chapter 42

for the resemblance between this printed text and a treatise in MS ascribed to Roger of Hereford.

[193] Arundel 268, 13-14th century, fols. 7v-23r, Abdolaziz Arabis libellus ad judicium astrorum introductorius qui dicitur Alkabitius, interprete Johanne Hispalensi.

S. Marco XI-104, 14th century, fols. 79-102, Alcabitii ad iudicia astrorum interpretatum a Iohanne Hispalensi.

BN 7321, 1448 A. D., fols. 1-79r, Introductorium ad magisterium iudiciorum astrorum.

[194] S. Marco XI-105, 14th century, fols. 54-61, “Cyromancia est ars demonstrans mores et inclinationes naturales per signa sensibilia manuum.” Valentinelli comments, “Eadem fortasse cum chiromantia Ioannis Hispalensis quam inter codices manuscriptos Ioannis Francisci Lauredani Tomasinus refert.”

[195] _Epitome_, II, xx, “Iam radicem nativitatis secundum philosophorum dicta complevimus nec edidimus nisi ea in quibus sapientes convenerunt et ex quibus experimentum habetur.”

[196] _Epitome_, III, viii, “Iuniores huius artis magistri dicunt posse inveniri locum thesauri absconditi quod veteres discreti omiserunt....”

[197] _Ibid._, “Messehala autem Indorum in iudiciis solertissimus dicit....”

[198] _Epitome_, III, xii, “... in quaestione autem quis victurus astrologi discordati sunt....”

[199] _Epitome_, II, x, “Sed expertum est in nativitatibus multis hoc abrogari etiam cum omnes rationes praedictae simul convenerint cuius rei meminimus ne in libris inveniendo fidem daremus.”

[200] The passage just quoted in the preceding note continues, “Porro Ptolemaeus dicit ... sed experti sumus multoties hoc non recipi.” See also the following chapter of the _Epitome_, II, xi.

[201] _Epitome_, II, xxii, “... et est ratio experimentata haec....”

[202] See III, xii, where, after stating the discordant views of astrologers he says, “Hanc vero postremam rationem experimentis caeteris preponimus.”

[203] Ed. Ludwig Baur, in _Beiträge_, IV, 2-3, Münster, 1903, pp. 1-144 text; pp. 145-408 “Untersuchung.” Another work by Gundissalinus on the immortality of the soul was published in the same series by G. F. von Hertling, 1897.

Baur unfortunately failed to note the existence of the _De divisione philosophiae_ in two 13th century MSS at the British Museum in the Sloane collection, nor does Scott’s Index catalogue of the Sloane MSS mention Gundissalinus as their author.

Sloane 2946, 13th century, fols. 209-16, “de philosophia ... auctore Isaaco philosopho.” But the Incipit, “Felix prior aetas qui (quae) tot sapientes ...” is that of Gundissalinus’ treatise. The erroneous ascription to Isaac is probably owing to the fact that the treatise just preceding, at fols. 205-208v, is a translation of a medical work by Isaac. This MS is mutilated towards the close so that the leaves containing our text have the upper right hand corner torn off, thus removing nearly one-sixth of the text. The colophon reads, “Explicit hoc opus a domino Gundissalini apud Tholetum editum, sdens (succedens?) de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et ordo eorum et disciplina.” Similarly in Baur’s text the _De divisione philosophiae_ at pp. 1-142 is followed at pp. 142-44 by Alfarabi’s “Epistola de assignanda causa ex qua orte sunt scientie philosophie et ordo earum in disciplina.”

Sloane 2461, late 13th century, fols. 1-38r, contains the _De divisione philosophiae_ under the caption, _Compendium scientiarum_, without indication of the author. It also is immediately followed at fols. 38v-40r by _De unitate_, which Baur found in another MS at the close of Gundissalinus’ _De divisione philosophiae_, and in a third MS before the above mentioned letter of Alfarabi.

A MS now lost is, Library of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, 1175, Gundisalvus de ortu et divisione scientiarum.

Cotton Vespasian B-X, fols. 24-27, Alpharabius de divisione omnium scientiarum, is not the treatise of Gundissalinus, as I was at first inclined to suspect that it might turn out to be upon examination.

Alfarabi’s _De scientiis_ was published in his _Opera omnia_ by Camerarius at Paris in 1638 from a MS which the preface represented as a recent discovery. Baur, p. viii, states that this text differs considerably from the Latin version by Gerard of Cremona, but that the borrowings of Gundissalinus from Alfarabi and the citations in Vincent of Beauvais’ _Speculum doctrinale_ agree with this 1638 text rather than with Gerard’s.

[204] Baur (1903), p. 163.

[205] Karpinski (1915), p. 23.

[206] Baur, pp. 4-5.

[207] Baur, p. 20.

[208] Baur, p. 89.

[209] See Daniel Morley on the eight parts of astrology in