Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:40:57.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chaldean Stones in the Lapidary of Alfonso X

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

J. Horace Nunemaker
J. Horace Nunemaker*
Affiliation:
State College of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the names of stones in the Alfonsine lapidaries are a number, frequently recurring, which are given in the manuscript as Chaldean names, and are usually followed by their equivalents or definitions in Spanish. Some thirty-seven of these have been listed by M. F. de Mély, who expresses the hope that someone will undertake the task of defining and identifying them. Thus far, however, no one has made any thoroughgoing attempt to investigate these Chaldean stone-names. The only identifications made by Mély himself are the names catu and alfeyru (alfeyxu), feynac. A single identification of bezebekaury as ruby is made by Barrington, who, as others have done, has pointed out the difficulty of identifying these Alfonsine stones. Before undertaking this task it will be necessary to correct and complete the list given by Mély, which really comprises 36 instead of 37 names since one stone is twice counted. Actually, the manuscript mentions no less than forty-five Chaldean stones.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1930 , pp. 444 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 F. de Mély, “Les Pierres Chaldéennes du Lapidaire d'Alphonse X, Roi de Castille,” in Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Quatrième Série, T. XIX (1891), 196-201.

2 M. Barrington, “The Lapidario of King Alfonso X,” The Connoisseur, XIV (1906), 34.

3 Idem, p. 32 f: “Unfortunately, the names of the stones, when they are not thirteenth-century Castilian, are frequently Arabic and Chaldean; only now and then is there an alternative Greek or Latin name, and, therefore, it is often more than difficult to identify the gems, especially as amongst these three hundred and sixty stones (The correct number is 492. See my article ”The Lapidary of Alfonso X,“ Philol. Qu., VIII, 252.) there are some with extraordinary properties, . . . .” In this connection, F. de Mély says: “On rencontre dans ce Lapidaire une foule de noms de pierres fort difficiles à identifier. Ce ne sont que de termes en caldeo, en griego, en persiano, en latin, en romanz, quelques-uns en egypto, en moro” (loc. cit., p. 197).

4 M. de Mély is not solely responsible for the incorrect transcriptions, for he has copied the incorrect readings from the faulty transcription of T. Fernández Montaña, Lapidario del Rey D. Alfonso X, Madrid, 1881. However, in several instances he has not even copied the printed transcription of Fernández Montaña correctly. Cf. his aququiriaz for aguquiriaz, artican for articam, leilericeh for leilericech, zinderck for zinderch. Four of his omissions (gacora, guyrunion, aluzahne, elbehta) seem due to the fact that he failed to read pp. 32 and 33 of Fernández Montaña's transcription on which these four appear and from which he has listed no Chaldean stones.

5 Alfeyru and feynac. The MS reads: alfeyxu en caldeo, e otros le dizen feynac, fol. 82b. The reading “alfeyxu” is quite clear in the title to the article on this stone, but the name in the text seems to be “alfeyru,” the reading adopted by both Mély and Fernández Montaña. I have decided on the reading in the title.

6 Cf. the similarity between camiruca and camorica. For the former, the MS reads: que quiere dezir tanto en aquel lenguaie como oluidadiza en este (fol.20a) and for the latter: que quiere dezir tanto en caldeo como uinagrosa en este romanz (fol. 12e).

7 Cf. toriz (griego), arranca (arauigo), and adelun (arauigo), fol. 116e-2. Mély lists this stone as aququiriaz.

8 F. de Mély, loc. cit., p. 200, identifies this as “la pierre ponce.” Cf. première espèce de zebed el-bahr (alcyonium), in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, “Traité des Simples par Ibn El-Beīthâr,” in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliotèque Nationale, Tomes 23, 25, and 26, Paris, 1877, 1881,1883, Art. 1086; piedra pomez, espongia, fanech (árabe), in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, Pedacio Dioscorides Materia Medicinal, Salamanca, 1566, p. 550; and barharan uermeio, cayçor, in our MS, fol. 104a. Mély lists this stone as alfeyru.

9 I have included this stone because it is one of the species (5th) of espuma de mar, of which two other species are clearly listed en caldeo and because the statement of the name is in the same characteristic form as elsewhere for Chaldean stones Cf. cinquième espèce de zebed el-bahr (alcyonium), alos acne, in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, ibid.; souredj (halos achne), in Dioscorides and Galien, apud L. Leclerc, loc cit., Art. 1251; and halosachne, in F. de Mély and H. Courel, “Des Lapidaires Grecs dans la Littérature Arabe du Moyen Âge,” in Revue de Philologie de Littérature et d'Histoire Anciennes, Nouvelle Série, T. XVII (1893). Mély omits this stone.

