THREE TREATISES ASCRIBED TO ALBERTUS MAGNUS BUT USUALLY CONSIDERED
SPURIOUS: EXPERIMENTA ALBERTI, DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI, DE SECRETIS
MULIERUM
The three treatises--Are the two treatises on magic by
Albert?--Manuscripts of the _Experiments_--Manuscripts
of the _Marvels_--Evidence of a fourteenth century
bibliography--Opinions of modern writers--Meyer’s argument
against the authenticity of the _Experiments_--Difficulty
of the question--Introduction of the _Experiments_--Virtues
of herbs, stones, and animals--The heliotrope--The
lily--Two gems--The owl--Evax and Aaron, and the
crow--Observance of astrology--Emphasis upon experiment--_De
mirabilibus mundi_ more theoretical--How account for
magic?--Action of characters explained--Incredible
“experiments of authorities” upheld--Laws of nature and
of magic--Man’s magic power--A wonderful world--The
chief causes of marvels--Marvels proved by experience,
not by reason--Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of
Pseudo-Plato suggested by the authorities cited--Contents
of the _Marvels_ characterized--A mixture of chemistry
and magic--Two specimens of combustibles--Further
discussion of marvelousness in general--The _Marvels_ is
an experimental book--_De secretis mulierum_--The problem
of its authorship--Its citation of Albert, commentary,
opening--Nature of its contents--Medieval standards in such
matters--Some superstitious recipes--Astrology--Citations
of Albert and Avicenna--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the
_Experiments_ or _Secrets_--Appendix II. Manuscripts of the
_De secretis mulierum_.
[Sidenote: The three treatises.]
If we have succeeded in showing that there is little reason for
questioning the traditional ascription of the _Speculum astronomiae_
to Albertus Magnus, and still less reason for attributing it to anyone
else, it must on the other hand be admitted that the authenticity
of three other treatises current under his name is more dubious.
To the consideration of these three treatises we now come, namely,
the _Experimenta Alberti_, _De mirabilibus mundi_, and _De secretis
mulierum_. _The Experiments of Albert_, or _The Secrets of Albert_
(_Secreta Alberti_), as it is usually called in the manuscripts, in the
printed editions is generally entitled _Liber aggregationis_, or the
book of secrets or virtues of certain herbs, animals, and stones.
[Sidenote: Are the two treatises on magic by Albert?]
When Albertus Magnus in his treatises on the works of Aristotle in
natural philosophy dismissed certain matters as pertaining to the
science of magic rather than to physical science, and said that they
should be considered in other treatises, it is just possible that
he intended to write such books himself. He does not, however, seem
to have cited any such writings of his own by title in any of his
undisputedly genuine works. Such writings are nevertheless extant
under his name, namely, the above-mentioned _Experiments of Albert_
and _Marvels of the Universe_. These two treatises already circulated
under his name in the middle ages and appeared in numerous editions
in the early years of the printing-press.[2335] Indeed, a survey
of the catalogue in such a library as the British Museum indicates
that these treatises were published in about as many editions as all
Albert’s numerous other works put together. This suggests how much
more popular were these brief collections of superstitious experiments
and sensational marvels than Albert’s longer, more difficult and
argumentative, theological and scientific writings.
[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Experiments_.]
Of these two treatises the _Liber aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ or
_Secrets of Albert_ is found in a number of manuscripts of the British
Museum, Bodleian, and other libraries.[2336] These are dated in the
catalogues as mainly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
centuries. The text is not uniform either in the printed editions or
the manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain only part of the treatise
or arrange its items in a different order, and sometimes foreign
matter is interpolated, but it is clear that they are all different
portions or versions of one work. Indeed the three Digby manuscripts
in the Bodleian contain practically the same text, and would seem to
be copies of one another or of a common original, since an illegible
phrase in one is apt to be equally unreadable in the rest. They also
all entitle the work the _Secrets_ rather than the _Experiments of
Albert_. Most of the manuscripts expressly attribute the work to Albert
who is variously styled “Albertus Magnus,” “Brother Albert,” “Brother
Albert of the Order of Preachers,” or “Brother Albert of Cologne of the
Order of Preaching Friars.” One manuscript says that Albertus Magnus
translated these experiments with herbs, stones, and animals from the
Greek and Arabic. Only one of the manuscripts, where a part of the
experiments with herbs are called _Jocalia Salamonis_, ascribes the
work to anyone else than Albert. Borgnet, who did not include either
the _De mirabilibus mundi_ or _Liber aggregationis_ in his edition of
Albert’s works, mentions another manuscript where the latter treatise
is ascribed to “Brother Albert of Saxony.” But aside from the fact
that the evidence of a single manuscript is worth little against so
many others, if we find the _Experiments_ and _Secrets_ in manuscripts
of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the work cannot
possibly be written by Albert of Saxony who did not flourish until
about 1351 to 1361. Moreover, in the fourteenth century manuscripts
our treatise is found with other experimental and occult treatises
of varied authors, so that it would appear to have been known for
some time and copied from earlier manuscripts into these collections.
Whether the treatise is by Albert or not, then, there seems no doubt
that it was generally ascribed to him in the later middle ages, and
that it was composed in the thirteenth century, or at least that the
nucleus of it existed then.
[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Marvels_.]
Of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ manuscripts seem much rarer.[2337] I
found none in the British Museum, although it contains so many of
the _Experiments of Albert_ which almost invariably accompanies the
_Marvels_ in the printed editions. It is also rather remarkable that
the former treatise is always called the _Experiments_ or _Secrets of
Albert_ in the manuscripts, and _Liber aggregationis_ in the printed
editions.[2338]
[Sidenote: Evidence of a fourteenth century bibliography.]
Further evidence that the _Experiments_ was at least attributed to
Albert at an early date and on the other hand that the _De mirabilibus
mundi_ was not, is afforded by the bibliography of works by learned
Dominicans drawn up in the second quarter of the fourteenth century.
Here we find listed among Albert’s writings[2339] a _De lapidibus
et herbis_ which may well be the _Experimenta_, since his _De
vegetabilibus et plantis_ and _De mineralibus_ are listed separately,
and a _Secretum secretorum Alberti_ which may indicate either the
_Experiments_ or _Secrets_ or perhaps the _De secretis mulierum_. On
the other hand, in the same bibliography we find a _De mirabilibus_
listed not among the writings of Albertus Magnus but attributed to an
Arnold of Liège.[2340] Perhaps this is why Berthelot states, without
giving any reference or reason, that the _De mirabilibus mundi_ was
written in the fourteenth century by a pupil of Albertus Magnus.[2341]
[Sidenote: Opinions of modern writers.]
In modern times some writers have accepted these two treatises
as Albert’s, perhaps unthinkingly, while others have rejected
them as spurious. Thus Cockayne gives the description of the herb
_Heliotropium_ from the _De virtutibus herbarum_, another name for the
_Experiments_ or _Liber aggregationis_, as by Albertus Magnus.[2342]
And we find Hoefer reproving Haller and Sprengel for having judged
Albertus Magnus too severely on the basis of the same _De viribus
herbarum_, “a book of cabalistic recipes” which Hoefer asserts is not
his.[2343] Borgnet who, as has been said, excluded our two treatises
from his edition of Albert’s works, held that the “vain and futile
matters” which they contain are enough to prove that they cannot be
by Albert. Of this the reader may judge for himself by comparing
some of the passages concerning occult virtue, astrology, magic,
and experiments with toads and emeralds which we have already cited
from Albert’s works with those which we shall soon give from these
two treatises. As the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ says in its
article on Albert, “It must be confessed that all his treatises let
be seen too often his leaning toward the occult sciences; and they
contain, at least in part, the germ of the wretched productions falsely
published under his name.”[2344]
[Sidenote: Meyer’s argument against the authenticity of the
_Experiments_.]
