THOMAS OF CANTIMPRÉ
_De natura rerum_; date, authorship, and relation to
similar works--Life of Thomas--Character of the _De natura
rerum_--Plan and contents--Chief authorities--Embodiment of
long extracts--Other citations--Credulous attitude--Very
uncritical character of the _Bonum universale de apibus_--A
chapter on the lion--Different kinds of lions: their
generation--Disposition and behavior--Fear inspired
and felt by lions--Their diet, medicine, and mode of
fighting--Medical virtues of the lion’s carcass--Medieval
and modern encyclopedias compared--Examples of the zoology
of the Experimenter--Fish, worms, and toads--Solomon’s
experiment in worms--Trees--Marvelous virtues of stones--An
adamantine mariner’s compass--The mariner’s compass and
magic--Occult virtues of sculptured gems--Thetel on images
on stones--Zahel or Zaël the Israelite--Consecration of
gems--The seven metals: modern plumbing--The seven regions
of the air--Astrological--Elements and spirits--Other works
incorrectly ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré--Appendix I.
The Manuscripts of the _De natura rerum_--Appendix II. Some
Manuscripts of the Treatise of Thetel on Seals.
[Sidenote: _De natura rerum_; Date, authorship, and relation to similar
works.]
We now approach the consideration of two works with titles similar
to Alexander Neckam’s _On the Natures of Things_, namely, Thomas
of Cantimpré’s _On the Nature of Things_[1254] and Bartholomew of
England’s _On the Properties of Things_. These two works are much
longer and more elaborate than Neckam’s, containing each nineteen
books, whereas of his five books only two really dealt with the natures
of things, and they lead up to the later and still better known natural
encyclopedia of Vincent of Beauvais. Thomas and Bartholomew were
contemporaries and it is difficult to say whose book was finished or
appeared first but we shall consider Thomas first. As he says that he
spent fourteen or fifteen years in collecting his material, he perhaps
began to write first and his work seems to reflect a somewhat less
developed state of learning. Thomas is later than Michael Scot whom he
cites, while an allusion to Jacques de Vitry as the most recent of his
authorities and as now bishop of Tusculum and a cardinal indicates that
the work was finished between 1228 and 1244. On the whole Thomas and
Bartholomew seem to have compiled their works independently, employing
different general plans, emphasizing rather different fields, and using
somewhat different authorities. Possibly, therefore, the two works may
have been completed almost simultaneously, and one wonders whether
they may not have represented rival ventures of the two friar orders.
Bormans and Rose[1255] after him have dwelt on the use made of Thomas’s
compilation by his fellow Dominicans, Vincent of Beauvais and Albertus
Magnus, but I have little doubt that most of his sources were known to
them directly. The _De natura rerum_ remained long in use; an official
price was fixed for it at the University of Paris in the reign of
Philip the Fair;[1256] and the manuscripts of it are numerous and
widespread, but as yet often unidentified because in the manuscripts
themselves it is either anonymous or ascribed to Albertus Magnus.[1257]
This attribution to Albert is found even in a manuscript of the
thirteenth century, while “Albert in the book _De naturis rerum_,” is
cited in the _Thesaurus pauperum_[1258] by Petrus Hispanus, a work
written at some time before 1277 when its author died as Pope John XXI.
But Thomas himself speaks in the _Bonum universale de apibus_[1259] of
the _De natura rerum_ as an earlier work of his, which seems decisive,
and he is also credited with the authorship of both these works in the
fourteenth century Dominican bibliography. A critical edition of the
_De natura rerum_ would be a valuable contribution to the study of
medieval learning.
[Sidenote: Life of Thomas.]
The date of the birth of Thomas in Brabant has not been fixed but
seems to lie between the years 1186 and 1210 and probably is close to
the latter date. He attended the episcopal school at Liège for eleven
years and entered the Dominican order in 1232. He states that he was in
Paris in 1238 when William of Auvergne as bishop of that city called a
meeting of all the masters in the chapter house of the Friars Preachers
to consider the abuse of plurality of benefices.[1260] In 1246 he
became subprior and lector of the Dominicans at Louvain. Kaufmann
placed the date of his death between 1263 and 1293, but if the date
1276 mentioned in his _Bonum universale de apibus_ is correct,[1261]
he was alive then. In that work he seems to refer to Aquinas and
Albertus Magnus as both still living,[1262] but the former had already
completed his studies with Albert and become a professor of theology
himself,[1263] while Albert is spoken of as if an old man.[1264] Thomas
says that he was an attendant upon his lectures “for a long while” when
he occupied the chair of theology. It does not seem, however, that this
passage implies any very close relation of discipleship between Thomas
and Albert.
[Sidenote: Character of the _De natura rerum_.]
The _De natura rerum_ is professedly a handy compilation made from
numerous other writings, as Thomas states both in his preface and
conclusion. Stimulated by the remark in Augustine’s _Christian
Doctrine_ that it would be a splendid achievement if someone should
collect in one volume data concerning the natures of things and
especially of animals, Thomas has spared neither labor, solicitude,
nor expense toward that end and has spent fourteen or fifteen years in
collecting material “scattered widely over the world in the diverse
writings” of many philosophers and authors. He has not been satisfied
to pursue his investigations merely in Gaul and Germany, although books
abound in those countries, but has gone beyond the sea and collected
the books published in England on nature, and has made excerpts from
all sources. He asks indulgence of his readers if he has omitted
anything that should be included, reminding them how great a task it
is for one man to read and digest all the varied and scattered works
of the philosophers. Nevertheless he feels that “there will scarcely
be found among the Latins so much and so varied material compressed
into a single volume.”[1265] Thomas does not directly state as his
aim, although it is perhaps involved in his citation of Augustine, the
elucidation of the properties of things mentioned in the Bible, as we
shall find that Bartholomew of England does. But he expresses a hope
that arguments for the Faith and illustrations serviceable in sermons
may be derived from his work, and there are a number of little books
in existence in manuscript which seem to be extracts from the works
of Thomas or Bartholomew intended for pulpit use.[1266] Thomas will
sometimes, moreover, like Alexander Neckam, explain the allegorical or
moral significance of natural phenomena, “but not continually, because
we have tried to avoid prolixity.” As a matter of fact, it is rarely
that he does so,[1267] although the amount of allegory or moralizing
varies somewhat in different manuscripts. These also differ as to the
fulness of the text generally and there are numerous minor differences,
certain passages being abbreviated or entirely omitted in some
manuscripts. Copies have also been discovered of a second or revised
edition in which a twentieth book has been added.[1268]
[Sidenote: Plan and contents.]
The manuscripts also differ in their arrangement of the work, but as
Thomas supplies us with a table of contents, there can be no doubt as
to the original and correct order. He begins with the parts of the
human body, devoting a chapter to each member, its ills and their cure,
and having considerable to say on the subject of obstetrics. His second
book discusses the soul (_anima_). The brief third book treats of
strange and monstrous races of men who are found chiefly in the orient
but in some cases elsewhere, hermaphrodites, for instance, in France.
