THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE
Who was its author?--Points in favor of Albert as
its author--Testimony of medieval manuscripts and
authors--Occasion for writing the _Speculum_--Defense of
astronomy--And of judicial astrology--The stars do not
possess senses or reason--Subdivisions of astrology--Evil
images--A second variety--Good astronomical images--The
question of free will--And elections--Free will and
nativities--Revolutions--Interrogations--Better not to
destroy the books of necromancy--Experimental books in
the arts of divination--Resemblance of the _Speculum_ to
Albert’s attitude to astrology--Is it more like Bacon on
the question of Christ’s relation to the stars?--Attitude
to magic of the _Speculum_ and Albert--Of Bacon and the
_Speculum_--Significance of the failure to mention magic
in the _Speculum_--Similarity of its citations to those
in other works of Albert--Is the _Speculum astronomiae_
to be connected with the Paris condemnation of 1277?--The
_Speculum_ was written before 1277--Condemnation of Siger
de Brabant--Condemned opinions connected with astrology;
with science and religion--Other later moves against
magic at Paris--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the _Speculum
astronomiae_--Appendix II. Germath of Babylon, Gergis, and
Girgith.
[Sidenote: Who was its author?]
The _Speculum astronomiae_[2284] has been reserved for separate
treatment, partly because it seems to be one of the most important
single treatises in the history of medieval astrology, and partly
because the traditional ascription of it to Albertus Magnus has been
recently questioned and the attempt made to attribute it to Roger
Bacon.[2285] This attempt has been supported by so little in the
way of real evidence for a Baconian authorship that it might be
passed by, were it not for the fact that, as sensational assertions
concerning either Roger or Francis Bacon are apt to do, it has
attracted widespread attention and been unquestioningly accepted by
other students of Roger Bacon.[2286] Father Mandonnet adduced no
manuscript evidence in favor of Bacon’s authorship and Gabriel Naudé
in the seventeenth century was the first person to suggest it.[2287]
Mandonnet’s argument for the Baconian authorship reduces simply to
this, that the views expressed in the work are Bacon’s rather than
Albert’s and that the writing of the _Speculum astronomiae_ could be
fitted better into Roger’s career.[2288]
[Sidenote: Points in favor of Albert as its author.]
We shall show, on the contrary, that the _Speculum_ is regularly
ascribed to Albertus Magnus in the medieval manuscripts and in
bibliographies by learned writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, as well as by most students of Albertus Magnus or of
thirteenth century learning since then.[2289] The Latin style and the
method of presentation adopted in the _Speculum_ also more closely
resemble Albert’s style and method than they do Bacon’s.[2290] It
has already been demonstrated that Mandonnet was grossly in error in
representing Albert as an unqualified opponent of judicial astrology,
and our coming examination of the _Speculum astronomiae_ will show
that on most points its attitude to astrology is the same as that of
Albert, on some points even more conservative than his, and on only
one point less so and more like Bacon’s attitude. In the attitude of
the _Speculum_ toward other forms of magic or occult sciences than
astrology we shall find a closer approximation to the Albertine than
to the Baconian view-point, and also some internal textual evidence
which strongly supports the Albertine authorship. Finally we shall
argue that, if it is true that the _Speculum_ had some connection
with the condemnation at Paris in 1277 of 219 opinions attributed to
Siger of Brabant, it may have been written for that occasion by Albert
as appropriately as by Bacon. And we shall note some of the opinions
condemned on that occasion as constituting, with the _Speculum_ itself,
valuable evidence concerning the relations existing between theology
and astrology in the second half of the thirteenth century.
[Sidenote: Testimony of medieval manuscripts and authors.]
In so far as I have examined notices of manuscripts of the _Speculum
astronomiae_ in the catalogues or the manuscripts themselves, I have
found it in no case attributed to Roger Bacon and regularly ascribed
to Albertus Magnus, as the list of manuscripts given in the appendix
at the close of this chapter will show. In one or two cases another
hand than that in which the text of the _Speculum_ is written has
suggested “master Philip, chancellor of Paris,” as author instead
of Albert, but otherwise the manuscripts support the Albertine
authorship. The _Speculum_ is cited as Albert’s in a fourteenth century
manuscript.[2291] Also the list of writings by Dominicans drawn
up before the middle of the fourteenth century ascribed to Albert
both a _Contra librum nigromanticorum_ and a _Speculum astrobium_
(or _astralabicum_).[2292] Later in the same century a contemporary
of Thomas of Pisa or Bologna, physician and astrologer to Charles
V the Wise of France, 1364-1380, cites “Albert the commentator
in his Mirror.”[2293] In 1412 Amplonius in the catalogue of his
manuscripts which he wrote with his own hand lists both a _Speculum
mathematicum Alberti Magni_ and a _Speculum domini Alberti de libris
mathematicis_;[2294] and Schum’s modern catalogue of the Amplonian
collection at Erfurt lists three manuscripts of the _Speculum
astronomiae_ of the fourteenth century and in every case ascribes it
to Albert.[2295] Early in the fifteenth century also Cardinal Pierre
d’Ailly more than once cited the _Speculum_ as by Albert,[2296], as did
Gerson and Nicholas of Denmark in the same century.[2297] Pignon and
Valleoletanus also ascribed it to Albert in their catalogues of the
writings of Dominicans.[2298] At the close of the fifteenth century
Pico della Mirandola in his work against astrology was almost the first
to question Albert’s authorship, which he did in an effort to weaken
the reliance of the adherents of astrology upon the authority of Albert
as a defender of that art.[2299] Pico apparently did not possess a
sufficiently extensive knowledge of Albert’s other writings to pass
upon the question of the authenticity of the _Speculum_, or he would
not have imagined that by questioning the Albertine authorship of
it, he could prevent the adherents of astrology from citing numerous
passages in Albert’s works in favor of their art. But now as to the
astrological doctrine of the _Speculum_ itself.
[Sidenote: Occasion for writing the _Speculum_.]
The _Proemium_ or opening chapter of the _Speculum astronomiae_, or
_Mirror of Astrology_, states the occasion for writing it, namely,
the existence of certain works hostile to Christianity, many of which
are actually concerned with necromancy but make false profession of
astronomy or astrology. On this account “some great men” have censured
other books which may be quite harmless, and noble volumes of astronomy
have been brought under suspicion and into disrepute. Therefore the
writer, who describes himself vaguely as a devotee both of the Faith
and of Philosophy, has made a critical bibliography of both kinds of
works, giving their authors’ names, their titles, opening words, and a
general notion of their contents.
[Sidenote: Defense of astronomy.]
