Chapter IV

THE SOURCES FOR THE PERIOD 1100–1250 A. D.

_Note: See the Bibliography for references to editions of the original sources mentioned in the text of this chapter._

Footnote 368:

De Wulf, _Medieval Philosophy_, 1909, p. 126.

Footnote 369:

See above, pp. 2 and 52–53.

Footnote 370:

Zöckler, _Geschichte_, vol. i, 1877, pp. 407–408.

Footnote 371:

De Wulf, _op. cit._, pp. 216–218.

Footnote 372:

Hauréau, _Hugues de Saint-Victor_, 1886, p. vi.

Footnote 373:

Hauréau (_op. cit._, pp. 78–93) believed that these were all the work
of Hugh.

Footnote 374:

Another mystic of the early twelfth century was Rupert of Deutz, whose
_De sancta trinitate et operibus eius_ was written, according to
Zöckler (_op. cit._, vol. i, p. 393), about 1117.

Footnote 375:

Some scholars, notably Singer, _Visions of Hildegard_, 1917, pp.
12–15, have cast doubt upon the genuineness of the _Subtilitates_ and
_Causae et curae_. See, however, Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii,
pp. 128–129. See also below, pp. 423–424, notes 91–93.

The _Causae et curae_ is the only one of the works which cannot be
dated with considerable accuracy (see Thorndike, _op. cit._, p. 127).
The present writer, who has not studied the writings of Hildegard in
any detail, hazards the following suggestion for what it is worth. Two
passages in the _Causae et curae_ can only be explained on the
supposition that its author believed in a flat earth (see below, p.
425, note 101). Passages in the _Scivias_ (written between 1141 and
1150) and in the _Liber divinorum operum_ (written after 1163) speak
explicitly of the earth as a globe (see below, p. 423, note 92). May
it not be possible that the _Causae et curae_ is an early work and
that in the course of her subsequent life Hildegard gained a wider
knowledge of current views of cosmology, which found their expression
in the records of her visions?

Footnote 376:

Thorndike, _op. cit._, p. 131.

Footnote 377:

See Masson, _Biblical Literature_, 1865.

Footnote 378:

Clerval, _Écoles de Chartres_, 1895.

Footnote 379:

The archives at Chartres show that a certain Bernard was _magister
scholae_ in 1119 and that a Bernard, chancellor in 1124, had been
replaced by Gilbert de la Porrée in 1126 (C. V. Langlois, _Maître
Bernard_, 1893, p. 242).

Footnote 380:

“Perfectissimus inter Platonicos seculi nostri” (John of Salisbury,
_Metalogicus_, iv, 35, in: Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. cxcix, col. 938).
See also _Metalogicus_, I, 24, in: Migne, _op. cit._, cols. 853–856.

Footnote 381:

See above, p. 93.

Footnote 382:

Hauréau, _Thierry de Chartres_, 1890, p. 50.

Footnote 383:

Clerval, _Écoles de Chartres_, 1895, p. 172.

Footnote 384:

Hauréau, _op. cit._, pp. 52–70.

Footnote 385:

Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 491–498; _Studies_, 1924, pp. 20–42.

Footnote 386:

Duhem at the time of the publication of vol. iii of _Le système du
monde_, 1915, knew the text of the _Quaestiones naturales_ only at
second hand. (On the uncertainty of the date of the _Quaestiones
naturales_ see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 26–27.) Adelard was also
the author of _De eodem et diverso_, written probably in his youth
(before 1109).

Footnote 387:

The _De eodem et diverso_ indicates that Adelard had already visited
Salerno and Sicily at the time that it was written. In the
_Quaestiones naturales_ he mentions Tarsus and Antioch as places where
he had been (Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 492–493; _Studies_, 1924,
p. 26).

Footnote 388:

See above, pp. 95–96.

Footnote 389:

See above, p. 97.

Footnote 390:

Poole, _The Masters_, 1920, p. 330.

Footnote 391:

This work consists of two parts, _Megacosmus_ and _Microcosmus_. For
an analysis of it see _Histoire littéraire de la France_, vol. xii,
Paris, 1763, pp. 261–273, especially p. 267.

Footnote 392:

The principal arguments against the identification of the two Bernards
have been set forth by Hauréau (_Mémoire_, 1883, pp. 99–104), Clerval
(_Écoles de Chartres_, 1895, pp. 158–163), and Sandys (_Hist. of
Class. Schol._, vol. i, 1921, p. 534, note 2). Hauréau and Clerval
were followed by De Wulf, Duhem, and others. C. V. Langlois (_Maître
Bernard_, 1893) championed the identification of the two. The most
recent discussion of the problem, by R. L. Poole (_The Masters_,
1920), is convincing in so far as it demonstrates that the evidence
now available tends to show that the two Bernards were not the same.

Footnote 393:

Poole, _op. cit._, pp. 333–335; Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p.
92.

Footnote 394:

Hauréau, _Singularités_, 1861, p. 249.

Footnote 395:

This work, written some time before 1145—for at about this date
William, in a treatise called _Dragmaticon philosophiae_, retracted
certain heretical doctrines which he had expressed in it—has been
falsely attributed to Bede, to William of Hirschau, and to Honorius of
Autun (see Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, pp. 338–352, and Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 90–93) and printed among the works of
each of these. The text attributed to William of Hirschau was printed
by Henricus Petrus at Basel in 1531 under the title _Philosophicarum
et astronomicarum institutionum libri tres_; that attributed to Bede,
under the title Περὶ διδαξέων _sive elementorum philosophiae libri
IV_, in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. xc, cols. 1127–1182; and that
attributed to Honorius, under the title _De philosophia mundi_, in
Migne, _op. cit._, vol. clxxii, cols. 39–102.

On William of Conches as a scientist see especially Werner, _Kosm.
Wilhelm von Conches_, 1873.

Footnote 396:

See above, p. 143, and below, p. 419, note 38.

Footnote 397:

See the preface to Thomas Wright’s edition of the works of Neckam,
1863, pp. ix-xii, for a brief life of Alexander Neckam.

Footnote 398:

On these and other works of Neckam, see Esposito, _Unpublished Poems_,
1915, pp. 460–471.

Footnote 399:

On translators from the Greek, see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
141–241. Shortly after the middle of the twelfth century a certain
Sicilian, Henricus Aristippus, brought from Constantinople a copy of a
Greek text of Ptolemy’s _Almagest_ as a present from the Byzantine
Emperor for the Norman king, William I. Subsequently an anonymous
medical student of Salerno made a Latin version of this work.
Aristippus also distinguished himself at about the same time by
turning into Latin from the Greek the fourth book of Aristotle’s
_Meteorology_ (Haskins and Lockwood, _Sicilian Translators_, 1910, pp.
75–102; Haskins, _Further Notes_, 1912—under Haskins and Lockwood in
the Bibliography—pp. 155–166; Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 155–168;
on Aristippus’ translation of the fourth book of the _Meteorology_,
see also below, p. 401, note 60). A second translation of the
_Meteorology_ was made from Greek into Latin before 1260 (see
Grabmann, _Forschungen_, 1916, p. 182; Fobes, _Mediaeval Versions_,
1915, p. 297). Translations from the Greek of the _Physics_, _De
caelo_, and _De generatione et corruptione_ were also known by the
early thirteenth century (Grabmann, _op. cit._, p. 178; Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 149, 224, and 225, note 8).

Footnote 400:

On translators from the Arabic, see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
3–140.

Footnote 401:

See above, p. 82.

Footnote 402:

Haskins, _Adelard_, 1911, pp. 493–494; idem, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
22–23. There are at least five manuscripts of Adelard’s translation.

Footnote 403:

See Suter, _Astron. Tafeln_, 1914 (under Khwārizmī, Al-, in the
Bibliography).

