Download Peter of Spain

Peter of Spain
http://panther.bsc.edu/~shagen/STUDENT/Lovesick/Pages/peter.html
The life of Peter of Spain is well recorded. Born in Lisbon, Portugal, somewhere around 1205
CE, he studied logic, physics, metaphysics, and theology in Paris. He would eventually go on to
become one of the most renowned and important scholars of his time. He is best known for
authoring a book entitled Thesaurus pauperum, a medical textbook popular for its brevity and
practicality (Wack 84). In 1272, Pope Gregory X summoned Peter to Viterbo to be his court
physician. Four years later, Peter became Pope himself, taking the name Johannes XXI. He died
in 1277, one year after his election as pope, when he was sitting in the newly constructed study
of the papal palace and the ceiling collapsed. He was also the only pope contemporary with
Dante whom the poet placed in paradise (83).
Peter wrote more than any other glossator on the Viaticum, and his writings broke new ground.
His glosses are structured as a series of questions ranging on a variety of topics. Peter explores
the physical location of lovesickness; the types of people who are most likely to suffer from the
disease (i.e., women or men, youths or the middle-aged); the usefulness of proposed remedies
such as travel, intoxication, and ugly women; the reasons why sexual intercourse is pleasing and
which sex enjoys it more. In brief, Peter continued the process started by Gerard of Berry of
synthesizing Constantine's writings with contemporary medical thought and practice. But in
doing so, Peter brought into the discussion a whole range of subjects hitherto unexamined,
changing the nature of the medieval dialogue on lovesickness altogether.
The Text of Questions on the Viaticum
(Version A)
LOVE THAT IS CALLED HEREOS IS A DISEASE OF THE BRAIN. Here 14
questions are raised. First: of which faculty is love a disease? Second: of which bodily member is
it a disease? Third: in which complexion is it generated most often? Fourth: in which sex? Fifth:
in which age? Sixth: whether leaving the country is useful in lovesickness? Seventh: whether
ugly women are to be brought before lovesick patients? Eighth: whether beautiful women are to
be brought before them? Ninth: whether drunkenness is useful in lovesickness? Tenth: inquiries
concerning the text…
Concerning the first argument. A disease is a suffering of that faculty to which it brings sensible
harm. But lovesickness harms the imaginative faculty. Therefore love is a disease of the
imaginative faculty.
But it seems to be [a disease] of the cogitative [faculty], since, according to Constantine,
lovesickness occurs with incessant thought. Therefore it is a disease of the cogitative [faculty].
On the contrary: in lovesickness there is a failure of judgment concerning non-sensed forms or
things. Therefore it is a disease of that faculty whose task is to apprehend non-sensed forms,
which is that of the estimative [faculty], according to Avicenna in De anima. Therefore it is a
disease of the estimative [faculty].
But it seems to be (a disease] of the fantasy, because lovesickness is a disease of that faculty
whose task is to compare one object with another. Since, in lovesickness, there is a failure of
judgment that occurs in judging either some woman more beautiful than all others or one object
better than another, as already has been seen, [one object is compared with another]. But the
fantasy is the faculty that compares one object with another. Therefore lovesickness is a disease
of the fantasy.
It must be said that lovesickness is a disease of the estimative faculty, since a disease is a
suffering of that faculty which it harms first and in itself and directly. But lovesickness harms the
estimative faculty first and directly, since there is, in lovesickness, a failure of judgment about
non-sensed forms or things, such as friendship and enmity and similarly other things. And it is
the estimative faculty's [task] to apprehend a non-sensed form, which is understood thus: in
lovesickness, the estimative faculty judges some woman or some other thing to be better or more
beautiful than all the rest, even though it might not be so, and then it orders the cogitative faculty
to plunge itself in the form of that thing. And thus in lovesickness there is depressed thought.
And then the imaginative faculty imagines that thing, and [sends] it to the irascible and
concupiscible faculties, which are faculties located in the heart that control movement. And then
these controlling faculties order the faculty of movement, which is in the nerves, to move the
limbs in pursuit of that thing. And thus it is obvious that lovesickness first and in itself and
directly [harms the estimative faculty, and then] the estimative faculty harms the other faculties.
In this the answer to the arguments is evident, since we readily concede that lovesickness harms
the imaginative and cogitative faculties and the fantasy, not, however, directly but rather
indirectly, as is evident from what has been said. And therefore lovesickness ought to be called a
disease of the estimative faculty, and not of the cogitative, or of the imaginative, or of the
fantasy.
Concerning the second, thus: contraries must exist in the same type of subject, as it is written in
the Categories. But love and hate arc contraries. Therefore they must exist in the same thing. But
hate is a passion of the heart. Therefore love also is. Wherefore, etc.
Moreover, all the emotions of the soul are a suffering of the heart, since all the emotions of the
soul follow the heart, as Haly says in the Tegni. But lovesickness is an emotion. Therefore it is a
suffering of the heart.
On the contrary: action and potential belong to the same thing. But since the action of love,
namely coitus, is a suffering of the testicles, so also its potential. Therefore it seems that
lovesickness is a suffering of the testicles.
Also, diseases are designated by their substances, as is apparent in fevers. But the substance of
lovesickness or intercourse is seed. Therefore lovesickness is designated according to seed. But
seed is in the testicles. Therefore lovesickness is a suffering of the testicles.
Also, in the cure of whatever disease in which plasters benefit a member, that disease quickly a
suffering [sic]. But in the cure of lovesickness, plasters or women are applied to the testicles.
Therefore lovesickness is a suffering of the testicles.
But it seems to be a suffering of the brain, since lovesickness is a suffering similar to
melancholy, according to the author in the text. But melancholy is a suffering of the brain.
Therefore so [is] lovesickness.
Also, lovesickness is a melancholic worry with depressed thought. But all these are of the brain
and not of the heart or of the testicles. Therefore lovesickness is a suffering of the brain and not
of the heart or the testicles. Avicenna and this author agree, discussing lovesickness among the
sufferings of the brain.
It must be said that lovesickness can be spoken of in two ways: first, insofar as it is love, and
thus it is a suffering of the heart, but in this way it is not a disease. The second way is to speak of
lovesickness insofar as it is accompanied by these circumstances, which are melancholic worry
with depressed thought and a damaged estimative [faculty], which judges something to surpass
all others, and in this way it is a suffering of the brain and is also a disease. And thus the first
argument is solved, since we readily concede that love is a suffering of the heart, which type of
love is not a disease. But a failure or damaging of the estimative [faculty], which judges one
thing to be superior to all others, is the reason why lovesickness is a disease and a suffering of
the brain itself.
To the next argument it must be said that all emotions of the soul follow the heart itself as if the
most remote origin. Truly, they are a suffering of the brain itself.
To the next it must be said that intercourse or the ability to have intercourse is not a disease in
lovesickness, but rather the failure of the estimative [faculty] accompanied by depressed thought,
which are sufferings of the brain and not of the testicles. Thus the other argument is solved.
To the next it must be said that the cure of lovesickness is twofold. One is the cure per se, and in
this way lovesickness is cured through songs and the sight of beautiful forms. The other cure is
of the accompaniments to lovesickness, and in this way it is cured through the application of
plasters and women to the testicles. I concede the probative arguments that it is a suffering of the
brain.
Concerning the third, thus: Lovesickness is a melancholic disease according to the author in the
text. Therefore it is generated most in that [humoral] complexion in which melancholy most
abounds, which is the melancholic complexion. Therefore lovesickness occurs most in the
melancholic complexion.
Also, medical authors recommend purging melancholy in lovesickness. But this would not be
unless it were caused by melancholy, which most abounds in melancholics. Therefore
lovesickness is found most in the melancholic complexion.
On the contrary: lovesickness occurs most in that complexion in which is found more stimulation
to intercourse, for stimulation to intercourse is the greatest cause of lovesickness according to
Avicenna in the third [book of the Canon]. But stimulation to intercourse occurs most in hot
complexions, since heat stimulates intercourse, according to Galen in the Tegni. Therefore
lovesickness occurs most in hot complexions.
Which I concede, since stimulation to intercourse is the greatest cause of lovesickness according
to Avicenna in the third [book], and this kind of stimulation occurs most in hot complexions-in
the choleric and the sanguine. And the reason for it is that in the choleric and the sanguine there
is a heat that stimulates intercourse, and moreover in them there is sufficient seminal matter
filling the testicles, whose fullness stimulates intercourse.
To the first argument it must be said that lovesickness is depressed thought with a strong image
and damaging of the estimative [faculty], as in melancholic illness. And it must be said that
lovesickness is not called a melancholic disease because it originates from melancholy, but
because it increases melancholy; wherefore etc.
To the second it must be said that the authors do not recommend purging natural melancholy in
the cure of lovesickness, but unnatural melancholy generated by burning, which sort of
melancholy most abounds in a hot complexion, and not in cold melancholy; wherefore etc.
Concerning the fourth, thus: Weakness of hope is the cause of lovesickness. But women are less
hopeful than men, as it is written in the eighth book On animals. Therefore lovesickness occurs
more in women than in men.
On the contrary: in lovesickness there is a strong impression of some beloved in the imaginative
[faculty]. But this kind of strong impression is greater in men than in women, since men have
drier brains than women do, and what is imprinted in the dry is more strongly imprinted than
what is imprinted in the moist. Therefore lovesickness occurs most in men.
It must be said that lovesickness is more quickly and frequently generated in women on account
of their weak hope and because they are more frequently stimulated to intercourse, although not
so strongly. But in men it is more difficult to cure, because the impression of any desired form in
the brain of a man is stronger and harder to erase than the impression of a form in the brain of a
woman, because a man has a drier brain than a woman, and an impression made in the dry is
harder to erase than that made in the moist. In this the answer to the arguments is evident.
Concerning the fifth, thus: Lovesickness is sometimes generated from burnt humors. But the
burning of humors is greater in youths since their humors are hotter and drier than in others.
Therefore lovesickness occurs most in youths.
On the contrary: in lovesickness there is depressed thought with the imagination of some desired
form. But these two things are found most in boys. Therefore lovesickness occurs most in boys.
Which I concede, since the depressed thought and imagination of forms, and failure [of
judgment] or altering preoccupation that occur in lovesickness are greatest in boys. Another
reason is that, according to Avicenna in the third [book], stimulation to intercourse is the greatest
cause of this disease. But people first begin to have intercourse in child[hood], and especially at
the end of childhood. Thus the first sexual encounter happens to them, which is most pleasurable,
wherefore they desire intercourse most greatly.
It must be said that the first argument is not valid, because the failure of the estimative [faculty],
which is greatest in boys, contributes more to the generation of lovesickness than do the burnt
humors that are in youths; wherefore etc.
Concerning the sixth, thus: According to Avicenna in the third [book], seeing beautiful places is
most beneficial in lovesickness. But to leave one's country is to see beautiful places. Therefore
leaving one's country is beneficial in lovesickness.
On the contrary: Nothing that increases depressed thought and harmful suspicion is beneficial in
lovesickness, as is self-evident. But leaving one's country is of this sort, since the patient in this
kind of disease always fears losing his beloved and fears lest someone else love her; wherefore
etc.
It must be said that leaving one's country is beneficial in lovesickness, because such travel causes
one to see beautiful things and pleasant places, upon which the patient fixes his thought. And
consequently he withdraws his imagination from his beloved, and it makes the patient forget his
beloved, which is most beneficial in the cure of lovesickness; wherefore etc.
To the proposed argument it must be said that the minor premise was false. For he does not fear
to lose his beloved, because he does not think of her, but of the things that he sees; wherefore etc.
Concerning the seventh, thus: Every cure is by a contrary, as it is written in the Tegni. But ugly
women are contrary to the beloved of the lovesick patient, since she is beautiful in his estimation.
Therefore the sight of ugly women is beneficial in lovesickness; wherefore etc.
Avicenna says the contrary in the third [book]. Which I concede, since opposites placed next to
each other arc more illuminating, according to Aristotle. And therefore if women are brought
before the lovesick patient, it seems that his beloved is more beautiful than they are, and then he
will plunge his thought and attention in this form more than before, which is very bad, as is
evident from what has been said.
To the first argument it must be said that a cure is not achieved by just any contrary, but by a
contrary that alters or purges [the body's humors]. But, speaking of an altering or purging
contrary, ugly women are not contraries of more beautiful women; wherefore etc.
Concerning the eighth, thus. Like added to like makes it rage, as it is written on the Aphorisms.
But if beautiful women are brought before the lovesick patient, like is added to like, since his
beloved is beautiful; wherefore etc.
Avicenna says the opposite in the third [book]; he says that beautiful women are to be brought
before the lovesick patient.
Which I concede, since when the lovesick patient sees some things more beautiful than the
beloved object, then he will plunge his attention or imagination or thought in these kinds of
beautiful things, and consequently he will withdraw his thought from the thing that he loved
before, which is beneficial in lovesickness; wherefore, etc.
It must be said that the first argument is not valid, because that authoritative statement is
understood with respect to what is similar in [humoral] complexion and not with respect to what
is similar in outward appearance, and you argue about similarity in appearance, wherefore etc.
Concerning the ninth, thus: Nothing that stimulates to intercourse is beneficial in lovesickness.
Drunkenness is of this sort, since the drunk have many superfluities filling the testicles;
wherefore etc.
Isaac agrees.
On the contrary: Everything relieving depressed thought is beneficial in lovesickness. But
drunkenness is of this sort, since it causes oblivion. Therefore drunkenness is beneficial in
lovesickness.
It must be said that there are two sorts of drunkenness: one that is so great that it deeply hinders
all the sensitive functions following the common sense, fantasy, estimation, and the other
common senses-and this is beneficial in lovesickness because it causes the beloved object to be
forgotten. The other [type of] drunkenness does not deeply hinder discretion and estimation, but
only disturbs them, and this drunkenness is not beneficial in lovesickness, since lovesickness
arises from disturbance or damaging of the aforesaid faculties, as is evident from what has been
said. Wherefore etc. And thus the solution to the arguments is evident.
Concerning the tenth, thus: al-Razi says that fasting is beneficial in lovesickness, but Avicenna
says in the third [book] that temperate food is beneficial in lovesickness. Thus they contradict
each other.
Also, the author says in the text that the beloved ought to be scorned before the lovesick patient.
On the contrary, this sort of scorn will make the lovesick patient remember the beloved. Nothing
of this sort is beneficial in lovesickness, as is evident from what has already been said.
Wherefore etc.
The author says the opposite.
It must be said that there are two things in lovesickness: namely, seminal matter that is sexually
stimulating, and as far as this is concerned, fasting is beneficial since through fasting
superfluities in the body are consumed, and thus Haly is to be understood.
Also, there is a feeble appearance or emaciation, and as far as this is concerned, food is
beneficial; not just any, but temperate, since such food produces subtle and beneficial humors,
and does not produce superfluities that cause erection. And in this way Avicenna is to be
understood when he says that temperate food ought to be given in lovesickness.
To the next it must be said that although scorn makes the patient remember his beloved, in fact it
withdraws the mind or thought of the patient from the beloved object. Wherefore etc.
Link to the Text of Questions on the Viaticum (Version B)
Back to the Medical Texts Page
*All texts taken from:
Wack, Mary Frances. Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: The Viaticum and its
Commentaries.
Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P, 1990.
Sources:
Heffernan, Carol Falvo. The Melancholy Muse: Chaucer, Shakespeare, and
Early Medicine. Pittsburgh: Duquesne U P, 1995.
Lowes, John Livingston. "The Loveres Maladye of Hereos." Modern Philology 11:
4 (1914): 491-546.
Wack, Mary Frances. Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: The Viaticum and Its
Commentaries. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania P, 1990.
This page is part of a project created in May 1998 by Carey Smith, Aaron
Welborn, and K. Braden Phillips for Dr. Susan Hagen's Chaucer course (EH 350)
at Birmingham-Southern College.