e boldly challenges
the view of Freind, declares that Theodorius copied _his_ chapters
from Gilbert, and asserts that Theodorius was a notorious plagiarist.
Now, while the bold assertion of Dr. Payne cannot, of course, be
accepted as _proof_ of Gilbert's precedence in chronological order,
if that precedence is otherwise established, it will explain the
similarity of the chapters of the two writers very satisfactorily. For
the present, however, this similarity can be adduced as evidence on
neither side.

Again, Gilbert, with the enthusiasm of a loyal pupil, speaks (f. 47 b)
of a certain Magister Ricardus, "_omnium doctorum doctissimus_," whose
views on uroscopy certainly indicate a mind superior to his age. Now
there were about this period at least two eminent physicians who bore
the name of Ricardus. Of these the senior, a Frenchman, known also
as Ricardus Salednitanus, is highly praised by Aegidius of Corbeil
(Gilles de Corbeil, Aegidius Corboliensis), physician to King Philip
Augustus of France (1180-1223). This Ricardus was a famous teacher at
Salernum when Aegidius was in attendance at that famous university,
therefore probably about the close of the 12th century. The second
Ricardus, called Parisiensis, has been recently identified by Toply
with Richard of Wendover, an English canon of St. Paul's, and at one
time physician to Pope Gregory IX, who died in 1241. Toply believes
him to have been also the author of the "_Anatomia Ricardi_," recently
published. This Ricardus died in 1252.

Now to which of these Ricardi does the eulogistic language of Gilbert
refer? Dr. Payne believes it to be the senior, Ricardus Salernitanus.
Mr. Kingsford, on the other hand, thinks it to be Ricardus
Parisiensis, who died in 1252. A _Liber de urinis_ has been ascribed
to each of them, but, it seems to me, with greater probability to
Ricardus Salernitanus. If too the author of the "_Anatomia Ricardi_"
was a contemporary of Gilbert, we might reasonably expect to find
in the Compendium some evidences of Gilbert's acquaintance with that
work. But Gilbert's discussion of anatomical questions is totally
unlike that of the author of the "_Anatomia_," and betrays not the
slightest evidence of knowledge of such a treatise. On the whole
then I am inclined to agree in this question with Dr. Payne, and to
consider the Ricardus of Gilbert identical with Ricardus Salernitanus,
the famous professor of the School of Salernum. This conclusion
is furt