Philosophy

From Pseudo-Aristotle to Pseudo-Albert:
The Emancipation of Natural Philosophy

EVELINA MITEVA (Cologne)


In his famous prologue to his commentary to Aristotle’s Physics (written ca. 1251 – 1252) Albert the Great describes his plan to comment on the entire Corpus Aristotelicum. However, this plan has a further goal, i.e. to build an extensive, hierarchical system of all knowledge, a scientia perfecta. That is why he states that he is going to fill in the gaps in the Aristotelian work either by digressions within a commentary work, or by entire treatises, in the cases where Aristotle’s works either were not preserved, or simply were never written by Aristotle. (Physica l.1 tr.1 c.1, p. 1, ll. 38-40)
That is how some of Albert’s most widely received works were written, De mineralibus and De nutrimentu et nutrito. These were additions to the branch of the natural philosophy, and Albert considered them Aristotelian if not properly Aristotle’s works. Along with these two “para”-Aristotelian works, Albert does not hesitate to insert in his system a work of dubious Aristotelian origin as well, such as De causis proprietatum elementorum. In this work, he adds digressions on the causes of the tides, the floods, the characteristics of air and fire, or what happens to animals after a flood.

Albert the Great’s explicit commitment to natural philosophy made him a doubtless authority in all matters of nature. That is how from an author commenting on Pseudo-Aristotle he becomes a Pseudo-Albert. “His” most widespread pseudoepigrahical works are certainly De secretis mulierum and De muliere forti as well as some alchemy texts.
Looking into Albert’s commentary on the pseudo-Aristotelian work De proprietatum elementorum and into the pseudo-Albertinian De secretis mulierum, a text which collects authentic Albertinian and late 13th century texts on embryology, I will elaborate on the idea that from the middle of 13th century on natural philosophy gained on autonomy as a branch of science. The fortune of both treatises is a proof for the emancipation of natural philosophy as a science in its own right.