Chapter XXVII: Part IV: (Bridges’ edit., vol. i, 1897, pp. 109–119) is devoted to the

subject of rays of light and emanations from the heavenly bodies and
to the problem of the sphericity of the universe. Elsewhere in Part IV
the influences of the heavenly rays upon the earth, especially in
respect to zones, tides, and the healthfulness of situations, are
brought out. Bacon here is largely indebted to Robert Grosseteste (see
above, pp. 163–165). These theories are also worked out in some detail
in the chapters of Part V (on optics) devoted to the multiplication of
species (Bridges’ edit., vol. ii, 1897, pp. 539–543; Werner, _Kosm.
Roger Baco_, 1879, pp. 597–599).

The last portion of Part IV (Bridges’ edit., vol. i, 1897, pp.
175–404), not divided into chapters, is a treatment of two broad
subjects:

1. The importance of mathematics in relation to theology. Under this
heading, among other points, there is given an explanation of how
mathematics aids us in acquiring knowledge of the heavens, of the
location of Paradise and of Hell, of sacred geography (that is of the
positions and physical conditions of places spoken of in Scripture),
of geometry (here the influence of mountains in reflecting the sun’s
rays is elucidated; see above, pp. 179–180; Werner, _op. cit._, p.
599; Duhem, _Système_, vol. iii, 1915, p. 418), and of numbers (here
are explained the size, distance, and relative magnitude of the
heavenly bodies in relation to the earth and to the heavenly spheres).

2. The influence of the heavens on things terrestrial (Bridges’ edit.,
vol. i, 1897, pp. 286–403). According to Bacon geographic conditions
are governed by astronomical and astrological forces. This part of the
_Opus majus_ shows first how the latter are effective in determining
the conditions of habitability on the earth’s surface; it closes with
a general description of the habitable earth (see especially Werner,
_op. cit._, p. 545, note 4, and pp. 546–550, on Bacon’s astrological
geography, and pp. 600–606, on Bacon’s regional geography). _Climata_
and the practical utility of knowledge of geography and of climates to
the missionary are discussed. The description of the habitable earth
is particularly full for Egypt, the Holy Land, India, Eastern Europe,
Central Asia, and Cathay. Much fresh material regarding the Mongols
and the Far East was derived from Bacon’s contemporaries, the
Franciscan travelers John of Pian de Carpine and William Rubruck (see
above, pp. 269–270). Bacon dismisses the geography of Western Europe
as too familiar to require special treatment.

Besides the _Opus majus_, Bacon’s _Communia naturalium_ and commentary
on the _Secretum secretorum_ include a few passages of interest to us.
In the former the finite character of the universe is explained
(Oxford edit., fasc., iv, pp. 369–373; see also, _Opus tertium_,
Brewer’s edit., pp. 140–141), together with some consideration of the
dimensions of heaven and of earth (Oxford edit., fasc. iv, pp.
414–418). In the latter (a book of miscellaneous precepts for the
guidance of human affairs, which was many times translated from the
Arabic during the Middle Ages and which was altered, augmented, and
edited by Bacon) there is material on astronomy, on the size and
sphericity of the earth, and on the relative extent of land and sea
(Oxford edit., fasc. v).

Footnote 467:

Dante treats incidentally of the traditional geography and astronomy
of his period in the _Convito_ and in numerous references in the
_Divine Comedy_. His sources were mainly Orosius, Isidore, Albertus
Magnus, and Brunetto Latino (see Moore, _Studies in Dante: Third
Series_, 1903, pp. 110–111). A most interesting and original
discussion of linguistic geography will be found in the _De vulgari
eloquentia_ (see Mori, _La geogr._, 1922, pp. 289–292; Andriani, _La
carta dialettologica_, 1923, pp. 255–263). The _Quaestio de aqua et
terra_, frequently ascribed to Dante, is of doubtful authenticity.
Moore, _Studies in Dante: Second Series_, 1899, pp. 303–374, Shadwell
in his edition of the _Quaestio de aqua et terra_, 1909, and Mori,
_op. cit._, p. 285, hold it to be a genuine work of the poet; Boffito,
_Intorno alla “Quaestio de aqua et terra,”_ Memoria I, 1902, believed
it to be spurious; serious objections to Boffito’s arguments, however,
were raised by V. Biagi in a review of the former’s work (Bollettino
della Società Dantesca, vol. x, Florence, 1903) with the “result that
Boffito himself appears to be less resolved to maintain his thesis in
his latest publication, _La “Quaestio de aqua et terra” di D. A., ed.
principe del 1508 riprod. in facsimile, etc._, Florence, 1905”
(Marinelli, _Scritti minori_, vol. i, [1908?], p. 196, note 3, p. 219,
note 1). See also Arnold Norlind: _Dante som geograf och medeltidens
behandling av frågan on vatten och land_, in: Ymer: Tidskrift utgiven
av Svenska Sällskapet för Antropologi och Geografi, vol. xliv,
Stockholm, 1924, pp. 260–278.

