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,