Advertisement

Aspects of Philosophy in Paris: 1215–1283

Chapter
  • 120 Downloads
Part of the The New Synthese Historical Library book series (SYNL, volume 50)

Abstract

The SLE is today often regarded as a theological work, one said to involve in fundamental ways various Christian doctrines, e.g., divine particular providence or personal immortality. Before examining the presence of such doctrines, as well as their so-called Christian character, it is useful to consider the feasibility of regarding the SLE as a philosophical document. To this end, the present chapter studies some aspects of the situation of philosophy in Paris between 1215 and 1283. On the basis of this examination, it is suggested that there are no grounds for supposing on the part of Aquinas some subjective or doctrinal obstacle that would have prevented him from composing a philosophical interpretation of the Ethics.

Keywords

Christian Faith Substantial Form Religious Authority Aristotelian Commentary Opus Omnia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Denifle & E. Châtelain (ed): Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1889) T. I, p. 78, n. 20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid, pp. 277–79, n. 246.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Accessus philosophorum. VII. artium libernimm, p. 181, 17–23 in Claude Lafleur: Quatre introductions à la philosophie au XIIIe siècle (Montréal/Paris: Inst. d’Etude médiévales/Vrin, 1988).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., p. 179, 2 – p. 180,14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philosophica disciplina, p. 257, 1–15 in Lafleur: Quatre introductions. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., p. 258, 20–24.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Philosophia, nn. 7–18 & 23–24 in Claude Lafleur & Joanne Carrier: “L’Introduction à la philosophie de maître Nicolas de Paris,” pp. 447–65 in L’enseignement de la philosophie auXIIIe siècle. Autour du “Guide de l’étudiant” du ms. Ripoll 109 (eds. C Lafleur & J. Carrier) (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnulfus Provincialis. Divisio scientiarum, p. 332, 6 – p. 323, 19 in Lafleur: Quatre introductions. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claude Lafleur & Joanne Carrier: “Le prologue ‘Triplex est principium’ du commentaires d’Adénulfe d’Anagni sur les Topics d’Aristote (extrait),” p. 246 (for dating); p. 437, nn. 1–2 (for the division of the sciences) in L’enseignement…Autour du “Guide. “ Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alain de Libera: “Structure du corpus scolaire de la métaphysique dans la première motié du XIIIe siècle,” pp. 63–64 in L’enseignement…Autour du ‘Guide’. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Primo queritur utrum philosophia, par. 21, as found on pp. 392–93 of Claude Lafleur & Joanne Carrier: “Le recueil du questions ‘Primo queritur utrum philosophia’ “in L’enseignement… Autour du ‘Guide’”, pp. 382–419.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Metaphysica vetus contained Book I; metaphysica nova contained Books I-X and XII, then considered as “XI”; the genuine Book XI was unknown until the 1270s with the translation of Moerbeke.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Libera: “Structure du corpus,” pp. 68–75.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Claude Lafleur: “Les textes ‘didascaliques,” p. 362 in L’enseignement…Autour du ‘Guide’. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alain de Libera: “Faculté des arts ou Faculté de philosophie? Sur l’idée de philosophie et l’idéal philosophique au XIIIe siècle,” pp. 429–44 in L’enseignement des disciplines à la Faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, XIIIe-XVe siècles) (eds. O. Weijers & L. Holtz) (Brepols, 1997). The year 1263 is noted as the date by which the Faculty of Arts is a Faculty of Philosophy by R.-A. Gauthier: “Notes sur les débuts (1225–1240) du premier ‘Averroïsme’,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982), pp. 329–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    On the importance of Averroes for this understanding of science, see Charles H. Lohr: “The New Aristotle and ‘science’ in the Paris arts faculty (1255),” pp. 258–61 in L’enseignement des disciplines. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chartularium, I, p. 170, n. 128 and p. 173, n. 130.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cf. Luca Bianchi: “Censure, liberté et progrès intellectuel à l’Université de Paris au XIIIe siècle,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 63 (1996), pp. 45–93.