incest and adultery in later life. He objects that such beliefs\ndestroy all the foundations of morality, law, and future reward or\npunishment; contends that there are certain races which never commit\nadultery or crime, yet have the same seven planets; and argues that\nsince Jews are all circumcised on the eighth day, they should all have\nthe same horoscope. These are familiar contentions, at least as old\nas Bardesanes. Marbod declares further that the astrological writer,\nFirmicus, employs \u201cinfirm arguments,\u201d and that his own horoscope,\ntaken according to Firmicus\u2019 methods and interpreted likewise, turned\nout to be false, \u201cas I proved when once I dabbled in that art.\u201d This\nis interesting as showing that Gerard of York[3075] was not the only\nbishop of the eleventh century who was acquainted with the work of\nJulius Firmicus Maternus, and that even opponents of astrology are apt\nto have once been dabblers in it. Marbod concludes his poem with this\nneat turn:\n\n \u201cI thought I ought to write these lines briefly against\n genethlialogy.\n Nevertheless, that I may not seem to repel fate and horoscope\n utterly,\n I assert that my fate is the Word of the supreme Father,\n By Whom should all things be ruled and all men confess;\n And I say that the computation of my constellation is innate in me\n And the liberty by which I can tend whither I will.\n Therefore, if my will shall be in conjunction with reason\n In the sign of the Balances with Christ regarding me,\n All things will turn out prosperously for me here and everywhere:\u2014\n This is the favorable horoscope of all Christ\u2019s followers.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL INDEX\n\nNames of men of learning will be found for the most part in the\nbibliographical index.\n\n\n Aaron, 357, 379, 464, 507\n\n Abacus, 698, 704\n\n Abbreviation, 135, 500, 624\n\n Abdomen, diseases of, 577\n\n Abimelech, 399\n\n Abortion, 61, 94\n\n Abraham the patriarch, astrology and science of 350, 353, 355, 411, 703;\n magic use of name of, 437, 449, 726\n\n Abraxas, 371, 379\n\n _Abrotonum_, an herb, 495\n\n Abscess, 93\n\n Abstinence from animal food, 295, 308, 314\n\n Academy, the, 268, 270, 602\n\n Accusation of magic against, Galen, 125, 165-7;\n alchemists, 194;\n Apuleius, 222, 232-40;\n Apollonius of Tyana, 246;\n the emperor Julian, 318;\n Jews, 337, 436-9;\n Christ and Christians, 337, 383, 395-6, 415, 424, 433, 436-9, 463,\n 465, 505;\n pagans, 415;\n philosophers, 416;\n heretics, 415, 424;\n Origen, 461;\n Priscillian, 380-1, 519-20;\n Libanius, 538;\n Bede, 635;\n Gerbert, 704-5;\n Constantinus Africanus, 744, 755;\n Dunstan, 773\n\n Achilles, ghost of, 264;\n master of, 597\n\n Aconite, 74, 171\n\n Acorn, 740\n\n Acoustics, 185\n\n Acron, 56\n\n Adalbert, bishop of Bremen, 773\n\n Adam, first man, 681\n\n Adamant, 81, 294, 636;\n swords of, 253, 258;\n breakable by goat\u2019s blood, 56, 85, 511, 588, 779;\n by lead, 657\n\n Adder, 279, 721\n\n Adonai, 365, 367, 451, 583, 726\n\n Adrianaion, 434\n\n Adultery, discovery of, 364, 644\n\n Advertising, 186\n\n Aeetes, 329\n\n Aegina, 86, 301\n\n Aelian, a consul, 262\n\n Aemilianus, 224\n\n Aeon, 363-4, 378, 383, 411\n\n Aerimancy or Aeromancy, 344, 629\n\n Aesculapius, shrine of, 283, 329, 379;\n and see other index\n\n _Aetites_, a gem, 257, 329, 330, 581, 777\n\n _Affroselinum_, 765\n\n Agate, 294, 721\n\n Agathodaemon, 173, 292, 379, 587, 661;\n and see other index\n\n Aglaides, 431\n\n Aglaonice, 203\n\n _Agnus castus_, an herb, 756\n\n _Agnus Dei_, 737\n\n Agricultural magic, 21, 70, 79-80, 93-4, 216, 219, 294, 604-5, 626\n\n Ague, 536\n\n Air, importance of pure, 142, 151;\n pressure of, 188;\n experiments with, 190-2;\n and continuity of universe, 206;\n star in, 478\n\n Albicerius, 518\n\n Alchemy, Egyptian, 12-3;\n Greek, 59, 131, 193-200, 320, 544-5, 764;\n Pliny, 81, 193;\n Arabic and Latin, chap. xxxiii, 368, 398, 649, 663-4, 669-70, 697,\n 757, 773\n\n Alcmaeon, 324\n\n Alcohol, 468, 765\n\n Alcoholism, 253\n\n Alexander the Great, chap. xxiv, 186, 496, 602;\n and see other index\n\n Alexander of Abonutichus, 277-8\n\n Alexander V, pope, 106\n\n Alexandria, as a center of ancient learning, 27, 39, 48, 105, 109, 123,\n 145, 187, 224, 291, 318, 348, 449, 541, 552, 763;\n dissection at, 147;\n measures of, 144;\n relations with India, 245;\n in the pseudo-Clementine _Homilies_, 404, 408\n\n Alexandrina, golden, 739\n\n Alexandrinus Olympius, 300\n\n Alive, taken from, 580, 591;\n burned, see Crab\n\n Allectory, a gem, 779\n\n Allegory and allegorical interpretation, in alchemy, 195-8;\n of the Bible, 350, 479, 484, 633;\n in zoology, 396, 500, 502;\n miscellaneous, 545, 626;\n and see Symbolism\n\n Almanac, 318\n\n Almond, 78\n\n Aloaeus, see Eloeus\n\n Alphabet in magic and divination, 197, 370, 380, 592, 664, 711;\n and see Vowel\n\n Alphabetical order, 166, 176, 606, 610\n\n Alpheus, river, 102\n\n Altar, 80, 239, 295, 378\n\n Alum, 765\n\n Amazons, 114, 564, 603\n\n Ambassador, see Embassy\n\n Amber, 49, 213\n\n American Indians, 16-17\n\n _Amiantus_, a gem, 81, 213\n\n Ammon, the god, 546, 553, 561-2\n\n Ammon (or, Hammon), King of Egypt, 291\n\n Ammonia, 571\n\n Amnael, an angel, 195\n\n _Amor aquae_, 764\n\n Amulet, Egyptian, 10;\n in Pliny, 70, 77, 81, 85, 87, 89, 92;\n in Galen, 166, 172-3, 176;\n in Plutarch, 204, 294;\n Gnostic, 380;\n Aristotle represented as an adept in, 563;\n post-classical and early medieval medicine, 572, 580, 755;\n Arabic, 655-6;\n and see Ligatures and suspensions\n\n Amusements, ancient, 137, 486\n\n Anaesthetics, 142, 626\n\n Anastasius, Pope, 461\n\n Anatomy, of Galen, 145-51;\n Empirics hostile to, 157;\n of Rasis, 668\n\n Andrew, St., legend of, 435\n\n Andronicus, the prefect, 542\n\n Anemone, 65\n\n Angel, see Spirit\n\n Angitia, 329\n\n Anglo-Saxon, manuscripts, chap. xxix, 597, 612-3;\n medicine, chap. xxxi\n\n _Angobatae_, 188\n\n\n Animal, incapable of magic, 4;\n in early Greek religion, 23;\n habits, intelligence, jealousy, and remedies employed by, 26, 57,\n 73-5, 217-8, 254, chap. xii, 460, 490, 574, 626;\n use of parts of, 11, 20, 67-70, 75-6, 87, 133, 167, 229, 587, 606,\n 721, 740, 755, 766;\n living in fire, 240;\n sacred, 311;\n minute, 275;\n in art, 502;\n breeding and horoscopes of, 516;\n and see Abstinence from animal food, Gods, Language, Sculpture,\n Transformation, and the names of individual animals\n\n Anise, 229\n\n Annacus, king, 340\n\n Annunciation, 263\n\n Anonymity, 133, 728\n\n Ant, 71-2, 75, 81, 98, 329, 331;\n Indian, 636\n\n Anthemius of Tralles, 575\n\n Anthropology, 300\n\n _Anthropos_, Gnostic, 380\n\n Antichrist, 417\n\n Antidote, 130, 154, 253, 441, 494\n\n Antimony, 735\n\n Antioch, 254, 296, 404, 421, 428, 431, 472, 662, 747\n\n Antipathy, 84, 173, 213, 217, 219, 239, 581, 605\n\n Antiphon, an interpreter of omens, 562\n\n Antipodes, 219, 480-1\n\n _Antiscia_, 537\n\n Anubion, 420\n\n Ape, 148, 256;\n and see Cynocephalus\n\n Apelles the painter, 55\n\n Apollo, 23, 93, 212, 253, 294, 317, 326, 371, 429, 735\n\n Apollobeches, 58\n\n Apollonius of Tyana, chap. viii, 165, 244, 288, 295, 390, 435, 465\n\n Apoplexy, 536\n\n Apothecary, 84, 129\n\n Apparatus, magical, 28, 190;\n and see Magic, materials\n\n Apparition, 66, 68, 204, 208, 215, 437-8, 455, 496, 509-10, 779;\n and see Spirit\n\n Appion, 419-20;\n and see Apion in other index\n\n Appius, friend of Cicero, 270\n\n Applied science, ancient, chap. v, 408;\n early medieval, chap. xxxiii\n\n Aquila, disciple of Peter, chap. xvii\n\n Aquileia, 124\n\n Arab, Arabia, and Arabic, early poetry, 6;\n drugs and spices from, 84, 129, 765;\n Apollonius of Tyana in, 261, 295;\n magic of, 280;\n home of the Magi, 476;\n learning, 31, 159, 174, 189, 578, chaps. xxviii, xxx, xxxii;\n and see Middle Ages, Translations\n\n Arcadia, 214, 249, 283\n\n _Archiater_, 125, 161, 536\n\n Architecture, 122, chap. v\n\n Archon, see Spirit\n\n Arcturus, 331, 636\n\n Arena, 133, 147;\n and see Gladiator\n\n Areobindus, a consul, 607\n\n Arethusa, 102\n\n _Argemon_, an herb, 79\n\n _Ariolus_, 629\n\n _Aristochia_, an herb, 615\n\n Arithmetic, 126, 319, 619, 628, 704\n\n Armenian, 351, 374, 497, 554\n\n Arms and armor, 344\n\n Aromatics, 311;\n and see Spice, Unguent\n\n Arrow, extracted, 756;\n poisoned, 767\n\n Art and the Arts, magic and, 6, 28;\n standards of, 187, 407;\n early medieval, chap. xxxiii;\n and see Artisan and the names of various arts\n\n Artemis Tauropolos, 429\n\n Artemisia, 89\n\n Artery, 147\n\n Artisan, 482, 486\n\n _Aruspex_, see _Haruspex_\n\n Asbestos, 213-4, 434\n\n Ascension, of Romulus, 274;\n of Simon Magus, 422\n\n Ascetic, see Monasticism\n\n Asclepius, a god, 253, 277, 546, 735;\n and see other index\n\n Ash, tree, 86\n\n Ashes, reduced to, 68, 80, 91, 170, 571-4, 581, 586-8, 590, 721\n\n Ashthroat, an herb, 722\n\n Asp, 57, 85, 324, 494, 571, 580, 587, 626\n\n Asparagus, 599\n\n Asphalt, 132, 574\n\n Asphodel, 88\n\n Ass, 76, 88, 230, 275, 326, 367, 734, 740\n\n Assurbanipal, 15, 27\n\n Assyria, magic of, 11, 15-20, 58, 295, 629;\n bibliography, 33-5\n\n Astanphaeus, 365, 367\n\n Asthma, 76\n\n Astral theology, 15, 17, 360-1;\n and see Astrology, Star\n\n Astrolabe, 115, 501, 542, 559, chap. xxx, 728\n\n Astrological medicine, 179, 575, 633, 738\n\n Astrology, chaps, iii, ix, xi, xv, xxix, xxx;\n also, Egyptian, 13-4;\n Sumerian or Chaldean, 15-7,\n and see Chaldean;\n Greek, 22, 25-6;\n Pliny, 91, 94-7;\n popular Roman, 127, 285;\n Galen, 127, 166, 178;\n Greek philosophy and, 180-1;\n Vitruvius, 184-5, 187;\n Hero, 193;\n alchemy and, 197;\n Plutarch, 207, 209;\n Apuleius, 231, 239-40;\n Brahmans, 253;\n Lucian, 282-3;\n Nechepso, Petosiris, and Manetho, 292-3;\n Solinus, 330;\n Horapollo, 333;\n Hermes, 290-2;\n Enoch, 340-1;\n Philo Judaeus and Jewish, 353-6;\n Pseudo-Clement, 410-3;\n church fathers, 444, 455-8, 464, 466, 471-5, 492;\n Augustine, 513-21;\n Firmicus, 529-38;\n Pseudo-Quintilian, 540;\n Synesius, 543;\n Nectanebus, 560-3;\n Alexander of Tralles, 583;\n _Herbarium of Apuleius_, 598;\n _Geoponica_, 604-5;\n Boethius, 621-2;\n Isidore, 632-3;\n Arabic, 644-52, 661-6, 670;\n Salernitan, 738;\n Constantinus Africanus, 756;\n Marbod, 781-2;\n alchemy and, 763;\n magic and, 300, 432, 464, 538, 540;\n and see Christ, birth of; Image; Magi; Planet; Star\n\n Astronomy, of Egypt, 13, 542, 545, 559;\n Tigris-Euphrates, 15-6, 34;\n India, 31;\n Greek, 31-2;\n benefits of, 47, 96;\n of Ptolemy, 105, 107;\n and architecture, 122, 185;\n history of, 366, 707;\n miscellaneous, 219, 395, 520, 536, 663, 704\n\n Atavism, 141\n\n Atheism, 234\n\n Athens, 28, 95, 142, 217, 230, 249, 429;\n as center of learning, 135, 200, 222, 242, 269, 277, 538, 541, 602\n\n Athlete, 186, 248, 486\n\n Atlas, Mt., 54\n\n Atom, Atomic theory, Atomism, 140, 169, 178, 205, 408\n\n Attalus, king of Pergamum, 135, 171\n\n Attalus III, 236\n\n Augury, in Assyria, 17;\n Rome, 95;\n Seneca, 103;\n Galen, 171;\n denied by Atomists, 178;\n accepted by Stoics, 180;\n Neo-Platonists, 315;\n Jews and early Christians on, 352, 458-9, 466, 511, 513, 534, 630;\n miscellaneous, 560, 629, 673, 705\n\n Auspices, 430, 629\n\n Authority and Authorities, attitude to, citation by, Pliny, 46, 49, 75;\n Ptolemy, 107;\n Galen, 118, 152-8, 167;\n Vitruvius, 186-7;\n Zosimus, 198;\n bogus, 215;\n Cicero, 270;\n Solinus, 327-8;\n Hippolytus, 469;\n Firmicus, 537;\n A\u00ebtius, 570;\n Marcellus, 585-6;\n medieval freedom with, 611;\n Macer, 614;\n Isidore, 624-5;\n Petrocellus, 734;\n miscellaneous, 32, 215, 778\n\n Automaton, 188, 192, 230, 440\n\n Axle-grease, 92\n\n\n Baal, priest of, 386\n\n Babel, 453\n\n Babylon and Babylonia, 11, 14-21, 23-4, 31, 33-5, 95, 97, 227, 239,\n 247-8, 266, 283, 360-1, 376, 383-4, 414, 527, 537, 652, 661, 744\n\n Bagdad, 661-2, 667, 744, 762\n\n Balaam, prophet or magician? 267, 352-3, 385, 445-8, 459;\n and the Magi, 385, 444, 474, 479, 519\n\n Balach or Balak, 447\n\n Baldness, 536\n\n _Balis_, an herb, 75\n\n Balsam, 392, 738\n\n Baptism, 368, 373, 405, 408, 432\n\n Barbarians, 148, 376, 445, 449, 619, 638\n\n Barbarossa, see Frederick I\n\n Barber, 229\n\n Barcelona, 699\n\n Barefoot, 599\n\n Barley, 88;\n water, 143\n\n _Baroptenus_, a gem, 81\n\n _Barrocus_, an herb, 615\n\n Basilica at Fano, 187\n\n Basilides, the heretic, 372\n\n Basilisk, 67, 70, 75, 169, 494, 573, 603, 626, 636;\n and cock, 324, 771\n\n Basilius the magician, 639\n\n Basin, 560\n\n Bat, 68-9, 159, 331, 587\n\n Bath, 142-3, 281, 587, 676, 729;\n public, 140, 295, 434-5;\n sea, 231-2, 405\n\n Battle predicted, 275\n\n Bayeux Tapestry, 502, 675\n\n Bean, 591\n\n Bear, 75, 92, 219, 367, 490;\n licks cubs into shape, 168, 177, 331;\n constellation of the, 179\n\n Beard, 416\n\n Beast, name of the, 582\n\n Beasts, wild, 216, 229, 564, 669;\n dealers in, 133\n\n Beauty, 300, 486\n\n Beaver, 502, 636;\n castration of, 231, 332, 574\n\n Bed-bug, 68, 85, 89, 175\n\n Bee, 76, 85, 219, 615, 636, 721;\n and see Honey\n\n Beech tree, 213\n\n Beetle, 81, 219, 581\n\n Behbit el-Hagar, 559\n\n Behemoth, 346-7, 367\n\n Bektanis, 559\n\n Bell, church, 722\n\n Bellerophon, 282\n\n Bell\u2019s palsy, 738\n\n Belt, see Girdle\n\n Bemarchius, rival of Libanius, 538\n\n Berenice, 463, 558\n\n Beryl, 780\n\n Bethlehem, star of, see Christ, birth of; Magi, who came to\n Christ child\n\n Betony, 77, 86, 737\n\n Bibliography, of Pliny, 46, 215;\n Isidore, 623;\n Peter the Deacon, 746\n\n Bile, 171, 177\n\n Bird, 73, 78, 80, 201, 218, 236, 325, 460, 544;\n rite of strangling, 301;\n mechanical, 192, 266;\n and see Augury and the names of individual birds\n\n Birth-control, 94\n\n Birth-mark, 713\n\n Bishop, 542\n\n Bishopwort, 722\n\n Bitumen, 571, 574, 603\n\n Bituminous trefoil, 175\n\n Black, 68, 175, 582, 591\n\n Bladder, 536, 599, 769\n\n Bleeding, 75, 125, 141-2, 162, 177, 576, 676, 679, 681, 684-5, 688,\n 724, 728, 735, 737-8\n\n Blind, 536, 590\n\n Blood, miraculous, 231;\n human, use of, 61, 102, 175, 227, 581, 603, 629, 721;\n human, and the moon, 98, 146, 391;\n circulation of, 409, 430;\n of various animals used, 86-7, 89, 131, 159, 166, 175, 587, 590,\n 727, 729, 737, 766-7;\n and see Adamant, Bleeding, Hemorrhage\n\n Blotch, 640\n\n Boar, 69, 92, 580, 599\n\n Bo\u00ebthus, 134\n\n Boil, 88\n\n Bones, stuck in throat, 71, 583;\n number in body, 372;\n prehistoric, 407;\n use of, 573, 583, 656\n\n Book, trade in Roman empire, 134-5;\n magic, 432, 435, 472, 505, 705;\n loss of, 752\n\n Bordeaux, 568\n\n Borellus, duke, 704\n\n Botany, 20, 65, 129, 343, 463;\n and see Herb\n\n Box, 229, 250\n\n Boy, in divination and magic, 81, 239, 249, 416-9, 463;\n and peony, 173\n\n Bracelet, 81, 89\n\n Brahmans, 248-54, 258, 266, 376, 407, 410, 412, 450-1, 556, 564\n\n Brain, center of nervous system, 145-6;\n cavities of, 659-60, 735;\n inflammation of, 536;\n of various animals used, see names of individual animals\n\n Bread, 89, 424;\n blessing and breaking, 727\n\n Breastplate of high priest, 495\n\n Breath and breathing, 134, 146, 207, 658\n\n Brindisi, 764\n\n Britain and Briton, 59, 141, 206-7, 376, 489\n\n Bronze, 764\n\n Buddha, 251\n\n Bugloss, viper\u2019s, an herb, 722\n\n _Buglossa_, an herb, 615\n\n Bull, 79, 86, 168, 261, 367, 599, 765-6;\n tamed by fig-tree, 77, 213, 332, 626\n\n Bulrush, 92\n\n _Buprestis_, 77, 494\n\n Burial, magic, 69-70, 80, 88, 662, 666;\n alive, 421\n\n Burned to death, 433, 571, 639\n\n Business, 97, 107, 128, 248, 666;\n early Christian attitude to, 494\n\n Butter, 154, 721-2\n\n Byzantine, 189, 194-5, 323, 398, 482, 555, 569, 607, 732, 745, 761-2\n\n\n Cabbage, 86, 175\n\n Cabbala, 7, 365\n\n Caesarea, 404-6\n\n Cairo, 8\n\n Calchas, 271\n\n _Calculus_, 536\n\n Calendar, 13-4, 327, 345, 676, 686, 712\n\n Calf, 150, 571\n\n Caligula, emperor, 193, 349\n\n Caliph, 607, 653, 670, 745\n\n _Camaleon_, 600;\n and see Chameleon\n\n Camel, 396, 636\n\n Campus Martius, 424-5\n\n Canal, Isthmian, 262\n\n Candelabrum, 380\n\n Candle, magic, 87, 380, 385, 469\n\n Candlestick, seven-branched, 385, 676\n\n Cannibal, 61-2, 573\n\n Canute, king, 351\n\n Carolingian, 616, 635\n\n Carpenter, 393\n\n _Carpesium_, a drug, 132\n\n Carpocrates, a heretic, 371\n\n Cart rut, 81, 88-91, 721\n\n Carthage, 222, 269, 553, 744\n\n Carton, 129\n\n Carystus, 213\n\n Cask, 767-8\n\n Caspian Sea, 489\n\n Castoria, 739\n\n Cat, 68, 636\n\n Cataract, in eye, 175, 729\n\n Catarrh, 82, 88-9, 142, 176\n\n Caterpillar, 80\n\n Cathedral, 501-2, 761\n\n _Catochites_, a gem, 330\n\n Caul of an ox, 469\n\n Cauldron, 468\n\n Cauterization, 536, 723\n\n Cecrops, 415\n\n Cedar, 20\n\n _Celidonius_, see Swallow-stone\n\n Celt and Celtic, 245, 567-8, 722, 732\n\n Cemetery, 434\n\n Cenchrea, 136\n\n Centaur, 603;\n and see Chiron in other index\n\n Centipede, 76, 494, 587\n\n Cerberus, 280\n\n Ceremonial, Egypt, 10;\n Assyria, 18, 20;\n Pliny, 64, 69, 71, 77-82, 90;\n Apuleius, 230, 235;\n Orphic, 295;\n rite of strangling birds, 301;\n Gnostic, 378;\n Marcellus, 590-2;\n Arabic, 663;\n medieval medicine, 726;\n and see Herb, plucking of; Spirit, invocation of; etc.\n\n Chalcite, 132\n\n Chaldean (mostly mere mentions of), 16-7, 98, 102, 185, 201, 230, 239,\n 250, 253, 272-4, 279, 281, 287, 316, 323, 353, 375-6, 380, 399, 430,\n 444, 456, 469, 476, 479, 519, 560, 632, 703, 711, 744\n\n _Chalkydri_, 347\n\n Cham, see Ham\n\n Chameleon, 62, 175, 581\n\n Chance, experience, 36, 75, 156, 172, 754;\n and fate, 210\n\n Chaplet, 295\n\n Characters, magic use of, 229, 257, 314, 317, 512, 579, 592-3, 604,\n 630, 645, 654, 724-30\n\n Charicles, 232\n\n Chariot, 423\n\n Charlatan, 668-9;\n and see Old-wives\n\n Charlemagne, 214, 556, 672, 764\n\n Charon, 277\n\n Chastisements, 204\n\n Chastity, 78, 81, 83, 204, 216, 295, 308, 326, 564, 581, 588, 590,\n 599, 799-80;\n and see Virgin\n\n Cheese, 142, 325, 509\n\n Chelidonia and Chelidonius, see Swallow-wort and Swallow-stone\n\n _Chelonitis_, a gem, 780\n\n Chemical and Chemistry, 132-40, 467-9;\n and see Alchemy\n\n Chick, 76, 754, 771;\n Aristotle on embryology of, 30, 146\n\n Chickpea, 88\n\n Child-bearing and Child-birth, 76, 78, 84, 87, 92, 94, 102, 175, 177,\n 216, 253, 260, 295, 325, 496, 581, 685, 713, 726, 738, 740;\n formation of child in womb, 150, 545, 557, 757;\n child born after eight months dies, 181, 356, 757;\n monstrous birth, 627;\n and see Abortion, Birth-control\n\n Chimaera, 367\n\n China and Chinese, 6-7, 214;\n and see Seres\n\n Chiromancy, 386\n\n Chneph or Chnuphis, 379\n\n Chrism, 738\n\n Christ, 137-9, 243, 363, 379, 386, 404-5, 422, 510, 527, 529, 620,\n 674-5, 782;\n accused of magic, see Accusation;\n birth of, and astrology, 386, 438, 457, 464, 471-9, 703;\n birth, virgin, 460;\n child, chap. xvi, 390;\n power of name of, 434, 452, 466, 638-9, 725, 729-30\n\n Christian and Christianity, Book II, _passim_; 137, 139, 207, 275-6,\n 285, 296, 298, 306, 312, 320, 327, 554, 568, 584, 602, chap. xxvii,\n 642, 715;\n and see Religion, Theology\n\n Christmas, 678\n\n Chronology, 135, 209, 624, 711;\n and see Calendar\n\n Church fathers, Book II, _passim_, 180, 225, 241, 302, 618\n\n Cicada, 169\n\n _Cinaedia_, 590\n\n Cinnabar, 626, 761, 764\n\n Cinnamon, 129-30, 256\n\n Circe, 21, 65, 324, 434, 509, 629\n\n Circle, magic, 78, 86-7, 91, 197, 281, 366, 599;\n squaring the, 706;\n Cardan\u2019s concentric, 769\n\n Circumcision, 449, 475, 781\n\n Circus, 295, 486\n\n City, fortune of, predicted, 273, 283;\n ancient, 489, 504;\n ideal, 349-50, 460\n\n Civilization, magic and origin of, 5-6;\n Pliny as source for history of, 43\n\n Clairvoyance, 647;\n and see Divination, natural\n\n Clarus, 224\n\n Classical heritage, 555, 618, 636;\n and see Middle Ages\n\n Classics, superstition in, 21-4\n\n Claudia, 55\n\n Clay, animals, 393, 769;\n and see Pottery\n\n Climate, 184\n\n Cloak, virtue of, 397, 435\n\n Clock, see Time\n\n Clothing, virtue in, 136, 295, 382, chap. xvi, 407, 441, 534, 598, 666;\n and see names of various articles of\n\n Clyster, 142\n\n Cock, 168, 175, 320, 324-5, 766, 771, 779;\n cock-crow, 280, 405\n\n Cog-wheel, 192\n\n Cold, quality, 140, 161, 219;\n drink, 141;\n disease, 589\n\n Colic, 87, 169, 579, 582, 590\n\n Cologne, three kings of, 446, 477\n\n _Colonus_, 638\n\n Colony, Greek, 318\n\n Color, discussed, 140, 486;\n changing, 216;\n in magic, 90, 367, 369, 590, 721;\n and see the names of individual colors\n\n Combustible compounds, see Candle\n\n Comedy, Greek, 22-4\n\n Comet, 96, 115, 457, 543, 633, 635, 673\n\n Commodus, emperor, 125, 129\n\n Compass, points of, 91, 114, 378, 586, 591, 724\n\n _Compotus_ or _Computus_, 536, 676-7, 728\n\n Compound, magical or medicinal, 10, 83, 140, 152, 159-60, 172, 571,\n 586-7, 722, 734\n\n Conception, 562, 656, 724, 740\n\n _Condrion_, an herb, 74\n\n Confederate, in magic fraud, 467\n\n Conjunction, astrological, 104, 642, 648-9\n\n Conjuration of an herb, 583;\n and see Incantation, Spirit, invocation of\n\n Consecration, of a painted grape, 80;\n of gems, 295, 781;\n and see Holy\n\n Constantine the Great, 525ff.\n\n Constantine Monomachos, 745\n\n Constantine Porphyrygennetos, 604\n\n Constantius, emperor, 525ff.\n\n Constans, emperor, 525ff.\n\n Constantinople, 472, 477, 494, 533, 541;\n and see Byzantine\n\n Constellation, 14, 114, 178, 304, 709\n\n Constipation, 779\n\n Consumption, 213, 373, 536, 588\n\n Cook, 148\n\n Copernican theory, 32\n\n Copperas, 467\n\n Coptic, 361, 377\n\n Coral, 656\n\n Cordova, 704, 762\n\n Corinth, 123, 136, 230, 262, 280\n\n Corn extracted, 71\n\n Corpse, 147, 229, 309, 629, 780;\n and see Necromancy, Resurrection\n\n Cosmetics, 152, 668\n\n Cotton, 252\n\n Couch, 561\n\n Cough, 88, 176\n\n Counter-irritant, 723\n\n Cow, 77, 79, 81, 85, 325, 769\n\n Crab, and snake, 99;\n river, use of eye of, 68-9;\n burned alive, 80, 178;\n use of ash of, 170, 572;\n stone in head of, 737\n\n Crane, sentinel, 217;\n windpipe of, used in magic, 278, 467\n\n Craw-fish, 217\n\n Creation, 16, 346, 408, chap. xxi, 504-5, 627-8;\n position of stars at, 711, 713\n\n Credulity and scepticism, chap. ix;\n in Pliny, 50-1, 61-4, 67, 70, 77, 80-1, 88, 98;\n Galen and the Empirics, 157-8, 168-9, 175;\n Seneca, 102-3;\n Plutarch, 204, 212-3;\n other cases, 225, 244, 255, 388, 440, 491-2, 539, 573-4, 626, 637,\n 655, 671, 780\n\n Crete, 129, 135, 249, 260\n\n Cricket, 67, 737\n\n Crime and criminal, 147, 167, 171, 207, 225, 581;\n and see Magic, evil and criminal; Sin\n\n Critical days, 158, 161, 164, 179-80, 356, 756\n\n Crocodile, 74, 166, 218, 238, 280\n\n Cropleek, 722\n\n Cross, nail from, 280;\n in sky, 475;\n sign of, 432, 434, 466, 638-9, 722\n\n Crow, 207, 314, 324, 409, 636, 655\n\n Cruelty, 136, 225\n\n Crystal, 294, 767\n\n Cube, 184\n\n Cuckoo, 81\n\n Cummin seed, 93\n\n Cuneiform, 15\n\n Cup, Joseph\u2019s divining, 386\n\n Cupping glass, 192\n\n Curlew, 217\n\n Curse, 28, 93, 366, 434\n\n Cynics, 277\n\n _Cynocephalia_, an herb, 67\n\n Cynocephalus, 70, 333\n\n Cyprus, magic of, 59;\n oil of, 68;\n Galen\u2019s visit to, 131-2\n\n Cyrene, 541\n\n\n Dacian, 597\n\n Daedalus, 283\n\n Daily life, magic in, 9-10, 20;\n experience from, 54\n\n Danish, 612\n\n Dardanus, a magician, 58-9, 463, 558\n\n Darius, 256, 260\n\n \u201cDark Ages,\u201d 618\n\n Date, the fruit, 20\n\n Date, discussed of, Ptolemy, 105;\n Hero, 188;\n Greek alchemists, 193-4;\n works of Apuleius, 222-5;\n Solinus, 326-7;\n Horapollo, 331;\n Enoch literature, 341-2;\n apocryphal Gospels, 388-9;\n _Pseudo-Clementines_, 404-6;\n _Physiologus_, 497-9;\n Augustine, 504;\n _Mathesis_ of Firmicus, 526-7;\n Synesius, 541;\n Pseudo-Callisthenes and Julius Valerius, 552-5;\n A\u00ebtius, 570;\n Marcellus, 584-5;\n early medieval pseudo-literature, 594-6;\n Macer, 612-3;\n Thebit, 661;\n introduction of Arabic alchemy, 773;\n and see Calendar,\n\n Chronology, _Compotus_, Creation, Easter\n\n Day, observance of, lucky and unlucky, 14, 21, 106, 383, 513, 582, 588,\n 590, 592, 661, chap. xxix, 721, 725, 727, 754;\n and see Critical; Egyptian; Moon, day of; Planetary week\n\n Dead Sea, 138\n\n Deaf, 536\n\n Decans, 178, 291, 315, 376, 453\n\n Deendor, a magician, 780\n\n Deer, 68, 70, 74, 84, 94, 207, 294, 324, 586, 734\n\n Degree, academic, 619;\n medical, 751-2\n\n Delirium, 536\n\n Delphic oracle, 201, 266, 283, 326, 538, 582\n\n Demeter, 429\n\n Demigod, 546\n\n Demiurge, 212, 383\n\n Demon, see Spirit\n\n Dentistry, 12;\n and see Tooth\n\n Depilatories, see Hair\n\n Deroldus, bishop, 733\n\n Desert, herbs in, 54\n\n Desiderius, abbot, 747\n\n Design, argument from, 139, 148, 408, 490\n\n Desire, as a factor in magic, 644\n\n Deucalion, 341\n\n _Devotio_, see Curse\n\n Dew, 102\n\n Diacastoria, 739\n\n _Diadochos_, a gem, 780\n\n Diagram, 366-7, 674\n\n Dialectic, 420, 439, 536\n\n Diana, 130\n\n Dice, 136, 486\n\n Dick, Mr., 64\n\n _Dictamnon_, see Dittany\n\n Dictation, ancient, 45, 134\n\n Dictionary, 599, 624\n\n Dictynna, 249\n\n Die, 582;\n and see Dice\n\n Diet, 98, 137, 142, 159, 282, 414, 429, 577, 587, 668, 684, 735\n\n Digestion, 137, 205, 585\n\n Dinocrates, 186\n\n Diocletian, emperor, 194\n\n Diomedes, 330\n\n Dionysius, an Egyptian, 440\n\n Dionysus, the god, 251, 546\n\n Dioptrics, 108\n\n Dipsas, a snake, 172, 284, 494\n\n Direction, observance of, in magic, 90-1, 666;\n and see Compass, Right, Left\n\n Disease, 25, 98, 150, 208, 219, 310, 430, 434, 536;\n magic transfer of, 19, 61, 71, 79, 213, 588-9;\n and see Spirit, Woman, and the names of individual diseases\n\n Dissection, 88, 134, 146-8, 164, 581, 746\n\n Dittany, 218, 495\n\n Dives and Lazarus, 448\n\n _Divinatio_, a disease, 755; and see 150-1\n\n Divination, chaps. ix, xxix, 86, 127, 143, 165, 180, 253, 285, 533,\n 539-40, 713;\n varieties listed, 560;\n in China, 6-7;\n Egypt, 13;\n Tigris-Euphrates, 17;\n India, 251;\n relation to magic, 5, 14, 17, 60, 226, 233, 295, 432, 512, 543, 629;\n by divine revelation, 205, 249, 314, 364, 533,\n and see Prophecy;\n by demons, 442-3, 510, 546;\n natural, 103, 205, 239, 305, 314, 318-9, 419, 518, 542-3;\n by animals, 315, 325-6, 490,\n and see Augury;\n by eating parts of animals, 70, 257, 314;\n by boys, 249, 418-9, 463;\n by enthusiasm, 180;\n by herbs, 66, 77, 614;\n by drinking or inhaling, 313;\n by Kalends, 677, 684;\n by lots, numbers, names, 112, 679, 682, 711, 713,\n and see Lot-casting;\n by polished surfaces, 774;\n by sounds, 313, 430;\n by stones, 70;\n by symbols, 166;\n by winds, 676, 678;\n and see Aerimancy, Cup, Dream, Geomancy, Haruspex, Hydromancy, Knot,\n Liver, Moon, Omen, Pyromancy, Sacrifice, Sieve, Selenomancy,\n Thunder\n\n Dog, kennel, 69;\n jealous, 75;\n puppyhood, 150;\n omens from, 231;\n prescience of, 325;\n as symbol, 367;\n demons as, 435;\n and mandragora, 607;\n torn to pieces by, 277, 425;\n to stop bark or attack of, 77, 216, 249, 424, 605;\n disease transferred to, 88, 590-1;\n use of parts of, 68, 70, 89, 90, 159, 168-9, 573-4, 737, 755;\n mad, and bite of, 68, 82, 86, 131, 169, 178, 259, 263-4, 284, 373,\n 391, 572, 656, 713, 754\n\n Dog-days, 572, 728, 756, 765\n\n Dogmatism, 154, 159, 735\n\n Dog-star, 66, 98, 178, 604\n\n Dolphin, 55, 218, 260\n\n Domitian, emperor, 249-50, 259-65\n\n Door, used in magic, 71, 591;\n affected by magic, 226-7, 314, 449;\n trap, 469\n\n Dorians, 219\n\n Dositheus, 365, 417\n\n Dove, 142, 168, 324, 332, 636, 740\n\n _Draconites_, a gem, 75\n\n Dragon, 75, 231, 257, 326, 367, 392, 429, 561, 603, 766;\n use of parts of, 68, 70;\n combat with elephant, 74, 257, 626;\n flying, 347\n\n _Dragontes_, an herb, 614\n\n Drama, and magic, 22-3, 324;\n liturgical, 476-7\n\n Dream and divination from, in Egypt, 13-4;\n in cuneiform texts, 17;\n Pliny, 56, 81;\n Galen, 123, 154, 156, 166, 170, 177-80;\n Plutarch, 204, 205;\n Apuleius, 231;\n Apollonius, 260;\n Lucian, 283;\n Neo-Platonists, 314, 545;\n Philo, 354, 358;\n Pilate\u2019s wife, 395;\n Origen, 459;\n Nectanebus, 560-2;\n Alkindi, 646;\n miscellaneous, 197, 329, 412, 434, 437, 459, 463, 487, 509, 534,\n 627, 671, 680-1, 720, 754, 763, 779\n\n \u201cDream-senders,\u201d 368\n\n Dropsy, 69, 213, 536, 779\n\n Drugs, 55, 61, 84, 89, 128, 132, 370, 467, 561, 668\n\n Druid, 46, 59, 67, 79, 640\n\n Drum, 204, 313\n\n Dualism, 361, 409\n\n Duck, 87-8\n\n Dung, 68, 69, 86, 166, 168, 588, 656, 734, 740, 769\n\n Dye, 324, 467, chap. xxxiii\n\n\n Ea, a god, 18\n\n Eagle, 87, 90, 176, 217, 257, 325-6, 332, 441, 496, 574, 636\n\n Ear, 536\n\n Earache, 169, 579, 755\n\n Ear-wax, 721, 769\n\n Earth, appeased, conjured, personified, and deified, 66, 79, 86, 251,\n 295, 583, 598;\n virtue of, 81, 88, 592, and see Cart rut, Terra sigillata;\n things not allowed to touch the ground, 70, 79, 81, 173, 582, 588;\n sphericity of, 480;\n miscellaneous, 211, 373;\n and see Burial, Land and Water, Underground\n\n Earthquake, 97, 101, 250, 254, 264, 271, 430, 469, 562\n\n Earthworm, 68-9, 89, 176, 573-4, 587, 720\n\n\n Easter, 521, 677;\n mystery of, 677\n\n Ebionites, 405\n\n Ebony, 560\n\n Echeneis, 212, 491, 626\n\n Eclipse, 96, 98, 203-4, 209, 262, 333, 386, 564, 673\n\n Editions, especially early printed, Pliny, 53;\n Ptolemy, 106, 110;\n Galen, 119;\n Solinus, 326;\n Firmicus, 525;\n Pseudo-Callisthenes and Julius Valerius, 551-2;\n _Letter of Alexander_, 555;\n post-classical medicine, 566-7, 577;\n _Herbarium of Apuleius_, 597;\n Ethicus, 601;\n _Geoponica_, 604;\n Dioscorides, 606-10;\n Macer, 612;\n Isidore, 623;\n Latin translations from Arabic, 642, 649ff., 653, 657, 665, 668, 716;\n _Regimen Salernitanum_, 736;\n Constantinus Africanus, chap. xxxii;\n treatises on arts, 760;\n Marbod, 775, 778\n\n Education, as experienced or discussed by, Galen, 118-28;\n Vitruvius, 187;\n Plutarch, 200-1;\n Apuleius, 222-4;\n Lucian, 277;\n Christ child, 394;\n Cyprian, 429-31;\n Firmicus, 525;\n Synesius, 540-1;\n Bede, 634-5;\n Rasis, 667;\n Gerbert, 704;\n Constantinus, 744;\n Dunstan, 773;\n Marbod, 775\n\n Eel, 491\n\n Egg, shell, 54;\n test of freshness, 55;\n made by hiss of snakes, 67;\n addled by certain men, 83;\n so-called, of alchemy, 198;\n goose, 277;\n filled with dye, 467;\n portents from, 562, 773;\n raw, 729\n\n Egypt, 7-14, 27-8, 30-1, 193-5, 198, 206, 228-30, 239, 248, 250, 287,\n 289, 300, 325, 331-4, 360, 376, 379, 391, 414-6, 430, 437-8, 446,\n 450, 452, 459, 503, 527, 537, 543, 558-60, 598, 744;\n and see Plagues of\n\n Egyptian Days, 14, chap. xxix, 728\n\n Elchasaites, 373\n\n Elections, astrological, 372-3, 386, 517\n\n Electrum, 590\n\n Elements, various theories of, 25, 139, 157, 218, 254, 382, 408, 410,\n 478, 485, 488, 528-9, 622, 645, 720;\n not found in a pure state, 140, 489\n\n Elephant, intelligence of, 73, 75, 169, 218, 256, 636;\n habits, 213, 322, 324, 332, 460;\n dissection of, 148;\n compared with fly, 408;\n white, 763;\n and see Dragon for combat with\n\n Elephantiasis, 57, 170, 572\n\n Eleusinian mysteries, 101, 148\n\n Elijah, 386, 555\n\n Elixir, 670\n\n Eloeus, 365, 367\n\n Eloi, 583\n\n Elymas the sorcerer, 461\n\n Elysian fields, 207\n\n Embalming, magic in, 8\n\n Embassy, of Philo, 349; Synesius, 541;\n Leo, 557\n\n Embryology, see Chick, Child-birth\n\n Emerald, 434, 656, 772\n\n Emperor, Roman, 47, 50, 124, 129-30, 135, 176, 186, 194, 529;\n and see names of individual emperors\n\n Empiric, _Empirica_, Empiricism, 56-7, 155-7, 172, 735, 754\n\n _Empousa_, 310\n\n Empyrean, see Heaven\n\n Enceladus, 254\n\n Encyclopedia, ancient, 43;\n Arabic, 663;\n medieval, 52, 569\n\n Endor, witch of, 385, 448, 464, 469-71, 506, 509-10, 629, 635\n\n Entrails, see Intestines, Liver divination\n\n Ephesus, 259-62\n\n Ephod, 448\n\n Epic, 16, 18\n\n Epicurean, 138, 150, 283, 408, 441\n\n Epidaurus, 329\n\n Epilepsy, 69, 87, 90, 173, 235, 238, 536, 578-81, 614, 723, 726, 730,\n 735-6, 754-6, 779\n\n Epitome, 495, 554-5, 568-9, 594, 603ff.\n\n Er, vision of, 212\n\n Erataoth, a spirit, 367\n\n Eretrians, 260\n\n Eridu, 15\n\n _Erigeron_, an herb, 89\n\n _Erystion_, an herb, 598\n\n Essenes, 405\n\n Ether, 254, 373;\n and see Heaven\n\n Ethics, 602\n\n Ethiopia and Ethiopic, 141, 245, 256, 283, 327, 341, 345, 398, 435,\n 498, 554, 558-60, 654, 658, 744\n\n Etruscan, 467, 630\n\n Etymology, 625\n\n Eucharist, 369\n\n Eucrates, 280-1\n\n Eugenianus, 133\n\n Eugenics, 414\n\n _Eumeces_, a gem, 81\n\n Euphrates, a philosopher, 246, 253, 263;\n and see Tigris-\n\n Eustachian tube, 576\n\n Evangelists, four, 502, 674, 721\n\n Eve, 350, 511, 681\n\n Evil, problem of, 305, 309, 349;\n eye, see Fascination\n\n Evolution, doctrine of, 149, 493\n\n Ewe hop plant, 722\n\n Excommunication, 542\n\n Excrement, human, 74, 143, 573;\n and see Dung\n\n Exercise, physical, 587\n\n Exorcism, 18, 24, 280, 299, 368, 386, 435, 533-4, 682, 722\n\n Experience, Experiment, Experimental method, and magic, 57, 431-2, 447,\n 469, 540;\n in Pliny, 53-7, 83, 88;\n Ptolemy, 106-7;\n Galen, 118, 121, 144-63, 169, 173, 175, 179;\n Vitruvius, 187;\n Hero, 190;\n Greek alchemists, 198;\n Plutarch, 213;\n Apuleius, 237;\n Simon Magus, 420-2;\n Firmicus, 532;\n post-classical medicine, 569, 573, 578-80, 583-7;\n Dioscorides, 606;\n Macer, 615;\n Arabic, 644-6, 657, 669;\n early medieval medicine, 734-5, 738, 753-4;\n arts and alchemy, 762, 765-70;\n and see Empiric, Observation\n\n Eye complaints and cures, 56, 82, 87, 98, 166, 175, 289, 325, 490,\n 496, 536, 586, 589-90, 640, 670, 720, 755, 779;\n evil, see Fascination\n\n Eyebrow, 151, 159, 175\n\n Eyelash, 92, 151\n\n\n _Facies_, astrological, 710, 716\n\n Faith, requisite in magic, 644\n\n Falernian wine, 132, 586\n\n Familiar spirit, see Spirit\n\n Family, 300\n\n Famine, 603\n\n Fascination, 71, 83, 217, 294, 324\n\n Fasting, 78, 82, 93, 174, 593, 705\n\n Fat, 67, 91, 130, 168, 755\n\n Fate, 181, 240, 306, 310, 315-6, 353, 375, 620\n\n Fates, three, 210, 565\n\n Faust, Faustus, or Faustinianus, 404, 406, 413, 417\n\n Feather, 70, 236\n\n Fee, physician\u2019s, 670, 684, 688, 740\n\n Fennel, 722;\n tasted by snake, 74, 490, 626\n\n Fern, 80, 769\n\n Festival, 22, 107\n\n Fever, 18, 49, 65-6, 71, 89, 91, 141, 536, 569, 575, 668, 720, 727,\n 759;\n and see Quartan, Tertian\n\n Fibula, 301\n\n Fifty, 356, 383\n\n Fig-tree, see Bull, tamed by\n\n Figure, 709-10;\n human, 723;\n and see Image, Mannikin, Statue\n\n _Fili_, Irish, 640\n\n Finger, middle, 589, 592;\n use of two, 583\n\n Fire, the element, 88, 229, 310, 417;\n marvelous, 252, 256, 368;\n at Rome in 192 A.\u202fD., 125, 134;\n universal, 104;\n not burned by, 416\n\n Fire engine, 192\n\n Firmament, see Heaven;\n Waters above the\n\n First-born, 581\n\n Fish, 30, 49, 74, 77, 218, 236-7, 260, 325-6, 469, 589, 636, 657, 756\n\n Five, 92, 169, 357, 383, 590\n\n Flea, 605\n\n Float, 192\n\n Flood, 16, 340, 475, 493\n\n _Florilegia_, 618\n\n Fluxion, 583\n\n Fly, insect, 76, 175, 408\n\n Flying, 397;\n of Simon Magus, 416-7, 422-7\n\n Foam, of snake, 67;\n horse, 70, 86, 589\n\n Folk-lore, 300, 567, 587, 722-3, 732\n\n Foot, 580;\n and see Barefoot\n\n Form, 487, 542\n\n Fossil shells, 493\n\n Fotis, 229\n\n Fountain, marvelous, 102, 318, 347, 546, 769\n\n Four, 91, 356, 674-5, 728, 767\n\n Fox, 80, 89, 90, 168, 490\n\n Franklin, Benjamin, 414\n\n Frederick I, Barbarossa, emperor, 477\n\n Free-Masonry, 183\n\n Free will, see Will\n\n Frenzy, 755\n\n Frog, 68, 80, 90, 92, 159, 168, 231, 491, 508, 588, 591, 656\n\n Fruit, 85, 142, 599, 724\n\n Fumigation, 69, 282, 512, 740, 779\n\n Funeral, 214\n\n Furnace, 81, 393, 434, 657, 764\n\n Future life, 8, 25, 47;\n and see Soul, immortality of\n\n\n Gabriel, angel, 343, 367, 447, 452, 454\n\n _Gagates_, a gem, 154, 495, 724, 779\n\n _Gaia Seia_, 599\n\n _Galactis_, 294\n\n _Galactites_, 329\n\n Gall, 68, 71, 587, 726, 764-6\n\n Gall nut, 467\n\n Games, Greek national, 186, 201\n\n Ganges, 258\n\n _Garamantica_, a gem, 97\n\n Garlic, 213, 722\n\n Gas, 55, 142\n\n Gate, city, 591, 600\n\n Gaudentius, 404\n\n Gaul, 46, 76, 92, 568, 597, 672, 776;\n and see Druid\n\n Gazelle, 68, 70, 87\n\n Gehenna, 367\n\n Gem, Assyrian, 20;\n Pliny, 68, 70-1, 80-1;\n Apollonius, 254-8;\n Orphic, 293-6;\n Gnostic, 27, 378-80;\n Pseudo-Plutarch, 216;\n Solinus,328-9;\n St. John and, 398;\n Origen, 460;\n Epiphanius, 495-6;\n Augustine, 511;\n in medicine, 590;\n Pseudo-Dioscorides, 611, 654;\n _Geoponica_, 605;\n Isidore, 626-7;\n found in animals, 75, 294, 603, 737, 740, 755, 772, 779;\n Marbod, chap, xxxiv;\n and see Consecration;\n Image, engraved on;\n and names of individual gems\n\n Genealogical table, 624\n\n Generation, spontaneous, 86, 219, 238, 324, 509, 511;\n of various animals, 408-9, 460;\n in fire, 102, 324;\n human, 211;\n and corruption, 210;\n ruled by stars, 97;\n organs of, used in magic, 11, 68-9, 356;\n and see Child-birth, Conception, Eugenics, Private parts\n\n Genethlialogy, 115, 273, 353, 412, 456, 513, 517, 560, 622, 629, 703,\n 708, 781\n\n Genius, see Spirit, orders of\n\n Gentiles, 479, 674, 771\n\n Geocentric theory, 32, 105, 488\n\n Geography, discussed by Pliny, 43-4;\n Ptolemy, 105-7;\n Philostratus, 244;\n Solinus, 327;\n other ancient, 488;\n Ethicus, 600-4;\n other medieval, 707\n\n Geology, 493\n\n Geomancy, 314, 343, 629, 648, 685\n\n Geometry, 122-3, 126, 185, 318, 536, 542, 619, 663, 70\n\n Gerard, archbishop of York, 689, 782\n\n Germ of disease, 219\n\n German, invaders, 148, 351;\n language, 498, 728;\n scholarship, 15-6, 30-1, 350, 684\n\n Germany, 45, 557\n\n Ghost, 233, 263, 280, 455, 540, 705;\n and see Necromancy;\n Endor, witch of\n\n Giant, 254, 407, 430\n\n Girdle or ungirded, 69, 87, 284, 512, 599\n\n Girl, magic power of, 216;\n and see Virgin\n\n Githrife, an herb, 722\n\n Gladiator, 124, 149, 581, 673\n\n Glass, Egyptian, 12;\n Roman, 590, 762;\n medieval, 729, 764-7;\n gems of, 781;\n and see Stained\n\n Glaucon, 143, 161\n\n _Glossopetra_, a gem, 98\n\n Glue, 765\n\n Gnostic and Gnosticism, chap. xv, 197, 211, 290, 298, 305, 360, 397,\n 405, 411, 472, 547, 584, 661, 720\n\n Goat, 69, 87, 130, 168, 213, 218, 256, 325, 367, 467, 490, 581-2, 729,\n 755, 759, 765-9;\n and see Adamant and blood of\n\n Goblet, 258\n\n God and gods, antiquity of belief in, 5-6, 203;\n animal, 14, 283, 503;\n celestial, 14, 17, 25-6, 289, 309, 530;\n and nature, 409; and man, 206, 208, 254, 274, 416;\n and Roman emperors, 130, 529;\n and art, 486;\n and magic, 8, 230, 235-6, 249, 312, 320, 543;\n Pliny concerning, 47, 97;\n Seneca, 103;\n Galen, 139, 151, 167, 180;\n Plutarch, 210;\n Gnostic, 362, 375;\n Christian attitude to pagan, 317;\n Firmicus, 527-30;\n Boethius, 621;\n name of, 599;\n winged, 301;\n and see Apollo and other individual names of gods, Christ, First\n cause, Trinity, etc.\n\n Goetia, 22, 247, 250, 505\n\n Gold, 69, 78-81, 215, 257, 301, 325, 386, 590, 599, 739, 755;\n chap. xxxiii;\n and see Alchemy\n\n Gonorrhoea, 536\n\n Goose, 168, 301\n\n Gorgon, 301\n\n Gothic art, 501-2, 761\n\n Gout, 81, 142, 277, 284, 571, 575, 579-81, 755\n\n Grafting, 55\n\n Grain, 325\n\n Grammar, 535, 596, 612, 625\n\n Grasshopper, 491\n\n Gravitation, 481\n\n Greece and Greek, magic, 20-8, 58;\n science, 28-32, 46-7, 51, 62, 64;\n culture, 274, 283;\n animals, 73;\n language, ancient, 154, 186, 222-3, 377, 420;\n language, medieval, 331-2, 625\n\n Greek church, 397, 735\n\n Greek fire, 256-7\n\n Griffin, 257, 325\n\n Grimoald, abbot, 613\n\n Groin, 71, 590\n\n Ground, see Earth, Underground\n\n Gruel, 142\n\n Guadalquivir, 254\n\n Gull, 159\n\n Gum, 468\n\n Gyges, 257\n\n Gymnosophists, 247, 251, 260, 564\n\n Gynecology, see Women, diseases of\n\n\n Hades, see Underworld\n\n Hadrian, emperor, 136, 200, 244, 318\n\n Hail, see Weather\n\n Hair, 69-70, 81, 151, 159, 176, 581;\n net, 175, 213;\n tonic, 738\n\n Halcyon days, 255, 491\n\n _Halicacabum_, 77\n\n Hallucination, 509\n\n Ham, son of Noah, first magician, 414\n\n Hand, laying on of, 386;\n and see Left, Right\n\n Handkerchief, 213, 386\n\n Hangman\u2019s noose, 71\n\n Hare, 159, 169, 253, 580\n\n Harewort, 722\n\n Harp, magic, 773\n\n Harran, 661-2\n\n _Haruspex_, 95, 104, 511, 513, 534, 629\n\n Hathor goddesses, 14\n\n Hatto, bishop of Vich, 704\n\n Hawk, 74, 314, 332, 561\n\n Hawkweed, 74, 332\n\n Hazel rod, 725-6, 730\n\n Head, habit of inclining, 659;\n magical speaking, 662, 705\n\n Headache, 18, 71, 92, 175, 591\n\n Hearsay, 585\n\n Heart, physiology of, 30, 146-9, 153, 737;\n used in medicine and magic, 70, 89, 727\n\n\n Heat and Hot, 140, 142, 161, 175-6, 191;\n and see Qualities\n\n Heathen, see Pagan\n\n Heatherberry, 722\n\n Heaven and Heavens, one or many? 16, 345, 363, 365, 372, 382, 459,\n 487-8, 709;\n empyrean, 484;\n and see Music of spheres, Star, Universe, Waters above the firmament\n\n Hebdomad, sacred, 16, 365, 380\n\n Hebrew, 554, 577-8, 709, 711, 749;\n and see Jew\n\n Hecate, 215, 280\n\n Hedge, 91\n\n Hedge-hog, 325, 502, 734\n\n Hedgerife, 722\n\n Helen, Simon\u2019s, 363-5\n\n Helena, empress, 477\n\n Helenus, seer, 294\n\n Heliocentric theory, 32, 97\n\n Heliotrope, an herb, 65, 87, 636\n\n Hell, see Underworld\n\n Hellebore, 74, 490, 636\n\n Hellene and Hellenism, 20-1, 245, 541\n\n Hellenistic, 16, 22, 30-2, 39, 51, 183, 189, 288, 294\n\n Hemlock, the poison, 490\n\n Hemorrhage, 536, 576\n\n Hen, omen from, 231\n\n Henbane, 722\n\n Hera, goddess, 429\n\n Heracles, 251, 546, 582\n\n Heracleidae, 541\n\n Herb, Egyptian, 10;\n Assyrian, 19-20;\n Greek, 23;\n Cretan, 129;\n sacred, 76, 178;\n Anglo-Saxon, 722;\n Pliny, 54-7, 65-7, 76-9;\n Galen, 154, 167;\n Plutarch, 215-6;\n Apuleius, 229;\n Orphic, 295-6, 429-30;\n Gnostic, 371;\n Nectanebus, 561, post-classical medicine, 583, 591;\n _Herbarium of Apuleius_, 597-9;\n Pseudo-Dioscorides, 606;\n Macer, 614-5;\n used by animals, 324-5, and see Animals, remedies employed by;\n conjuration of, 583;\n plucking of, 57, 65, 93, 160, 173, 252, 291, 583, 614, 626, 721,\n 724, 727, 729\n\n Herbal, 596-9\n\n Herbalist, 79, 128\n\n Hercules, see Heracles\n\n Heredity, 75, 253; and see Atavism\n\n Herefridus, 635\n\n Heresy, chap. xv, 488, 494, 507-8\n\n _Hermesias_, a compound, 84\n\n Hermogenes the magician, 435\n\n Hero, a kind of spirit, 180-1, 309-10, 469, 546\n\n Herod the king, 473, 479\n\n Heron, 218, 324\n\n Hind, 279, 721\n\n Hippomanes, 324\n\n Hippopotamus, 75, 169\n\n History and Historians, relation to this investigation, 201;\n Roman, 14, 94, 96, 201, 602;\n omens and portents in, 14, 675;\n attitude to, of Empirics, 156;\n Vitruvius, 185;\n Lucian, 285-6;\n Cicero, 274;\n Horapollo, 333-4;\n of medicine, 153, 156, 735;\n of philosophy, 180;\n of astronomy, 537, 707;\n of alchemy, 195;\n ages of, 383, 648, 675, 709;\n astrological interpretation of, see Conjunctions, Planets,\n _Magnus Annus_;\n quantitative method and source-analysis in, 533ff.;\n medieval attitude to, 617;\n harlequins of, 359\n\n Holy Ghost or Spirit, 363-4, 372, 397, 447\n\n Holy salt, 722, 727\n\n Holy wafer, 729\n\n Holy water, 434, 721, 724, 727, 735\n\n Honey, 66, 68, 70, 76, 129, 142, 229, 295, 599;\n Attic and Hymettus, 132\n\n Honoratus, 638\n\n Hoopoe, 324\n\n Horaeus, 367\n\n Horn, 496, 586, 599, 722;\n magic drinking, 191, 255\n\n Horoscope, 14, 115, 209, 315, 516, 532, 560, 630\n\n Horse, 55, 70, 86, 168, 589, 722, 730, 767;\n and see Mare\n\n Horus, 195\n\n Hour, observance of, 712, 714, 726\n\n House, astrological, 114, 397\n\n Household magic, 9, 69;\n and see Door, Threshold, Wall, etc.\n\n Human body, symmetry of, 184, 519;\n eight parts of, 452, 720;\n use of parts of, 61, 81, 167, 229, 573;\n and see Blood; Sacrifice, human;\n Saliva, Sweat, etc.\n\n Humanism, 20, 338\n\n Humors, 536, 738\n\n Hyacinth, a gem, 496, 656\n\n Hydromancy, 233, 505, 629, 779-80\n\n Hydromel, 79\n\n Hydrophobia, 56, 169, 171, 496, 574;\n and see Dog, mad\n\n Hydroscope, 542\n\n Hydrostatic balance, 761\n\n Hyena, 67, 69-70, 332, 396, 587, 605, 728\n\n Hymn, 18, 23, 317-8, 374, 433, 441, 640\n\n Hypatia, 541\n\n Hyperborean, 280, 413\n\n Hyphasis, river, 256\n\n Hyrcanian Sea, 488\n\n\n Ialdabaoth, 367, 383\n\n Iao, Iaoth, etc., 367, 379-80, 583\n\n Iarchas the Brahman, 251ff.\n\n Ichneumon, 74, 218, 575\n\n Idolatry, 421, 433, 452, 475, 603;\n and see Image\n\n Ikhnaton, 9\n\n Illuminated manuscripts, 498, 502, 547, 597, 676, 746\n\n Image, engraved and astrological, 173, 267, 292, 316, 443, 579, 582,\n 645-6, 664-6;\n Apuleius\u2019 wooden, 233;\n Egyptian mannikins, 8;\n sacrificial, 261;\n mystic seal, 367, 378, 382;\n of wax, 10, 19, 25, 560-3;\n other magic, 10, 19, 236, 280, 314, 344, 441, 769\n\n Imagination, power of, 644, 660\n\n Iman, doctrine of the hidden, 356\n\n Immortality, see Soul\n\n Impotence, 391\n\n Incantation, antiquity of, 6;\n Egyptian, 8, 12-4;\n Assyrian, 17-9;\n in Pliny, 69-72, 79, 88, 92-4;\n Galen, 166, 173-4;\n Apuleius, 230, 233, 239;\n other classical authors, 25, 253, 257, 279-81, 314;\n Gnostic, 299, chap. xv;\n Jewish and early Christian, 352, 398, 418-9, 437, 442-3, 449-50,\n 463, 492, 510, 512;\n pseudo-literature and post-classical medicine, 537, 560-1, 568, 573,\n 579-83, 588-93, 598-9, 605;\n Arabic, 654-5;\n early medieval, 596, 626-9, 675, 696;\n in medicine, chap. xxxi, 754, 759;\n alchemy, 769-70;\n old Irish, 640;\n and see Words, power of\n\n Incense, 722\n\n Incest, 475, 754\n\n Incubus, 574\n\n India, chap. viii;\n science of, 31;\n drugs from, 84, 132;\n home of Magi, 476-7;\n marvels of, 325-6, 496, 564, 756;\n occult science of, 652-6, 710, 763;\n miscellaneous, 503, 744\n\n Indigestion, 779\n\n Industry, and magic, 12, chap. xxxiii\n\n Infant, exposure of, 147;\n ailments, 69, 169, 615\n\n Ink, invisible, 467\n\n Innocent III, pope, 759\n\n Insanity, 216, 536, 585, 755, 779;\n and see Frenzy, Lunacy, etc.\n\n Insomnia, 90\n\n Instruments, scientific, 107, 751;\n and see Musical\n\n Intent, as a factor in magic, 644-6\n\n Interrogations, astrological, 713-4\n\n Intestines, 87-8, 175, 409, 414, 592\n\n Inventions, 44, 149, 187-9, 426, 604\n\n Invisible, to become, 71, 251, 416, 562, 638, 640;\n writing, 265\n\n Invocation, see Necromancy and Spirit\n\n Iris, 132\n\n Iron, magic use of, 66, 69-71, 81, 89, 213, 765, 769;\n taboo of, 78, 81, 92, 614;\n oxide of, 130;\n quenching hot, 713, 756\n\n Isaac the patriarch, 437\n\n Ishmaelite, 711\n\n Isis, goddess, 195, 223, 280, 300, 546, 559\n\n Island, floating, 102\n\n Ismuc, 183\n\n Israel, twelve tribes of, 495\n\n Istria, 601-2\n\n Itacius, bishop, 381\n\n Italian Renaissance, see Renaissance\n\n Italians and Italy, 184, 557\n\n Iunx, 265-7\n\n Ivory, 301, 599\n\n Ivy, 767-8\n\n\n Jacob the patriarch, 354, 358, 444;\n and Esau, 369, 479, 514\n\n Jambres, Jamnes, or Jannes, the magician, 59, 431, 461\n\n James, brother of Jesus, 392, 401, 403, 405\n\n James the Great, St., 434-6\n\n Jannes the magician, see Jambres\n\n Jared, and magic, 415\n\n Jasper, 294, 572\n\n Jaundice, 49, 217, 536\n\n Jealousy, see Animal, and Professions, learned\n\n Jeremiah, legend of, 399\n\n Jerusalem, 393, 399, 415, 423, 477\n\n Jesus, see Christ\n\n Jew and Jewish, 219, 434, 436, 465, 474-5, 583, 746, 762, 773, 781;\n magic, 59, 437-9, 449;\n religion, 137;\n tradition, 473\n\n Jewelry, 301;\n and see Gem\n\n John the Baptist, 364, 737\n\n John, duke of Campania, 557\n\n Jonathan, 471\n\n Joseph the patriarch, his coat of many colors, 352, 358;\n divining cup, 386;\n dream, 354, 358, 385\n\n Joseph, father of Jesus, 393\n\n Joseph, mentioned by Epiphanius, 434\n\n Judea, see Palestine\n\n Judas Iscariot, 391\n\n Juggler, 230, 312-3, 352, 437\n\n Juliana Anicia, 606\n\n Juno, goddess, 546\n\n Jupiter, planet, 97, 184\n\n Justina, 431-3\n\n\n Karnak, 559\n\n Kh\u00eergeh, 559\n\n Kid, 393\n\n Kidney, 294\n\n King, prediction for, 17, 66;\n to gain favor of, 19, 67, 71, 89, 294;\n magic power of, 83, 476, 479;\n and alchemy, 13, 195\n\n Kiss, 88, 391, 589\n\n Knife, 545, 722, 727;\n surgical, 149\n\n Knot, in divination, 7;\n other magic, 19, 25, 66, 69, 71, 592, 661\n\n Kruno, a star, 346\n\n\n _Labartu_, 18\n\n Laboratory, 228\n\n Lacedaemon, 429, 602\n\n Ladder, 368\n\n Laelius, 274\n\n Lamb, 561, 769\n\n _Lamia_, 263\n\n Lamp, 129, 380;\n experiment with, 55;\n inextinguishable, marvelous, etc., 192, 214, 231, 239;\n and see Candle\n\n Land and water on earth\u2019s surface, 54, 105, 254, 488\n\n Language of birds and beasts, learning, 257, 261, 294-5, 430\n\n Laodicea, unguent of, 133\n\n Lar, 80, 546\n\n _Laser_, a simple, 83\n\n Laurel, 229, 324, 332, 424, 571, 588\n\n Lavinian grove, 326\n\n Law, and magic, 2, 6, 95;\n Roman, 167-8, 224, 233-4, 277, 527, 568;\n of nature, 272, 350, 530-1;\n Mosaic, 395, 459;\n national, 376;\n early German, 593;\n a medieval lawsuit, 688\n\n Lead, 657, 757, 764;\n application of, 574, 590;\n glazing, 762;\n tablets, 28, 366, 724\n\n Leaves, falling, effect on dreams, 206\n\n Lebadea, 249\n\n Lectionary, 476\n\n Lecture-notes, 134\n\n Leech, 724\n\n Left, hand etc. used or preferred, 65-6, 78, 82, 88, 90, 92, 173, 216,\n 231, 325, 332, 580, 583, 591-2, 722, 726\n\n Legends of saints, chaps. xvi, xviii, 637;\n and see names of individuals\n\n Legislation, 2, 25, 59, 95, 126, 194, 293, 415, 505;\n and see Law\n\n Lentils, 369\n\n Lemnos, 130-2, 154, 242, 264\n\n Lent, 678\n\n Leopard, 256\n\n Leprosy, 171, 219, 390, 392, 536\n\n Letter, see Alphabet, Vowel\n\n Lettuce, 639\n\n Lever, 192\n\n Leviathan, 346-7, 367\n\n Levitation, 251-2, 394, 427\n\n _Libanotis_, an herb, 495\n\n Libation, 431\n\n Libraries, ancient, 15, 27, 125, 134-5;\n medieval, 617-8, 743\n\n Ligatures and suspensions, 65, 68, 70-2, 80, 89-90, 94, 173, 175, 204,\n 279, 294, 572, 579, 591, 598, 611, 614, 654-6, 726, 729-30, 740,\n 755-6, 759;\n condemned, 512, 630\n\n Light, 191, 488, 720;\n and see Radiation\n\n Lightning, 71, 95, 102, 738\n\n _Ligusticum_, 613\n\n Like cures like, 68, 86, 94\n\n Lily, 68\n\n Linen, use of, 88, 90, 230, 249, 260, 378, 560, 581, 598\n\n Liniment, 586\n\n Lion, habits and traits, 74, 256, 319, 326, 332, 367, 394, 636;\n roar of, 491;\n use of parts of, 67, 70, 168, 279, 726, 755;\n whelps of, 255, 491;\n amours of lioness, 74;\n figure of, 582;\n made by magic, 215;\n lion-faced, 364\n\n _Liparaios_, a gem, 295\n\n Litany, 721\n\n Liturgy, 398, 476\n\n Liver, disease, 536, 591;\n divination, 17, 25, 249, 272, 313, 318, 430, 458, 466\n\n Lizard, 68, 92, 238, 324, 494, 574, 581, 589-91\n\n Logic, 154-5, 157-9;\n magic, 10-1, 72, 214\n\n _Logos_, doctrine of, 350\n\n Loigaire, king, 640\n\n Lollianus Avitus, 223\n\n Lollianus Mavortius, 525ff., 537\n\n Longevity, 141, 170, 176, 207, 537\n\n Looking around, 591\n\n Loosing bonds, etc., 265, 416, 449, 779\n\n Lord\u2019s Prayer, 598, 721, 724-6, 729-30, 736\n\n Lot-casting, 77, 112, 539, 727;\n and see Geomancy and _Sortes sanctorum_ (other index)\n\n Lotapes, a magician, 59\n\n Lot\u2019s wife, 583\n\n Love charms and potions, 22, 76, 94, 201, 215, 217, 236, 258, 295, 368,\n 370\n\n Lucifer, 636\n\n Lucius, hero of _Golden Ass_, chap. vii\n\n Lucius Verus, emperor, 124\n\n Lucullus, 94, 201\n\n Lumbago, 90, 175\n\n Luna, goddess, 236, 417;\n and see Helen, Simon\u2019s\n\n Lunacy, 536, 727, 754;\n and see Insanity\n\n Lung, 148, 536, 727\n\n Lupin, 722\n\n Lutheran, 447\n\n _Lychnis_ and _Lychnites_, a gem, 257, 295\n\n Lycia, 154, 325, 765\n\n Lycurgus, 283\n\n Lynx, 81, 325, 620\n\n Lyre, 356\n\n\n Macedon, 278, 560\n\n Machine, 182, 187;\n and see Mechanical\n\n Maerotis, lake, 349\n\n Magi, in Pliny, 64-72, 80, 84;\n of Persia and the east, 228, 235-6, 247, 250, 266, 295, 352, 416,\n 450, 763;\n who came to the Christ child, 372, 396, 443-4, 471-9, 506, 518-9,\n 730\n\n Magic (only leading passages where magic in general is discussed under\n that name are here included), preliminary definition, 4-6;\n primitive, 5-6;\n Egyptian, 7-12;\n Babylonian and Assyrian, 15-9, 33;\n Greek and Roman, 20-8;\n Pliny, 44, 58-64;\n Plutarch, 203;\n Apuleius, 234-7;\n Philostratus, 247-50;\n Neo-Platonists, 299-300;\n Enoch, 343;\n Philo, 352;\n heretics and Gnostics, 361;\n church fathers, 414-20, chap. xix, 466-9, chap. xxii;\n Nectanebus, 560;\n Isidore, 628-30;\n Alkindi, 643-6;\n as an art or discipline, 312, 420, 443;\n relation to science and medicine, 60-64, 236, 312, 330, 432, 511,\n 534-5, 644;\n use of materials, 65-70, 441, 508;\n procedure, 68-71, 506;\n false and illusive, 61, 418, 423-4, 431-2, 440, 464-8, 509;\n evil and criminal, 61-2, 313, 344, 377, 431-2, 439, 505, 539, 543;\n good or natural, 235, 352;\n marvelous results, 66-7, 70-1, 506;\n reality of, 506;\n history of, 58-9, 414-5, 628-9;\n immunity from, 440, 448-9\n\n Magnet, 81, 85, 213, 469, 511, 581, 636, 644, 657, 668, 765, 780\n\n _Magnus annus_, 26, 180, 210, 333, 372, 384, 456, 543\n\n Majoram, 490\n\n _Maleficium_, 234-5, 381, 506, 603, 629\n\n Mambres, a magician, 461\n\n _Mana_, 6\n\n Mandaeans, 383-4, 450\n\n Mandragora, 22, 231, 258, 597, 607, 626, 740\n\n Manes, a kind of spirits, 546\n\n Manes or Mani, founder of Manicheism, and Manicheism, 381-2, 398, 409,\n 513\n\n Mansions of moon or sun, 693, 713, 715\n\n _Mantike_, 259;\n and see Divination\n\n Manuscripts, of Pliny, 51-2;\n Ptolemy, 106, 108-10;\n Galen, 134-5;\n Gentile da Foligno, 164;\n Greek alchemy, 194-6;\n Apuleius, 241;\n Aelian, 322;\n Solinus, 326-8;\n Hermes and Enoch, 291, 340;\n Manichean, 383;\n _Apocrypha_, 387-9;\n _Recognitions_, 401ff.;\n Basil and Ambrose, 484;\n _Physiologus_, 498ff.;\n Firmicus, 532;\n and Book III _passim_\n\n Maps, 107, 114, 707\n\n Marble, 729\n\n Marcus Aurelius, emperor, 124-5, 130, 148\n\n Marcus the heretic, 369-70\n\n Marcus of Memphis, 381\n\n Mare, 87, 324, 332, 511\n\n Marinus, duke of Campania, 557\n\n Market-place, magic of, 437, 440\n\n Marriage, 685, 688\n\n Mars, planet, 78, 97, 184\n\n Marsi, 172, 511\n\n Martin of Tours, St., 381\n\n Martyr and Martyrdom, 428, 433, 512, 555\n\n Mary Magdalene, 364\n\n Mary, Virgin, 390, 724\n\n Mass, sacrament of, 13, 722\n\n Mathematical method, 107\n\n Mathematics, 154, 535-6\n\n _Mathematicus_, 464, 513, 532, 534, 632, 717, 781\n\n _Mathesis_, 411, 632, 704\n\n Matter, 111, 199, 305, 309, 349, 487, 542, 643, 763\n\n Mavortius, see Lollianus\n\n Maximilian II, emperor, 607\n\n Maximus, emperor, 381\n\n Meal, 314;\n evening, 482\n\n Measles, 668\n\n Measurement, 144;\n and see Instruments, Time\n\n Meat offered to idols, 452\n\n Mecca, 337\n\n Mechanical devices and toys, 167, 426;\n Applied Science; see Bird, mechanical; Machine\n\n Mede and Medea, 21, 65, 215, 295, 324, 329, 780\n\n Medicine, chaps. iv, v, xxxi, xxxii, 289, 535-6, 542;\n Egypt, 10-2;\n Babylonian and Assyrian, 18;\n and magic, 25, 70,\n and see Magic;\n Pliny, 72;\n Greek, 318;\n Apuleius, 221, 237;\n Brahmans, 252-3;\n Lucian, 279, 284;\n Solinus, 329;\n church fathers and theologians, 460-3, 593, 617;\n and see Animal, remedies employed by; Astrological; Compound;\n Disease; History; Pharmacy; Poison; Simple; etc.\n\n Medicine man, 5, 227\n\n Medinet Habu, 559\n\n Medium, 297, 467\n\n Medulla, 660\n\n _Mela_, see _Taxo_\n\n Melancholy, 137, 536, 756\n\n _Melanteria_, 132\n\n Melothesia, 712\n\n Memory, 303, 660\n\n Memphis, 198, 430\n\n Menander the heretic, 368, 421\n\n Menippus, 263\n\n Menstrual fluid, 82, 369, 573\n\n Merchant, 214, 245, 710\n\n Mercury, god, 233, 236, 630,\n and see Hermes;\n metal, 764,\n and see Quicksilver;\n planet, 318, 383\n\n Mero\u00eb, a witch, 226\n\n Merovingian, 616, 672\n\n Mesraim, first magician, 414\n\n Messiah, 355, 383\n\n Messina, 445, 710\n\n Metal and Metallurgy, 44, 102, 198, 346, 463, 767;\n and see Alchemy; Planets and; and the names of individual metals\n\n Metamorphosis, see Transformation\n\n Meteor, 103\n\n Meteorology, 44, 636\n\n Methodism, in medicine, 155, 735\n\n Michael, an angel, 367, 447, 452\n\n Michael, bishop of Tarazona, 652\n\n Microcosm, 382, 411, 530, 633, 709, 712\n\n Midday, see Noon\n\n Middle Ages, influence in, of Pliny, 51-3, 56, 73, 85, 595, 628, 635;\n Seneca, 100;\n Ptolemy, 109;\n Galen, 161, 180, 572-4;\n Hero, 188;\n _De placitis philosophorum_, 180;\n Apollonius, 267;\n Solinus, 326;\n early Christian literature, 338;\n Enoch, 340-2;\n Philo, 351;\n _Apocrypha_, 389-90;\n Simon Magus, 427;\n legends of saints, 435;\n Basil, 484;\n _Physiologus_, 497ff.;\n Augustine, 504;\n Alexander legend, chap. xxiv;\n post-classical medicine, 571, 576-8, 584;\n Ethicus, 601-4;\n Dioscorides, 606-12;\n Boethius, 618-20;\n Isidore, 623, 630-1;\n Arabic learning, 646, 663, chap. xxx, 732;\n Constantinus Africanus, 743, 754;\n Greek learning, 734;\n and see Classical heritage; Greek, medieval; Textual history;\n Translation\n\n Midnight, 248\n\n Milan, 477\n\n Mildew, 80\n\n Milesian tales, 225\n\n Milk, cow\u2019s, 229, 295;\n woman\u2019s, 82, 175, 587, 729, 759, 763;\n other, 721, 767\n\n Milk-stone, 294\n\n Milo, 779\n\n Milt, see Spleen\n\n Mind, 210, 531, 654\n\n Mine and Mining, 132, 142, 344\n\n Mineralogy, 606\n\n Minerva, 79\n\n Minotaur, 603, 636\n\n Mint, wild, 57\n\n Miracle, 8, 327, 541, 637, 686;\n distinguished from magic, 242, 265, 387-8, 417, 437-9, 465, 505;\n by heretics, 507-8\n\n Mirror, 180, 236, 417, 468, 644;\n and see Divination by polished surfaces, Optics\n\n Missal, 759\n\n Misy, 132\n\n Mistletoe, 23, 79\n\n Mithra, 368, 429\n\n Mithrobarzanes, a magician, 281\n\n \u201cModern,\u201d 717\n\n Mohammed and Mohammedan, 139, 337, 356, 445, Chap. xxviii, 688\n\n Mole, 63, 67, 70, 80-1, 88, 409, 494, 587\n\n Monastery, Monasticism, and Monk, 505, 637-9, 679\n\n Monkey, 148\n\n Monreale, 427\n\n Monster, 627\n\n Mont, temple of, 559\n\n _Montaster_, an herb, 598\n\n Monte Cassino, 597, 610, 743ff.\n\n Month, specified, 585, 588, 590, 676, 685-9, 728, 737, 774;\n and see Moon, observance of\n\n Montpellier, 109, 741\n\n Monument, 565\n\n Moon, addressed, 727;\n affected by magic, 203, 225, 280, 308, 468, 492;\n controls generation and corruption, 210, 219, 354, 633, 708;\n day of the, 79, 572, chap. xxix;\n duration of, 180, 702;\n and Easter, 521;\n observance of, 69-71, 78, 80, 90-1, 98, 178, 216, 283, 322, 324, 333,\n 364, 539, 580, 582, 590-2, 598-9, chap. xxix, 720, 724, 729, 756,\n 780;\n relation to other planets and to the signs, 179, 211;\n spots on, 354;\n size of, 488;\n and see Bleeding, Luna, Selene, Tide\n\n Moon-earth, 765\n\n Moon-god, 382\n\n Moon-stone, 250\n\n Moon-tree, 564\n\n Moralizing, 101, 490, 638\n\n Mortar, pounded in a, 82, 765\n\n Mortuary magic, 8-9\n\n Mosaic, 367, 427, 764\n\n Mosaic law, see Law\n\n Moses, see other index\n\n Mother, goddess or Great, 216, 360\n\n Mouse, 23, 80, 166, 175, 213, 325, 491, 587, 737;\n field-, 98, 279;\n shrew-, 76, 86, 88\n\n Mountain, marvelous, 346-7;\n magnetic, 756;\n affected by magic, 226, 416\n\n Mule, 88, 183, 390, 589, 736\n\n Mullein, 490\n\n Muscle, 145, 150, 580\n\n Muses, 371\n\n Mushroom, 219\n\n Music, 319, 325, 534, 619, 744;\n and magic, 6;\n and medicine, 124;\n and architecture, 185;\n of the spheres, 26, 184, 193, 371, 487, 544, 622\n\n Mutton-fat, 722\n\n Mycenaean art, 301\n\n Myriogenesis, 537\n\n _Myrmecia_, a gem, 166\n\n Myrrh, 586, 765\n\n Mysia, 216\n\n Mysteries, 139, 216, 221, 223, 243, 245, 248, 317, 360-1, 368, 377,\n 428-9;\n and see Eleusis, Mithra\n\n Mysticism, 211, 254-5, 677, 763\n\n Mythology, and magic, 8, 21;\n and astrology, 16, 282-3;\n miscellaneous, 211, 215, 282, 294, 327, 407, 415-6, 545-6, 620\n\n\n Nail, metal, 78, 81, 87, 90, 280, 581, 722\n\n Nail parings, toe and finger, 71, 581\n\n Names, see of Christ and God, and Words, power of\n\n Nannacus, see Annacus\n\n Nard, 169\n\n Nativities, 25, 95, 104, 115, 185, 471, 559-60, 632, 679, 712\n\n Nature, Pliny on, 42, 46-7;\n Seneca, 101;\n Galen, 150-1;\n as a teacher, 155;\n Plutarch, 210;\n in contrast to fate, 375\n\n Neck, stiff, 737\n\n Necromancy, 21, 197, 228, 233, 264, 270, 280, 300, 419, 466, 539, 629,\n 705;\n as proof of immortality, 416;\n relation to science, 744\n\n Nectabis, 463\n\n Nectanebo or Nectanebus, chap. xxiv, 391, 463, 516, 704\n\n Needle, copper, 590;\n eye of, 396\n\n Nektanebes, Nekht-Har-ehbet, Nekhte-nebof, 558-9;\n and see Nectanebus\n\n Neo-Latin, 732, 757\n\n\n Neo-Platonism, chap. xi, 116, 208, 296-7, 349, 540, 544-5, 661\n\n Nero, emperor, 61, 171, 201, 260, 262, 423-5, 553, 585\n\n Nerva, emperor, 244\n\n Nerve and nervous system, 145-6\n\n Nestorian, 554\n\n Nettle, 636, 768\n\n _Neuri_, 330\n\n Nias Island, 170\n\n Niceta, a character in the _Recognitions_, chap. xvii\n\n Nicias, 22, 204\n\n Niello, 769\n\n Night-shade, an herb, 581\n\n Night time and magic, 68, 78, 129, 224-6, 234\n\n Nigromancy, see Necromancy\n\n Nikon, father of Galen, 122\n\n Nile, 102, 179-80, 198, 254, 559;\n horses, 169\n\n Nimrod and magic, 413\n\n Nine, 88, 371, 590, 592, 598, 721, 727\n\n Nineveh, 243\n\n Nitrate, 772\n\n Nitro-muriatic acid, 772\n\n Noah\u2019s ark, 20;\n and see Flood\n\n Noon, 248, 755\n\n Norman and Normandy, 427, 745\n\n Nose, 576, 589\n\n Notebook, 45-6;\n and see Lecture notes\n\n Notory art, 267\n\n Nude and Nudity, 83, 93, 295, 565, 588\n\n Numa, king, 274, 505\n\n Number, observance of, and theory of perfect, 26, 69, 91, 178, 212,\n 258, 273, 317, 355-7, 370, 373, 383, 430, 441, 521, 544-5, 621, 627,\n 675;\n and see Five, Four, Nine, Seven, Ten, Three\n\n Numitor, king, 602\n\n Nymph, 546\n\n\n Oak, 493\n\n Oath, 430\n\n Obelisk, 558\n\n Obscenity in magic and medicine, 61-2, 167-8, 204, 207, 236\n\n Observation, Pliny, 48, 53-4;\n magicians, 64-5;\n Ptolemy, 105, 107, 110, 112;\n Galen, 156;\n reputed Chaldean, 95, 316;\n Dioscorides, 606;\n and see Experimental method\n\n Obstetrics, see Child-birth\n\n Occult virtue, discussions of and\n references to of a general character, in Egypt, 10;\n Pliny, 64-5, 75-6, 81, 89;\n Galen, 169-70;\n Vitruvius, 183;\n Plutarch, 212-3;\n Neo-Platonists, 304, 307, 311, 320, 542-3;\n Brahmans, 257-8;\n Marbod, 778-81;\n miscellaneous, 441, 454, 468-9\n\n Ocean, 489\n\n _Ocimum_, an herb, 93\n\n Oculist, 284, 670\n\n Odor, foul, 536\n\n Odysseus, 264, 281, 509, 629\n\n Oea, 222ff.\n\n Oil, 68, 90, 92, 130, 142, 154, 168-9, 171, 175, 213, 256, 373, 572,\n 606, 724, 779\n\n Ointment, see Unguent\n\n Old-wives, 166, 204, 234, 250, 272, 586;\n and see Witch\n\n Olybrius, emperor, 606\n\n Olympias, mother of Alexander, 560ff.\n\n Olympic games, 22, 102\n\n Olympus, Mt., 198, 296, 429\n\n Omens and portents, 14, 92, 178, 201, 231, 251, 254, 260, 318, 430,\n 471, 543, 560, 562, 675\n\n One, Once, for the first time, 82, 92, 210, 582\n\n Onesiphorus, 396\n\n Onion, 20\n\n Onoel, a spirit, 367\n\n _Ophites_, a marble, 87\n\n Ophites, a sect, 365, 383\n\n Opium, 724\n\n Opobalsam, 128\n\n Optics, 108, 218, 237, 276, 669\n\n Oracle, 21, 95, 203, 206-7, 253, 278, 295, 318, 432, 442, 466, 534,\n 627\n\n Oratory, 535, 776\n\n Ordeal, 386, 468, 759\n\n _Oreites_, a gem, 295\n\n Orestes, 324\n\n Oreus, 365\n\n Organ, musical, 187-8, 192\n\n Oriental attitude, exaggerated estimate of, 20-1, 388\n\n Originality, 569, 575, 616\n\n _Origanum_, an herb, 218\n\n Origenists, 461, 519\n\n Oromazes, a magician, 236\n\n Orphic rites, 296, 429\n\n Osiris, 13, 196, 223, 233, 546\n\n Ossifrage, 87\n\n Ostrich, 636\n\n Ouroboros, the encircling serpent, 197, 763\n\n Owl, 63, 68, 70, 253\n\n Ox, 468, 722, 755\n\n Oxford, 642\n\n Oxygen, 143\n\n Oyster, 218\n\n\n Padua, 164\n\n _Paeanites_, a gem, 329\n\n Paganism, 203, 294, 317, 327, 512, chap. xxiv, 661-2\n\n Painting, 177, 187, 764\n\n Palatine hill, 125, 134\n\n Palermo, 427\n\n Palestine, 132, 280, 438\n\n Palimpsest, 553\n\n Palm, 62, 230, 333, 636\n\n Pamphile, a witch, 229ff.\n\n Pamphylia, 132\n\n Pan, the god, 251, 546\n\n Panacea, 172\n\n Pancrates, a magician, 280-1\n\n _Pantarbe_, 252\n\n Panther, 74, 256\n\n Papacy, 705;\n see Sixtus IV for patronage of learning by\n\n Papyri, 12, 14, 22, 27-8, 193, 196, 365, 467, 686\n\n Paradise, 367, 470, 488\n\n Paralysis, 739;\n of the face, 738;\n tongue, 755\n\n Parchment, 589, 729, 764\n\n Pard, 74, 168\n\n Paris, 642\n\n Parrot, 575\n\n Parthians, 373, 376\n\n Partridge, 168, 324, 574\n\n Pastoral magic, 70\n\n _Paternoster_, see Lord\u2019s Prayer\n\n Pathology, 576\n\n Paul the apostle, 405, 413, 424, 449, 505;\n potion of, 739\n\n Peacock, 574, 636\n\n Pebble, 591\n\n Pelican, 324\n\n Pella, 278\n\n Penalty, 293, 313, 433\n\n Penance, 513\n\n Pendant, 301\n\n Peony, 78, 173, 614, 740, 756\n\n Pepper, 169, 176, 256, 586, 637\n\n Pergamum, 122, 124, 130, 136, 149, 171, 236\n\n _Peristereos_, an herb, 77\n\n Persecution, fear of, 194\n\n Persia and Persian, 58, 66, 376, 451, 475, 479, 503, 553, 558, 744,\n 762\n\n Personification, 198, 343\n\n Perspective, see Optics\n\n Peru, 7, 17\n\n Peter the apostle, 231, chap xvii, 505\n\n _Petroselinon_, 132\n\n Phaethon, 283\n\n _Phalangium_, an insect, 86\n\n Phallic ritual, 308\n\n Phantasm and Phantom, see Apparition, Ghost\n\n Phanuel, an angel, 342\n\n Pharaoh\u2019s dream, 358;\n magicians, 379, 385, 417, 438, 446, 464, 470, 506-8, 629\n\n Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 10, 20, 83, 122, 133, 343, 413, 434, 610,\n 734-5\n\n Phidias, 24, 407\n\n Philae, 559\n\n Philip of Macedon, 331, 560ff.\n\n Philoctetes, 294\n\n Philology, 535, 545\n\n Philosopher\u2019s stone, 52, 197, 398, 763;\n and see Alchemy\n\n Philosophy, Greek, 21;\n and alchemy, 13, 199;\n and magic, 24, 61, 234, 246, 310, 440, 535;\n and astrology, 674;\n and business, 97;\n Seneca, 103;\n Galen and pseudo-Galen, 123-4, 127, 133, 139, 146, 149-50, 176, 180;\n Vitruvius, 185-6;\n other mentions of, 220, 223, 279, 360, 416, 466, 471, 481, 485, 493,\n 536, 620, 707;\n and see names of individuals (largely in other index) and schools.\n\n Phlebotomy, see Bleeding\n\n Phoebus, 620;\n and see Apollo\n\n Phoenicia, 438\n\n Phoenix, 207, 257, 332-3, 347, 460\n\n Phraotes, 258\n\n Phrygia and Phrygian, 206, 430, 597, 630\n\n Phylactery, 513\n\n _Physica_, 512, 579-80\n\n Physics, 644\n\n Physiognomy, 26, 176, 179, 460, 668\n\n Physiology, 145, 395, 657-60\n\n Pig, 76, 85, 168, 219, 393, 587, 727, 729, 764, 766;\n and see Swine\n\n Pill, 739\n\n Pillow, beneath one\u2019s, 90\n\n Pine-tree, 490, 493\n\n Piper, 217\n\n Pirronius, a magician, 604\n\n Piston, 192\n\n Place, observed in magic, 645\n\n Plagiarism, 186, 483, 649, 742, 746-7\n\n Plague, Galen and, 124, 142, 171;\n of 1348 A.\u202fD., 164;\n Apollonius and, 259, 391;\n of 542 A.\u202fD., 575;\n of Egypt, 325, 357, 491, 522, 685, 687, 696;\n miscellaneous, 410, 432, 538-9, 600\n\n Planetary week, 16, 513, 633\n\n Planets, when distinguished, 13-4, 16;\n properties of, 97, 113-4, 346, 383, 526, 529, 662, 711;\n in Gnosticism, 361;\n in art, 379;\n and the metals, 347, 368, 709, 763, 767;\n and herbs, 291;\n position at creation, 711, 713;\n and formation of foetus, see Child-birth\n\n Plate, metal, 229, 386, 572, 582\n\n Platonism, 221, 243, 456;\n for Plato see other index\n\n Pleiades, 179, 355, 636\n\n Pleurisy, 738\n\n Plough, 80\n\n Pneumatics, 188\n\n Poetry, 6, 95, 511, 535\n\n Poison and Poisoning, relation to magic, 25, 61, 441;\n to medicine, 56;\n venomous human beings, 324;\n safeguards against, 67, 70-1, 386, 614,\n and see Antidote;\n miscellaneous, 81, 86-7, 231-2, 397, 417, 460, 535, 565, 572, 574,\n 668, 721, 733\n\n Polar star, 384\n\n Polion, an herb, 77\n\n Politics, 358, 666\n\n Pompholyx, 132\n\n Pontianus, 223-4\n\n Pontiff, 124, 149\n\n Pontus, drugs from, 87, 132\n\n Poplar, 90\n\n Poppy, bearing stones, 216\n\n Population, 136\n\n Pork, 142\n\n Pot-herbs, 606\n\n Potter and Pottery, 384, 433, 588-9\n\n _Praestigium_, 630, 665\n\n Praetor, 538\n\n Prayer, 12, 79, 104, 219, 233, 382, 398, 412, 423, 426, 443, 457,\n 530-1, 589, 645, 671, 705, 728;\n procuring answer to, 70, 294, 593, 779;\n by others than man, 457;\n to others than God, 260, 264, 303, 526, 598-9, 661;\n of St. John, 721;\n and see Lord\u2019s Prayer, Incantation\n\n Predestination, 514\n\n Prefect, 526\n\n Pregnant stone, 740\n\n Presbyter, 437\n\n Prescription, medical, 152, 159, 172\n\n Presentation, literary and scientific, 570, 595, 625\n\n Prester, John, 477\n\n Priest, 9, 13, 15, 21, 79, 85, 131, 195, 197, 300, 386, 533, 754, 763,\n 766\n\n Priscillianists, 478, 519\n\n Private parts, 343, 536\n\n Procharus, 397\n\n Proconsul, 235, 527\n\n Professions, learned, 5, 125-6, 186-7, 744\n\n Prognostication, medical, 164\n\n Prophecy and Prophet, 25, 77, 205, 230, 352, 370, 439, 447, 459, 465,\n 476, 479, 534\n\n Proteus, 263\n\n Psychology, 75, 144-5, 657-60\n\n Ptah-Seker-Ausar, 233\n\n Ptolemais, 541\n\n Ptolemy, king of Egypt, 135\n\n Pulse, 144-5, 430, 658\n\n Pump, 187, 192\n\n Punic, 597\n\n Puppy, see Dog\n\n Purging, 667;\n the lungs, 143\n\n Purification, 62, 204, 232, 441, 531, 598\n\n Purple, 173, 197-8, 590-1, 604\n\n Push-ball, 487\n\n Pylades, 144-5\n\n _Pyrethrum_, an herb, 614\n\n _Pyrigoni_, 324\n\n Pyrites, 571, 768\n\n Pyromancy, 260, 629\n\n Pyrrhus, 83\n\n _Pytho_, 629\n\n Pythagorean, 26, 32, 50, 58, 61, 63, 65-6, 179, 184, 243, 258, 260,\n 280, 370, 456, 544\n\n\n Quail, 490\n\n Quadrivium, 632\n\n Qualities, the four, 114, 139-40, 154, 157, 218, 485, 751, 755;\n and see Cold, Heat\n\n Quartan fever, 269, 579-81, 736\n\n Quaternities, divine, 674\n\n Quick-lime, 434, 571\n\n Quinsy, 77, 89\n\n Quintus Cicero, 269ff.\n\n\n Rabbi, 355, 445. 470\n\n Rabbit, 588, 729\n\n Race, 184, 781;\n for strange races see Hyperboreans, Seres, etc.\n\n Radiation of force or light, 643-6\n\n Radish, 721\n\n Rainbow, 409\n\n Rain-making, 23-4, 103, 386, 430\n\n Rain-water, 81-2\n\n Ram, 213, 332, 424, 467\n\n Raphael, the angel, 342, 367, 447, 452, 454\n\n Rat, 76\n\n Ravenna, 367, 763\n\n Raymond, archbishop of Toledo, 657\n\n Reading, medieval, 604, 617-8\n\n Reason, 218, 660;\n free from magic, 300;\n and experience, 157\n\n Red, used, 65, 581, 508, 740\n\n Red Sea, 84, 208\n\n Redeemer, 361, 363, 438\n\n Reed, 75-6, 80, 90, 215, 591, 726\n\n Reformed churches, 447\n\n Reggio, 445, 745\n\n Relics of saints, 444, 446, 593, 675\n\n Religion, and magic, 5-6, 8-9, 15, 18, 20, 22-3, 33-4, 60, 232, 256,\n 505, 533;\n and astrology, 15-7, 524, 529-31;\n and science, 407-8, 479, chap. xxi;\n other than Christian, 94, 361, 725,\n and see Mohammedanism, Paganism, etc.;\n medieval religious attitude, 746, 752;\n and see Christianity, God, Theology, Trinity, etc.