CHAPTER LXIII

THREE TREATISES ASCRIBED TO ALBERTUS MAGNUS BUT USUALLY CONSIDERED SPURIOUS: EXPERIMENTA ALBERTI, DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI, DE SECRETIS MULIERUM

The three treatises--Are the two treatises on magic by Albert?--Manuscripts of the _Experiments_--Manuscripts of the _Marvels_--Evidence of a fourteenth century bibliography--Opinions of modern writers--Meyer’s argument against the authenticity of the _Experiments_--Difficulty of the question--Introduction of the _Experiments_--Virtues of herbs, stones, and animals--The heliotrope--The lily--Two gems--The owl--Evax and Aaron, and the crow--Observance of astrology--Emphasis upon experiment--_De mirabilibus mundi_ more theoretical--How account for magic?--Action of characters explained--Incredible “experiments of authorities” upheld--Laws of nature and of magic--Man’s magic power--A wonderful world--The chief causes of marvels--Marvels proved by experience, not by reason--Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of Pseudo-Plato suggested by the authorities cited--Contents of the _Marvels_ characterized--A mixture of chemistry and magic--Two specimens of combustibles--Further discussion of marvelousness in general--The _Marvels_ is an experimental book--_De secretis mulierum_--The problem of its authorship--Its citation of Albert, commentary, opening--Nature of its contents--Medieval standards in such matters--Some superstitious recipes--Astrology--Citations of Albert and Avicenna--Appendix I. Manuscripts of the _Experiments_ or _Secrets_--Appendix II. Manuscripts of the _De secretis mulierum_.

[Sidenote: The three treatises.]

If we have succeeded in showing that there is little reason for questioning the traditional ascription of the _Speculum astronomiae_ to Albertus Magnus, and still less reason for attributing it to anyone else, it must on the other hand be admitted that the authenticity of three other treatises current under his name is more dubious. To the consideration of these three treatises we now come, namely, the _Experimenta Alberti_, _De mirabilibus mundi_, and _De secretis mulierum_. _The Experiments of Albert_, or _The Secrets of Albert_ (_Secreta Alberti_), as it is usually called in the manuscripts, in the printed editions is generally entitled _Liber aggregationis_, or the book of secrets or virtues of certain herbs, animals, and stones.

[Sidenote: Are the two treatises on magic by Albert?]

When Albertus Magnus in his treatises on the works of Aristotle in natural philosophy dismissed certain matters as pertaining to the science of magic rather than to physical science, and said that they should be considered in other treatises, it is just possible that he intended to write such books himself. He does not, however, seem to have cited any such writings of his own by title in any of his undisputedly genuine works. Such writings are nevertheless extant under his name, namely, the above-mentioned _Experiments of Albert_ and _Marvels of the Universe_. These two treatises already circulated under his name in the middle ages and appeared in numerous editions in the early years of the printing-press.[2335] Indeed, a survey of the catalogue in such a library as the British Museum indicates that these treatises were published in about as many editions as all Albert’s numerous other works put together. This suggests how much more popular were these brief collections of superstitious experiments and sensational marvels than Albert’s longer, more difficult and argumentative, theological and scientific writings.

[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Experiments_.]

Of these two treatises the _Liber aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ or _Secrets of Albert_ is found in a number of manuscripts of the British Museum, Bodleian, and other libraries.[2336] These are dated in the catalogues as mainly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. The text is not uniform either in the printed editions or the manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain only part of the treatise or arrange its items in a different order, and sometimes foreign matter is interpolated, but it is clear that they are all different portions or versions of one work. Indeed the three Digby manuscripts in the Bodleian contain practically the same text, and would seem to be copies of one another or of a common original, since an illegible phrase in one is apt to be equally unreadable in the rest. They also all entitle the work the _Secrets_ rather than the _Experiments of Albert_. Most of the manuscripts expressly attribute the work to Albert who is variously styled “Albertus Magnus,” “Brother Albert,” “Brother Albert of the Order of Preachers,” or “Brother Albert of Cologne of the Order of Preaching Friars.” One manuscript says that Albertus Magnus translated these experiments with herbs, stones, and animals from the Greek and Arabic. Only one of the manuscripts, where a part of the experiments with herbs are called _Jocalia Salamonis_, ascribes the work to anyone else than Albert. Borgnet, who did not include either the _De mirabilibus mundi_ or _Liber aggregationis_ in his edition of Albert’s works, mentions another manuscript where the latter treatise is ascribed to “Brother Albert of Saxony.” But aside from the fact that the evidence of a single manuscript is worth little against so many others, if we find the _Experiments_ and _Secrets_ in manuscripts of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the work cannot possibly be written by Albert of Saxony who did not flourish until about 1351 to 1361. Moreover, in the fourteenth century manuscripts our treatise is found with other experimental and occult treatises of varied authors, so that it would appear to have been known for some time and copied from earlier manuscripts into these collections. Whether the treatise is by Albert or not, then, there seems no doubt that it was generally ascribed to him in the later middle ages, and that it was composed in the thirteenth century, or at least that the nucleus of it existed then.

[Sidenote: Manuscripts of the _Marvels_.]

