When Albertus Magnus in his treatises on the works of Aristotle in natural philosophy dismissed certain matters as pertaining to the science of magic rather than to physical science, and said that they should be considered in other treatises, it is just possible that he intended to write such books himself. He does not, however, seem to have cited any such writings of his own by title in any of his undisputedly genuine works. Such writings are nevertheless extant under his name, namely, the above-mentioned Experiments of Albert and Marvels of the Universe. These two treatises already circulated under his name in the middle ages and appeared in numerous editions in the early years of the printing-press.[2335] Indeed, a survey of the catalogue in such a library as the British Museum indicates that these treatises were published in about as many editions as all Albert’s numerous other works put together. This suggests how much more popular were these brief collections of superstitious experiments and sensational marvels than Albert’s longer, more difficult and argumentative, theological and scientific writings.
Manuscripts of the Experiments.
Of these two treatises the Liber aggregationis or Experiments or Secrets of Albert is found in a number of manuscripts of the British Museum, Bodleian, and other libraries.[2336] These are dated in the catalogues as mainly of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. The text is not uniform either in the printed editions or the manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain only part of the treatise or arrange its items in a different order, and sometimes foreign matter is interpolated, but it is clear that they are all different portions or versions of one work. Indeed the three Digby manuscripts in the Bodleian contain practically the same text, and would seem to be copies of one another or of a common original, since an illegible phrase in one is apt to be equally unreadable in the rest. They also all entitle the work the Secrets rather than the Experiments of Albert. Most of the manuscripts expressly attribute the work to Albert who is variously styled “Albertus Magnus,” “Brother Albert,” “Brother Albert of the Order of Preachers,” or “Brother Albert of Cologne of the Order of Preaching Friars.” One manuscript says that Albertus Magnus translated these experiments with herbs, stones, and animals from the Greek and Arabic. Only one of the manuscripts, where a part of the experiments with herbs are called Jocalia Salamonis, ascribes the work to anyone else than Albert. Borgnet, who did not include either the De mirabilibus mundi or Liber aggregationis in his edition of Albert’s works, mentions another manuscript where the latter treatise is ascribed to “Brother Albert of Saxony.” But aside from the fact that the evidence of a single manuscript is worth little against so many others, if we find the Experiments and Secrets in manuscripts of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the work cannot possibly be written by Albert of Saxony who did not flourish until about 1351 to 1361. Moreover, in the fourteenth century manuscripts our treatise is found with other experimental and occult treatises of varied authors, so that it would appear to have been known for some time and copied from earlier manuscripts into these collections. Whether the treatise is by Albert or not, then, there seems no doubt that it was generally ascribed to him in the later middle ages, and that it was composed in the thirteenth century, or at least that the nucleus of it existed then.
Manuscripts of the Marvels.
Of the De mirabilibus mundi manuscripts seem much rarer.[2337] I found none in the British Museum, although it contains so many of the Experiments of Albert which almost invariably accompanies the Marvels in the printed editions. It is also rather remarkable that the former treatise is always called the Experiments or Secrets of Albert in the manuscripts, and Liber aggregationis in the printed editions.[2338]
Evidence of a fourteenth century bibliography.
Further evidence that the Experiments was at least attributed to Albert at an early date and on the other hand that the De mirabilibus mundi was not, is afforded by the bibliography of works by learned Dominicans drawn up in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. Here we find listed among Albert’s writings[2339] a De lapidibus et herbis which may well be the Experimenta, since his De vegetabilibus et plantis and De mineralibus are listed separately, and a Secretum secretorum Alberti which may indicate either the Experiments or Secrets or perhaps the De secretis mulierum. On the other hand, in the same bibliography we find a De mirabilibus listed not among the writings of Albertus Magnus but attributed to an Arnold of Liège.[2340] Perhaps this is why Berthelot states, without giving any reference or reason, that the De mirabilibus mundi was written in the fourteenth century by a pupil of Albertus Magnus.[2341]
Opinions of modern writers.
In modern times some writers have accepted these two treatises as Albert’s, perhaps unthinkingly, while others have rejected them as spurious. Thus Cockayne gives the description of the herb Heliotropium from the De virtutibus herbarum, another name for the Experiments or Liber aggregationis, as by Albertus Magnus.[2342] And we find Hoefer reproving Haller and Sprengel for having judged Albertus Magnus too severely on the basis of the same De viribus herbarum, “a book of cabalistic recipes” which Hoefer asserts is not his.[2343] Borgnet who, as has been said, excluded our two treatises from his edition of Albert’s works, held that the “vain and futile matters” which they contain are enough to prove that they cannot be by Albert. Of this the reader may judge for himself by comparing some of the passages concerning occult virtue, astrology, magic, and experiments with toads and emeralds which we have already cited from Albert’s works with those which we shall soon give from these two treatises. As the Histoire Littéraire de la France says in its article on Albert, “It must be confessed that all his treatises let be seen too often his leaning toward the occult sciences; and they contain, at least in part, the germ of the wretched productions falsely published under his name.”[2344]
Meyer’s argument against the authenticity of the Experiments.