[1539] Pp. 187-219.
[1540] _Secrets of Enoch_, I and XXX.
[1541] See Morfill-Charles, pp. xxxiv-xxxv, for mention of three and
seven heavens in the apocryphal _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_,
“written about or before the beginning of the Christian era,” and for
“the probability of an Old Testament belief in the plurality of the
heavens.” For the seven heavens in the apocryphal _Ascension of Isaiah_
see Charles’ edition of that work (1900), xlix.
[1542] _Secrets of Enoch_, XXVII. Charles prefaces this passage by
the remark, “I do not pretend to understand what follows”: but it
seems clear that the waters above the firmament are referred to from
what the author goes on to say, “And thus I made firm the circles of
the heavens, and caused the waters below which are under the heavens
to be gathered into one place.” It would also seem that each of the
seven planets is represented as moving in a sphere of crystal. In the
Ethiopic version, LIV, 8, we are told that the water above the heavens
is masculine, and that the water beneath the earth is feminine; also
LX, 7-8, that Leviathan is female and Behemoth male.
[1543] _Secrets of Enoch_, XXX.
[1544] _Ibid._, 45-46, see also the Ethiopic _Book of Enoch_, XCIII,
for “seven weeks.”
[1545] _Book of Enoch_, XVIII, XXIV.
[1546] _Ibid._, XXXII.
[1547] _Book of Enoch_, LII, 2.
[1548] _Ibid._, LXV, 7-8.
[1549] _Ibid._, LX, 7.
[1550] _Ibid._, XXXIII.
[1551] _Secrets of Enoch_, XII, XV, XIX.
[1552] The literature dealing in general with Philo and his philosophy
is too extensive to indicate here, while there has been no study
primarily devoted to our interest in him. It may be useful to note,
however, the most recent editions of his works and studies concerning
him, from which the reader can learn of earlier researches. See
also Leopold Cohn, _The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria_
(Reprinted from _The Jewish Quarterly Review_), London, 1892. The
most recent edition of the Greek text of Philo’s works is by L.
Cohn and P. Wendland, _Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt_,
Berlin, 1896-1915, in six vols. The earlier edition was by Mangey.
Recent editions of single works are: F. C. Conybeare, _Philo about
the Contemplative Life_, critically edited with a defence of its
genuineness, 1895. E. Bréhier, _Commentaire allégorique des Saintes
Lois après l’œuvre des six jours_, Greek and French, 1909. In the
passages from Philo quoted in this chapter I have often availed myself
of the wording of the English translation by C. D. Yonge in four vols.,
1854-1855. The Latin translation of Philo’s works made from the Greek
by Lilius Tifernates for Popes Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII is preserved
at the Vatican in a series of six MSS written during the years
1479-1484: Vatic. Lat., 180-185.
J. d’Alma, _Philon d’Alexandrie et le quatrième Évangile_, 1910.
N. Bentwich, _Philo-Judaeus of Alexandria_, 1910 (a small general
book).
T. H. Billings, _The Platonism of Philo Judaeus_, 1919.
W. Bousset, _Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom_,
1915.
E. Bréhier, _Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon
d’Alexandrie_, 1908, a scholarly work with a ten-page bibliography.
M. Caraccio, _Filone d’Alessandria e le sue opere_, 1911, a brief
indication of the contents of each work.
K. S. Guthrie, _The Message of Philo Judaeus_, 1910, popular.
H. Guyot, _Les Réminiscences de Philon le Juif chez Plotin_, 1906.
P. Heinsch, _Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese_,
1908, 296 pp.
H. A. A. Kennedy, _Philo’s contribution to Religion_, 1919.
J. Martin, _Philon_, 1907, with a five-page bibliography.
L. H. Mills, _Zarathustra, Philo, the Achaemenids and Israel_, 1905,
460 pp.
L. Treitel, _Philonische Studien_, 1915, is of limited scope.
H. Windisch, _Die Frömmigkeit Philos und ihre Bedeutung für das
Christentum_, 1909.
[1553] The genuineness of this treatise, denied by Graetz and
Lucius in the mid-nineteenth century, was amply demonstrated by L.
Massebieau, _Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, XVI (1887), 170-98,
284-319; Conybeare, _Philo about the Contemplative Life_, Oxford,
1895; and P. Wendland, _Die Therapeuten und die Philonische Schrift
vom Beschaulichen Leben_, in _Jahrb. f. Class. Philologie_, Band 22
(1896), 693-770. In St. John’s College Library, Oxford, in a manuscript
of the early eleventh century (MS 128, fol. 215 ff) with Dionysius
the Areopagite on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, is, Philonis de
excircumcisione credentibus in Aegypto Christianis simul et monachis ex
suprascripto ab eo sermone de vita theorica aut de orantibus.
[1554] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 49 and 50.
[1555] _On the Contemplative Life_, Chapter 9.
[1556] So he states in the opening sentences of the other treatise; it
is not extant.
[1557] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 54 and 55.
[1558] Réville, J., _Le logos, d’après Philon d’Alexandrie_, Genève,
1877.
[1559] Lincoln College, Oxford, has a 12th century MS in Greek of the
_De vita Mosis_ and _De virtutibus_,—MS 34.
[1560] The _Alexander sive de animalibus_ and the complete text of the
_De providentia_ exist only in Armenian translation,—see Cohn (1892),
p. 16. _The Biblical Antiquities_, extant only in an imperfect Latin
version, is not regarded as a genuine work,—see W. O. E. Oesterley and
G. H. Box, _The Biblical Antiquities of Philo_, now first translated
from the old Latin version by M. R. James (1917), p. 7.
[1561] Cohn (1892), 11.
[1562] II, 17.
[1563] (_Quod omnis probus liber sit_, cap. xi); also _The Law
Concerning Murderers_, cap. 4.
[1564] _On Dreams_, I, 38.
[1565] Numbers XXII-XXV. Balaam is, of course, referred to in a number
of other passages of the Bible: Deut., XXIII, 3-6; Joshua, XIII, 22;
XXIV, 9-10; Nehemiah, XIII, 1ff; Micah, VI, 5; Second Peter, II, 15-16;
Jude, 11; Revelation, II, 14.
[1566] _Vita Mosis_, I, 48-50. Besides discussion of Balaam in
various Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, see
Hengstenberg, _Die Geschichte Bileams und seine Weissagungen_, 1842.
[1567] _De migrat. Abrahami_, cap. 32.
[1568] _Idem_, and _De somniis_, cap. 10.
[1569] _De monarchia_, I, 1. _De mundi opificio_, cap. 14.
[1570] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 18, 50 and 24. See also his _De
gigantibus_ and Περὶ τοῦ θεοπέμπτους εἶναι τοὺς ὀνείρους.
[1571] _Ibid._, Cap. 50. Huet, the noted French scholar of the 17th
century, states in his edition of Origen that “Philo after his custom
repeats an opinion of Plato’s and almost his very words for ... he
asserts that the stars are not only animals but also the purest
intellects.” Migne PG, XVII, col. 978.
[1572] _De monarchia_, I, 1; _De mundi opificio_, cap. 14.
[1573] _De monarchia_, I, 1; _De migratione Abrahami_, cap. 32; _De
mundi opificio_, cap. 40.
[1574] Eusebius, _De praep. Evang._, cap. 13.
[1575] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 19.
[1576] _De somniis_, II, 16.
[1577] _Ibid._, I, 22.
[1578] _De bello Jud._, V, 5, 5; _Antiq._, III, 7, 7-8.
[1579] _Der Stern der Weisen_ (1827), p. 36. “Nur war ihre Astrologie
dem Theismus untergeordnet. Der Eine Gott erschien immer als der
Herrscher des Himmelsheeres. Sie betrachteten aber die Sterne als
lebende göttliche Wesen und Mächte des Himmels.”
[1580] Münter (1827), pp. 38-39, 43, 45, etc. On the subject of
Jewish astrology see also: D. Nielsen, _Die altarabische Mondreligion
und die mosaische Überlieferung_, Strasburg, 1904; F. Hommel, _Der
Gestirndienst der alten Araber und die altisraelitische Überlieferung_,
Munich, 1901.
[1581] Such as Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, and Censorinus. These writers
seem to have taken it from Varro. We have also noted number mysticism
in Plutarch’s _Essays_.
[1582] Browne (1650) IV, 12.
[1583] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 40.
[1584] _Ibid._, caps. 30-42.
[1585] For the later influence of such doctrines in the Mohammedan
world see D. B. Macdonald, _Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and
Constitutional Theory_, 1903, pp. 42-3, concerning the “Seveners” and
the “Twelvers” and the doctrine of the hidden Iman.
[1586] _Ibid._, “Thus we have a series of seven times seven Imans, the
first, and thereafter each seventh, having the superior dignity of
Prophet. The last of the forty-nine Imans, this Muhammad ibn Isma’il,
is the greatest and last of the Prophets.”
[1587] _De vita contemplativa_, cap. 8. It will be recalled that the
fifty books of the _Digest_ of Justinian are similarly divided.
[1588] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 3.
[1589] _De mundi opificio_, caps. 15-16. See also on perfect numbers
_On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws_.
[1590] _Ibid._, cap. 20.
[1591] _Vita Mosis_, I, 17.
[1592] _De mundi opificio_, cap. 24.
[1593] _Ibid._, cap. 50.
[1594] _De somniis_, II, 21-22.
[1595] _De somniis_, II, I.
[1596] Cap. 38.
[1597] II, 37.
[1598] Cap. 5.
[1599] Since I finished this chapter, I have noted that the “folk-lore
in the Old Testament” has led Sir James Frazer to write a passage
on “the harlequins of history” somewhat similar to that of Philo on
Joseph’s coat of many colors. After remarking that friends and foes
behold these politicians of the present and historical figures of the
future from opposite sides and see only that particular hue of the coat
which happens to be turned toward them, Sir James concludes (1918), II,
502, “It is for the impartial historian to contemplate these harlequins
from every side and to paint them in their coats of many colors,
neither altogether so white as they appeared to their friends nor
altogether so black as they seemed to their enemies.” But who can paint
out the bloodstains?
[1600] A good account of the Gnostic sources and bibliography of
secondary works on Gnosticism will be found in CE, “Gnosticism” (1909)
by J. P. Arendzen.
[1601] Anz, _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus_, 1897, 112
pp., in TU, XV, 4.
[1602] Amélineau, _Essai sur le gnosticisme égyptien, ses
développements et son origine égyptienne_, 1887, 330 pp., in _Musée
Guimet_, tom. 14; and various other publications by the same author.
[1603] Bousset, _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, 1911; and “Gnosticism” in
EB, 11th edition.
[1604] The dating is somewhat disputed. Some of the Gnostic writings
discovered in 1896 have, I believe, not yet been published, although
announced to be edited by C. Schmidt in TU. Grenfell and Hunt will
soon publish “a small group of 21 papyri ... among which is a gnostic
magical text of some interest”: Grenfell (1921), p. 151.
[1605] The Gospel of Matthew, XXIV, 29-31. Not to mention Paul’s
“angels and principalities and powers.”
[1606] St. George Stock, “Simon Magus,” in EB, 11th edition. See also
George Salmon in _Dict. Chris. Biog._, IV, 681.
[1607] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 23.
[1608] _Homilies_, XVIII, 1-.
[1609] Epiphanius, _Panarion_, A-B-XXI; Petavius, 55-60; Dindorf, II,
6-12.
[1610] _First Apology_, cap. 26.
[1611] Irenaeus and Epiphanius as cited above; also Hippolytus,
_Philosophumena_, VI, 2-15; X, 8.
[1612] See, for example, Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, i, 3, where
we are told among other things that the disciples of the Gnostic
Valentinus affirm that the number of these aeons is signified by the
thirty years of Christ’s life which elapsed before He began His public
ministry.
[1613] _Homilies_, II, 23-25; _Recognitions_, II, 8-9.
[1614] _Homilies_, II, 25.
[1615] _Reply to Celsus_, I, 57, and VI, 11.
[1616] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 30.
[1617] G. Parthey, _Zwei griech. Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums_,
1860, p. 128; C. Wessely, _Griech. Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London_,
1888, p. 115; F. G. Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in the British Museum_, 1893,
p. 469ff.
[1618] Josephus, _Antiquities_, I, ii, 3.
[1619] R. Wünsch, _Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom_, Leipzig,
1898.
[1620] E. Preuschen, _Die apocryph. gnost. Adamschrift_, 1900.
_Mechitarist collection of Old Testament Apocrypha_, Venice, 1896.
[1621] The diagram is described in the _Reply to Celsus_, VI, 24-38; in
the following description I have somewhat altered the order. An attempt
to reproduce this diagram will be found in CE, “Gnosticism,” p. 597.
[1622] _Reply to Celsus_, VI, 22.
[1623] Anz. (1897), p. 78.
[1624] _Adv. haer._, I, 23.
[1625] Wm. Hartel, _S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia_, Pars III,
_Opera Spuria_ (1870), p. 90, _De rebaptismate_, cap. 16, “quod si
aliquo lusu perpetrari potest, sicut adfirmantur plerique huiusmodi
lusus Anaxilai esse, sive naturale quid est quo pacto possit hoc
contingere, sive illi putant hoc se conspicere, sive maligni opus et
magicum virus ignem potest in aqua exprimere.”
[1626] _Contra haereses_, II, 2.
[1627] _Pistis-Sophia_, ed. Schwartze and Petermann (1851), pp. 386-7;
ed. Mead (1896), p. 390.
[1628] Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, I, 13, _et seq._; Hippolytus,
_Philosophumena_, VI, 34, _et seq._; Epiphanius, _Panarion_, ed.
Dindorf, II, 217, _et seq._ (ed. Petav., 232, _et seq._). Concerning
Marcus see further Tertullian, _De praescript._, L; Theodoret, _Haeret.
Fab._, I, 9; Jerome, _Epist._, 29; Augustine, _Haer._, xiv. “D’après
Reuvens,” says Berthelot (1885), p. 57, “le papyrus n^o 75 de Leide
renferme un mélange de recettes magiques, alchimiques, et d’idées
gnostiques; ces dernières empruntées aux doctrines de Marcus.”
[1629] Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, VI, preface; I, 2; and IV, 43-4.
[1630] Censorinus, _De die natali_, caps. 7 and 14.
[1631] Arendzen, _Gnosticism_, in CE.
[1632] Ruelle et Poirée, _Le chant gnostico-magique_, Solesmes, 1901.
[1633] Irenaeus, I, 25; Hippolytus, VII, 20; Epiphanius, ed. Dindorf,
II, 64.
[1634] Irenaeus, I, 24; Epiphanius, ed. Dindorf, II, 27-8.
[1635] Hippolytus, VII, 14-15.
[1636] The more correct title for the _Philosophumena_, see IX, 8-12.
[1637] Dindorf, II, 109-10, 507-9.
[1638] A. Merx, _Bardesanes der letzte Gnostiker_, Jena, 1864. F.
Haase, _Zur bardesanischen Gnosis_, Leipzig, 1910, in TU, XXIV, 4.
[1639] English translation in AN, VIII, 723-34.
[1640] _Recognitions_, IX, 17 and 19-29.
[1641] English translations by A. A. Bevan, 1897; F. C. Burkett, 1899;
G. R. S. Mead, 1906.
[1642] F. Nau, _Une biographie inédite de Bardesane l’astrologue_, 1897.
[1643] ed. Coptic and Latin by M. G. Schwartze and J. H. Petermann,
1851; French translation by E. Amélineau, 1895; English by G. R. S.
Mead, 1896; German by C. Schmidt, 1905. The Coptic text is thickly
interspersed with Greek words and phrases. In the same manuscript
occurs the _Book of the Saviour_ of which we shall also treat.
[1644] _Pistis-Sophia_, 25-6.
[1645] _Ibid._, 336-50.
[1646] _Ibid._, 355, _et seq._
[1647] _Ibid._, 389-90.
[1648] _Ibid._, 255 and 258.
[1649] _Pistis-Sophia_, 29-30.
[1650] _Ibid._, 319-35.
[1651] _Ibid._, 357-8, 375-6.
[1652] Carl Schmidt, _Gnostische Schrifte in koptischer Sprache aus
dem codex Brucianus_, 1892, 692 pp., in TU, VIII, 2, with German
translation of the Coptic text at pp. 142-223. Portions have been
translated into English by G. R. S. Mead, _Fragments of a Faith
Forgotten_, 1900.
[1653] _Pistis-Sophia_, 205-15.
[1654] C. W. King, _The Gnostics and their Remains_, 1887, pp.
xvi-xviii, 215-8. Also his _The Natural History, Ancient and Modern, of
Precious Stones and Gems_, London, 1865.
[1655] A. B. Cook, _Zeus_, p. 235, citing J. Spon, _Miscellanea
eruditae antiquitatis_, Lyons, 1685, p. 297.
[1656] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, pp. 111-3. On the planets in later
medieval art see Fuchs, _Die Ikonographie der 7 Planeten in der Kunst
Italiens bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters_, Munich, 1909.
[1657] E. S. Bouchier, _Spain under the Roman Empire_, p. 125.
[1658] Hermann Gollancz, _Selection of Charms from Syriac Manuscripts_,
1898; also pp. 77-97 in _Acts of International Congress of
Orientalists_, Sept., 1897; Syriac text and English translation.
[1659] In 1885-1886 eleven tracts by Priscillian were discovered by G.
Schepss in a Würzburg MS. They shed, however, little light upon the
question whether he was addicted to magic. They have been published in
_Priscilliani quae supersunt_, etc., ed. G. Schepss, 1889, in CSEL,
XVIII.
See also E. Ch. Babut, _Priscillien et la Priscillienisme_, Paris, 1909
(_Bibl. d. l’École d. Hautes Études_, Fasc. 169), which supersedes the
earlier works of Paret, 1891; Dierich, 1897; and Edling, 1902.
[1660] _Sulpicii Severi Historia Sacra_, II, 46-51 (Migne, PL, XX, 155,
_et seq._) S. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, _De viris illustribus_,
Cap. 15 (Migne, PL, LXXXIII, 1092).
[1661] _Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie_, XVI, 63.
[1662] My following statements in the text are based upon E. Chavannes
et P. Pelliot, _Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine_, 1913,—they
date the Chinese translation about 900 A. D. and the MS of it within a
century later; W. Radloff, _Chuastuanift, Das Bussgebet der Manichäer_,
Petrograd, 1909; A. v. Le Coq, _Chuastuanift, ein Sündenbekenntnis der
Manichäischen Auditores_, Berlin, 1911. There are further publications
on the subject.
[1663] The following details are drawn from the articles on the
Mandaeans in EB, 11th edition, by K. Kessler and G. W. Thatcher,
and in ERE by W. Brandt, author of _Mandäische Religion_, 1889, and
_Mandäische Schriften_, 1893, and from Anz (1897), pp. 70-8. Further
bibliography will be found in these references.
[1664] The number five also appears in the _Pistis-Sophia_ and other
Gnostic literature.
[1665] H. Pognon, _Une Incantation contre les génies malfaisants en
Mandäite_, 1893; _Inscriptions mandaïtes des coupes de Khonabir_,
1897-1899. M. Lidzbarski, _Mandäische Zaubertexte, in Ephemeris f.
semit. Epig._, I (1902), 89-106. J. A. Montgomery, _Aramaic Incantation
Texts from Nippur_, 1913.
[1666] Genesis XLIV, 5, and J. G. Frazer (1918), II, 426-34.
[1667] In the apocryphal _Protevangelium of James_, cap. 16, both
Joseph and Mary undergo the test.
[1668] Joachim consults the plate in the _Protevangelium_, cap. 5.
[1669] See J. G. Frazer, _Folk-Lore in the Old Testament_, 1918,
3 vols., and also his other works; for instance, _The Magic Art_,
1911, I, 258, for the contest in magic rain-making between Elijah and
the priests of Baal in First Kings, Chapter XVIII, while I do not
understand why Joshua is not mentioned in connection with “The magical
control of the sun,” _Ibid._, I, 311-19.
[1670] However, the _Apocrypha of the New Testament_ may be read in
English translation by Alexander Walker in _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_
(American edition), VIII, 357-598, and in that by Hone in 1820, which
has since been reprinted without change. It includes only a part of
the apocrypha now known and presents these in a blind fashion without
explanation. It differs from Tischendorf’s text of the apocryphal
gospels (_Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, Lipsiae, 1876) both
in the titles of the gospels, the distribution of the texts under the
respective titles, and the division into chapters. I have, however,
sometimes used Hone’s wording in making quotations. Older than
Tischendorf is Thilo, _Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti_, Leipzig,
1832; Fabricius, etc.
[1671] It is ascribed to the second century both by Tischendorf and
_The Catholic Encyclopedia_ (“Apocrypha,” 607). There are plenty of
fairly early Greek MSS for it.
[1672] The Greek MSS are of the 15th and 16th centuries; Tischendorf
examined only partially a Latin palimpsest of it which is probably of
the fifth century.
[1673] So argues _The Catholic Encyclopedia_, 608; Tischendorf seems
inclined to date the Gospel of Thomas a little later than that of
James, and to hold that we possess only a fragment of it.
[1674] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 25, “fecitque dominus Iesus plurima in
Egypto miracula quae neque in evangelio infantiae neque in evangelio
perfecto scripta reperiuntur.”
[1675] Tischendorf (1876), p. xlviii. As I have already intimated on
other occasions, it seems to me no explanation to call such stories
“oriental.” Christianity was an oriental religion to begin with.
Moreover, as our whole investigation goes to show, both classical
antiquity and the medieval west were ready enough both to repeat and to
invent similar tales.
[1676] It may be noted, however, that the chief miracles of the Gospels
were attacked as “absurd or unworthy of the performer” nearly two
centuries ago by Thomas Woolston in his _Discourses on the Miracles of
our Saviour_, 1727-1730. The words in quotation marks are from J. B.
Bury’s _History of Freedom of Thought_, 1913, p. 142.
[1677] Migne, PL, 59, 162 ff. The list was reproduced with slight
variations by Hugh of St. Victor in the twelfth century in his
_Didascalicon_ (IV, 15), and in the thirteenth century by Vincent of
Beauvais in the _Speculum Naturale_ (I, 14).
[1678] Tischendorf (1876), pp. xxiii-xxiv.
[1679] Mâle (1913), pp. 207-8.
[1680] Since writing this, I find that Mâle has been impressed by the
same resemblance. He writes (1913), p. 207, “Some chapters in the
apocryphal gospels are like the _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ or even
like _The Golden Ass_, permeated with the belief in witchcraft and
magic.” The resemblance to Apuleius is also noted in AN, VIII, 353.
[1681] Tischendorf, _Evang. Infantiae Arabicum_, caps. 20-21.
[1682] _Ibid._, cap. 17.
[1683] _Ibid._, cap. 20, “nullum in mundo doctum aut magum aut
incantatorem omisimus quin illum accerseremus; sed nihil nobis profuit.”
[1684] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 35, “Extemplo exivit ex puero illo
satanas fugiens cani rabido similis.” The apocryphal gospel adds, “This
same boy who struck Jesus,” i. e., while he was still possessed by the
demon, “and out of whom Satan went in the form of a dog, was Judas
Iscariot, who betrayed Him to the Jews. And that same side, on which
Judas struck him, the Jews pierced with a lance.”
[1685] _Ibid._, cap. 44; _Evang. Thomae Lat._, cap. 7; _Ps. Matth._,
cap. 32.
[1686] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 15.
[1687] _Ibid._, cap. 19, “qui veneficio tactus uxore frui non poterat.”
[1688] _Ibid._, cap. 14.
[1689] _Ibid._, cap. 16.
[1690] See below, chapter 24.
[1691] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, caps. 33-34.
[1692] _Ibid._, caps. 10-11.
[1693] _Ibid._, caps. 27-32.
[1694] _Ibid._, cap. 30.
[1695] _Ibid._, cap. 24.
[1696] _Ibid._, caps. 42-43; _Ps. Matth._, 41; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 14.
Compare pp. 279-80 above.
[1697] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 37.
[1698] _Ibid._, 38-39; _Ps. Matth._, 37; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 11.
[1699] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 36; _Ps. Matth._, 27; _Evang. Thom.
Lat._, 4.
[1700] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 40. See Ad-Damîrî, translated by A. S.
G. Jayakar, 1906, I, 703, for a Moslem tale of Jews who called Jesus
“the enchanter the son of the enchantress,” and were transformed into
pigs.
[1701] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, 46; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 4; _Ps. Matth._,
26, where Mary afterwards induces Jesus to restore him to life, and 28.
[1702] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 47; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 5; _Ps.
Matth._, 29.
[1703] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, cap. 49; _Evang. Thom. Lat._, 12; _Ps.
Matth._, 38.
[1704] _Ps. Matth._, caps. 35-36.
[1705] _Ibid._, cap. 29.
[1706] _Ibid._, cap. 40.
[1707] Later the same gospel (cap. 54) rather inconsistently represents
Jesus as engaged in the study of law until his thirtieth year.
[1708] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, caps. 51-52.
[1709] Eusebius states that he discovered these letters written in
Syriac in the public records of Edessa. Hone says that it used to be a
common practice among English people to have the epistle ascribed to
Christ framed and place a picture of the Saviour before it.
[1710] _Gospel of Nicodemus_, I, 1-2.
[1711] CE, _Apocrypha_, p. 611.
[1712] Greek text in Tischendorf, _Apocalypses Apocryph._, pp. 161-7;
English translation, _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, VIII, 526-7.
[1713] _Evang. Inf. Arab._, 7-8.
[1714] Cap. 19 (AN, I, 57).
[1715] _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, VIII, 494.
[1716] W. Anz, _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizisnus_ (1897),
pp. 36-41. Lipsius et Bonnet, _Acta apostolorum apocrypha_, 1891-.
[1717] Mâle (1913), 299. For the text of this apocryphal work see
Migne, _Dictionnaire des Apocryphes_, II, 759, _et seq._, or more
recently, Bonnet, _Acta apostolorum apocrypha_, 1898, II, 151-216.
[1718] Mâle (1913), 300. But one would think that they must needs be
Byzantine alchemists, if the legend did not reach the west until the
sixteenth century.
[1719] HL, XV, 42.
When the gems, all smashed to pieces,
He had mended, then their prices
To the poor he handed;
Quite exhaustless was his treasure
Who from sticks made gold at pleasure,
Gems from stones commanded.
[1720] René Basset, _Les apocryphes Éthiopiens_, Paris, 1893-1894, vol.
iv.
[1721] See Migne, PG, X (1857), for the old Latin version; the Greek
text is extant only in fragments; the tradition, going back to Jerome,
that there was a Syriac original is unfounded; the work is first cited
by Cyril.
[1722] The Ethiopic version, made from the Greek between the fifth and
seventh centuries, is translated by Basset (1894), vol. iii; and was
printed before him by Dillmann, _Ascensio Isaiae aethiopice et latine_,
Leipzig, 1877, and by Laurence, _Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum
pseudepigraphus_, Oxford, 1819. See also R. H. Charles, _Ascension of
Isaiah_, 1900; reprinted 1917 in Oesterley and Box, _Translations of
Early Documents_, Series I, vol. 7.
[1723] The fragments of the _Book of Baruch_ by Justin, preserved in
the _Philosophumena_ of Hippolytus, are from an entirely different
Gnostic work.
[1724] R. Basset, _Les apocryphes Éthiopiens_, Paris, 1893-1894, vol.
i, _Le Livre de Baruch et la légende de Jérémie_.
[1725] Text of _The Recognitions_ in Migne, PG, I; of _The Homilies_
in PG, II, or P. de Lagarde, _Clementina_, 1865. E. C. Richardson had
an edition of _The Recognitions_ in preparation in 1893, when a list
of some seventy MSS communicated by him was published in A. Harnack’s
_Gesch. d. altchr. Lit._, I, 229-30, but it has not yet appeared. In
quoting _The Recognitions_ I often avail myself of the language of the
English translation in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_.
Since A. Hilgenfeld, _Die klement. Rekogn. u. Homilien_, 1848,
the Pseudo-Clementines have provided a much frequented field of
research and controversy, of which the articles in CE, EB, and
_Realencyklopädie_ (1913), XXIII, 312-6, provide fairly recent
summaries from varying ecclesiastical standpoints. For bibliography see
pp. 4-5 in the recent monograph of W. Heintze, _Der Klemensroman und
seine griechischen Quellen_, 1914, in TU, XL, 2. In the same series,
TU, XXV, 4, H. Waitz, _Die Pseudo-Klementinen_, 1904.
Concerning Simon Magus may be mentioned: H. Schlurick, _De Simonis Magi
fatis Romanis_; A. Hilgenfeld, _Der Magier Simon_, in _Zeitschr. f.
wiss. Theol._, XII (1869), 353 ff.; G. Frommberger, _De Simone Mago_,
Pars I, _De origine Pseudo-Clementinorum_, Diss. inaug., Warsaw, 1866;
G. R. S. Mead (Fellow of the Theosophical Society), _Simon Magus_,
1892; H. Waitz, _Simon Magus in d. altchr. Lit._, in _Zeitschr. f. d.
neutest. Wiss._, V (1904), 121-43.
[1726] BN, Greek, 930; Ottobon, 443.
[1727] Isidore, _De natura rerum_, caps. xxxi, xxxvi, xxxix-xli (PL,
83, 1003-12).
[1728] PL, 83, 1003, note, “Sunt haec lib. VIII Recognitionum sed
apparet Isidorum alia interpretatione usum ac dubitare posse an ea quae
circumfertur Rufini sit.”
[1729] See CU, Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 7-105, “Inc. prologus
in librum quem moderni itinerarium beati Petri vocant.”
[1730] Valois (1880), p. 204.
[1731] PL, 59, 162, “Notitia librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur.”
[1732] Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum naturale_, 1485, I, 14.
[1733] PL, 176, 787-8, _Erudit. Didasc._, IV, 15.
[1734] “Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli quod appellatur sancti
Clementis libri octo apocryphum (or, apocryphi).”
[1735] _Speculum naturale_, XXXII, 129, concerning the morality of the
Seres.
[1736] Compare _Recognitions_, I, 27 (PG, I, 122) with Rabanus,
_Comment. in Genesim_, I, 2 (PL, 107, 450).
[1737] _Speculum naturale_, I, 7. Peter is represented as saying, “When
anyone has derived from divine Scripture a sound and firm rule of
truth, it will not be absurd if to the assertion of true dogma he joins
something from the education and liberal studies which he may have
pursued from boyhood. Yet so that in all points he teaches what is true
and shuns what is false and pretense.” This corresponds to the close of
the 42nd chapter of the tenth book of _The Recognitions_.
[1738] Since writing this I learn that Professor E. C. Richardson has
examined most of the known MSS of _The Recognitions_ and has found them
all to be the version by Rufinus, except for a few additional chapters
which someone has added in the French group of MSS,—chapters which
Rufinus seems to have omitted because they were difficult to translate.
[1739] Heintze (1914), 23, however, argues that the conclusion of _The
Recognitions_ is dependent upon _The Homilies_.
[1740] Professor E. C. Richardson, after kindly reading this chapter
in manuscript, writes me (Sept. 5, 1921) that he doubts if this Syriac
MS is correctly described as three books of _The Recognitions_ and
four books of _The Homilies_, and that he thinks it may represent an
earlier form in the evolution than either of them. He writes further,
“I have a strong notion that a study of Greek MSS of the Epitomes will
reveal still more variant forms in Greek, and there are certainly other
oriental compilations not yet brought into comparison with the Greek,
Latin, and Syriac forms.”
[1741] In _The Homilies_ it is a trip only from Alexandria to Caesarea
that consumes this number of days.
[1742] About 375 A. D. Epiphanius (Dindorf, II, 107-9) describes _The
Circuits_ in such a way that he might have either _The Homilies_ or
_The Recognitions_ in mind. On the other hand, the _Philocalia_,
composed about 358 by Basil and Gregory, cites a passage on astrology
from the fourteenth book of _The Circuits_ which is in the tenth book
of _The Recognitions_ and not in _The Homilies_ at all.
[1743] Heintze (1914), p. 113.
[1744] Waitz (1904), pp. 151 and 243.
[1745] See E. C. Richardson in _Papers of the American Society of
Church History_, VI (1894).
[1746] Neither Philostratus nor Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned,
however, in the index of W. Heintze’s _Der Klemensroman und seine
griechischen Quellen_ (1914), 144 pp.
[1747] _Recogs._, VII, 6.
[1748] _Recogs._, I, 29; not mentioned in the corresponding chapter of
_The Homilies_, VIII, 15.
[1749] _Recogs._, IX, 19-29.
[1750] _Recogs._, VII, 12.
[1751] _Recogs._, X, 15, _et seq._
[1752] _Recogs._, I, 8; _Homilies_, I, 10.
[1753] Extraordinary, of course, only in that single animals instead
of angels, as in the Enoch literature, are set over birds, beasts,
serpents, etc.
[1754] _Recogs._, I, 27 and 45.
[1755] _Recogs._, VI, 8.
[1756] _Recogs._, VIII, 9, 20-22.
[1757] _Recogs._, VIII, 15-17.
[1758] _Recogs._, VIII, 21.
[1759] _Recogs._, VIII, 25-32.
[1760] On the other hand, in the apocryphal _Epistle of Barnabas_, IX,
9, it is stated that the weasel conceives with its mouth and hence
typifies persons with unclean mouths.
[1761] _Recogs._, II, 7.
[1762] _Recogs._, VIII, 31.
[1763] _Recogs._, VIII, 30.
[1764] _Recogs._, VIII, 42.
[1765] _Recogs._, VIII, 34.
[1766] _Recogs._, VIII, 44.
[1767] _Recogs._, VIII, 45.
[1768] _Recogs._, VIII, 46.
[1769] _Recogs._, VIII, 47.
[1770] _Recogs._, V, 27.
[1771] _Recogs._, I, 28.
[1772] _Recogs._, VIII, 57, “frater meus Clemens tibi diligentius
respondebit qui plenius scientiam mathesis attigit;” IX, 18, “quoniam
quidem scientia mihi mathesis nota est.”
[1773] _Recogs._, X, 11-12.
[1774] _Recogs._, IX, 18.
[1775] _Recogs._, VIII, 2.
[1776] _Recogs._, I, 32.
[1777] _Recogs._, I, 21, 43, 72.
[1778] _Recogs._, IV, 35.
[1779] Irenaeus, I, 3.
[1780] _Recogs._, III, 68.
[1781] _Recogs._, VIII, 28, “qui est parvus in alio mundus.”
[1782] _Recogs._, VIII, 45.
[1783] _Recogs._, X, 12. In _Homilies_, XIV, 5, the existence of
astrological medicine is implied when Peter promises to cure by prayer
to God any bodily ill, even “if it is utterly incurable and entirely
beyond the range of the medical profession—a case, indeed, which not
even the astrologers profess to cure.”
[1784] _Recogs._, VIII, 2. In _The Homilies_, however, Peter argues
that, even if Genesis prevails, which he does not admit, still he can
“worship Him who is also Lord of the stars,” and that the doctrine of
genesis is far more destructive to polytheism and pagan worship.
[1785] _Recogs._, IX, 16-17.
[1786] _Recogs._, IX, 6 and 12.
[1787] _Recogs._, IX, 30.
[1788] _Recogs._, X, 11.
[1789] _Recogs._, X, 12.
[1790] _Recogs._, IX, 32-7.
[1791] _Recogs._, IX, 19, and VIII, 48.
[1792] _Recogs._, X, 66.
[1793] _Recogs._, II, 42.
[1794] _Recogs._, IV, 7.
[1795] _Recogs._, IX, 38.
[1796] _Recogs._, IX, 6 and 12; IV, 21; V, 20 and 31.
[1797] _Recogs._, II, 71; IV, 16.
[1798] _Recogs._, IV, 30.
[1799] _Recogs._, IX, 9.
[1800] _Recogs._, IV, 32-33.
[1801] _Recogs._, IV, 21.
[1802] _Recogs._, IV, 26.
[1803] Reminding one of Benjamin Franklin’s more successful attempt to
“snatch the thunderbolt from heaven.”
[1804] _Recogs._, IV, 27, and I, 30.
[1805] _Recogs._, IV, 29.
[1806] Dindorf, I, 282, 286-7.
[1807] _Recogs._, X, 55; III, 64.
[1808] _Recogs._, I, 70.
[1809] _Recogs._, I, 42 and 58; III, 12, 47, and 73; X, 54.
[1810] _Recogs._, I, 72.
[1811] _Recogs._, X, 22 and 25.
[1812] But by no means always in early Christian writings: thus Clement
of Alexandria (c150-c220) in the _Stromata_, II, 1, asserts that the
Greeks eulogize “astrology and mathematics and magic and sorcery” as
the highest sciences.
[1813] In contrast to Lucian’s _Menippus_ or _Necromancy_, in which the
Cynic philosopher Menippus resorts to a _Magus_ at Babylon in order to
gain entrance to the lower world and question Teiresias.
Necromancy is given as a proof of the immortality of the soul in
Justin’s _First Apology_, cap. 18, where we read, “For let even
necromancy, and the divinations you practise by means of immaculate
children, and the evoking of departed human souls ... let these
persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation.”
[1814] _Recogs._, I, 5.
[1815] _Recogs._, II, 9.
[1816] _Recogs._, II, 15.
[1817] _Recogs._, II, 6.
[1818] _Recogs._, III, 57.
[1819] _Recogs._, II, 11.
[1820] _Recogs._, II, 12.
[1821] _Recogs._, X, 53, _et seq._
[1822] _Recogs._, III, 57-60; X, 66.
[1823] _Recogs._, VIII, 53.
[1824] _Recogs._, VIII, 60.
[1825] _Recogs._, II, 5.
[1826] _Recogs._, II, 10.
[1827] _Recogs._, II, 16, and III, 49.
[1828] Similarly, in a passage contained only in _The Homilies_, V, 5,
Appion, recommending to Clement a love incantation which he had learned
from an Egyptian who was well versed in magic, explains that demons
obey the magician when invoked by the names of superior angels, who in
their turn may be adjured by the name of God.
[1829] Concerning this boy see _Recogs._, II, 13-15; III, 44-45;,
_Homilies_, II, 25-30.
[1830] _Recogs._, II, 6; III, 13.
[1831] _Recogs._, III, 73; X, 54.
[1832] _Recogs._, X, 58.
[1833] _Recogs._, III, 63.
[1834] _Recogs._, II, 7.
[1835] _Recogs._, II, 5.
[1836] _Recogs._, II, 9, “Multa etenim iam mihi experimenti causa
consummata sunt.“
[1837] _First Apology_, caps. 26 and 56; _Dialogue with Trypho_, 120.
[1838] _Adv. haer._, I, 23.
[1839] See above, chapter 15, p. 365.
[1840] Tertullian, _De anima_, cap. 57, in PL, II, 794; _De idolatria_,
cap. 9.
[1841] _Philosophumena_, VI, 2-15.
[1842] F. X. Funk, _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_, 1905, I,
320-1.
[1843] τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ἐξιστῶν μαγικῇ ἐμπειρίᾳ καὶ δαιμόνων ἐνεργείᾳ.
[1844] “ ... in una die procedens vidi illum per aera volantem et
ferebatur. Et subsistens dixi: In virtute sancti nominis Iesu excido
virtutes tuas. Et sic ruens femur pedis sui fregit.”
[1845] Arnobius, _Adversus gentes_, II, 12.
[1846] Cyril, _Cathechesis_, VI, 15, in PG 33, 564.
[1847] _Filastrii diversarum hereseon liber_, cap. 23, ed. F. Marx,
1898, in CSEL; also in PL, vol. 12.
[1848] Sulpicius Severus, 363-420, _Chron._, II, 28, and Theodoret,
c386-456, _Haereticarum fabularum compendium_, I, 1 (PG 83, 344) have
nothing new to say.
[1849] AN, VIII, 673-5.
[1850] _Ibid._, 477-85; Greek text in Tischendorf, _Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha_, 1851, pp. 1-39. The Greek scholar, Constantine Lascaris,
translated part of the work into Latin in 1490.
[1851] Mead (1892), p. 37, notes that Dr. Salmon (article _Simon Magus_
in _Dict. Chris. Biog._ IV, 686) “connects this with the story, told
by Suetonius and Dio Chrysostom, that Nero caused a wooden theater
to be erected in the Campus, and that a gymnast who tried to play
the part of Icarus fell so near the emperor as to bespatter him with
blood.” Hegesippus (_De bello judaico_, III, 2), Abdias (_Hist._ 1),
and Maximus Taurinensis (_Patr._ VI, _Synodi ad Imp. Const. Act._ 18)
compare Simon’s flight with that of Icarus.
[1852] Tischendorf (1851), p. xix.
[1853] “De mirificis rebus et actibus beatorum Petri et Pauli, et
de magicis artibus Simonis:” Fabricius, _Cod. apocr._, III, 632;
Florentinus, _Martyrologium Hieronymi_, 103.
[1854] A slightly different version of the dog incident is found in the
_Acts of Nereus and Achilles_ (AS, May III, 9).
[1855] _Hegesippus_, III, 2 ed. C. F. Weber and J. Caesar, Marburg,
1864, “et statim in voce Petri implicatis remigiis alarum quas
sumserat corruit, nec exanimatus est, sed fracto debilitatus crure
Ariciam concessit atque ibi mortuus est.” I earnestly recommend this
passage to those who delight in finding ancient precursors of modern
inventions as an example of remarkable insight into the effect of
air-waves upon delicate mechanisms.
[1856] ed. Fabricius, _Cod. apocr._, I, 411; AS, June V, 424.
[1857] _Biblioth. Patrum_, Cologne, 1618, I, 70.
[1858] Printed PL, 39, 2121-2, among the works of Augustine, _Sermones
Supposititi_, CCII. The greater number of MSS assign it to Maximus.
[1859] Mâle, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 297, notes 3 and 4; p.
298, note 1.
[1860] The two representations are essentially identical. Simon falls
head first, and the accompanying legend reads, “_Hic praecepto Petri
oratione Pauli Simon Magus cecidit in terram_,”—“Here at Peter’s
command and Paul’s prayer Simon Magus falls to earth.”
[1861] Greek and Latin text in parallel columns in AS, Sept. VII
(1867), pp. 204ff. For an account of previous editions see _Ibid._,
p. 182. Bishop John Fell published a Latin text from three Oxford
MSS. In Digby 30, 15th century, fol. 29-, which I have examined, the
wording differed considerably from that of the Latin text in AS. The
brief _Martyrium_ of Cyprian and Justina follows in the same volume
of AS at pp. 224-6. _Sahidische Bruchstücke der Legende von Cyprian
von Antiochen_, ed. O. v. Lamm, 1899, Ethiopic, Greek, and German,
in _Petrograd Acad. Scient. Imper. Mémoires, VIII série, Cl. hist.
philol._, IV, 6. Πρᾶξις τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων Κυπριανοῦ καὶ Ἰουστίνης,
with an Arabic version, ed. Margaret D. Gibson, 1901, in _Studia
Sinaitica_, No. 8.
[1862] _Ibid._, p. 180, “ipsa S. Cypriana nomine vulgata Confessio quam
ante Constantini aetatem scriptam esse critici plurimi etiam rigidiores
fatentur.”
[1863] _Ibid._, p. 205, “et initiatus sum sonis sermonum ac strepitum
narrationibus.” L. Preller in _Philologus_, I (1846), 349ff., and A.
B. Cook, _Zeus_, 110-1, suggest that these rites on Mount Olympus were
Orphic.
[1864] “Et aliorum insidiantium decipientium permiscentium....”
[1865] Shelley, it may be recalled, in 1822 translated some scenes,
published in 1824, from Calderón’s _Magico Prodigioso_, in which
Cyprian, Justina, and the demon figure.
[1866] Bouchier, _Syria as a Roman Province_, p. 237.
[1867] Bouchier, _Spain Under the Roman Empire_, p. 123, citing AS,
July 19.
[1868] Epiphanius, _Panarion_, ed. Dindorf, II, 97-104; ed. Petavius,
131A-137C.
[1869] _Idem._ The attempt to bewitch the furnaces reminds one of the
fourteenth Homeric epigram, in which the bard threatens to curse the
potters’ furnaces if they do not pay him for his song, and to summon
“the destroyers of furnaces,”—Σύντριβ’ ὁμῶς Σμάραγόν τε καὶ Ἄσβετον ἠδὲ
Σαβάκτην,—words usually interpreted as names for mischievous Pucks and
brawling goblins who smash pottery. But the two middle names suggest
the stones, smaragdus or emerald, and asbestos. The poet also invokes
“Circe of many drugs” to cast injurious spells, and appeals to Chiron
to complete the work of destruction. He further prays that the face
of any potter who peers into the furnace may be burned. This epigram
is probably of late date. See A. Abel, _Homeri Hymni, Epigrammata,
Batrachomyomachia_, Lipsiae, 1886, pp. 123-4.
[1870] Mâle, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, pp. 304-6.
[1871] Mâle (1913), p. 306.
[1872] _Ibid._, p. 307.
[1873] Greek text in Migne PG, Vol. XI. English translation in the
_Ante-Nicene Fathers_, of which I generally make use in quotations
from the work. On the MSS of the _Against Celsus_ see Paul Koetschau,
_Die Textüberlieferung der Bücher des Origenes gegen Celsus in den
Handschriften dieses Werkes und der Philokalia. Prolegomena zu einer
kritischen Ausgabe_, 1889, 157 pp., (TU, VI, 1).
[1874] I, 71; also II, 32.
[1875] I, 38; also VIII, 9; II, 48.
[1876] I, 68; III, 52.
[1877] II, 49.
[1878] VII, 36.
[1879] I, 6.
[1880] VI, 40.
[1881] V, 51.
[1882] I, 26.
[1883] IV, 33.
[1884] V, 6.
[1885] V, 9.
[1886] VII, 9.
[1887] VII, 11.
[1888] VII, 3.
[1889] III, 1.
[1890] III, 5.
[1891] III, 46; IV, 51.
[1892] I, 28.
[1893] I, 38.
[1894] I, 60.
[1895] I, 38.
[1896] II, 49.
[1897] II, 51.
[1898] I, 68.
[1899] VII, 25.
[1900] V, 42.
[1901] I, 68.
[1902] VI, 41.
[1903] III, 52.
[1904] See cap. 21.
[1905] Kühn, XIX, 48 (_de libris propriis_). Μετροδώρου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς
Κέλσον Ἐπικούρειον.
[1906] VI, 39.
[1907] IV, 86.
[1908] VII, 67.
[1909] VI, 39.
[1910] VI, 40.
[1911] VII, 3 and 35.
[1912] Ps. XCVI, 5.
[1913] VII, 69.
[1914] V, 42.
[1915] II, 51. See also V, 38; VI, 45; VII, 69; VIII, 59; I, 60.
[1916] See VII, 67, “demons ... and their several operations, whether
led on to them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art,
or urged on by their own inclinations....”
Also VII, 5, “those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may
say, to particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical
force or by their own natural inclinations.”
Also VII, 64, “... the demons choose certain forms and places, whether
because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because
for some other possible reason they have selected those haunts....”
[1917] VII, 4. ὡς ἐπίπαν γὰρ ἰδιῶται τὸ τοιοῦτον πράττουσι.
[1918] V, 38.
[1919] VIII, 61.
[1920] VI, 80.
[1921] I, 58.
[1922] I, 60.
[1923] I, 58. The Magi had been confused with the Chaldeans several
centuries before by Ctesias in his _Persica_, cap. 15; see D. F.
Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen: Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr
Christi_, Kopenhagen (1827), p. 14.
[1924] Balaam himself was something of an astrologer according to
Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen_, 1827, p. 31. “Die sieben Altäre die der
moabitische Seher Bileam an verschiedenen Orten errichtete (IV B. Mose,
XXIII) waren gewiss den sieben Planetfürsten gewidmet.”
[1925] Numbers, XXIV, 17.
[1926] Similarly an English version (in an Oxford MS of the early
15th century, Laud Misc., 658) of _The History of the Three Kings of
Cologne_, or medieval account of the translation of the relics of the
Magi, in forty-one chapters with a preface, opens its first chapter
with the words, “The mater of these three worshipful and blissid kingis
token the begynnyng of the prophecye of Balaam.”
[1927] _In Numeros Homilia XIII_, in Migne, PG, XII, 675.
[1928] _In Numeros Homilia XV_, col. 689.
[1929] _In Genesim Homilia XIV_, 3, in PG, XII, 238.
[1930] _Origenis in Numeros Homiliae, Prologus Rufini Interpretis ad
Ursacium._ Migne, PG, XII, 583-86.
[1931] _Origenis in Numeros Homilia XIII_, Migne, PG, XII, 670-677.
In at least one medieval manuscript we find the homily upon Balaam
preserved separately, BN 13350, 12th century, fol. 92v, et omeliae de
Balaham et Balach.
[1932] W. H. Bennett, _Balaam_, in EB, 11th edition.
[1933] One cannot help wondering whether Pharaoh’s magicians lost their
rods for good as a result of this manœuvre, but it is a point upon
which the Scriptural narrative fails to enlighten us.
[1934] II, 15-16.
[1935] _Antiq._, IV, 6.
[1936] Johannis Hildeshemensis, _Liber de trium regum translatione_,
1478, cap. 2.
[1937] E. W. Hengstenberg, _Die Geschichte Bileams und seine
Weissagungen_, Berlin, 1842. Hengstenberg tried to take middle ground
between Philo Judaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret,
and others who regarded Balaam as a godless false prophet and magician,
and the contrary opinion of Tertullian, Jerome, and some moderns who
hold that Balaam was originally a devout man and true prophet who fell
through his covetousness.
[1938] “Et ideo quasi expertus in talibus in opinione erat omnibus qui
erant in Oriente ... Certus ergo Balach de hoc et frequenter expertus.”
[1939] In Homily XIV.
[1940] Migne, PG, XII, 1011-28.
[1941] J. G. Frazer (1918), II, 522, note, however, says of I. Samuel,
XXVIII, 12: “It seems that we must read, ‘And when the woman saw Saul,’
with six manuscripts of the Septuagint and some modern critics, instead
of, ‘And when the woman saw Samuel.’”
[1942] VI, 41.
[1943] V, 48.
[1944] I, 30.
[1945] II, 34.
[1946] IV, 33, and I, 22.
[1947] IV, 33. On the use of mystic names of God among the Jews of this
period and “the new and greatly developed angelology that flourished at
that time in Egypt and Palestine” see the Introduction to M. Gaster’s
edition of _The Sword of Moses_, 1896,—a book of magic found in a
13-14th century Hebrew MS, but which is mentioned in the 11th century
and which he would trace back to ancient times.
[1948] I, 6. It also, however, suggests the efficacy ascribed by the
Mandaeans to the repetition of passages from their sacred books.
[1949] II, 49.
[1950] I, 25; V, 45.
[1951] V, 45.
[1952] I, 24.
[1953] IV, 33; I, 22, etc.
[1954] _In Math._ XXVI, 23 (Migne, PG, XIII, 1757).
[1955] See p. 366 in Chapter XV on Gnosticism.
[1956] V, 25.
[1957] VIII, 28.
[1958] VIII, 58.
[1959] VIII, 60.
[1960] VIII, 63.
[1961] VII, 68.
[1962] VII, 69.
[1963] VIII, 59.
[1964] V, 28.
[1965] V, 29; see _Deut._ xxxii, 8.
[1966] V, 30.
[1967] V, 32.
[1968] VIII, 31.
[1969] Migne, PG, XII, 680.
[1970] III, 12.
[1971] I, 8.
[1972] V, 54; see _Book of Enoch_, XL, 9.
[1973] Matthew, XVIII, 10.
[1974] VII, 5.
[1975] V, 6-9.
[1976] V, 6.
[1977] IV, 67; V, 20-21.
[1978] VI, 80.
[1979] Duhem (1913-1917) II, 447, treats of “Les Pères de l’Église et
la Grande Année.”
[1980] V, 11.
[1981] _De principiis_, I, 7.
[1982] V, 10.
[1983] _Deut._, IV, 19-20.
[1984] V, 12.
[1985] I, 59.
[1986] V, 11.
[1987] P. D. Huet, _Origenianorum_ Lib. II, Cap. II, Quaestio VIII, _De
astris_, in Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, XVII, 973, _et seq._
[1988] XVII, 28.
[1989] “In prooemio libri prioris eiusdem Περὶ ἀρχῶν, num. 10.”
[1990] Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._, VI, 11, in Migne, PG, XXI, 477-506.
[1991] PG, XXI, 489.
[1992] _Ibid._, 501-502.
[1993] P. D. Huet, _Origenianorum_ Lib., II, ii, v. 10, cites Basil,
_Homil. 3 in Hexaem._; Epiphanius, _Haer._, LXIV, 4, and _Epist. ad
Joan. Jerosolymit._, cap. 3; Jerome, _Epist. 61 ad Pammach._, cap.
3; Gregory Nyss., _lib. in Hexaem._; Augustine, _Confess._, XIII, 15;
Isidore, _Origin._, VII, 5.
See also Duhem (1913-1917) II, 487, “Les eaux supracélestes.”
[1994] VI, 21.
[1995] IV, 90-95.
[1996] Origen quotes, “Ye shall not practise augury nor observe the
flight of birds,” which is found in the Septuagint, _Levit._, XIX, 26.
[1997] I, 66.
[1998] I, 36.
[1999] I, 33.
[2000] IV, 86-88.
[2001] IV, 98.
[2002] IV, 93; it will be recalled that the witches in _The Golden Ass_
of Apuleius assume the bodies of weasels in order to rob a corpse.
[2003] I, 37.
[2004] VII, 30.
[2005] VIII, 19-20.
[2006] Homily 18 on Numbers, Migne, PG, XII, 715.
[2007] _Epistola_ 96 in Migne, PL, XXII, 78.
[2008] Migne, PG, XVII, 1091-92.
[2009] Tertullian, _Apology_, cap. 21; so also Cyprian, _Liber de
idolorum vanitate_, cap. 13. Latin text of Tertullian in PL, vols. 1-2;
English translation in AN, vol. 3.
[2010] _Apology_, cap. 23.
[2011] _De cultu feminarum_, I, 2.
[2012] _Apology_, cap. 22.
[2013] _De anima_, cap. 57.
[2014] _Apology_, cap. 23.
[2015] _De anima_, cap. 57. Damigeron is mentioned in the Orphic poem,
_Lithica_, and in the _Apology_ of Apuleius, cap. 45; is cited in the
_Geoponica_, and was regarded by V. Rose as the Greek source of the
Latin “Evax” and Marbod on stones. BN 7418, 14th century, _Amigeronis
de lapidibus_, was printed by Pitra, _Spic. Solesm._, III, 324-35, and
Abel, _Orphei Lithica_, p. 157, _et seq._ See further PW, “Damigeron.”
[2016] Presumably Nectanebus.
[2017] It is Aaron’s rod in the King James version.
[2018] _De idolatria_, cap. 9.
[2019] _Apology_, cap. 35.
[2020] PL, vol. 3; AN, vol. 4.
[2021] Thus Minucius Felix says, _Octavius_, cap. 26, “Magi ...
quidquid miraculi ludunt ... praestigias edunt,” while Tertullian,
_Apology_, cap. 23, writes, “Porro si et magi phantasmata edunt ... si
multa miracula circulatoriis praestigiis ludunt.”
[2022] Cyprian, _Liber de idolorum vanitate_, caps. 6-7.
[2023] PL, vol. VI; AN, vol. VII; the following references are all to
this work.
[2024] V, 3.
[2025] II, 15.
[2026] II, 17.
[2027] IV, 27.
[2028] II, 17.
[2029] The work was discovered in 1842 at Mount Athos and edited by E.
Miller in 1851, Duncker and Schneidewin in 1859, and Abbé Cruice in
1860. Greek text in PG, vol. XVI, part 3; English translation in AN,
vol. V.
[2030] R. Ganschinietz, _Hippolytos’ Capitel gegen die Magier_, 1913,
in TU, 39, 2, is a commentary on the text.
[2031] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 28.
[2032] Since writing this sentence I have found an article by Diels
on the discovery of alcohol in _Societas Regia Scientiarum, Abhandl.
Philos.-Hist. Classe_, Berlin, 1913, in which he argues from this
passage in Hippolytus that the discovery was made in the Alexandrian
period and that it reached western Europe again only through the Arabs
about the twelfth century, since alcohol is not mentioned in the older
Schlettstadt version of the _Mappae clavicula_. If this be so, Adelard
of Bath was perhaps the first to introduce it from the Arabs or the
orient, although Diels does not say so.
[2033] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 29-41.
[2034] In some places the text is illegible.
[2035] Cap. 105.
[2036] Leo Allatius “in syntagmate” _De engastrimytho_, cap. 7;
Sulpicius Severus, _Historia sacra_, liber I; Anastasius Antiochenus,
Ὁδηγός, quaest., 112; “et eorum quos laudat Bellarminus liber IV _de
Christo_, cap. 11.”
[2037] Περὶ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου, PG, XLV, 107-14.
[2038] Migne, PG, XVIII, 613-74.
[2039] The King James version, First Samuel, XXVIII, 19, reads, “and
to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,” instead of “thou and
Jonathan.”
[2040] Migne, PG, XII, 143-74.
[2041] Migne, PG, LVI, 61, _et seq._
[2042] Migne, PG, LVI, 637, _et seq._ _Homily_ II, “Opus imperfectum
in Matthaeum quod Chrysostomi nomine circumfertur.” _Ibid._, 602, _et
seq._, for opinions of various past writers as to its authenticity.
[2043] Migne, PG, LX, 274-5, in the 38th homily on the Book of Acts.
[2044] On the other hand, D. Friedrich Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen:
Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr Christi_, Kopenhagen, 1827, adopted
the astrological theory that the star of Bethlehem was really a major
conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, which Jewish tradition,
too, seems to have regarded as the sign of the Messiah, and that
therefore Jesus was born in 6 B. C. This view had already been advanced
by Kepler, but recent writers seem to prefer a conjunction in Aries:
see H. G. Voigt, _Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie_, Leipzig,
1911; Kritzinger, _Der Stern der Weisen_, Gütersloh, 1911; von Oefele,
_Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279 verglichen mit der
Geburtsgeschichte Christi im Berichte des Matthäus_, Berlin, 1903, in
_Mitteil. d. Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_.
[2045] Mâle, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 208, was not able to
trace the legend that the star of the Magi appeared with the face of
a child beyond _The Golden Legend_ compiled by James of Voragine in
the thirteenth century. We shall, however, find it mentioned in the
twelfth century by Abelard, who derived it from this spurious homily of
Chrysostom.
[2046] They are twice so represented on the elaborately carved
Christian sarcophagus in the museum at Syracuse, Sicily, where also the
manger, ox, and ass are shown (compare note 4 below).
[2047] Hugo Kehrer, _Die Heiligen drei Könige in Litteratur und Kunst_,
Leipzig, 1908, 2 vols. An earlier work on the three Magi is Inchofer,
_Tres Magi Evangelici_, Rome, 1639.
[2048] J. C. Thilo, _Eusebii Alexandrini oratio_ Περὶ ἀστρονόμων
(_praemissa de magis et stella quaestione_) _e Cod. Reg. Par. primum
edita_, Progr. Halae, 1834.
[2049] A. Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Astrologie grecque_, 1899, p. 611, “La
royauté des Mages fut inventée (vers le VIe siècle), comme la crèche
(_sic!_ see Luke, II, 12 and 16), le bœuf et l’âne pour montrer
l’accomplissement des prophéties.”
[2050] _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 214 note, following, I
presume, Kehrer’s work, as he does on p. 213.
[2051] For detailed references see Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen_,
1827, p. 15; and Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, p. 611, where they are stated
somewhat differently.
[2052] _Comm. in Platonis Timaeum_, II, vi, 125; quoted by Münter
(1827), pp. 27-8.
[2053] BN 16819, fol. 49r. Corpus Christi 134, early 12th century, fol.
1 v., has a brief “Magorum trium qui Domino Infanti aurum obtulere
nomina et descriptio.”
[2054] Cotton Galba E, VIII, 15th century, fols. 3-28, Fabulosa
narratio de tribus magis qui Christum adorarunt sive de tribus regibus
Coloniensibus.
[2055] Cap. 12 in the 1478 edition.
[2056] _Ibid._, cap. 34.
[2057] At Munich all the following MSS are 15th century: CLM 18621,
fol. 135, _Liber trium regum_, fol. 215, _Legenda trium regum excerpta
ex praecedenti_; 19544, fols. 314-49, and 26688, fols. 157-92,
_Laudes et gesta trium regum_, etc.; 21627, fols. 212-31, _Historia
de tribus regibus_; 23839, fols. 112-37, and 24571, fols. 50-104,
_Gesta trium regum_; 25073, fols. 260-83, _de nativitate domini et
de tribus regibus_. At Berlin MSS 799 and 800, both of the 15th
century, have the _Gesta trium regum_ ascribed to John of Hildesheim.
So Wolfenbüttel 3266, anno 1461. The printed edition of 1478 in 46
chapters and about 30 folios is also ascribed to John of Hildesheim.
We read on the binding, “Ioannis Hildeshemensis Liber de trium regum
translatione.” The Incipit is: “Reverendissimo in Christo patri ac
domino domino florencio de weuelkouen divina providencia monasteriensis
ecclesie episcopo dignissimo.” The colophon is: “Liber de gestis ac
trina beatissimorum trium regum translacione ... per me Johannem
guldenschoff de moguncia.” Some other MSS, also of the 15th century,
are: Vatic. Palat. Lat. 859, de gestis et translationibus trium regum,
and at Oxford, University College 33, Liber collectus de gestis et
translationibus sanctorum trium regum de Colonia; Laud Misc., 658,
The history of the three kings of Cologne, in forty-one chapters
with a preface. It is thus seen that the number of chapters varies.
Coxe’s catalogue of the Laud MSS states that the Latin original was
printed at Cologne in quarto in 1481, and that it is very different
from the version printed by Wynkyn de Worde. “The Story of the Magi,”
in Bodleian (Bernard) 2325, covers only folio 68. At Amiens is a MS
which the catalogue dates in the 14th century and ascribes to John
of Hildesheim, and its Incipit is practically that of the printed
edition: Amiens 481, fols. 1-58, “Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac
domino domino Florentino de Wovellonem (_sic_) divina providencia
Monasteriensis ecclesie episcopo dignissimo. Cum venerandissimorum
trium Magorum, ymo verius trium Regum.” The work ends in the MS with
the words, “... summi Regis servant legem incole Colonie. Amen.
Explicit hystoria.”
[2058] BN 16819, 10th century, fols. 46r-49r.
[2059] Marco Polo (I, 13-14, ed. Yule and Cordier, 1903, vol. I,
78-81), who located the Magi in Saba, Persia, recounts further legends
concerning them and their gifts.
See also F. W. K. Müller, _Uigurica_, I, i, _Die Anbetung der Magier,
ein Christliches Bruchstück_, Berlin, 1908.
[2060] Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, I, 274, says, “Augustine
and Chrysostom felt and spoke in the same way, though in more measured
language, and nearly all early Christian writers who touched upon the
matter did so to echo the voice of authorities so unquestioned.” But I
cannot agree with this statement. He goes on to imply that a majority
of the fathers, like Cosmas Indicopleustes, attacked the belief in
the sphericity of the earth; but here, too, I wonder if he is not
following Letronne, _Des Opinions Cosmographiques des Pères_, without
having examined the citations. Certainly no such attitude is found in
Basil’s _Hexaemeron_, Hom. 3 and 9 as the citation implies. I have not
seen Marinelli, _La geographia e i Padri della Chiesa, estratto dal
Bollettino della Società geografica italiana_, anno 1882, pp. 11-15.
[2061] _Divin. Instit._, III, 24.
[2062] Migne, PG, vol. 29; PN, vol. 8.
[2063] Duhem (1914) II, 394, however, prefers Gregory of Nyssa’s work
as “à la fois plus sobre, plus concis, et plus philosophique....”
[2064] Homily I was delivered in the morning, II in the evening; III
was in the morning and speaks of a coming evening address. At the close
of Homily VII Basil urges his hearers to talk over at their evening
meal what they have heard this morning and this evening. If we regard
Homily VI as the morning address referred to, we shall have Homily V
left to cover an entire day. Homily VI, however, is the longest of the
nine. In any case Homily VIII is clearly preached in the morning, and
IX at evening.
[2065] Bk. II, caps. 10-17.
[2066] _Epistola 65, ad Pammachium._ Augustine’s _De Genesi ad
litteram_, which Cassiodorus (_Institutes_, I, 1) esteemed above the
commentaries of Basil and Ambrose upon Genesis, is a somewhat similar
work, but, after a briefer treatment of the work of creation, continues
to comment on the text up to Adam’s expulsion from Paradise.
[2067] Migne, PL, 14, 131-2. The most recent edition of the
_Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose is by C. Schenkl. Vienna, 1896.
[2068] Fialon, _Étude sur St. Basile_, 1869, p. 296.
[2069] Homily IX.
[2070] For example, in the catalogue, published in 1744, of MSS in
the then Royal Library at Paris there are listed five copies of
Eustathius’ Latin translation, dating from the ninth to the fourteenth
century—2200, 4; 1701, 1; 1702, 1; 1787A, 2; 2633, 1; and fifteen
copies of the _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose—1718; 1702, 2; 1719 to 1727
inclusive; 2387, 4; 2637 and 2638.
I have not noted what MSS of the _Hexaemerons_ of Basil and Ambrose
are found in the British Museum and Bodleian libraries. Some other
medieval copies of Basil’s in Latin translation are: BN 12134, 9th
century Lombard hand; Vendôme 122, 11th century, fols. 1 v-60; Soissons
121, 12th century, fol. 97, Eustathius’ prologue and a part of his
translation; Grenoble 258, 12th century, fols. 1-45, “Eustathii
translatio....”
The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose, since written originally in Latin, is
naturally found oftener. The oldest MS is said to be CU Corpus Christi
193, large Lombard script of the 8th century which closely resembles BN
3836. Other MSS are: BN 11624, 11th century; BN 12135, 9th century; BN
12136, 12-13th century; BN 13336, 11th century; BN 14847, 12th century,
fol. 163; BN nouv. acq. 490, 12th century; Vatican 269-273 inclusive,
10-15th centuries; Alençon 10, 12th century; Vendôme 129, 12th century,
fols. 48-126; Semur, 10, 12th century; Chartres 63, 10-11th century,
fols. 3-46; Orléans 35, 11th century; Orléans 192, 7th century, part of
the first two books only; Amiens fonds Lescalopier 30, 12th century;
le Mans 15, 11th century; Brussels 1782, 10th century; CLM 2549, 12th
century; CLM 3728, 10th century; CLM 6258, 10th century; CLM 13079,
12th century; CLM 14399, 12th century; Novara 40, 12th century; and
many other MSS of later date in these and other libraries.
[2071] _De proprietatibus rerum_, VIII, 4.
[2072] Bede, _Hexaemeron, sive libri quatuor in principium Genesis
usque ad nativitatem Isaac et electionem Ismaelis_, in Migne, PL, 91,
9-100. Bede originally intended to carry his work only to the expulsion
of Adam from Paradise, but subsequently added three more books.
[2073] Homilies I, VIII, and X.
[2074] Homily III, 1 and 10.
[2075] I, 7; III, 5 and 10.
[2076] IV, 1.
[2077] I, 7; III, 5; IV, 3, 4, and 7; VI, 9; VII, 6.
[2078] II, 7; III, 10.
[2079] IV, 1; VI, 1.
[2080] VIII, 8.
[2081] Homily V, 10; IX, 2.
[2082] I, 3.
[2083] II, 1.
[2084] III, 3.
[2085] II, 4, _et seq._
[2086] III, 9.
[2087] Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, Introduction, pp.
xxxi, xxxix.
[2088] Irenaeus, I, 5; Epiphanius, ed. Petavius 186AB.
[2089] Homily I, 10.
[2090] VI, 9-11.
[2091] I, 11.
[2092] II, 7.
[2093] IV, 2-4.
[2094] Homily IV, 4.
[2095] IV, 6.
[2096] V, 2.
[2097] IV, 5.
[2098] III, 4.
[2099] VI, 1.
[2100] Homily V, 3.
[2101] V, 9.
[2102] V, 4.
[2103] V, 6.
[2104] VII, 5; IX, 3.
[2105] VIII, 6.
[2106] Homily VII, 6.
[2107] IX, 3.
[2108] VIII, 5. See also Aristotle, _History of Animals_, V, 8.
[2109] Homily VIII, 6.
[2110] IX, 2.
[2111] IX, 5.
[2112] Homily, VI, 11.
[2113] V, 1.
[2114] VI, 3.
[2115] _Ad Autolycum_, II, 15.
[2116] Homily VI, 5-7.
[2117] Homily VI, 10.
[2118] V, 2.
[2119] V, 7. But perhaps he simply means that oaks will grow where
pines used to.
Tertullian, _De pallio_, cap. 2, dwelling on the law of change, speaks
of the washing down of soil from mountains, the alluvial formation
by rivers, and of sea-shells on mountain tops as a proof that the
whole earth was once covered by water. He seems to have in mind a
gradual process of geological evolution rather than Noah’s flood,
and Sir James Frazer states that Isidore of Seville is the first
he knows of the many writers who have appealed “to fossil shells
imbedded in remote mountains as witnesses to the truth of the Noachian
tradition,”—_Origines_, XIII, 22, cited by J. G. Frazer, _Folk-Lore in
the Old Testament_ (1918), I, 159, who cites the passage in Tertullian
at pp. 338-9.
[2120] Homily IX, 2.
[2121] Cunningham, _Christian Opinion on Usury_, p. 9.
[2122] Twice in the course of the _Panarion_ (Dindorf, I, 280, and
II, 428; Petavius, 2D and 404A) he gives the year of the reign of
Valentinian and Valens, namely, the eleventh and the twelfth.
[2123] Lucian’s _De dipsadibus_ will be recalled; see also Pliny, NH,
XXIII, 80; Lucan, _Pharsalia_, IX, 719.
[2124] Pliny, NH, XXIII, 18; XXX, 10.
[2125] Pliny, NH, XXV, 53; XXI, 92; XIX, 62; XII, 40 and 55.
[2126] Dindorf, II, 450; Petavius, 422C.
[2127] _Liber de XII gemmis rationalis summi sacerdotis Hebraeorum_,
published in Dindorf’s edition of the _Opera_ of Epiphanius, vol. IV,
pp. 141-248, with the preface and notes of Fogginius, and both the
Latin and Greek versions.
[2128] _Ibid._, 160-62.
[2129] P. 174.
[2130] Pp. 190-91.
[2131] _Ibid._, 184.
[2132] Pitra, _Spicilegium Solesmense_, Paris, 1855, III, xlvii-lxxx.
K. Ahrens, _Zur Geschichte des sogenannten Physiologus_, 1885.
M. F. Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_. Heilbronn,
1888, pp. 16-33, “Entstehung des Physiologus und seine Entwicklung
im Abendlande.” F. Lauchert, _Geschichte des Physiologus_,
Strassburg, 1889. E. Peters, _Der griechische Physiologus und seine
orientalischen Uebersetzungen_, Berlin, 1898. M. Goldstaub, _Der
Physiologus und seine Weiterbildung, besonders in der lateinischen
und in der byzantinischen Litteratur_, in _Philologus_, Suppl. Bd.
VIII (1898-1901), 337-404. Also in _Verhandl. d. 41. Versammlung
deutscher Philologen u. Schulmänner in München_, Leipzig (1892), pp.
212-21. V. Schultze, _Der Physiologus in der kirchlichen Kunst des
Mittelalters_, in _Christliches Kunstblatt_, XXXIX (1897), 49-55. J.
Strzygowski, _Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus_, in _Byz.
Zeitsch._ Ergänzungsheft, I (1899). E. P. Evans, _Animal Symbolism
in Ecclesiastical Architecture_, 1896, is disappointing, being
mainly compiled from secondary sources and having little to say on
ecclesiastical architecture.
[2133] EB, 11th ed., “Arthropoda.”
[2134] Lauchert (1889), pp. 229-79, attempts a critical edition of the
Greek text.
[2135] Pitra (1855), III, 374-90; French translation in Cahier,
_Nouveaux mélanges_ (1874), I, 117, _et seq._
[2136] O. G. Tychsen, _Physiologus Syrus_, 1795; from an incomplete
Vatican MS. Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 31, _et seq._, or in _Anecdota
Syriaca_, IV, 115, _et seq._, gives the complete text with a Latin
translation.
[2137] Hommel, _Die aethiopische Uebersetzung des Physiologus_,
Leipzig, 1877. A bit of it was translated by Pitra (1855), III, 416-7.
[2138] Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 137, _et seq._, with Latin translation.
A fragment in Pitra (1855), III, 535.
[2139] Pitra (1855), III, 338-73, used MSS from the 13th to 15th
century. The earliest known illuminated copies are of 1100 A. D. and
later: see Dalton, _Byzantine Art and Archaeology_, Oxford, 1911, pp.
481-2.
[2140] The oldest Latin MSS seem to be two of the 8th and 9th centuries
at Berne. Edited by Mai, _Classici auctores_, Rome, 1835, VII, 585-96,
and more completely by Pitra (1855), III, 418; also by G. Heider, in
_Archiv f. Kunde österreich. Geschichtsquellen_, Vienna, 1850, II,
545; Cahier et Martin, _Mélanges d’archéologie_, Paris, II (1851),
85ff., III (1853), 203ff., IV (1856), 55ff. Cahier, _Nouveaux mélanges_
(1874), p. 106ff.
Mann (1888), pp. 37-73, prints the Latin text which he regards as
William le Clerc’s source from Royal 2-C-XII, and gives a list of other
MSS of Latin Bestiaries in English libraries.
Other medieval Latin Bestiaries have been printed in the works of
Hildebert of Tours or Le Mans (Migne, PL, 171, 1217-24: really this
poem concerning only twelve animals is by Theobald, who was perhaps
abbot at Monte Cassino, 1022-1035, and it was printed under the name
of Theobald before 1500,—see the volume numbered IA.12367 in the
British Museum and entitled, _Phisiologus Theobaldi Episcopi de naturis
duodecim animalium_. Indeed, it was printed at least nine times under
his name,—see Hain, 15467-75): and in the works of Hugh of St. Victor
(Migne, PL, 177, 9-164, _De bestiis et aliis rebus libri quatuor_).
Both of these versions occur in numerous MSS, as does a third version
which opens with citation of the remark of Jacob in blessing his sons,
“Judah is a lion’s whelp.” The author then cites _Physiologus_ as usual
concerning the three natures of the lion. See Wolfenbüttel 4435, 11th
century, fols. 159-68v, Liber bestiarum. “De leone rege bestiarum et
animalium (est) etenim iacob benedicens iudam ait Catulus leonis iuda.
De leone. Leo tres naturas habet.” Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol.
140-, ... caps. 36, praevia tabula ... Tit. “De tribus naturis leonis.”
Incip. “Bestiarium seu animalium regis; etenim Jacob benedicens filium
suum Udam ait Catulus leonis Judas filius meus quis suscitabit eum;
Fisiologus dicit, Tres res naturales habere leonem....” Library of
Dukes of Burgundy 10074, 10th century, “Etenim Jacob benedicens.” CLM
19648, 15th century, fols. 180-95, “Igitur Jacob benedicens.” CLM
23787, 15th century, fols. 12-20, “Igitur Jacob benedicens.” CU Trinity
884, 13th century in a fine hand, with 107 English miniatures, fol.
89-, “Et enim iacob benedicens filium suum iudam ait catulus leonis est
iudas filius meus”; this MS ends imperfectly.
[2141] Printed by Lauchert (1889), pp. 280-99.
[2142] Max F. Mann, _Der Physiologus des Philipp von Thaon und seine
Quellen_, Halle, 1884, 53 pp.
[2143] Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_, Heilbronn, 1888,
in _Französische Studien_, VI, 2, pp. 201-306. Most recent edition by
Robert, Leipzig, 1890.
[2144] Besides the two foregoing see Goldstaub und Wendriner, _Ein
tosco-venez. Bestiarius_, Halle, 1892. Magliabech. IV, 63, 13th
century, mutilated, 53 fols., bestiario moralizato, in Italian prose.
E. Monaci, _Rendiconti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei, Classe di scienze
morali, storiche e filol._, vol. V, fasc. 10 and 12, has edited a
Bestiario in 64 sonetti on as many animals from a private MS at “Gubbio
nell’ archivio degli avvocati Pietro e Oderisi Lucarelli,” MS 25, fols.
112-27. See also M. Garver and K. McKenzie, _Il Bestiario Toscano
secondo la lezione dei codice di Parigi e di Roma_, in _Studi romanzi_,
Rome, 1912; McKenzie, _Unpublished Manuscripts of Italian Bestiaries_,
in _Modern Language Publications_, XX (1905), 2; and Garver, “Some
Supplementary Italian Bestiary Chapters,” in _Romanic Review_, XI
(1920), 308-27.
[2145] For instance, A. S. Cook, _The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and
Physiologus_, Yale University Press, 364 pp., 1919.
[2146] K. Ahrens, _Das “Buch der Naturgegenstände,”_ 1892.
[2147] _Cod. Vind. Med._ 29, τοῦ ἅγιου Ἐπιφανίου ἐπισκόπου Κύπρου περὶ
τῆς λέξεως πάντων τῶν ζώων φυσιολόγος. In the edition of Ponce de
Leon, Rome, 1587, there are twenty animals described, and the symbolic
interpretation is very short compared to later versions. Heider (1850),
p. 543, regarded this as the oldest version and as extant in complete
form.
[2148] Mansi, _Concil._, VIII, 151, “Liber Physiologus ab hereticis
conscriptus et beati Ambrosii nomine presignatus apocryphus.”
[2149] Heider (1850), II, 541-82, “Physiologus nach einer Handschrift
des XI. Jahrhunderts”: the text opens at p. 552, “Incipiunt Dicta
Johannis Chrysostomi de naturis bestiarum.” Lauchert used another
MS, Vienna 303, 14th century, fol. 124v-, which was considerably
different and was furthermore combined with the Physiologus of
Theobald. An earlier MS than either of the foregoing is CLM 19417,
9th century, fols. 29-71, Liber Sancti Johannis episcopi regiae urbis
Constantinopoli ... Crisostomi quem de naturis animalium ordinavit.
Another Vienna MS is 2511, 14th century, fols. 135-40, “Incipiunt dicta
Johannis Chrysostomi de naturis animalium et primo de leone .../ ...
Sic erit et scriba doctus in regno celorum qui profert de thesauro suo
noua et uetera. Expliciunt dicta Johannis Crisostomi.” A Paris MS of
the same is BN 2780, 13th century, 14, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi liber
qui physiologus appellatur.
[2150] Additional 11,035, Johannis Scottigenae Phisiologiae liber.
In the same MS are Macrobius’ _Dream of Scipio_ and the poems of
Prudentius.
[2151] _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, II, 1 (Migne, PL 177, 57). “Physici
denique dicunt quinque naturales res sive naturas habere leonem....”
[2152] _Mineral._, II, i, 1 (ed. Borgnet, V, 24).
[2153] Bubnov (1899), p. 372.
[2154] Thus even Lauchert (1899), p. 105, admits that Bartholomew
of England, the thirteenth century Latin encyclopedist, cites
_Physiologus_ for much which does not come from _Physiologus_.
[2155] Goldstaub (1899-1901), p. 341.
[2156] This and the preceding quotations in the paragraph are from Mâle
(1913), pp. 48, 35, 49, 45.
[2157] Goldstaub (1899-1901), pp. 350-1. The same statement could be
made with equal truth of Vincent of Beauvais and Bartholomew of England.
[2158] Hommel (1877), pp. xii, xv.
[2159] Duhem, II (1914), 314, seems to me to have overestimated the
significance of _Confessions_, V, 5, and _De Genesi ad litteram_, I,
19, in saying, “L’assurance avec laquelle les Basile, les Grégoire de
Nysse, les Ambroise, les Jean Chrysostome opposaient aux enseignements
de la Physique profane les naïves assertions de leur science puérile
contristait fort l’Évêque de Hippone.” There is nothing, I think, to
indicate that Augustine had these men or men of their stamp in mind,
and I doubt if his scientific attainments were superior to Basil’s.
[2160] _De consensu Evangelistarum_, I, 11; in Migne, PL 34, 1049-50.
[2161] _Ibid._, I, 9-10.
[2162] _De civitate Dei_, X, 9; PL vol. 41.
[2163] _Ibid._, VII, 34-35; and see Arnobius, _Against the Heathen_, V,
1, for Augustine’s probable source.
[2164] _De civ. Dei_, VIII, 19.
[2165] _Ibid._, VIII, 18, 19, 26; IX, 1.
[2166] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9-10.
[2167] _De trinitate_, IV, 11; in Migne, PL 42, 897.
[2168] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9.
[2169] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6.
[2170] In Grenoble 208, 12th century, containing works of Augustine,
there is listed separately at fol. 54v, “De magis Pharaonis,” to which
the MSS catalogue adds, “et de CLIII piscibus.” Probably it is an
extract from one of Augustine’s longer works as it covers only one leaf.
[2171] _De trinitate_, IV, 11.
[2172] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; Migne, PL 40, 92-3.
[2173] See also _De cataclysmo_ (perhaps spurious), cap. 5, Migne, PL
40, 696; and _Sermo VIII_, PL 38, 74. _Sermo XC_, PL 38, 562, however,
speaks of “Moyses et Aaron.”
[2174] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6; XVIII, 18.
[2175] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; _De doctrina Christiana_,
II, 20, in Migne, PL 34, 50.
[2176] Migne, PL 40, 581-92.
[2177] _De trinitate_, III, 8; PL, 42, 875.
[2178] _De trinitate_, III, 7-8. It seems strange to me that they
should have failed on minute insects who in ancient and medieval
science are often represented as produced by spontaneous generation.
The Talmudists also, however, state that the Egyptians were unable to
duplicate the plague of lice, as their art did not extend to things
smaller than a barleycorn.
[2179] _De civitate Dei_, XVIII, 22. In commenting on Genesis (PL 34,
445) he speaks even more harshly of “that absurd and harmful notion of
the changing of souls and of men into beasts, or of beasts into men”;
but perhaps he has reference to the doctrine of transmigration of souls
rather than to magic transformations.
[2180] _Confessions_, X, 42, in PL vol. 32.
[2181] Quaest. VI; PL 40, 162-5.
[2182] II, 3; PL 40, 142-4.
[2183] _De civitate Dei_, XXI, 4-6; PL 41, 712-6.
[2184] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XI, 28-9; PL 34, 444-5.
[2185] _Confessions_, X, 35; in PL vol. 32.
[2186] II, 20 and 29.
[2187] IV, 2-3.
[2188] PL 39, 2268-72.
[2189] _Sermo CXXX_, PL 39, 2004-5.
[2190] II, 21-3; PL 34, 51-3.
[2191] _De civitate Dei_, V, 7.
[2192] _Confessions_, VII, 6.
[2193] Unless otherwise noted, the ensuing arguments are found in _The
City of God_, V, 1-7.
[2194] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 17; PL 34, 278. _De diversis
quaestionibus_, cap. 45; PL 40, 28-9. _Epistola_ 246; PL 33, 1061.
_Sermo_ 109; PL 38, 1027.
[2195] _Confessions_, IV, 2-3.
[2196] See below, chapter 24.
[2197] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XII, 22 and 17 and 12; PL 34, 472-3,
467-9, 464-5. See also the marvelous divinations of Albicerius
recounted in _Contra Academicos_, I, 6; PL 32, 914-5.
[2198] _Sermones_ 199 and 374; PL 38, 1027-8, and 39, 1666. _Contra
Faustum_, II, 15; PL 42, 212.
[2199] In _Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento_, Quaest. 63, PL 35, 2258,
which is probably a spurious work but was cited as Augustine’s by
Thomas Aquinas (_Summa_, III, 36, v), Balaam is said to have warned the
Magi to watch for the star. It is also asserted, however, that “these
Chaldean Magi watched the course of the stars, not from malevolence,
but curiosity concerning nature” (_Hi Magi chaldaei non malevolentia
astrorum cursum sed rerum curiositate speculabantur_).
[2200] _Enchiridion, sive de fide, spe, et charitate_, I, 58; PL
40, 259-60. _De civitate Dei_, XIII, 16; PL 41, 388. _De Genesi ad
litteram_, II, 18; PL 34, 279-80.
[2201] _Orosii ad Augustinum Consultatio sive Commonitorium de
errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum_, PL 31, 1211-22; also
in G. Schepss (1889), in CSEL XVIII. _Augustini ad Orosium contra
Priscillianistas et Origenistas_, PL 41, 669, _et seq._ Augustine also
discusses the Priscillianists in _Epistle_ 237, PL 33, 1034, _et seq._,
where he makes no charge either of magic or astrology against them.
[2202] This charge was later repeated by St. Leo, _Epistola XV_; see
Withington, _History of Medicine_, 1894, p. 178; but the offense would
seem a trivial one in any case.
[2203] _De principiis_, I, 7.
[2204] _De doctrina Christiana_, II, 29, in Migne, 34, 57.
[2205] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 16, in Migne, 34, 277.
[2206] _De civitate Dei_, XI, 30-31. He says about the same things
concerning six and seven in _De Genesi ad litteram_, IV, 2.
[2207] _Sermo supposititius_ 21, in Migne, PL XXXIX, 1783, “De
convenientia decem preceptorum et decem plagarum Egypti. Non est sine
causa, fratres dilectissimi, quod preceptorum legis Dei numerus cum
numero plagarum quibus Aegyptus percutitur exaequari videtur.”
[2208] _Cambridge Medieval History_, I, 9.
[2209] The Greek work, _Hermippus or Concerning Astrology_, however,
can no longer be regarded as an example of Christian belief in
astrology at this period, since F. Boll, _Heidelberger Akad. Sitzb._,
1912, No. 18, has shown it to be a fourteenth century work of John
Katrarios, who makes use of a Greek translation of Albumasar.
[2210] For bibliography see F. Boll’s “Firmicus” in PW. It does not
include my article written subsequently on “A Roman Astrologer as a
Historical Source: Julius Firmicus Maternus,” in _Classical Philology_,
VIII, No. 4, pp. 415-35, October, 1913. For bibliography see also Kroll
et Skutsch, II, xxxiv.
[2211] The edition of _De errore profanarum religionum_ by K. Ziegler,
Leipzig, 1907, is more critical than that in Migne, PL.
[2212] _Iulii Firmici Materni Matheseos Libri VIII_, ed. W. Kroll et
F. Skutsch, _Fasciculus prior libros IV priores et quinti prooemium
continens_, Leipzig, 1897; _Fasciculus alter libros IV posteriores cum
praefatione et indicibus continens_, 1913. My references will be by
page and line to this text, unless otherwise noted. Earlier editions,
which I used for the later books before 1913, are the _editio princeps,
Julius Firmicus de nativitatibus, ... Impressum Venetiis per Symonem
papiensem dictum bivilaqua, 1497 die 13 Iunii_, cxv fols.; the Aldine
edition of 1499 containing apparent interpolations, _Julii Firmici
Astronomicorum libri octo integri et emendati ex Scythicis oris ad
nos nuper allati...._; and the Basel editions of 1533 and 1551 by M.
Pruckner which reproduce the Aldine text. See Kroll et Skutsch, II,
xxxiii, for another reproduction of the Aldine text, printed in 1503,
and p. xxviii for a partial edition of books 3-5 of the _Mathesis_ in
1488 and 1494 in _Opus Astrolabii plani ... a Iohanne Angeli_.
[2213] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 3, 27.
[2214] Boll in PW, VI, 2365.
[2215] _Hermes_, XXIX, 468-72. The treatise could not have been
composed before 334 since Firmicus (I, 13, 23) refers to an eclipse in
the consulship of Optatus and Paulinus which occurred in that year.
[2216] For instance, at I, 37, 25, “_Constantinus scilicet maximus divi
Constantini filius_,” might as well be rendered, “Constantius, son of
Constantine,” as “Constantine, son of Constantius.”
[2217] I, 1, 3, “Olim tibi hos libellos, Mavorti decus nostrum, me
dicaturum esse promiseram verum diu me inconstantia verecundiae
retardavit.”
[2218] I, 195-6.
[2219] Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 8, 5, “iubetur Mavortius, tunc
praefectus praetorio, vir sublimis constantiae, crimen acri
inquisitione spectari.”
[2220] Ziegler, p. 7, “Physica ratio quam dicis, alio genere celetur”;
p. 9, “quod dicant physica ratione conpositum.”
[2221] Ziegler, p. 5.
[2222] Ziegler, p. 23.
[2223] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 86, 12-21.
[2224] Ziegler, pp. 15, 38, 39, 64, 67, 81, 82, “sacratissimi
imperatores”; pp. 31, 40, “sacrosancti principes”; p. 65, “sanctarum
aurium vestrarum.”
[2225] Ziegler, pp. 53-4.
[2226] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 17-18.
[2227] See my “A Roman Astrologer as a Historical Source,” _Classical
Philology_, VIII, 415-35, especially p. 421.
[2228] I, 16, 20, “Summo illi ac rectori deo, qui omnia perpetua legis
dispositione composuit....”
[2229] I, 16, 14; I, 57, 2; I, 90, 11, to 91, 10.
[2230] I, 280, 2-28.
[2231] Besides the prayer just quoted, see I, 18, 10-13. See also the
long prayer at the end of the first book to the planets and supreme God
for the successful continuance of the dynasty of Constantine.
[2232] I, 18, 25-9.
[2233] I, 85-89 (Book II, chapter 30).
[2234] I, 17, 2-23.
[2235] I, 10, 3-.
[2236] I, 11, 7-.
[2237] Book I, Chapter 4 (I, 11-15).
[2238] Book I, Chapter 7 (I, 19-30).
[2239] For a fuller exposition of this quantitative method of
source-analysis and the results obtained thereby see Thorndike (1913),
pp. 415-35.
[2240] Temple-robbers, 5; servile or ignoble employ in temples,
5; spending one’s time in temples, 4; builders of temples, 3;
beneficiaries of temples, 3; temple guards, 2; _neocori_, 3; and
so on, making 35 references to temples in all. It is perhaps worth
remarking that H. O. Taylor, _The Classical Heritage_, 1901, p. 80,
notes that Synesius about 400 A. D. speaks of the Christian churches at
Constantinople as “temples.”
[2241] Chief priests, 5; priests, 9; of provinces, 1; priestess, 1;
priests of Cybele (_archigalli_), 3; _Asiarchae_, 1; priest of some
great goddess, 1; illicit rites, 1. There are 27 passages concerning
divination.
[2242] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 148, 8 and 123, 4.
[2243] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 201, 6.
[2244] Cumont says (_Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_, p. 188):
“But the ancients expressly distinguished ‘magic,’ which was always
under suspicion and disapproved of, from the legitimate and honorable
art for which the name ‘theurgy’ was invented.” This distinction was
made by Porphyry and others, and is alluded to by Augustine in the
_City of God_, but it is to be noted that Firmicus does not use the
word “theurgy.” Cumont also states (p. 179) that in the last period
of paganism the name philosopher was finally applied to all adepts
in occult science. But in Firmicus, while magic and philosophy are
associated in two passages, there are five other allusions to magic and
three separate mentions of philosophers.
[2245] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 161, 26.
[2246] _Computus_, 3; _calculus_, 2; and “those who excel at numbers,”
1.
[2247] Including two mentions of court physicians (_archiatri_). See
_Codex Theod._, Lib. XIII, Tit. 3, _passim_, for their position.
[2248] I leave this sentence as I wrote it in 1913.
[2249] _Aestus animi_, 5; insanity, 13; lunatics, 10; epileptics, 8;
melancholia, 3; inflammation of the brain (_frenetici_), 4; delirium,
dementia, demoniacs, alienation, and madness, one or two each; vague
allusions to mental ills and injuries, 5.
[2250] In his last chapter he says, “Take then, my dear Mavortius, what
I promised you with extreme trepidation of spirit, these seven books
composed conformably to the order and number of the seven planets. For
the first book deals only with the defense of the art; but in the other
books we have transmitted to the Romans the discipline of a new work,”
(II, 360, 10-15). And in the introduction to the fifth book he writes,
“We have written these books for your Romans lest, when every other
art and science had been translated, this task should seem to remain
unattempted by Roman genius,” (I, 280, 28-30).
[2251] I, 41, 7 and 15; I, 40, 9-11.
[2252] I, 41, 5 and 11; I, 40, 8.
[2253] They are listed by Kroll et Skutsch, II, 362, _Index auctorum_.
[2254] II, 294, 12-21.
[2255] Kroll et Skutsch, II, p. iii.
[2256] I, 258, 10, “in singulari libro, quem de domino geniturae et
chronocratore ad Murinum nostrum scripsimus”; II, 229, 23, “exeo libro
qui de fine vitae a nobis scriptus est.”
[2257] II, 18, 24; II, 283, 19.
[2258] Engelbrecht, _Hephästion von Theben und sein astrologisches
Compendium_, Vienna, 1887.
[2259] _De vita sua_, in _Libanii sophistae praeludia oratoria LXXII
declamationes XLV et dissertationes morales, Federicus Morellus regius
interpres e MSS maxime reg. bibliothecae nunc primum edidit idemque
Latine vertit ... ad Henricum IV regem Christianissimum_, Paris, 1606,
II, 15-18.
[2260] _Magi accusatio_, _Ibid._, I, 898-911.
[2261] _De vita sua, Opera_, II, 2-3.
[2262] X, 196, 11, _De sepulcro incantato_.
[2263] My citations of Synesius’ works, unless otherwise noted, are
from the edition: _Synesii Cyrenaei Quae Extant Opera Omnia_, ed. J. G.
Krabinger, Landshut, 1850, vol. I, which has alone appeared. The older
edition of Petavius with Latin translation is reprinted in Migne PG,
vol. 66, 1021-1756. For a French translation, with several introductory
essays, see H. Druon, _Œuvres de Synésius_, Paris, 1878. The _Letters_
and _Hymns_ have often been published separately. For this and other
further bibliography see Christ, _Gesch. d. griech. Litt._, 1913, II,
ii, 1167-71, where, however, no note is taken of Berthelot’s discussion
of Synesius as a reputed author of alchemistic treatises.
Some works on Synesius are: H. Druon, _Études sur la vie et les
œuvres de Synésius_, Paris, 1859; R. Volkmann, _Synesius von Cyrene_,
Berlin, 1869; W. S. Crawford, _Synesius the Hellene_, London, 1901;
G. Grützmacher, _Synesios von Kyrene_, Leipzig, 1913. In periodicals:
F. X. Kraus in _Theol. Quartalschrift_, 1865 and 1866; O. Seeck, in
_Philologus_, 1893.
[2264] See Crawford, _op. cit._, and monographs listed in Christ, _op.
cit._, p. 1168, notes 4 and 8.
[2265] The date is variously stated as 411, 406, or 410.
[2266] A. J. Kleffner, _Synesius von Cyrene ... und sein angeblicher
Vorbehalt bei seiner Wahl und Weihe zum Bischof von Ptolemais_,
Paderborn, 1901. H. Koch, _Synesius von Cyrene bei seiner Wahl und
Weihe zum Bischof_, in _Hist. Jahrb._, XXIII (1902), pp. 751-74.
[2267] Christ, _op. cit._, p. 1168, note 1.
[2268] _Ibid._, p. 1170, citing K. Prächter, in _Genethliakon für C.
Robert_, 1910, p. 244, _et seq._
[2269] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων (_On dreams_), ch. 2.
[2270] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων (_On Dreams_), ch. 3. Ἔδει γὰρ, οἶμαι, τοῦ παντὸς
τούτου συμπαθοῦς τε ὄντος καὶ σύμπνου τὰ μέρη προσήκειν ἀλλήλοις, ἅτε
ἑνὸς ὅλου τὰ μέλη τυγχάνοντα. Καὶ μή ποτε αἱ μάγων ἴυγγες αὗται; καὶ
γὰρ θέλγεται παρ’ ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ σημαίνεται· καὶ σοφὸς ὁ εἰδὼς τὴν τῶν
μερῶν τοῦ κόσμου συγγένειαν. Ἕλκει γὰρ ἄλλο δί’ ἄλλον, ἔχων ἐνέχυρα
παρόντα τῶν πλεῖστον ἀπόντων, καὶ φωνὰς, καὶ ὕλας καὶ σχήματα....
Evidently Synesius did not regard the magi as mere imposters.
[2271] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 3. Καὶ δὴ καὶ θεῷ τινὶ τῶν εἴσω τοῦ κόσμου
λίθος ἐνθένδε καὶ βοτάνη προσήκει, οἷς ὁμοιοπαθῶν εἴκει τῇ φύσει καὶ
γοητεύεται. In his _Praise of Baldness_ (Φαλάκρας ἐγκώμιον), ch. 10,
Synesius tells how the Egyptians attract demons by magic influences.
[2272] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 1. Αὗται μὲν ἀποδείξεις ἔστων τοῦ μαντείαν ἐν
τοῖς ἀρίστοις εἶναι τῶν ἐπιτηδευομένων ἀνθρώποις.
[2273] _Ibid._, ch. 18.
[2274] Δίων ἢ περὶ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὸν διαγωγῆς.
[2275] Φαλάκρας ἐγκώμιον, ch. 10.
[2276] Αἰγύπτιοι ἢ περὶ προνοίας, bk. ii, ch. 7.
[2277] Πρὸς Παιόνιον περὶ τοῦ δώρου, ch. 5.
[2278] Δίων, ch. 7. Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 4. Ἐπιστολαί, 4, 49, and 142.
[2279] On Synesius as an alchemist see Berthelot (1885), pp. 65,
188-90; (1889), p. ix.
[2280] T. R. Glover, _Life and Letters in the Fourth Century A. D._,
Cambridge, 1901, p. 187, note 1.
[2281] _Saturnalia_, I, xvi, 12.
[2282] _Commentary on the Dream of Scipio_, II, 17, “Universa
philosophiae integritas”; ed. Nisard, Paris, 1883.
[2283] _Ibid._, I, 5-6; II, 1-2.
[2284] _Ibid._, I, 7.
[2285] _Ibid._, I, 19.
[2286] _Ibid._, I, 14.
[2287] Glover (1901), p. 178.
[2288] _De nuptiis philologiae et mercurii et de septem artibus
liberalibus libri novem, Lugduni apud haeredes Simonis Vincentii_,
1539; ed. U. F. Kopp, Frankfurt, 1836; ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Leipzig,
1866.
[2289] It occurs toward the close of the second book.
[2290] In Kopp’s edition pp. 202-23 are almost entirely taken up with
notes setting forth other passages in the classics concerning such
spirits.
[2291] Greek text in Migne, PG 3, 119-370.
[2292] Migne, PL 122, 1037-70.
[2293] The following bibliography includes the editions of the texts
concerned and the chief critical researches in the field. A. Ausfeld,
_Zur Kritik des griechischen Alexanderromans; Untersuchungen über
die unechten Teile der ältesten Ueberlieferung_, Karlsruhe, 1894. A.
Ausfeld and W. Kroll, _Der griechische Alexanderroman_, Leipzig, 1907.
H. Becker, _Die Brahmannen in der Alexandersage_, Königsberg, 1889,
34 pp. E. A. W. Budge, _History of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge
University Press, 1889; the Syriac version of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_
edited from five MSS, with an English translation and notes. E. A.
W. Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge
University Press, 1896; Ethiopic Histories of Alexander by the
Pseudo-Callisthenes and other writers. D. Carrarioli, _La leggenda
di Alessandro Magno_, 1892. G. G. Cillié, _De Iulii Valerii epitoma
Oxoniensi_, Strasburg, 1905. G. Favre, _Recherches sur les histoires
fabuleuses d’Alexandre le Grand_, in _Mélanges d’hist. litt._, II
(1856), 5-184. Ethé, _Alexanders Zug zur Lebensquelle im Lande der
Finsterniss_, in _Atti dell’ Accademia di Monaco_, 1871. B. Kübler,
_Julius Valerius; Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis_, Leipzig, 1888
(see pp. xxv-xxvi for further bibliography). Levi, _La légende
d’Alexandre dans le Talmud_, in _Revue des Études juives_, I (1880),
293-300. Meusel, _Pseudo-Callisthenes nach der Leidener Handschrift
herausgegeben_, Leipzig, 1871. M. P. H. Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand
dans la littérature française du moyen âge_, 2 vols., Paris, 1886.
C. Müller, _Scriptores rerum Alexandri Magni_, Firmin-Didot, Paris,
1846 and 1877 (bound with Arrian, ed. Fr. Dübner); the first edition
of the Greek text of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ from three Paris
MSS, also Julius Valerius, etc. Noeldeke, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
des Alexanderromans, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos. Hist. Classe_, vol. 38, Vienna,
1890; Budge says of this work, “Professor Noeldeke discusses in his
characteristic masterly manner the Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Persian,
and Arabic versions, and ably shows how each is related to the other,
and how certain variations in the narrative have arisen. No other
writer before him was able to control, by knowledge at first hand,
the statements of both the Aryan and Semitic versions; his work is
therefore of unique value.” _Padmuthiun Acheksandri Maketonazwui, I
Wenedig i dparani serbuin Chazaru_, Hami, 1842; the Armenian version
published by the Mechitarists, Venice, 1842. F. Pfister, _Kleine Texte
zum Alexanderroman_, Heidelberg, 1910; _Sammlung vulgärlateinischer
Texte herausg. v. W. Heraeus u. H. Morf, 4 Heft_. Spiegel, _Die
Alexandersage bei den Orientalen_, Leipzig, 1851. Vogelstein,
_Adnotationes quaedam ex litteris orientalibus petitae quae de
Alexandro Magno circumferuntur_, Warsaw, 1865. A. Westermann, _De
Callisthene Olynthio et Pseudo-Callisthene Commentatio_, 1838-1842. J.
Zacher, _Pseudo-Callisthenes: Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der
ältesten Aufzeichnung der Alexandersage_, Halle, 1867 (see pp. 2-3 for
further bibliography of works written before 1851). J. Zacher, _Julii
Valerii Epitome, zum ersten mal herausgegeben_, Halle, 1867.
[2294] _Hexaemeron_, VI, 7. On the other hand, Augustine, _De civitate
dei_, V, 6-7, alludes to the sage who selected a certain hour for
intercourse with his wife in order that he might beget a marvelous son.
[2295] Seneca in the _Natural Questions_ (VI, 23) called the death of
Callisthenes “the eternal crime” of Alexander which all his military
victories and conquests could not outweigh,—a passage which did not
keep Nero from forcing Seneca to commit suicide.
[2296] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, Leipzig, 1904, pp. 308-309.
[2297] _Res gestae_ of Alexander of Macedon, contained in three MSS
of the Royal Library in the British Museum, dating according to the
catalogue from the eleventh and twelfth centuries: Royal 13-A-I, Royal
12-C-IV, and Royal 15-C-VI, are not the full text of Julius Valerius,
but the epitome of which I shall soon speak.
[2298] The longer epitome is known from an Oxford MS, Corpus Christi MS
82, and was believed by Meyer to be intermediary between Valerius and
the other briefer epitome. Cillié, however, tries to prove the shorter
epitome to be the older.
[2299] _Alexandri Magni Epistola ad Aristotelem de mirabilibus Indiae_,
first printed with _Synesii Epistolae, graece; adcedunt aliorum
Epistolae_, Venice, 1499; then Bologna, 1501; Basel, 1517; Paris, 1520,
fols. 102v-14v, following the Pseudo-Aristotle, _Secret of Secrets_;
etc. These early printed editions give the oldest Latin text, dating
back as we have seen to at least 800.
Some MSS of the same version are:
BM Royal 13-A-I, fols. 51v-78r, a beautifully clear MS of the late 11th
century with clubbed strokes. The Epistola is preceded by the _Epitome
of Valerius_ and followed by the correspondence with Dindimus.
Royal 12-C-IV, 12th century.
Royal 15-C-VI, 12th century.
Cotton Nero D VIII, fol. 169.
Sloane 1619, 13th century, fols. 12-17.
Arundel 242, 15th century, fols. 160-83.
BL Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol. 186; preceded at fol. 171 by the
“Ortus vita et obitus Alexandri Macedonis,” and followed at fol. 196v
by the letter to Dindimus.
BN MSS 2874, 4126, 4877, 4880, 5062, 6121, 6365, 6503, 6831, 7561,
8518, 8521A, _Epistola de itinere et situ Indiae_; 8607, _Epistolae
eius nomine scriptae_; and 2695A, 6186, 6365, 6385, 6811, 6831, 8501A,
for _Responsio ad Dindimum_.
CLM 11319, 13th century, fol. 88, _Alexandri epistola ad Aristotelem
de rebus in India gestis_, preceded at fol. 72 by the _Epitome_ and
followed at fol. 97 by the _Dindimus_.
In the library of Eton College an imperfect copy of the _Epistola_
follows _Orosius_ in a MS of the early 13th century, 133, BL 4, 6,
fols. 85r-87.
A somewhat different and later version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was
published in 1910 at Heidelberg by Friedrich Pfister from a Bamberg MS
of the 11th century, together with _Palladius_ and the correspondence
with Dindimus. Pfister believed all these to be translations from the
Greek.
An Anglo-Saxon version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was edited by
Cockayne in 1861 (see T. Wright, RS 34; xxvii).
[2300] III, 17.
[2301] First published by Joachim Camerarius about 1571.
[2302] Published with _Palladius_ by Sir Edward Bisse in 1665; MSS are
numerous.
[2303] From this same MS Pfister published the _Letter to Aristotle_
and other treatises mentioned above.
[2304] Its influence would therefore seem to have been upon the later
prose romances and not upon French vernacular poetry. Known at first
only in Italy and Germany, its popularity became general in western
Europe toward the close of the middle ages.
[2305] Harleian 527, fols. 47-56.
[2306] Amplon. Quarto 12, fols. 200-201; presumably it includes only
those chapters concerned with Nectanebus.
[2307] CUL 1429 (Gg. I, 34), 14th century, No. 5, 35 fols. Also in CU
Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 200v-212v, “De Nectanabo mago quomodo
magnum genuerit Alexandrum. Egipti sapientes....”
[2308] NH XXXVI, 14 and 19.
[2309] _De anima_, cap. 57, in Migne, PL II, 792.
[2310] The former built a Temple of Isis, now a heap of ruins, at
Behbit el-Hagar and a colonnade to the Temple of Hibis in the oasis
of Khîrgeh; and his name appears upon a gate in the Temple of Mont at
Karnak. Besides the Vestibule of Nektanebos at Philae there is a court
of Nektanebos before the Temple of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Medinet
Habu.
[2311] Berthelot (1885), pp. 29-30.
[2312] The Syriac version, on the contrary, emphasizes this point less.
[2313] Budge’s translation of the Ethiopic version.
[2314] CLM 215, fols. 176-94, “Egiptiorum gentem in mathematica magica
quam in arte fuisse valentem littere tradunt.”
[2315] _Pseudo-Callisthenes_, I, 4, “casters of horoscopes,
readers of signs, interpreters of dreams, ventriloquists, augurs,
genethlialogists, the so-called magi to whom divination is an open
book.” Budge, Syriac version, p. 4, “The interpreters of dreams are of
many kinds and the knowers of signs, those who understand divination,
Chaldean augurs and casters of nativities; the Greeks call the signs of
the zodiac ‘sorcerers’; and others are counters of the stars. As for
me, all of these are in my hands and I myself am an Egyptian prophet,
a magus, and a counter of the stars.” Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_,
p. 11, “Then Nectanebus answered and said unto her, ‘Yea. Those who
have knowledge of the orbs of heaven are of many kinds. Some are
interpreters of dreams, and some have knowledge of what shall happen in
the future, and some understand omens, and some cast nativities, and
there are besides all those who know magic and who are renowned because
they are learned in their art, and some are skilled in the motion of
the stars of heaven: but I have full knowledge of all these things.’”
[2316] From Fowler’s translation of _Alexander: the False Prophet_. See
also Plutarch’s _Alexander_.
[2317] The Syriac and Ethiopic versions are somewhat more detailed
as to the magic by which Philip’s dream was produced. Budge, Syriac
version, p. 8, “Then Nectanebus ... brought a hawk and muttered over
it his charms and made it fly away with a small quantity of a drug,
and that night it shewed Philip a dream.” Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_,
p. 21, “Then Nectanebus took a swift bird and muttered over it certain
charms and names, and ... in one day and one night it traversed many
lands and countries and seas, and it came to Philip by night and
stopped. And it came to pass at that very hour ... that Philip saw a
marvelous dream.”
[2318] In another place, however, Albert calls Philip Alexander’s
father, _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, II,
ii, 1.
[2319] The story is better told in the Syriac version (Budge, 14-17),
where Alexander does not push Nectanebus into the pit until after he
has asked the astrologer if he knows his own fate and has been told
that Nectanebus is to be slain by his own son. Alexander then attempts
to foil fate by pushing Nectanebus into the pit, but only fulfills
it. In the Ethiopic version Nectanebus is represented as educating
Alexander from his seventh year on in “philosophy and letters and the
working of magic and the stars and their seasons.” Aristotle becomes
Alexander’s tutor only after the death of Nectanebus. Aristotle, too,
is represented as an adept in astrology, amulets, and the use of magic
wax images. (Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_, pp. 31, xlv).
[2320] VI, 4.
[2321] Royal 13-A-I, fol. 53v.
[2322] In CU Trinity 1446 (1250 A. D.) _The Romance of Alexander_ in
French verse by Eustache (or Thomas) of Kent, among 152 pictures listed
by James (III, 483-91) are two representing the hero’s colloquy with
the moon tree (fol. 31r). Marco Polo also tells of these marvelous
trees. And see Roux de Rochelle, “Notice sur l’Arbre du Soleil, ou
Arbre Sec, décrit dans la relation des voyages de Marco Polo,” in
_Bulletin de la Société de géographie_, série 3, III (1845), 187-94.
[2323] For the _Letter to Aristotle_ I have employed the Paris, 1520
edition and Royal 13-A-I, which follow the early Latin version. As
stated above, Pfister’s edition (Heidelberg, 1910) gives a later
version probably translated from the Greek.
[2324] There appears to have been no complete edition of Aëtius in
Greek. The first eight of his sixteen books were printed at Venice in
1534, and the ninth at Leipzig in 1757, but for the entire sixteen
books one must use the Latin translation of Cornarius, Basel, 1542,
etc., which I have read in Stephanus, _Medicae artis principes_, 1567.
Recent editions of portions of Aëtius are: Αετιου λογος δωδεκατος
πρωτον νυν εκδοθεις ὑπο Γεωργιου Α. Κωστομοιρου, pp. 112, 131, Paris,
1892.
_Die Augenheilkunde des Aëtius aus Amida_, Griechisch und deutsch
herausg. von J. Hirschberg, pp. xi, 204, Leipzig, 1899.
_Aetii sermo sextidecimus et ultimus_ (Αετιου περι των εν μητρα παθων
etc.). Erstens aus HSS veröffentl. mit Abbildungen, etc., v. S. Zervòs,
pp. k’, 172, Leipzig, 1901.
Αετιου Αμιδινου Λογος δεκατος πεμπτος, ed. S. Zerbos, 1909, in
Επιστημονικη Εταιρεια, Αθηνα, vol. 21.
My references to Alexander of Tralles are both to the text of Stephanus
(1567) and the more recent edition by Theodor Puschmann, _Alexander
von Tralles, Originaltext und Übersetzung nebst einer einleitenden
Abhandlung_, Vienna, 1878-9, 2 vols. This gives a more critical text
than any previous edition, but unfortunately Puschmann adopted still
another arrangement into books than those of the MSS and previous
editions, and also in my opinion did not make a sufficient study of the
Latin MSS. His introduction contains information concerning Alexander’s
life and the MSS and previous editions of his works.
A valuable earlier study on Alexander was that of E. Milward, published
in 1733 under the title, _A Letter to the Honourable Sir Hans Sloane
Bart., etc._, and in 1734 as _Trallianus Reviviscens_, 229 pp. Milward
was preparing an edition of Alexander of Tralles, but it was never
published. His estimate of Alexander’s position in the history of
medicine furnishes an incidental picture of interest of the state of
medicine in his own time, the early eighteenth century.
The old Latin translation of Alexander of Tralles was the first to be
printed at Lyons, 1504, _Alexandri yatros practica cum expositione
glose interlinearis Jacobi de Partibus et (Simonis) Januensis in
margine posite_; also Pavia, 1520 and Venice 1522. Next appeared a
very free Latin translation by Torinus in 1533 and 1541, _Paraphrases
in libros omnes Alexandri Tralliani_. The Greek text of Alexander was
first printed by Stephanus (Robert Étienne) in 1548 (ed. J. Goupyl).
The Latin translation by Guinther of Andernach, which is included in
Stephanus (1567), first appeared in 1549, Strasburg, and was reprinted
a number of times.
Another work by Puschmann may also be noted: _Nachträge zu Alexander
Trallianus. Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius nebst einer bisher
noch ungedruckten Abhandlung über Augenkrankheiten_, Berlin, 1886, in
_Berliner Studien f. class. Philol. und Archaeol._, V, 2; 188 pp., in
which he segregates as fragments of Philumenus and Philagrius portions
of the text of Alexander as found in the Latin MSS.
My references for the _De medicamentis_ of Marcellus apply to
Helmreich’s edition of 1889 in the Teubner series. This edition is
based on a single MS of the ninth century at Laon which Helmreich
followed Valentin Rose in regarding as the sole extant codex of the
work. As a result Rose indulged in ingenious theories to explain how
the _editio princeps_ by Ianus Cornarius, Basel, 1536, included the
prefatory letter and other preliminary material not found in the Laon
MS, whose first leaves and some others are missing.
But as a matter of fact BN 6880, a clear and beautifully written MS of
the ninth century, contains the _De medicamentis_ entire with all the
preliminary letters. Moreover, it is evident that the _editio princeps_
was printed directly from this MS, which contains not only notes by
Cornarius but the marks of the compositors.
The text of the edition of 1536 was reproduced in the medical
collections of Aldus, _Medici antiqui_, Venice, 1547, and Stephanus,
_Medicae artis principes_, 1567.
Jacob Grimm, _Über Marcellus Burdigalensis_, in _Abhandl. d. kgl. Akad.
d. Wiss. z. Berlin_ (1847), pp. 429-60, discusses the evidence for
placing Marcellus under the older Theodosius, lists the Celtic words
and expressions found in the _De medicamentis_, and also one hundred
specimens of its folk-lore and magic. This article was reprinted in
_Kleinere Schriften_, II (1865), 114-51, where it is followed at pp.
152-72 by a supplementary paper, _Über die Marcellischen Formeln_,
likewise reprinted from the Academy Proceedings for 1855, pp. 51-68.
The magic of Marcellus was further treated of by R. Heim, _De rebus
magicis Marcelli medici_, in _Schedae philol. Hermanno Usener oblatae_
(1891), pp. 119-37, where he adds _nova magica ex Marcelli libris
collata_ which Grimm had omitted.
[2325] Marcellus is often called of Bordeaux, notably in Grimm’s
article, _Über Marcellus Burdigalensis_, 1847; also by C. W. King, _The
Gnostics and their Remains_, 1887, p. 219; and by J. G. Frazer, _The
Golden Bough_, I, 23; but there seems to be no definite proof that he
was from that city.
Jules Combarieu, _La musique et la magie_, 1909, p. 87, says in
reference to the following incantation recommended by Marcellus,
_tetunc resonco bregan gresso_, “Je remarque en passant qu’il faut
frotter l’œil en disant ce _carmen_, et que dans le patois du Midi,
_brégua_ ou _brége_, signifie frotter. Marcellus, si je ne me trompe,
était de Bordeaux.”
Grimm, however (1847), p. 455, interpreted _bregan_ as “lies”—“breigan
gen. pl. von breag lüge,” and the whole line as in modern Irish _teith
uainn cre soin go breigan greasa_ (“fleuch von uns staub hinnen zu der
lügen genossen!”).
[2326] Stephanus (1567), I, 347, _et seq._ For an English translation
of the text see F. Adams, _The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta_, London,
1844-1847.
[2327] _Simia Galieni_, according to Guinther in his translation of
Alexander of Tralles, Stephanus (1567), I, 131.
[2328] Milward (1733), 9-11.
[2329] John Friend (or Freind), _History of Physick_ (1725), I, 297.
[2330] Puschmann, _History of Medical Education_, 1891, p. 153.
[2331] Milward (1733), p. 11.
[2332] J. F. Payne, _English Medicine in Anglo-Saxon Times_, 1904, pp.
102-8.
[2333] Milward (1733), p. 19; Puschmann (1878), I, 104.
[2334] Ch. Daremberg, _Histoire des Sciences Médicales_, Paris, 1870,
I, 242.
[2335] This general impression received from reading many classical
and medieval works I was glad to find confirmed by Milward (1733), p.
29, in the particular case of Alexander of Tralles, of whom he writes:
“As our author’s stile is excellent, so likewise is his method, and
there is no respect in which he is more distinguished from the other
Greek writers in physick than in this. The works of Hippocrates, Galen,
and indeed of all of them except it be Aretaeus are not only very
voluminous but put together with little or no order, as is evident
enough to all such as have been conversant with them.”
[2336] Daremberg (1870), I, 258-9, said that a mass of MSS in a score
of European libraries contained as yet unidentified Latin translations
of Greek medical writers.
[2337] BN 10233, 7th century uncial; BN nouv. acq. 1619, 7-8th century,
demi-uncial; BN 9332, 9th century, fol. 1-, Oribasii synopsis medica;
CLM 23535, 12th century, fols. 72 and 112. V. Rose, _Soranus_, 1882,
pp. iv-v, speaks of a sixth century Latin version of _Oribasius_.
[2338] _Tetrabiblos_, IV, iii, 15.
[2339] _Ibid._, I, iv, 9, where Galen is not cited, and III, i, 9,
where Galen is cited. In Galen, _De simplicibus_, IX, ii, 19 (Kühn,
XII, 207).
[2340] _Ibid._, I, ii, 170, where Galen is not cited; _De simplicibus_,
XI, i, 1 (Kühn, XII, 311-4).
[2341] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 175; Kühn XII, 356-9. Galen is not cited
in this, nor in any of the following passages from the _Tetrabiblos_
listed in the notes, unless this is expressly stated.
[2342] _Tetrabiblos_ at the beginning, pp. 6-7 in Stephanus (1567).
[2343] _Tetrabiblos_ IV, i, 33; Kühn XIV, 233, and XII, 250-1.
[2344] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 109; Kühn XII, 288.
[2345] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 84; Kühn XII, 253.
[2346] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 84; Kühn XII, 248, 284-5.
[2347] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 111; Kühn XII, 291-3.
[2348] _Tetrabiblos_ II, iv, 34; Kühn XII, 860. Perhaps a closer
correspondence than this could be found. In his preceding 33rd chapter,
headed _Curatio erosorum dentium ex Galeno_, Aëtius includes use of the
tooth of a dead dog pulverized in vinegar, which is to be held in the
mouth, or filling the ear next the tooth with “fumigated earthworms” or
with oil in which earthworms have been cooked.
[2349] _Tetrabiblos_ I, ii, 49.
[2350] _Tetrabiblos_ IV, i, 39.
[2351] _Tetrabiblos_ III, iii, 35.
[2352] _Tetrabiblos_ II, ii, 12. Marcellus, cap. 20 (p. 188) also
speaks of “those who often think that they are made sport of by an
incubus.”
[2353] _Tetrabiblos_, I, ii, 177.
[2354] _Tetrabiblos_, IV, i, 86.
[2355] _Tetrabiblos_, I, iii, 164. This passage was printed separately
in the _Uranologion_ of D. Petavius, Paris, 1630 and 1703.
[2356] Agathias, _De imperio et rebus gestis Justiniani_, Paris, 1860,
p. 149.
[2357] Milward (1733), p. 17, “he travel’d through Greece, Gaul, Spain,
and several other places whose mention we find up and down in his
works.”
[2358] Puschmann (1878), I, 288, διὸ καὶ γέρων λοιπὸν πειθαρχῶ καὶ
κάμνειν οὐκέτι δυνάμενος....
[2359] Milward (1733), p. 25.
[2360] Puschmann (1878), I, 83.
[2361] Milward (1733), p. 27.
[2362] Puschmann (1891), 152-3.
[2363] Stephanus (1567), I, 131.
[2364] Friend (1725), I, 106.
[2365] Milward (1733), pp. 65-6, 57 _et seq._
[2366] _Ibid._, pp. 104, 92-3, 71.
[2367] _Ibid._, pp. 48-9.
[2368] See V. Rose, _Hermes_, VIII, 39; _Anecdota_, II, 108. I
presume that BN 9332, 9th century, fol. 139, “Alexandri hiatrosofiste
therapeut(i)con” (libri tres) is the free Latin translation in a Paris
MS of the ninth century alluded to by Daremberg (1870), I, 258-9.
Puschmann (1878) I, 91-2, in a blind and inadequate account of the
Latin MSS, does not mention it, but lists a Monte Cassino codex (97)
of the 9-10th century and an Angers MS of the 10-11th century. He also
alludes to a MS at Chartres without giving any number or date for it,
but probably has reference to Chartres 342, 12th century, fols. 1-139,
“Libri tres Alexandri Yatros.” He alludes to BN 6881 and 6882, both
13th century, libri tres de morbis et de morborum curatione; but not to
CLM 344, 12-13th century, fols. 1-60, libri III de medicina,—integra
versio Latina Lugduni a. 1504 edita. Other MSS are: Gonville and
Caius 400, early 13th century, fols. 4v-83v, “Inc. Alexander yatros
sophista”; Royal 12-B-XVI, late 13th century, fol. 113, Practica
Alexandri.
It will be noted that the text in all these Latin MSS is in only
three books, but it follows the same order as the twelve books. It
is also, at least in the edition of 1504, not as abbreviated as one
might infer from Rose. Rather the later editors, Albanus Torinus and
Guinther of Andernach, seem to have taken greater liberties with,
and made unwarranted additions to Alexander’s text. At the same time
the early Latin text treats of some topics such as toothache which
are not included in Puschmann’s Greek text, and also includes (II,
79-103, and 104-50) treatments of diseases of the abdomen and spleen
for which there seems to be no genuine Greek text and which Puschmann,
_Nachträge_, 1886, has published separately as fragments of Philumenus
and Philagrius, medical writers of the first and fourth centuries. His
chief reason seems to be that cap. 79 is entitled, _De reumate ventris
filominis_, and cap. 104, _Ad splenem philogrius_, while cap. 151
is headed, _Causa que est ydropicie alexandri_. These passages are,
however, found in the Latin MSS of Alexander’s work from the first,
and the use of Romance words by the unknown Latin translator indicates
that the translation was made in the early medieval period,—Puschmann
(1886), p. 12.
[2369] Puschmann (1878), I, 91.
[2370] As in Vendôme 109, 11th century, fol. 1, Mulsa Alexandri
(Tralliani), fol. 68v, “De reuma ventris, de libro Alexandri” (not here
ascribed, it will be noted, to Philumenus), fol. 71, “De secundo libro
Alexandri de cura nefreticorum.” The _Mulsa Alexandri_ is found also in
two other 11th century MSS of the same library: Vendôme 172, fol. 1,
and 175, fol. 2.
In Royal 12-E-XX, 12th century, fols. 146v-151v, “Incipit liber
dietarum diversarum medicorum, hoc est Alexandri et aliorum.” This
extract, made up of a number of Alexander’s chapters on the diet
suitable in different ailments, is often found in the MSS, as here,
with the Pseudo-Pliny and was printed as its fifth book in 1509 and
1516.
[2371] Puschmann (1878), I, 97.
[2372] Milward (1773), p. 179.
[2373] Thus in Vendôme 109 (see note 2, p. 577) besides the
extracts from Alexander of Tralles we find at fol. 58, “Alexander
(Aphrodisiensis) amicus veritatis in tertio libro suo ubi de febribus
commemorat.” The Arabs seem to have confused these two Alexanders: see
Steinschneider (1862), p. 61; Puschmann (1878), I, 94-5.
[2374] See the discussion by Choulant in _Janus_ (1845), p. 52, and
Henschel in De Renzi (1852-9) II, 11, of a 12th century MS at Breslau,
“Liber Alexandri de agnoscendis febribus et pulsibus et urinis”; also
Puschmann (1878) I, 105-6, concerning BN Greek MS 2316, which seems to
be a late Greek translation of it,—another instance that a Greek text
is not necessarily the original.
[2375] Corpus Christi 189, 11-12th century, fols. 1-5, “Antidotum
pigra magni Alexandri Macedonii quod facit stomaticis epilenticis.”
Steinschneider, cited by Puschmann (1878) I, 106, has also noted the
attribution in Hebrew MSS to Alexander the Great of a work on fever,
urine, and pulse, presumably identical with that mentioned in the
foregoing note.
[2376] Stephanus (1567) I, 176, 204, 216, 225; and Puschmann, II, 575,
are a few specimens.
[2377] Amplon. Quarto 204, 12-13th century, fols. 90-5, Experimentorum
Alexandri medici collectio succincta. Digby 79, 13th century, fols.
180-92v, “Alexandrina experimenta de libro percompendiose extractata
meliora ut nobis visum est ad singulas egritudines.” Additional 34111,
15th century, fol. 77, “Experimenta Alexandri,” in English.
[2378] Stephanus I, 156; Puschmann II, 563.
[2379] Milward (1733), p. 168.
[2380] Stephanus I, 312; Puschmann II, 579.
[2381] Stephanus I, 345, see also 296 and 339; Puschmann I, 407, 437.
[2382] Stephanus I, 312; Puschmann II, 579.
[2383] Stephanus I, 156; Puschmann I, 565.
[2384] Stephanus I, 345; Puschmann I, 437.
[2385] Καὶ θαυμαστῶς ὅπως ἀντιπαθείᾳ τινὶ καὶ λόγῳ ἀρρήτῳ.
[2386] For the passages in this paragraph see Stephanus I, 156-7, 313;
Puschmann I, 561, 567-73.
[2387] Stephanus I, 312.
[2388] Stephanus I, 281; Puschmann II, 475.
[2389] Stephanus I, 296; Puschmann II, 377.
[2390] Stephanus I, 313.
[2391] Stephanus I, 296; Puschmann II, 377.
[2392] Stephanus I, 281; Puschmann II, 475.
[2393] Stephanus I, 314; Puschmann II, 585.
[2394] If the MSS, which I have not examined, agree with the 1504
edition.
[2395] Both in BN 6880 and the edition of Basel, 1536, “Marcellus
vir inluster ex magno officio Theodosii Sen. filiis suis salutem
d(icit).” In the MS, however, a later hand has written above the now
faded line an incorrect copy in which “Theodosii Sen.” is replaced by
“theodosiensi.” Helmreich (1889), on the other hand, has replaced “ex
magno officio” by “ex magistro officio.” It is perhaps open to doubt
whether the “Sen.” goes with “Theodosii” or “Marcellus.”