The _King’s Mirror_ treats, among many other subjects, of the

following matters of geographical interest: the moon, the ebb and

flood, streams, climates, differences in the length of days and of

summer and winter in northern Norway, marvels of India, marvels of

Norway, snowshoes, Iceland, Greenland, whales, earthquakes and ice

fields in Iceland, flora and fauna of Greenland, volcanic phenomena in

Iceland and Sicily, subterranean fire in Iceland, the small extent of

habitable land in Greenland, climatic phenomena, the northern lights

and noises accompanying them, a cooler zone to the south of the hot

equatorial zone where it is summer during our winter. This synopsis is

based on portions of the _King’s Mirror_ as given in translation in

Nansen’s _In Northern Mists_, 1911.

Another Icelandic geographical description of the world, which

probably dates from our period, besides drawing on well-known earlier

authorities, also gives some idea of the Icelandic conception of

geography and furnishes details of the itinerary of a certain Abbot

Nicholas to Rome and the Holy Land. See above, p. 115, and also,

Nansen, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 237 and reference in note 1 regarding

the identity of the author of this work, probably Abbot Nikulás

Bergsson of Thverá (died 1159), though believed by Storm to be an

Abbot Nikulás of Thingeyre. See also K. Kålund, _En islandsk vejviser

for pilgrimme fra 12. århundrede_, in: Aarböger for Nordisk

Oldkyndighed og Historie, series 3, vol. iii, Copenhagen, 1913, pp.

51–105.

Footnote 460:

In addition to the general works discussed above, mention must be made

of a geographical treatise of minor importance dating from our period.

Book III of the _Tractatus excerptionum_, printed among the works of

Hugh of St. Victor in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxvii, cols. 209–216,

is entitled _De situ terrarum_. This contains chapters on the three

parts of the earth, on Asia, Africa, and Europe, on mountains, rivers,

islands, and cities. Its attribution to Hugh of St. Victor is

extremely doubtful. See Santarem, _Essai_, vol. i, 1849, p. 66, note

2.

Footnote 461:

The monumental _Speculum mundi_ of the Dominican, Vincent of Beauvais,

which probably cannot have been written much before 1250, is divided

into three parts: _Speculum naturale_, _Speculum doctrinale_, and

_Speculum historiale_. There is no complete modern edition. Copies of

incunabula and of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century editions are not

rare. The work is a gigantic compilation drawn from a great multitude

of sources, all of which were carefully indicated by the diligent

compiler, together with additions by the compiler himself. Most novel

from the geographical point of view are the data on Asia taken from

Simon of St. Quentin and from John of Pian de Carpine, which are to be

found in _Speculum historiale_ (see above, pp. 269–270). _Speculum

naturale_ discusses the various features of the world in the order of

their creation. It is in the nature of a vast commentary on the first

chapter of Genesis. The following books are of especial geographical

significance: II, consisting of metaphysical and theological material

on the Creation; IV, dealing with the firmament, and the heavens; V,

with meteorology; VI, with the waters; VII, with the lands; XXXIII,

with regions habitable by man. The last is a typical cosmography, made

up largely of fragments from Isidore, in which chapters are devoted to

a discussion of the tripartite division of the earth, Asia and

Paradise, India and its marvels, Asia Minor, Europe, Greece, other

parts of Europe, Africa, the islands of the ocean which encircles the

earth, the islands of the Mediterranean Sea, the Cyclades, etc.

Footnote 462:

Most of Albertus Magnus’ (1193–1280) many and voluminous works, the

greatest repertory of Aristotelian science of the Christian Middle

Ages, constitute an immense paraphrase of and commentary on all the

writings of Aristotle that were available in the mid-thirteenth

century. Albert used many of the titles that were applied in the

period to Aristotle’s works and the customary division into books and

chapters. Of particular interest from the geographical point of view

are: _De caelo et mundo_ (Jammy edit., 1651, vol. ii); _Libri

meteorum_ (_ibid._, vol. ii); _De natura locorum_ (_ibid._, vol. v),

and _De proprietatibus elementorum_ (_ibid._, vol. v). Kretschmer,

_Phys. Erdk._, 1889, _passim_, and Werner, _Kosm. Wilhelm von

Conches_, 1873, _passim_, give a fairly satisfactory general idea of

the more important contributions of Albert to cosmology and physical

geography.

In the second book of the _De caelo et mundo_ Albert declares that the

earth is spherical because the particles which compose it are drawn

toward the center of the universe and, in striving to attain that

point, arrange themselves symmetrically in the form of a sphere. He

gives as proofs of the sphericity of the earth arguments that were

familiar to writers of antiquity (see above, p. 368, note 33).

In the _Libri meteorum_ (_Meteorology_) much material will be found on

the atmosphere, on the waters, and on earthquakes. Albert thought that

the winds are caused by an earthy humor raised by the sun (Werner,

_op. cit._, pp. 351–352; compare this theory with the theory of Seneca

and of William of Conches, pp. 171–172, above). He thought that the

areas of the earth’s surface covered by water are much more extensive

than those represented by land and that large rivers spring from great

cavities in the interior of the earth. These cavities, he maintained,

usually correspond in position to the major mountain ranges.

Points of physical geography are also treated at some length in the

_De proprietatibus elementorum_ (based upon the pseudo-Aristotelian

work of the same title): hot springs, volcanoes, tides, the Deluge,

the origin of mountains by earthquakes and by erosion. Albert

expresses vigorous opposition to the theory of the periodic rotation

of land and sea around the earth’s surface under astrological

influences (see above, pp. 14 and 83), but he believed, none the less,

that the heavenly bodies through their varying motions and

conjunctions may bring to bear powerful local changes in conditions of

dampness and dryness which in turn may even produce interchanges of

areas of land and sea. He refers to the discovery of the rudder of a

great ship when a certain well was dug in muddy ground as evidence of

gradual alterations in the relative level of land and sea (Kretschmer,

_op. cit._, p. 125).

In a great many respects the _De natura locorum_ is the most valuable

of Albert’s books from the geographical point of view. Kretschmer goes

so far as to declare that this work reveals to us in Albert the first

great geographer since antiquity (_ibid._, p. 139). Tractatus I

treats, among other matters, of latitudes and longitudes, of the

habitable and uninhabitable parts of the earth’s surface, and of

climates. Albert denies the older view that the equatorial regions are

totally uninhabitable on the ground that people were actually known to

dwell therein. Moreover, he was inclined to the belief that the

countries near the equator are more temperate and pleasant than those

nearer the tropics (see above, p. 164). Albert’s “climatic

observations in the _Liber de natura locorum_ have at all times

aroused undivided admiration, and we find in them the first attempt at

a comparative geography” (Kretschmer, _op. cit._, p. 139). This

applies more especially to his observations regarding the influences

of mountains, seas, woods, and other topographic features upon

climate. These would well repay careful comparison with the views of

William of Conches upon the same topics (see above, p. 178). Tractatus

III of the _De natura locorum_ is a “cosmographia,” or description of

the regions of the world, following the usual medieval scheme.

Footnote 463:

Bartholomew Anglicus, author of the _De proprietatibus rerum_,

“belonged probably to the circle of insular [British] clerics who were

ardently interested in experimental researches and in natural history;

of whom the encyclopedist Alexander Neckam was in a measure the

precursor, and of whom the Franciscan Roger Bacon was the most

illustrious representative” (C. V. Langlois, _La connaissance_, 1911,

p. 117). It has so far been impossible accurately to determine the

date of the _De proprietatibus rerum_, though it falls probably before

the middle of the thirteenth century (_ibid._, p. 118, note 2). This

work was a compilation from many different sources and was intended

for less educated readers. Book XI is devoted to the phenomena of the

air, XIII to the waters, XIV to the earth, and XV to a _mappamundi_,

or description of the various “provinces” of the earth in alphabetical

order. There is no modern edition. A summary of the contents will be

found in C. V. Langlois, _op. cit._, pp. 128–179, and a discussion of

Bartholomew’s geography is given by Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii,

p. 424–429. Extracts from an English translation of Berthelet, 1535,

are given in Steele, _Mediaeval Lore_, 1907 (under Bartholomew

Anglicus in the Bibliography). The future influence of the work was

very far-reaching, especially upon English literature of the

Elizabethan period (see Steele, _op. cit._, pp. 2–4; C. V. Langlois,

_op. cit._, pp. 126–127).

Footnote 464:

The Florentine Brunetto Latino died in 1295. He composed his great

_Livre du trésor_ in French during a period of exile in France between

1260 and 1266 (C. V. Langlois, _op. cit._, p. 328). This work met with

a wide success. It is divided into three parts, the first of which is

devoted to geography and cosmography. Much of the material here was

derived ultimately from Solinus. The _Trésor_ was edited by P.

Chabaille in 1863, but a definitive critical edition has not yet

appeared. For a criticism of Chabaille’s edition and for a summary of

the contents of the first part, see C. V. Langlois, _op. cit._, pp.

333–391.

Footnote 465:

Among these must be mentioned the following:

1. An unpublished encyclopedia by an otherwise unknown Arnold the

Saxon. This dates from between 1210 and 1250 and is preserved in a

manuscript in Erfurt. Rose’s edition, 1875, pp. 447–454, gives a

summary of the titles of chapters and prints the prologues of each

book. Some idea of the character of the work may be gained from

Stange’s dissertation and article, both listed in the Bibliography.

The first book, entitled _De caelo et mundo_, and the fourth, _De

virtute universali_, include data on physical geography, meteorology,

earthquakes, the sea, rivers, hot springs, and mineralogy (Stange,

_Arnoldus Saxo_, 1885, p. 18) derived in part from Aristotle’s

_Meteorology_ (_ibid._ and Rose, _op. cit._, p. 450). It has been

claimed that Arnold the Saxon’s encyclopedia was used by Vincent of

Beauvais, Albertus Magnus, and Bartholomew Anglicus, but this is

probably erroneous (see Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p. 430).

2. The _De natura rerum_ of Thomas of Cantimpré, in twenty books,

written between 1228 and 1244 and as yet unedited in a modern edition.

Thomas’ work was especially popular in Germany (see C. V. Langlois,

_op. cit._, p. 118, note 2; also Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii,

pp. 372–398).

3. A work of encyclopedic scope entitled _Summa philosophiae_, which

has erroneously been attributed to Robert Grosseteste but which cannot

possibly date from before 1250 and may be as late as 1270. It contains

chapters on meteorology, tides, and minerals. The full text is given

in Baur, _Philos. Werke Grossetestes_, 1912, pp. 275–643, with a

critical discussion of its authorship, pp. 126*-141*.

Footnote 466:

Roger Bacon, one of the most original thinkers of the entire medieval

period in matters of natural science, was the last of a series of

Englishmen who devoted themselves to these interests. In this group

may be counted Adelard of Bath and, at a much later date, Alexander

Neckam, Alfred of Sareshel, Daniel of Morley, and Robert Grosseteste

(see above, p. 407, note 94). For the last-named, whose teachings in

many particulars he adopted and elaborated upon, Bacon had the highest

admiration.

Born about 1210–1215, Roger Bacon became a Franciscan between 1245 and

1250. His more important works were completed before 1266 and were

condemned as heretical in 1278. He died in the last decade of the

century. See Bridges, _Life of Bacon_, 1914, and Thorndike, _Magic_,

1923, vol. ii, pp. 616–691.

From the geographical point of view beyond all question the most

important of Bacon’s writings was the _Opus majus_, which sets forth

his fundamental ideas in the realms of natural and physical science.

Bridges’ edition of this contains a full introduction and a detailed

analysis of the text, chapter by chapter. The geographical material

will be found in Part IV, on mathematical science. Distinctio ii of

Part IV (Bridges’ edit., vol. i, 1897, pp. 109–119) is devoted to the

subject of rays of light and emanations from the heavenly bodies and

to the problem of the sphericity of the universe. Elsewhere in Part IV

the influences of the heavenly rays upon the earth, especially in

respect to zones, tides, and the healthfulness of situations, are

brought out. Bacon here is largely indebted to Robert Grosseteste (see

above, pp. 163–165). These theories are also worked out in some detail

in the chapters of Part V (on optics) devoted to the multiplication of

species (Bridges’ edit., vol. ii, 1897, pp. 539–543; Werner, _Kosm.

Roger Baco_, 1879, pp. 597–599).

The last portion of Part IV (Bridges’ edit., vol. i, 1897, pp.

175–404), not divided into chapters, is a treatment of two broad

subjects:

1. The importance of mathematics in relation to theology. Under this

heading, among other points, there is given an explanation of how

mathematics aids us in acquiring knowledge of the heavens, of the

location of Paradise and of Hell, of sacred geography (that is of the

positions and physical conditions of places spoken of in Scripture),

of geometry (here the influence of mountains in reflecting the sun’s

rays is elucidated; see above, pp. 179–180; Werner, _op. cit._, p.

599; Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 418), and of numbers (here

are explained the size, distance, and relative magnitude of the

heavenly bodies in relation to the earth and to the heavenly spheres).

2. The influence of the heavens on things terrestrial (Bridges’ edit.,

vol. i, 1897, pp. 286–403). According to Bacon geographic conditions

are governed by astronomical and astrological forces. This part of the

_Opus majus_ shows first how the latter are effective in determining

the conditions of habitability on the earth’s surface; it closes with

a general description of the habitable earth (see especially Werner,

_op. cit._, p. 545, note 4, and pp. 546–550, on Bacon’s astrological

geography, and pp. 600–606, on Bacon’s regional geography). _Climata_

and the practical utility of knowledge of geography and of climates to

the missionary are discussed. The description of the habitable earth

is particularly full for Egypt, the Holy Land, India, Eastern Europe,

Central Asia, and Cathay. Much fresh material regarding the Mongols

and the Far East was derived from Bacon’s contemporaries, the

Franciscan travelers John of Pian de Carpine and William Rubruck (see

above, pp. 269–270). Bacon dismisses the geography of Western Europe

as too familiar to require special treatment.

Besides the _Opus majus_, Bacon’s _Communia naturalium_ and commentary

on the _Secretum secretorum_ include a few passages of interest to us.

In the former the finite character of the universe is explained

(Oxford edit., fasc., iv, pp. 369–373; see also, _Opus tertium_,

Brewer’s edit., pp. 140–141), together with some consideration of the

dimensions of heaven and of earth (Oxford edit., fasc. iv, pp.

414–418). In the latter (a book of miscellaneous precepts for the

guidance of human affairs, which was many times translated from the

Arabic during the Middle Ages and which was altered, augmented, and

edited by Bacon) there is material on astronomy, on the size and

sphericity of the earth, and on the relative extent of land and sea

(Oxford edit., fasc. v).

Footnote 467:

Dante treats incidentally of the traditional geography and astronomy

of his period in the _Convito_ and in numerous references in the

_Divine Comedy_. His sources were mainly Orosius, Isidore, Albertus

Magnus, and Brunetto Latino (see Moore, _Studies in Dante: Third

Series_, 1903, pp. 110–111). A most interesting and original

discussion of linguistic geography will be found in the _De vulgari

eloquentia_ (see Mori, _La geogr._, 1922, pp. 289–292; Andriani, _La

carta dialettologica_, 1923, pp. 255–263). The _Quaestio de aqua et

terra_, frequently ascribed to Dante, is of doubtful authenticity.

Moore, _Studies in Dante: Second Series_, 1899, pp. 303–374, Shadwell

in his edition of the _Quaestio de aqua et terra_, 1909, and Mori,

_op. cit._, p. 285, hold it to be a genuine work of the poet; Boffito,

_Intorno alla “Quaestio de aqua et terra,”_ Memoria I, 1902, believed

it to be spurious; serious objections to Boffito’s arguments, however,

were raised by V. Biagi in a review of the former’s work (Bollettino

della Società Dantesca, vol. x, Florence, 1903) with the “result that

Boffito himself appears to be less resolved to maintain his thesis in

his latest publication, _La “Quaestio de aqua et terra” di D. A., ed.

principe del 1508 riprod. in facsimile, etc._, Florence, 1905”

(Marinelli, _Scritti minori_, vol. i, [1908?], p. 196, note 3, p. 219,

note 1). See also Arnold Norlind: _Dante som geograf och medeltidens

behandling av frågan on vatten och land_, in: Ymer: Tidskrift utgiven

av Svenska Sällskapet för Antropologi och Geografi, vol. xliv,

Stockholm, 1924, pp. 260–278.

For references to an edition of the text of Dante and to English

translations of his various works see the Bibliography under Dante.

Footnote 468:

For the latest and most authoritative study of Otto, his works and his

place among the literary men of the period, see Hofmeister, _Otto von

Freisingen_, 1911–1912.

Footnote 469:

The continuation to 1160 is surely, and that from 1160 to 1170

possibly, the work of Ragewin, Otto’s pupil and notary (Potthast,

_Wegweiser_, vol. ii, 1896, p. 886).

Footnote 470:

_Gesta Frid._, II, 13, 43. See Hofmeister, _op. cit._, p. 734.

Footnote 471:

The genuineness of the _Ligurinus_, which had long been suspected of

being an imposture, was established after 1870 by two scholars working

simultaneously and independently, Pannenborg and Gaston Paris.

Pannenborg, who at first thought that the author of this poem was an

Italian, was subsequently converted to the opinion that he was a

German by the arguments of Paris. In 1883 Pannenborg definitely

established the thesis that the _Ligurinus_ was the work of Gunther of

Pairis. See Pannenborg, _Über den Ligurinus_, 1871; the same,

_Magister Guntherus_, 1873; the same, _Der Verfasser_, 1884; Gaston

Paris, _Dissertation critique_, 1872; Vulpinus, _Der Ligurinus_, 1889

(under Gunther of Pairis in the Bibliography), introduction.

Footnote 472:

Pannenborg, _Über den Ligurinus_, 1871, p. 254.

Footnote 473:

See, for example, the description of the spring, Bk. VI, lines

481–485.

Footnote 474:

Gaston Paris, _op. cit._, pp. 85–86.

Footnote 475:

See below, p. 412, note 13.

Footnote 476:

See Delaborde’s introduction to the _Philippis_ in: _Oeuvres de

Rigord_, vol. i, 1882, pp. lxxii-lxxiii (under William the Breton in

the Bibliography).

Footnote 477:

A thorough study of the geographical ideas expressed in the historical

epics of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries would undoubtedly

yield fruitful results.

Footnote 478:

The Nearer East as pictured in the old French Crusading literature is

discussed by Dreesbach, _Der Orient_, 1901.

Footnote 479:

_ibid._, pp. 69–73.

Footnote 480:

_ibid._, p. 70.

Footnote 481:

See preface to Stubbs’s edition of the works of Benedict of

Peterborough, vol. i, 1867, pp. ix-lxvii.

Footnote 482:

_ibid._, vol. ii, p. 122.

Footnote 483:

_Chronica_, Stubbs’s edit., vol. iii, 1870, pp. 47–55.

Footnote 484:

Dreesbach, _Der Orient_, 1901, pp. 73–75.

Footnote 485:

_ibid._, pp. 79–83.

Footnote 486:

_ibid._, pp. 88–89.

Footnote 487:

See Hermannsson, _Bibl. Icelandic Sagas_, 1908; the same, _Northmen_,

1909; the same, _Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910.

Footnote 488:

See the same, _Bibl. Eddas_, 1920.

Footnote 489:

On the _Saga of Eric the Red_ and on the _Flateyjarbók_, see Reeves,

_Wineland_, 1890, _passim_.

Footnote 490:

Virtually nothing is known of Ari Frodhi. The _Íslendingabók_ was

“written probably shortly after 1134” (Hermannsson, _Bibl. Icelandic

Sagas_, 1908, p. 56).

Footnote 491:

The discovery of Iceland is also described in a Latin work written by

“Theodricus monachus,” probably toward the close of the twelfth

century and bearing the title _Historia de antiquitate regum

norwagiensium_. Nansen dates this work about 1180 (_Northern Mists_,

1911, vol. i, p. 254). See Hermannsson, _Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910, p.

67.

Footnote 492:

Hermannsson, _Northmen_, 1909, pp. 5–6; Reeves, _op. cit._, pp. 79–83.

Footnote 493:

Nansen, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 263. The _Greenland Annals_ were

compiled by Björn Jonsson (1574–1656).

Footnote 494:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 517.

Footnote 495:

This manuscript was discovered in Scotland in 1849. See Hermannsson,

_Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910, p. 31.

Footnote 496:

See above, pp. 49–50 and 73–74.

Footnote 497:

The fundamental work on the Romance of Alexander during our period is

Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand_, 1886.

Footnote 498:

The _Historia de praeliis_, for instance, the tenth-century work of

Leo Archipresbyter (see above, p. 381, note 26), was the text from

which Frutolf of Michaelsberg derived the version of the Romance of

Alexander which he inserted in his chronicle and which thus found its

way to the chronicle of Otto of Freising (Meyer, _op. cit._, vol. ii,

p. 39). That the chronicle from which Otto drew was by Frutolf and not

by Ekkehard of Aura was shown by Bresslau, _Die Chroniken_, 1895.

Footnote 499:

This probably dates from the beginning of the twelfth century (Meyer,

_op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 49).

Footnote 500:

On the sources of the _Alexandreis_, see Francke, _Geschichte_, 1879,

pp. 89–107, and Giordano, _Alexandreis_, 1917, _passim_.

Footnote 501:

Meyer, _op. cit._, pp. 69–101.

Footnote 502:

_ibid._, pp. 102–132.

Footnote 503:

_ibid._, pp. 133–253.

Footnote 504:

Meyer, _loc. cit._, has worked out the probable authorship and

derivation of the various parts of the poem. He divides the work as a

whole into four consecutive sections or “branches.” Of these the

oldest is the third in order and is by Lambert li Tors; this branch

contains those parts of the Romance which are concerned with

Alexander’s adventures in the heart of Asia and in India; in fact

those parts of the work which contain the majority of the elements of

geographic interest. To this third branch, the first, second, and

fourth were added at a later date. These were the work of Alexandre de

Bernai and Pierre de St. Cloud. There are also a number of

interpolations into the body of the poem which may not be attributed

to any of the three writers named.

Footnote 505:

This poem was entitled _Le Roman de toute chevalerie_. Meyer (_op.

cit._, vol. ii, p. 275) knew of four manuscripts. In one of these, in

Paris, the _Roman_ is ascribed to Thomas of Kent, and in a manuscript

in Cambridge it is attributed to Eustace of Kent—Meyer holding that

the latter is correct. There is much of geographical interest in the

poem. The following are some of the chapter headings of parts dealing

with material of geographic significance (from a manuscript in Durham,

Library of the Chapter of Durham, C. iv, 27b, as cited by Meyer, _op.

cit._, vol. i, pp. 177–190).

“.i. Le proloug

\.ij. La descripcion del mond....”

“.lxxxiiij. De genz de grant age en Inde.

\.lxxxv. De Gangarides l’idle e de son poeple.

\.lxxxvj. De Polibatre e de son poeple.

\.lxxxvii. Del mont Malens le plus haut del mond.

\.lxxxviij. De genz qe vivent de veneison et de pesson....”

[Further details of races and marvels of India follow.]

“.cxlviij. De Gog et Magog qui mangerent la gent....”

“.ccxxxij. Del pople qu’est apellés Serres et de lur dreiture.”

Footnote 506:

Zarncke, _Priester Johannes_ (under Prester John in the Bibliography),

in: Abhandl., vol. vii, 1879, pp. 832–846.

Footnote 507:

Zarncke, _op. cit._, p. 878. In some manuscripts this _Letter_ is said

to be a Latin translation by Archbishop Christian of Mainz; Thorndike,

however, observes that it seems “even in its earliest and briefest

form without doubt a Western forgery and bears the marks of its Latin

origin” (Thorndike, _Magic_, vol. ii, 1923, p. 240).

Footnote 508:

Edited by Zarncke, _op. cit._, pp. 872–934.

Footnote 509:

Zarncke, _op. cit._, in: Abhandl., vol. viii, 1876, pp. 120–127.

Footnote 510:

See Zarncke’s observations regarding the French text (Berichte, vol.

xxix, 1877, p. 135) and his edition of the English text (Berichte,

vol. xxx, 1878, pp. 41–46). French, English, and Italian texts are

addressed to the Emperor Frederick and not to Manuel.

Footnote 511:

See above, p. 50; also pp. 381–382, notes 28, 29.

Footnote 512:

Beazley (_Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 112–217) gives an excellent

summary of the history of pilgrim travel throughout the Middle Ages,

with a résumé of the most important sources. For the bibliography of

this subject see especially Röhricht, _Bibliotheca_, 1890. For English

translations of the pilgrims’ accounts of the Holy Land see the

publications constituting _The Library of the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text

Society_, 1897 (see the Bibliography under Palestine Pilgrims’ Text

Society).

Footnote 513:

Beazley, _op. cit._, pp. 139–155. See also Bibliography under Saewulf.

Footnote 514:

_ibid._, pp. 190–195. See also Bibliography under John of Würzburg.

Footnote 515:

_ibid._, pp. 195–199. See also Bibliography under Theoderic (Pilgrim).

Footnote 516:

From internal evidence the itinerary of Abbot Nikulás can be shown to

date from the twelfth century. See above, p. 405, note 90.

Footnote 517:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 184.

Footnote 518:

_ibid._, pp. 186–189. See also Bibliography under Fetellus.

Footnote 519:

_ibid._, pp. 203–207.

Footnote 520:

See especially Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, pp. 202–216, for

citations and translations (into German) of portions of letters which

throw light on the medieval feeling for nature.

Footnote 521:

Wattenbach, _Guido von Bazoches_, 1891 (under Guy of Bazoches in the

Bibliography). Wattenbach (_op. cit._, p. 71) refers to a _Libellus de

regionibus mundi_ by Guy of Bazoches now in Paris, Bibliothèque

Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 4998.

Footnote 522:

_Chronica Slavorum_, V, 19, in: _Mon. Germ. hist._, Scriptores, vol.

xxi, pp. 192–196.

Footnote 523:

See Carmoly, _Itinéraires_, 1847, pp. 115–168, for text and commentary

on the itinerary of Samuel bar Simson, 1211, and pp. 171–216, for

Jacob of Paris’ description of the holy tombs, 1258. The other

itineraries in Carmoly’s volume fall in a period later than that

covered by the present study.

Footnote 524:

Benjamin of Tudela, _Itinerary_, Adler’s edit., 1907, p. xiii.

Footnote 525:

On Benjamin of Tudela, see Adler’s edition of the _Itinerary_ and

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 224–264. For a useful general

introduction to the geographical literature of the Jews, see Zunz,

_Essay_, 1841.

As the manuscript of this book is about to go to press there has come

to the writer’s attention the brief note by Paul Borchardt,

_L’itinéraire de Rabbi Benjamin de Tudèle_, 1924. Borchardt writes (p.

31): “En différents travaux j’ai prouvé que le célèbre Rabbi Benjamin

ne mérite pas le reproche d’inexactitude, même en ce qui concerne la

route de Chine.... J’espère prouver par ce qui suit que R. Benjamin

mérite comme Marco Polo le nom d’un homme digne de foi.” References

are given in footnote 1, p. 31, of Borchardt’s note to other studies

by Borchardt relating to Benjamin. Unfortunately the present writer

has been unable to consult these. The references follow as given by

Borchardt: “Conférence de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Munich: _Reiseweg des

R. Benjamin von Tudela und des R. Petachia von Regensburg in

Mesopotamien_, 3, III. 22., _Karawanenstrassen in Arabien nach R.

Benjamin von Tudela_, Anthropos Wien 1922/23 (4–6), p. 1066 ss.,

1923/24 (1–3) et _Zur Frage der Falaschajuden in Abessinien_,

Anthropos, Wien 1923/24 (1–3), carte.” See also below, p. 474, note

237a.

Footnote 526:

Petachia of Ratisbon, _Travels_, Benisch and Ainsworth’s transl.,

1856; Beazley, _op. cit._, pp. 264–274.

Footnote 527:

This poem is inserted at fol. 13 of Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds

latin, nouvelles acquisitions, no. 299, in the midst of the _Speculum

regum_ of Godfrey of Viterbo. Delisle, its editor, explains why it

should be attributed to Godfrey (_Littérature latine_, 1890, p. 41;

listed under Godfrey of Viterbo in the Bibliography).

Footnote 528:

“Praelia regnorum non hic, set fastus eorum

Scribitur, aut fluvius, orbes speciesque locorum

Aut series morum, norma colenda, forum.”

—_Denumeratio_, Delisle’s edit., p. 44.

Footnote 529:

Stubbs’s edition of the works of Gervase of Canterbury, vol. i, 1879,

p. xxi.

Footnote 530:

On the dimensions of Britain he quotes from Henry of Huntingdon,

_Historia Anglorum_, I.

Footnote 531:

On the work of Giraldus as a whole see preface to vol. i (pp. i-xcv)

of the Rolls Series edition (no. 21), London, 1861, and Lloyd,

_History of Wales_, 1911, vol. i, pp. 554–564.

Footnote 532:

_Giraldi Cambrensis opera_ (Rolls Series No. 21), vol. i, edited by J.

S. Brewer, London, 1861, Introduction, p. xl.

Footnote 533:

_ibid._, vol. vi, edited by J. F. Dimock, London, 1867, pp.

xlvi-xlvii.

Footnote 534:

In addition to the _Mirabilia_, there was written, probably in the

twelfth century, a short tract by one Master Gregory, on the marvels

of Rome, much of which was copied by Ranulph Higden in his

_Polychronicon_. This appears to have been composed independently of

the _Mirabilia_, although it deals with the same subject. The author

may have been an Englishman. See James, _Magister Gregorius_, 1917

(under Gregory, Master, in the Bibliography), pp. 531–554.

Footnote 535:

Miller’s _Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895, deals with the Beatus maps and

is accompanied by a colored reproduction of the St. Sever Beatus map

(our Fig. 2, p. 69). Vol. ii, 1895, is an atlas of photographic

reproductions of the Beatus and other maps of the world of the period.

Vol. iii, 1895, contains explanatory text on the more important

earlier maps, together with photographs and cuts. Vol. iv, 1896, and

vol. v, 1896, are devoted to the Hereford and Ebstorf maps of the

world from after our period, and vol. vi, 1898, to attempts at the

reconstruction of lost _mappaemundi_. A word of caution is perhaps

necessary against too ready acceptance of all of Miller’s theories

regarding the connections between maps and the influence of one type

upon others. See above, p. 377, note 167, and below, p. 458, note 17.

Footnote 536:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 549–642.

Footnote 537:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp. 123–126. On p. 124 Miller states

that “in the manuscript of the _Magna de naturis philosophia_ of

William of Conches ... in the Stuttgart Library, three maps are

included, described by Santarem.” See Santarem, _Essai_, vol. iii,

1852, pp. 499–505. Beazley (_Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 626), following

Miller, also ascribes these maps to a manuscript of the _Magna de

naturis philosophia_. The manuscript in question, however, is of no

other work than William of Conches’ _De philosophia mundi_, which

Santarem (_op. cit._, pp. 499–500) ascribed wrongly to William of

Hirschau (see above, p. 398, note 28). No manuscripts or copies of the

_Magna de naturis philosophia_ are extant, and Poole believes that if

such a work ever existed it has been wrongly attributed to William of

Conches (Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, pp. 306–310).

Footnote 538:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 126–128.

Footnote 539:

_ibid._, pp. 118–120.

Footnote 540:

_ibid._, pp. 110–115.

Footnote 541:

See above, p. 68. See also Miller, _op. cit._, vol. i, 1895, _passim_.

Footnote 542:

_ibid._, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 43–53 and pl. 4.

Footnote 543:

In this respect Lambert’s map resembles a _mappamundi_ made in the

eleventh century at Ripoll in Catalonia. On this interesting map see

Vidier, _Mappemonde de Théodulfe_, 1911, pp. 285–315.

Footnote 544:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp. 54–57.

Footnote 545:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 21–29 and pl. 2; vol. ii, pl. 13.

Footnote 546:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 71–73.

Footnote 547:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 37–43 and pl. 3; vol. ii, pl. 1.

Footnote 548:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 1–21 and pl. 1; vol. ii, pls. 11 and 12.

Footnote 549:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 61–68.

Footnote 550:

_ibid._, pp. 68–94.

Footnote 551:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 585.

NOTES

CHAPTER V

THE PLACE OF GEOGRAPHY IN THE MEDIEVAL CLASSIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE

Footnote 552:

Adam of Bremen, however, used the term “geography,” applying it to the

fourth section of his _Gesta Hammenburgensis ecclesiae pontificum_.

Footnote 553:

Parker, _Seven Lib. Arts_, 1890, pp. 417–461.

Footnote 554:

See above, p. 366, note 9.

Footnote 555:

_Fons philosophiae_, Charma’s edit., 1868, Introduction, p. 11.

Footnote 556:

_De eodem et diverso_, p. 28.

Footnote 557:

“... qua ratione regulam omnibus saeculis perennam de terrae mensura

habere posset” (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 558:

“Subsequenter ergo orbem in partes, partes in provincias, provincias

in regiones, regiones in loca, loca in territoria, territoria in

agros, agros in centurias, centurias in iugera divisit” (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 559:

_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 580, 587. See Mâle, _Religious Art_,

1913, p. 78.

Footnote 560:

_Anticlaudianus_, III, 6.

Footnote 561:

Mâle, _op. cit._, p. 114.

Footnote 562:

_De div. phil._, pp. 115–116.

Footnote 563:

“Tercia vero inquirit de terra, de eo quod ipsa inhabitatur et quod

non habitatur; et ostenditur quantum est illud, quod inhabitatur et

quot sunt partes eius magne, que sunt climata; et comprehendit

habitaciones, quas contingit esse in unaquaque illarum in illa hora,

et ubi sit locus cuiusque habitacionis, et ordinem eorum ex mundo;

inquirit de eo, quod sequitur necessario ut accidat unicuique climatum

habitacionum de revolucione mundi continenti totio et est revolucio

diei et noctis propter situm terre in loco, in quo sunt sicut ortus et

occasus et longitudo diei et noctis et brevitas et alia hiis similia”

(_ibid._). This passage, together with the greater part of the _De

divisione philosophiae_, is drawn from Al-Fārābī’s book _On the

Enumeration of the Sciences_. Al-Fārābī was a Moslem philosopher and

Aristotelian of the tenth century. See Baur’s edition of the _De div.

phil._, 1903, pp. 160, 314.

Footnote 564:

See H. O. Taylor, _The Mediaeval Mind: A History of the Development of

Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages_, 2 vols., New York, 1914, vol.

ii, pp. 312–313.

NOTES

CHAPTER VI

COSMOGONY, COSMOLOGY, AND COSMOGRAPHY

Footnote 565:

On this rational spirit, see C. B. Jourdain, _Dissertation_, 1838, pp.

20ff.

Footnote 566:

Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, p. 148.

Footnote 567:

“... secundum physicam et ad litteram” (_De sex d. op._, p. 52).

Footnote 568:

“Causas ex quibus habeat mundus existere et temporum ordinem in quibus

idem mundus conditus et ornatus est rationabiliter ostendit”

(_ibid._). See C. B. Jourdain, _loc. cit._ On Adelard’s rationalism,

see the same, pp. 1O4ff.

Footnote 569:

Hauréau, _Thierry de Chartres_, 1890, p. 51.

Footnote 570:

Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 40–41.

Footnote 571:

_Quaest. nat._, ch. 6 in printed edit.; fol. 25v. in Bibliothèque

Nationale MSS., fonds lat., no. 6415 (as cited by Haskins, _loc.

cit._).

Footnote 572:

_ibid._, ch. 1 in printed edit.; fol. 24 in MS.

Footnote 573:

_ibid._, ch. 4 in printed edit.; fol. 25 in MS.

Footnote 574:

_De phil. mundi_, II, 3.

Footnote 575:

“... principium a magistro, sed perfectio debet esse ab ingenio”

(_ibid._, I, 21; quoted by Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 99).

Footnote 576:

_Entheticus_, 601–624, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcix, col. 978.

See Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, p. 227.

Footnote 577:

Translation from Moffat, _Complaint of Nature_, 1908 (in the

Bibliography under Alan of Lille), p. 27. See also Ganzenmüller, _loc.

cit._

Footnote 578:

See above, p. 223.

Footnote 579:

_Historia Norwegiae_, Storm’s edit., p. 95.

Footnote 580:

_ibid._, p. 96.

Footnote 581:

Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 69.

Footnote 582:

_Symb. elect._, II, 1.

Footnote 583:

_Topog. Hiber._, I, 13.

Footnote 584:

_De laud. div. sap._, III, 97–98, 123–124. This point of view was also

that of William the Breton, who, in more than one place in his

_Philippis_, writes that it is enough for us to know the facts of such

natural phenomena as tides, miraculous springs, and the like, but that

the causes of them will forever remain hidden from men (_Philippis_,

VI, 550–551; VIII, 82–90; see above, pp. 193–194).

Footnote 585:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 271–272; idem, _Studies_,

1924, p. 295.

Footnote 586:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, pp. 885–890.

Footnote 587:

See K. Werner, _Wilhelms von Auvergne Verhältniss zu den Platonikern

des XII. Jahrhunderts_, in: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in

Wien, Sitzungsberichte, Philosophisch-historische Classe, vol. lxxiv,

Vienna, 1873, pp. 119–172.

Footnote 588:

_De mundi univ._, I, _passim_.

Footnote 589:

_De sex d. op._, pp. 52–54.

Footnote 590:

_ibid._, p. 60.

Footnote 591:

_Sententiae_, II, 12, 1.

Footnote 592:

Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, pp. 415–421.

Footnote 593:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 1.

Footnote 594:

Though Comestor here denies the teachings of Plato in regard to the

existence of matter prior to the “Creation,” he adopted a traditional

medieval view based on the _Timaeus_ of Plato and given expression by

Augustine: that God created time and the universe simultaneously (see

above, p. 52). How these two conceptions were reconciled is shown by

Daniel of Morley where he writes: “Primus mundus est in eternitate

figuratus, secundus cum tempore creatus, tercius in tempore formatus”

(_De philosophia_, Sudhoff’s edit., p. 8). (For Daniel of Morley’s

views on hyle see Singer, _Daniel of Morley_, 1920, p. 267.)

Essentially the same Platonic doctrine was shared by Hugh of Amiens,

archbishop of Rouen, who wrote in his _Tractatio in hexaemeron_ that

God precedes the world by eternity, not by time (Migne, _Pat. lat._,

vol. cxcii, col. 1249). The _De imagine mundi_ (II, 1) applied the

term _aevum_ to God alone; _tempora aeterna_, beginning before the

world and continuing with and after it, to the _architypus mundus_ and

to the angels; and _tempus_ to the world (Robbins, _Hexaemeral Lit._,

1912, p. 7, note 1).

Footnote 595:

_De phil. mundi_, I, 21.

Footnote 596:

Bede and Hugh of St. Victor also held that the elements were thus

segregated at the moment they were called into existence by God

(Zöckler, _op. cit._, vol. i, 1877, pp. 248, 401).

William of Conches argues specifically against the Aristotelian

doctrine of a fifth element of which the heavenly bodies are composed

(_Dragmaticon philosophiae_, III, 80–83, cited by Schneider,

_Abendländische Spekulation_, 1915, p. 40, note 1). Duhem (_Système_,

vol. iii, 1915, pp. 105, 194) saw in William’s _De philosophia mundi_

what seemed to be a remarkable analogy between the ideas there

expressed and those expressed by Aristotle in the fourth book of his

_Physics_. Schneider (_op. cit._, pp. 40–42) points out that Duhem,

through failure to take into account the passage in the _Dragmaticon_

to which we have just referred, was led to think that William was

actually a believer in the main theories set forth in the _Physics_.

On the contrary, in referring to the elements in the _Dragmaticon_

William merely adopted the traditional Platonic doctrine, and he went

on to explain Aristotle’s theory of the fifth element and vigorously

to denounce it. Though this shows that William may not have agreed

with Aristotle in essentials, it would seem to be, nevertheless, an

argument in favor of the existence of an Aristotelian trend of thought

in William’s time. See above, p. 401, note 58.

Footnote 597:

Though William denied the possibility of chaos preëxisting the

“Creation,” he was none the less accused of heresy by Walter, prior of

St. Victor in Paris during the last part of twelfth century, because

of his failure to make it clear that God created everything out of

nothing. William’s atomic theories suggest the possibility of belief

in his mind that matter in the form of atoms had coexisted with God

and that at the so-called “Creation” God had merely organized and

arranged these atoms. See Hauréau, _Singularités_, 1861, p. 258;

Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, pp. 300–301.

Footnote 598:

_De sex d. op._, p. 62.

Footnote 599:

See above, pp. 15–16. Belief in the World Soul (_anima mundi_) was a

doctrine of Platonism. Theodoric of Chartres (_De sex d. op._, pp.

60–62), Bernard Sylvester (_De mundi univ._, _passim_), and William of

Conches (see Poole, _op. cit._, p. 151) shared it with Peter Abelard

(Hauréau, _op. cit._, p. 253). The two latter, like Theodoric,

identified this mysterious unifying conscious spirit of all things

with the Holy Ghost and maintained that belief in the World Soul was

not inconsistent with the Christian teaching that each individual has

a personal soul of his own. The personal soul in some way was thought

to be merged with and to form a portion of the World Soul. The theory

of the World Soul, however, could not be purged of an heretical taint.

At the very beginning of our period Manegold argued as vigorously

against it (_Contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem opusculum_, 1–3) as he

argued against the possibility of antipodeans (see above, p. 161). It

was also severely condemned by other defenders of more old-fashioned

and orthodox beliefs. Peter Comestor says, for example: “Hunc locum

male intellexit Plato, dictum hoc putans de anima mundi” (_Hist.

schol._, Gen. 1, 2), and Peter Lombard’s whole treatment of the

question of the Trinity in the _Sententiae_ (II, 17) precludes the

possibility of a World Soul. Peter Lombard specifically states that

the soul of man is not of the same substance as the soul of God.

Footnote 600:

Theodoric adduced various reasons for the rotary motion of the heavens

and gave explanations of this phenomenon which so closely resembled

the arguments given by Aristotle in his _De caelo_ (I, 8; II, 3),

_Physics_ (IV, 4), and _De motu animalium_ (II, 698b) (see above, p.

370, note 42) that Duhem was led by them to the opinion that the

Chartres scholar must have had direct access to Arabic translations of

versions of Aristotle. See above, p. 154, and p. 401, notes 57, 58.

Footnote 601:

_De sex d. op._, p. 54.

Footnote 602:

_ibid._, p. 55.

Footnote 603:

_ibid._, p. 57.

Footnote 604:

See above, p. 141.

Footnote 605:

_De phil. mundi_, I, 23; Werner, _Kosm. Wilhelm von Conches_, 1873, p.

320.

Footnote 606:

This curious opinion is expressed in _De phil. mundi_, I, 23. William

retracted it in the preface to the sixth book of his _Dragmaticon

philosophiae_ on the ground that it contradicts the Scriptural account

according to which Eve was made from Adam’s rib. See above, p. 398,

note 28.

Footnote 607:

_De civitate Dei_, XI, 33, in: _Corpus script. eccl. lat._, vol. xl,

pt. 1, pp. 562–564. See also Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, p.

238.

Footnote 608:

_Hexaemeron_, I, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xci, cols. 17–18. See

also Zöckler, _op. cit._, pp. 247–248.

Footnote 609:

_De sacramentis_, bk. I, pt. 1, ch. 11, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol.

clxxvi, col. 195. See also Zöckler, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 401.

Footnote 610:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 1, 3. See also Zöckler, _op. cit._, vol. i, p.

417.

Footnote 611:

So Rupert of Deutz, Arnold of Chartres, Hugh of Rouen (_ibid._, pp.

395, 405, 406).

Footnote 612:

_Sententiae_, II, 13, 2–6. See also Zöckler, _op. cit._, pp. 413–414.

Footnote 613:

See Bauer, _Philos. Werke des Grosseteste_, 1912 (under Grosseteste in

the Bibliography), p. 76*.

Footnote 614:

_De luce seu de inchoatione formarum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 51–59.

Footnote 615:

See Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 284–287, and vol. v, 1917,

pp. 356–358.

Footnote 616:

_De sex d. op._, pp. 53–54.

Footnote 617:

_Adnotat. elucidat. in Pentateuchon_, Gen. 6, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._,

vol. clxxv, cols. 34–37; _De sacramentis_, I, pt. 1, 1–16, in: Migne,

_op. cit._, vol. clxxvi, cols. 187–199. See also Zöckler, _op. cit._,

vol. i, p. 401.

Footnote 618:

_De Genesi ad litteram_, V, 5, in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xxxiv,

cols. 325–327. See also other passages in Augustine’s works cited in

Zöckler, _op. cit._, pp. 236–237.

Footnote 619:

Zöckler, _op. cit._, p. 406.

Footnote 620:

See above, p. 366, note 7.

Footnote 621:

See above, p. 9.

Footnote 622:

See above, p. 401, note 60.

Footnote 623:

See above, p. 99.

Footnote 624:

See above, p. 82.

Footnote 625:

See above, p. 82.

Footnote 626:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 19.

Footnote 627:

Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, pp. 429–430. Averroës discussed

the origin of matter in his commentary on Aristotle’s _Metaphysics_,

XII (Renan, _Averroès_, 1866, pp. 108–115). On medieval opposition to

the Averroïstic doctrine of the eternity of the world, see the same,

pp. 258, 274. On Michael Scot’s denial of this doctrine see Haskins,

_Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 260–261; the same, _Studies_, 1924, p.

285.

