The aim of this paper is to accurately assess the epistemological status of Albertus Magnus' (ca 1200-80) alchemy. In modern bibliography there is a "black or white" approach to the question of whether Albertus regarded alchemy as an art or scientia, and thus the adoption of an absolute thesis on the matter tends to create a series of interpretational problems. In contrast, I argue that Albertus' approach to alchemy does not exclude either art or scientia and, depending on the context, the Dominican master sometimes considers alchemy as an art-when it is connected with manual labor-and sometimes as a scientia-when it is connected to natural-philosophical and metaphysical aspects. At the end of my paper, I offer a way of properly assessing the Albertian alchemy, and determining how and when to accurately connect it with the notions of art and scientia.

Aristotle’s theory of soul was a hot topic in the Late Middle Ages and it sparked a great series of debates with serious theological and philosophical implications. The medieval commentators of Aristotle played a crucial role in the dissemination of these debates since their explanations and commentaries on Aristotle’s theory of soul served as a springboard for further discussions. One of the most important medieval commentators of Aristotle was Albert the Great (ca 1200–1280) who dealt extensively with the topic of soul and its connection with the doctrine of intellect. Albert discussed the subject of soul not only in the Aristotelian commentaries but also in many genuine works of his which delineated Albert’s theory of soul in great detail. This paper will primarily focus on two works of Albert, De homine and Liber de natura et origine animae; it aims to provide a coherent account of Albert’s early theory of soul and to shed some light on important hermeneutical issues that derive from these two works.

The Avicennan text De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum had a great influence on the alchemical thought of the thirteenth century. This Latin text disputed both the veracity of alchemy and the possibility of alchemical transmutation by arguing that art is inferior to nature and that the alchemists cannot manipulate a metal because its true characteristics are hidden from our senses; thus an alchemist cannot change something which is unknown to him. Newman's pioneer studies examined the diffusion and impact of the first Avicennan argument on medieval alchemy and he shed light on the art-versus-nature debate. This paper has a twofold aim: on the one hand it aims to further Newman's study by focusing on the second Avicennan argument, which is closely related to the problem of substantial form, and on the other hand it aims to show how the aforesaid problem paved the way for the emergence of corpuscularianism, which flourished during the early modern period. In this regard, it will become clear that the historiographical case of alchemy and its problem of substantial form can serve as an exegetical tool for 'bridging' the Middle Ages and the early modern period with respect to the relation between Aristotelianism and corpuscularianism.

Albertus Magnus was not a physician but manifested a positive attitude towards medicine. His main interest was in harmonising Galenic and Aristotelian doctrines that seemed to overlap on certain subjects; thus, he created a medico-philosophical approach to many illnesses and how they develop. In his On Minerals he writes of the special properties of stones and refers to certain stones as being capable of treating such diseases as epilepsy and melancholy. Yet Albertus does not refer to the way in which these stones could act and affect the aforementioned diseases. Therefore, the question that emerges is whether one can detect passages in his oeuvre which allow us to reconstruct a possible medico-philosophical explanation for the way in which these properties became associated with specific diseases. This chapter’s aim is to attempt to gather the scattered pieces of information from Albertus’ work and reconstruct this potential medico-philosophical formula

Niranj magic is a genre of magic which is closely connected with a cluster of texts known as Pseudo-Aristotelian Hermetica. As Charles Burnett’s groundbreaking study has shown, a part of these texts has been translated in Latin, albeit not without problems. In fact, the term niranj as such was never translated in Latin and thus tracing the ‘luck’ of this genre of magic in the texts of the Middle Ages is a difficult and arduous task. Despite the aforementioned challenges, this paper aims to show that echoes of niranj magic can be tracked in the work of Albert the Great. In this regard, my study can be deemed as a natural sequel of Burnett’s initial study.

The medieval philosopher Albert the Great (ca. 1200-1280) dealt with the topics of revelatory dreaming and prophecy in a number of his works. The aim of this paper is to show how Albert worked to develop a "grand unified theory" of prophecy, drawing together naturalized ideas of foreseeing possible to human cognition with the faculty of prophecy as he knew it from the Bible and the Church fathers. This article shows how Albert treats revelatory dreaming in tandem with prophecy; he relies on natural features of light and "species" to explain how prophets saw the future in the "mirror of eternity," structuring a unifying theory of prophecy depicted especially in his commentary on the Pseudo-Dionysius corpus and De somno et vigilia (On sleep and waking).

A few decades ago, William Newman drew attention to the significance of the medieval alchemical debate over the possibility of transmuting metals, which was closely connected to the Avicennan phrase known as Sciant artifices . Newman pointed to Albert the Great (ca. 1200–1280) as one of the participants in this debate. While Newman has covered Albert’s engagement with this Avicennan dictum only partially, this paper aims to enrich our knowledge of this episode by examining a range of further sources concerning Albert’s approach to the Sciant artifices dictum, and thereby to provide a better insight into the role it played in the work of the Dominican master.

Zosimus of Panopolis was a Graeco-Egyptian alchemist of the 3rd century whose alchemy was imbued with both technical and Gnostic elements. In this way, the notion of conversion is met in the corpus of Zosimus in both its material and spiritual aspects. The aim of this paper is to present these two kinds of conversion by having a special focus on the role of the spirit (pneuma) in their procedures. Hence, in the first part of the study I present how pneuma is involved in the conversion of metals, while in the second I deal with the spiritual–Gnostic aspects of his alchemy, which pertain to the notion of the “divine spark.” In the last part of the study, I examine the relation between pneuma and divine water in the work of Zosimus, which serves in turn as an exegetical tool for the Coptic-Gnostic source which is found in the Gospel According to Philip (61, 12b–20a).

Albertus Magnus’ alchemy is a subject that has attracted the attention of the scholars since the early decades of the 20th century. Yet, the research that has been conducted this far is characterised by its non philosophical character. As a matter of fact, the previous studies approached Albertus’ alchemy either in terms of history of science or of intellectual history. In this paper, I focus on Albertus’ definition of alchemical transmutation that is found in his De mineralibus and I analyze it in terms of his theory of creation and of his theory of matter. Therefore, I show whether a re-creation of a metal is in accordance with Albertus’ philosophy and congruently I bring forth the Aristotle Graecus and the Aristotle Latinus that are found as background in his alchemical theory of transmutation. Ultimately this paper aims to show that the aforementioned theory is not an arbitrary statement from Albertus’ part, but the result of a serious philosophical endeavour.

Review: Zachary A. Matus, Franciscans and the Elixir of Life: Religion and Science in the Later Middle Ages, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017, 203 pp., ISBN 9780812249217 (Pbk) – 9780812294064 (Ebk)

During the Late Middle Ages, alchemy attracted the interest of many eminent scholars, yet alchemy's constant failure to produce the philosopher's stone veiled the art with a cloak of scorn. In this article, I examine the cases of Roger Bacon and of John of Rupescissa, both of whom entwined alchemy with philosophy and theology, portraying the hermetic art as a salutary practice for humanity and the Church. Therefore, my scrutiny of their works aims to demonstrate alchemy's desire, albeit somewhat implicit, for recognition and legitimization.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, historians associated the alchemy of the third-century alchemist Zosimus of Panopolis with Platonism and Aristotelianism, explicating his theory of alchemical transmutation under the intellectual umbrella of these philosophical traditions. More recently, scholars of alchemy such as Christina Viano and William Newman have suggested a connection between Zosimean alchemy and Stoicism. Through a close reading of texts in Zosimus’s corpus, this paper posits a Stoic interpretation of several aspects of Zosimean alchemy, focusing on the concepts of pneuma and tension. For Zosimus, I argue, pneuma played a vital role in colouring metals, while tension conferred stability and cohesion upon metallic compounds. This interpretation suggests that Zosimus applied Stoic concepts to describe the alchemical process of tincturing metals.

Albertus Magnus (1193?-1280), also known as doctor universalis, delved into several fields of science and philosophy, a pursuit which resulted in a massive production of works. Within these works, however, one discerns a provocative paradox, in which a cleric is involved in a forbidden art: magic. In this paper I argue that a paradox of this kind can be justified and explained in terms of philosophy. To this end, I advance three case studies to shed light on the afore-mentioned problem. First, I scrutinize indirect and direct sources in order to clarify Albertus’s relation to magic, thus addressing whether it is possible to trace any supportive data that permits a connection between magic and philosophy. Next, I show that this connection is achievable, since some parts of Albertus’s philosophy, such as psychology, cosmology and the liberum arbitrium, seem to be associated with magia naturalis in terms of astrology. Finally, I argue that the German philosopher was not successful in legitimizing magic through philosophy, and thus failed to prove himself a unique pioneer of an innovative body of knowledge.

Albertus Magnus (1193?-1280), also known as doctor universalis, delved into several fields of science and philosophy, a pursuit which resulted in a massive production of works. Within these works, however, one discerns a provocative paradox, in which a cleric is involved in a forbidden art: magic. In this paper I argue that a paradox of this kind can be justified and explained in terms of philosophy. To this end, I advance three case studies to shed light on the afore-mentioned problem. First, I scrutinize indirect and direct sources in order to clarify Albertus’s relation to magic, thus addressing whether it is possible to trace any supportive data that permits a connection between magic and philosophy. Next, I show that this connection is achievable, since some parts of Albertus’s philosophy, such as psychology, cosmology and the liberum arbitrium, seem to be associated with magia naturalis in terms of astrology. Finally, I argue that the German philosopher was not successful in legitimizing magic through philosophy, and thus failed to prove himself a unique pioneer of an innovative body of knowledge.