Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:51:54.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anselm and the Articella

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Giles E. M. Gasper  and
Faith Wallis
Giles E. M. Gasper
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Faith Wallis
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sometime between 1070 and 1077, Anselm, then prior of the monastery of Bec in Normandy, wrote to his friend Maurice, a former Bec monk residing at Christ Church, Canterbury, and asked him to seek out copies of various texts, including Bede's De temporibus and the Regula of St. Dunstan — presumably the Regularis concordia, the platform-document of the English Benedictine reform of the tenth century. Shortly thereafter, Anselm wrote again to Maurice, indicating that another text had been added to his desiderata:

Should it come to pass that, with [Archbishop Lanfranc's] favor always embracing us, you return to us (as is expedient for you, and as you and I desire), bring with you what you will have copied of the Aphorisms. In the meantime, however, do as much of the text as you can without inconvenience to yourself, and then, if you are free, of the commentary, giving heed above all that whatever you will have brought with you has been corrected with the utmost diligence. If after your return any of it still remains to be done, and if Dom Gundulf is able to finish it through someone else, leave it to the person whom he designates. But it would be much better if Dom Gundulf were able to obtain by request the exemplar itself, so that it could be lent to me.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 59 , 2004 , pp. 129 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Fordham University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Anselm, Letter 42, ed. Schmitt, F. S. in S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia , 6 vols. (Edinburgh, 1946), 3:154. All subsequent citations of Anselm's letters and works will cite Schmitt's volume and page numbers in parentheses.Google Scholar

2 “Si igitur cum eius semper nobis amplectenda gratia te ad nos, secundum quod tibi expedit et ego et tu desideramus, redire contigerit, quod scriptum erit de Aphorismo tecum affer. Interim tamen, quantum sine tuo incommodo potes, de textu primum effice, deinde, si tibi licuerit, de glosis; hoc ante omnia servans, ut quidquid ex eo detuleris, diligentissime si correctum. Si quid vero te redeunte residuum inde fuerit: si opportune domnus GONDULFUS per aliquem hoc perficere poterit, eius curae designatum dimitte. Multo tamen melius erit, si exemplum ipsum, ut mihi accommodetur, idem domnus GONDULFUS poterit impetrare” (Anselm, , Letter 43 [3:155–56]). Translations, unless otherwise indicated, are our own.Google Scholar

3 “Glosas Aforismi si omnes potes scribere gaudeo, sin autem, eas quae sunt Graecorum aut inusitatorum nominum ne deseras admoneo. Quod tamen temporis in libello De pulsibus insumere deliberas, malo ut ad perficiendum quidquid est in Aforismo impendas. Non enim eiusdem libelli scientia utilis est, nisi frequentissimo et diligentissimo uso se illa occupantibus. Si quid tamen post Aforismum et de hoc potes, libenter accipio. De utroque hoc praecipue moneo, ut quidquid feceris, studiosissima exquisitione correctum dignum sit dici perfectum. Malo enim in ignota inusitataque scriptura partem integram veritate, quam totum corruptum falsitate” (Anselm, , Letter 60 [3:174–75]).Google Scholar

4 Rule, M., The Life and Times of Saint Anselm, 2 vols. (London, 1883), Anecdoton C, 1:394–96.Google Scholar

5 Anselm, , Letters 32–36 (3:140–44), 40 (3:151–52).Google Scholar

6 Anselm, , Letters 36 (3:143–44) and 44 (3:156–58).Google Scholar

7 Anselm, , Letter 42 (3:153–55).Google Scholar

8 Anselm, , Letters 42–43 (3:153–56), 47 (3:161), 51 (3:164–65), 60 (3:174–75), 64 (3:180–81), 69 (3:189), 74 (3:195–96), 97 (3:224–28), 104 (3:237), and 147 (3:293–94).Google Scholar

9 Gibson, M. T., Lanfranc of Bee (Oxford, 1978), 162–90, and Cowdrey, H. E. J., Lanfranc: Scholar, Monk, and Archbishop (Oxford, 2003), 104–19, 149–60.Google Scholar

10 Gibson, , Lanfranc, 175–77; Southern, R. W., Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge, 1990), 313–14.Google Scholar

11 Gibson, , Lanfranc, 176. Vitalis, Samuel, and Roger are greeted in Anselm, Letter 74 to Maurice (3:195–96), and Roger is encouraged by Anselm to come to Bec in Letter 76 (3:198). Albert is addressed in Letters 36 (3:143–44) and 44 (3:156–57), and mentioned in Letters 32–34 (3:141–42) and 39 (3:149–51).Google Scholar

12 Anselm, , Letter 64 (3:180–81).Google Scholar

13 In Anselm, , Letter 72 (3:193–94), Lanfranc is directed to send the copy of the Monologion sent to him by Anselm back to Bec with Maurice, should he return in the near future; in Letter 74 (3:195–96) the same instructions are conveyed to Maurice, adding that if he knew he would be delayed he should send it by someone else.Google Scholar

14 Anselm, , Letter 104 (3:237).Google Scholar

15 Anselm, , Letter 147 (3:293–94). The question of the genesis of Anselm's correspondence collection has not been without controversy and is summarized by Southern, Anselm: A Portrait, 459–81; on Maurice's role, see esp. 462–63.Google Scholar

16 The traffic in books went in both directions: see Anselm, , Letters 23 (3:130–31) and 25–26 (3:132–34). On book-lending between Normandy and England in the later eleventh century, see Webber, T., “The Patristic Content of English Book Collections in the Eleventh Century,” in Of the Making of Books: Medieval Manuscripts, Their Scribes and Readers; Essays Presented to M. B. Parkes , ed. Robinson, P. R. and Zim, R. (Aldershot, 1997), 191–205, esp. 199–200 for the correspondence between Anselm and Lanfranc. See also Gameson, R., The Manuscripts of Early Norman England ca. 1086–1130 (Oxford, 1999), 6.Google Scholar

17 See Philpot, M., “Eadmer, His Archbishops and the English State,” in The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell, ed. Maddicott, J. R. and Palliser, D. M. (London, 2000), 93–107; Rubenstein, J., “The Life and Writings of Osbern of Canterbury,” in Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars 1066–1109 , ed. Eales, R. and Sharpe, R. (London, 1995), 27–40; Vitalis, Orderic, The Ecclesiastical History , ed. and trans. Chibnall, M., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–80), 2:238–48; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum 1.14–21, 2.87, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A., Rolls Series 52 (London, 1870), 20–34, 188–91.Google Scholar

18 Schipperges, H., Die Benediktiner in der Medizin des frühen Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1964), and Stoll, C., “Arznei und Arzneiversorgung in frühmittelalterlichen Klöstern,” in Das Lorscher Arzneibuch und die frühmittelalterliche Medizin , ed. Keil, Gundolf and Schnitzer, Paul (Lorsch, 1991), 149–217, remain useful starting points and are commendably free of mystification, but tend to label all early medieval medicine as “monastic medicine.” Google Scholar

19 Glaze, F. E., “The Perforated Wall: The Ownership and Circulation of Medical Books in Medieval Europe, ca. 800–1200” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2000), chap. 5 passim and esp. 192–201.Google Scholar

20 Paxton, F., ”Signa morbifera: Death and Prognostication in Early Medieval Monastic Medicine,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 67 (1993): 631–50.Google Scholar

21 Gasper, G. E. M., “‘A Doctor in the House’: The Context for Anselm of Canterbury's Interest in Medicine with Reference to a Probable Case of Malaria,” forthcoming in Journal of Medieval History 20 (2004).Google Scholar

22 Anselm, , Letter 39 (3:149–51).Google Scholar

23 Southern, , Anselm: A Portrait (n. 10 above), 171.Google Scholar

24 There is no catalogue for Christ Church before that of prior Eastry (1284–1331), and although this catalogue does list medical works, including copies of the Articella, this does not help to identify their age or provenance: James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903), 55–62. A list of books at Christ Church drawn up ca. 1170 contains no medical works at all (ibid., 7–12), and no manuscript identified by Tessa Webber as being produced at Christ Church in the aftermath of the Conquest is medical in character: “Script and Manuscript Production at Christ Church, Canterbury, after the Norman Conquest,” in Eales and Sharpe, Canterbury and the Norman Conquest, 145–58, esp. 157–58.Google Scholar

25 As with the case of De temporibus, the need for a good text was paramount in Anselm's mind. Eadmer records that as prior, Anselm “by night … corrected the books, which in all countries before this time were disfigured by mistakes” (Vita Anselmi 1.8, ed. and trans. Southern, R. W. [Edinburgh, 1962], 14–15).Google Scholar

26 This is the translation offered by Fröhlich, W., The Letters of St. Anselm of Canterbury , 3 vols., Cistercian Studies Series 96 (Kalamazoo, 1990), 1:173.Google Scholar

27 Recent scholarship on the Articella in the twelfth century and its relationship to the “school of Salerno” rests on a series of essays by Kristeller, P. O.: “The School of Salerno: Its Development and its Contribution to the History of Learning,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 17 (1945): 138–94; “Nuove fonti per la medicina salernitana del secolo XII,” Rassegna storica salernitana 18 (1957): 61–75, trans. Porzer, C. and reprinted as “Neue Quellen zur salernitaner Medizin des 12. Jahrhunderts,” in Medizin im mittelalterlichen Abendland , ed. Baader, G. and Keil, G., Wege der Forschung 363 (Darmstadt, 1982), 191–208; “Beitrag der Schule von Salerno zur Entwicklung der scholastischen Wissenschaft des 12. Jahrhunderts,” in Artes Liberates von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mittelalters , ed. Koch, J., Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 5 (Leiden, 1959), 84–90; La scuola medica di Salerno secondo ricerche e scoperte recently Quaderni del Centro di studi e documentazione della Scuola Medica Salernitana 5 (Salerno, 1980); “Bartholomaeus, Musandinus and Maurus of Salerno and Other Early Commentators of the Articella, with a Tentative List of Texts and Manuscripts,” Italia medioevale e umanistica 29 (1976): 57–87, translated, with additions and corrections, as “Bartolomeo, Musandino, Mauro di Salerno e altri antichi commentatori dell'Articella, con un elenco di testi e di manoscritti,” in Studi sulla scuola medica salernitana (Naples, 1986), 97–151. Building on Kristeller's work are the studies by Jordan, M.: “Medicine as Science in the Early Commentaries on ‘Johannitius,”’ Traditio 43 (1987): 121–45, and “The Construction of a Philosophical Medicine: Exegesis and Argument in Salernitan Teaching on the Soul,” Osiris, 2nd ser., 6 (1990): 42–61. A fundamentally different model for the origin of the Articella and its commentaries is presented by Pietro Morpurgo, Filosofia della natura nella Schola Salernitana del secolo XII (Bologna, 1990), and in “I commenti salernitani all'Articella” in Knowledge and the Sciences in Medieval Philosophy, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Helsinki 24–29 August 1987, 3 vols. (Helsinki, 1990), 2:97–105. For the later medieval diffusion and study of the Articella , see O'Boyle, C., The Art of Medicine: Medical Teaching at the University of Paris, 1250–1400, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 9 (Leiden, 1998), esp. chap. 3. On medieval Articella manuscripts, see idem, Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Copies of the Ars Medicine : Checklist, A and Contents Descriptions of the Manuscripts, Articella Studies 1 (Cambridge, 1998), and Diels, H. A., Die Handschriften der antiken Änte (Berlin, 1905–6), as well as Durling, R., “Corrigenda and Addenda to Diels' Galenica,” Traditio 23 (1967): 461–76. For its printed diffusion, see Arrizabalaga, J., The Articella in the Early Press c. 1476–1534, Articella Studies 2 (Cambridge, 1998).Google Scholar

28 Precise dating of twelfth-century Articella manuscripts is an important desideratum for future research. The following codices containing the five-text version of the anthology appear to have been written between 1100 and 1150: Auxerre, Bibliothèque municipale 240; Paris, BNF lat. 7102; Perugia, 1138; and possibly Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek 32 (1060); Pommersfelden, Gräfische Schönborn'sche Bibliothek 18; Vatican City, BAV Pal. lat. 1215; and Vatican City, BAV Vat. lat. 10281. London, Wellcome Library 801A, a Benevantan codex conventionally dated to the first half of the twelfth century, has been re-assigned to the middle of the century by Newton, F.: “Constantine the African and Monte Cassino: New Elements in the Text of the Isagoge,” in Constantine the African and ‘Ali ibn al’-Abbas al Maǧūsi: The Pantegni and Related Texts, ed. Burnett, C. and Jacquart, D., Studies in Ancient Medicine 10 (Leiden, 1994), 30; see also his Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, 1058–1105 (Cambridge, 1999), 264. On the dating of Paris, BNF lat. 7029, see below, n. 78.Google Scholar

29 There are no modern editions of the Articella versions of the Aphorismi, Prognostica, or Theophilus. The Articella translation of the Latin Philaretus is transcribed from MS Auxerre, Bibl. publique 240 (s. XII) by Pithis, J. A., Die Schriften PIEPIΣPHYΓMΩN des Philaretos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften 46 (Husum, 1983), 195–203. The Isagoge has been edited from three sixteenth-century printed versions by Gracia, D. and Vidal, J.-L., “La ‘Isagoge’ de Ioannitius, Introducción, edición, traducción y notas,” Asclepio 26–27 (1974–75): 267–382, and from twelve twelfth- and thirteenth-century MSS by Maurach, Gregor, “Isagoge ad Techne Galieni,” Sudhoffs Archiv 43 (1978): 148–74. However, Maurach did not consult the earliest manuscripts of the Isagoge, discussed below. For a critique of both editions, see Fischer, K.-D., “Verbesserung zur Isagoge des Johannicius,” Sudhoffs Archiv 67 (1983): 223–43. Francis Newton announced that he was preparing a new edition in his “Constantine the African and Monte Gassino,” 16. Constantine's translation will be discussed further below. On the De urinis of Theophilus, see F. Wallis, “Inventing Diagnosis: Theophilus' De urinis in the Classroom,” in Medical Teaching and Classroom Practice in the Medieval Universities , ed. French, R. and O'Boyle, C., Dynamis 20 (2000): 31–73, and the literature cited therein.Google Scholar

30 The prologue of the early medieval Latin commentary on the Aphorismi sometimes ascribed to Oribasius, and which we term the “Old Latin Commentary,” as found in Guinter von Andernach's 1533 printed edition, explicitly states that the Aphorismi is about “omnium aegritudinum prognostica, vtriusque sexus, tarn in infantibus, quam in pueris, iuuenibus etiam, senibus, et decrepitis” (D. Oribasii medici clarissimi commentaria in Aphorismos Hippocrati hactenus non uisa … [Venice, 1533], Prologue, fol. 4v). However, this passage does not appear in the medieval manuscripts of the Old Latin Commentary we have consulted to date, namely Monte Cassino 97, Montpellier Bibliothèque de la Faculté de médecine 185, and Glasgow University Library, Hunter 404.Google Scholar

31 For example Beccaria, A., “Sulle tracce di un antico canone latino di Ippocrate e di Galeno. II. Gli Aforismi di Ippocrate nella versione e nei commenti del primo medioevo,” Italia medioevale e umanistica 4 (1961): 1–75 at 3, argues that the closest cognate to Maurice's exemplar is Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale 0.55 (s. XI), which contains the early medieval translation of the Aphorismi, the Old Latin Commentary (discussed below), and an encomium of Hippocrates. Beccaria does not discuss the De pulsibus mentioned in Anselm's letter. See also Beccaria's introduction to his I codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X et XI), Studi e Testi 53 (Rome, 1956), 84. Talbot, C. H., Medicine in Medieval England (London, 1967), 46, mentions both the Aphorismi and the De pulsibus, but dismisses any suggestion that these were “Salernitan” materials. His account of Anselm's and Maurice's correspondence contains numerous errors.Google Scholar

32 The “Ravenna” translation has been edited by Rohlfson, I. M., Die lateinische ravennatische Übersetzung der Hippokratischen Aphorismen aus dem 5./6. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Textkonstitution auf der Basis der Übersetzungcodices (Hamburg, 1980).Google Scholar

33 The argument for a slightly later date has been made by Beccaria, “Sulle tracce II,” 59, and by Bujan, M. E. V., “Problemas generates de las antiguas traduciones médicas latinas,” Studi medievali, ser. 3, 25 (1984): 642–80 at 675–76. Beccaria edits the preface and selected extracts from the commentary in “Sulle tracce II,” 35–54. For a critical edition of the section covering Aphorismi 1.1–11, see Kühn, J.-H., Die Diätlehre im frühmittelalterlichen lateinischen Kommentar zu den hippokratischen Aphorismen (I1–11) (Neuestadt, 1981). On the preface attached to many manuscripts of this commentary, see below. The only complete edition remains the 1533 Guinther von Andernach text cited above in n. 30, but this text has been heavily edited to conform to that of the new Renaissance translation of the Aphorismi. .Google Scholar

34 See Kibre, P., Hippocrates Latinus: Repertorium of Hippocratic Writings in the Latin Middle Ages, rev. ed. (New York, 1985), 34–42. The one commencing “Vitam brevem artem autem prolixam dixit eo quod ars medicine multas habet artes precurentes,” is found in Bern, Burgerbibliothek 232 (s. X), and the first eleven chapters of particula 1 are edited by Kühn, , Die Diätlehre, 42–48. It is also found in two twelfth-century manuscripts, Auxerre, Bibliothèque municipale 22 and London, BL Royal 12.E.XX, where it is entitled expositio Aptalionis. Another, whose incipit is “De arte prolixa pauca incipiam. In principio creavit deus celum et terram” is found in London, BL Arundel 166 pt. 1 (s. X in) and Paris, BNF 14935 pt. 4 (s. XI ex. or XII in.).Google Scholar

35 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus,” 65.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., 71.Google Scholar

37 On the Chartres and Digby commentaries in general, see articles by Jordan, and Wallis, cited above, nn. 27 and 29. On William of Conches's use of the Digby commentary on the Aphorismi , see Elford, D., “William of Conches,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Philosophy, ed. Dronke, Peter (Cambridge, 1988), 310–12, 325–26, and Lawn, B., The Prose Salernitan Questions, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 5 (Oxford, 1979), 2–3; on the dating of the De philosophia mundi , see Ronca, I. and Curr's, M. introduction to their translation of the Dragmaticon: A Dialogue of Natural Philosophy (Notre Dame, 1997), xvi. William's use of the Constantinian corpus has been widely documented, for example by Schipperges, H., “Die Schulen von Chartres unter dem Einfluss des Arabismus,” Sudhoffs Archiv 40 (1956): 193–210. Édouard Jeauneau is of the opinion that William even composed commentaries on Joannitius and Theophilus, both of whom are cited in the Philosophia mundi: “Note sur l'École de Chartres,” Studi medievali, ser. 3, 5 (1964): 821–65 at 851. It is interesting to note that fol. 1r of the principal twelfth-century manuscript of the Digby glosses, Bodleian Library Digby 108, lists an inventory of the legacy of books of which Digby 108 once was a part; the legacy included a number of medical works, including Constantine's Pantegni and the Viaticum, but also Compendium magistri Willelmi de Cunches. See Hunt, R. W., “The Library of Robert Grosseteste,” in Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop: Essays in Commemoration of the Seven Hundreth Anniversary of His Death , ed. Callus, D. A. (Oxford, 1955), 129.Google Scholar

38 This new Articella translation is distinct from the one contained in Constantine the African's translation of Galen's commentary on the Aphorismi. In Articella MSS after ca. 1200, and in early printed editions, the Articella version of the text is sometimes inserted into Constantine's translation of Galen's commentary, but Galen's commentary never appears in the manuscripts of the Articella before the thirteenth century. Kristeller remarks that “if Constantine's Galen as found in early manuscripts does include [the Articella] version of the Aphorisms, we may assume that the early compiler of the Articella detached the Hippocrates text from Galen's commentary as translated by Constantine. Yet Constantine's Galen may originally have included another version, or no version at all, but merely lemmata. In that case, it may be assumed that our version of the Aphorisms was made independently of Constantine's version of the Galen commentary, and perhaps from the Greek, and that it was merely inserted in later manuscripts and editions of Constantine's Galen. The problem can only be solved by examining the early manuscripts of Constantine's Galen, and by collating our version of the Aphorisms with Constantine's Galen as well as with the Greek and Arabic texts of Hippocrates” (Kristeller, “Bartholomaeus” [n. 27 above], 67). Peter the Deacon relates that after the death of Constantine, Johannes Afflacius, Constantine's discipulus and a very skilled writer and physician, “produced the Aphorisms, a text quite necessary for physicians.” See Bloch, H., Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1986), 1:102–3, and Newton, , Scriptorium and Library, 24 n. 36. But it is doubtful that this is the Articella version of the Hippocratic text. Since Constantine had already completed Galen's commentary on the Aphorismi and dedicated it to Atto, this likewise could not be the text intended here. Peter the Deacon may be confusing Johannes Afflacius with Johannes Mesue (Yūhannā ibn Māsawayh), whose Aphorismi, often ascribed to Johannis Mansoris or John Damascene, and dedicated to Hunayn ibn Ishāq, was translated into Latin, probably in Italy, in the twelfth century, and included in some Articella manuscripts from the thirteenth onwards: he livre des axiomes médicaux (Aphorismi) , ed. Jacquart, D. and Troupeau, G. (Paris, 1980), introduction, 15. There is no discussion of any aphorisms in Creutz, R., “Der Cassinese Johannes Afflacius Saracenus, ein Arzt aus ‘Hochsalerno,”’ Studien und Mitteilungen des Benediktinerordens 48 (1930): 301–24.Google Scholar

39 “Afforismorum ypocratis huius noue editionis ea causa extitit quoniam antiqua nullum eorum que uitiosis translationibus inesse assolent culpe genus defuit, adeo ut nec translatio merito debeat appellari, sed potius ueritatis ablatio. Quippe que superflua plurima addere, et eorum que ab ypocrate posita in omnibus grecis codicibus atque expositoribus inueniuntur non nulla pretermittere. … Quinte siquidem particule inicium in grecis codicibus est: Spasmus ex elleboro, mortale. Sexte uero tale dedit ypocras responsum: In diuturnis lienteriis oxiregma superueniens prius non existens, signum bonum. Quod latini codices initium septime habent particule. Quam ultimam idem ypocras sic est exorsus: In acutis egritudinibus frigiditas extremitarum malum. Hec uero omnia ita esse ut dictum est etiam minimis intelligentibus euidentissima eruit, si in qua scripti sunt lingua ypocratis afforismi legantur. Qui uero grece eloquentie operam non dederunt, certissime nouerint nullatenus uel parum ab ypocratis uestigiis hanc discessisse editionem, et ea quam maxime uitasse uitia que antiquam supra dictum est incurrisse” (Edinburgh, National Library Adv. 18.3.13, fol. 50r [s. XII]). This “Oribasius prologue” is also found in Edinburgh, University Library 163 (s. XII); Oxford, Bodleian Library Laud 108 (s. XII); Paris, BNF lat. 7102 (s. XIII); Vatican City, BAV Ottoboni 2298 (s. XII); Admont 254 (s. XIII); Cambridge, Peterhouse 251 (s. XII); Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Sondersammlung Amplon. F. 238 (s. XIII); London, BL Harley 3140 (s. XIII); and Paris, BNF lat. 13275; see Kibre, , Hippocrates Latinus, 40–42. A transcription of the text from Paris, BNF lat. 7102 was printed by Littré, E. in Oeuvres complètes d'Hippocrate, 4 (Paris, 1844), 444–45. The division of particula 5 of the Aphorismi into two parts, of which the author of the prologue complains, can be observed in a number of copies of the old Latin translation. See Beccaria, , “Sulle tracce II,” 30.Google Scholar

40 Jacquart, D., “À l'aube de la renaissance médicale des XIe–XIIe siècles: l' ‘Isagoge Johanitii’ et son traducteur,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 144 (1986): 209–40 at 231, and idem, “Les traductions du XIe siècle et le latin médical antique,” in Le latin médical: la constitution d'un language scientifique , ed. Sabbah, G. (Saint-Étienne, 1991), 420; Glaze, , “Perforated Wall” (n. 19 above), 54–56 and chap. 3 passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 The analysis that follows is based on the text of the A translation of the Aphorismi as found in Vatican City, BAV Pal. lat. 1215, fols. 31r–44v, a twelfth-century MS of the primitive five-book Articella. The text has been collated with two other twelfth-century Articella MSS: London, Wellcome Library 801A, fols. 1v–38r, and Edinburgh, University Library 163, fols. 73r–118v. Both these MSS belonged to Bury St. Edmund's in the twelfth century. For descriptions and discussion of the Wellcome MS, see Moorat, S. A. J., Catalogue of the Western Manuscripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 2 vols. (London, 1973), 2:1464–67, corrected by Kristeller, , “Antichi commentatori dell'Articella” (n. 27 above), 141; Lowe, E. A., The Beneventan Script, 2nd ed., ed. Brown, V., 2 vols. (Rome, 1980), 1:337; McLachlan, E. P., The Scriptorium of Bury St. Edmund's in the Twelfth Century (New York, 1986), 12–13, 21; Thomson, R. M., “The Library of Bury St. Edmund's in the 11th and 12th Centuries,” Speculum 47 (1972): 617–45 at 634; Jordan, M., “Medicine as Science” (n. 27 above), 124 n. 12. On the date of this MS, see n. 28 above. On the Edinburgh MS, see Borland, C. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Western Medieval Manuscripts in Edinburgh University Library (Edinburgh, 1916): 245–47; Kristeller, “Antichi commentatori dell' Articella” 140; and McLachlan, , Scriptorium of Bury St. Edmund's, 320–21. The R text used is that of Rohlfson, n. 32 above. The Greek text consulted was that of Jones, W. H. S., Hippocrates 4, Loeb Classical Library 150 (Cambridge, MA, 1931), 98–221.Google Scholar

42 A consistent exception is the term colera, for which the A translator substitutes fel; we comment on this substitution below. Some one-off exceptions: 4.81, where R reads lipidas (“scales,” λεπίδας) and A reads squamas; 4.82 where R reads in ueretro (έν τη ούρήθρη) and A urinali uia. Rarely, R will be the version that reproduces the Greek by caique: in 5.13, R reads de pulmone ascensus nascitur (έκ του πλεύμονος ή άναγωγή γίνεται) while A reads ex pulmone eductio fit. An interesting case is presented by 3.26 where R and A have each tried to reproduce the Greek literally, R by transcription, A by caique. R's ad ineon quod Greci sosuisies uocant suggests that he did not understand the original ϰατὰ τὸ ἰνίoν εἴσω ὤσεις “curvature (of the vertebrae) at the neck” and simply opted to transliterate it. A's translation — spondilis secundum collum intus impulsiones — is word for word, and literal, if not exactly illuminating: super = ϰατὰ, collum = τὸ ἰνίο, intus = εἴσω, impulsiones = ὤσειϰ.Google Scholar

43 Similar cases: 3.11, 3.12, 3.13. R on occasion uses boreum to mean “cold”: 3.14, 3.17.Google Scholar

44 Other examples of A's transcriptions are: in parroxismis (1.11; R: in accessionibus); discritas et eucritas (1.12; R: bonas et malas consummationes); cronices egritudines (2.39; R: diuturnae aegritudines); obtalmias (3.11, 3.12, 3.14, 3.16; R: oculorum dolores); flegmones (3.24; R: tumores; 5.57 tumentum, 7.17 fervor); asmata, litiases … acrocordines (3.26; R: anhelitus, cauculi … uerrucae); ypocondrium (4.64, 6.40; R: praecordium); dispnia (4.50; R: suspirum); in bubonibus febres (4.55; R: in inguinibus febres); effemeris [febribus] (4.55; R: simplicibus); ulcera (3.20, 6.4; R: vulnera); maniam significat (5.40, cf. 5.65; R: insanire significat); erisipila (6.23; R: ignis acer); parumia [i.e. paristhmia] (3.26; R: tussilae). In 4.20, R uses the vague term tormentum to refer to colic, which seems to have sent the A translator back to the Greek original for clarification and to substitute strophus for tormentum. One branch of the A translation, represented by Pal. lat. 1215 (fol. 36v), demonstrates an attempt to turn this transcription into a caique by substituting conversio for strophus — a mistranslation of στρόϕος (a twisted cord; by extension, colic) as στροϕή (rolling, turning).Google Scholar

45 See Kibre, , Hippocrates Latinus (n. 34 above), 40–42. All the “Digby” commentaries in Digby 108 are called glosae, as are the Digby commentaries in Edinburgh, National Library Advocates 8.2.13 (glosulae), London, BL Harley 2399, and the Chartres commentaries on Prognostica in London, BL Royal 8.C.Iv, fol. 157, and on Theophilus and Philaretus in Erfurt, Amplon. F. 276. The only exception we have encountered is Cambridge, Peterhouse 251, where the rubricator uses the term commentum. Later Articella commentaries such as those of Bartholomaeus of Salerno also adopt glosae: Basel, Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität D III 3; Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz lat. qu. 255 (glosule); Brussels, Bibliothèque royale II 3399; Erfurt, Amplon. Q.175 (the Tegni commentary is called a commentum, but this rubric is in a later hand); Vienna, Nationalbibliothek lat. 2392 and 2447; Winchester, Winchester College 24 (cf. Kristeller, “Bartholomaeus,” 60).Google Scholar

46 The Old Latin Commentary is called an expositio in Karlsruhe CXX (s. IX), Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek 313 (s. X); Monte Cassino, V.97 (s. X); Montpellier 185 (s. XI); and Vatican City, BAV Reg. lat. 1809 (s. XII), and a commentum in Paris, BNF lat. 7021 (s. IX); Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale 75 (s. X); and Vatican City, BAV Barb. lat. 160 (s. XI). The expositio Aptalionis is also referred to as a commentum: Bern, Burgerbibliothek 232 (s. X), or expositio: Auxerre, Bibliothèque municipale 22 (s. XII); London, British Library Royal 12.E.XX (s. XII). See Kibre, , Hippocrates latinus, 34–40.Google Scholar

47 See Jeauneau, E., “Note sur l'École de Chartres,” 840–41.Google Scholar

48 See Jeauneau's, E. introduction to his edition of William's Glosae super Platonem (Paris, 1965), 16, and references cited in his n. 2.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., 17.Google Scholar

50 Wallis, , “Inventing Diagnosis” (n. 29 above), 45–46.Google Scholar

51 An early medieval commentary on De pulsibus survives as part of the Ravenna didactic text-corpus discussed below; however, it incorporates only fragmentary lemmata, not the complete text.Google Scholar

52 St. Gall Stiftsbibliothek 751 (s. IX2) (Beccaria, I codici [n. 31 above], 133) includes a brief treatise entitled “Ad pulsum tangendum” within bk. 4 of a compilation entitled Initia medicinae; Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 9–10 (s. XI ex. or XII in.; ibid., 2) and Zwickau, , Ratsschulbibliothek, (s. IX in.; ibid., 69) contain unascribed tracts.Google Scholar

53 Alexander, On, see Stoffregen, M., “Eine frühmittelalterliche lateinische Übersetzung des byzantinischen Puis- und Urintraktats des Alexandros” (PhD diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 1977). Ps.-Galen was first edited by Leisinger, H., Die lateinischen Harnschrift pseudo-Galens, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Medizin 2 (Züurich, 1925), and again by Keil, G. in his 1970 Freiburg im Breisgau Habilitationsschrift, “Die urognostische Praxis in vor- und frühsalernitanischer Zeit.” The latter, unfortunately, has not yet been published. Our thanks to Dr. Keil for providing a photocopy of the typescript.Google Scholar

54 For a fuller discussion of this phenomenon, see Wallis, F., “The Experience of the Book: Manuscripts, Texts, and the Role of Epistemology in Early Medieval Medicine,” in Knowledge and the Scholarly Medical Traditions, ed. Bates, D. G. (Cambridge, 1995), 101–26.Google Scholar

55 On the Aurelius-Esculapius corpus, see Rose's, V. edition of Theodorus Priscianus's Euporista (Leipzig, 1894), xii–xv. On the Herbarium-corpus: Baader, G., “Zur Überlieferung der lateinischen medizinischen Literatur des frühen Mittelalters,” Forschung, Praxis, Fortbildung 17 (1966): 139–41. On corpora of letter-tractates: Baader, G., “Lehrbrief und Kurztraktat in der medizinischen Wissenvermittlung des Früh- und Hochmittelalters,” in Wolf, N. R., ed., Wissenorganisierende und wissenvermittelnde Litteratur im Mittelalter, Wissensliteratur des Mittelalters 1 (Wiesbaden, 1987), 253–54, and Scherer, V., “Die Epistula de ratione ventris uel uiscerum. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Galenismus im frühen Mittelalter” (diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 1976). See also Beccaria, , I codici (n. 31 above), 31–42.Google Scholar

56 Iskandar, A. Z., “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian Medical Curriculum,” Medical History 20 (1976): 235–58.Google Scholar

57 It should be noted that the text of Galen's De pulsibus ad tirones was not available in the early Middle Ages. The commentary in the Milan codex contains only lemmata, not the full text.Google Scholar

58 Discussed by Beccaria, , “Sulle tracce II” (n. 31 above), 4–5, and by Vázquez Buján, M. E., “La antigua traducción latina del tratado ‘De natura humana’ dal ‘Corpus Hippocraticum,”’ Revue d'histoire des textes 12/13 (1982–83): 387–96. For a similar Hippocratic anthology from the early tenth century, written in Beneventan script, see Glasgow, , Hunter 404, which also includes the Old Latin Commentary on the Aphorismi. Google Scholar

59 For description and discussion of both these manuscripts see Beccaria, , “Sulle tracce II.” The Glasgow codex contains only the prologue of Aphorismi commentary. The De pulsibus in the Karlsruhe manuscript is the one ascribed to Soranus (inc.: “Quoniam frequenter plerique nescíentes”; see the edition by Rose, V., Anecdota graeca et graecolatina, 2 [Berlin, 1870], 275–80), and is not the same as the one in the Glasgow manuscript (inc.: “Plurimi non solum”).Google Scholar

60 Baader, G. and Keil, G., “Mittelalterliche Diagnostik: Ein Bericht,” in Medizinische Diagnostik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Habricht, C., Marguth, F., and Henning Wolf, J. (Munich, 1978), 124–29; Paxton, , “Signa morbifera” (n. 20 above), 638 n. 28.Google Scholar

61 Beccaria, I codici, 44. It should be noted that the text of the Aphorismi accompanied by a commentary, or the text of a commentary alone, can also appear in isolation. This is the case for the commentary in Bern, Burgerbibliothek 232 (s. X) (ibid., 122) — see remarks above re this commentary — and Brussels, Bibliothèque royale 3701–15 (s. XI) (ibid., 6), and for text with commentary in Paris, BNF lat. 7021 (s. IX med.) (ibid., 27), Vendôme, Bibliothèque municipale 172 (s. XI ex.) (ibid., 108), and Vatican City, BAV Vat. lat. 3426 (Kibre, , Hippocrates latinus [n. 34 above], 37).Google Scholar

62 Beccaria, , I codici, 73.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., 16.Google Scholar

64 London, BL Arundel 166, one of the two manuscripts containing the “De arte prolixa” commentary on the Aphorismi, also contains the Ps.-Galen Prognostica. Google Scholar

65 Ps.-Galen, Liber de urinis is the fusion of two uroscopic texts of the early Middle Ages, namely the later version of the text dubbed by Keil as the “Ps.-Galenic urine treatise” and the long version of the “Ps.-Galenic urine catalogue.” See Keil, , “Die urognostische Praxis” (n. 53 above), 34–36.Google Scholar

66 Beccaria, , I codici (n. 31 above), 126.Google Scholar

67 Ibid., 95.Google Scholar

68 For a summary of the issue, see García-Ballester's, L. introduction to Practical Medicine from Salerno to the Black Death, ed. García-Ballester, L., French, R., Arrizabalaga, J., and Cunningham, A. (Cambridge, 1994), 13–29.Google Scholar

69 Jacquart, Danielle, “Aristotelian Thought in Salerno,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy (n. 37 above), 412; Jordan, M. D., “Medicine as Science,” and idem, “The Construction of a Philosophical Medicine” (n. 27 above).Google Scholar

70 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus” (n. 27 above), 70.Google Scholar

71 Newton, F., “Constantine the African” (n. 28 above), 27–29, and Scriptorium and Library (n. 28 above), 263, described by Maurus Inguanez, D., Catalogus, 3 vols. (Monte Cassino, 1928–34), 2:263–64. Glaze, , “Perforated Wall” (n. 19 above), 186, draws attention to the twelfth-century catalogue of St. Angelo in Formis, which records what seems to be an isolated Isagoge. This is significant because St. Angelo in 1089 was granted control of St. Agatha in Aversa, the foundation Constantine himself had given to Monte Cassino on his entry into the monastic life.Google Scholar

72 Newton, , “Constantine the African,” 28–29; on Monte Cassino 97, see Beccaria, , I codici, 95.Google Scholar

73 Newton, , “Constantine the African,” 28; Scriptorium and Library, 263.Google Scholar

74 Newton, , “Constantine the African,” 38–39.Google Scholar

75 This has been pointed out in the critiques of Maurach's edition cited above, n. 29; see also Newton, , “Constantine the African,” 33.Google Scholar

76 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus,” 66.Google Scholar

77 “Thus the origin of the Articella still presents a number of unresolved problems, and the traditional view that links it with Constantine is subject to serious doubts and in need of much further investigation. Constantine probably translated Johannitius, but it is doubtful whether the two Hippocrates translations belong to him, and the other three pieces have nothing to do with him” (Kristeller, “Bartholomaeus,” 70).Google Scholar

78 Only one twelfth-century Articella MS contains the Ravenna translation of Aphorismi rather than the new one, namely Paris, BNF lat. 7029. In a way this exception proves the rule: copyists initially understood the Articella to be a template rather than a particular canonized ensemble of texts. Commentators on the Aphorismi also frequently alluded to the readings of the older translation, and as noted above, it had certain advantages over the new translation. It should be noted that O'Boyle's claim that the Articella in Paris, BNF lat. 7102 also contains the Ravenna translation is not correct, nor is his statement that the new translation gradually displaced the older one. See O'Boyle, The Art of Medicine, 104–5 n. 75. All twelfth-century MSS of the Articella apart from the Paris 7029 contain the new translation.Google Scholar

79 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus,” 72.Google Scholar

80 “Volentibus legere medicinam prius oportet legere Peri ereseon et sic ad Artem uenire et ad alias actiones” (Agnellus of Ravenna, Lectures on Galens De Sectis 8, ed. Seminar Classics 609 [State University of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Classics, 1981], 36).Google Scholar

81 Cadden, J., The Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1993), 68–69.Google Scholar

82 Alfanus's career is summarized by Creutz, R. in “Erzbischof Alfanus I., ein frühsalernitanischer Arzt,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens 16 (1929): 413–32; 17 (1930): 205–8; and idem, “Nachtrag zu Erzbischof Alfanus I,” ibid., 17 (1930): 205–8. See also Lentini, A., “Alfano,” Dizionario biografico degli italiani 2 (Rome, 1960), 253–57.Google Scholar

83 Bloch, , Montecassino in the Middle Ages (n. 38 above), 1:41, 53. Alfanus's poetry has been edited by Lentini, A. and Avagliano, F., I carmi di Alfano I arcivescovo di Salerno, Miscellanea cassinese 38 (Montecassino, 1974).Google Scholar

84 On evidence of Alfanus's medical training, see Creutz, , “Erzbischof Alfanus,” 415. Medical metaphors for religious themes can be found in his poem entitled Oratio seu confessio (ed. Lentini, and Avagliano, , I carmi di Alfano, 130, lines 109–17 and 131, lines 140–41), and he praises Salerno as a centre of the “medical art” in his poem addressed to Guido of Salerno (brother of Gisulf): 150, lines 21–22: see Acocella, N., “La figura e l'opera di Alfano I di Salerno,” Rassegna storia salernitana 19 (1958): 10.Google Scholar

85 Capparoni, P., Il “De quattuor humoribus corporis humani” di Alfano I Arcivescovo di Salerno (Rome, 1928). The De pulsibus has been edited twice, namely by Capparoni, P., Il “Tradatus de pulsibus” di Alfano Io arcivescovo di Salerno, s. XI: Trascrizione del codice 1024 della biblioteca dell'Arsenale di Parigi (da carta 16v a carta 18r) (Rome, 1936), and Creutz, R., “Der frühsalernitaner Alfanus und sein bislang unbekannter ‘Liber de pulsibus,”’ Sudhoffs Archiv 29 (1937): 57–83. Both editions are based on MS Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 1024, but Capparoni is more sanguine than Creutz that the text is substantially Alfanus's. In its present form, it is much closer to Gilles de Corbeil's famous work on pulses than to (for example) Philaretus. On Alfanus's medical output in general, see Wickersheimer, Ernest, “Note sur les oeuvres médicales d'Alphane, archevêque de Salerne,” Janus 34 (1930): 273–78; and idem, “Note sur les oeuvres médicales d'Alphane, archevêque de Salerne,” in Atti dell'VIII Congresso internazionale di Storia della medicina (Roma 1930) (Pisa, 1931), 108–11.Google Scholar

86 Robinson, J. A. and James, M. R., The Manuscripts of Westminster Abbey (Cambridge, 1909), 33.Google Scholar

87 James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (n. 24 above), 59. Brian Lawn points out that if this work is authentic, and if the manuscript at Canterbury was contemporary with Alfanus, Alfanus himself could have been the channel through which the older Graeco-Latin medical questions found their way into the compilation known as the Salernitan Questions. See The Salernitan Questions: An Introduction to the History of Medieval and Renaissance Problem Literature (Oxford, 1963), 19 and 37 n. 3.Google Scholar

88 Nemesii episcopi Premnon physicon … a N. Alfano … in latinum translatus , ed. Burkhard, C. (Leipzig, 1917). See also Baeumker, C., “Die Übersetzung des Alfanus von Nemesius,” Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 13 (1896): 1095–1102.Google Scholar

89 See Burkhard's introduction, v–vii. The manuscripts in question are Paris, BNF lat. 15078 (s. XI–XII); Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale 221 (s. XII ex.); and London, BL Cotton Galba E.IV (ca. 1161–1200), from Bury St. Edmund's, and which contains, or once contained, a number of works of “Salernitan” character. See Dales, R. C., “Anonymi de elementis: From a Twelfth-Century Collection of Scientific Works in British Museum MS Cotton Galba E. IV,” Isis 56 (1965): 174–75; idem, Marius: On the Elements; A Critical Edition and Translation (Berkeley, 1976), 7–10; and Rodney, M. Thomson, “Liber Marii de Elementis, The Work of a Hitherto Unknown Salernitan Master?” Viator 3 (1972): 179–84.Google Scholar

90 Silverstein, T., “Guillaume de Conches and Nemesius of Emesa: On the Sources of the ‘New Science’ of the Twelfth Century,” in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1965), 2:719–34.Google Scholar

91 Kristeller, , “Antichi commentatori dell'Articella” (n. 27 above), 148. In “Bartolomeus” (n. 27 above), 66–67, he seems to argue on circumstantial evidence that it was Alfanus himself who translated the Aphorismi. Google Scholar

92 Jacquart, , “Les traducteurs du XIe siècle” (n. 69 above), 422–23. Jacquart argues that this vocabulary draws on Vindicianus Afer's Epistola ad Pentadium, which was available at Monte Cassino (e.g., in MS 97) and even accompanies the Isagoge in its oldest manuscript, Monte Cassino 225.Google Scholar

93 For fel, see 4.22–24, 4.28 (the Ravenna translation uses colera) (n. 42 above). The Latin words for “liver” — iecur and epar — are in fact derived from the same Indo-Germanic root, but iecur is the established Latin form, and epar a transliteration of the Greek which appears in late Latin. The Articella translator consistently prefers epar and the Ravenna translation iecur (5.57, 6.42, 7.17).Google Scholar

94 Bloch, , Monte Cassino (n. 38 above), 1:100.Google Scholar

95 Alexanderson, B., Die hippokratische Schrift Prognostikon (Stockholm, 1963), 170–73. Jordan, , “Medicine as Science” (n. 27 above), 126, claims that both Hippocratic texts in the Articella were translated from the Arabic “perhaps by Constantine or his colleagues,” but the consensus at present is that the new Aphorismi translation was made from the Greek. While Kristeller accepted the Arabic origin of the Articella vulgate Prognostica text, he was less certain about Constantine's role, particularly since the translation of Galen's commentary on the Prognostica, possibly also by Constantine, is quite different (“Antichi commentatori dell'Articella” 145–46). Kristeller points out that Kibre's Hippocrates latinus omits some very early, twelfth-century MSS, and that the incipits cited for the prologue and the text actually come from two different translations, one (the Articella vulgate) from the Arabic (“Omnis qui medicine”), and another from the Greek (“Videtur mihi ut sit”) (ibid., 146). Peter the Deacon lists the Prognostica amongst Constantine's works (see Bloch, Monte Cassino, 1:129: Prognostica is no. 19 on the list), and Bloch regards it as the Articella vulgate translation (ibid., 1:133).Google Scholar

96 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus,” 69.Google Scholar

97 Baader, G., “Die Entwicklung der medizinischen Fachsprache im frühen Mittelalter,” in Medizin im mittelalterlichen Abendland (n. 27 above), 417–22, and “Early Medieval Latin Adaptations of Byzantine Medicine in Western Europe,” in Symposium on Byzantine Medicine , ed. Scarborough, J., Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38 (Washington, DC, 1984), 259. A detailed comparison of the language of the Latin Nemesius and the Articella's Philaretus and Theophilus would test this interesting suggestion.Google Scholar

98 Beccaria, , “Sulle tracce II” (n. 31 above); 55 nn. 2–3.Google Scholar

99 Ballester, , Practical Medicine (n. 68 above), 13–14.Google Scholar

100 Jacquart, , “À l'aube” (n. 40 above), 234.Google Scholar

101 Ibid., 234. Ps.-Soranus has been edited by Rose, V., Anecdota graeca et graeco-latina (n. 59 above), 2:243–74. See also Fischer, K.-D., “Beiträge zu den pseudosoranischen Quaestiones medicinales” in Text and Tradition: Studies in Ancient Medicine and Its Transmission Presented to Jutta Kollesch, ed. idem, Studies in Ancient Medicine 18 (Leiden, 1998), 1–54, and idem, “The ‘Isagoge’ of Pseudo-Soranus: An Analysis of the Contents of a Medieval Introduction to the Art of Medicine,” Medizinhistorisches Journal 35 (2000): 3–30.Google Scholar

102 For example, London BL Cotton Galba E. IV from Bury St. Edmunds (see n. 89 above).Google Scholar

103 Lawn, , Salernitan Questions (n. 87 above), 12.Google Scholar

104 The question and answer format of Hunayn's original text was restored in the new Latin translation made in the thirteenth century by Rufinus of Alexandria and Dominicus Marrocianus. Jordan, , “Medicine as Science,” 123.Google Scholar

105 Jacquart, , “À l'aube,” 231–32. Gracia, and Vidal, , “La ‘Isagoge’ de Ioannitius” (n. 29 above), 301–2, continue to argue for the Greek identity of “Joannitius” and a Greek original of the Isagoge. This is dismissed by Jordan, “Medicine as Science,” 125–26.Google Scholar

106 Jacquart, , “Le sens donné par Constantin l'Africain à son oeuvre: les chapitres introductifs en arabe et en latin,” in Constantine the African (n. 28 above), 72–76.Google Scholar

107 Strohmaier, G., “Constantine's Pseudo-Classical Terminology and Its Survival,” in Constantine the African, 90–98; Jacquart, , “À l'aube,” 231, points out a case of Constantine “showing off” by using a Greek term when an acceptable Latin one was available, which is redolent of the style of the Articella Aphorismi. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

108 Jacquart, D., “Les antécédants gréco-latins de 1'Isagoge Iohannitii,” in Tradición y innovación de la medicina latina de la Antigüedad y de la Alta Edad Media, ed. Vázquez-Buján, M. E. (Santiago de Compostella, 1994), 77–86, esp. 85 re the use of zotica as a synonym for “vital (spirit).” Google Scholar

109 The theme of the Greek nature of the new medicine is picked up early in the following century by Adelard of Bath, who with reference to medicine urges students to abandon “the schools of Gaul (Gallica studio)” for those of Greece. Adelard also claims to cite a nameless “Greek philosopher who, more than anything else, could talk about the art of medicine and the nature of things” whom he had met when traveling “from Salerno to Magna Graecia” ( De eodem et diverso , in Adelard of Bath: Conversations with His Nephew, ed. and trans Burnett, C., Cambridge Medieval Classics 9 [Cambridge, 1998], 70–71). The connection of Salerno to Greek learning, setting aside the question of the real existence of Adelard's “philosopher,” is significant, especially since Adelard likes to vaunt the superiority of Arabic learning: Jolivet, J., “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Philosophy (n. 37 above), 134.Google Scholar

