120 CHARLESBURNEIT

divisionem, sic etiam anima quae incorporea est. [15] Sicut etiam lumen Solis quod incorporeum est separatur ab aere et ab omni in­telligentia oculorum sine corruptione, sic anima quae incorporea est separatur sine corruptione a corpore. [16] Emnoinos philosophus dicit: non est mirum animam quae substantia est incorporea posse separari a corpore cum ignis qui est substantia corporea possit separari a lignis quibus est iunctus et reverti in suam materiam sine sui corruptione. Itaque anima quae est substantia incorporea potest separari a corpore sine sui corruptione. Confert etiam similitudinem animae similitudini Solis. Sicut enim lumen Solis in omnibus illus­trandis exercet vim suam, nee indiget alia vi quam attrahat ad com­plementum prioris virtutis, sic et anima.

(11] Annonios A, Annonii G, Annonicis W, Ammonius b; Democritos A, Democritus

b; complures b; ille spiritus GWb; corporeus est] corporis A, est corporeus b; ipse

idem anima est GW, ipse est anima b; hac ratione] hac oratione G, ratione W; corpus

G, corporum W; findens Wb; se] W omits; corpori] corporis A; hinc] hoc W; acciden­

taliter W; capitis] corporis A; trahit spiritum necessario W; inesset) ibi esset W; alium)

aliud A [12] Prophirius quidem animam solum non considerat G, Porfirius non con­

siderat quidem animam b; sed considerat) W omits; et ideo ... illum spiritum]

ostendens spiritum hunc in /sagogis b; composuit] componunt W; ipsa anima W (13)

Theodros G, Theodoro W, Theodorus b; Platonicos A (after "Andronici"), Platonicis

G, Platonicus b; Andronicos A, Andronicis G, Andronicus b; Pcripatheticos A,

Peripateticis G, Pcripateticus b; Porphiricos A, Porfiris G, W omits, Porfirius b; com­

plures b; unanimiter] W omits; est] W omits; lege loci] loci GW; cum] AG omit; sua]

sui b; illuminet A; progrediens G; tamen] tantum G, tamen ut W; sua substantia] sub­

stantia W, substantia sua b; scissionem] seccionem A; patiatur W; et] sed W; illumi­

natur ... Solis] Sole illuminatur b; sic] sic et A; ab] b omits (14] Sicut ctiam] Et sicut b;

aer confert .. .lumen Solis] aer per Solis lumen primam omnium rerum confert oculis

intelligentiam b; corporis] corporum W; et (before "primam")] Gb omit; suae sapien­

tiae lumen Ab; sicut] sic A; complens] communis W; officium] effectum b; etiam] in

W, et b; incorporeal corporea G, b omits [15] a corpore sine corruptione substantie A

[16] Emopinios A, Emniomios W, Empemomos b; non est mirum ... est incorporeal

non esse mirum animam quae est substantia incorporea (corporea A) Ab, non est

mirum animam W; qui] que A; suam] primam et propriam b; materiam] naturam G; sui] W omits.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI, PRACTICA, BOOK VIII

Monica Green

In writing his magnum opus, the Kamil a$-$inii'a at-tibbiya ("The Whole Art of Medicine"), 'Ali: ibn al-'Abbas al-Magiisi declared his intention to subsume the entire medical art into a single grand work. He would replicate none of the errors of his predecessors, who wrote either too loquaciously or too briefly. Al-Magiisi con­structed the Kiimil a$-$ina'a in two major parts: one on the theo­retical aspects of medicine (physiology, anatomy and pathology), and one on its practical, therapeutic aspects. Each half was itself divided into ten parts.

Al-Magiisi's first Latin translator, Constantinus Africanus, ap­parently envisaged the Latin work along the same grand scale: now bestowed with a Greek name, "Pantegni" (i.e., n<f v + TEf XVTJ, "whole" +"art"), Constantine's text-both in one of the printed editions and in many manuscripts-likewise consists of two roughly equal parts, the Theorica and the Practica, each divided into ten books.l This would hardly be remarkable were it not for the fact that major portions of the second part-the Practica-in reality have nothing to do with al-Magiisl's original.

Inconsistent statements of two early biographers of Constantine

1 The Bascl 1536-9 edition (which Mark Jordan's essay in this volume suggests is the better text of Pantegni, Theorica) does not include the Pantegni, Practica. Hence, for the sake of consistency all citations from the Pantegni and the Viaticum in this essay refer to the texts as printed in Omnia opera Ysaac, Lyons, 1515, part 2. I recognize that many details about the generation of the Pantegni and other works in the Constantinian corpus cannot be detennincd conclusively until critical editions have been established. Nevertheless, my examination of several dozen manuscripts of the Pantegni and the Viaticum has convinced me that the Lyons edition is representative enough to be relied on for preliminary analysis of the history of the texts. Modern punctuation has been introduced and occasionally corrections have been added. Reference has also been made to the Arabic text of al-Magiisi, Kiimil a~-~inii'a in the BiiHiq edition (Cairo, 1294 A.H.), and Ibn al­Gazzar's Ziid al-musafir, Paris, BibliothCque nationale, ar. 2884. My deepest thanks to Chouki El Hamel for translating the relevant passages for me.

122 MONICA GREEN

already point to some confusion about the state of the Practica. Peter the Deacon, writing in the mid-twelfth century, lists twenty­three texts among Constantine's a:uvre, among them the "Pantegnus" and the "Practica", both of which he oddly describes as having not ten, but twelve books apiece.2 On the other hand, Magister Mathaeus F. (usually identified as Mathaeus Ferrarius, fl. mid-twelfth century),3 writing at approximately the same time, as­serts that major portions of the Practica were destroyed by water when Constantine's ship from North Africa encountered a violent storm off the Cape of Palinuro.4 Constantine was thus able to translate only three books of the Practica. A certain Pisan named Stephen (i.e., Stephen of Antioch) finished the translation, "which now is called the Practica of the Pantegnus and Stephen" ("quae nunc Practica Pantegni et Stephanonis dicitur"). Mathaeus goes on to mention Constantine's book of simples, the Liber graduum, and the Liber de stomacho which he made for Alfanus, archbishop of Salemo (1 058-85). Mathaeus ends with the intriguing statement:

Archbishop Alfanus for the completion of the Practica of the Pantegni wished to reimburse him [Constantinel for his expenses ("Archiepiscopus Alfanus pro integratione Practicae Pantegni ex­pensas ei errogare voluit").5

Although his biography is not nearly so fabulous as Peter the Deacon's story of thirty-nine years of travel to "Babilonia" and other exotic climes, Mathaeus's version has nevertheless been dis­puted on several points.6 The story of the storm itself may be a

2 Peter the Deacon, De viris illustribus, 23, as edited from Peter's autograph by Herbert Bloch, in Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1986, I, p. 128.

3 Kristeller points out that another Mathaeus Ferrarius, a judge, lived in the thirteenth century: P. 0. Kristeller, "The School of Salemo: Its Development and Its Contribution to the History of Learning", Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 17, 1945, pp. 138-94 (151).

4 According to V. Rose, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Xll: Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften, 11, 3, Berlin, 1905, p. 1060, Gerard of Berry's gloss on the Viaticum (probably c. 1220 or 1230) also refers to a "SchifJbrucke" which destroyed the Practica.

5 Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, MS Amplon. Oct. 62a, fols 49vb_5ora, edited R. Creutz, "Die Ehrenrettung Konstantins von Afrika", Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige, 49, 1931, pp. 25-44 (40-41) with fascimile after p. 26; cf. Kristeller (n. 3 above), p. 151.

6 M.-T. d 'Alvemy, "Translations and Translators", in Renaissance and

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 123

literary fiction, meant to intimate the similarity of Constantine's Mediterranean passage with the more famous journey from North Africa recounted in the Aeneid from which Cape Palinuro osten­sibly took its name.? Be that as it may, Magister Mathaeus's ac­count is nevertheless gaining new credence as Mary Wack demon­strates in her essay in this volume, where she describes the evolu­tion of Practica, Book II. Mathaeus does not specify which "three books" Constantine is supposed to have translated from the Practica, but early manuscripts suggest that they were Book I (also called De regimine sanitatis), the first part of Book II (De probanda medicina), and Book IX (Chirurgia), or at least its first half.S

Some of these manuscripts have Books I, II, and IX; some have only Books I and II.9 In fact, either group might support the in­terpretation that the Pantegni consisted of "twelve books". Some manuscripts count the books of the Practica in the same sequence as the Theorica. Paris, BN, lat. 6887-a copy with Books I and II only-marks the transition between Theorica, Book X and Practica, Book I as "Explicit X. Incipit XI".1° Some manuscripts, furthermore, run Practica, Books I and II together, with nothing to indicate a break. The end of Book II, consequently, is called the end of Book I and, in the Hildesheim manuscript, Book IX (on surgery) is called "Book II".ll Thus, if the copy Peter examined (hastily) had the Theorica with either of these two early forms of

Renewal in the Twelfth Century, eds R. L. Benson and G. Constable, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, pp. 421-62 (422), is particularly suspicious of this account.

7 Aeneid, Books V and VI on the drowning of Aeneas's oarsman Palinurus. My thanks for Francis Newton for bringing this possible allusion to my attention.

8 See, however, Professor Wack's essay in this volume regarding the possibility that the Liber de gradibus, not the Chirurgia, was considered the "third book".

9 MSS with Books I, II (De probanda medicina only), and the first part of IX (De chirurgia): Durham C.IV.4, Hildesheim 748, and British Library, Add. 22719. MSS with Books I and II (De probanda medicina) only: Munich Clm 9561, Paris BN 6887 and 7137. MSS with Books I and II (De probanda medicina), plus the De gradibus: Basel D.III.3, Rome, Casanatense 369, and Rome, Vallicelliana B. 48. Bamberg, med. 6 presents a special case; see Mary Wack's paper in this volume. For fmther details on these manuscripts see the Catalogue below.

10 Sec also London, Add. 22719; Naples VIII.D.39 (a copy of the complete Practica) begins Practica, Book II "Incipit duodecimus liber de simplici medi­cina".

11 In the Durham manuscript, a later hand has entitled the Chirurgia "Book III".

124 MONICA GREEN

the Practica, he would count a total of twelve books. Surmising (in fact, correctly) that the Pantegni consiste4 of two equal major parts, Peter would be led to assume (incorrectly) that both parts had twelve books. Whether or not he also had in front of him a ten-book Practica (whose books he failed to count) is another matter.

Constantine apparently completed only the first half of Book IX of the Practica on surgery, the rest being completed, according to one manuscript, by "Iohannes qui dam Agarenus quondam ... cum Rustico Pisano", according to another, by "quemdam Saracenum".12 Constantine is, however, credited with the compo­sition of an Antidotarium, which Peter the Deacon also lists as a text separate from the Pantegni, though it was ultimately to be in­corporated as "Book X" into the completed Practica.I3 If indeed these attributions are correct, this would give Constantine respon­sibility for all or part of four of the ten books of the Practica.

But how, then, do we account for the fact that in many manuscripts the Practica is complete, with ten, not four books­none of which are in any way dependent (as Mathaeus would have us believe) on the very different translation of Step hen of Antioch? Were Books III-VIII really lost or hopelessly damaged in the storm as Mathaeus implies?14 Definitive answers about Books III-VII must await future investigation.15 But as the follow-

12 See Rose, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse (n. 4 above), p. 1061; J. L. Pagel,

"Eine bisher unverOffentlichte lateinische Version der Chirurgie der Pantegni nach einer Handschrift der Konigl. Bibliothek zu Berlin", Archiv fur klinische Chirurgie, 81, 1906, pp. 735-86; and Constantine the African, Chirurgia, ed. and transl. M. T. Malato and L. Loria, Rome, 1960. On the problems with the refer­ence to "Rustico Pisano" see R. Creutz, "Der cassinese Johannes Afflacius Saracenus, ein Arzt aus 'Hochsalemo"', Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige, 48, n.s., 17, 1930, pp. 301-24 (307-8).

13 The question of the Antidotarium is even more complicated than this. See

Wack's essay in this volume. 14 Interestingly, Troupeau's study in this volume on the Arabic MSS in the

Bibliotheque nationale (none of which have all the books of the second part of the Kamil a~-~ina'a) raises the possibility that Constantine's copy never was complete. Nevertheless, as will become clear below, it is obvious that more of the Arabic Practica survived than Books I, II and IX alone.

15 See, however, the papers by Mary Wack and Enrique Montero Cartelle in this volume, which focus on the specific topics of lovesickness (Pantegni, Practica, V.25) and leprosy (Practica, V.l-5), respectively.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 125

ing analysis will show, Pantegni, Practica, Book VIII is in fact consistent with Mathaeus' s account of the storm, for the better part of it was indeed "lost". The text of Book VIII we actually find in the manuscripts has virtually no correspondence with al­Magusi's Kiimil a$-$inii<a, and is instead a reconstruction drawn from a variety of alternate, Latin sources.l6

This raises several questions. First is simply the mechanism of reconstruction. How did the person(s) who reconstructed Book VIII know what to put in it? Where did he find substitute sources? In what way did he adapt them to this novel use? How were they abbreviated, expanded, rearranged or otherwise altered to fit their new context? Do these alterations demonstrate identifiable patterns that can tell us anything about the reconstructor's theoretical or therapeutic assumptions? And then, of course, there is the question of the identity of the person(s) who completed the Practica. For the moment, I will refer to him simply as "the compiler".17

First is the question of how the compiler knew what to put in the re-created books. Clearly he had some master plan against which to reconstruct the missing parts, given the rational order of the book. The accompanying Concordance of Practica, Book Vill (Table I) will show, first, the fidelity of Stephen of Antioch's twelfth-century translation vis-a-vis 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas's original, and second, our compiler's deviation from it. Although there is no exact correspondence between the Arabic original and the Constantinian version in precise topics, the Latin Practica does nevertheless replicate the general range of topical headings of the original Book VIII: i.e., all the various diseases of the generative organs and the joints. The only topics of the Arabic original that have no match whatsoever in the Constantinian version are testicu-

16 The peculiar character of Practica, Books IV-VIII has been noted before. Rose suggested their derivation from the Viaticum and credited Johannes Afflacius with the compilation (Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse [n. 4 above], pp. 1060 and 1064). Both Creutz ("Johannes Afflacius", n. 12 above: see pp. 310-13), and Heinrich Schipperges (Die Assimilation der arabischen Medizin durch das lateinische Mittelalter, Wiesbaden, 1964, pp. 36-7), also grant Johannes responsi­bilit1' for the Practica, but offer no details about either his method or sources.

1 For the moment I will also assume that we are dealing with a single individ­ual. My use of the masculine pronoun reflects the probability that he was male; as with other aspects of the compiler's identity, this too cannot yet be proven with certainty.

126 MONICA GREEN

lar hernia, the uterine "mole", excoriations and pustules in the mouth of the uterus, and the final chapter "On the advice of pharmacists and their consultation," which obviously had been in­congruous even in the original.

Given the discrepancy in the number of chapters, however, and especially in their order, it seems unlikely that the Latin compiler had at his disposal even so much as a Table of Contents from the Arabic original. Yet he obviously had enough information to make a good guess about what Book VIII should contain. He had already been given a guide in Book IX of the Theorica,Is where chapters 40-3 recounted, respectively, diseases of the testicles, of the penis, of the womb, and of the breasts. The chapter on diseases of the womb was most explicit (and helpful) in providing a de­tailed list of conditions:

The diseases of the womb are [excessive] flow of the blood, ab­sence of menses, "dissolutio" [or "mollicies", abnormal fluxes in which one of the four humours may predominate], suffocation [caused by the womb], windiness, aposteme, tumors, the disease called "separatio" [a type of aposteme], "conclusio" [a hard ob­struction of the vagina], haemorrhoidal fissure, wounds of the womb, infertility, frequent miscarriage, and difficulty of birth.19

Other conditions mentioned in the same chapter are uterine pro­lapse ("descendere vulvam et foras exire") and "tortura vulve".

For the most part, Practica, Book VIII presents the same pathological range in the gynaecological and obstetrical chapters (VIII.lS-28, 30-3). The vague "tumors" mentioned in the Theorica seems to be represented here by the double chapter "De cancro matricis" (VIII.21) and "De apostemate melancholico ma­tricis" (VIII.22), while "difficulty of birth" is represented by "De laborantibus in partu" (VIII.32) and "De retentione secundine"

18 Indeed, he begins Practica, VIII.l with a direct allusion to Theorica, Book IX: "Quoniam in nona theorice particula passionem interiorum membrorum quadripartitam fecimus-idest animatorum, spiritualium, cibalium et genitalium: et curas simplices seu compositas ... "

19 Theorica, IX.42: "Passiones in matrice sunt sanguinis fluxus, ablatio mens­truorum, dissolutio, suffocatio, ventositas, apostema, tumores, passio que vocatur separatio, et conclusio, emorroys fissura, vulnera matricis, ablatio concipiendi, sepissima abortio, duricies parturiendi." Abnormal menstrual conditions were also described in Theorica, VI.35, De accidentibus in menstruis apparentibus.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 127

(VIll.33). Likewise for diseases of the penis the compiler took his cue from the Theorica, which listed priapism, apostemes, wounds, and obstruction of the seminal and urinary vessels, all of which are represented in the same order in the Practica.

But there are also some notable discrepancies. On the one hand, some conditions mentioned in the Theorica make no appearance in the Practica. The last two diseases of the penis mentioned by Constantine, "mollicies vasarum" and "spasmus", go unnoted in the Practica. Likewise, "mollicies testiculorum" is not mentioned.

On the other hand, there are diseases mentioned in the Practica which have no counterpart in Theorica, Book IX. Among diseases of the breasts, Constantine had mentioned only "mala complexio, apostemata et similia" and, more specifically, "hot apostemes" caused by coagulation of either blood or milk. He then went on to discuss the relationship between the engorgement of the breasts (or lack of it) with signs of impending miscarriage and with pain in the hips or knees and ophthalmia and diseases of the eyes. Yet in the Practica we find, in addition to a chapter on apostemes (VIII.34), one on fistulas and cancers of the breasts (VIll.36) and one on their excessive enlargement in both men and women (VIII.37). Other diseases not explicitly mentioned in Theorica, IX.40-43 are Practica, VIII.3 on contraceptives, and VIII.29 on impotence caused by magic.

Where did these additional categories come from? In some cases, which I will discuss in greater detail below, they are the compiler's own novel additions. Other categories are represented because the compiler found them in the principal text from which he reconstituted the Practica.

This source text was the one other Arabic encyclopedic text that Constantine had translated, lbn al-Gazzar's Ziid al-musiifir (the Latin Viaticum). When the compiler turned to the nineteen chap­ters of the Latin Viaticum, Book VI, also on diseases of the repro­ductive organs and the joints, he found a ready-made substitute for the missing Book VIII of the Practica. The compiler fully ex­ploited his source, for at least part of every one of these nineteen chapters appears in the reconstructed Practica (see Table 11). It was from the Viaticum, in fact, that several additional categories were added to the Practica. For example, although the pregnancy

128 MONICA GREEN

regimen (Viaticum, VI.15; Practica, VIII.30) certainly makes sense in the context of Practica, Book VIII, it was not in fact di­rectly predicated in Theorica IX.42. The latter chapter, which had a lot to say about conception, infertility, tests for pregnancy and the sex of the fetus, causes of miscarriage and difficulties of birth, said nothing about the normal discomforts of pregnancy. Viaticum, VI.15, with its information on the "pica" (craving for unusual foods), stomach upsets, pains in the groin and swelling of the feet, was a beneficial addition even though it partially repeated information already provided in Practica, 1.21 ("De regimine pregnantium"). Perhaps less justifiably, Practica, VIII.35, "De fetore ascellarum" ("On odour of the armpits"), makes its appear­ance not because of any relevance to the topic of reproductive dis­orders, but because it came along on the coat-tails of the chapter on apostemes in the breasts (Viaticum, 111.15-16). The inclusion of the chapter of the breasts in Practica, Book VIII does, nevertheless, point to the compiler's attentiveness to the structure of the Pantegni as a whole. Whereas in the Ziid al-musiifir lbn al­Gazzar had followed a strict head-to-toe order and placed diseases of the breast with those of the upper thorax (found in Book Ill), al-Magusi in the Kiimil a~-#nii'a placed them with diseases of the reproductive organs. The compiler dealt with this problem by simply borrowing from Viaticum, Book Ill, with the result, as we have just seen, of the additional importation of the chapter on odour of the armpits into Practica, Book VIII.

Now that he had reconstituted the approximate topical headings of the lost Book VIII, the compiler had to fill in its substance. The chief adaptation the compiler made to the material from the Viaticum was to excise its theoretical matter: nearly all of lbn al­Gazzar's discussions of symptomatology and etiology are sup­pressed. Here we begin to see more distinctly with what meticu­lous care the compiler re-created the Practica. This is no simple regurgitation of the Viaticum; the compiler's principal objective is clearly to reconstitute the Practica in such a way as to make it an integral part of the whole Pantegni. Since the theoretical aspects of most of these diseases had already been discussed in detail in the Theorica, there was no need to repeat that information here in the Practica.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 129

In the Viaticum, the theoretical material usually stood at the beginning of the chapter and was very easily excised. Sometimes, the theoretical discussion constituted more than half the chapter and its excision left very little remaining, as in the chapter on nocturnal emissions where the twenty-one lines of the Viaticum chapter (VI.4) have been reduced to five in the Practica (VIII.5).

One exception to this rule of complete excision of the theoreti­cal matter was Viaticum, VI.ll on uterine suffocation, which be­came Practica, VIII.18. Although the initial list of symptoms is suppressed, as are discussion of causes and types of women prone to the disease, the compiler chose to retain an intermediate section that recounted Galen's personal observation of an afflicted woman, in which his special technique for ascertaining whether the woman was still alive is described. Actually, the technique had already been described in Theorica, IX.42 (without mentioning Galen as its discoverer), but apparently the compiler thought it too important in diagnosing and treating the disease to risk omitting it from his summary of therapy. Moreover, because distinction of the causes was also of critical importance in treating the disease, the compiler went back and culled from the section on etiology in the Viaticum as the following comparison will show (italicized passages indicate literal borrowing):

Viaticum, Vl.11

Causa cuius passionis multitudo est spermatis vel corruptio sui. Hec contingunt quia diu remote fuerunt a virorum coniunctione; unde necesse est ut augmentetur sperma et corrumpatur et quasi venenum efficiatur.

Practica, VII1.18

Sed quia bee passio gravissima est et dure sunt eius cause, videlicet retentio spermatis et ablatio menstruorum,

(cont .... )

130 MONICA GREEN

Hoc plurimum vidue patiuntur, maxime prius maritate et parturientes sepissime. Similiter puelle patiuntur cum ad etatem veniunt neque cohabitent cum masculis. Sperma enim coadunatur in ipsis quod expellere si­cut et masculis necesse est. Hoc enim nature actio expetit cum mulier habere masculum non valeat: adunatur in ea sperma et ab ipso factus fumus ascendit ad diaphragma, quia diaphragma et vulva coniuncta sunt.20 Quia vero diaphragma coniunctum est cum gula et instrumentis vocis, suffocatio hie inde contingit. § Iterum hie morbus est ex menstruorum ablationibus. Nam si menstrua auferantur et sperma augmentetur multo plus peioratur et maxime in autumno et hyeme.

quorumfumus ascendit ad di­aphragma quod est coniunctum cum gula, et gula est instrumentum vocis.

The account in the Practica is obviously drastically abbreviated compared to its counterpart in the Viaticum; nevertheless, the gist of the etiological theory is the same: the disease arises either when the woman's seed is retained or when she lacks her menses. There were, apparently, two reasons why the compiler chose, against his accustomed fashion, to retain this small fragment of theory. First, the therapy that immediately follows this passage (to be discussed below) is differentiated according to cause; hence, some brief ex­planation of the different causes is necessary in this, the therapeu­tic half of the Pantegni. There was no need to repeat all the de­tails, however, since Theorica, IX.42 had already explained more fully the different categories of women most subject to suffocation as well as other aspects of symptomatology. The passage that fol­lows, however, which was retained from the Viaticum nearly ver­batim, had no parallel in Theorica, IX.42 nor was it necessary for understanding the Practica's therapy. Rather, it seems that the compiler included it because it added an important detail to the cumulative description of the disease of suffocatio matricis in the Pantegni. In the theoretical part of the Kiimil a$-$ina<a al-Magusi: never explained the precise mechanism by which the corrupted seed or menses in the uterus affected the organs of speech.21 On

20 The phrase "quia diaphragma et vulva coniuncta sunt" is retained in Practica, VIII.18 in some manuscripts, e.g., Paris, BN, lat. 6886.

