Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts in Medieval Thought: Acts of the XXII Annual Colloquium of the Societe Internationale Pour Letude de la Philosophie Medievale, Cluj-Napoca, 28-30 September 2016 2503606067, 9782503606064

Table of contents :
Front Matter
INTRODUCTION. MONICA BRINZEI, DANIEL COMAN, IOANA CURUT, ANDREI MARINCA
TRANSLATING AND READING PSEUDO-ARISTOTLEIN THE LATIN WEST. PIETER DE LEEMANS (†) AND LISA DEVRIESE
BALANCING AUTHORITY ON A COLUMN OF FIRE: THE SECRET OF SECRETS AND THE SALVATION OF ARISTOTLE. WILLIAM DUBA
THE SECRETUM SECRETORUM AND THE IDEA OF POLITICAL HAPPINESS IN THE LATIN MIDDLE AGES. ANTÓNIO ROCHA MARTINS
GREEK AND ARABIC INSPIRATIONS FOR ORGANIZING MEDIEVAL BANQUETS: THE PSEUDO-ARISTOTELIAN SECRETUM SECRETORUM AS A SOURCE AND A MODEL FOR MEDIEVAL ADVICE LITERATURE. PAVLÍNA CERMANOVÁ
SECONDARY CAUSES IN THE LIBER DE CAUSIS AND THE WORK OF THOMAS AQUINAS. JULIE LOVELAND SWANSTROM
DER LIBER DE CAUSIS ALS QUELLE DER INTELLEKTLEHRE DES ALBERTUS MAGNUS. HENRYK ANZULEWICZ
THE ARABIC ISLAMIC RECEPTION OF THE ARABIC PLOTINUS AND MAIMONIDES’ THEORY OF EMANATION. BEATE ULRIKE LA SALA
SPIRITUS AND PLANT FORMATION: ALBERT THE GREAT’S RESTATEMENT OF THE PSEUDO-ARISTOTELIAN DE PLANTIS. MARILENA PANARELLI
FROM PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE TO PSEUDO-ALBERT: THE EMANCIPATION OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. EVELINA MITEVA
ISTE LIBER VIDETUR ESSE FACTUS AB ARISTOTILE: BARTHOLOMEW OF BRUGES AND THE MEDIEVAL RECEPTION OF THE DE INUNDATIONE NILI. PAVEL BLAZEK
THE MEDIEVAL HEBREW DE POMO AND THE MYTH OF THE JEWISH ARISTOTLE. ABRAHAM MELAMED
THE MEDIEVAL LATIN RECEPTION OF LIBER DE POMO IN QUESTIONS DE INTENTIONE ARISTOTELIS ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD. IOANA CURUT
THE PSEUDO-ARISTOTELIAN DE MUNDO AND LATE MEDIEVAL THEOLOGIANS. ANDREI MARINCA
Back Matter

Citation preview

Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts in Medieval Thought

SOCIÉTÉ INTERNATIONALE POUR L’ÉTUDE DE LA PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALE Membres du Bureau et du Comité scienti¿que de rédaction des Rencontres

Présidents d’honneur : M. M. J. F. M. HOENEN, Basel. M. J. PUIG MONTADA, Madrid. M. L. STURLESE, Lecce.

Président : M. T. HOFFMANN, Paris.

Vice-Présidents : Mme M. BRINZEI, Paris. Mme V. BUFFON, Santa Fe. M. A. PALAZZO, Trento.

Assesseurs : M. F. BEN AHMED, Rabat. M. W. DUBA, Fribourg. M. C. GRELLARD, Paris. Mme K. KRAUSE, Berlin. M. F. O’REILLY, Montevideo. M. A. ROBIGLIO, Leuven. M. A. STORCK, Porto Alegre. M. J. A. TELLKAMP, Mexico City.