Of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ manuscripts seem much rarer.[2337] I found none in the British Museum, although it contains so many of the _Experiments of Albert_ which almost invariably accompanies the _Marvels_ in the printed editions. It is also rather remarkable that the former treatise is always called the _Experiments_ or _Secrets of Albert_ in the manuscripts, and _Liber aggregationis_ in the printed editions.[2338]

[Sidenote: Evidence of a fourteenth century bibliography.]

Further evidence that the _Experiments_ was at least attributed to Albert at an early date and on the other hand that the _De mirabilibus mundi_ was not, is afforded by the bibliography of works by learned Dominicans drawn up in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. Here we find listed among Albert’s writings[2339] a _De lapidibus et herbis_ which may well be the _Experimenta_, since his _De vegetabilibus et plantis_ and _De mineralibus_ are listed separately, and a _Secretum secretorum Alberti_ which may indicate either the _Experiments_ or _Secrets_ or perhaps the _De secretis mulierum_. On the other hand, in the same bibliography we find a _De mirabilibus_ listed not among the writings of Albertus Magnus but attributed to an Arnold of Liège.[2340] Perhaps this is why Berthelot states, without giving any reference or reason, that the _De mirabilibus mundi_ was written in the fourteenth century by a pupil of Albertus Magnus.[2341]

[Sidenote: Opinions of modern writers.]

In modern times some writers have accepted these two treatises as Albert’s, perhaps unthinkingly, while others have rejected them as spurious. Thus Cockayne gives the description of the herb _Heliotropium_ from the _De virtutibus herbarum_, another name for the _Experiments_ or _Liber aggregationis_, as by Albertus Magnus.[2342] And we find Hoefer reproving Haller and Sprengel for having judged Albertus Magnus too severely on the basis of the same _De viribus herbarum_, “a book of cabalistic recipes” which Hoefer asserts is not his.[2343] Borgnet who, as has been said, excluded our two treatises from his edition of Albert’s works, held that the “vain and futile matters” which they contain are enough to prove that they cannot be by Albert. Of this the reader may judge for himself by comparing some of the passages concerning occult virtue, astrology, magic, and experiments with toads and emeralds which we have already cited from Albert’s works with those which we shall soon give from these two treatises. As the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ says in its article on Albert, “It must be confessed that all his treatises let be seen too often his leaning toward the occult sciences; and they contain, at least in part, the germ of the wretched productions falsely published under his name.”[2344]

[Sidenote: Meyer’s argument against the authenticity of the _Experiments_.]

Meyer in his _History of Botany_[2345] made more detailed objections to the Albertine authorship of the _Liber aggregationis_. He argued that Albert’s genuine works display a more elegant style and logical arrangement, that the _Liber aggregationis_ does not depend on Aristotle as the genuine scientific works do, and that Albert elsewhere condemns the magic which he here expounds. But we have shown that Albert does not always condemn even so-called magic in his other writings, that it is not inconceivable that he may have written treatises on natural magic himself, and that he follows Aristotle only where he has works of Aristotle at hand to follow. Argument from style is always dangerous, since style is apt to alter with the subject and method of a treatise. Furthermore, Meyer seems to have judged the style of the _Liber aggregationis_ from the printed text which often differs in wording from the manuscripts. However, I do not know that their style is any more elegant; the manuscripts are hard to read and often seem incoherent. In any case the treatise is mainly a collection of brief statements, largely excerpted from other writings, with little room either for literary elegance or logical arrangement. Meyer further noted, however, that the _Liber aggregationis_ gave a different explanation of two names of herbs, _Quinquefolium_ and _Jusquiasmus_ (or _Jusquiamus_), from that given in Albert’s _On vegetables and plants_. Even this divergence might, however, be due to Albert’s having followed different authorities in the two works; the _Liber aggregationis_ or _Experiments_ seems to draw largely from _Kiranides_.

[Sidenote: Difficulty of the question.]

It may be admitted that the _Experiments_ and _Marvels_ seem in general rather inferior to Albert’s undisputed works, which embody the same sort of superstitions, it is true, but are less exclusively devoted to that sort of thing. But we must expect treatises which deal expressly with magic and marvels to be more superstitious than those which deal professedly with Aristotelian theories and facts learned by experience concerning the natural sciences. Compare the writings of Sir Oliver Lodge on physics and on psychic research. And if the _Experiments_ and most of the _Marvels_ seem naïve, simple, and unsophisticated compared to the more elaborate arrangement and detail and scholastic argument of the undisputed works of Albert, it is to be noted that they are like other books of their kind, just as the others are like other Aristotelian and scholastic treatises. But from these difficult and hypothetical questions of authenticity or spuriousness let us turn to the writings themselves.

[Sidenote: Introduction of the _Experiments_.]

Meyer said that in the _Liber aggregationis_ one did not find Albert’s chief source, Aristotle. Yet the _Experiments of Albert_ open in the manuscripts with the words, “As the philosopher says,” to which one manuscript adds, “in the first book of the _Metaphysics_.”[2346] The philosopher’s dictum was to the effect that all science is good but that it may be employed either for good or evil ends. Our author then affirms that “magical science”[2347] is not evil, since by knowledge of it one can avoid evil and secure good. This is not unlike the way in which Albert in his _Minerals_ justified the science of images as good doctrine, even if it was a part of necromancy, or showed in other passages that astrology was not contrary to freedom of the will since it enabled one to avoid evils and to obtain goods. By this statement the author also serves notice that magical science or the science of magic is to be the subject of the present treatise. Continuing his preface, he mentions “inspection of reasons and natural experiments” as well as “ancient authors” or “doctors” as sources. He has tested many of the statements of these authorities and has found truth in many of them. In the present treatise he intends to make use of the book of Kiranides and the book of Alcorath, later said to be by Hermes, and to speak first of certain herbs, then of certain stones and certain animals and of their virtues. The oldest manuscript that I have seen also promises to treat of the virtue of words,[2348] but this promise is not fulfilled and is omitted in the printed text. It may also be remarked now that other authorities than Kiranides and Alcorath are cited in the course of the treatise.

[Sidenote: Virtues of herbs, stones, and animals.]

The author then considers sixteen herbs,[2349] about forty-five stones,[2350] and some eighteen animals,[2351] many of which are birds. In the printed text and some manuscripts there are also given the virtues of seven herbs according to the emperor Alexander, which is really a distinct treatise of which we have spoken elsewhere. The names are sometimes given in several languages after the manner of the _Herbarium_ of the Pseudo-Apuleius. Thus a treatise which began with justification of magical science turns out to be simply a treatment of the virtues of natural objects. But this shows the importance of natural objects in magic, and the virtues here ascribed to them are often indeed magical. One may become invisible, escape dangers, travel in safety, conquer the enemy, win honors, not feel pain, boil water instantly or freeze boiling water or kindle an inextinguishable fire, make a rainbow appear or the sun seem blood-red, excite love between two persons, or arouse joy, sadness, and other emotional and intellectual states, overpower wild beasts, interpret any dream, and prophesy concerning the future. In brief, by the aid of the occult virtues of these natural objects one can accomplish almost anything that any other form of magic could procure. Two or three examples may be given in more detail.

[Sidenote: The heliotrope.]

The first herb discussed, the heliotrope, if plucked when the sun is in the sign Leo in August and worn wrapped in a laurel leaf with the tooth of a wolf, insures that the bearer of it will be addressed with none but friendly words. If a person who has been robbed sleeps with it beneath his pillow, he will see all the circumstances of the theft repeated in his dreams. If it is placed in a temple, women who have been unfaithful to their marriage vows will be unable to leave the temple until this herb is removed.

[Sidenote: The lily.]

The lily is an herb which the _Magi_ have greatly lauded. It, too, should be plucked when the sun is in Leo, then mixed with laurel juice and buried beneath ordure until worms are generated therefrom. No one can sleep in whose clothing or about whose neck is sprinkled some of the powder made from these worms. Anyone anointed with this powder will contract a fever. If this powder is put in a jar of milk covered with the skin of a cow of one color, the entire herd will cease to give milk. “And this has been tested in our time by certain sorcerers.”[2352]

[Sidenote: Two gems.]

The stone Optalmius, wrapped in a laurel leaf, renders one invisible, as its virtue blinds the sight of onlookers. By its aid Constantine became invisible in the thick of the fight. A test of virginity by the stone Galerites is ascribed to Avicenna. In operating with stones the bearer of the gem should be free from all pollution in order to secure a good result, a magic commonplace.

[Sidenote: The owl.]

If the heart and right foot of an owl are placed upon a sleeper’s breast, “he will tell whatever he has done and whatever you ask him.”[2353] “And this was tested experimentally by our brothers recently.”[2354] No dog will bark at a person who carries these same parts of an owl in his armpit, and together with an owl’s wing they will attract all sorts of birds to a tree where they are suspended.

[Sidenote: Evax and Aaron, and the crow.]

It is interesting to note that Evax and Aaron, who were cited in Albert’s _Minerals_, are here cited for the virtues of animals as well, the crow, taxo, and hare.[2355] Their crow story, however, also concerns a stone. If a crow’s eggs are cooked and then replaced in the nest, the bird flies away to the Red Sea and returns with a stone whose touch turns the eggs raw again. This stone is valuable to human beings for other purposes. Set in a ring with the usual laurel leaf, its touch opens closed gates and frees prisoners from their chains. If one puts it in one’s mouth, one can understand the language of the birds. One manuscript[2356] speaks of this procedure with the crow’s eggs as an experiment of a master Dacus, rather than of Aaron and Evax, and says that the stone brought by the crow aids conception. To have a male child the stone should be held in the right hand; in the left, for a female.

[Sidenote: Observance of astrology.]

Astrological conditions had to be observed in some of the procedure already recounted. In conclusion the general principle is also laid down apart from any particular recipe, that to work a good effect one should operate under the influence of a benevolent planet like Jupiter or Venus, and to work an evil effect under a malevolent planet. “Whoever observes this rule correctly will without doubt find truth and the greatest efficacy in what we have said, as I have experienced with our brothers.”[2357]

[Sidenote: Emphasis upon experiment.]

This last expression and others like it which have been previously noted, together with the title, _Experimenta Alberti_, attest the experimental character of our treatise, which is to be classed as one of those “books of experiments” or “experimental books” which we have heard so often mentioned and of which our next two chapters will especially treat. This expression and its fellows further remind us--perhaps are intended to remind us--of Albert’s allusions to the personal experiences of himself or his _socii_ in his undisputed works. If our treatise is not by Albert, there can at least be little doubt that it pretends to be a product of his experimental school among the Dominicans at Cologne.

[Sidenote: _De mirabilibus mundi_ is more theoretical.]

The _Marvels of the Universe_ contains more theoretical discussion of much the usual scholastic sort than the _Experiments_, and so approximates rather more nearly to the form of most of Albert’s works. As against the brief introductory paragraph of the _Experiments_, the _Marvels_ enters upon a long and learned preliminary discussion of the validity, causes, and principles of magic before beginning its list of

## particular marvels.

[Sidenote: How account for magic?]

The author states that after he knew “that the work of the wise man is to make marvels cease” by scientific explanation of them, he searched the writings of authorities until he understood the causes of most marvelous works. One extremely marvelous thing, however, continued to puzzle him, yet its existence he regards as evident to all men, even the vulgar. This was the binding of men by incantations, characters, sorcery, words, and by many quite common objects. For this he could find no sufficient cause and it seemed impossible. But after he had puzzled long, he found a plausible statement by Avicenna in the sixth book of the _Naturalia_ that there exists in the human mind a certain power of altering objects, and that other objects obey the human mind when it is aroused to a great excess of love or hatred toward anyone of them. In such circumstances manifest experience shows that the mind can bind and alter objects as it desires. The author, however, for a long time remained still incredulous. But when he came to read books of necromancy and images and magic, he found in them this same theory that the human soul can alter its own body or exterior objects, especially if its influence concurs with a favorable astrological hour. Moreover, men differ in their natural capacity to influence others or to be influenced by them. Some men cannot be bewitched; others cannot be freed from the power which another has established over them; still others can both be bewitched and set free from sorcery.

[Sidenote: Action of characters explained.]

The discussion then turns for a time from magical influence in general to that of characters in particular. Their force depends upon the power of the mind of the operator and the celestial virtue at the time of their construction. A distinction is made between characters written blindly in a frenzy and those constructed scientifically with some likeness to the object sought, as when embracing figures are placed in a love charm. Such scientific characters our author prefers as more rational and possessing greater virtue. He states that later he will list from various books particular characters and words for making or destroying this or that.

[Sidenote: Incredible “experiments of authorities” upheld.]

Resuming his more general discussion, the author defends “the many experiments of authorities,”--a phrase which should warn us against attempting sharply to distinguish between medieval trust in authorities and medieval experimental tendencies. Some deem these “experiments of authorities” incredible, but he supports them as “most certain science.” His argument therefor is the too subtle and ingenious plea that surely no philosopher would purposely write such apparent falsehoods, unless he were sure of their truth, since even an ignorant man does not willingly write what is manifestly false. Hence these seemingly incredible statements must be true.

[Sidenote: Laws of nature and of magic.]

The author then lays down some general laws of nature such as that every species seeks its kind, fire moving toward fire, and water toward water. Also that an object is gradually changed into likeness to its surroundings. Thus Avicenna says that an object turns to salt when it has stood in salt for a long time; and if wild animals remain long with men, they become domesticated. Philosophers have discovered “the dispositions of natural entities,” such as heat, cold, boldness, wrath, fear, sterility, the ardor of love, or any other virtue. For instance, audacity is a quality innate in all members of the lion species. Knowledge of these innate qualities is of great assistance in marvelous and secret operations. Another great law is that like loves like. Medical men, alchemists, and scientists generally verify this assertion. Furthermore, “every nature, particular or general, has a natural friendship or enmity for some other, and some have this for the entire species and for all time, while others have it for an individual only and for a fixed time.” Proof of this is to be seen in the case of certain animals who hate each other in life and whose parts, even whose hairs, retain this repugnance after death. Thus the lion’s skin injures all other pelts; while sheepskin is consumed by wolfskin, and a drum made of the latter silences one made of the former.

[Sidenote: Man’s magic power.]

The author then returns to the magic power in man. He believes that it is clear to everyone that man is the end of all nature and should be supreme over it. Man possesses all the marvelous virtues to be found throughout the natural world; even the demons obey him; “and in the very human body all the secret arts are worked and ... every marvel issues from it.” All these powers, however, are not found in one man at the same time, but in different individuals at different times. The details of this relationship of man to the world of nature are revealed not by reason but by experience,--a Galenic and Albertine distinction of which the author of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ is quite fond.

[Sidenote: A wonderful world.]

Everything in nature is equally full of marvelous virtue. Fires are not more marvelous than waters, the virtues of pepper are no greater than those of jusquiam. One cannot dispute this, whether one attributes marvelous virtues primarily to the action of heat and cold, or to love and enmity between things, or to the influence of the stars, for all things in nature are subject alike to these three forces. Now, “when philosophers realized that everything was wonderful, they began to experiment and to bring forth what there is in things.”

[Sidenote: The chief causes of marvels.]