Footnote 404:

This is indicated in the following note appended to a Latin
translation of Ptolemy’s _Planisphere_ made by Hermann the Dalmatian
in 1143: “Quem locum a Ptolomeo minus diligenter perspectum cum
Albateni miratur et Alchoarismus, quorum hunc quidem ope nostra Latium
habet, illius vero comodissima translatione Roberti mei industria
Latine orationis thesaurum accumulat nos discutiendi veri in libro
nostro de circulis rationem damus” (_Ptolemaei opera omnia_, Heiberg’s
edit., vol. ii: _Opera astronomica minora_, 1907, p. clxxxvii). Some
have sought to ascribe this Latin translation of the _Planisphere_ to
Rudolph of Bruges, a disciple of Hermann. Reasons why it cannot be the
work of Rudolph are given by A. A. Björnbo in: Bibliotheca
mathematica, 3rd series, vol. iv, Stockholm, 1903, pp. 130–133. See
also Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 173. The note quoted above
shows that a certain Robert (undoubtedly Robert of Chester—or, of
Retines—whom we know to have been an associate of Hermann) had
translated Al-Battānī’s _Astronomy_. See also Suter, _Astron. Tafeln_,
1914 (under Khwārizmī, Al-, in the Bibliography), p. xiii.

Footnote 405:

It is probable that the author of the _Dialogus_ was also the writer
of certain astronomical works from about the same period. On Peter
Alphonsi see Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 60–61; the same,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 111–119.

Footnote 406:

See above, p. 78. On the name “Johannes Hispanensis” see Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 177–179. Duhem gives the date of the
translation as 1134. He was apparently unfamiliar with Bibliothèque
Nationale MSS., fonds St. Victor, no. 848, which establishes the date
as March 11, 1135, and with an article on the subject by Woepcke:
_Notice_, 1862, pp. 116–117. John of Seville’s translation is found in
many manuscripts and was printed at Nuremberg in 1537. John of Seville
also translated Abū Maʿshar’s _The Great Book of the Introduction_
(see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, p. 45).

Footnote 407:

Gerard’s translation was entitled _Liber de aggregationibus scientiae
stellarum_ (Boncompagni, _Della vita_, 1851, fol. 442 (separate, pp.
58–59); Woepcke, _op. cit._, p. 118).

Footnote 408:

On the date of Plato of Tivoli, see C. H. Haskins, _The Translations
of Hugo Sanctelliensis_, in: Romanic Review, vol. ii, New York, 1911,
p. 2, note 5. On Al-Battānī, see above, p. 78.

Footnote 409:

Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 14704, fol. 110, col. a,
to fol. 135vo. For the establishment of the date of these tables see
Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 203–204, and Haskins, _Studies_,
1924, pp. 96–98. The latter supplies the author’s name from a
fifteenth-century manuscript in Oxford of which Duhem was ignorant.

Footnote 410:

See above, p. 79.

Footnote 411:

See above, p. 244.

Footnote 412:

Steinschneider, _Études sur Zarkali_, 1881–1887, discusses the various
versions of Az-Zarqalī’s _Canons_ and of the _Toledo Tables_. The
former were put into Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, and Latin; of the Latin
versions, the manuscripts are more numerous in England than elsewhere,
but there are no fewer than nine in the Bibliothèque Nationale in
Paris. The _Toledo Tables_ probably did not become well known in the
Latin West until the first half of the thirteenth century (see Duhem,
_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 287–290), although they were probably
known to Roger of Hereford (see Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 66; the
same, _Studies_, 1924, p. 95; and Duhem, _op. cit._, pp. 520–521).

Footnote 413:

Steinschneider (_op. cit._, in: Bollettino, vol. xx, 1887, pp. 3–6)
believed that there were two translations of the work of Az-Zarqalī
because the manuscripts fall into two groups that differ markedly from
each other. The manuscripts of one of these groups bear the name of
Gerard of Cremona. Unfortunately, we lack confirmation of the
attribution of this translation to Gerard in the list of seventy-four
works of the great Cremonese discovered by Boncompagni in the Vatican
(see Boncompagni, _Della vita_, 1851). Nevertheless it is highly
probable that this list is incomplete, and there is no really good
reason for supposing that Gerard was not the translator of the version
in question.

Footnote 414:

See above, p. 398, note 36.

Footnote 415:

Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 64; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 122.

Footnote 416:

On the _De essentiis_ see Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 48–49, 56–66.
On pages 62–65 Haskins publishes for the first time the texts of two
interesting geographical passages.

Footnote 417:

Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 64–65; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 123.

Footnote 418:

Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, p. 66; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 125;
British Museum MSS., Arundel, no. 377.

Footnote 419:

Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 67–68; idem, _Studies_, 1924, pp.
126–127. On Daniel of Morley, see also Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol.
ii, pp. 171–181.

Footnote 420:

Duhem (_Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 219–223) shows, conclusively the
writer believes, both from external and internal evidence, that this
work was by the twelfth-century Gerard of Cremona and not by the
thirteenth-century Gerard of Sabbionetta, with whom the former was
often confused. Boncompagni in his important work on Gerard (cited
above, p. 399, note 39) made the mistake of attributing the _Theorica
planetarum_ to Gerard of Sabbionetta, in which error he was followed
by the writer of the article on Gerard of Cremona in the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th edit.

Footnote 421:

See Haskins, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 104–110.

Footnote 422:

Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 7272, fol. 60, col. a to
fol. 67, col. d; Duhem, _op. cit._, p. 234.

Footnote 423:

There is no modern critical edition of the _De sphaera_. Duhem (_op.
cit._, p. 239, note 4) cites seventeenth-century editions. The title
of the fifteenth-century edition which has been used by the writer is
given in the Bibliography.

Footnote 424:

On the introduction of the writings of Aristotle to Western knowledge
during the Middle Ages, see the modern works to which cross-references
are given in the Bibliography under Aristotle. In the present work the
attempt is merely made to indicate the dates at which those writings
of Aristotle which contained materials of geographic importance became
known in Western Europe.

Footnote 425:

Steinschneider, _Europ. Übersetz._, in: Sitzungsber., vol. cxlix,
1905, pp. 32, 42, 43. See also below, p. 402, note 61.

Footnote 426:

Duhem, _Du temps_, 1909, pp. 163–178; idem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915,
pp. 181–193.

Footnote 427:

Grabmann (_Forschungen_, 1916, pp. 16–17) argues that “this ‘reflet de
la _Physique_ d’Aristote’ which Duhem sees is in no way demonstrated
by actual citations of Aristotle” but that it results from a general
similarity of thought and ideas only. Grabmann believes that Alan of
Lille, who appears to have known Aristotle’s books on logic only,
could not possibly have been ignorant of the _Physics_ and _De caelo_
if these two works had been known in the West before his time. While
we may agree with Grabmann that it cannot be proved definitely that
the Chartres scholars made direct use of Aristotle’s _Physics_, his
arguments should not be interpreted to mean that the scholars of the
Chartres school were altogether uninfluenced by Peripatetic physical
doctrines. Schneider (_Abendländische Spekulation_, 1915), though he
holds that Duhem was mistaken in his interpretation of William of
Conches’ views regarding the Peripatetic physics (see below, p. 418,
note 28), supports the French savant in maintaining that there was in
existence “a specific Aristotelian trend in astronomic and cosmologic
thought” at this period and that Theodoric and Gilbert may not have
been uninfluenced by it. He maintains that the latter may well have
been familiar with Aristotelian theories introduced through new
Oriental sources and suggests as evidence of the probability of this
the connections established by Hermann the Dalmatian and Rudolph of
Bruges between the Chartres scholars and the group of translators at
Toledo. He even goes so far as to add (p. 40): “Nicht ausgeschlossen
ist, dass ihnen [Theodoric and Gilbert] als solche indirekte Quellen
für die Kenntnis der aristotelischen Naturphilosophie die kurz
gefassten und verhältnissmässig leicht verständlichen Paraphrasen
Avicennas zur _Physik_ und zur _De caelo et mundo_ des Aristoteles
gedient haben.” See below, p. 419, note 32.

Aristotelian influence seems also to have been apparent in the
_Quaestiones naturales_ of Adelard of Bath (see above, p. 154–155, and
below, p. 426, notes 110, 111). Adelard even cites “Aristoteles in
phisicis et alii in tractatibus suis,” though Grabmann and Haskins
claim that this reference is too indefinite to be used to identify any
particular works of the Stagirite or to indicate first-hand
acquaintance with them (Grabmann, _op. cit._, p. 16; Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 38–39).

Footnote 428:

See Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, p. 87, for references on
Gerard.

Footnote 429:

A marginal note in a Nuremberg manuscript of the _Meteorology_
indicates that the first three books were translated by Gerard of
Cremona from the Arabic, the fourth by Henricus Aristippus (see above,
p. 398, note 32) from the Greek, and the last three chapters by Alfred
the Englishman (Alfred of Sareshel) from the Latin. See V. Rose, in:
Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie, vol. i, Berlin, 1866,
p. 385.

Another translation of the _Meteorology_ was done entirely from the
Greek and is dated 1260. See Fobes, _Mediaeval Versions_, 1915, pp.
297–314.

It is very doubtful whether the fourth book is really the work of the
Stagirite. Hammer-Jensen (_Das sogenannte IV. Buch_, 1915) attributes
it to Strato, a Greek Peripatetic philosopher of the third century
before Christ. The last three chapters (those translated from the
Arabic by Alfred of Sareshel) were referred to as _Liber de
congelatis_ by their translator and in printed editions (see
Bibliography under Alfred of Sareshel, II, below) were ascribed either
to Avicenna or to Geber (see Baeumker, _Alfred von Sareshel_, 1913, p.
26, note 2, and Hammer-Jensen, _op. cit._, p. 131). These three
chapters deal with: (1) the origins of stones, (2) the growth of
mountains through earthquakes and through the influence of water and
winds (see above, pp. 213–214), and (3) minerals.

Alfred of Sareshel was one of the most enthusiastic Aristotelians of
the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. His _De motu cordis_
“shows a wealth of Aristotelian citation such as we cannot find in any
other Latin author of its time.” Alfred was active in introducing a
knowledge of Aristotle’s natural science and metaphysics into England.
See Haskins, _Reception_, 1915, pp. 68–69; the same, _Studies_, 1924,
p. 129.

Footnote 430:

_De caelo et mundo_ was the title usually applied in the Middle Ages
to the treatise in four books known in the Greek as Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (_De
caelo_). It does not include the _De mundo_ referred to above, p. 365,
note 1. In the earlier part of the twelfth century Avicenna’s version
of the _De caelo et mundo_ was translated into Latin by Dominicus
Gondisalvi (Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, vol. i, 1911, p. 15, note
1). The fifth book had been translated by Gerard of Cremona. On the
work of Dominicus Gondisalvi and John of Seville (Johannes
Hispanensis), see Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, pp. 177–183;
Thorndike, _Magic_, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 73–82. Versions of the _De
caelo_ from the Greek were also in existence before 1200 (Haskins,
_Studies_, 1924, p. 149).

Footnote 431:

On the manuscript list of the translations of Gerard of Cremona, see
above, p. 400, note 45.

Footnote 432:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 250–275; idem, _Science_,
1922, pp. 672, 684–686; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p. 276.

Footnote 433:

See Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 268–270, and the same,
_Studies_, 1924, pp. 292–294, for the Latin text of the questionnaire;
the same, _Science_, 1922, pp. 689–691, _Studies_, 1924, pp. 266–267,
for translation.

Footnote 434:

Haskins, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, p. 270; idem, _Studies_, 1924, p.
294.

Footnote 435:

In the same, _Michael Scot_, 1921–1922, pp. 272–275, and _Studies_,
1924, pp. 296–297, will be found the Latin text of the part dealing
with hot springs and volcanoes.

Footnote 436:

Stange, _Arnoldus Saxo_, 1885, pp. 26–31.

Footnote 437:

Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, vol. i, 1911, p. 17, note 1; Grabmann,
_Forschungen_, 1916, p. 18.

Footnote 438:

On Averroës, on his influence upon European thought, and on his
various medieval adherents and opponents, see Renan, _Averroès_, 1866.
As a general rule the great Dominican scholars of the thirteenth
century (as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas) were determined
opponents of the Averroïstic theology and philosophy. The Franciscans,
on the other hand, were more ready to adopt these heretical teachings.

Footnote 439:

Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 251.

Footnote 440:

See below, p. 408, note 97.

Footnote 441:

See especially C. V. Langlois, _La connaissance_, 1911, introduction.

Footnote 442:

In the earliest printed editions the _De imagine mundi_ is attributed
to “Honorius Inclusus.” In an edition of 1497 we are told that the
work is sometimes ascribed to St. Anselm and sometimes to Honorius
Inclusus. For the first time in 1544 it was attributed to the
well-known Honorius of Autun and included among his works. This was
also done subsequently in Migne, _Pat. lat._, vol. clxxii, cols.
115–188. The attribution to Honorius of Autun was based on a note in
the last chapter of that author’s _De luminaribus ecclesiae_ which
gives a list of his writings: among them _Imago mundi de dispositione
mundi_. It can be shown, however, that this chapter was added to the
_De luminaribus ecclesiae_ by a later compiler, who may well have
confused Honorius of Autun with Honorius Inclusus. On an extremely
shaky foundation the German scholar, J. A. Endres, in his _Honorius
Augustodunensis: Beitrag zur Geschichte des geistigen Lebens im 12.
Jahrhundert_, Kempten and Munich, 1906, has erected a theory that the
author was a German, who lived at Ratisbon. For the whole question,
see the clear and just discussion by Duhem (_Système_, vol. iii, 1915,
pp. 24–31), who tends to favor the attribution of the work to the
virtually unknown Honorius Inclusus and who says of the elaborate
German argument: “Un loyal et modeste aveu d’ignorance ne vaudrait-il
pas mieux que de tels raisonnements?” (_ibid._, p. 31).

Footnote 443:

“Hic nihil autem in eo pono, nisi majorum commendat traditio” (Migne,
_Pat. lat._, vol. clxxii, cols. 119–120).

Footnote 444:

For a full discussion of the _De imagine mundi_, its sources, and its
influence upon future literature, see Doberentz, _Erd- und
Völkerkunde_, 1881–1882.

Footnote 445:

_ibid._, in: Zeitschrift, vol. xiii, 1881, p. 54.

Footnote 446:

_ibid._, p. 41.

Footnote 447:

In the prologue of the _Liber floridus_ the author refers to himself
as “Lambert, son of Onulph, canon of St. Omer.” See Migne, _Pat.
lat._, vol. clxiii, col. 1003.

Footnote 448:

See Miller, _Mappaemundi_, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 43–53.

Footnote 449:

Six manuscripts of Guido’s work are known (Miller, _ibid._, p. 54).

Footnote 450:

Doberentz, _op. cit._, in: Zeitschrift, vol. xii, 1880, pp. 392–393.

Footnote 451:

Hellmann, _Denkmäler_, 1904, p. (23). Hellmann warns against confusion
of the German _Lucidarius_ and its translations, on the one hand, with
the French popular encyclopedia _Lucidaire_ and the English
_Lucydary_, on the other. The two latter are not translations from the
German but are independent works.

Footnote 452:

Le Noble, _Notice_, 1839, p. 243. The only known manuscript of the
_Hortus deliciarum_, which contained a large number of magnificent
miniatures, was destroyed during the bombardment of Strasburg in 1870.
See, however, the edition of Straub and Keller, 1879–1899.

Footnote 453:

The _Otia imperialia_ is divided into three parts, or “decisiones.”
The first deals with theological and cosmological questions and is in
the main derived from Peter Comestor. The second treats of geography,
and the third of “mirabilia uniuscuiusque provinciae, non omnia, sed
ex omnibus aliqua.”

Footnote 454:

See Doberentz, _ibid._, vol. xii, pp. 412–419. Miller implies that the
general description of the geography of the world which Gervase of
Tilbury gives at the beginning of Decis. II was taken from a map drawn
by Gervase himself (_Itin. rom._, 1916, p. xxxvii).

Footnote 455:

Doberentz, _ibid._, vol. xii, pp. 426–428.

Footnote 456:

C. V. Langlois, _La connaissance_, 1911, pp. 49–113. On the sources of
the _Image du monde_, see the works of Fant, Fritsche, and Le Clerc,
referred to in the Bibliography under these names. The poem in the
first redaction was divided into three main parts: first, the part
dealing with cosmogony, in fourteen chapters; second, that dealing
with geography, in eighteen chapters; third, that dealing with
astronomy, in twenty-two chapters. The second part, on geography,
follows the _De imagine mundi_ very closely, with additions from
Jacques de Vitry. Fritsche, _Untersuchung_, 1880, gives an analysis of
the work chapter by chapter. The “mediocrity” of Fritsche’s book,
which Langlois asserts, is illustrated by its author’s inability to
identify the city of “Aaron”—obviously the world center, Arin
(Fritsche, _op. cit._, p. 23).

Footnote 457:

According to Prior (_L’Image du monde_, 1913) the first verse
redaction dates from 1246. To this 4000 verses were later added,
including a life of St. Brandan, an account of Seth’s visit to
Paradise, and details of the author’s journey to Sicily and Syria and
of his ascent of Mount Etna. The original poem with these additional
parts constituted the second redaction, dating from 1248. A prose
redaction was apparently composed on the basis of the first verse
redaction but before the second verse redaction was made. See the
discussion of the problem of dates by Prior, _op. cit._ (under “Image
du Monde” in the Bibliography), pp. 7–9.

Footnote 458:

Three manuscripts of the poem contain the assertion that its author
was one Gossouin of Metz; only one manuscript of the poem complete
with all the additions, alterations, etc., of the second verse
redaction mentions Walter of Metz as the author. C. V. Langlois (_op.
cit._, pp. 63–65) believed that both verse redactions must have been
the work of Gossouin; Prior (_op. cit._, pp. 12–15) that the first
verse redaction and the prose form were the work of Gossouin and that
the second verse redaction may well have been the work of Walter.
Uncertainty still prevails regarding the whole matter.

Footnote 459:

The _King’s Mirror_ treats, among many other subjects, of the
following matters of geographical interest: the moon, the ebb and
flood, streams, climates, differences in the length of days and of
summer and winter in northern Norway, marvels of India, marvels of
Norway, snowshoes, Iceland, Greenland, whales, earthquakes and ice
fields in Iceland, flora and fauna of Greenland, volcanic phenomena in
Iceland and Sicily, subterranean fire in Iceland, the small extent of
habitable land in Greenland, climatic phenomena, the northern lights
and noises accompanying them, a cooler zone to the south of the hot
equatorial zone where it is summer during our winter. This synopsis is
based on portions of the _King’s Mirror_ as given in translation in
Nansen’s _In Northern Mists_, 1911.

Another Icelandic geographical description of the world, which
probably dates from our period, besides drawing on well-known earlier
authorities, also gives some idea of the Icelandic conception of
geography and furnishes details of the itinerary of a certain Abbot
Nicholas to Rome and the Holy Land. See above, p. 115, and also,
Nansen, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 237 and reference in note 1 regarding
the identity of the author of this work, probably Abbot Nikulás
Bergsson of Thverá (died 1159), though believed by Storm to be an
Abbot Nikulás of Thingeyre. See also K. Kålund, _En islandsk vejviser
for pilgrimme fra 12. århundrede_, in: Aarböger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie, series 3, vol. iii, Copenhagen, 1913, pp.
51–105.

Footnote 460:

In addition to the general works discussed above, mention must be made
of a geographical treatise of minor importance dating from our period.