Athanasios Rinotas

Argument The aim of this paper is to accurately assess the epistemological status of Albertus Magnus’ (ca 1200-80) alchemy. In modern bibliography there is a “black or white” approach to the question of whether Albertus regarded alchemy as an art or scientia, and thus the adoption of an absolute thesis on the matter tends to create a series of interpretational problems. In contrast, I argue that Albertus’ approach to alchemy does not exclude either art or scientia and, depending on the context, the Dominican master sometimes considers alchemy as an art—when it is connected with manual labor—and sometimes as a scientia—when it is connected to natural-philosophical and metaphysical aspects. At the end of my paper, I offer a way of properly assessing the Albertian alchemy, and determining how and when to accurately connect it with the notions of art and scientia.

Aristotle’s theory of soul was a hot topic in the Late Middle Ages and it sparked a great series of debates with serious theological and philosophical implications. The medieval commentators of Aristotle played a crucial role in the dissemination of these debates since their explanations and commentaries on Aristotle’s theory of soul served as a springboard for further discussions. One of the most important medieval commentators of Aristotle was Albert the Great (ca 1200–1280) who dealt extensively with the topic of soul and its connection with the doctrine of intellect. Albert discussed the subject of soul not only in the Aristotelian commentaries but also in many genuine works of his which delineated Albert’s theory of soul in great detail. This paper will primarily focus on two works of Albert, De homine and Liber de natura et origine animae; it aims to provide a coherent account of Albert’s early theory of soul and to shed some light on important hermeneutical issues that derive from these two works.

The Avicennan text De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum had a great influence on the alchemical thought of the thirteenth century. This Latin text disputed both the veracity of alchemy and the possibility of alchemical transmutation by arguing that art is inferior to nature and that the alchemists cannot manipulate a metal because its true characteristics are hidden from our senses; thus an alchemist cannot change something which is unknown to him. Newman’s pioneer studies examined the diffusion and impact of the first Avicennan argument on medieval alchemy and he shed light on the art-versus-nature debate. This paper has a twofold aim: on the one hand it aims to further Newman’s study by focusing on the second Avicennan argument, which is closely related to the problem of substantial form, and on the other hand it aims to show how the aforesaid problem paved the way for the emergence of corpuscularianism, which flourished during the early modern period. In this regard, it will become clear that the historiographical case of alchemy and its problem of substantial form can serve as an exegetical tool for ‘bridging’ the Middle Ages and the early modern period with respect to the relation between Aristotelianism and corpuscularianism.

Albertus Magnus’ alchemy is a subject that has attracted the attention of the scholars since the early decades of the 20th century. Yet, the research that has been conducted this far is characterised by its non philosophical character. As a matter of fact, the previous studies approached Albertus’ alchemy either in terms of history of science or of intellectual history. In this paper, I focus on Albertus’ definition of alchemical transmutation that is found in his De mineralibus and I analyze it in terms of his theory of creation and of his theory of matter. Therefore, I show whether a re-creation of a metal is in accordance with Albertus’ philosophy and congruently I bring forth the Aristotle Graecus and the Aristotle Latinus that are found as background in his alchemical theory of transmutation. Ultimately this paper aims to show that the aforementioned theory is not an arbitrary statement from Albertus’ part, but the result of a serious philosophical endeavour.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, historians associated the alchemy of the third-century alchemist Zosimus of Panopolis with Platonism and Aristotelianism, explicating his theory of alchemical transmutation under the intellectual umbrella of these philosophical traditions. More recently, scholars of alchemy such as Christina Viano and William Newman have suggested a connection between Zosimean alchemy and Stoicism. Through a close reading of texts in Zosimus's corpus, this paper posits a Stoic interpretation of several aspects of Zosimean alchemy, focusing on the concepts of pneuma and tension. For Zosimus, I argue, pneuma played a vital role in colouring metals, while tension conferred stability and cohesion upon metallic compounds. This interpretation suggests that Zosimus applied Stoic concepts to describe the alchemical process of tincturing metals.