The sources of medical knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England

Anglo-Saxon England

Volumn 11, Issue , 1982, Pages 135-155

  Cameron, M L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971941954     PISSN: 02636751     EISSN: 14740532     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0263675100002593     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Background on the state of European and English medicine in the period under discussion may be found in the following: G. Baader, ‘Die Anfange der medizinischen Ausbildung im Abendland bis 11 oo’, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull alto medioevo 19 (1972), 669-78;
2. L. MacKinney, Early Medieval Medicine with special reference to France and Chartres (Baltimore, (1937)); P. Riche, Les ecoles et l'enseignement dans l’ Occident chretien de la findu V siecle au milieu du XI’ siecle (Paris, (1979)), pp. 276-80;
3. J. J. Conteri, ‘Masters and Medicine in Northern France during the Reign of Charles the Bald’, Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed. M. Gibson and J. Nelson (Oxford, (1981)), pp. 333-50;
4. J. F. Payne, English Medicine in the Anglo-Saxon Times (Oxford, (1904)); S. Rubin, Medieval English Medicine (London, (1974)), esp. pp. 45-69 for a discussion of the Old English medical texts; J. H. G. Grattan and C. Singer, Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine Illustrated Specially from the Semi-Pagan Text ‘Lacnunga’ (Oxford, (1952)), esp. pt 1, pp. 1-94, in which Singer reviews Anglo-Saxon medicine and its place in the general European background, concluding with the statement that ‘AngloSaxon medicine is the last stage of a process that has left no legitimate successor, a final pathological disintegration of the great system of Greek medical thought’ (p. 94).
5. ‘Some Notes on Anglo-Saxon Medicine’, Medical Hist. 9 (1965), 156-69, and Medicine in Medieval England (London, (1967)), esp. pp. 9-23.
6. Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, ed. O. Cockayne, 3 vols. Rolls Ser. (London, 1864-6).
7. Authentic works of Bede, or those attributed to him, which contain medical material are to be found in Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. C. W. Jones (Cambridge, Mass. (1943))
8. and Bedae Pseudepigrapha, Scientific Writings Falsely Attributed to Bede, ed. Jones (Ithaca, (1939));
9. and Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum et Retractatio, ed. M. L. W. Laistner (Cambridge, Mass. (1939)).
10. For quotations from, and references to, the Historia Ecclesiastical have used Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, (1969)).
11. Byrhtferths Enchiridion is available in the edition of S. J. Crawford (Byrhtferths Manual, EETS, o.s. 177 (London, (1929))).
12. The Ramsey Scientific Compendium is discussed by C. Hart, ‘Byrhtferth and his Manual’, M& 41 (1972), 95-109, and P. S. Baker, ‘Byrhtferths Enchiridion and the computus in Oxford, St Johns College 17’, ASE 10 (1981), 123-42.
13. Byrhtferths Diagram has been published by Charles and Dorothea Singer, ‘Byrhtferths Diagram’, Bodleian Lib. Quarterly (1917), 47-51, and C. Singer, ‘A Review of the Medical Literature of the Dark Ages, with a New Text of about 1110’, Proc. of the R. Soc. of Medicine 10 (1917), 107-60.
14. Gg. 5. 35 is described by A. G. Rigg and G. R. Wieland, ‘A Canterbury Classbook of the Mid-Eleventh Century (the “Cambridge Songs” Manuscript)’, ASE 4 (1975), 113-30.
15. Aldhelmi Opera, ed. R. Ehwald, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq. 15 (Berlin, (1919)), 71, line 24, and 277, line 5 (trans. M. Lapidge and M. Herren, Aldhelm: the Prose Works (Ipswich, (1979)), pp. 42 and 96). I have to thank Dr M. Lapidge for this and the two following references to the works of Aldhelm.
16. Ed. Ehwald, p. 320; trans. Lapidge and Herren, p. 130.
17. See references in Lapidge and Herren, Aldhelm: the Prose Works, as well as M. Roger, L'enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone a Alcuin (Paris, (1905)), p. 320.