For references to an edition of the text of Dante and to English
translations of his various works see the Bibliography under Dante.

Footnote 468:

For the latest and most authoritative study of Otto, his works and his
place among the literary men of the period, see Hofmeister, _Otto von
Freisingen_, 1911–1912.

Footnote 469:

The continuation to 1160 is surely, and that from 1160 to 1170
possibly, the work of Ragewin, Otto’s pupil and notary (Potthast,
_Wegweiser_, vol. ii, 1896, p. 886).

Footnote 470:

_Gesta Frid._, II, 13, 43. See Hofmeister, _op. cit._, p. 734.

Footnote 471:

The genuineness of the _Ligurinus_, which had long been suspected of
being an imposture, was established after 1870 by two scholars working
simultaneously and independently, Pannenborg and Gaston Paris.
Pannenborg, who at first thought that the author of this poem was an
Italian, was subsequently converted to the opinion that he was a
German by the arguments of Paris. In 1883 Pannenborg definitely
established the thesis that the _Ligurinus_ was the work of Gunther of
Pairis. See Pannenborg, _Über den Ligurinus_, 1871; the same,
_Magister Guntherus_, 1873; the same, _Der Verfasser_, 1884; Gaston
Paris, _Dissertation critique_, 1872; Vulpinus, _Der Ligurinus_, 1889
(under Gunther of Pairis in the Bibliography), introduction.

Footnote 472:

Pannenborg, _Über den Ligurinus_, 1871, p. 254.

Footnote 473:

See, for example, the description of the spring, Bk. VI, lines
481–485.

Footnote 474:

Gaston Paris, _op. cit._, pp. 85–86.

Footnote 475:

See below, p. 412, note 13.

Footnote 476:

See Delaborde’s introduction to the _Philippis_ in: _Oeuvres de
Rigord_, vol. i, 1882, pp. lxxii-lxxiii (under William the Breton in
the Bibliography).

Footnote 477:

A thorough study of the geographical ideas expressed in the historical
epics of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries would undoubtedly
yield fruitful results.

Footnote 478:

The Nearer East as pictured in the old French Crusading literature is
discussed by Dreesbach, _Der Orient_, 1901.

Footnote 479:

_ibid._, pp. 69–73.

Footnote 480:

_ibid._, p. 70.

Footnote 481:

See preface to Stubbs’s edition of the works of Benedict of
Peterborough, vol. i, 1867, pp. ix-lxvii.

Footnote 482:

_ibid._, vol. ii, p. 122.

Footnote 483:

_Chronica_, Stubbs’s edit., vol. iii, 1870, pp. 47–55.

Footnote 484:

Dreesbach, _Der Orient_, 1901, pp. 73–75.

Footnote 485:

_ibid._, pp. 79–83.

Footnote 486:

_ibid._, pp. 88–89.

Footnote 487:

See Hermannsson, _Bibl. Icelandic Sagas_, 1908; the same, _Northmen_,
1909; the same, _Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910.

Footnote 488:

See the same, _Bibl. Eddas_, 1920.

Footnote 489:

On the _Saga of Eric the Red_ and on the _Flateyjarbók_, see Reeves,
_Wineland_, 1890, _passim_.

Footnote 490:

Virtually nothing is known of Ari Frodhi. The _Íslendingabók_ was
“written probably shortly after 1134” (Hermannsson, _Bibl. Icelandic
Sagas_, 1908, p. 56).

Footnote 491:

The discovery of Iceland is also described in a Latin work written by
“Theodricus monachus,” probably toward the close of the twelfth
century and bearing the title _Historia de antiquitate regum
norwagiensium_. Nansen dates this work about 1180 (_Northern Mists_,
1911, vol. i, p. 254). See Hermannsson, _Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910, p.
67.

