CHAPTER VIIIConclusion

Our survey of the Roman Empire and of the ancient world of thought which it represented is finished. We have found reason to believe that hatred and dread of “magic,” the confusion of science or of philosophy with magic, the incurring of reputations as wizards by men of learning, were phenomena not confined to the Middle Ages. We have seen some evidence of the prominence of magic in the intellectual life of the Roman Empire, in the writings and in the conduct of physicians and astronomers, of statesmen and philosophers. Just how prominent magic was one hesitates to estimate, but one may safely affirm that it was sufficiently prominent to merit the attention of the student of those times. It is almost useless to chronicle the events if we do not understand the spirit of an age.

Can the student of that age, we may ask in concluding, rightly interpret and appreciate it, can he make proper use of its extant records, unless he recognizes not merely that men made mistakes then and accepted a mass of false statements concerning nature, but that the best minds were liable to be esoteric and mystical, to incline to the occult and the fantastic, to be befogged by absurd credulity and by great mental confusion, to be fettered by habits of childish and romantic reasoning such as occurs in Ptolemy’sTetrabiblosand in Plato’sTimaeus? Have we a right to attribute to the minds of that age our definiteness and clarity of thought, our common sense, ourscientific spirit? Is it fair to take the words in which they expressed their thought and to interpret these according to our knowledge, our frame of mind; to read into their words our ideas and discoveries; to rearrange their disconnected utterances into systems which they were incapable of constructing; to endeavor by nothing else than a sort of allegorical interpretation to discover our philosophy, our science, our ideals in their writings? Have not even words a greater definiteness and value now than once? When we translate a passage from an ancient language are we not apt to transfigure its thought? These are, however, only questions.

Certainly there was much true scientific knowledge in the Roman Empire. There was sane medical theory and practice, there was a great deal of correct information in regard to plants, animals and the stars. Science was in the ascendant; magic was in its latter stages of decay. We flatter ourselves that it has now quite vanished away; then its doctrines were accepted only in part or in weakened form by men of education. Perhaps, though I am far from asserting this, magic played a less prominent part then in science and in philosophy than in the later Middle Ages. Perhaps we may picture to ourselves the minds of men in the twelfth and thirteenth and succeeding centuries as awakening from a long, intellectual torpor during the chaotic and dreary “Dark Ages,” and, eager for knowledge and for mental occupation, but still inexperienced and rather bewildered, as snatching without discrimination at whatever came first to hand of the lore of the past. Thus for a time we might find the most able men of the later age taking on the worst characteristics of the earlier time. But this again is mere speculation.

Moreover, we must remember that, if magic was accepted only in part by men of learning in the Roman Empire, therewas no thoroughgoing scepticism. We sought in vain for an instance of consistent disbelief. If, too, there was an effort to make the magic, which was accepted, scientific by basing it upon natural laws, as Quintus Cicero, Seneca and Ptolemy tried to do, there was also, besides the definite approval of magical doctrines, often a mystical tone in the science and philosophy of the time. The question of the relative strength of magic and of science in those days must, then, be left unsettled. It is difficult enough to judge even a single individual; to tell, for instance, just how superstitious Cato was.

In closing we may, however, sum up very briefly those elements which we selected as combining to give a fairly faithful picture of the belief in magic which then prevailed among educated people. Native superstitions from which science had not yet wholly freed itself; much fantastical and mystical lore from Oriental nations; allegorizing and mysticizing in the interpretation of books—which in Philo went to the length of a belief that all knowledge could be secured by this means; a portrayal of nature which attributed to her many magic properties and caused medicine to be infected with magic ceremony and to be based to some extent on the principle of sympathetic magic; a widespread and often extreme belief in astrology; a speculative philosophy which was often favorable to the doctrines of magic or even advanced some itself; and the system of Neo-Platonism in especial, with which we may associate the view—prevalent long before Plotinus, however—that everything in the universe is in close sympathy with everything else and is a sign of coming events—these were the forces ready at the opening of the Middle Ages to influence the future.

1. H. C. Lea,History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages(1887), vol. iii, p. 437. Mr. Lea’s chapter on “Sorcery and the Occult Arts” is very interesting and contains much material which it is difficult to find elsewhere.

2. We speak of persons as jovial or saturnine or mercurial in temperament; as ill-starred, and so on.

3. The classic on the theme of magic reputations incurred by the learned in ancient and mediæval times is Gabriel Naudé’s “Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie.” Paris, 1625. That such reputations were often unjustly incurred was recognized long before Naudé, however. To say nothing now of Apuleius’Apologia, to which we shall refer later, attention may be called to the fact that even William of Malmesbury, while relating with apparent credulity the legends in regard to Gerbert, had the grace to admit that “the common people often attack the reputation of the learned, and accuse any one of dealing with the devil who excels in his art.”Gesta Regum Anglorum, book ii, secs. 167, 168.

4.République, book iv, ch. 2, cited by W. E. H. Lecky,History of Rationalism(1900), vol. i, p. 28. The chapter upon “Magic and Witchcraft” contains considerable material bearing upon our theme. A similar attitude to that of Bodin is found in a political treatise of about the year 1300, probably written by Pierre du Bois, where an argument for the universal rule of a French monarch is based on astrology. N. de Wailly,Mémoire sur un opuscule anonyme(Mémoires de l’Institut Impérial de France), vol. xviii, pt. ii, p. 442.

5.Summa Theologica, pars prima, quæst. 115, arts. 3 and 4.

6. For some data on this point see Hastings Rashdall,The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages(1895), vol. i, pp. 240–250; vol. ii, pp. 290, 452, 458, 459.

7.Etymologiae, bk. viii, ch. 9. In Migne’sPatrologia Latina, vol. lxxxii.

8.Ibid., bk. xvi,passim.

9.Ibid., bk. iii, ch. 71. He condemned astrology, however. Seeibid., and bk. iii, ch. 27.

10. “Liber Numerorum qui in Sanctis Scripturis Occurunt.” (Also in Migne, vol. lxxxiii, col. 179.) “Non est superfluum numerorum causas in Scripturis sanctis attendere. Habent enim quamdam scientiae doctrinam plurimaque mystica sacramenta.”

11.De Natura Rerum, ch. 24;De Temporum Ratione, ch. 28. The scientific writing of Bede may be found in vol. vi of his works as edited by J. A. Giles. London, 1843.

12.De Tonitruis ad Herefridum, andDe Minutione Sanguinis sive Phlebotomia. Many spurious treatises were attributed to Bede but there are some reasons for believing these genuine, although they are not named by Bede in the list of his writings which he gives in hisEcclesiastical History. Giles included them in his edition after some hesitation.

13. For the predominance of astrology in the mathematics of the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, cf.Histoire Littéraire, vol. v, p. 183; vi, 9; vii, 137; ix, 197.

14.De Naturis Rerum, bk. ii, ch. 173, and bk. i, ch. 7. Volume xxxiv ofThe Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain. (The Rolls Series.)

15.Ibid., bk. i, ch. 7.

16.De Naturis Rerum, bk. ii, ch. 63.

17.Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 80.

18.Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 3et seq.

19.Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 88. In chapter 87 he writes: “Chelidonius autem rufus portantes se gratissimos facit; niger vero gestatus optimum finem negotiis imponit, et ad iras potentium sedandas idoneus est.”

20.Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 89.

21.Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 85. “In verbis et herbis et lapidibus multam esse virtutem compertum est a diligentibus naturarum investigatoribus. Certissimum autem experimentum fidem dicto nostro facit.”

22. Preface, p. xii in vol. xxxiv of the Rolls Series.

23. My information concerning Michael Scot is mainly derived from his biography (Edinburgh, 1897) by Rev. J. Wood Brown, who has studied the manuscript copies of Scot’s works in various European libraries and has succeeded in dispelling much of the uncertainty which previously existed concerning the events of Scot’s career and even the dates of his life. Of Scot’s works thePhysionomiaexists in printed form; indeed, eighteen editions of it are said to have been issued between the years 1477 and 1660.

24. The poem is printed inForschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte, vol. xviii, (1878) p. 486.

25. The part of the manuscript containing the experiment was written between 1450 and 1500, Brown thinks, but purports to be a copy “from a very ancient work.” If spurious, its fabricator at least shows considerable familiarity with Scot’s life. See Brown, pp. 18–19. The recipe is given in full in the appendix of Brown’s book.

26.De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae, ch. 7. Contained in the Appendix of vol. xv of the Rolls Series, edited by J. S. Brewer, London, 1859.

27.Opus Maius, vol. ii, pp. 204–221. Edited by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1897–1900. On page 210et seq.Bacon gives an elaborate recipe for anelixir vitae.

28.Opus Minus, Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 373–4.

29. Bridges,Opus Maius, vol. i, pp. 137–139.

30.Compendium Studii, Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 421–422.

31. Bridges,Opus Maius, vol. i, pp. 253–269.

32.De Secretis, ch. 3, discusses this question of fascination and also the power of words and of the human soul. In regard to characters and incantations, seeDe Secretis, ch. 2, and theOpus Tertium, which is also contained in vol. xv of the Rolls Series, ch. 26.

33.Opus Tertium, ch. 27.

34.“Gaspar fert myrram, thus Melchoir, Balthasar aurum.Haec tria qui secum portabit nomina regumSolvitur a morbo Christi pietate caduco.”Hist. Litt., vol. xxv, p. 327.

34.

“Gaspar fert myrram, thus Melchoir, Balthasar aurum.Haec tria qui secum portabit nomina regumSolvitur a morbo Christi pietate caduco.”Hist. Litt., vol. xxv, p. 327.

“Gaspar fert myrram, thus Melchoir, Balthasar aurum.

Haec tria qui secum portabit nomina regum

Solvitur a morbo Christi pietate caduco.”

Hist. Litt., vol. xxv, p. 327.

35. SeeLiber Mineralium.Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet (1890), vol. v, page 23et seq.

36. Two good accounts of Arnald are those in theHistoire Littéraire, vol. xxviii and Lea,History of the Inquisition, vol. iii, pp. 52–57. Older accounts are generally very misleading.

37. J. M. Rigg,Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, London, 1890, pp. viii-x.

38. Janssen,History of the German People, vol. iii, p. 45, of the English translation by A. M. Christie (1900).

39. Henry Morley,Life of Agrippa von Nettesheim(London, 1856), vol. i, p. 79. This biography includes a full and instructive outline of Agrippa’s work onOccult Philosophy.

40. A. E. Waite,Hermetical and Alchemistical Writings of Paracelsus, vol. i, p. xii.

41. For Cardan, see the biography in two volumes by Henry Morley, London, 1854, and that in one volume by W. G. Waters, London. 1898.

42. J. L. E. Dreyer,Tycho Brahe. A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century(Edinburgh, 1890), p. 56. A valuable book.

43.De Augmentis Scientiarum, bk. iv, ch. 1.

44.Ibid., bk. iv, ch. 3.

45.Ibid., bk. iii, ch. 4.

46. Bodin for instance condemned “magic” in hisDe Magorum Daemonomania(Paris, 1581).

47. Bridges,Opus Maius, vol. i, p. 241. See too theDe Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae. Rolls Series, vol. xv, appendix.

48.Spec. Astron., ch. 17. Albertus Magnus,Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet (1890), vol. x, pp. 629et seq.And he finally came to the conclusion that “concerning books of necromancy the better judgment—prejudice aside—seems to be that they ought rather to be preserved than destroyed. For the time is perchance near at hand in which, for reasons which I now suppress, it will be advantageous to consult them occasionally. Nevertheless, let their inspectors abstain from abuse of them.” Ch. 17.Similarly Roger Bacon, in hisDe Secretis, ch. 3, after mentioning books of magic to be eschewed, remarked that many books classed as magic were not such but contained worthy wisdom.

Similarly Roger Bacon, in hisDe Secretis, ch. 3, after mentioning books of magic to be eschewed, remarked that many books classed as magic were not such but contained worthy wisdom.

49.Magiae Naturalis Libri XX.Lyons, 1651.

50.De Augmentis, bk. iii, ch. 4.

51. This view is set forth at length in J. G. Frazer’sThe Golden Bough(3 vols., London, 1900). The book also furnishes many illustrations of the magic of primitive man. Mr. Frazer holds that “religion” supplanted magic and is in turn itself being supplanted by science. His definition of religion would probably not be generally accepted.