10 Mély translates the definition “pierre calcaire.” It has a property listed for various other stones: rae los (cabellos) todos en poca de ora.

11 Cf. artecan, in Dioscorides and artekin, oukhra, in Ibn El-Beīthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 51.

12 Mély says “est en hébreu l'Asra,” but it must be remembered that he has endeavored (p. 197) to justify the change in the reading, from Greek to Hebrew in general: “. . . . une nouvelle étude m'eut permis de noter dans le manuscrit, comme dans d'autres de la même époque, que en griego, après un certain nombre de termes lapidaires, signifiait en hébreu, et qu'effectivement, bien que corrompus, les noms de pierres, suivis de en griego ou en arabigo, correspondaient assez exactement au nom réel, arabe ou hébreu, de la pierre, . . . .” J. Ruska, in Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles, Heidelberg, 1912, criticizes M. de Mély's deductions rather severely, and in this particular connection (p. 49, note 4) he quotes M. Steinschneider, “Arabische Lapidarien,” in Zts. der d. Morgenl. Gesell., 49 (1895), 269, as follows: “Herr de Mély schickte mir im Jahre 1890 einen Auszug von mehr als 100 Namen aus seinem Wörterbuche, worin 44 als angeblich hebräische (griego soll auch ”hebräisch“ bedeuten!) figurierten; ich konnte aber keinen einzigen als solchen wieder erkennen, während eine ziemliche Anzahl arabischer leicht zu identifizieren war.” On this same page (49) Ruska remarked: “Es scheint, dass Herr de Mély vor allen Dingen hätte deutsch lesen lernen müssen, . . . . .”

13 Cf. olyosa, lurita, luryta, fol. 22d; olearis, “In Libro de Lapidibus Ar(istotelis) secundum Traslacionem Gerardi,” apud Arnoldus Saxo, in V. Rose, “Aristoteles de Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” Zts. f. d. Alt. und d. Lit., XVIII (1875), p. 426; olearis, in Albertus Magnus, apud J. Ruska, loc. cit., 16 f, note; and ölmagnet, in Dimiski, apud J. Ruska, ibid.

14 Cf. habechy, thyites, in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 600.

15 Cf. piedra dela sirpient, fol. 23a and ophite, lapis serpentinus, in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 565.

16 For identification as ruby by Barrington, see par. 1 of this article. Cf. also es-solouan, pierre de consolation, in Abou'1-Abbâs, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 606.

17 Cf. piedra que tira el uinagre, fol. 47a; lapis aceti qui trahit acetum, in Albertus Magnus and essigmagnet, in Dimiski, apud J. Ruska, loc. cit., p. 16 f. note; and lapis aceti qui trahit acetum, “In Libro de Lapidibus Ar(istotelis) secundum Traslacionem Gerardi,” apud Arnoldus Saxo, in V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 426. Mély omits this stone.

18 Cf. fanaquid, fol. 83d; didriez (griego), mahium almoloh (arauigo), fol. 115e; and anakhates, in El-Ghaféky, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 620. Mély outdoes himself in an effort to identify this stone, as follows (p. 198 f): “Tout en m'abstenant d'entrer dans les distinctions idéographiques et phonétiques de la langue chaldéenne, je rappellerai que F. Lenormant signale, parmi les pierres précieuses qui avaient été données par Assurbanipal aux statues de Bel-Marduk et de Zarpenit, une pierre dont il traduit le caractère idéographique par les phonétiques Zatu; il dit en ignorer l'espèce, mais il cite les pierres oeil de Zatu, Zatu sutru, oreille de Zatu, Zatu utchal (Ch. de Linas, ”Origines de l'orfèvrerie cloisonnée,“ dans la Revue de l'art chrétien, t. XIX (1875), 197). Or, parmi les pierres chaldéennes, notre Lapidaire indique une pierre Catu (. . . .), qui n'est autre qu'une pierre précieuse provenant du front d'un bélier sauvage. Elle se trouve, ajoute-t-il, au pays de Tept, et ces béliers, en chaldéen, s'appellent Catu . . . . Sans vouloir l'identifier dans une note rapide, je la rattacherai bien plutôt à cette dernière classe (les agates), . . . . Je la croirais volontiers l'oeil de bélier de Dutens (Des pierres précieuses, Florence, Molinis, s. d. [vers 1775]): elle correspondrait parfaitement à l'oeil de Zatu.”

19 Cf. lunar fina, fol. 112d; piedra que parece en la mar guando sube la luna, fol. 36d; mondstein, in Mohammed Ben Manssur, apud Jos. v. Hammer, “Auszüge aus dem persischen Werke: das Buch der Edelsteine von Mohammed Ben Manssur,” in Fundgruben des Orients, VI (1818), p. 141; selenite, piedra lunar, in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 563; selenite, crème de lune et sa salive, gypse laminaire, talc de lune, in Teifaschi, “Traité des Pierres Précieuses,” apud M. Clément-Mullet, “Essai sur la Minéralogie Arabe,” in Journal Asiatique, Sixième Série, T. XI (1868), pp. 246, 247; and el-kamer, selenite, afroselenon, écume de mer, salive de la lune, salanithes, afrosalanithes, in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 602. Mély lists this stone as ceduluquindad.

20 Cf. meciena below, which is almost an anagrammatic form of ceminez.

21 Mély lists delmenicari but not delmenica.

22 Although this name is not stated as en caldeo, I have included this stone because this expression is used in its treatment in connection with its properties: . . . . son (las aues) de color uermeias e luzias e an los picos luengos e uerdes, e dizen los en caldeo çulunen . . . . . Cf. elbehecte, baddare, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), apud V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 379; alchahat, in Aristotle, Secretum Secretorum, idem, p. 416; bahit, in Kazwini, apud J. Ruska, loc. cit., p. 9; and al bahit, in Aristotle (Cod. Hebr. Monac. 418), idem, p. 12. Mély omits this stone.

23 Mély lists this stone as fartinizen.

24 Cf. adarce, zebed el bohaira, ghafoura, in F. de Mély and H. Courel, loc. cit. and L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1087; and “odeur pareille à celle de la lentille d'eau de mer (alge), seconde espèce de zebed el-bahr (alcyonium),” in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1086. See note 9. above. Mély omits this stone.

26 Cf. ghaghatis, in Ibn El-Beïthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 610; sektedj, ghaghatis, in Soleiman ibn Hassan, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1202; and gagates, azauache, in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 560.

26 Cf. mouedor, fol. 3e and tayole (griego), fol. 116b.

27 Cf. quatrième espèce de zebed el-bahr (alcyonium), in Dioscorides, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1086. See notes 9. and 24. above. Mély omits this stone.

28 Cf. piedra çafranera, tyffurenez, fol. 48b and zaferan, in Ibn El-Beïthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1110. Mély lists this stone as leilericeh.

29 Cf. cokathar, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), apud V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 359; calcatar, in Ibnegizar, idem, p. 418; colcathar, in F. de Mély and H. Courel, loc. cit.; kolkotar, in Avicenna, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1080; and misy, zeg, zegi, in Diosorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 545.

30 I have included this stone because of its mention in connection with the description of another Chaldean stone (mecelucan):. . . . non sana (mecelucan) ende tan ayna si non con la piedra de que auemos dicho, aque llaman leturican, ca lo que aquesta suelue, retiene la otra, e lo que la otra retiene, suelue esta, . . . . and its obvious similarity to other Chaldean names. I should not have included it on the latter ground, had not the passage just quoted from the MS been so strongly in favor. Mély omits it.

31 Many lapidaries list this stone, but I shall cite only potential identifying treatment of it for the Alfonsine stone specifically. This is the first stone in the lapidary, with the words en caldeo on the first line of its treatment and elsewhere, yet Mély omits it. Cf. almagnitaz, fols. 97d and 99a; almagnicia, fol. 99a; almagnitez, fol. 103e; magnitiz, fol. 117b; the following apud V. Rose, loc. cit.: elbeneg, magnes, calamita, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis) p. 367, magnes, in Aristotle (Codex Montispessul), p. 392, magnes, in Constantinus, p. 410, magnetes, in Platearius p. 410, adamas, magnetes, in Ibnezizar, p. 410, magnetes, magnites, in Algafiki, p. 410, and hager almagnitos, lapis magnes, in Serapion, p. 411; maghnatis, in Ibn El-Beïthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 2150; and magnete, in Mohammed Ben Manssur, apud Jos. v. Hammer, loc. cit., p. 136. There is great confusion in the treatment of the stones aymant, magnicia, esmeril, and diamant in the Alfonsine lapidaries. I have seen fit to group them under these four headings, although the names given by Aristotle et al. would allow grouping them all under aymant. Note the comment of Ibn El-Beïthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 1241, note, in this connection: “Ibn Ouafed, dans son Traité des Simples, prétend que cette pierre (l‘émeri) est le diamant, et il a confondu ce qu'en disent Dioscorides et Galien avec ce qu'on a dit sur le diamant, ignorant que ni l'un ni l'autre auteur n'a fait mention du diamant.” MM. F. de Mély and H. Courel, loc. cit., p. 121, have proposed “sambadheg, l'emeril, l‘” for the identification of the stone aldardemuz, while M. de Mély previously suggested “une contraction espagnole de al peder adamas, la pierre d'aimant” for andardimuz (“Les Cachets d'Oculistes et les Lapidaires de l'Antiquité et du Haut Moyen Âge,” in Revue de Philologie de Littérature et d'Historie Anciennes, Nouvelle Série, T. XVI (1892), 95). I consider these the same stone. Neither of the identifications of MM. de Mély and Courel is supported by our text, which clearly states that andardimuz is magnicia: “magnicia . . . . dizen en griego . . . . andardimuz,” fol. 37d.

32 Cf. lotarican above, and note 30.

33 Cf. ceminez above, and note 20.

34 Cf. piedra que tira el plomo, fol. 33a and magnes qui trahit plumbum, bleimagnet, in Aristotle (MS arabe, Paris), Kazwini, Dimiski, and Albertus Magnus, apud J. Ruska, loc. cit., p. 16, note.

35 Cf. lapis proficiens lapidi hominis, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), apud V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 356.

36 In the treatment of this stone, the word espuma occurs only in the definition. The word sperma replaces it farther on. The latter is doubtless meant since the stone is recommended as a contraceptive. However, cf. spuma eius (lapidis) ad se spumam trahit, “In Libro de Lapidibus Ar(istotelis) secundum Traslacionem Gerardi,” apud Arnoldus Saxo, in V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 426. Mély omits this stone.

37 Cf. lapis qui curat apostemala, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), apud V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 379. F. de Mély and H. Courel, loc. cit., p. 125, have erroneously classified as the same stone: militaz, milititaz, and miliztiz, probably because of the similarity of their names. I have found separate identifications for them as three different stones.

38 Cf. tarnificen, tarneficen, fol. 62c and piedra que parece en la mar quando sube Iupiter, fol. 70d. Mély omits this stone.

39 This stone and others of the same sort (piedra que sume la miel, piedra que fuye dela miel, piedra que tira el uino, piedra que fuye del uino, piedra que fuye dela leche, etc.), for which I have been unable to find the exact counterpart, undoubtedly have their source in Aristotle, who names magnets with strange properties: lapis qui attrahit (or trahit) carnes, capillos, ungues, metallum rubeum et croceum, etc. Some of them are treated in detail, while others are simply named. They are frequently in pairs with opposite properties (see J. Ruska, loc. cit., p. 16, note). We may almost say that in such cases the identifications are covered by the general statement of Albertus Magnus quoting Aristotle (J. Ruska, ibid.): Item dicit Aristoteles quod species magnetis sunt valde diversae: . . . . quaedam ab uno angulo trahit, et ad alterum fugat quidquid ab opposito angulo tractum est . . . . .

40 Cf. piedra que fallan en la cabeça dela liebre, fol. 19a; lepus aques (aqueus) habet lapidem in capite, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), apud V. Rose, loc. cit., p. 356; and arneb bahry, in Dioscorides, Galien, and “Autre Auteur,” apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit., Art. 55.

41 Cf. caraheyxura, fol. 61c and der Stein, welcher sich im stehenden Wasser bildet, in Kazwini quoting Aristotle, apud J. Ruska, loc. cit., p. 85.

42 Cf. niger est lapis qui alio modo dicitur gelaticus, in P. Meyer, “Les Plus Anciens Lapidaires Français,” in Romania, XXXVIII (1909), p. 550.

43 Cf. caoz (griego) quiere tanto dezir como piedra dela tierra, fol. 83b and geode, terrosa, in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 566. Mély lists this stone as tarmices.

44 Mély lists only zarbenic.

45 Cf. piedra dela meatad, piedra meitadada, fol. 60a.

46 Cf. the following apud V. Rose, loc. cit.: nora, auripigmentum, elzarmeth, in Aristotle (Codex Leodiensis), pp. 371, 373; zarnic, auripigmentum, zarnich, arsenicum, çarnich, in Aristotle (Codex Montispessul), pp. 393, 395; arsenicum, in Constantinus, p. 414; zarnich, in Serapion, p. 414; and auripigmentum, zauret (zarnec), in Ibnegizar, p. 415. Also: , in F. de Mély and H. Courel, loc. cit.; arsenicum, auripigmentum, narneth, in Dioscorides, apud Pedro del Marmol, loc. cit., p. 547; and in Ibn El-Beïthâr, apud L. Leclerc, loc. cit.: zernikh, arsenic, Art. 1100 and chekk, Art. 1336. Mély lists this as zinderck.

47 A treatment of the zodiacal classification of stones is found in I. Kozminsky, The Magic and Science of Jewels and Stones, N. Y., 1922 and G. F. Kunz, The Curious Lore of Precious Stones, Philadelphia, 1913.

48 “The Lapidary of Alfonso X,” loc. cit., p. 252.