Chapter XXXIV: Marbod, Bishop of Rennes, 1035—1123 (7)

[2015] _De anima_, cap. 57. Damigeron is mentioned in the Orphic poem, _Lithica_, and in the _Apology_ of Apuleius, cap. 45; is cited in the _Geoponica_, and was regarded by V. Rose as the Greek source of the Latin “Evax” and Marbod on stones. BN 7418, 14th century, _Amigeronis de lapidibus_, was printed by Pitra, _Spic. Solesm._, III, 324-35, and Abel, _Orphei Lithica_, p. 157, _et seq._ See further PW, “Damigeron.”

[2016] Presumably Nectanebus.

[2017] It is Aaron’s rod in the King James version.

[2018] _De idolatria_, cap. 9.

[2019] _Apology_, cap. 35.

[2020] PL, vol. 3; AN, vol. 4.

[2021] Thus Minucius Felix says, _Octavius_, cap. 26, “Magi ... quidquid miraculi ludunt ... praestigias edunt,” while Tertullian, _Apology_, cap. 23, writes, “Porro si et magi phantasmata edunt ... si multa miracula circulatoriis praestigiis ludunt.”

[2022] Cyprian, _Liber de idolorum vanitate_, caps. 6-7.

[2023] PL, vol. VI; AN, vol. VII; the following references are all to this work.

[2024] V, 3.

[2025] II, 15.

[2026] II, 17.

[2027] IV, 27.

[2028] II, 17.

[2029] The work was discovered in 1842 at Mount Athos and edited by E. Miller in 1851, Duncker and Schneidewin in 1859, and Abbé Cruice in 1860. Greek text in PG, vol. XVI, part 3; English translation in AN, vol. V.

[2030] R. Ganschinietz, _Hippolytos’ Capitel gegen die Magier_, 1913, in TU, 39, 2, is a commentary on the text.

[2031] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 28.

[2032] Since writing this sentence I have found an article by Diels on the discovery of alcohol in _Societas Regia Scientiarum, Abhandl. Philos.-Hist. Classe_, Berlin, 1913, in which he argues from this passage in Hippolytus that the discovery was made in the Alexandrian period and that it reached western Europe again only through the Arabs about the twelfth century, since alcohol is not mentioned in the older Schlettstadt version of the _Mappae clavicula_. If this be so, Adelard of Bath was perhaps the first to introduce it from the Arabs or the orient, although Diels does not say so.

[2033] _Refutation of All Heresies_, IV, 29-41.

[2034] In some places the text is illegible.

[2035] Cap. 105.

[2036] Leo Allatius “in syntagmate” _De engastrimytho_, cap. 7; Sulpicius Severus, _Historia sacra_, liber I; Anastasius Antiochenus, Ὁδηγός, quaest., 112; “et eorum quos laudat Bellarminus liber IV _de Christo_, cap. 11.”

[2037] Περὶ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου, PG, XLV, 107-14.

[2038] Migne, PG, XVIII, 613-74.

[2039] The King James version, First Samuel, XXVIII, 19, reads, “and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,” instead of “thou and Jonathan.”

[2040] Migne, PG, XII, 143-74.

[2041] Migne, PG, LVI, 61, _et seq._

[2042] Migne, PG, LVI, 637, _et seq._ _Homily_ II, “Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum quod Chrysostomi nomine circumfertur.” _Ibid._, 602, _et seq._, for opinions of various past writers as to its authenticity.

[2043] Migne, PG, LX, 274-5, in the 38th homily on the Book of Acts.

[2044] On the other hand, D. Friedrich Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen: Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr Christi_, Kopenhagen, 1827, adopted the astrological theory that the star of Bethlehem was really a major conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in Pisces, which Jewish tradition, too, seems to have regarded as the sign of the Messiah, and that therefore Jesus was born in 6 B. C. This view had already been advanced by Kepler, but recent writers seem to prefer a conjunction in Aries: see H. G. Voigt, _Die Geschichte Jesu und die Astrologie_, Leipzig, 1911; Kritzinger, _Der Stern der Weisen_, Gütersloh, 1911; von Oefele, _Die Angaben der Berliner Planetentafel P8279 verglichen mit der Geburtsgeschichte Christi im Berichte des Matthäus_, Berlin, 1903, in _Mitteil. d. Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_.

[2045] Mâle, _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 208, was not able to trace the legend that the star of the Magi appeared with the face of a child beyond _The Golden Legend_ compiled by James of Voragine in the thirteenth century. We shall, however, find it mentioned in the twelfth century by Abelard, who derived it from this spurious homily of Chrysostom.

[2046] They are twice so represented on the elaborately carved Christian sarcophagus in the museum at Syracuse, Sicily, where also the manger, ox, and ass are shown (compare note 4 below).

[2047] Hugo Kehrer, _Die Heiligen drei Könige in Litteratur und Kunst_, Leipzig, 1908, 2 vols. An earlier work on the three Magi is Inchofer, _Tres Magi Evangelici_, Rome, 1639.

[2048] J. C. Thilo, _Eusebii Alexandrini oratio_ Περὶ ἀστρονόμων (_praemissa de magis et stella quaestione_) _e Cod. Reg. Par. primum edita_, Progr. Halae, 1834.

[2049] A. Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Astrologie grecque_, 1899, p. 611, “La royauté des Mages fut inventée (vers le VIe siècle), comme la crèche (_sic!_ see Luke, II, 12 and 16), le bœuf et l’âne pour montrer l’accomplissement des prophéties.”

[2050] _Religious Art in France_, 1913, p. 214 note, following, I presume, Kehrer’s work, as he does on p. 213.

[2051] For detailed references see Münter, _Der Stern der Weisen_, 1827, p. 15; and Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, p. 611, where they are stated somewhat differently.

[2052] _Comm. in Platonis Timaeum_, II, vi, 125; quoted by Münter (1827), pp. 27-8.

[2053] BN 16819, fol. 49r. Corpus Christi 134, early 12th century, fol. 1 v., has a brief “Magorum trium qui Domino Infanti aurum obtulere nomina et descriptio.”

[2054] Cotton Galba E, VIII, 15th century, fols. 3-28, Fabulosa narratio de tribus magis qui Christum adorarunt sive de tribus regibus Coloniensibus.

[2055] Cap. 12 in the 1478 edition.

[2056] _Ibid._, cap. 34.

[2057] At Munich all the following MSS are 15th century: CLM 18621, fol. 135, _Liber trium regum_, fol. 215, _Legenda trium regum excerpta ex praecedenti_; 19544, fols. 314-49, and 26688, fols. 157-92, _Laudes et gesta trium regum_, etc.; 21627, fols. 212-31, _Historia de tribus regibus_; 23839, fols. 112-37, and 24571, fols. 50-104, _Gesta trium regum_; 25073, fols. 260-83, _de nativitate domini et de tribus regibus_. At Berlin MSS 799 and 800, both of the 15th century, have the _Gesta trium regum_ ascribed to John of Hildesheim. So Wolfenbüttel 3266, anno 1461. The printed edition of 1478 in 46 chapters and about 30 folios is also ascribed to John of Hildesheim. We read on the binding, “Ioannis Hildeshemensis Liber de trium regum translatione.” The Incipit is: “Reverendissimo in Christo patri ac domino domino florencio de weuelkouen divina providencia monasteriensis ecclesie episcopo dignissimo.” The colophon is: “Liber de gestis ac trina beatissimorum trium regum translacione ... per me Johannem guldenschoff de moguncia.” Some other MSS, also of the 15th century, are: Vatic. Palat. Lat. 859, de gestis et translationibus trium regum, and at Oxford, University College 33, Liber collectus de gestis et translationibus sanctorum trium regum de Colonia; Laud Misc., 658, The history of the three kings of Cologne, in forty-one chapters with a preface. It is thus seen that the number of chapters varies. Coxe’s catalogue of the Laud MSS states that the Latin original was printed at Cologne in quarto in 1481, and that it is very different from the version printed by Wynkyn de Worde. “The Story of the Magi,” in Bodleian (Bernard) 2325, covers only folio 68. At Amiens is a MS which the catalogue dates in the 14th century and ascribes to John of Hildesheim, and its Incipit is practically that of the printed edition: Amiens 481, fols. 1-58, “Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac domino domino Florentino de Wovellonem (_sic_) divina providencia Monasteriensis ecclesie episcopo dignissimo. Cum venerandissimorum trium Magorum, ymo verius trium Regum.” The work ends in the MS with the words, “... summi Regis servant legem incole Colonie. Amen. Explicit hystoria.”

