¹ For the discovery and general description see Clive-Rouse, E., Longthorpe Tower, Peterborough, Northamptonshire (Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings; London 1964). For the wall paintings see Clive-Rouse, E. and Baker, A., ‘The Wall-Paintings at Longthorpe Tower near Peterborough, Northants,’ Archaeologia 96 (1955) 1–58; Janson, H. W., Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (London 1952) 240–55; Vinge, Louise, The Five Senses: Studies in a Literary Tradition (Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 82; Lund 1975) 48–53; Klingender, Francis, Animals in Art and Thought to the End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass. 1971); and Nordenfalk, Carl, ‘Les cinq sens dans l'art du moyen âge,’ Revue de l'art 34 (1976) 17–28.Google Scholar

² We are grateful to the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Department of the Environment (UK), for having granted permission to reproduce this photograph of the Wheel of the Five Senses (Crown copyright — PHL 746). In addition we would like to thank our colleague Professor Frank Horlbeck for his kind assistance.Google Scholar

³ See Clive-Rouse, , Longthorpe 4; Clive-Rouse, and Baker, , ‘The Wall-Paintings’ 45.Google Scholar

⁴ Liber de natura rerum (ed. Boese, H.; Berlin and New York 1973). The Latin distich occurs, perhaps for the first time, in the early thirteenth-century didactic poem Anticerberus, by Bongiovanni de Cavriana. It also appears in isolated form in several other contemporary manuscripts: cf. Novati, Francesco, ‘Un poema francescano del Dugento,’ in Attraverso il medio evo (Bari 1905) 9–115, and especially 47f.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 45. Klingender (429) also believes it to be a cock for the same reason. Cf. Charbonneau-Lassay, Louis, Le bestiaire du Christ (Milan 1974) 628–40. Clive-Rouse and Baker's comment on the lynx is not entirely accurate. While the lynx was a common enough animal in the bestiary tradition, its keen eyesight (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28.8.32) was never mentioned. Cf. McCulloch, Florence, Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries (Chapel Hill 1960) 141.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 255 n. 11.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 53.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. 24.Google Scholar

⁹ Solini, Iulii Collectanea rerum memorabilium (ed. Mommsen, T.; Berlin 1895) 27.51–53.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Pliny, , Nat. Hist. 8.77.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Pliny, , Nat. Hist. 8.78.Google Scholar

¹² For an illustration see the article ‘Basilisco,’ in the Enciclopedia Italiana (Milan and Rome 1929–39) 6.333.Google Scholar

¹³ Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, 35.1 p. 243.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX (ed. Lindsay, W. M.; Oxford 1911) 12.4.9. Cf. Maurus, Rhabanus, De universo 8.3 (De serpentibus), in PL 111.231. Cf. also the pseudo-Hugo of St. Victor, De bestiis et aliis rebus, liber 3, cap. 41, in PL 177.100; Uguccione of Pisa, Derivationes, s.v. regulus (MS Oxford, Bodleian, Can. Misc. 305); Brito, Guillelmus, Summa Britonis sive Guillelmi Britonis Expositiones vocabulorum Biblie (edd Daly, Lloyd W. and Daly, Bernadine A.; Padua 1975) 645–46, s.v. regulus; Anglicus, Bartholomaeus, De proprietatibus rerum 18.15. The name is undoubtedly derived from Sapientia 17.9,.Google Scholar

¹⁵ It has been assumed, perhaps erroneously, that the ‘double’ nature of the basilisk is a later development connected with the word ‘cockatrice’ which first appears in English (from the French) with John Wyclif's translation of the Bible. See Ansell Robin, P., Animal Lore in English Literature (London 1932) 89–91 and 181–84.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Hildegard of Bingen, Physica, PL 197.1343.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Text summarized in McCulloch, Bestiaries 199.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the illustration, see Cave, C. J. P. and Borenius, Tancred, ‘The Painted Ceiling in the Nave of Peterborough Cathedral,’ Archaeologia 87 (1938) pl. 96.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Janson, , Apes 255.Google Scholar

²⁰ See, for instance, MS Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 53 (cited and drawn by McCulloch, , Bestiaries 93 and plate 2, fig. 2); Klingender, , Animals 437, pl. 271a. An earlier and magnificent illustration is found on the painted wooden ceiling of the Church of Zillis, Switzerland, which was executed around 1150: cf. Archaeologia 87 (1938) pl. 95.Google Scholar

