[In the following essay, Albert discusses the accomplishments of Albert the Great as a scientist, philosopher, and theologian, stressing "the universality of his genius" and his vocation as a teacher.]

In one of his books Ulrich von Strassburg, who is usually described as St Albert's favourite pupil, says of his master that "he was the wonder and miracle of his age"; and Pius II in his dogmatic letter to the Turks 1464, hails him as one "who was ignorant of nothing, and knew all that was knowable." In his preface—in verse after the fashion of the times—to the first printed edition of the works of the saint, published in 1651, Peter Jammy, the editor, wrote the following lines:

      Cunctis luxisti
Scriptis praeclarus fuisti;
      Mundo luxisti
Quia totum scibile scisti.

[You enlightened all men, you were made illustrious by your writings: you illumined the whole world because you knew everything that could be known].

In our own day Pope Pius XI has declared:

Historians and those who have written about him have rightly singled out for special praise the extraordinary universality of his mind; for he was occupied not only with divine things and the truths of philosophy, but also with all other human sciences. Bartholomew of Lucca, a contemporary, declared that in his knowledge of all the sciences and in his method of teaching, he excelled all the learned doctors of his day.

It was the universality of St Albert's genius which, above all else, gained him the admiration of his contemporaries.

Others had been deeper thinkers; though no one could call his thought superficial. Others had been more original thinkers; though many of the theories which he enunciated or to which he pointed have been hailed by those who followed him as the great discoveries of their age. Others have been more polished, more finished in their style; but no one has shown such a combination of depth, originality and versatility of thought as did Albert the Great.

He would seem to have gathered up in himself the very different temperaments of a metaphysician, a mystic and a scientist … It is [not easy] to find people who, to the study of a wide range of subjects, unite true depth, and severe scientific precision … In the history of these great minds we have to jump from Aristotle to Albert the Great.

Before examining more closely the extent of the saint's learning it is well to bear in mind that both his knowledge and his ignorance were conditioned by the circumstances of his age. In the intellectual sphere Western Europe had received two great legacies from antiquity, the Christian Faith and the treasures of the Graeco-Roman civilisation embodied in its philosophical and scientific works. In the Dark Ages political and social conditions were such that only ecclesiastics had the leisure and opportunity for study and the pursuit of education. Therefore the curriculum was determined by their requirements—theology, Holy Scripture, canon and civil law. Theology dominated everything, and from the inheritance from antiquity only those things were taken which would best serve towards the understanding and development of that science. "Science" in the modern sense was unknown, and natural objects were only used to illustrate the supernatural. What might be called the text-book of the natural science of the day was the Physiologus (c. A.D. 300), a collection of fairy stories, fables and myths about beasts and the things of nature and their influence for good or ill, and from this book was drawn the rich symbolism which found expression in the architecture of the middle ages. The works of Isidore of Seville (c. A.D. 600), though less popular, were regarded as the best authorities and St Thomas often quotes them.

By A.D. 1200 and therefore during Albert's early years the situation was rather different. A good deal of the Greek learning, till then almost unknown to Western Europeans, had become available through translations from the Greek and Arabic, e.g. in the medical writing of the School of Salerno and the works of Adelard of Bath (c. A.D. 1115). Some alchemical and astronomical as well as medical works had been translated. The court of the Emperor Frederick II was the great centre of European science, and it seems almost certain that all scientific men of the thirteenth century received their stimulus from Sicily, Southern Italy and Spain, where Latin, Greek, Moslem and Jewish cultures met on equal terms.

Even in theology books were few and consisted principally of the Bible and commentaries thereon, and of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which was the nearest approach to the text-book of theology in the modern sense. Philosophy was more or less proscribed in the schools, but at the time of St Albert it was insinuating itself through the writings of the Arabian and Jewish philosophers who were disciples of Aristotle. Such in outline is the intellectual background against which St Albert's achievement must be judged—not according to the standards of our own day.

THE SCIENTIST

Albert was a student before he was a religious, for he was at the University of Padua when he entered the Order of Preachers. Padua was the centre of the study of the liberal arts, just as Paris was the metropolis of theological learning and Bologna that of law. From this one may assume that Albert's tastes naturally tended in the direction of what we now call science, but which in those days usually went under the name of philosophy. Philosophy in the modern sense and theology were later developments; yet from the outset there seems to have been present a tendency, springing from grace, to see all things from a theological point of view, i.e. as coming from God, leading to him, and having him as their first cause and final end. Such an attitude of mind shows the workings of the gifts of wisdom and knowledge which, together with the gift of prudence, "the executive of wisdom," are perhaps the most characteristic traits of the saint's spiritual physiognomy. He was a scientist by nature, but a saint by grace, and the natural was always seen, loved, and taught, in its relation to the supernatural.

We have said that Albert was a scientist from the start, and a scientist he always remained. He merited the title in a twofold sense; firstly because he investigated and treated of the various branches of knowledge which can be classed under the general head of the natural sciences; and secondly and with even more justice, because he possessed the true scientific temperament which bases all its researches on observation, takes over the results of others only when morally certain of their validity and never seeks to prove from the data it possesses more than can be legitimately deduced therefrom. In all this he was the first scientist of our Western culture and the greatest biologist since Aristotle whom, however, he corrected on many points; and he was the forerunner of the modern researchers.

Albert was endowed with a singular gift for the investigation of nature; a keen eye well adapted to the observation and determination of the slightest variation; a calm judgment capable of excluding any but sure results; above all a sensitive heart which embraced in its love the whole of nature down to its smallest elements.

As a boy he was not too carried away by the excitement of the chase to notice the behaviour of the wild falcons which came to receive their reward and then flew off; and we can picture him as a youth in Italy standing watching the workmen who were sawing up marble blocks and questioning them about the head of a bearded man, crowned with a royal crown, which he saw in one of them.

The countenance [he says] had no other defect, save that the forehead was too high and ascending towards the top of the head. All of us who examined were satisfied that it was the work of nature. And I [he was still a youth, note] being questioned as to the cause of the disproportion of the forehead, replied that this stone had been coagulated by the work of vapour, and that by means of a more powerful heat, the vapour had risen without order or measure. (De Mineralibus)

Or again in Padua pushing his way to the front of a crowd which was watching the opening of a well and waiting about anxiously for the recovery of the man who lay unconscious for two hours, asphyxiated by the fumes which had killed his two companions. This interest which dates back even to his childhood persisted throughout his life, for we know from the observations which he records in his writings and which refer to what he had seen in different parts of Europe that, unlike our holy Father, St Dominic, who kept his eyes cast down while travelling, St Albert kept his very wide open and missed nothing that was worth seeing. The fishes in the Danube, the squirrels in the forest, the cattle, the deer, the birds, insects, plants, all came under Albert's scrutinising gaze so that he was able to give descriptions such as have not been improved upon even by modern scientists with all the instruments they have at their disposal. The description of the spider must have been the result of hours of patient watching and one wonders whether this was in his cell, and if so, whether it was the model of cleanliness and order that is oftentimes considered the necessary outward expression of a saintly and orderly mind! The accounts of the habits of ants and bees must have required long periods of observation out of doors, perhaps in the garden whither the saint used to betake himself to sing hymns when wearied by prayer and study. Once he found three handfuls of honey in a nest of wild bees; but he remarks: "It was unfinished, inferior honey."

His description of the ant-lion may be quoted not only for its interest but because it illustrates Albert's carefulness to distinguish between what he had seen and what he had been told—a rare trait in those days.

The formicaleon (the lish of Job iv, 11) is called the ant-lion, which is also called murmicaleon. To begin with this animal is not an ant as some say. For I have a great deal of experience of it and have shown my colleagues that this animal has very much the shape of the tick, and it hides itself in the sand, digging in it a hemispherical cup, at the bottom of which is the ant-lion's mouth; and when the ants, bent on gain, cross the pit, it seizes and devours them. This we have very often watched. In the winter also it is said to rob the ants of their food, for it gathers nothing for itself in the summer. (De Animalibus, xxvi, 20)

History tells us how Albert's friend and pupil St Thomas Aquinas was so abstracted at table that he even forgot that he was dining with the King of France, so that one may reasonably assume that he did not take much interest in the food set before him; while we are told that St Dominic partook only of one dish and that sparingly, and then went to sleep while the brethren finished their meal. This does not appear to have been the case with St Albert. As early as 1245 he had come to be known as an authority on fishes and when he was then in Paris the son of the King of Castile presented him with a curious mussel shell, on which were engraved numerous tiny serpents. His biographer concludes that it would be during dinner, at which fish would usually be served, that the saint had leisure to examine in detail the different specimens which were set before him. A similar explanation is given for the perfection of his description of an apple from the rind to the core, which has never been surpassed. Albert also remarks that once when eating oysters he found ten pearls at one meal, which leads one to think that his appetite must have been such as is usually associated with men of his race. These details, which incidentally afford a charming insight into the human side of the saint, show that the scientific instinct was always on the alert and that always and in all places he was observing the objects which lay around him, not as a mere onlooker but with the eye of a true scientist, and one who was versed first of all in the science of the saints—"investigating natural causes which are the instruments through which the divine will is manifested" (St Albert).

St Albert also showed his true scientific spirit in the manner in which he used the works of Aristotle, who was the only person who had so far produced any really comprehensive treatises on the natural sciences. However, these writings of the Greek philosopher were available only in very imperfect and defective texts; and they were in many places obscure, and often inaccurate; so that the saint's task was, to paraphrase his own words, to provide a natural history which would make Aristotle intelligible; and this he did by following the arrangement of the Greek's book, but now giving a commentary or a paraphrase, now simply reproducing the original text, but frequently making additions, corrections, supplying deficiencies and missing portions, and whenever possible substituting examples from his own observations, which, as they related to the northern countries which were familiar to his readers, would be more helpful than those in the original. Very often he disposed of the many myths concerning flora and fauna which had been prevalent in the ancient world and still persisted in his own day; but because he did not free himself from all he has been long regarded by most scientists as a romancer and the slavish and uncritical follower of Aristotle, and it is only within the last seventy or seventy-five years that his true position as a scientist has begun to be recognised. But "whosoever believes that Aristotle was a god, must also believe that he never erred. But if one believes that he was a man, then doubtless he was liable to error just as we are." So Albert wrote in his Physicorum. And again in Meteororum: "And therefore I think that Aristotle must have spoken from the opinions of his predecessors and not from the truth of demonstration or experiment." In his Summa Theologica, there is a whole section entitled "The Errors of Aristotle." This could hardly have come from a "slavish follower of Aristotle"!

