A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 2 (of 2) / During the First Thirteen Centuries of Our Era

by Lynn Thorndike

CHAPTER LXII

THE SPECULUM ASTRONOMIAE

Who was its author?—Points in favor of Albert as its author—Testimony of medieval manuscripts and authors—Occasion for writing the Speculum—Defense of astronomy—And of judicial astrology—The stars do not possess senses or reason—Subdivisions of astrology—Evil images—A second variety—Good astronomical images—The question of free will—And elections—Free will and nativities—Revolutions—Interrogations—Better not to destroy the books of necromancy—Experimental books in the arts of divination—Resemblance of the Speculum to Albert’s attitude to astrology—Is it more like Bacon on the question of Christ’s relation to the stars?—Attitude to magic of the Speculum and Albert—Of Bacon and the Speculum—Significance of the failure to mention magic in the Speculum—Similarity of its citations to those in other works of Albert—Is the Speculum astronomiae to be connected with the Paris condemnation of 1277?—The Speculum was written before 1277—Condemnation of Siger de Brabant—Condemned opinions connected with astrology; with science and religion—Other later moves against magic at Paris—Appendix I. Manuscripts of the Speculum astronomiae—Appendix II. Germath of Babylon, Gergis, and Girgith.

Who was its author?

The Speculum astronomiae[2284] has been reserved for separate treatment, partly because it seems to be one of the most important single treatises in the history of medieval astrology, and partly because the traditional ascription of it to Albertus Magnus has been recently questioned and the attempt made to attribute it to Roger Bacon.[2285] This attempt has been supported by so little in the way of real evidence for a Baconian authorship that it might be passed by, were it not for the fact that, as sensational assertions concerning either Roger or Francis Bacon are apt to do, it has attracted widespread attention and been unquestioningly accepted by other students of Roger Bacon.[2286] Father Mandonnet adduced no manuscript evidence in favor of Bacon’s authorship and Gabriel Naudé in the seventeenth century was the first person to suggest it.[2287] Mandonnet’s argument for the Baconian authorship reduces simply to this, that the views expressed in the work are Bacon’s rather than Albert’s and that the writing of the Speculum astronomiae could be fitted better into Roger’s career.[2288]

Points in favor of Albert as its author.

We shall show, on the contrary, that the Speculum is regularly ascribed to Albertus Magnus in the medieval manuscripts and in bibliographies by learned writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as well as by most students of Albertus Magnus or of thirteenth century learning since then.[2289] The Latin style and the method of presentation adopted in the Speculum also more closely resemble Albert’s style and method than they do Bacon’s.[2290] It has already been demonstrated that Mandonnet was grossly in error in representing Albert as an unqualified opponent of judicial astrology, and our coming examination of the Speculum astronomiae will show that on most points its attitude to astrology is the same as that of Albert, on some points even more conservative than his, and on only one point less so and more like Bacon’s attitude. In the attitude of the Speculum toward other forms of magic or occult sciences than astrology we shall find a closer approximation to the Albertine than to the Baconian view-point, and also some internal textual evidence which strongly supports the Albertine authorship. Finally we shall argue that, if it is true that the Speculum had some connection with the condemnation at Paris in 1277 of 219 opinions attributed to Siger of Brabant, it may have been written for that occasion by Albert as appropriately as by Bacon. And we shall note some of the opinions condemned on that occasion as constituting, with the Speculum itself, valuable evidence concerning the relations existing between theology and astrology in the second half of the thirteenth century.

Testimony of medieval manuscripts and authors.

In so far as I have examined notices of manuscripts of the Speculum astronomiae in the catalogues or the manuscripts themselves, I have found it in no case attributed to Roger Bacon and regularly ascribed to Albertus Magnus, as the list of manuscripts given in the appendix at the close of this chapter will show. In one or two cases another hand than that in which the text of the Speculum is written has suggested “master Philip, chancellor of Paris,” as author instead of Albert, but otherwise the manuscripts support the Albertine authorship. The Speculum is cited as Albert’s in a fourteenth century manuscript.[2291] Also the list of writings by Dominicans drawn up before the middle of the fourteenth century ascribed to Albert both a Contra librum nigromanticorum and a Speculum astrobium (or astralabicum).[2292] Later in the same century a contemporary of Thomas of Pisa or Bologna, physician and astrologer to Charles V the Wise of France, 1364-1380, cites “Albert the commentator in his Mirror.”[2293] In 1412 Amplonius in the catalogue of his manuscripts which he wrote with his own hand lists both a Speculum mathematicum Alberti Magni and a Speculum domini Alberti de libris mathematicis;[2294] and Schum’s modern catalogue of the Amplonian collection at Erfurt lists three manuscripts of the Speculum astronomiae of the fourteenth century and in every case ascribes it to Albert.[2295] Early in the fifteenth century also Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly more than once cited the Speculum as by Albert,[2296], as did Gerson and Nicholas of Denmark in the same century.[2297] Pignon and Valleoletanus also ascribed it to Albert in their catalogues of the writings of Dominicans.[2298] At the close of the fifteenth century Pico della Mirandola in his work against astrology was almost the first to question Albert’s authorship, which he did in an effort to weaken the reliance of the adherents of astrology upon the authority of Albert as a defender of that art.[2299] Pico apparently did not possess a sufficiently extensive knowledge of Albert’s other writings to pass upon the question of the authenticity of the Speculum, or he would not have imagined that by questioning the Albertine authorship of it, he could prevent the adherents of astrology from citing numerous passages in Albert’s works in favor of their art. But now as to the astrological doctrine of the Speculum itself.

Occasion for writing the Speculum.

The Proemium or opening chapter of the Speculum astronomiae, or Mirror of Astrology, states the occasion for writing it, namely, the existence of certain works hostile to Christianity, many of which are actually concerned with necromancy but make false profession of astronomy or astrology. On this account “some great men” have censured other books which may be quite harmless, and noble volumes of astronomy have been brought under suspicion and into disrepute. Therefore the writer, who describes himself vaguely as a devotee both of the Faith and of Philosophy, has made a critical bibliography of both kinds of works, giving their authors’ names, their titles, opening words, and a general notion of their contents.

Defense of astronomy.

In the next chapter the author takes up books which we should regard as purely astronomical, and says that if these were to be suppressed, “a great and truly noble part of philosophy would be buried for a time at least, until owing to saner counsels it should rise again.” He adds that those who have read these books know that there is not a single word in them which is, or even appears to be, against the Catholic Faith, and that it is not fair for those to judge them who have never even handled them.[2300] Thus the writer seems to think that there is some danger of an attack upon even the study of astronomy.

And of judicial astrology.

The author’s main concern, however, is with judicial astrology, which in the third chapter he distinguishes from astronomy proper as “the science of judgments of the stars.” Of it, too, he speaks in high terms of praise. He declares that it turns man’s thoughts toward God, revealing as it does the great Source of all things. Furthermore, it is the bond between natural philosophy and mathematics. “For if the most high God in His Supreme wisdom so ordained this world that He, who is the living God of a lifeless heaven, wills to work in created things which are found in these four inferior elements through deaf and dumb stars as instruments, and if concerning these we have one science, namely, mathematics which teaches us in things caused to consider their Creator, and another natural science which teaches us to find by experience in created things the Creator of creatures; what is more desirable for the investigator than to have a third science to instruct him how this and that change of things mundane is brought to pass by the change of things celestial?”

The stars do not possess senses or reason.

It will be noted that the author of the Speculum regards the stars as “deaf and dumb” and the heaven as inanimate. In a later chapter[2301] he condemns as “most evidently meriting censure” the assertion made by Albumasar, apparently upon Aristotle’s authority, that “the planets themselves are animated by a rational soul.” For him the stars are mere divine instruments, deaf to would-be worshipers of them, and too dumb—one would infer—to produce the music of the spheres.

Subdivisions of astrology.

The fourth chapter of the Speculum speaks of the four familiar sub-divisions of judicial astrology, namely, revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and elections. To the last is annexed the science of images, which the author regards as the acme or climax of “astronomy,” but with which he admits are associated those necromantic books of evil repute which he proposes carefully to distinguish from the others. This at once reminds us of the passages in Albert’s Minerals where he spoke of the connection between such images engraved on stones and necromancy, but where his associates were curious to know the doctrine of images none the less, and he affirmed that it was good doctrine. Now, after the fifth chapter, which may be described as a statement of astrological theory and technique in a nutshell, he takes up judicial astrology and its several sub-divisions in further successive chapters,[2302] defining the field and describing the literature. A majority of the books listed, good as well as bad, appear to be Latin translations from the Arabic.

Evil images.

Of images the author describes three varieties, the first two of which he severely condemns. The first kind is abominable, including the images of Toz Graecus and Germath of Babylon, those connected with the worship of Venus, and those of Belenus and Hermes. These are exorcized by the names of fifty-four[2303] angels who are said to serve in the circle of the moon,[2304] but are probably really the names of demons. The names of seven are engraved forwards to procure a good result and backwards in order to ward off evil fortune. Suffumigations also are made with aloes, saffron, and balsam to achieve a good result, with other woods for evil ends. The author explains that the spirits are not truly coerced by such things, but sometimes God allows them to pretend to be, in order to deceive sinful men. The practices associated with this first kind of images he censures as the worst sort of idolatry, although their practitioners, in order to retain something worthy of belief, observe the twenty-eight mansions of the moon and other seasons.

A second variety.

The second variety of images is a little less improper, but still detestable. In it certain names are exorcized by the inscription of characters. Such are the four rings of Solomon and the nine candelabra and the three figures of spirits who are called the princes of the four quarters of the world, and the Almandel of Solomon, the seven names from the book Uraharum,[2305] the fifteen from The Institutes of Raziel, and so on. “Far from us be this sort also,” says our author, “for it is open to the suspicion that beneath the names in unknown tongues may lie hidden something contrary to the purity of the Catholic Faith.”

Good astronomical images.

The third variety of images, in which the author sees no harm but much good, and which he has called “the sublimest part of astronomy,”[2306] are purely astronomical images which derive their virtue from the configurations of the sky but admit no other inscription of characters, and neither exorcisms, invocations, nor suffumigations.[2307] In a later chapter,[2308] however, he permits in addition to astronomical figures and symbols the engraving of certain simple words and images of objects of obvious meaning, such as a scorpion and the word Destruatur upon an image intended to drive scorpions away.

The question of free will.

Meanwhile, between these two chapters upon astronomical images, the author returns in four chapters to the other sub-divisions of astrology, mainly with the purpose of investigating whether revolutions, nativities, interrogations, and elections are incompatible with freedom of the human will,—a question upon which he has already touched a little in previous chapters. He maintains the usual position that the celestial influences make impressions according to the fitness of matter to receive them, and that man by using his intellect can to a considerable degree be master of his fate. As usual he cites Ptolemy’s dictum that “the astrologer can avert much evil from the operation of the stars, if he knows the nature of the influence to be exerted upon him and can prepare himself beforehand to receive it.”[2309]

And elections.

Therefore the author regards election of favorable hours as an admission alike of freedom of the will and of astrological influence, and affirms that “in entering upon great undertakings, it is rashness, not freedom of the will, to despise election of the hour.”[2310] Moreover, he asserts that “all philosophers are agreed in this, that when we know the hour of impregnation of any woman, we thereby know the history of the foetus until it breathes and comes forth from the womb and until death.”[2311] Hence one should choose the moment of conception as carefully as the hour for a surgical operation,—a passage paralleled by Albert’s account elsewhere of the care exercised by Nectanebus as to the hour of his intercourse with Olympias.

Free will and nativities.

Despite what he has just said about tracing the history of the foetus until death, the author regards the doctrine of nativities as in large measure inconsistent with freedom of the will.[2312] After the mental and moral faculties have sufficiently developed, he believes in freedom of choice, and so holds that the casting of horoscopes, especially in regard to moral characteristics, infringes upon free will. Even when such a matter as length of life is predicted from the constellations for an individual, he contends that it does not mean that one must live that long, but that one’s natural term of life cannot be prolonged beyond that point.

Revolutions.

The author seems to think that the human will has very little control over revolutions, by which “is indicated what God, the glorious, will accomplish in a given year through the stars as His instruments” for states and peoples; in other words, such general events as harvests, wars, earthquakes, floods, and terrible prodigies. Events signified by comets come under this head also. All such events the author seems to regard as divinely ordered and he cites Ptolemy and Albumasar to the effect that God’s plans are not changeable like those of children or servants.[2313]

Interrogations.

As for the practice of interrogations, the author affirms that to inquire of the stars what course of action one should pursue “does not destroy, but rather rectifies free will.” Some questions asked of astrologers, nevertheless, are very difficult to reconcile with free will, for example, the question whether another person will answer one’s request. If an astrologer is able to answer such a question beforehand, it seems to indicate that the other person has no freedom in the matter. After some juggling with the terms, “necessity” and “possibility,” the author thinks that he has found a mode of reconciliation in “the compossibility of free will with divine providence,” since with the latter he identifies the significations of the stars, and “God knew from eternity which course the man would choose.” Our author hastens to add, however, that God may wish to conceal some things from us, and that he will not assert that “whatever does not escape divine providence is revealed in the heavens.”[2314]

Better not to destroy the books of necromancy.

In the seventeenth and last chapter the author returns to the subject of books of necromancy and suggests that after all even these had better be preserved rather than destroyed, because the time is now perchance near when, for reasons which he will not now disclose, it may be of advantage to consult them occasionally; “yet let those inspecting them beware of abuse of them.”

Experimental books in the arts of divination.

The author adds that there are also “certain experimental books whose names have the same ending as nigromancy,” namely, books in the subjects of geomancy, hydromancy, aerimancy, pyromancy, and chiromancy. Thus we have another example of the association of experiment and magic. These arts, however, in his opinion “do not deserve to be called sciences, but babblings (garamantie or garrimantiae).”[2315] Hydromancy consists in washing the entrails of animals and inspecting the fibres. Pyromancy divines from the appearance of the fire by which the sacrifice is consumed. Both these arts probably involve a sort of idolatry. The author finds nothing idolatrous in geomancy, however, which is based upon astrology and numbers. But aerimancy is frivolous, though it may pretend to be based upon number. Chiromancy he does not wish to judge hastily, because it may be a part of physiognomy which in turn depends upon astrology, since in physiognomy both the physical peculiarities and the personal characteristics inferred from them are due to the stars. The author thus shows the common tendency of medieval men of learning to justify only such methods of divination as they felt could be based upon astrology.

Resemblance of the Speculum to Albert’s attitude to astrology.

