CHAPTER LVI
VINCENT OF BEAUVAIS
The Speculum Maius—Events of his life—Was the Speculum naturale finished in 1250?—Order of the three Mirrors—Chronological relation to Albert and Aquinas—General character of the Speculum naturale—Vincent’s method of compilation—Use of Pliny and Aristotle—More recent authorities—Credulity concerning the barnacle birds—A sign of his scientific inferiority—Demons, magic, and superstition—Divination from dreams—The stars—Their influence—Virtues of gems—A chapter on the jasper—Alchemy—Virtues of plants—Animals—The tree of life and the bodies of the damned—Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?—Classification of the sciences—Concluding estimate of the Speculum naturale.
The Speculum Maius.
Of medieval encyclopedists and compilers Vincent of Beauvais may be ranked as chief by reason of his Speculum Maius, which really consists of three voluminous “Mirrors,” the Speculum naturale, with which we shall be chiefly concerned,[1514] and the Speculum doctrinale and Speculum historiale. The Speculum morale, once attributed to him, has been shown to be a later production. The Speculum naturale may be regarded as capping the series begun with Neckam’s De naturis rerum and continued by Thomas of Cantimpré’s De natura rerum and Bartholomew of England’s De proprietatibus rerum. The Mirror of History is a world chronicle written from the Christian standpoint. The Mirror of Doctrine is not merely concerned with doctrine in the theological sense but with all fields of art and learning, industry and society, beginning with a discussion of schools of philosophy and educational method and a dictionary of some 3200 words, and running through grammar, logic, rhetoric, poetics, monastic and economic and political institutions, the useful and military arts, medicine, physics, and natural philosophy, mathematics and metaphysics, and finally reaching theology in its seventeenth and last book. Indeed, Vincent himself well described it as concerned with “all arts,” as the other two Mirrors reflect “all things” and “all times.”[1515] It is considerably briefer than the Mirror of Nature which contains almost twice as many books.
Events of his life.
Little is known of Vincent’s life and the years of his birth and death are uncertain. He speaks of himself as “Vincent of Beauvais of the Order of Preachers,” and in 1246 was a sub-prior of the Dominican monastery at Beauvais. Like another learned friar of his time, Roger Bacon, he speaks of laborious duties which interrupted his literary activities and forced him to employ copyists. Probably the most important external circumstance of his career was his connection with the royal family of St. Louis. Although a Dominican, Vincent held the post of reader in the Cistercian abbey of Royaumont which Louis had founded in 1228. Vincent seems to have served Louis IX in the triple capacity of royal librarian, chaplain, and tutor of the king’s children. His treatise On the Education of the Royal Children was composed at some time after the return of St. Louis from the Holy Land in 1254, and his Consolatory Letter dealt with the death of Prince Louis in 1260. The date 1264, often mentioned as that of Vincent’s death, rests on the statement of Louis à Valleoleti who wrote in the early fifteenth century. Ptolemy of Lucca who wrote a century nearer to Vincent’s time cites him concerning the three year vacancy in the papacy following the death of Clement IV, which would bring the completion of the Speculum historiale down to 1271 at least, but Daunou showed that this citation was incorrect and that the passage in question was from Martin of Poland, not Vincent of Beauvais. This is perhaps also the case with another passage in Ptolemy of Lucca which Daunou failed to note and which says, “Historians in general state, but Vincent in particular writes” of a comet which portended the death of Pope Urban IV in 1264. Although the duration of the comet was three months, the pope sickened as soon as it appeared and died on the very day that it disappeared.[1516] If the citation is from Vincent, he must have lived beyond 1264.
Was the Speculum naturale finished in 1250?
It has been customary to give 1250 as the precise date for the completion of the Speculum naturale, because its last book, which is geographical and historical, states that it will bring the history of the world down to the present year, 1250. Valentin Rose accepted this date so confidently as to argue on the basis of it that, because Vincent did not cite the work of Albertus Magnus on minerals,[1517] that treatise was not written until after 1250. But that such statements of the current year in Vincent’s works cannot be relied upon too implicitly is shown in his Mirror of History. From the list of popes given in its eighth book we should infer that it was composed in 1244 or 1245, since it speaks of Innocent IV as having now sat on the throne for two years; and again the closing chapter of its thirty-first[1518] book states that the author has brought the history of the sixth age of the world down to the current year, that is, the eighteenth of Louis IX and the second of Innocent IV and the thirty-fourth of Frederick II. But other events are mentioned which happened in 1250 and 1254.[1519]
Order of the three Mirrors.
