The Secrets of Women scarcely deserved to be placed on the Index aside from the suggestiveness of its title and perhaps the fact that it had become too popular. Meyer, while regarding it as spurious, rightly remarked that it shared the common medical knowledge of the time and displayed a strong astrological superstition, but was neither immoral nor indecent.[2374] As a matter of fact, its astrology is little more extreme than what we have found in Albert’s undisputed works. The article upon him in the Histoire Littéraire de la France[2375] declared that The Secrets of Women was certainly not by him, but added that he makes very similar statements in his commentary on the fourth book of the Sentences, where he justifies such knowledge on the part of a priest as essential to his comprehension of what he is liable to be told in the confessional. This fits in nicely with the statement that Albert composed the De secretis mulierum at the request of a priest.
The Secrets of Women may seem indecent judged by modern standards, but so do many discussions of sexual matters by monastic recluses, theologians, and church fathers of the distant past. Peter of Prussia, Albert’s fifteenth century biographer, although concerned to establish the saintly character of his hero, did not question the authenticity of the De secretis mulierum on grounds of indecency but thought it “useful and necessary to know the facts of nature, even if indecent.”[2376] In the thirteenth century itself we find a number of Latin works which are very similar to The Secrets of Women. There is The Secrets of Nature by Michael Scot and The Adornment of Women[2377] by Arnald of Villanova, a physician of the closing thirteenth century who also wrote on Antichrist, advocated religious reform, and gave moral and religious exhortation as well as medical care to his royal patients in Sicily and Aragon. This De ornatu mulierum was described by the Histoire Littéraire de la France as “one of Arnald’s most curious treatises, containing very informing details concerning the arts by which medieval women corrected the faults of nature or repaired the ravages of age. But we say no more on this point. We would not venture the vaguest allusion to the contents of some paragraphs. They taught publicly in the middle ages things which respectable persons do not know and do not wish to know.”[2378] Those who are offended at the idea of the blessed Albert’s discussing such matters in the thirteenth century should read the highly vivid, realistic, and matter-of-fact account of male sexual passion in the Causae et curae of St. Hildegard,[2379] the mystic and ascetic, the abbess and prophetess, in the twelfth century, in which work it follows a long and circumstantial account of the process of conception and generation.[2380] Or they might note in a sixteenth century manuscript at Paris that an oration by John Antony Alatus, doctor of physic, royal and apostolic knight, delivered when he was chosen orator to Pope Innocent, is immediately followed by a Book of the Secrets of Women by the same author.[2381] Of another thirteenth century work which attained extraordinary popularity in almost every European language and which was most appropriately entitled, De omni re scibili et quibusdam aliis—“Of everything knowable and then some,” the Histoire Littéraire says,[2382] “The mysteries of generation engage its attention more than anything else; like Timeo it is very detailed upon this point and often borders upon obscenity.” A fourth work, The Secret of Philosophers, written in French by someone who at least pretends to be a priest and doctor of theology, is also full of unprintable passages upon sex and generation, and yet shows also, according to the Histoire Littéraire,[2383] the spirit of scientific philosophy.
Our treatise contains some superstitious recipes akin to those of the Liber aggregationis and De mirabilibus mundi. To prevent conception for a year women are advised to drink salvia cooked with wine for three days; or to eat a bee, “and she will never conceive.” If hairs of menstruating women are buried in rich soil where ordure lies in winter time, the sun’s heat will generate a long and strong serpent there the following spring or summer. To tell if the child will be male or female one should pour a drop of the mother’s milk or blood into pure water from a clear spring. If the drop goes to the bottom, the child will be a boy; if it floats on the surface, a girl.
Astrology, however, is more prominent in this treatise than such magical modes of divination. We are told that “all the virtues which the soul comprehends in the body it draws from the supercelestial spheres and bodies.”[2384] From the farthest sphere come the powers of being and moving. From the sphere of the fixed stars the foetus receives its individual personality. From the sphere of Saturn, the virtue of discerning and reasoning; from that of Jupiter, magnanimity; from that of Mars, animosity and irascibility; from the sun, the power of learning and memorizing; and so on. We are also told how each planet, starting with Saturn, rules for a month the formation of the various physical members of the child in the womb, and the fact that the heart is formed during the fourth month under the rule of the sun is regarded as disproving Aristotle’s assertion that the heart is generated first of all the members. The influence of each planet at birth is also recorded, and we hear of “the influences of the planets, whom the ancients called gods of nature, over man’s body and soul.”[2385] Also that man’s intellectual power is not from matter but from the sky. Saturn’s child is dark, hairy, well bearded, false, malicious, wrathful, gloomy, wears unkempt clothing, and so forth. The influences of the twelve signs are also considered, and the magnus annus with its repetition of history and Socrates reliving his life in the same old Athens. The author also declares that divine sacrifice, immolation of beasts, and the like cannot be removed from the action of the celestial bodies which mete out life and death, which perhaps suggests that even religion and prayer are under the stars. Monstrous births, such as twins with separate heads and hands but one trunk and pair of feet, are ascribed to some special constellation.
Albert is cited, perhaps by the commentator, concerning twins of whom one had such virtue in his right side that all bolts and locks on that side of him were opened, while the virtue of the other’s left side closed all open doors. This was due not only to a special constellation but to a special disposition of matter to receive its influence. Peter of Prussia (Cap. 12) cites the same passage from Albert’s De motibus animalium. Other citations of Albert in the De secretis mulierum are one from a treatise on the sun and moon and the assertion that a child was born with organs of either sex ita quod potuit succumbere. Avicenna is credited with having stated in a book on deluges that a flood might come and drown all living creatures, but that the virtue of the sky would generate others.
[2335] I have examined at the British Museum four incunabula editions containing both treatises and numbered (at the time of my reading) as follows: IA.6829 (Impressum Auguste per Johannem schauren feria secunda post Bartholomei, 1496); IA.46455; IA.55455 (per me Wilhelmum de Mechlina Impressus in opulentissima civitate Londoniarum iuxta pontem qui vulgariter dicitur Flete brigge); 547 b. 1. (Imprime pour Thomas Laione Libraire Demourant a Rouen). The text in these editions is nearly identical except for some divergencies in the one printed at Rouen. The edition printed at London is perhaps the most accurate of the four.
I have not seen the following edition: Liber aggregationum sive secretorum de virtutibus herbarum, lapidum, et animalium, Naples, 1493-1494: nor an edition printed at Antwerp, 1485, in which the Liber aggregationis is bound with the Quaestiones naturales of Adelard of Bath. The Liber aggregationis was published with the De mirabilibus mundi at Frankfurt in 1614, and with the De secretis mulierum at Amsterdam in 1643 and again in 1662, but I have not seen these three editions.
I have seen an edition of sixteen leaves containing both Liber secretorum and Liber de mirabilibus mundi, Venetiis per Marchio Sessa, 1509. Also an edition of both these treatises preceded by the De secretis mulierum and followed by the De secretis naturae of Michael Scot, Strasburg, 1607, per Lazarum Zetzerum; an edition of Amsterdam, 1740, containing the same four treatises; and an edition of Lyons, 1615, where the Speculum astronomiae replaced the work by Michael Scot.
[2336] For MSS of this treatise see Appendix I at the close of this chapter.
[2337] S. Marco XIV, 40, 14th century, fols. 3-18, Collectio secretorum mirabilium; here the title is different and no author is named, but the Incipit, “Postquam scivimus quod opus sapientis est facere mirabilia eorum quae apparent in conspectu luminum,” and Valentinelli’s description show it to be the De mirabilibus or some very similar treatise.
Florence, Palat. 719, 15th century, 101 carte, Albertus Magnus, Opus de mirabilibus mundi; con qualche parte volgarizzata; “Postquam sciuimus quod opus sapientis est facere cessare mirabilia rerum quae apparent in conspettu hominum / Et si sterilitas sit uitio mulieris, inuenies uermes multos in olla sua; similiter in alia, si sit uitio uiri.”
BN 7287, 15th century, #12, Albertus Magnus, De mirabilibus mundi.
Wolfenbüttel 3713, 13th century, fols. 50-122v, Incerti auctoris Christiani liber de mirabilibus mundi; as Heinemann says that this is falsely ascribed to Solinus, it is perhaps our treatise.
[2338] In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that in at least two MSS the Liber vaccae or Liber anguemis, ascribed to Plato and Galen, but perhaps having some connection with our De mirabilibus mundi (see Chapter 65, pp. 777-780), bears the alternative title, “Liber aggregationum”; Arundel 342, fols. 46-54, “Expletus est liber aggregationum Anguemis Platonis”; Amplon. Quarto 188, fols. 103-104, Liber vacce seu liber aggregacionum diversorum philosophorum.
[2339] Denifle (1882), p. 236.
[2340] Ibid., p. 233, “Arnoldus Leodiensis.”
[2341] Berthelot (1893), I, 91. Albert’s pupils would have been more likely to write in the thirteenth century.
[2342] Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms, I, xxxii.
[2343] Hoefer, History of Botany, p. 92.
[2344] HL XIX, 378.
[2345] Gesch. d. Botanik, IV, 81-2.
[2346] Sloane 342, fol. 130r, “Sicut dicit philosophus, Omnis scientia de genere bonorum operum est cuius opera aliquando bona aliquando mala sunt prout scientia inutilis (?) per seriem aliquod operatur.”
Sloane 3281, fol. 17r, “Sicut vult philosophus in pluribus locis, Omnis scientia de genere bonorum. Verum operatur eius operatio aliis bona et aliis mala.”
Sloane 351, fol. 25r, “Sicut vult philosophus in primo metha.”
Digby 37, 147, and 153 (all of the 14th century) read—variant readings in parentheses: “Quia sicut vult (147, Sicut dicit) philosophus in pluribus locis (147 omits locis) omnis scientia de genere bonorum est verumptamen eius operatio aliquando bona aliquando mala (aliquando mala in 147 only) est (in 153 only) prout scientia mutatur (so 147; 37, in natura; 153, innata) ad malum sive ad bonum finem” (147, ad bonum vel ad malam).
These specimens, if I have correctly read the passages, may serve to illustrate the variation in the MSS of the treatise and the faulty grammar and syntax or careless copying in some of them.
[2347] “Scientia magicalis” in the printed texts and all three Digby MSS and in Sloane 3281. Sloane 342 has “scientia ymaginabilis”—which, it is true, is apt to amount to the same thing—and Digby 37 at first speaks of “scientia mathib” (?) but later of “scientia magicalis.”
[2348] Sloane 342, fol. 130R.
[2349] Elitropia, Urtica, Virga pastoris, Celidonia, Provinca (or Parvinca or Pronenta), Nepta (Nepita, Hepica), Lingua canis, Jusquiamus, Lilium, Viscus quercus, Centaurea, Salvia, Verbena, Melisophilos (Mellisophilos), Rosa, Serpentina. The order of the list varies.
[2350] Magnes, Optalmius, Onix, Cristallus, Feripendamus, Siloyces (Felonites), Topacion, Medo, Mephytes (Monfites, Menophites), Asbestos (Albeston, Abaston, Abaton), Adamas, Agates (Gagates), Allectorius, Smaragdus (Esmerendus), Amastitus (Amaticus), Berillus, Celonites (Casmetes), Corallus, Cristallus, Lypercol, Crisolitus, Elitropia, Epistrites (Ephisteos), Calcidonius, Celidonius, Gagates, Iena (Gena), Istinos, Tabrices (Grabates, Gabrates), Crisoletus, Geratiden, Nicomei (Nicomay), Quiriti (Quirini), Radianus, Urtices (Urites), Lapis lazuli, Saleractus (Salaragdus, Smaragdus), Iris, Galasia, Galiates (Galaites), Draconites, Echites (Etidia), Epistretes, Jacinctus, Orites (Origes, Oziches), Saphirus, Sannus (Sampius).
I have italicized repetitions and included variants in parentheses. Sloane 351 and 3281 give only 43 names; Arundel 251 has 46.
[2351] Aquila, Taxo, Bubo, Hircus, Camelus, Lepus, Asperolus (Aspiriolus, Capriolus, Experiolus), Leo, Foca, Anguilla, Mustela, Upupa, Pelicanus, Corvus. Milvus, Turtur, Talpa, Merula.
[2352] This last clause occurs in the printed text, but not in all MSS. Digby 147, for instance, omits it.
[2353] In Sloane 342, fol. 131v, “will make him tell everything he has done, even though you don’t ask him.”
[2354] Liber aggregationis, III, 147, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus expertum est moderno tempore”; Digby 37, fol. 53r, Digby 147, fol. 112r, and Digby 153, fol. 178r, “Et hoc a nostris fratribus certissime expertum est moderno tempore”; Sloane 3281, fol. 20v, “Et hoc a fratribus nostris percepi examen.” The expression is also used in the account of the hoopoe (upupa) in Digby 37, and Digby 147.
[2355] Liber aggreg., II, “In libro mineralium in Aaron et Evax multa similia alia invenies.” This passage is omitted in Sloane 351 and 3281. Sloane 351 does not cite Evax and Aaron for the following crow story, but Sloane 3281 does. Sloane 342 ascribes the crow story to Dacus, but cites Aaron concerning the taxo and Evax and Aaron concerning the hare.
[2356] Sloane 342, fol. 131v.
[2357] Arundel 251, fol. 35r, and the printed text, which adds a few further words.
[2358] Strictly speaking, he seems to have been a Christian who served the caliph and died at Cairo in 1015. His existence has been questioned, as Arabic works do not mention him, so that some regard him as a Latin creation of the eleventh or twelfth century. His works were printed at Venice in Latin in 1471, 1484, 1495, 1497, 1513, 1523, 1568, and 1623. Some distinguish an earlier writer (c 777-857) of the same name, known also as John of Damascus, whose Aphorisms and some fragments are extant.
[2359] The following passages, for instance, are identical in Digby 71, where the Liber vaccae occurs at fols. 36-56, and in the printed text of the De mirabilibus mundi (page references are to the Amsterdam edition of 1740). Printed text, p. 176, “Filius Mesue in lib. de animalibus. Si induit vestimentum viri mulier foeta, deinde induat ipsum vir priusquam abluat ipsum, recedit ab ipso febris quartana.... Et in libro de Tyriaca Galieni ...”; also the tale of Aristotle and Alexander killing vipers by letting them stare themselves to death in mirrors: all found in the same order in Digby 71, fol. 37v.
Printed text, p. 177, “In lib. decorationis, accipe quantitatem fabae de alcihi et infunde ipsam in urinam mulae et da mulieri ad potandum, non concipiet”: Digby 71, fol. 37v, gives the same recipe but cites “liber de conceptione” for it; however, for another recipe, “accipe mirram et line pollicem ... nisi solum modo te” it too, fol. 38r-v, cites the Liber decorationis.
P. 177, “In libro Cleopatrae, quando mulier accipit omni mense de urina mulae pondera duo et biberit, ipsa non concipiet”; p. 184 from same, “si mulier non delectatur cum viro suo, accipe medullam lupi de pede sinistro et porta eam et nullum diligit nisi te”; both at fol. 39v.
P. 178, “In libro Archigenis, quando cor leporis suspenditur super eum qui patitur cholicam, confert”: fol. 38r.
Pp. 181 and 184, citations from Tabariensis opening, “si suspenditur lapis spongiae in collo pueri ...” and “si lingua upupae suspendatur super patientem”: fols. 38v and 39v, “Tagiarensis.”
Pp. 182 and 183, citations from “Belbinus” opening, “quando accipis albumen ovi ...” and “qui posuerit portulacam super lectum”: fol. 39r, “Belleg,” but the margin says “Belenus.”
[2360] Arundel 342 (14th century), fols. 46-54, whose Incipit does not occur in Digby 71 until fol. 40v, after all the citations in the preceding note; see Chapter 65, Appendix I, for a more detailed description of the MSS of the Liber vaccae.
[2361] Berthelot (1893), I, 91.
[2362] Albertus Magnus, De secretis mulierum, Heinr. Knoblochtzer, Strasburg, 1480. Also at Rome, 1499; and an edition dated 1428 by mistake for 1478; and an undated edition where it is entitled De secretis mulierum et virorum. I have used the 1480 edition and the one of Amsterdam, 1740, where it is bound with the other two works ascribed to Albert and with Michael Scot’s De secretis naturae.
[2363] Janus, I (1846), p. 152, et seq.; cited by Meyer (1855), IV, 78.
[2364] For a list of the MSS see Appendix II at the close of this chapter.
[2365] Wolfenbüttel 2659, 16th century, fols. 1-51, Albertus Magnus de secretis mulierum in der deutschen Bearbeitung des D. Hartlieb, gewidmet dem Herzog Sigmund, Pfalzgrafen bei Rhein, mit Index.
[2366] This is also suggested by the old catalogue of Royal MSS at Paris in connection with BN 7148, 15th century, whose contents are described as “#1. Alberti Magni sive potius Henrici de Saxonia Alberti Magni discipuli de secretis mulierum, #2. Anatomia totius corporis eodem authore,” etc.
The MS itself, however, affords no ground for this attribution to Henry of Saxony. On its cover is written in crowded medieval letters and with abbreviations, “De secretis mulierum alberti, Anathomia secundum albertum, Expositio de lepra.” In the text itself this last is stated to be a gloss on Avicenna’s work on the cure of leprosy by master Albert “de sangaciis” or “de zanchariis” of Bologna, a doctor of the philosophical faculty. There seems, however, to be nothing to connect his name with the two preceding treatises which respectively open: “Incipit liber de secretis mulierum secundum Albertum magnum,” and “Incipit Anathomia tocius corporis secundum Albertum Magnum.” A Nicolaus has signed his name as scribe or copyist of the Anatomy and De lepra.
[2367] V. Rose (1905), p. 1238.
[2368] Ferckel (1912), pp. 1-2, 10.
[2369] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 159.
[2370] Rose, however, was of the opinion that Albert was repeatedly cited in the text proper as well as the gloss.
[2371] Amplon. Quarto 299, end of 14th century, #7.
[2372] See Appendix II for the wording in the various MSS. In the edition of 1480 the form is, “Dilecto sibi in Cristo socio et amico N. clerico de tali loco verae sapientiae et augmentum continuum vitae habentis....”
[2373] BN 7148, fol. 1r, “cum arte medicinali prolixius insudavero domine concedente.”
[2374] Meyer (1855), IV, 79.
[2375] HL XIX, 373.
[2376] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 165.
[2377] A treatise with the same title is attributed to a doctor of both laws, Antonius de Rosellis, in Canon. Misc. 6, 15th century, fols. 79-91, “Explicit tractatus brevis sed utilis super ornatu mulierum editus a domino Antonio de Rosellis utriusque juris doctore eximio.” In this case, however, the discussion would appear to have been more abstract, judging from the opening words, “Queritur primo utrum ornatus mulierum secundum morem patriae, qui videtur vanus et superfluus.”
[2378] HL XXII, 74-75. Not even this censorious description has seduced me into reading the treatise itself, but I suspect that it would turn out to be not nearly so bad as this mid-Victorian, if I may apply the adjective to a French work of corresponding date, passage would have us believe.
[2379] Ed. Kaiser (1903), p. 71.
[2380] Ibid., pp. 59-70.
[2381] BN 3660A, #10 and #11. If Alatus discoursed to Innocent VIII on this theme, he might be accused of bringing coals to Newcastle.
[2382] HL XXXI, 296.
[2383] HL XXX, 567-93.
[2384] Edition of 1480, biiiir.
[2385] Ibid., ciiiiv, “super hominem ex parte corporis et animae.”