that the word cannot possibly refer here to the authors of such works
as the _Physiologus_--have assigned very diverse causes for this
marvelous virtue of stones. He rejects as “most absurd” the suggestion
of certain Pythagoreans that it is due to the action of souls or of
a world-soul in stones. Alexander Aphrodisiensis argues from the
operations of alchemy that some chemical change makes the compound
stone far more potent than any or all of its constituents. Plato
thinks that all inferior objects are imbued with superior ideas; Hermes
and Avicenna suggest that celestial virtue is responsible. Albert
himself concludes that the occult virtue of stones resides in their
specific forms, in which, as in the case of herbs, the influence of the
stars plays the chief part. Albert’s discussion of the virtue of gems
is repeated in a _Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to Robert Grosseteste,
but in part at least written after his death. The author regards
“Albert of Cologne” as having “spoken more certainly than others in
this matter.”[1863]
[Sidenote: Pseudo-Albert _De lapidibus_.]
Albert’s discussion of the engraving of images and seals on stones
in his treatise on minerals has already been mentioned in connection
with his attitude toward magic and will come up again in connection
with his attitude towards astrology. Besides the treatise on minerals
there seems to be another work on stones ascribed to Albert which is
spurious. It deals with the colors and virtues of stones, and, like
Thetel and the fourteenth book of Thomas of Cantimpré, with their
sculpture and consecration.[1864]
[Sidenote: Alchemy.]
In his third book concerning minerals Albert judiciously discusses
alchemy, citing Avicenna and Hermes especially. He says that of all the
arts alchemy most closely imitates nature.[1865] Albert regards the
various metals as distinct species, and hardly accepts the assertions
of Hermes, Gilgil, Empedocles, and other alchemists that in each
metal there are several species and natures, one manifest and another
occult,[1866] one external and another internal, one superficial and
another deep. Albert then considers the remark of Avicenna, incorrectly
ascribed by some to Aristotle, that the alchemists cannot alter species
but can make them appear alike, as when they color copper so that it
seems to be gold.[1867] Avicenna has also remarked in his _Alchemy_,
however, that species can perhaps be reduced to first matter and then
by the aid of the art formed into the species of the desired metal.
Albert thinks that perhaps, as physicians by their medicines purge away
corrupt matter and afterwards restore health, so skilled alchemists
may purify a great mass of quicksilver and sulphur, which according
to Avicenna are the material constituents of all metals, and then
combine these in due ratio of elemental and celestial virtues for the
composition of the metal which they wish to obtain.[1868] But those who
merely color the metal white or yellow, while the species of the baser
metal remains in the material, are beyond doubt deceivers and do not
make true gold or true silver. Unfortunately all alchemists proceed in
this fashion to a greater or less extent, and Albert has subjected gold
made by them to fire and has found that it is finally consumed, after
it has stood the test of fire perhaps six or seven times.
Albert thus suggests that the transmutation of metals by means of
human art is possible, although he does not regard the alchemists as
having yet employed the right method. But it is hard to see how Peter
of Prussia got the notion that Albert had condemned the art of alchemy
in the _De mineralibus_ and could not be the author of a treatise
on the subject.[1869] In other passages Albert speaks of alchemy
without disapproval and apparently with respect. He cites “alchemical
experiments” concerning the evaporation of water when heated.[1870]
He repeats the argument of Alexander of Aphrodisias that the occult
virtues of gems are due to the mixture of the elements in them, as is
proved by the operations of alchemy, in which simple substances effect
little, but when mixed together produce truly marvelous effects.[1871]
And as one instance of the influence exerted by the moon he states that
skilled alchemists work during the waxing of the moon because then
they produce purer metals and purer stones, especially when they are
really expert and do not hurry their operations but await the opportune
time when the process will be aided by celestial virtue.[1872] On the
whole, however, as these passages show, Albert’s mentions of alchemy
are mainly allusive. He does not treat of it fully in his Aristotelian
treatises apparently because, as we saw earlier, he regarded it as a
separate subject from physics or physical science, bordering more on
the field of natural magic. The question therefore next arises whether
he ever wrote a work or works dealing especially with alchemy, just as
the question will arise whether he ever wrote any works in the field of
natural magic.
[Sidenote: Works of alchemy ascribed to Albert.]
Berthelot gives the impression in his _La Chimie au Moyen Age_[1873]
that there was but one alchemistic treatise current under the name of
Albertus Magnus. This he describes as a serious and methodical work
but written a little after Albert’s time. But the manuscripts seem to
contain several, or rather, nearly a dozen, different works of alchemy
ascribed to Albert.[1874] In the University library at Bologna alone
there appear to be six different alchemistic treatises ascribed to
Albert, and three of them in one manuscript.[1875] In one manuscript
of the British Museum is a rather lengthy “_Practica_ of Brother
Albert in alchemy which is called by the same the Secret of Secrets,”
in seven books. The text, however, cites Albert’s work on minerals,
stating that the Latins in general have discovered very little for
themselves experimentally in alchemy but have been dependent upon
translations from other languages, but that “Albert, once of Ratisbon,
the crown of the Latins,” studied it and discovered some secrets by
experimentation, as he bears witness in his “_De mineralibus_.”[1876]
Presently Albert is again cited in a list of old masters who labored
at this art, Alexander the Great, Dioscorides, and others.[1877] In
another manuscript at the British Museum is a much briefer _Of the
hidden things of nature_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus.[1878] What seems
to be still another brief tract on alchemy ascribed to Albert occurs
in a manuscript at Cambridge. It concludes with the statement, “And I
Albert say that I have tested these two operations and that there is
no other perfect work by me except these two works, and they are true.
Euclid, too, and many philosophers agree with me and assert that all
the value of this art consists in Mercury and the Moon and in Mercury
and the Sun, and you should know that all others are vain and illusory.
Thanks to God.”[1879]
[Sidenote: A more detailed description of one of them: preface.]
Of these various treatises in alchemy ascribed to Albert we shall now
consider in more detail the one which has been included in editions of
his works,[1880] and which is perhaps the most likely of any of them
to be genuine. It is ascribed to Albert in a manuscript list of the
writings of Dominicans drawn up before 1350, and also by Pignon.[1881]
It is also an unusually intelligible treatise for a work of alchemy and
so the better lends itself to description and summary. After opening in
devout tone with praise of God and invocation of His aid, the author
proceeds to tell in somewhat Albertine style how he has traversed many
regions, provinces, cities, and castles with great labor for the sake
of the science which is called alchemy, and has diligently inspected
the books on the subject by men of erudition and learning, but has
found nothing true in them. He has also encountered “many very rich
men, scholars, abbots, _praepositi_, canons, physicians, and illiterate
persons,” who have expended much money and toil without result. He did
not despair, however, but went to infinite expense and labor, keeping
his eyes open and constantly moving from place to place, until at last
he found what he sought “not by any science of mine but by the grace of
the Holy Spirit.” He therefore, the least of philosophers, intends to
write to his friends and associates concerning this art, true, easy,
and infallible, yet so that seeing they shall not see and hearing they
shall not understand. And he adjures them to keep it secret and not to
show his book to the foolish.
[Sidenote: Experimental method and equipment.]
After this preface, the first of the fifty-seven chapters, for the
most part brief, into which the treatise is divided, lists various
“errors” which have made the previous efforts of alchemists a failure.
The author also strikes an experimental key-note for his work, stating
that after seeing so many fail he has decided to write true and
approved works and the best which all the philosophers have to offer,
works furthermore in which he has labored and which he has tested by
experience, and he will write nothing but what he has seen with his own
eyes.[1882] After suggesting a derivation for the word “alchemy”[1883]
and a theory for the origin of metals and “proof that alchemy is a
true art,”[1884] the author lays down eight precepts for alchemists to
follow. The alchemist should work silently and secretly or he may be
arrested as a counterfeiter. He should have a laboratory, “a special
house away from the sight of men in which there are two or three
rooms in which experiments may be conducted.”[1885] He must observe
time and seasons; the process of sublimation, for instance, cannot be
successfully performed in winter. He must be a sedulous, persevering,
untiring, and constant worker. In his operations he must observe due
order: first _contributio_; then _sublimatio_; third, _fixio_; fourth,
_calcinatio_; fifth, _solutio_; sixth, _coagulatio_; processes which
are further explained in chapters 30 to 35. All the vessels which
he uses should be made of glass. He should fight shy of princes and
potentates, and finally, should have plenty of money. Chapters four to
eight then deal with the subject of furnaces, and chapter nine tells
how to glaze clay vessels.
[Sidenote: Differences between transmuted and natural metals.]
In the tenth chapter, besides discussing what are the four “spirits”
of metals which dye or color, the author states his opinion as to the
extent to which metals can be transmuted. He believes that metals can
be produced by alchemy which are the equal of natural metals in almost
all their qualities and effects, except that the iron of alchemy is
not attracted by the stone adamant, and that the gold of alchemy does
not stimulate the human heart or cure leprosy, while a wound inflicted
by it swells up as one made by natural gold would not do. “But in
every other operation, hammering, testing, and color, it will endure
forever.” In the two following chapters the author discusses what the
Elixir is and the kinds of medicines.
[Sidenote: Substances and processes of alchemy.]
A number of chapters are next devoted to description of various
minerals, chemicals, dyes, and coloring matter, such as mercury,
sulphur, orpiment, arsenic, salts of ammonia, common salt, various
other salts, azure, minium, ceruse, and so on. We are then instructed
in various processes such as whitening quicksilver or sulphur
or orpiment or arsenic, the making of powders, solutions, and
distillations, leading up finally in the last two chapters to two brief
recipes for the making of the precious metals. The general plan of this
treatise is one to which many others conform; it is noteworthy further
for the absence of mysticism and magic procedure.
[Sidenote: Ligatures and suspensions.]
We have already noted in Albert’s works some instances of marvels
worked by herbs bound to the body or suspended from the neck. In his
treatise on plants he cited books concerning physical ligatures[1886]
for the divine effects of plants with which magic is especially
concerned. But in his treatise on minerals, after stating that the
marvels worked by images engraved on gems cannot be explained by the
laws of physical science but require a knowledge of “astronomy” and
magic and necromancy,[1887] he adds that ligatures and suspensions
of stones seem to operate naturally and belong more to physical
science.[1888] He cites, however, Socrates, probably through the medium
of Costa ben Luca, to the effect that ligatures and suspensions are
one of four kinds of incantations, and that they affect the mind,
depressing or elating it and so affecting the health of the body.
This half-sceptical attitude seems to influence Albert little, for he
states that for the present he intends to treat only of ligatures and
suspensions of stones, of which he proceeds to list examples for a page
and a half drawn largely from Costa ben Luca’s treatise. In his work on
animals Albert again quotes Costa ben Luca to the effect that dogs will
not bite the wearer of a dog’s heart.[1889] Others say that they will
not bark at one who holds in his hand the tooth of a black dog, “and so
robbers carry such a tooth with them at night.” Albert further finds in
the book of sixty animals--probably the work ascribed to Rasis--that
dog’s teeth should be suspended from the neck of a patient suffering
from jaundice.
[Sidenote: Incantations.]
Albert does not expressly discuss the power of words or incantations.
It is rarely that he repeats any incantations, and it will be
remembered that those which he quoted from books on falcons were
accompanied with a word of caution. His belief in the power of
characters or images engraved on gems may be best discussed in
connection with his attitude towards astrology.
[Sidenote: Fascination.]
The power of fascination possessed by one human being over another is
touched upon by Albert in three different treatises.[1890] We have
already heard him identify it with magic. He cites certain Pythagoreans
as affirming that the soul of a man or other animal can act upon
another, fascinating it and impeding its working. He quotes Hermes as
telling Esclepius that man is so endowed with divine intellect and
raised above the world, that its matter follows his thought, and so
the sage can work transformations and miracles in nature or fascinate
another person through sight or some other sense. Avicenna and Algazel
“say that souls can in so far conform to the celestial intelligence
that it will alter material bodies at their pleasure, and then such a
man will work wonders.” It is not clear, however, to what extent Albert
agrees with the authorities he has cited; he remarks that the power of
the soul in fascination can scarcely be proved by philosophy, but he
perhaps simply means that it can be proved by magic.
[Sidenote: Physiognomy.]
In a passage of his treatise on animals[1891] Albert describes
physiognomy as a science which divines a man’s character from the
physical form of the various parts of his body. He explains, however,
that the configuration of one’s physical features does not absolutely
force one to a corresponding course of action. Thus he upholds human
free will against a mechanistic view of man, or rather he shows that
the physiognomists themselves do. He cites Aristotle, to whom we have
seen that a treatise on physiognomy was ascribed, for the following
story: The disciples of Hippocrates made a perfect image of him and
submitted it to an excellent physiognomist, who declared it the
likeness of a man given to luxury, deceit, and lusts of the body. The
disciples were angered at this slur upon the character of their master,
who they knew lived a sober and upright life; but Hippocrates himself
told them that the physiognomist had judged aright as to his natural
traits, and that it was only by love of philosophy and integrity and a
life of study and effort that he had triumphed over nature. A treatise
on chiromancy is ascribed to Albert in more than one manuscript.[1892]
[Sidenote: Aristotle on divination from dreams.]
In the third book of his _De somno et vigilia_[1893] Albert
complains that Aristotle’s treatment of divination from dreams
is unsatisfactory; being “brief, deficient in proof, naïve,
unphilosophical, imperfect,” and having “many doubtful points because
it leaves the causes of such dreams uncertain.” Aristotle’s attitude
was in fact a vacillating one, since he found it “not easy either to
despise or to believe” in that kind of divination. Yet Roger Bacon
tells us that one reason why the study of the books of Aristotle
on natural philosophy was forbidden at Paris before 1237 was this
third book of his _De somno et vigilia_ dealing with divination from
dreams.[1894] But perhaps this was because of commentaries of Averroes
which accompanied it or errors in translation of which Bacon speaks.
[Sidenote: Albert on divination from dreams.]
Little as Aristotle said, he came nearer the truth in Albert’s
opinion than any other extant philosophers, among whom there is great
diversity of view. However, that dreams are prophetic “is no idle
report but the testimony of experience,”[1895] and Albert thinks
that there is scarcely anyone who has not been warned in his dreams
of many future events. “Socrates put great faith in divination from
dreams.”[1896] Interpretation of dreams is necessary, for dreams
cannot be exact images of future events, since these are as yet
non-existent.[1897] Predictions from dreams, even if correctly made,
do not invariably come true, just as medical prognostications and the
predictions of augurs--of whom we are surprised to hear Albert speak
approvingly--sometimes fail owing to the arising of some conflicting
cause.[1898] The dreamer must be free from care and passion. Albert
agrees with Aristotle that dreams requiring interpretation do not come
from God but have a natural cause; while the future cannot be foretold
from dreams which have an accidental cause.[1899] More specifically
he finds the cause of dreams not, like Socrates and Plato, in demons
and corporeal and incorporeal gods,[1900] nor, like Democritus, in
atoms streaming from the stars through the pores of the dreamer into
his inmost soul, but in the motion of the stars acting upon the
body of man, who is in a sense a microcosm or image of the universe
(_imago mundi_).[1901] The interpreter of dreams must be quick to see
associations and similarities from the realm of nature and of art,
he must understand astronomy and astrology, and the state of health
and mind of the dreamer.[1902] Albert again discusses divination
from dreams in much the same way in the second part of his _Summa de
creaturis_ and in his _De apprehensione_.[1903]
[Sidenote: Augury.]
In the _De somno et vigilia_ he mentions one further variety of vision
“when the celestial influence is so strong that it affects even while
awake one whose attention is not occupied by the distractions of
sense.” Such visions move the bodies of animals even when they are
awake, “and then their movements have some future signification, which
augurs endeavor to note and interpret. On so much ground of reason is
divination by augury based.”[1904]
V. _Attitude Toward Astrology_
[Sidenote: His emphasis upon the influence of the stars.]
We come finally to that influence of the heavens and stars which makes
the art of augury and divination from dreams possible, which serves to
explain the occult virtue of herbs and stones, and to that “astronomy,”
or astrology as we should say, which is so closely associated with the
science of the magi and with necromancy. Albert’s astrological view’s
crop out in almost all his scientific treatises rather than merely in
those dealing with astronomical subjects, such as the _Meteorology_,
the _De coelo et mundo_, and the _De causis et procreatione universi_.
Especially astrological in character is the treatise _On the Causes
and Properties of the Elements and Planets_.[1905]
[Sidenote: Problem of the authorship of the _Speculum astronomiae_.]
Another treatise very important in the history of astrology is the
_Speculum astronomiae_, hitherto usually placed among Albert’s
works[1906] but recently declared by Father Mandonnet[1907] to be
the work of Roger Bacon. Although Mandonnet adduced no evidence of
manuscripts in favor of the Baconian authorship, other students of
Roger Bacon[1908] have since unquestioningly accepted this attribution
of the _Speculum_ to him, but I shall show that there is no good reason
for it. This may best be done, however, by delaying our consideration
of the _Speculum astronomiae_ itself until after we have taken up Roger
Bacon and his views. But in our present discussion of Albert’s other
writings we may break the backbone of Mandonnet’s argument, which is
his extraordinary contention that Albert did not believe in astrology
and that Roger Bacon was “the only ecclesiastical author in the
second half of the thirteenth century who has undertaken the defense
of judicial astrology and of the other occult sciences which depend
more or less directly upon it.”[1909] Mandonnet criticized Charles
for saying of Roger Bacon’s astrological views, “These doctrines,
which seem contemptible to us, were widespread in the thirteenth
century; Albert was not free from them; St. Thomas merely expressed
some reservations but did not deny the science.” Mandonnet declares
that Charles “has given no evidence for his conclusion and could not
do so,”[1910] but our detailed presentation of the opinions of the men
named and of others will show that Charles was quite right and that
Mandonnet is all wrong.
[Sidenote: Mandonnet fails to prove Albert hostile to astrology.]
Mandonnet, in fact, gives no sign of having ever candidly examined the
works of Albert to see what his attitude towards astrology really was,
so that it seems arrant presumption on his part to question Charles’
statement. And he himself gives no justification for having questioned
it. He cites only one passage directly from Albert’s works, and it is
merely a repetition of the argument of the saints that the star at
Christ’s birth was a miraculous apparition in the upper air rather
than the sky.[1911] Then he quotes three passages from the fifteenth
century biography of Peter of Prussia as if they were Albert’s own
statements. If they are, why does not Mandonnet state where they are
to be found in Albert’s works? Also why does he not state that these
passages occur in chapters where Peter is making an effort, none too
successful or disingenuous, to defend Albert from the charge of having
devoted too much attention to nigromancy and such arts rather than to
mere astrology? Mandonnet does note that Peter believed Albert to be
the author of the _Speculum astronomiae_, but he does not note that
Peter in these very chapters which he cites relies chiefly on the
_Speculum astronomiae_ to clear Albert from the charge of dabbling in
nigromancy. In brief, Peter proves from the _Speculum_ that Albert did
not favor nigromancy; then Mandonnet proves from Peter that Albert did
not believe in astrology and so could not have written the _Speculum_!
In succeeding chapters[1912] Peter goes on to try to make out from the
_Speculum_ that Albert opposed astrological images and interrogations
and that he was more outspoken against them than Aquinas. But this
Mandonnet says nothing of, and it would not fit his argument.
The passages from Peter which Mandonnet does select as suited to his
purpose are as follows:
“The pursuits of magicians and necromancers are evil
and superfluous and forbidden by the church.... That
_mathematici_ or idolaters sometimes predict the future is
the outcome of conjecture and fatuous presumption, not of
certitude.... There are three things to which some men have
recourse, namely, sorcerers, enchanters, and _mathematici_,
but which really are not wisdom but foolishness, for the
Chaldeans rely on such methods. The _mathematici_ seek to
reduce the effects of the stars to fixed hours, and those
who investigate such things are far from the one science of
God.”[1913]
Even if these passages are from Albert’s works, they are no proof that
he condemned astrology. Roger Bacon penned very similar passages, and
the _Speculum astronomiae_ expresses no approval of either enchanters
or sorcerers or magicians or _mathematici_. We have already repeatedly
seen that _mathematici_ was used in two senses and that one might
condemn the _mathematici_ as diviners and yet accept astrology. Albert
himself made such a distinction in his _Commentary on Matthew_[1914]
where he differentiates between two, or rather three, kinds of
mathematics. One is the abstract science in our present sense of the
word; the other, more properly called _mathesis_ and pronounced with a
long middle syllable, is “divination by the stars,” but it in turn may
be either good or bad, superstitious or scientific. Thus it is proved
by a direct examination of Albert’s writings that, contrary to the
impression which Mandonnet strives to give by his citation from Peter
of Prussia, even in his theological works Albert did not condemn all
_mathematici_ even, to say nothing of astrology. And we have further
seen that in his scientific writings he sometimes does not condemn
even magic. We shall now proceed to show from numerous passages in
other works than the _Speculum astronomiae_ how favorably inclined
toward astrology Albert really was.
[Sidenote: Nature of the heavens and the stars.]
Albert accepts the Aristotelian description of the sky and heavenly
bodies as formed of a fifth element distinct from the four elements
of which earthly objects are composed.[1915] In another passage he
subdivides the heavenly substance into three elements composing
respectively the sun, the moon and stars, and the sky apart from the
celestial bodies.[1916] In any case the stars are nobler than inferior
bodies, “less involved in the shadows and privations of matter,” and
closer to the first cause of the universe.[1917] Their motion is
eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible.[1918] Some have called them
animals but Albert holds that they are not animals in the sense that we
apply that word to inferior creatures.[1919]
[Sidenote: The First Cause and the spheres.]
Again like Aristotle, Albert regards the heavens and stars as
instruments of the first mover or intelligence, just as the hand is the
instrument of the human intellect in making works of art.[1920] They
are mediums between the first cause and matter. Albert believes in a
number of heavens “existing from the first heaven to the sphere of the
moon.”[1921] The first mover moves the first heaven and through it the
other spheres included within it. Whether every other heaven has its
own celestial intelligence to move it is a question upon which Albert
is somewhat obscure.[1922] Others certainly thought so. He mentions,
for instance, the opinion of certain Arabs that floods are due to the
imagination of the intelligence which moves the sphere of the moon, and
concedes that there is some truth in it.[1923] The ancient Stoics and
Epicureans, he tells us in another passage, ascribed divinity to the
virtue of the circle of the zodiac, which ruled and governed life under
the God of gods, as they called the First Cause. Apuleius in the _De
deo Socratis_ says that they called the twelve signs incorporeal gods,
and the planets and other stars corporeal gods, and the chief effects
of the celestial virtue upon inferior nature terrestrial gods.[1924]
But probably Albert mentions this merely as an illustration of the
great influence exerted by the circle of the zodiac. In a third passage
he says that the movers of the celestial spheres, whom the philosophers
have called celestial intelligences, are mediate causes between the
First Cause and matter; but he presently adds that philosophers
of better understanding have said that there is only one Mover of
everything, and that the so-called movers of the other spheres are
but the virtues and members of the first heaven and its Mover.[1925]
Translated from terms of Aristotelian physics into those of Christian
theology, this means that the stars are merely God’s instruments, and
that, if there are spirits or intelligences delegated to move the
particular heavens, these angels are also merely God’s agents.
[Sidenote: Things on earth ruled by the stars.]
Since the celestial spheres and the stars are the instruments and
mediums through which the First Cause governs the world of inferior
creation, it follows that the four elements are generated by the
motion of the heavens and that plants, stones, minerals, animals--in
short, whatever exists in the inferior world is caused by the motion
of the superior bodies. This general law that the world of nature and
of life on this earth is governed by the movements of the stars is
expressly repeated again and again in Albert’s works, and its truth
is assumed even oftener.[1926] We may note by way of illustration a
few of the specific applications of this general law to be found in
Albert’s writings. Arguing the question whether life is possible in
the torrid zone at the equator, Albert points out that the rays of the
stars are more multiplied there and fall perpendicularly and directly
and therefore are even more favorable to the generation of life than in
our climate.[1927] In another passage he explains the pagan attribution
of the thunderbolt to the god Jupiter as probably a mistake due to the
influence of the planet Jupiter in provoking thunder-storms.[1928] A
third passage ascribes the height of the inundation of the Nile to the
planets, stating that Venus and the Moon produce a greater overflow
than other drier stars.[1929]
[Sidenote: Conjunctions.]
Albert has a good deal to say of the effects produced by the
conjunctions of the planets,[1930] ascribing to them great mortality
and depopulation, or “great accidents and great prodigies and a
general change of the state of the elements and of the world.”[1931]
To a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars with others aiding in the sign
of Gemini he attributes pestilential winds and corruption of the air
resulting in a plague by which a multitude of men and beasts suddenly
perish.[1932]
[Sidenote: Comets.]
Albert also discusses comets, and why they signify wars and the death
of kings and potentates rather than of some poor man.[1933] Their
especial connection with wars is explained by the astrologer Albumasar
as due to their association with the planet Mars. As for kings, owing
to their greater fame and power, the relation of celestial phenomena
to their destinies has been observed more carefully than the fate of
the poor, and as their horoscopes have more planetary dignity, so it is
customary to refer greater portents to them.
[Sidenote: Man and the stars.]
Despite the allusion just made to royal horoscopes, Albert makes an
exception to the control of the stars over this world in the case of
man. Strictly speaking, however, this is no exception, since man is not
to be classed with other inferiors inasmuch as his soul is a superior
being, derived from the First Intelligence and still subject to Its
illumination. “The essence of the soul is wholly and solely from the
first cause.”[1934] It is true that Plato says that the soul receives
something in each sphere or heaven, memory from the sphere of Saturn
and so on; but Albert regards this doctrine as simply a description
of the process of fitting the mind or soul to the body which it must
occupy.
[Sidenote: Free will.]
But the human reason and will remain free and are not necessarily
subjected to the movements of the stars. Thus in his theological
_Summa_ Albert admits that the stars govern even the souls, vegetable
and sensitive, of plants and brutes, but denies that they coerce the
loftier rational soul and will of man, who is made in the image of
God, except as he yields to sin and the flesh.[1935] But this last is
a very important exception as we see from a passage in the treatise on
minerals.[1936] “There is in man a double spring of action, namely,
nature and the will; and nature for its part is ruled by the stars,
while the will is free; but unless it resists, it is swept along by
nature and becomes mechanical (_induratur_).”
[Sidenote: Ptolemy on free will.]
Albert is aware that neither the Peripatetic philosophy nor the
art of astrology itself slavishly subjects the human mind and will
to the stars.[1937] Rather he keeps citing Ptolemy to show that
the astrologers themselves do not believe in fatal necessity and
that consequently the art of astrology is not incompatible with
Christianity.[1938] Ptolemy declares that the mind apprehends the
superior bodies in their spheres, and can freely turn away from those
things towards which the motions of the stars incline it, and can turn
towards other things by the wisdom of its intellect.[1939] In another
passage Ptolemy is quoted as saying that the effects of the stars can
be impeded by the science of men skilled in astrology.[1940] If the
average “astronomer and augur and magician and interpreter of dreams
and visions” has brought divination into disrepute, it is, says Albert
in a third passage, because “almost all men of this class delight
in deception and, being poorly educated, they think that what is
merely contingent is necessary, and they predict that some event will
certainly occur; and when it does not, those sciences are cheapened in
the sight of unskilled men, although the defect is not in the science,
but in those who abuse it. For this reason wise Ptolemy says that no
judgment should be made except in general terms and with the cautious
reservation that the stars act _per aliud et accidens_ (subject to
other forces and to accidents) and that their significations meet many
impediments. Moreover, the pursuit of sciences dealing with the future
would be idle, if one could not avoid what one foresaw.”[1941]
[Sidenote: Nativities.]
But free will no more restrains Albert than it did Ptolemy from
accepting the art of genethlialogy[1942] or casting of nativities,
as his mention of royal horoscopes has already suggested. He states
elsewhere that the astrologer who understands the virtues of the
signs of the zodiac and of the stars situated in them at the moment
of birth can prognosticate so far as lies within the influence
of the sky concerning the entire life of the person born.[1943]
Indeed, Albert ascribed to Ptolemy a treatise _De accidentibus parvis
particularibus_[1944] concerning the events in the life of the
individual born under this or that constellation, as contrasted with
great social events involving large numbers of men such as political
revolutions, racial migrations, and religious movements, of which
Ptolemy is said by Albert to have treated in another work in eight
parts called _De accidentibus magnis universalibus in mundo_.[1945]
[Sidenote: Galen on the stars and human generation.]
Albert even believed that the influence of the stars upon man was
stronger in some respects than upon other animals. He attributed to
Galen in the treatise _De spermate_ a statement, which I have failed
to find in Galen’s _De semine_ or other works, that “in the generation
of brutes the sperm is not altered according to the order of the hours
and the operations of the planets and signs as it is in man.” Albert
prefers his own explanation of this circumstance to that offered by
Galen. It is that the human body is less material and terrestrial
than those of the brutes and more nearly resembles the heavens, and
so more readily follows the impressions from the sky, and is a sort
of microcosm as a beast is not. On the other hand, Albert grants that
changes of the atmosphere and weather are felt more quickly by the
beasts, who have little else to distract their attention.[1946]
[Sidenote: Plato on boys and the stars.]
Albert states that Plato, as well as Ptolemy and Galen, proved the
influence of the stars upon human beings from the case of boys, who are
still too young to make much use of free will against nature and the
force of the heavens. For boys often display a special aptitude, due
to celestial influence, for some one art and become perfect workmen if
they are trained in it; but if they are forced into another occupation,
never attain proficiency therein because of their natural ineptitude
for it.[1947] This is of course the same point as was illustrated
in the pseudo-Aristotelian _Secret of Secrets_ by the story of the
weaver’s son whose horoscope showed a predilection to govern, and the
king’s son whose sole interest was in the mechanical arts.
[Sidenote: The doctrine of elections.]
Naturally Albert finds no difficulty in accepting the astrological
doctrine of elections, by which the astrologer applies his knowledge
of the movements and effects of the stars and their relationships to
inferior bodies to the selection of a favorable hour for beginning a
contemplated action.[1948] This doctrine of course implies and requires
freedom of election and will, and shows that astrology is an operative
as well as divining art. In another passage Albert mentions the famous
and historic, as he regards it, royal example of eugenics, when
Nectanabus, the natural father of Alexander, in having intercourse with
his mother Olympias observed the hour when the Sun was entering Leo and
Saturn was in Taurus, since he wished his son to receive the figure and
force of those planets.[1949]
[Sidenote: Influence of the stars on works of art.]
If astrology is thus operative as well as divinatory by its power to
select the proper and most advantageous moment for entering upon any
course of action, and to harness so to speak the power of the planets,
it becomes evident that it is or should be an all-important factor
in all the arts. Albert well asserts therefore that a fundamental
principle of this science is that all things which are made by nature
or art are moved first by celestial virtues. He adds that no one
doubts this concerning nature, and that it is also true of art, in
which it is the influence of the stars which incites the artist to
make something.[1950] The force of the stars is potent in alchemy, for
example,[1951] for those who try to transmute metals and stones produce
purer metals and stones when the moon is waxing and ascending, “and
particularly the more skilful they are, not hurrying their operations,
but awaiting the opportune time when the process is assisted by
celestial virtue.”
[Sidenote: Astrological images.]
Of all the arts the most astrological is that of images, to which
Albert devotes several chapters of his treatise on minerals.[1952]
In it images of the stars are engraved on gems or metals at the
favorable moment when the celestial force is strongest, “and marvels
are worked by such images” because some force from the celestial figure
flows into the work of art.[1953] Incidentally Albert remarks that
“in the science of geomancy” the figures traced from the points are
of no value unless they can be made to conform to such astronomical
images. Albert mentions several particular astronomical conditions
which must be observed in engraving such images. Gems from India are
the best for this purpose. Some images engraved in antiquity are no
longer efficacious. Albert gives a number of examples of the effects
expected from these images.[1954] Stones engraved with Aries or Leo or
Sagittarius are good for fevers, dropsy, and paralysis, and are said to
make their possessors talented and fluent and highly honored. Stones
carved with Gemini and Libra and Aquarius temper hot humors and promote
friendship, justice, civility, and observance of law.
[Sidenote: Discussion of fate in the _Summa theologiae_.]
In the foregoing sketch of Albert’s attitude to astrology, based
chiefly on his writings in the field of natural science, some allusion
has also been made to his discussion of the subject in his _Summa_ of
theology, which occurs in the section _On fate_,[1955] “which those
maintain who deny providence” and which is generally identified with
the influence of the stars. I have in the main, however, reserved
this section for separate treatment here, partly because it might be
expected to show a more conservative and less favorable attitude to
astrology than Albert’s scientific writings, since its authorities
would presumably be the church fathers, while the scientific works
reflect the views of Aristotle and other Greeks and Arabs. And
partly for another reason, that I am inclined to question whether a
supplementary passage at the close of this section is by Albert or
added by another hand.
[Sidenote: Attempt to reconcile the fathers with the astronomers.]
Although Albert in this section of the _Summa_ approaches the subject
of the influence of the stars from the unfavorable standpoint of fate
instead of the favoring one of nature, it is noteworthy that he is not
content merely to reproduce the attacks upon astrologers by Augustine
and Gregory of Nyssa, but endeavors to reconcile them with the views
of such scientific or pseudo-scientific authorities as Ptolemy, Hermes
Trismegistus, “Socrates,” and other _Astronomi_. The keynote of his
solution is found in the definition of Boethius that “Fate is the
disposition inherent in movable things by which Providence binds each
by its order.” Thus there is no necessary conflict between Providence
and the rule of the stars. But Albert maintains that “neither fate
nor stars nor even Providence takes away from human free will its
liberty of action,”[1956] quoting Ptolemy as usual to the effect that
the wise man rules the stars and that what the stars do they do _per
aliud et accidens_. Albert therefore rejects absolute fatal necessity
as heretical[1957] and the doctrine of the _magnus annus_ that history
repeats itself as the stars repeat their courses as “horrible.”[1958]
On the other hand, he insists that “it cannot be denied that the
stars by the figures of their positions pour radiations of diverse
figures upon the place of generation,”[1959] or that “the stars in
truth are rulers of the world in those things which are subject to
the world,”[1960] namely, things corporeal. He also admits that the
soul may be inclined to the body, though not coerced. Thus a choleric
person is likely to choose different food and occupation from a
phlegmatic one. Hence Socrates “says that voluntary elections are made
in accordance with the diversity of habits previously existing in the
chooser.”[1961] But Socrates means that such habits incline but do not
compel us. Later Albert qualifies Gregory of Nyssa’s assertion that our
choosing precedes “fortune” by again pointing out that the influence of
the stars “inclines the will to choose this or that.”[1962]
[Sidenote: Glossing over Augustine.]
Albert has to force his authorities a good deal to arrive at this
compromise. Thus he interprets Augustine’s grudging concession that
it “can be said not utterly absurdly that certain sidereal afflations
effect mere differences of bodies, as we see that the seasons of
the year vary with the approach and withdrawal of the sun and some
sorts of things, such as shellfish and the wonderful tides of ocean,
increase and diminish with the waxing and waning of the moon,”--Albert
interprets this as favoring his own much more sweeping assertion that
the stars rule the universe in most respects and change the souls
as well as the bodies of plants and brutes.[1963] Again, Augustine,
asking “What is so pertinent to the body as sex?” contended against
the astrologers that twins of opposite sex might be born under the
same constellation; yet Albert maintains that Augustine did not mean
here that sex of the body is not subject to the stars, but only that
the constellations are not the sole and entire cause of natural bodily
processes, and this for the reasons given above from Ptolemy, namely,
that the influence of the stars depends upon the capacity of matter to
receive it and operates _per aliud et accidens_.[1964]
[Sidenote: Christ and the stars.]
In connection with the question, “Whether Christ was subject soul and
body to fate or fortune or _eupraxia_?” Albert makes an exception to
the influence of the stars, and apparently holds that even in respect
to His body Christ was not subject to the power of the constellations.