The foregoing analysis of the Speculum astronomiae has made it evident that its attitude toward astrology is not at all a peculiar one but just about the usual position of Christian scientists in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. On the subject of astrological images, however, its view is that of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon rather than that of William of Auvergne or Thomas Aquinas. In general the astrological position of the Speculum closely parallels the attitudes of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, who in turn held almost identical views. If anything, the Speculum is somewhat less favorable to astrological doctrine than Albertus. Whereas he in large measure accepted the casting of horoscopes, although saving free will, it emphasizes the conflict between free will and nativities. And it more emphatically denies that the stars are animated, a point upon which he seemed rather hazy in his scientific treatises. But there is no actual contradiction between the Speculum and other works of Albert on these points, and we have already seen in the case of his theological and Aristotelian works that Albert is likely to state the same thing somewhat differently according to the point-of-view from which he writes. The writer of the Speculum is obviously desirous to conciliate a theological opposition to or suspicion of “astronomy” and therefore naturally inclines to be moderate and conservative in his advocacy of astrological doctrine.

Is it more like Bacon on the question of Christ’s relation to the stars?

On one point only does the Speculum appear more radical in its astrological theory than Albert elsewhere and more in accord with views expressed by Roger Bacon. We have heard Albert in his Summa deny that Christ was born under the influence of the stars, while Bacon was inclined to agree with the astrologers that He was, in so far as His birth was natural and His nature human. The writer of the Speculum cites Albumasar to the effect that the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was prefigured in the sky,[2316] and regards this assertion as a notable confirmation of the true Faith, not that the Lord of all things was under the stars but that what God had decreed was signified by the stars. Thus there is after all perhaps no necessary conflict with Albert’s attitude in the Summa, since both Speculum and Summa deny that Christ is under the stars. However, the Speculum gives the impression that the birth of Christ was signified astrologically; the Summa, that it was signified miraculously. But neither does the Speculum quite agree with Bacon who suggests that Christ’s body was under the stars. And the fact that Bacon cites the same passage from Albumasar is of little value as a sign that he is the author of the Speculum, since the passage in Albumasar was a well-known one and is cited in such a vernacular work as The Romance of the Rose.[2317] Thus the astrological doctrine of the Speculum offers little or no reason for questioning the traditional ascription of that treatise to Albertus Magnus.

Attitude to magic of the Speculum and Albert.

We have next to inquire, does the attitude of the Speculum to other magic arts accord or conflict with that of Albert elsewhere? Our study of Albert’s attitude toward magic in his other works has made it abundantly evident that Mandonnet was mistaken in deeming him too hostile to such superstition to have written the Speculum. He is, on the contrary, too favorable, if anything, toward magic, to have been the author of that treatise. Indeed, it was to the Speculum astronomiae, which he accepted as a genuine work, that Peter of Prussia appealed in his effort to prove Albert’s hostility to necromancy and magic. Yet Mandonnet cites these very pages of Peter of Prussia in his effort to show that Albert was too hostile to occult arts to have written the Speculum! On the other hand, we saw that Albert’s attitude to magic varied somewhat in his different works, so it is no disproof of his authorship of the Speculum that it seems more hostile to magic than some of Albert’s utterances elsewhere. The occasion of writing the treatise is probably sufficient to explain this.

Of Bacon and the Speculum.

We have to admit, however, that Roger Bacon almost invariably spoke of “magic” unfavorably, whereas Albert a number of times used the word in a good or neutral sense. Thus there might seem to be some reason for ascribing the Speculum to Bacon for the exactly opposite reason to that advanced by Mandonnet, namely, that he displayed more hostility than Albert to magic. Also there is a certain resemblance between the attitude of the author of the Speculum toward books of necromancy and what we saw to be Bacon’s attitude toward books of magic in his De secretis operibus artis et naturae et de nullitate magiae. But there is also a difference, and when Mandonnet asserts, “Both authors reject books of magic,”[2318] he gives a false impression and overlooks an interesting point. For the De secretis operibus not only tries to distinguish between books of magic and others which are unjustly regarded as magical, it also is largely devoted to an attack upon “magic.” And such censure of magic is frequent in Bacon’s works. The Speculum, on the other hand, distinguishes between “necromantic” and “astronomical” works, and never mentions “magic.”

Significance of the failure to mention magic in the Speculum.

Is not this significant? Had Bacon written the Speculum, would he not have indulged in his usual censure of magicians and their follies? But if Albert wrote the Speculum, is it surprising that he maintains a discreet silence concerning that “magic” which he had coupled more than once with astronomy and had spoken of as a field bordering upon that of natural science? In undertaking the defense of “astronomical images” against those who looked at them askance, would he deem it prudent to repeat his assertion in the treatise on minerals that to comprehend astronomical images one must go to “the science of the magi”? In that treatise on minerals, it will be recalled, he had been bold enough to propose to discuss the doctrine of images, even if it was closely associated with necromancy, and he twice associated in the same phrase “astronomy and magic and the necromantic sciences.” But then he was writing for his pupils and associates who were eager to learn of the images engraved on gems, even if they were connected with necromancy. In the Speculum he writes for a different audience, or for an audience in a different mood,—men inclined to condemn books of astronomy and astrology along with books of necromancy. Where before he admitted an association, he now has to make a contrast and to give the impression of a great gulf fixed between necromancy and astronomy. To save astrology from hostile attack he gives up necromancy, and probably willingly and sincerely enough, since his allusions to it even in the treatise on minerals were rather unfavorable. Is it strange that he says nothing of the connecting link, “magic,” which he perhaps does not wish to condemn, yet does not feel it expedient to defend? May it not be one of those reasons, which the author of the Speculum says he will not disclose, why even the books of necromancy had better be preserved rather than destroyed? Thus the failure of the author of the Speculum astronomiae to use the word “magic” does not sound in the least like Roger Bacon, but does seem to be just about what one might expect in the circumstances from Albert, whose mentions moreover of “magic” in his other works are brief and occasional.

