Chapter LI Michael Scot
Bibliographical note—Michael Scot and Frederick II—Some dates in Michael’s career—Michael Scot and the papacy—Prominent position in the world of learning—Relation to the introduction of the new Aristotle—Thirteenth century criticism of Michael Scot—General estimate of his learning—God and the stars—A theological digression—The three Magi—Astrology distinguished from magic—The magic arts—Experiments of magic—History of astronomy—The spirits in the sky, air, and earth—Occult medicine—The seven regions of the air—Michael’s miscellaneous content—Further astrological doctrine—Omission of nativities—Magic for every hour—Quaint religious science—The Phisionomia—Influence of the stars on human generation—Discussion of divination—Divination from dreams—Works of divination ascribed to Michael Scot—Medical writings—Occult virtues—Astrology in the Commentary on the Sphere—Dionysius the Areopagite and the solar eclipse during Christ’s passion—Alchemy—Works of alchemy ascribed to Michael Scot—Brother Elias and alchemy—Liber luminis luminum and De alchemia—Their further characteristics.
Michael Scot and Frederick II.
But little can be said with certainty concerning the life of Michael Scot.964 However, a poem by Henry of Avranches, addressed to the emperor Frederick II in 1235 or 1236,965 shows that Michael was then dead and that he apparently had occupied the position of astrologer at the court of Frederick II at the time of his death. The poet explains how astrologers (mathematici) “reveal the secrets of things,” by their art affecting numbers, by numbers affecting the procession of the stars, and by the stars moving the universe. He recalls having heard “certain predictions concerning you, O Caesar, from Michael Scot who was a scrutinizer of the stars, an augur, a soothsayer, a second Apollo”; and then tells how “the truthful diviner Michael” ceased to publish his secrets to the world, and “the announcer of fates submitted to fate,” apparently in the midst of some prediction made on his death-bed. Michael’s own statements also show that he was one of Frederick’s astrologers.966 If at the time of his death Michael was Frederick’s astrologer, it is more questionable at what date his association with Frederick began, and in what countries Michael resided with the emperor, or accompanied him to, whether Sicily, southern Italy, northern Italy, or Germany. From the fact that three of Michael Scot’s works, or rather, the three chief divisions of his longest extant work,967 namely, Liber Introductorius, Liber Particularis, and Phisionomia, were written at the request of Frederick II for beginners968 and apparently in the time of Innocent III,969 J. Wood Brown jumped to the conclusion that Michael was Frederick’s tutor before that monarch came of age, and that he spent some time in the island of Sicily, from which Brown failed to distinguish Frederick’s larger kingdom of Sicily.970 As a matter of fact, there would seem to be rather more evidence for connecting Michael with Salerno than with any Sicilian city, since in one manuscript of his translation for the emperor of the work of Avicenna on animals he is spoken of as “an astronomer of Salerno,”971 while in another manuscript he is associated with a Philip, clerk of the king of Sicily, and this royal notary in two deeds of 1200 is called Philip of Salerno.972 Brown was inclined to identify him further with Philip of Tripoli, the translator of the pseudo-Aristotelian Secret of Secrets.
Some dates in Michael’s career.
No date in Michael’s career before the thirteenth century is fixed. If it is true that the three sections of his main work were written under Innocent III, that places them between 1198 and 1216. The date of his translation of the astronomical work of Alpetragius or Alpetrangi (Nûr ed-din el-Betrûgî, Abû Ishâq) seems to have been in the year 1217 on Friday, August 18, in the third hour and at Toledo. 973 Brown holds that Michael translated Avicenna on animals in 1210 for Frederick II and that the emperor kept it to himself until 1232, when he allowed Henry of Cologne to copy it.974 But the date 1210 perhaps applies only to a glossary of Arabic terms which accompanies the work and which is ascribed to a “Master Al.”975 In a thirteenth century manuscript at Cambridge Michael Scot’s translation of Aristotle’s History of Animals is accompanied by a note which begins, “And I Michael Scot who translated this book into Latin swear that in the year 1221 on Wednesday, October twenty-first.”976 The note and date, however, do not refer to the completion of the translation but to a consultation in which a woman showed him two stones like eggs which came from another woman’s womb and of which he gives a painstakingly detailed description. There is, however, something wrong with the date, since in 1221 the twenty-first of October fell on Thursday.977
Michael Scot and the papacy.
The career of Michael Scot affords an especially good illustration of how little likelihood there was of anyone’s being persecuted by the medieval church for belief in or practice of astrology. Michael, although subordinating the stars to God and admitting human free will, as we shall see, both believed in the possibility of astrological prediction and made such predictions himself. Yet he was a clergyman, perhaps even a doctor of theology,978 as well as a court astrologer, and furthermore was a clergyman of sufficient rank and prominence to enable Pope Honorius III to procure in 1224 his election to the archbishopric of Cashel in Ireland.979 At the same time the papal curia issued a dispensation permitting Michael to hold a plurality, so that he evidently already occupied some desirable benefice. Michael declined the archbishopric of Cashel, on the ground that he was ignorant of the native language but perhaps because he preferred a position in England; for we find the papacy renewing its efforts in his behalf, and Gregory IX on April 28, 1227, again wrote to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, urging him to make provision for “master Michael Scot,” whom he characterized as “well instructed not only in Latin but also in the Hebrew and Arabic languages.”980
Prominent position in the world of learning.
Whether Michael ever secured the additional foreign benefice or not, he seems to have remained in Italy with Frederick until the end of his days. He also seems to have continued prominent among men of learning, since in 1228 Leonardo of Pisa dedicated to him the revised and enlarged version of his Liber abaci,981 important in connection with the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into western Europe.
Relation to the introduction of the new Aristotle.
Roger Bacon in the Opus Maius982 in a passage often cited by historians of medieval thought ascribes the introduction of the new Aristotle into western Latin Christendom to Michael Scot who, he says, appeared in 1230 A. D. with portions of the works of Aristotle in natural philosophy and metaphysics. Before his time there were only the works on logic and a few others translated by Boethius from the Greek; since 1230 the philosophy of Aristotle “has been magnified among the Latins.” Although many writers have quoted this statement as authoritative in one way or another, it must now be regarded as valuable only as one more illustration of the loose and misleading character of most of Roger’s allusions to past learning and to the work of previous translators. We know that the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy had become so well known by that time that in 1210 the study of them was forbidden at the university of Paris, and that about that same year, according to Rigord’s chronicle of the reign of Philip II, the books of Metaphysics of Aristotle were brought from Constantinople, translated from Greek into Latin, and began to be read at Paris.983 But Bacon’s date is more than twenty years too late, and we have already mentioned the translation of The Secret of Secrets, which Bacon regarded as genuine, the acquaintance of Alexander Neckam with works of Aristotle, Alfred of England’s translation of the De vegetabilibus and of three additional chapters to the Meteorology, the still earlier translation of the rest of that work by Aristippus from the Greek and by Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic, and Gerard’s numerous other translations of works of Aristotle in natural philosophy. The translations of Gerard and Aristippus take us back to the middle of the twelfth century nearly a century before the date set by Bacon for the introduction of the new Aristotle.984 Michael Scot, then, did not introduce the works of Aristotle on natural science and Bacon’s chronological recollections are obviously too faulty for us to accept the date 1230 as of any exact significance in even Michael’s own career, to say nothing of the history of the translation of Aristotle.
This is not to say that Michael was not of some importance in that process, since he did translate works of Aristotle and his Arabic commentators, especially Avicenna and Averroes. Frederick II is sometimes said to have ordered the translation from Greek and Arabic of such works of Aristotle and other philosophers as had not yet been translated from Greek or Arabic.985 But the letter which has been ascribed in this connection to Frederick is really by his son and successor, Manfred,986 for whom many translations were made, including several Aristotelian treatises, genuine and spurious, by Bartholomew of Messina. Already, however, in 1231 and 1232 a Jew at Naples had translated Averroes’ abridgement of the Almagest and his commentary on the Organon, in the latter extolling Frederick’s munificence and love of science.987 Michael Scot has been shown to have translated from the Arabic the History of Animals and other works on animals, making nineteen books in all, and also Avicenna’s compendium of the same, the De caelo et mundo, the De anima with the commentary of Averroes, and perhaps the Metaphysics or part of it.988 His translation of the De caelo et mundo was accompanied by a translation of Alpetrangi’s commentary on the same.989
Thirteenth century criticism of Michael Scot.
Scholars of the succeeding generation sometimes spoke unfavorably of Michael’s work. Although Roger Bacon recognized his translations as the central event in the Latin reception of the Aristotelian philosophy, and spoke of him as “a notable inquirer into matter, motion, and the course of the constellations,”990 he listed him among those translators who “understood neither sciences nor languages, not even Latin,” and charged more than once that a Jew named Andrew was really responsible for the translations credited to Michael.991 Albertus Magnus asserted that Michael Scot “in reality was ignorant concerning nature and did not understand the books of Aristotle well.”992 Yet he used Michael’s translation of the Historia Animalium as the basis of his own work on the subject, often following it word for word.993 Michael was, however, listed or cited as an authority by the thirteenth century encyclopedists, Thomas of Cantimpré, Bartholomew of England, Vincent of Beauvais, and at the close of that century is frequently cited by the physician Arnald of Villanova in his Breviarium practicae.994
General estimate of his learning.
Michael Scot may be said to manifest some of the failings of the learning of his time in a rather excessive degree. His mind, curious, credulous, and uncritical, seems to have collected a mass of undigested information and superstition with little regard to consistency or system. Occasionally he includes the most childish and naïve sort of material, as we shall illustrate later. He continues the Isidorean type of etymology, deriving the name of the month of May, for example, either from the majesty of Jupiter, or from the major chiefs of Rome who in that month were wont to dedicate laws to Jupiter, or from the maioribus in the sense of elders as June is derived from Juniors.995 He also well illustrates the puerilities and crudities of scholastic argumentation. Thus one of the arguments which he lists against regarding a sphere as a solid body is that solids can be measured by a straight line and that it cannot.996 Asking whether fire is hot in its own sphere, he says that it might seem not, because fire in its own sphere is light and light is neither hot nor cold.997 This argument he rebuts in the end, and he finally decides that a sphere is a solid. But he would have seemed wiser to the modern reader to have omitted these particular contrary arguments entirely. Such propositions continue, however, to be set up and knocked down again all through the thirteenth century, and such famous men as Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Abano are guilty of much the same sort of thing. To Michael Scot’s credit may be mentioned his considerable power of experimentation and of scientific observation. Perhaps some of the “experiments” attributed to him are spurious, but they show the reputation which he had for experimental method, and on the whole it would seem to be justified. The note in his name in a thirteenth century manuscript at Cambridge,998 giving a carefully dated and detailed account of two human foetuses which had solidified into stones like eggs, shows a keen sense of the value of thorough observation and a precise record of the same. Experimental science would seem to have received considerable encouragement at the court of Frederick II, judging from the stories told of that emperor and the pages of his own work on falconry.999
God and the stars.
But let us examine Michael’s views and methods more particularly. In opening the long preface to his voluminous Introduction to Astrology he states that hard study is requisite to become a good astrologer, but he finds incentive to such effort in citations from Seneca, Cato, and St. Bernard that it is virtuous to study and to be taught, and in the reflection that one who knows the conditions and habitudes of the superior bodies can easily learn those of inferior bodies. The signs and planets are not first movers or first causes, and do not of themselves confer aught of good or evil, but by their motion do indicate “something of truth concerning every body produced in this corruptible world.” The hour of conception is important and Michael explains why two persons born at the same moment may be unlike. He then jumbles together from Christian and astrological writers such assertions as that the stars are only signs, not causes, and that their influence on inferior creation may be compared to the action of the magnet upon iron, or that we see on earth good men suffer and bad men prosper, which has usually been regarded as a better argument for a fatalistic or mechanical universe than for divine control. He agrees that the universe is not eternal and that everything is in God’s power, but insists that much can be learned concerning the future from the stars.1000
A theological digression.
Michael then embarks upon a long theological digression1001 in the course of which he quotes much Scripture concerning the two natures, angelic and human. After telling us of the nine orders of angels in the empyrean heaven, he deals with the process of creation, just as William of Conches and Daniel of Morley had done in their works of astronomy and astrology. In the first three days God created spiritual substances such as the empyrean heaven, angels, stars, and planets; in the other three days, visible bodies such as mixtures of the elements, birds, fish, and man. Michael also answers various questions such as why man was created last, although nobler than other creatures, what an angel is, whether angels have individual names like men, and much concerning the tenth part who fell. Perhaps the emperor Frederick is supposed to put these queries to Michael, but there seemed to be no indication to that effect in the manuscript which I examined. The reply to the question where God resides is, potentially everywhere but substantially in the intellectual or empyrean heaven.1002 Michael discusses the holy Trinity and thinks that we have a similitude of it in the rational soul in the three faculties, intellect, reason, and memory,1003 although he attempts no association of these with the three Persons as William of Conches imprudently did in the case of power, wisdom, and will. He indulges, however, in daring speculation as to where the members of different professions will go after they die. Philosophers, “who die in the Lord,” will be located in the order of Cherubim, which is interpreted as plenitude of science; sincere members of religious orders and hermits will become Seraphim; while pope, emperor, cardinals, and prelates will enter the order of Thrones.1004 Michael also contributes the following acrostic of eight sins whose initials compose the word, “Diabolus”:
Desperatio
Invidia
Avaritia
Blasphemia
Odium
Luxuria
Ventris ingluvies
Superbia.1005
The three Magi.
In the course of the foregoing digression Michael inserted an account of the Magi and the star that appears to be based in part but with variations on the spurious homily of Chrysostom. He makes them three in number, one from Europe, Asia, and Africa respectively; and states that forewarned by Balaam’s prophecy they met together annually for worship on the day of Christ’s nativity, which they appear to have known beforehand. They stood in adoration for three days continuously on Mount Victorialis until on the third day they saw the star in the form of a most beautiful boy with a crown on his head. Then they followed the star upon dromedaries which, Michael explains, can go farther in a day than horses can in two months. Beside the star three suns arose that day at equal distances apart and then united in token of the Trinity; and Octavianus, emperor of the Romans, saw the Virgin holding the Child in the center of the sun’s disk. As for the word magus, Michael explains that it has a threefold meaning,—which, however, has nothing to do with the Trinity,—namely: trickster, sorcerer, and wise man, and that the Magi who saw the star were all three of these until their subsequent conversion to Christianity.1006
Astrology distinguished from magic.
The remainder of Michael’s lengthy and lumbering preface is largely occupied with the utility of astrology, which he often calls “astronomy” (astronomia), and differentiation of it from prohibited arts of magic and divination. While, however, he distinguishes these other occult arts from astrology, he affirms that nigromancers, practitioners of the notory art, and alchemists owe more to the stars than they are ready to admit.1007 He also distinguishes a superstitious variety of astrology (superstitiosa astronomia),1008 under which caption he seems to have in mind divination from the letters of persons’ names and the days of the moon, and other methods in which the astronomer or astrologer acts like a geomancer or sorcerer or tries to find out more than God wills. Scot also distinguishes between mathesis, or knowledge, and matesis, or divination, and between mathematica, which may be taught freely and publicly, and matematica, which is forbidden to Christians.1009
The magic arts.
Michael condemns magic and necromancy but takes evident joy in telling stories of magicians and necromancers and shows much familiarity with books of magic. He explains “nigromancy” as black art, dealing with dark things and performed more by night than day, as well as the raising of the dead to give responses, in which the nigromancer is deceived by demons.1010 He repeats Hugh of St. Victor’s definition that the magic art is not received in philosophy, destroys religion, and corrupts morals. As he has said before, the magus is a trickster and evil-doer as well as wise in the secrets of nature and in prediction of the future.1011 Michael lists twenty-eight varieties or methods of divination. He believes that they are all true: augury by song of birds, interpretation of dreams, observance of days, or divination by holocausts of blood and corpses. But they are forbidden as infamous and evil. Later on, in the text itself, he returns to this point, saying that these methods of predicting the future are against the Christian Faith, but nevertheless true, like the marvels of Simon Magus.1012 Michael defines and describes various magic arts in much the same manner as Isidore, Hugh of St. Victor, and John of Salisbury; but with some divergences. Under aerimancy he includes divination from thunder, comets, and falling stars, as well as from the shapes assumed by clouds. Hydromancy he calls “a short art of experimenting” as well as divining. The gazing into clear, transparent, or liquid surfaces for purposes of divination is performed, he says, with some observance of astrological hours, secrecy, and purity by a child of five or seven years who repeats after the master an incantation or invocation of spirits over human blood or bones. He speaks of a maleficus as one who interprets characters, phylacteries, incantations, dreams, and makes ligatures of herbs. The praestigiosus deceives men through diabolic art by phantastic illusions of transformation, such as changing a woman into a dog or bear, making a man appear a wolf or ass, or causing a human head or limb to resemble that of some animal. Even alchemy, or perhaps only the superstitious practice of it, Michael seems to classify as a forbidden magic art, saying, “Alchemy as it were transcends the heavens in that it strives by the virtue of spirits to transmute common metals into gold and silver and from them to make a water of much diversity,” that is, an elixir. Lot-casting, on the other hand, both the authority of Augustine and many passages in the Bible pronounce licit.
Experiments of magic.
Michael more than once ascribes an experimental character to magic arts. Besides calling hydromancy “a short art of experimenting,” he states that, since demons are naturally fond of blood and especially human blood, nigromancers or magicians, when they wish to perform experiments, often mix water with real blood or use wine which has been exorcized in order to make it appear bloody. “And they make some sacrifice with the flesh of a living human being, for instance, a bit of their own flesh, or of a corpse, and not the flesh of brutes, knowing that consecration of a spirit in a bottle or ring cannot be achieved except by the performance of many sacrifices.”1013 Despite his censure of the art in the preface under discussion, we find a necromantic experiment of an elaborate character ascribed to Michael Scot in a fifteenth century manuscript1014 which purports to copy it “from a very ancient book,”1015 a phrase which scarcely increases our confidence in the genuineness of the ascription. The object of the experiment is to secure the services of a demon to instruct one in learning. Times and astrological conditions are to be observed as well as various other preliminaries and ceremonies; a white dove is to be beheaded, its blood collected in a glass vessel, a magic circle drawn with its bleeding heart; and various prayers to God, invocations of spirits, and verses of the Bible are to be repeated. At one juncture, however, one is warned not to make the sign of the cross or one will be in great peril.
History of astronomy.
But to return to Michael’s magnum opus. The preface closes with a rather long and very confused1016 account of the history of astronomy and astrology. While Zoroaster of the lineage of Shem was the inventor of magic, the arts of divination began with Cham, the son of Noah, who was both of most subtle genius and trained in the schools of the demons. He tested by experience what they taught him and having proved what was true, indited the same on two columns and taught it to his son Canaan who soon outstripped his father therein and wrote thirty volumes on the arts of divination and instructed his son Nemroth in the same. When Canaan was slain in war and his books were burned, Nemroth revived the art of astronomy from memory and was, like his father, deemed a god by many because of his great lore. He composed a work on the subject for his son Ionicon,1017 whose son Abraham also became an adept in the art and came from Africa to Jerusalem and taught Demetrius and Alexander of Alexandria, who in turn instructed Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who invented astronomical canons and tables and the astrolabe and quadrant. The giant Atlas brought the art to Spain before Moses received the two tables containing the ten commandments. If this chronology surprises us, there is something more amazing to follow. At this point in the manuscript the copyist has either omitted a great deal1018 or Atlas was extremely long-lived, since we next read about his showing the astrolabe to two “clerks of France.” Gilbertus (presumably Gerbert) borrowed the instrument for a while, conjured up demons—for he was the best nigromancer in France, made them explain its construction, uses, and operation to him, and furthermore all the rest of astronomy. Later he reformed and had no more dealing with demons and became bishop of Ravenna and Pope. Having thus got rather ahead of time, Michael mentions various other learned astronomers, most of whom really lived before Gerbert, such as Thebit ben Corat, Messahalla, Dorotheus, Hermes, Boethius, Averroes, John of Spain, Isidore, Zahel, and Alcabitius.
The spirits in the sky, air, and earth.
Having finally terminated his preface, Michael begins the first book with a description of the heavens and their motion. Some say that the planets are moved by angels; others, by winds; but he holds that they are ruled by divine virtues, spiritual and not corporeal, but of whom little further can be predicated, since they are imperfectly known to man and naturally will remain so.1019 Later he states that they do not move or rule the celestial bodies naturally but as a service of obedience to their Creator.1020 He has already spoken in the preface of spirits in the northern and southern air, and asserted that very wise spirits who give responses when conjured dwell in certain images or constellations among the signs of the zodiac.1021 In the Liber particularis he speaks of similar demons in the moon.1022 Now he mentions “a legion of spirits damned” in the winds.1023 In later passages in the Liber introductorius he gives the names of the ruling spirits of the planets, Kathariel for Saturn,1024 and so on, and a list of the names of spirits of great virtue who, if invoked by name, will respond readily and perform in marvelous wise all that may be demanded of them.1025 And as the planets are said to have seven rectors who are believed to be the wisest spirits in the sky, so the seven metals are said to have seven rectors who are believed to be angels in the earth.1026 Names of angels also occur in some of his astrological diagrams.1027 This education of the reader in details of astrological necromancy shows that Michael is not to be depended upon to observe consistently the condemnation of magic and distinction between astrology and necromancy with which he started out in the preface.
Occult medicine.
By affirming that the physician must know the state of the moon and of the wind and that “there are many passions of the soul under the sphere of the moon,”1028 Michael introduces us to the subject of astrological medicine, a theme to which he returns more than once in the course of the work.1029 The practice of flebotomy is illustrated by a figure showing the influence of the signs of the zodiac upon the human body.1030 From the fact that there are fourteen joints in the fingers of the hand or toes of the foot Michael infers that man’s span of life should be 140 years, a maximum which sin has reduced to 120.1031 There are as many medicines as there are diseases and these consist in the virtues of words, herbs, and stones, as illustrations of which Michael adduces the sacrament of the altar, the magnet and iron used by deep-sea sailors, and plasters and powders.1032 In some cases, however, neither medicine nor astrology seems to avail, and, despite his preliminary condemnation of the magic arts, Michael argues that when the doctor can do nothing for the patient he should advise him to consult an enchantress or diviner.1033
The seven regions of the air.
From the seven planets and sphere of the moon Michael turns to the seven regions of the air, which are respectively the regions of dew, snow, hail, rain, honey, laudanum, and manna.1034 This is the earliest occurrence of this discussion which I have met, and I do not know from what source, if any, Michael took it. It is essentially repeated by Thomas of Cantimpré in his De natura rerum, where he gives no credit to Michael Scot but cites Aristotle’s Meteorology in which, however, only dew, snow, rain, and hail are discussed. In the History of Animals1035 Aristotle further states that honey is distilled from the air by the action of the stars and that the bees make only the wax. Michael similarly describes the honey as falling from the air into flowers and herbs and being collected by the bees; but he distinguishes two kinds of honey, the natural variety just described and the artificial honey which results from the bee’s process of digestion. He also explains that sugar (and molasses?) is not a liquor which will evaporate like honey and manna, but is made from the pith of canes.1036 “Laudanum” is a humor of the air in the Orient, and manna descends mainly in India with the dew, being found in Europe only in times of great heat. It is of great virtue, both medicinal and in satisfying hunger, as in the case of the children of Israel under Moses.
Michael’s miscellaneous content.
We cannot take the time to follow Michael in all his long ramblings through things in heaven above and earth beneath: sun, tides, springs, seasons, the difference between stella, aster, sidus, signum, imago, and planeta, the music of the spheres, the octave in music, eight parts of speech in grammar, and eight beatitudes in theology, zones and paradise, galaxy and horizon and zenith, divisions of time, the four inferior elements and the creatures contained in them, eclipses of sun and moon, Adam protoplasm and minor mundus as the letters of his name indicate, the mutable and transitory nature of this world, the inferno in the earth, and purgatory.
Further astrological doctrine.
Sooner or later Michael comes to or returns to astrological doctrine and technique, lists the qualities of the seven planets and head and tail of the dragon,1037 explains the names and some of the effects of the signs of the zodiac,1038 gives weather prognostications from sun and moon,1039 states the moon’s influence in such matters as felling trees and slaughtering pigs,1040 and expounds by text and figures planetary aspects, exaltations, and conjunctions,1041 friendships and enmities.1042 The planet Mercury signifies in regard to the rational soul, grammar, arithmetic, and every science.1043 The election of hours is considered and a list given of what to do and not to do in the hour of each planet and that of the moon in each sign.1044 There then follows, despite Michael’s animadversions in the preface against interpreters of dreams and those observing days, an “Exposition of dreams for each day of the moon,”1045 nativities for each day of the week, and a method of divination from the day of the week on which the New Year falls.1046 A discussion of the effect of the moon upon conception is interrupted by a digression on eggs: how to estimate the laying power of a hen by the color and size of its crest, the effect of thunder upon eggs, how from eggs to make a water of great value in alchemy, and how to purify bad wine with the white of an egg.1047 Returning again to the moon, we are told that in the new moon intellects are livelier, scholars study and professors teach better, and all artisans work harder. Michael Scot used to say to the emperor Frederick that if he wished clear counsel from a wise man, he should consult him in a waxing moon and in a human and fiery or aerial sign of the zodiac.1048 Michael had spoken earlier of the planets as judges of the varied questions of litigators,1049 and now, although admitting the freedom of the human will, he proceeds to discuss at considerable length1050 the art of interrogations by which the astrologer answers questions put to him. With this the Bodleian manuscript of the Liber introductorius ends, apparently incomplete.1051
Omission of nativities.
In the marginal gloss accompanying a Latin translation of the astrological works of Abraham Avenezra in a manuscript of the fifteenth century1052 Michael Scot is quoted a good deal on the subject of nativities. But the Liber introductorius, or at least as much of it as appears in the Bodleian manuscript, contains little upon this side of astrology, except the brief nativities for each day of the week. A passage quoted by Brown1053 to the effect that the person born under a certain sign will be an adept in experiments and incantations, in coercing spirits and working marvels, and will be an alchemist and nigromancer, appears in the manuscript as a marginal addition rather than part of the text and so is presumably not by Michael Scot himself.
Magic for every hour.
In connection with the subject of elections Michael gives a list of the prayers, conjurations, and images appropriate for each of the twelve hours of the day and of the night.1054 For instance, in the first hour of the day men pray to God and it is a good time to bind all tongues by images, characters, and conjurations. In the second hour angels pray to God and images and other devices to promote love and concord should be constructed then. In the third hour birds and fishes pray to God and it is a good time to make images and other contrivances to catch birds and fish. In the first hour of the night demons hold colloquy with their lord and the time is favorable for the invocation of spirits.
Quaint religious science.
A more Christian and less magical enumeration of the hours occurs in the Liber particularis.1055 At morning Christ was arrested on the Mount of Olives. In the first hour Christ was presented to Ananias and Caiaphas, the high priests; in the third hour, to Pontius Pilate; in the sixth hour He was brought back to Herod and taken to Mount Calvary; in the ninth He was given vinegar and gave up the ghost and the earth quaked and the veil of the temple was rent in twain; at vespers He was taken down from the cross. Another specimen of this quaint religious science is found in the Liber introductorius,1056 where Michael, writing before the invention of the telescope, speaks of the limits set to seeing into the heavens except by special grace of God, as in the case of Katherine and of Stephen, the first martyr, who, when stoned, saw the heavens opened. A third example occurs in the third part of the opus magnum, or Phisionomia, where it is stated that at birth a male child cries “Oa” and a female child “Oe,” as if to say respectively, “O Adam (or, O Eve) why have you sinned that I on your account must suffer infinite misery?”1057 In the same work Michael gives original sin as one of two reasons why a baby cannot talk and walk as soon as it is born.1058
The Phisionomia .
The third part of Scot’s main work, and the only section which has been printed, is that primarily devoted to the pseudo-science of physiognomy, which endeavors to determine a man’s character from signs furnished by the various parts of his body. The Phisionomia1059 is addressed to the Emperor Frederick II who is exhorted to the pursuit of learning in general and the science of physiognomy in particular. This is probably a conscious or unconscious imitation of the remarks addressed to Alexander by the Pseudo-Aristotle in The Secret of Secrets, of which also a considerable portion is devoted to physiognomy, and from which Rasis and Michael borrowed a good deal.1060 Indeed, the Phisionomia of Michael Scot is also often entitled De secretis naturae and really only a certain portion of it is devoted exclusively to physiognomy proper. Its early chapters and first part deal rather with the process of generation and it is only with the twenty-third chapter and second part that Michael “reverts to the doctrine of physiognomy.” Perhaps these chapters on generation had more to do with the popularity and frequent printing of the work than did those on physiognomy.
Influence of the stars on human generation.
In this discussion of the process of human generation the influence of the stars receives ample recognition. Michael regards the moment of conception as of great astrological importance; then according to the course of the stars and the disposition of the bodies conceiving the foetus receives “similarly and simultaneously” each and all of the determining factors in its subsequent nature and history.1061 This we may perhaps regard as a medieval approach to the theory of Mendel. Michael further urges every woman to note the exact moment of sexual intercourse, when this is to result in generation, and so make astrological judgment easy.1062 Yet he states later that God gives a new and free soul with the new body, just as a father might give his son a new tablet on which to write whatever he wills of good or evil.1063 He notes the correspondence of the menstrual fluid to the waxing and waning of the moon and that planet’s influence during the seventh month of the formation of the child in the womb,1064 and gives the usual account of the babe’s chances of life or death according as it is born within seven months, or during the eighth, or ninth, or tenth month. It is not quite clear if it is because there are seven planets that Michael affirms that a woman can bear as many as seven children at once.1065 He adds that in this case the child conceived in the middle one of the seven cells of the matrix will be a hermaphrodite.1066
Discussion of divination.
