¹ Minio-Paluello's, L. article ‘Michael Scot,’ in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography 11 (1974) 361–65, contains an excellent summary of Scot's life and includes a thorough bibliography. I would add that the earliest reference to Scot comes not in 1217, but in 1215, when he accompanied the archbishop of Toledo to the Fourth Lateran Council. See Rivera, J. F., ‘Personajes hispánicos asistentes en 1215 al IV Concilio Letran,’ Hispania sacra 4 (1951) 354–55. Scot cites a decree of that council in the prooemium to his Liber introductorius (Clm. 10268 fol. 9^r). Scot's analysis of the ‘tumor of the womb’ referred to by Minio-Paluello (p. 361) is discussed by O'Neill, Y. V. in ‘Michael Scot and Mary of Bologna: A Medieval Gynecological Puzzle,’ Clio Medica 8 (1973) 87–111, and in ‘Michael Scot and Mary of Bologna: An Addendum,’ Clio Medica 9 (1974) 125–29. Google Scholar

² The culmination of the antiquarian tradition is found in Brown, J. W., Enquiry into the Life and Legend of Michael Scott (Edinburgh 1897). A summary of the works leading up to Brown's book can be found in Ferguson, J., ‘A Short Biography and Bibliography of Michael Scottus,’ Records of the Glasgow Bibliographical Society 9 (1931) 73–100.Google Scholar

³ Haskins, C. H., Studies in the History of Medieval Science (New York 1927; repr. 1960) 272.Google Scholar

⁴ For examples, see Metlitzki, D., The Matter of Araby in Medieval England (New Haven 1977) 41–46, and Morpurgo, Piero, ‘II “Liber Introductorius” di Michele Scoto, prime indicazioni interpretative,’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali storiche e filologiche VIII. Serie 34 (1979) 149–61.Google Scholar

⁵ This translation is of the Venice (Fivizano) 1477 edition, but it lacks both the final half-page and the fifty pages of notes she made. Professor D. J. DeSolla Price, under whose direction the translation was made, told me before his recent death that Greenspan also completed a critical edition of the Latin text, but that neither has been published. This is the third of Scot's original works, the shortest, and the only one to have been printed. Ferguson lists thirty-eight Latin editions printed by 1547, deduces the existence of five Italian translations. made between 1514 and 1533, and cites a German translation of 1701. Thorndike, L. and Kibre, P. list five manuscripts in their Incipits of Medieval Scientific Writings in Latin (2nd ed.; Cambridge, Mass. 1963).Google Scholar

⁶ Haskins, , Studies 291–98. There is a partial English translation on pp. 266–67. Both were originally published in 1922 and revised in 1927. A fragment of the Liber introductorius has been translated in Dales, R. C., The Scientific Achievement of the Middle Ages (Philadelphia 1973) 157–58.Google Scholar

⁷ The prooemium of the Liber introductorius carries a description of the entire work: ‘Sed antequam ulterius procedamus in sermone incepto, intendentes multa dicere de celestibus et terrestibus que sunt secreta philosophorum et omnino pertinent arti astronomie, volumus librum tocius artis collectum pro novitiis scholaribus incipere ordinate, que merito dici potest Introductorius. Hic enim liber constat ex tribus libris, primus quidem constat ex quattuor distinctionibus. Secundus liber simplex est, et ipsum librum apellamus Particularem eo quod tractat de iudiciis et questionibus diversorum. Tercius vero liber dicitur Physiognomie, quia multum tractat de naturalibus iudiciis. Et tunc est epilogus velud ante libros de prenominatis Prohemium ’ (M fol. 19^v).Google Scholar

⁸ Meier was killed in London in 1941 when his house was bombed during the Blitz. All that survives of his transcription is in the library of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. These pages correspond to fols. 21–70 of manuscript M. He apparently had the transcription of the first 20 folios (that is, of the prooemium) with him when he died. A few pages survive in a rather shabby state; one even appears to bear on it the mark of a bootprint. There are also some proof sheets corresponding to the first three folios of M that were set in type by the B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft in 1928. Meier's edition was intended to be volume 15 of the Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, but it never appeared and there is no other volume 15.Google Scholar

⁹ Thorndike, L., Michael Scot (London 1965) 7.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 10663 is a copy of M written about 1700 by a single scribe, probably at the monastery of Mannheim. It is notable for its finely done illustrations and indications in the text, corresponding to the ends of the original M folios 29 and 89, that at least one leaf appears to be missing. It has no independent value as a witness to the text. Concerning Clm. 10268 see now Bauer, U., Der Liber Introductorius des Michael Scotus in der Abschrift Clm 10268 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München (Munich 1983).Google Scholar

¹¹ Briquet, C. M., Les Filigranes: Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu'en 1600 I–V (2nd ed.; Leipzig 1923).Google Scholar

¹² The portion of M that deals with planetary conjunctions (fols. 86^v–89^v) is found in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 14080 (fols. 112^r–118^v). The portion of M treating of planetary influences (fols. 100^r–104^r) is found in Vienna, Nationalbibliothek lat. 3124 (fols. 206^r–211^r); Bernkastel–Kues, St. Nikolaus Hospital 209 (folio 76^v) contains an abbreviated version. This section on planetary influences, another on the mansions of the moon (M fols. 112^r-113^r), and figures illustrating the constellations and planets (M fols. 78^r–85^v) are found in Vienna, Nationalbibliothek lat. 3394 (fols. 214^r–244^v). The section on the mansions of the moon is also found in Modena, Estense lat. 79 (fols. 1^r–16^v). A copy of the third distinction of the work is found in Edinburgh, University Library 132 (which consists of 48 folios in a single hand). Various fragments are also found in Vatican, Pal. lat. 1363 (fols. 90^r–110^v, entitled ‘Michaelis Scotti collectio floris’). By far the greatest number of fragmentary manuscripts duplicate the section illustrating the constellations and planets (M 78^r–84^r): Bernkastel–Kues, St. Nikolaus Hospital 207 (fols. 108^r–116^r); Cambridge, Emmanuel College Library 70; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard College Library f. Ms. typ. 43; Coburg, Landesbibliothek 5; Cracow, Biblioteka Jagiellońska 573; Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek 266; Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Magl. XXII, 22; Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek 125; London, British Library Add. 41600; London, Wellcome Institute 509; Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I. 90. sup.; New York, Pierpont Morgan Library M. 384; Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario 48; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale ital. 81; Seville, Biblioteca Colombina 7-7-1; Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek M.d.2; Vatican, Vat. lat. 4087 (fols. 88^r–99^r), Pal. lat. 1370 (fols. 87^r–100^r); Vienna, Nationalbibliothek lat. 2378, 3394, 5442. The manuscripts marked with an asterisk have been examined by me, the others (with the exception of the Seville manuscript) are listed by Bauer, Der Liber introductorius 8–10. Frau Bauer also reports (108 postscript) that she has recently learned of a new manuscript of the Liber introductorius in Leningrad, Saltykow–Schreschedrin State Library, Cod. lat. F.v.IV, item 1, but notes that she has not yet examined it.Google Scholar

¹³ See Boll, F., Sphaera (Leipzig 1897) 444, and Haskins, , Studies 287 n. 95.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Thorndike, L., ‘The Manuscripts of Michael Scot's Liber Introductorius,’ in Didascaliae: Studies in Honor of Anselm M. Albareda (ed Prete, S.; New York 1961) 427–47. See especially pp. 439–40 and 444–45 for the reasons for his claim that B was not copied directly from M. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Thorndike's method of citation was to designate as a or b each column on either the recto or the verso side; I have designated the recto columns A and B and the verso columns c and D, so that his B fol. 28^rb is the same as my 28B. Some of the folios of M and E are written not in columns, but in long lines; in those cases I use the standard designations for recto and verso.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The amount of extra material in B covers five columns and twenty-two lines. This equals the amount of material the M scribe could have put on one full leaf. Thorndike also mentions material in B that corresponds to the now-missing quire of M, the original fols. 90–99. He notes here, too, that the M fols. 90A–100A correspond to fols. 123A–150C of B, ‘presenting a text about half as long, allowing for the fuller page of the Munich MS.’ This is because half of that part of the M text is now missing.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Thorndike, , ‘Manuscripts’ 428, notes that P seems in places more like a digest than M and B seem to be expansions. He takes this as evidence that P represents ‘in some respects’ an earlier tradition.Google Scholar