Footnote 492:

Hermannsson, _Northmen_, 1909, pp. 5–6; Reeves, _op. cit._, pp. 79–83.

Footnote 493:

Nansen, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 263. The _Greenland Annals_ were
compiled by Björn Jonsson (1574–1656).

Footnote 494:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 517.

Footnote 495:

This manuscript was discovered in Scotland in 1849. See Hermannsson,
_Bibl. Sagas Kings_, 1910, p. 31.

Footnote 496:

See above, pp. 49–50 and 73–74.

Footnote 497:

The fundamental work on the Romance of Alexander during our period is
Meyer, _Alexandre le Grand_, 1886.

Footnote 498:

The _Historia de praeliis_, for instance, the tenth-century work of
Leo Archipresbyter (see above, p. 381, note 26), was the text from
which Frutolf of Michaelsberg derived the version of the Romance of
Alexander which he inserted in his chronicle and which thus found its
way to the chronicle of Otto of Freising (Meyer, _op. cit._, vol. ii,
p. 39). That the chronicle from which Otto drew was by Frutolf and not
by Ekkehard of Aura was shown by Bresslau, _Die Chroniken_, 1895.

Footnote 499:

This probably dates from the beginning of the twelfth century (Meyer,
_op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 49).

Footnote 500:

On the sources of the _Alexandreis_, see Francke, _Geschichte_, 1879,
pp. 89–107, and Giordano, _Alexandreis_, 1917, _passim_.

Footnote 501:

Meyer, _op. cit._, pp. 69–101.

Footnote 502:

_ibid._, pp. 102–132.

Footnote 503:

_ibid._, pp. 133–253.

Footnote 504:

Meyer, _loc. cit._, has worked out the probable authorship and
derivation of the various parts of the poem. He divides the work as a
whole into four consecutive sections or “branches.” Of these the
oldest is the third in order and is by Lambert li Tors; this branch
contains those parts of the Romance which are concerned with
Alexander’s adventures in the heart of Asia and in India; in fact
those parts of the work which contain the majority of the elements of
geographic interest. To this third branch, the first, second, and
fourth were added at a later date. These were the work of Alexandre de
Bernai and Pierre de St. Cloud. There are also a number of
interpolations into the body of the poem which may not be attributed
to any of the three writers named.

Footnote 505:

This poem was entitled _Le Roman de toute chevalerie_. Meyer (_op.
cit._, vol. ii, p. 275) knew of four manuscripts. In one of these, in
Paris, the _Roman_ is ascribed to Thomas of Kent, and in a manuscript
in Cambridge it is attributed to Eustace of Kent—Meyer holding that
the latter is correct. There is much of geographical interest in the
poem. The following are some of the chapter headings of parts dealing
with material of geographic significance (from a manuscript in Durham,
Library of the Chapter of Durham, C. iv, 27b, as cited by Meyer, _op.
cit._, vol. i, pp. 177–190).

“.i. Le proloug

\.ij. La descripcion del mond....”

“.lxxxiiij. De genz de grant age en Inde.

\.lxxxv. De Gangarides l’idle e de son poeple.

\.lxxxvj. De Polibatre e de son poeple.

\.lxxxvii. Del mont Malens le plus haut del mond.

\.lxxxviij. De genz qe vivent de veneison et de pesson....”

[Further details of races and marvels of India follow.]

“.cxlviij. De Gog et Magog qui mangerent la gent....”

“.ccxxxij. Del pople qu’est apellés Serres et de lur dreiture.”

Footnote 506:

Zarncke, _Priester Johannes_ (under Prester John in the Bibliography),
in: Abhandl., vol. vii, 1879, pp. 832–846.

Footnote 507:

Zarncke, _op. cit._, p. 878. In some manuscripts this _Letter_ is said
to be a Latin translation by Archbishop Christian of Mainz; Thorndike,
however, observes that it seems “even in its earliest and briefest
form without doubt a Western forgery and bears the marks of its Latin
origin” (Thorndike, _Magic_, vol. ii, 1923, p. 240).

Footnote 508:

Edited by Zarncke, _op. cit._, pp. 872–934.

Footnote 509:

Zarncke, _op. cit._, in: Abhandl., vol. viii, 1876, pp. 120–127.

Footnote 510:

See Zarncke’s observations regarding the French text (Berichte, vol.
xxix, 1877, p. 135) and his edition of the English text (Berichte,
vol. xxx, 1878, pp. 41–46). French, English, and Italian texts are
addressed to the Emperor Frederick and not to Manuel.

Footnote 511:

See above, p. 50; also pp. 381–382, notes 28, 29.

Footnote 512:

Beazley (_Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 112–217) gives an excellent
summary of the history of pilgrim travel throughout the Middle Ages,
with a résumé of the most important sources. For the bibliography of
this subject see especially Röhricht, _Bibliotheca_, 1890. For English
translations of the pilgrims’ accounts of the Holy Land see the
publications constituting _The Library of the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text
Society_, 1897 (see the Bibliography under Palestine Pilgrims’ Text
Society).

Footnote 513:

Beazley, _op. cit._, pp. 139–155. See also Bibliography under Saewulf.

Footnote 514:

_ibid._, pp. 190–195. See also Bibliography under John of Würzburg.

Footnote 515:

_ibid._, pp. 195–199. See also Bibliography under Theoderic (Pilgrim).

Footnote 516:

From internal evidence the itinerary of Abbot Nikulás can be shown to
date from the twelfth century. See above, p. 405, note 90.

Footnote 517:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 184.

Footnote 518:

_ibid._, pp. 186–189. See also Bibliography under Fetellus.

Footnote 519:

_ibid._, pp. 203–207.

Footnote 520:

See especially Ganzenmüller, _Naturgefühl_, 1914, pp. 202–216, for
citations and translations (into German) of portions of letters which
throw light on the medieval feeling for nature.

Footnote 521:

Wattenbach, _Guido von Bazoches_, 1891 (under Guy of Bazoches in the
Bibliography). Wattenbach (_op. cit._, p. 71) refers to a _Libellus de
regionibus mundi_ by Guy of Bazoches now in Paris, Bibliothèque
Nationale MSS., fonds latin, no. 4998.

Footnote 522:

_Chronica Slavorum_, V, 19, in: _Mon. Germ. hist._, Scriptores, vol.
xxi, pp. 192–196.

Footnote 523:

See Carmoly, _Itinéraires_, 1847, pp. 115–168, for text and commentary
on the itinerary of Samuel bar Simson, 1211, and pp. 171–216, for
Jacob of Paris’ description of the holy tombs, 1258. The other
itineraries in Carmoly’s volume fall in a period later than that
covered by the present study.

Footnote 524:

Benjamin of Tudela, _Itinerary_, Adler’s edit., 1907, p. xiii.

Footnote 525:

On Benjamin of Tudela, see Adler’s edition of the _Itinerary_ and
Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 224–264. For a useful general
introduction to the geographical literature of the Jews, see Zunz,
_Essay_, 1841.

As the manuscript of this book is about to go to press there has come
to the writer’s attention the brief note by Paul Borchardt,
_L’itinéraire de Rabbi Benjamin de Tudèle_, 1924. Borchardt writes (p.
31): “En différents travaux j’ai prouvé que le célèbre Rabbi Benjamin
ne mérite pas le reproche d’inexactitude, même en ce qui concerne la
route de Chine.... J’espère prouver par ce qui suit que R. Benjamin
mérite comme Marco Polo le nom d’un homme digne de foi.” References
are given in footnote 1, p. 31, of Borchardt’s note to other studies
by Borchardt relating to Benjamin. Unfortunately the present writer
has been unable to consult these. The references follow as given by
Borchardt: “Conférence de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Munich: _Reiseweg des
R. Benjamin von Tudela und des R. Petachia von Regensburg in
Mesopotamien_, 3, III. 22., _Karawanenstrassen in Arabien nach R.
Benjamin von Tudela_, Anthropos Wien 1922/23 (4–6), p. 1066 ss.,
1923/24 (1–3) et _Zur Frage der Falaschajuden in Abessinien_,
Anthropos, Wien 1923/24 (1–3), carte.” See also below, p. 474, note
237a.

Footnote 526:

Petachia of Ratisbon, _Travels_, Benisch and Ainsworth’s transl.,
1856; Beazley, _op. cit._, pp. 264–274.

Footnote 527:

This poem is inserted at fol. 13 of Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., fonds
latin, nouvelles acquisitions, no. 299, in the midst of the _Speculum
regum_ of Godfrey of Viterbo. Delisle, its editor, explains why it
should be attributed to Godfrey (_Littérature latine_, 1890, p. 41;
listed under Godfrey of Viterbo in the Bibliography).

Footnote 528:

“Praelia regnorum non hic, set fastus eorum
Scribitur, aut fluvius, orbes speciesque locorum
Aut series morum, norma colenda, forum.”
—_Denumeratio_, Delisle’s edit., p. 44.

Footnote 529:

Stubbs’s edition of the works of Gervase of Canterbury, vol. i, 1879,
p. xxi.

Footnote 530:

On the dimensions of Britain he quotes from Henry of Huntingdon,
_Historia Anglorum_, I.

Footnote 531:

On the work of Giraldus as a whole see preface to vol. i (pp. i-xcv)
of the Rolls Series edition (no. 21), London, 1861, and Lloyd,
_History of Wales_, 1911, vol. i, pp. 554–564.

Footnote 532:

_Giraldi Cambrensis opera_ (Rolls Series No. 21), vol. i, edited by J.
S. Brewer, London, 1861, Introduction, p. xl.

Footnote 533:

_ibid._, vol. vi, edited by J. F. Dimock, London, 1867, pp.
xlvi-xlvii.

Footnote 534:

In addition to the _Mirabilia_, there was written, probably in the
twelfth century, a short tract by one Master Gregory, on the marvels
of Rome, much of which was copied by Ranulph Higden in his
_Polychronicon_. This appears to have been composed independently of
the _Mirabilia_, although it deals with the same subject. The author
may have been an Englishman. See James, _Magister Gregorius_, 1917
(under Gregory, Master, in the Bibliography), pp. 531–554.

Footnote 535:

Miller’s _Mappaemundi_, vol. i, 1895, deals with the Beatus maps and
is accompanied by a colored reproduction of the St. Sever Beatus map
(our Fig. 2, p. 69). Vol. ii, 1895, is an atlas of photographic
reproductions of the Beatus and other maps of the world of the period.
Vol. iii, 1895, contains explanatory text on the more important
earlier maps, together with photographs and cuts. Vol. iv, 1896, and
vol. v, 1896, are devoted to the Hereford and Ebstorf maps of the
world from after our period, and vol. vi, 1898, to attempts at the
reconstruction of lost _mappaemundi_. A word of caution is perhaps
necessary against too ready acceptance of all of Miller’s theories
regarding the connections between maps and the influence of one type
upon others. See above, p. 377, note 167, and below, p. 458, note 17.

Footnote 536:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, pp. 549–642.

Footnote 537:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp. 123–126. On p. 124 Miller states
that “in the manuscript of the _Magna de naturis philosophia_ of
William of Conches ... in the Stuttgart Library, three maps are
included, described by Santarem.” See Santarem, _Essai_, vol. iii,
1852, pp. 499–505. Beazley (_Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 626), following
Miller, also ascribes these maps to a manuscript of the _Magna de
naturis philosophia_. The manuscript in question, however, is of no
other work than William of Conches’ _De philosophia mundi_, which
Santarem (_op. cit._, pp. 499–500) ascribed wrongly to William of
Hirschau (see above, p. 398, note 28). No manuscripts or copies of the
_Magna de naturis philosophia_ are extant, and Poole believes that if
such a work ever existed it has been wrongly attributed to William of
Conches (Poole, _Illustrations_, 1920, pp. 306–310).

Footnote 538:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 126–128.

Footnote 539:

_ibid._, pp. 118–120.

Footnote 540:

_ibid._, pp. 110–115.

Footnote 541:

See above, p. 68. See also Miller, _op. cit._, vol. i, 1895, _passim_.

Footnote 542:

_ibid._, vol. iii, 1895, pp. 43–53 and pl. 4.

Footnote 543:

In this respect Lambert’s map resembles a _mappamundi_ made in the
eleventh century at Ripoll in Catalonia. On this interesting map see
Vidier, _Mappemonde de Théodulfe_, 1911, pp. 285–315.

Footnote 544:

Miller, _op. cit._, vol. iii, pp. 54–57.

Footnote 545:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 21–29 and pl. 2; vol. ii, pl. 13.

Footnote 546:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 71–73.

Footnote 547:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 37–43 and pl. 3; vol. ii, pl. 1.

Footnote 548:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 1–21 and pl. 1; vol. ii, pls. 11 and 12.

Footnote 549:

_ibid._, vol. iii, pp. 61–68.

Footnote 550:

_ibid._, pp. 68–94.

Footnote 551:

Beazley, _Dawn_, vol. ii, 1901, p. 585.

NOTES