[2058] BN 16819, 10th century, fols. 46r-49r.

[2059] Marco Polo (I, 13-14, ed. Yule and Cordier, 1903, vol. I, 78-81), who located the Magi in Saba, Persia, recounts further legends concerning them and their gifts.

See also F. W. K. Müller, _Uigurica_, I, i, _Die Anbetung der Magier, ein Christliches Bruchstück_, Berlin, 1908.

[2060] Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, I, 274, says, “Augustine and Chrysostom felt and spoke in the same way, though in more measured language, and nearly all early Christian writers who touched upon the matter did so to echo the voice of authorities so unquestioned.” But I cannot agree with this statement. He goes on to imply that a majority of the fathers, like Cosmas Indicopleustes, attacked the belief in the sphericity of the earth; but here, too, I wonder if he is not following Letronne, _Des Opinions Cosmographiques des Pères_, without having examined the citations. Certainly no such attitude is found in Basil’s _Hexaemeron_, Hom. 3 and 9 as the citation implies. I have not seen Marinelli, _La geographia e i Padri della Chiesa, estratto dal Bollettino della Società geografica italiana_, anno 1882, pp. 11-15.

[2061] _Divin. Instit._, III, 24.

[2062] Migne, PG, vol. 29; PN, vol. 8.

[2063] Duhem (1914) II, 394, however, prefers Gregory of Nyssa’s work as “à la fois plus sobre, plus concis, et plus philosophique....”

[2064] Homily I was delivered in the morning, II in the evening; III was in the morning and speaks of a coming evening address. At the close of Homily VII Basil urges his hearers to talk over at their evening meal what they have heard this morning and this evening. If we regard Homily VI as the morning address referred to, we shall have Homily V left to cover an entire day. Homily VI, however, is the longest of the nine. In any case Homily VIII is clearly preached in the morning, and IX at evening.

[2065] Bk. II, caps. 10-17.

[2066] _Epistola 65, ad Pammachium._ Augustine’s _De Genesi ad litteram_, which Cassiodorus (_Institutes_, I, 1) esteemed above the commentaries of Basil and Ambrose upon Genesis, is a somewhat similar work, but, after a briefer treatment of the work of creation, continues to comment on the text up to Adam’s expulsion from Paradise.

[2067] Migne, PL, 14, 131-2. The most recent edition of the _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose is by C. Schenkl. Vienna, 1896.

[2068] Fialon, _Étude sur St. Basile_, 1869, p. 296.

[2069] Homily IX.

[2070] For example, in the catalogue, published in 1744, of MSS in the then Royal Library at Paris there are listed five copies of Eustathius’ Latin translation, dating from the ninth to the fourteenth century—2200, 4; 1701, 1; 1702, 1; 1787A, 2; 2633, 1; and fifteen copies of the _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose—1718; 1702, 2; 1719 to 1727 inclusive; 2387, 4; 2637 and 2638.

I have not noted what MSS of the _Hexaemerons_ of Basil and Ambrose are found in the British Museum and Bodleian libraries. Some other medieval copies of Basil’s in Latin translation are: BN 12134, 9th century Lombard hand; Vendôme 122, 11th century, fols. 1 v-60; Soissons 121, 12th century, fol. 97, Eustathius’ prologue and a part of his translation; Grenoble 258, 12th century, fols. 1-45, “Eustathii translatio....”

The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose, since written originally in Latin, is naturally found oftener. The oldest MS is said to be CU Corpus Christi 193, large Lombard script of the 8th century which closely resembles BN 3836. Other MSS are: BN 11624, 11th century; BN 12135, 9th century; BN 12136, 12-13th century; BN 13336, 11th century; BN 14847, 12th century, fol. 163; BN nouv. acq. 490, 12th century; Vatican 269-273 inclusive, 10-15th centuries; Alençon 10, 12th century; Vendôme 129, 12th century, fols. 48-126; Semur, 10, 12th century; Chartres 63, 10-11th century, fols. 3-46; Orléans 35, 11th century; Orléans 192, 7th century, part of the first two books only; Amiens fonds Lescalopier 30, 12th century; le Mans 15, 11th century; Brussels 1782, 10th century; CLM 2549, 12th century; CLM 3728, 10th century; CLM 6258, 10th century; CLM 13079, 12th century; CLM 14399, 12th century; Novara 40, 12th century; and many other MSS of later date in these and other libraries.

[2071] _De proprietatibus rerum_, VIII, 4.

[2072] Bede, _Hexaemeron, sive libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et electionem Ismaelis_, in Migne, PL, 91, 9-100. Bede originally intended to carry his work only to the expulsion of Adam from Paradise, but subsequently added three more books.

[2073] Homilies I, VIII, and X.

[2074] Homily III, 1 and 10.

[2075] I, 7; III, 5 and 10.

[2076] IV, 1.

[2077] I, 7; III, 5; IV, 3, 4, and 7; VI, 9; VII, 6.

[2078] II, 7; III, 10.

[2079] IV, 1; VI, 1.

[2080] VIII, 8.

[2081] Homily V, 10; IX, 2.

[2082] I, 3.

[2083] II, 1.

[2084] III, 3.

[2085] II, 4, _et seq._

[2086] III, 9.

[2087] Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, Introduction, pp. xxxi, xxxix.

[2088] Irenaeus, I, 5; Epiphanius, ed. Petavius 186AB.

[2089] Homily I, 10.

[2090] VI, 9-11.

[2091] I, 11.

[2092] II, 7.

[2093] IV, 2-4.

[2094] Homily IV, 4.

[2095] IV, 6.

[2096] V, 2.

[2097] IV, 5.

[2098] III, 4.

[2099] VI, 1.

[2100] Homily V, 3.

[2101] V, 9.

[2102] V, 4.

[2103] V, 6.

[2104] VII, 5; IX, 3.

[2105] VIII, 6.

[2106] Homily VII, 6.

[2107] IX, 3.

[2108] VIII, 5. See also Aristotle, _History of Animals_, V, 8.

[2109] Homily VIII, 6.

[2110] IX, 2.

[2111] IX, 5.

[2112] Homily, VI, 11.

[2113] V, 1.

[2114] VI, 3.

[2115] _Ad Autolycum_, II, 15.

[2116] Homily VI, 5-7.

[2117] Homily VI, 10.

[2118] V, 2.

[2119] V, 7. But perhaps he simply means that oaks will grow where pines used to.

Tertullian, _De pallio_, cap. 2, dwelling on the law of change, speaks of the washing down of soil from mountains, the alluvial formation by rivers, and of sea-shells on mountain tops as a proof that the whole earth was once covered by water. He seems to have in mind a gradual process of geological evolution rather than Noah’s flood, and Sir James Frazer states that Isidore of Seville is the first he knows of the many writers who have appealed “to fossil shells imbedded in remote mountains as witnesses to the truth of the Noachian tradition,”—_Origines_, XIII, 22, cited by J. G. Frazer, _Folk-Lore in the Old Testament_ (1918), I, 159, who cites the passage in Tertullian at pp. 338-9.