18. S. Bonifatii et Lullii Epistolae, ed. M. Tangi, MGH, Epistolae Selectae 1 (Berlin, (1955)), 247: ‘Nec non et, si quos saecularis scientiae libros nobis ignotos adepturi sitis, ut sunt de medicinalibus, quorum copia est aliqua apud nos, sed tamen sigmenta (P. Jaffe, an earlier editor, suggested reading pigmenta) ultramarina, quae in eis scripta conperimus, ignota nobis sent et difficilia adipiscendum.’ My translation is from Balds Leechbook: British Museum Royal Manuscript, 2. D. xvii, ed. C. E. Wright, with an app. by R. Quirk, EEMF 5 (Copenhagen, (1955)). 30, where the letter is discussed in the context of eighth-century English medicine.
19. Brief biographies of the medical writers mentioned can be found in G. Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, 6 vols. (Washington, (1927)).
20. Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de Materia Medica Libri V, ed. M. Wellmann, 3 vols. (Berlin, (1906) 14. Greek manuscripts of Dioscorides were profusely illustrated, the most notable being the Juliana Anicia Codex of the sixth century (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1). Copies of these illustrations are in The Creek Herbal of Dioscorides, Illustrated by a Byzantine A.D. 512, Englished by J. Goodyer A.D. 1655 edited and first printed A.D. 1933 by R. T. Gunther (Oxford, (1934)). The illustrations of the Latin and Old English Herbarium of pseudo-Apuleius are in the same tradition, though by what pathway is obscure (see below, n. 16).
21. Nachtrage Alexander Trallianus: Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius etc. ed. T. Puschmann, Berliner Studien 5 (Berlin, (1886)), is the most convenient text for reference to the surviving works of Philumenus and Philagrius of Epirus. On the Practica Alexandri and Oribasius, see below, nn. 23 and 13.
22. See above, n. 11.
23. The only printed text of the complete Latin translations of Oribasius is in Oeuvres d'Oribase, ed. U. C. Bussemaker and C. Daremberg, 6 vols. (Paris, 18 5 6-76). Vols, v and vi contain the Greek texts of the Synopsis and Euporistes, together with the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Latin translations. The introduction to vol. vi, which was edited by A. Molinier after the two earlier editors had died, contains an excellent account of the life, works and manuscript tradition of Oribasius.
24. The most recent edition of the Greek Oribasius is Oribasii Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae, ed. J. Raeder, 3 vols. (Berlin, (1928)).
25. On the dating of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ translations of Oribasiuss works, see H. Morland, Die lateinischen Oribasiusübersetzungen, Symbolae Osloenses, Supplement 5 (Oslo, (1932)), and Oribasius Latinus (Erster Teil), Symbolae Osloenses, Supplement 10 (Oslo, (1940)). Of the Synopsis and Euporistes some half-dozen manuscripts survive from our period; see A. Beccaria, I Codici di Medicina del Periodo Presalernitano (Secoli IX, X e XI), Storia e Letteratura, Raccolta di Studi e Testi 53 (Rome, (1956)), 475.
26. None of these is of English origin, but see J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597-1066 (Oxford, (1969)), p. 208, for a twelfth-century Oribasius manuscript containing English glosses.
27. Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III cum Physicorum Fragmento et Additamentis Pseudo-Theodoris, accedunt Vindiciani Afri quas feruntur Reliquiae, ed. V. Rose (Leipzig, (1874)). Two works of Vindicianus which do not figure in the present study are in more recent editions: J. Schipper, Ein neuer Text der Gynaecia des Vindicianus aus einer Munchener Handschrift des zwolften Jahrhunderts (diss. Leipzig, (1921)), and the epistle to Valentinian in Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. M. Niedermann, rev. R. Liechtenhan, 2 vols. Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 5 (Berlin, (1968)). See also T. Meyer, Theodorus Priscianus und die romische Medizin (Wiesbaden, (1967)), and H. Mørland, ‘Theodoras Priscianus im lateinischen Oribasius’, Symbolae Osloenses 29 (1952), 79-91.
28. See Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, ed. Rose.
29. The standard edition is Antonii Musae de Herba Vettonica Liber, Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius, Anonymi de Taxone Liber, Sexti Placiti Liber Medicinae ex Animalibus, etc. ed. E. Howald and H. E. Sigerist, Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 4 (Leipzig, (1927)). The number of surviving manuscripts is large, some twenty in Latin and three in Old English (Beccaria, Codici, pp. 441 and 485). See also Ogilvy, Books, pp. 75-6.
30. This little work is not in the edition of Howald and Sigerist cited above, n. 16; it may be found in The Old English Medicina de Quadrupedibus, ed. H. J. de Vriend (Tilburg, Holland, (1972)), together with much of interest on the English manuscript tradition of the whole Herbarium complex.
31. H. Kaestner, ‘Pseudo-Dioscoridis De Herbis Femininis’, Hermes 31 (1896), 578-636, and 32 (1897), 160.
32. There are three modern editions of Marcellus, each having material peculiar to itself: Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. G. Helmreich (Leipzig, (1889)); Marcellus: De Medicamentis Liber, ed. M. Niedermann, Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 5 (Leipzig and Berlin, (1916)); and the revision of Niedermanns edition by R. Liechtenhan (with German
33. No manuscripts of the Acutae Passiones and Tardae Passiones survive. The best account of the works of Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus is in the introduction to Caelius Aurelianus, On Acute Diseases and On Chronic Diseases, ed. I. E. Drabkin (Chicago, (1950)), where the Aurelius and Esculapius are also discussed.
34. Anecdota Graeca et Graeco-Latina, ed. V. Rose, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1864-70) 11, 163-240.
35. Cassii Felicis De Medicina ex Graecis Logicae Sectae Auctoribus Liber Translatus, ed. V. Rose (Leipzig, (1879)). A note in a thirteenth-century manuscript states that it was translated ‘sub ardebre et asclepio consulibus’ (=’ Artabure et Calepio’), which corresponds to the year 447;
36. see ed. Rose, p. viii. There is a good bibliography in H. Orth, ‘Der Afrikaner Cassius Felix: ein methodischer Arzt?’, Sudhoffs Archiv 44 (1960), 193-217.
37. The work of Cassius Felix survives from our period mostly in extracts and one, incomplete, manuscript (Beccaria, Codici, p. 444). See also Ogilvy, Books, p. 108.
38. Alexander von Tralles, Original-Text und Abersetzung, ed. T. Puschmann, 2 vols. (Vienna, (1879)). The short treatises on the eye are in Nachtrage, ed. Puschmann. Although there are
39. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols. (Oxford, (1910)), in which bk iv (‘De Medicina’), bk xi (‘De Homine et Portentis’) and bk xvii (‘De Rebus Rusticis’) are chiefly of interest to the history of medicine. An excellent commentary to bks iv and xi is given by W. D. Sharpe, ‘Isidore of Seville: the Medical Writings. An English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary’, Trans, of the Amer. Philosophical Soc. n.s. 54(1964), 1-75.
40. C. Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiae Libri XXXVll, ed. K. Mayhoff and L. Jan (Leipzig, 1875-1906), is the standard edition of Pliny, but for the student of medical history the edition of bks xx-xxxii (all that deal with medicine) by W. H. S. Jones (Pliny, Natural History, Loeb Classical Lib. (Cambridge, Mass. (1951) 63 vi-viii) is in general more useful, not least for the careful attempt to identify all plants mentioned by Pliny. The medieval abridgement of Plinys medical writings has been edited by A. Ünnerfors (Plinii secundi Iunioris qui feruntur de medicina libri tres, Corpus Medicorum Latinorum 3 (Berlin, (1964))).
41. H. E. Sigerist, Studien und Texte zur fruhmittelalterlichen Rezeptliteratur, Studien zur Geschichte der Medizin 13 (Leipzig, (1923))
42. Collectio Salernitana, ed. S. De Renzi, 5 vols. (Naples, (1856)), the Practica PetrocelliSalernitani being at iv, 185-291.
43. It appears from De Renzis account that his manuscript gave the work in three books. The Sloane copy has its chapters numbered in a single series through De Renzis bks i and ii What corresponds to his bk 1 ends on 78r in Sloane, 78V is blank and the text resumes on 79r with what corresponds to his bk ii. His bk iii has been shown to be a separate work, the Prognostica Democriti, or the Liber Medicinalis of pseudo-Democritus, made up largely of extracts from the Synopsis of Oribasius; see I. Heeg, ‘Pseudodemokritische Studien’, Abbandlungen der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 4(1913). The Sloane manuscript does not contain any bk iii and there is no indication that this Liber Medicinalis was known in England.
44. There are at least two editions of the Passionarius Galeni, attributed to Gariopontus, from the sixteenth century: the older is entitled Passionarius Galeni. in quinque libros. una cum febribus tractatu, etc. (Lyon, 1526); the later is entitled Garioponti ad totius corporis aegritudines remedtorum. libri V. de febribus. libri II, etc. (Basel, 1531). L. Thorndike and P. Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Scientific Writings in Latin (Cambridge, Mass. (1963)), col. 200, gives under the incipit ‘Cephalea est dolor capitis qui multum tempus tenet’ the note ‘Galen, Liber tertium. Beccaria, p. 407, lists eleven MSS before 1100, of which several antedate Gariopontus (fl. 1050).’ De Renzi (cited above, n. 26) in his discussion of Gariopontus (1, 137-49) quotes from a Basel manuscript (not further identified): ‘Passionarium, seu practica morborum Galieni, Theodori Prisciani, Alexandri et Pauli, quem Gariopontus quidam Salernitanus, eiusque Socii, una cum Albicio emendavit, ab erroribus vindicavit et in hunc ordinem redegit’, which implies editing, not composing.
45. The borrowings in the Passionarius are in general free enough to enable one to determine whether borrowings in later works are from the Passionarius or one of its sources.
46. The medical contents of the Ramsey Scientific Compendium and of the St Augustines Classbook are listed in detail in tables 1 and 2 (below, pp. 15 3-4) and were determined by my own study of the manuscripts or of photocopies of them. Royal 12. D. xvii I know only from the published facsimile cited above, n. 8. In the cases of Sloane 2839 and Sloane 475 I have studied the manuscripts themselves and microfilms of them. The list of contents of St Gallen 751 is adapted from Beccaria Codici, pp. 372-81 (Art. 133).
47. Bedes Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave and Mynors, p. 394 (iv. 19).
48. Bedes Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 458-9.
49. Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. Jones, pp. 235-7.
50. Ed. Helmreich, pp. 5-9; ed. Niedermann, pp. 10-13 (the revised edition, pp. 18-25). See also Jones, Bedae Opera, pp. 365-6. The manuscript referred to by Jones in his note, St Gallen 751, as representative of the kind probably known to Bede is the one whose contents are listed above, pp. 144-5.
51. Bedae Opera de Temporibus, ed. Jones, pp. 246-8 and 370 (n. beginning 21 sanguis siquidem). Bedes text agrees well enough with the version of the Epistula given in Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, ed. Rose, pp. 484-92, if we assume that he condensed material of two paragraphs into one. A peculiarity of Bedes version is the use of the term ‘transgressores’ to describe the third ‘aetas’ of human life, in which he is followed by Byrhtferth (see below, n. 56).
52. Bedae Venerabilis Expositio Actuum Apostolorum el Retractatio, ed. Laistner, p. 145, and Cassii Felicis De Medicina, ed. Rose, p. 122. In his explanation of dysentery Cassius Felix himself was quoting from Hippocrates.
53. See above, n. 35.
54. Bedes Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 384-5. The napkins mentioned would almost certainly have been made of linen.
55. Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne, ii, 2-299.
56. N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, (1957)), pp. 332-3. Ker suggests that the script is identical with that of the annals for 925-5 5 in the Parker Chronicle, and was consequently written in the same scriptorium, presumably at Winchester.
57. ‘Some Notes’, pp. 156-69.
58. Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne ii, 114. I have not followed Cockaynes artificially archaic translation. The Leechbook needs to be translated into truly modern English; the original does not have the ‘quaint’ flavour found in Cockaynes translation.