110 Jacquart, , “À l'aube,” 214–15.Google Scholar

111 See Kibre, , Hippocrates Latinus (n. 34 above), 34–38. The manuscripts containing this prologue are: s. VIII: Bern 611; s. IX: Glasgow, Hunter 96 (T.4.13), Karlsruhe CXX, Paris, BNF 7027; s. X: Einsiedeln 313, Glasgow, Hunter 404 (V.3.2), Monte Cassino 97; s. XI: Vatican City, BAV Vat. lat. 3426, Vatican City, BAV Barb. lat. 160; s. XII: Escorial N.111.17, Paris, BNF lat. 7029. The prologue was edited from the Monte Cassino manuscript by De Renzi, S., Collectio salernitana 1 (Naples, 1852), 87–88, and by Flammini, Giuseppe, “Le strutture prefatorie del commento all'antica traduzione latine degli ‘Aforismi,”’ in Prefazioni, prologhi, proemi di opere tecnico-scientifiche latine , ed. Santini, C. and Scivoletto, N. (Rome, 1992), 2:579–616 at 591–92, from the Karlsruhe, Paris lat. 7027, Monte Cassino, and both Glasgow manuscripts.Google Scholar

112 Agnellus of Ravenna, Lectures on Galen's de Sectis (n. 80 above), 24–27; cf. Jacquart, , “À l'aube” (n. 40 above), 234.Google Scholar

113 Newton, F., Scriptorium and Library (n. 28 above), 245–47; cf. Glaze, , “Perforated Wall” (n. 19 above), 56 n. 82.Google Scholar

114 The parallels between the Medicina partitur prologue and the Isagoge are briefly pointed out by Jacquart, , “À l'aube,” 234, and idem, “Les traducteurs du XIe siècle” (n. 40 above), 424, and by Glaze, , “Perforated Wall,” 54–56, but not in the context of the historical circumstances of the formation of the Articella. See, however, Glaze's perceptive remarks at page 172 on Constantine's project as an acceleration of the reevaluation of medical thought and literature initiated by Gariopontus of Salerno and Alfanus.Google Scholar

115 Kristeller, , “Bartholomaeus” (n. 27 above), 66.Google Scholar

116 The fact that the Isagoge was an introduction to the Tegni was certainly known to the earliest commentators, such as the Digby glossator, who remarks that Galen composed “quendam librum qui Tegni id est ars intitulatur composuit. Sed quia liber iste tante difficultatis erat ut penitus a scolaribus dimitteretur, Iohannicius, Iohannis Alexandrini discipulus, hac de causa inductus has Ysagogas id est introductiones composuit, ut ad librum Galieni facilior esset adhitus” (Bodleian Library, Digby 108, fol. 4r). However, there are no Digby or Chartres commentaries on the Tegni. Google Scholar

117 For example, Edinburgh, National Library Advocates 18.3.13 (s. XIII) (Summary Catalogue of the Advocates Manuscripts [Edinburgh, 1971], 108, no. 1407, and 111, no. 1440). However, as the Aphorismi ends incomplete, it is possible the codex once contained other Articella texts. Cf. Edinburgh, University Library 163 (Bury St. Edmund's, s. XII) which contains only the Isagoge, Tegni, and Aphorismi. See n. 41 above.Google Scholar

118 For example, Cambridge, Peterhouse 247 pt. 3 (s. XII–XIII). See James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse (Cambridge, 1899), 300–302.Google Scholar

119 For a fuller discussion, see Wallis, F., “Signs and Senses: Diagnosis and Prognosis in Early Medieval Pulse and Urine Texts,” in The Year 1000: Medical Practice at the End of the First Millennium, ed. Horden, P. and Savage-Smith, E., Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 265–78.Google Scholar

120 See Wallis, , “Inventing Diagnosis” (n. 29 above), passim. As semiotica, one of the three branches of medical theory set forth in Galen's Tegni — body, sign, and cause — the Articella becomes an element in a potentially integrated program of medical knowledge. It is possible that early Salernitan anatomy, along with the theorica of the Pantegni, was designed to supply the element of “body.” Google Scholar

121 Newton, F., “Constantine the African” (n. 28 above), 39; Jacquart, , “À l'aube,” 235; idem, “Les traductions du XIe siècle,” 419.Google Scholar

122 Cameron, M. L., Anglo-Saxon Medicine (Cambridge, 1993), chaps. 8 and 11; The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de Quadrupedibus , ed. de Vriend, H. J., EETS 286 (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar

123 Talbot, , Medicine in Medieval England (n. 31 above), 46. For a similar assessment, see Dawtry, A. F., “The Modus medendi and the Benedictine Order in Anglo-Norman England,” in The Church and Healing, ed. Sheils, W. J. (Oxford, 1982), 25–37.Google Scholar

124 Gransden, A., “Baldwin, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 1065–1097,” Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1981): 65–76 at 65–66; Hermann the Archdeacon, De miraculis sancti Eadmundi, in Memorials of St. Edmunds Abbey , ed. Arnold, T., 3 vols., Rolls Series 96 (London, 1890–96), 1:26–92, especially 62–64; Lanfranc, Letter 44, The Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury , ed. and trans. Clover, H. V. and Gibson, M. T. (Oxford, 1979). The Bury medical manuscripts mentioned above all date from the later twelfth century.Google Scholar

125 Talbot, , Medicine in Medieval England, 46. On Faricius see Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon , ed. Stevenson, J., 2 vols., Rolls Series 2 (London, 1858), 1:44–47, and on the books copied for Abingdon, Appendix II, De abbatibus Abbendoniae, ibid., 289. See also William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, 3.88 (n. 17 above), 192.Google Scholar

126 Gameson, , Manuscripts of Early Norman England (n. 16 above), 39–41.Google Scholar

127 Ibid., 40.Google Scholar

128 Ibid., 5–6, 16.Google Scholar

129 Webber, , “Patristic Content” (n. 16 above), passim.Google Scholar

130 Omont, H., Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France: Départements, Tome I: Rouen (Paris, 1886), xxiii–xxv; Branch, B., “Inventories of the Library of Fécamp from the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Manuscripta 23 (1979): 159–72.Google Scholar

131 Omont, , Catalogue Général …, Tome II: Rouen (Paris, 1888), 379–99, entry 153 at 393.Google Scholar

132 Eadmer, , Historia novorum in Anglia, ed. Rule, M., Series, Rolls 81 (London, 1884), 96. For a biography of John see the note by Southern, R. W. in his edition and translation of Eadmer's Vita Anselmi, 106 n. 1.Google Scholar

133 Eadmer, , Historia novorum, 107–10. The account of the council occupies pp. 104–10. For the identification of the bishop as Roffridus see Falco of Benevento, Chronicon , ed. Muratori, L. A., RIS 5 (Milan, 1724) (s.a. 1107 – death of Roffridus, Archbishop of Benevento for thirty-one years).Google Scholar

134 Ortenberg, V., The English Church and the Continent in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries: Cultural, Spiritual and Artistic Exchanges (Oxford, 1992), 104–5.Google Scholar

135 Ibid., 104, 122–25.Google Scholar

136 Loud, G., The Age of Robert Guiscard (London, 2000), passim, quotation from 145.Google Scholar

137 Vitalis, Orderic, The Ecclesiastical History (n. 17 above), 2:100.Google Scholar

138 Eadmer, , Historia novorum, 11; Crispin, Milo, Vita Lanfranci, 11, ed. Gibson, M. T., in Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI, net IX centenario della morte (1089–1989) , ed. d'Onofrio, G. (Rome, 1993), 697.Google Scholar

139 Gibson, , Lanfranc (n. 9 above), 197.Google Scholar

140 Ibid., 103 and Cowdrey, , Lanfranc, 19–20.Google Scholar

141 On Lanfranc and Gregory VII see Cowdrey, H. E. J., “Lanfranc, the Papacy and the See of Canterbury,” in Lanfranco di Pavia, 439–500, summarized and revised in Cowdrey, Lanfranc, 197–205.Google Scholar

142 Anselm, , Letter 24 (3:131). Anselm of course had his own links with Rome, notably through his nephew, also named Anselm, who was abbot of the Greek-Latin monastery of St. Saba in Rome, and who later, as abbot of Rury St. Edmund's, was a keen promoter of Greek observances such as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Though he was active in building Bury's library, it should be noted that Newton's redating of MS Wellcome 801A to the mid-twelfth century (see n. 28 above) eliminates the possibility that the younger Anselm imported this Beneventan Articella into England, as suggested by McLachlan, , The Scriptorium of Bury St Edmund's (n. 41 above), 12–13.Google Scholar

143 Anselm, , Letter 43 (3:154–56).Google Scholar

144 See Peter Dronke's introduction to A History of Twelfth-Century Philosophy (n. 37 above), 2, and Wetherbee, W., “Philosophy, Cosmology and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” ibid., 25–27; Burnett, C., “Scientific Speculations,” ibid., 167–70; Bylebyl, J., “The Medical Meaning of Physica” in Renaissance Medical Learning: Evolution of a Tradition , ed. McVaugh, M. and Siraisi, N., Osiris, 2nd ser., 6 (1990), 16–41.Google Scholar

145 Jones, , “Aphorisms,” in Hippocrates 4 (n. 41 above), 107.Google Scholar

146 “Vult Yppocras requirere consuetudinem comesationis sanorum atque languentium ut possit congruam offerre dietam. Et dicit quod semel et iterum. Verbi gratia ut si quis quis solitus est comedere mane et sero, alius vero quater, alius uero sexies, alius uero decies, quomodo rustici. Multum aut minus, quod intelligitur quattuor modis, multum et rarius, multum et sepius, modicum et rarius, modicum et sepius, seruatis consuetis horis, diminutata tamen quantitate ciborum. Ecce pone aliquem laborantem causon aut synochum, qui non habens declinationem, isti si uolumus dare cibos, egritudinem addimus, et si non damus, virtutem minuimus. Et quid faciemus? Interrogemus quibus horis solitus est refici, et ipsis horis ilium reficiamus suptilibus cibis, quia natura cum operationibus suis requirit consuetudinem et conseruatur. Et quidem quinque res querende sunt in comesationibus, consuetudo, uirtus, digestio, copia ciborum, et modus comesationis. Vt uerbotenus, poma qui habet ad prandium comedi, non ante, sed post omnes cibos. Et quare ad cenam in primis comeduntur, ut acredinem preteritam temperent. Sic idem require tempus quo sit egritudo, estas aut hiems, regionem, calida aut frigida. etate, iuuenis an senex. Consuetudinem, ut diximus, quibus horis solitus erat refici. quia consuetudo secunda est natura. et natura obseruat consuetudinem” (Monte Cassino MS 97, p. 271b).Google Scholar

147 “In hoc modo dietandi, Ilo considerantur uirtus fortis uel debilis, corpus suscipiens id est bene uel male appetens. Que sic coniunguntur uirtus fortis et suscipiens corpus; uirtus fortis et corpus non suscipiens; uirtus debilis et corpus suscipiens; uirtus debilis et corpus non suscipiens. Propter uirtutem fortem uel debilem paruum uel multum est dandum corpori suscipienti uel non, frequenter uel tardius. Si ergo aliquis bene appetat et bene digerat id est haberat uirtutem digestiuam scilicet fortem et corpus suscipiens multum et frequenter detur, propter bonum appetitum frequenter, propter uirtutis fortitudinem multum. Si aliquis bene appetat et male digerat sepe et paruus, scilicet propter uirtutem debilem et corpus suscipiens. Si quis male appetat et bene digerat, id est haberat uirtutem fortem et corpus non suscipiens tarde et multum. Si quis male appetat et male digerat id est haberat uirtutem debilem et corpus non suscipiens, tarde et paruum. Hec ita diuersificantur ex diuersitate complexionis stomachi. Si enim fuerit calidus stomachus et humidus bene appetit et bene digerit. Si calidus et siccus male appetit et bene digerit. Si frigidus et siccus bene appetit et male digerit. Si frigidus et humidus male appetit et male digerit” (Digby 108, fol. 31v).Google Scholar

148 Digby commentary: Digby 108, fol. 31r; Chartres commentary: Erfurt, Amplon. F276, fol. 20va .Google Scholar

149 The danger that the profits to be gained from medical practice might infect medical education are underscored by the commentaries on Aphorismi 1.1 by Bartholomaeus of Salerno. Did not Hippocrates risk discouraging students by stating that “the art is long”? Bartholomaeus explains: “Ad quod dicimus quosdam ab arte profugos reddit, quorum scilicet intencio ad lucrum festinat, eos uero qui artem expetunt, non tantum propter aliud, quantum propter se studiosos ad artis longitudinem comprehendendam, et attentos reddit” (Winchester, Winchester College Library 24, fol. 109ra). This was a matter of broad concern in the twelfth century. See Bylebyl, J., “The Medical Meaning of Physica,” 39–40.Google Scholar

150 Murray, A., “Missionaries and Magic in Dark Age Europe,” in Debating the Middle Ages, ed. Little, L. K. and Rosenwein, B. H. (Oxford, 1998), 92–104, esp. 99.Google Scholar

151 Pressouyre, L., “Le cosmos platonicien de la cathédrale d'Anagni,” Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'École fran&çaise de Rome 78 (1966): 551–93; Smith, M. Q., “Anagni: An Example of Medieval Typological Decoration,” Papers of the British School at Rome 33 (1965): 1–47. The iconography at Anagni may be based on the chapter of Nemesius that deals with the elements, and that circulated separately in an anonymous translation as De elementis Galieni secundum Hippocratem. It is preserved in the twelfth-century Bury St. Edmund's codex British Library, Cotton Galba E. IV: Dales, R. C., “An Unnoticed Translation of the Chapter De elementis from Nemesius' De natura hominis,” Mediaevalia et humanistica, o.s., 17 (1966): 13–19. However, in Anagni the material has been recast into hexameters. See remarks by Nutton, V., “God, Galen and the Depaganization of Ancient Medicine,” in Religion and Medicine , ed. Biller, P. and Ziegler, J., York Studies in Medieval Theology 3 (York, 2001), 18.Google Scholar

152 Minuo-Paluello, L., “Jacobus Veneticus Grecus: Canonist and Translator of Aristotle,” Traditio 8 (1952): 292–94.Google Scholar

153 Nemesius, , Premnon physicon, chap. 22, ed. Burkhard, (n. 88 above), 106.Google Scholar

154 Alfanus's closing chapter on pulse (chap. 27, ed. Burkhard, , 146–47) presents the interconnectedness of brain/nerves, liver/veins, and heart/arteries as a corporeal trinity, perhaps even a corporeal “three orders,” in which each sustains and is sustained by the others. The pulse of the artery is given a special prominence, however, because it is active. Directed by “a certain harmony and measure which takes its motion from the heart,” the expanding pulse wrests blood cum violentia from the veins which it vaporizes to feed the vital spirit. When it contracts, the artery expels the fumes of this combustion, moving it through the invisible pores of the body until it is expired through the mouth and nostrils. Alfanus, as we mentioned earlier, had a special interest in the pulse and wrote a treatise on the subject. It should also be noted in passing that Alfanus omits chaps. 35–38 in the Greek original, which deal with fate and providence.Google Scholar

155 “Innascuntur autem malae passiones animae per tria haec: per malam educationem, per indisciplinationem, per malam habitudinem. Non enim bene educati a puero, ut possent abstinere a passionibus, ad immoderationem earum ceciderunt. Per indisciplinationem vero malae discretiones rationali parti animae innascuntur, ut existimentur mala bona esse et bona mala. Fiunt autem quaedam passiones etiam a mala corporis habitudine. Irascibiles namque sunt amaram habentes choleram et sufferentes calidi et humidi temperiem. Curandum est autem malum usum usu bono, indisciplinationem disciplina et studio. Malam vero habitudinem medicandum corporaliter permutantes earn, ut notum est, ad mediam temperiem congrua diaeta et exercitiis et pharmacis, si opus his habuerit” (Nemesius, , Premnon physicon, chap. 17, ed. Burkhard, [n. 88 above], 96–97). The translation is by Telfer, William, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (London, 1954), 351, with modifications to reflect Alfanus's Latin. It is interesting to note that Alfanus's translation quietly censors Nemesius's text of any reference to sexuality by effacing its observation that those with hot moist temperaments are lecherous. A passage similar to this one occurs in chap. 40 (ed. Burkhard, , 130).Google Scholar