The author, for his part, cannot agree with those philosophers and medical men who have tried to explain everything in terms of hot and cold, dry and moist. He declares that they met with many phenomena in the course of their experience which they could not verify upon this basis, so that “they marveled and were sorrowful incessantly, and often denied something although they saw it.” On the other hand, our author does not agree with the astrologers that everything can be explained by the course of the stars. He prefers the view of “Plato and Aristotle and the orthodox (_legitimi_) and all who pursue the ultimate philosophy” that there are diverse causes or channels of marvelousness (_mirabilibus_). Often marvels are produced by the impression of the stars, often by heat and cold, often by the virtues of demons and necromancers, often by virtues innate in objects and implanted with their substantial forms, often by the relationship of things to one another. This is why Plato says _in libro tegimenti_ (or, _regiminis_) that one who is not trained in dialectic, natural science, astrology, and necromancy--“in which are revealed the immaterial substances which dispense and administer all that is in things for good or for evil”--can explain neither what the philosophers have written nor what the senses perceive, and will depart sadly, unable to solve the problems of the marvelous. Our author also warns his readers to distinguish between the effects, often contrary, of substance and accident, and to remember that action is sometimes direct, sometimes indirect.

[Sidenote: Marvels proved by experience, not by reason.]

Finally, before beginning his list of specific marvels, the author reverts to his point concerning reason and experience, citing the _liber tegimenti_ again to the effect that some things for which we can give no reason are nevertheless manifest to the senses, while others which we perceive by no sense or sensation are manifest to the reason. As usual the power of the magnet is adduced as an example of things proved by experience for which reason cannot account. “So no one should deny what the philosophers have affirmed from experience until he has tested it in the manner of the philosophers who discovered it.” It is also pointed out that many of the ancients told marvelous things which are now verified and generally accepted. “And I will tell you some in order that you may strengthen your mind on them and be prepared to believe what reason cannot confirm.” With this the list of particular marvels opens.

[Sidenote: Borrowing from the _Liber vaccae_ of Pseudo-Plato suggested by the authorities cited.]

At first authorities are cited a good deal; philosophers in general, Galen, Hermes, the Arabian medical writer _filius Mesue_ or Yuhanna ibn Masawaih,[2358] the Pseudo-Aristotle and Alexander, whose feat is mentioned of killing the vipers with the deadly glance by erecting mirrors for them to look themselves to death in. Less familiar names are Architas, Belbinus--who, however, is perhaps the same as the Belenus of the _Speculum astronomiae_, Tabariensis, a _Book of Decoration_, and the books of Archigenes and Cleopatra, two authors cited by Galen. These same names of authors, with precisely the same statements cited from each and with a similar preceding argument about proving marvels by experience, occur also in the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber aggregationum anguemis_ or _Liber institutionum activorum_, ascribed to Plato and Galen,[2359] and of which we shall treat in a subsequent chapter. As this _Liber Anguemis_ seems to have been known to William of Auvergne and to date back in Latin translation to the twelfth century, the _De mirabilibus mundi_ would seem to have copied from it, especially as its citations of _Plato in libro tegimenti_ (or _regiminis_), which I suspected had some connection with Galen before I became acquainted with the _Liber Anguemis_, may be meant for that work, of which both Plato and Galen are reputed authors. It should be noted, however, that these citations and the passage introductory to them are entirely absent from one manuscript[2360] of the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_.

[Sidenote: Contents of the _Marvels_ characterized.]

In the specific marvels ligatures and suspensions are employed to a large extent, as are parts of animals: the skin of a wolf or dog, the blood of a hare, bird, bat, or male turtle, the urine of a mule, and the wax from a dog’s left ear. There are a number of cures for quartan fever and some for other diseases, and various methods are recommended to prevent conception. The philosophers are represented as saying that if flies are submerged in water, they appear dead, but if they are buried in ashes, they will rise again. _The Book of Cleopatra_ advises a husband whose wife does not love him to wear the marrow from a wolf’s left foot, “and she will love none but you.”

[Sidenote: A mixture of chemistry and magic.]

Toward the end of the treatise authorities are no longer cited and many of the recipes aim at magical or optical illusions and the fabrication of marvelous candles, lights, and combustibles. Some are perhaps akin to modern fireworks and chemical rather than magical. They terminate at any rate with a recipe for Greek fire and other explosives, including perhaps gunpowder. Instructions are given how to make men appear headless or with three heads or with the face of a dog or the head of an ass or any animal you wish, or in the form of angels or black men or elephants and great horses. Also how to write letters which can be read only at night, how to make a chicken or other animal dance in a dish, how to make the whole house seem full of snakes, how to make oneself seem on fire from head to foot, how to cast an object into the flames without burning it, how to enable men to walk through fire or carry a hot iron uninjured, how to extinguish a lamp by opening the hands over it and how to light it by closing them. Other recipes enable one to catch birds in the hands, to inward off dogs and snakes, to break a love charm, to loose bonds, see the future in sleep, catch a mole, and force a confession from a woman. To make a man forever a eunuch one should give him a glow-worm in drink. “And they say that if anyone is anointed with ass’s milk, all the fleas in the house will gather on him.”

[Sidenote: Two specimens of combustibles.]

The following is a specimen of the more superstitious type of recipe for a candle or combustible. From the first part of the human head, called _sinciput_ by the philosophers, worms are generated soon after death. After seven days the worms become flies and after fourteen days they are great dragons whose bite is instantaneously fatal to man. “If you take one of these and cook it with oil and make a candle of it with a wick of crape, you will thereby behold with great fear a great thing and indescribable forms.” In contrast to this recipe may be quoted one of three for making “flying fire” out of sulphur, charcoal, and saltpeter. “Take a pound of sulphur, two pounds of willow charcoal, six pounds of saltpeter. Grind them very fine on a marble stone. Then put some in a cover of flying-paper or thunder-making paper. The cover for flying should be long, thin, and well filled with that powder, but for thunder-making short, thick, and half filled.” Here we would seem to have gunpowder and fireworks described.

