VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS
The _Speculum Maius_--Events of his life--Was the
_Speculum naturale_ finished in 1250?--Order of the
three Mirrors--Chronological relation to Albert
and Aquinas--General character of the _Speculum
naturale_--Vincent’s method of compilation--Use of
Pliny and Aristotle--More recent authorities--Credulity
concerning the barnacle birds--A sign of his scientific
inferiority--Demons, magic, and superstition--Divination
from dreams--The stars--Their influence--Virtues of
gems--A chapter on the jasper--Alchemy--Virtues of
plants--Animals--The tree of life and the bodies of the
damned--Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?--Classification of
the sciences--Concluding estimate of the _Speculum naturale_.
[Sidenote: The _Speculum Maius_.]
Of medieval encyclopedists and compilers Vincent of Beauvais may
be ranked as chief by reason of his _Speculum Maius_, which really
consists of three voluminous “Mirrors,” the _Speculum naturale_,
with which we shall be chiefly concerned,[1514] and the _Speculum
doctrinale_ and _Speculum historiale_. The _Speculum morale_, once
attributed to him, has been shown to be a later production. The
_Speculum naturale_ may be regarded as capping the series begun with
Neckam’s _De naturis rerum_ and continued by Thomas of Cantimpré’s
_De natura rerum_ and Bartholomew of England’s _De proprietatibus
rerum_. The _Mirror of History_ is a world chronicle written from the
Christian standpoint. The _Mirror of Doctrine_ is not merely concerned
with doctrine in the theological sense but with all fields of art and
learning, industry and society, beginning with a discussion of schools
of philosophy and educational method and a dictionary of some 3200
words, and running through grammar, logic, rhetoric, poetics, monastic
and economic and political institutions, the useful and military arts,
medicine, physics, and natural philosophy, mathematics and metaphysics,
and finally reaching theology in its seventeenth and last book. Indeed,
Vincent himself well described it as concerned with “all arts,” as the
other two Mirrors reflect “all things” and “all times.”[1515] It is
considerably briefer than the _Mirror of Nature_ which contains almost
twice as many books.
[Sidenote: Events of his life.]
Little is known of Vincent’s life and the years of his birth and death
are uncertain. He speaks of himself as “Vincent of Beauvais of the
Order of Preachers,” and in 1246 was a sub-prior of the Dominican
monastery at Beauvais. Like another learned friar of his time, Roger
Bacon, he speaks of laborious duties which interrupted his literary
activities and forced him to employ copyists. Probably the most
important external circumstance of his career was his connection with
the royal family of St. Louis. Although a Dominican, Vincent held
the post of reader in the Cistercian abbey of Royaumont which Louis
had founded in 1228. Vincent seems to have served Louis IX in the
triple capacity of royal librarian, chaplain, and tutor of the king’s
children. His treatise _On the Education of the Royal Children_ was
composed at some time after the return of St. Louis from the Holy Land
in 1254, and his _Consolatory Letter_ dealt with the death of Prince
Louis in 1260. The date 1264, often mentioned as that of Vincent’s
death, rests on the statement of Louis à Valleoleti who wrote in the
early fifteenth century. Ptolemy of Lucca who wrote a century nearer
to Vincent’s time cites him concerning the three year vacancy in
the papacy following the death of Clement IV, which would bring the
completion of the _Speculum historiale_ down to 1271 at least, but
Daunou showed that this citation was incorrect and that the passage in
question was from Martin of Poland, not Vincent of Beauvais. This is
perhaps also the case with another passage in Ptolemy of Lucca which
Daunou failed to note and which says, “Historians in general state,
but Vincent in particular writes” of a comet which portended the death
of Pope Urban IV in 1264. Although the duration of the comet was three
months, the pope sickened as soon as it appeared and died on the very
day that it disappeared.[1516] If the citation is from Vincent, he must
have lived beyond 1264.
[Sidenote: Was the _Speculum naturale_ finished in 1250?]
It has been customary to give 1250 as the precise date for the
completion of the _Speculum naturale_, because its last book, which
is geographical and historical, states that it will bring the history
of the world down to the present year, 1250. Valentin Rose accepted
this date so confidently as to argue on the basis of it that, because
Vincent did not cite the work of Albertus Magnus on minerals,[1517]
that treatise was not written until after 1250. But that such
statements of the current year in Vincent’s works cannot be relied
upon too implicitly is shown in his _Mirror of History_. From the
list of popes given in its eighth book we should infer that it was
composed in 1244 or 1245, since it speaks of Innocent IV as having
now sat on the throne for two years; and again the closing chapter of
its thirty-first[1518] book states that the author has brought the
history of the sixth age of the world down to the current year, that
is, the eighteenth of Louis IX and the second of Innocent IV and
the thirty-fourth of Frederick II. But other events are mentioned which
happened in 1250 and 1254.[1519]
[Sidenote: Order of the three Mirrors.]
It is also difficult to determine the order in which the three Mirrors
were completed. Daunou assumed that the _Speculum naturale_ was
finished first, and that the _Speculum doctrinale_ treated again of
some topics which had already been discussed in the other. He also
placed the _Speculum historiale_ later than the _Mirror of Nature_,
believing that it was published at some time after 1254 rather than
ten years earlier, and pointing out that in its ninth book Vincent
mentioned having used Pliny’s _Natural History_ in his _Speculum
naturale_. On the other hand, the revised edition of Potthast’s
_Wegweiser_ regards the _Mirror of History_ as completed about 1244
before the _Mirror of Nature_. As an intermediate work it mentions
_Memoriale omnium temporum_, an extract in eighty chapters made by
Vincent himself from the _Speculum historiale_. This extract was then
embodied in the last book of the _Speculum naturale_, where an account
of the years 1242-1250 was added to it. And in the last chapter of
the _Speculum naturale_, where the coming of antichrist and the last
judgment are discussed, we are told that these matters are more fully
treated at the close of the _Speculum historiale_. Thus we have both
the _Mirror of History_ looking back on the _Mirror of Nature_ as an
earlier work, and _vice versa_. Thus we apparently have to do with a
revised edition of one or both of the works, or with later additions
and interpolations which a study of the manuscripts would be necessary
to unravel, although very likely it would fail to do so. One might
hazard the conjecture that the _Mirror of History_ was first issued
in 1244, as it says, and that this edition was the one cited in the
_Mirror of Nature_; that after 1254 a revised edition of the _Mirror
of History_ was issued and that in this the _Speculum naturale_ was
referred to. There are further objections even to this view, however,
as we shall presently see.
[Sidenote: Chronological relation to Albert and Aquinas.]
If the _Speculum naturale_ as we have it was completed by 1250, it
would aid us in dating works of Albertus Magnus and Aquinas which
it cites. Vincent cites Albert a great deal, especially for the
Aristotelian psychology, often without definite mention of the title of
the work cited, but sometimes such titles are mentioned as _De anima_,
_De sensu et sensato_, _De somno et vigilia_, _De animalibus_.[1520]
Evidently Albert had already completed many of his commentaries upon
and elaborations of the Aristotelian philosophy, and had made an
established reputation for himself. It is quite possible that this
had been already accomplished by 1250, since, while Albert lived on
until 1280, he was then an old man. But what is surprising to find
in a work written in 1250 are Vincent’s citations of Thomas Aquinas
on such questions as “How an angel instructs the soul?” and “What
prophecy is?”[1521] In 1250 Aquinas would have been only twenty-three
and would scarcely have attained the rank of an authority upon advanced
theological problems of this sort, since he did not receive his
doctorate in theology, precocious as he was, until 1257. Either then
these citations are later interpolations, or Vincent did not complete
the _Speculum naturale_ in 1250. But this problem again calls for an
examination of the earliest manuscripts.
[Sidenote: General character of the _Speculum naturale_.]
The _Speculum naturale_ may be described as a sort of over-grown
_Hexaemeron_; indeed, in some of the manuscripts it is entitled,
_Speculum in Hexemeron libris 32, ex dictis innumerabilium tam
christianorum quam gentilium_.[1522] That is to say, its consideration
of nature follows the order of the six days of creation. But the mass
of scientific data is so voluminous as to obscure this underlying
Biblical plan, and the work is divided not into six books, but
thirty-two and a prologue, or thirty-three in all. The work is,
however, more marked by a theological aim, tone, and interest than
others that we have considered or shall consider. This is not quite so
noticeable as in the _Speculum historiale_, described by Daunou as “a
work planned and executed in an essentially theological spirit,”[1523]
and one of whose four books on the twelfth century consists entirely of
extracts from the writings of St. Bernard. But as the prologue of the
_Mirror of Nature_ ranks the philosophers and doctors of the Gentiles
as of the third and lowest grade of authority, as its next book
discusses the Trinity and angels as well as the universe, and the third
deals with demons as well as elements and atoms, so its twenty-fourth
book is largely concerned with the soul and its immortality, the
thirtieth with the seventh day of rest and such topics as fate and
providence, sin and penitence, and the thirty-first with Paradise,
the creation and fall of man, marriage, and so on. We have had other
writers begin with the Trinity and angels and demons but thereafter
deal more exclusively with purely physical phenomena. We have seen
other writers start out with the professed object of explaining the
Scriptures but end by discussing nature in a purely scientific way.
Vincent, on the other hand, sets out to compile a _Mirror of History_
or a _Mirror of Nature_ but cannot keep his mind off such themes as the
fall of man and the last judgment.
[Sidenote: Vincent’s method of compilation.]
