1921 OF THE EMPEROR FREDERICK II 345 book, sometimes by name only, 1 sometimes specifically as the author of the Liber Animalium. 2 Once the reference is merely to a Liber Animalium which seems to be Avicenna's com- mentary on Aristotle. 3 In the Arabic tradition of the middle ages the Liber Animalium comprised the three Aristotelian treatises, Be Animalibus Historia, Be Partibus Animalium, and Be Generatione Animalium, in all nineteen books. Translations of the Arabic text and of Avicenna's commentary had been made for Frederick II by Michael Scot, 4 and it is probably in this form that the emperor was acquainted with Aristotle's writings on natural history, for while his references can ordinarily be identified in the Be Animalibus Historia* not all of them can be made to square with the Greek text. 6 Doubtless Aristotle was used in other places where he is not cited, but Frederick's treatment is independent, and is much fuller than it could be made by the amplest use of ancient authorities, including Pliny, who is men- tioned by name but once. 7 Thus one may compare the brief treatment of migration by Aristotle 8 with the account in the first book of the Be Arte, 9 which uses Aristotle but treats the subject far more amply with the aid of personal observation. Schneider, the learned commentator of Aristotle and Frederick II, declares that the emperor's description of down and feathers is 1 Ed. Schneider, pp. 5 f., 8, 13, 16, 24, 25, 31, 72 f. ; infra, p. 346. 2 Ibid. pp. 5, 6, 8, 43. 3 ' Oculi sunt instrumenta visus, de quibus quare sint duo, quare in prora capitis locati, et quare altius instrumentis aliorum sensuum, et quomodo constant ex tribus humoribus septem tunicis, dictum est in libro animalium,' MS. M, fo. 19, ed. Schneider, p. 29, who points out (i, p. xvi ; ii. 17) that this is not found in Aristotle. A long passage deals with these matters in Michael Scot's translation of Avicenna, De Animalibus, xiii, c. 8, fo. 32 r of the printed text (Hain 2220* ; copy in the Library of the University of Michigan) ; cf. the Canon of Avicenna, iii. 3. 1,1, whence the passage is taken by Albertus Magnus, De Animalibus, i. 2, 7 (ed. Stadler, i. 73). . In general the De Arte has little in common with Michael Scot's version of Avicenna.
- A. Jourdain, Recherches Critiques sur les Traductions Latines d'Aristote (Paris,
1843), pp. 129-34, 327-49 ; M. Steinschneider, Die hebrdischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1893), pp. 478-83 ; J. Wood Brown, Michael Scot (Edinburgh, 1897), c. 3; Dittmeyer, preface to Teubner edition of the De Animalibus (1907), pp. xix-xxi ; G. Rudberg, in Eranos, viii. 151-60, ix. 92-128 ; H. Stadler, Albertus Magnus de Animalibus, p. xii ; M. Grabmann, ' Forschungen iiber die lateinischen Aristotelesubersetzungen des XIII. Jahrhunderts ', in Beitrdge zur Oeschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters, xvii. 185 ff. (Minister, 1916). 5 Thus p. 5 in Schneider's edition = H.A. viii. 2; p. 6 = viii. 12; p. 13 = i. 1 ; p. 16 = ix. 34 ; p. 24 = viii. 12 ; p. 25 = ix. 10. • Thus in the passage printed below, p. 351, Aristotle is made to say that no one has seen a vulture's nest (Hist Animal, ix. 11) ; but he elsewhere says specifically that nests have been seen (vi. 5). Nor does Aristotle say (ix. 10) that the leader of cranes is permanent, as the De Arte asserts (p. 25). I have not been able to compare the text of Michael Scot's translation. 7 Schneider, p. 73. 8 Hist. Animal, viii. 12. 9 cc. 16-23, ed. Schneider, pp. 19-26, with the following lacuna filled in from MS. B, pp. 47-56.
