PREFACE
This work has been long in preparation—ever since in 1902-1903 Professor James Harvey Robinson, when my mind was still in the making, suggested the study of magic in medieval universities as the subject of my thesis for the master’s degree at Columbia University—and has been foreshadowed by other publications, some of which are listed under my name in the preliminary bibliography. Since this was set up in type there have also appeared: “Galen: the Man and His Times,” inThe Scientific Monthly, January, 1922; “Early Christianity and Natural Science,” inThe Biblical Review, July, 1922; “The Latin Pseudo-Aristotle and Medieval Occult Science,” inThe Journal of English and Germanic Philology, April, 1922; and notes on Daniel of Morley and Gundissalinus inThe English Historical Review. For permission to make use of these previous publications in the present work I am indebted to the editors of the periodicals just mentioned, and also to the editors ofThe Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law,The American Historical Review,Classical Philology,The Monist,Nature,The Philosophical Review, andScience. The form, however, of these previous publications has often been altered in embodying them in this book, and, taken together, they constitute but a fraction of it. Book I greatly amplifies the account of magic in the Roman Empire contained in my doctoral dissertation. Over ten years ago I prepared an account of magic and science in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries based on material available in print in libraries of this country and arranged topically, but I did not publish it, as it seemed advisable to supplement it by study abroad and of the manuscript material, and to adopt an arrangement by authors. The result is Books IV and V of the present work.
My examination of manuscripts has been done especially at the British Museum, whose rich collections, perhaps because somewhat inaccessibly catalogued, have been less used by students of medieval learning than such libraries as theBodleian and Bibliothèque Nationale. I have worked also, however, at both Oxford and Paris, at Munich, Florence, Bologna, and elsewhere; but it has of course been impossible to examine all the thousands of manuscripts bearing upon the subject, and the war prevented me from visiting some libraries, such as the important medieval collection of Amplonius at Erfurt. However, a fairly wide survey of the catalogues of collections of manuscripts has convinced me that I have read a representative selection. Such classified lists of medieval manuscripts as Mrs. Dorothea Singer has undertaken for the British Isles should greatly facilitate the future labors of investigators in this field.
Although working in a rather new field, I have been aided by editions of medieval writers produced by modern scholarship, and by various series, books, and articles tending, at least, in the same direction as mine. Some such publications have appeared or come to my notice too late for use or even for mention in the text: for instance, another edition of theDe medicamentisof Marcellus Empiricus by M. Niedermann; the printing of theTwelve Experiments with Snakeskinof John Paulinus by J. W. S. Johnsson inBull. d. l. société franç. d’hist. d. l. méd., XII, 257-67; the detailed studies of Sante Ferrari on Peter of Abano; and A. Franz,Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter, 1909, 2 vols. The breeding place of the eel (to which I allude at I, 491) is now, as a result of recent investigation by Dr. J. Schmidt, placed “about 2500 miles from the mouth of the English Channel and 500 miles north-east of the Leeward Islands” (Discovery, Oct., 1922, p. 256) instead of in the Mediterranean.
A man who once wrote in Dublin[1]complained of the difficulty of composing a learned work so far from the Bodleian and British Museum, and I have often felt the same way. When able to visit foreign collections or the largest libraries in this country, or when books have been sent for my use for a limited period, I have spent all the available time in the collection of material, which has been written up later as opportunity offered. Naturally one then finds many small and some important points which require verification or further investigation, but which must be postponed until one’s next vacation or trip abroad, by which time some of the smaller points are apt to be forgotten.Of such loose threads I fear that more remain than could be desired. And I have so often caught myself in the act of misinterpretation, misplaced emphasis, and other mistakes, that I have no doubt there are other errors as well as omissions which other scholars will be able to point out and which I trust they will. Despite this prospect, I have been bold in affirming my independent opinion on any point where I have one, even if it conflicts with that of specialists or puts me in the position of criticizing my betters. Constant questioning, criticism, new points of view, and conflict of opinion are essential in the pursuit of truth.
After some hesitation I decided, because of the expense, the length of the work, and the increasing unfamiliarity of readers with Greek and Latin, as a rule not to give in the footnotes the original language of passages used in the text. I have, however, usually supplied the Latin or Greek when I have made a free translation or one with which I felt that others might not agree. But in such cases I advise critics not to reject my rendering utterly without some further examination of the context and line of thought of the author or treatise in question, since the wording of particular passages in texts and manuscripts is liable to be corrupt, and since my purpose in quoting particular passages is to illustrate the general attitude of the author or treatise. In describing manuscripts I have employed quotation marks when I knew from personal examination or otherwise that the Latin was that of the manuscript itself, and have omitted quotation marks where the Latin seemed rather to be that of the description in the catalogue. Usually I have let the faulty spelling and syntax of medieval copyists stand without comment. But as I am not an expert in palaeography and have examined a large number of manuscripts primarily for their substance, the reader should not regard my Latin quotations from them as exact transliterations or carefully considered texts. He should also remember that there is little uniformity in the manuscripts themselves. I have tried to reduce the bulk of the footnotes by the briefest forms of reference consistent with clearness—consult lists of abbreviations and of works frequently cited by author and date of publication—and by use of appendices at the close of certain chapters.
Within the limits of a preface I may not enumerate all the libraries where I have been permitted to work or whichhave generously sent books—sometimes rare volumes—to Cleveland for my use, or all the librarians who have personally assisted my researches or courteously and carefully answered my written inquiries, or the other scholars who have aided or encouraged the preparation of this work, but I hope they may feel that their kindness has not been in vain. In library matters I have perhaps most frequently imposed upon the good nature of Mr. Frederic C. Erb of the Columbia University Library, Mr. Gordon W. Thayer, in charge of the John G. White collection in the Cleveland Public Library, and Mr. George F. Strong, librarian of Adelbert College, Western Reserve University; and I cannot forbear to mention the interest shown in my work by Dr. R. L. Poole at the Bodleian. For letters facilitating my studies abroad before the war or application for a passport immediately after the war I am indebted to the Hon. Philander C. Knox, then Secretary of State, to Frederick P. Keppel, then Assistant Secretary of War, to Drs. J. Franklin Jameson and Charles F. Thwing, and to Professors Henry E. Bourne and Henry Crew. Professors C. H. Haskins,[2]L. C. Karpinski, W. G. Leutner, W. A. Locy, D. B. Macdonald, L. J. Paetow, S. B. Platner, E. C. Richardson, James Harvey Robinson, David Eugene Smith, D’Arcy W. Thompson, A. H. Thorndike, E. L. Thorndike, T. Wingate Todd, and Hutton Webster, and Drs. Charles Singer and Se Boyar have kindly read various chapters in manuscript or proof and offered helpful suggestions. The burden of proof-reading has been generously shared with me by Professors B. P. Bourland, C. D. Lamberton, and Walter Libby, and especially by Professor Harold North Fowler who has corrected proof for practically the entire work. After receiving such expert aid and sound counsel I must assume all the deeper guilt for such faults and indiscretions as the book may display.