Advertisement

Albert’s ‘Auctoritas’: Contemporaries and Collaborators

  • Paola Zambelli
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 135)

Abstract

It is inappropriate to consider further the historical debate concerning the authorship of the Speculum astronomiae. The previous pages have attempted to show the progress made in the last fifty years by historians of science and philosophy. Catholic historians such as Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny and Thomas Litt have abandoned the anachronistic hagiographical preconceptions still present in Mandonnet. Very recently, the authors of two historical syntheses on alchemie and magic in the Middle Ages came to the conclusion that the Speculum is very probably an authentic work by Albert.1

Keywords

Great Commentary Previous Page Intimate Friend Papal Court Medieval Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    To sum up the attitude of recent scholars, who — contrary to d’Alvemy and Litt — when possible chose not to mention the Speculum astronomiae, nor to give their opinion on it, see A. Fries, s.v. `Albertus Magnus’, in Deutsches Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasser-lexicon, I, Berlin, 1977, col. 134: “nicht sicher unecht das gedruckte Speculum astronomiae, das der Astrologie im Abendland Jahrhunderte hindurch die theoretische Rechtfertigung geliefert hat”. For the two recent syntheses here mentioned cf. ch. 4, n. 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. H. Sbaralea, Supplementum et castigatio ad Scriptores trium Ordinum S. Francisci, Roma 1806, p. 177; P. G. Golubovich, Bibliotheca bio-bibliographica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente francescano, I, Quaracchi, 1906, pp. 223–224; from the Chronica f. Salimbeni de Adam O. M. (cfr. ed. O. Helder-Egger, M. G. H. SS, XXXII, Hannover-Leipzig 1905, p. 703), Golubovich took the information concerning the journey undertaken by the blessed Giovanni da Parma in 1249, when he led a party of twelve brothers to Constantinople, Nicomedia and Nicaea. As Brother Elia had already done, Giovanni returned from the journey he undertook with Bonaventura of Iseo bringing back “the great part of... the experimental sciences to be found” in their alchemical codices. According to Salim-bene “fuit autem frater Bonaventura antiquus tam in ordine quam in aetate, sapiens, industrius et sagacissimus, et homo honestae et sanctae vitae, et dilectus ab Icilino de Romano”. Bonaventura of Iseo was minister in various provinces of his order, and in 1254, at the ecumenical Council of Lyon, he represented as socius the General Father Crescenzio da Iesi. At Lyons, Bonaventura of Iseo might have learned that the Pope had asked Albert to examine the “natural” and the occult writings; Bonaventura of Iseo talked of his friendship with Thomas and Albert in the only one of his works that has been preserved, though Salimbene says that he had also written Sermonum de festivitate et de tempore magnum volumen. The extant work, compiled in Venice between 1256 and 1268, was a “liber medicinalis et alchimiae” entitled “Liber Compostillae multorum experimentorum veritatis... ex dictis multorum philosophorum qui delectati stint in scientiis secretis secretorum, experimentorum artis opens auri et argenti, que apud nos vocatur alchimia” (its description is given by Lopez, Archivum franciscanum, I, 1908, pp. 116–117; see also a note by A. Pattin, in Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, XIV, 1972, pp. 102–104, who described the ms. Riccardianus 119 (L. III.13), to which one must add CLM 23809). In the Prohemium quarti opens (f. 143va of the ms. Riccardianus) Bonaventura of Iseo named Albert and used the appellation common in the documents of the time: “fui amicus domesticus et familiaris f. Alberti Theutonici de O. P.: multa contulimus de scientiis et experimentis secretis secretorum, ut nigromancie, alchimie et cetera”. In the ms. CLM 23809, f. 3v, the prologue published by Sbaralea and quoted by M. Grabmann in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, II, München, 1936, pp. 385–396, offers a different lectio that includes Thomas: “fui amicus domesticus f. Alberti Theutonici et f. Thome de Aquino O. P., qui sic fuerunt probi vin et magni compositores scripture”; this sentence is followed by the passage quoted below, footnote 3. When Sbaralea was writing, there existed a further ms. in the Franciscan convent of Città della Pieve, from which, perhaps, derived the shortened text found in the fifteenth-century miscellany in the Riccardiana.