[1402] XV, 14.
[1403] XV, 172.
[1404] XVI, 41.
[1405] Etymol., XVI, 7.
[1406] V. Rose, “Aristoteles De Lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, XVIII (1875), 321-455.
[1407] Langlois (1911), p. 124.
[1408] J. Ruska, Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles, 1912, p. 38, reiterates, “Sein Büchlein De virtutibus lapidum ist die Grundlage des Steinverzeichnisses in Albertus Magnus’ 5 Büchern De mineralibus.”
It also is asserted that Vincent and Albert learned of the mariner’s compass from this Arnold’s De virtute universali,—a view which overlooks Alexander Neckam’s earlier allusions to the compass.
[1409] This title can scarcely refer to Arnold’s De virtutibus lapidum.
[1410] The fact is that Rose examined the text of Bartholomew in a careless and superficial manner. He used some Frankfurt edition of the De proprietatibus rerum for which he gives no date, and he usually fails to state what chapter of Bartholomew he is citing, but refers to him simply by the letter B. Also he fails to note that the first two stones listed by Arnold, namely, abeston (asbestos) and absictus (apsyctos) are both in Bartholomew, and what is more, are spelled exactly the same by both authors. Nor are these the only gems that Rose fails to note are treated of by both authors. Others are alabandina, calcofanus (which Bartholomew begins with a k), virites or pyrites (also spelled a little differently in Bartholomew), and turcois (De turchoge in Bartholomew). In the first three of these four passages Arnold’s statements sound like a bald and abbreviated copy of Bartholomew’s description.