Talk:Albertus Magnus

Text to integrate: Magnus studied at the University of Padua, a major scientific center at the time, and joined the Dominicans in 1223. After completing his studies he taught theology; about 1240, he went to Paris, and achieved the degree of master in sacred theology in 1245 or 1246. For the next thirty years he worked as teacher and administrator, as provincial of his order in Germany, and as bishop of Ratisbon, tramping across Europe. At Cologne and Paris he had Thomas Aquinas as his student.

He worked on logic, philosophy, theology and exegesis, studying nature in detail. He wrote down his unbiased views of his environment in a huge encyclopedia. He was also experienced in botany, chemistry, physics, and mechanics, which made some people think of him as a magician. Magnus also tried to introduce the thinkings of Aristoteles into the Catholic Church, a task that was later completed by his scholar Aquinas.

From 1270 on he stayed in Cologne; today, the University of Cologne carries his name. He was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931. He is the patron saint of natural science.

More text to integrate: The Dominican's house in Cologne is the St. Andreas Kloster. The house and church is still there and contains the shrine of Albertus Magnus.

He might be too old for you, but I don't doubt that his intellectual interests would have been significantly stimulating on a number of levels. Antandrus 19:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might at least dispose of the 1229 date for his entry into the Dominicans, as he was already installed and sufficiently recognised for Boniface of Lausanne to stop and work with him in Cologne at the start of the academic diasporah when the University of Paris was closed following the Carnival Riots of that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.84 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would change the wording in the biography. Seems unsure and could have a stronger emphasis on the sources used. Joz27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joz27 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I changed the date of birth from 1193 to 1206 and added his status as "first son" (this was important in his day) as this is the information as it appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia and is properly referenced. If someone wishes to include a birth reference to 1193, or a range of dates, then please do so, otherwise the simpler 1206 should stand. Also, his status as first son is referenced and cannot be removed based on original research, i.e. because "there is no record of opposition to his entry into the Dominican order" - this should also be referenced before inclusion (an inferrance doesnt trump a reference, and we frown on original research). If there is no commentary I will restore both points. István 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Referring to published research paper is not original research... I mean, if fr. Tugwell wrote to wikipedia, without publishing his works before, it would be. But me referring to his works (peer-reviewed and solid), is secondary and allowed in wikipedia. And erroneus reference does not trump anything. I hope :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This information in abovementioned Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best. 1206 as Albertus's birthyear was calculated from honestly erroneous grounds. Sources mentioned in article that say he was 87 when he died are not contemporary. Nearest and best source to his time only gives that he was eighty and more in 1280 when he died, so best is to remain with 'before 1200'. There is reference to fr. Weisheipl; I think he mentioned this year-problem in his article; if not, then there is reference to fr. Tugwell, he is the best, and reference is given in next paragraph; I'm not sure how to copy it, so that it covers beginning of article as well. Tugwell, Albert&Thomas, 1988, p.97 is the source. It would be too much for article, so for your information: nearest to his time to write about Albertus's death and age was Bernard Guy (good historian; even though unflatteringly pictured in Eco's Name of Rose), in year 1313 he wrote: "Fr. Albertus Teutonicus, Coloniensis, de quo habitum est supra. Hic obiit in conventu Coloniensi anno domini MCCLXXX, octogenarius et amplius." Then, in 1414 Ludovicus de Valleoleti (who was not so good historian; too much fantasy) wrote that Albertus was circiter 87 when he died, and then Petrus de Prussia later omitted 'circiter' and so got birthyear 1193. What might be true, but might not; anyway, no good reason to say it is so. I took it all from Tugwell's book, it is sound reference.BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have I entered editing war with Ludovicus de Valleoleti and Peter of Prussia? :) You guys made it up, almost sure, that Albertus died 87 yrs old. I checked your writings good and well. Those good men who took your word as truth - Scheeben, Weisheiple... - are just repeating your words and that does not add to veracity. Besides, academically correct 'before 1200' and 'died over 80' covers your date as well, so - no hard feelings, huh? My source of reference is still Tugwell's book, if anything is incorrect, then it is my ability to enter citations. Might need help here. Also, you might want to check german version of Albertus Magnus wiki article. They give ca 1200, and solid explanation for that. BirgittaMTh (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

When I wrote 'Two later sources say that Albert was about 87 on his death, which has led 1193 to be commonly given as the date of Albert's birth, but this information has not enough evidence.' I mean 'not enough evidence to be given as date in wikipedia'. Tugwell, p. 97: 'the value of this more precise figure is uncertain, but it could be correct.' Meaning, maybe they guessed accidentally right. But we do not know, and so this conjecture is good enough to use in speculations and academical polemical articles, but not in wikipedia.BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

About Albertus entering the Dominican Order. Well, if there is no record of opposition to his entry, then, this passus about family's opposition is original research, or, I dare say, is just made up, isn't it? Even if this made up thing has been incorporated into catholic encyclopedia. I advise to remove this questionable information about family's opposition; no harm if this is not mentioned. And it's not original research in wikipedia, if I am quoting solid academic book; they who wrote that book might be not allowed to write to wikipedia, but I am, is it correct? BirgittaMTh (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

About Albertus being son of count of Bollstädt - it is simply not true. I removed this phrase with reference to Catholic Encyclopedia (and I hope it won't play havoc with refenrence system in the article). Whenever fr. Tugwell contradicts this old encyclopedia (in some places true, in some hopelessly out of date), his work is more trustworthy, definitely. I added this little explanation about bollstadt-connection just before reference to fr.Tugwell's book; I am not so sure about correct page, as I do not have the book now, but is in same book and not far from referred place. Bollstadt-connection, if I remember correctly, pops up first time in abovementioned Ludovicus de Valleoleti writings, who apparently misunderstood smth or just made it up. Albertus being son of a count legend is based on one letter by Jordanus de saxonia, who writes that 'two sons on german noblemen' have entered the order, but nothing links this statement directly to Albertus.BirgittaMTh (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Verified successfully, at Tugwell, Simon. Albert and Thomas, New York Paulist Press, 1988, p. 97, note 7 says: "Rudolph (p. 8) adds that the family name was Bollstadt, but this is almost certainly his own conjecture (cf. Scheeben pp.5-7)." Also, this fact, his family's ministerial background and that he has no connection with Bollstädt family, is referenced on all of those three pages, 3, 96 and 97. BirgittaMTh (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Changed my talk here. Rudolph, referred by Tugwell is: Rudolph of Nijmegen, Legenda Alberti Magni (c. 1488), ed. H. C. Scheeben (Cologne, 1928) As you see, he wrote 100 years later, so had no direct knowledge about Albertus BirgittaMTh (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the biography section, Albertus Magnus is said to have "answered the errors of the Arabian philosopher Averroes." What are these alleged errors? As written, the text sounds rather POVish. —Tyrrell McAllister

Didn't he isolate Arsenic? This was the first element discovered outside of the known pre-historical elements. Is this not a significant enough accomplishment to add in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.60.174 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he did. Maybe even this old encyclopedia has it right? (I mean, it's not trustworthy in some places, but if in some places is, why not.) Catholic Encyclopaedia. Or other. Worth looking into, at least.BirgittaMTh (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It woudl be good to have a paragraph treating this subject. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

this quote: "According to legend, Albert is said to have discovered the philosopher's stone and passed it on to his pupil Thomas Aquinas, shortly before his death" has an error where the reader can't tell which person the "his" is referring to in the last phrase. idk enough about him to fix that, but anyone knows please make it less ambiguous! Bufobuff (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply