‘‘ABOMINABLE MIXTURES'':

THE LIBER VACCAE IN THE MEDIEVAL WEST,

OR THE DANGERS AND ATTRACTIONS OF NATURAL MAGIC
By MAAIKE VAN DER LUGT

In his magnum opus on the history of magic, Lynn Thorndike devoted a

few pioneering pages to the Liber vaccae or Book of the Cow. He identified
and described several of the manuscripts of this singular Arabic compilation
of magical experiments, pointed out the many different titles under which it
was known in the medieval West, and discussed its false attribution to
Plato, Galen, and Hunayn ibn Ishaˆq. By contrast, given his habit of para-
phrasing the texts he examined at great length, Thorndike's account of the
content of the work is uncharacteristically patchy. He hastily referred to
‘‘elaborate experiments in unseemly generation and obstetrics,'' the aim of
which was ‘‘to make a rational animal from a cow or ape or other beast, or
to make bees.'' In his opinion, the experiments of the Liber vaccae were, in
fact, ‘‘unmentionable,'' and ‘‘hardly such as can be described in detail in
English translation.''1
Among medieval readers, the Liber vaccae elicited no less outspoken reac-
tions. The text clearly exerted a certain attraction among the learned, as
indicated by the relatively large number of manuscripts and citations. Sub-
stantial parts of the Liber vaccae were also integrated into a Latin treatise
on magic and wonders, the De mirabilibus mundi. Some scholars had no
qualms about it. However, most readers dismissed the Liber vaccae as
‘‘abominable,'' ‘‘full of perversion,'' and accused it of ‘‘uprooting the laws of
nature,'' and ‘‘violating her secrets.''
This article is an attempt to understand better the dubious reputation of
the Liber vaccae, through a detailed study of its contents and the ways it
was read and transmitted in the Latin Middle Ages. Since Thorndike, valua-
ble scholarship has contributed to our knowledge of the Liber vaccae. The
dismal quality of the extant Latin text — the Arabic original is almost
entirely lost — seriously complicates any project to edit the text critically.
In several erudite articles concerned with the place of the Liber vaccae
within ancient and Near Eastern magical, religious, and philosophical tradi-
tions, the late David Pingree has nevertheless provided highly useful tran-

1
Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York,
1923–58), 2 (1923): 778–82, 809–10. Thorndike's account is partly indebted to M. Stein-
schneider, Zur pseudoepigraphischen Literatur, insbesondere der geheimen Wissenschaften des
Mittelalters. Aus Hebräischen und Arabischen Quellen (Berlin, 1862), 52–64.
230 traditio

scriptions and paraphrases of important parts of the work. He has also iden-
tified several more Latin manuscripts.2 A full transcription of one manu-
script has, moreover, recently been made available by Paolo Scopelliti and
Abessattar Chaouech.3
In an important book, William Newman has provided a stimulating read-
ing of the experiments on artificial generation, as part of a study on
alchemy and pre-modern homunculus traditions.4 Sophie Page proposed a
penetrating analysis of the structure and rationale of a larger sample of
experiments.5 However, as we shall see, these various attempts at unravel-
ling the magic of Liber vaccae differ on several important points and can be
complemented on others. Moreover, no systematic study of its reception in
the Latin West has yet been undertaken.
The Liber vaccae contributed to the rise of learned magic during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. During that period, magic underwent a
profound transformation. Until then, it had been an aggregate of definitions,
recipes, and practices, devoid of a theoretical underpinning, and without
much of a unifying structure or identity. Under the influence of new magi-
cal texts, translated from the Greek, and, especially, the Arabic, magic
became something of an organized field, with a certain claim to scientific
status.6 Although the Liber vaccae lacks an articulate description of its theo-
retical foundations, we shall see that the experiments, however extravagant,

2
David Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book of the Cow,'' in Il neoplatonismo nel Rinasci-
mento, ed. Pietro Pini (Rome, 1993), 133–45; ‘‘Artificial Demons and Miracles,'' Res orien-
tales 13 (2001): 109–22 (with a summary of the Latin text and English translation of the
first book); ‘‘From Hermes to Jaˆbir and the Book of the Cow,'' in Magic and the Classical
Tradition, ed. C. Burnett and W. F. Ryan (London and Turin, 2006), 19–28. See also Pin-
gree, ‘‘The Diffusion of Arabic Magical Texts in Western Europe,'' in La diffusione delle
scienze islamiche nel medio evo europeo (Roma, 2–4 ottobre 1984) (Rome, 1987), 57–102, at
71–72, 80, 95–96. David Pingree prepared an edition of the Liber vaccae, but at the time of
his death in 2005 this project was still in a fairly early stage. When writing this article,
I had no access to his papers, which are to be deposited at the American Philosophical
Society.
3
Liber aneguemis: Un antico testo ermetico tra alchimia pratica, esoterismo e magia nera,
ed. P. Scopelliti and A. Chaouech (Milan, 2006), henceforth cited as Liber aneguemis. The
transcription is based on Florence, Bibl. Nazionale 2.3.214. Transcription of the extant
fragment in Arabic, ibid., 161–62.
4
William R. Newman, Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature
(Chicago, 2004), 177–81, 190–91.
5
Sophie Page, ‘‘Magic at St. Augustine's, Canterbury, in the Late Middle Ages'' (Ph.D.
diss., The Warburg Institute, University of London, 2000), chap. 3–1, and Sophie Page,
‘‘Magic and the Pursuit of Wisdom: The Familiar Spirit in the Liber Theysolius,'' La coró-
nica 36 (2007): 41–70, esp. 51–55.
6
See Jean-Patrice Boudet, Entre science et nigromance: Astrologie, divination et magie
dans l'Occident me´ die´ val (XIIe–XVe sie` cle) (Paris, 2006), esp. chap. 3; Nicolas Weill-Parot,
Les ‘images astrologiques' en Occident au Moyen Aˆge et à la Renaissance: Spe´ culations intel-
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 231

are partly based on concepts and notions that would have made them intel-
ligible (if not necessarily acceptable) to scholastic readers.
Magic, like alchemy and certain forms of astrology, never became a uni-
versity discipline.7 Nevertheless, we find the most articulate students of the
new magical texts, including the Liber vaccae, among university-trained cler-
ics. Some of them recognized the existence of natural magic, which was sup-
posedly based solely on the exploitation of the hidden forces of nature.
Unlike ritual magic, which involved demons or other spirits, natural magic
(magia naturalis) was, at least in theory, reconcilable with Christian doc-
trine. The case of the Liber vaccae illustrates, however, that the distinctions
between the natural and the demonic, between the allowed and the forbid-
den, remained highly problematic and ambiguous.
There was no doubt in medieval readers' minds that the Liber vaccae was
a work on natural magic. Whether or not they believed its exorbitant
claims, the Liber vaccae did not, in their view, call for the intervention of
demons. At the same time, however, readers suggested that demons might
well be its most articulate practitioners. As we shall see, the Liber vaccae
participated in a scholastic debate which portrayed demons as working
through, and linked to, nature. Hence, they came to be seen as experts in
natural magic. This tendency undermined the distinction between demonic
and natural magic from the moment it was forged.
The natural character of the magic of the Liber vaccae, however, did not
make the text any more innocuous in medieval readers' eyes. For example,
William of Auvergne, who was the first to theorize the notion of natural
magic and one of the first Western readers of the Liber vaccae, was among
its most virulent critics. Behind most of these criticisms was the idea that
the magic of the Liber vaccae, albeit natural, transgressed the order of
nature itself.
Magical wonders were, almost by definition, against the common course
of nature. From the early decades of the thirteenth century onwards, they
fell into the category of what scholastics called the preternatural (praeter
naturam), distinct from true, supernatural miracles. The feats of the magi-
cians of Pharaoh, who turned staves into snakes (Exod. 7:10–13), consti-
tuted the paradigmatic example of the preternatural. According to the scho-
lastics, this seemingly instantaneous and miraculous transformation relied on
the artificial manipulation and acceleration of the purely natural process of

lectuelles et pratiques magiques (XIIe-XVe sie` cle) (Paris, 2002); Richard Kieckhefer, Magic
in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989), esp. chap. 6.
7
On astrology in the university setting, cf. Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 283–95.
Boudet notes (290) that medieval masters of astrology neglected elections and interroga-
tions, forms of astrology that were the most suspect in the eyes of the Church authorities.
232 traditio

spontaneous generation.8 The experiments of the Liber vaccae, the most

important of which deal with artificial generation, clearly fit the definition
of the preternatural.
However, in the medieval condemnations of the Liber vaccae, the order of
nature has a different, moral, meaning. The reactions to the Liber vaccae are
part of a debate about the legitimacy and the limits of the manipulation of
nature by artificial means. We shall see that what most struck and troubled
medieval readers was not so much the fact that the Liber vaccae proposed a
method for artificially creating humanlike life. Indeed what seemed much
worse was that this method involved ‘‘abominable mixtures'': crossbreeding
between humans and animals. As such, it gave rise to new kinds of creatures
without a clear status.
In what follows I shall give a detailed description of the Liber vaccae
itself, paying attention to its idiosyncrasies and its proximity to other occult
texts and traditions. Then I shall turn to the manuscript evidence. The
manuscripts, both extant and lost, give information about the diffusion of
the Liber vaccae in time and space, about its owners and readers, and the
way they viewed and classified the text. Analysis of the manuscripts also
shows the strong links between the Liber vaccae and another Arabic work
on magic, the De proprietatibus of Ibn al-Jazzaˆr, as well as the influence of
the Liber vaccae on the Latin treatise the De mirabilibus mundi. It will be
shown that the anonymous author of the De mirabilibus mundi borrowed
extensively from the Liber vaccae, while avoiding the more questionable
experiments. The last part of my discussion assesses the allusions to the
Liber vaccae in the works of scholastic philosophers and theologians. A chron-
ological overview of these citations is followed by a more thematic study to
show the various ways in which the Liber vaccae exemplifies the ambivalent
status of natural magic in medieval learning.

A Treatise on ‘‘Organic'' Magic

David Pingree has shown that the Arabic original of the Liber vaccae can
be dated to the end of the ninth century.9 Only a short fragment of the

8
On the notion of the preternatural and the medieval interpretation of the passage from
Exodus, see Maaike van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge: Les the´ ories me´ die´ vales de la
ge´ ne´ ration extraordinaire (Paris, 2004), 16–19, 223–30, 521–25. In line with Augustine, the
scholastics held that demons were behind the works of the magicians of Pharaoh. How-
ever, in the commentaries on this passage they defended the idea that demons are bound
to nature. See also the discussion below.
9
This date is based on the attribution of the Liber vaccae to Hunayn ibn Ishaˆq (cf.
below), who translated before 856 (probably around 840) a work to which the Liber vaccae
seems to refer, and the citation of the Liber vaccae in the Jabirian Kitaˆ b al-tajmíˆ , which
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 233

Arabic text has survived.10 This Arabic version is referred to in several Ara-
bic works on magic and alchemy, such as the the Picatrix (Ghaˆ yat Al-
Hakíˆ m) and the Kitaˆ b al-tajmíˆ in the corpus attributed to Jaˆbir ibn Hay-
yaˆn.11 The text is, however, essentially known through a cryptic Latin
translation, which was probably executed in twelfth-century Spain.12 There
also exists a Hebrew translation, which was made from the Latin version,
and which is preserved in one manuscript now in Munich.13
As was often the case for books on magic, the anonymous author of the
Liber vaccae hid behind an elaborate artifice. The text masquerades as a
commentary by Galen of a work by Plato, which had then allegedly been
translated into Arabic by Hunayn ibn Ishaˆq. This great physician and trans-
lator, who flourished in Bagdad in the ninth century, was also supposedly
the author of important parts of the introduction to the work — presenting
and explaining Galen's alleged own introductory words — and responsible
for the comments following some of the experiments.14

was composed in the early tenth century. Cf. Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book,'' 136,
138–39, and Pingree, ‘‘Artificial Demons,'' 110.
10
Transcription of the extant fragment in Liber aneguemis, 161–62.
11
Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book,'' 135–38. See also n. 21 and n. 130 below.
12
The terminus ante quem is given by the oldest extant manuscript of the Liber vaccae,
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 22292, which dates from the end of the twelfth
or the beginning of the thirteenth century. The first citation occurs in William of
Auvergne's work of the 1220s (see below). David Pingree proposed Spain as the place
where the work was translated, because the author of the Ghaˆ yat Al-Hakíˆ m (Picatrix)
quoted from the Liber vaccae, and since the Picatrix was written in Spain, the Arabic orig-
inal of the Liber vaccae must have circulated there as well. Cf. Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion,''
71–72, and ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book,'' 134–36.
13
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Hebr. 214. The index that precedes the De
proprietatibus and the Liber vaccae in this manuscript has been described by Steinschneider,
Zur pseudoepigraphischen Literatur (n. 1 above), 55. It seems to indicate that the Hebrew
version skips the experiments for making rational animals and starts with the one on mak-
ing bees. On the other contents of the manuscript, see ibid., and Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Her-
metic Book'' (n. 2 above), 135, and ‘‘The Diffusion'' (n. 2 above), 71–72, who notes that
it contains a Hebrew version of the Picatrix as well. The Hebrew translation of the Liber
vaccae and the De proprietatibus is based on the Latin version: see M. Steinschneider, Die
hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893):
706–7, 849, 1008 (cited by Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion,'' 71 n. 48).
14
However, according to Marwan Rashed, the anonymous author of the Arabic original
of the Liber vaccae may well have used the prologue of a real work by Galen to construct
the artifice. The prologue of the Liber vaccae states that Galen first wanted to write an
abridgement of Plato's Laws, but finally decided to compose a full-fledged commentary
on that work. Marwan Rashed argues that this part of the introduction is based on the
now lost prologue of Galen's abridgement, not of Plato's Laws, but of the Timaeus. I wish
to express my gratitude to Marwan Rashed for sharing with me this exciting hypothesis
and the preliminary results of his analysis of the prologue of the Liber vaccae (‘‘Le prologue
perdu de l'Abrégé du Time´ e de Galien dans un texte de magie noire?'', to be published in
234 traditio

In the West, the Liber vaccae was known under several different titles (see
Tables 1 and 2). Liber vaccae and Vacca Platonis were clearly suggested by
the first experiment, which involved a cow. Scribes and readers also called it
Liber aneguemis (or Liber agregationum aneguemis) — which was sometimes
corrupted into forms like Anequems, Anguemiz, Neumich, or Neumiz. We
also find Leges Platonis or Liber institutionum activarum Platonis. Some
manuscripts give several of these titles at the same time. All of these are
Latin transliterations and translations of the original Arabic title Kitaˆ b al-
Nawaˆ míˆ s, that is, Book of Laws, just like the authentic work by Plato.15 The
title Liber regimenti or Liber regiminis, which the author of the De mi-
rabilibus mundi calls the Liber vaccae, would seem to have a similar sense.16
The Liber vaccae is divided into two sections (i.e., Major and Minor), each
containing a little more than forty experiments.17 The Minor is mainly con-
cerned with the construction of magical lamps and the creation of illusions.
In the prologue, the author declares that this kind of magic is already quite
well known and not in need of much introduction, an argument repeated at
the beginning of the Minor itself. He advertises the magic of the Major as

Antiquorum philosophorum 3 [2009]). The scattered Dixit Hunayn passages and the division
of the work into two sections (e.g., Major and Minor, see below) also make one wonder
whether the pseudo-Hunayn might not have compiled the Liber vaccae from different rec-
ipe collections, adding comments on the way.
15
According to Pingree, ‘‘From Hermes,'' 22–23, and ‘‘Artificial Demons'' (n. 2 above),
110, the word naˆ muˆ s in the Arabic title Kitaˆ b al-nawaˆ míˆ s is a transliteration of the Syriac
word namuˆ saˆ and not of the Greek nomos. Namuˆ saˆ means ‘‘secrets'' and was also used in
the title of a Syriac book on Harraˆnian magic written by Thaˆbit ibn Qurra and translated
into Arabic by his son. Pingree used this argument to back up his theory that the Liber
vaccae was written by a Syrian, in the Syrian city of Harraˆn. Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic
Book,'' 134, 142. The explicit references to Plato and the likelihood that the author of the
Liber vaccae attributed it to Hunayn because the latter wrote a summary of Plato's Laws
(cf. Pingree, ‘‘Artifical Demons,'' 110), suggest that a Syrian meaning of naˆ muˆ s can at most
be secondary. It supposes rather than proves that the author of the Liber vaccae was a
Syrian.
16
However, one manuscript (Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 120 [olim C. V. 15], fif-
teenth century) and several printed versions of the De mirabilibus read tegimenti rather
than regimenti. I thank Antonella Sannino for this information (for a list of manuscripts
of the De mirabilibus mundi, see n. 74 below). The variant tegimenti is most likely a cor-
ruption, but may have been suggested by the following comment attributed to Hunayn:
‘‘Inquit Hunayn: Galienus dixit quod iste phylosophus scilicet Plato non nominat librum
suum hunc librum aneguemis, nisi (ms. non) propter eam quam ego narrabo post horam
hanc et rememorabor eius in loco suo. Dico ergo quod plato non intendit per id nisi (ms.
non) tegumentum'' (Liber aneguemis, 60).
17
In the manuscript transcribed in Liber aneguemis, Florence, Bibl. Nazionale 2.3.214,
the Major and Minor comprise forty-five and forty-one experiments, respectively. Accord-
ing to Pingree, ‘‘Artificial Demons,'' 110 n. 12, Montpellier, faculté de médecine, MS 277 is,
however, the most complete.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 235

nobler and much less familiar. A detailed description of several experiments

of this part of the Liber vaccae may help to get a feel for the work. The first
four experiments of the Major are among those that the author rated high-
est and that medieval readers found most intriguing and repugnant.
To make a ‘‘rational animal'' (animal rationale), the Liber vaccae explains,
the magician must take some of ‘‘his own water'' (de aqua sua) when it is
still warm, and mix it with an equal amount of the stone which is called the
stone of the sun, a stone that shines at night like a lamp. The term ‘‘rational
animal'' must be understood as a human or at least humanlike being, or in
other words, a homunculus, although the translator does not use this term.
I will come back to this interpretation shortly. The magician's ‘‘water'' refers
to his sperm.
With the mixture of sperm and sun stone, the magician inseminates a
cow or a ewe. He then carefully plugs up its vagina with the sun stone and
smears its genitals with the blood of the animal that was not chosen for
insemination. Then the cow or the ewe must be placed in a dark house, in
which the sun never shines. Its food must be mixed with the blood of the
other animal. While awaiting the moment of birth, the magician prepares a
powder made of ground sun stone, sulphur, magnet, and green tutia, stirred
with the sap of a white willow. The unformed substance to which the ewe or
the cow gives birth must be placed in this powder, whereupon it will
instantly grow a human skin (vestietur statim cute humana). The newborn
homunculus must be kept in a large glass or lead vessel for three days, until
it is very hungry. Then it is fed on its decapitated mother's blood for seven
days until it has developed into a complete animal. It can henceforth be
used to perform certain feats. If it is placed on a white cloth, with a mirror
in its hands, and suffumigated with a mixture of human blood and other
ingredients, the moon will appear to be full on the last day of the month.
If it is decapitated, and its blood is given to a man to drink, the man will
assume the form of a bovine or a sheep; but if he is anointed with it, he will
have the form of an ape. If the homunculus is fed for forty days in a dark
house, on a diet of blood and milk, and then its guts are extracted from its
belly and rubbed onto someone's hands and feet, he may walk on water18 or
travel around the world in the winking of an eye. Kept alive for a year and
then placed in a bath of milk and rainwater, it will tell things that happen
far away.
The next two experiments are essentially the same, except for the fact
that the womb is provided for by a female monkey in the second experi-
ment and an unidentified female animal in the third. Other stones and

18
The manuscript transcribed in Liber aneguemis omits this, but it is found in others,
such as London, BL, Arundel 342 and Montpellier, faculté de médecine, MS 277.
236 traditio

ingredients are used, and the incubation in the vessel is extended to forty
days. A collyrium made from the eyes and brain of the homunculus birthed
by the monkey enables one to see spirits and demons; drinking a concoction
made from its tongue allows one to converse with them. Anointing one's
hands with its liver makes trees bend over, and suffumigating a dead tree
with a mixture of its brain, the brain of a fresh human corpse, and the seeds
of a certain tree can make it start to flourish instantly. The guts of the third
homunculus (birthed by the unidentified female animal) used as an ointment
renders one insensitive to pain from blows, and blunts the edge of a sword
with which one is struck; a suspension of its heart wrapped in the skin of its
forehead makes one invisible. Burning powder made from its body can make
rain fall at unseasonable times, and if buried in the ground for fourteen
days, this powder will give rise to snakes that are extremely poisonous.
The fourth experiment describes an elaborate procedure to generate bees
from the corpse of a decapitated calf. This involves locking up the corpse in
a dark house with fourteen closed windows on the East, blocking all its
body orifices after having reattached the head, hitting it with a large dog's
penis,19 extracting the flesh from the skinned corpse, grinding this with a
certain herb, and leaving the mixture in a corner of the house, until it will
be converted into worms. Every following day, a window must be opened
and some powdered dead bees thrown upon the worms in order to convert
them into bees. Reversing the modus operandi allows one to obtain the
opposite effect and generate a cow from dead bees. The latter possibility is
only referred to in passing here, but another recipe of the Liber vaccae Major
describes a complex method for generating a small cow — with a human
face, wings, and claws like a bird — from worms. The worms are first gen-
erated from the flesh of a certain fish, which must be ground with an equal
amount of human blood and put into the brain of a bull, which is then put
into a vessel and buried in the ground for forty days. The successive stages
involve the addition of more animal and human substances, more incuba-
tory vessels and burials, leading to the creation of other hybrid animals: a
hairy, viperlike worm with two horns and two enormous eyes, big beelike
worms, and a fish with a human face. The fat of the final animal, the cow,
can be used as an ointment to transform permanently the shape of a person
into a pig or an ape.20

19
The manuscript transcribed in Liber aneguemis reads ‘‘bone.'' In practical terms this
would seem to make more sense, but grammatically it is not satisfactory either. As sug-
gested by Newman, Promethean Ambitions (n. 4 above), 178, something has probably been
mistranslated here.
20
Liber aneguemis, 1.28. For this experiment, see also Page, ‘‘Magic and the Pursuit of
Wisdom'' (n. 5 above), 52–53.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 237

Besides these methods to create rational and irrational animals artificially

and to work wonders with their body parts, the Liber vaccae proposes other
recipes for becoming invisible, conversing with spirits, rain making, making
plants grow within an hour, or making trees bend over. Yet other experi-
ments include methods to make armies, giants, and other forms appear in
the sky; construct different kinds of magical houses in which people suffer
epileptic fits, start to tremble, hallucinate, or die; understand the language
of birds; or make lamps that cannot be extinguished. Some of these proce-
dures are almost as complex as the methods for artificial generation, while
others are more straightforward. For instance, the recipe for understanding
bird language merely involves mixing body parts from three ravens — the
liver from the first, the brain from the second, and the upper pallet from the
third — and drinking the beverage made from this concoction in three sep-
arate gulps.
With astral magic, the experiments of the Liber vaccae can be qualified as
natural magic, because their supposed effectiveness does not rely on the
intervention of demons or angels. Admittedly, the Picatrix interpreted the
working of the magic of the Liber vaccae as involving the implantation of
demonic powers into motionless substances, so that they become moving
spiritual forms which produce marvellous effects.21 Following the Picatrix
on this point, David Pingree qualified the Liber vaccae as the ‘‘most fla-
grantly demonic of Arabic books on magic,''22 and argued that the homun-
culus is, in reality, an artificial demon.23 This demonic interpretation is,
however, not supported by the surviving text itself. Spirits are not alto-
gether absent, but their role is limited. Several experiments allow the magi-
cian to see spirits and to converse with them.24 The pursuit of knowledge

21
Picatrix 2.12.59 (ed. David Pingree, Picatrix: The Latin Version of the Ghaˆ yat Al-
Hakíˆ m [London, 1986], 88–89): ‘‘Et omnia predicta que diximus fiunt potenciis et virtuti-
bus figurarum et propter attractionem fortitudinum spirituum ut nobis sint obedientes et
propter eorum composicionem fortitudinum cum figuris corporum materiei istius inferioris
mundi compositorum. Ideo ex istis erunt spirituales motus omnia corpora moventes, quibus
motibus effectus mirabiles fiunt necnon et opera que non sunt hominibus usitata, sed quasi
de miraculorum genere apparencia.'' Jaˆbir ibn-Hayyaˆn disapproved of the Liber vaccae, and
may also have considered it as demonic; cf. Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book,'' 138.
22
Pingree, ‘‘Artificial Demons,'' 109.
23
Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book,'' 138, 141, and especially ‘‘Artificial Demons,'' 115.
Sophie Page casts doubt on some aspects of Pingree's argumentation, but in ‘‘Magic and
the Pursuit of Wisdom,'' she accepts the idea that the magic of the Liber vaccae relies on
both natural and demonic powers and that the homunculus is inhabited by a demon. Wil-
liam Newman, Promethean Ambitions, 179 n. 16, rejects the demonic interpretation of the
homunculus outright. See also below.
24
For instance Liber aneguemis 1.1 and 1.37. Sophie Page, ‘‘Magic and the Pursuit of
Wisdom,'' 52 n. 35, notes that the Picatrix (2.12.59 [ed. David Pingree, 89]) mentions con-
238 traditio

through access to spirits is, nevertheless, by no means the most prominent

of the magician's goals. One might imagine that entering into contact with
spirits is merely a first step, allowing the magician to use the spirits for
other magical feats, but the fact remains that the text never says so. More-
over, despite the extensive use of suffumigations, there is no reference to
invocations and incantations, magical formula, images or writing, circles,
swords, altars, candles, or to other typical attributes of the necromancer.
Spirits, either good or bad, are never called upon actually to perform magi-
cal feats, to ‘‘come down'' into the substances used, or to speed up the nat-
ural processes involved.
At the same time, the magic of the Liber vaccae also substantially differs
from astral magic, even though a comment attributed to Hunayn qualifies
star worshippers as experts in accomplishing the magical feats described in
the book.25 This remark, together with several other indications,26 led David
Pingree to suggest that the Liber vaccae originated in the Syrian city of Har-
raˆn, home to the Sabians and cradle of the astral magic which later found
its way into the Picatrix.27 However, astral influences play no significant
role in the procedures of the Liber vaccae. At most, some experiments must
be performed at the full or new moon. Moreover, Hunayn's remark about
star worshippers is hardly central within the overall structure of the Liber
vaccae. It is not found in the prologue, but somewhere in the middle of the
text, between an experiment about making eye ointments enabling one to
see spirits and another about making an unextinguishable lamp.
The alleged effectiveness of the experiments clearly depends first and
foremost on the inherent properties of animal parts — mostly blood and
organs — and, to a somewhat lesser extent, on those of herbs, plants, trees,
and stones. In some cases, human blood and human body parts (e.g., brains,
teeth, noses) are also necessary. With regard to its basic ingredients, one
may call the magic of the Liber vaccae ‘‘organic magic.''28
With respect to its ingredients, the magic of the Liber vaccae resembles
the simpler medical magic of amulets and suspensions. However, the experi-
ments of the Liber vaccae are rather more intricate and ambitious. As Sophie
Page pointed out, many experiments proceed by several steps; at each suc-
cessive stage, the result is more spectacular and the promised powers

versing with the dead as one of the goals of the Liber vaccae. However, as she points out as
well, no experiments on this topic are present in the surviving copies of the work.
25
Liber aneguemis, after experiment 1.33 (82).
26
See n. 15 above.
27
Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book'' (n. 2 above), 142–43.
28
The ingredients prescribed by the Liber vaccae also include precious stones. However,
in medieval cosmology there is no sharp distinction between the organic and the inorganic
realm. Plants, animals, stones, and metals are all considered products of generation.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 239

increase.29 Moreover, the purpose of the experiments is not medical but

rather to allow the magician to assume superhuman, almost Godlike powers.
In some cases, the aim is to inflict harm on others. Nor is the purpose of
this magic only practical. There is a clear theatrical quality to many of the
experiments. They suppose an audience, as shown by the repeated remarks
by the author, that all who see it will marvel at the spectacle. As such, they
correspond to what Richard Kieckhefer has called ‘‘illusionist experiments,''
as opposed to divination and ‘‘psychological'' magic (fascination, love magic,
etc.).30 As Kieckhefer himself acknowledged, the term ‘‘illusion'' is equivocal,
because the ontological status of the spectacles worked by magic is often
ambiguous. This holds true for the magic in the Liber vaccae. For instance,
it is not clear exactly how one is to understand the claim that a man can be
‘‘transformed into a cow or a sheep'' (convertetur ad formam vacce aut ovis),
or be made ‘‘to look like'' (simulabitur) an ape.31
Because of its concern with transformations, generations, and the creation
of illusions, the magic of the Liber vaccae is also, as suggested by David
Pingree, related to alchemy.32 One is reminded of that branch of alchemy
which did not restrict itself to the use of sulphur and mercury but pre-
scribed organic substances as well. The frequent use of glass or metal vessels
is another common feature between alchemy and the Liber vaccae. But of
course, the aim of the Liber vaccae is not to produce artificial gold, and it
cannot be qualified as an alchemical text stricto sensu. It would be wrong to
read the whole text as symbolically representing the alchemical procedure.33
The Liber vaccae lacks an articulate explanation of its theoretical founda-
tions. Nevertheless, its rationale can, up to a certain extent, be decoded.
The general underlying idea is that the powers and virtues of organs and
body parts used as ingredients are imparted onto the magician or the tools
he uses. For instance, it would seem that the concoction to understand the
language of birds contains organs and body parts of a raven, because, in
Galenic physiology, the brain and liver were considered the seat of the soul's
functions; the upper pallet referring more specifically to the function of

29
Page, ‘‘Magic at St. Augustine's'' (n. 5 above), chap. 3.
30
See Richard Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth
Century (Phoenix, 1997), 42–44.
31
Liber aneguemis 1.1 (63). However, in 1.28 (77–78), the transformation is explicitly
presented as permanent: ‘‘Si volueris convertere formam hominis ad formam symii aut por-
cii aut aliarum ex formis bestiarum et remaneat secundum habitudinem suam tempore
toto.'' See also 1.29 (78–79).
32
Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion'' (n. 2 above), 72.
33
Such an alchemical interpretation has been proposed by Paolo Scopelliti, Liber Ane-
guemis (n. 3 above), 40–54.
240 traditio

speech.34 In other cases, the organ to which the magical substance is applied
also determines the effect of the magical procedure. This is the case for the
collyrium to see spirits, or the ointment rubbed on one's feet in order to
walk on water. Considerations of sympathy and analogy also explain why a
method for rainmaking involves a whole series of liquids, obtained by boil-
ing a black cow and a black dog and by squeezing the juice out of a certain
tree. However, some experiments resist this line of interpretation. It is easy
to understand why drinking the blood of the homunculus that is born from
a cow or a sheep makes a person assume the form of one of those animals.
It is, however, harder to see why one will look like an ape if one is anointed
with it.
Explanations in terms of sympathies and analogies are classic in magic.
However, the magic of the Liber vaccae is also rooted in mainstream philos-
ophy and medicine. The use of Galenic notions about the soul's functions
has already been mentioned. Likewise, the experiments about artificial gen-
eration are clearly based on ancient and medieval theories of generation.
These links would have made this magic, if not acceptable, at least under-
standable for medieval scholastic readers.
Since antiquity, the possibility of the generation of life from dead matter,
such as mud or putrified flesh, without the intervention of seed or sexual
intercourse, was universally accepted by the learned. The warm spirit
trapped in matter and the heat of the sun were thought sufficient for the
generation of life. The nature of the material matrix was generally deemed
to determine the kind of animal produced. It was also widely believed that
man could easily mimic and manipulate this natural process, especially in
the case of bees or other insects. As pointed out by William Newman, the
experiment to make bees from a dead cow is reminiscent of the modus
operandi for bee-making or bougonia described by Virgil.35
The experiment for making a homunculus is, in turn, clearly inspired by
Aristotelian theories of sexual generation. Aristotle attributed great powers
to sperm. The male semen — warm, foamy, and full of spirit — constitutes
the active principle of generation. Sperm confers a form to the embryo and
allows it to become alive and animated. Women, by contrast, have no seed
and their role is only passive. They provide menstrual blood that serves as
the initial matter of the embryo and as food during gestation and — con-
verted into milk — after birth. Women are necessary for generation to
occur and sperm needs the right matter to act. However, Aristotle clearly

34
David Pingree termed the magic of the Liber vaccae ‘‘psychic magic'' because of this
reliance on the transmission of functions of the soul.
35
Newman, Promethean Ambitions (n. 4 above), 168–69, 178.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 241

valued the male contribution most highly and minimized the role of the
female.36
In the case of the Liber vaccae, the powers of the sperm are further
enhanced by the fact that it is mixed with the phosphorescent sun stone.
According to Aristotle, ‘‘man generates man with the sun'' (Physics
194b13), which means that the power of the sun is necessary for all gener-
ation on earth. In the case of the Liber vaccae, the sun stone would seem to
stand in for the sun, which cannot exert its full power, since gestation takes
place in a dark house. The recipe also refers to the use of female blood; if a
cow is used to give birth, blood of an ewe is smeared on its vulva and mixed
with her food. Once born, the homunculus is fed on its mother's blood.
At the same time, the Liber vaccae outstretches mainstream opinion. The
idea that cows can be generated from bees by reversing the procedure for
bougonia and the elaborate recipe for spontaneously generating hybrid cow-
like animals from worms go far beyond generally accepted belief. According
to the latter, spontaneous generation was, in fact, strictly limited to lower
life forms (insects, frogs, etc.). The generation of higher animals such as
horses and cows, and, a fortiori, humans, always required seed.37
To be precise, the Liber vaccae does not claim that homunculi can be gen-
erated spontaneously. On the contrary, a comment in the prologue explicitly
affirms the necessity of a rational animal to create another rational ani-
mal.38 Of course, the homunculus is generated without intercourse between
man and woman. However, real, human semen and a real womb — though
not a human one — are used (the dark house in which the cow is to be
placed and the vessel serve symbolically as secondary wombs). Moreover,
as we have seen, the recipe provides for the use of female blood. I would
argue that this blood takes the place of, or supplements, menstrual blood.
As noted above, according to Aristotelian doctrine, menstrual blood serves
as initial matter of the embryo and as its food, both during gestation and,
converted into milk, after birth.
The supposition that generation takes place by artificial insemination
would not be a cause for failure of the procedure, at least in the eyes of a
scholastic reader. Scholastics believed that women could become pregnant

36
On Aristotle's theory of generation and the role of male and female, see Joan Cadden,
Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Age: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge,
1993), 21–26, and Van der Lugt, Le ver, le démon et la vierge (n. 8 above), 44–46.
37
Avicenna claimed that all life forms can be generated spontaneously, thanks to the
influence of the stars and the dator formarum. This theory was rejected by Averroes and
by the vast majority of scholars in the Latin West. On this debate, and on the importance
of the distinctions between higher and lower animals, and between generation with and
without seed, see Van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge, 131–87.
38
Liber aneguemis, 61.
242 traditio

from sperm spilled in a warm bath or on the bed linen. Moreover, they
defended the idea that demons could, by stealing sperm from men, impreg-
nate women (though because of the human origin of the sperm, the child
thus conceived was fully human and could be saved). The only condition for
success was that the sperm retained its warmth, lest its spirit evaporate.39
We have seen that the Liber vaccae shares this concern about the freshness
of the ‘‘magician's water.''
However, it would have been much more problematic for a reader versed
in Aristotelian thought to consider the supposition that the procedure for
making homunculi involves crossbreeding between humans and animals.
According to Aristotle, male seed needs the right kind of matter in order
to act. For hybridization to succeed, the periods of gestation of species must
also be similar. For these reasons, Aristotle limited crossbreeding to closely
related species such as wolves and dogs. He explicitly refused the possibility
of miscegenation involving humans and animals. These views were shared
by scholastic philosophers and physicians. They rejected the common belief
that monstrous births were the result of acts of bestiality, insisting that
these monstrous children were, in fact, purely human and should be bap-
tized.40
In the case of the first experiment of the Liber vaccae, the crossbreeding
involves three different species: a human male, a cow, and a ewe. The use of
the two female animals might spring from a wish to avoid that the offspring
resemble either of these animals too closely, or, on the contrary, a desire to
use the powers of both animals. Whatever the case, the homunculus is
clearly not fully human. Generated from human and animal substances, it
is endowed with superhuman powers but needs to be coated in a special
powder in order to grow human skin. The homunculus which is made from
a monkey is said to have only one foot, thereby assimilating it to a well-
known monstrous race, the one-legged Sciapods.41 The author of the Liber
vaccae seems to acknowledge the special status of the homunculus by the
consistent use of the expression ‘‘rational animal.'' By contrast, he uses ‘‘son
of Adam'' (filius Ade) when referring to ingredients of human provenance.
We may note that the latter (bones, noses, brains) are always to be taken
from dead bodies. Likewise, whereas the decapitation of animals to collect

39
See Van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge.
40
See Maaike van der Lugt, ‘‘L'humanité des monstres et leur accès aux sacrements
dans la pensée médiévale,'' in Monstres et imaginaire social: Approches historiques, ed.
A. Caiozzo et A.-E Demartini (Paris, 2008), 135–62. Fuller text at http://halshs.archives-
ouvertes.fr/halshs-00175497/.
41
Sophie Page, ‘‘Magic at Saint Augustine's'' (n. 5 above), pointed out this similarity. Cf.
Pliny Naturalis Historia 8.23. Admittedly, the Liber vaccae speaks of one foot (pes), rather
than one leg.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 243

their blood or body parts is routine, there is no indication that the use of
human blood supposes killing or sacrificial practices. I agree with William
Newman that it is precisely because the ‘‘rational animal'' is not fully
human that it can be killed and used as a tool to work other marvels. There
is no need to suppose that the ease with which the magician kills the
homunculus indicates that it is, in fact, a demon.42
Pingree linked the Liber vaccae to Neoplatonic ideas and claimed that the
magician had recourse to demons to implant a rational soul into the homun-
culus. However, as we have already seen, the Liber vaccae never explicitly
appeals to demons, nor does it qualify the ‘‘rational animal'' as a demon.
I can find no good reason to accept Pingree's claim that the magician needs
demons to provide for the rational soul of the homunculus. Rather,
Hunayn's remark that a rational animal is needed to create another rational
animal would seem to refer to the idea that the homunculus cannot be gen-
erated spontaneously, but that human seed is called for.
In any case, medieval readers would never have interpreted the text in the
sense proposed by Pingree. The expression ‘‘rational animal'' is the Aristote-
lian definition of man (Metaphysics 1037b13–14). Any scholastic would have
readily recognized it as referring to humans. In their world-view, demons,
although rational beings, could not be qualified as animals. Since the early
twelfth century, scholastic theology had abandoned the Neoplatonic view of
demons as living beings who were — like humans — composed of a body and a
soul. From then on, demons were defined as pure, incorporeal spirits.43 How-
ever, as we shall see, scholastic readers did suggest that the artificially gener-
ated rational animal was an entirely new kind of living being.

Manuscripts

There are at least ten extant manuscripts of the Latin Liber vaccae, sev-
eral of which are incomplete or contain fragments only.44 The earliest

42
Sophie Page also criticized this aspect of Pingree's argumentation in ‘‘Magic at Saint
Augustine's.''
43
However, scholastics believed that demons and angels could temporarily associate
themselves with bodies made out of air, or with a human corpse, apparently vivifying it.
Significantly, they never link this theory with the Liber vaccae. On scholastic demonology,
see Van der Lugt, Le ver, le démon et la vierge.
44
See Diagram 1. All these manuscripts are mentioned by Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic
Book'' (n. 2 above), 144 n. 57. Pingree added two further manuscripts to the list: Prague,
National Library X.H.20 and Florence, Biblioteca nazionale Pal. 945. However, neither of
these contain the Liber vaccae. In the Prague manuscript, its last item, on fols. 230–38
erroneously bears the title Liber vaccae. I wish to express my gratitude to Joseph Ziegler
and Charles Burnett, respectively, for examining the Prague and the Florence manuscripts
for me.
244 traditio

— incomplete — manuscript, now kept in Munich, dates from the end of

the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century;45 three other copies were
made around the turn of the fourteenth century, one perhaps in the German
lands,46 a second in northern Italy (most likely Bologna),47 the third possibly
in Montpellier.48 Another manuscript can be dated and located in mid-four-
teenth-century Italy.49 In the fifteenth century, five further copies of the
text were made, in Italy and southern Germany; and possibly in England.50
Moreover, there are traces of four earlier copies that are now lost. In the
1240s, a manuscript that seems to have contained the text was kept in the
library of Richard of Fournival at Amiens.51 A century later, another
famous bibliophile, bishop Richard de Bury of Durham, probably also
owned a copy.52 At the beginning of the fourteenth century, two copies
— only one of which is extant — had already ended up in England in the
library of the Abbey of Saint Augustine's of Canterbury.53 And finally, a late

45
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 22292. It bears the shelf mark ‘‘Windberg
92,'' indicating that it formerly belonged to the Bavarian monastery of Windberg of the
Order of Prémontré. Several manuscripts and early prints from this monastery ended up
in the CLM collection in 1803. It is not clear when Windberg acquired the manuscript.
46
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 615. The Liber vaccae is part of a self-con-
tained unit. The manuscript contains several texts that are distinctly German, such as two
different lists of Latin plant names with German translations and a treatise on agriculture
with many references to Germany.
47
New Haven, Yale, Medical Library, Codex Fritz Paneth. See Karl Sudhoff, ‘‘Codex
Fritz Paneth,'' Archiv für Geschichte der Mathematik, der Naturwissenschaften und der Tech-
nik 12 (1929): 1–32.
48
Oxford, Corpus Christi college, 125. Pingree associated the manuscript with Montpel-
lier because its first item is the Latin translation from the Hebrew of Maimonides' De medi-
cinis contra venena. This translation was made by Ermengaud Blasius, Arnau of Villanova's
nephew, at Barcelona in 1305, a few years before the manuscript was copied. Cf. Pingree,
‘‘The Diffusion'' (n. 2 above), 95.
49
London, British Library, Arundel 342.
50
Montpellier, faculté de médecine, MS 277; Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, 2.3.124;
Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 132; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 71; Biblioteca Apos-
tolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1892. See Table 1 for provenances.
51
Cf. the catalogue of Richard of Fournival's library edited by Léopold Delisle, Le ca-
binet des manuscrits de la bibliothe` que impe´ riale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1868–81), 2 (1874): 521,
no. 142: ‘‘Epystola Ameti filii Abraham filii Macellani de proprietate, et est extracta de
libro Galieni qui dicitur Anguemiz, et est ex dictis Humayni.'' However, as suggested by
Benedek Láng (private conversation), the word ‘‘extracta'' seems to indicate that Richard's
manuscript contained the De proprietatibus only (on the relationship between this text and
the Liber vaccae, see below). Richard left his library to Gerald of Abbeville, who in turn
left it to the Sorbonne, but the manuscript containing the Liber vaccae was not found
among the bequest.
52
For indications that Richard de Bury owned a copy, see further below.
53
The medieval catalogue of St. Augustine's, which was drawn up at the end of the
fifteenth century, probably between 1491 and 1497, classed these manuscripts as numbers
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 245

thirteenth-century manuscript of unknown provenance probably once con-

tained the Liber vaccae as well. A shelf mark indicates that, in the fifteenth
or sixteenth century, it belonged to the college of Porta Coeli at Erfurt.54
The late thirteenth-century copy from northern Italy is found in a large,
richly rubricated and decorated medical manuscript.55 Yet even here the
Liber vaccae is devoid of illustrations. The other copies of the Liber vaccae
are small, pocket formats. They are rather cheaply made and sometimes
written on damaged or pierced parchment.56 The writing tends to be rela-
tively untidy. All this seems to indicate that these manuscripts were copied
not by professional scribes but by the owners themselves for private study,
and perhaps even for practice. The little information we have about owner-
ship also points in this direction. Relatively few of the manuscripts are
known to have been kept in institutional libraries. Among those that were,
some ended up there rather late, such as the Erfurt manuscript, which
belonged to the college of Porta coeli that had been founded in 1412 for
students of law. Others are known to have been donated by private owners,
as was the case for the two copies in the Abbey of St. Augustine's of Canter-
bury.
One of the manuscripts containing the Liber vaccae at St. Augustine's had
formerly been owned by Thomas of Wyvelesberghe, probably a monk there,
who had also donated other volumes to the abbey.57 This manuscript was
previously owned by Thomas Sprott, another monk of St. Augustine's,
whose books also ended up at the library and who had authored a lost his-
tory of the abbots of the abbey. The manuscript which contains the Liber
vaccae (in addition to works on medicine, alchemy, and agriculture) is some-
what of an anomaly in the collections of both men. Wyvelesberghe's collec-
tion reflects a clear interest in all branches of natural philosophy, but con-
tains no other manuscripts on the occult sciences. Sprott's collection was
even more conventional.58

1275 and 1277. No. 1275 is lost. No. 1277 is now Oxford, Corpus Christi, 125. Cf. Mon-
tague Rhodes James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover. The Catalogues of the
Libraries of Christ Church Priory and St Augustine's Abbey at Canterbury and of St Martin's
Priory at Dover. Now first Collected and Published with an Introduction and Identifications of
the Extant Remains (Cambridge, 1903): 348–49. For the date of the catalogue, ibid., lviii.
54
Erfurt, Amplon, 4. 188. See also below.
55
New Haven, Yale Medical Library, Codex Fritz Paneth. It is described in detail by
Karl Sudhoff, ‘‘Codex Fritz Paneth.'' As early as 1326, the manuscript had made its way to
Bohemia, cf. Sudhoff, ‘‘Codex Fritz Paneth,'' 3, 24.
56
As is the case in Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 125. In addition, the sheets in this
manuscript are of different sizes.
57
Oxford, Corpus Christi, 125 (1277 in the library of St. Augustine's).
58
Cf. James (who does not mention no. 1277), The Ancient Libraries, 348–49, and A. B.
Emden, Donors of Books to St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, Occasional Publications 4
246 traditio

By contrast, the bequest of Michael of Northgate, the donor of the second

manuscript of the Liber vaccae at St. Augustine's, included tracts on organic
and astral magic, on astronomy, alchemy, and natural history (besides the
standard devotional and theological works). Michael of Northgate may well
have acquired his copy of the Liber vaccae in Paris or through a Parisian
contact. Not only was Paris the hotspot for interest in the Liber vaccae dur-
ing the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but also, according to Wilbur
Knorr, it was the venue for the tracts on astronomy in Northgate's collec-
tion.59
The library of St. Augustine's housed a large collection of books on sci-
ence and even boasted a separate section on the occult. The mere existence
of the latter indicates that the monks had few qualms about owning such
works. However, it does not necessarily mean that that the abbey was a
center of magical learning and study. St. Augustine's was very rich, with
one of the largest libraries in all of England. Wilbur Knorr has analyzed the
analogous genre of books on astrology, astronomy, and mathematics owned
by St. Augustine's. He argues that taking vows marked the end, rather than
the beginning of scientific pursuits. The collections of scientific works
donated by a group of monks at the end of the thirteenth and the early
decades of the fourteenth century seem to have been assembled before they
entered into monastic life. Significantly, these books elicited no interest
afterwards: they contain no other marginal notes than the ones made by the
donors themselves, in sharp contrast with works on theology and logic.60
In nine out of the ten extant manuscripts,61 the Liber vaccae was accom-
panied by a short text on organic magic translated from the Arabic, the De
proprietatibus (Kitaˆ b al-khawaˆ ss) of Ahmad ibn Ibraˆhíˆ m ibn al-Jazzaˆr of

(Oxford, 1968), 16, 19. Did Wyvelesberghe receive his copy from Sprott when they were
both monks at St Augustine's? If so, it would appear that at St. Augustine's books were
considered part of the daily necessities monks could privately own.
59
Wilbur Knorr, ‘‘Two Medieval Monks and Their Astronomy Books: Mss Bodley 464
and Rawlinson C. 117,'' Bodleian Library Record 14 (1993): 269–84, at 277 n. 19. David
Pingree (‘‘The Diffusion,'' 95–98) has observed that many of Michael of Northgate's titles
in magic and alchemy were issued from Montpellier and suggested a possible direct link
between studies in Montpellier and Canterbury, by way of Henri of Mondeville. Knorr
criticizes this hypothesis, on the basis of the pattern of transmission of the kind of astro-
nomical tracts owned by Michael of Northgate.
60
Knorr, ‘‘Two Medieval Monks,'' 279–80. Knorr demonstrated that the technical works
on astronomy were donated by only four people, including Michael of Northgate. No book
was donated after 1325. Once published, Sophie Page's research on the magical manu-
scripts at St. Augustine's will tell whether it is possible to extrapolate from astrology and
astronomy to magic.
61
The association between the De proprietatibus and the Liber vaccae was already
pointed out by Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion'' (n. 2 above), 71–72. According to Pingree, only
eight manuscripts contain the De proprietatibus, but he gave no further information.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 247

Qayrawaˆn (died 1004).62 In all the manuscripts I have seen, the De proprie-
tatibus (sometimes called Epistola Ameti) is placed just before the Liber vac-
cae and is written in the same hand without any clear transition. In several
manuscripts there is a single title for both texts.63 Moreover, there are no
extant manuscripts of the De proprietatibus without the Liber vaccae.64
Hence, the Liber vaccae and the De proprietatibus were presented and
regarded as a single work in the manuscripts. This indicates that the two
texts were translated together or became associated in an early Latin manu-
script. Whichever the case, the association was not fortuitous. Ibn al-Jaz-
zaˆr's De proprietatibus is a work about animal, plant, and mineral substances
utilized in magical amulets, suspensions, and ligatures to cure disease or to
influence women's fertility. In the prologue to his work, Ibn al-Jazzaˆr
defended the usefulness of magic in medicine against the criticisms of one
of his relatives and advanced the traditional argument that both ancient
authorities and experience confirm the existence of properties that the intel-
lect cannot account for. To back up this claim, Ibn al-Jazzaˆr cited, among
other examples, the power of the magnet.65 Whoever decided to combine the
De proprietatibus and the Liber vaccae must have thought that Ibn al-Jaz-
zaˆr's defense of hidden virtues provided a suitable introduction to the more
complicated magic of the Liber vaccae, which lacked a theoretical justifica-
tion.
Apart from the De proprietatibus, the Liber vaccae was also associated
with other texts, albeit in a less exclusive way (see Table 1). The nature of
these texts changed over time. Until the beginning of the fourteenth cen-
tury, the Liber vaccae was mainly found in medical manuscripts. In the old-
est extant manuscript, it is sandwiched between several texts from the Arti-
cella corpus or commentaries thereon. The lost manuscript in Richard of
Fournival's library contained works by Galen: it was classed in the medical
section and not with the secret books on the occult sciences which Fournival
claimed to have kept in a separate and securely locked room. Similarly, the
two early copies of the Liber vacccae at St. Augustine's in Canterbury are

62
These nine manuscripts include the earliest one, and also Richard of Fournival's early
lost copy, or, more likely, its Vorlage (see Table 1). London, BL, Arundel 342 does not
contain the De proprietatibus. On Ibn al-Jazzaˆr, see Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion,'' 70–71.
63
For instance Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 615. Pingree (‘‘The Diffu-
sion,'' 71) pointed out that the order is the same in the Hebrew translation made from the
Latin. Cf. also Steinschneider, Zur epigraphischen Literatur (n. 1 above), 51–64. Stein-
schneider's descriptions suggest that the two works are presented as a single one.
64
The manuscript in Richard de Fournival's library may have contained the De proprie-
tatibus only (see n. 51 above). If so, the term extracta indicates that it was copied, directly
or indirectly, from a manuscript which contained both the De proprietatibus and the Liber
vaccae.
65
Ibn al-Jazzaˆr, De proprietatibus, MS Oxford, BL, Digby 71, fol. 36r–v.
248 traditio

found in manuscripts that contain works on natural magic, but also on med-
icine and surgery. Both copies were kept in the medical section of the
library and not in the section on the occult.66 The expensive, late thir-
teenth-century manuscript from Northern Italy is also almost exclusively
medical, even though the Liber vaccae and the De proprietatibus are preceded
by a text on alchemy.
In late medieval manuscripts, the Liber vaccae acquired different com-
pany. It became increasingly associated with other texts on the occult scien-
ces, magic, alchemy, and astrology. The reasons for this codicological shift
are not entirely clear. Medieval scholars may have become more aware of
the content of the Liber vaccae and started to doubt its attribution to Galen,
Plato, and Hunayn.67 But the new classification of the Liber vaccae and the
De proprietatibus may also have larger significance and reflect the progres-
sive separation of magic and scholastic medicine within the framework of
medieval learning.68
The manuscript evidence points to feelings of unease about the Liber vac-
cae among scribes and owners. The late thirteenth-century manuscript that
was probably made in Germany lacks the prologue of the Liber vaccae and
only contains a small selection of experiments. More importantly, it skips
the first three experiments on the generation of rational animals and starts
with the artificial production of bees from cows, a less ambitious and more
innocuous procedure.69 The earliest extant manuscript does contain the pro-
logue but omits the first experiments; it breaks off abruptly in the middle of
the second of the two experiments it contains. Here again the arrangement
looks like a deliberate selection.70 Finally, the sixteenth-century index in the

66
Cf. James, The Ancient Libraries (n. 53 above), 348–49, and Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion,''
95–96.
67
At the end of the fifteenth century, Pico della Mirandola rejected the attribution to
Plato. See below. According to Thorndike (History of Magic [n. 1 above], 4:531) Pierre
d'Ailly already recognized the artifice. Unfortunately, Thorndike did not provide a refer-
ence, and I have not been able to locate this idea in Pierre d'Ailly's works.
68
Of course this separation was never complete. Although rational medicine eliminated
recourse to charms and blessings and inscribed its pharmacology into the general theory of
qualities and complexional balance, there was room in mainstream medical theory for med-
ical properties for which the theory of qualities could not account, and that were ascribed
to the ‘‘specific form'' or to ‘‘hidden qualities.'' Since these forms and qualities could only
be discovered by experience, their justification strongly resembled the justification of the
kind of medical magic found in the De proprietatibus.
69
Munich, CLM 615.
70
Munich, CLM 22292. After the prologue of the Liber vaccae, the scribe left several
lines blank and then added two experiments of the Liber vaccae Major. The first (Liber
aneguemis, 1.15) proposes a procedure to make rain cease; the second (Liber aneguemis,
1.16) describes the construction of a magical house in which people faint or die. This
morally charged experiment breaks off at the end of the page.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 249

Erfurt manuscript qualifies the Liber vaccae as nigromanticus. The text itself
has since been ripped out.71
The feelings of unease reflected in the manuscripts were shared to a large
extent by the scholastic authors who cited the work. Before turning to the
uses of the Liber vaccae by theologians and philosophers, I will look at the
influence the Liber vaccae on a Latin work on magic, the De mirabilibus
mundi of pseudo-Albert.

The Liber vaccae and the De mirabilibus mundi

The De mirabilibus mundi is a work on natural magic and marvels falsely

attributed to Albert the Great. Its real author, place of origin, and date are
unknown, but the earliest manuscript seems to date from the fourteenth
century.72 The attribution to Albert appears only in fifteenth-century copies.
The work was printed several times with another pseudo-Albertian work,
the De virtutibus herbarum, lapidum et animalium, under the title Liber
aggregationis, and translated into several vernacular languages.73 Medieval
manuscripts of the De mirabilibus mundi are, however, relatively rare.74
Although not a scholastic text, the De mirabilibus is a work of some
learning. Written in Latin, it can probably be connected to the milieu of
‘‘middle brow'' clerics responsible for much of later medieval learned magic
and for other pseudo-Albertian works such as the Secreta mulierum.

71
The index cites the Liber vacce nigromanticus as the last item. A modern hand erro-
neously inscribed the title Liber vacce at the beginning of a series of natural questions
which are now the last item in the manuscript and not accounted for by the medieval
index. This series of natural questions breaks off in the middle of a sentence. Of course,
it is difficult to pinpoint the motivations of the person responsible for the disappearance of
the Liber vaccae. It cannot be excluded that the text was stolen by someone who was
attracted, rather than repelled, by the adjective nigromanticus.
72
Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, lat. Z. 539 (= 1594). The thirteenth-century
manuscript referred to by Thorndike contains, in reality, the De imagine mundi of Hono-
rius Augustudonensis. Cf. Antonella Sannino, ‘‘Facere cessare mirabilia rerum. Magia e
scienza naturale nel De mirabilibus mundi,'' Studi Filosofici 30 (2007 [2009]): 37–52,
esp. 40.
73
Cf. Sannino, ‘‘Facere cessare mirabilia rerum,'' 38–39.
74
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, lat. 7287 (fifteenth century); Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1248 (1470–1511, incomplete); Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale
Marciana, lat. Z. 539 (= 1594) (fourteenth century); Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Cen-
trale, Pal. lat. 719 (fifteenth century); Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 120 (olim C. V. 15)
(fifteenth century); Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 62.4 Aug. 8° (1495, incom-
plete); Los Angeles, University of California Libraries, Biomedical Library, Benjamin 1
(after 1488). I am grateful to Antonella Sannino for this list: her critical edition of the text
will soon be published in the series Micrologus' Library.
250 traditio

The experiments and recipes of the De mirabilibus mundi are preceded by

a long, more or less theoretical prologue which describes the goal of the
book as ‘‘making marvels cease.'' According to the author, natural marvels
and magic work according to the laws of sympathies and similarities. In
order to understand both nature and the works of the philosophers, a com-
bined training in dialectic, natural philosophy, astrology, and necromancy is
necessary. ‘‘Plato's Liber regimenti,'' that is, the Liber vaccae, is cited to back
up this idea of the complementarity of different kinds of knowledge.75 Citing
the Liber vaccae again and (in a sense) contradicting his suggestion that the
laws of sympathies underlying natural magic can be discovered through
learning, the author goes on to justify the existence of occult properties that
can only be established by experience. He cites a host of marvellous and
magical observations reported in authoritative works. These ‘‘authoritative
recipes''76 form the transition from the more theoretical part of the work to
the actual recipes. The justification of hidden properties, including the
authoritative recipes, is taken almost literally from the De proprietatibus.
Moreover, more than thirty of the actual recipes (of a total of approxi-
mately seventy) are paraphrased from the Liber vaccae Minor and copied in
the same order. They include recipes to become insensitive to fire, to create
optical illusions, and to make lamps with marvellous properties. Of note,
experiments from the Liber vaccae Major, including the most spectacular
experiments on artificial generation, do not occur in the De mirabilibus
mundi. This selection may well be another instance of self-censure, unless,
of course, the author used an already truncated manuscript of the Liber
vaccae.
Whatever the case, the author of the De mirabilibus mundi ostensibly
regarded the De proprietatibus and the Liber vaccae as a single work. About
a third of this combination found its way into the De mirabilibus mundi.
The De mirabilibus mundi is essentially a compilation, a sort of patchwork,
and the Liber vaccae is not its only source. It also borrows extensively from
Marcus Graecus's treatise on fireworks, lamps, and gunpowder.77 However,
its indebtedness to the Liber vaccae and the De proprietatibus runs deepest.
Because of the similarities in overall structure and argument and the large

75
This citation seems to be a reference to a rather obscure passage in the prologue of
the Liber vaccae (Liber aneguemis, 60).
76
I borrow this formulation from Emilie Guilhen who speaks of recettes-autorite´ s in her
Master's thesis ‘‘Secrets et merveilles. Les experimenta et le De mirabilibus mundi. Deux
traités apocryphes d'Albert le Grand,'' Université Paris 10, 2002, 32.
77
On the Liber ignium, see J. R. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder
(Cambridge, 1960). Emilie Guilhen has identified around thirty experiments taken from the
Liber ignium (‘‘Secrets et merveilles,'' Annexe 2).
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 251

number of copied experiments, the De mirabilibus mundi can be considered

as a Western adaptation of the Liber vaccae.

Scholastic Readers of the Liber vaccae

Despite the absence of the experiments on artificial generation, the De

mirabilibus mundi reflects a real effort to create something similar to the
Liber vaccae. As such, it constitutes an isolated case. The other citations of
the Liber vaccae I have been able to identify are much briefer. They are
found in the works of well-known and respected scholastic authors, mostly
theologians. The Parisian university milieu stands out in particular.
The earliest citations of the Liber vaccae are roughly contemporary with
the earliest manuscripts. They are located in the works of two leading theo-
logians: William of Auvergne, master of theology and later bishop of Paris,
and Roland of Cremona, the first Dominican to lecture in the Parisian stu-
dium who later became a fanatical inquisitor against the Cathars. William
cited the Liber vaccae twice in his De legibus, a treatise on the religious laws
and practices of Christians, Jews, and Muslims written between 1228 and
1231,78 and probably again in his De universo (1231–36).79 Roland mentioned
the Liber vaccae on two occasions in his theological Summa of the late 1230s
or early 1240s.80 William and Roland must have known each other, but
since they cite the Liber vaccae under different titles and refer to different
magical feats, these citations must be considered independent (see Table 2).
Both theologians shared a certain fascination for marvels and the occult
sciences. They displayed knowledge of specific magical works and, especially
William, referred to a great number of newly translated texts, many of
which he was the first Westerner to cite. William admitted to having read
much about magic in his youth.81 One senses his lingering fascination for the
forbidden fruit, even though he severely condemned most forms of magic

78
William of Auvergne, De legibus, 12 (MS Paris, BNF lat. 15755, fol. 44vb; Opera
omnia [Paris/Orléans, 1674], 1:43B), and 24 (MS, fol. 72ra; Opera omnia, 1:70A). On several
points the manuscript reading is better than the edition. However, the chapter numbering
differs between manuscripts. Therefore, for practical reasons I adopt the numbers of the
edition.
79
William of Auvergne, De universo 2.3.25, Opera omnia (Paris/Orléans, 1674), 1:1071.
80
Roland of Cremona, Summa (MS Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticano, Barb. lat. 729,
fols. 43vb and 55vb; MS Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 795, fol. 29rb). I have not seen Flor-
ence, Bibl. naz, conventi soppresi, da ord. Vallombrosa, 27, indicated by Görge K. Has-
selhoff, ‘Dicit Rabbi Moyses:' Studien zum Bild von Moses Maimonides im lateinischen
Westen vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert (Würzburg, 2004), 62 n. 10.
81
William of Auvergne, De legibus, cap. 25 (Opera omnia, 78): ‘‘Et haec omnia in libris
judicorum astronomiae et in libris magorum atque maleficorum tempore adolecentiae nos-
trae nos meminimus inspexisse.''
252 traditio

and repeatedly warned his readers about its dangers. Roland had a more
relaxed attitude towards magic. He justified his interest in the subject by
saying that there was nothing bad in magical knowledge, only in putting it
into practice; and he claimed to have read a book on black magic which
contained not only many bad but also many good things.82 In contrast to
William of Auvergne, Roland had no ostensible misgivings about the Liber
vaccae which he cited in a perfectly neutral manner, while also accepting its
efficaciousness. Besides his interest in magic, Roland was very well read in
medicine. So, he could also have happened upon the Liber vaccae while con-
sulting a medical manuscript.83
Among William's and Roland's contemporaries and immediate successors
at Paris, only the Franciscan John of La Rochelle (d. 1245) cited the Liber
vaccae in his De legibus et praeceptis which was integrated into Alexander of
Hales's Summa.84 However, this citation is clearly indirect, by way of Wil-
liam of Auvergne's own De legibus. Perhaps surprisingly, we find no referen-
ces to the Liber vaccae in the works of Roger Bacon and Albert the Great,
both of whom were otherwise well-read in magic and whose work contains
extensive discussions about the subject. The Liber vaccae does not figure in
the Speculum astronomiae either, but then of course it has next to nothing to
do with astrology.85
Peter of Abano, one of the most ardent medieval defenders of astrology,
saw the Liber vaccae as a work on non-astrological magic. In his Lucidator
dubitabilium astronomiae, finished at Padua in 1310 and most likely derived

82
Roland of Cremona, Commentary on Job (cited by Antoine Dondaine, ‘‘Un commen-
taire scripturaire de Roland de Crémone: le livre de Job,'' Archivum fratrum praedicatorum
11 [1941]: 109–37, at 129): ‘‘dicit Ptolemeus, quod quidam sunt nigromantici, qui occulta
et secreta quedam sciunt, per que faciunt mortuos loqui, spiritus malignos de loco ad
locum transire; cuiusmodi scientiam dicit se Eliphaz habuisse. . . . Fateor me vidisse
librum illum et ibi legisse. Verba ibi sunt obscura, sed multa mala ibi dicuntur, que pos-
sunt fieri ex illa scientia, et similiter multa bona. . . . Nec malum est scire, quamvis malum
sit operari secundum illam. Scire quidem malum non est malum, et tamen facere, malum
est.''
83
It seems most likely that Roland discovered the Liber vaccae at Paris. We cannot
exclude, however, that he read it in northern Italy, before or after his stay in Paris, or
even in Toulouse, where he acted for a short time as an inquisitor against the Cathars. His
Summa may, in fact, have been written after his departure from Paris.
84
John of La Rochelle, De legibus et praeceptis = Alexander of Hales, Summa, 3, pars 2,
inq. 3, tract. 2, sect. 3, q. 2, 518 (6 vols. [Quaracchi, 1924–79], 4:771–72). Many parts of
the Summa, including the De legibus et praeceptis, were conceived under the editorial super-
vision of John of La Rochelle. The Summa was completed in 1246, shortly after
Alexander's death, but it contains older material.
85
The Speculum Astronomiae does not refer to other works on ‘‘organic'' magic either,
such as Costa ben Luca's De physicis ligaturis or Albert the Great's De lapidibus. Cf. David
Pingree, ‘‘Learned Magic in the Time of Frederick II,'' Micrologus 2 (1994): 39–56, at 53.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 253

from an earlier draft made during his stay at Paris,86 he contrasted magic
— of which he distinguished five different types — unfavorably with the
real science of the stars. The Liber vaccae is, together with alchemy and
other works on natural magic, like the Kyranides (a Hellenistic work on the
occult virtues of animals, birds, plants, and stones), classed in the category
of prestigium. As such, it is disqualified as mere trickery and sleight of
hand.87 Interestingly, Peter considered the magical feats of the magicians
of Pharaoh also as pure illusions, contrary to mainstream theological opinion
which saw these as real transformations worked by demons, but inside the
possibilities of nature. While magnifying the power of the stars, Peter of
Abano minimized the effectiveness of organic magic.
Around the same time, the Liber vaccae is possibly cited in a somewhat
mysterious treatise on natural philosophy and alchemy entitled De essentiis
essentiarum, which probably originated at the court of the two Sicilies.
Because of its uncertainty, discussion about this possible link will be pro-
vided in the Appendix.88
With our next citation we move to firmer ground. We have already seen
that the Liber vaccae had made its way to England by the turn of the four-
teenth century from the two manuscripts at the monastery of St. Augus-
tine's in Canterbury. Further evidence for the British reception of the Liber
vaccae is provided by the work of the theologian, logician, and mathemati-
cian Thomas Bradwardine, who cited it at least twice in his De causa Dei