Secrétaire général : Mme L. DEVRIESE, Leuven. Web-site: https://hiw.kuleuven.be/siepm E-mail: [email protected] - [email protected]

Editeur responsable des publications : Mme A. BECCARISI, Foggia. E-mail: [email protected]

Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale — Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale, 28 — General Editor: Alessandra Beccarisi (Università degli Studi di Foggia)

Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts in Medieval Thought Acts of the XXII Annual Colloquium of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, Cluj-Napoca, 28-30 September 2016

Edited by

Monica Brinzei Daniel Coman, Ioana Curu‫܊‬, Andrei Marinca

BREPOLS 2023

All of the essays published in this volume have been reviewed by members of the Bureau of the SIEPM.

Illustration de couverture: Schlatt, Eisenbibliothek, Mss 20, f. 29r

© 2023, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2023/0095/217 ISBN 978-2-503-60606-4 E-ISBN 978-2-503-60607-1 DOI 10.1484/M.RPM-EB.5.133677 ISSN 2294-8384 E-ISSN 2294-8392 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS Monica Brinzei, Daniel Coman, Ioana Curu‫܊‬, Andrei Marinca, Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pieter De Leemans (†) and Lisa Devriese, Translating and Reading Pseudo-Aristotle in the Latin West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William Duba, Balancing Authority on a Column of Fire: The Secret of Secrets and the Salvation of Aristotle . . . . . . . . . António Rocha Martins, The Secretum Secretorum and the Idea of Political Happiness in the Latin Middle Ages . . . . . . . . Pavlína Cermanová, Greek and Arabic Inspirations for Organizing Medieval Banquets: the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum as a Source and a Model for Medieval Advice Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie Loveland Swanstrom, Secondary Causes in the Liber de Causis and the Work of Thomas Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henryk Anzulewicz, Der Liber de Causis als Quelle der Intellektlehre des Albertus Magnus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beate Ulrike La Sala, The Arabic Islamic Reception of the Arabic Plotinus and Maimonides’ theory of Emanation. . . . . . Marilena Panarelli, Spiritus and Plant Formation: Albert the Great’s Restatement of the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Plantis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evelina Miteva, From Pseudo-Aristotle to Pseudo-Albert: The Emancipation of Natural Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3DYHO %ODåHNIste liber videtur esse factus ab Aristotile: Bartholomew of Bruges and the Medieval Reception of the De Inundatione Nili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abraham Melamed, The Medieval Hebrew De Pomo and the Myth of the Jewish Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioana Curu‫܊‬, The Medieval Latin Reception of Liber de Pomo in Questions De intentione Aristotelis on the Eternity of the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

1 29 53

85 111 153 183 199 215 235 269 287

VI

Table of Contents

Andrei Marinca, The Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo and Late Medieval Theologians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Index of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

INTRODUCTION MONICA BRINZEI, DANIEL COMAN, IOANA CURU‫܉‬, ANDREI MARINCA

F

rom 28 and 30 September 2016 Babe‫܈‬-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, hosted the XXII Annual Colloquium of the SIEPM under the title: Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts in Medieval Thought. Why Cluj-Napoca and why this topic?

The main motivation for the Cluj-Napoca team to organize this conference was to present the Center of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy (Centrul de Filoso¿e Antică úi Medievală – FAM) chaired by Professor Alexander Baumgarten and to advertise its initiatives to the widest possible international community of medievalists dealing with philosophy. It was meant not only to establish a connection between a young group of medievalists at Cluj and senior academics abroad, but also to encourage their research and instill greater con¿dence in them that their work is fully in line with the tendencies and methodologies followed globally. The interest in medieval philosophy has been introduced in Romania by Professor Alexander Baumgarten, whose constant energy and his pioneering project to open a new discipline in humanities in the country received well-earned recognition via the SIEPM conference. If in the 1990s we could not talk about studies in medieval philosophy in Romania, today Cluj-Napoca proudly hosts a cluster of ¿ne young local researchers and welcomes scholars from abroad via international and national grants and projects, facilitating the progress of their work within the framework of the FAM Center.1 In addition, the book series Biblioteca Medievală has already reached volume 55, largely through the publication of Romanian translations of a variety of medieval writings.2 International journals such as Vivarium,

For the list of projects hosted by the center and the names of the collaborators visit the website: https://hiphi.ubbcluj.ro/fam/programe. 2 An English catalogue of this collection can be accessed via the following link: https://polirom.ro/pag/12-biblioteca-medievala. 1

Pseudo-Aristotelian Texts in Medieval Thought Turnhout, 2023 (Rencontres de Philosophie médiévale 28) © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS NV

pp. vii–xxi 10.1484/M.RPM-EB.5.134863

VIII

M. Brinzei, I. Curuа, D. Coman, A. Marinca

Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales, and of course the SIEPM’s own Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, among the leading channels for disseminating original research in the ¿eld, have already published the work of scholars trained in Cluj-Napoca.3 One of the ¿rst texts translated from Latin into Romanian by Alexander Baumgarten was the Liber de Causis.4 This pseudo-Aristotelian treatise became the point of departure for a number of scienti¿c adventures and stimulated interest in the entire corpus of pseudo-Aristotelian treatises among scholars in Cluj-Napoca. Pieter de Leemans bonae memoriae et felicis recordationis immediately embraced our initiative, strongly encouraging us to propose this topic for the XXII Annual Colloquium of the SIEPM in Cluj-Napoca. This volume not only praises his memory, but, we are extremely pleased to relate, contains a posthumously published paper by Pieter, written in collaboration with Lisa Devriese, who is responsible for the ¿nal version of the contribution. The volume in fact opens with de Leemans and Devriese’s col3 M. BRINZEI, L. CIOCA, “New Attribution of Texts in the Manuscript Münich, Clm 11591”, in Chora 12 (2014), 269-286; L. CIOCA, “Les Principia sur les Sentences: entre exercise institutionnel et réalité intellectuelle”, in Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 57 (2015), 434-437; I. CURUğ, “De iudeis: References to Jews and Judaism in Thomas Ebendorfer’s Sentences Commentary”, in Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales (forthcoming); I. CURUğ, “Thomas Ebendorfer on virtus sermonis and the Relation between Theology, Philosophy, and Logic. With an Edition of the Prologue to His Commentary on the Sentences”, in Vivarium 61 (2023), 59-109; I. CURUğ, “The Sentences Commentary of Thomas Ebendorfer: Manuscripts and Question Lists”, in Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 88 (2021), 65-111; I. CURUğ, “Viennese University Theologians on Practical Theology”, in Archa Verbi 14 (2017), 101-156; A. MARINCA, “Geraldus Odonis on Atomism. With a Critical Edition of In II Sent., d. 44, q. 4”, in Vivarium 60 (2022), 325-386. In addition, papers of all the members of the FAM Center have been published in two collective volumes with Brepols: The Rise of an Academic Elite: Deans, Masters, and Scribes at the University of Vienna before 1400, ed. M. BRINZEI (Studia Sententiarum, 6), Turnhout 2022, and The Cistercian James of Eltville († 1393). Author in Paris and Authority in Vienna, ed. M. BRINZEI, C. SCHABEL (Studia Sententiarum, 3), Turnhout 2018. See also D. COMAN, “Cistercians and the Assimilation of Anselm in the Late 14th Century. A Case Study of the Quaestio in vesperiis fratris Chunradi de Ebrako († 1399), in Anselm of Canterbury: Communities, Contemporaries and Criticism, ed. M. HEALY-VARLEY, G. GASPER, G. YOUNGE (Anselm Studies and Texts, 3), Leiden 2021, 216-239. 4 PSEUDO-ARISTOTEL, Liber de causis, ediĠie bilingvă, traducere, note úi comentariu A. BAUMGARTEN, Bucureúti 2002.

