The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber - Newman

The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber - Newman

CHAPTER FIVE

The Influence of the Summa perfectionis

There is  no  satisfactory way  to  trace  the  influence   of the Summa perfectionis within the scope of a single study.  The text was too influential,  and the current historiography of alchemy too undeveloped, to allow for comprehensive analysis.  Nonetheless,  it is possible   to  arrive  at  an  idea  of  the  Summa's  importance  by considering representatives of the major alchemical  corpora.   It has been  remarked that  there are  six major  alchemical  corpora of the late  Middle  Ages.   These  are  the  texts going under  the  names of Michael  Scot, Roger  Bacon,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Albertus   Magnus, Arnald  of Villanova, and Ramon  Lull 1.  Of these, we shall consider only the final three.

The  corpora  ascribed  to Michael  Scot and  Thomas  Aquinas are very small in relation to the others (3 for Scot, 6 for Aquinas), and  the most  important members  of the  Scot  corpus  seem  to be earlier  than  the Summa.  Hence  we will not suffer  from their loss. As for the Roger Bacon corpus, I have found no influence  from the Summa in two of its early representatives, the Breve breviarium (Tl(180) and  the  Tres epistolae (Tl( 290,  296, 332).  Other  less central members    of   the   Roger   Bacon   group   may   betray   Geberian influence,  but the matter  cannot be settled  here.  We may therefore restrict   ourselves   to  the  texts  bearing   attributions  to  Albertus Magnus, Arnald of Villanova, and Ramon  Lull.

The  alchemical  corpus  ascribed  to Albert  the Great consists of about thirty titles2  Among these, the Semita recta, or Libellus de alchemia; seems  to  occupy a central  position.3      This  little  work, already in  existence  around  the  end  of  the  thirteenth century,  is also  very  possibly  the  oldest  alchemical   text  ascribed   to  Albert. Now we  have  shown  elsewhere  that  the  Summa lies  at  the  very foundation of the Semita recta. 4 Indeed,  the  author  of the  Semita recta  has  borrowed   entire   columns  verbatim   from  the  Summa, without the slightest acknowledgement   Given the fundamental nature  of the Semita recta to the rest of the corpus, the established fact of its dependency  on the Summa will make it unnecessary  for us  to  explore  the  Albertine   corpus  further.     Instead,  we  shall restrict   ourselves  to  influential  texts  belonging   to  the  corpora attributed to Arnald of Villanova, and Ramon  Lull,  After having established  that their  authors  owe a debt  to the Summa,  we shall say something about the precise nature of that debt.

No satisfactory study bas been made of the alchemical corpus going under  the name  of Arnald  of Villanova, which  consists  of

some fifty-seven titles.5  

The leading scholars of his medical works agree  that  the  alchemical  texts  are  spurious.6     The  alchemical works were  widely read,  however,  and  at  least  one  of them  may date  back to the first third of the  fourteenth  century,  as we shall show.  The most sustained look at the Arnaldian  alchemical corpus is still  Lynn Thorndike's  work  of  1934,  and  this  can  hardly  be considered  definitive.    Nonetheless,  we shall  have  to use  it  as  a guide.  Thorndike's brief study contains an analysis of alchemical Rosaria  attributed to  Arnald    For  reasons  that  are  not  entirely clear,  he  states  that  "The Rosarius  which  there  seems  the  most reason   for   accepting   as  Arnald's   is   also  the   longest   of   his alchemical  treatises."?   

This Rosarius or Rosarium begins with the incipit "lste namque liber nominatur (vocatur) Rosarius," (TK 793), and was printed in Amald's Opera of 1504.  Considerable  confusion seems to  surround  the relationship  of this text with John  Dastin's Speculum  philosophie, 8  but   we   cannot   attempt    to  solve   that problem  here.    The  Rosarium bearing  the  above  incipit  is  also found  in Manget's Bibliotheca  chemica  cunosa;  in what  Dorothea Singer  calls  "a variant version."9    The  following analysis will be based largely on this "variant version."  We have also consulted the Lyons editions  of 1504 and  1532, however, and found only minor variants in the passages quoted below.10

The   Manget   printing   of  the   Rosarium   makes   no   overt reference  to  Geber,  but  it  is  clear  that  its author  has  used    the Summa perfectionis: Indeed,  the unacknowledged  quotations  from the Summa are so long, frequent, and exact, that one could call this Rosarium  a  virtual  commentary  on  the  former  text.    Since  the present work is not a study of the Rosarium; but of the Summa, we shall have to keep our comments short:  the reader may easily find many other borrowings from the Summa that we have been forced to  omit    Let  us begin  by comparing  the  Rosarium s  comments about mercury with those of the Summa -

Rosarium

Hoc autem in argento vivo minime contingit: quoniam figitur absque eo quod in terram vertatur: & similiter figitur conversione

ejus in terram.  Nam per festinantiam ad ejus fixionem, quae fit per praecipitationem, figitur, & in terram vertitur, & per successivam iterata vice illius sublimationem figitur similiter, & non vertitur in terram, iino dat fusionem metallicam.

Summa

Hoc autem mioirne in argento vivo contingit, quoniam 6gi potest absque hoc - quod in terram vertatur - et figi similiter cum conversione illius ad terram. Nam per festinationem ad eius fixionem que per precipitationem perficitur, figitur et in terram  mutator.

Per successivam vero illius iterata vice sublimatiooem  figitur similiter et DOD in terram vertitur, immo fusionem dat metallicam.

The Rosarium has manifestly borrowed here either from the Summa  or from the Summa's source.   But as we have repeatedly stated,   the  Summa  is  not  a  text  that  recapitulates  its  sources verbatim.    Hence  it is extremely  unlikely  that  the  Rosarium  has here  chanced  upon  a  source  used  by  the  Summa.    This  close copying continues  throughout  Chapter  IV of the Rosarium,  but we shall  here  pass  to  Chapter   VI  of  that   text,  where  the  author describes   the   steadiness   of  mind   necessary   to   the  successful alchemist......

The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber Author: Newman

Alchemy was a subject of no small controversy in the Middle Ages. To some scholastics, alchemy seemed to arrogate the power of divinity itself in its claim that man could replicate the products of nature by means of art; others viewed alchemy as a pure technology, unworthy of inclusion in a curriculum devoted to the study of scientiae. The Summa perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber, written around the end of the 13th century as a defense of the art, became 'the Bible of the medieval alchemists,'and was still being used as late as the 17th century. The present work contains a critical edition, annotated translation, and commentary of the Summa.