86
See the introduction of Graziella Federici Vesocivini to her edition of the work (n. 87
below), 27. For some important corrections to the chronology of Peter's career as presented
by Federici Vescovini, see Pieter De Leemans, ‘‘Was Peter of Abano the Translator of
pseudo-Aristotle's Problemata physica?,'' Bulletin de philosophie me´ die´ vale 49 (2007):
103–18, and Maaike van der Lugt, ‘‘Genèse et postérité du commentaire de Pietro d'Abano
sur les Proble` mes d'Aristote: Le succès d'un hapax,'' in Médecine, astrologie et magie au
Moyen Aˆge: autour de Pietro d'Abano, ed. Jean-Patrice Boudet, Franck Collard, and Nico-
las Weill-Parot, Micrologus' Libary, forthcoming.
87
Peter of Abano, Lucidator dubitabilium astronomie, dif. 1, propter primum (ed. G. Fe-
derici Vescovini, Pietro d'Abano, Trattati di astronomia: Lucidator dubitabilium astrono-
miae, De motu octavae sphaerae e altre opere [Padua, 1992], 121–22): ‘‘Est et quarta
[type of magic], prestigium, sensuum illusio, quo festuca trax apparet et ungula serpens,
lapisque aurum, ceu de magis legitur Pharaonis. . . . In quo siquidem Zoroastres, quem
aliqui dicunt fuisse Cham, filium Noe, Hermesve sive Enoch, vel Mercurius, fuerunt famo-
siores, Arthefius, ambe Vace platonice ac Kyranides. Ad quod apparentia agilitatis reduc-
itur manuum.'' As indicated by the critical apparatus, the reference to the Liber vaccae is
corrupt in all three extant manuscripts. The best manuscript reads vace instead of vacce,
the second vace polonice, and the third vate polonice. Paolo Scopelliti has the merit of hav-
ing identified the reference. Contrary to his suggestion (Liber aneguemis, 37), Graziella Fe-
derici Vescovini does not present the passage as an interpolation in Peter of Abano's
original text, but as too corrupt a passage to emendate.
88
On the homunculus in De essentiis essentiarum, see Newman, Promethean Ambitions
(n. 4 above), 188–90, who avoids the question of authorship and sources.
254 traditio

contra Pelagium. Bradwardine began this work at Oxford by 1335 and fin-
ished it in 1344, five years before his appointment to the archiepiscopal see
of Canterbury and death shortly thereafter.89
As indicated by the title, De causa Dei is a work against the Pelagian
heresy. According to Bradwardine, Pelagianism flourished among Oxford
philosophers and theologians who attributed too much scope to free will.
Bradwardine's aim was to make God and divine grace central again. Pre-
liminary to the definition and defense of grace, the first part of the work is
a long refutation of other traditional errors and attacks on the Christian
faith by Jews, pretentious philosophers, and Muslims. Bradwardine cites a
tremendous range of scientific texts and displays quite detailed knowledge
of hermetic philosophy, magic, and astrology.90 For Bradwardine, all knowl-
edge, even pagan knowledge, is of divine origin, since pre-Christian sages
already possessed the germ of truth in that they had foretold and prefigured
the coming of Christ. According to this idea of prisca scientia, developed a
century earlier by Roger Bacon — one of Bradwardine's main sources of
inspiration — science, intimately related to religion, had been initially
revealed to the ancient Hebrew patriarchs and prophets and then passed
on from civilization to civilization.91 Notwithstanding this generally positive
appraisal of pagan knowledge, Bradwardine had harsh words for the Liber
vaccae. He qualified it as full of perversion and superstition, while also cast-
ing some doubt on its effectiveness.92 Nevertheless, as we will see later on,
to his mind, even so questionable a book had polemical value on the intel-
lectual battlefield against the enemies of faith.
Many of the texts cited by Bradwardine already appeared in Bacon's
work and some of these references may be indirect. However, this is not the
case for the Liber vaccae which was ignored by Bacon. And it is apparent
that Bradwardine did not derive his knowledge of the text from other
authors we have already encountered since he referred to a magical feat
that had not been described before (see Table 2).

89
Gordon Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians: A Study of His De causa Dei and Its
Opponents (Cambridge, 1957), and Heiko Oberman, Thomas Bradwardine, a Fourteenth
Century Augustinian: A Study of His Theology in Its Historical Context (Utrecht, 1957).
90
For Bradwardine's knowledge and use of hermetic philosophy, see Antonella Sannino,
‘‘La tradizione ermetica a Oxford nei secoli XIII e XIV: Ruggero Bacon e Tommaso Brad-
wardine,'' Studi filosofici 18 (1995): 23–56.
91
Cf. G. Molland, ‘‘Addressing Ancient Authority: Thomas Bradwardine and Prisca
Sapientia,'' Annals of Science 53 (1996): 213–33.
92
Thomas Bradwardine, De causa Dei, 1.1.37 (ed. H. Savile [London, 1618], 90C):
‘‘Nonne etiam ars transformationum et reformationum huiusmodi traditur in Vacca Plato-
nis, seu fingitur ibi tradi, in quo et multa alia turpia, superstitiosa et Magica continentur.''
The other citation of the Liber vaccae is in De causa Dei, 1.1.32 (ed. Savile, 47A). Many
thanks to Lodi Nauta for pointing out Bradwardine's citations of the Liber vaccae to me.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 255

It is highly unlikely that Bradwardine consulted the Liber vaccae at the

library of St. Augustine's as his nomination to the archepiscopal see of Can-
terbury took place years after the completion of the De causa Dei. More-
over, Bradwardine died very shortly after his arrival there. He may have
encountered the Liber vaccae during his stay at Oxford, where hermetic and
magical texts (such as the Asclepius and the Liber XXIV philosophorum)
had circulated at least from the middle of the thirteenth century.93 How-
ever, it seems most likely that Bradwardine consulted the Liber vaccae, and
many of the other works he cited, in the library of his patron, the colorful
and eccentric bishop Richard de Bury of Durham, whose household he had
joined after leaving Oxford in 1335 and where he wrote most of the De
causa Dei.94 Richard de Bury was a fanatical book collector, whose love of
books bordered on the pathological.95 He owned somewhere in the vicinity
of 1500 volumes, which made his library one of the most substantial ones in
the British Isles. Unfortunately, there is no extant catalogue of the collec-
tion, which was dispersed soon after de Bury's death.96
Later in the fourteenth century, the Liber vaccae was cited by Nicole
Oresme in his treatise On the Configuration of Qualities (1355–64), which he
wrote as a master at the Parisian college of Navarre.97 It is hard to tell

93
Sannino, ‘‘La tradizione ermetica,'' 41–42. Sannino does not discuss the Liber vaccae.
Bradwardine would not have found the Liber vaccae in the library of Merton College, which
was relatively small and did not cover works on the occult sciences. Cf. F. M. Powicke,
The Medieval Books of Merton College (Oxford, 1931).
94
Molland, ‘‘Addressing Ancient Authority,'' 213–14. Antonella Sannino does not take
this fact into account in her analysis of the use of hermetic texts by Bradwardine.
95
On de Bury, his library, and his circle, see Frank T. Brechka, ‘‘Richard de Bury: The
Books He Cherished,'' Libri. International Library Review 33 (1983): 302–15; Neal W. Gil-
bert, ‘‘Richard de Bury and the ‘Quires of Yesterday's Sophism,''' in Philosophy and
Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. E. P. Mahoney
(Leiden, 1976), 229–57; Christopher R. Cheney, ‘‘Richard de Bury, Borrower of Books,''
Speculum 48 (1973): 325–28.; W. J. Courtenay, Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century
England (Princeton, 1987), 135–36. These studies offer some complements and corrections
to two excellent older studies, i.e., those of J. de Ghellinck, ‘‘Un éveˆque bibliophile au
XIVe siècle: Richard Aungerville de Bury (1345): Contribution à l'histoire de la littérature
et des bibliothèques médiévales,'' Revue d'histoire eccle´ siastique 18 (1922): 271–313, 482–508,
and 19 (1923): 157–200, and N. Denholm-Young, ‘‘Richard de Bury (1287–1345),'' Trans-
actions of the Royal Historical Society ser. 4, 20 (1937): 135–68.
96
Only a handful of manuscripts have been traced back to it. Denholm-Young,
‘‘Richard de Bury,'' 162, and Cheney, ‘‘Richard de Bury.'' The Liber vaccae is not among
them.
97
Nicole Oresme, Tractatus de configurationibus qualitatum et motuum 2.31 (ed. M. Cla-
gett [Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1968], 358–60). The reference to the Liber vaccae is
probably an addition because it is not in all of the manuscripts. If so, it is an early addi-
tion, likely by Oresme himself, because the passage is cited with the reference to the Liber
vaccae by Henry of Langenstein.
256 traditio

whether this citation is direct or indirect. We will see later on that his com-
ments on the Liber vaccae echo those of William of Auvergne, but this does
not necessarily preclude the possibility that Oresme consulted the Liber vac-
cae himself. Indeed, the fact that Oresme cited the work under a different
title than William pleads in favor of this possibility (see Table 2). Oresme's
citation of the Liber vaccae was itself copied almost literally by Henry of
Langenstein (1325–97) in his De reductione effectuum, written before 1373,
when Henry was still in Paris.98
Both Oresme and Henry of Langenstein were fervent critics of the occult
sciences. As put forward in the De configuratione and the De reductione effect-
uum, all natural phenomena — even those defying the common course of
nature — must be explained in terms of the combination of primary qual-
ities without recourse to occult properties, demons, or the stars. This too is
the case for the magical feats of the Liber vaccae. Even though Oresme
claimed that much of magic relies on sensory illusion, he classed the magic
of Liber vaccae in the category of ‘‘true alterations.''
Insofar as they can be identified, all references to the Liber vaccae in scho-
lastic works concern the first experiments. In some cases, medieval readers
referred specifically to the procedure to generate rational animals artificially
(e.g., William of Auvergne, Jean de La Rochelle, Oresme, and Langenstein).
In other cases they referred to the magical feats that could supposedly be
worked with its body parts, such as becoming invulnerable (e.g., Roland of
Cremona), walking on water, or making men appear as animals (e.g., Brad-
wardine). The references to the Liber vaccae in scholastic works form part of
several broader arguments that will now be analyzed in more detail.

Magic, Nature, and the Law

The Liber vaccae made its first appearance in a theological debate about the
ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. It is cited in relation to the prohibition
against the crossbreeding of cattle (Lev. 19:19). According to William of
Auvergne, one of the reasons for the prohibition against crossbreeding was to
repress the nefarious actions and magical evils which are procured with the
offspring generated by such mixtures. These actions are described in the
book that is called Neumich or Neumuch and that is called the Laws of Plato
by another name. This book is all about such mixtures and it is called the
Laws of Plato because it is contrary to the laws of nature.99

98
Henry of Langenstein, De reductione effectuum, cap. 23 (MS Paris, BNF lat. 14887,
fol. 85r–v).
99
William of Auvergne, De legibus, cap. 12: ‘‘Ut nefanda opera et maleficia, que de fe-
tibus ex huiusmodi commixtione procreatis fiebant declinarentur. Et hec opera leguntur in
libro qui dicitur Neumich, sive Neumuch, et alio nomine vocatur leges Platonis; qui liber
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 257

Here, William of Auvergne was clearly referring to the first experiments

of the Liber vaccae. He seems not to have read beyond these. According to
Christian doctrine, the ceremonial laws, mostly defined in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, had, in contrast to the Ten Commandments, been cancelled
by the coming of Christ. These included the obligation to circumcise all
male children, the prohibition of impure foodstuffs, and a series of prohibi-
tions associated with different kinds of mixtures: crossbreeding, yoking an
ox and a donkey together, sowing with mixed seeds, wearing clothing made
from animal and vegetable fabrics (linen and wool), and cross-dressing.
On the whole, medieval theologians did not display great interest in the
ceremonial laws. They often favored allegorical interpretations or simply dis-
missed the precepts as absurd errors of the Jews, now fortunately aban-
doned. Even so, for a rather brief period of time — the 1220s to the
1240s — several theologians attempted a more serious approach, and even
dedicated separate treatises to the subject.100 Among them, William of
Auvergne and John of La Rochelle claimed that the ceremonial laws made
perfect sense in a specific historical context, i.e., the primitive times when
the Jews were living in Exile.101 God proclaimed the laws to lead his people
away from the idolatrous, superstitious, and immoral practices of the Gen-
tiles in whose company they lived. John of La Rochelle, who had systema-
tized and refined William's discussion, understood there to be universal laws,
such as the Gospels, and laws that are not intrinsically good but are created
for a certain reason at a specific moment in time and for certain people,
e.g., the ceremonial laws.102 This historicizing, almost anthropological,
approach to the laws is not without its precedents in twelfth-century theol-

totus est de huiusmodi commixtionibus et vocatur leges Platonis, quia contra leges nature
est'' (MS Paris, BNF lat. 15755, fol. 44vb; see also Opera omnia, 1:43B). The edition and
another manuscript (Paris, BNF lat. 14311, fol. 2vb) read ‘‘fecibus'' instead of ‘‘fetibus.''
However, ‘‘fetibus'' makes better sense and is confirmed by John of La Rochelle. Moreover,
on many other occasions, lat. 15755 is of better quality than lat. 14311.
100
Robert Grosseteste, De cessatione legalium (ed. E. B. King and R. Dales [London,
1985]).
101
See B. Smalley, ‘‘William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas
on the Old Law,'' in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies, 2 vols.
(Toronto, 1974), 2:11–71.
102
John of La Rochelle, De legibus et praeceptis (n. 84 above), 4:768: ‘‘Dicendum quod
aliquid dicitur faciendum simpliciter ex ratione, quod secundum se bonum est et semper
et apud omnes, secundum quem modum praecepta evangelica sunt ex ratione facienda . . . .
Faciendum vero ex ratione secundum quid est quod secundum se bonum non est, sed
tamen ex causa et pro tempore sive aliquibus bonum est, hoc est, utile vel expediens,
secundum quem modum caeremonialia legis ad litteram facienda erant, quia causa revoca-
tionis ad latriam Conditoris tempore, quo vigebat idolatria, illi populo, qui ad idolatriam
pronus erat, utilia et expedientia erant.''
258 traditio

ogy.103 However, William's main source of inspiration for understanding the

laws was Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed.104
This great Jewish theologian, philosopher, and physician (1135–1204) had
established a strong link between the prohibitions involving mixtures and
magic. He cited many magical texts and practices in detail, although the
Liber vaccae was not among them. Cross-dressing, sowing with mixed seeds,
and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics are all prohibited because they were,
according to Maimonides, practiced in the course of the magical rituals and
fertility rites of the Egyptians who had taken them over from the star-gaz-
ing Sabians. God issued the ceremonial laws to avoid the Jews' being conta-
minated by idolatry. Magic is dangerous because it is a form of idolatry, and
it is idolatrous because it appeals to powers other than the true and only
God, e.g., especially the stars. However, Maimonides did not class cross-
breeding in the category of the laws meant to fight magic but in another
category of laws having to do with illicit sexual unions. This group also
includes prostitution, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality, that is, laws
integrated into the Christian moral system.
In his discussion of the prohibition of crossbreeding, William combined
Maimonides' arguments about these two categories of laws and adapted
them to his own frame of reference. It must be stressed that in contrast to
other magical rites or pagan cults he cited in this context (the cult of Venus
and Priapus; plowing with different animals under certain constellations),
William did not qualify the magic of the Liber vaccae as idolatrous. He
clearly accepted its status as a work on magic that does not appeal to
demons or the stars. What is offensive about this magic is rather that it
goes against the laws of nature. As such, it is both natural and unnatural.
Playing on the classic opposition between the artificial and the natural,
William explains that crossbreeding, and a fortiori the magical crossbreeding
of the Liber vaccae, perverts the order of nature. It does so, because cross-
breeding does not happen spontaneously. Moreover, man's necessary involve-
ment may cause him to be aroused and lead him to engage in unnatural
sexual practices like bestiality and also sodomy. The argument about the
unnaturalness of crossbreeding thus spills over into a condemnation of sex-

103
For example, Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica, ad Lev. 18–23 (PL 198:1212–13).
104
As first shown by Wolfgang Kluxen, William of Auvergne used a Latin translation of
a small section of the Guide, not the full text. Cf. Kluxen, ‘‘Literargeschichtliches zum
lateinischen Moses Maimonides,'' Recherches de the´ ologie ancienne et me´ die´ vale 21 (1954):
23–50, at 41–45. This fragment, entitled Liber de parabola, was not attributed to Maimo-
nides, which explains why neither William nor John of La Rochelle mentioned his name.
For a recent account of the reception of Maimonides in the Latin Middle Ages and further
bibliography, see Hasselhoff, ‘Ut dicit Rabbi Moses' (n. 80 above). Smalley (‘‘William of
Auvergne'') did not take Kluxen's findings into account.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 259

ual deviancy in general. As is clear from William's arguments, the laws of

nature are to be understood in a moral and normative sense, as the God-
given order of the universe, as natural law.
Elements of this demonstration come from Maimonides, who argued that
fertility rites and magical practices are wrong not only because they are
idolatrous, but also because they imply illicit sexual acts. This is the case,
for example, in a grafting ritual during which a woman must copulate with
a man in a non-reproductive fashion, meanwhile inserting the branch of one
tree into the other. However, Maimonides did not qualify either grafting or
crossbreeding as unnatural. The insistence on the order of nature, the
repeated evocation of its norms and limits, and the use of juridical terminol-
ogy are all William's. The prohibition of crossbreeding (but also of cross-
dressing and of sowing with mixed seeds) are not only, as in Maimonides, a
reasonable moral precept and a prohibition against magic. It is also a point
where God's law and the law of nature coincide. As such, it would seem that
William's discussion reflects a shift in the concept of natural law in the
course of the Middle Ages, from its original sense as historically anterior to
other laws, towards its progressive identification with the order of nature.
At the same time, William's line of reasoning has paradoxical implications.
If crossbreeding does, indeed, offend the universal laws of nature, it would
seem that at least part of the ceremonial laws of the Jews should still hold
for Christians, especially since the latter have access to books as dangerous
as the Liber vaccae.

Magic and the Secrets of Nature

The idea of human law as conforming to the order of nature, with the
‘‘abominable mixtures'' of the Liber vaccae as the prime example of the per-
version of this order, is also taken up by Nicole Oresme. Oresme did not
mention William of Auvergne, but clearly used William's De legibus when
formulating this idea.105
However, Oresme's condemnation of the Liber vaccae also linked up with
a related, more classic, theme: that of the secrets of nature. Appealing to a
cluster of age-old metaphors and personifications, Oresme compared nature
to a chaste and modest mother who does not want her secrets revealed. The
magic of the Liber vaccae and similar books is qualified as a violation,
inspired by vain curiosity. Oresme warned would-be practitioners of the con-
sequences of their actions: cursed by nature, they would be doomed to a
miserable end.106

105
See n. 109 below.
106
See n. 109 below.
260 traditio

These images of the chastity of nature and of nature's secrets were often
linked to the idea that certain kinds of knowledge should be reserved for the
wise.107 However, Oresme went much further, wanting to ban the magic of
the Liber vaccae and similar books once and for all. Of course, he did not
condemn all inquiries into the hidden powers of nature. He had distanced
himself from a strong anti-scientific and anti-technological tradition that can
be traced back to Greek and Roman antiquity and that was embraced, and
even reinforced, by many Christian writers.108 According to Oresme, man
should seek to know and use the hidden powers of stones, herbs, seeds, and
other natural things insofar as these are necessary and suitable to human
needs. As such, medicine, surgery, and the art of the goldsmith are licit
enterprises. Magic, such as that professed by the Liber vaccae, is not. Its
experiments are, rather, to be qualified as acts of ‘‘poisoning or bewitch-
ment'' (veneficia seu maleficia).109
Franck Collard recently demonstrated that the association between vene-
ficia and maleficia has a long history, and that the two terms could some-
times be used interchangeably. However, their use by Oresme to condemn
magic also seems to reflect the particular convergence of poisoning and
witchcraft in later medieval society, and the growing fear and persecution
of both crimes. The common denominator of veneficia and maleficia was
their secretiveness.110 The way Oresme saw it, magicians who put the Liber

107
See Pierre Hadot, Le voile d'Isis: Essai sur l'histoire de l'ide´ e de Nature (Paris, 2004),
77–78.
108
Hadot, Le voile d'Isis, 150–54.
109
Nicole Oresme, Tractatus de configurationibus qualitatum et motuum 2.31: ‘‘Et quo-
niam multi appetunt scire et uti aut admirantur utentes ista radice quantum ad duo prima
membra eo quod est naturalis, ideo prudenter animadvertendum est quod de occultis effi-
catiis lapidum, plantarum, seminum, et aliarum rerum naturalium illa dumtaxat expedit
scire que humane necesitati aut utilitati seu ad bene vivere sunt acommodata. Et cogni-
tione talium contentari debemus cuiusmodi sunt ea que sciunt medici, cyrurgici, aurifabri
et alii. Alia enim secretiora ipsa natura ut ita dicam veluti mater pudica non vult detegi;
sed propter inhonestatem vitandam et ad cavendum abusum celanda sunt, sicut sunt vires
vel activitates quas haberent spermata, venena, et quedam alia in aliquibus mixtionibus
abhominandis et applicationibus abusivis; hec namque potius dicenda sunt veneficia seu
malificia quam bona experimenta, ut sunt quedam posita in libro qui dicitur vacca Plato-
nis et in pluribus aliis. Propter quod leges humane que sunt nature conformes iuste talia
prohibent tanquam periculosa et que nimis possent obesse sed prodesse parum vel nichil.
Quedam enim istorum propter latentiam et difficultatem plus habent curiositatis quam
afferant utilitatis. . . . Omnes quoque qui se de hoc intromittunt sine instantia male finiunt
dies suos, quoniam fine perverso tanquam filii inverecundi nituntur caste parentis nature
violare secreta. Ideoque digne maledicti sunt ab auctore nature'' (ed. Clagett, 358–60).
110
Franck Collard, ‘‘Veneficiis vel maleficiis: Réflexions sur les relations entre le crime de
poison et la sorcellerie dans l'Occident médiéval,'' Le Moyen Aˆge 109 (2003): 9–57. Collard
does not mention Oresme. See also Collard, The Crime of Poison in the Middle Ages (West-
port, CT, 2008), translation of Le crime de poison au Moyen Aˆge (Paris, 2003).
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 261

vaccae into practice not only violated nature and stole her secrets, but
graver still, they used these secrets to perpetrate particularly heinous
crimes, made so because of their secretiveness.
As noted earlier, Oresme neither questioned the efficaciousness of the
experiments of the Liber vaccae nor ridiculed its pretensions. Moreover,
despite the association with witchcraft, Oresme did not seem to doubt its
natural character. In his view, the fundamental distinction between magic,
on the one hand, and medicine, surgery, and the art of the goldsmith,111 on
the other, is a moral, not a causal one. Ultimately, the powers of the sub-
stances used for the magic of the Liber vaccae and other books are not really
hidden. They can, at least in theory, be shown to rely on the multifarious
configurations of the four qualities and on the principle of sympathy.112 The
fact that Oresme called them more secret (secretiora) than those underlying
other branches of technology is to be understood in a normative sense. They
must remain hidden from view.

Magic, Demons, and the Powers of Nature

From the beginning, there was a strong tendency among scholastic read-
ers of the Liber vaccae to link its magic with demonic activity. In medieval
conceptions, the frontier between natural and demonic magic was far from
clear-cut. This was not only the case because many medieval theologians
were unwilling to admit that magic could ever work without the interven-
tion of demons, but also because of an intellectual tradition that tied
demons to the powers of nature.
The notion that demons work through nature ultimately harked back to
Augustine. However, its implications became much more precise from the
thirteenth century on, as the idea of the order of nature and the distinction
between the natural and the supernatural took shape. From then on,
demons became increasingly, and somewhat paradoxically, to be seen as
experts in scientific and technological pursuits, including natural magic. Wil-
liam of Auvergne, Roland of Cremona, and Henry of Langenstein are all
representative of these tendencies.
In his De legibus, William of Auvergne cited the Liber vaccae in a chapter
on different forms of idolatry (e.g., worship of the stars, demons, statues).

111
Oresme does not mention alchemy. One may suppose that it is not subsumed under
the ‘‘art of the goldsmith'' but classed, rather, with magic.
112
In this respect, Nicolas Weill-Parot proposes a distinction between the category of
the ‘‘secret'' and the ‘‘occult.'' Secret causes can be discovered and understood, the truly
occult can only be known by experience. Cf. N. Weill-Parot, ‘‘Encadrement et dévoile-
ment: l'occulte et le secret dans la nature chez Albert le Grand et Roger Bacon,'' Micro-
logus 14 (2006): 151–70.
262 traditio

He claimed idolatry of demons is based on the erroneous idea that demons

are almighty. Even if the wonders they work (the standard example being,
since Augustine, the feats of the magicians of Pharaoh) are not necessarily
illusions of the senses, they are not miracles either. Demons cannot overturn
or exceed nature. As Augustine had already noted, they merely use and
manipulate the inherent powers of nature, as man also can. Demons are
merely particularly adroit at this game because of their speed and experi-
ence. However, in the final analysis, they are not creators, because God cre-
ated the inherent powers of nature. The transformation of staves into snakes
and the rains of frogs are based on the acceleration of the purely natural
process of spontaneous generation.
However, William of Auvergne went beyond these standard examples and
explanations. He suggested that demons are able not only to accelerate
spontaneous generation, but also to produce completely new kinds of ani-
mals (nova animalia et necdum visa). They can do this by mixing and manip-
ulating different kinds of seeds and other substances, as taught by the Liber
vaccae.113 William referred, of course, to the strange ‘‘rational animals'' of
mixed parentage. A hundred and fifty years later, Henry of Langenstein
cited the Liber vaccae to the same effect. He shared William's idea that man
and demons can produce new effects that are contrary to the common
course of nature without being supernatural. In order to do so, they manip-
ulate and combine the manifold inherent powers of nature.114 With both
these authors, art is not limited to the mere imitation of nature.
In his De universo, William of Auvergne again securely tied the powers of
demons to those of art and nature. He argued from the powers of natural
magic to those of demons. The context here is the theological debate about
the belief that incubi can sleep with women and father children.115 Accord-
ing to William, demons, as pure spirits, lack a seed of their own. They can,
nevertheless, impregnate women by inseminating them with either artificial

113
William of Auvergne, De legibus, cap. 24: ‘‘Non enim dubitandum est in novis semi-
num commixtionibus et ipsorum adiutoriis nova animalia et necdum visa posse gigni sicut
aperte docetur in libro Nezimich de quo superius fecimus mentionem'' (MS Paris, BNF
lat. 15755, fol. 72ra. In MS Paris, BNF, lat. 14311, fol. 36rb, the title is Liber Nezmuch. In
the edition [Opera omnia, 1:70A]) it is less recognizable: Liber Emuth.)
114
Henry of Langenstein, De reductione effectuum, cap. 23: ‘‘Non omnes dictarum virtu-
tum conbinaciones naturali cursui sunt possibiles vel convenientes. Probatur quia multa
tales possunt fieri ingenio et subtilitate spiritum vel hominum que secundum regularitatem
cursus instituti naturalium non possunt fieri nec unquam fierent, quarum quedam sunt
mixtiones abhominande et applicationes abusive occultarum virium que sunt in spermati-
bus et ven5en4is, de quibus habetur in libro qui dicitur Vacca Platonis'' (MS Paris, BNF
lat. 14887, fol. 85r–v).
115
For a detailed discussion of this debate see Van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge
(n. 8 above), 189–364. For William of Auvergne, ibid., 252–63.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 263

seed or animal sperm. To back up this theory, William referred to legends

about hybrids between humans and bears, and to ‘‘books of experiments''
(libri experimentorum) that claim that generation ‘‘can be procured in
another than the normal way.''116 Effectively, the argument is that if men
can do this by using natural magic (although William remains somewhat
sceptical as to the claims of the books of magic), so can, a fortiori, demons.
Their knowledge of nature is ‘‘greater than that of all physicians and scien-
tists combined.'' The reference to the books of experiments remains rather
vague. It is in the plural, and one cannot be sure if it points to the Liber
vaccae. Furthermore, the practices described in the Liber vaccae promise gen-
eration without a human female while discussions about incubi center on
generation without a human male.
The fact remains that, yet again, William claimed more for art than most
of his contemporaries. Though his fellow theologians agreed with him that
demons had no seed of their own, they thought demons used stolen human
seed to generate offspring. Born from human sperm, these children were not
hybrids, but purely human. Referring to contemporary theories, theologians
remarked that even if demons could produce a substance that contained all
the elements of sperm in the right proportions, it would be infertile. It
would lack the power emanating from a human soul, enabling the genera-
tion of same from same. The use of animal seed was no option either. In line
with Aristotle, hybridization, and especially crossbreeding between man and
animals, was deemed impossible. As William's theory clashed with estab-
lished principles in natural philosophy and medicine, it would seem precisely
for this reason that William used as evidence both legends and books of
magic, perhaps including the Liber vaccae.117
Roland of Cremona's use of the Liber vaccae also reflects the idea that the
powers of demons are linked to nature, and are, as such, analogous to those
of magicians or scientists. In the section on demonology in his theological
Summa, Roland refers to the ‘‘popular belief'' (vulgus dicit) that on the
witches' sabbath some men and women fly by night (enabled by a certain
ointment) and engage in orgies and acts of bestiality. The reality of noctur-

116
William of Auvergne, De universo 2.3.25: ‘‘Nec mirum cum iam attentatum sit ab
hominibus et creditum ab eis homines per aliam viam efficere quam per viam consuetae
generationis sicut in libris experimentorum poteris invenire. . . . si tamen eis de talibus
creditor'' (Opera omnia, 1:1071).
117
A closer parallel for William's reference to books of experiments seems to be provided
by the Picatrix 2.5.2 (ed. Pingree, 46). According to this passage, Indian magicians ‘‘mira-
bilia operantur circa mulieres quas concipere faciunt absque coniunctione virili et hoc moti-
bus, operibus et medicinis.'' However, according to Pingree, the earliest direct citations of
Picatrix date from the end of the fifteenth century, although the Latin text seems to have
been present in Montpellier by 1300. Cf. Pingree, ‘‘The Diffusion'' (n. 2 above), 91, 93, 98.
264 traditio

nal flight and the witches' sabbath only became standard doctrine in the
course of the fifteenth century and therefore as yet, during Roland's life-
time, it was still considered a superstition. Nevertheless, contrary to main-
stream opinion, Roland of Cremona was not prepared to reject the belief
outright. He concluded that he could neither affirm nor exclude the exis-
tence and possibility of nocturnal flight. Significantly, he only cited argu-
ments in favor of ‘‘those that want to believe in that flight.'' On the one
hand, it was too widespread (not only among Christians, but also among
Jews and Muslims) to be wholly false. This appeal to common consent as a
sign of truth was not unusual in scholastic works and counterbalanced the
general disdain for popular belief among the learned. On the other hand,
and more to the point for our purposes, nocturnal flight also seemed feasible
on a purely technical level. Why would it be impossible for demons, as the
witches' accomplices, to concoct an ointment which would enable people to
fly? After all, there are stones that render one invisible, and ‘‘demons or
philosophers'' have also invented ointments, as we learn from the Liber vac-
cae, that make one invulnerable to blows. Roland saw no reason to doubt
that such an ointment could be made. In his view, since the magnet attracts
iron, the existence of a substance that makes iron bounce off seems quite
logical. After all, in nature, things generally exist in opposite pairs.118