Introduction

IX

laborative paper, which should be read as a guide and introduction to the entire corpus of pseudo-Aristotelian texts. In their contribution, “Translating and Reading Pseudo-Aristotle in the Latin West,” the authors zoom in on the pseudo-Aristotelian texts in Latin that are translations, primarily of original works in Greek. The task of de¿ning what is pseudo-Aristotelian is not straightforward, so the authors turn from modern attempts to classify Aristotelian pseudepigrapha into distinct categories to the criteria that the Latins might have employed in assessing the authenticity of texts. This fruitful approach strengthens Steven J. Williams’ verdict that medieval readers expressed doubts about Aristotelian spuria, and, as the authors suggest, rejecting or accepting the authenticity of a work may have depended on context. De Leemans and Devriese’s survey reveals some crucial facts for our understanding of the formation of the Latin pseudo-Aristotelian corpus and its subsequent dissemination, helping us place these pseudo-Aristotelian works into the larger context of translations. First, the authors show that Greek-Latin translations of Aristotelian pseudepigrapha only really took off in the second half of the thirteenth century, whereas Arabic-Latin translations had dominated the landscape in the twelfth century. This is also exempli¿ed by a larger inÀux of Greek-Latin pseudo-Aristotelian texts into the corpus recentius. Second, between the two most proli¿c translators of Aristotle, Bartholomew of Messina and William of Moerbeke, the former was usually credited with rendering a greater number of spurious works into Latin. The authors, however, muster evidence from the recent scholarly literature and build the case that Moerbeke was not as disinterested in pseudo-Aristotelian texts as was previously thought. Furthermore, the authors warn against identifying the dissemination of a translation in manuscripts with its success. Often a text had a quite impressive manuscript distribution but was still largely ignored. The reasons for this disparity, the authors propose, should be sought for each individual case, in part by means of specialized studies and critical editions. For now, this paper provides a bird’seye view of the ¿eld and is a starting point for more in-depth research on the shape and circulation of the pseudo-Aristotelian corpus. Secretum Secretorum Among the pseudo-Aristotelian texts the Secretum Secretorum was a constant source of inspiration for medieval philosophers. The section

X

M. Brinzei, D.Coman, I. Curuа, A. Marinca

of this volume dedicated to this treatise offers some evidence for the diversity of this reception. William Duba’s contribution, “Balancing Authority on a Column of Fire: The Secret of Secrets and the Salvation of Aristotle,” spots one of the rare occasions in the history of pseudepigrapha implied by misattribution or false paternity of the text. The episode that Duba discusses took place in the Franciscan convent in Paris and was generated by the need to reconcile some of the most fundamental doctrines of Aristotle with the Christian faith: the eternity of the world, necessity, and the unicity of the human soul. Central to the deÀation of the problematic Aristotelian theses was the appropriation of the solutions of the Secretum Secretorum in speculative theology. The false attribution endowed this treatise with the authority and weight of an authentic work. Yet this fact caused a larger dilemma: how to explain Aristotle’s change of mind. Duba’s investigation of the various positions held when disputing the question of the salvation of Aristotle shows that the Franciscans advocated a range of divergent opinions concerning Aristotle’s fate and the utility of his thought. Bonaventure and Peter John Olivi identi¿ed Aristotle’s doctrine with that held by the cult of the Antichrist, so they doomed Aristotle to Hell. Commenting on the Secretum Secretorum, Roger Bacon explicitly argued that problematic Aristotelian doctrines could and should be glossed by those passages where Aristotle seems to support the Christian faith, because Aristotle himself did not lack divine inspiration. Debating with Henry of Ghent and his disciples on the intentional distinction, John of Pouilly praised Aristotle’s wisdom and scolded his colleagues for challenging his primacy in philosophy. Here the aforementioned reversed relationship is completed: seen as the author of the Secretum Secretorum, Aristotle ends up among the prophets, bestowed with divine authority. Christianizing Aristotle elevated his authority beyond humanity, such that, as Duba points out, a critical assessment of the Aristotelian corpus was only possible after humanizing him, a process begun by Hugh of Novocastro. António Rocha Martins’ article, “The Secretum Secretorum and the Idea of Political Happiness in the Latin Middle Ages,” covers the modest impact of the political dimension of the Secretum Secretorum on medieval political writers, drawing upon a few texts by Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Giles of Rome. The driving thesis put forward by Rocha is that the Secretum Secretorum essentially purports to offer “a representation of all royal functions just as they are understood