²¹ Pliny, , Nat. Hist. 8.33 and 20.132; Solinus, Iulius, Collectanea 27.53–54; Martialis, Gargilius, Medicinae ex oleribus et pomis (3rd century) 3.137.2; Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 17.11.8; Anglicus, Bartolomaeus, De proprietatibus 18.15. The text of Book 17 of Isidore's Etymologiae has been recently established and amply annotated by Jacques Andre (Paris 1981). For a visual representation of the weasel's lethal power over the basilisk, see the illustration in Trenchard Cox, M. D., ‘The Twelfth-Century Design Sources of the Worcester Cathedral Misericords,’ Archaeologia 97 (1959) 165–78, Pl. 61 f.Google Scholar

²² Aelianus, Claudius, De natura animalium 3.31.Google Scholar

²³ ‘Et mox de dyabolica arte antiqui serpentis quaedam vis illam tangit qui etiam in Antechristo requiescit, ita ut sicut ille omnibus coelestibus resistit, sic etiam illud animal omnibus mortalibus repugnat eos occidendo’: Hildegard of Bingen, Physica, PL 197. 1343.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Maternus, Julius Firmicus, De errore profanarum religionum, cap. 21 in CSEL 2.75–120; St. Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 90 (v. 13) in PL 37.1168; Isidore of Seville, Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum: in Genesin 5.8 in PL 83.221; Maurus, Rhabanus, De Universo 8.3 in PL 111.231; Honorius of Autun, Speculum ecclesiae (Dominica in palmis), in PL 172.915.Google Scholar

²⁵ Maurus, Rhabanus, PL 111.231.Google Scholar

²⁶ An exquisite illustration on an ivory of Rhenish origin executed in the eleventh century is preserved in the National Museum of Florence.Google Scholar

²⁷ See n. 5 above. Cf. Nordenfalk's remark: ‘Mais il ne pourrait être un coq, puisque cet animal n'a jamais eu la réputation d'avoir une vision particulièrement remarquable’: ‘Les cinq sens’ 24.Google Scholar

²⁸ The Bestiary: A Book of Beasts, Being a Translation from a Latin Bestiary of the Twelfth Century (tr. White, T. M.; New York 1954) 150–51.Google Scholar

²⁹ De proprietatibus avium, cap. 16: De gallo (Frankfurt 1601; repr. Frankfurt 1964) 536. For the popularity of Bartholomaeus' text, see Klingender, , Animals 354–59.Google Scholar

³⁰ De proprietatibus 536: ‘Ut dicit Plinius.’ Pliny (Nat. Hist. 10.24.46–49) refers to the vigilance of the cock in the heralding of the coming day.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Caelumque sola volucrum aspicit crebra’ (10.24.47).Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 240.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 53. Later we will see that this opinion is untenable, for Aristotle states that the senses of touch and taste are more perfect in man than in any other animal.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. Google Scholar

³⁵ For other sorts of ‘wheels’ in the Middle Ages, see Pickering, F. P., Literatur und darstellende Kunst im Mittelalter (Berlin 1966) App. B:iii.ll (now also available in English translation: Literature and Art in the Middle Ages [Coral Gables 1970] 218). We will return to the figural concept of the wheel later in this discussion.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 25.Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘L'enciclopedia delle Tre Fontane,’ Paragone 235 (1969) 24–49, and esp. 30–31. For an illustration, see pls. 9 and 10 in Bertelli's article.Google Scholar

³⁸ The animals represented are: boar : hearing; hawk : smell; spider : touch; dog: sight; monkey : taste. There is also a lion which perhaps represents a sixth sense.Google Scholar

³⁹ See, for example, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, 3.16.61: ‘Sensus igitur visus subtilior est, cum sit natura eius ignea. Auditus sensus est aereus, quia percussi aeris sonitus, deinde subtilior est olfactus, cum sit natura eius fumea. Deinde gustus cum sit eius natura aquea, postremo sensus tactus grossior est omnibus, quia natura sua, cum sit terrea….’ On this point, see also Aristotle, , De sensu 437a22–438a4 and 438b–439a; St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 3.4.6 and 12.16.32; and Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica, inq. IV. tract. 1. sect. II. quaest. II. tit. 1. cap. II, 356, as well as St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I^a 18.3.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ There is no agreement as to the location of the sensus communis; quite possibly it could be located in the frontal lobe of the brain. Cf. Alexander of Hales, op. cit. cap. IV, 306: ‘Quaeritur de instrumento sensus communis. Et videtur quod sit aliqua pars cerebri … et hoc arguunt medici…. Sed Philosophus arguit eius organum esse cor vel aliquid simile cordi in non habentibus cor.’ Google Scholar

⁴¹ In Aristotelis librum De anima commentarium (ed. Pirotta, Angelo; Turin 1959) 602: 151. For this view, see also Bartholomaeus Anglicus, 3.21.73: ‘Item plures immutationes faciunt sensata, tactus, quam aliorum sensuum, grossior enim est et materialior caeteris sensibus, et ideo fortius retinet impressiones convenientis et inconvenientis. Item quia tactus est sensus universalis, adhaerens singulis partibus ad universalem destructionem tactus, destruitur subiectum totius animalis. Non sic est de aliis sensibus. Destructo enim sensu visus, aliae virtutes animalis propter hoc non destruuntur … sed destructo tactu, destruitur omnis sensus: unde patet, quod sensus tactus est subiectum omnium aliorum sensuum et fundamentum.’ Google Scholar

⁴² Iconologia overo descrittione di diverse imagini cavate dall'antichità, e di propria inventione (Rome 1603; repr. Hildesheim and New York 1970), 447–49. Ripa, for example, refers to the eagle and lynx as symbols of sight, to the hound (cane bracco) for smell, and to the falcon for touch.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 449. It should be noted that, immediately following this passage, Ripa cites the Latin distich found in the Liber de natura rerum of Thomas of Cantimpré, which we have quoted above.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ In his commentary on Aristotle, Themistius, speaking of the sensus communis, says, ‘Et quando dicimus quinque esse omnes sensus, quinque esse dicimus sensitiva, et quinque esse spiritus sensitivos, ex fonte uno per organa derivatos; sensum autem proprie et primo existentem unum his utentem et locum quidem nuntiorum habere quinque sensus, principis autem aut regis unum. Sicut enim ibi multi quidem nuntiantes, unus autem qui iudicat, sic et hic multa quidem nuntiativa organa, unum autem quod de omnibus pronuntiat. Hoc igitur sentimus et quia videmus visu et quia audimus auditu; quo enim differentias actuum, hoc et actus ipsos sentimus. Non igitur visu iudicamus visum, ut paulo ante videbatur, sed uno qui ad unumquodque sensibilium ordinatur’: In De anima, lib. V (Arist. 3.2 [427al4-bl]); text in Themistius, Commentaire sur le Traité de l'Âme d'Aristote. Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke (ed. Verbeke, G., Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum; Louvain and Paris 1957) 199–200, 93–104.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Homo inter omnia animalia habet pessimum olfactum; Quaedam animalia sunt acutioris visus et subtilioris auditus quam homo’: Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae I^a 91 3 ad 1. Cf. Aristotle, , De anima 2.9 (421a 7).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Aristotle, , De anima 2.9 (421al8–25. See also Aristotle, , De sensu 4 (441al-2); De partibus animalium 2.16 (660a11–13). For a recent study on touch and thought in Aristotle, see Movia, Giancarlo, Due studi sul ‘De Anima’ di Aristotele (Padua 1974) 61–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Aristotle, Historia animalium 1.15 (494b16–18).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ex sensibus ante cetera homini tactus, dein gustatus; reliquis superatur a multis. Aquilae clarius cernunt, vultures sagacius odorantur, liquidius audiunt talpae': Pliny, , Nat Hist. 10.88.191–93.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Among the early thirteenth-century teachers at Oxford we find John Blund (ca. 1175–1248), whose commentary on De anima has been only recently published. See Blund, Iohannes, Tractatus de anima (edd. Callus, D. A. and Hunt, R. W.; London 1970) 212: 56.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘Oportet accipere falsum dicere quosdam antiquorum dicentium quod aranea cuncta animalia excellit tactu; hoc enim dicentes non sufficienti crediderunt signo. Videbant enim araneam sentire vermiculos tangentes fila retis sui magnam distantiam, et hoc propter bonitatem sensus tactus esse credebant. Quod pro certo verum non est; nihil enim spissae pellis et frigidae complexionis et viscosam habens umiditatem praecellit in tactu, sed habet tactum quasi stupidum. Cuius signum est, qui aranea etiam cum tangitur igne, lente et non cito sentit; et ideo perceptio vermiculorum tangentium rete est propter motum retis, quod continuum est; mota enim una parte continui movetur totum continuum’: De anima 2.3.23 (ed. Stroik, Clemens; Aschendorff 1968).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Aristotle, , De anima 3.8 (432a1).Google Scholar

⁵² Rosen, S. R., ‘Thought and Touch: A Note on Aristotle's De Anima,’ Phronesis 6 (1961) 127–37.Google Scholar

⁵³ Summa theologiae I^a 75 5.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘Certiorem habemus gustum propter id quod ipse quidam tactus est; hunc autem sensum homo habet certissimum…. Unde homo prudentissimum est animalium. Signum autem est et in genere hominum secundum id quod videmus ingeniosos et non ingeniosos; secundum autem aliud nullum’: Aristotle, De anima 2.9 (421a20–24). Thomas Aquinas explains why this is so: ‘Sed videtur, quod aptitudo mentis magis respondeat bonitati visus, quam bonitati tactus: quia visus est spiritualior sensus, et plures differentias rerum demonstrat. Sed dicendum est, quod duplici ex causa, bonitas mentis respondet bonitati tactus. Prima ratio est, quod tactus est fundamentum omnium aliorum sensum: manifestum est enim, quod organum tactus diffunditur per totum corpus, et quodlibet instrumentum cuiuscumque sensus est etiam instrumentum tactus; et illud, ex quo aliquid dicitur esse sensitivum, est sensus tactus. Unde ex hoc quod aliquis habet meliorem tactum, sequitur quod simpliciter habet meliorem sensitivam naturam, et per consequens, quod sit melioris intellectus. Nam bonitas sensus est dispositio ad bonitatem intellectus. Ex hoc autem, quod aliquis habet meliorem auditum vel meliorem visum, non sequitur quod sit melius sensitivus, vel melioris sensitivae simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid. Alia ratio est, quia bonitas tactus consequitur bonitatem complexionis sive temperantiae. Cum enim instrumentum tactus non possit esse denudatum a genere tangibilium qualitatum, eo quod est ex elementis compositum, oportet quod sit in potentia ad extrema saltem per hoc, quod est medium inter ea. Ad bonam autem complexionem corporis sequitur nobilitas animae: quia omnis forma est proportionata suae materiae. Unde sequitur, quod qui sunt boni tactus, sunt melioris animae, et perspicacioris mentis’: Aquinas, Thomas, In Arist. De anima (ed Pirotta, A.) 484–485:121–122. Cf. Aristotele's De Anima in the Version of William of Moerbeke and the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas (tr Foster, Kenelm and Humphries, Silvester; New Haven 1951) 303–304.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Thomas Aquinas, for example, says: ‘Anima autem intellective, secundum naturae ordinem infimum gradum in substantiis intellectualibus tenet, intantum quod non habet naturaliter sibi inditam notitiam veritatis sicut angeli, sed oportet quod earn colligat ex rebus divisibilibus per viam sensus’: Summa theologiae I^a 76 5 resp.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. n. 37 above.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Aristotle, De anima 3.1 (425a22).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Avicenna, , De anima, pars 3 c.8, f. 16^rb . See Bate, Henricus, Speculum divinorum et quorundam naturalium (ed. Van de Vyver, E.; Louvain and Paris 1960) 1:174.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. De anima 2.4.11.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For the whole discussion, see Aristotle, , De partibus animalium 4.10 (687a8–23).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Aristotle, Opere biologiche, edd. Lanza, D. and Vigetti, M. (Turin 1971) 532–33.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ‘[Sensus communis] praesidet tamquam iudex,’ are the words of Matteo d'Acquasparta in his Quaestiones disputatae de anima (ed. Gondras, A. J.; Paris 1961) 263; but it is a widespread commonplace.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For the passage from Themistius, see n. 44 above.Google Scholar

⁷² For example, Henricus Bate de Malines quotes Themistius' passage in its entirety in Speculum 1.166–67.Google Scholar