Chapter VIII: Conclusion (1)

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Footnote 1:

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

Footnote 2:

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

Footnote 3:

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

Footnote 4:

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

Footnote 5:

_Summa Theologica_, pars prima, quæst. 115, arts. 3 and 4.

Footnote 6:

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

Footnote 7:

_Etymologiae_, bk. viii, ch. 9. In Migne’s _Patrologia Latina_, vol.
lxxxii.

Footnote 8:

_Ibid._, bk. xvi, _passim_.

Footnote 9:

_Ibid._, bk. iii, ch. 71. He condemned astrology, however. See
_ibid._, and bk. iii, ch. 27.

Footnote 10:

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

Footnote 11:

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

Footnote 12:

_De Tonitruis ad Herefridum_, and _De Minutione Sanguinis sive
Phlebotomia_. Many spurious treatises were attributed to Bede but
there are some reasons for believing these genuine, although they are
not named by Bede in the list of his writings which he gives in his
_Ecclesiastical History_. Giles included them in his edition after
some hesitation.

Footnote 13:

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

Footnote 14:

_De Naturis Rerum_, bk. ii, ch. 173, and bk. i, ch. 7. Volume xxxiv of
_The Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain_. (The Rolls Series.)

Footnote 15:

_Ibid._, bk. i, ch. 7.

Footnote 16:

_De Naturis Rerum_, bk. ii, ch. 63.

Footnote 17:

_Ibid._, bk. ii, ch. 80.

Footnote 18:

_Ibid._, bk. ii, ch. 3 _et seq._

Footnote 19:

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

Footnote 20:

_Ibid._, bk. ii, ch. 89.

Footnote 21:

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

Footnote 22:

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

Footnote 23:

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

Footnote 24:

The poem is printed in _Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte_, vol.
xviii, (1878) p. 486.

Footnote 25:

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

Footnote 26:

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

Footnote 27:

_Opus Maius_, vol. ii, pp. 204–221. Edited by J. H. Bridges, Oxford,
1897–1900. On page 210 _et seq._ Bacon gives an elaborate recipe for
an _elixir vitae_.

Footnote 28:

_Opus Minus_, Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 373–4.

Footnote 29:

Bridges, _Opus Maius_, vol. i, pp. 137–139.

Footnote 30:

_Compendium Studii_, Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 421–422.

Footnote 31:

Bridges, _Opus Maius_, vol. i, pp. 253–269.

Footnote 32:

_De Secretis_, ch. 3, discusses this question of fascination and also
the power of words and of the human soul. In regard to characters and
incantations, see _De Secretis_, ch. 2, and the _Opus Tertium_, which
is also contained in vol. xv of the Rolls Series, ch. 26.

Footnote 33:

_Opus Tertium_, ch. 27.

Footnote 34:

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

Footnote 35:

See _Liber Mineralium_. _Opera Omnia_, ed. Borgnet (1890), vol. v,
page 23 _et seq._

Footnote 36:

Two good accounts of Arnald are those in the _Histoire Littéraire_,
vol. xxviii and Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, vol. iii, pp.
52–57. Older accounts are generally very misleading.

Footnote 37:

J. M. Rigg, _Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola_, London, 1890, pp. viii-x.

Footnote 38:

Janssen, _History of the German People_, vol. iii, p. 45, of the
English translation by A. M. Christie (1900).

Footnote 39:

Henry Morley, _Life of Agrippa von Nettesheim_ (London, 1856), vol. i,
p. 79. This biography includes a full and instructive outline of
Agrippa’s work on _Occult Philosophy_.

Footnote 40:

A. E. Waite, _Hermetical and Alchemistical Writings of Paracelsus_,
vol. i, p. xii.

Footnote 41:

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

Footnote 42:

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

Footnote 43:

_De Augmentis Scientiarum_, bk. iv, ch. 1.

Footnote 44:

_Ibid._, bk. iv, ch. 3.

Footnote 45:

_Ibid._, bk. iii, ch. 4.

Footnote 46:

Bodin for instance condemned “magic” in his _De Magorum Daemonomania_
(Paris, 1581).

Footnote 47:

Bridges, _Opus Maius_, vol. i, p. 241. See too the _De Secretis
Operibus Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae_. Rolls Series, vol.
xv, appendix.

Footnote 48:

_Spec. Astron._, ch. 17. Albertus Magnus, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Borgnet
(1890), vol. x, pp. 629 _et seq._ And he finally came to the
conclusion that “concerning books of necromancy the better
judgment—prejudice aside—seems to be that they ought rather to be
preserved than destroyed. For the time is perchance near at hand in
which, for reasons which I now suppress, it will be advantageous to
consult them occasionally. Nevertheless, let their inspectors abstain
from abuse of them.” Ch. 17.

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

Footnote 49:

_Magiae Naturalis Libri XX._ Lyons, 1651.

Footnote 50:

_De Augmentis_, bk. iii, ch. 4.

Footnote 51:

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

Footnote 52:

Alfred Maury, in the introduction to his _La Magie et l’astrologie
dans l’antiquité et au moyen âge_, (Paris, 1860), expresses a
practically identical view and has the conception of magic gradually
fading away before the advance of science. (See also the article on
“Magic” in the _Encyclopædia Brittanica_, 9th edition.)

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

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

Footnote 53:

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

Footnote 54:

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

Footnote 55:

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

Footnote 56:

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

Footnote 57:

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

Footnote 58:

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

Footnote 59:

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

Footnote 60:

_Etymologies_, bk. xvi, Migne, vol. lxxxii.

Footnote 61:

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

Footnote 62:

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

Footnote 63:

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

Footnote 64:

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

Footnote 65:

Bk. xxx, ch. 2.

Footnote 66:

Bk. xxvi, ch. 9.

Footnote 67:

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

Footnote 68:

Bk. xxviii, ch. 23.

Footnote 69:

Bk. xxvi, ch. 9.

Footnote 70:

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

Footnote 71:

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

Footnote 72:

Bk. xxx, ch. 5, 6.

Footnote 73:

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

Footnote 74:

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

Footnote 75:

Bk. xxx, ch. 4.

Footnote 76:

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

Footnote 77:

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

Footnote 78:

Bk. xxvi, ch. 59.

Footnote 79:

Bk. xxi, ch. 105.

Footnote 80:

Bk. xviii, ch. 8.

Footnote 81:

Bk. xxiv, ch. 102.

Footnote 82:

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

Footnote 83:

Bk. xxxvii, ch. 36.

Footnote 84:

Bk. xxxvii, ch. 58.

Footnote 85:

Bk. ii, ch. 106.

Footnote 86:

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

Footnote 87:

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

Footnote 88:

Bk. xxviii, ch. 3. “Ex homine remediorum primum maxumae quaestionis et
semper incertae est, polleatne aliquid verba et incantamenta carminum.
Quod si verum est, homini acceptum fieri oportere conveniat, sed
viritim sapientissimi cuiusque respuit fides. In universum vero
omnibus horis credit vita.... Vestalis nostras hodie credimus nondum
egressa urbe mancipia fugitiva retinere in loco precationibus, cum, si
semel recipiatur ea ratio et deos preces aliquas exaudire aut illis
moveri verbis, confitendum sit de tota coniectione. Prisci quidem
nostri perpetuo talia credidere, difficilimumque ex his etiam fulmina
elici, ut suo loco docuimus.”

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

Footnote 89:

Bk. xxi, ch. 19.

Footnote 90:

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

Footnote 91:

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

Footnote 92:

Bk. xxxii, ch. 1.

Footnote 93:

Bk. xxxvii, ch. 59.

Footnote 94:

Bk. xxviii, ch. 23.

Footnote 95:

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

Footnote 96:

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

Footnote 97:

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

Footnote 98:

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

Footnote 99:

Bk. ii, ch. 16.

Footnote 100:

Bk. ii, ch. 6.

Footnote 101:

Bk. ii, ch. 13.

Footnote 102:

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

Footnote 103:

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

Footnote 104:

Bk. ii, ch. 41.

Footnote 105:

Bk. ii, ch. 104.

Footnote 106:

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

Footnote 107:

Bk. ii, ch. 6.

Footnote 108:

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

Footnote 109:

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

Footnote 110:

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

Footnote 111:

Bk. ii, ch. 54.

Footnote 112:

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

Footnote 113:

Vol. i, p. 382. Dr. White’s book, which imputes well-nigh every
fantastic feature of mediæval science to Christian institutions and
theology, is written with too little use of primary sources, and
considerable ignorance of the character of ancient science.

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

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

Footnote 114:

_Nat. Hist._, bk. xxx, ch. 2. “Certe Pythagoras, Empedocles,
Democritus, Plato ad hanc discendam navigavere exsiliis verius quam
peregrinationibus susceptis. Hanc reversi praedicavere, hanc in
arcanis habuere.” Philostratus, as we shall see, mentioned the same
men as associating with the magi, although he denied that they
embraced the magic art. (See _infra_, p. 67.)

Footnote 115:

Bk. xxx, ch. 2. “Plenumque miraculi et hoc, pariter utrasque artis
effloruisse, medicinam dico et magicenque, eadem aetate illam
Hippocrate, hanc Democrito inlustrantibus.” Pliny may have got a false
idea of the teachings of Democritus by accepting as genuine works
which were not. He tells us (bk. xxx, ch. 2) that some persons have
vainly tried to save Democritus’ reputation by denying that certain
works are his. “Democritus Apellobechen Coptiten et Dardanum et
Phoenicem inlustravit voluminibus Dardani in sepulchrum eius petitis,
suis vero ex disciplina eorum editis, quae recepta ab ullis hominum
atque transisse per memoriam aeque ac nihil in vita mirandum est. In
tantum fides istis fasque omne deest, adeo ut qui cetera in viro
probant, haec opera eius esse inficientur. Sed frustra. Hunc enim
maxume adfixisse animis eam dulcedinem constat.”

Footnote 116:

Bk. xxiv, ch. 9. “In promisso herbarum mirabilium occurrit aliqua
dicere et de Magicis. Quae enim mirabiliores? Primi eas in nostro orbe
celebravere Pythagoras atque Democritus, consectati Magos.”

Footnote 117:

_De Divinatione_, bk. i, ch. 39, and bk. ii, ch. 42.

Footnote 118:

_Timaeus_, p. 47 (Steph.). The passage may be found in English
translation in vol. iii, p. 466, of B. Jowett’s _Plato’s Dialogues_
(3d edit.), London, 1892.

Footnote 119:

_Timaeus_, pp. 53–56 (Steph.); Jowett, vol. iii, pp. 473–476.

Footnote 120:

_Laws_, bk. xi, p. 933 (Steph.).

Footnote 121:

_Timaeus_, p. 70 (Steph.). The translation is that of Jowett, vol.
iii, p. 492.

Footnote 122:

_Ibid._, p. 71 (Steph.).

Footnote 123:

_Symposium_, p. 188 (Steph.). Translated by Jowett, vol. i, p. 558.

Footnote 124:

_Timaeus_, p. 40 (Steph.). Jowett, vol. iii, p. 459.

Footnote 125:

_Ibid._, pp. 41, 42 (Steph.).

Footnote 126:

W. Windelband, _History of Philosophy_, p. 147. English translation by
J. H. Tufts. Macmillans, 1898.

Footnote 127:

Windelband, _Hist. of Ancient Philos._, p. 272. Eng. transl. by H. E.
Cushman. Scribners, 1899.

Footnote 128:

_Aristotelis De Animalibus Historiae Libri X_ (Graece et Latine. Io.
Gottlob Schneider. Lipsiae, 1811). Vol. i contains the Greek text. In
the following foot-notes I shall refer to the book, chapter and
section by Roman and arabic numerals, but in the text the book and
chapters are denoted by letters of the Greek alphabet. There is an
English translation of the work by Richard Creswell, London, 1862.
(Bohn Library.)

Footnote 129:

Bk. v, ch. xx, sec. 2; bk. vi, ch. xi, sec. 2; bk. vi, ch. xiv, sec.
1; bk. vii, ch. xi; bk. viii, ch. xvii, sec. 4; bk. viii, ch. xx, sec.
12.

Footnote 130:

Bk. v, ch. xix, sec. 4. Γίγνεται δὲ κηρίον μὲν ἐξ ἀνθῶν. κήρωσιν δὲ
φέρσοσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ δακρύου τῶν δένδρων, μέλι δὲ τὸ πίπτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος
καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἄστρων ἐπιτολαῖς, καὶ ὅταν κατασκήφῃ ἡ ἶρις.
Ὅλως δ’ οὐ γίγνεται μέλι πρὸ πλειάδος ἐπιτολῆς. τὸν μὲν οὖν κηρὸν
ποιεῖ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ἐκ τῶν ἀνθέων, τὸ δὲ μέλι ὅτι οὐ ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ
φέρει τὸ πίπτον, σημεῖον. ἐν μιᾷ γὰρ ἢ ἐν δυσὶν ἡμέραις πλήρη
εὑρίσκουσι τὰ σμήνη οἱ μελιττουργοὶ μέλιτος. Ἔτι δὲ τοῦ μετοπώρου ἄνθη
γίγνεται μὲν, μέλι δ’ οὒ, ὅταν ἀφαιρεθῇ.

Footnote 131:

Bk. v, ch. xvii, sec. 13.

Footnote 132:

Bk. viii, ch. xxviii, sec. 2.

Footnote 133:

Bk. iii, ch. ix, sec. 7 and bk. vi, ch. ii, sec. 4.

Footnote 134:

Bk. v, ch. iv, sec. 7 and bk. vi, ch. ii, sec. 9. See also bk. vi, ch.
xvii, sec. 4.

Footnote 135:

Bk. v, ch. xvii, sec. 2.

Footnote 136:

Bk. ix, ch. xxv, sec 2.

Footnote 137:

Bk. v, ch. xxv, sec. 2.

Footnote 138:

Bk. viii, ch. ix, sec. 1.

Footnote 139:

_De Re Rustica_, chs. 26, 31, 37, 40, 50. Scriptores Rei Rusticae
Veteres Latini. Tomus Primus. Io. Matthias Gesnerus, Lipsiae, 1773.
The speed with which I progressed through the _De Re Rustica_ was
accelerated by the fact that Mr. E. H. Oliver, Ph. D., then of the
School of Political Science, Columbia University, kindly lent me an
English translation which he had made of that work.

Footnote 140:

_De Re Rustica_, ch. 71. See also _ibid._, ch. 70.

Footnote 141:

_De Re Rustica_, ch. 70.

Footnote 142:

_De Re Rustica_, ch. 160. “S. F.” probably means “Sanitas Fracto.” Two
alternative charms are also suggested, namely, “Huat hanat huat ista
pista sista domiabo damnaustra” and “Huat huat huat ista sis tar sis
ardannabon dunnaustra.”

Footnote 143:

Dio Cassius, ch. lii, sec. 36. μαντικὴ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαία ἐστί, καὶ
πάντως τινὰς καὶ ἱερόπτας καὶ οἰωνιστὰς ἀπόδειζον, oἷς οἱ βουλόμενοι
τι κοινώσασθαι σονέσονται. τοὺς δὲ δὴ μαγευτὰς πάνυ οὐκ εἶναι
προσήκει. πολλοὺς γὰρ πολλάκις οἱ τοιοῦτοι, τὰ μέν τινα ἀληθῆ, τὰ δὲ
δὴ πλείω ψευδῆ λέγοντες, νευχμοῦν ἐπαίρουσι.

Lecky translates the passage in his _History of European Morals_
(1889), vol. i, p. 399. The next sentence of the passage is also worth
quoting: τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν φιλοσοφεῖν προσποιουμένων οὐκ ὀλίγοι
ποιοῦσι.

Footnote 144:

_Apologia_, ch. xxv (Van der Vleet, _Apologia et Florida_. Lipsiae,
1900). “Leges cerimoniarum, fas sacrorum, ius religionum.”

Footnote 145:

_Ibid._, ch. xxvi. “Auditisne, magiam, qui eam temere accusatis, artem
esse diis immortalibus acceptam, colendi eos ac venerandi pergnaram,
piam scilicet et divini scientem, iam inde a Zoroastro et Oromazo,
auctoribus suis nobilem, caelitum antistitam? Quippe qui inter prima
regalia docetur, nec ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum
esse, haud magis quam regnare.” This definition reminds one of Agrippa
von Nettesheim’s praise of “that science divine beyond all human
tracing.” In a less degree—for with Apuleius magic is the cult of the
gods and not much concerned with material things—it recalls the high
place assigned to magic by Porta and Francis Bacon.

Footnote 146:

Bk. i, ch. 2 of the life of Apollonius in the works of Philostratus as
edited by Gottfridus Olearius. Lipsiae, 1709. ὁμιλήσαντες μάγοις καὶ
πολλὰ δαιμόνια εἴποντες οὔπω ὑπήχθησαν τῇ τέχνῃ.

Footnote 147:

Indeed “magic,” though condemned, was popular, and charlatans calling
themselves “magi” did a thriving business.

Footnote 148:

Suetonius, Aug., ch. xc; _Tiber._, ch. lxix. Cited by W. E. H. Lecky.
_Hist. of European Morals_ (London, 1899), vol. i, p. 367. Lecky gives
a large amount of material on superstition in the Roman Empire.

Footnote 149:

_Nat. Hist._, bk. xxviii, ch. 5.

Footnote 150:

A. Bouché-Leclercq. “L’Astrologie dans le monde romain.” _Revue
Hist._, vol. lxv, pp. 249 _et seq._ If we may believe the Roman
historians, Tiberius was a devotee of astrology; Caligula was warned
of his death by the stars; Nero, among other acts dictated by his
trust in the art, ordered a number of executions in order to avoid the
evils threatened by a comet; Galba, the three Flavians and Vespasian
all had their astrologers; Titus was himself an adept in the art;
Domitian, when disposing of persons whom the stars designated as
dangerous, made the fatal error of sparing Nerva because the
constellations allowed him but a brief additional term of life; _etc._

Footnote 151:

_Revue Hist._, vol. lxv, p. 252.

Footnote 152:

_Nat. Hist._, bk. xxx, ch. 1, and Tacitus, _Annals_, bk. vi, ch. 22
(28 in some editions).

Footnote 153:

Carolus Gottlob Kuhn. _Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia._ (Lipsiae, 1821, 19
vols.), vol. xii, p. 362. _De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis
ac facultatibus._

Footnote 154:

_De diebus decretoriis_, _ibid._, vol. ix, pp. 901 _et seq._ πάντων
μὲν τῶν ἄνωθεν ἄστρων ἀπολαύομεν τῆς δυνάμεως.

Footnote 155:

“Quod optimus medicus sit quoque philosophus.” _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 53.

Footnote 156:

Vacherot, _L’Ecole d’Alexandria_, vol. ii, p. 115.

Footnote 157:

Ricardus Volkmann, _Plotini Enneades_, Lipsiae (Teubner) 1883. Ennead
ii, ch. iii, sec. 7. ἀλλ’ εἰ σημαίνουσιν οὗτοι τὰ ἐσόμενα, ὥσπερ φαμὲν
πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα σημαντικὰ εἶναι τῶν ἐσομένων, τί ἂν τὸ ποιοῦν εἴη; καὶ
ἡ τάξις πῶς; οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐσημαίνετο τεταγμένως μὴ ἑκάστων γιγνομένων.
ἔστω τοίνυν ὣσπερ γράμματα ἐν οὐρανῷ γραφόμενα ἀεὶ ἢ γεγραμμένα καὶ
κινούμενα, ποιοῦντα μέντοι ἔργον καὶ ἄλλο. ἐπακολουθείτω δὲ τῷδε ἡ
παρ’ αὐτῶν σημασία, ὡς ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἐν ἑνὶ ζῴῳ παρ’ ἄλλου μέρους
ἄλλο ἄν τις μάθοι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἦθος ἄν τις γνοίη εἰς ὀφθαλμούς τινος
ἰδὼν ἤ τι ἄλλο μέρος τοῦ σώματος καὶ κινδύνους καὶ σωτηρίας. καὶ οὖν
μέρη μὲν ἐκεῖνα, μέρη δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς. ἄλλα οὖν ἂλλοις. μεστὰ δὲ πάντα
σημείων καὶ σοφός τις ὁ μαθὼν ἐξ ἄλλου ἄλλο. πολλὰ δὲ ἤδη συνηθείᾳ
γιγνόμενα γινώσκεται πάσι. τίς οὖν ἡ οὐνταξις ἡ μία; οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὸ
κατὰ τοὺς ὄρνεις εὔλογον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ξῷα, ἀφ’ ὦν σημαινόμεθα ἕκαστα.
συνηρτῆσθαι δὴ δει ἀλλήλοις τὰ πάντα, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν ἑνὶ τῶν καθ’
ἕκαστα τοῦ εὖ εἰρομένου σύμπνοια μία, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον καὶ πρότερον ἐν
τῷ παντί. This entire third chapter of the _Ennead_ deals with the
subject. περὶ τοῦ εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα.