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Super Dionysii epistulas, p504,28–32: “Quamvis quidem, quia nesciunt, omnibus modis velint impugnare usum philosophie (in assertione fidei), et maxime in predicatoribus, ubi nullus eis resistit, tamquam bruta animalia blasphemantes in hiis quae ignorant.”Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E.g., Physica I.l.pl, 43–49, especially lines 48–49: “nostra intentio est omnes dictas [3] partes [philosophiae] facere Latinis intelligibiles.”Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E.g., De natura loci I.7.pl3,44–51: “Quia autem de hac opinione mentio erit in secundo libro De causis proprietatum elementorum, ideo illuc differemus disputationem contra ipsam, praecipue, quia nos in libro tertio De caelo et mundo probavimus terram directe esse locatam sub omnibus aliis elementis in medio mundi, inquantum est medium mundi. Hoc enim satis refellit errorem, qui hic dictus est.” Ibid, pl4,41–47: “Tarnen philosophi diversa valde scribunt de hoc, et ideo dicemus, sicut nobis videtur, non praeiudicantes aliter dicentibus; in Libro enim Meteororum aliquid iterum dicemus de hoc secundum sententias philosophorum. Sed quidquid ibi dicturi simus, hoc erit opinionis aliorum. Hic autem vere scripsimus opinionem nostram.” On this topic, cf. Micael Schooyans: Recherches sur la distinction entre philosophie et théologie chez saint Albert le Grand. Dissertation. Institut Supérièur de Philosophie, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1950, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De praedicabilibusII.3, (Borgnet, I, 24) as cited in Schooyans: Recherches, p. 208. Cf. S. Wlodek: “Albert le Grand et les Albertistes du XVe siècle. Le problème des universaux,” in Albert der Grosse. Seine leite, sein Werk, seine Wirkung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1981) pp. 193–207.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Physics I.1.5.p.8,22–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meteororum II.2.2, (Borgnet, IV, 546) as cited in Schooyans: Recherches, p. 221.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    De caelo et mundo II 13.p. 109,36–44.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Physics. I.2.1.p.l6,83–89.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    De praedicamentïs 2.12 (Borgnet, I,198s). Also, De caelo et mundo I.4.10.pl03,7–12, where Albert explains that natural philosophy does not investigate miracles, but only those things which follow from natural causes.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edouard Wéber, O.P.: “La relation de la philosophie et de la théologie selon Albert le Grand,” Archives de philosophie, 43 (1980) p. 566.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Super Ethica.X16.p774,70–p775,13.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cf. Gauthier: Saint Thomas dAquin, pp. 178–79. Cf. also: James A. Weisheipl, O.P.: Thomas d Aquino and Albert his Teacher (Toronto: Pont. Inst. Med. Stud., 1980) p. 9: “Albert’s audacity in lecturing on Aristotle’s philosophy in a theological studium [at Cologne] is another example not only of his independence, but also of his conviction that philosophy and science are indispensable for theological studies. It was this same conviction and audacity that prompted Albert to ‘rewrite’ the whole of Peripatetic philosophy.”Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Senti. I,d. 39, q. 2, a. 2.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edward A. Synan: “Brother Thomas, the Master, and the Masters,” St Thomas Aquinas. 1274–1974. Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pont. Inst. Med. Stud., 1974) V. 2, pp. 220–21. Cf. Bonaventure: Sent., II, d. 44, dubium 3, in Opera omnia (Quaracchi, 1885) V. 2, p. 1016: “Non tarnen est mirandum, si in tot et tarn bonis dictis Magister dixit aliquid minus complete;…licet in aliquibus locis declinaverit ab opinionibus communibus et parti minus probabili adhaeserit, praecipue in octo locis.”Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Synan: “Brother Thomas,” pp. 227–29. Cf. Aquinas: Sent., I, d. 17, q. 1, a. 1, sc. 1–3.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Synan: “Brother Thomas,” p. 238. Synan discusses Aquinas’s responses to the remaining seven views of Lombard in pp. 230–40.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    De verit., q. 5, a. 2.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sent.I, d.35, q.1, a.l, ag.5 & ra.5; De verit.2.1.ob 4 & ad 4. This question of the De verit. dates from 1256.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sum. con. gent. II. 4.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Torrell: Initiation, p. 60.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gauthier: Saint Thomas d’Aquin, p. 180.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    For this date, cf. Torrell: Initiation, pp. 261–65.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Philosophia, lines 5–11. This work is edited as an appendix to R.-A. Gauthier: “Notes sur Siger de Brabant. II. Siger en 1272–1275. Aubry de Reims et la scission des Normands,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 68 (1984), pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    On the Averroist implications of this notion of “man”: Luca Bianchi: “Filosofi, Uomini, e Bruti. Note per la storia di un’antropologia ‘Averroista’,” Rinascimento 32 (1992), pp. 185–201.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Philosophia, lines 12–26 & 81–101. The authority may be Averroes. Cf. the following page.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ibid., lines 30–44.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., lines 104–112.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., lines 232–37.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Introduction, n. 8; Olivier’s text is edited in Claude Lafleur & Joanne Carrier: “L’Introduction à la philosophie de maître Olivier le Breton,” pp. 467–87 of L’enseignement..A utour du ȌGuide“. Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ibid., n. 24.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ibid., n. 9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ibid.,n. 11.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    De summo bono, lines 1–14 in Opera, V. 6, pars 2 (ed. N. G. Green-Pedersen) (Hunia: G-E-G-GAD, 1976).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibid., lines 26–54.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ibid., lines 55–61Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., lines 65–78.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid., lines 103–06.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ibid., lines 120–48.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., lines 149–64.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ibid., lines 165–238.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ibid., lines 239–40: “Haec est vita philosophi, quam quicumque non habuerit non habet rectam vitam.” As John F. Wippel has remarked, “…the De summo bono could easily be read by Christian thinkers of Boethius’s day or, for that matter, of our own, as trumpeting a kind of philosophical imperialism.” Cf.: Medieval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and Reason, The Aquinas Lecture, 1995 (Milwaukee: Marquette Univ. Pr., 1995), p. 61.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ignatius Brady, O.F.M.: “Background to the Condemnation of 1270: Master William of Baglione, O.F.M.,” Franciscan Studies 30 (1970), p. 47. Also, see p. 46 where William refers to “naturalis philosophus” as proving and asserting that without matter there can be no action and passion (actio and passio). Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ibid., pp. 39–41.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Collationes de decern praeceptis, Col. II, n. 25 in Opera omnia (Quaracchi, 1891) V. V, p. 514: “Ex improbo ausu investigations philosophicae procedunt errores in philosophis… Hoc igitur ponere provenit ex improbo ausu investigationis philosophicae.”Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Collatio 10: Stephanus plenus gratia etc. in Opera omnia (Quaracchi, 1901) V. IX, p. 482: “Sapientia Christiana aliud dicit de operibus virtutum et aliud philosophi; philosophi dicunt secundum exteriorem intellectum, et nisi sane intelligantur, ducunt in errorem. Dicunt: boni sumus, quia bona facimus; sed certe bonum non est meritorium, nisi sit gratia informatum. Bonum facimus, ergo boni sumus; verum est de virtute consuetudinali…; vera autem bonitas est, quia, si boni sumus, bona facimus;”Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Collationes de septem donis Spiritus Sanctus, Col. VIII, n. 12, p. 496 in Ibid.: “Alius est intellectus, qui est ianua considerationum scientialium… Iste intellectus, qui est ianua considerationum scientialium, partim est a dictamine naturae, id est a lumine interiori; partim ex frequentia experientiae, sicut a lumine exteriori; et partim ex illustratione lucis aeternae, sicut a lumine superiori.” After discussing each of these three parts of intellectus in nn.. 13–15, pp. 496–97, he treats the errors in n. 16, pp. 497–98. — On these sermons of Bonaventure, cf. Fernand Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger de Brabant, Philosophes Médiévaux T. 21, (Louvain/Paris: Publications Universitaires/Vander-Oyez, 1977) pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ibid., p. 339.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ibid, pp. 383–87. Also see Van Steenberghen: La philosophie au XIIIe siècle (Louvain/Paris: Publications Universitaires/Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1966) pp. 431; 386–87.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Some still question this dating of the De malo, q. 6. For a summary of the issue and reasons for placing the work in Paris prior to Dec. 10, 1270, see Torrell: Initiation, pp. 293–96.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    De malo, q. 6, a. unicus.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    De veritate, q. 22, a. 12, ob. 3 & ad 3.Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    De veritate, q. 22, a. 12, ob. 3 & ad 3.Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Odon Lottin: “Libre arbitre et liberté depuis saint Anselme jusqu’à la fin du XIIIe siècle,” Psychologie et morale auxXIIe etXIIIe siècle. T. I: Problèmes de psychologie (Louvain/Gembloux: Mont César/Duculot, 1942), pp. 245–47. Gauthier’s text is found in: Quaestiones disputatae, ed. E. Longré, Les Philosophes Belges, T. X (Louvain, 1928), pp. 40, 50.Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Lottin: “Libre arbitre’’ pp. 249–50. Also, see: Odon Lottin: “La psychologie de l’acte humain chez Jean Damascène et les théologiens du XlIIe siècle occidental,” Psychologie et Morale auxXIIe etXIIIe siècles, I, 2 edit. (Gembloux: Duculot, 1957) pp. 413–14. Adriaan Pattin: “La volonté chez l’homme selon Gérard d’Abbeville (+1277),” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, 20 (1978), pp. 72–73. For the text of Gerard, see: “Gérard d’Abbeville: Quaestiones de cogitatione” Archive d’Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 31 (1964), pp. 243–51.Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Lottin: “Libre arbitre,” p. 260.Google Scholar
  74. 73.
    See especially objections 4, 7, 16, 17, 18 and the responses in De malo, q. 6, a. un.Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    According to Odon Lottin, the De malo, q. 6 shows Aquinas “weakening the earlier radical terms” in which he spoke of choice, without repudiating totally his fundamental thesis. Cf, “Pour un commentaire historique de la morale de saint Thomas d’Aquin,” Psychologie et Morale auxXIIe etXIIIe siècles, T. 3, P. 2 (Gembloux: Duculot, 1949) pp. 590–91. Daniel Westberg: “Did Aquinas Change his Mind about the Will?” The Thomist, 58 (1994), pp. 41–60 argues that Aquinas did not change his doctrine of the roles of intellect and will in De malo, q. 6, but only explained metaphysically the interaction of intellect and will in opposition to those Masters stressing the spontaneity of the will.Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    De unitate intellectus contra Av err oistas, c. 1, p. 291,29–38.S174.Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Ibid., c. 5, p.314,431–33.S268.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Van Steenberghen: La philosophie, p. 437. In the light of this history of the growth of interest in philosophy, Jordan’s proposal that the De unitate intellectus is merely polemical and not a philosophical work appears difficult to maintain. See Jordan: “Theology and Philosophy,” p. 233.Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger, pp. 59–61. See also, the introduction to De unitate intellectus, sect. 6, pp. 250–51.Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger, pp. 61–70. Also, the introduction to De unitate intellectus, sect. 5, pp. 249–50.Google Scholar
  81. 80.
    Chartularium, T. I, n. 432, pp. 486–87.Google Scholar
  82. 81.
    Quodl. IV, q. 8, a. 3.Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Responsio ad magistrum Joannem de Vercellis de 43 articulis, p327,4–14.Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Ibid., p327,51–58.Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    Ibid., art.34, p333,476–83.Google Scholar
  86. 85.
    Ibid., art.32, p333,442–46.Google Scholar
  87. 86.
    Ibid.,p335,614–19.Google Scholar
  88. 87.
    Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger, pp. 80–83.Google Scholar
  89. 88.
    Chartularium, T. I, n. 441, pp. 499–500.Google Scholar
  90. 89.
    Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger, pp. 82–84.Google Scholar
  91. 90.
    On this supposition, see Bianchi: “Censure, liberté at progrès intellectuel,” p. 61. 91. Chartularium, T. I, pp. 545 & 552.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Quodlibet I, q. 4, a. 1c.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Quodlibet II, q. 1, a. 1c.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Quodlibet III, q. 2, a. 2 (Lent, 1270): “Utrum oculus Christi post mortem dicatur aequivoce oculus vel univoce.”Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    De unitate intellectus, c. 1, p291,31 – p292,74.S175–76.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Quodlibet IV, q. 5, a. un. (Lent, 1271): “Utrum sit unum numero corpus Christi affixum cruci et iacens in sepulcro.” Here, the ad 1 implies the solution he had proposed more clearly in earlier quodlibets. However, the advocates of a plurality of form would not have misunderstood his position.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Edouard-Henri Wéber: Dialogue et dissensions entre saint Bonaventure et saint Thomas d’Aquin à Paris (1272–1273) (Paris: Vrin, 1974) p. 20.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    The testimony of Henry of Ghent, John Peckham, and William of la Mare has led to the suggestion that an investigation of Aquinas’s doctrine of the unicity of substantial form was undertaken in connection with the condemnation of 1277. Cf. J. M. M. H. Thyssen: “1277 Revisited: A New Interpretation of the Doctrinal Investigations of Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome,” Vivarium, 35 (1997) pp 72–101. While Aquinas may not have been signaled out, the unicity of substantial form was most certainly examined at that time as a suspect doctrine.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Torrell: Initiation, pp. 268–73. A more detailed analysis of the historical data relative to the dispute between Peckham and Aquinas over the eternity of the world is had in: Ignatius Brady, O.F.M.: “John Peckham and the Background of Aquinas’s De aeternitate mundi” in St. Thomas Aquinas. 1274–1974. Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pont. Inst. Med. Stud., 1974) esp. pp. 149–54.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    De aeternitate mundi., p85,13–25.S295.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ibid.,p86,77–80.S298.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ibid., p86,88 – p87,157.S298–302.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ibid., p87,158 – p88,210.S303–06. The remainder of the work (1) shows that neither Augustine (p88,211–39.S307; p89,278–96.S307–09) nor the “best philosophers” (p88,210- p89,264.S307) perceived a contradiction in the notion of an eternal, created universe; (2) offers a philosophical response taken from Boethius to authorities agreeing with Aquinas’s opponents (p89,265–77.S308); and (3) brushes aside his opponents fears of heretical consequences following upon the possibility of an eternally, created universe (p89,297–308.S309). — In “Theology and Philosophy,” p. 233, Jordan includes the De aeternitate mundi under works only seeming to be philosophy because they are part of a polemic.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chartularium, T. I, n. 517, pp. 624–26; n. 518, pp. 626–27; n. 523, pp. 634–35.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Cf. Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P.: Saint Thomas d’Aquin, maître spirituel (Fribourg, Suisse/Paris: Éditions Universitaires/Éditions du Cerf, 1996) chapters X–XI. — One cannot imagine either a more complete or a better introduction to Aquinas than that provided by Torrell.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Collationes in Hexaëmeron, Col. VI, n. 2 in Opera omnia (Quaracchi, 1898) V. V,p. 361.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ibid., Col. VII, nn. 2–3, pp. 365–66. Bonaventure appears milder here, equating “darkness” with not having faith, giving thereby a more understanding impression of Aristotelians than he projected in Collatio VI.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cf. SLE.I.17.57–60.S206; 142–52.S212. Also, .Ibid, 9.162–65.S113.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    E.g.: Proposition n. 157: “That the man is sufficiently disposed to eternal happiness if he is oriented intellectually and affectively by intellectual and moral virtues as spoken of by the Philosopher in the Ethics.” The list of condemned propositions is found in Chartularium, T. I, pp. 543–55, n. 473.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    See also propositions nn. 40 and 154 on p. 99 above.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    The 219 condemned propositions are jumbled together with no order, a fact betraying the haste of the investigation resulting in the condemnation. According to Giles of Rome, present in Paris at that time, the inclusion of orthodox doctrines in the condemnation revealed the partiality of the judges compiling them. Cf. Van Steenberghen: Maître Siger, pp. 151, 153.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    For the Latin, see: R.-A. Gauthier: Magnanimité. L’idéal de la grandeur dans la philosophie païenne et dans la théologie chrétienne (Paris, 1951), p. 160, note 2.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Lottin: “Libre arbitre,” pp. 279–80. Especially opposed to Aquinas’s doctrine as found in the De veritate are propositions 157: “Quod duobus bonis propositis quod fortius est fortius movet,” and propositions 158: “Quod homo in omnibus actionibus suis sequitur appetitum, et semper maiorem.” Cf. De verit, q. 22, a. 15: “Sed eligere est actus voluntatis, secundum quod ratio proponit ei bonum ut utilius ad finem.” On proposition 157 and its relation to Aquinas, cf. Roland Hissette: Enquête sur les 219 articles condemnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277 (Louvain/Paris: Publications Universitaires/Vander-Oyez, 1977) pp 241–46.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Van Steenberghen has noted the following statistics: 47 “erroneous” doctrines are taken from the Pars prima of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, 12 from the Prima secundae, 16 from the Secunda secundae, 9 from the De veritate, 1 from the De virtutibus, 4 from the De potentia, 9 from the quodlibets, and 9 from the first book of the Sentence Commentary. Cf. La philosophie, p. 490.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
  116. 116.
    (Ed. P. Glorieux): Les premières polémiques thomiste. 1. Le correctorium corruptorii “Quare” (Kain, 1927) p. 129. The text of Knapwell’s response, edited here, contains the entire Correctorium of William.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Chartularium, T. I, n. 447, pp. 504–05. The principal works mentioned are commentaries on Simplicius, on Aristotle’s De caelo et mundo, and on the Timaeus. The Rector of the University was traditionally elected from among the Masters of Art.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    William Dunphy: “The Quinque viae and some Parisian Professors of Philosophy,” in St. Thomas Aquinas. 1274–1974. Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pont. Inst. Med. Stud., 1974) V. 2, p. 72.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    For the influence on Siger of Aquinas’s philosophical doctrines regarding the soul, see: Edward P. Mahoney: “Saint Thomas and Siger of Brabant Revisited,” The Review of Metaphysics, 27 (1974) pp. 531–53.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    On these borrowings from Aquinas, see: Dunphy: “The Quinque viae’’ pp. 73–93.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    R.-A. Gauthier. “Trois commentaires ‘Averroistes’ sur l’Ethique à Nicomacque,” Archives d’Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 16 (1947–1948), pp. 334–35. For the dating, cf. pp. 219–22.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Ibid., p. 334, with note 1; p. 73, with note 1; for the dating, pp. 222–24.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    The third of these commentaries, Paris Nat. Lat. 14698, is dated as shortly after the condemnation of 1277. Cf., Ibid., pp. 225–29.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    For a different view, see Jordan: “Theology and Philosophy”; “Thomas Aquinas’ Disclaimers in the Aristotelian Commentaries,” Philosophy and the God of Abraham. Essays in Memory of James A. Weisheipl, O.P., ed. R. J. Long (Toronto: Pont. Inst. Med. Stud., 1991) pp. 99–112; and “Aquinas Reading Aristotle’s Ethics.” — Aquinas’s Metaphysics-Commentary offers an illustration of its author’s philosophical intent. When approached historically, this commentary is seen to have been quite evidently intended to replace what Aquinas regarded as the incorrect interpretations proposed by his predecessors. And, given Aquinas’s position as a 13th century theologian constructing sacra doctrina with the aid of Aristotelian doctrine, why would he have devoted time to presenting interpretations of Aristotelian doctrines (corrected, characterized, modified as necessaiy) unless he considered them as true philosophy? Cf. J. C. Doig: Aquinas on Metaphysics. A historico-doctrinal study of the Commentary on the Metaphysics (Nijhoff: The Hague, 1972). — Additionally, how explain the opposition between Aquinas and his predecessors noted in Chs. 1–2 above?Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clayton College and State UniversityMorrowUSA

Personalised recommendations