The argument is advanced that the Lawgiver is not subject to the
law. The opposing contentions that in becoming man Christ assumed
the defects of our mortality and that, since fate is the disposition
inherent in all mobile objects, Christ was subject to fate as much as
any other man,--these are denied on the ground that Christ became man
voluntarily and suffered as man only what and when He would, and that
from the moment of conception He possessed “grace and all knowledge.”
It is also held that when the Magi said that they had seen His star in
the east, they did not mean a constellation ruling His nativity but
a new celestial sign which demonstrated the new birth of a heavenly
king.[1965]
[Sidenote: Patristic arguments against astrology upheld, but perhaps
not by Albert.]
Scarcely consistent with the apparent approval with which Albert cited
the views of the “astronomers” and such a work as the _Tetrabiblos_ or
_Quadripartitum_ of Ptolemy in the preceding discussion, and with the
general tone of much of it, seems a supplementary passage at the close
of this section on fate[1966] after he has apparently completed the
discussion of the four questions concerning fate which he put at the
start. In this supplementary passage are upheld against the “calumnies”
of the astrologers such objections of Augustine and Gregory the Great
to the art of nativities[1967] as that Jacob and Esau were conceived
and born under the same constellation, that a queen and slave may be
conceived at the same instant, and that there are countries where no
one born under Aquarius becomes a fisherman or under the Balances a
money-changer. The argument employed in this connection, which we
cannot follow in detail, involves such a dubious piece of physics
as that the pyramid of light which gradually spreads from a distant
luminous point exercises the same force on all points lying within its
base. The astronomers would doubtless retort that the rays of light
falling perpendicularly and the shortest distance would be stronger and
more efficacious than the oblique ones, or that pyramids must also be
taken into account with the point in the object affected and the base
in the constellation. Indeed, Albert in this very section _On fate_
has previously shown[1968] from the science of perspective and _Liber
de speculis_ that in Ethiopia the sun’s direct ray “reflected upon
itself” produces fire and makes the child born there fiery and black,
while near the pole the great obliquity of the incidences of the rays
produces cold and damp. For such reasons as these I am inclined to
wonder if this supplementary passage, which is not essential to the
plan or main argument of the section _On fate_, has not been added by
someone other than Albert. Whoever the author is, he also agrees with
Augustine that, when asked to account for two persons falling sick,
growing worse, and recovering at the same times, Hippocrates gave the
better answer in saying that they were conceived and born together of
the same parents, than Posidonius did in saying that they were born
under the same constellation. For Hippocrates named the immediate
cause, whereas Posidonius mentioned the extrinsic and indirect one, for
the stars are not a cause, it is again reiterated, except _per aliud
et accidens_. But the author, like Albert before, holds that Augustine
does not deny that there is some force from the stars inclining though
not compelling us. This is equivalent to sanctioning astrology.
FOOTNOTES:
[1692] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 17 (Muratori, XI, 1150).
[1693] Epitaphs of Albert and Aquinas, opening respectively, “fenix
doctorum” and “in luctu citharae,” are preserved in CLM 19608, 15th
century, fols. 219-21. A portrait of Albert is found in CLM 27029, fol.
88, in the midst of a treatise copied in 1388 A. D.
[1694] _Hist. Eccles._ XXII, 19 (Muratori, XI, 1151).
[1695] Pouchet (1853), p. 210.
[1696] In _Dict. Theol. Cath._, (1909-). Also _Revue Thomiste_ V, 95;
_Siger de Brabant_, 2nd edition (1911 and 1908), p. 36.
[1697] Henry of Hereford, ed Potthast, Göttingen, 1859. Over this point
quite a war of pamphlets and monographs has recently been waged.
[1698] Peter of Prussia (1621), p. 65, “qui ab ipso puerili aevo
ut ipse testatur ad decrepitam usque aetatem iugum Domini mira cum
hilaritate in eodem Ordine portavit.”
[1699] _Meteor._, III, ii, 12.
[1700] _Mineral._, II, iii, 1.
[1701] _Vita Alberti_ (1621), p. 90.
[1702] _Meteor._, I, iii, 5. See also Ashmole 393, fol. 77, “Cometa”
seu “De generatione comete” secundum Januensem, Papiam, et Albertum in
summa (an. 1240).
[1703] Amplon. Quarto 296.
[1704] Although the treatise on Minerals has always been accepted as
authentic, since its opinions in connection with magic and astrology
are rather extreme, it may be well to list here some early MSS of it.
Berthelot (1893) I, 290, regarded BN 6514, written about 1300, as
“almost contemporary,” but some of the following are older, if the
dating in the MSS catalogues is dependable.
CLM 353, 13th century, fol. 55- _Lapidarius_, fol. 69- _liber de
mineralibus_.
CLM 540A, anno 1298, fols. 1-106, _libri V mineralium_.
CLM 23538, 13-14th century, 54 fols., _de mineralibus libri V_.
Amplon. Quarto 189, about 1300 A. D., fols. 40-67, _liber de
mineralibus et lapidibus_.
Amplon. Quarto 293, 13th century, fols. 57-85, quatuor (vel potius
quinque) libri mineralium domini Alberti Magni.
Magdalen 174, close of 13th century, fol. 51v- _de mineralibus libri
tres_ (_?_).
The Minerals is found in the following 14th century MSS, and doubtless
in many others: Digby 119, 26; 183, 1; 190, 1; Ashmole 1471, fols.
1-48; Merton 285; S. Marco XIII, 18, fols. 1-31, “Explicit liber de
lapidibus secundum fratrem Albertum qui liber oculo intitulatur”; CLM
16129, fols. 25-112; BN 7156, 2; BN 7475, 8.
[1705] _Mineral._, IV, i, 6, “Hi autem qui in cupro multum operantur
in nostris partibus Parisiis videlicet at Coloniae et in aliis locis
in quibus fui et vidi experiri.” _Ibid._, II, ii, 11, “Narravit mihi
unus ex nostris sociis curiosus experimentator quod vidit Fredericum
Imperatorem habere magnetem qui non traxit ferrum sed ferrum vice versa
traxit lapidem.”
[1706] _De animalibus_, XXIII, i, 40.
[1707] Schools were established by the general chapter of the
Dominicans in that year at Cologne, Oxford, Bologna, and Montpellier.
[1708] _De animalibus_, VII, i, 6, “quod expertus sum in villa mea
super Danubium”; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 16.
[1709] _Summa_, XIII, 77, iv; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 14.
[1710] Sighart (1857), pp. 157, 159, 162.
[1711] _Politics_, VII, 14; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 13.
[1712] CE, “Albertus Magnus.” I have not found original sources for
these events and fear that they may be inferences from the _Speculum
astronomiae_.
[1713] HL XIX, 365; and v. Hertling (1914), p. 19. But he is called
“Bishop of Lyons” in a 15th century MS at Munich; CLM 15181, fols.
167-77, Compendium magistri Magni Alberti episcopi Lugdunensis de
disputatione corporis et animae.
[1714] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum_, I, ii, 3, “In Colonia
vidimus altissimas fieri foveas et in fundo illarum inventa sunt
paramenta (pavimenta?) mirabilis schematis et decoris quae constat ibi
homines antiquitus fecisse et congestam fuisse terram super ea post
ruinas aedificiorum”; quoted by v. Hertling (1914), p. 11.
[1715] _De natura locorum_, III, 2; v. Hertling (1914), p. 11 note.
[1716] Petrus de Prussia (1621), pp. 179-81. Recently H. Stadler
has edited the _Historia animalium_ from what is believed to be
the autograph MS at Cologne in _Beiträge zur Gesch. d. Philos. d.
Mittelalters_, vols. 15-16. See also his _Vorbemerkungen zur neuen
Ausgabe der Tiergeschichte des Albertus Magnus_ in _Sitzungsberichte d.
kgl. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. phil. hist. Classe_, Munich (1912), pp. 1-58.
Stadler also edited from a Cologne MS, believed to be the archetype,
_Liber de principiis motus processivi_, Munich, 1909.
[1717] _Opus Tertium_, ed. Brewer (1859), p. 14.
[1718] _Summa philosophiae_, I, 6; XIX, 6; XII, 17; Baur (1912), pp.
280, 633, 505.
[1719] Cited by Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 126.
[1720] “venerabilis ille frater ordinis predicatorum magister Albertus.”
[1721] _Bonum univ._, II, 57, Partic. xxxv, “Simili prope modo magister
Albertus theologus frater ordinis predicatorum narravit mihi quod
Parisius illi demon in specie cuiusdam fratris apparuit ut eum a studio
revocaret sed mox crucis virtute discessit.”
[1722] _Ibid._, Partic. li, “Vii et fortissimo expertus sum sicut
auditor eius per multum tempus quam venerabilis ille frater ordinis
predicatorum Albertus cuius superiors femurs mentionem multis annis
fere quotidie cum tamen in cathedra theologie regeret tantum de die
et nocte orationibus incumbebat ut psalterium davidicum legeret et
interdum dictis horis et lectionibus et disputationibus terminatis
contemplatione divine et meditationibus insudaret. Quid mirum ergo si
talis homo super hominem in scientia profecerit qui tam sancte tam
integre in virtute profecerit.”
[1723] _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math._ 26, 139 (1911).
[1724] CLM 453, 15th century, fol. 87-.
[1725] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 16r- “Incipit tractatus fratris Alberti
de Colonia de plantacionibus arborum.”
Ashmole 1471, late 14th century, fols. 137-43, “Incipit tractatus
Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de conservatione vini ... /
... Explicit tractatus Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de
conservatione vini. aliqui tamen asserunt Euclidem hunc librum fecisse.”
Arundel 251, written on the back of the cover binding is “Albertus
Magnus de Plantationibus arborum, etc.” But in the Arundel catalogue
of 1834 the work is listed as “Anonymi cuiusdam tractatus de
plantationibus arborum, de conservatione fructuum et de vino,” which
has since been corrected to “Galfridi de Vino Salvo,” etc.
BN 9328, 14th century, fol. 124- Petrus de Crecenciis, De
plantationibus arborum.
[1726] Vienna 5292, 15th century, fols. 1r-65v, Epitome in Almagestum
Cl. Ptolomaei. Perhaps it is the same as CLM 56, 1434-1436 A. D., fols.
1-122, “Almagesti abbreviatum per mag. Thomam de Aquino,” which opens,
“Omnium recte philosophantium....”
[1727] Vienna 5309, 15th century, fols. 127r-55v, Summa astrologiae,
“In hoc tractatu brevi ... / ... habencia probabilitatis.”
[1728] It is included in Borgnet’s edition, vol. 5. Other such works
are:
BN 16222, 14th century, fols. 22-67, Alberti compendium de negotio
naturali; BN 16635, 14th century, fols. 1-53, Libri V Alberti Magni in
philosophia naturali. Albertus Magnus, Summa naturalium, in Arundel
344, 13-14th century, fols. 40-65; Harleian 536, fols. 1-8; Harleian
4870, 14th century, #2.
[1729] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 294.
[1730] Clemens Baeumker, _Die Stellung des Alfred von Sareshel_
(Alfredus Anglicus) _und seiner Schrift De motu cordis in der
Wissenschaft des beginnenden XIII Jahrhunderts_, (June 7, 1913), p. 12,
in _Sitzungsberichte d. Königl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Philos-philol.
u. hist. Klasse_; citing Arthur Schneider, _Die Psychologie Alberts des
Grossen_, II, Münster, 1906, pp. 293-308, in _Beiträge z. Gesch. d.
Philos. des Mittelalters_, IV, 5-6.
[1731] Grabmann (1916), pp. 165-6, citing Pangerl (1912). Grabmann
notes further that Albert did not leave his theological _Summa_
unfinished, but that the part which has never been printed exists in a
MS at Venice.
[1732] C. Jessen (1867), p. 99.
[1733] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 288.
[1734] Halle, X, 641-741; XI, 545.
[1735] _Geschichte der Botanik_, Königsberg, 1855, IV, 39.
[1736] Meyer (1855), p. 40.
[1737] Pouchet’s fifth chapter (p. 203-644) was devoted to _École
Expérimentale_, and of this pp. 203-320 to Albert himself.
[1738] M. H. De Blainville, _Histoire des sciences de l’organisation
... Rédigée d’après ses notes et ses leçons faites à la Sorbonne
de 1839 à 1841, avec les dêveloppements nécessaires et plusieurs
additions, par F. L. M. Maupied_, in 3 vols, Paris, 1847.
[1739] HL XIX, 377.
[1740] Stadler (1906), p. 2.
[1741] I, ii, 9.
[1742] “Non autem sufficit scire in universali sed quaerimus scire
unumquodque secundum quod in propria natura se habet, hoc enim optimum
et perfectum est genus sciendi.” Galen had expressed much the same
thought eleven centuries before.
[1743] Émile Mâle, _Religious Art in France in the Thirteenth Century_,
translated from the third edition by Dora Nussey, 1913, p. 52.
[1744] _Ibid._, 53.
[1745] Published in facsimile at London, 1859, and Paris, 1908.
[1746] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 18. “Hic commentatus est totam
logicam Aristotelis, philosophiam naturalem et quantum ad naturalem
experientiam naturarum clarissima et excellentissima tradidit. Hic
theologiam declaravit.” I assume that Aristotle is understood as the
subject of _tradidit_.
[1747] _De natura locorum_, I, 7.
[1748] IV, 40.
[1749] _De veget. et plantis_, I, ii, 12.
[1750] VI, i, 30.
[1751] VI, i, 2.
[1752] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 35.
[1753] _De animalibus_, XI, i, 1.
[1754] XXIII, i, 40 (xix).
[1755] XXII, ii, 10 and 99; XXIII, i, 5 and 34-35 and 83 and 123; XXVI,
i, 10 and 14 and 20.
[1756] XXIII, i, 9 and 14 and 23 and 57 and 83 and 104.
[1757] XXII, ii, 1.
[1758] XXIV, i, 28.
[1759] Pouchet (1853), pp. 285-6.
[1760] XXII, ii, 29 and 39 and 41 and 51 and 97.
[1761] XXIV, i, 9.
[1762] XXIII, i, 9.
[1763] XXII, ii, 28.
[1764] XXVI, i, 10.
[1765] XXIV, i, 123.
[1766] XXIII, i, 104.
[1767] XXIII, i, 54.
[1768] XXIII, i, 93.
[1769] XXIII, i, 55.
[1770] XXIII, i, 22.
[1771] XXII, ii, 56. Sed iste Jorach frequenter mentitur. XXV, i, 5. Et
sicut in multis mentitur Solinus, ita et in hoc falsum dicit.
[1772] XXV, i, 26. Hoc est verius quod de draconibus ab expertis
Philosophorum invenitur. Si autem sequamur dicta eorum qui potius
referunt audita vulgi quam physica dictorum suorum ostendant experta,
tunc sequendo Plinium et Solinum et quosdam alios dicemus.... For
further criticism of Pliny see XXV, i, 13, and XXIII, i, 9.
[1773] XXIV, i, 47. Pliny, NH XXXII, i, spells it _echenais_ or
_echeneis_, as does Plutarch. We have seen other medieval authors spell
it _echinus_.
[1774] NH, VIII, 25.
[1775] XXII, ii, 101.
[1776] XVII, ii, 1; XXIII, i, 14; see also _Meteor._, IV, i, 11.
[1777] I have been unable, however, to run it down in the _Natural
History_; perhaps it is in the _Medicina_ of the Pseudo-Pliny.
[1778] XXVI, i, 37.
[1779] XXII, ii, 88.
[1780] XXIII, i, 9.
[1781] XXV, i, 28.
[1782] XXII, ii, 19.
[1783] XXII, ii, 56.
[1784] VII, ii, 5.
[1785] XXII, ii, 99.
[1786] _Polit._, VII, 14.
[1787] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 1.
[1788] III, i, 1.
[1789] IV, i, 6.
[1790] II, ii, 1.
[1791] Pliny, NH XXXVII, 15, agrees with the passage in Albert only in
the general notion that goat’s blood will break adamant.
[1792] II, ii, 17.
[1793] II, ii, 11.
[1794] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 1. “Smaragdus enim nuper apud
nos visus est parvus quidem quantitate et mirabiliter pulcher, cuius
cum virtus probari deberet, adstitit qui diceret, quod si circa bufonem
circulus smaragdo fieret et postea lapis oculis bufonis exhiberetur,
alterum duorum, quod aut lapis frangeretur ad visum bufonis si debilem
haberet lapis virtutem, aut bufo rumperetur si lapis esset in naturali
suo vigore: nec mora factum est ut dixit et ad modicum temporis
intervallum, dum bufo adspiceret lapidem nec visum averteret ab ipso,
crepitare coepit lapis sicut avellana rumperetur et exilivit ex annulo
una pars eiusdem, et tunc bufo qui ante stetit immobilis, coepit
recedere ac si absolutus esset a lapidis virtute.”
[1795] _Meteor._, III, iv, 8-26 (Borgnet, vol. IV, 674-97).
[1796] III, iv, 11.
[1797] III, iv, 28.
[1798] Peter of Prussia (1621), 126.
[1799] Cap. 20.
[1800] Caps. 21-24.
[1801] Caps. 1, 25, 29.
[1802] Cap. 3.
[1803] Cap. 19.
[1804] Caps. 8-18.
[1805] P. 106.
[1806] P. 107.
[1807] P. 108.
[1808] Cap. 17, p. 161.
[1809] Cap. 18, p. 165.
[1810] Cap. 44, _et seq._, pp. 299-341.
[1811] Quoted in Latin by Wolfgang E. Heidel in his _Vita Trithemii_,
prefixed to his edition of the _Steganographia_, cap. xvii, “Trithemium
non fuisse alchymistam, astrologum et magum, ostenditur.”
[1812] For instance, _Commentary on Micah_, VI, 11, “_Maleficia_ are
_veneficia_ by which men are deceived in the works of necromancers and
of idols.”
[1813] _Sententiae_, II, 7, F, vi.
[1814] _Summa_, II, 30.
[1815] _Summa_, II, 30, ii.
[1816] _Sententiae_, II, 7, L, xii.
[1817] _In Evang. Lucae_, XI, 15.
[1818] _Sententiae_, II, 7, viii.
[1819] The Latin of the essential portions of these passages is as
follows. _In Evang. Matth._, II, 1. “Magi enim grammatice magni
sunt.... Nec sunt Magi malefici sicut quidam male opinantur. Magus
enim et Mathematicus et Incantator et Maleficus sive Necromanticus et
Ariolus et Aruspex et Divinator differunt. Quia Magus proprie nisi
magnus est, qui scientiam habens de omnibus necessariis et effectibus
naturarum coniecturans aliquando mirabilia naturae praeostendit et
educit....
Incantator ... qui carminibus quibusdam bestias aut herbas aut lapides
aut imagines ad quosdam parat effectus....
Divinatores autem multi sunt valde: in punctis terrae et casu ignis et
aqua et in aere divinantes....
Nulli istorum dediti fuerunt isti nisi magicis hoc modo prout dictum
est. Et hoc est laudabile.”
_In Daniel._, I, 20. “Magi dicuntur secundum Hieronymum quasi magistri
qui de universis philosophantur, magi tamen specialiter astronomi
dicuntur qui in astris futura rimantur.”
[1820] XXIII, i, III.
[1821] _De veget. et plantis_, V, ii, 6.
[1822] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 32; VI, ii, 17; VI, i, 30; VI,
ii, 3.
[1823] VI, ii, 12.
[1824] VI, i, 33.
[1825] VI, ii, 3.
[1826] VI, ii, 10.
[1827] VI, i, 34.
[1828] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 4.
[1829] II, iii, 1.
[1830] II, iii, 5.
[1831] II, iii, 3.
[1832] _Sentent._, II, 7, ix and xii.
[1833] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1.
[1834] II, i, 1 (Borgnet, V, 24).
[1835] III, i, 6.
[1836] II, 7, vii.
[1837] _Petrus de Prussia_ (1621), cap. XII or p. 135, citing the _De
motibus animalium_.
[1838] III, i, 1.
[1839] II, i, 3.
[1840] III, i, 10.
[1841] III, i, 1.
[1842] III, i, 3.
[1843] III, ii, 5.
[1844] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 61.
[1845] XXII, ii, 67.
[1846] XXII, i, 5.
[1847] XXII, ii, 18.
[1848] XXV, i, 26.
[1849] XXV, i, 13.
[1850] XXIII, i, 40 (17-23).
[1851] XXII, ii, 18.
[1852] XXII, ii, 61.
[1853] VIII, ii, 2.
[1854] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 3.
[1855] VI, i, 32.
[1856] VI, ii, 17.
[1857] VI, ii, 1.
[1858] VI, ii, 2.
[1859] VI, ii, 13.
[1860] V, ii, 1.
[1861] VI, ii, 22.
[1862] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1.
[1863] Tract., XIX, cap. 6 (ed. Baur, pp. 633-34).
[1864] I have not examined the work itself, but append the following
notice of a MS of it: Corpus Christi (Cambridge), 243, 13-14th century,
Pseudo-Albert de lapidibus; fol. 1-, Incipit liber de coloribus et
virtutibus lapidum, Liber primus, including a prologue and then
an alphabetical arrangement of stones; fol. 20v-, De sculturis de
omnibus lapidibus; fol. 21v-, Liber II, de natione et ubi inveniuntur;
fol. 27-, Liber III, de sculturis lapidum; fol. 40v-, Liber IV,
de consecratione lapidum; fol. 44-, Liber V, de confectione et
compositione lapidum.
There is said to be another copy at Glasgow in Hunterian, V, 6, 18.
I am not sure whether CUL 1175, 14th century, fols. 1-3, “Albertus de
Colonia de lapidibus,” is a fragment of it or of the genuine treatise
on minerals.
In CLM 353, 13th century, the _Liber de mineralibus_ of Albertus Magnus
at fol. 69 is preceded at fol. 55 by _Lapidarius_ (_deest lib. I,
tract, i_) also ascribed to him.
In the notice of CLM 16129, 14th century, fols. 25-112, Alberti Magni
tractatus de passionibus aeris et impressionibus vaporum in alto, de
mineralibus, de imaginibus lapidum et sigillis, de natura metallorum,
it is scarcely clear whether _De imaginibus lapidum et sigillis_ is a
separate treatise from the _De mineralibus_ or only the portion of it
dealing with astronomical images.
[1865] III, i, 2.
[1866] _Mineral_, III, i, 8.
[1867] _Ibid._, III, i, 9.
[1868] _Ibid._, III. i, 4.
[1869] _Vita Alberti_, cap. 16.
[1870] _Mineral._, III, i, 2.
[1871] _Mineral._, II, i, 5.
[1872] _De causis elementorum_, I, ii, 7 (Borgnet, IX, 615).
[1873] I, 290.
[1874] Most of them I have not been able to examine or compare; but
where the opening and closing words are given in the catalogues, they
differ as well as the titles. It is possible, however, that some of
them may be parts of the other treatises.
[1875] MS 138, 15th century, fols. 171-83, “Semita recta fratris
Alberti Magni”; fols. 233-5, “Speculum secretorum philosophorum Alberti
Magni de secretis naturae,” opening, “Ad instructionem multorum” and
closing, “penuriam librorum”; fols. 235-7, “Liber xii aquarum Alberti
Magni,” opening “Ovorum vitella,” and closing, “omne corpus.”
In the same library MS 139, 14th century, besides the _Semita recta_
at fols. 3-35--this time Albert is not named as its author--occurs
at fols. 107-21, “Incipit libellus ab Alberto compositus. Quoniam
ignorantis ... / ... dum regnat Iupiter.”
Also in MS 270, II, 15-16th century, fol. 77, “Alberti Magni Alchymia.
Callixtenes unus philosophorum ... / ... siccum.”
In MS 270, X, at fol. 99 the _Speculum secretorum_, etc., is again
ascribed to Albert; and in MS 270, XV, fol. 3-, is “Ars experimentorum
Alberti Magni. Sciendum vero ... / ... viscositate malve.”
[1876] Sloane 323, 14th century, fols. 1-84, “Practica Fratris Alberti
in alchimiam, que ab eodem dicitur sec. sec.” The work is said to have
been printed in the _Theatrum Chymicum_, II, 423.
[1877] _Ibid._, fol. 8r. The previous citation of Albert was at fol. 7v.
[1878] Arundel 164, written in 1422, fols. 127v-131, “De occultis
nature,” opening, “In mutue allocutionis tractatu,” and closing, “sicut
qui cum arcu sine torta sagutur (sagittur?) deo gratias.”
[1879] CUL 220, 16th century, occupying two leaves in an alchemical
miscellany. It opens, “Aqua Mercurius et oleum sulphuris. Opus istud
multis diebus abscondebatur....”
Possibly the following are also distinct treatises, but I do not
have their _Incipits_ and _Explicits_: CLM 12026, 15th century, fol.
32, Alberti de Colonia ars alchymiae; Wolfenbüttel 676, anno 1444,
following the _Semita recta_ at fols. 34-36, Varia Alberti Magni
chymica; Riccard. 119, following the _Semita recta_, which is #32 in
this miscellany, comes #33, an _Alchimia_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus,
while the second treatise bearing #37 (at fol. 177r) is _Alberti quidam
Tractatus_.
[1880] It is included in vol. 21 of the edition of Lyons, 1651, by R.
P. Jammy; and by Borgnet, vol. 37; 545-73, Alberti Magni libellus de
alchimia. It had previously been printed at Basel, 1561, and Urcellis,
1602-1608, _Theatrum chemicum_, pp. 485-527. It is the same as the
treatise called _Semita recta_ in the MSS. Another MS of it is Corpus
Christi 226, 15th century, fols. 59-69.
[1881] See Denifle (1886), 236.
[1882] “Videns ergo tot errare iam decrevi scribere vera et probata
opera et meliora omnium philosophorum in quibus laboravi et sum
expertus nihil aliud scribam nisi quod oculis meis vidi.” Or perhaps he
means that his works are better than those of all the philosophers.
[1883] “Alchimia est ars ab Alchimo inventa et dicitur ab archymo
Graece quod est massa Latine,” cap. 2.
[1884] Cap. 3, “Probat artem Alchimiae esse veram.” This done, however,
the chapter continues with the eight precepts which follow.
[1885] “domum specialem extra hominum conspectum in qua sint duae
camerae vel tres in quibus fiant operationes.”
[1886] Since he had just mentioned “the books of incantations of Hermes
the philosopher and Costa ben Luca,” he very likely had in mind simply
the Letter of the latter on Incantation, Adjuration, and Suspension
from the Neck, of which we have previously treated, and which Albert
uses for physical ligatures in his treatise on minerals.
[1887] II, iii, 5.
[1888] II, iii, 6.
[1889] XXII, ii, 18.
[1890] _Mineral._, II, i, 1; _De animalibus_, XXII, i, 5; _De somno et
vigilia_, III, i, 6.
[1891] I-ii-2.
[1892] CLM 916, 15th century, fols. 25-30, Chiromantia Alberti: BN
7420A, 14th century, #15, Alberti de Colonia ars chiromantiae.
[1893] I presume that Vienna MS 2448, 14th century, 26 fols.,
“Expliciunt interpretaciones sompniorum reuerendi domini Magni Alberti
Parisiis conscripta” is simply this third book, but perhaps it is some
spurious treatise. MS 1158, 14th century, in the University Library at
Bologna, fols. 41-52, catalogued as “Magistri Alberti theotonici de
fato, de divinatione, de sortibus,” consists of the _De fato_ ascribed
to Aquinas; a second treatise _De fato_ which in the MS itself is
headed in the upper margin of fol. 45r, “Magri (Magistri) Alexandri”; a
“Questio de divinatione Alexandri,” at fol. 47r; and an anonymous _De
sortibus_.
[1894] Extract from the _Compendium studii theologiae_, quoted at
page 412 of Charles’ Life of Roger Bacon. “Tarde venit aliquid de
philosophia Aristotelis in usum Latinorum, quia naturalis philosophia
eius et metaphysica cum commentariis Averrois et aliorum libris in
temporibus nostris translatae sunt, et Parisiis excommunicabantur
ante annum Domini 1237 propter aeternitatem mundi et temporis, et
propter librum ‘De divinatione somniorum’ qui est tractatus ‘De somno
et vigilia,’ et propter multa alia erronea translata.” It is found in
Rashdall’s edition of the _Compendium studii theologiae_ at pp. 33-4.
[1895] III, i, 2.
[1896] III, i, 1.
[1897] III, i, 4.
[1898] III, ii, 5.
[1899] III, ii, 3-4.
[1900] III, i, 8-9.
[1901] III, ii, 6.
[1902] III, ii, 9.
[1903] VI, 12.
[1904] III, i, 10.
[1905] I have not seen CUL 1705, 14th century, fols. 181v-183,
“Albertus de naturis signorum,” opening, “Deus utitur corporibus
celestibus” and closing “Saturnus enim tenebras significat.” It is not
included in Albert’s printed works and is perhaps not by him.
[1906] See chapter 62 below for bibliography.
[1907] In his _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au XIIIe siècle,
deuxième édition revue et augmentée_, Louvain, 1911, I, 244-48; and
more fully in an article, “Roger Bacon et le ‘Speculum astronomiae,’”
in the _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, vol. 17, August, 1910.
[1908] Theophilus Witzel in an otherwise excellent article on
Roger Bacon in the _Catholic Encyclopedia_; A. G. Little, _Roger
Bacon Essays_, Oxford, 1914, p. 25; Paschal Robinson, “The Seventh
Centenary of Roger Bacon,” _Catholic University Bulletin_, January,
1914. Professor Ch. V. Langlois, however, made some strictures upon
Mandonnet’s general method of arriving at conclusions, in his review of
the first edition of the _Siger de Brabant_ in _Revue de Paris_, Sept.
1, 1900, p. 71.
[1909] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII, 323-24.
[1910] _Revue Néo-Scolastique_, XVII (1910), 328.
[1911] _Summa de Creaturis_, tract. III, q. 15. art. 2: _Opera omnia_,
ed. Borgnet, t. 34, p. 434.
[1912] Petrus de Prussia (1621), caps. 13-15, pp. 137-50.
[1913] Petrus de Prussia (1621), pp. 123, 131, 133; cited by Mandonnet
(1910), p. 329, note 1.
[1914] _In Matth._, II, 1.
[1915] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, I, i, 1.
[1916] _Ibid._, II, i, 1.
[1917] Borgnet, X, 1-2.
[1918] _De meteoris_, I, i, 4.
[1919] _Metaphysicorum_, XI, ii, 12.
[1920] _Idem._ “Sicut manus est instrumentum intellectus practici
in artificialibus, ita totus coelestis circulus est instrumentum
huius intellectus ad totam materiam naturae quae ambit.” See also
_Metaphysicorum_, V, ii, 4; _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4,
“Sic totus coeli concentus refertur ad causam primam”; _De animalibus_,
XVI, i, 11, “Orbis autem revolvitur ab uno intellectu primo ad quem
referuntur alii motores”; _Liber de natura et origine animae_, I, 5,
“Intellectus qui est cum coelesti virtute, eo quod ipse coelum movet,
et movet virtutes coelestes quae sunt in materia generabilium, et est
intellectus purus et primus movens et informans omnia alia sub ipso
instrumentaliter agentia.”
[1921] _De animalibus_, XX, ii, 2.
[1922] _De causis et procreatione universi_, I, iv, 7, “Utrum coelum
moveatur ab anima vel a natura vel ab intelligentia.”
[1923] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, I, ii,
9.
[1924] _De animalibus_, XX, ii, 2.
[1925] _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4. “Mediae autem causae
sunt motores orbium coelestium quos intelligentias coelestes vocaverunt
Philosophi. ... ideo melius intelligentes Philosophi totum unicum
motorem dixerunt habere, et inferiores motores ad sphaeras dixerunt
esse virtutes et membra primi coeli et sui motoris.” Yet in _De
coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5, he asserts again that the stars “sunt
instrumenta intellectuum moventium,” as if there were more than one
intelligence.
[1926] See _De meteoris_, I, i, 4 and 7; _De causis et propriet.
element._, etc., I, ii, 2; _Mineralium_, II, iii, 3; _De causis et
procreat. universi_, II, ii, 23.
[1927] _De natura locorum_, I, 6.
[1928] _Meteor._, III, iii, 22.
[1929] _De causis et propriet._, I, ii, 2.
[1930] _Idem._
[1931] _Ibid._, I, ii, 9.
[1932] _Ibid._, II, ii, 1.
[1933] _Meteor._, I, iii, 11.
[1934] _De intellectu et intelligibili_, I, 4; also _De natura
et origine animae_, I, 5, “Et ideo complementum ultimum quod est
intellectualis formae et substantiae non per instrumentum neque ex
materia sed per lucem suam influit intellectus primae causae purus et
inmixtus.”
[1935] Pars prima, Quaest. 68.
[1936] II, iii, 3.
[1937] _De intell. et intell._, I, 4. “Quod autem anima praecipue sub
motibus astrorum restringitur contra omnes est Peripateticos et contra
Ptolemaeum.”
[1938] _De generatione et corruptione_, II, iii, 5.
[1939] _Summa_, I, 68, _passim_.
[1940] _De natura locorum_, I, 5.
[1941] _De somno et vigilia_, III, ii, 5.
[1942] I take it that _geomantici_ should be _genethliaci_ in the
passage (_De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5) given in Borgnet’s text
as follows: “Et hoc oportet relinquere scientiae electorum, quia
alio nomine vocantur geomantici eo quod principalius quod inquirunt
per stellarum figuras et effectus sunt nativitates ... et eventus
nascentium....”
[1943] _De gener. et corrupt._, II, iii, 5.
[1944] _De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5.
[1945] Albert was of course also familiar with the _Tetrabiblos_ or
_Quadripartite_ of Ptolemy and with the _Centiloquium_ ascribed to him.
He names three commentators upon it, namely, the well-known Arabian and
Jewish authorities, Haly and Abraham, and a mysterious third, Bugaforus
(_Meteor._, I, iii, 5).
[1946] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 1. The closest approach to the
passage that I have found in Galen occurs in the _De foetuum
formatione_ (Kühn, IV, 700-701) where Galen mentions approvingly the
theory of some Platonic masters that the world-soul is responsible for
the marvelous process of the formation of the foetus, but adds that
he regards it as impious and unfitting to ascribe the generation or
formation of scorpions, spiders, flies, fleas, worms, vipers, and the
like to the soul of the cosmos.
[1947] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3.
[1948] _De coelo et mundo_, II, iii, 5.
[1949] _De animal._, XXII, i, 3.
[1950] _Mineral._, II, iii, 3. “Est autem principium in ipsa scientia
omnia quaecunque fiunt a natura vel arte moveri a virtutibus
coelestibus primo; et hic de natura non est dubium. In arte etiam
constat, eo quod aliquid modo et non ante incitat cor hominum ad
faciendum; et hoc esse non potest nisi virtus coelestis, ut dicunt
sapientes praenominati.” Then follows immediately an admission of the
freedom of the human will which has already been cited.
[1951] _De causis et propriet, element. et planet._, I, ii, 7.
[1952] Liber II, Tractatus iii.
[1953] II, iii, 3.
[1954] II, iii, 5.
[1955] _Summa_, Pars prima, Quaestio 68, _De fato_; in Borgnet, vol.
31, pp. 694-714.
[1956] _Ibid._, p. 701.
[1957] P. 696, “Unde sic dicere fatum, est haereticum.”
[1958] P. 708.
[1959] P. 698.
[1960] P. 701.
[1961] Pp. 698 and 702.
[1962] Pp. 706 and 710.
[1963] P. 696.
[1964] Pp. 702, 704.
[1965] Pp. 707, 711.
[1966] Pp. 711-4.
[1967] Albert, of course, has already upheld free will against the
doctrine of fatal necessity in nativities; it is therefore only the
support of these particular arguments of Augustine and Gregory that
seems strange.
[1968] P. 698.