See _The Philosophy of Plotinus_, Dunlap Printing Co., Phila., 1896,
page 40, for further references to passages in his works giving his
views anent astrology. He believed that the souls of the dead are
still able to benefit men and to inspire with powers of divination.
_Ennead_, iv, ch. vii, sec. 15.

Footnote 158:

Page 66, note 1.

Footnote 159:

_Apologia_, ch. iii. Even if the oration was a satire and not a speech
actually delivered, the inferences to be drawn from it would be
practically the same.

Footnote 160:

Apuleius may have been guilty of attempting to practice magic.
Certainly he believed in its possibility. He affirmed the existence of
subordinate gods, or demons,—interpreters and ambassadors between
mankind and the superior gods, who live far away from us and have no
direct concern with our affairs. The demons, he believed, were
susceptible to human influence and capable of working marvels. He
stated that the art of divination was due to them. See his _De Deo
Socratis_.

Footnote 161:

_Apologia_, ch. xxvii. Evidently hostility to magic did not commence
with Christianity. Not even, as Roger Bacon thought, did the practice
of confusing philosophy with magic originate among Christian writers.
Bridges, _Opus Maius_, vol. i, p. 29.

Footnote 162:

See Philo’s treatise _De Cherubim_, cited in vol. ii, p. 243, of Rev.
James Drummond’s _Philo Judaeus; or The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy
in its Development and Completion_ (2 vols., London, 1888). Concerning
Philo see also Edouard Herriot, _Philon le Juif_ (Paris, 1898), where
a full bibliography of Philonian and Jewish-Alexandrian literature may
be found. A third important secondary book on Philo is by Siegfried:
_Philo von Alexandria_ (Jena, 1875).

Footnote 163:

Drummond, vol. i, p. 13.

Footnote 164:

_Stromata_, bk. v, ch. 9. Nor was such mysticism advocated by
theological writers alone. Roger Bacon—but one instance from
many—declared that one lessened the majesty of knowledge who divulged
its mysteries, and even went to the length of enumerating seven
methods by which the arcana of philosophy and science might be
concealed from the crowd (_a vulgo_), _De Secretis Artis et Naturae et
de Nullitate Magiae_. Rolls Series, vol. xv, pp. 543–544.

Footnote 165:

_De Civitate Dei_, bk. xi, ch. 30.

Footnote 166:

“Aliquando _De Motu Terrarum_ volumen iuvenis ediderim.” L. Annaei
Senecae _Naturalium Quaestionum Libri Septem_, bk. vi, ch. 4. The
edition by G. D. Koeler, Gottingen, 1819 has convenient summaries
indicating contents at the head of each book, and devotes several
hundred pages to a “Disquisitio” and “Animadversiones” upon Seneca’s
work. In Pancoucke’s _Library_, vol. cxxxxvii, a French translation
accompanies the text.

Footnote 167:

“Veniet tempus, quo posteri nostri tam aperta nos nescisse mirentur.
Harum quinque stellarum ... modo coepimus scire.” Bk. vii, ch. 25.

Footnote 168:

Bk. vii, ch. 31. “Non semel quaedam sacra traduntur. Eleusin servat
quod ostendit revisentibus. Rerum natura sacra sua non simul tradit.
Initiatos nos credimus; in vestibule eius haeremus. Illa arcana non
promiscue nec omnibus patent; reducta et in interiore sacrario clausa
sunt.”

Footnote 169:

Bk. iv, ch. 7. “Et apud nos in duodecim tabulis cavetur ne quis
alienos fructus excantassit. Rudis adhuc antiquitas credebat et
attrahi imbres cantibus, et repelli; quorum nihil posse fieri, tam
palam est, ut huius rei causa nullius philosophi schola intranda sit.”

Footnote 170:

Bk. v, ch. 6 for animals being generated in flames.

Bk. ii, ch. 31 for snakes struck by lightning.

Bk. iii, ch. 25 for the Nile. Bk. iii _passim_, for marvelous
fountains, _etc._

Footnote 171:

Bk. iii, ch. 25.

Footnote 172:

Bk. iii, ch. 26.

Footnote 173:

Bk. ii, ch. 32. “Quidquid fit, alicuius rei futurae signum est.”

Footnote 174:

Bk. ii, ch. 46.

Footnote 175:

Bk. i, ch. 1.

Footnote 176:

Bk. vii, ch. 30. “Egregie Aristoteles ait, numquam nos verecundiores
esse debere, quam quum de diis agitur. Si intramus templa compositi,
si ad sacrificium accesuri vultum submittimus, togam adducimus, si in
omne argumentum modestiae fingimur; quanto hoc magis facere debemus,
quum de sideribus, de stellis, de deorum natura disputamus, ne quid
temere, ne quid impudenter, aut ignorantes affirmemus, aut scientes
mentiamur?”

Footnote 177:

Bk. ii, ch. 10.

Footnote 178:

Bk. vii, ch. 28. “Chaldean” was often used to denote an astrologer
without reference to the person’s nationality.