21 He said only in general terms that the corrupted seed or menses extinguished

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 131

the other hand, Ibn al-Gazzar's account (as interpreted by Constantine), explained how the fumes rising from the womb as­cended to the diaphragm, whose pressure on the respiratory or­gans, to which it was connected, produced the symptoms of suffo­cation, loss of speech, etc. As we shall see more clearly in a mo­ment, this complementary (if therapeutically gratuitous) addition is another example of the compiler's attentiveness to the precepts of both his source text and the whole Pantegni.

So much for what the compiler left out. Having now pared down the Viaticum chapters to their therapeutic essentials, the compiler then adapted them to their new setting in the Pantegni. For the most part, the borrowings from the Viaticum are literal, the material usually being lifted verbatim and set into the Practica without further alteration. In two cases the compiler repositioned sections of the text. In the chapter on regimen for pregnancy (Viaticum, VI.l5; Practica, VIII.30), he rearranged the material in what he deemed was a more logical manner. Whereas in the Viaticum the discussion of foods and the treatment of digestive disorders was interrupted by recommendations for approaching labor and for treatment of swelling of the legs, in the Practica the latter are instead placed near the end of the chapter. The compiler also eliminated a final remedy for difficult birth, which he resitu­ated in a more logical position in Practica VIII.32 which was de­voted exclusively to that topic. It is more difficult, however, to see the logic in the compiler's repositioning of the material from Viaticum, VI.6 on apostemes of the testicles, which he split be­tween two different chapters of the Practica (VIII.6, De apostem­ate testiculorum, and VIII.l3, De vulneribus virge).

Although it did indeed prove to be a rich source, the Viaticum was not without its limitations. Ibn al-Gazzar was, after all, writ­ing a handbook to be small enough to be carried by the traveller on his journeys or to serve as a quick reference-book for the city dweller. Compared to 'All ibn al-'Abbas's exhaustive treatment of

the natural heat of the womb (Part I, IX.39, Biilaq ed., I, p. 385). See also A. A. Gewargis, "Gynakologischcs aus dcm Kamil aNina'a a[-[ibbiya des 'Ali ibn al­'Abbas al-Magiisi: Die Abschnitte iiber Anatomic, Pathologie und konservative Therapie des nichtschwangeren Uterus", inaugural dissertation, Erlangen­Niimbcrg, 1980, pp. 44-5. Constantinc's translation in Theorica, IX.42 was essen-tially faithful.

132 MONICA GREEN

thirty-four different disorders of the reproductive organs and joints, Ibn al-Gazzar devoted only twenty chapters to the same general topic in Book VI of the Ziid al-musiifir-and only nine­teen of these had been translated into the Latin Viaticum by Constantine.22 Thus, even after a comprehensive exploitation of the Viaticum there were still many diseases as yet undiscussed or, in the compiler's opinion, incompletely discussed. So he turned to other sources.

The first of these was J ohannes Afflacius' s Liber aureus. The third part of what (according to Creutz) was originally a three- or four-part treatise, the Liber aureus is a survey of general pathol­ogy arranged in seventy chapters in head-to-toe order.23 The Liber aureus actually had little to offer on the subject of androlog­ical and gynaecological diseases, devoting only seven chapters to the reproductive organs. Of these, the compiler borrowed from three. Practica, VITI.28, De sterilitate (which has no parallel in the Viaticum), is a nearly verbatim repetition of Liber aureus, 43, De conceptione. The only substantive omission is the opening section of some dozen lines describing the bodily conditions favourable or unfavourable to conception. Practica, VIII.31, De abortivis (i.e., on spontaneous miscarriage), is virtually identical to Liber aureus, 51, De lubrico foetu-which, remarkably, is itself virtually iden­tical to Kiimil a$-$ina<a, Part II, VIII.25!24 Practica, VIII.32 and 33 (on difficult birth and retention of the afterbirth, respectively) both take at least half of their content from their corresponding chapters in the Viaticum. But the compiler apparently deemed them inadequate, for he added to each the first and latter half, re­spectively, of Liber aureus, 44.

Practica, VIII.33 has one additional feature which derives from

22 On the omiSSIOn of the chapter on abortifacients, see M. H. Green, "Constantinus Africanus and the Conflict Between Religion and Science", in The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions, ed. G. Dunstan, Exeter, 1990, pp. 47-69.

23 Ed. in Opera Constantini, Base!, 1536-9, I, pp. 168-207. The Liber aureus is alternately attributed in the manuscripts to Johannes Afflacius and Constantine himself: see Creutz, "Johannes Afflacius" (n. 12 above), p. 310. Schipperges (n. 16 above), p. 50, suggests that the Liber aureus has some (unspecified) relation to the Kamil as-sina'a.

24 Cf. Buiaq ed., 11, pp. 437-8. This chapter clearly points to the need for a better understanding of the genesis of the Liber aureus.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGN/ PRACTICA VIII 133

neither the Viaticum nor the Liber aureus. Since it is typical of the next characteristic of the compiler's methodology, this chapter merits further analysis. It can be broken down into the following

component parts:

Practica, VIII.33, De retentione sec undine

Postquam iam peperit, si se­cundina non exierit, in ea expellenda oportet festinari cum sternutatione tenendo os et nares, cinerem quoque infusum aqua et post cola­turn cum drachma .i. seminis malve pulverizati demus ad bibendum, et post vomere faciamus.

Similiter crocum pulverizatum demus cum aqua calida et vomere co­gatur. Item valent ad emit­tendum sanguinem post partum remanentem et se­cundinam fumigationes oculorum piscium salsorum vel de ungulis equorum vel de stercore canino sive cum cicuta vel sinapi.

Fiat sternutatio cum helle­boro albo vel nigro. Dandum est apozima ciceris nigri et savine et fenugreci cum drachma .i. galbani. Fumigentur cum myrrha et galbano.

Sources or references

(text omitted from Practica, VIII.33 is in italics)

= Viaticum, Vl.17, De exitu se­cundine: Postquam mulier peperit si secundina remanserit, in ea expellenda oportet fes­tinare cum sternutatione tenendo os et nares, cinerem quoque aqua infusum et postea colatum cum drachma .i. pulverizati seminis malve de­mus ad bibendum cum aqua calida et post vomere faciamus. Similiter crocum pulverizatum demus cum aqua calida et vomere cogatur. Item valent ad emittendum secundinam et sanguinem a partu remanentem fumigationes vulve cum oculis salsorum piscium vel ungulis equorum vel stercore canino, sive cum cicuta, sive sinapi.

= Liber aureus, 44, De partu duro (second half): Secundina si non exierit, sternutatio fiat cum ellebero albo et nigro. Da apozema savinae, phaseoli, et ciceris nigri ( enim in printed edition) et foenugraeci cum drachma .i. galbani. Fumigetur cum myrrha, galbano, vel cum oculis salsorum piscium vel cum stercore canino vel catino.

134 MONICA GREEN

Antidotum ad duriciem par­tus quod Galienus ad mor­sum scorpionis et aranee valere dicit. Recipe piperis albi grana .xxx., myrrhe, ca­storei, storaci ana drach­mam .i. et semis.

Fac pulverem. Tempera cum vino. Da bibere drachmam .i. cum aqua decoctionis calamenti.

Si sanguis postpartum non exierit, medicemus cum medicina menstrua provo­cante.

De parturientis et infantis custodia in prima parte practice sufficienter dis­putavimus.

= Viaticum VI.l5, De diet a pregnantium (end): Aliud valens ad duritiem partus quod Galienus ad morsum aranee scorpionisque que sunt ve­nenosa dixit valere. Recipe piperis albi grana .xxx., myrrhe, castorei, storaci ana drachmam .i. et semis, opii drachmas .iii., galbani, seminis apii, ameos, anisi, sisameleos ana drach­mas .iiii. et semis. Fac pulverem. Tempera cum vino. Da bibere drachmam .i. semis cum .ix. scrupulis vini.

= Viaticum, VI.17, De exitu se­c undine: Si sanguis post par­turn non exierit, medicetur cum medicina provocante menstrua.

Refers to Practica, 1.20-1 (De regimento infantium and De regimine pregnantium), and perhaps also 1.18 (De mulieribus parvas vulvas habentibus).

Viaticum, VI.17, unlike most other source chapters in the Viaticum, had no theoretical material and it is reproduced in full, although the final sentence is set apart. In between, the compiler inserted the latter half of Liber aureus, 44, notably eliminating the final references to eyes of salt-water fish and dog or cat dung be­cause these had already been included in the excerpt from the Viaticum. The compiler then went back to a compound remedy given at the end of Viaticum, VI.15, which he had previously skipped over, and included it here. Again, we see the care with which the compiler worked, for this prescription for difficult birth was in fact out of place in its original position with the regimen for pregnancy. Then the compiler returned to the last sentence of Viaticum, VI.17 and, finally, concluded with a refer­ence back to Book I of the Practica for the reader desiring further information on childbirth and the care of the infant.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 135

Now we see the compiler displaying his impressive command of the whole text of the Pantegni, for we find many such cross­references throughout the re-created Book Vffi (see Table Il). Some of these are internal to Book VIII-i.e., they are references to immediately preceding or succeeding chapters. Thus, for ex­ample, in VIII.2 on failure to generate, substances to coagulate the seed are prescribed "as we are going to discuss in [the chapter on] suffocation of the womb" (VIII.18).

Far more intriguing for the light they shed on the re-creation of the Practica, however, are the several cross-references to other books or particulae of the Pantegni. Thus we find several refer­ences to the first particula (Book I) of the Practica (VIII.3, 19, 30, 33, 37), one to the De dynamidibus in Book II (VIII.38), one to the Chirurgia (VIII.37) and three to the Antidotarium (VIII.15, 21, 22). Cross-references to material in Practica, Books Ill (VIII.21), V (VIII.38), VI (VIII.18, 27) and VII (VIII.14, 19, 25, 38) also occur.

Only one of these cross-references (the internal cross-reference in Practica, VIII.5, on nocturnal emissions, to Practica, VIII.11 on satyriasis) replicates a reference original to the Viaticum (VI.4), though even here the compiler intruded into the text by of­fering a synonym for satyriasis different from the one used in the Viaticum.25 All the rest are found either in passages that are ad­denda to material from the Viaticum (Practica, VIII.l5, 18, 27, 30, 33 and 38) or in chapters that have no source at all in Ibn al­Gazzar (Practica, VIII.2, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 37 and 39). These are thus all the work of the compiler, who is fastidiously trying to integrate his new material into the Pantegni as a whole.

The cross-references in fact point to the Pantegni itself as the third source from which the compiler re-created Practica, Book VIII. In what might be called a sort of textual cannibalism, the

25 Whereas the cross-reference to the chapter on priapism in Viaticum, VI.4 read "sicut diximus in sepe erigentibus" (i.e., Viaticum, VI.2 where the proffered synonym was "porgesmos"), in Practica, VIII.5 it reads "sicut dicturi sumus in propria passione: que manasisines dicitur: idest sepe erigentibus". "Porgesmos" is a transliteration of the Arabic "f.rismus" (Ziid al-musafir, Paris, BN, ar. 2884, fol. 218v) which in turn is a corruption of a transliteration of the Greek term rrp~a­mO"iJ.O~. I have not been able to determine where the term "manasisines" origi­nates.