[Sidenote: Further discussion of marvelousness in general.]

In three of the four _incunabula_ editions of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ which I have examined there occurs toward the close of the treatise another passage discussing marvelousness in general, most of which is not contained in the later editions although they briefly indicate its main point. The author says that now he understands that a thing is marvelous only as long as most persons cannot detect its cause, and that when a sufficient cause for it is shown, everyone ceases to wonder at it. He then distinguishes three kinds of marvels: first, those of rare occurrence in which not only is the cause unknown but the phenomenon itself marvelous from its very rarity; second, those whose cause is unknown, although the phenomena are neither new nor unusual; third, those whose cause is not entirely unknown but seems insufficient to account for the result. To produce any marvelous effect the requisites are a strong agent and a well-disposed material or patient. Sometimes, even when the agent is weak, the unusual aptitude of the patient compensates for this. On the basis of this scholastic generalization the author goes on to advise that, in working any marvel in the presence of the vulgar, one should center their attention upon some weak factor which alone is manifestly insufficient to produce the desired result and conceal the other contributory factors in the experiment as far as possible.

[Sidenote: The _Marvels_ is an experimental book.]

If the _Marvels_ is a more theoretical treatise than the _Experiments_, it is none the less almost equally experimental in character. Its

## particular marvels are also put in the form of experiments, and even

in the more scholastic and reasoned introduction and conclusion the author, as we have seen, constantly appeals to experience, and closely associates experimentation and magic by such phrases as “all the marvelousness of experiments and marvels.” He also employs the verb _experimentari_ as well as the classical form _experiri_, thus suggesting definitely that he means “to experiment” and not merely “to experience.” The _De mirabilibus mundi_, in fine, as well as the _Experimenta Alberti,_ belongs to the category of “books of experiment” or “experimental books” which we have heard William of Auvergne and the _Speculum astronomiae_ mention, and to which our next two chapters will be further devoted. Some of the items of the _De mirabilibus mundi_ will be found duplicated or closely paralleled in these other experimental books, as we have already noted in the case of the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber Anguemis_, and as Berthelot, in editing _The Book of Fires_ of Marcus Grecus, noted that a number of its experiments were found also in the _De mirabilibus mundi_.[2361]

[Sidenote: _De secretis mulierum._]

With the later editions of the _Liber aggregationis_ and _De mirabilibus mundi_ there was usually published a third treatise ascribed to Albertus Magnus which had already been printed separately, namely, _The Secrets of Women_. I am not quite sure whether this treatise was put on the _Index Expurgatorius_ because it had become too popular, or whether its popularity was increased rather than diminished by this official censure. At any rate the number of extant manuscripts shows that it was well known before the _Index_ was ever instituted. Possibly one reason for questioning the authenticity of the two treatises which we have just considered was the ill-repute into which they came in consequence of being so often bound with the _De secretis mulierum_. Also its history and the question of its genuineness or spuriousness may throw some light, if only by way of illustration and analogy, upon the same problem in their case. Moreover, if the _De secretis mulierum_ is by Albert or one of his disciples, it affords some further illustrations of the belief in occult virtue and astrology of himself or his pupils; and if not, it at least shows what a great interest such doctrines had for a large number of readers during the centuries from the fourteenth to eighteenth inclusive. It is not, however, either a book of magic or an experimental book like the two treatises which we have just considered.

[Sidenote: The problem of its authorship.]

_The Secrets of Women_ was printed before 1500[2362] and in all has appeared in about as many editions as the other two treatises. Choulant counted over thirty editions of each.[2363] The _De secretis mulierum_ is found in several manuscripts, chiefly of the fourteenth century, in the medieval collection of Amplonius at Erfurt, and in numerous other manuscripts at Munich, Berlin, Wolfenbüttel, and Vienna.[2364] Apparently the treatise originated in Germany, whether by the hand of Albert or not, and remained a favorite there. A translation into German was made for the Count Palatine of the Rhine.[2365] Although sometimes no author is named in manuscripts of the _De secretis mulierum_, in the case of those of Amplonius of the fourteenth century one infers from Schum’s descriptions that the work is ascribed to Albertus Magnus and to no one else. Thus no support is given by these early manuscripts to the theory of Simlerus, Meyer, and Borgnet that the treatise should be attributed to Henry of Saxony, a disciple of Albert whose writings contain many excerpts from Albert’s, because in some old printed editions the work is assigned to him.[2366] This ascription to Henry of Saxony has already been well characterized by V. Rose in his Catalogue of the Latin manuscripts at Berlin as “a pure invention of the editor”[2367] of the printed edition of 1499, which the manuscripts clearly contradict. Thomas of Cantimpré, who devotes some chapters of his _De natura rerum_ to gynecology has also been suggested as author of the _De secretis mulierum_, but for no further reason.[2368]

[Sidenote: Its citation of Albert, commentary, opening.]