Footnote 179:

Bk. ii, ch. 32. “Quinque stellarum potestatem Chaldaeorum observatio
excepit. Quid tu? tot millia siderum judicas otiosa lucere? Quid est
porro aliud, quod errorem incutiat peritis natalium, quam quod paucis
nos sideribus assignant: quum omnia quae supra nos sunt, partem sibi
nostri vindicent? Submissiora forsitan in nos propius vim suam
dirigunt; et ea quae frequentius mota aliter nos, aliter cetera
animalia prospiciunt. Ceterum et illa quae aut immota sunt, aut
propter velocitatem universo mundo parem immotis similia, non extra
ius dominiumque nostri sunt. Aliud aspice et distributis rem officiis
tractas. Non magis autem facile est scire quid possint, quam dubitari
debet, an possint.”

Footnote 180:

Bk. iii, ch. 29.

Footnote 181:

Bk. ii, ch. 32. Seneca has been describing other manifestations of the
“divina et subtilis potentia” of thunderbolts; he proceeds, “Quid,
quod futura portendunt: nec unius tantum aut alterius rei signa dant,
sed saepe totum fatorum sequentium ordinem nuntiant, et quidem
decretis evidentibus, longeque clarioribus, quam si scriberentur?”

Footnote 182:

His discussion of divination by thunderbolts is contained in bk. ii,
ch. 31–50.

Footnote 183:

The edition of the _Tetrabiblos_ which I used is that by Philip
Melanchthon, 1553. It gives the Greek text, a Latin translation and an
introduction of interest, in which Melanchthon affirms his own more
modest trust in astrology.

Two other treatises of considerable length setting forth the
principles of astrology and which have come down to us from the Roman
Empire, are a poem consisting of five books of about 900 lines each by
Manilius, probably of the Augustan age; and a prose treatise in eight
books, and apparently left unfinished, by Firmicus who was a
Neo-Platonist of about 350 A. D. M. Manilii _Astronomicon_, London,
1828, Delphin edition. Iulii Firmici Materni _Matheseos Libri VIII_,
(ediderunt W. Kroll et K. Skutsch, Lipsiae, 1897, 2 vols., Teubner
edition). The essay on astrology purporting to be by Lucian is
probably spurious.

Footnote 184:

“C’était la capitulation de la science.” _Rev. Hist._, vol. lxv, p.
257, note 3.

Footnote 185:

Roger Bacon, _Opus Minus_, Rolls Series, vol. xv, p. 313, speaks of
“Hermes Mercurius, pater philosophorum.”

Footnote 186:

_Stromata_, bk. vi, ch. 4.

Footnote 187:

Ammianus Marcellinus, however, writing during the latter fourth
century, says of Egypt: “Hic primum homines longe ante alios ad varia
religionum incunabula, ut dicitur, pervenerunt et initia prima
sacrorum caute tuentur condita scriptis arcanis.” Bk. xxii, ch. xvi,
sec. 20. Again, in bk. xxii, ch. xiv, sec. 7, Ammianus speaks of the
Egyptian mystical books as still extant.

Footnote 188:

F. J. Champagny, _Les Antonins_, vol. iii, p. 81 (Paris, 1863).

Footnote 189:

See article on “Hermes” in _La Grande Encyclopédie_ by Berthelot who
has made an extended study of the history of alchemy; and who, in his
_La Chimie au Moyen Age_ holds that Greek alchemistic treatises were
continuously extant in Italy during the Dark Ages—a circumstance which
diminishes the importance of Arabian influence on the study of the
hermetic art in the later Middle Ages.

Footnote 190:

See Anthon’s _Classical Dictionary_, 1855 (no adequate account of
Hermes Trismegistus exists in any of the more recent classical
dictionaries).

Footnote 191:

The _Poemander_ (or _Pymander_) has been reproduced in the Bath
_Occult Reprint Series_ (London, 1884) from the translation “from the
Arabic by Dr. Everard, 1650.” It has an introduction by Hargrave
Jennings, “author of the Rosicrucians,” giving some account of Hermes
Trismegistus. Vol. ii in the same Bath _Occult Reprint Series_—which
seems to have been instituted on behalf of “students of the occult
sciences, searchers after truth and Theosophists”—is Hermes’ _Virgin
of the World_. Besides Berthelot’s article, an account of Hermes may
be found in pages 181–190 of _The Literary Remains of the late Emanuel
Deutsch_ (London, 1879). There is a French translation of the
_Poemander_ by Menard with an introductory essay which, however,
Deutsch characterized as “deplorably shallow.”

Footnote 192:

J. B. Bury, _Later Roman Empire_ (N. Y., 1899), vol. i, p. 208.

Footnote 193:

_De Divinatione_, bk. i, ch. 58. “Haec habui, inquit, de divinatione
quae dicerem. Nunc illa testabor non me sortilegos neque eos qui
quaestus causa hariolentur, ne psychomantia quidem quibus Appius
amicus tuus uti solebat, agnoscere.”

Footnote 194:

For the arguments of Favorinus, see Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticae_,
bk. xiv; ch. 1. (Delphin & Variorum Classics [1824] ex editione Jacobi
Gronovii.) Fragments of Favorinus’s writings are also to be found in
Stobæus.

The edition of the _Opera_ of Sextus Empiricus which I used was that
by Johannes Albertus Fabricus, (Lipsiae, 1718), giving the Greek text
and a Latin translation.

For Cicero’s arguments, see _De Divinatione_, bk. ii, chs. 42–47.

Footnote 195:

“Adversum istos qui sese chaldæos seu genethliacos appellant, ac de
motu deque positu stellarum dicere posse, quae futura sunt,
profitentur, audivimus quondam Favorinum philosophum Romae Graece
disserentem egregia atque illustri oratione; exercendine autem, anne
ostentandi gratia ingenii, an quod ita serio judicatoque existimaret,
non habeo dicere.” _Noctes Atticae_, bk. xiv, ch. 1, sect. 1. A
foot-note in the Delphin edition expresses preference in place of the
words “exercendine autem, anne ostentendi” for the shorter reading
“exercendi autem, non ostentandi”—which reading is adopted by Hertz in
his edition of the year, 1885.

Footnote 196:

“Disciplinam istam Chaldaeorum tantae vetustatis non esse, quantae
videri volunt; neque eos principes eius auctoresque esse, quos ipsi
ferant: sed id praestigiarum atque offuciarum genus commentos esse
homines aeruscatores, et cibum quaestumque ex mendaciis captantes.”
_Noctes Atticae_, bk. xiv, ch. 1, sect. 2.

Footnote 197:

For instance, the charge that astrologers disregard the differing
aspects of the heavens in different regions does not hold true in the
case of Ptolemy. Also the objection to the doctrine of nativities,
that men born at different times often suffer a common fate in battle
or some such general disaster, is a weak argument at best, for the
fact that you and I are born under different stars does not
necessitate that our careers have absolutely nothing in common, and it
was nullified by Ptolemy’s explanation that great general events like
earthquakes, wars, floods and plagues overrule any contradictory
destiny which the constellations may seem to portend for the
individual. See Bouché-Leclercq, _Rev. Hist._, vol. lxv, p. 268.

Footnote 198:

Similarly Favorinus declared that, if the different fate of twins was
to be explained by the fact that after all they are not born at
precisely the same moment, then to determine one’s destiny the time of
his birth and the position of the stars at the same instant must be
measured with an exactness practically impossible. “Atque id velim
etiam, inquit, ut respondeant: si tam parvum atque rapidum est
momentum temporis, in quo homo nascens fatum accipit, ut in eodem illo
puncto, sub eodem circulo coeli, plures simul ad eamdem competentiam
nasci non queant; et si idcirco gemini quoque non eadem vitae sorte
sunt, quoniam non eodem temporis puncto editi sunt; peto, inquit,
respondeant, cursum illum temporis transvolantis, qui vix cogitatione
animi comprehendi potest, quonam pacto aut consulto assequi queant,
aut ipsi perspicere et deprehendere; quum in tam praecipiti dierum
noctiumque vertigine minima momenta ingentes facere dicant
mutationes.” _Noctes Atticae_, bk. xiv, ch. 1, sect. 10.

Footnote 199:

Favorinus declares that the astrologers may congratulate themselves
that he does not propose such a question to them as that of astral
influence on minute animals; Cicero says that if all animals are to be
subjected to the stars, then inanimate things must be too, than which
nothing could be more absurd.

“Illud autem condonare se iis dicebat, quod non id quoque requireret,
si vitae mortisque hominum rerumque humanarum omnium tempus et ratio
et causa in coelo et apud stellas foret, quid de muscis aut vermiculis
aut echinis, multisque aliis minutissimis terra marique animantibus,
dicerent? An ista quoque isdem, quibus homines, legibus nascerentur,
isdemque itidem exstinguerentur.” Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticae_, bk.
xiv, ch. 1, sect. 12.

“Et si ad rem pertinet, quo modo coelo affecto compositisque sideribus
quodque animal oriatur; valeat id necesse est etiam in rebus inanimis.
Quo quid dici potest absurdius?” _De Divin._, bk. ii, ch. 47.

Favorinus, however, does hint in one place that the sole evidence that
we possess of any influence of the stars upon us is a few such causal
connections as that between the phases of the moon and the tides of
the ocean.

Footnote 200:

Ptolemy made a fair retort to this argument by holding that
foreknowledge, even if it could not enable us to avoid the coming
event, at least served the purpose of breaking the news gently and
saving us the more vivid shock which the actual event, if unexpected,
would cause by its raw reality.

Footnote 201:

See T. Schiche, _De Fontibus Librorum Ciceronis qui sunt de
Divinatione_, (Jena, 1875) and K. Hartfelder, _Die Quellen von Ciceros
zwei Büchern de Divinatione_ (Freiburg, 1878).

Footnote 202:

Bk. i, ch. 39. “Neque ante philosophiam patefactam, quae nuper inventa
est, hac de re communis vita dubitavit; et postea, quam philosophia
processit, nemo aliter philosophus sensit, in quo modo esset
auctoritas. Dixi de Pythagora, de Democrite, de Socrate; excepi de
antiques praeter Xenophanem neminem; adiunxi veterem academiam,
peripateticos, stoicos. Unus dissentit Epicurus.” This trust in
tradition, it may be here observed, formed one of the chief grounds
for mediæval belief in magic as well.