Similarity of its citations to those in other works of Albert.

Finally we may note a positive bit of evidence in favor of the Albertine authorship of the Speculum which has hitherto escaped notice. His other writings mention some of the very books of necromancy which the Speculum lists and condemns. In his theological Summa, when denouncing magic as concerned with evil spirits, he supported his view not merely by the authority of the saints and common report, but also by “the teachings of that branch of necromancy” which treats of “images and rings and mirrors of Venus and seals of demons,” and is expounded in the writings of Achot of Greece, Grema of Babylon, Hermes the Egyptian, and other treatises which he mentions.[2319] Again in the treatise on minerals, in investigating why gems are engraved with images, he cites as authorities Magor Graecus, Germa Babylonicus, and Hermes the Egyptian.[2320] The Speculum also especially mentions in its list of necromantic books on images Toz Graeci, Germath of Babylon, Belenus, and Hermes.[2321] Leaving Belenus out of account, there can be little doubt that the other three names are identical with the two preceding trios. One also is impelled to believe that the same Albert wrote Summa, Mineralium, and Speculum, and it may be added that the variation in the attitude towards images and necromancy in the latter two is no greater than the difference in the attitude towards magic which we observed between the first two of those treatises. This too makes it plausible that Albert should have adopted a third attitude of silence concerning “magic” in the Speculum.

Is the Speculum astronomiae to be connected with the condemnation of 1277?

There remains the question, when and why was the Speculum astronomiae written? Its tone suggests that it is not merely a general defense of astronomy and astrology but a specific reply to some particular attack upon astrological literature made by a party inclined to connect and condemn astrology together with necromancy and other forbidden occult arts. Such an attack can perhaps be seen in the condemnation at Paris in 1277 of two hundred and nineteen opinions attributed to Siger de Brabant. Many of them are astrological and with them are condemned a treatise of geomancy, works of necromancy, and books “containing experiments of lot-casters, invocations of demons, and conjurations perilous to the soul.”[2322] It is natural to associate the writing of the Speculum astronomiae with this affair, and the idea had occurred to me before I read any of Mandonnet’s works. It is also natural, especially if one holds the old view that Roger Bacon was persecuted for science’s sake and suspected of magic, to wonder if there is not some connection between the condemnation of 1277 and his own condemnation in 1278 “on account of certain suspected novelties”; and Mandonnet is not the first to do so.[2323] But he is the first to suggest that Bacon was condemned in 1278 for having written the Speculum astronomiae in connection with the other condemnation of 1277. But we have seen that there is little reason for thinking that Bacon’s condemnation was for astrology or magic. Second, it may be doubted whether anyone would have been condemned for so mild a work as the Speculum astronomiae, nor in 1277 could its contents have been regarded as “novelties.” Third, we have shown that Albert and not Bacon wrote the Speculum. Fourth, we have already heard that in 1270 Albert sent a treatise to Paris to help Aquinas in connection with the affair of Siger de Brabant, and that in 1277 he came to Paris himself to defend his own Aristotelian teaching and the memory of Aquinas in connection with the condemnation of the 219 articles. If so, who could have been better fitted to write on that occasion as a representative both of the Faith and of Philosophy than the venerable dean both of Christian theologians and of Aristotelian scientists?

The Speculum was written before 1277.

But there is a serious objection to dating the Speculum astronomiae as late as 1277, especially if Albert is its author, as we have shown every reason to believe. It is that the writer of the Speculum speaks of the twelfth and thirteenth (meaning our thirteenth and fourteenth) books of the Metaphysics of Aristotle as “not yet translated.”[2324] But Albert is acquainted with these books and gives a paraphrase of them in his own Commentary on the Metaphysics, which, as Mandonnet himself has elsewhere shown,[2325] was completed in 1256. It is true that Aquinas in his De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas, written in 1270, still seems to regard the last books of the Metaphysics as untranslated,[2326] which leads Grabmann to argue that Albert must have revised his Commentary to include the last books of the Metaphysics after 1270.[2327] But this fails to explain how Albert or anyone else writing in 1277 or 1278 could still speak of these books as “not yet translated,” since Albert could neither have translated nor commented upon them after 1277, since he died in 1280 and Ptolemy of Lucca tells us that for about three years before his death his intellectual faculties had declined. Thus the Speculum astronomiae was apparently written before 1277 and perhaps before 1256.

