CONCLUSION
It now remains for us to give a brief résumé of the outstanding elements
which constituted the geographical lore of the time of the Crusades and
to draw a few generalizations from the mass of details that have been
set forth in the foregoing pages.
THE OUTSTANDING ELEMENTS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL LORE OF THE TIME OF THE
CRUSADES
The dangers of attempting to condense the geographical thought of a
century and a half into the compass of a few pages are manifest, and yet
some of the more significant ideas may perhaps be presented without
running an undue risk of over-simplification.
According to the orthodox view of the ecclesiastics, the world was
created by an arbitrary act of God at a certain definite point of time.
Under the influence of classical thought, writers of the Chartres group
of the early twelfth century worked out theories of the Creation
according to which, though the initiative was attributed to God’s act,
the actual Works of the Six Days were ascribed to the unfolding of
physical processes governed by the laws of nature. Such theories did not
meet with general acceptance, though they were never wholly lost sight
of. The ancient belief in an eternally existent, periodically re-formed
universe was not given credence, though it was well known to the readers
of the period with which we are concerned through classical works in
their libraries and through translations from the Arabic.
It was probably the opinion of most scholars that the universe is a
sphere in which the four elements are arranged concentrically.
Furthermore, nearly all scholars argued that the earth likewise is a
sphere and that they were acquainted with convincing proofs of this.
Standing immobile in the center of the universe, the earth was usually
supposed to be a small body in proportion to the entire cosmos. The
surface of our globe was divided into five zones, two temperate, two
polar—uninhabitable on account of the intense cold—and an equatorial
zone, uninhabitable by reason of heat. The habitability of the
equatorial zone, however, was affirmed by a few writers conversant with
Arabic literature.
There was a great deal of speculation regarding the characteristics of
those parts of the world which lay beyond the _oikoumene_, or quarter of
the globe known to Europeans. The theories of Macrobius and of Martianus
Capella, who had divided the earth’s surface into four equal parts by
two encircling bands of ocean, strongly influenced the thought of many.
Macrobius and Martianus Capella had also believed that all of these
quarters of the earth were inhabited but that three of them were unknown
to members of our human race, who could not visit them owing to the heat
of the equatorial zone and the terrors of the ocean. Though this theory
could not be reconciled with Christian teachings and was strongly
controverted, it nevertheless persisted, and many of the writers of the
Crusading age undoubtedly shared it.
Something was known of the atmosphere. William of Conches wrote of its
decreased density and temperature with increased altitude. Rainfall was
explained as the result of many causes, among them evaporation of sea
water and condensation of water vapor in the air, and topographic
influences on rainfall were recognized by Giraldus Cambrensis. The
winds, defined as air in motion, were also occasionally ascribed to the
influence of topography. William of Conches worked out an elaborate
theory of a general circulation of the atmosphere produced by the
circulation of ocean currents. The impressions made upon men by the
climatic conditions of various parts of the earth found expression in
many passages. The cold of the North was contrasted with the heat of the
South, and Giraldus Cambrensis gives a colorful comparison of the damp
climate of Ireland with the noxious dryness of the East.
The aqueous element was supposed to be divided into two parts, the
waters above and the waters below the firmament. Theodoric of Chartres
and William of Conches tried to explain the waters above the firmament
on rational grounds; others were inclined to take the Biblical
assertions absolutely literally. The waters below the firmament were
believed to form one unit or congregation of waters, and an unceasing
circulation was thought to be maintained from the seas and oceans
through subterranean channels and cavities of the earth to the sources
of streams. As to the seas themselves, many ingenious explanations were
brought forward to account for their salinity. It was understood that
the tides are caused by the moon, though subsidiary causes, such as
whirlpools and ocean currents, were also adduced to explain them. The
most interesting tidal studies of the period, made by Giraldus
Cambrensis on the shores of the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel, were
undoubtedly the results of careful synchronous observations of the times
of high and low water in different localities. Something of the spirit
of the North Atlantic is conveyed through the pages of the legend of St.
Brandan. Of the waters of the lands, rainfall was not usually thought
sufficient to account for the flow of rivers, which were supposed to be
fed by underground channels from the seas. Springs, wells, and fountains
attracted much attention, and many are the marvels related about them in
the literature of the age. Giraldus Cambrensis describes marvelous lakes
in Ireland, and strange tales were told of lakes of Italy, Spain, and
elsewhere, which, together with the Dead Sea and volcanic craters, were
objects of fear, because some men believed them to be ways of ingress to
the infernal regions.
The lands of the earth’s surface were classified in various manners. The
author of the _De imagine mundi_ mentions no less than six types of land
surface. Different regions were supposed to have different effects on
life: Ireland was thought to be remarkably healthful, and its earth to
have the property of destroying venomous reptiles; the East, Giraldus
Cambrensis would have us believe, is a fountain of poisons. Many
medieval writers had an eye for the spiritual and esthetic beauties of
landscape, and picturesque descriptions of rich cultivated scenes are
not rare. It is doubtful, however, to what extent the grandeur of wild
nature and of mountains was appreciated. The great majority of men
certainly regarded mountains as grim and horrible. Mountain climbing was
not indulged in for pleasure, though we have an account of an ascent of
Etna in the _Image du monde_. On the other hand, there date from this
age several extremely vivid descriptions of the hardships encountered
during journeys over the Alps, one of which was made in midwinter.
Alfred of Sareshel gives in a translation from the Arabic a clear
account of geologic processes by which mountains were formed. Volcanoes
impressed the men of the Middle Ages. The volcanic regions of southern
Italy and Sicily and of Iceland are frequently described, and St.
Brandan’s legend contains what can be nothing else than an account of a
volcanic isle. Fiery mountains were associated in the popular mind with
entrances to Hell. Scientific investigators usually attributed their
fires to burning beds of sulphur and bitumen within the mountains or
else to the outbursting of imprisoned winds. To the action of winds in
subterranean caverns classical authorities had ascribed the cause of
earthquakes, and this view was accepted throughout the Middle Ages.
Other features of the land that attracted attention were the deserts of
the East, vividly described by the historians of the Crusades and in the
_Letter of Prester John_, and the fabulous islands of the sea,
especially of the unknown Atlantic. Some peculiarities of the movement
of ice in glaciers were noted by Saxo Grammaticus.
The influence of geographical environment on animals and on man was
sometimes commented upon. Bernard Sylvester emphasizes the control of
terrain over plant and animal life. Giraldus Cambrensis attributes the
independence and audacity of the Welsh to the rugged character of their
country. A fatalistic idea is expressed in the writings of Hugh of St.
Victor and of Otto of Freising, to the effect that the course of
science, empire, and civilization proceeds with the heavenly bodies
across the surface of the earth from east to west and that, as it has
reached the uttermost confines of the West, the power of the kingdom of
the Franks is soon destined to disappear.
Within the field of astronomical geography several methods were known
whereby latitudes may be determined, and also the use of observations of
eclipses for ascertaining longitude was understood. Figures indicating
the positions of points in many parts of the known world had been
introduced to Western knowledge through the Moslems. It seems likely,
furthermore, that not only were the Arabic figures borrowed by the
astrological writers of our age but also that a new series of
observations was made by which the latitudes as well as the longitudes
of several stations in Western Europe were found with no small degree of
accuracy. These figures, however, were intended to serve as aids for
astrologers and astronomers in making their calculations, and we have no
evidence that they were put to geographical use.
The cartography shows little originality. It was in no way corrected or
checked up with reference to astronomical observations. Most of the maps
were based on earlier models, and it is perhaps possible to trace their
origins back to maps of the Roman Empire. Cartographic accuracy was not
the aim of the map maker of the time, and we are not justified in
criticizing his maps in the light of modern standards. They should be
regarded rather as diagrammatic approximations. A number of conventions
were followed, the most important of which was the representation of the
east at the top. The maps were vividly colored; and mountains, rivers,
and the works of man were shown by pictorial symbols.
We may conceive of the regional geographic knowledge of the age as
comprised within two concentric circles: a very broad outer circle,
which includes all those lands of which knowledge had been derived at
second hand through literary sources; and a smaller inner circle
including those lands which were known at first hand through actual
travel.
The outer circle took in to the east the land of the Seres, or China,
and the lost Atlantis to the west; to the north the regions of the
Hyperboreans and the semi-mythical Rhipaean Mountains; and to the south
the Mons Climax of Ptolemy and the mysterious upper reaches of the Nile.
Nearly all that lies between the two circles was a vague region of fancy
and fable, though ideas that were more or less correct prevailed about
some parts of Western Asia, familiar ground to the men of ancient Greece
and Rome.
The inner circle included on the east the shores of the Black Sea and
the Holy Land; on the south, the Mediterranean fringe of Africa;
westward it was bounded by the Atlantic coast; north-westward, warped
somewhat out of shape, it enclosed Iceland and even the icy coasts of
Greenland. To the north, it ran through Scandinavia and the Baltic.
Within these bounds there were many gaps that were still utterly
unknown; but, in general, politics, pilgrimage, war, and commerce had
familiarized the men of the West with most parts of this tract. It seems
a small area indeed compared with what is now known of the world’s
surface and small even compared with what Ptolemy and earlier Greeks had
known. Only in the age that immediately follows ours was the circle
enlarged, at first to the eastward by the great overland journeys of
Marco Polo and the other Asiatic travelers of the late thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries and then westward, southward, and northward during
the Age of Discovery. Not until our own day has it at last come to
comprise the entire earth.
CHARACTER OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL LORE OF THE TIME OF THE CRUSADES
Men have always respected tradition and learning inherited from former
ages, but in some periods dependence on earlier authority has been more
unquestioning than in others. In the Middle Ages, especially, an immense
mass of knowledge and belief was handed down from generation to
generation.
A portion of this inherited mass of knowledge and belief constituted the
recognized and orthodox geographical lore of the Crusading age. This
body of teachings—to be sure, not altogether uniform or consistent—had
been built largely on a foundation of Biblical and classical doctrine.
The early Church Fathers, taking the Bible as their authority, had
leveled destructive criticism against those ideas of the Greeks and
Romans which appeared to go counter to Scriptural texts, but in the
course of time reconciliation of ancient science with Christianity was
partly achieved and, as a consequence, the accepted scientific lore of
the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries was only to a limited extent
drawn from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nevertheless, those
theories of antiquity that were too diametrically hostile to the words
of Scripture still remained tabooed, and, when Manegold, Peter Lombard,
or Peter Comestor inveighed against belief in _hyle_, the Great Year, or
the antipodes, they were merely echoing the arguments of their early
Christian predecessors. Classical learning and Christian doctrine were
sufficiently at one by the opening of the twelfth century to make it no
longer heretical to believe in the sphericity of the earth, in the
existence of antipodal regions (if not inhabitants), and in a physical
explanation of many geographical processes that an earlier age might
have ascribed to the direct intervention of the divine will.
The works of our period show all too plainly that they were written in a
credulous age, for credulity is an inevitable concomitant of the undue
respect for authority. Credulity and love of the marvelous—which is much
the same thing—are in many ways the most characteristic and entertaining
qualities of the geographical writers of the Middle Ages. Marvels of all
kinds, located in all countries, are solemnly described as if they were
truth. India, especially, was the scene of fabulous monsters and
prodigies; but no country, no matter how well known, was wholly without
them. Even the most serious writers mention them, and they enliven all
the maps.
In contrast with this geography based on authority and tradition stood
another great body of geographical lore derived not from books or
tradition but from observation by eyewitnesses of the countries of the
earth and the physical features of its surface. We may style this second
body of geographical lore the “geography of observation.” It is
represented almost universally in the literature of the period, for no
writer was so completely immersed in the learning of the past that he
failed altogether to respond to the world of his day. Even in the most
learned works there are occasional passages drawn from contemporary
observation; but it is especially in histories, chronicles, letters, and
other less formal writings that the “geography of observation” finds
unhampered expression. The latter are among the most illuminating
documents of the age, for they reveal to us those things which above all
interested the average man in the material world around him.
Measured by modern standards, this “geography of observation” is the
only kind of geography that rests on a sound and scientific footing.
Modern science rejects theories, however old and hallowed they may be,
which cannot stand the test of an appeal to Nature herself. Precisely
the opposite seems to have been the normal intellectual habit of the
Middle Ages, when the prevailing tendency was if anything to put aside
the evidence of Nature when contradicted by the classics, by the Church
Fathers, or especially by the Bible. Logical impossibility or rational
improbability did not usually bear much weight against a belief that had
been approved by time.
And yet there were in the age of the Crusades numerous exceptions to
this general rule. Never has there been a time when a few fore-reaching
and individualistic spirits have not tried to search and see and think
for themselves, to confront older teachings with new, to criticize
established beliefs in the light of observed facts and reason. In the
ardent, enthusiastic society of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
there was no lack of such spirits. Among the writers on geographical
subjects we need but recall the names of the scholars of Chartres:
Theodoric, who undertook to explain the Creation according to physical
principles and specifically excluded from his discussion all moral and
allegorical interpretations of the text of Genesis; or William of
Conches, who argued that we may avoid irrational deductions from
Scripture by an appeal to our own reason and who maintained that the
animals of the earth and also Adam and Eve were produced through the
interaction of the elements of fire, earth, air, and water. And this
critical, inventive attitude reappears in the thirteenth century in the
work of such men as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, and even Albertus
Magnus.
We gain a deeper and more sympathetic understanding of the devious
workings of the human mind when we trace in the geographical lore of the
Middle Ages the persistence of old ideas and the transfer of prejudices
and beliefs from age to age; but at best this is a disheartening study.
On the other hand, there is always fascination in coming across oases of
fresh observation and clear reason in the midst of the arid deserts of
plagiarism that constitute so much of medieval literature. These oases
mark the pathway of the history of science.
NOTES
NOTES
The numbers at the top of the inner margin of each page indicate on
which pages of the text (pp. 1–361) the passages occur to which the
notes on a given page refer.
For the works here cited in abbreviated form refer to the Bibliography.
Works not listed in the Bibliography (these are relatively few) are here
given with their full titles.
As a rule a work will be found in the Bibliography under its own author
or, if anonymous, its own title. If not, the entry under which it will
be found is generally here indicated. In the few cases where it is not
the work should be looked for under the ancient or medieval author or
title to which the work sought for relates.
Bible references and quotations throughout the present work, except
where otherwise indicated, are based on the Douay and Rheims translation
of the Vulgate.
NOTES
CHAPTER I
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
Footnote 2:
The _De caelo et mundo_ should not be confused with the _De mundo_
(Περὶ κόσμου), a spurious work ascribed to Aristotle and dating from
about 100 B. C. See preface to E. S. Forster’s translation of the _De
mundo_ in the Oxford translation of the works of Aristotle, vol. iii,
1914.
Footnote 3:
On the geography of Posidonius see below, p. 371, note 55, and also
the two important recent studies: Wilhelm Capelle, _Die griechische
Erdkunde und Posidonius_, in: Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische
Altertum, Jahrgang 23, vol. liv, Leipzig, 1920, pp. 305–323, and Karl
Reinhardt, _Poseidonios_, Munich, 1921, especially pp. 59–135 for the
geography and pp. 135–176 for the meteorology.
Footnote 4:
For a brief general outline of the main trend of Greek geography see
Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, Überblick, pp. 1–24. See also Bunbury,
_Ancient Geogr._, 1879; Tozer, _Ancient Geogr._, 1897; Tillinghast,
_Geogr. Knowl._, 1889. An extensive recent treatment of ancient
geography has come to the attention of the writer as this book is
going to press: Gisinger’s article “Geographie” in _Paulys
Real-Encyclopädie_, 1924. This contains many references to secondary
works; it is particularly valuable as a synthesis of recent German
research in the field.
Footnote 5:
That Pliny’s _Natural History_ was extensively read in the Middle Ages
is proved by the large number of times its title appears in medieval
library catalogues. For example, in twelfth-century French catalogues
alone it occurs in no less than six different places; in German
catalogues in five different places before the twelfth century. Though
at first glance these figures do not appear large, when compared with
similar figures for the works of other writers they show that,
relatively speaking, Pliny was very popular. We are also confirmed in
this opinion by the frequency of citations of Pliny (M. Manitius,
_Philologisches_, 1892, pp. 59–60; idem, _Römische Prosaiker_, 1890,
pp. 380–384). Furthermore, we have in manuscripts dating from the
eighth century and onward a series of excerpts from Books II, III, IV,
VI, and XVIII of the _Natural History_. These contain the outstanding
geographical elements of Pliny’s work and attest to its great
popularity (see Rück, _Auszüge_, 1888; idem, _Exzerpt_, 1902; idem,
_Naturalis Historia_, 1898, pp. 203–318). On p. 287 of the _Exzerpt_
Rück writes that the existence of these excerpts forms “a weighty
literary-historical proof of the continued life of Pliny in later
centuries.”
