Question of its date.
If Bartholomew’s last sentence is interpreted as an open invitation to his readers to issue revised editions of the book or at least add to their own copies further extracts from the writings of the saints and the philosophers, we shall feel that it is rather risky to attempt to determine the date of the first appearance of the De proprietatibus rerum from the date of the latest works cited in our present copies. But all the manuscripts seem to be essentially alike regardless of date, and the printed edition seems to vary little from the text of the earliest manuscripts. To assist us in determining when Bartholomew lived and wrote we have a request from the General of the Franciscan Order in 1230 asking the French provincial to send to Magdeburg in Saxony Brother Bartholomaeus Anglicus to act as lecturer there.[1319] Salimbene, writing in 1284, cites a passage from Bartholomew concerning elephants and looks back upon him as a great clerk who lectured on the whole Bible in course at Paris.[1320] Bartholomew speaks of the inhabitants of Livonia as having been forced by the Germans from the cult of demons to the Faith of one God, and states that by divine grace and the cooperation of the Germans they are now believed to be freed from their former errors.[1321] But since the conquest of Livonia began as early as 1202, this passage does not serve to date Bartholomew’s work very definitely.
Who are the most recent authors cited in it?
It has already been remarked by the Histoire Littéraire de la France that in the bibliography at the close of his work Bartholomew mentions no writer of later date than the early thirteenth century.[1322] As Bartholomew himself states, however, he uses “many other” authorities than those given in the list, and other names are found sprinkled through his text. In the printed edition of 1488 the Speculum naturale of Vincent of Beauvais, which was not written until 1250, is cited,[1323] but this mention is found in the last sentence of a chapter and may be pretty certainly regarded as a later interpolation.[1324] In citing commentaries upon the works of Aristotle the printed text confuses the abbreviations Albu., Alber., and Alfre. or Alur., standing respectively for Albumasar, Albertus Magnus, and Aluredus or Alfred of England who alone is listed in Bartholomew’s bibliography. There seems to be no certain citation of Albert. If Bartholomew had read Albert’s sharp criticism of Jorath, he perhaps would not have made use of that author. The bibliography includes the names of Michael Scot who was dead by 1235 and of Robert of Lincoln, by whom Grosseteste must be meant, who was born about 1175, became bishop of Lincoln in 1235, and died in 1253. A Gilbertus mentioned in the bibliography may be either the medical writer, Gilbert of England, whose own date is somewhat uncertain, or a corruption for Gerbert. These three writers are seldom, if ever, cited by name in the text of Bartholomew. But he does cite Alexander of Hales[1325] who died in 1245. On the whole it seems possible that Bartholomew wrote his work as early as 1230.
How far are its citations first-hand?
The Histoire Littéraire asserts that “Bartholomew surely was not acquainted with all the authors, true or supposititious, whom he is pleased to enumerate,” but it gives no grounds except the list itself for this sceptical attitude. It is true that in the case of a few authorities in his list, such as Scipio Africanus, Ninus Delphicus, and Epicurus, it would have been as difficult to find any works by them then as now. But I believe that Bartholomew was a wide reader and acquainted with the greater part of the books and authors that he cites. Modern writers concerning medieval learning have too often proceeded upon the gratuitous assumption that medieval writers seldom were directly acquainted with the authorities which they cite. But one suspects that those who have assumed this were none too well acquainted themselves either with the works citing or cited. And why should medieval scholars take their citations at second hand? The original works were fairly accessible; the earliest manuscripts we have of them are almost invariably medieval, and probably they had many, many more copies that are now destroyed, and possibly some originals that are now forever lost. As for Bartholomew, his citations are so numerous, so varied, so specific that they must be largely first-hand.[1326] Obviously he did not spare himself trouble in making a book to save others trouble. Bartholomew also seems to be scrupulously honest in his citations. For instance, Pythagoras is cited but once in the Etymologies of Isidore,[1327] and when Bartholomew makes use of this passage, he gives both Pythagoras and Isidore credit.[1328] It is therefore only fair to Bartholomew to admit that, had his citation of Pythagoras in The Book of the Romans been drawn from any third author, he would have given him credit too. Bartholomew cites Pliny’s Natural History by book and chapter and is evidently directly acquainted with it. On the whole, I am inclined to think that medieval writers had read quite as much of the works listed in their bibliographies as modern writers have of those listed in theirs.
Its medieval currency.
In the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris alone there are eighteen manuscripts of the De proprietatibus rerum, chiefly of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and the Histoire Littéraire tells us that its title appears in a catalogue of the books which the medieval booksellers of Paris rented to the students at that university.[1329] The work also occurs with frequency in the manuscript collections of England, Germany, and Italy. Hain’s list of fourteen printed editions of it before 1500 is incomplete, and the British Museum catalogue of books printed in Germany alone in the fifteenth century mentions nine editions. It was translated into French under Charles V in the fourteenth century, and also appeared in English, Spanish, and Dutch versions, all three of which were printed at the end of the fifteenth century. These facts indicate that the work was, and continued until the sixteenth century to be, widely used as a text-book, and suggest the further thought that such widely multiplied and disseminated elementary and popular works are more likely to have survived the stagnant and destructive period of the Black Death and Hundred Years War and to have come down to us than are the more advanced, original, and elaborate works of the thirteenth century. Be that as it may, we must not look upon the De proprietatibus rerum as a specimen of the most advanced medieval scholarship, but rather as an illustration of the rough general knowledge which every person with any pretense to culture was then supposed to possess. At the same time, the large number of authorities cited shows how much wider reading a medieval student might do.
Not a mere compilation nor limited to Biblical topics.
On the other hand, we must not be misled by Bartholomew’s humble tone of self-depreciation nor even by his assertion, repeated at the close as well as the opening of his work, that he presents “little or nothing of my own, but simply the words of the saints and the sayings of the philosophers.” As a matter of fact, he not infrequently alludes to contemporary matters or describes daily life without mentioning any authorities, and his amusing accounts of such animals as cats and dogs, or boys and girls, or his instructions how to set a table and give a dinner, are almost entirely his own and show considerable power of observation and dry humor. His chapters on geography, too, deal in large measure and with unusual fulness with the feudal states and peoples of his own day: Scotland, Ireland, Flanders, Brabant, Anjou, Poitou, and so on through a long list alphabetically arranged. In these and in other chapters he forgets all about the fact that he is supposedly explaining only those things mentioned in the Bible, and is manifestly actuated by a scientific interest in present facts and phenomena. The influence of Isidore’s Etymologies upon Bartholomew’s book is evident, and Bartholomew often makes Isidore his starting point in discussing a given topic. But he also often goes far beyond the other’s brief statements; it seems clear that the scanty contents of the Etymologies are no longer deemed sufficient even in an elementary encylopedia and general text-book. Bartholomew seems to use the scissors less than Thomas of Cantimpré, to state things more in his own words, and not to make such long extracts from or paraphrases of other works.