The reputation of romancer, too, is probably partly due to the books which were attributed to Albert but which he did not write, and partly to the ignorance of critics who did not understand the background of his knowledge. It is very remarkable how often he does reject marvellous tales, and how he distinguishes what he has read or been told from what he has seen. His recent nomination by the Holy Father as Patron of all the Natural Sciences shows that the Church has now realised his greatness in this sphere of knowledge; but he has yet to come into his own among scientific circles in general.

That he will do so eventually, when reliable critical editions of his various writings are produced, is almost certain. He treated, among other things, of astronomy, meteorology, climatology, mineralogy, alchemy, chemistry, physics, mechanics, anthropology, zoology, psychology, weaving, navigation, architecture, botany. In almost every subject he anticipated by several centuries some of the major discoveries of modern times.

Speaking of St Albert's botanical writings a nineteenth-century investigator said, "To the man who was complete master of all the learning of his day and definitely advanced it, who for three centuries was never equalled let alone surpassed, the finest laurels are rightly due." The De Vegetabilibus, a masterpiece of its kind, owes its perfection to four main considerations; the independence with which the subject is treated; the acuteness and range of the observations, many of which were quite new; the clarity and precision of the description of original plants; and the attempt at a systematic classification to separate the essential from the non-essential, and to group together all plants with essential characteristics in common. In this section he made the celebrated division of flowers into the bird or wing-shaped, the bell-shaped, and the star-shaped. In many cases the natural science of to-day has completed the work which Albert began but never had time to pursue seriously; and a famous botanist has declared, "The defects in this book are the fault of his age; its merits belong to him alone."

He was the first to mention spinach in western literature, the first to point out the difference between tree buds enveloped by scaly coverings and the buds of plants which are without them, the first to notice the influence of light and temperature on the growth of trees as affecting their height and spread, the first to establish that the sap in the root is tasteless, becoming more flavoured as it ascends—a phenomenon noted again by the English naturalist Knight, at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Similarly, in his zoological treatise De Animalibus which is based on Aristotle and Avicenna, St Albert made many new observations and gave detailed descriptions of all the fishes, birds, animals and insects which he had encountered on his journeyings on foot through Germany, France and Italy. He is said to have been the first to describe the weasel, the rat, the dormouse and the martens, also the spook-fish. He reject-ed many of the popular medieval myths, such as that of the pelican opening its breast to feed its young, or that the cock in its old age lays an egg from which a serpent is hatched. But because he included fabulous creatures in his list of animals his zoological knowledge has been underestimated and his contributions to this science insufficiently appreciated.

The dog seems to have interested him especially, likewise the whale and the bee, but one of his most charming and characteristic descriptions is that of the squirrel (De Animalibus):

The pirolus is an extremely lively little animal; it nests in the tops of trees, has a long bushy tail, and swings itself from tree to tree, in doing so using its tail as a rudder. When on the move it drags its tail behind it, but when sitting it carries it erect up its back. When taking food it holds it as do the other rodents in its hands, so to speak, and places it in its mouth. Its food consists of nuts and fruit and suchlike things. Its flesh is sweet and palatable. In Germany its colour is black when young, and later reddish, in old age it is even partly grey. In Poland it is reddish grey and in parts of Russia quite grey.

Among the characteristics of the cat he includes modesty—not the true modesty which belongs to man, but something remotely resembling it—love of beauty, and a habit of biting. Of the nightingale he remarks:

In the case of the nightingale I have observed how it flew up to good singers, to whose song it quietly listened, and then, as if to challenge them, started up its own song. In this way two nightingales mutually provoke one another to song. (De Animalibus)

The description of the capture of a small lizard by a spider is very graphic.

When the little creature had got itself entangled the spider at once came down and spun a web round its mouth so that she might not be injured in that way. Then she settled down to the creature and bit and stabbed it until it was dead or quite helpless. Then she went to the net where she stored her provisions and drew her prey after her by a web. This I saw myself with my own eyes and marvelled at the ingenuity of the spider. (De Animalibus)

To his acute observation Albert seems to have united great dexterity in the use of the scalpel as is shown by his dissections of plants and insects.

Thus it should be noted that although De Animalibus is not quite so free from the myths of the age as is the De Vegetabilibus, the recent appearance of a reliable critical edition has proved that it is invaluable to the zoologist. Critical editions of his other works in the category of the natural sciences have not yet been produced, but sufficient research has been undertaken to make it evident that here too Albert occupies a leading rank among scientific thinkers and investigators.

In an age when all save the learned believed the earth to be flat and inhabited only in the north he asserted that it was a sphere, proving his thesis as Aristotle had done before him by arguments from the force of gravity (in which some critics have seen a foreshadowing of Laplace's theory), which, he said, would also enable the southern zone to be inhabited. He even believed that the greater part of the earth was not only habitable but actually inhabited, except at the poles where he imagines the cold to be excessive. If there are any animals there, he says, "they must have very thick skins to defend them from the rigour of the climate, and they are probably of a white colour." Did he here anticipate the theory of protective coloration?

His treatise on climate and the various branches of geography foreshadows many modern theories. The formation of the earth's crust is due to a slow cooling of a central fire; mountain ranges are the result of upheaval, and he correctly traces the chief mountain chains of Europe, with rivers that take their source in each, mentioning sections of the coast which have been submerged by the sea's action in later times, and islands which have been formed by volcanic action; treating too of the effect of latitude and longitude and other factors in influencing local climate. His description of Germany surpasses, and in several places corrects, that of Tacitus whose Germania has always been considered a classic on the subject. The explorations of the fifteenth century are said to have been inspired, at least indirectly, by the saint's geographical writings. In his description of the British Isles he speaks of the island of Tile or Thule, not yet visited by man, and probably uninhabitable by reason of its frightful climate. He several times refers to his own maps, none of which have come down to us.

In Physics some of his explanations could well have been taken from a modern text-book. Sound, he says, is caused by the impact of two hard bodies, and this vibration is propagated in the form of a sphere whose centre is the point of percussion. Light is converted into heat, he declares, on being absorbed by a body. He speaks of the refraction of the solar ray, of the laws of the refraction of light, and remarks that none of the ancients and few of the moderns were acquainted with the properties of mirrors. He was familiar with the properties of magnets.

He seems to have undertaken experiments in alchemy, and is sometimes said to have been the first to isolate the element of arsenic. He compiled a list of over one hundred minerals, giving a description of each, and in the course of this book he remarks, "At one time when I was away from home I wandered far and wide to places where metals were to be found that I might discover their nature and properties" (De Mineralibus); and again: "I saw and studied how they worked in copper in our parts, namely Paris and Cologne and other places where I was."

Although he had no telescope he decided that the Milky Way must be composed of myriads of stars, and he says that the dark spots on the moon are not due to the earth's shadow, as the ancients believed, but to configurations on her own surface. He corrects Aristotle's assertion that a lunar rainbow occurs only twice in fifty years. "I myself have observed two in a single year," he says.

In anatomy he takes the vertebral column as the basis of the structure, whereas in his day and for long afterwards most anatomists began with the skull. In this sphere again he takes Aristotle to task. The Greek had held that man had eight ribs on either side. Albert declares, "Man has seven true ribs and five false ribs on either side."

Mathematics, anthropology, biology—every branch of science offers examples of Albert's anticipation of modern theories and discoveries, and it has been said that if his principles had been followed science might have been spared a detour of three centuries.

But he did not confine himself to theories. His researches must have involved many experiments, and one wonders how he managed to find time for them amidst all his other activities. He is known to have invented some sort of hydraulic machine; he possessed apparatus for registering the phenomena of an earthquake; he is said to have invented the first greenhouse. He made figures move by means of mercury, and in the nineteenth century a cup was still preserved in the museum of Cologne with which he was supposed to have cured every disease. Such was his interest in architecture that he is said to have drawn up the plans for the new cathedral of Strassburg which was then under construction. This seems likely, and it is certain that he produced those for the Dominican churches of Cologne and Louvain (St Dominic's Priory in London is modelled upon the latter). His influence on the growth of gothic architecture in Germany was so great that in ancient manuals the original style is called "the Albertine science." He was evidently something of a musician and a poet too, but all his songs are lost and most of his verses. Rudolph of Nymegen says that he composed many proses and sequences in honour of our Blessed Lady—no doubt those which he used to sing in the garden—offices of St Joseph and the Crown of Thorns, and the sequence in honour of the Blessed Trinity beginning "Profitentes Unitatem," which was in the old Dominican Graduale.

On this basis of fact many legends grew up. St Albert was thought to have a cure for every disease—he had written on medicine, Rudolph says—and so the goblet he had made was regarded as miraculous. He invented so many things that the common people believed he could produce something to satisfy every need. Despite his own condemnation of magic and astrology the legend grew up that he was something of a magician. So there is the story of the talking woman which St Thomas is supposed to have found behind a curtain and to have smashed up, crying out, "Get thee behind me Satan," thinking he was faced by a diabolical illusion. Whereupon St Albert is said to have entered the room and asked, "What have you done? You have destroyed the labours of thirty years!" This story does not ring true to what we know of the character of either saint, and legend has credited Roger Bacon also with the invention of a talking head. But it does give some idea of what people could believe about Albert. The reputed production of a summer's day in the priory garden in honour of the visit of the Emperor William of Holland may also be a magical illusion, but it may refer to his hothouse if the tradition that he invented this is true.

In the order of the miraculous Albert is said to have had a vision of our Blessed Lady and the Four Crowned Martyrs, Patrons of architects, while the plans for Cologne Cathedral were under discussion. At a word from the Mother of God and under her direction the saints drew the plans for a most wonderful edifice. Then the dream faded, but Albert remembered and reproduced the design, which was the one chosen.

Legends such as these have earned for the saint the reputation of magician as well as the contempt of scientists—at least until the process of his rehabilitation began in the past century. But enough has been said to show that Albert has every right to be regarded as one of the greatest scientists Europe has produced, and he has still a third claim to such a title, and one which, if it is recognised before it is too late, may yet be able to save both science and the world from the destruction towards which they seem to be heading.

For science, as we understand it today, seeks to know what can be quantitatively observed about the external—the shapes, sizes, movements, and changes of things—and then endeavours so to manipulate and arrange these things and circumstances that man's will shall be done. Its sphere is very limited, its conclusions can only be provisional, its laws are only probabilities. It can describe what a thing is, how it works in terms of matter and energy; it cannot, it is not meant to, explain the ultimate reason of things. That is the task of the philosopher, who can and should make use of the material provided by science. But that is what the science of today tries to do. Although it cannot see things as a whole, nor even for that matter see even the minutest thing as a whole, it limits reality to what it can observe in its test-tube and admits only one explanation of reality—the materialistic one from which the spiritual and God are a priori excluded. Thus it sets itself up as a "philosophy" in which neither natural philosophy nor theology can even make an appearance; rather than acknowledge its inferior position in the hierarchy of knowledge it refuses to recognise any form of wisdom other than its own, though in truth mere scientia is not wisdom at all.

St Albert was a true scientist, remarkably free from that confusion between science and philosophy, as we know them, which was so general in his day.

There are some people who attribute all these things to divine order [he says], and say that we must not consider in them any other cause save the will of God. This in part we can agree to… yet… we are not seeking a reason or explanation of the divine will but rather investigating natural causes which are as instruments through which God's will is manifested. It is not sufficient to know these things in a general sort of way; what we are looking for is the cause of each individual thing according to the nature belonging to it.

But he was an equally great philosopher and he pursued his scientific studies from a teleological standpoint, realising with St Paul that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. i, 20), and that the ultimate answer to the problem of the origin and purpose of the universe which science itself can never solve is, in the words of St Thomas that God "has produced things into being in order that his goodness might be communicated to creatures and be represented by them" (Summa Theologica). The whole universe is the work of his hands, he guides it and directs it to its end. It came forth from him and to him it must return, and each thing is what it is because he so wills it, and because it thus best serves the purpose of the whole. He preserves it not from afar but from within and the true natural philosopher, such as Albert was, is conscious "not only that the beauty (of things) is a reflection of his infinite beauty, but that the invisible beauty is within them and about them, hallowing them."

And when, like Albert, he is above all a theologian and a saint, he will recognise, in the things that are made, traces of that Triune Life of knowledge and love which is the being of the God of revelation, He who is present everywhere in his creation is Father, Son and Spirit of Love, and his love of his own goodness is the ultimate explanation of everything.

Science has suffered considerably for having disregarded Albert's principles of experience for nearly three centuries: it will suffer still more if it does not accept his teleological conception of science before it is too late; if it does not recognise that science of itself can never provide a philosophy of life, but at best can only supply the material on which others may build one.

That is why Pope Pius XI declared that

the present moment would seem to be the time when the glorification of Albert the Great was most calculated to win souls to the sweet yoke of Christ. Albert is exactly the Saint whose example should inspire this modern age—so full of hope for its scientific discoveries… In him the rays of divine and human science meet to form a shining splendour … His life is a standing proof that there is no opposition, but rather the closest fellowship between science and faith… Like St Jerome, Albert, as it were with powerful voice, declares and proves in his wonderful writings that science worthy of the name, and faith, and a life lived according to the principles of faith, can, and indeed should, all flourish together in men because supernatural faith is the crown and perfection of science.

Albert was then first of all a scientist, endowed with the true scientific temperament and retaining all his life a deep interest in things scientific. His writings on scientific subjects embraced every branch of that form of learning and occupy a high place among such writings of any age. Because of them, because of his scientific spirit and because of the discoveries which he made and the principles which he laid down, he is rightly considered one of the first true scientists of our Western culture after Aristotle in order of time, he is given a place amongst the greatest scientists of all ages, and is undeniably the greatest Catholic scientist of any age. And yet in a life filled with teaching, preaching, writing, and apostolic work of every kind, his scientific interest took the place almost of a hobby. Natural science was an important part of the curriculum for the Faculty of Arts in which Aristotle's writings were read in the order in which they are commented on by St Albert, who may well have taught them in the schools of Arts in the Order. He certainly wrote his commentaries at the earnest request of the brethren, even though he also had a wider end in view. As he says himself in his commentary on Aristotle's Physicorum:

Our object in these treatises on natural science is to meet as far as lies in our power, the wishes of the brethren of our Order, who now for several years have been begging us to compile such a book on the things of Nature, as would give them a complete natural history, by means of which they could arrive at a sufficient understanding of Aristotle's writings. Though we do not consider ourselves to be equal to such a work, we could not resist the wishes of the brethren.

But although the Arts, in which natural science occupied an increasingly large place, were important as preliminary studies, theology still remained the friars' chief preoccupation and to that Albert must have devoted the lion's share of his teaching and study. Yet his academic life itself was only one aspect of an existence which was crammed with activities of every sort, in the midst of which he found time to write and to collect the material for writing those treatises which give him a place among the leaders of science, and one wonders what he would have achieved had he devoted the whole of his time, energy and mighty intellect to this one congenial subject. Perhaps it is as a reward for the self-abnegation involved in this sacrifice that he is now honoured in the Church as Patron of all the Natural Sciences.

A biographer, Thomas of Chantimpré, reports this story which he declares he had often heard from the lips of the saint himself, to prove the supernatural nature of his vocation to cultivate the natural sciences:

One day when Albert was seated at the table in his tiny cell ardently seeking the solution of some scientific problem, the evil spirit made his appearance under the guise of a Dominican religious. Feigning modesty and compassion he first spoke of his too great application to study, representing to him that he was overburdening both soul and body, taking no care of his health and wasting his energy on things which were foreign to his profession. Albert, supernaturally enlightened as to the designs of the evil one, was content to reply by making the sign of the Cross and the apparition disappeared.

THE PHILOSOPHER

The catalogue of St Albert's scientific writings which has already been given might almost of itself justify the title of Universal Doctor, and yet they form only a part of the total output of his works. The exact number of these is still unknown for many are unedited, many lost or hidden in libraries, and while some unauthentic works are attributed to him, others probably genuine may still go under the name of other authors. One thing is certain that great as was Albert's reputation as a scientist his fame as a philosopher was even greater, and it is in this sphere that he made his greatest contribution to learning.

He was described by Henry of Hereford as "the most resplendent son of the philosophers of Christendom," and he was called by his contemporaries Maximus in philosophia even before he received the general title of "the Great." As in natural science, his writings embrace every aspect of the subject—logic, metaphysics and moral philosophy, while he has separate treatises against the outstanding philosophical errors of the day. It is true that he did not create a perfectly finished philosophical system as did St Thomas; but St Thomas could never have produced his system without the preliminary labours of St Albert, and without Albert Thomas might never even have been a philosopher. Roger Bacon, Englishman who had no love for Dominicans, least of all for Albertus Magnus, tried to belittle and ridicule him when he wrote—"He had never studied philosophy, nor did he attend lectures on the subject in the schools, he was also never in a Studium Solemne before he became a theologian; he could not have received any instruction in his Order, for he was the first Master of Philosophy in it."

Actually this gibe only serves to show the greatness of Albert as a philosopher. He found the philosophical works of Aristotle proscribed from the schools, and accessible only in defective translations, and in the commentaries of Arabs and Jews to whom they had come through African translations and writings which were greatly influenced by Neo-Platonist philosophy, so that their Aristotelianism was to a great extent mixed with Neo-Platonism. Without apparently any previous training, he set out as he himself said "to make all these parts [of Aristotle's writings] intelligible to Latins," and he succeeded so well that he produced commentaries which are still of value today, collected an immense range of material, secured for Aristotle an entrance into the schools, and prepared the way for the dedication of philosophy to the services of theology, a task which theologians had been attempting since the time of Augustine, and which Thomas was to bring to a happy conclusion.

In his commentaries Albert set out not to give his own views so much as to reproduce those of Aristotle, elucidating them by means of those Arabian and Jewish writers who he thought had understood him most clearly: for he like St Thomas—or perhaps it would be more correct to say that St Thomas like St Albert— believed in making use of truth no matter where it was found. He does, however, make it clear that in presenting the thought of Aristotle he does not necessarily make it his own, and that while agreeing with his system and method as a whole he disagrees very decidedly with some sections of it, and while following Aristotle in general he does from time to time in his own works adopt the theories and arguments of Plato.

Albert wrote in his commentary on Aristotle's Politics:

It is not I who have said anything in this book; I have only set out what has been said and stated principles and causes. Similiarly in all the physical books I have never put forward my own opinions, but have rather expounded as faithfully as I could the views of the Peripatetics. This I only say on account of some lazy people who, seeking an excuse for their laziness, scrutinise the book for something they can find fault with.

Yet he did, in fact, in the course of his expositions set down some of his own views, if only in the way he pronounced for or against the views of others which he was reporting; but he never produced the coherent, finished synthesis of St Thomas, and in different writings he seems to sponsor now one view now another. This is one of the defects of his work, but a defect which springs from and is almost conditioned by its merits. He set out to render Aristotle intelligible to the West, and he certainly succeeded in that self-appointed task. William of Moerbeke's Latin translation from the original Greek, done at the request of St Thomas, had made available a reliable text, but the need for equally reliable commentaries was urgent.

These commentaries were Albert's own contribution, and to write them he made himself master of all the philosophical knowledge of his time, taking especial pains to assimilate the whole body of Arabian and Jewish knowledge with which he became more familiar than did any other Christian scholar of the day. The amount of information which he thereby collected was enormous and he had to sift, criticise and correct it before setting it out in his commentaries. Small wonder then that he did not attempt to give a decisive vote on every theory which he mentioned. That he left to minds less burdened with detail than his own. For a like reason, he did not produce a complete philosophical system, although he did conceive the idea of linking together all the truths found in the various philosophical systems, and he worked at this in his various monographs, thus founding a self-sufficient Christian philosophy, of which the superstructure, the general fundamentals and many details were taken direct from Aristotle.… [The] universality of Albert's genius embraced the whole philosophical knowledge of his day; and that it is in this sphere that his originality and genius, by initiating and making possible the formation of a Christian philosophy, the philosophia perennis, found their most perfect expression.

THE THEOLOGIAN

Albert was by natural inclination a naturalist, by conscious effort a philosopher, and with his whole devout soul from the bottom of a heart which glowed with charity, a theologian.

So writes a biographer; and Pius XI, in the Bull from which we have quoted so often, declares:

To him belongs this great honour, that (excepting St Thomas) there is scarcely another doctor of equal authority, whether in philosophy, theology or the interpretation of Scripture. Indeed it was to theology that the whole trend of his mind was inevitably directed. It would be an endless task to relate all that Albert has done for the increase of theological science.… He used philosophy and the scholastic method as a kind of implement for the explanation of theology. In fact he is regarded as the author of that method of theology which has come down in the Church to our own time as the safe and sound norm for clerical studies.

Yet while Albert takes a first rank among theologians the defects in his philosophical writings are reproduced here and he has always to take second place to St Thomas except perhaps in one or two sections. Yet here too Albert prepared the way for Thomas, and neither can be properly appreciated save in relation to the other.

When Albert began to write and to teach theology still meant primarily the study of Holy Scripture, so that it is not surprising to find that, according to his earliest biographer, he commented on the whole of the Bible. The only treatises extant today are the commentaries on the Psalms, the Prophets, the four Gospels, the Book of Job, the Canticle of Canticles, and one on the Mulier Fortis, whom he takes as a type of the Church and of the individual soul. The style of these different works varies. The commentary on the Psalms was written for the faithful with a view to bringing to memory the moral precepts and truths of the Faith, and so he follows the allegorical method which had traditionally been adopted by the Western Fathers. The commentary on the Prophets, on the other hand, was written to refute the Jews, and here Albert was at pains to establish the literal sense, showing the Prophets as the signposts to Christ, and only referring briefly to the allegorical meaning. The Gospel commentaries are of a different nature again, the allegorical character being almost entirely disregarded, so that the literal sense is thrown into the foreground and the significance of the books as the historical source of Christianity is brought out. These treatises show that Albert had a gift for historical writings, although we do not possess any such works from his pen. Among these commentaries that on St Luke's Gospel stands out so conspicuously that Peter of Prussia remarks that in the opinion of many the saint must have been very specially illuminated by the Holy Ghost in writing it. According to tradition this work was written, or at least completed, while Albert was bishop which may account for the more than usually severe denunciations of the failings and disorders of the times which it contains. One critic has said of this treatise:

Here the current of Albert's own thought and his mystically inclined disposition find their freest expression, and at times in passages of great nobility and sublime genius, passages which must surely rank with the greatest and most profound in the religious literature of all times.

Albert's contribution to scriptural exegesis was threefold. He strongly insisted on the literal meaning, he led the way in introducing a systematic analysis of the text, and he traced the progressive development of revelation, a thought which was novel in his day. In all these things he pointed the way towards modern exegetical methods, so that although he does not occupy any position of special importance in biblical science— since the auxiliary sciences at the disposal of the modern scholar were unknown to him—his position among medieval exegetes is one of outstanding importance, as it witnessed by the epithet applied to him in a 1473 Preface to his Mariale—"the most renowned interpreter of the Sacred Books."

In the sphere of moral philosophy, Albert's position is the same as that in philosophy and in theology as a whole; he prepared the way for St Thomas to whose works his own are inferior. It is interesting to note, however, that while the second part of the Summa, wherein the whole of moral theory is worked out in relation to the good, has long been considered the masterpiece of Thomas's method and exposition, a manuscript has lately been discovered containing the third part of Albert's Summa de Creaturis wherein he treats of ethics in relation to the good, thoroughly discussing the four cardinal virtues; and this was composed a good twenty years before St Thomas's Summa. Here as everywhere Aristotle is the basis, but St Augustine's ethical theories are also given prominence, and in an age which was essentially objective in its theological expositions Albert anticipates later times in giving consideration to the personal element.

The great discerner of souls does not belie himself here. More than once his vast experience of life, his charity in judgment, his just and wise weighing of all the circumstances, manifest themselves. This is especially the case when Albert, as for instance in his teaching on anger, or on the spiritual works of mercy, descends to the particular and gives advice on the proper ordering of life, for then he reveals a unique greatness, a rare combination of high scientific training and a practical wisdom born of his own experience of life… We can then catch a glimpse of his own soul, as in moving speech his loving heart sings the canticle of God.

This introduction of the personal element… differs so much from Thomas…Here it may be noted it follows from his whole conception of theology, which was not to him a dry impersonal abstract science, a theoretical knowledge of God, but a knowledge breathing forth love, intensely practical, in fact 'Mystical Theology' in Denis's sense, which is the knowledge of God flowing from the Gift of Wisdom. To quote once more from the Bull of canonisation:

Albert's numerous theological works, and above all, his commentaries on the sacred Scriptures, bear the marks not only of an enlightened mind and a deep knowledge of Catholic training, but they are stamped with the spirit of piety and arouse in souls the desire to cleave to Christ. We readily discern therein the holy man discoursing of holy things… His mystical writings show that he was favoured by the Holy Ghost with the gift of infused contemplation.

In dogmatic theology Albert produced the usual commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which belongs to his early teaching days, and a Summa which was unfinished at the time of his death. Neither approaches the sublimity of St Thomas's Summa for which, however, all Albert's theological studies prepared the way. As in philosophy, he was usually content to set down the different opinions on a point, leaving it to others to decide which was the true one, so he gives the impression at times of himself wavering between different points of view. On some subjects— the nature of original sin, and the creation of Adam in a state of sanctifying grace—he adopted doctrines which were contrary to those usually held and which only became generally accepted when they had been further sponsored by St Thomas. His favourite subjects were our Blessed Lady and the Holy Eucharist. He wrote more on our Lady than did any other scholastic doctor—the Mariale, a treatise on her virginity, a commentary on the Ave Maria, and lengthy sections in the scriptural commentaries—and in them he displays a burning love and devotion towards the Queen of Heaven. Peter of Prussia points out that the saint never mentioned her name without adding some epithet in her praise. His most important contribution to Mariology is his teaching on her universal mediation which he developed from her position as bride and co-helper of Jesus.

The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist receives even more attention; the sermons on the Eucharist for a long time circulated under the name of St Thomas and were extremely popular: De Eucharistico Sacramento is a veritable Summa on the subject, while De Sacrificio Missae is an exposition of the prayer and ceremonies of the Mass which broke away from the arbitrary and artificial method then common and took a road which is followed even today. In these treatises as in those of our Blessed Lady the saint is obviously dealing with a subject dear to his heart, and the fervour of his devotion cannot be concealed. This is also the case when he deals with the theology of the Procession of the Holy Ghost to which he had obviously devoted much thought and study.

It is in the sphere of mystical theology, however, that Albert is at his best, nor was he surpassed even by Thomas. The popular De adhaerendo Deo, so long regarded as his masterpiece, is now considered to be either wholly or in part the work of another; but his other mystical works, especially the commentaries on Denis the Areopagite, are quite sufficient to give him a leading place among masters of the spiritual life. He alone of all the scholastics commented on all these books, and his commentaries are a masterpiece of interpretation. Moreover he showed how every word and every phrase can be given an interpretation comfortable to sacred Scriptures, although the author was actually tinged with Neo-Platonic and unorthodox ideas; and he pointed out many errors into which mystics are liable to fall, especially the dangers of quietism. Rudolph of Nymegen records the following story apropos of the commentaries on Denis the Areopagite:

A religious renowned for his learning and virtue [whom most people believe to have been St Thomas] one day picked up a sheet of paper on which the following was written in Albert's hand. "When I had with much difficulty completed the book on the 'Celestial Hierarchy' I began the exposition of the 'Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.' With incredible difficulty I had got through the first chapter on Baptism, but when I started on the second my strength failed me. I despaired of being able to go any further when after Matins, this vision was vouchsafed to me. I found myself in a church where St Paul was saying Mass. Consoled beyond measure I felt sure that he himself would enlighten me on the meaning of Denis. When the Apostle had said the Agnus Dei, an enormous crowd entered the church, and the celebrant asked what they wanted. "We have brought you a demoniac," replied someone; "please deliver him." When Satan had been driven out, Paul gave Holy Communion to the happy Christian. I offered myself as server, and said with a certain fear, "For a long time I have desired to be instructed on the profound mysteries contained in the pages of the Areopagite, and especially on the nature of true holiness," Paul replied kindly; "After Mass come with me to the house of Aaron the High Priest, situated on the other bank of the river."

Accordingly when Mass was over I followed the Apostle. When we arrived at the water's edge the Doctor of the Nations crossed without difficulty. It was not so with me; for hardly had I touched the waves than they began to rise so as to make my crossing impossible. St Paul entered the house which he had pointed out to me; and I asked myself anxiously how I could possibly follow him, and then suddenly I awoke. After some reflection I believed I had found the explanation of the dream. The first chapter of Denis treats, in effect, of the expulsion of Satan from the human soul by Baptism. Then the new Christian participates in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist. The following chapter leads him who would receive the holy chrism to the house of Aaron, because here it is a question of the chrism with which bishops are anointed. The deep waters which so suddenly heaped up had terrified me, but by the grace of God the great Apostle had made my passage easy. I therefore betook myself once more to my writing, and I have completed, with help from on high, what my own feebleness had shown me was an impossibility.

As a mystical writer he had tremendous influence over the German School which followed him, and, as in the case of the natural sciences, if his example and teaching had been followed, a detour of several centuries would have been avoided. "In the field of mysticism Albert not only achieved great things in individual problems, but also laid new foundations, and set up signposts for the further development of the subject."

This inadequate survey of Albert's writings may perhaps convey some idea of the universality of his genius. It may be added that he was always a "doctor" in the most literal sense of the word, i.e. a teacher. He studied and wrote not for love of so doing, and perhaps not even principally out of a love of truth but out of a love of God and of souls in God, which made him anxious to impart to others the knowledge which he had himself amassed, and to employ for the good of souls the talents which had been entrusted to him. That one of those was the gift of teaching, of imparting knowledge, is evident. No saint has taught for so long nor been so determined to return to the office of teaching when other works could be laid aside. That he was chosen as the first regent of studies of the Studium Generate at Cologne shows the esteem in which he was held by the authorities of his Order; and the crowds who flocked to his lectures proved that the students of Europe had a like opinion of his ability.

A prolific writer is not necessarily a good writer and to be endowed with an encyclopedic brain is not necessarily a sign of greatness, but in Albert these were manifestation of the essential greatness of his intellect, while his teaching ability depended perhaps most of all on the greatness of his soul. As Pius XI wrote, "All the works of Albert are of monumental value and of imperishable authority. With our predecessor Leo XIII we venture to say—'Although time will bring its increase to every kind of science, still Albert's teachings which served to form Thomas Aquinas and were regarded in his time as miraculous can never really grow old.'"