Meyer in his _History of Botany_[2345] made more detailed objections
to the Albertine authorship of the _Liber aggregationis_. He argued
that Albert’s genuine works display a more elegant style and logical
arrangement, that the _Liber aggregationis_ does not depend on
Aristotle as the genuine scientific works do, and that Albert elsewhere
condemns the magic which he here expounds. But we have shown that
Albert does not always condemn even so-called magic in his other
writings, that it is not inconceivable that he may have written
treatises on natural magic himself, and that he follows Aristotle only
where he has works of Aristotle at hand to follow. Argument from style
is always dangerous, since style is apt to alter with the subject and
method of a treatise. Furthermore, Meyer seems to have judged the
style of the _Liber aggregationis_ from the printed text which often
differs in wording from the manuscripts. However, I do not know that
their style is any more elegant; the manuscripts are hard to read and
often seem incoherent. In any case the treatise is mainly a collection
of brief statements, largely excerpted from other writings, with
little room either for literary elegance or logical arrangement. Meyer
further noted, however, that the _Liber aggregationis_ gave a different
explanation of two names of herbs, _Quinquefolium_ and _Jusquiasmus_
(or _Jusquiamus_), from that given in Albert’s _On vegetables and
plants_. Even this divergence might, however, be due to Albert’s
having followed different authorities in the two works; the _Liber
aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ seems to draw largely from _Kiranides_.
[Sidenote: Difficulty of the question.]
It may be admitted that the _Experiments_ and _Marvels_ seem in general
rather inferior to Albert’s undisputed works, which embody the same
sort of superstitions, it is true, but are less exclusively devoted to
that sort of thing. But we must expect treatises which deal expressly
with magic and marvels to be more superstitious than those which deal
professedly with Aristotelian theories and facts learned by experience
concerning the natural sciences. Compare the writings of Sir Oliver
Lodge on physics and on psychic research. And if the _Experiments_ and
most of the _Marvels_ seem naïve, simple, and unsophisticated compared
to the more elaborate arrangement and detail and scholastic argument
of the undisputed works of Albert, it is to be noted that they are
like other books of their kind, just as the others are like other
Aristotelian and scholastic treatises. But from these difficult and
hypothetical questions of authenticity or spuriousness let us turn to
the writings themselves.
[Sidenote: Introduction of the _Experiments_.]
Meyer said that in the _Liber aggregationis_ one did not find Albert’s
chief source, Aristotle. Yet the _Experiments of Albert_ open in the
manuscripts with the words, “As the philosopher says,” to which one
manuscript adds, “in the first book of the _Metaphysics_.”[2346] The
philosopher’s dictum was to the effect that all science is good but
that it may be employed either for good or evil ends. Our author then
affirms that “magical science”[2347] is not evil, since by knowledge
of it one can avoid evil and secure good. This is not unlike the way
in which Albert in his _Minerals_ justified the science of images as
good doctrine, even if it was a part of necromancy, or showed in other
passages that astrology was not contrary to freedom of the will since
it enabled one to avoid evils and to obtain goods. By this statement
the author also serves notice that magical science or the science of
magic is to be the subject of the present treatise. Continuing his
preface, he mentions “inspection of reasons and natural experiments” as
well as “ancient authors” or “doctors” as sources. He has tested many
of the statements of these authorities and has found truth in many of
them. In the present treatise he intends to make use of the book of
Kiranides and the book of Alcorath, later said to be by Hermes, and
to speak first of certain herbs, then of certain stones and certain
animals and of their virtues. The oldest manuscript that I have seen
also promises to treat of the virtue of words,[2348] but this promise
is not fulfilled and is omitted in the printed text. It may also be
remarked now that other authorities than Kiranides and Alcorath are
cited in the course of the treatise.
[Sidenote: Virtues of herbs, stones, and animals.]
The author then considers sixteen herbs,[2349] about forty-five
stones,[2350] and some eighteen animals,[2351] many of which are
birds. In the printed text and some manuscripts there are also given
the virtues of seven herbs according to the emperor Alexander, which
is really a distinct treatise of which we have spoken elsewhere. The
names are sometimes given in several languages after the manner of the
_Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius. Thus a treatise which began with
justification of magical science turns out to be simply a treatment
of the virtues of natural objects. But this shows the importance
of natural objects in magic, and the virtues here ascribed to them
are often indeed magical. One may become invisible, escape dangers,
travel in safety, conquer the enemy, win honors, not feel pain, boil
water instantly or freeze boiling water or kindle an inextinguishable
fire, make a rainbow appear or the sun seem blood-red, excite love
between two persons, or arouse joy, sadness, and other emotional and
intellectual states, overpower wild beasts, interpret any dream, and
prophesy concerning the future. In brief, by the aid of the occult
virtues of these natural objects one can accomplish almost anything
that any other form of magic could procure. Two or three examples may
be given in more detail.
[Sidenote: The heliotrope.]
The first herb discussed, the heliotrope, if plucked when the sun is
in the sign Leo in August and worn wrapped in a laurel leaf with the
tooth of a wolf, insures that the bearer of it will be addressed with
none but friendly words. If a person who has been robbed sleeps with
it beneath his pillow, he will see all the circumstances of the theft
repeated in his dreams. If it is placed in a temple, women who have
been unfaithful to their marriage vows will be unable to leave the
temple until this herb is removed.
[Sidenote: The lily.]
The lily is an herb which the _Magi_ have greatly lauded. It, too,
should be plucked when the sun is in Leo, then mixed with laurel juice
and buried beneath ordure until worms are generated therefrom. No one
can sleep in whose clothing or about whose neck is sprinkled some of
the powder made from these worms. Anyone anointed with this powder will
contract a fever. If this powder is put in a jar of milk covered with
the skin of a cow of one color, the entire herd will cease to give
milk. “And this has been tested in our time by certain sorcerers.”[2352]
[Sidenote: Two gems.]
The stone Optalmius, wrapped in a laurel leaf, renders one invisible,
as its virtue blinds the sight of onlookers. By its aid Constantine
became invisible in the thick of the fight. A test of virginity by the
stone Galerites is ascribed to Avicenna. In operating with stones the
bearer of the gem should be free from all pollution in order to secure
a good result, a magic commonplace.
[Sidenote: The owl.]
If the heart and right foot of an owl are placed upon a sleeper’s
breast, “he will tell whatever he has done and whatever you ask
him.”[2353] “And this was tested experimentally by our brothers
recently.”[2354] No dog will bark at a person who carries these same
parts of an owl in his armpit, and together with an owl’s wing they
will attract all sorts of birds to a tree where they are suspended.
[Sidenote: Evax and Aaron, and the crow.]
It is interesting to note that Evax and Aaron, who were cited in
Albert’s _Minerals_, are here cited for the virtues of animals as
well, the crow, taxo, and hare.[2355] Their crow story, however, also
concerns a stone. If a crow’s eggs are cooked and then replaced in the
nest, the bird flies away to the Red Sea and returns with a stone whose
touch turns the eggs raw again. This stone is valuable to human beings
for other purposes. Set in a ring with the usual laurel leaf, its touch
opens closed gates and frees prisoners from their chains. If one puts
it in one’s mouth, one can understand the language of the birds. One
manuscript[2356] speaks of this procedure with the crow’s eggs as an
experiment of a master Dacus, rather than of Aaron and Evax, and says
that the stone brought by the crow aids conception. To have a male
child the stone should be held in the right hand; in the left, for a
female.
[Sidenote: Observance of astrology.]
Astrological conditions had to be observed in some of the procedure
already recounted. In conclusion the general principle is also laid
down apart from any particular recipe, that to work a good effect
one should operate under the influence of a benevolent planet like
Jupiter or Venus, and to work an evil effect under a malevolent planet.
“Whoever observes this rule correctly will without doubt find truth and
the greatest efficacy in what we have said, as I have experienced with
our brothers.”[2357]
[Sidenote: Emphasis upon experiment.]
