chapter nine

tells how to glaze clay vessels.

[Sidenote: Differences between transmuted and natural metals.]

In the tenth chapter, besides discussing what are the four “spirits” of metals which dye or color, the author states his opinion as to the extent to which metals can be transmuted. He believes that metals can be produced by alchemy which are the equal of natural metals in almost all their qualities and effects, except that the iron of alchemy is not attracted by the stone adamant, and that the gold of alchemy does not stimulate the human heart or cure leprosy, while a wound inflicted by it swells up as one made by natural gold would not do. “But in every other operation, hammering, testing, and color, it will endure forever.” In the two following chapters the author discusses what the Elixir is and the kinds of medicines.

[Sidenote: Substances and processes of alchemy.]

A number of chapters are next devoted to description of various minerals, chemicals, dyes, and coloring matter, such as mercury, sulphur, orpiment, arsenic, salts of ammonia, common salt, various other salts, azure, minium, ceruse, and so on. We are then instructed in various processes such as whitening quicksilver or sulphur or orpiment or arsenic, the making of powders, solutions, and distillations, leading up finally in the last two chapters to two brief recipes for the making of the precious metals. The general plan of this treatise is one to which many others conform; it is noteworthy further for the absence of mysticism and magic procedure.

[Sidenote: Ligatures and suspensions.]

We have already noted in Albert’s works some instances of marvels worked by herbs bound to the body or suspended from the neck. In his treatise on plants he cited books concerning physical ligatures[1886] for the divine effects of plants with which magic is especially concerned. But in his treatise on minerals, after stating that the marvels worked by images engraved on gems cannot be explained by the laws of physical science but require a knowledge of “astronomy” and magic and necromancy,[1887] he adds that ligatures and suspensions of stones seem to operate naturally and belong more to physical science.[1888] He cites, however, Socrates, probably through the medium of Costa ben Luca, to the effect that ligatures and suspensions are one of four kinds of incantations, and that they affect the mind, depressing or elating it and so affecting the health of the body. This half-sceptical attitude seems to influence Albert little, for he states that for the present he intends to treat only of ligatures and suspensions of stones, of which he proceeds to list examples for a page and a half drawn largely from Costa ben Luca’s treatise. In his work on animals Albert again quotes Costa ben Luca to the effect that dogs will not bite the wearer of a dog’s heart.[1889] Others say that they will not bark at one who holds in his hand the tooth of a black dog, “and so robbers carry such a tooth with them at night.” Albert further finds in the book of sixty animals--probably the work ascribed to Rasis--that dog’s teeth should be suspended from the neck of a patient suffering from jaundice.

[Sidenote: Incantations.]

Albert does not expressly discuss the power of words or incantations. It is rarely that he repeats any incantations, and it will be remembered that those which he quoted from books on falcons were accompanied with a word of caution. His belief in the power of characters or images engraved on gems may be best discussed in connection with his attitude towards astrology.

[Sidenote: Fascination.]

The power of fascination possessed by one human being over another is touched upon by Albert in three different treatises.[1890] We have already heard him identify it with magic. He cites certain Pythagoreans as affirming that the soul of a man or other animal can act upon another, fascinating it and impeding its working. He quotes Hermes as telling Esclepius that man is so endowed with divine intellect and raised above the world, that its matter follows his thought, and so the sage can work transformations and miracles in nature or fascinate another person through sight or some other sense. Avicenna and Algazel “say that souls can in so far conform to the celestial intelligence that it will alter material bodies at their pleasure, and then such a man will work wonders.” It is not clear, however, to what extent Albert agrees with the authorities he has cited; he remarks that the power of the soul in fascination can scarcely be proved by philosophy, but he perhaps simply means that it can be proved by magic.

[Sidenote: Physiognomy.]

In a passage of his treatise on animals[1891] Albert describes physiognomy as a science which divines a man’s character from the physical form of the various parts of his body. He explains, however, that the configuration of one’s physical features does not absolutely force one to a corresponding course of action. Thus he upholds human free will against a mechanistic view of man, or rather he shows that the physiognomists themselves do. He cites Aristotle, to whom we have seen that a treatise on physiognomy was ascribed, for the following story: The disciples of Hippocrates made a perfect image of him and submitted it to an excellent physiognomist, who declared it the likeness of a man given to luxury, deceit, and lusts of the body. The disciples were angered at this slur upon the character of their master, who they knew lived a sober and upright life; but Hippocrates himself told them that the physiognomist had judged aright as to his natural traits, and that it was only by love of philosophy and integrity and a life of study and effort that he had triumphed over nature. A treatise on chiromancy is ascribed to Albert in more than one manuscript.[1892]

[Sidenote: Aristotle on divination from dreams.]

In the third book of his _De somno et vigilia_[1893] Albert complains that Aristotle’s treatment of divination from dreams is unsatisfactory; being “brief, deficient in proof, naïve, unphilosophical, imperfect,” and having “many doubtful points because it leaves the causes of such dreams uncertain.” Aristotle’s attitude was in fact a vacillating one, since he found it “not easy either to despise or to believe” in that kind of divination. Yet Roger Bacon tells us that one reason why the study of the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy was forbidden at Paris before 1237 was this third book of his _De somno et vigilia_ dealing with divination from dreams.[1894] But perhaps this was because of commentaries of Averroes which accompanied it or errors in translation of which Bacon speaks.

[Sidenote: Albert on divination from dreams.]

Little as Aristotle said, he came nearer the truth in Albert’s opinion than any other extant philosophers, among whom there is great diversity of view. However, that dreams are prophetic “is no idle report but the testimony of experience,”[1895] and Albert thinks that there is scarcely anyone who has not been warned in his dreams of many future events. “Socrates put great faith in divination from dreams.”[1896] Interpretation of dreams is necessary, for dreams cannot be exact images of future events, since these are as yet non-existent.[1897] Predictions from dreams, even if correctly made, do not invariably come true, just as medical prognostications and the predictions of augurs--of whom we are surprised to hear Albert speak approvingly--sometimes fail owing to the arising of some conflicting cause.[1898] The dreamer must be free from care and passion. Albert agrees with Aristotle that dreams requiring interpretation do not come from God but have a natural cause; while the future cannot be foretold from dreams which have an accidental cause.[1899] More specifically he finds the cause of dreams not, like Socrates and Plato, in demons and corporeal and incorporeal gods,[1900] nor, like Democritus, in atoms streaming from the stars through the pores of the dreamer into his inmost soul, but in the motion of the stars acting upon the body of man, who is in a sense a microcosm or image of the universe (_imago mundi_).[1901] The interpreter of dreams must be quick to see associations and similarities from the realm of nature and of art, he must understand astronomy and astrology, and the state of health and mind of the dreamer.[1902] Albert again discusses divination from dreams in much the same way in the second part of his _Summa de creaturis_ and in his _De apprehensione_.[1903]

[Sidenote: Augury.]