Perhaps the best reason for doubting the authenticity of _The Secrets of Women_ is that Albert seems to be cited in it, a point already noted by Albert’s biographer, Peter of Prussia,[2369] towards the close of the fifteenth century. It is, however, somewhat difficult to distinguish the text of the original treatise from that of a commentary upon it which both accompanies and envelopes it in both the manuscripts and printed editions. In this commentary Albert is often cited but apparently he also is cited in the text proper, from which, however, the commentary after a time ceases to be adequately distinguished in those copies which I have examined.[2370] Possibly this commentary is by Henry of Saxony or perhaps it is the commentary by Buridan mentioned in one of the manuscripts.[2371] It states that Albert composed the treatise at the request of a priest (_sacerdos_), and the text itself opens with a salutation “To his dearest friend and associate in Christ,” after which ensues a divergence, due no doubt to the carelessness of copyists, as to the name or initial letter of the cleric in question, as to his place of residence, and as to his ecclesiastical rank or position.[2372] But he appears to have been a clerk from Erfurt who was studying at Paris. The text is in the form of a letter to this clerk and the author states that it is written “in

## part in physical and in part in medical style.” He asks the clerk not

to reveal it to any depraved person and promises to send him further writings, “when providence permitting I have toiled further in the art of medicine.”[2373] This fact that the _De secretis mulierum_ is addressed to a clerk who seems to be studying at Paris suggests that in the fourteenth century bibliography of writings by Dominicans the title, _Determinationes quarumdam questionum ad clerum Parisiensem_, as well as another title, _Secretum secretorum Alberti_, which are ascribed to Albert, may refer to our treatise, although the exact title, _De secretis mulierum_, does not appear in the bibliography.

[Sidenote: Nature of its contents.]

_The Secrets of Women_ scarcely deserved to be placed on the Index aside from the suggestiveness of its title and perhaps the fact that it had become too popular. Meyer, while regarding it as spurious, rightly remarked that it shared the common medical knowledge of the time and displayed a strong astrological superstition, but was neither immoral nor indecent.[2374] As a matter of fact, its astrology is little more extreme than what we have found in Albert’s undisputed works. The article upon him in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_[2375] declared that _The Secrets of Women_ was certainly not by him, but added that he makes very similar statements in his commentary on the fourth book of the _Sentences_, where he justifies such knowledge on the part of a priest as essential to his comprehension of what he is liable to be told in the confessional. This fits in nicely with the statement that Albert composed the _De secretis mulierum_ at the request of a priest.

[Sidenote: Medieval standards in such matters.]

_The Secrets of Women_ may seem indecent judged by modern standards, but so do many discussions of sexual matters by monastic recluses, theologians, and church fathers of the distant past. Peter of Prussia, Albert’s fifteenth century biographer, although concerned to establish the saintly character of his hero, did not question the authenticity of the _De secretis mulierum_ on grounds of indecency but thought it “useful and necessary to know the facts of nature, even if indecent.”[2376] In the thirteenth century itself we find a number of Latin works which are very similar to _The Secrets of Women_. There is _The Secrets of Nature_ by Michael Scot and _The Adornment of Women_[2377] by Arnald of Villanova, a physician of the closing thirteenth century who also wrote on Antichrist, advocated religious reform, and gave moral and religious exhortation as well as medical care to his royal patients in Sicily and Aragon. This _De ornatu mulierum_ was described by the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ as “one of Arnald’s most curious treatises, containing very informing details concerning the arts by which medieval women corrected the faults of nature or repaired the ravages of age. But we say no more on this point. We would not venture the vaguest allusion to the contents of some paragraphs. They taught publicly in the middle ages things which respectable persons do not know and do not wish to know.”[2378] Those who are offended at the idea of the blessed Albert’s discussing such matters in the thirteenth century should read the highly vivid, realistic, and matter-of-fact account of male sexual passion in the _Causae et curae_ of St. Hildegard,[2379] the mystic and ascetic, the abbess and prophetess, in the twelfth century, in which work it follows a long and circumstantial account of the process of conception and generation.[2380] Or they might note in a sixteenth century manuscript at Paris that an oration by John Antony Alatus, doctor of physic, royal and apostolic knight, delivered when he was chosen orator to Pope Innocent, is immediately followed by a _Book of the Secrets of Women_ by the same author.[2381] Of another thirteenth century work which attained extraordinary popularity in almost every European language and which was most appropriately entitled, _De omni re scibili et quibusdam aliis_--“Of everything knowable and then some,” the _Histoire Littéraire_ says,[2382] “The mysteries of generation engage its attention more than anything else; like _Timeo_ it is very detailed upon this point and often borders upon obscenity.” A fourth work, _The Secret of Philosophers_, written in French by someone who at least pretends to be a priest and doctor of theology, is also full of unprintable passages upon sex and generation, and yet shows also, according to the _Histoire Littéraire_,[2383] the spirit of scientific philosophy.

[Sidenote: Some superstitious recipes.]

Our treatise contains some superstitious recipes akin to those of the _Liber aggregationis_ and _De mirabilibus mundi_. To prevent conception for a year women are advised to drink salvia cooked with wine for three days; or to eat a bee, “and she will never conceive.” If hairs of menstruating women are buried in rich soil where ordure lies in winter time, the sun’s heat will generate a long and strong serpent there the following spring or summer. To tell if the child will be male or female one should pour a drop of the mother’s milk or blood into pure water from a clear spring. If the drop goes to the bottom, the child will be a boy; if it floats on the surface, a girl.