Footnote 6:
The _Collectanea_ is mentioned in France in one catalogue from before
the twelfth century, in five from the twelfth, and in four from the
thirteenth. In Germany it is mentioned in six catalogues from before
the twelfth century, in four from the twelfth, and in two from the
thirteenth. It is also mentioned in catalogues of British and Italian
libraries. Its popularity was equal to that of Pliny and was perhaps
even greater (see M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, pp. 78–79).
Footnote 7:
Columba (_Questione soliniana_, 1920) holds that the materials in
Solinus’ _Collectanea_ came in large part from a common source of
Pliny’s _Natural History_ and Pomponius Mela’s _Corographia_. This was
a lost work which Columba styles _Corographia Varro-Sallustiana_. It
was worked over (according to his theory) by an unknown compiler and
reduced by Solinus into the form of a compendium, with borrowings here
and there direct from Pliny. See note on Columba’s monograph in
Bollettino della Reale Società Geografica Italiana, vol. lviii, Rome,
1921, p. 44.
Footnote 8:
Seneca’s popularity as shown by the library catalogues was less than
that of Pliny, though the _Quaestiones naturales_ were read rather
extensively in France in the twelfth century (M. Manitius,
_Philologisches_, p. 42; idem, _Geschichte_, 1911, vol. i, p. 38).
Footnote 9:
Capella merely followed the Latin tradition, which tended to restrict
the field of geography and at the same time to limit the science of
geometry to the art of measurements. The _De nuptiis Philologiae et
Mercurii_ served to pass on to the Middle Ages this attitude in regard
to geography and geometry (Mori, _Misuraz. eratos._, 1911, pp.
186–187; see also Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 89).
Footnote 10:
M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, p. 112, informs us that, next to Virgil
and the Vulgate, the _De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii_ was the most
popular book of the Middle Ages. References to copies of it are found
in nearly all medieval library catalogues. See also Mori, _Misuraz.
eratos._, pp. 388–391.
Footnote 11:
Macrobius seems to have come next to Martianus Capella in popularity,
particularly in the twelfth century, when his book finds mention more
than a dozen times in the catalogues of both French and German
libraries of the period. It was also read in Italy, Spain, and Great
Britain. In the latter country there are five entries from the early
thirteenth century (M. Manitius, _Philologisches_, p. 106).
Footnote 12:
Aristotle, _De caelo_, I, 3; Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, 1913, p. 173.
Footnote 13:
Aristotle, _Meteor._, I, 2; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 164.
Footnote 14:
These ideas are developed in Plato’s _Timaeus_ and in Aristotle’s _De
generatione et corruptione_, II, 11. See Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i,
pp. 164–169.
Footnote 15:
Berosus in the third century before Christ described Chaldean theories
regarding the Great Year (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 69).
Footnote 16:
_ibid._, vol. i, pp. 70–71.
Footnote 17:
Notably Philolaus (_ibid._, vol. i, p. 77).
Footnote 18:
Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 28–29; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 70.
Footnote 19:
For example, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles (Duhem,
_op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 70–71, 167).
Footnote 20:
Aristotle, _De caelo_, I, 10; _Meteor._, I, 14, as interpreted by
Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 167–168.
Footnote 21:
Günther, _Apokatastasis_, 1916, p. 85.
Footnote 22:
See E. S. McCartney, _Fossil Lore in Greek and Latin Literature_, in:
Proceedings of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters,
vol. iii, New York, 1924, pp. 23–38, especially pp. 37–38.
Footnote 23:
Aristotle, _Meteor._, I, 14; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 167. In the
important paper cited in note 20 above, Günther traces the development
in antiquity and during the Middle Ages of (1) theories of
astronomical periods and (2) theories of the _apokatastasis_, or
restoration of the earth to its previous condition after destruction
by fire or by water. He shows that the ancient and medieval
philosophers conceived of a complete parallelism between these two
sets of phenomena. It is, however, difficult to follow his argument
that they failed to recognize any causal relation whatsoever between
the astronomical periods and the _apokatastasis_, although it is
doubtless true that no attempt was made to explain in detail the
manner in which celestial circumstances operated to produce effects
upon the earth.
Footnote 24:
See Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 65–85, 275–297.
Footnote 25:
Cumont, _After Life_, 1922, pp. 12–13.
Footnote 26:
Al-Masʿūdī and Al-Bīrūnī describe the theory as it prevailed in India
(Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 67–69; vol. ii, pp. 213–220).
Footnote 27:
Plato gives a formula from which it has been deduced that he believed
the duration of the Great Year to be 760,000 terrestrial years.
Aristotle explained that the figure could be found by determining the
least common multiple of the periods of revolution of the various
celestial bodies. Cicero calculated it at 12,954, and Macrobius at
15,000 years. See Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 84, 165, 283, 288.
Footnote 28:
Ptolemy describes Hipparchus’ discovery of the precession of the
equinoxes in the _Almagest_, VII, 2–3 (as cited by Duhem, _op. cit._,
vol. ii, pp. 180–185).
Footnote 29:
_Almagest_, VII, 2 (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 185).
Footnote 30:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 212–223.
Footnote 31:
“... l’évolution de la science hellène révèle non pas l’existence de
luttes perpétuelles pour ou contre la sphéricité mais au contraire un
accord, en somme assez rapide, établi avant la fin du v^e siècle entre
les penseurs de toutes écoles” (Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_,
1921, p. 103; see also the same, p. 99, note 3).
Footnote 32:
Berger thinks that Anaximander may well have believed in a spherical
earth (_Geschichte_, 1903, p. 32, note 2, and p. 34); this opinion has
not been accepted by recent students, who ascribe to Anaximander
participation in the older doctrine of a disk-shaped earth (Stegmann,
_Anschauungen_, 1913, pp. 14–15; Heidel, _Anaximander_, 1921, p. 246;
Gisinger, “Geographie” in: _Paulys Real-Encyclopädie_, 1924, p. 543).
See also below, p. 372, note 61.
Footnote 33:
_Phaedo_, 109. Plato thought that the universe, as well as the earth,
is a sphere because the sphere is the most perfect of forms
(_Timaeus_, 33). An obscure mathematical passage, _Timaeus_, 55, seems
to liken the universe to a dodecahedron. See the _Dialogues_, Jowett’s
transl., 1892, vol. iii, p. 363, and Boffito, _Leggenda_, 1903, p.
584.
Footnote 34:
These proofs were worked out by Aristotle in two ways (_De caelo_, II,
14). First he explained that physical laws require that the earth must
be spherical; then he demonstrated that observation shows that it
actually is a globe. Aristotle’s physics were built upon a theory that
superficially has been compared with the Newtonian theory of
gravitation, although fundamentally it is entirely different. A
principal law of Aristotelian physics is that all heavy bodies seek
the center of the universe, whereas Newton’s law is that all bodies,
whether heavy or light, attract each other (see Duhem, _Système_, vol.
i, p. 210). Aristotle (_De caelo_, II, 4) showed by mathematical
argument that water, in obedience to his physical law, will, if
unhindered, become a perfect sphere, with the center of the universe
as its center, and that land, though it cannot become a perfect sphere
owing to its rigidity, will tend to assume such a form.
That the earth actually is a globe, the Stagirite maintained, is
revealed by the circular shadow it casts upon the moon in an eclipse.
Furthermore, a traveler journeying from north to south sees new
constellations appear above the southern horizon and vice versa,
constellations that could only be hidden from him at his starting
point by the curvature of a spherical earth (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
pp. 211–215).
Adrastias of Aphrodisias, one of the Peripatetic school, adduced
proofs similar to those of Aristotle (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp.
473–474), although he presented them with greater clarity. He showed
by the argument of the appearance of new constellations to a traveler
journeying north or south that the earth is convex from north to
south. That it is also convex from east to west he proved from the
observation that the same celestial body rises sooner in the eastern
parts of the habitable world than it does in the western. This could
be demonstrated by any eclipse of the moon: the eclipse appears at a
later hour of the night and higher in the heavens to an observer in
the east than it does to one in the west. As both observers see the
same eclipse, it follows that the moon must in reality rise in the
east before it rises farther west. If the earth were flat both
observers would necessarily see the eclipse at the same hour of local
time.
Footnote 35:
_De motu corp. cael._, I, 8 (as cited by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p.
471).
Footnote 36:
_Hist. nat._, II, 64. Both Cleomedes and Pliny demonstrated the
sphericity of the sea by noting that mountains may be seen when the
lower parts of the land are invisible and that shores become visible
from the masthead of a ship before persons on deck can see them. Pliny
(_op. cit._, II, 65) had a theory to explain the sphericity of the sea
that differed widely from that of Aristotle. The gist of this was that
it is in the inherent nature of water to assume a spherical form.
Traces of this view are to be found in the writings of Alexander
Neckam in the thirteenth century. See below, p. 438, note 34.
Footnote 37:
Ptolemy, _Almagest_, I, 4. Ptolemy’s proofs were similar to those of
Aristotle and Adrastias (see above, note 33). He neglected arguments
of the physical necessity of a globular earth (Duhem, _Système_, vol.
i, p. 480).
Footnote 38:
_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 590–598. Martianus Capella brought
together and vigorously presented many of the arguments of his
predecessors: that of Aristotle that the shadow of the earth on the
moon is curved, the argument of the different appearance of the
heavens in different latitudes, and the argument from the eclipses
(see above, note 33).
Footnote 39:
On the heliocentric theory in antiquity see Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
pp. 399–426, and Heath, _Aristarchus_, 1913.
Footnote 40:
Philolaus worked out an elaborate hypothesis which placed an immobile
fire, the Hearth of the Universe, the seat of divinity, in the center
of the cosmic system. Around this fire revolves our earth; an
anti-earth counterbalances our earth on the opposite side of the fire,
but man can never see either the Hearth or the anti-earth because he
dwells on the side of our earth that is always turned outward from the
center. See Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 11–21. Hicetas and Ecphantus
modified the system of Philolaus by doing away with the anti-earth and
placing our earth in the middle of the universe, enclosing the central
fire within it. They accounted for day and night by a diurnal rotation
of the earth around its axis (_ibid._, vol. i, pp. 21–27).
Footnote 41:
Some thought in antiquity that a passage in the _Timaeus_, 40, shows
that Plato believed that the earth rotates on its axis; but this
interpretation of the passage was disputed even in classical times,
and other passages in Plato’s works seem to confirm us in holding that
he thought that the earth stands immobile (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i,
p. 86). It should be noted that though Plato placed the World Soul in
the center of the earth and of the universe, he was also convinced
that great fires exist in the earth’s interior. See above, p. 32.
Footnote 42:
_Timaeus_, 34. See also Lutz, _Geographical Studies_, 1924, pp.
166–167.
Footnote 43:
Aristotle’s abstruse reasoning about the immobility of the earth is
interpreted by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 219–230. Duhem clarifies
the arguments of the Stagirite by resolving them into four main
propositions:
(1) “The movement of the heavens requires the existence of an
immovable body distinct from the heavens at the center of the
universe” (Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 220). Why such an immovable
body is necessary is explained in _De caelo_, I, 8, and in _Physics_,
IV, 4 (cited by Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 198–210, 221). Later
writers and commentators confused Aristotle’s views here set forth
with a theory which the philosopher—if he wrote it—presents in the _De
motu animalium_ and which is, in brief, as follows. “For every animal
that moves there must be without it something immovable, but
supporting itself upon which that which is moved moves. For were that
something always to give way (as it does for mice walking in grain, or
persons walking in sand) advance would be impossible, and neither
would there be any walking unless the ground were to remain still”
(_De motu anim._, 2; translated by A. S. L. Farquharson in the _Works
of Aristotle_, 1913, p. 698b). Although the writer of this passage
expressly states that he does not intend this simple theory to be
applied to the movements of the heaven in relation to the earth, it
was, none the less, passed on by way of the Moslems to the West as an
argument in favor of the immobility of the earth.
(2) “Physical reasons prove that it is not possible for the earth to
move” with a circular motion. The normal motion of the particles which
compose the earth is in a straight line toward the earth’s center.
Correspondingly “the movement which is natural to each part must also
be natural to the whole, in such a way that the earth taken as a whole
certainly has for its natural motion that movement in a straight line
and directed toward the center which characterizes heavy bodies”
(Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 226). Any other movement, such as a
movement of rotation, “being, then, constrained and unnatural ...
could not be eternal. But the order of the universe is eternal” (_De
caelo_, II, 14; translated by J. L. Stocks in the _Works of
Aristotle_, 1922, p. 296a).
(3) “Experiments show that as a matter of fact the earth does not move
at all.” If the earth moved “there would have to be passings and
turnings of the fixed stars. Yet no such thing is observed” (_De
caelo_, II, 14; Stocks’s translation, p. 296b). In other words, if the
earth moved one would expect to observe parallaxes of the fixed stars
(Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, p. 227). “It is clear, then, that the earth
must be at the center and immovable, not only for the reasons already
given, but also because heavy bodies thrown quite straight upward
return to the point from which they started, even if they are thrown
to an infinite distance” (_De caelo_, II, 14; Stocks’s translation, p.
296b).
(4) “Physics teaches us the cause of the immobility of the earth.” As
all heavy bodies tend to seek the center of the universe, the various
parts of the earth have arranged themselves around the center in such
a manner that an equilibrium is established, and this equilibrium
produces immobility (_De caelo_, II, 14, Stocks’s translation, p.
297a; Duhem, _Système_, vol. i, pp. 216, 228–229).
Footnote 44:
_Hist. nat._, II, 5.
Footnote 45:
Ptolemy (_Almagest_, I, 7) discussed the immobility of the earth in
much the same manner as Plato and Aristotle. From Aristotle he derived
the argument of the heavy body thrown into the air. See above, note
42, paragraph (3) and Duhem _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 480–484.
Footnote 46:
_De caelo_, II, 14.
Footnote 47:
_Hist. nat._, II, 108.
Footnote 48:
_De architectura_, I, 6 (edited by F. Krohn, Leipzig (Teubner), 1912;
English translation by M. H. Morgan, Cambridge, Mass., 1914).
Footnote 49:
_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 596.
Footnote 50:
_In som. Scip. comm._, I, 20, 20.
Footnote 51:
_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10.
Footnote 52:
See Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_, 1921, pp. 162–163. Konrad
Miller, _Erdmessung_, 1919, pp. 5–6, argued that Eratosthenes
calculated the circumference at 252,000 stades, not 250,000. Even if,
as Cleomedes tells us, he calculated it at 250,000 stades, it seems
probable that it was Eratosthenes himself and not some later scientist
who arbitrarily raised it to 252,000 in order to obtain a figure
divisible by 60 or perhaps by 360.
Footnote 53:
_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10.
Footnote 54:
Strabo, _Geogr._, II, 2 (edited by A. Meineke, 3 vols., Leipzig
(Teubner), 1904–1909; English translation by H. L. Jones, 2 vols.,
London, 1917–1923); Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, pp. 579–582.
Footnote 55:
Thalamas, _op. cit._, p. 151.
Footnote 56:
Miller, _Erdmessung_, pp. 12–14. For other possible explanations of
Posidonius’ figures, see Berger, _op. cit._, pp. 579–582, and Oscar
Viedebantt, _Eratosthenes, Hipparchos, Poseidonios: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des Erdmessungsproblems im Altertum_, in: Klio: Beiträge
zur alten Geschichte, vol. xiv, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 208–256; idem,
_Poseidonios, Marinos, Ptolemaios: Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Erdmessungsproblems im Altertum_, in: _ibid._, vol. xvi, 1920, pp.
94–108.
Footnote 57:
_De motu corp. cael._, I, 10. See Thalamas’ clear and reasonable
discussion of Eratosthenes’ measurement, _op. cit._, pp. 128–164.