Scot’s treatise on Physiognomy has considerable to say of other forms of divination and they here appear in a more favorable light than in his discussion of varieties of the magic arts in the preface preceding his Liber introductorius. Among signs to tell whether a pregnant woman will give birth to a boy or a girl he suggests “a chiromantic experiment”1067 which consists simply in asking her to hold out her hand. If she extends the right, the child will be a boy; if the left, a girl. He also expounds methods of augury at some length, although again stating that they are in the canons of the church, that is to say prohibited by canon law. The divisions of space employed in augury are twelve in number after the fashion of the signs of the zodiac.1068 Michael also discusses the significance of sneezes. If anyone sneezes twice or four times while engaged in some business and immediately rises and moves about, he will prosper in his undertaking. If one sneezes twice in the course of the night for three successive nights, it is a sign of death or some catastrophe in the house. If after making a contract one sneezes once, it is a sign that the agreement will be kept inviolate; but if one sneezes thrice, the pact will not be observed.1069
Divination from dreams.
Dreams and their interpretation are also discussed in the Physionomia.1070 The age of the dreamer, the phase of the moon, and the stage reached in the process of digestion, all have their bearing upon interpretation. A dream which occurs before the process of digestion has started either has no significance or concerns the past. The dream which comes while the food is being digested has to do with the present. Only when the process of digestion has been completed do dreams occur which signify concerning the future. In order to recall a dream in the morning Michael recommends sleeping upon one’s other side for the remainder of the night or rubbing the back of the head the next day. Some dreams signify gain, others loss; some joy, others sadness; some sickness, others health, others war; some labor, others rest. For instance, to catch a bird signifies gain, to lose a bird in one’s dream signifies loss; to mourn in dreams portends joy, to laugh indicates grief. The rest of his discussion of dreams Scot limits to their significance in matters of health and physical constitution. He takes up dreams indicative of predominance of blood, red cholera, phlegm, and melancholy respectively; of heat, cold, dryness, and humidity; of excess of humors and of bad humors.
Works of divination ascribed to Michael Scot.
While on the subject of divination we may note that a geomancy1071 and a chiromancy1072 have been ascribed to Michael Scot, and also prophetic verses concerning the fate of Italian cities in the style of the Sibylline verses and prophecies of Merlin. Brown held that the evidence for the authenticity of these verses was as convincing as that for any event in Scot’s life.1073
Medical writings.
It would not be surprising to find that Michael himself practiced medicine as well as astrology, in view of the attention given to human physiology and the process of generation in his Physiognomy and elsewhere, and the interest in biology which his translation of the Aristotelian works on animals evidences. A treatise on prognostication from the urine is ascribed to him1074 and “Pills of Master Michael Scot” are mentioned in at least one manuscript,1075 where they are declared to be good for all diseases and of virtue indescribable.
Occult virtues.
Michael’s general allusion to the occult virtue of words, herbs, and stones in the Liber introductorius may be supplemented by a few specific examples of the same from the other two divisions of his main work. In the Liber particularis he mentions such virtues of stones as the property of the agate to reveal various signs of demons and illusions of enchantment, and the power of the jasper to render its bearer rich, amiable, and eloquent.1076 In the Phisionomia he suggests that persons who cannot maintain physical health without frequent sexual intercourse may be able to do so by carrying a jasper or topaz.1077 He also states that bathing in the blood of a dog or of two-year-old infants mixed with hot water “undoubtedly cures leprosy,”1078 and that many sorceries can be wrought by use of the menstrual fluid, semen, hairs of the head, blood, and footprints in dust or mud.1079
Astrology in the Commentary on the Sphere .
Michael Scot’s Commentary upon the Sphere of Sacrobosco1080 confines itself rather more strictly to astronomical and astrological topics than did the Liber introductorius, but otherwise their contents are not dissimilar. In the Commentary Michael discusses such questions as whether the universe is eternal, one or many, and what form or figure it should have; whether the mover of the sky is moved, whether the stars are spherical bodies, and whether the zone between the tropic of Capricorn and the Antarctic Circle is temperate and inhabited. Also whether the elements are four in number, and whether the heavens include a ninth sphere. One argument against its existence is that there are no stars in it, on which account some hold that it would exert no influence upon the earth. But Michael replies that it has light apart from any starry bodies and by virtue of this light does exert influence. Other astrological questions which he raises are whether the signs of the zodiac should be designated by the names of animals, whether the first heaven is a more potent cause of generation and corruption than the circle of the zodiac is, whether celestial bodies have particular properties as terrestrial bodies do, whether the heavens are animate, whether their motion is natural or voluntary, whether the motion of the planets is rational, and whether supercelestial bodies act upon inferiors by virtue of their motion. In mentioning the departments of life over which the seven planets rule, Michael cites either theologians or astrologers1081 to the effect that Saturn signifies concerning pagans, Jews, and all other adversaries of the Faith, who are slow to believe just as Saturn is slow of movement and chilling in effect, while Jupiter is the sign of true believers and Christians.
Dionysius the Areopagite and the solar eclipse during Christ’s passion.
In commenting upon Sacrobosco’s concluding passage concerning the miraculous eclipse at the time of Christ’s passion and the remark attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, “Either the God of nature suffers or the machine of the universe is dissolved,” Michael explains that ancient Athens was divided into three parts. One of these was the shore which was consecrated to Neptune, but in place of the plain and the mountains, Michael appears to take a leaf out of Plato’s Republic and mentions the region of the warriors, dedicated to Pallas, goddess of war, and the residential quarter of the philosophers, named the Areopagus from Ares meaning virtue and pagus meaning villa. According to Michael the altar to the unknown god was erected by Dionysius the Areopagite at the time of the darkness and earthquake accompanying Christ’s passion, and when Paul came and preached the Christ whom he ignorantly worshiped, Dionysius was converted, and became a missionary to the Gauls, bishop of Paris, and finally gained a martyr’s crown.
Alchemy.
In the Liber Introductorius Michael seemed to associate alchemy with the magic arts. In his Commentary on the Sphere his attitude is more favorable. After citing the fourth book of the Meteorology and other passages from Aristotle to the effect that no element can be corrupted and hence the transmutation striven after by the alchemists is impossible, Michael explains that the word element may be taken in two senses. As a part of the universe it is neither generable nor corruptible, but in so far as an element is mixed with active and passive qualities, it is both generable and corruptible.1082
Works of alchemy ascribed to Michael Scot.
Thanks perhaps to this passage the composition or translation of several works of alchemy is ascribed to Michael Scot in manuscripts or printed editions. The Quaestio curiosa de natura Solis et Lunae, which was printed as Michael’s in two editions of the Theatrum Chemicum,1083 was apparently written after his death.1084 A Palermo manuscript contains among other alchemical tracts a “Book of Master Michael Scot in which is contained the mastery.”1085 In at least one manuscript Michael Scot is called the translator of the Liber luminis luminum, of which Rasis is elsewhere mentioned as the original author.1086 In an Oxford manuscript a De alchemia is attributed to Michael Scot. It is addressed to “you, great Theophilus, king of the Saracens”1087 rather than to the Emperor Frederick, and speaks of “the noble science” of alchemy as “almost entirely rejected among the Latins.” Michael Scot mentions himself by name in it rather too often for us to accept the treatise as his without question, while the allusions to “Brother Elias” the Franciscan as a fellow-worker in alchemy are perhaps also open to suspicion.
Brother Elias and alchemy.
We find, however, another suggestion of Brother Elias’s interest in alchemy and association therein with Michael Scot in the fact that in the same manuscript containing the translation of the Liber luminis luminum ascribed to Michael occurs another Liber lumen luminum which Brother Elias, General of the Friars Minor, edited in Latin for the Emperor Frederick.1088 A brother Cyprian translated it from Arabic into Latin for him. In view of the later interest of another Franciscan friar, Roger Bacon, in alchemy and the supposition which some have entertained that he was persecuted by his Order because of his experimental studies, this reputation of Brother Elias as an alchemist is interesting to note. One of St. Francis’s earliest followers, he succeeded him in 1226 as General of the Order. Deposed by the pope in 1230 on the charge of promoting schism in the Order, he was re-elected in 1236 and was again deposed by the pope in 1239, after which he joined the imperial party and was excommunicated from 1244 until just before his death in 1253.1089 Brown suggested that his alchemical activities were alluded to by the pope on the occasion of his first deposition in the words “mutari color optimus auri ex quo caput erat compactum.”1090 But if Elias was an alchemist, no open objection to this appears to have been made either by the pope or his Order. Indeed, many of the alchemists in Italy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were clergy and even friars.1091
Liber luminis luminum and De alchemia .
Brown has already discussed the contents of the Liber luminis luminum and De alchemia (or, alchimia)1092 but erroneously and from not quite the same standpoint as ours. He incorrectly interprets “the secrets of nature” which the writer says he has investigated as the title of a book which has formed his chief source.1093 Brown also states that one of several features which distinguishes the De alchemia from the Liber luminis “is an early passage which refers to the correspondence between the metals and the planets.”1094 But there is a similar passage connecting seven metals with the seven planets in the opening paragraph of his own printed text of the Liber luminis luminum.1095 The latter treatise, brief as it is, divides into five parts dealing with salts, alums, vitriols, spirits, and the preparation of alums, and the employment of these in transmutation. The De alchemia is less orderly in arrangement and seems largely a brief collection of particular recipes for transmutation.
Their further characteristics.
Both works emphasize the secret character of alchemy. The De alchemia holds forth concerning the great secret of Hermes and Ptolemy, and tells how most men’s eyes are blinded, and to how few the truth of the art is revealed. The Liber luminis luminum narrates that “when the great philosopher was dying he said to his son, ‘O my son, hold thy secret in thy heart, nor tell it to anyone, nor to thy son, unless when thou canst retain it no longer.’ Wise philosophers have yearned with yearning to know the truth of this salt. But few have known it and those who have known it have not told in their books the truth concerning it as they saw it.”1096 Both works also are largely experimental in form and in the De alchemia we are assured more than once that “I, Michael Scot, have experienced this many times.”1097 The books of the ancients and past philosophers are cited both in general and by name, but a black vitriol from France called French earth1098 and a gum found in Calabria and at Montpellier1099 are mentioned as well as herbs and minerals from India and Alexandria, and we also hear of the experiments of brother Elias, certain Saracens who seem of comparatively recent date, and of the operation at Catania or Cortona by master Jacob the Jew which “I afterwards proved many times.”1100 The Liber luminis luminum often speaks of “the great virtue” of this or that, and both treatises make much use of animal substances such as “dust of moles,” the urine of the taxo or of a boy, the blood of a ruddy man or of an owl or frog. Five toads are shut up in a vessel and made to drink the juices of various herbs with vinegar as the first step in the preparation of a marvelous powder for purposes of transmutation.1101
Liber introductorius: extant only in MSS, of which some are:
Bodleian 266, 15th century, 218 fols. “Quicumque vult esse bonus astrologus... /... finitur tractatus de notitia pronosticorum.” This is the MS which I have used.
CLM 10268, 14th century, 146 fols. Described by F. Boll (1903), p. 439. I tried to inspect this MS when I was in Munich in 1912 but it had been loaned out of the library at that time.
Brown further mentions BN nouv. acq. 1401 and an Escorial MS of the 14th century which I presume is the same as Escorial F-III-8, 14th century, fols. 1-126, “Incipit prohemium libri introductorii quem edidit Michael Scotus,” etc.
The following are perhaps extracts from the Liber Introductorius:
BN 14070, 13th-14th-15th century, fol. 112-, Mich. Scoti de notitia conjunctionis mundi terrestris cum celesti; fol. 115-, Eiusdem de presagiis stellarum.
Vienna 3124, 15th century, fols. 206-11, “Capitulum de hiis quae generaliter significantur in partibus duodecim celi sive domibus.”
Vatican 4087, fol. 38r, “Explicit liber quem edidit micael scotus de signis et ymaginibus celi.”
See also MSS mentioned by Brown at p. 27, note 2.
Liber particularis, or Astronomia; also extant only in MSS.
Canon. Misc. 555, early 14th century, fols. 1-59. “Cum ars astronomie sit grandis sermonibus philosophorum....” This is the MS I have used; others are:
Escorial E-III-15, 14th century, fols. 41-51, Michaelis Scoti ars astronomiae ad Federicum imperatorem II.
CLM 10663, 18th century, 261 fols., Michael Scot, Astronomia.
At Milan, Ambros. L. 92.
Phisionomia: eighteen editions are said to have appeared between 1477 and 1660. I have used the following text:
Michael Scot, De secretis naturae, Amsterdam, 1740, where it follows at pp. 204-328 the De secretis mulierum and other treatises ascribed to Albertus Magnus.
It occurs at fols. 59-88 of Canon. Misc. 555, immediately after the Liber particularis, and is found in other MSS.
Commentary on The Sphere of Sacrobosco.
Eximii atque excellentissimi physicorum motuum cursusque siderei indagatoris Michaelis Scoti super auctorem sperae cum questionibus diligenter emendatis incipit expositio confecta Illustrissimi Imperatoris Dn̄i D. Fedrici precibus, Bologna, 1495. I have also used an edition of 1518, and there are others.
Liber lumen luminum.
Riccardian 119, fols. 35v-37r, “Incipit liber luminis luminum translatus a magistro michahele scoto philosopho.”
I presume it is the same as the Lumen luminum ascribed to Rasis in BN 6517 and 7156—see Berthelot (1893), I, 68—but I have not compared them.
In the same Riccard. 119 at fol. 166r is a Liber lumen luminum ascribed to Brother Elias, general of the Franciscans. “Incipit liber alchimicalis quem frater helya edidit apud fredericum Imperatorem. Liber lumen luminum translatus de sarraceno ac arabico in latinum a fratre cypriano ac compositus in latinum a generali fratrum minorum super alchimicis. Incipit liber qui lumen luminum dicitur ex libris medicorum et experimentis et philosophorum et disciplinarum ex(t)ranearum.”
De alchimia (or, alchemia)
Corpus Christi 125, fols. 97v-100v, Michaelis Scoti ad Theophilum Saracenorum regem “de alkemia.” “Explicit tractatus magistri michaelis Scoti de alke.”
The above-mentioned books and manuscripts are those especially discussed and utilized in the present chapter. The following may be noted, since they are omitted by Brown, although they have little to do with our investigation:
Mensa philosophica. Of this brief work ascribed to Michael Scot several incunabula exist in the library of the British Museum.
Amplon. Folio 179, 14th century, fols. 98-99, “Liber translative theologie de decem kathegoriis.” The attribution of this to Michael Scot might be taken to support the tradition that he was a doctor of theology at Paris.
F. Boll (1903) states that the fourth distinctio is also missing in CLM 10268.
Cantor II (1913), p. 87, however, speaks of two different tomb inscriptions given by Vossius and Kästner but says that they agree on 1256 as the date of Sacrobosco’s death. The first line above quoted is sometimes interpreted as giving the date 1256 rather than 1244.
