Albertus Magnus (1193–1280) was justly styled Doctor Universalis, for, from the time he entered the Order of the Dominican Friars in 1221, as well as throughout his teachings, mainly at Bologna, Strasburg, Freiburg and Cologne, he displayed an intimate acquaintance with almost all branches of the natural sciences. He was especially well versed in philosophy, astronomy and mathematics—in rebus magicis expertus fuit—and was justly considered by many as the most erudite philosopher of his generation; an encomium of the very rarest kind, when such rivals as Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas could dispute the palm with him. Natural science, says Humboldt (“Cosmos,” 1860, Vol. II. pp. 243–245), was intimately associated with medicine and philosophy among the learned Arabs, and, in the Christian Middle Ages, with theological polemics. The latter, from their tendency to assert an exclusive influence, repressed empirical inquiry into the departments of physics, organic morphology, and also astronomy, the last being, for the most part, closely allied to astrology. The study of the comprehensive works of Aristotle, introduced by Arabs and by Jewish Rabbis, had tended to lead to a philosophical fusion of all branches of study (Jourdain, “Sur les traductions d’Aristotle,” p. 256; Michael Sachs, “Die Religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien,” 1845, s. 180–200), and hence Ibn-Sina (Avicenna), Ibn-Roschd (Averroës), Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon passed for the representatives of all the knowledge of their time. The fame which in the Middle Ages surrounded the names of these four great men was proportionate to the general diffusion of this opinion of their endowments.

Albertus was the first scholastic who systematically reproduced the philosophy of Aristotle with reference to the Arabian commentators and who remodelled it to meet the requirements of ecclesiastical dogma. The cause of the new development of scholasticism in the thirteenth century was the translation, for the first time, into Latin of the complete works of Aristotle, which latter only came to the knowledge of the scholastics (1210–1225) through the agency of Arabian philosophy. The leading Arabian philosophers were Avicenna, Averroës and Avempace, whilst, in the new movement, Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas and Joannes Duns Scotus represented the culmination of scholastic thought and its consolidation into a system.[14]

Albertus, according to Humboldt, must be mentioned as an independent investigator in the domain of analytic chemistry, improving as he did the practical manipulation of ores, and having actually enlarged the insight of men into the general mode of action of the chemical forces of nature. His “Liber Cosmographicus” is a singularly able presentment of physical geography. He also wrote very extensively upon plant-life, and is the author of commentaries upon practically all the physical works of the Stagirite, although in the commentary on Aristotle’s “Historia Animalium” he is said to have closely followed the Latin translation of Michael Scotus from the Arabic. Albertus doubtless owes the praise conferred upon him by Dante less to himself than to his beloved pupil Aquinas, who accompanied him from Cologne to Paris in 1245, and returned with him to Germany in 1248.

“Questi, che m’ è a destra più vicino,

Frate e maestro fummi; ed’ esse Alberto

E’ di Cologna, ed io Thomas d’Aquino.”

“Il Paradiso,” X. 97–99.

Gilbert refers to Albertus in “De Magnete,” Book I. chaps, i. and vi., also in Book II. chap. xxxviii.

References.—“Albert the Great,” by Dr. Joachim Sighart, translated by Rev. Fr. J. A. Dixon, London, 1876; “Journal des Savants” for May 1848 (“D’un ouvrage inédit de Roger Bacon”: Albertus is called Magnus in magia naturali, major in philosophia, maximus in theologia; Tritheim, “Annales Hirsaug.,” Vol. I. p. 592); for May 1851, pp. 284–298 passim; for Nov. and Dec. 1884; for June 1891 (“Traditions ... du Moyen Age”), for Feb. 1892 (“Traductions des ouvrages alchimiques ... arabes; l’alchimie dans Albert le Grand,” pp. 126–128), as well as for March 1892; “Histoire des Sciences,” par. F. M. L. Maupied, Paris, 1847 (Albert le Grand), Vol. II. pp. 1–95; Barthol. Glanvilla, “Liber, de Proprietatibus Rerum,” Book VII; Pellechet, “Cat. Gen. des Incunables,” 1897, pp. 57–81; Bolton, “Chronol. Hist. of Chemistry,” 1897, p. 947; “The Great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages,” by W. J. Townsend, London, 1881, Chap. X. pp. 165–173; “Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme Latin au xiiie siècle,” par. Pierre Maudonnet, Fribourg, 1899, pp. li-lii notes passim; Walton and Cotton, “Complete Angler,” New York and London, 1847, Pt. I. p. 62; “New Int. Encycl.,” New York, 1902, Vol. I. p. 279; “Aristotle and the Arabs,” by Wm. M. Sloane, pp. 257–268 of “Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drissler,” New York, 1894; Sonnini, Buffon, “Minéraux,” VIII. p. 76; Enfield, “History of Philosophy,” Book VII. chap iii.; Humboldt, “Cosmos,” 1849, Vol. II. pp. 617–619; Quétif and Echard, “Scriptor. Ord. Predicat,” Vol. I. p. 171; Brande, “Manual,” 1848, Vol. I. p. 8; Dr. Friedrich Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy,” tr. by Geo. S. Morris, New York, 1885, Vol. I. pp. 436–440; J. B. Hauréau, “La Philos. Scholas.,” Paris, 1850, Vol. II. pp. 1–103; Dr. W. Windelband, “History of Philosophy,” auth. tr. by Jas. H. Tufts, New York, 1853, pp. 311, 313; “Dict. Hist. de la Médecine,” N. F. J. Eloy, Mons, 1778, Vol. I. pp. 63–65; “Christian Schools and Scholars,” Augusta Th. Drane, London, 1867, pp. 69, etc.

Of authors prominently cited by Albertus Magnus, or alluded to in the foregoing, the following accounts are given: