Chapter LIX: Albertus Magnus (4)

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.