CHAPTER LIX

ALBERTUS MAGNUS

_Bibliography_

His own writings--His life--His relations to natural science.

I. _Life_

Albert the leading figure in thirteenth century learning--Albert and Aquinas--Dates of birth and death--Early life--Probable early date of some of his works--Events of his life after 1250--At Cologne--Contemporary estimates of Albert.

II. _As a Scientist_

The scope of his scientific treatises--Can a gradual intellectual development be traced in his works?--His best works are those on natural science--His fame in the early nineteenth century--A survival of medieval attitude--Recent historians of science and Albert--His scientific spirit--Philosophical generalization and scientific detail--Medieval interest in nature--Albert’s own attitude--Albert and modern experimentation--Personal observation and experience of plants--Experience a criterion in zoology--Observations of Albert and his associates--Experiments with animals--Past authors questioned--Instances of credulity--Incredible “experiences”--Minerals and experience--Minerals and credulity--Tale of a toad and an emerald--Experience versus Aristotle.

III. _His Allusions to Magic_

Peter of Prussia on Albert’s occult science--Trithemius on Albert’s study of magic--_Magnus in magia_--Albert’s varying treatment of magic--Reality of magic--Magic due to demons--Magic and miracle--Good magic of the Magi--Natural magic--Attitude in his scientific treatises--Use of animals and herbs in magic--Magic stones--Magic images engraved on gems--Magic and alchemy; finding hidden metals--Fascination and magic--Interpretation of dreams and magic--Magic and divination--Summary of Albert’s accounts of magic.

IV. _Marvelous Virtues in Nature_

Properties of the lion--Nasty recipes: illusory lights--Dragons--The basilisk--Remedies for falcons and mad dogs--Habits and remedies of animals--The virtues of herbs--Their medicinal use--Occult virtue of herbs due to the stars--Occult virtue of stones--Occult virtue of stones due to the stars--Pseudo-Albert _De lapidibus_--Alchemy--Works of alchemy ascribed to Albert--A more detailed description of one of them: preface--Experimental method and equipment--Differences between transmuted and natural metals--Substances and processes of alchemy--Ligatures and suspensions--Incantations--Fascination--Physiognomy--Aristotle on divination from dreams--Albert on divination from dreams--Augury.

V. _Attitude Toward Astrology_

Emphasis on the influence of the stars--Problem of the authorship of the _Speculum astronomiae_--Mandonnet fails to prove Albert hostile to astrology--Nature of the heavens and the stars--The First Cause and the spheres--Things on earth ruled by the stars--Conjunctions--Comets--Man and the stars--Free will--Ptolemy on free will--Nativities--Galen on the stars and human generation--Plato on boys and the stars--The doctrine of elections--Influence of the stars on works of art--Astrological images--Discussion of fate in the _Summa theologiae_--Attempt to reconcile the Fathers with the astronomers--Glossing over Augustine--Christ and the stars--Patristic arguments against astrology upheld, but perhaps not by Albert.

_Bibliography Concerning Albertus Magnus_

In the following bibliography I include some works that I have not been able to examine and cannot vouch for, and omit others which I have seen but which seemed of doubtful value or treated sides of Albert’s personality and writings which have little connection with our investigation, such as accounts of Albert as a saint, or theologian, or metaphysician, or psychologist. Of recent years a bewildering underbrush of German monographs has sprung up concerning Albert as one of the few prominent persons that Germany could claim as its own among the many scholars of the medieval period.

A number of works that do not deal primarily with Albert will be cited in the course of the chapter rather than here, and mention of his individual works and of manuscripts of them will also be found in connection with the following text.

I. _His Own Writings_

M. Weiss. Primordia novae bibliographiae B. Alberti Magni, Paris, 1898.

B. Alberti Magni Opera omnia, ed. Augustus Borgnet, Paris, 1890-1899, in 38 vols. My references are regularly to this edition. Its text, however, has been a good deal criticized.

Of more recent and critical editions of single works by Albert, that of the Historia animalium by H. Stadler from the Cologne autograph MS in Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos, d. Mittelalters, vols. 15-16, is the only one of a work with which we are concerned. Stadler attempts to distinguish Albert’s additions from Aristotle’s text and to trace their sources. German criticism of the genuineness of large portions of the text of Aristotle’s Historia animalium has in my opinion been carried altogether too far and based upon the gratuitous assumption that Aristotle would not have said anything superstitious. For recent editions of other single works by Albert see v. Hertling (1914) 23.

Separate bibliographies of printed texts and MSS of certain works of doubtful or spurious authorship ascribed to Albert will be given later in separate chapters dealing with these.

II. _His Life_

Articles in the Histoire Littéraire de la France, XIX, 362-81, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, and by Mandonnet in Vacant and Mangenot’s Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.

Petrus de Prussia, Vita B. Alberti Magni, 1621; von Hertling mentions an earlier edition of Cologne, 1496, which I have not seen.

Joachim Sighart, Albertus Magnus: sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft, Ratisbon, 1857. (French translation, Paris, 1862). (English translation by Dixon, London, 1876, is incomplete and garbled.)

N. Thoemes, Albertus Magnus in Geschichte und Sage, Cologne, 1880.

G. von Hertling, Albertus Magnus: Beiträge zu seiner Würdigung, 2nd edition, revised with the help of Baeumker and Endres, Münster, 1914, in Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos, etc., vol. XIV.

Paul von Loë, De vita et scriptis B. Alberti Magni, in Annal. Boland., XIX (1900) 257-84, XX (1901) 273-316, XXI (1902) 361-71.

Kritische Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete der Albertus Magnus Forschung, in Annalen d. hist. Vereins f. d. Niederrhein, Cologne, vol. 72 (1902) 115-26.

E. Michael, Albert der Grosse, in Zeitsch, f. kath. Theol., Innsbruck, XXV (1901) 37-; Wann ist Albert der Grosse geboren? _Ibid._ XXXV (1911) 561-.

P. P. Albert, Zur Lebensgeschichte Alberts des Grossen, in Freiburg. Dioces. Archiv, 1902.

J. A. Endres, Das Geburtsjahr und die Chronologie in der ersten Lebenshälfte Alberts des Grossen, in Historisches Jahrbuch, XXXI (1910) 293-.

Eine beabsichtigte zweite Berufung Alberts des Grossen an die Universität Paris um Jahr 1268, in Hist.-polit. Blätter, vol. 152 (1913) 749-.

Chronolog. Untersuchungen z. d. philos Kommentaren Alberts des Grossen, in Festgabe 70 Geburtstag von G. Freiherr von Hertling, Freiburg, 1913, p. 96-.

A. Pangerl, Studien über Albert den Grossen, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, XXXVI (1912) 304-31, 332-46, 512-49, 784-800.

P. Pelster, S. J., Kritische Studien zum Leben und zu den Schriften Alberts des Grossen, Freiburg, 1920: I have not been able to procure in time to utilize, but it seems in large measure a re-examination of ground already covered.

III. _His Relations to Natural Science_

E. H. F. Meyer, Albertus Magnus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Botanik im XIII Jahrhundert, in Linnaea, 1836-1837.

F. A. Pouchet, Histoire des sciences naturelles au moyen âge, ou Albert le Grand et son époque considéré comme point de départ de l’école expérimentale, Paris, 1853; pp. 203-320 deal particularly with Albert.

L. Choulant, Albertus Magnus in seiner Bedeutung für die Naturwissenschaften, historisch und bibliograpisch dargestellt, in Janus, I (1846) 152-.

E. v. Martens, Ueber die von Albertus Magnus erwähnten Landsäugethiere, in Archiv f. Naturgesch. XXIV (1858) 123-44.

C. Jessen, Alberti magni historia animalium, in Archiv f. Naturgesch. XXXIII (1867) 95-105.

R. de Liechty, Albert le Grand et saint Thomas d’Aquin, ou la science au moyen âge, Paris, 1880.

A. Fellner, Albertus Magnus als Botaniker, Vienna, 1881.

H. Stadler, Albertus Magnus als selbständiger Forscher, in dem Vordergrund des Interesses gestellt; in Forschungen z. Gesch. Bayerns, XIV (1906) 95-.

J. Wimmer, Deutsches Pflanzenleben nach Albertus Magnus, etc. Halle, 1908.

S. Killermann, Die Vogelkunde bei Albertus Magnus, Regensburg, 1910.

I. _Life_

[Sidenote: The leading figure in thirteenth century learning.]

At last we come to the consideration of the dominant figure in Latin learning and natural science of the thirteenth century, with whose course his lifetime was nearly coincident, the most prolific of its writers, the most influential of its teachers, the dean of its scholars, the one learned man of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to be called “the Great,”--Albertus Magnus. The length of his life and presumably also of his period of literary productivity makes it difficult to place him at any particular point in the century, and from the fact that Vincent of Beauvais and Peter of Spain cite him we might well have placed our account of his works before theirs. He appears, however, to have outlived them both. But it is mainly in order to bring our account of Albert into juxtaposition with our treatment of the other two great names of Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon, to determine whether the _Speculum astronomiae_ should be ascribed to Roger rather than Albert, and to treat of books of experiments and magic, that have been ascribed to Albert but are perhaps of somewhat later date, in connection with other similar experimental and occult literature, that we have postponed our consideration of Albertus Magnus until this point.

[Sidenote: Albert and Aquinas.]