\n\n Renaissance, 20, 122, 570, 618\n\n _Reseda_, an herb, 93\n\n Respiration, see Breathing\n\n Resurrection of the body, 47, 415, 541\n\n Resuscitation of corpses, 280, 391, 394, 397, 424, 426, 638, 763\n\n Revelation, 56, 253, 407;\n and see Divination by\n\n Revolutions, astrological, 26, 377, 650\n\n Rhetoric, 124, 221, 269, 483, 518, 533, 535, 555, 596, 603, 700\n\n Rhodes, 269, 301\n\n Rhododendron, 175\n\n Rhubarb, first mention of, 576\n\n Riddles, 636\n\n Right hand, etc., used or preferred, 70, 78, 81, 83, 88, 90, 92, 324-5,\n 332, 574, 580-1, 591-2, 767\n\n Ring, 69, 78, 173, 219, 251, 253, 280, 292, 379, 564, 582, 590, 592,\n 599, 656, 662, 705, 755\n\n Ring-worm, 93\n\n Rip van Winkle, 399\n\n Ritual, 12, 23;\n and see Ceremonial\n\n Roads, Roman, 135-6\n\n Robber, 117\n\n Robert, king of France, 672, 704, 736\n\n Robert Guiscard, 745\n\n Romance, Greek, 22, 221, 232, 553;\n Medieval, 557\n\n Romanesque, 502\n\n Romans, traits of, 184\n\n Rome, as center of learning, 124, 128-31, 135, 162, 201, 222, 242, 269,\n 277, 537, 586, 741;\n other mentions, 209, 230, 366, 372, 403, 408, 421, 423-4, 464, 553\n\n Romulus, 209, 274, 330, 602\n\n Root, see Herb\n\n Rose, 230, 751;\n wild, 56\n\n Royal Society, 214\n\n Rubbing, 142\n\n Ruddy complexion, 768-71\n\n Rue, 737;\n eaten by weasel, 74, 324, 626\n\n Ruin, excavated, 762\n\n Russet, 89\n\n Rust, 766\n\n Rustic, experience, 578, 585\n\n\n Sabaoth, 365, 367, 379, 451, 583, 599\n\n Sabbath, 204, 513\n\n Sabians, 661-3\n\n _Sacerdos_, 235\n\n Sacra Via, 125, 133, 424\n\n Sacrifice, 68, 79, 104, 131, 166, 215, 248, 250-1, 261, 294-5, 308-9,\n 317, 363, 414, 431, 645, 661-3, 705;\n human, 62, 207, 249, 418, 539, 687\n\n _Sacrum amarum_, 739\n\n Saffron, 656, 765\n\n _Sagmina_, sacred herbs, 76\n\n St. Gall, 640, 677\n\n St. Sophia, 575, 770\n\n Sakkara, 9\n\n Salamander, 54, 68, 85, 214, 324, 511, 636;\n \u201cwool,\u201d 214\n\n Salerno, chaps. xxxi, xxxii\n\n _Salisatores_, 630\n\n Saliva, 20, 82, 88-9, 92-3, 174, 281, 373, 392, 573, 588, 592, 656, 769\n\n Salmon, 424\n\n Salt, 213, 373, 467, 583, 670;\n and see Holy, Sodom\n\n _Saltus Gilberti_, 705\n\n Salve, 87, 606, 722\n\n Salvia, 739\n\n Samaria, 363-4, 368, 421\n\n Samothracian orgies, 149\n\n Samuel, ghost of, see Endor, witch of\n\n Sandal-Makers, street of, 134\n\n Sandals, 230\n\n _Sandastros_, a gem, 97\n\n Sapphire, 496, 779\n\n Saracen, 138, 718\n\n Sarcophagus, 476\n\n Sard, 777\n\n Sardinia, 329\n\n Sardis, 255\n\n _Sardonia_, an herb, 329\n\n Sardonic laugh, 329\n\n Satire, 285\n\n Saturn, god, 207;\n planet, 97, 184, 580, 633, 768\n\n Saturninus, a heretic, 372\n\n Satyr, 263-4, 546\n\n Saul, 448, 469\n\n Scarab, 10, 68, 333\n\n Scarification, 721\n\n Scepticism, see Credulity and\n\n Sciatica, 69\n\n Scientific spirit, curiosity, etc., 144, 234, 308, 378-9, 437, 485-6,\n 494, 502-4, 528, 535, 559, 669, 752;\n and see Experiment, Observation\n\n Scipio Orfitus, 223\n\n Scorpion, 74, 81, 85-8, 171, 174, 494, 573, 583, 656, 666\n\n Scotland, 654\n\n Scrofula, 82, 89, 91, 587\n\n Sculpture, 277, 501\n\n Scylla, the monster, 263, 636;\n an herb, 526\n\n Scythian, 59, 77, 245, 407, 496, 654\n\n Sea, 225, 738;\n and see Bath\n\n Sea-calf, 580;\n faring, 245;\n foam, 468;\n gull, 159;\n hare, 171, 236, 238, 587;\n holly, 213;\n serpent, 325, 574;\n star, 89;\n urchin, 68, 490-1\n\n Seal of Diana, 130\n\n Sealing, 69, 278, 468\n\n Seasons, four, 114\n\n Secrecy, 194, 227, 233, 239, 254, 287, 295, 372, 405, 420, 579, 765,\n 776\n\n Seed, 605;\n seedless herbs, 489\n\n _Seia_, 599\n\n Selene, 215\n\n Selenomancy, 98\n\n _Semen_, 369\n\n Semitic, 15\n\n Semo Sancus, 421\n\n _Senecion_, an herb, 614\n\n Sense and Senses, 150, 158, 180, 355\n\n Sepia, 87\n\n Septimius Severus, emperor, 243, 253, 293;\n and see Severi\n\n Septizonium, 253\n\n Serapis, 379, 442, 763\n\n Seres, 376, 402, 412-4\n\n Serf and Servant, 739;\n and see _Colonus_; Slavery\n\n Sermon, 426, 482ff.\n\n Serpent, lifted up in the wilderness, 379;\n and see Snake, Dragon, Sea-serpent\n\n Sesame, 655\n\n Sethians, 365\n\n Sethos, 14\n\n Seven, 14, 16, 49, 67, 69, 169, 179, 198, 212, 232, 253, 258, 279, 282,\n 318, 333, 346, 355-6, 365, 371, 373, 376, 378, 383, 385, 411, 429,\n 435, 491, 522, 537, 545, 581, 590, 592, 599, 633, 676, 724, 771, 777\n\n Seven sleepers, 725, 759\n\n Severi, dynasty of, 125, 130;\n and see Septimius\n\n S\u00e8vres, 762\n\n Sex, observed in magic, 69, 78, 80-2, 94, 729, 759;\n of hyena, 397;\n of herbs and stones, 81, 764;\n of numbers, 179, 371;\n of planets and signs, 282, 662, 709-12;\n predicted, 175-6, 516;\n intercourse, 141, 639, 767\n\n Shadow, 605\n\n Shadow-footed, 256\n\n Shark, 494\n\n Shaving the head, 142, 560, 724\n\n Sheba, 479\n\n Sheep, 68, 102, 168, 173, 219, 467, 490, 582, 656;\n the lost, 363;\n and see Lamb, Ram, Shepherd, Pastoral\n\n Shellfish, 98, 517\n\n Shepherd, 478\n\n Ship, 604;\n wreck, 748\n\n Shirt, 581\n\n Shoe, 638\n\n Short-hand, 134, 232\n\n Showbread, 385\n\n Sibyl, 546;\n for Sibylline books see other index\n\n Sicily, 85, 427, 525\n\n _Sideritis_, a stone, 295\n\n Sieve, 91, 250, 325\n\n Signatures, 310\n\n Sign, see Abbreviation, Divination, Prognostication, Sex predicted,\n Star, Zodiac\n\n Silence observed, 722\n\n Silas, 449\n\n Silk, 608\n\n Silvanus, 546\n\n Silver, 590, 599\n\n Similarity, argument from, 238, 614;\n and see Like cures like\n\n Simon the Canaanite, 392\n\n Simon Magus, chap. xvii, 362-5, 397, 439\n\n Simon, St., 435\n\n Simples, medicinal, in Pliny, 46, 83;\n Galen, 128, 153, 160, 168, 571\n\n Sin, 344, 372-5, 430, 457, 520;\n effect on nature, 254, 345, 350, 409-10, 490\n\n Sinew, 68, 148\n\n Siphon, 189, 191\n\n Siren, 263\n\n Sisebut, king, 623\n\n Sisinnios, 398\n\n Six, 184, 356, 521\n\n Sixtus IV, pope, 349, 596\n\n Skeleton, 233\n\n Skin, 141, 769;\n changing one\u2019s, 170, 238, 324;\n disease, 102, 537;\n see Animals, parts of;\n and the names of particular animals for the use of their skins\n\n Skull, 80, 580\n\n Sky, see Heaven\n\n Slav, 658\n\n Slavery, 136, 170, 350, 515, 668, 683\n\n Slavonic, 342, 345, 398\n\n Sleep, magic, 399\n\n Sleight-of-hand, 370\n\n Slot-machine, 197\n\n Smallpox, 668\n\n Smilax, 92\n\n Smoke, 89, 615\n\n Smyrna, 123\n\n Snail, 89, 92, 586\n\n Snake, remedies against, 84-9, 99, 175, 258, 295, 365, 386, 392, 495,\n 599, 614;\n animals antipathetic to, 84-5, 99, 231;\n virtue in, 23, 168, 197;\n of India, 214, 564;\n Satan and demons as, 365, 391, 430;\n charming, 83, 278-80, 325, 511, 561-2, 638-9;\n sting and venom of, 56, 81-2, 102;\n foam of, 67;\n sloughing of, 170;\n not found in Ismuc, 183;\n at Delphi, 283;\n on a pendant, 301;\n medical knowledge of, 441;\n and see Fennel, tasted by\n\n Sneeze, divination from, 95, 205, 207\n\n Social aspect of magic, 59;\n life in antiquity, 137, 185\n\n Socrates, 137, 139, 204, 234, 240, 270, 288, 532\n\n Soda, washing, 571\n\n Sodom, salts of, 138\n\n Soldier, 56-7\n\n\n Solemnity, required in magic, 644-6\n\n Solon, 326, 355\n\n Son of God, 372, 438\n\n Soot, 236\n\n Sopater, 313\n\n Sophist and Sophistry, 540-1\n\n Soporific, 758\n\n Sorcery, 10, 25, 61, 96, 166, 270, 279, 324, 344, 352, 386, 390, 393,\n 437-8, 441, 655, 690, 733;\n counter-magic against, 17-20, 70, 81, 94, 301, 391, 600;\n and see Goetia, Witchcraft\n\n _Sortilegi_, 630\n\n Sory, 132\n\n Soul, human, Plato on, 25-6;\n Pliny, 47, 96;\n Galen, 150, 178, 180;\n Plutarch, 206-7, 213, 217;\n Neo-Platonists, 309-10, 318;\n Gnostics, 364;\n location of, 735;\n apart from body, 399, 418, 455, 510, 546;\n immortality of, 416, 419, 469, 531, 541;\n other than human, 198, 213;\n and see World-soul\n\n Sound, 143, 201, 430, 542\n\n Sousnyos, St., 398\n\n Spain, 380, 433, 489, 580, 597, 607\n\n Spanish era, 773\n\n Sparrow, 271\n\n Sparta and Spartan, 21-2, 216, 301\n\n Species, 304, 493, 751\n\n Speech, impediment of, 536\n\n _Sphaera barbarica_, 537\n\n Sphere, see Earth, Universe, and other index\n\n Spice, 250, 257, 295, 606\n\n Spider, 90, 94, 168-9, 171, 175, 587\n\n Spinal cord, 146\n\n Spirit, good or evil (including angel and demon, but see also\n Apparition, Ghost, Necromancy, Soul), in early Arabic poetry, 6;\n in the ancient orient, 11, 15, 18-9, 24;\n classical Greece, 24, 26, 180-1;\n on nature of, Plutarch, 203-4, 206-8;\n Apuleius, 240;\n Philostratus, 263-4;\n Iamblichus, 309-10;\n Enoch, 343; Origen and Celsus, 441-3, 452-3;\n Augustine, 508;\n Martianus Capella, 545-6;\n Dionysius the Areopagite, 546-7;\n Christian ascription of other religions to demons, 370, 414, 429ff.,\n 442, 453;\n disease and, 11, 18-9, 299, 343, 452, 722;\n expulsion of, and power over, 253, 262, 386, 405, 414, 417-8, 441,\n 443, 754, 779, and see Exorcism;\n fall of, 343, 374-5;\n familiar and guardian, 207, 210, 368, 370;\n in the air, 206, 240, 424, 463, 508, 635;\n in heavens and stars, chap. xv, 343, 397, 431, 458, 487-8, 519;\n in the moon, 207;\n in nature, 181, 296, 308, 310, 347, 382, 414, 430, 443, 452-4, 543;\n invocation of, 301, 308, 310, 320, 361, 367-8, 371-2, 384, 419, 437,\n 442, 447, 449-52, 543, 655, 674, and see Necromancy, Notory art;\n magic, astrology, arts and sciences ascribed to, 195, 240, 313, 343,\n 368, 370, 412, 414, 417-8, 422, 429-32, 441-3, 447-8, 453, 458-9,\n 463, 465-6, 506-7, 509, 513, 518, 629, 675, 705;\n mediums between God or gods and men, 206, 208, 240, 349, 452-4, 459,\n 621, 675;\n orders of, 308-9, 320, 363, 408, 455, 507, 545-7, 727;\n possessed by, 308, 392, 413-4, 434, 510, 640, 723-4, 754-5;\n safeguards against, 18, 216, 293, 391, 398, 449, 615, 726, 728\n\n _Spiritus_, 147, 658-60\n\n Spit, see Saliva\n\n Spleen, 57, 68-9, 85, 536, 577, 579, 584, 587-8, 591\n\n _Spodium_ or _Spodos_, 132\n\n Sponge, 227\n\n Spoon, 721\n\n Spring, water 229;\n caused to flow, 769;\n and see Fountain, Seasons\n\n Staff, 252, 435, 679\n\n Stag, 84, 207, 294, 324;\n and see Deer\n\n Stained glass, 427, 435, 770\n\n _Stans_, the, 415\n\n Star, nature of, god or animal, etc., 25-6, 103, 206, 210, 212, 240,\n 303, 315, 343-4, 353, 436, 456, 519-21, 530, 620-1, 632, 662, 670;\n as sign, 302, 410, 458, 544;\n not cause of evil, 305, 354, 475, 514;\n cause of evil, 411;\n affected by magic, 225-6;\n shooting, 71, 589;\n fixed, 114;\n and see Astrology;\n Christ, birth of;\n Magi\n\n Star-fish, 56\n\n Starling, 490\n\n Statue, 91, 279, 280, 764;\n healing, 284;\n animated, 188, 416-7, 424, 435;\n and see Image, Sculpture\n\n Steam, 192\n\n Stele of Metternich, 559\n\n Stepmother, 215\n\n Stoic, 50, 141, 178-81, 210, 269-70, 283, 350, 397, 456\n\n Stomach, 92, 173, 536, 592, 656, 757\n\n Stone, the disease, 87, 588, 729;\n and see Gem\n\n Stoning to death, 262, 399\n\n Storax, a gum, 495\n\n Stork, 257, 324-5, 331, 460, 580\n\n Storm-averting magic, 71, 80, 92, 102, 252, 313\n\n Stream, 91, 225-6, 546;\n and see Fountain\n\n Stupa, 251, 413\n\n Style, literary, 222-3, 525, 570, 620\n\n Styx, river, 326\n\n Suanir, 435\n\n Suffumigation, see Fumigation\n\n Suggestion, force of, 265\n\n Sulla, 532\n\n Sulphur, 279, 764\n\n Sumerian, 15, 17\n\n _Summun bonum_, 752\n\n Sun, god and worship, 97, 251, 261, 294-5, 317-8, 382, 492, 524;\n personified, 347, 410, 457, 529;\n and magic, 141, 225-7, 308, 386;\n astrological influence of, 99, 179, 211;\n rising and dawn, 215, 230-1, 256, 261;\n before sunrise, 69, 71, 78, 91, 94, 131, 173, 281, 583, 599, 768;\n before sunset, 583;\n experiment with, 55;\n dial, 185, 187;\n distance and size of, 219, 488;\n tropical, 214;\n tree of, 564\n\n Superstition, Plutarch on, 203-4;\n in medicine, chaps. xxv, xxxi\n\n Surgery, 148-9, 536, 569, 668, 723, 735\n\n Suriel, a spirit, 367\n\n Swaddling cloth, 392, 396\n\n Swallow, habits of, 75, 324, 615, 636;\n use of, 68, 70, 168, 175, 581, 721\n\n Swallow-stone, 755, 766\n\n Swallow-wort, 75, 615, 626\n\n Swan, 636; song, 255, 332\n\n Sweat, 167, 392, 767, 779\n\n Swine, 70, 77, 79, 99, 217;\n and see Pig\n\n Sword, 78, 295;\n magic 258\n\n Sylvia, 404\n\n Symbol and Symbolism, 166, 251, 310, 361, 367, 502, 506, 546, 676-7,\n 679, 721;\n in alchemy, 766-7, 771-2\n\n Sympathetic magic, 68, 84-7, 92, 238, 271, 296, 299, 304, 312, 314,\n 320, 354, 542-3, 614\n\n Symposium, 137, 201-2\n\n\n Symptoms, 735\n\n Syncretism, 525\n\n Synod at Rome, 389, 402\n\n Syracuse, 476\n\n Syria, Syriac, and Syrian, 280, 374, 387, 395, 403-4, 422, 437, 497,\n 499, 503, 554, 559-61, 577, 597, 601, 661, 663, 747, 762\n\n Syrian goddess, 231\n\n Syringe, 192\n\n Syrup, 560\n\n\n Tablecloth, 214\n\n Tables, astronomical, 14;\n of contents, 50, 153.\n\n Tablet, astrological, 560, 563;\n and see Cuneiform, Lead\n\n Taboo, 21;\n and see Iron\n\n Tagus, 630\n\n Tamarisk, 85, 587\n\n Tape-worm, first mentioned, 576\n\n Tarpeian rock, 426\n\n Tarquin the Proud, 602\n\n Tarrutius, an astrologer, 209, 330\n\n Tarsus, 259, 479\n\n Taste, sense of, 505\n\n _Taxo_, 600, 636\n\n Teiresias, 281\n\n Telines, 21\n\n Temperaments, four, 668\n\n Temple, 533;\n of Peace, 125;\n devices, 192-3;\n in alchemy, 197-8, 763;\n Egyptian, 261, 301, 559;\n Jewish, 395;\n Greek, 407;\n of the Sun, 435;\n of Liber, 496;\n Christian, 533\n\n Terebinth-tree, 571\n\n _Terra sigillata_, 130-2, 154, 756\n\n Tetter, 93\n\n Textbook, 635\n\n Text and Textual criticism and history, magic, 9;\n cuneiform, 15, 17-8;\n classics, 21, 27;\n Aristotle, 24, 27;\n Pliny, 52;\n Ptolemy, 106, 108;\n Galen, 119-21;\n Hero, 189;\n alchemy, 193;\n Plutarch, 202;\n Aelian, 322;\n Philo, 348-9;\n patristic, 374, 377, 389, 401-6, 477, 495;\n _Physiologus_, 497-9;\n Alexander legend, chap. xxiv;\n _Medicine of Pliny_, 596;\n Dioscorides, 594, 606-13;\n medicine, 567, 731;\n Isidore, 623;\n medieval alterations, 3, 338, 683, 720\n\n Thaphtabaoth, a spirit, 369\n\n Thaumaturgy, 190\n\n Thautabaoth, a spirit, 367\n\n Theater, 184, 422, 425, 486, 506, 512\n\n Thebes and Theban, 179, 491, 553, 765\n\n Theft, discovery of, and recovery of object, 644, 666, 681, 718, 725;\n aids, 780\n\n Theodamas, 294\n\n Theodoric the East Goth, 569, 617, 619\n\n Theodosius I, emperor, 584\n\n Theodosius II, emperor, 327\n\n Theology, astral, 15, 17, 360-1, 543, 621;\n and magic, 18, 234;\n Galen, 149;\n Egyptian, 370;\n attitude shown, 619-20\n\n _Therapeutae_, 349, 356\n\n Therapeutics, 10, 122, 141, 735\n\n Theriac, 130, 733, 756\n\n Thersites, 269\n\n Thessaly, home of witches, 58, 203, 226\n\n Theurgy, chap. xi, 505, 535\n\n Thomas the apostle, in India, 475, 477\n\n Thoth, 288\n\n Thotmes IV, king of Egypt, 13\n\n Thought, history of, 3-4;\n explained physiologically, 659\n\n Thread, 89, 590, 656\n\n Three, Thrice, etc., 69, 79, 82, 88-9, 91, 93, 169, 174, 295, 476,\n 479, 582, 588-9, 592, 614, 656, 721, 730, 736, 767\n\n Threshold, 69, 89\n\n Throat, disease of, 82\n\n Thunder, divination from, 57, 96, 262, 546, 562, 629, 635-6, 674,\n 679;\n other observance of, 78;\n thought to produce mushrooms, 219;\n stage, 468\n\n Thyme, 571\n\n Tiberius, emperor, 59, 776\n\n Tick, 67\n\n Tide, 254, 274, 351, 517, 530, 703\n\n Tigellinus, 259, 263, 265\n\n Tiger, 256, 502\n\n Tigris-Euphrates, 13-6, 281-2\n\n _Ti\u2019i_, 18\n\n Time, devices for telling, 115, 144, 187, 276, 333, 395;\n observed in magic, 645\n\n Titus, emperor, 42, 45\n\n Toad, 771\n\n Tobias nights, 688\n\n Toledo, 657\n\n Tomb, Egyptian, 9, 14\n\n Tongue, 98, 150;\n use of, 175, 726, 779;\n gift of, 208, 386\n\n Tooth, 68, 82, 84, 159, 279, 599, 600, 656, 769;\n extracting, filling, etc., 175, 573, 779\n\n Toothache, cures for, 56, 68, 88-90, 169, 175, 577, 588-9, 592, 599,\n 614, 724, 727, 755\n\n Toothpowder, 236\n\n Topaz, 495\n\n Top, spinning, 487\n\n Torpedo, 159\n\n Tortoise, 68, 74, 76, 88, 91, 325, 626, 764\n\n Torture, 381, 538\n\n Touch, 324\n\n Tower, of Babylon, 16\n\n Trade, 486, 494;\n and see Merchant, Business\n\n Tradition, see Authority, Legend, Textual history\n\n Trajan, emperor, 135, 373\n\n Transfer, magic, see Disease\n\n Transformation, magic, 21, 23, 226, 250, 280, 390, 393, 399, 415-7,\n 424, 446, 470, 509, 561-2, 630, 773;\n and see Werwolf\n\n Translation, Latin, of Ptolemy, 106, 109-10;\n Galen, 121, 176;\n Hero, 189;\n church fathers, 445, 484;\n post-classical and early medieval, 570, 576, 619, chap. xxiv;\n from the Arabic, 611, 690-1, chaps. xxviii, xxx, xxxii;\n pretended, 292;\n Anglo-Saxon, 638;\n other vernacular, 498, 612, 677, 778;\n Greek, 331, 342, 637;\n magic, 430;\n Arabic, 106, 189, 292, 498, 554, 607, 652-3\n\n Travel, 575, 668, 743\n\n Tree, 255;\n of knowledge, 367, 474;\n of life, 350;\n sun and moon, 474\n\n Trial, for heresy or magic, Apuleius, 222, 232-40;\n Apollonius, 249;\n Priscillian, 381;\n Basilius, 639\n\n Triangle, 206, 356\n\n _Trigona_, Trigones, or _Triplicitates_, 114, 184\n\n Trigonometry, 107\n\n Trinity, 479, 541, 619-20\n\n Triptolemus, 546\n\n Trivia, 236\n\n Trojan war, 260, 271, 294, 363\n\n Trophonius, cave of, 204, 206, 248, 282\n\n Truth, devotion to, 400;\n Galen, 118-9, 123, 127;\n Plotinus, 300;\n Plain of, 211;\n Simon\u2019s Helen and, 364-5\n\n Tube, hidden, 469\n\n T\u00fcbingen theory, 423\n\n Tumor, 71, 82, 93, 571, 587, 590, 599\n\n Tunis, 744\n\n Tunny fish, 218\n\n Turpentine, 132\n\n Tuscan, 598\n\n _Tutia_, 132\n\n Twelve, 14, 383, 385, 411, 495\n\n Twins, 81;\n argument from, against astrology, 273, 275, 514\n\n Typhon, 463, 558\n\n Tyriac, see Theriac\n\n\n Ulcer, 580, 779\n\n Underground, magic learned, 280;\n and see Burial\n\n Underwear, 386, 581\n\n Underworld, 16, 251, 282, 383, 470\n\n Unguent, 55, 128-30, 133, 142, 169, 229, 367, 420, 739, 755\n\n Unicorn, 255, 636\n\n Universals and particulars, 622\n\n Universe, theories of, 180-1, 193, 210, 254, 312, 361-4, 371, 397;\n duration of, 374-6, 541;\n sphericity of, 408\n\n Urine, use of, 81-3, 325, 573, 581, 640, 684, 737, 746, 763, 766-9;\n emission of, 69, 739, 756\n\n Ursa Major, 355\n\n Utensils, 624\n\n\n Vacuum, 189, 669\n\n Valentinus the Gnostic, 364, 374, 411, 488\n\n Valve, 192;\n in brain, 659\n\n Vampire, see _Empousa_, _Lamia_\n\n Vapor, 141\n\n Vaporization, 724\n\n Vascular system, 30\n\n Vases, Greek, 266, 770\n\n Vein, 147, 576, 728\n\n Venesection, see Bleeding\n\n Ventriloquism, 352, 448, 470, 560;\n and see Endor, witch of\n\n Venus, goddess, 236;\n planet, 96-7\n\n Verbena, an herb, 66, 76, 614, 725\n\n Vernacular literature, 3;\n and see Translation\n\n Verus, L., emperor, 124\n\n Vervain, see Verbena\n\n Vespasian, emperor, 253\n\n Vesuvius, Mt., 45\n\n Veterinary, 593, 722, 724, 730\n\n Vinegar, 57, 71, 169, 175, 768\n\n Vineyard, 604\n\n Violet, 751\n\n Viper, use of, 91, 142, 159, 170, 173, 218, 294, 331, 572, and see\n Theriac;\n remedy against, 213, 490, 721;\n mode of generation, 172, 238, 255, 277, 323, 409, 491\n\n Virgin and Virginity, 55, 83, 90, 93, 216, 279, 326, 431, 491, 639,\n 763;\n and see Chastity, and Mary, Virgin\n\n Virtue, see Occult\n\n Virtues, three, 479;\n four, 675\n\n Vision, theory of, 659, 669\n\n Vitriol, 764\n\n Vivisection, 147\n\n Voice, 134, 146, 180, 184\n\n Volcano, 254\n\n Vowels, 92, 356, 371, 379\n\n Vulture, 89, 333, 580, 724, 726, 729\n\n\n Wall, of house, 69\n\n Wand, magic, 20, 252, 508, 560\n\n War and Warfare, 187, 358;\n decried, 6, 46-7, 122\n\n Warts, to get rid of, 71, 88, 166, 589, 737\n\n Washing, ceremonial, 295, 730\n\n Wasp, 332\n\n Water, and Waters, 142, 373, 408, 490;\n above the firmament, 181, 346, 458, 487, 632;\n drinking, 685;\n dissolves magic, 227, 722;\n in which feet washed, 175;\n marvelous, medical, and chemical, 102, 183, 197, 329, 763;\n -jar and -works, 187, 191-2;\n clock, see Time;\n underground, 55;\n and see Fountain, Holy, Stream, Sea, etc.\n\n Wave theory, see Sound\n\n Wax, 71, 229, 467-8, 571, 738;\n and see Image\n\n Weasel, 80, 231, 331, 396, 409, 460, 636;\n and see Rue, tasted by\n\n Weather, observed, 178;\n predicted, 97, 115, 181, 185, 231, 325, 463, 605, 642, 647;\n and see Rain-making, Storm-averting magic\n\n Well, 55, 251, 271\n\n Werwolf, 23, 51, 339\n\n Whale, 49\n\n Wheat, 373, 598\n\n Wheel, 192, 382;\n magic or solar, 266;\n of fortune, 683\n\n\n Whetstone, 71\n\n White, 78-9, 215, 295, 755\n\n Widow, 71\n\n Will, free, relation to fate and the stars, 210, 275-6, 306, 315,\n 374-5, 412, 456, 475, 513, 518, 531, 620-2\n\n William Rufus, king of England, 673\n\n Wind, 16, 78, 373, 676, 678, 728\n\n Wine, 55, 68-9, 132, 137, 142, 231, 263, 295, 572, 581, 605-6, 721,\n 739, 765;\n and see Falernian\n\n Witch, Witchcraft, and Wizard, 2, 18-9, 164, 172, 203, 225-31, 251,\n 344, 373, 407, 535, 599, 722;\n and see Goetia, Old-wives, Sorcery\n\n Wolf, 80, 93, 172, 219, 332, 587-8, 656, 726;\n and see Werwolf\n\n Woman, 396, 588, 710, 740-1;\n diseases of, 82, 142, 289, 536, 746\n\n Wood, 233\n\n Woodpecker, 23, 78\n\n Wool, 89, 173, 590, 656\n\n Words, power of, 10, 24, 152, 207, 231, 239, 279, 299, 311, 370, 378,\n 384, 414, 422-31, 438, 445, 449-52, 476, 507, 561-2, 605, 627, 644,\n 666;\n and see Incantation\n\n World-soul, 96, 150, 210, 254, 299, 303, 349, 358, 410, 544, 622\n\n Worm, 89, 94, 582, 729, 754, 768;\n and see Earthworm, Tape-worm\n\n Wormwood, 722\n\n Writing, a sin, 344;\n invisible, 265\n\n Wryneck, 265-7\n\n\n Yahweh, 446\n\n Year 1000 A.\u202fD., 675\n\n Yew, 81\n\n York, 689\n\n Youth, renewed or perpetual, see Elixir, Fountain, Longevity\n\n\n Zeus, 23, 193, 284, 380\n\n Zodiac, 14, 16, 96, 98, 114, 179, 184, 283, 354, 378, 492, 520, 679,\n 711, 728;\n and parts of human body, 662, 673-4, 777\n\n Zoology, 237, 503;\n and see Animal\n\n Zone, 376\n\n\n\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX\n\nNames of authors, editors, translators, publishers, etc., in Roman\ntype. Titles and periodicals in italics. Leading passages in italics.\nBibliographical abbreviations, such as EB, HL, PG, PL, are as a rule\nnot indexed. In the abbreviated titles such opening words as _De_ and\n_Liber_ are omitted to facilitate alphabetical arrangement. In proper\nnames _De_ and _Von_ are usually designated by _d._ and _v._, and are\ntreated as initials.\n\n\n Abammon, 307\n\n Abano, Peter of, 162, 179, 409, 600, 610, 651, 665, 710, 714\n\n Abdallah, 693\n\n Abdias, 425-6\n\n Abel, A., 434\n\n Abel, E., 291, 293, 463\n\n Abelard, Peter, 475, 544\n\n Abgarus, 395\n\n _Abhandlungen d. bayr. Akad._, 567-8\n\n _Abhandlungen d. Berlin Akad._, 121, 468, 732\n\n _Abhandlungen z. Gesch. d. Math. Wiss._, 642\n\n Abraham the patriarch, reputed book of, 445\n\n Abraham, cited by Firmicus, 537\n\n Abraham of Tortosa, 611\n\n Abt, _Apologie d. Apuleius_, 22, 239\n\n Abu Jafar Ahmed Ibn-al-Jezzar, 745\n\n Abu Sa\u2019id Sch\u00e2dsan, 651\n\n _Accad. dei Lincei, Rendiconti dell\u2019_, 499\n\n _Accad. di Monaco, Atti dell\u2019_, 551\n\n _Acta Sanctorum_, 296\n\n _Acts of the Apostles_, 136, 510\n\n _Acts_ (Apocryphal)\n _of Archelaus_, 398\n _of Barnabas_, 397\n _of John_, 397\n _of Nereus and Achilles_, 425\n _of Paul_, 396\n _of Paul and Thecla_, 395\n _of Peter_, 405\n _of Peter and Andrew_, 396\n _of Peter and Paul_, 397, 424\n _of Philip_, 397\n _of Pilate_, 390, 395\n _of Thomas_, 374, 397\n\n Adalmus, 673\n\n Adam, _Moon-Book_, 682\n\n Adam of Bremen, 773\n\n Adam of St. Victor, 398\n\n Adams, F., 568\n\n Ad-Dam\u00eer\u00ee, 393, 688\n\n Adelard of Bath, 100, 468, 652, 664, 706, 773\n\n Adelbold, 706-7\n\n Ademarus Cabannensis, 704\n\n Adhelmus, see Aldhelm\n\n Aelfric, 484, 677\n\n Aelian, 238, 300, _322-6_, 331\n\n Aemilius Macer, 612\n\n Aeschrion, 178\n\n Aeschylus, 325\n\n Aesculapius, 537, 597-8, 600, 735\n\n Aesop, 553\n\n Aethicus, see Ethicus\n\n Aetius of Amida, 163, 170, 292, _chap. xxv_\n\n Agathodaemon, 195\n\n Agathias, 575\n\n _Aggregator_, 611\n\n Agricola, _De re metal._, 132, 329\n\n Agrippa, H.\u202fC., _Occult Philosophy_, 454, 653\n\n Ahrens, K., 497, 499, 503\n\n Ajasson, 42\n\n Alandraeus, see Alchandrus\n\n Albaihaqi, 670\n\n Albandinus, 716\n\n Alberic the Deacon, 752\n\n Albertus Magnus, 158, 163, 326, 600, 658, 725, 772\n _Animal._, 503, 563, 746\n _Causis et propriet._, 563\n _Mineral._, 501, 653\n _Somno et vigilia_, 359\n _Speculum astronomiae_, 647, 650, 664\n _Veget. et plantis_, 653\n\n Albucasis, 742\n\n Albumasar, 524, 647, _649-52_, 691\n _Conjunctions_, 649-51\n _Experiments_, 649\n _Flores_, 649-50\n _Greater Introduction_, 649\n _Lesser Introduction_, 652\n _Mysteries_, 651\n _Rains_, 651-2\n _Revolutions_, 651\n _Sadan_, 651\n _Searching of the Heart_, 649\n\n Alchadrinus or Alchandrinus, see Alchandrus\n\n Alchandrus, _710-19_\n _Breviary_, 714ff.\n _Mathematica_, 710ff.\n\n _Alchamia_, 774\n\n Alchimus, 601\n\n Alcibiades, see Helxai, Book of\n\n Alcuin, 556, 617, 658\n\n Aldhelm, 636\n\n Aldus, see _Medici antiqui_\n\n Alexander the Great, 331, 578\n astrological treatises, 712ff.\n _Mirabilibus Indiae_, _555-6_, 564\n _Responsio ad Dindimum_, 556\n\n Alexander of Aphrodisias, 578\n\n Alexander Polyhistor, 341\n\n Alexander of Tralles, _chap. xxv_, 137-8, 174, 596, 721, 747\n\n Alexandre, _Oracula Sibyllina_, 287\n\n Alexis, _Mandragorizomene_, 22\n\n Alfanus, 752-3\n\n Al-Farabi, 744\n\n Alfraganus, 737\n\n Alfred the Great, king, 637\n\n Algazel, 744\n\n _Alhabib, Book of_, 763\n\n Alhandreus, see Alchandrus\n\n Ali ibn Abbas, _Khitaab el Maleki_, 747\n\n Alkindi, chap xxviii\n _Deceits of Alchemists_, 649\n _Empire of Arabs_, 648\n _Judgments_, 648\n _Geomancy_, 648\n _Pluviis_, 647-8\n _Properties of Swords_, 649\n _Somno et visione_, 646\n _Spectaculis_, 642\n _Stellar Rays_, 643-6\n\n Allard, P., 298\n\n Alma, J. d\u2019, 349\n\n _Alphita_, 600\n\n _Alte Orient_, 7, 33-5\n\n Amatus of Salerno, 752\n\n Ambrose, 426, 447, 494, 499, 505, 686\n _Hexaemeron_, 482-3, 485\n _Moribus Brachmannorum_, 557\n\n Am\u00e9lineau, 360, 377\n\n _American Historical Association Papers_, 632\n\n _American Journal of Archaeology_, 17\n\n _American Mathematical Monthly_, 31\n\n _American Society of Church History Papers_, 406\n\n Amigeron, see Damigeron\n\n Ammianus Marcellinus, 285, 288, 318-9, 527\n\n Amplonius, _Catalogue of MSS_, 267\n\n Anastasius Antiochenus, 469\n\n Anaxagoras, 456\n\n Anaxandrides, 22\n\n Anaxilas, 22\n\n Anaxilaus, 88, 214\n\n Anaximenes, 181\n\n Andreas, 154\n\n Andrian, F.\u202fv., 16\n\n Andromachus, 171\n\n Angelus, J., 106, 525\n\n _Annales de la Facult\u00e9 des Lettres de Bordeaux_, 704\n\n _Annales du Service des Antiquit\u00e9s de l\u2019Egypte_, 14\n\n _Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, 6\n\n Ansileubus, 503\n\n _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, 387, and Book II _passim_\n\n _Anthropologie, L\u2019_, 6\n\n Antipater, 185\n\n Antisthenes, 553\n\n Antonius Eparchus, 745\n\n Antonius Musus, 600\n\n Anz, _Gnostizismus_, 360, 383\n\n Aomar, 647\n\n Aphaxad, 435\n\n Apion, 405\n\n _Apocrypha_, _chap. xvi_, 342, 406\n\n Apollonius, to whom works of magic are ascribed, 267\n\n Apollonius of Perga, 663\n\n Apollonius of Tyana, _Epistles_ and _Will_, 244;\n and see other index\n\n Apollonius and Galen, 723\n\n Apostles, see _Acts_, _Constitutiones_, _Didascalia_\n\n Apuleius of Madaura, _chap. vii_, 165, 242, 290, 309, 390, 465, 508\n _Apology_, 222-5, 232-41, 463\n _Dogma of Plato_, 222, 241, 596\n _Florida_, 222, 233\n _God of Socrates_, 222, 240-1\n _Golden Ass or Metamorphoses_, 222-32, 241, 332, 406, 509\n _Natural Questions_, 237\n _Universe_, 222\n dubious or spurious\n _Asclepius_, see Hermes Trismegistus\n grammatical and rhetorical, 596\n _Herbarium_, _chap. xxvi_, 696\n _Sphere_, _chap. xxix_, 197, 596\n\n Aquinas, Thomas, 519, 544, 658\n\n Aratus, 709\n\n Arcandam, 716\n\n _Archaeologia_, chap. xxxiii\n\n Archandrinus, see Alchandrus\n\n Archigenes, 137, 152, 168, 176\n\n Archimatthaeus, 738\n\n Archimedes, 29, 663\n _Catoptrica_, 237\n\n Archinapolus, 185\n\n _Archiv f. Gesch. d. Medizin_, 188, 737\n\n _Archiv f. Kunde \u00f6sterreich. Geschichtsquellen_, 498\n\n _Archiv f. Studium d. Neuer. Sprachen_, 673\n\n Arendzen, J.\u202fP., 360, 371\n\n Aretaeus, 570\n\n Aretinus Quilichinus, 558\n\n Arevalus, 402, 623\n\n Arfarfan or Argafalan or Argafalaus, 711\n\n Aristarchus, 31, 219\n\n Aristodemus, 574\n\n Aristophanes, 24\n _Birds_, 324\n _Goetes_, 22\n\n Aristotle, 3, 26, 32, 103, 139, 146, 153, 180, 205, 210, 237-8,\n 317, 408, 451, 553, 563, 565, 619-20, 632, 642, 657, 663-5, 764\n _Animals, History of_, 24-30, 50, 129, 240, 255, 331, 486, 491, 503\n _Categoriis_, 677\n _Generatione_, 30\n _Interpretatione_, 677\n _Metaphysics_, 621\n _Meteorology_, 486\n _Partibus_, 30\n _Physics_, 622\n _Politics_, 97\n dubious or spurious\n _Images_, 666\n _Lapidary_, 654, 656, 671, 756\n _Secret of Secrets_, 555\n\n Arnald of Villanova, 162, 653, 688, 736-7, 741\n\n Arnheim, 316\n\n Arnobius, 423, 505\n\n Arnold of Saxony, 611\n\n Arrian, 553\n\n Artemidorus, 201\n\n Artephius or Artesius, 774\n\n _Asakki mars\u00fbti_, 18\n\n Ascalu the Ishmaelite, 711\n\n _Ascension of Isaiah_, 399\n\n Asclepiades, 141, 168\n\n _Asclepius_, see Hermes Trismegistus\n\n Ashmole, E., _Theatrum chemicum Britannicum_, 773\n\n Astrolabe, anonymous treatises on, chap. xxx\n\n Athenaeus, 120, 196, 202\n\n Athenagoras, 288\n\n Aubert u. Wimmer, 73\n\n Audollent, 28\n\n Aufidius Bassus, 45\n\n Augustine, _chap. xxii_, 241-2, 288, 303, 447, 476, 485, 617, 626,\n 628, 658, 660, 686, 692\n _Anima_, 147\n _Cataclysmo_, 507\n _City of God_ (_Civitate Dei_), 320, 326, chap. xxii, 535, 552-4\n _Confessions_, 459, 504-5, 509, 511\n _Consensu Evangelistarum_, 505\n _Contra Academicos_, 518\n _Contra Faustum_, 518\n _Contra Priscillianistas_, 519\n _Diversis quaestionibus_, 508, 510, 514\n _Divinatione daemonum_, 508\n _Doctrina Christiana_, 508, 521\n _Enchiridion_, 519\n _Epistolae_, 241, 514\n _Genesi ad litteram_, 483, 504-5, 509, 511, 514, 518-9, 521-2, 660-1\n _Haer._, 369\n _Octo Dulcitii quaest._, 510\n _Quaestiones ex Novo Test._, 518\n _Sermones_, 426, 507, 514, 518\n _Sermones supposititi_, 522\n _Trinitate_, 506-9\n\n Aulus Gellius, 50, 59, 202, 269, 354\n\n Auracher, T.\u202fM., and Stadler, H., 610\n\n Ausfeld, A., 551\n\n Ausfeld and Kroll, 551\n\n Avezac, d\u2019, 601\n\n Avicenna, 658, 660\n _Anima_, 766\n _Divis. philos._, 744\n\n Axt and Riegler, 293\n\n\n Babelon, E., 341\n\n Babut, E.\u202fC., 381\n\n Bacon, Roger, 108, 163, 341, 409, 601, 603, 646, 661, 665, 766\n\n Baethgen, 73\n\n Bald and Cild, _720-2_, 733\n\n Barach, S., 658\n\n Bardaisan or Bardesanes, _373-7_, 381, 412, 457, 471, 475, 782\n\n Barlama, 138\n\n Barnabas, 404, 408\n _Epistle_, 396, 409;\n and see _Acts_ (Apocryphal)\n\n Barnes, C.\u202fL., 773\n\n Bartholomew of England, _De proprietatibus rerum_, 170, 484, 501, 503,\n 578, 611, 660, 686\n\n _Baruch, Book of_, 399\n\n Basil, _Hexaemeron_, _chap. xxi_, 322, 458, 476, 504, 552-4\n\n Basil and Gregory, _Philocalia_, 405-6\n\n Basset, R., 398-9\n\n Bate, Henri, 650\n\n Bateson, M., 689-90\n\n _Bath Occult Reprint Series_, 291\n\n Battle, W.\u202fC., 28\n\n Baudry de Balzac, 736\n\n Baur, L., 744\n\n Beazley, R., 326, 480, 601\n\n Becker, H., 551\n\n Beckh, H., 604\n\n Beckmann, _Marbod_, 775\n\n Bede, 476, 617, _634-6_, 658, 675, 683, 688, 694, 702\n _Hexaemeron_, 485\n _Natura rerum_, 634-5, 676, 695\n _Samuel_, 635\n _Temporibus_, 634-5\n _Tonitruis_, 635-6, 679\n\n Belenus, 267\n\n Bellarminus, 469\n\n Belon, P., 131\n\n Bennett, W.\u202fH., 446\n\n Bentwich, N., 349\n\n Berengarius, 701-2\n\n Bernadakes, G.\u202fN., 202\n\n Bernard of Clairvaux, St. 502, 658\n\n Bernard Gordon, see Gordon\n\n Bernard of Provence, 740\n\n Bernard Silvester, 717\n\n Bernays, 73\n\n Berosus, 95, 104, 185\n\n Berthelot, P.\u202fE.\u202fM., 540\n _Arch\u00e9ologie_ (1906), 12\n _Chimie_ (1893), 670, 697, 761\n _Introduction_ (1889), 12, 199, 544\n _Origines_ (1885), 12-3, 59, 193, 292, 369, 544, 559\n _Voyages_ (1895), 131\n\n Berthelot et Ruelle (1887-8), 193, 320, 683\n\n _Bestiary_, 498\n\n Bevan, A.\u202fA., 374\n\n Bezogar, 682\n\n Bezold, 16\n\n Bezold, C., 34\n\n Bible, 16, 138, 246, 342, 350, 352, 361-2, 385-6, 405, 439, chap. xxi,\n 511, 546, 583, 681, 729;\n and see names of individual books of\n\n _Bibliotheca Mathematica_, 188, 193\n\n _Bibliotheca Patrum_, 426\n\n _Bibl. d. l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes_, 381, 765\n\n Bik\u00e9las, 73\n\n Billerbeck, 73\n\n Bisse, E., 557\n\n Bivilaqua, 525\n\n Bj\u00f6rnbo and Vogl, 642, 663\n\n _Bl. f. bayr. Gymn._, 73\n\n Boethius, 109, 527, _618-22_, 658, 677\n\n Boissier, A., 34\n\n Boll, F., 14, 16, 105, 111, 291, 316, 524-5, 683\n\n _Bollettino della Societ\u00e0 geografica italiana_, 480\n\n Bolus de Mendes, 50\n\n Boncompagni, B., _Gherardo Cremonese_, 163\n\n Bonnet, _Acta apostolorum apocrypha_, 397\n\n _Book of Changes_, 6\n\n _Book of the Dead_, 9, 362\n\n _Book of the Saviour_, 369, 377\n\n _Book of Secrets_, 670\n\n _Book of Seventy_, 670\n for Book of, see also Alhabib, Baruch, Crates, Enoch, Helxai, Je\u00fb\n\n Borgnet, A., 664\n\n Bostock, J., and Riley, H.\u202fT., chap. ii, 175, 214, 329\n\n Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, A., 50, 59, 112, 292-3, 297, 308, 316, 476, 683, 687\n\n Bouchier, E.\u202fS., 313, 380, 434\n\n Bousset, W., 349, 361\n\n Box, E.\u202fB., 619\n\n Box, G.\u202fH., 351\n\n Brandt, W., 383\n\n Braulio, 623-4, 628\n\n Breasted, J.\u202fH., 12\n _History of Egypt_, 8-12\n _Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt_, 7-10\n\n Brehaut, E., 623, 625\n\n Br\u00e9hier, E., 348-9\n\n _Breslau, Philol. Abhandl._, 297\n\n Briau, R.\u202fM., 125\n\n Bridges, R.\u202fH., 603, 661\n\n _British Museum Catalogue of Vases_, 266\n\n Brock, A.\u202fJ., 119, 122\n\n Brougniart, A., 761\n\n Brown, J. Wood, 670\n\n Browne, C.\u202fA., 194\n\n Browne, E.\u202fG., 660, 674\n\n Browne, Thomas, 354\n\n Bubnov, 501, chap. xxx\n\n Budge, E.\u202fA.\u202fW.\n _Alexander_, 551, 562-3\n _Egyptian Magic_, 7-14, 233, 686\n\n _Bulletin Hispanique_, 704\n\n _Bulletin et M\u00e9m. d.\u202fl. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Arch\u00e9ol. d. dept. d\u2019Ille-et-Vilaine_,\n 775\n\n _Bulletin d.\u202fl. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d. G\u00e9ographie_, 565\n\n Bunbury, _History of Ancient Geography_, 601\n\n Burchard of Worms, 630\n\n Burckhardt, J., 690\n\n Burkett, F.\u202fC., 374\n\n Burnam, J.\u202fM., 704\n\n Burr, G.\u202fL., 2, 630\n\n Burton, W., 762\n\n Bury, J.\u202fB., 266-7, 388\n\n Busson, G., 7\n\n Butler, H.\u202fE., and Owen, A.\u202fS., _Apulei Apologia_, 22, 224ff.\n\n Buttmann, P., 340\n\n _Byzant. Zeitschrift_, 497\n\n\n Caecilius, 94\n\n Caelius Aurelianus, 625\n\n Caesar, J., see Weber, C.\u202fF., and\n\n Cahier, _Nouveaux M\u00e9langes_, 498\n\n Cahier et Martin, M\u00e9langes, 498\n\n Cajori, 188\n\n Calderon, 432\n\n Callisthenes (on roots), 495\n\n Callisthenes Pseudo-, _chap. xxiv_, 7, 331\n\n Calvin, 447\n\n _Cambridge Medieval History_, 524\n\n _Cambridge University Texts and Studies_, 342\n\n Camerarius, J., 556\n\n Campbell, C., 8\n\n Capart, _Primitive Art in Egypt_, 6\n\n Capella, see Martianus\n\n Caraccio, 349\n\n Cardan, 769\n\n Carra de Vaux, 188, 653, 661\n\n Carrarioli, D., 551\n\n Casaubon, 213\n\n Cassianus Bassus, 604\n\n Cassiodorus, 545, 617, 619, 625\n _Institutes_, 483, 608\n _Letters_, 639\n\n Cassius Felix, 607\n\n _Catalogus codicum Graecorum astrologorum_, 28, 116, 291, 651\n\n Cato, _De re rustica_, 93\n\n Cecco d\u2019Ascoli, 267, 665\n\n Celsus, 282\n _Against magicians_, 278\n _True Discourse_, chap. xix\n\n Celsus the medical writer, 727\n\n Censorinus, 354, 371, 690\n\n Chaeremon, 315, 457\n\n Chalcidius, 476\n\n Chapman, 405\n\n Charles, R.\u202fH., chap. xiii, 488-9\n _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha_, 287, chap. xiii\n _Ascension of Isaiah_, 399\n _Book of Enoch_, chap. xiii\n\n Charles and Forbes, chap. xiii\n\n Charles and Morfill, chap. xiii\n\n Charterius, R., 119\n\n Chavannes, E., et Pelliot, P., 383\n\n Chiron the centaur, 434, 597-8\n\n Choulant, L., 578, 612-3\n\n Christ, _Gesch. d. Griech. Litt._, 105, 201, 215, 540\n\n _Christliches Kunstblatt_, 497\n\n Chrysippus, 50, 146\n\n Chrysostom, John, _472-6_, 480, 494, 499\n _Naturis bestiarum_, 499\n _Sixth Homily on Matthew_, 472-4\n _Spurious Homily on Matthew_, 472-5\n\n Chwolson, D.\u202fA., 661-3\n\n Cicero, 50, 232, 597\n _Divinatione_, 97, _268-73_\n _Dream of Scipio_, 273, 544\n _Republic_, 274\n\n Cild, see Bald and\n\n Cilli\u00e9, G.\u202fG., 555\n\n Clark and Geikie, 101\n\n _Classical Philology_, 530\n\n _Classical Review_, 21, 525\n\n Clement Pseudo, 363-4, _chap. xvii_\n _Circuits_, 404\n _Homilies_, 364-5, chap. xvii\n _Itinerarium_, 402\n _Recognitions_, 231, 364-5, _chap. xvii_\n\n Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, 288, 476, 499\n\n Cleopatra, 152, 196, 655\n\n Clerval, _Hermann le Dalmate_, 701-2\n\n Clinton, _Fasti_, 124, 135\n\n Clitomachus, 268\n\n Cockayne, O., _Leechdoms_, 596, 679, 720ff., 734, 776\n _Narratiunculae_, 556\n\n Cohn, L., 348, 351\n\n Collenucius, P., 53\n\n Colombo, _De re anatomica_, 147\n\n _Columbia University Studies in History, etc._, 622\n\n Columella, 50, 59\n\n Colville, G., 619\n\n Combarieu, J., 6, 568\n\n _Compositiones ad tingenda_, chap. xxxiii\n\n _Compotus_ or _Computus_, 676-7\n\n Comte, 107\n\n Confucian Canon, 6\n\n _Congr\u00e8s scientifique international des catholiques_, 7, 297, 701\n\n _Congress, International, of Medicine_, 131, 145, 640, 667, 673\n\n _Congress, International, of Orientalists_, 380\n\n Constantinus Africanus, _chap. xxxii_, 577, 610, 653, 657, 731\n _Antidotarium_, 747\n _Aureus_, 757-9\n _Chirurgia_, 747-8\n _Coitu_, 742, 753\n _Compendium megategni_, 749\n _Experimentis_, 753\n _Febrium_, 742, 750\n _Graduum_, 613, 748, 750-1, 755-6\n _Humana natura_, 659-60, 757\n _Melancholia_, 658-9, 742, 751-2, 755\n _Oblivione_, 742\n _Pantegni_, 658-9, 746ff.\n _Simplicis medicinae_, 748\n _Stomacho_, 742, 752-3\n _Tegni, Megategni, Microtegni_, 749\n _Urinis_, 750\n _Viaticum_, 742, 745, 749ff., 753, 756\n\n _Constitutiones apostolorum_, 422\n\n Conybeare, F.\u202fC., 247, 348-9\n\n Cook, A.\u202fB., _Zeus_, 23, 296, 379, 429\n\n Cook, A.\u202fS., 499\n\n Cordier, H., see Yule, _Marco Polo_\n\n Cordo, see Simon of Genoa\n\n Cornarius, I., 566ff.\n\n Cornford, F.\u202fM., 23\n\n _Corpus Medicorum Graecorum_, 119\n\n Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, 297\n\n Cory, A.\u202fT., _Horapollo_, 331\n\n Cosmas Indicopleustes, 480\n\n Costa ben Luca, 652-9\n _Differentia Spiritus et animae_, 657-9\n _Hero\u2019s Mechanics_, 189, 652\n _Physical Ligatures_, 652-7\n\n Cousin, V., _Procli Opera_, 319\n\n Coxe, H.\u202fO., 52, 121, 478, 701, 715\n\n Craig, J.\u202fA., 33-4\n\n _Crates, Book of_, 763\n\n Crateuas, 606\n\n Crawford, W.\u202fS., 540\n\n Creuzer, F., 299\n\n Crinas of Marseilles, 98\n\n Crito, 152\n\n Critodemus, 95\n\n Croiset, 282\n\n Crophill, John, 684-5\n\n Cruice, Abb\u00e9, 466\n\n Cumont, F.\n _Babylon u.\u202fd. Griech. Astrologie_, 34\n _Oriental Religions_, 21, 296, 533\n\n Cunningham, W., 495\n\n _Cunningham Memoirs of Royal Irish Academy_, 293\n\n Curtiss, S.\u202fI., 33\n\n Curtze, 706\n\n Cushman, H.\u202fE., 26\n\n Cyprian, of Antioch\n _Confessio_, 296, _chap. xviii_\n _Martyrium_, 428\n\n Cyprian of Carthage, 463, 465\n\n Cyril, 398, 476\n\n Cyril of Alexandria, 570\n\n Cyril of Jerusalem, 423\n\n\n Dalechamps, 329\n\n Dalton, O.\u202fM., 237, 498, 607\n\n Damigeron, 293, 558, 605, 777\n\n Damis of Nineveh, chap. viii, 407\n\n Damocrates, 135\n\n Daniel the prophet, 385, 679-80\n\n Daniel of Morley, 744\n\n Dante, _Convivio_, 619\n _Divine Comedy_, 340, 361\n\n Daremberg, C.\u202fV., 600, 731, 736\n _Galien comme philosophe_, 124\n _Galien sur l\u2019anatomie_, 122, 141, 145\n _Hist. d. Sciences M\u00e9dicales_, 570-1, 577, 743ff.\n _Notices et Extraits_, 598, 742ff.\n\n Daremberg et Saglio, 22, 27, 164, 265\n\n Daressy, G., 14\n\n d\u2019Avezac, see Avezac\n\n _De aluminibus et salibus_, 670\n\n _De anima_, 766\n\n De la Ville de Mirmont, 673\n\n De Morgan, 108\n\n De Renzi, see Renzi\n\n _De spiritu et anima_, 658\n\n _De vetula_, 691\n\n Delambre, J.\u202fB.\u202fJ., 108, 663\n\n Delisle, L., 698\n\n Democritus, 50, 58-9, 61-6, 80, 84, 91, 97, 140, 196-8, 205, 329, 582,\n 605, 629, 682-3, 733\n\n _Denkschr. d. Akad. Wien_, 73\n\n Detlefsen, D., 42, 52\n\n _Deuteronomy_, 453, 456\n\n Deventer, 316\n\n Dhorme, P., 33\n\n Dicaearchus, 180, 213\n\n _Dict. Chris. Biog._, 362-3\n\n _Dict. National Biog._, 291, etc.\n\n Dicuil, 326\n\n _Didascalia Apostolorum_, 422\n\n Didot, 106, 180\n\n Didymus of Alexandria, 463, 604\n\n Diels, H., 119, 121, 468\n\n Dierich, 381\n\n Dieterich, A., 288\n\n Dieterici, F., 642\n\n _Digest_, see Justinian\n\n Dillmann, 399\n\n Dindimus, 341, 556\n\n Dindorf, 282, 415, etc.\n\n Dio Cassius, 201, 259\n\n Dio Chrysostom, 425\n\n Diocles Carystius, 178\n\n Diodorus of Tarsus, 476\n\n Diogenes Laertius, 22, 97, 196\n\n Diogenes the Stoic, 273\n\n Dionysius the Areopagite, _546-7_\n\n Dionysius Exiguus, 484\n\n Dioscorides, 131, 154, 199, 495, 571, 597, _605-11_, 613, 625, 755,\n 761, 764\n\n Dioscorides-Pseudo, 239\n _Herbis femininis_, 609\n _Lapidibus_, 611, 654\n\n Dittmeyer, 27\n\n D\u00f6llinger, I.\u202fI., 705\n\n Domitius Piso, 44\n\n Donatus, St., 684\n\n Dorotheus, 648\n\n Doutt\u00e9, E., 5\n\n Druon, H., 540\n\n Dryoff, A., 73\n\n D\u00fcbner, Fr., 552\n\n Duhem, P., _Syst\u00e8me du Monde_, 106, 456-9, 481, 504\n\n Duncker, 466\n\n Dunstan, 773\n\n Duruy, 135\n\n\n Ebers, G., 10\n\n Ebrubat Zafar filie Elbazar, 745\n\n _Ecclesiasticus_, 510\n\n Edling, 381\n\n Egidius de Tebaldis, 110\n\n _Egyptian Days_, chap. xxix, app. ii\n\n _Elizinus_, 267\n\n Elkman, V.\u202fW., 491\n\n Elliot Smith, 12\n\n Empedocles, 23, 58, 61, 153, 204, 234, 247\n\n _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 301, etc.\n\n _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_, 22, 383, etc.\n\n Endres, J.\u202fA., 753\n\n Engelbert of Li\u00e8ge, 673\n\n Engelbrecht, 116, 538\n\n Enoch\n _Book of_, chap. xiii, 208, 350, 399, 410, 454, 457-8, 463\n _Fifteen Stars, Herbs, and Stones_, 664\n _Secrets of_, chap. xiii\n\n _Ephemeris f. semit. Epig._, 389\n\n _Ephodia_, 745, 749\n\n Ephraem Syrus, 374, 381\n\n Epicharmus, 86\n\n Epicurus, 140-1, 151, 169, 180, 270, 451\n\n Epigenes, 95\n\n Epimenides, 234\n\n Epiphanius, 405-6, 476, 488, 499, 503\n _Contra haereses_, 369, 458\n _Duodecim gemmis_, 495-6\n _Epist. ad Joan. Jerosolymit._, 458-9\n _Panarion_, 363-4, 369, 415, 434, _494-5_\n _Ponderibus et mensuris_, 627\n\n Epping, J., and Strassmeier, J.\u202fN., 34\n\n Eratosthenes, 709\n\n Erhard, _Fauna d. Cykladen_, 73\n\n Erkenhard, 677\n\n _Erlanger Beitr\u00e4ge z. engl. Philol._, 733\n\n Erman, A., 7\n\n Ernault, L.\u202fV.\u202fE., 775\n\n _Errors condemned at Oxford and Paris_, 642-3\n\n Esdras, _Supputatio_, 677, 682\n\n Eth\u00e9, 551\n\n Ethelwold, 705\n\n Ethicus, _Cosmographia_, _600-604_\n\n \u00c9tienne, R., see Stephanus\n\n Euclid, 29, 139, 663\n _Geometry_, 705-6\n _Optics_, 669\n\n Eudemus, 237\n\n Eudoxus, 61\n\n Eugene of Palermo, 108\n\n Eugenius Toletanus, 696\n\n Eunapius, 297\n\n Euripides, 22\n\n Eusebius, 261, 374, 395, 405, 466\n _Against Apollonius_, 246\n _Praep. Evang._, 297, 317, 320, 341, 354, 457\n\n Eustache of Kent, 564\n\n Eustathius Afer, 484-5\n\n Eustathius of Antioch, 470\n\n Evans, A.\u202fJ., 301\n\n Evans, E.\u202fP., 497\n\n Evax, 463, chap. xxxiv\n\n Everard, John, 291\n\n Ewald, 341\n\n _Exodus_, 386\n\n Eyssenhardt, F., 545\n\n\n Fabricius, J.\u202fA.\n _Bibl. Graec._, 599, 743\n _Cod. apocr._, 387, 425-6\n _Sextus Empiricus_, 269\n\n Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, 15, 17-8, 23-4\n\n _Fasti Philocaliani_, 686\n\n Favorinus, 269, 274-5\n\n Favre, G., 551\n\n Fell, John, 428\n\n Ferrarius, 747\n\n Ferry, C., 775\n\n Fialon, 484\n\n Ficinus, Marsilius, 319\n\n Finlayson, J., 119, 138-9, 143\n\n Firmicus Maternus, Julius, 116, 125, _525-38_, 689, 698, 705, 710, 782\n _Errore_, 525-9\n _Mathesis_, 525-38\n\n Fischer, A., 673\n\n Flaccus Africanus, 267\n\n Florentinus, 425\n\n _Florilegia_, 618\n\n Fl\u00fcgel, G., 640\n\n Fogginius, 495\n\n Folcz, John, 612\n\n _Folk-lore_, 24\n\n Forbes, see Charles and\n\n F\u00f6rster, M., 673\n\n Fossey, 15, 17-20, 33\n\n Fossi, F., 53\n\n Fowler, H.\u202fW., and F.\u202fG., 277\n\n Fowler, W.\u202fW., 73\n\n _Franz\u00f6siche Studien_, 499\n\n Frazer, J.\u202fG., 5\n _Folk-lore in Old Testament_, 16, 170, 231, 341, 359, 386, 448, 493,\n 688\n _Golden Bough_, 5, 568\n _Magic Art_, 1, 386\n _Popular Superstitions_, 24\n\n Frederick II, emperor, 106, 737\n\n Free, John, 52\n\n Freeman, _History of Sicily_, 22\n\n Freind, see Friend\n\n Freud, 178\n\n Friend, John, 569, 576\n\n Frommberger, G., 401\n\n Fronto, 537\n\n Frothingham, 17\n\n Fuchs, 380\n\n Funk, F.\u202fX., 422\n\n\n Gaisford, 341\n\n Galen, _chap. iv_, 32, 56, 284, 288, 292, 569-74, 597, 605, 613-4,\n 626, 653-4, 656, 663, 666-7, 739, 747, 754-6\n _Ad Pisonem de theriaca_, 130, 170, 177\n _Alimentorum facultatibus_, 137, 159\n _Anatom. administ._, 121, 123, 152\n _Antidot._, 154, 171\n _Cognoscendis curandisque animi morbis_, 123\n _Compound medicines_, 125, 152, 160, 172\n _Critical days_, 157, 179\n _Diagnosis from Dreams_, 177\n _Differentiis pulsorum_, 137\n _Dinamidis_, 727-8, 742\n _Euporista_, see _Remediis parabilibus_\n _Foetuum formatione_, 150\n _Healing art_, 176\n _Hippocratic commentaries_, 119-21, 177, 749\n _Libriis propriis_, 124, 133\n _Malitia complexionis diversae_, 125\n _Medicinal simples_, 121, 132, 158, 166-71, 572, 611\n _Methodo medendi_, 123, 127, 133, 155, 178\n _Naturalibus facultatibus_, 123\n _Ordine librorum_, 133\n _Platonic commentaries_, 124, 138\n _Prognos. ad Epigenem_, 124\n _Remediis parabilibus_, 127, 161, 175\n _Substantia facultatum naturalium_, 170\n _Temperamentis_, 119\n _Theriaca ad Pamphilianum_, 170\n _Throat and lungs_, 134\n _Usu partium_, 119, 138, 150-1\n _Venae sectione_, 125\n _Victu_, 119\n dubious or spurious\n _Experiments_, 162, 720\n _Liber medicinalis_, 600\n _Medical Treatment in Homer_, 582\n _Placitis philosophorum_, 180-1\n _Prognostication by astrology_, 178\n _Secrets_, 752\n and see Apollonius and\n\n Gamaliel, Jewish patriarch, 584-5\n\n Ganschinietz, 467\n\n Garcilasso, 17\n\n Gargilius Martialis, 608\n\n Gariopontus, 577, 733\n\n Garrison, F.\u202fH., 164\n\n Garrod, H.\u202fW., 95\n\n Garver, M., 499\n\n Geber, 670, 763\n\n Geikie, see Clark and\n\n Gelasius, pope, 389, 404, 406\n\n _Genealogus_, 326\n\n Gentile da Foligno, 164\n\n _Genesis_, 181, 193, 341, 386, 445, chap. xxi, 521\n\n _Geoponica_, 59, 463, _604-5_\n\n Gerard Bituricensis, see Gerard de Solo\n\n Gerard of Cremona, 109-10, 646, 648, 750\n\n Gerard de Solo, 747, 749\n\n Gerbert, _chap. xxx_\n\n Gerson, 106\n\n Gesner, 322\n\n Giacosa, P., 731, 739\n\n Gibbon, E., 285\n\n Gibson, M.\u202fD., 428\n\n Gilbert of England, 162, 577, 688\n\n Gilbert Maminot, 673\n\n Giles de Corbeil, 737\n\n Giles, J., 636\n and see Egidius de Tebaldis\n\n Gillert, K., 684\n\n Ginzel, F.\u202fK., 34\n\n Giovannino di Graziano, 682\n\n Giovene, G.\u202fM., 686\n\n Giry, A., 764\n\n Glaber, see Raoul\n\n Glover, T.\u202fR., 544\n _Golden Legend_, see Jacobus de Voragine\n\n Goldstaub, M., 497, 503\n\n Goldstaub and Wendriner, 499\n\n Gollancz, H., 380\n\n Goodwin, W.\u202fW., 202-3\n\n Gordon, Bernard, 688, 740\n\n _Gospels_, 674, 725, 754;\n and see individual names\n\n _Gospel of the Infancy_, chap. xvi\n\n Goujet, 672\n\n Goupyl, J., 567\n\n Govi, G., 107\n\n Graetz, 349\n\n Gratian, _Decretum_, 630-1\n\n Gray, C.\u202fD., 33\n\n Gray, L.\u202fA., 296\n\n Greenwood, J.\u202fG., 188\n\n Gregory I, the Great, pope, _Dialogues_, 405, 593, _637-9_\n\n Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, 662\n\n Gregory of Nyssa, 447, 505\n _Against Fate_, 471\n _Hexaemeron_, 459, 481\n _Ventriloquist_, 470\n\n Grenfell, B.\u202fP., 28, 293, 361\n\n Grenfell and Hunt, 361\n\n Griffith, F.\u202fL., 7;\n and see Thompson and\n\n Grimm, Jacob, 567-8, 584\n\n Groff, _Egyptian Sorcery_, 7\n\n Grosseteste, Robert, 106, 189\n\n Gr\u00fctzmacher, G., 540\n\n Guido of Arezzo, 698\n\n Guinther of Andernach, 567, 576-7\n\n Guldenschoff, J., 477\n\n Gundissalinus, 744\n\n Guthrie, K., 298, 303-4, 349\n\n Guyot, H., 349\n\n Gwatkin, H.\u202fM., 524\n\n\n Haase, _Seneca_, 101\n\n Haase, F., 373\n\n Hagins the Jew, 650\n\n Hain, 498\n\n Halliwell, J.\u202fO., 706\n\n Hamilton, G.\u202fL., 631\n\n Hamilton, Mary, 688\n\n Hamilton, N.\u202fE.\u202fS.\u202fA., 690\n\n Haly Heben Rodan,\n _Dispositione aeris_, 647\n _Pluviis_, 647\n _Ptolemy\u2019s Quadripartitum_, 110\n\n Hammer-Jensen, 107\n\n Hannubius, 537\n\n Hansen, J., 2, 631\n\n Hardouin, 42\n\n Harleian MSS, Catalogue of, 684-5\n\n Harnack, A., 405\n _Gesch. d. altchr. Lit._, 400\n _Medicinisches aus d. \u00e4ltest. Kirchengesch._, 138-9\n\n Harpestreng the Dane, 612\n\n Harrington, _School of Salerno_, 731\n\n Harris, Rendel, 23\n\n Harrison, J.\u202fE., 22, 251, 301\n\n Hartel, W., 369\n\n Hartfelder, K., 268\n\n _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, 108-9\n\n Harvey, John, 291\n\n Haskins, C.\u202fH., 702\n _Adelard of Bath_, 652, 664\n _Further Notes_, 109\n _Reception of Arabic Science_, 693, 773\n\n Haskins and Lockwood, 108-9\n\n Havell, E.\u202fB., 12, 251\n\n Heath, T.\u202fL., 29, 32, 188\n\n Heeg, _Pseudodemocrit. Studien_, 733\n\n Hegel, _Philosophy of Religion_, 1\n\n Hegesippus, 425-6\n\n Hehn, _Siebenzahl u. Sabbat_, 16, 34\n\n Heiberg, J.\u202fL., 105, 109, 188-9\n\n Heider, G., 498-9\n\n Heigl, G.\u202fA., 299\n\n Heim, R., 568, 605\n\n Heinsch, P., 349\n\n Heintze, W., 399, 403, 406\n\n Heliodorus, 232\n\n Heller, A., 108, 188\n\n Helmreich, G., 119, chap. xxv\n\n Helpericus, 696\n\n _Helxai, Book of_, 372\n\n Hendrie, R., chap. xxxiii\n\n Hengstenberg, _Gesch. Bileams_, 353, 447\n\n Henschel, 578, 731, 758\n\n Hephaestion of Thebes, 115-6, 538\n\n Heraclides of Pontus, 32\n\n Heraclides of Tarentum, 153, 495\n\n Heraclitus, 181\n\n Heraclius, chap. xxxiii\n\n Heraeus, 552\n\n Heras, 153\n\n _Herbarium_, 597;\n and see Apuleius\n\n Hercher, R., 215, 322\n\n _Hermanni de ymbribus et pluviis_, 647\n\n Hermannus Contractus, chap. xxx, 701, 728\n\n Hermann of Dalmatia, 649, 701\n\n _Hermes_, 105, 109, 121, 188, 298, 526, 576, 595, 606, 609-10, 612\n\n Hermes Trismegistus, 178, _chap. x_, 537, 653, 661, 710, 763\n _Asclepius_, 221, 290, 596\n _Fifteen Stars, Herbs, Stones_, 340, 664\n _Images and Incantations, books of_, 664\n _Poimandres_, 290-1, 379\n _Virgin of the World_, 291\n\n _Hermippus_, 524\n\n Hermogenes, 342, 435\n\n Hero of Alexandria, 108-9, _188-93_, 266, 652\n works listed at, 188\n\n Herodotus, 21-2, 129, 156\n\n Herophilus, 32, 77, 145-6, 180\n\n Herrandus, 702\n\n Herrick, F.\u202fH., 267\n\n Hesiod, 21, 77, 207\n\n Hieg, 119\n\n Hierocles, 246\n\n Hieronymus, see Jerome\n\n Higden, see Ranulf\n\n Hildebert, 498\n\n Hildegard of Bingen, 342, 432, 660\n\n Hilgenfeld, A., 399-401, 405\n\n Hincmar of Reims, 630\n\n Hipparchus, 32, 96, 537\n\n Hippocrates (and Hippocratic writings), 27, 29, 49, 58, 139, 142, 144,\n 150, 178-9, 356, 571, 625, 663, 723, 735, 747, 757\n _Aphorisms_, 176\n _Astrology_, 178-9\n _Letter to Antigonus or Maecenas_, 600, 724\n\n Hippolytus, chaps. xv, xx, 107, 278, 387, 399, 421, 482, 765\n\n Hirn, Y., 6\n\n Hirschberg, J., 566\n\n _Histoire Litt\u00e9raire de la France_, 163, 672, etc.\n\n _Historisch. Jahrbuch_, 541\n\n _History of Three Kings of Cologne_, 444, 446, 477\n\n Holmes and Kitterman, 10\n\n Homer, 49, 169, 245, 260, 273, 582\n _Fourteenth Epigram_, 434\n and see _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_\n\n _Homily on Magi_, 478-9\n\n Hommel, _Aethiop. Physiologus_, 498, 503\n\n Hommel, F., _Gestirndienst_, 355\n\n Hone, 387, 395\n\n Honein ben Ishak, 653, 660, 752\n\n Honorius of Autun, 502\n\n Hooten, 12\n\n Hoover, H.\u202fC. and H.\u202fL., 132, 329\n\n Hopf, L., 73\n\n Hopfner, _Papyri_, 28\n\n Hopfner, T., 73\n\n Horapollo, _Hieroglyphics_, _331-4_\n\n Hosthanes, see Ostanes\n\n Howitt, A.\u202fW., 227\n\n Hubert, H., 22, 27, 265\n\n Huet, G., 241\n\n Huet, P.\u202fD., 354, 457-8, 461, 469\n\n Hugh of St. Victor, 631, 658\n _Bestiis_, 498, 501\n _Didascalicon_, 389, 402\n\n Hugh of Santalla, 652\n\n Hugutius, 129\n\n Humboldt, A.\u202fv., 107\n\n Hunain ibn Ishak, see Honein ben Ishak\n\n Hunt, see Grenfell and\n\n Husik, I., 747\n\n Huvelin, P., 6\n\n Hystaspes, 296\n\n\n Iamblichus, _chap. xi_, 296\n _Fato_, 316\n _Mysteriis_, 288, 307ff.\n\n Ibn Abi Usaibi\u2019a, 667\n\n Ibn Khallikan, 667\n\n Ignatius, 396\n\n Ilg, A., 760\n\n _Iliad_, 21, 58\n\n Imhoof-Blumer, F. und Keller, O., 73\n\n Inchofer, 476\n\n _Infancy, Gospels of_, chap. xvi\n\n Inge, W.\u202fR., 299\n\n International Congresses, see Congress\n\n Ioachos, 138\n\n Ioannes, see John\n\n Iolaos the Bithynian, 495\n\n Irenaeus, chap. xv, 411, 421, 488\n\n Isaac Israeli, 658, 746ff.\n\n _Isaiah_, 460, 485;\n _Ascension of_, 399\n\n Isidore of Seville, 326, 601, _623-33_, 658, 675, 709\n _Differentiis verborum_, 630, 632\n _Etymologiae_, 609, 623-33, 777\n _Natura rerum_, 401, 623, 632-3\n _Origines_, 459, 493\n _Viris illus._, 380\n\n Israelson, L., 141\n\n _Itinerarium Alexandri_, 553\n\n Ivo of Chartres, 630\n\n\n Jackson, A.\u202fV.\u202fW., 296\n\n Jacobitz, 282\n\n Jacobus Angelus, 106\n\n Jacobus de Partibus, 567\n\n Jacobus Psychrestus, 575\n\n Jacobus de Voragine, _Golden Legend_, 427, 435, 475\n\n Jacques de Bergame, 702\n\n _Jahn\u2019s Neue Jahrb._, 52\n\n _Jahrbuch_ (_Austrian_), 607\n\n _Jahrb. d.\u202fk. deutsch. arch\u00e4ol. Instit._, 28\n\n _Jahrb. f. Class. Philologie_, 349, 605\n\n _Jahrb. f. Philol. u. P\u00e4dagogik_, 105\n\n _James, Protevangelium of_, chap. xvi\n\n James, M.\u202fR.\n _Apocrypha anecdota_, 342\n _Biblical Antiquities_, 351\n _Cambridge MSS_, 564, 597, 602, 723\n _Canterbury and Dover_, 753\n _Eton MSS_, 52\n\n _Janus_, 578\n\n Janus, L., 42\n\n Jastrow, M., 17, 19, 34\n\n Jayakar, S.\u202fG., 393, 688\n\n Jean Clopinel, 613\n\n Jennings, H., 291\n\n Jensen, P., 34\n\n Jeremias, 15, 34\n\n Jergis, 648\n\n Jerome, 369, 398, 447, 459, 461, 466, 476, 483, 600-2, 625, 628, 692\n\n _Je\u00fb, Book of_, 378\n\n Jevons, F.\u202fB., 22\n\n _Jewish Quarterly Review_, 348\n\n _Job, Book of_, 510, 520\n\n Johannitius, see Honein ben Ishak\n\n _John, Gospel of_, 386, 759\n\n John Afflacius, 748, 757\n\n John Agarenus, 748\n\n John Angelus, 106, 525\n\n John of Antioch, 194\n\n John Crophill, see Crophill\n\n John of Damascus, 608\n\n John of Hildesheim, 446, 477\n\n John of London, 643, 714\n\n John Lydus, see Lydus\n\n John of St. Amand, _162-3_, 725\n\n John of Salisbury, _Polycraticus_, 241, 302-3, 631, 683-4\n\n John the Scot, 500, 547, 637\n\n John of Spain, chap. xxviii\n\n Joret, C., 11, 76\n\n Josephus, 354, 366, 425, 446, 703\n\n _Joshua, Book of_, 352\n\n Jourdain, C., 672, 690\n\n _Journal Asiatique_, 653\n\n _Journal des Savants_, 131\n\n _Journal f. praktische Chemie_, 763\n\n _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 266, 301\n\n _Journal of Royal Asiatic Society_, 337\n\n Jowett, 26\n\n Juba, king of Numidia, 49, 218, 256\n\n _Jude, Epistle of_, 342, 435\n\n Julian the Chaldean, 296, 317\n\n Julian, emperor, 317, 568\n\n Julian Honorius, 601\n\n Julius Firmicus Maternus, see Firmicus\n\n Julius Valerius, _Res gestae_, chap. xxiv\n\n Justinian, 575\n _Digest_, 356, 568\n\n Justin, _Book of Baruch_, 399\n\n Justin Martyr, 363, 416, 421, 469, 476\n\n Juvenal, 126, 437\n\n\n Kaestner, H., 609\n\n Karpinski, L.\u202fC., 31\n\n Katrarios, J., 524\n\n Kehrer, H., 476\n\n Keil, 49-50\n\n Keller, O., 73\n\n Kennedy, H.\u202fA.\u202fA., 349\n\n Kenyon, F.\u202fG., 365\n\n Kepler, 457, 473\n\n Kessler, K., 383\n\n Kidd, J., 147\n\n King, C.\u202fW., 49, 174, 293, 329, 379, 568, 775, 777\n\n King, L.\u202fW., 17, 33\n\n _King James\u2019 Version_, 471\n\n _Kings, First Book of_, 386\n\n Kirchoff, A., 299\n\n Kitterman and Holmes, 10\n\n Klatsche, E.\u202fH., 24\n\n Kleffner, A.\u202fJ., 541\n\n Knyghton, 690\n\n Knudtzon, J.\u202fA., 34\n\n K\u00f6bert, H., 596\n\n Koch, H., 541\n\n Koch, K., 121\n\n Koechly, 293\n\n Koeler, G.\u202fD., 101\n\n Koetschau, P., 436\n\n Kopp, U.\u202fF., 545-6\n\n _Koran_, 345\n\n Kostomoiros, G.\u202fA., 566\n\n Krabinger, J.\u202fG., 540\n\n Kraus, F.\u202fX., 540\n\n Kritzinger, 473\n\n Krohn, F., 183\n\n Kroll, W.\n _Analecta_, 318-9\n _Hermes_, 290\n _Oraculis Chaldaicis_, 297, 308\n _Vettius Valens_, 116\n\n Kroll and Ausfeld, 551\n\n Kroll et Skutsch, chap. xxiii, 302, 690\n\n Kr\u00fcper, 73\n\n K\u00fcbler, B., 551\n\n K\u00fcchler, F., 20\n\n Kugler, F.\u202fX., 16, 34\n\n K\u00fchn, C.\u202fG., chap. iv, 572, 605\n\n K\u00fcster, E., 73\n\n\n Lactantius, 220, 241, 243, 246, 465, 479\n\n _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, 292\n\n Lagarde, P.\u202fD., 400\n\n Lagrange, M.\u202fJ., 34\n\n Lamm, O.\u202fV., 428\n\n _Lancet_, 119-22, 146-7\n\n _Lancet-Clinic_, 10\n\n Land, _Otia Syriaca_, 497-8\n\n Langdon, S., 34\n\n _Lapidarius_, 495, 778\n\n Laplace, 108\n\n Lascaris, C., 424\n\n Lauchert, F., 497-501\n\n Laurence, 399\n\n Laurent, A., 32\n\n _Laws of Henry I_, 690\n\n Lea, H.\u202fC., 2\n\n Lebour, 73\n\n Leclerc, 50\n\n Le Coq, A.\u202fv., 383\n\n _Leech-Book of Bald and Cild_, _720-3_\n\n Leemans, 682\n\n Lehmann, P., 683\n\n Lemaire, 42, 329\n\n Leminne, J., 139\n\n Lenormant, 5, 17-20, 32\n\n Leo I, the Great, pope, 520, 575\n\n Leo Allatius, 469\n\n Leo, archpriest, 557\n\n Leo of Ostia, 743\n\n Leonicenus, N., 53\n\n Letronne, 480\n\n Leucippus, 193\n\n Levi, 551\n\n _Leviticus_, 439, 459\n\n Lewes, G.\u202fH., 29-30, 50\n\n Lewysohn, 73\n\n Libanius, 472, _538-40_, 584\n\n _Library of Harvard University_, _Bibliographical Contributions_, 166\n\n Liddell and Scott, 120, 265\n\n Lidzbarski, M., 383\n\n Liebermann, F., 690\n\n Liechtenstein, P., 642\n\n Lilius Tifernates, 347\n\n Lindermayer, A., 73\n\n Linnaeus, 175\n\n Linus, pope, 426\n\n Lippmann, E.\u202fO.\u202fv., 12, 16, 194, 649, 670, chap. xxxiii\n\n Lipsius et Bonnet, 397\n\n _Lithica_, see Orpheus\n\n Lobeck, G.\u202fA., 288\n\n Locard, 73\n\n Lockwood, see Haskins and\n\n Locy, W.\u202fA., 29-30\n\n Lods, A., 341-2\n\n Lones, T.\u202fE., 26, 29\n\n Lorenz, 73\n\n Loth, O., 641, 649\n\n L\u00f6weneck, M., 733\n\n Loxus, 460\n\n Lucan, 629\n\n Lucian, 276-86\n _Alexander_, 247, 277, 379, 440, 467-9, 561\n _Apologia_, 277\n _Astrologia_, 282-3\n _Dialogues of the Gods_, 283\n _Dipsadibus_, 284\n _Dream_, 283\n _How to write history_, 284-6\n _Lucius_, 276\n _Menippus_, 281, 416\n _Nigrinus_, 284\n _Peregrinus_, 277\n _Philopseudes_, 279\n _Tragopodagra_, 284\n\n Lucius, 349\n\n Lucretius, 760\n\n Lumby, 690\n\n Lupitus of Barcelona, chap. xxx\n\n L\u00fcring, H.\u202fL., 10\n\n Luther, Martin, 651\n\n Lycon, 237\n\n Lydus, John, 635\n\n Lydus, Laurentius, 240\n\n\n Macdonald, D.\u202fB., 232, 356, 699\n\n Macer Floridus, _De viribus herbarum_, _612-5_\n\n Macer, Theophilus, 761\n\n Mackinnon, 639\n\n Macray, 642, 705\n\n Macrobius, 355, _544-5_\n _Dream of Scipio_, 302, 500, 544, 709\n _Saturnalia_, 302, 545\n\n Mahaffy, J.\u202fP., 135\n\n Mai, _Classici auctores_, 498\n\n Maimonides, Moses\n _Aphorisms_, 138, 151, 164, 176-7\n _More Nevochim_, 358\n\n _Maklu_, 18\n\n M\u00e2le, E., 390, 397, 427, 435, 475-6, 502\n\n Manetho, 289, 292-3\n\n Mangey, 348\n\n Manilius, 95, 690-1\n\n Manitius, Max, 619, 623, 631\n\n Mann, M.\u202fF., 497-9\n\n Mansi, 499\n\n Mantuani, J., 607\n\n _Mappe clavicula_, 468, chap. xxxiii\n\n Marbod, 463, 761, _chap. xxxiv_\n _Fato et genesi_, 781-2\n _Lapidum_, 775-81\n\n Marcellus, disciple of Peter, 425\n\n Marcellus Empiricus, _chap. xxv_, 595, 600, 608, 724, 767\n\n Marcianus, see Martianus\n\n Marco Polo, 132, 214, 479, 564\n\n Marett, R.\u202fR., 6, 22\n\n Margoliouth, 746\n\n Marianus Scotus, 686, 692\n\n Marinelli, 480\n\n Marinus, 107\n\n Marinus, _Life of Proclus_, 686\n\n _Mark, Gospel of_, 386\n\n Mark, K.\u202fF.\u202fH., 146\n\n Marquardt, I., 119\n\n Martianus Capella, 326, _545-6_, 677, 709\n\n Martin, _H\u00e9ron_, 188\n\n Martin, J., _Philon_, 347\n\n Martin, see Cahier and\n\n _Martyrium of Cyprian and Justina_, 428\n\n Marx, A., 73\n\n Marx, F., 423\n\n Mary the Jewess, 196-7\n\n Masselieau, L., 349\n\n _Matthew, Gospel of_, 397, 455, 471ff., 730;\n _Pseudo-_, 390\n\n Maximus, 426\n\n Maximus of Aegae, 244\n\n Maximus Taurinensis, 425\n\n McKenzie, K., 499\n\n Mead, G.\u202fR.\u202fS., 290, 299, 369, 374, 377-8, 401, 425\n\n Mechitarists, 95, 366\n\n _Medicae artis principes_, 566ff.\n\n _Medici antiqui_, 567, 612\n\n Mela, see Pomponius\n\n _M\u00e9moires couronn\u00e9s par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie de Belgique_, 139\n\n Menander, 22, 49\n\n Menecrates, 135\n\n Menelbus, 574\n\n Mentz, F., 76\n\n Mercurius Cilenius (or Tillemus), 652;\n and see Hermes\n\n Merrifield, Mrs., chap. xxxiii\n\n Merx, A., 121, 373\n\n Mesue (Yuhanna ibn Masawaih), 162, 164\n\n Metrodorus, _Letter to Celsus_, 441\n\n Metrodorus, Byzantine grammarian, 575\n\n Meusel, 551\n\n Mewaldt, 119, 176\n\n Meyer, E.\u202fv., 772\n\n Meyer, M.\u202fP.\u202fH., 551\n\n Meyer-Steineg, T., 121\n\n _Micah_, 352\n\n Michael Scot, 664, 704, 710\n\n Migne, _Dict. d. Apocryphes_, 397\n\n Mills, L.\u202fH., 349\n\n Milne, J.\u202fS., 145\n\n Milward, E., 137, chap. xxv\n\n Minucius Felix, 465\n\n _Miskati_, 18\n\n Mithridates, 87, 171, 495\n\n _Mitteilungen d. anthrop. Gesell. in Wien_, 16\n\n _Mitteilungen d. Vorderasiat. Gesell._, 473\n\n _Modern Language Publications_, 499\n\n Moeragenes (or Moiragenes), 244, 246, 253, 448\n\n Molbech, C., 612\n\n Mommsen, T., 73, 326-31, 526, 601, 695\n\n Monaci, E., 499\n\n _Monist, The_, 630\n\n Montgomery, J.\u202fA., 384\n\n _Moon-Books_, chap. xxix\n\n Morellus Federicus, 538\n\n Moret, A., 7\n\n Morf, H., 552\n\n Morfill and Charles, chap. xiii\n\n Morgan, M.\u202fH., 183-8\n\n _Morgenl\u00e4ndische Forschungen_, 642\n\n Morienus Romanus, 697, 761\n\n Moser, G.\u202fH., 299\n\n Moses the law-giver, 59, 137-8, 151, 195, 350, 357, 437, 507\n\n Moses ben Maimon, or, of Cordova, see Maimonides\n\n Moses ibn Tibbon, 749\n\n _Moyen \u00c2ge, Le_, 241\n\n Mucianus, 81\n\n Mueller, I., 119\n\n Muhammad b. Muh. b. Tarch\u00e2n b. Uzlag, Ab\u00fb Nasr, see Al-Farabi\n\n Muhammad ibn Zakariya, see Rasis\n\n M\u00fchle, H.\u202fv.\u202fd., 73, 132\n\n Muir, W., 337, 642\n\n M\u00fcller, 667\n\n M\u00fcller, C., 106, 215, 466, 552\n\n M\u00fcller, F.\u202fW.\u202fK., 479\n\n M\u00fcller, H.\u202fF., 299\n\n M\u00fcnter, _Stern der Weisen_, 354-5, 443, 473.\n\n Muratori, _Antiquitates_, 764\n\n Murray, M.\u202fA., 2\n\n Musa ibn Maimon, see Maimonides\n\n Musaeus, 77\n\n _Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, 7, 360\n\n\n Nagy, A., 641, 646\n\n Nallino, C.\u202fA., 106\n\n _Nansen\u2019s North Polar Expedition, Reports of_, 491\n\n Nau, F., 374\n\n Naud\u00e9, G., 234\n\n Navigius, 537\n\n Naville, E., 7\n\n Nechepso, 173\n\n Nechepso and Petosiris, 95, 293, 537, 682-3, 714\n\n Neckam, Alexander, 342, 658, 772\n\n Negri, 671\n\n _Nehemiah_, 352\n\n Nemesius, 752\n\n Nepos, _Chabrias_, 558\n\n _Neue Jahrbuch_, 14, 34, 292\n\n _Neues Archiv d. Gesell. f. \u00e4ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde_, 684\n\n Newton, _Dict. of Birds_, 267\n\n Nicander, 172, 236-7, 495\n\n Nicephorus, 457\n\n Nicholson, R.\u202fA., 6\n\n _Nicodemus, Gospel of_, 390, 395\n\n Nielsen, D., 355\n\n Nigidius Figulus, 515\n\n Nisard, 544\n\n Nix, 653\n\n Noeldeke, 552\n\n Nonus, 569\n\n Notker, Labeo, 677, 728\n\n _Numbers_, 444\n\n Numenius, 443\n\n Numisianus, 123\n\n Nussey, D., see M\u00e2le, E.\n\n\n Odo of Meung, 613\n\n Odo of Morimont, 613\n\n Odo of Tournai, 673\n\n Odo of Verona, 613\n\n _Odyssey_, 58\n\n Oefele, v., 473\n\n Oesterley, W.\u202fO.\u202fE., 351, 399\n\n Olleris, 706\n\n Olympiodorus, 195-6, 292\n\n Onesicritus, 553\n\n Oppert, J., 34\n\n Oribasius, 163, _568ff._, 607, 613, 746\n\n Origen, _chap. xix_, 466, 469, 482-3, 499, 506\n _Biblical Commentaries_, 444-5, 454, 457, 461\n _Principiis_, 456, 520-1\n _Reply to Celsus_, chap. xix, 246, 277, 282, 342, 365-6\n\n Orosius, 519, 556, 601\n\n Orpheus, 58, 65, 195, 206, 234, 282, 291, 293\n _Argonautica_, 293\n _Lithica_, 293-6, 463, 777\n\n Orr, M.\u202fA., 16, 116, 192, 340, 619\n\n Osann, 596\n\n Ostanes or Osthanes, 22, 58-9, 61, 196-8, 234, 296, 463, 465, 558,\n 582, 763\n\n Otho of Cremona, 612\n\n Ovid, 612\n _Halieuticon_, 74\n _Vetula_ (spurious), 691\n\n Owen, A.\u202fS., see Butler and\n\n\n _Padmuthiun Acheksandri Maketonazwui_, 552\n\n Pagel, J.\u202fL., 163\n\n Palaemo, Q. Remnius Fannius, 761\n\n Palladius, 556, 569\n\n Pamphilus, 154, 166-7, 178, 288, 291, 495\n\n Panaetius, 268\n\n Panckoucke, 52, 101\n\n Pandulf of Capua, 753\n\n Pannier, L., 775\n\n Panodorus, 194\n\n Pappus, 109\n\n Paret, 381\n\n Parthenius, 215\n\n Parthey, G., 307, 365\n\n Patrick, St., 640\n\n Paul, the apostle, 405, 556\n\n Paul of Aegina, _568ff._, 721, 746\n\n Paul of Alexandria, 116\n\n Pauly and Wissowa, 124, 213, 241, 290\n\n Pausanias, 214\n\n Payne, J.\u202fF.\n _English Medicine_, 569, 721, 733\n _Relation of Harvey to Galen_, 119-22, 145-7\n\n Peiper, R., 619ff.\n\n Pelliot, see Chavannes and\n\n Pelops, 123, 170\n\n _Pentateuch_, 350\n\n Pertz, 702\n\n Petavius, 363, 540, etc.\n\n Petavius, D., 575\n\n Peter, the apostle, chap. xvii\n _Acts of_, 405\n _Second Epistle of_, 446\n _Teachings of_, 405\n\n Peter of Abano, see Abano\n\n Peter the Archiater, 569\n\n Peter the Deacon, chap. xxxii\n\n Peter of Spain, 163\n\n Petermann, see Schwartze and\n\n Peters, E., 497\n\n Petosiris, 682-3;\n and see Nechepso and\n\n Petrie, F., 12\n\n Petrocellus, 659, _733-6_\n\n _Petrograd Acad. Scient. Imper. M\u00e9moires_, 428\n\n Pez, _Thesaurus Anecdot. Noviss._, 698, 701, 706\n\n Pfister, F., 552, 556-7, 565\n\n Pherecydes, 270-1, 574\n\n Philagrius, 567, 577\n\n Philastrius, 423\n\n Philip, disciple of Bardesanes, 374\n\n Philip, translator of Horapollo, 331\n\n Philip of Thaon, 498\n\n Phillipps, T., 760\n\n Philo, cited on plants, 495\n\n Philo Judaeus, _chap. xiv_, 302, 447, 457, 492\n _Alexander_, 351\n _Allegories_, 357\n _Biblical Antiquities_ (spurious), 351\n _Contemplative Life_, 349-50, 356\n _Creation_, 348\n _Dreams_, 351-3, 357-8\n _Excircumcisione_, 349\n _Gigantibus_, 353\n _Law concerning murderers_, 352\n _Migratione Abrahami_, 353-4\n _Monarchia_, 353-4\n _Mundi opificio_, 350, 353-7\n _Providentia_, 351\n _Quod omnis probus liber sit_, 352\n _Vita Mosis_, 351, 353, 357\n _Virtutibus_, 351\n\n Philolaus, 181, 296\n\n _Philologus_, 292, 429, 497, 540, 683\n\n Philostratus,\n _Apollonius of Tyana_, _chap. viii_, 205, 329, 392, 406, 410\n _Sophists_, 322\n\n Philumenus, 567, 577\n\n Photius, 276, 338\n\n _Physiologus_, 490, _497-503_\n\n _Picatrix_, 665\n\n Pico della Mirandola, 603\n\n Pietschmann, R., 288\n\n Pighinuccius, T., 596\n\n _Pilate, Acts of_, 390\n\n Pindar, 266\n\n Piper, 677\n\n Piso, 574\n\n Piso, Domitius, 44\n\n _Pistis-Sophia_, 364, _377-9_\n\n Pitra, J.\u202fB.\n _Analecta Sacra_, 291, 297\n _Spicilegium_, 463, 497ff., 636, 777\n\n Platearius, Matthaeus the Elder, 738\n\n Plato, 22, 24-6, 58, 61, 137, 139, 151-2, 180-1, 235, 240, 247, 290,\n 303, 349-50, 353, 355, 460, 519, 532, 622, 632, 713\n _Laws_, 25\n _Republic_, 26, 138, 212\n _Symposium_, 25\n _Timaeus_, 24-6, 237, 297, 408, 476, 620\n\n Plato of Tivoli, 110\n\n Pliny the Elder, _Natural History_, _chap. ii_, 3, 100, 132, 154,\n 187-8, 193, 199, 213-4, 238, 248, 255, 257, 268, 273, 292-3, 296,\n 322, 325, 327-9, 331, 351, 503, 510, 558, 571-2, 589-91, 612, 614,\n 624, 626, 628, 737, 761, 764, 766, 780\n Other works listed, 45\n _Medicina Plinii_, 52, 577, _595-6_\n\n Pliny the Younger, 45, 48, 50\n\n Plotinus, _chap. xi_, 361-2, 542\n\n Plutarch, _chap. vi_, 180, 269, 355, 481, 669\n _Agesilaus_, 558\n _Alexander_, 552\n _Banquet of Seven Sages_, 218\n _Bruta ratione uti_, 217\n _Defectu oraculorum_, 203, 205, 212-3, 219, 278\n _Ei apud Delphos_, 205, 212\n _Facie in orbe lunae_, 206, 211, 219\n _Genio Socratis_, 205, 207, 240\n _Isis and Osiris_, 219\n _Lives_, 201, 244\n _Principle of Cold_, 218\n _Procreation of Soul_, 212\n _Pythiae oraculis_, 205\n _Quaestiones naturales_, 217, 219\n _Romulus_, 209, 330\n _Sera numinis vindicta_, 213\n _Solertia animalium_, 218\n _Superstitione_, 203-4\n _Symposiacs_, 205, 211-3, 217, 219\n _Whether an old man should engage in politics_, 201\n dubious or spurious\n _Fato_, 202, 210\n _Institutione principis_, 200\n _Placitis philosophorum_, 202\n _Rivers and Mountains_, 202, 215\n\n Pognon, H., 384\n\n Poir\u00e9e, see Ruelle et\n\n Polemon, 460\n\n Politian, 53\n\n Polybius, 245\n\n Pomponius Mela, 328-9\n\n Ponce de Leon, 499\n\n Poole, R.\u202fL., _Medieval Thought_, 617, 634\n\n Porphyry, _chap. xi_, 535\n _Abstinentia_, 314, 317\n _Introduction to Tetrabiblos_, 116, 316\n _Letter to Anebo_, 307-20\n _Philosophia ex oraculis_, 297\n _Vita Plotini_, 296, 300-2\n\n Posidonius, 111\n\n Pr\u00e4chter, K., 541\n\n Preisendanz, K., 28\n\n Preller, L., 296, 429\n\n Premerstein, A.\u202fv., 607\n\n _Prenostica Pitagorice_, 684\n\n Preuschen, E., 366\n\n Priaulx, _Indian Travels_, 244\n\n Prince, J.\u202fD., 15\n\n Priscian, 326, 761\n\n Priscillian, _380-1_, 461\n\n _Proceedings, Biblical Archaeology_, 33\n\n _Proceedings, Royal Society of Medicine_, 284\n\n Procharus, 397\n\n Proclus, 116, 307, 316\n _Sacrificio et magia_, 319-20\n\n _Protevangelium of James_, chap. xvi\n\n Pruckner, M., 525\n\n Prudentius, 500\n\n _Psalms_ and _Psalter_, 442, 521, 759\n\n Psellus, Michael, 290, 569, 772\n\n Ptolemy, _chap. iii_, 32, 118, 135, 272, 307, 341, 537, 661, 664, 666,\n 703, 709-10, 737\n _Almagest_, 105-9\n _Centiloquium_, 111\n _Exortatio ad artem_, 693\n _Geography_, 105-7\n _Music_, 107\n _Optics_, 107-8\n _Planisphere_, 699\n _Quadripartitum_, see _Tetrabiblos_\n _Speculis_, 189\n _Tetrabiblos_, _110-16_, 303, 517, 690-1\n\n Puccinotti, _Storia delle Medicine_, chap. xxxii\n\n Puschmann, T.\n _Alexander v. Tralles_, 567ff., 577ff.