chapter 27
, page 619.
[1331] _De propriet. rerum_, I, 19.
[1332] _Ibid._, II, 19-20.
[1333] _De propriet. rerum_, V, 21-22. (Henceforth all citations in this chapter, unless otherwise noted, will be to this work.) BN 16099, fol. 31r, V. 21, “ut dicunt avicenna et constantinus in tractatu de venenosis animalibus et venenis”; V. 22, “ut dicunt predicti auctores in tractatu de venenis.”
[1334] V, 21.
[1335] III, 10 and 16; V, 3.
[1336] IV, 11.
[1337] VII, 5.
[1338] III, 17.
[1339] VIII, 40.
[1340] V, 7.
[1341] Since I completed this chapter in manuscript form there has appeared in print G. C. Coulton’s _Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation_, Cambridge, 1918, in which he has selected almost exactly the same passages from Bartholomew as illustrations of his theme. This is welcome confirmation of their interest and importance, and I have decided to let the following paragraphs stand for two reasons, despite the fact that they are now available elsewhere in English. In the first place any description of the _De proprietatibus rerum_ would seem rather incomplete without them. In the second place Mr. Coulton gives the passages in Trevisa’s English translation, while I have made a translation direct from the Latin text in more modern English. The exaggerated impression of quaintness and illiteracy which the old English version makes upon the modern reader finds in my opinion little or no justification in the original Latin. Men apparently could think more directly in Latin in the thirteenth century than they could express themselves in English in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.
[1342] VI, 11.
[1343] VI, 5.
[1344] VI, 6.
[1345] VI, 22.
[1346] VI, 27.
[1347] VII, 9 and 16.
[1348] VII, 2.
[1349] VII, 4.
[1350] VII, 6.
[1351] VII, 9.
[1352] VII, 64.
[1353] VII, 66.
[1354] VII, 68.
[1355] VIII, 3.
[1356] VIII, 4.
[1357] At least as printed in Migne, PL.
[1358] R. H. Charles, in discussing “The Seven Heavens--an early Jewish and Christian belief” (Morfill and Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, Oxford, 1896, pp. xxx-xlvii), asserts that after Chrysostom, “Finally such conceptions, failing in the course of the next few centuries to find a home in Christian lands, betook themselves to Mohammedan countries” (_Ibid._, xxxi-xxxii). But Bartholomew ascribes to “the tradition of the saints” a belief in the plurality of heavens and a sevenfold division of them other than the planetary spheres.
[1359] VIII, 2.
[1360] VIII, 28.
[1361] VIII, 9.
[1362] VIII, 10.
[1363] VIII, 15.
[1364] VIII, 21, which is the last of the twelve chapters.
[1365] VIII, 22.
[1366] VIII, 25.
[1367] VIII, 31.
[1368] VIII, 33.
[1369] In the bibliography _Miselat astrologus_; in the text Misa., Misael, mesahel, Misalach, etc. I am convinced that none of these is meant for Michael Scot who is also listed in the bibliography but does not seem to be cited in the text.
[1370] Migne, PL vol. 172, col. 147, “Hora ... est duodecim pars diei, constans ex quatuor punctis, minutis decem, partibus quindecim, momentis quadraginta, ostentis sexaginta, atomis viginti duobus mil, quingentis et sexaginta.”
[1371] XII, 1.
[1372] XII, 19.
[1373] XII, 21, “hi lapidi dicuntur celidonii et sunt preciosi maxime quando extrahuntur de pullo antequam tangat terram ut dicitur in lapidario ubi eorum virtutes describuntur, ut dicit Constan. Sanguis de dextra ala extractus oculis medetur....” But perhaps the “ut dicit Constan.” goes with these last words rather than the preceding.
[1374] Migne, PL 171, 1750. In a number of other cases Bartholomew’s citations of _Lapidarius_ do not apply to Marbod.
[1375] XVI, 30.
[1376] _De medicamentis_, cap. viii.
[1377] NH 37, 56.
[1378] NH 25, 50.
[1379] NH 10, 44.
[1380] Bostock and Riley, English Translation of Pliny’s _Natural History_, London, 1890 (Bohn Library), II, 511 note. And see D’Arcy W. Thompson’s note on Aristotle’s _History of Animals_, IX, 15.
[1381] _Etymologies_, XII, vii, 66, in Migne PL 82, 468.