118
Roland of Cremona, Summa, 2, dist. 8: ‘‘Et etiam de cursu, quem vocat sic vulgus,
non possum credere. Vulgatum est quod currit per mundum et de nocte currunt et homines
et mulieres et ungunt se unguento quodam per quod volant et invicem coeunt et cum bes-
tiis, sicut narrant suis confessoribus, sicut a religiosis viris audivi, qui (MS quod) habuerunt
tales in confessione. Et confitentes amare flebant et pro illo peccato et pro aliis parati
erant satisfacere. Ista opinio magis est famosa quam quod incubi infestent mulieres et Aris-
toteles docet facere argumentum ab auctoritate omnium. Et Beatus Petrus in libro Cle-
mentis dicit quod opinio vulgi locum prophetie tenet, asserens quod opinio communis non
debat (!) esse falsa. Credo enim quod in gente Sarracenorum et Iudeorum et Christianorum
sit ista opinio. Sed hoc maxime videtur impossibile, quod dicunt qui vadunt in illo cursu
quod quam cito inunguntur unguento illo quod volant velociter. Nec hoc videri debet
incongrue illis qui volunt hoc credere quia arte demonum vel ingenio philosophorum inven-
tum est unguentum, de quo si quis ungitur ferrum non potest illum incidere, sicut habetur
in libro Vacce. Quia si invenitur aliquid quod attrahat ferrum ut adamas, quare et aliqua
non inveniuntur que refugiant ferrum, que non latent demones. Unum enim contra unum
dicit Ecclesiasticus XLII g [42:25] et omnia duplicia; quare ergo et aliqua genera rerum
non sunt ex quibus possit confici huiusmodi unguentum quod suspendit (!) peruncta cor-
pora in aere et moveat ea velociter ad quamcumque partem voluerit homo? Nonne et la-
pides sunt qui faciunt homines invisibiles? Quare et illud non posset fieri? Dicimus quod si
aliquid est talis cursus arte demonum inventum est propter luxuriam, sicut dicunt illi qui
vadunt. Unde demones incorporati sunt qui ducunt homines ad illam ludificationem. Quod
ergo sit iste cursus, non assero; et quod non posset esse et quod huiusmodi unguentum
possit fieri, similiter negare non possum omnino, quoniam scio quod multe sunt insidie
dolosi ut dicit Ecclesiasticus XI f [11:31]'' (MS BAV, Barb. lat. 729, fol. 43vb).
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 265

Magic and Miracles

It may seem remarkable that Roland of Cremona did not refer to oint-
ments described in the Liber vaccae that provided an even closer analogy
with nocturnal flight, such as those which supposedly allowed one to cover
the earth in the blinking of an eye or to walk on water. Does this omission
indicate that Roland had only superficial knowledge of the text? Or was it
the result of a deliberate choice, motivated by an uneasiness that such spells
had too close a proximity to Christ's miracles? It would seem that Roland's
rationalistic mind was hardly prone to such fears. Elsewhere in his Summa,
he came very close to proposing natural causes for Christ's walking on water
and the levitation of certain female saints.119 Likewise, in order to explain
the immortality of man in paradise, he alluded a second time to the oint-
ment described in the Liber vaccae for invulnerability. Thereby, he almost
suggested that the primitive state of humankind could be restored through
magic.120
Nevertheless, the disturbing resemblance between magic and miracles was
a classic preoccupation for Christian theologians. It led to various efforts to
distinguish the two. At the same time, a polemical tradition going back to
the church fathers justified the reality of Christian miracles (such as the Vir-
gin Birth or the Resurrection at the end of time) against external criticism
by pointing to analogous natural marvels. Thomas Bradwardine's citations
of the Liber vaccae reflect both of these somewhat contradictory tendencies.
The first citation comes up in a defense of Christ's miracles against
attacks by the ‘‘Jews and their philosophers.'' According to Bradwardine
these detractors,
hostile to Christ and the Christian faith, say that Christ made not true, but
counterfeit miracles, by the magical art and by the power of evil spirits. Also
some magicians, in justification of their infamous art, say that Christ used
teachings written there, as appears from the book that is called Plato's Cow.121

119
Roland of Cremona, Summa (MS Paris, Mazarine, 795, fol. 99r). Cf. also E. Filthaut,
Roland von Cremona OP und die Anfänge der Scholastik im Predigerorden: Ein Beitrag zur
Geistesgeschichte der älteren Dominikaner (Vechta, 1936), 17.
120
Roland of Cremona, Summa: ‘‘Item omnes dicunt quod gladius non potuisset lesisse
primos homines ante peccatum . . . Nec mirum, si gladius non potuisset eos incidisse cum
Liber Vacce doceat facere unguentum ut dicitur quod tale est quod si homo fuit ipso
inunctus non potest incidere eum ferrum'' (MS BAV, Barb. lat. 729, fol. 55vb).
121
Robert Bradwardine, De causa Dei, 1.1.32: ‘‘Iudaei autem et eorum Philosophi ini-
mici Christi et fidei Christianae dicunt Christum fecisse miracula, non vera, sed ficta, per
artem Magicam et per potentiam spirituum malignorum. Quidam etiam magici in approba-
tionem artis suae infamis dicunt Christum vsum fuisse quibusdam magisteriis ibi scriptis,
sicut patet in libro quid dicitur Vacca Platonis'' (ed. Savile, 47A). Translation by Molland,
‘‘Addressing Ancient Authority'' (n. 91 above), 219, with slight modifications.
266 traditio

Bradwardine did not specify which experiments he had in mind. However, it

seems clear that he meant the ointment made from the guts of the homun-
culus, which, when rubbed on hands and feet, supposedly enabled one to
walk on water.
But who were the enemies of faith who accused Christ of using magic?
Bradwardine, following a common literary strategy, is partly creating his
own straw man here. A substantial part of medieval polemical treatises
against Jews, Muslims, or pagan philosophers were, in reality, intended for
Christian audiences. Their aim was not so much to teach Christians how to
defend their beliefs against external attacks as to confirm and reinforce their
own faith.122 The first book of Bradwardine's De causa Dei fits into this pat-
tern. At the same time, even though the Liber vaccae never mentioned
Christ, it did promise feats that were very similar to Christ's miracles. A
Christian reader could easily interpret these claims as an implicit onslaught
on his faith.
Bradwardine advanced several arguments to refute the claim that Christ's
miracles were, in fact, magical tricks. They are corroborated by all four
evangelists, who wrote independently, in different times and places: Christ
did not behave like a necromancer who relied on lengthy rituals to perform
his magical tricks but acted without delay; he did not address himself to a
demon, but only prayed sometimes to his Father; finally, he always aimed
at doing good, and not evil, as a necromancer would have done.123 Interest-
ingly, the evidence is largely circumstantial. Although Bradwardine voiced
some doubt as to the efficaciousness of the practices described in the Liber
vaccae in his second citation (to which we shall turn shortly) he did not do so
here. He certainly did not propose it as a general criterion to distinguish magic
from miracles. He did not relate the distinction to different causalities and to
the order of nature either. This is probably because the distinction between
the preternatural and the supernatural had fairly little practical value.124
Bradwardine had a second occasion to cite the Liber vaccae in defending
Christian miracles against a different threat: the scepticism of pagan philos-
ophers who deemed them impossible.125 In defending the miracle of the bod-
ily resurrection against pagan sceptics, he followed a line of reasoning devel-

122
Gilbert Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au Moyen Aˆge (Paris, 1990), 367,
423, 426.
123
Bradwardine, De causa Dei 1.1.32 (ed. Savile), 47, 51. See also Molland, ‘‘Addressing
Ancient Authority,'' 219–20.
124
On this distinction and its limits, see Van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge,
229–30. Bradwardine did, however, use this kind of distinction in order to defend the
miraculous character of Christ's healing miracles and his resuscitation of the dead (De
causa Dei, 1.1.32 [ed. Savile], 41–42).
125
Bradwardine, De causa Dei 1.1.37 (ed. Savile), 88–92.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 267

oped in late antiquity, when Christianity was not yet the majority religion.
Of course, in Bradwardine's own time, this threat was largely imaginary.126
It would seem that the real danger came, rather, from naturalistic Christian
authors such as Roland of Cremona, who suggested that miracles had natu-
ral causes, as well as from books of magic such as the Liber vaccae.
The argument in defense of Christian miracles that Bradwardine bor-
rowed from the church fathers is that since pagans do not recognize sacred
authority, they must be confronted by profane arguments. Christian apolo-
gists must point to natural marvels that bear a resemblance to miracles. If
pagans and unbelievers accept these phenomena, why would they then
doubt Christian miracles? Bradwardine's contribution to this argument lay
in the choice of his examples and his recourse to magic as a polemical tool.
Apart from a traditional reference to spontaneous generation as a natural
analogy of the bodily resurrection, Bradwardine referred to different tradi-
tions about transformations and metamorphosis. These ranged from com-
mon beliefs and stories about werewolves and witches to the classical fables
of Ovid and Apuleius. In this context, he also mentioned the ‘‘art of trans-
formation and reconstitution'' (ars transformationum et reformationum) of the
Liber vaccae.127 This is most likely a reference to the experiments about
turning people into animals. Bradwardine did voice some doubt as to the
efficaciousness of the procedures. His reservations may well reflect the con-
temporary debates among theologians about witchcraft and the possibility
that demons could bring about substantial changes.128 However, Bradwar-
dine did not go into the matter. In a polemical context such as this, one's
own convictions are of little importance. What matters is what the adver-
sary believes. Still, Bradwardine could not keep himself from sneering at all
the ‘‘vile and superstitious'' things described in the Liber vaccae.

Conclusion

The philosopher and physician Peter of Abano lapidarily dismissed the

magic of the Liber vaccae as nothing but tricks and sleight of hand. By con-
trast, the scholastic theologians who read and cited the Liber vaccae seem
largely to have accepted its effectiveness. They also severely condemned the
work. Roland of Cremona is the exception to the latter rule. He is also alone in
offering a partial rationalization of the magic of the Liber vaccae, although his
argument for the possible existence of an ointment for invulnerability did not

126
Cf. Van der Lugt, Le ver, le de´ mon et la vierge (n. 8 above), 487–504.
127
Bradwardine, De causa Dei 1.1.37 (ed. Savile), 90C: ‘‘Nonne etiam ars transformatio-
num et reformationum huiusmodi traditur in Vacca Platonis, seu fingitur ibi tradi, in quo
et multa alia turpia, superstitiosa et Magica continentur.''
128
See Newman, Promethean Ambitions (n. 4 above), 54–62.
268 traditio

amount to much more than a feeble analogy (the magnet attracts iron; in
nature, things exist in opposite pairs; hence, there also exists something that
deflects iron).
The Liber vaccae did not give rise to serious discussions about the reasons
why its magic would or would not work. Refuting its claims would, how-
ever, have been facile. The procedure for the generation of synthetic
rational animals, in particular, could not have stood up against a serious
confrontation with scholastic thought for very long. Despite its appeal to
concepts and theories shared by the scholastics, it clashed with central ten-
ets of mainstream natural philosophy and medicine. Yet the theologians
who cited the Liber vaccae did not walk this path. Instead, they rejected the
work on moral grounds, qualifying it as vile, against the laws of nature, and
accusing it of violating nature's secrets.
There would seem to have been several reasons for this attitude. Brad-
wardine (who did voice some doubt) cited the work in a polemical context.
He needed his imagined adversaries to accept the claims of the Liber vaccae.
As for William of Auvergne, Nicole Oresme, and Henri of Langenstein, they
tended, like Roland of Cremona, to ascribe greater powers to nature, and to
the capacities of man to manipulate these forces, than was customary. Of
course, this was the case also of Peter of Abano. However, Peter of Abano
probably saw the organic magic of the Liber vaccae as inefficacious, because
it did not rely on astral causes. By contrast, in the eyes of ‘‘astro-sceptics''
such as Nicole Oresme and Henri of Langenstein, the Liber vaccae would, for
the very same reason, have gained in authority. As for William of Auvergne,
he believed, as we have seen, against the scholastic consensus, in the fertil-
ity of crossbreeding between man and animals and in the possibility of syn-
thetic sperm. To such minds, the Liber vaccae will have been both fascinat-
ing and particularly dangerous.
The Liber vaccae did, indeed, contain much to trouble the medieval
reader. It promised the magician almost Godlike powers of control over the
elements and the planets, generation and growth, the bodies and minds of
others, and over one's own body by freeing it from pain and the constraints
of gravity. The Liber vaccae dangerously blurred the line between magic and
miracles, implicitly intimating that Christ's miracles could be accomplished
by magic. It also proposed methods to harm and even kill.
Both the scholastics' remarks and the manuscript evidence suggest that
what disturbed medieval readers most was the artificial generation of
humanlike beings.129 It is these experiments that are omitted in several
manuscripts and that are accused of transgressing the laws of nature and

129
Roland of Cremona's neutral attitude may partly stem from the fact that he did not
hint at, or did not remember, that the ointment for invulnerability was obtained from the
corpse of the rational animal.
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 269

violating nature's secrets. Scholastic theologians qualified these experiments

in this manner, because they involved crossbreeding between man and ani-
mals, giving rise to strange new creatures of mixed parentage. As such, the
Liber vaccae breached the natural and God-given boundaries between human
nature and other species. The fact that the Liber vaccae described the proce-
dure in such lurid detail can only have made it seem more abominable.
The experiments for artificial generation in the Liber vaccae are unique in
the literature of the medieval West.130 It is true that the recourse to sponta-
neous generation in the course of magical operations can be found in at least
one other medieval text on magic: the Liber Theysolius appended to the
Liber Razielis, which is associated with the court of Alfonso the Wise.131 The
Liber Theysolius, which survives in one complete and one partial copy,
describes the creation of worms from the bodies of animals as part of an
elaborate procedure to make an eye ointment that allows one to see spirits
or demons. However, the work is not concerned with the generation of
higher animals or homunculi. Rather, one of its principal aims is the vivifi-
cation of dead bodies, by persuading or compelling spirits to enter them as a
familiar spirit, which is under the operator's power and will provide him
with knowledge of anything he wants. And even though the magic of the
Liber Theysolius makes proficient use of animal substances, ritual elements,
and the invocation of spirits in order to access and direct natural powers are
far more prominent here than in the Liber vaccae.
In learned Latin sources, two isolated experiments for the artificial gener-
ation of homunculi can be found. The first is described in the De essentiis
essentiarum, an anonymous work on natural philosophy and alchemy, and
is there attributed to the Arabic physician Rasis. In the fifteenth century,
the Spanish theologian Alonso Tostado reported a similar experiment,
attributing it to Arnold of Villanova.132 However, neither of these cases

130
The theme of the generation of artificial life, including homunculi, is found in the
Kitaˆ b al-tajmíˆ in the Jabirian corpus, a work which was unavailable in Latin translation.
Jaˆbir ibn Hayyaˆn knew and cited the Liber vaccae, but disapproved of it and may have
considered it to be demonic. On Jaˆbir's opinion on the generation of artificial life, see Paul
Kraus, Jaˆ bir ibn Hayyaˆ n: Contribution à l'histoire des ide´ es scientifiques dans l'Islam: Jabir
et la science grecque (Cairo, 1942; repr. Paris, 1986), 97–134, and the summary of this excel-
lent study provided by Newman, Promethean Ambitions, 181–83. On Jaˆbir's condemnation
of the Liber vaccae, cf. Pingree, ‘‘Plato's Hermetic Book'' (n. 2 above), 138. The theme of
artificial human life is also found in the tale of Salaˆmaˆn and Absal. See Newman, Prom-
ethean Ambitions, 173–77.
131
On the Liber Theysolius and its link to the Liber Razielis, see Page, ‘‘Magic and the
Pursuit of Wisdom'' (n. 5 above), and the bibliography cited there. The following para-
graph is based on Page's description of the content of the Liber Theysolius.
132
These attributions are baseless. For a more detailed description of these experiments,
see the Appendix below and Newman, Promethean Ambitions, 188–94.
270 traditio

involves animals. Male semen is simply placed in a glass or lead vessel with
some other ingredients. There are concerns about the human status of the
beings thus generated and worries that such an experiment would tempt
God to infuse a rational soul. Interestingly, however, these experiments are
not qualified as against the laws and order of nature and the tone is not
particularly aggressive. This seems to confirm that it was, indeed, the cross-
breeding in the Liber vaccae that scholastic readers found most objection-
able.
The artificial generation of homunculi remained a marginal topic in medi-
eval learned discussions. Scholastic debates about artificial generation
focused, rather, on the possibility of generation without a human male or
without any seed at all, as in spontaneous generation. Demons played an
important role in these debates, which were inspired by common beliefs
about incubi and by exegetical traditions that presented demons as the real
actors behind the works of the magicians of Pharaoh. However, as we have
seen, scholastics did not claim that the transformation of staves into snakes,
or the organic generation-magic of the Liber vaccae, could not work without
demons. What these debates were about was defining the scope of the
powers of demons by tying them to nature. This line of reasoning obscured,
however, the distinction between natural and demonic magic. The only real
difference lay in the necessary semiological step: the need for a sign, a rit-
ual, which demons would interpret in order to act, subsequently, through
natural causes.
Several of our authors associated the Liber vaccae not only with demonic
action, but also explicitly with witchcraft. Roland of Cremona, in particular,
did not want to exclude that demons prepared the ointment that enabled
witches to fly and participate in the sabbath. However, he did not develop
the idea further. He, too, was less interested in the relationship between
demons and magicians or witches, than in their relationship to God and
nature. The fact remains, however, that Roland proposed a rationalization
of the witches' nocturnal flight long before its acceptance by mainstream
theology. His discussion suggests that rationalism and a tendency to privi-
lege natural causes are not necessarily a parapet against delusions. They
may, on the contrary, have contributed to the rise of the witch craze at the
end of the Middle Ages.

***

Moving into the Renaissance, we find at least two further citations of the
Liber vaccae. They are contained in the works of two Neoplatonizing philoso-
phers and advocates of a new high magic. Their judgement of the Liber vaccae
does not differ substantially from that of the scholastics. In his posthumously
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 271

published polemic against astrology, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola would

seem to be the first to explicitly reject the attribution of the work to his hero
Plato. Interested in a magic that would enhance man's dignity and strengthen
his will, Pico had neither time for the determinism of the stars nor for the
Liber vaccae. He disqualified the latter as filled with ‘‘execrable dreams and
figments,'' without, however, refuting its claims in any detail.133
By contrast, several decades later, Henry Agrippa, in his own work on
natural magic, apparently did not doubt that the magic of the Liber vaccae
would actually work. In a discussion on the role of the stars in spontaneous
generation, he called the experiments of the Liber vaccae ‘‘monstrous'' and
‘‘against the laws of nature,'' deliberately misspelling its title as the Laws
of Pluto.134 On the other hand, he also cited the Liber vaccae as an authority
on magical lamps.135
Finally, without saying so, Agrippa drew extensively on the pseudo-
Albertian De mirabilibus mundi.136 As we have seen, the latter treatise was,
in turn, deeply influenced by both Ibn al-Jazzaˆr's De proprietatibus and the
Liber vaccae. This circumstance lends a paradoxical quality to the early
modern reception of the Liber vaccae. Despite the fact that John Dee owned
two copies,137 the work itself increasingly sank into oblivion. At the same
time, through its partial incorporation into the De mirabilibus mundi, which
was translated into several vernacular languages and printed more than
once alongside other pseudo-Albertian works, it reached a much wider audi-
ence than in the Middle Ages. This, however, came at the price of being
stripped of its more characteristic and questionable elements.

Universite´ Paris Diderot – Paris 7/Institut universitaire de France

133
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatriciam
(1494), 1 (ed. Eugenio Garin [Florence, 1946], 64): ‘‘sicut libros Platonis de vacca magi cir-
cumferunt et quos vocant institutionum execrabilibus somniis figmentisque refertos et a
Platone non minus alienos quam ista sint mendicabula a Platonis procul et probitate et
sapientia.''
134
Henry Agrippa, De occulta philosophia 1.36 (ed. V. Perrone Compagni [Leiden, 1992],
152): ‘‘Virtus praeterea coelestis alibi quidem sopita iacet, ceu sulphur a flamma remotum;
in viventibus autem corporibus saepe flagrat, sicut sulphur accensum, tum vapore suo
proxima omnia complet: sic miranda quaedam opera procreantur, qualia leguntur in libro
Nemith, qui et Legum Plutonis inscribitur, quia eiusmodi generationes monstrosae sunt,
neque secundum leges naturae producuntur.''
135
Henry Agrippa, ibid., 1.49 (ed. Perrone Compagni, 179).
136
See Perrone Compagni's introduction to her edition of the De occulta philosophia, 19.
137
Oxford, Corpus Christi, 125; Oxford, Bodleian, Digby 71.
272 traditio

Appendix: The Liber vaccae and the De essentiis essentiarum

The De essentiis essentiarum is a treatise on natural philosophy and alchemy.

According to the prologue, it was written by a Dominican called Thomas, chap-
lain of Robert of Anjou, duke of Calabria and future King Robert the Wise
(d. 1343), to whom the work is also dedicated. If this authorship is to be accep-
ted, the dates of Robert's elevation to the rank of duke and his royal coronation
several years later indicate that the De essentiis essentiarum was written between
1297 and 1309. The work was later erroneously ascribed to Thomas Aquinas,138
which may partly explain its relative success.139
The De essentiis essentiarum roughly follows the ‘‘great chain of being,'' from
God and the angels down to animals, plants, and minerals. The first possible
citation of the Liber vaccae occurs in the chapter on animals. Thomas defends
the idea that the essence of the human species resides in the male, via his seed,
and not in the female. Like most of his contemporaries, he adhered to Aristotle's
theory of generation. However, far more unusually, to prove the redundancy of
female seed, chaplain Thomas describes an experiment to artificially create a
human being from sperm alone, without the intervention of a woman. Sperm is
to be placed in a glass vessel with horse manure for thirty days, at the end of
which a homunculus will have formed, whose blood can be used to cure many
diseases. For this experiment, Thomas cites a book by Rasis entitled De proprie-
tatibus membrorum animalium.140 Revealing a certain uneasiness about the com-

138
I have not been able to find confirmation for the existence of a Dominican chaplain
called Thomas at the court of Robert the Wise. However, unlike Lynn Thorndike, I do not
believe he is necessarily a fictitious character. Contrary to what is suggested by Thorndike
(A History of Magic [n. 1 above], 3:136), the author of the De essentiis essentiarum did not
claim to be Thomas Aquinas. This attribution is of later date and has been added in later
manuscripts (as, for instance, in Oxford, Bodleian, Digby 71, a manuscript from the four-
teenth century). Modern scholars have identified the author with a lecturer at the Domin-
ican studium of Naples evicted in 1344 for his anti-Thomist positions, but promoted to
doctor of theology by Pope Clement VI. Cf. T. Kaeppeli and E. Panella, Scriptores Ordinis
Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, 4 vols. (Rome, 1970–93): 4 (1993): 355–56, and 1 (1970): 344.
On the question of substantial forms, the author of De essentiis essentiarum adopted,
indeed, a pluralist, anti-Thomistic view (see below). However, the early date of De essentiis
essentiarum seems to plead against the identification.
139
There are at least a dozen manuscripts. Parts of the treatise were printed several
times in the early modern period. I have used Venice, 1488 (unnumbered) and MS London,
BL, Sloane 2156. For manuscripts and editions of the De essentiis essentiarum, see Kaepelli
and Panella, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, 4:355–56. In at least one manuscript
(Oxford, Bodleian, Digby 71), the De essentiis essentiarum, the De proprietatibus, and the
Liber vaccae are found together.
140
De essentiis essentiarum, 8 (London, BL, Sloane 2156, fol. 143ra; Venice, 1488,
unnumbered): ‘‘Rasis de proprietatibus membrorum animalium ponit unum experimentum
. . . . Dicit ergo quod si accipiatur semen hominis et imponatur in vase mundo sub calidi-
 the liber vaccae in the medieval west 273

patibility of this experiment with Christian faith, he adds that he is not sure
whether the experiment is true, and that if it is, the homunculus would surely
lack a rational soul. On the other hand, the testimony of so great a man as Rasis
cannot be scorned. A bit further on, the author of De essentiis essentiarum uses
his idea that the homunculus lacks a rational soul, as part of a long argument
against the Thomistic theory of the unicity of substantial forms. According to
Aquinas, the intellectual soul structures the whole of the human body. Since the
homunculus lacks a soul, it is clear that in ordinary humans the complex orga-
nization of the body, with all its different tissues and organs, does not derive
from one substantial form. The Thomistic view must be rejected.
The question is whether the De proprietatibus membrorum animalium can be
identified with the Liber vaccae. First of all, it must be said that at the present
state of research, there seems to be no better candidate. I have found no indica-
tion of the existence of a genuine or pseudepigraphic treatise by Rasis describing
the artificial generation of humans.141 In the fifteenth century, the Spanish theo-
logian Alonso Tostado alludes to an experiment similar to the one described by
chaplain Thomas, attributed, this time, to Arnold of Villanova. There again, the
precise source is unclear.142
However, several arguments plead against a link between De essentiis essentia-
rum and the Liber vaccae. The author of De essentiis essentiarum attributed the
De proprietatibus memborum animalium to Rasis, and not to Galen, Plato, or
Hunayn ibn Ishaˆq. More importantly, the experiment described by chaplain
Thomas differs from the much more elaborate and extravagant ones in the Liber
vaccae. According to De essentiis essentiarum, the male seed is to be put in a glass
vessel and not into the uterus of a cow or an ewe. The use of female animals is
an essential aspect of the experiment in the Liber vaccae. Moreover, the blood of
the homunculus serves to cure diseases rather than effect magical feats.
And yet, some of these divergences are not as great as they may seem.
According to the Liber vaccae, the homunculus, once born, must be kept in in a
glass or metal vessel for ten or forty days. Glass vessels are also used in several
other experiments. The title of the work cited by Thomas resembles Ibn al-Jaz-
zaˆr's De proprietatibus. The De proprietatibus preceded, as we have seen, the
Liber vaccae in almost all manuscripts, to the point of being easily confounded
with it.
Moreoever, the attribution to Rasis does not necessarily preclude a link with
the Liber vaccae. Thomas may have confused Ibn al-Jazzaˆr's De proprietatibus
with other treatises with similar titles attributed to Rasis. For example, accord-
ing to the medieval catalogue of the library of St. Augustine's of Canterbury, the
lost manuscript of the Liber vaccae kept there, contained a Liber Rasis et Diasco-

tate fimi quod ad XXX dies erit inde generatus homo, habens omnia membra hominis et
eius sanguis valet ad multas infirmitates secundum quod ibi ponit.''
141
See also Kraus, Jabir ibn Hayyaˆ n, 122 n. 4.
142
Alonso Tostado, Paradoxa de Christi, matrisque eius misteriis, animarum receptaculis
posthumis, iucundissimae disputationes, 1.5 (Douai, 1621), 21. For Tostado's discussion, see
Newman, Promethean Ambitions (n. 4 above), 191–95.
274 traditio

rides de naturis animalium. Moreover, another Arabic treatise about medical

magic by Costa ben Luca, also called De proprietatibus, is attributed to Rasis in
at least one manuscript. This manuscript — Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine,
MS 277 — which also contains Ibn al-Jazzaˆr's De proprietatibus followed by the
Liber vaccae, dates from the fifteenth century. However, the attribution may
have occurred in earlier manuscripts.
Unfortunately, none of the arguments above is conclusive in one way or
another. This leaves us with the frustrating conclusion that a link between De
essentiis essentiarum and the Liber vaccae can neither be excluded nor affirmed.
 Table 1: Latin Manuscripts of the Liber vaccae
Date Shelf Mark Medieval Provenance, Title in MSS or Medieval (In)completeness Preceded by Other Texts in Manuscript
Medieval Shelf Marks, Library Catalogue DP
Owners

1 End twelth, Munich, CLM 22292 Windberg monastery DP: explicit epistola ameti Part of prologue and DP Composite manuscript.
beginning (Bavaria), no. 92 LV: 5no title4 experiments LV Major 15 and LV unit: Medical works
thirteenth 16 only. Scribe skips several (Articella and commentaries

the liber vaccae in the medieval west

century lines after prologue. on the Articella)
Other units:
Trivium/quadrivium
medical astrology

2 1240s Not extant Amiens, library of Richard of (catalogue) Epystola Ameti DP Galenic and pseudo-Galenic
Fournival, medical section, filii Abraham filii Macellani de works
no. 142 proprietate, et est extracta de
libro Galieni qui dicitur
Anguemiz, et est ex dictis
Humayni
3 1280–1300 Munich, CLM 615 Germany? DP: epistola amati filii Skips the prologue and the DP DP and LV form
(dated by abraham qui dignus et first 3 experiments of the 40 self-contained unit.
Pingree) nominati (?) filius Marcelarii Major. Starts with 1.4. Only Other units:
LV: 5no title4 several experiments of LV Medical works, Herbals
Major and only the beginning (Latin/German)
of experiment 2.10. Breaks off Agriculture (references to
because of text loss. Germany), Secrets, Astral
Magic
4 1280–1300 Yale Medical library, Bologna. DP: Epistula Ameti filii DP Medical works (salernitan
(dated by codex Fritz Paneth By 1326 in Bohemia. Abrahe nominati filius texts, translations by Gerard
Pingree) macellarii de proprietatibus of Cremona, tracts on
ca. 1300 LV: liber institutionum surgery). DP and LV after an
(dated by activarum Platonis alchemical text.
Sudhoff)
5 1280–1300 Oxford, Corpus Christi, Montpellier? DP: 5no title4 DP Medical works
(dated by 125 Belonged to Thomas Sprott LV: completus est liber Alchemy
Pingree) and Thomas of Wyvelesberghe, anaguenis, id est liber vaccae/ Agriculture
monks of St. Augustine's Can- completus est liber
terbury. The latter left it to aggregationum anagnemis
the abbey in the beg. of the Platonis cum expositione
fourteenth century. hunaym filii Ysaac
There no. 1277.

275
Later in John Dee's library.
 276
Date Shelf Mark Medieval Provenance, Title in MSS or Medieval (In)completeness Preceded by Other Texts in Manuscript
Medieval Shelf Marks, Library Catalogue DP
Owners

6 Beginning Not extant St. Augustine's, Canterbury, vacca platonis (according to ? Medical works, surgery
fourteenth century no. 1275. medieval catalogue) Agriculture
Donated by Michael of Magic
Northgate, monk of Alchemy
St Augustine's d. after 1340.
7 Beginning Erfurt, Amplon 4. 188 In the fifteenth c. college of Fifteenth c. index: liber vacce LV has been ripped out ? Commentaries on Aristotelian
fourteenth century Porta coeli (Erfurt), no. 25 na- nigromanticus natural philosophy
turalis p.
8 Beginning Not extant Durham, library of Richard de ?
fourteenth century Bury
9 Mid-fourteenth London, BL Arundel 342 Italy liber institutionum activorum Magic, amulets, lapidaries
century Platonis /
liber aggregationum anguemis
platonis cum exposititione
humayn filii ysaach

traditio
10 Fifteenth century Montpellier, Fac. de Northern Italy, probably liber institucionum activarum DP Magic (e.g., Costa ben Luca,
Médecine, 277 Venice platonis De phisicis ligaturis, here
ascribed to Rasis)
11 Fifteenth century Florence, BN 2.3.214 liber institucionum activarum DP Magic
Platonis
liber agregationis aneguemis
maioris et minoris cum
expositione unayn filii Ysac et
declaratione galieni
12 Fifteenth century Oxford, Corpus Christi, 132 Britain, York? 5No titles4 DP Astronomy, natural philos-
ophy, medical texts, secrets
Additions: religious verse
13 Fifteenth century Oxford, Bodleian Library, In John Dee's library DP: 5no title4 DP Magic, astrology, medicine,
Digby 71 LV: completur liber aneguems alchemy (ps-Thomas,
platonis, id est liber vacce De essentiis essentiarum)
14 Fifteenth century Biblioteca Apostolica Southern Germany liber institutionum activarum DP Scholastic anthropology
Vaticano, Pal. lat. 1892 platonis Astrology
liber agregationis aneguemis Magic
maioris et minoris platonis
cum expositione unayn filii
ysac et declaratione galieni

LV = Liber vaccae
DP = De proprietatibus
 Table 2: Citations of the Liber vaccae in the Latin Middle Ages

Date Place Author and Work Title of Liber vaccae Experiment or Magical Context
Feat

1228–31 Paris William of Auvergne, De legibus 1) liber neumich (ed.) / Artificial cross breeding 1) Ceremonial Laws
(twice) neumuch / nonnuth / nounuth 2) Idolatry and power of demons
/ nevemich (ed.). leges platonis
2) liber nezimich / nezmuch / 3) Power of demons

the liber vaccae in the medieval west

De universo (1231–36) emuth (ed.)
3) in libris experimentorum

ca. 1236 Paris Roland of Cremona, Summa liber vacce Ointment for invulnerability 1) Power of demons, sorcery; the witches' nocturnal flight
(twice) 2) Invulnerability of man in paradise
before 1246 Paris Summa Alexandris leges platonis Artificial crossbreeding Ceremonial laws
(indirect via William of Auvergne)

1297–1309 Sicily Ps-Thomas of Aquino, De essentiis rasis de proprietatibus mem- Artificial generation of 1) Proving Aristotle's theory of generation
essentiarum (twice) brorum animalium homunculus 2) Against Thomistic theory of the unicity of substantial
forms
1310 Paris Peter of Abano, Lucidator ambe vace platonice 5No example4 Liber vaccae as example of illusionary magic (prestigium)
Fourteenth ? Ps-Albert the Great, De mirabilibus plato in libro regimenti / liber Paraphrase of parts of prolo-
century? mundi regiminis gue of DP and of some thirty
experiments of the LV Minor
1335–44 Durham, court Thomas Bradwardine, De causa Dei vacca platonis 1) Probably walking on water 1) Defense of Christ's miracles
of Richard de contra Pelagium (twice) 2) Turning men into animals 2) Defense of the bodily resurrection
Bury
1351–55/64 Paris Nicole Oresme, De configurationibus liber qui dicitur vacca platonis Probably artificial cross- Difference between allowed and forbidden investigations
qualitatum et motuum (influenced by breeding into the powers of nature
William of Auvergne)
Not long before Paris Henry of Langenstein, De reductione liber qui dicitur vacca platonis Probably artificial cross- Inherent possibilities of nature
1373 effectuum breeding
(indirect via Oresme)

Data in grey concern citations that are uncertain.

LV = Liber vaccae
DP = De proprietatibus

277