merely sharpened at the lower end, and so blazing arrows, cleaving and burning everything they touch."[1]
But far more important in the thirteenth century was the fact that the most eminent scientific authority of that age, Albert the Great, Bishop of Ratisbon, attempted to reconcile the speculations of Aristotle with the theological views derived from the fathers. In one very important respect he improved upon the meteorological views of his great master. The thunderbolt, he says, is no mere fire, but the product of black clouds containing much mud, which, when it is baked by the intense heat, forms a fiery black or red stone that falls from the sky, tearing beams and crushing walls in its course: such he has seen with his own eyes.[2]
The monkish encyclopedists of the later middle ages added little to these theories. As we glance over the pages of Vincent of Beauvais, Bartholomew of Glanville, and William of Conches, we note only a growing deference to the authority of Aristotle as supplementing that of Isidore and Bede and explaining sacred Scripture. Aristotle is treated like a church Father, but extreme care is taken not to go beyond the great maxim of Saint Augustine; then, little by little, Bede and Isidore fall into the background, Aristotle fills the whole horizon, and his utterances are second in sacredness only to the text of Holy Writ.
A curious illustration of the difficulties these mediæval scholars had to meet in reconciling the scientific theories of Aristotle with the letter of the Bible is seen in the case of the rainbow. It is to the honor of Aristotle that his conclusions regarding the rainbow, though slightly erroneous, were based upon careful observation and evolved by reasoning alone; but his Christian commentators, while anxious to follow him, were brought up against the scriptural statement that God had created the rainbow as a sign to Noah that there should never asrain be a Flood on the earth. Even so bold a thinker as Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, whose speculations as to the geography of the earth did so much afterward in stimulating Columbus, faltered before this statement, acknowledging that God alone could explain it; but suggested that possibly never before the deluge had a cloud been suffered to take such a position toward the sun as to cause a rainbow.[3]
The learned cardinal was also constrained to believe that certain stars and constellations have something to do in causing the rain, since these would best explain Noah's foreknowledge of the Deluge. In connection with this scriptural doctrine of winds came a scriptural
- ↑ See Joannes à S. Geminiano, "Summa," c. 75.
- ↑ See Albertus Magnus, "II Sent.," Opp. xv, 137, a. (cited by Heller, "Gesch. d. Physik," i, 184) and his "Liber Methaurorum," III, iv, 18 (of which I have used the edition of Venice, 1488).
- ↑ See his "Concordia astronomies veritatis cum theologia" (Paris, 1483—in his "Imago mundi"—and Venice, 1490); also Eck's commentary on Aristotle's "Meteorologica" (Augsburg, 1519).