In 1253, the same year that Robert Grosseteste died, four years after William of Auvergne, opened the pontificate of Alexander IV, of which Ptolemy of Lucca wrote: “In his time flourished two great doctors in the Order of Preachers. Doubtless many others were famous during this same time both in life and doctrine. But these two transcended and deserve to be placed before all others.”[1692] The two Dominicans whom Ptolemy had in mind were, of course, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas.[1693] It is customary and natural to couple their names. Besides being members of the same order, they were master and student; they were also the two scholars of their time who did most to adapt the natural philosophy of Aristotle to Christian use, a fact which in itself suggests their interest in natural science. It may seem strange to us today that two theologians, and even more so two members of an order vowed to asceticism, apostolic poverty, and the maintenance of strict orthodoxy against heresy, should play a leading part in interpreting the ideas of Greek and Arabic philosophers and should display such an interest in natural science. The fact, however, is indisputable. It is to the credit of the medieval church and its religious orders. But it is even more a tribute to the power that philosophy and natural science exercise upon every able mind that really studies them. As for the relations between Albert and Aquinas, it must be added that while the former outlived his pupil, he was born a full generation before him. It was thus Aquinas who profited by and built upon Albert’s work.

[Sidenote: Dates of birth and death.]

Ptolemy of Lucca states that Albertus Magnus was over eighty years old when he died in 1280, and that for about three years before his death he largely lost control of his intellectual faculties.[1694] That he outlived his pupil Aquinas by six years, and that his writings are cited by other contemporaries who died before he did--Vincent of Beauvais and Petrus Hispanus, are other indications of his longevity. There consequently seems little reason for questioning the traditional date of his birth, 1193, although Pouchet has suggested 1205[1695] and Father Mandonnet, more recently, 1206.[1696] The main argument for placing his birth about 1206 is that a fourteenth century chronicler[1697] states that he was only sixteen when he entered the Dominican Order, while in the fifteenth century Peter of Prussia asserts that Albert himself used to say that he had been in the Order “from his very boyhood.”[1698] His birthplace was at Lauingen in Swabia and he was the oldest son of the count of Bollstädt.

[Sidenote: Early life.]

Albert studied at Padua, where he tells us that in his youth he saw a well which exhaled a deadly vapor,[1699] while at Venice he beheld a royal figure painted by nature upon marble.[1700] He perhaps entered the Dominican Order in 1222 or 1223. According to Peter of Prussia,[1701] a few years later he was made reader or lecturer of the friars at Cologne and “twice gloriously lectured on the _Sentences_.” Then he was successively _Lector_ at Hildesheim in 1233, at Freiburg, for two years in Ratisbon, and at Strasburg. Albert alludes in his works to a comet which he saw in Saxony in 1240.[1702]

[Sidenote: Probable early date of some of his works.]

Although Ptolemy of Lucca mentions Albert and Aquinas as flourishing during the pontificate of Alexander IV, 1253-1261, much of the former’s writing as well as teaching probably antedates this. Presumably he was already famous when young Aquinas came all the way from Italy to Cologne or Paris to study with him about 1244 or 1245. If the _Speculum naturale_ of Vincent of Beauvais was written by 1250, many of Albert’s writings which it freely cites must have appeared before that date, for instance, the _De anima_ (III, 41), _De sensu et sensato_ (V. 108), _De somno et vigilia_ (XXVI, 23), _De animalibus_ (XVII, 71). The treatise on sleep and waking is found in a manuscript written in a French hand in 1258.[1703] Even in the treatise on minerals,[1704] which has been regarded as written after 1250 because Vincent of Beauvais does not cite it, and in which Albert speaks of having been in Paris as well as Cologne, he also speaks of one of his associates who saw in the possession of the emperor, Frederick II, 1212-1250, a magnet which instead of attracting iron was drawn to that metal.[1705] On the other hand, in his work on animals Albert cites the emperor Frederick’s book on falcons, so that Albert’s treatise on animals was probably not finished until at least the latter part of that monarch’s reign.[1706] But even Mandonnet who delays Albert’s birth to 1206 believes that his first writings date back to 1240 and that his great philosophical works began to appear about 1245. I should be inclined to push these dates back ten or twenty years. Albert was probably teaching at Paris from about 1245 to 1248, in which year he signed the condemnation of the _Talmud_ in that city and then became regent of the new school at Cologne established by the Dominicans.[1707]

[Sidenote: Events of his life after 1250.]

The two chief ecclesiastical offices held by Albert were those of provincial of his order in Germany from 1254 to 1257, and of bishop of Ratisbon, 1260-1262. He resigned from both positions, apparently preferring the scholar’s life. Ptolemy of Lucca explains that German bishops had to use the sword too much for Albert’s taste. In his work on animals Albert alludes in one passage to his villa on the Danube.[1708] In 1256 he went to Rome to defend the friars against the attacks of William of St. Amour, and while in Italy discovered the _De motibus animalium_ of Aristotle. In his theological _Summa_ he speaks of having collected the material for his treatise _On the Unity of the Intellect against Averroes_, when he was “in the _curia_ at the command of Lord Alexander the Pope.”[1709] In 1259, when the general chapter of the Dominicans met at Valenciennes, he was appointed upon a committee to draw up a course of study for the Order along with Aquinas and Pietro di Tarantasia, who in 1276 became Pope Innocent V. After resigning the bishopric of Ratisbon in 1262, Albert returned to teaching at Cologne, but in 1263 he preached the crusade in Germany and Bohemia, and his name appears in documents at Würzburg in that year and those immediately following.[1710] In his _Politics_ he speaks of having been papal _nuncius_ in Saxony and Poland, where he found the barbaric custom still observed of killing the old men of the tribe when they had outlived their period of usefulness.[1711] We are told that in 1270 he despatched a treatise to Paris to help Aquinas in connection with the affair of Siger de Brabant, and in 1277 visited that city again in person to defend his own Aristotelian teaching and the memory of Aquinas in connection with the condemnation by Stephen Tempier, bishop of Paris, and other doctors of 219 opinions ascribed to the same Siger de Brabant and others,[1712]--an affair of which we shall have more to say later. The Catholic Encyclopedia and _Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique_ repeat the assertion of fifteenth century biographers that Albert attended the Council of Lyons in 1274, but the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_ eighty years ago assured us that his name is not mentioned in the records of that assembly.[1713]

[Sidenote: Albert at Cologne.]

This brief account of Albert’s life has made it evident that he stayed in no one place for long at a time, and his own works show that he had traveled widely. He seems, however, to have returned repeatedly to Cologne, and to have passed more time there than at any other one place. There he saw ruined remains of Roman buildings excavated;[1714] there he says that he wrote his _De natura locorum_;[1715] and there other of his writings, partly in his own hand, were still treasured when Peter of Prussia wrote his life near the close of the fifteenth century.[1716]

[Sidenote: Contemporary estimates of Albert.]

We have seen that Albert was already cited as an authority during his lifetime by such writers as Petrus Hispanus and Vincent of Beauvais. Roger Bacon in 1267 mentioned “Brother Albert of the Order of Friars Preachers” and William of Shyrwood as two of the foremost scholars of the time, although he seems rather jealous of Albert and inclined to rank William of Shyrwood and of course himself above him.[1717] Such envy only proves the great reputation that Albert had. In the _Summa philosophiae_ ascribed to Grosseteste but which we have seen was apparently written some years after his death, following a long list of ancient and Arabian philosophers and some comparatively modern Christian writers such as Gundissalinus, Constantinus, and Alfred of England, the author mentions as even “more modern” Alexander minor, presumably Alexander of Hales the Franciscan who died in 1245, and Albert of Cologne of the Order of Preachers. He regards them as distinguished philosophers but not to be held for authorities. However, he later prefers Albert’s explanation of the virtues of gems to those of Democritus, Pythagoras, Plato, Hermes, and Avicenna. He also calls Albert “the most famous of modern theologians,” and gives his arguments against vision being by extramission.[1718] Ulrich Engelbert of Strasburg, a contemporary and pupil of Albert, in the fourth book of his _Summa theologiae_ described “my lord Albert, once bishop of Ratisbon,” as “a man in every science so divine that he may well be called the wonder and miracle of our time.”[1719] Thomas of Cantimpré, in his moralizing _Bonum universale de apibus_, a farrago of monkish gossip and incredible tales, written apparently in 1276 or shortly after, emphasizes the saintly character of Albert who is apparently well along in years when Thomas writes.[1720] He represents Albert as having told him that at Paris a demon appeared to him in the likeness of a certain friar in an attempt to keep him from his studies but departed at the sign of the cross.[1721] Or again Thomas assures us that as Albert’s auditor for a considerable time when he occupied the chair of theology he had seen for himself and “most certainly tested” how Albert for many years almost daily participated in the prayers by day and night and read the psalter of David and often sweated in religious contemplation and meditation. “What wonder,” piously ejaculates Thomas, “that a man of such whole-hearted devotion and piety should show superhuman attainments in science!”[1722]

II. _As a Scientist_

[Sidenote: The scope of Albert’s scientific treatises.]

It may be well at the start to indicate the scope and character of Albert’s works in the field of science. In general they follow the plan of the natural philosophy of Aristotle and parallel the titles of the works then attributed, in some cases incorrectly, to Aristotle. We have eight books of physics, psychological treatises such as the _De anima_ and _De somno et vigilia_, both in three books, and works dealing with celestial phenomena, such as the _De meteoris_ and _De coelo et mundo_ in four books each, and with the universe and life in general, such as the _De causis et procreatione universi_, _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, and the _De generatione et corruptione_. Geography is represented by the _De natura locorum_, zoology by the twenty-six books on animals, botany by the seven books on vegetables and plants, and mineralogy by the five books on minerals. Björnbo called attention to a work on mirrors or catoptric ascribed to “Albert the Preacher” in several manuscripts but which is not included in the editions of Albert’s works and which has never been printed.[1723] I do not know if this is the same treatise as a treatise on Perspective attributed to Albertus Magnus in a manuscript which Björnbo did not mention.[1724] A work on the planting of trees and preserving of wine is sometimes ascribed to Albert in the manuscripts, but is probably rather by Petrus de Crescentiis or Galfridus de Vino Salvo.[1725] I think that I have encountered only once in the manuscripts the attribution to Albert of an epitome of the _Almagest_ of Ptolemy[1726] and of a _Summa astrologiae_.[1727] Fairly frequently one meets with some brief compendium of all natural philosophy ascribed to Albert, of which perhaps the most common is the _Philosophia pauperum_ or “Introduction to the books of Aristotle on physics, sky and universe, generation and corruption, meteorology, and the soul.”[1728] These are either spurious, or, if based on Albert’s writings, add nothing of importance to them. Finally we may note a group of works lying on the border of natural and occult science and which have been regarded as spurious: treatises on alchemy and chiromancy, the _Speculum astronomiae_, the _De secretis mulierum_, the _Liber aggregationis_, and the _De mirabilibus mundi_. Of some of these we shall treat in separate chapters.

