chapter II
. Criticized by H. Niese in _Historische Zeitschrift_, vol. 108 (1912), p. 497, note 3.
[971] Bologna University Library 693, 16th century, “Michaelis Scoti astronomi Salernitani liber de animalibus. Incipit liber primus de animalibus Avicenne rubrica. Frederice domine mundi Romanorum Imperator, suscipe devote hunc laborem Michaelis Scoti.”
[972] Laurentian P. lxxxix, sup. cod. 38, 15th century, p. 409; printed in Brown (1897), pp. 231-4. Concerning Philip see also Brown, pp. 19, 36-7. The important passage in the MS is, “Explicit nicromantiae experimentum illustrissimi doctoris Domini Magistri Michaelis Scoti, qui summus inter alios nominatur Magister, qui fuit Scotus, et servus praeclarissimo Domino Philipo Regis Ceciliae coronato; quod destinavit sibi dum esset aegrotus in civitate Cordubae, etc. Finis.” Brown, p. 19, translates the last clause, “which experiment he (i. e., Michael) contrived when he lay sick in the city of Cordova,” and so concludes that Scot visited that city; but I should translate it, “which he (Michael) sent to him (Philip) while he (Philip) lay sick in the city of Cordova.” Otherwise why is Philip mentioned at all?
[973] Brown, p. 104, citing Jourdain, _Recherches_, p. 133, who called attention to two Paris MSS, Anciens fonds 7399 and Fonds de Sorbonne 1820, in one of which the MS is dated 1217, while the other gives the year as 1255 which is the exactly corresponding year of the Spanish era. Arsenal 1035, 14th century, fol. 112, a MS not noted by Jourdain or Brown, states the year as 1207 A. D., but this is evidently a mistake for 1217, since it gives the same day of the week and month as the other MSS and August 18th fell on Friday in 1217, but not in 1207. BN 16654, 13th century, fol. 33, gives the date as 1217.
[974] P. 55, arguing from a Vatican MS which is described at pp. 235-7.
[975] “Glosa magistri al. Explicit anno domini mccx.”
[976] Gonville and Caius 109, fols. 102v-103r, written in a different hand from the text of the _History of Animals_, “Et iuro ego michael scotus qui dedi hunc librum latinitati quod in anno MCCXXI, xii kal. novembr. die mercurii....”
[977] Perhaps the year is correct, but “xii kal.” should be “xiii kal.”
[978] HL XX, 47; Brown (1897), p. 14; both citing Du Boulay, _Hist. univ. Paris._, 1656-1675.
[979] See Denifle et Chatelain, _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, 1889, I, 104, for a letter of Honorius III of January 16, 1224, asking Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, to secure a benefice for Michael Scot whom he calls “singularly gifted in science among men of learning”: and Theiner, _Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum_, Rome, 1864, p. 23, for a letter of Honorius III of June in the same year, stating that Michael has declined the archbishopric of Cashel and appointing another man. Brown has incorrectly dated both letters in 1223.
[980] Denifle and Chatelain, I, 110.
[981] For the date and MSS see Boncompagni, _Intorno ad alcune opere di Leonardo Pisano_, Rome, 1854, pp. 2 and 129-30.
[982] Bridges (1897) I, 55; in Jebb’s edition, pp. 35-6.
[983] _Rigordus de Gestis Philippi II_; quoted in the Leo XIII edition of Aquinas, Rome, 1882, vol. I, p. cclix, “legi Parisiis coepisse libellos quosdam aristotelis, qui docebant metaphysicum, de novo Constantinopoli delatos et a graeco in latinum translatos.”
[984] P. Duhem, “Du temps où la Scolastique latine a connu la physique d’Aristote,” in _Revue de philosophie_, August, 1909, pp. 163-78, argues that the _Physics_ was known to Latins in the twelfth century.
