Quaestio

According to modern categorizations, the commentaries on the Holy Scriptures by Albert the Great are not philosophical works and therefore they have received minimal attention in the field of Albertine studies. Super Matthaeum, for example, is one of the least studied in existing research. As a result, the complexity of the relationships between biblical interpretation and the philosophical and theological disciplines are surprising to the researcher used to seeing in Albert a kind of two-headed Janus – either the natural philosopher or the metaphysician, either the natural scientist or the theologian. Albert himself provided occasion for such a dichotomous view. He often held that theologica non conveniunt cum philosophicis in principiis. Nevertheless, some studies have already documented the clear presence of the “philosophical” Albert alongside Albert the “theologian” and “biblical interpreter.” The present contribution offers a particular case study by analyzing Albert’s exegesis of the words in somnis in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel. This is a long passage in which the Dominican master makes extensive use of philosophical theories on divination through dreams, which he had already presented in De somno et vigilia. According to Albert’s exegesis, the visio prophetalis experienced by Joseph in Matthew’s Gospel is the same kind experienced by Socrates, the first prophet, and the natural philosopher described in De somno et vigilia.

This paper examines Albert the Great’s conception of the body’s humoral complexion to consider not only the manner in which it presents in individuals, but also the manner in which it defines entire peoples or communities to produce a rudimentary ethnoanthropology in support of theological goals. In particular, I shall examine efforts to identify a sanguineous human complexion as best, leading to a logical inference that both Jesus and the Virgin Mary possessed this complexion. Then, I shall explore efforts to identify diaspora Jews in general as possessors of an inferior, melancholy complexion, which effectively dejudaizes Jesus and Mary. Last, I shall examine attempts to depict the Jews’ complexion as uniquely incapable of alteration, perpetuating a distempered complexion that distances them from both the supralapsarian Adamic body and from the corporeal balance and harmony of the ideal Christian body.

This article explores Albert the Great’s conclusions over the embryological ‘controversy’ among physicians and philosophers, particularly with regard to the existence of a “female sperm”. First, Albert’s approach to the relationship between philosophy and medicine is confronted to that of Thomas Aquinas. Then, the hybrid nature of Albert’s embryology, which can be placed precisely halfway between natural philosophy and medicine, is investigated. By closely following Avicenna’s De animalibus, one of Albert’s main sources, the following part of the article sets out the main elements of the controversy over generation that both Avicenna and Albert had, in turn, inherited from their Greek predecessors, namely: the identification of the first organ to be formed in the foetus, the origin of seminal matter, and the related issue of the formalitas and materialitas of both female and male seeds. I argue that the equivocal nature of the term sperma, when attributed to the female contribute to generation, can be understood in at least three different but interconnected senses, which complicated the medieval debate on the precise nature and function of this fluid.

The article traces the peculiar position that natural philosophy takes within Albert the Great’s system of sciences. Natural philosophy studies a wide range of topics, both the particular phenomena as well as their causes. Thus natural philosophy occupies a space between medicine on its ‘lower’ end, and metaphysics on its ‘higher’ end. In the first part of the article I study the complex relation between natural philosophy and medicine. In the second part I determine Albert’s position on the respective tasks of the natural philosopher and the metaphysician. In the third part I trace these relations between the disciplines by taking the example of melancholy. Melancholy, a concept that comprises bodily and super-natural effects, exemplifies the wide stretch that natural philosophy has to make in order to reflect on the multifariousness of the natural world as well as on the peculiar position of the human being as a nexus Dei et mundi.

Albert the Great’s Aristotelian paraphrases (De animalibus, Parva Naturalia) are famous for their extensive use of medical doctrines. Their use is not unprecedented in other Albertinian works, though. This article tries to show how Albert’s early theological works (De homine, Commentarium super libros Sententiarum) provide crucial evidence to understand the rationale behind Albert’s integration of medico-philosophical doctrines into his mature works of natural philosophy. In the first place, the early works assert that medicine – at least, its theoretical part – treats a natural body subject to a natural process (healing), a view that leads Albert in his mature works to consider (this part of) medicine as a part of natural philosophy. Secondarily, the article moves on to show how Albert’s selective attitude towards medical doctrines and his position on the Galenic-Aristotelian quarrels about generation and origin of veins date back to his De homine and are strongly – although not entirely – dependent on Avicennian zoology and medicine. Unlike Avicenna, Albert would reshape in his mature works notions of Galenic and Avicennian medicine (spirit, radical, moisture) and zoology (formative power) into an original paradigm of ‘universal physiology’, meant to investigate the world of plants and minerals not only according to their parts and functions but also according to their species.

Late ancient and early medieval narratives often depict dreaming as a vertical and hierarchical process of influence that has its starting point in a higher entity and ends with the human being. This model of explanation seems to take a more horizontal approach with the advent of a new natural philosophy and medical works from Arabic milieu that put the psychosomatic processes of the human being into perspective. The general purpose of this paper is to assess to which extent Albert the Great’s consideration of dreams can be taken as an example of this turning point. Specifically, it tries to show how his dream theory is articulated in De homine. The main hypothesis is that the Dominican friar advocated a materialistic account of dreams, in which the process of dream formation is explain as a flux of bodiness caused by a change in the thermal behavior of the body.

This article proposes an analysis of the sources used in Albert the Great’s De vegetabilibus to explain the compilative strategy with which the Dominican master tries to reconstruct the botanical science. Following a classification of the genres, the main encyclopaedic, lexicographical, medical and pharmacological sources that influenced the work of the doctor universalis are listed. It is also aimed at analysing the interest that motivates Albert’s content choices. In this way, the work is put in relation to the main texts that constituted the botanical panorama, outlining the innovation of its contribution.

Albert the Great’s commentary on the Politics is an interesting case study for exploring the assimilation and reworking of the many practical suggestions and teachings contained in this Aristotelian text. The present study therefore intends to focus on Albert’s analysis of the accurate description of children’s education provided by Aristotle in the 7th and 8th books of his Politics. Two central aspects of the Aristotelian pedagogy (child nourishment and musical education) give the opportunity to make some general points about Albert’s view of soul-body relationship.

In the De mineralibus, Albert the Great clearly states that minerals do not possess life, since – following the Aristotelian path – life is always connected with the operations of the soul. Nevertheless, dealing with the virtues of stones, Albert speaks about a curious difference between “living” and “dead” stones: living stones are substances that possess virtues caused by their forms, while non-living stones are called stones only equivocally because their virtues have expired. Moreover, throughout his work, Albert often seeks help from the biological world to explain the nature and the processes of mineral substances: the coming-into-being of stones and metals is often compared to the generation of plants and animals; places where minerals are formed act as the mother’s womb for the embryo; sulphur and quicksilver are said to be the father and the mother of all metals; etc. The tendency to biologise inorganic nature is a key strategy that Albert uses to explain the processes and functions of the mineral world.

It has been argued that the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were a crucial period in the medieval development of the idea of contagion. Theologians and physicians cooperated in devising a conceptual model based on medical literature (Hippocratico-Galenic and Avicennian) and formulated primarily to explain the origin, transmission, and development of contagious diseases, but that was flexible enough to be applied to a number of other different phenomena (the communication of sin and vices, love sickness, fascination, etc.). This article explores the ways in which Albert the Great contributed to the formation of this broad and highly articulated notion of contagion. First, he provided a systematic analysis of the mechanisms of pathogenesis and transmission of contagious diseases (in particular, pestilences and leprosy). Moreover, his interests encompassed several different forms of contagion, including the powers of stones (e.g., the attractive virtue of the magnet) and animals, the influences of the woman’s body and mind (mulier menstruata and vetula), fascination. Albert also provided different models for the explanation of the “contagious influence” (mechanical explanation based on physical contact, the Avicennian theory of psychosomatic transformations, the Avicennian doctrine of the power of the soul over external bodies, spiritual transmission of sins). As a result of his investigation into the mechanisms of disease transmission, air contamination, noxious influences, and fascination, Albert came to problematize the usual idea of natural causality based on the principle of contact between substances, and to test the potentials and limits of action at-a-distance. In particular, the present paper will examine Albert’s views on some of the phenomena explained through the concept of contagion: pestilences, leprosy, the basilisk, the menstruating woman, and fascination.

The doctrine of the inchoatio formae is an important feature of Albert the Great’s metaphysics and natural philosophy, as modern scholars, starting at least with Bruno Nardi’s pioneering study, have recognised. Nevertheless, the notion of the inchoatio formae as employed by Albert is usually understood to refer exclusively to the relationship between matter and substantial forms. On the contrary, in his commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu et sensato, and specifically in the context of a discussion of the so-called issue of minima sensibilia, i.e., the limits to the persistence of the accidental forms of sensible qualities according to the potential infinite divisibility of the matter with which they are united (cf. De sensu 6, 445b3-446a20), Albert talks explicitly of the inchoatio formarum sensibilium (possibly a hapax legomenon in the entire corpus of his writings), therefore applying the notion of the inchoatio formae to the accidental forms of sensible qualities themselves. This article reconstructs the precise meaning and the key features of the inchoatio formarum sensibilium in the context of Albert’s De sensu commentary and of his discussion of minima sensibilia and compares it with the notion of the inchoatio formae as applied to substantial forms, showing both the important similarities and the crucial differences between them. In this way, it becomes possible not only to better understand the intrinsic richness and complexity of the concept of the inchoatio formae in Albert’s writings, but also to do justice to the variety of functions it serves throughout Albert’s metaphysics and natural philosophy.

The doctrine of motion elaborated by Albert the Great has often been interpreted in the light of the debate, which developed in the 14th century, on the alternative between motion as a forma fluens, according to the Avicennian approach, or as a fluxus formae, more in line with Averroes’ position. Projecting this alternative onto Albert retrospectively, however, does not seem to be very productive for at least two reasons: (i) there is not a sufficient textual basis to affirm that he understood the syntagmas forma fluens / fluxus formae as indices of two different and opposing ways of interpreting physical motion; (ii) Albert actually proposes his own interpretation of motion that does not really coincide with either Avicenna’s or Averroes’. In this article, I intend to show how Albert understands motion – particularly in his Physics – as a forma fluens, but in a determinate sense, i.e. as changing according to its being and not according to its essence (secundum suum esse et non secundum suam essentiam). This qualification means that Albert’s position does not coincide in a strict sense with either Avicenna’s or Averroes’, and must instead be understood in close connection with Albert’s doctrine of incohatio formae and the presence, in matter, of a kind of ‘intellectual appetite’. My aim is thus to show how Albert found a way to inscribe the doctrine of the flow of form and the inchoative presence of forms in matter in a Neoplatonic emanationist system (mainly influenced by the Liber de causis) and to rethink the nature and function of the ‘giver of forms’ with respect to the Avicenna model.

The aim of this article is to look at the historiographical phenomenon of Scotism in the light of its diffusion in Puglia region from the period following the death of John Duns Scotus (1308) to the 18th century. The intellectual link between Scotist thought and Puglia already arose in the time immediately following Scotus’ death, with the figure of William of Alnwick (bishop of Giovinazzo in 1329/1330), and it is further confirmed and fostered by the widespread presence of Franciscan convents in the region. These convents constitute study centres (schools, Studia, libraries, etc.) promoting cultural debates and the formation of a substantial number of intellectuals who adhere to the Scotist magisterium. These are authors who, seemingly from a peripherical area with respect to the major centres of Scotism, as a matter of fact participate dynamically, through their works and teaching, in the most important theological and philosophical debates of the time relating to the doctrine of Duns Scotus.

During the second half of the 16th century, some members of the Society of Jesus began to develop different interpretations around the doctrine of causality within the history of Aristotelian commentaries. Since Aristotle had not proposed an unambiguous definition of cause, the debate grew between the interpreters of his Physics and Metaphysics. Therefore, before Suarez systematized the theories in his Metaphysical Disputations, the professors of the Colleges of Arts and Jesuit Universities discussed the definition of cause (ratio formalis causae). In this essay, I intend to reconstruct the history of causality debate before 1597 when Suarez published his successful metaphysical work and went to Coimbra as a professor of theology. The aim of this essay is to analyse some of the most influential Portuguese professors from Evora and Coimbra and their commentaries on the Aristotle’s works including those proposed by Ignatio de Tolosa (1564), Pedro da Fonseca (1589) and Manuel de Gois (1592). In this way, knowledge of the different views within the Society of Jesus will allow a better understanding of the developments made by Suarez to define causality as principle in the new metaphysical (theological and trinitarian) perspective towards Modernity.

Over the past four decades, the question of the relationship between divine omniscience and human freedom has led analytic philosophy of religion to analyze medieval thought on foreknowledge. To avoid fatalism, many of them have been inspired by Luis de Molina’s doctrine of middle knowledge. Created to provide a libertarian account of how God knows future contingents, the Molinist solution has divided contemporary interpreters into two camps: those who argue that Molinism implies determinism and those who have developed new analytical strategies to support Molina’s thesis. This study provides a map for moving through the debate.

First, this article summarizes the way Jan Patocˇka thinks and updates the classic theme of philosophy as care for the soul. Then goes on to show Jacques Derrida’s significant and unexpected interest in the Czech thinker, and the manner as sharp and respectful as he reads it. Derrida argues that the core of Patocˇka’s approach, under the term “responsibility”, coincides in some sense with that of Emmanuel Levinas; nucleus that has to do, in both authors, with the essence of “religion”.