52. Alfred Maury, in the introduction to hisLa Magie et l’astrologie dans l’antiquité et au moyen âge, (Paris, 1860), expresses a practically identical view and has the conception of magic gradually fading away before the advance of science. (See also the article on “Magic” in theEncyclopædia Brittanica, 9th edition.)Maury’s work is not, however, as satisfactory as one is led to think from reading its introduction. Although he has defined magic almost in so many words as the attitude of primitive man towards the universe, he himself interprets magic much more narrowly when he comes to write his book proper, as indeed its title,Magic and Astrology, suggests. In short the thought that science and magic may at one time have mingled does not seem to impress him, and his work is of little aid to one considering our present subject. For instance, he cites Pliny only as an opponent of magic. Maury’s work, moreover, comprising in its historical portion but a little over two hundred pages—and these nearly half filled by foot-notes—can hardly be regarded as more than a brief narrative sketch of the subject.Considerable erudition is displayed in Maury’s references, especially those to Greek and Roman writers, and from page 208 to 211 Maury gives a good bibliography of some of the chief secondary works dealing with magic. More was written upon the subject shortly before his time than has been since.

Maury’s work is not, however, as satisfactory as one is led to think from reading its introduction. Although he has defined magic almost in so many words as the attitude of primitive man towards the universe, he himself interprets magic much more narrowly when he comes to write his book proper, as indeed its title,Magic and Astrology, suggests. In short the thought that science and magic may at one time have mingled does not seem to impress him, and his work is of little aid to one considering our present subject. For instance, he cites Pliny only as an opponent of magic. Maury’s work, moreover, comprising in its historical portion but a little over two hundred pages—and these nearly half filled by foot-notes—can hardly be regarded as more than a brief narrative sketch of the subject.

Considerable erudition is displayed in Maury’s references, especially those to Greek and Roman writers, and from page 208 to 211 Maury gives a good bibliography of some of the chief secondary works dealing with magic. More was written upon the subject shortly before his time than has been since.

53. “Praeterea iter est, non trita auctoribus via, nec qua peregrinari animus expetat. Nemo apud nos qui idem temptaverit, nemo apud Graecos qui unus omnia ea tractaverit.” From his dedication to the Emperor Vespasian. C. Plinii Secundi,Naturalis Historiae Libri xxxvii. Ludovicus Janus, Lipsiae, 1870. 5 vols. in 3. I shall refer to passages by the division into chapters found in the editions of Hardouin, Valpy, Lemaire and Ajasson. Three modes of division are indicated in the edition of Janus. There is an English translation of theNatural History, with an introductory essay, by J. Bostock and H. T. Riley, London, 1855, 6 vols. (Bohn Library).

54. “Viginti milia rerum dignarum cura ... ex lectione voluminum circiter duum milium, quorum pauca admodum studiosi attingunt propter secretum materiæ, ex exquisitis auctoribus centum inclusimus xxxvi voluminibus, adiectis rebus plurimis quas aut ignoraverant priores aut postea invenerat vita.” Also from the dedication. Pliny uses more than one hundred writers, however.

55. “Homines enim sumus et occupati officiis, subcisivisque temporibus ista curamus, id est nocturnis, ne quis vestris putet cessatum horis.” From the dedication.

56. Pliny the Younger to Macer in hisLetters, bk. iii, ep. 5, ed. Keil, Leipzig, 1896.

57. Geo. H. Lewes,Aristotle; a Chapter from the History of Science, London, 1864. Lewes also holds that while Aristotle often dwelt upon the value of experiment and the necessity of having a mass of facts before making general assertions, he in practice frequently jumped at conclusions.

58.Nat. Hist., bk. xxvi, ch. 9. “Mirum esset profecto hucusque profectam credulitatem antiquorum saluberrimis ortam initiis, si in ulla re modum humana ingenia novissent atque non hanc ipsam medicinam ab Asclepiade repertam probaturi suo loco assemus evectam ultra Magos etiam. Haec est omni in re animorum condicio, ut a necessariis orsa primo cuncta pervenerint ad nimium.”Cf.also bk. xxviii, ch. 1. “Quamquam et ipsi consensu prope iudicata eligere laboravimus potiusque curae rerum quam copiae institimus.” In Pliny’s dedication, however, occurs a sentence which gives one the impression that he felt rather in duty bound to accept tradition. “Res ardua, vetustis novitatem dare, novis auctoritatem, obseletis nitorem, obscuris lucem, fastiditis gratiam,dubiis fidem, omnibus vero naturam et naturae suae omnia.”

59. Quoted without reference by E. Eggleston, “The Transit of Civilization from England to America in the Seventeenth Century” (N. Y., 1901), p. 16. This interesting and valuable book contains much material illustrative of the science and superstitions of the times.

60.Etymologies, bk. xvi, Migne, vol. lxxxii.

61.Alcuini Epistolae, 103, vol. vi, pp. 431–432, ofBibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum, ed. Philip Jaffé, Berlin, 1873. “Vel quid acutius quam quod naturalium rerum divitissimus [or devotissimus] inventor, Plinius Secundus, de caelestium siderum ratione exposuit, investigari valet?” In Migne’sPatrologia Latina, vol. c, col. 278, the letter is given as number 85. For other references to Pliny by earlier writers, seeBibliothèque Latine-Française, C. L. F. Panckoucke, vol. cvi which forms the opening volume of Pliny’s work in that set.

62.Nat. Hist., bk. xxx, ch. 1. “Auctoritatem ei maxumam fuisse nemo miretur, quandoquidem sola artium tris alias imperiosissimas humanae mentis conplexa in unam se redigit.”

63.Ibid.He uses the words “mathematicas artes” instead of “astrologiam” but the words following make his meaning evident: “nullo non avido futura de sese sciendi atque ea e caelo verissime pati credente.”

64.Ibid.“Natam primum e medicina nemo dubitat ac specie salutari inrepisse velut altiorem sanctioremque medicinam.”

65. Bk. xxx, ch. 2.

66. Bk. xxvi, ch. 9.

67. Bk. xxx, ch. 2. “Eudoxus qui inter sapientiae sectas clarissimam utilissimamque eam intellegi voluit.”

68. Bk. xxviii, ch. 23.

69. Bk. xxvi, ch. 9.

70. Bk. xxxvii, ch. 40. The word in this passage which I render as “potion” is in the Latin “veneficium”—a word difficult to translate owing to its double meaning. “Venenum” signifies a drug or potion of any sort, and then in a bad sense a drug used to poison or a potion used to bewitch. In a passage soon to be cited Pliny contrasts “veneficæ artes” to “magicæ artes” but I doubt if he always preserved such a distinction. A similar confusion exists in regard to the Greek word φάρμακον, as Plato sets forth clearly in hisLaws. There are, he says, two kinds of poisons employed by men which cannot be clearly distinguished. One variety injures bodies “according to a natural law.” “There is also another kind which persuades the more daring class that they can do injury by sorceries and incantations....”Laws, bk. xi, p. 933 (Steph.). Jowett’s translation.

71. Bk. xxxvii, ch. 60. “Magorum inpudentiæ vel manifestissimum in hac quoque exemplum est....”

72. Bk. xxx, ch. 5, 6.

73. Bk. xxviii, ch. 2. Pliny’s own medicine is not prudish, and elsewhere he gives instances of devotees of magic guarding against defilement. (Bk. xxx, ch. 6 and xxviii, ch. 19).

74. Bk. xxviii, ch. 23. “Quanta vanitate,” adds Pliny, “si falsum est, quanta vero noxia, si transferunt morbos!”

75. Bk. xxx, ch. 4.

76. Bk. xxx, ch. 6. “Proinde ita persuasum sit, intestabilem, inritam, inanem esse, habentem tamen quasdam veritatis umbras, sed in his veneficas artis pollere non magicas.”

77. Concerning the stag, see bk. viii, ch. 50. On the use of frogs and fishes to cure fevers, bk. xxxii, ch. 38.

78. Bk. xxvi, ch. 59.

79. Bk. xxi, ch. 105.

80. Bk. xviii, ch. 8.

81. Bk. xxiv, ch. 102.

82. Bk. xxiv, chs. 106, 107, 109, 110, 111. Evidently these last remedies derive their force not merely from magic powers inherent in vegetation. The effect of ceremony and of circumstance becomes a factor.

83. Bk. xxxvii, ch. 36.

84. Bk. xxxvii, ch. 58.

85. Bk. ii, ch. 106.

86. Bk. vii, ch. 2. “... Qui visu quoque effascinent interimantque quos diutius intueantur, iratis praecipue oculis, quod eorum malum facilius sentire puberes. Notabilius esse quod pupillas binas in singulis habeant oculis.”