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quoted by Grabmann, op. cit., p. 395: “Nam f. Albertus in diebus vitae suae habuit gratiam a domino papa propter eius famam sanctitatis et intellectus et prudentiae, et licite potuit addiscere, scire et examinare et probare omnes artes scientiarum boni et mali, laudando libros veritatis et damnando libros falsitatis et errons. Inde multum laboravit in complendo inceptos libros Aristotelis et novas compilationes librorum fecit de multis artibus scientiarum, ut astrologiae, geomantiae, nigromantiae, lapidum pretiosorum et experimentorum alchimiae”. Grabmann commented as follows: “wir haben hier auch eine zeitgenössische Zuteilung von Schriften an Albert, die ihm abgesprochen werden. Vor allem ist hier das sogenannte Speculum astronomiae, ein Gutachten über Schriften zur Astronomie und Nigromantie, das P. Mandonnet Roger Bacon Zuteilt, als Werk Alberts hingestellt, eine Zuteilung der auch P. Meersseman zuneigt. Desgleichen erscheint hier Albert auch als Verfasser eines Werkes über Alchemie. Bonaventura de Iseo bringt auch fol. 122v-125v Exzerpte aus den Büchern über Alchemie von Roger Bacon: “Incipiunt collecta et extracta de libro Rogen et Alberti [...] videntur esse in concordia de istis receptis secundum quod est receptum in libris eorum, cum quilibet eorum composuit unum librum de arte alchimie multe veritatis experte”. Ich konnte bisher diese Texte in keinem der mir bekannten gedruckten und ungedruckten Roger Bacon und Albert zugeteilten Werke über Alchemie feststellen. Ich kann hier noch nicht ausführlicher untersuchen, ob dieser Text des Bonaventura de Iseo, so wie es wörtlich lautet, authentisch ist”. Cf. R. Lemay, Aba Ma’shar cit., pp. XXII- XXIV n. and his paper `Libri naturales et sciences de la nature dans la scolastique latine du XII siècle’, Proceedings of the International Congress of the History of Science, Tokyo 1974, p. 64: “la publication du Speculum Astronomiae par Albert aura réussi à effectuer cette “épuration” des libri naturales promise par la papauté dès 1231 mais longtemps retardée. Muni d’une autorisation spéciale, vraisemblablement lorsqu’il assista au Concile de Lyon en 1245, Albert rédigea le Speculum dans le but, non pas d’expurger Aristote, qu’il avait déjà d’ailleurs commencé à commenter, mais de faire le partage entre la bonne et la mauvaise science de la nature. Il y passe en revue à la lumière de l’orthodoxie à peu près tous les ouvrages de science naturelle alors connus et qui sont en immense majorité d’origine arabe. Il créait ainsi un guide officieux qui autorisât l’usage d’une grande partie de ces ouvrages de science, tout en rejetant dans l’hétérodoxie ceux qu’il qualifie de `négromantiques’ à cause de l’invocation des démons. La distinction et séparation des ouvrages d’Aristote d’avec les libri naturales était déjà chose accomplie dans l’esprit d’Albert comme chez certains de ses contemporains. Guillaume d’Auvergne en particulier avoue (De Legibus, cap. 25; ed. Lyon I 78) avoir lu dans sa jeunesse tous les libri naturales qu’il condamne maintenant presque sans réserve, tandis qu’il recourt sans trop de scrupules aux doctrines d’Aristote et d’Avicenne. Ainsi le maître anonyme du manuscrit de Ripoll mentionne formellement le fait que les libri naturales furent brûlés. Grabmann s’étonne sans raison de cette déclaration, puisqu’aussi bien les témoignages contemporains de Guillaume le Breton et de Césaire d’Heisterbach sont non moins explicites: jussi sunt omnes comburi — perpetuo damnati sunt et exusti”‘. As far as the anonymity of the work is concerned, it is useful to reproduce in this context the remarks Richard Lemay put forward in the above mentioned letter of November 30th, 1973, remarks which were the result of his own studies on this issue: “Dans le sillage de Thorndike, il m’a longtemps paru que le Speculum astronomiae était bien l’oeuvre d’Albert le Grand à cause de l’excellente connaissance des libri naturales du XIIIe siècle révélée par ce texte essentiellement bibliographique et canonique (visant à défendre l’orthodoxie). Seul