Introduction

XI

within the theoretical assumptions that are at its genesis,” namely Aristotle’s doctrine of eudaimonia as the desirable outcome of the cooperation between virtue and political power and the idea of political community developed in the Arabic tradition. He backs up his thesis by pointing out that a) there is a real possibility that the author of the Secretum Secretorum was inÀuenced by Aristotle’s ethical doctrine, since the ¿rst translation of the Nicomachean Ethics into Arabic dated from the ninth century; b) the Secretum Secretorum belongs to the Islamic literary genre known as the speculum principis; c) there is a great af¿nity between the political views advocated by the author of the Secretum Secretorum in the De regimine dominorum section and Aristotle’s political ideas encompassed by his practical philosophy as developed in books I, IV, V, and VII of the Nicomachean Ethics. Rocha thus shows that the strong doctrinal similarity between the Secretum Secretorum and the Nicomachean Ethics is the reason why, in his second commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics, Albert the Great unintentionally perpetuated the false attribution of the Secretum Secretorum to the Philosopher. Even though Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome did not support Albert’s view on the attribution of the Secretum Secretorum, they both possessed an intimate familiarity with the Nicomachean Ethics and they used this knowledge as a hermeneutical key to the Secretum Secretorum. Aristotelian assumptions guided them when they handled the issue of the representation of political power, so it is no wonder that they concluded their inquiry by substantiating the most fundamental political ideas endorsed by both the Ethics and Secretum Secretorum: 1) power should always stem from virtue and 2) the goal of political praxis is ful¿lled when the act of ruling is founded on justice and brings happiness to the citizens. Pavlína Cermanová’s paper, “Greek and Arabic Inspirations for Organizing Medieval Banquets: The Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum as a Source and a Model for Medieval Advice Literature,” rounds out the section on the reception and inÀuence of the Secretum Secretorum by investigating how it shaped medieval Bohemian literature. Two of the genres that found fertile ground in Bohemia are of particular interest here: encyclopedic literature, seen as a vehicle for transmitting universal knowledge, useful in different social environments (academic and courtly milieux), and advice literature, which originated in the Arabic tradition of adab, seen as an instrument useful in the formation of a person’s mind and character. As shown by Cermanová, the Secretum

XII

M. Brinzei, D.Coman, I. Curuа, A. Marinca

Secretorum was organically assimilated into Bohemian education and shaped the compositional form and the encyclopedic character of a few handbooks compiled in Central Europe: the Mensa philosophica, the Summa recreatorum, and the Tripartitus moralium. Nevertheless, the textual and historical evidence point toward a greater inÀuence of the pseudo-Aristotelian work in producing advice literature. The Secretum Secretorum came to the fore in several texts written in a Princely Mirror manner that were connected with the Luxembourg monarchs. The authors of these works found in the Secretum Secretorum a storehouse of ancient wisdom, exempla, and instructive knowledge useful for the preservation of good health (health science), good behavior (ethics), and good government (politics). Moreover, the Secretum Secretorum was even quoted in texts of Bohemian origin advising students and priests on how to live, what to eat, and how to study. Liber de causis The treatise Liber de causis was extremely popular in the Middle Ages, especially because it was one of the texts taught at the Faculty of Arts. The recent projects of Dragos Calma con¿rm this popularity.5 In our volume Julie Swanstrom (“Secondary Causes in the Liber de Causis and the Work of Thomas Aquinas”) examines the role of secondary causes in Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysics. From the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Latin translation of the Arabic KalƗm fƯ ma‫ڲۊ‬ al-khair provided medieval scholars with an inÀuential model of causality, and Thomas Aquinas naturally developed his conception of secondary causation against the Neoplatonic backdrop encountered in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. Accordingly, Swanstrom focuses on Aquinas’ commentary on the Liber de causis in order to exhibit the Dominican’s mature thought on the issue. Swanstrom begins by framing the discussion on Aquinas’ conception of secondary causation with a concise analysis of what Proclus and the author of the Liber de causis thought about causality. Swanstrom uses this larger context to evaluate how much Aquinas’ view on secondary causes was rooted in the Pro-

See for example the outputs of the ERC project NeoPlat: https://www.neoplat.eu/ outputs/ and the project hosted by Babe‫܈‬-Bolyai University: Doctrine, Ideas, Manuscripts. New Research Tools for the Study of the Reception of the Liber de causis in the Western Medieval Philosophy (13-14th c.), grant PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0058. 5

Introduction

XIII

clean conception of emanation of Liber de causis. Swanstrom notes that, whereas Aquinas approved some key elements pertaining to the author of the Liber de causis’ general viewpoint, he nevertheless rejected some tenets of the Neoplatonic framework that were incompatible with Christianity, such as the idea that other causes besides the One can impart being. Yet the novelty of Swanstrom’s account of the Angelic Doctor’s reading of the pseudo-Aristotelian work lies in her analysis of the ¿ve criteria Aquinas used in de¿ning a secondary cause. According to Swanstrom, the ¿ve components Aquinas stipulated in the case of secondary causation are: participation in existence from God, power to act imparted by God, ability to act according to its nature as ordered by God, preservation in being by God, and capacity to strive towards goodness as its end. Nonetheless, Swanstrom proposes a sixth criterion, suggested by Aquinas’ own pervasive use of the Aristotelian categories of act and potency at the level of each aforementioned criterion. Swanstrom thus asserts that a further component that completes Aquinas’ understanding of secondary causation is the use of active and passive powers appropriate to the second cause. What emerges from Swanstrom’s careful study is that Aquinas builds a complex Neoplatonic theory of secondary causation on a predominantly Aristotelian scaffolding. In the last section of the article, Swanstrom extends her analysis into two areas of Aquinas’ philosophy where one can observe secondary causes at work: his discussions of miracles and occasionalism. The case studies on which Swanstrom focuses are quite relevant, because in a miracle God brings an effect into being while overriding the causal ef¿cacy of the secondary cause, whereas the main claim of occasionalism is that God is the immediate ef¿cient agent in all events, a doctrine that Aquinas explicitly rejects in favor of a theory according to which both God and the secondary cause act as ef¿cient causes in their appropriate manners. In “Der Liber de causis als Quelle der Intellektlehre des Albertus Magnus,” Henryk Anzulewicz is keen to push forward his research on the inÀuence of pseudo-Aristotelian thought on Latin Scholasticism. His primary focus is how Albert the Great’s appropriation of the Liber de causis was one of the essential factors contributing to the wide circulation and adoption of that work in theological debates and in the philosophical curriculum of the medieval universities. The author’s valuable contribution brings new insights regarding the inÀuence of the Liber de causis in shaping medieval metaphysics, ethics, theolo-