Footnote 58:
_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 596. Capella’s account of Eratosthenes’
measurement differs slightly from that of Cleomedes (Mori, _Misuraz.
eratos._, 1911, p. 584; Thalamas, _op. cit._, pp. 140–141).
Footnote 59:
Miller, _op. cit._, p. 7.
Footnote 60:
Thalamas, _op. cit._, pp. 158–159.
Footnote 61:
_ibid._, p. 170.
Footnote 62:
See White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, pp. 89–90. Lutz, _Geographical
Studies_, 1924, p. 168, holds that “the fundamental notions of the
Homeric poems, of Hesiod and Aeschylus regarding the earth [a disk
surrounded by an ocean stream] are Babylonian in origin.”
Footnote 63:
Thales thought that the earth was created out of water (Norlind,
_Problem_, 1918, p. 8).
Footnote 64:
Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 285.
Footnote 65:
Pliny gives details of explorations which he believed had proved the
existence of connections between the Caspian Sea, the Atlantic, and
the Indian Ocean (_Hist. nat._, II, 167).
Footnote 66:
Probably the best treatment of the history of theories of the
antipodes is to be found in Rainaud, _Le continent austral_, 1893.
Footnote 67:
_Meteor._, II, 5. Pliny also thought that the polar and equatorial
regions are uninhabitable, although he was aware of the fact that the
northern boundary of the uninhabitable part of the equatorial regions
must be well south of the Tropic of Cancer (_Hist. nat._, II, 68, 74,
76, 108). See also below, p. 377, note 172.
Footnote 68:
_De caelo_, II, 14.
Footnote 69:
_Meteor._, II, 5.
Footnote 70:
“Quantum est enim, quod ab ultimis litoribus Hispaniae usque ad Indos
iacet? Paucissimorum dierum spatium, si navem suus ferat ventus
implebit” (_Quaest. nat._, I, praef., 13). Doubt has been expressed by
critics as to whether or not Seneca had in mind a passage westward
across the Atlantic. See Edward Channing, _A History of the United
States_, vol. i, New York, 1905, p. 31. Strabo discussed Eratosthenes’
views on the possibility of sailing from Spain to India in his
_Geography_, I, 64, 65. See Channing, _op. cit._, p. 30.
Footnote 71:
See Tillinghast, _Geogr. Knowl._, 1889, pp. 6–12; Berger,
_Geschichte_, 1903, p. 625; Norlind, _Problem_, 1918, _passim_, for
discussions of the continental and oceanic theories in antiquity and
in the Middle Ages. Roger Bacon (_Opus majus_, Bridges’ edit., vol. i,
1897, p. 290) states that “Ptolemaeus vero in libro de dispositione
sphaerae vult quod fere sexta pars terrae est habitabilis propter
aquam, et totum residuum est coopertum aqua.” That this should have
been the opinion of Ptolemy is difficult to reconcile with his
advocacy of unknown lands beyond the _oikoumene_ enclosing the Indian
and Atlantic Oceans (_Geogr._, I, 17, 6; VII, 3, 6; VII, 5, 2; see
Berger, _Geschichte_, pp. 625, 627, 629).
Footnote 72:
See above, p. 187.
Footnote 73:
For a summary of Aristotle’s theories in regard to the elements, see
Lippmann, _Chemisches_, 1910.
Footnote 74:
Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907.
Footnote 75:
“Causas autem illi mutationis et inconstantiae alias terra praebet,
cuius positiones, hoc et illo versae, magna ad aeris temperiem momenta
sunt....” (_Quaest. nat._, II, 11). Possibly “temperiem” should be
translated “quality” rather than “temperature.”
Footnote 76:
_Meteor._, I, 4; I, 7; II, 4. See Lones, _Arist. Researches_, 1912,
pp. 30–33.
Footnote 77:
_Meteor._, I, 9–12. See also Lones, _op. cit._, pp. 32–33, 42–45.
Footnote 78:
See above, pp. 99–101, and below, p. 406, note 93.
Footnote 79:
_Quaest. nat._, V. See Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907, pp.
537–539.
Footnote 80:
Aristotle, _Meteor._, II, 4–5; Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, V, 7–14; Pliny,
_Hist. nat._, II, 44.
Footnote 81:
Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916, pp. 1–2.
Footnote 82:
_ibid._, pp. 16–17, 28.
Footnote 83:
_ibid._, pp. 26–27.
Footnote 84:
Posidonius understood, from observation of differences between the
Indians and Ethiopians dwelling in the same latitude, that latitude
was not the only determining element in the distribution of natural
products and races of man but that other factors should also be given
consideration (Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 557). Peschel,
_Geschichte_, 1877, p. 226, wrote that in the Middle Ages Jordanus of
Severac was the only man to recognize the fact that a meridian may
mark the boundary between dissimilar areas of plant or of animal life.
See, however, Giraldus Cambrensis’ observations on this matter (see
above, p. 177).
Footnote 85:
For further discussion of ancient _climata_, see above, pp. 242–243.
Footnote 86:
_Quaest. nat._, III, 6; IVa, 2.
Footnote 87:
The voyage of Pytheas of Marseilles was the source of the greater part
of ancient beliefs in regard to high northern latitudes.
Footnote 88:
_Hist. nat._, II, 78.
Footnote 89:
_Octavius_, 18. Minutius Felix was a Roman advocate, probably a
contemporary of Marcus Aurelius. His dialogue _Octavius_ (edited by C.
Halm in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._, vol. ii; also in: Migne, _Pat.
lat._, vol. iii, cols. 231–360) is a defense of Christianity.
Footnote 90:
_Meteor._, II, 5.
Footnote 91:
_Hist. nat._, VI, 23.
Footnote 92:
_Meteor._, II, 4–5.
Footnote 93:
_Quaest. nat._, V, 18.
Footnote 94:
_Hist. nat._, II, 43–47.
Footnote 95:
Modern meteorological studies would seem to show that the ancients
were not far astray in associating the etesians of Greece with the
monsoons of the Indian Ocean: “the etesiens [_sic_] are not local
winds, due to limited and local causes; they belong to the great
system of the proasiatic low pressure and are connected with the
Indian monsoons” (J. S. Paraskévopoulos, _The Etesiens_, in: Monthly
Weather Review, vol. 50, Washington, D. C., 1922, p. 420).
Footnote 96:
_Quaest. nat._, III, 22.
Footnote 97:
_Meteor._, II, 3.
Footnote 98:
_Hist. nat._, II, 100.
Footnote 99:
_Meteor._, II, 1.
Footnote 100:
_Hist. nat._, II, 102.
Footnote 101:
_loc. cit._
Footnote 102:
_Meteor._, I, 13.
Footnote 103:
The Coraxi inhabited the rugged coast where the Caucasus Mountains run
parallel to the Euxine north of Colchis. Modern soundings show that
the sea attains an average depth of 3000 feet within a dozen miles of
the shore.
Footnote 104:
Tillinghast, _Geogr. Knowl._, 1889, p. 28.
Footnote 105:
_Meteor._, II, 1.
Footnote 106:
_In som. Scip. comm._, II, 9.
Footnote 107:
Tozer, _Anc. Geogr._, 1897, p. 185.
Footnote 108:
Probably the best work on ancient and medieval tide theories is
Almagià, _Dottrina_, 1905. See also Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, 1914,
pp. 267–390. On the earliest Greek observations of the tides in the
Mediterranean see Giorgio Pasquali, _Ἄμπωτις und die ältesten
Beobachtungen der Gezeiten im Mittelmeer_, in: _Festschrift für
Wackernagel_, Göttingen, 1924, pp. 326–332 (not seen, title from
review in: Rivista geografica italiana, voi. xxxi, Florence, 1924, pp.
86–88).
Footnote 109:
Strabo, _Geogr._, I, 3.
Footnote 110:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 269–271.
Footnote 111:
Our knowledge of Posidonius’ theory of the tides, which was explained
in a treatise on the ocean, is derived from extracts from this
treatise given in Strabo, _Geogr._, III, 5, and from a Latin
translation of Priscian of Lydia’s _Solutiones_ (citations from Duhem,
_Système_, vol. ii, p. 280).
Footnote 112:
Strabo, _loc. cit._, quotes Posidonius as stating that the ebb and
flood are greatly increased at the time of the summer solstice, which,
of course, is not so. Priscian, _op. cit._, quaest. vi, gives a truer
statement, that the greatest tides are those at the equinoxes
(citations from Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, p. 282).
Footnote 113:
_Hist. nat._, II, 97.
Footnote 114:
Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, p. 286.
Footnote 115:
Pliny, _loc. cit._, also notes that there may be local differences in
the period of the tides in different estuaries, although he explains
this by differences in the times of the rising of the stars rather
than as resulting from the influence of the configuration of the
coast.
Footnote 116:
_Quaest. nat._, III, 28.
Footnote 117:
_In som. Scip. comm._, II, 9.
Footnote 118:
_Meteor._, II, 2.
Footnote 119:
_Hist. nat._, II, 65.
Footnote 120:
_Meteor._, I, 13; II, 8; Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 15; III, 26; VI,
_passim_. See Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907, pp. 399–402.
Footnote 121:
Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 15. On the springs and fountains of the
ancient world, many of which were believed to be the outlets of
subterranean water courses, see J. R. Smith, _Springs and Wells in
Greek and Roman Literature: Their Legends and Locations_, New York and
London, 1922 (on the Arethusa and Alpheus myth see pp. 669–672).
Footnote 122:
Cumont, _After Life_, 1922, p. 78.
Footnote 123:
_ibid._, p. 79.
Footnote 124:
_ibid._, pp. 80–81.
Footnote 125:
_ibid._, pp. 7–12.
Footnote 126:
_ibid._, pp. 87–89.
Footnote 127:
_ibid._, p. 90.
Footnote 128:
See above, p. 227, and below, p. 450, note 80.
Footnote 129:
_Phaedo_, 112.
Footnote 130:
_Meteor._, I, 13.
Footnote 131:
_Quaest. nat._, III, 9–10.
Footnote 132:
_Meteor._, _loc. cit._
Footnote 133:
See Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916, pp. 2–12, for a full
discussion of the sources of Aristotle’s statements regarding the
connection between mountains and the sources of rivers.
Footnote 134:
Seneca, _Quaest. nat._, III, 10. On Gregory’s theory see Kretschmer,
_Phys. Erdk._, 1889, p. 93.
Footnote 135:
See Khvostov, _Istoriya_, 1907, pp. 53–56; Langenmaier, _Alte
Kenntnis_, 1916, _passim._
Footnote 136:
_Quaest. nat._, IV, _passim_.
Footnote 137:
These proofs were of two sorts: first, those which were intended to
demonstrate the physical impossibility of there being any snow in
Ethiopia; and, secondly, those which were intended to show that river
floods actually known to be caused by melting snow do not come in
midsummer but earlier in the year.
Footnote 138:
See above, pp. 206–207.
Footnote 139:
_Hist. nat._, V, 9.
Footnote 140:
_ibid._, II, 86–92.
Footnote 141:
_ibid._, II, 90. Plato describes the disappearance of Atlantis in the
_Timaeus_ and in the _Critias_; he states that the story came from an
Egyptian priest at Sais (_Dialogues_, Jowett’s transl., 1892, vol.
iii, pp. 429–433).
Footnote 142:
_Phaedo_, III. On ancient and medieval theories regarding the interior
of the earth, see Stegmann, _Anschauungen_, 1913, _passim_.
Footnote 143:
_Meteor._, II, 7–8. “Aristotle sums up his views of the causes of
winds, earthquakes, lightning, and thunder towards the end of
_Meteor._, II, 9, where he says that they all are essentially the
same, viz. a dry exhalation which produces earthquakes when operating
within the earth, winds when operating about the surface of the earth,
and lightning and thunder when operating among the clouds” (Lones,
_Arist. Researches_, 1912, p. 45).
Footnote 144:
_Quaest. nat._, VI, is devoted almost entirely to earthquakes.
Footnote 145:
_Hist. nat._, II, 79–80.
Footnote 146:
_Meteor._, II, 8.
Footnote 147:
_Hist. nat._, II, 106.
Footnote 148:
See especially Capelle, _Berges- und Wolkenhöhen_, 1916. See also
below, p. 447, note 27a.
Footnote 149:
_Meteor._, I, 13; Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 3. See also Günther,
_Optische Beweisung_, 1920, p. 374, note.
Footnote 150:
“Dicaearchus, vir in primis eruditus, regum cura permensus montes, ex
quibus altissimum prodidit Pelium MCCL passuum ratione perpendiculari”
(_Hist. nat._, II, 65). Dicaearchus also wrote a treatise on the
mountains of the Peloponnesus and of other parts of Greece. See
Günther, _Bergbesteigungen_, 1896.
Footnote 151:
Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 16.
Footnote 152:
_ibid._, p. 17.
Footnote 153:
_ibid._, pp. 19–20. See also Thalamas, _Géogr. d’Ératosthène_, 1921,
pp. 104–110.
Footnote 154:
See above, p. 214.
Footnote 155:
Capelle, _op. cit._, p. 24. For discussion of other figures regarding
the heights of mountains as they were estimated in antiquity, see the
same, pp. 30–31.
Footnote 156:
Berger, _Geschichte_, 1903, p. 640.
Footnote 157:
_ibid._, p. 407.
Footnote 158:
Peschel, _Geschichte_, 1877, pp. 43–44.
Footnote 159:
The sun and the moon appear to revolve around the earth every
twenty-four hours more or less. If the same eclipse of the moon is
seen at A (to the west of B) one hour earlier than at B, obviously the
difference in longitude between A and B will be 1/24 of the
circumference of the earth, or 15°.
Footnote 160:
Berger, _op. cit._, pp. 18, 468–476.
Footnote 161:
_Hist. nat._, II, 70.
Footnote 162:
_Geogr._, I, 4.
Footnote 163:
A useful general history of ancient cartography (i. e. of the
Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Greeks), though
sometimes misleading in details, is Cebrian, _Geschichte der
Kartographie_, 1923. This includes an appendix by Joseph Fischer,
_Ptolemaios als Kartograph_, pp. 113–129. See also Kubitschek’s
important article “Karten” in _Paulys Real-Encyclopädie_, 1919.
Footnote 164:
So called because it was discovered by Conrad Peutinger in 1507.
Reproduced on two-thirds the scale of the original in colors by Konrad
Miller in _Weltkarte des Castorius_, 1888; also a photographic
reproduction by the Imperial Library, Vienna, 1888. See also more
especially Miller, _Itin. rom._, 1916. Miller (_Itin. rom._, pp.
xxvi-xxxvi) ascribes its composition to a certain Castorius of the
fourth century of our era.
Footnote 165:
The questions of whether or not Ptolemy drew maps to accompany the
text of his _Geography_, whether or not the existing maps in Greek
manuscripts and in printed fifteenth-century texts of Ptolemy’s
_Geography_ can really be ascribed to Ptolemy, and whether they are
more, or less, authentic than the texts of the _Geography_ are the
subject of bitter controversies in the history of geography. For
further discussion of this matter and for references to the literature
dealing with it, see the works of Dinse, Schütte, Tudeer, and Fischer,
cited in the Bibliography.
Footnote 166:
See Detlefsen, _Ursprung_, 1906; Lessert, _L’oeuvre géogr._, 1909.
Footnote 167:
See Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, 1897, p. 379, note 2.
Footnote 168:
Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895, pp. 66–70, and vol. ii, 1895,
_passim_; Beazley, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 378. The Roman maps would
seem to be in turn related to Greek maps of the Eratosthenic school in
general form and extent. Some of them showed, doubtless, in addition
to the _orbis terrarum_, an austral continent beyond the equator (see
below, p. 385, note 58). While in a broad way we may accept Miller’s
main conclusions that the cartography of imperial Rome exerted some
influence over medieval cartography, it is not impossible that Miller
is occasionally over-ingenious in his attempt to demonstrate specific
relationships. See below, p. 458, note 17.
Footnote 169:
These were the invention of Hipparchus (Avezac, _Projection_, 1863,
pp. 16–20). The stereographic projection, called planisphere, was
described by Ptolemy in a treatise entitled _Planisphere_ which was
translated into Latin from the Arabic during the time of the Crusades.
See below, p. 398, note 36.