In the next chapter the author takes up books which we should regard
as purely astronomical, and says that if these were to be suppressed,
“a great and truly noble part of philosophy would be buried for a time
at least, until owing to saner counsels it should rise again.” He adds
that those who have read these books know that there is not a single
word in them which is, or even appears to be, against the Catholic
Faith, and that it is not fair for those to judge them who have never
even handled them.[2300] Thus the writer seems to think that there is
some danger of an attack upon even the study of astronomy.
[Sidenote: And of judicial astrology.]
The author’s main concern, however, is with judicial astrology, which
in the third chapter he distinguishes from astronomy proper as “the
science of judgments of the stars.” Of it, too, he speaks in high
terms of praise. He declares that it turns man’s thoughts toward God,
revealing as it does the great Source of all things. Furthermore, it is
the bond between natural philosophy and mathematics. “For if the most
high God in His Supreme wisdom so ordained this world that He, who is
the living God of a lifeless heaven, wills to work in created things
which are found in these four inferior elements through deaf and dumb
stars as instruments, and if concerning these we have one science,
namely, mathematics which teaches us in things caused to consider
their Creator, and another natural science which teaches us to find by
experience in created things the Creator of creatures; what is more
desirable for the investigator than to have a third science to instruct
him how this and that change of things mundane is brought to pass by
the change of things celestial?”
[Sidenote: The stars do not possess senses or reason.]
It will be noted that the author of the _Speculum_ regards the stars as
“deaf and dumb” and the heaven as inanimate. In a later chapter[2301]
he condemns as “most evidently meriting censure” the assertion made by
Albumasar, apparently upon Aristotle’s authority, that “the planets
themselves are animated by a rational soul.” For him the stars are
mere divine instruments, deaf to would-be worshipers of them, and too
dumb--one would infer--to produce the music of the spheres.
[Sidenote: Subdivisions of astrology.]
The fourth chapter of the _Speculum_ speaks of the four familiar
sub-divisions of judicial astrology, namely, revolutions, nativities,
interrogations, and elections. To the last is annexed the science of
images, which the author regards as the acme or climax of “astronomy,”
but with which he admits are associated those necromantic books of evil
repute which he proposes carefully to distinguish from the others.
This at once reminds us of the passages in Albert’s _Minerals_ where
he spoke of the connection between such images engraved on stones and
necromancy, but where his associates were curious to know the doctrine
of images none the less, and he affirmed that it was good doctrine.
Now, after the fifth chapter, which may be described as a statement
of astrological theory and technique in a nutshell, he takes up
judicial astrology and its several sub-divisions in further successive
chapters,[2302] defining the field and describing the literature. A
majority of the books listed, good as well as bad, appear to be Latin
translations from the Arabic.
[Sidenote: Evil images.]
Of images the author describes three varieties, the first two of which
he severely condemns. The first kind is abominable, including the
images of Toz Graecus and Germath of Babylon, those connected with the
worship of Venus, and those of Belenus and Hermes. These are exorcized
by the names of fifty-four[2303] angels who are said to serve in the
circle of the moon,[2304] but are probably really the names of demons.
The names of seven are engraved forwards to procure a good result and
backwards in order to ward off evil fortune. Suffumigations also are
made with aloes, saffron, and balsam to achieve a good result, with
other woods for evil ends. The author explains that the spirits are not
truly coerced by such things, but sometimes God allows them to pretend
to be, in order to deceive sinful men. The practices associated with
this first kind of images he censures as the worst sort of idolatry,
although their practitioners, in order to retain something worthy
of belief, observe the twenty-eight mansions of the moon and other
seasons.
[Sidenote: A second variety.]
The second variety of images is a little less improper, but still
detestable. In it certain names are exorcized by the inscription of
characters. Such are the four rings of Solomon and the nine candelabra
and the three figures of spirits who are called the princes of the four
quarters of the world, and the Almandel of Solomon, the seven names
from the book _Uraharum_,[2305] the fifteen from _The Institutes of
Raziel_, and so on. “Far from us be this sort also,” says our author,
“for it is open to the suspicion that beneath the names in unknown
tongues may lie hidden something contrary to the purity of the Catholic
Faith.”
[Sidenote: Good astronomical images.]
The third variety of images, in which the author sees no harm but much
good, and which he has called “the sublimest part of astronomy,”[2306]
are purely astronomical images which derive their virtue from the
configurations of the sky but admit no other inscription of characters,
and neither exorcisms, invocations, nor suffumigations.[2307] In a
later chapter,[2308] however, he permits in addition to astronomical
figures and symbols the engraving of certain simple words and images
of objects of obvious meaning, such as a scorpion and the word
_Destruatur_ upon an image intended to drive scorpions away.
[Sidenote: The question of free will.]
Meanwhile, between these two chapters upon astronomical images,
the author returns in four chapters to the other sub-divisions
of astrology, mainly with the purpose of investigating whether
revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and elections are incompatible
with freedom of the human will,--a question upon which he has already
touched a little in previous chapters. He maintains the usual position
that the celestial influences make impressions according to the fitness
of matter to receive them, and that man by using his intellect can to a
considerable degree be master of his fate. As usual he cites Ptolemy’s
_dictum_ that “the astrologer can avert much evil from the operation of
the stars, if he knows the nature of the influence to be exerted upon
him and can prepare himself beforehand to receive it.”[2309]
[Sidenote: And elections.]
Therefore the author regards election of favorable hours as an
admission alike of freedom of the will and of astrological influence,
and affirms that “in entering upon great undertakings, it is rashness,
not freedom of the will, to despise election of the hour.”[2310]
Moreover, he asserts that “all philosophers are agreed in this, that
when we know the hour of impregnation of any woman, we thereby know
the history of the foetus until it breathes and comes forth from
the womb and until death.”[2311] Hence one should choose the moment
of conception as carefully as the hour for a surgical operation,--a
passage paralleled by Albert’s account elsewhere of the care exercised
by Nectanebus as to the hour of his intercourse with Olympias.
[Sidenote: Free will and nativities.]
Despite what he has just said about tracing the history of the foetus
until death, the author regards the doctrine of nativities as in large
measure inconsistent with freedom of the will.[2312] After the mental
and moral faculties have sufficiently developed, he believes in freedom
of choice, and so holds that the casting of horoscopes, especially in
regard to moral characteristics, infringes upon free will. Even when
such a matter as length of life is predicted from the constellations
for an individual, he contends that it does not mean that one must live
that long, but that one’s natural term of life cannot be prolonged
beyond that point.
[Sidenote: Revolutions.]