[Sidenote: Can a gradual intellectual development be traced in Albert’s works?]

The order in which Albert’s numerous works were written is a matter difficult to determine but of some interest, although not of very great importance, for our investigation. The statement of Peter of Prussia that the translation of Aristotle “which we now use in the schools” was made by Thomas of Cantimpré at the suggestion of Aquinas, “for in Albert’s time all commonly used the old translation,”[1729] would, if true, suggest that Albert wrote his Aristotelian treatises early in life, since he actually outlived Aquinas. But not much reliance is to be placed in this statement of Peter, since it is reasonably certain that Thomas of Cantimpré at least did not translate Aristotle. I have been impressed by differing and almost inconsistent attitudes in different treatises by Albert, for instance in his attitude towards magic, which seem to hint that his opinions changed with the years, although it may be attributable, as in some other authors, to the fact that in different works he reflects the attitude of different authorities, or approaches different subjects with a different view-point, writing of theology as a theologian, but of Aristotle as a philosopher. However, Baeumker and Schneider, pursuing in connection with Albert’s writings a different line of investigation from mine, have been struck with the same thing and have concluded that Albert underwent a gradual intellectual development. They note that in his _Commentaries on the Sentences_ he is still glued to the Augustinian tradition, while in his _Summa_ he is strongly influenced by Aristotle and working for a synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine. Finally, in his philosophical and scientific works, related to the genuine and spurious works of Aristotle, “he goes very far with this Arabian-trimmed Neo-Platonism, often so far that he finally feels compelled to explain such exposition as mere citation, and in the strife of conflicting masses of thought surging within him refers for his own personal interpretation to his theological writings.”[1730] From this it would seem that most of Albert’s theological treatises were written before his scientific works, based upon Aristotle and spurious Arabic and other additions. But we have seen that many of his Aristotelian treatises were completed before the _Speculum naturale_ of Vincent of Beauvais, whereas his _Sentences_ name 1246 and 1249 as current dates.[1731]

[Sidenote: His best works are those on natural science.]

But while Albert may sometimes refer to his theological works for his own personal views, he does not do so in those passages which will especially concern us, and it is in his works on natural science that he seems to the modern reader more original. Indeed Jessen declared that repeated perusal of Albert’s many writings in the field of natural history had convinced him that he was “original everywhere, even where he seems to copy.”[1732] Jessen, indeed, held that Albert would have been even more original and outspoken than he is, but for fear of the charge of heresy; but in my opinion there is little to support such a view. Be that as it may, in his works on natural science Albert does not merely repeat past ideas whether of Aristotle or others, but adds chapters of his own drawn in large measure from his own observation, experience, and classification. It is in his scientific works that he is as superior to Aquinas as the latter is generally considered to surpass him in the purely metaphysical and theological field. Since writing the foregoing sentences I have found that Peter of Prussia expressed much the same view in his life of Albert written toward the close of the fifteenth century. Peter says, “Moreover, this should be understood, that after Aristotle faith is to be put in Albert above all who have written in philosophy, because he has himself illuminated the writings of almost all philosophers and has seen wherein they spoke truly or falsely, nay more, since he himself was experienced above all others in natural phenomena. It may be that some, relying on their metaphysics or logic, can impugn him by certain arguments, but I think that no matter of great concern, since Albert himself says that faith is to be put in anyone who is expert in his art.”[1733]

[Sidenote: Albert’s fame in the early nineteenth century.]

Albert’s scientific fame perhaps reached its zenith shortly before the publication of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ in 1859. In 1836 and 1837 Ernst Meyer published in _Linnaea_[1734] his “Albertus Magnus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Botanik im XIII Jahrhundert,” and later in his _History of Botany_[1735] ranked Albert as the greatest botanist during the long period between Aristotle and Theophrastus on the one hand and Andrea Cesalpini on the other. “Yes, more than that. From Aristotle, the creator of scientific botany, until his time this science sank deeper and deeper with time. With him it arose like the Phoenix from its ashes. That, I think, is praise enough, and this crown shall no one snatch away from him.”[1736] In the meantime, at Paris in 1853, Pouchet had published his _History of the Natural Sciences in the Middle Ages_ with the sub-title, _Or Albertus Magnus and his age considered as the point of departure of the experimental school_.[1737] But the extreme praise of Albert had occurred a little earlier in lectures on the history of science delivered by De Blainville at the Sorbonne in 1839-1841 and published a few years later.[1738] De Blainville too centered his discussion of medieval science about Albert, to whom alone he devoted some ninety pages, extolling him for affirming the permanence of species and for “broadening” Aristotle to fit the requirements of theology. In ten theses in which De Blainville undertook to sum up briefly the chief legacies of Albert to science, he held that he completed and terminated the circle of human knowledge, adding to Aristotle the scientific demonstration of the relations of man with God; that he extended the scope of observation to every scientific field except anatomy; that he created the description of natural bodies, a thing unknown to the ancients; and that in filling in the gaps in Aristotle’s writings he was the first to embrace all the natural sciences in a complete plan, logical and perfectly followed. “In accepting therefore with the Christian Aristotle,” concluded De Blainville, “the first verse of _Genesis_, ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth,’ and the consequences which follow it, we have, in my opinion, reached the _apogée_ of the encyclopedia of human knowledge, which can now only extend itself in respect to the number and the deeper knowledge of material objects.”

[Sidenote: A survival of the medieval attitude.]

This passage from De Blainville, who seems to have been a Roman Catholic, is very interesting as showing how the progress of modern science in his own time and the centuries just preceding could be almost completely miscomprehended by a professed historian of science. We must not, however, suppose that such misconceptions of the progress of science were universal or even general in the first half of the nineteenth century. The article on Albertus Magnus in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, which was published in 1838, recognizes that Albert did not extend the bounds of the sciences as much as had been supposed, and that progress had been made since the sixteenth century which rendered that part of his works “almost useless.”[1739] The passage from De Blainville is interesting also as showing the same intimate connection presupposed between Christian theology, natural science, and Aristotelianism as in the days of the great Dominicans themselves. Again, it reveals the extent to which natural science, since the appearance of _The Origin of Species_, has tended to the opposite extreme.

[Sidenote: Recent historians of science and Albert.]

As for historians of science, they have been rather scarcer of late than in the earlier years of the nineteenth century, when the subject seems to have had a great vogue in France. Or at least the historians of science have been less sympathetic with the distant past. Perhaps the inclination has been to go almost as far toward the other pole of neglect as De Blainville went toward that of extollation. But the modern eulogies of the scientific attainments of Roger Bacon, supposed to be a thorn in the side of the medieval church and falsely regarded as its victim, and as the one lone scientific spirit of the middle ages, have been rather more absurd than the earlier praises of Albert, who was represented both as a strong pillar in the church and the backbone of medieval and Christian science. Indeed, the _Histoire Littéraire_, in the same passage which we a moment ago quoted against De Blainville, also states with probable justification that Albert did “more than any other doctor of his day” to introduce the natural sciences into the course of public and private studies, and that it was his taste for those subjects which won him his popular renown and the homage of scholars until the end of the seventeenth century. At no period, however, has Albert been entirely without defenders. Jessen in 1867 regarded him as an original natural scientist. Stadler in 1906 recognized that “he made many independent observations, perhaps even carried out experiments,” and showed great interest in biology.[1740]

[Sidenote: Albert’s scientific spirit.]

Coming back from the opinions of others concerning Albert to his own attitude towards natural science, it is to be noted that, while he may make all sorts of mistakes judged by modern standards, he does show unmistakable signs of the scientific spirit. This will become more apparent as we proceed, but for the present we may cite two examples of it, and these from a work based upon a pseudo-Aristotelian treatise and one which at first sight might seem quite superstitious and unscientific to the modern reader, since it is full of astrology, the _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_.[1741] In the first passage Albert repeats the justification of natural science against a narrow religious attitude which we heard from the lips of William of Conches in the previous century. When Albert finds that some men attribute the deluge simply to the divine will and believe that no other cause for it should be sought, he replies that he too ascribes it ultimately to the divine will, but that he believes that God acts through natural causes in the case of natural phenomena, and that, while he would not presume to search the causes of the divine will, he does feel free to investigate those natural causes which were the divine instruments. A little further on in the same chapter Albert declares that “it is not enough to know in terms of universals, but we seek to know each object’s own peculiar characteristics, for this is the best and perfect kind of science.”[1742]

[Sidenote: Philosophical generalization and scientific detail.]

This desire for concrete, specific, detailed, accurate knowledge concerning everything in nature is felt by Albert in other of his writings to be scarcely in the spirit of the Aristotelian natural philosophy which he follows and sets forth in his parallel treatises. In his work on animals a cleavage may be observed between those parts where Albert discusses the general natures and common characteristics of animals and seems to follow Aristotle rather closely, and those books where he lists and describes particular animals with numerous allusions to recent experience and considerable criticism of past authorities. At the beginning of his twenty-second book he apologizes for listing particular animals in alphabetical order, which is “not appropriate to philosophy,” by saying that “we know we are debtors both to the wise and to the unlearned, and those things which are told in

## particular terms better instruct a rustic intelligence.” But while this

desire to describe particular objects precisely is felt by Albert to be not in accord with traditional philosophic methods of presentation, it is a desire which many of his contemporaries share with him. At the beginning of his sixth book on vegetables and plants, where

## particular herbs and trees are listed, he explains, “In this sixth book

of vegetables we satisfy the curiosity of our students rather than philosophy, for philosophy cannot deal with particulars.”

[Sidenote: Medieval interest in nature.]

This healthy interest in nature and commendable curiosity concerning real things was not confined to Albert’s students nor to “rustic intelligences.” One has only to examine the sculpture of the great thirteenth century cathedrals to see that the craftsmen of the towns were close observers of the world of nature and that every artist was a naturalist too. In the foliage that twines about the capitals of the columns in French Gothic cathedrals it is easy to recognize, says M. Mâle, a large number of plants: “the plantain, arum, ranunculus, fern, clover, coladine, hepatica, columbine, cress, parsley, strawberry-plant, ivy, snapdragon, the flower of the broom and the leaf of the oak, a typically French collection of flowers loved from childhood.”[1743] _Mutatis mutandis_, the same statement could be made concerning the carved vegetation that runs riot in Lincoln cathedral. “The thirteenth century sculptors sang their _chant de mai_. All the spring delights of the Middle Ages live again in their work--the exhilaration of Palm Sunday, the garlands of flowers, the bouquets fastened on the doors, the strewing of fresh herbs in the chapels, the magical flowers of the feast of Saint John--all the fleeting charm of those old-time springs and summers. The Middle Ages, so often said to have little love for nature, in point of fact gazed at every blade of grass with reverence.”[1744] But it is not merely love of nature but scientific interest and accuracy that we see revealed in the sculptures of the cathedrals and in the note-book of the thirteenth century architect, Villard de Honnecourt,[1745] with its sketches of insect as well as animal life, of a lobster, two parroquets on a perch, the spirals of a snail’s shell, a fly, a dragonfly, and a grasshopper, as well as a bear and a lion from life, and more familiar animals such as the cat and swan. The sculptors of gargoyles and chimeras were not content to reproduce existing animals but showed their command of animal anatomy by creating strange compound and hybrid monsters--one might almost say, evolving new species--which nevertheless have all the verisimilitude of copies from living forms. It was these breeders in stone, these Burbanks of the pencil, these Darwins with the chisel, who knew nature and had studied botany and zoology in a way superior to the scholar who simply pored over the works of Aristotle and Pliny. No wonder that Albert’s students were curious about particular things.

[Sidenote: Albert’s own attitude.]

But one is inclined to wonder whether the passage from the _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum et planetarum_, which we quoted first, may not have been written after the passages which we have quoted from his works on plants and animals, and whether Albert had come, thanks possibly to that same stimulating scientific curiosity of his students, to cease to apologize for the detailed description of particular objects as unphilosophical and to praise it as “the best and perfect kind of science.” At any rate it is those portions of his works on animals, plants, and minerals which he devotes to such description of

## particular objects which possess most independent value, and it is

perhaps also worth noting that Ptolemy of Lucca in looking back upon Albert’s work seems not only to distinguish his writings on logic and theology from those on nature, but also to imply a distinction between Aristotle’s natural philosophy and his “very well-known and most excellent contribution to the experimental knowledge of things of nature.”[1746] Ptolemy seems to say Aristotle’s contribution, but the credit really belongs largely to Albert and his students.

[Sidenote: Albert and modern experimentation.]

Pouchet was therefore not without justification in his sub-title, “Or Albertus Magnus and his Period Considered as the Beginning of the Experimental School.” His distinguishing, however, three stages of scientific progress in the history of civilization--the first, Greek, characterized by observation, and represented especially by Aristotle; the second, Roman, marked by erudition and typified by Pliny; the third, medieval, distinguished by experimentation, and having Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon as its two great representatives;--was rather too general and sweeping. Galen, for instance, was a great experimenter and the ancient Empirics put little trust in anything except experience. Albert himself, in discussing “the serious problem” whether life is possible in the Antipodes or southern hemisphere, states that “the most powerful kings and the most accomplished philosophers have labored over it from antiquity, the kings forsooth by experiment and the philosophers by rational inquiry.”[1747] Moreover, neither Roger Bacon nor Albert can be shown to have done much experimenting of the sort, carefully planned and regulated, which is carried on in modern laboratories. Meyer in his _History of Botany_,[1748] although Albert was a great favorite with him, felt constrained to renounce the credit for purposive experimentation which Pouchet had given him. “How gladly would I see this crown also placed deservedly upon my favorite’s head!... But I do not know of his undertaking an experiment in order to solve a physiological or physical problem in which he had a clearly defined purpose and the suitable materials at hand for carrying it out; his books on plants certainly do not contain a single one.”

[Sidenote: Personal observation and experience of plants.]

Albert’s work on plants does contain, however, many passages in which he recognizes experience as a criterion of truth or gives the results of his personal observations. Such passages occur especially in the sixth book where he tries to satisfy his students’ curiosity, but we may first note an earlier passage where he recommends “making conjectures and experiments” in order to learn the nature of trees in general and of each variety of tree, herb, fruit, and fungus in

## particular. Since, however, one can scarcely have personal experience

of them all, it is also advisable to read the books which the experts (_experti_) of antiquity have written on such matters.[1749] But a mistrust of the assertions of others often accompanies Albert’s reliance upon personal observation and experience. Like Galen in his work on medicinal simples, he explains in opening his sixth book that merely to list the names of plants found in existing books would fill a volume, and that he will limit his discussion to those native varieties “better known among us.” Of some of these he has had personal experience; for the others he follows authors whom he has found unready to state anything unless it was proved by experience. For experience alone is reliable concerning particular natures. He cautions in regard to a tree which is said to save doves from serpents, “But this has not been sufficiently proved by certain experience, like the other facts which are written here, but is found in the writings of the ancients.”[1750] Of another assertion he remarks, “But this is proved by no experience”;[1751] and of a third he says, “As some affirm, but I have not tested this myself.”[1752]

[Sidenote: Experience a criterion in zoology.]

Personal observation and experience are equally, if not more, noticeable in Albert’s work on animals. He proposes to tell “what he knows by reason and what he sees by experience of the natures of animals”; he adds that science cannot be attained in all matters by demonstration, in some cases one must resort to conjecture.[1753] After listing various remedies for the infirmities of falcons from the work on falconry of the Emperor Frederick, he concludes, “Such are the medicines which one finds given for falcons and the experience of wise men, but the wise falconer will with time add to or subtract from them according to his own experience of what is beneficial to the state of health of the birds. For experience is the best teacher in all matters of this sort.”[1754]

[Sidenote: Observations of Albert and his associates.]

In the treatise on animals as in that on plants Albert’s allusions to experience occur mainly in the last few books where he describes

## particular animals. Here he often says, “I have tested this,” or “I

and my associates have experienced,”[1755] or “I have not experienced this,” or “I have proved that this is not true.”[1756] Like Alexander of Neckam he rejects the story that the beaver castrates itself in order to escape with its life from its hunters; Albert says that experience near his home has often disproved this.[1757] In discussing whales he restricts himself entirely to the results of his own observation, saying, “We pass over what the Ancients have written on this topic because their statements do not agree with experience.”[1758] According to Pouchet[1759] Albert gives even more detailed information concerning whales than do the Norse sagas, and also includes animals of the north unknown to classical writers. He occasionally reveals his nationality by giving the German as well as the Latin names of animals, and he displays an acquaintance with the fauna of surrounding countries such as Norway, Sweden, Bohemia, and Carinthia.[1760] He asserts that there are no eels in the Danube and its tributaries, but that they abound in the other rivers of Germany.[1761] He tells of observing the habits of eagles in Livonia,[1762] or supports the account in Solinus of a monstrous beast with fore legs like human arms and hind legs like human legs by stating that he has seen both male and female of the species captured in the forests of Russia (_Sclaviae_).[1763] Of his wide travels and observation of natural phenomena we shall meet other examples as we proceed.

[Sidenote: Experiments with animals.]

Albert has not only observed animal life widely, he has also performed experiments with animals as he apparently did not do with plants. He and his associates, for instance, have proved by experiment that a cicada goes on singing in its breast for a long time after its head has been cut off.[1764] He also proved to his satisfaction that the turtle, although a marine animal, would not drink sea water, unless possibly fresh water which flowed into the sea, by experimenting with a turtle in a vessel of water.[1765] He has heard it said that the ostrich eats and digests iron, but the many ostriches to whom he has offered the metal have consistently declined it, although they would devour with avidity stones and bones cut into small bits.[1766] Crude experiments these may be, but they are at least purposive.

[Sidenote: Past authors questioned.]

Albert also often expresses doubt as to certain statements concerning animals on the ground that they have not been tested by experience, even if he has had no opportunity to disprove them. And he draws a sharp distinction between authors who state what they themselves have seen and tested and those who appear simply to repeat rumor or folk-lore. That there are any such birds as gryphons or griffins, he believes is affirmed in story-books (_historiae_) rather than supported by the experiments of philosophers or arguments of philosophy.[1767] The story found in the _Physiologus_ of the pelican’s restoring its young with its own blood he also considers as “read in story-books rather than proved philosophically by experience,”[1768]--a criticism which shows how mistaken those modern scholars have been who have declared the Physiologus and Bestiaries representative of the thirteenth century attitude towards nature. The accounts of harpies which one reads are also according to Albert “not based upon experience, but are the assertions of men of no great authority.”[1769] They are said to be rapacious birds with crooked nails and human faces, and when a harpy meets a man in the desert it is said to kill him, but afterwards, when it sees by its reflection in the water that its own face is human, it grieves all the rest of its life for the man whom it has slain. “But these statements,” says Albert, “have not been experienced and seem fabulous. Such tales are told especially by a certain Adelinus” (perhaps the Anglo-Saxon Aldhelm) “and Solinus and Jorach.” Albert is particularly chary of accepting the assertions of these last two authors, assuring us, anent their statement that certain birds can fly unharmed through flames, “These philosophers tell many lies and I think that this is one of their lies.”[1770] In yet other passages Albert calls one or the other of them a liar.[1771] He also sometimes rejects statements of Pliny, once classing him with Solinus among those who rehearse popular hearsay rather than disclose scientific experience.[1772]

[Sidenote: Instances of credulity.]