This last expression and others like it which have been previously
noted, together with the title, _Experimenta Alberti_, attest the
experimental character of our treatise, which is to be classed as
one of those “books of experiments” or “experimental books” which
we have heard so often mentioned and of which our next two chapters
will especially treat. This expression and its fellows further remind
us--perhaps are intended to remind us--of Albert’s allusions to the
personal experiences of himself or his _socii_ in his undisputed works.
If our treatise is not by Albert, there can at least be little doubt
that it pretends to be a product of his experimental school among the
Dominicans at Cologne.
[Sidenote: _De mirabilibus mundi_ is more theoretical.]
The _Marvels of the Universe_ contains more theoretical discussion
of much the usual scholastic sort than the _Experiments_, and so
approximates rather more nearly to the form of most of Albert’s works.
As against the brief introductory paragraph of the _Experiments_, the
_Marvels_ enters upon a long and learned preliminary discussion of the
validity, causes, and principles of magic before beginning its list of
particular marvels.
[Sidenote: How account for magic?]
The author states that after he knew “that the work of the wise man is
to make marvels cease” by scientific explanation of them, he searched
the writings of authorities until he understood the causes of most
marvelous works. One extremely marvelous thing, however, continued to
puzzle him, yet its existence he regards as evident to all men, even
the vulgar. This was the binding of men by incantations, characters,
sorcery, words, and by many quite common objects. For this he could
find no sufficient cause and it seemed impossible. But after he had
puzzled long, he found a plausible statement by Avicenna in the sixth
book of the _Naturalia_ that there exists in the human mind a certain
power of altering objects, and that other objects obey the human mind
when it is aroused to a great excess of love or hatred toward anyone
of them. In such circumstances manifest experience shows that the
mind can bind and alter objects as it desires. The author, however,
for a long time remained still incredulous. But when he came to read
books of necromancy and images and magic, he found in them this same
theory that the human soul can alter its own body or exterior objects,
especially if its influence concurs with a favorable astrological hour.
Moreover, men differ in their natural capacity to influence others or
to be influenced by them. Some men cannot be bewitched; others cannot
be freed from the power which another has established over them; still
others can both be bewitched and set free from sorcery.
[Sidenote: Action of characters explained.]
The discussion then turns for a time from magical influence in general
to that of characters in particular. Their force depends upon the power
of the mind of the operator and the celestial virtue at the time of
their construction. A distinction is made between characters written
blindly in a frenzy and those constructed scientifically with some
likeness to the object sought, as when embracing figures are placed in
a love charm. Such scientific characters our author prefers as more
rational and possessing greater virtue. He states that later he will
list from various books particular characters and words for making or
destroying this or that.
[Sidenote: Incredible “experiments of authorities” upheld.]
Resuming his more general discussion, the author defends “the many
experiments of authorities,”--a phrase which should warn us against
attempting sharply to distinguish between medieval trust in authorities
and medieval experimental tendencies. Some deem these “experiments
of authorities” incredible, but he supports them as “most certain
science.” His argument therefor is the too subtle and ingenious
plea that surely no philosopher would purposely write such apparent
falsehoods, unless he were sure of their truth, since even an ignorant
man does not willingly write what is manifestly false. Hence these
seemingly incredible statements must be true.
[Sidenote: Laws of nature and of magic.]
The author then lays down some general laws of nature such as that
every species seeks its kind, fire moving toward fire, and water
toward water. Also that an object is gradually changed into likeness
to its surroundings. Thus Avicenna says that an object turns to salt
when it has stood in salt for a long time; and if wild animals remain
long with men, they become domesticated. Philosophers have discovered
“the dispositions of natural entities,” such as heat, cold, boldness,
wrath, fear, sterility, the ardor of love, or any other virtue. For
instance, audacity is a quality innate in all members of the lion
species. Knowledge of these innate qualities is of great assistance in
marvelous and secret operations. Another great law is that like loves
like. Medical men, alchemists, and scientists generally verify this
assertion. Furthermore, “every nature, particular or general, has a
natural friendship or enmity for some other, and some have this for the
entire species and for all time, while others have it for an individual
only and for a fixed time.” Proof of this is to be seen in the case of
certain animals who hate each other in life and whose parts, even whose
hairs, retain this repugnance after death. Thus the lion’s skin injures
all other pelts; while sheepskin is consumed by wolfskin, and a drum
made of the latter silences one made of the former.
[Sidenote: Man’s magic power.]
The author then returns to the magic power in man. He believes that it
is clear to everyone that man is the end of all nature and should be
supreme over it. Man possesses all the marvelous virtues to be found
throughout the natural world; even the demons obey him; “and in the
very human body all the secret arts are worked and ... every marvel
issues from it.” All these powers, however, are not found in one man
at the same time, but in different individuals at different times. The
details of this relationship of man to the world of nature are revealed
not by reason but by experience,--a Galenic and Albertine distinction
of which the author of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ is quite fond.
[Sidenote: A wonderful world.]
Everything in nature is equally full of marvelous virtue. Fires are
not more marvelous than waters, the virtues of pepper are no greater
than those of jusquiam. One cannot dispute this, whether one attributes
marvelous virtues primarily to the action of heat and cold, or to love
and enmity between things, or to the influence of the stars, for all
things in nature are subject alike to these three forces. Now, “when
philosophers realized that everything was wonderful, they began to
experiment and to bring forth what there is in things.”
[Sidenote: The chief causes of marvels.]
The author, for his part, cannot agree with those philosophers and
medical men who have tried to explain everything in terms of hot and
cold, dry and moist. He declares that they met with many phenomena
in the course of their experience which they could not verify upon
this basis, so that “they marveled and were sorrowful incessantly,
and often denied something although they saw it.” On the other hand,
our author does not agree with the astrologers that everything can be
explained by the course of the stars. He prefers the view of “Plato and
Aristotle and the orthodox (_legitimi_) and all who pursue the ultimate
philosophy” that there are diverse causes or channels of marvelousness
(_mirabilibus_). Often marvels are produced by the impression of the
stars, often by heat and cold, often by the virtues of demons and
necromancers, often by virtues innate in objects and implanted with
their substantial forms, often by the relationship of things to one
another. This is why Plato says _in libro tegimenti_ (or, _regiminis_)
that one who is not trained in dialectic, natural science, astrology,
and necromancy--“in which are revealed the immaterial substances
which dispense and administer all that is in things for good or for
evil”--can explain neither what the philosophers have written nor
what the senses perceive, and will depart sadly, unable to solve
the problems of the marvelous. Our author also warns his readers to
distinguish between the effects, often contrary, of substance and
accident, and to remember that action is sometimes direct, sometimes
indirect.
[Sidenote: Marvels proved by experience, not by reason.]
Finally, before beginning his list of specific marvels, the author
reverts to his point concerning reason and experience, citing the
_liber tegimenti_ again to the effect that some things for which we can
give no reason are nevertheless manifest to the senses, while others
which we perceive by no sense or sensation are manifest to the reason.
As usual the power of the magnet is adduced as an example of things
proved by experience for which reason cannot account. “So no one should
deny what the philosophers have affirmed from experience until he has
tested it in the manner of the philosophers who discovered it.” It is
also pointed out that many of the ancients told marvelous things which
are now verified and generally accepted. “And I will tell you some in
order that you may strengthen your mind on them and be prepared to
believe what reason cannot confirm.” With this the list of particular
marvels opens.
[Sidenote: Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of Pseudo-Plato suggested
by the authorities cited.]