Footnote 170:
Eratosthenes placed Meroë at 10,000 stades south of Alexandria and the
limit of the _oikoumene_ at 3400 stades south of Meroë (Strabo,
_Geogr._, I, 4, 2). He placed the tropic at Syene 5000 stades south of
Alexandria (Cleomedes, _De motu corp. cael._, I, 10). Therefore the
limit of the _oikoumene_ according to Eratosthenes must have been
10,000 + 3400 − 5000 = 8400 stades south of the tropic. As
Eratosthenes reckoned the circumference of the earth at 252,000 stades
(see above, p. 371, note 51), 1° must have contained 700 stades, and
the limit of the _oikoumene_ must have fallen in his opinion 8400 ÷
700 = 12° south of the tropic, or at approximately latitude 11° 30′ N.
Footnote 171:
See Barthold, _Erforschung des Orients_, 1913, p. 10.
Footnote 172:
On ancient theories regarding the sources of the Nile see Khvostov,
_Istoriya_, 1907, pp. 53–68, and Langenmaier, _Alte Kenntnis_, 1916,
pp. 1–144.
Footnote 173:
Pliny says (_Hist. nat._, II, 108) that the distance from the
southernmost limits of the habitable world to Meroë in Ethiopia is
1000 Roman miles and that the distance by river from Syene, on the
tropic, to Meroë was found by an expedition sent out by Nero to be 871
miles. If we make this arbitrarily 700 miles in order to take into
account the windings of the river, we get a total of 1700 miles. In
the same passage Pliny states that Eratosthenes found the
circumference of the earth to be 252,000 stades, or 31,500 Roman
miles. The 1700 miles which represent the distance south of the tropic
at which Pliny places the Ethiopian Ocean are therefore equivalent to
13,600 stades, and these, in turn, to 19³⁄₇° (see above, note 169, for
method of calculating this figure). The southern limit of the
_oikoumene_ thus falls at about latitude 4° N. (23½°–19³⁄₇°).
Footnote 174:
See Langenmaier, _op. cit._, pp. 6–37, for the most recent and
thorough attempt at an interpretation of the Ptolemaic geography of
these parts of Africa.
Footnote 175:
That Ptolemy’s knowledge of the Central African lake region was
derived from the east coast of Africa rather than from the upper Nile
valley is shown by Langenmaier, _op. cit._, and by Khvostov,
_Istoriya_, 1907. pp. 65–66.
Footnote 176:
“Nam Syene sub ipso tropico est, Meroe autem tribus milibus
octingentis stadiis in perustam a Syene introrsum recedit, et ab illa
usque ad terram cinnamoni feracem sunt stadia octingenta, et per haec
omnia spatia perustae licet rari tamen vita fruuntur habitantes. Ultra
vero jam inaccessum est propter nimium solis ardorem” (Macrobius, _In
som. Scip. comm._, II, 8, 3). In other words, the border of the
habitable part of the world was placed by Macrobius 3800 + 800 = 4600
stades, or about 6½°, south of the tropic, that is to say at about
latitude 17° N.
NOTES
CHAPTER II
THE CONTRIBUTION OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM BEFORE 1100 A. D.
Footnote 177:
See above, pp. 41–42.
Footnote 178:
On the geographical work of Byzantine writers, see Krumbacher,
_Geschichte_, 1897, pp. 409–427. Krumbacher distinguishes between two
types of Byzantine geographical treatise: (1) scientific or
theoretical, and (2) practical. The first consists almost exclusively
of commentaries on, redactions of, or compilations of excerpts from
earlier Byzantine works. The second type includes lists of
ecclesiastical sees or provinces, statistical lists for the use of
government officials, itineraries, sailors’ manuals, pilgrims’
handbooks, and the like. The _Christian Topography_ of Cosmas
Indicopleustes, with its fantastic description of the world, is of the
first type. It was held in high favor and became a principal source of
geographical “knowledge” among the Slavic people of the early Middle
Ages (_ibid._, p. 35).
With the eleventh and twelfth centuries came a great literary revival
at Constantinople. Michael Psellos (born 1018) besides being a poet
was a prolific writer on philosophy, philology, history, law, and
natural science. Among his works on the last-named subject were a
series of essays on meteorology (_ibid._, pp. 433–444, esp.
bibliography, p. 442). Nikephoras Blemmydes (thirteenth century) also
wrote on matters of geographical interest (_ibid._, p. 448).
Footnote 179:
See above, pp. 48 and 75.
Footnote 180:
Levantine traders were present in no inconsiderable numbers along the
main avenues of commerce and in the larger towns of Italy, France, and
England. The introduction of monachism into the West may be in part
attributed to contacts with the Orient maintained in the early Middle
Ages. Among the marvelous legends transmitted from the Levant to the
Occident were the stories of St. Thomas’ voyage to India and the
Romance of Alexander (see above, pp. 49, 50, 73, 74, and also below,
note 8; see also Bréhier, _Les colonies_, 1903). On diplomatic and
political relations between Constantinople and the West during the
early Middle Ages, see A. Gasquet, _L’Empire byzantin et la monarchie
franque_, Paris, 1888. On Greek settlements in Magna Graecia and their
influence upon Occidental culture, see Pierre Batiffol, _L’Abbaye de
Rossano_, Paris, 1891, Introduction.
Footnote 181:
e. g. in: Müller(us), _Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia_ (under “Ptolemy”
in the Bibliography), atlas, 1901.
Footnote 182:
e. g. St. Sever Beatus map, reproduction accompanying Miller,
_Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895 (our Fig. 2, p. 69, above).
Footnote 183:
For example, those of Origen (second century) in the Eastern Church
and of Ambrose (340–397) in the Western. On the hexaemeral exegesis
see Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877; Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii,
1914, pp. 393–501; Robbins, _Hexaemeral Lit._, 1912.
Footnote 184:
Exodus, xxvi.
Footnote 185:
See above, pp. 72–73, 287–288.
Footnote 186:
The Apocryphal Acts arose out of attempts of early heretical sects to
provide apostolic authority for their beliefs. Ecclesiastical
authorities complained most bitterly of a certain Manichaean, Lucius
(or Leucius) Charinus, as the author of these documents. We do not
possess any of Charinus’ writings in the original. The most important
collection of Apocryphal Acts was probably made in the seventh century
and was commonly, though mistakenly, ascribed to Abdias, said to have
been one of the Apostles who established himself as the first bishop
of Babylon. Pseudo-Abdias drew from Charinus for the Acts of Andrew
and Matthew. See Rudolf Hoffman’s article on the New Testament
Apocrypha in _Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und
Kirche_, begründet von S. S. Herzog, 3rd edit., by Albert Hauck, vol.
i, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 664–668.
The account of the Acts of St. Thomas in the Pseudo-Abdias version was
probably originally composed in Syriac, translated later into Greek,
and from Greek into Latin. From an analysis of the details of the
story (particularly the plants and animals mentioned in it) Philipps
concludes that the legend originated in the Euphrates valley and that
St. Thomas was apostle of the Parthian empire and of India in the
limited sense of that part of India which includes the Indus valley
only (Philipps, _St. Thomas_, 1903). These conclusions are in the main
borne out by Dahlmann in the latest and most satisfactory examination
of the legend of St. Thomas. Dahlmann believes that within the story,
to which many legendary elements became attached, may be found a
kernel of fact. He maintains that connections by sea were in existence
in the first century after Christ between the Roman province of Syria
and northern India and that by this route St. Thomas reached the court
of Gundophorus, a Parthian king of the Kabul valley and of Peshawar.
The second part of the story relates the martyrdom of Thomas at the
court of a King Mazdai, or Mazdeus. Some have thought that the kingdom
of Mazdeus may have been situated in southern India, where
subsequently there grew up a large colony of Nestorian Christians who
claimed that their church was founded by St. Thomas himself. What
little evidence there is, Dahlmann believes, is against this
identification. He holds that the death of Thomas occurred in
northwestern India (Dahlmann, _Thomas-Legende_, 1912, _passim_).
Footnote 187:
On the influence of the Bible in molding geographical theory and on
the matter of interpretation, see Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889,
Einleitung, pp. 5–9.
Footnote 188:
The great exponents of the allegorical and mystical method of exegesis
during the early centuries of our era were the scholars of Alexandria;
the literal method was primarily that of the Antiochians and Syrians
(_ibid._, pp. 17–20).
Footnote 189:
Literal interpretation led men like Lactantius to the belief that the
earth is flat. The pilgrim Theodosius, about 530 A. D., described the
hills near the River Jordan which skipped like lambs when Christ came
down to be baptized and added that when he was there the hills still
appeared to be jumping (Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, 1897, p. 102). Peter
Alphonsi in the twelfth century accused earlier Jewish doctors of
going to extremes in their literal interpretation of Scripture, even
to the extent of taking literally the words of the Psalm: “Flumina
plaudent manibus, montes exsultabunt” (Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clvii,
col. 553).
Cosmas Indicopleustes’ fantastic system of the world, based on the
account of the Tabernacle of the Lord, is a famous and striking
example of literal interpretation carried to an extreme. Cosmas was
led by the Biblical text (and by his own imagination) to maintain
aggressively that the universe is shaped like a strong-box with a
semi-cylindrical cover.
Footnote 190:
“Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim prius
credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.” Quoted by Kretschmer,
_Phys. Erdk._, 1889, p. 2.
Footnote 191:
_ibid._, p. 22.
Footnote 192:
On Platonism among the Church Fathers, see Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii,
1914, pp. 408–417. The combination of Neoplatonism with Christianity
has been called Augustinianism (_ibid._, vol. ii, p. 417).
Footnote 193:
_ibid._, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 44–47.
Footnote 194:
_ibid._, pp. 62–64.
Footnote 195:
_ibid._, pp. 64–67.
Footnote 196:
_ibid._, p. 9.
Footnote 197:
_ibid._, pp. 44–47. See _De div. nat._, III, 33 (Migne, _Pat. lat._,
vol. cxxii, col. 719). Stegmann, _Anschauungen_, 1913, p. 60,
contrasts the speculative and critical mind of John Scot with the
credulous spirit of Raban Maur, his contemporary.
Footnote 198:
Mori, _Misuraz. eratos._, 1911, p. 391.
Footnote 199:
See Geidel, _Alfred der Grosse_, 1904.
Footnote 200:
Aethicus of Istria was often confused in the Middle Ages with a
so-called Julius Aethicus, who may have written a _Cosmographia_ which
probably dates from the sixth century and was edited in Riese, _Geogr.
lat. min._, 1878, pp. 71–103. See Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, 1897, pp.
355–362.
Footnote 201:
The _Orbis descriptio_ of Dionysius and Priscian’s Latin version of it
were edited by Müller in _Geogr. graeci min._, vol. ii, 1882, pp.
103–176, 190–199.
Footnote 202:
The unknown author most frequently cited is a Roman cosmographer of
the name of Castorius. The citations, names, and extracts from
Castorius correspond very closely to the legends on the Peutinger
Table and have led Miller to the conclusion that the latter represents
the work of Castorius. See Miller, _Weltkarte des Castorius_, 1888,
pp. 36–47; the same, _Mappaemundi_, vol. vi, 1898, pp. 36–37; the
same, _Itin. rom._, 1916, pp. xxvi-xxxvi.
Footnote 203:
See above, p. 104.
Footnote 204:
The various Latin versions of the Romance of Alexander were destined
to exert much influence on the form which the legend was to assume in
the twelfth century and later. The earliest version of the Latin
_Pseudo-Callisthenes_ was made in the fourth century of our era by
Julius Valerius; but this was little read in later centuries, and only
three manuscripts of it are now extant. The work upon which most of
the medieval versions of the Romance were based was an _Epitoma_, or
abridgment, of Julius Valerius’ translation, made perhaps in the ninth
century. In addition to Valerius’ version and the _Epitoma_, we have a
_Letter from Alexander to Aristotle_ describing the marvels of India.
Longer, though corresponding essentially to chapter 17 of the third
book of Valerius, it did not form part of the _Epitoma_, but was
widely circulated as an independent booklet. A correspondence between
Alexander and Dindimus concerning the Brahmins is also found in a
ninth-century Latin form, perhaps translated by Alcuin from a Greek
original. See Meyer, _Alexandre le grand_, 1886, vol. ii, _passim_;
Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. i, pp. 551–557.
In the tenth century a wholly new version of the legend, also derived
from the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_, appeared in the West. This was the
_Historia de praeliis_, the Greek original of which was said to have
been brought from Constantinople by a certain “Leo Archipresbyter” and
translated by him into Latin. See Landgraf, _Die Vita Alexandri_,
1885, and Krumbacher, _Geschichte_, 1897, pp. 849–852.
Footnote 205:
See below, p. 391, note 130.
Footnote 206:
Much has been written on St. Brandan and his wanderings. The
_Peregrinatio Sancti Brandani abbatis_, or Latin version of the legend
(also known as _Navigatio_ or _Narratio_), the date of which is
uncertain, was published by Schröder, _Sanct Brandan_, 1871. See also
Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, 1897, pp. 230–240. More recent notable works
dealing with Brandan’s voyages and with other fabulous tales of the
Atlantic are Westropp, _Brasil_, 1912; Babcock, _St. Brendan’s
Islands_, 1919; idem, _Legendary Islands_, 1922, pp. 34–49. That some
of the stories of the St. Brandan legend were derived from Oriental
sources (and not vice versa, as Schröder, _op. cit._, pp. xii-xiii,
attempted to show) was demonstrated by De Goeje, _St. Brandan_, 1890.
Footnote 207:
T. D. Hardy, _Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the Early
History of Great Britain_, London, 1862, vol. i, p. 159, cites a
ninth-century manuscript in the Vatican (Regin. Christinae, 217).
Hardy mentions five twelfth-century and ten thirteenth-century
manuscripts of the _Vita S. Brendani_. This life of St. Brandan was
printed by Jubinal, _Saint Brendaines_, 1836.
Footnote 208:
Beazley, _op. cit._, vol. i, 1897, pp. 186–188.
Footnote 209:
See above, pp. 13–14.
Footnote 210:
See above, p. 13, and Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, 1914, pp. 447–449.
Bible references and quotations throughout the present work, except
where otherwise indicated, are based on the Douay and Rheims
translation of the Vulgate.
Footnote 211:
_ibid._, p. 414. The similarities between the accounts of the Creation
in the _Timaeus_ and in Genesis were explained by ascribing to Plato
knowledge of the Bible. Augustine was particularly struck by the
resemblance of the Platonic and Scriptural doctrines. Peter Comestor
in our period actually believed “that Plato read the Mosaic books in
Egypt and confounded the spirit of God (Gen. i, 2) with the World
Soul” (Robbins, _Hexaemeral Lit._, 1912, pp. 12–13).
Footnote 212:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 408, 454–460, 478–487.
Footnote 213:
Augustine, _De civ. Dei_, XII, 13 (as cited by Duhem, _op. cit._, vol.
ii, pp. 452–453).
Footnote 214:
Περὶ ἀρχῶν, II, 3, 4–5 (as cited by Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p.
449).
Footnote 215:
_ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 462–471.
Footnote 216:
_ibid._, vol. ii, p. 464. It must be pointed out, however, that the
Neoplatonic, as distinguished from the Peripatetic philosophers,
believed in a creation (see above, note 33), even though they denied
that there was a commencement of the world! A discussion of the highly
abstract classical and medieval theories of time and space would lead
us too far astray from the field of geography. Suffice it to remark
that subsequent medieval commentators on the hexaemeron in general
followed Augustine, who adopted the Platonic doctrine that God created
the universe and time simultaneously. Augustine said: “Procul dubio,
non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore” (_De civ. Dei_, XI,
6, as cited by Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 467; Robbins, _op.
cit._, pp. 7, 65–66, 82–83). See below, p. 418, note 26.
Footnote 217:
See above, p. 145.
Footnote 218:
Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, is devoted in the main to this
subject. On Bede, see the same, pp. 246–252. See also Robbins, _op.
cit._, _passim_. For a discussion of theological, as distinguished
from physical, concepts of the Creation among the early Christians,
see A. C. McGiffert, _The God of the Early Christians_, New York,
1924, pp. 146–176.
Footnote 219:
White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, pp. 89–90.
Footnote 220:
Günther, _Kosmogr. Ansch._, 1882, discusses the influence of Jewish
gnosticism and Aristotelianism on scholastic geography. Most of the
early Jews conceived of a flat earth covered by a concave heaven
through a window in which the sun and moon pass out in the west,
whence they return to the east around the outside of the firmament.