The author seems to think that the human will has very little control
over revolutions, by which “is indicated what God, the glorious, will
accomplish in a given year through the stars as His instruments” for
states and peoples; in other words, such general events as harvests,
wars, earthquakes, floods, and terrible prodigies. Events signified by
comets come under this head also. All such events the author seems to
regard as divinely ordered and he cites Ptolemy and Albumasar to the
effect that God’s plans are not changeable like those of children or
servants.[2313]
[Sidenote: Interrogations.]
As for the practice of interrogations, the author affirms that to
inquire of the stars what course of action one should pursue “does
not destroy, but rather rectifies free will.” Some questions asked
of astrologers, nevertheless, are very difficult to reconcile with
free will, for example, the question whether another person will
answer one’s request. If an astrologer is able to answer such a
question beforehand, it seems to indicate that the other person
has no freedom in the matter. After some juggling with the terms,
“necessity” and “possibility,” the author thinks that he has found a
mode of reconciliation in “the compossibility of free will with divine
providence,” since with the latter he identifies the significations
of the stars, and “God knew from eternity which course the man would
choose.” Our author hastens to add, however, that God may wish to
conceal some things from us, and that he will not assert that “whatever
does not escape divine providence is revealed in the heavens.”[2314]
[Sidenote: Better not to destroy the books of necromancy.]
In the seventeenth and last chapter the author returns to the subject
of books of necromancy and suggests that after all even these had
better be preserved rather than destroyed, because the time is now
perchance near when, for reasons which he will not now disclose, it may
be of advantage to consult them occasionally; “yet let those inspecting
them beware of abuse of them.”
[Sidenote: Experimental books in the arts of divination.]
The author adds that there are also “certain experimental books whose
names have the same ending as nigromancy,” namely, books in the
subjects of geomancy, hydromancy, aerimancy, pyromancy, and chiromancy.
Thus we have another example of the association of experiment and
magic. These arts, however, in his opinion “do not deserve to be called
sciences, but babblings (_garamantie_ or _garrimantiae_).”[2315]
Hydromancy consists in washing the entrails of animals and inspecting
the fibres. Pyromancy divines from the appearance of the fire by which
the sacrifice is consumed. Both these arts probably involve a sort of
idolatry. The author finds nothing idolatrous in geomancy, however,
which is based upon astrology and numbers. But aerimancy is frivolous,
though it may pretend to be based upon number. Chiromancy he does not
wish to judge hastily, because it may be a part of physiognomy which
in turn depends upon astrology, since in physiognomy both the physical
peculiarities and the personal characteristics inferred from them are
due to the stars. The author thus shows the common tendency of medieval
men of learning to justify only such methods of divination as they felt
could be based upon astrology.
[Sidenote: Resemblance of the _Speculum_ to Albert’s attitude to
astrology.]
The foregoing analysis of the _Speculum astronomiae_ has made it
evident that its attitude toward astrology is not at all a peculiar
one but just about the usual position of Christian scientists in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. On the subject of astrological
images, however, its view is that of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon
rather than that of William of Auvergne or Thomas Aquinas. In general
the astrological position of the _Speculum_ closely parallels the
attitudes of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, who in turn held almost
identical views. If anything, the _Speculum_ is somewhat less favorable
to astrological doctrine than Albertus. Whereas he in large measure
accepted the casting of horoscopes, although saving free will, it
emphasizes the conflict between free will and nativities. And it
more emphatically denies that the stars are animated, a point upon
which he seemed rather hazy in his scientific treatises. But there
is no actual contradiction between the _Speculum_ and other works of
Albert on these points, and we have already seen in the case of his
theological and Aristotelian works that Albert is likely to state the
same thing somewhat differently according to the point-of-view from
which he writes. The writer of the _Speculum_ is obviously desirous to
conciliate a theological opposition to or suspicion of “astronomy” and
therefore naturally inclines to be moderate and conservative in his
advocacy of astrological doctrine.
[Sidenote: Is it more like Bacon on the question of Christ’s relation
to the stars?]
On one point only does the _Speculum_ appear more radical in its
astrological theory than Albert elsewhere and more in accord with views
expressed by Roger Bacon. We have heard Albert in his _Summa_ deny
that Christ was born under the influence of the stars, while Bacon was
inclined to agree with the astrologers that He was, in so far as His
birth was natural and His nature human. The writer of the _Speculum_
cites Albumasar to the effect that the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was
prefigured in the sky,[2316] and regards this assertion as a notable
confirmation of the true Faith, not that the Lord of all things was
under the stars but that what God had decreed was signified by the
stars. Thus there is after all perhaps no necessary conflict with
Albert’s attitude in the _Summa_, since both _Speculum_ and _Summa_
deny that Christ is under the stars. However, the _Speculum_ gives
the impression that the birth of Christ was signified astrologically;
the _Summa_, that it was signified miraculously. But neither does the
_Speculum_ quite agree with Bacon who suggests that Christ’s body was
under the stars. And the fact that Bacon cites the same passage from
Albumasar is of little value as a sign that he is the author of the
_Speculum_, since the passage in Albumasar was a well-known one and is
cited in such a vernacular work as _The Romance of the Rose_.[2317]
Thus the astrological doctrine of the _Speculum_ offers little or no
reason for questioning the traditional ascription of that treatise to
Albertus Magnus.
[Sidenote: Attitude to magic of the _Speculum_ and Albert.]
We have next to inquire, does the attitude of the _Speculum_ to
other magic arts accord or conflict with that of Albert elsewhere?
Our study of Albert’s attitude toward magic in his other works has
made it abundantly evident that Mandonnet was mistaken in deeming
him too hostile to such superstition to have written the _Speculum_.
He is, on the contrary, too favorable, if anything, toward magic,
to have been the author of that treatise. Indeed, it was to the
_Speculum astronomiae_, which he accepted as a genuine work, that
Peter of Prussia appealed in his effort to prove Albert’s hostility to
necromancy and magic. Yet Mandonnet cites these very pages of Peter of
Prussia in his effort to show that Albert was too hostile to occult
arts to have written the _Speculum_! On the other hand, we saw that
Albert’s attitude to magic varied somewhat in his different works, so
it is no disproof of his authorship of the _Speculum_ that it seems
more hostile to magic than some of Albert’s utterances elsewhere. The
occasion of writing the treatise is probably sufficient to explain this.
[Sidenote: Of Bacon and the _Speculum_.]
We have to admit, however, that Roger Bacon almost invariably spoke of
“magic” unfavorably, whereas Albert a number of times used the word in
a good or neutral sense. Thus there might seem to be some reason for
ascribing the _Speculum_ to Bacon for the exactly opposite reason to
that advanced by Mandonnet, namely, that he displayed more hostility
than Albert to magic. Also there is a certain resemblance between the
attitude of the author of the _Speculum_ toward books of necromancy
and what we saw to be Bacon’s attitude toward books of magic in his
_De secretis operibus artis et naturae et de nullitate magiae_. But
there is also a difference, and when Mandonnet asserts, “Both authors
reject books of magic,”[2318] he gives a false impression and overlooks
an interesting point. For the _De secretis operibus_ not only tries
to distinguish between books of magic and others which are unjustly
regarded as magical, it also is largely devoted to an attack upon
“magic.” And such censure of magic is frequent in Bacon’s works. The
_Speculum_, on the other hand, distinguishes between “necromantic” and
“astronomical” works, and never mentions “magic.”
[Sidenote: Significance of the failure to mention magic in the
_Speculum_.]
Is not this significant? Had Bacon written the _Speculum_, would he
not have indulged in his usual censure of magicians and their follies?
But if Albert wrote the _Speculum_, is it surprising that he maintains
a discreet silence concerning that “magic” which he had coupled more
than once with astronomy and had spoken of as a field bordering upon
that of natural science? In undertaking the defense of “astronomical
images” against those who looked at them askance, would he deem it
prudent to repeat his assertion in the treatise on minerals that to
comprehend astronomical images one must go to “the science of the
magi”? In that treatise on minerals, it will be recalled, he had been
bold enough to propose to discuss the doctrine of images, even if it
was closely associated with necromancy, and he twice associated in the
same phrase “astronomy and magic and the necromantic sciences.” But
then he was writing for his pupils and associates who were eager to
learn of the images engraved on gems, even if they were connected with
necromancy. In the _Speculum_ he writes for a different audience, or
for an audience in a different mood,--men inclined to condemn books of
astronomy and astrology along with books of necromancy. Where before he
admitted an association, he now has to make a contrast and to give the
impression of a great gulf fixed between necromancy and astronomy. To
save astrology from hostile attack he gives up necromancy, and probably
willingly and sincerely enough, since his allusions to it even in the
treatise on minerals were rather unfavorable. Is it strange that he
says nothing of the connecting link, “magic,” which he perhaps does
not wish to condemn, yet does not feel it expedient to defend? May it
not be one of those reasons, which the author of the _Speculum_ says
he will not disclose, why even the books of necromancy had better be
preserved rather than destroyed? Thus the failure of the author of the
_Speculum astronomiae_ to use the word “magic” does not sound in the
least like Roger Bacon, but does seem to be just about what one might
expect in the circumstances from Albert, whose mentions moreover of
“magic” in his other works are brief and occasional.
[Sidenote: Similarity of its citations to those in other works of
Albert.]
Finally we may note a positive bit of evidence in favor of the
Albertine authorship of the _Speculum_ which has hitherto escaped
notice. His other writings mention some of the very books of necromancy
which the _Speculum_ lists and condemns. In his theological _Summa_,
when denouncing magic as concerned with evil spirits, he supported his
view not merely by the authority of the saints and common report, but
also by “the teachings of that branch of necromancy” which treats of
“images and rings and mirrors of Venus and seals of demons,” and is
expounded in the writings of Achot of Greece, Grema of Babylon, Hermes
the Egyptian, and other treatises which he mentions.[2319] Again in
the treatise on minerals, in investigating why gems are engraved with
images, he cites as authorities Magor Graecus, Germa Babylonicus, and
Hermes the Egyptian.[2320] The _Speculum_ also especially mentions in
its list of necromantic books on images Toz Graeci, Germath of Babylon,
Belenus, and Hermes.[2321] Leaving Belenus out of account, there can
be little doubt that the other three names are identical with the two
preceding trios. One also is impelled to believe that the same Albert
wrote _Summa_, _Mineralium_, and _Speculum_, and it may be added that
the variation in the attitude towards images and necromancy in the
latter two is no greater than the difference in the attitude towards
magic which we observed between the first two of those treatises. This
too makes it plausible that Albert should have adopted a third attitude
of silence concerning “magic” in the _Speculum_.
[Sidenote: Is the _Speculum astronomiae_ to be connected with the
condemnation of 1277?]
There remains the question, when and why was the _Speculum astronomiae_
written? Its tone suggests that it is not merely a general defense of
astronomy and astrology but a specific reply to some particular attack
upon astrological literature made by a party inclined to connect and
condemn astrology together with necromancy and other forbidden occult
arts. Such an attack can perhaps be seen in the condemnation at Paris
in 1277 of two hundred and nineteen opinions attributed to Siger de
Brabant. Many of them are astrological and with them are condemned
a treatise of geomancy, works of necromancy, and books “containing
experiments of lot-casters, invocations of demons, and conjurations
perilous to the soul.”[2322] It is natural to associate the writing
of the _Speculum astronomiae_ with this affair, and the idea had
occurred to me before I read any of Mandonnet’s works. It is also
natural, especially if one holds the old view that Roger Bacon was
persecuted for science’s sake and suspected of magic, to wonder if
there is not some connection between the condemnation of 1277 and his
own condemnation in 1278 “on account of certain suspected novelties”;
and Mandonnet is not the first to do so.[2323] But he is the first
to suggest that Bacon was condemned in 1278 for having written the
_Speculum astronomiae_ in connection with the other condemnation of
1277. But we have seen that there is little reason for thinking that
Bacon’s condemnation was for astrology or magic. Second, it may be
doubted whether anyone would have been condemned for so mild a work
as the _Speculum astronomiae_, nor in 1277 could its contents have
been regarded as “novelties.” Third, we have shown that Albert and not
Bacon wrote the _Speculum_. Fourth, we have already heard that in 1270
Albert sent a treatise to Paris to help Aquinas in connection with the
affair of Siger de Brabant, and that in 1277 he came to Paris himself
to defend his own Aristotelian teaching and the memory of Aquinas in
connection with the condemnation of the 219 articles. If so, who could
have been better fitted to write on that occasion as a representative
both of the Faith and of Philosophy than the venerable dean both of
Christian theologians and of Aristotelian scientists?
[Sidenote: The _Speculum_ was written before 1277.]
But there is a serious objection to dating the _Speculum astronomiae_
as late as 1277, especially if Albert is its author, as we have shown
every reason to believe. It is that the writer of the _Speculum_
speaks of the twelfth and thirteenth (meaning our thirteenth and
fourteenth) books of the _Metaphysics_ of Aristotle as “not yet
translated.”[2324] But Albert is acquainted with these books and
gives a paraphrase of them in his own Commentary on the Metaphysics,
which, as Mandonnet himself has elsewhere shown,[2325] was completed
in 1256. It is true that Aquinas in his _De unitate intellectus contra
Averroistas_, written in 1270, still seems to regard the last books
of the _Metaphysics_ as untranslated,[2326] which leads Grabmann to
argue that Albert must have revised his Commentary to include the last
books of the _Metaphysics_ after 1270.[2327] But this fails to explain
how Albert or anyone else writing in 1277 or 1278 could still speak of
these books as “not yet translated,” since Albert could neither have
translated nor commented upon them after 1277, since he died in 1280
and Ptolemy of Lucca tells us that for about three years before his
death his intellectual faculties had declined. Thus the _Speculum
astronomiae_ was apparently written before 1277 and perhaps before 1256.
[Sidenote: Condemnation of Siger de Brabant.]
Although it thus appears to have no actual connection with the
_Speculum astronomiae_, we may nevertheless consider here as bearing
on the same topic of theological opposition to certain occult arts
and even to astrology, the condemnation in 1277 by Stephen, bishop of
Paris, and “doctors of sacred Scripture” of 219 opinions attributed
to “Siger de Brabant, Boetius of Denmark, and others.” Siger seems to
have been an Averroist of somewhat pronounced type and to have held
views more evidently incompatible with the Christian Faith than most
astrologers or occult scientists. It is possible, however, that his
opponents misinterpreted or exaggerated his views. Mandonnet holds that
he would have disowned many of the articles, and that, on the other
hand, his persecutors inserted also moderate opinions such as were held
by Albertus Magnus and Aquinas, in an effort to give the impression
that infidels, Averroists, and moderate Aristotelians were all alike,
and to discredit the reconciliation of Aristotle and Christian doctrine
which Albert and Aquinas fathered.[2328] Dante speaks well of Siger in
the _Paradiso_.
[Sidenote: Condemned opinions connected with astrology; with science
and religion.]
We may note those articles which bear upon astrology, a very
considerable number, with the addition of a few concerned with the
relations of science and theology. It will be observed that the
moderate thirtieth article is scarcely consistent with some others, and
that the last clause of the 207th article, which seems an explanation
inserted by the condemners, indicates that even they accept the
influence of the stars within certain limits. In any case, while it
is to be remembered that the condemnation is not primarily directed
against astrology, the articles are of interest as showing both what
adherents of astrology might believe and what its opponents might
accuse them of and condemn them for.
“6. That when all the celestial bodies return to the same
point, which happens every 36,000 years, the same
effects will recur as now.
30. That superior intelligences create rational souls
without motion of the sky, but that inferior
intelligences create the vegetative and sensitive souls
by means of the motion of the sky.
38. That God could not have made first matter except by
means of a celestial body.
61. That God can do contrary things, that is, by means of a
heavenly body which is variable in its whereabouts.
65. That God or intelligence does not send science to the
human soul in sleep except by means of a heavenly body.
74. That the intelligence which moves the sky influences
the rational soul just as the body of the sky
influences the human body.
92. That the heavenly bodies are moved by an intrinsic
principle which is the soul; and that they are moved by
a soul and by appetitive virtue just like an animal.
94. That there are two eternal principles, namely, the body
of the sky and its soul.
102. That the soul of the sky is intelligence, and the
celestial circles are not instruments of intelligence
but organs.
112. That superior intelligences impress inferior ones
just as one soul impresses another; ... and by such
impression a certain enchanter by his mere gaze cast a
camel into a pit.[2329]
132. That the sky is the cause of the physician’s will, that
he cures.
133. That the will and intellect are not moved in acts
by themselves but by an eternal cause, namely, the
heavenly bodies.
142. That from diversities of places come the necessities of
events.
143. That from diverse signs of the sky are signified
diverse conditions in men, as well of spiritual gifts
as of temporal things.
150. That man ought not to be content with authority to gain
certitude on any point.
152. That the utterances of theology are founded on fables.
154. That philosophers are the world’s only wise men.
161. That the influences of the stars on free will are
occult.
162. That our wills are subject to the power of the heavenly
bodies.
163. That the will of necessity follows that course of whose
advisability the reason is firmly convinced, and that
it cannot abstain from that course of action which
reason dictates. This necessity is not compulsion but
the nature of the will.
164. That man in all his acts follows appetite and always
the greater.
167. That by certain signs men’s intentions and changes
of mind are known, and whether their intentions will
be achieved; and that by such figures are known the
outcome of journeys, the captivity of men, their
freedom from captivity, and whether they will become
sages or scoundrels.
174. That there are fables and false statements in Christian
Scripture as in others.
175. That Christianity hinders science.
189. That when intelligence is full of forms, it impresses
those forms on matter through the heavenly bodies as
through instruments.[2330]
195. That fate, which is the disposition of the universe,
proceeds from divine providence, not immediately but
by means of the motion of the superior bodies; and
that this fate does not impose necessity upon inferior
things, because they have contrariety, but upon
superiors.[2331]
206. That he attributes health, infirmity, life and death to
the position of the stars and the aspect of fortune,
saying that if fortune regard him, he will live; if
not, he will die.
207. That in the hour of a man’s generation, in his body
and hence in the mind which follows the body, there
exists in man from the order of superior and inferior
causes a disposition inclining him to certain actions
or results. An error, unless understood only of natural
results and by way of disposition.”[2332]
In our chapter on Raymond Lull we shall speak of a treatise written by
him in 1297 in which he deals with some of these opinions condemned in
1277.
[Sidenote: Other later moves against magic at Paris.]
With the condemnation in 1277 along with the opinions of Siger of
Brabant of a geomancy, books of necromancy, and others containing
invocations of spirits, may be mentioned two later attempts of
authorities to discourage the study or practice of magic at Paris.
One, to which we have already alluded in our chapter on Roger Bacon,
is a constitution of the Franciscans on May 25, 1292, forbidding their
students at Paris to spend for other purposes the money sent them for
books or to have curious books copied.[2333] We are, however, more
pained than surprised to learn that such a regulation was necessary in
the Order. The other is a letter of April 3, 1318, or 1319, of Pope
John XXII to William, bishop of Paris, thanking him for a donation
received and urging him to attend to the improvement of the University
of Paris and especially to banish from it and from his diocese
“nigromancers, diviners, poisoners, and others engaged in reprehensible
arts of this sort,” whom the pope further describes as criminals.[2334]
There is nothing to suggest that astrologers and their writings are
included in either of these two later moves against superstitious arts
or black magic.
FOOTNOTES:
[2284] Contained in Borgnet’s edition of Albert’s works, X, 629 _et
seq._ This text, however, has been severely criticized by F. Cumont,
_Cat. cod. astrol. graec._, V, i, 85, who says of it, “mendis scateat,”
and who gives a partial version from the MSS (_Ibid._, pp. 86-105.)
An early edition among the incunabula of the British Museum (numbered
I A. 8201) bears the different title, _Liber Alberti magni de duabus
sapientiis et de recapitulatione omnium librorum astronomiae_. In the
MSS the title also varies considerably.
For a list of some MSS of the _Speculum astronomiae_ see Appendix I at
the close of this chapter.
[2285] P. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe
siècle, deuxième édition revue et augmentée_, Louvain, 1911, I, 244-8;
and more fully in an article, _Roger Bacon et le Speculum astronomiae_,
in _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, vol. 17 (August, 1910), pp. 313-35.
[2286] Theophilus Witzel, in CE “Roger Bacon”; Paschal Robinson,
“The Seventh Centenary of Roger Bacon,” in _The Catholic University
Bulletin_, January, 1914; A. G. Little, _Roger Bacon Essays_, Oxford,
1914, p. 25.
[2287] G. Naudé, _Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont
esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625, p. 526. Naudé’s
memory, however, misled him into asserting that Pico della Mirandola
had already asserted that Roger Bacon wrote the _Speculum astronomiae_,
whereas Pico had merely questioned whether Albert wrote it.
[2288] Ch. V. Langlois, in reviewing the first edition of the _Siger de
Brabant_ (Fribourg, 1899) in _Revue de Paris_, Sept. 1, 1900, p. 71,
made some strictures upon Mandonnet’s general method of arriving at
conclusions which in my opinion were very well taken.
[2289] The opinions of a number of late medieval and early modern
scholars as to the authorship of the treatise will be found prefaced to
the text in Borgnet’s edition.
J. Sighart, _Albertus Magnus, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft_,
Regensburg, 1857, p. 341 _et seq._ (Paris, 1862, p. 454 _et seq._)
accepted Albert’s authorship.
N. Valois, _Guillaume d’Auvergne_, Paris, 1880, p. 308 note, says, “Il
parait impossible de ne pas considérer cet ouvrage comme authentique.”
See also M. Steinschneider, _Zum Speculum astronomicum des Albertus
Magnus über die darin angeführten Schriftsteller und Schriften_, in
_Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik_, XVI (1871), 357-96.
[2290] am glad to see my view in this regard confirmed by Steele
(1920), 267, who says: “It has been suggested that this tract was
written by Bacon, but no one with an ear for style could accept the
suggestion for a moment.”
[2291] Amplon. Quarto 377, first half of 14th century, fols. 25-36,
Tractatus de iudiciis astrorum Aristoteli attributus. “Incipit liber
quidam de iudiciis qui ab Alberto in Speculo dicitur esse Aristotelis
et primo de nativitatibus.”
[2292] Denifle (1886), p. 236.
[2293] BN 7337, p. 45, “albertus commentator in suo speculo dixit quod
predicte ymagines sunt mere naturales sicut recepte medicine.”
[2294] Schum (1887), pp. 785-867, Math. 29, “Speculum mathematicum
Alberti Magni”; Math. 69, “Speculum domini Alberti de libris
mathematicis.”
[2295] See Appendix I.
[2296] Petrus de Alliaco, _Tractatus de ymagine mundi_ ... and other
treatises by both d’Ailly and Gerson, printed about 1480 (numbered
IB.49230 in the British Museum).
In the _Elucidarius_, cap. 2, d’Ailly cites “Albertus Magnus in suo
speculo” two or three times. In the _Vigintiloquium de concordantia
astronomice veritatis cum theologia_, he says, “Unde Albertus
Magnus perutiliter etiam tractatum edidit in quo vere astronomie et
artis magice libros per eorum principia et fines distinxit.” In the
_Apologetica defensio astronomice veritatis_ he cites “Albertus Magnus
utique philosophus, astronomus, et theologus” concerning Albumasar’s
placing the birth of Christ under the sign Virgo, a passage alluded to
in the _Speculum_, but not, as far as I have noted, in Albert’s other
works.
[2297] Borgnet, X, 629.
[2298] Quetif and Echard (1719), I, 173.
[2299] Toward the close of its first book in his works as published at
Venice in 1519 and in 1557: “Quod si mihi opponas Albertum theologum
praestantissimum fautorem tamen astrologorum, admonebo te primum multa
referri in Albertum quae Alberti non sunt, quod et supra tetigimus.
Tunc si mihi forte obicias librum de licitis et illicitis, in quo
reiicit quidem magos, astronomicos probat auctores, respondebo
existimari quidem a multis esse illud opus Alberti sed nec ipsum
Albertum nec libri inscriptionem usquequamquam hoc significare, cum
auctor ipse quodcumque demum fuerit nomen suum consulto et expresso
dissimulet.”
After condemning certain statements in the _Speculum_ in favor of
astronomical images and that magic books be not utterly destroyed, as
unworthy of a learned man and a Christian, Pico concludes, “Quae utique
aut non scripsit Albertus, aut si scripsit, dicendum esse cum apostolo,
in aliis laudo, in hoc non laudo.” Pico could hardly have read Albert’s
discussion of astronomical images in the _Minerals_.
[2300] Mandonnet (1910), p. 331, incorrectly cites this passage as a
defense of works of judicial astrology, a subject which is not broached
until the following chapter of the _Speculum_.
[2301] Cap. 12.
[2302] Caps. 6-11.
[2303] Digby 228 gives the number as “LXXII.”
[2304] The Incipit given by the author of the _Speculum astronomiae_
shows that this is the _Liber lune_ of which we have treated in our
chapter on “Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages.” By a coincidence a
portion of it is found in the same MS, Digby 228, fols. 54v-55v, with
the _Speculum_.
[2305] This word is variously spelled in different MSS, for instance,
in Digby 228, “Muhamethçaha”; in Canon. Misc. 517, “Vanhmec.”
[2306] Cap. 4.
[2307] Cap. 11.
[2308] Cap. 16.
[2309] Cap. 13.
[2310] Cap. 15.
[2311] _Ibid._, “Ceterum in hoc concordati sunt omnes philosophi quod
cum sciverimus horam impregnationis alicuius mulieris sciamus per eam
quid fiet de fetu donec inspiret et quid usquequo egrediatur ab vulvo
et quid fiet usque ad obitum.”
[2312] Cap. 13.
[2313] Caps. 7 and 12.
[2314] Cap. 14.
[2315] This sentence was omitted in Ashmole 345, but occurred in other
MSS which I examined.
[2316] Cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 644), “figuratam esse in coelo nativitatem
Jesu Christi de Virgine.”
[2317] Ed. F. Michel, Paris, 1864, v. 20109-18,
“Albumasar néis tesmoigne Comment qu’il séust la besoigne, Que dedens
le virginal signe Nestroit une pucele digne, Qui sera, ce dist, virge
et mère, Et qui alètera son père Et ses maris lez li sera Qui jà point
ne la touchera. Ceste sentence puet savoir Qui vuet Albumasar avoir.”
[2318] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, 1910, XVII, 326. “Les deux auteurs
repoussent les livres de magie.”
[2319] _Summa_, II, 30.
[2320] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3.
[2321] _Speculum_, cap. 11. For some further discussion of Germath of
Babylon, and Gergis or Girgith see Appendix II.
[2322] Denifle and Chatelain, _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_,
I, 543.
[2323] See “The Life and Writings of Roger Bacon,” in _The Westminster
Review_, January, 1864, LXXXI, 13.
[2324] _Spec. astron._, cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 643).
[2325] In _Revue Thomiste_, V (1897), 95; cited by Grabmann (1916), p.
163.
[2326] A fact which Mandonnet, _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII (1910),
318, actually attempts to use to show that the _Speculum_ was written
after 1270, holding that the passage in question in the _Speculum_ must
have been copied from Aquinas, since before 1270 no one but Aquinas
knew of the existence of the 13th and 14th books of the _Metaphysics_
at all. Yet they are included in Albert’s _Commentary_, which Mandonnet
himself had dated in 1256!
[2327] Grabmann (1916), pp. 163-9; the evidence presented for this view
is not very convincing. The fourteen books of the _Metaphysics_ are
found in Latin in MSS dated by the catalogues in the 13th century: S.
Marco X, 57, fols. 1-75, de metaphysica libri quatuordecim; Additional
17345, late 13th century, according to the catalogue the _antiqua
translatio_ ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré.
[2328] Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe
siècle_, Fribourg, 1899, cap. 9.
[2329] That this opinion was condemned in 1277 did not keep Peter
of Abano from stating in his _Conciliator_ of 1303 that by power of
fascination a man could be cast into a well and a camel into a hot
bath.--Differentia 135. Indeed William of Auvergne, a previous bishop
of Paris who had himself condemned “errors” in 1240, tells in his _De
universo_ (II, iii, 16, edition of 1591, p. 986) of a man who cast down
a camel by merely imagining its fall.
[2330] Which seems to contradict 102, which stated that “the celestial
circles are not instruments of intelligence but organs.”
[2331] This opinion is, however, that of Boethius and most of the other
discussions of fate which we have noted.
[2332] The Latin text of the 219 opinions will be found in the
_Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, I, 543, _et seq._
[2333] _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, II, 56-7.
[2334] _Chart. Univ. Paris._, II, 229.
APPENDIX I
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE
The descriptions of the first group of MSS in the Amplonian collection
at Erfurt are drawn from Schum’s _Verzeichniss_.
Amplon. Quarto 189, on the verge of the 13th-14th centuries,
following fols. 40-67 Alberti Magni liber de mineralibus
et lapidibus, fols. 67-8 Notae de coloribus (fortasse
Alberti Magni tribuendae), and fol. 68 Notae variae, come
in a new hand at fols. 68-70 De imaginibus astronomicis,
and fol. 70 Notae ex capitulis speculi Alberti quibus de
imaginibus et de commendatione astronomiae inscribitur
extractae.
Amplon. Quarto 223, late 14th century, fols. 105-116,
Tractatus de nominibus librorum astronomie cui inscribitur
_Speculum Alberti_ (Magni). “Explicit liber de nominibus
librorum astronomie dictus Speculum Alberti.”
Amplon. Quarto 348, 1393 A. D., fols. 114-125, “Incipit
liber Alberti Magni episcopi Ratisponensis de libris
mathematice facultatis licitis et illicitis Erphordie
conscriptus ... / ... Finitus est Erphordie liber Alberti
de libris mathematice facultatis licitis et illicitis 1393
die 29 mensis Maii luna in capricorno et sole in geminis,”
etc.
Amplon. Quarto 349, by two different hands of the mid-14th
century, fols. 98-108, “Liber de nominibus librorum
astronomie sive speculum domini Alberti.”
The following MSS in the Bibliothèque Nationale and Bodleian are those
which I have personally examined:
BN 7440, 14th century, fols. 1r-7r. The Speculum astronomiae
here opens without Titulus or Incipit but some later hand
has inserted, “Incipit speculum alberti prohemium.” Only
the bottom of the second column on fol. 1r is occupied
by the text of the Speculum, which is preceded by some
lines of text ending “Explicit liber hermetis” which are
the conclusion of the treatise on fifteen stars, stones,
and herbs at fols. 13v-16v. The Speculum is followed at
fol. 7r by the De urina non visa of William of England
or Marseilles and other astrological treatises. At fols.
38v-40v and 25r-32v is an astrological passage from what
is called in the headings at the tops of the pages “Meth’a
Rog’i” (Metaphysics of Roger), which Mr. Steele has
printed in Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, Fasc. 1.
But the occurrence of this fragment in the same MS with
the Speculum can scarcely be adduced as any indication of
the Baconian authorship of the Speculum, since the same
later hand, which has here inserted “Incipit methafisica
Rogeri baconis de ordine predicatorum” (_sic!_), wrote in
the ascription of the Speculum to Albert.
BN 7408, 15th century. Here the Speculum is bound at the
close of a MS containing astronomical and astrological
works. It is ascribed to Albert not only in the general
table of contents for the MS and in a Titulus written
at its beginning in another hand than its text, but the
text itself closes, “Expliciunt liber dicta speculum
alberti magni de nominibus librorum astronomie tam
demonstrativorum quam judicialium quem composuit frater
albertus ut sciatur qui libri sunt contra fidem et qui
non.” The same hand then goes on to cite Albert’s work on
minerals concerning images on stones.
BN 7335, 15th century, fols. 108r-114v, “Incipit libellus
alberti magni de discretione astronomie a falsa aliter
intitulatus speculum ... / ... Explicit tractatus qui
dicitur speculum domini alberti.”
Digby 228, 14th century, fol. 76-, no author is named in
the text itself of the Speculum but in the upper margin
of this page a hand of the same century has written the
following note: “Tractatus magistri Philippi cancellarii
Parisiensis de libris astronomie qui tenendi sunt secundum
integritatem fidei catholice et qui non.” This MS seems to
give a more correct text than any of the three following
other MSS in the Bodleian.
Ashmole 345, later 14th century (the name, “Kenelme
Digby,” is written at the top of the first page of the
MS), fols. 14v-21, Tractatus in quo corriguntur errores
quorundam astrologorum et philosophorum fidei catholicae
repugnantes, “Occasione quorundam librorum apud quos non
est radix scientie ... / ... sed quod ambo inveniuntur ab
eodem creata. Explicit.” Although it opens as usual, it
omits much of the earlier chapters and bibliography of the
Speculum. No author seems to be named.
Digby 81, on paper, fols. 102-18, “Explicit iste tractatus
quem composuit Albertus frater predicator.” But a hand of
the 17th century adds the note, “Albertus non fuit author
huius libri sed Philippus cancellarius Parisiensis, ut
ex vetustissimo exemplari manuscripto manifestum est,”
which I presume is a reference to the note to that effect
in Digby 228. As a table of contents for this portion of
the MS at fol. 101r shows, this “Albertus de scientiis
licitis et illicitis” was once followed by “Cosmographia
Rogeri Bacon”; but it will be noted that although the 17th
century hand questions Albert’s authorship, its writer was
not moved to ascribe the Speculum to Bacon.
Canon. Misc. 517, 15th century, fols. 52v-59v, “Incipit
speculum alberti ... / ... finis Spectubili Alberti.”
Written in a print-like hand which is prettier than Digby
228, but the text nevertheless contains a good many slips,
as in the omission of words from the Incipits in the
bibliographies of deserving and illicit books. Also it has
19 chapters instead of the usual 17, as in Digby 228 and
the printed text.
The following MSS I have not examined but list according to the various
catalogues:
Arsenal 387, 13th century, fols. 16-31. Fols. 15-34 are
now missing but in the 16th century Claude de Grandrue
gave the description: “Liber Alberti magni de nominibus
librorum astronomie tam demonstrativum quam judicialium,
ut sciatur qui libri sunt contra fidem et qui non.” The
correspondence of this wording with BN 7408 is perhaps
worth noting.
Brussels, Library of Dukes of Burgundy, 936, anno 1418,
Alberti Maqui Speculum astronomiae; 1030, 15th century,
Alberti Magni Speculum; 1466, 15th century, an abridgement
of the Speculum.
Florence, Ashburnham 136, early 15th century, fols. 178-83,
Speculum Alberti Magni.
Catania 87, 15th century, #13, Albertus Magnus, Summa
librorum astronomiae.
S. Marco XI-71, 16th century, 19 fols., Alberti Magni
astronomiae speculum. Valentinelli remarks, “Opus Rogero
Baconi male tributum, recte sub Alberti Magni nomine
pluries editum est.”
CLM 27, 14-15th century, fol. 55, Alberti Magni iudicium de
libris Messahallach sequentibus; presumably a fragment.
CLM 221, 15th century, fols. 223-8, Speculum mathematicae.
CLM 267, 14th century, fol. 91, de recapitulatione omnium
librorum astronomiae.
CLM 8001, 14th century, fol. 145, where the Speculum occurs
in the same MS with Albert’s De vegetabilibus and other
commentaries on Aristotle.
Berlin 963, 15th century, fol. 142, “Speculum dn̄i alberti
magni episcopi ratisponensis. Occasione quorundam
librorum....”
Vienna 5508, 14-15th century, fols. 161v-180v, Speculum
geomanticum (the MS as a whole is largely devoted to
geomancy, but the opening words, “Occasione quorundam
librorum” identify it as our treatise).
CU Trinity 1185, 16th century, fols. 1-7, Speculum Alberti
Magni, “Occasione quorundam librorum.”
APPENDIX II
GERMATH OF BABYLON, GERGIS, AND GIRGITH
Germa or Grema or Germath of Babylon is a name to which I believe
I have met only one other reference, namely, in Ceceo d’Ascoli’s
_Commentary on the De principiis of Alchabitius_ (ed. Boffito, p. 19),
where for the assertion that the stone _anthrax_ keeps emitting water
and so also has to attract water to supply the loss are cited “Evax rex
arabum et Zot grecus et Germa babilonensis.”
In another chapter of the _Speculum_ in listing licit works of
“astronomy” the author mentions Gergis, _De significatione planetarum
in domibus_, which opens, “Sol consurgit.” It is perhaps the same as
Ashmole 393, 15th century(?), fols. 68v-69v, “Gergis de significatione
planetarum ac capitis et caude in 12 domibus. Sol in ascendente
significat principatum ... / ... neque dimittas que dico tibi nec
proferes aliud. Explicit Jergis de significationibus planetarum in
domibus 12.” See also Steinschneider (1906) pp. 23-4, where other MSS
of this treatise are mentioned and also of a “Girgic, De mansionibus
lunae.” Other forms of the name than Gergis and Girgic mentioned
by Steinschneider are Zergis, Jergis, Jargus (Hyargus, Largus) and
Georgius; also Gugit. Steinschneider further notes that this author
appears in the alchemistic _Turba_; in which connection I may add
that Albertus Magnus in _Mineralium_ III, i, 4, speaks of a writer on
alchemy from that part of Spain which used to belong to the Arabs named
Gilgil (Gilgil in secretis suis).
Steinschneider does not note Royal 12-C-XVIII where, following the work
of Thebit ben Corat on images, is “another tract on the same subject,
apparently by Jirgis ibn al-ʿAmid. Inc. ‘Dixit Balemiz qui Apollo
dicitur Ymago prima fit in prima hora.’ Ends, ‘nomen diei Saturni
hadah. Explicit.’” Here then Jirgis is associated with Belenus just as
Germath of Babylon was in the _Speculum_.
In another MS not mentioned by Steinschneider a _Theory of Magic Art_,
which reminds one of the work of Alkindi by that title, is ascribed
to a Girgith. Amplon. Quarto 354, 14th century, fols. 60-62, Girgith,
Theorica de arte magica, “Cogitacio fuit: res que me ad hoc opusculum
... / ... operari voluerit et sic est finis huius tractatus. Deo
gratias.”
And in the medieval catalogue of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, 1545, we
find listed “Documenta Girgith filie Circes,” preceded by “Tractatus de
sigillis planetarum.” That is, Girgith is represented as the daughter
of the enchantress Circe, and is apparently connected with magical
and astrological images. This community of astrological and magical
interest inclines one to believe that all the aforesaid authors are
one.