un esprit averti, renseigné, dévoué à ces sciences et familiarisé avec toute leur bibliographie comme l’était Albert le Grand peut sérieusement être considéré comme l’auteur de ce catalogue critique et canonique. Ni Philippe de Thoiry, ni Roger Bacon lui-même ne rempliraient toutes les conditions psychologiques impliquées dans cet ouvrage. Les informations puisées par Grabmann chez Bonaventure de Yseo semblent concluantes. Albert a agi au nom de la Papauté, vraisemblement après le Concile de Lyon de 1245, où les libri naturales étaient encore prohibés, mais la promesse de les expurger, non remplie par la commission de 1231, fut renouvelée, et cette fois accomplie d’une façon plus spécifique et plus au point; mais la source des erreurs attribuées à Aristote en science naturelle depuis l’arrivée des traductions de l’arabe était maintenant perçue avec plus d’exactitude: c’étaient les libri naturales, non plus d’Aristote, ni exclusivement ni même principalement, mais bien tous les livres d’astrologie et de nécromancie etc. qui faisaient ample référence aux théories d’Aristote et de Ptolémée ainsi qu’aux Arabes. Entre 1248 et 1250 Albert eut de multiples occasions de rencontrer le Pape personnellement; il a pu dès lors recevoir directement de lui et de vive voix, mais d’une façon semi-officielle, cette mission dont parle Bonaventure de Yseo, bien placé pour avoir eu connaissance de cette mission. Compagnon de Frère Elie et de Jean de Parme, versé lui même dans l’alchimie et partisan du joachimisme, Bonaventure fut aussi grand voyageur en France, à la Cour pontificale et en Orient. Il fut dès lors en excellente posture pour saisir la véritable perspective de la tâche assumée par Albert le Grand et d’en connaître le résultat [...]. Il sait que la “compilation” des livres de sciences, produite par Albert ouvrait la porte de la légitimité pour la pratique des libri naturales, et cette compilation est bien le Speculum Astronomiae. Aucun autre ouvrage du XIIIe siècle ne correspond plus exactement à cette mission accomplie en sa totalité selon Bonaventure. En sa majeure partie, le Speculum est une revue critique de la bibliographie des Libri Naturales connus au XIIIe siècle. [...] C’est aussi un jugement critique de leur doctrines du point de vue de l’orthodoxie. Ces deux caractéristiques du Speculum montrent bien pourquoi Albert n’a pas cru nécessaire, ni justifié d’y apposer son nom, et pourquoi également certaines copies manuscrites de l’ouvrage portent un autre nom. L’oeuvre étant une liste purement bibliographique (les textes, titres, rubriques, doctrines rapportés dans le Speculum sont en majeure partie une simple compilation ou reproduction des titres et nombreuses rubriques des ouvrages considérés), les commentaires ou jugements de valeur considérant les diverses doctrines n’étant qu’une application des doctrines orthodoxes approuvées par l’Église;... ainsi, spécialement eu égard à l’intervention directe de la Papauté, comme l’atteste Bonaventure de Yseo, le document dans son ensemble prenait la valeur d’un texte canonique et quasi officiel. Les rédacteurs de tels textes ne s’appropriaient pas en général ces textes en les signant de leur nom. Les textes canoniques ou législatifs du moyen âge sont en général anonymes du moins sous le rapport de l’auteur de leur rédaction. Le caractère canonique du Speculum explique encore pourquoi certaines personnalités officielles chargées du maintien de l’orthodoxie, comme le Chancellier Philippe, ont dfl posséder ce document et même y apposer leur signature, qui est alors celle d’un officiel utilisant le texte pour fins jurisdictionnelles, et non pas pour affirmer leur paternité de l’ouvrage. En tout cas les docteurs du moyen âge dans leurs très grande majorité y ont reconnu le rôle d’Albert le Grand tel que décrit par Bonaventure de Yseo, et c’est ce qui donnait son autorité intellectuelle au catalogue”. The documents concerning the condemnation are quoted and analyzed — with exclusive reference to Aristotle — by F. Van Steenberghen, La philosophie au XIIIe siècle, Louvain-Paris 1966, pp. 104–111.