At first authorities are cited a good deal; philosophers in general,
Galen, Hermes, the Arabian medical writer _filius Mesue_ or Yuhanna
ibn Masawaih,[2358] the Pseudo-Aristotle and Alexander, whose feat
is mentioned of killing the vipers with the deadly glance by erecting
mirrors for them to look themselves to death in. Less familiar
names are Architas, Belbinus--who, however, is perhaps the same as
the Belenus of the _Speculum astronomiae_, Tabariensis, a _Book of
Decoration_, and the books of Archigenes and Cleopatra, two authors
cited by Galen. These same names of authors, with precisely the same
statements cited from each and with a similar preceding argument about
proving marvels by experience, occur also in the _Liber vaccae_ or
_Liber aggregationum anguemis_ or _Liber institutionum activorum_,
ascribed to Plato and Galen,[2359] and of which we shall treat in a
subsequent chapter. As this _Liber Anguemis_ seems to have been known
to William of Auvergne and to date back in Latin translation to the
twelfth century, the _De mirabilibus mundi_ would seem to have copied
from it, especially as its citations of _Plato in libro tegimenti_ (or
_regiminis_), which I suspected had some connection with Galen before
I became acquainted with the _Liber Anguemis_, may be meant for that
work, of which both Plato and Galen are reputed authors. It should
be noted, however, that these citations and the passage introductory
to them are entirely absent from one manuscript[2360] of the _Liber
vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_.
[Sidenote: Contents of the _Marvels_ characterized.]
In the specific marvels ligatures and suspensions are employed to a
large extent, as are parts of animals: the skin of a wolf or dog, the
blood of a hare, bird, bat, or male turtle, the urine of a mule, and
the wax from a dog’s left ear. There are a number of cures for quartan
fever and some for other diseases, and various methods are recommended
to prevent conception. The philosophers are represented as saying that
if flies are submerged in water, they appear dead, but if they are
buried in ashes, they will rise again. _The Book of Cleopatra_ advises
a husband whose wife does not love him to wear the marrow from a wolf’s
left foot, “and she will love none but you.”
[Sidenote: A mixture of chemistry and magic.]
Toward the end of the treatise authorities are no longer cited and many
of the recipes aim at magical or optical illusions and the fabrication
of marvelous candles, lights, and combustibles. Some are perhaps akin
to modern fireworks and chemical rather than magical. They terminate at
any rate with a recipe for Greek fire and other explosives, including
perhaps gunpowder. Instructions are given how to make men appear
headless or with three heads or with the face of a dog or the head of
an ass or any animal you wish, or in the form of angels or black men or
elephants and great horses. Also how to write letters which can be read
only at night, how to make a chicken or other animal dance in a dish,
how to make the whole house seem full of snakes, how to make oneself
seem on fire from head to foot, how to cast an object into the flames
without burning it, how to enable men to walk through fire or carry
a hot iron uninjured, how to extinguish a lamp by opening the hands
over it and how to light it by closing them. Other recipes enable one
to catch birds in the hands, to inward off dogs and snakes, to break
a love charm, to loose bonds, see the future in sleep, catch a mole,
and force a confession from a woman. To make a man forever a eunuch
one should give him a glow-worm in drink. “And they say that if anyone
is anointed with ass’s milk, all the fleas in the house will gather on
him.”
[Sidenote: Two specimens of combustibles.]
The following is a specimen of the more superstitious type of recipe
for a candle or combustible. From the first part of the human head,
called _sinciput_ by the philosophers, worms are generated soon after
death. After seven days the worms become flies and after fourteen days
they are great dragons whose bite is instantaneously fatal to man. “If
you take one of these and cook it with oil and make a candle of it with
a wick of crape, you will thereby behold with great fear a great thing
and indescribable forms.” In contrast to this recipe may be quoted
one of three for making “flying fire” out of sulphur, charcoal, and
saltpeter. “Take a pound of sulphur, two pounds of willow charcoal, six
pounds of saltpeter. Grind them very fine on a marble stone. Then put
some in a cover of flying-paper or thunder-making paper. The cover for
flying should be long, thin, and well filled with that powder, but for
thunder-making short, thick, and half filled.” Here we would seem to
have gunpowder and fireworks described.
[Sidenote: Further discussion of marvelousness in general.]
In three of the four _incunabula_ editions of the _De mirabilibus
mundi_ which I have examined there occurs toward the close of the
treatise another passage discussing marvelousness in general, most of
which is not contained in the later editions although they briefly
indicate its main point. The author says that now he understands that
a thing is marvelous only as long as most persons cannot detect its
cause, and that when a sufficient cause for it is shown, everyone
ceases to wonder at it. He then distinguishes three kinds of marvels:
first, those of rare occurrence in which not only is the cause unknown
but the phenomenon itself marvelous from its very rarity; second, those
whose cause is unknown, although the phenomena are neither new nor
unusual; third, those whose cause is not entirely unknown but seems
insufficient to account for the result. To produce any marvelous effect
the requisites are a strong agent and a well-disposed material or
patient. Sometimes, even when the agent is weak, the unusual aptitude
of the patient compensates for this. On the basis of this scholastic
generalization the author goes on to advise that, in working any marvel
in the presence of the vulgar, one should center their attention upon
some weak factor which alone is manifestly insufficient to produce
the desired result and conceal the other contributory factors in the
experiment as far as possible.
[Sidenote: The _Marvels_ is an experimental book.]
If the _Marvels_ is a more theoretical treatise than the _Experiments_,
it is none the less almost equally experimental in character. Its
particular marvels are also put in the form of experiments, and even
in the more scholastic and reasoned introduction and conclusion
the author, as we have seen, constantly appeals to experience, and
closely associates experimentation and magic by such phrases as “all
the marvelousness of experiments and marvels.” He also employs the
verb _experimentari_ as well as the classical form _experiri_, thus
suggesting definitely that he means “to experiment” and not merely
“to experience.” The _De mirabilibus mundi_, in fine, as well as the
_Experimenta Alberti,_ belongs to the category of “books of experiment”
or “experimental books” which we have heard William of Auvergne and
the _Speculum astronomiae_ mention, and to which our next two chapters
will be further devoted. Some of the items of the _De mirabilibus
mundi_ will be found duplicated or closely paralleled in these other
experimental books, as we have already noted in the case of the _Liber
vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_, and as Berthelot, in editing _The Book of
Fires_ of Marcus Grecus, noted that a number of its experiments were
found also in the _De mirabilibus mundi_.[2361]
[Sidenote: _De secretis mulierum._]
With the later editions of the _Liber aggregationis_ and _De
mirabilibus mundi_ there was usually published a third treatise
ascribed to Albertus Magnus which had already been printed separately,
namely, _The Secrets of Women_. I am not quite sure whether this
treatise was put on the _Index Expurgatorius_ because it had become too
popular, or whether its popularity was increased rather than diminished
by this official censure. At any rate the number of extant manuscripts
shows that it was well known before the _Index_ was ever instituted.
Possibly one reason for questioning the authenticity of the two
treatises which we have just considered was the ill-repute into which
they came in consequence of being so often bound with the _De secretis
mulierum_. Also its history and the question of its genuineness or
spuriousness may throw some light, if only by way of illustration and
analogy, upon the same problem in their case. Moreover, if the _De
secretis mulierum_ is by Albert or one of his disciples, it affords
some further illustrations of the belief in occult virtue and astrology
of himself or his pupils; and if not, it at least shows what a great
interest such doctrines had for a large number of readers during the
centuries from the fourteenth to eighteenth inclusive. It is not,
however, either a book of magic or an experimental book like the two
treatises which we have just considered.
[Sidenote: The problem of its authorship.]
_The Secrets of Women_ was printed before 1500[2362] and in all has
appeared in about as many editions as the other two treatises. Choulant
counted over thirty editions of each.[2363] The _De secretis mulierum_
is found in several manuscripts, chiefly of the fourteenth century,
in the medieval collection of Amplonius at Erfurt, and in numerous
other manuscripts at Munich, Berlin, Wolfenbüttel, and Vienna.[2364]
Apparently the treatise originated in Germany, whether by the hand of
Albert or not, and remained a favorite there. A translation into German
was made for the Count Palatine of the Rhine.[2365] Although sometimes
no author is named in manuscripts of the _De secretis mulierum_, in the
case of those of Amplonius of the fourteenth century one infers from
Schum’s descriptions that the work is ascribed to Albertus Magnus and
to no one else. Thus no support is given by these early manuscripts
to the theory of Simlerus, Meyer, and Borgnet that the treatise
should be attributed to Henry of Saxony, a disciple of Albert whose
writings contain many excerpts from Albert’s, because in some old
printed editions the work is assigned to him.[2366] This ascription to
Henry of Saxony has already been well characterized by V. Rose in his
Catalogue of the Latin manuscripts at Berlin as “a pure invention of
the editor”[2367] of the printed edition of 1499, which the manuscripts
clearly contradict. Thomas of Cantimpré, who devotes some chapters of
his _De natura rerum_ to gynecology has also been suggested as author
of the _De secretis mulierum_, but for no further reason.[2368]
[Sidenote: Its citation of Albert, commentary, opening.]
Perhaps the best reason for doubting the authenticity of _The Secrets
of Women_ is that Albert seems to be cited in it, a point already
noted by Albert’s biographer, Peter of Prussia,[2369] towards the
close of the fifteenth century. It is, however, somewhat difficult
to distinguish the text of the original treatise from that of a
commentary upon it which both accompanies and envelopes it in both
the manuscripts and printed editions. In this commentary Albert is
often cited but apparently he also is cited in the text proper, from
which, however, the commentary after a time ceases to be adequately
distinguished in those copies which I have examined.[2370] Possibly
this commentary is by Henry of Saxony or perhaps it is the commentary
by Buridan mentioned in one of the manuscripts.[2371] It states that
Albert composed the treatise at the request of a priest (_sacerdos_),
and the text itself opens with a salutation “To his dearest friend and
associate in Christ,” after which ensues a divergence, due no doubt
to the carelessness of copyists, as to the name or initial letter of
the cleric in question, as to his place of residence, and as to his
ecclesiastical rank or position.[2372] But he appears to have been a
clerk from Erfurt who was studying at Paris. The text is in the form
of a letter to this clerk and the author states that it is written “in
part in physical and in part in medical style.” He asks the clerk not
to reveal it to any depraved person and promises to send him further
writings, “when providence permitting I have toiled further in the
art of medicine.”[2373] This fact that the _De secretis mulierum_ is
addressed to a clerk who seems to be studying at Paris suggests that
in the fourteenth century bibliography of writings by Dominicans the
title, _Determinationes quarumdam questionum ad clerum Parisiensem_,
as well as another title, _Secretum secretorum Alberti_, which are
ascribed to Albert, may refer to our treatise, although the exact
title, _De secretis mulierum_, does not appear in the bibliography.
[Sidenote: Nature of its contents.]
_The Secrets of Women_ scarcely deserved to be placed on the Index
aside from the suggestiveness of its title and perhaps the fact that it
had become too popular. Meyer, while regarding it as spurious, rightly
remarked that it shared the common medical knowledge of the time and
displayed a strong astrological superstition, but was neither immoral
nor indecent.[2374] As a matter of fact, its astrology is little
more extreme than what we have found in Albert’s undisputed works.
The article upon him in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_[2375]
declared that _The Secrets of Women_ was certainly not by him, but
added that he makes very similar statements in his commentary on the
fourth book of the _Sentences_, where he justifies such knowledge on
the part of a priest as essential to his comprehension of what he
is liable to be told in the confessional. This fits in nicely with
the statement that Albert composed the _De secretis mulierum_ at the
request of a priest.
[Sidenote: Medieval standards in such matters.]
_The Secrets of Women_ may seem indecent judged by modern standards,
but so do many discussions of sexual matters by monastic recluses,
theologians, and church fathers of the distant past. Peter of
Prussia, Albert’s fifteenth century biographer, although concerned
to establish the saintly character of his hero, did not question the
authenticity of the _De secretis mulierum_ on grounds of indecency
but thought it “useful and necessary to know the facts of nature,
even if indecent.”[2376] In the thirteenth century itself we find
a number of Latin works which are very similar to _The Secrets of
Women_. There is _The Secrets of Nature_ by Michael Scot and _The
Adornment of Women_[2377] by Arnald of Villanova, a physician of the
closing thirteenth century who also wrote on Antichrist, advocated
religious reform, and gave moral and religious exhortation as well
as medical care to his royal patients in Sicily and Aragon. This
_De ornatu mulierum_ was described by the _Histoire Littéraire de
la France_ as “one of Arnald’s most curious treatises, containing
very informing details concerning the arts by which medieval women
corrected the faults of nature or repaired the ravages of age. But we
say no more on this point. We would not venture the vaguest allusion
to the contents of some paragraphs. They taught publicly in the middle
ages things which respectable persons do not know and do not wish to
know.”[2378] Those who are offended at the idea of the blessed Albert’s
discussing such matters in the thirteenth century should read the
highly vivid, realistic, and matter-of-fact account of male sexual
passion in the _Causae et curae_ of St. Hildegard,[2379] the mystic
and ascetic, the abbess and prophetess, in the twelfth century, in
which work it follows a long and circumstantial account of the process
of conception and generation.[2380] Or they might note in a sixteenth
century manuscript at Paris that an oration by John Antony Alatus,
doctor of physic, royal and apostolic knight, delivered when he was
chosen orator to Pope Innocent, is immediately followed by a _Book of
the Secrets of Women_ by the same author.[2381] Of another thirteenth
century work which attained extraordinary popularity in almost every
European language and which was most appropriately entitled, _De omni
re scibili et quibusdam aliis_--“Of everything knowable and then some,”
the _Histoire Littéraire_ says,[2382] “The mysteries of generation
engage its attention more than anything else; like _Timeo_ it is very
detailed upon this point and often borders upon obscenity.” A fourth
work, _The Secret of Philosophers_, written in French by someone who
at least pretends to be a priest and doctor of theology, is also full
of unprintable passages upon sex and generation, and yet shows also,
according to the _Histoire Littéraire_,[2383] the spirit of scientific
philosophy.
[Sidenote: Some superstitious recipes.]
Our treatise contains some superstitious recipes akin to those of the
_Liber aggregationis_ and _De mirabilibus mundi_. To prevent conception
for a year women are advised to drink salvia cooked with wine for three
days; or to eat a bee, “and she will never conceive.” If hairs of
menstruating women are buried in rich soil where ordure lies in winter
time, the sun’s heat will generate a long and strong serpent there the
following spring or summer. To tell if the child will be male or female
one should pour a drop of the mother’s milk or blood into pure water
from a clear spring. If the drop goes to the bottom, the child will be
a boy; if it floats on the surface, a girl.
[Sidenote: Astrology.]
Astrology, however, is more prominent in this treatise than such
magical modes of divination. We are told that “all the virtues which
the soul comprehends in the body it draws from the supercelestial
spheres and bodies.”[2384] From the farthest sphere come the powers
of being and moving. From the sphere of the fixed stars the foetus
receives its individual personality. From the sphere of Saturn, the
virtue of discerning and reasoning; from that of Jupiter, magnanimity;
from that of Mars, animosity and irascibility; from the sun, the power
of learning and memorizing; and so on. We are also told how each
planet, starting with Saturn, rules for a month the formation of the
various physical members of the child in the womb, and the fact that
the heart is formed during the fourth month under the rule of the
sun is regarded as disproving Aristotle’s assertion that the heart
is generated first of all the members. The influence of each planet
at birth is also recorded, and we hear of “the influences of the
planets, whom the ancients called gods of nature, over man’s body and
soul.”[2385] Also that man’s intellectual power is not from matter
but from the sky. Saturn’s child is dark, hairy, well bearded, false,
malicious, wrathful, gloomy, wears unkempt clothing, and so forth. The
influences of the twelve signs are also considered, and the _magnus
annus_ with its repetition of history and Socrates reliving his life in
the same old Athens. The author also declares that divine sacrifice,
immolation of beasts, and the like cannot be removed from the action
of the celestial bodies which mete out life and death, which perhaps
suggests that even religion and prayer are under the stars. Monstrous
births, such as twins with separate heads and hands but one trunk and
pair of feet, are ascribed to some special constellation.
[Sidenote: Citations of Albert and Avicenna.]
Albert is cited, perhaps by the commentator, concerning twins of whom
one had such virtue in his right side that all bolts and locks on that
side of him were opened, while the virtue of the other’s left side
closed all open doors. This was due not only to a special constellation
but to a special disposition of matter to receive its influence. Peter
of Prussia (Cap. 12) cites the same passage from Albert’s _De motibus
animalium_. Other citations of Albert in the _De secretis mulierum_
are one from a treatise on the sun and moon and the assertion that a
child was born with organs of either sex _ita quod potuit succumbere_.
Avicenna is credited with having stated in a book on deluges that a
flood might come and drown all living creatures, but that the virtue of
the sky would generate others.
FOOTNOTES:
[2335] I have examined at the British Museum four incunabula editions
containing both treatises and numbered (at the time of my reading)
as follows: IA.6829 (_Impressum Auguste per Johannem schauren feria
secunda post Bartholomei_, 1496); IA.46455; IA.55455 (_per me Wilhelmum
de Mechlina Impressus in opulentissima civitate Londoniarum iuxta
pontem qui vulgariter dicitur Flete brigge_); 547 b. 1. (_Imprime pour
Thomas Laione Libraire Demourant a Rouen_). The text in these editions
is nearly identical except for some divergencies in the one printed at
Rouen. The edition printed at London is perhaps the most accurate of
the four.
I have not seen the following edition: _Liber aggregationum sive
secretorum de virtutibus herbarum, lapidum, et animalium_, Naples,
1493-1494: nor an edition printed at Antwerp, 1485, in which the _Liber
aggregationis_ is bound with the _Quaestiones naturales_ of Adelard of
Bath. The _Liber aggregationis_ was published with the _De mirabilibus
mundi_ at Frankfurt in 1614, and with the _De secretis mulierum_ at
Amsterdam in 1643 and again in 1662, but I have not seen these three
editions.
I have seen an edition of sixteen leaves containing both _Liber
secretorum_ and _Liber de mirabilibus mundi_, Venetiis per Marchio
Sessa, 1509. Also an edition of both these treatises preceded by the
_De secretis mulierum_ and followed by the _De secretis naturae_ of
Michael Scot, Strasburg, 1607, per Lazarum Zetzerum; an edition of
Amsterdam, 1740, containing the same four treatises; and an edition
of Lyons, 1615, where the _Speculum astronomiae_ replaced the work by
Michael Scot.
[2336] For MSS of this treatise see Appendix I at the close of this
chapter.
[2337] S. Marco XIV, 40, 14th century, fols. 3-18, _Collectio
secretorum mirabilium_; here the title is different and no author
is named, but the Incipit, “Postquam scivimus quod opus sapientis
est facere mirabilia eorum quae apparent in conspectu luminum,” and
Valentinelli’s description show it to be the _De mirabilibus_ or some
very similar treatise.
Florence, Palat. 719, 15th century, 101 carte, Albertus Magnus, _Opus
de mirabilibus mundi; con qualche parte volgarizzata_; “Postquam
sciuimus quod opus sapientis est facere cessare mirabilia rerum quae
apparent in conspettu hominum / Et si sterilitas sit uitio mulieris,
inuenies uermes multos in olla sua; similiter in alia, si sit uitio
uiri.”
BN 7287, 15th century, #12, Albertus Magnus, _De mirabilibus mundi_.
Wolfenbüttel 3713, 13th century, fols. 50-122v, _Incerti auctoris
Christiani liber de mirabilibus mundi_; as Heinemann says that this is
falsely ascribed to Solinus, it is perhaps our treatise.
[2338] In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that in at least
two MSS the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber anguemis_, ascribed to Plato and
Galen, but perhaps having some connection with our _De mirabilibus
mundi_ (see Chapter 65, pp. 777-780), bears the alternative title,
“Liber aggregationum”; Arundel 342, fols. 46-54, “Expletus est liber
aggregationum Anguemis Platonis”; Amplon. Quarto 188, fols. 103-104,
Liber vacce seu liber aggregacionum diversorum philosophorum.
[2339] Denifle (1882), p. 236.
[2340] _Ibid._, p. 233, “Arnoldus Leodiensis.”
[2341] Berthelot (1893), I, 91. Albert’s pupils would have been more
likely to write in the thirteenth century.
[2342] _Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms_, I, xxxii.
[2343] Hoefer, _History of Botany_, p. 92.
[2344] HL XIX, 378.
[2345] _Gesch. d. Botanik_, IV, 81-2.
[2346] Sloane 342, fol. 130r, “Sicut dicit philosophus, Omnis scientia
de genere bonorum operum est cuius opera aliquando bona aliquando mala
sunt prout scientia inutilis (?) per seriem aliquod operatur.”
Sloane 3281, fol. 17r, “Sicut vult philosophus in pluribus locis, Omnis
scientia de genere bonorum. Verum operatur eius operatio aliis bona et
aliis mala.”
Sloane 351, fol. 25r, “Sicut vult philosophus in primo metha.”
Digby 37, 147, and 153 (all of the 14th century) read--variant readings
in parentheses: “Quia sicut vult (147, Sicut dicit) philosophus in
pluribus locis (147 omits locis) omnis scientia de genere bonorum est
verumptamen eius operatio aliquando bona aliquando mala (aliquando mala
in 147 only) est (in 153 only) prout scientia mutatur (so 147; 37, in
natura; 153, innata) ad malum sive ad bonum finem” (147, ad bonum vel
ad malam).
These specimens, if I have correctly read the passages, may serve to
illustrate the variation in the MSS of the treatise and the faulty
grammar and syntax or careless copying in some of them.
[2347] “Scientia magicalis” in the printed texts and all three Digby
MSS and in Sloane 3281. Sloane 342 has “scientia ymaginabilis”--which,
it is true, is apt to amount to the same thing--and Digby 37 at first
speaks of “scientia mathi^b” (?) but later of “scientia magicalis.”
[2348] Sloane 342, fol. 130R.
[2349] Elitropia, Urtica, Virga pastoris, Celidonia, Provinca
(or Parvinca or Pronenta), Nepta (Nepita, Hepica), Lingua canis,
Jusquiamus, Lilium, Viscus quercus, Centaurea, Salvia, Verbena,
Melisophilos (Mellisophilos), Rosa, Serpentina. The order of the list
varies.
[2350] Magnes, Optalmius, Onix, Cristallus, Feripendamus, Siloyces
(Felonites), Topacion, Medo, Mephytes (Monfites, Menophites), Asbestos
(Albeston, Abaston, Abaton), Adamas, Agates (Gagates), Allectorius,
Smaragdus (Esmerendus), Amastitus (Amaticus), Berillus, Celonites
(Casmetes), Corallus, _Cristallus_, Lypercol, Crisolitus, Elitropia,
Epistrites (Ephisteos), Calcidonius, Celidonius, Gagates, Iena (Gena),
Istinos, Tabrices (Grabates, Gabrates), _Crisoletus_, Geratiden,
Nicomei (Nicomay), Quiriti (Quirini), Radianus, Urtices (Urites), Lapis
lazuli, Saleractus (Salaragdus, Smaragdus), Iris, Galasia, Galiates
(Galaites), Draconites, Echites (Etidia), _Epistretes_, Jacinctus,
Orites (Origes, Oziches), Saphirus, Sannus (Sampius).
I have italicized repetitions and included variants in parentheses.
Sloane 351 and 3281 give only 43 names; Arundel 251 has 46.
[2351] Aquila, Taxo, Bubo, Hircus, Camelus, Lepus, Asperolus
(Aspiriolus, Capriolus, Experiolus), Leo, Foca, Anguilla, Mustela,
Upupa, Pelicanus, Corvus. Milvus, Turtur, Talpa, Merula.
[2352] This last clause occurs in the printed text, but not in all MSS.
Digby 147, for instance, omits it.
[2353] In Sloane 342, fol. 131v, “will make him tell everything he has
done, even though you don’t ask him.”
[2354] _Liber aggregationis_, III, 147, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus
expertum est moderno tempore”; Digby 37, fol. 53r, Digby 147, fol.
112r, and Digby 153, fol. 178r, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus certissime
expertum est moderno tempore”; Sloane 3281, fol. 20v, “Et hoc a
fratribus nostris percepi examen.” The expression is also used in the
account of the hoopoe (_upupa_) in Digby 37, and Digby 147.
[2355] _Liber aggreg._, II, “In libro mineralium in Aaron et Evax multa
similia alia invenies.” This passage is omitted in Sloane 351 and 3281.
Sloane 351 does not cite Evax and Aaron for the following crow story,
but Sloane 3281 does. Sloane 342 ascribes the crow story to Dacus, but
cites Aaron concerning the taxo and Evax and Aaron concerning the hare.
[2356] Sloane 342, fol. 131v.
[2357] Arundel 251, fol. 35r, and the printed text, which adds a few
further words.
[2358] Strictly speaking, he seems to have been a Christian who
served the caliph and died at Cairo in 1015. His existence has been
questioned, as Arabic works do not mention him, so that some regard
him as a Latin creation of the eleventh or twelfth century. His works
were printed at Venice in Latin in 1471, 1484, 1495, 1497, 1513, 1523,
1568, and 1623. Some distinguish an earlier writer (c 777-857) of the
same name, known also as John of Damascus, whose _Aphorisms_ and some
fragments are extant.
[2359] The following passages, for instance, are identical in Digby 71,
where the _Liber vaccae_ occurs at fols. 36-56, and in the printed text
of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ (page references are to the Amsterdam
edition of 1740). Printed text, p. 176, “Filius Mesue in lib. de
animalibus. Si induit vestimentum viri mulier foeta, deinde induat
ipsum vir priusquam abluat ipsum, recedit ab ipso febris quartana....
Et in libro de Tyriaca Galieni ...”; also the tale of Aristotle and
Alexander killing vipers by letting them stare themselves to death in
mirrors: all found in the same order in Digby 71, fol. 37v.
Printed text, p. 177, “In lib. decorationis, accipe quantitatem fabae
de alcihi et infunde ipsam in urinam mulae et da mulieri ad potandum,
non concipiet”: Digby 71, fol. 37v, gives the same recipe but cites
“liber de conceptione” for it; however, for another recipe, “accipe
mirram et line pollicem ... nisi solum modo te” it too, fol. 38r-v,
cites the Liber decorationis.
P. 177, “In libro Cleopatrae, quando mulier accipit omni mense de urina
mulae pondera duo et biberit, ipsa non concipiet”; p. 184 from same,
“si mulier non delectatur cum viro suo, accipe medullam lupi de pede
sinistro et porta eam et nullum diligit nisi te”; both at fol. 39v.
P. 178, “In libro Archigenis, quando cor leporis suspenditur super eum
qui patitur cholicam, confert”: fol. 38r.
Pp. 181 and 184, citations from Tabariensis opening, “si suspenditur
lapis spongiae in collo pueri ...” and “si lingua upupae suspendatur
super patientem”: fols. 38v and 39v, “Tagiarensis.”
Pp. 182 and 183, citations from “Belbinus” opening, “quando accipis
albumen ovi ...” and “qui posuerit portulacam super lectum”: fol. 39r,
“Belleg,” but the margin says “Belenus.”
[2360] Arundel 342 (14th century), fols. 46-54, whose Incipit does
not occur in Digby 71 until fol. 40v, after all the citations in
the preceding note; see Chapter 65, Appendix I, for a more detailed
description of the MSS of the _Liber vaccae_.
[2361] Berthelot (1893), I, 91.
[2362] Albertus Magnus, _De secretis mulierum_, Heinr. Knoblochtzer,
Strasburg, 1480. Also at Rome, 1499; and an edition dated 1428 by
mistake for 1478; and an undated edition where it is entitled _De
secretis mulierum et virorum_. I have used the 1480 edition and the one
of Amsterdam, 1740, where it is bound with the other two works ascribed
to Albert and with Michael Scot’s _De secretis naturae_.
[2363] _Janus_, I (1846), p. 152, _et seq._; cited by Meyer (1855), IV,
78.
[2364] For a list of the MSS see Appendix II at the close of this
chapter.
[2365] Wolfenbüttel 2659, 16th century, fols. 1-51, Albertus Magnus
de secretis mulierum in der deutschen Bearbeitung des D. Hartlieb,
gewidmet dem Herzog Sigmund, Pfalzgrafen bei Rhein, mit Index.
[2366] This is also suggested by the old catalogue of Royal MSS at
Paris in connection with BN 7148, 15th century, whose contents are
described as “#1. Alberti Magni sive potius Henrici de Saxonia Alberti
Magni discipuli de secretis mulierum, #2. Anatomia totius corporis
eodem authore,” etc.
The MS itself, however, affords no ground for this attribution to
Henry of Saxony. On its cover is written in crowded medieval letters
and with abbreviations, “De secretis mulierum alberti, Anathomia
secundum albertum, Expositio de lepra.” In the text itself this last
is stated to be a gloss on Avicenna’s work on the cure of leprosy by
master Albert “de sangaciis” or “de zanchariis” of Bologna, a doctor
of the philosophical faculty. There seems, however, to be nothing to
connect his name with the two preceding treatises which respectively
open: “Incipit liber de secretis mulierum secundum Albertum magnum,”
and “Incipit Anathomia tocius corporis secundum Albertum Magnum.” A
Nicolaus has signed his name as scribe or copyist of the _Anatomy_ and
_De lepra_.
[2367] V. Rose (1905), p. 1238.
[2368] Ferckel (1912), pp. 1-2, 10.
[2369] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 159.
[2370] Rose, however, was of the opinion that Albert was repeatedly
cited in the text proper as well as the gloss.
[2371] Amplon. Quarto 299, end of 14th century, #7.
[2372] See Appendix II for the wording in the various MSS. In the
edition of 1480 the form is, “Dilecto sibi in Cristo socio et amico
N. clerico de tali loco verae sapientiae et augmentum continuum vitae
habentis....”
[2373] BN 7148, fol. 1r, “cum arte medicinali prolixius insudavero
domine concedente.”
[2374] Meyer (1855), IV, 79.
[2375] HL XIX, 373.
[2376] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 165.
[2377] A treatise with the same title is attributed to a doctor of both
laws, Antonius de Rosellis, in Canon. Misc. 6, 15th century, fols.
79-91, “Explicit tractatus brevis sed utilis super ornatu mulierum
editus a domino Antonio de Rosellis utriusque juris doctore eximio.”
In this case, however, the discussion would appear to have been more
abstract, judging from the opening words, “Queritur primo utrum ornatus
mulierum secundum morem patriae, qui videtur vanus et superfluus.”
[2378] HL XXII, 74-75. Not even this censorious description has seduced
me into reading the treatise itself, but I suspect that it would turn
out to be not nearly so bad as this mid-Victorian, if I may apply the
adjective to a French work of corresponding date, passage would have us
believe.
[2379] Ed. Kaiser (1903), p. 71.
[2380] _Ibid._, pp. 59-70.
[2381] BN 3660A, #10 and #11. If Alatus discoursed to Innocent VIII on
this theme, he might be accused of bringing coals to Newcastle.
[2382] HL XXXI, 296.
[2383] HL XXX, 567-93.
[2384] Edition of 1480, biiiir.
[2385] _Ibid._, ciiiiv, “super hominem ex parte corporis et animae.”
APPENDIX I
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS OR SECRETS
_In the British Museum_
Sloane 342, 13th century, fols. 130-131, Experimenta fratris
Alberti de ordine Praedicatorum. Text incomplete.
Sloane 3281, end of 13-14th century, fols. 17r-21v.
Expliciunt secreta fratris Alberti coloniensis de ordine
fratrum predicatorum.
Additional 32622, early 14th century, fols. 84v-95r,
Experimenta Alberti.
Arundel 251, 14th century, fols. 25r-35v, Expliciunt
experimenta Alberti magni. This Explicit, written in
enormous letters, is misplaced, as the _Experiments_ of
Albert really end at fol. 35r and fol. 35v is devoted to
the twelve experiments with snake-skin translated by John
Paulinus or John of Spain.
Egerton 2852, mid 14th century, fol. 67-, Experimenta
Alberti.
Sloane 3564, end of 14th century, fols. 34-38, Jocalia
Salamonis, is really part of our _Experiments_, covering
twelve herbs.
Sloane 3545, 15th century, also contains a passage on twelve
herbs which seems to be a portion of our _Experiments_.
Royal 12-B-XXV, 15th century, fol. 248r-, Incipiunt
experimenta naturalia fratris Alberti que dicta sunt
secreta philosophorum et primo de herbis. Text incomplete.
Sloane 351, 15th and 13th centuries, fols. 25r-38r,
Incipit liber Alberti de diversis experimentis ... / ...
Expliciunt experimenta Alberti.
Additional 30351, later 15th century, fol. 69-, Experimenta
Alberti de herbis.
Sloane 2320, 16th century, fols. 65-69, what the catalogue
describes as “De arte magicali tractatus” turns out to be
Albert’s experiments with herbs.
For the contents of the treatise I have not had time to use all these
MSS, but have checked the printed editions to a considerable extent by
Sloane 342, 351, and 3281, Arundel 251, and Royal 12-B-XXV; and have
also examined the three following Digby MSS at the Bodleian.
_At Oxford and Cambridge_
Digby 37, 14th century, fols. 46-55r, “Expliciunt Secreta
fratris Alberti de Colonia, ordinis fratrum praedicatorum,
super naturis quarundam herbarum lapidum, et animalium.”
Digby 147, 14th century, fols. 107-113v, “Secreta fratris
Alberti de Colonia, ordinis fratrum Predicatorum super
naturis quorundam herbarum et lapidum et animalium
efficacia in diversis libris philosophorum reperta et in
unum collecta.”
Digby 153, 14th century, fols. 175-179, “Secreta fratris
Alberti ordinis fratrum Predicatorum.”
Bodleian 177 (Bernard 2072), late 14th century, fol.
30r-32v, an incomplete text.
CU Trinity 1351, late 15th century, fols. 33-39 (unfinished).
_In Continental Libraries_
Berlin 968, 14th century, from England, fol. 298-,
“Incipiunt secreta Alberti Coloniensis de ordine
predicatorum.... Expliciunt secreta Alberti Coloniensis de
ordine predicatorum.”
Bologna University Library, MS 135, 14th century, fols.
25r-31r, “Albertus Magnus, Liber aggregationis seu liber
secretorum.”
Library of the Dukes of Burgundy, 5275, 14th century,
Alberti Teutonici, De tredecim herbis, “Sicut dicit
philosophus ...”; 10872, 16th century, Alberti Magni
Secreta, “Occurrit ante mihi ...” which is not the usual
Incipit.
Wolfenbüttel 2650, 14-15th century, fols. 202 (or more
likely 206, as a portion of the de plantatione arborum
seems to have been confused in the catalogue of Heinemann
with the Secreta)-213, “Expliciunt secreta Alberti de
Colonia super naturis quorundam animalium, herbarum et
lapidum in diversis libris philosophorum respersa. Deo
gratias.”
Clermont-Ferrand 171, 13th century, 129 double column
leaves, following fol. 1, de sensu et sensato, fol. 24, de
morte et vita, and fol. 29v-116, “Explicit septimus liber
vegetabilium,” comes at fols. 116-19, “Secreta fratris
Alberti Coloniensis (seu de Saxonia, adds the modern
catalogue) de ordine Fratrum Predicatorum. Sicut dicit
philosophus in pluribus locis/aliquid utilitatis inveniat.
Expliciunt secreta.” Then follows Albert’s Meteorology.
CLM 453, fol. 197, Alberti Magni experimenta de herbis
lapidibus et animalibus expliciunt quae a graeco et
arabico in latinum transtulit.
CLM 444, 14-15th century, fol. 197-, Alberti Magni
experimenta de herbis, lapidibus et animalibus.
APPENDIX II
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE DE SECRETIS MULIERUM
Amplon. Quarto 15, early 13th and beginning and middle of
14th century, partly from Italy, partly from Münster,
and partly from Erfurt, fols. 72-83, Libellus Alberti
de secretis mulierum, “Dilectissimo in Christo socio et
amico R. de tali loco B. talis loci rector. Cum vestra
favorabilitas....”
Amplon. Quarto 234, first half 14th century, fols. 41-53,
Libellus domini Alberti de secretis mulierum, “Dilecto
sibi socio et amico G. de tali loco clerico camerario loci
litteraliter rector salutem....”
Amplon. Octavo 79, 1341-1350 A. D., fols. 1-12, de secretis
mulierum Alberti Magni. “Dilecto sibi in Christo socio et
amico clerico Erphordie Io. de Villa Parisiensi.” V. Rose
comments on this last, “Ioh. Parisiensis ist bekanntlich
ein Mädchen für alles!”
Amplon. Quarto 157, early 15th century, fols. 213-6,
libellus de secretis mulierum; fols. 227-68, Commentarius
de hoc libello scriptus. The former opens, “Dilectissimo
amico et clerico de tali loco Iohannes sanctorum talis
loci. Cum vestra favorabilitas.”
Amplon. Quarto 299, end of 14th century, #7, Commentary of
Jean Buridan on the De secretis mulierum.
Amplon. Quarto 342, late 14th century, fols. 14-15,
Abbrevacio de secretis mulierum.
BN 7148, 15th century, fol. 1r-, “Incipit liber de secretis
mulierum secundum Albertum magnum. Precordialissimo sibi
in Christo socio et amico er. clerico erfordensi n.
scolaris Parisius vere sapiencie necnon huius mundane
continua incrementum. Cum tua favorabilitas.”
Berlin 976, 1419-1420 A. D., fol. 218-, “Dilecto sibi in
Christo socio et amico renoldo dilecto de tali loco
Albertus scholaris(?) talis loci vere sciencie et vite(?)
presentis mundane in Christo ieshu continua incrementa(?).
Cum vestra favorabilis ac gratuita rogavit societas
ut quedam vobis de hiis que apud mulierum naturam et
condicionem sunt occulta et secreta librum manifestem
preclarius.”
Berlin cod. lat. quarto 385.
Wolfenbüttel 698, 14th century (1382, 1391 A. D.), fols.
12-13.
Vienna 2466, 14th century, fols. 150r-158v.
Vienna 3287, 15th century, fols. 77-87, cum commento.
Vienna 5315, 1436-1444 A. D., fols. 147-206.
Vienna 5500, 15th century, fols. 1-37v, a commentary on the
De secretis mulierum.
Bodleian Library, Bernard 2063, contains an “Expositio libri
Alberti Magni de secretis mulierum.”
CLM 8484, 15th century, fol. 159-.
CLM 14170, 15th century, fols. 60-96.
CLM 14654, 15th century, fols. 95-142, cum commento.
CLM 21107, 15th century, fols. 46-71, cum commento.
CLM 22297, 14th century, fol. 22-, “Secreta mulierum
completa Herfordie anno 1320,” fol. 43-, laudatur Alberti
tractatus de menstruis mulierum.
CLM 22300, 13th century, fols. 61-76, de secretis mulierum,
vel Liber generationis.
CLM 23789, 15th century, fols. 94-143, Liber de secretis
mulierum ad Nicolaum clericum Erfordiensem directus, cum
commentario.
CLM 14574, 15th century, fols. 1-40, Aristoteles de secretis
mulierum cum praefatione Philippi interpretis ad Guidonem
de Valencia, is presumably the pseudo-Aristotelian Secret
of Secrets and not the De secretis mulierum at all.
CLM 444, 14-15th century, fol. 208-, Alberti de ornatu
mulierum secundum totum corpus, is possibly our treatise,
although it may be the work of that title by Arnald of
Villanova.