Then come successive books on quadrupeds, birds, marine monsters, fish,
serpents, and worms. These six books devoted to animal life other than
man occupy considerably more than half of the entire work. Thomas turns
next to the vegetable kingdom, devoting two books to trees, of which
the second deals with aromatic and medicinal trees, and one book to
herbs. After the brief thirteenth book on fountains and other bodies of
water he comes to (14) precious stones, (15) the seven metals, (16) the
seven regions of air, (17) the sphere and planets, (18) meteorology,
and finally to the universe and four elements. These two topics of
his nineteenth book are usually discussed near the start of medieval
scientific treatises, and the reason for the order adopted by Thomas is
not very evident, unless perhaps he at first intended to write about
animals alone and then added further books on other subjects, or unless
he decided to begin with man the microcosm and end with the _mundus_
or macrocosm. If such was his plan, he does not seem to say so, and it
is hardly surprising that liberties were taken with his order in some
of the manuscripts, which begin with book sixteen and end with book
fifteen, apparently in order to start with the heavens and elements and
then consider the particular creatures of inferior creation.
[Sidenote: Chief authorities.]
As the work of Thomas is professedly a compilation, it is important
to note his authorities. At the start he mentions those to whom he
is most indebted: first, Aristotle, and then Pliny. Third comes the
_De mirabilibus_ (instead of _memorabilibus_) _mundi_ of Solinus whom
Thomas esteems both as a man of marvelous eloquence and as a diligent
scrutinizer of the natures of things. Very different this from Albertus
Magnus’ sceptical estimate of Solinus as a philosopher who told many
lies, and yet there are modern scholars who contend that Albert took
much of his natural science ready-made and without acknowledgment
from the _De natura rerum_ of his pupil[1269] Thomas. It will be
noted that Thomas names his chief authorities in chronological order.
Fourth comes Ambrose, to whose eloquent description of birds and
beasts in the _Hexaemeron_ Thomas finds it necessary, however, to make
additions; and fifth, Isidore. Sixth, and most recent in time, is the
_Oriental History_ of Jacques de Vitry to whom Thomas “was intimately
devoted.”[1270] Jacques had occupied several chapters of his _Oriental
History_[1271] with the fountains, trees and herbs, animals, serpents,
birds, and rare fish, precious stones and strange races of the orient,
and had then added a briefer list to show that the west, too, was not
without its marvels. Thomas also mentions two anonymous works, which
he appears to cite chiefly concerning animals[1272] and whose titles
he gives as _Experimentator_ and _Liber rerum_. Thomas was probably
correct in his surmise that _Experimentator_ had been compiled in
recent times and we shall meet citations of it in other authors of the
thirteenth century. But the original texts of the _Liber rerum_ and
_Experimentator_ do not seem to have survived.
[Sidenote: Embodiment of long extracts.]
Thomas mentions yet other authorities in his preface and even more
in the course of his work. His method in using his sources varies.
Sometimes he combines in one paragraph brief statements from a
number of authorities bearing on the same topic. Again he may insert
practically _verbatim_ a long extract or complete treatment of a matter
by some one author, or even an entire treatise such as the _Letter of
Alexander to Aristotle_ or Thetel’s discussion of seals in stones. Thus
in his first book on the human body he uses a work supposed to have
been written by Cleopatra to her daughter on the subject of gynecology,
and inserts in condensed form John of Spain’s translation from the
Arabic of the medical portion of _The Secret of Secrets_ supposed
to have been written by Aristotle to Alexander. His second book on
the soul follows Augustine’s treatise _De anima_. His third book on
strange and monstrous races of men includes also some account of the
Gymnosophists and Brahmans and their verbal repartee or epistolary
correspondence with Alexander of Macedon.
[Sidenote: Other citations.]
With some of the authors whom he names Thomas was almost surely not
directly acquainted. Dorotheus the Athenian, Menander, and Mago, for
instance, he mentions as “authorities according to Pliny.” He does
not seem to make as much use of Galen as might be expected, were
that author’s works already accessible in Latin translation; but he
probably had the old Latin version of Alexander Tralles, to whom he
probably refers as “_Alexander medicus_.” He probably also had seen
Basil’s _Hexaemeron_ in Latin translation, since he cites it as well
as Ambrose a number of times, and also in the preface to his _Bonum
universale de apibus_ lists “the great Basil” together with Aristotle,
Solinus, Pliny, Ambrose, and Jacques de Vitry as his authorities in the
discussion of bees in the _De natura rerum_. Many other writers he has
without much doubt read for himself: Boethius, Martianus Capella, and
Rabanus of earlier medieval Latin writers; Platearius and Constantinus
Africanus in medicine; Aldhelme[1273] and _Physiologus_ on animals;
of the Arabs Alfraganus, Albumasar, and perhaps Averroës. Michael
Scot seems to be cited in some manuscripts and not in others.[1274]
In treating of stones Thomas does not cite Marbod by name but states
that he is using the metrical version of the account which Evax, king
of Arabia, is said to have written for the emperor Nero. Thomas,
however, adds statements from other authors on stones. Like Alexander
Neckam Thomas seems to use the _Natural Questions_ of Adelard of Bath
without acknowledgment. In discussing herbs he asks the three opening
questions of Adelard’s treatise and proceeds to solve them in words
which are often identical. After this general introduction his chapters
on particular herbs are almost invariably introduced by the formula,
“As Platearius says.” Ferckel has pointed out that the greater part of
three chapters in his first book on human anatomy is drawn from the
_Philosophia_ of William of Conches,[1275] and that the twentieth book,
added in some manuscripts, is taken from the same work. Thus Thomas
makes much use of comparatively recent authorities. He also tells us
that he has not disdained to include some popular beliefs.
[Sidenote: Credulous attitude.]
Thomas of Cantimpré must be reckoned as one of the most credulous
of our authors. In his books on animals he seems of the uncritical
school of the marvelous of Solinus, Basil, Ambrose, the _Physiologus_,
and Jacques de Vitry. Seldom does he question any statement that he
finds in his authorities; indeed, he does not appear to possess the
independent knowledge of animal life to enable him to do so. He does
state that the power of the little _echinus_ to stop ships has seemed
incredible to many, but inasmuch as Ambrose, Jacques, Aristotle,
Isidore, and Basil all assert it confidently, he does not see how
there is any room left for doubt.[1276] The story of the beaver’s
self-castration in order to escape its hunters is given without
comment, and we are further told that the animal cannot live unless it
keeps its tail in the water.[1277] Thomas tells us that Isidore held
that the Sirens were really harlots who enticed men to moral ruin,
but he adds that the more general opinion is that they are irrational
marine monsters who still exist and he cites “those who testify that
they have seen the Sirens themselves.” Their song is more like that of
birds than it is like articulate speech. Sometimes, on the other hand,
Thomas prefers a miraculous or supernatural to a natural explanation
of a marvelous statement. He is not sure whether the onocentaur seen
by St. Anthony in the desert was real or a deception of the devil,
and he regards as not natural but a divine miracle the story that
the Apostle Peter had shut up in a mountain near Rome a dragon which
will live until the end of the world. He adds, however, the tale of
the two dragons found alive under the tower from the _History of the
Britons_. About all that can be said for Thomas on this score is that
he does not appear to add many new marvels of his own to the incredible
assertions of past writers.
[Sidenote: Very uncritical character of the _Bonum universale de
apibus_.]
Thomas’s credulity seems to have increased with age, since his later
_Bonum universale de apibus_,[1278] in which bees are a mere starting
point for a disquisition on the qualities which bishops and other
clergy should possess and the introduction of innumerable anecdotes, is
a tissue of monkish tales and gossip, instances of special providence,
apparitions of the dead and of demons, and other miracles and
moralities, most of which are supposed to have occurred in Thomas’s own
time and are recounted upon hearsay. Thus we read of a son who did not
adequately support his aged father and was punished by a toad leaping
onto his face and taking such a hold that it could not be removed but
remained as a disfiguring growth. As a penance the son was sent by his
bishop through the diocese as an example and warning to others. Or
Thomas assures us that Albertus Magnus told him that at Paris the demon
appeared to him in the form of a fellow friar in an effort to call him
away from his studies, but departed by virtue of the sign of the cross.
In short, the work is on the same order as the _Dialogues_ of Gregory
the Great.
[Sidenote: A chapter on the lion.]
Thomas’s treatment of animals in general and quadrupeds in particular
can perhaps best be illustrated by a paraphrase of some one chapter
entire, for which purpose I have selected that on the lion. It will be
noted that there is no apparent logic in the order of the statements
which I have had to divide into paragraphs rather arbitrarily. It
has seemed fairer, however, to reproduce the order unchanged than to
bring together scattered statements bearing on the same point. Many
of Thomas’s statements are found also in Aristotle’s _History of
Animals_,[1279] although Thomas’s citations would indicate that some
items, at least, were derived by him from that source only indirectly.
[Sidenote: Different kinds of lions: their generation.]
The lion, as Jacques and Solinus state, is called the king of animals.
There are three kinds of lions. Many are short and have curly manes
but are weak and cowardly. Those generated by pards are ignoble and
degenerate and have no manes. The larger ones with ordinary manes are
noble and keen and without guile or suspicion. The lion’s brow and tail
reveal his intentions. His virtue resides in his breast and forefoot
and tail.[1280] And he is stout-hearted.[1281] He is so hot of nature
that he is said to have sexual intercourse at all times.[1282] The
lioness bears first five, then four, then three, then two cubs, then
only one, after which she becomes sterile.[1283] Aristotle accounts
for this by the great heat attending the generation of lions who have
solider and stronger bodies for their size than other animals. The
lioness has only two tits and not corresponding in size to her body.
This is not because she has so few cubs but because she eats only flesh
which does not readily turn into milk.
[Sidenote: Disposition and behavior.]
Solinus says that the lion is not easily enraged, but when anyone does
provoke him he shows no mercy to his adversary. On the other hand, he
spares the prostrate captive and allows those whom he meets by chance
to proceed on their way.[1284] He is fiercer to men than to women,
and to women who have had intercourse with men than to virgins and
children. Adelinus says that he sleeps with his eyes open. Pliny says
that as he walks he obliterates his tracks with his tail in order
to foil his hunters. Lions do not fight among themselves.[1285]
Solinus[1286] says that if hunted in the open, the lion will wait
for the dogs and dissimulate his fear, but in the woods, where no
one can see his cowardice, will take to his heels. When pursuing his
prey he leaps into the air in order to see farther, but not when he
is fleeing. Aristotle states that the lion and Arabian camel are the
only quadrupeds to move the right foot first. In making water the lion
lifts his foot like a dog. When the lion opens his mouth a strong odor
exudes. “The lion, very swift by fortitude, is somewhat heavy of nature
because of its slow digestion.” When running, it cannot come to a stop
the instant it wishes.
[Sidenote: Fear inspired and felt by lions.]
When about to drink, the lion draws a wide circle with its tail and
roars so that the other animals dare not cross this line.[1287] Ambrose
tells a marvel to the effect that many animals which are swift enough
to evade the lion’s onset are paralyzed by the sound of its roar. As
king of beasts the lion scorns the society of the other animals and
will not touch meat which is a day old.[1288] But it fears a scorpion.
According to the _Liber rerum_, some say that the lion is consumed
internally by its own fury and fiery blood, even when it does not have
the appearance of being angry. Solinus says that a lion in captivity
fears the sound of wheels but dreads a fire still more. Jacques says
that it is also afraid of a white cock. Pliny says that a captive lion
can be tamed by seeing its cub whipped or by watching a dog obey a man.
[Sidenote: Their diet, medicine, and mode of fighting.]
Lions are never found overladen with fat. They take food or drink on
alternate days, and fast if their digestion fails to operate. If they
devour too much flesh, they put their claws into their mouths and
extract it. The lion has a natural enmity for the wild ass. A sick
lion eats an ape, as Ambrose says, or drains a dog’s blood. Pliny tells
of a Syracusan whom a lion persistently followed until he extracted a
splinter from its foot. Another lion insisted on having a bone removed
from its teeth. Some manuscripts[1289] here insert from Pliny and
Solinus the tale of the wiles of the lioness to conceal her amours with
the pard, and the assertion that a lion wags its tail only when in good
humor. When a lion begins to move it beats the ground with its tail but
as it increases its speed lashes its back. When wounded it always takes
note of the man who inflicted the wound and goes for him. If a man has
hurled missiles at it but failed to hit it, the lion merely knocks him
down. Philosopher says that when fighting for its cubs the lion keeps
its gaze fixed on the ground so as not to be terrified by the spears of
the hunters.
[Sidenote: Medical virtues of the lion’s carcass.]
Pliny recommends eating the flesh and heart of a lion to persons
afflicted with colds. The lion’s bones are so hard that they
strike fire like flint. The hollow in its bones is very small and
rarely contains any marrow, and then only in the hip bones, as
Experimenter[1290] says. Lion’s fat is an antidote for poisons, and a
man anointed with it and wine puts to flight all beasts and snakes.
It is hotter than the fat of any other quadruped. The lion is almost
always feverish, and that with quartan fever. The effect of its roar
upon other beasts is again mentioned. When crossing hard or stony
ground the lion spares its claws since they are its weapons. Pliny
asserts that lion fat with oil of roses keeps the face white and free
from blotches. The neck bone of the lion is continuous and the flesh
there cartilaginous like a muscle, so that it cannot turn its neck, a
disability which some, the _Liber rerum_ states, ascribe incorrectly to
indignation or stolidity on the lion’s part. Aristotle says that the
internal organs and teeth of a lion are like those of a dog.
[Sidenote: Medieval and modern encyclopedias compared.]
After this account in the _De natura rerum_ the article on the lion
in the latest edition of the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ will be found
rather dull reading and scanty as concerns the behavior of lions as
well as the medicinal properties of their carcasses. Almost all of
antiquity’s interesting assertions concerning lions are omitted, no
doubt as false, but little of interest is supplied in their place. We
are told a number of things that the lion will not do: he will not
climb, he will not take more than three bounds after his prey. But even
Thomas does not say that a lion ever climbs; the notion does not seem
even to have occurred to him.[1291] Nor does Thomas assert that all
lions are brave or noble or magnanimous. On the whole, the lion does
not seem a subject upon which modern science has added vastly to our
knowledge. There were far more lions in existence in antiquity, and men
were more interested in them then, and thought at least that they knew
more about them.
[Sidenote: Examples of the zoology of the Experimenter.]
Some notion of the work ascribed by Thomas to _Experimentator_ may
be gained from Thomas’s citations of it in his chapter on the wolf.
Experimenter explains the fact stated by Ambrose, that a man who is
seen first by a wolf cannot speak, by arguing that the rays from the
wolf’s eyes dry up the _spiritus_ of human vision which in its turn
dries up the human _spiritus_ generally. Thereby the wind-pipes are
dried up and in consequence the throat so that man cannot speak.
Experimenter states further that the wolf collects willow leaves in his
mouth and makes a pile of them under which he hides in order to catch
goats. And when walking over dry leaves he licks his paws so that the
dogs will not hear him. An insulting reflection upon the canine sense
of smell!
[Sidenote: Fish, worms, and toads.]
We will pass over Thomas’s books on birds, marine monsters, fish,
and serpents, except to note in passing that Delisle credited him
with supplying some new information concerning the medieval herring
fisheries,[1292] and come to his separate treatment of “worms.”
Those with only two or four feet have a little blood, but those with
more feet than four are bloodless, because the blood is exhausted in
providing nutrition for so many feet and because the motion of so
many feet annihilates the blood. Many worms begin and end their life
in the course of a summer, since they are born rather from corruption
than from seed. Earthworms in particular are generated from pure and
unadulterated earth with no admixture of _semen_, and so furnish
illustration and proof of the virgin birth of Christ. In the opinion
of the _Liber rerum_ the toad is a worm. It is venomous and has a
pestilential glance. It feeds on earth, eating as much as it can clutch
in its forefoot, in which it is emblematic of avarice and cupidity. In
Gaul there are big toads or frogs with a voice like a horn, but they
lose their voice if taken outside of that country, typifying clergymen
who like Jonah will not preach outside of their own land. Some
manuscripts add from “Alexander”[1293] that toads are fond of the plant
salvia and that it is sometimes poisoned by contact with them. Hence it
is advised to touch a patch of salvia with rue, the dew from which is
deadly to toads. A stone found in the head of a toad, if worn by a man,
is an amulet against poison. Several toads can be generated from the
ashes of a toad.
[Sidenote: Solomon’s experiment in worms.]
In planning to build a temple of fine marbles Solomon found
embarrassing the prohibition in the Mosaic law forbidding one to cut
stones for the altar of the Lord with iron. But then he sought by
an experiment in worms what the art of man knew not. He shut up the
fledglings of an ostrich in a glass vase, so that the mother bird could
see them but could not get at them to feed them. The ostrich thereupon
flew (?) off to the desert and came back with a worm. It then broke the
glass vase by smearing it with the blood of this worm. Solomon found
this worm, called _Thamur_ or the worm of Solomon, equally efficacious
in cutting marble.
[Sidenote: Trees.]
In speaking of trees most manuscripts[1294] tell of an oak under which
Abraham dwelt and which lasted until Constantine’s time. The trees in
the Garden of Eden or terrestrial paradise are also discussed, though
of course no longer accessible. Josephus is cited concerning trees
near the Red Sea and apples of Sodom. Thomas thinks that the Sun-tree
and Moon-tree mentioned in Alexander’s letter to Aristotle had been
referred to much earlier in the benediction of Joseph in _Deuteronomy_.
As for the responses which these trees are said to have given
Alexander, Thomas has little doubt that this was the work of demons,
although some contend that it was done by divine permission through
ministering angels.
[Sidenote: Marvelous virtues of stones.]
Like Marbod, Thomas points out that, while plants and fruits receive
their virtues “through the medium of the operations of nature,” no
excess of cold or heat can be observed in stones to account for
their miraculous powers, such as conferring invisibility, and that
consequently their virtues must come direct from God. He alludes to
the belief that Solomon imprisoned demons beneath the gems in rings,
and cites the fifteenth book of _The City of God_ for the statement
that demons are attracted by various stones, herbs, woods, animals, and
incantations.
[Sidenote: An adamantine mariner’s compass.]
While Thomas’s exposition of the virtues of gems is largely based upon
Marbod, in discussing _adamas_ or adamant he introduces a description
of the mariner’s compass, concerning which Marbod is silent and which
had probably not been invented or introduced in western Europe that
early, although Neckam of course alludes to it before Thomas. After
speaking of a variety of adamant which can be broken without resort to
goat’s blood but which will attract iron even away from the magnet,
Thomas adds that it also betrays the location of the star of the sea
which is called _Maria_. When sailors cannot direct their course to
port amid obscure mists, they take a needle and, after rubbing its
point on adamant, fasten it transversely on a small stick or straw
and place it in a vessel full of water. Then by carrying some adamant
around the vessel they start the needle rotating. Then the stone is
suddenly withdrawn and presently the point of the needle comes to rest
pointing towards the star in question.[1295]
[Sidenote: The mariner’s compass and magic.]
Having concluded this description of a mariner’s compass, Thomas again
follows the poem of Marbod and goes on to say that the adamant is also
said to be potent in magic arts, to make its bearer brave against the
enemy, to repel vain dreams and poison, and to benefit lunatics and
demoniacs. I mention this accidental juxtaposition of the mariner’s
compass and magic because, as we shall find in the case of Roger Bacon,
it has often been stated that those in possession of the secret of
the mariner’s compass were long afraid to reveal it for fear of being
suspected of magic, or that sailors were at first afraid to employ the
new device for the same reason. This passage in the _De natura rerum_
is as far as I know the only one in the sources that might even seem
to suggest such a connection, but Thomas does not really connect the
compass and magic at all. Later in the same book, in discussing the
magnet, he says nothing of the compass, although repeating the usual
statements that the magnet attracts iron, is used in magic, and has the
occult property of revealing an unchaste wife.
[Sidenote: Occult virtues of sculptured gems.]
After completing his account of the occult virtues of gems in their
natural state, Thomas goes on to discuss the sculpture of gems and
the additional virtues which they thereby acquire, a subject on which
Marbod had not touched. Thomas had already announced at the beginning
of his book on stones:[1296] “Moreover, at the close of this book we
have given certain opinions of the ancients which we think are neither
to be credited in every respect nor denied in every respect, and in
this we follow the glorious Augustine. The children of Israel are said
to have carved certain gems in the desert, especially carnelians, and
their work of sculpture is said to have been of such subtle skill that
no one since has ever dared attempt an imitation of it. And there is
no doubt but that figures and images of figures are engraved according
to the efficacies of the virtues of gems.” Thomas also admits that
the Israelites should have been adepts in such work, when he recalls
the divine direction which they received in the case of the twelve
gems in the breast-plate of the high priest. “Therefore it is evident
that sculptures are not found on gems without good reason. On the
other hand, I would not say that every such engraving is a token of
mystic virtue.” Later, when he comes to “the relations of the ancient
sculptors concerning the engraving of gems,” Thomas warns that,
although the form of stones is to be honored for its virtue, “yet hope
is not to be put in them but, according to what is written, in God
alone from whom is derived the virtue of stones and the dignity of
every creature.” The astrological character of such engraved images is
made manifest by the connection of many of them with the signs of the
zodiac.
[Sidenote: Thetel on images on stones.]
Thomas complains that the ancient authorities for such images and their
virtues are often not cited, but he had found a treatise in which the
images which the children of Israel were supposed to have engraved
in the desert were recorded by a Jewish philosopher named Thetel or
Techel.[1297] Of this treatise Thomas makes a Latin translation for
his readers, cautioning them, however, that Thetel’s opinions “are not
to be trusted on every point.” Thetel’s treatise, at least as it is
reproduced by Thomas who, however, has perhaps already used parts of it
in his preceding discussion, begins with the sentence: “When a jasper
is found and on it a man with a shield about his neck or in his hand
and a serpent beneath his feet, this has virtue against all enemies.”
It ends with the sentence: “When there is found on a stone a foaming
horse and above a man holding a scepter in his hand, this is good for
those who have power over men.” These sentences perhaps sufficiently
suggest the character of the work. It is also found separately in the
manuscripts as early as the twelfth century.[1298] Some of these vary
considerably from the text as given by Thomas. The popularity of the
treatise is also attested by the allusions in its prefaces to spurious
imitations of it.
[Sidenote: Zahel or Zaël the Israelite.]
This Thetel, Techel, or Cehel, with his seals of the children of
Israel, is presumably no other than Zethel or Zachel or Zahel or Zaël,
the Israelite or Ismaelite,[1299] some of whose astrological treatises
appeared in early printed editions,[1300] and several of whose works
are listed by Albertus Magnus in the _Speculum astronomiae_.[1301]
This Sahl ben Bisr ben Habib lived until 823 with the governor of
Chorasan and then became the astrologer of El-Hasan, vizier to the
Caliph al-Mamun. He was highly esteemed by the Byzantines, who called
him Σέχελ or τοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἰουδαίου τοῦ Σὰχλ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Πέσρ.[1302]
The translation of his works into Latin seems to have begun at an early
date, as his _Fatidica_ or _Decrees of Fate_ was translated in 1138 by
Hermann of Dalmatia,[1303] while our treatise on seals appears in a
twelfth century manuscript.
[Sidenote: Consecration of gems.]
Thomas terminates his book on stones by instructions, quite in the
tone of the blessed Hildegard, concerning the blessing of gems. As a
result of Adam’s fall every creature was corrupted and lost some of its
original virtue, and even such virtues as are left to gems are often
further corrupted by the touch of impious and impure men. Hence, just
as sinful men are renovated by baptism and penance, so gems can have
some of their lost virtues restored by a ceremony of consecration and
sanctification. They should be wrapped in linen, placed on the altar,
and the priest, after saying mass and while still wearing his sacred
robes, should offer this prayer:
“God, almighty Father, who showed Thy virtue to all through certain
insensible creatures, who bade Thy servant Moses adorn himself
among other holy vestments with twelve precious stones as a token
of judgment, and also showed the Evangelist John the heavenly city
of Jerusalem eternally constructed of the virtues which these same
stones typify, we humbly beseech Thy Majesty to deign to consecrate
and sanctify these stones by the sanctification and invocation of Thy
Name, that they may be sanctified and consecrated, and may recover the
efficacious virtues with which the experience of wise men proves Thee
to have endowed them, so that whatever persons may wear them, may feel
Thy virtue present through them and may deserve to receive the gifts of
Thy grace and the protection of Thy virtue, through Jesus, Thy Son, in
whom all sanctification consists, who lives with Thee, and reigns as
God through infinite successions of cycles.”[1304]
[Sidenote: The seven metals: modern plumbing.]
In his book on the seven metals, namely, gold, electrum, silver,
copper, lead, tin, and iron, Thomas alludes to transmutation in
speaking of copper and cites a work of alchemy ascribed to Aristotle,
_The Light of Lights (De lumine luminum)_, for the assertion that
the best gold is that made from a boy’s urine and brass. This
statement is to be understood, however, only of the color of the
gold and not of the substance. In his discussion of lead, tin, and
iron Thomas cites no authorities except that once he remarks, “as
the philosopher says.”[1305] Perhaps therefore we have here what is
largely a contribution of his own. At any rate it seems to include the
first mention of the invention of modern plumbing.[1306] Tin, Thomas
tells us, rusts out easily if it lies long in water. Therefore the
underground pipes of aqueducts have long been made of lead, but they
used to be joined with tin, but in “modern times” human art has thought
out a method of uniting them with hot molten lead. For while tin will
not remain solid for long, “lead lasts forever underground.” Thomas
goes on to say that lead has the peculiar property among the metals
of always increasing in size. Like Hildegard, he also mentions steel,
which he says is hardened by many tensions so that it surpasses iron in
virtue. He further tells of an oriental iron[1307] which is very good
for cutting and is fusible like copper or silver but not ductile like
the iron in other parts of the world.
[Sidenote: The seven regions of the air.]
The discussion in the _De natura rerum_ of the seven regions of the
air and their humors, namely, dew, snow, hail, rain, “laudanum,”
manna and honey, reminds one of Michael Scot’s treatment of the same
subject,[1308] but seems to be drawn from a common source rather than
directly copied from it. Thomas states that Aristotle has treated more
fully of these humors in his _Meteorology_, but in reality Aristotle
says nothing of the last three named in the _Meteorology_, although in
the _History of Animals_ he says that honey is distilled from the air
by the stars. Thomas draws the same distinction as Michael Scot had
made between natural honey and the artificial sort made by bees. He is
willing to grant that the manna upon which the children of Israel lived
was created in this region of the sky, although especially prepared for
them by a divine miracle.
[Sidenote: Astrological.]
The astrological passages of the _De natura rerum_ are neither striking
nor novel. In his books on animals Thomas had stated that various
animal substances such as the brains of wolves or the livers of mice
vary in size with the waxing and waning of the moon. He denies that the
planets possess sense or that their movements are voluntary, but he
quotes Pliny’s statement that by the influence of Venus all things on
earth are generated, and states the influence of each planet when it is
in the ascendant. Under Mars men become choleric and bellicose. Jupiter
is such a source of safety and good health that Martianus declared that
were Jupiter the only planet, men would be immortal. Such, however,
was not the Creator’s will. The word “Jupiter” is not without reason
derived from _iubens_ and _pater_, since during the ascension of this
planet all terrestrial things are born. For unless seeds were severed
from their beginnings by some occult virtue, they would always remain
immovable in the state in which they were created. God accordingly put
such power in the spheres of the stars and especially the planets that
created things might obey his command to increase and multiply. They
return, however, to the earth from which they came; the processes of
nature are unceasingly repeated; and, as Solomon said, there is nothing
new under the sun. Thomas therefore reaches the usual conclusion that
except for human free will and special manifestations of divine will,
all nature is placed by God under the rule of the stars. The influence
of sun and moon is manifest, and “why should we not with entire reason
believe the same of the other planets?”
[Sidenote: Elements and spirits.]
The nineteenth book opens with a discussion of the universe and
creation and closes with a discussion of the four elements. Fire has
eight effects expressed in the couplet:
_Destruit, emollit, restringit, consolidatque;_
_Clarificat, terret, accendit, letificatque._
Thomas illustrates each of these effects by a verse of Scripture. Fire
also has six properties, likewise expressed in a couplet:
_Mobilis et siccus mundusque favilla tenetur;_
_Crescit et accendit[1309] sed aqua modica removetur._
Concerning these properties also Thomas quotes Scripture. He then
treats briefly of that purest fire which is above the seven regions of
the air. Demons dwell in the air “awaiting with torments the judgment
day.”[1310] When they appear to men, they assume bodies from that
part of the air which is densest and most mixed with the other three
elements. But angels coming as messengers to mankind assume bodies in
the region of pure fire extending from the sphere of the moon to the
firmament.
[Sidenote: Other works incorrectly ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré.]
In the life of Albertus Magnus written by Peter of Prussia toward the
end of the fifteenth century[1311] it is stated on the authority of
the chronicle of Brother Jacobus de Zuzato, master of theology, that
Thomas of Cantimpré translated word for word from Greek into Latin
“all the books of Aristotle in rational, natural, and moral philosophy
and metaphysics which we now use in the schools,[1312] and this at the
instance of Saint Thomas of Aquinas, for in Albert’s time all commonly
used the old translation.”[1313] The task of translating Aristotle
was scarcely one for which Thomas of Cantimpré was qualified, and his
name almost never appears in the extant manuscripts of translations of
Aristotle.[1314] Peter of Prussia and his source have probably confused
William of Moerbeke with Thomas of Cantimpré, as they both came from
Brabant, and their names are juxtaposed in a fourteenth century list
of writings by Dominicans, where, however, William is said to have
“translated all the books of natural and moral philosophy from Greek
into Latin at the instance of brother Thomas.”[1315] Because of Thomas
of Cantimpré’s chapters on gynecology, the _De secretis mulierum_
usually ascribed to Albertus Magnus has sometimes been attributed to
him, but Ferckel denies this.[1316]
FOOTNOTES:
[1254] Only extracts of the _De natura rerum_ have been printed (by J.
B. Pitra, _Spicilegium Solesmense_, III, and in HL and _Ferckel_ as
noted below). Some discussion of the MSS and a partial list of them
will be found in Appendix I to this chapter. I have chiefly used MSS
Royal 12-E-XVII, 13th century; Royal 12-F-VI, 14th century; Egerton
1984, 13th century, fols. 34-145; Arundel 323, 13th century, fols.
1-98; and Arundel 164, 15th century, at the British Museum; and BN
347B and 523A at Paris. As any topic to which a chapter is devoted
can be found without much difficulty in these MSS, which are divided
into books and chapters and equipped with tables of contents, I shall
usually not take the time and space to make specific citations by folio
in the ensuing chapter.
Of Thomas’s _Bonum universale de apibus_ I have used the 1516 edition.
Some books and articles on Thomas and his natural science are: Bormans,
“Thomas de Cantimpré indiqué comme une des sources où Albert le
Grand et surtout Maerlant ont puisé les matériaux de leur écrits sur
l’histoire naturelle”; in _Bulletins de l’Acad. roy. des Sciences de
Belgique_, XIX, 132-59, Brussels, 1852.
Carus, _Geschichte der Zoologie_, Munich, 1872, pp. 211-33.
HL 30 (1888) 365-84, Delisle, “La Nature des Choses, par Thomas de
Cantimpré,” supplementing and correcting the earlier account by Daunou
in HL 19 (1838) 177-84, where the _De natura rerum_ had been called an
anonymous work known only from Vincent of Beauvais’ citation of it.
A. Kaufmann, _Thomas von Cantimpré_, Cologne, 1899, 137 pp., an
unfinished work published posthumously without a projected section on
Thomas’s natural science, which the author had scarcely begun.
Stadler, “Albertus Magnus, Thomas von Cantimpré, und Vincent von
Beauvais,” in _Natur und Kultur_, IV, 86-90, Munich, 1906.
C. Ferckel, _Die Gynäkologie des Thomas von Brabant, ausgewählte
Kapitel aus Buch I de naturis rerum beendet um 1240_, Munich, 1912 (in
G. Klein, _Alte Meister d. Medizin u. Naturkunde_).
[1255] V. Rose (1875), pp. 335, 340.
[1256] HL 30: 380.
[1257] Sometimes the work concludes with the extraordinary _Explicit_,
“the book of Lucius Annisius Seneca of Cordova, disciple of Fortinus
the Stoic, _De naturis rerum_,” as in Arundel 323.
[1258] III, 16.
[1259] In the preface.
[1260] _Bonum universale de apibus_, I, 19, vii.
[1261] _Ibid._, II, 57, lix. At I, 5, ii, 1252 is given as the date of
the “recent” murder of a Dominican by heretics at Verona; at II, 57,
iii, great winds and thunders are mentioned, which frightened men in
Germany nearly out of their wits in 1256.
[1262] Aquinas died in 1274, Albert in 1280.
[1263] _Bonum universale de apibus_, I, 20, xi.
[1264] _Ibid._, II, 57, li, “venerabilis ille frater ordinis
predicatorum magister Albertus.”
[1265] From this statement one might infer either that Bartholomew’s
book was not yet published or that Thomas did not know of it.
[1266] HL 30: 384.
[1267] As HL 30: 374-5 has already noted.
[1268] HL 30: 383 mentions three such MSS; see also CLM 6908, where,
however, the three last books are missing; Lincoln College 57, 13th
century; CU Trinity 1058, 13th century; Wolfenbüttel 4499, 14th century.
[1269] As has been said above, it is doubtful if there was any close
relation of master and disciple between Albert and Thomas.
[1270] HL 30: 377.
[1271] Jacobus de Vitriaco, _libri duo ... prior Orientalis ... alter
Occidentalis Historiae_, 1597, _Hist. Orient._ caps. 85-92.
[1272] _Experimentator_, however, is also cited concerning the
properties of air.
[1273] Thomas’s extracts from Adhelmus were printed by Pitra (1855)
III, 425-7. Concerning St. Aldhelm see above, chapter 27, page 636.
[1274] Michael Scot is cited concerning silk-worms and gourds in
Egerton 1984, fols. 100r and 121r, and, judging from the catalogue
notice, also in Corpus Christi 221, but not in the corresponding
passages in either Royal 12-E-XVII or 12-F-VI. The _Histoire
Littéraire_, however, gives a citation of Michael’s translation of
Aristotle’s _History of Animals_ from three Paris MSS.
[1275] Ferckel (1912), p. 4, “und tatsächlich ist fast das ganze
Kapitel _De Impregnatione_ ein Teil des folgenden und die erste
grössere Hälfte des Kapitels 73 fast wörtlich der _Philosophia_ des
Wilhelm von Conches entnommen.”
[1276] “Tanta fides in hoc auctorum est et tanta concordia ut nulli
umquam de hoc dubitare relinquatur.”
[1277] In the condensed version of Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323 the
castration story is omitted, but the other statement is made.
[1278] A fuller form of the title is: _Liber apum aut de apibus
mysticis sive de proprietatibus apum seu universale bonum tractans de
prelatis et subditis ubique sparsim exemplis notabilibus_.
[1279] See especially _Historia animalium_, VI, 31; VIII, 5, IX, 44.
[1280] In Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323 this statement occurs later and
is ascribed to “Alexander”. These MSS add that in its fore-quarters the
lion is of a hot nature, in the hind-quarters cold, like the Sun in Leo.
[1281] “Firmitas autem in pectore est.”
[1282] Egerton 1984, “to be feverish all the time.”
[1283] EB, 11th edition, “The number of cubs at a birth is from two to
four, usually three.”
[1284] _Ibid._ “The lion ... seldom attacks his prey openly, unless
compelled by extreme hunger.... He appears ... as a general rule only
to kill when hungry or attacked, and not for the mere pleasure of
killing, as with some other carnivorous animals.”
[1285] EB, “Though not strictly gregarious, lions appear to be sociable
towards their own species.”
[1286] Also Aristotle, IX, 44.
[1287] EB, 11th edition, “On no occasions are their voices to be heard
in such perfection, or so intensely powerful, as when two or three
troops of strange lions approach a fountain to drink at the same time.”
[1288] _Ibid._ “He, moreover, by no means limits himself to animals of
his own killing, but, according to Selous, often prefers eating game
that has been killed by man, even when not very fresh, to taking the
trouble to catch an animal himself.”
[1289] For instance, I found the passage in Royal 12-E-XVII, but not in
Royal 12-F-VI.
[1290] Aristotle, instead of _Experimentator_, in Egerton 1984 and
Arundel 323. Of the small amount of marrow in lions’ bones Aristotle
treats twice, _Historia animalium_ III, 7 and 20.
[1291] I am told, however, that in a recent moving picture lions are
seen climbing trees to escape from dogs.
[1292] HL 30: 367.
[1293] Egerton 1984 and Arundel 323.
[1294] Omitted in the two MSS mentioned in the preceding note.
[1295] Compare the similar description of the _magnetised_ needle in
Neckam, _De naturis rerum_, II, 98 (RS 34: 183).
[1296] HL 30: 370 does not mention this introductory passage but quotes
a somewhat similar passage which occurs later on. In fact, Thomas makes
practically the same statement at least three times in the course of
his fourteenth book.
[1297] “_Rechel_” in Royal 12-F-VI, fols. 106-7. Printed by Pitra
(1855) III, 335-7, as “Cethel aut veterum Judaeorum Physiologorum de
lapidibus sententiae.”
[1298] A further discussion of them will be found in Appendix II to
this chapter.
[1299] Steinschneider (1906) 54-5, 103-4, fails to include our treatise
on seals in his mentions of Zaël’s works; but in BN 16204, 13th
century, the _Seals_ of Theel is immediately preceded by two treatises
of “Zehel the Israelite” on interrogations and elections.
[1300] In the astrological miscellany of Petrus Liechtenstein,
Basel, 1551, fols. 122-7, _Introductorium de principiis judiciorum_;
127-38, _De interrogationibus_; 138-41, _De electionibus_; 141-2, _De
significatione temporis ad judicia_. Steinschneider mentions only the
_Elections_ as printed in 1551, but also notes a 1533 edition of it and
1493 and 1519 editions of all these treatises.
[1301] In cap. 6, _Introductio_, “Scito quod signa sunt duodecim”; in
cap. 9, _Judicia Arabum_, “Cum interrogatus fueris”; _De significatione
temporis_, “Et scito quod tempore excitat motus”; in cap. 10, _Liber
electionis_, “Omnes concordati sunt”; _Quinquaginta praeceptorum_,
“Scito quod significata lunae.”
[1302] CCAG V, 3, 98-106.
[1303] Steinschneider (1905), p. 34, names Hermann the Dalmatian as
translator and notes CUL 2022, 15th century, fols. 102r-115v, Hermanni
secundi translatio. “Explicit Fatidica Ben Bixir Caldei....,” but the
_Gi_ in the _Explicit_ of the following MS might stand for _Gerardi_
and indicate Gerard of Cremona, who would, it is true, have been but
twenty-four in 1138: Digby 114, 14th century, fols. 176-99, “Explicit
fetidica Zael Banbinxeir Caldei. Translacio hec mam. Gi. astronomie
libri anno Domini 1138, 3 kal. Octobris translatus (_sic_) est.”
Some other MSS which Steinschneider does not mention are: Harleian 80;
Sloane 2030, 12-13th century, fols. 41-76; Amplon. Quarto 361, 14th
century, fols. 96-113, Chehelbenbis Israelite; and perhaps Sloane 3847,
17th century, fols. 101-12, Zebel alias Zoel, liber imaginum, but more
probably this is the Pseudo-Zebel found in Berlin 965, 16th century,
fols. 1-63, and printed at Prague, 1592, “Incipit zebelis sapientis
arabum de interpretatione diversorum eventuum secundum lunam in 12
signis zodiaci.”
[1304] This consecration of gems also follows Techel’s treatise on
seals in Ashmole 1471, fol. 67v, while in Canon. Misc. 285 the work of
Thetel is preceded at fol. 36v by _De consecratione lapidum_, and at
fol. 38 by _De modo praecipuos quosdam lapides consecrandi_.
[1305] Or, in one MS, “sicut dicunt phisici.”
[1306] This fact has already been noted by the HL.
[1307] Called _andena_ in one MS, and _alidea_ in another.
[1308] See above, chapter 51, page 324.
[1309] Or perhaps “ascendit.”
[1310] Compare Bede, _De natura rerum_, cap. 25.
[1311] Petrus de Prussia, _Vita B. Alberti Magni_, (1621), p. 294.
[1312] Trithemius, _De script, eccles._ probably has Peter and Jacobus
in mind when he states that some writers say that Thomas of Cantimpré
knew Greek and translated the works of Aristotle used in the schools.
[1313] As Albert lived six years beyond Aquinas, this would indicate
that his Aristotelian treatises were completed early in life. Yet some
accuse him of using Thomas’s _De natura rerum_ in these works.
[1314] Additional 17345, late 13th century, imperfect, ascribes the
_antiqua translatio_ of the fourteen books of Metaphysics to him, but
is the only such MS I know of.
[1315] One wonders if this can mean _Thomas Brabantinus_, whose name
immediately follows that of _Wilhelmus Brabantinus_ in the list, rather
than Thomas Aquinas.
[1316] Ferckel (1912), pp. 1-2, 10.
APPENDIX I
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE DE NATURA RERUM
Of the half dozen or so MSS which I have examined Egerton 1984, 13th
century, fols. 34-145, and Arundel 323, 13th century, fols. 1-98,
present a different version from the others, arranged in a different
order and somewhat more condensed, although sometimes inserting points
omitted in the other MSS, as has already been illustrated in the text
in the reproduction of the chapter on the lion. These two MSS open
with what is usually the 16th book on the seven regions of the air and
continue with the subjects of the heavens and elements to which books
17-19 are usually devoted. Then, omitting the themes of the usual first
three books, they consider quadrupeds (Egerton 1984, fol. 51v; Arundel
323, fol. 33r), other animals, and herbs. Then follow precious stones
and metals, after instead of before which comes a truncated version of
the book on fountains (Egerton 1984, fol. 142v; Arundel 323, fol. 91r).
Next comes a treatment of parts of the human body which roughly answers
to Thomas’s first book but omits entirely the chapters dealing with
generation and obstetrics. Indeed in Egerton 1984 the text breaks off
at fol. 145v in the midst of the chapter on teeth and in the middle of
a word, and then ends on the upper part of fol. 146r with the closing
portion of the chapter _De anchis_ and the chapter on _Spondilia_.
Arundel 323 continues as far as the 44th chapter on the spleen. It then
at fol. 98r introduces a brief discussion of geography (_Incipiunt
Divisiones Provinciarum_), at the close of which we read, “Explicit
liber lucii annisii Senece Cordubensis fortini stoyci discipuli
De naturis rerum.” The text, however, goes on to fol. 103v with a
discussion of diseases, remedies, and astrological medicine. Neither
this nor the list of provinces forms a part of the _De natura rerum_ as
contained in Royal 12-E-XVII and 12-F-VI.
As the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ listed only MSS of the _De
natura rerum_ at Paris and in a few other continental libraries, and as
the authorship of Thomas of Cantimpré is seldom recognized in the MSS
catalogues, I append a list of MSS in British and continental libraries
which are not noted in the _Histoire Littéraire_. No doubt the list
is still very incomplete. C. Ferckel (1912), pp. 11-18 gives a fuller
list than that in the _Histoire Littéraire_, but only those MSS which
are marked with an asterisk in the following list have been noted by
Ferckel:
British Museum
Egerton 1984, 13th century, described above.
Royal 12-E-XVII, 13th century.
Royal 12-F-VI, 14th century, fols. 3-119.
*Arundel 323, perhaps 13th century, described above.
*Arundel 142, 15th century, fols. 1-93.
The following contain only portions of the work:
*Arundel 298, perhaps 13th century, fols. 1-83, Books 3-9.
*Arundel 164, 15th century, fols. 5-58, preface and four
books.
Sloane 2428, 13th century, 9 fols., Book 14 on gems.
Sloane 405, 15th century, fols. 65-107, “De natura rerum
liber primus,” attributed to Albertus Magnus but really
the prologue of Thomas and most of his first book on
anatomy.
At Oxford
Selden supra 75 (Bernard 3463), early 14th century, fols.
1r-231v, de naturis rerum secundum diversos philosophos.
In 1919 the proof sheets for the new Summary Catalogue of
Bodleian MSS still stated: “The author, who wrote while
Jacobus de Vitriaco was bishop of Tusculum (1228-44: fol.
1v), appears to be unknown.”
*Canon. Misc. 356, 14th century, Anon. De naturis rerum.
Corpus Christi 221, 14th century, fol. 2-. Liber in quo
tractatus de motu coeli, de elementis, de mari, de
propriis mirabilibus cuiuslibet terrae, de lapidibus
pretiosis, de metallis, de fructibus, de avibus, de
bestiis, etc.
*Corpus Christi 274, 15th century, fol. 6-, Anon, de naturis
rerum.
Lincoln College 57, 13th century, Anon, de proprietatibus
rerum. This is the version in 20 books.
At Cambridge
Trinity 1058, 13th century, well-written, the version in 20
books, ending at fol. 186v.
James fails to rectify the attribution of the work to Albertus Magnus
in both the following MSS:
Gonville and Caius 414, 13th century, fols. 1-161v.
Gonville and Caius 35, 15th century, fols. 1-137.
At Vienna
Vienna 2357, 14th century, fols. 1-46, Lucretius de naturis
rerum.
Vienna 5371, 15th century, fols. 1-100r, Opus de rerum
naturis.
At Munich
CLM 326, 14th century, 95 fols. The catalogue states, “Liber
Thomae Cantipr. vel. Conradi Megenb. similis, sed multo
amplior”; but its preceding description of the contents is
sufficient to identify the work as Thomas of Cantimpré’s.
CLM 2655, 13th century, fols. 1-94, de naturis rerum
visibilium.
CLM 3206, 13-14th century, fols. 1-145, de naturis rerum
liber.
CLM 6908, 13th century, fols. 1-78, Tractatus de naturis
animalium in xx libros divisus quorum tres extremi desunt.
CLM 8439, 15th century, fols. 84-144, Alberti Magni de
naturis rerum.
CLM 11481, anno 1390, de naturis rerum.
CLM 13582, 14th century, Thomae Cantipratensis liber de
natura rerum.
CLM 14340, 15th century, Thomae de Catimprato de naturis seu
proprietatibus rerum, in codice tributus Alberto Magno.
CLM 21008, 14th century, De proprietatibus rerum.
CLM 23879, 15th century, fols. 1-93, de natura rerum.
CLM 27006, anno 1409, fols. 1-170, de natura rerum.
Miscellaneous
*Wolfenbüttel 4499, 14th century, the version in 20 books,
catalogued by Heinemann as anonymous.
Dôle 173-80, 15th century, fols. 1-189, “De secretis nature,
Alberti Magni.”
S. Marco XII-65, 15th century, ascribed to Albert,
but opening, “Septem sunt regiones aeris, ut dicunt
philosophi.”
* Florence, Ashburnham 115, 15th century, “Expliciunt
Capitula de naturis Lucii Anney Senece Cordubensis,
Fortini Stoyci discipuli.”
APPENDIX II
SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE TREATISE OF THETEL ON SEALS
For the Berlin MS I follow the catalogue description by V. Rose. I have
examined personally the two Paris MSS and some of those at Oxford.
Berlin 956, 12th century, fol. 22, what Rose calls the “very peculiar
original text.” “Hic incipit liber sigillorum filiorum israel quem
fecerunt in deserto. Cum pluribus libris nobilibus magne auctoritatis
et nominis vigilante animo atque perspicaci, fratres karissimi,
studeamus,” etc., which may be translated: “Here begins the books
of seals of the children of Israel which they made in the desert.
Although, dearest brothers, we have studied many noble books of great
authority and name with vigilant and perspicacious mind, we have not
found any book so dear and precious as this is. For this is that great
and secret precious book of seals of Cehel the Israelite, which the
children of Israel made in the desert after their exodus from Egypt
according to the course and motion of the stars. And because many false
books are made in imitation of this, in order that we may perfectly
know the virtue of these seals we have noted them down in this little
book.”
BN 8454, 12-13th century, fols. 65v-66r, Liber magnus et secretus
sigillorum Cehel. The _Incipit_ and text closely resemble Digby 79,
except that the name is spelled “Cehel” and that no mention is made of
the planets.
BN 16204, 13th century, pp. 500-7. Has the same _Incipit_ as BN 8454
and Digby 79, except that the name is spelled “Theel” and that the last
clause of the _Incipit_, “et quia multi ... subnotavimus” (for which
see the description of Digby 79 below) is omitted. On the other hand,
we have the following opening paragraph of text which is not found in
BN 8454: “I, Theel, one of the sons of the children of Israel, who
after the transit of the Red Sea ate manna in the wilderness and drank
water from the rock and saw innumerable miracles with my own eyes, and
heard why from the twelve tribes twelve precious stones are worn by
order of the Lord on Aaron’s vestments. And I myself chose them. And
besides this selection I have inspected the engraving of gems made, as
the divine Nature willed, according to the movement of the signs and
the courses of the planets. And I have learned the virtues of many. And
I am called Theel (or rather, Cheel) for this reason, because I have
written of sealing (_de celatione_), that is, concerning the sculpture
of gems, and not because I have concealed and kept to myself what God
and nature have produced, for I write to you, my posterity, in order
that through these few brief words many seals may be known in the
nature of stones.”
This MS then has at pp. 500-2 the same text as BN 8454 except that
the names of the planets are inserted before the first seven seals.
At p. 502 the text as given in BN 8454 ends with the words, “Hoc
autem sigillum fertur habuisse galienus,” but the listing of seals
continues in BN 16204 until the top of p. 507, where the work of Haly
on elections begins.
Digby 79, 13th century, fols. 178v-180, opens, “In nomine Domini nostri
Jesu Christi. Hic est liber preciosus magnus atque secretus sigillorum
Eethel quem fecerunt filii Israel in deserto post exitum ab Egipto
secundum motus et cursus siderum, et quia multi ad similitudinem huius
falso facti sunt, in hoc libello subnotavimus.” This version differs
from that of Thomas of Cantimpré, since its first seal is made under
the planet Mercury and is an image of a man seated on a plow. Then
“under Mars” comes a fuller description of what is the first seal in
Thomas’s version.
Digby 193, 14th century, fol. 30, closely resembles Digby 79, except
that the name is spelled “Cethel.”
Ashmole 1471, late 14th century, fols. 65v-67v, closely resembles
Thomas of Cantimpré’s text. “Incipit liber Techel. Liber Techel nomine
editus de sculpturis lapidum a filiis Israel eo tempore quo per
desertum transierunt, et transierunt ut intrarent terram promissionis:
propterea hii lapides leguntur fuisse assignati in templo Appollonis
a rege Persarum cum consilio omnium astrologorum tam Egiptiorum quam
Caldeorum secundum cursum signorum et cursum planetarum.” Next ensue
the same preliminary observations that Thomas makes; the text of Techel
proper begins only at fol. 66v.
Canon. Misc. 285, 15th century, fol. 40, anon., “In nomine dei Amen;
Pretiosissimus liber sigillorum quem filii Israel post exitum....”
Corpus Christi 221, 14th century, fol. 55.
Selden 3464 (Bernard), #9.
CUL 1391, 14th century, fols. 204v-207v, “Liber magnus de sigillis
lapidum et de virtutibus eorum quem fecerunt Filii Israelis in
Deserto.” Like BN 8454 it closes, “hoc sigillum fertur habuisse
Gallienus.”