It is also difficult to determine the order in which the three Mirrors were completed. Daunou assumed that the Speculum naturale was finished first, and that the Speculum doctrinale treated again of some topics which had already been discussed in the other. He also placed the Speculum historiale later than the Mirror of Nature, believing that it was published at some time after 1254 rather than ten years earlier, and pointing out that in its ninth book Vincent mentioned having used Pliny’s Natural History in his Speculum naturale. On the other hand, the revised edition of Potthast’s Wegweiser regards the Mirror of History as completed about 1244 before the Mirror of Nature. As an intermediate work it mentions Memoriale omnium temporum, an extract in eighty chapters made by Vincent himself from the Speculum historiale. This extract was then embodied in the last book of the Speculum naturale, where an account of the years 1242-1250 was added to it. And in the last chapter of the Speculum naturale, where the coming of antichrist and the last judgment are discussed, we are told that these matters are more fully treated at the close of the Speculum historiale. Thus we have both the Mirror of History looking back on the Mirror of Nature as an earlier work, and vice versa. Thus we apparently have to do with a revised edition of one or both of the works, or with later additions and interpolations which a study of the manuscripts would be necessary to unravel, although very likely it would fail to do so. One might hazard the conjecture that the Mirror of History was first issued in 1244, as it says, and that this edition was the one cited in the Mirror of Nature; that after 1254 a revised edition of the Mirror of History was issued and that in this the Speculum naturale was referred to. There are further objections even to this view, however, as we shall presently see.
Chronological relation to Albert and Aquinas.
If the Speculum naturale as we have it was completed by 1250, it would aid us in dating works of Albertus Magnus and Aquinas which it cites. Vincent cites Albert a great deal, especially for the Aristotelian psychology, often without definite mention of the title of the work cited, but sometimes such titles are mentioned as De anima, De sensu et sensato, De somno et vigilia, De animalibus.[1520] Evidently Albert had already completed many of his commentaries upon and elaborations of the Aristotelian philosophy, and had made an established reputation for himself. It is quite possible that this had been already accomplished by 1250, since, while Albert lived on until 1280, he was then an old man. But what is surprising to find in a work written in 1250 are Vincent’s citations of Thomas Aquinas on such questions as “How an angel instructs the soul?” and “What prophecy is?”[1521] In 1250 Aquinas would have been only twenty-three and would scarcely have attained the rank of an authority upon advanced theological problems of this sort, since he did not receive his doctorate in theology, precocious as he was, until 1257. Either then these citations are later interpolations, or Vincent did not complete the Speculum naturale in 1250. But this problem again calls for an examination of the earliest manuscripts.
General character of the Speculum naturale.
The Speculum naturale may be described as a sort of over-grown Hexaemeron; indeed, in some of the manuscripts it is entitled, Speculum in Hexemeron libris 32, ex dictis innumerabilium tam christianorum quam gentilium.[1522] That is to say, its consideration of nature follows the order of the six days of creation. But the mass of scientific data is so voluminous as to obscure this underlying Biblical plan, and the work is divided not into six books, but thirty-two and a prologue, or thirty-three in all. The work is, however, more marked by a theological aim, tone, and interest than others that we have considered or shall consider. This is not quite so noticeable as in the Speculum historiale, described by Daunou as “a work planned and executed in an essentially theological spirit,”[1523] and one of whose four books on the twelfth century consists entirely of extracts from the writings of St. Bernard. But as the prologue of the Mirror of Nature ranks the philosophers and doctors of the Gentiles as of the third and lowest grade of authority, as its next book discusses the Trinity and angels as well as the universe, and the third deals with demons as well as elements and atoms, so its twenty-fourth book is largely concerned with the soul and its immortality, the thirtieth with the seventh day of rest and such topics as fate and providence, sin and penitence, and the thirty-first with Paradise, the creation and fall of man, marriage, and so on. We have had other writers begin with the Trinity and angels and demons but thereafter deal more exclusively with purely physical phenomena. We have seen other writers start out with the professed object of explaining the Scriptures but end by discussing nature in a purely scientific way. Vincent, on the other hand, sets out to compile a Mirror of History or a Mirror of Nature but cannot keep his mind off such themes as the fall of man and the last judgment.
Vincent’s method of compilation.
Vincent also adheres rather more strictly to his professed rôle of a mere compiler than some of our other medieval writers. He says that he will distinguish his own statements by the word Actor or Auctor, author or editor, and such passages are of minor importance and make little or no new contribution to scientific knowledge. His superiority to other medieval compilers or encyclopedists consists almost entirely in the fact that he has had access to a larger library and has made longer and more numerous excerpts from his authorities than they. As a rule he does not attempt to reconcile conflicting statements in the authorities, warning his readers in the prologue that he is a mere excerptor and not to be held responsible for such inconsistencies. Indeed, he is to such an extent a mere excerptor that it is perhaps more important to note the authors whom he uses[1524] than the subject-matter which he takes from them and which we have already been over in large measure, since we have already considered separately many of his main sources.
Use of Pliny and Aristotle.
Vincent is easily indebted to Pliny, with whose entire Natural History he seems acquainted,[1525] more than to any other single source and the Speculum naturale is as much an imitation of it as a development from patristic Hexaemerons. Another constant reliance is Isidore, who of course in his turn had used Pliny extensively. Aristotle and various Arabian authorities—Rasis, Avicenna, Albumasar, Averroes—are frequently cited, but sometimes at least indirectly through Albertus Magnus. In his preface Vincent apologizes for often giving Aristotle’s views not in his own words but in transposed order for the sake of condensation and clearness. Incidentally he reveals that he had the service of assistants in compiling his encyclopedia, since he states that he has not made these renditions of Aristotle himself but that they have been “excerpted by certain brothers.” At the same time he shows how familiar the wording of Aristotle’s text had become by his time and how precise the standards of medieval scholarship were in some respects, when he adds that there are some scholars who will not tolerate the alteration of one iota or the order of a single word of the authority.[1526]
More recent authorities.
Vincent is also not ashamed “to learn from modern doctors”[1527] and employs many works of his medieval Latin predecessors from Constantinus Africanus, whom he cites a great deal as Bartholomew did, to Albertus Magnus and perhaps Thomas Aquinas. He makes some use of the Natural Questions of Adelard of Bath, which treatise he once cites as “Adelardus ad nepotem,”[1528] and for matters astronomical he makes much use of the De philosophia or Dragmaticon of William of Conches. He also repeats its locus classicus concerning the waters above the firmament where the view of Bede is rejected for “the more probable opinion of the moderns in this matter.”[1529]
Credulity concerning barnacle birds.
While Vincent shows a wide and commendable acquaintance not only with a large number of names of authors and titles, but in many cases with a part or the whole of the contents of the books themselves, it sometimes appears that he has not got all that he might have from the authority in question, and he sometimes does not display the soundest of judgment in what he includes and what he omits in making his selections. The case of the barnacle birds may serve as an illustration. Now Vincent cites the work of Albertus Magnus on animals concerning falcons in the very same seventeenth book in which this chapter on the barnacle birds occurs. With his broad bibliographical attainments Vincent should have realized the worth of Albert’s work and should have imbibed some of its sceptical and critical attitude toward stories of strange and outlandish animals. Albert had branded as liars those who said that birds were born from trees, hanging from the trunk and branches and being nourished by the sap beneath the bark, or that birds were generated from driftwood at sea, and that no one had ever seen such birds lay eggs or have sexual intercourse. Albert and many of his associates had seen them doing both and feeding their young.[1530] Yet Vincent continues to discuss these barnacle birds most credulously. They feed on driftwood. At birth they are naked but gradually grow feathers and float through the sea hanging to the driftwood by their beaks until they come to maturity and bestir themselves and break away. “And we ourselves have seen many of them and trustworthy men have testified that they have seen them hanging thus.” Jacques de Vitry tells of them in his Oriental History: “It is further to be noted that they do not hang in the tops of trees but on the bark of the boughs and trunks. And they grow on the sap of the tree and the infusion of dew until they have feathers and strength and break off from the bark. It may be said with certainty of these birds that in our part of the world around Germany they neither generate by sexual concourse nor are generated. Nor has any man among us ever seen their sexual congress. Consequently some Christians in our time in those places where birds of this sort abound are accustomed to eat their flesh in Lent. But Pope Innocent III in the general council at the Lateran forbade them to do this any more.”[1531] After stating that the barnacle birds eat herbs and grain like geese and cannot go for long without drink, Vincent cites a “Philosopher,” but it is not clear whether as authority for the foregoing statements or the ensuing assertion that the barnacle bird which is born from trees is found also in certain parts of Flanders.[1532] “Philosopher” in this case can therefore scarcely be Aristotle. Despite what was said of the bird’s thirst, it is now added that like trees it has no superfluity.
A sign of his scientific inferiority.
