Note 2686 — Chapter XXVIII · ARABIC OCCULT SCIENCE OF THE NINTH CENTURY
Reading edition
Of John of Seville’s translation the MSS are more numerous. The following will serve as a representative. Royal 12-C-XVIII, 14th century, fols. 10v-12r, “Dixit thebyth bencorat et dixit aristoteles qui philosophiam et geometriam exercet et omnem scientiam legit et ab astronomia vacuus fuerit erit occupatus et vacuus quod dignior geometria et altior philosophia est ymaginum scientia. / Explicit tractatus de imaginibus Thebith Bencorath translatus a Iohanne Hyspalensi atque Limiensi in Limia ex Arabico in Latinum. Sit laus deo maximo.”
This is the version cited by Michael Scot in his Liber Introductorius (Bodleian 266, fol. 200) where he gives the Incipit, “Dixerunt enim thebith benchorath et aristoteles quod si quis philosophiam ...,” etc., substantially as above.
But now comes a good joke on Albertus, who has listed among good astronomical books of images (Speculum astronomiae, cap. xi, Borgnet, p. 642) the work of “Thebith eben chorath” opening “Dixit A. qui philosophiam ...” which of course is that just mentioned. Thus he condemns one translation of the same book and approves the other; is he perhaps having some fun at the expense of the opponents of both astrology and necromancy?
It will be noted that it is Aristotle, rather than Hermes or Ptolemy, who is cited at the start in John of Seville’s translation. I therefore am uncertain whether Chwolson has our treatise in mind, when he speaks of Thebit’s commenting upon “eine pseudohermetische Schrift über Talismane u.s.w.” In the printed text of 1559 Aristotle and Ptolemy are cited in the first paragraph, but in the MSS Aristotle is cited twice.