[985] Petrus de Vineis III, ep. lxvii; Latin cited in Dissertation 23 in vol. I of the Rome, 1882, edition of the works of Aquinas. Frederick II is not even mentioned in Grabmann’s dissertation on the translation of Aristotle in the thirteenth century. In the preface to his _De arte venandi cum avibus_ Frederick refuses to follow Aristotle who, he says, had little or no practice in falconry: Haskins, EHR XXXVI (1921) 343-4.
[986] The letter of Manfred accompanied his gift to the University of Paris of copies of the translations made for him. See _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, I, 435-6.
[987] Renan, _Averroès et Averroïsme_, p. 188.
[988] Grabmann (1916), pp. 143-4, 175-6, 186-7, 198.
[989] BN 17155, 13th century, fol. 225-.
[990] Brown, 145.
[991] Brown, 119, Brewer (1859), p. 91.
[992] _Meteor._ III, iv. 26 (Borgnet, IV, 697).
[993] See Jourdain, _Recherches_, etc., and more recently H. Stadler, “Irrtümer des Albertus Magnus bei Benutzung des Aristoteles,” in _Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Naturwissenschaften u. d. Technik_, VI (1913) 387-93.
[994] De Renzi, I, 292.
[995] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 6.
[996] _Sphere_ (1518), p. 106.
[997] _Ibid._, p. 107.
[998] Gonville and Caius 109, fol. 1O2v-1O3r.
[999] C. H. Haskins, “The ‘De Arte Venandi cum Avibus’ of the Emperor Frederick II,” EHR XXXVI (1921) 334-55.
[1000] Bodleian 266, fols. 1r-v. Future citations, unless otherwise specified, will be to this MS.
[1001] It extends from fol. 2 to fol. 19.
[1002] fol. 4r.
[1003] fol. 10r.
[1004] fols. 11v-12r.
[1005] fol. 17v.
[1006] fol. 3r-v.
[1007] fols. 2 and 20v.
[1008] fols. 21v-22r.
[1009] fol. 22r.
[1010] fol. 22v.
[1011] In another passage at fol. 23r which speaks of a _magus_ as inspecting entrails of animals I take it that the word is a slip of the copyist for _haruspex_.
[1012] fol. 175r.
[1013] fol. 22v.
[1014] Printed by Brown (1897), pp. 231-4.
[1015] _Ibid._, p. 18.
[1016] At least in the MS which I have used; Bodleian 266, fols. 24r-25r.
[1017] What purported to be this work is listed in the _Speculum astronomiae_ of Albertus Magnus, and Haskins, “Nimrod the Astronomer,” _Romanic Review_, V. (1914), 203-12, has called attention to the following MSS: S. Marco VIII, 22; Vatic. Pal. Lat. 1417; and an extract in Ashmole 191. Haskins notes various mentions of Nimrod as an astronomer in medieval authors, but not the above passage from Michael Scot. Although Latin writers make Ioathon or Ionaton (and various other spellings) the disciple of Nimrod, in Syrian writers Ionitus is the fourth son of Noah and himself the discoverer of astronomy and teacher of Nimrod (Haskins, _op. cit._ 210-11).
[1018] The word _Explicit_ is written across the knees of a figure of the giant Athalax or Caclon who supports the heavens on his head at fol. 25r, col. 1, but the passage concerning “Gilbertus” follows and the proper Explicit of the preface does not occur until fol. 25v, col. 1. See Haskins, _op. cit._ p. 207 for pictures in the MSS of Atlas and Nimrod side by side, the one standing on the Pyrenees and supporting the starry firmament; the other on the mount of the Amorites bearing the starless heavens.
[1019] fol. 28r-v; also Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 22r.
[1020] fol. 68v.
[1021] fol. 21v.
[1022] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 17v.
[1023] fol. 29v.
[1024] fols. 150v-158r.
[1025] fol. 172.
[1026] fol. 145v.
[1027] fol. 128v.
[1028] fols. 30r, 31r.
[1029] fol. 174r.
[1030] fol. 144v.
[1031] fol. 173v.
[1032] fol. 173r, “Nam tot sunt medicine quot sunt infirmitates et hae constant in tribus videlicet in verbis, herbis, et lapidibus, virtutes quorum quotidie videmus ut in hostia sacrata super altare, in magnete et ferro navigantes in alto mari, et in emplastris, pulveribus, et consertis.”
[1033] fol. 175v.
[1034] fols. 32v-35r.
[1035] _Hist. Animal._ V, xix, 4.
[1036] fol. 35r, “de zuccaro et zaccara. Saccarum et zathara non sunt liquores vaporabiles ut mel et manna sed sit de medula cannarum.”
[1037] fols. 44r et seq.; fols. 150-8.
[1038] fol. 75r et seq.; fols. 108-114.
[1039] fols. 117-8.
[1040] fol. 89.
[1041] fol. 124 et seq.; fols. 132-5.
[1042] fols. 145v-147v.
[1043] fol. 45r.
[1044] fols. 162v-163.
[1045] fol. 164v.
[1046] fol. 165.
[1047] fol. 176r-v.
[1048] fol. 177v.
[1049] fol. 28r.
[1050] fols. 178-218.
[1051] As Madan’s description of the MS says, “The first book contains four _distinctiones_, of which the second ends on fol. 178, but it is difficult to state whether the MS contains anything beyond the first portion of the third _distinctio_ of this first book, owing to the absence of decisive rubrics.”
F. Boll (1903) states that the fourth _distinctio_ is also missing in CLM 10268.
[1052] BN 7438, 15th century.
[1053] In a footnote at page 185, from Bodl. 266, fol. 113.
[1054] fol. 162r.
[1055] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 4.
[1056] Bodleian 266, fol. 47r.
[1057] _Phisionomia_ (1740) cap. xi, p. 235.
[1058] _Ibid._, cap. ix, p. 229.
[1059] Or _Phisonomia_ as it is often spelled in the medieval texts themselves.
[1060] Brown (1897), 32 and 37.
[1061] Edition of 1740, p. 210, “Et secundum cursum corporum superiorum sicut dispositionem corporum concipientium foetus recipit similiter et semel omnia et singula quae postea discernunt ordinem temporum et naturae.”
[1062] Cap. 7 (1740), p. 226.
[1063] Cap. 8 (1740), p. 228.
[1064] Cap. 3 (1740), p. 218; cap. 10, p. 230.
[1065] Cap. 2 (1740), p. 213.
[1066] Cap. 7 (1740), p. 227.
[1067] Cap. 18 (1740), p. 248, “In chiromantia est illud experimentum....”
[1068] _De notitia auguriorum_, cap. 57 (1740), p. 285.
[1069] Cap. 58 (1740), pp. 288, 289, 290.
[1070] Caps. 46-56 (1740), p. 280, _et seq._
[1071] CLM 489, 16th century.
[1072] _Chiromantica Scientia, quarto minori sine notis typographicis, foliis 28 constat impressis. “Ex divina philosophorum academia secundum nature vires ad extra chyromantitio diligentissime collectum. Exordium.” Cl. Denis, qui alias editiones huius operis adfert, Michaelum Scotum auctorem eiusdem censeri tradit._
[1073] Brown (1897), 163 _et seq._
[1074] Vatican, Regina di Svezia, 1159, fol. 149, “Finis urinarum Magistri Michaelis Scoti.” To the two MSS listed by Brown, p. 153, note 6, containing an Italian translation, may be added Perugia 316, 15th century, fols. 91-106, “Qui chomenza el tractato delle orine secondo come mete maistro Michelle sthato strollogo del re Ferigo ai nostri bexogni.”
[1075] Addit. 24068, 13th century, fol. 97v.
[1076] Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 50r-v.
[1077] (1740), p. 222.
[1078] _Phisionomia_, cap. 14 (1740), p. 241.
[1079] _Ibid._, cap. 10, p. 233.
[1080] If the ascription of this _Commentary_ to Michael is correct, probably either he wrote it toward the end of his life or Sacrobosco composed the _Sphere_ fairly early in his career, since he appears to have outlived Michael and to have composed his _Computus ecclesiasticus_ or _De anni ratione_ in 1244: see Duhem III (1915), p. 240. The lines quoted in DNB “John Holywood or Halifax” as on his tomb in the cloister of the Mathurins and as having reference to the date of his death are really the verses at the close of his _Computus ecclesiasticus_:
“_M Christi bis C quarto deno quater anno_ _De Sacro Bosco discrevit tempora ramus_ _Gratia cui dederat nomen divina Johannes_,” etc.
Cantor II (1913), p. 87, however, speaks of two different tomb inscriptions given by Vossius and Kästner but says that they agree on 1256 as the date of Sacrobosco’s death. The first line above quoted is sometimes interpreted as giving the date 1256 rather than 1244.
[1081] In the _editio princeps_ of 1495 the marginal heading is, “_Quid de planetis sentiunt theologi,”_ but in the text we read “_thrologi_,” which is possibly derived from “_asthrologi_” by a dropping off of the first syllable.
[1082] Edition of 1495, fol. b-ii, verso.
[1083] Strasburg, 1622 and 1659.
[1084] And is not a chapter from the _Liber Introductorius_; see Brown, 77-8.
[1085] _Liber Magistri Michaelis Scotti in quo continetur Magisterium_, No. 44 in a MS belonging to the Speciale family. I have not seen the MS. It is described briefly by Brown, 78-80; see further S. A. Carini, _Sulle Scienze Occulte nel Medio Evo_, Palermo, 1872.
[1086] See bibliographical note at the beginning of this chapter.
[1087] This expression occurs in the course of the text itself--Corpus Christi 125, fol. 97r--in addition to the words scratched in the upper margin at the beginning by another hand, “_Michael Scotus Theophilo Regi Saracenorum_.” The conclusion of the treatise is in a 14th century hand, the remainder in a 15th century hand.
[1088] See bibliographical note at opening of this chapter.
[1089] Brown, p. 91, citing Wadding, I, 109.
[1090] Brown, p. 91, note 2.
[1091] Berthelot (1893) II, 74 and 77; Lippmann (1919) 481. I doubt if there is much ground for their further assertion that such clerics fell easily under suspicion of heresy and hence wrote in ciphers like Roger Bacon’s for gunpowder. At p. 688 I have refuted the notion that Bacon employed a cipher to conceal the recipe for gunpowder.
[1092] In his fourth chapter, “The Alchemical Studies of Michael Scot.”
[1093] If the title of any book were meant, it would rather be Michael’s own _De secretis naturae_, since he not only says, “Cum rimarer et inquirerem secreta naturae ex libris antiquorum philosophorum....,” but also, “Quedam extraxi et ea secretis nature adiunxi....”
[1094] P. 92.
[1095] P. 240, “Et notum est quod sicut 7 sunt metalla ita 7 sunt planete et quodlibet metallum habet suum planetam,” etc.
[1096] For Latin text see Brown, p. 248. The same passage occurs in another alchemical treatise, _Liber Dedali philosophi_, which Brown printed on opposite pages to the text of the _Liber luminis luminum_.
[1097] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99v, “et ego multotiens sum expertus,” fol. 100r, “Et ego michael scotus multotiens sum expertus,” etc.
[1098] Brown, p. 262, “Vitriolum nigrum apportatur de Francia et idcirco dicitur terra francigena. Cum isto mulieres vulvam constringunt ut virgines appareant. Non est autem magne utilitatis in ista arte.”
[1099] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99r.
[1100] _Ibid._, fol. 100r, “Et ego vidi istam operationem scilicet apud cartanam a magistro jacobo iudeo et ego postea multotiens probavi....”
[1101] Brown, p. 252, for Latin text.
##