In the _De somno et vigilia_ he mentions one further variety of vision “when the celestial influence is so strong that it affects even while awake one whose attention is not occupied by the distractions of sense.” Such visions move the bodies of animals even when they are awake, “and then their movements have some future signification, which augurs endeavor to note and interpret. On so much ground of reason is divination by augury based.”[1904]

V. _Attitude Toward Astrology_

[Sidenote: His emphasis upon the influence of the stars.]

We come finally to that influence of the heavens and stars which makes the art of augury and divination from dreams possible, which serves to explain the occult virtue of herbs and stones, and to that “astronomy,” or astrology as we should say, which is so closely associated with the science of the magi and with necromancy. Albert’s astrological view’s crop out in almost all his scientific treatises rather than merely in those dealing with astronomical subjects, such as the _Meteorology_, the _De coelo et mundo_, and the _De causis et procreatione universi_. Especially astrological in character is the treatise _On the Causes and Properties of the Elements and Planets_.[1905]

[Sidenote: Problem of the authorship of the _Speculum astronomiae_.]

Another treatise very important in the history of astrology is the _Speculum astronomiae_, hitherto usually placed among Albert’s works[1906] but recently declared by Father Mandonnet[1907] to be the work of Roger Bacon. Although Mandonnet adduced no evidence of manuscripts in favor of the Baconian authorship, other students of Roger Bacon[1908] have since unquestioningly accepted this attribution of the _Speculum_ to him, but I shall show that there is no good reason for it. This may best be done, however, by delaying our consideration of the _Speculum astronomiae_ itself until after we have taken up Roger Bacon and his views. But in our present discussion of Albert’s other writings we may break the backbone of Mandonnet’s argument, which is his extraordinary contention that Albert did not believe in astrology and that Roger Bacon was “the only ecclesiastical author in the second half of the thirteenth century who has undertaken the defense of judicial astrology and of the other occult sciences which depend more or less directly upon it.”[1909] Mandonnet criticized Charles for saying of Roger Bacon’s astrological views, “These doctrines, which seem contemptible to us, were widespread in the thirteenth century; Albert was not free from them; St. Thomas merely expressed some reservations but did not deny the science.” Mandonnet declares that Charles “has given no evidence for his conclusion and could not do so,”[1910] but our detailed presentation of the opinions of the men named and of others will show that Charles was quite right and that Mandonnet is all wrong.

[Sidenote: Mandonnet fails to prove Albert hostile to astrology.]

Mandonnet, in fact, gives no sign of having ever candidly examined the works of Albert to see what his attitude towards astrology really was, so that it seems arrant presumption on his part to question Charles’ statement. And he himself gives no justification for having questioned it. He cites only one passage directly from Albert’s works, and it is merely a repetition of the argument of the saints that the star at Christ’s birth was a miraculous apparition in the upper air rather than the sky.[1911] Then he quotes three passages from the fifteenth century biography of Peter of Prussia as if they were Albert’s own statements. If they are, why does not Mandonnet state where they are to be found in Albert’s works? Also why does he not state that these passages occur in chapters where Peter is making an effort, none too successful or disingenuous, to defend Albert from the charge of having devoted too much attention to nigromancy and such arts rather than to mere astrology? Mandonnet does note that Peter believed Albert to be the author of the _Speculum astronomiae_, but he does not note that Peter in these very chapters which he cites relies chiefly on the _Speculum astronomiae_ to clear Albert from the charge of dabbling in nigromancy. In brief, Peter proves from the _Speculum_ that Albert did not favor nigromancy; then Mandonnet proves from Peter that Albert did not believe in astrology and so could not have written the _Speculum_! In succeeding chapters[1912] Peter goes on to try to make out from the _Speculum_ that Albert opposed astrological images and interrogations and that he was more outspoken against them than Aquinas. But this Mandonnet says nothing of, and it would not fit his argument.

The passages from Peter which Mandonnet does select as suited to his purpose are as follows:

“The pursuits of magicians and necromancers are evil and superfluous and forbidden by the church.... That _mathematici_ or idolaters sometimes predict the future is the outcome of conjecture and fatuous presumption, not of certitude.... There are three things to which some men have recourse, namely, sorcerers, enchanters, and _mathematici_, but which really are not wisdom but foolishness, for the Chaldeans rely on such methods. The _mathematici_ seek to reduce the effects of the stars to fixed hours, and those who investigate such things are far from the one science of God.”[1913]

Even if these passages are from Albert’s works, they are no proof that he condemned astrology. Roger Bacon penned very similar passages, and the _Speculum astronomiae_ expresses no approval of either enchanters or sorcerers or magicians or _mathematici_. We have already repeatedly seen that _mathematici_ was used in two senses and that one might condemn the _mathematici_ as diviners and yet accept astrology. Albert himself made such a distinction in his _Commentary on Matthew_[1914] where he differentiates between two, or rather three, kinds of mathematics. One is the abstract science in our present sense of the word; the other, more properly called _mathesis_ and pronounced with a long middle syllable, is “divination by the stars,” but it in turn may be either good or bad, superstitious or scientific. Thus it is proved by a direct examination of Albert’s writings that, contrary to the impression which Mandonnet strives to give by his citation from Peter of Prussia, even in his theological works Albert did not condemn all _mathematici_ even, to say nothing of astrology. And we have further seen that in his scientific writings he sometimes does not condemn even magic. We shall now proceed to show from numerous passages in other works than the _Speculum astronomiae_ how favorably inclined toward astrology Albert really was.

[Sidenote: Nature of the heavens and the stars.]

Albert accepts the Aristotelian description of the sky and heavenly bodies as formed of a fifth element distinct from the four elements of which earthly objects are composed.[1915] In another passage he subdivides the heavenly substance into three elements composing respectively the sun, the moon and stars, and the sky apart from the celestial bodies.[1916] In any case the stars are nobler than inferior bodies, “less involved in the shadows and privations of matter,” and closer to the first cause of the universe.[1917] Their motion is eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible.[1918] Some have called them animals but Albert holds that they are not animals in the sense that we apply that word to inferior creatures.[1919]

[Sidenote: The First Cause and the spheres.]

Again like Aristotle, Albert regards the heavens and stars as instruments of the first mover or intelligence, just as the hand is the instrument of the human intellect in making works of art.[1920] They are mediums between the first cause and matter. Albert believes in a number of heavens “existing from the first heaven to the sphere of the moon.”[1921] The first mover moves the first heaven and through it the other spheres included within it. Whether every other heaven has its own celestial intelligence to move it is a question upon which Albert is somewhat obscure.[1922] Others certainly thought so. He mentions, for instance, the opinion of certain Arabs that floods are due to the imagination of the intelligence which moves the sphere of the moon, and concedes that there is some truth in it.[1923] The ancient Stoics and Epicureans, he tells us in another passage, ascribed divinity to the virtue of the circle of the zodiac, which ruled and governed life under the God of gods, as they called the First Cause. Apuleius in the _De deo Socratis_ says that they called the twelve signs incorporeal gods, and the planets and other stars corporeal gods, and the chief effects of the celestial virtue upon inferior nature terrestrial gods.[1924] But probably Albert mentions this merely as an illustration of the great influence exerted by the circle of the zodiac. In a third passage he says that the movers of the celestial spheres, whom the philosophers have called celestial intelligences, are mediate causes between the First Cause and matter; but he presently adds that philosophers of better understanding have said that there is only one Mover of everything, and that the so-called movers of the other spheres are but the virtues and members of the first heaven and its Mover.[1925] Translated from terms of Aristotelian physics into those of Christian theology, this means that the stars are merely God’s instruments, and that, if there are spirits or intelligences delegated to move the

## particular heavens, these angels are also merely God’s agents.

[Sidenote: Things on earth ruled by the stars.]

