RANDOLPH. MANDRAGORA IN FOLK-LORE AND MEDICINE. 497 



for Other purposes.* The images were bathed and dressed and carefully 

 tended.f 



This custom, too, is not without its counterpart in antiquity. In the 

 pseudo-Orphic Lithica, written probably about the 4th century after Christ, 

 we find a stone treated in essentially the same way, and considered valu- 

 able for very similar purposes. Here we read of the stone ophites : 



Lith., 36:} if. : AVashing the sentient stone in an ever-flowing spring, he 

 cherished it in soft garments like an infant. . . . He tended it in his arms, 

 lifting up the divine stone, like a mother holding in her arms her infant son. 

 And do you too, when you wish to hear a heaven-sent voice, do this, that your 

 mind may behold a marvel; for when you exert yourself, shaking it hard in 

 your hands, straightway you shall arouse the voice of a new-born child, crying 

 for milk on its nurse's bosom. But rouse it ever, being of a stout heart, . . . 

 and dare to ask for a prophecy; for it will declare everything unerringly. 



The virtues of the stone thus cared for are several :t (1) it has the 

 gift of divination ; (2) it prevents attacks by serpents ; (3) it cures their 

 bites ; (4) it causes sterile women to bear children ; (5) it restores 

 sight ; (6) it cures headache ; (7) it restores hearing ; (8) it remedies 

 impotency in wedlock. Have we not here in late Greek literature — 

 evidently an echo of the folk-lore of this or an earlier time — the essen- 

 tial part of the alraun myth of the middle ages ? § 



"We have now observed each of the important features of the later 

 mandragora superstition (except the digging story in its simplest form, 



* Joan of Arc was accused at her trial of having a mandragora. The words of 

 the charge are given by Quicherat, Proces de Condamnation et de Rehabilitation 

 de Jeanne d'Arc, vol. 1, p. 213 f. 



t Figures made from mandragora are kept for tlie same purposes in eastern 

 countries to-day, and probably have been for centuries. See v. Lusclian, p. 728. 



X (1) 378 ff.; (2) 412 ff., 458; (8) 430-450, 342 ff., 452; (4)453; (5)459; (6)4.J9f.; 

 (7) 4fi0fE. ; (8) 4G3fE. Tiiese references are to Hermann's edition (Lipsiae, 1805). 



§ Among a number of less important passages bearing on mandragora wbich 

 I have collected from tiie works of mediaeval writers, some of tlie glosses on tiie 

 word may be mentioned iiere. Tiie autliors of these knew it cliiefly as a wonder- 

 plant, and were evidently acquainted with tlic traditions about its power over the 

 mind. Tiiey probably (as no doubt the majority of tiie middle-age writers) had 

 no personal acquaintance witli the plant; so it is several times confused with 

 hijosci/inniis, the Latin name for which was npolUnnr'ts : see CGL 3. 543. 41 ; 3. 5-30. 10 ; 

 3.550.5; 3.550.1 (upollea). 3. 509. GO gives malacanina, witli reference to the later 

 digging story. In 3.558.65 and 3.022.57 we read circelon, evidently a corruption 

 of KipKaia. We twice find the term orribita (herb of Orcus ?) applied to it : 3. 536. 

 10 and 3. 550. 5. 3. 592. 42 and 3. 626. 17 call it herha penmlosa, and 3. 614. 4 reads 

 mandraijora idest perlculosa. Tlie fullest gloss in CGL is 3. 585. 1 : mandragora herba 

 VOL. XL. — 32 