[1382] Cahier (1851); _De bestiis_, I, 51, ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor, in Migne PL 177, 50.
[1383] _Phisici_ in the printed edition used; in BN 16099, fol. 97r, _ph’i_; BN 347, fol. 126r, _ph’ici_. In the work of Thomas of Cantimpré, however, BN 347B, 14th century, fol. 104v, _“Dicit ph’s”_ which may stand for Physiologus, Philosophus, or Phisicus.
[1384] _De animal_, XXIII, 111.
[1385] _Thesaurus pauperum_, cap. 85.
[1386] Yet neither Bartholomew of England nor Thomas of Cantimpré is mentioned by C. Kretschmer, _Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen Mittelalter_, 1889, although he uses Neckam, Vincent of Beauvais, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon.
[1387] Bartholomew’s list of provinces with the Latin name anglicized in some cases is as follows. Asia, Assyria, Arabia, Armenia, Aradia, Albania (_i.e._, in Asia), Attica, Achaia, Arcadia, Alania (land of the Alani), Amazonia (land of the Amazons), Alemannia, Anglia (England), Aquitaine, Anjou, Auvergne, Apulia, Africa, Asturia, Aragon, Babylonia, Bactria, Braciana, Brabant, Belgica, Bithynia, Britannia, Boecia (Boeotia), Bohemia, Burgundy, Cappadocia, Chaldea, Cedar, Kent, Cantabria, Canaan, Campania, Cauda, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Cyclades, Choa, Corsica (later occurs a longer chapter on Korsica), Dalmatia, Denmark (Dacia), Delos, Dedan, Europe, Evilath, Ethiopia, Egypt, Hellas, Eola (Aeolia?), Franconia, Francia (_i.e._ France), Flanders, Fenix (Phoenicia?), Phrygia, Frisia, Fortunate Islands (Canaries), Galilee, Gallacia (in central Europe), Gallicia (in the Spanish peninsula), Gaul, Gadis, Greece, Isle of the Gorgons, Gothia and the island of Gothland (Sweden and Gotland), Guido, India, Hyrcania, Idumea, Judea, Iberia, Italy, Spain (Hispania), Ireland (Hibernia), Icaria, the island in the salt sea (De insula in salo sita), Carthage, Carinthia, Lacedemonia, Lithuania (Lectonia), Livonia, Lycia, Lydia, Libya (Lybia), Lorraine (Lothoringia), Lusitania, Mauritania, Macedonia, Magnesia, Mesopotamia, Media, Melos, Midia, Meissen, Mytilene, Nabathea, Norway, Normandy, Numidia, Narbonensis, Ophir, Holland (Ollandia), Orcades, Paradise, Parthia, Palestine, Pamphylia, Pannonia, Paros, Pentapolis, Persia, Pyrenees, Pigmy-land, Poitou (Pictavia), Picardy, Ramathea, Reucia, Rivalia, Rinchonia, the Roman province (_i.e._, Provence), Romania, Rhodes, Ruthia, Sabaea, Samaria, Sambia, Sabaudia, Sardinia, Sarmatia, Samos, Saxony, Sclavia (land of the Slavs), Sparta (Sparciata), Seres (_i.e._, China), Seeland (Zeeland), Semogallia, Senonensis (region about Sens), Syria, Sichima, Scythia, Sicyon, Sicily, Sirtes, Scotland (Scotia), Suecia (Sweden, before called Gothia), Suevia (Swabia), Tanatos, Taprobana, Thrace, Traconitida, Thessaly, Tenedos, Thule, Tripoli (two are distinguished in Syria and Africa respectively), Tragodea, Troyland, Tuscany (Thuscia), Thuringia, Thuronia (the region about Tours), Gascony (Vasconia), Venice, Westphalia, Vironia, Finland, Vitria, Iceland, Zeugia.
[1388] XV, 19.
[1389] XV, 13.
[1390] XV, 18.
[1391] XV, 169.
[1392] XV, 58.
[1393] XV, 168.
[1394] XV, 25.
[1395] XV, 92.
[1396] XV, 58.
[1397] XV, 57.
[1398] Of these four chapters Delisle (HL XXX, 353-65) quoted only that on England. Delisle gave extracts from Bartholomew’s descriptions of several French provinces to show that he knew them well and stated that he gave much fewer details concerning England, but that he (Delisle) would transcribe the chapter “parce qu’on pourrait supposer qu’il renferme des allusions à la prétendue origine anglaise de Barthélemi.” Delisle also cited (p. 362) the chapter on Britannia, but omitted the statements which I shall cite, and earlier said (p. 358), “Nous n’avons rien à relever dans les chapitres de la Normandie, de la Bretagne,” etc.
Yet the statements I shall cite occur in both the MSS which Delisle used, where the chapter on Britannia is continued beyond the point where his quotation leaves off as follows:
BN 16098, 13th century, fol. 14Or. “Est autem alia britannia minor super oceanum aquitanicum sita in partibus galliarum que a britonibus relinquentibus britanniam maiorem propter importunitatem germanorum est usque hodie populata, vero usque adhuc genus britonum et nomen perseverat, et quamvis hec britannia in multis laude digna sit, non potest tamen filia matri, minor britannia maiori comparari, et immo bene minor britannia debuit vocari que sicut nec numero populi sic nec merito soli potest maiori britannia adequari.”
BN 347, 14th century, fol. 145, is the same except that _tamen_ precedes _potest_, and that the words _minor britannia maiori comparari et immo bene_ are omitted, evidently by the mistake of a copyist who has jumped from one _minor_ to the next _minor_ and thus inadvertently omitted the intervening words.
[1399] XV, 28.
[1400] XV, 80.
[1401] XV, 152.
[1402] XV, 14.
[1403] XV, 172.
[1404] XVI, 41.
[1405] _Etymol._, XVI, 7.
[1406] V. Rose, “Aristoteles De Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” in _Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, XVIII (1875), 321-455.
[1407] Langlois (1911), p. 124.
[1408] J. Ruska, _Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles_, 1912, p. 38, reiterates, “Sein Büchlein _De virtutibus lapidum_ ist die Grundlage des Steinverzeichnisses in Albertus Magnus’ 5 Büchern _De mineralibus_.”
It also is asserted that Vincent and Albert learned of the mariner’s compass from this Arnold’s _De virtute universali_,--a view which overlooks Alexander Neckam’s earlier allusions to the compass.
[1409] This title can scarcely refer to Arnold’s _De virtutibus lapidum_.
[1410] The fact is that Rose examined the text of Bartholomew in a careless and superficial manner. He used some Frankfurt edition of the _De proprietatibus rerum_ for which he gives no date, and he usually fails to state what chapter of Bartholomew he is citing, but refers to him simply by the letter B. Also he fails to note that the first two stones listed by Arnold, namely, _abeston_ (asbestos) and _absictus_ (_apsyctos_) are both in Bartholomew, and what is more, are spelled exactly the same by both authors. Nor are these the only gems that Rose fails to note are treated of by both authors. Others are _alabandina_, _calcofanus_ (which Bartholomew begins with a k), _virites_ or _pyrites_ (also spelled a little differently in Bartholomew), and _turcois_ (_De turchoge_ in Bartholomew). In the first three of these four passages Arnold’s statements sound like a bald and abbreviated copy of Bartholomew’s description.
[1411] John of Damascus, who wrote on theology, dialectic, and so forth in the first half of the eighth century (works in Migne, PG vols. 94-96) became well known to western writers through the twelfth century translation of him by Burgundio of Pisa. Some of the works ascribed to him are probably spurious, but “his undoubted works are numerous and embrace a wide range.” A chapter is devoted to the introduction of his writings into western Europe in J. de Ghellinck, S. J., _Le Mouvement théologique du XIIe siècle, Études, Recherches, et Documents_, Paris, 1914; see EHR (1915), p. 112. But see Steinschneider (1866), pp. 375-91.
[1412] XVIII, 15.
[1413] XVIII, 37.
[1414] XVIII, 69.
[1415] XVIII, 28, “et hoc quotidie patet in castoribus qui in diversis locis inveniuntur.”
[1416] XVIII, 8, 32, 43, 69, 76, 77, 80, 95, 101.
[1417] Lauchert (1889), p. 105, has recognized this fact, saying of the _De proprietatibus rerum_, “worin ebenfalls der Physiologus häufig citirt ist und auch für Manches das nicht aus ihm stammt.”
[1418] In reading the printed edition I thought that some of these chapters might be later interpolations, since after _minium_ has been described in chapter 16 it is again considered in