PETRUS HISPANUS
Nationality: at Paris--Medical works and later
life--Death and character--The _Thesaurus pauperum_--Is
it interpolated?--Its essential character is fairly
represented even by the printed version--Devout tone
of its preface--Arrangement of the text--Emphasis on
occult virtue--Authority and experiment--Some of Peter’s
authorities--Parts of animals; suspensions--Remedies
for toothache--Prescriptions for epilepsy--Against
sorcerers and demons--_De morbis oculorum_--_Summa
de conservanda sanitate_--A marvelous treatise on
waters--Other works ascribed to him--_Commentaries
on Isaac’s Diets_; their scholastic method--Their
questions concerning nature--Absence of astrology and
occult virtue--Incorrect ideas about nature--Reason and
experience--_Via experimenti_--Question of Peter’s relation
to Roger Bacon and Galen--John of St. Amand on medical
experimentation--Natural and occult science in John of
St. Amand--Appendix I. Some Manuscripts of the _Thesaurus
pauperum_.
[Sidenote: Nationality: at Paris.]
Petrus Hispanus, or Peter of Spain, who finally became Pope John XXI,
is said by Ptolemy of Lucca, who died fifty years after him in 1327,
to have been of Portuguese nationality.[1614] His birth is placed at
Lisbon between 1210 and 1220, and he is said to have been the son of
a physician named Julian.[1615] However, in the preface to his _De
conservanda sanitate_, as preserved in a fifteenth century manuscript,
Peter speaks of himself as from Compostella and as familiar with
all Italy, Burgundy, Gascony, and parts of Spain.[1616] In other
manuscripts he calls himself Petrus Hispanus. He came to the University
of Paris at an early age, as he himself testified when pope in a letter
to the bishop of Paris.[1617] In the same epistle he refers to the many
years he spent at Paris occupied with varied studies. His text-book in
logic was universally adopted and often commented upon, and has now
been shown to be, not, as Prantl held in his _History of Logic_,[1618]
a copy of the work of Psellus, but an independent product of the
Parisian school. It was printed from forty to fifty times between 1477
and 1519.[1619]
[Sidenote: Medical works and later life.]
From 1246 to 1250 Peter was at Siena in the faculty of arts. Perhaps
he then wrote the letter to the emperor, Frederick II, _On the Rule
of Health_, if it be a genuine work, which precedes his _Thesaurus
pauperum_ in at least one manuscript.[1620] Ptolemy of Lucca calls
Peter “an all-round scholar and specialist in medicine,”[1621] and
mentions particularly among his medical works the famous _Thesaurus
pauperum_, which we shall presently consider as a very influential
and representative handbook of medieval medicine. In all seventeen
medical works are attributed to Peter, of which only three have been
printed.[1622] At the beginning of his treatise on eye diseases
Peter speaks of himself as a professor of the art of medicine and an
investigator of the truth.[1623] In the _Thesaurus pauperum_ he cites
Albertus Magnus as well as Gilbertus Anglicus, but he probably did
not write it very late in life. Pope Gregory X made Peter a cardinal
in 1273,[1624] he was also an archbishop, and in 1276 the career of
the celebrated scholar culminated in his election to the papal see
following Gregory’s death.
[Sidenote: Death and character.]
The next year Peter met an untimely death from the fall of a ceiling,
a catastrophe which according to the gossip of Ptolemy of Lucca
occurred while he was engaged in a fit of complacent and self-admiring
laughter and shortly after he had issued some fulminations against the
monks, for whom he had little love. Ptolemy criticizes the pope as not
dignified enough in speech and manner for his office, but concedes
that he was easily approached and very kindly to all scholars and
men of letters. Millot-Carpentier regarded him as “assuredly one of
the most illustrious personages of the thirteenth century both as a
philosopher and as a dialectician,” and as “a true scholar and worthy
representative of the University of Paris, ... having all the faults of
his time but endowed with a liberal spirit.”[1625] Millot-Carpentier
also gives a list of ecclesiastical offices, honors, and dignities held
by other physicians of the period in addition to the supreme honor of a
papal election which Peter attained.
[Sidenote: The _Thesaurus pauperum_.]
Peter’s book, the _Thesaurus pauperum_, became perhaps the leading
brief medical manual during the remainder of the middle ages, as
the numerous extant manuscripts and many printed editions bear
witness.[1626] It was translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Italian,
and English. The work was intended to be a condensed compilation and
its title, “The Treasure of the Poor,” indicates that it was written
especially for the benefit of poor students and medical practitioners,
who could not afford many books. It thus continues the type of
book represented by Galen’s _Euporista_ and by the compendiums of
post-classical medicine, and is to be regarded, like Bartholomew of
England’s “On the Properties of Things,” as an example of a medieval
text-book and not as a specialized work.
[Sidenote: Is it interpolated?]
Stapper states in his Life of Pope John XXI[1627] that the text of the
_Thesaurus pauperum_ has suffered greatly from later interpolations,
that every successive transcriber of the manuscript felt at liberty
to add any further recipes of past authors that hit his fancy, and
that thereby a great deal of superstitious nonsense for which the
pope should not be held accountable was added to the original work.
But on what authority or from what personal inspection of manuscripts
Stapper makes this assertion is not clear. He lists, it is true, a
number of manuscripts in continental libraries and a few at Oxford,
but his citations of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ are all from the Lyons
edition of 1525. It is also true that he affirms that he has searched
the manuscripts in vain for the sentence in the preface of the printed
text in which it is stated that ligatures are not superstitious. But I
have found the passage without much search in three manuscripts of one
library.[1628] Possibly one reason why Stapper failed to find it is
that the opening word of the sentence is not _Litteras_, which he gives
presumably from the 1525 edition, and which would mean “characters” if
it could mean anything in the context in question, but _Ligaturas_, as
the 1497 edition correctly has it.[1629]
[Sidenote: Essential character of the work fairly represented even by
the printed version.]
My own feeling is rather that the book, even in the printed editions
of 1497 and 1578 which I had access to, is not more superstitious
than one would expect a compilation of ancient, Arabic, and medieval
medicine to be. The 1497 edition, it is true, confesses to a number of
additions from a Peter of Tuscany (? _de tusciano_) and from Bernard
Gordon; but it gives these additions separately at the close of various
chapters. I have also inspected a number of manuscripts of the work at
the British Museum, none of which Stapper mentions in his list, and
which date from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is not easy
to compare these different copies or versions, since they vary greatly
in headings and arrangement, so that the same statement may be found
in different places in them. But there seem to be passages in the 1497
edition which are not in the manuscripts, and these in turn, as is
usually the case, are not all alike in contents.[1630] But while there
may be considerable interpolation, it does not seem to have essentially
altered the original character of the book. The superstitious nonsense
may have increased in amount but scarcely in degree. Much the same
sort of remedies may be found in the earliest manuscript and latest
printed text. To be on the safe side, however, in the ensuing account
of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ I shall follow the manuscripts rather than
the printed text. I shall then add some account of other treatises
which I have found ascribed to Peter in the manuscripts and of his
printed Commentaries on Isaac’s _Diets_.
[Sidenote: Devout tone of its preface.]
The brief preface, which appears in most of the manuscripts that I
have seen as well as in the printed editions, gives a good idea of
the nature of the work. Its opening sentence reflects the religious
spirit of the age and status of the author. “In the name of the holy
and indissoluble Trinity, who created all things which are not God and
who endowed individual objects with their particular virtues, from
whom all wisdom is given to the wise and science to scientists, I
approach a task beyond my powers trusting in the aid of the same, who
works through us as instruments all good works.” In a second sentence,
given differently in the manuscripts and printed texts, the author
states the title of his work, _Thesaurus pauperum_. Later he adds that
the attentive reader will find here easy and efficacious medicines
for almost all infirmities, provided he has Him as helper who created
medicine from earth. He also warns the physician, lest by his science
he impugn God the giver of science, to take the utmost care not to
reveal to anyone any medicines by which pregnancy may be prevented
or abortions provoked. In most manuscripts that I have examined the
preface presently concludes with the sentence, “Therefore in the name
of Jesus Christ, the supreme physician, who heals at His will all our
infirmities, since He is the head of the faithful, let us begin with
diseases of the head and descend to the feet.”
[Sidenote: Arrangement of the text.]
This top to toe order, taking up one ailment after another and listing
remedies in connection with each, was already common[1631] and is
generally followed with some variations in the manuscripts. The 1497
preface also states that the work is divided into four books, but this
division is neither promised nor performed in most of the manuscripts.
Two seem to go no farther than where the third book ends in the 1497
edition, and two others give the first few chapters of its fourth book
as a separate treatise on fevers.[1632] Indeed the colophon to the
1497 edition states that Peter’s treatise on fevers has been added to
the _Thesaurus pauperum_. In the 1578 edition instead of four books we
find simply eighty-five headings representing as many diseases. Some
manuscripts also have tables of contents. Royal 12 B III gives but
fifty-two headings, ending with quartan fever, while Additional MS.
32,622 and Harleian MS. 5218 sometimes have more and sometimes fewer
headings than the 1497 text, which has 21, 18, 19, and 20 chapters
respectively in its four books. The other manuscripts which I have seen
have to a considerable extent the same headings, and still more so the
same matter, but the order varies somewhat.
[Sidenote: Emphasis on occult virtue.]
Returning to the preface, we may note that the author counsels the
reader not to despise what he reads because it is unfamiliar to him,
and also not to apply the remedies before carefully considering the
nature of the disease and the condition of the patient. “And let him
study diligently to learn the natures and constitutions and substances
of things, and as far as he can the occult virtue of particular
things.”[1633] Otherwise it will be a case of blind leading blind. We
have already seen that in addition to this profession of belief in
occult virtue of particular objects some manuscripts, though hardly the
oldest or most reliable ones, assert further that ligatures are not
superstitious but act directly, especially if a right foot is bound on
the right foot, or a male animal on a man.
[Sidenote: Authority and experiment.]
The preface also informs us of the sources whence the work has been
compiled. These are “the books of the ancient philosophers and masters
and of modern experimenters.” The author has tried either to present
their views in their own words, or to express their precise meaning in
other words of easier comprehension, so that if you had their books
at hand you would find nothing other than what he sets down here, and
so that in perusing his book you may seem to read the originals. The
mention of “modern experimenters” is a foretaste of the “experimental”
character of the _Thesaurus pauperum_. In some manuscripts it is
called a _Book of Experiments_ or a _Summa_ of medicinal experiments,
and it is sometimes included in collections of expressly experimental
works. One reason for this is the common medieval use of the word
“experimentum” for almost any medicinal recipe or remedy, but another
reason is that Peter’s remedies are rather empirical in character.
And as early as Galen’s time the Empirics relied partly for their
experiences upon the statements of past authors. Moreover, we meet
throughout the _Thesaurus pauperum_ with assurances that this or that
has been experienced, or that experts or “Experimenter” have said
so, or even that “I have experienced this.”[1634] These uses of the
first person are often probably copied from Peter’s authorities, but
they later came to be regarded as his own experiences, since the 1578
edition describes the _Thesaurus pauperum_ in the full title as “an
empirical work from all sorts of authors and his own experience.”
[Sidenote: Some of his authorities.]
Among his authorities Peter makes much use of recent works and writers,
such as Constantinus Africanus and Platearius and the _Antidotarium_
of Nicholaus, Walter and Richard and Roger, _Experimentator_ and
_Lapidarius_ and _Liber de natura rerum_, Gilbert of England and
Albertus Magnus. He of course utilizes such Hebrew and Arabic medical
writers as Isaac, Rasis, Haly, and Avicenna. It is worth noting as a
hint of the superstitious character of parts of his work that he cites
the Kiranides a good deal. Galen and “Dyascorides”--often pseudo,
Pliny and Esculapius, are of course not forgotten.
[Sidenote: Parts of animals: suspensions.]
Much use is made of parts of animals, and perhaps especially of those
least to be mentioned. Less nauseating examples are, among many similar
parts of animals prescribed for epileptics, the liver of a vulture
drunk with its blood for nine days, or the gall still warm from a dog
who should have been killed the moment the epileptic fell in the fit.
This last is borrowed from Gilbert. Portions of the human body, too,
are employed; for instance, burnt human bones or the tooth of a dead
man. Suspensions from the neck of such objects as the hairs of a dog or
a cabbage root are also in favor.[1635]
[Sidenote: Remedies for toothache.]
Selection of a few details from two or three specimen chapters will
further illustrate the nature of the contents. For toothache is
recommended touching the ailing tooth with one from a corpse, holding
in the mouth violets cooked in wine, holding a grain of opium between
the teeth. Other remedies are vinegar in which a root of jusquiam has
been boiled, deer horn burnt until it whitens and dries, and a powder
made from dogs’ teeth. Cavities may be filled with the brain of a
partridge or crow’s dung. The latter “breaks the tooth and removes
pain.” A tooth may be easily extracted by touching it with dog’s milk
or applying a hot root of jusquiam to its roots. But in the latter case
beware not to touch the other teeth or they will fall out too.[1636]
These remedies are, however, mild indeed compared to the treatment
for toothache prescribed by Pliny in two chapters of his _Natural
History_.[1637] Nor do I find in those chapters a passage ascribed to
Pliny in the _Thesaurus pauperum_, in which one is directed to dig a
root without use of iron, touch the ailing tooth with it for three
days, and then replace it where one has dug it, after which “that tooth
will never ache again.”
[Sidenote: Prescriptions for epilepsy.]
For epilepsy besides parts of animals and suspensions already
mentioned, “Experimenter says and I have heard from experts that eating
a wolf’s heart cures.”[1638] Or one may try the following experiment:
Take a frog and split him down the back with a knife, and extract his
liver and wrap it up in a cabbage leaf, and reduce it to a powder in
a sealed pot, and give it to the epileptic to drink with the best
wine. “And if one frog does not cure him, give him another, and so on
until he is cured; and don’t doubt concerning the cure, for he will
be cured beyond a doubt.”[1639] From Constantinus and Walter[1640] is
repeated the cure of an epileptic child by bringing him to church on
certain days and having him hear mass and having the priest read over
him the Scripture about this sort of demon not being cast out except
by fasting and prayer. Most of the manuscripts also state that one who
carries with him the names of the three kings who adored Christ will
be free from epilepsy, and some give their names, Jasper, Baltaser,
Melchior.[1641]
[Sidenote: Against sorcerers and demons.]
Under the caption of remedies for witchcraft and possession by demons
are found such procedures as smearing the walls of the house with the
blood of a black dog or burying a reed filled with quicksilver under
the threshold. A recipe to rescue a patient from infatuation in love
produced by sorcery is hardly translateable, but affords too good an
example of sympathetic magic or of human psychology to be omitted
entirely. “Si quis ad aliquam vel aliquem nimis amandum maleficiatus
fuerit, tum stercus recens illius quem vel quam diligit ponatur in
ocrea vel in calceo dextro amantis, et calciet se et quamprimum
foetorem sentiat, maleficium solvetur.” It is also stated that wearing
the heart of a vulture makes one popular with all men and very
wealthy, and that by vivisecting the bird hoopoe and eating its still
palpitating heart one may learn the future and all secrets concealed
in men’s minds.[1642]
[Sidenote: _De morbis oculorum._]
Very similar to the remedies of the _Thesaurus pauperum_ are those in
Peter’s treatise on diseases of the eyes.[1643] The works are further
alike in being compilations and yet experimental or empirical. Peter
states that he has collected his material on eye diseases from many
books at the urging of a disciple,[1644] and that it is based upon
reason and experience. Of one recipe for removing ingrowing eyebrows
he says, “I have tested this with my own hands”; and he cites as an
experiment of Rasis the trite prescription of using the blood of a
bat to prevent eyebrows or lashes which have been plucked out from
growing again.[1645] Millot-Carpentier[1646] has already given a
number of these eye-cures, bringing out chiefly the great use of parts
of animals, which we have already remarked in the case of Gilbert of
England. We may further note a bit of astrology. Peter first makes the
general assertion that the human body is subject to the planets and
signs,[1647] and later in describing the eye notes that it has seven
tunics or humors covering it like the seven planets. There is also, as
in the _Thesaurus pauperum_, some use of Christian incantations. To
remove a fistula from the eye, besides using the blood from a cock’s
crest and pulverized snakeskin one should bind the leaf of an herb
about the patient’s foot and say, “As Christ descended from heaven into
the Virgin’s womb, so may the fistula descend from the eye to the
foot.”[1648] This is of course also an example of the magic transfer of
disease.
[Sidenote: _Summa de conservanda sanitate._]
A third treatise exists under Peter’s name in a British Museum
manuscript and is called a “Summa concerning the preservation of health
and those things which assist and harm it.”[1649] This work opens in a
more self-confident and flamboyant style than the other treatises where
Peter spoke of himself in a self-depreciatory manner. Now after a few
lines of pious introduction we read, “Let the Jews blush, the Saracens
be put to confusion, roving practitioners desist, old enchantresses
be dumb, and empirics and methodics keep silence. Let rational
physicians rejoice and those descendants of the medical art who employ
both reason and experience. I, master Petrus Hispanus, a native of
Compostella, have pursued my education (_expertus ... alumpniam_) in
all Italy, Burgundy, Vienne, Provence, Gascony, and certain parts
of Spain. Certain useful natural phenomena which are not found in
the bosom of the art of medicine I have discovered by labor, vision,
chance, experience, and genius to be both useful against diseases and
the causes of diseases; and I have demonstrated certain instructive
experiments for conserving the safety of the human mechanism, and
I have experienced that all things from the eighth sphere to the
earth’s center are governed by the law of reason (_veridica ratione
habentur_).” At first, however, the treatise consists of general rules
and precepts for guarding one’s health rather than experiments or
recipes. Astrology comes in again in the statement that the motion of
the superior bodies is one of the causes of the shortening of human
life. Presently the author considers different parts of the body in
turn, as the brain, eyes, ears, teeth, lungs, heart, stomach, liver,
spleen, and feet, and lists things which are good and bad for each.
Things which harm the brain,[1650] for example, are quicksilver, the
cerebellum of all animals except the dog and the fox, fetid odors,
gluttony and drunkenness, sleeping immediately after eating--if the
brain is weak, bathing after eating, turbid air, worry over temporal
affairs, eating with bent head, and eating a great deal of fish or
milk, cheese, unripe fruit, and nuts. Among things beneficial for the
eyes frequent washing of the feet is suggested.
[Sidenote: _A Marvelous Treatise on Waters._]
_A Marvelous Treatise on Waters which master Petrus Hispanus composed
with natural industry guided by the intellect_ is found in a number
of manuscripts. Sometimes it appears to be the closing part of his
treatise on diseases of the eyes,[1651] and its first item is “a
marvelous water to preserve and clarify the sight.” But it also is
found as a separate treatise, in which directions are given for
distilling various liquids, which in at least one manuscript are
accompanied by two figures of chemical apparatus.[1652] In another
manuscript the word _philosophus_ is substituted for _master Petrus
Hispanus_ in the title given at the beginning of this paragraph, but
the treatise is presumably the same.[1653] In this case, at least, it
seems to include exactly twelve waters[1654] and so to conform to
other medieval books _Of twelve waters_, of which we treat further in
another chapter.[1655] Also its last two “waters” are an elixir of life
and alcohol.[1656] If Peter of Spain came from Compostella, he may have
had something to do with a _Book of Compostella, which treats of many
waters and of many oils and of many salts of great virtue_. However,
Brother Bonaventura, a Franciscan, is said to have composed the book in
the convent of the Brothers of St. Mary in Venice.[1657]
[Sidenote: Other works ascribed to him.]
A _Rule of Health_[1658] and a _Rule of Safety through all the
months_,[1659] which are ascribed to Peter in still other manuscripts,
very likely have some connection with the above-mentioned _Summa
de conservanda sanitate_ or with the _Letter to Frederick on the
Rule of Health_ which has also been mentioned earlier in this
chapter. A treatise on anatomy is attributed to Peter in an Italian
manuscript,[1660] and a _Book of Life and Death and of the Causes
of Longevity and Brevity of Life_ is listed as his in an Oxford
manuscript.[1661] Perhaps the shortest work ascribed to him is one
of seven verses on rain.[1662] Commentaries by him on one or more of
the following works are contained in a manuscript at Paris:[1663]
the _Introduction_ of Johannitius (Honein or Hunain ibn Ishak)
to the _Ars parva_ of Galen, the _Prognostics_ of Hippocrates,
Philaretus concerning the pulse, Theophilus on urines, the _Aphorisms_
of Hippocrates, the _Microtegni_ itself. A _Liber naturalis de
rebus principalibus naturarum_ is ascribed to Peter in a Vienna
manuscript.[1664]
[Sidenote: Commentaries on Isaac’s _Diets_: their scholastic method.]
We come finally to Peter’s Commentaries upon the works of Isaac on
_Universal Diets_ and _Particular Diets_.[1665] They are as full as the
_Thesaurus pauperum_ was abbreviated and as scholastic and dialectical
in form as it was empirical. Where Isaac’s text is clear Peter leaves
its meaning to the reader’s industry,[1666] but it suggests to him
over a thousand further questions which he takes up one after the
other, listing authorities _pro_ and _con_ in each case and rebutting
or reconciling them. Here we see the handiwork of the author of the
favorite manual of logic of the later middle ages. The systematic,
but abstract, sophistical, and jejune character of this method may be
sufficiently illustrated by quotation of the closing passage of the
“First Lecture” (_Lectio prima_).[1667]
“Next we proceed to the fourth point and inquire whether any food can
be found of like nature to our bodies. And it would seem so, since when
foods are called temperate and equal, they are not called equal except
with respect to the body. But certain foods, such as chicken meat and
the like, are called temperate and equal; therefore it is possible to
find food of like nature to our bodies.”
“Against this three arguments are advanced. The first is that it is
impossible to associate or join two different individuals; therefore a
plant which grows in the earth and an animal cannot be joined and made
one. The second argument is that nothing which is at first contrary
and at last similar is of like nature to our bodies; but such is food,
according to Aristotle, therefore no food is at all like. The third
argument is that nothing far removed from human nature in constitution
and composition and species is in any way like human nature. But all
food is of this sort; therefore no food at all resembles the nature of
our bodies, which we concede.”
“But it should be said anent these opposing arguments that ‘like’ may
be understood in two senses. Either it means alike in all respects,
and so no food is like. In the second sense, it means that it makes
no manifest impression on the body, and in this sense some foods are
called of like nature, such as chicken.”
“Next it is asked whether human flesh is nourishing, since nutriment
goes by likeness. And it would seem so, for Isaac says that man is
not nourished by the elements, since he is too far removed from them.
Therefore that flesh which approaches closest to human nature should
be the most nutritious. But this is human flesh; hence human flesh
should be very nutritious. Here is another argument. Nutriment is
from likeness, and from equal nutriment comes a well-balanced state
of health; now the human constitution is especially temperate and
well-balanced; therefore it requires temperate and equal food, and
such, some agree, is human flesh. We, however, call it the worst sort
of nutriment for two reasons: one, its corrruptibility; the other, its
excessive unctuosity. For as the flesh of the body endures by virtue
of the presence of the soul, so after the spirit’s departure the flesh
becomes moist, vile, and fetid; and herein lies the solution of the
difficulty, since if it is temperate, it has this property from the
soul while it exists in the body.”
As to what the effect would be of eating men alive, Peter does not
state. His argument may have possessed an additional interest for his
own time from the possibility of applying it in theological as well as
medical matters,--for example, the sacrament of the Eucharist.
[Sidenote: Their questions concerning nature.]
Many of the questions raised by Peter are concrete enough, however, and
supply, not only some definite information on the history of domestic
science and of the medieval table, but also interesting illustration
of the scope of that medieval curiosity concerning nature to which
we have more than once adverted. Such questions continue the type of
natural science of which the _Problems_ of Aristotle and the _Natural
Questions_ of Adelard of Bath are earlier instances. Those of Peter
are the more impressive in that some of them are far removed from the
subject of diet at all strictly interpreted. The following is a list of
such representative questions picked out here and there throughout the
commentaries on both the works of Isaac on diet.
Can natural death be retarded?
Is a well-balanced constitution the best preserved, or is it
easily overcome by the causes of disease?
Is bad food more injurious than bad air?
Why do we employ foods hot in the fourth degree and not
those cold in the same degree?
What should be the diet of those taking mental exercise,
like students?
Why is man less hairy and of weaker constitution than the
brutes?
Why does nature sustain a multitude of medicines, but not of
foods?
Are medicines always contraries?
How can animals who eat poisons be food for men?
Why in some foods is the liquid substance of the same nature
as the solid, and in others not?
If the spleen causes laughter by purifying the blood, why
isn’t love caused by the gall-bladder?
Why are the droppings of birds of prey white, of others not?
Does the blood alone nourish us?
How do sweet things sour on the stomach?
Should wine be drunk before or after eating, and immediately
following or long afterwards?
Is water of more aid than wine in the process of
assimilating food?
Which satiety is sooner removed, that from fats or from
sweets?
How do salts possess the virtue of laxatives?
Why are fish not given in acute fevers?
Why are compound foods more often injurious than compound
medicines?
Why are some plants cold and wet when young, hot and sharp
when old?
Is humidity the formal principle of tastes?
Is fruit wholesome?
Why do some plants bear fruit twice a year?
Why does a branch cut from a plant and placed in earth live,
while the severed limb of an animal will not live?
Why are animals soft in infancy, and fruits hard?
What part of water is more truly water: top, bottom, or
middle?
Is cow meat better eating than ox meat?
Is the flesh of female animals moister?
Why in hot regions are the brutes large but the men small,
and in cold countries the contrary?
Is pork better in summer?
Is meat cooked in a pie good?[1668]
Why are the ears of all animals save men and apes in
continual motion?
Why do sparrows cure epilepsy when they are subject to the
disease themselves?
Why are pigs’ intestines the best of animals that walk and
geese’s intestines of those that fly?
Why a small hen lays more eggs than a large one?
Are eggs or meat better for convalescents?
Why is white of egg used for wounds?
Is goats’ milk the best?
Is human milk subtler than asses’ milk?
Why do these things go together:--having large flanks
and belly, ruminating, lack of teeth in the upper jaw,
coagulation of the milk, having horns?
Is butter of a hotter nature than oil?
Why salt water fish do not have salt flesh?
Why the dolphin and whale have true blood, albeit they are
fish?
Why there are larger fish in salt water than fresh?
Are fish fried in meal better than those not?
Should paralytics eat fried fish?
Why should one not eat eggs raw like milk?
Why the flame of fire takes the figure of a pyramid?
Why are springs hot in winter and cold in summer?
Should an interval elapse between the courses of a meal?
Should drink be taken along with one’s food?
Should the heartier meal be at mid-day or in the evening?
Why are other animals than man content with one form of food?
Why does human urine enrich vines?
Should fruit be plucked ripe or green?
Are apples good in fevers?
Why is wine (cider) made from apples?
Why does melancholy especially excite the appetite?
Why do the boxwood, white-fir, and laurel trees retain their
foliage a longer time than others?
Why in the boxwood, laurel, and olive are the leaves
pointed, in the poplar and other trees wide?
Is it beneficial to strew myrtle leaves in the sick-room?
Why is oil best at the top, honey at the bottom, wine in the
middle of the cask?
Are fungi plants or something between earth and plants?
Why the weasel seeks rue and rubs itself with it when it
intends to fight a snake?
Why pepper is good for dimmed eyes?
Why the water in the sea does not grow less?
Why the horse, mule, and ass neither nourish man nor harm
him, if he eats them?[1669]
Why castration improves the conduct of beasts, makes men
worse?[1670]
Is raw cheese better than cooked, and solid cheese or cheese
with holes in it?
Why are fools so fond of cheese?
Why have birds but two feet and no teeth?
Which is more nourishing, the white or the yolk of an egg?
Why travelers should eschew fish?
Whether the water that we drink is the element?[1671]
Which is better, standing or running water?
Why wine affects the tongue more than the other members?
[Sidenote: Absence of astrology and occult virtue.]
Some of the questions which Peter raises one might expect him to
solve by an appeal to occult virtue, sympathy and antipathy existing
between things in nature, or the superior influence of the stars.
This, however, he almost never does; his reasoning is based rather on
the prevalence of the four qualities, hot and cold, dry and moist, in
natural objects. Thus the property of dove’s blood of removing spots
from the eye is attributed to its heat and humidity, not to any occult
power.[1672] And sparrows, although epileptics themselves, are said to
cure epilepsy because they are very hot and dry and consume the humors
or vapors which cause epilepsy, not by antipathy or because like cures
like.[1673] Even less does one note any instances of ligatures and
suspensions, characters and incantations. One or two passages show,
however, that Peter believes in occult virtue and the rule of the
stars. He states that in addition to the four simple elements “there
is another simplicity ... namely, from qualities, and it is not in
the elements but in the celestial bodies.”[1674] And in his prologue
to the _Particular Diets_ he affirms that celestials are the cause of
inferiors and quotes the words addressed by God to the stars in Plato’s
_Timaeus_, “O gods of gods, whose father and creator I am, by your
nature you are dissoluble but by my will indissoluble,” to prove how
much more corruptible inferior bodies are.[1675]
[Sidenote: Incorrect ideas about Nature.]
Despite the almost complete absence of superstitious practices and of
astrological and magical doctrine from the _Commentaries on Isaac_ it
is of course true that Peter harbors many incorrect notions such as
that fish lack bones and that hot water freezes harder and quicker
than cold.[1676] This last, however, he supports by the authority
and arguments of Aristotle and Avicenna. Peter also throughout the
work displays faith in the validity of compound medicines, although
he raises the suggestive question, why compound foods are more often
injurious than compound medicines. He also accepts various stories of
animal remedies and sagacity for which he finds support in Aristotle’s
_History of Animals_, such as that the serpent eats fennel to restore
or sharpen its sight,[1677] and that the bone in the heart of the
stag is especially beneficial for heart disease because “the stag is
very ingenious and astute and so eats potent herbs which especially
affect the heart like parsley and origanum,” and from these the bone
forms.[1678] In explaining why deer shed their horns and hide them,
Peter incorrectly makes Aristotle say that they secrete the right horn
with more care, whereas the _History of Animals_ states, “It is said
that no one has ever seen the left horn, for he conceals it as if it
had some medicinal (or, magic) power.”[1679]
[Sidenote: Reason and experience.]
Finally, despite the scholastic form of Peter’s Commentary, it contains
a long passage on the importance of experimental method or “the way of
experience” (_via experimenti_),[1680] f which it couples with “the
path of reason” (_via rationis_) as the two methods by which dietary
science may be investigated. First Peter distinguishes between the two,
then shows the necessity of the way of experience, and third that it
can and should be confirmed by reason. Galen says that experience is
weak without reason, and so is reason when not joined to experience.
Some say that reason should precede experience, that first we should
seek rationally, then test by experience. In any case the way of
experience proceeds through effects, the way of reason through causes.
The one method is inductive; the other, syllogistic; the one based
on immediate effects, the other on mediate effects. “Experimental
method pays no attention to causes; rational method considers causes
and principles; experience makes use of the senses; reason, of the
intellect” and arguments.
[Sidenote: _Via experimenti._]
After listing various arguments _pro_ and _con_ as to whether the
_via experiment_ “is of art and in art, or precedes art,” Peter gives
his solution to the effect that _experimentum_ is threefold. As a
method of attaining knowledge it antecedes all arts and sciences. As
a method of making known the objects of scientific inquiry, it is a
part of science. As an application of scientific doctrine to practical
life and industry, it follows science. Furthermore, experience “may
proceed regularly through science and doctrine and in this way it
can be rational.” Or it may be irregular and not syllogistic in
method. The experimental discoveries of brutes, as when the serpent
restores its sight with fennel, come to them from nature, but ours are
acquired by art and confirmed by reason, although man too possesses
the experimental instinct. Peter further distinguishes the experiences
of rustics, which are unregulated by reason, from the experiments of
skilled men which are regulated by reason. Moreover, “experiences
are not without their reasons, and idle is the experiment which does
not rest on reason.” Finally, Peter gives six conditions requisite
in medical experimentation which are somewhat similar to the seven
conditions stated by his contemporary, John of St. Amand. First, the
medicine administered should be free from all foreign substance.[1681]
Second, the patient taking it should have the disease for which it is
especially intended. Third, it should be given alone without admixture
of other medicine. Fourth, it should be of the opposite degree to the
disease. Fifth, “we should test it not once only but many times.”
Sixth, “the experiments should be with the proper body, as on the body
of a man and not of an ass.”
[Sidenote: Question of Peter’s relation to Roger Bacon and Galen.]
Peter’s discussion of the _via experimenti_ is in several respects
similar to Roger Bacon’s discussion of experimental science, but is
probably quite independent of it. Peter died before Roger in 1277, and
his _Commentary on Isaac_ was probably composed before the works which
Bacon addressed to the pope in and around the year 1267. The influence
of Galen, who had discussed the part played by reason and experience in
his own work on food values, upon Peter is fairly evident.
[Sidenote: John of St. Amand on medical experimentation.]
John of St. Amand, to whose similar conditions for medical
experimentation we just alluded, was a canon of Tournai who seems to
have written a little later than Peter, since he describes the death
from vomiting of a bishop of Tournai which took place in 1261.[1682]
It is in his commentary on the _Antidotarium_ of Nicolaus that John
gives his seven conditions for medical experimentation. After having
said that on account of the scarcity and incompleteness of experience,
we should sometimes learn the virtues of simple medicines “through
doctrine,” John for a page or two discusses other matters, but then
reverts to the subject of experimentation. A medicinal simple, he says,
may be known by two methods, “the way of experience and the way of
reason.” “And because the principles of experience are better known to
us than the principles of reason, let us first inquire concerning the
knowledge of medicinal simples by the way of experience.” He goes on to
say that experience is twofold as it is supported or not supported by
reason. If unsupported by reason experience or experiment is timorous
and fallacious. As for experience supported by reason, it should
conform to these seven requirements.[1683] First, “the medicinal simple
which is being tested should be pure and free from every extraneous
quality, lest by such extraneous quality the proper operation of the
medicine be impeded, and in consequence experimental knowledge.”[1684]
Here the use of the adjective, “experimental” is interesting. Second,
the experimentation should be with a simple and not a complicated
disease.[1685] Third, the simple should be tested in two contrary types
of disease, because sometimes a medicine cures one disease by its
“complexion” or elemental properties and another by its occult virtue.
Thus scammony cures both quotidian and tertian fever; the first because
scammony is of a hot nature; but the second by its occult virtue and
not because scammony is of a cold nature, for it is not.[1686] Fourth,
the virtue of the medicine should correspond to the quality of the
patient. Fifth, essence and accident should not be confused; water,
for example, may be heated, but is not of a hot nature.[1687] Sixth,
the experiment should be often repeated. For if a medicine is tested
in the cases of five men and has a heating effect upon them all, still
that is not adequate proof that it will always have a heating effect,
for they may have all been of a cold or temperate constitution, whereas
a man of hot nature would not be heated by the simple in question.
Seventh, the test should be on the human body and in varying states of
health. Trying the medicine upon a lion may not prove anything as to
its effect upon a man.[1688] John seems to have taken his conditions
directly from Galen rather than from Petrus Hispanus, since only three
of them are identical with Peter’s, whereas all but one occur in his
own _Concordances_ from Galen’s works.[1689] John of St. Amand repeats
the experiment with the hazel rod which we have already encountered in
William of Auvergne. According to John the two split halves tend to
reunite because it is natural for them to be together, but he adds that
some old women make use of it with utterance of a useless incantation
as a matrimonial charm, asserting that if the halves unite, the
marriage will be a happy one.[1690]
[Sidenote: Natural and occult science in John of St. Amand.]
It was not my intention to speak of John of St. Amand further than
to compare his remarks on experimental method with those of Petrus
Hispanus, but the _Histoire Littéraire_ has already presented some
specimens of his views, which it will be worth repeating to show
that his experimental tendency has the same accompaniment of mingled
credulity and scepticism and of occult science and signs of magic
as we have noted in other cases. Thus he rejects the story that the
beaver castrates itself to escape the pursuit of hunters on the
ground that the animal has not that much sense, but believes that
beavers enslave one another. From the fact that herons are subject
to diarrhoea he argues that men with long necks and legs should not
resort to purgatives, and he states that pearls comfort the heart by
similarity, since they are hard like the heart. He enters into long and
obscure explanations how it is that application of the flesh of a snake
extracts the venom from its bite, and “is not exempt from astrological
ideas.”[1691] But the writings of John of St. Amand have carried us
well along into the second half of the thirteenth century; in the next
chapter we must turn back to a man whose literary activity began in the
Erst half of that century, Albertus Magnus.
FOOTNOTES:
[1614] _Ptolemaei Lucensis Historia Ecclesiastica. Liber XXIII_, _cap.
xxi_, in Muratori, XI, 1176. For the life of John XXI see also HL
XIX (1838) 322-34; J. T. Koehler, _Vollständige Nachricht von Pabst
Johann XXI_, Göttingen, 1760; L. Zdekauer, in _Bullettino Senese di
Storia Patria_, VI (1898-1899); Richard Stapper, _Papst Johannes XXI_,
Münster, 1898, in _Kirchengesch. Studien herausg. v. Dr. Knöpfler, Band
IV, Heft iv_.
[1615] Millot-Carpentier (1901). G. Porro, in his catalogue of
Trivulzian MSS at Milan, Turin, 1884, calls Peter “Petrus Julianus
Ulissiponensis.”
[1616] Royal 13-A-VII, 15th century, fol. 149r.
[1617] Stapper (1898), p. 4, “In illis namque laribus ab annis teneris
diutius observati variis scientiis inibi studiose vacavimus et per
annos plurimos....”
[1618] See too, C. von Prantl, _Michael Psellus und Petrus Hispanus_,
1867.
[1619] HL XIX, 330.
[1620] Harleian 5218, fols. 1r-3r, _Epistola Magistri Petri Hyspani
missa ad Imperatorem Fridericum super regimen sanitatis_. It seems
strange, however, that Peter should call himself, as he does in this
work, “senex artis medicinae professor,” before 1250, when he would
have been rather less than forty years of age. Other MSS. are: CLM 615,
13-14th century, fols. 41-68; BN 7446, 15th century.
[1621] “Hic generalis clericus fuit et praecipue in medicinis.”
[1622] HL XIX, 327-8; namely, the _Thesaurus pauperum_, and the
commentaries on Isaac on _Diets_ and _Urines_.
[1623] Sloane 1214, 15th century, fols. 38r-46, _De morbis oculorum_.
Other MSS of his work or works on eye diseases are: Sloane 2268,
14th century, fols. 52-59; CLM 161, 13th century, fols. 55v-57,
_de aegritudinibus oculorum_; CLM 40, 14th century, fols. 112-15,
_Breviarium de aegritudinibus oculorum_; CLM 381, 14th century, fol.
78-, _Curae ... de passionibus oculorum, vel Secretum pro amico ad
oculos_; CLM 438, 14th century, fol. 108, _de passionibus oculorum_;
Wolfenbüttel, 2794, 15th century, fols. 183-8, _Petri Hispani liber
oculorum_, fol. 188v, _Secretum magistri Petri Hispani_; BN 6957, 15th
century, #1, _Secretum de oculis_.
[1624] Cholmeley, _John of Gaddesden_, 1912, p. 183, says that Peter
had been Gregory’s physician.
[1625] Millot-Carpentier (1900), p. 180.
[1626] Printed at Antwerp in 1476 and 1497, at Lyons in 1525, at
Frankfurt perhaps in 1567, 1575, 1576, and certainly in 1578, at Paris
in 1577. I have used the 1497 edition,--_Summa Experimentorum sive
thesaurus pauperum magistri Petri yspani, Antwerpiae, Theodoricus
Martini, 1497 (die 22 Mai)_. A letter lying loose in the copy (numbered
IB. 50018) which I read at the British Museum, stated that the copy
at Liège is (was) the same. I also consulted the edition printed at
Frankfurt in 1578 but it seemed faulty compared with the 1497 edition.
For a list of MSS see Appendix I at the close of this chapter.
[1627] Stapper (1898), p. 23.
[1628] Sloane 284, Harleian 5218, Additional 25,000 contain the
sentence; Sloane 521 and 2479, and Royal 12 B III do not have it. The
entire preface is missing in Addit. 22,636 and in the early MS, Sloane
477, but it also has no _Incipit_ and a first sheet may well be missing
which contained the preface.
[1629] The sentence as Stapper gives it (p. 24), reads: “_Litteras
autem quas aliquando ponunt physici superstitiose positas nemo credat,
sed quia immediatius operantur vel magis assidue, sicut dextrum
dextro vel sinistrum sinistro membro et masculo apponitur._” In
the 1497 edition and Sloane 284 the sentence reads more correctly:
“_Ligaturas autem quas aliquando posuerunt philosophi nemo credat
superstitiose positas, sed immo quod (ideo quia) immediatius operantur
vel magis assidue si (vel aliter) numquam deponuntur vel a simili
sicut si ad (aliud) dextrum dextro membro vel sinistrum sinistro vel
masculinum masculino apponatur._” In the 1578 edition the sentence has
been completely changed and begins: “_Characteres vero et de collo
suspendenda quorum interdum a Philosophis sit mentio nemo arbitretur
superstitiose tradita esse sed ideo quia immediate operantur vel magis
per_ ἀντιπάθειαν...” etc.
[1630] For instance, among remedies for sore throat an herb “divinely
revealed to good bishop Boniface” and “a good prayer” were detailed in
the 1497 edition, but I failed to find them in Sloane 477, Sloane 2479,
Additional 32,622, or Royal 12-B-III. The next remedy after the good
prayer was given in Sloane 477 only in the margin, but in Additional
32,622 appeared in the body of the text. In the chapter on toothache,
too, a remedy written in the margin in a different ink from the text of
Sloane 477 is embodied in the text of Sloane 521 and 2479 as well as in
the 1497 edition.
[1631] Gilbert of England’s _Compendium_ adopted essentially that order.
[1632] See also CLM 457, 15th century, fol. 112-, De febribus. Sunt
aliqua capitula ex thesauro pauperum Hispani Petri.
[1633] Sloane 521 and Addit. 32,622 omit “occult.”
[1634] Even in an early MS like Sloane 477 we find the first person
used a great deal and experience or “experiments” often mentioned.
[1635] Sloane 2479, fol. 37v, fol. 14r, fol. 13v; and in other MSS.
[1636] These remedies for toothache will all be found in Sloane 477 and
2479, Addit. 32,622, and Royal 12-B-III, as well as in the 1497 edition.
[1637] 28, 49 and 30, 8.
[1638] Sloane 477, fol. 9r.
[1639] Sloane 2479, fol. 14v; Addit. 25,000, fol. 79v; Addit. 32,622,
under the heading “_De spasmo_.”
[1640] Sloane 477, fol. 10r does not cite Constantine and Walter, but
other MSS do.
[1641] Sloane 2479, fol. 14v; Royal 12-B-III, fol. 19v; Addit. 25,000,
fol. 79v; Harleian 5218.
[1642] All the items mentioned in this paragraph are found in the
early MS Sloane 477 as well as in other MSS. In a fifteenth century
MS at Florence (Ashburnham 143, fols. 113-14), this chapter appears
separately as, “_Capitulum pulcrum pro maleficiis malis_” and under
the further sub-titles, “_De hiis qui maleficiis impediti cum uxoribus
cohire non possunt. Pro maleficiis destruendis secundum magistrum
Petrum Yspanum._”
[1643] For the _De morbis oculorum_ I have used two MSS. in the British
Museum; Sloane 1214, 15th century, fols. 38-46, and Sloane 2268, 14th
century, fols. 52-59. I presume that Gonville and Caius 379, 13th
century, fols. 142-49, “Secreta mag. Petri yspani ad oculos. In nomine
summi opificii/acceptis de pectine matris,” is the same work.
[1644] Sloane 1214, fol. 38r; Sloane 2268, fol. 52.
[1645] Sloane 2268, fol. 54v.
[1646] _Op. cit._ (1901).
[1647] Sloane 1214, fol. 38r.
[1648] Sloane 2268, fol. 54v. Millot-Carpentier presumably has this
passage in mind when he says, “Il connaissait la fistule lacrymale
qu’il soignait ... par les exorcisms.”
[1649] Royal MS. 13-A-VII, 15th century, fols. 149r-153v. “Explicit
summa magistri p. de conservanda sanitate et de his quae conferunt et
nocent. Finito libro reddetur gratia Christo amen. Rogatis deum pro
anima magistro qui hunc librum composuit. Explicit liber.” See also
CLM 14574, 15th century, fol. 117. Magistri Petri liber de conservanda
sanitate, “Erubescant Judei confundantur Sarraceni.”
[1650] Cap. 1, fols. 150r-v.
[1651] Sloane 2268, 14th century, fol. 52-, De morbis oculorum; fol.
56r, “Tractatus mirabilis aquarum quod composuit m. p. hyspanus cum
naturali industria secundum intellectum”; fol. 59r, “Explicit secretum
magistri P. hys. quod fecit pro amico suo ad oculos.”
BN 6957, 15th century, #2, Tractatus mirabilis aquarum quem composuit
Petrus Hispanus cum naturali industria secundum intellectum. Explicit
secretum magistri Petri Hispani de oculis, (as described by Renzi, V,
122).
BN 7349, 15th century, #2, is the same treatise.
[1652] Additional 32,622, early 14th century, fol. 95r, “Actus
mirabilis aquarum quas composuit Petrus Hispanus cum naturali
industria.”
Egerton 2852, 14th century, fols. 1-5, “de aquis,” is very similar in
contents to Addit. 32622.
[1653] Digby 147, 14th century, fols. 104r-105v, “Tractatus mirabilis
aquarum quem composuit philosophus naturali industria secundum
intellectum.” It opens, “Aqua mirabilis valet ad visum conservandum.”
[1654] Namely: 1 _aqua mirabilis ad visum conservandum et
clarificandum_, 2 _aqua preciosa de radicibus_, 3 _aqua preciosa de
seminibus_, 4 _aqua mirabilis per quam facit mistica sive mirabilia
medicus_, 5 _aqua salicis_, 6 _aqua aromatica_, 7 _aqua qui dicitur lac
virginis_, 8 _aqua tartari_, 9 _aqua de sale gemme_, 10 _aqua copose_,
11 _aqua vite_, 12 _aqua ardens_.
[1655] See below, pp. 797-8.
[1656] I regret that I have not been able to examine and compare this
and the other MSS of the treatise more closely in order to ascertain
how far their texts are identical or vary. Some further MSS are:
CU Trinity 1411, early 16th century, fol. 131, _Aqua mirabilis Petri
Hispani_.
Harleian 1887, 16th century (?), _Petrus Hispanus, mirab. aquar._
[1657] Assisi 292, 15th century, 75 fols.
[1658] BN 7446, 15th century, _Regimen sanitatis_.
[1659] Harleian 2258, fols. 224v-225v, _regimen salutis per omnes
menses_.
[1660] Bibl. Palat. Parma 1065, 15th century, fols. 147-53.
[1661] Corpus Christi 243, 1423 A. D., fols. 15v-28, “Sicut igitur in
negotio nostro de anima ... / ... Explicit liber de morte et vita et de
causis longitudinis ac brevitate vite magistri Petri Hispani.”
[1662] Sloane 568, late 14th century, fol. 15v.
[1663] BN 6956, 14th century.
[1664] Vienna 4751, 15th century, fols. 274-80, excerptus et in fine
mutilus.
[1665] Printed in the Lyons, 1515 edition of Isaac’s works: fol. xir,
_Commentarium singulare doctissimi viri Petri hispani olim pontificis
maximi Johannis vicesimiprimi super librum dietarum universalium Isaac
Incipit_; fol. ciii, _Apollinee artis monarche Ysaac filii adoptivi
Salomonis regis Arabum diete particulares cum uberrimis excellentissimi
viri Petri hispani commentariis_.
[1666] _Ibid._, fol. 12r.
[1667] _Ibid._, fol. 14v.
[1668] “_An caro coda in pasta sit bona?_” Peter thinks that it is
_pessima_, because the pastry prevents the noxious fumes and humors of
the meat from escaping, but he adds, “_Contrarium facit vulgus_.”
[1669] An interesting passage, which seems to indicate that despite
frequent famines the medieval poor were seldom reduced to horse meat.
Peter’s explanation is that these animals are not poisonous, but that
nature designed them for man’s service, not his nutriment.
[1670] On this point Peter does not seem to be in agreement with some
modern sociologists.
[1671] Peter of course answers in the negative.
[1672] fol. 145v.
[1673] fol. 78.
[1674] fol. 150v.
[1675] fol. 103r.
[1676] fol. 149r; fols. 150v-151r.
[1677] fol. 127r.
[1678] fol. 136r.
[1679] fol. 135v, and _De animal. hist._ ed. Dittmeyer (1907), p. 362,
lines 29-30. λέγεταιδ’ ὡς ἀριστερὸν κέρας οὐδείς πω ἑώρακεν ἀποκρύπτειν
γὰρ αὐτὸ ὡς ἔχον τινὰ φαρμακίαν. The last word, of course, suggests
either a drug or poison, medicine or charm.
[1680] fols. 19v-20v; see also fol. 11v.
[1681] “... medicina sit tuta ab omni qualitate complexionali.”
[1682] On Jean de Saint-Amand see HL XXI, 254-66; J. L. Pagel, _Die
Concordanciae des Johannes de Sancto Amando_, Berlin, 1894, and
_Nachträge zu den Concordanciae des Johannes de Sancto Amando_, Berlin,
1896. For the _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, I have followed the
text in _Mesuae medici clarissimi opera_, Venice, 1568; but there are
earlier editions, such as Venice, 1497, and Lyons, 1533.
[1683] _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_ (1568), fol. 231, “Sed
medicina simplex duplici via cognoscitur scilicet via experimenti et
via rationis.... Et quia principia experimenti sunt nobis magis nota
quam principia rationis, ideo prius inquiramus cognitionem simplicium
medicinarum via experimenti ... duplex est experimentum ... vallatum
et non vallatum ratione, tunc ipsum est timorosum et fallax si non sit
vallatum ratione....”
[1684] _Ibid._, “Oportet ut medicina simplex quae experiatur sit pura
et munda ab omni extranea qualitate, ne per illam extraneam qualitatem
impediatur propria operatio medicinae, et per consequens cognitio
experimentalis.” This is the same as Peter’s first condition. Also as
the passage from Galen’s _Medicinal Simples_, II, 5, quoted in John’s
_Concordances_, “Oportet quod res quae experitur sit pura et denudata
ab omni qualitate accidentali....”
[1685] I do not note this condition among Peter’s nor in the
_Concordances_.
[1686] “Oportet quod medicina simplex experiatur in duabus contrariis
aegritudinibus diversis, sicut scamonea in quotidiana et tertiana, ipsa
enim curat quotidianam ex sua complexione, tertianam ex proprietate
sua, tamen non sequitur, scamonea curat tertianam, ergo est frigida;
sed sequitur, ipsa ex sua complexione curat quotidianam, ergo est
calida.”
The use of the word “proprietas” for occult virtue is found also in
Arnald of Villanova and other medieval writers.
[1687] John’s third, fourth and fifth conditions do not exactly
correspond to any of Peter’s, but are contained in the following
quotation from Galen (_simpl. med._ I, 2) in the _Concordances_. “Ad
hoc ut res recte experiatur, tria requiruntur: 1m est ut experiatur in
re ad quam comparatur, ut helleborus in coturnice non in homine; 2m
requiritur ut distinguamus inter opus quod facit res per se et quod
facit per accidens; 3m oportet cavere ne complexio actualis obnubilet
potentialem et de omnibus his exempla ponit.”
[1688] “experimentum in corpore humano et primo in temperato, postea
in lapso, et postea in aegro.” These last two conditions correspond
to Peter’s last two and are also duplicated in John’s _Concordances_
from Galen: “Si videris 5 vel 6 homines qualibet medicina mobiles,
experimento solo non potuisti certiorare ilia medicina omnes homines
posse moveri.... Oportet cum res experitur ut primo experiatur in
corpore temperato et postea in intemperate.”
[1689] See the foregoing footnotes and Pagel’s text (1894), pp. 102-4.
[1690] _Expositio in Antidotarium Nicolai_, fol. 268, “... et hoc
patet per experimentum accipiatur virga coryli recens et scindatur per
medium medullae et ponatur frustum unum in manu una et aliud in alia
manu, adinvicem coniungentur et hoc est quia unam alteri natum est
conjungi naturaliter quia ex eis fiebat naturaliter unum conjunctum, et
ideo unum natum est alteri conjungi excitatum per virtutem alterius.
Et per illud faciunt vetulae carmen suum in matrimonium: dicunt enim
quod quando aliquis desponsat aliquam, quod illae virgae coryli si
conjungantur matrimonium erit ad bonum, si non, non: sed dicunt carmen
aliquid operari ad hoc quod nisi dicerent, conjungerentur tarnen sive
ad bonum sive ad malum.”
[1691] HL XXI, 263-5.
APPENDIX I
SOME MANUSCRIPTS OF THE THESAURUS PAUPERUM
I have examined the following MSS of the work in the collections in
the British Museum. As usual, the dating of the MSS is not my own, but
either that given in the catalogues of the collections or in the MSS
themselves.
Sloane 282, quarto, 15th century, fols. 87-105, Petri
Hispani, postea Johannis Papae XXI, Thesaurus pauperum.
Sloane 284, 15th century, fols. 129-174. “Incipit liber qui
thesaurus pauperum nominatur compositus a magistro P.
Hispano Papa Johanne postmodum.”
Sloane 477, dated Sept. 30, 1309. Fol. 79r, “Explicit
thesaurus pauperum ad honorem dei et hominum ipsius operis
exigentium. Anno domine mill’o tricentessimo nono die
tricessimo mense septembris hoc opus complevi scripsi
presbitur N. De. Machia Anconitana hunc scripsit librum
cui Christus filius dei et virginis matris marie det sibi
gratiam consolationem anime et corpori. Amen.” Then in
different ink is added, “Explicit thesaurus pauperum vel
summa experimentorum medicinalium magistri petri Hispani.”
This MS, which seems as early as any that I examined,
is written on small pages in large print-like letters.
The red ink of the text has faded and is accompanied by
numerous notes in small black writing.
Sloane 521, 14th-15th century, fols. 46-74. “Explicit summa
Petri Hispanensis experimentorum medicinalium, cujus libri
posuit nomen thesaurus pauperum. Amen. Amen.”
Sloane 1754, 14th century, fols. 8-13. “Flos florum
experimentorum thesauri pauperum a magistro Petro Yspano”
etc. A collection of excerpts from the work; see also
Sloane 357 and 405, both 15th century.
Sloane 2479, 14th century, fols. 10-41. At fol. 38v,
“Explicit thesaurus pauperum”; at fol. 41v, “Expliciunt
febres et thesaurus pauperum magni petri hispani quondam
pape.”
Additional MS 22,636, fols. 23-35r (and not, as the
catalogue and Scott’s Index say, to fol. 47, since a work
on Phisionomia and some extracts from Thomas of Cantimpré
on seals and gems intervene.) “Explicit liber qui dicitur
tesaurus pauperum.”
Additional 25,000. This MS resembles Sloane 2479 closely in
its arrangement: at fol. 94r, “Explicit liber pauperum”;
at fol. 96v, another Explicit follows the discussion of
fevers.
Addit. 32,622, early 14th century, fols. 116-177. “Summa
experimentorum medicinalium Magistri Petri Ispaliensis,
qui dicitur liber nomine thesaurus pauperum.”
Royal 12-B-III, 14th century, #2.
Harleian 5218. “Petri Hispani Thesaurus pauperum, Liber
medicus cum complexionibus simplicium medicinarum,
secundum Gallianum de Sancta Sophya Phisicum.”
I have not been able to consult the following MSS in the Amplonian
collection at Erfurt, but mention them as of early date and not listed
by Stapper.
Ampion. Octavo 62, early 14th century hand, fols. 124-165,
Rubr. “Incipit thesaurus pauperum editus per Iohannem
papam.”
Ampion. Quarto 193, end of 13th century to 1362-1364,
fols. 2-49. “Incipit liber experimentorum, qui thesaurus
pauperum nuncupatur.”
Ampion. Folio 271, 13th-14th century (Schum omits this in
the index to his catalogue of the Amplonian collection).
Ampion. Folio 303, fols. 147-63.
Another early copy is contained in a miscellany compiled at
Bologna in 1326: Wolfenbüttel 4504, fols. 106-31, Explicit
summa medicinalis Magistri Petri Yspani, que dicitur
thesaurus pauperum.
A few other MSS of the Thesaurus pauperum are:
Ste. Geneviève 2235, 14th century, “Incipit Summa
experimentorum medicinalium magistri Petri Hispani, que
dicitur thesaurus pauperum.”
Ste. Geneviève 2237, 18th century, fol. 57, “Incipit
pauperum thesaurus summi medicorum monarchae D. Joannis
XX (XXI) pontificis maximi cui Petro Hispano ante nomen
erat in quo curandorum morborum et theoresim et praxim
absolutissime comperies.”
BN 8654, 14th century, perhaps 1306 A. D.
Trivulz. 657, 14th century.
Turin F-V-25, 14th century, fols. 93-177.
Naples VIII-G-100.
Perugia 1227, 14th century, 50 fols., no author named.
Florence II-vi-62, 14th century, in Italian.
Wolfenbüttel 3050, 14th century, no author named.
CLM 438, 14th century, fols. 1-84; 321, 15th century, fol.
107-; 8742, 15th century, fols. 152-68.