[Sidenote: Astrology.]

Astrology, however, is more prominent in this treatise than such magical modes of divination. We are told that “all the virtues which the soul comprehends in the body it draws from the supercelestial spheres and bodies.”[2384] From the farthest sphere come the powers of being and moving. From the sphere of the fixed stars the foetus receives its individual personality. From the sphere of Saturn, the virtue of discerning and reasoning; from that of Jupiter, magnanimity; from that of Mars, animosity and irascibility; from the sun, the power of learning and memorizing; and so on. We are also told how each planet, starting with Saturn, rules for a month the formation of the various physical members of the child in the womb, and the fact that the heart is formed during the fourth month under the rule of the sun is regarded as disproving Aristotle’s assertion that the heart is generated first of all the members. The influence of each planet at birth is also recorded, and we hear of “the influences of the planets, whom the ancients called gods of nature, over man’s body and soul.”[2385] Also that man’s intellectual power is not from matter but from the sky. Saturn’s child is dark, hairy, well bearded, false, malicious, wrathful, gloomy, wears unkempt clothing, and so forth. The influences of the twelve signs are also considered, and the _magnus annus_ with its repetition of history and Socrates reliving his life in the same old Athens. The author also declares that divine sacrifice, immolation of beasts, and the like cannot be removed from the action of the celestial bodies which mete out life and death, which perhaps suggests that even religion and prayer are under the stars. Monstrous births, such as twins with separate heads and hands but one trunk and pair of feet, are ascribed to some special constellation.

[Sidenote: Citations of Albert and Avicenna.]

Albert is cited, perhaps by the commentator, concerning twins of whom one had such virtue in his right side that all bolts and locks on that side of him were opened, while the virtue of the other’s left side closed all open doors. This was due not only to a special constellation but to a special disposition of matter to receive its influence. Peter of Prussia (Cap. 12) cites the same passage from Albert’s _De motibus animalium_. Other citations of Albert in the _De secretis mulierum_ are one from a treatise on the sun and moon and the assertion that a child was born with organs of either sex _ita quod potuit succumbere_. Avicenna is credited with having stated in a book on deluges that a flood might come and drown all living creatures, but that the virtue of the sky would generate others.

FOOTNOTES:

[2335] I have examined at the British Museum four incunabula editions containing both treatises and numbered (at the time of my reading) as follows: IA.6829 (_Impressum Auguste per Johannem schauren feria secunda post Bartholomei_, 1496); IA.46455; IA.55455 (_per me Wilhelmum de Mechlina Impressus in opulentissima civitate Londoniarum iuxta pontem qui vulgariter dicitur Flete brigge_); 547 b. 1. (_Imprime pour Thomas Laione Libraire Demourant a Rouen_). The text in these editions is nearly identical except for some divergencies in the one printed at Rouen. The edition printed at London is perhaps the most accurate of the four.

I have not seen the following edition: _Liber aggregationum sive secretorum de virtutibus herbarum, lapidum, et animalium_, Naples, 1493-1494: nor an edition printed at Antwerp, 1485, in which the _Liber aggregationis_ is bound with the _Quaestiones naturales_ of Adelard of Bath. The _Liber aggregationis_ was published with the _De mirabilibus mundi_ at Frankfurt in 1614, and with the _De secretis mulierum_ at Amsterdam in 1643 and again in 1662, but I have not seen these three editions.

I have seen an edition of sixteen leaves containing both _Liber secretorum_ and _Liber de mirabilibus mundi_, Venetiis per Marchio Sessa, 1509. Also an edition of both these treatises preceded by the _De secretis mulierum_ and followed by the _De secretis naturae_ of Michael Scot, Strasburg, 1607, per Lazarum Zetzerum; an edition of Amsterdam, 1740, containing the same four treatises; and an edition of Lyons, 1615, where the _Speculum astronomiae_ replaced the work by Michael Scot.

[2336] For MSS of this treatise see Appendix I at the close of this chapter.

[2337] S. Marco XIV, 40, 14th century, fols. 3-18, _Collectio secretorum mirabilium_; here the title is different and no author is named, but the Incipit, “Postquam scivimus quod opus sapientis est facere mirabilia eorum quae apparent in conspectu luminum,” and Valentinelli’s description show it to be the _De mirabilibus_ or some very similar treatise.

Florence, Palat. 719, 15th century, 101 carte, Albertus Magnus, _Opus de mirabilibus mundi; con qualche parte volgarizzata_; “Postquam sciuimus quod opus sapientis est facere cessare mirabilia rerum quae apparent in conspettu hominum / Et si sterilitas sit uitio mulieris, inuenies uermes multos in olla sua; similiter in alia, si sit uitio uiri.”

BN 7287, 15th century, #12, Albertus Magnus, _De mirabilibus mundi_.

Wolfenbüttel 3713, 13th century, fols. 50-122v, _Incerti auctoris Christiani liber de mirabilibus mundi_; as Heinemann says that this is falsely ascribed to Solinus, it is perhaps our treatise.

[2338] In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that in at least two MSS the _Liber vaccae_ or _Liber anguemis_, ascribed to Plato and Galen, but perhaps having some connection with our _De mirabilibus mundi_ (see