87. Bk. xxviii, ch. 6. The eggs, however, it should be said, are represented as being beneath a setting hen.

88. Bk. xxviii, ch. 3. “Ex homine remediorum primum maxumae quaestionis et semper incertae est, polleatne aliquid verba et incantamenta carminum. Quod si verum est, homini acceptum fieri oportere conveniat, sed viritim sapientissimi cuiusque respuit fides. In universum vero omnibus horis credit vita.... Vestalis nostras hodie credimus nondum egressa urbe mancipia fugitiva retinere in loco precationibus, cum, si semel recipiatur ea ratio et deos preces aliquas exaudire aut illis moveri verbis, confitendum sit de tota coniectione. Prisci quidem nostri perpetuo talia credidere, difficilimumque ex his etiam fulmina elici, ut suo loco docuimus.”Pliny seems inclined to narrow down the problem of the power of words to the question whether the gods answer prayer or not, a question which takes us out of the field of magic unless he regarded prayer as a means of coercing the gods.

Pliny seems inclined to narrow down the problem of the power of words to the question whether the gods answer prayer or not, a question which takes us out of the field of magic unless he regarded prayer as a means of coercing the gods.

89. Bk. xxi, ch. 19.

90. Bk. xxvi, ch. 60. “Experti adfirmavere plurumum referre, si virgo inponat nuda ieiuna ieiuno et manu supina tangens dicat; ‘Negat Apollo pestem posse crescere cui nuda virgo restinguat,’ atque ita retrorsa manu ter dicat totiensque despuant ambo.”

91. Bk. xxviii, ch. 7. “Mirum dicimus, sed experimento facile: si quem paeniteat ictus eminus comminusve inlati et statim exspuat in mediam manum qua percussit, levatur ilico in percusso culpa. Hoc saepe delumbata quadripede adprobatur statim a tali remedio correcto animalis ingressu.”

92. Bk. xxxii, ch. 1.

93. Bk. xxxvii, ch. 59.

94. Bk. xxviii, ch. 23.

95. Bk. ii, ch. 9. Indeed, in bk. ii, ch. 30, he gives examples of ominous eclipses of the sun, although it is true that they were also of unusual length.

96. Bk. vii, ch. 37. “Astrologia Berosus cui ob divinas praedictiones Athenienses publice in gymnasio statuam inaurata lingua statuere.”

97. Bk. ii, ch. 1. “Mundum ... numen esse credi par est. Sacer est, aeternus, inmensus, totus in toto, immo vero ipse totum.”

98. Bk. ii, ch. 4. “Hunc esse mundi totius animum ac planius mentem, hunc principale naturae regimen ac numen credere decet opera eius aestimantes.”

99. Bk. ii, ch. 16.

100. Bk. ii, ch. 6.

101. Bk. ii, ch. 13.

102. Bk ii, ch. 6. See also bk. ii, ch. 39. “Ut solis ergo natura temperando intellegitur anno sic reliquorum quoque siderum propria est quibusque vis et ad suam cuique naturam fertilis.”

103. Bk. ii, ch. 39. For the general physical interaction of earth and stars as conceived by Pliny see bk. ii, ch. 38. “Terrena in caelum tendentia deprimit siderum vis, eademque quae sponte non subeant ad se trahit. Decidunt imbres, nebulae subeunt, siccantur amnes, ruunt grandines, torrent radii et terram in medio mundi undique inpellunt, iidem infracti resiliunt et quae potuere auferunt secum. Vapor ex alto cadit rursumque in altum redit. Venti ingruunt inanes iidemque cum rapina remeant. Tot animalium haustus spiritum e sublimi trahit, at ille contra nititur, tellusque ut inani caelo spiritum fundit.”

104. Bk. ii, ch. 41.

105. Bk. ii, ch. 104.

106. Bk. ii, ch. 6. “Huius natura cuncta generantur in terris, namque in alterutro exortu genitali rore conspergens non terrae modo conceptuus inplet verum animantium quoque omnium stimulat.”