Footnote 203:

Bk. ii, ch. 11. “Hoc ego philosophi non arbitror, testibus uti, qui
aut casu veri aut malitia falsi fictique esse possunt. Argumentis et
rationibus oportet quare quidque ita sit docere, non eventis, iis
praesertim quibus mihi liceat non credere.”

Footnote 204:

Bk. ii, ch. 33. “Errabat enim multis in rebus antiquitas.”

Footnote 205:

Bk. ii, ch. 36.

Footnote 206:

As Tully (bk. ii, ch. 5) puts it, “Quae enim praesentiri aut arte aut
ratione aut usu aut conjectura possunt, ea non divinis tribuenda putas
sed peritis.”

Footnote 207:

Bk. i, ch. 50.

Footnote 208:

Bk. ii, chs. 3, 4.

Footnote 209:

We saw Pliny use “mathematicae artes” as an equivalent of divination
or astrology.

Footnote 210:

Bk. ii, ch. 15.

Footnote 211:

Bk. ii, ch. 16. “Urbem philosophiae, mihi crede, proditis dum castella
defenditis. Nam dum aruspicinam veram esse vultis, physiologiam totam
pervertitis. Caput est in jecore, cor in extis: iam abscedet, simul ac
molam et vinum insperseris; deus id eripiet, vis aliqua conficiet, aut
exedet. Non ergo omnium interitus atque obitus natura conficiet; et
erit aliquid quod aut ex nihilo oriatur, aut in nihilum subito
occidat. Quis hoc physicus dixit unquam? Aruspices dicunt? His igitur
quam physicis potius credendum existimas?”

Footnote 212:

Bk. ii, ch. 28.

Footnote 213:

Bk. ii, ch. 12.

Footnote 214:

Bk. ii, ch. 19.

Footnote 215:

Bk. ii, ch. 12. “Atqui divina cum rerum natura tanta tamque praeclara
in omnes partes motusque diffusa, quid habere potest commune, non
dicam gallinacum fel (sunt enim qui vel argutissima haec exta esse
dicant) sed tauri opimi jecur aut cor aut pulmo, quid habet naturale,
quo declarari possit quid futurum sit?”

Footnote 216:

“Deinde est hominum generi prosperus et salutaris ille fulgor qui
dicitur Jovis. Tum rutilus horribilisque terris, quem Martium dicitis.
Deinde subter mediam fere regionem Sol obtinet, dux et princeps et
moderator luminum reliquorum, mens mundi et temperatio,” _etc._

Footnote 217:

“Nam cum aetas tua septenos octies solis anfractus reditusque
converterit, duoque hi numeri, quorum uterque plenus, alter altera de
causa habetur, circuitu naturali summam tibi fatalem confecerint,
_etc._”

Footnote 218:

These recipes are given in Frazer’s _Golden Bough_, vol. i, p. 23,
from the _De Medicamentis_ of Marcellus, bk. xv, ch. 82 and bk. xxxiv,
ch. 100.

Footnote 219:

Ammianus Marcellinus. _Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt._ F.
Eyssenhardt recensuit. Berlin, 1871. Book xxviii, ch. iv, sec. 24.
“Multi apud eos negantes esse superas potestates in caelo, nec in
publico prodeunt nec prandent nec lavari arbitrantur se cautius posse,
antequam ephemeride scrupulose sciscitata didicerint, ubi sit verbi
gratia signum Mercurii, vel quotam cancri sideris partem polum
discurrens optineat luna.” Very likely, however, Ammianus—whom we
shall see defending divination in general—himself cherished a moderate
trust in astrology and was rather satirizing the infidelity of the
nobles—their inconsistency in so minutely ruling their lives by the
planets when they denied the existence of “superas potestates _in
caelo_.” There is an English translation of Ammianus by C. D. Yonge
(London, 1862; Bohn Library).

Footnote 220:

_Ibid._, bk. xxii, ch. xvi, sec. 18. “Pro omni tamen experimento
sufficiat medico ad commendandam artis auctoritatem, si Alexandriae se
dixerit eruditum.”

Footnote 221:

_Ibid._, bk. xxii, ch. xvi, sec. 17. “Et quamquam veteres cum his,
quorum memini floruere conplures, tamen ne nunc quidem in eadem urbe
doctrinae variae silent; nam et disciplinarum magistri quodam modo
spirant et nudatur ibi geometrico radio quidquid reconditum latet,
nondumque apud eos penitus exaruit musica nec harmonica conticuit, et
recalet apud quosdam adhuc licet raros consideratio mundani motus et
siderum, doctique sunt numeros haud pauci; super his scientiam callent
quae fatorum vias ostendit.”

Footnote 222:

Bk. xxii, ch. xii, sec. 8.

Footnote 223:

Bk. xxi, ch. i, sec. 7. “Et quoniam erudito et studioso cognitionum
omnium principi malivoli praenoscendi futura pravas artes adsignant,
advertendum est breviter unde sapienti viro hoc quoque accidere
poterit doctrinae genus haud leve. Elementorum omnium spiritus, utpote
perennium corporum praesentendi motu semper et ubique vigens ex his
quae per disciplinas varias affectamus, participat nobiscum munera
divinandi; et substantiales potestates ritu diverso placatae, velut ex
perpetuis fontium venis vaticina mortalitati subpeditant verba.”

Footnote 224: