Most widely influential upon the medieval mind of all the spurious works attributed to Aristotle was The Secret of Secrets. Förster enumerated two hundred and seven Latin manuscripts of it and his list is probably far from complete.[839] Gaster calls it “The most popular book of the middle ages.”[840] This is not surprising since it purports to sum up in concise form what the greatest of ancient philosophers deemed it essential for the greatest of ancient rulers to know, and since under the alluring pretense of revealing great secrets in parable and riddle it really masses together a number of the best-tested and most often repeated maxims of personal hygiene and practical philosophy, and some of the superstitions to which men have shown themselves most inclined. Every European library of consequence contains a number of copies of it. It was translated into almost every European language and was often versified, as in Lydgate’s and Burgh’s Secrees of old Philisoffres.[841] Albertus Magnus cited it as Aristotle’s;[842] Roger Bacon wrote a rather jejune commentary upon it.[843] It was printed a number of times before 1500.[844]
The Secrets of Secrets is believed to be the outcome of a gradual process of compilation from very varied sources, and to have reached something like its present form by the seventh or eighth century of our era. But its chapters on physiognomy, as we have seen, go back to Polemon’s treatise, and part of its medical discussion is said to be borrowed from Diocles Caristes who wrote about 320 B. C. Some Graeco-Persian treatise is thought to be the basis of its discussion of kingship. It is also believed to have appropriated bits from popular literature to its own uses. In Arabic there is extant both a longer and a shorter version, and Gaster has edited a Hebrew text which is apparently derived from an Arabic original different from that of any Latin text. The process of successive compilation, or at least, re-editing and repeated translation which the work underwent is suggested by a series of prologues which occur at the beginning. Following the preface of the Latin translator and the table of contents comes what is called “the prologue of a certain doctor in commendation of Aristotle,”[845] in which omnipotent God is prayed to guard the king and some anonymous editor states that he has executed the mandate enjoined upon him to procure the moral work on royal conduct called The Secret of Secrets, which Aristotle, chief of philosophers, composed. After some talk about Aristotle and Alexander a second prologue begins with the sentence, “John who translated this book, son of a patrician, most skilful and faithful interpreter of languages, says.” This John appears to have been Yuhanna ibn el-Batrik, or Ibn Yahya al-Batrik, who died in 815 A. D.[846] What he says is that he searched the world over until he came to an oracle of the sun which Esculapides had constructed. There he found a solitary abstemious sage who presented him with this book which he translated from Greek into Chaldaic and thence into Arabic. This passage reminds one of Harpocration’s prefatory remarks to his daughter in the Kiranides; indeed, it is quite in the usual style of apocryphal writings.
In the matter of the Latin translation we are on somewhat more certain ground. John of Spain in the first half of the twelfth century seems to have translated only the medical portion.[847] Manuscripts of this partial translation are relatively few,[848] and it was presently superseded by the complete translation made either in the twelfth or early thirteenth century[849] by Philip, “the least of his clerics” for “his most excellent lord, most strenuous in the cult of the Christian religion, Guido of Valencia, glorious pontiff of the city of Tripoli.” Philip goes on to say in his dedicatory preface that it was when he was with Guido in Antioch that they found “this pearl of philosophy, ... this book which contains something useful about almost every science,” and which it pleased Guido to have translated from Arabic into Latin. Although the various printed editions and manuscripts of The Secret of Secrets in Latin vary considerably, they regularly are preceded by this ascription of the Latin translation to Philip, and usually by the other prologues afore-mentioned. Who this Philip was, other than a cleric of Tripoli, is still undetermined. If he was the same as the papal physician whom Alexander III in 1177 proposed to send on a mission to Prester John,[850] he had probably made his translation before that date. J. Wood Brown would identify him with Philip of Salerno, a royal notary whose name appears in 1200 on deeds in the kingdom of Sicily. [851] I have already suggested that possibly he translated the Kiranides.
Returning to Philip’s preface to Guido, it may be noted that he states that Latins do not have the work, and that it is rare among the Arabs.[852] His translation is a free one since the Arabic idiom is different from the Latin. Aristotle wrote this book in response to the petition of King Alexander his disciple who demanded that Aristotle should either come to him or faithfully reveal the secrets of certain arts, namely, the motion, operation, and power of the stars in astronomy, the art of alchemy, the art of knowing natures and working enchantments, and the art of geomancy. Aristotle was too old to come in person, and although it had been his intention to conceal in every way the secrets of the said sciences, yet he did not venture to contradict the will and command of so great a lord. He hid some matters, however, under enigmas and figurative locutions. For Alexander’s convenience he divided the work into ten books, each of which is divided into chapters and headings. Philip adds that for his readers’ convenience he has collected these headings at the beginning of the work, and a table of contents follows.[853] Then come the two older prologues which we have already described, next a letter of Aristotle to Alexander on the extrinsic and intrinsic causes of his work,[854] and then with a chapter which is usually headed Distinctio regum or Reges sunt quatuor begins the discussion of kingship which is the backbone of the work.
It is evident from Philip’s preface that occult science also forms a leading feature in the work as known to him. Gaster, who contended that the Hebrew translation from the Arabic which he edited was as old as either John of Spain’s or Philip’s Latin translations, although the oldest of the four manuscripts which he collated for his text is dated only in 1382 A. D., made a rather misleading statement when he affirmed, “Of the astrology looming so largely in the later European recensions the Hebrew has only a faint trace.”[855] As a matter of fact some of the printed editions contain less astrology than the thirteenth century manuscripts, while Gaster’s Hebrew version has much more than “a faint trace” of astrology. But more of this later.
On the other hand, I cannot fully subscribe to Steinschneider’s characterization of The Secret of Secrets as “a wretched compilation of philosophical mysticism and varied superstition.”[856] Of superstition there is a great deal, but of philosophical mysticism there is practically none. Despite the title and the promise in Philip’s preface of enigmatic and figurative language, the tone of the text is seldom mystical, and its philosophy is of a very practical sort.
Nor can The Secret of Secrets be dismissed as merely “a wretched compilation.” Those portions which deal with kingcraft and government display shrewdness and common sense, worldly wisdom and knowledge of human nature, are not restricted by being written from any one premise or view-point, and often evince real enlightenment. Those historians who have declared the love of fame a new product of the Italian Renaissance should have read the chapter on fame in this most popular book of the middle ages, where we find such statements as that royal power ought not to be desired for its own sake but for the sole purpose of achieving fame. Other noteworthy utterances indicative of the tone and thought of the book are that “the intellect ... is the root of all things praiseworthy”; that kings should cultivate the sciences; that liberality involves respect for others’ property; that “war destroys order and devastates the lands and turns everything to chaos”; that no earthly ruler should shed blood, which is reserved for God alone, but limit his punishments to imprisonment, flogging, and torture; that the king, as Chief Justice Coke later told James I, is under the law; that taxes upon merchants should be light so that they will remain in the country and contribute to its prosperity; that his people are a king’s true treasury and that he should acquaint himself with their needs and watch over their interests.
From the medical passages of the book one would infer that the art of healing at first developed more slowly than the art of ruling in the world’s history. The medical theory of The Secret of Secrets is not of an advanced or complex sort, but is a combination of curious notions, such as that vomiting once a month or oftener is beneficial, and sensible ideas, such as that life consists of natural heat and that it is very important to keep the abdomen warm and the bowels moving regularly. Turkish baths are described for perhaps the first time in Europe, and Alexander is advised to keep his teeth and mouth clean. The well-known apothegm of Hippocrates is quoted, “I would rather eat to live than live to eat,” and Alexander is advised to cease eating while he still has an appetite.
Much of the advice offered to Alexander by Aristotle in The Secret of Secrets is astrological. Among those studies which the king should promote, the only one specifically mentioned is astrology, which considers “the course of the year and of the stars, the coming festivals and solemnities of the month, the course of the planets, the cause of the shortening and lengthening of days and nights, the signs of the stars which determine the future and many other things which pertain to prediction of the future.”[857] Alexander is adjured “not to rise up or sit down or eat or drink or do anything without consulting a man skilled in the art of astronomy.”[858] Later the two parts of astronomy are distinguished, that is, astronomy and astrology in our sense of the words. Alexander is further warned to put no faith in the utterances of those stupid persons who declare that the science of the stars is too difficult to master. No less stupid is the argument of others who affirm that God has foreseen and foreordained everything from eternity and that consequently all things happen of necessity and it is therefore of no advantage to predict events which cannot be avoided. For even if things happened of necessity, it would be easier to bear them by foreknowing and preparing for them beforehand, just as men make preparations against the coming of a cold winter—the familiar contention of Ptolemy. But The Secret of Secrets also believes that one should pray God in His mercy to avert future evils and ordain otherwise, “For He has not so ordained things that to ordain otherwise derogates in any respect from His Providence.” But this is not so approved astrological doctrine. Later in the work Alexander is once more urged never to take medicine or open a vein except with the approval of his astronomers,[859] and directions are given as to the constellations under which bleeding should be performed and also concerning the taking of laxatives with reference to the position of the moon in the signs of the zodiac.[860] Later the work discusses the relations of the four elements and of various herbs to the seven planets,[861] and in the next to last chapter Alexander is advised to conduct his wars under the guidance of astrology.[862]
There is much indulging in astrological theory in the midst of the chapter on Justice, and the constitution of the universe is set forth from the first and highest simple spiritual substance down through the nine heavens and spheres to the lowest inferiors. To illustrate the power of the stars the story is presently told of two boys,[863] one a weaver’s son, the other a royal prince of India. Sages who were chance guests in the weaver’s house at the time of the child’s birth noted that his horoscope was that of a courtier high in royal councils but kept their discovery to themselves. The boy’s parents vainly tried to make a weaver of him, but even beatings were in vain; he was finally allowed to follow his natural inclination, secured an education, and became in time a royal governor. The king’s son, on the contrary, despite his royal birth and the fact that his father sent him through all his provinces to learn the sciences, would take no interest in anything except mechanics conformably to his horoscope.
In The Secret of Secrets the Pseudo-Aristotle refers Alexander for the virtues of gems and herbs to his treatises on stones and plants, presumably those which we have already described. He does not entirely refrain from discussion of such marvelous properties in the present work, however, mentioning the use of the virtues of stones in connection with incantations. We also again hear of stones which will prevent any army from withstanding Alexander or which will cause horses to whinny or keep them from doing so; and of herbs which bring true or false dreams or cause joy, love, hate, honor, reverence, courage, and inertia.[864] One recipe reads, “If you take in the name of someone seven grains of the seeds of the herb called androsimon, and hold them in his name when Lucifer and Venus are rising so that their rays touch him (or them?), and if you give him those seven grains to eat or pulverized in drink, fear of you will ever abide in his heart and he will obey you for the rest of his life.”[865] The discussion of incantations, astrological images, and amulets is omitted from many Latin manuscripts but occurs in Roger Bacon’s version.[866]
The extreme powers attributed to herbs and stones in The Secret of Secrets aroused some scepticism among its Latin readers of the thirteenth century.[867] Geoffrey of Waterford, a Dominican from Ireland who died about 1300, translated The Secret of Secrets into French. He criticized, however, its assertions concerning the virtues of stones and herbs as more akin to fables than to philosophy, a fact of which, he adds, all clerks who know Latin well are aware. He wonders why Alexander had to win his battles by hard fighting when Aristotle is supposed to inform him in this book of a stone which will always rout the enemy. Geoffrey decides that such false statements are the work of the translators and that Aristotle is the author only of what is well said or reasonable in the work.
Something is said in The Secret of Secrets of the occult properties and relative perfection of numbers, and as usual the preference is for the numbers, three, four, seven, and ten.[868] The Hebrew version adds a puerile method of divining who will be victor in a battle by a numerical calculation based upon the letters in the names of the generals. The Latin versions of the thirteenth century contain a chapter on alchemy which had great influence and gives a recipe for the philosopher’s stone and the Emerald Table of Hermes.[869] But in the Hebrew version and Achillini’s printed text occurs a passage in which Alexander is warned that alchemy is not a true science.[870]
We may conclude our picture of the work’s contents with two of its stories, namely, concerning the poisonous maiden and the Jew and the Magus. A beautiful maiden was sent from India to Alexander with other rich gifts. But she had been fed upon poison from infancy “until she was of the nature of a snake. And had I not perceived it,” continues Aristotle in the Hebrew version, “for I suspected the clever men of those countries and their craft, and had I not found by tests that she would kill thee by her embrace and by her perspiration, she surely would have killed thee.”[871] This venomous maiden is also alluded to in various medieval discussions of poisons. Peter of Abano mentions her in his De venenis.[872] Gilbert of England, following no doubt Gerard of Cremona’s translation of Avicenna, cites Ruffus rather than the Pseudo-Aristotle concerning her and says nothing of her relations with Alexander, but adds that animals who approached her spittle were killed by it.[873] In Le Secret aux philosophes, a French work of the closing thirteenth century, where the story is told at considerable length, Socrates rather than Aristotle saves Alexander from the poisonous maid.[874]
In the other story a Magus is represented in a much more favorable light than magicians generally were; he seems to represent rather one of the Persian sages. He was traveling on a mule with provisions and met a Jew traveling on foot. Their talk soon turned to their respective religions and moral standards. The Magus professed altruism; the Jew was inclined to get the better of all men except Jews. When these principles had been stated, the Jew requested the Magus, since he professed to observe the law of love, to dismount and let him ride the mule. No sooner had this been done than the Jew, true to his law of selfishness and hate, made off with both mule and provisions. This misfortune did not lead the Magus to lose his faith in God, however, and as he plodded along he by and by came again upon the Jew who had fallen off the mule and broken his neck. The Magus then mercifully brought the Jew to the nearest town where he died, while the king of the country made the Magus one of his trusted ministers of state.[875]
[755] See Roger Bacon’s allusion to this passage in F. A. Gasquet, “An Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon,” in EHR, XII (1897), p. 502.
[756] Ch. Gidel, La Légende d’Aristote au moyen âge, in Assoc. des Études Grecques, (1874), pp. 285-332, except for the Pseudo-Callisthenes uses only the French vernacular literature or popular legends concerning Aristotle. Similar in scope is W. Hertz, Aristoteles in den Alexanderdichtungen des Mittelalters, in Abhandl. d. philos-philol. Classe d. k. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss., XIX (1892) 1-103; revised in W. Hertz, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1905, 1-155.
[757] De naturis rerum, II, 189.
[758] Compendium Studii Philosophiae, ed. Brewer, (1859), p. 473.
[759] It was translated into Arabic about 840 A. D.; an interpolated Latin paraphrase of it was published at Rome in 1519, by Pietro Niccolo de’ Castellani,—Sapientissimi Aristotelis Stagiritae Theologia sive mistica philosophia, secundum Aegyptios noviter reperta et in latinam castigatissime redacta; a French version appeared at Paris in 1572 (Carra de Vaux, Avicenne, p. 74). F. Dieterici translated it from Arabic into German in 1883, after publishing the Arabic text for the first time in 1882. For divergences between this Arabic text and the Latin one of 1519, and citation of Baumgartner that the Theology was known in Latin translation as early as 1200, see Grabmann (1916), pp. 245-7.
[760] Indeed Carra de Vaux, Avicenne, p. 73, says, “Tout un livre qui ne contient en réalité que des extraits des Ennéades IV à VI de Plotin.”
[761] See Arundel MS 165, 14th century. On the general subject of the Pseudo-Aristotelian literature the reader may consult V. Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, and De ordine et auctoritate librorum Aristotelis; Munk’s article “Aristote” in La France littéraire; Schwab, Bibliographie d’Aristote, Paris, 1896; and R. Shute, History of the Aristotelian Writings, Oxford, 1888. It is, however, a difficult subject and for the middle ages at least has not been satisfactorily investigated. Grabmann (1916) devotes only a page or two of supplement to it; see pp. 248-51. A work on Aristotle in the middle ages, announced in 1904 by G. H. Luquet, seems not to have appeared.
[762] Sloane 2030, fols. 110-13.
[763] Hammer-Jensen, Das sogenannte IV Buch der Meteorologie des Aristoteles, in Hermes, vol. 50 (1915) pp. 113-36, argues that its teachings differ from those of Aristotle and assigns it to Strato, his younger contemporary. Not content with this thesis, which is easier to suggest than to prove, Hammer-Jensen contends that it was a work of Strato’s youth and that it profoundly influenced Aristotle himself in his last works. “The convenient Strato!” as he is called by Loveday and Forster in the preface to their translation of De coloribus (1913) vol. VI of The Works of Aristotle translated into English under the editorship of W. D. Ross.
[764] So Hammer-Jensen, p. 113, and earlier Heller (1882), I, 61.
[765] Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek (centur. V, 59, membr. 13th century)—cited by Rose, Hermes 1, 385,—“Completus est liber metheororum cuius tres primos libros transtulit magister Gerardus Lumbardus summus philosophus de arabico in latinum. Quartum autem transtulit Henricus Aristippus de greco in latinum. Tria ultima capitula transtulit Aluredus Anglicus sarelensis de arabico in latinum.”
Steinschneider (1893) pp. 59 and 84; (1905) p. 7; and others, including Hammer-Jensen, give the name of the translator of the fourth book from the Greek as Hermann and of the last three chapters as Aurelius, whom Steinschneider is more correct in describing as “otherwise unknown.” On the other hand, we know that Aristippus and Alfred translated other Aristotelian treatises. Evidently Steinschneider and the others have followed MSS where the copyist has corrupted the proper names.
[766] Steinschneider and Hammer-Jensen quote from MSS, “tria vero ultima Avicennae capitula transtulit Aurelius de arabico in latinum.” Albertus Magnus, Mineral, III, i, 9, also ascribed the passage to Avicenna; others have suggested that it is by disciples of Avicenna. See J. Wood Brown (1897) pp. 72-3, for a similar passage from Avicenna’s Sermo de generatione lapidum.
[767] They were printed at Bologna, 1501, as Liber de mineralibus Aristotelis and also published, sometimes as Geber’s, sometimes as Avicenna’s, under the title, Liber de congelatione.
BN 16142 contains a Latin translation of the four books of the Meteorology with an addition dealing with minerals and geology which is briefer than the printed Liber de mineralibus Aristotelis, omitting the passage against the alchemists: published by F. de Mély, Rev. des Études grecques, (1894), p. 185 et seq. (cited Hammer-Jensen, 131).
[768] Speculum naturale, VIII, 85.
[769] See note 1 above.
[770] Greek text by Prantl, Teubner, 1881; English translation by Loveday and Forster, 1913. See also Prantl, Aristoteles über die Farben, 1849.
[771] Just a few examples are: Mazarine 3458 and 3459, 13th century; 3460 and 3461, 14th century; Arsenal 748A, 15th century, fol. 185; BN 6325, 14th century, #1; BN 14719, 14-15th century, fol. 38-; BN 14717, end 13th century; BN 16633, 13th century, fol. 102-; S. Marco X, 57, 13th century, beautifully illuminated, fols. 312-17; Assisi 283, 14th century, fol. 289-; Volterra 19, 14th century, fol. 196-.
[772] Berthelot (1885) p. 143, “Platon et Aristote sont mis en tête de la liste des alchimistes œcuméniques sans qu’aucun ouvrage leur soit assigné.”
[773] Berthelot (1888) I, 76; citing Manget, Bibl. Chemica, I, 622.
[774] Digby 162, 13th century, fols. 10v-11v, “Incipit liber Aristotelis de aquis secreti fluminis translatus ab arabico in latinum.” In the margin the twelve waters are briefly designated: 1 rubicunda, 2 penetrativa, 3 mollificativa, et ingrediente, 4 de aqua eiusdem ponderis et magnitudinis, 5 ignita, 6 sulphurea, 7 aqua cineris, 8 aurea, etc. In one or two cases, however, these heads do not quite apply to the corresponding chapters.
[775] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 200-202, de “altitudinibus, profundis, lateribusque” metallorum secundum Aristotelem (name in the margin). It opens, “Plumbum est in altitudine sua ar. nigrum.” It takes up in turn the altitudo of each metal and then discusses the next quality in the same way.
Ibid., pp. 239-44, opens, “Arestotilus, Cum studii, etc. Scias preterea quod propter longitudines”; at p. 241 it treats “de purificatione solis et lune” (i.e., gold and silver); at p. 243, “de separatione solis et lune.” It ends with a paragraph about the composition of a golden seal.
[776] CLM 12026, 15th century, fol. 46-, “Alchymia est ars docens ... / ... Explicit dicto libri (sic) Aristotelis de theorica in rebus naturalibus”; fol. 78, Liber Aristotelis de practica summae philosophiae, “Primo de separatione salis communis....”
CLM 25110, 15th century, fols. 211-45, Liber Aristotelis de 70 preceptis.
CLM 25113, 16th century, fols. 10-28, A. de alchimia liber qui dicitur de 70 preceptis.
[777] Egerton 1984, fol. 141v; in the De natura rerum.
[778] See Chapter 51 on Michael Scot, near the close.
[779] Caps. 22 and 57. It was printed with further “Additions” of its own in 1561 in Verae alchemiae artisque metallicae citra aenigmata, Basel, 1561, II, 188-225.
[780] Thus in Auriferae artis quam chemiam vocant antiquissimi authores, Basel, 1572, pp. 387-99, a treatise which cites Morienus, Rasis, and Avicenna is printed as Tractatulus Aristotelis de Practica lapidis philosophici. Apparently the only reason for ascribing it to Aristotle is that it cites “the philosopher” in its opening sentence, “Cum omne corpus secundum philosophum aut est elementum aut ab elementis generatum.”
[781] Laud. Misc. 708, 15th century, fol. 54.
[782] Berthelot (1893), I, 105 and 107.
[783] Ashmole 1448, 15th century, p. 123.
[784] Ashmole 1450, 15th century, fol. 8, “Epistola ad Alexandrum. O Alexander rector hominum ... / ... et audientes non intelligant.”
Harleian 3703, 14th century, fols. 41r-42r, Aristoteles ad alexandrum. “In primo o elaxandor tradere tibi volo secretorum maximum secretum ...,” is a similar treatise.
[785] Ashmole 1384, mid 14th century, fols. 91v-93r, “Incipit Epistola Alexandri. Dicunt philosophi quod ars dirivata sit ex creatione hominis cui omnia insunt ... / ... ex omni specie et colore nomine. Explicit epistola Alexandri.” In the text itself, which is written in the manner of a master to a disciple, there is nothing to show that the work is by Alexander rather than Aristotle.
The following is apparently the same treatise but the closing words are different.
Riccard. 1165, 15th century, fols. 161-3, Liber Alexandri in scientia secretorum nature. “Dicitur quod hec ars derivata sit ex creacione hominis cui omnia insunt ... / ... et deo annuente ad optatum finem pervenies.”
The next would seem to be another treatise than the foregoing.
Arezzo 232, 15th century, fols. 1-14, “Liber transmissus ab Alexandro rege ex libro Hermogenis.”
Hermogenes, who is cited on the subject of the philosopher’s stone in at least one MS of the Secret of Secrets (Bodleian 67, fol. 33v, “Et pater noster Hermogenes qui triplex est in philosophia optime philosophando dixit”), is apparently none other than Hermes Trismegistus. He is also mentioned in a brief work of Aristotle to Alexander; Harleian 3703, 14th century, fols. 41r-42r, “... hermogenes quod (sic) egypti multum commendunt et laudant et sibi attribuant omnem scientiam secretam et celerem (?).” The use of the reflexive pronoun in this sentence to refer to Hermogenes I would have the reader note, as it appears to illustrate a fairly common medieval usage which has or will lead me to alter the translations which have been proposed for certain other passages.
[786] II, 9.
[787] Excursions historiques, etc., p. 562.
[788] I have read it in an incunabulum edition numbered IA.49867 in the British Museum.
[789] Ibid., fols. 21v-22r, “Nos Manfredus divi augusti imperatoris frederici filius dei gratia princeps tharentinus honoris montis sancti angeli dominus et illustris regis conradi servi in regno sicilie baiulus ... quem librum cum non inveniretur inter cristianos, quoniam eum in ebrayco legimus translatum de arabico in hebreum, sanitate rehabita ad eruditionem multorum et de hebrea lingua transtulimus in latinam in quo a compilatore quedam recitabilia inseruntur. Nam dictum librum aristotiles non notavit sed notatus ab aliis extitit qui causam hylaritatis sue mortis discere voluerunt sicut in libri serie continetur.”
[790] Edition No. IA.49867 in the British Museum, fols. 25v-26r.
[791] Cap. 4.
[792] Verbum 4.
[793] De causis et proprietatibus elementorum, IX, 585-653 in Borgnet’s edition of Albert’s works; Albert himself in his treatise on Minerals cites the title as “Liber de causis proprietatum elementorum et planetarum.”
[794] Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 8r, “liber iste est aristotelis in scientia ipsius astronomie.”
[795] Fol. 11v, “Alius liber de nativitatibus”; opens, “Superius prout potuimus promissorum partem explevimus.”
[796] Fol. 13r, “De electionibus alius liber”; opens, “Unde constellationibus egyptios imitantes nativitates satis dilucide dixerimus.” This book intermingles the subjects of interrogations and elections, and ends at fol. 20v, “Finit liber de interrogationibus.”
[797] BN 16208, fol. 76r-, “liber arystotelis milesii medici perypathetici in principiis iudiciorum astronomorum in interrogationibus.”
[798] Cotton Appendix VI, fol. 20v, “Incipit commentum super praemissa scilicet praedictum librum”; fol. 23v, “Expositio ad litteram superioris tractatus. Ptolomaeus summus philosophus et excellentissimus egyptiorum rex....”
[799] Grenoble 814, fols. 1-24. “Cy commence le livre de jugemens d’astrologie selon Aristote. Le prologue du derrenier translateur. Aristote fist un livre de jugemens....”
[800] CLM 25010, 15-16th century, fols. 1-12, “liber de iudiciis qui ab Alberto in Speculo suo dicitur esse Aristotelis.”
[801] Amplon. Quarto 377, 14th century, fols. 25-36, de iudiciis astrorum. Schum identifies it with the work ascribed to Aristotle by Albert in the Speculum astronomiae.
[802] Bridges (1897), I, 389-90; Brewer (1859) p. 473.
[803] Digby 159, 14th century, fols. 1-87, mutilated at the end. “Liber Aristotilis de ducentis lvque Indorum voluminibus, universalium questionum tam genecialium quam circularium summam continens.” At fol. 5v, “Explicit prologus. Incipit Aristotelis commentum in astrologiam.” This is the MS which I have chiefly followed.
Savile Latin 15 (Bernard 6561), 15th century, fols. 185-204v, is similar.
[804] In the text the number is given as ccl; see Digby 159, fol. 2r.
[805] Digby 159, fol. 2r.
[806] Savile 15, fol. 205r.
[807] Bodleian 67 (Bernard 2136), 14th century, fol. 54r, De ydeis et formis; fol. 54v, De impressione formarum; fol. 56v, De ymaginibus et annulis. These chapters are sometimes included in the Secret of Secrets, as in Roger Bacon’s version; Steele (1920) 157-63. But “in the greater part of the Latin MSS this section is entirely omitted”; Ibid., lxii. Steele does not mention Bodleian 67.
[808] Brewer (1859) p. 532, De secretis, cap. 3.
[809] BN 2598, fol. 101r, “liber quem Aristoteles attribuit Alexandro et quem nonnulli mortis intitulent anime.”
[810] See above, I, 713-714.
[811] Ashmole 369, late 13th century, fols. 77-84v, “Mathematica Alexandri summi astrologi. In exordio omnis creature herus huranicus inter cuncta sidera xii maluit signa fore / nam quod lineam designat eandem stellam occupat. Explicit.” Cap. x, de inveniendo de prospero aut adverso itinere; xi, de copia et paupertate; xiv, de nece aut casu amici; xvi, de latrocinio inveniendo; xxiv, de pecunia in terra defossa; xxxviii, de noscendis maleficiis.
[812] In the preface to the Kiranides; in Montpellier 277, 15th century; and in Ashmole 1448, 15th century, pp. 44-45, “Virtutes 7 herbarum a septem planetis secundum Alexandrum Imperatorem.” It is also embodied in some editions and MSS of the Liber aggregationis or Experimenta attributed to Albertus Magnus (see Chapter 63), where it is entitled, “Virtutes herbarum septem secundum Alexandrum Imperatorem.”
[813] Ashmole 1741, late 14th century, fol. 143, “Incipiunt virtutes septem herbarum Aristotilis. Et has quidem virtutes habent ipse septem herbe ab influentia 7 planetarum. Nam contingit unamquamque recipere virtutem suam a superioribus naturaliter. Nam dicit Aristotiles quod corpora inferiora reguntur per superiora.”
[814] Sloane 3854, 15th century, fols. 105 V-110.
[815] L. Blochet, Études sur le Gnosticisme musulman, in Rivista degli studi orientali, IV, 76.
[816] De universo, II, ii, 39 and 98; II, iii, 6. I presume that there is some connection between our present treatise and those on the seven planets, Venus, and the moon mentioned in our chapter on the Hermetic books.
[817] One MS is Harleian 3487, 14th century, #11.
[818] V. Rose, Aristoteles de lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo, in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, XVIII (1875) 321 et seq. More recently the Lapidary of Aristotle has been edited by J. Ruska, Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles ... nach der arabischen Handschrift, Heidelberg, 1912, who gives both the Latin of the Liège MS and the text of the translation into Arabic by Luca ben Serapion from BN 2772, with a German translation of it.
[819] Ruska (1912), p. 43.
[820] Ibid., p. 183, “Et ego transfero ipsum ex greco sermone in ydyoma su(r)orum vel Syrorum.”
[821] Liège 77, 14th century; printed by Rose (1875) pp. 349-82.
Montpellier 277, 15th century, fol. 127-; printed by Rose (1875) pp. 384-97.
The following treatises, also ascribed to Aristotle, I have not examined: Sloane 2459, 15th century, fols. 9v-16, de proprietatibus herbarum et lapidum; Vienna 2301, 15th century, fols. 81-2, “Isti sunt lapides quorum virtutes misit Aristotiles in scriptis maximo imperatori Alexandro.” Perhaps the last may have reference to philosopher’s stones, like the similar treatise of Aristotle to Alexander noted above in our discussion of the pseudo-Aristotelian alchemical treatises.
[822] See above chapter 21, I, 496.
[823] De causis elementorum, etc., II, ii. 1 (Borgnet, IX 643).
[824] HL XXV, 65.
[825] De venenis, cap. 5, probably written in 1316, but see chapter 70, appendix vi.
[826] Aristotle, Lapidarius et Liber de physionomia, Merseburg, 1473, p. 8.
[827] De naturis rerum, II, 21. In an illustrated 13th century MS of the vernacular Romance of Alexander three pictures are devoted to his submarine. CU Trinity 1446, 1250 A. D., fol. 27r, “Coment Alisandre vesqui suz les ewes; a covered ship with windows under green water, Alexander and three men in it; fol. 27v, Des nefs ke sont apelees colifas; a similar ship in the water, no one visible in it; Coment Alisandre encercha la nature de pessons; Alexander and two men in the ship, fish and mermaid below.” I have quoted James’ description of the MS (III, 488).
See also Lacroix, Science and Literature in the Middle Ages, 1878, Fig. 87, p. 119, for Alexander descending to the bottom of the sea in a glass cask, from a thirteenth century MS, Brussels 11040.
[828] See chapter 61, pp. 654-5.
[829] Budge, Egyptian Magic, 1899, pp. 152-6; Masʿudi, Les Prairies d’Or. ed. B. de Maynard and Pavet de Courteille, 1861, II, 425ff.
[830] Budge (1899), pp. 95-6.
[831] CLM 2574b, bombyc. 13th century, fol. 69v. Although Steele (1920) p. lviii, says, “No Latin manuscript is known in which there is a figure of the horn, with the exception of that in Holkam Hall, in the borders of which an entirely fanciful instrument is depicted (reproduced in plate 151 of the Roxburghe Club publication of 1914). There are drawings in MSS C and D of the Eastern Arabic text, of entirely different shape.”
[832] Steele (1920), p. 151.
[833] Cap. 5.
[834] Very similar is the story in the Gilgamesh epic, a work “far more ancient than Genesis,” of a serpent stealing a life-giving plant from Gilgamesh while he was bathing in a well or brook. The plant, which had been revealed to Gilgamesh by the deified Utnapishtim, “had the miraculous power of renewing youth and bore the name, ‘the old man becomes young.’” Sir James Frazer (1918), I, 50-51, follows Rabbi Julian Morgenstern (“On Gilgamesh Epic, XI, 274-320,” in Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie, XXIX, 1915, p. 284ff.) in connecting this incident with the serpent and the tree of life in the Biblical account of the fall of man, and gives further examples from primitive folk-lore of other jealous animals, such as the dog, frog, duck, and lizard, perverting divine gifts or good tidings to man to their own profit.
[835] Sloane 2030, fols. 125-26; Additional 15236, fols. 154-60; BN, 7420A (14th century) #16.
[836] Richard Förster, De Aristotelis quae feruntur physiognomonicis recensendis, Kiliae, 1882; De translat. latin. physiognom., Kiliae, 1884; Scriptores Physiognomici, Lipsiae, 1893-1894.
[837] Cotton Julius D-viii, fol. 126ff.; Harleian 3969; Egerton 847; Sloane 2030, fol. 95-103; Additional 15236, fol. 160 (in abbreviated form); Sloane 3281, fols. 19-23; Sloane 3584; Egerton 2852, fol. 115v, et seq.
[838] There is a manuscript copy of a commentary on it of the fourteenth century at Erfurt, Amplon. Quarto 186. See Schum’s catalogue for MSS of the Physiognomia itself in the Amplonian collection.
[839] R. Förster, De Aristotelis quae feruntur secreta secretorum Commentatio, Kiliae, 1888; Handschriften und Ausgaben des pseudo-aristotelischen Secretum secretorum, in Centralblatt f. Bibliothekwesen, VI (1889), 1-22, 57-76. And see Steele (1920).
[840] M. Gaster, in his “Introduction to a Hebrew version of the Secret of Secrets,” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1908, part 2), pp. 1065-84; for the Hebrew text and an English translation, Ibid. (1907), pp. 879-913 and (1908, part 1), pp. 111-62.
[841] Ed. Robert Steele, EETS, LXVI, London, 1894. Volume LXXIV contains three earlier English versions. There are numerous MSS of it in Italian in the Riccardian and Palatini collections at Florence.
[842] De Somno et vigilia, I, ii, 7.
[843] Tanner 116, 13th century; Corpus Christi 149, 15th century. Recently edited by Robert Steele, 1920, as Fasc. V of his Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi.
[844] There are considerable discrepancies between the different early printed editions, which differ in length, order of arrangement, tables of contents, and number of chapters. And in the same edition the chapter headings given in the course of the text may not agree with those in the table of contents, which as a rule, even in the MSS, does not fully cover the subject-matter of the text. The different printers have probably used different manuscripts for their editions rather than made any new additions of their own. The following editions are those to which references will be made in the following pages.
An edition printed at Cologne about 1480, which I examined at the Harvard University Library, divides the text into only thirty chapters and seems imperfect.
An edition of about 1485, which I examined at the British Museum, where it was numbered IA.10756, has 74 chapters, and the headings of its 25th and 30th chapters, for instance, agree with those of the 11th and 13th chapters in the Harvard copy.
A third edition of Paris, 1520, has no numbered chapters and contains passages not found in the two earlier editions.
As a check upon these printed texts I have examined the three following MSS, two of the 13th, and one of the 14th, century. Of these Egerton 2676 corresponds fairly closely throughout to the edition numbered IA.10756 in the British Museum.
Egerton 2676, 13th century, fols. 3-52.
BN 6584, 13th century, fols. 1r-32v.
Bodleian 67, 14th century, fols. 1-53v, is much like the preceding MS.
[845] BN 6584, fol. 1v, “De prologo cuiusdam doctoris in commendatione aristotelis.” See also Digby 228, 14th century, fol. 27, where a scribe has written in the upper margin, “In isto libello primo ponitur prologus, deinde tabula contentorum in libro, deinde prologus cuiusdam doctoris in commendacionem Aristotilis, deinde prologus Iohannis qui transtulit librum istum....” In Egerton 2676, fol. 6r, “Deus omnipotens custodiat regem....”
[846] Steele (1920), p. xi.
[847] Steinschneider (1905), p. 42, it is true, says, “Ob Joh. selbst das ganze Secretum übersetzt habe, ist noch nicht ermittelt”; but the following passage, cited by Giacosa (1901), p. 386, from Bibl. Angelica Rome, Cod. 1481, 12th century, fols. 144-146v, indicates that he translated only the medical part.
“Cum de utilitate corporis olim tractarim et a me quasi essem medicus vestra nobilitas quereret ut brevem libellum et de observatione diete et de continentia cordis in qualibus se debent contineri qui sanitatem corporis cupiunt servare accidit ut dum cogitarem vestre iussioni obedire huius rei exempliar aristotelis philosophi Alexandro dictum repente in mente occurreret quod excerpi de libro qui arabice vocatur ciralacerar id est secretum secretorum que fecit fieri predictus Aristotelis philosophus Alexandro regi magno de dispositione regni in quo continentur multa regibus utilia....”
Steele (1920) pp. xvii-xviii, gives the same passage, worded and spelled a little differently, from another MS, Addit. 26770.
[848] Ed. H. Souchier, Denkmäler provenzal. Lit. u. Sprache, Halle, 1883, I, 473 et seq.
[849] Thirteenth century MSS of Philip’s translation are numerous: I have not noted a 12th century one.
[850] See above, chapter 47, p. 244.
[851] Brown (1897), pp. 19-20, 36-7. But not much reliance can be placed on the inclusion of this name, “Master Philip of Tripoli,” in a title which Brown (p. 20) quotes from a De Rossi MS, “The Book of the Inspections of Urine according to the opinion of the Masters, Peter of Berenico, Constantine Damascenus, and Julius of Salerno; which was composed by command of the Emperor Frederick, Anno Domini 1212, in the month of February, and was revised by Master Philip of Tripoli and Master Gerard of Cremona at the orders of the King of Spain,” etc., since Gerard of Cremona at least had died in 1187 and there was no “king of Spain” until 1479. Brown does not give the Latin for the passage, but if the date 1212 could be regarded as Spanish era and turned into 1174 A. D., Gerard of Cremona would still be living, the emperor would be Frederick Barbarossa instead of Frederick II, and Master Philip of Tripoli might be the same Philip whom Pope Alexander III proposed to send to Prester John in 1177.
Steele (1920) p. xix, inclines to identify Philip of Tripoli with a canon of Byblos from 1243 to 1248, but that seems to me too late a date for his translation of The Secret of Secrets.
[852] BN 6584, fol. 1r, “Hunc librum quo carebant latini eo quod apud paucissimos arabies reperitur transtuli cum magno labore....” A considerable portion of Philip’s preface is omitted in the Harvard edition.
[853] The preliminary table of contents, however, gives only chapter headings, which in BN 6584 are 82 in number, but the beginnings of the ten books are indicated in the text in BN 6584 as follows. The numbers in parentheses are the corresponding leaves in Bodleian 67 which, however, omits mention of the book and its number except in the case of the fourth book.
Fol. 3v (5r), Incipit liber primus. Epistola ad Alexandrum.
Fol. 6r, Secundus liber de dispositione Regali et reverentia Regis.
Fol. 12r (18v), Incipit liber tertius. Cum hoc corpus corruptibile sit eique accidit corruptio....
Fol. 22r (36r), Incipit liber quartus. transtulit magister philippus tripolitanus de forma iusticie.
Fol. 28r (44v), Liber Quintus de scribis et scriptoribus secretorum.
Fol. 28r (45r), Liber Sextus de nuntiis et informationibus ipsorum.
Fol. 28v (46v), Liber Septimus de hiis qui sr’ intendunt et habent curam subditorum.
Fol. 29r (47r), Liber Octavus de dispositione ductoris sui et de electione bellatorum et procerum inferiores (?).
Fol. 29v (48r), Liber Nonus de regimine bellatorum et forma aggrediendi bellum et pronatationibus eorundem.
Fol. 30v (50v), Sermo de phisionomia cuiuslibet hominis.
[854] It is omitted in some printed editions, but occurs in both 13th century MSS which I examined.
[855] Gaster (1908), p. 1076.
[856] Steinschneider (1905), p. 60.
[857] Cap. 11 (Harvard copy); cap. 25 (BM IA.10756); Egerton 2676, fol. 12r; BN 6584, fol. 9v; Steele (1920) pp. 58-59.
[858] Cap. 13 (Harvard copy); cap. 30 (BM IA.10756); Egerton 2676, fol. 13r; BN 6584, fol. 10r; Steele (1920) p. 60; also in Gaster’s Hebrew text.
[859] Egerton 2676, fol. 32r; cap. 62 (BM IA.10756); fol. 33r (Paris, 1520); BN 6584, fol. 19v; Steele (1920) pp. 108-10.
[860] The Paris, 1520, edition then goes on to explain the effects of incantations and images upon astrological grounds, but this passage seems to be missing from the earlier printed editions and the thirteenth century manuscripts. Roger Bacon, however, implies that incantations were present in Philip’s original translation, and one Arabic MS gives cabalistic signs for the planets; Steele (1920) pp. 258-9.
[861] This passage is found both in Egerton MS 2676 and in BM IA.10756. BN 6584, fol. 21r-v. Bodl. 67, fol. 32v-35v. Steele, 119-20.
[862] Cap. 73 (BM IA.10756); fols. 44v-45r (Paris, 1520); BN 6584, fol. 30v; Steele, 155-6.
[863] BN 6584, fol. 21r; also in Gaster’s Hebrew version; cap. 26 in the Harvard copy; Steele, 137.
[864] Gaster, pp. 116, 160-62; Egerton 2676, fols. 34r-35r; cap. 66 (BM IA.10756); fol. 37v (Paris, 1520); BN 6584, fol. 20r-22r; Steele, 121-2.
[865] Egerton 2676, fol. 36v; BN 6584, fol. 22r; Steele, 122.
[866] Steele (1920) pp. lxii, 157-63, 252-61; Paris (1520), fol. 37; Gaster, p. 159.
[867] HL XXI, 216ff.
[868] Caps. 68 and 72 (BM IA.10756); cap. 68 appears in Egerton 2676; cap. 72 in Gaster’s text and in the Paris (1520) edition. I could not find the passage in BN 6584; Steele (1920) 134-5.
[869] BN 6584, fol. 20r-v; Egerton 2676, fols. 33v-34r; cap. 65 (BM IA.10756); fols. 36v-37r (Paris 1520); Steele, 114-15.
[870] Gaster, 159-60; fol. 38r (Paris, 1520); Steele, 174.
[871] Gaster, p. 127; cap. 12 (Harvard copy); also in BM IA.10756, and BN 6584, fol. 10r, where Aristotle seems to detect the venomous nature of the maiden by magic art—“Et nisi ego illa hora sagaciter inspexissem in ipsam et arte magica iudicassem....”; while it is her mere bite that kills men, as Alexander afterwards proved experimentally; Steele, 60.
[872] Cap. 3.
[873] Gilbertus Anglicus, Compendium medicinae, Lyons, 1510, fol. 348v.
[874] HL XXX, 569ff. “Die Sage vom Giftmädchen” is the theme of a long monograph by W. Hertz, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (1905), pp. 156-277.
[875] BN 6584, fol. 27; IA.10756, cap. 68; also in Paris, 1520 edition, etc.; Steele, 144-6.