corundum, History.1, gems, early lapidaries

EXCEPT for the identification of three sources of part of the Christian Lapidary and for the unsubstantiated theory that it was the original of three other lapidaries, this study merely documents the introductions to the works of Pannier and Studer-Evans. Chapter i is a discussion of the history of the lore of precious stones from the Greeks to the fifteenth century, which is based apparently on Studer-Evans, pp. ix–xix, with a few emendations. The author makes specific Studer-Evans’ statement that the first attribution of magical qualities to stones was made by Theophrastus (372–287 B.C.) by pointing out that, in the works of Hippocrates and Plato, minerals and precious stones were mentioned but not given magical properties (pp. 1–2). He adds to the names of the stones in the Pectoral (Exodus xxviii:15–20) in the Vulgate, as listed by Pannier, the Hebrew terms used in the Septuagint and by Josephus (pp. 6–7). These variants are repeated in the analysis of the Lapidary in Chapter iv, but they contribute nothing to the identification of the stones, for which the author relies exclusively on secondary sources. He also lists specifically the Greek and Latin commentaries on precious stones (pp. 4–19). There are omissions and errors in this chapter. The author attributes the first Christian allegorical interpretation of precious stones to Epiphanius, ignoring completely the usual claim that Augustine was the first writer to make such allegations. In his listing and discussion of mediaeval commentators, he omits such men as Amatus of Monte Cassino and Hildebert, both of whom gave a Christian allegorical interpretation to gems. He adds to the lists in Studer-Evans and Pannier the names of Ambrose, Haimo, Anselm of Laon, and Bruno of Asti. He classifies discussions of gems into pagan and Christian categories and thus leads to serious confusion. This method gives the impression that after, say, the first century A.D., all commentators began to interpret stones in the light of the Pectoral and of the stones mentioned in the Apocalypse, and to attribute Christian virtues to them. Nothing could be farther from the facts. Neither the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville nor the Liber de gemmis of Marbodus of Rennes give any indication that their authors were Christians, to say nothing of being bishops of the Church. Both lapidaries drew heavily on the magical lapidaries of Greek and Roman times, and except for the accident of birth which made their writers Christian, could well have been listed among the commentaries on stones written by the classical authors. Inasmuch as Baisier sets himself the problem of differentiating pagan from Christian elements in the Christian Lapidary, he seems to lack understanding of the various bases of mediaeval culture, and his confusion communicates itself to the reader.