Since the celestial spheres and the stars are the instruments and mediums through which the First Cause governs the world of inferior creation, it follows that the four elements are generated by the motion of the heavens and that plants, stones, minerals, animals--in short, whatever exists in the inferior world is caused by the motion of the superior bodies. This general law that the world of nature and of life on this earth is governed by the movements of the stars is expressly repeated again and again in Albert’s works, and its truth is assumed even oftener.[1926] We may note by way of illustration a few of the specific applications of this general law to be found in Albert’s writings. Arguing the question whether life is possible in the torrid zone at the equator, Albert points out that the rays of the stars are more multiplied there and fall perpendicularly and directly and therefore are even more favorable to the generation of life than in our climate.[1927] In another passage he explains the pagan attribution of the thunderbolt to the god Jupiter as probably a mistake due to the influence of the planet Jupiter in provoking thunder-storms.[1928] A third passage ascribes the height of the inundation of the Nile to the planets, stating that Venus and the Moon produce a greater overflow than other drier stars.[1929]

[Sidenote: Conjunctions.]

Albert has a good deal to say of the effects produced by the conjunctions of the planets,[1930] ascribing to them great mortality and depopulation, or “great accidents and great prodigies and a general change of the state of the elements and of the world.”[1931] To a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars with others aiding in the sign of Gemini he attributes pestilential winds and corruption of the air resulting in a plague by which a multitude of men and beasts suddenly perish.[1932]

[Sidenote: Comets.]

Albert also discusses comets, and why they signify wars and the death of kings and potentates rather than of some poor man.[1933] Their especial connection with wars is explained by the astrologer Albumasar as due to their association with the planet Mars. As for kings, owing to their greater fame and power, the relation of celestial phenomena to their destinies has been observed more carefully than the fate of the poor, and as their horoscopes have more planetary dignity, so it is customary to refer greater portents to them.

[Sidenote: Man and the stars.]

Despite the allusion just made to royal horoscopes, Albert makes an exception to the control of the stars over this world in the case of man. Strictly speaking, however, this is no exception, since man is not to be classed with other inferiors inasmuch as his soul is a superior being, derived from the First Intelligence and still subject to Its illumination. “The essence of the soul is wholly and solely from the first cause.”[1934] It is true that Plato says that the soul receives something in each sphere or heaven, memory from the sphere of Saturn and so on; but Albert regards this doctrine as simply a description of the process of fitting the mind or soul to the body which it must occupy.

[Sidenote: Free will.]

But the human reason and will remain free and are not necessarily subjected to the movements of the stars. Thus in his theological _Summa_ Albert admits that the stars govern even the souls, vegetable and sensitive, of plants and brutes, but denies that they coerce the loftier rational soul and will of man, who is made in the image of God, except as he yields to sin and the flesh.[1935] But this last is a very important exception as we see from a passage in the treatise on minerals.[1936] “There is in man a double spring of action, namely, nature and the will; and nature for its part is ruled by the stars, while the will is free; but unless it resists, it is swept along by nature and becomes mechanical (_induratur_).”

[Sidenote: Ptolemy on free will.]

Albert is aware that neither the Peripatetic philosophy nor the art of astrology itself slavishly subjects the human mind and will to the stars.[1937] Rather he keeps citing Ptolemy to show that the astrologers themselves do not believe in fatal necessity and that consequently the art of astrology is not incompatible with Christianity.[1938] Ptolemy declares that the mind apprehends the superior bodies in their spheres, and can freely turn away from those things towards which the motions of the stars incline it, and can turn towards other things by the wisdom of its intellect.[1939] In another passage Ptolemy is quoted as saying that the effects of the stars can be impeded by the science of men skilled in astrology.[1940] If the average “astronomer and augur and magician and interpreter of dreams and visions” has brought divination into disrepute, it is, says Albert in a third passage, because “almost all men of this class delight in deception and, being poorly educated, they think that what is merely contingent is necessary, and they predict that some event will certainly occur; and when it does not, those sciences are cheapened in the sight of unskilled men, although the defect is not in the science, but in those who abuse it. For this reason wise Ptolemy says that no judgment should be made except in general terms and with the cautious reservation that the stars act _per aliud et accidens_ (subject to other forces and to accidents) and that their significations meet many impediments. Moreover, the pursuit of sciences dealing with the future would be idle, if one could not avoid what one foresaw.”[1941]

[Sidenote: Nativities.]

But free will no more restrains Albert than it did Ptolemy from accepting the art of genethlialogy[1942] or casting of nativities, as his mention of royal horoscopes has already suggested. He states elsewhere that the astrologer who understands the virtues of the signs of the zodiac and of the stars situated in them at the moment of birth can prognosticate so far as lies within the influence of the sky concerning the entire life of the person born.[1943] Indeed, Albert ascribed to Ptolemy a treatise _De accidentibus parvis

## particularibus_[1944] concerning the events in the life of the

individual born under this or that constellation, as contrasted with great social events involving large numbers of men such as political revolutions, racial migrations, and religious movements, of which Ptolemy is said by Albert to have treated in another work in eight parts called _De accidentibus magnis universalibus in mundo_.[1945]

[Sidenote: Galen on the stars and human generation.]

Albert even believed that the influence of the stars upon man was stronger in some respects than upon other animals. He attributed to Galen in the treatise _De spermate_ a statement, which I have failed to find in Galen’s _De semine_ or other works, that “in the generation of brutes the sperm is not altered according to the order of the hours and the operations of the planets and signs as it is in man.” Albert prefers his own explanation of this circumstance to that offered by Galen. It is that the human body is less material and terrestrial than those of the brutes and more nearly resembles the heavens, and so more readily follows the impressions from the sky, and is a sort of microcosm as a beast is not. On the other hand, Albert grants that changes of the atmosphere and weather are felt more quickly by the beasts, who have little else to distract their attention.[1946]

[Sidenote: Plato on boys and the stars.]

Albert states that Plato, as well as Ptolemy and Galen, proved the influence of the stars upon human beings from the case of boys, who are still too young to make much use of free will against nature and the force of the heavens. For boys often display a special aptitude, due to celestial influence, for some one art and become perfect workmen if they are trained in it; but if they are forced into another occupation, never attain proficiency therein because of their natural ineptitude for it.[1947] This is of course the same point as was illustrated in the pseudo-Aristotelian _Secret of Secrets_ by the story of the weaver’s son whose horoscope showed a predilection to govern, and the king’s son whose sole interest was in the mechanical arts.

[Sidenote: The doctrine of elections.]