¹⁸ M fol. 100A.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The P scribe also seems in one place to have included material from the fourth distinction. On fols. 64^v–68^r he inserts in the middle of an astronomical section some non-astronomical material on the four elements and the four humors. I have not been able to find these in the M text, nor can I find them ascribed to any other author, but the material is similar, even in wording, to that printed by A. H. Querfeld as part of his inaugural dissertation at the University of Leipzig, Michael Scottus und seine Schrift De secretis naturae (Borna–Leipzig 1919). The treatise De urinis in this work constitutes the last part of the Liber physiognomie and contains the following cross-reference (on p. 51): ‘Quin tractavimus aliqua de natura etc. in 4. distinctione primi libri urinae….’ I am consequently certain that the capitula in P and E which are not in M are in many, if not all, cases remnants of the otherwise-lost fourth distinction.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Manuscripts’ 439–40.Google Scholar

²¹ Benjamin, F. S. Jr., and Toomer, G. J., Campanus of Novarra and Medieval Planetary Theory (Madison 1971) 4–5. The portion of Campanus' Theorica planetarum describing this planetary equatorium is on pp. 140–42. See also the editors' discussion of Campanus' ‘instrument’ on pp. 30–33.Google Scholar

²² Benjamin, and Toomer, , Campanus 3–4 and 5 n. 14.Google Scholar

²³ See, for example, B fol. 129D (now missing in M) where he compares the planets in various astrological houses to men in different types of physical houses.Google Scholar

²⁴ Benjamin, and Toomer, , Campanus 140:‘… annuales equationes quas almanach uocant ab aliis emendicant, defectum sue uel occupationis uel ignorantie consolantes. ’ Google Scholar

²⁵ Narducci, E., ed., ‘Intorno al Tractatus Sphaerae di Bartolomeo di Parma,’ Bullettino di bibliographia e di storia della scienze matematiche e fisiche 17 (1884) 167–68.Google Scholar

²⁶ A translation of the Theorica planetarum was made from Copenhagen MS Latin Add. 447 (‘dating from perhaps a little before 1300’) by O. Pedersen and appears in A Source Book in Medieval Science (ed. Grant, E.; Cambridge, Mass. 1974) 461–65. The text in M contains the material on p. 464 n. 49 that Professor Pedersen considers a later interpolation. The figures in M are all incomplete and differ slightly from those accompanying the translation. This is, of course, not the treatise by Campanus that bears the same title.Google Scholar

²⁷ The manuscript reads: ‘Rhethorica.’ Thorndike, L., ‘Some Little Known Astronomical and Mathematical Manuscripts,’ Osiris 8 (1948) 44–45, notes that Vatican manuscript Pal. lat. 1363 contains on fols. 90^r–94^r a Collectio floris rethorice planetarum, which omits (‘propter defectum exemplaris’) the last hundred or so words found in M's version. The scribe attributes this work to Michael Scot.Google Scholar

²⁸ A cross-reference appears in M fol. 31B: ‘Set quia longum est esse planetarum diffinire, infra dicimus, totum ponentes in suo loco Rethoricam Planetarum, non de nostro, set ex necessitte [sic] mutuo acceptam in hoc libro, eo quod opus est utile huic arti.’ Mutuo thus appears to be the adverbial form of mutuus, ‘borrowed’ or ‘lent.’ Google Scholar

²⁹ See his introduction to the translation in A Source Book in Medieval Science 451.Google Scholar

³⁰ Pedersen, O., ‘The Theorica Planetarum Literature of the Middle Ages,’ Classica et Mediaevalia 23 (1962) 231. His citation of Duhem is Système du Monde III (Paris 1954) 219f Glenn M. Edwards.Google Scholar

³¹ Pedersen in A Source Book in Medieval Science 451.Google Scholar

³² For an edition and translation of the Sphaera and the Latin text of the commentary ascribed to Scot, see Thorndike, L., The Sphere of Sacrobosco and Its Commentators (Chicago 1949).Google Scholar

³³ See, for example, M fol. 61A–B.Google Scholar

³⁴ Thorndike, , Sphere 5, dates Sacrobosco's work to ‘early in the thirteenth century.’ Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Manselli, R., ‘La corte di Federico II e Michele Scoto,’ in L'Averroismo in Italia: Convegno internazionale (Roma, 18–20 aprile 1977) (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 40; Rome 1979) 63–80.Google Scholar