BARTHOLOMEW OF ENGLAND
Bartholomew on the character of his book--Question of its
date--Who are the most recent authors cited in it?--How far
are its citations first-hand?--Its medieval currency--Not
a mere compilation nor limited to Biblical topics--The
nature of demons--Psychology and physiology--Vision and
perspective--Medieval domestic science--The medieval
domestic servant--Medieval boys--Medieval girls--A
medieval dinner--Dreams and their interpretation--Medical
advice--Poisons--The waters above the firmament--The
empyrean heaven: Rabanus--Alexander of Hales--Aristotelian
theory of one heaven--As the basis of astrology--Properties
and effects of the signs and planets--Bartholomew
illustrates the general medieval acceptance of
astrology--Medieval divisions of the day and hour--Form
and matter; fire and coal--Air and its creatures--The
swallow, swallow-stone, and swallow-wort--The hoopoe and
magic--Water and fish--Jorath on whales--Geography; physical
and political--Also economic--Medieval boundaries--France
in the thirteenth century--Brittany and the British
Isles--A geography by Herodotus--Two passages about
magic--Bartholomew and Arnold of Saxony on stones--Citations
by Arnold of Saxony and Bartholomew--Virtues of
animals--_Physiologus_--Color, odor, savor, liquor.
[Sidenote: Bartholomew on the character of his book.]
_On the Properties of Things_ by Bartholomew of England[1317] is, as
has been said in a previous chapter, a work of the same sort as those
on the natures of things by his earlier fellow-countryman, Alexander
of Neckam, and his contemporary of Brabant, Thomas of Cantimpré.
Bartholomew himself clearly states the character, purpose, and scope of
his work both at its beginning and again in closing. It is primarily a
brief compilation of passages on the natures and properties of things,
which are scattered through the works both of the saints and the
philosophers, with the intent of making plainer the enigmas which the
Holy Scriptures conceal under the symbols and figures of the properties
of natural and artificial objects. Bartholomew further speaks modestly
of his work as an elementary treatise, text-book, or work of reference
for the benefit of “young scholars and the general reader (_simplices
et parvuli_) who because of the infinite number of books cannot look
up the properties of the objects of which Scripture treats, nor are
they able to find quickly even a superficial treatment of what they
are after.”[1318] Bartholomew’s book is therefore “a simple and rude”
compilation, but he hopes that it may prove useful to persons who, like
himself, are not advanced scholars. But after mastering this elementary
treatise, they should proceed to more subtle and specialized works. And
if they think that anything should be added to what he has given, let
them add it. From the tone of these remarks compared to those of Thomas
of Cantimpré one would infer that the number of available books and
also the amount of available knowledge had considerably increased since
Thomas wrote. Yet at the most Bartholomew cannot have written very
many years later than Thomas, and it is most likely that their books
appeared almost simultaneously.
[Sidenote: Question of its date.]
If Bartholomew’s last sentence is interpreted as an open invitation to
his readers to issue revised editions of the book or at least add to
their own copies further extracts from the writings of the saints and
the philosophers, we shall feel that it is rather risky to attempt to
determine the date of the first appearance of the _De proprietatibus
rerum_ from the date of the latest works cited in our present copies.
But all the manuscripts seem to be essentially alike regardless of
date, and the printed edition seems to vary little from the text of
the earliest manuscripts. To assist us in determining when Bartholomew
lived and wrote we have a request from the General of the Franciscan
Order in 1230 asking the French provincial to send to Magdeburg in
Saxony Brother Bartholomaeus Anglicus to act as lecturer there.[1319]
Salimbene, writing in 1284, cites a passage from Bartholomew concerning
elephants and looks back upon him as a great clerk who lectured on
the whole Bible in course at Paris.[1320] Bartholomew speaks of the
inhabitants of Livonia as having been forced by the Germans from the
cult of demons to the Faith of one God, and states that by divine grace
and the cooperation of the Germans they are now believed to be freed
from their former errors.[1321] But since the conquest of Livonia began
as early as 1202, this passage does not serve to date Bartholomew’s
work very definitely.
[Sidenote: Who are the most recent authors cited in it?]
It has already been remarked by the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_
that in the bibliography at the close of his work Bartholomew mentions
no writer of later date than the early thirteenth century.[1322] As
Bartholomew himself states, however, he uses “many other” authorities
than those given in the list, and other names are found sprinkled
through his text. In the printed edition of 1488 the _Speculum
naturale_ of Vincent of Beauvais, which was not written until 1250,
is cited,[1323] but this mention is found in the last sentence
of a chapter and may be pretty certainly regarded as a later
interpolation.[1324] In citing commentaries upon the works of Aristotle
the printed text confuses the abbreviations _Albu._, _Alber._, and
_Alfre._ or _Alur._, standing respectively for Albumasar, Albertus
Magnus, and Aluredus or Alfred of England who alone is listed in
Bartholomew’s bibliography. There seems to be no certain citation of
Albert. If Bartholomew had read Albert’s sharp criticism of Jorath,
he perhaps would not have made use of that author. The bibliography
includes the names of Michael Scot who was dead by 1235 and of Robert
of Lincoln, by whom Grosseteste must be meant, who was born about
1175, became bishop of Lincoln in 1235, and died in 1253. A Gilbertus
mentioned in the bibliography may be either the medical writer, Gilbert
of England, whose own date is somewhat uncertain, or a corruption for
Gerbert. These three writers are seldom, if ever, cited by name in the
text of Bartholomew. But he does cite Alexander of Hales[1325] who died
in 1245. On the whole it seems possible that Bartholomew wrote his work
as early as 1230.
[Sidenote: How far are its citations first-hand?]
The _Histoire Littéraire_ asserts that “Bartholomew surely was not
acquainted with all the authors, true or supposititious, whom he is
pleased to enumerate,” but it gives no grounds except the list itself
for this sceptical attitude. It is true that in the case of a few
authorities in his list, such as Scipio Africanus, Ninus Delphicus,
and Epicurus, it would have been as difficult to find any works by
them then as now. But I believe that Bartholomew was a wide reader
and acquainted with the greater part of the books and authors that
he cites. Modern writers concerning medieval learning have too often
proceeded upon the gratuitous assumption that medieval writers seldom
were directly acquainted with the authorities which they cite. But
one suspects that those who have assumed this were none too well
acquainted themselves either with the works citing or cited. And
why should medieval scholars take their citations at second hand?
The original works were fairly accessible; the earliest manuscripts
we have of them are almost invariably medieval, and probably they
had many, many more copies that are now destroyed, and possibly
some originals that are now forever lost. As for Bartholomew, his
citations are so numerous, so varied, so specific that they must be
largely first-hand.[1326] Obviously he did not spare himself trouble
in making a book to save others trouble. Bartholomew also seems to be
scrupulously honest in his citations. For instance, Pythagoras is cited
but once in the _Etymologies_ of Isidore,[1327] and when Bartholomew
makes use of this passage, he gives both Pythagoras and Isidore
credit.[1328] It is therefore only fair to Bartholomew to admit that,
had his citation of Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_ been drawn
from any third author, he would have given him credit too. Bartholomew
cites Pliny’s _Natural History_ by book and chapter and is evidently
directly acquainted with it. On the whole, I am inclined to think that
medieval writers had read quite as much of the works listed in their
bibliographies as modern writers have of those listed in _theirs_.
[Sidenote: Its medieval currency.]
In the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris alone there are eighteen
manuscripts of the _De proprietatibus rerum_, chiefly of the late
thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and the _Histoire Littéraire_
tells us that its title appears in a catalogue of the books which
the medieval booksellers of Paris rented to the students at that
university.[1329] The work also occurs with frequency in the manuscript
collections of England, Germany, and Italy. Hain’s list of fourteen
printed editions of it before 1500 is incomplete, and the British
Museum catalogue of books printed in Germany alone in the fifteenth
century mentions nine editions. It was translated into French under
Charles V in the fourteenth century, and also appeared in English,
Spanish, and Dutch versions, all three of which were printed at the
end of the fifteenth century. These facts indicate that the work was,
and continued until the sixteenth century to be, widely used as a
text-book, and suggest the further thought that such widely multiplied
and disseminated elementary and popular works are more likely to
have survived the stagnant and destructive period of the Black Death
and Hundred Years War and to have come down to us than are the more
advanced, original, and elaborate works of the thirteenth century. Be
that as it may, we must not look upon the _De proprietatibus rerum_ as
a specimen of the most advanced medieval scholarship, but rather as an
illustration of the rough general knowledge which every person with any
pretense to culture was then supposed to possess. At the same time,
the large number of authorities cited shows how much wider reading a
medieval student might do.
[Sidenote: Not a mere compilation nor limited to Biblical topics.]
On the other hand, we must not be misled by Bartholomew’s humble tone
of self-depreciation nor even by his assertion, repeated at the close
as well as the opening of his work, that he presents “little or nothing
of my own, but simply the words of the saints and the sayings of the
philosophers.” As a matter of fact, he not infrequently alludes to
contemporary matters or describes daily life without mentioning any
authorities, and his amusing accounts of such animals as cats and
dogs, or boys and girls, or his instructions how to set a table and
give a dinner, are almost entirely his own and show considerable power
of observation and dry humor. His chapters on geography, too, deal
in large measure and with unusual fulness with the feudal states and
peoples of his own day: Scotland, Ireland, Flanders, Brabant, Anjou,
Poitou, and so on through a long list alphabetically arranged. In
these and in other chapters he forgets all about the fact that he is
supposedly explaining only those things mentioned in the Bible, and
is manifestly actuated by a scientific interest in present facts and
phenomena. The influence of Isidore’s _Etymologies_ upon Bartholomew’s
book is evident, and Bartholomew often makes Isidore his starting point
in discussing a given topic. But he also often goes far beyond the
other’s brief statements; it seems clear that the scanty contents of
the _Etymologies_ are no longer deemed sufficient even in an elementary
encylopedia and general text-book. Bartholomew seems to use the
scissors less than Thomas of Cantimpré, to state things more in his own
words, and not to make such long extracts from or paraphrases of other
works.
However, in Bartholomew’s first book, whose subject is God, the first
two chapters are taken entirely and perhaps discreetly, since the
difficult problem of the Trinity is under discussion, from an _Extra_
of Innocent III, while the third chapter is drawn from more varied
authorities, such as Augustine, the treatise on the Trinity ascribed
to Boethius,[1330] and the more recent Hugh and Richard, both of St.
Victor. Presently the theme of divine names is discussed[1331] and
Bartholomew lists and explains the ten Hebrew names of God, which are
found also in Isidore, namely: El, Eloe, Sabbaoth, Zelioz or Ramathel,
Eyel, Adonay, Ya, Tetragrammaton, Saday, and Eloym.
[Sidenote: The nature of demons.]
In the second book on the properties of angels is also discussed the
nature of demons.[1332] They are naturally perspicacious in matters
of science and powerful by their “sense of nature”--a phrase which
we have already met in William of Auvergne, whom, however, I think
Bartholomew does not cite; perhaps it was a technical expression that
spread rapidly from mouth to mouth of medieval psychologists as such
expressions do today,--experience of time, and knowledge of Scripture.
They can predict many future events, partly because their knowledge
of nature gained through their subtler senses is superior to man’s,
partly because of their longer lives which permit them to learn more,
partly by angelic revelation. Their bodies were celestial before they
transgressed but now are aerial. Apuleius’s characterization of them is
repeated _via_ Augustine, whose explanation is also given, that they
know occult virtues in nature which are hidden from us and by which
they are able to accelerate natural processes and work feats of magic
such as those performed by Pharaoh’s magicians.
[Sidenote: Psychology and physiology.]
Bartholomew’s third book may be described as psychological and
discusses the human mind or soul (_anima_), of which definitions by
various Greek philosophers are repeated, and the senses. The fourth
and fifth books are physiological. These three books seem to be based
mainly upon the writings of Constantinus Africanus; less frequently
Aristotle and other authorities are cited. One treatise is ascribed to
Avicenna and Constantinus which is not in Peter the Deacon’s list of
the latter’s works, namely, a treatise on poisonous animals and poisons
and presumably a translation of Avicenna by Constantinus.[1333] In this
connection we are told that while some animals have poisonous tongues
like snakes, others have medicinal and healing tongues like the dog, as
Cassiodorus says, and either from the goodness of nature or from some
occult property.[1334] We have already noted elsewhere Bartholomew’s
acceptance of the usual medieval theory of three brain cells devoted
to three mental faculties, in which connection he cites Johannitius
or Hunain ibn Ishak.[1335] In discussing the disease of _melancholia_
Bartholomew tells of a noble whom he knew who imagined that he was a
cat and insisted upon sleeping under the bed in order to watch the
mouse holes.[1336] In a later passage in his seventh book Bartholomew
repeats Constantinus’ distinction between mania as an infection of
the anterior cell of the brain with injury to the imagination and
melancholia as an infection of the central cell with loss of one’s
reason.[1337]
[Sidenote: Vision and perspective.]
In discussing vision Bartholomew gives the views of “an author of the
science of perspective” precedence over those of Constantinus.[1338]
This author believes that in vision three coterminous pyramids or cones
are formed with the apex of each in the pupil of the eye and the base
formed by the object seen. One pyramid is made up of _species_ from
the object coming along straight lines to the center of the eye. The
second pyramid is made by the vision going out from the eye to the
object seen. The third pyramid consists of light, which, as Bartholomew
explains elsewhere[1339] on the authority of Basel and Dionysius
and Augustine, is a distinct substance by which other bodies are
illuminated. Light was created three days before sun and moon which are
simply vehicles for it. But while this light is always shining, whether
visibly or invisibly, it produces illumination only when other bodies
are in a condition to receive it. The human eye can see itself only by
the reflection of rays, “and possibly the vision delights in the sight
of a mirror because through reflection of rays it is, by returning to
itself, fortified as it were and in a way strengthened.”[1340]
[Sidenote: Medieval domestic science.]
Bartholomew’s sixth book is entitled, “Of ages,” but really deals
more with matters of daily family and domestic life, discussing in
addition to age, death, infancy, childhood, manhood, such family
relationships as father, mother, and daughter, and such domestic
concerns as servants, food and drink, dinners and banquets, sleep and
waking, dreams and exercise. This last topic of exercise is discussed
largely in the words of a sermon by Fulgentius, but in other chapters
Bartholomew writes so vividly from his own observation that he deserves
quotation, although the themes are somewhat of a digression from our
main subject.[1341]
[Sidenote: The medieval domestic servant.]
“The handmaid is a female slave deputed to make herself useful to the
housewife. She is assigned to the more laborious and demeaning tasks,
she is fed with coarser food, she is clad in meaner clothing, she is
oppressed by the yoke of servitude.” Her son becomes a serf and, if she
is of servile condition, so does a freeman who marries her, nor is she
permitted to marry as she chooses. “Like the serf, she is because of
the vice of ingratitude recalled after being manumitted, is afflicted
with scoldings, is bruised by rods and beatings, is oppressed by varied
and conflicting vexations and anxieties, is scarcely permitted to
breathe amid her miseries.” Such painting of her woes does not imply
much sympathy on Bartholomew’s part, however, since he concludes by
saying that it is written that whoso nourishes his servant delicately
will find him insolent in the end.[1342]
[Sidenote: Medieval boys.]
Boys have a great capacity for mischief but are susceptible to
discipline, if put under tutors and compelled to submit to it. Their
constitutions are hot and moist, their flesh is soft, their bodies
are flexible, agile, and light; their minds are docile. They lead a
safe life without care and worry, appreciating only play, fearing no
danger more than the rod, loving apples better than gold. They go naked
unashamed; they are heedless of praise or scolding, easily angered and
easily placated, easily hurt in the body and unable to endure much
work. The hot humor that dominates them makes them restless and fickle.
They tend to eat too much and are susceptible to various diseases in
consequence. They think only of the present and care nothing for the
future; they love games and vanities but refuse to attend to gain and
utility. “The least things they think the greatest, and vice versa.”
“They want what is hurtful and contrary to them.” They do not remember
favors received. All that they see they desire and imitate. They prefer
to talk with and take advice from other boys, and shun the company of
their elders. They can’t keep secrets. They laugh or cry easily, and
they are continually shouting, talking, or chattering, and can scarcely
keep still even while they are asleep.[1343]
[Sidenote: Medieval girls.]
Girls “are in constitution hot, moist, and of delicate health; in
physique graceful and flexible and beautiful; in mental attitude modest
and timid and playful; in their social relations well trained in
manners, cautious and reticent in speech, luxurious in dress.” After
quoting Aristotle to the effect that women generally have longer and
softer hair than men and a longer neck, and remarking the peculiarities
of their complexions and figures, Bartholomew says further that they
have slenderer and more flexible hands and feet, a weaker voice,
voluble and ready speech, that they take short steps, and that in
mind they tend to be haughty, are prone to wrath, tenacious in hate,
merciful, jealous, impatient of labor, docile, tricky, bitter, and
“headlong in lust.”[1344] Whether Bartholomew is inconsistent in this
passage or believes that the female nature is, the reader must judge.
[Sidenote: A medieval dinner.]
These are Bartholomew’s instructions for giving a dinner party: “First
the food is prepared; at the same time the guests are assembled; chairs
and also stools are required; in the dining room tables are set and the
table furnishings are arranged and adorned. The guests with the host
are placed at the head table, but they do not sit down at table before
the hands of the guests are washed; next the host’s children and then
the servants are grouped together at table. Spoons, knives, and salt
cellars are first placed upon the table. Loaves of bread and cups of
wine are presently added. There follow many and varied courses; the
butlers and waiters serve each person diligently. The guests joyfully
engage in vying with one another in pledging toasts; they are cheered
with viols and citharas; now the wines and now the courses are
renewed; they divide and share with one another the dishes which happen
to be opposite them; finally the fruit and dessert are brought in.
When dinner is finished, the table furnishings and remains of food are
carried away and the tables are set aside. Hands are again washed and
wiped; thanks are returned to God and to the host; for the sake of good
cheer the cups go round again and again. When these features of the
dinner are over, the guests either are offered couches for some rest,
or are allowed to return home.”[1345]
[Sidenote: Dreams and their interpretation.]
In a chapter on dreams Bartholomew declares that they are sometimes
true and sometimes false. One should neither put indiscriminate faith
in them nor spurn them entirely, since sometimes certain conjectures
concerning the future may be had through dreams. Moreover, the meaning
of some dreams is evident at once; others require interpretation.
Dreams arise from varied sources, being produced by divine inspiration,
by angelic administration, by diabolic illusion, or by natural and
bodily causes.[1346]
[Sidenote: Medical advice.]
Bartholomew’s seventh book is medical, treating of infirmities in
seventy chapters. His desire to be brief is probably what restrains
him from including any long medical concoctions. He continues to make
much use of Constantinus Africanus, who is cited in almost every
chapter, and whose “many other experiments”[1347] Bartholomew often
has not time to include. One of the cures cited from Constantinus is
to scarify the shin bones in order to cure a headache, the theory
being that this will remove the injurious humor from the head to the
lower extremities.[1348] A part of the treatment prescribed for cases
of frenzy is to shave the scalp and wash it with tepid vinegar or
cover it with plasters made of the lung of a pig or cow. Keeping the
patient firmly bound in a dark place, bleeding him, and abstaining
from answering his foolish questions are other features of the regimen
suggested.[1349] To rouse a patient from a state of stupor and
lethargy it is recommended to pull hard at his hair or beard, dash cold
water frequently in his face, or make a stench under him.[1350] An
“experiment” against epilepsy from Platearius consists in scarifying
three drops of blood from the patient’s scalp and at the end of the fit
giving them to him to eat with a crow’s egg.[1351] Indeed crow’s eggs
alone are regarded as quite beneficial. To Platearius is also credited
the following method “of curing or at least palliating leprosy.”[1352]
Take a red snake with a white belly, remove the venom, cut off the
head and tail, cook it with leeks, and administer it frequently with
food,--a preparation roughly similar to theriac. Wine in which a
snake has lain putrefying a long time is “a medicine useful for many
diseases,” and Bartholomew repeats the tale we have heard before of
the woman who caused her blind husband to recover his sight instead of
killing him when she cooked a snake instead of an eel with garlic for
him to eat. After such liberties had been taken with his blindness, one
would expect a husband to recover his sight, if he could!
[Sidenote: Poisons.]
The poisons of venomous animals differ. The venom of the viper is hot
and dry; that of the scorpion, cold and dry; that of the spider, cold
and moist. Avicenna says that the poison of the male is really more
deadly than that of the female, but female serpents have more teeth
and so are perhaps worse on the whole. The venom of the old is more
injurious than that of the young; that of a fasting animal is more
harmful than that of a full animal; and poisons are worse in summer
than winter, and at noon than at night.[1353] “Diascorides” says[1354]
that river crabs possess an occult virtue against the bite of mad dogs,
and their ashes taken with gentian are a singular remedy. A scorpion
sting may be cured by placing oil in which the scorpion has been
drowned or boiled upon the puncture, or by pulverizing the scorpion’s
body and placing it upon the wound. The idea of course is that the
poison will return to the body from which it came.
[Sidenote: The waters above the firmament.]
In book eight Bartholomew discusses the universe and celestial bodies.
According to the tradition of the saints there is a visible and an
invisible heaven. The visible heaven is multiplex and subdivides into
seven heavens, the aerial, ethereal, fiery, Olympian, the firmament,
the aqueous or crystalline, and the empyrean. The authority of
Scripture concerning the waters above the firmament causes Bartholomew
to accept the existence of an aqueous or crystalline heaven. But he
rejects Bede’s view that these waters are cold and congealed in order
to temper the excessive heat generated by the swift revolution of the
other heavens, for Job tells us that there is concord and harmony
in the heavens, and cold and humid waters would be contrary to the
celestial substance of the heavens. Therefore “the moderns” have in
Bartholomew’s opinion “investigated the inmost secrets of philosophy
more profoundly,” when, as Alexander of Hales states, they suggest
that those waters are neither frigid, fluid, and humid, nor congealed,
solid, and ponderous, but on the contrary very mobile and remarkable
for their clearness and transparency. It is not because they are
congealed but because they are transparent that this heaven is called
crystalline.[1355] In other words, the “waters above the firmament” are
not really waters. And the original modern investigator who ventured
to dispute Bede’s authority on the subject of the waters above the
firmament was not Alexander of Hales but, as we have seen, William of
Conches, whom Bartholomew lists in his bibliography and quotes in other
passages, although he does not mention him by name here.
[Sidenote: The empyrean heaven: Rabanus.]
Of the other heavens Bartholomew gives most space to the empyrean. It
is by nature immobile and unmoved and consequently is not essential
like the other heavens for the continued generation of things in our
inferior world, but rather, as Alexander of Hales says, to round out
the universe and the types of bodies in it. Bartholomew continues:
“The empyrean heaven is the first body, simplest in nature, the least
corporeal, the subtlest, the first firmament of the world, largest in
quantity, lucid in quality, spherical in shape, loftiest in location
since farthest from the center, embracing in its amplitude spirits and
bodies visible and invisible, and the abode of the supreme God; for
God may be everywhere, yet he is said especially to be in the heaven,
since there shines most powerfully the working of his virtue.”[1356]
After this description of the last of the visible heavens as the abode
of invisible spirits and of God Himself there does not seem to be much
call for an invisible heaven, which Bartholomew himself seems by this
time to have forgotten. For the passage just quoted he cites Rabanus
as his source “who employs the words of Basil in the _Hexaemeron_,”
but I have been unable to find the passage either in the _Hexaemeron_
of Basil or the works of Rabanus Maurus.[1357] Nor have I been able to
find several other citations which Bartholomew makes from Rabanus in
matters astronomical and astrological.
[Sidenote: Alexander of Hales.]
A word may be introduced concerning Alexander of Hales, whom
Bartholomew has twice cited in the foregoing passages, but whom we
probably shall not have occasion to mention again. Like Bartholomew,
he was an Englishman and a Franciscan, and Bartholomew may have been
either an attendant upon his lectures or his colleague at Paris.
He died in 1245 and is known as one of the first to attempt to fit
together previous Christian opinion and theology with the newly
introduced works of Aristotle and writings of the Arabs. Of this we see
evidence in the citations made from him by Bartholomew. But Alexander’s
field was primarily theology and not natural science.
[Sidenote: Aristotelian theory of one heaven.]
While the saints may regard the heavens as manifold and list as many as
seven of them,[1358] the philosophers will admit only one heaven, says
Bartholomew, who this time correctly quotes Basil as affirming in the
_Hexaemeron_ that “the philosophers would rather gnaw out their tongues
than admit that there are many heavens.” Bartholomew also presents
Aristotle’s view in the _Liber de celo et mundo_ that the heaven is
characterized by the greatest possible simplicity and purity and has no
division or contrariety of parts. According to the new translation of
_De celo et mundo_ it is “a perfect complete unit to which there is no
like, neither fabricated nor generated,” and with an equal, single, and
circular motion. In the _De causis elementorum_ Aristotle holds further
that the heaven is a fifth element, differing in natural properties and
distinct from the four elements and not like them subject to generation
and corruption.[1359] Indeed, they would destroy one another by their
mutual contrariety and repugnance were it not for the conciliating
influence of celestial virtue.[1360] But while the heaven is one, it
has many orbs and circles of varying figure and magnitude, and there
is a greater aggregation of light in the stars than in other parts
of the sky. Such variations account for the varying or even contrary
effects produced by the heaven in our lower world at different times
and places, and explain why the pure sky causes corruption as well as
generation here below.
[Sidenote: As the basis of astrology.]
The Aristotelian foundation thus laid for the superstructure of
astrological science and art is apparently accepted by Bartholomew, who
states that “the Creator established the heaven as the cause and origin
of generation and corruption, and therefore it was necessary that it
should not be subject to generation and corruption.” In short, the
universe divides into two parts. The heaven, beginning with the circle
of the moon, is the nobler, simpler, superior, and active portion
of the universe. The other part, extending from the sphere of the
moon downward to earth’s center, is inferior, passive, acted upon and
governed by the heaven. In all his later scientific and astrological
discussion Bartholomew implies this hypothesis, and, after the two
chapters which we have already summarized on the waters above the
firmament and the empyrean heaven, pays no more attention to the seven
heavens of the saints. The firmament, “called by the philosophers the
first heaven and the last, in whose convexity are situated the bodies
of stars and planets,” absorbs his attention during the remaining
forty-eight chapters of his eighth book. “By means of its motion, it is
the effective principle of generation and corruption in the inferior
world.” Rabanus explains how its rays converge as toward a center upon
the earth’s surface and exert a concentrated impression there; and the
science of perspective also illustrates this. The three less stable
elements, air, fire, and water, obey the firmament even to the extent
of local motion, as is illustrated by the tides. The element earth is
not influenced in this way, but produces diverse species from itself in
obedience to the celestial impressions which it receives.
[Sidenote: Properties and effects of the signs and planets.]
Bartholomew discusses the signs of the zodiac in much the usual
astrological fashion. They are given animal names because in their
effects they represent the properties of those animals.[1361] In their
effects, too, they may be distinguished as hot or cold, masculine or
feminine, diurnal or nocturnal; and they are grouped in trios with
the four elements and cardinal points and in varied relations with
the planets. Each governs its portion of the human body; thus the Ram
“dominates the head and face, and produces a hairy body, a crooked
frame, an oblique face, heavy eyes, short ears, a long neck.”[1362]
Each sign also has its bearings on human life; thus Virgo is “the
house of sickness, of serfs and handmaids and the domestic animals.
It signifies inconstancy and changing from place to place.”[1363]
Bartholomew indeed devotes a separate chapter to “the properties and
occult virtues” of each sign “according to the astrologers.”[1364] The
seven planets by their progress through the signs and conjunctions in
them influence every creature on earth.[1365] Bartholomew outlines
their successive control of the formation of the child in the womb.
He also devotes a chapter to the influence of each planet. Mars, for
example, “disposes men to mobility and levity of mind, to wrath and
animosity and other choleric passions; it also fits men for arts
employing fire such as those of smiths and bakers, just as Saturn
produces agriculturists and porters of heavy weights, and Jupiter on
the contrary turns out men adapted to lighter pursuits such as orators
and money-changers.”[1366] Bartholomew also discusses the head and tail
of the dragon as “two stars which are not planets but yet seem to have
the nature and influence of the planets.”[1367] The fixed stars, too,
have their influence, causing storms or clear weather and, according
to the _mathematici_, presignifying sad or glad events. Bartholomew
further sets forth the theory of the _magnus annus_ or return of all
the stars to the same positions after an interval of 15,000 or 36,000
years. “But whatever the philosophers have said concerning it, this
much is sure that it is not for us to determine the last day.”[1368]
God alone knows. Bartholomew’s most frequently cited authorities on
the subject of astrology seem to be Albumasar, Messahala[1369] (Ma
Sha’Allah), and Alphraganus.
[Sidenote: Bartholomew illustrates the general medieval acceptance of
astrology.]
Thus Bartholomew, a Franciscan in good standing, who lectured on the
Bible at Paris and was called by the General of his Order to lecture
in Saxony, in a work intended for elementary students and the general
reader, far from engaging in any tilt with the astrologers or
attacking their art as involving fatalism and contrary to morality and
free will, affirms the general law of the control of earth by sky and
repeats with little or no question a mass of astrological detail from
Arabian writers. After such an exhibition as this of what a commonplace
and matter-of-course affair astrological theory was in the thirteenth
century, how impossible it is to have the least sympathy with those
specialists in medieval learning who would have the work of Daniel of
Morley shunned like the pest because of its astrological doctrine,
or account for Bacon’s imprisonment in 1278 by his astrological
doctrine, or deny that Albertus Magnus could have written the _Speculum
astronomiae_ with its astrological doctrine. But of Bacon and Albertus
more later.
[Sidenote: Medieval divisions of the day and hour.]
Bartholomew’s ninth book deals with time and its parts. He defines a
day as the time occupied by a complete revolution of the sun around
the earth, and states that a day consists of twenty-four hours, or
of four “quarters” of six hours each. But he seems unacquainted with
our division of the hour into sixty minutes and the minute into sixty
seconds. Instead he subdivides the hour into four “points” or forty
“moments.” Each moment is thus equivalent to a minute and a half of
our time, and it may be divided further into twelve _unciae_ (ounces),
while each _uncia_ includes forty-seven atoms, making 22,560 atoms
in an hour as against 3,600 of our seconds. Honorius of Autun in his
_De imagine mundi_, a work written presumably in the first part of
the twelfth century, speaks of the hour as a twelfth part of the day,
but makes it consist of four “points,” forty “moments,” and 22,560
atoms just as Bartholomew does. But Honorius also divides the hour
into ten “minutes,” fifteen “parts,” and sixty _ostenta_, which last
would correspond to our minutes, if his hour was of the same length as
ours. Honorius does not mention the _unciae_ of Bartholomew.[1370]
Bartholomew further tells us that Sunday is called the Lord’s Day and
is privileged in many particulars, since on it the world was created,
the Lord was born, rose from the dead, and also sent the Holy Spirit.
We have already presented Bartholomew’s discussion of the Egyptian days
in an earlier chapter.
[Sidenote: Form and matter: fire and coal.]
The tenth book, in nine brief chapters, is entitled, “Form and Matter,”
but after one chapter on form, discusses the elements. An element,
according to Constantinus, is a simple substance and the least particle
of a compound body. The rest of the chapters are devoted to the
particular element fire and to things closely associated with it, such
as flame, smoke, sparks, and ashes. _Carbo_, “Rabanus says, is fire
actually incorporated and united with earthly matter.” Bartholomew’s
further description suggests our coal, but perhaps he has only charcoal
in mind.
[Sidenote: Air and its creatures.]
The eleventh book treats in sixteen chapters of the element air and
its “passions,” such as winds, clouds, rainbows, dew, rain, hail,
snow, thunder and lightning, and leads up to the following book on
birds, or rather, creatures of the air, since bees, flies, crickets,
locusts, bats, and griffins are included in the alphabetical list
of thirty-eight chapters. The birds described are for the most part
familiar ones: the eagle, hawk, owl, dove, turtle-dove, quail,
stork, crow, crane, hen, swallow, kite, partridge, peacock, pelican,
screech-owl, sparrow, vulture, hoopoe, phoenix. Some of these creatures
place precious stones in their nests to keep off snakes, the eagle
employing the gem achates[1371] and the griffin an emerald.[1372]
[Sidenote: The swallow, swallow-stone, and swallow-wort.]
Swallows have gems called _celidonii_ in their gizzards, one white and
one red. The red variety is called masculine because it is of greater
virtue than the white kind. These stones are especially valuable if
they have been extracted from the chick before it touches the ground,
“as is said in _Lapidarius_ where their virtues are described as
Constantinus says.”[1373] _Lapidarius_ can scarcely mean Marbod’s poem
on gems, since he wrote later than Constantinus Africanus, and while he
discusses the _chelidonius_, he says nothing of extracting it so soon
and describes the colors of its two varieties as black and red,[1374]
and so does Bartholomew later on.[1375] Marcellus Empiricus had called
them black and white.[1376] _Chelidonius_ seems to be derived from the
Greek word for swallow, χελιδών, and to mean the swallow-stone. Pliny
mentions two varieties but simply states that they are like the swallow
in color, not that they come from its gizzard. Furthermore he describes
the color of one as purple on one side, of the other as “purple
besprinkled with black spots.”[1377] Solinus mentions swallows but
says nothing of any stone connected with them. Bartholomew, however,
also mentions the herb _celidonia_ or swallow-wort. He cites Macrobius
for the story that, if anyone blinds the young of swallows, the parent
birds restore their offspring’s sight by anointing their eyes with the
juice of this herb, a statement which is also found in Pliny.[1378] Not
only does the swallow contain gems of great virtue and know of healing
herbs; it has medical properties itself. For instance, blood extracted
from its right wing is a remedy for the eyes.
[Sidenote: The hoopoe and magic.]
Of the birds described by Bartholomew the _upupa_ or hoopoe is
especially associated with the practice of magic. Pliny cites the poet
Aeschylus as saying that the bird changes its form;[1379] and from
Aristotle to modern French peasants it has been believed to build its
nest of human ordure.[1380] After quoting Isidore, who in part uses
Pliny,[1381] for the bird’s supposed filthy habits, its frequenting
sepulchers, and the statement that anyone anointed with its blood
will see demons suffocating him in his dreams, Bartholomew adds that
its heart is used in sorceries. Students of nature (_Phisici_) say
that when it grows old and cannot see or fly, its offspring tear off
its outworn pinions and bathe its eyes with the juices of herbs--thus
just reversing the relation between the swallow and its young--and
warm it under their wings until its feathers grow again and, perfectly
renovated, it is able to see and fly as well as they. In Basil’s
_Hexaemeron_ a similar story is told of the filial devotion of young
storks toward their aged parent. The hoopoe’s renovation by its young
also is included in the Latin bestiaries,[1382] but Bartholomew
appears to cite _Phisici_ rather than _Physiologus_.[1383] Thomas of
Cantimpré’s chapter on the hoopoe is similar to Bartholomew’s except
that all he says to connect it with magic is that anointing one’s
temples with its blood protects one from sorcerers and enchanters; but
“how this is, Experimenter does not state.” Vincent of Beauvais gives
a somewhat fuller account of the hoopoe in his _Speculum naturale_
and the bird’s properties are also treated by Albertus Magnus in his
_De animalibus_,[1384] and in the _De mirabilibus mundi_ ascribed to
him, also by Petrus Hispanus in the _Thesaurus pauperum_,[1385] and
by Arnald of Villanova in _Remedia contra maleficia_. For the use of
the bird’s heart in magic Vincent cites a _Liber de natura rerum_,
which perhaps is the _Liber rerum_ cited by Thomas of Cantimpré,
who, however, in that case failed to copy the statement in question.
Vincent attributes to “Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_,” the
statement that sprinkling a sleeping person with the blood of the
hoopoe will cause him to see phantasms of demons, which is essentially
the same statement that Bartholomew draws from Isidore and Pliny. But
Bartholomew sometimes cites Pythagoras in _The Book of the Romans_.
These instances show the difficulty of dealing with medieval citations,
but on the whole indicate that Vincent used independently the same
sources as Thomas and Bartholomew and made a different selection from
them.
[Sidenote: Waters and fish.]
In the thirteenth book Bartholomew deals with the element water, with
wells, streams, seas, ponds, pools, and drops of water, with some
particular bodies of water such as the Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan,
Lake of Tiberias, and Mediterranean Sea. In the last chapter fish are
considered. As in the account of birds, use is made of Isidore and
Pliny, notably concerning the cleverness with which fish escape the
snares laid for them by fishermen. Some fish are said to help their
fellows withdraw from the basket-like traps set for them by fishermen
by seizing their tails in their mouths and pulling them out backwards.
Aristotle, too, is cited and Avicenna is referred to several times
on the question whether a particular fish is edible or not. But an
authority especially employed in this chapter is Jorath or Iorat, who
in the bibliography at the end of the work is called a Chaldean. From
his book on animals Bartholomew takes such details as that there are
fish who live only three hours, who conceive from dew alone or in
accord with the phases of the moon and the rising and setting of the
stars. Dolphins, when a man is drowning, can tell from the odor whether
he has ever eaten the flesh of a dolphin. If he has not, they rescue
him and bring him safe to land; if he has, they devour him on the spot.
[Sidenote: Jorath on whales.]
Bartholomew also depends upon Jorath for his account of whales, which
were not treated of by Pliny. The whale possesses a superabundance of
sperm which floats on the water and, when collected and dried, turns
to amber. When hungry, the whale has only to open its mouth and emit a
fragrant odor like amber, and the other fish, attracted and delighted
thereby, swim into its jaws and down its throat. On some occasions,
however, this pleasant breath, if it may be so termed, of the whale
saves the other fish instead of luring them on to destruction. When
a certain serpentine and venomous fish approaches, they take refuge
behind the whale, who then repels the fetid odor of the newcomer by the
sweetness of his own effusion. While Bartholomew lists the whale along
with fish, he notes that Jorath says that terrestrial matter dominates
in it over water, and that consequently it becomes very corpulent and
fat, and in its old age dust collects on its back to such an extent
that vegetation grows there and the creature is often mistaken for an
island and lures sailors to their destruction,--a reminiscence, we
may suppose, of one of Lucian’s stories. So fat is the whale that he
must be wounded deeply to feel it at all, but once his inner flesh is
reached by the weapon, he cannot endure the bitterness of the salt
water, seeks the shore, and is easily captured. The whale cherishes
its young with wondrous love, and when they are stranded on shoals it
frees them by spouting water over them. When a severe storm is raging,
it swallows them and they abide safely in its belly until the storm is
past, when it vomits them forth again.
[Sidenote: Geography, physical and political.]
In the fourteenth book Bartholomew treats of earth, and besides
defining mountains, hills, valleys, plains, fields, meadows, deserts,
caves, and ditches in general, describes over thirty particular peaks
or mountain ranges, most of which are named in the Bible, like Ararat,
Bethel, Hermon, Hebron, and Horeb. But in the fifteenth book, on
Provinces, his geography is that of classical antiquity and of the
feudal world of his own time rather than that of Scripture. Where the
medieval region was known under the same name in antiquity, he is
apt to continue to use the old description of it, even though it may
be really out-of-date and no longer closely applicable. Sometimes,
however, as in the chapter on Burgundy, he uses only a little of
Isidore’s description and apparently writes the rest of the paragraph
from personal knowledge. And in the case of new localities and names,
for which he can find no ancient and early medieval authorities, he
describes the province intelligently and accurately as it is in his own
time. On the whole his account, although its 175 chapters are brief, is
of considerable value[1386] for the political geography of Europe in
the thirteenth century, both as a general survey showing what regions
he deemed important enough to mention[1387] and what he thought might
be omitted, and also often for particular details concerning particular
places, while it is sometimes enlivened by the spice of local or racial
prejudice.
[Sidenote: Also economic.]
Citing Isidore, Bartholomew divides the world as in a T map into Asia,
occupying one-half the circle, and Europe and Africa each occupying a
quarter. Indeed he says later that Africa is smaller than Europe;[1388]
Africa of course had not yet been circumnavigated. In speaking of
Alemannia he alludes to other provinces “in either Germany” which are
not included in his list of chapter headings: Austria and Bavaria near
the Danube, Alsace along the Rhine, “and many others which it would
be tedious to enumerate one by one.”[1389] He describes Apulia as the
maritime region in Italy separated from the island of Sicily by an arm
of the sea, and as a very populous land, full of gold and silver, rich
in grain, wine, and oil, famous for its renowned cities, well fortified
in castles and towns, fertile and fecund in varied crops. Brindisi
(Brundusium) is its metropolis, and across the sea from Apulia to the
south is Barbary.[1390] Bartholomew thus uses the term “Apulia” as “Le
Puglie” is used today, to include both ancient Apulia and Calabria,
which he does not mention by that name. His description testifies to
the greater prosperity of that region under the Normans and Frederick
II than in later times, and also shows that Bartholomew is not blind to
economic conditions in his survey of various regions. He is very apt,
indeed, to tell whether the soil is well-watered and fertile or rocky
and arid, and to describe the other resources of the district and the
characteristics of the peoples inhabiting it. He speaks in high praise
of the extensive dominions and sea-power of Venice and of the justice
and concord of its citizens.[1391] He also recognizes the importance of
the wool trade between England and Flanders.[1392]
[Sidenote: Medieval boundaries.]
Bartholomew often undertakes to state the boundaries of a region under
discussion. Sometimes he is clear and convincing in this, as when he
states that Gascony used to be a part of Aquitaine, that it is bounded
by the Pyrenees, the Ocean, and the county of Toulouse, and approaches
the territory of the Poitevins to the north; that it is drained by
the Garonne river and that Bordeaux is its metropolis.[1393] Sometimes
his statements are confusing, but we must remember that feudal states
were very difficult to bound exactly and varied greatly in extent from
time to time. Some mistakes in the points of the compass are perhaps
slips of copyists rather than of Bartholomew. He speaks of Brabant and
Lorraine as the westernmost or frontier provinces of Germany. Brabant
is bounded on the north by Frisia, the Britannic Ocean (North Sea), and
the Gulf of Flanders; on the west by lower Gaul and on the south by
upper France. It is watered by the Meuse and Scheldt.[1394] Lorraine is
bounded by Brabant, the Rhine, Alsace, the region of Sens, and Belgic
Gaul. Metz is located in it.[1395] Flanders is a province of Belgic
Gaul next the seacoast, with Germany to the east, the Gallic sea to the
west, and the region of Sens and Burgundy to the south.[1396]
[Sidenote: France in the thirteenth century.]
Bartholomew is uncertain whether France is named from the Franks or
from a free hangman (_a franco carnifice_) who became king at Paris
and from whom the executioners received privileges. Isidore does not
mention _Francia_, so that Bartholomew does not derive this etymology
from him. He seems uncertain also whether to identify France with
all ancient Gaul or simply with Belgic Gaul. He would carry it south
only to the province of Narbonensis and the Pennine Alps, but east
to the Rhine and Germany. This perhaps is an attestation of the
growing territorial power of the French monarch, but perhaps is also a
hold-over from the ancient boundaries of Gaul. At any rate many of his
other regions would overlap and conflict with a France of this size.
He extols the stone and cement about Paris, which give it an advantage
over other localities in building construction, and he further
eulogizes the city itself as the Athens of his age which elevates the
science and culture not of France only but all Europe.[1397]
[Sidenote: Brittany and the British Isles.]
Léopold Delisle, writing in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_,
endeavored to claim Bartholomew as a Frenchman, despite the _Anglicus_
that regularly accompanies his name. Yet for all Bartholomew’s praise
of Paris and Venice, his chapters on England, Ireland, Scotland, and
Brittany[1398] are alone almost enough to determine his nationality.
He asserts that Brittany should be called _Britannia Minor_, and the
island _Britannia Maior_ or Great Britain, since Brittany was settled
by fugitive Britons from the island and the daughter should not be
raised to an equality with the mother country, especially since it
cannot equal Great Britain either in population or merit.[1399] Also
Bartholomew represents the Irish as savages[1400] and describes the
Scots in very unfavorable terms. His view is that if they have any good
customs, they borrowed them from the English. He admits, however, that
the Scots would be good-looking in face and figure, but then adds the
insulting condition, if they would not insist on deforming themselves
by wearing their national costume.[1401] But as for England, or Albion
as it was once called, after describing it as the largest island in
the (Atlantic) ocean and recounting some of its legends and history,
Bartholomew quotes a metrical description of it as a fertile corner of
the world, a rich island which has little need of the rest of the world
but whose products all the rest of the world requires, and whose people
are happy, jocose, and free of mind, tongue, and hand.[1402] Censure of
and prejudice against all others who claim to be British, ill-concealed
insular pride! Who can doubt that the writer is an Englishman?
[Sidenote: A geography by Herodotus.]
Some writer named Herodotus is cited a good deal by Bartholomew for
such regions as Poitou, Picardy, Saxony, Sclavia, Scotland, and
Thuringia, of which the Greek historian Herodotus of course knew
nothing and said nothing.
[Sidenote: Two passages about magic.]
The inhabitants of Finland, we are told, are a barbarous race “occupied
with magic arts.” They practice divination by means of the number of
knots in a ball of thread and sell favorable winds to the sailors who
navigate along their shores. In reality, Bartholomew explains, the
demons send the winds or not, in order to secure the souls of the Finns
in the end.[1403] While we are on the subject of magic, a passage
from Bartholomew’s next book may be noted.[1404] Discussing the gem
Heliotrope, he cites Isidore for the statement that “it manifests the
stupidity of enchanters and magicians who glory in their prodigies,
for they deceive men’s eyes in their operations just as this gem does,
of which he says by way of illustration that together with the herb
of the same name and certain incantations it deceives the gaze of the
spectators and causes them not to see the man who carries it.” But
when we turn to the _Etymologies_,[1405] we find that Isidore simply
quotes the sentence of Pliny, “This too is a manifest instance of the
impudence of the magicians that they say that the bearer of this stone
cannot be seen if he joins to it the herb Heliotrope and adds certain
prayers.” Bartholomew has evidently put his own interpretation upon the
passage.
[Sidenote: Bartholomew and Arnold of Saxony on stones.]
The last passage has introduced us to Bartholomew’s sixteenth book
on gems, minerals, and metals. Valentin Rose,[1406] in what Langlois
praised as “sa belle dissertation sur le _De lapidibus_ aristotélique
et sur le _Lapidaire_ d’Arnoldus Saxo,”[1407] exploited a hitherto
obscure German writer, Arnold of Saxony, who appears to be cited only
by Vincent of Beauvais and of whose works but a single manuscript is
known. Yet Rose would have us believe that Albertus Magnus made much
use of him without acknowledgment in his work on minerals[1408] and
that Bartholomew did the same in his sixteenth book. I shall endeavor
to show that it is much more likely that Arnold copied Bartholomew.
First, it is less likely that Bartholomew, who was called to Magdeburg
to instruct the Saxons, possibly after his _De proprietatibus rerum_
had been completed, would have borrowed from one of them than that
the opposite should be the case. Second, Bartholomew’s work is much
fuller than Arnold’s which Rose admits is “meager and mechanical.”
Third, Bartholomew’s work is professedly a compilation; his object is
to cite his authorities and he usually does so scrupulously; hence if
he made much use of Arnold, he would certainly mention him somewhere.
Fourth, in descriptions of particular stones Arnold of Saxony cites
no authorities but merely makes the lump statement at the start that
he uses Aristotle, Aaron and Evax, by whom he means Marbod’s poem,
and “Diascorides”; Bartholomew on the other hand in the case of each
gem makes distinct citations from Isidore, _Lapidarius_,[1409] and
“Diascorides,” all of whom he is evidently using directly but with
discrimination and in different combinations in each particular case.
Fifth, the same stones are treated more fully by Bartholomew than by
Arnold, whose terse descriptions suggest the style of an abbreviator.
Thus Bartholomew devotes two columns to the sapphire; Arnold gives
it but eleven lines. Sixth, although Rose denied that Arnold used
Aristotle and “Diascorides” except in his other work _De virtute
universali_, and contended that in his _De virtutibus lapidum_ he used
only Marbod and one other unknown source, in point of fact almost
every passage in Arnold which Rose refers to this unknown source is
given by Bartholomew as from “Diascorides.” If, therefore, Arnold’s
unknown source is not “Diascorides,” it must be Bartholomew. The
natural inference is that while Bartholomew has made direct use of
some treatise passing under the name of Dioscorides, Arnold has not
seen this treatise itself but has probably condensed or extracted it
at second-hand from Bartholomew without acknowledging his indebtedness
to Bartholomew at all and only vaguely acknowledging his debt to
“Diascorides” in his preface. This inference is supported by the use
made of Isidore on stones by our two authors; Bartholomew uses Isidore
directly and cites book and chapter; Arnold repeats indirectly through
Marbod a bare skeleton of brief phrases which originally were in
Isidore.[1410]
[Sidenote: Citations by Arnold of Saxony and by Bartholomew.]
Rose further asserted, without printing the passages in question to
support his contention, that Albertus Magnus had simply copied a number
of citations from Arnold, such as Jorach on animals, Pictagoras in
_The Book of the Romans_, Esculapius in _De membris_, Zeno in _De
naturalibus_, Velbetus in _De sensibus_, and Alchyldis _De venenis_.
But we have already noted that Bartholomew cites Jorath and Pythagoras;
Zeno, too, is in his bibliography, and in the introduction to his
eighteenth book he cites the _Liber Escolapii de occultis membrorum
virtutibus_. Vincent of Beauvais also cites these works more than once.
I do not believe that Bartholomew took his citations from Arnold,
and I doubt if either Albert or Vincent did. The probability is that
such books were common property then, however little may be known
about them today, and that it would be as easy then for anyone to lay
his hand on these books as on the works of Arnold of Saxony, whom
Vincent alone mentions. In discussing other mineral substances than
gems, such as metals, sulphur, salt, soda, glass, Bartholomew cites
Aristotle, Avicenna, and Platearius as well as _Lapidarius_, Isidore,
and “Diascorides,” but in the seventeenth book on trees and herbs he
continues to cite “Dyascorides” and Isidore, although also making
extensive use of Pliny. In the eighteenth book on animals his list
of authorities widens again and he cites Solinus, Papias, Marcianus,
Aristotle, Theophrastus, Avicenna, and Isaac, but Pliny continues to be
his chief reliance.
[Sidenote: Virtues of animals.]
In the introduction to this book Bartholomew takes the view, supported
by the authority both of Pliny and of John of Damascus,[1411] that all
kinds of animals were created for man’s benefit. Even fleas and vermin,
like wild beasts and reptiles, are useful in leading him to recognize
his own infirmity and to invoke the name of God. But furthermore
“there is nothing in the body of an animal which is without manifest
or occult medicinal virtue.” Escolapius in _The Occult Virtues of
Members_ states that hemorrhoids may be cured by sitting on a lion’s
skin, and Bartholomew lists other examples of amulets, ligatures, and
suspensions from Pliny and the _Viaticum_ of Constantinus Africanus
as well as “Dyascorides” and “Pitagoras in _The Book of the Romans_.”
The knowledge of medicinal herbs and the semi-human emotions or moral
virtues supposed to be possessed by animals also receive the usual
treatment. Bartholomew informs us that the deadly basilisk loses its
venomous character when burned to an ash, and that its ashes are
considered useful in operations of alchemy and especially in the
transmutation of metals.[1412] Jerome and Solinus are cited concerning
dragons who overturn ships by flying against their sails, and of
the use made by the Ethiopians of the blood of dragons against the
summer’s heat and of their flesh for divers diseases. For as David
says, “Thou gavest him for food to the peoples of Ethiopia.”[1413]
Marvelous monsters of India are not forgotten, and Aristotle is cited
concerning a terrible man-eating wolf in India with three sets of
teeth, a lion’s foot, a scorpion’s tail, human face and voice. Its
voice is furthermore terrible like the sound of a trumpet, and it is
swift as a deer.[1414] Bartholomew’s credulity and scepticism vary with
the attitude of his authorities. When he finds them in disagreement
over the question whether the beaver castrates itself in order to
escape its hunters--Cicero, Juvenal, Isidore, and Physiologus asserting
this, while Pliny, Dyascorides, and Platearius deny it--he prefers the
arguments of the latter, especially since the experience of his own
time supports their view.[1415]
[Sidenote: _Physiologus._]
Physiologus is cited a number of times[1416] by Bartholomew concerning
the snake, crocodile, elephant, wolf, wild ass or _onager_, the
onocentaur who is half human and half ass, panther, siren, and taxo or
melus. Rather strangely he does not cite Physiologus in describing the
lion. Bartholomew’s citations of Physiologus bear out the points we
have made in an earlier chapter that Physiologus is one thing, and the
allegorical interpretation of passages cited from Physiologus another
thing, that Physiologus means what it says, “Natural Scientist,”
and not allegorist or moralizer. For although a primary purpose of
Bartholomew’s own work is supposed to be the elucidation of the truth
concealed in Scripture under the symbolism of natural phenomena,
he cites Physiologus simply for zoological data and omits entirely
the moral application and spiritual allegory which it has become
customary to associate with the term Physiologus. Moreover, much which
Bartholomew ascribes to Physiologus cannot be found in any of the
bestiaries which are commonly associated with that name.[1417] This
again shows how the middle ages added to its ancient authorities.
[Sidenote: Color, odor, savor, liquor.]
In his nineteenth and last book Bartholomew states that he will treat
“first of color, then of odor, then of savor, last of liquor.” The
discussion of color occupies the first thirty-six chapters in which
Aristotle is more frequently cited than any other authority. The
citations become less numerous from chapter eleven to thirty-six[1418]
while particular colors are being described, and where Bartholomew
perhaps gives us some original information. Isaac seems to be
Bartholomew’s chief authority in the chapters upon smell and taste.
Concerning the latter matter Bartholomew states that the theories of
philosophers and medical men disagree.[1419] Under the caption of
Liquor he describes honey, mead, _claretum_ (which was a mixture of
wine, honey, and spices), milk, butter, and cheese. These last suggest
eggs, and chapters 77 to 113 are devoted to those of various animals.
The work then proceeds to consider weights and measures, and concludes
with chapters describing various musical instruments.[1420]
FOOTNOTES:
[1317] Bartholomew has already been presented in part to
English-speaking readers in Steele’s _Medieval Lore_, London, 1907,
and more recently in excerpts in Coulton’s _Social Life in Britain
from the Norman Conquest to the Reformation_, Cambridge, 1918, but
their quotations and most other modern references to him are based upon
the later medieval English versions of his work and not upon his own
original Latin text. My summary is based directly upon the Latin text
as printed by Lindelbach at Heidelberg in 1488:
“_Explicit liber de proprietatibus rerum editus a fratre Bartholomeo
anglico ordinis fratrum minorum. Anno domini Mcccclxxxviii kalendas
vero Junii xii._”
I am indebted to the liberality of the John Crerar Library in Chicago
in allowing this rare volume to be transported to Cleveland for my use.
I have also checked up the printed text to some extent by examination
of the following MSS at Paris. On the whole the discrepancies between
the MSS and printed version seem slight, although a modern critical
edition of Bartholomew’s work is certainly desirable, especially in
view of the rarity of the _editio princeps_.
BN 16098, 13th century.
BN 16099, 13th century.
BN 347, 14th century.
Since I finished this chapter a paper has appeared by G. E. Se Boyar,
“Bartholomaeus Anglicus and his Encyclopaedia,” in _The Journal of
English and Germanic Philology_, XIX (1920) 168-89.
[1318] _De propriet. rerum_, Book XIX, close.
[1319] Wadding, _Annales_, 1230, No. 16; cited HL XXX, 355.
[1320] Cited HL XXX, 354.
[1321] _De propriet. rerum_, XV, 88.
[1322] HL XXX, 357; at pp. 356-7 it reproduces Bartholomew’s
bibliography.
[1323] IV, 2, “Hec vincentius in speculo suo naturali, li. III, ca.
lxxiii.” I was not able to find this citation in such MSS as I examined.
[1324] Had the _Speculum naturale_ been written before the _De
proprietatibus rerum_, Bartholomew, if he cited it at all, would have
made use of it more than once, but would hardly have spoken as he did
of the need of one compilation on the natures and properties of things,
had the _Speculum_ already been in existence.
[1325] VIII, 3.
[1326] It is true that they do not always seem absolutely accurate, but
copyists may have altered or misplaced them.
[1327] _Etymol._, XII, 4.
[1328] _De propriet. rerum_, XVIII, 8.
[1329] HL XXX, 363.
[1330] And now again accepted as his; see above, chapter 27, page 619.
[1331] _De propriet. rerum_, I, 19.
[1332] _Ibid._, II, 19-20.
[1333] _De propriet. rerum_, V, 21-22. (Henceforth all citations in
this chapter, unless otherwise noted, will be to this work.) BN 16099,
fol. 31r, V. 21, “ut dicunt avicenna et constantinus in tractatu de
venenosis animalibus et venenis”; V. 22, “ut dicunt predicti auctores
in tractatu de venenis.”
[1334] V, 21.
[1335] III, 10 and 16; V, 3.
[1336] IV, 11.
[1337] VII, 5.
[1338] III, 17.
[1339] VIII, 40.
[1340] V, 7.
[1341] Since I completed this chapter in manuscript form there has
appeared in print G. C. Coulton’s _Social Life in Britain from the
Conquest to the Reformation_, Cambridge, 1918, in which he has selected
almost exactly the same passages from Bartholomew as illustrations
of his theme. This is welcome confirmation of their interest and
importance, and I have decided to let the following paragraphs
stand for two reasons, despite the fact that they are now available
elsewhere in English. In the first place any description of the _De
proprietatibus rerum_ would seem rather incomplete without them. In
the second place Mr. Coulton gives the passages in Trevisa’s English
translation, while I have made a translation direct from the Latin text
in more modern English. The exaggerated impression of quaintness and
illiteracy which the old English version makes upon the modern reader
finds in my opinion little or no justification in the original Latin.
Men apparently could think more directly in Latin in the thirteenth
century than they could express themselves in English in the fourteenth
or fifteenth century.
[1342] VI, 11.
[1343] VI, 5.
[1344] VI, 6.
[1345] VI, 22.
[1346] VI, 27.
[1347] VII, 9 and 16.
[1348] VII, 2.
[1349] VII, 4.
[1350] VII, 6.
[1351] VII, 9.
[1352] VII, 64.
[1353] VII, 66.
[1354] VII, 68.
[1355] VIII, 3.
[1356] VIII, 4.
[1357] At least as printed in Migne, PL.
[1358] R. H. Charles, in discussing “The Seven Heavens--an early Jewish
and Christian belief” (Morfill and Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of
Enoch_, Oxford, 1896, pp. xxx-xlvii), asserts that after Chrysostom,
“Finally such conceptions, failing in the course of the next few
centuries to find a home in Christian lands, betook themselves to
Mohammedan countries” (_Ibid._, xxxi-xxxii). But Bartholomew ascribes
to “the tradition of the saints” a belief in the plurality of heavens
and a sevenfold division of them other than the planetary spheres.
[1359] VIII, 2.
[1360] VIII, 28.
[1361] VIII, 9.
[1362] VIII, 10.
[1363] VIII, 15.
[1364] VIII, 21, which is the last of the twelve chapters.
[1365] VIII, 22.
[1366] VIII, 25.
[1367] VIII, 31.
[1368] VIII, 33.
[1369] In the bibliography _Miselat astrologus_; in the text Misa.,
Misael, mesahel, Misalach, etc. I am convinced that none of these is
meant for Michael Scot who is also listed in the bibliography but does
not seem to be cited in the text.
[1370] Migne, PL vol. 172, col. 147, “Hora ... est duodecim pars
diei, constans ex quatuor punctis, minutis decem, partibus quindecim,
momentis quadraginta, ostentis sexaginta, atomis viginti duobus mil,
quingentis et sexaginta.”
[1371] XII, 1.
[1372] XII, 19.
[1373] XII, 21, “hi lapidi dicuntur celidonii et sunt preciosi maxime
quando extrahuntur de pullo antequam tangat terram ut dicitur in
lapidario ubi eorum virtutes describuntur, ut dicit Constan. Sanguis
de dextra ala extractus oculis medetur....” But perhaps the “ut dicit
Constan.” goes with these last words rather than the preceding.
[1374] Migne, PL 171, 1750. In a number of other cases Bartholomew’s
citations of _Lapidarius_ do not apply to Marbod.
[1375] XVI, 30.
[1376] _De medicamentis_, cap. viii.
[1377] NH 37, 56.
[1378] NH 25, 50.
[1379] NH 10, 44.
[1380] Bostock and Riley, English Translation of Pliny’s _Natural
History_, London, 1890 (Bohn Library), II, 511 note. And see D’Arcy W.
Thompson’s note on Aristotle’s _History of Animals_, IX, 15.
[1381] _Etymologies_, XII, vii, 66, in Migne PL 82, 468.
[1382] Cahier (1851); _De bestiis_, I, 51, ascribed to Hugh of St.
Victor, in Migne PL 177, 50.
[1383] _Phisici_ in the printed edition used; in BN 16099, fol.
97r, _ph’i_; BN 347, fol. 126r, _ph’ici_. In the work of Thomas of
Cantimpré, however, BN 347B, 14th century, fol. 104v, _“Dicit ph’s”_
which may stand for Physiologus, Philosophus, or Phisicus.
[1384] _De animal_, XXIII, 111.
[1385] _Thesaurus pauperum_, cap. 85.
[1386] Yet neither Bartholomew of England nor Thomas of Cantimpré is
mentioned by C. Kretschmer, _Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen
Mittelalter_, 1889, although he uses Neckam, Vincent of Beauvais,
Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon.
[1387] Bartholomew’s list of provinces with the Latin name anglicized
in some cases is as follows. Asia, Assyria, Arabia, Armenia, Aradia,
Albania (_i.e._, in Asia), Attica, Achaia, Arcadia, Alania (land
of the Alani), Amazonia (land of the Amazons), Alemannia, Anglia
(England), Aquitaine, Anjou, Auvergne, Apulia, Africa, Asturia,
Aragon, Babylonia, Bactria, Braciana, Brabant, Belgica, Bithynia,
Britannia, Boecia (Boeotia), Bohemia, Burgundy, Cappadocia, Chaldea,
Cedar, Kent, Cantabria, Canaan, Campania, Cauda, Cilicia, Cyprus,
Crete, Cyclades, Choa, Corsica (later occurs a longer chapter on
Korsica), Dalmatia, Denmark (Dacia), Delos, Dedan, Europe, Evilath,
Ethiopia, Egypt, Hellas, Eola (Aeolia?), Franconia, Francia (_i.e._
France), Flanders, Fenix (Phoenicia?), Phrygia, Frisia, Fortunate
Islands (Canaries), Galilee, Gallacia (in central Europe), Gallicia
(in the Spanish peninsula), Gaul, Gadis, Greece, Isle of the Gorgons,
Gothia and the island of Gothland (Sweden and Gotland), Guido, India,
Hyrcania, Idumea, Judea, Iberia, Italy, Spain (Hispania), Ireland
(Hibernia), Icaria, the island in the salt sea (De insula in salo
sita), Carthage, Carinthia, Lacedemonia, Lithuania (Lectonia), Livonia,
Lycia, Lydia, Libya (Lybia), Lorraine (Lothoringia), Lusitania,
Mauritania, Macedonia, Magnesia, Mesopotamia, Media, Melos, Midia,
Meissen, Mytilene, Nabathea, Norway, Normandy, Numidia, Narbonensis,
Ophir, Holland (Ollandia), Orcades, Paradise, Parthia, Palestine,
Pamphylia, Pannonia, Paros, Pentapolis, Persia, Pyrenees, Pigmy-land,
Poitou (Pictavia), Picardy, Ramathea, Reucia, Rivalia, Rinchonia, the
Roman province (_i.e._, Provence), Romania, Rhodes, Ruthia, Sabaea,
Samaria, Sambia, Sabaudia, Sardinia, Sarmatia, Samos, Saxony, Sclavia
(land of the Slavs), Sparta (Sparciata), Seres (_i.e._, China), Seeland
(Zeeland), Semogallia, Senonensis (region about Sens), Syria, Sichima,
Scythia, Sicyon, Sicily, Sirtes, Scotland (Scotia), Suecia (Sweden,
before called Gothia), Suevia (Swabia), Tanatos, Taprobana, Thrace,
Traconitida, Thessaly, Tenedos, Thule, Tripoli (two are distinguished
in Syria and Africa respectively), Tragodea, Troyland, Tuscany
(Thuscia), Thuringia, Thuronia (the region about Tours), Gascony
(Vasconia), Venice, Westphalia, Vironia, Finland, Vitria, Iceland,
Zeugia.
[1388] XV, 19.
[1389] XV, 13.
[1390] XV, 18.
[1391] XV, 169.
[1392] XV, 58.
[1393] XV, 168.
[1394] XV, 25.
[1395] XV, 92.
[1396] XV, 58.
[1397] XV, 57.
[1398] Of these four chapters Delisle (HL XXX, 353-65) quoted only that
on England. Delisle gave extracts from Bartholomew’s descriptions of
several French provinces to show that he knew them well and stated that
he gave much fewer details concerning England, but that he (Delisle)
would transcribe the chapter “parce qu’on pourrait supposer qu’il
renferme des allusions à la prétendue origine anglaise de Barthélemi.”
Delisle also cited (p. 362) the chapter on Britannia, but omitted the
statements which I shall cite, and earlier said (p. 358), “Nous n’avons
rien à relever dans les chapitres de la Normandie, de la Bretagne,” etc.
Yet the statements I shall cite occur in both the MSS which Delisle
used, where the chapter on Britannia is continued beyond the point
where his quotation leaves off as follows:
BN 16098, 13th century, fol. 14Or. “Est autem alia britannia minor
super oceanum aquitanicum sita in partibus galliarum que a britonibus
relinquentibus britanniam maiorem propter importunitatem germanorum
est usque hodie populata, vero usque adhuc genus britonum et nomen
perseverat, et quamvis hec britannia in multis laude digna sit, non
potest tamen filia matri, minor britannia maiori comparari, et immo
bene minor britannia debuit vocari que sicut nec numero populi sic nec
merito soli potest maiori britannia adequari.”
BN 347, 14th century, fol. 145, is the same except that _tamen_
precedes _potest_, and that the words _minor britannia maiori comparari
et immo bene_ are omitted, evidently by the mistake of a copyist who
has jumped from one _minor_ to the next _minor_ and thus inadvertently
omitted the intervening words.
[1399] XV, 28.
[1400] XV, 80.
[1401] XV, 152.
[1402] XV, 14.
[1403] XV, 172.
[1404] XVI, 41.
[1405] _Etymol._, XVI, 7.
[1406] V. Rose, “Aristoteles De Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” in
_Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, XVIII (1875), 321-455.
[1407] Langlois (1911), p. 124.
[1408] J. Ruska, _Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles_, 1912, p. 38,
reiterates, “Sein Büchlein _De virtutibus lapidum_ ist die Grundlage
des Steinverzeichnisses in Albertus Magnus’ 5 Büchern _De mineralibus_.”
It also is asserted that Vincent and Albert learned of the mariner’s
compass from this Arnold’s _De virtute universali_,--a view which
overlooks Alexander Neckam’s earlier allusions to the compass.
[1409] This title can scarcely refer to Arnold’s _De virtutibus
lapidum_.
[1410] The fact is that Rose examined the text of Bartholomew in a
careless and superficial manner. He used some Frankfurt edition of the
_De proprietatibus rerum_ for which he gives no date, and he usually
fails to state what chapter of Bartholomew he is citing, but refers to
him simply by the letter B. Also he fails to note that the first two
stones listed by Arnold, namely, _abeston_ (asbestos) and _absictus_
(_apsyctos_) are both in Bartholomew, and what is more, are spelled
exactly the same by both authors. Nor are these the only gems that Rose
fails to note are treated of by both authors. Others are _alabandina_,
_calcofanus_ (which Bartholomew begins with a k), _virites_ or
_pyrites_ (also spelled a little differently in Bartholomew), and
_turcois_ (_De turchoge_ in Bartholomew). In the first three of these
four passages Arnold’s statements sound like a bald and abbreviated
copy of Bartholomew’s description.
[1411] John of Damascus, who wrote on theology, dialectic, and so forth
in the first half of the eighth century (works in Migne, PG vols.
94-96) became well known to western writers through the twelfth century
translation of him by Burgundio of Pisa. Some of the works ascribed to
him are probably spurious, but “his undoubted works are numerous and
embrace a wide range.” A chapter is devoted to the introduction of his
writings into western Europe in J. de Ghellinck, S. J., _Le Mouvement
théologique du XIIe siècle, Études, Recherches, et Documents_, Paris,
1914; see EHR (1915), p. 112. But see Steinschneider (1866), pp. 375-91.
[1412] XVIII, 15.
[1413] XVIII, 37.
[1414] XVIII, 69.
[1415] XVIII, 28, “et hoc quotidie patet in castoribus qui in diversis
locis inveniuntur.”
[1416] XVIII, 8, 32, 43, 69, 76, 77, 80, 95, 101.
[1417] Lauchert (1889), p. 105, has recognized this fact, saying of
the _De proprietatibus rerum_, “worin ebenfalls der Physiologus häufig
citirt ist und auch für Manches das nicht aus ihm stammt.”
[1418] In reading the printed edition I thought that some of these
chapters might be later interpolations, since after _minium_ has been
described in chapter 16 it is again considered in chapter 25, and
_indicum_ is similarly discussed in both chapters 21 and 31. But these
chapters are also repeated in BN 347, 16098, and 16099.
[1419] XIX, 40.
[1420] These matters are found in BN 16098 and 16099 as well as in the
printed edition. “Explicit Tractatus de proprietatibus” precedes the
bibliography in BN 16099, follows it in BN 16098.