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cf. Speculum, II/6; II/16–17; II/77–81; XI/38–44; XI/137–139, and XII/102 ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Among the first research in that field see B. Geyer, ‘Zur Datierung des Aristotelesparaphrases des hl. Alberts des Grossen’, Zeitschrift far katholische Theologie, LVI, 1932, pp. 432–436, developed interesting critical remarks concerning the characteristics of Albert’s “paraphrases”, and argued that they were composed between 1256 and 1275. This is a completely different stand from that taken by P. Mandonnet, `Polémique averroiste de Siger de Brabant’, Revue thomiste, V, 1897, pp. 95–105, who argued that all these comments were written between 1245 and 1256. Original is the contribution by Weisheipl, `The Problemata’ cit., p. 313; he claimed that the De animalibus — a work composed before the De cousis — could not have been written before 1268, and the Problemata confirmed that the works mentioned above, as well as the Metaphysica, were prior to 1271. In view of the fact the the De causis was explicitly the last Albertinian commentary to the Aristotelian corpus in its widest sense, it is clear that it must have been completed in or before 1271; yet many of its parts were written twenty years earlier. We will, however, know their dates precisely only when all the critical editio coloniensis will have been published. For instance, whereas the natural corpus is dated 1248–1260, when Albert lived in Cologne, the Physica was begun between 1251 and 1252, but was finished “paucis annis ante annum 1257” according to his editor P.Hossfeld. Previously this “first commentary” used to be dated back to the years 1245–1248 according to a commonly accepted chronology, which Weisheipl himself accepted, s. v. `Albert’, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, I, New York 1967, pp. 257–258 (see also his article `The Life and the Works of St. Albert the Great’, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays, ed. by J. A. Weisheipl, Toronto 1980), a scholar I am following for issues concerning chronology, unless otherwise stated.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Speculum cit., XII/28–36: “Quod apud Albumasar [...] plenissime reprehensione dignius invenitur, est illud quod dicit [...] scilicet quod planetae sunt animati anima rationali; sed quod dicit, dicere recitando videtur, cum dicat Aristotelem hoc dixisse, licet non inveniatur in universis libris Aristotelis quos habemus, et forte illud est in duodecimo aut decimotertio Metaphysicae, qui nondum sunt translati et loquuntur de intelligentiis, sicut ipse promittit”Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fundamental G. Vuillemin-Diem, Praefatio to her edition of Aristoteles latinus. XXVI/2: Metaphysica: translatio anonyma sive media, Leiden 1976, and bibliography there cited (see especially p. XIII).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Vuillemin-Diem, `Die Metaphysica media. Übersetzungsmethode und Textverständnis’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Agex, XLII, 1976, p.7 ff., and especially pp.13–14 on Albert and Thomas; D. Salman, `Saint Thomas et les traductions latines des Métaphysiques d’Aristote’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, VII, 1932 [but 1933], pp. 85–120; B. Geyer, `Die Übersetzungen der Aristotelischen Metaphysik bei Albertus Magnus und Thomas von Aquin’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch, XXX, 1917, pp. 392; the almost literal similarities between the passage in the Speculum quoted above and two Thomistic texts Geyer referred to should be emphasized: De anima (written in 1267–68; cf Sententia libri de anima, ed. R.-A-Gauthier, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M. edita, T. XLIV Roma-Paris, Editori di S. Tommaso-Vrin, 1984, p. 234/312–319): “Haec enim quaestio hic determinari non potuit, quia nondum erat manifestum esse aliquas substantial separatas, nec quae, nec quales sint. Unde haec quaestio ad metaphysicum pertinet, non tarnen invenitur ab Aristotele soluta, quia complementum eius scientiae nondum ad nos pervenit, vel quia nondum est totus liber translatus vel quia forte preoccupatus morte non complevit”; De unitate intellectus (written in 1270): “Huiusmodi autem quaestiones certissime colligi potest Aristotelem solvisse in his libris, quos patet eum scripsisse de substantiis separatis, ex his quae dicit in principio XII Metaphysicae, quos etiam libros vidimus numero 14, licet nondum translatos in nostram linguam” Geyer disagreed