[2120] Homily IX, 2.

[2121] Cunningham, _Christian Opinion on Usury_, p. 9.

[2122] Twice in the course of the _Panarion_ (Dindorf, I, 280, and II, 428; Petavius, 2D and 404A) he gives the year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens, namely, the eleventh and the twelfth.

[2123] Lucian’s _De dipsadibus_ will be recalled; see also Pliny, NH, XXIII, 80; Lucan, _Pharsalia_, IX, 719.

[2124] Pliny, NH, XXIII, 18; XXX, 10.

[2125] Pliny, NH, XXV, 53; XXI, 92; XIX, 62; XII, 40 and 55.

[2126] Dindorf, II, 450; Petavius, 422C.

[2127] _Liber de XII gemmis rationalis summi sacerdotis Hebraeorum_, published in Dindorf’s edition of the _Opera_ of Epiphanius, vol. IV, pp. 141-248, with the preface and notes of Fogginius, and both the Latin and Greek versions.

[2128] _Ibid._, 160-62.

[2129] P. 174.

[2130] Pp. 190-91.

[2131] _Ibid._, 184.

[2132] Pitra, _Spicilegium Solesmense_, Paris, 1855, III, xlvii-lxxx. K. Ahrens, _Zur Geschichte des sogenannten Physiologus_, 1885. M. F. Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_. Heilbronn, 1888, pp. 16-33, “Entstehung des Physiologus und seine Entwicklung im Abendlande.” F. Lauchert, _Geschichte des Physiologus_, Strassburg, 1889. E. Peters, _Der griechische Physiologus und seine orientalischen Uebersetzungen_, Berlin, 1898. M. Goldstaub, _Der Physiologus und seine Weiterbildung, besonders in der lateinischen und in der byzantinischen Litteratur_, in _Philologus_, Suppl. Bd. VIII (1898-1901), 337-404. Also in _Verhandl. d. 41. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schulmänner in München_, Leipzig (1892), pp. 212-21. V. Schultze, _Der Physiologus in der kirchlichen Kunst des Mittelalters_, in _Christliches Kunstblatt_, XXXIX (1897), 49-55. J. Strzygowski, _Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus_, in _Byz. Zeitsch._ Ergänzungsheft, I (1899). E. P. Evans, _Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture_, 1896, is disappointing, being mainly compiled from secondary sources and having little to say on ecclesiastical architecture.

[2133] EB, 11th ed., “Arthropoda.”

[2134] Lauchert (1889), pp. 229-79, attempts a critical edition of the Greek text.

[2135] Pitra (1855), III, 374-90; French translation in Cahier, _Nouveaux mélanges_ (1874), I, 117, _et seq._

[2136] O. G. Tychsen, _Physiologus Syrus_, 1795; from an incomplete Vatican MS. Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 31, _et seq._, or in _Anecdota Syriaca_, IV, 115, _et seq._, gives the complete text with a Latin translation.

[2137] Hommel, _Die aethiopische Uebersetzung des Physiologus_, Leipzig, 1877. A bit of it was translated by Pitra (1855), III, 416-7.

[2138] Land, _Otia Syriaca_, p. 137, _et seq._, with Latin translation. A fragment in Pitra (1855), III, 535.

[2139] Pitra (1855), III, 338-73, used MSS from the 13th to 15th century. The earliest known illuminated copies are of 1100 A. D. and later: see Dalton, _Byzantine Art and Archaeology_, Oxford, 1911, pp. 481-2.

[2140] The oldest Latin MSS seem to be two of the 8th and 9th centuries at Berne. Edited by Mai, _Classici auctores_, Rome, 1835, VII, 585-96, and more completely by Pitra (1855), III, 418; also by G. Heider, in _Archiv f. Kunde österreich. Geschichtsquellen_, Vienna, 1850, II, 545; Cahier et Martin, _Mélanges d’archéologie_, Paris, II (1851), 85ff., III (1853), 203ff., IV (1856), 55ff. Cahier, _Nouveaux mélanges_ (1874), p. 106ff.

Mann (1888), pp. 37-73, prints the Latin text which he regards as William le Clerc’s source from Royal 2-C-XII, and gives a list of other MSS of Latin Bestiaries in English libraries.

Other medieval Latin Bestiaries have been printed in the works of Hildebert of Tours or Le Mans (Migne, PL, 171, 1217-24: really this poem concerning only twelve animals is by Theobald, who was perhaps abbot at Monte Cassino, 1022-1035, and it was printed under the name of Theobald before 1500,—see the volume numbered IA.12367 in the British Museum and entitled, _Phisiologus Theobaldi Episcopi de naturis duodecim animalium_. Indeed, it was printed at least nine times under his name,—see Hain, 15467-75): and in the works of Hugh of St. Victor (Migne, PL, 177, 9-164, _De bestiis et aliis rebus libri quatuor_). Both of these versions occur in numerous MSS, as does a third version which opens with citation of the remark of Jacob in blessing his sons, “Judah is a lion’s whelp.” The author then cites _Physiologus_ as usual concerning the three natures of the lion. See Wolfenbüttel 4435, 11th century, fols. 159-68v, Liber bestiarum. “De leone rege bestiarum et animalium (est) etenim iacob benedicens iudam ait Catulus leonis iuda. De leone. Leo tres naturas habet.” Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol. 140-, ... caps. 36, praevia tabula ... Tit. “De tribus naturis leonis.” Incip. “Bestiarium seu animalium regis; etenim Jacob benedicens filium suum Udam ait Catulus leonis Judas filius meus quis suscitabit eum; Fisiologus dicit, Tres res naturales habere leonem....” Library of Dukes of Burgundy 10074, 10th century, “Etenim Jacob benedicens.” CLM 19648, 15th century, fols. 180-95, “Igitur Jacob benedicens.” CLM 23787, 15th century, fols. 12-20, “Igitur Jacob benedicens.” CU Trinity 884, 13th century in a fine hand, with 107 English miniatures, fol. 89-, “Et enim iacob benedicens filium suum iudam ait catulus leonis est iudas filius meus”; this MS ends imperfectly.

[2141] Printed by Lauchert (1889), pp. 280-99.

[2142] Max F. Mann, _Der Physiologus des Philipp von Thaon und seine Quellen_, Halle, 1884, 53 pp.

[2143] Mann, _Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume Le Clerc_, Heilbronn, 1888, in _Französische Studien_, VI, 2, pp. 201-306. Most recent edition by Robert, Leipzig, 1890.

[2144] Besides the two foregoing see Goldstaub und Wendriner, _Ein tosco-venez. Bestiarius_, Halle, 1892. Magliabech. IV, 63, 13th century, mutilated, 53 fols., bestiario moralizato, in Italian prose. E. Monaci, _Rendiconti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filol._, vol. V, fasc. 10 and 12, has edited a Bestiario in 64 sonetti on as many animals from a private MS at “Gubbio nell’ archivio degli avvocati Pietro e Oderisi Lucarelli,” MS 25, fols. 112-27. See also M. Garver and K. McKenzie, _Il Bestiario Toscano secondo la lezione dei codice di Parigi e di Roma_, in _Studi romanzi_, Rome, 1912; McKenzie, _Unpublished Manuscripts of Italian Bestiaries_, in _Modern Language Publications_, XX (1905), 2; and Garver, “Some Supplementary Italian Bestiary Chapters,” in _Romanic Review_, XI (1920), 308-27.

[2145] For instance, A. S. Cook, _The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus_, Yale University Press, 364 pp., 1919.

[2146] K. Ahrens, _Das “Buch der Naturgegenstände,”_ 1892.

