Talk:Albertus Magnus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Phrenology in the 13th century?

According to the article, "Albertus' writings collected in 1899 went to thirty-eight volumes. These displayed his prolific habits and literally encyclopedic knowledge of topics such as logic, theology, botany, geography, astronomy/astrology, mineralogy, chemistry, zoology, physiology, phrenology and others; all of which were the result of logic and observation." But phrenology was invented only around 1800 (see the Wikipedia article)! Top.Squark (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this discrepancy as well and I agree. Do his "phrenological" studies amount to something similar, or is it a misnomer entirely?

Broken link

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech000900240135&isize=L is broken --Legolas558 (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Someone added a philosopher infobox beneath the saint infobox. Do we want to keep both? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not compute

Look, this is just bollocks:

Albertus' writings collected in 1899 went to thirty-eight volumes. These displayed his prolific habits and literally encyclopedic knowledge of topics such as logic, theology, botany, geography, astronomy, astrology, mineralogy, chemistry, zoology, physiology, phrenology and others; all of which were the result of logic and observation. He was perhaps the most well-read author of his time. He digested, interpreted and systematized the whole of Aristotle's works, gleaned from the Latin translations and notes of the Arabian commentators, in accordance with Church doctrine. Most modern knowledge of Aristotle was preserved and presented by Albertus.

So, all of his works were the result of obs+logic. Errm, except he also regurgitated a pile of other people stuff, by diligent copying William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is well revised. You presented plenty of information on Magnus, and arranged a decent amount of images throughout the article to where it didn't look cluttered. The only issues I could identify in the article is that there needs to be more citations in some areas (i.e.Music), and you will need to do a thorough look into the text to fix grammatical errors (i.e.Matter and Form). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilawalton10 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Page edits

The edits and additions you have made so far are very good. I think it would be a very good idea to go back through and slowly read through your additions to look for grammatical errors and sentences that could be restructured. I noticed several minor edits that needed to be made throughout the paragraph you added to experimental sciences. Let me point out of a few and see if you agree with me:

Albert drew upon the information he had at his disposable for experimental science from the writings of Aristotle.

    –use disposal instead of disposable

In his work, De Miner, he says, "The aim of natural philosophy (science) is not to simply to accept the statements of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature.

    -the sentence could be restructured to sound better. How about this: In De Miner Albert claims "...

The Aristotelianism greatly influences this view

    -this too could be said better. how about: This type of thinking demonstrates the influence Aristotle had on him.

Jmsaint (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Bacon

In the introduction it is suggested that Roger Bacon considered him "the greatest German philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages", yet in the Roger Bacon article we see ... "Albert was received at Paris as an authority equal to Aristotle, Avicenna, and Averroes,[27] leading Bacon to proclaim that "never in the world [had] such monstrosity occurred before."

Not sure which is accurate, but the picture painted by the first fails to match the picture painted by the second. Can someone fix this?

77.22.158.38 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Bacon did not name the master at Paris attacked in both in his Opus Minus and Opus Tertius. Bacon was happy to criticise Alexander of Hales openly, since the man was dead by the time of writing. However, the other target of his accusations is described only indirectly, as somebody still alive, a doctor at Paris, greatly (and unjustly) revered. Some historians think the details provided make Albertus the only candidate, but this is not a universally accepted view. Itsbruce (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bacon criticized Albert by name in his later Compendium studii philosophae; someone should provide a source to support the claim that Bacon praised Albert. I'll mark it "citation needed". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just traced back the evolution of this claim in Wikipedia. It originated with this edit as saying: "The term "Magnus" was applied to him during his own lifetime, due to his immense reputation as a scholar and philosopher, attested by such contemporaries as Roger Bacon." Shortly thereafter, it was changed from the neutral statement that Bacon attested to that name to the stronger claim that "Bacon, applied the term "Magnus" to Albertus during his own lifetime, due to his immense reputation as a scholar and philosopher." For the moment, I will revert the statement to the original, more cautious form, leaving the citation needed template in place. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Occult Authors?

Why is Albert categorized as an "occult author"? I'm not even exactly sure what the category means. Does it merely mean he wrote about spiritual subjects? Or is it more specific? Mlouns 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The category of Occult authors refers to those whose work deals with magic, spell-craft, and religio-magical traditions. It includes such forms of writing as grimoires, wonder books, and spell books. It includes topics such as the kaballah, tarot, alchemy, astrology, and folk magic. In the case of Albertus Magnus we are presented with a complex situation: there are a number of wonder books and collections of folk magical spells and other grimoire-like material that are attributed to him -- but they were almost certainly not written by him. Among these, the most famous is Egyptian Secrets of Albertus Magnus. I would be perfectly content to see those responsible for the page on Albertus Magnus create a page on "Pseudo Albertus Magnus" -- but until that is done and the links are properly reformatted, there is no other place to link the author of the books attribued to Albertus Magnus except to the Albertus Magnus page. I am working in the occult and folk magic sections, not the Catholic cleric sections, and i would be glad to collaborate on a compromise that would leave everyone happy. What say you? Catherineyronwode 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a good compromise would be to have an alternate entry for the works attributed to him that he did not actually do. But like you, I'm not sure how to work that in wikipedia. Perhaps you could add a few words in the main Albert entry explaining the situation, since right now, the categorization kind of comes from nowhere. Maybe later it would be expanded into a separate article. Mlouns 14:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, i will attempt to create a short subsection on this topic for the Albertus Magnus page. I also agree that a new pge called Albertus Magnus (Spurious) be created. (The scholarly name for the unknown author(s) who wrote the occult books is "the Spurious Albertus Magnus" -- but if the word "Spurious" comes first in the Wiki name, rather than in a trailing parenthesis, the new page will fall out of alphabetical order in Wiki's auto-generated category pages, which would not be good, since occultists generally refer to the author(s) of these works as Albertus Magnus for short, even through we know they were not written by Albertus Magnus.) I do not have time to do the full writing this morning, as i have other tasks at hand, but i will try to get to this before the week is over. Please be patient with me, or, if you are so inclined and can get to it more quickly than i can, please take it on yourself. The plan is to (1) produce a short sub-head within the AM article, and then (2) create an AM(S) page. At that point there will be (3) a disambiguation link at the top of the AM page and (4) a disambiguation link on the AM(S) page, (5) retention of the short subhead on the AM page itself that describes the issue, with (6) a link in the AM subhead leading to the new AM(S) page. Does this accord with what you proposed? Catherineyronwode 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you're doing -- I will leave it in your capable hands. Mlouns 02:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to him in Robert Heinlein's novel "Glory Road", though it is most certainly a reference to "the Spurious Albertus Magnus". Near the end of the 6th chapter we find this -- "It was an interesting book, written by Albertus Magnus and apparently stolen from the British Museum. Albert offered a long list of recipes for doing unlikely things: how to pacify storms and fly over clouds, how to overcome enemies, how to make a woman be true to you--". While I think this should be included in the cultural references section, I am not familiar enough with Albertus Magnus or any of those other cultural references to be sure. --JAM Junior (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about having firm grounds for excluding texts on the simple grounds that they are occult to modern eyes. If you do proceed, the conventional classification is to term the apocryphal works either that or the work of a collective of pseudo-Albertine writers. The period was one of perplexity as the academic world came to grips with the Arabic versions of classical Greek texts, newly translated into Latin by order of Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile. The texts had undergone two sets of bowdlerisation, firstly into a version compatible with Muslim creed, and then into a text compatible with pre-Aquinian Catholicism, which was somewhat troubled with finding a balance between the authority of Platonism and early neo-Platonism, the Church Fathers and the later Muslim authorities quoted in the text. I am a member of the Esoteric and Occult Studies Reading Group at London's Warburg Institute, one of the most advanced schools in the world in the study of the development of this knowledge. I doubt whether Robert Heinlein, entertaining though he may be, ranked as a serious commentator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.84 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

copyright?

Removed the following here for the time being: "Much of the modern confusion results from the fact that later works, particularly the alchemical work known as the Secreta Alberti or the Experimenta Alberti, were falsely attributed to Albertus by their authors to increase the prestige of the text through association.^{[citation needed]}"

This is from " An Illustrated History of Alchemy and Early Chemistry ©2008, 2004, 1978 BY David A. Katz. All rights reserved.Permission for classroom and educational use as long as original copyright is included ". Mannanan51 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

I think you could put it back - copyright does allow quotations up to some length (page, or smth? may vary according to country); definitely it's ok to use one fraze with duly shown source and q.marks. It's good accurate statement from Mr. Katz. BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albertus Magnus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

POV on Astrology

However, it is true that Albertus was deeply interested in astrology, as has been articulated by scholars such as Paola Zambelli.[5] While today we would view this as evidence of superstition... This sounds pretty opinionated. Would it not suffice to say "Albertus was interested in astrology..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.14.51 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's relevant to mention, as superstition would undoubtly have been persecuted by the church.90.227.230.219 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He did not such thing: "Albertus made this [astrologycal predictions] a central component of his philosophical system, arguing that an understanding of the celestial influences affecting us could help us to live our lives more in accord with Christian precepts." Nearest to this was his own statement (I'm working on it to find exact source reference, now just for talk, from memory, wording might be other but his point was exactly that) "definitely it would be foolish to suppose that stars are affecting us, our behaviour, but if good Lord has seen fit to let it appear as there is some analogy between there above and here below" then it's ok; those movements have one common reason, not that one affects the other. (I did my BA thesis on his biography, and confusing points of same, so I know what I'm talking about... more or less.) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Astrology was then supposed to be a certain special case and not simply classified with the other superstitions. It was considered a heresy to suggest that the stars could override the free-will of a man; but (as St. Thomas would later say in his Summa and Kepler, who also worked as astrologist, would still identically say) as for our physical inclinations (which people well knew existed), there was nothing wrong in faith to suppose that the stars did afflict them; and people are wont to follow these inclinations. That the stars do afflict them was - erroneously, but scientifically - deduced from what the scientists of the age perceived as "given facts": to wit, that astrologists have so much success in their predictions.

Hence it was discouraged to inquire into the stars as a guide for one's own choice of action, because it would be wrong to know what one would likely (and many astrologists said, or astrology-inquirers understood, or both, "certainly") do, it could hamper one's free decision, and also (I guess) because one's physical inclinations are sometimes to be overcome rather than followed upon; but that doesn't say that anyone how treated astrology in a scientific manner was thereby superstitious. (That he was wrong in science is another thing.)

And after all, at that time meteorology was considered a subset of astrology, and theologians neatly pointed out that farmers could consult their meteorologist to find out when to sow, to harvest, and so forth.--2001:A61:202E:3301:E5F6:E4F1:E000:E7D2 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to the future

Errrm...

He was ahead of his time in his attitude towards science. Two aspects of this attitude deserve to be mentioned: 1) he did not only study science from books, as other academics did in his day, but actually observed and experimented with nature (the rumours starting by those who did not understand this are probably at the source of Albert's supposed connections with alchemy and witchcraft), 2) he took from Aristotle the view that scientific method had to be appropriate to the objects of the scientific discipline at hand.

So, he was ahead of his time in looking back to Aristotle? Makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In his time, scholars respected Aristotle so much that they would slavishly follow his conclusions as authoritative; instead of ingesting the philosophical spirit; or as we would say, the spirit of scientific inquiry. Nuttyskin (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Biography: not in citation

How can I contest this marker? And remove it? Yes, there is 'material near this tag in cited source'. It's about this sentence in the article: "Most probably his family was of ministerial class; his familiar connection with (being son of the count) Bollstädt noble family was a 15th-century misinterpretation that is now completely disproved.[6][not in citation given]" Cited source, by Tugwell, reads on p.3: "..or that Lauingen was his family name. The medieval biographers mostly assume the former interpretation,7" no. 7 here is to note on p.97 where it reads: "Rudolph adds that the family name was Bollstädt, but this is almost certainly his own conjecture." The last wording is as close to 'completely disproved' as any good historian dares to put it. As to not clutter the article with numerous sources about comparatively small issue, I did not reference here all sources what strengthen prof. Tugwell's information - that Albert's contemporary and nearer to his time sources never connected him with Bollsädt family and 'character evaluation' of Rudolf of Nijmegen lends more weigth to opinion that he is not very trustworthy as to historical facts. Working on it, but still find wikipedia citation system overwhelmingly difficult, that's the main my problem here.BirgittaMTh (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Influence and tribute

This section is mostly a very arbitrary and very partial list of schools and other institutions named after Albert. It has nothing to do with his influence, nor really are these tributes per se. I would remove the majority of the entries as being irrelevant to his life, work, and influence. Instead, a genuine look at his philosophical/religious legacy would be more in order. Clean Copy^talk 19:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Strongly second previous opinion. There's nothing about influence in this section; tribute there is and so - might be and again, not very necessary. And most important institution after his name is omitted: Albertus Magnus Institut http://www.albertus-magnus-institut.de/. That is more influence than tribute, of course.BirgittaMTh (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)