107. Bk. ii, ch. 6.

108. Bk. ii, ch. 18. “A sidere caelestis ignis exspuitur praescita secum adferens.”

109. Bk. ii, ch. 23. The part dealing with the shape and position of the comet reads: “Tibiarum specie musicae arti portendere, obscenis autem moribus in verendis partibus signorum, ingeniis et eruditioni, si triquetram figuram quadratamve paribus angulis ad aliquos perennium stellarum situus edant, venena fundere in capite septentrionalis austrinaeve serpentis.”

110. Bk. ii, ch. 86. “Numquam urbs Roma tremuit, ut non futuri eventus alicuius id praenuntium esset.” See also bk. ii, ch. 85.

111. Bk. ii, ch. 54.

112. Bk. xxv, ch. 6. “Turpissima causa raritatis quod etiam qui sciunt demonstrare nolunt, tamquam ipsis periturum sit quod tradiderint aliis.”

113. Vol. i, p. 382. Dr. White’s book, which imputes well-nigh every fantastic feature of mediæval science to Christian institutions and theology, is written with too little use of primary sources, and considerable ignorance of the character of ancient science.Aside from unfairness in the general tone and mode of presentation,—Cosmas Indicopleustes, for instance, is set forth as a typical representative of mediæval science of the clerical type, while Albertus Magnus is not permitted to stand as a representative of “theological” science at all but is pictured as one inclined to true science who was frightened into the paths of theology by an ecclesiastical tyranny bitterly hostile to scientific endeavor—the author makes some inexcusable mistakes in details. For instance, after speaking of “theological” methods, he proceeds (vol. i, p. 33): “Hence such contributions as that the basilisk kills serpents by his breath and men by his glance,” apparently in serene ignorance of the fact that this statement about the basilisk was a commonplace of ancient science. Again (vol. i, p. 386) he tells us that in 1163 the Council of Tours and Alexander III “forbade the study of physics to ecclesiastics, which of course in that age meant the prohibition of all such scientific studies to the only persons likely to make them.” On turning to the passage cited we find the prohibition to be that persons who have vowed to lead a monastic life shall not absent themselves from their monasteries for the purpose of studying “physica” (which the context indicates means medicine, not physics), or reading law. The canon does not apply to all ecclesiastics, and it is as absurd to infer from it that “all such scientific studies were prohibited to the only persons likely to make them” as to conclude that henceforth no one could study civil law. To argue from a single piece of legislation is hazardous in any case. (For the canon, see Hardouin, vol. vi, pt. ii, p. 1598. Canon viii.)On the whole the book strikes one as an unscientific eulogy of science and a bigoted attack on bigotry. The inconsistency of the author’s professions and practice, to say nothing of the somewhat perplexing arrangement of his material, reminds one of Pliny’sNatural History.

Aside from unfairness in the general tone and mode of presentation,—Cosmas Indicopleustes, for instance, is set forth as a typical representative of mediæval science of the clerical type, while Albertus Magnus is not permitted to stand as a representative of “theological” science at all but is pictured as one inclined to true science who was frightened into the paths of theology by an ecclesiastical tyranny bitterly hostile to scientific endeavor—the author makes some inexcusable mistakes in details. For instance, after speaking of “theological” methods, he proceeds (vol. i, p. 33): “Hence such contributions as that the basilisk kills serpents by his breath and men by his glance,” apparently in serene ignorance of the fact that this statement about the basilisk was a commonplace of ancient science. Again (vol. i, p. 386) he tells us that in 1163 the Council of Tours and Alexander III “forbade the study of physics to ecclesiastics, which of course in that age meant the prohibition of all such scientific studies to the only persons likely to make them.” On turning to the passage cited we find the prohibition to be that persons who have vowed to lead a monastic life shall not absent themselves from their monasteries for the purpose of studying “physica” (which the context indicates means medicine, not physics), or reading law. The canon does not apply to all ecclesiastics, and it is as absurd to infer from it that “all such scientific studies were prohibited to the only persons likely to make them” as to conclude that henceforth no one could study civil law. To argue from a single piece of legislation is hazardous in any case. (For the canon, see Hardouin, vol. vi, pt. ii, p. 1598. Canon viii.)

On the whole the book strikes one as an unscientific eulogy of science and a bigoted attack on bigotry. The inconsistency of the author’s professions and practice, to say nothing of the somewhat perplexing arrangement of his material, reminds one of Pliny’sNatural History.

Back to Index Next