Notes
964 James Wood Brown, An inquiry into the life and legend of Michael Scot, Edinburgh, 1897. While this book has been sharply criticized (for instance, by H. Niese in HZ, CVIII (1912), p. 497) and has its failings, such as an unsatisfactory method of presenting its citations and authorities, it gives, obscured by much verbiage intended to make the book interesting and popular and much fanciful speculation as to what may have been, a more reliable account of Michael’s life and a fuller bibliography of his writings than had existed previously. But it must be used with caution.
965 The poem is printed in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XVIII (1878), p. 486. Yet Cantor II (1913), p. 7, has Michael outlive Frederick and transfer his residence to the court of Edward I of England.
966 Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 44v, “Quadam vice me michaelem scotum sibi fidelem inter ceteros astrologos domestice advocavit.”
967 That they are sections of one work is made clear from his statement at the end of the long preface to all three: Bodleian 266, fol. 25v; Boll (1903), p. 439, quotes the same passage from CLM 10268.
968 “Scolares novitii.”
969 The MSS say “Innocent IV,” but Michael had died before his pontificate.
970 Brown (1897), chapter II. Criticized by H. Niese in Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 108 (1912), p. 497, note 3.
971 Bologna University Library 693, 16th century, “Michaelis Scoti astronomi Salernitani liber de animalibus. Incipit liber primus de animalibus Avicenne rubrica. Frederice domine mundi Romanorum Imperator, suscipe devote hunc laborem Michaelis Scoti.”
972 Laurentian P. lxxxix, sup. cod. 38, 15th century, p. 409; printed in Brown (1897), pp. 231-4. Concerning Philip see also Brown, pp. 19, 36-7. The important passage in the MS is, “Explicit nicromantiae experimentum illustrissimi doctoris Domini Magistri Michaelis Scoti, qui summus inter alios nominatur Magister, qui fuit Scotus, et servus praeclarissimo Domino Philipo Regis Ceciliae coronato; quod destinavit sibi dum esset aegrotus in civitate Cordubae, etc. Finis.” Brown, p. 19, translates the last clause, “which experiment he (i. e., Michael) contrived when he lay sick in the city of Cordova,” and so concludes that Scot visited that city; but I should translate it, “which he (Michael) sent to him (Philip) while he (Philip) lay sick in the city of Cordova.” Otherwise why is Philip mentioned at all?
973 Brown, p. 104, citing Jourdain, Recherches, p. 133, who called attention to two Paris MSS, Anciens fonds 7399 and Fonds de Sorbonne 1820, in one of which the MS is dated 1217, while the other gives the year as 1255 which is the exactly corresponding year of the Spanish era. Arsenal 1035, 14th century, fol. 112, a MS not noted by Jourdain or Brown, states the year as 1207 A. D., but this is evidently a mistake for 1217, since it gives the same day of the week and month as the other MSS and August 18th fell on Friday in 1217, but not in 1207. BN 16654, 13th century, fol. 33, gives the date as 1217.
974 P. 55, arguing from a Vatican MS which is described at pp. 235-7.
975 “Glosa magistri al. Explicit anno domini mccx.”
976 Gonville and Caius 109, fols. 102v-103r, written in a different hand from the text of the History of Animals, “Et iuro ego michael scotus qui dedi hunc librum latinitati quod in anno MCCXXI, xii kal. novembr. die mercurii....”
977 Perhaps the year is correct, but “xii kal.” should be “xiii kal.”
978 HL XX, 47; Brown (1897), p. 14; both citing Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., 1656-1675.
979 See Denifle et Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 1889, I, 104, for a letter of Honorius III of January 16, 1224, asking Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, to secure a benefice for Michael Scot whom he calls “singularly gifted in science among men of learning”: and Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, Rome, 1864, p. 23, for a letter of Honorius III of June in the same year, stating that Michael has declined the archbishopric of Cashel and appointing another man. Brown has incorrectly dated both letters in 1223.
980 Denifle and Chatelain, I, 110.
981 For the date and MSS see Boncompagni, Intorno ad alcune opere di Leonardo Pisano, Rome, 1854, pp. 2 and 129-30.
982 Bridges (1897) I, 55; in Jebb’s edition, pp. 35-6.
983 Rigordus de Gestis Philippi II; quoted in the Leo XIII edition of Aquinas, Rome, 1882, vol. I, p. cclix, “legi Parisiis coepisse libellos quosdam aristotelis, qui docebant metaphysicum, de novo Constantinopoli delatos et a graeco in latinum translatos.”
984 P. Duhem, “Du temps où la Scolastique latine a connu la physique d’Aristote,” in Revue de philosophie, August, 1909, pp. 163-78, argues that the Physics was known to Latins in the twelfth century.
985 Petrus de Vineis III, ep. lxvii; Latin cited in Dissertation 23 in vol. I of the Rome, 1882, edition of the works of Aquinas. Frederick II is not even mentioned in Grabmann’s dissertation on the translation of Aristotle in the thirteenth century. In the preface to his De arte venandi cum avibus Frederick refuses to follow Aristotle who, he says, had little or no practice in falconry: Haskins, EHR XXXVI (1921) 343-4.
986 The letter of Manfred accompanied his gift to the University of Paris of copies of the translations made for him. See Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, 435-6.
987 Renan, Averroès et Averroïsme, p. 188.
988 Grabmann (1916), pp. 143-4, 175-6, 186-7, 198.
989 BN 17155, 13th century, fol. 225-.
990 Brown, 145.
991 Brown, 119, Brewer (1859), p. 91.
992 Meteor. III, iv. 26 (Borgnet, IV, 697).
993 See Jourdain, Recherches, etc., and more recently H. Stadler, “Irrtümer des Albertus Magnus bei Benutzung des Aristoteles,” in Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Naturwissenschaften u. d. Technik, VI (1913) 387-93.
994 De Renzi, I, 292.
995 Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 6.
996 Sphere (1518), p. 106.
997 Ibid., p. 107.
998 Gonville and Caius 109, fol. 1O2v-1O3r.
999 C. H. Haskins, “The ‘De Arte Venandi cum Avibus’ of the Emperor Frederick II,” EHR XXXVI (1921) 334-55.
1000 Bodleian 266, fols. 1r-v. Future citations, unless otherwise specified, will be to this MS.
1001 It extends from fol. 2 to fol. 19.
1002 fol. 4r.
1003 fol. 10r.
1004 fols. 11v-12r.
1005 fol. 17v.
1006 fol. 3r-v.
1007 fols. 2 and 20v.
1008 fols. 21v-22r.
1009 fol. 22r.
1010 fol. 22v.
1011 In another passage at fol. 23r which speaks of a magus as inspecting entrails of animals I take it that the word is a slip of the copyist for haruspex.
1012 fol. 175r.
1013 fol. 22v.
1014 Printed by Brown (1897), pp. 231-4.
1015 Ibid., p. 18.
1016 At least in the MS which I have used; Bodleian 266, fols. 24r-25r.
1017 What purported to be this work is listed in the Speculum astronomiae of Albertus Magnus, and Haskins, “Nimrod the Astronomer,” Romanic Review, V. (1914), 203-12, has called attention to the following MSS: S. Marco VIII, 22; Vatic. Pal. Lat. 1417; and an extract in Ashmole 191. Haskins notes various mentions of Nimrod as an astronomer in medieval authors, but not the above passage from Michael Scot. Although Latin writers make Ioathon or Ionaton (and various other spellings) the disciple of Nimrod, in Syrian writers Ionitus is the fourth son of Noah and himself the discoverer of astronomy and teacher of Nimrod (Haskins, op. cit. 210-11).
1018 The word Explicit is written across the knees of a figure of the giant Athalax or Caclon who supports the heavens on his head at fol. 25r, col. 1, but the passage concerning “Gilbertus” follows and the proper Explicit of the preface does not occur until fol. 25v, col. 1. See Haskins, op. cit. p. 207 for pictures in the MSS of Atlas and Nimrod side by side, the one standing on the Pyrenees and supporting the starry firmament; the other on the mount of the Amorites bearing the starless heavens.
1019 fol. 28r-v; also Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 22r.
1020 fol. 68v.
1021 fol. 21v.
1022 Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 17v.
1023 fol. 29v.
1024 fols. 150v-158r.
1025 fol. 172.
1026 fol. 145v.
1027 fol. 128v.
1028 fols. 30r, 31r.
1029 fol. 174r.
1030 fol. 144v.
1031 fol. 173v.
1032 fol. 173r, “Nam tot sunt medicine quot sunt infirmitates et hae constant in tribus videlicet in verbis, herbis, et lapidibus, virtutes quorum quotidie videmus ut in hostia sacrata super altare, in magnete et ferro navigantes in alto mari, et in emplastris, pulveribus, et consertis.”
1033 fol. 175v.
1034 fols. 32v-35r.
1035 Hist. Animal. V, xix, 4.
1036 fol. 35r, “de zuccaro et zaccara. Saccarum et zathara non sunt liquores vaporabiles ut mel et manna sed sit de medula cannarum.”
1037 fols. 44r et seq.; fols. 150-8.
1038 fol. 75r et seq.; fols. 108-114.
1039 fols. 117-8.
1040 fol. 89.
1041 fol. 124 et seq.; fols. 132-5.
1042 fols. 145v-147v.
1043 fol. 45r.
1044 fols. 162v-163.
1045 fol. 164v.
1046 fol. 165.
1047 fol. 176r-v.
1048 fol. 177v.
1049 fol. 28r.
1050 fols. 178-218.
1051 As Madan’s description of the MS says, “The first book contains four distinctiones, of which the second ends on fol. 178, but it is difficult to state whether the MS contains anything beyond the first portion of the third distinctio of this first book, owing to the absence of decisive rubrics.”
1052 BN 7438, 15th century.
1053 In a footnote at page 185, from Bodl. 266, fol. 113.
1054 fol. 162r.
1055 Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 4.
1056 Bodleian 266, fol. 47r.
1057 Phisionomia (1740) cap. xi, p. 235.
1058 Ibid., cap. ix, p. 229.
1059 Or Phisonomia as it is often spelled in the medieval texts themselves.
1060 Brown (1897), 32 and 37.
1061 Edition of 1740, p. 210, “Et secundum cursum corporum superiorum sicut dispositionem corporum concipientium foetus recipit similiter et semel omnia et singula quae postea discernunt ordinem temporum et naturae.”
1062 Cap. 7 (1740), p. 226.
1063 Cap. 8 (1740), p. 228.
1064 Cap. 3 (1740), p. 218; cap. 10, p. 230.
1065 Cap. 2 (1740), p. 213.
1066 Cap. 7 (1740), p. 227.
1067 Cap. 18 (1740), p. 248, “In chiromantia est illud experimentum....”
1068 De notitia auguriorum, cap. 57 (1740), p. 285.
1069 Cap. 58 (1740), pp. 288, 289, 290.
1070 Caps. 46-56 (1740), p. 280, et seq.
1071 CLM 489, 16th century.
1072 Chiromantica Scientia, quarto minori sine notis typographicis, foliis 28 constat impressis. “Ex divina philosophorum academia secundum nature vires ad extra chyromantitio diligentissime collectum. Exordium.” Cl. Denis, qui alias editiones huius operis adfert, Michaelum Scotum auctorem eiusdem censeri tradit.
1073 Brown (1897), 163 et seq.
1074 Vatican, Regina di Svezia, 1159, fol. 149, “Finis urinarum Magistri Michaelis Scoti.” To the two MSS listed by Brown, p. 153, note 6, containing an Italian translation, may be added Perugia 316, 15th century, fols. 91-106, “Qui chomenza el tractato delle orine secondo come mete maistro Michelle sthato strollogo del re Ferigo ai nostri bexogni.”
1075 Addit. 24068, 13th century, fol. 97v.
1076 Canon. Misc. 555, fol. 50r-v.
1077 (1740), p. 222.
1078 Phisionomia, cap. 14 (1740), p. 241.
1079 Ibid., cap. 10, p. 233.
1080 If the ascription of this Commentary to Michael is correct, probably either he wrote it toward the end of his life or Sacrobosco composed the Sphere fairly early in his career, since he appears to have outlived Michael and to have composed his Computus ecclesiasticus or De anni ratione in 1244: see Duhem III (1915), p. 240. The lines quoted in DNB “John Holywood or Halifax” as on his tomb in the cloister of the Mathurins and as having reference to the date of his death are really the verses at the close of his Computus ecclesiasticus:
“M Christi bis C quarto deno quater anno
De Sacro Bosco discrevit tempora ramus
Gratia cui dederat nomen divina Johannes,” etc.
1081 In the editio princeps of 1495 the marginal heading is, “Quid de planetis sentiunt theologi,” but in the text we read “thrologi,” which is possibly derived from “asthrologi” by a dropping off of the first syllable.
1082 Edition of 1495, fol. b-ii, verso.
1083 Strasburg, 1622 and 1659.
1084 And is not a chapter from the Liber Introductorius; see Brown, 77-8.
1085 Liber Magistri Michaelis Scotti in quo continetur Magisterium, No. 44 in a MS belonging to the Speciale family. I have not seen the MS. It is described briefly by Brown, 78-80; see further S. A. Carini, Sulle Scienze Occulte nel Medio Evo, Palermo, 1872.
1086 See bibliographical note at the beginning of this chapter.
[1087] This expression occurs in the course of the text itself—Corpus Christi 125, fol. 97r—in addition to the words scratched in the upper margin at the beginning by another hand, “Michael Scotus Theophilo Regi Saracenorum.” The conclusion of the treatise is in a 14th century hand, the remainder in a 15th century hand.
1088 See bibliographical note at opening of this chapter.
[1089] Brown, p. 91, citing Wadding, I, 109.
1090 Brown, p. 91, note 2.
1091 Berthelot (1893) II, 74 and 77; Lippmann (1919) 481. I doubt if there is much ground for their further assertion that such clerics fell easily under suspicion of heresy and hence wrote in ciphers like Roger Bacon’s for gunpowder. At p. 688 I have refuted the notion that Bacon employed a cipher to conceal the recipe for gunpowder.
1092 In his fourth chapter, “The Alchemical Studies of Michael Scot.”
1093 If the title of any book were meant, it would rather be Michael’s own De secretis naturae, since he not only says, “Cum rimarer et inquirerem secreta naturae ex libris antiquorum philosophorum....,” but also, “Quedam extraxi et ea secretis nature adiunxi....”
1094 P. 92.
1095 P. 240, “Et notum est quod sicut 7 sunt metalla ita 7 sunt planete et quodlibet metallum habet suum planetam,” etc.
1096 For Latin text see Brown, p. 248. The same passage occurs in another alchemical treatise, Liber Dedali philosophi, which Brown printed on opposite pages to the text of the Liber luminis luminum.
1097 Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99v, “et ego multotiens sum expertus,” fol. 100r, “Et ego michael scotus multotiens sum expertus,” etc.
1098 Brown, p. 262, “Vitriolum nigrum apportatur de Francia et idcirco dicitur terra francigena. Cum isto mulieres vulvam constringunt ut virgines appareant. Non est autem magne utilitatis in ista arte.”
1099 Corpus Christi 125, fol. 99r.
1100 Ibid., fol. 100r, “Et ego vidi istam operationem scilicet apud cartanam a magistro jacobo iudeo et ego postea multotiens probavi....”
1101 Brown, p. 252, for Latin text.