XIV

M. Brinzei, D.Coman, I. Curuа, A. Marinca

gy, and psychology. He shows that Albert held the pseudepigraphic texts in high esteem, engaging with them in his scholarly activity before his Parisian period, in De natura boni and in the ¿rst redactions of De sacramentis, De incarnatione, and De resurrectione. This was the ¿rst step in the Dominican’s reception and appropriation of the Liber de causis, that is, the “dissociated transformation” (dissoziativer Transformationsprozess), which is characterized by focusing on formal-systematic aspects of the content of the Liber de causis in order to serve a theological purpose rather than a scienti¿c one. The outcome of the isolated and decontextualized use of the Liber de causis as a philosophical authority in expounding biblical or theological themes is the rationalization of theology. In Albert’s theological writings, the dissociated transformation is the rule rather than the exception, being, therefore, a successful hermeneutical key to understanding the more general role played by pseudo-Aristotelian texts in developing medieval Christian dogma. Anzulewicz argues that there was a major shift in Albert’s approach to the Liber de causis in his scienti¿c writing De intellectu et intelligibili. The essential feature of this second step is the philosophical autonomy Albert granted to the Liber de causis in terms of meaning, content, and systematic signi¿cance. Because Albert’s philosophical program was the reconciliation of faith and reason, argues the author, the Dominican was more open to ¿nding a place for rational arguments in his theological thought than his contemporaries. Not only did Albert integrate into De intellectu et intelligibili Platonic-Augustinian psychology with the Aristotelian perspective from De anima, but he moved away from his pre-Parisian position regarding the Liber de causis as a treatise in service of theology by assigning to it a leading role in shaping the new psychology inspired by Aristotle and the Arabic commentators. At this second stage, the full scientific potential of the Liber de causis is deployed and Albert integrated it into his theory of the intellect in a manner known from the recent Thomistic studies as “anchored transformation” (verankerten Transformationsprozess). Paraphrasing the author, this means that De intellectu et intelligibili was methodologically, structurally, and doctrinally inÀuenced by the Liber de causis. Therefore, as is clearly shown in this paper, the anchored transformation of the Liber de causis stood at the core of Albert’s post-Parisian thought and increased awareness regarding the utility of pseudo-Aristotelian texts among later thinkers.

Introduction

XV

Pseudo-theological Aristotle As in the case of the Liber de causis, Neoplatonic material was sometimes transmitted under Aristotelian paternity. The Theology of Aristotle, an Arabic paraphrase of Plotinus’ Enneads IV-VI, is another example of this phenomenon. In her paper, “The Arabic Islamic Reception of the Arabic Plotinus and Maimonides’ Theory of Emanation,” Beate Ulrike La Sala examines the indirect inÀuence The Theology might have had on Maimonides’ theory of emanation and the unity of God in his The Guide for the Perplexed. While The Guide bears traces of the emanationist framework of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, it is not known with certainty whether Maimonides was inspired directly by The Theology or received this inspiration through an intermediary source. La Sala revisits the passages concerning the emanationist system in alFƗrƗbƯ’s Virtuous City, both because one ¿nds there a reworking of the Neoplatonic process from The Theology, and because al-FƗrƗbƯ’s (and Avicenna’s) works later served as a foil in al-GhazƗlƯ’s critique of the falƗsifa. Since Al-GhazƗlƯ was one of the Muslim scholars who inÀuenced Maimonides, therefore, La Sala argues, the similarities between the doctrinal content of The Theology and Maimonides’ theory of emanation are explainable through Maimonides’ reception of al-GhazƗlƯ. La Sala also stresses the differences between the two thinkers’ approaches: al-GhazƗlƯ criticizes the theories of the falƗsifa whenever they seem to be in conÀict with the Qur’Ɨn, whereas Maimonides endorses falsafa but at the same time integrates into his thought al-GhazƗlƯ’s criticism of the philosophers. La Sala showcases Maimonides’ approach in his discussion of the emanation of the ¿rst intellect from the ¿rst cause, where Maimonides abandons the Neoplatonic vocabulary, used even by al-GhazƗlƯ, and refers explicitly to this ¿rst cause as ‘God’. This process of doctrinal change demonstrates, according to La Sala, Maimonides’ attempt to prove “the compatibility of philosophical theories and religious thought.” De plantis Resuming the topic of the inÀuence of Pseudo-Aristotelian texts on Albert the Great, the paper of Marilena Panarelli “Spiritus and Plant Formation: Albert the Great’s Restatement of the pseudo-Aristotelian De lantis,” investigates Albert’s usage of De Plantis in De Vegetebilibus.

XVI

M. Brinzei, D.Coman, I. Curuа, A. Marinca

In the only paper in the volume dedicated to the pseudo-Aristotelian De plantis, Panarelli explores the semantic evolution of the Aristotelian term pneuma/spiritus from its original Aristotelian setting, as it passed through the modi¿cations that the concept underwent in De plantis and reached a new dimension in Albert the Great’s De vegetabilibus. Panarelli’s particular focus is on the connections between spirit and the conditions of plant formation. In the case of the genuine Aristotelian works, this connection is not clear, since in his treatment of pneuma in On the Generation of Animals, Aristotle does not explicitly mention the presence of pneuma in plants, although, as Panarelli points out, scholars had previously argued that vital heat, which produces spirit through its inÀuence on moisture, is also found in plants. Nevertheless, the author of De plantis denies categorically the presence of spirit in plants, which raises the question why Albert the Great was not faithful to his sources and ascribed spiritus to plants. The answer provided by Panarelli requires an excursion into the various conceptual elaborations of pneuma in the Greek and Arabic medical and philosophical literature. Panarelli thus shows the continuities and discontinuities between, on the one hand, Albert’s reworking of spiritus in De vegetabilibus and other works, and, on the other, the tradition he purportedly follows. More precisely, Albert’s decision to attribute spirit also to plants rests on his adherence to Costa ben Luca’s account, in which spirit is ¿rmly distinguished from the soul, and to Avicenna and Averroes, from whom Albert borrows several important ideas regarding spiritus. From Albert’s dialogue with this tradition there emerges a complex taxonomy of spirits, underlied by the core notion that spiritus is basically the evaporation of moisture under the effect of innate natural heat. De secretis mulierum Evelina Miteva’s contribution, “From Pseudo-Aristotle to Pseudo-Albert: The Emancipation of Natural Philosophy,” examines the crucial role that Albertism played in the pseudo-Aristotelian legacy. One consequence of Albert’s project to comment on all the Aristotelian texts was that he took the liberty to introduce pseudo-Aristotelian works among them. This was possible because Albert himself did not conceive the collection of Aristotelian texts as a corpus of writings, but mainly as a system of knowledge. Albert thus injected new treatises into this system, successfully expanding the scope of natural philos-

Introduction

XVII

ophy in particular. This is made manifest, as Miteva clearly shows in this paper, by the material dissemination of Albert’s works. While his more traditional texts survive in few manuscripts (De sacramentis with two codices, the commentary on Metaphysics in 28 manuscripts, Super Ethica in ¿ve, etc.), on the other extreme all those dealing with new topics in natural philosophy are preserved in great numbers, from 43 to 120 manuscripts (De nutrimento et nutribili 120, De intellectu et intelligibili ca. 90). The consequence of the broad dissemination of Albert’s texts concerning natural curiosities led to another phenomenon: Albert himself was attributed pseudo-treatises. One of the most popular examples of a widespread pseudo-Albertian writing is De secretis mulierum, which has come down to us in 88 manuscripts. This unique and fascinating treatise on embriology and medieval gynecology and other mysteries of the secrets of the female body was only recently removed from the authentic works of Albert, but its circulation under Albert’s name certainly encreased its popularity. De inundatione Nili One of the more exotic treatises from this corpus is De Inundatione Nili and the commentary of Bartholomew of Bruges, investigated here E\ 3DYHO %ODåHN LQ ³Iste liber videtur esse factus ab Aristotile: Bartholomew of Bruges and the Medieval Reception of the De inundatione Nili”, a paper that reinforces the hypothesis that this might be an authentic Aristotelian work. De inundatione Nili is a short account of the possible causes of the Nile Àood that was translated from Greek into Latin E\:LOOLDPRI0RHUEHNH%ODåHNLQTXLUHVLQWRWKHWUHDWLVH¶VPHGLHYDO reception and establishes as preliminary facts that a) most instances of studying the treatise are connected with university settings, especially the Collège de Sorbonne, and b) a signi¿cant group of corpus recentius manuscripts place the tract right after Aristotle’s Meteorology, meaning that it was often understood as an appendix to a genuine Aristotelian ZRUN%ODåHN¶VFRQWULEXWLRQVKHGVQHZOLJKWRQWKHWZRFRPPHQWDULHV that survive in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 16089, one penned by Bartholomew of Bruges and the other commonly ascribed WRWKHVDPHDXWKRU