RANDOLPH. — MANDRAGORA IN FOLK-LORE AND MEDICINE. 521 



became attached to the rest. The notewortliy fact about it is that it 

 corresponds throughout to Aviceiina's cliapter on mandragora.* Tlie 



* Tlic reseinbhince between Avicenna's account of mandragora and tliis lias 

 been referred to above. Tlie following table, based upon a very careful comparison 

 of tins chapter with Serapion ami Avicenna, will make it clearer : 



(1) Facts recorded about mandragora in this chapter . . . 25 



(2) Facts conuuon to this chapter, Serapion, and Avicenna . 9 



(3) In this cliapter and Avicenna and not in Serapion ... 6 



(4) In this chapter and Aviceiuia and nowhere else .... 5 



(5) In tiiis chapter and Serapion ami not in Avicenna ... 3 

 ((3) In this cliai)ter and Serapion and nowliere else .... 



(7) In this cliaiiter and in neither Serapion nor Avicenna . . 4 



(8) In this chapter and nowhere else 3 . 



(9) Tartly the same in this chapter, Serapion, and Avicenna . 2 

 (10) Doubtful 1 



In this table, (4) and (6) seem to me most significant ; it is not necessary to sup- 

 pose that tiie author of this chapter used Serapion at all, but it can hardly be 

 accidental that he and Avicenna have five facts in common which are found 

 nowhere else. As regards (8), it is not necessary to attribute any originality to the 

 author of this cliapier; of the three facts which he states and which no other 

 writer seems to have recorded {[n] cortex est subtilis, [i] folia habent virtutem 

 stringendi, [r] poma curant erysipelas), [«] is perliaps a mistake, and [6] and [c\ 

 may easily have been inferred from virtues recorded by other writers. 



Koebert, pp. 1-10, describes five manuscripts of Pseudo-Apuleius : (1) Monacensis, 

 6th or 7th cent., (2) Vrdtislaviensis, 9th or 10th cent., (3) Cussinensis, 9th or lOtli 

 cent, (4) Litgdunensis, 15tli cent., (5) Lugdunensis alter (Lat. Voss. E. 13), 15th cent. 

 (The numbers in parentheses are mine, and the manuscripts, it will be observed, 

 are arranged in chronological order ; Koebert numbers the manuscripts differently 

 on pp. 1-3 and 3-10, and I have been unable to discover the principle on which lie 

 has arranged either list.) (4) and (5) are fragmentary, and do not contain the 

 chapter on mandragora (cliapter 131) (1) has only the beginning of the chapter 

 on mandragora (Koebert, p. 1) ; (2) has chapter 131, but Koebert says of the 

 manuscript (p. 5) : Hie continet 118 folia, quorum 1-113 Integra, reliqua valde 

 corrupta sunt. As the mandragora chapter is alwaj's tlie last, it is evidently 

 among the corrupta. (3) has chapter 131 Koebert, p. 2), but Koebert says that he 

 had e.xamined only certain chapters in this manuscript, when the monastery which 

 owns it was closed to res profanae for Holy Week, and that lie had to leave with 

 the work unfinished. He did not examine cliapter 131. There is thus nothing 

 in Koebert's account of the manuscripts which makes it appear improbable tliat 

 the bulk of the chapter on mandragora was joined to the pseudo-Apuleian work 

 after the time of Avicenna (a. d. 980-1037). 



What is most needed in order to prove that tlie chapter was drawn from Avi- 

 cenna is information as to the time at which it first appeared in the manuscripts, — 

 information which I am unable to get in this country. I have referred in the 

 preceding note to the lack of a list of synonyms at the beginning of the chapter. 



