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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
Reality of magic.