Perhaps Vincent had read but little of Albert’s work on animals; possibly the citations of it in the Speculum naturale are later interpolations; but in any case the passage suggests a difference in scientific attitude between the two men. It should be added, however, in Vincent’s favor that his descriptions of fish were in Cuvier’s opinion more precise and correct than those of Albert.[1533] But in general it seems to me that he was neither the personal observer of nature that Albert was, nor did he possess as much scientific discrimination. This defect is bound to affect his whole selection of material and use of authorities, and, together with his somewhat excessive theological bias, makes his compilation, extensive as it is, scarcely representative of medieval natural science at its best. At the same time we see that in the very process of excerpting he gives his compilation a certain character and tone of its own. It will therefore be well, in view of its widespread and enduring influence, attested by numerous manuscripts and printed editions, to give some attention to its contents, and see what attitude it reflects on the subjects of magic, astrology, divination from dreams, and occult virtue in nature.
Demons, magic, and superstition.
Vincent’s mentions of magic[1534] are incidental to his discussion of demons and the marvels, transformations, and divination which they are able to work. On these points he repeats the views of Augustine, Peter Lombard, and other like-minded ecclesiastical authorities, and we need not dwell upon them further, except to note that he makes the demons inhabit the lower and misty air, and that his citation of The Golden Ass of Apuleius is probably indirect through Augustine. We should also note, however, a passage in the Mirror of Doctrine[1535] which seems to be largely derived from the Summa of a “brother William,” which may possibly be the De universo of William of Auvergne, although he does not seem to have been a friar. The passage states that incantations may be used to enchant the sick or children or animals, provided no superstitious practice which the church has prohibited is involved, and only licit prayers, adjurations, and such symbols as the sign of the cross are used. Perhaps the practice of hypnotism is involved here. Vincent believes that men and women who introduce many useless and superstitious ceremonies should be forbidden to continue these practices, which should be confined to priests and to laymen and women of excellent life and proved discretion. But he does not object to employment of the divine symbol in plucking an herb or to writing the Lord’s prayer on a scroll and placing it near the patient.
Divination from dreams.
In his discussion of dreams and their significance Vincent combines such varied authorities as Aristotle, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, and Pope Gregory the Great, who accounted for dreams by a full or empty stomach, the thoughts of the dreamer, the illusions of demons, and the revelations of angels. While recognizing with the Bible that dreams make many err, Vincent agrees “with the saints and prophets that dreams frequently signify something concerning the future.” Dreams are powerfully affected by the motion of the stars in the sky, which is scarcely noticed when we are awake but is manifest in sleep. Dispositions, too, on the part of the sleeper make themselves felt in dreams which are not observed in waking hours, a medieval statement of the Freudian theory. Dreams are not causes but simply signs of the future. Since the events which they forecast are not yet in existence, they obviously cannot portray them plainly but suggest them obscurely in a manner requiring interpretation. Thus to dream of fire is a sign of future anger, to see a great foul mouth in a dream indicates a false criminal accusation, to dream of a scorpion portends secret detraction. It is commonly stated by philosophers that the signification of a dream varies as it occurs at the full moon or the new moon or in the sunshine, and also according to the positions of the planets in the signs.[1536]
The stars.
From the influence of the stars upon dreams we may next turn to Vincent’s attitude toward astrology in general. It is a mixture of passages from church fathers against the errors of the genethlialogists and mathematici, and of passages from the philosophers, ancient and recent, affirming the control of the stars over the world of nature. Vincent, however, attempts to combine and reconcile these, and makes his own standpoint fairly evident. He holds that the brief, vague utterances of Aristotle whence the commentators have inferred that the stars are alive do not necessarily imply this.[1537] They are nevertheless superior in certain ways to all inferior life, and are of an unalterable and incorruptible nature.[1538] Vincent undertakes to reconcile the assertion of holy doctors that the heavens neither have souls nor are animals with the doctrines of the philosophers.[1539] He holds that there are Intelligences in the spheres of the heavens who serve the First Cause or Mover and that, although the saints abhor giving these the name of souls, yet they concede that intelligences or angels move the heavens and the stars at the nod of God.
Their influence.
From sages and men of old Vincent reiterates such doctrine as that “the movement of the heavens and superior bodies is the cause of all natural motions” and of generation and corruption; that there is no plant on earth which does not have its controlling star; and that “all things which are renewed in the inferior world, except such as are caused by the superior form of our reason, have their efficient causes in the inalterable and incorruptible superior world.”[1540] Vincent devotes much of his sixteenth book to astrological technique, detailing the good and evil qualities of the planets, and describing their houses, exaltations, triplicitates, termini, facies, and their virtues in the different signs of the zodiac.[1541] Like Bartholomew he also reproduces Constantinus Africanus’ account of the control by the planets of the formation of the human foetus in the womb.[1542] In a later book[1543] he repeats the views of Albumasar and an unnamed astrologer concerning the influence of the sun and other planets in human generation. Against their control of such matters as sex, however, Vincent cites the authority of Augustine and some physiological arguments. He further warns us not to subject human reason and free will to fatal necessity of the constellations, citing such authorities as Gregory’s homily for epiphany and Chrysostom’s sixth homily on Matthew anent the Magi and the star, and repeating such time-worn and time-honored arguments as the case of Esau and Jacob or the fact that in fishless inland provinces men are born under the sign Pisces.[1544] Vincent repeats the general medieval belief that comets signify pestilence, famine, or war.[1545] His discussion of Egyptian days we have considered elsewhere. He seems to accept the efficacy of astrological images, repeating the attribution of medicinal virtue and influence on human character to “stones on which you find engraved Aries or Leo or Sagittarius,”[1546] and citing Thetel,[1547] perhaps indirectly through Thomas of Cantimpré, concerning the virtues of engraved gems. But to the virtues of gems let us turn.
Virtues of gems.
For the virtues of gems Vincent combines authorities from the Pseudo-Aristotle and Pliny down to Arnold of Saxony and Thomas of Cantimpré. The extreme powers credited to gems by the Magi and Marbod play a prominent part in his ninth book. Selecting by lot five[1548] out of seventy odd chapters we read that the agate averts storms and thunderbolts, gives victory in war, routs venomous animals, aids the sight, slakes the thirst, and promotes fidelity. The balagius stimulates conjugal affection, burns the right hand grasping it, strengthens weak eyes if one drinks water in which it has lain, and protects one against enemies. Coral checks hemorrhage, reduces corpulence, draws harmful humors from the eye, cures ulcers, and benefits heart, intestines, and spleen. Suspended over the mouth it stops stomachache; suspended from the neck it prevents epileptic fits. Suspended from trees or sown with seed it protects the fruit or crops from hail storms. Decayed teeth are filled with it in order to extract them, and it is terrible to demons because it is so often found in the form of the cross. The gem heliotrope makes one invincible in battle and invisible, if it is combined with the herb of the same name and certain incantations. It makes water boil, reddens the sun, prevents loss of blood, is an antidote to poison, assures its bearer long life, and aids in prediction of the future.
A chapter on the jasper.
The chapter on the jasper is a good example of Vincent’s method of combining excerpts from varied authors. First he cites the monkish chronicler Helinandus who died in 1227 to the effect that the jasper worn chastely dispels fever and dropsy, and that application of it aids child-birth. The Lapidary of the pseudo-Aristotle repeats this last assertion and adds that the gem clarifies the human sight and checks bleeding. Arnold says it makes a man safe and drives away phantasms, resists luxury, prevents conception, and checks the flow of blood or the menstrual discharge. From Pliny we learn that magicians use it in public assemblies. Philosopher affirms that it renders its wearer chaste, safe, and agreeable, if it has been consecrated, and that it dispels noxious phantasms. Thetel is cited concerning the potency of a jasper found inscribed with a man having a shield about his neck or in one hand, a spear in the other, and a snake underfoot. When the image on the gem is that of a man with a bundle of herbs about his neck, the stone should be set in silver and it will possess the virtue of distinguishing between diseases and checking bleeding. Galen is said to have worn this stone on his finger, and Rabanus says that it drives away idle fears. Thus the same properties of the gem are repeated over and over from the mouths of various authorities.
Alchemy.
Before treating of gems in his ninth book Vincent had discussed other minerals and metals in the eighth. There he often alludes to alchemy,[1549] which he regards as a practical art related to the science of mineralogy as agriculture is to botany. He also believes that “by the art of alchemy mineral bodies are transmuted from their own species into others, especially metals.”[1550] It is true that the fourth book of the Meteorology of Aristotle contains the statement that artificers cannot alter species but can only make other metals seem like silver or gold. But some say that this passage is not Aristotle’s but an addition from some other author. Avicenna in the alchemical treatise De anima[1551] represents Aristotle and Plato as favorable to alchemy. So Vincent persists in maintaining that, “while the aforesaid words make alchemy seem false in a way, yet it has been proved true both by the ancient philosophers and the artificers of our time,” and that “transmutation, or rather disintegration” of metals is truly effected through alchemy. The baser metals may be reduced to their simplest form and then reformed into more precious metals.[1552] Vincent also devotes some chapters to “the stone, elixir, by which art imitates nature.”[1553] Avicenna and an unnamed Alchemist seem to be Vincent’s two chief authorities on the subject of alchemy in the Speculum naturale. In the Speculum doctrinale[1554] he again discussed the subject, this time quoting liberally from a treatise De aluminibus et salibus attributed to Rasis. A separate treatise seems to have been formed from these chapters of Vincent.[1555] Vincent’s discussion of alchemy has already been reviewed by Berthelot[1556] who noted the theories that everything has an occult quality opposed to its natural one; that four spirits, mercury, sulphur, arsenic, and sal ammoniac, and six metals, gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and iron, are generated in the bowels of the earth; and that the metals are generated by mercury and sulphur. The last doctrine in its developed form Berthelot regarded as not earlier than the twelfth century. Berthelot was unable to identify the “Alchemist” cited by Vincent. One can hardly accept Berthelot’s hypothesis that a work which contains ideas not found in the Speculum naturale is later than the thirteenth century. The Speculum naturale was written, if not by 1250, at least many years before the close of the century, and, voluminous as are its extracts, it is very far from being all-inclusive of the ideas of the time.
Virtues of plants.
Like Pliny, Vincent devotes much more space to the vegetable than to the mineral kingdom.[1557] But the virtues ascribed to plants are much less marvelous than those credited to stones, and the methods of making use of them are seldom superstitious. In this we have, of course, not merely Vincent’s attitude; he reflects his sources and conforms to the usual medieval position. The virtues ascribed to plants are mainly medicinal; many are doubtless false, however, and Vincent, with his voluminous extracts and citations, magnifies the customary ancient and medieval tendency to make each herb a cure for a long list of very miscellaneous and unrelated ailments. Cinnamon and pepper,[1558] for example, he appears to regard as panaceas, an interesting side-light on medieval fondness for spices. A fair sample of his ordinary treatment is provided by the chapter on the herb Cameleon or Camelea. Pliny says that it purges the stomach and removes phlegm and bile. Ulcers are purged by cooking its leaves in two parts of wormwood and drinking them with syrup of honey, at the same time making a poultice of the leaves. They say that if anyone plucks it before sunrise and states that he takes it for white growths of the eyes, the ailment will be removed by its application. Indeed, gathered in any way it is wholesome for the eyes of the young. Dioscorides says that it removes phlegm and makes a healing poultice for foul wounds. Avicenna holds that it should be used only in external applications, where it has cleansing, soothing, and softening properties. It is beneficial for morphea, scab, ringworm, and corrosive ulcers. By this point the citation from Avicenna must have terminated, since we are informed that the roots of the white variety taken in wine as a drink help a patient suffering from dropsy. These roots of the white variety also kill worms, while the black kind kills any venomous creature. Vincent then cites the Herbarium, presumably of the pseudo-Apuleius, to the effect that the Cameleon has the force of tyriac or theriac, that a decoction of it solves difficulty in urinating and cures intestinal worms and dropsy.[1559] Besides the authors cited in the foregoing chapter Vincent makes use on the subject of vegetation of such writers as Solinus, Isidore, the Hexaemeron of Ambrose, the work of Isaac on diet, Platearius, and Constantinus Africanus. He apparently does not use Galen’s work on medicinal simples directly.
Animals.
Vincent discusses animals at even greater length than vegetation, devoting a book each to birds, fish, and snakes; two to quadrupeds; others to animal life and processes in general; and still others to human physiology and psychology. Again we encounter the marvelous virtues, medicinal and otherwise, inherent in parts of animals, and amusing accounts of their ways and instinctive sagacity. The eagle places certain stones in its nest to counteract its own excessive heat in the hatching process; the bird called “goat-milker” steals milk from goats’ udders by night; the cormorant dips its head beneath the wave to collect signs of the weather and flies shoreward clamorously, if it detects a storm approaching; the parrot bites rocks and drinks wine.[1560] Pope Alexander had a cloak made of the wool of salamanders which, whenever it became soiled, was cleansed by casting it into the flames instead of washing it in water. [1561] Vincent borrows his statements of the virtues of animals and their parts to a large extent from Pliny, whose contents we have earlier sufficiently presented. The medicinal virtues of the human body and its different parts are also set forth in much the usual fashion. Vincent’s considerable number of citations from Physiologus are, like Bartholomew’s, difficult to identify with those of any existing Bestiary. Some seem connected with Scriptural Glosses. It is remarkable that while he cites Physiologus a good deal concerning birds and serpents,[1562] in the book on quadrupeds he does not cite Physiologus for the lion, onager, and other such animals as figure prominently in the so-called Physiologus and Bestiaries.
The tree of life and the bodies of the damned.
In the thirty-first book on paradise and the fall of man Vincent quotes Peter Comestor who, unlike Philo Judaeus, believes in the actual existence of both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He states that the tree of life was so called from its natural effect, which was so to strengthen in perpetual solidity the body of him who ate of it that he would suffer no infirmity, anxiety, or old age.[1563] Thus Vincent encourages belief not only in transmutation of metals but some natural method of maintaining perpetual youth and health. In the Mirror of History he quotes “the sayings of a certain simple and good man,” to whom, among other revelations concerning the end of the world, the information had been vouchsafed that the torments of the damned would largely consist in the removal from their bodies of all the good qualities which now temper the contrariety of the bad, which would thus be left to vex them unopposed and unassuaged.[1564]
Who sinned the more, Adam or Eve?
Vincent ventures on some amusing theological speculation of his own in discussing the interesting question whether Adam or Eve sinned more in eating the apple.[1565] As might be expected of a medieval man and clergyman, he decides against the woman. Eve sinned in four respects and Adam in only two. First she sinned in doubting the divine warning; second, in wishing to steal divinity for herself; third, in eating contrary to the prohibition; fourth, in tempting man to eat. Adam was not seduced into thinking that he could become divine by this method, but was led astray by a certain amiable good-will, fearing to offend his wife if he did not eat the apple which she offered him. Thus Eve’s intention in sinning was the worse and woman has been punished for it the more severely. Yet Adam sinned in two respects, namely, in secret pride and in eating what had been forbidden. Another reason why Eve was the greater sinner was that she sinned against more persons; against God, against herself, and against her neighbor. But in one respect Adam’s sin was the graver; he knew better, while Eve sinned in a certain measure from ignorance and feminine incapacity.
Classification of the sciences.
We may also note Vincent’s classification of the sciences. As he adopted the common Christian division of the world’s history into six ages, as in the Speculum naturale he followed the order of the six days of creation, so in the third Mirror of Doctrine he made six fields of knowledge; literary, moral, mechanical, physical, mathematical, and theological.[1566] This suggests Roger Bacon’s selection of the five most essential subjects leading up to the study of theology, namely, the languages, mathematics, perspective or optics, experimental or applied science, and moral philosophy.
Concluding estimate of the Speculum naturale.
Such is the Speculum maius or more particularly the Speculum naturale, a work impressive by its very voluminousness and multitude of citations of authorities, valuable as a work of reference, a great storehouse of medieval lore, providing somewhat the same retrospect upon previous medieval and Latin science as Pliny’s Natural History afforded for Hellenistic science. We can, however, recover more of its sources than in the case of Pliny; and when we have read them, Vincent’s excerpts from them drop to a secondary place in our esteem. We see how much of his work had been done for him by previous compilers like Bartholomew of England and Thomas of Cantimpré, and how large a portion of his work is a repetition of Pliny himself. Vincent’s volumes suggest the use of scissors and paste a little too manifestly. On the other hand, his work does not include everything that is in previous medieval writers on nature, to say nothing of others that were to come after him, and the assumption made even by specialists in the study of medieval culture, like Rose, Berthelot, and Mâle, that the Speculum naturale alone is an adequate reflection of medieval natural science and that Vincent is sure to mention any previous writer or treatise,—this assumption is far from true. His Mirror is a glass through which we see darkly and not face to face.
[1514] Our two chief accounts of Vincent’s life and works are still the long article by Daunou in HL XVIII (1835), 449-519, and M. l’Abbé J. B. Bourgeat, Études sur Vincent de Beauvais, Paris, 1856. A little more recent is E. Boutaric, Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaissance de l’antiquité classique au XIIIe siècle, in Revue des Questions Historiques, XVII (1875), 5-57.
I have used the following edition of the Mirror of Nature: Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum naturale, sine nota (Nurembergae, Anth. Koburger, 1485), in two huge folio volumes. Later editions than this are apt to be very faulty. I have used an edition of the Speculum doctrinale of 1472 (?) and one of the Speculum historiale of 1473.
[1515] Prologue, cap. 17; cited HL XVIII, 475.
[1516] Ptolemy of Lucca XXII, 26, in Muratori, X, 1155. I unfortunately omitted to verify the citation from the Speculum historiale, at the time that I had access to that work.
[1517] As a matter of fact Vincent cites Albert concerning the odors of certain metals (V, 106) without naming any book.
[1518] Or thirty-second book in some editions. As a matter of fact the date 1244-1245 is also indicated at the close of the preceding book.
[1519] In book XXXII, edition of 1473, he mentions the death of Edmund Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1247; and (cap. 102) tells how St. Louis in 1250 sent his brothers Alphonse of Poitou and Charles of Anjou back to console their mother; while in caps. 103-4 we read of Peter of Milan being canonized by Innocent IV in the tenth year of his pontificate or about 1254.
[1520] Vincent does not seem to know or use Albert’s De vegetabilibus et plantis in seven books, citing instead apparently Alfred of England’s translation of the two books of the De plantis. I doubt, however, if Vincent’s failure to cite a work by Albertus Magnus can be taken as sure proof that the work had not yet been written. Vincent was far from noting or including everything that was known in his time or had been written before, although some lazy investigators of the past have seen fit to assume that his work adequately depicted the entirety of medieval natural science.
[1521] Spec, nat., XXVII, 74 and 82; see also 101.
[1522] HL XVIII, 485.
[1523] HL XVIII, 504.
[1524] His use of classical authors has already been treated by E. Boutaric, Vincent de Beauvais et la Connaisance de l’Antiquité classique au XIIIe siècle, in Revue des Questions Historiques, XVII (1875), 5-57; also printed separately.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, 1718-1728, XIV, 107-25, gives a list of about 350 names of authors or titles cited in the Speculum naturale; of these 254 are repeated by Daunou in HL XVIII, 483-4.
Unfortunately, at least in the printed edition of 1485, it is often not clear where quotations begin and end, or to just what passages the names of the authorities who are cited apply.
[1525] Daunou (HL XVIII, 486) asserts that Vincent had better MSS of Pliny than Albertus Magnus had.
[1526] Spec. nat., I, 10, Apologia de modo excerpendi de quibusdam libris Arestotelis.
[1527] Ibid., I, 3.
[1528] Ibid., VII, 6-7.
[1529] Ibid., IV, 93-4.
[1530] De animalibus, XXIII, 14. Frederick II, in his De arte venandi cum avibus, was equally sceptical and based his disbelief on personal investigation: Haskins in EHR XXXVI (1921) 351.
[1531] Spec. nat., XVII, 40.
[1532] This treatment and the previous quotation sound rather like Thomas of Cantimpré, but I did not notice such a passage in his De natura rerum at the time that I had access to MSS of it, although at that time I was not searching for this particular topic.
[1533] Hist. des Poissons, I, 35; cited HL XVIII, 489.
[1534] Spec. nat., III, 101-11; I, 19; V, 114; XXXII, 122.
[1535] Spec. doctr., X, 121.
[1536] The passages cited will be found in Spec. nat., XXVII, 52-61, but I have altered Vincent’s order of presentation.
[1537] Spec. nat., XXV, 42-44.
[1538] Ibid., cap. 45.
[1539] Ibid., IV, 26-27.
[1540] Ibid., IV. 37 and 83; XVI, 43.
[1541] Ibid., XVI, 27-42.
[1542] Spec. nat., XVI, 49.
[1543] Ibid., XXXII, 38-39.
[1544] Ibid., XVI, 50-51.
[1545] Ibid., XVI, 58.
[1546] Ibid., IX, 35.
[1547] Ibid., IX, 77.
[1548] Caps. 37, 47, 57, 67, 77.
[1549] See caps. 60, 67, 70, 81-84. etc.
[1550] This passage has already been quoted in HL XVIII, 488.
[1551] Latin text printed Basel, 1572, in Artis Chemicae principes; no Arabic original has yet been discovered.
[1552] Spec. nat., VIII, 84-85. In our chapter on The Pseudo-Aristotle we have discussed the addition of the passage to the fourth book of the Meteorology.
[1553] Spec. nat., VIII, 81-83.
[1554] Spec. doctr., XI, 105-107 and 132.
[1555] HL XVIII, 459.
[1556] Berthelot (1893), I, 280-87.
[1557] Books X-XV deal with herbs and trees, while only VIII-IX are devoted to metals, minerals, and gems.
[1558] Spec. nat., XIV, 70; XV, 65.
[1559] Spec. nat., X, 50.
[1560] Ibid., XVII, 35, 45, 105, 135.
[1561] Ibid., XXI, 63.
[1562] Spec. nat., XVII, 22, 28, 29, 32, 36, 41, 42, 50, 148; XXI, 13, 20, 21, 39, 44, 47, 48, 54, 172.
[1563] Ibid., XXXI, 5.
[1564] Spec. hist., XXXII, 119.
[1565] Spec. nat., XXXI, 73.
[1566] HL XVIII, 517.