Footnote 628:

Duhem, _Système_, vol. v, 1917, p. 277.

Footnote 629:

Notably in the _De finitate motus et temporis_ and in the unpublished

_Hexaemeron_; see Baur, _Philos. Werke des Grosseteste_, 1912 (under

Grosseteste (under Grosseteste in the Bibliography), pp.

19*-24*—especially p. 23*—93*-95*, 101–106). Robert Grosseteste’s

pupil, Roger Bacon, “believed that he was in a position to demonstrate

by philosophical proofs that the world had a beginning; and besides he

maintained that Aristotle never maintained a contrary doctrine”

(Duhem, _op. cit._, vol. v, p. 402). Albertus Magnus, on the other

hand, did not categorically deny the truth of the Aristotelian

teaching, “but rather treated it as a theory that must be accepted

from the philosophical point of view but rejected from the

theological” (Zöckler, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 439). Bacon discussed

this matter in an unpublished work now preserved in the Bibliothèque

Municipale at Amiens, MS. no. 406, fol. 69, col. a; see Duhem, _op.

cit._, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 260–277. Albertus Magnus discussed the same

subject in _Summa theologiae_, pt. II, tract. 11, and in _De quattuor

coaevis_, both cited by Zöckler, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 436.

Footnote 630:

See the summary of the _De mundi univ._ in: _Histoire littéraire de la

France_, vol. xii, Paris, 1763, pp. 267–269.

Footnote 631:

See Anderson, _Younger Edda_, 1880 (under Snorri Sturluson, II, in the

Bibliography).

Footnote 632:

Ginungagap may be related to the great “northerly gulf” referred to

above, p. 349.

Footnote 633:

Quotation is here from Anderson’s paraphrase of the leading ideas of

the _Edda_ of Snorri Sturluson (Anderson, _op. cit._, Preface, p. 5).

Footnote 634:

_Quod homo sit minor mundus_, Baur’s edit., p. 59. See also Thorndike,

_Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p. 446.

Footnote 635:

See above, pp. 213–214.

Footnote 636:

Cumont, _After Life_, 1922, p. 12.

Footnote 637:

See above, p. 185, and also below, p. 436, note 17.

Footnote 638:

It is to be recalled that the _De mundi universitate_ is divided into

two books, _Megacosmus_ and _Microcosmus_. See above, p. 146.

Footnote 639:

There are marked analogies between the theory of the microcosm as

expounded by Herrad and by Hildegard of Bingen. Singer believes that

“the theory, in the form in which these writers present it, reached

the upper Rhineland somewhere about the middle or latter half of the

twelfth century” (Singer, _Visions of Saint Hildegard_, 1917, p. 20).

Footnote 640:

See Singer, _op. cit._, pp. 30–43, for a discussion of the theory of

the macrocosm and microcosm according to Hildegard and for highly

interesting reproductions of miniatures illustrating this theory.

Singer, believing that the _Causae et curae_ and _Subtilitates_ are

spurious (see above, p. 396, note 8), omits consideration of these

works in this connection.

Footnote 641:

“In creatione hominis de terra alia terra sumpta est, quae homo est,

et omnia elementa ei serviebant, quia eum vivere sentiebant, et obviam

omnibus conversationibus ejus cum illo operabantur et ipse cum illis”

(_Subtilitates_, I, praefatio, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcvii,

col. 1125).

Footnote 642:

_Causae et curae_, I (Kaiser’s edit., p. 2).

Footnote 643:

Thorndike, _Magic_, vol. ii, 1923, pp. 153–154.

Footnote 644:

_Subtilitates_, praef., in: Migne, _op. cit._, vol. cxcvii, cols.

1125–1128.

Footnote 645:

“Terram centrum idest punctum vocamus eo quod sit media in spera.”

“Terra autem in medio celestris circuli per quem sol currit ut centro

locata est” (Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 8865, fol.

55vo).

Footnote 646:

Grosseteste, _De sphaera_, Baur’s edit., pp. 12–13.

Footnote 647:

_Im. du monde_, I, 13. See above, p. 15.

Footnote 648:

John of Holywood, _De sphaera_, 1.

Footnote 649:

Translation of Al-Farghānī’s _Astronomy_ by John of Seville (or

Johannes Hispanensis, or John of Luna), Nuremberg edit., diff. iv,

fol. 4ro. In the _De sphaera_, _loc. cit._, John of Holywood stated

that Ptolemy and all philosophers had declared that six signs and the

middle of the heaven (_medietas caeli_)—by which he probably meant the

celestial equator—were visible from any place whatsoever to which a

man might go on the surface of the earth. If the earth were not at the

center of the universe it would be impossible, he argued, to see the

_medietas caeli_ from those parts of the earth nearest the firmament:

“aliquis existens in illa parte superficiei terrae quae magis

accederet ad firmamentum non videret caeli medietatem.”

[Illustration:

Fig. 10—Diagram to illustrate John of Holywood’s reasoning that the

earth is in the center of the universe.

]

Figure 10 illustrates what appears to have been John’s line of

reasoning as well as the flaws in it. With the earth in position I,

not in the center of the universe, the celestial equator (_E-E′_) is

invisible from all points between _x_ and _y_ through _N_ (the north

pole), _x_ and _y_ being points at which tangents _E-x_ and _E′-y_

touch the earth’s surface. If the earth is in the center of the

universe and the sphere of the universe is incomparably great in

relation to the size of the earth—something which John believed to be

true (see above, p. 155)—the area between _x′_ and _y′_ will be

reduced to a very small area around _N′_. John seems to have assumed

that the universe is large enough to make this area negligible. Such

an area must exist, nevertheless, with all but an infinitely great

celestial sphere. But if the universe were of infinite dimensions,

John’s entire argument based on the invisibility of _E-E′_ from an

earth not in the center would fall to the ground, for all points may

be deemed the center of an infinite universe. See also below, p. 426,

note 118.

Ptolemy’s _Almagest_, I, 4, contains an argument aimed to demonstrate

why the earth must be at the center of the universe. John of

Holywood’s reasoning is a confused attempt to condense the argument of

Ptolemy into a short space.

Footnote 650:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5.

Footnote 651:

_ibid._, I, 1.

Footnote 652:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 885.

Footnote 653:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 1, 4.

Footnote 654:

_Im. du monde_, I, 10.

Footnote 655:

_Expos. in hex._, cols. 735–736.

Footnote 656:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 1.

Footnote 657:

Abelard (_loc. cit._) and William of Conches (_loc. cit._) compare the

shell of the egg to the fire, the skin to the air, the white to the

water, and the yolk to the earth. Daniel of Morley makes the same

comparison, as follows: “Mundus vero ad similitudinem ovi factus est

vel dispositus. Terra est in medio ut vitellum in ovo; circa hanc est

aqua ut circa vitellum album; circa aquam aer ut panniculus continens

album. Extra vero cetera concludens est ignis ad modum teste ovi” (_De

philosophia_, Sudhoff’s edit., p. 20).

Footnote 658:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 271–272; idem, _Studies_,

1924, pp. 295–296.

Footnote 659:

“Et terra modica est et prope fundum firmamenti est, quod si in medio

firmamenti esset, tunc eam oporteret maiorem esse et tunc etiam facile

caderet et dirumperetur, si tantam amplitudinem aeris sub se haberet,

quantam super se habet. Sed et ipsa ad meridiem quasi descensus montis

est, unde etiam ibi maiorem calorem de sole habet, quia sol et

firmamentum ipsi viciniora ibi sunt. Ad aquilonem vero alta est

adversum poenas, et etiam ibi maius frigus est, quia nec firmamentum

nec sol ibi prope terram sunt, sed quaedam maior amplitudo firmamenti”

(_Causae et curae_, II, Kaiser’s edit., p. 49).

Footnote 660:

_Liber div. op._, pars I, visio II, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol.

cxcvii, cols. 751–755, 759–760. In a previous vision referred to in

the passage just cited and described in _Scivias_, I, visio III

(Migne, _op. cit._, col. 405), Hildegard saw the universe as an egg,

in which the earth appeared as follows: “Et in medio istorum

elementorum quidam arenosus globus plurimae magnitudinis erat; quem

eadem elementa ita circumdederant, quod nec hac nec illac dilabi

poterat. Sed dum interdum eadem elementa cum praedictis flatibus se

invicem concuterent, eumdem globum sua fortitudine aliquantulum

moveri. Et vidi inter aquilonem et orientem velut maximum montem, qui

versus aquilonem multas tenebras et versus orientem multam lucem

continebat; ita tamen quod nec lux illa ad tenebras, nec tenebrae ad

lucem pertingere poterant.”

Singer in his _Visions of Saint Hildegard_, 1917, pp. 22–30, discusses

Hildegard’s theories of the structure of the material universe as

revealed in the records of her visions. Particularly striking are the

colored illustrations taken from miniatures in manuscripts of her

works. Singer asserts (p. 22) that “the concentric structure of the

universe is a commonplace of mediaeval science, and is encountered,

for instance, in the works of Bede, Isidore, Alexander of Neckam,

Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, and Dante. To all these writers,

however, the universe is spherical. The egg-shape is peculiar to

Hildegard. Many of the _Mappaemundi_ of the Beatus and other types

exhibit the _surface_ of the habitable earth itself as oval, and it

was from such charts that Hildegard probably gained her conception of

an oval universe. In her method of orientation also she follows these

maps, placing east at the top of the page where we are accustomed to

place the north.” This statement would seem to be misleading if it

means that the comparison of the universe with an egg is peculiar to

Hildegard. As is shown by the texts cited above, p. 151, and below,

note 100, _ad fin._, this comparison was a frequent one throughout our

period. It does not, however, necessarily imply belief that the

universe is shaped like an egg, but merely that its concentric

structure corresponds with that of the egg. Furthermore, in the

opinion of the present writer, the fact that the Beatus and other maps

of the period show the surface of the habitable earth as an oval or

rectangle should not necessarily be taken as meaning that the

draftsmen of the maps believed that the earth was oval or rectangular.

The maps were highly conventionalized, and their shape was often

determined by the shape of the page upon which they were drawn. On the

other hand, Hildegard in her Scivias unquestionably meant to describe

an egg-shaped universe. Otherwise she would not have been so careful

to point out at the opening of the _Liber divinorum operum_ that in

the earlier vision described in _Scivias_ the universe had appeared as

an egg whereas in the vision she was about to describe it appeared as

a wheel.

Footnote 661:

“In medio quoque aeris terra posita est, ita scilicet ut aer aequali

mensura super terram, ac sub terra, et in utraque partes terrae sit”

(_Liber div. op._, pars I, visio IV, cap. 63).

Doubts have been thrown on the authenticity of the _Causae et curae_

as a work of Hildegard (see above, p. 396, note 8). The three passages

quoted in this and the two preceding notes show that in both phrasing

and substance the passage from the _Causae et curae_ bears marked

resemblances to the passages from the two other known works of

Hildegard, even though there is inconsistency in regard to the central

issue relating to the position of the earth. If the _Causae et curae_

were not written by Hildegard, it was assuredly the work of someone

thoroughly familiar with her writings.

Footnote 662:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5.

Footnote 663:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 2–3.

Footnote 664:

See above, p. 368, note 33.

Footnote 665:

John of Holywood, _De sphaera_, 1.

Footnote 666:

Similar arguments are set forth in Robert Grosseteste’s _De sphaera_,

Baur’s edit., p. 13.

Footnote 667:

See Alexander Neckam, _De nat. rer._, II, 14, where much the same

argument is given. Neckam adds that the roundness of drops of dew is

proof of the inherent tendency of water to assume a spherical shape.

Footnote 668:

The text upon which this accusation is based is from _Otia imper._,

II, 2, where Gervase says: “Nos tamen assignantes orbis divisionem

distributioni filiorum Noë, a quibus summa totius orbis coepit

partitio, orbem totius terrae Oceani limbo circumseptum et quadratura

statuimus secundum Pauli Orosii sententiam, eiusque tres partes Asiam,

Europam et Africam nominamus.” This was interpreted by Daunou

(_Discours_, 1824, p. 120)—who was followed by Santarem (_Essai_, vol.

i, 1848, p. 107), C. B. Jourdain (_Infl. d’ Arist._, 1861, pp. 19–20),

and others—as implying that Gervase believed the earth to be square.

On the other hand, Lecoy de La Marche rallied to the defense of

Gervase (_Connaiss. géogr._, 1884, p. 208). He argued that the passage

should be rendered thus: “Nous calculons, nous pensons, que le monde

terrestre est entouré et encadré (_quadratum_) par une ceinture de

mers” and that elsewhere Gervase asserts definitely that the earth is

a sphere: “Forma eius (terrae) rotunda est ad modum pilae” (_Otia

imper._, vol. i, p. 885). As a matter of fact Gervase was speaking of

the universe and not of the earth when he made this comparison with a

ball, and Lecoy de La Marche would have been more correct if he had

inserted _mundi_ after _eius_ instead of _terrae_. It seems,

nevertheless, that we are justified in rejecting the text first quoted

as furnishing any sure evidence that Gervase believed the earth to be

square, especially since he also adopted the old comparison of the

universe to an egg (_Otia imper._, _loc. cit._) with which it would

have been difficult, though not impossible, to reconcile a theory of a

square earth. Gervase, however, had an uncritical mind. His work was

in large measure one of compilation from the writings of others, and

it would not be surprising to find contradictory statements in it.

Quite as contradictory passages on the same subject occur in Isidore

and in most medieval writings of a similar encyclopedic character. See

above, p. 54. Lecoy de La Marche, it would seem, tried to do the

impossible when he attempted to show that Gervase had clear and

consistent ideas of a scientific nature.

There is no question, however, but that belief in the sphericity of

the earth was well grounded in the consciousness of many Western

Europeans of the late twelfth century. Other evidence of this beside

that already cited is furnished by the fact that in an ecstasy Alpis

(or Alpäis) of Cudot, of the diocese of Sens, was said to have seen

the entire world in the form of a globe, compact and united. The sun

was larger than the earth; and the latter was suspended in the midst

of the air like an egg surrounded by water on all sides (_Histoire

littéraire de la France_, vol. ix, 1750, p. 155). This vision was much

like those of Hildegard of Bingen; see above, p, 423, note 92.

Footnote 669:

_Causae et curae_, II; Kaiser’s edit., p. 49, quoted above, p. 423,

note 91. The fact that Hildegard here states that if the earth were in

the middle of the firmament it would have to be larger or else it

would fall, would seem to necessitate belief in a flat earth

contiguous with the firmament. The passage from _Causae et curae_, I,

Kaiser’s edit., p. 23, translated above, pp. 183–184, would also seem

to require the same belief.

Footnote 670:

See above, p. 54.

Footnote 671:

See passages quoted above, p. 423, notes 91 and 92.

Footnote 672:

_Scivias_, I, visio III, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcvii, col.

405; _Liber div. op._, pars I, visio II, in: Migne, _op. cit._, cols.

751–755, 759–760; pars I, visio IV, in: Migne, _op. cit._, col. 869.

Footnote 673:

_De arca Noë myst._, 14. For a similar text see Daniel of Morley’s _De

philosophia_, Sudhoff’s edit., pp. 9–10.

Footnote 674:

See above, p. 369, notes 39 and 40.

Footnote 675:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5.

Footnote 676:

_De sex d. op._, p. 58.

Footnote 677:

See above, p. 370, note 42; p. 401, note 58; p. 419, note 32.

Footnote 678:

_Quaest. nat._, 48 (49). Adelard’s arguments resemble those of

Aristotle in the _De caelo_. See above, p. 370, note 42; p. 401, note

58.

Footnote 679:

Similar Aristotelian arguments are to be found in Alexander Neckam’s

_De nat. rer._, I, 16. Neckam cites Aristotle as his authority.

Footnote 680:

_De sphaera_, 1.

Footnote 681:

“Haec [i. e. terrae] centrum in medio mundi ut punctus in medio

circuli aequaliter collocatur ...” etc. (_De imag. mundi_, I, 5).

“Tanta est firmamenti quantitas ut ipsi totalis terra collata quasi

punctum esse videatur” (Alexander Neckam, _De nat. rer._, I, 5).

Michael Scot, however, believed that “the distance to the extreme of

the waters beneath the earth equals the distance to the moon”

(Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, p. 272; idem, _Studies_, 1924,

pp. 295–296).

Footnote 682:

“Cum ergo corpus solis et terrae aequalia non sunt, quippe cum sit sol

octies major quam terra, umbram terrae κυλίνδρος esse non potest” (_De

phil. mundi_, II, 32).

Footnote 683:

_Im. du monde_, I, 14. This is based on Neckam, _loc. cit._

Footnote 684:

_Im. du monde_, III, 16. Neckam (_De nat. rer._, I, 8), with whose

text the _Image du monde_ here corresponds, borrowed from Ptolemy

certain details in regard to the relative sizes of sun, earth,

planets, and stars. The sun is by far the largest body in the

universe, 166 and a fraction times larger than the earth. Next after

the sun rank fifteen of the largest fixed stars; Jupiter ranks in the

third place, Saturn in the fourth, the remainder of the fixed stars in

the fifth, Mars in the sixth, the earth in the seventh, Venus in the

eighth, the moon in the ninth, and Mercury in the tenth. See Ptolemy,

_Almagest_, V, 16.

Footnote 685:

_De sphaera_, 1.

Footnote 686:

“Item si intelligatur superficies plana super centrum terrae dividens

eam in duo aequalia, et per consequens ipsum firmamentum, oculus

igitur existens in centro terrae videret medietatem firmamenti;

idemque existens in superficie terrae videret eandem medietatem. Ex

his colligitur quod insensibilis est quantitas terrae quae est a

superficie ad centrum et per consequens quantitas totius terrae

insensibilis est respectu firmamenti” (_loc. cit._).

John of Holywood’s argument is here closely related to that employed

by him to prove that the earth must be in the center of the universe

as set forth above, p. 422, note 81. It would seem probable that by

“an eye stationed in the center of the earth” he means an eye on a

line between the center of the earth and the _medietas firmamenti_,

and by “the same (eye) stationed on the surface of the earth” he means

on the surface at a point where a line at right angles to the line

from the center of the earth to the _medietas firmamenti_ cuts the

surface of the earth. Referring, then, to Figure 10, p. 422, above,

let us assume that line _E-E′_ represents the plane through the

_medietas firmamenti_ and the center of the earth (_C_). When the

earth is at the center of the universe line _C-N′_ will represent the

line drawn at right angles to this plane. With a universe of infinite

dimensions obviously _N′-E_ and _N′-E′_ would be parallel to _E-E′_,

and the _medietas firmamenti_ would be visible from _N′_. John assumes

that the universe is so large in relation to the earth that the area

around _N′_ whence _E-E′_ would be invisible is negligible.

Footnote 687:

_Almagest_, I, 5.

Footnote 688:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5.

Footnote 689:

_Im. du monde_, III, 15.

Footnote 690:

_Liber floridus_, Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 8865,

fol. 55vo. A note illustrating a diagram on the same page of the same

manuscript gives 240,000 stades for the circumference, one of the two

figures of Posidonius. See above, p. 16.

Footnote 691:

_De sphaera_, 1.

Footnote 692:

See the various works referred to on pp. 95–98, above. Robert

Grosseteste’s _De sphaera_ includes a very clear discussion of the

main elements of geocentric astronomy as taught in the early

thirteenth century.

Footnote 693:

See above, pp. 17–18.

Footnote 694:

_De mundi univ._, p. 17.

Footnote 695:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 6.

Footnote 696:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 892.

Footnote 697:

_Etym._, XIII, 6.

Footnote 698:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 2–3.

Footnote 699:

“Extra tres autem partes orbis, quarta pars trans oceanum interior est

in meridie, quae solis ardore incognita nobis est. In cuius finibus

antipodas fabulosae inhabitare produntur.” Text (not legible on our

Fig. 2, p. 69) from Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895, p. 58. See

Isidore, _Etym._, XIV, 5, 17. Gervase of Tilbury describes the austral

continent in similar terms: “Porro inter mare rubrum et Oceanum plaga

torrida est, propter calorem nobis incognita, in cuius finibus

antipodes esse dicuntur” (_Otia imper._, vol. ii, p. 760).

Footnote 700:

See above, p. 385, note 58.

Footnote 701:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1895, p. 50.

Footnote 702:

“Hic antipodes nostri habitant, sed noctem diversam diesque contrarios

perferunt ...” (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 703:

See above, p. 185.

Footnote 704:

_Microcosmus_, Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds St. Victor, no. 738,

fol. 18vo.

Footnote 705:

_De sphaera_, Baur’s edit., pp. 24–25. Amphitrite is also discussed in

the _Liber de essentiis_ of Hermann the Dalmatian, dating from 1143,

in a geographical passage published recently by Haskins (_Studies_,

1924, pp. 62–64): “Hinc vero per Amphitritis sinus ab Athlante Libico

Strixisque inflexu per littora Gaditana per confinia Thiles proprie

Temiscirios campos e vicino portibus Caspiis usque ad Caucason et

Ethiopici Gangis effluxus.” In another passage of the same work quoted

by Haskins (_op. cit._, p. 64) Hermann indicates that in the latitude

of Lisbon and Toledo eight equal land stages are the equivalent of 4°

of longitude, that the width of Amphitrite is 44°, or the equivalent

of eighty-eight equal land stages, and that there is an opinion that

paradise lies beyond this ocean. “... spatium ... dierum 44 que

secundum quod ratio tribuit est dimidia latitudo Amphitritis, tota

(totam) videlicet itineris terrestris equabilis dierum fere 88. Tantum

ergo spatii vel etiam aliquanto plus que ratio hucusque transnatari

prohibuit nondum audivimus nisi forte illa quam (que) exposuimus. In

ea tamen parte non modica est opinio eam esse regionem quam paradisum

vocant, cuius indicio sunt signa tam ab oriente quam ab occidente.” In

this same passage Hermann states that Toledo is 62° west of Arin (see

above, p. 86). One would therefore expect the width of Amphitrite to

be 44° in order to bring to 90° the total distance from Arin to the

prime meridian in the midst of Amphitrite (Haskins, _op. cit._, p. 64,

note 202).

Footnote 706:

_Im. du monde_, II, 1.

Footnote 707:

“Quid significat globus aureus, qui regum manibus gestatur?

Aureus ille globus pomum vel palla vocatur,

Unde figuratum mundum gestare putatur,

Quando coronatur, palla ferenda datur.

Significat mundum forma peribente rotundum,

Intus habet plenum terrestri pondere fundum,

Quem tenet archanum palla ferenda manu.

Hec fuit ex terris mundi collecta quaternis;

Ut foret imperii manibus gestenda supernis.

Hac tulit imperium Iulius arte suum.

Taliter hunc mundum gestat manus una rotundum,

Regius includit sic omnia climata pugnus,

Taliter omne quod est regia pompa tenet.”

—_Pantheon_, particula xxvi, 4; in: _Mon. Germ.

hist._, Scriptores, vol. xxii, pp. 274–275; pars

19 in Herold’s edit., 1559, col. 620.

Footnote 708:

Eugen Oberhummer, _Das britische Weltreich und die imperialistischen

Staatenbildung früherer Zeit_, in: Mitteilungen der Geographischen

Gesellschaft in Wien, vol. lxiii, 1920, pp. 108–109. See also Miller,

_Mappaemundi_, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 129–131.

Footnote 709:

“In den bûchen vant er ouch dô,

daz eine werlt wêre sô

gelegen under dirre erde:

swen ez hie naht werde,

daz ez danne dort tac sî.”

Schröder, _Sanct Brandan_, 1871, p. 51.

Footnote 710:

_De nupt. Phil. et Merc._, VI, 602–608.

Footnote 711:

The word _antipodes_ as we employ it at the present time refers rather

to the _antichthones_ of Capella. These terms, however, were not used

with consistency by classical and medieval writers.

Footnote 712:

_In som. Scip. com._, II, 5.

Footnote 713:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 3. Alexander Neckam also did not deny the

abstract possibility of the existence of antipodeans: “Nonne enim et

antipodes sub pedibus nostris esse dicuntur. Si tamen philosophice

loqui volueris, non magis sunt sub pedibus nostris quam nos sub

pedibus eorum. Sed numquid de primis parentibus descenderunt

antipodes? Secundum Augustinum non sunt antipodes, sed doctrinae causa

aut figmenti ita dici solet” (_De nat. rer._, pp. 159–160).

Footnote 714:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 975.

Footnote 715:

“Mira res a messibus subterraneis veniens hyemalia frigora videt in

nostro haemispherio perseverare, quod utique solis absentiae ac

vicariae praesentiae merito adscribendum duxi” (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 716:

Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 64–65. For data relating to

another attack on Macrobius’ cosmography preserved in a

twelfth-century manuscript in Cambrai see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924,

pp. 98–103.

Footnote 717:

The Latin text of the passage of which this is a free paraphrase, runs

as follows: “Suscepto enim semel, quatuor habitationes hominum esse,

quorum ad se invicem nulla penitus possit esse per naturam commeandi

licentia, dic age, quomodo verum erit, quod Sancta, & Apostolica

rationalibiliter confitetur Ecclesia, Salvatorem videlicet, per primos

Patres ab ipsis, ut ita dicam, huius Mundi cunabulis praesignatum, & a

Patriarchis, & Prophetis consequenter multifarie, & multis evidentibus

modis praefiguratum, tandem in plenitudine temporis, ineffabilibus

humilitatis, & caritatis suae operibus cognitum, ac clarificatum, in

salutem totius humani generis advenisse, si tria hominum genera

excepta sunt, quae praedictus Macrobius praeter hanc habitabilem, quam

incolumus, secundum zonarum Coeli, & terrae temperiem, posse esse

persuadet, ad quae tantae salubritatis notitia pervenire non potuit?

Ubi est, quod ille fidelis, quem invenit Dominus virum secundum cor

suum, in spiritu veritatis clamat: ‘Ante conspectum gentium revelavit

justitiam suam Deus.’ Et ibidem: ‘Videbunt omnes fines terrae salutare

Dei nostri,’ si aliqui fines terrae sunt ab hominibus inhabitati, ad

quos sonus Prophetarum, & Apostolorum nostrorum prohibente natura per

inaccessibiles aquarum, frigorum, calorumve distantias transire

nequivit?” (Manegold, _Opusculum_, Muratori’s edit., 1713, pp.

175–176.)

Footnote 718:

Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 14704, fol. 114vo. See

also above, p. 96.

Footnote 719:

_Dialogus_, I, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clvii, col. 547.

Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 10722, fol. 77ro, gives

a diagram illustrating the eccentricity of the sun’s orbit. In accord

with the Moslem cartographic tradition, south is at the top.

Footnote 720:

Plato of Tivoli’s translation of Al-Bāttanī’s _Astronomy_, Bologna

edit., 1645, p. 26 (from _Opus astron._, 6, Nallino’s edit., pt. i,

1903, p. 14). Essentially the same ideas, though expressed in somewhat

different terms, are to be found in the _Liber de essentiis_ of

Hermann the Dalmatian. See above, p. 400, note 48.

Footnote 721:

_De lineis angulis_, etc., Baur’s edit., p. 64. Roger Bacon’s views on

the influence of pyramidal rays as set forth in _Opus majus_ (Bridges’

edit., vol. i, 1897, pp. 117–143) are discussed in Werner, _Kosm.

Roger Baco_, 1879, pp. 597–600. Bacon’s indebtedness to Grosseteste,

however, does not seem to be sufficiently emphasized by Werner. See

above, pp. 179–180 and p. 408, note 97.

Footnote 722:

_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 66–67.

Footnote 723:

_De sphaera_, Baur’s edit., pp. 20–24.

Footnote 724:

_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., p. 69.

Footnote 725:

Emmanuel de Martonne, _Traité de géographie physique_, 3rd edit.,

Paris, 1920, p. 40.

Footnote 726:

_De sphaera_, Baur’s edit., p. 25.

Footnote 727:

_Opus majus_, Bridges’ edit., vol. i, 1897, p. 192. See Duhem,

_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 416–419.

Footnote 728:

_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 68–69.

Footnote 729:

See above, pp. 179–180, and below, p. 431, note 7.

NOTES

CHAPTER VII

THE ATMOSPHERE

Footnote 730:

Those parts of the _Dragmaticon philosophiae_ and of the _De

philosophia mundi_ which deal with meteorology are conveniently

available in Hellmann, _Denkmäler_, 1904, pp. 42–54, 69–75. See also

the extensive discussion in Werner, _Kosm. Wilhelm von Conches_, 1873.

Footnote 731:

_De phil. mundi_, I, 21; III, 1; III, 14. See also Werner, _op. cit._,

p. 318.

Footnote 732:

_De phil. mundi_, I, 21. See also Werner, _op. cit._, pp. 316–317.

Footnote 733:

_De phil. mundi_, I, 17–21. See also Werner, _op. cit._, pp. 313–315.

Footnote 734:

These five regions were: (1) the celestial region, or sphere of the

fixed stars; (2) the region of ether, which reaches from the sphere of

the fixed stars down to that of the moon; (3) the upper air, clear and

lucid; (4) the lower air, turbid and cloudy; and (5) the earth. (_De

phil. mundi_, I, 16–21). See Werner, _loc. cit._, for discussion of

these ideas, of their derivation from Plato’s _Timaeus_ and from later

Platonists, and of the “demons” associated with each of the five

regions.

Footnote 735:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 5: III, 5, 6.

Footnote 736:

Robert Grosseteste believed that if you take into account the

theoretical principles of the “pyramids” of rays alone (see above, pp.

163–164), mountain heights should be hotter than valleys because the

pyramids striking the crests of mountains are shorter than those

striking the floors of valleys (_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., p.

66). In other words, mountain summits theoretically ought to be warmer

because they are nearer the sun. In the _De natura locorum_ Robert

explains that accidental circumstances frequently cause a reversal of

these conditions in such a way that the heights may be dominated by

cold. Among these accidental circumstances are the winds and also the

fact that peaks rise to the “middle space of the air or of the sphere

where there is the greatest cold (medium interstitium aeris vel

sphaerae, ubi est maxima frigiditas).”

Footnote 737:

“... calor non provenit ex corpore solari, sed ex reflexione et

condensatione radiorum” (_De impressionibus elementorum_, Baur’s

edit., p. 88).

Footnote 738:

_ibid._, pp. 87–88.

Footnote 739:

See above, p. 23.

Footnote 740:

“Triplex est universa dimensio, in longum, latum, et altum. Quoniam

igitur omnis corporis sedes in fundamento suo terra vero tocius mundi

fundamentum, multo pocius mundane prolis ex substantia collecte sedem

terram esse necesse est. Eius pars quedam a terra in altum crescit,

alia vero super terram in altum elevatur tocius fomentum hic spiritus

terreni vapores pinguedine crassus, sine quo nulla huius geniture vita

per aliquot horarum spacia possibilis. Hic autem vapor, ut per

altitudinem Olimpi concipit Aristotiles, a terre superficie non plus

quam .xvi. stadiis exaltatur. Hic ergo terminus videtur in altum omnis

nostre habitabilis. Videtur fortasse huius altitudinis mensura sumi

posse vel per arcum yris que secundum Ipparci descriptionem ab ipsis

nubibus usque in superficiem terre perveniat. Sed quoniam nec ipsa

descriptio constans nec ipsius arcus ad semicirculum habitudo,

propterea nos id cuilibet probandum relinquimus” (_Liber de

essentiis_, text from Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 62, where variant

readings from different manuscripts are given). Haskins points out

that Aristotle (_Meteor._, I, 13) omits Olympus from his list of the

highest mountains.

Footnote 741:

See above, p. 169, and below, p. 432, note 16.

Footnote 742:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 34; copied in Gervase of Tilbury, _Otia imper._,

vol. i, p. 893.

Footnote 743:

The origin of this story has not been traced by the present writer. It

would certainly seem to be based on some actual knowledge of the

physiological effects of lower air pressure at great heights.

According to Benini (_Origine del Monte del Purgatorio_, 1917, p.

1085) Dante (_Purgatorio_, XXVIII, 103–112; see also _Inferno_, IV,

26–28, 149–150) held that the Mount of Purgatory reaches above the

lower levels of the atmosphere, which are corrupted by the earth and

where winds, clouds, rain, hail, and rainbows are to be found, into a

realm of motionless air. The very summit of the mountain where the

Terrestrial Paradise is situated is in a belt of air which moves from

east to west with the motion of the ninth sphere.

Footnote 744:

“Nos vero dicimus quod ille aer non spissatur, sed fumus humidus qui

ex convallibus ascendit, ex frigiditate superiorum in nubes et nives

constringitur” (_De phil. mundi_, IV, 5).

Footnote 745:

_Dialogus_, IX, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clvii, col. 631.

Footnote 746:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 4–8.

Footnote 747:

Of the water drawn up by the sun, the lighter or “more liquid”

(liquidius) portions were supposed actually to have been turned into

fire and in this way to have served as a replenishment for the solar

fires. The coarser portions fell back to the earth. A blood rain was

caused by great heat.

Footnote 748:

See E. W. Gudger, _Rains of Fishes_, in: Natural History: The Journal

of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. xxi, 1921, New York,

pp. 607–619.

Footnote 749:

_De sex d. op._, p. 54.

Footnote 750:

William of Conches follows Theodoric in this explanation of snow and

hail (_De phil. mundi_, III, 4, 8, 9). In the epic poem, _Philippis_

(IX, 672–682), of William the Breton there is a remarkable description

of a nocturnal fog lying over the humid and fertile ground near Lille,

so thick that a rider could scarcely discern the ears of his horse in

front of him. William attributed the fog to damp vapors rising from

beneath the muddy surface of the plain rather than to a more probable

cause: the cooling and condensation of water vapor in the lower strata

of the atmosphere as a result of active radiation from the earth’s

surface.

Footnote 751:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 6. On the miraculous production of rain, see above,

pp. 203–204, and below, p. 433, note 31.

Footnote 752:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 7 (cited by Werner, _Kosm. Wilhelm von

Conches_, 1873, p. 375). William discusses opposing views as to the

end of the world, whether it will come by flood or by fire (see above,

pp. 13–14). William himself was inclined to believe that it would be

by fire.

Footnote 753:

See above, p. 184.

Footnote 754:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 34.

Footnote 755:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 907. See below, p. 446, note 18.

Footnote 756:

The presence of fossils on mountains was cited by early Christian

writers as proof that the Deluge rose higher than the highest

mountains. See references in E. S. McCartney, _Fossil Lore in Greek

and Roman Literature_, in: Proceedings of the Michigan Academy of

Science, Arts, and Letters, vol. iii, New York, 1924, pp. 23–38,

references on p. 35.

Footnote 757:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, pp. 893–894.

Footnote 758:

“‘Non maledicam ultra terram, propter homines. Tempus sementis et

messis, frigus et aestas, nox et dies requiescent.’ Forte nondum ita

plene distincta erant tempora quatuor, quia nec usque ad diluvium

aquae collectae fuerant in nubes” (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 759:

_Liber div. op._, pars III, visio VII, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol.

cxcvii, col. 966. Quotation from Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p.

136.

Footnote 760:

On the supernatural production of storms and wind, and on the belief

that they are caused by magic and by evil spirits in the air, see

White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, pp. 336–350; Hoffmann, _Anschauungen_,

1907, PP· 85–91; and, especially, J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_,

Part I, _The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings_, London, 1911, vol.

i, pp. 244–331. See also above, pp. 203–204 and 209.

A characteristic story of this sort is related in the _Gesta regis

Ricardi_, falsely ascribed to Benedict of Peterborough. Here we are

told that a huge black dragon raises waterspouts in the Gulf of

Satalia on the south coast of Asia Minor. The author adds, however:

“Quidem autem dicunt quod hoc non est draco sed sol qui attrahit aquas

maris ad se, quod plus verum videtur” (_Gesta regis Ricardi_, vol. ii,

p. 197). The author is also skeptical towards a fantastic story of how

storms are produced in the same gulf by the rising to the surface of

the head of an abortive child that had been thrown into its waters

(_ibid._, p. 196).

Footnote 761:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 54.

Footnote 762:

“Ventus ... est ... aer commotus et agitatus” (_Otia imper._, vol. i,

p. 889).

Footnote 763:

“Est igitur ventus aer densus usque ad offensionem (quidem) motus.

Esse enim venti genus aerem estimo” (_Quaest. nat._, 59 (60)). On

references to the _Quaestiones naturales_, see the Bibliography under

Adelard of Bath.

Footnote 764:

“Ventus igitur est aer in unam partem flans” (_Dragmaticon

philosophiae_, in: Hellmann, _Denkmäler_, 1904, p. 42).

Footnote 765:

_Liber div. op._, pars I, visio II, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol.

cxcvii, col. 762; Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p. 132.

Footnote 766:

_Causae et curae_, I, Kaiser’s edit., p. 4.

Footnote 767:

_ibid._, p. 5.

Footnote 768:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 15.

Footnote 769:

_Quaest. nat._, 59 (60); quotation is from Gollancz’s translation, p.

145.

Footnote 770:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 922.

Footnote 771:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 15.

Footnote 772:

See above, pp. 192–193.

Footnote 773:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 15.

Footnote 774:

Gilbert, _Meteorol. Theorien_, 1907, pp. 539–557.

Footnote 775:

_Quaest. nat._, V, 17.

Footnote 776:

On the names of the winds in medieval French literature, see Frahm,

_Das Meer_, 1914, pp. 78–82.

Footnote 777:

_Liber floridus_, Ghent MS., fol. 24, as cited in Migne, _Pat. lat._,

vol. clxiii, col. 1009.

Footnote 778:

Einhard, the Frankish scholar, contemporary and biographer of

Charlemagne, in his _Vita Caroli magni_ so designates the winds (_Mon.

Germ. hist._, Scriptores, vol. ii, p. 459).

Footnote 779:

Bertolini, _L’orologio_, 1916, p. 977.

Footnote 780:

Cusa, _Denom. dei venti_, 1884, pp. 375–415.

Footnote 781:

Alexander Neckam makes Boreas a bringer of hail and Auster a rainy

wind (_De laud. div. sap._, II, 85–92).

Bernard Sylvester writes:

“Obriguit Boreas, maduit Notus, Auster et Eurus:

Hic tempestates, ille serena facit.”

—_De mundi univ._, p. 19.

Classical tradition, however, was apparently uniform in conceiving of

Notus and Auster as the same. See table in Gilbert, _op. cit._, pp.

550–551. William of Conches describes Boreas as a dry, as well as

cold, wind “because it drives the clouds before it toward the mid

region of the earth.” But also, because of the very fact that it does

so drive the clouds before it, it is a producer of rain along the

borders of the torrid zone. “Siccus vero, quia nubes de hoc angulo

terrae ad medium fugat, estque pluviosus juxta fines torridae zonae”

(_De phil. mundi_, III, 15).

Footnote 782:

_loc. cit._

Footnote 783:

“Arthous, Boreas, Boreae contrarius Auster,

Sol oriens Eurum, vespera dat Zephyrum.

Constringit Boreas, pluvius fert humidus Auster,

Clara dies Euro, flos alitur Zephyro.

Auctumno Boreas, aestati convenit Eurus;

Auster hyemsque madent; ver Zephyrusque tepent.”

—_Symbolum electorum_, II, 1.

See also Giraldus Cambrensis, _Top. Hiber._, I, 3, on Zephyr and

Eurus, and I, 6, on Corus, the violent northwester which uproots or

bends over trees in the west of Ireland. Corus was the favoring wind

for voyagers from England to France, according to Willibald, an eighth

century ecclesiastic, associate of Boniface, in his _Vita Bonifatii_,

5 (Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. lxxxix, col. 613). Alexander Neckam (_loc.

cit._) and Bernard Sylvester (_loc. cit._) make Eurus a stormy wind.

Neckam says that it disturbs the waters and is unwelcome to travelers;

Zephyr, on the other hand, spreads the fields with flowers.

Footnote 784:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 922.

Footnote 785:

_ibid._, p. 972.

Footnote 786:

Liebrecht, _Gervasius von Tilbury_, 1856, p. 112.

Footnote 787:

_Historia_, XIX, 16 (in medieval French transl., edited by Paulin

Paris, vol. ii, 1880, p. 275; see also Dreesbach, _Der Orient_, 1901,

p. 29). Walter of Châtillon describes vividly the drought, whirlwinds,

and sand storms of the Libyan desert (_Alexandreis_, III, 374). See

Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, p. 201.

Footnote 788:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 31.

Footnote 789:

_Collectanea_, Mommsen’s edit., p. 236, translated in: Nansen,

_Northern Mists_, 1911, vol. i, p. 193.

Footnote 790:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 3.

Footnote 791:

Dreesbach, _op. cit._, pp. 19–24.

Footnote 792:

Ambroise, _Estoire de la guerre sainte_, verses 10610–10612, in:

Gaston Paris’ edit., col. 284; see also the same, verses 6303–6306

(Paris’ edit., col. 168), and Dreesbach, _op. cit._, p. 20. The last

four words may be translated by “as is its wont.”

Footnote 793:

Benjamin of Tudela, _Itinerary_, Adler’s transl., p. 81.

Footnote 794:

_ibid._, p. 64.

Footnote 795:

_ibid._, p. 38.

Footnote 796:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 3.

Footnote 797:

_De prop. rerum_, XI, 3.

Footnote 798:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 33–40.

Footnote 799:

_ibid._, I, 35.

Footnote 800:

Schröder, _Sanct Brandan_, 1871 (under Brandan in the Bibliography),

p. 22.

Footnote 801:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 3, 6, etc.

Footnote 802:

_ibid._, I, 33.

Footnote 803:

See above, p. 167.

Footnote 804:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 6.

Footnote 805:

_Ligurinus_, II, 61–66, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. ccxii, cols.

350–351.

Footnote 806:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 4.

Footnote 807:

_Itin. Kamb._, I, 2.

Footnote 808:

_ibid._, I, 3.

Footnote 809:

_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 68–69. See above, p. 165.

Footnote 810:

_De natura locorum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 68–69.

Footnote 811:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 912.

Footnote 812:

_ibid._, p. 922.

Footnote 813:

_Gesta Frid._, II, 13.

Footnote 814:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 35–37.

Footnote 815:

_Gesta Frid._, II, 34.

Footnote 816:

_Ligurinus_, IV, 179–220, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. ccxii, cols.

381–382.

Footnote 817:

Referring to Capua, Benjamin of Tudela wrote: “It is a fine city, but

its water is bad and the country is fever-stricken” (Benjamin of

Tudela, _Itinerary_, Adler’s transl., p. 7).

NOTES

CHAPTER VIII

THE WATERS

Footnote 818:

_Expos. in hex._, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxviii, cols.

741–747.

Footnote 819:

_De sex d. op._, pp. 54–55.

Footnote 820:

_De phil. mundi_, II, 2.

Footnote 821:

William of Conches went on to explain in this connection (_De phil.

mundi_, II, 4) why the heavens are blue, a phenomenon which some

observers had attributed to the presence of waters. “What do we see up

there, dense and the color of water? It is not fire, for if the air is

invisible because of its great rarity (_subtilitas_), so also must

fire be invisible, fire which is so much more rare than air.

Furthermore, it is not the color of fire.” William asserted that you

see nothing at all and that the impression of seeing water is an

optical illusion. Unless some other color interposes, a ray of light

on entering the eye takes the color of water from the aqueous humor

contained in the eye.

Footnote 822:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, p. 272; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p.

296.

Footnote 823:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 894.

Footnote 824:

Paraphrase by White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. i, p. 95, note.

Footnote 825:

_De universo_, I, 38 (Orléans edit., 1674, p. 598, col. 2G, as cited

and translated by Stegmann, _Anschauungen_, 1913, p. 19, note 3).

Footnote 826:

_Causae et curae_, I (Kaiser’s edit., p. 23). See above, p. 425, note

101.

Footnote 827:

_Solutiones_, quaest. 2, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcvii, cols.

1040–1041.

Footnote 828:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 893.

Footnote 829:

_Expos. in hex._, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxviii, cols.

743–744.

Footnote 830:

Psalm cxlviii, 4–5.

Footnote 831:

See above, pp. 186–187.

Footnote 832:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 5. See Norlind, _Problem_, 1918, p. 39.

Footnote 833:

_De sacramentis_, bk. I, pt. I, ch. 22. See Norlind, _op. cit._, p.

44.

Footnote 834:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5. See also _Im. du monde_, II, 9; Bartholomew

Anglicus, _De prop. rerum_, VIII, 3. The symbolism of the microcosm is

in one instance curiously inverted in the _Causae et curae_, I

(Kaiser’s edit., p. 23) of Hildegard of Bingen, who compares the water

with the body and the earth with the heart of man. On the other hand,

in _Subtilitates_, II, 3 (in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcvii, col.

1212) she asserts that “rivers are sent forth from the sea like the

blood in the veins of the human body” (Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol.

ii, p. 132). See also above, pp. 147–150.

Footnote 835:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 45.

Footnote 836:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 14. See also Werner, _Kosm. Wilhelm von

Conches_, 1873, p. 374.

Footnote 837:

_Dialogus_, IX, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clvii, col. 631.

Footnote 838:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 14.

Footnote 839:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 892.

Footnote 840:

See above, p. 60, and Norlind, _Problem_, 1918, pp. 38–40.

Footnote 841:

Norlind, _op. cit._, p. 38, notes, gives the following interesting

quotations: “Quae videlicet aquae circumfusae globo terrae ipsum

quodammodo sustentant, quod est mirabile in oculis nostris” (Gerhohus,

_Expos. in psalmos_, ad Ps. cxxxv, 6, in: Migne, _op. cit._, vol.

cxciv, col. 901). “Quod autem terra super aquas fundata esse dicitur,

nostram scientiam excedit. Mihi autem non videtur mirabilius, terram

super aquas esse fundatam, quam aquas, quae eiusdem ponderis sunt,

super terras in aere volare” (Bruno Astensis, _Expos. in psalmos_,

cxxxv, in: Migne, _op. cit._, vol. clxiv, col. 1194). Bruno adds an

allegorical explanation (_loc. cit._): “Possumus autem per terram

Ecclesiam intelligere quae super multos populos fundata est, qui per

aquas significantur, etc.”

Footnote 842:

“Movebitur aliquis super hoc quod dicit propheta ‘Dominum firmasse

terram super aquas.’ Ex hoc enim videbitur haberi posse aquas esse

inferiores terra, cum tamen Alfraganus dicat, unam esse sphaeram

aquarum et terrae. Sancti igitur expositores referunt illud prophetae

ad cotidianum usum loquendi quo dici solet Parisius fundatam esse

super Secanam. Rei tamen veritas est, quod paradisus terrestris

superior est aquis, cum etiam lunari globo superior sit” (_De nat.

rer._, II, 49). See also below, p. 462, note 34.

Footnote 843:

_Expos. in hex._, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxviii, col. 748.

Footnote 844:

See above, p. 151.

Footnote 845:

“Verumtamen ut animalia terrena habitaculum et receptaculum haberent,

aqua in concavitates terrae recessit et apparuit superficies terrae

arida et separata. Estque terra cum aquis in se contentis sicut

sphaera terrae solum” (_De sphaera_, Baur’s edit., p. 12). Günther,

_Studien_, vol. iii (?), 1879, p. 160, interpreted the last sentence

to indicate that Robert believed that waters were contained in the

interior of the earth and that it was to these waters that he here

refers. Though this is possible, it is more likely from the context

that the words “aquis in se contentis” are a reference to the seas

(Stegmann, _Anschauungen_, 1913, p. 15).

Footnote 846:

_Livre du trésor_, I, 35, 36, 39, as cited by Boffito, _Intorno alla

“Quaestio de aqua et terra,”_ Memoria I, _La controversia_, 1902, pp.

113–114.

The fact that the waters do not completely cover the lands also had

puzzled the Moslems, who anticipated Robert Grosseteste in ascribing

this apparent reversal of the normal operation of the laws of nature

to God’s wish to preserve a dry area whereon man and animals might

thrive. Averroës had given a more proximate cause, maintaining that

the stars are more numerous in the northern hemisphere than in the

southern and that through their attraction of the land, as well as

through the evaporative power of their heat and of that of the sun,

the lands were uncovered. On the theory of eccentric spheres of earth

and water see Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889, pp. 67–74; Norlind,

_Problem_, 1918, pp. 48–54; and more especially Boffito’s elaborate

discussion of the history of this theory and of ancient, Arabic, and

Christian doctrines of the relations of land and water in general

(Boffito, _op. cit._). For the theory as developed in the sixteenth,

seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries see Wisotzki, _Zeitströmungen_,

1897, pp. 39–57. The matter was discussed in a small treatise,

_Quaestio de aqua et terra_, which has been attributed to Dante but is

of doubtful authenticity (see above, p. 410, note 98). This is an

argument against the possibility of eccentric spheres; the “emergent

land” of the northern hemisphere is ascribed to the attractive force

of the stars of that hemisphere.

Footnote 847:

In _De imag. mundi_, I, 39, we find a definition of the word ocean:

“Oceanus dicitur, quasi ocior annis, vel quasi zonarum limbus.”

Footnote 848:

II Esdras, vi, 42, 47, 50, 52.

Footnote 849:

Roger Bacon, _Opus majus_, Bridges’ edit., pt. iv, vol. 1, 1897, p.

291. See Kretschmer, _Phys. Erdk._, 1889, pp. 141–142, for an

explanation of Bacon’s theory of the distribution of land and water.

Footnote 850:

_De nat. rer._, II, 16.

Footnote 851:

Neckam believed that the level of the sea is higher than that of the

lands, upon which the waters are prevented from encroaching only by

the divine power. “Mare vero superius est litoribus, ut visus docet.

Unde divinae jussioni attribuendum est, quod metas positas a Domino

non transgreditur mare” (_De nat. rer._, II, 49; _De laud. div. sap._,

III, 127–142). This curious doctrine persisted until the eighteenth

century; see Wisotzki, _op. cit._, pp. 39–57. “Mare etiam e litoribus

ascendere videtur, secundum judicium visus. Fidem etiam facit

proposito, videlicet quod aqua in sphericam formam tendat, guttae

pluvialis concavatio in petra. Nisi enim rotunda esset gutta, non

esset concavatio rotunda. Ros enim matutinus, qui rotundus est, verum

esse docet quod diximus. Per rotunditatem autem perfectio

intelligitur. Unde mens humana, per aquam designata, tendere habet ad

perfectionem” (_De nat. rer._, II, 14). See above, p. 369, note 35.

Footnote 852:

Adelard of Bath, _Quaest. nat._, 53 (54); _De imag. mundi_, I, 45, 47;

Peter Alphonsi, _Dialogus_, IX, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clvii,

col. 631.

Footnote 853:

_Quaest. nat._, 53 (54).

Footnote 854:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 45.

Footnote 855:

_loc. cit._

Footnote 856:

_Im. du monde_, II, 13.

Footnote 857:

“Salsuginis causam in calore solis planetarumque pono. Cum enim per

torridam mediamque zonam verus feratur occeanus perque eandem licet

indirectus versetur cursus planetarum a tanto stellarum calore ipsum

mare calefieri necesse est, ex quo et eiusdem caloris effectivam

salsuginem accipere consequens est. Quod autem hec ita se habeant

illud asserit quod in maritimis illis quae illi occeano propinquiora

sunt, sine omni artificio aqua marina ad solem super rupes siccata in

sal convertitur. In longinquioribus vero maribus ut sal habeas ipsam

aquam marinam utpote iam a vi caloris remotam; ideoque minus coctam

[_decoctam_ in MS] igni adhibere et recoquere necesse est. Sed et

dulces quasdam aquas in sal verti caloris artificiosa decoctione sepe

visum est. Huc etiam [_Hinc et_ in MS] illud accedit quod estate

quidem omnis aqua [_aqua_ omitted in MS] marina salsior est quam hyeme

quod si quis operam dederit re ipsa experiri potit” (_Quaest. nat._,

51 (52)).]

Footnote 858:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 16.

Footnote 859:

_De nat. rer._, II, 1; _De laud. div. sap._, III, 75–80.

Footnote 860:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 974.

Footnote 861:

C. B. Jourdain, _Dissertation_, 1838, p. 75. Hildegard of Bingen

speaks of the tides thus: “Et quoniam in oriente magna profunditas

arenae et litoris est, idcirco mare superhabundando et se dilatando

ibi non effluit; in occidente autem et in austro ac in aquilone tanta

profunditas arenarum et litoris non est. Ideo ibi multotiens effluit

magnas et latas effusiones ibi faciens, cum ab igne procellarum in

insaniam commovetur, ut praedictum est. Unde ibi multa inutilia et

sordida in se colligit atque putredines hominum, pecorum, avium et

vermium sibi attrahit. Et idcirco fontes et flumina, quae de partibus

istis de mari effluunt, tam sana et tam bona non sunt sicut illa, quae

de orientali mari effluunt” (_Causae et curae_, I, Kaiser’s edit., p.

24).

Footnote 862:

In this connection it is interesting to note that the Chinese in

antiquity and during the Middle Ages had developed an understanding of

the tides “in advance of anything that seems to have been known at

that time in Europe” (A. C. Moule, _The Bore on the Ch’ien-T’ang River

in China_, in: T’oung Pao, ou archives concernant l’histoire, les

langues, la géographie, et l’ethnographie de l’Asie orientale, vol.

xxii, Leiden, 1923, pp. 135–188, reference on p. 173).

Footnote 863:

_De mundi univ._, p. 19.

Footnote 864:

_ibid._, p. 46.

Footnote 865:

_ibid._, p. 47.

Footnote 866:

Robert’s theories of the tides are interpreted by Almagià, _Dottrina_,

1905, pp. 456–457. Almagià’s exposition, though probably essentially

correct, seems more clean-cut than the original upon which it is

based.

Footnote 867:

See above, p. 163.

Footnote 868:

_De nat. locorum_, Baur’s edit., pp. 69–70.

Footnote 869:

_De impress. element._, Baur’s edit., p. 88.

Footnote 870:

“Cuius summae difficultatis rationem multi astruere conantur per hoc,

quod quartae mundi oppositae sunt eiusdem commixtionis, et ideo

faciunt eosdem effectus. Sed ista ratio deficit tamen, quia falsa est,

eo quod aliquae sunt imagines stellarum in una quarta et in alia,

quoniam, quando planeta est super unam quartam mundi, tunc terra

interponitur inter corpus eius et aliam quartam. Propterea, si hoc

esset verum, peteretur principium. Quaeritur enim causa, quare sunt

oppositae quartae eiusdem commixtionis et per consequens eiusdem

effectus. Et ideo reflexio radiorum solvit istud, quoniam radii

lunares multiplicantur ad caelum stellarum, quod est corpus densum.

Ideoque per medium eius non possumus videre caelum, quod est valde

luminosum, sicut dicit Alpetragius et Messalahe. Et alii radii reflexi

cadunt in quartam oppositam ad angulos aequales” (_De nat. locorum_,

Baur’s edit., p. 70).

Footnote 871:

See above, pp. 18–19 and, on William of Conches’ related views, p.

173.

Footnote 872:

Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 8865, fol. 55vo.

Footnote 873:

In the dialogue constituting the _Quaestiones naturales_ Adelard’s

nephew asks if the following theory is true: “Aiunt enim verum

occeanum per torridam fluentem brachia immense quantitatis fluentia ab

orientali et occidentali plaga in articam et in antarticam refundere

regionem. Illis igitur vi magna confluentibus redundationem hanc fieri

dicunt ut ictus nobis accessum pariat, cessio vero recessum.” To this

Adelard replies: “Philosophorum dictis invidere non ausim; illud tamen

audacter affirmem: si ita ut aiunt maxima conveniunt brachia, semel

comixtis undis secundo ictum non fieri neque enim convenit iterum eas

separari; vel certe si iterum collidantur minor erit secundus ictus

quam primus et tertius quam secundus itaque et quandoque minimus,

deinde nullus. Videant igitur illi quid dixerint; ego pro me breviter

respondebo. Recursus itaque brachiorum colligo; eorundem etiam

obviationibus non contradico; non tamen ea conflui vel collidi

concedo. Impotentie autem huius causam in ipsius terre situ facio. Cum

enim ipsa brachia sibi obviare atque confluere impetuose festinent,

fit tandem cum montium interpositione tum ipsius terre situ quodam

elatiore ut ab eodem cursu dum deficiunt referantur. Itaque fit ut quo

ea paternus motus ac naturalis impellit, ab eodem loci ipsius reducat

situs. Licet non ignorem quosdam esse qui hunc motum nili mari idest

caribdi dicant estuare. Quod si verum esset in maribus illis que

torride zone viciniora sunt vis talis nec minus valeret; nunc vero

illa omni fere tali carent agitatione; eo videlicet quod ab illa causa

quam supra scripsimus procul remota sunt” (_Quaest. nat._, 52 (53)).

It is not altogether clear as to what is meant by the last two

sentences of this quotation, which is here given as in the printed

text (see the Bibliography under Adelard, II) without collation from

the manuscripts (see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 26). If the word

_nili_ is a corruption of _lunae_, they may possibly be interpreted as

a denial of the lunar control theory of the tides. A passage from the

_Disputationes adversus astrologos_ of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

according to Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 116, cites a certain

“Adelandus” as giving expression to views closely allied to those

expressed in the preceding quotation. If Adelard is meant by

“Adelandus,” as Duhem assumes (_ibid._, pp. 116–117), Pico’s citation

may well refer to this chapter of the _Quaestiones naturales_.

Adelandus, in any case, is made categorically to deny the possibility

of lunar control over the tides. Incidentally, it may be added that

Duhem was unfamiliar with the text of the _Quaestiones naturales_ at

the time that he wrote the third volume of his _Système du monde_ and

that Almagià’s otherwise exhaustive monograph on the history of

theories of the tides gives us nothing on Adelard. Examination of the

manuscripts (Haskins, _loc. cit._) might throw light on the problem.

The phrase “mari idest caribdi,” in the next-to-the-last sentence of

the quotation above, is not found in the manuscript copy of the

_Quaestiones naturales_ referred to in the Bibliography under Adelard,

II. Gollancz’s translation of this phrase, “one sea, the Caribbean” is

an obvious absurdity (Gollancz, _Dodi ve-Nechdi_, 1920, p. 141).

Footnote 874:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 14.

Footnote 875:

See above, pp. 84–85.

Footnote 876:

_De nat. rer._, II, 17.

Footnote 877:

In the _De imagine mundi_, I, 40, there is extraordinary confusion

regarding the entire subject of the tides. There are said to be two

tides daily, corresponding to the rising and setting of the moon. When

the moon waxes, the height of the tides becomes greater; when it

wanes, the height diminishes. When the moon at the time of the

equinoxes is nearest to the earth, the floods rise to their highest;

at the time of the solstices they rise less high on account of the

distance of the moon. There is also said to be a tidal cycle of

nineteen years. So far, these ideas were drawn from Bede; but in the

succeeding chapter (41) there comes an echo of Paul the Deacon’s

description (_Hist. gentis Langobard._, I, 6, as cited by Almagià, _La

dottrina_, 1905, p. 51) of the great whirlpool, which “in exortu lunae

majori aestu fluctus involvit et revomit.”

Footnote 878:

_Philippis_, VI, 500–551. See above, pp. 137–138.

Footnote 879:

“Nobis humanam qui sortem vivimus infra,

Rem satis est sciri, nesciri causa sinatur.”

—_Philippis_, VI, 550–551.

William the Breton in another connection (_Philippis_, VIII, 43–99)

discusses the tides near Mont St. Michel in Brittany. His information

appears to have been fairly correct, and he notes among other details

that there is exceptionally high water at the times of the vernal and

autumnal equinoxes. He makes no attempt to explain the cause of the

ebb and flood, asserting that this transcends the knowledge of man. He

puts forth, however, the singular suggestion that it is just as likely

that the tides may cause the motion of the moon as vice versa, because

the sea was created before the moon:

“Rursus an a luna maris hec inflatio fiat,

An magis a pelago fluat hec variatio lune,

Cum pelagus luna constet prius esse creatum,

Posteriusque sui nunquam sit causa prioris,

Nullaque res habitum trahat a non ente vel actum.”

—_Philippis_, VIII, 73–77.

Footnote 880:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 3.

Footnote 881:

_ibid._, II, 14.

Footnote 882:

_ibid._, II, 1–2.

Footnote 883:

See _United States Tide Tables_ for 1919, also _British Islands

Pilot_, U. S. Hydrographic Office [Publications] nos. 145, 146,

Washington, D. C., 1917. See also: A. Defant, _Die Gezeiten und

Gezeitenströmungen im Irischen Kanal_, Akademie der Wissenschaften in

Wien, Sitzungsberichte, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse,

Abteilung IIa, vol. cxxix, 1920, pp. 253–308.

Footnote 884:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 2.

Footnote 885:

_ibid._, II, 3.

Footnote 886:

“In the British Museum (Cotton MS. Julius D. 7, fol. 45vo) there is a

tide table of the thirteenth century giving the time of ‘fflod at

london brigge’ for each day of the lunar month, and the hours of

moonlight (quantum luna lucet in nocte)” (A. C. Moule, _The Bore on

the Ch’ien-T’ang River in China_, in: T’oung Pao, ou archives

concernant l’histoire, les langues, la géographie, et l’ethnographie

de l’Asie orientale, vol. xxii, Leiden, 1923, pp. 135–188, reference

on p. 155).

Footnote 887:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 3.

Footnote 888:

_ibid._, II, 28.

Footnote 889:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 1003.

Footnote 890:

See above, p. 279.

Footnote 891:

_Expug. Hiber._, I, 36.

Footnote 892:

See above, p. 351.

Footnote 893:

Schröder, _Sanct Brandan_, 1871 (under Brandan in the Bibliography),

p. 19.

Footnote 894:

For references to the Liver Sea and to classical allusions to a

clotted sea, see Moritz, _Geogr. Kenntnis_, 1904, p. 24, note 2;

Konrad Kretschmer, _Die Entdeckung Amerika’s in ihrer Bedeutung für

die Geschichte des Weltbildes_, Berlin, 1892, p. 85, note 1; and more

especially the full data in Graf, _Miti, leggende_, vol. i, 1892, p.

106 and notes on pp. 186–187, and in Nansen, _Northern Mists_, 1911,

vol. i, pp. 181–182 and p. 182, note 1. Benjamin of Tudela places the

clotted sea in the Far East (_Itinerary_, Adler’s transl., 1907, p.

66, and above p. 272). In early French literature the sea is often

referred to as _la mer betée_ (see Frahm, _Das Meer_, 1914, pp.

76–77).

Many theories have been adduced to explain the origins of this

persistent rumor of a clotted sea. It may have arisen through

distorted reports of floating masses of seaweed or of the Sargasso

Sea. It has also been suggested that experiences in dead water such as

that described by Fridtjof Nansen (_Farthest North_, New York, 1897,

vol. i, p. 196) may have contributed to the formation of the legend.

Such dead water, Nansen explains, is caused by the presence of a layer

of fresh water from melted ice over the surface of the sea water. See

Frahm, _loc. cit._; Koch, _Das Meer_, 1910, pp. 21–22. For another

explanation see Paul Masson, _Pythéas et le poumon marin_, in:

Bulletin de la Section de Géographie, vol. xxxvii, Paris, 1923, pp.

55–66.

Footnote 895:

Schröder, _Sanct Brandan_, 1871 (under Brandan in the Bibliography),

p. 27.

Footnote 896:

Ezekiel, xl, xli.

Footnote 897:

Revelation, xxi, 11.

Footnote 898:

Schröder, _op. cit._, p. 26.

Footnote 899:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 921.

Footnote 900:

Liebrecht, _Gervasius von Tilbury_, 1856, p. 94, note 24. Later

tradition sometimes had it that the Emperor Frederick II was the king

who sent Nicholas the Fish to explore these waters. See Haskins,

_Science_, 1922, p. 686; the same, _Studies_, 1924, p. 262; and

Liebrecht, _loc. cit._

Footnote 901:

_Romans d’Alix._, Michelant’s edit., 1846, pp. 259–260. This is an

interpolation into the part of the poem called by Meyer the “third

branch.” It is not by Lambert li Tors, author of the “third branch,”

but was derived from the _Historia de praeliis_ (Meyer, _Alexandre le

Grand_, 1886, vol. ii, p. 216). See above, p. 381, note 26. Alexander

Neckam (_De nat. rer._, II, 21) and Roger Bacon also refer to

Alexander’s visit to the sea floor. See Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol.

ii, pp. 263–264, 654–655.

Footnote 902:

_De mundi univ._, p. 22.

Footnote 903:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 17–18.

Footnote 904:

_Quaest. nat._, 56 (57), 57 (58).

Footnote 905:

_Sermones in cantica_, xiii; translation from Eales, _Life and Works

of St. Bernard_, vol. iv, 1896, p. 67.

Footnote 906:

Haskins, _Science_, 1922, p. 690; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 267. See

above, p. 100 and p. 402, note 64.

Footnote 907:

_Causae et curae_, I (Kaiser’s edit., pp. 24–30).

Footnote 908:

See above, pp. 185 and 326–327, p. 436, note 17, p. 439, note 44; also

Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 132–133.

Footnote 909:

See above, p. 439, note 44.

Footnote 910:

See above, pp. 211–212.

Footnote 911:

_De phil. mundi_, III, 19. See also _De imag. mundi_, I, 47. Hildegard

of Bingen also believed that the interior of the earth is warmer in

winter than in summer. She attributed this circumstance, however, to

the fact that “in hieme sol supra terram sterilis est et sub terram

calorem suum figit, quatinus terra diversa germina servare possit”

(_Causae et curae_, I, Kaiser’s edit., p. 30). See also

_Subtilitates_, II, 9, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcvii, col. 1213.

Footnote 912:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 48.

Footnote 913:

_ibid._, I, 49.

Footnote 914:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 272–273; idem, _Studies_,

1924, pp. 296–297.

Footnote 915:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 7.

Footnote 916:

_Gesta Danorum_, Praefacio, Holder’s edit., p. 6.

Footnote 917:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 961.

Footnote 918:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 7.

Footnote 919:

_loc. cit._

Footnote 920:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, pp. 987, 990.

Footnote 921:

J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion_, Part

I, _The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings_, London, 1911, vol. i,

p. 301.

Footnote 922:

_De nat. rer._, II, 3–7; see also _De laud. div. sap._, III, 171–328.

Footnote 923:

“Sic et sapientia hujus saeculi mentes candore innocentiae fulgentes

nonnunquam in pejus commutat, sapientia autem vera mentes tenebris

vitiorum involutas reddit serenas” (_De nat. rer._, II, 3).

Footnote 924:

_Gesta Danorum_, Praefacio, Holder’s edit., p. 6.

Footnote 925:

_Letter of Prester John_, 27–30, in: Zarncke, _Priester Johannes_, in:

Abhandlungen, vol. vii, 1879, pp. 912–913.

Footnote 926:

_Romans d’Alix._, Michelant’s edit., 1846, p. 350.

Footnote 927:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 974.

Footnote 928:

_ibid._, p. 892.

Footnote 929:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 7. See above, p. 339.

Footnote 930:

On another unusual type of river, the gold-bearing stream, as

understood in the Middle Ages (but not discussed by Giraldus

Cambrensis), see below, p. 479, note 318.

Footnote 931:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 2.

Footnote 932:

_Itin. Kamb._, I, 8.

Footnote 933:

_ibid._, I, 2.

Footnote 934:

_ibid._, II, 11.

Footnote 935:

_The British Islands Pilot_, United States Hydrographic Office

[Publication] no. 145, Washington, D. C., 1917, p. 375, testifies to

the changeable character of the sands and channels of the Dee estuary.

Footnote 936:

See above, pp. 235–237.

Footnote 937:

Isidore, _De nat. rer._, 43, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. lxxxiii,

col. 1013.

Footnote 938:

Bede, _De nat. rer._, 43 (Giles’s edit., p. 117).

Footnote 939:

_Expos. in hex._, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxviii, cols.

779–780.

Footnote 940:

_Sermo XXI in Feria quarta Pentecostes_, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol.

clxxviii, cols. 518–521.

Footnote 941:

On the flood of the Nile see also above, p. 300.

Footnote 942:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 8.

Footnote 943:

_ibid._, III, 2.

Footnote 944:

_ibid._, III, 3.

Footnote 945:

_Itin. Kamb._, I, 1.

Footnote 946:

_ibid._, I, 2.

Footnote 947:

_loc. cit._

Footnote 948:

_ibid._, II, 9.

Footnote 949:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 9.

Footnote 950:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 1001.

Footnote 951:

“Navim non patitur, quinimo tota supereminet nisi sit bituminata, et

hoc forte propter homines intus viventes. Siquis vivum aliqua arte

immiserit statim super exilit” (_loc. cit._). Gervase seems here to

have derived from Bede (_De locis sanctis_, 12, in Tobler, _Itinera_,

vol. i, 1877, pp. 227–228) a hazy conception of the actual properties

of the waters of the Dead Sea. The opposite theory, however, had been

expressed by Antonius Martyr two centuries earlier than Bede: “Nor do

sticks float, nor can a man swim, but whatever is cast into it sinks

to the bottom” (White, _Warfare_, 1920, vol. ii, p. 228).

Footnote 952:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 966.

Footnote 953:

_ibid._, p. 982. See below, p. 449, note 49.

NOTES

CHAPTER IX

THE LANDS

Footnote 954:

_De eodem et diverso_, p. 28.

Footnote 955:

_Etym._, XIV, 1.

Footnote 956:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 4.

Footnote 957:

Peter Comestor stated that on the third day of the Creation the earth

appeared and that it bears five names, the derivation of which he

explained as follows: (1) _arida_, because the earth appeared (_quia

apparuit_); (2) _humus_, because it was still humid; (3) _terra_,

because it was trodden upon (_quia teritur_) by the feet of animals;

(4) _solum_, because, of the four elements, it forms the one that is

solid; and, finally, (5) _tellus_, because it endures (_quia tolerat_)

the labors of man (_Hist. schol._, Gen. 5). See Zöckler, _Geschichte_,

vol. i, 1877, p. 418. These are typical examples of free etymology.

For Hildegard of Bingen on qualities of different kinds of earth or

soil, see above, p. 232.

Footnote 958:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 966.

Footnote 959:

_ibid._, p. 895.

Footnote 960:

Peter Comestor speaks of islands with the same characteristics: “Cum

adhuc sint quedam insule viventium, in quibus nullus moretur” (_Hist.

schol._, Gen. 3, cited by Liebrecht, _Gervasius von Tilbury_, 1856, p.

62, note 6**).

Footnote 961:

_Im. du monde_, I, 6.

Footnote 962:

_Top. Hiber._, II, 4.

Footnote 963:

See above, p. 177; for Hildegard’s corresponding views see above, p.

201.

Footnote 964:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 28.

Footnote 965:

_ibid._, I, 29.

Footnote 966:

_ibid._, I, 30. This legend regarding the properties of the earth of

Ireland was very widespread in the Middle Ages. It is found in Bede’s

_Historia ecclesiastica_, I, 1 (Giles’s edit., vol. ii, p. 34), which

Giraldus goes on to quote at length on the subject (_Top. Hiber._, I,

31). It also appears in Gervase of Tilbury’s _Otia imperialia_, vol.

i, p. 917 (see Liebrecht, _op. cit._, p. 88, note 21). Solinus,

_Collectanea_, 22 (Mommsen’s edit., p. 101), and Isidore, _Etym._,

XIV, 6, ascribe similar properties to the earth of the Isle of Thanet.

In his _Letter_, Prester John boasts that some of his territories are

proof against poisonous snakes and animals. See _Letter of Prester

John_, 21, in: Zarncke, _Priester Johannes_, in: Abhandlungen, vol.

vii, 1879, p. 912.

Footnote 967:

_Top. Hiber._, I, 39.

Footnote 968:

_ibid._, I, 34–40.

Footnote 969:

Benl, _Frühere und spätere Hypothesen_, 1905, pp. 1–14, discusses the

origin and development in antiquity and the Middle Ages of theories

regarding the distribution of the principal mountain systems of the

known world, the Taurus-Caucasus-Imaus range of Asia, the Rhipaean

Mountains of the far north, and the Mountains of the Moon of Africa.

The subsequent elaboration of these theories between the sixteenth and

nineteenth centuries, when the conception was developed by some

geographers of a symmetrical, rectilinear arrangement of the mountain

ranges of the entire globe is treated by Wisotzki, _Zeitströmungen_,

1897, pp. 131–192, and by Benl, _op. cit._, pp. 15–50.

Footnote 970:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 34.

Footnote 971:

Gervase said that the waters for the Flood came from the bowels of the

earth and from the air above. They rose to a level of fifteen cubits

above the summits of the mountains which are now in existence, “quia

tunc terram dicunt in planitie factam” (_Otia imper._, vol. i, p.

907). See above, pp. 170–171.

Footnote 972:

_De prop. rerum_, XIV, 1.

Footnote 973:

_Liber de congelatis_, 2. For the Latin text of this passage see

Hammer-Jensen, _Sogen. IV. Buch_, 1915, pp. 132–133. See the next note

and also above, p. 401, note 60.

Footnote 974:

This translation is from Geikie, _Founders of Geology_, 1905, p. 43.

The processes of erosion by winds and water as a cause for the

inequalities of the earth’s surface are much more in evidence in arid

regions than in regions of dense vegetation. It is therefore not

surprising that these processes were recognized by Moslems like

Avicenna (if it be he from whom Alfred of Sareshel translated the

above quotation) and Ḥamd-Allāh Mustaufī, a Persian writer of the

early fourteenth century, who dwelt in the arid countries of the East.

The latter writes: “... the sun’s heat ... beginning to act on the

stone, this loses its hardness and is broken up; which process

continually accelerated by the succession of many nights and days,

cracks appear, splitting the rocks, which same are thus again turned

to earth. Then by the action of earthquakes mountain peaks are

demolished, while by the blowing of the winds and the running waters

the soft earth is carried from one place to another, yet all that is

rock and hard soil will remain fixed, whereby heights and hollows are

formed, and it is these heights that are mountain ranges” (Guy Le

Strange, transl., _The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb

Composed by Ḥamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwīn in 740 (1340)_, London and

Leiden, 1919, p. 180).

Footnote 975:

_De sancta trinitate_, Gen. I, 34; see also Zöckler, _Geschichte_,

vol. i, 1877, p. 396. That teleological reasoning of this sort was not

confined to the medieval period may be seen from the following

paragraph from R. J. Sullivan, _A View of Nature in Letters to a

Traveller Among the Alps_, London, 1794, vol. I, p. 105: “On a cursory

view it must be acknowledged, the surface of our earth exhibits no

great regularity or order. In its outward appearance it strikes us

with heighths, depths, plains, seas, marshes, rivers, caverns, gulfs,

volcanoes, and a vast variety of other discordant objects;... Yet all

these apparent deformities are absolutely necessary to vegetation and

animal existence. Were the earth’s surface smooth and regular, we

should not have those beautiful hills which furnish water. A dreary

ocean would cover the globe, which would in such case be suited only

for the habitation of fishes. As it is, the motions of the sea and the

currents of the air are regulated by fixed laws. The returns of the

seasons are uniform, and the rigour of Winter invariably gives place

to the verdure of Spring. Men, animals, and plants consequently

succeed one another, and flourish in their destined soils.”

Footnote 976:

_De imag. mundi_, I, 5.

Footnote 977:

_Hist. schol._, Gen. 34 (Gervase in: _Otia imper._, vol. i, pp. 893,

972).

Footnote 978:

_De phil. mundi_, IV, 5.

Footnote 979:

_Otia imper._, vol. i, p. 972. Gervase also said that Mount Atlas was

so high that it was inaccessible (_ibid._, p. 986).

Footnote 980:

_Dialogus_, I, 17, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xx, col. 194.