[2147] _Cod. Vind. Med._ 29, τοῦ ἅγιου Ἐπιφανίου ἐπισκόπου Κύπρου περὶ τῆς λέξεως πάντων τῶν ζώων φυσιολόγος. In the edition of Ponce de Leon, Rome, 1587, there are twenty animals described, and the symbolic interpretation is very short compared to later versions. Heider (1850), p. 543, regarded this as the oldest version and as extant in complete form.

[2148] Mansi, _Concil._, VIII, 151, “Liber Physiologus ab hereticis conscriptus et beati Ambrosii nomine presignatus apocryphus.”

[2149] Heider (1850), II, 541-82, “Physiologus nach einer Handschrift des XI. Jahrhunderts”: the text opens at p. 552, “Incipiunt Dicta Johannis Chrysostomi de naturis bestiarum.” Lauchert used another MS, Vienna 303, 14th century, fol. 124v-, which was considerably different and was furthermore combined with the Physiologus of Theobald. An earlier MS than either of the foregoing is CLM 19417, 9th century, fols. 29-71, Liber Sancti Johannis episcopi regiae urbis Constantinopoli ... Crisostomi quem de naturis animalium ordinavit. Another Vienna MS is 2511, 14th century, fols. 135-40, “Incipiunt dicta Johannis Chrysostomi de naturis animalium et primo de leone .../ ... Sic erit et scriba doctus in regno celorum qui profert de thesauro suo noua et uetera. Expliciunt dicta Johannis Crisostomi.” A Paris MS of the same is BN 2780, 13th century, 14, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi liber qui physiologus appellatur.

[2150] Additional 11,035, Johannis Scottigenae Phisiologiae liber. In the same MS are Macrobius’ _Dream of Scipio_ and the poems of Prudentius.

[2151] _De bestiis et aliis rebus_, II, 1 (Migne, PL 177, 57). “Physici denique dicunt quinque naturales res sive naturas habere leonem....”

[2152] _Mineral._, II, i, 1 (ed. Borgnet, V, 24).

[2153] Bubnov (1899), p. 372.

[2154] Thus even Lauchert (1899), p. 105, admits that Bartholomew of England, the thirteenth century Latin encyclopedist, cites _Physiologus_ for much which does not come from _Physiologus_.

[2155] Goldstaub (1899-1901), p. 341.

[2156] This and the preceding quotations in the paragraph are from Mâle (1913), pp. 48, 35, 49, 45.

[2157] Goldstaub (1899-1901), pp. 350-1. The same statement could be made with equal truth of Vincent of Beauvais and Bartholomew of England.

[2158] Hommel (1877), pp. xii, xv.

[2159] Duhem, II (1914), 314, seems to me to have overestimated the significance of _Confessions_, V, 5, and _De Genesi ad litteram_, I, 19, in saying, “L’assurance avec laquelle les Basile, les Grégoire de Nysse, les Ambroise, les Jean Chrysostome opposaient aux enseignements de la Physique profane les naïves assertions de leur science puérile contristait fort l’Évêque de Hippone.” There is nothing, I think, to indicate that Augustine had these men or men of their stamp in mind, and I doubt if his scientific attainments were superior to Basil’s.

[2160] _De consensu Evangelistarum_, I, 11; in Migne, PL 34, 1049-50.

[2161] _Ibid._, I, 9-10.

[2162] _De civitate Dei_, X, 9; PL vol. 41.

[2163] _Ibid._, VII, 34-35; and see Arnobius, _Against the Heathen_, V, 1, for Augustine’s probable source.

[2164] _De civ. Dei_, VIII, 19.

[2165] _Ibid._, VIII, 18, 19, 26; IX, 1.

[2166] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9-10.

[2167] _De trinitate_, IV, 11; in Migne, PL 42, 897.

[2168] _De civ. Dei_, X, 9.

[2169] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6.

[2170] In Grenoble 208, 12th century, containing works of Augustine, there is listed separately at fol. 54v, “De magis Pharaonis,” to which the MSS catalogue adds, “et de CLIII piscibus.” Probably it is an extract from one of Augustine’s longer works as it covers only one leaf.

[2171] _De trinitate_, IV, 11.

[2172] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; Migne, PL 40, 92-3.

[2173] See also _De cataclysmo_ (perhaps spurious), cap. 5, Migne, PL 40, 696; and _Sermo VIII_, PL 38, 74. _Sermo XC_, PL 38, 562, however, speaks of “Moyses et Aaron.”

[2174] _De civ. Dei_, XXI, 6; XVIII, 18.

[2175] _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 79; _De doctrina Christiana_, II, 20, in Migne, PL 34, 50.

[2176] Migne, PL 40, 581-92.

[2177] _De trinitate_, III, 8; PL, 42, 875.

[2178] _De trinitate_, III, 7-8. It seems strange to me that they should have failed on minute insects who in ancient and medieval science are often represented as produced by spontaneous generation. The Talmudists also, however, state that the Egyptians were unable to duplicate the plague of lice, as their art did not extend to things smaller than a barleycorn.

[2179] _De civitate Dei_, XVIII, 22. In commenting on Genesis (PL 34, 445) he speaks even more harshly of “that absurd and harmful notion of the changing of souls and of men into beasts, or of beasts into men”; but perhaps he has reference to the doctrine of transmigration of souls rather than to magic transformations.

[2180] _Confessions_, X, 42, in PL vol. 32.

[2181] Quaest. VI; PL 40, 162-5.

[2182] II, 3; PL 40, 142-4.

[2183] _De civitate Dei_, XXI, 4-6; PL 41, 712-6.

[2184] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XI, 28-9; PL 34, 444-5.

[2185] _Confessions_, X, 35; in PL vol. 32.

[2186] II, 20 and 29.

[2187] IV, 2-3.

[2188] PL 39, 2268-72.

[2189] _Sermo CXXX_, PL 39, 2004-5.

[2190] II, 21-3; PL 34, 51-3.

[2191] _De civitate Dei_, V, 7.

[2192] _Confessions_, VII, 6.

[2193] Unless otherwise noted, the ensuing arguments are found in _The City of God_, V, 1-7.

[2194] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 17; PL 34, 278. _De diversis quaestionibus_, cap. 45; PL 40, 28-9. _Epistola_ 246; PL 33, 1061. _Sermo_ 109; PL 38, 1027.

[2195] _Confessions_, IV, 2-3.

[2196] See below, chapter 24.

[2197] _De Genesi ad litteram_, XII, 22 and 17 and 12; PL 34, 472-3, 467-9, 464-5. See also the marvelous divinations of Albicerius recounted in _Contra Academicos_, I, 6; PL 32, 914-5.

[2198] _Sermones_ 199 and 374; PL 38, 1027-8, and 39, 1666. _Contra Faustum_, II, 15; PL 42, 212.

[2199] In _Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento_, Quaest. 63, PL 35, 2258, which is probably a spurious work but was cited as Augustine’s by Thomas Aquinas (_Summa_, III, 36, v), Balaam is said to have warned the Magi to watch for the star. It is also asserted, however, that “these Chaldean Magi watched the course of the stars, not from malevolence, but curiosity concerning nature” (_Hi Magi chaldaei non malevolentia astrorum cursum sed rerum curiositate speculabantur_).

[2200] _Enchiridion, sive de fide, spe, et charitate_, I, 58; PL 40, 259-60. _De civitate Dei_, XIII, 16; PL 41, 388. _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 18; PL 34, 279-80.

[2201] _Orosii ad Augustinum Consultatio sive Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum_, PL 31, 1211-22; also in G. Schepss (1889), in CSEL XVIII. _Augustini ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas_, PL 41, 669, _et seq._ Augustine also discusses the Priscillianists in _Epistle_ 237, PL 33, 1034, _et seq._, where he makes no charge either of magic or astrology against them.

[2202] This charge was later repeated by St. Leo, _Epistola XV_; see Withington, _History of Medicine_, 1894, p. 178; but the offense would seem a trivial one in any case.

[2203] _De principiis_, I, 7.

[2204] _De doctrina Christiana_, II, 29, in Migne, 34, 57.

[2205] _De Genesi ad litteram_, II, 16, in Migne, 34, 277.

[2206] _De civitate Dei_, XI, 30-31. He says about the same things concerning six and seven in _De Genesi ad litteram_, IV, 2.

[2207] _Sermo supposititius_ 21, in Migne, PL XXXIX, 1783, “De convenientia decem preceptorum et decem plagarum Egypti. Non est sine causa, fratres dilectissimi, quod preceptorum legis Dei numerus cum numero plagarum quibus Aegyptus percutitur exaequari videtur.”

[2208] _Cambridge Medieval History_, I, 9.

[2209] The Greek work, _Hermippus or Concerning Astrology_, however, can no longer be regarded as an example of Christian belief in astrology at this period, since F. Boll, _Heidelberger Akad. Sitzb._, 1912, No. 18, has shown it to be a fourteenth century work of John Katrarios, who makes use of a Greek translation of Albumasar.

[2210] For bibliography see F. Boll’s “Firmicus” in PW. It does not include my article written subsequently on “A Roman Astrologer as a Historical Source: Julius Firmicus Maternus,” in _Classical Philology_, VIII, No. 4, pp. 415-35, October, 1913. For bibliography see also Kroll et Skutsch, II, xxxiv.

[2211] The edition of _De errore profanarum religionum_ by K. Ziegler, Leipzig, 1907, is more critical than that in Migne, PL.

[2212] _Iulii Firmici Materni Matheseos Libri VIII_, ed. W. Kroll et F. Skutsch, _Fasciculus prior libros IV priores et quinti prooemium continens_, Leipzig, 1897; _Fasciculus alter libros IV posteriores cum praefatione et indicibus continens_, 1913. My references will be by page and line to this text, unless otherwise noted. Earlier editions, which I used for the later books before 1913, are the _editio princeps, Julius Firmicus de nativitatibus, ... Impressum Venetiis per Symonem papiensem dictum bivilaqua, 1497 die 13 Iunii_, cxv fols.; the Aldine edition of 1499 containing apparent interpolations, _Julii Firmici Astronomicorum libri octo integri et emendati ex Scythicis oris ad nos nuper allati...._; and the Basel editions of 1533 and 1551 by M. Pruckner which reproduce the Aldine text. See Kroll et Skutsch, II, xxxiii, for another reproduction of the Aldine text, printed in 1503, and p. xxviii for a partial edition of books 3-5 of the _Mathesis_ in 1488 and 1494 in _Opus Astrolabii plani ... a Iohanne Angeli_.

[2213] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 3, 27.

[2214] Boll in PW, VI, 2365.

[2215] _Hermes_, XXIX, 468-72. The treatise could not have been composed before 334 since Firmicus (I, 13, 23) refers to an eclipse in the consulship of Optatus and Paulinus which occurred in that year.

[2216] For instance, at I, 37, 25, “_Constantinus scilicet maximus divi Constantini filius_,” might as well be rendered, “Constantius, son of Constantine,” as “Constantine, son of Constantius.”

[2217] I, 1, 3, “Olim tibi hos libellos, Mavorti decus nostrum, me dicaturum esse promiseram verum diu me inconstantia verecundiae retardavit.”

[2218] I, 195-6.

[2219] Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 8, 5, “iubetur Mavortius, tunc praefectus praetorio, vir sublimis constantiae, crimen acri inquisitione spectari.”

[2220] Ziegler, p. 7, “Physica ratio quam dicis, alio genere celetur”; p. 9, “quod dicant physica ratione conpositum.”

[2221] Ziegler, p. 5.

[2222] Ziegler, p. 23.

[2223] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 86, 12-21.

[2224] Ziegler, pp. 15, 38, 39, 64, 67, 81, 82, “sacratissimi imperatores”; pp. 31, 40, “sacrosancti principes”; p. 65, “sanctarum aurium vestrarum.”

[2225] Ziegler, pp. 53-4.

[2226] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 17-18.

[2227] See my “A Roman Astrologer as a Historical Source,” _Classical Philology_, VIII, 415-35, especially p. 421.

[2228] I, 16, 20, “Summo illi ac rectori deo, qui omnia perpetua legis dispositione composuit....”

[2229] I, 16, 14; I, 57, 2; I, 90, 11, to 91, 10.

[2230] I, 280, 2-28.

[2231] Besides the prayer just quoted, see I, 18, 10-13. See also the long prayer at the end of the first book to the planets and supreme God for the successful continuance of the dynasty of Constantine.

[2232] I, 18, 25-9.

[2233] I, 85-89 (Book II, chapter 30).

[2234] I, 17, 2-23.

[2235] I, 10, 3-.

[2236] I, 11, 7-.

[2237] Book I, Chapter 4 (I, 11-15).

[2238] Book I, Chapter 7 (I, 19-30).

[2239] For a fuller exposition of this quantitative method of source-analysis and the results obtained thereby see Thorndike (1913), pp. 415-35.

[2240] Temple-robbers, 5; servile or ignoble employ in temples, 5; spending one’s time in temples, 4; builders of temples, 3; beneficiaries of temples, 3; temple guards, 2; _neocori_, 3; and so on, making 35 references to temples in all. It is perhaps worth remarking that H. O. Taylor, _The Classical Heritage_, 1901, p. 80, notes that Synesius about 400 A. D. speaks of the Christian churches at Constantinople as “temples.”

[2241] Chief priests, 5; priests, 9; of provinces, 1; priestess, 1; priests of Cybele (_archigalli_), 3; _Asiarchae_, 1; priest of some great goddess, 1; illicit rites, 1. There are 27 passages concerning divination.

[2242] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 148, 8 and 123, 4.

[2243] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 201, 6.

[2244] Cumont says (_Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_, p. 188): “But the ancients expressly distinguished ‘magic,’ which was always under suspicion and disapproved of, from the legitimate and honorable art for which the name ‘theurgy’ was invented.” This distinction was made by Porphyry and others, and is alluded to by Augustine in the _City of God_, but it is to be noted that Firmicus does not use the word “theurgy.” Cumont also states (p. 179) that in the last period of paganism the name philosopher was finally applied to all adepts in occult science. But in Firmicus, while magic and philosophy are associated in two passages, there are five other allusions to magic and three separate mentions of philosophers.

[2245] Kroll et Skutsch, I, 161, 26.

[2246] _Computus_, 3; _calculus_, 2; and “those who excel at numbers,” 1.

[2247] Including two mentions of court physicians (_archiatri_). See _Codex Theod._, Lib. XIII, Tit. 3, _passim_, for their position.

[2248] I leave this sentence as I wrote it in 1913.

[2249] _Aestus animi_, 5; insanity, 13; lunatics, 10; epileptics, 8; melancholia, 3; inflammation of the brain (_frenetici_), 4; delirium, dementia, demoniacs, alienation, and madness, one or two each; vague allusions to mental ills and injuries, 5.

[2250] In his last chapter he says, “Take then, my dear Mavortius, what I promised you with extreme trepidation of spirit, these seven books composed conformably to the order and number of the seven planets. For the first book deals only with the defense of the art; but in the other books we have transmitted to the Romans the discipline of a new work,” (II, 360, 10-15). And in the introduction to the fifth book he writes, “We have written these books for your Romans lest, when every other art and science had been translated, this task should seem to remain unattempted by Roman genius,” (I, 280, 28-30).

[2251] I, 41, 7 and 15; I, 40, 9-11.

[2252] I, 41, 5 and 11; I, 40, 8.

[2253] They are listed by Kroll et Skutsch, II, 362, _Index auctorum_.

[2254] II, 294, 12-21.

[2255] Kroll et Skutsch, II, p. iii.

[2256] I, 258, 10, “in singulari libro, quem de domino geniturae et chronocratore ad Murinum nostrum scripsimus”; II, 229, 23, “exeo libro qui de fine vitae a nobis scriptus est.”

[2257] II, 18, 24; II, 283, 19.

[2258] Engelbrecht, _Hephästion von Theben und sein astrologisches Compendium_, Vienna, 1887.

[2259] _De vita sua_, in _Libanii sophistae praeludia oratoria LXXII declamationes XLV et dissertationes morales, Federicus Morellus regius interpres e MSS maxime reg. bibliothecae nunc primum edidit idemque Latine vertit ... ad Henricum IV regem Christianissimum_, Paris, 1606, II, 15-18.

[2260] _Magi accusatio_, _Ibid._, I, 898-911.

[2261] _De vita sua, Opera_, II, 2-3.

[2262] X, 196, 11, _De sepulcro incantato_.

[2263] My citations of Synesius’ works, unless otherwise noted, are from the edition: _Synesii Cyrenaei Quae Extant Opera Omnia_, ed. J. G. Krabinger, Landshut, 1850, vol. I, which has alone appeared. The older edition of Petavius with Latin translation is reprinted in Migne PG, vol. 66, 1021-1756. For a French translation, with several introductory essays, see H. Druon, _Œuvres de Synésius_, Paris, 1878. The _Letters_ and _Hymns_ have often been published separately. For this and other further bibliography see Christ, _Gesch. d. griech. Litt._, 1913, II, ii, 1167-71, where, however, no note is taken of Berthelot’s discussion of Synesius as a reputed author of alchemistic treatises.

Some works on Synesius are: H. Druon, _Études sur la vie et les œuvres de Synésius_, Paris, 1859; R. Volkmann, _Synesius von Cyrene_, Berlin, 1869; W. S. Crawford, _Synesius the Hellene_, London, 1901; G. Grützmacher, _Synesios von Kyrene_, Leipzig, 1913. In periodicals: F. X. Kraus in _Theol. Quartalschrift_, 1865 and 1866; O. Seeck, in _Philologus_, 1893.

[2264] See Crawford, _op. cit._, and monographs listed in Christ, _op. cit._, p. 1168, notes 4 and 8.

[2265] The date is variously stated as 411, 406, or 410.

[2266] A. J. Kleffner, _Synesius von Cyrene ... und sein angeblicher Vorbehalt bei seiner Wahl und Weihe zum Bischof von Ptolemais_, Paderborn, 1901. H. Koch, _Synesius von Cyrene bei seiner Wahl und Weihe zum Bischof_, in _Hist. Jahrb._, XXIII (1902), pp. 751-74.

[2267] Christ, _op. cit._, p. 1168, note 1.

[2268] _Ibid._, p. 1170, citing K. Prächter, in _Genethliakon für C. Robert_, 1910, p. 244, _et seq._

[2269] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων (_On dreams_), ch. 2.

[2270] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων (_On Dreams_), ch. 3. Ἔδει γὰρ, οἶμαι, τοῦ παντὸς τούτου συμπαθοῦς τε ὄντος καὶ σύμπνου τὰ μέρη προσήκειν ἀλλήλοις, ἅτε ἑνὸς ὅλου τὰ μέλη τυγχάνοντα. Καὶ μή ποτε αἱ μάγων ἴυγγες αὗται; καὶ γὰρ θέλγεται παρ’ ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ σημαίνεται· καὶ σοφὸς ὁ εἰδὼς τὴν τῶν μερῶν τοῦ κόσμου συγγένειαν. Ἕλκει γὰρ ἄλλο δί’ ἄλλον, ἔχων ἐνέχυρα παρόντα τῶν πλεῖστον ἀπόντων, καὶ φωνὰς, καὶ ὕλας καὶ σχήματα.... Evidently Synesius did not regard the magi as mere imposters.

[2271] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 3. Καὶ δὴ καὶ θεῷ τινὶ τῶν εἴσω τοῦ κόσμου λίθος ἐνθένδε καὶ βοτάνη προσήκει, οἷς ὁμοιοπαθῶν εἴκει τῇ φύσει καὶ γοητεύεται. In his _Praise of Baldness_ (Φαλάκρας ἐγκώμιον), ch. 10, Synesius tells how the Egyptians attract demons by magic influences.

[2272] Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 1. Αὗται μὲν ἀποδείξεις ἔστων τοῦ μαντείαν ἐν τοῖς ἀρίστοις εἶναι τῶν ἐπιτηδευομένων ἀνθρώποις.

[2273] _Ibid._, ch. 18.

[2274] Δίων ἢ περὶ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὸν διαγωγῆς.

[2275] Φαλάκρας ἐγκώμιον, ch. 10.

[2276] Αἰγύπτιοι ἢ περὶ προνοίας, bk. ii, ch. 7.

[2277] Πρὸς Παιόνιον περὶ τοῦ δώρου, ch. 5.

[2278] Δίων, ch. 7. Περὶ ἐνυπνίων, ch. 4. Ἐπιστολαί, 4, 49, and 142.

[2279] On Synesius as an alchemist see Berthelot (1885), pp. 65, 188-90; (1889), p. ix.

[2280] T. R. Glover, _Life and Letters in the Fourth Century A. D._, Cambridge, 1901, p. 187, note 1.

[2281] _Saturnalia_, I, xvi, 12.

[2282] _Commentary on the Dream of Scipio_, II, 17, “Universa philosophiae integritas”; ed. Nisard, Paris, 1883.

[2283] _Ibid._, I, 5-6; II, 1-2.

[2284] _Ibid._, I, 7.

[2285] _Ibid._, I, 19.

[2286] _Ibid._, I, 14.

[2287] Glover (1901), p. 178.

[2288] _De nuptiis philologiae et mercurii et de septem artibus liberalibus libri novem, Lugduni apud haeredes Simonis Vincentii_, 1539; ed. U. F. Kopp, Frankfurt, 1836; ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Leipzig, 1866.

[2289] It occurs toward the close of the second book.

[2290] In Kopp’s edition pp. 202-23 are almost entirely taken up with notes setting forth other passages in the classics concerning such spirits.

[2291] Greek text in Migne, PG 3, 119-370.

[2292] Migne, PL 122, 1037-70.

[2293] The following bibliography includes the editions of the texts concerned and the chief critical researches in the field. A. Ausfeld, _Zur Kritik des griechischen Alexanderromans; Untersuchungen über die unechten Teile der ältesten Ueberlieferung_, Karlsruhe, 1894. A. Ausfeld and W. Kroll, _Der griechische Alexanderroman_, Leipzig, 1907. H. Becker, _Die Brahmannen in der Alexandersage_, Königsberg, 1889, 34 pp. E. A. W. Budge, _History of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge University Press, 1889; the Syriac version of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ edited from five MSS, with an English translation and notes. E. A. W. Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_, Cambridge University Press, 1896; Ethiopic Histories of Alexander by the Pseudo-Callisthenes and other writers. D. Carrarioli, _La leggenda di Alessandro Magno_, 1892. G. G. Cillié, _De Iulii Valerii epitoma Oxoniensi_, Strasburg, 1905. G. Favre, _Recherches sur les histoires fabuleuses d’Alexandre le Grand_, in _Mélanges d’hist. litt._, II (1856), 5-184. Ethé, _Alexanders Zug zur Lebensquelle im Lande der Finsterniss_, in _Atti dell’ Accademia di Monaco_, 1871. B. Kübler, _Julius Valerius; Res gestae Alexandri Macedonis_, Leipzig, 1888 (see pp. xxv-xxvi for further bibliography). Levi, _La légende d’Alexandre dans le Talmud_, in _Revue des Études juives_, I (1880), 293-300. Meusel, _Pseudo-Callisthenes nach der Leidener Handschrift herausgegeben_, Leipzig, 1871. M. P. H. Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand dans la littérature française du moyen âge_, 2 vols., Paris, 1886. C. Müller, _Scriptores rerum Alexandri Magni_, Firmin-Didot, Paris, 1846 and 1877 (bound with Arrian, ed. Fr. Dübner); the first edition of the Greek text of the _Pseudo-Callisthenes_ from three Paris MSS, also Julius Valerius, etc. Noeldeke, _Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos. Hist. Classe_, vol. 38, Vienna, 1890; Budge says of this work, “Professor Noeldeke discusses in his characteristic masterly manner the Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Persian, and Arabic versions, and ably shows how each is related to the other, and how certain variations in the narrative have arisen. No other writer before him was able to control, by knowledge at first hand, the statements of both the Aryan and Semitic versions; his work is therefore of unique value.” _Padmuthiun Acheksandri Maketonazwui, I Wenedig i dparani serbuin Chazaru_, Hami, 1842; the Armenian version published by the Mechitarists, Venice, 1842. F. Pfister, _Kleine Texte zum Alexanderroman_, Heidelberg, 1910; _Sammlung vulgärlateinischer Texte herausg. v. W. Heraeus u. H. Morf, 4 Heft_. Spiegel, _Die Alexandersage bei den Orientalen_, Leipzig, 1851. Vogelstein, _Adnotationes quaedam ex litteris orientalibus petitae quae de Alexandro Magno circumferuntur_, Warsaw, 1865. A. Westermann, _De Callisthene Olynthio et Pseudo-Callisthene Commentatio_, 1838-1842. J. Zacher, _Pseudo-Callisthenes: Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der ältesten Aufzeichnung der Alexandersage_, Halle, 1867 (see pp. 2-3 for further bibliography of works written before 1851). J. Zacher, _Julii Valerii Epitome, zum ersten mal herausgegeben_, Halle, 1867.

[2294] _Hexaemeron_, VI, 7. On the other hand, Augustine, _De civitate dei_, V, 6-7, alludes to the sage who selected a certain hour for intercourse with his wife in order that he might beget a marvelous son.

[2295] Seneca in the _Natural Questions_ (VI, 23) called the death of Callisthenes “the eternal crime” of Alexander which all his military victories and conquests could not outweigh,—a passage which did not keep Nero from forcing Seneca to commit suicide.

[2296] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, Leipzig, 1904, pp. 308-309.

[2297] _Res gestae_ of Alexander of Macedon, contained in three MSS of the Royal Library in the British Museum, dating according to the catalogue from the eleventh and twelfth centuries: Royal 13-A-I, Royal 12-C-IV, and Royal 15-C-VI, are not the full text of Julius Valerius, but the epitome of which I shall soon speak.

[2298] The longer epitome is known from an Oxford MS, Corpus Christi MS 82, and was believed by Meyer to be intermediary between Valerius and the other briefer epitome. Cillié, however, tries to prove the shorter epitome to be the older.

[2299] _Alexandri Magni Epistola ad Aristotelem de mirabilibus Indiae_, first printed with _Synesii Epistolae, graece; adcedunt aliorum Epistolae_, Venice, 1499; then Bologna, 1501; Basel, 1517; Paris, 1520, fols. 102v-14v, following the Pseudo-Aristotle, _Secret of Secrets_; etc. These early printed editions give the oldest Latin text, dating back as we have seen to at least 800.

Some MSS of the same version are:

BM Royal 13-A-I, fols. 51v-78r, a beautifully clear MS of the late 11th century with clubbed strokes. The Epistola is preceded by the _Epitome of Valerius_ and followed by the correspondence with Dindimus.

Royal 12-C-IV, 12th century.

Royal 15-C-VI, 12th century.

Cotton Nero D VIII, fol. 169.

Sloane 1619, 13th century, fols. 12-17.

Arundel 242, 15th century, fols. 160-83.

BL Laud. Misc. 247, 12th century, fol. 186; preceded at fol. 171 by the “Ortus vita et obitus Alexandri Macedonis,” and followed at fol. 196v by the letter to Dindimus.

BN MSS 2874, 4126, 4877, 4880, 5062, 6121, 6365, 6503, 6831, 7561, 8518, 8521A, _Epistola de itinere et situ Indiae_; 8607, _Epistolae eius nomine scriptae_; and 2695A, 6186, 6365, 6385, 6811, 6831, 8501A, for _Responsio ad Dindimum_.

CLM 11319, 13th century, fol. 88, _Alexandri epistola ad Aristotelem de rebus in India gestis_, preceded at fol. 72 by the _Epitome_ and followed at fol. 97 by the _Dindimus_.

In the library of Eton College an imperfect copy of the _Epistola_ follows _Orosius_ in a MS of the early 13th century, 133, BL 4, 6, fols. 85r-87.

A somewhat different and later version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was published in 1910 at Heidelberg by Friedrich Pfister from a Bamberg MS of the 11th century, together with _Palladius_ and the correspondence with Dindimus. Pfister believed all these to be translations from the Greek.

An Anglo-Saxon version of the _Letter to Aristotle_ was edited by Cockayne in 1861 (see T. Wright, RS 34; xxvii).

[2300] III, 17.

[2301] First published by Joachim Camerarius about 1571.

[2302] Published with _Palladius_ by Sir Edward Bisse in 1665; MSS are numerous.

[2303] From this same MS Pfister published the _Letter to Aristotle_ and other treatises mentioned above.

[2304] Its influence would therefore seem to have been upon the later prose romances and not upon French vernacular poetry. Known at first only in Italy and Germany, its popularity became general in western Europe toward the close of the middle ages.

[2305] Harleian 527, fols. 47-56.

[2306] Amplon. Quarto 12, fols. 200-201; presumably it includes only those chapters concerned with Nectanebus.

[2307] CUL 1429 (Gg. I, 34), 14th century, No. 5, 35 fols. Also in CU Trinity 1041, 14th century, fols. 200v-212v, “De Nectanabo mago quomodo magnum genuerit Alexandrum. Egipti sapientes....”

[2308] NH XXXVI, 14 and 19.

[2309] _De anima_, cap. 57, in Migne, PL II, 792.

[2310] The former built a Temple of Isis, now a heap of ruins, at Behbit el-Hagar and a colonnade to the Temple of Hibis in the oasis of Khîrgeh; and his name appears upon a gate in the Temple of Mont at Karnak. Besides the Vestibule of Nektanebos at Philae there is a court of Nektanebos before the Temple of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Medinet Habu.

[2311] Berthelot (1885), pp. 29-30.

[2312] The Syriac version, on the contrary, emphasizes this point less.

[2313] Budge’s translation of the Ethiopic version.

[2314] CLM 215, fols. 176-94, “Egiptiorum gentem in mathematica magica quam in arte fuisse valentem littere tradunt.”

[2315] _Pseudo-Callisthenes_, I, 4, “casters of horoscopes, readers of signs, interpreters of dreams, ventriloquists, augurs, genethlialogists, the so-called magi to whom divination is an open book.” Budge, Syriac version, p. 4, “The interpreters of dreams are of many kinds and the knowers of signs, those who understand divination, Chaldean augurs and casters of nativities; the Greeks call the signs of the zodiac ‘sorcerers’; and others are counters of the stars. As for me, all of these are in my hands and I myself am an Egyptian prophet, a magus, and a counter of the stars.” Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_, p. 11, “Then Nectanebus answered and said unto her, ‘Yea. Those who have knowledge of the orbs of heaven are of many kinds. Some are interpreters of dreams, and some have knowledge of what shall happen in the future, and some understand omens, and some cast nativities, and there are besides all those who know magic and who are renowned because they are learned in their art, and some are skilled in the motion of the stars of heaven: but I have full knowledge of all these things.’”

[2316] From Fowler’s translation of _Alexander: the False Prophet_. See also Plutarch’s _Alexander_.

[2317] The Syriac and Ethiopic versions are somewhat more detailed as to the magic by which Philip’s dream was produced. Budge, Syriac version, p. 8, “Then Nectanebus ... brought a hawk and muttered over it his charms and made it fly away with a small quantity of a drug, and that night it shewed Philip a dream.” Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_, p. 21, “Then Nectanebus took a swift bird and muttered over it certain charms and names, and ... in one day and one night it traversed many lands and countries and seas, and it came to Philip by night and stopped. And it came to pass at that very hour ... that Philip saw a marvelous dream.”

[2318] In another place, however, Albert calls Philip Alexander’s father, _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, II, ii, 1.

[2319] The story is better told in the Syriac version (Budge, 14-17), where Alexander does not push Nectanebus into the pit until after he has asked the astrologer if he knows his own fate and has been told that Nectanebus is to be slain by his own son. Alexander then attempts to foil fate by pushing Nectanebus into the pit, but only fulfills it. In the Ethiopic version Nectanebus is represented as educating Alexander from his seventh year on in “philosophy and letters and the working of magic and the stars and their seasons.” Aristotle becomes Alexander’s tutor only after the death of Nectanebus. Aristotle, too, is represented as an adept in astrology, amulets, and the use of magic wax images. (Budge, _Ethiopic Histories_, pp. 31, xlv).

[2320] VI, 4.

[2321] Royal 13-A-I, fol. 53v.

[2322] In CU Trinity 1446 (1250 A. D.) _The Romance of Alexander_ in French verse by Eustache (or Thomas) of Kent, among 152 pictures listed by James (III, 483-91) are two representing the hero’s colloquy with the moon tree (fol. 31r). Marco Polo also tells of these marvelous trees. And see Roux de Rochelle, “Notice sur l’Arbre du Soleil, ou Arbre Sec, décrit dans la relation des voyages de Marco Polo,” in _Bulletin de la Société de géographie_, série 3, III (1845), 187-94.

[2323] For the _Letter to Aristotle_ I have employed the Paris, 1520 edition and Royal 13-A-I, which follow the early Latin version. As stated above, Pfister’s edition (Heidelberg, 1910) gives a later version probably translated from the Greek.

[2324] There appears to have been no complete edition of Aëtius in Greek. The first eight of his sixteen books were printed at Venice in 1534, and the ninth at Leipzig in 1757, but for the entire sixteen books one must use the Latin translation of Cornarius, Basel, 1542, etc., which I have read in Stephanus, _Medicae artis principes_, 1567.

Recent editions of portions of Aëtius are: Αετιου λογος δωδεκατος πρωτον νυν εκδοθεις ὑπο Γεωργιου Α. Κωστομοιρου, pp. 112, 131, Paris, 1892.

_Die Augenheilkunde des Aëtius aus Amida_, Griechisch und deutsch herausg. von J. Hirschberg, pp. xi, 204, Leipzig, 1899.

_Aetii sermo sextidecimus et ultimus_ (Αετιου περι των εν μητρα παθων etc.). Erstens aus HSS veröffentl. mit Abbildungen, etc., v. S. Zervòs, pp. k’, 172, Leipzig, 1901.

Αετιου Αμιδινου Λογος δεκατος πεμπτος, ed. S. Zerbos, 1909, in Επιστημονικη Εταιρεια, Αθηνα, vol. 21.

My references to Alexander of Tralles are both to the text of Stephanus (1567) and the more recent edition by Theodor Puschmann, _Alexander von Tralles, Originaltext und Übersetzung nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung_, Vienna, 1878-9, 2 vols. This gives a more critical text than any previous edition, but unfortunately Puschmann adopted still another arrangement into books than those of the MSS and previous editions, and also in my opinion did not make a sufficient study of the Latin MSS. His introduction contains information concerning Alexander’s life and the MSS and previous editions of his works.

A valuable earlier study on Alexander was that of E. Milward, published in 1733 under the title, _A Letter to the Honourable Sir Hans Sloane Bart., etc._, and in 1734 as _Trallianus Reviviscens_, 229 pp. Milward was preparing an edition of Alexander of Tralles, but it was never published. His estimate of Alexander’s position in the history of medicine furnishes an incidental picture of interest of the state of medicine in his own time, the early eighteenth century.

The old Latin translation of Alexander of Tralles was the first to be printed at Lyons, 1504, _Alexandri yatros practica cum expositione glose interlinearis Jacobi de Partibus et (Simonis) Januensis in margine posite_; also Pavia, 1520 and Venice 1522. Next appeared a very free Latin translation by Torinus in 1533 and 1541, _Paraphrases in libros omnes Alexandri Tralliani_. The Greek text of Alexander was first printed by Stephanus (Robert Étienne) in 1548 (ed. J. Goupyl). The Latin translation by Guinther of Andernach, which is included in Stephanus (1567), first appeared in 1549, Strasburg, and was reprinted a number of times.

Another work by Puschmann may also be noted: _Nachträge zu Alexander Trallianus. Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius nebst einer bisher noch ungedruckten Abhandlung über Augenkrankheiten_, Berlin, 1886, in _Berliner Studien f. class. Philol. und Archaeol._, V, 2; 188 pp., in which he segregates as fragments of Philumenus and Philagrius portions of the text of Alexander as found in the Latin MSS.

My references for the _De medicamentis_ of Marcellus apply to Helmreich’s edition of 1889 in the Teubner series. This edition is based on a single MS of the ninth century at Laon which Helmreich followed Valentin Rose in regarding as the sole extant codex of the work. As a result Rose indulged in ingenious theories to explain how the _editio princeps_ by Ianus Cornarius, Basel, 1536, included the prefatory letter and other preliminary material not found in the Laon MS, whose first leaves and some others are missing.

But as a matter of fact BN 6880, a clear and beautifully written MS of the ninth century, contains the _De medicamentis_ entire with all the preliminary letters. Moreover, it is evident that the _editio princeps_ was printed directly from this MS, which contains not only notes by Cornarius but the marks of the compositors.

The text of the edition of 1536 was reproduced in the medical collections of Aldus, _Medici antiqui_, Venice, 1547, and Stephanus, _Medicae artis principes_, 1567.

Jacob Grimm, _Über Marcellus Burdigalensis_, in _Abhandl. d. kgl. Akad. d. Wiss. z. Berlin_ (1847), pp. 429-60, discusses the evidence for placing Marcellus under the older Theodosius, lists the Celtic words and expressions found in the _De medicamentis_, and also one hundred specimens of its folk-lore and magic. This article was reprinted in _Kleinere Schriften_, II (1865), 114-51, where it is followed at pp. 152-72 by a supplementary paper, _Über die Marcellischen Formeln_, likewise reprinted from the Academy Proceedings for 1855, pp. 51-68.

The magic of Marcellus was further treated of by R. Heim, _De rebus magicis Marcelli medici_, in _Schedae philol. Hermanno Usener oblatae_ (1891), pp. 119-37, where he adds _nova magica ex Marcelli libris collata_ which Grimm had omitted.

[2325] Marcellus is often called of Bordeaux, notably in Grimm’s article, _Über Marcellus Burdigalensis_, 1847; also by C. W. King, _The Gnostics and their Remains_, 1887, p. 219; and by J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, I, 23; but there seems to be no definite proof that he was from that city.