136 MONICA GREEN

compiler, by means of the cross-references as well as more sub­stantive repetitions or paraphrases of text, exploited the whole of the Pantegni to fill out the substance of Practica, Book VIII. A striking example of this is found in the chapter on suffocatio ma­tricis (Practica, Vlll.18), which, as we have already seen, was un­usual for its retention of part of the theoretical explanation from the Viaticum. Immediately after the explanation of causality quoted above, the Practica chapter deviates completely from the Viaticum, adding the following passage:

Unde hec passio fit cum sincopi, medicetur sicut in ilia passione diximus. Si enim hec passio fit ex ablatione menstruorum, demus parum de diamarte; caveant ab oximelle, quia vulva nervosa est et oximel nervis nocet et acetum similiter. Quod si vulva erga aliquod latus distorqueatur vel sursum vel inferius, medicetur sicut in trac­tatu de sincopi diximus. Quod si hec passio sepissime contingat, demus de diaspermaton drachmas .ii. et semis de diambra, <et> de resechenete, quia multum valent his passionibus.

This addition is notable in several respects. First, all elements of the addition, both therapeutic and theoretical, are consistent with the Pantegni as a whole. The first remedy to be given if suf­focation occurs from absence of menstrual flow is a little bit of the compound medicine "diamarta". In the Antidotarium (Practica, X.21), "diamarta" is recommended for constipation of the liver and spleen and for provoking the menses when they fail to flow because of coldness of the womb. Neither of two mentions of "diaspermaton" in the Antidotarium (X.21 and 38) refer to its special efficacy in uterine conditions (only digestive disorders are mentioned),26 though it does seem to have a special ability to dis­sipate gassiness. "Diambra" is good for, among other things, "passio matricis" (Practica, X.30), while "resechenete valet epilepsie paralysi et colice spasmo, menstruatis, pregnantibus et suffocationibus matricis, aborsui, et mulieri ex ventositate mur­muranti" (Practica, X.19). The anatomical and physiological de­tails also agree with the Pantegni. The statement that the womb is

26 There is, however, a "trociscus Galieni diaspennaton" (Practica, X.37) which is effective "ad fluxum ventris propter viscerum defectionem, ad vulnerata quoque intestina tortam ventris aut indigestionem, tenasmonem et fluxum ventris, et matricis".

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 137

full of nerves agrees with the description of the anatomy of the womb in Theorica, III.34: "Vulvae [se. matricis] substantia est nervosa, ut in conceptu posset undique extendi, et tunc maxime cum fetus inciperet maiorari". As for the condition of vertical or lateral twisting of the womb, Theorica, IX.42 had referred to the womb being drawn upward and then, as the crisis subsided, de­scending again "ad inferiora".

The addition to Practica, VITI.18 is also notable because it ar­ticulates the relationship between uterine suffocation and syncope (loss of consciousness), twice referring the reader to the discus­sion of syncope for further information on treatment. Hints of a connection between syncope and suffocation are found in Theorica, IX.42 where the etiological description of uterine suffo­cation was provided. Here al-Magusi-and Constantine following him-had listed several grave diseases that were often consequent to suffocatio: cephalea, apoplexia, epilepsia, and defectio.

In Theorica, IX.25, in turn, on diseases of the heart, defectio as it occurs in cases of suffocatio matricis is described as being "born from the corruptions and mortifications of certain mem­bers" from which a fumus frigidus then rises to the heart.27 This last detail now explains why the compiler, against his custom, chose to retain the theoretical information from lbn al-Gazzar' s Viaticum, VI.ll regarding the fumus, for he recognized a con­nection between al-Magusi's fumus frigidus that causes syncope and lbn al-Gazzar' s fumus that causes uterine suffocation. All the elements of this added passage in Practica, VIII.l8 are thus fully consistent with the theoretical and therapeutic precepts of the Pantegni as a whole.

This should hardly be surprising, however, for this added pas­sage is the only part of Practica, VIII that derives from al­Magusi' s original. Here we need to look back at the earlier chapter in the Practica on syncope-VI.15, De sincopi et eius cura:28

27 Theorica, IX.25: "Item in suffocatione matricis defectio nascitur ex corrup­tionibus quorumdam membrorum et eorum mortificationibus, et postea fumus ad cor ascendit frigidus, et defectio cordis nascitur, et inde subitanea mors nascitur''.

28 There are actually two chapters on syncope. Practica, III.26, De sincopi et eius cura, describes syncope as a "cordis defectio et totius virtutis in se coadunatio et fumosa emissionis ablatio". The Viaticum chapter on syncope (III.l4) begins similarly: "Sincopis est absolute defectio cordis et coadunatio totius sue virtutis in

138 MONICA GREEN

Preterea sincopis que ex matricis suffocatione sit curetur sicut pas­sio de plenitudine. Aqua facies aspergatur, extremitates ligentur et fricentur. Mel cum ysopo et calamento detur, et cum origano et ameos et ceteris subtiliantibus; et dabis etiam parum diambre vel socrugene et muscatam, diamartam et similia. Dandum quoque vinum cum oleis calidis sicut sambuceleon, costileon, nardileon, ut dicturi sumus in cura illius passionis. Non dabis oximel, quia vulve sunt nervose; oximel autem nocet nervis et acetum. Ventose quoque apponantur. Quod si vulva erga aliquod latus torquatur, ventosa in coxa altera applicetur. Si autem sursum ascenderit, res horribilis naribus applicetur sicut oppoponacum, galbanum et si­milia, vulve autem odorifera, quia ad res odoriferas movetur et fugatur a fetentibus.

Practica, VI.15, even while giving ample therapeutic details it­self, nevertheless leads the reader to expect a fuller discussion of the therapy for suffocatio in the upcoming chapter devoted specifically to that disease ("ut dicturi sumus in cura illius passio­nis"). Yet, aside from its precise references to "diaspermaton" and "resechenete" in its final sentence-the novel (i.e., non-Viaticum) passage in Practica, VIII.l8 quoted earlier-rather than adding to the discussion of syncope already given in Practica, VI.15, it is instead simply derivative of it: it does nothing more than repeat the warning about oximel and modify the statement about the uterus's motions (adding that it can move upward or downward as well as laterally). The promise in Book VI of a fuller therapy for suffocatio to come later goes unfulfilled. Why, then, did the compiler of Book VIII privilege Practica, VI.15-directing the reader by his cross-references not once but twice to the earlier chapter-when this could only underscore the poverty of his own account? As will be clear now, Practica, VIII.l8 really has noth­ing new to add to the precise therapeutic detail of Practica, VI.l5. Why did the compiler repeat the passage, then, when he could have simply offered a succinct cross-reference? Undoubtedly it was because he recognized that Practica, VI.15 offered something he could never hope to replicate on his own: the authentic work of al-MagiisL For Practica, VI.15 is in fact a direct translation of

se atque ablatio fumi sui expellendi. Impossibile est esse sincopim sine passione cordis". Practica, III.26 refers to syncope's causes in inanition and repletion in other organs, but says nothing about the relationship between syncope and dis­eases of the womb.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 139

Kamil a~-#nii'a, Part IT, VI.18, not a reconstruction made from the Viaticum or other sources.29 Clearly, larger portions of al­Magiisi's original text survived Constantine's passage to Italy than the three books mentioned by Master Mathaeus. Whether or not the compiler translated these authentic passages himself, he must have realized that they offered the key to what the lost text must have looked like. The compiler knew, in other words, that Practica, VIII.18 on uterine suffocation should have had some­thing to say on syncope. Finding nothing on it in the Viaticum and knowing that Practica, VI.15 offered the authentic opinion of al­Magiisi, he chose to repeat the instructions already clearly laid out in Practica, VI.15. Only then was the compiler satisfied that he had adequately reconstituted all the elements of al-Magusi's lost chapter on uterine suffocation.

A fuller analysis may bring to light further borrowings from other books of the Pantegni, especially in the chapters that have no source in the Viaticum. In general, the compiler's preferred tech­nique for constructing new chapters was to draw analogies, often then referring the reader to the discussion of these analogous conditions elsewhere in the Practica for more specific informa­tion. Thus, in VITI.12, De apostemate virge, the compiler says that apostemes in the penis are cured like apostemes elsewhere in the body. He then distinguishes between the different humoral causes in the simple, brief list of remedies he provides.

Even more briefly, the chapter on obstruction or constriction of the penis (VIII.14) says simply that it is cured by the medicines and foods already prescribed for strangury and diseases of the kidneys and bladder described in Practica, Book VII. Apparently the compiler considered these previous discussions adequate, for he adds no therapeutic details whatsoever.

Ibn al-Gazzar's (and Constantine's) Viaticum, Johannes Afflacius's Liber aureus, and the Pantegni itself all were put to very good, even exhaustive, use by the compiler. His fourth source for the re-creation of Book VITI was a medical tradition external to the formal medicine of Constantine's and Johannes's

29 Cf. Biilaq ed., Il, pp. 329-32. This (Constantinian?) translation has no rela­tion to that of Stephen of Antioch; cf. Liber regalis (1523 ed.), fols 236va_z37va.

140 MONICA GREEN

Arabic sources. This "popular medicine", which departs from the therapies of other chapters-based on the trifold ancient division of diet, surgery, and simple and compound drugs-in favour of a more associative, sometimes even magical, tradition is found in three chapters, VII1.2, 3, and 29.

In Practica, VIII.2 and 3, on promoting and inhibiting concep­tion, respectively, the compiler recommends the use of amulets and magical charms, which are nowhere else prescribed in Book VIII. Chapter VIII.2, De ablatione generandi, begins by distin­guishing the different qualitative abnormalities of the humours that cause sterility. These are to be treated by remedies dictated by the theory of "contraria contrariis curantur". But from the start the compiler abandons the precisely detailed simple and compound remedies that characterize the chapters of Book VIII and that de­rive ultimately from Arabic sources. He turns instead to a tradi­tional Latin source, the Liber medicinae ex animalibus of Sextus Placitus.JO The rennet of hares, the brains or fat of cranes, and several animal's "stones" are recommended, including one that comes from an animal called "ofimus" (or "osimus"?).Jl While saying its name, it is to be taken either in food or drink, or tied to the right arm of the man or woman before coitus. The chapter concludes by returning to humoral theory to explain the treatment of bad complexion of the testicles.

Chapter VIII.3, De generare nolentibus, begins by explaining why contraceptives are sometimes needed, referring back to Practica, 1.31 for validation of the argument that a subsequent pregnancy is harmful to nursing women. This chapter, too, draws on Sextus Placitus. Here four different amulets are described which, suspended from the woman's arm, will prevent conception.

Chapter VIII.29 is likewise concerned with problems of gen­eration, in this case with men who, impeded by magic, are unable to cohabit with their wives. Although a man so afflicted should

30 Ed. E. Howald and H. E. Sigerist in Antonii Musae de herba vettonica liber, Pseudoapulei herbarius, Anonymi de taxone liber, Sexti Placiti liber medicinae ex animalibus, etc., Corpus Medicorum Latinorum, 4, Leipzig, 1927.

31 Manuscript readings vary: Vatican, Vat. lat. 2455 has "osemus"; Pal. lat. 1159 has "obscimus". I find none of these forms in either Sextus Placitus or C. Opsomer, Index de la pharmacopee du /er au Xe siecle, 2 vols. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York, 1989.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 141

ideally simply put his trust in God, human as well as divine mea­sures are sometimes necessary to cure the various types of male­ficia. Since the condition is caused by magic, magical means are necessary to cure it. These are listed in considerable detail. Only after all these possibilities are exhausted does the compiler men­tion impotence caused by the man's own grave sins, which must be counteracted by making confession to a priest or bishop, who in turn should give the man a written charm. Two passages, on the uses of the bile and blood of dogs in protecting the home, derive from Sextus Placitus. The other sources of VIII.29 have not yet been identified, but this chapter is in no way untypical of the types of theological concerns with impotence current in the twelfth century.32

These last two chapters are particularly interesting because they are the only chapters whose presence here in Practica, Book VIII is not predicated on any discussion in Theorica, IX.40-3 which listed the afflictions of the reproductive organs. Nor do they owe anything to the Viaticum, which mentioned nothing about impo­tence caused by magic and whose chapter on abortifacients and contraceptives had, apparently, been suppressed by Cons tan tine or someone close to him at Monte Cassino. I have discussed else­where the diverging stances these two chapters take toward Christian orthodoxy, the one defying the Christian prohibition against contraceptives, the other employing explicitly religious methods of cure.33 Interestingly, both chapters also use a gram­matical construction found nowhere else in Book VIII. In attempt­ing to justify the inclusion of this material, the compiler writes in VIII.3 on women who for reasons of their own or their nursing infant's health should not conceive, "de quibus nolumus librum nostrum denudare"; in VIII.29 on impotent men he writes "de quorum suffragio librum nostrum nolumus denudare".

32 G. Hoffmann, "Beitrlige zur Lehre von der durch Zauber verursachten Krankheit und ihrer Behandlung in der Medizin des Mittelalters", Janus, 37, 1933, pp. 129-44, 179-92, and 211-20. Sigerist notes that the theologian Peter Lombard (d. 1160) included in his Sentences a chapter, "De his qui maleficiis impediti coire non possunt": see H. Sigerist, "Impotence as a Result of Witchcraft", in On the History of Medicine, ed. F. Marti-Ibat!.ez, New York, 1960, pp. 146-152 (146).

33 See n. 22 above.

142 MONICA GREEN

All three chapters on fertility, VII1.2, 3 and 29, represent the compiler's furthest deviations from the strictly humoral medicine of the Arab sources he normally preferred. The unsophisticated but readily available work of Sextus Placitus may not be a very in­spired choice,34 but perhaps it is indicative of how few texts the compiler had at his disposal.

The foregoing analysis has only pointed out the major features of the reconstructed Practica, Book VIII. Obviously, a complete identification of all cross-references and borrowings will best be done in the context of a critical edition of the Practica (which as this discussion should have made clear, needs to be done in con­junction with an edition of the Viaticum). Critical editions will also be necessary to show to what extent all six of the middle books of the Practica display similar signs of reconstruction and deviation from-or, like Practica, Vl.15, adherence to!-al­Magiisi' s Arabic text. For the moment, all we can do is posit some very tentative answers to the questions when, by whom, and why the Practica was "re-created".

We have very little direct testimony to the order of composi­tion of the Constantinian corpus, but a few clues are available. Assuming that the reference is original, a terminus post quem for the composition of the Theorica is offered by Constantine' s state­ment in the prologue to the Viaticum that that book was intended for those who found the Pantegni too heavy going.35 Obviously, although he refers explicitly to the Practica, Constantine could not have been referring to the whole ten books, since the completed Practica could not have pre-existed the Viaticum. Furthermore, since references to the Viaticum occur even in Books I and II of

34 A. Beccaria, I Codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X e XI), Rome, 1956, lists nine extant codices (including fragments) from before the twelfth century.

35 Viaticum, Prohemium: "Unde ego Constantinus ... studui unicuique horum ad velle suum sat agere. Propter se enim et propter utrumque artem querentibus, lit­teratioribus et provectioribus liber Pantechni a nobis est prepositus in quo primi Theoricam, secundi Theoricam et Practicam habeant. Verum etiam propter aliud ad proficuum questus festinantibus, quia in illius magnitudine forsan tediosi esse videntur, huiusmodi compatiens quoquo modo me vix exinanitum formam servi accipiens simplicitatis ... "

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNl PRACTICA VIII 143

the Practica, the Viaticum probably predates any part of the Practica (at least in the form in which we have received them). Finally, in light of the many cross-references here in Book VIII (and there are more in the other middle books of the Practica)36 to Books I, Ill, V, VI and VII of the Practica, to the Chirurgia, the De dynamidibus, and the Antidotarium, these too must have pre­existed Book VIII, since the compiler could not have made such precise references to material that had not yet been written.

This would suggest a chronology of composition as follows:37

1st- Pantegni, Theorica 2nd - Viaticum 3rd - Practica, Books I, II (De probanda medicina), and IX

(Chirurgia, flrst part) 4th - De gradibus or De dynamidibus (later to be incorporated

into the completed Practica, Book IJ)38 5th - Antidotarium? 6th- Johannes Afflacius, Liber aureus (date unknown: before

Constantine's death? after Johannes's and Rusticus's completion of the Chirurgia in 1113-14?)

7th -Pantegni, Practica, Books Ill, V, VI, VII 8th- Pantegni, Practica, Book VIII

If we can rely on the traditional attributions (and I see no rea­son at this point why we should doubt them), the first five items would all have been completed prior to Constantine's death, i.e., 1098-9 at the latest. Item 6 may or may not postdate Constantine's death, as may the elements listed in seventh place in this list. It is possible (as I will suggest below) that the middle books of the Practica may themselves have been products of a multi-tiered pro-

36 In addition to many similar cross-references to other parts of the Pantegni, there are also references to other Constantinian works. Practica, VI.l4, for exam­ple, has a reference to the Megategni, while VII.23 refers to the Viaticum and the De melancholia.

37 I omit here mention of other works (such as the De stomacho) whose dates can be approximated but which are not of immediate relevance to Practica, Book VIII. Regarding the evolution of Practica, Books I-ll, I rely on the findings of Mary Wack's essay in this volume. My thanks to her for sharing her paper with me in draft.

38 Mentioned as an authentic Constantinian work by Mathaeus, the De gradibus does indeed show up in early manuscripts (see n. 9 above.) What was to become the middle element of Book 11-De simplici medicina-seems to appear only in the context of the completed Practica. When it was actually written is unclear to me.

144 MONICA GREEN

cess of composition. External evidence about the chronology of composition of the

completed Practica is decidedly confusing. It might be argued from Stephen of Antioch's criticism-i.e., that Constantine's translation of the Kamil a~-#na' a lacked "its latter and greater part"39-that the Practica could not have been completed until af­ter 1127 when Stephen finished his translation.4o But Stephen's ig­norance of another translation of the Practica need not be decisive. We know that the Pantegni, Theorica often circulated indepen­dently,4t and if the copy of Constantine's translation that Stephen saw (and he is unlikely to have seen many) were one of these, of course he would insist on the incompleteness of the Constantinian text.

On the other hand, there is no manuscript evidence that proves conclusively that the completed Practica existed prior to 1127-or, for that matter, at any time in the twelfth century.42 As I have already pointed out, the original, incomplete Practica-that is, Practica, Books I and II (De probanda medicina) and the first part of the Chirurgia, either alone or accompanying the Theorica-was clearly circulating beyond the walls of Monte Cassino in the twelfth century.43 There is no evidence, however, for a similar circulation of the completed Practica. It does not seem to have been available in 1140 to the Hildesheim monk Northungus, whom Mary Wack has now identified, when he pieced together his own synthesis of Constantine's and Stephen of Antioch's translations of the Antidotarium.44 Nor, apparently, was it available to the scribe of MS Berlin lat. fol. 7 4 who also in the twelfth century fused

39 Liber regalis: "De quo si quid haberet latinitas requirens, eius ultimam et maiorem deesse sensi partem" (1523 ed., fol. srb).

40 Such was the opinion of Rose (Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse [n. 4 above], p. 1064): "Als Stephan seine neue Dbersetzung gab, hatte Io[hannes] die Practica seines Lehrers noch nicht herausgegeben."

41 See the Catalogue of manuscripts in this volume. Copies of the Theorica alone in fact make up the majority of extant manuscripts.

42 As Professor Newton reminds us in his essay in this volume, with the excep­tion of two copies of the Isagoge there is a surprising absence of manuscripts of the Constantinian corpus that are contemporary with Constantine himself. Nevertheless, all of Constantine's other major works are found in twelfth-century manuscripts.

43 See n. 9 above. 44 See Wack's essay in this volume.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 145

Constantine's and Johannes's Chirurgia with Stephen of Antioch's Liber regalis.45 Even Mathaeus Ferrarius, who was writing at Salemo in the mid-twelfth century, speaks only of a "Practica Pantegni et Stephanonis".

Likewise, twelfth-century catalogue descriptions provide no clear evidence for the availability of the completed Practica in the twelfth century, and this despite the wide circulation of other Constantinian works. The mid-twelfth-century catalogue of the Abbey of St. Amand lists as item 212: "Pantegni Constantini, id est tota ars de medicina,"-a reference too general to confirm the presence of the Practica.46 Likewise, Bury St. Edmund's two copies of the Pantegni, which were noticed in its late twelfth or early thirteenth century catalogue, are not described sufficiently to determine their contents. The one extant volume has only the Theorica.47 More explicit is the description of a book bequeathed to Peterborough Abbey by Abbot Benedict (1177-1194), which refers to "Pantegni et Practica ipsius in uno Vol."48 But is this the complete Practica or only the Theorica with Practica, Books I, II and IX? The same can be asked of the copy of the "Pars Practicae Constantini" found in the cathedral library of Durham in the mid­twelfth century among a most impressive collection of medical (especially Constantinian) works.49 The only copy of the Pantegni

45 Described by Rose, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse (n. 4 above), pp. 1059-65; see Pagel, "Eine bisher unver15ffentlichte lateinische Version" (n. 12 above).

46 See J. Desilve, De schola Elnonensi Sancti Amandi a saeculo IX ad XII usque, diss., Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1890, p. 170. Desilve dates this in­dex major to between 1150 and 1168. The earlier index minor (written between 1123 and 1136) had listed no Constantinian texts.

47 M. R. James, On the Abbey of S. Edmund at Bury, Cambridge, 1895, p. 28: "Pantegni duo", which apparently means that there were two copies of the text. The extant volume is Cambridge, Trinity College, MS 906 (R.14.34), s. xii. R. M. Thomson refers to three copies of the Pantegni at Bury, assuming, apparently, that the Trinity manuscript must be different from either copy noticed in the cata­logue: see "The Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries", Speculum, 47, 1972, pp. 617-45.

48 M. R. James, Lists of Manuscripts Formerly in Peterborough Abbey Library, Supplement to the Bibliographical Society's Transactions, 5, Oxford, 1926, p. 21 (item 51). .

49 Catalogi veteres librorum ecclesiae cathedralis Dunelm. Catalogues of the Library of Durham Cathedral, ed. B. Botfield, Surtees Society Publications, 7, London, 1938, p. 6. Added later in the twelfth century were the medical books of "Magister Herebertus Medicus", who also owned a copy of "Liber Pantegni, de Theorica decem particulae in uno volumine" among other Constantinian and

146 MONICA GREEN

that continues to show up in later Durham catalogues is the Theorica alone.5o The library of the Benedictine abbey of Saint Andrew in Brugge owned in the twelfth century copies of the Viaticum, the Dietae particulares, a Dinamidiae, a Cyrurgia and an Antidotarium-all of which were probably Constantinian-but it refers only to "the ninth book" of the Pantegni.5t Even Bishop Bruno of Hildesheim (d. 1161), who had such a rich collection of Constantinian works, apparently owned only the Ur-version of the Practica (Hildesheim MS 7 48).

The one exception to the silence of the twelfth-century evidence is the De elephancia which, as Professor Montero has now demonstrated, is identical to Practica IV.l-5. Professor Montero has identified two twelfth-century manuscripts of the De ele­phancia (Clm 23535 and Brussels 14322-3). Professor Montero suggests that, based on their similarity with the Viaticum, these chapters are the work of the same author as the Viaticum-i.e., Constantine. If so, they must date from the late eleventh century. But do they represent extracts from the completed Practica? Or were they originally an independent text around which the recon­structed Practica was built? In contrast, one of the other Practica excerpts that enjoyed a separate circulation, Practica VIII.29, De his qui coire non possunt, is never found in manuscripts before the thirteenth century nor, apparently, does it seem to have had any direct influence on other medical discussions of impotence before that period.52 As has already been pointed out, it has no Arabic source and is most likely the work of the compiler himself. 53

Salemitan texts (p. 7). On Herebert, see E. J. Kealey, Medieval Medicus: A Social History of Anglo-Norman Medicine, Baltimore and London, 1981, pp. 44-7; and M.-T. d'Alvemy's correction of Hercbertus's dates in Cahiers de civilisation medievale, X e-XIle siecle, 13, 1970, pp. 392-3.

50 Cf. Catalogi veteres (previous note), pp. 33 and 110. Another text is called "Liber Constantini Monachi de Medicina" which conceivably might be the Practica. However, the catalogue gives a second folio incipit of "librorum", a word I find nowhere in the first several chapters of the Practica.

5l A. Derolez, Corpus catalogorum Belgii: De middeleeuwse Bibliotheeks­catalogi der zuidelijke Nederlanden. l: Provincie West-Vlaanderen, Brussels, 1966, p. 146. It seems odd, however, that the Cyrurgia and the "nonus liber Pantegni" should be listed separately.

52 See Hoffmann, "Beitriige" (n. 32 above), pp. 178ff. 53 I have not yet examined the manuscript circulation of another text attributed

to Constantine by Peter the Deacon, the De interioribus membris, which is also thought to be an excerpt from the Practica. No manuscripts arc listed under this

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGN! PRACT!CA VIII 147

Given the wide dissemination of the Theorica and other Constantinian works in the twelfth century, it is notable that the Practica should not have had comparable dissemination even though one would think it would have had considerable utilitarian appeal. We have, in fact, only Peter the Deacon's already suspect description of a "twelve-part" Practica to suggest that anybody in the twelfth century had laid eyes on the completed Practica. Indeed, even his description of a "Practica, in qua posuit, qualiter medicus custodiat sanitatem et curet infirmitatem" could be taken to refer to only Books I and II, which are described in the Hildesheim manuscript as, respectively, "De universali regimento sanitatis" and "De divisione cure egritudinum".s4 While new evi­dence may yet come to light that proves the existence of the com­pleted Practica in the twelfth century, the impression remains that if it existed at all, its circulation and influence prior to the early thirteenth century must have been very limited.55

Be that as it may, the internal evidence offers its own argument from silence that points to an early twelfth-century (or even late eleventh-century) date of composition. Every one of the sources thus far identified-the Antidotarium, the Viaticum, the Liber au­reus, the first half of the Chirurgia, and the Arabic Kamil a$­$ina<a itself (if we can attribute the translation of Part II, VI.18 to Constantine or Johannes) and Sextus Placitus's Liber medicine ex animalibus-was available by that time. I have found no refer­ence, at least in Book VIII, to any later source: neither Stephen of Antioch's 1127 translation nor any twelfth-century Salemitan text nor any other source that would not have been available in the early twelfth century. The problem, then, is to explain why the text would have remained unknown for so long, only to suddenly

title in L. Thomdike and P. Kibre, A Catalogue of lncipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Ma, 1963.

54 Bloch, Monte Cassino (n. 2 above), I, p. 128. My thanks to Mary Wack for her description of the Hildesheim manuscript. We might note further that the de­scription of the Practica in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino omits the reference to "twelve books": see Bloch, ibid., and Chronica monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 34, Hannover, 1980, p. 412.

55 This might also explain why we find no citations of the Practica in William of Conches: see Professor Ronca's essay in this volume. Examination of twelfth­century Salemitan texts may, however, produce different results.

148 MONICA GREEN

become available in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century and quickly enjoy a wide dissemination.

An answer to the question of who was responsible for the re­creation of the Practica must inevitably remain inconclusive as long as we are so unclear about the chronology. We can neverthe­less construct a minimal profile of the compiler that, like the evi­dence of the sources, points toward an early date of composition. If the compiler was not Constantine himself (a point to which I shall return in a moment), it seems plausible that he may be a close associate of Constantine who felt compelled to finish the master's work. Clearly, he must have been moved by a strong dedication that spurred him on to the task of painstaking recon­struction of a text that he knew he could not hope to fully or faith­fully reproduce. Moreover, the anonymous compiler was more dedicated to finishing the work Constantine had begun than assert­ing his own identity. The first person is used consistently for all cross-references, implying that a single author-Constantine-was responsible for all the different works mentioned. The compiler's identity (assuming it is not Constantine) is thus thoroughly ef­faced, demonstrating the kind of humility one might expect of a devoted pupil. If the compiler were intimate with Constantine this would place him at or near Monte Cassino in the late eleventh century.

Whatever his personal relationship with Constantine, the com­piler was intimately familiar with the contents of the whole Pantegni, able readily to make cross-references to the Theorica, the Chirurgia, the Antidotarium, and other parts of the Practica. Furthermore, he was himself familiar with at least some aspects of medicine, for it would be impossible for a non-specialist to have filled in the many gaps in Book VIII or even to cull wisely from other texts without drawing on his own practical knowledge.

So who was this compiler? First, it should be acknowledged that we cannot a priori rule out Constantine himself. I have found nothing in Book VIII that contradicts, from the standpoint of the­ory, anything that Constantine is known to have written. Even in the case of the magical remedies mentioned above, though they di­verge from the rational therapeutics of the rest of Book Vlll they in no way deviate from Constantine' s overall concepts of medical

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 149

efficacy, at least if we can accept the traditional attribution of the brief epistle De incantationibus et adiurationibus, which offers a nicely reasoned explanation, couched in terms compatible with humoral medicine, of how amulets and charms work.s 6

Constantine is also credited with an epitome of Sextus Placitus 's Liber medicinae ex animalibus, which would obviously explain the choice of that text for the chapters on fertility, contraception, and impotence.s7 Nor is the chronology impossible either. Since the cross-reference to the Chirurgia in Practica, VIIT.37 refers to a chapter in Constantine's part of the translation and not the later completion by Johannes and Rusticus, and since we lack a precise date of composition for J ohannes Afflacius' s Liber aureus, we have in fact no precise terminus a quo for the re-creation of Book vm other than the fact that it must be subsequent to the other works listed in the chronology given above. Furthermore, some­one skilled in Arabic must have translated Practica, VI.15 and perhaps other sections from al-Magiisi's original. Once critical editions of Constantinian works have been established, stylistic analyses should allow us to determine whether this translator was Constantine himself or someone else. If Constantine was indeed involved in the re-creation of the Practica, this would vindicate

56 Constantini Africani medici, ad filium de incantationibus et adiurationibus epistola, in Constantini Africani opera, Basel, 1536, pp. 317-20. Both Steinschneider and Creutz reject out of hand the authenticity of this text: see M. Steinschneider, "Constantinus Africanus und seine arabische Quellen", Archiv fur pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie undfiir klinische Medizin (later Virchows Archiv) 37, 1866, pp. 351-410 (405); R. Creutz, "Der Arzt Constantinus Africanus von Montekassino: Sein Leben, sein Werk und seine Bedeutung fiir die mittelalterliche medizinische Wissenschaft", Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Zweige, 47, n.s., 16, 1929, pp. 1-44 (22). It should be noted, however, that it was unambiguously attributed to Constantine by Gilbertus Anglicus in the mid-thirteenth century: see his Coq:f.endium medicinae, Lyons, 1510, fol. 296fb.

5 Edited by J. C. G. Ackennann, in Parabilium medicamentorum scriptores antiqui, Nuremberg, 1788; I have not yet been able to examine this edition. Howald and Sigerist (n. 30 above; p. XIII) describe this as "nihil aliud est quam epitoma Sexti Placiti (sine ullis additamentis quae inesse sunt qui dicant)". As with the De incantationibus, the question of authenticity has not yet been resolved. Steinschneider (n. 56 above), p. 406, is inconclusive. H. Lehmann, "Die Arbeitsweise des Constantinus Africanus und des Johannes Afflacius im Verhaeltnis zueinander", Archeion, 12, 1930, pp. 272-81 (278-80), on the other hand, has no trouble accepting the attribution. See also Schipperges (n. 16 above), p. 47.

150 MONICA GREEN

Mathaeus Ferrarius's allusion to the storm-damaged copy of the Kiimil a~-#nii'a, since it was obviously not linguistic inability to translate the Arabic that would have kept Constantine from com­pleting the Practica from al-Magiisi's original text. It might also explain what Mathaeus meant when he asserted that Alfanus wished to reimburse Constantine for "his expenses" in completing the Practica.

The second most likely candidate is Constantine 's pupil Johannes Afflacius.5s As we have already seen, a notice that ap­pears in one twelfth-century manuscript attributes the latter part of Practica, Book IX (on surgery), to Johannes "Agarenus"-who has traditionally been identified as Johannes Afflacius. Johannes would be a likely candidate for completing the whole Practica given the compiler's intimate familiarity with the Constantinian corpus. Johannes was himself the dedicatee of five of Constantine's translations, including the Viaticum itself. As Peter the Deacon de­scribed him, not only was he a "vir in fisica arte dissertissimus ac eruditissimus," but also (again according to Peter) when he died in Naples he left there all his master's books.59 Finally, as a physician himself he would have been qualified to make the reasoned choices of additional therapies that we have seen so often in Practica, Book Vill. If we can, in fact, credit Johannes with the completion of the Practica, he proves himself not only competent but modest: his selections from his own Liber aureus are minimal and unattributed. With Johannes, too, we must assume considerable physical damage to the rest of the Practica since, like Cons tan tine, he would be expected to have drawn on the Arabic original if it had been available to him.

Perhaps we can imagine Constantine, late in life, and Johannes, still in his prime, jointly involved in the re-creation of the Practica, Constantine laying out the groundwork (which may have included some portions of his own translation from al-Magiisi' s original) which Johannes then continued after his master's death,

58 Rose, Creutz and Schipperges all assumed that Johannes completed the Practica, though none of them provided any persuasive evidence.

59 Bloch (n. 2 above), I, p. 102, n. 3. The fullest account of Johannes's life and bibliography is Creutz, "Johannes Afflacius" (n. 12 above). See also Professor Newton's essay in this volume for other contemporary evidence on "Johannes medicus".

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGN/ PRACT/CA VIII 151

doing the cut-and-paste work to fill in the details. Johannes's and Rusticus's completion of the Chirurgia in 1113-14 would add the fmal missing piece.

Then again, perhaps a third person was involved, about whom at the moment we know nothing. If we resist the assumption that one person alone must have been responsible for all the parts of the Practica not directly credited to Constantine by Mathaeus F., this allows us to speculate whether the Practica might have been re-created in several phases. Whereas someone skilled in Arabic must have translated Practica, VI.l5, there is nothing in the re­created Book VIII itself that would have demanded knowledge of Arabic. The compiler, therefore, may have been almost anyone who had access to Constantine's text-and, of course, the willing­ness to undertake the laborious work of reconstruction. Where this compiler might have worked and how the now completed Pantegni was brought into circulation in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century are questions that remain unsolved. We might note, however, several interesting features of the Bamberg manuscript, whose remarkable annotations by the Hildesheim monk Northungus have been brought to light by Professor Wack. Apparently unique to this manuscript is a passage at the very be­ginning of the Practica which states unambiguously that that work was divided into ten parts.6o Is this reference to "ten books" a remnant of Constantine's original draft? Or is it instead an addi­tion to the text, made by the person who was planning to bring to­gether all the fragments of the authentic Practica alongside se­lected chapters from the Viaticum, some of which are found here in the Bamberg manuscript?

Definitive answers to when, where, and by whom the full Practica was re-created must await close analysis in the context of critical editions. But perhaps we can speculate even now about what may have motivated the compiler to "re-create" the Practica as he did. Outright forgery seems out of the question, since clearly the compiler had no intention of passing the completed Practica off as the original work of 'All ibn al-'Abbas. Few were in the

60 Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, med. 6 (fol. 1r): "in hac secunda parte quam Practicam vocamus quamque decem librorum particulis subdividere cupimus."

152 MONICA GREEN

position of Stephen of Antioch to compare the Constantinian text with the Arabic original, though surely any reader who had a copy of both the Practica and the Viaticum would quickly realize how much the former owed to the latter. In any case, since the original Arabic author's name was attached to neither the Pantegni nor the Viaticum, should any reader have noticed the redundancies between the two works, "Constantine" would only seem to be bor­rowing from himself. Rather than being motivated by a wish to deceive, it is more likely that the compiler took the title of the work and its intent seriously: this was a Pantegni, the whole art, and it deserved to be completed in order that a full and compre­hensive work might exist in Latin-in contrast to the brief Viaticum which was meant simply as a handbook.

As I have demonstrated in this paper, the re-created Practica, Book VIII is much more than a reconstituted Viaticum: not simply are diseases unmentioned by Ibn al-Gazzar incorporated into the re-created Practica, but the compiler has been so conscientious in eliminating redundancies and integrating the new chapters of the Practica with other parts of the Pantegni that the work as a whole takes on an impressive consistency and cohesiveness. The re-cre­ated Practica may strike us as hopelessly unoriginal and deriva­tive, its compiler as hopelessly naive. But aside from Stephen of Antioch's retranslation of the Kiimil a$-#nii'a in 1127 (which never definitively displaced the Constantinian text) and Gerard of Cremona's translation of Avicenna's Qanun in the later twelfth century, no other book in Latin comprised such a wealth of Arabic medicine between two covers. That the re-created Practica was not, in fact, cAn ibn aVAbbas's Arabic medicine seems to have mattered less to the compiler than that the "whole art" should be made available to the Latin world. 61 Although it never achieved anything like the commanding influence of the Theorica, the popularity of the re-created Practica in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, despite the availability of "better" books, suggests that the compiler's work was not in vain.

61 As I have pointed out, however, the compiler clearly gave priority to what he perceived to be the authentic views of al-Magusi.

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 153

Table I: Concordance Of Pantegni, Practica, Book VIII

This concordance compares the chapter-headings of Pantegni, Practica, Book VIII with those in the original Arabic text of the Kiimil a$-$inii'a at-?fbb'iya of <Ali ibn al-cAbbas al-Magii.sl, and in Stephen of Antioch's Latin translation-the Liber regalis. In the case of the Liber regalis, incomplete titles in the Tables of Contents have been expanded following the text of the chapter. The table of contents is virtually identical in the 1523 edition. As for the Pantegni, I have not found the chapter De testiculis vari­cosis (here chapter 9) in some of the manuscripts I have examined. Otherwise, the text of the Lyons edition seems to be a fair reflec­tion of the manuscript tradition.

Kiimil a$-$inii'a at-#bbiya, Liber regalis, Pantegni Practica, Part II, Book VIII Part II, Bk VIII Book VIII

(BUlaq ed.) (MS Berlin, lat. fol. (Lyons, 1515 ed.)

74, s.xii)

1. On the treatment of apos- 1. De testium apos- 1. De defectione temes ("awram") of the testicles tematis medela coitus

2. On the accumulation of water 2. De adunationis 2. De ablatione in the testes ague in testibus generandi

medela

3. On the treatment of hernia 3. De [hemie et] 3. De generare nolen-and varicose veins ("duwali") in varicum testibus ac- tibus the testes cidentium medela

4. On the treatment of pustules 4. De pustularum et 4. De gomorrea (sic) ("bu~iir") and itching of the tes- pruriginis testiculo-tides rum medela

5. On the treatment of the loss 5. De appetitus 5. De pollutione of desire for coitus coitus ocii medela et

his que seminis am­putant fluxum

154 MONICA GREEN THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGNI PRACTICA VIII 155

6. On the treatment of excessive 6. De immoderati 6. De apostemate tes- 18. On the treatment of diseases 18. De passionum 18. De suffocatione

desire for coitus and substances coitus appetitus ticulorum called mole ("ra}Ja") and "qabb" que durities [et matricis

to arrest the leaking of the medela sclirosis] duri ma-

sperm tricum medela

7. On the treatment of diseases 7. De passionum 7. De crepatura 19. On the treatment ofhaemor- 19. De verrucarum 19. De ventositate

of the penis and first on the dis- virge medela pri- testium rhoids and "tha'iilil" et emorroidum ma- vulve

ease which spreads out in it as mumque de sine ap- tricis medela

the result of the lack of desire petitu erectione for coitus 20. On the treatment of excoria- 20. De fissurarum 20. De apostemate

tions which happen to the oris matricum matricis

8. On the treatment of obstruc- 8. De oppilationis 8. De tumore testicu- mouth of the uterus medela tion which happens to the penis que virge accidit lorum

medela 21. On the treatment of the 21. De ulcerum que 21. De cancro matricis

pustule ("ba!I") which happens in matricum ore fi-

9. On the treatment of the dis- 9. De matricis pas- 9. De testiculis vari- to the mouth of the uterus untmedela

eases which happen to the sionis medela et cosis uterus, and first on the treat- primum de fluxu 22. On the treatment of ulcers 22. De pustularum 22. De apostemate

ment of the flux of blood sanguinis ("quriil;l") which happens to the matricum medela melancholico matricis

mouth of the uterus 10. On the treatment of the flux 10. De fluxus hu- 10. De vulneribus tes-of the uterus morum matricum ticulorum 23. On the extrusion and pro- 23. De egressionis 23. De separatione

medela lapse of the uterus uel indignationis matricis matri[cum] medela

11. On the treatment of the 11. De conclusionis 11. De satiriasi blockage of the menses menstruorum 24. On the treatment of sterility 24. De [sterilitatis 24. De conclusione

medela medela] matricis

12. On the treatment of suffo- 12. De suffocationis 12. De apostemate 25. On the treatment of women 25. De [aborsus 25. De emorroydibus

cation of the uterus matricum medela virge who have frequent miscarriages mulierum medela] eiusdem

13. On the treatment of the in- 13. De uentositatis 13. De vulneribus 26. On the treatment of difficult 26. De difficultatis 26. De vulnere matri-

flation and windiness which [et inflamationis virge birth partus medela cis

happen to the uterus medela] 27. De conclusionis 27. De exitu vulve 27. On the blockage of the pla-

14. On the hot apostemes 14. De apostematis 14. De constrictione centa and the exit of the dead secundine et mortui

("waram") of the uterus calidi matricum vel oppilatione virge fetus fetus medela

medela 28. On things that prevent con- 28. De his que con- 28. De sterilitate

15. On the treatment of ab- 15. De emissione et 15. De retentione ception ceptum celebrari

scesses and emissions of the furunculorum ma- menstruorum pro hi bent

uterus tricum medela 29. On the treatment of apos- 29. De passionum 29. De hiis qui mal-

16. On the treatment of hard 16. De scliros[is] id 16. De superfluo temes ("awram") which happen mamillarum medela eficiis impediti cum

apostemes est apostematis duri fluxu menstruo in the breasts uxoribus coire non

matricum medela possunt

17. On the treatment of cancer 17. De cancri ma- 17. De sordicie matri-occurring in the uterus tricum medela cis

156 MONICA GREEN

30. On the treatment of pain of the joints and first on regimen of the man in whom this disease begins, and the preservation from this occurrence

31. On the treatment of sciatica

32. On the treatment of gout ("niqris") and pain of the joints

33. On the treatment of pain of gout ("niqris") and [pains in] the joints caused by cold

34. On the treatment of hard­ness and "knots" in the joints

35. On advice of pharmacists and their consultation

30. De eius regimine cui art[etica accidit] quomodo cavendum neaccidat

31. De sciatici medela doloris

32. De podagre et artetice ex calido medela

33. De podagre et artetice ex frigido medela

34. De duriciei et nodationis que dis­gregationibus ac­cidunt medela

35. De mandato medican[tium] et eo­rum consilio in morborum medela

30. De dieta pregnan­tium

31. De abortivis

32. De laborantibus in partu

33. De retentione se­cundine

34. De apostemate in mamillis et cura

35. De fetore ascel­larum

36. De fistula in mamillis et cancro

37. De magnitudine mamillarum

38. De cum sciatice passionis

39. De dolore genuum

40. De cum podagre

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGN/ PRACTICA VIII 157

Table II: The Sources of Pantegni, Practica, Book VIII

This table indicates the sources of each chapter of Pantegni, Practica, VIII, as far as I have been able to discover them. The following abbreviations are used:

er = cross-reference icr = internal cross-reference (i.e., internal to Book VIII).

Practica, Book VIII

1. De defectione coitus

2. De ablatione generandi

3. De generare nolentibus

4. De gomorrea (sic)

5. De pollutione

6. De apostemate testiculorum

7. De crepatura testium

8. De tumore testiculorum

9. De testiculis varicosis

Sources

= Viaticum, Vl.l

= ? + Sextus Placitus, Liber medicinae ex animalibus,62 BIII.18 (cf. AIII.14), XXV. I, cf. XXII.3, ??, BI.13a; icr: medicetur sicut in suffocatione matricis dicturi sumus (i.e., Practica, VIII.18)

= Sextus Placitus, XVII.4, XXI.2, X.7, BI.l3b (cf. AI.16 and BI.14), er: ut in custodia sanitatis diximus (i.e., Practica, 1.31)

=Viaticum, VI.3

=Viaticum, VI.4, icr. sicut dicturi sum us in propria passione que manasisines dicitur (i.e., Practica, VIII.ll)

= Viaticum, VI.6 + unidentified material on hard apostemes and distension of the testicles

=Viaticum, VI.8 (literal)

=?

=?

62 References to Sextus Placitus refer to the "alpha" (A) or "beta" (B) text where they are distinguished, the chapter (in roman numerals), the subheading (in arabic numerals), and the paragraph (in lower-case Latin alphabet).

158

10. De vulneribus testiculo­rum

11. De satiriasi

12. De apostemate virge

13. De vulneribus virge

14. De constrictione vel oppi­latione virge

15. De retentione menstruo­rum

16. De superfluo fluxu men­struo

MONICA GREEN

=Viaticum, VL7+ addition

= Viaticum, VI.2 (literal)

=?

= Viaticum, VI.5 and 6 + unidentified remedies for pain, swelling and itching of the belly, penis and intestines

=?,er: medicinis et cibis in stranguria et passionibus renum et vesice dictis (i.e., Practica, VII.49-58)

=Viaticum, VI.9, er: fac pessarium quod in nostro antidotario scriptum

=Viaticum, VI.lO

17. De sordicie matricis = ?

18. De suffocatione matricis

19. De ventositate vulve

20. De apostemate matricis

21. De cancro matricis

22. De apostemate melan­cholico matricis

23. De separatione matricis

= Viaticum, VI.ll (order changed) + Pantegni, Practica, VI.15 ( = Kiimil a.y­$inii'a, Part II, VI.18), er: (1) medicetur sicut in ilia passione [se. syncope) diximus (i.e., Practica, VI.15); (2) sicut in tractatu de sincopi diximus (ibid.)

=?,er: (1) trociscos Galieni quos scripsimus in passione renum (i.e., Practica, VII .53); (2) medicetur sicut in practice particula diximus cum de custodia sanitatis diximus (i.e., Practica, 1.31)

=Viaticum, VI.12 (literal)

=?,er: (1) succurrendum est ... cum medicinis choleram nigram purgantibus in antidotario scriptis; (2) cum cataplasmatibus in tertia particula scriptis (i.e., Practica, III.48)

= ? , cr. supradictis sirupis melancholiam purgantibus in antidotario scriptis

= ?, icr: tumor mamillarum curetur sicut in sequentibus dicemus (i.e., Practica: VIII.34)

THE RE-CREATION OF PANTEGN/ PRACTICA VIII 159

24. De conclusione matricis

25. De emorroydibus eiusdem

26. De vulnere matricis

27. De exitu vulve

28. De sterilitate

29. De hiis qui maleficiis im­pediti cum uxoribus coire non possunt

30. De dieta pregnan­tium

31. De abortivis

32. De laborantibus in partu

33. De retentione se­cundine

34. De apostemate in mamillis et cura

35. De fetore ascellarum

36. De fistula in mamil­lis et cancro

37. De magnitudine mamillarum

=?

=?,er: in passionibus natium iam dictis (i.e., Practica, VII.36)

=Viaticum, VI.l3

=Viaticum, VI.14, er: tortura vulve medicaminibus sincopi dictis curetur (i.e., Practica, VI.l5)

= Liber aureus, 43

=? + Sextus Placitus, BIX.l6, BIX.22

=Viaticum, VI.15 (order changed), er: phlebotomia non fiat nisi quinto vel septimo mense sicut in custodia sanitatis diximus (i.e., Practica, 1.31)

=Liber aureus, 51

= Viaticum, VI.16 + Liber aureus, 44 (first half)

=Viaticum, VI.17 + Liber aureus, 4 (second half)+ Viaticum, Vl.15 (end), er: De parturientis et infantis custodia in prima parte practice sufficienter disputavimus (i.e., Practica, 1.31)

= Viaticum, III.15

=Viaticum, III.16

=?

=?,er: (1) sicut in chirurgia dicturi sumus (i.e., Practica, IX.45); (2) sicut in prima practice particula de custodia sanitatis diximus (i.e., Practica, 1.31)

160

38. De cura sciatice passionis

39. De dolore genuum

40. De cura podagre

MONICA GREEN

=Viaticum, VI.18 with additions, er: (1) Quod si hec passio fit propter stranguria sedeat in apozimate in precedenti particula scripto (i.e., Practica, VII.53); (2) cum aliis desiccativis medicaminibus que in dy­namidibus scripta sunt; (3) cum aliis inunctionibus in passionibus nuche dictis ungatur (i.e., Practica, V.25?)

= ?, icr: (1) pilulis in sciatica dictis; (2) alia que in sciaticorum curls dicta diximus prodesse

=Viaticum, VI.19

'ALl ffiN AL-'ABBAS AL-MAGUSI AND CONSTANTINE ON LOVE, AND THE

EVOLUTION OF THE PRACTICA PANTEGNI

Mary Wack

Constantine the African's translations disseminated a medical view of love that helped to shape the European experience of eros dur­ing the high Middle Ages. He was the first, as far as we know, to endow the Arabic word for passionate love or lovesickness­"'isq"-with a Latin equivalent, and thus to give Western physi­cians a diagnostic term for the malady of love. But there has been some doubt about what his exact terminology was, since the manuscript evidence is late and contradictory. Did he coin the barbarism "am or hereos", by which term lovesickness was most widely known in the later Middle Ages, as in Chaucer' s phrase, "the loveris maladye of Hereos"?J Or did he interpret '"iSq" for a European audience lacking a scientific discourse on love as "amor eros" or "amor heros"--erotic love or lordly love?2 In this seem­ingly minor philological question are imbricated larger problems of cultural mediation; of differing cultural attitudes toward love, both between European Christianity and Islam, and within European culture itself; and finally of the relation of medicine to other discourses on love and to actual social practices.

In my recent discussion of Constantine's chapter on lovesick­ness in the Viaticum, a reworking of lbn al-Gazzar's handbook for

1 From the Knight's Tale, lines 1373-4, in The Canterbury Tales, ed. L. Benson, The Riverside Chaucer, Boston, 1987. All quotations of Chaucer will be from this edition. For a summary and bibliography on the question of amor hereos, see most recently M. Wack, Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: The Viaticum and its Commentaries, Philadelphia, 1990.

2 There were, of course, well-developed poetic, Biblical, and theological dis­courses on love. On the development of a scientific discourse about sexuality in the Middle Ages, sec D. Jacquart and C. Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages, transl. M. Adamson, Cambridge, 1988. This is a revised version of the 1985 French edition.

STUDIES IN ANCIENT MEDICINE

EDITED BY

JOHN SCARBOROUGH

VOLUME 10

.:;,"'ftt-<GID~ "' .0

7 < ~ ,.. ' ~ ? .,.

< " . I 6 8 1 .

CONSTANTINE THE AFRICAN •••

AND

CALl IBN AL-CABBAS AL-MAGDSI

7he Pantegni and Related Texts

edited by

Charles Burnett and Daniellejacquart

"' . .0

.:;,"'=!Jtt-<GID~ 7

< ~ ,.. ' ~ ? .,. '<' " . I 6 8 1 .

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN

1994

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Constantine the African and 'Ali ibn al- 'Abbas al-Ma@si: the pantegni and related texts I edited by Charles Burnett and Daniclle Jacquart.

p. 10)

cm.- (Studies in ancient medicine, ISSN 0925-1421 ; v.

English and French. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004100148 (cloth) l. Constantine, the African, ea. 1020-1087. Pantegni. 2. '-ali

ibn-aJ-CAbblis al-Majlisi, ft. 940-980. 3. Medicine, Arab. I. Burnett, Charles. II. Jacquart, Danielle. Ill. Series.

[DNLM: l. Constantine, the African, ea. l 020-l 087. Pantegni. 2. 'Ali ibn-al-'Abbas al-Majlisi, ft. 940-980. 3. Manuscripts, Medical. 4. History of Medicine, Medieval. 5. Medicine, Arabic. Wl ST918K v. 10 1994 I WZ 294 C758p 1994] RI28.3.C66 1994 610-dc20 DNLM/DLC for Library of Congress 94-33854

GIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Constantine the African and 'Ali lbn-al-'Ab has al-Magiisi : The pantegni and related texts I ed. by Charles Burnett and DanielleJacquart.- Leiden; New York; Koln: Brill, 1994

(Studies in ancient medicine ; Vol. I 0) ISBN 90-04-10014-8

NE: Burnett, Charles [Hrsg.J; GT

ISSN 0925-1421 ISBN 90 04 10014 8

© Copynghl 1994 by E.]. Brill, Leidm, Ihe Netherlands

All rights reseroed. No part o/ this publication mqy be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval .[)!Stem, or transmitted in arry fomz or by atry means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or othent.Jise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Aut/writ_ation to plwWcopy items for intemal or personal use is granted by E.]. Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid direct{y to Tiw Copyright Clearance Cmter, 222 Rosewood Dn"ve, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are suly"ect to change.

PRlNTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

,-.3 . c (o(;

1"1~/l(

CONTENTS

Preface vii

'All ibn al-'Abbas al-Magiisi et son milieu 1 ' FRAN(:OISE MICHEAU

Constantine the African and Monte Cassino: new elements and thetextofthe/sagoge 16 <

FRANCIS NEWTON

Les manuscrits du Kiimil a~-~inii'a a la Bibliotheque nationale de Paris

GERARD TROUPEAU

The Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew versions of the Kitiib Kiimil a~-~inii' a

RONBARKAI

Le sens donne par Constantin I' Africain a son ceuvre: les chapitres introductifs en arabe et en Iatin

DANJELLE J ACQUART

Constantine's pseudo-Classical terminology and its survival GOTIHARD STROHMAJER

The chapter on the spirits in the Pantegni of Constantine the African

CHARLES BURNETT

The re-creation of Pantegni, Practica, book VIII MONICA GREEN

48 '

57

71

90

99

121

'Ali ibn al-'Abbas al-Magiisl and Constantine on love, and the evolution of the Practica Pantegni

MARYWACK

Ibn al-Gazzar's Risalafi n-nisyan and Constantine's Liber de oblivione

GERRITBOS

Le De elephancia de Constantin I' Africain et ses rapports avec le Pantegni

ENRIQUE MONTERO CARTELLE & ANA ISABEL MARTIN FER RE IRA

The anatomy of the eye in 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas al-Magiisl: a textbook case

GDLRUSSELL

The influence of the Pantegni on William of Conches's Dragmaticon

ITALORONCA

The fortune of Constantine's Pantegni MARK JORDAN

Manuscripts of the Kamil a$-$ina'a GERARD TROUPEAU

A catalogue of Renaissance editions and manuscripts of the Pantegni

Index of names, works, places and general medical topics

Index of manuscripts

161

203

233

247

266

286

303 1._

316

352

359

PREFACE

To Constantine the African, a monk of Monte Cassino of Tunisian origin (d. before 1098/9) is attributed the first fully comprehen­sive medical text in Latin: the Pantegni. This text, in its complete version, consists of two parts, each of ten books. The first part is called the Theorica, and deals with the theory of medicine; the second part is called the Practica, and deals with its practice. Al­though Cons tan tine appears to take the credit for composing (or at least, compiling) the work, the title-"the complete art"-betrays that the work is an adaptation into Latin of the Kitab Kamil a$­$ina'a a!-{ibbiya ("the complete"-or "perfect"-"book of the medical art") of 'Ali ibn al-'Abbiis al-Magiisi (writing before 977 /8), which also consists of a theoretical and practical part, each divided into ten books. 'All ibn al-'Abbas's work was widely copied in the Islamic world (and was translated into Hebrew and Urdu) and it is not unlikely that Constantine would have found a copy amongst the community of renowned doctors in Qairouan, a city not far from Carthage, where he is supposed to have been born.

But the situation is not as simple as this. Whilst the Theorica Pantegni corresponds more or less to the theoretical part of the K. Kamil a$-$ina'a, the Practica Pantegni, although preserving the same number of books and the same order of subject matter, for the most part does not take that material from the K. Kamil a$­$ina'a. Rather, it has been patched together from other Arabic texts whose translations are associated with Constantine and his circle, pre-Salernitan Latin medical texts, and further texts of unidentified origin, with only an occasional chapter taken from the K. Kamil a$-.yina'a. Moreover, the different contents of the different manuscripts of the Pantegni, as well as some internal comments, show that the Practica Pantegni was built up to its full ten-book form in stages, and probably did not reach its final shape until well after Constantine's death. But even the Theorica is not

viii PREFACE

stable, and one family of manuscripts has revisions and additions that suggest a similar reworking by at least two generations of medical writers.

The essays in this volume attempt to address some of the prob­lems surrounding the Pantegni. The identity of 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas (a figure as veiled in mystery as Constantine himself) is consid­ered, a specimen of his medical doctrine-on the eye-is given, and a list of Arabic manuscripts is provided; this shows how widespread the diffusion of his K. Kiimil a:Ninii'a was. The facts, as they are known, of Cons tan tine's biography are rehearsed, and the date of death traditional assigned to him (1087) is questioned. His adaptation of 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas's preface to what he perceived to be the needs of his cultured Latin-reading audience is explored, and his supposed "plagiarism" (of which he was already accused in the early twelfth century) is set in the context of the Greek-Latin medical tradition that he was seeking to enrich. Constantine and his colleagues had to find Latin words for new medical concepts and the methods they used and the degree of success they achieved are analysed. Other articles focus on particular sections of the Pantegni where the construction of the work is especially com­plex. Two short works translated by Constantine form the subject­matter of separate articles: one-on leprosy-corresponds to a section of the patched-together Practica Pantegni, the other-on forgetfulness-is a separate work, but gives an example of Con­stantine's translation methods. The use of the Pantegni by the nat­ural philosophers Adelard of Bath and William of Conches is in­vestigated. Finally, the reliability of the Renaissance editions of the Pantegni, on which most scholarship up to now has been based, is called into question. Throughout the volume comparisons are made with the literal translation of the K. Kamil G$-$ina'a by Stephen of Antioch (the Liber regalis or Regalis dispositio), made, it appears, in 1127.1

I This date has been called into question by Richard Hunt ("Stephen of AntiM och", Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 2, 1950, pp. 172-3), on the grounds that the MSS of the Liber regalis give as the date of translation "anno a passione domini M.C.XXVll", i.e., 1160; but the use of Stephen's translation by Northungus, monk of Hildesheim, in 1140 (see p. 197 below) would seem to confirm the earlier date.

PREFACE ix

These studies could not have been written without the pioneer­ing work of Karl Sudhoff, Lynn Thomdike, Gerda Hoffmann, Rudolf Creutz, Paul Kristeller, Herbert Bloch, Fuat Sezgin and Manfred Ullmann. The occasion for putting them together was that several scholars had been working on aspects of the life and reuvre of both Constantine the African and 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas, and the time seemed ripe to pool their knowledge. With this aim a conference took place at the Warburg Institute in November 1990, with the generous support of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris. We are most grateful to M. Pierre Hoyau of the C. N. R. S. and to two directors of the Warburg Institute, Pro­fessors J. B. Trapp and Nicholas Mann, for making the collo­quium a success, and encouraging the idea of publication. Most of the articles in this book are revised versions of the papers given at this conference. To these have been added catalogues of the Arabic manuscripts of the K. Kamil G$-$inii' a and the Latin manuscripts of the Pantegni. Several of the contributors have given help and ad­vice on articles other than their own, and we are particularly grateful to Gotthard Strohmaier for providing details about manuscripts in Berlin.

It remains to thank all the librarians who have generously pro­vided information, and especially to Baudouin van den Abeele, Silke Ackermann, Laurence Bobis, Lawrence Conrad, D. Debes, Jeffrey Dean, Luc Deitz, Peter Dronke, Haskell Isaacs, Lubomlr Konecny, Andrzej Ladomirski, Marilyn Nicoud, Vivian Nutton, Monique Paulmier-Foucart, Frangois Quiviger, Elizabeth Sears, Anne-Elisabeth Spica, Martin Steinmann, Joanna Tomicka, Nicholas Webb and Elspeth Yeo.

D. J. Paris

May 1994

C.S.F.B. London