Naturally Albert finds no difficulty in accepting the astrological doctrine of elections, by which the astrologer applies his knowledge of the movements and effects of the stars and their relationships to inferior bodies to the selection of a favorable hour for beginning a contemplated action.[1948] This doctrine of course implies and requires freedom of election and will, and shows that astrology is an operative as well as divining art. In another passage Albert mentions the famous and historic, as he regards it, royal example of eugenics, when Nectanabus, the natural father of Alexander, in having intercourse with his mother Olympias observed the hour when the Sun was entering Leo and Saturn was in Taurus, since he wished his son to receive the figure and force of those planets.[1949]

[Sidenote: Influence of the stars on works of art.]

If astrology is thus operative as well as divinatory by its power to select the proper and most advantageous moment for entering upon any course of action, and to harness so to speak the power of the planets, it becomes evident that it is or should be an all-important factor in all the arts. Albert well asserts therefore that a fundamental principle of this science is that all things which are made by nature or art are moved first by celestial virtues. He adds that no one doubts this concerning nature, and that it is also true of art, in which it is the influence of the stars which incites the artist to make something.[1950] The force of the stars is potent in alchemy, for example,[1951] for those who try to transmute metals and stones produce purer metals and stones when the moon is waxing and ascending, “and

## particularly the more skilful they are, not hurrying their operations,

but awaiting the opportune time when the process is assisted by celestial virtue.”

[Sidenote: Astrological images.]

Of all the arts the most astrological is that of images, to which Albert devotes several chapters of his treatise on minerals.[1952] In it images of the stars are engraved on gems or metals at the favorable moment when the celestial force is strongest, “and marvels are worked by such images” because some force from the celestial figure flows into the work of art.[1953] Incidentally Albert remarks that “in the science of geomancy” the figures traced from the points are of no value unless they can be made to conform to such astronomical images. Albert mentions several particular astronomical conditions which must be observed in engraving such images. Gems from India are the best for this purpose. Some images engraved in antiquity are no longer efficacious. Albert gives a number of examples of the effects expected from these images.[1954] Stones engraved with Aries or Leo or Sagittarius are good for fevers, dropsy, and paralysis, and are said to make their possessors talented and fluent and highly honored. Stones carved with Gemini and Libra and Aquarius temper hot humors and promote friendship, justice, civility, and observance of law.

[Sidenote: Discussion of fate in the _Summa theologiae_.]

In the foregoing sketch of Albert’s attitude to astrology, based chiefly on his writings in the field of natural science, some allusion has also been made to his discussion of the subject in his _Summa_ of theology, which occurs in the section _On fate_,[1955] “which those maintain who deny providence” and which is generally identified with the influence of the stars. I have in the main, however, reserved this section for separate treatment here, partly because it might be expected to show a more conservative and less favorable attitude to astrology than Albert’s scientific writings, since its authorities would presumably be the church fathers, while the scientific works reflect the views of Aristotle and other Greeks and Arabs. And

## partly for another reason, that I am inclined to question whether a

supplementary passage at the close of this section is by Albert or added by another hand.

[Sidenote: Attempt to reconcile the fathers with the astronomers.]

Although Albert in this section of the _Summa_ approaches the subject of the influence of the stars from the unfavorable standpoint of fate instead of the favoring one of nature, it is noteworthy that he is not content merely to reproduce the attacks upon astrologers by Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, but endeavors to reconcile them with the views of such scientific or pseudo-scientific authorities as Ptolemy, Hermes Trismegistus, “Socrates,” and other _Astronomi_. The keynote of his solution is found in the definition of Boethius that “Fate is the disposition inherent in movable things by which Providence binds each by its order.” Thus there is no necessary conflict between Providence and the rule of the stars. But Albert maintains that “neither fate nor stars nor even Providence takes away from human free will its liberty of action,”[1956] quoting Ptolemy as usual to the effect that the wise man rules the stars and that what the stars do they do _per aliud et accidens_. Albert therefore rejects absolute fatal necessity as heretical[1957] and the doctrine of the _magnus annus_ that history repeats itself as the stars repeat their courses as “horrible.”[1958] On the other hand, he insists that “it cannot be denied that the stars by the figures of their positions pour radiations of diverse figures upon the place of generation,”[1959] or that “the stars in truth are rulers of the world in those things which are subject to the world,”[1960] namely, things corporeal. He also admits that the soul may be inclined to the body, though not coerced. Thus a choleric person is likely to choose different food and occupation from a phlegmatic one. Hence Socrates “says that voluntary elections are made in accordance with the diversity of habits previously existing in the chooser.”[1961] But Socrates means that such habits incline but do not compel us. Later Albert qualifies Gregory of Nyssa’s assertion that our choosing precedes “fortune” by again pointing out that the influence of the stars “inclines the will to choose this or that.”[1962]

[Sidenote: Glossing over Augustine.]

Albert has to force his authorities a good deal to arrive at this compromise. Thus he interprets Augustine’s grudging concession that it “can be said not utterly absurdly that certain sidereal afflations effect mere differences of bodies, as we see that the seasons of the year vary with the approach and withdrawal of the sun and some sorts of things, such as shellfish and the wonderful tides of ocean, increase and diminish with the waxing and waning of the moon,”--Albert interprets this as favoring his own much more sweeping assertion that the stars rule the universe in most respects and change the souls as well as the bodies of plants and brutes.[1963] Again, Augustine, asking “What is so pertinent to the body as sex?” contended against the astrologers that twins of opposite sex might be born under the same constellation; yet Albert maintains that Augustine did not mean here that sex of the body is not subject to the stars, but only that the constellations are not the sole and entire cause of natural bodily processes, and this for the reasons given above from Ptolemy, namely, that the influence of the stars depends upon the capacity of matter to receive it and operates _per aliud et accidens_.[1964]

[Sidenote: Christ and the stars.]

In connection with the question, “Whether Christ was subject soul and body to fate or fortune or _eupraxia_?” Albert makes an exception to the influence of the stars, and apparently holds that even in respect to His body Christ was not subject to the power of the constellations. The argument is advanced that the Lawgiver is not subject to the law. The opposing contentions that in becoming man Christ assumed the defects of our mortality and that, since fate is the disposition inherent in all mobile objects, Christ was subject to fate as much as any other man,--these are denied on the ground that Christ became man voluntarily and suffered as man only what and when He would, and that from the moment of conception He possessed “grace and all knowledge.” It is also held that when the Magi said that they had seen His star in the east, they did not mean a constellation ruling His nativity but a new celestial sign which demonstrated the new birth of a heavenly king.[1965]

[Sidenote: Patristic arguments against astrology upheld, but perhaps not by Albert.]

Scarcely consistent with the apparent approval with which Albert cited the views of the “astronomers” and such a work as the _Tetrabiblos_ or _Quadripartitum_ of Ptolemy in the preceding discussion, and with the general tone of much of it, seems a supplementary passage at the close of this section on fate[1966] after he has apparently completed the discussion of the four questions concerning fate which he put at the start. In this supplementary passage are upheld against the “calumnies” of the astrologers such objections of Augustine and Gregory the Great to the art of nativities[1967] as that Jacob and Esau were conceived and born under the same constellation, that a queen and slave may be conceived at the same instant, and that there are countries where no one born under Aquarius becomes a fisherman or under the Balances a money-changer. The argument employed in this connection, which we cannot follow in detail, involves such a dubious piece of physics as that the pyramid of light which gradually spreads from a distant luminous point exercises the same force on all points lying within its base. The astronomers would doubtless retort that the rays of light falling perpendicularly and the shortest distance would be stronger and more efficacious than the oblique ones, or that pyramids must also be taken into account with the point in the object affected and the base in the constellation. Indeed, Albert in this very section _On fate_ has previously shown[1968] from the science of perspective and _Liber de speculis_ that in Ethiopia the sun’s direct ray “reflected upon itself” produces fire and makes the child born there fiery and black, while near the pole the great obliquity of the incidences of the rays produces cold and damp. For such reasons as these I am inclined to wonder if this supplementary passage, which is not essential to the plan or main argument of the section _On fate_, has not been added by someone other than Albert. Whoever the author is, he also agrees with Augustine that, when asked to account for two persons falling sick, growing worse, and recovering at the same times, Hippocrates gave the better answer in saying that they were conceived and born together of the same parents, than Posidonius did in saying that they were born under the same constellation. For Hippocrates named the immediate cause, whereas Posidonius mentioned the extrinsic and indirect one, for the stars are not a cause, it is again reiterated, except _per aliud et accidens_. But the author, like Albert before, holds that Augustine does not deny that there is some force from the stars inclining though not compelling us. This is equivalent to sanctioning astrology.

FOOTNOTES:

[1692] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 17 (Muratori, XI, 1150).

[1693] Epitaphs of Albert and Aquinas, opening respectively, “fenix doctorum” and “in luctu citharae,” are preserved in CLM 19608, 15th century, fols. 219-21. A portrait of Albert is found in CLM 27029, fol. 88, in the midst of a treatise copied in 1388 A. D.

[1694] _Hist. Eccles._ XXII, 19 (Muratori, XI, 1151).

[1695] Pouchet (1853), p. 210.

[1696] In _Dict. Theol. Cath._, (1909-). Also _Revue Thomiste_ V, 95; _Siger de Brabant_, 2nd edition (1911 and 1908), p. 36.

[1697] Henry of Hereford, ed Potthast, Göttingen, 1859. Over this point quite a war of pamphlets and monographs has recently been waged.

[1698] Peter of Prussia (1621), p. 65, “qui ab ipso puerili aevo ut ipse testatur ad decrepitam usque aetatem iugum Domini mira cum hilaritate in eodem Ordine portavit.”

[1699] _Meteor._, III, ii, 12.

[1700] _Mineral._, II, iii, 1.

[1701] _Vita Alberti_ (1621), p. 90.

[1702] _Meteor._, I, iii, 5. See also Ashmole 393, fol. 77, “Cometa” seu “De generatione comete” secundum Januensem, Papiam, et Albertum in summa (an. 1240).

[1703] Amplon. Quarto 296.

[1704] Although the treatise on Minerals has always been accepted as authentic, since its opinions in connection with magic and astrology are rather extreme, it may be well to list here some early MSS of it. Berthelot (1893) I, 290, regarded BN 6514, written about 1300, as “almost contemporary,” but some of the following are older, if the dating in the MSS catalogues is dependable.

CLM 353, 13th century, fol. 55- _Lapidarius_, fol. 69- _liber de mineralibus_.

CLM 540A, anno 1298, fols. 1-106, _libri V mineralium_.

CLM 23538, 13-14th century, 54 fols., _de mineralibus libri V_.

Amplon. Quarto 189, about 1300 A. D., fols. 40-67, _liber de mineralibus et lapidibus_.

Amplon. Quarto 293, 13th century, fols. 57-85, quatuor (vel potius quinque) libri mineralium domini Alberti Magni.

Magdalen 174, close of 13th century, fol. 51v- _de mineralibus libri tres_ (_?_).

The Minerals is found in the following 14th century MSS, and doubtless in many others: Digby 119, 26; 183, 1; 190, 1; Ashmole 1471, fols. 1-48; Merton 285; S. Marco XIII, 18, fols. 1-31, “Explicit liber de lapidibus secundum fratrem Albertum qui liber oculo intitulatur”; CLM 16129, fols. 25-112; BN 7156, 2; BN 7475, 8.

[1705] _Mineral._, IV, i, 6, “Hi autem qui in cupro multum operantur in nostris partibus Parisiis videlicet at Coloniae et in aliis locis in quibus fui et vidi experiri.” _Ibid._, II, ii, 11, “Narravit mihi unus ex nostris sociis curiosus experimentator quod vidit Fredericum Imperatorem habere magnetem qui non traxit ferrum sed ferrum vice versa traxit lapidem.”

[1706] _De animalibus_, XXIII, i, 40.

[1707] Schools were established by the general chapter of the Dominicans in that year at Cologne, Oxford, Bologna, and Montpellier.

[1708] _De animalibus_, VII, i, 6, “quod expertus sum in villa mea super Danubium”; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 16.

[1709] _Summa_, XIII, 77, iv; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 14.

[1710] Sighart (1857), pp. 157, 159, 162.

[1711] _Politics_, VII, 14; cited by v. Hertling (1914), p. 13.

[1712] CE, “Albertus Magnus.” I have not found original sources for these events and fear that they may be inferences from the _Speculum astronomiae_.

[1713] HL XIX, 365; and v. Hertling (1914), p. 19. But he is called “Bishop of Lyons” in a 15th century MS at Munich; CLM 15181, fols. 167-77, Compendium magistri Magni Alberti episcopi Lugdunensis de disputatione corporis et animae.

[1714] _De causis et proprietatibus elementorum_, I, ii, 3, “In Colonia vidimus altissimas fieri foveas et in fundo illarum inventa sunt paramenta (pavimenta?) mirabilis schematis et decoris quae constat ibi homines antiquitus fecisse et congestam fuisse terram super ea post ruinas aedificiorum”; quoted by v. Hertling (1914), p. 11.

[1715] _De natura locorum_, III, 2; v. Hertling (1914), p. 11 note.

[1716] Petrus de Prussia (1621), pp. 179-81. Recently H. Stadler has edited the _Historia animalium_ from what is believed to be the autograph MS at Cologne in _Beiträge zur Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters_, vols. 15-16. See also his _Vorbemerkungen zur neuen Ausgabe der Tiergeschichte des Albertus Magnus_ in _Sitzungsberichte d. kgl. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. phil. hist. Classe_, Munich (1912), pp. 1-58. Stadler also edited from a Cologne MS, believed to be the archetype, _Liber de principiis motus processivi_, Munich, 1909.

[1717] _Opus Tertium_, ed. Brewer (1859), p. 14.

[1718] _Summa philosophiae_, I, 6; XIX, 6; XII, 17; Baur (1912), pp. 280, 633, 505.

[1719] Cited by Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 126.

[1720] “venerabilis ille frater ordinis predicatorum magister Albertus.”

[1721] _Bonum univ._, II, 57, Partic. xxxv, “Simili prope modo magister Albertus theologus frater ordinis predicatorum narravit mihi quod Parisius illi demon in specie cuiusdam fratris apparuit ut eum a studio revocaret sed mox crucis virtute discessit.”

[1722] _Ibid._, Partic. li, “Vii et fortissimo expertus sum sicut auditor eius per multum tempus quam venerabilis ille frater ordinis predicatorum Albertus cuius superiors femurs mentionem multis annis fere quotidie cum tamen in cathedra theologie regeret tantum de die et nocte orationibus incumbebat ut psalterium davidicum legeret et interdum dictis horis et lectionibus et disputationibus terminatis contemplatione divine et meditationibus insudaret. Quid mirum ergo si talis homo super hominem in scientia profecerit qui tam sancte tam integre in virtute profecerit.”

[1723] _Abhandl. z. Gesch. d. Math._ 26, 139 (1911).

[1724] CLM 453, 15th century, fol. 87-.

[1725] Corpus Christi 125, fol. 16r- “Incipit tractatus fratris Alberti de Colonia de plantacionibus arborum.”

Ashmole 1471, late 14th century, fols. 137-43, “Incipit tractatus Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de conservatione vini ... / ... Explicit tractatus Alberti de plantationibus arborum et de conservatione vini. aliqui tamen asserunt Euclidem hunc librum fecisse.”

Arundel 251, written on the back of the cover binding is “Albertus Magnus de Plantationibus arborum, etc.” But in the Arundel catalogue of 1834 the work is listed as “Anonymi cuiusdam tractatus de plantationibus arborum, de conservatione fructuum et de vino,” which has since been corrected to “Galfridi de Vino Salvo,” etc.

BN 9328, 14th century, fol. 124- Petrus de Crecenciis, De plantationibus arborum.

[1726] Vienna 5292, 15th century, fols. 1r-65v, Epitome in Almagestum Cl. Ptolomaei. Perhaps it is the same as CLM 56, 1434-1436 A. D., fols. 1-122, “Almagesti abbreviatum per mag. Thomam de Aquino,” which opens, “Omnium recte philosophantium....”

[1727] Vienna 5309, 15th century, fols. 127r-55v, Summa astrologiae, “In hoc tractatu brevi ... / ... habencia probabilitatis.”

[1728] It is included in Borgnet’s edition, vol. 5. Other such works are:

BN 16222, 14th century, fols. 22-67, Alberti compendium de negotio naturali; BN 16635, 14th century, fols. 1-53, Libri V Alberti Magni in philosophia naturali. Albertus Magnus, Summa naturalium, in Arundel 344, 13-14th century, fols. 40-65; Harleian 536, fols. 1-8; Harleian 4870, 14th century, #2.

[1729] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 294.

[1730] Clemens Baeumker, _Die Stellung des Alfred von Sareshel_ (Alfredus Anglicus) _und seiner Schrift De motu cordis in der Wissenschaft des beginnenden XIII Jahrhunderts_, (June 7, 1913), p. 12, in _Sitzungsberichte d. Königl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Philos-philol. u. hist. Klasse_; citing Arthur Schneider, _Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen_, II, Münster, 1906, pp. 293-308, in _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos. des Mittelalters_, IV, 5-6.

[1731] Grabmann (1916), pp. 165-6, citing Pangerl (1912). Grabmann notes further that Albert did not leave his theological _Summa_ unfinished, but that the part which has never been printed exists in a MS at Venice.

[1732] C. Jessen (1867), p. 99.

[1733] Petrus de Prussia (1621), p. 288.

[1734] Halle, X, 641-741; XI, 545.

[1735] _Geschichte der Botanik_, Königsberg, 1855, IV, 39.

[1736] Meyer (1855), p. 40.

[1737] Pouchet’s fifth chapter (p. 203-644) was devoted to _École Expérimentale_, and of this pp. 203-320 to Albert himself.

[1738] M. H. De Blainville, _Histoire des sciences de l’organisation ... Rédigée d’après ses notes et ses leçons faites à la Sorbonne de 1839 à 1841, avec les dêveloppements nécessaires et plusieurs additions, par F. L. M. Maupied_, in 3 vols, Paris, 1847.

[1739] HL XIX, 377.

[1740] Stadler (1906), p. 2.

[1741] I, ii, 9.

[1742] “Non autem sufficit scire in universali sed quaerimus scire unumquodque secundum quod in propria natura se habet, hoc enim optimum et perfectum est genus sciendi.” Galen had expressed much the same thought eleven centuries before.

[1743] Émile Mâle, _Religious Art in France in the Thirteenth Century_, translated from the third edition by Dora Nussey, 1913, p. 52.

[1744] _Ibid._, 53.

[1745] Published in facsimile at London, 1859, and Paris, 1908.

[1746] _Hist. Eccles._, XXII, 18. “Hic commentatus est totam logicam Aristotelis, philosophiam naturalem et quantum ad naturalem experientiam naturarum clarissima et excellentissima tradidit. Hic theologiam declaravit.” I assume that Aristotle is understood as the subject of _tradidit_.

[1747] _De natura locorum_, I, 7.

[1748] IV, 40.

[1749] _De veget. et plantis_, I, ii, 12.

[1750] VI, i, 30.

[1751] VI, i, 2.

[1752] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 35.

[1753] _De animalibus_, XI, i, 1.

[1754] XXIII, i, 40 (xix).

[1755] XXII, ii, 10 and 99; XXIII, i, 5 and 34-35 and 83 and 123; XXVI, i, 10 and 14 and 20.

[1756] XXIII, i, 9 and 14 and 23 and 57 and 83 and 104.

[1757] XXII, ii, 1.

[1758] XXIV, i, 28.

[1759] Pouchet (1853), pp. 285-6.

[1760] XXII, ii, 29 and 39 and 41 and 51 and 97.

[1761] XXIV, i, 9.

[1762] XXIII, i, 9.

[1763] XXII, ii, 28.

[1764] XXVI, i, 10.

[1765] XXIV, i, 123.

[1766] XXIII, i, 104.

[1767] XXIII, i, 54.

[1768] XXIII, i, 93.

[1769] XXIII, i, 55.

[1770] XXIII, i, 22.

[1771] XXII, ii, 56. Sed iste Jorach frequenter mentitur. XXV, i, 5. Et sicut in multis mentitur Solinus, ita et in hoc falsum dicit.

[1772] XXV, i, 26. Hoc est verius quod de draconibus ab expertis Philosophorum invenitur. Si autem sequamur dicta eorum qui potius referunt audita vulgi quam physica dictorum suorum ostendant experta, tunc sequendo Plinium et Solinum et quosdam alios dicemus.... For further criticism of Pliny see XXV, i, 13, and XXIII, i, 9.

[1773] XXIV, i, 47. Pliny, NH XXXII, i, spells it _echenais_ or _echeneis_, as does Plutarch. We have seen other medieval authors spell it _echinus_.

[1774] NH, VIII, 25.

[1775] XXII, ii, 101.

[1776] XVII, ii, 1; XXIII, i, 14; see also _Meteor._, IV, i, 11.

[1777] I have been unable, however, to run it down in the _Natural History_; perhaps it is in the _Medicina_ of the Pseudo-Pliny.

[1778] XXVI, i, 37.

[1779] XXII, ii, 88.

[1780] XXIII, i, 9.

[1781] XXV, i, 28.

[1782] XXII, ii, 19.

[1783] XXII, ii, 56.

[1784] VII, ii, 5.

[1785] XXII, ii, 99.

[1786] _Polit._, VII, 14.

[1787] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 1.

[1788] III, i, 1.

[1789] IV, i, 6.

[1790] II, ii, 1.

[1791] Pliny, NH XXXVII, 15, agrees with the passage in Albert only in the general notion that goat’s blood will break adamant.

[1792] II, ii, 17.

[1793] II, ii, 11.

[1794] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 1. “Smaragdus enim nuper apud nos visus est parvus quidem quantitate et mirabiliter pulcher, cuius cum virtus probari deberet, adstitit qui diceret, quod si circa bufonem circulus smaragdo fieret et postea lapis oculis bufonis exhiberetur, alterum duorum, quod aut lapis frangeretur ad visum bufonis si debilem haberet lapis virtutem, aut bufo rumperetur si lapis esset in naturali suo vigore: nec mora factum est ut dixit et ad modicum temporis intervallum, dum bufo adspiceret lapidem nec visum averteret ab ipso, crepitare coepit lapis sicut avellana rumperetur et exilivit ex annulo una pars eiusdem, et tunc bufo qui ante stetit immobilis, coepit recedere ac si absolutus esset a lapidis virtute.”

[1795] _Meteor._, III, iv, 8-26 (Borgnet, vol. IV, 674-97).

[1796] III, iv, 11.

[1797] III, iv, 28.

[1798] Peter of Prussia (1621), 126.

[1799] Cap. 20.

[1800] Caps. 21-24.

[1801] Caps. 1, 25, 29.

[1802] Cap. 3.

[1803] Cap. 19.

[1804] Caps. 8-18.

[1805] P. 106.

[1806] P. 107.

[1807] P. 108.

[1808] Cap. 17, p. 161.

[1809] Cap. 18, p. 165.

[1810] Cap. 44, _et seq._, pp. 299-341.

[1811] Quoted in Latin by Wolfgang E. Heidel in his _Vita Trithemii_, prefixed to his edition of the _Steganographia_, cap. xvii, “Trithemium non fuisse alchymistam, astrologum et magum, ostenditur.”

[1812] For instance, _Commentary on Micah_, VI, 11, “_Maleficia_ are _veneficia_ by which men are deceived in the works of necromancers and of idols.”

[1813] _Sententiae_, II, 7, F, vi.

[1814] _Summa_, II, 30.

[1815] _Summa_, II, 30, ii.

[1816] _Sententiae_, II, 7, L, xii.

[1817] _In Evang. Lucae_, XI, 15.

[1818] _Sententiae_, II, 7, viii.

[1819] The Latin of the essential portions of these passages is as follows. _In Evang. Matth._, II, 1. “Magi enim grammatice magni sunt.... Nec sunt Magi malefici sicut quidam male opinantur. Magus enim et Mathematicus et Incantator et Maleficus sive Necromanticus et Ariolus et Aruspex et Divinator differunt. Quia Magus proprie nisi magnus est, qui scientiam habens de omnibus necessariis et effectibus naturarum coniecturans aliquando mirabilia naturae praeostendit et educit....

Incantator ... qui carminibus quibusdam bestias aut herbas aut lapides aut imagines ad quosdam parat effectus....

Divinatores autem multi sunt valde: in punctis terrae et casu ignis et aqua et in aere divinantes....

Nulli istorum dediti fuerunt isti nisi magicis hoc modo prout dictum est. Et hoc est laudabile.”

_In Daniel._, I, 20. “Magi dicuntur secundum Hieronymum quasi magistri qui de universis philosophantur, magi tamen specialiter astronomi dicuntur qui in astris futura rimantur.”

[1820] XXIII, i, III.

[1821] _De veget. et plantis_, V, ii, 6.

[1822] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, i, 32; VI, ii, 17; VI, i, 30; VI, ii, 3.

[1823] VI, ii, 12.

[1824] VI, i, 33.

[1825] VI, ii, 3.

[1826] VI, ii, 10.

[1827] VI, i, 34.

[1828] _Mineralium_, II, ii, 4.

[1829] II, iii, 1.

[1830] II, iii, 5.

[1831] II, iii, 3.

[1832] _Sentent._, II, 7, ix and xii.

[1833] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1.

[1834] II, i, 1 (Borgnet, V, 24).

[1835] III, i, 6.

[1836] II, 7, vii.

[1837] _Petrus de Prussia_ (1621), cap. XII or p. 135, citing the _De motibus animalium_.

[1838] III, i, 1.

[1839] II, i, 3.

[1840] III, i, 10.

[1841] III, i, 1.

[1842] III, i, 3.

[1843] III, ii, 5.

[1844] _De animalibus_, XXII, ii, 61.

[1845] XXII, ii, 67.

[1846] XXII, i, 5.

[1847] XXII, ii, 18.

[1848] XXV, i, 26.

[1849] XXV, i, 13.

[1850] XXIII, i, 40 (17-23).

[1851] XXII, ii, 18.

[1852] XXII, ii, 61.

[1853] VIII, ii, 2.

[1854] _De veget. et plantis_, VI, ii, 3.

[1855] VI, i, 32.

[1856] VI, ii, 17.

[1857] VI, ii, 1.

[1858] VI, ii, 2.

[1859] VI, ii, 13.

[1860] V, ii, 1.

[1861] VI, ii, 22.

[1862] _Mineralium_, II, i, 1.

[1863] Tract., XIX, cap. 6 (ed. Baur, pp. 633-34).

[1864] I have not examined the work itself, but append the following notice of a MS of it: Corpus Christi (Cambridge), 243, 13-14th century, Pseudo-Albert de lapidibus; fol. 1-, Incipit liber de coloribus et virtutibus lapidum, Liber primus, including a prologue and then an alphabetical arrangement of stones; fol. 20v-, De sculturis de omnibus lapidibus; fol. 21v-, Liber II, de natione et ubi inveniuntur; fol. 27-, Liber III, de sculturis lapidum; fol. 40v-, Liber IV, de consecratione lapidum; fol. 44-, Liber V, de confectione et compositione lapidum.

There is said to be another copy at Glasgow in Hunterian, V, 6, 18.

I am not sure whether CUL 1175, 14th century, fols. 1-3, “Albertus de Colonia de lapidibus,” is a fragment of it or of the genuine treatise on minerals.

In CLM 353, 13th century, the _Liber de mineralibus_ of Albertus Magnus at fol. 69 is preceded at fol. 55 by _Lapidarius_ (_deest lib. I, tract, i_) also ascribed to him.