Condemnation of Siger de Brabant.

Although it thus appears to have no actual connection with the Speculum astronomiae, we may nevertheless consider here as bearing on the same topic of theological opposition to certain occult arts and even to astrology, the condemnation in 1277 by Stephen, bishop of Paris, and “doctors of sacred Scripture” of 219 opinions attributed to “Siger de Brabant, Boetius of Denmark, and others.” Siger seems to have been an Averroist of somewhat pronounced type and to have held views more evidently incompatible with the Christian Faith than most astrologers or occult scientists. It is possible, however, that his opponents misinterpreted or exaggerated his views. Mandonnet holds that he would have disowned many of the articles, and that, on the other hand, his persecutors inserted also moderate opinions such as were held by Albertus Magnus and Aquinas, in an effort to give the impression that infidels, Averroists, and moderate Aristotelians were all alike, and to discredit the reconciliation of Aristotle and Christian doctrine which Albert and Aquinas fathered.[2328] Dante speaks well of Siger in the Paradiso.

Condemned opinions connected with astrology; with science and religion.

We may note those articles which bear upon astrology, a very considerable number, with the addition of a few concerned with the relations of science and theology. It will be observed that the moderate thirtieth article is scarcely consistent with some others, and that the last clause of the 207th article, which seems an explanation inserted by the condemners, indicates that even they accept the influence of the stars within certain limits. In any case, while it is to be remembered that the condemnation is not primarily directed against astrology, the articles are of interest as showing both what adherents of astrology might believe and what its opponents might accuse them of and condemn them for.

“6.	That when all the celestial bodies return to the same point, which happens every 36,000 years, the same effects will recur as now.
30.	That superior intelligences create rational souls without motion of the sky, but that inferior intelligences create the vegetative and sensitive souls by means of the motion of the sky.
38.	That God could not have made first matter except by means of a celestial body.
61.	That God can do contrary things, that is, by means of a heavenly body which is variable in its whereabouts.
65.	That God or intelligence does not send science to the human soul in sleep except by means of a heavenly body.
74.	That the intelligence which moves the sky influences the rational soul just as the body of the sky influences the human body.
92.	That the heavenly bodies are moved by an intrinsic principle which is the soul; and that they are moved by a soul and by appetitive virtue just like an animal.
94.	That there are two eternal principles, namely, the body of the sky and its soul.
102.	That the soul of the sky is intelligence, and the celestial circles are not instruments of intelligence but organs.
112.	That superior intelligences impress inferior ones just as one soul impresses another; ... and by such impression a certain enchanter by his mere gaze cast a camel into a pit.[2329]
132.	That the sky is the cause of the physician’s will, that he cures.
133.	That the will and intellect are not moved in acts by themselves but by an eternal cause, namely, the heavenly bodies.
142.	That from diversities of places come the necessities of events.
143.	That from diverse signs of the sky are signified diverse conditions in men, as well of spiritual gifts as of temporal things.
150.	That man ought not to be content with authority to gain certitude on any point.
152.	That the utterances of theology are founded on fables.
154.	That philosophers are the world’s only wise men.
161.	That the influences of the stars on free will are occult.
162.	That our wills are subject to the power of the heavenly bodies.
163.	That the will of necessity follows that course of whose advisability the reason is firmly convinced, and that it cannot abstain from that course of action which reason dictates. This necessity is not compulsion but the nature of the will.
164.	That man in all his acts follows appetite and always the greater.
167.	That by certain signs men’s intentions and changes of mind are known, and whether their intentions will be achieved; and that by such figures are known the outcome of journeys, the captivity of men, their freedom from captivity, and whether they will become sages or scoundrels.
174.	That there are fables and false statements in Christian Scripture as in others.
175.	That Christianity hinders science.
189.	That when intelligence is full of forms, it impresses those forms on matter through the heavenly bodies as through instruments.[2330]
195.	That fate, which is the disposition of the universe, proceeds from divine providence, not immediately but by means of the motion of the superior bodies; and that this fate does not impose necessity upon inferior things, because they have contrariety, but upon superiors.[2331]
206.	That he attributes health, infirmity, life and death to the position of the stars and the aspect of fortune, saying that if fortune regard him, he will live; if not, he will die.
207.	That in the hour of a man’s generation, in his body and hence in the mind which follows the body, there exists in man from the order of superior and inferior causes a disposition inclining him to certain actions or results. An error, unless understood only of natural results and by way of disposition.”[2332]

In our chapter on Raymond Lull we shall speak of a treatise written by him in 1297 in which he deals with some of these opinions condemned in 1277.

Other later moves against magic at Paris.

With the condemnation in 1277 along with the opinions of Siger of Brabant of a geomancy, books of necromancy, and others containing invocations of spirits, may be mentioned two later attempts of authorities to discourage the study or practice of magic at Paris. One, to which we have already alluded in our chapter on Roger Bacon, is a constitution of the Franciscans on May 25, 1292, forbidding their students at Paris to spend for other purposes the money sent them for books or to have curious books copied.[2333] We are, however, more pained than surprised to learn that such a regulation was necessary in the Order. The other is a letter of April 3, 1318, or 1319, of Pope John XXII to William, bishop of Paris, thanking him for a donation received and urging him to attend to the improvement of the University of Paris and especially to banish from it and from his diocese “nigromancers, diviners, poisoners, and others engaged in reprehensible arts of this sort,” whom the pope further describes as criminals.[2334] There is nothing to suggest that astrologers and their writings are included in either of these two later moves against superstitious arts or black magic.

[2284] Contained in Borgnet’s edition of Albert’s works, X, 629 et seq. This text, however, has been severely criticized by F. Cumont, Cat. cod. astrol. graec., V, i, 85, who says of it, “mendis scateat,” and who gives a partial version from the MSS (Ibid., pp. 86-105.)

An early edition among the incunabula of the British Museum (numbered I A. 8201) bears the different title, Liber Alberti magni de duabus sapientiis et de recapitulatione omnium librorum astronomiae. In the MSS the title also varies considerably.

For a list of some MSS of the Speculum astronomiae see Appendix I at the close of this chapter.

[2285] P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe siècle, deuxième édition revue et augmentée, Louvain, 1911, I, 244-8; and more fully in an article, Roger Bacon et le Speculum astronomiae, in Revue Néo-Scolastique, vol. 17 (August, 1910), pp. 313-35.

[2286] Theophilus Witzel, in CE “Roger Bacon”; Paschal Robinson, “The Seventh Centenary of Roger Bacon,” in The Catholic University Bulletin, January, 1914; A. G. Little, Roger Bacon Essays, Oxford, 1914, p. 25.

[2287] G. Naudé, Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie, Paris, 1625, p. 526. Naudé’s memory, however, misled him into asserting that Pico della Mirandola had already asserted that Roger Bacon wrote the Speculum astronomiae, whereas Pico had merely questioned whether Albert wrote it.

[2288] Ch. V. Langlois, in reviewing the first edition of the Siger de Brabant (Fribourg, 1899) in Revue de Paris, Sept. 1, 1900, p. 71, made some strictures upon Mandonnet’s general method of arriving at conclusions which in my opinion were very well taken.

[2289] The opinions of a number of late medieval and early modern scholars as to the authorship of the treatise will be found prefaced to the text in Borgnet’s edition.

J. Sighart, Albertus Magnus, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft, Regensburg, 1857, p. 341 et seq. (Paris, 1862, p. 454 et seq.) accepted Albert’s authorship.

N. Valois, Guillaume d’Auvergne, Paris, 1880, p. 308 note, says, “Il parait impossible de ne pas considérer cet ouvrage comme authentique.”

See also M. Steinschneider, Zum Speculum astronomicum des Albertus Magnus über die darin angeführten Schriftsteller und Schriften, in Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, XVI (1871), 357-96.

[2290] am glad to see my view in this regard confirmed by Steele (1920), 267, who says: “It has been suggested that this tract was written by Bacon, but no one with an ear for style could accept the suggestion for a moment.”

[2291] Amplon. Quarto 377, first half of 14th century, fols. 25-36, Tractatus de iudiciis astrorum Aristoteli attributus. “Incipit liber quidam de iudiciis qui ab Alberto in Speculo dicitur esse Aristotelis et primo de nativitatibus.”

[2292] Denifle (1886), p. 236.

[2293] BN 7337, p. 45, “albertus commentator in suo speculo dixit quod predicte ymagines sunt mere naturales sicut recepte medicine.”

[2294] Schum (1887), pp. 785-867, Math. 29, “Speculum mathematicum Alberti Magni”; Math. 69, “Speculum domini Alberti de libris mathematicis.”

[2295] See Appendix I.

[2296] Petrus de Alliaco, Tractatus de ymagine mundi ... and other treatises by both d’Ailly and Gerson, printed about 1480 (numbered IB.49230 in the British Museum).

In the Elucidarius, cap. 2, d’Ailly cites “Albertus Magnus in suo speculo” two or three times. In the Vigintiloquium de concordantia astronomice veritatis cum theologia, he says, “Unde Albertus Magnus perutiliter etiam tractatum edidit in quo vere astronomie et artis magice libros per eorum principia et fines distinxit.” In the Apologetica defensio astronomice veritatis he cites “Albertus Magnus utique philosophus, astronomus, et theologus” concerning Albumasar’s placing the birth of Christ under the sign Virgo, a passage alluded to in the Speculum, but not, as far as I have noted, in Albert’s other works.

[2297] Borgnet, X, 629.

[2298] Quetif and Echard (1719), I, 173.

[2299] Toward the close of its first book in his works as published at Venice in 1519 and in 1557: “Quod si mihi opponas Albertum theologum praestantissimum fautorem tamen astrologorum, admonebo te primum multa referri in Albertum quae Alberti non sunt, quod et supra tetigimus. Tunc si mihi forte obicias librum de licitis et illicitis, in quo reiicit quidem magos, astronomicos probat auctores, respondebo existimari quidem a multis esse illud opus Alberti sed nec ipsum Albertum nec libri inscriptionem usquequamquam hoc significare, cum auctor ipse quodcumque demum fuerit nomen suum consulto et expresso dissimulet.”

After condemning certain statements in the Speculum in favor of astronomical images and that magic books be not utterly destroyed, as unworthy of a learned man and a Christian, Pico concludes, “Quae utique aut non scripsit Albertus, aut si scripsit, dicendum esse cum apostolo, in aliis laudo, in hoc non laudo.” Pico could hardly have read Albert’s discussion of astronomical images in the Minerals.

[2300] Mandonnet (1910), p. 331, incorrectly cites this passage as a defense of works of judicial astrology, a subject which is not broached until the following chapter of the Speculum.

[2301] Cap. 12.

[2302] Caps. 6-11.

[2303] Digby 228 gives the number as “LXXII.”

[2304] The Incipit given by the author of the Speculum astronomiae shows that this is the Liber lune of which we have treated in our chapter on “Hermetic Books in the Middle Ages.” By a coincidence a portion of it is found in the same MS, Digby 228, fols. 54v-55v, with the Speculum.

[2305] This word is variously spelled in different MSS, for instance, in Digby 228, “Muhamethçaha”; in Canon. Misc. 517, “Vanhmec.”

[2306] Cap. 4.

[2307] Cap. 11.

[2308] Cap. 16.

[2309] Cap. 13.

[2310] Cap. 15.

[2311] Ibid., “Ceterum in hoc concordati sunt omnes philosophi quod cum sciverimus horam impregnationis alicuius mulieris sciamus per eam quid fiet de fetu donec inspiret et quid usquequo egrediatur ab vulvo et quid fiet usque ad obitum.”

[2312] Cap. 13.

[2313] Caps. 7 and 12.

[2314] Cap. 14.

[2315] This sentence was omitted in Ashmole 345, but occurred in other MSS which I examined.

[2316] Cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 644), “figuratam esse in coelo nativitatem Jesu Christi de Virgine.”

[2317] Ed. F. Michel, Paris, 1864, v. 20109-18,

“Albumasar néis tesmoigne

Comment qu’il séust la besoigne,

Que dedens le virginal signe

Nestroit une pucele digne,

Qui sera, ce dist, virge et mère,

Et qui alètera son père

Et ses maris lez li sera

Qui jà point ne la touchera.

Ceste sentence puet savoir

Qui vuet Albumasar avoir.”

[2318] Revue Néo-Scolastique, 1910, XVII, 326. “Les deux auteurs repoussent les livres de magie.”

[2319] Summa, II, 30.

[2320] Mineral., II, iii, 3.

[2321] Speculum, cap. 11. For some further discussion of Germath of Babylon, and Gergis or Girgith see Appendix II.

[2322] Denifle and Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, 543.

[2323] See “The Life and Writings of Roger Bacon,” in The Westminster Review, January, 1864, LXXXI, 13.

[2324] Spec. astron., cap. 12 (Borgnet, X, 643).

[2325] In Revue Thomiste, V (1897), 95; cited by Grabmann (1916), p. 163.

[2326] A fact which Mandonnet, Revue Néo-Scolastique, XVII (1910), 318, actually attempts to use to show that the Speculum was written after 1270, holding that the passage in question in the Speculum must have been copied from Aquinas, since before 1270 no one but Aquinas knew of the existence of the 13th and 14th books of the Metaphysics at all. Yet they are included in Albert’s Commentary, which Mandonnet himself had dated in 1256!

[2327] Grabmann (1916), pp. 163-9; the evidence presented for this view is not very convincing. The fourteen books of the Metaphysics are found in Latin in MSS dated by the catalogues in the 13th century: S. Marco X, 57, fols. 1-75, de metaphysica libri quatuordecim; Additional 17345, late 13th century, according to the catalogue the antiqua translatio ascribed to Thomas of Cantimpré.

[2328] Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsme latin au XIIIe siècle, Fribourg, 1899, cap. 9.

[2329] That this opinion was condemned in 1277 did not keep Peter of Abano from stating in his Conciliator of 1303 that by power of fascination a man could be cast into a well and a camel into a hot bath.—Differentia 135. Indeed William of Auvergne, a previous bishop of Paris who had himself condemned “errors” in 1240, tells in his De universo (II, iii, 16, edition of 1591, p. 986) of a man who cast down a camel by merely imagining its fall.

[2330] Which seems to contradict 102, which stated that “the celestial circles are not instruments of intelligence but organs.”

[2331] This opinion is, however, that of Boethius and most of the other discussions of fate which we have noted.

[2332] The Latin text of the 219 opinions will be found in the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, 543, et seq.

[2333] Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, II, 56-7.

[2334] Chart. Univ. Paris., II, 229.