with the interpretation previously put forward by Grabmann, Forschungen über die lateinischen Aristoteles Übersetzungen des XIII. Jahrhunderts, München 1916 (= Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, XVII/ 5–6). Grabmann, who then dated the Albertinian commentary to 1256, believed that the reference to the translation by Moerbeke for books XI as well as XIII-XIV (Metaphysica novae translationis) was completed after 1260; for this Greek-Latin complete translation the dating admitted by Grabmann, Pelster, and Geyer himself, is between 1268 and 1273; more precisely according to G. Vuillemin-Diem, Aristoteles latinus cit., p. XXXI: “paulo post 1262–1263”. Geyer maintained however that the entire commentary was written by Albert after 1260, since it bespoke the use of the translatio nova sive anonima throughout. Cf. Geyer, `Die von Albertus Magnus in De anima benutzte Aristotelesübersetzung und die Datierung dieser Schrift’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, XXII, 1955, pp. 322–326, where he referred to Pelster, Franceschini and Grabmann and remarked: “Man war nämlich allgemein der Ansicht, dass Albert im allgemeinen die MoerbekeUebersetzungen nicht gekannt oder wenigstens nicht benutzt habe”, and confirmed this also in this specific instance. See also A. Mansion, `Sur le texte de la version latine médiévale...’, Revue néoscolastique, XXXIV, 1932, pp. 65–69; W. Kübel, `Die Übersetzungen der Aristotelischen Metaphysik in den Frilhwerken Alberts des Grossen’, Divus Thomas (Freiburg), XI, 1933, pp. 241–268; F.Pelster, `Die Übersetzungen der aristotelischen Metaphysik bei Albertus Magnus und Thomas von Aquin’, Gregorianum, XVI, 1935, pp. 338–339; F. Ruggiero, Intorno all’influsso di Averroè su S. Alberto Magno’, Laurentianum, IV, 1963, pp. 27–58; etc. A further issue, discussed by A. Dondaine, Secrétaires de Saint Thomas, Roma 1956, p. 188 n., concerns the chronological relationships between the De causis, and the book Lambda of the Metaphysics (the De causis was considered complementary to it): “et haec quidem quando adiuncta fuerit undecimo Primae philosophiae opus perfectum erit” also about the intelligentiae. The issue bears heavily on the possible dating of the Speculum among Albert’s works, in view of the vexed question of the lack of those books “qui nondum sunt translati”: no difficulty is however implied if we abandon the connexion — hypothesized by Mandonnet — between the work and the condemnation of 1277, and we accept an earlier date of composition. In his Prolegomena to the critical edition of the Metaphysica in Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, Münster 1960–1964, t. XVI, pp. 1–2, the eminent scholar has again gone over the entire issue, and has acknowledged that in his commentary Albert always used the translatio media — which he constantly followed between 1250 and 1270; for instance, in the Dionysian commentaries he employed the vetus (Greek-Latin, books I-X and XII) and the nova translatio (Arabic-Latin, books II-X e XI); in the Commentary to the Sentences, in the De quatuor coaequaevis and in the published as well as unpublished parts of the Summa de creaturis, he went back even to the vetustissima (Greek-Latin version of books I-IV) which he found useful in order to clarify a few obscure passages, thanks to its literal faithfulness to the original. The contemporary use of various translations, and the comparison between them, is typical of Albert, as the collations made by W. Kübel, `Die Übersetzungen der Aristotelischen Metaphysik’ cit., have shown. The translatio media, Greek-Latin, books I-X, XII-XIV, reviewed and in part completed the more ancient versions, since it now included book N (XIV), and was used even by Thomas in his Quaestiones de veritate (which according to its editor A.Dondaine, Opera omnia cit., XXII, Roma 1975, pp. 5*, 7* were written between 125659, and already quoted before 1264–65, in the Speculum naturale by Vincent of Beauvais), etc. According to Geyer, after 1270 the “translatio Moerbekana quasi universaliter divulgata et recepta est”: the media was thus completely checked against the Greek text, was freed from the additions derived from Averroes, and contained for the first time the book Kappa (XII). Geyer is in any case convinced that Albert’s commentary to the Metaphysica