59. Balds Leechbook, ed. Wright, p. 13. The colophon is on 109r.
60. Talbot, ‘Some Notes’, p. 168. Talbot concludes: ‘. The Petrocellus text was not uncommon in Anglo-Saxon circles. It might not be going too far at this stage to suggest that the Petrocellus text may have been an Anglo-Saxon compilation, but there is no denying that the Leech Book of Bald was based partly on it and is the earliest witness, apart from the Echternach manuscript, to its existence.’ The similarity in structure of the Leechbook and the ‘Petrocellus’ suggests strongly to me that the two works are in a common tradition of composition.
61. See P. O. Kristeller, Latin Manuscript Books before 1600, 3rd ed. (New York, (1960)), p. 125. I have to thank Dr Lapidge for this reference.æ
62. Beccaria, Codici, pp. 208-13 (Art. 55). The manuscript is described in full, with generous extracts, in K. Sudhoff, ‘Codex medicus Hertensis (Nr. (192))’, Archiv fur Geschichte der Medizin 10 (1917), 265-313.
63. Leechdoms, ed. Cockayne 1, 1-573; The Old English Medicina de Quadrupedibus, ed. de Vriend, Introduction.
64. Beccaria, Codici, pp. 287 and 347. In two manuscripts of the ninth century, Lucca, Biblioteca Governativa 296, and Uppsala, Kungliga Universitetsbiblioteket C. 664, the Curae
65. Singer, ‘A Review’, p. 124; Hart, ‘Byrhtferth’, pp. 101ff.
66. Baker, ‘Byrhtferths Enchiridion’, pp. 125-41.
67. See above, n. 36.
68. It is only fair to Byrhtferth to remember that he was not writing a medical treatise and apparently knew nothing about medicine, so that he borrowed from the most convenient source, namely Bede, what he needed in order to develop his analogies.
69. Singer, ‘Review’, pp. 125-49. This edition contains a number of errors in transcription which Singer, because of military service abroad, was not able to correct before the paper went to press. Moreover most of the conclusions in the paper will not stand up to the results of later research. For example, the panaceas (p. 157) are not Salernitan but come from the Epistle of pseudo-Hippocrates to Maecenas, found, among other places, in the Marcellus manuscripts (see above, n. 19), in London, British Library, Arundel 166, at 3r-5 v, and in St Gallen 751 (see above, p. 144).
70. ‘A Canterbury Classbook’, pp. 114 and 128-9.
71. Ed. M. Lapidge, ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE 4 (197S). 67-111, at 103-5.
72. My best thanks go to Dalhousie University for leaves of absence and grants in aid of research which made it possible to carry out the studies leading to this work. Professor P. A. M. Clemoes and Dr M. Lapidge have given encouragement and help generously and I thank them accordingly. The staff of the University Library, Cambridge, deserve mention for their cheerful assistance which made work so much easier. To the Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, a special note of thanks for pleasant days spent in the Wren Library under the calm, stone gaze of Newtons bust. 1 have already expressed my thanks to the Librarian of St Johns College, Cambridge, for help which only he could give.
73. Ed. Rose, Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III, pp. 484-92. A frequent item in the medical compendia of the Middle Ages, though usually in complete form rather than in extract as here.
74. See Bedae Psettdepigrapha, ed. Jones; Migne, Patrologia Latina 90, cols. 959-62.
75. In this table and in table 2 references to the ‘ Petrocellus’ relate to the unpublished manuscript, London, BL, Sloane 2839. The last leaves of the manuscript are numbered in the wrong order, which accounts for the lack of sequence in the references given. Although references are to ‘Petrocellus, the material of items 5 and 6 is often found elsewhere; I have given this reference as being very close to J in its wording.
76. This odd little work has been thoroughly discussed by V. Nutton, ‘Prognostica Galieni’, Medical Hist. 14 (1970), 96-100. I have separated Nuttons material from J into two parts, item 7, the Prognostica Calient proper, and item 8, other prognostics not identified. Two corrections to Nuttons transcription (p. 98) are in order: in the quotation from Arundel 166 ‘oculus senex terminuatur’ should read ‘oculus senexter minuatur'; in the quotation from Gg. 5.35 ‘urina nigra pessima est’ should read ‘urina nigra mane pessima est’.
77. Sudhoff, ‘Codex medicus Hertensis’, gives the following from Hertensis 192 (36v): ‘Contra fluxum sanguinis de naribus. Tolle de ipso sanguine et scribe in pargameno ita. faciens crucem. Stomen Kalaos. stomen methophow et alliga fronti eius.’ The charm cannot, therefore, be used as evidence for lingering traces of Greek ritual language in Anglo-Saxon England.
78. See above, p. 140 and n. 19.
79. Although none of this collection of recipes can be traced to certain sources, two on 177r deserve mention: ‘Enema sciaticis. addens furfuras triticeas galoxinas.ii. tepidum inicias’ and ‘Enema ad eos. furfuribus triticeis galoxinas.ii. tepidum inicias’. They seem to be variants of each other and similar to a recipe found elsewhere in our period in manuscripts containing the Liber Teraupetica (or Teropetici), such as Arundel 166 and Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, latin 11219, both of the ninth century. The very rare word galoxinas (meaning ‘double handful’) found in them occurs also in only two other ninth-century manuscripts, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, latin 11218 and Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, latin 10251. On the history of the word galoxina, see A. Thomas, ‘Galoxina “Jointee”’, Bulletin du Cange 4 (1928), 93-103. The occurrence of the word in J presents interesting problems on the sources of Js recipes.
80. Lapidges suggestion (‘The Hermeneutic Style’, pp. 84-5 and 103-5) that these little poems may be products of the tenth-century Canterbury school cannot be maintained. The same poems are found in the late-eighth- or early-ninth-century manuscript, Leningrad, Public Library, F. v. vi. 3,39r, and have been edited from it by G. Walter (‘Zu Pseudo-Sorans Quaestiones (Ein griechisch-lateinisches Glossar in Versform. - Codex Leninopolitanus Lat. F. v. vi. 3, fol. 39ro)’, Archiv fur Geschichte der Medizin 28 (1935), 267-78). The poem beginning ‘Flegmon, apoplexis’ has also been copied on to the last page of
81. Sorani Epbesii Vetustissimi Archiatri et Peripatetici, in Artis Medendi Isagogen, ed. A. Thorin (Basel, 1528). No manuscript of this collection is known; it contains material from the Quaestiones medicinates (see preceding note), with the usual assembly of short tracts on diet, blood-letting, humours etc. found in medieval medical manuscripts. Much of its contents occur also in Arundel 166 (82V and following leaves; the extent is difficult to determine because of lack of headings), in a work called there De Arle Prolixa, but it cannot be regarded as a source for the printed work. Only three items (no 53,12 and 13) cannot be traced to analogues other than this printed work.
82. See above, Appendix, n. 2.
83. See above, Appendix, n. 4.
84. See above, Appendix, n. 3. The similarity of wording in the items of E and ‘Petrocellus’ convince me that E is borrowed directly from ‘Petrocellus’.
85. This dialogue, widespread in the medieval literature, has been edited by H. Normann, ‘Disputatio Piatonis et Aristotelis. Ein apokrypher Dialog aus dem fruhen Mittelalter’, Sudhoffs Archiv 23 (1930), 68-86.
86. Edited, together with items 12 and 13, which are not recipes, as ‘Das Cambridger Antidotarium’, by Sigerist (Studien und Texte, pp. 160-7). Analogues have been found for about one-third of the recipes in item 11.
87. See above, Appendix, n. 1. E gives the full text in a form quite close to the edited one.
88. One gets the impression from these last six items that the scribe of E was copying ‘Petrocellus’ more or less directly. The last item (21) is a mere beginning of an article, the rest of which is lost with the missing quire (cf. Rigg and Wieland, ‘A Canterbury Classbook’, p. 118). Although we cannot know how much is lost, it appears that the scribe was just beginning a section on fevers.