href="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@16155@[email protected]#footnote1" class="pginternal" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">¹, and the late Dr. Joseph Frank Payne², after an apparently careful and independent investigation of his life, have reached conclusions which vary materially from each other and from those of the historians mentioned. Mr. Kingsford fixes the date of Gilbert at about 1250, while Dr. Payne reverts to the views of Bale and Pits and suggests as approximate figures for the birth and death of Gilbert the years 1170-80 to 1230. This discrepancy of twenty-five or thirty years between the views of two competent and unprejudiced investigators, as a mere question of erudition and interpretation, is perhaps scarcely worthy of prolonged discussion. But as both biographers argue from substantially the same data, the arguments reveal so many interesting and pertinent facts, and the numerous difficulties attending the interpretation of these facts, that some comparison of the different views of the biographers and some criticism of their varying conclusions may not be unwelcome.

In the first place then we must say that, as Gilbert is frequently quoted in the "Thesaurus Pauperum," a work ascribed to Petrus Hispanus, who (under the title Pope John XXI) died in 1277, this date determines definitely the latest period to which the Compendium can be referred. If, as held by some historians, the "Thesaurus" is the work of Julian, the father of Petrus, the Compendium can be referred to an earlier date only.

Now Gilbert in his Compendium (f. 259a) refers to the writings of Averroës (Ibn Roschd) regarding the color of the iris of the eye. Averroës died in the year 1198. There is no pretense that Gilbert was familiar with the Arabic tongue, and the earliest translations into Latin of the writings of Averroës are ascribed by Bacon to the famous Michael Scot, though Bacon says they were chiefly the work of a certain Jew named Andrew, who made the translations for Scot. Bacon also says that these translations were made "nostris temporibus," in our time, a loose expression, which may, perhaps, be fairly interpreted to include the period 1230-1250. But if, as Dr. Payne believes, Gilbert died about 1230, it seems improbable that he could have been familiar with the translations of Michael Scot. Accordingly Dr. Payne suggests that, after the death of his patron in 1205, Gilbert returned to the Continent, and, perhaps in Paris or at Montpellier, met with earlier Latin versions of the writings of the Arabian physician and philosopher. This is, of course, possible, but there is no historical warrant for the hypothesis, which must, for the present at least, be regarded as merely a happy conjecture of Dr. Payne. The presence of Gilbert upon the Continent, probably as a teacher of reputation, seems, however, quite probable. Littre has even unearthed the fact that during the 14th century a street in Paris near the medical schools, bore the name of the Rue Gilbert l'Anglois. A MS. in the Bibliotheque Nationale entitled "Experimenta Magistri Gilliberti, Cancellarii Montepessulani" has suggested also the idea that Gilbert may have been at one time chancellor of the University of Montpellier. Dr. P. Pansier, of Avignon, however, who has carefully examined and published this manuscript³, reports that while it contains some formulae found also in the Compendium of Gilbert, it contains many others from apparently other sources, and he was unable to convince himself that the compilation was in fact the work of Gilbertus Anglicus. Dr. Pansier also furnishes us with a list of the chancellors of Montpellier, which contains the name of a certain "Gillibertus," chancellor of the university in 1250. He could find, however, no evidence that this Gillibertus was Gilbertus Anglicus, author of the Compendium Medicinae. On the whole then the visit of Gilbert to France early in the 13th century, and his access in this way to early translations of Averroës, while a convenient and plausible conjecture on the part of Dr. Payne, does not seem supported by any trustworthy historical evidence.

The "Liber de speculis" mentioned by Gilbert (f. 126 c), and since the time of Freind generally accepted as the work of Bacon, is almost certainly not from the pen of that eminent philosopher. In addition to the fact that Bacon himself says he had (for obvious reasons) written nothing except a few tracts (capitula quaedam) prior to the composition of his Opus Magnum in 1267, the real author of the Liber de speculis is probably mentioned by Bacon in the following passage from the Opus Tertium:

"Nam in hoc ostenditur specialiter bonitas naturae, ut dicit auctor libri de speculis comburentibus."⁴

We must therefore agree with Dr. Payne that the Liber de speculis of Gilbert was at least not the work of Roger Bacon.

Dr. Freind regards the chapters of Gilbert on the subject of leprosy as borrowed substantially from the "Chirurgia" of Theodorius of Cervia, who wrote about the year 1266. This view has also been generally accepted by later writers. But Dr. Payne boldly challenges the view of Freind, declares that Theodorius copied his chapters from Gilbert, and asserts that Theodorius was a notorious plagiarist. Now, while the bold assertion of Dr. Payne cannot, of course, be accepted as proof of Gilbert's precedence in chronological order, if that precedence is otherwise established, it will explain the similarity of the chapters of the two writers very satisfactorily. For the present, however, this similarity can be adduced as evidence on neither side.

Again, Gilbert, with the enthusiasm of a loyal pupil, speaks (f. 47 b) of a certain Magister Ricardus, "omnium doctorum doctissimus," whose views on uroscopy certainly indicate a mind superior to his age. Now there were about this period at least two eminent physicians who bore the name of Ricardus. Of these the senior, a Frenchman, known also as Ricardus Salednitanus, is highly praised by Aegidius of Corbeil (Gilles de Corbeil, Aegidius Corboliensis), physician to King Philip Augustus of France (1180-1223). This Ricardus was a famous teacher at Salernum when Aegidius was in attendance at that famous university, therefore probably about the close of the 12th century. The second Ricardus, called Parisiensis, has been recently identified by Toply with Richard of Wendover, an English canon of St. Paul's, and at one time physician to Pope Gregory IX, who died in 1241. Toply believes him to have been also the author of the "Anatomia Ricardi," recently published. This Ricardus died in 1252.

Now to which of these Ricardi does the eulogistic language of Gilbert refer? Dr. Payne believes it to be the senior, Ricardus Salernitanus. Mr. Kingsford, on the other hand, thinks it to be Ricardus Parisiensis, who died in 1252. A Liber de urinis has been ascribed to each of them, but, it seems to me, with greater probability to Ricardus Salernitanus. If too the author of the "Anatomia Ricardi" was a contemporary of Gilbert, we might reasonably expect to find in the Compendium some evidences of Gilbert's acquaintance with that work. But Gilbert's discussion of anatomical questions is totally unlike that of the author of the "Anatomia," and betrays not