was likely composed in the years 1262–63, that is, at a time when Albert was probably aware of the Greek text Moerbeke worked on, but did not use it. The same hypothesis might hold true for the Speculum, if this work was written before 1270. Geyer himself points out that in the Physica, the first of the commentaries composed during his stay in Cologne, Albert laid down the program of following “eodem numero et nominibus” Aristotle’s works, and of adding “etiam alicubi partes librorum imperfectas, et alicubi libros intermissos vel omissos, quos vel Aristoteles non fecit, et forte si fecit ad nos non pervenerunt”. Thus, far from constituing a chronological impossibility (as Geyer claimed in `Das Speculum astronomiae’ cit.), the entire issue emphasizes a methodological procedure typical of Albert. This conclusion finds confirmation in the data collected by F. Pelster, ‘Kritische Studien’, cit., and in the passage from the chronicle that he quoted on p. 146 n, concerning William of Moerbeke who “transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis... quibus nunc utimur in scholis ad instantiam fratres Thomae de Aquino. Nam temporibus domini Alberti translatione veteri omnes communiter utebantur”. On this point, L. I. Bataillon, `Status quaestionissur les instruments et techniques de travail de St. Thomas et St. Bonaventure’, in 1274. Année charnière. Mutations et continuités, Paris 1977, p. 650, expressed radical doubts. Cf. G. Vuillemin-Diem, `Die Metaphysica media, Übersetzungs-methode und Textverständnis’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, 42, 1975 [1976], pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cf the anonym “Quaestionensammlung” discovered by M. Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, II, München 1936, p.188: “Plures autem libros Metaphysicae non habemus translatos, quamvis in greco, ut dicitur, sint usque ad viginti duo”.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Congar, `In dulcedine’ cit., pp. 47–57. Cf L.-J. Bataillon, `Status questionis’ cit., pp. 650–651, and especially p. 653: “Un Maitre medieval ne travaillait pas seul, mais était entouré d’assistants (socii), dont les plus avancés, les bachelliers, tenainet un rôle important dans les disputes universitaires. Il s’y joignaient éventuellement d’autres sécraitaires ou copistes”. See also the mention of “socii nostri” as interlocutors quoted from Albert’s Physica [1. II, tr. 2, c. 21; ed. Hossfeld, in Opera omnia, IV/1, Münster 1987, p. 129/25] by J. Goergen, Des hl. Albertus Magnus Lehre von der göttlichen Vorsehung und dem Fatum, Vechta i. Oldenburg 1932, p. 100, and the classic study by A. Dondaine, Sécretaires de St. Thomas, Roma 1956.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Speculum, Proem/10–11: “Vir zelator fidei et philosophiae, utriusque scilicet in ordine suo”, and below, ch; 7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Speculum, XII/107–109.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Speculum, 11/ 17–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F.S. Benjamin and G.J. Toomer, Campanus of Novara and Medieval Planetary Theory. ‘Theorica Planetarum’, ed. with Intr., Engl. Translation and Commentary, Madison 1971, p.19; the two editors did not find “assurance of Campanus’s authorship”. The authorship has now been maintained by M. Pereira, `Campano da Novara autore dell’Almagestum Parvum’, Studi medievali, 19 (1978), pp. 769–776, and has been accepted by A. Paravicini Bagliani, `La scienza araba nella Roma del Duecento: Prospettive di ricerca’, in La diffusione delle scienze islamiche nel Medio Evo Europeo. Convegno intern. promosso dall’Accademia Naz. dei Lincei, Fondazione L. Caetani, e Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Rome 1987, p. 153.