\n _Hist. of Medical Education_, 120-1, 129, 143, 569, 731\n\n Pythagoras, 50, 58, 61-3, 65-6, 80, 91-2, 176, 180-1, 204, 232-4, 247,\n 263, 269, 274, 288, 317, 349-50, 355, 373, 532\n _Precepta_, 696\n _Prenostica_, 684\n _Sphere of_, chap. xxix, 370\n\n\n _Quadripartitus_, 690\n\n _Quid pro quo_, 608\n\n Quiggin, E.\u202fC., 640\n\n Quilichinus, Aretinus, 558\n\n Quintillian, Pseudo-, 540\n\n\n Rabanus Maurus, 402, 484, 617, 630, 634, 673\n\n Radloff, W., 382\n\n Raidel, G.\u202fM., 106\n\n Ramsay, W.\u202fM., 106\n\n Rand, E.\u202fK., 619\n\n Ranking, G.\u202fS.\u202fA., 667-71\n\n Ranulf Higden, 690\n\n Raoul Glaber, 674\n\n Rasche, C., 307\n\n Rashdall, H., 731, 757\n\n Rasis, 164, 653, _667-71_, 748\n works listed, 668\n\n Ratdolt, E., 649\n\n Read, C., 5\n\n _Realencyklop\u00e4die f. protest. Theol._, 381, 399\n\n _Regimen Salernitanum_, _736ff_.\n\n Reginald or Retinaldus, 52\n\n _Regulae ... de compositione astrolapsus_, 699\n\n Reinach, S., 6\n\n Reisner, G.\u202fA., 34\n\n Reitzenstein, R., 290, 379, 553\n\n Renzi, S.\u202fD., _Collectio Salernitana_, 578, 600, 660, chap. xxxi\n\n Reuss, F.\u202fA., 613\n\n Reuvens, 369\n\n _Revelation, Book of_, 386\n\n R\u00e9ville, J., 350\n\n _Revue des \u00c9tudes anciennes_, 672\n\n _Revue des \u00c9tudes juives_, 551\n\n _Revue d. l\u2019hist. d. religs._, 341, 349\n\n\n _Revue Phil._, 291\n\n _Revue des Questions Historiques_, 113, 690\n\n Rhazes, see Rasis\n\n _Rhein. Mus._, 52\n\n Richardson, E.\u202fC., 400, 403, 406\n\n Richer, 704, 733\n\n Riegler, see Axt and\n\n Riess, E., 24, 292-3, 683\n\n Riley, H.\u202fT., see Bostock and\n\n Robert, 498\n\n Robert of Chester, 648, 697, 761, 773\n\n Robertson Smith, W., 34\n\n Roger Bacon, see Bacon\n\n Rohde, _Psyche_, 293\n\n Rolleston, J.\u202fD., 284\n\n _Rom. Forsch._, 610\n\n _Romanic Review_, 499, 631\n\n Roscher, _Lexicon_, 34\n\n Rose, V., 120, 463, 567, 576, 601\n _Analecta_, 121\n _Anecdota_, 596, 610\n _Aristoteles De lapidibus_, 775, 777\n _HSS Verzeichnisse_, 702, 720, 748, 774\n _Medicina Plinii_, 595, 600, 609, 612\n _Ptolemaeus_, 612\n _Soranus_, 571\n\n Roussat, R., 116\n\n Roux de Rochelle, 564\n\n R\u00fcck, _Plinius im Mittelalter_, 51\n\n Ruelle, 195, 291;\n and see Berthelot and\n\n Ruelle et Poir\u00e9e, 371\n\n Ruellius, 600\n\n Ruffer, M.\u202fA., 11\n\n Rufinus, chap. xvii, 445\n\n Rufus, _Melancholia_, 756\n\n Ruska, J., 611\n\n\n Sackur, _Sibyl. Texte_, 285\n\n Sadan, 651\n\n St. George Stock, 362\n\n Salmon, G., 362\n\n Salomon the archiater, 161\n\n _Samuel, First Book of_, 448\n\n Satyrus, 123\n\n Sayce, A.\u202fH., 35\n\n Schanz, 596\n\n Schenkel, C., 483\n\n Schepss, G., 381, 519\n\n Schiaparelli, 16, 32, 35\n\n Schiche, T., 268\n\n Schlurick, H., 400\n\n Schmertosch, R., 202\n\n Schmid, W., 105, 108\n\n Schmidt, 188\n\n Schmidt, C., 299, 361, 377-8\n\n Schneider, J.\u202fG., 237\n\n Schneider, O., 237\n\n Schneidewin, 466\n\n Schultze, V., 497\n\n Schwab, M., 33\n\n Schwartze und Petermann, 369, 377\n\n _Scientific Monthly_, 194\n\n Scribonius Largus, 600\n\n Scylax, 256\n\n Seeck, O., 540\n\n Seleucus, 289\n\n Seneca\n _Natural Questions, chap. in_, 196, 542, 553\n _Apocryphal correspondence with the apostle Paul_, 556\n\n _Septuagint_, 453, 459\n\n Serapion, 610\n\n Serenus Sammonicus, 608\n\n Seth, 365, 474\n\n Sethe, 9\n\n Sextus Empiricus, 116, 269, _275-6_, 469\n\n Sextus Papirius Placidus, 599\n\n Shakespeare, 772\n\n Shelley, 432\n\n _Sibylline Books_, 272, 285\n\n Sigebertus Gemblacensis, 613\n\n Sijthoff, A.\u202fW., 607\n\n Sikes, E.\u202fE., 21\n\n Silvester II, pope, see Gerbert\n\n _Simon Cephas, Teaching of_, 424\n\n Simon Cordo of Genoa, 567, 610\n\n Simon Papiensis, 525\n\n Simon, the heretic, _Great Declaration_, 362;\n and see Simon Magus in other index\n\n Simonides, 574\n\n Singer, Charles, 345, 597, 607, 609, 660, 674\n\n _Sitzungsberichte_ (Bavaria), 51\n\n _Sitzungsberichte_ (Berlin), 121\n\n _Sitzungsberichte_ (Erlangen), 763, 775\n\n _Sitzungsberichte_ (Heidelberg), 34, 524\n\n Skutsch, see Kroll et\n\n Smith, _Dict. Greek and Roman Biography_, 108\n\n _Smithsonian Report_, 773\n\n Smyly, J.\u202fG., 293\n\n _Societas Regia Scientiarum_, 468\n\n Solinus, _326-31_, 510, 601, 625-7, 777\n\n Solomon, 195, 451\n\n Sophocles, 49\n\n _Sortes sanctorum_, 630-1, 727\n\n Spencer, Herbert, 5\n\n _Sphera cum commentis_, 109\n\n _Sphere of Life and Death_, 197, chap. xxix\n\n Spiegel, _Alexandersage_, 552\n\n Spon, J., 379\n\n Sprengel, K., 606\n\n Stadler, H., 613\n\n Steele, R., _Roger Bacon_, 342, 602\n\n Steinschneider, M., 669\n _Apollonius v. Thyana_, 267\n _Constantinus Africanus_, 657, 742-3, 745, 749, 756\n _Europ\u00e4isch. \u00dcbersetz._, 288, chap. xxviii, 711\n _Pseudepig. Lit._, 578\n\n Stephanus, alchemist, 196, 292\n\n Stephanus, _Medicae artis principes_, 566ff.\n\n Stephen of Alexandria, 569\n\n Stephen of Athens, 607\n\n Stephen of Pisa, 747-9\n\n Stobaeus, 290\n\n _Stowe Missal_, 640\n\n Strabo, 213;\n and see Walafrid\n\n Strassmeier, J.\u202fN., see Epping and\n\n Strzygowski, J., 497\n\n Stubbs, W., 773\n\n St\u00fccken, 15, 35\n\n _Studi Romanzi_, 499\n\n Stumfall, B., 241\n\n Sudhoff, K., 188, 683, 737\n\n Suetonius, 244, 425, 601\n\n Sulla, _Memoirs_, 201\n\n Sulpicius Severus, 381, 423, 469\n\n Sundevall, 73\n\n Symeon Seth, 164\n\n Symon, see Simon\n\n Syncellus, 194, 196, 341\n\n Synesius of Cyrene, 196, 320, 533, _540-4_, 555\n\n\n Tabit ben Corra, see Thebit ben Corat\n\n Tacitus, 201, 241\n\n Tallquist, K.\u202fL., 33\n\n _Talmud_, 355\n\n Taylor, H.\u202fO., 533\n\n Taylor, T., 299, 307\n\n Tennulius, 316\n\n Tertullian, 447, 469, 476, 628\n _Anima_, 463, 469\n _Apology_, 463, 465\n _Cultu feminarum_, 463\n _Idolatria_, 421\n _Pallio_, 493\n _Praescript._, 369\n\n _Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs_, 345\n\n _Texte und Untersuchungen_, 299, Book II _passim_\n\n Thabit ben Corra, see Thebit ben Corat\n\n Thales, 97, 563\n\n Thatcher, G.\u202fW., 383\n\n _Theatrum chemicum Britannicum_, see Ashmole, E.\n\n Thebit ben Corat, _661-6_\n _Almagest_, 109\n _Imaginibus_, 664-6\n _Iudiciis_, 664\n _Motu octave spere_, 663\n _Ponderibus_, 663\n\n Theobald, 498, 500\n\n Theocritus, 22, 266\n\n Theodoret, 369, 423, 447\n\n Theodorus Priscianus, 608\n\n _Theodosian Code_, 536, 584\n\n _Theol. Quartalschrift_, 540\n\n Theon of Alexandria, 109\n\n Theophilus, medical writer, 569\n\n Theophilus of Alexandria, 461\n\n Theophilus, _To Autolycus_, 483, 492\n\n Theophilus, _Schedula diversarum artium_, chap. xxxiii\n\n Theophilus Macer, see Macer\n\n Theophrastus, 27, 29, 75, 81, 186, 236-8\n\n Thessalus, 127\n\n Thilo, J.\u202fC., 387, 476\n\n Thomas, apostle,\n _Acts of_, 374, 396\n _Gospel of_, chap. xvi\n\n Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9, 503, 578, 600, 636, 658\n\n Thomas, W.\u202fI., 5, 17\n\n Thompson, D\u2019Arcy W.\n _Aristotle as Biologist_, 29-30, 73, 146\n _Glossary of Greek Birds_, 73, 130, 255, 265, 324\n _History of Animals_, 26, 30, 73, 491\n\n Thompson, C.\u202fJ.\u202fS., 131\n\n Thompson, H., 7, 27-8\n\n Thompson, R.\u202fC., 15, 18, 33\n\n Thorndike, L., 21, 26, 525\n\n Thrasyllus, 99\n\n Thucydides, 244\n\n Tischendorf, chap. xvi\n\n Tittel, K., 193\n\n _Tobit, Book of_, 688\n\n Todd, T.\u202fW., 10, 723\n\n Torinus, A., 567, 577\n\n Tozer, 131\n\n _Transactions of American Philological Association_, 24, 28, 293\n\n _Transactions of Provincial Medical and Surgical Association_, 147\n\n _Transactions of Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 35\n\n Treitel, L., 349\n\n Tribonian, 568\n\n Trithemius, 658, 702\n\n Trotula, 740\n\n Turner, S., 633\n\n _Twelve Tables_, 234\n\n Twysden, 690\n\n Tycho Brahe, 457\n\n Tychsen, O.\u202fG., 497\n\n Tyrwhitt, 293\n\n\n Unger, F., 76\n\n _University of Nebraska Studies_, 24\n\n Usener, 619\n\n\n Valentinelli, J., 164\n\n Valerius Soranus, 50;\n and see Julius Valerius\n\n Valois, N., 402\n\n Valpy, 42\n\n Varro, 50, 209, 239, 330, 625\n\n _Vedas_, 251\n\n Vergil, 97, 544, 601, 612, 691\n\n Vettius Valens, 116\n\n Vincent of Beauvais, 342, 389, 402-3, 503, 600, 658, 660, 669-70, 687,\n 744, 757\n\n Vindanius Anatolius, 604\n\n _Virchow\u2019s Archiv_, 668, chap. xxxii\n\n Virolleaud, C., 35\n\n Vitruvius, 143, _183-8_, 199, 601\n\n Vogelstein, 552\n\n Vogl, S., see Bj\u00f6rnbo and\n\n Voigt, H.\u202fG., 473\n\n Volkmann, R., 299, 540\n\n Vossius, I., 256\n\n _Vulgate_, 688\n\n\n Waitz, H., 400, 405, 663\n\n Walafrid Strabo, 612-3, 615\n\n Walker, A., 387\n\n _Waztalkora_, 699\n\n Webb, C.\u202fC.\u202fI., 303, 631, 684\n\n Weber, C.\u202fF. and Caesar, J., 426\n\n Weber, O., 33\n\n Webster, H., 16, 686\n\n Weissenberger, B., 202\n\n Wellmann, M., 121, 138, 606, 608, 610\n\n Wendland, P., 348, 350\n\n Wescher, C., 188\n\n Wessely, C., 365, 607\n\n Westenberger, 119\n\n Westermann, A., 552\n\n Westermarck, E., 73\n\n Wickersheimer, E., 673-4, 683, 692, 698, 709\n\n Wiedemann, A., 7-8, 14\n\n Wiedemann, E., 649, 763\n\n Wilcken, 12\n\n William of Auvergne, 402, 725\n\n William le Clerc, 497-9\n\n William of Malmesbury, 690, 704-6, 710, 714\n\n William of Moerbeke, 179\n\n William de Saliceto, 601\n\n Wimmer, see Aubert and\n\n Winckler, 15, 35\n\n Windelband, W., 26\n\n Windisch, H., 349\n\n Windischmann, 296\n\n Winsor, J., 106\n\n Withington, E., 520, 667-8\n\n Wolf, C., 607\n\n Wolf, H., 316\n\n Wolff, G., 297\n\n Woltmann and Woermann, 607\n\n Woolston, T., 388\n\n Wright, T., 556\n\n W\u00fcnsch, R., 28, 366\n\n Wuttke, M.\u202fH., 601\n\n Wynkyn de Worde, 478\n\n Wyttenbach, 299\n\n\n Xanthus, 75\n\n Xenocrates Aphrodisiensis, 167\n\n Xenophanes, 180, 270\n\n Xenophon, 22\n\n\n Ya\u2019k\u00fbb ibn Ish\u00e2k ibn Sabb\u00e2h, see Alkindi\n\n Yonge, C.\u202fD., 349\n\n Yuhanna ibn Masawaih, see Mesue\n\n Yule, H., _Marco Polo_, 132, 214, 479\n\n\n Zacher, J., chap. xxiv\n\n _Zeitschrift f. \u00e6gypt. Sprache_, 10, 35\n\n _Zeitschrift f. deutsch. Morgendl. Gesell._, 121, 267\n\n _Zeitschrift f. klass. Philol._, 752\n\n _Zeitschrift f. Math._, 661\n\n _Zeitschrift f. neutest. Wiss._, 401\n\n _Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol._, 400\n\n Zeller, E., 24, 316\n\n Zerv\u00f2s, S., 566\n\n Ziegler, K., chap. xxiii\n\n Zimmern, 19, 32, 34\n\n Zopyrus, 460\n\n Zoroaster, 58-9, 206, 235, 281, 295, 396, 415, 435, 605, 629\n\n Zosimus, 131, 195, 198, 290, 292\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS\n\n\n Additional 8928, p. 609\n\n Additional 11035, p. 500\n\n Additional 15236, pp. 694, 716\n\n Additional 17808, chap. xxx\n\n Additional 22398, p. 695\n\n Additional 22719, p. 654\n\n Additional 34111, p. 578\n\n Alen\u00e7on 10, p. 484\n\n Amiens 222, p. 634\n\n Amiens 481, p. 478\n\n Amiens fonds Lescalopier 2, p. 676\n\n Amiens fonds Lescalopier 30, p. 484\n\n Amplon. Folio 41, p. 611\n\n Amplon. Octavo 62, p. 747\n\n Amplon. Octavo 62a, p. 612\n\n Amplon. Octavo 62b, p. 612\n\n Amplon. Quarto 12, p. 558\n\n Amplon. Quarto 151, p. 643\n\n Amplon. Quarto 174, p. 665\n\n Amplon. Quarto 204, p. 578\n\n Amplon. Quarto 312, p. 664\n\n Amplon. Quarto 349, p. 643\n\n Amplon. Quarto 352, p. 651\n\n Amplon. Quarto 365, p. 650\n\n Amplon. Quarto 380, p. 694\n\n Amplon. Quarto 381, p. 340\n\n Amplon. Math. 48, 643\n\n Amplon. Math. 53, p. 340\n\n Amplon. Math. 54, p. 267\n\n Arsenal 880, p. 650\n\n Arsenal 981, p. 106\n\n Arsenal 1036, p. 650\n\n Arundel 242, p. 556\n\n Arundel 295, p. 615\n\n Arundel 319, p. 683\n\n Ashburnham (Florence) 130, p. 682\n\n Ashmole 179, p. 648\n\n Ashmole 189, p. 681\n\n Ashmole 209, p. 648\n\n Ashmole 346, p. 665\n\n Ashmole 361, pp. 681, 688\n\n Ashmole 369, pp. 648, 714\n\n Ashmole 369-V, p. 650\n\n Ashmole 393, p. 650\n\n Ashmole 434, p. 648\n\n Ashmole 1431, pp. 597, 599, 609\n\n Ashmole 1462, p. 597\n\n Avranches 235, p. 664\n\n\n Balliol 124, p. 52\n\n Balliol 146A, p. 52\n\n Balliol 231, p. 121\n\n Bamberg L-III-9, pp. 610, 747\n\n Barberini (Rome) IX, 29, p. 609\n\n Berlin 128, p. 634\n\n Berlin 130, p. 634\n\n Berlin 131, p. 695\n\n Berlin 165, p. 720\n\n Berlin 799, p. 477\n\n Berlin 800, p. 477\n\n Berlin 898, p. 748\n\n Berlin 902, p. 163\n\n Berlin 903, p. 163\n\n Berlin 956, pp. 702, 774\n\n Berlin 963, pp. 340, 665\n\n Berlin 964, p. 665\n\n Bernard 2325, p. 478\n\n BN Greek 930, p. 401\n\n BN Greek 2179, p. 607\n\n BN Greek 2316, p. 578\n\n BN nouv. acq. 229, pp. 677, 702, 725, 728ff.\n\n BN nouv. acq. 490, p. 484\n\n BN nouv. acq. 616, p. 643\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1612, p. 634\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1615, p. 634\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1616, chap. xxix\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1619, p. 571\n\n BN nouv. acq. 1632, p. 634\n\n BN 1701 and 1702, p. 484\n\n BN 1718 to 1727, p. 484\n\n BN 1787A, p. 484\n\n BN 2200, p. 484\n\n BN 2387, p. 484\n\n BN 2598, p. 710\n\n BN 2621, p. 776\n\n BN 2633, p. 484\n\n BN 2637, p. 484\n\n BN 2638, p. 484\n\n BN 2695A, p. 556\n\n BN 2780, p. 500\n\n BN 2874, p. 556\n\n BN 3660A, pp. 681-2\n\n BN 3836, p. 484\n\n BN 4126, p. 556\n\n BN 4161, p. 714\n\n BN 4801 to 4804, p. 106\n\n BN 4838, p. 106\n\n BN 4877, p. 556\n\n BN 4880, p. 556\n\n\n BN 5062, p. 556\n\n BN 5239, p. 692\n\n BN 5543, p. 634\n\n BN 6121, p. 556\n\n BN 6186, p. 556\n\n BN 6296, p. 657\n\n BN 6319, p. 657\n\n BN 6322, p. 657\n\n BN 6323A, p. 657\n\n BN 6325, p. 657\n\n BN 6365, p. 556\n\n BN 6385, p. 556\n\n BN 6503, p. 556\n\n BN 6514, pp. 664, 670\n\n BN 6567A, p. 657\n\n BN 6569, p. 657\n\n BN 6811, p. 556\n\n BN 6831, p. 556\n\n BN 6880, pp. 567, 584\n\n BN 6881, p. 577\n\n BN 6882, p. 577\n\n BN 6954, p. 600\n\n BN 6957, p. 600\n\n BN 6978, p. 648\n\n BN 7028, pp. 674, 728\n\n BN 7156, p. 670\n\n BN 7195, p. 663\n\n BN 7282, p. 665\n\n BN 7299A, pp. 676, 679, 686, 696\n\n BN 7316, pp. 647, 652\n\n BN 7328, p. 647\n\n BN 7329, p. 652\n\n BN 7332, p. 647\n\n BN 7337, pp. 664, 687\n\n BN 7349, p. 716\n\n BN 7351, P. 716\n\n BN 7377B, p. 663\n\n BN 7412, p. 699\n\n BN 7418, pp. 463, 777\n\n BN 7424, p. 663\n\n BN 7440, p. 647\n\n BN 7482, p. 647\n\n BN 7486, pp. 693, 716\n\n BN 7561, p. 556\n\n BN 8247, p. 657\n\n BN 8501A, p. 556\n\n BN 8518, p. 556\n\n BN 8521A, p. 556\n\n BN 8607, p. 556\n\n BN 9332, pp. 571, 576, 610\n\n BN 10233, p. 571\n\n BN 10260, p. 663\n\n BN 10271, p. 715\n\n BN 11624, p. 484\n\n BN 12134, p. 484\n\n BN 12135, p. 484\n\n BN 12136, p. 484\n\n BN 12995, p. 609\n\n BN 13014, p. 340\n\n\n BN 13336, p. 484\n\n BN 13350, p. 445\n\n BN 13951, p. 267\n\n BN 14700, p. 744\n\n BN 14847, p. 484\n\n BN 15685, p. 634\n\n BN 16082, p. 657\n\n BN 16083, p. 657\n\n BN 16088, p. 657\n\n BN 16142, p. 657\n\n BN 16204, p. 650\n\n BN 16216, p. 696\n\n BN 16490, p. 657\n\n BN 16819, pp. 476, 478\n\n BN 17868, p. 683, chap. xxx\n\n Bodleian 26, p. 694\n\n Bodleian 177, p. 694\n\n Bodleian 266, pp. 664, 705, 710\n\n Bodleian 463, pp. 652, 665\n\n Bodleian 2060, p. 758\n\n Bologna 952, p. 52\n\n Bologna University Library 378, p. 610\n\n Bruce Papyrus, p. 378\n\n Brussels (Library of Dukes of Burgundy) 1782, p. 484\n\n Brussels 2784, p. 657\n\n Brussels 8890, p. 776\n\n Brussels 10074, p. 498\n\n Brussels 15489, p. 758\n\n\n Cambrai 195, p. 696\n\n Cambrai 229, p. 696\n\n Cambrai 829, p. 696\n\n Cambrai 861, p. 696\n\n Cambrai 907, p. 758\n\n Cambrai 914, p. 758\n\n Cambrai 925, p. 633\n\n Canon. Misc. 370, p. 643\n\n Canon. Misc. 517, p. 682\n\n Casin. 97, p. 577\n\n Chalons-sur-Marne 7, p. 695\n\n Chartres 63, p. 484\n\n Chartres 113, p. 692\n\n Chartres 342, p. 577\n\n CLM 27, p. 665\n\n CLM 51, p. 650\n\n CLM 59, p. 665\n\n CLM 161, pp. 749-50\n\n CLM 168, p. 750\n\n CLM 187, p. 750\n\n CLM 215, p. 560\n\n CLM 270, p. 750\n\n CLM 337, p. 610\n\n CLM 344, p. 377\n\n CLM 392, p. 648\n\n CLM 489, p. 648\n\n CLM 527, p. 716\n\n CLM 560, pp. 559, 698, 710\n\n CLM 588, p. 664\n\n CLM 621, p. 241\n\n CLM 826, p. 651\n\n CLM 1487, p. 650\n\n CLM 1503, p. 650\n\n CLM 2549, p. 484\n\n CLM 3728, p. 484\n\n CLM 6258, p. 484\n\n CLM 6382, pp. 678, 680\n\n CLM 9921, p. 678\n\n CLM 11319, p. 556\n\n CLM 13034, p. 749\n\n CLM 13079, p. 484\n\n CLM 14399, p. 484\n\n CLM 14583, p. 106\n\n CLM 14836, p. 701\n\n CLM 18158, p. 634\n\n CLM 18621, p. 477\n\n CLM 18629, pp. 674, 693, 696\n\n CLM 18764, p. 674\n\n CLM 19417, p. 500\n\n CLM 19544, p. 477\n\n CLM 19648, p. 498\n\n CLM 21557, p. 634\n\n CLM 21627, p. 477\n\n CLM 22307, p. 692\n\n CLM 23390, p. 696\n\n CLM 23479, p. 775\n\n CLM 23535, p. 571\n\n CLM 23787, p. 498\n\n CLM 23839, p. 477\n\n CLM 24571, p. 477\n\n CLM 25073, p. 477\n\n CLM 26688, p. 477\n\n Corpus Christi 82, p. 555\n\n Corpus Christi 114, p. 657\n\n Corpus Christi 134, p. 476\n\n Corpus Christi 154, p. 657\n\n Corpus Christi 189, p. 578\n\n Corpus Christi 233, p. 652\n\n Corpus Christi 254, p. 648\n\n Cortona 110, p. 164\n\n Cotton Appendix VI, pp. 643, 646\n\n Cotton Caligula A, XV, pp. 680, 695\n\n Cotton Galba E, VIII, p. 477\n\n Cotton Nero D, VIII, p. 556\n\n Cotton Tiberius A, III, chap. xxix\n\n Cotton Tiberius C, VI, p. 692\n\n Cotton Titus D, XXVI, chap. xxix\n\n Cotton Titus D, XXVII, p. 681\n\n Cotton Vespasian B, X, p. 601\n\n Cotton Vitellius A, XII, p. 695\n\n Cotton Vitellius C, III, pp. 597, 612\n\n Cotton Vitellius C, VIII, p. 695\n\n CUL 213, p. 602\n\n CUL 768, p. 775\n\n CUL 1338, p. 678\n\n CUL 1429, p. 558\n\n CUL 1687, p. 679\n\n CUL 1767, pp. 110, 663\n\n CUL Ii-i-13, p. 652\n\n CU Clare 15, p. 647\n\n CU Corpus 193, p. 484\n\n CU Jesus 44, p. 610\n\n CU Trinity 884, p. 498\n\n CU Trinity 906, p. 748\n\n CU Trinity 936, p. 643\n\n CU Trinity 945, p. 695\n\n CU Trinity 987, p. 680\n\n CU Trinity 1041, pp. 401, 557\n\n CU Trinity 1044, p. 724\n\n CU Trinity 1064, p. 749\n\n CU Trinity 1109, pp. 678, 693\n\n CU Trinity 1152, pp. 597, 599\n\n CU Trinity 1365, p. 753\n\n CU Trinity 1369, pp. 686, 692, 695\n\n CU Trinity 1446, p. 564\n\n\n Digby 30, p. 428\n\n Digby 40, p. 646\n\n Digby 43, p. 600\n\n Digby 51, p. 110\n\n Digby 58, p. 693\n\n Digby 63, pp. 686, 695\n\n Digby 67, pp. 340, 647\n\n Digby 68, pp. 647, 652\n\n Digby 79, p. 578\n\n Digby 83, pp. 705-7\n\n Digby 86, p. 678\n\n Digby 88, p. 681\n\n Digby 91, pp. 643, 646, 648\n\n Digby 92, p. 647\n\n Digby 93, p. 647\n\n Digby 147, p. 647\n\n Digby 174, pp. 701-2\n\n Digby 176, p. 647\n\n Digby 183, pp. 643, 646\n\n Digby 194, pp. 652, 665\n\n Dijon 448, p. 695\n\n Dijon 1045, p. 650\n\n\n Edwin Smith Papyrus, p. 12\n\n Egerton 821, pp. 677-81, 684, 726-9\n\n Egerton 823, p. 699\n\n Escorial Q-I-4, pp. 52-3\n\n Escorial R-I-5, pp. 52-3\n\n Escorial &-II-9, p. 745\n\n Eton 133, Bl.4.6, p. 556\n\n Eton 134, Bl.4.7, p. 52\n\n Exon. 23, p. 658\n\n\n Florence II, iii, 214, pp. 653, 665\n\n\n Gonville and Caius 109, p. 658\n\n Gonville and Caius 345, p. 599\n\n Gonville and Caius 400, p. 577\n\n Gonville and Caius 411, p. 742\n\n Grenoble 208, p. 506\n\n Grenoble 258, p. 484\n\n Gubbio 25, p. 499\n\n\n Harleian 1, p. 650\n\n Harleian 13, pp. 643, 663\n\n Harleian 80, pp. 340, 665\n\n Harleian 527, p. 557\n\n Harleian 1585, pp. 597, 609, 696\n\n Harleian 1612, p. 340\n\n Harleian 1735, p. 684\n\n Harleian 2258, p. 677\n\n Harleian 3017, pp. 677, 680, 695\n\n Harleian 3099, p. 623\n\n Harleian 3271, p. 695\n\n Harleian 3647, pp. 663, 665\n\n Harleian 3859, p. 601\n\n Harleian 3969, p. 241\n\n Harleian 4346, p. 612\n\n Harleian 4986, pp. 597, 608\n\n Harleian 5294, p. 609\n\n Harleian 5311, p. 694\n\n Hatton 76, p. 776\n\n Hunterian 44, p. 667\n\n\n Ivrea 3, p. 634\n\n Ivrea 6, p. 634\n\n Ivrea 19, p. 692\n\n\n Laon 407, p. 692\n\n Laud. Misc. 247, pp. 498, 556\n\n Laud. Misc. 567, pp. 749, 751\n\n Laud. Misc. 594, pp. 650-1\n\n Laud. Misc. 658, pp. 444, 477\n\n Laurentianus xxxviii, 24, p. 683\n\n Laurentianus Plut. 68, 2, p. 241\n\n Lincoln College 34, p. 351\n\n Lucca I, L, p. 764\n\n Lucca 236, pp. 597, 695\n\n Lyons 328, p. 664\n\n\n Madrid 10016, p. 693\n\n Magliabech. IV, 63, p. 499\n\n Magliabech. XI, 117, p. 663\n\n Magliabech. XX, 20, p. 665\n\n Le Mans 15, p. 484\n\n Le Mans 263, p. 52\n\n Merton 219, p. 125\n\n Monte Cassino 97, p. 577\n\n Montpellier 277, pp. 600, 611, 776\n\n Munich, Latin MSS., see CLM\n\n\n New College MS., unnumbered, p. 52\n\n Novara 40, p. 484\n\n\n Orl\u00e9ans 35, p. 484\n\n Orl\u00e9ans 192, p. 484\n\n Orl\u00e9ans 276, p. 692\n\n Ottobon. 443, p. 401\n\n\n Palat. Lat. 487, p. 673\n\n Pembroke 278, p. 676\n\n Perugia 736, p. 598\n\n\n Rawlinson C-117, p. 643\n\n Rawlinson C-328, pp. 597, 600, 746\n\n Riccard. 119, p. 670\n\n Riccard. 1228, p. 776\n\n Royal 2-C-XII, p. 498\n\n Royal 4-A-XIII, p. 65\n\n Royal 12-B-XVI, p. 577\n\n Royal 12-C-IV, pp. 554, 556\n\n Royal 12-C-XVIII, pp. 267, 340, 664\n\n Royal 12-E-XX, p. 577\n\n Royal 12-F-X, p. 65\n\n Royal 13-A-I, pp. 554-5, 564-5\n\n Royal 15-B-II, p. 601\n\n Royal 15-B-IX, p. 701\n\n Royal 15-C-IV, p. 601\n\n Royal 15-C-VI, pp. 554, 556\n\n Royal 17-A-I, p. 705\n\n\n St. Augustine\u2019s Canterbury 1166, p. 643\n\n St. Augustine\u2019s Canterbury 1172, p. 714\n\n St. Gall 751, p. 596\n\n Ste. Genevi\u00e8ve 2240, p. 643\n\n St. John\u2019s 17, p. 680\n\n St. John\u2019s 85, p. 747\n\n St. John\u2019s 128, p. 349\n\n S. Marco 179, p. 658\n\n S. Marco XI, 102, p. 665\n\n S. Marco XI, 111, p. 694\n\n S. Marco XIV, 7, p. 164\n\n S. Marco XIV, 26, p. 164\n\n Savile 15, p. 652\n\n Schlestadt MS., pp. 765, 769\n\n Selden 3467, p. 643\n\n Selden supra 76, p. 643\n\n Semur 10, p. 484\n\n Sloane 475, chap. xxix, pp. 723-6\n\n Sloane 1305, p. 665\n\n Sloane 1571, p. 599\n\n Sloane 1619, p. 556\n\n Sloane 1734, p. 291\n\n Sloane 1975, pp. 597, 609, 696\n\n Sloane 2030, p. 652\n\n Sloane 2454, p. 657\n\n Sloane, 2461, pp. 681, 696\n\n Sloane 2472, p. 716\n\n Sloane 2839, pp. 723-4\n\n Sloane 3554, p. 716\n\n Sloane 3821, p. 340\n\n Sloane 3826, p. 267\n\n Sloane 3846, p. 665\n\n Sloane 3847, pp. 340, 665\n\n Sloane 3848, pp. 267, 611\n\n Sloane 3857, p. 716\n\n Sloane 3883, p. 665\n\n Soissons 121, p. 484\n\n\n Tanner 192, p. 663\n\n Turin K-IV-3, p. 609\n\n\n University College 33, p. 477\n\n University College 89, p. 750\n\n\n Vatican 180 to 185, p. 349\n\n Vatican 269 to 273, p. 484\n\n Vatican 642, p. 693\n\n Vatican 644, pp. 693, 695\n\n Vatican 645, p. 674\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 176, p. 692\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 235, chap. xxix\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 485, chap. xxix\n\n Vatican Palat. Lat. 859, p. 477\n\n Vatican Urb. Lat. 290, p. 693\n\n Vend\u00f4me 109, pp. 577-8\n\n Vend\u00f4me 122, p. 484\n\n Vend\u00f4me 129, p. 484\n\n Vend\u00f4me 172, p. 577\n\n Vend\u00f4me 175, p. 577\n\n Vienna 303, p. 499\n\n Vienna 2245, p. 679\n\n Vienna 2272, p. 604\n\n Vienna 2378, p. 665\n\n Vienna 2385, p. 647\n\n Vienna 2436, pp. 647, 650\n\n Vienna 2511, p. 499\n\n Vienna 2532, pp. 615, 681, 693\n\n Vienna 3124, p. 267\n\n Vienna 3207, p. 613\n\n Vienna 3255, p. 332\n\n Vienna 5203, p. 663\n\n Vienna 5216, p. 340\n\n Vienna 5371, p. 609\n\n Vienna 10583, p. 651\n\n Vind. Med. 29, p. 499\n\n\n Westcar Papyrus, p. 8\n\n Wolfenb\u00fcttel 2725, p. 340\n\n Wolfenb\u00fcttel 2885, p. 668\n\n Wolfenb\u00fcttel 3266, p. 477\n\n Wolfenb\u00fcttel 4435, p. 498\n\n Wolfenb\u00fcttel palimpsest, p. 121\n\n\n\n\n FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] H. Cotton, _Five Books of Maccabees_, 1832, pp. ix-x.\n\n[2] But Professor Haskins\u2019 recent article in _Isis_ on \u201cMichael Scot\nand Frederick II\u201d and my chapter on Michael Scot were written quite\nindependently.\n\n[3] Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion; quoted by Sir James Frazer,\n_The Magic Art_ (1911), I, 426.\n\n[4] That field has already been treated by Joseph Hansen, _Zauberwahn,\nInquisition und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter_, 1900, and will be further\nilluminated by _A History of Witchcraft in Europe_, soon to be edited\nby Professor George L. Burr from H. C. Lea\u2019s materials. See also a\nwork just published by Miss M. A. Murray, _The Witch-Cult in Western\nEurope_, Oxford, 1921.\n\n[5] Some of my scientific friends have urged me to begin with\nAristotle, as being a much abler scientist than Pliny, but this would\ntake us rather too far back in time and I have not felt equal to a\ntreatment of the science of the genuine Aristotle _per se_, although in\nthe course of this book I shall say something of his medieval influence\nand more especially of the Pseudo-Aristotle.\n\n[6] Frazer has, of course, repeatedly made the point that modern\nscience is an outgrowth from primitive magic. Carveth Read, _The Origin\nof Man_, 1920, in his chapter on \u201cMagic and Science\u201d contends that\n\u201cin no case ... is Science derived from Magic\u201d (p. 337), but this is\nmainly a logical and ideal distinction, since he admits that \u201cfor ages\u201d\nscience \u201cis in the hands of wizards.\u201d\n\n[7] I am glad to see that other writers on magic are taking this view;\nfor instance, E. Doutt\u00e9, _Magie et religion dans l\u2019Afrique du Nord_,\nAlger, 1909, p. 351.\n\n[8] _Golden Bough_, 1894, I, 420. W. I. Thomas, \u201cThe Relation of the\nMedicine-Man to the Origin of the Professional Occupations\u201d (reprinted\nin his _Source Book for Social Origins_, 4th edition, pp. 281-303),\nin which he disputes Herbert Spencer\u2019s \u201cthesis that the medicine-man\nis the source and origin of the learned and artistic occupations,\u201d\ndoes not really conflict with Frazer\u2019s statement, since for Thomas the\nmedicine-man is a priest rather than a magician. Thomas remarks later\nin the same book (p. 437), \u201cFurthermore, the whole attempt of the\nsavage to control the outside world, so far as it contained a theory or\na doctrine, was based on magic.\u201d\n\n[9] _Chaldean Magic and Sorcery_, 1878, p. 70.\n\n[10] Jules Combarieu, _La musique et la magie_, Paris, 1909, p. v.\n\n[11] _Ibid._, pp. 13-14.\n\n[12] Among the early Arabs \u201cpoetry is magical utterance\u201d (Macdonald\n(1909) p. 16), and the poet \u201ca wizard in league with spirits\u201d\n(Nicholson, _A Literary History of the Arabs_, 1914, p. 72).\n\n[13] See S. Reinach, \u201cL\u2019Art et la Magie,\u201d in _L\u2019Anthropologie_, XIV\n(1903), and Y. Hirn, _Origins of Art_, London, 1900, Chapter xx, \u201cArt\nand Magic.\u201d J. Capart, _Primitive Art in Egypt_.\n\n[14] P. Huvelin, _Magie et droit individuel_, Paris, 1907, in _Ann\u00e9e\nSociologique_, X, 1-471; see too his _Les tablettes magiques et le\ndroit romain_, M\u00e2con, 1901.\n\n[15] R. R. Marett, _Psychology and Folk-Lore_, 1920, Chapter iii on\n\u201cPrimitive Values.\u201d\n\n[16] E. A. Wallis Budge, _Egyptian Magic_, 1899, p. vii. Some other\nworks on magic in Egypt are: Groff, _\u00c9tudes sur la sorcellerie,\nm\u00e9moires pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s \u00e0 l\u2019institut \u00e9gyptien_, Cairo, 1897; G. Busson,\n_Extrait d\u2019un m\u00e9moire sur l\u2019origine \u00e9gyptienne de la Kabbale_, in\n_Compte Rendu du Congr\u00e8s Scientifique International des Catholiques,\nSciences Religieuses_, Paris, 1891, pp. 29-51. Adolf Erman, _Life in\nAncient Egypt_, English translation, 1894, \u201cdescribes vividly the\nmagical conceptions and practices.\u201d F. L. Griffith, _Stories of the\nHigh Priests of Memphis_, Oxford, 1900, contains some amusing demotic\ntales of magicians. Erman, _Zauberspr\u00fcche f\u00fcr Mutter und Kind_, 1901.\nF. L. Griffith and H. Thompson, _The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London\nand Leiden_, 1904. See also J. H. Breasted, _Development of Religion\nand Thought in Ancient Egypt_, New York, 1912.\n\nThe following later but briefer treatments add little to Budge: Alfred\nWiedemann, _Magie und Zauberei im Alten \u00c6gypten_, Leipzig, 1905, and\n_Die Amulette der alten \u00c6gypter_, Leipzig, 1910, both in _Der Alte\nOrient_; Alexandre Moret, _La magie dans l\u2019Egypte ancienne_, Paris,\n1906, in _Mus\u00e9e Guimet, Annales, Biblioth\u00e8que de vulgarisation_. XX.\n241-81.\n\n[17] Budge (1899), p. 19. At pp. 7-10 Budge dates the Westcar Papyrus\nabout 1550 B. C. and Cheops, of whom the tale is told, in 3800 B. C. It\nis now customary to date the Fourth Dynasty, to which Cheops belonged,\nabout 2900-2750 B. C. Breasted, _History of Egypt_, pp. 122-3, speaks\nof a folk tale preserved in the Papyrus Westcar some nine (?) centuries\nafter the fall of the Fourth Dynasty.\n\n[18] Budge, p. ix.\n\n[19] Budge, pp. xiii-xiv.\n\n[20] For magical myths see E. Naville, _The Old Egyptian Faith_,\nEnglish translation by C. Campbell, 1909, p. 233 _et seq._\n\n[21] Budge, pp. 3-4; Lenormant, _Chaldean Magic_, p. 100; Wiedemann\n(1905), pp. 12, 14, 31.\n\n[22] So labelled in the Egyptian Museum at Cairo.\n\n[23] Budge, p. 185.\n\n[24] Breasted (1912), pp. 84-5, 93-5. \u201cSystematic study\u201d of the Pyramid\nTexts has been possible \u201conly since the appearance of Sethe\u2019s great\nedition,\u201d\u2014_Die Alt\u00e6gyptischen Pyramidentexte_, Leipzig, 1908-1910, 2\nvols.\n\n[25] Budge, pp. 104-7.\n\n[26] Many of them are to enable the dead man to leave his tomb at\nwill; hence the Egyptian title, \u201cThe Chapters of Going Forth by Day,\u201d\nBreasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 175.\n\n[27] Budge, p. 28.\n\n[28] _History of Egypt_, p. 175; pp. 249-50 for the further increase\nin mortuary magic after the Middle Kingdom, and pp. 369-70, 390, etc.,\nfor Ikhnaton\u2019s vain effort to suppress this mortuary magic. See also\nBreasted (1912), pp. 95-6, 281, 292-6, etc.\n\n[29] Breasted (1912), pp. 290-1.\n\n[30] Budge, pp. xi, 170-1.\n\n[31] Budge, p. 4.\n\n[32] Budge, pp. 67-70, 73, 77.\n\n[33] Budge, pp. 27-28, 41, 60.\n\n[34] From the abstract of a paper on _The History of Egyptian\nMedicine_, read by T. Wingate Todd at the annual meeting of the\nAmerican Historical Association, 1919. See also B. Holmes and P.\nG. Kitterman, _Medicine in Ancient Egypt; the Hieratic Material_,\nCincinnati, 1914, 34 pp., reprinted from _The Lancet-Clinic_.\n\n[35] See H. L. L\u00fcring, _Die \u00fcber die medicinischen Kenntnisse der alten\n\u00c6gypter berichtenden Papyri_ _verglichen mit den medic. Schriften\ngriech. u. r\u00f6mischer Autoren_, Leipzig, 1888. Also Joret, I (1897)\n310-11, and the article there cited by G. Ebers, _Ein Kyphirecept aus\ndem Papyrus Ebers_, in _Zeitschrift f. \u00e6gypt. Sprache_, XII (1874), p.\n106. M. A. Ruffer, _Palaeopathology of Egypt_, 1921.\n\n[36] _History of Egypt_, p. 101.\n\n[37] _Ibid_, p. 102.\n\n[38] Budge, p. 206.\n\n[39] _History of Egypt_, p. 101.\n\n[40] _Arch\u00e9ologie et Histoire des Sciences_, Paris, 1906, pp. 232-3.\n\n[41] Professor Breasted, however, feels that the contents of the new\nEdwin Smith Papyrus will raise our estimate of the worth of Egyptian\nmedicine and surgery: letter to me of Jan. 20, 1922.\n\n[42] Petrie, \u201cEgypt,\u201d in EB, p. 73.\n\n[43] Berthelot (1885), p. 235. See E. B. Havell, _A Handbook of Indian\nArt_, 1920, p. 11, for a combination of \u201cexact science,\u201d ritual, and\n\u201cmagic power\u201d in the work of the ancient Aryan craftsmen.\n\n[44] Berthelot (1889), pp. vi-vii.\n\n[45] Berthelot (1885), pp. 247-78; E. O. v. Lippmann (1919), pp. 118-43.\n\n[46] Budge, pp. 19-20.\n\n[47] Berthelot (1885), p. 10.\n\n[48] Lippmann (1919), pp. 181-2, and the authorities there cited.\n\n[49] Budge, pp. 214-5.\n\n[50] Budge, pp. 225-8; Wiedemann (1905), p. 9.\n\n[51] Wiedemann (1905), pp. 7, 8, 11. See also G. Daressy, _Une ancienne\nliste des d\u00e9cans \u00e9gyptiens_, in _Annales du service des antiquit\u00e9s de\nl\u2019Egypte_, I (1900), 79-90.\n\n[52] F. Boll in _Neue Jahrb._ (1908), p. 108.\n\n[53] Budge, pp. 222-3.\n\n[54] Budge, p. 229.\n\n[55] Some works on the subject of magic and religion, astronomy and\nastrology in Babylonia and Assyria will be found in Appendix I at the\nclose of this chapter.\n\n[56] Thompson, _Semitic Magic_, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii; Fossey, pp. 17-20.\n\n[57] Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, p. 102.\n\n[58] Prince, \u201cSumer and Sumerians,\u201d in EB.\n\n[59] Webster, _Rest Days_, pp. 215-22, with further bibliography. See\nOrr (1913), 28-38, for an interesting discussion in English of the\nproblem of the origin of solar and lunar zodiac.\n\n[60] Lippmann (1919), pp. 168-9.\n\n[61] Although Schiaparelli, _Astronomy in the Old Testament_, 1905, pp.\nv, 5, 49-51, 135, denies that \u201cthe frequent use of the number seven in\nthe Old Testament is in any way connected with the planets.\u201d I have\nnot seen F. von Andrian, _Die Siebenzahl im Geistesleben der V\u00f6lker_,\nin _Mitteil, d. anthrop. Gesellsch. in Wien_, XXI (1901), 225-74; see\nalso Hehn, _Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im alten\nTestament_, 1907. J. G. Frazer (1918), I, 140, has an interesting\npassage on the prominence of the number seven \u201calike in the Jehovistic\nand in the Babylonian narrative\u201d of the flood.\n\n[62] Webster, _Rest Days_, pp. 211-2. Professor Webster, who kindly\nread this chapter in manuscript, stated in a letter to me of 2 July\n1921 that he remained convinced that \u201cthe mystic properties ascribed\nto the number seven\u201d can only in part be accounted for by the seven\nplanets; \u201cOur American Indians, for example, hold seven in great\nrespect, yet have no knowledge of seven planets.\u201d But it may be noted\nthat the poet-philosophers of ancient Peru composed verses on the\nsubject of astrology, according to Garcilasso (cited by W. I. Thomas,\n_Source Book for Social Origins_, 1909, p. 293).\n\n[63] L. W. King, _History of Babylon_, 1915, p. 299.\n\n[64] Fossey (1902), pp. 2-3.\n\n[65] Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, pp. 301-2. On liver divination\nsee Frothingham, \u201cAncient Orientalism Unveiled,\u201d _American Journal of\nArchaeology_, XXI (1917) 55, 187, 313, 420.\n\n[66] Fossey, p. 66.\n\n[67] Fossey, p. 16.\n\n[68] Lenormant, pp. 35, 147, 158.\n\n[69] Thompson, _Semitic Magic_, pp. xxxviii-xxxix.\n\n[70] _Greece and Babylon_, p. 296.\n\n[71] Lenormant, pp. 146-7.\n\n[72] _Ibid._, p. 158.\n\n[73] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylon and Assyria_, pp. 283-4.\n\n[74] Zimmern, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 173.\n\n[75] _Ibid._, p. 161.\n\n[76] Fossey, p. 399.\n\n[77] Fossey, p. 83.\n\n[78] _Ibid._, pp. 89-91. F. K\u00fcchler, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntnis der\nAssyr.-Babyl. Medizin; Texte mit Umschrift, Uebersetzung und\nKommentar_, Leipzig, 1904, treats of twenty facsimile pages of\ncuneiform.\n\n[79] Lenormant, p. 190.\n\n[80] _Ibid._, p. 159.\n\n[81] So enlightened in fact that they spoke with some scorn of the\n\u201clevity\u201d and \u201clies\u201d of the Greeks.\n\n[82] _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_, Chicago, 1911, p. 189.\n\n[83] Thorndike (1905), p. 63.\n\n[84] E. E. Sikes, _Folk-lore in the Works and Days of Hesiod_, in _The\nClassical Review_, VII (1893). 390.\n\n[85] Freeman, _History of Sicily_, I, 101-3, citing Herodotus VII, 153.\n\n[86] Butler and Owen, _Apulei Apologia_, note on 30, 30.\n\n[87] For details concerning operative or vulgar magic among the ancient\nGreeks see Hubert, _Magia_, in Daremberg-Saglio; Abt, _Die Apologie\ndes Apuleius von Madaura und die antike Zauberei_, Giessen, 1908; and\nF. B. Jevons, \u201cGr\u00e6co-Italian Magic,\u201d p. 93-, in _Anthropology and the\nClassics_, ed. R. Marett; and the article \u201cMagic\u201d in ERE.\n\n[88] I think that this sentence is an approximate quotation from some\nancient author, possibly Diogenes Laertius, but I have not been able to\nfind it.\n\n[89] J. E. Harrison, _Themis_, Cambridge, 1912. The chapter headings\nbriefly suggest the argument: \u201c1. Hymn of the Kouretes; 2. Dithyramb,\n\u0394\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and Drama; 3. Kouretes, Thunder-Rites and Mana; 4. a. Magic\nand Tabu, b. Medicine-bird and Medicine-king; 5. Totemism, Sacrament,\nand Sacrifice; 6. Dithyramb, Spring Festival, and Hagia Triada\nSarcophagus; 7. Origin of the Olympic Games (about a year-daimon);\n8. Daimon and Hero, with Excursus on Ritual Forms preserved in Greek\ntragedy; 9. Daimon to Olympian; 10. The Olympians; 11. Themis.\u201d\n\n[90] F. M. Cornford, _Origin of Attic Comedy_, 1914, see especially pp.\n10, 13, 55, 157, 202, 233.\n\n[91] A. B. Cook, _Zeus_, Cambridge, 1914, pp. 134-5, 12-14, 66-76.\n\n[92] Rendel Harris, _Picus who is also Zeus_, 1916; _The Ascent of\nOlympus_, 1917.\n\n[93] Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, pp. 292, 178-9.\n\n[94] See Ernest Riess, _Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in Greek\nTragedy_, in _Transactions of the American Philological Association_,\nvol. 27 (1896), pp. 5-34; and _On Ancient superstition_, _ibid._ 26\n(1895), 40-55. Also J. G. Frazer, _Some Popular Superstitions of the\nAncients_, in _Folk-lore_, 1890, and E. H. Klatsche, _The Supernatural\nin the Tragedies of Euripides_, in _University of Nebraska Studies_,\n1919.\n\n[95] See Zeller, _Pre-Socratic Philosophy_, II (1881), 119-20, for\nfurther boasts by Empedocles himself and other marvels attributed to\nhim by later authors.\n\n[96] _Laws_, XI, 933 (Steph.).\n\n[97] _Timaeus_, p. 71 (Steph.).\n\n[98] _Symposium_, p. 188 (Steph.); in Jowett\u2019s translation, I, 558.\n\n[99] _Timaeus_, p. 40 (Steph.); Jowett, III, 459.\n\n[100] _Ibid._, pp. 41-42 (Steph.).\n\n[101] _Timaeus_, p. 39 (Steph.); Jowett, III, 458.\n\n[102] W. Windelband, _History of Philosophy_, English translation by J.\nH. Tufts, 1898, p. 147.\n\n[103] Windelband, _History of Ancient Philosophy_, English translation\nby H. E. Cushman, 1899.\n\n[104] For a number of examples, which might be considerably multiplied\nif books VII-X are not rejected as spurious, see Thorndike (1905),\npp. 62-3. T. E. Lones, _Aristotle\u2019s Researches in Natural Science_,\nLondon, 1912, 274 pp., discusses \u201cAristotle\u2019s method of investigating\nthe natural sciences,\u201d and a large number of Aristotle\u2019s specific\nstatements showing whether they were correct or incorrect. The best\ntranslation of the _History of Animals_ is by D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson,\nOxford 1910, with valuable notes.\n\n[105] See the edition of the _History of Animals_ by Dittmeyer (1907),\np. vii, where various monographs will be found mentioned.\n\n[106] Perhaps pure literature was over-emphasized in the Museum at\nAlexandria, and magic texts in the library of Assurbanipal.\n\n[107] A list of magic papyri and of publications up to about 1900\ndealing with the same is given in Hubert\u2019s article on _Magia_ in\nDaremberg-Saglio, pp. 1503-4. See also Sir Herbert Thompson and F. L.\nGriffith, _The Magical Demotic Papyrus of London and Leiden_, 3 vols.,\n1909-1921; _Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library,\nManchester, with facsimiles and complete translations_, 1909, 3 vols.\nGrenfell (1921), p. 159, says, \u201cA corpus of the magical papyri was\nprojected in Germany by K. Preisendanz before the war, and a Czech\nscholar, Dr. Hopfner, is engaged upon the difficult task of elucidating\nthem.\u201d\n\n[108] W. C. Battle, _Magical Curses Written on Lead Tablets_, in\n_Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXVI (1895),\npp. liv-lviii, a synopsis of a Harvard dissertation. Audollent,\n_Defixionum tabulae_, etc., Paris, 1904, 568 pp. R. W\u00fcnsch, _Defixionum\nTabellae Atticae_, 1897, and _Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom_\n(390-420 A.\u202fD.), Leipzig, 1898.\n\n[109] Since 1898 various volumes and parts have appeared under the\neditorship of Cumont, Kroll, Boll, Olivieri, Bassi, and others. Much of\nthe material noted is of course post-classical and Byzantine, and of\nChristian authorship or Arabic origin.\n\n[110] For example, see R. W\u00fcnsch, _Antikes Zauberger\u00e4t aus Pergamon_,\nin _Jahrb. d. kaiserl. deutsch. arch\u00e6ol. Instit., suppl._ VI (1905), p.\n19.\n\n[111] T. L. Heath, _The Works of Archimedes_, Cambridge, 1897, pp.\nxxxix-xl.\n\n[112] On \u201cAristotle as a Biologist\u201d see the Herbert Spencer lecture by\nD\u2019Arcy W. Thompson, Oxford, 1913, 31 pp. Also T. E. Lones, _Aristotle\u2019s\nResearches in Natural Science_, London, 1912. Professor W. A. Locy,\nauthor of _Biology and Its Makers_, writes me (May 9, 1921) that\nin his opinion G. H. Lewes, _Aristotle; a Chapter from the History\nof Science_, London, 1864, \u201cdwells too much on Aristotle\u2019s errors\nand imperfections, and in several instances omits the quotation of\nimportant positive observations, occurring in the chapters from which\nhe makes his quotations of errors.\u201d Professor Locy also disagrees with\nLewes\u2019 estimate of _De generatione_ as Aristotle\u2019s masterpiece and\nthinks that \u201cnaturalists will get more satisfaction out of reading\nthe _Historia animalium_\u201d than either the _De generatione_ or _De\npartibus_. Thompson (1913), p. 14, calls Aristotle \u201ca very great\nnaturalist.\u201d\n\n[113] This quotation is from Professor Locy\u2019s letter of May 9, 1921.\n\n[114] The quotations are from a note by Professor D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson on\nhis translation of the _Historia animalium_, III, 3. The note gives so\ngood a glimpse of both the merits and defects of the Aristotelian text\nas it has reached us that I will quote it here more fully:\n\n\u201cThe Aristotelian account of the vascular system is remarkable for its\nwealth of details, for its great accuracy in many particulars, and for\nits extreme obscurity in others. It is so far true to nature that it\nis clear evidence of minute inquiry, but here and there so remote from\nfact as to suggest that things once seen have been half forgotten,\nor that superstition was in conflict with the result of observation.\nThe account of the vessels connecting the left arm with the liver\nand the right with the spleen ... is a surviving example of mystical\nor superstitious belief. It is possible that the ascription of three\nchambers to the heart was also influenced by tradition or mysticism,\nmuch in the same way as Plato\u2019s notion of the three corporeal\nfaculties.\u201d\n\n[115] Professor Locy called my attention to it in a letter of May 17,\n1921. See also Thompson (1913), p. 14.\n\n[116] Thompson (1913), p. 19.\n\n[117] L. C. Karpinski, \u201cHindu Science,\u201d in _The American Mathematical\nMonthly_, XXVI (1919), 298-300.\n\n[118] Sir Thomas Heath, _Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus:\na history of Greek astronomy to Aristarchus together with Aristarchus\u2019s\ntreatise, \u201cOn the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon,\u201d a new\nGreek text with translation and notes_, Oxford, 1913, admits that \u201cour\ntreatise does not contain any suggestion of any but the geocentric\nview of the universe, whereas Archimedes tells us that Aristarchus\nwrote a book of hypotheses, one of which was that the sun and the\nfixed stars remain unmoved and that the earth revolves round the sun\nin the circumference of a circle.\u201d Such evidence seems scarcely to\nwarrant applying the title of \u201cThe Ancient Copernicus\u201d to Aristarchus.\nAnd Heath thinks that Schiaparelli (_I precursori di Copernico\nnell\u2019antichit\u00e0_, and other papers) went too far in ascribing the\nCopernican hypothesis to Heraclides of Pontus. On Aristotle\u2019s answer to\nPythagoreans who denied the geocentric theory see Orr (1913), pp. 100-2.\n\n[119] \u201cFarewell, Nature, parent of all things, and in thy manifold\nmultiplicity bless me who, alone of the Romans, has sung thy praise.\u201d\n\n[120] For the Latin text of the _Naturalis Historia_ I have used the\neditions of D. Detlefsen, Berlin, 1866-1882, and L. Janus, Leipzig,\n1870, 6 vols. in 3; 5 vols. in 3. There is, however, a good English\ntranslation of the _Natural History_, with an introductory essay, by\nJ. Bostock and H. T. Riley, London, 1855, 6 vols. (Bohn Library),\nwhich is superior to both the German editions in its explanatory\nnotes and subject index, and which also apparently antedates them\nin some readings suggested for doubtful passages in the text. Three\nmodes of dividing the _Natural History_ into chapters are indicated\nin the editions of Janus and Detlefsen. I shall employ that found in\nthe earlier editions of Hardouin, Valpy, Lemaire, and Ajasson, and\npreferred in the English translation of Bostock and Riley.\n\n[121] Bostock and Riley (1855), I, xvi.\n\n[122] NH, Preface.\n\n[123] NH, Preface.\n\n[124] NH, XXII, 7.\n\n[125] NH, II, 6.\n\n[126] NH, II, 46.\n\n[127] NH, II, 5. \u201cDeus est mortali iuvare mortalem....\u201d\n\n[128] NH, VII, 56.\n\n[129] Letter to Macer, Ep. III, 5, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1896.\n\n[130] NH, VII, 1; XXIII, 60; XXV, 1; XXVII, 1.\n\n[131] XXVI, 76.\n\n[132] XXXVII, 11.\n\n[133] XXI, 88.\n\n[134] XXXII, 24.\n\n[135] Yet C. W. King, _Natural History of Precious Stones_, p. 2,\ndeplores the loss of Juba\u2019s treatise, which he says, \u201cconsidering\nhis position and opportunities for exact information, is perhaps the\ngreatest we have to deplore in this sad catalogue of _desiderata_.\u201d\n\n[136] NH, XXXII, 4.\n\n[137] XXX, 30.\n\n[138] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (1899), p. 519, notes, however, that Aulus\nGellius (X, 12) protested against Pliny\u2019s credulity in accepting\nsuch works as genuine and that \u201cColumelle (VII, 5) cite un certain\nBolus de Mendes comme l\u2019auteur des \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 attribu\u00e9s \u00e0 D\u00e9mocrite.\u201d\nBouch\u00e9-Leclercq adds, however, \u201cRien n\u2019y fit: D\u00e9mocrite devint le grand\ndocteur de la magie.\u201d\n\n[139] NH, VII, 21.\n\n[140] G. H. Lewes, _Aristotle; a Chapter from the History of Science_,\nLondon. 1864.\n\n[141] _Letters of Pliny the Younger_, III, 5, ed. Keil, Leipzig, 1896.\n\n[142] NH, VIII, 34.\n\n[143] XXVIII, 1.\n\n[144] R\u00fcck, _Die Naturalis Historia des Plinius im Mittelalter_, in\n_Sitzb. Bayer. Akad. Philos-Philol. Classe_ (1908) pp. 203-318. For\ncitations of Pliny by writers of the late Roman empire and early middle\nages, see Panckoucke, _Biblioth\u00e8que Latine-Fran\u00e7aise_, vol. CVI.\n\n[145] Concerning the MSS see Detlefsen\u2019s prefaces in each of his first\nfive volumes and his fuller dissertations in Jahn\u2019s _Neue Jahrb._, 77,\n653ff, _Rhein. Mus._, XV, 265ff; XVIII, 227ff, 327.\n\nDetlefsen seems to have made no use of English MSS, but a folio of the\nclose of the 12th century at New College, Oxford, contains the first\nnineteen books of the _Natural History_ and is described by Coxe as\n\u201cvery well written and preserved.\u201d\n\nNor does Detlefsen mention Le Mans 263, 12th century, containing all\n37 books except that the last book is incomplete, and with a full page\nminiature (fol. 10v) showing Pliny in the act of presenting his work to\nVespasian. Escorial Q-I-4 and R-I-5 are two other practically complete\ntexts of the fourteenth century which Detlefsen failed to use.\n\n[146] See M. R. James, Eton Manuscripts, p. 63, MS 134, Bl. 4. 7.,\nRoberti Crikeladensis Prioris Oxoniensis excerpta ex Plinii Historia\nNaturali, 12-13th century, in a large English hand, giving extracts\nextending from Book II to Book IX.\n\nOf Balliol 124, fols. 1-138, _Cosmographia mundi_, by John Free,\nborn at Bristol or London, fellow at Balliol College, Oxford, later\nprofessor of medicine at Padua and a doctor at Rome, also well\ninstructed in civil law and Greek, Coxe writes, \u201cThis work is nothing\nbut a series of excerpts from Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_, beginning with\nthe second and leaving off with the twentieth.\u201d I wonder if John Free\nmay not have used the very MS of the first nineteen books mentioned in\nthe foregoing note, since the second book of the _Natural History_ is\noften reckoned as the first.\n\nIn Balliol 146A, 15th century, fol. 3-, the _Natural History_ appears\nin epitome, with a prologue opening, \u201cI, Reginald (_Retinaldus_),\nservant of Christ, perusing the books of Pliny....\u201d\n\n[147] Bologna, 952, 15th century, fols. 157-60, \u201cTractatus optimus in\nquo exposuit et aperte declaravit plinius philosophus quid sit lapis\nphilosophicus et ex qua materia debet fieri et quomodo.\u201d\n\n[148] Fossi, _Catalogus codicum saeculo XV impressorum qui in publica\nBibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae adservantur_, 1793-1795, II,\n374-81.\n\n[149] _De erroribus Plinii et aliorum in medicina_, Ferrara, 1492.\n\n[150] _Pliniana defensio_, 1494.\n\n[151] Escorial Q-I-4, and R-I-5, both of the 14th century.\n\n[152] NH, V, 1, 12.\n\n[153] XXVI, 6, \u201cusu efficacissimo rerum omnium magistro\u201d; XVII, 2, 12,\n\u201cquare experimentis optime creditur.\u201d\n\n[154] II, 66.\n\n[155] XXIX, 23.\n\n[156] XXIX, 11.\n\n[157] XXV, 54, \u201ccoramque nobis\u201d; XXV, 106, \u201cnos eam Romanis\nexperimentis per usus digeremus.\u201d\n\n[158] Sometimes another term, as _usus_ in note 2 above, is employed.\n\n[159] See II, 41, 1-2; II, 108; VII, 41; VII, 56; VIII, 7; XIV, 8;\nXVI, 1; XVI, 64; XVII, 2; XVII, 35; XXII, 1; XXII, 43; XXII, 49; XXII,\n51; XXV, 7; XXXIV, 39 and 51. Experience is also the idea in the\ntwo following passages, although the word _experimentum_ could not\nsmoothly be rendered as \u201cexperience\u201d in a literal translation: VII, 50,\n\u201cAccedunt experimenta et exempla recentissimi census ...\u201d; XXVIII, 45,\n\u201cNec uros aut bisontes habuerunt Graeci in experimentis.\u201d\n\n[160] XVI, 24; XXII, 57; XXVI, 60.\n\n[161] X, 75.\n\n[162] XXXV, 30.\n\n[163] VII, 35\n\n[164] XIII, 3.\n\n[165] XIV, 25.\n\n[166] XVII, 4; XX, 3 and 76; XXII, 23; XXIX, 12; XXXIII, 19 and 43 and\n44 and 57; XXXIV, 26 and 48; XXXVI, 38 and 55; XXXVII, 22 and 76; such\nphrases as _sinceri experimentum_ and _veri experimentum_ are used for\n\u201ctest of genuineness.\u201d\n\n[167] XXIII, 31; XXXI, 28.\n\n[168] XXXI, 27.\n\n[169] XVII, 26.\n\n[170] II, 75.\n\n[171] IX, 7.\n\n[172] XXVIII, 6.\n\n[173] XXVIII, 14.\n\n[174] XXIX, 8. \u201cDiscunt periculis nostris et experimenta per mortes\nagunt.\u201d Bostock and Riley translate the last clause, \u201cAnd they\nexperimentalize by putting us to death.\u201d Another possible translation\nis, \u201cAnd their experiments cost lives.\u201c\n\n[175] XXV, 17. \u201d ... adeo nullo omnia experiendi fine ut cogerentur\netiam venena prodesse.\u201c\n\n[176] XXIX, 4 \u201d ... ab experimentis se cognominans empiricen.\u201c\n\n[177] IX, 86.\n\n[178] XXXVII, 15.\n\n[179] According to Galen, as we shall hear later, the Empirics relied a\ngood deal upon chance experience and dreams.\n\n[180] XXV, 6.\n\n[181] XX, 52.\n\n[182] XXV, 20.\n\n[183] XXIII, 27.\n\n[184] Among other virtues of vinegar, besides its supposed property of\nbreaking rocks, Pliny mentions that if one holds some in the mouth, it\nwill prevent one from feeling the heat in the baths.\n\n[185] XXV, 6 and 21 and 50; XXVII, 2.\n\n[186] XVI, 24; XXVI, 60.\n\n[187] XXIII, 59.\n\n[188] XXVIII, 7.\n\n[189] In the opening chapters of Book XXX, unless otherwise indicated\nby specific citation.\n\n[190] Aulus Gellius, X, 12, and Columella, VII, 5, dispute this\n(Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, p. 519). Berthelot\n(_Origines de l\u2019alchimie_, p. 145) believes in a Democritan school at\nthe beginning of the Christian era which wrote the works of alchemy\nattributed to Democritus as well as the books of medical and magical\nrecipes which are quoted in the _Geoponica_ and the _Natural History_.\n\n[191] XVI, 95.\n\n[192] XXX, 2. \u201d ... quamquam animadverto summam litterarum claritatem\ngloriamque ex ea scientia antiquitus et paene semper petitam.\u201d\n\n[193] Examples are: XXV, 59, \u201cSed magi utique circa hanc insaniunt\u201d;\nXXIX, 20, \u201cmagorum mendacia\u201d; XXXVII, 60, \u201cmagorum inpudentiae vel\nmanifestissimum ... exemplum\u201d; XXXVII, 73, \u201cdira mendacia magorum.\u201d\n\n[194] See XXII, 9; XXVI, 9; XXVII, 65; XXVIII, 23 and 27; XXIX, 26;\nXXX, 7; XXXVII, 14.\n\n[195] XXXVII, 40.\n\n[196] XXX, 5-6.\n\n[197] XXX, 6. \u201cProinde ita persuasum sit, intestabilem, inritam, inanem\nesse, habentem tamen quasdam veritatis umbras, sed in his veneficas\nartis pollere, non magicas.\u201d\n\n[198] XXV, 7.\n\n[199] XXVIII, 23.\n\n[200] XXVIII, 2.\n\n[201] XXX, 4.\n\n[202] XXVIII, 19; XXX, 6.\n\n[203] XXVIII, 29.\n\n[204] XXX, 7.\n\n[205] XXIX, 26.\n\n[206] For instance, XXX, 27, he mentions the magi, but not in XXX, 28.\nNor are they mentioned in XXX, 29, but in XXX, 30 \u201cplura eorum remedia\nponemus\u201d seems to refer to them, although we must look back three\nchapters for the antecedent of _eorum_.\n\n[207] XXXVII, 14, he says that he is going to confute \u201cthe unspeakable\nnonsense of the magicians\u201d concerning gems, but makes no specific\ncitation from them until the thirty-seventh chapter on jasper.\n\n[208] XXX, 47.\n\n[209] XXXVII, 11.\n\n[210] XX, 30; XXI, 38, 94, 104; XXII, 24, 29.\n\n[211] XXI, 36; XXIV, 99.\n\n[212] XXV, 5.\n\n[213] XXIV, 99-102.\n\n[214] See XX, 30; XXI, 36, 38, 94, 104; XXII, 9, 24, 29; XXIV, 99, 102;\nXXV, 59, 65, 80-81; XXVI, 9.\n\n[215] XXI, 38.\n\n[216] XXI, 104; XXII, 24.\n\n[217] XXI, 94.\n\n[218] XXII, 29.\n\n[219] XX, 30.\n\n[220] XXI, 38.\n\n[221] XXIV, 99 and 102.\n\n[222] XXV, 5.\n\n[223] XXV, 59.\n\n[224] XXVI, 9.\n\n[225] XXX, 6.\n\n[226] XXX, 7.\n\n[227] XXVIII, 27.\n\n[228] XXVIII, 25.\n\n[229] XXX, 24.\n\n[230] XXIX, 39.\n\n[231] XXIX, 12.\n\n[232] XXX, 6.\n\n[233] XXVIII, 57; XXX, 17.\n\n[234] Use of goat, XXVIII, 56, 63, 78-79; cat, XXVIII, 66; puppy, XXIX,\n38; dog, XXX, 24.\n\n[235] XXVIII, 60, 66, 77; XXIX, 26.\n\n[236] XXVIII, 66; XXIX, 15; XXX, 7; XXX, 27; XXXII, 38.\n\n[237] XXX, 8 and 36; see also XXVIII, 60; XXXII, 19 and 24.\n\n[238] XXIX, 23; XXX, 18, 20, 30, 49; XXXII, 14, 18, 24.\n\n[239] XXX, 27.\n\n[240] XXX, 24.\n\n[241] XXX, 24.\n\n[242] XXVIII, 27.\n\n[243] XXVIII, 66; and see XXIX, 12.\n\n[244] XXVIII, 60.\n\n[245] XXVIII, 68.\n\n[246] XXVIII, 78.\n\n[247] XXX, 17.\n\n[248] XXX, 18.\n\n[249] XXXII, 38.\n\n[250] XXIX, 26.\n\n[251] XXVIII, 63.\n\n[252] XXVIII, 56; XXIX, 15.\n\n[253] XXIX, 19.\n\n[254] XXIX, 20.\n\n[255] XXIX, 26; XXX, 7.\n\n[256] Pliny ascribes statements concerning stones to the _magi_ in the\nfollowing chapters: XXXVI, 34; XXXVII, 37, 40, 49, 51, 54, 56, 60, 70,\n73.\n\n[257] XXXVII, 54 and 40.\n\n[258] XXXVII, 40, 60, 56, 73.\n\n[259] XXVIII, 12, \u201cMagorum haec commenta sunt....\u201c\n\n[260] XXVIII, 23.\n\n[261] Some works upon animals in antiquity and Greece are:\n\nAubert und Wimmer, _Aristoteles Thierkunde_, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1868.\n\nBaethgen, _De vi et significatione galli in religione et artibus\nGraecorum et Romanorum_, Diss. Inaug., G\u00f6ttingen, 1887.\n\nBernays, _Theophrasts Schrift \u00fcber Fr\u00f6mmigkeit_.\n\nBik\u00e9las, O., _La nomenclature de la Faune grecque_, Paris, 1879.\n\nBillerbeck, _De locis nonnullis Arist. Hist. Animal. difficilioribus_,\nHildesheim, 1806.\n\nDryoff, A., _Die Tierpsychologie des Plutarchs_, Progr. W\u00fcrzburg, 1897.\n_\u00dcber die stoische Tierpsychologie_, in _Bl. f. bayr. Gymn._, 33 (1897)\n399ff.; 34 (1898) 416.\n\nErhard, _Fauna der Cykladen_, Leipzig, 1858.\n\nFowler, W. W., _A Year with the Birds_, 1895.\n\nHopf, L., _Thierorakel und Orakelthiere in alter und neuer Zeit_,\nStuttgart, 1888.\n\nHopfner, T., _Der Tierkult der alten \u00c6gypter nach den\ngriechisch-r\u00f6mischen Berichten und den wichtigen Denkm\u00e4lern_, in\n_Denkschr. d. Akad. Wien_, 1913, ii Abh.\n\nImhoof-Blumer, F., und Keller, O., _Tier-und Pflanzenbilder auf M\u00fcnzen\nund Gemmen des klassischen Altertums_. illustrated, 1889.\n\nKeller, O., _Thiere des class. Altertums_.\n\nKr\u00fcper, _Zeiten des Gehens und Kommens und des Br\u00fctens der V\u00f6gel in\nGriechenland und Ionien_, in Mommsen\u2019s _Griech. Jahreszeiten_, 1875.\n\nK\u00fcster, E., _Die Schlange in der griechischen Kunst und Religion_,\nGiessen, 1913.\n\nLebour, _Zoologist_, 1866.\n\nLewysohn, _Zoologie des Talmuds_.\n\nLindermayer, A., _Die V\u00f6gel Griechenlands_, Passau, 1860.\n\nLocard, _Histoire des mollusques dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9_, Lyon, 1884.\n\nLorenz, _Die Taube im Alterthume_, 1886.\n\nMarx, A., _Griech. M\u00e4rchen von dankbaren Tieren_, Stuttgart, 1889.\n\nM\u00fchle, H. v. d., _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Ornithologie Griechenlands_, Leipzig,\n1844.\n\nSundevall, _Thierarten des Aristoteles_, Stockholm, 1863.\n\nThompson, D\u2019Arcy W., _A Glossary of Greek Birds_, 1895. _Aristotle as\na Biologist_, 1913. Also the notes to his translation of the _Historia\nanimalium_.\n\nWestermarck, E., _The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas_, I (1906)\n251-60, gives further bibliography on the subjects of animals as\nwitnesses and the punishment of animal culprits.\n\n[262] VIII, 1-12.\n\n[263] VIII, 17-21.\n\n[264] XXXII, 5.\n\n[265] VIII, 37.\n\n[266] VIII, 11-12.\n\n[267] XXVII, 2; XVIII, 1.\n\n[268] XXVII, 2; VIII, 41.\n\n[269] XX, 51 and 61; XXII, 37 and 45.\n\n[270] XX, 26.\n\n[271] VIII, 41; XX, 95.\n\n[272] XXIX, 39.\n\n[273] XXV, 50.\n\n[274] XXV, 5.\n\n[275] VIII, 40; XXVIII, 31.\n\n[276] For further remedies used by animals see VIII, 41; XXIX, 14, 38;\nXXV, 52-53; XXVIII, 81.\n\n[277] XXVII, 2. \u201c ... quod certe casu repertum quis dubitet et quotiens\nfiat etiam nunc ut novom nasci quoniam feris ratio et usus inter se\ntradi non possit?\u201d Perhaps Pliny would have denied the inheritance of\nacquired characteristics.\n\n[278] XXV, 51.\n\n[279] XXXVII, 57.\n\n[280] VIII, 4.\n\n[281] VIII, 33.\n\n[282] XXIX, 34; XXX, 10, 19; XXVIII, 46; XXIX, 11; XXX, 16.\n\n[283] XXX, 46.\n\n[284] XXXII, 14.\n\n[285] XXVIII, 37.\n\n[286] A recent work on the general theme is Joret, _Les plantes dans\nl\u2019antiquit\u00e9_, Paris, 1904; see also F. Mentz, _De plantis quas ad rem\nmagicam facere crediderunt veteres_, Leipzig, 1705, 28 pp.; F. Unger,\n_Die Pflanze als Zaubermittel_, Vienna, 1859.\n\n[287] XXII, 3; XXV, 59; XXVII, 28.\n\n[288] XXI, 105. \u201cHalicacabi radicem bibunt qui vaticinari gallantesque\nvere ad confirmandas superstitiones aspici se volunt.\u201d\n\n[289] XXV, 43-44.\n\n[290] XXI, 21, 84.\n\n[291] XXV, 5.\n\n[292] XXIII, 64.\n\n[293] XXV, 35.\n\n[294] XXII, 36.\n\n[295] XXIV, 94.\n\n[296] XXV, 46.\n\n[297] XXV, 54.\n\n[298] XXV, 78.\n\n[299] XXIII, 75.\n\n[300] XXIV, 56-57.\n\n[301] XXV, 18; XXVII, 100.\n\n[302] XX, 14; XXIV, 82; XXV, 92.\n\n[303] XXV, 10; XXVII, 60.\n\n[304] XXIV, 6, 93.\n\n[305] XXV, 6.\n\n[306] XX, 49; XXI, 83; XXIII, 54; XXIV, 63; XXV, 59; XXVI, 12.\n\n[307] XXIII, 59.\n\n[308] XXIV, 62.\n\n[309] XXV, 21, 94.\n\n[310] XXIV, 63 and 118.\n\n[311] XXI, 19.\n\n[312] XXIV, 62; XXIII, 59.\n\n[313] XXIII, 81; XXIV, 6, 62, 116.\n\n[314] XXVI, 12.\n\n[315] XXI, 19; XXV, 21, 94.\n\n[316] XXIII, 71, 81; XXIV, 6; XXVII, 62.\n\n[317] XXI, 83; XXV, 109; XXVI, 12.\n\n[318] XXII, 16; XXIII, 54; XXIV, 82; XXVII, 113.\n\n[319] XXIV, 116.\n\n[320] XXV, 92.\n\n[321] XXI, 19; XXV, 11.\n\n[322] XXIV, 62; XXV, 21.\n\n[323] XXIV, 62-63.\n\n[324] XVI, 95.\n\n[325] See XXIV, 6, for other methods of plucking the mistletoe.\n\n[326] XVIII, 45.\n\n[327] See also XXV, 6.\n\n[328] XIX, 58.\n\n[329] XVIII, 70.\n\n[330] XVIII, 73.\n\n[331] XXVIII, 81.\n\n[332] XVIII, 8.\n\n[333] XXXVII, 14, 73.\n\n[334] XXXVII, 55-56.\n\n[335] XXXVII, 13.\n\n[336] For instance, XXXVII, 12 amber, 37 jasper, 39 aetites, 55\n\u201cbaroptenus.\u201d\n\n[337] XXXVI, 31.\n\n[338] XXXVII, 15, 58, 67.\n\n[339] XXXVI, 25, 39.\n\n[340] XVI, 20.\n\n[341] XXXIII, 25.\n\n[342] XXX, 12, 25.\n\n[343] XX, 3; XXVIII, 6, 9; etc.\n\n[344] II, 63; XXIX, 23.\n\n[345] XXXIII, 34\n\n[346] XX, 51; XXVIII, 21.\n\n[347] VII, 13; XXVIII, 23.\n\n[348] XX, 33; XXII, 30; XXVIII, 18-19.\n\n[349] XXVIII, 8.\n\n[350] XXVIII, 9.\n\n[351] XXVIII, 9-11.\n\n[352] XXVIII, 7.\n\n[353] VII, 2.\n\n[354] XXVIII, 6.\n\n[355] XXII, 49.\n\n[356] XXIV, 102.\n\n[357] In this paragraph I have combined views expressed by Pliny in\nthree different passages: XXII, 49 and 56; XXIV, 1.\n\n[358] IX, 88; XXIV, 1; XXVIII, 23; XXXII, 12; XXXVII, 15; etc.\n\n[359] XXIV, 1; XXIX, 17.\n\n[360] VIII, 50; XXVIII, 42.\n\n[361] XXIX, 17 and 23.\n\n[362] XXVIII, 43.\n\n[363] XX, 1. \u201cOdia amicitiaque rerum surdarum ac sensu carentium ...\nquod Graeci sympathiam appellavere.\u201d XXIV, 1. \u201cSurdis etiam rerum sua\ncuique sunt venena ac minimis quoque ... Concordia valent.\u201d\n\n[364] XXVIII, 41; XXXVII, 15. Yet a note in Bostock and Riley\u2019s\ntranslation, IV, 207, asserts, \u201cPliny is the only author who makes\nmention of this singularly absurd notion.\u201d\n\n[365] \u201cNunc quod totis voluminibus his docere conati summus de\ndiscordia rerum concordiaque quam antipathiam Graeci vocavere ac\nsympathiam non aliter clarius intelligi potest.\u201d\n\n[366] XXIV, 41.\n\n[367] XXI, 47.\n\n[368] XX, 36.\n\n[369] XVI, 24.\n\n[370] XXV, 55.\n\n[371] XXXVII, 54.\n\n[372] XXIII, 62; XXIV, 1.\n\n[373] XXVIII, 41.\n\n[374] XXIX, 32.\n\n[375] XXVIII, 61.\n\n[376] XXIX, 27.\n\n[377] XXVII, 74.\n\n[378] XXXVI, 11.\n\n[379] XXV, 3.\n\n[380] XXII, 29.\n\n[381] XXVIII, 9.\n\n[382] XXVIII, 17.\n\n[383] XXVIII, 47.\n\n[384] XXIX, 38.\n\n[385] XXX, 20.\n\n[386] XXVIII, 49.\n\n[387] XXXII, 52.\n\n[388] XXIX, 27.\n\n[389] XXX, 7.\n\n[390] XXXII, 14.\n\n[391] XXX, 20 and 14.\n\n[392] XXXII, 29; XXX, 11.\n\n[393] XXVIII, 42.\n\n[394] XXII, 65.\n\n[395] XXII, 72.\n\n[396] XXII, 32.\n\n[397] XXX, 12.\n\n[398] XXV, 106.\n\n[399] XX, 81.\n\n[400] XXVIII, 47.\n\n[401] XXX, 12, 15.\n\n[402] XXVII, 62.\n\n[403] XXIX, 17.\n\n[404] XXIX, 24.\n\n[405] XXVI, 89.\n\n[406] XXXII, 16; also XX, 39.\n\n[407] XXII, 30.\n\n[408] XXIV, 32, 38.\n\n[409] XX, 72, 82.\n\n[410] XXVI, 69.\n\n[411] XXIX, 36.\n\n[412] XXX, 8.\n\n[413] XXVIII, 10.\n\n[414] XXXII, 24.\n\n[415] XXX, 18.\n\n[416] See also XXX, 8.\n\n[417] XXIV, 106 and 109.\n\n[418] XXIV, 107 and 110.\n\n[419] Some examples are: XVIII, 75, 79; XXII, 72; XXIII, 71; XXVIII,\n47; XXIX, 36; XXXII, 14, 25, 38, 46.\n\n[420] XXXII, 14.\n\n[421] XXX, 12.\n\n[422] XXIV, 112.\n\n[423] VIII, 50.\n\n[424] XXVIII, 6.\n\n[425] XXIV, 17.\n\n[426] XXX, 15.\n\n[427] XXIX, 34.\n\n[428] XXXII, 24.\n\n[429] XXXII, 38.\n\n[430] XVII, 47.\n\n[431] XIX, 36.\n\n[432] XVIII, 35.\n\n[433] XXVI, 60.\n\n[434] XXVIII, 7.\n\n[435] XXVII, 75.\n\n[436] XXVII, 106.\n\n[437] XXVIII, 3-4.\n\n[438] XXVII, 35. \u201cCatanancen Thessalam herbam qualis sit describi a\nnobis supervacuum est, cum sit usus eius ad amatoria tantum.\u201d XXVII,\n99. \u201cPhyteuma quale sit describere supervacuum habeo cum sit usus eius\ntantum ad amatoria.\u201d\n\n[439] XXV, 7. \u201cEgo nec abortiva dico ac ne amatoria quidem, memor\nLucullum imperatorem clarissimum amatorio perisse....\u201d\n\n[440] A few examples are: XX, 15, 84, 92; XXIV, 11, 42; XXVI, 64;\nXXVII, 42, 99; XXVIII, 77, 80; XXX, 49; XXXII, 50.\n\n[441] XXII, 9.\n\n[442] XXV, 7.\n\n[443] XXIX, 27.\n\n[444] XXX, 1. On the general attitude to astrology of the preceding\nAugustan Age and its poets see H. W. Garrod, _Manili Astronomicon Liber\nII_, Oxford, 1911, pp. lxv-lxxiii, but I think he overestimates the\nprobable effect of the edict of 16 A.\u202fD. upon the poem of Manilius.\n\n[445] II, 5. \u201cAstroque suo eventus adsignat nascendi legibus semelque\nin omnes futuros umquam deo decretum in reliquom vero otium datur.\u201d\n\n[446] VII, 37.\n\n[447] VII, 50.\n\n[448] VII, 57.\n\n[449] II, 24.\n\n[450] II, 6, \u201cNon tanta caelo societas nobiscum est ut nostro fato\nmortalis sit ibi quoque siderum fulgor.\u201d\n\n[451] II, 9.\n\n[452] II, 18.\n\n[453] II, 23.\n\n[454] II, 30.\n\n[455] XXV, 5.\n\n[456] II, 1.\n\n[457] II, 4.\n\n[458] II, 16.\n\n[459] II, 13.\n\n[460] II, 6; and see II, 39.\n\n[461] II, 6. \u201cPotentia autem ad terram magnopere eorum pertinens.\u201d\n\n[462] II, 6.\n\n[463] XVIII, 5, 57, 69.\n\n[464] XVIII, 68. Other authorities tell the story of Thales; see\nCicero, _De divinatione_, II, 201; Aristotle, _Polit._ I, 7; and\nDiogenes Laertius.\n\n[465] XVIII, 78.\n\n[466] II, 81.\n\n[467] XXXVII, 28.\n\n[468] XXXVII, 59.\n\n[469] XXIX, 5.\n\n[470] XXX, 29.\n\n[471] II, 40.\n\n[472] II, 102.\n\n[473] II, 41.\n\n[474] XXXII, 19.\n\n[475] _L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium Quaestionum Libri Septem_, VI, 4,\n\u201cAliquando de motu terrarum volumen iuvenis ediderim.\u201d The edition\nby G. D. Koeler, G\u00f6ttingen, 1819, devotes several hundred pages to a\n_Disquisitio_ and _Animadversiones_ upon Seneca\u2019s work. I have also\nused the more recent Teubner edition, ed. Haase, 1881, and the English\ntranslation in Clark and Geikie, _Physical Science in the Time of\nNero_, 1910. In Panckoucke\u2019s _Library_, vol. 147, a French translation\naccompanies the text.\n\n[476] VII, 25.\n\n[477] VII, 31.\n\n[478] III, 26.\n\n[479] V, 6, for animals generated in flames; II, 31, for snakes struck\nby lightning; III, _passim_ for marvelous fountains.\n\n[480] III, 25.\n\n[481] IV, 7.\n\n[482] II, 32.\n\n[483] II, 46.\n\n[484] I, 1.\n\n[485] VII, 30.\n\n[486] II, 10.\n\n[487] VII, 28.\n\n[488] That is to say, five in addition to the sun and the moon.\n\n[489] II, 32.\n\n[490] III, 29.\n\n[491] II, 31-50.\n\n[492] II, 32.\n\n[493] A complete edition of Ptolemy\u2019s works has been in process of\npublication since 1898 in the Teubner library by J. L. Heiberg and\nFranz Boll. They are also the authors of the most important recent\nresearches concerning Ptolemy. See Heiberg\u2019s discussion of the MSS\nin the volumes of the above edition which have thus far appeared;\nhis articles on the Latin translations of Ptolemy in _Hermes_ XLV\n(1910) 57ff, and XLVI (1911) 206ff; but especially Boll, _Studien\n\u00fcber Claudius Ptolem\u00e4us. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der griechischen\nPhilosophie und Astrologie_, 1894, in _Jahrb. f. Philol. u. P\u00e4dagogik_,\nNeue Folge, Suppl. Bd. 21. A recent summary of investigation and\nbibliography concerning Ptolemy is W. Schmid, _Die Nachklassische\nPeriode der Griechischen Litteratur_, 1913, pp. 717-24, in the fifth\nedition of Christ, _Gesch. d. Griech. Litt._\n\n[494] Some strictures upon Ptolemy as a geographer are made by Sir W.\nM. Ramsay, _The Historical Geography of Asia Minor_, 1890, pp. 69-73.\n\n[495] Schmid would appear to be mistaken in saying that the _Geography_\nwas already known in Latin and Arabic translation in the time of\nFrederick II (p. 718, \u201cSeine in erster Linie die Astronomie, dann auch\ndie Geographie und Harmonik betreffenden Schriften haben sich nicht\nbloss im Originaltext erhalten; sie wurden auch fr\u00fchzeitig von den\nArabern \u00fcbersetzt und sind dann, \u00e4hnlich wie die Werke des Aristoteles,\nschon zur Zeit des Kaisers Friedrich II, noch ehe man sie im Urtext\nkennen lernte, durch lateinische, nach dem Arabischen gemachte\n\u00dcbersetzungen ins Abendland gelangt\u201d), for in his own bibliography (p.\n723) we read, \u201c_Geographie_ ... Fr\u00fchste latein. \u00dcbersetzung des Jacobus\nAngelus gedruckt Bologna, 1462.\u201d Apparently Schmid did not know the\ndate of Angelus\u2019 translation.\n\nHowever, Duhem, III (1915) 417, also speaks as if the _Geography_ were\nknown in the thirteenth century: \u201cles consid\u00e9rations emprunt\u00e9es \u00e0 la\nG\u00e9ographie de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e fournissent \u00e0 Robert de Lincoln une objection\ncontre le mouvement de pr\u00e9cession des \u00e9quinoxes tel qu\u2019il est d\u00e9fin\u00e9\ndans l\u2019Almageste.\u201d See also C. A. Nallino, _Al-Huwarizmi e il suo\nrifacimento della geografia di Tolomeo_, 1894, cited by Suter (1914)\nviii-ix, for a geography in Arabic preserved at Strasburg which is\nbased on Ptolemy\u2019s _Geography_.\n\n[496] In this Latin translation it is often entitled _Cosmographia_.\nSome MSS are: CLM 14583, 15th century, fols. 81-215, Cosmographia\nPtolomei a Jacobo Angelo translata. Also BN 4801, 4802, 4803, 4804,\n4838. Arsenal 981, in an Italian hand, is presumably incorrectly dated\nas of the 14th century.\n\nThis Jacobus Angelus was chancellor of the faculty of Montpellier\nin 1433 and is censured by Gerson in a letter for his superstitious\nobservance of days.\n\n[497] The several editions printed before 1500 seem to have consisted\nsimply of this Latin translation, such as that of Bologna, 1462, and\nVincentiae, 1475, and the Greek text to have been first published in\n1507. See Justin Winsor, _A Bibliography of Ptolemy\u2019s Geography_, 1884,\nin _Library of Harvard University, Bibliographical Contributions_, No.\n18:\u2014a bibliography which deals only with printed editions and not with\nthe MSS. According to Schmid, however, the _editio princeps_ of the\nGreek text was that of Basel, 1533. C. M\u00fcller\u2019s modern edition (Didot,\n1883 and 1901) gives an unsatisfactory bare list of 38 MSS. See also\nG. M. Raidel, _Commentatio critico-literaria de Claudii Ptolemaei\nGeographia eiusque codicibus_, 1737.\n\n[498] _L\u2019ottica di Claudio Tolomeo da Eugenio ammiraglio di Sicilia\nridotta in latino_, ed. Gilberto Govi, Turin, 1885.\n\n[499] Schmid (1913) still cites it without qualification. Hammer-Jensen\nhas an article, _Ptolemaios und Heron_, in _Hermes_, XLVIII (1913) 224,\n_et seq._\n\n[500] Haskins and Lockwood, _The Sicilian Translators of the Twelfth\nCentury_, in _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, XXI (1910), 89.\n\n[501] _Ibid._, 89-94.\n\n[502] A. Heller, _Geschichte der Physik von Aristoteles bis auf die\nneueste Zeit_, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1882-1884. The statement sounds a\ntrifle improbable in view of the number of MSS still in existence.\n\n[503] _Opus Maius_, II, 7.\n\n[504] The _Dioptra_ of Hero is really geodetical.\n\n[505] Govi (1885), p. 151.\n\n[506] _Ptolemy_ in Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography_.\n\n[507] It was also so printed in _Sphera cum commentis_, 1518: \u201cExplicit\nsecundus et ultimus liber Ptolomei de Speculis. Completa fuit eius\ntranslatio ultimo Decembris anno Christi 1269.\u201d\n\n[508] C. H. Haskins and D. P. Lockwood, _The Sicilian Translators of\nthe Twelfth Century and the First Latin Version of Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest_,\nin _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_, XXI (1910) 75-102.\n\nC. H. Haskins, _Further Notes on Sicilian Translations of the Twelfth\nCentury_, _Ibid._, XXIII, 155-66.\n\nJ. L. Heiberg, _Eine mittelalterliche Uebersetzung der Syntaxis des\nPtolemaios_, in _Hermes_ XLV (1910) 57-66; and _Noch einmal die\nmittelalterliche Ptolemaios-Uebersetzung_, _Ibid._, XLVI, 207-16.\n\n[509] Digby 51, 13th Century, fols. 79-114, \u201cLiber iiii tractatuum\nBatolomei Alfalisobi in sciencia judiciorum astrorum.... Et perfectus\nest eius translatio de Arabico in Latinum a Tiburtino Platone cui Deus\nparcat die Veneris hora tertia XXa die mensis Octobris anno Domini\nMCXXVIII (_sic_) XV die mensis Saphar anno Arabum DXXXIII (_sic_) in\ncivitate Barchinona....\u201d The date of translation is given as October 2,\n1138, in CUL 1767, 1276 A.\u202fD., fols. 240-76, \u201cLiber 4 Partium Ptholomei\nAuburtino Palatone.\u201d\n\n[510] It is found in an edition printed at Venice in 1493, \u201cper Bonetum\nlocatellum impensis nobilis viri Octaviani scoti civis Modoetiensis.\u201d\n\n[511] In the British Museum are editions of Venice, 1484, 1493, 1519;\nParis, 1519; Basel, 1533; Louvain, 1548; it was also printed in 1551,\n1555, 1578.\n\n[512] In the British Museum are but three editions of the Greek text,\nall with an accompanying Latin translation: N\u00fcrnberg, 1535; Basel,\n1553; and 1583.\n\n[513] _Studien \u00fcber Claudius Ptolem\u00e4us_, 1894.\n\n[514] \u201cC\u2019\u00e9tait la capitulation de la science.\u201d Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq in _Rev.\nHist._, LXV, 257, note 3.\n\n[515] In the medieval Latin translation the Slavs replace the Scythians\nof Ptolemy\u2019s text.\n\n[516] Indeed, Hephaestion\u2019s first two books are nothing but Ptolemy\nrepeated. About contemporary with Ptolemy seems to have been\nVettius Valens whose astrological work is extant: Vettius Valens,\n_Anthologiarum libri primum edidit_ Guilelmus Kroll, Berlin, 1908. See\nalso CCAG _passim_ concerning both Hephaestion and Vettius Valens,\nand Engelbrecht, _Heph\u00e4stion von Theben und sein astrologisches\nCompendium_, Vienna, 1887.\n\n[517] James Finlayson, _Galen: Two Bibliographical Demonstrations in\nthe Library of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow_,\n1895. Since then I believe that the only work of Galen to be translated\ninto English is _On the Natural Faculties_, ed. A. J. Brock, 1916 (Loeb\nLibrary).\n\n[518] J. F. Payne, _The Relation of Harvey to his Predecessors and\nespecially to Galen_: Harveian Oration of 1896, in _The Lancet_, Oct.\n24, 1896, p. 1136.\n\n[519] In the Teubner texts: _Scriptora minora_, 1-3, ed. I. Marquardt,\nI. Mueller, G. Helmreich, 1884-1893; _De victu_, ed. Helmreich,\n1898; _De temperamentis_, ed. Helmreich, 1904; _De usu partium_, ed.\nHelmreich, 1907, 1909.\n\nIn _Corpus Medicorum Graecorum_, V, 9, 1-2, 1914-1915, _The Hippocratic\nCommentaries_, ed. Mewaldt, Helmreich, Westenberger, Diels, Hieg.\n\n[520] Carolus Gottlob K\u00fchn, _Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia_, Leipzig,\n1821-1833, 21 vols. My citations will be to this edition, unless\notherwise specified. An older edition which is often cited is that of\nRenatus Charterius, Paris, 1679, 13 vols.\n\n[521] The article on Galen in PW regards some of the treatises as\nprinted in K\u00fchn as almost unreadable.\n\n[522] Although K\u00fchn\u2019s Index fills a volume, it is far from dependable.\n\n[523] Liddell and Scott often fail to allude to germane passages in\nGalen\u2019s works, even when they include, with citation of some other\nauthor, the word he uses.\n\n[524] Perhaps at this point a similarly candid confession by the\npresent writer is in order. I have tried to do a little more than Dr.\nPayne in his modesty seems ready to admit of himself, and to look over\ncarefully enough not to miss anything of importance those works which\nseemed at all likely to bear upon my particular interest, the history\nof science and magic. In consequence I have examined long stretches\nof text from which I have got nothing. For the most part, I thought\nit better not to take time to read the Hippocratic commentaries. At\nfirst I was inclined to depend upon others for Galen\u2019s treatises on\nanatomy and physiology, but finally I read most of them in order to\nlearn at first hand of his argument from design and his attitude\ntowards dissection. Further than this the reader can probably judge for\nhimself from my citations as to the extent and depth of my reading. My\nfirst draft was completed before I discovered that Puschmann had made\nconsiderable use of Galen for medical conditions in the Roman Empire in\nhis _History of Medical Education_, English translation, London, 1891,\npp. 93-113. For the sake of a complete and well-rounded survey I have\nthought it best to retain those passages where I cover about the same\nground. I have been unable to procure T. Meyer-Steineg, _Ein Tag im\nLeben des Galen_, Jena, 1913. 63 pp.\n\n[525] For an account of the MSS see H. Diels, _Berl. Akad. Abh._\n(1905), 58ff. Some fragments of Galen\u2019s work on medicinal simples exist\nin a fifth century MS of Dioscorides at Constantinople and have been\nreproduced by M. Wellmann in _Hermes_, XXXVIII (1903), 292ff. The first\ntwo books of his \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd were discovered in a\nWolfenb\u00fcttel palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century by K. Koch; see\n_Berl. Akad. Sitzb._ (1907), 103ff.\n\n[526] _Lancet_ (1896), p. 1135.\n\n[527] For these see V. Rose, _Analecta Graeca et Latina_, Berlin, 1864.\nAs a specimen of these medieval Latin translations may be mentioned\na collection of some twenty-six treatises in one huge volume which I\nhave seen in the library of Balliol College, Oxford: Balliol 231, a\nlarge folio, early 14th century (a note of ownership was added in 1334\nat Canterbury) fols. 437, double columned pages. For the titles and\n_incipits_ of the individual treatises see Coxe (1852).\n\n[528] A. Merx, \u201cProben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus\u2019 Schrift\n\u00fcber die einfachen Heilmittel,\u201d _Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgendl.\nGesell._ XXXIX (1885), 237-305.\n\n[529] Payne, _Lancet_ (1896), p. 1136.\n\n[530] Ch. V. Daremberg, _Exposition des connaissances de Galien sur\nl\u2019anatomie, la physiologie, et la pathologie du syst\u00e8me nerveux_,\nParis, 1841.\n\n[531] _Lancet_ (1896), p. 1140.\n\n[532] Brock (1916), p. xvi, says in 131 A.\u202fD. Clinton, _Fasti Romani_,\nplaced it in 130.\n\n[533] These details are from the _De cognoscendis curandisque animi\nmorbis_, cap. 8, K\u00fchn, V, 40-44.\n\n[534] _De naturalibus facultatibus_, III, 10, K\u00fchn, II, 179.\n\n[535] K\u00fchn, X, 609 (_De methodo medendi_); also XVI, 223; and XIX, 59.\n\n[536] _De anatom. administ._, K\u00fchn, II, 217, 224-25, 660. See also XV,\n136; XIX, 57.\n\n[537] His recorded astronomical observations extend from 127 to 151 A.\u202fD.\n\n[538] K\u00fchn, X, 16.\n\n[539] _Fragments du commentaire de Galien sur le Tim\u00e9e de Platon_, were\npublished for the first time, both in Greek and a French translation,\ntogether with an _Essai sur Galien consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme philosophe_, by Ch.\nDaremberg, Paris, 1848.\n\n[540] K\u00fchn, XIII, 599-600.\n\n[541] Clinton, _Fasti Romani_, I, 151 and 155, speaks of a first visit\nof Galen to Rome in 162 and a second in 164, but he has misinterpreted\nGalen\u2019s statements. When Galen speaks of his second visit to Rome, he\nmeans his return after the plague.\n\n[542] K\u00fchn, XIX, 15.\n\n[543] K\u00fchn, XIV, 622, 625, 648; see also I, 54-57. and XII, 263.\n\n[544] K\u00fchn, XIV, 649-50.\n\n[545] R. M. Briau, _L\u2019Archiatrie Romaine_, Paris, 1877, however, held\nthat Galen never received the official title, _archiater_; see p. 24,\n\u201cil est difficile de comprendre pourquoi le m\u00e9decin de Pergame qui\ndonnait des soins \u00e0 l\u2019empereur Marc Aur\u00e8le, ne fut jamais honor\u00e9 de ce\ntitre.\u201d But he is given the title in at least one medieval MS\u2014Merton\n219, early 14th century, fol. 36_v_\u2014\u201cIncipit liber Galieni archistratos\nmedicorum de malitia complexionis diversae.\u201d\n\n[546] _De venae sectione_, K\u00fchn, XIX, 524.\n\n[547] K\u00fchn, XIII, 362-63; for another allusion to this fire see XIV,\n66. Also II, 216; XIX, 19 and 41.\n\n[548] For the statements of this paragraph see K\u00fchn, XIV, 603-5, 620-23.\n\n[549] K\u00fchn, X, 114.\n\n[550] K\u00fchn, XIV, 599-600.\n\n[551] K\u00fchn, X, 1, 76.\n\n[552] K\u00fchn, X, 609.\n\n[553] K\u00fchn, X, 4-5.\n\n[554] K\u00fchn, X, 10.\n\n[555] K\u00fchn, XII, 909, 916, and in vol. XIV the entire treatise _De\nremediis parabilibus_.\n\n[556] K\u00fchn, X, 560.\n\n[557] K\u00fchn, X, 1010-11.\n\n[558] K\u00fchn, XIII, 571-72.\n\n[559] K\u00fchn, XIV, 62, and see Puschmann, _History of Medical Education_\n(1891), p. 108.\n\n[560] K\u00fchn, XIV, 10, 30, 79; and see Puschmann (1891), 109-11, where\nthere is bibliography of the subject.\n\n[561] K\u00fchn, X, 792.\n\n[562] K\u00fchn, XIV, 26.\n\n[563] The meaning of the word \u201capothecary\u201d is explained as follows in\na fourteenth century manuscript at Chartres which is a miscellany of\nreligious treatises with a bestiary and lapidary and bears the title,\n\u201cApothecarius moralis monasterii S. Petri Carnotensis.\u201d\n\n\u201cApothecarius est, secundum Hugucium, qui nonnullas diversarum rerum\nspecies in apothecis suis aggregat.. .. Apothecarius dicitur is\nqui species aromaticas et res quacunque arti medicine et cirurgie\nnecessarias habet penes se et venales exponit,\u201d fol. 3. \u201cAccording\nto Hugutius an apothecary is one who collects samples of various\ncommodities in his stores. An apothecary is called one who has at hand\nand exposes for sale aromatic species and all sorts of things needful\nin medicine and surgery.\u201d\n\n[564] The nest of the fabled cinnamon bird was supposed to contain\nsupplies of the spice, which Herodotus (III, 111) tells us the Arabian\nmerchants procured by leaving heavy pieces of flesh for the birds to\ncarry to their nests, which then broke down under the excessive weight.\nIn Aristotle\u2019s _History of Animals_ (IX, 13) the nests are shot down\nwith arrows tipped with lead. For other allusions to the cinnamon bird\nin classical literature see D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson, _A Glossary of Greek\nBirds_, Oxford, 1895, p. 82.\n\n[565] K\u00fchn, XIV, 64-66.\n\n[566] _Ad Pisonem de theriaca_, K\u00fchn, XIV, 217.\n\n[567] K\u00fchn, XIII, 704.\n\n[568] K\u00fchn, XII, 168-78.\n\n[569] M. Berthelot, \u201cSur les voyages de Galien et de Zosime dans\nl\u2019Archipel et en Asie, et sur la mati\u00e8re m\u00e9dicale dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9,\u201d in\n_Journal des Savants_ (1895), pp. 382-7. The article is chiefly devoted\nto showing that an alchemistic treatise attributed to Zosimus copies\nGalen\u2019s account of his trips to Lemnos and Cyprus. Of such future\ncopying of Galen we shall encounter many more instances.\n\nAs for the _terra sigillata_, C. J. S. Thompson, in a paper on \u201cTerra\nSigillata, a famous medicament of ancient times,\u201d published in the\n_Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Congress of Medical\nSciences_, London, 1913, Section XXIII, pp. 433-44, tells of various\nmedieval substitutes for the Lemnian earth from other places, and of\nthe interesting religious ceremony, performed in the presence of the\nTurkish officials on only one day in the year by Greek monks who had\nreplaced the priestess of Diana. Pierre Belon witnessed it on August\n6th, 1533. By that time there were many varieties of the tablets,\n\u201cbecause each lord of Lemnos had a distinct seal.\u201d When Tozer visited\nLemnos in 1890 the ceremony was still performed annually on August\nsixth and must be completed before sunrise or the earth would lose its\nefficacy. Mohammedan khodjas now shared in the religious ceremony,\nsacrificing a lamb. But in the twentieth century the entire ceremony\nwas abandoned. Through the early modern centuries the _terra sigillata_\ncontinued to be held in high esteem in western Europe also, and was\nincluded in pharmacopeias as late as 1833 and 1848. Thompson gives a\nchemical analysis of a sixteenth century tablet of the Lemnian earth\nand finds no evidence therein of its possessing any medicinal property.\nAgricola in the sixteenth century wrote in his work on mining (_De re\nmetal._, ed. Hoover, 1912, II, 31), \u201cIt is, however, very little to\nbe wondered at that the hill in the Island of Lemnos was excavated,\nfor the whole is of a reddish-yellow color which furnishes for the\ninhabitants that valuable clay so especially beneficial to mankind.\u201d\n\n[570] K\u00fchn, XIV, 72.\n\n[571] K\u00fchn, XII, 226-9. See the article of Berthelot just cited\nin a preceding note for an explanation of the three names and of\nGalen\u2019s experience. Mr. Hoover, in his translation of Agricola\u2019s\nwork on metallurgy (1912), pp. 573-4, says, \u201cIt is desirable here to\nenquire into the nature of the substances given by all of the old\nmineralogists under the Latinized Greek terms, chalcitis, misy, sory,\nand melanteria.\u201d He cites Dioscorides (V, 75-77) and Pliny (NH, XXXIV,\n29-31) on the subject, but not Galen. Yule (1903) I, 126, notes that\nMarco Polo\u2019s account of _Tutia_ and _Spodium_ \u201creads almost like a\ncondensed translation of Galen\u2019s account of _Pompholyx_ and _Spodos_.\u201d\n\n[572] K\u00fchn, XIV, 7-8; XIII, 411-2; XII, 215-6.\n\n[573] K\u00fchn, XIV, 22-23, 77-78; XIII, 119.\n\n[574] K\u00fchn, XIV, 255-56. The beasts of course were also in demand for\nthe arena.\n\n[575] K\u00fchn, X, 456-57, opening passage of the seventh book.\n\n[576] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, K\u00fchn, XIX, 8ff.; and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, XIX, 49 ff.\n\n[577] See, for instance, in the _De methodo medendi_ itself, X, 895-96\nand 955.\n\n[578] K\u00fchn, XIV, 651: henceforth this text will generally be cited\nwithout name.\n\n[579] XIX, 8.\n\n[580] II, 217.\n\n[581] XIX, 9.\n\n[582] XIX, 41.\n\n[583] II, 283.\n\n[584] XIV, 630.\n\n[585] XIX, 34.\n\n[586] XV, 109.\n\n[587] XIII, 995-96; XIV, 31-32.\n\n[588] X, 633. Duruy refers to the passage in his _History of Rome_\n(ed. J. P. Mahaffy, Boston, 1886, V, i, 273), but says, \u201cExtensive\nsanitary works were undertaken throughout all Italy, and the celebrated\nGalen, who was almost a contemporary, extols their happy effects upon\nthe public health.\u201d But Galen does not have sanitary considerations\nespecially in mind, since he mentions Trajan\u2019s road-building only by\nway of illustration, comparing his own systematic treatment of medicine\nto the emperor\u2019s great work in repairing and improving the roads,\nstraightening them by cut-offs that saved distance, but sometimes\nabandoning an old road that went straight over hills for an easier\nroute that avoided them, filling in wet and marshy spots with stone or\ncrossing them by causeways, bridging impassable rivers, and altering\nroutes that led through places now deserted and beset by wild beasts so\nthat they would pass through populous towns and more frequented areas.\nThe passage thus bears witness to a shifting of population.\n\n[589] V, 49.\n\n[590] V, 17-19.\n\n[591] Mentioned in _Acts_, xviii, 18, \u201c ... having shorn his head in\nCenchrea: for he had a vow.\u201d\n\n[592] V, 46-47.\n\n[593] X, 3-4.\n\n[594] X, 831-36; XIII, 513; XIV, 27-29, and 14-19 on the heating and\nstorage of wine.\n\n[595] IV, 777-79.\n\n[596] Similarly Milward (1733), p. 102, wrote of Alexander of Tralles,\n\u201cHe has in most distempers a separate article concerning wine and I\nmuch doubt whether there be in all nature a more excellent medicine\nthan this in the hands of a skillful and judicious practitioner.\u201d\n\n[597] IV, 821.\n\n[598] K\u00fchn, VIII, 579, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u1f0d\u03ba\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b7\n\n[599] _Ibid._, p. 657, \u03b8\u1fb6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd I have been unable to find a passage in which, according\nto Moses Maimonides of the twelfth century in his _Aphorisms_ from\nGalen, Galen said that the wealthy physicians and philosophers of\nhis time were not prepared for discipline as were the followers of\nMoses and Christ. Perhaps it is a mistranslation of one of the above\npassages. Particula 24 (56), \u201cmedici et philosophi cum aere augmentati\nnon sunt preparati ad disciplinam sicut parati fuerunt ad disciplinam\nmoysis et christi socii predictorum. decimotercio megapulsus.\u201d\n\n[600] K\u00fchn, III, 905-7.\n\n[601] K\u00fchn, XI, 690-4; XII, 372-5.\n\n[602] Finlayson (1895); pp. 8-9; Harnack, _Medicinisches aus der\n\u00e4ltesten Kirchengeschichte_, Leipzig, 1892.\n\n[603] Wellmann (1914), p. 16 note.\n\n[604] K\u00fchn, IV, 816.\n\n[605] K\u00fchn, IV, 815.\n\n[606] Quoted by Eusebius, V, 28, and reproduced by Harnack,\n_Medicinisches aus der \u00e4ltesten Kirchengeschichte_, 1892, p. 41, and by\nFinlayson (1895), pp. 9-10.\n\n[607] K\u00fchn, X, 16-17. J. Leminne, _Les quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments_, in _M\u00e9moires\ncouronn\u00e9s par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie de Belgique_, vol. 65, Brussels, 1903, traces\nthe influence of the theory in medieval thought.\n\n[608] Kuhn, XIII, 763-4.\n\n[609] K\u00fchn, I, 428.\n\n[610] K\u00fchn, X, 111.\n\n[611] K\u00fchn, XII, 166.\n\n[612] I, 417.\n\n[613] XIV, 250-53.\n\n[614] XIII, 948.\n\n[615] X, 657.\n\n[616] X, 872.\n\n[617] XIX, 344-45.\n\n[618] More recently Galen\u2019s _Materia medica_ has been treated of in a\nGerman doctoral dissertation by L. Israelson, _Die materia medica des\nKlaudios Galenos_, 1894, 204 pp.\n\n[619] X, 624.\n\n[620] XIV, 253-54.\n\n[621] V, 911.\n\n[622] X, 817-19.\n\n[623] X, 843.\n\n[624] XIV, 281.\n\n[625] XII, 270-71.\n\n[626] X, 368-71.\n\n[627] K\u00fchn, VIII, 363. Finlayson (1895), pp. 39-40, gives an English\ntranslation of Galen\u2019s full account of the case.\n\n[628] Puschmann (1891), pp. 105-6. Vitruvius, too, however (V, iii),\nstates that sound spreads in waves like eddies in a pond.\n\n[629] XIII, 435, 893, are two instances.\n\n[630] V, 80; XIV, 670.\n\n[631] Various treatises on the pulse by Galen will be found in vols. V,\nIX, and X of K\u00fchn\u2019s edition.\n\n[632] Galen\u2019s contributions to the arts of clock-making and\ntime-keeping have been dealt with in an article which I have not had\naccess to and of which I cannot now find even the author and title.\n\n[633] XIV, 631-34.\n\n[634] C. V. Daremberg, _Exposition des connaissances de Galien sur\nl\u2019anatomie, la physiologie, et la pathologie du syst\u00e8me nerveux_,\nParis, 1841. J. S. Milne discussed \u201cGalen\u2019s Knowledge of Muscular\nAnatomy\u201d at the International Congress of Medical Sciences held at\nLondon in 1913; see pp. 389-400 of the volume devoted to the history of\nmedicine, Section XXIII.\n\n[635] _Lancet_ (1896), p. 1139.\n\n[636] I have failed to obtain K. F. H. Mark, _Herophilus, ein Beitrag\nzur Geschichte der Medizin_, Carlsruhe, 1838.\n\n[637] D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson (1913), 22-23, thinks that the precedence of\nthe heart over all other organs in appearing in the embryo of the chick\nled Aristotle to locate in it the central seat of the soul.\n\n[638] XIV, 626-30.\n\n[639] II, 683, 696. This and the other quotations in this paragraph are\nfrom Dr. Payne\u2019s Harveian Oration as printed in _The Lancet_ (1896),\npp. 1137-39.\n\n[640] K\u00fchn, V, 216, cited by Payne.\n\n[641] K\u00fchn, II, 642-49; IV, 703-36, \u201cAn in arteriis natura sanguis\ncontineatur.\u201d J. Kidd, _A Cursory Analysis of the Works of Galen so\nfar as they relate to Anatomy and Physiology_, in _Transactions of the\nProvincial Medical and Surgical Association_, VI (1837), 299-336.\n\n[642] _Lancet_ (1896), p. 1137, where Payne states that Colombo (_De re\nanatomica_, Venet. 1559, XIV, 261) was the first to prove by experiment\non the living heart that these veins conveyed blood from the lungs.\n\n[643] II, 146-47.\n\n[644] II, 384-86.\n\n[645] II, 220-21.\n\n[646] Augustine testifies in two passages of his _De anima et eius\norigine_ (Migne PL 44, 475-548), that vivisection of human beings was\npracticed as late as his time, the early fifth century: IV, 3, \u201cMedici\ntamen qui appellantur anatomici per membra per venas per nervos per\nossa per medullas per interiora vitalia etiam vivos homines quamdiu\ninter manus rimantium vivere potuerunt dissiciendo scrutati sunt ut\nnaturam corporis nossent\u201d; and IV, 6 (Migne, PL 44, 528-9).\n\n[647] II, 537.\n\n[648] II, 619-20.\n\n[649] II, 701.\n\n[650] II, 631 ff.\n\n[651] XIII, 599-600. Galen states that the pontifex\u2019s term of office\nwas seven months, a fact which perhaps had some astrological bearing.\n\n[652] X, 454-55.\n\n[653] II, 682.\n\n[654] II, 291.\n\n[655] IV, 360, _et passim_.\n\n[656] IV, 687.\n\n[657] IV, 694, 696.\n\n[658] IV, 688.\n\n[659] IV, 700.\n\n[660] IV, 692; II, 537. Others contend, he says (IV, 693), that one\nsoul constructs the parts and another soul incites them to voluntary\nmotion.\n\n[661] IV, 701.\n\n[662] II, 28.\n\n[663] XVIII B, 17ff.\n\n[664] _De usu partium_, XI, 14 (K\u00fchn, III, 905-7). The passage seems to\nme an integral part of the work and not a later interpolation. Moses\nMaimonides in the twelfth century took exception at some length, in the\n25th _Particula_ of his _Aphorisms_ from Galen, to this criticism of\nhis national law-giver.\n\n[665] IV, 513; see also II, 55, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[666] X, 608; XIII, 887-88.\n\n[667] XIII, 964.\n\n[668] II, 136; X, 385; XII, 311; he credited Plato with the same\nattitude, see II, 581.\n\n[669] II, 659-60.\n\n[670] XII, 446.\n\n[671] II, 141, 179.\n\n[672] II, 179; X, 609.\n\n[673] II, 621.\n\n[674] XIII, 891.\n\n[675] XIII, 430-31.\n\n[676] XIII, 717.\n\n[677] XI, 794; also XIII, 658; XIV, 61-62, and many other passages of\nthe _Antidotes_.\n\n[678] XII, 203. Pliny, NH XXXVI, 34, makes the same statement as\nDioscorides.\n\n[679] XII, 272.\n\n[680] Pliny, NH XXVIII, 35, however, both tells how butter is made and\nof its use as food among the barbarians.\n\n[681] X, 40-41.\n\n[682] X, 127, 962.\n\n[683] X, 31.\n\n[684] X, 29.\n\n[685] X, 668.\n\n[686] X, 123.\n\n[687] X, 915-16.\n\n[688] I, 75-76; XIV, 367.\n\n[689] I, 145; II, 41-43; X, 30-31, 782-83; XIII, 188, 366, 375, 463,\n579, 594, 892; XIV, 245, 679.\n\n[690] X, 159.\n\n[691] XIV, 675-76.\n\n[692] I, 144-55.\n\n[693] XVI, 82.\n\n[694] I, 135.\n\n[695] XIV, 680.\n\n[696] I, 131.\n\n[697] I, 134.\n\n[698] XVI, 82.\n\n[699] II, 288.\n\n[700] IX, 842; XIII, 887.\n\n[701] XIII, 116-17.\n\n[702] X, 28-29.\n\n[703] X, 684.\n\n[704] X, 454-55.\n\n[705] XI, 420.\n\n[706] XI, 434-35.\n\n[707] XI, 456.\n\n[708] XII, 246.\n\n[709] XII, 336.\n\n[710] XII, 365.\n\n[711] XII, 258, 262, 269, 331.\n\n[712] XII, 334.\n\n[713] VI, 453-55.\n\n[714] XIII, 463.\n\n[715] XII, 895.\n\n[716] XIV, 222.\n\n[717] XIII, 700-701.\n\n[718] XIII, 706-707.\n\n[719] XIII, 467.\n\n[720] XIII, 867.\n\n[721] XII, 392-93, 884; XIII, 116-17, 123, 125, 128-29, 354, 485,\n502-503, 582, 656.\n\n[722] XII, 968, 988.\n\n[723] See XII, 988; XIII, 960-61; XIV, 12, 60, 341.\n\n[724] XIV, 82.\n\n[725] XIII, 570.\n\n[726] XII, 350.\n\n[727] XVI, 86-87; XI, 518.\n\n[728] XI, 485.\n\n[729] XVI, 85.\n\n[730] IX, 842.\n\n[731] II, 206.\n\n[732] I, 138.\n\n[733] XVI, 80.\n\n[734] There would seem to be something wrong, at least with its\narrangement as it now stands, for the first book ends (XIV, 389) with\nthe words, \u201cThis my fourth book, O Glaucon, ends thus. If it has been\nuseful to you, you will readily follow what I\u2019ve written to Salomon\nthe archiater.\u201d But then the present second book opens with the words\n(XIV, 390), \u201cSince you\u2019ve asked me to write you about easily procurable\nremedies, O dearest Solon,\u201d and goes on to say that the author will\nstate what he has learned from experience beginning with the hair and\nclosing with the feet.\n\n[735] XIV, 378.\n\n[736] XIV, 462.\n\n[737] XIV, 534.\n\n[738] XI, 205.\n\n[739] John of St. Amand, _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, fol. 231,\nin _Mesuae medici clarissimi opera_, Venice, 1568. Pietro d\u2019Abano,\n_Conciliator_, Venice, 1526, Diff. X, fol. 15; Diff. LX, fol. 83.\nArnald of Villanova, _Repetitio super Canon \u201cVita brevis,\u201d_ fol. 276,\nin his _Opera_, Lyons, 1532.\n\n[740] Gilbertus Anglicus, _Compendium medicinae_, Lyons, 1510, fol.\n328v., \u201cExperimenta ex libro experimentorum Gal. experta.\u201d\n\n[741] In his _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, as cited above (note\n5).\n\n[742] J. L. Pagel, _Die Concordanciae des Johannes de Sancto Amando_,\nBerlin, 1894, pp. 102-104. John also wrote commentaries on Galen,\n(_Histoire Litt\u00e9raire de la France_, XXI, 263-65).\n\n[743] ed. Lyons, 1515, fols. 19v-2Ov.\n\n[744] Berlin, 902, 14th century, fol. 175; Berlin 903, 1342 A.\u202fD., fol.\n2.\n\n[745] Boncompagni (1851), pp. 3-4.\n\n[746] Moses ben Maimon, _Aphorisms_, 1489. \u201cIncipiunt aphorismi\nexcellentissimi Raby Moyses secundum doctrinam Galieni medicorum\nprincipis ... collegi eos ex verbis Galieni de omnibus libris suis....\nEt ego protuli super his afforismis quedam dicta que circumspexi et ea\nmeo nomine nominavi et similiter protuli aliquos aphorismos aliquorum\nmodernorum quos denominavi eorum nomine.\u201d\n\n[747] Ed. C. V. Daremberg, _Notices et Extraits des manuscrits\nm\u00e9dicaux_, 1853, pp. 44-47, Greek text; pp. 229-33, French translation.\n\n[748] Garrison, _History of Medicine_, 2nd edition, 1917, p. 141. But\nat p. 151 Garrison would seem mistaken in stating that Gentile died in\n1348, for in the MS of which I shall speak in the next footnote his\ntreatise on critical days is dated back in the year 1362: \u201cTractatus\nde enumeratione dierum creticorum m\u2019i Gentilis anni 1362,\u201d at fol.\n125; while at fol. 162 we read, \u201cExplicit questio ... m\u2019i Zentilis\nanno Domini 1359 de mense marcii, et scripta Pisis de mense octobris\n1359.\u201d It is possible but rather unlikely that the dates later than\n1348 refer to the labors of copyists. Venetian MSS contain not only a\n_De reductione medicinarum ad actum_ by Gentile, written at Perugia in\nApril, 1342 (S. Marco, XIV, 7, 14th century, fols. 44-48); but also\n\u201cSuggestions concerning the pestilence which was at Genoa in 1348,\u201d by\nhim (S. Marco, XIV, 26, 15th century, fols. 99-100, consilia de peste\nquae fuit Ianuae anno 1348). Valentinelli\u2019s catalogue of the MSS in the\nLibrary of St. Mark\u2019s does not help, however, to clear up the question\nwhen Gentile died, since in one place (IV, 235) Valentinelli assures us\nthat he died at Bologna in 1310, and in another place (V, 19) says that\nhe died at Perugia in 1348.\n\n[749] Cortona 110, early years of 15th century, fol. 128, Rationes\nGentilis contra Galenum in quinto aphorismi. This MS contains several\nother works by Gentile da Foligno.\n\n[750] XIV, 601.\n\n[751] XIV, 605.\n\n[752] XIV, 615.\n\n[753] XIV, 625.\n\n[754] XIV, 655.\n\n[755] I, 54-55.\n\n[756] XII, 263.\n\n[757] XII, 306.\n\n[758] XII, 307.\n\n[759] XI, 792-93.\n\n[760] XII, 283.\n\n[761] XII, 251-53.\n\n[762] IV, 688.\n\n[763] _Natural History_, XXVIII, 2.\n\n[764] XII, 248, 284-85, 290.\n\n[765] XII, 293.\n\n[766] XIV, 255. (_To Piso on theriac._)\n\n[767] XII, 291-92.\n\n[768] XII, 298.\n\n[769] XII, 304.\n\n[770] XII, 342.\n\n[771] XII, 276-77.\n\n[772] XII, 367-69.\n\n[773] XIII, 949-50, 954-55.\n\n[774] XII, 343. These form the titles of four successive chapters, _De\nsimplic._, XI, i, caps. 19-22.\n\n[775] XII, 359, 942-43, 977.\n\n[776] XII, 856.\n\n[777] XII, 860.\n\n[778] XII, 360.\n\n[779] XII, 366-67.\n\n[780] XII, 335.\n\n[781] A fact which\u2014one cannot help remarking\u2014considering the character\nof most ancient remedies for hydrophobia, only tends to make their\nrecovery seem the more marvelous.\n\n[782] XIV, 233.\n\n[783] XII, 250-51.\n\n[784] XIV, 224-25.\n\n[785] II, 45-48.\n\n[786] XII, 358-59. Concerning the virtue of river crabs we may also\nquote from a story told in Nias Island, west of Sumatra: \u201cfor had he\nonly eaten river crabs, men would have cast their skin like crabs, and\nso, renewing their youth perpetually, would never have died.\u201d\u2014From J.\nG. Frazer (1918), I, 67. The belief that the serpent annually changes\nits skin and renews its youth may account for the virtues ascribed to\nthe flesh of vipers and to theriac in the following paragraphs.\n\n[787] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[788] IV, 760-61, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[789] XII, 311-15.\n\n[790] _Ad Pisonem de theriaca_; _De theriaca ad Pamphilianum_.\n\n[791] XIV, 2-3.\n\n[792] XIV, 217.\n\n[793] XIV, 271-80.\n\n[794] XIV, 283.\n\n[795] XIV, 294.\n\n[796] XII, 317-18; XIV, 45-46, 238.\n\n[797] XIV, 238-39.\n\n[798] XIII, 371, 374.\n\n[799] XIII, 134.\n\n[800] XIII, 242.\n\n[801] XI, 859.\n\n[802] XII, 573; see also XIII, 256.\n\n[803] XI, 860.\n\n[804] XII, 295-96.\n\n[805] XII, 207.\n\n[806] A representation of the Agathodaemon; see C. W. King, _The\nGnostics and their Remains_, London, 1887, p. 220.\n\n[807] XII, 288-89. At II, 163, Galen again accepts the notion that\nhuman saliva is fatal to scorpions.\n\n[808] XIV, 321.\n\n[809] XIV, 349.\n\n[810] XIV, 386-87.\n\n[811] XIV, 343.\n\n[812] XIV, 413.\n\n[813] XIV, 427.\n\n[814] XIV, 430.\n\n[815] XIV, 471.\n\n[816] XIV, 472.\n\n[817] XIV, 476. And others, \u201cUt ne cui penis arrigi possit,\u201d and \u201cAd\narrectionem pudendi.\u201d\n\n[818] \u201cThe _Psoranthea bituminosa_ of Linnaeus. It is found on\ndeclivities near the sea-coast in the south of Europe,\u201d says a note in\nBostock and Riley\u2019s _The Natural History of Pliny_ (Bohn Library), IV,\n330. Pliny, too (XXI, 88), states that trefoil is poisonous itself and\nto be used only as a counter-poison.\n\n[819] XIV, 491; a good example of the power of suggestion.\n\n[820] XIV, 498.\n\n[821] XIV, 502.\n\n[822] XIV, 505.\n\n[823] XIV, 517.\n\n[824] XIV, 567ff.\n\n[825] I, 305-412.\n\n[826] _Galen_ in PW.\n\n[827] I, 325-6.\n\n[828] XVII B, 212 and 834.\n\n[829] Partic. 6, K\u00fchn, XIV, 253.\n\n[830] K\u00fchn, XIV, 255.\n\n[831] These passages all come from the 24th _Particula_ of Maimonides\u2019\n_Aphorisms_, which is devoted especially to marvels:\u2014\u201cIncipit particula\nxxiiii continens aphorismos dependentes a miraculis repertis in libris\nmedicorum,\u201d from an edition of the _Aphorisms_ dated 1489 and numbered\nIA.28878 in the British Museum. The same section contains still other\nmarvels from the works of Galen.\n\n[832] K\u00fchn, VI, 832-5.\n\n[833] VI, 833.\n\n[834] XVI, 222-23.\n\n[835] I, 53.\n\n[836] _Coeli status_, or \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. X, 593-96, 625, 634, 645,\n647-48, 658, 662, 685, 737, 759-60, 778, 829, etc.\n\n[837] X, 688; XIII, 544; XIV, 285.\n\n[838] XII, 356.\n\n[839] XIV, 298.\n\n[840] XI, 798.\n\n[841] II, 26-28.\n\n[842] XIX, 529-30.\n\n[843] XIX, 534-73.\n\n[844] IX, 794.\n\n[845] IX, 901-2.\n\n[846] IX, 904.\n\n[847] IX, 908-10.\n\n[848] IX, 913.\n\n[849] IX, 922.\n\n[850] IX, 935.\n\n[851] K\u00fchn, XIX, 22-345. Plutarch, _Opera_, ed. Didot, _De placitis\nphilosophorum_, pp. 1065-1114; in _Plutarch\u2019s Miscellanies and Essays_,\nEnglish translation, 1889, III, 104-92. The wording of the two versions\ndiffers somewhat and in Galen\u2019s works it is divided simply into 37\nchapters, whereas in Plutarch\u2019s works it is divided into five books and\nmany more chapters.\n\n[852] XIX, 320-21; _De plac. philos._, V, 1-2.\n\n[853] XIX, 253; _De plac. philos._, I, 8.\n\n[854] K\u00fchn, XIX, 261-62; _De placitis philosophorum_, I, 28; \u201c\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\u201c\n\n[855] XIX, 333.\n\n[856] XIX, 274; _De plac. philos._, II, 19.\n\n[857] XIX, 265; _De plac. philos._, II, 5.\n\n[858] As much can hardly be said of our present day architects, whose\nfantastic tin cornices projecting far out from the roofs of high\nbuildings and rows of stones poised horizontally in mid-air, with no\nother visible support than a plate glass window beneath, remind one\nforcibly and painfully of the deceits and levitations of magicians.\n\n[859] _De architectura_, ed. F. Krohn, Leipzig, Teubner, 1912, VIII,\niii, 24. A recent English translation of Vitruvius is by M. H. Morgan,\nHarvard University Press, 1914.\n\n[860] VIII, iii, 16, 20-21, 24-5.\n\n[861] III, i.\n\n[862] V, Introduction, 3-4.\n\n[863] V, vi, 1. The wording is that of Morgan\u2019s translation.\n\n[864] VI, i, 3-4, 9-10.\n\n[865] IX, vi, 2-3, Morgan\u2019s translation.\n\n[866] III, Introduction, 3, \u201d ... There should be the greatest\nindignation when, as often, good judges are flattered by the charm of\nsocial entertainments into an approbation which is a mere pretence.\u201d\n\n[867] _Idem._\n\n[868] VI, Introduction, 5.\n\n[869] II, Introduction. Vitruvius continues, \u201cBut as for me, Emperor,\nnature has not given me stature, age has marred my face, and my\nstrength is impaired by ill health. Therefore, since these advantages\nfail me, I shall win your approval, as I hope, by the help of my\nknowledge and my writings.\u201d\n\n[870] III, Introduction, 2.\n\n[871] VII, Introduction, 1-10.\n\n[872] VI, Introduction, 2. Also IX, Introduction, where authors are\ndeclared superior to the victorious athletes in the Olympian, Pythian,\nIsthmian, and Nemean games.\n\n[873] VII, Introd., 11-14; IX, Introd.\n\n[874] IX, Introd., 17.\n\n[875] VII, Introd., 10.\n\n[876] VIII, iii, 27.\n\n[877] IX, vii, 7.\n\n[878] IX, Introd.\n\n[879] VII, v.\n\n[880] VII, Introd., 18.\n\n[881] V, i, 6-10.\n\n[882] X, i, 4.\n\n[883] X, vii.\n\n[884] IX, viii.\n\n[885] IX, viii, 2 and 4; X, vii, 4.\n\n[886] NH, VII, 38.\n\n[887] The work of Martin, _Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages\nd\u2019H\u00e9ron d\u2019Alexandrie_, Paris, 1854, and the accounts of Hero in\nhistories of physics and mathematics such as those of Heller and\nCajori, must now be supplemented by the long article in Pauly and\nWissowa, _Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_,\n(1912), cols. 992-1080. A recent briefer summary in English is\nthe article by T. L. Heath, EB, 11th edition, XIII, 378. See also\nHammer-Jensen, _Ptolemaios und Heron_, in _Hermes_, XLVIII (1913), p.\n224, _et seq._\n\nThe writings ascribed to Hero, hitherto scattered about in various\nfor the most part inaccessible editions and MSS, are now appearing in\na single Teubner edition, of which five vols. have appeared, 1899,\n1900, 1903, 1912, 1914, including respectively, the _Pneumatics_ and\n_Automatic Theater_, the _Mechanics_ and _Mirrors_, the _Metrics_ and\n_Dioptra_, the _Definitions_ and geometrical remains, _Stereometrica_\nand _De mensuris_ and _De geodaesia_. For the _Belopoiika_ or work on\nmilitary engines see C. Wescher, _Poliorc\u00e9tique des Grecs_, Paris,\n1867. In English we have _The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria_,\ntranslated for Bennet Woodcroft by J. G. Greenwood, London, 1851. A\nnumber of articles on Hero by Heiberg, Carra de Vaux, Schmidt, and\nothers will be found in _Bibliotheca Mathematica_ and Sudhoff\u2019s _Archiv\nf. d. Gesch. d. Naturwiss. u. d. Technik_.\n\n[888] \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[889] Heath in EB, XIII, 378; Heiberg (1914), V, ix.\n\n[890] PW, _Heron_.\n\n[891] Baur (1912), p. 417.\n\n[892] In the first chapter of the _Automatic Theater_ he says, \u201cThe\nancients called those who constructed such things thaumaturges because\nof the astounding character of the spectacle.\u201d\n\n[893] PW, 1045.\n\n[894] But perhaps this is a medieval interpolation in the nature of\na crude Christian attempt to depict \u201cthe firmament in the midst of\nthe waters\u201d (Genesis, I, 6). However, it also somewhat resembles the\nuniverse of the Greek philosopher, Leucippus, who \u201cmade the earth a\nhemisphere with a hemisphere of air above, the whole surrounded by\nthe supporting crystal sphere which held the moon. Above this came\nthe planets, then the sun\u201d\u2014Orr (1913), p. 63 and Fig. 13. See also K.\nTittel, \u201cDas Weltbild bei Heron,\u201d in _Bibl. Math._ (1907-1908), pp.\n113-7.\n\n[895] Berthelot (1885), pp. 68-9. For the following account of Greek\nalchemy I have followed Berthelot\u2019s three works, _Les Origines de\nl\u2019Alchimie_, 1885; _Collection des anciens Alchimistes Grecs_, 3 vols.,\n1887-1888; _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9tude de la Chimie_, 1889. Berthelot\nmade a good many books from too few MSS; went over the same ground\nrepeatedly; and sometimes had to correct his previous statements; but\nstill remains the fullest account of the subject. E. O. v. Lippmann,\n_Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie_, 1919, is still based\nlargely on Berthelot\u2019s publications. In English see C. A. Browne, \u201cThe\nPoem of the Philosopher Theophrastos upon the Sacred Art: A Metrical\nTranslation with Comments upon the History of Alchemy,\u201d in _The\nScientific Monthly_, September, 1920, pp. 193-214.\n\n[896] The earliest of them is John of Antioch of the reign of\nHeraclius, about 620 A.\u202fD., although they seem to use Panodorus, an\nEgyptian monk of the reign of Arcadius. Even he would be a century\nremoved from the event.\n\n[897] Berthelot (1885), pp. 26, 72, etc., took this story about\nDiocletian far too seriously.\n\n[898] Berthelot (1885), 192-3.\n\n[899] But the _Labyrinth of Solomon_, which Berthelot (1885), p. 16,\nhad cited as an example of the sort of ancient magic figures which had\nbeen largely obliterated by Christians, and of the antiquity of alchemy\namong the Jews (_ibid._, p. 54), although he granted (_ibid._, p. 171)\nthat it might not be as old as the Papyrus of Leyden of the third\ncentury, later when he had secured the collaboration of Ruelle (1888),\nI, 156-7, and III, 41, he had to admit was not even as old as the\neleventh century MS in which it occurred but was an addition in writing\nof the fourteenth century and \u201ca cabalistic work of the middle ages\nwhich does not belong to the old tradition of the Greek alchemists.\u201d\n\n[900] Berthelot (1885), p. 59.\n\n[901] _Ibid._, p. 53.\n\n[902] Berthelot (1888), III, 251.\n\n[903] Berthelot (1885), p. 56.\n\n[904] Berthelot (1888), III, 23.\n\n[905] Berthelot (1888), III, 251.\n\n[906] Berthelot (1885), p. 164.\n\n[907] _Ibid._, pp. 179-80.\n\n[908] _Ibid._, p. 60.\n\n[909] Berthelot (1888), II, 115-6; III, 125.\n\n[910] Berthelot (1885), pp. 211-2.\n\n[911] Berthelot (1889), p. vi.\n\n[912] _De institutione principis epistola ad Traianum_, a treatise\nextant only in Latin form.\n\n[913] IV, 72. On the biography and bibliography of Plutarch consult\nChrist, _Gesch. d. Griechischen Litteratur_, 5th ed., Munich, 1913, II,\n2, \u201cDie nachklassische Periode,\u201d pp. 367ff.\n\n[914] See also the essay, \u201cWhether an old man should engage in\npolitics,\u201d cap. 16.\n\n[915] See R. Schmertosch, in _Philol.-Hist. Beitr. z. Ehren\nWachsmuths_, 1897, pp. 28ff.\n\n[916] Language and literary form are surer guides and have been applied\nby B. Weissenberger, _Die Sprache Plutarchs von Ch\u00e4ronea und die\npseudoplutarchischen Schriften_, II Progr. Straubing, 1896, pp. 15ff.\nIn 1876 W. W. Goodwin, editing a revised edition of the seventeenth\ncentury English translation of the _Morals_, declared that no critical\ntranslation was possible until a thorough revision of the text had been\nundertaken with the help of the best MSS. Since then an edition of\nthe text by G. N. Bernadakes, 1888-1896, has appeared, but it has not\nescaped criticism.\n\n[917] The English translation of Plutarch\u2019s _Morals_ \u201cby several\nhands,\u201d first published in 1684-1694, sixth edition corrected and\nrevised by W. W. Goodwin, 5 vols., 1870-1878, IV, 10, renders a passage\nin the seventh chapter of _De defectu oraculorum_, in which complaint\nis made of the \u201cbase and villainous questions\u201d which are now put to\nthe oracle of Apollo, as follows: \u201csome coming to him as a mere paltry\nastrologer to try his skill and impose upon him with subtle questions.\u201d\nBut the corresponding clause in the Greek text is merely \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and there seems to be no reason for\ntaking the word \u201csophist\u201d in any other than its usual meaning. The\npassage therefore cannot be interpreted as an attack upon even vulgar\nastrologers.\n\n[918] _De defectu oraculorum_, 13.\n\n[919] Cap. 12.\n\n[920] Cap. 7.\n\n[921] Cap. 8.\n\n[922] Cap. 9.\n\n[923] Cap. 10.\n\n[924] _De genio Socratis_, 21-22.\n\n[925] _Ibid._, 24.\n\n[926] _De defectu oraculorum_, 40.\n\n[927] _De genio Socratis_, 12.\n\n[928] _Sympos._, VIII. 10.\n\n[929] _De defectu oraculorum_, 44.\n\n[930] _Ibid._, 48.\n\n[931] _Ibid._, 13.\n\n[932] _Ibid._, 10.\n\n[933] _Ibid._, 13.\n\n[934] _De genio Socratis_, 22.\n\n[935] Cap. 26.\n\n[936] Cap. 29.\n\n[937] Cap. 30.\n\n[938] Cap. 24.\n\n[939] Cap. 22.\n\n[940] _De defectu oraculorum_, 10.\n\n[941] _Ibid._, 18.\n\n[942] _Ibid._, 13-14.\n\n[943] _De defectu oraculorum_, 21.\n\n[944] _De genio Socratis_, 11.\n\n[945] _Ibid._, 20.\n\n[946] _Romulus_, cap. 12.\n\n[947] \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[948] Cap. 2.\n\n[949] Cap. 22.\n\n[950] Cap. 3.\n\n[951] Caps. 5-8.\n\n[952] Cap. 9.\n\n[953] _De facie in orbe lunae_, 28.\n\n[954] VIII, 9.\n\n[955] _De defectu oraculorum_, 31-32. The resemblance of the stranger\u2019s\ntale to the vision of Er in Plato\u2019s _Republic_ is also evident.\n\n[956] _Ibid._, 34.\n\n[957] _Ibid._, 37.\n\n[958] _Ibid._, 36; and see 11-12.\n\n[959] Caps. 8-16.\n\n[960] Cap. 17.\n\n[961] Cap. 31.\n\n[962] Cap. 33.\n\n[963] _Symposiacs_, II, 7. D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson in his translation of\nAristotle\u2019s _History of Animals_ comments on II, 14, \u201cThe myth of the\n\u2018ship-holder\u2019 has been elegantly explained by V. W. Elkman, \u2018On Dead\nWater,\u2019 in the Reports of Nansen\u2019s North Polar Expedition, Christiania,\n1904.\u201d\n\n[964] See above p. 77 for the somewhat different statement of Pliny\n(NH, XXIII, 64).\n\n[965] _Symposiacs_, V, 10.\n\n[966] _De sera numinis vindicta_, 14.\n\n[967] _De defectu oraculorum_, 43.\n\n[968] X, 1 (Casaub., 446); for this and some other source citations\nand a brief bibliography of modern discussions on the subject see the\narticle, \u201cAmiantus\u201d (3) in Pauly-Wissowa.\n\n[969] Article on \u201cAsbestos\u201d in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11th\nedition, which further states that Charlemagne was said to own a\ntablecloth which was cleaned by throwing it into the fire, and\nthat in 1676 a merchant from China exhibited to the Royal Society\na handkerchief of \u201csalamander\u2019s wool\u201d or _linum asbesti_ (asbestos\nlinen). See also Marco Polo, I, 42, and Cordier\u2019s note in Yule (1903),\nI, 216.\n\n[970] XIX, 4. In Bostock and Riley\u2019s English translation, note 44\nstates that \u201cthe wicks of the inextinguishable lamps of the middle\nages, the existence of which was an article of general belief, were\nsaid to be made of asbestus.\u201d On its use in lamp-wicks see also\nPausanias, I, 26, 7.\n\n[971] \u201cIn the year 1702 there was found near the Naevian Gate at Rome\na funeral urn, in which there was a skull, calcined bones, and other\nashes, enclosed in a cloth of asbestus of a marvelous length. It is\nstill preserved in the Vatican,\u201d (Bostock and Riley, note 45).\n\n[972] \u201cOn the contrary, it is found in the Higher Alps in the vicinity\nof glaciers, in Scotland, and in Siberia even\u201d (Bostock and Riley,\nnote 46). The article on \u201cAmiantus (3)\u201d in Pauly-Wissowa incorrectly\nassumes that in XIX, 4, Pliny has it in mind. In XXXVI, 31, however,\nPliny briefly describes the stone amianthus, which Bostock and Riley\n(note 52) call \u201cthe most delicate variety of asbestus,\u201d as \u201closing\nnothing in fire\u201d and \u201cresisting all potions (or, spells) even of the\n_magi_,\u201d\u2014\u201cAmiantus alumini similis nihil igni deperdit. Hic veneficis\nresistit omnibus privatim magorum.\u201d In XXXVII, 54, in an alphabetical\nlist of stones, he briefly states that asbestos is iron-colored and\nfound in the mountains of Arcadia,\u2014\u201cAsbestos in Arcadiae montibus\nnascitur coloris ferrei.\u201d\n\n[973] Ed. by R. Hercher, Lipsiae, 1851; and by C. M\u00fcller in _Geograph.\nGraeci Minores_, II, 637ff.\n\n[974] In Christ\u2019s _Gesch. d. Griech. Litt._, not only is the _On Rivers\nand Mountains_ itself called a \u201cSchwindelbuch,\u201d but these citations are\nrejected as fraudulent.\n\n[975] Cap. 5.\n\n[976] Cap. 18.\n\n[977] Cap. 21.\n\n[978] Cap. 6.\n\n[979] Cap. 1.\n\n[980] Cap. 7.\n\n[981] Caps. 9, 10, 12.\n\n[982] Caps. 16, 18, 24.\n\n[983] Cap. 17.\n\n[984] V, 7.\n\n[985] _Bruta animalia ratione uti_, cap. 9; also _Quaest. Nat._, cap.\n26, \u201cWhy certain brutes seek certain remedies.\u201d\n\n[986] _De solertia animalium._\n\n[987] _Ibid._, 36-37; also the closing chapters of _The Banquet of the\nSeven Sages_.\n\n[988] Cap. 31.\n\n[989] Cap. 25.\n\n[990] Cap. 12.\n\n[991] Cap. 10.\n\n[992] Cap. 29.\n\n[993] _Isis and Osiris_, 10.\n\n[994] VIII, 9, \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[995] _Nat. Quaest._, caps. 6, 14, 22, 24, 36.\n\n[996] _Symposiacs_, II, 9; IV, 2; III, 10; IV, 5.\n\n[997] _De facie in orbe lunae_, 9-10; also the opening chapters of _De\ndefectu oraculorum_.\n\n[998] Cap. 7.\n\n[999] Cap. 18.\n\n[1000] \u201cTam graece quam latine, gemino voto, pari studio, simili\nstudio.\u201d\n\n[1001] _Florida_, cap. 9.\n\n[1002] _Apologia_, cap. 4.\n\n[1003] Caps. 73 and 55.\n\n[1004] Caps. 55-56.\n\n[1005] Cap. 17.\n\n[1006] _Apologia_, cap. 70.\n\n[1007] Cap. 89.\n\n[1008] To Professor Butler (_Apulei Apologia_, ed. H. E. Butler and A.\nS. Owen, Oxford, 1914) this difficulty seems so insurmountable that he\nplaces the _Apology_ earlier. But for the reasons already given I agree\nwith the article on Apuleius in Pauly and Wissowa and its citations\nthat the _Metamorphoses_ is Apuleius\u2019s first work.\n\n[1009] The work opens with the statement that the author \u201cwill stitch\ntogether varied stories in the so-called Milesian manner,\u201d and that \u201cwe\nbegin with a Grecian story.\u201d\n\n[1010] I, 3.\n\n[1011] II, 1.\n\n[1012] I, 8.\n\n[1013] II, 5.\n\n[1014] III, 15. The wording of the translated passages throughout this\nchapter is mainly my own, but I have made some use of existing English\ntranslations.\n\n[1015] III, 16.\n\n[1016] I, 8.\n\n[1017] I, 9-10.\n\n[1018] I, 11-13.\n\n[1019] II, 22 and 25.\n\n[1020] II, 20 and 30; IX, 29.\n\n[1021] I, 11; II, 11.\n\n[1022] II, 20, 22; III, 18.\n\n[1023] Very similar practices are recounted by A. W. Howitt, _Native\nTribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 355-96; \u201cthe medicine-men of\nhostile tribes sneak into the camp in the night, and with a net of a\npeculiar construction garotte one of the tribe, drag him a hundred\nyards or so from the camp, cut up his abdomen obliquely, take out the\nkidney and caul-fat, and then stuff a handful of grass and sand into\nthe wound.\u201d\n\n[1024] VI, 26.\n\n[1025] II, 22.\n\n[1026] I, 10; VII, 14; IX, 23, 29.\n\n[1027] II, 28.\n\n[1028] II, 6; III, 19.\n\n[1029] III, 29.\n\n[1030] III, 17.\n\n[1031] III, 21.\n\n[1032] I, 10; II, 20-21.\n\n[1033] III, 16.\n\n[1034] II, 23-30.\n\n[1035] I, 13.\n\n[1036] II, 5. \u201cSurculis et lapillis et id genus frivolis inhalatis.\u201d\n\n[1037] III, 18.\n\n[1038] III, 21.\n\n[1039] III, 23.\n\n[1040] III, 25.\n\n[1041] II, 28.\n\n[1042] Examples are: I, 3, magico susurramine; II, 1, artis magicae\nnativa cantamina; II, 5, omnis carminis sepulchralis magistra creditur;\nII, 22, diris cantaminibus somno custodes obruunt; III, 18, tunc\ndecantatis spirantibus fibris; III, 21, multumque cum lucerna secreta\ncollocuta.\n\n[1043] I, 11, quo numinis ministerio.\n\n[1044] I, 8, saga, inquit, et divina; IX, 29, saga illa et divini\npotens.\n\n[1045] III, 19.\n\n[1046] II, 12-14.\n\n[1047] VIII, 26-27; IX, 8.\n\n[1048] I, 4.\n\n[1049] X, 11, 25.\n\n[1050] VIII, 24; XI, 22, 25.\n\n[1051] I, 5.\n\n[1052] II, 26.\n\n[1053] IX, 33-34.\n\n[1054] II, 11-12.\n\n[1055] X, 11. For bibliography on the mandragora see Frazer (1918) I,\n377 note 2 in his chapter \u201cJacob and the Mandrakes.\u201d\n\n[1056] VIII, 21.\n\n[1057] XI, 1.\n\n[1058] Macdonald (1909), p. 128.\n\n[1059] VIII, 9.\n\n[1060] Cap. 1.\n\n[1061] _Florida_, caps. 24-26.\n\n[1062] Caps. 61-63. The following passages from E. A. W. Budge,\n_Egyptian Magic_ (1899), perhaps furnish an explanation of the true\npurpose and character of Apuleius\u2019s wooden figure: p. 84, \u201cUnder\nthe heading of \u2018Magical Figures\u2019 must certainly be included the\nso-called Ptah-Seker-Ausar figure, which is usually made of wood;\nit is often solid, but is sometimes made hollow, and is usually let\ninto a rectangular wooden stand which may be either solid or hollow.\u201d\nTo get the protection of Ptah, Seker, and Osiris, says Budge at p.\n85, \u201ca figure was fashioned in such a way as to include the chief\ncharacteristics of the forms of these gods, and was inserted in a\nrectangular wooden stand which was intended to represent the coffin\nor chest out of which the trinity Ptah-Seker-Ausar came forth. On the\nfigure itself and on the sides of the stand were inscribed prayers....\u201d\nSuch a figure in a coffin might well be described by the accusers as\nthe horrible form of a ghost or skeleton.\n\n[1063] Cap. 31.\n\n[1064] Cap. 42.\n\n[1065] Cap. 43.\n\n[1066] Caps. 1-3.\n\n[1067] Cap. 2.\n\n[1068] Caps. 27 and 31. For the same thought applied in the case\nof medieval men see Gabriel Naud\u00e9, _Apologie pour tous les grands\npersonages qui out est\u00e9 faussement soup\u00e7onnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625.\n\n[1069] Cap. 25.\n\n[1070] Cap. 47.\n\n[1071] Cap. 25.\n\n[1072] Caps. 9, 42, 61, 63.\n\n[1073] Cap. 28.\n\n[1074] Cap. 48.\n\n[1075] Cap. 25.\n\n[1076] Cap. 26.\n\n[1077] Cap. 31.\n\n[1078] Cap. 6.\n\n[1079] Cap. 13.\n\n[1080] Caps. 30, 33.\n\n[1081] Cap. 61.\n\n[1082] Cap. 53.\n\n[1083] Cap. 58.\n\n[1084] Cap. 41.\n\n[1085] Nicander lived in the second century B.C. under Attalus III\nof Pergamum. Of his works there are extant the _Theriaca_ in 958\nhexameters and another poem, the _Alexipharmaca_, of 630 lines; ed.\nJ. G. Schneider, 1792 and 1816; by O. Schneider, 1856. There is an\nilluminated eleventh century manuscript of the _Theriaca_ in the\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris, which O. M. Dalton (_Byzantine Art and\nArchaeology_, p. 483) says \u201cis evidently a painstaking copy of a very\nearly original, perhaps almost contemporary with Nicander himself.\u201d\n\n[1086] Cap. 40.\n\n[1087] Caps. 49-51.\n\n[1088] Caps. 15-16.\n\n[1089] Cap. 40.\n\n[1090] Cap. 36.\n\n[1091] Cap. 8.\n\n[1092] Cap. 85.\n\n[1093] Cap. 38.\n\n[1094] Cap. 45.\n\n[1095] Cap. 51.\n\n[1096] Caps. 30, 42.\n\n[1097] Cap. 40.\n\n[1098] P. 98.\n\n[1099] Cap. 35.\n\n[1100] So Abt has pointed out: _Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura\nund die antike Zauberei_, Giessen, 1908, p. 224.\n\n[1101] Caps. 42-43.\n\n[1102] Cap. 38.\n\n[1103] Cap. 90.\n\n[1104] Cap. 97.\n\n[1105] Cap. 84.\n\n[1106] _De mundo_, cap. 1; _De deo Socratis_, cap. 4.\n\n[1107] _De mens._, IV., 7, 73; _De ostent._, 3, 4, 7, 10, 44, 54.\n\n[1108] Cap. 43.\n\n[1109] Cap. 6.\n\n[1110] _De deo Socratis_, cap. 8.\n\n[1111] _Hist. Anim._, V, 19.\n\n[1112] _De deo Socratis_, cap. 13.\n\n[1113] _Ibid._, caps. 9-10.\n\n[1114] XVIII, 18.\n\n[1115] VIII, 14-22.\n\n[1116] Epistles 102, 136, 138, in Migne, PL, vol. 33.\n\n[1117] _Divin. Instit._, V, 3.\n\n[1118] Codex Laurentianus, plut. 68, 2. The same MS contains the\n_Histories_ and _Annals_ (XI-XVI) of Tacitus. A subscription to\nthe ninth book of the _Metamorphoses_ indicates that the original\nmanuscript from which this was derived or copied was produced in 395\nA.\u202fD. and 397 A.\u202fD. G. Huet, \u201cLe roman d\u2019Apul\u00e9e \u00e9tait-il connu au moyen\n\u00e2ge,\u201d _Le Moyen Age_ (1917), 44-52, holds that the _Metamorphoses_\nwas not known directly to the medieval vernacular romancers. See also\nB. Stumfall, _Das M\u00e4rchen von Amor und Psyche in Seinem Fortleben_,\nLeipzig, 1907.\n\n[1119] CLM 621.\n\n[1120] Harleian 3969.\n\n[1121] VII, 5.\n\n[1122] Ep. 136.\n\n[1123] _Divin. Instit._, V, 2-3.\n\n[1124] Concerning other writers named Philostratus and which works\nshould be assigned to each, see Schmid (1913) 608-20.\n\n[1125] See article on Apollonius of Tyana in Pauly-Wissowa. Priaulx,\n_The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana_, London, 1873, p. 62, found\nthe geography of Apollonius\u2019s Indian travels so erroneous that he came\nto the conclusion that either Apollonius never visited India, or, if\nhe did, that Damis \u201cnever accompanied him but fabricated the journal\nPhilostratus speaks of.\u201d\n\n[1126] Priaulx, however, regarded its statements concerning India\nas such as might have been \u201ceasily collected at that great mart for\nIndian commodities and resort for Indian merchants\u2014Alexandria,\u201d or from\nearlier authors.\n\n[1127] III, 23, 35; IV, 9, 32; V, 20; VI, 12, 16; VII, 10, 12, 15-16.\n\n[1128] See the treatise of Eusebius _Against Apollonius_. Lactantius\n(_Divin. Inst._, V, 2-3) probably had reference to Hierocles in\nspeaking of a philosopher who had written three books against\nChristianity and declared the miracles of Apollonius as wonderful as\nthose of Christ.\n\n[1129] So Origen says (_Against Celsus_, VI, 41) and Philostratus\nimplies (I, 3).\n\n[1130] See the _Against Apollonius_, caps. 31, 35.\n\n[1131] \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, cap. 5. In the passage quoted I have\nused Fowler\u2019s translation.\n\n[1132] In other respects, however, I have usually found this\ntranslation, which accompanies the Greek text in the recent Loeb\nClassical Library edition, both racy and accurate, and have employed it\nin a number of the quotations which follow.\n\n[1133] I, 32.\n\n[1134] I, 29.\n\n[1135] I, 26.\n\n[1136] I, 40.\n\n[1137] V, 12.\n\n[1138] VII, 39.\n\n[1139] V, 12.\n\n[1140] IV, 18.\n\n[1141] VIII, 19.\n\n[1142] VIII, 30.\n\n[1143] VIII, 7.\n\n[1144] VII, 20.\n\n[1145] VII, 34.\n\n[1146] VII, 39.\n\n[1147] VI, 11; III, 43.\n\n[1148] VI, 41.\n\n[1149] I, 2.\n\n[1150] V, 12.\n\n[1151] VI, 11.\n\n[1152] J. E. Harrison, _Themis_, Cambridge, 1912, p. 72. \u201cThe Buddha\nhimself condemned as worthless the whole system of Vedic sacrifices,\nincluding in his ban astrology, divination, spells, omens, and\nwitchcraft; but in the earliest Buddhist stupas known to us, the\nsymbolism is entirely borrowed from the sacrificial lore of the Vedas:\u201d\nE. B. Havell, _A Handbook of Indian Art_, 1920, p. 6, and see p. 32 for\nthe birth of Buddha under the sign Taurus.\n\n[1153] VI, 10.\n\n[1154] III, 12.\n\n[1155] III, 16.\n\n[1156] III, 13.\n\n[1157] III, 12. But perhaps the translation should be, \u201cmen who are\nexceedingly wise.\u201d\n\n[1158] III, 15.\n\n[1159] III, 46-47.\n\n[1160] III, 17.\n\n[1161] III, 27.\n\n[1162] III, 38-40.\n\n[1163] III, 44.\n\n[1164] III, 41.\n\n[1165] III, 21.\n\n[1166] III, 41.\n\n[1167] V, 37.\n\n[1168] V, 37.\n\n[1169] III, 34.\n\n[1170] III, 37.\n\n[1171] VI, 38.\n\n[1172] III, 34.\n\n[1173] V, 17.\n\n[1174] I, 22.\n\n[1175] NH, VIII, 17; _Hist. Anim._, VI, 31.\n\n[1176] VI, 37.\n\n[1177] The ancient authorities, pro and con, will be found listed in\nD. W. Thompson, _Glossary of Greek Birds_, 106-107. He adds: \u201cModern\nnaturalists accept the story of the singing swans, asserting that\nthough the common swan cannot sing, yet the Whooper or whistling swan\ndoes so. It is certain that the Whooper sings, for many ornithologists\nstate the fact, but I do not think that it can sing very well; at\nthe very best, _dant sonitum rauci per stagna loquacia cygni_. This\nconcrete explanation is quite inadequate; it is beyond a doubt that the\nswan\u2019s song (like the halcyon\u2019s) veiled, and still hides, some mystical\nallusion.\u201d\n\n[1178] II, 14.\n\n[1179] I, 22. Pliny, NH, VIII, 17, repeats a slightly different popular\nnotion that the lioness tears her womb with her claws and so can bear\nbut once; against this view he cites Aristotle\u2019s statement that the\nlioness bears five times, as described above.\n\n[1180] III, 2.\n\n[1181] III, 47; VI, 25. Scylax was a Persian admiral under Darius who\ntraveled to India and wrote an account of his voyages. The work extant\nunder his name is of doubtful authorship (Isaac Vossius, _Periplus\nScylacis Caryandensis_, 1639), but some date it as early as the fourth\ncentury B.C.\n\n[1182] II, 11-16.\n\n[1183] II, 2; III, 4.\n\n[1184] II, 28.\n\n[1185] III, 1. Greek fire?\n\n[1186] III, 48-9.\n\n[1187] III, 6; II, 17.\n\n[1188] III, 7.\n\n[1189] NH, VIII, 11.\n\n[1190] III, 8.\n\n[1191] III, 9.\n\n[1192] III, 7.\n\n[1193] III, 8.\n\n[1194] II, 14.\n\n[1195] II, 40.\n\n[1196] III, 27.\n\n[1197] III, 21.\n\n[1198] III, 1.\n\n[1199] VIII, 7.\n\n[1200] III, 30.\n\n[1201] III, 42.\n\n[1202] VIII, 7.\n\n[1203] IV, 44.\n\n[1204] VIII, 7.\n\n[1205] VIII, 7.\n\n[1206] VIII, 26; VI, 43. The historian, Dio Cassius, a contemporary of\nPhilostratus, also states that Apollonius announced the assassination\nof Domitian and even named the assassin in Ephesus on the very day\nthat the event occurred at Rome. His account differs too much from\nthat by Philostratus to have been copied from it. He concludes it with\nthe positive assertion, \u201cThis is really what took place, though there\nshould be ten thousand doubters.\u201d (LXVII, 18.)\n\n[1207] III, 42.\n\n[1208] VI, 11.\n\n[1209] I, 23.\n\n[1210] IV, 34.\n\n[1211] VIII, 7.\n\n[1212] IV, 37.\n\n[1213] I, 22.\n\n[1214] V, 13.\n\n[1215] VIII, 7.\n\n[1216] I, 20.\n\n[1217] I, 31.\n\n[1218] V, 25.\n\n[1219] IV, 4.\n\n[1220] IV, 24.\n\n[1221] IV, 43.\n\n[1222] V, 18.\n\n[1223] VII, 18.\n\n[1224] IV, 10.\n\n[1225] VIII, 7.\n\n[1226] IV, 44.\n\n[1227] II, 4.\n\n[1228] VI, 27.\n\n[1229] IV, 20.\n\n[1230] IV, 25.\n\n[1231] I, 4.\n\n[1232] I, 19.\n\n[1233] Epist. 50.\n\n[1234] VII, 32.\n\n[1235] VI, 27.\n\n[1236] IV, 11, 15-16.\n\n[1237] VI, 43.\n\n[1238] IV, 45.\n\n[1239] IV, 44.\n\n[1240] VIII, 8.\n\n[1241] VII, 38.\n\n[1242] VIII, 30.\n\n[1243] The passages are not listed in Liddell and Scott, nor mentioned\nby Professor Bury in his note on \u201cThe \u1f34\u03c5\u03b3\u03be in Greek Magic,\u201d _Journal of\nHellenic Studies_ (1886), pp. 157-60. Hubert\u2019s article on \u201cMagia\u201d in\nDaremberg-Saglio cites only one passage and seems to regard the _iunx_\nsolely as a magic wheel. D\u2019Arcy W. Thompson, _A Glossary of Greek\nBirds_, Oxford, 1895, also cites but one passage from Philostratus. A.\nB. Cook, _Zeus_, Cambridge, 1914, I, 253-65, notes both main passages\nbut tries to interpret the _iunges_ as solar wheels rather than birds.\nBut the _iunx_ is found as a bird on several Greek vases of the latest\nperiod; see _British Museum Catalogue of Vases_, vol. IV, figs. 94, 98,\n342, 163, 331b; magic wheels are also represented on the vases, but are\nnot described as _iunges_ in the catalogue; see vol. IV, figs. 331a,\n373, 385, 399, 409, 436, 450, 458, and vol. III, E 774, F 223, F 279.\n\n[1244] VI, 10; see also VIII, 7.\n\n[1245] I, 25.\n\n[1246] VI, 11.\n\n[1247] Cited by Cook, _Zeus_, I, 266, who, however, fails to connect it\nwith the _iunx_.\n\n[1248] Newton\u2019s _Dictionary of Birds_; a reference supplied me by the\nkindness of my colleague, Professor F. H. Herrick.\n\n[1249] Professor Bury\u2019s theory that \u201cthe bird was called \u1f34\u03c5\u03b3\u03be from its\ncall which sounded like \u1f30\u03ce \u1f30\u03ce; and it was used in lunar enchantments\nbecause it was supposed to be calling on Io, the moon\u201d: and that \u201c\u1f34\u03c5\u03b3\u03be\noriginally meant a moon-song independently of the wryneck,\u201d which came\nto be employed in magic moon-worship on account of its cry, has already\nbeen refuted by Professor Thompson, who pointed out that \u201cthe bird does\nnot cry \u1f30\u03ce,, \u1f30\u03ce, and the suggested derivation of its name and sanctity\nfrom such a cry cannot hold.\u201d\n\n[1250] See Chapter 49 for a fuller account of it.\n\n[1251] See Chapter 71.\n\n[1252] Math. 54, Liber Appollonii magi vel philosophi qui dicitur\nElizinus.\n\n[1253] BN 13951, 12th century, Liber Apollonii de principalibus\nrerum causis. Vienna 3124, 15th century, fols. 57v-58v, \u201cVerba de\nproprietatibus rerum quomodo virtus unius frangitur per alium. Adamas\nnec ferro nec igne domatur .../ ... cito medetur.\u201d\n\n[1254] Royal 12-C-XVIII, Baleni de imaginibus; Sloane 3826, fols.\n100v-101, Beleemus de imaginibus; Sloane 3848, fols. 52-8, Liber\nBalamini sapientis de sigillis planetarum, fols. 59-62, liber sapientis\nBaleym de ymaginibus septem planetarum. But these forms might suggest\nBalaam. We also hear of Flacius Affricus, a disciple of Belenus.\n\n[1255] M. Steinschneider, \u201cApollonius von Thyana (oder Balinas) bei den\nArabern,\u201d in _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_,\nXLV (1891), 439-46.\n\n[1256] T. Schiche, _De fontibus librorum Ciceronis qui sunt de\ndivinatione_, Jena, 1875; K. Hartfelder, _Die Quellen von Ciceros zwei\nB\u00fcchern de Divinatione_, Freiburg, 1878.\n\n[1257] Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticae_, XIV, I.\n\n[1258] _Adv. astrol._, in _Opera_, ed. Johannes Albertus Fabricius,\nLeipzig, 1718.\n\n[1259] _De divinatione_, I, 39.\n\n[1260] _Ibid._, I, 58.\n\n[1261] _Ibid._, II, 11.\n\n[1262] _Ibid._, II, 33.\n\n[1263] _Ibid._, II, 36.\n\n[1264] I, 50.\n\n[1265] II, 3-4.\n\n[1266] II, 5. \u201cQuae enim praesentiri aut arte aut ratione aut usu aut\nconiectura possunt, ea non divinis tribuenda putas sed peritis.\u201d\n\n[1267] II, 30.\n\n[1268] II, 12. An astrologer, however, would probably say that seeming\ncontradiction could be accounted for by the varying influence of the\nconstellations upon different regions.\n\n[1269] II, 12.\n\n[1270] II, 19. \u201cQuid igitur minus a physicis dici debet quam quidquam\ncerti significari rebus incertis?\u201d\n\n[1271] II, 60-71.\n\n[1272] II, 54.\n\n[1273] II, 16.\n\n[1274] II, 42-47.\n\n[1275] NH, VII, 21.\n\n[1276] _Republic_, II, 10.\n\n[1277] _Ibid._, II, 15.\n\n[1278] _Ibid._, II, 18.\n\n[1279] _Apologia pro mercede conductis._ Most of Lucian\u2019s Essays have\nbeen translated into English by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, 1905, 4\nvols.\n\n[1280] _De defectu oraculorum_, 45.\n\n[1281] Fowler\u2019s translation.\n\n[1282] Fowler omits it. It appears in the Teubner edition, _Luciani\nSamosatensis opera_, ed. C. Jacobitz, II (1887), 187-95, but both\nJacobitz and Dindorf mark it as spurious. Croiset, _Essai sur la vie et\nles \u0153uvres de Lucien_, Paris, 1882, p. 43, also rejects it.\n\n[1283] See the interesting paper of J. D. Rolleston, \u201cLucian and\nMedicine,\u201d 1915, 23 pp., reprinted from _Proceedings of the Royal\nSociety of Medicine_, VIII, 49-58, 72-84.\n\n[1284] See the close of _Nigrinus_.\n\n[1285] _Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt_, XXI, i, 14.\n\n[1286] The wording of these excerpts is that of Fowler\u2019s translation.\n\n[1287] See Sackur, _Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen_, Halle, 1898;\nAlexandre, _Oracula Sibyllina_, 2nd ed., Paris, 1869; Charles (1913)\nII, 368 ff.\n\n[1288] Besides the works to be cited later in this chapter, the reader\nmay consult: A. Dieterich, _Abraxas_ (_Studien z. relig. gesch. d.\nsp\u00e4t. alt._), Leipzig, 1891, especially chapter II (pp. 136ff.),\n\u201cJ\u00fcdisch-orphisch-gnostiche Kulte und die Zauberb\u00fccher\u201d; and G. A.\nLobeck, _Aglaophamus_, 1829, 2 vols.\n\n[1289] Steinschneider (1906), 24. He mentions the dissertation of R.\nPietschmann, _Hermes Trismegistus_, Leipzig, 1875.\n\n[1290] See Galen, citing Pamphilus, K\u00fchn, XI, 798.\n\n[1291] XXI, 14, 15.\n\n[1292] VI, 4.\n\n[1293] I, 1; VIII, 1-4.\n\n[1294] VIII, 1.\n\n[1295] VIII, 2.\n\n[1296] VIII, 4.\n\n[1297] I, 1.\n\n[1298] R. Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, Leipzig, 1904, p. 319. This work\nis the fullest scientific treatment of the subject.\n\n[1299] Citations supporting this and the preceding sentences may be\nfound in Kroll\u2019s article on Hermes Trismegistus in Pauly-Wissowa,\n809-820. The _Poimandres_ was translated into English by John Everard,\nD.D., a mystic but also a popular preacher whose outspoken sermons\ncaused his frequent arrest and imprisonment during the reigns of James\nI and Charles I. James is reported to have said of him, \u201cWhat is this\nDr. Ever-out? His name shall be Dr. Never-out,\u201d (_Dict. Nat. Biog._).\nDr. Everard\u2019s translation was printed in 1650 and again in 1657 when\nthe \u201cAsclepius\u201d was added to it. In 1884 it appeared again in the\nBath Occult Reprint Series with an introduction by Hargrave Jennings,\nand the second volume in the same series was Hermes\u2019 _The Virgin of\nthe World_, published at London. Kroll mentions only the more recent\ntranslation by Mead, _Thrice Greatest Hermes_. London, 1906.\n\n[1300] Consult the bibliography in Kroll\u2019s article in Pauly-Wissowa.\n\n[1301] See the various volumes of _Catalogus codicum astrologorum\nGraecorum_, _passim_.\n\n[1302] Unprinted.\n\n[1303] An English translation by John Harvey was printed in London,\n1657, 12mo. It also exists in manuscript form in the British Museum;\nSloane 1734, fols. 283-98, \u201cThe learned work of Hermes Trismegistus\nintituled hys Phisicke Mathematycke or Mathematicall Physickes, direct\nto Hammon Kinge of Egypte.\u201d\n\n[1304] _Orphica_, ed. Abel (1885), p. 141.\n\n[1305] It was to a work on this last subject that Pamphilus, cited by\nGalen, referred in mentioning the herb \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, but this plant is not\nnamed in the extant treatise on the decans. Such treatises are more or\nless addressed to Asclepius: printed in J. B. Pitra, _Analecta Sacra_,\nV, ii, 279-90; _Cat. cod. astrol. Graec._, IV, 134; VI, 83; VII, 231;\nVIII, ii, 159; VIII, iii, 151; and by Ruelle, _Rev. Phil._, XXXII, 247.\n\n[1306] Berthelot (1885), pp. 133-6, and his article on Hermes\nTrismegistus in _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_; also Kroll on Hermes in\nPauly-Wissowa, 799.\n\n[1307] Berthelot (1885), p. 134.\n\n[1308] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, 1899, pp. xi, 519-20,\n563-4.\n\n[1309] NH, II, 21; VII, 50.\n\n[1310] K\u00fchn, XII, 207.\n\n[1311] They have been collected and edited by E. Riess, _Nechepsonis et\nPetosiridis fragmenta magica_, in _Philologus_, Supplbd. VI, G\u00f6ttingen\n(1891-93), pp. 323-394. See also F. Boll, _Die Erforschung der antiken\nAstrologie_, in _Neue Jahrb. f\u00fcr das klass. Altert._, XI (1908),\np. 106, and his dissertation of the same title published at Bonn,\n1890. I have found that Riess, while including some of the passages\nattributed to Nechepso by the sixth century medical writer, Aetius,\nseems to have overlooked the \u201cEmplastrum Nechepsonis e cupresso,\u201d\nAetius, _Tetrabibl._, IV, Sermo III, cap. 19 (p. 771 in the edition of\nStephanus, 1567).\n\n[1312] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, 1898, p. xiii. Axt and\nRiegler, _Manethonis Apotelesmaticorum libri sex_, Cologne, 1832. Also\nedited by Koechly.\n\n[1313] E. Riess, On Ancient Superstition, in _Transactions American\nPhilological Association_ (1895), XXVI, 40-55. Grenfell (1921), p. 151,\nannounces that J. G. Smyly is about to publish \u201ca remarkable fragment\nof an Orphic ritual\u201d among some thirty papyrus texts in the _Cunningham\nMemoirs of the Royal Irish Academy_.\n\n[1314] The Greek text of the Lithica is contained in _Orphica_, ed.\nE. Abel, Lipsiae et Pragae, 1885. A rather too free English verse\ntranslation, _Orpheus on Gems_, is given in C. W. King, _The Natural\nHistory, Ancient and Modern, of Precious Stones and Gems and of\nPrecious Metals_, London, 1865.\n\n[1315] Pp. 397-98.\n\n[1316] Line 94, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9; line 165, \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ce\u03c2.\n\n[1317] Lines 410-411.\n\n[1318] _Confessio S. Cypriani_, in _Acta Sanctorum_, ed. Bollandists,\nSept., VII, 222; L. Preller, _Philologus_ (1846), I, 349ff.; cited by\nA. B. Cook, _Zeus_, Cambridge, 1914, I, 110-111. The work is treated\nmore fully below in Chapter 18.\n\n[1319] Franz Cumont, _op. cit._, Chicago, 1911, p. 189. See also\nWindischmann, _Zoroastrische Studien_, Berlin, 1863.\n\n[1320] See below, Chapter 26.\n\n[1321] Cap. 16.\n\n[1322] Edited by Kroll, _De oraculis Chaldaicis_, in _Breslau Philolog.\nAbhandl._, VII (1894), 1-76. Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, London, 1832.\n\n[1323] L. A. Gray in A. V. W. Jackson, _Zoroaster_, 1901, pp. 259-60.\n\n[1324] G. Wolff, _Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis hauriendis_,\nBerlin, 1886. Pitra, _Analecta Sacra_, V, 2, pp. 192-95, \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Many quotations of oracles from Porphyry\u2019s\n_De philosophia ex oraculis hausta_ are made by Eusebius, _Praeparatio\nevangelica_, in PG, XXI.\n\n[1325] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, p. 599.\n\n[1326] Paul Allard, _La transformation du Paganisme romain au IVe\nsi\u00e8cle_, pp. 113-33, in _Compte Rendu du Congr\u00e8s Scientifique\nInternational des Catholiques. Deuxi\u00e8me Section, Sciences religieuses_.\nParis, 1891.\n\n[1327] _Plotini opera omnia, Porphyrii liber de vita Plotini, cum\nMarsilii Ficini commentariis_ ... ed D. Wyttenbach, G. H. Moser, and\nF. Creuzer, Oxford, 1835, 3 vols. Page references in my citations are\nto this edition, but I have also employed: _Plotini Enneades_, ed. R.\nVolkmann, Leipzig, 1883; _Select Works of Plotinus translated from\nthe Greek with an Introduction containing the substance of Porphyry\u2019s\nLife of Plotinus_, by Thomas Taylor, new edition with preface and\nbibliography by G. R. S. Mead, London, 1909; K. S. Guthrie, _The\nPhilosophy of Plotinus_, Philadelphia, 1896, and _Plotinos, Complete\nWorks_, 4 vols., 1918, English Translation. Where my citations give the\nnumber of the chapter in addition to the _Ennead_ and Book, these agree\nwith Volkmann\u2019s text and Guthrie\u2019s translation,\u2014which, however, are not\nquite identical in this respect. A noteworthy recent publication is W.\nR. Inge, _The Philosophy of Plotinus_, 1918, 2 vols.\n\n[1328] H. F. M\u00fcller, _Plotinische Studien II_, in _Hermes_, XLIX,\n70-89, argues that the philosophy of Plotinus was genuinely Hellenic\nand free from oriental influence, that all theurgy was hateful to\nhim, and that he opposed Gnosticism and astrology. M\u00fcller seems to me\nto overstate his case and to be too ready to exculpate Plotinus, or\nperhaps rather Hellenism, from concurrence in the superstition of the\ntime.\n\n[1329] For Gnosticism see Chapter 15.\n\n[1330] _Ennead_, II, 9, 14. \u03a0\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0393\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, ed. G.\nA. Heigl, 1832; and _Plotini De Virtutibus et Adversus Gnosticos\nlibellos_, ed. A. Kirchhoff, 1847; are simply extracts from the\n_Enneads_. See also C. Schmidt, _Plotin\u2019s Stellung zum Gnosticismus u.\nkirchl. Christentum_, 1900; in TU, X, 90 pp.\n\n[1331] _Ennead_, IV, 4, 40 (II, 805 or 434). \u03a4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2; \u1f22\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f13\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. _Ibid._ 42 (II, 808 or 436) ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f20\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n_Ennead_, IV, 9 (II, 891 or 479). Greek: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2.\n\n[1332] _Ennead_, IV, 4 (II, 810 or 437).\n\n[1333] _Ennead_, IV, 4, 43-44.\n\n[1334] _Ennead_, IV, 4, 44.\n\n[1335] See Chapter XII, pp. 323-4.\n\n[1336] _Vita Plotini_, cap. 10.\n\n[1337] _Vita_, cap. 10.\n\n[1338] Cap. 10.\n\n[1339] A748.\n\n[1340] Shown in the article on \u201cJewelry\u201d in the eleventh edition of\nthe _Encyclopedia Britannica_, Plate I, Figure 50. The article says\nof the pendant, \u201cHere we find the themes of archaic Greek art, such\nas a figure holding up two water-birds, in immediate connexion with\nMycenaean gold patterns.\u201d See further A. J. Evans in _Journal of\nHellenic Studies_, 1893, p. 197.\n\n[1341] J. E. Harrison, _Themis_, Cambridge, 1912. p. 114, Fig. 20.\n\n[1342] _Vita_, cap. 15. It will be noted that like some of the church\nfathers Plotinus attacked genethlialogy rather than astrology.\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f64\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n[1343] _Ennead_ II, 3, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1. Porphyry arranged\nhis master\u2019s treatises in the form of six enneads of nine each and\nperhaps somewhat revised them at the same time.\n\n[1344] _Matheseos libri VIII_, ed. Kroll et Skutsch, Lipsiae, 1897. I,\n7, 14-22.\n\n[1345] See below, pp. 353-4.\n\n[1346] _Ennead_ II, 3 (p. 242), \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. See also _Ennead_ III, 1,\nand IV, 3-4.\n\n[1347] I, 18.\n\n[1348] Cap. 19.\n\n[1349] _Polycraticus_, II, 19, (ed. C. C. I. Webb, 1909, I, 112). Mr.\nWebb (I, xxviii) holds that John of Salisbury \u201ccertainly did not have\nPlotinus,\u201d and derived some passages from his works through Macrobius\nand Augustine; but he is unable to state in what intermediate source\nJohn could have found the passage now in question. It does not seem to\nreflect Plotinus\u2019 doctrine very accurately.\n\n[1350] _Ennead_ IV, iv, 6 and 8.\n\n[1351] _Ibid._, 30. Guthrie\u2019s translation, \u201cWe have shown that memory\nis useless to the stars: we have agreed that they have senses, namely,\nsight and hearing,\u201d is quite misleading, as caps. 40-42 make evident.\n\n[1352] _Ennead_ II, iii, 6 and 13 (249-50).\n\n[1353] _Ennead_ IV, iv, 31. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u1fc7\n\u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1354] _Idem._ Guthrie heads the passage, \u201cAbsurdity of Ptolemean\nAstrology.\u201d See also _Ennead_, II, iii, 1-5.\n\n[1355] _Ennead_ II, iii, 6.\n\n[1356] _Ennead_ II, iii, 4.\n\n[1357] Guthrie\u2019s translation, _Ennead_ IV, iv, 35. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc7\u03b4\u03b5, \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1358] _Idem._ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03af, \u1f03\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70 \u1f22 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1359] _Ennead_ IV, iv, 34. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1360] _Ennead_ II, iii (p. 256).\n\n[1361] _Ibid._ (pp. 250-1).\n\n[1362] _Ibid._, II, iii (pp. 243-6, 254-5, 263-5).\n\n[1363] _Ennead_, II, ix, 13. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1364] The references for the statements in this paragraph are in the\norder of their occurrence: _Ennead_, II, iii (pp. 257, 251-2); III, iv\n(p. 521); IV, iv (p. 813); II, iii (p. 260); III, iv (p. 520); IV, 3\n(p. 711): in these cases the higher page-numbering is used.\n\n[1365] Edited Venice, Aldine Press, 1497 and 1516; Oxford, 1678; by\nG. Parthey, Berlin, 1857. In the following quotations from it I have\nusually adhered to T. Taylor\u2019s English translation, London, 1821.\n\n[1366] Carl Rasche, _De Iamblicho libri qui inscribitur de mysteriis\nauctore_, Aschendorff, 1911, 82 pp.\n\n[1367] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_ (1898), p. 599, citing\nKroll, _De oraculis Chaldaicis_.\n\n[1368] _De mysteriis_, I, 5.\n\n[1369] VIII, 2.\n\n[1370] I, 9.\n\n[1371] I, 17 (Taylor\u2019s translation).\n\n[1372] IV, 6.\n\n[1373] I, 10.\n\n[1374] V, 10-12.\n\n[1375] I, 20.\n\n[1376] II, 6.\n\n[1377] II, 7.\n\n[1378] IV, 1.\n\n[1379] IV, 2.\n\n[1380] IV, 10.\n\n[1381] II, 11.\n\n[1382] II, 3.\n\n[1383] V, 20.\n\n[1384] I, 9; VI, 6; II, 11.\n\n[1385] I, 11.\n\n[1386] V, 23.\n\n[1387] IV, 2.\n\n[1388] I, 12.\n\n[1389] I, 15; III, 24 (Taylor\u2019s translation).\n\n[1390] VII, 4.\n\n[1391] VII, 5.\n\n[1392] III, 29.\n\n[1393] II, 10.\n\n[1394] IV, 10.\n\n[1395] IV, 12.\n\n[1396] IV, 3.\n\n[1397] IV, 10; III, 31.\n\n[1398] IV, 7.\n\n[1399] II, 10.\n\n[1400] VI, 5; III, 25; III, 13.\n\n[1401] II, 10.\n\n[1402] E. S. Bouchier, _Syria as a Roman Province_, Oxford, 1916, p.\n231.\n\n[1403] _De abstinentia_, II, 48.\n\n[1404] III, 1, 10.\n\n[1405] III, 2-3.\n\n[1406] III, 11.\n\n[1407] III, 24; III, 17.\n\n[1408] III, 14.\n\n[1409] III, 25. Although, as stated above, one may be divinely inspired\nwhile diseased. But there is no causal connection between the two.\n\n[1410] III, 26.\n\n[1411] III, 15.\n\n[1412] I, 17.\n\n[1413] VIII, 4.\n\n[1414] VIII, 6.\n\n[1415] IX, 3-4.\n\n[1416] I, 18.\n\n[1417] Iamblichus, _In Nicomachi Geraseni arithmeticam introductionem\net De fato_, published by Tennulius, Deventer and Arnheim, 1668.\n\n[1418] Zeller, _Philos. d. Gr._, III, 2, 2, p. 608. cites passages\nto show Porphyry\u2019s leanings towards astrology; but F. Boll, _Studien\n\u00fcber Claudius Ptolemaeus_, 115-17, and Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie\ngrecque_, 601-602, are inclined to the opposite view.\n\n[1419] CCAG, _passim_.\n\n[1420] Ed. Hieronymus Wolf, Basel, 1559, Greek and Latin.\n\n[1421] III, 28.\n\n[1422] III, 29.\n\n[1423] Eusebius, _Praep. evang._, IV, 6-15, 23; V, 6, 11, 14-15; VI, 1,\n4-5; etc., in Migne, PG, XXI.\n\n[1424] Loeb Library edition of Julian\u2019s works, I, 398, 412, 433.\n\n[1425] I, 482, 498.\n\n[1426] I, 405.\n\n[1427] I, 374-75.\n\n[1428] I, 366-67.\n\n[1429] I, 368.\n\n[1430] I, 419.\n\n[1431] XXII, xii, 8.\n\n[1432] XXI, i, 7.\n\n[1433] XXVIII, iv, 24.\n\n[1434] XXII, xvi, 17-18.\n\n[1435] Published at Venice (Aldine), 1497, along with the _De\nmysteriis_, and other works edited or composed by Marsilius Ficinus.\nSee also _Procli Opera_, ed. Cousin, Paris, 1820-1827, III, 278; and\nKroll, _Analecta Graeca_, Greisswald, 1901, where a Greek translation\naccompanies the Latin text.\n\n[1436] _Eusebii Caesariensis Opera_, _Pars II_, _Apologetica_, _Praep.\nEvang._, IV, 22; V, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14; VI, 1, 4; XIV, 10 (Migne,\n_Patrologia Graeca_, vol. 21).\n\n[1437] X, 9-10.\n\n[1438] Berthelot (1889), p. ix.\n\n[1439] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b6\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. I have used both the _editio princeps_ by\nGesner, Zurich, 1556, and the critical edition by R. Hercher, Paris,\n1858, and Teubner, 1864. The work will henceforth be cited without\ntitle in the notes.\n\n[1440] See PW, and Christ, _Gesch. d. griech. Litt._, for further\ndetails.\n\n[1441] I, 22.\n\n[1442] I, 24.\n\n[1443] I, 35. D. W. Thompson, _Glossary of Greek Birds_, p. 57, notes\nthat in the _Birds_ of Aristophanes, where the hoopoe appears, \u201cthe\nmysterious root in verse 654 is the magical \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d\n\n[1444] I, 48.\n\n[1445] I, 52.\n\n[1446] I, 54.\n\n[1447] II, 2 and 31; III, 5.\n\n[1448] III, 17.\n\n[1449] III, 23 and 25.\n\n[1450] III, 26; in I, 45, the woodpecker similarly employs the virtue\nof an herb to remove a stone blocking the entrance to its nest.\n\n[1451] III, 32 and 38.\n\n[1452] IV, 10, 14, 17.\n\n[1453] IV, 27.\n\n[1454] IV, 29.\n\n[1455] IV, 53.\n\n[1456] V, 37.\n\n[1457] VI, 4.\n\n[1458] VI, 16.\n\n[1459] VI, 33.\n\n[1460] VI, 41.\n\n[1461] VI, 59.\n\n[1462] VII, 7-8.\n\n[1463] VII, 14.\n\n[1464] VII, 16. The story is also found in Pliny NH, X, 3, where it is\nadded that Aeschylus remained out-doors that day, because an oracle\npredicted that he would be killed by the fall of a (tortoise\u2019s) house.\n\n[1465] VIII, 5.\n\n[1466] VIII, 22.\n\n[1467] IX, 1.\n\n[1468] X, 40.\n\n[1469] XI, 2 and 16.\n\n[1470] XII, 21.\n\n[1471] XIII, 3.\n\n[1472] XIV, 19.\n\n[1473] _C. Iulii Solini Collectanea rerum memorabilium iterum\nrecensuit_ Th. Mommsen, Berlin, 1895, pp. xxxi-li. Beazley, _Dawn of\nModern Geography_, I, 520-2, lists 152 MSS.\n\n[1474] Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, I, 247.\n\n[1475] Mommsen (1895), p. 48.\n\n[1476] _Ibid._, p. 7.\n\n[1477] Yet one medieval MS of Solinus is described as _De variarum\nherbarum et radicum qualitate et virtute medica_; Vienna 3959, 15th\ncentury, fols. 56-74.\n\n[1478] In Mommsen\u2019s edition critical apparatus occupies more than\none-half of the 216 pages.\n\n[1479] C. W. King, _The Natural History, Ancient and Modern, of\nPrecious Stones and Gems_, London, 1865, p. 6.\n\n[1480] Mommsen (1895), pp. 132, 188.\n\n[1481] _Ibid._, 46-7. Mommsen could give no source for these statements\nconcerning Sardinia, and they do not appear to be in Pliny. But it is\nfrom a footnote in the English translation of the _Natural History_ by\nBostock and Riley (II, 208, citing Dalechamps, and Lemaire, III, 201)\nthat I learn that the laughter which Pliny (NH, VII, 52) speaks of as a\npremonitory sign of death in cases of madness, \u201cis not the indication\nof mirth, but what has been termed the _risus Sardonicus_, the\n\u2018Sardonic laugh,\u2019 produced by a convulsive action of the muscles of the\nface.\u201d This form of death may be what Solinus has in mind. Agricola in\nhis work on metallurgy and mines still believes in the poisonous ants\nof Sardinia; _De re metallica_, VI, near close, pp. 216-7, in Hoover\u2019s\ntranslation, 1912.\n\n[1482] Mommsen (1895), p. 57.\n\n[1483] _Ibid._, p. 39.\n\n[1484] Mommsen (1895), p. 82.\n\n[1485] _Ibid._, pp. 45-46.\n\n[1486] _Ibid._, pp. 13, 68.\n\n[1487] _Ibid._, pp. 18, 41, 159.\n\n[1488] _Ibid._, p. 50, and elsewhere, \u201csiderum disciplinam.\u201d\n\n[1489] _Ibid._, p. 5, \u201cmathematicorum nobilissimus.\u201d Solinus probably\ntakes this from Varro, who, as Plutarch informs us in his _Life\nof Romulus_, asked \u201cTarrutius, his familiar acquaintance, a good\nphilosopher and mathematician,\u201d to calculate the horoscope of Romulus.\nSee above, p. 209.\n\n[1490] Mommsen (1905), pp. 75-6.\n\n[1491] _Ibid._, p. 66.\n\n[1492] PW, for the problem of his identity and further bibliography.\n\n[1493] I have used the text and English translation of A. T. Cory,\n_The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo Nilous_, 1840. Philip\u2019s Greek is so\nbad that some would date it in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.\nThe oldest extant Greek codex was purchased in Andros in 1419. The\nwork was translated into Latin by the fifteenth century at latest; see\nVienna 3255, 15th century, 82 fols., Horapollo, Hieroglyphicon latine\nversorum liber I et libri II introductio cum figuris calamo exaratis et\ncoloratis.\n\n[1494] I, 1; II, 61; II, 65; II, 36 and 59; II, 57; II, 83; I, 34-5;\nII, 57; II, 44 and 39 and 76-7 and 85-6 and 88.\n\n[1495] II, 45.\n\n[1496] II, 46; Aelian says the same, however, as we stated above.\n\n[1497] II, 64.\n\n[1498] NH, XXVIII, 27.\n\n[1499] II, 72.\n\n[1500] I, 6. According to Pliny (NH, XX, 26), the hawk sprinkles its\neyes with the juice of this herb; Apuleius (_Metamorphoses_, cap. 30)\nsays that the eagle does so.\n\n[1501] I, 3.\n\n[1502] II, 57.\n\n[1503] I, 10.\n\n[1504] I, 11.\n\n[1505] I, 14.\n\n[1506] I, 16.\n\n[1507] I, 13.\n\n[1508] I, 23.\n\n[1509] Sir William Muir, \u201cAncient Arabic Poetry, its Genuineness and\nAuthenticity,\u201d in _Royal Asiatic Society\u2019s Journal_ (1882), p. 30.\n\n[1510] Ascribed to Enoch in Harleian MS 1612, fol. 15r, Incipit: \u201cEnoch\ntanquam unus ex philosophis super res quartum librum edidit, in quo\nvoluit determinare ista quatuor: videlicet de xv stellis, de xv herbis,\nde xv lapidibus preciosis et de xv figuris ipsis lapidibus sculpendis,\u201d\nand Wolfenb\u00fcttel 2725, 14th century, fols. 83-94v; BN 13014, 14th\ncentury, fol. 174v; Amplon, Quarto 381 (Erfurt), 14th century, fols.\n42-45: for \u201cEnoch\u2019s prayer\u201d see Sloane MS 3821, 17th century, fols,\n190v-193.\n\nAscribed to Hermes in Harleian 80, Sloane 3847, Royal 12-C-XVIII;\nBerlin 963, fol. 105; Vienna 5216, 15th century, fols. 63r-66v; \u201cDixit\nEnoch quod 15 sunt stelle / ex tractatu Heremeth (i. e. Hermes) et\nenoch compilatum\u201d; and in the Catalogue of Amplonius (1412 A.\u202fD.), Math.\n53. See below, II, 220-21.\n\nThe stars are probably fifteen in number because Ptolemy distinguished\nthat many stars of first magnitude. Dante, _Paradiso_, XIII, 4, also\nspeaks of \u201cquindici stelle.\u201d See Orr (1913), pp. 154-6, where Ptolemy\u2019s\ndescriptions of the fifteen stars of first magnitude and their modern\nnames are given.\n\n[1511] Digby 67, late 12th century, fol. 69r, \u201cPrologus de tribus\nMercuriis.\u201d They are also identified by other medieval writers. Some\nwould further identify with Enoch Nannacus or Annacus, king of Phrygia,\nwho foresaw Deucalion\u2019s flood and lamented. See J. G. Frazer (1918),\nI, 155-6, and P. Buttmann, _Mythologus_, Berlin, 1828-1829, and E.\nBabelon, _La tradition phrygienne du d\u00e9luge_, in _Rev. d. l\u2019hist. d.\nreligs._, XXIII (1891), which he cites.\n\nRoger Bacon stated that some would identify Enoch with \u201cthe great\nHermogenes, whom the Greeks much commend and laud, and they ascribe to\nhim all secret and celestial science.\u201d Steele (1920) 99.\n\n[1512] R. H. Charles, _The Book of Enoch_, Oxford, 1893, p. 33, citing\nEuseb. _Praep. Evan._, ix, 17, 8 (Gaisford).\n\n[1513] Charles (1893), p. 10, citing Ewald.\n\n[1514] ed. Dindorf, 1829.\n\n[1515] Lods, Ad. _Le Livre d\u2019H\u00e9noch, Fragments grecs d\u00e9couverts \u00e0\nAkhmin_, Paris, 1892.\n\nCharles, R. H., _The Book of Enoch_, Oxford, 1893, \u201ctranslated from\nProfessor Dillman\u2019s Ethiopic text, amended and revised in accordance\nwith hitherto uncollated Ethiopic manuscripts and with the Gizeh\nand other Greek and Latin fragments, which are here published in\nfull.\u201d _The Book of Enoch, translated anew_, etc., Oxford, 1912.\nAlso translated in Charles (1913) II, 163-281. There are twenty-nine\nEthiopic MSS of Enoch.\n\nCharles, R. H. and Morfill, W. R., _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_,\ntranslated from the Slavonic, Oxford, 1896. Also by Forbes and Charles\nin Charles (1913) II, 425-69.\n\n[1516] Charles (1893), p. 22.\n\n[1517] Charles (1913), II, 165-6.\n\n[1518] Charles (1893), pp. 2 and 41.\n\n[1519] V., 54.\n\n[1520] XV, 23.\n\n[1521] Introd., vi.\n\n[1522] _Spec. Nat._, I, 9. A Latin fragment, found in the British\nMuseum in 1893 by Dr. M. R. James and published in the Cambridge _Texts\nand Studies_, II, 3, _Apocrypha Anecdota_, pp. 146-50, \u201cseems to point\nto a Latin translation of Enoch\u201d\u2014Charles (1913) II, 167.\n\n[1523] _Book of Enoch_, XL, 9.\n\n[1524] _Ibid._, XLIII; _Secrets of Enoch_, IV.\n\n[1525] _Book of Enoch_, XLIII; XC, 21.\n\n[1526] _Ibid._, LX, 17-18.\n\n[1527] _Secrets of Enoch_, XIX.\n\n[1528] Caps. VI-XI in both Lods and Charles.\n\n[1529] _Book of Enoch_, VIII, 3, in both Charles and Lods.\n\n[1530] _Book of Enoch_, LXV, 6.\n\n[1531] _Ibid._, LXV, 7-8; LXIX, 6-9.\n\n[1532] _Ibid._, LXIX, 10-11.\n\n[1533] _Secrets of Enoch_, X.\n\n[1534] _Book of Enoch_, XVIII, XXI.\n\n[1535] _Ibid._, XC, 24.\n\n[1536] Singer\u2019s translation. _Studies in the History and Method of\nScience_, Vol. I, p. 53, of _Scivias_, III, 1, in Migne, PL, 197, 565.\nSee also the Koran XV, 18.\n\n[1537] Charles, p. 32 and cap. LXXX.\n\n[1538] Singer, 25-26.\n\n[1539] Pp. 187-219.\n\n[1540] _Secrets of Enoch_, I and XXX.\n\n[1541] See Morfill-Charles, pp. xxxiv-xxxv, for mention of three and\nseven heavens in the apocryphal _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_,\n\u201cwritten about or before the beginning of the Christian era,\u201d and for\n\u201cthe probability of an Old Testament belief in the plurality of the\nheavens.\u201d For the seven heavens in the apocryphal _Ascension of Isaiah_\nsee Charles\u2019 edition of that work (1900), xlix.\n\n[1542] _Secrets of Enoch_, XXVII. Charles prefaces this passage by\nthe remark, \u201cI do not pretend to understand what follows\u201d: but it\nseems clear that the waters above the firmament are referred to from\nwhat the author goes on to say, \u201cAnd thus I made firm the circles of\nthe heavens, and caused the waters below which are under the heavens\nto be gathered into one place.\u201d It would also seem that each of the\nseven planets is represented as moving in a sphere of crystal. In the\nEthiopic version, LIV, 8, we are told that the water above the heavens\nis masculine, and that the water beneath the earth is feminine; also\nLX, 7-8, that Leviathan is female and Behemoth male.\n\n[1543] _Secrets of Enoch_, XXX.\n\n[1544] _Ibid._, 45-46, see also the Ethiopic _Book of Enoch_, XCIII,\nfor \u201cseven weeks.\u201d\n\n[1545] _Book of Enoch_, XVIII, XXIV.\n\n[1546] _Ibid._, XXXII.\n\n[1547] _Book of Enoch_, LII, 2.\n\n[1548] _Ibid._, LXV, 7-8.\n\n[1549] _Ibid._, LX, 7.\n\n[1550] _Ibid._, XXXIII.\n\n[1551] _Secrets of Enoch_, XII, XV, XIX.\n\n[1552] The literature dealing in general with Philo and his philosophy\nis too extensive to indicate here, while there has been no study\nprimarily devoted to our interest in him. It may be useful to note,\nhowever, the most recent editions of his works and studies concerning\nhim, from which the reader can learn of earlier researches. See\nalso Leopold Cohn, _The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria_\n(Reprinted from _The Jewish Quarterly Review_), London, 1892. The\nmost recent edition of the Greek text of Philo\u2019s works is by L.\nCohn and P. Wendland, _Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt_,\nBerlin, 1896-1915, in six vols. The earlier edition was by Mangey.\nRecent editions of single works are: F. C. Conybeare, _Philo about\nthe Contemplative Life_, critically edited with a defence of its\ngenuineness, 1895. E. Br\u00e9hier, _Commentaire all\u00e9gorique des Saintes\nLois apr\u00e8s l\u2019\u0153uvre des six jours_, Greek and French, 1909. In the\npassages from Philo quoted in this chapter I have often availed myself\nof the wording of the English translation by C. D. Yonge in four vols.,\n1854-1855. The Latin translation of Philo\u2019s works made from the Greek\nby Lilius Tifernates for Popes Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII is preserved\nat the Vatican in a series of six MSS written during the years\n1479-1484: Vatic. Lat., 180-185.\n\n J. d\u2019Alma, _Philon d\u2019Alexandrie et le quatri\u00e8me \u00c9vangile_, 1910.\n\n N. Bentwich, _Philo-Judaeus of Alexandria_, 1910 (a small general\n book).\n\n T. H. Billings, _The Platonism of Philo Judaeus_, 1919.\n\n W. Bousset, _J\u00fcdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom_,\n 1915.\n\n E. Br\u00e9hier, _Les Id\u00e9es philosophiques et religieuses de Philon\n d\u2019Alexandrie_, 1908, a scholarly work with a ten-page bibliography.\n\n M. Caraccio, _Filone d\u2019Alessandria e le sue opere_, 1911, a brief\n indication of the contents of each work.\n\n K. S. Guthrie, _The Message of Philo Judaeus_, 1910, popular.\n\n H. Guyot, _Les R\u00e9miniscences de Philon le Juif chez Plotin_, 1906.\n\n P. Heinsch, _Der Einfluss Philos auf die \u00e4lteste christliche Exegese_,\n 1908, 296 pp.\n\n H. A. A. Kennedy, _Philo\u2019s contribution to Religion_, 1919.\n\n J. Martin, _Philon_, 1907, with a five-page bibliography.\n\n L. H. Mills, _Zarathustra, Philo, the Achaemenids and Israel_, 1905,\n 460 pp.\n\n L. Treitel, _Philonische Studien_, 1915, is of limited scope.\n\n H. Windisch, _Die Fr\u00f6mmigkeit Philos und ihre Bedeutung f\u00fcr das\n Christentum_, 1909.\n\n[1553] The genuineness of this treatise, denied by Graetz and\nLucius in the mid-nineteenth century, was amply demonstrated by L.\nMassebieau, _Revue de l\u2019Histoire des Religions_, XVI (1887), 170-98,\n284-319; Conybeare, _Philo about the Contemplative Life_, Oxford,\n1895; and P. Wendland, _Die Therapeuten und die Philonische Schrift\nvom Beschaulichen Leben_, in _Jahrb. f. Class. Philologie_, Band 22\n(1896), 693-770. In St. John\u2019s College Library, Oxford, in a manuscript\nof the early eleventh century (MS 128, fol. 215 ff) with Dionysius\nthe Areopagite on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, is, Philonis de\nexcircumcisione credentibus in Aegypto Christianis simul et monachis ex\nsuprascripto ab eo sermone de vita theorica aut de orantibus.\n\n[1554] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 49 and 50.\n\n[1555] _On the Contemplative Life_, Chapter 9.\n\n[1556] So he states in the opening sentences of the other treatise; it\nis not extant.\n\n[1557] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 54 and 55.\n\n[1558] R\u00e9ville, J., _Le logos, d\u2019apr\u00e8s Philon d\u2019Alexandrie_, Gen\u00e8ve,\n1877.\n\n[1559] Lincoln College, Oxford, has a 12th century MS in Greek of the\n_De vita Mosis_ and _De virtutibus_,\u2014MS 34.\n\n[1560] The _Alexander sive de animalibus_ and the complete text of the\n_De providentia_ exist only in Armenian translation,\u2014see Cohn (1892),\np. 16. _The Biblical Antiquities_, extant only in an imperfect Latin\nversion, is not regarded as a genuine work,\u2014see W. O. E. Oesterley and\nG. H. Box, _The Biblical Antiquities of Philo_, now first translated\nfrom the old Latin version by M. R. James (1917), p. 7.\n\n[1561] Cohn (1892), 11.\n\n[1562] II, 17.\n\n[1563] (_Quod omnis probus liber sit_, cap. xi); also _The Law\nConcerning Murderers_, cap. 4.\n\n[1564] _On Dreams_, I, 38.\n\n[1565] Numbers XXII-XXV. Balaam is, of course, referred to in a number\nof other passages of the Bible: Deut., XXIII, 3-6; Joshua, XIII, 22;\nXXIV, 9-10; Nehemiah, XIII, 1ff; Micah, VI, 5; Second Peter, II, 15-16;\nJude, 11; Revelation, II, 14.\n\n[1566] _Vita Mosis_, I, 48-50. Besides discussion of Balaam in\nvarious Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, see\nHengstenberg, _Die Geschichte Bileams und seine Weissagungen_, 1842.\n\n[1567] _De migrat. Abrahami_, cap. 32.\n\n[1568] _Idem_, and _De somniis_, cap. 10.\n\n[1569] _De monarchia_, I, 1. _De mundi opificio_, cap. 14.\n\n[1570] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 18, 50 and 24. See also his _De\ngigantibus_ and \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[1571] _Ibid._, Cap. 50. Huet, the noted French scholar of the 17th\ncentury, states in his edition of Origen that \u201cPhilo after his custom\nrepeats an opinion of Plato\u2019s and almost his very words for ... he\nasserts that the stars are not only animals but also the purest\nintellects.\u201d Migne PG, XVII, col. 978.\n\n[1572] _De monarchia_, I, 1; _De mundi opificio_, cap. 14.\n\n[1573] _De monarchia_, I, 1; _De migratione Abrahami_, cap. 32; _De\nmundi opificio_, cap. 40.\n\n[1574] Eusebius, _De praep. Evang._, cap. 13.\n\n[1575] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 19.\n\n[1576] _De somniis_, II, 16.\n\n[1577] _Ibid._, I, 22.\n\n[1578] _De bello Jud._, V, 5, 5; _Antiq._, III, 7, 7-8.\n\n[1579] _Der Stern der Weisen_ (1827), p. 36. \u201cNur war ihre Astrologie\ndem Theismus untergeordnet. Der Eine Gott erschien immer als der\nHerrscher des Himmelsheeres. Sie betrachteten aber die Sterne als\nlebende g\u00f6ttliche Wesen und M\u00e4chte des Himmels.\u201d\n\n[1580] M\u00fcnter (1827), pp. 38-39, 43, 45, etc. On the subject of\nJewish astrology see also: D. Nielsen, _Die altarabische Mondreligion\nund die mosaische \u00dcberlieferung_, Strasburg, 1904; F. Hommel, _Der\nGestirndienst der alten Araber und die altisraelitische \u00dcberlieferung_,\nMunich, 1901.\n\n[1581] Such as Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, and Censorinus. These writers\nseem to have taken it from Varro. We have also noted number mysticism\nin Plutarch\u2019s _Essays_.\n\n[1582] Browne (1650) IV, 12.\n\n[1583] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 40.\n\n[1584] _Ibid._, caps. 30-42.\n\n[1585] For the later influence of such doctrines in the Mohammedan\nworld see D. B. Macdonald, _Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and\nConstitutional Theory_, 1903, pp. 42-3, concerning the \u201cSeveners\u201d and\nthe \u201cTwelvers\u201d and the doctrine of the hidden Iman.\n\n[1586] _Ibid._, \u201cThus we have a series of seven times seven Imans, the\nfirst, and thereafter each seventh, having the superior dignity of\nProphet. The last of the forty-nine Imans, this Muhammad ibn Isma\u2019il,\nis the greatest and last of the Prophets.\u201d\n\n[1587] _De vita contemplativa_, cap. 8. It will be recalled that the\nfifty books of the _Digest_ of Justinian are similarly divided.\n\n[1588] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 3.\n\n[1589] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 15-16. See also on perfect numbers\n_On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws_.\n\n[1590] _Ibid._, cap. 20.\n\n[1591] _Vita Mosis_, I, 17.\n\n[1592] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 24.\n\n[1593] _Ibid._, cap. 50.\n\n[1594] _De somniis_, II, 21-22.\n\n[1595] _De somniis_, II, I.\n\n[1596] Cap. 38.\n\n[1597] II, 37.\n\n[1598] Cap. 5.\n\n[1599] Since I finished this chapter, I have noted that the \u201cfolk-lore\nin the Old Testament\u201d has led Sir James Frazer to write a passage\non \u201cthe harlequins of history\u201d somewhat similar to that of Philo on\nJoseph\u2019s coat of many colors. After remarking that friends and foes\nbehold these politicians of the present and historical figures of the\nfuture from opposite sides and see only that particular hue of the coat\nwhich happens to be turned toward them, Sir James concludes (1918), II,\n502, \u201cIt is for the impartial historian to contemplate these harlequins\nfrom every side and to paint them in their coats of many colors,\nneither altogether so white as they appeared to their friends nor\naltogether so black as they seemed to their enemies.\u201d But who can paint\nout the bloodstains?\n\n[1600] A good account of the Gnostic sources and bibliography of\nsecondary works on Gnosticism will be found in CE, \u201cGnosticism\u201d (1909)\nby J. P. Arendzen.\n\n[1601] Anz, _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus_, 1897, 112\npp., in TU, XV, 4.\n\n[1602] Am\u00e9lineau, _Essai sur le gnosticisme \u00e9gyptien, ses\nd\u00e9veloppements et son origine \u00e9gyptienne_, 1887, 330 pp., in _Mus\u00e9e\nGuimet_, tom. 14; and various other publications by the same author.\n\n[1603] Bousset, _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, 1911; and \u201cGnosticism\u201d in\nEB, 11th edition.\n\n[1604] The dating is somewhat disputed. Some of the Gnostic writings\ndiscovered in 1896 have, I believe, not yet been published, although\nannounced to be edited by C. Schmidt in TU. Grenfell and Hunt will\nsoon publish \u201ca small group of 21 papyri ... among which is a gnostic\nmagical text of some interest\u201d: Grenfell (1921), p. 151.\n\n[1605] The Gospel of Matthew, XXIV, 29-31. Not to mention Paul\u2019s\n\u201cangels and principalities and powers.\u201d\n\n[1606] St. George Stock, \u201cSimon Magus,\u201d in EB, 11th edition. See also\nGeorge Salmon in _Dict. Chris. Biog._, IV, 681.\n\n[1607] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 23.\n\n[1608] _Homilies_, XVIII, 1-.\n\n[1609] Epiphanius, _Panarion_, A-B-XXI; Petavius, 55-60; Dindorf, II,\n6-12.\n\n[1610] _First Apology_, cap. 26.\n\n[1611] Irenaeus and Epiphanius as cited above; also Hippolytus,\n_Philosophumena_, VI, 2-15; X, 8.\n\n[1612] See, for example, Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, i, 3, where\nwe are told among other things that the disciples of the Gnostic\nValentinus affirm that the number of these aeons is signified by the\nthirty years of Christ\u2019s life which elapsed before He began His public\nministry.\n\n[1613] _Homilies_, II, 23-25; _Recognitions_, II, 8-9.\n\n[1614] _Homilies_, II, 25.\n\n[1615] _Reply to Celsus_, I, 57, and VI, 11.\n\n[1616] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 30.\n\n[1617] G. Parthey, _Zwei griech. Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums_,\n1860, p. 128; C. Wessely, _Griech. Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London_,\n1888, p. 115; F. G. Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in the British Museum_, 1893,\np. 469ff.\n\n[1618] Josephus, _Antiquities_, I, ii, 3.\n\n[1619] R. W\u00fcnsch, _Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom_, Leipzig,\n1898.\n\n[1620] E. Preuschen, _Die apocryph. gnost. Adamschrift_, 1900.\n_Mechitarist collection of Old Testament Apocrypha_, Venice, 1896.\n\n[1621] The diagram is described in the _Reply to Celsus_, VI, 24-38; in\nthe following description I have somewhat altered the order. An attempt\nto reproduce this diagram will be found in CE, \u201cGnosticism,\u201d p. 597.\n\n[1622] _Reply to Celsus_, VI, 22.\n\n[1623] Anz. (1897), p. 78.\n\n[1624] _Adv. haer._, I, 23.\n\n[1625] Wm. Hartel, _S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia_, Pars III,\n_Opera Spuria_ (1870), p. 90, _De rebaptismate_, cap. 16, \u201cquod si\naliquo lusu perpetrari potest, sicut adfirmantur plerique huiusmodi\nlusus Anaxilai esse, sive naturale quid est quo pacto possit hoc\ncontingere, sive illi putant hoc se conspicere, sive maligni opus et\nmagicum virus ignem potest in aqua exprimere.\u201d\n\n[1626] _Contra haereses_, II, 2.\n\n[1627] _Pistis-Sophia_, ed. Schwartze and Petermann (1851), pp. 386-7;\ned. Mead (1896), p. 390.\n\n[1628] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 13, _et seq._; Hippolytus,\n_Philosophumena_, VI, 34, _et seq._; Epiphanius, _Panarion_, ed.\nDindorf, II, 217, _et seq._ (ed. Petav., 232, _et seq._). Concerning\nMarcus see further Tertullian, _De praescript._, L; Theodoret, _Haeret.\nFab._, I, 9; Jerome, _Epist._, 29; Augustine, _Haer._, xiv. \u201cD\u2019apr\u00e8s\nReuvens,\u201d says Berthelot (1885), p. 57, \u201cle papyrus n^o 75 de Leide\nrenferme un m\u00e9lange de recettes magiques, alchimiques, et d\u2019id\u00e9es\ngnostiques; ces derni\u00e8res emprunt\u00e9es aux doctrines de Marcus.\u201d\n\n[1629] Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, VI, preface; I, 2; and IV, 43-4.\n\n[1630] Censorinus, _De die natali_, caps. 7 and 14.\n\n[1631] Arendzen, _Gnosticism_, in CE.\n\n[1632] Ruelle et Poir\u00e9e, _Le chant gnostico-magique_, Solesmes, 1901.\n\n[1633] Irenaeus, I, 25; Hippolytus, VII, 20; Epiphanius, ed. Dindorf,\nII, 64.\n\n[1634] Irenaeus, I, 24; Epiphanius, ed. Dindorf, II, 27-8.\n\n[1635] Hippolytus, VII, 14-15.\n\n[1636] The more correct title for the _Philosophumena_, see IX, 8-12.\n\n[1637] Dindorf, II, 109-10, 507-9.\n\n[1638] A. Merx, _Bardesanes der letzte Gnostiker_, Jena, 1864. F.\nHaase, _Zur bardesanischen Gnosis_, Leipzig, 1910, in TU, XXIV, 4.\n\n[1639] English translation in AN, VIII, 723-34.\n\n[1640] _Recognitions_, IX, 17 and 19-29.\n\n[1641] English translations by A. A. Bevan, 1897; F. C. Burkett, 1899;\nG. R. S. Mead, 1906.\n\n[1642] F. Nau, _Une biographie in\u00e9dite de Bardesane l\u2019astrologue_, 1897.\n\n[1643] ed. Coptic and Latin by M. G. Schwartze and J. H. Petermann,\n1851; French translation by E. Am\u00e9lineau, 1895; English by G. R. S.\nMead, 1896; German by C. Schmidt, 1905. The Coptic text is thickly\ninterspersed with Greek words and phrases. In the same manuscript\noccurs the _Book of the Saviour_ of which we shall also treat.\n\n[1644] _Pistis-Sophia_, 25-6.\n\n[1645] _Ibid._, 336-50.\n\n[1646] _Ibid._, 355, _et seq._\n\n[1647] _Ibid._, 389-90.\n\n[1648] _Ibid._, 255 and 258.\n\n[1649] _Pistis-Sophia_, 29-30.\n\n[1650] _Ibid._, 319-35.\n\n[1651] _Ibid._, 357-8, 375-6.\n\n[1652] Carl Schmidt, _Gnostische Schrifte in koptischer Sprache aus\ndem codex Brucianus_, 1892, 692 pp., in TU, VIII, 2, with German\ntranslation of the Coptic text at pp. 142-223. Portions have been\ntranslated into English by G. R. S. Mead, _Fragments of a Faith\nForgotten_, 1900.\n\n[1653] _Pistis-Sophia_, 205-15.\n\n[1654] C. W. King, _The Gnostics and their Remains_, 1887, pp.\nxvi-xviii, 215-8. Also his _The Natural History, Ancient and Modern, of\nPrecious Stones and Gems_, London, 1865.\n\n[1655] A. B. Cook, _Zeus_, p. 235, citing J. Spon, _Miscellanea\neruditae antiquitatis_, Lyons, 1685, p. 297.\n\n[1656] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, pp. 111-3. On the planets in later\nmedieval art see Fuchs, _Die Ikonographie der 7 Planeten in der Kunst\nItaliens bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters_, Munich, 1909.\n\n[1657] E. S. Bouchier, _Spain under the Roman Empire_, p. 125.\n\n[1658] Hermann Gollancz, _Selection of Charms from Syriac Manuscripts_,\n1898; also pp. 77-97 in _Acts of International Congress of\nOrientalists_, Sept., 1897; Syriac text and English translation.\n\n[1659] In 1885-1886 eleven tracts by Priscillian were discovered by G.\nSchepss in a W\u00fcrzburg MS. They shed, however, little light upon the\nquestion whether he was addicted to magic. They have been published in\n_Priscilliani quae supersunt_, etc., ed. G. Schepss, 1889, in CSEL,\nXVIII.\n\nSee also E. Ch. Babut, _Priscillien et la Priscillienisme_, Paris, 1909\n(_Bibl. d. l\u2019\u00c9cole d. Hautes \u00c9tudes_, Fasc. 169), which supersedes the\nearlier works of Paret, 1891; Dierich, 1897; and Edling, 1902.\n\n[1660] _Sulpicii Severi Historia Sacra_, II, 46-51 (Migne, PL, XX, 155,\n_et seq._) S. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, _De viris illustribus_,\nCap. 15 (Migne, PL, LXXXIII, 1092).\n\n[1661] _Realencyklop\u00e4die f\u00fcr protestantische Theologie_, XVI, 63.\n\n[1662] My following statements in the text are based upon E. Chavannes\net P. Pelliot, _Un trait\u00e9 manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9 en Chine_, 1913,\u2014they\ndate the Chinese translation about 900 A.\u202fD. and the MS of it within a\ncentury later; W. Radloff, _Chuastuanift, Das Bussgebet der Manich\u00e4er_,\nPetrograd, 1909; A. v. Le Coq, _Chuastuanift, ein S\u00fcndenbekenntnis der\nManich\u00e4ischen Auditores_, Berlin, 1911. There are further publications\non the subject.\n\n[1663] The following details are drawn from the articles on the\nMandaeans in EB, 11th edition, by K. Kessler and G. W. Thatcher,\nand in ERE by W. Brandt, author of _Mand\u00e4ische Religion_, 1889, and\n_Mand\u00e4ische Schriften_, 1893, and from Anz (1897), pp. 70-8. Further\nbibliography will be found in these references.\n\n[1664] The number five also appears in the _Pistis-Sophia_ and other\nGnostic literature.\n\n[1665] H. Pognon, _Une Incantation contre les g\u00e9nies malfaisants en\nMand\u00e4ite_, 1893; _Inscriptions manda\u00eftes des coupes de Khonabir_,\n1897-1899. M. Lidzbarski, _Mand\u00e4ische Zaubertexte, in Ephemeris f.\nsemit. Epig._, I (1902), 89-106. J. A. Montgomery, _Aramaic Incantation\nTexts from Nippur_, 1913.\n\n[1666] Genesis XLIV, 5, and J. G. Frazer (1918), II, 426-34.\n\n[1667] In the apocryphal _Protevangelium of James_, cap. 16, both\nJoseph and Mary undergo the test.\n\n[1668] Joachim consults the plate in the _Protevangelium_, cap. 5.\n\n[1669] See J. G. Frazer, _Folk-Lore in the Old Testament_, 1918,\n3 vols., and also his other works; for instance, _The Magic Art_,\n1911, I, 258, for the contest in magic rain-making between Elijah and\nthe priests of Baal in First Kings, Chapter XVIII, while I do not\nunderstand why Joshua is not mentioned in connection with \u201cThe magical\ncontrol of the sun,\u201d _Ibid._, I, 311-19.\n\n[1670] However, the _Apocrypha of the New Testament_ may be read in\nEnglish translation by Alexander Walker in _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_\n(American edition), VIII, 357-598, and in that by Hone in 1820, which\nhas since been reprinted without change. It includes only a part of\nthe apocrypha now known and presents these in a blind fashion without\nexplanation. It differs from Tischendorf\u2019s text of the apocryphal\ngospels (_Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, Lipsiae, 1876) both\nin the titles of the gospels, the distribution of the texts under the\nrespective titles, and the division into chapters. I have, however,\nsometimes used Hone\u2019s wording in making quotations. Older than\nTischendorf is Thilo, _Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti_, Leipzig,\n1832; Fabricius, etc.\n\n[1671] It is ascribed to the second century both by Tischendorf and\n_The Catholic Encyclopedia_ (\u201cApocrypha,\u201d 607). There are plenty of\nfairly early Greek MSS for it.\n\n[1672] The Greek MSS are of the 15th and 16th centuries; Tischendorf\nexamined only partially a Latin palimpsest of it which is probably of\nthe fifth century.\n\n[1673] So argues _The Catholic Encyclopedia_, 608; Tischendorf seems\ninclined to date the Gospel of Thomas a little later than that of\nJames, and to hold that we possess only a fragment of it.\n\n[1674] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 25, \u201cfecitque dominus Iesus plurima in\nEgypto miracula quae neque in evangelio infantiae neque in evangelio\nperfecto scripta reperiuntur.\u201d\n\n[1675] Tischendorf (1876), p. xlviii. As I have already intimated on\nother occasions, it seems to me no explanation to call such stories\n\u201coriental.\u201d Christianity was an oriental religion to begin with.\nMoreover, as our whole investigation goes to show, both classical\nantiquity and the medieval west were ready enough both to repeat and to\ninvent similar tales.\n\n[1676] It may be noted, however, that the chief miracles of the Gospels\nwere attacked as \u201cabsurd or unworthy of the performer\u201d nearly two\ncenturies ago by Thomas Woolston in his _Discourses on the Miracles of\nour Saviour_, 1727-1730. The words in quotation marks are from J. B.\nBury\u2019s _History of Freedom of Thought_, 1913, p. 142.\n\n[1677] Migne, PL, 59, 162 ff. The list was reproduced with slight\nvariations by Hugh of St. Victor in the twelfth century in his\n_Didascalicon_ (IV, 15), and in the thirteenth century by Vincent of\nBeauvais in the _Speculum Naturale_ (I, 14).\n\n[1678] Tischendorf (1876), pp. xxiii-xxiv.\n\n[1679] M\u00e2le (1913), pp. 207-8.\n\n[1680] Since writing this, I find that M\u00e2le has been impressed by the\nsame resemblance. He writes (1913), p. 207, \u201cSome chapters in the\napocryphal gospels are like the _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ or even\nlike _The Golden Ass_, permeated with the belief in witchcraft and\nmagic.\u201d The resemblance to Apuleius is also noted in AN, VIII, 353.\n\n[1681] Tischendorf, _Evang. Infantiae Arabicum_, caps. 20-21.\n\n[1682] _Ibid._, cap. 17.\n\n[1683] _Ibid._, cap. 20, \u201cnullum in mundo doctum aut magum aut\nincantatorem omisimus quin illum accerseremus; sed nihil nobis profuit.\u201d\n\n[1684] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 35, \u201cExtemplo exivit ex puero illo\nsatanas fugiens cani rabido similis.\u201d The apocryphal gospel adds, \u201cThis\nsame boy who struck Jesus,\u201d i. e., while he was still possessed by the\ndemon, \u201cand out of whom Satan went in the form of a dog, was Judas\nIscariot, who betrayed Him to the Jews. And that same side, on which\nJudas struck him, the Jews pierced with a lance.\u201d\n\n[1685] _Ibid._, cap. 44; _Evang. Thomae Lat._, cap. 7; _Ps. Matth._,\ncap. 32.\n\n[1686] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 15.\n\n[1687] _Ibid._, cap. 19, \u201cqui veneficio tactus uxore frui non poterat.\u201d\n\n[1688] _Ibid._, cap. 14.\n\n[1689] _Ibid._, cap. 16.\n\n[1690] See below, chapter 24.\n\n[1691] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, caps. 33-34.\n\n[1692] _Ibid._, caps. 10-11.\n\n[1693] _Ibid._, caps. 27-32.\n\n[1694] _Ibid._, cap. 30.\n\n[1695] _Ibid._, cap. 24.\n\n[1696] _Ibid._, caps. 42-43; _Ps. Matth._, 41; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 14.\nCompare pp. 279-80 above.\n\n[1697] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 37.\n\n[1698] _Ibid._, 38-39; _Ps. Matth._, 37; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 11.\n\n[1699] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 36; _Ps. Matth._, 27; _Evang. Thom.\nLat._, 4.\n\n[1700] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 40. See Ad-Dam\u00eer\u00ee, translated by A. S.\nG. Jayakar, 1906, I, 703, for a Moslem tale of Jews who called Jesus\n\u201cthe enchanter the son of the enchantress,\u201d and were transformed into\npigs.\n\n[1701] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, 46; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 4; _Ps. Matth._,\n26, where Mary afterwards induces Jesus to restore him to life, and 28.\n\n[1702] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 47; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 5; _Ps.\nMatth._, 29.\n\n[1703] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 49; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 12; _Ps.\nMatth._, 38.\n\n[1704] _Ps. Matth._, caps. 35-36.\n\n[1705] _Ibid._, cap. 29.\n\n[1706] _Ibid._, cap. 40.\n\n[1707] Later the same gospel (cap. 54) rather inconsistently represents\nJesus as engaged in the study of law until his thirtieth year.\n\n[1708] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, caps. 51-52.\n\n[1709] Eusebius states that he discovered these letters written in\nSyriac in the public records of Edessa. Hone says that it used to be a\ncommon practice among English people to have the epistle ascribed to\nChrist framed and place a picture of the Saviour before it.\n\n[1710] _Gospel of Nicodemus_, I, 1-2.\n\n[1711] CE, _Apocrypha_, p. 611.\n\n[1712] Greek text in Tischendorf, _Apocalypses Apocryph._, pp. 161-7;\nEnglish translation, _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, VIII, 526-7.\n\n[1713] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, 7-8.\n\n[1714] Cap. 19 (AN, I, 57).\n\n[1715] _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, VIII, 494.\n\n[1716] W. Anz, _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizisnus_ (1897),\npp. 36-41. Lipsius et Bonnet, _Acta apostolorum apocrypha_, 1891-.\n\n[1717] M\u00e2le (1913), 299. For the text of this apocryphal work see\nMigne, _Dictionnaire des Apocryphes_, II, 759, _et seq._, or more\nrecently, Bonnet, _Acta apostolorum apocrypha_, 1898, II, 151-216.\n\n[1718] M\u00e2le (1913), 300. But one would think that they must needs be\nByzantine alchemists, if the legend did not reach the west until the\nsixteenth century.\n\n[1719] HL, XV, 42.\n\n When the gems, all smashed to pieces,\n He had mended, then their prices\n To the poor he handed;\n Quite exhaustless was his treasure\n Who from sticks made gold at pleasure,\n Gems from stones commanded.\n\n[1720] Ren\u00e9 Basset, _Les apocryphes \u00c9thiopiens_, Paris, 1893-1894, vol.\niv.\n\n[1721] See Migne, PG, X (1857), for the old Latin version; the Greek\ntext is extant only in fragments; the tradition, going back to Jerome,\nthat there was a Syriac original is unfounded; the work is first cited\nby Cyril.\n\n[1722] The Ethiopic version, made from the Greek between the fifth and\nseventh centuries, is translated by Basset (1894), vol. iii; and was\nprinted before him by Dillmann, _Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine_,\nLeipzig, 1877, and by Laurence, _Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum\npseudepigraphus_, Oxford, 1819. See also R. H. Charles, _Ascension of\nIsaiah_, 1900; reprinted 1917 in Oesterley and Box, _Translations of\nEarly Documents_, Series I, vol. 7.\n\n[1723] The fragments of the _Book of Baruch_ by Justin, preserved in\nthe _Philosophumena_ of Hippolytus, are from an entirely different\nGnostic work.\n\n[1724] R. Basset, _Les apocryphes \u00c9thiopiens_, Paris, 1893-1894, vol.\ni, _Le Livre de Baruch et la l\u00e9gende de J\u00e9r\u00e9mie_.\n\n[1725] Text of _The Recognitions_ in Migne, PG, I; of _The Homilies_\nin PG, II, or P. de Lagarde, _Clementina_, 1865. E. C. Richardson had\nan edition of _The Recognitions_ in preparation in 1893, when a list\nof some seventy MSS communicated by him was published in A. Harnack\u2019s\n_Gesch. d. altchr. Lit._, I, 229-30, but it has not yet appeared. In\nquoting _The Recognitions_ I often avail myself of the language of the\nEnglish translation in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_.\n\nSince A. Hilgenfeld, _Die klement. Rekogn. u. Homilien_, 1848,\nthe Pseudo-Clementines have provided a much frequented field of\nresearch and controversy, of which the articles in CE, EB, and\n_Realencyklop\u00e4die_ (1913), XXIII, 312-6, provide fairly recent\nsummaries from varying ecclesiastical standpoints. For bibliography see\npp. 4-5 in the recent monograph of W. Heintze, _Der Klemensroman und\nseine griechischen Quellen_, 1914, in TU, XL, 2. In the same series,\nTU, XXV, 4, H. Waitz, _Die Pseudo-Klementinen_, 1904.\n\nConcerning Simon Magus may be mentioned: H. Schlurick, _De Simonis Magi\nfatis Romanis_; A. Hilgenfeld, _Der Magier Simon_, in _Zeitschr. f.\nwiss. Theol._, XII (1869), 353 ff.; G. Frommberger, _De Simone Mago_,\nPars I, _De origine Pseudo-Clementinorum_, Diss. inaug., Warsaw, 1866;\nG. R. S. Mead (Fellow of the Theosophical Society), _Simon Magus_,\n1892; H. Waitz, _Simon Magus in d. altchr. Lit._, in _Zeitschr. f. d.\nneutest. Wiss._, V (1904), 121-43.\n\n[1726] BN, Greek, 930; Ottobon, 443.\n\n[1727] Isidore, _De natura rerum_, caps. xxxi, xxxvi, xxxix-xli (PL,\n83, 1003-12).\n\n[1728] PL, 83, 1003, note, \u201cSunt haec lib. VIII Recognitionum sed\napparet Isidorum alia interpretatione usum ac dubitare posse an ea quae\ncircumfertur Rufini sit.\u201d\n\n[1729] See CU, Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 7-105, \u201cInc. prologus\nin librum quem moderni itinerarium beati Petri vocant.\u201d\n\n[1730] Valois (1880), p. 204.\n\n[1731] PL, 59, 162, \u201cNotitia librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur.\u201d\n\n[1732] Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum naturale_, 1485, I, 14.\n\n[1733] PL, 176, 787-8, _Erudit. Didasc._, IV, 15.\n\n[1734] \u201cItinerarium nomine Petri apostoli quod appellatur sancti\nClementis libri octo apocryphum (or, apocryphi).\u201d\n\n[1735] _Speculum naturale_, XXXII, 129, concerning the morality of the\nSeres.\n\n[1736] Compare _Recognitions_, I, 27 (PG, I, 122) with Rabanus,\n_Comment. in Genesim_, I, 2 (PL, 107, 450).\n\n[1737] _Speculum naturale_, I, 7. Peter is represented as saying, \u201cWhen\nanyone has derived from divine Scripture a sound and firm rule of\ntruth, it will not be absurd if to the assertion of true dogma he joins\nsomething from the education and liberal studies which he may have\npursued from boyhood. Yet so that in all points he teaches what is true\nand shuns what is false and pretense.\u201d This corresponds to the close of\nthe 42nd chapter of the tenth book of _The Recognitions_.\n\n[1738] Since writing this I learn that Professor E. C. Richardson has\nexamined most of the known MSS of _The Recognitions_ and has found them\nall to be the version by Rufinus, except for a few additional chapters\nwhich someone has added in the French group of MSS,\u2014chapters which\nRufinus seems to have omitted because they were difficult to translate.\n\n[1739] Heintze (1914), 23, however, argues that the conclusion of _The\nRecognitions_ is dependent upon _The Homilies_.\n\n[1740] Professor E. C. Richardson, after kindly reading this chapter\nin manuscript, writes me (Sept. 5, 1921) that he doubts if this Syriac\nMS is correctly described as three books of _The Recognitions_ and\nfour books of _The Homilies_, and that he thinks it may represent an\nearlier form in the evolution than either of them. He writes further,\n\u201cI have a strong notion that a study of Greek MSS of the Epitomes will\nreveal still more variant forms in Greek, and there are certainly other\noriental compilations not yet brought into comparison with the Greek,\nLatin, and Syriac forms.\u201d\n\n[1741] In _The Homilies_ it is a trip only from Alexandria to Caesarea\nthat consumes this number of days.\n\n[1742] About 375 A.\u202fD. Epiphanius (Dindorf, II, 107-9) describes _The\nCircuits_ in such a way that he might have either _The Homilies_ or\n_The Recognitions_ in mind. On the other hand, the _Philocalia_,\ncomposed about 358 by Basil and Gregory, cites a passage on astrology\nfrom the fourteenth book of _The Circuits_ which is in the tenth book\nof _The Recognitions_ and not in _The Homilies_ at all.\n\n[1743] Heintze (1914), p. 113.\n\n[1744] Waitz (1904), pp. 151 and 243.\n\n[1745] See E. C. Richardson in _Papers of the American Society of\nChurch History_, VI (1894).\n\n[1746] Neither Philostratus nor Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned,\nhowever, in the index of W. Heintze\u2019s _Der Klemensroman und seine\ngriechischen Quellen_ (1914), 144 pp.\n\n[1747] _Recogs._, VII, 6.\n\n[1748] _Recogs._, I, 29; not mentioned in the corresponding chapter of\n_The Homilies_, VIII, 15.\n\n[1749] _Recogs._, IX, 19-29.\n\n[1750] _Recogs._, VII, 12.\n\n[1751] _Recogs._, X, 15, _et seq._\n\n[1752] _Recogs._, I, 8; _Homilies_, I, 10.\n\n[1753] Extraordinary, of course, only in that single animals instead\nof angels, as in the Enoch literature, are set over birds, beasts,\nserpents, etc.\n\n[1754] _Recogs._, I, 27 and 45.\n\n[1755] _Recogs._, VI, 8.\n\n[1756] _Recogs._, VIII, 9, 20-22.\n\n[1757] _Recogs._, VIII, 15-17.\n\n[1758] _Recogs._, VIII, 21.\n\n[1759] _Recogs._, VIII, 25-32.\n\n[1760] On the other hand, in the apocryphal _Epistle of Barnabas_, IX,\n9, it is stated that the weasel conceives with its mouth and hence\ntypifies persons with unclean mouths.\n\n[1761] _Recogs._, II, 7.\n\n[1762] _Recogs._, VIII, 31.\n\n[1763] _Recogs._, VIII, 30.\n\n[1764] _Recogs._, VIII, 42.\n\n[1765] _Recogs._, VIII, 34.\n\n[1766] _Recogs._, VIII, 44.\n\n[1767] _Recogs._, VIII, 45.\n\n[1768] _Recogs._, VIII, 46.\n\n[1769] _Recogs._, VIII, 47.\n\n[1770] _Recogs._, V, 27.\n\n[1771] _Recogs._, I, 28.\n\n[1772] _Recogs._, VIII, 57, \u201cfrater meus Clemens tibi diligentius\nrespondebit qui plenius scientiam mathesis attigit;\u201d IX, 18, \u201cquoniam\nquidem scientia mihi mathesis nota est.\u201d\n\n[1773] _Recogs._, X, 11-12.\n\n[1774] _Recogs._, IX, 18.\n\n[1775] _Recogs._, VIII, 2.\n\n[1776] _Recogs._, I, 32.\n\n[1777] _Recogs._, I, 21, 43, 72.\n\n[1778] _Recogs._, IV, 35.\n\n[1779] Irenaeus, I, 3.\n\n[1780] _Recogs._, III, 68.\n\n[1781] _Recogs._, VIII, 28, \u201cqui est parvus in alio mundus.\u201d\n\n[1782] _Recogs._, VIII, 45.\n\n[1783] _Recogs._, X, 12. In _Homilies_, XIV, 5, the existence of\nastrological medicine is implied when Peter promises to cure by prayer\nto God any bodily ill, even \u201cif it is utterly incurable and entirely\nbeyond the range of the medical profession\u2014a case, indeed, which not\neven the astrologers profess to cure.\u201d\n\n[1784] _Recogs._, VIII, 2. In _The Homilies_, however, Peter argues\nthat, even if Genesis prevails, which he does not admit, still he can\n\u201cworship Him who is also Lord of the stars,\u201d and that the doctrine of\ngenesis is far more destructive to polytheism and pagan worship.\n\n[1785] _Recogs._, IX, 16-17.\n\n[1786] _Recogs._, IX, 6 and 12.\n\n[1787] _Recogs._, IX, 30.\n\n[1788] _Recogs._, X, 11.\n\n[1789] _Recogs._, X, 12.\n\n[1790] _Recogs._, IX, 32-7.\n\n[1791] _Recogs._, IX, 19, and VIII, 48.\n\n[1792] _Recogs._, X, 66.\n\n[1793] _Recogs._, II, 42.\n\n[1794] _Recogs._, IV, 7.\n\n[1795] _Recogs._, IX, 38.\n\n[1796] _Recogs._, IX, 6 and 12; IV, 21; V, 20 and 31.\n\n[1797] _Recogs._, II, 71; IV, 16.\n\n[1798] _Recogs._, IV, 30.\n\n[1799] _Recogs._, IX, 9.\n\n[1800] _Recogs._, IV, 32-33.\n\n[1801] _Recogs._, IV, 21.\n\n[1802] _Recogs._, IV, 26.\n\n[1803] Reminding one of Benjamin Franklin\u2019s more successful attempt to\n\u201csnatch the thunderbolt from heaven.\u201d\n\n[1804] _Recogs._, IV, 27, and I, 30.\n\n[1805] _Recogs._, IV, 29.\n\n[1806] Dindorf, I, 282, 286-7.\n\n[1807] _Recogs._, X, 55; III, 64.\n\n[1808] _Recogs._, I, 70.\n\n[1809] _Recogs._, I, 42 and 58; III, 12, 47, and 73; X, 54.\n\n[1810] _Recogs._, I, 72.\n\n[1811] _Recogs._, X, 22 and 25.\n\n[1812] But by no means always in early Christian writings: thus Clement\nof Alexandria (c150-c220) in the _Stromata_, II, 1, asserts that the\nGreeks eulogize \u201castrology and mathematics and magic and sorcery\u201d as\nthe highest sciences.\n\n[1813] In contrast to Lucian\u2019s _Menippus_ or _Necromancy_, in which the\nCynic philosopher Menippus resorts to a _Magus_ at Babylon in order to\ngain entrance to the lower world and question Teiresias.\n\nNecromancy is given as a proof of the immortality of the soul in\nJustin\u2019s _First Apology_, cap. 18, where we read, \u201cFor let even\nnecromancy, and the divinations you practise by means of immaculate\nchildren, and the evoking of departed human souls ... let these\npersuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.\u201d\n\n[1814] _Recogs._, I, 5.\n\n[1815] _Recogs._, II, 9.\n\n[1816] _Recogs._, II, 15.\n\n[1817] _Recogs._, II, 6.\n\n[1818] _Recogs._, III, 57.\n\n[1819] _Recogs._, II, 11.\n\n[1820] _Recogs._, II, 12.\n\n[1821] _Recogs._, X, 53, _et seq._\n\n[1822] _Recogs._, III, 57-60; X, 66.\n\n[1823] _Recogs._, VIII, 53.\n\n[1824] _Recogs._, VIII, 60.\n\n[1825] _Recogs._, II, 5.\n\n[1826] _Recogs._, II, 10.\n\n[1827] _Recogs._, II, 16, and III, 49.\n\n[1828] Similarly, in a passage contained only in _The Homilies_, V, 5,\nAppion, recommending to Clement a love incantation which he had learned\nfrom an Egyptian who was well versed in magic, explains that demons\nobey the magician when invoked by the names of superior angels, who in\ntheir turn may be adjured by the name of God.\n\n[1829] Concerning this boy see _Recogs._, II, 13-15; III, 44-45;,\n_Homilies_, II, 25-30.\n\n[1830] _Recogs._, II, 6; III, 13.\n\n[1831] _Recogs._, III, 73; X, 54.\n\n[1832] _Recogs._, X, 58.\n\n[1833] _Recogs._, III, 63.\n\n[1834] _Recogs._, II, 7.\n\n[1835] _Recogs._, II, 5.\n\n[1836] _Recogs._, II, 9, \u201cMulta etenim iam mihi experimenti causa\nconsummata sunt.\u201c\n\n[1837] _First Apology_, caps. 26 and 56; _Dialogue with Trypho_, 120.\n\n[1838] _Adv. haer._, I, 23.\n\n[1839] See above, chapter 15, p. 365.\n\n[1840] Tertullian, _De anima_, cap. 57, in PL, II, 794; _De idolatria_,\ncap. 9.\n\n[1841] _Philosophumena_, VI, 2-15.\n\n[1842] F. X. Funk, _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_, 1905, I,\n320-1.\n\n[1843] \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03be\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n[1844] \u201c ... in una die procedens vidi illum per aera volantem et\nferebatur. Et subsistens dixi: In virtute sancti nominis Iesu excido\nvirtutes tuas. Et sic ruens femur pedis sui fregit.\u201d\n\n[1845] Arnobius, _Adversus gentes_, II, 12.\n\n[1846] Cyril, _Cathechesis_, VI, 15, in PG 33, 564.\n\n[1847] _Filastrii diversarum hereseon liber_, cap. 23, ed. F. Marx,\n1898, in CSEL; also in PL, vol. 12.\n\n[1848] Sulpicius Severus, 363-420, _Chron._, II, 28, and Theodoret,\nc386-456, _Haereticarum fabularum compendium_, I, 1 (PG 83, 344) have\nnothing new to say.\n\n[1849] AN, VIII, 673-5.\n\n[1850] _Ibid._, 477-85; Greek text in Tischendorf, _Acta Apostolorum\nApocrypha_, 1851, pp. 1-39. The Greek scholar, Constantine Lascaris,\ntranslated part of the work into Latin in 1490.\n\n[1851] Mead (1892), p. 37, notes that Dr. Salmon (article _Simon Magus_\nin _Dict. Chris. Biog._ IV, 686) \u201cconnects this with the story, told\nby Suetonius and Dio Chrysostom, that Nero caused a wooden theater\nto be erected in the Campus, and that a gymnast who tried to play\nthe part of Icarus fell so near the emperor as to bespatter him with\nblood.\u201d Hegesippus (_De bello judaico_, III, 2), Abdias (_Hist._ 1),\nand Maximus Taurinensis (_Patr._ VI, _Synodi ad Imp. Const. Act._ 18)\ncompare Simon\u2019s flight with that of Icarus.\n\n[1852] Tischendorf (1851), p. xix.\n\n[1853] \u201cDe mirificis rebus et actibus beatorum Petri et Pauli, et\nde magicis artibus Simonis:\u201d Fabricius, _Cod. apocr._, III, 632;\nFlorentinus, _Martyrologium Hieronymi_, 103.\n\n[1854] A slightly different version of the dog incident is found in the\n_Acts of Nereus and Achilles_ (AS, May III, 9).\n\n[1855] _Hegesippus_, III, 2 ed. C. F. Weber and J. Caesar, Marburg,\n1864, \u201cet statim in voce Petri implicatis remigiis alarum quas\nsumserat corruit, nec exanimatus est, sed fracto debilitatus crure\nAriciam concessit atque ibi mortuus est.\u201d I earnestly recommend this\npassage to those who delight in finding ancient precursors of modern\ninventions as an example of remarkable insight into the effect of\nair-waves upon delicate mechanisms.\n\n[1856] ed. Fabricius, _Cod. apocr._, I, 411; AS, June V, 424.\n\n[1857] _Biblioth. Patrum_, Cologne, 1618, I, 70.\n\n[1858] Printed PL, 39, 2121-2, among the works of Augustine, _Sermones\nSupposititi_, CCII. The greater number of MSS assign it to Maximus.\n\n[1859] M\u00e2le, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 297, notes 3 and 4; p.\n298, note 1.\n\n[1860] The two representations are essentially identical. Simon falls\nhead first, and the accompanying legend reads, \u201c_Hic praecepto Petri\noratione Pauli Simon Magus cecidit in terram_,\u201d\u2014\u201cHere at Peter\u2019s\ncommand and Paul\u2019s prayer Simon Magus falls to earth.\u201d\n\n[1861] Greek and Latin text in parallel columns in AS, Sept. VII\n(1867), pp. 204ff. For an account of previous editions see _Ibid._,\np. 182. Bishop John Fell published a Latin text from three Oxford\nMSS. In Digby 30, 15th century, fol. 29-, which I have examined, the\nwording differed considerably from that of the Latin text in AS. The\nbrief _Martyrium_ of Cyprian and Justina follows in the same volume\nof AS at pp. 224-6. _Sahidische Bruchst\u00fccke der Legende von Cyprian\nvon Antiochen_, ed. O. v. Lamm, 1899, Ethiopic, Greek, and German,\nin _Petrograd Acad. Scient. Imper. M\u00e9moires, VIII s\u00e9rie, Cl. hist.\nphilol._, IV, 6. \u03a0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2,\nwith an Arabic version, ed. Margaret D. Gibson, 1901, in _Studia\nSinaitica_, No. 8.\n\n[1862] _Ibid._, p. 180, \u201cipsa S. Cypriana nomine vulgata Confessio quam\nante Constantini aetatem scriptam esse critici plurimi etiam rigidiores\nfatentur.\u201d\n\n[1863] _Ibid._, p. 205, \u201cet initiatus sum sonis sermonum ac strepitum\nnarrationibus.\u201d L. Preller in _Philologus_, I (1846), 349ff., and A.\nB. Cook, _Zeus_, 110-1, suggest that these rites on Mount Olympus were\nOrphic.\n\n[1864] \u201cEt aliorum insidiantium decipientium permiscentium....\u201d\n\n[1865] Shelley, it may be recalled, in 1822 translated some scenes,\npublished in 1824, from Calder\u00f3n\u2019s _Magico Prodigioso_, in which\nCyprian, Justina, and the demon figure.\n\n[1866] Bouchier, _Syria as a Roman Province_, p. 237.\n\n[1867] Bouchier, _Spain Under the Roman Empire_, p. 123, citing AS,\nJuly 19.\n\n[1868] Epiphanius, _Panarion_, ed. Dindorf, II, 97-104; ed. Petavius,\n131A-137C.\n\n[1869] _Idem._ The attempt to bewitch the furnaces reminds one of the\nfourteenth Homeric epigram, in which the bard threatens to curse the\npotters\u2019 furnaces if they do not pay him for his song, and to summon\n\u201cthe destroyers of furnaces,\u201d\u2014\u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f0c\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd,\u2014words usually interpreted as names for mischievous Pucks and\nbrawling goblins who smash pottery. But the two middle names suggest\nthe stones, smaragdus or emerald, and asbestos. The poet also invokes\n\u201cCirce of many drugs\u201d to cast injurious spells, and appeals to Chiron\nto complete the work of destruction. He further prays that the face\nof any potter who peers into the furnace may be burned. This epigram\nis probably of late date. See A. Abel, _Homeri Hymni, Epigrammata,\nBatrachomyomachia_, Lipsiae, 1886, pp. 123-4.\n\n[1870] M\u00e2le, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, pp. 304-6.\n\n[1871] M\u00e2le (1913), p. 306.\n\n[1872] _Ibid._, p. 307.\n\n[1873] Greek text in Migne PG, Vol. XI. English translation in the\n_Ante-Nicene Fathers_, of which I generally make use in quotations\nfrom the work. On the MSS of the _Against Celsus_ see Paul Koetschau,\n_Die Text\u00fcberlieferung der B\u00fccher des Origenes gegen Celsus in den\nHandschriften dieses Werkes und der Philokalia. Prolegomena zu einer\nkritischen Ausgabe_, 1889, 157 pp., (TU, VI, 1).\n\n[1874] I, 71; also II, 32.\n\n[1875] I, 38; also VIII, 9; II, 48.\n\n[1876] I, 68; III, 52.\n\n[1877] II, 49.\n\n[1878] VII, 36.\n\n[1879] I, 6.\n\n[1880] VI, 40.\n\n[1881] V, 51.\n\n[1882] I, 26.\n\n[1883] IV, 33.\n\n[1884] V, 6.\n\n[1885] V, 9.\n\n[1886] VII, 9.\n\n[1887] VII, 11.\n\n[1888] VII, 3.\n\n[1889] III, 1.\n\n[1890] III, 5.\n\n[1891] III, 46; IV, 51.\n\n[1892] I, 28.\n\n[1893] I, 38.\n\n[1894] I, 60.\n\n[1895] I, 38.\n\n[1896] II, 49.\n\n[1897] II, 51.\n\n[1898] I, 68.\n\n[1899] VII, 25.\n\n[1900] V, 42.\n\n[1901] I, 68.\n\n[1902] VI, 41.\n\n[1903] III, 52.\n\n[1904] See cap. 21.\n\n[1905] K\u00fchn, XIX, 48 (_de libris propriis_). \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u039a\u03ad\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1906] VI, 39.\n\n[1907] IV, 86.\n\n[1908] VII, 67.\n\n[1909] VI, 39.\n\n[1910] VI, 40.\n\n[1911] VII, 3 and 35.\n\n[1912] Ps. XCVI, 5.\n\n[1913] VII, 69.\n\n[1914] V, 42.\n\n[1915] II, 51. See also V, 38; VI, 45; VII, 69; VIII, 59; I, 60.\n\n[1916] See VII, 67, \u201cdemons ... and their several operations, whether\nled on to them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art,\nor urged on by their own inclinations....\u201d\n\nAlso VII, 5, \u201cthose spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may\nsay, to particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical\nforce or by their own natural inclinations.\u201d\n\nAlso VII, 64, \u201c... the demons choose certain forms and places, whether\nbecause they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because\nfor some other possible reason they have selected those haunts....\u201d\n\n[1917] VII, 4. \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[1918] V, 38.\n\n[1919] VIII, 61.\n\n[1920] VI, 80.\n\n[1921] I, 58.\n\n[1922] I, 60.\n\n[1923] I, 58. The Magi had been confused with the Chaldeans several\ncenturies before by Ctesias in his _Persica_, cap. 15; see D. F.\nM\u00fcnter, _Der Stern der Weisen: Untersuchungen \u00fcber das Geburtsjahr\nChristi_, Kopenhagen (1827), p. 14.\n\n[1924] Balaam himself was something of an astrologer according to\nM\u00fcnter, _Der Stern der Weisen_, 1827, p. 31. \u201cDie sieben Alt\u00e4re die der\nmoabitische Seher Bileam an verschiedenen Orten errichtete (IV B. Mose,\nXXIII) waren gewiss den sieben Planetf\u00fcrsten gewidmet.\u201d\n\n[1925] Numbers, XXIV, 17.\n\n[1926] Similarly an English version (in an Oxford MS of the early\n15th century, Laud Misc., 658) of _The History of the Three Kings of\nCologne_, or medieval account of the translation of the relics of the\nMagi, in forty-one chapters with a preface, opens its first chapter\nwith the words, \u201cThe mater of these three worshipful and blissid kingis\ntoken the begynnyng of the prophecye of Balaam.\u201d\n\n[1927] _In Numeros Homilia XIII_, in Migne, PG, XII, 675.\n\n[1928] _In Numeros Homilia XV_, col. 689.\n\n[1929] _In Genesim Homilia XIV_, 3, in PG, XII, 238.\n\n[1930] _Origenis in Numeros Homiliae, Prologus Rufini Interpretis ad\nUrsacium._ Migne, PG, XII, 583-86.\n\n[1931] _Origenis in Numeros Homilia XIII_, Migne, PG, XII, 670-677.\nIn at least one medieval manuscript we find the homily upon Balaam\npreserved separately, BN 13350, 12th century, fol. 92v, et omeliae de\nBalaham et Balach.\n\n[1932] W. H. Bennett, _Balaam_, in EB, 11th edition.\n\n[1933] One cannot help wondering whether Pharaoh\u2019s magicians lost their\nrods for good as a result of this man\u0153uvre, but it is a point upon\nwhich the Scriptural narrative fails to enlighten us.\n\n[1934] II, 15-16.\n\n[1935] _Antiq._, IV, 6.\n\n[1936] Johannis Hildeshemensis, _Liber de trium regum translatione_,\n1478, cap. 2.\n\n[1937] E. W. Hengstenberg, _Die Geschichte Bileams und seine\nWeissagungen_, Berlin, 1842. Hengstenberg tried to take middle ground\nbetween Philo Judaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret,\nand others who regarded Balaam as a godless false prophet and magician,\nand the contrary opinion of Tertullian, Jerome, and some moderns who\nhold that Balaam was originally a devout man and true prophet who fell\nthrough his covetousness.\n\n[1938] \u201cEt ideo quasi expertus in talibus in opinione erat omnibus qui\nerant in Oriente ... Certus ergo Balach de hoc et frequenter expertus.\u201d\n\n[1939] In Homily XIV.\n\n[1940] Migne, PG, XII, 1011-28.\n\n[1941] J. G. Frazer (1918), II, 522, note, however, says of I. Samuel,\nXXVIII, 12: \u201cIt seems that we must read, \u2018And when the woman saw Saul,\u2019\nwith six manuscripts of the Septuagint and some modern critics, instead\nof, \u2018And when the woman saw Samuel.\u2019\u201d\n\n[1942] VI, 41.\n\n[1943] V, 48.\n\n[1944] I, 30.\n\n[1945] II, 34.\n\n[1946] IV, 33, and I, 22.\n\n[1947] IV, 33. On the use of mystic names of God among the Jews of this\nperiod and \u201cthe new and greatly developed angelology that flourished at\nthat time in Egypt and Palestine\u201d see the Introduction to M. Gaster\u2019s\nedition of _The Sword of Moses_, 1896,\u2014a book of magic found in a\n13-14th century Hebrew MS, but which is mentioned in the 11th century\nand which he would trace back to ancient times.\n\n[1948] I, 6. It also, however, suggests the efficacy ascribed by the\nMandaeans to the repetition of passages from their sacred books.\n\n[1949] II, 49.\n\n[1950] I, 25; V, 45.\n\n[1951] V, 45.\n\n[1952] I, 24.\n\n[1953] IV, 33; I, 22, etc.\n\n[1954] _In Math._ XXVI, 23 (Migne, PG, XIII, 1757).\n\n[1955] See p. 366 in Chapter XV on Gnosticism.\n\n[1956] V, 25.\n\n[1957] VIII, 28.\n\n[1958] VIII, 58.\n\n[1959] VIII, 60.\n\n[1960] VIII, 63.\n\n[1961] VII, 68.\n\n[1962] VII, 69.\n\n[1963] VIII, 59.\n\n[1964] V, 28.\n\n[1965] V, 29; see _Deut._ xxxii, 8.\n\n[1966] V, 30.\n\n[1967] V, 32.\n\n[1968] VIII, 31.\n\n[1969] Migne, PG, XII, 680.\n\n[1970] III, 12.\n\n[1971] I, 8.\n\n[1972] V, 54; see _Book of Enoch_, XL, 9.\n\n[1973] Matthew, XVIII, 10.\n\n[1974] VII, 5.\n\n[1975] V, 6-9.\n\n[1976] V, 6.\n\n[1977] IV, 67; V, 20-21.\n\n[1978] VI, 80.\n\n[1979] Duhem (1913-1917) II, 447, treats of \u201cLes P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et\nla Grande Ann\u00e9e.\u201d\n\n[1980] V, 11.\n\n[1981] _De principiis_, I, 7.\n\n[1982] V, 10.\n\n[1983] _Deut._, IV, 19-20.\n\n[1984] V, 12.\n\n[1985] I, 59.\n\n[1986] V, 11.\n\n[1987] P. D. Huet, _Origenianorum_ Lib. II, Cap. II, Quaestio VIII, _De\nastris_, in Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, XVII, 973, _et seq._\n\n[1988] XVII, 28.\n\n[1989] \u201cIn prooemio libri prioris eiusdem \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, num. 10.\u201d\n\n[1990] Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._, VI, 11, in Migne, PG, XXI, 477-506.\n\n[1991] PG, XXI, 489.\n\n[1992] _Ibid._, 501-502.\n\n[1993] P. D. Huet, _Origenianorum_ Lib., II, ii, v. 10, cites Basil,\n_Homil. 3 in Hexaem._; Epiphanius, _Haer._, LXIV, 4, and _Epist. ad\nJoan. Jerosolymit._, cap. 3; Jerome, _Epist. 61 ad Pammach._, cap.\n3; Gregory Nyss., _lib. in Hexaem._; Augustine, _Confess._, XIII, 15;\nIsidore, _Origin._, VII, 5.\n\nSee also Duhem (1913-1917) II, 487, \u201cLes eaux suprac\u00e9lestes.\u201d\n\n[1994] VI, 21.\n\n[1995] IV, 90-95.\n\n[1996] Origen quotes, \u201cYe shall not practise augury nor observe the\nflight of birds,\u201d which is found in the Septuagint, _Levit._, XIX, 26.\n\n[1997] I, 66.\n\n[1998] I, 36.\n\n[1999] I, 33.\n\n[2000] IV, 86-88.\n\n[2001] IV, 98.\n\n[2002] IV, 93; it will be recalled that the witches in _The Golden Ass_\nof Apuleius assume the bodies of weasels in order to rob a corpse.\n\n[2003] I, 37.\n\n[2004] VII, 30.\n\n[2005] VIII, 19-20.\n\n[2006] Homily 18 on Numbers, Migne, PG, XII, 715.\n\n[2007] _Epistola_ 96 in Migne, PL, XXII, 78.\n\n[2008] Migne, PG, XVII, 1091-92.\n\n[2009] Tertullian, _Apology_, cap. 21; so also Cyprian, _Liber de\nidolorum vanitate_, cap. 13. Latin text of Tertullian in PL, vols. 1-2;\nEnglish translation in AN, vol. 3.\n\n[2010] _Apology_, cap. 23.\n\n[2011] _De cultu feminarum_, I, 2.\n\n[2012] _Apology_, cap. 22.\n\n[2013] _De anima_, cap. 57.\n\n[2014] _Apology_, cap. 23.\n\n[2015] _De anima_, cap. 57. Damigeron is mentioned in the Orphic poem,\n_Lithica_, and in the _Apology_ of Apuleius, cap. 45; is cited in the\n_Geoponica_, and was regarded by V. Rose as the Greek source of the\nLatin \u201cEvax\u201d and Marbod on stones. BN 7418, 14th century, _Amigeronis\nde lapidibus_, was printed by Pitra, _Spic. Solesm._, III, 324-35, and\nAbel, _Orphei Lithica_, p. 157, _et seq._ See further PW, \u201cDamigeron.\u201d\n\n[2016] Presumably Nectanebus.\n\n[2017] It is Aaron\u2019s rod in the King James version.\n\n[2018] _De idolatria_, cap. 9.\n\n[2019] _Apology_, cap. 35.\n\n[2020] PL, vol. 3; AN, vol. 4.\n\n[2021] Thus Minucius Felix says, _Octavius_, cap. 26, \u201cMagi ...\nquidquid miraculi ludunt ... praestigias edunt,\u201d while Tertullian,\n_Apology_, cap. 23, writes, \u201cPorro si et magi phantasmata edunt ... si\nmulta miracula circulatoriis praestigiis ludunt.\u201d\n\n[2022] Cyprian, _Liber de idolorum vanitate_, caps. 6-7.\n\n[2023] PL, vol. VI; AN, vol. VII; the following references are all to\nthis work.\n\n[2024] V, 3.\n\n[2025] II, 15.\n\n[2026] II, 17.\n\n[2027] IV, 27.\n\n[2028] II, 17.\n\n[2029] The work was discovered in 1842 at Mount Athos and edited by E.\nMiller in 1851, Duncker and Schneidewin in 1859, and Abb\u00e9 Cruice in\n1860. Greek text in PG, vol. XVI, part 3; English translation in AN,\nvol. V.\n\n[2030] R. Ganschinietz, _Hippolytos\u2019 Capitel gegen die Magier_, 1913,\nin TU, 39, 2, is a commentary on the text.\n\n[2031] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 28.\n\n[2032] Since writing this sentence I have found an article by Diels\non the discovery of alcohol in _Societas Regia Scientiarum, Abhandl.\nPhilos.-Hist. Classe_, Berlin, 1913, in which he argues from this\npassage in Hippolytus that the discovery was made in the Alexandrian\nperiod and that it reached western Europe again only through the Arabs\nabout the twelfth century, since alcohol is not mentioned in the older\nSchlettstadt version of the _Mappae clavicula_. If this be so, Adelard\nof Bath was perhaps the first to introduce it from the Arabs or the\norient, although Diels does not say so.\n\n[2033] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 29-41.\n\n[2034] In some places the text is illegible.\n\n[2035] Cap. 105.\n\n[2036] Leo Allatius \u201cin syntagmate\u201d _De engastrimytho_, cap. 7;\nSulpicius Severus, _Historia sacra_, liber I; Anastasius Antiochenus,\n\u1f49\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, quaest., 112; \u201cet eorum quos laudat Bellarminus liber IV _de\nChristo_, cap. 11.\u201d\n\n[2037] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5, PG, XLV, 107-14.\n\n[2038] Migne, PG, XVIII, 613-74.\n\n[2039] The King James version, First Samuel, XXVIII, 19, reads, \u201cand\nto morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,\u201d instead of \u201cthou and\nJonathan.\u201d\n\n[2040] Migne, PG, XII, 143-74.\n\n[2041] Migne, PG, LVI, 61, _et seq._\n\n[2042] Migne, PG, LVI, 637, _et seq._ _Homily_ II, \u201cOpus imperfectum\nin Matthaeum quod Chrysostomi nomine circumfertur.\u201d _Ibid._, 602, _et\nseq._, for opinions of various past writers as to its authenticity.\n\n[2043] Migne, PG, LX, 274-5, in the 38th homily on the Book of Acts.\n\n[2044] On the other hand, D. Friedrich M\u00fcnter, _Der Stern der Weisen:\nUntersuchungen \u00fcber das Geburtsjahr Christi_, Kopenhagen, 1827, adopted\nthe astrological theory that the star of Bethlehem was really a major\nconjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, which Jewish tradition,\ntoo, seems to have regarded as the sign of the Messiah, and that\ntherefore Jesus was born in 6 B. C. This view had already been advanced\nby Kepler, but recent writers seem to prefer a conjunction in Aries:\nsee H. G. Voigt, _Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie_, Leipzig,\n1911; Kritzinger, _Der Stern der Weisen_, G\u00fctersloh, 1911; von Oefele,\n_Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279 verglichen mit der\nGeburtsgeschichte Christi im Berichte des Matth\u00e4us_, Berlin, 1903, in\n_Mitteil. d. Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_.\n\n[2045] M\u00e2le, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 208, was not able to\ntrace the legend that the star of the Magi appeared with the face of\na child beyond _The Golden Legend_ compiled by James of Voragine in\nthe thirteenth century. We shall, however, find it mentioned in the\ntwelfth century by Abelard, who derived it from this spurious homily of\nChrysostom.\n\n[2046] They are twice so represented on the elaborately carved\nChristian sarcophagus in the museum at Syracuse, Sicily, where also the\nmanger, ox, and ass are shown (compare note 4 below).\n\n[2047] Hugo Kehrer, _Die Heiligen drei K\u00f6nige in Litteratur und Kunst_,\nLeipzig, 1908, 2 vols. An earlier work on the three Magi is Inchofer,\n_Tres Magi Evangelici_, Rome, 1639.\n\n[2048] J. C. Thilo, _Eusebii Alexandrini oratio_ \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n(_praemissa de magis et stella quaestione_) _e Cod. Reg. Par. primum\nedita_, Progr. Halae, 1834.\n\n[2049] A. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, 1899, p. 611, \u201cLa\nroyaut\u00e9 des Mages fut invent\u00e9e (vers le VIe si\u00e8cle), comme la cr\u00e8che\n(_sic!_ see Luke, II, 12 and 16), le b\u0153uf et l\u2019\u00e2ne pour montrer\nl\u2019accomplissement des proph\u00e9ties.\u201d\n\n[2050] _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 214 note, following, I\npresume, Kehrer\u2019s work, as he does on p. 213.\n\n[2051] For detailed references see M\u00fcnter, _Der Stern der Weisen_,\n1827, p. 15; and Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, 1899, p. 611, where they are stated\nsomewhat differently.\n\n[2052] _Comm. in Platonis Timaeum_, II, vi, 125; quoted by M\u00fcnter\n(1827), pp. 27-8.\n\n[2053] BN 16819, fol. 49r. Corpus Christi 134, early 12th century, fol.\n1 v., has a brief \u201cMagorum trium qui Domino Infanti aurum obtulere\nnomina et descriptio.\u201d\n\n[2054] Cotton Galba E, VIII, 15th century, fols. 3-28, Fabulosa\nnarratio de tribus magis qui Christum adorarunt sive de tribus regibus\nColoniensibus.\n\n[2055] Cap. 12 in the 1478 edition.\n\n[2056] _Ibid._, cap. 34.\n\n[2057] At Munich all the following MSS are 15th century: CLM 18621,\nfol. 135, _Liber trium regum_, fol. 215, _Legenda trium regum excerpta\nex praecedenti_; 19544, fols. 314-49, and 26688, fols. 157-92,\n_Laudes et gesta trium regum_, etc.; 21627, fols. 212-31, _Historia\nde tribus regibus_; 23839, fols. 112-37, and 24571, fols. 50-104,\n_Gesta trium regum_; 25073, fols. 260-83, _de nativitate domini et\nde tribus regibus_. At Berlin MSS 799 and 800, both of the 15th\ncentury, have the _Gesta trium regum_ ascribed to John of Hildesheim.\nSo Wolfenb\u00fcttel 3266, anno 1461. The printed edition of 1478 in 46\nchapters and about 30 folios is also ascribed to John of Hildesheim.\nWe read on the binding, \u201cIoannis Hildeshemensis Liber de trium regum\ntranslatione.\u201d The Incipit is: \u201cReverendissimo in Christo patri ac\ndomino domino florencio de weuelkouen divina providencia monasteriensis\necclesie episcopo dignissimo.\u201d The colophon is: \u201cLiber de gestis ac\ntrina beatissimorum trium regum translacione ... per me Johannem\nguldenschoff de moguncia.\u201d Some other MSS, also of the 15th century,\nare: Vatic. Palat. Lat. 859, de gestis et translationibus trium regum,\nand at Oxford, University College 33, Liber collectus de gestis et\ntranslationibus sanctorum trium regum de Colonia; Laud Misc., 658,\nThe history of the three kings of Cologne, in forty-one chapters\nwith a preface. It is thus seen that the number of chapters varies.\nCoxe\u2019s catalogue of the Laud MSS states that the Latin original was\nprinted at Cologne in quarto in 1481, and that it is very different\nfrom the version printed by Wynkyn de Worde. \u201cThe Story of the Magi,\u201d\nin Bodleian (Bernard) 2325, covers only folio 68. At Amiens is a MS\nwhich the catalogue dates in the 14th century and ascribes to John\nof Hildesheim, and its Incipit is practically that of the printed\nedition: Amiens 481, fols. 1-58, \u201cReverendissimo in Christo Patri ac\ndomino domino Florentino de Wovellonem (_sic_) divina providencia\nMonasteriensis ecclesie episcopo dignissimo. Cum venerandissimorum\ntrium Magorum, ymo verius trium Regum.\u201d The work ends in the MS with\nthe words, \u201c... summi Regis servant legem incole Colonie. Amen.\nExplicit hystoria.\u201d\n\n[2058] BN 16819, 10th century, fols. 46r-49r.\n\n[2059] Marco Polo (I, 13-14, ed. Yule and Cordier, 1903, vol. I,\n78-81), who located the Magi in Saba, Persia, recounts further legends\nconcerning them and their gifts.\n\nSee also F. W. K. M\u00fcller, _Uigurica_, I, i, _Die Anbetung der Magier,\nein Christliches Bruchst\u00fcck_, Berlin, 1908.\n\n[2060] Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, I, 274, says, \u201cAugustine\nand Chrysostom felt and spoke in the same way, though in more measured\nlanguage, and nearly all early Christian writers who touched upon the\nmatter did so to echo the voice of authorities so unquestioned.\u201d But I\ncannot agree with this statement. He goes on to imply that a majority\nof the fathers, like Cosmas Indicopleustes, attacked the belief in\nthe sphericity of the earth; but here, too, I wonder if he is not\nfollowing Letronne, _Des Opinions Cosmographiques des P\u00e8res_, without\nhaving examined the citations. Certainly no such attitude is found in\nBasil\u2019s _Hexaemeron_, Hom. 3 and 9 as the citation implies. I have not\nseen Marinelli, _La geographia e i Padri della Chiesa, estratto dal\nBollettino della Societ\u00e0 geografica italiana_, anno 1882, pp. 11-15.\n\n[2061] _Divin. Instit._, III, 24.\n\n[2062] Migne, PG, vol. 29; PN, vol. 8.\n\n[2063] Duhem (1914) II, 394, however, prefers Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s work\nas \u201c\u00e0 la fois plus sobre, plus concis, et plus philosophique....\u201d\n\n[2064] Homily I was delivered in the morning, II in the evening; III\nwas in the morning and speaks of a coming evening address. At the close\nof Homily VII Basil urges his hearers to talk over at their evening\nmeal what they have heard this morning and this evening. If we regard\nHomily VI as the morning address referred to, we shall have Homily V\nleft to cover an entire day. Homily VI, however, is the longest of the\nnine. In any case Homily VIII is clearly preached in the morning, and\nIX at evening.\n\n[2065] Bk. II, caps. 10-17.\n\n[2066] _Epistola 65, ad Pammachium._ Augustine\u2019s _De Genesi ad\nlitteram_, which Cassiodorus (_Institutes_, I, 1) esteemed above the\ncommentaries of Basil and Ambrose upon Genesis, is a somewhat similar\nwork, but, after a briefer treatment of the work of creation, continues\nto comment on the text up to Adam\u2019s expulsion from Paradise.\n\n[2067] Migne, PL, 14, 131-2. The most recent edition of the\n_Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose is by C. Schenkl. Vienna, 1896.\n\n[2068] Fialon, _\u00c9tude sur St. Basile_, 1869, p. 296.\n\n[2069] Homily IX.\n\n[2070] For example, in the catalogue, published in 1744, of MSS in\nthe then Royal Library at Paris there are listed five copies of\nEustathius\u2019 Latin translation, dating from the ninth to the fourteenth\ncentury\u20142200, 4; 1701, 1; 1702, 1; 1787A, 2; 2633, 1; and fifteen\ncopies of the _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose\u20141718; 1702, 2; 1719 to 1727\ninclusive; 2387, 4; 2637 and 2638.\n\nI have not noted what MSS of the _Hexaemerons_ of Basil and Ambrose\nare found in the British Museum and Bodleian libraries. Some other\nmedieval copies of Basil\u2019s in Latin translation are: BN 12134, 9th\ncentury Lombard hand; Vend\u00f4me 122, 11th century, fols. 1 v-60; Soissons\n121, 12th century, fol. 97, Eustathius\u2019 prologue and a part of his\ntranslation; Grenoble 258, 12th century, fols. 1-45, \u201cEustathii\ntranslatio....\u201d\n\nThe _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose, since written originally in Latin, is\nnaturally found oftener. The oldest MS is said to be CU Corpus Christi\n193, large Lombard script of the 8th century which closely resembles BN\n3836. Other MSS are: BN 11624, 11th century; BN 12135, 9th century; BN\n12136, 12-13th century; BN 13336, 11th century; BN 14847, 12th century,\nfol. 163; BN nouv. acq. 490, 12th century; Vatican 269-273 inclusive,\n10-15th centuries; Alen\u00e7on 10, 12th century; Vend\u00f4me 129, 12th century,\nfols. 48-126; Semur, 10, 12th century; Chartres 63, 10-11th century,\nfols. 3-46; Orl\u00e9ans 35, 11th century; Orl\u00e9ans 192, 7th century, part of\nthe first two books only; Amiens fonds Lescalopier 30, 12th century;\nle Mans 15, 11th century; Brussels 1782, 10th century; CLM 2549, 12th\ncentury; CLM 3728, 10th century; CLM 6258, 10th century; CLM 13079,\n12th century; CLM 14399, 12th century; Novara 40, 12th century; and\nmany other MSS of later date in these and other libraries.\n\n[2071] _De proprietatibus rerum_, VIII, 4.\n\n[2072] Bede, _Hexaemeron, sive libri quatuor in principium Genesis\nusque ad nativitatem Isaac et electionem Ismaelis_, in Migne, PL, 91,\n9-100. Bede originally intended to carry his work only to the expulsion\nof Adam from Paradise, but subsequently added three more books.\n\n[2073] Homilies I, VIII, and X.\n\n[2074] Homily III, 1 and 10.\n\n[2075] I, 7; III, 5 and 10.\n\n[2076] IV, 1.\n\n[2077] I, 7; III, 5; IV, 3, 4, and 7; VI, 9; VII, 6.\n\n[2078] II, 7; III, 10.\n\n[2079] IV, 1; VI, 1.\n\n[2080] VIII, 8.\n\n[2081] Homily V, 10; IX, 2.\n\n[2082] I, 3.\n\n[2083] II, 1.\n\n[2084] III, 3.\n\n[2085] II, 4, _et seq._\n\n[2086] III, 9.\n\n[2087] Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, Introduction, pp.\nxxxi, xxxix.\n\n[2088] Irenaeus, I, 5; Epiphanius, ed. Petavius 186AB.\n\n[2089] Homily I, 10.\n\n[2090] VI, 9-11.\n\n[2091] I, 11.\n\n[2092] II, 7.\n\n[2093] IV, 2-4.\n\n[2094] Homily IV, 4.\n\n[2095] IV, 6.\n\n[2096] V, 2.\n\n[2097] IV, 5.\n\n[2098] III, 4.\n\n[2099] VI, 1.\n\n[2100] Homily V, 3.\n\n[2101] V, 9.\n\n[2102] V, 4.\n\n[2103] V, 6.\n\n[2104] VII, 5; IX, 3.\n\n[2105] VIII, 6.\n\n[2106] Homily VII, 6.\n\n[2107] IX, 3.\n\n[2108] VIII, 5. See also Aristotle, _History of Animals_, V, 8.\n\n[2109] Homily VIII, 6.\n\n[2110] IX, 2.\n\n[2111] IX, 5.\n\n[2112] Homily, VI, 11.\n\n[2113] V, 1.\n\n[2114] VI, 3.\n\n[2115] _Ad Autolycum_, II, 15.\n\n[2116] Homily VI, 5-7.\n\n[2117] Homily VI, 10.\n\n[2118] V, 2.\n\n[2119] V, 7. But perhaps he simply means that oaks will grow where\npines used to.\n\nTertullian, _De pallio_, cap. 2, dwelling on the law of change, speaks\nof the washing down of soil from mountains, the alluvial formation\nby rivers, and of sea-shells on mountain tops as a proof that the\nwhole earth was once covered by water. He seems to have in mind a\ngradual process of geological evolution rather than Noah\u2019s flood,\nand Sir James Frazer states that Isidore of Seville is the first\nhe knows of the many writers who have appealed \u201cto fossil shells\nimbedded in remote mountains as witnesses to the truth of the Noachian\ntradition,\u201d\u2014_Origines_, XIII, 22, cited by J. G. Frazer, _Folk-Lore in\nthe Old Testament_ (1918), I, 159, who cites the passage in Tertullian\nat pp. 338-9.\n\n[2120] Homily IX, 2.\n\n[2121] Cunningham, _Christian Opinion on Usury_, p. 9.\n\n[2122] Twice in the course of the _Panarion_ (Dindorf, I, 280, and\nII, 428; Petavius, 2D and 404A) he gives the year of the reign of\nValentinian and Valens, namely, the eleventh and the twelfth.\n\n[2123] Lucian\u2019s _De dipsadibus_ will be recalled; see also Pliny, NH,\nXXIII, 80; Lucan, _Pharsalia_, IX, 719.\n\n[2124] Pliny, NH, XXIII, 18; XXX, 10.\n\n[2125] Pliny, NH, XXV, 53; XXI, 92; XIX, 62; XII, 40 and 55.\n\n[2126] Dindorf, II, 450; Petavius, 422C.\n\n[2127] _Liber de XII gemmis rationalis summi sacerdotis Hebraeorum_,\npublished in Dindorf\u2019s edition of the _Opera_ of Epiphanius, vol. IV,\npp. 141-248, with the preface and notes of Fogginius, and both the\nLatin and Greek versions.\n\n[2128] _Ibid._, 160-62.\n\n[2129] P. 174.\n\n[2130] Pp. 190-91.\n\n[2131] _Ibid._, 184.\n\n[2132] Pitra, _Spicilegium Solesmense_, Paris, 1855, III, xlvii-lxxx.\nK. Ahrens, _Zur Geschichte des sogenannten Physiologus_, 1885.\nM. F. Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_. Heilbronn,\n1888, pp. 16-33, \u201cEntstehung des Physiologus und seine Entwicklung\nim Abendlande.\u201d F. Lauchert, _Geschichte des Physiologus_,\nStrassburg, 1889. E. Peters, _Der griechische Physiologus und seine\norientalischen Uebersetzungen_, Berlin, 1898. M. Goldstaub, _Der\nPhysiologus und seine Weiterbildung, besonders in der lateinischen\nund in der byzantinischen Litteratur_, in _Philologus_, Suppl. Bd.\nVIII (1898-1901), 337-404. Also in _Verhandl. d. 41. Versammlung\ndeutscher Philologen u. Schulm\u00e4nner in M\u00fcnchen_, Leipzig (1892), pp.\n212-21. V. Schultze, _Der Physiologus in der kirchlichen Kunst des\nMittelalters_, in _Christliches Kunstblatt_, XXXIX (1897), 49-55. J.\nStrzygowski, _Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus_, in _Byz.\nZeitsch._ Erg\u00e4nzungsheft, I (1899). E. P. Evans, _Animal Symbolism\nin Ecclesiastical Architecture_, 1896, is disappointing, being\nmainly compiled from secondary sources and having little to say on\necclesiastical architecture.\n\n[2133] EB, 11th ed., \u201cArthropoda.\u201d\n\n[2134] Lauchert (1889), pp. 229-79, attempts a critical edition of the\nGreek text.\n\n[2135] Pitra (1855), III, 374-90; French translation in Cahier,\n_Nouveaux m\u00e9langes_ (1874), I, 117, _et seq._\n\n[2136] O. G. Tychsen, _Physiologus Syrus_, 1795; from an incomplete\nVatican MS. Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 31, _et seq._, or in _Anecdota\nSyriaca_, IV, 115, _et seq._, gives the complete text with a Latin\ntranslation.\n\n[2137] Hommel, _Die aethiopische Uebersetzung des Physiologus_,\nLeipzig, 1877. A bit of it was translated by Pitra (1855), III, 416-7.\n\n[2138] Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 137, _et seq._, with Latin translation.\nA fragment in Pitra (1855), III, 535.\n\n[2139] Pitra (1855), III, 338-73, used MSS from the 13th to 15th\ncentury. The earliest known illuminated copies are of 1100 A.\u202fD. and\nlater: see Dalton, _Byzantine Art and Archaeology_, Oxford, 1911, pp.\n481-2.\n\n[2140] The oldest Latin MSS seem to be two of the 8th and 9th centuries\nat Berne. Edited by Mai, _Classici auctores_, Rome, 1835, VII, 585-96,\nand more completely by Pitra (1855), III, 418; also by G. Heider, in\n_Archiv f. Kunde \u00f6sterreich. Geschichtsquellen_, Vienna, 1850, II,\n545; Cahier et Martin, _M\u00e9langes d\u2019arch\u00e9ologie_, Paris, II (1851),\n85ff., III (1853), 203ff., IV (1856), 55ff. Cahier, _Nouveaux m\u00e9langes_\n(1874), p. 106ff.\n\nMann (1888), pp. 37-73, prints the Latin text which he regards as\nWilliam le Clerc\u2019s source from Royal 2-C-XII, and gives a list of other\nMSS of Latin Bestiaries in English libraries.\n\nOther medieval Latin Bestiaries have been printed in the works of\nHildebert of Tours or Le Mans (Migne, PL, 171, 1217-24: really this\npoem concerning only twelve animals is by Theobald, who was perhaps\nabbot at Monte Cassino, 1022-1035, and it was printed under the name\nof Theobald before 1500,\u2014see the volume numbered IA.12367 in the\nBritish Museum and entitled, _Phisiologus Theobaldi Episcopi de naturis\nduodecim animalium_. Indeed, it was printed at least nine times under\nhis name,\u2014see Hain, 15467-75): and in the works of Hugh of St. Victor\n(Migne, PL, 177, 9-164, _De bestiis et aliis rebus libri quatuor_).\nBoth of these versions occur in numerous MSS, as does a third version\nwhich opens with citation of the remark of Jacob in blessing his sons,\n\u201cJudah is a lion\u2019s whelp.\u201d The author then cites _Physiologus_ as usual\nconcerning the three natures of the lion. See Wolfenb\u00fcttel 4435, 11th\ncentury, fols. 159-68v, Liber bestiarum. \u201cDe leone rege bestiarum et\nanimalium (est) etenim iacob benedicens iudam ait Catulus leonis iuda.\nDe leone. Leo tres naturas habet.\u201d Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol.\n140-, ... caps. 36, praevia tabula ... Tit. \u201cDe tribus naturis leonis.\u201d\nIncip. \u201cBestiarium seu animalium regis; etenim Jacob benedicens filium\nsuum Udam ait Catulus leonis Judas filius meus quis suscitabit eum;\nFisiologus dicit, Tres res naturales habere leonem....\u201d Library of\nDukes of Burgundy 10074, 10th century, \u201cEtenim Jacob benedicens.\u201d CLM\n19648, 15th century, fols. 180-95, \u201cIgitur Jacob benedicens.\u201d CLM\n23787, 15th century, fols. 12-20, \u201cIgitur Jacob benedicens.\u201d CU Trinity\n884, 13th century in a fine hand, with 107 English miniatures, fol.\n89-, \u201cEt enim iacob benedicens filium suum iudam ait catulus leonis est\niudas filius meus\u201d; this MS ends imperfectly.\n\n[2141] Printed by Lauchert (1889), pp. 280-99.\n\n[2142] Max F. Mann, _Der Physiologus des Philipp von Thaon und seine\nQuellen_, Halle, 1884, 53 pp.\n\n[2143] Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_, Heilbronn, 1888,\nin _Franz\u00f6sische Studien_, VI, 2, pp. 201-306. Most recent edition by\nRobert, Leipzig, 1890.\n\n[2144] Besides the two foregoing see Goldstaub und Wendriner, _Ein\ntosco-venez. Bestiarius_, Halle, 1892. Magliabech. IV, 63, 13th\ncentury, mutilated, 53 fols., bestiario moralizato, in Italian prose.\nE. Monaci, _Rendiconti dell\u2019 Accad. dei Lincei, Classe di scienze\nmorali, storiche e filol._, vol. V, fasc. 10 and 12, has edited a\nBestiario in 64 sonetti on as many animals from a private MS at \u201cGubbio\nnell\u2019 archivio degli avvocati Pietro e Oderisi Lucarelli,\u201d MS 25, fols.\n112-27. See also M. Garver and K. McKenzie, _Il Bestiario Toscano\nsecondo la lezione dei codice di Parigi e di Roma_, in _Studi romanzi_,\nRome, 1912; McKenzie, _Unpublished Manuscripts of Italian Bestiaries_,\nin _Modern Language Publications_, XX (1905), 2; and Garver, \u201cSome\nSupplementary Italian Bestiary Chapters,\u201d in _Romanic Review_, XI\n(1920), 308-27.\n\n[2145] For instance, A. S. Cook, _The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and\nPhysiologus_, Yale University Press, 364 pp., 1919.\n\n[2146] K. Ahrens, _Das \u201cBuch der Naturgegenst\u00e4nde,\u201d_ 1892.\n\n[2147] _Cod. Vind. Med._ 29, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. In the edition of Ponce de\nLeon, Rome, 1587, there are twenty animals described, and the symbolic\ninterpretation is very short compared to later versions. Heider (1850),\np. 543, regarded this as the oldest version and as extant in complete\nform.\n\n[2148] Mansi, _Concil._, VIII, 151, \u201cLiber Physiologus ab hereticis\nconscriptus et beati Ambrosii nomine presignatus apocryphus.\u201d\n\n[2149] Heider (1850), II, 541-82, \u201cPhysiologus nach einer Handschrift\ndes XI. Jahrhunderts\u201d: the text opens at p. 552, \u201cIncipiunt Dicta\nJohannis Chrysostomi de naturis bestiarum.\u201d Lauchert used another\nMS, Vienna 303, 14th century, fol. 124v-, which was considerably\ndifferent and was furthermore combined with the Physiologus of\nTheobald. An earlier MS than either of the foregoing is CLM 19417,\n9th century, fols. 29-71, Liber Sancti Johannis episcopi regiae urbis\nConstantinopoli ... Crisostomi quem de naturis animalium ordinavit.\nAnother Vienna MS is 2511, 14th century, fols. 135-40, \u201cIncipiunt dicta\nJohannis Chrysostomi de naturis animalium et primo de leone .../ ...\nSic erit et scriba doctus in regno celorum qui profert de thesauro suo\nnoua et uetera. Expliciunt dicta Johannis Crisostomi.\u201d A Paris MS of\nthe same is BN 2780, 13th century, 14, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi liber\nqui physiologus appellatur.\n\n[2150] Additional 11,035, Johannis Scottigenae Phisiologiae liber.\nIn the same MS are Macrobius\u2019 _Dream of Scipio_ and the poems of\nPrudentius.\n\n[2151] _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, II, 1 (Migne, PL 177, 57). \u201cPhysici\ndenique dicunt quinque naturales res sive naturas habere leonem....\u201d\n\n[2152] _Mineral._, II, i, 1 (ed. Borgnet, V, 24).\n\n[2153] Bubnov (1899), p. 372.\n\n[2154] Thus even Lauchert (1899), p. 105, admits that Bartholomew\nof England, the thirteenth century Latin encyclopedist, cites\n_Physiologus_ for much which does not come from _Physiologus_.\n\n[2155] Goldstaub (1899-1901), p. 341.\n\n[2156] This and the preceding quotations in the paragraph are from M\u00e2le\n(1913), pp. 48, 35, 49, 45.\n\n[2157] Goldstaub (1899-1901), pp. 350-1. The same statement could be\nmade with equal truth of Vincent of Beauvais and Bartholomew of England.\n\n[2158] Hommel (1877), pp. xii, xv.\n\n[2159] Duhem, II (1914), 314, seems to me to have overestimated the\nsignificance of _Confessions_, V, 5, and _De Genesi ad litteram_, I,\n19, in saying, \u201cL\u2019assurance avec laquelle les Basile, les Gr\u00e9goire de\nNysse, les Ambroise, les Jean Chrysostome opposaient aux enseignements\nde la Physique profane les na\u00efves assertions de leur science pu\u00e9rile\ncontristait fort l\u2019\u00c9v\u00eaque de Hippone.\u201d There is nothing, I think, to\nindicate that Augustine had these men or men of their stamp in mind,\nand I doubt if his scientific attainments were superior to Basil\u2019s.\n\n[2160] _De consensu Evangelistarum_, I, 11; in Migne, PL 34, 1049-50.\n\n[2161] _Ibid._, I, 9-10.\n\n[2162] _De civitate Dei_, X, 9; PL vol. 41.\n\n[2163] _Ibid._, VII, 34-35; and see Arnobius, _Against the Heathen_, V,\n1, for Augustine\u2019s probable source.\n\n[2164] _De civ. Dei_, VIII, 19.\n\n[2165] _Ibid._, VIII, 18, 19, 26; IX, 1.\n\n[2166] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9-10.\n\n[2167] _De trinitate_, IV, 11; in Migne, PL 42, 897.\n\n[2168] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9.\n\n[2169] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6.\n\n[2170] In Grenoble 208, 12th century, containing works of Augustine,\nthere is listed separately at fol. 54v, \u201cDe magis Pharaonis,\u201d to which\nthe MSS catalogue adds, \u201cet de CLIII piscibus.\u201d Probably it is an\nextract from one of Augustine\u2019s longer works as it covers only one leaf.\n\n[2171] _De trinitate_, IV, 11.\n\n[2172] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; Migne, PL 40, 92-3.\n\n[2173] See also _De cataclysmo_ (perhaps spurious), cap. 5, Migne, PL\n40, 696; and _Sermo VIII_, PL 38, 74. _Sermo XC_, PL 38, 562, however,\nspeaks of \u201cMoyses et Aaron.\u201d\n\n[2174] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6; XVIII, 18.\n\n[2175] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; _De doctrina Christiana_,\nII, 20, in Migne, PL 34, 50.\n\n[2176] Migne, PL 40, 581-92.\n\n[2177] _De trinitate_, III, 8; PL, 42, 875.\n\n[2178] _De trinitate_, III, 7-8. It seems strange to me that they\nshould have failed on minute insects who in ancient and medieval\nscience are often represented as produced by spontaneous generation.\nThe Talmudists also, however, state that the Egyptians were unable to\nduplicate the plague of lice, as their art did not extend to things\nsmaller than a barleycorn.\n\n[2179] _De civitate Dei_, XVIII, 22. In commenting on Genesis (PL 34,\n445) he speaks even more harshly of \u201cthat absurd and harmful notion of\nthe changing of souls and of men into beasts, or of beasts into men\u201d;\nbut perhaps he has reference to the doctrine of transmigration of souls\nrather than to magic transformations.\n\n[2180] _Confessions_, X, 42, in PL vol. 32.\n\n[2181] Quaest. VI; PL 40, 162-5.\n\n[2182] II, 3; PL 40, 142-4.\n\n[2183] _De civitate Dei_, XXI, 4-6; PL 41, 712-6.\n\n[2184] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XI, 28-9; PL 34, 444-5.\n\n[2185] _Confessions_, X, 35; in PL vol. 32.\n\n[2186] II, 20 and 29.\n\n[2187] IV, 2-3.\n\n[2188] PL 39, 2268-72.\n\n[2189] _Sermo CXXX_, PL 39, 2004-5.\n\n[2190] II, 21-3; PL 34, 51-3.\n\n[2191] _De civitate Dei_, V, 7.\n\n[2192] _Confessions_, VII, 6.\n\n[2193] Unless otherwise noted, the ensuing arguments are found in _The\nCity of God_, V, 1-7.\n\n[2194] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 17; PL 34, 278. _De diversis\nquaestionibus_, cap. 45; PL 40, 28-9. _Epistola_ 246; PL 33, 1061.\n_Sermo_ 109; PL 38, 1027.\n\n[2195] _Confessions_, IV, 2-3.\n\n[2196] See below, chapter 24.\n\n[2197] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XII, 22 and 17 and 12; PL 34, 472-3,\n467-9, 464-5. See also the marvelous divinations of Albicerius\nrecounted in _Contra Academicos_, I, 6; PL 32, 914-5.\n\n[2198] _Sermones_ 199 and 374; PL 38, 1027-8, and 39, 1666. _Contra\nFaustum_, II, 15; PL 42, 212.\n\n[2199] In _Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento_, Quaest. 63, PL 35, 2258,\nwhich is probably a spurious work but was cited as Augustine\u2019s by\nThomas Aquinas (_Summa_, III, 36, v), Balaam is said to have warned the\nMagi to watch for the star. It is also asserted, however, that \u201cthese\nChaldean Magi watched the course of the stars, not from malevolence,\nbut curiosity concerning nature\u201d (_Hi Magi chaldaei non malevolentia\nastrorum cursum sed rerum curiositate speculabantur_).\n\n[2200] _Enchiridion, sive de fide, spe, et charitate_, I, 58; PL\n40, 259-60. _De civitate Dei_, XIII, 16; PL 41, 388. _De Genesi ad\nlitteram_, II, 18; PL 34, 279-80.\n\n[2201] _Orosii ad Augustinum Consultatio sive Commonitorium de\nerrore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum_, PL 31, 1211-22; also\nin G. Schepss (1889), in CSEL XVIII. _Augustini ad Orosium contra\nPriscillianistas et Origenistas_, PL 41, 669, _et seq._ Augustine also\ndiscusses the Priscillianists in _Epistle_ 237, PL 33, 1034, _et seq._,\nwhere he makes no charge either of magic or astrology against them.\n\n[2202] This charge was later repeated by St. Leo, _Epistola XV_; see\nWithington, _History of Medicine_, 1894, p. 178; but the offense would\nseem a trivial one in any case.\n\n[2203] _De principiis_, I, 7.\n\n[2204] _De doctrina Christiana_, II, 29, in Migne, 34, 57.\n\n[2205] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 16, in Migne, 34, 277.\n\n[2206] _De civitate Dei_, XI, 30-31. He says about the same things\nconcerning six and seven in _De Genesi ad litteram_, IV, 2.\n\n[2207] _Sermo supposititius_ 21, in Migne, PL XXXIX, 1783, \u201cDe\nconvenientia decem preceptorum et decem plagarum Egypti. Non est sine\ncausa, fratres dilectissimi, quod preceptorum legis Dei numerus cum\nnumero plagarum quibus Aegyptus percutitur exaequari videtur.\u201d\n\n[2208] _Cambridge Medieval History_, I, 9.\n\n[2209] The Greek work, _Hermippus or Concerning Astrology_, however,\ncan no longer be regarded as an example of Christian belief in\nastrology at this period, since F. Boll, _Heidelberger Akad. Sitzb._,\n1912, No. 18, has shown it to be a fourteenth century work of John\nKatrarios, who makes use of a Greek translation of Albumasar.\n\n[2210] For bibliography see F. Boll\u2019s \u201cFirmicus\u201d in PW. It does not\ninclude my article written subsequently on \u201cA Roman Astrologer as a\nHistorical Source: Julius Firmicus Maternus,\u201d in _Classical Philology_,\nVIII, No. 4, pp. 415-35, October, 1913. For bibliography see also Kroll\net Skutsch, II, xxxiv.\n\n[2211] The edition of _De errore profanarum religionum_ by K. Ziegler,\nLeipzig, 1907, is more critical than that in Migne, PL.\n\n[2212] _Iulii Firmici Materni Matheseos Libri VIII_, ed. W. Kroll et\nF. Skutsch, _Fasciculus prior libros IV priores et quinti prooemium\ncontinens_, Leipzig, 1897; _Fasciculus alter libros IV posteriores cum\npraefatione et indicibus continens_, 1913. My references will be by\npage and line to this text, unless otherwise noted. Earlier editions,\nwhich I used for the later books before 1913, are the _editio princeps,\nJulius Firmicus de nativitatibus, ... Impressum Venetiis per Symonem\npapiensem dictum bivilaqua, 1497 die 13 Iunii_, cxv fols.; the Aldine\nedition of 1499 containing apparent interpolations, _Julii Firmici\nAstronomicorum libri octo integri et emendati ex Scythicis oris ad\nnos nuper allati...._; and the Basel editions of 1533 and 1551 by M.\nPruckner which reproduce the Aldine text. See Kroll et Skutsch, II,\nxxxiii, for another reproduction of the Aldine text, printed in 1503,\nand p. xxviii for a partial edition of books 3-5 of the _Mathesis_ in\n1488 and 1494 in _Opus Astrolabii plani ... a Iohanne Angeli_.\n\n[2213] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 3, 27.\n\n[2214] Boll in PW, VI, 2365.\n\n[2215] _Hermes_, XXIX, 468-72. The treatise could not have been\ncomposed before 334 since Firmicus (I, 13, 23) refers to an eclipse in\nthe consulship of Optatus and Paulinus which occurred in that year.\n\n[2216] For instance, at I, 37, 25, \u201c_Constantinus scilicet maximus divi\nConstantini filius_,\u201d might as well be rendered, \u201cConstantius, son of\nConstantine,\u201d as \u201cConstantine, son of Constantius.\u201d\n\n[2217] I, 1, 3, \u201cOlim tibi hos libellos, Mavorti decus nostrum, me\ndicaturum esse promiseram verum diu me inconstantia verecundiae\nretardavit.\u201d\n\n[2218] I, 195-6.\n\n[2219] Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 8, 5, \u201ciubetur Mavortius, tunc\npraefectus praetorio, vir sublimis constantiae, crimen acri\ninquisitione spectari.\u201d\n\n[2220] Ziegler, p. 7, \u201cPhysica ratio quam dicis, alio genere celetur\u201d;\np. 9, \u201cquod dicant physica ratione conpositum.\u201d\n\n[2221] Ziegler, p. 5.\n\n[2222] Ziegler, p. 23.\n\n[2223] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 86, 12-21.\n\n[2224] Ziegler, pp. 15, 38, 39, 64, 67, 81, 82, \u201csacratissimi\nimperatores\u201d; pp. 31, 40, \u201csacrosancti principes\u201d; p. 65, \u201csanctarum\naurium vestrarum.\u201d\n\n[2225] Ziegler, pp. 53-4.\n\n[2226] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 17-18.\n\n[2227] See my \u201cA Roman Astrologer as a Historical Source,\u201d _Classical\nPhilology_, VIII, 415-35, especially p. 421.\n\n[2228] I, 16, 20, \u201cSummo illi ac rectori deo, qui omnia perpetua legis\ndispositione composuit....\u201d\n\n[2229] I, 16, 14; I, 57, 2; I, 90, 11, to 91, 10.\n\n[2230] I, 280, 2-28.\n\n[2231] Besides the prayer just quoted, see I, 18, 10-13. See also the\nlong prayer at the end of the first book to the planets and supreme God\nfor the successful continuance of the dynasty of Constantine.\n\n[2232] I, 18, 25-9.\n\n[2233] I, 85-89 (Book II, chapter 30).\n\n[2234] I, 17, 2-23.\n\n[2235] I, 10, 3-.\n\n[2236] I, 11, 7-.\n\n[2237] Book I, Chapter 4 (I, 11-15).\n\n[2238] Book I, Chapter 7 (I, 19-30).\n\n[2239] For a fuller exposition of this quantitative method of\nsource-analysis and the results obtained thereby see Thorndike (1913),\npp. 415-35.\n\n[2240] Temple-robbers, 5; servile or ignoble employ in temples,\n5; spending one\u2019s time in temples, 4; builders of temples, 3;\nbeneficiaries of temples, 3; temple guards, 2; _neocori_, 3; and\nso on, making 35 references to temples in all. It is perhaps worth\nremarking that H. O. Taylor, _The Classical Heritage_, 1901, p. 80,\nnotes that Synesius about 400 A.\u202fD. speaks of the Christian churches at\nConstantinople as \u201ctemples.\u201d\n\n[2241] Chief priests, 5; priests, 9; of provinces, 1; priestess, 1;\npriests of Cybele (_archigalli_), 3; _Asiarchae_, 1; priest of some\ngreat goddess, 1; illicit rites, 1. There are 27 passages concerning\ndivination.\n\n[2242] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 148, 8 and 123, 4.\n\n[2243] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 201, 6.\n\n[2244] Cumont says (_Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_, p. 188):\n\u201cBut the ancients expressly distinguished \u2018magic,\u2019 which was always\nunder suspicion and disapproved of, from the legitimate and honorable\nart for which the name \u2018theurgy\u2019 was invented.\u201d This distinction was\nmade by Porphyry and others, and is alluded to by Augustine in the\n_City of God_, but it is to be noted that Firmicus does not use the\nword \u201ctheurgy.\u201d Cumont also states (p. 179) that in the last period\nof paganism the name philosopher was finally applied to all adepts\nin occult science. But in Firmicus, while magic and philosophy are\nassociated in two passages, there are five other allusions to magic and\nthree separate mentions of philosophers.\n\n[2245] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 161, 26.\n\n[2246] _Computus_, 3; _calculus_, 2; and \u201cthose who excel at numbers,\u201d\n1.\n\n[2247] Including two mentions of court physicians (_archiatri_). See\n_Codex Theod._, Lib. XIII, Tit. 3, _passim_, for their position.\n\n[2248] I leave this sentence as I wrote it in 1913.\n\n[2249] _Aestus animi_, 5; insanity, 13; lunatics, 10; epileptics, 8;\nmelancholia, 3; inflammation of the brain (_frenetici_), 4; delirium,\ndementia, demoniacs, alienation, and madness, one or two each; vague\nallusions to mental ills and injuries, 5.\n\n[2250] In his last chapter he says, \u201cTake then, my dear Mavortius, what\nI promised you with extreme trepidation of spirit, these seven books\ncomposed conformably to the order and number of the seven planets. For\nthe first book deals only with the defense of the art; but in the other\nbooks we have transmitted to the Romans the discipline of a new work,\u201d\n(II, 360, 10-15). And in the introduction to the fifth book he writes,\n\u201cWe have written these books for your Romans lest, when every other\nart and science had been translated, this task should seem to remain\nunattempted by Roman genius,\u201d (I, 280, 28-30).\n\n[2251] I, 41, 7 and 15; I, 40, 9-11.\n\n[2252] I, 41, 5 and 11; I, 40, 8.\n\n[2253] They are listed by Kroll et Skutsch, II, 362, _Index auctorum_.\n\n[2254] II, 294, 12-21.\n\n[2255] Kroll et Skutsch, II, p. iii.\n\n[2256] I, 258, 10, \u201cin singulari libro, quem de domino geniturae et\nchronocratore ad Murinum nostrum scripsimus\u201d; II, 229, 23, \u201cexeo libro\nqui de fine vitae a nobis scriptus est.\u201d\n\n[2257] II, 18, 24; II, 283, 19.\n\n[2258] Engelbrecht, _Heph\u00e4stion von Theben und sein astrologisches\nCompendium_, Vienna, 1887.\n\n[2259] _De vita sua_, in _Libanii sophistae praeludia oratoria LXXII\ndeclamationes XLV et dissertationes morales, Federicus Morellus regius\ninterpres e MSS maxime reg. bibliothecae nunc primum edidit idemque\nLatine vertit ... ad Henricum IV regem Christianissimum_, Paris, 1606,\nII, 15-18.\n\n[2260] _Magi accusatio_, _Ibid._, I, 898-911.\n\n[2261] _De vita sua, Opera_, II, 2-3.\n\n[2262] X, 196, 11, _De sepulcro incantato_.\n\n[2263] My citations of Synesius\u2019 works, unless otherwise noted, are\nfrom the edition: _Synesii Cyrenaei Quae Extant Opera Omnia_, ed. J. G.\nKrabinger, Landshut, 1850, vol. I, which has alone appeared. The older\nedition of Petavius with Latin translation is reprinted in Migne PG,\nvol. 66, 1021-1756. For a French translation, with several introductory\nessays, see H. Druon, _\u0152uvres de Syn\u00e9sius_, Paris, 1878. The _Letters_\nand _Hymns_ have often been published separately. For this and other\nfurther bibliography see Christ, _Gesch. d. griech. Litt._, 1913, II,\nii, 1167-71, where, however, no note is taken of Berthelot\u2019s discussion\nof Synesius as a reputed author of alchemistic treatises.\n\nSome works on Synesius are: H. Druon, _\u00c9tudes sur la vie et les\n\u0153uvres de Syn\u00e9sius_, Paris, 1859; R. Volkmann, _Synesius von Cyrene_,\nBerlin, 1869; W. S. Crawford, _Synesius the Hellene_, London, 1901;\nG. Gr\u00fctzmacher, _Synesios von Kyrene_, Leipzig, 1913. In periodicals:\nF. X. Kraus in _Theol. Quartalschrift_, 1865 and 1866; O. Seeck, in\n_Philologus_, 1893.\n\n[2264] See Crawford, _op. cit._, and monographs listed in Christ, _op.\ncit._, p. 1168, notes 4 and 8.\n\n[2265] The date is variously stated as 411, 406, or 410.\n\n[2266] A. J. Kleffner, _Synesius von Cyrene ... und sein angeblicher\nVorbehalt bei seiner Wahl und Weihe zum Bischof von Ptolemais_,\nPaderborn, 1901. H. Koch, _Synesius von Cyrene bei seiner Wahl und\nWeihe zum Bischof_, in _Hist. Jahrb._, XXIII (1902), pp. 751-74.\n\n[2267] Christ, _op. cit._, p. 1168, note 1.\n\n[2268] _Ibid._, p. 1170, citing K. Pr\u00e4chter, in _Genethliakon f\u00fcr C.\nRobert_, 1910, p. 244, _et seq._\n\n[2269] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (_On dreams_), ch. 2.\n\n[2270] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (_On Dreams_), ch. 3. \u1f1c\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f34\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. \u1f1d\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b4\u03af\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1....\nEvidently Synesius did not regard the magi as mere imposters.\n\n[2271] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, ch. 3. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In his _Praise of Baldness_ (\u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), ch. 10,\nSynesius tells how the Egyptians attract demons by magic influences.\n\n[2272] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, ch. 1. \u0391\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[2273] _Ibid._, ch. 18.\n\n[2274] \u0394\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[2275] \u03a6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ch. 10.\n\n[2276] \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, bk. ii, ch. 7.\n\n[2277] \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, ch. 5.\n\n[2278] \u0394\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, ch. 7. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, ch. 4. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03af, 4, 49, and 142.\n\n[2279] On Synesius as an alchemist see Berthelot (1885), pp. 65,\n188-90; (1889), p. ix.\n\n[2280] T. R. Glover, _Life and Letters in the Fourth Century A.\u202fD._,\nCambridge, 1901, p. 187, note 1.\n\n[2281] _Saturnalia_, I, xvi, 12.\n\n[2282] _Commentary on the Dream of Scipio_, II, 17, \u201cUniversa\nphilosophiae integritas\u201d; ed. Nisard, Paris, 1883.\n\n[2283] _Ibid._, I, 5-6; II, 1-2.\n\n[2284] _Ibid._, I, 7.\n\n[2285] _Ibid._, I, 19.\n\n[2286] _Ibid._, I, 14.\n\n[2287] Glover (1901), p. 178.\n\n[2288] _De nuptiis philologiae et mercurii et de septem artibus\nliberalibus libri novem, Lugduni apud haeredes Simonis Vincentii_,\n1539; ed. U. F. Kopp, Frankfurt, 1836; ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Leipzig,\n1866.\n\n[2289] It occurs toward the close of the second book.\n\n[2290] In Kopp\u2019s edition pp. 202-23 are almost entirely taken up with\nnotes setting forth other passages in the classics concerning such\nspirits.\n\n[2291] Greek text in Migne, PG 3, 119-370.\n\n[2292] Migne, PL 122, 1037-70.\n\n[2293] The following bibliography includes the editions of the texts\nconcerned and the chief critical researches in the field. A. Ausfeld,\n_Zur Kritik des griechischen Alexanderromans; Untersuchungen \u00fcber\ndie unechten Teile der \u00e4ltesten Ueberlieferung_, Karlsruhe, 1894. A.\nAusfeld and W. Kroll, _Der griechische Alexanderroman_, Leipzig, 1907.\nH. Becker, _Die Brahmannen in der Alexandersage_, K\u00f6nigsberg, 1889,\n34 pp. E. A. W. Budge, _History of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge\nUniversity Press, 1889; the Syriac version of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_\nedited from five MSS, with an English translation and notes. E. A.\nW. Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge\nUniversity Press, 1896; Ethiopic Histories of Alexander by the\nPseudo-Callisthenes and other writers. D. Carrarioli, _La leggenda\ndi Alessandro Magno_, 1892. G. G. Cilli\u00e9, _De Iulii Valerii epitoma\nOxoniensi_, Strasburg, 1905. G. Favre, _Recherches sur les histoires\nfabuleuses d\u2019Alexandre le Grand_, in _M\u00e9langes d\u2019hist. litt._, II\n(1856), 5-184. Eth\u00e9, _Alexanders Zug zur Lebensquelle im Lande der\nFinsterniss_, in _Atti dell\u2019 Accademia di Monaco_, 1871. B. K\u00fcbler,\n_Julius Valerius; Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis_, Leipzig, 1888\n(see pp. xxv-xxvi for further bibliography). Levi, _La l\u00e9gende\nd\u2019Alexandre dans le Talmud_, in _Revue des \u00c9tudes juives_, I (1880),\n293-300. Meusel, _Pseudo-Callisthenes nach der Leidener Handschrift\nherausgegeben_, Leipzig, 1871. M. P. H. Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand\ndans la litt\u00e9rature fran\u00e7aise du moyen \u00e2ge_, 2 vols., Paris, 1886.\nC. M\u00fcller, _Scriptores rerum Alexandri Magni_, Firmin-Didot, Paris,\n1846 and 1877 (bound with Arrian, ed. Fr. D\u00fcbner); the first edition\nof the Greek text of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ from three Paris\nMSS, also Julius Valerius, etc. Noeldeke, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte\ndes Alexanderromans, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der\nWissenschaften in Wien, Philos. Hist. Classe_, vol. 38, Vienna,\n1890; Budge says of this work, \u201cProfessor Noeldeke discusses in his\ncharacteristic masterly manner the Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Persian,\nand Arabic versions, and ably shows how each is related to the other,\nand how certain variations in the narrative have arisen. No other\nwriter before him was able to control, by knowledge at first hand,\nthe statements of both the Aryan and Semitic versions; his work is\ntherefore of unique value.\u201d _Padmuthiun Acheksandri Maketonazwui, I\nWenedig i dparani serbuin Chazaru_, Hami, 1842; the Armenian version\npublished by the Mechitarists, Venice, 1842. F. Pfister, _Kleine Texte\nzum Alexanderroman_, Heidelberg, 1910; _Sammlung vulg\u00e4rlateinischer\nTexte herausg. v. W. Heraeus u. H. Morf, 4 Heft_. Spiegel, _Die\nAlexandersage bei den Orientalen_, Leipzig, 1851. Vogelstein,\n_Adnotationes quaedam ex litteris orientalibus petitae quae de\nAlexandro Magno circumferuntur_, Warsaw, 1865. A. Westermann, _De\nCallisthene Olynthio et Pseudo-Callisthene Commentatio_, 1838-1842. J.\nZacher, _Pseudo-Callisthenes: Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der\n\u00e4ltesten Aufzeichnung der Alexandersage_, Halle, 1867 (see pp. 2-3 for\nfurther bibliography of works written before 1851). J. Zacher, _Julii\nValerii Epitome, zum ersten mal herausgegeben_, Halle, 1867.\n\n[2294] _Hexaemeron_, VI, 7. On the other hand, Augustine, _De civitate\ndei_, V, 6-7, alludes to the sage who selected a certain hour for\nintercourse with his wife in order that he might beget a marvelous son.\n\n[2295] Seneca in the _Natural Questions_ (VI, 23) called the death of\nCallisthenes \u201cthe eternal crime\u201d of Alexander which all his military\nvictories and conquests could not outweigh,\u2014a passage which did not\nkeep Nero from forcing Seneca to commit suicide.\n\n[2296] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, Leipzig, 1904, pp. 308-309.\n\n[2297] _Res gestae_ of Alexander of Macedon, contained in three MSS\nof the Royal Library in the British Museum, dating according to the\ncatalogue from the eleventh and twelfth centuries: Royal 13-A-I, Royal\n12-C-IV, and Royal 15-C-VI, are not the full text of Julius Valerius,\nbut the epitome of which I shall soon speak.\n\n[2298] The longer epitome is known from an Oxford MS, Corpus Christi MS\n82, and was believed by Meyer to be intermediary between Valerius and\nthe other briefer epitome. Cilli\u00e9, however, tries to prove the shorter\nepitome to be the older.\n\n[2299] _Alexandri Magni Epistola ad Aristotelem de mirabilibus Indiae_,\nfirst printed with _Synesii Epistolae, graece; adcedunt aliorum\nEpistolae_, Venice, 1499; then Bologna, 1501; Basel, 1517; Paris, 1520,\nfols. 102v-14v, following the Pseudo-Aristotle, _Secret of Secrets_;\netc. These early printed editions give the oldest Latin text, dating\nback as we have seen to at least 800.\n\nSome MSS of the same version are:\n\nBM Royal 13-A-I, fols. 51v-78r, a beautifully clear MS of the late 11th\ncentury with clubbed strokes. The Epistola is preceded by the _Epitome\nof Valerius_ and followed by the correspondence with Dindimus.\n\nRoyal 12-C-IV, 12th century.\n\nRoyal 15-C-VI, 12th century.\n\nCotton Nero D VIII, fol. 169.\n\nSloane 1619, 13th century, fols. 12-17.\n\nArundel 242, 15th century, fols. 160-83.\n\nBL Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol. 186; preceded at fol. 171 by the\n\u201cOrtus vita et obitus Alexandri Macedonis,\u201d and followed at fol. 196v\nby the letter to Dindimus.\n\nBN MSS 2874, 4126, 4877, 4880, 5062, 6121, 6365, 6503, 6831, 7561,\n8518, 8521A, _Epistola de itinere et situ Indiae_; 8607, _Epistolae\neius nomine scriptae_; and 2695A, 6186, 6365, 6385, 6811, 6831, 8501A,\nfor _Responsio ad Dindimum_.\n\nCLM 11319, 13th century, fol. 88, _Alexandri epistola ad Aristotelem\nde rebus in India gestis_, preceded at fol. 72 by the _Epitome_ and\nfollowed at fol. 97 by the _Dindimus_.\n\nIn the library of Eton College an imperfect copy of the _Epistola_\nfollows _Orosius_ in a MS of the early 13th century, 133, BL 4, 6,\nfols. 85r-87.\n\nA somewhat different and later version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was\npublished in 1910 at Heidelberg by Friedrich Pfister from a Bamberg MS\nof the 11th century, together with _Palladius_ and the correspondence\nwith Dindimus. Pfister believed all these to be translations from the\nGreek.\n\nAn Anglo-Saxon version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was edited by\nCockayne in 1861 (see T. Wright, RS 34; xxvii).\n\n[2300] III, 17.\n\n[2301] First published by Joachim Camerarius about 1571.\n\n[2302] Published with _Palladius_ by Sir Edward Bisse in 1665; MSS are\nnumerous.\n\n[2303] From this same MS Pfister published the _Letter to Aristotle_\nand other treatises mentioned above.\n\n[2304] Its influence would therefore seem to have been upon the later\nprose romances and not upon French vernacular poetry. Known at first\nonly in Italy and Germany, its popularity became general in western\nEurope toward the close of the middle ages.\n\n[2305] Harleian 527, fols. 47-56.\n\n[2306] Amplon. Quarto 12, fols. 200-201; presumably it includes only\nthose chapters concerned with Nectanebus.\n\n[2307] CUL 1429 (Gg. I, 34), 14th century, No. 5, 35 fols. Also in CU\nTrinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 200v-212v, \u201cDe Nectanabo mago quomodo\nmagnum genuerit Alexandrum. Egipti sapientes....\u201d\n\n[2308] NH XXXVI, 14 and 19.\n\n[2309] _De anima_, cap. 57, in Migne, PL II, 792.\n\n[2310] The former built a Temple of Isis, now a heap of ruins, at\nBehbit el-Hagar and a colonnade to the Temple of Hibis in the oasis\nof Kh\u00eergeh; and his name appears upon a gate in the Temple of Mont at\nKarnak. Besides the Vestibule of Nektanebos at Philae there is a court\nof Nektanebos before the Temple of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Medinet\nHabu.\n\n[2311] Berthelot (1885), pp. 29-30.\n\n[2312] The Syriac version, on the contrary, emphasizes this point less.\n\n[2313] Budge\u2019s translation of the Ethiopic version.\n\n[2314] CLM 215, fols. 176-94, \u201cEgiptiorum gentem in mathematica magica\nquam in arte fuisse valentem littere tradunt.\u201d\n\n[2315] _Pseudo-Callisthenes_, I, 4, \u201ccasters of horoscopes,\nreaders of signs, interpreters of dreams, ventriloquists, augurs,\ngenethlialogists, the so-called magi to whom divination is an open\nbook.\u201d Budge, Syriac version, p. 4, \u201cThe interpreters of dreams are of\nmany kinds and the knowers of signs, those who understand divination,\nChaldean augurs and casters of nativities; the Greeks call the signs of\nthe zodiac \u2018sorcerers\u2019; and others are counters of the stars. As for\nme, all of these are in my hands and I myself am an Egyptian prophet,\na magus, and a counter of the stars.\u201d Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_,\np. 11, \u201cThen Nectanebus answered and said unto her, \u2018Yea. Those who\nhave knowledge of the orbs of heaven are of many kinds. Some are\ninterpreters of dreams, and some have knowledge of what shall happen in\nthe future, and some understand omens, and some cast nativities, and\nthere are besides all those who know magic and who are renowned because\nthey are learned in their art, and some are skilled in the motion of\nthe stars of heaven: but I have full knowledge of all these things.\u2019\u201d\n\n[2316] From Fowler\u2019s translation of _Alexander: the False Prophet_. See\nalso Plutarch\u2019s _Alexander_.\n\n[2317] The Syriac and Ethiopic versions are somewhat more detailed\nas to the magic by which Philip\u2019s dream was produced. Budge, Syriac\nversion, p. 8, \u201cThen Nectanebus ... brought a hawk and muttered over\nit his charms and made it fly away with a small quantity of a drug,\nand that night it shewed Philip a dream.\u201d Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_,\np. 21, \u201cThen Nectanebus took a swift bird and muttered over it certain\ncharms and names, and ... in one day and one night it traversed many\nlands and countries and seas, and it came to Philip by night and\nstopped. And it came to pass at that very hour ... that Philip saw a\nmarvelous dream.\u201d\n\n[2318] In another place, however, Albert calls Philip Alexander\u2019s\nfather, _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, II,\nii, 1.\n\n[2319] The story is better told in the Syriac version (Budge, 14-17),\nwhere Alexander does not push Nectanebus into the pit until after he\nhas asked the astrologer if he knows his own fate and has been told\nthat Nectanebus is to be slain by his own son. Alexander then attempts\nto foil fate by pushing Nectanebus into the pit, but only fulfills\nit. In the Ethiopic version Nectanebus is represented as educating\nAlexander from his seventh year on in \u201cphilosophy and letters and the\nworking of magic and the stars and their seasons.\u201d Aristotle becomes\nAlexander\u2019s tutor only after the death of Nectanebus. Aristotle, too,\nis represented as an adept in astrology, amulets, and the use of magic\nwax images. (Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_, pp. 31, xlv).\n\n[2320] VI, 4.\n\n[2321] Royal 13-A-I, fol. 53v.\n\n[2322] In CU Trinity 1446 (1250 A.\u202fD.) _The Romance of Alexander_ in\nFrench verse by Eustache (or Thomas) of Kent, among 152 pictures listed\nby James (III, 483-91) are two representing the hero\u2019s colloquy with\nthe moon tree (fol. 31r). Marco Polo also tells of these marvelous\ntrees. And see Roux de Rochelle, \u201cNotice sur l\u2019Arbre du Soleil, ou\nArbre Sec, d\u00e9crit dans la relation des voyages de Marco Polo,\u201d in\n_Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de g\u00e9ographie_, s\u00e9rie 3, III (1845), 187-94.\n\n[2323] For the _Letter to Aristotle_ I have employed the Paris, 1520\nedition and Royal 13-A-I, which follow the early Latin version. As\nstated above, Pfister\u2019s edition (Heidelberg, 1910) gives a later\nversion probably translated from the Greek.\n\n[2324] There appears to have been no complete edition of A\u00ebtius in\nGreek. The first eight of his sixteen books were printed at Venice in\n1534, and the ninth at Leipzig in 1757, but for the entire sixteen\nbooks one must use the Latin translation of Cornarius, Basel, 1542,\netc., which I have read in Stephanus, _Medicae artis principes_, 1567.\n\nRecent editions of portions of A\u00ebtius are: \u0391\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf \u0393\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u0391. \u039a\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, pp. 112, 131, Paris,\n1892.\n\n_Die Augenheilkunde des A\u00ebtius aus Amida_, Griechisch und deutsch\nherausg. von J. Hirschberg, pp. xi, 204, Leipzig, 1899.\n\n_Aetii sermo sextidecimus et ultimus_ (\u0391\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\netc.). Erstens aus HSS ver\u00f6ffentl. mit Abbildungen, etc., v. S. Zerv\u00f2s,\npp. k\u2019, 172, Leipzig, 1901.\n\n\u0391\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u0391\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, ed. S. Zerbos, 1909, in\n\u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7 \u0395\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u0391\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1, vol. 21.\n\nMy references to Alexander of Tralles are both to the text of Stephanus\n(1567) and the more recent edition by Theodor Puschmann, _Alexander\nvon Tralles, Originaltext und \u00dcbersetzung nebst einer einleitenden\nAbhandlung_, Vienna, 1878-9, 2 vols. This gives a more critical text\nthan any previous edition, but unfortunately Puschmann adopted still\nanother arrangement into books than those of the MSS and previous\neditions, and also in my opinion did not make a sufficient study of the\nLatin MSS. His introduction contains information concerning Alexander\u2019s\nlife and the MSS and previous editions of his works.\n\nA valuable earlier study on Alexander was that of E. Milward, published\nin 1733 under the title, _A Letter to the Honourable Sir Hans Sloane\nBart., etc._, and in 1734 as _Trallianus Reviviscens_, 229 pp. Milward\nwas preparing an edition of Alexander of Tralles, but it was never\npublished. His estimate of Alexander\u2019s position in the history of\nmedicine furnishes an incidental picture of interest of the state of\nmedicine in his own time, the early eighteenth century.\n\nThe old Latin translation of Alexander of Tralles was the first to be\nprinted at Lyons, 1504, _Alexandri yatros practica cum expositione\nglose interlinearis Jacobi de Partibus et (Simonis) Januensis in\nmargine posite_; also Pavia, 1520 and Venice 1522. Next appeared a\nvery free Latin translation by Torinus in 1533 and 1541, _Paraphrases\nin libros omnes Alexandri Tralliani_. The Greek text of Alexander was\nfirst printed by Stephanus (Robert \u00c9tienne) in 1548 (ed. J. Goupyl).\nThe Latin translation by Guinther of Andernach, which is included in\nStephanus (1567), first appeared in 1549, Strasburg, and was reprinted\na number of times.\n\nAnother work by Puschmann may also be noted: _Nachtr\u00e4ge zu Alexander\nTrallianus. Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius nebst einer bisher\nnoch ungedruckten Abhandlung \u00fcber Augenkrankheiten_, Berlin, 1886, in\n_Berliner Studien f. class. Philol. und Archaeol._, V, 2; 188 pp., in\nwhich he segregates as fragments of Philumenus and Philagrius portions\nof the text of Alexander as found in the Latin MSS.\n\nMy references for the _De medicamentis_ of Marcellus apply to\nHelmreich\u2019s edition of 1889 in the Teubner series. This edition is\nbased on a single MS of the ninth century at Laon which Helmreich\nfollowed Valentin Rose in regarding as the sole extant codex of the\nwork. As a result Rose indulged in ingenious theories to explain how\nthe _editio princeps_ by Ianus Cornarius, Basel, 1536, included the\nprefatory letter and other preliminary material not found in the Laon\nMS, whose first leaves and some others are missing.\n\nBut as a matter of fact BN 6880, a clear and beautifully written MS of\nthe ninth century, contains the _De medicamentis_ entire with all the\npreliminary letters. Moreover, it is evident that the _editio princeps_\nwas printed directly from this MS, which contains not only notes by\nCornarius but the marks of the compositors.\n\nThe text of the edition of 1536 was reproduced in the medical\ncollections of Aldus, _Medici antiqui_, Venice, 1547, and Stephanus,\n_Medicae artis principes_, 1567.\n\nJacob Grimm, _\u00dcber Marcellus Burdigalensis_, in _Abhandl. d. kgl. Akad.\nd. Wiss. z. Berlin_ (1847), pp. 429-60, discusses the evidence for\nplacing Marcellus under the older Theodosius, lists the Celtic words\nand expressions found in the _De medicamentis_, and also one hundred\nspecimens of its folk-lore and magic. This article was reprinted in\n_Kleinere Schriften_, II (1865), 114-51, where it is followed at pp.\n152-72 by a supplementary paper, _\u00dcber die Marcellischen Formeln_,\nlikewise reprinted from the Academy Proceedings for 1855, pp. 51-68.\n\nThe magic of Marcellus was further treated of by R. Heim, _De rebus\nmagicis Marcelli medici_, in _Schedae philol. Hermanno Usener oblatae_\n(1891), pp. 119-37, where he adds _nova magica ex Marcelli libris\ncollata_ which Grimm had omitted.\n\n[2325] Marcellus is often called of Bordeaux, notably in Grimm\u2019s\narticle, _\u00dcber Marcellus Burdigalensis_, 1847; also by C. W. King, _The\nGnostics and their Remains_, 1887, p. 219; and by J. G. Frazer, _The\nGolden Bough_, I, 23; but there seems to be no definite proof that he\nwas from that city.\n\nJules Combarieu, _La musique et la magie_, 1909, p. 87, says in\nreference to the following incantation recommended by Marcellus,\n_tetunc resonco bregan gresso_, \u201cJe remarque en passant qu\u2019il faut\nfrotter l\u2019\u0153il en disant ce _carmen_, et que dans le patois du Midi,\n_br\u00e9gua_ ou _br\u00e9ge_, signifie frotter. Marcellus, si je ne me trompe,\n\u00e9tait de Bordeaux.\u201d\n\nGrimm, however (1847), p. 455, interpreted _bregan_ as \u201clies\u201d\u2014\u201cbreigan\ngen. pl. von breag l\u00fcge,\u201d and the whole line as in modern Irish _teith\nuainn cre soin go breigan greasa_ (\u201cfleuch von uns staub hinnen zu der\nl\u00fcgen genossen!\u201d).\n\n[2326] Stephanus (1567), I, 347, _et seq._ For an English translation\nof the text see F. Adams, _The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta_, London,\n1844-1847.\n\n[2327] _Simia Galieni_, according to Guinther in his translation of\nAlexander of Tralles, Stephanus (1567), I, 131.\n\n[2328] Milward (1733), 9-11.\n\n[2329] John Friend (or Freind), _History of Physick_ (1725), I, 297.\n\n[2330] Puschmann, _History of Medical Education_, 1891, p. 153.\n\n[2331] Milward (1733), p. 11.\n\n[2332] J. F. Payne, _English Medicine in Anglo-Saxon Times_, 1904, pp.\n102-8.\n\n[2333] Milward (1733), p. 19; Puschmann (1878), I, 104.\n\n[2334] Ch. Daremberg, _Histoire des Sciences M\u00e9dicales_, Paris, 1870,\nI, 242.\n\n[2335] This general impression received from reading many classical\nand medieval works I was glad to find confirmed by Milward (1733), p.\n29, in the particular case of Alexander of Tralles, of whom he writes:\n\u201cAs our author\u2019s stile is excellent, so likewise is his method, and\nthere is no respect in which he is more distinguished from the other\nGreek writers in physick than in this. The works of Hippocrates, Galen,\nand indeed of all of them except it be Aretaeus are not only very\nvoluminous but put together with little or no order, as is evident\nenough to all such as have been conversant with them.\u201d\n\n[2336] Daremberg (1870), I, 258-9, said that a mass of MSS in a score\nof European libraries contained as yet unidentified Latin translations\nof Greek medical writers.\n\n[2337] BN 10233, 7th century uncial; BN nouv. acq. 1619, 7-8th century,\ndemi-uncial; BN 9332, 9th century, fol. 1-, Oribasii synopsis medica;\nCLM 23535, 12th century, fols. 72 and 112. V. Rose, _Soranus_, 1882,\npp. iv-v, speaks of a sixth century Latin version of _Oribasius_.\n\n[2338] _Tetrabiblos_, IV, iii, 15.\n\n[2339] _Ibid._, I, iv, 9, where Galen is not cited, and III, i, 9,\nwhere Galen is cited. In Galen, _De simplicibus_, IX, ii, 19 (K\u00fchn,\nXII, 207).\n\n[2340] _Ibid._, I, ii, 170, where Galen is not cited; _De simplicibus_,\nXI, i, 1 (K\u00fchn, XII, 311-4).\n\n[2341] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 175; K\u00fchn XII, 356-9. Galen is not cited\nin this, nor in any of the following passages from the _Tetrabiblos_\nlisted in the notes, unless this is expressly stated.\n\n[2342] _Tetrabiblos_ at the beginning, pp. 6-7 in Stephanus (1567).\n\n[2343] _Tetrabiblos_ IV, i, 33; K\u00fchn XIV, 233, and XII, 250-1.\n\n[2344] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 109; K\u00fchn XII, 288.\n\n[2345] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 84; K\u00fchn XII, 253.\n\n[2346] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 84; K\u00fchn XII, 248, 284-5.\n\n[2347] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 111; K\u00fchn XII, 291-3.\n\n[2348] _Tetrabiblos_ II, iv, 34; K\u00fchn XII, 860. Perhaps a closer\ncorrespondence than this could be found. In his preceding 33rd chapter,\nheaded _Curatio erosorum dentium ex Galeno_, A\u00ebtius includes use of the\ntooth of a dead dog pulverized in vinegar, which is to be held in the\nmouth, or filling the ear next the tooth with \u201cfumigated earthworms\u201d or\nwith oil in which earthworms have been cooked.\n\n[2349] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 49.\n\n[2350] _Tetrabiblos_ IV, i, 39.\n\n[2351] _Tetrabiblos_ III, iii, 35.\n\n[2352] _Tetrabiblos_ II, ii, 12. Marcellus, cap. 20 (p. 188) also\nspeaks of \u201cthose who often think that they are made sport of by an\nincubus.\u201d\n\n[2353] _Tetrabiblos_, I, ii, 177.\n\n[2354] _Tetrabiblos_, IV, i, 86.\n\n[2355] _Tetrabiblos_, I, iii, 164. This passage was printed separately\nin the _Uranologion_ of D. Petavius, Paris, 1630 and 1703.\n\n[2356] Agathias, _De imperio et rebus gestis Justiniani_, Paris, 1860,\np. 149.\n\n[2357] Milward (1733), p. 17, \u201che travel\u2019d through Greece, Gaul, Spain,\nand several other places whose mention we find up and down in his\nworks.\u201d\n\n[2358] Puschmann (1878), I, 288, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2....\n\n[2359] Milward (1733), p. 25.\n\n[2360] Puschmann (1878), I, 83.\n\n[2361] Milward (1733), p. 27.\n\n[2362] Puschmann (1891), 152-3.\n\n[2363] Stephanus (1567), I, 131.\n\n[2364] Friend (1725), I, 106.\n\n[2365] Milward (1733), pp. 65-6, 57 _et seq._\n\n[2366] _Ibid._, pp. 104, 92-3, 71.\n\n[2367] _Ibid._, pp. 48-9.\n\n[2368] See V. Rose, _Hermes_, VIII, 39; _Anecdota_, II, 108. I\npresume that BN 9332, 9th century, fol. 139, \u201cAlexandri hiatrosofiste\ntherapeut(i)con\u201d (libri tres) is the free Latin translation in a Paris\nMS of the ninth century alluded to by Daremberg (1870), I, 258-9.\nPuschmann (1878) I, 91-2, in a blind and inadequate account of the\nLatin MSS, does not mention it, but lists a Monte Cassino codex (97)\nof the 9-10th century and an Angers MS of the 10-11th century. He also\nalludes to a MS at Chartres without giving any number or date for it,\nbut probably has reference to Chartres 342, 12th century, fols. 1-139,\n\u201cLibri tres Alexandri Yatros.\u201d He alludes to BN 6881 and 6882, both\n13th century, libri tres de morbis et de morborum curatione; but not to\nCLM 344, 12-13th century, fols. 1-60, libri III de medicina,\u2014integra\nversio Latina Lugduni a. 1504 edita. Other MSS are: Gonville and\nCaius 400, early 13th century, fols. 4v-83v, \u201cInc. Alexander yatros\nsophista\u201d; Royal 12-B-XVI, late 13th century, fol. 113, Practica\nAlexandri.\n\nIt will be noted that the text in all these Latin MSS is in only\nthree books, but it follows the same order as the twelve books. It\nis also, at least in the edition of 1504, not as abbreviated as one\nmight infer from Rose. Rather the later editors, Albanus Torinus and\nGuinther of Andernach, seem to have taken greater liberties with,\nand made unwarranted additions to Alexander\u2019s text. At the same time\nthe early Latin text treats of some topics such as toothache which\nare not included in Puschmann\u2019s Greek text, and also includes (II,\n79-103, and 104-50) treatments of diseases of the abdomen and spleen\nfor which there seems to be no genuine Greek text and which Puschmann,\n_Nachtr\u00e4ge_, 1886, has published separately as fragments of Philumenus\nand Philagrius, medical writers of the first and fourth centuries. His\nchief reason seems to be that cap. 79 is entitled, _De reumate ventris\nfilominis_, and cap. 104, _Ad splenem philogrius_, while cap. 151\nis headed, _Causa que est ydropicie alexandri_. These passages are,\nhowever, found in the Latin MSS of Alexander\u2019s work from the first,\nand the use of Romance words by the unknown Latin translator indicates\nthat the translation was made in the early medieval period,\u2014Puschmann\n(1886), p. 12.\n\n[2369] Puschmann (1878), I, 91.\n\n[2370] As in Vend\u00f4me 109, 11th century, fol. 1, Mulsa Alexandri\n(Tralliani), fol. 68v, \u201cDe reuma ventris, de libro Alexandri\u201d (not here\nascribed, it will be noted, to Philumenus), fol. 71, \u201cDe secundo libro\nAlexandri de cura nefreticorum.\u201d The _Mulsa Alexandri_ is found also in\ntwo other 11th century MSS of the same library: Vend\u00f4me 172, fol. 1,\nand 175, fol. 2.\n\nIn Royal 12-E-XX, 12th century, fols. 146v-151v, \u201cIncipit liber\ndietarum diversarum medicorum, hoc est Alexandri et aliorum.\u201d This\nextract, made up of a number of Alexander\u2019s chapters on the diet\nsuitable in different ailments, is often found in the MSS, as here,\nwith the Pseudo-Pliny and was printed as its fifth book in 1509 and\n1516.\n\n[2371] Puschmann (1878), I, 97.\n\n[2372] Milward (1773), p. 179.\n\n[2373] Thus in Vend\u00f4me 109 (see note 2, p. 577) besides the\nextracts from Alexander of Tralles we find at fol. 58, \u201cAlexander\n(Aphrodisiensis) amicus veritatis in tertio libro suo ubi de febribus\ncommemorat.\u201d The Arabs seem to have confused these two Alexanders: see\nSteinschneider (1862), p. 61; Puschmann (1878), I, 94-5.\n\n[2374] See the discussion by Choulant in _Janus_ (1845), p. 52, and\nHenschel in De Renzi (1852-9) II, 11, of a 12th century MS at Breslau,\n\u201cLiber Alexandri de agnoscendis febribus et pulsibus et urinis\u201d; also\nPuschmann (1878) I, 105-6, concerning BN Greek MS 2316, which seems to\nbe a late Greek translation of it,\u2014another instance that a Greek text\nis not necessarily the original.\n\n[2375] Corpus Christi 189, 11-12th century, fols. 1-5, \u201cAntidotum\npigra magni Alexandri Macedonii quod facit stomaticis epilenticis.\u201d\nSteinschneider, cited by Puschmann (1878) I, 106, has also noted the\nattribution in Hebrew MSS to Alexander the Great of a work on fever,\nurine, and pulse, presumably identical with that mentioned in the\nforegoing note.\n\n[2376] Stephanus (1567) I, 176, 204, 216, 225; and Puschmann, II, 575,\nare a few specimens.\n\n[2377] Amplon. Quarto 204, 12-13th century, fols. 90-5, Experimentorum\nAlexandri medici collectio succincta. Digby 79, 13th century, fols.\n180-92v, \u201cAlexandrina experimenta de libro percompendiose extractata\nmeliora ut nobis visum est ad singulas egritudines.\u201d Additional 34111,\n15th century, fol. 77, \u201cExperimenta Alexandri,\u201d in English.\n\n[2378] Stephanus I, 156; Puschmann II, 563.\n\n[2379] Milward (1733), p. 168.\n\n[2380] Stephanus I, 312; Puschmann II, 579.\n\n[2381] Stephanus I, 345, see also 296 and 339; Puschmann I, 407, 437.\n\n[2382] Stephanus I, 312; Puschmann II, 579.\n\n[2383] Stephanus I, 156; Puschmann I, 565.\n\n[2384] Stephanus I, 345; Puschmann I, 437.\n\n[2385] \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\n[2386] For the passages in this paragraph see Stephanus I, 156-7, 313;\nPuschmann I, 561, 567-73.\n\n[2387] Stephanus I, 312.\n\n[2388] Stephanus I, 281; Puschmann II, 475.\n\n[2389] Stephanus I, 296; Puschmann II, 377.\n\n[2390] Stephanus I, 313.\n\n[2391] Stephanus I, 296; Puschmann II, 377.\n\n[2392] Stephanus I, 281; Puschmann II, 475.\n\n[2393] Stephanus I, 314; Puschmann II, 585.\n\n[2394] If the MSS, which I have not examined, agree with the 1504\nedition.\n\n[2395] Both in BN 6880 and the edition of Basel, 1536, \u201cMarcellus\nvir inluster ex magno officio Theodosii Sen. filiis suis salutem\nd(icit).\u201d In the MS, however, a later hand has written above the now\nfaded line an incorrect copy in which \u201cTheodosii Sen.\u201d is replaced by\n\u201ctheodosiensi.\u201d Helmreich (1889), on the other hand, has replaced \u201cex\nmagno officio\u201d by \u201cex magistro officio.\u201d It is perhaps open to doubt\nwhether the \u201cSen.\u201d goes with \u201cTheodosii\u201d or \u201cMarcellus.\u201d\n\n[2396] Cap. 20 (1889), p. 204.\n\n[2397] In BN 6880 there are other headings written in capitals than\nthose which mark the openings of the 36 chapters.\n\n[2398] Cap. 29 (1889), pp. 304-6.\n\n[2399] Cap. 35 (1889), p. 361.\n\n[2400] Cap. 8 (1889), p. 80.\n\n[2401] Cap. 5 (1889), p. 49.\n\n[2402] For such mentions of experience and experiment see the following\npassages in the 1889 edition, numbers referring to page and line: 31,\n7; 34, 3; 35, 14; 44, 2; 53, 1; 58, 21; 64, 34; 65, 30; 66, 26; 72,\n22; 73, 7; 74, 2; 77, 9; 80, 28; 81, 29; 89, 3 and 29; 96, 14 and 31;\n102, 27; 120, 32; 123, 15; 129, 21; 133, 10; 145, 33; 148, 25; 149, 26;\n160, 18; 176, 5; 178, 25; 186, 15; 190, 20; 192, 31; 211, 1; 222, 18;\n224, 31; 230, 3; 235, 15; 236, 14; 239, 8 and 26; 242, 8 and 23; 248,\n20; 256, 9; 258, 5; 264, 21; 276, 35; 281, 19 and 27; 282, 15; 308, 21;\n312, 6 and 19 and 22; 314, 25; 326, 28; 327, 13; 334, 29; 343, 23; 351,\n23 and 25; 353, 4; 354, 19; 356, 6; 362, 32; 370, 22 and 37.\n\n[2403] Cap. 15 (1889), p. 146.\n\n[2404] Cap. 23 (1889), p. 239.\n\n[2405] Caps. 20 and 24 (1889), pp. 208 and 244.\n\n[2406] Cap. 26 (1889), pp. 264-6.\n\n[2407] Cap. 29 (1889), p. 311; and see cap. 28, p. 298.\n\n[2408] Cap. 12, p. 123.\n\n[2409] Cap. 16, p. 166.\n\n[2410] Cap. 23, p. 238.\n\n[2411] Cap. 34, p. 357.\n\n[2412] Cap. 8, p. 69.\n\n[2413] Cap. 8, p. 66.\n\n[2414] Cap. 12, p. 125.\n\n[2415] Cap. 10, p. 113.\n\n[2416] Cap. 10, p. 112; NH 30, 11.\n\n[2417] Cap. 8, p. 68; NH 29, 38.\n\n[2418] Cap. 29, p. 313.\n\n[2419] Cap. 29, p. 314. Pliny has a similar procedure with a frog and a\nreed.\n\n[2420] Cap. 22, p. 230.\n\n[2421] Cap. 33, p. 347, \u201cmulierem verendaque eius dum cum ea cois\ntange.\u201d\n\n[2422] Cap. 23, p. 239.\n\n[2423] Cap. 1, p. 34.\n\n[2424] Cap. 25, p. 247.\n\n[2425] Cap. 12, p. 126.\n\n[2426] Cap. 18, p. 178.\n\n[2427] Cap. 17, p. 176.\n\n[2428] Cap. 32, pp. 337, 338, 340.\n\n[2429] Cap. 8, p. 70.\n\n[2430] Cap. 12, p. 123.\n\n[2431] Cap. 36, p. 379. Marcellus employs the phrase, of course, to\nindicate a private or personal incantation, and as a matter of fact it\nis somewhat less absurd than a number of others.\n\n[2432] Cap. 28, p. 301.\n\n[2433] Cap. 29, p. 310. For further instances of incantations and\ncharacters in the _De medicamentis_ see page 110, lines 18-27; 111,\n26-33; 112, 29-113, 2; 116, 8-11; 133, 18-22, 26-31; 139, 17-26; 142,\n19-26; 149, 4-11; 151, 18-33; 152, 9-14, 19-24; 180, 1-3; 220, 11-20;\n221, 2-6; 223, 15-18; 241, 1-6, 14-22; 244, 26-28; 248, 16-19; 260,\n22-24; 295, 18-22; 333, 9-15; 382, 16-18.\n\n[2434] Daremberg (1870) I, 257-8.\n\n[2435] _Plinii Secundi Iunioris de medicina libri tres_, ed. V. Rose,\nLipsiae, 1875. V. Rose, \u201cUeber die Medicina Plinii,\u201d in _Hermes_, VIII\n(1874) 19-66.\n\n[2436] _C. Plinii Secundi Medicina_, ed. Thomas Pighinuccius, Rome,\n1509.\n\n[2437] Codex St. Gall 751; described by V. Rose, _Hermes_, VIII, 48-55;\n_Anecdota_ II, 106.\n\n[2438] For the list of his six genuine works see above p. 222.\n\n[2439] De nota aspirationis and De diphthongis, ed. Osann, Darmstadt,\n1826, with _De orthographia_, a forgery by a sixteenth century humanist.\n\n[2440] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, sometimes printed as the third book of the _De\ndogmate Platonis_. Some scholars, however, regard it as genuine, and\nthere are a number of MSS of it from the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries.\nSee Schanz (1905), 127-8.\n\n[2441] See above p. 290.\n\n[2442] See Schanz (1905), 139-40.\n\n[2443] See below p. 683. Schanz fails to mention it among the\napocryphal works of Apuleius.\n\n[2444] H. K\u00f6bert, _De Pseudo-Apulei herbarum medicaminibus_, Bayreuth,\n1888. Schanz (1905) 138, mentions only continental MSS, although there\nare numerous MSS of it in the British Museum and Bodleian libraries,\nsome of which have been used and others described by O. Cockayne in his\nedition of the _Herbarium_ and the other treatises accompanying it in\nhis _Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England_, Vol. I\n(1864) in RS XXXV. Nor does Schanz note Cockayne\u2019s book.\n\n[2445] See Sloane 1975, a vellum MS of the 12th or early 13th century\nwritten in fine large letters and beautifully illuminated; Ashmole\n1431, end of 11th century, and 1462, 13th century, fol. 45r. Harleian\n4986, Apuleii Platonici de medicamentis cum figuris pictis, is another\nearly illuminated English MS. Cockayne I, lxxxii, does not date it, but\nthe MSS catalogue lists it as tenth century. In CU Trinity 1152, 14th\ncentury, James (III, 162-3) estimates the number of colored drawings as\nbetween 800 and 1000; he describes only a few. Singer (1921) reproduces\na number of such illuminations from MSS of the _Herbarium_ and of\nDioscorides.\n\n[2446] Lucca 236, 9-10th century, \u201cHerbarium Apuleii Platonici\nquem accepit a Chironi magistro Achillis et ab Escolapio explicit\nfeliciter.\u201d In Cotton Vitellius C-III, early 11th century, in\nAnglo-Saxon, although the title reads, \u201cThe Herbarium of Apuleius the\nPlatonist which he received from Esculapius and Chiron the centaur,\nthe master of Achilles,\u201d a full page painting shows Plato and Chiron\nreceiving the volume from Aesculapius (Cockayne, I, lxxxviii). And\nSloane 1975 and Harleian 1585 speak of the _Herbarium_ as \u201cLiber\nPlatonis Apoliensis.\u201d In a 15th century MS (Rawlinson C-328, fol.\n113v-, Incipit de herbis Galieni Apolei et Ciceronis) Galen and Cicero,\nwho perhaps replace Chiron and Aesculapius, are associated with\nApuleius as authors.\n\n[2447] Daremberg (1853), 11-12, said that the pagan incantations\nwere preserved intact in a number of MSS at Oxford and Cambridge.\nConjurations of herbs are not limited to the Pseudo-Apuleius in\nmedieval MSS but sometimes occur singly as in Perugia 736, 13th\ncentury, where at fol. 267 a 14th century hand has added a passage in\nLatin which may be translated: \u201cIn the name of Christ, Amen. I conjure\nyou, herb, that I may conquer by lord Peter etc. by moon and stars etc.\nand may you conquer all my enemies, pontiff and priests and all laymen\nand all women and all lawyers who are against me etc.\u201d In Sloane 1571,\n15th century, fols. 1-6, at the close of fragments of a Latin-English\ndictionary of herbs is a Latin prayer entitled, _Benedictio omnium\nherbarum_.\n\n[2448] The above passages are from Sloane 1975 and the edition of 1547.\n\n[2449] Ashmole 1431, 11th century, fol. 3r, \u201cIn nomine domini incipit\nherboralium apuleii platonis quod accepit ascolapio et chirone centauro\nmagistro. Lege feliciter. Precantatio omnium herbarum ad singulas\ncuras.\u201d CU Trinity 1152, 14th century, fol. 1. Gonville and Caius 345,\n14th century, fol. 89v.\n\n[2450] Or Papyriensis Placitus.\n\n[2451] Perhaps merely for \u201cauctor.\u201d ed. Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. XIII,\n395-423, _Sexti Placiti liber de medicina ex animalibus_.\n\n[2452] In Montpellier 277, 15th century, \u201cLiber Sesti platonis de\nanimalibus,\u201d perhaps because the Apuleius of the _Herbarium_ is\ncalled a Platonist. In Digby 43, late 14th century, fol. 15, \u201cLiber\nSeptiplanti Papiensis de bestiis et avibus medicinalis.\u201d In Rawlinson\nC-328, 15th century, fol. 128, \u201cIncipit liber Papiriensis ex animalibus\nex avibus.\u201d The work is sometimes found in juxtaposition with a\nsomewhat similar \u201cLiber medicinalis de secretis Galieni,\u201d concerning\nwhich see below, chapter 64, II, 761.\n\n[2453] V. Rose (1875) 337-8 suggests that this is a fragment from a\nfuller work of Aesculapius to Augustus cited by Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9,\nAlbertus Magnus, and Vincent of Beauvais. See also Peter of Abano, _De\nvenenis_, cap. 5, \u201cin epistola Esculapii philosophi ad Octavianum.\u201d But\nperhaps these writers refer to the entire work of Sextus Papirius.\n\n[2454] Ed. Ruellius, with Scribonius Largus, Paris, 1529.\n\n[2455] In a later medieval vocabulary _taxus_ is given as a synonym for\nthe animal called _camaleon_: _Alphita_, ed. Daremberg from BN 6954 and\n6957 in De Renzi, _Collectio Salernitana_, III, 272-322.\n\n[2456] Cotton Vespasian B, X, #6.\n\n[2457] Harleian 3859, called tenth century in the Harleian catalogue\nwhich is often incorrect in its dating, but 11th or 12th century\nby d\u2019Avezac, Mommsen in his edition of Solinus, and Beazley, _Dawn\nof Geography_, I, 523. Royal 15-B-II and 15-C-IV, both of the 12th\ncentury. For other MSS at Paris, Leyden, and Rome see Beazley, _op.\ncit._\n\n[2458] But after all is Suetonius any more respectable a historian than\nAethicus and Solinus are geographers?\n\n[2459] Bunbury, _History of Ancient Geography_, II, Appendix: \u201cHow\nM. Wuttke can attach any value to such a production is to me quite\nincomprehensible; still more that he should ascribe the translation\nto the great ecclesiastical writer,\u201d Jerome. Bunbury believed that\nthe work was not earlier than the seventh century. Beazley, _Dawn of\nGeography_, I, 355-63, is of the same opinion.\n\n[2460] In his edition of Solinus, p. xxvii, he contends that certain\npassages which Wuttke pointed out as common to Aethicus and Solinus are\nborrowed by Aethicus from Isidore who died in 636.\n\n[2461] Harleian 3859.\n\n[2462] Steele, _Opera hactenus inedita_, 1905, Fasc. I, pp. 1-2.\n\n[2463] CUL 213, 14th century, fols. 103v-14, \u201cQui hunc librum legit\nintelligat Ethicum philosophum non omnia dixisse que hic scripta sunt,\nset Solinus (so James, but _Jeronimus_ in d\u2019Avezac, p. 237) qui eum\ntranstulit sententias veritati consonas ex libro eiusdem excerpsit et\neasdem testimonias scripture nostre confirmavit. Non enim erat iste\nphilosophus Christianus sed Ethnicus et professione Achademicus.\u201d\n\n[2464] Bridges I, 267-8.\n\n[2465] Cited by d\u2019Avezac, pp. 257 and 267.\n\n[2466] Vienna 2272, 14th century, fol. 92, De vindemiis a Burgundione\ntranslatus: Pars Geoponicorum.\n\n[2467] Such is the view set forth in PW _Geoponica_.\n\n[2468] H. Beckh, _Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici de re\nrustica eclogae_, Lipsiae, Teubner, 1895. PW criticizes this edition as\n\u201c_leider v\u00f6llig verfehlten_.\u201d Its preface lists the earlier editions.\n\n[2469] _Geoponica_, VII, 5; II, 15.\n\n[2470] VII, 11; XV, 1.\n\n[2471] I, 12; VII, 13; etc.\n\n[2472] XV, 1.\n\n[2473] R. Heim, _Incantamenta magica graeca latina_, in _Jahrb.\nf. class. Philologie_, Suppl. Bd. 19, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 463-576,\ndrew from the _Geoponica_ 13 out of his total of 245 instances of\nincantations from Greek and Latin literature.\n\n[2474] VII, 14.\n\n[2475] XIII, 15.\n\n[2476] The first two volumes, published at Berlin in 1907, 1906,\ncovered the first four of the five genuine books. A previous attempt\nwas K. Sprengel\u2019s edition in vols. 25-26 of C. J. K\u00fchn\u2019s _Medici\nGraeci_, Leipzig, 1829. On the textual history and problems see further\nWellman\u2019s articles: \u201cDioskurides\u201d in Pauly-Wissowa, and in _Hermes_,\nXXXIII, (1898) 360ff.\n\n[2477] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b6\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, is another order suggested.\n\n[2478] The MS is said by Singer (1921) 60, to have now been removed\nfrom Vienna to St. Mark\u2019s Library at Venice; it was procured\nfrom Constantinople in 1555 for the future Emperor Maximilian II\n(1564-1576). A photographic copy was published in 1906 in the Leiden\nCollection, _Codices Graeci et Latini_, by A. W. Sijthoff, with an\nintroduction by A. von Premerstein, C. Wessely, and J. Mantuani\n(C. Wessely, _Codex Anciae Iulianae_, etc., 1906). See also A. v.\nPremerstein in the Austrian _Jahrbuch_ (1903) XXIV, 105ff.\n\nI have examined the facsimile of this MS and found the large but faded\nand partially obliterated illuminations which precede the text rather\ndisappointing after having read the description of them in Dalton\u2019s\n_Byzantine Art_, (1911) 460-61, which, however, I presume is accurate\nand so reproduce here. These large illuminations include a portrait\nof Juliana Anicia, an ornamental peacock with tail spread, groups\nof doctors engaged in medical discussions, and Dioscorides himself\nseated writing, and again seated on a folding stool receiving the herb\nmandragora (which, of course, was a medieval favorite) from a female\nfigure personifying Discovery (\u0395\u1f55\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), \u201cwhile in the foreground a dog\ndies in agony,\u201d presumably from the fatal effects of the herb. There\nare rough reproductions of this last picture in Woltmann and Woermann,\n_History of Painting_, I, 192-3, and Singer (1921) 62. When the text\nproper begins the illuminations are confined to medicinal plants.\n\nOther early Greek manuscripts are the _Codex Neapolitanus_, formerly\nat Vienna, now at St. Mark\u2019s, Venice, an eighth century palimpsest\nfrom Bobbio, and a Paris codex, (BN Greek 2179) of the ninth century.\nAn Arabic translation from the Greek seems to have been made about\n850; a century later the Byzantine emperor sent a Greek manuscript of\nDioscorides to the caliph in Spain.\n\nFor the full text of the _De materia medica_ we are dependent on MSS of\nthe 11th, 12th, 13th and later centuries.\n\n[2479] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, edited by Sprengel\nin K\u00fchn (1830), XXVI, as was the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd. The \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, (\u201cExperimental Pharmacy\u201d), of\nwhich a Latin version, _Alphabetum empiricum, sive Dioscoridis et\nStephani Atheniensis ... de remediis expertis_, was edited by C. Wolf,\nZ\u00fcrich, 1581, is an alphabetical arrangement by diseases ascribed to\nDioscorides and Stephen of Athens (and other writers).\n\n[2480] Max Wellmann, _Die Schrift des Dioskurides_ \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd,\n1914, and col. 1140 of his article \u201cDioskurides\u201d in Pauly-Wissowa.\n\n[2481] _De inst. div. lit._ cap. 31.\n\n[2482] V. Rose in Hermes VIII, 38A. Harleian 4986, fol. 44v, \u201c...\nmarcelline libellum botanicon ex dioscoridis libris in latinum sermonem\nconversum in quo depicte sunt herbarum figure ad te misi....\u201d\n\n[2483] Heinrich Kaestner, _Kritisches und Exegetisches zu\nPseudo-Dioskorides de herbis femininis_, Regensburg, 1896; text in\n_Hermes_ XXXI (1896) 578-636. Singer (1921) 68, gives as the earliest\nMS, Rome Barberini IX, 29, of 9th century. Some other MSS are: BN\n12995, 9th century; Additional 8928, 11th century, fol. 62v-; Ashmole\n1431, end of 11th century, fols. 31v-43, \u201cIncipit liber Dioscoridis ex\nherbis feminis\u201d; Sloane 1975, 12th or early 13th century, fols. 49v-73;\nHarleian 1585, 12th century, fol. 79-; Harleian 5294, 12th century;\nTurin K-IV-3, 12th century, #5, \u201cIncipit liber dioscoridis medicine ex\nherbis femininis numero LXXI .../ ... Liber medicine dioscoridis de\nherbis femininis et masculinis explicit feliciter.\u201d\n\nIn Vienna 5371, 15th century, fols. 121v-124v, is a briefer Latin\ntreatise ascribed to Dioscordes, which begins with the herb\n_aristologia_ and mentions silk (_sericum_) at its close. I have not\nseen the MS but from the title, _Quid pro quo_, and the fact that\nthe writer dedicates it to his uncle, one might fancy that it was a\nwork written by Adelard of Bath\u2019s nephew in return for the _Natural\nQuestions_ of his uncle. (See below, chapter 36).\n\n[2484] _Hermes_ VIII, 38, comparing _Etymologies_ XVII, 93, with cap.\n30 of the _De herbis femininis_.\n\n[2485] _Anecdota graeca et graeco-latina_, Berlin, 1864, II, 115 and\n119; Hermes VIII, 38; Wellmann (1906), p. xxi.\n\n[2486] BN 9332, 8th century; CLM 337, 9-10th century from Monte\nCassino; ed. T. M. Auracher et H. Stadler, in _Rom. Forsch._ I, 49-105;\nX, 181-247 and 368-446; XI, 1-121; XII, 161-243.\n\n[2487] Cod. Bam. L-III-9.\n\n[2488] PW \u201cDioskurides.\u201d A fairly early MS is CU Jesus 44, 12-13th\ncentury, fols. 17-145r, \u201cdiascorides per modum alphabeti de virtutibus\nherbarum et compositione olerum.\u201d I have not seen it but, if correctly\ndated, it and Bologna University Library 378, 12th century, which is\nsaid to differ from the printed editions, are too early to be Peter of\nAbano\u2019s version.\n\n[2489] _Explicit dyascorides quem petrus paduanensis legendo corexit\net exponendo quae utiliora sunt in lucem deduxit_, Colle, 1478.\n_Dioscorides digestus alphabetico ordine additis annotatiunculis\nbrevibus et tractatu aquarum_, Lugduni, 1512. And see Chap. 70,\nAppendix II.\n\n[2490] I have read it in BN 6820, fol. 1r, as well as in the 1478\nedition.\n\n[2491] A work by Serapion which Simon Cordo of Genoa translated from\nArabic into Latin with the help of Abraham, a Jew of Tortosa. Serapion\nstates at the beginning that his work is a combination of Dioscorides\nand of the work of Galen on medicinal simples. _Aggregator_ was printed\nin 1479, _Liber Serapionis aggregatus in medicinis simplicibus.\nTranslatio Symonis Ianuensis interprete Abraam iudeo tortuosiensi de\narabico in latinum._\n\n[2492] Ruska (1912), p. 5, says that Dioscorides, V, 84-133, among\nother things describes \u201ceine ganze Reihe von h\u00f6chst zweifelhaften\nSteinen mit unglaublichen Wirkungen die in den Arabischen\nArzneimittelverzeichnissen und Steinb\u00fcchern niederkehren.\u201d\n\n[2493] Amplon. Folio 41, fols. 36-7; Montpellier 277, caps. 46-67\nof the treatise entitled, _Liber aristotelis de lapidibus preciosis\nsecundum verba sapientium antiquorum_.\n\n[2494] Sloane 3848, 17th century, fols. 36-40.\n\n[2495] _Macer Floridus de viribus herbarum una cum Walafridi Strabonis,\nOthonis Cremonensis et Ioannis Folcz carminibus similis argumenti_, ed.\nLudovicus Choulant, 1832.\n\n[2496] V. Rose himself corrected (_Hermes_, VIII, 330-1) the strange\nstatement which he had made (_Hermes_, VIII, 63) that the name \u201cMacer\u201d\nis not found in connection with this work until MSS of the 14th and\n15th centuries. Both the treatise and the name are frequent in the\nearlier MSS.\n\n[2497] Cotton, Vitellius C, III.\n\n[2498] The Dane, Harpestreng, who died in 1244, translated and\ncommented upon the poem; published by Christian Molbech, Copenhagen,\n1826.\n\n[2499] There are a large number in the MSS collections of the British\nMuseum alone. Some said to be of the 12th century are Harleian 4346,\nand at Erfurt Amplon, Octavo 62a and 62b.\n\n[2500] See the British Museum catalogue of printed books. I have used\nbesides Choulant\u2019s text of 1832 an illustrated octavo edition probably\nof 1489. The poem also appears in medical collections such as _Medici\nantiqui omnes_, Aldus, Venice, 1547, fols. 223-46.\n\n[2501] Choulant (1832) Preface.\n\n[2502] Choulant (1832) _Prolegomena ad Macrum_, p. 14.\n\n[2503] See the description of _Ligusticum_, lines 900-6.\n\n[2504] Often printed: ed. F. A. Reuss, W\u00fcrzburg, 1834; in Migne PL 114,\n1119-30.\n\n[2505] H. Stadler, _Die Quellen des Macer Floridus_, in Sudhoff (1909).\n\n[2506] Stadler, _op. cit._; Choulant (1832), p. 4.\n\n[2507] \u201cMacer scripsit metrico stilo librum. de viribus\nherbarum,\u201d\u2014Stadler (1909), 65.\n\n[2508] It was, however, a good deal subject to later interpolation.\n\n[2509] Choulant (1832) adds as _Macri spuria_ 487 lines concerning\ntwenty herbs.\n\nIn Vienna 3207, 15th century, fols. 1-50, Macer Floridus, De viribus\nherbarum; fols. 50-52, Pseudo-Macer, De animalibus et lignis.\n\n[2510] Lines 1901-2, _Quae, quamvis natura potens concedere posset Vana\ntamen nobis et anilia iure videntur_.\n\n[2511] Lines 1881-3, _Hanc herbam gestando manu si queris ab egro Dic\nfrater quid agis? bene si responderit eger, Vivet, si vero male, spes\nest nulla salutis_.\n\n[2512] Herb 54, lines 1728-.\n\n[2513] Herb 49, lines 1617-27.\n\n[2514] Herb 67, lines 2095-.\n\n[2515] Herb 51, lines 1685-9.\n\n[2516] Herb 52.\n\n[2517] Herb 34, lines 1135-8.\n\n[2518] Herb 41, lines 1421-2.\n\n[2519] Herb 50, lines 1641-63.\n\n[2520] Herb 69, _Cyminum_, lines 2118-9, \u201cHoc orthopnoicis miram\npraestare medelam Experti dicunt cum pusce saepius haustum.\u201d\n\n[2521] Vienna 2532, 12th century, fols. 106-17, \u201cExperimenta Macri.\nAd dolorem capitis. Accipe balsamum et instilla .../ ... adde sucum\ncelidonie et superpone vulneribus.\u201d\n\nArundel 295, 14th century, fols. 222-33, \u201cExperimenta Macri collecta\nsub certis capitulis a Gotefrido.\u201d\n\n[2522] R. L. Poole, _Medieval Thought_, 1884, pp. 19, 21.\n\n[2523] Migne, PL 70, 1146.\n\n[2524] _Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii Philosophiae Consolationis Libri\nquinque_, ed. R. Peiper, Lipsiae, 1871, pp. xxxix-xlvi, li-lxvii. See\nalso Manitius (1911), pp. 33-5.\n\nIt was by seeking comfort in _The Consolation of Philosophy_ after the\ndeath of Beatrice that Dante was led into a new world of literature,\nscience, and philosophy, as he tells us in his _Convivio_; cited by Orr\n(1913), p. 1.\n\n[2525] Manitius (1911), pp. 29-32.\n\n[2526] _Ibid._, 26-8. At the time I went through the various catalogues\nof MSS in the British Museum item by item it was not my intention to\ninclude Boethius in this investigation, and I am therefore unable to\nsay whether the Museum has MSS which may throw further light upon\nthe problems connected with the mathematical treatises ascribed to\nBoethius. Manitius mentions no English MSS in this connection, but\nthere are likely to be some at London, Oxford, or Cambridge.\n\n[2527] _Boethius\u2019 Consolation of Philosophy_, translated from the Latin\nby George Colville, 1556; ed. with Introduction by E. B. Box, London,\n1897, p. xviii.\n\n[2528] Manitius (1911) pp. 35-6; Usener, _Anecdota Holderi_, Bonn,\n1877, pp. 48-59; E. K. Rand, _Der dem Boethius zugeschriebene Traktat\nDe fide catholica_, 1901. The _De fide catholica_, however, is not\nmentioned by Cassiodorus and is regarded as spurious.\n\n[2529] _De consol. philos._, III, 8, 21.\n\n[2530] _De consol. philos._, IV, 1.\n\n[2531] _Ibid._, III, 9, 1; III, 12, 14; III, 9, 10; III, 12, 99; II, 8,\n13.\n\n[2532] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 10, \u201cIn hac enim de providentiae simplicitate,\nde fati serie, de repentinis casibus, de cognitione ac praedestinatione\ndivina, de arbitrii libertate quaeri solet.\u201d To the ensuing argument\nare devoted the sixth and seventh chapters of Book IV and all of Book V.\n\n[2533] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 21.\n\n[2534] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 30.\n\n[2535] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 48.\n\n[2536] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 77.\n\n[2537] _De consol. philos._, V, 4-6.\n\n[2538] _Ibid._, IV, 6, 58.\n\n[2539] _Ibid._, V, 2-3 and 6, 110, \u201ctametsi nullam naturae habeat\nnecessitatem atqui deus ea futura quae ex arbitrii libertate proveniunt\npraesentia contuetur.\u201d\n\n[2540] _Ibid._, V, 1.\n\n[2541] _De musica libri quinque_, I, 1-2 and 27; in Migne, PL 63,\n1167-1300.\n\n[2542] Migne, PL 83, 963-1018. In Harleian 3099, 1134 A.\u202fD., the\n_Etymologies_ at fols. 1-154, are followed by the _De natura rerum_,\nthe last chapter of which (fol. 164v) is numbered 42 instead of 48 as\nin Migne. But up to chapter 27, _Utrum sidera animam habeant_, the\ndivision into chapters seems the same as in the printed text.\n\n[2543] Migne, PL 82, 73-728, a reprint of the edition of Arevalus,\nRome, 1796. Large portions of the _Etymologies_ have been translated\ninto English with an introduction of some seventy pages by E. Brehaut,\n_An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages_; _Isidore of Seville_, 1912, in\n_Columbia University Studies in History_, etc., vol. 48, pp. 1-274. For\nIsidorean bibliography see pp. 17, 22-3, 46-7 of Brehaut\u2019s introduction.\n\n[2544] Manitius (1911), pp. 60-61; Brehaut (1912), p. 34.\n\n[2545] To say, for example, that \u201cso hospitable an attitude toward\nprofane learning as Isidore displayed ... was never surpassed\nthroughout the middle ages\u201d (Brehaut, p. 31), is unfair to many later\nwriters, as our discussion of the natural science of the twelfth and\nthirteenth centuries will show.\n\n[2546] Brehaut (1912), p. 34.\n\n[2547] Migne, PL 82, 73, \u201cOpus de origine quarumdam rerum, ex veteris\nlectionis recordatione collectum, atque ita in quibusdam locis\nadnotatum, sicut exstat conscriptum stylo maiorum.\u201d\n\n[2548] See, for example, _Etymol._, VIII, 7, 3, \u201cVates a vi mentis\nappellatos, Varro auctor est.\u201d\n\n[2549] _Etymol._, XX, 2, 37.\n\n[2550] Cassiodorus, however, urged the monks of the sixth century who\ncared for the sick to read Hippocrates and Galen as well as Dioscorides\nand Caelius Aurelianus; Brehaut (1912), p. 87, note, citing PL 70,\n1146, in the _De instit. divin. litterarum_.\n\n[2551] _Etymol._, XII, 4, 6 and 6, 34.\n\n[2552] _Ibid._, XII, 4, 12.\n\n[2553] _Ibid._, XII, 6, 56.\n\n[2554] _Ibid._, XVII, 7, 17 and 9, 36; XIX, 17, 8.\n\n[2555] _Ibid._, XVII, 9, 85.\n\n[2556] _Ibid._, XVII, 9, 30.\n\n[2557] _Etymol._, XVI, 15, 21-26.\n\n[2558] _Ibid._, XI, 3, 4, \u201cquod plurimis etiam experimentis probatum\nest.\u201d\n\n[2559] Brehaut (1912), p. 3.\n\n[2560] _Etymol._, XVI, 26, 10, from Epiphanius, _Liber de ponderibus et\nmensuris_.\n\n[2561] Hence, presumably, the _sextarii_, from _sex_.\n\n[2562]\n\n \u201cMens hausti nulla sanie polluta veneni\n Incantata perit....\u201d\n\n[2563] Migne, PL 83, 9.\n\n[2564] For Rabanus\u2019 account see Migne, PL 110, 1097-1110; Burchard,\nPL 140, 839 _et seq._; Ivo, PL 161, 760 _et seq._; Hincmar, PL 125,\n716-29. Moreover, Burchard continues to follow Rabanus word for word\nfor some ten columns after the conclusion of their mutual excerpt from\nIsidore, while Ivo is identical with Burchard for fifteen more columns.\nIn \u201cSome Medieval Conceptions of Magic,\u201d _The Monist_, January, 1915,\nXXV, 107-39, I stated (p. 109, note 2) that I thought that I was the\nfirst to point out the identity of these four accounts with Isidore\u2019s.\n\nSince then, however, I have noticed that Manitius (1911), p. 299, notes\nthe identity of Rabanus with Isidore, \u201cDass Hraban sich auch sonst\nganz an Isidor anlehnt, beweist er in der Schrift _De consanguineorum\nnuptiis_ im Abschnitt _de magicis artibus_ (Migne, 109, 1097ff.) der\naus _Etym._ 8, 9 stammt.\u201d Also Mr. C. C. I. Webb, in his 1909 edition\nof the _Polycraticus_ notes John of Salisbury\u2019s borrowings from Isidore\nand Ivo of Chartres. Finally, J. Hansen, _Zauberwahn, Inquisition,\nund Hexenprozess im Mittelalter_, 1900, at p. 49 notes that Isidore\u2019s\nsketch of the history of magic keeps recurring in medieval writings, at\np. 71 the dependence of Rabanus and Hincmar upon Isidore, and perhaps\nhe somewhere notes the identity with the foregoing of the accounts of\nmagic in Burchard and the other decretalists, but in the absence of an\nindex to his volume I do not find such a passage. At p. 128, however,\nhe notes that John of Salisbury\u2019s description of magic is in part taken\nword for word from Isidore and Rabanus.\n\nProfessor Hamilton, in one of his papers on _Storm-Making Springs_,\nwhich appeared at about the same time as my article (_Romanic Review_,\nV, 3, 1914; but, owing probably to war conditions, this issue did not\nactually appear until after the number of _The Monist_ containing\nmy article), came near noting the same thing when he spoke (p. 225)\nof Isidore\u2019s chapter as \u201cquoted at length\u201d by Gratian\u2014who seems\nto me, however, to give the substance of Isidore\u2019s chapter rather\nthan his exact wording\u2014and further noted that four lines of Latin\nwhich he quoted were found alike in Rabanus, Hincmar, Ivo, and the\n_Polycraticus_ of John of Salisbury.\n\nIn my article I also stated: \u201cProfessor Burr, in a note to his paper\non \u2018The Literature of Witchcraft\u2019 (_American Historical Association\nPapers_, IV (1890), p. 241) has described the accounts of Rabanus and\nHincmar but without explicitly noting their close resemblance, although\nhe characterizes Rabanus\u2019 article as \u2018mainly compiled.\u2019\u201d Professor\nBurr subsequently wrote to me, \u201cThat I did not mention the relation\nin my old paper on \u201cThe Literature of Witchcraft\u201d was partly because\nthey borrowed from other sources as well and partly because Isidore\nis himself a compiler. I hoped to come back to the matter in a more\ncareful study of the whole genesis of these stock passages.\u201d\n\n[2565] See below, chapter 60 on Aquinas.\n\n[2566] _Etymol._, VIII, 11, 15-17; _Differentiarum_, II, 14.\n\n[2567] Indeed, _Differentiarum_, II, 39, he defines astrology as he had\nastronomy in _Etymol._, III, 27. In _Etymol._, III, 25, he ascribes the\ninvention of astronomy to the Egyptians and that of astrology to the\nChaldeans.\n\n[2568] Caps. 14 and 27.\n\n[2569] _De nat. rer._, III, 4; PL 83, 968.\n\n[2570] _Ibid._, XIX, 2.\n\n[2571] _Ibid._, XXII, 2-3.\n\n[2572] _Ibid._, IX, 1-2.\n\n[2573] _Ibid._, XXVI, 15; _Etymol._, III, 71, 16.\n\n[2574] _Etymol._, XIV, 5, \u201cvim sideris.\u201d\n\n[2575] _Ibid._, IX, 2, \u201csecundum diversitatem enim coeli.\u201d\n\n[2576] _Ibid._, IV, 13, 4.\n\n[2577] _De nat. rerum_, XVIII, 5-7.\n\n[2578] _History of the Anglo-Saxons_, III, 403.\n\n[2579] _Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought_, 1884, p. 20;\np. 18 in 1920 edition.\n\n[2580] Migne, PL 90, 293-4.\n\n[2581] A few MSS, chiefly from France, earlier than the 12th century,\nare: BN 5543, 9th century; BN 15685, 9th century; BN nouv. acq. 1612,\n1615, and 1632, all 9th or 10th century; Amiens 222, 9th century;\nCambrai 925, 9th century; Ivrea 3, 9th century; Ivrea 6, 10th century;\nBerlin 128, 8-9th century; Berlin 130, 9-10th century; CLM 18158, 11th\ncentury; CLM 21557, 11th century.\n\nI have not noted the MSS of Bede in the British Museum and Bodleian\ncollections.\n\n[2582] PL 90, 187-278; the text occupies but a small portion of these\ncolumns.\n\n[2583] _Ibid._, Cap. 14.\n\n[2584] _Ibid._, Cap. 24.\n\n[2585] _Ibid._, Cap. 25.\n\n[2586] _In Samuelem prophetam allegorica expositio_, IV, 7; PL 91, 701.\n\n[2587] _De tonitruis libellus ad Herefridum_, PL 90, 609-14.\n\n[2588] See below, chapter 29.\n\n[2589] The _Aenigmatum Liber_ forms a part of the _Liber de septenario\net de metris_ in Aldhelm\u2019s works as edited by Giles, Oxford, 1844, and\nreprinted in Migne, PL 89, 183-99.\n\n[2590] Cantimpr\u00e9\u2019s citations of Adhelmus seem almost certainly\ndrawn from the _Aenigmata_ in the cases of _Leo_, _ciconia_,\n_hirundinus_, _nycticorax_, _salamander_, _luligo_ (or, _loligo_),\n_perna_, _draguntia lapis_ (_natrix_), _myrmicoleon_, _colossus_, and\n_molossus_. On the other hand, the citations concerning _onocentaur_\ndo not correspond to the riddle _De monocero sive unicorni_; the two\naccounts of Scylla are different; and I do not find _cacus_ or _onager_\nor harpy or siren or locust or the Indian ants larger than foxes in the\n_Riddles_ as edited by Giles.\n\nThe passages in which Thomas of Cantimpr\u00e9 cites Adhelmus are printed\ntogether by Pitra (1855) III, 425-7.\n\n[2591] Pitra (1855) III, xxvi. Only in the case of the salamander\ndoes Pitra say, \u201cThomas huc adduxit Adhelmi Shirbrunensis aenigma de\nSalamandra vatemque a philosopho clare distinxit.\u201d\n\n[2592] I have used the text in Migne, PL vol. 77.\n\n[2593] _Variarum_ IV, _Epist._ 22-23, Migne, PL 69, 624-25.\n\n[2594] I derive the following facts from E. C. Quiggin, \u201cIrish\nLiterature,\u201d in EB V, 622 _et seq._, where further bibliography is\ngiven.\n\n[2595] \u201cThe Gaelic medical MSS, whether preserved in Ireland,\nScotland, or elsewhere, ... are all, or nearly all, of foreign\norigin\u201d:\u2014Mackinnon, in the _International Congress of Medicine_,\nLondon, 1913, p. 413.\n\n[2596] G. Fl\u00fcgel, _Alkindi, genannt der Philosoph der Araber, ein\nVorbild seiner Zeit_, Leipzig, 1857.\n\nF. Dieterici, _Die Naturanschauung und Naturphilosophie der Araber im\nzehnten Jahrhundert_, Berlin, 1861.\n\nO. Loth, _Al-Kindi als Astrolog._ in _Morgenl\u00e4ndische Forschungen.\nFestschrift f\u00fcr Fleischer_, Leipzig, 1875, pp. 263-309.\n\nA. Nagy, _Die philosophischen Abhandlungen des Al-Kindis_, 1897 in\n_Beitr\u00e4ge z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt._, II, 5.\n\nA. A. Bj\u00f6rnbo and S. Vogl, _Alkindi, Tideus, und Pseudo-Euclid, Drei\nOptische Werke_, Leipzig, 1911, in _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math. Wiss._,\nXXVI, 3.\n\nFor further bibliography see the last-named work and Steinschneider\n(1905) 23-4, 47, (1906) 31-33.\n\n_The Apology of Al Kindy_ (Sir Wm. Muir, London, 1882) is a defense of\nChristianity by another writer of about the same time.\n\n[2597] _Astrorum iudicis Alkindi, Gaphar de pluviis imbribus et ventis\nac aeris mutatione, ex officina Petri Liechtenstein: Venetiis, 1507._\n\n[2598] Amplon. Quarto 151, fols. 17-19.\n\n[2599] In the 1412 catalogue of Amplonius, Math. 48 was \u201cTheorica\nAlkindi de radiis stellicis seu arcium magicarum vel de phisicis\nligaturis\u201d; and at present Amplon. Quarto 349, 14th century, fols. 47v,\n65v, 66r-v, 16r-v, 29r, contains \u201cLiber Alkindi de radiis Omnes homines\nqui sensibilia / Explicit theorica artis magis (_sic_). Explicit\nAlkindi de radiis stellicis.\u201d\n\nHarleian 13, 13th century, given by John of London to St. Augustine\u2019s\nAbbey, Canterbury (#1166, James, 330-1), fols. 166-74, \u201cde radiis\nstellicis Omnes homines qui sensibilia / explicit Theoria Artis Magice\nAlkindi.\u201d\n\nDigby 91, 16th century, fols. 66-80, Alkindus de radiis stellarum,\n\u201cOmnes homines qui sensibilia sensu percipiunt....\u201d\n\nDigby 183, end 14th century, fols. 38-45.\n\nSelden supra 76 (Bernard 3464), fols. 47r-60v, \u201cIncipit theoreita\nartium magicarum. Capitulum de origine scientie. Omnes homines qui\nsensibilia sensu percipiunt....\u201d; Selden 3467, #4.\n\nCanon. Misc. 370, fols. 240-59, \u201cExplicit theoria magice artis sive\nlibellus Alkindi de radiis stellatis anno per me Theod. scriptus Domini\n1484....\u201d\n\nRawlinson C-117, 15th century (according to Macray, but since the MS\nonce belonged to John of London it is more likely to be 13th century),\nfols. 157-69, \u201cIncipit theorica Alkindi et est de causis reddendis\ncirca operationes karacterum et conjurationes et suffumigationes et\nceteris huiusmodi quae pertinent ad artem magicam. \u2018Omnes homines qui\nsensibilia.\u2019 ...\u201d\n\nBN nouv. acq. 616, 1442 A.\u202fD., Liber Jacobi Alchindi de radiis.\n\nCU Trinity 936 (R. 15, 17) 17th century, Alkyndus de Radiis.\n\nSte. Genevi\u00e8ve 2240, 17th century, fol. 32 (?)\u2014since the treatise\nis listed between two others which begin at fols. 68 and 112,\nrespectively\u2014\u201cAlkyndus de radiis; de virtute verborum.\u201d\n\nSteinschneider (1906), 32, has already listed four of these MSS, but\nwas mistaken in thinking Cotton Appendix VI, fols. 63v-70r, \u201cExplicit\nIacob alkindi de theorica planetarum,\u201d the same treatise as _The Theory\nof the Magic Art_.\n\n[2600] In Digby 91 Roger Bacon on Perspective is followed by Alkindi on\nthe rays of the stars, while in Digby 183 a marginal note to Alkindi\u2019s\ntreatise reads \u201cNota hoc quod est extractum de libro Rogeri Bakun de\ncelo et mundo, capitulo de numero celorum,\u201d and following the work of\nAlkindi we have Bacon on the retardation of old age and perhaps also\n_de radiis solaribus_.\n\n[2601] Edited by Nagy (1897). A MS of the late 12th or early 13th\ncentury which Nagy fails to note is Digby 40, fols. 15v-25, de somno et\nvisionibus.\n\n[2602] Nagy, p. 18, \u201cQuare autem videamus quasdam res antequam sint? et\nquare videamus res cum interpretatione significantes res antequam sint?\net quare videamus res facientes nos videre contrarium earum?\u201d\n\n[2603] Spec. astron. cap. 7. More fully the Incipit is, \u201cRogatus fui\nquod manifestem consilia philosophorum....\u201d\n\n[2604] Digby 68, 14th century, fols. 124-35, Liber Alkindii de\nimpressionibus terre et aeris accidentibus. CU Clare College 15 (Kk. 4,\n2), c. 1280, fols. 8-13, \u201cIn nomine dei et eius laude Epistola Alkindi\nde rebus aeribus et pluviis cum sermone aggregato et utili de arabico\nin latinum translata.\u201d\n\nSteinschneider (1906) 32 gives the title as _De impressionibus\naeris_, and suggests that it is the same as a _De pluviis_ or\n_De nubibus_, which seems to be the case, as they have the same\nIncipit\u2014Steinschneider (1905) 13\u2014as does a _De imbribus_ in Digby 176,\n14th century, fols. 61-63. Steinschneider also suggested that BN 7332,\n_De impressionibus planetarum_ was probably the same treatise; and this\nis shown to be true by the Explicit of Alkindi\u2019s treatise in another\nMS, Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 63v, \u201cExplicit liber de impressionibus\nplanetarum secundum iacobum alkindi.\u201d See also BN 7316, 7328, 7440,\n7482.\n\nThe opening words of an anonymous _Tractatus de meteorologia_ in Vienna\n2385, 13th century, fols. 46-49, show that it is the Alkindi. A very\nsimilar treatise on weather prediction, _De subradiis planetarum_ or\n_De pluviis_, is ascribed to Haly and exists in three Digby MSS (67,\nfol. 12v; 93, fol. 183v; 147, fol. 117v) and in some other MSS noted\nby Steinschneider. It belongs, I suspect, together with a brief _Haly\nde dispositione aeris_ (Digby 92, fol. 5) which Steinschneider listed\nseparately.\n\n[2605] Some notion of the number of these astrological treatises on the\nweather may be had from the following group of them in a single MS.\n\n Vienna 2436, 14th century,\n fols. 134-6, \u201cFinitur Hermanni liber de ymbribus et pluviis\u201d\n\n 136-8, Iohannes Hispalensis, Tractatus de mutatione aeris\n\n 139, Haomar de pluviis\n\n 139-40, Idem de qualitate aeris et temporum\n\n 140, de pluvia, fulgure, tonitruis et vento\n\n 140-1, Dorochius, De hora pluvie et ventorum caloris et frigoris\n\n 141, Idem, De hora pluvie\n\n 141-2, Alkindus, alias Dorochius, De aeris qualitatibus\n\n 142, Idem, De imbribus\n\n 143, Jergis, De pluviis\n\n 198, 206, Iacobus Alkindus, Liber de significationibus planetarum et\n eorum naturis, alias de pluviis.\n\n[2606] Their titles are listed by Steinschneider (1906) 99; 31-3. We\nmay note BN 6978, 14th century, Incipit epistola Alkindi Achalis de\nBaldac philosophi de futurorum scientia; Corpus Christi 254, fol. 191,\n\u201cde aspectibus\u201d\u2014a fragment from a 14th century MSS.\n\n[2607] MSS of Robert\u2019s translation of Alkindi\u2019s _Judgments_ are\nnumerous in the Bodleian library: Digby 91, fol. 80-; Ashmole 179; 209;\n369; 434; and extracts from it in other MSS. It opens, \u201cQuamquam post\nEuclidem.\u201d\n\n[2608] CLM 392, 15th century, fol. 80-; 489, 16th century, fols. 207-21.\n\n[2609] O. Loth (1875), pp. 271-2; at 280-2 he gives the Latin of the\npassage in question from Albumasar, following the Arabic of Alkindi at\n273-9.\n\n[2610] E. Wiedemann in _Journal f. praktische Chemie_, 1907, p. 73, _et\nseq._; cited by Lippmann (1919) p. 399.\n\n[2611] Bridges, _Opus Maius_, I, 262, note.\n\n[2612] Steinschneider (1905), p. 47.\n\n[2613] HL 21, 499-503.\n\n[2614] _Spec. astron._ cap. 6. He gives the Incipit of the\n_Experiments_ of Albumasar as \u201cScito horam introitus\u201d which serves to\nidentify it with the following:\n\nAmplon. Quarto 365, 12th century, fols. 1-18, liber experimentorum.\n\nAshmole 369-V, 13th century, fols. 103-23v, \u201c... incipit liber in\nrevolutione annorum mundi. Perfectus est liber experimentorum....\u201d\n\nAshmole 393, 15th century, fol. 95v, \u201cItem Albumasar de revolutionibus\nannorum mundi sive de experimentis....\u201d\n\nBN 16204, 13th century, pp. 302-333, \u201cRevolutio annorum mundi....\nPerfectus est liber experimentorum Albumasar....\u201d\n\nArsenal 880, 15th century, fol. 1-.\n\nArsenal 1036, 14th century, fol. 104v.\n\nDijon 1045, 15th century, fol. 81-.\n\nOther MSS containing _Experiments_ of Albumasar but where I am not sure\nof the wording of the Incipit are:\n\nLaud. Misc. 594, 14-15th century, fol. 123-, Liber experimentorum.\n\nHarleian 1, fols. 31-41, de experimentis in revolutione annorum mundi.\n\nCLM 51, 1487, and 1503.\n\nVienna 2436, 14th century, following John of Spain\u2019s translation\nof the _Introductorium magnum_ at fols. 1-85 and a _Liber magnarum\nconiunctionum_ at fols. 144-98, comes at fol. 242, \u201cLiber\nexperimentorum seu Capitula stellarum oblata regi magno Sarracenorum ab\nAlbumasore.\u201d The Incipit here is \u201cDispositio est ut dicam ab ariete sic\ninitium\u201d but the treatise is incomplete.\n\nIn some MS at Oxford which I cannot now identify the _Flores_ of\nAlbumasar close with the statement that the book of Experiments will\nfollow. A different hand then adds \u201cThe following work is Albumazar on\nthe revolutions of years,\u201d while a third hand adds the explanation,\n\u201cAnd according to some authorities it and the book of experiments are\none,\u201d which is the case.\n\nIn some MSS, however, another treatise on revolutions accompanies the\n_Experiments_. In Amplon. Quarto 365 it is followed at fols. 18-27 by\n_Sentencie de revolucione annorum_, while in Laud. Misc. 594 it is\npreceded at fol. 106 by _Liber Albumasar de revolutionibus annorum\ncollectus a floribus antiquorum philosophorum_, which is the same as\nthe _Flores_.\n\n[2615] The distinction between these various works is made quite clear\nin BN 16204, 13th century, where at pp. 1-183 is John of Spain\u2019s\ntranslation of the _Liber introductorius maior_ in eight parts; at\n183-302 the _Conjunctions_, also in eight parts; at 302-333 the\n_Revolutio annorum mundi_ or _Liber experimentorum_; at 333-353 the\n_Flores_, and at 353-369 the _De revolutione annorum in revolutione\nnativitatum_, which opens \u201c_Omne tempus breve est operandi...._\u201d At\nthe same time the Explicit of this treatise bears witness to the ease\nwith which these works of Albumasar are confused, for it was at first\nwritten, \u201c_Explicit liber albumasar de revolutione annorum mundi_,\u201d\nand some other hand has crossed out this last word and substituted\n\u201c_nativitatis_.\u201d\n\n[2616] _Conciliator_, Diff. 156.\n\n[2617] Laud. Misc. 594, 14-15th century, fols. 137-41, Liber Sadan,\nsive Albumasar in Sadan. \u201cDixit Sadan, Audivi Albumayar dicentem quod\nomnis vita viventium post Deum est sol et luna / Expliciunt excerpta de\nsecretis Albumasar.\u201d\n\n_Cat. cod. astrol. Graec._ V, i, 142, quotes from a 15th century MS,\n\u201cExpliciunt excerpta de secretis Albumasaris per Sadan discipulum cuius\n(eius?) et vocatur liber Albumasaris in Sadan.\u201d\n\nThe treatise, according to Steinschneider (1906), 36-8, is also found\nin Amplon. Quarto 352.\n\nCLM 826, 14th century, written and illuminated in Bohemia, fols. 27-33,\nTractatus de nativitatibus, \u201cDixit Zadan: audivi Albumazar dicentem....\u201d\n\n[2618] Steinschneider (1906), 36-38.\n\n[2619] _Cat. cod. astrol. Graec._ V, i, 142. In Vienna MS 10583,\n15th century, 99 fols., we find a \u201cde revolutionibus nativitatum\u201d by\nAlbumasar \u201cgreco in latinum.\u201d\n\n[2620] BN 7316, 15th century, #13, liber imbrium secundos Indos ...\nauthore Jafar; so too BN 7329, 15th century, #6; BN 7316 #16, de\nmutatione temporum secundum Indos, seems, however, to be another\nanonymous treatise on the same subject. Perhaps the following, although\nnot so listed in the catalogue, is by Albumasar.\n\nDigby 194, fol. 147v- \u201cSapientes Indi de pluviis indicant secundum\nlunam, considerantes ipsius mansiones / quum dominus aspectus aspicit\ndominum vel est ei conjunctus.\u201d\n\n[2621] Corpus Christi 233, 13-15th century, fol. 122-\u201cJaphar philosophi\net astrologi Aegyptii. Cum multa et varia de nubium congregatione\nprecepta Indorum traxit auctoritas....\u201d\n\nCod. Cantab. Ii-I-13, \u201cIncipit liber Gaphar de temporis mutatione\nqui dicitur Geazar Babiloniensis. Universa astronomiae iudicia prout\nIndorum....\u201d\n\n[2622] The text printed in 1507 and 1540 is Hugo\u2019s translation. So\nis Bodleian 463 (Bernard 2456) 14th century, fols. 20r-24r, \u201cIncipit\nliber imbrium editum a Iafar astrologo et a lenio et mercurio (Cilenio\nMercurio) correcto.\u201d See also Savile 15 (Bernard 6561), Liber imbrium\nab antiquo Indorum astrologo nomine Jafar editus, deinde a Cylenio\nMercurio abbreviatus.\n\n[2623] Digby 68, 14th century, fol. 116-\u201cYsagoga minor Japharis\nmathematici in astronomiam per Adhelardum Bathoniencem ex Arabico\nsumpta. Quicunque philosophie scienciam altiorem studio constanti\ninquireris....\u201d\n\nSloane 2030, fols. 83-86v, according to Haskins in EHR (1913), but\nmy notes, which it is now too late to verify, suggest that it is a\nfragment occupying less than a page at fol. 87.\n\n[2624] By Carra de Vaux in _Journal asiatique, 9e s\u00e9rie_, I, 386, II,\n152, 420, with a French translation; and by Nix, Leipzig, 1900, with a\nGerman translation, also printed separately in 1894.\n\n[2625] Galen, ed. Chart. X, 571; Constantinus Africanus, ed. Basel,\n1536, pp. 317-21; Arnald of Villanova, _Opera_, Lyons, 1532, fol.\n295, and also in other editions of his works; H. C. Agrippa, _Occult\nPhilosophy_, Lyons, 1600, pp. 637-40.\n\n[2626] HL XXVIII, 78-9.\n\n[2627] _Idem._\n\n[2628] Additional 22719, 12th century, fol. 200v, \u201cQuesivisti fili\nkarissime de incantatione adjuratione colli suspensione....\u201d In view\nof this and the citations of the work by Albertus Magnus who wrote\nbefore Arnald of Villanova, I cannot agree with Steinschneider (1905),\npp. 6 and 12, in denying that Constantinus translated the work and in\nascribing the translation exclusively to Arnald.\n\n[2629] Florence II, III, 214, 15th century, fols. 72-4, \u201cLiber Unayn de\nincantatione. Quesisti fili karissime....\u201d\n\n[2630] _De vegetabilibus_, V, ii, 6.\n\n[2631] _Mineral._ II, ii, 7, and II, iii, 6.\n\n[2632] _Mineral_. II, iii, 6 (ed. Borgnet, V, 55-6).\n\n[2633] I am not certain as to this word: it is _sizamelon_ in one text,\n_sesameleon_ in another.\n\n[2634] \u201cQuorum enim actio ex proprietate est non rationibus, unde sic\ncomprehendi non potest. Rationibus enim tantum comprehenduntur que\nsensibus subministrantur. Aliquando ergo quedam substantie habent\nproprietatem ratione incomprehensibilem propter sui subtilitatem et\nsensibus non subministratum propter altitudinem sui magnam.\u201d I doubt if\nthese last three words refer to the influence of the stars.\n\n[2635] _Liber de differentia spiritus et animae_, or _De differentia\ninter animam et spiritum_. The prologue opens: \u201cInterrogasti me\u2014honoret\nte Deus!\u2014de differentia....\u201d\n\n[2636] Steinschneider (1866), p. 404; (1905), p. 43, \u201cwovon ich das\nOriginal in Gotha 1158 erkannte.\u201c\n\n[2637] So in Corpus Christi 114, late 13th century, fol. 229, and at\nParis in the following MSS of the 13th or 14th century mostly: BN 6319,\n#11; 6322, #11; 6323, #6; 6323A; 6325, #17; 6567A; 6569; 8247; 16082;\n16083; 16088; 16142; 16490.\n\n[2638] Specific illustrations of such confusions between the two names\nin the MSS are: BN 6296, 14th century, #15, \u201c... authore filio Lucae\nMedici Constabolo\u201d; Brussels, Library of Dukes of Burgundy 2784,\n12th century, \u201cConstaben\u201d; Sloane 2454, late 13th century, \u201cLiber\ndifferentiae inter animam et spiritum quem Constantinus Luce amico suo\nscriptori Regis edidit.\u201d\n\n[2639] Constantinus Africanus, _Opera_, Basel, 1536, pp. 307-17, \u201cQui\nvoluerit scire differentiam, que est inter duas res .../ ... Hec igitur\nde differentiis spiritus et anime tibi dicta sufficiant, valeto.\u201d\nEdited more recently by S. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878, pp. 120-39.\n\n[2640] _Theorica_, III, 12.\n\n[2641] Corpus Christi 154, late 13th century, pp. 356-74, ascribed to\nAugustine in both Titulus and Explicit.\n\n[2642] S. Marco 179, 14th century, fols. 57-9, 83, Liber Ysaac de\ndifferentia spiritus et animae.\n\n[2643] CU Gonville and Caius 109, 13th century, fols. 1-6v, \u201cAvicenna\nde differencia spiritus et anime.\u201d\n\n[2644] So says Coxe, anent Corpus Christi 114, and Steinschneider\n(1905), p. 43.\n\n[2645] Migne, PL 40, 779-832.\n\n[2646] By Trithemius; but earlier so cited by Vincent of Beauvais (PL\n40, 779-80). See also Exon. 23, 13th century, fol. 196v.\n\n[2647] Migne, PL 40, 779-80.\n\n[2648] Both passages were excerpted by Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum\nnaturale_, XXIX, 41.\n\n[2649] De Renzi (1852-9) IV, 189; Petrocellus is very brief on the\ncells of the brain.\n\n[2650] Singer (1917), pp. 45 and 51, has noted that Hildegard\u2019s\ndescription of the brain as divided into three chambers is anteceded\nby the _Liber de humana natura_ of Constantinus, and contained \u201cin the\nwritings of St. Augustine.\u201d\n\n[2651] PL 40, 795, cap. 22.\n\n[2652] _De proprietatibus rerum_, III, 10 and 16; V, 3.\n\n[2653] Similarly E. G. Browne (1921), p. 123, writing of Arabian\nmedicine and Avicenna, says, \u201cCorresponding with the five external\nsenses, taste, touch, hearing, smelling, and seeing, are the five\ninternal senses, of which the first and second, the compound sense (or\n\u2018sensus communis\u2019) and the imagination, are located in the anterior\nventricle of the brain; the third and fourth, the co-ordinating and\nemotional faculties, in the mid-brain; and the fifth, the memory, in\nthe hind-brain.\u201d Galen had somewhat similar ideas.\n\n[2654] _De Genesi ad litteram_, VII, 18 (PL 34, 364).\n\n[2655] The fullest treatment of him will be found in D. A. Chwolson,\n_Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus_, Petrograd, 1856, 2 vols., _passim_.\nFor a list of his works see Steinschneider. _Zeitschrift f. Math._,\nXVIII, 331-38.\n\n[2656] There is some difficulty with these dates or their Arabic\nequivalents, because we are not certain whether the length of his life\nis given in lunar or solar years: see Chwolson, I, 532-3, 547-8.\n\n[2657] Bridges, I, 394.\n\n[2658] Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_, Paris, 1900, p. 68.\n\n[2659] Chwolson, II, 406, 422, 431, 440, 453, 610, 703.\n\n[2660] _Ibid._, I. 741; II, 7, 258, 386, 677, etc.\n\n[2661] Chwolson, II, 386-97, 500, 525, 530, 676.\n\n[2662] _Ibid._, I, 737.\n\n[2663] _Ibid._, II, 30, 373.\n\n[2664] _Ibid._, II, 411, 658, 839.\n\n[2665] _Ibid._, II, 253.\n\n[2666] _Ibid._, I, 738.\n\n[2667] _Ibid._, I, 733-4.\n\n[2668] _Ibid._, II, 19, 148, 150.\n\n[2669] _Ibid._, II, 21, 138-9.\n\n[2670] _Ibid._, I, 526; II, 141.\n\n[2671] Quoted by Bishop Gregory Bar-hebraeus in his _Syrian Chronicle_:\nChwolson, I, 177-80.\n\n[2672] Chwolson, I, 195; II, 623.\n\n[2673] _Ibid._, I, 482-3.\n\n[2674] Again there seems to be uncertainty as to dates, since the\nArabic sources name a caliph who was not contemporary with the\nphilosopher in question: Chwolson, I, 548-9.\n\n[2675] Chwolson, I, 485. Chwolson perhaps lays himself open a little to\nthe charge of arguing in a circle, since Thebit\u2019s writings are his main\nsource concerning Sabianism.\n\n[2676] _Ibid._, I, 553-64, for a list of his translations of, extracts\nfrom, and commentaries upon Greek works.\n\n[2677] _Ibid._, I, 484.\n\n[2678] BN 10260, 16th century, \u201cIncipit liber Karastoni de ponderibus\n.../ ... editus a Thebit filio Core.\u201d Also in BN 7377B, 14-15th\ncentury, #3; 7424, 14th century, #6; Vienna 5203, 15th century, fols.\n172-80. For other MSS see Bj\u00f6rnbo (1911) 140.\n\n[2679] Harleian 13, fol. 118-Thebit de motu octave spere; fol.\n120v- Liber Thebith ben Corath de his qui indigent expositione\nantequam legitur Almagestum; 123- Liber Thebit de ymaginatione spere\net circulorum eius diversorum; 124v- Liber Thebith de quantitatibus\nstellarum et planetarum.\n\nAlso in Harl. 3647, #11-14; Tanner 192, 14th century, fol. 103-; BN\n7195, 14th century, #12-15; Magliabech. XI-117, 14th century; CUL 1767\n(Ii. III, 3) 1276 A.\u202fD., fols. 86-96; and many other MSS.\n\n[2680] Delambre (1819) 73.\n\n[2681] Chwolson, I, 551.\n\n[2682] BN 6514, #10, _Thebit de alchymia_; Amplon. Quarto 312, written\nbefore 1323 A.\u202fD., fol. 29, _Notule Thebith contra alchimiam_.\n\n[2683] A work on judgments is ascribed to him in a Munich MS, CLM 588,\n14th century, fol. 189- _Thebites de iudiciis_; followed by, 220- _Liber\niudicialis Ptolomei_, 233- _Libellus de iudiciis_, and 238- _Modus\niudicandi_. The treatise on fifteen stars, fifteen herbs, and fifteen\nstones, which as we have seen is usually ascribed to Hermes or Enoch,\nis attributed to Thebit in at least one MS, BN 7337, page 129-.\n\n[2684] I, 551.\n\n[2685] Lyons 328, fols. 70-74, Liber prestigiorum Thebidis (Elbidis)\nsecundum Ptolemeum et Hermetem per Adhelardum bathoniensem translatus,\nopening, \u201cQuicunque geometria atque philosopia peritus astronomiae\nexpers fuerit ociosus est.\u201d In this MS the treatise closes with the\nwords, \u201cut prestigiorum artifex facultate non decidat.\u201d This seems to\nbe the only MS known where the translation is ascribed to Adelard of\nBath. It seems to have once been part of Avranches 235, 12th century,\nwhere the same title is listed in the table of contents. Haskins, in\nEHR (1911) 495, fails to identify the work, calling it \u201ca treatise\non horoscopes.\u201d It is to be noted, however, that Albertus Magnus in\nlisting bad necromantic books on images in the _Speculum astronomiae_\n(cap. xi, Borgnet, X, 641) gives the same Incipit for a _liber\npraestigiorum_ by Hermes, \u201cQui geometriae aut philosophiae peritus,\nexpers astronomiae fuerit ...\u201d Undoubtedly the two were the same.\n\n[2686] Of John of Seville\u2019s translation the MSS are more numerous.\nThe following will serve as a representative. Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th\ncentury, fols. 10v-12r, \u201cDixit thebyth bencorat et dixit aristoteles\nqui philosophiam et geometriam exercet et omnem scientiam legit et\nab astronomia vacuus fuerit erit occupatus et vacuus quod dignior\ngeometria et altior philosophia est ymaginum scientia. / Explicit\ntractatus de imaginibus Thebith Bencorath translatus a Iohanne\nHyspalensi atque Limiensi in Limia ex Arabico in Latinum. Sit laus deo\nmaximo.\u201d\n\nThis is the version cited by Michael Scot in his _Liber Introductorius_\n(Bodleian 266, fol. 200) where he gives the Incipit, \u201cDixerunt enim\nthebith benchorath et aristoteles quod si quis philosophiam ...,\u201d etc.,\nsubstantially as above.\n\nBut now comes a good joke on Albertus, who has listed among good\nastronomical books of images (_Speculum astronomiae_, cap. xi, Borgnet,\np. 642) the work of \u201cThebith eben chorath\u201d opening \u201cDixit A. qui\nphilosophiam ...\u201d which of course is that just mentioned. Thus he\ncondemns one translation of the same book and approves the other; is\nhe perhaps having some fun at the expense of the opponents of both\nastrology and necromancy?\n\nIt will be noted that it is Aristotle, rather than Hermes or Ptolemy,\nwho is cited at the start in John of Seville\u2019s translation. I therefore\nam uncertain whether Chwolson has our treatise in mind, when he speaks\nof Thebit\u2019s commenting upon \u201ceine pseudohermetische Schrift \u00fcber\nTalismane u.s.w.\u201d In the printed text of 1559 Aristotle and Ptolemy are\ncited in the first paragraph, but in the MSS Aristotle is cited twice.\n\n[2687] Some other MSS differ slightly from the foregoing in their\nopening words, but perhaps not enough to suggest a third translation:\n\nAshmole 346, 16th century, fols. 113-15v, \u201cIncipit liber de ymaginibus\nsecundum Thebit. In nomine pii et misericordis Dei. Dixit Thebit qui\ngeometrie aut Philosophie expers fuerit.\u201d\n\nBodleian 463 (Bernard 2456), written in Spain, 14th century, fols.\n75r-75v, \u201cDixit thebit bencorat Ar. qui legit phylosophiam et\ngeumetriam et omnem scientiam et alienus fuerit ab astronomia erit\nimpeditus vel occupatus.\u201d\n\nThe following MSS ascribe the translation to John of Spain and have the\nusual opening words, \u201cDixit Thebit ben Corat, Dixit Aristoteles, qui\nphilosophiam, etc.\u201d\n\nDigby 194, 15th century, fol. 145v-.\n\nS. Marco XI-102, 14th century, fols. 150-53.\n\nBerlin 963, 15th century, fol. 140- \u201cDixit thebit ben corach Cum\nvolueris operari de ymaginibus,\u201d but then at fol. 199, with the usual\nIncipit.\n\nHarleian 80 has the first part missing but ends, fol. 76r, like John\u2019s\ntranslation.\n\nStill other MSS are:\n\nHarleian 3647, 13th century.\n\nSloane 3846, fols. 86v-93; 3847; and 3883, fols. 87-93: all three 17th\ncentury.\n\nAmplon. Quarto 174, 14th century, fols. 120-1.\n\nBN 7282, 15th century, #4, interprete Joanne Hispalensi.\n\nBerlin 964, 15th century, fols. 213-5.\n\nVienna 2378, 14th century, fols. 41-63.\n\nCLM 27, 14-15th century, fols. 71-77; 59, 15th century, fols. 239-43.\n\nFlorence II-iii-214, 15th century, fols. 1-4, \u201cIncipit liber Thebit\nBenchorac de scientia omigarum et imaginum.(D) ixit Aristotiles qui.\u201d\n\n[2688] _De tribus imaginibus magicis_, Frankfurt, 1559.\n\n[2689] _Mineral._ II, iii, 3.\n\n[2690] Magliabech. XX-20, fol. 12r; Sloane 1305, fol. 19r.\n\n[2691] _Conciliator_, Diff. X., fol. 16GH, in ed. Venice, 1526.\n\n[2692] _Commentary on the Sphere_, cap. 3.\n\n[2693] Also given as Muhammad ibn Zakariya (Abu Bakr) ar-Razi and Abu\nBekr Mohammed ben Zachariah.\n\n[2694] Withington in his _Medical History_, 1894, gives the date as\n932, perhaps by a misprint.\n\n[2695] Ibn Abi Usaibi\u2019a (1203-1269, himself a physician and son of an\noculist) \u201cSources of Information concerning Classes of Physicians,\u201d\ncompiled at Damascus, 1245-1246, ed. by M\u00fcller, Cairo, 1882; and Ibn\nKhallikan (1211-1282), \u201cObituaries of Men of Note,\u201d written between\n1256 and 1274.\n\nFor these titles and most of the general account of the life and works\nof Rasis which follows I am indebted to G. S. A. Ranking\u2019s \u201cThe Life\nand Works of Rhazes,\u201d pp. 237-68, in _Transactions of the Seventeenth\nInternational Congress of Medicine, Section XXIII_, London, 1913.\n\n[2696] The list is reproduced by Ranking (1913) in Arabic and Latin,\nlargely on the basis of a MS at the University of Glasgow, which\ncontains a Latin translation by a Greek priest, who died in 1729, of\nthe Arabic work of Usaibi\u2019a, or part of it, mentioned in the previous\nnote: Hunterian Library, MS 44, fols. 1-19v.\n\n[2697] I have examined both these editions at the British Museum;\nWithington does not mention them in his _History of Medicine_, but\ncites editions of the _Continens_, Venice, 1542, and _Opera Parva_,\n1510, and a modern edition (1858) by the Sydenham Society of _On the\nSmall Pox and Measles_. The pages are not numbered in the edition of\n1481, so that I shall not be able to give exact references to them.\n\n[2698] This was sometimes reproduced separately: see Wolfenb\u00fcttel 2885,\n15th century, fol. 1, Phisonomia Rasis, fol. 2, Phisonomia Aristetelis,\nRasis et Philomenis, summorum magistrorum in philosophia.\n\n[2699] It occupies but a little over three pages in the 1481 edition.\nSince in the middle of the treatise we read \u201cMagister rasis fecit\ncauterizari quidem artheticum ...,\u201d etc., it is perhaps by a disciple\nrather than Rasis himself.\n\n[2700] 79, _Dissertatio de causis quae plerorumque hominum animos a\npraestantissimis ad viliores quosque medicos solent deflectere_.\n\n124, _Liber, Quod medicus acutus non sit ille qui possit omnes curare\nmorbos quoniam hoc non est in hominum potestate_ ...,\n\n125, _Epistola, Quod artifex omnibus numeris absolutus in quacumque\narte non existat nedum in medicina speciatim: et de causa cur imperiti\nmedici, vulgus, et etiam mulieres in civitatibus, foeliciores sint in\nsanandis quibusdam morbis quam viri doctissimi et de excusatione medici\nhoc propter_.\n\nThere appears to be a German translation by Steinschneider of this work\nby Rasis on the success of quacks and charlatans in _Virchow\u2019s Archiv\nf. Pathologische Anatomie_, XXXVI, 570-86.\n\n[2701] Ranking (1913), #180, 15, 138, 163.\n\n[2702] _Ibid._, #137; also 145, _Supplementum libris Plutarchi_.\n\n[2703] _Ibid._ #126, _Liber, De probatis et experientia compertis in\narte medica; per modum syntagmatis est digestus_. #205, _Liber, Quod in\nmorbis qui determinari atque explicari non possunt oporteat ut medicus\nsit assiduus apud aegrotantem et debeat uti experimentis ad illos\ncognoscendos. Et de medici fluctatione_.\n\n[2704] _Ibid._ #25, 26, 32-35, 38, 40. I should guess that 201,\n_Arcanum arcanorum de sapientia_, was the same as 35, _Arcanum\narcanorum_.\n\n[2705] _Ibid._ #40, _Responsio ad philosophum el-Kendi eo quod artem\nal-Chymi in impossibili posuerit_.\n\n[2706] Berthelot (1893), I, 68 and 286-7. On the alchemy of Rasis see\nfurther in this same volume the chapter, _L\u2019Alchimie de Rasis et du\nPseudo-Aristote_.\n\n[2707] BN 6514 and 7156.\n\n[2708] Riccardian 119, fol. 35v, \u201cIncipit liber luminis luminum\ntranslatus a magistro michahele scotto philosopho.\u201d Printed by J. Wood\nBrown (1897), p. 240 _et seq._\n\n[2709] Lippmann (1919), p. 400, citing the _Biographies_ of Albaihaqi\n(1105-1169).\n\n[2710] Ranking, #8.\n\n[2711] _Ibid._ #107.\n\n[2712] Ranking, #134. Other titles in mathematics and astronomy are:\n73, _Liber de sphaeris et mensuris compendiosis_; 128, _De septem\nplanetis et de sapientia_; 155, _De quadrato in mathesi epistola_; also\n109 and 110.\n\n[2713] _Ibid._ #13.\n\n[2714] _Ibid._ #51.\n\n[2715] _Ibid._ #158, _De necessitate precationis_.\n\n[2716] Printed as the Lapidary of Aristotle, Merseburg, 1473, p. 2.\n\n[2717] See De la Ville de Mirmont, _L\u2019Astrologie chez les\nGallo-Romains_, Bordeaux, 1904; also published in _Revue des \u00c9tudes\nanciennes_, 1902, p. 115-; 1903, p. 255-; 1906, p. 128-.\n\n[2718] Goujet (1737), p. 50; cited by C. Jourdain (1838), pp. 28-9.\n\n[2719] HL IV, 274-5; V, 182-3; VI, 9-10.\n\n[2720] Palat. Lat. 487, fol. 40, opening, \u201cNouo et insolito siderum\nortu infausta quaedam uel tristitia potius quam laeta uel prospera\nmiseris uentura significari mortalibus pene omnia ueterum aestimauit\nauctoritas.\u201d\n\n[2721] HL VII, 137.\n\n[2722] Ernest Wickersheimer, _Figures m\u00e9dico-astrologiques des\nneuvi\u00e8me, dixi\u00e8me et onzi\u00e8me si\u00e8cles_, in _Transactions of the\nSeventeenth International Congress of Medicine, Section XXIII, History\nof Medicine_, London, 1913, p. 313 _et seq._ I have not seen A. Fischer\n_Aberglaube unter den Angelsachsen_, Meiningen, 1891, or M. F\u00f6rster,\n_Die Kleinlitteratur des Aberglaubens im Altenglischen_, in _Archiv. f.\nd. Studium d. Neuer. Sprachen_, vol. 110, pp. 346-58.\n\n[2723] Charles Singer, _Studies in the History and Method of Science_,\nOxford, 1917, Plate XV, opposite p. 40, reproduces this illumination.\nThe MS, BN 7028, seems to have once belonged to the abbey of St. Hilary\nat Poitiers.\n\n[2724] Besides those in France mentioned by Wickersheimer may be noted\ntwo of the tenth century at Munich: CLM 18629, fol. 105, \u201cTabula\ncosmica cum nominibus ventorum, germanicorum quoque\u201d; CLM 18764, fols.\n79-80, \u201cSchema de genitura mundi.\u201d Also Vatic. Lat. 645, 9th century,\nfol. 66, Ventorum imagines et in circulo Adam in medio ferarum; fol.\n66v, Planetarum figura. This same MS contains a conjuration written in\na later hand of the eleventh or twelfth century: fol. 4v, \u201cIn nomine\npatris.... Tres angeli ambulaverunt in monte....\u201d\n\nFor such an astrological diagram in an Arabic work of the tenth century\nsee E. G. Browne (1921), 117-8.\n\n[2725] Amiens, fonds Lescalopier, 2, 11th century, fols. 1-12.\n\n[2726] For instance, for February, \u201cBibe agrimoniam et apii semen;\noculos turbulentos sanare debes\u201d: for March, \u201cMerum dulce primum bibe,\nassum balneum usita, sanguinem non minuas, ruta et levestico utere.\u201d\n\n[2727] _Ibid._, fols. 11 and 19.\n\n[2728] Pembroke 278, early 14th century, fol. 25, \u201cCompotus est\nsciencia considerans tempora.\u201d\n\n[2729] BN nouv. acq. 1616, 14 leaves.\n\n[2730] BN 7299A.\n\n[2731] BN 7299A, fols. 35v, 37v, 56r.\n\n[2732] Notker is especially famed for his translations with learned\ncommentaries from Latin into German, of which five are extant, namely:\n_The Consolation of Philosophy_ of Boethius, _The Marriage of Mercury\nand Philology_ of Martianus Capella, the _Psalter_, and Aristotle,\n_De categoriis_ and _De interpretatione_: see Piper, _Die Schriften\nNotkers_, Freiburg, 1882-1883, vols. I-III.\n\n[2733] BN nouv. acq. 229, fols. 10v-14v. _Notker erkenhardo discipulo\nde IIII questionibus compoti._ It seems not to have been printed.\n\n[2734] Cotton Tiberius A, III, a MS written in various hands before\nthe Norman conquest, partly in Latin and partly in Anglo-Saxon, and\ncontaining among other things the Colloquy of Aelfric. Our item occurs\nat fol. 34r in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear version, and at\nfol. 39v in Anglo-Saxon only.\n\nCotton Titus D, XXVI, 10th century, fols. 10v-11v, gives a slightly\ndifferent version for some days of the week.\n\n[2735] Harleian 3017, 10th century, fols. 63r-64v, CLM 6382, 11th\ncentury, fol. 42, Supputatio Esdrae; Incipit, \u201cKal. Jan. si fuerint\ndominico die hiems bona erit.\u201d\n\nVatican, Palat. Lat. 235, 10-11th century, fol. 39, \u201cSubputatio quam\nsubputavit Esdras in templo Hierusalem,\u201d opening, \u201cSi in prima feria\nfuerint kl. Ianuarii hiemps bona erit.\u201d\n\nAlso found in Egerton 821, fol. 1r, which is of the twelfth century and\nadds a more elaborate method of divination according to what planet\nrules the first hour of the first night of January and which of its 28\nmansions the moon is in.\n\nCLM 9921, 12th century, fol. 1, is a calendar with verses beginning,\n\u201cJani prima dies et septima fine timetur.\u201d\n\n[2736] Sloane 475, this portion perhaps 11th century, fol. 217r. Other\nMSS of later date than the period we are now considering are: Harleian\n2258, fol. 191, \u201cprognostica a die nativitatis Domini a luna et somniis\npetita,\u201d predictions from Christmas, the moon, and dreams. CUL 1338,\n15th century, fol. 65v, Prognostications derived from the day on which\nChristmas falls (in Latin); fol. 74v, Prognostications drawn from the\nday of the week on which the year commences. CU Trinity 1109, 14th\ncentury, fol. 148, \u201cPrognostica anni sequentis ex die natalium Domini.\u201d\n\n[2737] BN nouv. acq. 1616, 9th century, fol. 12v. Similar later MSS are:\n\nDigby 86, 13th century, fols. 32-4, Prognosticatio ex vento in nocte\nNatalis Domini, and fols. 40v-41r, \u201cLes singnes del jour de Nouel,\u201d\npredictions in French according to the day of the week on which\nChristmas falls.\n\nDigby 88, 15th century, fol. 77, \u201cHowe all ye yere ys rewlyde by the\nday that Christemas day fallythe on,\u201d and fol. 40r, \u201cPrognostication\nfrom the sight of the sun on Christmas and the ten days following\u201d\n(Prognosticatio ex visione solis in die Natalis Domini et in decem\ndiebus subsequentibus), and fol. 75, a poem of prognostications for\nChristmas day. This same MS contains a large number of other brief\nanonymous treatises in the fields of astrology and divination.\n\n[2738] Titus D, XXVI, fol. 9v. Tiberius A, III, fols. 38r and 35r.\nCockayne, _Leechdoms_ etc., III, 150-295, in RS vol. 35, published this\nand a number of other extracts from Tiberius A, III, and other early\nEnglish MSS.\n\nVienna 2245, 12th century, fols. 59r-69v are devoted to various\nprognostications, beginning with, \u201cThree days are to be observed above\nall others,\u201d and ending with, \u201cThunder at dawn signifies the birth of a\nking.\u201d A dream book by Daniel follows at fols. 69v-75r.\n\n[2739] Vatican Palat. Lat. 235, fol. 40, \u201cIn mense Ianuario si\ntonitru fuerit.\u201d In Egerton 821, 12th century, the significance of\nthunder is given according to the twelve signs of the zodiac, and we\nare told of what the Egyptians write, and of famine in Babylon. In\nCUL 1687, 13-14th century, fols. 68v-69r, Latin verses containing\nprognostications concerning thunder are followed by \u201ca list of the\nnumber of quarters of flour, beer, etc., used in the year _at the\nmonastery_\u201d and by \u201ca note on the symbolism of the pastoral staff.\u201d\n\n[2740] Combined with the method by the day of the week in BN 7299A,\n12th century, fol. 37v.\n\n[2741] Tiberius A, III, fol. 63r; Vatican Palat. Lat. 235, fol. 40.\n\n[2742] Tiberius A, III, fol. 38v.\n\n[2743] Sloane 475, fol. 135v.\n\n[2744] Sloane 475, fol. 133r. The method is almost identical with that\nof the spheres of life and death, of which we shall speak presently. In\nCU Trinity 987, _The Canterbury Psalter_, about 1150 A.\u202fD., the value\nassigned _Dies Solis_ is 24.\n\n[2745] Vatic. Palat. Lat. 235, fol. 40, \u201cDe lunae observatione: Luna I\nomnibus rebus agendis utilis.\u201d\n\nTiberius A, III, fol. 63r, where, however, such parts of the day as\nmorning and evening are further distinguished.\n\nVatic. Palat. Lat. 485, 9th century, fol. 15v, \u201cAd sanguinem\nminuendum,\u201d merely states which days of the moon are favorable or\nunfavorable for blood-letting.\n\nSt. John\u2019s 17, 1110 A.\u202fD., fol. 4, Luna quibus diebus bona est et\nquibus non; fol. 154v, a table of lucky and unlucky numbers.\n\n[2746] Harleian 3017, fol. 58v; the Incipit states that it is by the\nsame author as the preceding Sphere of Pythagoras and Apuleius.\n\nTitus D, XXVI, fol. 8.\n\nCotton Caligula A, XV, 10th century, fol. 121v, Latin and Anglo-Saxon.\n\nEgerton 821, fol. 32r, is a twelfth century instance.\n\nThe method seems combined or confused with the Egyptian days in Vatic.\nPalat. Lat. 485, 9th century, fol. 13v, \u201cDies aegyptiaci. Signa in\nquibus aegrotus an periclitare aut evadere non potest,\u201d but opening,\n\u201cLuna I. qui ceciderit in infirmitatem difficile euadit.\u201d\n\n[2747] Harleian 3017, fol. 58v, \u201cIncipit lunarium sancti danihel de\nnativitate infantium. Luna I qui fuerit natus vitalis erit; Luna II,\nmediocris erit ... Luna IIII, tractator regum erit ... Luna XII,\nreligiosus erit ... Luna XXX, negotias multas tractabit.\u201d\n\nTiberius A, III, fols. 63r and 34v.\n\nTitus D, XXVI, fols. 7v and 6v.\n\n[2748] Tiberius A, III, fol. 33v. Titus D, XXVI, fol. 9r. CLM 6382,\n11th century, fol. 42, De somni ueris uel mendosis quidam incipiunt in\naetatibus lunae exploratis.\n\n[2749] Tiberius A, III, fols. 30v-33v, \u201cFiniunt somnia danielis\nprophete.\u201d\n\nSloane 475, fols. 211-6, is almost identical, but I believe does not\nmention Daniel as its author.\n\nVatic. Palat. Lat. 235, fol. 39v.\n\nBN nouv. acq. 1616, 9th century, is roughly similar but names no author\nand does not distinguish the fates of boys and girls. It usually\nstates whether slaves who run away and thieves who steal on the day\nin question will be caught or escape. It opens and closes thus: \u201cLuna\nprima qui incenditur in ipsa sanabitur et bona et in omnibus dare et\naccipere et nubere et navigare in mare et vendere et emere et omnis\nquicumque fugerit in ipsa aut servus aut liber non poterit sed capitur\naut qui incendit incendio sanabitur (presumably an allusion to the\nmedical practice of cauterization) et qui natus fuerit vitalis erit\n.../ ... Luna XXX bona est ambulare in piscatione et qui fugit post\nmultos annos revertitur in loco suo et qui natus fuerit dives erit et\nhonoratissimus erit et qui incadit aut manducet aut non vivet periculo\nmortis habebit.\u201d\n\nTitus D, XXVII, fols. 22-25r, \u201cjudicia de diebus quibusdam cuiusque\nmensis\u201d; fols. 27-9, \u201cargumentum lunare, quando et qualiter observentur\ntempora ad res agendas.\u201d\n\nOf the twelfth century, Vienna 2532, fols. 55-9, \u201cLuna I. Hec dies\nomnibus egrotantibus utilis est .../ ... Puer natus negotia multa\nsectabit.\u201d\n\n[2750] Sloane 2461, end of 13th century, fols. 62-4. No Biblical\ncharacter is mentioned for the fifth and sixth days, but we are told\nthat on the seventh day of the moon Abel was slain by Cain.\n\nBN 3660A, 16th century, fols. 53r-57r, ascribes the birth of\nNebuchadnezzar to the fifth day, leaves the sixth blank, has Abel slain\non the seventh, Methusaleh born on the eighth, Lamech on the ninth, and\nso on.\n\nEgerton 821, 12th century, fol. 12r, \u201cNatus est Samuel propheta....\u201d\n\nDigby 88, 15th century, fol. 62r, has English verses beginning:\n\n \u201cGod made Adam the fyrst day of the moone,\n And the second day Eve good dedis to doone.\u201d\n\nA similar poem occurs at fol. 64 of the same MS and in Ashmole 189,\nfol. 213v.\n\n[2751] Ashmole 361, mid 14th century, fols. 156v-158v, \u201cIste sunt\nlunaciones quas Adam primus homo disposuit secundum veram experientiam\nquam etiam suis filiis tradidit et quam maxime Abel et ceteris de\nposteritate ad quos etiam concordavit Daniel propheta ...\u201d; fol. 159,\n\u201cModo agitur de numero lune ad videndum que sit bona vel que mala et\nusum istarum lunacionum invenerunt Adam et Daniel propheta.\u201d\n\n[2752] Canon. Misc. 517, fol. 35r, \u201cIncipit scientia edita ab edri\nphilosopho astrologo et medico.\u201d\n\n[2753] BN 3660A, fols. 53r-57r. In the catalogue of Ashburnham MSS\nat Florence the name of Giovannino di Graziano is connected with a\nmoon-book in Ashburnham 130, 13-15th century, fols. 25-6, \u201cLuna prima\nAdam natus fuit....\u201d But perhaps this name should go only with some\nprognostications, exorcisms, and recipes which occur at the close of\nthe predictions for the thirty days of the moon.\n\n[2754] Ed. Leemans, 1833-1885.\n\n[2755] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (1899), 537-42; (1879-1882), I, 258-65.\nBerthelot, _Alchimistes grecs_ (1888), I, 86-90. K. Sudhoff (1902), pp.\n4-6.\n\n[2756] Arundel 319, 13th century, fol. 2r, Versus de faustis vel\ninfaustis nominibus pugnantium, is a medieval Latin example.\n\n[2757] Printed among treatises of dubious or spurious authorship with\nBede\u2019s works, Migne, PL 90, 963-6; and more recently in Riess\u2019 edition\nof the fragments of Nechepso and Petosiris (_Philologus_, Suppl. VI,\n1891-1893, pp. 382-3) from Cod. Laur. XXXVIII, 24, 9-10th century, fol.\n174v. Wickersheimer (1913), pp. 315-7, notes BN 17868, 10th century,\nfol. 13. For other MSS see Appendix I to this chapter.\n\n[2758] Printed by Paul Lehmann, _Apuleiusfragmente_, _Hermes_ XLIX\n(1914), 612-20. For a list of some MSS of it see Appendix I at the\nclose of this chapter.\n\n[2759] _Polycraticus_ I, 13, ed. Webb, I, 54. Mr. Webb in a note refers\nto an article in a German periodical (K. Gillert, _Neues Archiv d.\nGesellschaft f. \u00e4ltere deutsche Geschichtskunde_, V, 254) concerning\na MS of the _Sphere of Pythagoras_ preserved at Petrograd, but says\nnothing of the MSS in the British Museum listed in Appendix I to this\nchapter,\u2014a good illustration of the unnecessary obsequiousness of\nEnglish towards German scholarship which has frequently prevailed in\nthe past.\n\n[2760] A few of them will be found listed in Appendix I to this chapter.\n\n[2761] Egerton 821, 12th century, fol. 15r, \u201cHec est spera quod fecit\nsanctus Donatus. Quicumque egrotare incipit....\u201d It is followed on the\nnext page by the usual figure for the _Sphere of Apuleius_.\n\n[2762] Harleian 1735; the passages referred to in the following account\noccur at fols. 36v, 41, 43, 29, 44v, 40, and 39v respectively.\n\n[2763] See Appendix II to this chapter for a list of MSS other than\nthose mentioned in the following notes.\n\n[2764] BN nouv. acq. 1616, 9th century, fol. 12r.\n\n[2765] Digby 63, end of 9th century, fol. 36.\n\n[2766] _Ibid._, fols. 40-5.\n\n[2767] CU Trinity 1369, 11th century, fol. iv.\n\n[2768] BN 7299A, 12th century, fol. 37v.\n\n[2769] For further information on this point see Budge, _Egyptian\nMagic_, 1899, pp. 225-8; Webster, _Rest Days_, 1916, pp. 295-7.\n\n[2770] Webster (1916), pp. 300-301, however, speaks of 30 in a 14th\ncentury MS, 32 in an English MS of Henry VI\u2019s reign, and 31 in another\n15th century MS.\n\n[2771] Cited by Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie grecque_, 1899, pp.\n485-6, 623.\n\n[2772] _De proprietatibus rerum_, 1488, Lindelbach, Heidelberg,\nIX, 20. This is not to say, however, that they always appear in\nmedieval calendars; I did not find them in any of the 14th and 15th\ncentury calendars from Apulia and Iapygia published by G. M. Giovene,\n_Kalendaria vetera_, Naples, 1828. His calendars consist of little save\nsaints\u2019 days, although in some of them the beginning of dog-days is\nmarked and when the sun enters each sign of the zodiac.\n\n[2773] \u201cBlack earth\u201d was the name given by the Egyptians to their\ncountry.\n\n[2774] _Imago mundi_, II, 109.\n\n[2775] _Speculum naturale_, XVI, 83, printed by Anth. Koburger,\nN\u00fcrnberg, 1485.\n\n[2776] HL 25, 329. My impression is that some medieval astronomers also\ndenied to these Egyptian days any astrological importance, since they\nalways came upon the same days of the months without reference to the\nphases of the moon or courses of the other planets: but I cannot put my\nhand on such passages.\n\n[2777] And is approvingly cited to that effect by Arnald of Villanova,\n_Regulae generales curationis morborum. Doctrina IV_.\n\n[2778] Ashmole 361, mid 14th century, fols. 158v-159.\n\n[2779] BN 7337, 14-15th century, p. 75. Ad-Dam\u00eer\u00ee states in his\nzoological lexicon, (ed. A. S. G. Jayaker, 1906, I, 134) that Mohammed\nis reported to have said, \u201cBe cautious of twelve days in the year,\nbecause they are such as cause the loss of property and bring on\ndisgrace or dishonor.\u201d\n\n[2780] M. Hamilton, _Greek Saints and Their Festivals_, 1910, p. 187,\nstates that \u201cin all parts of (modern) Greece on certain days of August\nand March it is considered necessary to abstain from particular kinds\nof work in order to avoid disaster.\u201d\n\n[2781] Mention may perhaps be made in this connection of the \u201cTobias\nnights,\u201d three nights of abstinence which newly wedded couples were\nsometimes accustomed to observe in the middle ages in order to defeat\nthe demons. The practice is mentioned in the Vulgate, but not in\nmost ancient versions of the _Book of Tobit_. In 1409 the citizens\nof Abbeville won a lawsuit with the bishop of Amiens who claimed the\nright to grant dispensations from the observance of the Tobias nights\nand required that fees be paid him for that purpose. See J. G. Frazer\n(1918), I, 498-520, where analogous practices of primitive tribes are\nlisted.\n\n[2782] Bateson, _Medieval England_, 1904, p. 72; I have in the main\nfollowed the fuller account in DNB \u201cGerard,\u201d from which the previous\nquotation is taken. William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Pontificum Anglorum_,\nIII, 118 (ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, RS, vol. 52, 1870) does not say\ndefinitely that the book found under Gerard\u2019s pillow was Firmicus.\nAlso he says nothing of boys stoning the bier or of Gerard\u2019s enemies\ninterpreting his death as a divine judgment, and in his autograph copy\nof the _Gesta Pontificum_ he afterwards erased the statements that\nrumor accused Gerard of many crimes and lusts, and that he was said\nto practice sorcery because he read Julius Firmicus on the sly before\nthe midday hours, and that people say that a book of curious arts\nwas found beneath his pillow when he died. This, the late medieval\nchroniclers say, was Firmicus: see Ranulf Higden, ed. Lumby, VII, 420,\nand Knyghton, ed. Twysden, X, SS., 2375.\n\n[2783] _Firmicus Maternus_, ed. Kroll et Skutsch, II (1913), p. iv;\nand F. Liebermann, ed. _Quadripartitus_, Halle, 1892, p. 36, and _Die\nGesetze der Angelsachsen_, Halle, 1903-1906, I, 548.\n\n[2784] C. Jourdain, _Nicolas Oresme et les astrologues \u00e0 la cour de\nCharles V_, in _Revue des Questions Historiques_, 1875, p. 136.\n\n[2785] English translation, ed. of 1898, p. 508.\n\n[2786] N. Valois (1880), p. 305.\n\n[2787] Additional 17,808, a narrow folio in vellum with all the\ntreatises written in the same large, plain hand with few abbreviations.\nA considerable part of the MS is occupied by the work on music of Guido\nof Arezzo (c. 995-1050). This MS is not noted by Wickersheimer or by\nBubnov, although it includes treatises on the abacus and the astrolabe\nwhich are perhaps by Gerbert.\n\n[2788] BN 17,868, from the chapter of Notre Dame of Paris, 21 leaves.\nWickersheimer (1913), 321-3, states that it has all the marks of the\nwriting of the tenth century: Delisle so dated it. Bubnov (1899),\nLXVII, regards fols. 14r _et seq._ as by a slightly older hand than the\nfirst portion.\n\n[2789] Bubnov (1899), 124-6, note.\n\n[2790] CLM 560, described in Bubnov, _Gerberti opera mathematica_,\n1899, p. xli.\n\n[2791] _Ibid._, fols. 16r-19, Fragmentum libelli de astrolabio a quodam\nex Arabico versi. Incipit, \u201cAd intimas summe phylosophie disciplinas et\nsublimia ipsius perfectionis archisteria.\u201d Printed by Bubnov (1899),\npp. 370-75.\n\n[2792] Incipit \u201cQuicumque astronomiam peritiam disciplinae\u201d; the\nprinted editions insert a _discere_ after _astronomiam_, but it has\nnot been there in the MSS which I have seen and is not needed. Printed\nby Pez, _Thesaurus Anecdotorum Noviss._ III, ii, 109-30, (1721) and\nincorrectly ascribed by him to Hermannus Contractus, because it often\noccurs in the MSS together with another treatise on the astrolabe by a\n\u201cHerimannus Christi pauperum peripsima et philosophiae tyronum asello\nimo limace tardior assecla.\u201d Of this last we shall have more to say\npresently. The edition of Pez reappears in Migne, PL vol. 143. Bubnov\n(1899), 114-47, gives a new edition, and at pp. 109-13 a list of the\nMSS of the work, in which, however, he fails to note the following:\nand they are also absent from his general index of 153 codices at\npp. xvii-xc. BM Additional MS 17808, 11th century, fols. 73v-79r,\nunder the title as in other MSS of \u201cRegulae ex libris Ptolomei regis\nde compositione astrolapsus.\u201d Yet Bubnov says, p. cxvi, \u201cCatalogues\nof Additional MSS (omnia volumina inspexi, quae ante a. 1895 edita\nsunt).\u201d BM Egerton 823, 12th century, fol. 4r. BN 7412, 12th and\n13th centuries, fols. 1-9, \u201cWaztalkora sive tract. de utilitatibus\nastrolabii.\u201d Professor D. B. Macdonald suggests that _Waztalkora_ is\nfor _rasmu-l-kura_, \u201cthe describing of the sphere in lines.\u201d\n\n[2793] (1899), p. 370.\n\n[2794] (1899), p. 374.\n\n[2795] Ep. 24.\n\n[2796] (1899), p. 370.\n\n[2797] P. 109.\n\n[2798] Bubnov (1899), 370.... \u201cHoc opusculum ex Arabico versum ad manum\nhabuit, retractavit dicendique genere expolivit.\u201d\n\n[2799] Printed by Pez. _Thesaur. Anecdot. Noviss._ III, ii, 95-106.\n\u201cHerimannus Christi pauperum peripsima et philosophiae tyronum asello\nimo limace tardior assecla.\u201d The MSS are numerous.\n\n[2800] Digby 174, fol. 210v; also noted by Bubnov (1899), p. 113.\nHermann\u2019s dedicatory prologue, however, does not give his friend\u2019s name\nin full, but reads in this MS, \u201cB. amico suo.\u201d\n\n[2801] See Clerval, _Hermann le Dalmate_, Paris, 1891, in _Compte\nrendu du Congr\u00e8s scientifique international des catholiques, Sciences\nHistoriques_, 163-9. Also, I believe, published separately as _Hermann\nle Dalmate et les premi\u00e8res traductions latines des trait\u00e9s arabes\nd\u2019astronomie au moyen \u00e2ge_, Paris, Picard, 1891, 11 pp. Clerval adduced\nonly one MS in support of his contention and took up the untenable\nposition that Arabic astronomy was unknown in Latin until the twelfth\ncentury. He also did not distinguish between the different works on the\nastrolabe.\n\n[2802] Munich CLM 14836, fols. 16v-24r. BM Royal 15-B-IX, fol. 51r-: in\nboth cases followed by the treatise of twenty-one chapters.\n\n[2803] Professor Haskins has announced as in preparation an article on\nHermann the translator which will perhaps solve the difficulties.\n\n[2804] In a Berlin manuscript of the twelfth century (Berlin 956, fol.\n11) there is added a note in a thirteenth century hand recounting the\nlegend that this Hermann was the son of a king and queen and that, his\nmother having been asked before his birth whether she would prefer\na handsome and foolish son or a learned and shamefully ugly one and\nshe having chosen the latter alternative, he was born hunchbacked and\nlame. It was from this MS of the treatise on the astrolabe that Pertz\nedited the legend in the _Monumenta Germaniae_ (_Scriptores_, V, 267).\nRose (1905), p. 1179, calls the writer of this note Berengar, too,\nasking anent the opening words of the note, \u201cDe isto hermanno legitur\nin historia,\u201d \u201cAus welcher _historia_ hat der Schreiber (Berengarius)\nseine Fabeln?\u201d The note at the close of the treatise in Digby 174, fol.\n210v, gives a different version of the legend, stating that Hermann\nwas a good man and dear to God and that one day an angel offered\nhim his choice between bodily health without great wisdom and the\ngreatest science with corporal infirmity. Hermann chose the latter and\nafterwards became a paralytic and gouty.\n\n[2805] This treatise, in which Hermann expresses amazement that Bede\nhas so underestimated the duration of the moon, immediately precedes\nthe one on the astrolabe in BN nouv. acq. 229, a German MS of the\ntwelfth century, fols. 17r-19r (formerly pp. 265-269). After the\ntreatise on the astrolabe follows a third work by Hermann, \u201cde quodam\nhorologio,\u201d fols. 25v-28r. Then follows the treatise in twenty-one\nchapters on the astrolabe.\n\nThese citations alone are sufficient to demonstrate the error of\nClerval\u2019s assertion: (1891), 165. \u201cOn ne peut invoquer aucune preuve\ns\u00e9rieuse en faveur d\u2019Hermann Contract. Jacques de Bergame et Trith\u00e8me\n... sont les premiers qui aient attribu\u00e9 au moine de Constance les\ntrait\u00e9s en question.\u201d\n\n[2806] Bubnov (1899) 372. \u201cHabet etiam ex divinitatis archana\ninstitutione et physica lata ratione cum omnibus mundanis creaturis\nconcordiam in rebus omnibus, secundum phisiologos non parvam\ncongruentiam....\u201d Bubnov unfortunately used only one of his four MSS in\nprinting this text, and there often seems to be something wrong with it\nor with his punctuation. This criticism applies more especially to the\npassage quoted in the following footnote.\n\n[2807] _Ibid._, \u201cEt ut Chaldaicas reticeam gentilogias (_sic_) qui\nomnem humanam vitam astrologicis attribuunt rationationibus et quosdam\nconstellationum effectus per xii signa disponunt, quique etiam\nconceptiones et nativitates, hominumque mores, prospera seu adversa\nex cursu siderum explicare conantur. Quod illorum tamen frivolae\nsuperstitiositati concedendum est, dum omnia divinae dispositioni\ncommendanda sint. Illud est ovum a nullo forbillandum (Bubnov suggests\nthe reading _furcillandum_ in parentheses, but _sorbillandum_ seems\nto me the obvious reading), nisi prius foetidos inscitiae exhalaverit\nructus et feces mundialium evomerit studiorum.\u201d The passage is rather\nincoherent as it stands, but I hope that I have correctly interpreted\nits meaning.\n\n[2808] III, 43-45.\n\n[2809] Ademarus Cabannensis, who died about 1035 (Bubnov, 1899, 382-3).\nFor Gerbert\u2019s sources in Barcelona see J. M. Burnam, \u201cA Group of\nSpanish Manuscripts,\u201d in _Bulletin Hispanique, Annales de la Facult\u00e9\ndes Lettres de Bordeaux_, XXII, 4, p. 329.\n\n[2810] III, 48-53.\n\n[2811] \u201cPlurima me docuit Neptanebus ille magister\u201d (Bubnov, 381).\n\n[2812] _De rebus gestis regum Anglorum_, II, 167-8.\n\n[2813] Bodleian 266, fol. 25r.\n\n[2814] Bubnov (1899), 391. On Gerbert as a magician see further J. J.\nI. D\u00f6llinger, _Die Papst-Fabeln des Mittelalters_, Munich, 1863, pp.\n155-59.\n\n[2815] Digby 83, quarto in skin, well written in large letters with\nfew abbreviations and illustrated with many figures in red, 76 leaves.\nFor the _Incipits_ of the four books and their prologues see Macray\u2019s\nCatalogue of the Digby MSS.\n\n[2816] Another indication of mathematical activity in tenth century\nEngland is provided by some old verses in English in Royal 17-A-I,\nfols. 2v-3, which state that Euclid\u2019s geometry was introduced into\nEngland \u201cYn tyme of good kyng Adelstones day.\u201d Usually the first Latin\ntranslation of Euclid is supposed to have been that by Adelard of Bath\nin the early twelfth century. Halliwell (1839), 56.\n\n[2817] Digby 83, fol. 24, \u201cEpistola Ethelwodi ad Girbertum papam.\nDomino summo pontifici et philosopho Girberto pape athelwoldus vite\nfelicitatem....\u201d Gerbert of course did not become pope until long\nafter Ethelwold\u2019s death, but this Titulus and Incipit are open to\nsuspicion anyway, since if Gerbert had become pope he should have been\naddressed as Pope Silvester. The article on Ethelwold (DNB) states\nthat \u201ca treatise on the circle, said to have been written by him and\naddressed to Gerbert, afterwards Pope Silvester II, is in the Bodleian\nLibrary (1684, Bodl. MS. Digby 83, f. 24).\u201d William of Malmesbury\nmentioned \u201cAdelboldum episcopum, ut dicunt, Winterbrugensem\u201d as the\nauthor of the letter to Gerbert, quoted by Bubnov (1899), 388.\n\n[2818] It has always been so printed: by Pez, Olleris, Curtze, and\nBubnov, and seems to be ascribed to him in most MSS, for which and\nother evidence pointing to the bishop of Utrecht as author see Bubnov\n(1899), 300-309, 41-45, 384, etc. Bubnov, however, failed to note Digby\n83 either in connection with this letter or at all in his long list of\nmathematical MSS (XVII-CXIX). It may therefore be well to note that\nthe letter as given in Digby 83 differs considerably from the version\nprinted by Bubnov. It in general omits epistolary amenities which do\nnot bear directly on the mathematical question in hand, notably the\nentire first paragraph of Bubnov\u2019s text and the close of the second and\nthird paragraphs. It also abbreviates portions of the fifth paragraph\nand the last sentence of the eighth and last paragraph. On the other\nhand after the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of Bubnov\u2019s text\nit inserts the following passage which seems to be missing in Bubnov\u2019s\ntext of the letter: \u201cSi quis ergo vult invenire quadraturam circuli\ndividat lineam in VII partes spatiumque unius septime partis semotim\nponat. Deinde lineam in VII divisam in duo distribuat et spatium\nalterius duorum separatim ponat. Post hoc lineam in VII partitam\ntriplicet cui triplicate spatium unius septime quod semoverat adiciat.\nIpsa denique totam in IIII partiatur quarum quarta angulis directis per\nlineam quadrangulam metiatur. Ad ultimum sumpto spatio alterius duorum\nquod prius reposuerat deposito puncto in medio quadranguli eodem spatio\ncircumducat circinum (circulum) et sic inveniet circuli quadraturam.\u201d\n\n[2819] Bubnov (1899), 41-42, \u201cquod tantum virum quasi conscolasticum\niuvenis convenio.\u201d\n\n[2820] Bubnov does not include it in his edition of the mathematical\nworks of Gerbert, but as we have seen he was unaware of the existence\nof this MS, i.e., Digby 83.\n\n[2821] And also to the _Incipit_ of a treatise in a tenth century\nMS at Paris, BN 17,868, fol. 14r, \u201cQuicumque nosse desiderat legem\nastrorum....\u201d The treatise or fragment in this Paris MS seems to end\nat fol. 17r, or at least at fol. 17v, after which most of the few\nremaining leaves of the MS, which has only 21 leaves in all, are\nblank. There is some similarity of contents, but the Paris MS is more\nastrological. Possibly, however, it is a different part of, or rather\nextracts from the same work, since we shall see reasons for thinking\nthat the text in Digby 83 is incomplete.\n\n[2822] At least such seems to me to be the meaning of the passage,\nfol. 21r, \u201cQuippe cum aliquando per situm gentium ipsarum positionem\nstellarum demonstrati simus precognita populorum habitatione rei\neffectus ad faciliorem curret eventus.\u201d\n\n[2823] Fol. 22r.\n\n[2824] Fol. 76r, the closing words are, \u201cQuod autem de elementis\ndiximus idem de temporibus deque humoribus intellige sicut hec figura\nevidentissime designat.\u201d But the figure is not given.\n\n[2825] Fol. 27v.\n\n[2826] Fol. 31v, \u201cper que predicti planete revoluti diversa in diversis\npossunt et etiam secundum genethliacos bonum quidam in quibusdam malum\nvero in quibusdam quidam nativitatibus hominem astruunt.\u201d\n\n[2827] Fol. 32r.\n\n[2828] Fol. 36r.\n\n[2829] Fol. 59r, \u201cHerastotenes.\u201d\n\n[2830] Fol. 21r-v.\n\n[2831] Fol. 32r.\n\n[2832] _De rebus gestis regum Anglorum_, II, 167.\n\n[2833] Addit. 17808, fols. 85v-99v, \u201cMathematica Alhandrei summi\nastrologi. Luna est frigide nature et argentei coloris / oculis\ndescriptio talis subiciatur\u201d: and CLM 560, fols. 61-87, which I have\nnot seen but which from the description in the catalogue is evidently\nthe same treatise and has the same _Incipit_, although no author or\ntitle seems to be given.\n\n[2834] Bodleian 266, fol. 179v, \u201clibellum fortune faciens mentionem de\ntribus faciebus signorum et planetis regnantibus in eisdem ... mulieres\ndocte.\u201d\n\n[2835] BN 2598, 15th century, fol. 108r.\n\n[2836] BN 17868, fols. 2r-12v. \u201cIncipit liber Alchandrei\u201d\n(Wickersheimer) or Alchandri (Bubnov) \u201cphilosophi. Luna est frigide\nnature et argentei coloris.\u201d In a passage of Addit. 17808, fol. 86v,\nwhere the years from the beginning of the world are being reckoned, the\nyear of writing is apparently given as 1040 A.\u202fD., but the existence of\nthe treatise in BN 17868 shows that it was written before 1000. Also\nthere is something wrong with the passage mentioned in Addit. 17808\u2014as\nis very apt to be the case with such figures in medieval MSS\u2014for the\nnumber of years from the beginning of the world to the birth of Christ\nis given as 4970 and then the sum of the two as 6018 instead of 6010\nyears, while at fol. 85v other estimates are given of the number of\nyears between the Creation and the Incarnation.\n\n[2837] The spellings of such proper names vary in the different MSS or\neven in the same one.\n\n[2838] Steinschneider (1905) 30, briefly notes \u201cAlcandrinus,\u201d however.\nSee below, p. 715 of the present chapter.\n\n[2839] Addit. 17808, fol. 85v; BN 17868, fol. 2r.\n\n[2840] Addit. 17808, fols. 86r-87r; BN 17868, fol. 3v.\n\n[2841] Addit. 17808, fols. 87v-88r.\n\n[2842] BN 17868, fol. 2r; Addit. 17808, fol. 85v; \u201cIuxta que quia omnia\nhumana secundum nutum dei disponuntur per septem planetas que subter\n(subtus) feruntur eorum nobis potestas innuitur\u201d: BN 17868, fol. 3r;\nAddit. 17808, fol. 86v, \u201cPer has autem vii planetas quia ut diximus\net adhuc probabimus humana fata disponuntur regulam certam demus qua\nin quo signo queque sit pronoscatur.\u201d Only in a third passage does he\nattribute such views to the mathematici; Addit. 17808, fol. 88v, \u201cCum\nsint signa xii in zodiaco cumque iuxta mathematicos et secundum horum\ndiversissimos potestates fata omnium ita volente sapientissimo domino\ndisponantur....\u201d\n\n[2843] Addit. 17808, fol. 89r, \u201cQue quum ita discernuntur non falsa\nopinio persuasit istis humana principaliter gubernante domino moderari\ncum itaque ut mundus homo unusquisque ex his iiii compaginetur\nelementis.\u201d\n\n[2844] Addit. 17808, fol. 89v. But the lists are left incomplete and a\nblank leaf, which is also left unnumbered, follows in the MS.\n\n[2845] BN 17868, fol. 5r: Addit. 17808, fol. 90r, \u201cHec sunt xxviii\nprincipales partes vel astra per que omnium fata disponuntur et\nindubitanter tam futura quam presentia prenuntiantur a quocumque\nitus reditus ortus occasus horum horoscoporum iocundissimo auxilio\ndiligenter providentur.\u201d\n\n[2846] BN 17868, fol. 5v.\n\n[2847] BN 17868, fol. 6r.\n\n[2848] BN 17868, fol. 9r-; Addit. 17808, fols. 94v-95v.\n\n[2849] BN 17868, fol. 10r; Addit. 17808, fol. 96r.\n\n[2850] Addit. 17808, fol. 97r.\n\n[2851] Addit. 17808, fol. 97v. In BN 17868, fol. 11r, we read,\n\u201cExplicit liber primus. Incipit liber secundus.\u201d And then begins\nthe letter of Argafalaus with the words, \u201cRegi macedonum Alexandro\nastrologo et universa philosophia perfectissimo Argafalaus servuus suus\ncondicione et nacione ingenuus caldeus, professione vero secundus ab\nillo astrologus.\u201d\n\n[2852] Addit. 17808, fol. 99r-v. This does not appear in BN 17868 which\ngoes on to discuss various astrological influences of the 12 hours of\nthe day and of the night. After this there is a space left blank in the\nmiddle of fol. 12v: then more is said concerning hours of the planets\nand interrogations until at the bottom of fol. 13r comes the letter of\nPhethosiris to Nechepso. But no definite ending is indicated either of\nthe letter of Argafalaus or the Liber Secundus of Alchandrus.\n\nIn a MS now missing but listed in the late 15th century catalogue of\nthe MSS in the library of St. Augustine\u2019s Abbey, Canterbury (No. 1172,\nJames 332) was a \u201cBreviarium alhandredi su\u2019m astrologi et peritissimi\nde soia (scienda?) qualibet ignota nullo decrete.\u201d This was one of the\nMSS donated to the monastery by John of London.\n\nBN 4161, 16th century, #5, Breviarium Alhandriae, summi Astrologi de\nscientia qualiter ignota nullo indicante investigari possit.\n\n[2853] Addit. 17808, fol. 89r, \u201cfiguram quam super hac re Alexander\nMacedo composuit diligentissime posterius describemus\u201d; fol. 95r,\n\u201cHinc Alexander macedo dicit eclipsin solis et lune certissima ratione\ncolligi\u201d; fol. 96r. \u201cAut iuxta alexandrum macedonem draco quasi octava\nplaneta.\u201d\n\n[2854] Ashmole 369, late 13th century, fols. 77-84v. \u201cMathematica\nAlexandri summi astrologi. In exordio omnis creature herus huranicus\ninter cuncta sidera XII maluit signa fore .../ ... nam quod lineam\ndesignat eandem stellam occupat. Explicit.\u201d A further discussion of the\ncontents of this work will be found below in Chapter 48, vol. II, p.\n259.\n\n[2855] BN 17868, fol. 17r. The Incipit is the same as in Ashmole 369.\nThe work here seems to be incomplete, since after fol. 17v most of the\nremaining leaves of the MS (which has 21 fols. in all) are blank.\n\n[2856] The vowels being represented by the consonants following, a\ncommon medieval cipher.\n\n[2857] All Souls 81, 15th century, fols. 145v-164r. \u201cCum sint 28\nmansiones lune....\u201d Coxe was mistaken in thinking that the work\nof Alkandrinus continued to fol. 188 and was in two parts, for at\nfol. 163r we read, \u201cExpliciunt iudicia libri Alkandrini que sunt in\ndivisione triplici 12 signorum que sunt apparencie per certa tempora\nsuper terram.\u201d Moreover, the seven chapters on the planets which follow\nend at fol. 183v \u201c... finem fecimus. Completa fuit hec compilatio in\nconversione sancti pauli apostoli anno domini 1350 (1305?) vacante sede\nper mortem Benedicti undecimi cuius anima requiescat in pace. Amen.\u201d\nIt would therefore seem that some compiler has made an extract from\nAlchandrus on the twenty-eight mansions.\n\n[2858] BN 10271, fols. 9r-52v, \u201cIncipit liber alchandrini philosophi\nde nativitatibus hominum secundum compositionem duodecim signorum\nceli, quem reformavit quidem philosophus cristianus prout patet,\nquia in quibusdam differt iste liber ab antiquo primordiali. Primo\nfacies arietis in homine sive in masculo. Alnaliet est prima facies\narietis....\u201d\n\n[2859] Steinschneider (1905), 30.\n\n[2860] The _editio princeps_ seems to be \u201cArcandam doctor peritissimus\nac non vulgaris astrologus, de veritatibus et praedictionibus\nastrologiae et praecipue nativitatum seu fatalis dispositionis\nvel diei cuiuscunque nati, nuper per Magistrum Richardum Roussat,\ncanonicum Lingoniensem, artium et medicinae professorem, de confuso\nac indistincto stilo non minus quam e tenebris in lucem aeditus, re\ncognitus, ac innumeris (ut pote passim) erratis expurgatus, ita ut per\nmulta maxime necessaria et utilissima adiecerit atque adnotaverit modo\neiusdem dexteritate praelo primo donatus.\u201d Paris, 1542.\n\nThe British Museum also contains another Latin edition of Paris, 1553;\nFrench editions of Rouen, 1584 and 1587, Lyons 1625; and English\nversions printed at London, 1626 (translated from the French), 1630,\n1637, and 1670.\n\n[2861] BN 7349, 15th century, fol. 56r, seems only a fragment of the\nwork; BN 7351, 14th century, takes up the various signs.\n\n[2862] CLM 527, 13-14th century, fols. 36-42, de physica signorum et\nsupernascentium et aegrotantium.\n\n[2863] Addit. 15236, English hand of 13-14th century, fols. 130-52r\n\u201clibellus Alchandiandi.\u201d BN 7486, 14th century, \u201cIncipit liber\nalkardiani phylosophi. Cum omne quod experitur sit experiendum propter\nse vel propter aliud....\u201d\n\n[2864] The set in which the first line reads, \u201cTuum indumentum durabit\ntempore longo.\u201d\n\n[2865] Very probably this title was derived from the _Incipit_ just\ngiven in note 4, p. 716.\n\n[2866] See Sloane 2472, 3554, 3857.\n\n[2867] BN 17868, fol. 14r-16v. The letter of Petosiris on the sphere of\nlife and death at fol. 13r-v \u201cIncipit epistola Phetosiri de sphaera\u201d\nseparates this treatise or fragment from the preceding _liber Alchandri\nphilosophi_. Also this treatise is in a different and slightly older\nhand than fols. 2-13 are, or at least such was Bubnov\u2019s opinion (1899),\n125, note.\n\n[2868] BN 17686, fol. 14v, \u201cque sarraceni nuncupant ita.\u201d\n\n[2869] Berlin 165 (Phillips 1790), 9-10th century. I have not seen the\nMS, but follow Rose\u2019s full description of it in his _Verzeichnis der\nlateinischen Handschriften_, I, 362-9.\n\n[2870] Cod. Casin. 97 Gal. I, 24-51.\n\n[2871] Berlin 165, fol. 88.\n\n[2872] _Ibid._, fols. 40-2.\n\n[2873] _Ibid._, fol. 39v.\n\n[2874] Edited with an English translation, which I employ in my\nquotations, by Rev. Oswald Cockayne in vol. II of his _Leechdoms,\nWortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England_, in RS vol. 35, in 3\nvols., London, 1864-1866. The relation of Bald and Cild to the work is\nindicated by the colophon at the close of the second book: \u201cBald habet\nhunc librum, Cild quem conscribere iussit,\u201d\u2014\u201cBald owns this book; Cild\nis the one he told to write (or copy?) it.\u201d The following third book is\ntherefore presumably of other authorship.\n\n[2875] J. F. Payne, _English Medicine in Anglo-Saxon Times_, 1904, p.\n155.\n\n[2876] Book I, cap. 87.\n\n[2877] I, 45.\n\n[2878] I, 85.\n\n[2879] III, 47.\n\n[2880] I, 86.\n\n[2881] I, 68.\n\n[2882] II, 66.\n\n[2883] I, 45.\n\n[2884] I, 63.\n\n[2885] II, 65.\n\n[2886] III, 61.\n\n[2887] Sloane 475 (olim Fr. Bernard 116), 231 leaves, including two\ncodices, one of the 12th century, which is also medical but with\nwhich we shall not deal at present, and the other of the 10th or 11th\ncentury and written in different hands. The MS is mutilated both at the\nbeginning and the close.\n\nSloane 2839, 11th century, 112 leaves.\n\n[2888] Sloane 2839, fols, iv-3, \u201cLiber Cirrurgium Cauterium Apollonii\net Galieni.\u201d James, _Western MSS in Trinity College_, Cambridge, III,\n26-8, describes fifty drawings, chiefly of surgical operations, in MS\n1044, early 13th century. By that date cauterization seems to have\nbecome less common.\n\n[2889] Professor T. W. Todd thinks that I am too severe upon the\npractice of cauterization, and that it may sometimes have served as a\ncounter-irritant like mustard plasters and the blister.\n\n[2890] Sloane, 2839, fols. 79v-80v.\n\n[2891] \u201cAd stomachum ubi ferro operare non oportes sansugias apponas.\u201d\n\n[2892] _Imbrocare._ I have not discovered exactly what it means.\n\n[2893] Sloane 475, fol. 224r; Sloane 2839, fol. 97r.\n\n[2894] Sloane 475, fol. 133, _et seq._\n\n[2895] Sloane 475, fol. 224v.\n\n[2896] Sloane 475, fols. 1-124. At fol. 36r occurs the familiar\npseudo-letter of Hippocrates to Antigonus; at fols. 8v-10r is a passage\nalmost identical with that at the close of the _De medicamentis_ of\nMarcellus, 1889, p. 382; an incantation from Marcellus is repeated\nat fol. 117v. At fol. 37r we read \u201cExplicit Liber II. Incipit Liber\nTertius ad ventris rigiditatem\u201d; at fol. 60r, \u201cExplicit liber tertius.\nIncipit Liber IIII\u201d; at fol. 85r, \u201cIncipit Liber V.\u201d\n\n[2897] See fol. 110r, \u201cCros, oros, comigeos, delig(c)ros, falicros,\nspolicros, splena mihi\u201d; and fol. 114r, \u201cOpas, nolipas, opium,\nnolimpium.\u201d Those who delight in ciphers will perhaps detect in the\nlatter incantation a hidden allusion to opiates.\n\n[2898] Fol. 117v; see Marcellus (1889), p. 123, cap. 12.\n\n[2899] Fol. 111r.\n\n[2900] Fol. 111v.\n\n[2901] BN nouv. acq. 229, fol. 7v (once p. 246), \u201cnomina septem\nsanctorum germanorum dormientium que sunt hec, Maximianus, Malchus,\nMartinianus, Constantinus, Dionisius, Iohannes, Serapion.\u201d\n\n[2902] Sloane 475, fol. 122v.\n\n[2903] \u201cEllum super ellam sedebat et virgam viridem in manu tenebat et\ndicebat, Virgam viridis reunitere in simul.\u201d\n\n[2904] Sloane 475, fol. 112v. Unintelligible letters follow.\n\n[2905] Egerton 821, 12th century, fols. 52v-60v.\n\n[2906] _Ibid._, fol. 53v, _vultilis_, which I assume should be\n_vulturis_ rather than _vituli_, or bull-calf.\n\n[2907] Egerton 821, fol. 57.\n\n[2908] _Ibid._, fol. 58v.\n\n[2909] _Ibid._, fol. 60r.\n\n[2910] BN 7028, 11th century, fols. 136v, 140-3, 154r, and 156r.\n\n[2911] BN nouv. acq. 229, 12th century, fols. 1r-10r (once pp. 233-51),\nopening, \u201cRationem observationis vestre pietati secundum precepta\ndoctorum medicinalium ut potui....\u201d\n\n[2912] BN nouv. acq. 229, fol. 2r. March is treated first and February\nlast, while a similar discussion later in the same work (fols. 8r-9r,\nQuid unoquoque mense utendum quidve vitandum sit) begins with January.\n\n[2913] BN nouv. acq. 229, fol. 7.\n\n[2914] Fol. 6r.\n\n[2915] Fol. 4v.\n\n[2916] Fols. 4v-5r.\n\n[2917] Fol. 7r.\n\n[2918] Fol. 7r-v.\n\n[2919] Fol. 7v.\n\n[2920] Fol. 9v.\n\n[2921] What is known of the School of Salerno has already been\nbriefly indicated in English by H. Rashdall, _Universities of Europe\nin the Middle Ages_, 1895, I, 75-86, and T. Puschmann, _History of\nMedical Education_, English translation, London, 1891, pp. 197-211.\nThe standard work on the subject is Salvatore De Renzi, _Collectio\nSalernitana_, in Italian with Latin texts, published at Naples in five\nvolumes from 1852 to 1859. It contains a history of the School of\nSalerno by Renzi and various texts brought to light and dissertations\ndiscussing them by Renzi, Daremberg, Henschel, and others.\n\nUnfortunately this publication proceeded by the unsystematic piecemeal\nand hand-to-mouth method, and new texts and discoveries were brought\nto the editor\u2019s attention during the process, so that the history of\nthe school and the texts in the earlier volumes have to be supplemented\nand corrected by the fuller versions and dissertations in the later\nvolumes. It is too bad that all the materials could not have been\ncollected and more systematically arranged and collated before\npublication. Also some of the texts printed have but the remotest\nconnection with Salerno, while others have nothing to do with medicine.\n\nTo this collection of materials some further additions have been made\nby P. Giacosa, _Magistri Salernitani nondum editi_, Turin, 1901.\n\nFor further bibliography see in the recent reprint of Harrington\u2019s\nEnglish translation, _The School of Salerno_ (1920), pp. 50-52.\n\n[2922] Notably Daremberg.\n\n[2923] II, 59 (MG. SS. III, 600).\n\n[2924] S. de Renzi, _Collectio Salernitana_, IV, 185, _Practica\nPetroncelli_, perhaps from an imperfect copy; IV, 315, Sulle opere che\nvanno sotto il nome di Petroncello. Heeg, _Pseudodemocrit. Studien_, in\n_Abhandl. d. Berl. Akad._ (1913), p. 42, shows that what Renzi printed\ntentatively as the table of contents and an extract from the third book\nof the _Practica_, is not by Petrocellus but by the Pseudo-Democritus,\nand that one MS of it dates from the ninth or tenth century.\n\n[2925] Petrocellus, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, Eine Sammlung von Rezepten in\nenglischer Sprache aus dem 11-12 Jahrhundert. Nach einer Handschrift\ndes Britischen Museums herausg. v. M. L\u00f6weneck (in Anglo-Saxon and\nLatin), 1896, pp. viii, 57, Heft 12 in _Erlanger Beitr\u00e4ge z. englischen\nPhilologie_. The treatise perhaps also contains selections from\nthe _Passionarius_ of Gariopontus. It had been published before in\nCockayne, _Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms_, 1864-1866, III, 82-143.\n\n[2926] Payne (1904), pp. 155-6.\n\n[2927] _Ibid._, p. 148.\n\n[2928] The Latin text reads, \u201cliver of a hedgehog,\u201d and doubtless\neither would be equally efficacious.\n\n[2929] Quoted by Payne (1904), p. 152, from Cockayne\u2019s translation.\n\n[2930] Renzi (1852-9), IV, 185.\n\n[2931] Renzi, IV, 190, \u201cPropterea fili karissime cum diuturno tempore\nde medicina tractassemus omnipotentis Dei nutu admonitus placuit ut ex\ngrecis locis sectantes auctores omnium causarum dogmata in breviloquium\nlatino sermone conscriberemus.\u201d\n\n[2932] For the two passages on epilepsy see Renzi, IV, pp. 235 and 293.\n\n[2933] Renzi, I, 417-516, _Flos medicinae_, a text of 2130 lines; V,\n1-104, the fuller text of 3526 lines; 113-72, Notice bibliographique;\n385-406, Notes choisies de M. Baudry de Balzac au _Flos Sanitatis_.\n\n[2934] \u201cAnglorum Regi scribit Schola tota Salerni.\u201d Some MSS have\nFrancorum or Roberto instead of Anglorum.\n\n[2935] Lines 2692-3.\n\n[2936] K. Sudhoff, _Zum Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum_, in _Archiv f.\nGesch. d. Medizin_, VII (1914), 360, and IX (1915-1916), 1-9.\n\n[2937] Arnald de Villanova, _Opera_, Lyons, 1532, fol. 147v.\n\n[2938] Lines 1918-9, 1932-3, 1973-4, 1985, in Renzi\u2019s first text\nof 2130 lines; in the fuller version they are somewhat more widely\nseparated: lines 3053, 3130, 3227, 3267.\n\n[2939] Lines 1845-55 or 2873-83.\n\n[2940] Renzi, V, 377-8.\n\n[2941] _Ibid._, 372-3.\n\n[2942] _Ibid._, 379-81.\n\n[2943] _Ibid._, 350.\n\n[2944] Professor T. Wingate Todd comments upon this passage: \u201cOf course\nthis is _post hoc propter hoc_, but it is the typical history of a case\nof Bell\u2019s palsy occurring after a \u2018chill.\u2019\u201d\n\n[2945] Renzi, V, 371, \u201cInvoluntariam urine emissionem quidam\npatiebantur et adhuc multi patiuntur et maxime servi et ancille qui\nmale induti et discalciati incedunt, unde frigiditate incensa vesica\nfit quasi paralitica cum urinam nequeat continere.\u201d\n\n[2946] Giacosa (1901), pp. 71-166.\n\n[2947] Giacosa (1901), p. 146.\n\n[2948] _Ibid._, p. 145.\n\n[2949] Renzi, V, 331-2.\n\n[2950] Many of the works listed by Peter the Deacon and some others\nwhich he does not name have been printed under Constantinus\u2019 name,\neither in the edition of the works of Isaac issued at Lyons in 1515, or\nin the partial edition of the works of Constantinus printed at Basel in\n1536 and 1539, or in an edition of Albucasis published at Basel in 1541.\n\nAn early MS containing several of Constantinus\u2019 works is Gonville and\nCaius 411, 12-13th century, fol. 1-, Viaticum, 69- de melancholia,\n77v- de stomacho, 98v- de oblivione, 100r- de coitu, (no author is named\nfor 109v- liber elefantie, 113- de modo medendi), 121- liber febrium,\n(169- de inamidarium Galieni).\n\nThe chief secondary investigations concerning Constantinus Africanus\nare:\n\nDaremberg, _Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits M\u00e9dicaux_, 1853, pp.\n63-100, \u201cRecherches sur un ouvrage qui a pour titre Zad el-Mon\u00e7afir en\narabe, Ephrodes en grec, Viatique en latin, et qui est attribu\u00e9 dans\nles textes arabes et grecs \u00e0 Abou Djafar, et dans le texte latin \u00e0\nConstantin.\u201d\n\nPuccinotti, _Storia della Medicina_, II, i, pp. 292-350, 1855, devoted\nseveral chapters to Constantinus and tried to defend him from the\ncharge of plagiarism and to maintain that the _Viaticum_ and some other\nworks were original.\n\nSteinschneider, _Constantinus Africanus und seine arabischen Quellen_,\nin Virchow\u2019s _Archiv f\u00fcr Pathologische Anatomie_, etc., Berlin, 1866,\nvol. 37, pp. 351-410. This should be supplemented by pp. 9-12 of his\n_Die europ\u00e4ischen \u00dcbersetzungen aus dem Arabischen_ (1905).\n\n[2951] _Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits M\u00e9dicaux_ (1853), p. 86.\n\n[2952] _Histoire des Sciences M\u00e9dicales_ (1870), I, 261.\n\n[2953] Indeed Daremberg said in 1853 (p. 85, note) \u201cdans le moyen \u00e2ge\nbeaucoup d\u2019auteurs citent volontiers Constantine comme une autorit\u00e9.\u201d\n\n[2954] Perhaps through the fault of the printer the list of the\nwritings of Constantinus given by Peter the Deacon is defective as\nreproduced in tabular form by Steinschneider (1866), pp. 353-4.\nSteinschneider also incorrectly speaks of Leo of Ostia as well as\nPeter the Deacon as a source for Constantinus (p. 352, \u201cDie Schriften\nConstantins sind bekanntlich von seinen alten Biographen, Petrus\nDiaconus und Leo Ostiensis verzeichnet worden\u201d), since Leo\u2019s portion of\nthe _Chronicle_ ends before Constantinus is mentioned.\n\n[2955] Peter was born about 1107 and was placed in the monastery of\nMonte Cassino by his parents in 1115. He became librarian. _Monumenta\nGermaniae, Scriptores_, VII, 562 and 565.\n\n[2956] _Chronica Mon. Casinensis_, Lib. III, auctore Petro, MG. SS.\nVII, 728-9; Muratori, _Scriptores_, IV, 455-6 (lib. III, cap. 35).\n\n[2957] _Petri Diaconi De viribus illustribus Casinensibus_, cap. 23, in\nFabricius, _Bibl. Graec._, XIII, 123.\n\n[2958] Yet modern compilers and writers of encyclopedia articles\ninvariably repeat \u201cCarthage\u201d and \u201cBabylon.\u201d\n\n[2959] BN 14700, fol. 171v, cited by Baur (1903), who also notes\nparallel passages in Al-Gazel, _Phil. tr._ I, 1; and Avicenna, _De\ndivis. philos._, fol. 141.\n\n[2960] Gundissalinus and Daniel Morley. Al-Farabi\u2019s list of eight\nmathematical sciences, including \u201cthe science of spirits,\u201d was also\nreproduced by Vincent of Beauvais in the thirteenth century, _Speculum\ndoctrinale_, XVI.\n\n[2961] Possibly there is some confusion with Galen\u2019s similar experience\nwith the physicians of Rome, which Constantinus may have reproduced\nin some one of his translations of Galen in such a way as to lead the\nreader to consider it his own experience.\n\n[2962] The words are the same both in the _Chronicle_ and _Illustrious\nMen_: \u201cquem cum vidissent Afri ita ad plenum omnibus (omnium?) gentium\neruditum, cogitaverunt occidere eum.\u201d\n\n[2963] Pagel (1902), p. 644, \u201cVorher soll er kurze Zeit noch in Reggio,\neiner kleinen Stadt in der N\u00e4he von Byzanz, als Protosekret\u00e4r des\nKaisers Constantinos Monomachos sich aufgehalten und das Reisehandbuch\ndes Abu Dschafer \u00fcbersetzt haben.\u201d But Pagel gives no source for this\nstatement.\n\nApparently the notion is due to the fact that a Greek treatise entitled\n_Ephodia_, of which there are numerous MSS and which seems to be a\ntranslation of the same Arabic work as that upon which Constantinus\nbased his _Viaticum_, speaks of a Constantine as its author who was\nproto-secretary and lived at Reggio or Rhegium.\n\nDaremberg (1853), p. 77, held that a Vatican MS of the _Ephodia_ was of\nthe tenth century and therefore this Greek translation could not be the\nwork of Constantinus Africanus in the next century, but Steinschneider\n(1866), p. 392, only says, \u201cDie griechische Uebersetzung des Viaticum\nsoll bis in die Zeit Constantins hinaufreichen.\u201d\n\nAnother MS, Escorial &-II-9, 16th century, fol. 1-, contains a\n\u201cCommeatus Peregrinantium\u201d whose author is called \u201cEbrubat Zafar filio\nElbazar,\u201d which perhaps designates Abu Jafar Ahmed Ibn-al-Jezzar, whom\nDaremberg and Steinschneider call the author of the Arabic original of\nthe _Viaticum_. The work is said to have been translated into Greek \u201ca\nConstantino Primo a secretis Regis,\u201d which suggests that Constantinus\nwas perhaps first of the royal secretaries rather than of Reggio either\nin Norman Italy or near Byzantium. The translation from Greek into\nLatin is ascribed to Antonius Eparchus. The opening sentences of each\nbook of this Latin version from the Greek by Eparchus differ in wording\nbut agree in substance with those of the _Viaticum_ of Constantinus\nAfricanus, if we omit some transitional sentences in the latter.\n\n[2964] _Opera_ (1536), p. 215.\n\n[2965] _De animalibus_, XXII, i, 1.\n\n[2966] Rawlinson C, 328, fol. 3. It is accompanied by the legend, \u201cThis\nis Constantinus, monk of Monte Cassino, who is as it were the fount\nof that science of long standing from the judgment of urines, and it\nhas exhibited a true cure in all the diseases in this book and in many\nother books. To whom come women with urine that he may tell them what\nis the cause of the disease.\u201d The illumination shows Constantinus\nseated, holding a book on his knees with his left hand, while he raises\nhis right hand and forefinger in didactic style. He wears the tonsure,\nhas a beard but no mustache, and seems to be approached by one woman\nand two men carrying two jars of urine.\n\n[2967] See Margoliouth, _Avicenna_, 1913, p. 49.\n\n[2968] Only the ten books of theory are printed in the 1539 edition of\nConstantinus.\n\n[2969] _Chirurgia_, at pp. 324-41.\n\n[2970] _Opera omnia ysaac_ (1515), fol. 126v, \u201cLiber decimus practice\nqui antidotarium dicitur in duas divisus partes.\u201d\n\nIsaac Israeli is the subject of the first chapter in Husik (1916), who\ncalls him (p. 2) \u201cthe first Jew, so far as we know, to devote himself\nto philosophical and scientific discussions.\u201d\n\n[2971] Daremberg (1853), pp. 82-5, gives the prefaces of Ali and\nConstantinus in parallel columns.\n\n[2972] Printed in 1492 with the works of Ali ben Abbas; Stephen\u2019s\ntranslation was made at Antioch in Syria.\n\n[2973] Steinschneider (1866), p. 359.\n\n[2974] \u201cUltimam et maiorem deesse sensi partem, alteram vero\ninterpretis callida depravatam fraude.\u201d\n\n[2975] Amplon. Octavo 62.\n\n[2976] In his gloss to the _Viaticum_ of Constantinus.\n\n[2977] _Berlin HSS Verzeichnis_ (1905), pp. 1059-65, to whom I owe the\npreceding references to Ferrarius and Giraldus.\n\n[2978] Rose cites Bamberg L-iii-9. The two following MSS are perhaps\nalso worth noting: The _Pantegni_ as contained in CU Trinity 906, 12th\ncentury, finely written, fols. 1-141v, comprises only ten books. The\nfirst opens, \u201cCum totius generalitas tres principales partes habeat\u201d;\nthe tenth ends, \u201cUnde acutum oportet habere sensum ad intelligendum.\nExplicit.\u201d\n\nSt. John\u2019s 85, close of 13th century, \u201cConstantini africani Pantegnus\nin duas partes divisus quarum prima dicitur Theorica continens decem\nlibros secunda dicitur Practica 33 capita continens,\u201d as a table of\ncontents written in on the fly-leaf states. The ten books of theory\nend at fol. 100r, \u201cExplicit prima pars pantegni scilicet de theorica.\nIncipit secunda pars scilicet practica et est primus liber de regimento\nsanitatis.\u201d This single book in 33 chapters on the preservation\nof health ends at fol. 116v, and at fol. 117r begins the _Liber\ndivisionum_ of Rasis.\n\n[2979] In Berlin 898, a 12th century MS of Stephen\u2019s translation of\nAli\u2019s _Practica_, this ninth section by Constantinus and John is for\nsome reason substituted for the corresponding book of Stephen.\n\n[2980] He calls himself, \u201ciohannes quidam agarenus (Saracenus?)\nquondam, qui noviter ad fidem christiane religionis venerat cum rustico\npisano belle filius ac professione medicus.\u201d\n\n[2981] The main objection to this theory is that Stephen of Pisa,\ntranslating in 1127, speaks as if the latter portion of Ali\u2019s work\nwas still untranslated. Rose therefore holds that John had not yet\npublished his translation, although we have seen that he completed the\nsurgical section by 1115.\n\n[2982] In _Opera omnia ysaac_, Lyons, 1515, II, fols. 144-72, \u201cViaticum\nysaac quod constantinus sibi attribuit\u201d; in the Basel, 1536, edition\nof the works of Constantinus, pp. 1-167, under the title, \u201cDe morborum\ncognitione et curatione lib. vii\u201d; in the Venice, 1505, edition of\nGerardus de Solo (Bituricensis), \u201cCommentum eiusdem super viatico\ncum textu\u201d; and in the Lyons, 1511, edition of Rhazes, _Opera parva\nAlbubetri_.\n\nA fairly early but imperfect MS is CU Trinity 1064, 12-13th century.\n\nLaud. Misc. 567, late 12th century, fol. 2, recognizes in its Titulus\nthat the _Viaticum_ is a translation, \u201cIncipit Viaticum a Constantino\nin Latinam linguam translatam.\u201d\n\n[2983] Steinschneider (1866), 368-9.\n\n[2984] See above, page 745, note 2.\n\n[2985] In the 1515 edition of Isaac\u2019s works, I, 11-, 156-, and 203-.\nPeter the Deacon presumably refers to these three works in speaking\nof \u201cDietam ciborum. Librum febrium quem de Arabica lingua transtulit.\nLibrum de urinis.\u201d Whether the two initial treatises in the 1515\nedition of Isaac, dealing with definitions and the elements, were\ntranslated by Constantinus or by Gerard of Cremona is doubtful.\n\n[2986] See CLM 187, fol. 8; 168, fol. 23; 161, fol. 41; 270, fol. 10;\n13034, fol. 49, for 13-14th century copies of Galen\u2019s commentary upon\nthe _Aphorisms_ of Hippocrates with a preface by Constantinus.\n\nUniversity College Oxford 89, early 14th century, fol. 90, Incipiunt\namphorismi Ypocratis cum commento domini Constantini Affricani montis\nCassienensis monachi; fol. 155, Eiusdem Prognostica cum Galeni\ncommento, eodem interprete; fols. 203-61, Eiusdem liber de regimine\nacutorum cum eiusdem commento eodem interprete.\n\n[2987] _De viris illustribus_, cap. 23, \u201c... transtulit de diversis\ngentium linguis libros quamplurimos in quibus praecipue ...\u201d:\n_Chronica_, Lib. III, \u201c... transtulit de diversorum gentium linguis\nlibros quamplurimos in quibus sunt hi praecipue....\u201d\n\n[2988] \u201cLibrum duodecim graduum\u201d in _De viris illus._: in the\n_Chronicle_, \u201cLiber graduum.\u201d\n\n[2989] Edition of Basel, 1536, at pp. 280-98 and 215-74 respectively.\n\n[2990] It is found in Laud. Misc. 567, late 12th century, fol. 51v.\n\n[2991] Edition of 1536, pp. 283-4.\n\n[2992] See below, Chapter 64.\n\n[2993] _Zeitsch. f. klass. Philol._ (1896), pp. 1098ff.\n\n[2994] J. A. Endres, _Petrus Damiani und die weltliche Wissenschaft_,\n1910, p. 35, in _Beitr\u00e4ge_, VIII, 3.\n\n[2995] James (1903), p. 59, \u201cTractatus Alfani Salernitanus de quibusdam\nquestionibus medicinalibus.\u201d\n\n[2996] CU Trinity 1365, early 12th century, fols. 155-162v,\n_Experimenta archiep. Salernitani_.\n\n[2997] Judging from its opening and closing words as given by James.\n\n[2998] _De coitu_, edition of 1536, p. 306.\n\n[2999] _Viaticum_, VI, 19.\n\n[3000] _Practica_, X, 1; in Isaac, _Opera_, 1515, II, fol. 126.\n\n[3001] _Ibid._, VII, 31; fol. 111r.\n\n[3002] _Ibid._, IV, 37; fol. 96r.\n\n[3003] _Ibid._, V, 17; fol. 99r.\n\n[3004] _De melancholia_ (1536), p. 290.\n\n[3005] _Practica_, VIII, 40; ed. of 1515, fol. 118v.\n\n[3006] _Practica_, IV, 39, and V, 7; ed. of 1515, fols. 96r and 98r.\n\n[3007] Ed. of 1536, p. 358; also in the _Viaticum_, I, 22; p. 20.\n\n[3008] _Viaticum_, I, 22; p. 21.\n\n[3009] _Viaticum_, VII, 13: _De gradibus_ (1536), p. 377.\n\n[3010] According to Steinschneider (1866), p. 402, it is only from\nthe citations of Constantinus that we know of a work by Rufus on\nmelancholy. See especially _De melancholia_ (1536), p. 285, \u201cInvenimus\nRufum clarissimum medicum de melancholia fecisse librum....\u201d\n\n[3011] _De gradibus_ (1536), p. 378.\n\n[3012] Edition of 1536, pp. 20, 290, 356.\n\n[3013] _Theorica_, X, 9; ed. of 1515, fol. 54.\n\n[3014] _Practica_, VII, 59 (1515), fol. 114v.\n\n[3015] Ed. of 1541, pp. 319-21.\n\n[3016] _Spec. nat._, XVI, 49.\n\n[3017] _De gradibus_ (1536), p. 360, \u201cde quo Arab\u016b (Aristotle?) in\nlibro de lapidibus intitulato.\u201d\n\n[3018] _Manoscritto Salernitano dilucidato dal Prof. Henschel_, in\nRenzi (1853), II, 1-80, especially pp. 16, 41, 59.\n\n[3019] _De aegritudinum curatione tractatus_, Renzi, II, 81-386; _De\nfebribus tractatus_, II, 737-68.\n\n[3020] The preface to Constantinus\u2019 translation of Isaac on fevers is\naddressed to his \u201cdearest son, John\u201d: see Brussels, Library of Dukes\nof Burgundy 15489, 14th century, \u201cQuoniam te karissime fili Iohanne\u201d;\nCambrai 914, 13-14th century; Cambrai 907, 14th century, fol. 1,\nPrefatio Constantini ad Johannem discipulum.\n\n[3021] However, in an Oxford MS the _Liber aureus_ itself is ascribed\nto \u201cJohn, son of Constantinus\u201d: Bodleian 2060, #1, Joannis filii\nConstantini de re medica liber aureus.\n\n[3022] Interest in such works was aroused by the almost simultaneous\npublication of R. Hendrie\u2019s English translation of Theophilus,\nLondon, 1847; the publication of the _Mappe clavicula_ in a \u201cLetter\nfrom Sir Thomas Phillipps to Albert Way\u201d in _Archaeologia_, XXXII,\n183-244, London, 1847; and the inclusion of Heraclius, _De coloribus\net de artibus Romanorum_, in Mrs. Merrifield\u2019s _Ancient Practice of\nPainting_, London, 1849. Hendrie printed the Latin text of Theophilus\nwith his translation. A. Ilg published a revised Latin text with a\nGerman translation in 1874, with a fuller account of the MSS.\n\n[3023] Merrifield (1849), I, 166-74.\n\n[3024] Berthelot (1893), I, 29. He dated, however, Robert of Chester\u2019s\ntranslation of Morienus thirty-eight years too late in that century,\nmistaking the Spanish for the Christian era.\n\n[3025] _Ibid._, p. 18.\n\n[3026] Berthelot (1893), I, 169.\n\n[3027] Merrifield (1849), I, 183. See also pp. 189-91.\n\n[3028] _Ibid._, p. 183, \u201cNil tibi scribo equidem quod non prius ipse\nprobassem.\u201d\n\n[3029] _Ibid._, p. 187.\n\n[3030] _Trait\u00e9 des Arts C\u00e9ramiques_, p. 304, cited by Merrifield, I,\n177. This is not, however, to be regarded as the invention of lead\nglazing, since, as William Burton writes (\u201cCeramics\u201d in EB, p. 706),\n\u201clead glazes were extensively used in Egypt and the nearer East in\nPtolemaic times.\u201d He adds, \u201cAnd it is significant that, though the\nRomans made singularly little use of glazes of any kind, the pottery\nthat succeeded theirs, either in western Europe or in the Byzantine\nEmpire, was generally covered with glazes rich in lead.\u201d\n\n[3031] For these works see Berthelot (1893), III, or Lippmann (1919),\nwho follows him. I have not had access to E. Wiedemann, _Zur Chemie\nbei den Arabern_, in _Sitzungsberichte der physikalisch-medizinischen\nSociet\u00e4t in Erlangen_, XLIII (1911); and his _Die Alchemie bei den\nArabern_, in _Journal f\u00fcr praktische Chemie_, LXXVI (1907), 85-87,\n105-23.\n\n[3032] The full title is \u201cCompositiones ad tingenda musiva, pelles et\nalia, ad deaurandum ferrum, ad mineralia, ad chrysographiam, ad glutina\nquaedam conficienda, aliaque artium documenta.\u201d The MS, Bibliotheca\ncapituli canonicorum Lucensium, Arm. I, Cod. L, was printed in\nMuratori, _Antiquitates Italicae_, II (1739), 364-87. It is described\nby Berthelot (1893), I, 7-22, whose comparison of it with previous\ntreatises I follow.\n\n[3033] Berthelot (1888), I, 12, note.\n\n[3034] Text and some discussion thereof in _Archaeologia_, XXXII\n(1847), 183-244. Analyzed by Berthelot (1893), I, 23-65. On the\nSchlestadt MS of the 10th century, see Giry in _Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00c9cole\ndes Hautes \u00c9tudes_, XXXV (1878), 209-27.\n\n[3035] See recipes 105-93.\n\n[3036] Berthelot (1893), I, 57.\n\n[3037] _Ibid._, 61. Others, however, would trace the discovery of\nalcohol back to Hippolytus. See above, p. 468.\n\n[3038] \u201cAccipies ad experimentum donec primitus discas non multum cum\nsemel facias.\u201d\n\n[3039] \u201cAbsconde sanctum et nulli tradendum secretum neque alicui\ndederis propheta.\u201d\n\n[3040] Berthelot (1893), I, 303-4.\n\n[3041] Item 265.\n\n[3042] Item 290.\n\n[3043] Item 289.\n\n[3044] _De coloribus et artibus Romanorum_, I, iv. I have somewhat\naltered Mrs. Merrifield\u2019s translation (I, 186).\n\n[3045] _Ibid._, I, xi; Mrs. Merrifield (1849), I, 189-91.\n\n[3046] _Ibid._, I, xii:\n\n \u201cSed vim cristalli cruor antea temperet hirci\n Sanguis enim facilem ferro facit his adamantem.\u201d\n\nMrs. Merrifield (I, 194) has incorrectly rendered this passage, \u201cBut\nlet the blood of a goat first temper it, for this blood makes the iron\nso hard that even adamant is soft compared to it.\u201d What Heraclius says\nis,\n\n \u201cBut first let the blood of a he-goat temper the force of the crystal,\n For this blood makes adamant soft to the iron.\u201d\n\n\n[3047] _Schedula diversarum artium_, III, 98.\n\n[3048] _Ibid._, III, 94.\n\n[3049] _Ibid._, III, 21.\n\n[3050] Berthelot (1893), I, 63. His French translation omits some of\nthe Latin text as published in _Archaeologia_, cap. 288.\n\n[3051] \u201cCardan\u2019s concentric circles,\u201d according to Berthelot (1893), I,\n64.\n\n[3052] Berthelot (1893), I, 55.\n\n[3053] II, prologus (closing passage). \u201cHuius ergo imitator desiderans\nfore, apprehendi atrium agiae Sophiae conspicorque cellulam diversorum\ncolorum omnimodo varietate refertam et monstrantem singulorum\nutilitatem ac naturam. Quo mox inobservato pede ingressus, replevi\narmariolum cordis mei sufficienter ex omnibus, quae diligenti\nexperientia sigillatim perscrutatus, cuncta visu manibusque probata\nsatis lucide tuo studio commendavi absque invidia. Verum quoniam\nhuiusmodi picturae usus perspicax non valet esse, quasi curiosus\nexplorator omnibus modis elaboravi cognoscere, quo artis ingenio et\ncolorum varietas opus decoraret, et lucem diei solisque radios non\nrepelleret. Huic exercitio dans operam vitri naturam comprehendo,\neiusque solius usu et varietate id effici posse considero, quod\nartificium, sicut visum et auditum didici, studio tuo indagare curavi.\u201d\nIlg\u2019s Latin text (1874).\n\n[3054] III, 47.\n\n[3055] I have followed Ilg\u2019s rather than Hendrie\u2019s text; III, 48.\n\n[3056] Hendrie (1847), pp. 432-3.\n\n[3057] Ernst von Meyer, _History of Chemistry_, 1906.\n\n[3058] Migne, PL 146, 583-4. Some accused the bishop of resort to magic\narts: _Ibid._, 606.\n\n[3059] W. Stubbs, in RS LXIII, p. cix. C. L. Barnes, _Science in Early\nEngland_, in Smithsonian Report for 1895, p. 732. Of the alchemy\nascribed to Dunstan, Elias Ashmole remarked in his _Theatrum Chemicum\nBritannicum_, 1652, \u201cHe who shall have the happiness to meet with St.\nDunstan\u2019s work _De occulta philosophia_ ... may therein read such\nstories as will make him amazed to think what stupendous and immense\nthings are to be performed by virtue of the Philosopher\u2019s Mercury, of\nwhich a taste only and no more.\u201d\n\n[3060] Berthelot (1893), I, 234.\n\n[3061] Karpinski (1915), pp. 26-30; Haskins, EHR, XXX (1915), 62-5.\n\n[3062] Berlin 956, 12th century, \u201cHic incipit alchamia. Accipe CCCC\nova gauline que generata sunt et facta in mense martii .../ ... ut\nrecentiora sint semper et calidiora. Explicit alchamia.\u201d The titles\nof the last three chapters are, \u201cde iiii ollis, de cognitione, de\nobservatione stestarum.\u201d I have not seen the MS but follow Rose\u2019s\ndescription in the Berlin MSS catalogue.\n\n[3063] I have used the edition of Marbod\u2019s poems in Migne, PL vol. 171,\nwhich also contains a life of Marbod. Two secondary accounts of Marbod\nare C. Ferry, _De Marbodi Rhedonensis Episcopi vita et carminibus_,\nNemansi, 1877; L. V. E. Ernault, _Marbode, \u00c9v\u00eaque de Rennes, Sa\nvie et ses \u0152uvres_, in _Bull. et M\u00e9m. de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Arch\u00e9ologique\ndu dept. d\u2019Ille-et-Vilaine_, XX, 1-260, Rennes, 1889. See also V.\nRose, _Aristoteles De Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo_, in _Zeitsch. f.\ndeutsches Alterthum_, XVIII (1875), p. 321, _et seq._; L. Pannier,\n_Les lapidaires fran\u00e7ais du moyen \u00e2ge_, Paris, 1882. C. W. King, _The\nNatural History, Ancient and Modern, of Precious Stones and Gems_,\nLondon, 1865.\n\n[3064] CLM 23479, 11th century, fols. 4-10, Carmina de lapidibus eadem\nquae Marbodo tribuuntur sed alio ordine. Of CUL 768, 15th century,\nfols. 67-80, \u201cMarbodi liber lapidum,\u201d the Catalogue says, \u201cThis Latin\npoem has been often printed but it does not appear that the editors\nhave collated this MS. The order of the sections is different from\nall those of which Beckmann speaks in his edition (G\u00f6ttingen, 1799),\nanswering, however, most nearly to his own.\u201d\n\n[3065] The full name of Tiberius was, of course, Tiberius Claudius Nero\nCaesar.\n\n[3066] Library of Dukes of Burgundy 8890, 12th century, Evacis regis.\nBN 2621, 12th and 15th centuries, #6, Poemation de gemmis cuius author\ndicitur Evax, Rex Arabiae.\n\nMontpellier 277, Liber lapidum preciosorum Evax rex Arabum.\n\nRiccard. 1228, 12th century, fols. 41-54; Incipit prologus Evacis regis\nArabie ad Neronem Tyberium de lapidibus. Incipit lapidarius Evacis\nhabens nomina gemmarum lx.\n\nBL Hatton 76 contains two letters of Evax, king of the Arabs, to\nTiberius Caesar, on the virtues of stones, according to Cockayne\n(1864), I, xc and lxxxiv.\n\n[3067] Printed by J. B. Pitra, III (1855), 324-35.\n\n[3068] BN 7418, 14th century, fol. 116-, (D)amigeronis peritissimi de\nlapidibus. Since this is the sole MS known of the prose version (Rose,\n1875, p. 326) and is of the 14th century, whereas we have numerous\nearly MSS of Marbod\u2019s poem, it would seem that this may be derived from\nMarbod rather than even from the earlier and fuller work which he is\nsupposed to have used.\n\n[3069] Namely, Leo, Cancer, Aries, Sagittarius, Taurus, Virgo, and\nCapricorn.\n\n[3070] See page 775, note 2.\n\n[3071] King (1865), p. 7; Rose (1875), p. 335.\n\n[3072] Ferry (1887), p. 69.\n\n[3073] NH XXXVI, 56. Pliny, however, makes these statements about\nchelonia and not chelonitis which follows it.\n\n[3074] The stones which I have taken as examples are numbers 1, 3, 5,\n18, 19, 39, and 57 respectively.\n\n[3075] See above, chapter 29, page 689.","title":"A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 1 (of 2): During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":320530}