In the notice of CLM 16129, 14th century, fols. 25-112, Alberti Magni tractatus de passionibus aeris et impressionibus vaporum in alto, de mineralibus, de imaginibus lapidum et sigillis, de natura metallorum, it is scarcely clear whether _De imaginibus lapidum et sigillis_ is a separate treatise from the _De mineralibus_ or only the portion of it dealing with astronomical images.

[1865] III, i, 2.

[1866] _Mineral_, III, i, 8.

[1867] _Ibid._, III, i, 9.

[1868] _Ibid._, III. i, 4.

[1869] _Vita Alberti_, cap. 16.

[1870] _Mineral._, III, i, 2.

[1871] _Mineral._, II, i, 5.

[1872] _De causis elementorum_, I, ii, 7 (Borgnet, IX, 615).

[1873] I, 290.

[1874] Most of them I have not been able to examine or compare; but where the opening and closing words are given in the catalogues, they differ as well as the titles. It is possible, however, that some of them may be parts of the other treatises.

[1875] MS 138, 15th century, fols. 171-83, “Semita recta fratris Alberti Magni”; fols. 233-5, “Speculum secretorum philosophorum Alberti Magni de secretis naturae,” opening, “Ad instructionem multorum” and closing, “penuriam librorum”; fols. 235-7, “Liber xii aquarum Alberti Magni,” opening “Ovorum vitella,” and closing, “omne corpus.”

In the same library MS 139, 14th century, besides the _Semita recta_ at fols. 3-35--this time Albert is not named as its author--occurs at fols. 107-21, “Incipit libellus ab Alberto compositus. Quoniam ignorantis ... / ... dum regnat Iupiter.”

Also in MS 270, II, 15-16th century, fol. 77, “Alberti Magni Alchymia. Callixtenes unus philosophorum ... / ... siccum.”

In MS 270, X, at fol. 99 the _Speculum secretorum_, etc., is again ascribed to Albert; and in MS 270, XV, fol. 3-, is “Ars experimentorum Alberti Magni. Sciendum vero ... / ... viscositate malve.”

[1876] Sloane 323, 14th century, fols. 1-84, “Practica Fratris Alberti in alchimiam, que ab eodem dicitur sec. sec.” The work is said to have been printed in the _Theatrum Chymicum_, II, 423.

[1877] _Ibid._, fol. 8r. The previous citation of Albert was at fol. 7v.

[1878] Arundel 164, written in 1422, fols. 127v-131, “De occultis nature,” opening, “In mutue allocutionis tractatu,” and closing, “sicut qui cum arcu sine torta sagutur (sagittur?) deo gratias.”

[1879] CUL 220, 16th century, occupying two leaves in an alchemical miscellany. It opens, “Aqua Mercurius et oleum sulphuris. Opus istud multis diebus abscondebatur....”

Possibly the following are also distinct treatises, but I do not have their _Incipits_ and _Explicits_: CLM 12026, 15th century, fol. 32, Alberti de Colonia ars alchymiae; Wolfenbüttel 676, anno 1444, following the _Semita recta_ at fols. 34-36, Varia Alberti Magni chymica; Riccard. 119, following the _Semita recta_, which is #32 in this miscellany, comes #33, an _Alchimia_ ascribed to Albertus Magnus, while the second treatise bearing #37 (at fol. 177r) is _Alberti quidam Tractatus_.

[1880] It is included in vol. 21 of the edition of Lyons, 1651, by R. P. Jammy; and by Borgnet, vol. 37; 545-73, Alberti Magni libellus de alchimia. It had previously been printed at Basel, 1561, and Urcellis, 1602-1608, _Theatrum chemicum_, pp. 485-527. It is the same as the treatise called _Semita recta_ in the MSS. Another MS of it is Corpus Christi 226, 15th century, fols. 59-69.

[1881] See Denifle (1886), 236.

[1882] “Videns ergo tot errare iam decrevi scribere vera et probata opera et meliora omnium philosophorum in quibus laboravi et sum expertus nihil aliud scribam nisi quod oculis meis vidi.” Or perhaps he means that his works are better than those of all the philosophers.

[1883] “Alchimia est ars ab Alchimo inventa et dicitur ab archymo Graece quod est massa Latine,” cap. 2.

[1884] Cap. 3, “Probat artem Alchimiae esse veram.” This done, however, the chapter continues with the eight precepts which follow.

[1885] “domum specialem extra hominum conspectum in qua sint duae camerae vel tres in quibus fiant operationes.”

[1886] Since he had just mentioned “the books of incantations of Hermes the philosopher and Costa ben Luca,” he very likely had in mind simply the Letter of the latter on Incantation, Adjuration, and Suspension from the Neck, of which we have previously treated, and which Albert uses for physical ligatures in his treatise on minerals.

[1887] II, iii, 5.

[1888] II, iii, 6.

[1889] XXII, ii, 18.

[1890] _Mineral._, II, i, 1; _De animalibus_, XXII, i, 5; _De somno et vigilia_, III, i, 6.

[1891] I-ii-2.

[1892] CLM 916, 15th century, fols. 25-30, Chiromantia Alberti: BN 7420A, 14th century, #15, Alberti de Colonia ars chiromantiae.

[1893] I presume that Vienna MS 2448, 14th century, 26 fols., “Expliciunt interpretaciones sompniorum reuerendi domini Magni Alberti Parisiis conscripta” is simply this third book, but perhaps it is some spurious treatise. MS 1158, 14th century, in the University Library at Bologna, fols. 41-52, catalogued as “Magistri Alberti theotonici de fato, de divinatione, de sortibus,” consists of the _De fato_ ascribed to Aquinas; a second treatise _De fato_ which in the MS itself is headed in the upper margin of fol. 45r, “Magri (Magistri) Alexandri”; a “Questio de divinatione Alexandri,” at fol. 47r; and an anonymous _De sortibus_.

[1894] Extract from the _Compendium studii theologiae_, quoted at page 412 of Charles’ Life of Roger Bacon. “Tarde venit aliquid de philosophia Aristotelis in usum Latinorum, quia naturalis philosophia eius et metaphysica cum commentariis Averrois et aliorum libris in temporibus nostris translatae sunt, et Parisiis excommunicabantur ante annum Domini 1237 propter aeternitatem mundi et temporis, et propter librum ‘De divinatione somniorum’ qui est tractatus ‘De somno et vigilia,’ et propter multa alia erronea translata.” It is found in Rashdall’s edition of the _Compendium studii theologiae_ at pp. 33-4.

[1895] III, i, 2.

[1896] III, i, 1.

[1897] III, i, 4.

[1898] III, ii, 5.

[1899] III, ii, 3-4.

[1900] III, i, 8-9.

[1901] III, ii, 6.

[1902] III, ii, 9.

[1903] VI, 12.

[1904] III, i, 10.

[1905] I have not seen CUL 1705, 14th century, fols. 181v-183, “Albertus de naturis signorum,” opening, “Deus utitur corporibus celestibus” and closing “Saturnus enim tenebras significat.” It is not included in Albert’s printed works and is perhaps not by him.

[1906] See