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Paravicini Bagliani, `La scienza araba’ cit., p. 152; id. `Un matematico nella corte papale del secolo XIII: Campano da Novara’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, XXVIII, 1973, pp. 98–129; id. `Nuovi documenti su Guglielmo da Moerbeke, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, VII, 1982, pp. 135–143; cf. Benjamin and Toomer, Campanus cit., p. 11, on Campanus’s “membership in a `remarkable scientific group’, associated with the papal court during the third quarter of the 13th century, that included Moerbeke, Witelo and Johannes Gervasius and perhaps even Thomas Aquinas”. Cf also M. Grabmann, Guglielmo di Moerbeke, Roma 1946, pp. 56–62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.A. Weisheipl O.P., `The Life and Works of St. Albert the Great’ cit., pp. 36, 38–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Simon O.P., `Prolegomena’, in Albertus Magnus, De fato, in Opera Omnia, XVII,/1, p. xxxvi. Among the curial scholars also Witelo was strongly, and critically interested in the nature and influence of stars, cfr. his De nature daemonum, recently ed. by J. Burchardt, Wroclaw 1978, and by E. Paschetto, in her Demoni e prodigi, Torino 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    It is well known that Albert was considered to be an “auctoritas” by his contemporaries; equally well known are the corresponding critiques by Roger Bacon. See J.M.G. Hackett, `The Attitude of Roger Bacon to the Scientia of Albertus Magnus’, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, cit., pp. 63–64, and the bibliography listed by Hackett in this article, as well as in his The Meaning of Experimental Science (Scientia experimentalis) in the Philosophy of Roger Bacon, Ph.D. Thesis, Toronto 1983. It should also be pointed out that Campanus was in his turn quoted by Bacon — this time without polemical allusions —among the illustrious mathematicians praised in the Opus Tertium (1267). Cf. Benjamin and Toomer, Campanus cit., p. 7 and n. 20.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cf. Speculum, XV/24–41, with Benjamin and Toomer, Campanus cit., pp. 23–24 n. 87: “Tangere cum ferro membrum illud vulnerando est causativum doloris et dolor causat fleuma [reuma CLM] propter quod inquit in cirurgia cavendum est ab incisione in membro luna existente in signo significationem habente super illud membrum [...] Item narrat Campanus se vidisse hominem imperitum in astris qui in periculo squinantie minuerat sibi de brachio luna existente in geminis quod signum dominatur super brachia et absque ulla manifesta egritudine excepta modica brachii inflatione die septimo mortuus est. Novit etiam quendam ut assent patientem fistulam in capite membris virilis et ipsum fuisse incisum Luna existente in Scorpione quod signum dominatur super partem illam corporis et eadem hora incisionis in manibus tenentium obiit nulla [add. CLM: alia] causa concurrente”. Unfortunately, of this work by Campanus we only have fragments quoted by the dominican Nicholas of Lund (de Dacia) — not of Lynn as write Thorndike and Benjamin — in the canons of his calendar (end of fifteenth century). The discovery of the complete text of Campanus’s Canon pro minutionibus et purgationibus would allow and indeed require a profitable comparison with the Speculum astronomiae. It is noted that the only sentence added by the Speculum is inserted between the two clinical cases (“Et audeo dicere me vidisse ex hoc quasi infinita accidentia accidisse”); this does not exclude that he was borrowing from more cases listed by Campanus in the text now lost. This was typical of Albert, when he was claiming to report personal observations, as was shown by P. Hossfeld, `Die eigenen Beobachtungen cit., pp. 170–171.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. M. Tummers, `Albertus Magnus’ View on the Angle with Special Emphasis on His Geometry and Metaphysics’, Vivarium, XXII, 1 (1984), p. 35. Cfr. Albertus [Magnus], `Commentaar op Euclides’ Elementen der Geometrie’, Inleidende studie, analyse en uitgave van Boek I, P. M. Tummers ed., Nijmegen 1984, 2 voll., where in Proemium (II, p. 1), talking of the uncertainty in knowledge of all things composed with matter, Albert cites “magnus in disciplinalibus Ptolomaeus”. See also A. G. Molland, `Mathematics in the Thought of Albertus Magnus’, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, cit., pp. 463–478; P. M. Tummers, `The Commentary of Albert on Euclid’s Elements of Geometry’, ibidem, pp. 479–499; P. Hossfeld, `Zum Euklidkommentar des Albertus Magnus’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 52, 1982, pp. 115–133Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Zambelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di FilosofiaUniversitá di FirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations