¹ Urso of Salerno, , De commixtionibus elementorum libellus, ed. Stürner, Wolfgang (Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Geschichte und Politik 7; Stuttgart 1976) 37–38.Google Scholar

² There is the often-quoted characterization in Richer of Rheims's Historia: ‘Salernitanus vero, licet nulla litterarum scientia praeditus, tamen ex ingenio naturae multam in rebus experientiam habebat’ (2.59; ed. Waitz, G., MGH Scriptores 3 [1877] 68). Of course, the point of the anecdote here is to show precisely the inferiority of Salernitan practice to that of Derold of Amiens. Moreover, it antedates the ‘School’ at Salerno properly speaking. See MacKinney, Loren C., ‘Tenth Century Medicine as Seen in the Historia of Richer of Rheims,’ Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 2 (1934) 347–75 at 367–68.Google Scholar

³ This is perhaps especially true of the dissertations produced at Leipzig in the 1920s (e.g., Bloedner, Franke, Heidenreich, Kilian, Kroemer, Ostermuth, Ploss, Redeker, Reinhart), but it seems to me also to characterize at least some of the essays by Bayon, Corner, Loria, Ongaro, and Stroppiana, as well as the many studies of the Regimen sanitatis.Google Scholar

⁴ For example, ‘Constantin, der erste Vermittler muslimischer Wissenschaft ins Abendland und die beiden Salernitaner Frühscholastiker Maurus und Urso als Exponenten dieser Vermittlung,’ Archeion 14 (1932) 359–69; but compare ‘Salerno, eine mittelalterliche Heil- und Lehrstelle am Tyrrhenischen Meere,’ Archiv für die Geschichte der Medizin 21 (1929) 43–62.Google Scholar

⁵ For example, ‘Die “Melancholia” bei Konstantinus Afrikanus und seinen Quellen,’ Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten 97 (1932) 244–69, or ‘Der frühsalernitaner Alfanus und sein bislanger unbekannter “Liber de pulsibus”…,’ Sudhoffs Archiv für die Geschichte der Medizin 29 (1936) 57–83. The edition was published in Die medizinisch-naturphilosophischen Aphorismen und Kommentare des Magister Urso Salernitanus nach Handschriften lateinisch und deutsch, QSGNM 5 (Berlin 1936).Google Scholar

⁶ ‘The School of Salerno,’ Bulletin of the History of Medicine 17 (1945) 133–94, repr. in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (2nd ed.; Rome 1969), 495–551; ‘Nuove fonti per la medicina salernitana del secolo xii,’ Rassegna storica Salernitana 18 (1957) 61–75; ‘Beitrag der Schule von Salerno zur Entwicklung der scholastischen Wissenschaft im 12. Jahrhundert,’ in Artes Liberales: Von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mittelalters (ed. Koch, J.; Leiden 1959), 84–90; ‘Bartholomaeus, Musandinus, and Maurus of Salerno and Other Early Commentators of the “Articella,” with a Tentative List of Texts and Manuscripts,’ Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 19 (1976) 57–87; La Scuola Medica di Salerno secondo ricerche e scoperte recenti (Quaderni Centro studi e documentazione della Scuola Medica Salernitana 5; Salerno 1980). The 1976 article contains an invaluable list of manuscripts for the articella commentaries and related texts. I rely on this list for what follows without further reference. A few additions will be noted. Kristeller's articles from 1945 and 1976 have now appeared in Italian translation, with new additions and corrections, as Studi sulla Scuola medica salernitana (Naples 1986). Theodore Silverstein has drawn attention to the theoretical transmission through Salerno to such writers as Adelard of Bath and William of Conches; see Silverstein, , Salerno and the Development of Theory, read on October 27, 1977 before the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Anno 375 / Quaderno 240 (Rome 1978).Google Scholar

⁷ A concise bio-bibliography is provided by Anawati, G. C. in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography 15: Supplement I 230–34, and by Strohmaier, G. in The Encyclopedia of Islam 3.578–81.Google Scholar

⁸ See the remarks by Iskandar, Albert S., ‘Hunayn as Translator,’ DSB 15.234–49, esp. 239–40.Google Scholar

⁹ The attribution is based on the colophon of an Erfurt MS, as in d'Alverny, M.-T. and Vajda, G., ‘Marc de Tolède, traducteur d'Ibn Tumart,’ Al-Andalus 16 (1951) 99–140 and 259–307 at 112 n. 2. For Dominic's authorship, see Kaeppeli, Thomas, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi 1 (Rome 1970), 328–29.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Iskandar, , ‘Hunayn as Translator’ 240.Google Scholar

¹¹ Beccaria, Augusto, I codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X e XI) (Rome 1956) No. 42 (p. 181) and No. 96, item 13 (pp. 304–305).Google Scholar

¹² The MS is Bury St. Edmunds M. 27, now London, Wellcome 801A. The most complete description is in Moorat, S. A. J., Catalogue of the Western Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 2 (London 1973), 1464–67, after notes by Neil R. Ker. See also Ker, , Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (2nd ed.; London 1964), 16, ‘Bury St. Edmunds: Cathedral, MS 4’; and Loew (Lowe), E. A., The Beneventan Script, ed. Virginia Brown (Rome 1980), 1.337 and 2.53. Ker is reported to have thought that the manuscript reached Bury St. Edmunds in the twelfth century. Parker has conjectured that it may have been brought from Italy by Abbot Anselm, who reigned 1121–1148; see McLachlan, Elizabeth Parker, The Scriptorium of Bury St. Edmunds in the Twelfth Century (New York 1986), 12–13 and 21, and Thomson, R. M., ‘The Library of Bury St. Edmunds in the 11th and 12th Centuries,’ Speculum 47 (1972) 617–45 at 634. In his Studi sulla Scuola medica, Kristeller corrects the Moorat–Ker description on the number of missing folios, which are 3 and not 8 (p. 141). My own examination of the codex supports Kristeller; there is no indication of missing texts.Google Scholar

¹³ MS Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek 32 (1060), examined in microfilm. See Meier, Gabriel, Catalogus manu scriptorum qui in Biblioteca Monasterii Einsedelensis O. S. B. servantur, I (Einsiedeln–Leipzig 1899), 23–25. See the new description in Kristeller, , Studi sulla Scuola medica, 140–41.Google Scholar

¹⁴ MS Perugia, Bibl. Communale Augusta 1138 (N. 90), examined in microfilm. See Mazzatinti, G., Inventari dei manoscritti della biblioteche d'Italia, V (Forli 1895), 250–51, where Johannitius, Philaretus, and Theophilus alone are noted. See the new description in Kristeller, , Studi sulla Scuola medica, 142.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Auxerre 240. See the Catalogue générale des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, VI (Paris 1887), 82–83. The manuscript is there conjectured to have come from Pontigny.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gregor Maurach has recently edited the Isagoge from twelve manuscripts in Sudhoffs Archiv 62 (1978) 148–74. Unfortunately, Maurach does not seem to know the Beneventan manuscripts; he thus concludes that the earliest copy is from the twelfth century (149 n. 10). Maurach's list of manuscripts also omits many copies from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Another text of the Isagoge, based on a collation of printed texts (but chiefly from hat of Venice 1523), has been published by Gracia, Diego and Vidal, José-Luis, ‘La “Isagoge” de Iohannitius: Introducción, edición, traducción, y notas,’ Asclepio 26–27 (1974–1975) 267–382; with corrigenda in Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich, ‘Verbesserungen zur Isagoge des Johannicius,’ Sudhoffs Archiv 67 (1983) 223–24.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The text was first published from MS Erfurt Amplon. F 249 by Rose, Valentin in ‘Ptolemäus und die Schule von Toledo,’ Hermes 8 (1874) 327–49 at 338 n. 1. It is reproduced with variants from two Parisian manuscripts in d'Alverny and Vajda, , ‘Marc de Tolède,’ 259–60. No one seems to have succeeded in distinguishing the translation made by Mark from earlier versions of the text.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the attribution, Sudhoff, Karl, ‘Constantin, der erste Vermittler’ 362; d'Alverny, and Vajda, , ‘Marc de Tolède’ 110–11; Schipperges, Heinrich, Die Assimilation der arabischen Medizin durch das lateinische Mittelalter (Sudhoffs Archiv Beiheft 3 [1964] 33); Schipperges, , ‘Die Rezeption arabisch-griechischer Medizin und ihr Einfluss auf die abendländische Heilkunde,’ in Die Renaissance der Wissenschaften im 12. Jahrhundert (ed. Peter Weimar; Zürich 1981), 82; Kristeller, , ‘Bartholomaeus, Musandinus’ 66.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Gracia, and Vidal, , ‘La “Isagoge” de Ioannitius’ 301–302. Temkin, Compare Owsei, Galenism (Ithaca–London 1973), 105–106 n. 28. Temkin takes no position on authorship.Google Scholar

²⁰ Temkin, Owsei, ‘Byzantine Medicine: Tradition and Empiricism,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1960) 95–115 at 106; reprinted in The Double Face Janus (Baltimore–London 1977), 202–22. I follow the original pagination.Google Scholar

²¹ I summarize the arguments in Gracia, and Vidal, , ‘La “Isagoge” de Ioannitius’ 296–97, 299–300, 300–301, and 303–304, respectively.Google Scholar

²² The question is too complicated to be treated satisfactorily here. The Arabic origin is asserted by Bengt Alexanderson for the Prognostics in Die Hippokratische Schrift Prognostikon (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 17; Göteborg 1963), 170–73; and by Baader for both texts in ‘Articella,’ Lexikon des Mittelalters 1.1069–70. But see the discussion in Kristeller, , ‘Bartholoameus, Musandinus’ 67–68. Kristeller continues to hold that the text of the Aphorisms is from the Greek, in part because the version of the text is frequently preceded by a prologue which makes that claim.Google Scholar

²³ See, e.g., Krumbacher, Karl, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, HKA 9.1 (2nd ed.; Munich 1897), 614.Google Scholar

²⁴ See the discussion in Pithis, John A., Die Schrift Peri Sphygmon des Philaretos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften 46; Husum 1983), 187–94.Google Scholar

²⁵ The commentary on De sectis was translated by Burgundio of Pisa in 1185. See the preface to Pritchet's, C. D. ed. Iohannis Alexandrini Commentaria in librum De sectis Galieni (Leiden 1982), viii. But this text is entangled with the old Latin tradition of commentary on Hippocrates and Galen, to be discussed below.Google Scholar

²⁶ The most extensive discussion comes in Augusto Beccaria's analysis of the main commentary on Hippocrates' Aphorisms; see his ‘Sulle tracce di un antico canone latino di Ippocrate e di Galeno, II,’ Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 4 (1961) 1–75, esp. 26–63, with a second commentary discussed on 63–72. More recently and more generally, see Baader, Gerhard, ‘Early Medieval Latin Adaptations of Byzantine Medicine in Western Europe,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38 (1984) 251–59.Google Scholar

²⁷ MS Ambrosiana G 108 inf., described in Beccaria, , I codici, No. 92, 288–91. See his remarks in the (incomplete) ‘Sulle tracce di un antico canone latino di Ippocrate e di Galeno, III,’ Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 14 (1971) 1–23. The Ambrosiana text is partially edited in Agnellus of Ravenna: Lectures on Galen's De sectis (edd. Davies, David O. et al.; Arethusa Monographs 8; Buffalo ca. 1981).Google Scholar

²⁸ MS Ambrosiana G 108 inf., fol. 28^r: ‘Debemus enim secundum ordinem legere, quemadmodum et divinus Plotinus philosophus dicit, quia non oportet supra congradus capitis tendere pedem, sed secundum gradus gradere. Prius debent legi Peri hereseon, et sic venitur ad Artem. Sic secundum ordinem legendi.’ In this and all later transcriptions, I follow the cited codex, but sometimes adjust punctuation or orthography where essential for clarity.Google Scholar

²⁹ Fols. 27^v, 48^v. The list of headings for both prefaces is intentio, utilitas, si verus est aut falsus liber iste Galieni, causa suprascriptionis, sub quali parte fertur codex iste, habitus doctrinae, particularis divisio. In discussing the ordo legendi, the second accessus says (fol. 49^r): ‘Quartum, ordo legendi. Debent enim prius Peri hereseon legere et ibi inventas hereses bonas et malas et quae bona sunt cernere et quae mala sunt fugere.’Google Scholar

³⁰ Beccaria, , ‘Sulle trace … II’ 39–41.Google Scholar

³¹ Ed. Pritchett, , 17–18.Google Scholar

³² Collectio Salernitana 4.188–90; compare Beccaria, , ‘Sulle tracce… II’ 34 n. 1, and Wiedemann, W., Untersuchungen zu dem frühmittelalterlichen Briefbuch des Codex Bruxellensis 3701–15 (diss. Freie Universität Berlin 1976) 60–62.Google Scholar

³³ See Lieber, Elinor, ‘Galen in Hebrew: The Transmission of Galen's Work in the Medieval Islamic World,’ in Galen: Problems and Prospects (ed. Nutton, Vivian; London 1981), 167–83.Google Scholar

³⁴ A partial translation of the Risala can be had in Sa'adi, Lutfi M., ‘A Bio-Bibliographical Study of Hunayn Ibn Ishaq Al-Ibadi (Johannitius) (809–877 a.d.),’ Bulletin of the Institute for the History of Medicine 2 (1934) 409–46 at 419–21.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Temkin, , ‘Byzantine Medicine’ 102–104.Google Scholar

³⁶ Early MSS in which the Tegni appears at the end would include Admont 653 (saec. xiii) at fol. 49^r; Auxerre 240 (saec. xii) at fol. 49^r, but the Prognostics are missing; Cambridge Corpus Christi 364 (saec. xiii) at fol. 55^r; Cambridge Trinity 1082 (saec. xii) at 42^r (inked foliation).Google Scholar

³⁷ MS Einsiedeln 32 (1060), for which see n. 15, above.Google Scholar

³⁸ E.g., MSS Paris BN lat. 16176 (saec. xiii) at fol. 39^r, and lat. 16177 (saec. xiii) at fol. 249^v; Saint-Quentin 104 (saec. xiii) No. 3, but this may be a collection of Hippocratic tracts to which other elements of the articella have been added.Google Scholar

³⁹ MS Gloucester Cathedral 18 at fol. 47^r, as in Ker, , Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, II (Oxford 1977), 949–51.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ MS Trier, Priesterseminar 76, fols. 1^r–55^v at fol. 1^r, examined in microfilm. See the new description by Kristeller, in Iter Italicum 3: Alia Itinera , I (London–Leiden 1983), 714. A partial copy of the text (through the commentary on chapter 21) exists in MS Toledo Cathedral 97–15, fols. 67^r–74^v, examined in microfilm. There is a description in Millás y Vallicrosa, J. M., Introducciones en los manuscritos orientales de la Biblioteca Catedral de Toledo (Madrid 1942), 119–21.Google Scholar

⁴¹ A summary of biographical research through the First World War can be had in Hartmann, Friedrich, Die Literatur von Früh- und Hochsalerno … (diss. Leipzig 1919), 20–23. The identification with Matthaeus de Archiepiscopo is made tentatively by Hartmann, 23–24. Hartmann places the date ca. 1100 (p. 20). He relies on Daremberg's correspondence with De Renzi, , Collectio Salernitana 3.206 and 5.377, and Hans Erchenbrecher's diss., Der Salernitaner Arzt Archimatthaeus … (Leipzig 1919). Heinrich Schipperges identifies Archimatthaeus with Matthaeus de Platea (Platearius), and so places him at the middle of the twelfth century; see the brief notice ‘Archimatthaeus,’ Lexikon des Mittelalters 1.898.Google Scholar

⁴² A text of the glosses edited by Daremberg is printed by Renzi, De, Coll. Sal. 2.497–724.Google Scholar

⁴³ Practica, Coll. Sal. 5.350–76; Liber de instructione, 2.74–80; De cautelis, 5.333–49. For the list of attributions, see Hartmann, , 21–23.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The text is given in n. 91, below.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Gams, P. B., Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae… (Regensburg 1873), 919 col. 2; cf. Capparoni, , Magistri Salernitani (see n. 46), 18, 41.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Capparoni, Pietro, Magistri Salernitani nondum cogniti (Wellcome Research Studies 2; London 1923), 41.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Giles of Corbeil, De laudibus et virtutibus compositorum medicaminum, ed. Choulant, Ludwig in Aegidii Corbeliensis Carmina Medica (Leipzig 1826) 1.140.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Kristeller, , ‘Bartholomaeus, Musandinus’ 59–63. The MS is Winchester College 24. There is a typescript description by Walter F. Oakeshott in Notes on the Medieval Manuscripts in Winchester College Library (ca. 1950). Oakeshott argues that the MS was acquired by the college between 1435 and 1566. Its earlier provenance is unknown.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hartmann, , Die Literatur, 18–20, esp. 18.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Talbot, Charles H., ‘A Letter from Bartholemew of Salerno to King Louis of France,’ Bulletin of the History of Medicine 30 (1956) 321–28.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Talbot, , ‘A Letter’ 325–26.Google Scholar

⁵² See Capparoni, , Magistri Salernitani, 44.Google Scholar

⁵³ On Bartholomaeus, see Giles, , De laudibus 1.100.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Saffron, Morris H., Maurus of Salerno … with his Commentary on the Prognostics of Hippocrates (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society ns 62 no. 1; Philadelphia 1972), 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Saffron, , Maurus, 11.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Kristeller, , ‘Bartholomaeus, Maurus’ 59.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Bartholomaeus' interest in the Tegni is confirmed by the colophon of a Vienna MS (ÖNB Vind. Pal. 2504, fol. 39^v), which tells of his requesting a revision of the extant Galen translations. See Durling, Richard J., ‘Corrigenda and Addenda to Diels’ Galenica,’ Traditio 23 (1967) 461–76 at 463. In the Johannitius commentary, Bartholomaeus refers to his own ‘gloss’ on the Tegni (see n. 98, below). If these glosses are his commentary on Galen, that commentary may well have been written before the commentary on the Johannitius. Such a chronology of composition would say nothing about the proper pedagogical order in reading.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ There is a summary biography in Saffron, , Maurus, 11–13.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ I follow Saffron, , Maurus, 11 n. 58, who corrects the account in Renzi, De, Storia Documentata, 301–309.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Saffron, , Maurus, 13 n. 84.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Giles of Corbeil, De laudibus (ed. Choulant, ) 1.94–99, 1.107–109, 2.93, 2.99–102; compare Saffron, , Maurus, 10–11.Google Scholar

⁶² Giles of Corbeil, De urinis (ed. Choulant, ) 93.Google Scholar

⁶³ Garufi, Carlo Alberto, Necrologio del Liber confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno (Fonti per la storia d'Italia 56; Rome 1922), 85, 216.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lawn, Brian, The Prose Salernitan Questions Edited from a Bodleian Manuscript… (Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 5; London 1979), questions b16, 39, 87, 95, 113, 168, 226, 272. It should be noted that the borrowings recorded by Lawn are doctrinal rather than verbal. Similar borrowings are found in the other question-sets edited by him.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Lawn, , Prose Salernitan Questions, xix.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See the index in Saffron, , Maurus, 102, and the remarks in the commentary at Nos. 9, 14, 48, 57, and 82.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For mentions of the MS, see James, M. R., ‘Bury St. Edmunds Manuscripts,’ English Historical Review 41 (1926) 251–60 at 256, No. 168; Ker, , Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 21, ‘London: The Robinson Trust’; Thomson, , ‘The Library of Bury St. Edmunds’ 618 n. 3, where the codex is said to be ‘in private ownership, untraced.’ Preliminary notice of my identification of the text in an unpublished description by Brian Lawn was given in a postscript to Burnett, Charles, ‘The Content and Affiliation of the Scientific Manuscripts Written at, or Brought to, Chartres in the Time of John of Salisbury,’ in The World of John of Salisbury (ed. Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History Subsidia 3; Oxford 1984), 127–60 at 159.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ This can be illustrated from the opening passages of four MSS now in England. The two versions in MSS Oxford Digby 108, fols. 4^r–26^r and London, British Library Add. 18,210, fols. 107^r–127^v agree fairly well, though there are the usual sorts of small variations. The version in Oxford Bodley 514, fols. 57^v–62^v shows other textual variants, but it also inserts a number of passages not in the Digby or London MSS. E.g., just before enumerating the headings of the accessus, the Bodley text adds several lines on the difficulty of Galen and the helpfulness of the Isagoge. A much longer digression begins in the discussion of utilitas. The version in MS Cambridge Peterhouse 251, fols. 49^va–63^vb shows a similar pattern of insertions, then breaks off from the common reading almost entirely in commenting on the first lemma.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ E.g., the definitions appear among the glosses in MS Cambridge Trinity 1083 (O.1.59), at the top of fol. 8^r: ‘Theorica est scientia rerum solo intellectu capiendarum subiecte memorie rerum operandarum….’ They appear, again, in the preface to one set of Digby commentaries in MS Cambridge Peterhouse 251, fol. 49^va inc. ‘Philosophia interpretatur amor sapientie, unde dicuntur philosophi scientie amatores vel imitatores….’ There is a description of this manuscript in James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse (Cambridge 1899), 307–10. James skips over the text of the Digby Aphorisms- commentary, which runs from fols. 64^ra to 80^vb.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Trier 76, fol. 1^v.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Consider the following passage from the discussion of the elements as in MS Cambridge Peterhouse 251, fol. 50^vb: ‘De istis autem elementis discordati sunt philosophi. Nam quidam solam aquam dicebant esse elementum, videlicet Thales et alii. Ab hac fieri hoc modo sedimen eius terram dicentes, subtiliorem partem aerem, subtilissimam ignem. Anachimantes [i.e., Anaximenes] vero solum aerem esse dicens elementum et hic similiter nititur probationibus ostendere alia elementa de hoc facta. Erraclitus vero et prior Metaponticus ignem solum et ex hac causa fieri eisdem nititur probationibus ostendere.’ Compare Nemesius in the version of Alfanus (ed. Karl Burkhard [Leipzig 1917] 71 lines 14–22): ‘Etenim Thales aquam solam dicens esse elementum nititur monstrare tria alia ab hac fieri. Sedimen namque eius terram fieri et, quod subtilius, aerem, aeris quoque subtilius ignem. Anaximenes vero aerem solum dicens et hic similiter nititur ostendere alia elementa de aere facta. Heraclitus et Hipparchus Metapontinus ignem solum dicentes his eidem utuntur probationibus.’ — In Archimatthaeus, Nemesius is cited as ‘Remigius,’ a confusion well documented in thirteenth-century texts; see Brady, Ignatius, ‘Remigius — Nemesius,’ Franciscan Studies 8 (1948) 275–84, though Brady knows of no examples before Philip the Chancellor.Google Scholar

⁷² The ‘Digby’ commentary in MS Bodley 514, fol. 57^va reads: ‘Johannitius Johannis Alexandrini discipulus, vir prudentissimus…, composuit hunc librum introductorium, ut per hunc ad illum quasi per pontem quendam facilior fieret additus.’ (For a description of the MS, see Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian … 2 [Oxford 1922], 249, No. 2184; but note that what begins at fol. 46^vb as the Digby Prognostics-commentary becomes, after four lines, an unidentified commentary on Theophilus.) Archimatthaeus, MSS Trier 76, fol. 1^ra and Toledo 74–15, fol. 67^r, read: ‘[Toledo adds Sed] Johannitius vero filius Johannis Alexandrini seu [Toledo vel] discipulus ut quidam asserunt videns magnam utilitatem sub brevitate et obscuritate integra latere ad ipsum factus est introductorius, et [Toledo adds inde est quod] hunc librum composuit, per quem quasi per quendam pontem facilior fieret aditus ad Tegni G.’ (emphases added). There follows the same seven-fold pattern for the accessus: materia, intentio, causa intentionis, utilitas, cui parti philosophie supponatur, divisio, titulus. This pattern is a variation on Boethius’ arrangement in commenting upon Porphyry's Isagoge, perhaps derived through Constantine's Pantegni I.2, in Summi in omni philosophia viri Constantini Africani medicine operum reliqua… (Basel: Henricus Petri, [1539]), p. 1. Constantine gives the headings as intentio, utilitas, titulus, ad quam partem doctrinae tendat, nomen autoris, divisio libri. For related arrangements, see Hunt, R. W., ‘The Introduction to the “Artes” in the Twelfth Century,’ in Studia Mediaevalia in honorem … R. J. Martin (Bruges [1947]) 85–112 at 94–97.Google Scholar

⁷³ See the Philosophia mundi (ed. Maurach, Gregor; Pretoria 1971), lines 256, 262–263, 301–303, 320–321, 351, and so on.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ O'Neill, Ynez Violé, ‘William of Conches’ Descriptions of the Brain,’ Clio Medica 3 (1968) 202–23 at 207.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ MS Cambridge Peterhouse 251, fol. 53^vb.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ MS Oxford Digby 108, fol. 4^r: ‘Phisice supponitur quia de rerum complexionibus tractat. Dividitur in duo, in theoricam et practicam. Secundum quosdam in tria, in res naturales, et non naturales, et quae sunt contra naturam.’Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Constantine, , Pantegni I.2 in Summi 2; compare Galen, , Tegni, Prologue. This doctrine was to be further complicated by Gerard of Cremona's translation of Ali ibn Ridwan's commentary on the Tegni. In the Latin version, no clear distinction is possible between this commentary and Galen's text. See Temkin, , Galenism 109 n. 38, and the section on procedures as quoted in Crombie, A. C., Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science… (Oxford 1953) 77–78.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Constantine, , Pantegni I.2 in Summi 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ MS Oxford Digby 108 fol. 4^v: ‘Licet enim practica precedat secundum artis invencionem, tamen theorica practicam naturaliter precedit. Omnis enim actus suum debet sequi intellectum.’Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Constantine, , Pantegni I.3 in Summi 4.Google Scholar

⁸¹ MS Chartres 171, fol. 1^rb: ‘Phisice subponitur, loquitur enim de naturis rerum.’ The text of the gloss in MS Helmingham Hall 58, fol. 76^r, left margin, is identical.Google Scholar

⁸² MSS Chartres 171, fol. 1^ra, Helmingham 58, fol. 76^r left: ‘Dividit medicinam in duas partes, in theoricam et practicam, et merito in primis posuit theoricam et postea practicam. Licet enim practica secundum invencionem artis theoricam precedat, tamen [Helmingham add. ex ratione] post artis invencionem theorica preferenda est.’Google Scholar

⁸³ MSS Chartres fol. 1^rb, Helmingham fol. 176^r left: ‘Theorica est certa cognicio rerum solo intellectu capiendarum subiecta memorie operandarum rerum. Practica est subiecta theorice monstrare in sensuum propatulum et in operacionem manuum secundum preeuntis theorice intellectum.’Google Scholar

⁸⁴ MSS Cambridge Gonville & Caius 111 (180), fol. 8^v, in a preface to Johannitius; Cambridge Peterhouse 251 fol. 49^r, in a preface and glossary introducing the Digby commentaries.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ MS Cambridge Corpus Christi 364, fol. 44^v.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Cap. 2 (PL 64.1250).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Lib. 1 cap. 3 (PL 64.10–11).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See, e.g., Jerome Taylor's notes to the definitions of ‘philosophy’ in Hugh of Saint-Victor's Didascalicon I.2 and II.1 (New York–London 1961), 181–82 and 195–97.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Guillaume de Conches: Glosae super Platonem (ed. Jeauneau, Edouard, Textes philosophiques du moyen âge 13; Paris 1965), 60.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ MSS Trier 76, fol. 1^vb and Toledo 74–15, fol. 67^v: ‘…quia quicumque habet practicam habet theoricam, sed non convertitur. Sed tamen nobis obiciatur de quibusdam apothecariis et multis aliis qui practici esse videntur. Sed non dicimus eos practicos [Toledo Non tamen eos practicos dicimus], sed simplices operatores. Causas (?) enim ignorant et [Toledo adds tantum] secundum quandam consuetudinem operantur.’Google Scholar

⁹¹ MS Trier 76, fol. 1^vb: ‘Sic iste due scientie a Constantino diffiniuntur. Sed archiepiscopus Romualdus, magister noster, evidentius diffinit eas dicens, Theorica scientia cognoscende sanitatis, [Toledo adds et earundem] egritudinis, et neutralitatis per contemplationem rerum naturalium, non naturalium, et earum que sunt contra naturam. Practica est scientia conservande sanitatis, curande [Toledo adds et removende] egritudinis et neutralitatis in naturalibus, scilicet in membris, per non naturalia, id est per VI [Toledo adds rerum] genera non naturalium, removendo ea que sunt contra naturam, scilicet morbum, et causam morbi, et signum morbi. Quia in quibus theorica contemplando consistit, in eisdem practica operando versatur.’ MS Toledo 74–15, fol. 67^v gives the second sentence with interesting differences: ‘Sic et due scientie a Constantino diffiniuntur. Sed Romoaldus archiepiscopus Salernitanorum eas sic diffinit, Theorica a modernis sic diffinitur. Theorica est scientia….’ The change in Romualdus' identification would suggest a non-Salernitan redaction.Google Scholar

⁹² Consider the following samples. Archimatthaeus, MSS Trier 76, fol. 1^ra and Toledo 74–15, fol. 67^r: ‘Volens ergo summam omnium capitulorum totius [Toledo adds huius] artis in unum compilare Tegni fecit, in quo dum brevitati instuduit obscuritatis reprehensionem pene incurrit. [Toledo adds Sed] Johannitius vero filius Johannis Alexandrini seu [Toledo vel] discipulus ut quidam asserunt videns magnam utilitatem sub brevitate et obscuritate integra latere ad ipsum factus est introductorius, et [Toledo adds inde est quod] hunc librum composuit….’ Maurus, MSS Bruges Stadsbibliothek 474, fol. 116^ra and Paris BN lat. 6956, fol. 3^va-b: ‘… singulis partibus singula volens G. componere volumina, CLX libellos edidit quorum summa querens in unum compilare Tegni fecit in quo dum brevitati instuduit obscuritatis reprehensionem incurrit. Johannicius vero Iohannis Alexandrini discipulus seu [Paris vel] filius ut quidam asserunt videns utilitatem maximam sub brevitate et obscuritate in Tegni latere ad ipsum factus est introductorius. Inde est quod hunc librum composuit.’Google Scholar

⁹³ MSS Bruges 474, fol. 116^va and Paris 6956, fol. 4^va: ‘De divisione medicine quaeritur utrum sit tocius universalis [Paris naturalis] per partes subiectivas an tocius integri in partes integrales. Quidam conatur probare quod sit tocius integri per partes integrales auctoritate Boethii dicentis in Topicis [De diff. topicis lib. 2 (PL 64.1188–89)]: Si sciencia conservande salutis….’Google Scholar

⁹⁴ MSS Bruges 474, fol. 116^va, and Paris 6956, fol. 4^va: ‘Alii dicunt theoricam esse subiecta practice sed non convertendi consequentiam, quia quicumque habet practicam habet theoricam, sed non convertitur.’ Compare the text from Archimatthaeus in n. 90, above.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ MSS Bruges 474, fol. 116^va and Paris 6956, fol. 4^va: ‘Ad hoc enim ut quis per practicam operetur, necesse est ut in memoria tenear quod per theoricam contemplatus fuerit. Sicut ergo grammatica est fundamentum aliarum arcium, sic theorica fundamentum practice, cui practica superedificatur.’Google Scholar

⁹⁶ MS Winchester 24, fol. 22^vb: ‘Spectat autem hoc opus ad phisicam, quod per ipsius philosophie divisionem facilius patebit. Dividitur namque in III partes: in naturalem scientiam, moralem, et rationalem, que sic dicuntur a Graecis: Theorica, Ethica, Logica.’Google Scholar

⁹⁷ MS Winchester 24, fol. 22^rb.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^va: ‘Dividitur autem phisica in tres partes, prima quod cum toto idem nomen sortita phisica dicitur, quae et phisiologia dicitur; secunda, metheora; tercia, medicina.’Google Scholar

⁹⁹ MS Winchester 24, fol. 22^vb; compare Aristotle, , Physics II.1, 192b21–23.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ MS Winchester 24, fol. 22^vb: ‘Deus enim manens immobilis principium et causa est omnium motuum. Unde Boetius, stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri [Consolation III.M.9.3].’Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^ra: ‘Illa extrinseca principia sine motu et cum motu nature possunt appellari, tamen ab auctoribus loquentibus proprie non nature sed nature principia dicuntur. Alii tamen large naturam accipientes quodlibet motus principium naturale appellaverunt. Alii vero naturam deum appellaverunt. Boethius, Unde, “Omnia quicumque a primivera rerum natura….’”Google Scholar

¹⁰² MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^vb: ‘Quod autem sit doctrina et quia non plura genera quam tria in glosis nostris super Tegni G. manifeste reperitur.’Google Scholar

¹⁰³ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^ra: ‘…in duas partes, in theoricam scilicet et practicam, que quidem partes integrales non sunt sed dicuntur quantum ad similitudinem partium integralium in aliquo concurrentes perfectam in eo artem componunt.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Compare the Practica Bartholomaei in De Renzi, cap. 3, ‘De odore’: ‘Hoc modo cognoscuntur complexiones medicinarum. Sed notandum est quod inter omnes istas notitias certior est illa que probatione habetur, sed periculosior, sicut supra dictum. Probatio quidem alia artificialis, alia casualis; de artificiali satis superius diximus. Casualis vero dividitur in tria: alia est per somnia, alia per casuales hominum operationes, alia [h]abita est per naturales animalium operationes…. Per casuales vero operationes: sic aliquis in expeditione pergens percussus ab aliquo herbam aliquam desuper ponebat, juvamentum vel nocumentum memorie commendabat. Si conferebat, in similibus egritudinibus similiter faciebat; si non, non’ (Coll. Sal. 4.324).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^ra: ‘Quod autem practica sciencia sit non operacio triplici ratione comprobatur. Si enim esset operatio posterior esset medicina et ita non esset pars integralis, cum omnis operatio suam sequatur scienciam…. Item si practica esset operatio nullus esset practicus, nisi dum operaretur, quia non esset in eo practica…. Item si esset operatio non esset principalis pars sciencie. Operatio namque est actio, sciencia qualitas, nulla enim pars sub generalissimo alio continetur quam suum totum integrum.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^rb: ‘Nam sicut Aristoteles ait ex multis experimentis una regula et ex multis regulis ars una perficitur’; compare Aristotle, , Metaphysics I.1, 981a1–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ MS Winchester 24, fol. 23^va: ‘Hic quidam volunt referre singula singulis, scientiam scilicet sanitatis ad res naturales; neutralitatis ad res non naturales; egritudinis ad res [contra] naturam, quod nichil est. Ex illorum enim cognicione cumque istorum trium procedit scientia.’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Kristeller, , ‘Bartholomaeus, Musandinus’ 63.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Research for this paper was supported in part by grants from the Wellcome Trust (London), the American Philosophical Society, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am also grateful to the various collections that have kindly granted permission to reproduce MS material, but especially Philip Robinson, London, Paul Yeats-Edwards of the Fellows' Library, Winchester College, and Franz Rudolf Reichert of the Priesterseminar, Trier. Finally, I would like to thank Gerhard Baader and Paul Oskar Kristeller for their very helpful corrections and comments.Google Scholar