Footnote 221:
Sura, ii, 20; clxxi, 18; clxxviii, 6.
Footnote 222:
From the King James version. One form of the Vulgate reads: “Qui sedet
super gyrum terrae, et habitatores eius sunt quasi locustae: qui
extendit velut nihilum caelos, et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad
inhabitandum.” The last phrase reads in another form used by the
Church Fathers: “qui statuit velut fornicem coelum, et extendit velut
tentorium” (Marinelli, _Scritti minori_, vol. i, [1908?], p. 326, note
2). The King James version renders the spirit of the Latin more
accurately than the Douay and Rheims version, in which the word
_gyrum_ is translated “globe.”
Footnote 223:
Marinelli, _La geogr._, 1882, p. 534 (also in _Scritti minori_, vol.
i, [1908?], pp. 325–326, where there is an important footnote by Carlo
Errera). See also Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. i, p. 275, note 1, and pp.
328–332.
Footnote 224:
Marinelli, _op. cit._, pp. 538–546 (also in _Scritti minori_, vol. i,
[1908?], pp. 332–343); Beazley, _op. cit._, pp. 273–303.
Footnote 225:
_Div. institut._, III, 24 (as cited by Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._,
1889, pp. 37f.). Thorndike, however, believes that the “opposition of
early Christian thought to natural science has been rather unduly
exaggerated” and that Lactantius “should hardly be cited as typical of
early Christian attitude in such matters” (_Magic_, 1923, vol. i, p.
480).
Footnote 226:
The question of exactly what the early medieval thinkers in the West
thought on this subject has been acrimoniously discussed from opposite
points of view by Catholic and Protestant scholars. In the seventies
of the last century Schneid (_Erdrundung_, 1877) defended the science
of the Middle Ages against the attacks of Protestants like Whewell,
Draper, and Günther, who accused the early ecclesiastical writers of
servile dependence upon the letter of Scripture. Schneid’s article is
more particularly an indictment of another article of the same title
by Siegmund Günther in: _Studien_, 1877–1879. Schneid believed that
Günther, through insufficient acquaintance with the literature of the
period, had been led to minimize the achievements and worth of
patristic science. Augustine, declared Schneid, nowhere denied the
sphericity of the earth, and his mention of the antipodes shows that
he was well acquainted with the theory. Isidore, Bede, Raban Maur, and
Adam of Bremen, he maintained, were all firmly convinced that the
earth is a sphere. While we may concede that Schneid was right in the
case of Bede and Adam, that Isidore and Raban Maur held to the
doctrine of a spherical earth is perhaps more doubtful. See below,
note 51, and p. 385, note 53. Furthermore, it is a little difficult to
understand Schneid’s contention (p. 436) that Cosmas did not deny the
sphericity of the earth through religious obscurantism but rather on
the grounds of practical experience. See also below, p. 386, note 64,
and p. 424, note 100.
More recently the Jesuit father, Reverend F. S. Betten, has
contributed an article entitled _Knowledge of the Sphericity of the
Earth During the Earlier Middle Ages_ to the Catholic Historical
Review, vol. iii (N. S.), Washington, D. C., 1923, pp. 74–90. In this
he argues that “we have ... at least one witness in every century to
the tradition of the sphericity of the earth” (p. 86), and he cites as
these witnesses Hilary of Poitiers (died 366), Ambrose of Milan (died
397), Augustine (died 430), Cassiodorus (died 575), and Isidore of
Seville (died 636). Echoes of the Ptolemaic astronomy, to be sure, may
be detected in the writings of these men. On the other hand, no one of
them makes a clean-cut avowal of belief that the earth is a globe, and
the passages quoted by Father Betten are not wholly irreconcilable
with the doctrine of a flat earth. It is not enough, in dealing with
the cosmographical opinions of the Church Fathers, to cite isolated
remnants of classical science scattered through their works. Without
taking into consideration all of a writer’s assertions regarding a
specific topic one can hardly arrive at safe conclusions regarding his
opinions on that topic. Father Betten puts much stock in Isidore’s
supposed “faithful representation of the main tenets of Ptolemy’s
theory” (_ibid._, p. 84). On the other hand he makes no mention of
passages in Isidore which may be reconciled only with belief in a flat
earth (see below, notes 50, and 51). We venture to hold that we are
not as yet in a position to make any definite pronouncements upon the
cosmographical opinions of the other writers cited by Father Betten.
Such pronouncements should be made only after thorough investigation
of _all_ that these writers stated bearing directly or indirectly on
matters of cosmography. Such an investigation has not been made as
yet. Is it not, however, probable that the theories of a flat earth
elaborated by the Eastern Fathers (see above, p. 383, note 45),
theories built upon the interpretation of Scripture, were at least as
influential in molding the early medieval cosmology of the Occident as
the then often discredited relics of Greek science?
Footnote 227:
Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889, p. 50. See also the preceding note.
Footnote 228:
_De nat. rer._, 10. Why this passage should be interpreted to indicate
belief in a flat earth is explained by Brehaut, _Isidore_, 1912, pp.
50–54.
Footnote 229:
“The size of the sun is greater than that of the earth and so from the
moment when it rises it appears equally to east and west at the same
time” (_Etym._, III, 47; translated by Brehaut, _op. cit._, p. 147).
Gribaudi (_Isidoro_, 1905, p. 22) argued that Isidore of Seville held
to the theory of sphericity.
Footnote 230:
Bede, _De nat. rer._, 46. Bede’s proof was derived from Pliny, _Hist.
nat._, II, 64.
Footnote 231:
See Mori, _Misuraz. eratos._, 1911, pp. 390–391. C. B. Jourdain
(_Infl. Arist._, 1861, pp. 6–7) maintained that Raban Maur (_De
universo_, XII, 2) inscribed the circumference of the terrestrial
globe in an ideal cube, the angles of which correspond to the four
cardinal points. Nothing in the text, however, would justify our
supposing that Raban Maur had in mind either a globe or a cube. On the
contrary he was doubtless thinking of the _orbis terrarum_ in the
Roman sense (see below, note 58), that is to say, of the circle of the
known lands. Peschel (_Geschichte_, 1877, p. 100, note 3) and
Marinelli (_La geogr._, 1882, p. 552, note 5; _Scritti minori_, vol.
i, [1908?], p. 352, note 1) tried to interpret the passage to mean
that Raban Maur held that the _orbis terrarum_ was square. Bertolini
(_I quattro angoli_, 1910, pp. 1439–1441), however, has demonstrated
conclusively that the text in question indicates that he thought it
was a circle.
Footnote 232:
_De div. nat._, III, 33, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxxii, cols.
716–718.
Footnote 233:
_Gerberti opera_, Bubnov’s edit., 1899, p. 362. See the same, pp.
310–313, note 1, for discussion of the reasons why it is not the work
of Gerbert.
Footnote 234:
Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889, p. 61.
Footnote 235:
Santarem, _Essai_, vol. i, 1849, Introduction, pp. 1–56; Simar,
_Afrique centrale_, 1912, _passim_.
Footnote 236:
The idea of antipodes in our modern sense of the term, as referring to
regions on the opposite side of a spherical earth, came from the
Greeks. Notably the doctrine of Crates of Mallos, it was adopted by
Martianus Capella and Macrobius, who passed it on to the medieval West
(see above, p. 18). Lactantius and Augustine argued against the
possibility of such antipodes. The practical spirit of the Romans had
not been interested in theoretical regions on the other side of the
earth (see above, p. 10). Roman maps, we may infer, were usually
circular and showed an ocean stream running around the _orbis
terrarum_, or three known continents (Asia, Europe, Africa). Sometimes
an unknown fourth continent beyond the impassable equatorial ocean was
depicted (see Simar, _op. cit._, p. 150). These Roman maps probably
formed the basis of many maps of the early Middle Ages. But during the
Middle Ages, as has been the case with modern attempts to interpret
these theories, true antipodes became confused with the fourth, or
austral, continent, belief in which did not necessitate belief in a
spherical world. Isidore was probably referring merely to the austral
continent when he wrote: “Extra tres partes orbis, quarta pars trans
Oceanum interior est in meridie quae solis ardore nobis incognita est,
in cujus finibus antipodas fabulose inhabitare produntur” (_Etym._,
XIV, 5).
Arguing thus, Simar contends, in his brilliant study of Central
African geography in antiquity and the Middle Ages, that medieval
discussions of the antipodes referred to the austral continent and did
not necessarily have anything to do with the question of belief in the
sphericity of the earth. While this may be true, he gives, in the
opinion of the writer, a misleading impression that the doctrine of a
spherical earth met with scant favor in the West until as late as the
twelfth century (Simar, _op. cit._, pp. 157–158). He tends to ignore
the important influence of Macrobius and of Martianus Capella in
keeping alive from the time of the Carolingian Renaissance onward the
doctrine that the earth is a globe. On the influence of Macrobius, see
Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 62–71; and on Martianus Capella,
see especially Mori, _Misuraz. eratos._, 1911, pp. 390–391.
Footnote 237:
_Div. instit._, III, 24.
Footnote 238:
_De civ. Dei_, XVI, 9. It should also be pointed out that Augustine
(_loc. cit._), in addition, objects to the possibility of there being
inhabited antipodes on the purely rational grounds that it would be
impossible for men to have reached such distant continents across the
ocean. The Catholic father, P. Mandonnet (_Les idées cosmogr._, 1893,
p. 55), asserted that it was rather on the strength of physical
argument than on that of Scriptural exegesis that Augustine based his
opposition to antipodeans. At all events, Mandonnet admits that it was
largely through Augustine’s immense prestige that the theory of the
possibility of inhabited antipodes was excluded from general
acceptance throughout the Middle Ages (_ibid._, p. 56).
Footnote 239:
_Etym._, IX, 2. See Boffito, _Leggenda_, 1903, p. 592, note 4.
Footnote 240:
_De temporum ratione_, 34.
Footnote 241:
“Absit ut nos quisquam vel hoc contentisse abstruere, vel antipodarum
fabulas recipere arbitretur, quae sunt fidei Christianae omnino
contraria [_sic_]” (_Classicorum auctorum e vaticanis codicibus
editorum series_, vol. iii, edited by A. Mai, Rome, 1831, p. 337). For
John Scot Erigena on the antipodes and for other texts dealing with
the subject see Rand, _Johannes Scottus_, 1906, pp. 20–23.
Footnote 242:
Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. vi, col. 426; vol. xli, col. 487; _Mon. Germ.
hist._, _Script. rerum merovingicarum_, vol. vi, 1913, pp. 517–520.
Much has been written on Virgil of Salzburg and his relations to the
ecclesiastical authorities of his time. Protestants like Draper,
Whewell, White, and Siegmund Günther have looked upon Virgil as more
or less a martyr to the cause of freedom of thought. Catholics, on the
other hand, have tried to demonstrate that Virgil cleared himself of
the charge of heresy and that as a bishop he was able to carry on
valuable work for the church. See Krabbo, _Bischof Virgil_, 1903, and
Van der Linden, _Virgile de Salzbourg_, 1914. The latter maintains
that “contrairement à l’opinion reçue, Virgile de Salzbourg a été très
probablement un simple commentateur et non un novateur.... Sa théorie,
au lieu de marquer le début d’une ère de progrès dans les études
cosmographiques, constitue l’un des derniers reflets de la culture
classique avant la nuit du X^e siècle” (critique of Van der Linden,
_op. cit._, in Isis: International Review Devoted to the History of
Science and Civilization, vol. ii, Brussels, Sept. 1919, pp. 437–438).
Footnote 243:
See Marinelli, _Scritti minori_, vol. i, [1908?], pp. 331–332, note 4.
Footnote 244:
Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, p. 340. See also White,
_Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, pp. 106–107.
Footnote 245:
“The influence of the Bible on the meteorological theories of the
Church Fathers was very limited. Even when the attempt was made to
hide the pagan influence in a Biblical shell, a close study reveals to
us a truly pagan philosophical core” (Hoffmann, _Anschauungen_, 1907,
p. 93).
Footnote 246:
For texts of those parts of Isidore’s _De natura rerum_ (chs. 32–41),
Bede’s _De natura rerum_ (chs. 25–36), and Raban Maur’s _De universo_
(IX, 17–20, 25–28) which deal with meteorology, see Hellmann,
_Denkmäler_, 1904, pp. 1–19.
Footnote 247:
_Liber contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_
(Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, p. 36).
Footnote 248:
Poole, _loc. cit._
Footnote 249:
See J. C. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, Part I, _The Magic Art and the
Evolution of Kings_, London, 1911, vol. i, pp. 244–331.
Footnote 250:
Poole, _op. cit._, p. 37.
Footnote 251:
For a discussion of various theories of the Church Fathers regarding
the waters above the firmament, with references to the sources, see
especially Hoffmann, _Anschauungen_, 1907, pp. 5–13.
Footnote 252:
Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, 1914, p. 489.
Footnote 253:
Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, pp. 63, 226; Werner, _Kosm.
Wilhelm von Conches_, 1873, p. 322.
Footnote 254:
On the subject of the waters, Augustine made a statement which
typifies the medieval attitude towards the authority of Scripture:
“Proinde cum de isto fonte quaerimus quomodo id quod dictum est,
_ascendebat de terra, et irrigabat omnem faciem terrae_, non
impossibile videatur; si ea quae diximus impossibilia cuiquam
videatur, quaerat ipse aliud, quo tamen verax ista Scriptura
monstretur, quae procul dubio verax est, etiamsi non monstretur” (_De
Genesi ad litteram_, V, 9, in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._, vol.
xxviii, sect. 3, pt. 1, p. 152). See also Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii,
pp. 491–494.
Footnote 255:
_Hexaemeron_, II, 3, 9–11, in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._, vol.
xxxii, sect. 1, pt. 1, pp. 47–50.
Footnote 256:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 489.
Footnote 257:
This idea was expressed by Basil, Augustine, and by the author of the
_De ordine creatorum liber_, a work sometimes attributed to Isidore
(Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. lxxxiii, cols. 920–921; Robbins, _Hexaemeral
Lit._, 1912, p. 69; Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1915, p. 15).
Footnote 258:
This theory “avait été longuement exposée et discutée par Augustin
l’Hibernais” (Duhem, _loc. cit._). See also Duhem, _op. cit._, vol.
iii, 1915, pp. 12–13, and below, p. 432, note 27.
Footnote 259:
_Hexaemeron_, I, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xci, col. 20.
Footnote 260:
“Abyssus profunditas aquarum, impenetrabilis, sive speluncae aquarum
latentium, e quibus fontes et flumina procedunt; vel quae occulte
subtereunt, unde et Abyssus dictus. Nam omnes aquae, sive torrentes
per occultas venas ad matricem abyssum revertuntur” (_Etym._, XIII,
20). In the text is given the translation of Brehaut, _Isidore_, 1912,
p. 241.
Footnote 261:
Kretschmer, _op. cit._, pp. 91–105.
Footnote 262:
_De Genesi ad litteram_, V, 9–10, in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._,
vol. xxviii, sect. 3, pt. 1, pp. 152–154.
Footnote 263:
Kretschmer, _op. cit._, p. 95.
Footnote 264:
_ibid._, pp. 93–94.
Footnote 265:
Isidore, _De nat. rer._, 43.
Footnote 266:
Norlind, _Problem_, 1918, pp. 24–25.
Footnote 267:
_De mens. orb. terr._, Parthey’s edit., p. 76 (as cited by Kretschmer,
_op. cit._, p. 106).
Footnote 268:
_De nat. rer._, 40.
Footnote 269:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, 1914, p. 461.
Footnote 270:
Augustine, _De civitate Dei_, V, 6, in: _Corpus script. eccles. lat._,
vol. xl, pt. 1, p. 218; Ambrose, _Hexaemeron_, IV, 7, 29–30, _ibid._,
vol. xxxii, sect. 1, pt. 1, pp. 134–136.
Footnote 271:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 13–14. See Migne, _Pat. lat._,
vol. xxxv, col. 2159.
Footnote 272:
Bede, _De nat. rer._, 39; _De temporum ratione_, 28–29.
Footnote 273:
_Hist. gentis Langobard._, I, 6; (Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp.
113–115). It has been thought that Paul the Deacon’s theory of the
whirlpools was derived from Norse traditions, but Nansen suggests that
it is just as probable that in this case “southern, originally
classical ideas ... have been localized in the Norse legends.” Virgil
mentions a gulf of the sea “which sucks the water into itself and
sends it up again.” Paul the Deacon speaks of whirlpools “not only in
the north, and off the Hebrides, but also between Britain and Spain,
and in the Strait of Messina.” With Adam of Bremen the whirlpool
becomes “exclusively northern, and later still we shall get it even at
the North Pole itself” (Nansen, _Northern Mists_, 1911, vol. i, p.
159).
Footnote 274:
See above, pp. 192 and 194.
Footnote 275:
Kretschmer, _op. cit._, pp. 133–135.
Footnote 276:
Isidore, _Etym._, XIX, 6; _De nat. rer._, 47 (as cited by Stegmann,
_Anschauungen_, 1913, p. 29).
Footnote 277:
Stegmann, _op. cit._, pp. 15–20.
Footnote 278:
See above, pp. 28 and 29.
Footnote 279:
For data on the Biblical origins of ideas of Hell, for early medieval
conceptions of Hell, and for references on these subjects, see
Stegmann, _op. cit._, pp. 20–27.
Footnote 280:
See Geikie, _Love of Nature Among the Romans_, 1912.
Footnote 281:
Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, pp. 9–10.
Footnote 282:
From Claudian’s _Epithalamium_, verses 1 ff., and _De nuptiis Honorii
Augusti_, verse 49 (as cited by Ganzenmüller, _op. cit._, p. 10).
Footnote 283:
Ganzenmüller, _op. cit._, p. 10.
Footnote 284:
_ibid._, pp. 17–19.
Footnote 285:
Dr. R. P. Blake of Harvard, specialist in Russian and Caucasian
history, has been kind enough to furnish the writer with the following
references on the love of nature in the medieval Orient: Krachkovskii,
_The Divan of Abu’l-Wāwā, a Hamdanid Poet of the Eleventh Century_,
text, translation, introduction, and commentary, Academy of Sciences,
Petrograd, 1916 (in Russian); N. I. Marr, _Georgii Merchul, Zhitie sv.
Grigorii Khandzt‘iiskago_ (_George Merchul, Life of St. Gregory of
Khandzt‘a_), text, translation, and introduction, with a diary of a
journey to Klarjet’ia and Shavshet’ia, Teksti i Raziskaniya po
Armyano-Gruzinskoi filologii (Texts and Studies in Armenian and
Georgian Philology), vol. vii, Petrograd, 1911; _Life of St.
Serapion_, published by M. Janashvili K’artuli Mcerloba, in vol. ii of
his _Georgian Literature_, Tiflis, 1909 (in Georgian). Latin
translations of the two latter texts, which testify to the love of
wild nature, have been published by the Bollandist, Paul Peeters, in:
Analecta Bollandiana, vol. xxxvi-xxxvii, for 1917–1919, Brussels and
Paris, 1922, pp. 159–309.
Footnote 286:
Ganzenmüller, _op. cit._, pp. 116–118.
Footnote 287:
_ibid._, pp. 161–162.
Footnote 288:
_Liber de astrolabio_, 19, in: _Gerberti opera_, Bubnov’s edit., 1899,
p. 142.
Footnote 289:
See especially Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. vi, 1898; Beazley, _Dawn_,
vol. i, 1897, pp. 387–391; Vidier, _Mappemonde de Théodulfe_, 1911,
pp. 289–292.
Footnote 290:
See above, pp. 35–36.
Footnote 291:
Among these are notably the crude Albi map dating from the eighth
century (Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 57–59), the
relatively accurate “Anglo-Saxon,” or “Cotton,” map dating probably
from the mid-tenth but perhaps from as late as the twelfth century
(Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 31; Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901,
p. 560), and a map drawn at Ripoll in Catalonia during the eleventh
century (Vidier, _op. cit._, pp. 293–305).
Footnote 292:
Simar, _Afrique centrale_, 1912, pp. 159–169, classifies these early
maps as follows:
A. Maps derived from Roman representations of the _orbis terrarum_, or
circle of known lands, and adapted to serve the immediate purpose of
the cosmographer or historian whose works they were drawn to
illustrate. To this group belong the Sallust maps, the T-O maps, and
many maps in which the influence of Orosius appears to be predominant.
Simar believes that he can detect evidences of Byzantine influence
upon the latter, among which he includes the Albi and Cotton maps (see
the preceding note), and, from the time of the Crusades, the maps of
Guido (see above, p. 124), Henry of Mayence (see above, p. 124), and
the “Jerome” maps (see above, pp. 125–126). To this group also belong
the Psalter map, the Hereford and Ebstorf wall charts, and the maps in
the Chronicle of Ralph Hygden (see above, p. 125)—all dating from the
late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
B. Maps which aim to show the earth in its cosmographical relations,
“the lamentable débris of Greek cosmography.” To this group belong the
Macrobian maps of the zones.
AB. Maps in which the purpose is a combination of the two elements
shown in the maps of classes A and B above. These show the _orbis
terrarum_ but add a fourth, uninhabitable part of the world beyond the
equator. To this class belong the Beatus maps (see above, pp.
122–124), the _mappaemundi_ in Lambert’s _Liber floridus_ (see above,
p. 124), (and, we may add, the Ripoll map described by Vidier, _op.
cit._).
Footnote 293:
Beazley, _op. cit._, vol. ii, 1901, p. 625; Miller, _op. cit._, vol.
iii, 1895, pp. 122–126.
Footnote 294:
Beazley, _ibid._, pp. 627–631; Miller, _ibid._, pp. 116–122. T-O maps
and maps of similar simple diagrammatic character accompany
manuscripts of Isidore’s _Etymologiae_ and show the division of the
countries of the earth among the children of Noah.
Footnote 295:
Beazley, _ibid._, pp. 631–632; Miller, _ibid._, pp. 110–115.
Footnote 296:
Miller, _op. cit._, vol. i, 1895.
Footnote 297:
See Yule, _Cathay_, vol. i, 1915, preliminary essay; Beazley, _op.
cit._, vol. i, 1897, pp. 176–194.
Footnote 298:
See Tiander, _Poyezdki_, 1906.
Footnote 299:
See Coli, _Il paradiso terrestre dantesco_, 1897.
Footnote 300:
This is taken from the King James version, which here follows the
version of the Septuagint. Jerome translated the Hebrew as follows:
“And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the
beginning.” Raban Maur pointed out the divergence between these two
translations; likewise Peter Lombard in the twelfth century. See Coli,
_op. cit._, p. 68, and also below, p. 462, note 35.
Footnote 301:
“Post eosdem montes [i. e. Rhipaean Mountains] trans aquilonem
Hyperborei, apud quos mundi axis continua motione torquetur, gens
moribus prolixitate vitae, deorum cultu, aeris clementia, semenstri
die, fine etiam habitationis humanae praedicanda” (_De nupt. Phil. et
Merc._, VI, 664). “... hinc Attagenus sinus Hyperboreis beatitate
consimilis, quo incolae gratulantur qui circumactu vallium auras
nesciunt pestilentes” (_ibid._, VI, 693).
Footnote 302:
See above, p. 63.
Footnote 303:
Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, pp. 9–10, 87–88.
Footnote 304:
Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889, pp. 78–79.
Footnote 305:
From the King James version (see above, note 122).
Footnote 306:
On the river Pison see the description in Epiphanius, _Liber de XII
gemmis rationalis summi sacerdotis Hebraeorum_, in: _Corpus script.
eccles. lat._, vol. xxxv, pt. 2, pp. 747–748.
As this book is in press there has come to the writer’s attention
Lutz’s interesting article, _Geographical Studies Among Babylonians
and Egyptians_, 1924, which shows that some of the cosmographical
ideas prevalent in the Christian Middle Ages may be traced back to
Babylonian origins. The origins of the belief in the four rivers of
Paradise, for instance, is unquestionably to be sought for in
Babylonian astrology and geography, two sciences closely allied. One
group among the Babylonians held that the earth’s surface forms a
quadrilateral, itself an exact counterpart of a portion of the
firmament, Pegasus α-δ. “Andromeda ... was identified with the
Euphrates which flow’s south, while the Tigris was considered to flow
parallel to the line between Pegasus α and δ. Two additional
watercourses, which later tradition designated as Pison and Gihon,
completed the watercourses around the trapezium. This view, however,
must have gone back to a time when conditions as they existed in
Babylonia were, _mutatis mutandis_, transferred to the sky; namely, it
was ultimately based on the cultivated field surrounded by irrigation
ditches” (_ibid._, pp. 168–169).
Footnote 307:
Kretschmer, _op. cit._, pp. 80–91.
Footnote 308:
On the legend of Gog and Magog see: Peschel, _Abhandlungen_, vol. i,
1877, pp. 28–35; Lenormant, _Magog_, 1882; Marinelli, _Gog e Magog_,
1882–1883 (also in _Scritti minori_, vol. i, [1908?], pp. 385–438);
and Graf, _Roma_, vol. ii, 1883, Appendix, pp. 507–563.
Footnote 309:
Lenormant, _Magog_, 1882, p. 10, note 2.
Footnote 310:
Sura xxi, 95, 96; sura xviii. The latter sura describes the deeds of
Alexander Dulkarnein, the two-horned—not Alexander the Great of
Macedon but, according to Arabic tradition, an older Yemenic conqueror
of the world (Peschel, _Abhandlungen_, vol. i, 1877, p. 30).
Footnote 311:
Procopius, _De bello Persico_, I, 10 (complete works of Procopius
edited by J. Haury, Leipzig, 1905).
Footnote 312:
Sackur, _Sibyll. Texte_, 1898, p. 72.
Footnote 313:
See above, p. 381, note 26. The connection of Alexander with Gog and
Magog is found in the _Historia de praeliis_.
Footnote 314:
See above, p. 381, note 26.
Footnote 315:
See above, p. 379, note 8.
Footnote 316:
_Anglo-Saxon Chron._, sub anno 883, in: “Rolls series” edit., no. 23,
edited by Benjamin Thorpe, London, 1861, vol. i, pp. 150–153.
Footnote 317:
Tiander, _Poyezdki_, 1906.
Footnote 318:
See especially the works of E. Bauvois, F. Michel, P. Gaffarel, and T.
Stephens, to which references are given in: Geographisches Jahrbuch,
vol. xviii, Gotha, 1895, pp. 5–10. For a critical study, see Zimmer,
_Früheste Berührungen_, 1891.
Footnote 319:
_De mens. orb. terr._, VII, 2, 6.
Footnote 320:
As is well known, the Icelandic discovery of America has been a
subject of constant discussion throughout the last century.
Innumerable and often incredible theories have been propounded in an
attempt to identify the places mentioned in the Sagas, and a large
library of books, articles, and pamphlets has come into being relating
to this subject. The sole aim in the present work is to give as brief
as possible a statement of what countries the Icelanders of the
twelfth and early thirteenth centuries believed to lie to the
southwest of Greenland.
The sources for the Icelandic discovery of America are collected in:
Rafn, _Antiq. americanae_, 1837, and Supplement, 1841. Icelandic texts
are there given with Danish and Latin translations. For English
translations of the Wineland Voyages, see Reeves, _Wineland_, 1890.
The best bibliography is Hermannsson, _Northmen_, 1909. For references
to recent studies on the subject see Geographisches Jahrbuch, vol.
xxxix (1919–1923), Gotha, 1924, p. 277.
Footnote 321:
Reeves, _op. cit._, p. 11. In some Icelandic texts, _doegr_ indicates
twelve hours’ sailing, though it probably did not always have this
meaning. See _ibid._, pp. 173–174.
Footnote 322:
The Wineland voyages are described in detail in the _Saga of Eric the
Red_ and in the _Flateyjarbók_, dating from the end of the thirteenth
and early fourteenth centuries (Reeves, _op. cit._, _passim_).
NOTES
CHAPTER III
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE MOSLEMS
Footnote 323:
Duhem, _Système_, vol. ii, 1914, pp. 146–157.
Footnote 324:
See above, pp. 98–102.
Footnote 325:
On what follows concerning Moslem knowledge of Ptolemy’s _Almagest_
see the introduction to Karl Manitius’ German translation of the
_Almagest_, 1912. See also Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 103–104.
Footnote 326:
See above, p. 96.
Footnote 327:
Al-Battānī’s _Astronomy_, Nallino’s edit., pt. i, 1903, pp. 166–167;
pt. ii, 1907, pp. 210–211; Al-Khwārizmī’s _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_,
Nallino’s edit., 1894, p. 6. Ptolemy’s _Geography_ was translated into
Arabic at least three times: (1) by Ibn Khurdādhbeh not earlier than
about 846–847 A. D., but for private use alone; (2) by Yaʿqūb ibn
Isḥāq al-Kindī, before 874 A. D.; and (3) by Thābit ibn Qurra (826–901
A. D.).
Footnote 328:
Al-Khwārizmī’s _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_ and its origins are of interest to
us in view of the fact that certain of the figures there given for
latitude and longitude found their way into the _Toledo Tables_, which
were translated into Latin and enjoyed wide use in the West during the
twelfth century and later (see above, pp. 243–244). Various figures
given in the _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_ were quoted by later Mohammedan
writers, among them the fourteenth-century geographer Abū-l-Fidā.
These formed the basis of the discussion of Al-Khwārizmī’s work in
Lelewel’s _Géographie du moyen âge_, vol. i, 1852, pp. 21–29;
epilogue, 1857, pp. 47–60. A manuscript of the _Ṣūrat al-arḍ_, the
only one in existence, was discovered by Wilhelm Spitta in Cairo in
1878 and described by him in an article entitled _Die Geographie des
Ptolemäus bei den Arabern_, 1882. Spitta’s article was completely
superseded by Nallino’s more critical study (_Al-Ḫuwârizmî e il suo
rifacimento_, 1894). Nallino shows that Lelewel’s theory, that the
_Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_ is a translation of a work called _Oresmos_ by a
seventh-century Greek geographer, will not hold water. He suggested
that the work was not a direct translation from Ptolemy but was
composed to elucidate and explain a map which itself was compiled
directly from a Greek, not Greco-Syrian, version of the _Geography_.
The fact that Al-Khwārizmī’s figures in many cases diverge slightly
from those of Ptolemy may be explained by the supposition that they
were reconstructed from data given on a map, rather than copied from
the text of Ptolemy’s _Geography_. Later and more thorough
investigations into the _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_ by Hans von Mžik confirm
Nallino’s opinion that the treatise was based upon a map but show that
the map itself must have been compiled from a Syrian text.
Al-Khwārizmī’s work embodies the results of Moslem geographical
calculations which had tended to correct Ptolemy’s overestimate of the
length of the Mediterranean Sea (von Mzik, _Ptolemaeus_, 1915, pp.
152–176; idem, _Afrika_, 1916).
Footnote 329:
The _Astronomy_ contains: (1) in the preamble, a chapter describing
the world, first the earth as a whole and then the various seas; (2)
among the astronomical tables, a table of the latitudes and longitudes
of places in the _oikoumene_. The geographical chapter was edited and
translated into French by Reinaud in the introduction to his _Géogr.
d’Aboulféda_, vol. i, 1848 (pp. cclxxxiii-ccxc), and more recently
into Latin by Nallino in his great edition of Al-Battānī’s
_Astronomy_. Nallino contends that it was drawn from a much altered
version of a Greco-Syrian Ptolemy and that Lelewel and Reinaud were
mistaken in thinking that its origin was non-Ptolemaic.
Al-Battānī says that he drew on a certain _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_ for his
astronomical tables. This was not the work of the same title by
Al-Khwārizmī (see the preceding note), though its author undoubtedly
derived some of his data from Al-Khwārizmī’s _Kitāb_ as well as from
the Greco-Syrian version of Ptolemy (Al-Battānī’s _Astronomy_,
Nallino’s edit., pt. ii, 1907, pp. 209–211).
Footnote 330:
See above, pp. 97 and 244, and below, note 11.
Footnote 331:
See Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 3–19.
Footnote 332:
The standard work on Az-Zarqalī is Steinschneider, _Études sur
Zarkali_, 1881–1887, which deals almost exclusively with manuscripts,
texts, and translations.
Footnote 333:
Steinschneider, _op. cit._, in: Bollettino, vol. xx, 1887, p. 1.
Footnote 334:
The writer has been unable to find that any detailed study has been
made of the sources of the _Toledo Tables_ and of the _Canons_ of
Az-Zarqalī. Though these Spanish works in their geographical aspects
undoubtedly owe much to Al-Khwārizmī, the exact relationship between
them is an unsolved problem. As is explained in Chapter X, p. 244,
above, most of the Latin translations of the _Toledo Tables_ dating
from the twelfth century and later are accompanied by a list of
geographical coördinates obviously copied from a similar list in the
original Arabic and Hebrew texts of the _Tables_. So far as the writer
is aware no manuscripts of the original Arabic list are known.
Consequently, if this is true, we can obtain no precise information
regarding the connection between the earlier Arabic figures and those
known in the West in our period. A superficial comparison, however, of
the Latin list with the figures in Al-Khwārizmī’s _Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ_
suffices to show that there are many figures common to each and to
establish the general thesis that the figures of the _Toledo Tables_
are based on earlier Moslem figures, especially those of Al-Khwārizmī,
which, in turn, were derived ultimately, though with many alterations,
from Ptolemy’s _Geography_.
Footnote 335:
See above, pp. 97–98, and below, p. 400, note 45.
Footnote 336:
Amari, _Musulmani di Sicilia_, vol. ii, 1858, ch. 13.
Footnote 337:
This quotation is from the preface of Edrisi’s _Geography_, Jaubert’s
translation (under Idrīsī in the Bibliography), p. xx.
Footnote 338:
Dozy and De Goeje, _Description_, 1866 (under Idrīsī in the
Bibliography), pp. ii, iv.
Footnote 339:
1154 is the date given in Edrisi’s preface. See, however, note by G.
Pardi in: Rivista geografica italiana, vol. xxiv, Florence, 1917, pp.
380–382.
Footnote 340:
De La Roncière, _Marine française_, vol. i, 1909, p. 136.
Footnote 341:
_ibid._, pp. 136–137.
Footnote 342:
See above, p. 95.
Footnote 343:
It is uncertain whether the original tables of Al-Khwārizmī were known
as the _Little Sindhind_ or whether this title was given to another
related work by the same author. See Suter, _Astron. Tafeln_, 1914, p.
viii (under Khwārizmī, Al-, in the Bibliography), and also Nallino,
_Al-Ḫuwârizmî e il suo rifacimento_, 1894, p. 10.
Footnote 344:
Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 45. This was published under the title
_Introductorium in astronomiam_ in Venice in 1506. See Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 174, note 6. This work was also
translated by John of Seville (Haskins, _loc. cit._).
Footnote 345:
Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. ii, 1914, p. 226.
Footnote 346:
See above, pp. 14–15.
Footnote 347:
Duhem, _ibid._, p. 216.
Footnote 348:
_ibid._, pp. 218–220.
Footnote 349:
See the German translation in Friedrich Dieterici’s _Die Philosophie
der Araber im ix. und x. Jahrhundert n. Chr._, vol. v, Leipzig, 1876.
The “Brothers of Piety and Sincerity” made some noteworthy
contributions to the science of geographical meteorology, but these
were not passed on to the Western world. They understood, among other
phenomena, the warming of the atmosphere by radiation from the earth’s
surface and its connection with the angle of incidence of the sun’s
rays; the influence of mountains upon precipitation; and the origin of
springs and rivers (Hellmann, _Denkmäler_, 1904, pp. (18), 23–41).
Footnote 350:
Dieterici, _op. cit._, p. 100.
Footnote 351:
Gregorius’ edit., fol. 467 (367) (cited by Duhem, _ibid._, p. 227).
Footnote 352:
_ibid._, p. 369.
Footnote 353:
_Introductorium_, III, 4–9 (cited by Duhem, _ibid._, pp. 377–386).
Footnote 354:
Calonymos’ edit. fol. 5 (cited by Duhem, _ibid._, p. 154).
Footnote 355:
Duhem, _ibid._, p. 388, cites this chapter as: Averroes Cordubensis,
_In Aristotelis Meteora expositio media_, II, 1. This work was
published in Venice in 1488.
Footnote 356:
Moses Maimonides, the great Jewish astrologer of the twelfth century,
on the other hand, ascribed the causes of the tides wholly to the moon
(Duhem, _ibid._, p. 388).
Footnote 357:
Ibn Yūnūs, Abū-l-Fidā, and other Moslem geographers tell how, in the
time of the Caliph Al-Maʾmūn, geographers were instructed to carry out
this measurement on the plain of Sinjār, north of the Euphrates, and
also in Syria near Tadmor (Palmyra) and that their results gave 57,
56¼, 56⅔, etc., Arabic miles for a degree. For translation of text of
Ibn Yūnūs see _Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibl. Natle._,
vol. vii, Paris, An XII [1803–1804], pp. 94, 96 footnote (2); for
Abū-l-Fidā see Reinaud, _Géogr. d’Aboulféda_, vol. ii, pt. i, 1848, p.
17. See also Miller, _Erdmessung_, 1919, pp. 30–36, and Schoy,
_Erdmessungen_, 1917, for other figures given by the Moslems and for a
recent critical discussion of their measurement. Al-Bīrūnī describes a
method of determining an arc of meridian by measuring the curvature of
the earth from a mountain of known height. See Schoy, _Originalstudien
aus “Al-Qânûn al-Masʿûdî,”_ 1923, pp. 69–74. See also Carra de Vaux,
_Penseurs de l’Islam_, vol ii, 1921, p. 30.
Footnote 358:
Miller, Erdmessung, 1919, p. 33.
Footnote 359:
See above, pp. 243–246. On Moslem methods of determining latitude see
Schoy, _Polhöhenbestimmung_, 1911; the same, _Über eine arabische
Methode, die geographische Breite aus der Höhe der Sonne im I.
Vertikal (“Höhe ohne Azimut”) zu bestimmen_, in: Annalen der
Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie, vol. xlix, Hamburg, 1921, pp.
124–133; on longitudes, see the same, _Längenbestimmung_, 1915;
_Originalstudien aus “Al-Qânûn al-Masʿûdî,”_ 1923; _Geography of the
Moslems_, 1924, pp. 265–267.
Footnote 360:
See above, p. 244.
Footnote 361:
See J. K. Wright, _Knowledge of Latitudes and Longitudes_, 1923, pp.
89–91, and especially note (1) on p. 91.
Footnote 362:
On Kang-Diz see Schoy, _Längenbestimmung_, 1915, pp. 47–48.
Footnote 363:
Reinaud, _Géogr. d’Aboulféda_, vol. i, 1848, pp. ccxxxiii-ccxlvi.
Schoy, _Längenbestimmung_, 1915, pp. 45–57, discusses the question of
the origins of the use of a central meridian for the measurement of
longitude.
Footnote 364:
See Schoy, _Geography of the Moslems_, 1924, for a general review of
Arabic geography in the Middle Ages.
Footnote 365:
Josef Marquart, _Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge_,
Leipzig, 1903, gives much important material, with excerpts from texts
and translations, regarding Moslem descriptions of Slavic, Magyar, and
Russian peoples in the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. There is
included (_ibid._, pp. 206–270) an Arabic description of
Constantinople, of the road thence to Rome, and of Rome itself.
Footnote 366:
Marquart, _op. cit._, pp. 102, 145.
Footnote 367:
Though the great, formal Arabic geographical works were not known in
the West in the Middle Ages, legendary lore of the Moslems influenced
European legends. The story of St. Brandan, for instance, undeniably
owes much to Moslem romance. See De Goeje, _St. Brandan_, 1890.
NOTES
CHAPTER IV
THE SOURCES FOR THE PERIOD 1100–1250 A. D.
_Note: See the Bibliography for references to editions of the original
sources mentioned in the text of this chapter._
Footnote 368:
De Wulf, _Medieval Philosophy_, 1909, p. 126.
Footnote 369:
See above, pp. 2 and 52–53.
Footnote 370:
Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, pp. 407–408.
Footnote 371:
De Wulf, _op. cit._, pp. 216–218.
Footnote 372:
Hauréau, _Hugues de Saint-Victor_, 1886, p. vi.
Footnote 373:
Hauréau (_op. cit._, pp. 78–93) believed that these were all the work
of Hugh.
Footnote 374:
Another mystic of the early twelfth century was Rupert of Deutz, whose
_De sancta trinitate et operibus eius_ was written, according to
Zöckler (_op. cit._, vol. i, p. 393), about 1117.
Footnote 375:
Some scholars, notably Singer, _Visions of Hildegard_, 1917, pp.
12–15, have cast doubt upon the genuineness of the _Subtilitates_ and
_Causae et curae_. See, however, Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii,
pp. 128–129. See also below, pp. 423–424, notes 91–93.
The _Causae et curae_ is the only one of the works which cannot be
dated with considerable accuracy (see Thorndike, _op. cit._, p. 127).
The present writer, who has not studied the writings of Hildegard in
any detail, hazards the following suggestion for what it is worth. Two
passages in the _Causae et curae_ can only be explained on the
supposition that its author believed in a flat earth (see below, p.
425, note 101). Passages in the _Scivias_ (written between 1141 and
1150) and in the _Liber divinorum operum_ (written after 1163) speak
explicitly of the earth as a globe (see below, p. 423, note 92). May
it not be possible that the _Causae et curae_ is an early work and
that in the course of her subsequent life Hildegard gained a wider
knowledge of current views of cosmology, which found their expression
in the records of her visions?
Footnote 376:
Thorndike, _op. cit._, p. 131.
Footnote 377:
See Masson, _Biblical Literature_, 1865.
Footnote 378:
Clerval, _Écoles de Chartres_, 1895.
Footnote 379:
The archives at Chartres show that a certain Bernard was _magister
scholae_ in 1119 and that a Bernard, chancellor in 1124, had been
replaced by Gilbert de la Porrée in 1126 (C. V. Langlois, _Maître
Bernard_, 1893, p. 242).
Footnote 380:
“Perfectissimus inter Platonicos seculi nostri” (John of Salisbury,
_Metalogicus_, iv, 35, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcix, col. 938).
See also _Metalogicus_, I, 24, in: Migne, _op. cit._, cols. 853–856.
Footnote 381:
See above, p. 93.
Footnote 382:
Hauréau, _Thierry de Chartres_, 1890, p. 50.
Footnote 383:
Clerval, _Écoles de Chartres_, 1895, p. 172.
Footnote 384:
Hauréau, _op. cit._, pp. 52–70.
Footnote 385:
Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 491–498; _Studies_, 1924, pp. 20–42.
Footnote 386:
Duhem at the time of the publication of vol. iii of _Le système du
monde_, 1915, knew the text of the _Quaestiones naturales_ only at
second hand. (On the uncertainty of the date of the _Quaestiones
naturales_ see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 26–27.) Adelard was also
the author of _De eodem et diverso_, written probably in his youth
(before 1109).
Footnote 387:
The _De eodem et diverso_ indicates that Adelard had already visited
Salerno and Sicily at the time that it was written. In the
_Quaestiones naturales_ he mentions Tarsus and Antioch as places where
he had been (Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 492–493; _Studies_, 1924,
p. 26).
Footnote 388:
See above, pp. 95–96.
Footnote 389:
See above, p. 97.
Footnote 390:
Poole, _The Masters_, 1920, p. 330.
Footnote 391:
This work consists of two parts, _Megacosmus_ and _Microcosmus_. For
an analysis of it see _Histoire littéraire de la France_, vol. xii,
Paris, 1763, pp. 261–273, especially p. 267.
Footnote 392:
The principal arguments against the identification of the two Bernards
have been set forth by Hauréau (_Mémoire_, 1883, pp. 99–104), Clerval
(_Écoles de Chartres_, 1895, pp. 158–163), and Sandys (_Hist. of
Class. Schol._, vol. i, 1921, p. 534, note 2). Hauréau and Clerval
were followed by De Wulf, Duhem, and others. C. V. Langlois (_Maître
Bernard_, 1893) championed the identification of the two. The most
recent discussion of the problem, by R. L. Poole (_The Masters_,
1920), is convincing in so far as it demonstrates that the evidence
now available tends to show that the two Bernards were not the same.
Footnote 393:
Poole, _op. cit._, pp. 333–335; Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p.
92.
Footnote 394:
Hauréau, _Singularités_, 1861, p. 249.
Footnote 395:
This work, written some time before 1145—for at about this date
William, in a treatise called _Dragmaticon philosophiae_, retracted
certain heretical doctrines which he had expressed in it—has been
falsely attributed to Bede, to William of Hirschau, and to Honorius of
Autun (see Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, pp. 338–352, and Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 90–93) and printed among the works of
each of these. The text attributed to William of Hirschau was printed
by Henricus Petrus at Basel in 1531 under the title _Philosophicarum
et astronomicarum institutionum libri tres_; that attributed to Bede,
under the title Περὶ διδαξέων _sive elementorum philosophiae libri
IV_, in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xc, cols. 1127–1182; and that
attributed to Honorius, under the title _De philosophia mundi_, in
Migne, _op. cit._, vol. clxxii, cols. 39–102.
On William of Conches as a scientist see especially Werner, _Kosm.
Wilhelm von Conches_, 1873.
Footnote 396:
See above, p. 143, and below, p. 419, note 38.
Footnote 397:
See the preface to Thomas Wright’s edition of the works of Neckam,
1863, pp. ix-xii, for a brief life of Alexander Neckam.
Footnote 398:
On these and other works of Neckam, see Esposito, _Unpublished Poems_,
1915, pp. 460–471.
Footnote 399:
On translators from the Greek, see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
141–241. Shortly after the middle of the twelfth century a certain
Sicilian, Henricus Aristippus, brought from Constantinople a copy of a
Greek text of Ptolemy’s _Almagest_ as a present from the Byzantine
Emperor for the Norman king, William I. Subsequently an anonymous
medical student of Salerno made a Latin version of this work.
Aristippus also distinguished himself at about the same time by
turning into Latin from the Greek the fourth book of Aristotle’s
_Meteorology_ (Haskins and Lockwood, _Sicilian Translators_, 1910, pp.
75–102; Haskins, _Further Notes_, 1912—under Haskins and Lockwood in
the Bibliography—pp. 155–166; Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 155–168;
on Aristippus’ translation of the fourth book of the _Meteorology_,
see also below, p. 401, note 60). A second translation of the
_Meteorology_ was made from Greek into Latin before 1260 (see
Grabmann, _Forschungen_, 1916, p. 182; Fobes, _Mediaeval Versions_,
1915, p. 297). Translations from the Greek of the _Physics_, _De
caelo_, and _De generatione et corruptione_ were also known by the
early thirteenth century (Grabmann, _op. cit._, p. 178; Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 149, 224, and 225, note 8).
Footnote 400:
On translators from the Arabic, see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
3–140.
Footnote 401:
See above, p. 82.
Footnote 402:
Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 493–494; idem, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
22–23. There are at least five manuscripts of Adelard’s translation.
Footnote 403:
See Suter, _Astron. Tafeln_, 1914 (under Khwārizmī, Al-, in the
Bibliography).
Footnote 404:
This is indicated in the following note appended to a Latin
translation of Ptolemy’s _Planisphere_ made by Hermann the Dalmatian
in 1143: “Quem locum a Ptolomeo minus diligenter perspectum cum
Albateni miratur et Alchoarismus, quorum hunc quidem ope nostra Latium
habet, illius vero comodissima translatione Roberti mei industria
Latine orationis thesaurum accumulat nos discutiendi veri in libro
nostro de circulis rationem damus” (_Ptolemaei opera omnia_, Heiberg’s
edit., vol. ii: _Opera astronomica minora_, 1907, p. clxxxvii). Some
have sought to ascribe this Latin translation of the _Planisphere_ to
Rudolph of Bruges, a disciple of Hermann. Reasons why it cannot be the
work of Rudolph are given by A. A. Björnbo in: Bibliotheca
mathematica, 3rd series, vol. iv, Stockholm, 1903, pp. 130–133. See
also Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 173. The note quoted above
shows that a certain Robert (undoubtedly Robert of Chester—or, of
Retines—whom we know to have been an associate of Hermann) had
translated Al-Battānī’s _Astronomy_. See also Suter, _Astron. Tafeln_,
1914 (under Khwārizmī, Al-, in the Bibliography), p. xiii.
Footnote 405:
It is probable that the author of the _Dialogus_ was also the writer
of certain astronomical works from about the same period. On Peter
Alphonsi see Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 60–61; the same,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 111–119.
Footnote 406:
See above, p. 78. On the name “Johannes Hispanensis” see Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 177–179. Duhem gives the date of the
translation as 1134. He was apparently unfamiliar with Bibliothèque
Nationale MSS., fonds St. Victor, no. 848, which establishes the date
as March 11, 1135, and with an article on the subject by Woepcke:
_Notice_, 1862, pp. 116–117. John of Seville’s translation is found in
many manuscripts and was printed at Nuremberg in 1537. John of Seville
also translated Abū Maʿshar’s _The Great Book of the Introduction_
(see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 45).
Footnote 407:
Gerard’s translation was entitled _Liber de aggregationibus scientiae
stellarum_ (Boncompagni, _Della vita_, 1851, fol. 442 (separate, pp.
58–59); Woepcke, _op. cit._, p. 118).
Footnote 408:
On the date of Plato of Tivoli, see C. H. Haskins, _The Translations
of Hugo Sanctelliensis_, in: Romanic Review, vol. ii, New York, 1911,
p. 2, note 5. On Al-Battānī, see above, p. 78.
Footnote 409:
Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 14704, fol. 110, col. a,
to fol. 135vo. For the establishment of the date of these tables see
Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 203–204, and Haskins, _Studies_,
1924, pp. 96–98. The latter supplies the author’s name from a
fifteenth-century manuscript in Oxford of which Duhem was ignorant.
Footnote 410:
See above, p. 79.
Footnote 411:
See above, p. 244.
Footnote 412:
Steinschneider, _Études sur Zarkali_, 1881–1887, discusses the various
versions of Az-Zarqalī’s _Canons_ and of the _Toledo Tables_. The
former were put into Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, and Latin; of the Latin
versions, the manuscripts are more numerous in England than elsewhere,
but there are no fewer than nine in the Bibliothèque Nationale in
Paris. The _Toledo Tables_ probably did not become well known in the
Latin West until the first half of the thirteenth century (see Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 287–290), although they were probably
known to Roger of Hereford (see Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 66; the
same, _Studies_, 1924, p. 95; and Duhem, _op. cit._, pp. 520–521).
Footnote 413:
Steinschneider (_op. cit._, in: Bollettino, vol. xx, 1887, pp. 3–6)
believed that there were two translations of the work of Az-Zarqalī
because the manuscripts fall into two groups that differ markedly from
each other. The manuscripts of one of these groups bear the name of
Gerard of Cremona. Unfortunately, we lack confirmation of the
attribution of this translation to Gerard in the list of seventy-four
works of the great Cremonese discovered by Boncompagni in the Vatican
(see Boncompagni, _Della vita_, 1851). Nevertheless it is highly
probable that this list is incomplete, and there is no really good
reason for supposing that Gerard was not the translator of the version
in question.
Footnote 414:
See above, p. 398, note 36.
Footnote 415:
Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 64; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 122.
Footnote 416:
On the _De essentiis_ see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 48–49, 56–66.
On pages 62–65 Haskins publishes for the first time the texts of two
interesting geographical passages.
Footnote 417:
Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 64–65; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 123.
Footnote 418:
Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 66; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 125;
British Museum MSS., Arundel, no. 377.
Footnote 419:
Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 67–68; idem, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
126–127. On Daniel of Morley, see also Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol.
ii, pp. 171–181.
Footnote 420:
Duhem (_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 219–223) shows, conclusively the
writer believes, both from external and internal evidence, that this
work was by the twelfth-century Gerard of Cremona and not by the
thirteenth-century Gerard of Sabbionetta, with whom the former was
often confused. Boncompagni in his important work on Gerard (cited
above, p. 399, note 39) made the mistake of attributing the _Theorica
planetarum_ to Gerard of Sabbionetta, in which error he was followed
by the writer of the article on Gerard of Cremona in the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th edit.
Footnote 421:
See Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 104–110.
Footnote 422:
Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 7272, fol. 60, col. a to
fol. 67, col. d; Duhem, _op. cit._, p. 234.
Footnote 423:
There is no modern critical edition of the _De sphaera_. Duhem (_op.
cit._, p. 239, note 4) cites seventeenth-century editions. The title
of the fifteenth-century edition which has been used by the writer is
given in the Bibliography.
Footnote 424:
On the introduction of the writings of Aristotle to Western knowledge
during the Middle Ages, see the modern works to which cross-references
are given in the Bibliography under Aristotle. In the present work the
attempt is merely made to indicate the dates at which those writings
of Aristotle which contained materials of geographic importance became
known in Western Europe.
Footnote 425:
Steinschneider, _Europ. Übersetz._, in: Sitzungsber., vol. cxlix,
1905, pp. 32, 42, 43. See also below, p. 402, note 61.
Footnote 426:
Duhem, _Du temps_, 1909, pp. 163–178; idem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915,
pp. 181–193.
Footnote 427:
Grabmann (_Forschungen_, 1916, pp. 16–17) argues that “this ‘reflet de
la _Physique_ d’Aristote’ which Duhem sees is in no way demonstrated
by actual citations of Aristotle” but that it results from a general
similarity of thought and ideas only. Grabmann believes that Alan of
Lille, who appears to have known Aristotle’s books on logic only,
could not possibly have been ignorant of the _Physics_ and _De caelo_
if these two works had been known in the West before his time. While
we may agree with Grabmann that it cannot be proved definitely that
the Chartres scholars made direct use of Aristotle’s _Physics_, his
arguments should not be interpreted to mean that the scholars of the
Chartres school were altogether uninfluenced by Peripatetic physical
doctrines. Schneider (_Abendländische Spekulation_, 1915), though he
holds that Duhem was mistaken in his interpretation of William of
Conches’ views regarding the Peripatetic physics (see below, p. 418,
note 28), supports the French savant in maintaining that there was in
existence “a specific Aristotelian trend in astronomic and cosmologic
thought” at this period and that Theodoric and Gilbert may not have
been uninfluenced by it. He maintains that the latter may well have
been familiar with Aristotelian theories introduced through new
Oriental sources and suggests as evidence of the probability of this
the connections established by Hermann the Dalmatian and Rudolph of
Bruges between the Chartres scholars and the group of translators at
Toledo. He even goes so far as to add (p. 40): “Nicht ausgeschlossen
ist, dass ihnen [Theodoric and Gilbert] als solche indirekte Quellen
für die Kenntnis der aristotelischen Naturphilosophie die kurz
gefassten und verhältnissmässig leicht verständlichen Paraphrasen
Avicennas zur _Physik_ und zur _De caelo et mundo_ des Aristoteles
gedient haben.” See below, p. 419, note 32.
Aristotelian influence seems also to have been apparent in the
_Quaestiones naturales_ of Adelard of Bath (see above, p. 154–155, and
below, p. 426, notes 110, 111). Adelard even cites “Aristoteles in
phisicis et alii in tractatibus suis,” though Grabmann and Haskins
claim that this reference is too indefinite to be used to identify any
particular works of the Stagirite or to indicate first-hand
acquaintance with them (Grabmann, _op. cit._, p. 16; Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 38–39).
Footnote 428:
See Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p. 87, for references on
Gerard.
Footnote 429:
A marginal note in a Nuremberg manuscript of the _Meteorology_
indicates that the first three books were translated by Gerard of
Cremona from the Arabic, the fourth by Henricus Aristippus (see above,
p. 398, note 32) from the Greek, and the last three chapters by Alfred
the Englishman (Alfred of Sareshel) from the Latin. See V. Rose, in:
Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie, vol. i, Berlin, 1866,
p. 385.
Another translation of the _Meteorology_ was done entirely from the
Greek and is dated 1260. See Fobes, _Mediaeval Versions_, 1915, pp.
297–314.
It is very doubtful whether the fourth book is really the work of the
Stagirite. Hammer-Jensen (_Das sogenannte IV. Buch_, 1915) attributes
it to Strato, a Greek Peripatetic philosopher of the third century
before Christ. The last three chapters (those translated from the
Arabic by Alfred of Sareshel) were referred to as _Liber de
congelatis_ by their translator and in printed editions (see
Bibliography under Alfred of Sareshel, II, below) were ascribed either
to Avicenna or to Geber (see Baeumker, _Alfred von Sareshel_, 1913, p.
26, note 2, and Hammer-Jensen, _op. cit._, p. 131). These three
chapters deal with: (1) the origins of stones, (2) the growth of
mountains through earthquakes and through the influence of water and
winds (see above, pp. 213–214), and (3) minerals.
Alfred of Sareshel was one of the most enthusiastic Aristotelians of
the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. His _De motu cordis_
“shows a wealth of Aristotelian citation such as we cannot find in any
other Latin author of its time.” Alfred was active in introducing a
knowledge of Aristotle’s natural science and metaphysics into England.
See Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 68–69; the same, _Studies_, 1924,
p. 129.
Footnote 430:
_De caelo et mundo_ was the title usually applied in the Middle Ages
to the treatise in four books known in the Greek as Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (_De
caelo_). It does not include the _De mundo_ referred to above, p. 365,
note 1. In the earlier part of the twelfth century Avicenna’s version
of the _De caelo et mundo_ was translated into Latin by Dominicus
Gondisalvi (Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, vol. i, 1911, p. 15, note
1). The fifth book had been translated by Gerard of Cremona. On the
work of Dominicus Gondisalvi and John of Seville (Johannes
Hispanensis), see Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 177–183;
Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 73–82. Versions of the _De
caelo_ from the Greek were also in existence before 1200 (Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, p. 149).
Footnote 431:
On the manuscript list of the translations of Gerard of Cremona, see
above, p. 400, note 45.
Footnote 432:
Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 250–275; idem, _Science_,
1922, pp. 672, 684–686; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 276.
Footnote 433:
See Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 268–270, and the same,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 292–294, for the Latin text of the questionnaire;
the same, _Science_, 1922, pp. 689–691, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 266–267,
for translation.
Footnote 434:
Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, p. 270; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p.
294.
Footnote 435:
In the same, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 272–275, and _Studies_,
1924, pp. 296–297, will be found the Latin text of the part dealing
with hot springs and volcanoes.
Footnote 436:
Stange, _Arnoldus Saxo_, 1885, pp. 26–31.
Footnote 437:
Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, vol. i, 1911, p. 17, note 1; Grabmann,
_Forschungen_, 1916, p. 18.
Footnote 438:
On Averroës, on his influence upon European thought, and on his
various medieval adherents and opponents, see Renan, _Averroès_, 1866.
As a general rule the great Dominican scholars of the thirteenth
century (as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas) were determined
opponents of the Averroïstic theology and philosophy. The Franciscans,
on the other hand, were more ready to adopt these heretical teachings.
Footnote 439:
Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 251.
Footnote 440:
See below, p. 408, note 97.
Footnote 441:
See especially C. V. Langlois, _La connaissance_, 1911, introduction.
Footnote 442:
In the earliest printed editions the _De imagine mundi_ is attributed
to “Honorius Inclusus.” In an edition of 1497 we are told that the
work is sometimes ascribed to St. Anselm and sometimes to Honorius
Inclusus. For the first time in 1544 it was attributed to the
well-known Honorius of Autun and included among his works. This was
also done subsequently in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxii, cols.
115–188. The attribution to Honorius of Autun was based on a note in
the last chapter of that author’s _De luminaribus ecclesiae_ which
gives a list of his writings: among them _Imago mundi de dispositione
mundi_. It can be shown, however, that this chapter was added to the
_De luminaribus ecclesiae_ by a later compiler, who may well have
confused Honorius of Autun with Honorius Inclusus. On an extremely
shaky foundation the German scholar, J. A. Endres, in his _Honorius
Augustodunensis: Beitrag zur Geschichte des geistigen Lebens im 12.
Jahrhundert_, Kempten and Munich, 1906, has erected a theory that the
author was a German, who lived at Ratisbon. For the whole question,
see the clear and just discussion by Duhem (_Système_, vol. iii, 1915,
pp. 24–31), who tends to favor the attribution of the work to the
virtually unknown Honorius Inclusus and who says of the elaborate
German argument: “Un loyal et modeste aveu d’ignorance ne vaudrait-il
pas mieux que de tels raisonnements?” (_ibid._, p. 31).
Footnote 443:
“Hic nihil autem in eo pono, nisi majorum commendat traditio” (Migne,
_Pat. lat._, vol. clxxii, cols. 119–120).
Footnote 444:
For a full discussion of the _De imagine mundi_, its sources, and its
influence upon future literature, see Doberentz, _Erd- und
Völkerkunde_, 1881–1882.
Footnote 445:
_ibid._, in: Zeitschrift, vol. xiii, 1881, p. 54.
Footnote 446:
_ibid._, p. 41.
Footnote 447:
In the prologue of the _Liber floridus_ the author refers to himself
as “Lambert, son of Onulph, canon of St. Omer.” See Migne, _Pat.
lat._, vol. clxiii, col. 1003.
Footnote 448:
See Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 43–53.
Footnote 449:
Six manuscripts of Guido’s work are known (Miller, _ibid._, p. 54).
Footnote 450:
Doberentz, _op. cit._, in: Zeitschrift, vol. xii, 1880, pp. 392–393.
Footnote 451:
Hellmann, _Denkmäler_, 1904, p. (23). Hellmann warns against confusion
of the German _Lucidarius_ and its translations, on the one hand, with
the French popular encyclopedia _Lucidaire_ and the English
_Lucydary_, on the other. The two latter are not translations from the
German but are independent works.
Footnote 452:
Le Noble, _Notice_, 1839, p. 243. The only known manuscript of the
_Hortus deliciarum_, which contained a large number of magnificent
miniatures, was destroyed during the bombardment of Strasburg in 1870.
See, however, the edition of Straub and Keller, 1879–1899.
Footnote 453:
The _Otia imperialia_ is divided into three parts, or “decisiones.”
The first deals with theological and cosmological questions and is in
the main derived from Peter Comestor. The second treats of geography,
and the third of “mirabilia uniuscuiusque provinciae, non omnia, sed
ex omnibus aliqua.”
Footnote 454:
See Doberentz, _ibid._, vol. xii, pp. 412–419. Miller implies that the
general description of the geography of the world which Gervase of
Tilbury gives at the beginning of Decis. II was taken from a map drawn
by Gervase himself (_Itin. rom._, 1916, p. xxxvii).
Footnote 455:
Doberentz, _ibid._, vol. xii, pp. 426–428.
Footnote 456:
C. V. Langlois, _La connaissance_, 1911, pp. 49–113. On the sources of
the _Image du monde_, see the works of Fant, Fritsche, and Le Clerc,
referred to in the Bibliography under these names. The poem in the
first redaction was divided into three main parts: first, the part
dealing with cosmogony, in fourteen chapters; second, that dealing
with geography, in eighteen chapters; third, that dealing with
astronomy, in twenty-two chapters. The second part, on geography,
follows the _De imagine mundi_ very closely, with additions from
Jacques de Vitry. Fritsche, _Untersuchung_, 1880, gives an analysis of
the work chapter by chapter. The “mediocrity” of Fritsche’s book,
which Langlois asserts, is illustrated by its author’s inability to
identify the city of “Aaron”—obviously the world center, Arin
(Fritsche, _op. cit._, p. 23).
Footnote 457:
According to Prior (_L’Image du monde_, 1913) the first verse
redaction dates from 1246. To this 4000 verses were later added,
including a life of St. Brandan, an account of Seth’s visit to
Paradise, and details of the author’s journey to Sicily and Syria and
of his ascent of Mount Etna. The original poem with these additional
parts constituted the second redaction, dating from 1248. A prose
redaction was apparently composed on the basis of the first verse
redaction but before the second verse redaction was made. See the
discussion of the problem of dates by Prior, _op. cit._ (under “Image
du Monde” in the Bibliography), pp. 7–9.
Footnote 458:
Three manuscripts of the poem contain the assertion that its author
was one Gossouin of Metz; only one manuscript of the poem complete
with all the additions, alterations, etc., of the second verse
redaction mentions Walter of Metz as the author. C. V. Langlois (_op.
cit._, pp. 63–65) believed that both verse redactions must have been
the work of Gossouin; Prior (_op. cit._, pp. 12–15) that the first
verse redaction and the prose form were the work of Gossouin and that
the second verse redaction may well have been the work of Walter.
Uncertainty still prevails regarding the whole matter.
Footnote 459: