aristotelian st thomas.pdf

8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf

1/26

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of

Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

The Aristotelian Commentaries of St. Thomas AquinasAuthor(s): Leo EldersSource: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Sep., 2009), pp. 29-53Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40387727Accessed: 27-11-2015 13:53 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.

For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:53:38 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=peshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40387727http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40387727http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=peshttp://www.jstor.org/


2/26

THE

ARISTOTELIAN

COMMENTARIES OF

ST. THOMAS

AQUINAS

LEO

ELDERS

JLhe commentaries

f St. Thomas on a dozen

mqjor

works of

Aristotle

nvite

s to

study

rom lose

quarters quinas' osition

with

regard

o

Aristotle's

hilosophy.

These commentaries

ccupy

more

than5000

pages

n

small

print,

he fruit f mmenseaborand

much

research.

Thomas'

method

f

commenting

as considered

highly

original

n

his

day

because

of he

larity

fhis

exposé,

he

depth

fhis

understanding,is command ftheentirehoughtftheStagirite,is

knowledge

fthe

positions

f

thedifferent

hilosophers,

is efforts

o

secure

the best

translations

vailable,

nd above

all,

his

meticulous

explanations

f

very

ingle

entence f he ext.

Modern

tudents

fthese ommentaries

ave raised he

question

whether

hey

ontain

Aquinas'

wn

philosophical

hought

r, rather,

are

they

o

be

considered faithful

endering

f

Aristotle's

hought?

Some

have said

that he commentaries

re useless

fora

historico-

critical

xegesis

f Aristotle's

orks.1 oes Thomas

warp

he atter's

doctrine,ven dulteratet nsomeoccasions o as to rendert more

acceptable

to

Christians?

Joseph

Owens

suggests

hat

Aquinas'

allegiance

to

the

Christian aith

repeatedly

itiates

he scientific

objectivity

f

his commentaries

nd that

his

explanations

re nfected

by

his own

different

hilosophical

iews.2

In his

study

of the

commentary

f

the

Nicomachean

thics,Harry

.

Jaffa

rgues

hat

Thomas

does

not

give

a

reliable

resentation

f

Aristotle's

hought.3

M.-D. Jordan

speaks

of Thomas

Aquinas's

Disclaimers

n the

Correspondence

o:

L.

J.

Elders,

eyendallaan

2,

6464EP

Kerkrade,

Netherlands.

1

See also

F. Cheneval

nd

R.

mbach,

nThomas on

Aquin.

rologe

u

den

Aristoteleskommentaren,

Frankfurt:

lostermann,

993),

iii.

Aquinas

s

an

Aristotelian

ommentator,

n

St.

Thomas

quinas

n

the

xistence

f

God.

Collected

apersof

Joseph

wens

C. Ss.

R,

ed.

John

.

Catan

Albany:

tate

University

fNew

York

ress, 980),

8.

3

Thomism

nd

Aristotelianism.

Study of

the

Commentaryy

St.

Thomas

Aquinas

on the

Nicomachean

Ethics

(Chicago:

University

f

Chicago

ress, 952).

TheReview fMetaphysics3 (September009):29-53. Copyright 2009byTheReview f

Metaphysics.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

30

LEO ELDERS

Aristotelian

ommentaries, 4

o

that

Aquinas

annot

be burdened

with the views expressed n the commentaries. 5 ost scholars,

however, raise

the

ight

he commentaries

hed on

Aristotle'sften

difficultexts

and are

convinced

hat

they express

substantially

Aquinas'

wn

Philosophical

octrines.

Other

uestions

re to what xtent

homas

ccepts

whatAristotle

writes,

nd

whatwerehis

reasons

or

ndertaking

his

normous

ask

during

he seven ast

years

of

his life.6Was it his

desire,

s I once

heard a

young

professor

f Notre

Dame

Universityssert, ust

to

provide

material

o

students or n

exercise

n

analysis

nd dialectic?

Raising hisquestions answeringt: as a magistern sacra pagina

Thomashad

other

oncerns was

moreover

xtremelyusy

with

his

lecturing

n Sacred

Scripture,

rganizing

cademic

disputes,

writing

his

Summa

theologiae

nd other

shorter reatises

than that of

composing

exts

for

dialectical

ractice.

Moreover,

t is

meaningful

that he

composition

fsome ofthecommentaries

oincidedwith

he

redaction f

parts

fthe

umma

theologiae.

esides

he

commentary

on

theDe

anima,

apparently

ritten

n

Rome t the ime

homas

was

composing

he

First

Part of the Summa

theologiae,

ne

may

think

hereofthat n theNicomacheans thics,which eemstodateto the

time

Thomasworked

n

the Second Partof the

Summa,

a

study

f

man'smoral ife. This s

a clear ndicationhat t.Thomas

onsidered

theseAristotelian

reatises aluable

nd

helpful.

I

Why

did St.

Thomas undertake he

gigantic

task

of writing

commentariesnAristotle's ain works? t stands oreason hatn

undertaking

his normous askhe hadsome

very

ood

reasons.As I

have

indicated,

ome

of these works

of Aristotle

rovided

homas

with

usefulmaterial

or

composing

is

Summa

theologiae.

Let

me

tentatively

ention

omeother

easons:

4

M. D.

Jordan,

Thomas

Aquinas'

Disclaimers

n the

Aristotelian

Commentaries,

n

God and

the

hilosophy f

Abraham.

ssays

in

Memory

of

JamesA.

Weisheipl

.

P.

,

ed. R.

James

ong Toronto, 991),

9-112.

öIbid.

6ThecommentaryntheDe anima is earlier.Thomaswrote tduring

his

tay

n

Rome.




4/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

OMMENTARIESOF

AQUINAS

31

(a)

To

clarify

he structure

nd

composition

f a work

and

to

show hewealth f ounddoctrineontainedn t. At hebeginningf

his

exposition

f

the

Physics

St.

Albert aid

that

his

purpose

was

to

help

students

o

understand

orrectly

he

books of

Aristotlend

to

hand

down n elaborated

atural

cience;

o do the

ground

workfor

the

foundation

f a Christian

hilosophy.7

We

all

know

that the

medieval

atin

translations

f Aristotle's ext are oftendifficult

o

decipher.

orthat

eason,

clear

restatement

fwhatAristotle

aught

must

have been

extremely

elcome. Thomas

purported

o

place

the

students

n

direct

contact

with

Aristotle's

ext,

while

providing

guidance.Hehimselftaysn thebackground.8t was also a challenge

to

the

magister

o

make he

books of

the

great

master asier o use

in

the

chools.

(b)

To

set

forthhedoctrine

ontained

n

thetext nd to test

he

strength

f

the

arguments.

he division

f the text

was the method

practiced

t medieval

niversities

nd

is a foremost

eansto

get

an

overview

f the

doctrine ontained

n it.

To

a

modern eader hese

numerous

ivisions

nd subdivisions

eem

tedious,

ut

n

reality hey

suppose

that

one

had understood

he contents

f the

entire reatise

andwas able to indicate certainogicalorder f the themes ealt

with

y

he uthor.

Thomas

s

awareof he

fact hat he

unity

f ome

of

hese

reatises,

uch

s the

Physics

nd

the

Metaphysics

s far rom

perfect.

t is

perhaps

ess

known hat

Thomas

very

arefully

eighs

the

arguments

dvanced

by

the

Stagirite

nd does

certainly

ot

consider

he text

as

consisting

f uniform

ages

with

content

f

equal

certitude.

We shall deal

withwhat

St. Thomas

has to

say

on

Aristotle's

rguments

ater

n

this

aper.

(c)

A

further

urpose

of the

commentaries

s

to

reject

any

interpretationn disagreement ith the text or the intention f

Aristotle.

n this

onnection

homas ften

ses such

expressions

s

secundum

ntentionem

ristotelis.

y

ntentio

homas

means

n

the

first

lace

Aristotle's

octrine

s one

can

reconstruct

t

by

reading

text

ttentively,omparing

t to his

philosophy

s

such.

Sometimes

the

words

mean

he

more

profound

ense

of thetext

which ecomes

manifest

hen ne

carefully

tudies

passage

n

ts

context.

Consider

7

B. Alberti

agni.

Opera

Omnia

Borgnet),

ol.

3,

p.

1.

See

also J.

saac,

Saint

homas,

nterprète

es

oeuvres

Alistóte,

n

Philosophia Scholastica rations historico-criticanstauranda (Rome:

Officium

ibri

atholici, 951),

60-1.




5/26

32

LEO ELDERS

a

remark

uch

as: It s clearwhen ne

carefully

onsiders

hewords

ofthePhilosophern thispassagethat t is nothis intentionpatet

igiturpraedicta

verba

Philosophi iligenter

onsideranti

uod

non

est intentio

ius].

Finally,

ecundum

ntentionem

ristotelis

may

also mean

a

sense

which s not contained

n a

particular

ext,

ut

which

s

found lsewhere

n

the

Corpus

or which

may

be concluded

fromwhatAristotle

ays

at some other

lace

or from

ertain f

his

principles.

To

give

n

example,

n

Metaphysics

2, chap.

9 Aristotle

denies hatGod has

knowledge

f the

world nd of

what

happens

n

human

ife

because

thiswouldmake

God

depend

n

what s outside

him.Thomaswrites hat heres no suchdependence,fGodknows

things

n himselfs he

actually

oes.

Aristotle imself

ould

point

o

this olutionwhenhe

writes hat eaven nd

earth

epend

n the

First

Mover.

(d)

Thomas

lso

notes the

agreement

r

disagreement

f some

particular

eachings

f Aristotle ith

he doctrine

f the faith.

On

several ccasionshe writes hat

particular

assage,

when

nterpreted

carefully,

oes not

ontradict

he

faith,

ven

f

t eems

o do so at

first

sight.

Aquinas' urpose

s

to show hat

asically

ristotle's

hilosophy

is not opposed to the faith. He admits,however, hat certain

statementsre

n

disagreement

ith atholic octrine.

(e)

I am

convinced hat

n

composing

hese ommentaries

t

was

also Thomas'

ntention,

s it

had been

that f St. Albert he

Great,

o

elaborate

philosophy

f

nature,metaphysics,

nd

ethics onformed

to the

ruth. hisdoes

not

mean hat homas

ubstantiallyompletes

the ext fAristotle here t

hows acunae.

He

respects

he ext

the

principle

s

reverenter

ocponere

apparently

onvinced hat uch

is

not

the task of a

commentator.

But,

he

consistentlynterprets

passages in thelight f Aristotle'shilosophyndprinciples,s he

himself

nderstandsheir

mplications. hristopheraczor,

eferring

to M.-D.

Chenu,

bserves hat hemedieval ommentator

ccepts

he

doctrine

of

the author he

is

explaining,

nless he states

his

differences.9

(f)

In

those

places

where

Aristotle'statementsr

explanations

are

nsufficientr

partly

rong

homas

makes remarkt theend

of

9

See

Aquinas'

ommentary

n

the thics:

Merely

n

nterpretation

f

Aristotle?

merican

atholic

hilosophical

uarterly

8

2004):

353-78

nd

Chenu,ntroduction l'étude e saint Thomasd'Aquin Paris:Vrin, 950),

177.




6/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARIES

OF

AQUINAS 33

a section

or of a lesson. These remarks

egin

with

ciendumest

autem, dvertendumstautem, rconsiderandumst autem. Asan

example

of such

corrections,

f

whichthere re hundreds n

the

commentaries,

refer o

Metaphysics,

ook

6,

esson

1,

the

ext f he

well-known

ripartition

f the

theoretical ciences.

Contradicting

Aristotle

n this

point

in

a sciendum

est,

Thomas writes that

metaphysics

lso considers

material

eings.

These

corrections

f

particular

heories

nd occasional short additions how

that the

doctrine

f he

remaining

art

f

he

hapter

s

accepted.

(g)

The trend

of

Aquinas'

commentariess to

replace

a

Neoplatonic nterpretationf Aristotle, requently roposed by

Avicenna

nd

Albert,

y

rigorous

xegesis

ased

on

the

principles

f

Aristotle

himself.

Moreover,

n

several

occasions he

rejects

interpretations

roposed

by Averroës,10

n

order to show that the

Commentator,

s Averroës

as

called,

s not

above all

suspicion

s

to thecorrectness

fhisviews.11

otwithstanding

is severe riticism

of several

positions

f

Averroës,

uch

as the

theory

f

only

one

intellect

or all

men,

Thomas nevertheless

ccasionally

ses some

valuable

nsights

f he

philosopher

f

Cordova.

Aquinas

on the

demonstrations

sed

by

Aristotle.

o determine

to

what xtent

Aquinas

hares

hetheories f the

Stagirite

ne

must

notice

what

he has

to

say

about the

proofs

dvanced

by

Aristotle.

Quite

ften

e

will bserve

hatAristotle

ses

probable

rguments

nd

only

begins

o determine

he

truth urthern.12

lsewhere,

homas

writes hat fter irstnvestigatingisputatiouslyhetherlace sreal,

Aristotle

ow

considers

hat

lace

s.13

lsewhere,

homas otes hat

10

In

particular,

n

he

ommentaries

n he

hysics

nd he

e anima

See

our

The

Commentary

f St.Thomas

quinas

n the

Physics

f

Aristotle,

n

L.

J.

lders,

utour

e aintThomas

Aquin,

ol.

,

Paris:

ac-

Editions,987),

3-53, p.

28-33.

On the

place assigned

o Averroës

n

Aquinas'

orks,

ee

C.

Vansteenkiste,

San

Tommaso

'Aquino

d

Averroè,

inRivista

egli

tudi

Orientali

2

1957):

85-623.

ansteenkiste

entions

some

00

eferences.

ee

also

L.

Elders,

Averroès

t aint

homas

'Aquin,

inDoctor

ommunis

4

1992):

6-56.

12InPhysica, , esson 2, .98.13

In

Physica,

,

esson

,

n.422.




7/26

34

LEO ELDERS

thus

ar

Aristotleiscussedwith he

Presocratics

nd Plato t the evel

of disputendso hisargumentserepartiallyrue utnot ntirely.14

Thomas lso

distinguishes

etween

robable

nd

better

roofs.15

On several

occasions

Aquinas

draws attention

o Aristotle's

custom

f

proceeding

rom he

ssumptions

fothers

rfrom ommon

opinions,

efore

tating

is

own

view.16

e sometimes

ses a

sophistic

argument.17

t another

lace

we hear bout n

argument

hat

t

s

ad

hominem,

on ad veritatem.18s

appears

from hetexts

eferredo

and from umerous ther extswe can see a certain

eservation

bout

whatAristotle rites

n

particular

assages.

Apparently

e must ead

thecommentaries ith he utmost ttentionn order o be able to

distinguish

etween ections

which

ontain

mere

opinions

nd

other

passages

where,

ccording

o

Aquinas, efinitely

ruedoctrine

s set

forth.

assume

thatThomasmade his own the

bulk of

Aristotle's

doctrines,

ut here re

particular

heories fthe

Stagirite

ithwhich

he

appears

o

disagree.