Albert thus displays considerable independence in dealing with past authorities. Yet at times statements in earlier writers which seem absurd to us pass him unchallenged. He is far, for example, from rejecting all of Pliny’s marvelous assertions. He still believes that the little fish _eschinus_ can stop “a ship two hundred feet or more” in length by clinging to its keel, so that neither wind nor art nor violence can move it.[1773] And he adds something to Pliny’s tale of hunters who make good their escape to their ship with the tiger’s cubs by throwing them one at a time to the pursuing tigress, who takes each whelp back to her lair before returning to the pursuit of the hunters.[1774] Albert’s emendation is that the hunters provide themselves with glass spheres which they roll one at a time towards the pursuing tigress.[1775] Seeing her own reflection on a small scale in the glass ball, she thinks it one of her cubs until she has vainly tried to give it milk, when she discovers the fraud and bounds after the hunters again. But a second and a third glass ball deceive her temporarily as before, and so the hunters reach their ship without having had to surrender any of the real cubs. This imputation of singular stupidity to the tigress should be kept in mind to set against other passages in medieval writers where almost human sagacity is ascribed to animals. Although in two or three preceding passages Albert has refuted the doctrine of spontaneous generation of animal life,[1776] he attributes the following passage to Pliny without adverse criticism.[1777] “There is a worm shaped like a star, as Pliny says, which shines like a star at night; but it never appears except when after great clouds it predicts clear weather.[1778] He says that there is so much rigid cold in this worm that it extinguishes fire like ice. And if a man’s flesh is touched with its slime, all the hair falls off and what it touches decays. And he says that they beget nothing, nor is there male or female among them. Therefore they are generated from decaying matter.” Albert also accepts the story of the poisoned maiden sent to Alexander the Great.

[Sidenote: Incredible “experiences.”]

Albert also is unduly credulous of utterances about animals supposed to be based upon experience, although he cannot be called a mere empiricist, since he tries to test particular statements by the general laws concerning living beings which he has read in Aristotle or derived from his own experience and reflection. He denies, for example, Pliny’s statement that other animals are attracted by the pleasant smell which the panther emits as it sleeps after overeating, on the ground that man is the only animal who is pleased or displeased by odors.[1779] But it would seem that some of the fishermen, fowlers, and hunters from whom he gleaned bits of zoological information were not so trustworthy as he imagined. He says that “a trustworthy person” told him that he saw in an eagle’s nest three hundred ducks, over a hundred geese, about forty hares, and many large fish, all of which were required to satisfy the appetites of the young eagles.[1780] He also “heard from trustworthy persons” that a serpent with the virgin countenance of a beardless man “was slain in an island of Germany and there displayed in our times to all who wished to see it until the flesh putrefied.”[1781] Such reports of mermaids and sea-serpents have still, however, a certain currency. Experienced hunters said that worms could be killed in any beast by suspending from its neck a strip of citron (_sticados citrinum_) immediately after it had been dried.[1782] German artificers of Albert’s day told him that the hyena bore a gem in its eyes, or more truly in its forehead.[1783] Albert sometimes has a tall story of his own to tell. At Cologne in the presence of himself and many associates a little girl of perhaps three years was exhibited who, as soon as she was released from her mother’s hands, ran to the corners of the room searching for spiders, “and ate them all large and small, and flourished on this diet and greatly preferred it to all other food.”[1784] Albert also learned by personal experience that moles gladly eat frogs and toads. For once he saw a mole who held by the foot a big toad which “cried loudly because of the mole’s bite.”[1785] He also found by experience that both frogs and toads would eat a dead mole. In affirming that the custom of killing off the old men is still prevalent within the borders of Saxony and Poland, Albert says, “As I have seen with my own eyes”; but really all that he has seen is the graves of their fathers which the sons have shown to him.[1786]

[Sidenote: Minerals and experience.]

Albert’s general attitude towards past authorities and present experience remains the same in his treatise on minerals. He will give the names of the important gems and state their virtues as known from authorities and experience, but he will not repeat everything that has been said about precious stones because it is not profitable for science. “For natural science is not simply receiving what one is told, but the investigation of causes in natural phenomena.”[1787] Concerning metals, too, he intends to state “rationally either what has been handed down by the philosophers or what I myself have experienced.”[1788] He adds that once he wandered far in exile to places rich in mines in order that he might test the natures of metals. “And for this same reason I investigated the transmutation of metals among the alchemists, in order that I might observe something of the nature and characteristics of the metals.” In a later chapter he alludes to workers in copper “in our parts, namely, Paris and Cologne, and in other places where I have been and seen things tested by experience.”[1789] _Fui et vidi experiri_, such is Albert the Great’s peaceful paraphrase, probably unintentional, for warring Caesar’s _Veni, vidi, vici_.

[Sidenote: Minerals and credulity.]

Again, also, in the treatise on minerals, reliance upon experience proves to be no sure guarantee against incorrect notions, credulity, and unquestioning trust in authority. Albert still repeats[1790] the old notion that “adamant,” hard as it is, is softened and dissolved by the blood and flesh of a goat, especially if the goat for some time before has been fed on a diet of certain herbs and wine.[1791] He adds that this property of goat’s blood makes it beneficial for sufferers from stone in the bladder. Albert repeats with a qualifying “It is said” the statement that the emerald comes from the nests of gryphons or griffins,[1792] but he does not stop to deny the existence of those birds, as we have heard him do elsewhere. He adds, however, as to the source of the emerald that “a truthful and curious experimenter coming from Greece” had said that it was produced in rocks under the sea. This expression, “curious experimenter” (_curiosus experimentator_), or perhaps better “inquisitive observer,” Albert also applied to one of his associates who saw Frederick II’s peculiar magnet.[1793] In the present discussion of the emerald he adds that experience in his own time has proved that this stone, “if good and true,” cannot endure sexual intercourse, so that the reigning king of Hungary, who was wearing an emerald upon his finger when he went in to his wife, broke it into three pieces. “And that is probably why they say that this stone inclines its wearer to chastity.”

[Sidenote: Tale of a toad and an emerald.]

Albert, however, had told as a personal experience a stranger tale than this of an emerald in his work on vegetables and plants in order to illustrate “the many effects of stones and plants which are known by experience and by which wonders are worked.” But as a matter of fact, the incident is concerned not with an emerald and a plant, but an emerald and a toad, an animal which one would infer was in Albert’s day often the subject of experiment.

“An emerald was recently seen among us, small in size but marvelous in beauty. When its virtue was to be tested, someone stepped forth and said that, if a circle was made about a toad with the emerald and then the stone was set before the toad’s eyes, one of two things would happen. Either the stone, if of weak virtue, would be broken by the gaze of the toad; or the toad would burst, if the stone was possessed of full natural vigor. Without delay things were arranged as he bade; and after a short lapse of time, during which the toad kept its eye unswervingly upon the gem, the latter began to crack like a nut and a portion of it flew from the ring. Then the toad, which had stood immovable hitherto, withdrew as if it had been freed from the influence of the gem.”[1794]

[Sidenote: Experience versus Aristotle.]

In the incident just narrated Albert was perhaps tricked by some traveling magician. But let us conclude our discussion of his general scientific method by some more rational instances of personal observation and experience. In his treatise on meteorology his discussion of the rainbow, which occupies some twenty-four pages of Borgnet’s text,[1795] is especially based upon experience and full of allusions to it--a very interesting fact in view of the large space which the discussion of the rainbow occupies in Roger Bacon’s better known eulogy of experimental science. Albert recounts his own observations when sailing over great waves or when looking down from the top of a castle built upon a high mountain, “and the time when this was seen was in the morning after a rainy night, and it was in the autumn with the sun in the sign of Virgo.” Albert takes exception to Aristotle’s assertion that rainbows caused by the moon at night appear only twice in fifty years. He and many others have seen a bow at night, and “truthful experimenters have found by experience” (_veridici experimentatores experti sunt_) that a rainbow has appeared twice at night in the same year. Nor can Albert conceive of any astronomical reason why it should appear only twice in fifty years. “And so I think that Aristotle stated this from the opinions of others and not from the truth of demonstration or experience, while those facts which have been adduced against his statement have been experienced beyond a doubt by myself and by other reliable investigators associated with me.” The very chapter headings of this portion of Albert’s treatise suggest an antithesis between the ancient authorities and recent experimental investigation, for instance: “Of the Iris of the Moon and what Ancients have said of it and what Moderns have tested by experience,”[1796] and “A Digression stating Seneca’s views concerning _virgae_ and experiments with certain arcs seen in modern times.”[1797] Thus while Albert of course believes that the statements of many of his authorities are based upon experience, he seems to feel that he and his associates have founded an important modern school for the investigation of nature at first hand. We may choose to regard it as a mere school of observation, but he dignifies its members by the title of _experimentatores_. Again therefore we may admit that Pouchet was not unjustified in associating Albert with the modern experimental school.

III. _His Allusions to Magic_

At the close of his story of the toad and the emerald Albert adds that there are many other such virtues of stones and plants which are learned by experience, and that magicians investigate the same and work wonders by them. It is therefore quite appropriate for us to turn directly from his attitude to experimental method to his conception of magic. Like William of Auvergne he hints at an association between the two. His pupil and contemporary, Ulrich Engelbert of Strasburg, actually called him “expert in magic.”[1798]

[Sidenote: Peter of Prussia on Albert’s occult science.]

In his _Life of Albert_ Peter of Prussia not only is evidently concerned to make him out a saint as well as a scientist, telling of his devotion to the Eucharist[1799] and the Virgin Mary and the wood of the Holy Cross[1800] and of the miraculous visions which he had from childhood, in which the Virgin and the Apostle Paul appeared to him,[1801] and how he advanced more in knowledge by prayer than by study and labor,[1802] and that he read the Psalter through daily.[1803] He also devotes a number of chapters[1804] to a defense of Albert against the charge of having indulged in occult sciences, and of having been “too curious concerning natural phenomena.”[1805] Peter explains that many superstitions were rife in Albert’s time and that nigromancers were fascinating the people by their false miracles, and pretending that their sorcery was worked by the sciences of astronomy, mathematics, and alchemy.[1806] It was therefore essential that some man who was equally learned and devout should thoroughly examine these sciences, proving what was good in them and rejecting what was bad.[1807] Peter is inclined to be disingenuous in stating Albert’s attitude toward some of the occult sciences, especially the engraving of stones with images according to the aspects of the stars, which he misrepresents Albert as prohibiting, whereas Albert really calls it a good doctrine, as we shall show later. Peter however states “how useful it is to know natural and occult phenomena in the nature of things, and that those who write about such things are to be praised for it.”[1808] Also “that it is useful and necessary to know the facts of nature even if they are indecent.”[1809] Later on, towards the close of his book, Peter denies various feats of magic that by his time had come to be popularly recounted of Albert, and then does his best to make up for the subtracted marvels by himself inventing many pious miracles in which he would have us believe Albert was concerned.[1810]

[Sidenote: Trithemius on Albert’s study of magic.]

The learned Trithemius (1462-1516), abbot of Sponheim, in a letter to John Westenburgh in which he defends himself against the charge of magic, admits that he “cannot say that he is entirely ignorant of natural magic,” a form of wisdom which he regards very highly; and adduces in his justification the example of “Albertus Magnus, that most learned man and among the saints truly most saintly, of the profoundest intellect, worthy of eternal memory, who scrutinized the depths of natural philosophy, and learned to know marvels unheard of by others.”[1811] Even to this day, continues Trithemius, he is unjustly regarded by the unlearned as a magician and devotee of superstition. For he was not ignorant of the magic of nature, and he had innocently read and mastered a great number of superstitious books by depraved men. For not the knowledge but the practice of evil is evil. Trithemius admits that he himself has read many books of superstitious and even diabolical magic, but contends that this is necessary, if one is to learn to distinguish natural from illicit magic.

[Sidenote: _Magnus in magia._]

The brief but sane estimate of Albertus Magnus published eighty years ago in the _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, from which we have already had occasion to quote regarding his importance in the history of natural science, mentions the efforts of Trithemius and Naudé to defend him from the charge of magic, but adds that even his panegyrists have called him “great in magic, greater in philosophy, greatest in theology,” and agrees that he frequently shows a leaning towards the occult sciences. “He is an alchemist, he is an astrologer, he believes in enchantments; he delights like most savants of his age in explaining all phenomena that surprise him by supernatural causes.” This rough characterization contains much truth, although it is hardly true that Albert gave supernatural explanations for strange natural phenomena. Rather he believed in occult forces and marvels in nature which we no longer credit. We also have already stated it as our opinion that he was really much greater as a natural scientist than as a theologian. But we have now to examine what grounds there are for calling him _magnus in magia_, and _in magicis expertus_.

[Sidenote: His varying treatment of magic.]

Magic is often mentioned by Albert, both in his Biblical and Aristotelian commentaries, both in his theological writings and his works on natural science. Some references to magic arts, occurring chiefly in the Biblical commentaries, are too brief, incidental, and perfunctory to afford any particular information.[1812] The other passages seem scarcely consistent with one another and will require separate treatment. We shall first consider those in which Albert more or less adheres to the traditional Christian attitude of condemnation of magic as criminal and dealing with demons, of recognition of its marvels but jealous differentiation of them from divine miracle. It should be observed that all such passages occur in his theological writings and that in them he does little more than rehearse opinions which we have already encountered in the writings of the early Christian fathers with a few additional citations from books of necromancy or from Arabic works on natural science such as those of Algazel and Avicenna.

[Sidenote: Reality of magic.]

Albert has no doubt either in his scientific or religious writings that marvels can be worked by magic. It is true that one of its departments, _praestigia_, has to do with illusions and juggleries in which things are made to appear to exist which have no reality. But it also performs actual transformations.[1813] But even the actual performances of magic are deceptive in that demons by their means lead human souls astray, which is far worse than merely to deceive the eye.[1814]

[Sidenote: Magic due to demons.]

Albert affirms in his theological _Summa_ that it is the consensus of opinion that magic is due to demons. “For the saints expressly say so, and it is the common opinion of all persons, and it is taught in that part of necromancy which deals with images and rings and mirrors of Venus and seals of demons by Achot Graecus and Grema of Babylon and Hermes of Egypt, and invocations for this purpose are described in the book of Hermogenes and Philetus, the necromancers, and in the book called the Almandel of Solomon.”[1815] In his _Commentary on the Sentences_[1816] Albert declares that to make use of “magic virtues” is evil and apostasy from the Faith, whether one openly resorts to “invocations, conjurations, sacrifices, suffumigations, and adorations,” or to some simple operation which none the less requires demon aid for its performance. One must beware even of “mathematical virtues,” that is, of astrological forces, especially in “images, rings, mirrors, and characters,” lest the practice of idolatry be introduced. In commenting upon the passage in the gospel where the Pharisees accuse Christ of casting out demons through the prince of demons, Albert admits that necromancers are able to cast out demons and to restrain them from doing external damage, but holds that they cannot like Christ restrain the evil spirits from inciting inward sin.[1817]

[Sidenote: Magic and miracle.]

Albert will not admit, however, that the marvels of magic compare with divine miracles. For one thing, feats of magic do not even happen as instantaneously as miracles, although they occur much more rapidly than the ordinary processes of nature. But except for this difference in speed the works of magic can usually be explained as the product of natural forces, and by the fact that the demons are aided in their operations by the influence of the stars. To change rods into snakes, for instance, as Pharaoh’s magicians did, is simply hastening the process by which worms generate in decaying trees. Indeed, Albert is inclined to believe that the demons “produce no permanent substantial form that would not easily be produced by putrefaction.”[1818] The magic power of fascination is after all only analogous to the virtue of the sapphire in curing ulcers or of the emerald in restraining sexual passion. Albert adds the comforting thought that neither fascination nor the magic art can harm anyone who has firm faith in God, but for us the most important thing to note is that even in his theological writings he has associated magic with natural forces and the stars as well as with demons. In this he resembles William of Auvergne rather than the early Christian fathers.

[Sidenote: Good magic of the Magi.]

Like some other Christian commentators, Albert exempts the Magi of the gospel story, who followed the star to Bethlehem, from the category of magicians in the evil sense that we have just heard him define magic. In his commentary upon the gospel by Matthew he asserts that “the Magi are not sorcerers (_malefici_) as some wrongly think.” He also affirms that there is a difference between a Magus and a _mathematicus_ or an enchanter or necromancer or _ariolus_ or _aruspex_ or diviner. Like Isidore Albert adopts the incorrect etymology of connecting Magus and _magnus_. But for him the Magi are not so called on account of the magnitude of their sins. “Etymologically the Magi are great men” whose knowledge of, or conjecture from, the inevitable processes of cause and effect in nature often enables them to predict or produce marvels of nature. In his commentary on the Book of Daniel Albert quotes Jerome’s similar description of them as “masters who philosophize about the universe; moreover, the Magi are more particularly called astronomers who search the future in the stars.” It is interesting to note that this view of the Magi still persists among Roman Catholics; the recent Catholic Encyclopedia still insists concerning the wise men who came to Bethlehem, “Neither were they magicians: the good meaning of μάγοι, though found nowhere else in the Bible, is demanded by the context of the second chapter of Matthew.” But here is a still more interesting point to note: Albertus Magnus does not deny that the Magi were magicians. To contend that Magi were not _magi_ was a contradiction of terms that was probably too much for his common sense. All that he tries to do is to exculpate them from the practice of those particular evil, superstitious, and diabolical occult arts which Isidore and others had included in their definitions of magic. From evil witchcraft and necromancy and fatalistic astrology, from augury and liver divination, from the arts of _sortilegi_ and _pythones_, of enchanters “who by means of certain incantations perform certain feats with beasts or herbs or stones or images,” or of diviners who employ geomancy or “the chance of fire” or hydromancy or aerimancy: from all such practices he acquits them. “They were not devoted to any of these arts, but only to magic as it has been described. And this is praiseworthy.”[1819] Thus Albert not merely defends the Magi, he praises magic; and we begin to see the fitness of the epithet, _Magnus in magia_, as applied to him.

[Sidenote: Natural magic.]

But how does this praiseworthy magic differ from the magic which he condemned in his _Summa_ and commentary on the Sentences? Presumably in that its objects are good not evil, and that it does not make any use of demons. It would seem to resemble closely the natural magic of William of Auvergne. It is like evil magic in that both employ the forces of nature and the influences of the stars, but it is unlike it in that it employs them exclusively and is free from any resort to demons and also apparently from the use of incantations or the superstitious devices of geomancers and other diviners.

[Sidenote: Attitude in the scientific treatises.]

If in his theological writings Albert thus distinguishes two varieties of magic, one good and one evil, one demoniacal and one natural, we need not be surprised if in his scientific treatises, where he is influenced mainly by Arabian astrology, the pseudo-Aristotelian treatises, the Hermetic literature, and other such writings rather than by patristic literature, he introduces yet a third conception of magic, which scarcely agrees with either of the others and yet has features in common with both. He nowhere in his commentaries on Aristotle or other works of natural science really stops and discusses magic at any length. But there are a number of brief and incidental allusions to it which imply that it is a distinct and definite branch of knowledge of which, although he himself does not treat, he gives no sign of disapproval. He also cites even enchanters and necromancers without offering any apology, and now seems to regard as sub-divisions of magic those occult arts from which we have just heard him exculpate the Magi.

[Sidenote: Use of animals and herbs in magic.]

In his treatise on animals Albert states that anointing a sleeper’s temples with the blood of a hoopoe makes him see terrible dreams, and that enchanters value highly the brain, tongue, and heart of this bird. He adds, “But we shall not discuss this matter here, for the investigation of it belongs to another science,”--presumably to magic.[1820] In his treatise on plants he says that certain herbs seem to have “divine effects”[1821] which those who study magic follow up further. Examples are the betony, said to confer the power of divination, the verbena, used as a love charm, and the herb _meropis_, supposed to open closed seas, and many other such plants listed in the books of incantations of Hermes the philosopher and of Costa ben Luca the philosopher and in the books of physical ligatures. “Enchanter” (_Incantator_), apparently the author or title of a book, is cited more than once for the virtues of herbs, and what enchanters in general say is also mentioned.[1822] “According to the testimony of the _praestigia_ of the magi” the juice of a certain herb drunk in water makes a person do or say whatever the magician says or does.[1823] Students of magic believe that the seed of another herb extinguishes lust.[1824] Necromancers avow that betony indicates the future when plucked with an adjuration of Aesculapius,[1825] and students of necromancy say that a man invoking demons should have a character painted on him with the herb Jusquiam,[1826] and that gods invoked by characters and seals and sacrifices present themselves more readily if frankincense is offered them.[1827] Such passages seem to indicate that Albert regarded occult virtues as largely the concern of magic, but that at least in necromancy the invocation of gods and demons also enters.

[Sidenote: Magic stones.]

Many allusions to magic occur in Albert’s treatise on minerals, as the especially marvelous powers attributed to gems in antiquity might well lead us to expect. The magi, he tells us, make much use of the stone _diacodos_, which is said to excite phantasms but loses its virtue if it touches a corpse.[1828] But such things do not come within Albert’s present scope; he refers the reader for further information to the books of magic of Hermes, Ptolemy, and Thebith ben Chorath. The stone magnet is also stated in the magic books to have a marvelous power of producing phantasms, especially if consecrated with an adjuration and a character.

[Sidenote: Magic images engraved on gems.]

Albert twice assures us that the “prodigious and marvelous” powers of stones, and more particularly of images and seals engraved on stones, cannot be really understood without a knowledge of the three other sciences of magic, necromancy, and astrology.[1829] He therefore will not in this treatise on minerals discuss the subject as fully as he might, “since those powers cannot be proved by physical laws (_principiis physicis_), but require a knowledge of astronomy and magic and the necromantic sciences, which should be considered in other treatises.”[1830] For the reason why gems were first so engraved he refers his readers to “the science of the _magi_ which Magor Graecus and Germa of Babylon and Hermes the Egyptian were among the first to perfect, and in which later wise Ptolemy was a marvelous light and Geber of Spain; Tebith, too, handed down a full treatment of the art.”[1831] And in this science it is a fundamental principle that all things produced by nature or art are influenced by celestial virtues. Thus we comprehend the close connection of astrology and magic. As for necromancy, the third “science” involved, Albert’s associates are curious to know the doctrine of images even if it is necromancy, and Albert does not hesitate to assure them that it is a good doctrine in any case. Yet in his theological writings he not only condemned necromancy, but declared the art of images to be evil “because it inclines to idolatry by imputing divinity to the stars, and ... is employed for idle or evil ends.”[1832]

[Sidenote: Magic and alchemy; finding hidden metals.]

Albert again refers to magic in his discussion of alchemy in the treatise on minerals, where he not only cites Hermes a great deal but refers to writings by Avicenna on magic and alchemy.[1833] Albert holds that it is not the business of a physical or natural scientist (_physicus_) to determine concerning the transmutation of metals; that is the affair of the art of alchemy, which thus seems to lie outside the field of natural science upon the borders of magic. Similarly the problem in what places and mountains and by what signs metals are discovered falls partly within the sphere of natural science and partly belongs to that magical science which has to do with finding hidden treasure. Albert perhaps has the employment of the divining rod in mind.

[Sidenote: Fascination and magic.]

The occult virtue of the human mind is another matter which Albert seems inclined to place within the field of magic. In the treatise on minerals[1834] he remarks that whether fascination is true or not is a question for magic to settle, and in his _On Sleep and Waking_[1835] he cites Avicenna and Algazel as adducing “fascination and magic virtues” as examples of occult influence exerted by one man over another. It will be remembered that he cited the same authors anent fascination in his Commentary on the Sentences,[1836] but there denied that fascination or magic could harm anyone who had firm faith in God, although he illustrated the possibility of potent human occult virtue exercised at will by the marvelous virtues exerted constantly by the sapphire and emerald. Peter of Prussia gives us to understand that Albert’s belief was that fascination did not operate naturally but by the aid of demons; nevertheless certain men are generated at rare intervals who work marvels like the twins in Germany in Albert’s time at whose approach bolts would open.[1837]

[Sidenote: Interpretation of dreams and magic.]

Albert also regards the interpretation of dreams as especially the affair of magic. In one passage of _On Sleep and Waking_[1838] he grants that probably the art of interpreting dreams cannot be acquired without a knowledge of magic and “astronomy.” In a second passage[1839] he speaks of the magicians as teaching the interpretation of dreams and the “astronomers” as talking of signs of prophecies, but not the sort of prophecy accepted among theologians. In a third passage[1840] he defines the kind of dreams “which wise men interpret and for which was invented the art of interpretation in the magical sciences.” Albert seems to have no particular objection, either moral or religious, to the interpretation of dreams, even if it is a branch of magic. Rather he censures Aristotle and other philosophers for not having investigated this side of the subject further, and he thinks that by physical science alone one can at least determine what sort of dreams are of value for purposes of divination and are susceptible to interpretation.[1841] Magicians make great use not only of dreams but also of visions seen when one is awake but with the senses distracted.[1842] The magicians indeed specialize in potions which clog and stupefy the senses, and thereby produce apparitions by means of which they predict the future.

[Sidenote: Magic and divination.]

In this same treatise _On Sleep and Waking_ Albert lists together “the astronomer and augur and magician and interpreter of dreams and visions and every such diviner.”[1843] He admits that almost all men of this type delight in deception and are poorly educated and confuse what is contingent with what is necessary, but he insists that “the defect is not in the science but in those who abuse it.” Thus magic and divination in general are closely associated.

[Sidenote: Summary of Albert’s accounts of magic.]

This last passage, like the connecting of enchanters and necromancers with magic which we have noted in a previous paragraph, is hard to reconcile with the passage in his commentary upon the Gospel of Matthew where Albert separated the Magi and magic from diviners, enchanters, necromancers, and their arts. So far as mere classification is concerned, Albert’s references to magic in his scientific writings are in closer accord with his discussion of magic in the _Summa_ and Sentences, where too he associated magic with the stars, with occult virtues, with fascination, and with images. But the emphasis which he there laid upon the evil character of magic and its connection with demons is now almost entirely lacking. Our attention is rather being continually called to how closely magic, or at least some parts of it, border upon natural science and astronomy. And yet we are also always being reminded that magic, although itself a “science,” is essentially different in methods and results from natural science or at least from what Albert calls “physical science.” Overlapping both these fields, apparently, and yet rather distinct from both in Albert’s thought, is the great subject of “astronomy” which includes both the genuine natural science and the various vagaries of astrology. It is all like some map of a feudal area where certain fiefs owe varying degrees of fealty to, or are claimed by, several lords and where the frontiers are loose, fluctuating, and uncertain. Perhaps the rule of the stars can be made to account for almost everything in natural science or in magic, but Albert seems inclined to leave room for the independent action of divine power, the demons, and the human mind and will. But his attitude to the stars and to astrology will be considered more fully later; we shall first examine in more detail his own attitude towards marvelous virtues in inferior nature and towards some of the other matters which he has located expressly or by implication along the ill-defined frontier of “magic and astronomy.” In concluding the present section let us make the one further observation that while Albert describes magic differently and even inconsistently in different passages, it is evident enough that he is trying to describe the same thing all the time.

IV. _Marvelous Virtues in Nature_

[Sidenote: Properties of the lion.]

So many instances have already been given from other authors of the occult virtues ascribed to parts of animals that we shall note in Albert’s treatise on animals only two or three passages, chiefly for purposes of comparison. The properties which he ascribes to the carcass of the lion,[1844] for instance, bear a certain resemblance to Pliny’s paragraph on its medicinal virtues and to Thomas of Cantimpré’s compilation concerning it, yet are considerably different. Its fat is hotter than that of other animals, and they flee from anyone who is anointed with it, while fumigation therewith keeps wolves away from sheep. A diet of lion’s flesh benefits paralytics. Garments wrapped in its skin are secure from moths, and the hair falls out of a wolf’s skin which is left near a lion’s skin. If the tooth of a lion which is called _caninus_ is suspended about a boy’s neck before he loses his first teeth, he will be free from toothache when his second teeth come. Lion’s fat mixed with other unguents removes blotches, and rubbing cancer with its blood cures that disease. Drinking a little of its gall cures jaundice; its liver in wine checks pain in the liver. Its brain, if eaten, causes madness; but remedies deafness, if inserted in the ear with some strong oil. Its testicle, administered pulverized with roses, causes sterility--a case, it would seem, of sympathetic magic operating by contraries. But no doctrine of sympathy and antipathy is needed to explain the further assertion that its excrement drunk with wine makes one abhor wine.

[Sidenote: Nasty recipes: illusory lights.]

The last two items are very characteristic of Albert’s section on quadrupeds, where the medicinal and other properties of such parts as _stercus_, _virga_, and _testiculus_ are incessantly mentioned, and are sometimes used in charms, as in the following: “Si virga lupi in alicuius nomine viri vel mulieris ligetur, non poterit coire donec nodus ille solutus fuerit.”[1845] The saliva of a fasting human being cures abscesses and removes scars and blotches.[1846] It kills serpent or scorpion, if it falls into its mouth or wound so as to reach its inner parts. If the tip of an arrow or sword has touched the lips of a fasting man, it inflicts a poisonous wound, say those who have tested it. Others say that if the wax and dirt from dogs’ ears are smeared on wicks of new cotton, and these are placed in a crucible in green oil and lighted, the heads of persons present will appear entirely bald.[1847] This sort of half-magical, half-chemical experiment with various combustible or illuminating compositions, which are supposed to produce optical or other illusions, is not infrequently met with in medieval manuscripts, especially alchemical ones, and we shall in a later chapter encounter further specimens thereof in works ascribed to Albert himself.

[Sidenote: Dragons.]

Albert is rather unusually sceptical concerning dragons, which are generally the theme of so many marvelous stories. That a dragon is large enough to crush an elephant with a twist of its tail, that the Ethiopians eat the flesh of dragons to cool themselves, that dragons are afraid of thunder and therefore enchanters imitate it with drums in order to capture dragons and ride on them through space,[1848]--all such assertions Albert treats as rumors rather than tested facts. He also suggests that meteors or flaming vapors have been mistaken for dragons flying through the air and breathing forth fire. We have already, however, heard his tale of a serpent with a human face.

[Sidenote: The basilisk.]

Albert still believes, moreover, that the mere glance and hiss of the basilisk are fatal. But while the reptile’s glance will kill as far as its vision extends, its hiss is not fatal as far as it can be heard but only as far as it is propagated by the basilisk’s breath.[1849] Albert rejects as neither true nor reasonable Pliny’s assertion that if a man sees a basilisk first, his glance is fatal to it. “Nor do Avicenna and Semerion, philosophers who tell what they have experienced, mention this.” But Albert repeats Pliny’s story of the horseman who was killed by touching with the end of his long lance a corpse slain by a basilisk. He rejects, however, as false and impossible the notion that the basilisk is generated from a cock’s egg, and the books of wise philosophers do not support the assertion that there is a flying variety of basilisk. But scattering the ashes of a basilisk expels spiders and other venomous creatures, and hence in antiquity its ashes were scattered in temples. Hermes says that silver rubbed with its ash takes on the splendor and weight and solidity of gold; Hermes also teaches that the basilisk is generated in glass, but Albert interprets this as an allusion to some alchemical elixir by which metals are transmuted.

[Sidenote: Remedies for falcons and mad dogs.]

Very amusing are the detailed recipes for every ailment of the birds in the chapters on the infirmities of falcons.[1850] These appear to be culled chiefly from the works on falconry of the Emperor Frederick and of King William, one of the Norman line which preceded him in the kingdom of Sicily. To make the birds fierce one is advised to feed them flesh soaked in urine. If a falcon develops a cataract, one should inject into its eye a mixture of pulverized fennel seed and the milk of a woman bearing a male child. Several prayers and incantations are recommended for use when taking up the falcon in the morning, when releasing it in fowling, and in order to preserve it from injury from eagles. In the last case the words to be repeated are, “Leo conquers of the tribe of Judah, root of David, Alleluia.” Albert adds, however, “But these last items,” meaning probably the incantations, “are not so reasonable as the first,” meaning probably the more purely medicinal directions. Equally diverting is a cure of a mad dog borrowed by Albert from a king of Valencia. For nine days the hound should be so immersed in hot water that his hind legs barely touch the ground while his fore legs are held erect. After that his head should be shaved and his hair well plucked out so that the skin is wounded. Then he should be anointed with beet juice and ducked often and soaked in the same juice. “And if he eats anything, give him some pith of the elder tree, for it will do him good. And if this treatment fails to benefit him within the space of seven days, kill him, for he is incurable.”[1851]

[Sidenote: Habits and remedies of animals.]

Albert’s treatise on animals not only ascribes marvelous properties and medicinal virtues to various portions of their carcasses, but also continues to some extent the tradition of crediting them with semi-human intelligence and medical knowledge. Albert discredits, however, the report of the adultery of the lioness with the leopard and her craftiness in concealing it, and he also rejects as contrary to the wise provision of nature the statement that the lion suffers continually from quartan fever.[1852] But he believes that a sick lion cures itself by eating an ape or drinking the blood of a dog. Even the tortoise (_tortuca_?), although it seems to Albert a sort of reptile and lacking in “noble virtues of the soul,” yet from mere natural sagacity eats wild origanum after it has eaten the viper in order to overcome the chill of the venom by the heat of the herb.[1853] And someone in Aristotle’s time learned by experience that it will not eat a viper except in a place where this herb is available, and that if the herb is removed while it is eating the viper it will die from want of it. Avicenna tells a similar experience of an old man who was an experienced hunter and deserving credence. He saw a bird of slow movement and weak flight fighting with a viper. As often as it was wounded, it would retreat, eat some of a certain herb, and then return renewed to the fight. The observer covertly removed the herb and when the bird returned again and failed to find it, it raised a great outcry and died. From the old hunter’s description of the plant’s shape and color Avicenna judged it to be wild lettuce (_lectuca agrestis_).

[Sidenote: The virtues of herbs.]

Thus the remedies employed by animals bring us to the virtues of herbs. The “divine effects” of certain plants, as we have seen, Albert regards as lying within the province of magic rather than that of his treatise on plants, but he mentions a few, such as that planting a certain herb on the roof protects the house from lightning,[1854] and that carrying another stirs up quarrels and hatreds,[1855] while a woman who wears a third about her neck will not become pregnant.[1856] But he believes that there is strong virtue in herbs in general. Their elemental qualities are unusually acute and closely akin to the excellencies of the pure elements. They grow close to the ground and “recede less from the first fertilizing humor in the earth.”[1857] In them matter predominates more and the form of the vegetable soul is less developed than in other kinds of vegetation. Consequently they are more efficacious in altering other bodies and are used by physicians more than any other class of remedies.

[Sidenote: Their medicinal use.]

Most, indeed, of the virtues of herbs mentioned by Albert are medicinal. Sometimes the method of applying them is injudicious, as when a root of parsley is hung from the neck to cure toothache, or artemisia is bound to the legs to prevent wayfarers from feeling weariness.[1858] More often, however, our criticism is that the same disease is represented as curable by too many different plants, or that a single herb is made a cure for a long list of very miscellaneous and unrelated ills, not content with which Albert often concludes, “And it has many other effects.” Selecting an example at random, we may note what he says of the nasturtium.[1859] “It possesses acidity, is hot and dry, acts as a gentle purgative and laxative, and dries up the putridity of an empty belly. Used as a potion and liniment, it keeps the hair from falling out. Combined with salt and water, it helps abscesses and carbuncles, and mixed with honey, it eradicates Persian Fire and is good for all softening of the muscles. It purifies the lungs and relieves asthma by its sharp, cutting qualities. It warms the stomach and liver and cures enlarged spleen, but its disturbing quality is bad for the stomach. _Auget coitum et multiplicat menstrua et eiicit foetum, sed tamen si non teratur et confringatur, retinet ipsum._ It is good for venomous bites, and if carefully prepared, works many other effects.”

[Sidenote: Occult virtue of herbs due to the stars.]

According to Albert the properties of plants are produced by the combination of five virtues: that of the element which preponderates in the composition of the plant, the cooperating virtue of the other elements which are mixed with it, the virtue of the proportion in which they are mixed, the influence of the stars, and the virtue of the vegetable soul. “The virtue of the place (where the plant grows) and the virtue of the surrounding air are also effective, but they do not enter into the plant’s nature so essentially as the aforesaid five virtues.”[1860] “Its specific form,” upon which its occult virtues largely depend, is given to the plant by the motion of the heavens, especially by the movement of the planets through the circle of the zodiac,[1861] and their position in relation to the fixed stars. Plants receive this influence at the time of their formation, when vapors, potentially seminal and formative, ascend from the depths of earth and meet the dewy air as it descends.

[Sidenote: Occult virtue of stones.]

It is unnecessary to repeat the marvelous powers attributed to

## particular gems and stones by Albert in his treatise on minerals,

since they are either copied from or similar to those of Marbod, Costa ben Luca, and Constantinus Africanus. What, however, he has to say on the general subject of their occult virtue is worth noting. He states that many doubt if stones really have such powers as to cure ulcers, counteract poisons, conciliate human hearts, and win victories. Such sceptics contend that a compound substance like a gem can exert only such powers as one can account for from the elements which enter into its composition and the composition itself. Albert grants that the wonders worked by means of stones seem “more prodigious and marvelous” than those produced by simple substances, that the physical constitution of stones does not seem to justify the existence of such powers in them, and that “the cause of the virtue of stones is indeed occult.” But he maintains that such occult virtues are well established by experience, “since we see the magnet attract iron and the adamant restrict that virtue in the magnet.”[1862] Albert has seen with his own eyes a sapphire which removed ulcers.

[Sidenote: Due to the stars.]

Albert finds that students of nature (_physiologi_)--it will be noted 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