UPDATE: This quote in question is from a work attributed to St Albert the Great but written by one of students (see below)
There is a quote that is presented by some journalists like Salon.com, academics, memes and feminists to demonstrate Christianity has a long history of misogyny. It is attributed to St Albert the Great and goes as follows:
Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.—Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century
Like all good internet quotes, no source is cited.
Fortunately, searching the quote one author did cite his source, though sadly it is obvious he did not read the context. The quote roughly taken from Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11. The name of the writing properly in English is "Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals."
First, it should be noted that Albert the Great's Questions concerning "On Animals" was not written by Albert. The modern introduction to the work states:
In addition to his commentary on De animalibus, however, we have another work attributed to Albert the Great under the title Quaestiones super de animalibus (Questions concerning On Animals). This text represents a series of disputed questions on Aristotle's De animalibus, conducted in Cologne in 1258 and preserved in the report of Conrad of Austria from perhaps about the year 1260. Historians had long known of this work from medieval catalogues. Until 1922, however, it was thought to be lost to us. In 1922 a manuscript containing the Quaestiones was discovered in the Milanese Bibliotheca Ambrosiana. Additional manuscripts containing this work, or fragments of it, were uncovered between 1932 and 1952 in other libraries. A critical edition of the Latin text was prepared by Ephrem Filthaut and appeared in 1955 in volume 12 of the Opera omnia .. Alberti Magni in preparation in Cologne.
In one sense, the Quaestiones super de animalibus (QDA) can be viewed as a useful companion piece to Albert's commentary on De animalibus. It represents Albert's attempt to introduce Aristotle's material to students in Cologne in his lectures during the year 1258. As such, QDA antedates his slightly later (and vastly larger) commentary, De animalibus. Although Albert did write down his commentary on De animalibusindeed, Stadler's Latin edition is based on an autograph copy Albert did not himself write down these lectures that form the QDA, and this presents the historian with an interesting problem. Although attributed to Albert the Great, the work is in fact a reportatio; that is, it contains what Albert taught about Aristotle's books on animals in Cologne in 1258, but the QDA itself represents the notes of Albert's student, Conrad of Austria, who heard Albert teaching. A few years later these questions were collected and redacted. Albert the Great can be considered the author of the work, but his imprint on the work is indirect rather than direct, and is mediated by Conrad of Austria. This means that one cannot properly distinguish the words of Albert from the words of the one reporting them. In addition, insofar as the text presents a quasi-Scholastic series of disputed questions based on Aristotle's De animalibus with a question posed, followed in most instances by evidence pro et contra and some sort of response or solution to the question neither is it always a simple matter to identify Albert's own position on a given question or to distinguish Albert's doctrine from other, contemporary sources for his discussion of this material. --INTRODUCTION Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9), pages 5-6
In short, the work is by Conrad, a student of Albert, and is based on St Albert's lectures, but the thoughts of Albert and Conrad cannot be distinguished. Since it's based on St Albert's lectures, the work is attributed to St Albert. What St Albert's position was is unclear. Perhaps investigating the work actually written by him. On Animals, might give clues.
Reading the section cited reveals a major problem with the quote--it's a hypothetical argument posed to St Albert, and not his own thoughts on the subject. As noted in the introduction, the format is similar to scholastic such as St Thomas Aquinas' Summa--question, evidence for and against, then a solution. This book is primarily about science as it was understood the Middle Ages, so it contains a lot of error, it's not meant to be theological, but more philosophical and biological.
The whole question reads as follows:
Whether the male is better suited for proper behavior [mores] than the female.
One inquires further whether the male is better suited for proper behavior than the female.
1. And it seems not. For an animal that is more teachable for proper behavior is more suitable. But according to the Philosopher in the beginning of the ninth book, the female is more teachable toward proper behavior than is the male. And this seems to be because of the argument that females resemble children, according to the Philosopher in this chapter. But children are more teachable than old people, as the Philosopher wishes in the second book of the Ethics. Therefore, etc.
2. In addition, prudence is an intellectual virtue. Without it, moral virtue cannot be perfected. But females are more prudent than males, as the Philosopher wishes. Therefore, etc.
The opposite is stated in the ninth book of this work, and this is clear. For generally, proverbially, and commonly it is affirmed that women are more mendacious and fragile, more diffident, more shameless, more deceptively eloquent, and, in brief, a woman is nothing but a devil fashioned into a human appearance. Thus I saw one like this at Cologne, who seemed to be a saint and yet, in brief, ensnared everyone with her love.
To this, one must reply that a female is less suited for proper behavior than is a male. For a female's complexion is moister than a male's, but it belongs to a moist complexion to receive [impressions] easily but to retain them poorly. For moisture is easily mobile and this is why women are inconstant and always seeking after new things. Therefore, when she is engaged in the act under one man, at that very moment she would wish, were it possible, to lie under another. Therefore, there is no faithfulness in a woman.
Believe me: if you believe her you will be deceived. Believe a teacher who has experienced it.
Moreover, an indication of this is that wise men almost never disclose their plans and their doings to their wives. For a woman is a flawed male and, in comparison to the male, has the nature of defect and privation, and this is why naturally she mistrusts herself. And this is why whatever she cannot acquire on her own she strives to acquire through mendacity and diabolical deceptions. Therefore, to speak briefly, one must be as mistrustful of every woman as of a venomous serpent and a horned devil, and if it were allowed to say what I know about women, it would stupefy the entire world.
1. On to the arguments. To the first, one must reply that instruction is of two types: for one is given concerning things that can be done [operabilibus] with respect to affect, and the other is given concerning things subject to cognition [intelligibilibus], and this consists in understanding and deliberating. As far as the first is concerned, the female is more teachable than the male, because she is more easily moved to different affects, toward which she is disposed. But as far as the second is concerned, the contrary obtains because the sensible powers are weaker in a woman owing to the coldness of her complexion, since she has a poorer sense of touch and, as a result, a weaker intellect.
2. To the second argument one must reply that a woman is not more prudent than a male, properly speaking, but she is cleverer. Therefore, prudence smacks of good, and cleverness smacks of evil. Therefore, the female is more prudent, that is, cleverer, than the male with respect to evil and perverse deeds, because the more nature departs from the one operation, the more it inclines toward the other. In this way, the woman falls short in intellectual operations, which consist in the apprehension of the good and in knowledge of truth and flight from evil. This is why one who inclines to evil inclines more to sensitive appetite, unless she is ruled by reason, as is apparent in the seventh book of the Ethics. Therefore, sense moves the female to every evil, just as intellect moves a man to every good. And this is why, etc.---St Albert the Great, Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11 also Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9) pages 453-455
As we see, the original quote provided by the anonyomous citation was an argument provided by the questioner, then an ellipse was placed that skipped to the "St Albert's" supposed response to the claim. The writer's views are not without problem nonetheless, saying women are generally less intelligent. The statements about venomous serpent, horned devil, etc are part of an argument that is responded to. Whether St Albert actually said anything or what part of this in 1258 is uncertain.
Conclusion: This is actually the work of St Albert's student based on lectures by the saint. What St Albert said and agree with is uncertain.