Vincent also adheres rather more strictly to his professed rôle of a
mere compiler than some of our other medieval writers. He says that he
will distinguish his own statements by the word _Actor_ or _Auctor_,
author or editor, and such passages are of minor importance and make
little or no new contribution to scientific knowledge. His superiority
to other medieval compilers or encyclopedists consists almost entirely
in the fact that he has had access to a larger library and has made
longer and more numerous excerpts from his authorities than they. As a
rule he does not attempt to reconcile conflicting statements in the
authorities, warning his readers in the prologue that he is a mere
excerptor and not to be held responsible for such inconsistencies.
Indeed, he is to such an extent a mere excerptor that it is perhaps
more important to note the authors whom he uses[1524] than the
subject-matter which he takes from them and which we have already been
over in large measure, since we have already considered separately many
of his main sources.
[Sidenote: Use of Pliny and Aristotle.]
Vincent is easily indebted to Pliny, with whose entire _Natural
History_ he seems acquainted,[1525] more than to any other single
source and the _Speculum naturale_ is as much an imitation of it as a
development from patristic _Hexaemerons_. Another constant reliance
is Isidore, who of course in his turn had used Pliny extensively.
Aristotle and various Arabian authorities--Rasis, Avicenna, Albumasar,
Averroes--are frequently cited, but sometimes at least indirectly
through Albertus Magnus. In his preface Vincent apologizes for often
giving Aristotle’s views not in his own words but in transposed order
for the sake of condensation and clearness. Incidentally he reveals
that he had the service of assistants in compiling his encyclopedia,
since he states that he has not made these renditions of Aristotle
himself but that they have been “excerpted by certain brothers.” At
the same time he shows how familiar the wording of Aristotle’s text
had become by his time and how precise the standards of medieval
scholarship were in some respects, when he adds that there are some
scholars who will not tolerate the alteration of one iota or the order
of a single word of the authority.[1526]
[Sidenote: More recent authorities.]
Vincent is also not ashamed “to learn from modern doctors”[1527]
and employs many works of his medieval Latin predecessors from
Constantinus Africanus, whom he cites a great deal as Bartholomew did,
to Albertus Magnus and perhaps Thomas Aquinas. He makes some use of the
_Natural Questions_ of Adelard of Bath, which treatise he once cites
as “_Adelardus ad nepotem_,”[1528] and for matters astronomical he
makes much use of the _De philosophia_ or _Dragmaticon_ of William of
Conches. He also repeats its _locus classicus_ concerning the waters
above the firmament where the view of Bede is rejected for “the more
probable opinion of the moderns in this matter.”[1529]
[Sidenote: Credulity concerning barnacle birds.]
While Vincent shows a wide and commendable acquaintance not only with
a large number of names of authors and titles, but in many cases
with a part or the whole of the contents of the books themselves,
it sometimes appears that he has not got all that he might have
from the authority in question, and he sometimes does not display
the soundest of judgment in what he includes and what he omits in
making his selections. The case of the barnacle birds may serve as an
illustration. Now Vincent cites the work of Albertus Magnus on animals
concerning falcons in the very same seventeenth book in which this
chapter on the barnacle birds occurs. With his broad bibliographical
attainments Vincent should have realized the worth of Albert’s work
and should have imbibed some of its sceptical and critical attitude
toward stories of strange and outlandish animals. Albert had branded
as liars those who said that birds were born from trees, hanging from
the trunk and branches and being nourished by the sap beneath the
bark, or that birds were generated from driftwood at sea, and that
no one had ever seen such birds lay eggs or have sexual intercourse.
Albert and many of his associates had seen them doing both and feeding
their young.[1530] Yet Vincent continues to discuss these barnacle
birds most credulously. They feed on driftwood. At birth they are
naked but gradually grow feathers and float through the sea hanging to
the driftwood by their beaks until they come to maturity and bestir
themselves and break away. “And we ourselves have seen many of them
and trustworthy men have testified that they have seen them hanging
thus.” Jacques de Vitry tells of them in his _Oriental History_: “It
is further to be noted that they do not hang in the tops of trees but
on the bark of the boughs and trunks. And they grow on the sap of the
tree and the infusion of dew until they have feathers and strength and
break off from the bark. It may be said with certainty of these birds
that in our part of the world around Germany they neither generate
by sexual concourse nor are generated. Nor has any man among us ever
seen their sexual congress. Consequently some Christians in our time
in those places where birds of this sort abound are accustomed to eat
their flesh in Lent. But Pope Innocent III in the general council at
the Lateran forbade them to do this any more.”[1531] After stating
that the barnacle birds eat herbs and grain like geese and cannot go
for long without drink, Vincent cites a “Philosopher,” but it is not
clear whether as authority for the foregoing statements or the ensuing
assertion that the barnacle bird which is born from trees is found also
in certain parts of Flanders.[1532] “Philosopher” in this case can
therefore scarcely be Aristotle. Despite what was said of the bird’s
thirst, it is now added that like trees it has no superfluity.
[Sidenote: A sign of his scientific inferiority.]
Perhaps Vincent had read but little of Albert’s work on animals;
possibly the citations of it in the _Speculum naturale_ are later
interpolations; but in any case the passage suggests a difference in
scientific attitude between the two men. It should be added, however,
in Vincent’s favor that his descriptions of fish were in Cuvier’s
opinion more precise and correct than those of Albert.[1533] But in
general it seems to me that he was neither the personal observer
of nature that Albert was, nor did he possess as much scientific
discrimination. This defect is bound to affect his whole selection
of material and use of authorities, and, together with his somewhat
excessive theological bias, makes his compilation, extensive as it is,
scarcely representative of medieval natural science at its best. At the
same time we see that in the very process of excerpting he gives his
compilation a certain character and tone of its own. It will therefore
be well, in view of its widespread and enduring influence, attested
by numerous manuscripts and printed editions, to give some attention
to its contents, and see what attitude it reflects on the subjects of
magic, astrology, divination from dreams, and occult virtue in nature.
[Sidenote: Demons, magic, and superstition.]
Vincent’s mentions of magic[1534] are incidental to his discussion of
demons and the marvels, transformations, and divination which they are
able to work. On these points he repeats the views of Augustine, Peter
Lombard, and other like-minded ecclesiastical authorities, and we need
not dwell upon them further, except to note that he makes the demons
inhabit the lower and misty air, and that his citation of _The Golden
Ass_ of Apuleius is probably indirect through Augustine. We should
also note, however, a passage in the _Mirror of Doctrine_[1535] which
seems to be largely derived from the _Summa_ of a “brother William,”
which may possibly be the _De universo_ of William of Auvergne,
although he does not seem to have been a friar. The passage states that
incantations may be used to enchant the sick or children or animals,
provided no superstitious practice which the church has prohibited
is involved, and only licit prayers, adjurations, and such symbols as
the sign of the cross are used. Perhaps the practice of hypnotism is
involved here. Vincent believes that men and women who introduce many
useless and superstitious ceremonies should be forbidden to continue
these practices, which should be confined to priests and to laymen and
women of excellent life and proved discretion. But he does not object
to employment of the divine symbol in plucking an herb or to writing
the Lord’s prayer on a scroll and placing it near the patient.
[Sidenote: Divination from dreams.]
In his discussion of dreams and their significance Vincent combines
such varied authorities as Aristotle, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, and
Pope Gregory the Great, who accounted for dreams by a full or empty
stomach, the thoughts of the dreamer, the illusions of demons, and
the revelations of angels. While recognizing with the Bible that
dreams make many err, Vincent agrees “with the saints and prophets
that dreams frequently signify something concerning the future.”
Dreams are powerfully affected by the motion of the stars in the sky,
which is scarcely noticed when we are awake but is manifest in sleep.
Dispositions, too, on the part of the sleeper make themselves felt in
dreams which are not observed in waking hours, a medieval statement
of the Freudian theory. Dreams are not causes but simply signs of the
future. Since the events which they forecast are not yet in existence,
they obviously cannot portray them plainly but suggest them obscurely
in a manner requiring interpretation. Thus to dream of fire is a sign
of future anger, to see a great foul mouth in a dream indicates a false
criminal accusation, to dream of a scorpion portends secret detraction.
It is commonly stated by philosophers that the signification of a
dream varies as it occurs at the full moon or the new moon or in the
sunshine, and also according to the positions of the planets in the
signs.[1536]
[Sidenote: The stars.]
From the influence of the stars upon dreams we may next turn to
Vincent’s attitude toward astrology in general. It is a mixture of
passages from church fathers against the errors of the genethlialogists
and _mathematici_, and of passages from the philosophers, ancient and
recent, affirming the control of the stars over the world of nature.
Vincent, however, attempts to combine and reconcile these, and makes
his own standpoint fairly evident. He holds that the brief, vague
utterances of Aristotle whence the commentators have inferred that
the stars are alive do not necessarily imply this.[1537] They are
nevertheless superior in certain ways to all inferior life, and are of
an unalterable and incorruptible nature.[1538] Vincent undertakes to
reconcile the assertion of holy doctors that the heavens neither have
souls nor are animals with the doctrines of the philosophers.[1539]
He holds that there are Intelligences in the spheres of the heavens
who serve the First Cause or Mover and that, although the saints abhor
giving these the name of souls, yet they concede that intelligences or
angels move the heavens and the stars at the nod of God.
[Sidenote: Their influence.]
From sages and men of old Vincent reiterates such doctrine as that
“the movement of the heavens and superior bodies is the cause of all
natural motions” and of generation and corruption; that there is no
plant on earth which does not have its controlling star; and that
“all things which are renewed in the inferior world, except such as
are caused by the superior form of our reason, have their efficient
causes in the inalterable and incorruptible superior world.”[1540]
Vincent devotes much of his sixteenth book to astrological technique,
detailing the good and evil qualities of the planets, and describing
their houses, exaltations, _triplicitates_, _termini_, _facies_,
and their virtues in the different signs of the zodiac.[1541] Like
Bartholomew he also reproduces Constantinus Africanus’ account of the
control by the planets of the formation of the human foetus in the
womb.[1542] In a later book[1543] he repeats the views of Albumasar and
an unnamed astrologer concerning the influence of the sun and other
planets in human generation. Against their control of such matters
as sex, however, Vincent cites the authority of Augustine and some
physiological arguments. He further warns us not to subject human
reason and free will to fatal necessity of the constellations, citing
such authorities as Gregory’s homily for epiphany and Chrysostom’s
sixth homily on Matthew anent the Magi and the star, and repeating such
time-worn and time-honored arguments as the case of Esau and Jacob or
the fact that in fishless inland provinces men are born under the sign
Pisces.[1544] Vincent repeats the general medieval belief that comets
signify pestilence, famine, or war.[1545] His discussion of Egyptian
days we have considered elsewhere. He seems to accept the efficacy of
astrological images, repeating the attribution of medicinal virtue and
influence on human character to “stones on which you find engraved
Aries or Leo or Sagittarius,”[1546] and citing Thetel,[1547] perhaps
indirectly through Thomas of Cantimpré, concerning the virtues of
engraved gems. But to the virtues of gems let us turn.
[Sidenote: Virtues of gems.]
For the virtues of gems Vincent combines authorities from the
Pseudo-Aristotle and Pliny down to Arnold of Saxony and Thomas of
Cantimpré. The extreme powers credited to gems by the Magi and Marbod
play a prominent part in his ninth book. Selecting by lot five[1548]
out of seventy odd chapters we read that the agate averts storms and
thunderbolts, gives victory in war, routs venomous animals, aids
the sight, slakes the thirst, and promotes fidelity. The _balagius_
stimulates conjugal affection, burns the right hand grasping it,
strengthens weak eyes if one drinks water in which it has lain,
and protects one against enemies. Coral checks hemorrhage, reduces
corpulence, draws harmful humors from the eye, cures ulcers, and
benefits heart, intestines, and spleen. Suspended over the mouth it
stops stomachache; suspended from the neck it prevents epileptic fits.
Suspended from trees or sown with seed it protects the fruit or crops
from hail storms. Decayed teeth are filled with it in order to extract
them, and it is terrible to demons because it is so often found in the
form of the cross. The gem heliotrope makes one invincible in battle
and invisible, if it is combined with the herb of the same name and
certain incantations. It makes water boil, reddens the sun, prevents
loss of blood, is an antidote to poison, assures its bearer long life,
and aids in prediction of the future.
[Sidenote: A chapter on the jasper.]
The chapter on the jasper is a good example of Vincent’s method of
combining excerpts from varied authors. First he cites the monkish
chronicler Helinandus who died in 1227 to the effect that the jasper
worn chastely dispels fever and dropsy, and that application of it aids
child-birth. The _Lapidary_ of the pseudo-Aristotle repeats this last
assertion and adds that the gem clarifies the human sight and checks
bleeding. Arnold says it makes a man safe and drives away phantasms,
resists luxury, prevents conception, and checks the flow of blood or
the menstrual discharge. From Pliny we learn that magicians use it
in public assemblies. Philosopher affirms that it renders its wearer
chaste, safe, and agreeable, if it has been consecrated, and that it
dispels noxious phantasms. Thetel is cited concerning the potency of a
jasper found inscribed with a man having a shield about his neck or in
one hand, a spear in the other, and a snake underfoot. When the image
on the gem is that of a man with a bundle of herbs about his neck,
the stone should be set in silver and it will possess the virtue of
distinguishing between diseases and checking bleeding. Galen is said
to have worn this stone on his finger, and Rabanus says that it drives
away idle fears. Thus the same properties of the gem are repeated over
and over from the mouths of various authorities.
[Sidenote: Alchemy.]
Before treating of gems in his ninth book Vincent had discussed
other minerals and metals in the eighth. There he often alludes to
alchemy,[1549] which he regards as a practical art related to the
science of mineralogy as agriculture is to botany. He also believes
that “by the art of alchemy mineral bodies are transmuted from their
own species into others, especially metals.”[1550] It is true that the
fourth book of the _Meteorology_ of Aristotle contains the statement
that artificers cannot alter species but can only make other metals
seem like silver or gold. But some say that this passage is not
Aristotle’s but an addition from some other author. Avicenna in the
alchemical treatise _De anima_[1551] represents Aristotle and Plato as
favorable to alchemy. So Vincent persists in maintaining that, “while
the aforesaid words make alchemy seem false in a way, yet it has been
proved true both by the ancient philosophers and the artificers of our
time,” and that “transmutation, or rather disintegration” of metals
is truly effected through alchemy. The baser metals may be reduced to
their simplest form and then reformed into more precious metals.[1552]
Vincent also devotes some chapters to “the stone, elixir, by which
art imitates nature.”[1553] Avicenna and an unnamed Alchemist seem
to be Vincent’s two chief authorities on the subject of alchemy in
the _Speculum naturale_. In the _Speculum doctrinale_[1554] he again
discussed the subject, this time quoting liberally from a treatise _De
aluminibus et salibus_ attributed to Rasis. A separate treatise seems
to have been formed from these chapters of Vincent.[1555] Vincent’s
discussion of alchemy has already been reviewed by Berthelot[1556]
who noted the theories that everything has an occult quality opposed
to its natural one; that four spirits, mercury, sulphur, arsenic, and
sal ammoniac, and six metals, gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and
iron, are generated in the bowels of the earth; and that the metals are
generated by mercury and sulphur. The last doctrine in its developed
form Berthelot regarded as not earlier than the twelfth century.
Berthelot was unable to identify the “Alchemist” cited by Vincent. One
can hardly accept Berthelot’s hypothesis that a work which contains
ideas not found in the _Speculum naturale_ is later than the thirteenth
century. The _Speculum naturale_ was written, if not by 1250, at least
many years before the close of the century, and, voluminous as are its
extracts, it is very far from being all-inclusive of the ideas of the
time.
[Sidenote: Virtues of plants.]
Like Pliny, Vincent devotes much more space to the vegetable than to
the mineral kingdom.[1557] But the virtues ascribed to plants are much
less marvelous than those credited to stones, and the methods of making
use of them are seldom superstitious. In this we have, of course, not
merely Vincent’s attitude; he reflects his sources and conforms to the
usual medieval position. The virtues ascribed to plants are mainly
medicinal; many are doubtless false, however, and Vincent, with his
voluminous extracts and citations, magnifies the customary ancient and
medieval tendency to make each herb a cure for a long list of very
miscellaneous and unrelated ailments. Cinnamon and pepper,[1558] for
example, he appears to regard as panaceas, an interesting side-light on
medieval fondness for spices. A fair sample of his ordinary treatment
is provided by the chapter on the herb _Cameleon_ or _Camelea_. Pliny
says that it purges the stomach and removes phlegm and bile. Ulcers are
purged by cooking its leaves in two parts of wormwood and drinking them
with syrup of honey, at the same time making a poultice of the leaves.
They say that if anyone plucks it before sunrise and states that he
takes it for white growths of the eyes, the ailment will be removed by
its application. Indeed, gathered in any way it is wholesome for the
eyes of the young. Dioscorides says that it removes phlegm and makes a
healing poultice for foul wounds. Avicenna holds that it should be used
only in external applications, where it has cleansing, soothing, and
softening properties. It is beneficial for morphea, scab, ringworm, and
corrosive ulcers. By this point the citation from Avicenna must have
terminated, since we are informed that the roots of the white variety
taken in wine as a drink help a patient suffering from dropsy. These
roots of the white variety also kill worms, while the black kind kills
any venomous creature. Vincent then cites the _Herbarium_, presumably
of the pseudo-Apuleius, to the effect that the _Cameleon_ has the
force of tyriac or theriac, that a decoction of it solves difficulty
in urinating and cures intestinal worms and dropsy.[1559] Besides the
authors cited in the foregoing chapter Vincent makes use on the subject
of vegetation of such writers as Solinus, Isidore, the _Hexaemeron_
of Ambrose, the work of Isaac on diet, Platearius, and Constantinus
Africanus. He apparently does not use Galen’s work on medicinal simples
directly.
[Sidenote: Animals.]
Vincent discusses animals at even greater length than vegetation,
devoting a book each to birds, fish, and snakes; two to quadrupeds;
others to animal life and processes in general; and still others to
human physiology and psychology. Again we encounter the marvelous
virtues, medicinal and otherwise, inherent in parts of animals, and
amusing accounts of their ways and instinctive sagacity. The eagle
places certain stones in its nest to counteract its own excessive heat
in the hatching process; the bird called “goat-milker” steals milk
from goats’ udders by night; the cormorant dips its head beneath the
wave to collect signs of the weather and flies shoreward clamorously,
if it detects a storm approaching; the parrot bites rocks and drinks
wine.[1560] Pope Alexander had a cloak made of the wool of salamanders
which, whenever it became soiled, was cleansed by casting it into the
flames instead of washing it in water.[1561] Vincent borrows his
statements of the virtues of animals and their parts to a large extent
from Pliny, whose contents we have earlier sufficiently presented. The
medicinal virtues of the human body and its different parts are also
set forth in much the usual fashion. Vincent’s considerable number
of citations from Physiologus are, like Bartholomew’s, difficult to
identify with those of any existing Bestiary. Some seem connected with
Scriptural Glosses. It is remarkable that while he cites Physiologus
a good deal concerning birds and serpents,[1562] in the book on
quadrupeds he does not cite Physiologus for the lion, _onager_, and
other such animals as figure prominently in the so-called Physiologus
and Bestiaries.
[Sidenote: The tree of life and the bodies of the damned.]
In the thirty-first book on paradise and the fall of man Vincent quotes
Peter Comestor who, unlike Philo Judaeus, believes in the actual
existence of both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. He states that the tree of life was so called from
its natural effect, which was so to strengthen in perpetual solidity
the body of him who ate of it that he would suffer no infirmity,
anxiety, or old age.[1563] Thus Vincent encourages belief not only
in transmutation of metals but some natural method of maintaining
perpetual youth and health. In the _Mirror of History_ he quotes
“the sayings of a certain simple and good man,” to whom, among other
revelations concerning the end of the world, the information had been
vouchsafed that the torments of the damned would largely consist in
the removal from their bodies of all the good qualities which now
temper the contrariety of the bad, which would thus be left to vex them
unopposed and unassuaged.[1564]
[Sidenote: Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?]
Vincent ventures on some amusing theological speculation of his own in
discussing the interesting question whether Adam or Eve sinned more
in eating the apple.[1565] As might be expected of a medieval man and
clergyman, he decides against the woman. Eve sinned in four respects
and Adam in only two. First she sinned in doubting the divine warning;
second, in wishing to steal divinity for herself; third, in eating
contrary to the prohibition; fourth, in tempting man to eat. Adam was
not seduced into thinking that he could become divine by this method,
but was led astray by a certain amiable good-will, fearing to offend
his wife if he did not eat the apple which she offered him. Thus Eve’s
intention in sinning was the worse and woman has been punished for it
the more severely. Yet Adam sinned in two respects, namely, in secret
pride and in eating what had been forbidden. Another reason why Eve was
the greater sinner was that she sinned against more persons; against
God, against herself, and against her neighbor. But in one respect
Adam’s sin was the graver; he knew better, while Eve sinned in a
certain measure from ignorance and feminine incapacity.
[Sidenote: Classification of the sciences.]
We may also note Vincent’s classification of the sciences. As he
adopted the common Christian division of the world’s history into
six ages, as in the _Speculum naturale_ he followed the order of
the six days of creation, so in the third _Mirror of Doctrine_ he
made six fields of knowledge; literary, moral, mechanical, physical,
mathematical, and theological.[1566] This suggests Roger Bacon’s
selection of the five most essential subjects leading up to the study
of theology, namely, the languages, mathematics, perspective or optics,
experimental or applied science, and moral philosophy.
[Sidenote: Concluding estimate of the _Speculum naturale_.]
Such is the _Speculum maius_ or more particularly the _Speculum
naturale_, a work impressive by its very voluminousness and multitude
of citations of authorities, valuable as a work of reference, a great
storehouse of medieval lore, providing somewhat the same retrospect
upon previous medieval and Latin science as Pliny’s _Natural History_
afforded for Hellenistic science. We can, however, recover more of
its sources than in the case of Pliny; and when we have read them,
Vincent’s excerpts from them drop to a secondary place in our esteem.
We see how much of his work had been done for him by previous
compilers like Bartholomew of England and Thomas of Cantimpré, and how
large a portion of his work is a repetition of Pliny himself. Vincent’s
volumes suggest the use of scissors and paste a little too manifestly.
On the other hand, his work does not include everything that is in
previous medieval writers on nature, to say nothing of others that were
to come after him, and the assumption made even by specialists in the
study of medieval culture, like Rose, Berthelot, and Mâle, that the
_Speculum naturale_ alone is an adequate reflection of medieval natural
science and that Vincent is sure to mention any previous writer or
treatise,--this assumption is far from true. His _Mirror_ is a glass
through which we see darkly and not face to face.
FOOTNOTES:
[1514] Our two chief accounts of Vincent’s life and works are still the
long article by Daunou in HL XVIII (1835), 449-519, and M. l’Abbé J.
B. Bourgeat, _Études sur Vincent de Beauvais_, Paris, 1856. A little
more recent is E. Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaissance
de l’antiquité classique au XIIIe siècle_, in _Revue des Questions
Historiques_, XVII (1875), 5-57.
I have used the following edition of the _Mirror of Nature_:
_Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum naturale, sine nota_ (_Nurembergae,
Anth. Koburger_, 1485), in two huge folio volumes. Later editions than
this are apt to be very faulty. I have used an edition of the _Speculum
doctrinale_ of 1472 (?) and one of the _Speculum historiale_ of 1473.
[1515] Prologue, cap. 17; cited HL XVIII, 475.
[1516] Ptolemy of Lucca XXII, 26, in Muratori, X, 1155. I unfortunately
omitted to verify the citation from the _Speculum historiale_, at the
time that I had access to that work.
[1517] As a matter of fact Vincent cites Albert concerning the odors of
certain metals (V, 106) without naming any book.
[1518] Or thirty-second book in some editions. As a matter of fact the
date 1244-1245 is also indicated at the close of the preceding book.
[1519] In book XXXII, edition of 1473, he mentions the death of Edmund
Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1247; and (cap. 102) tells how St.
Louis in 1250 sent his brothers Alphonse of Poitou and Charles of
Anjou back to console their mother; while in caps. 103-4 we read of
Peter of Milan being canonized by Innocent IV in the tenth year of his
pontificate or about 1254.
[1520] Vincent does not seem to know or use Albert’s _De vegetabilibus
et plantis_ in seven books, citing instead apparently Alfred of
England’s translation of the two books of the _De plantis_. I doubt,
however, if Vincent’s failure to cite a work by Albertus Magnus can be
taken as sure proof that the work had not yet been written. Vincent was
far from noting or including everything that was known in his time or
had been written before, although some lazy investigators of the past
have seen fit to assume that his work adequately depicted the entirety
of medieval natural science.
[1521] _Spec, nat._, XXVII, 74 and 82; see also 101.
[1522] HL XVIII, 485.
[1523] HL XVIII, 504.
[1524] His use of classical authors has already been treated by E.
Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaisance de l’Antiquité
classique au XIIIe siècle_, in _Revue des Questions Historiques_, XVII
(1875), 5-57; also printed separately.
Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Graeca_, 1718-1728, XIV, 107-25, gives a
list of about 350 names of authors or titles cited in the _Speculum
naturale_; of these 254 are repeated by Daunou in HL XVIII, 483-4.
Unfortunately, at least in the printed edition of 1485, it is often
not clear where quotations begin and end, or to just what passages the
names of the authorities who are cited apply.
[1525] Daunou (HL XVIII, 486) asserts that Vincent had better MSS of
Pliny than Albertus Magnus had.
[1526] _Spec. nat._, I, 10, _Apologia de modo excerpendi de quibusdam
libris Arestotelis_.
[1527] _Ibid._, I, 3.
[1528] _Ibid._, VII, 6-7.
[1529] _Ibid._, IV, 93-4.
[1530] _De animalibus_, XXIII, 14. Frederick II, in his _De arte
venandi cum avibus_, was equally sceptical and based his disbelief on
personal investigation: Haskins in EHR XXXVI (1921) 351.
[1531] _Spec. nat._, XVII, 40.
[1532] This treatment and the previous quotation sound rather like
Thomas of Cantimpré, but I did not notice such a passage in his _De
natura rerum_ at the time that I had access to MSS of it, although at
that time I was not searching for this particular topic.
[1533] _Hist. des Poissons_, I, 35; cited HL XVIII, 489.
[1534] _Spec. nat._, III, 101-11; I, 19; V, 114; XXXII, 122.
[1535] _Spec. doctr._, X, 121.
[1536] The passages cited will be found in _Spec. nat._, XXVII, 52-61,
but I have altered Vincent’s order of presentation.
[1537] _Spec. nat._, XXV, 42-44.
[1538] _Ibid._, cap. 45.
[1539] _Ibid._, IV, 26-27.
[1540] _Ibid._, IV. 37 and 83; XVI, 43.
[1541] _Ibid._, XVI, 27-42.
[1542] _Spec. nat._, XVI, 49.
[1543] _Ibid._, XXXII, 38-39.
[1544] _Ibid._, XVI, 50-51.
[1545] _Ibid._, XVI, 58.
[1546] _Ibid._, IX, 35.
[1547] _Ibid._, IX, 77.
[1548] Caps. 37, 47, 57, 67, 77.
[1549] See caps. 60, 67, 70, 81-84. etc.
[1550] This passage has already been quoted in HL XVIII, 488.
[1551] Latin text printed Basel, 1572, in _Artis Chemicae principes_;
no Arabic original has yet been discovered.
[1552] _Spec. nat._, VIII, 84-85. In our chapter on The
Pseudo-Aristotle we have discussed the addition of the passage to the
fourth book of the Meteorology.
[1553] _Spec. nat._, VIII, 81-83.
[1554] _Spec. doctr._, XI, 105-107 and 132.
[1555] HL XVIII, 459.
[1556] Berthelot (1893), I, 280-87.
[1557] Books X-XV deal with herbs and trees, while only VIII-IX are
devoted to metals, minerals, and gems.
[1558] _Spec. nat._, XIV, 70; XV, 65.
[1559] _Spec. nat._, X, 50.
[1560] _Ibid._, XVII, 35, 45, 105, 135.
[1561] _Ibid._, XXI, 63.
[1562] _Spec. nat._, XVII, 22, 28, 29, 32, 36, 41, 42, 50, 148; XXI,
13, 20, 21, 39, 44, 47, 48, 54, 172.
[1563] _Ibid._, XXXI, 5.
[1564] _Spec. hist._, XXXII, 119.
[1565] _Spec. nat._, XXXI, 73.
[1566] HL XVIII, 517.