Ill

The

Commentary

n theDe

Interpretatione.

n the

Commentary

on the Peri

hermeneias ne finds he well-knowntatement

bout

being

s

actuality.

n

chapter

hree f

his

reatise ristotleetermines

the

function f verbs and

discusses

the

relationship

f verbs

and

nouns.

Verbscan be used as

nouns,

for

example,

when

one

says:

walking

s

good

exercise.

A

verb

y tself,

ncluding

heverb to

be,

Aristotle

ays,

does

not

signify

whether

omething

s.

To be

additionally

ignifies

ome

composition.

Aristotle

s

thinking

f the

copulahere,which ignifies reality,fthecomponent artsof astatementre there.Aristotleeems to hold that is

standing

lone

asserts

nothing

f ts

own.19 he

probable

meaning

f this

passage

s

that

withouthe

omponentsarts

fthe entence is

by

tself as

no

14

In

Physica, ,

esson

13,

n.

114.

15

In

Physica, ,

esson .

In

Physica, ,

lesson

8,

n.

353:

Semper

ntequam

robet

d

quod

est

suae

opinionis rocedit

x

suppositionepinionis

liorum

ommunis.

17

In

Physica, ,

esson

1,

n.

407.

18

In

Physica, ,

esson

,

n.

779.

19J. L. Ackrill, ristotle's ategoriesnd De InterpretationeOxford:

Clarendon

ress,

963),

23.




8/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

OMMENTARIESOF

AQUINAS

35

meaning.

At this

point

of the text

Thomas tatesthat he

primary

meaningf uis s thatwhich nters he ntellecty wayof absolute

actuality,

or t

ust

means,

he

says,

n actu

esse,

being

real. The

actuality

ignified

s that

of

any form,

whether ubstantial r

accidental.

his

tatement

oes

beyond

he ext fAristotle.

One

should

notice

hat homas

oes

not

ay

that

is

by

tself

s a

statement

r asserts

omething,

ut

that t

signifies

eality,

hereas

Aristotle

rites hat o

be or not o be is not

sign

fan actual

hing,

not

f

one

simply

ays

being

to

ov],

or

by

tself

t s

nothing,

ut t

additionally

ignifies

ome combination hich cannot

be

thought

withouthe components.20lthough e do not find hismeaning

Thomas

ives

o

being

nd is tated

n

Aristotle's

ext,

ne cannot

say

t

s

excluded.

The verb

neo


9/26

36

LEO

ELDERS

empiricism

hich

dentifies

he ntellect ith he

magination,

nd

the

theorywhichconsiders hepossible ntellects separatefrom he

individual

erson,

s

one

of

the mmaterial

ubstances.22

his atter

theory

s

impossible,

owever,

or this

ndividual

erson

hinks

hie

homo

ntelligit]

thewell-known

tatement

y

whichThomas

hows

the

untenability

fAverroës'

heory

f n

unique

niversal

ntellector

all men.

f

omeone enies

hat t

s

this

ndividual an

who

hinks,

e

is not

thinking

imself,

nd

we need not even

isten o

him. Thomas

criticizeshosewho

when

eading

ristotle's

ords hat he

ntellect

s

separate

commit so

rashly

[tarn

leviter]

the

mistake

of

misunderstandinghe term eparate nd assumethat he ntellects

outside he ndividual an.

In

this

ontext ristotle

imself

peaks

of

what s called

he

ntellectf

he

oul,

meaning

he ntellect

y

which

the soul thinks nd makes tatements.23

few ines

below,

Thomas

says,

Aristotle

rites

hat hosewho call the oul

the

place

where

he

ideas

are,

re

right,

xcept

n so far s it s not

hewhole

oul,

but

he

thinking

aculty

77 o^tiktiî,

hich

has the

ideas,

not

in

act

but

in

potency.

After n admirable

resentation

f Aristotle's

octrine f

the

possible ntellectvoïiç aSirjTixóç]nchapter ,Thomasnowdiscusses

the

theory

f

the

agent

ntellect,

hich s more

perfect

ince

t is

in

act.24 ome read Aristotle'sext s

saying

hat

he

agent

ntellect

s a

separate ubstance,

ut thisview does not seem

right,

or

Aristotle

writes hat his

ifferentiationetween n

acting

aculty

nd

a

potency

as its

counterpart

ust e

in

the oul.25 homas dvances

n

argument

which

oes

beyond

what

Aristotle

rites,

lthough

ristotle oes

say

that s

everywhere

n

nature lso

in

the soul theremust e

an active

power

or

part.

Naturemust

have

equipped

man

sufficiently

or

carryinguthis functionsndtasks. For that eason heperfectionf

humannature

equires

hatboth he

agent

ntellect

nd the

possible

intellect re inside

man. It is

true,

Thomas

notes

in n.

742,

that

according

o

the

wording

f

Aristotle,

oth he

gent

ntellectnd the

22

This s a

reference

o

ater latonistsnd o

Averroës,

hom

e

does

not

mention

y

name. uthewas

thinking

f heAverroiststthe

aculty

f

Artsn

Paris

gainst

hom

ewouldwrite is

reatisee unitale ntellectus

contra

averroistas.

23

De

anima,

3.4.429a22-3: o

apa

xaÀovfievoçmç bu%ik ovç.

Lesson

10,

n.

734.

25De anima, 3.5.430al3: àvâynit)kciÌ ev ri if/u%j¡TïâQxeivavraç raç

iïiacpoQaç.




10/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

OMMENTARIES

OF

AQUINAS

37

possible

ntellect

re

separate,

which

means that

they

ct

without

bodily rgans. Continuingis comments,e recallswhat Aristotle

wrote t

the

beginning

fthe

De anima™nd

n

Book

2

wherehe

says

that

his

kind

f soul the oul

which hinks

will

be

separated

rom

other

hings,

s the

perpetual

s from

he

perishable.

Thomas

notes

that

perpetual

eredoes not

meanthat he soul has

always

xisted

but hat

t

will

lways

e.

At the

end of

chapter

,

however,

peaking

f the

agent

ntellect

Aristotle

ays

hat

t lone s

immortalnd eternal ut hat

he

possible

intellect

s

perishable.

Without

he

agent

intellect here is no

thinking.27homasunderstandshewords that t alone s immortal

as

concerning

hewhole ntellectual

art

of the

soul,

and

applies

he

words

the

possible

ntellect

s

perishable

o that

part

of our soul

which

s the

subject

of emotions.

Here Aristotle alls this

part

intellect

s

we

say

that

he

cogitativa

s

rational,

ince it

shares

somewhat

n

reason,

s Aristotle

ays

in

the Nicomachean

thics.

Obviously

ristotle's

ext

s difficult.

homas efrains

rom

aying

hat

there

s a contradiction

etween

hese

ast ines

nd earlier

tatements,

and

understands

ristotle's

ext

n

the

ight

f coherent

octrine.He

is abletoquote ome catteredtatementso confirmndunderpinis

reading

f

the text.

This

coherent

hilosophy

as been

constructed

with

the

help

of Aristotle's

works

and

tenets;

t is

Aristotle's

philosophy

ut

further

eveloped

by

Aquinas,

n

conformity

ith

Aristotle's

rinciples.

There

re also

passages

in the

corpus

which

point

nto

a different

irection,

o

wit,

the denial

of a

meaningful

afterlife.28

V

The

Commentary

n the

Metaphysics.

llow

me to

mention

ow

some

texts

fthe

Commentary

n

the

Metaphysics,

here

pparently

26

1.1.403all; homas,

k.

1,

esson

,

n.

21.

2743Oa23-5.

28

See

also

Nicomachean

thics,

1.10.1100a21.

hen

Aristotle

ays

that

death

s

the

greatest

f

evils,

or

here

s

nothing

eft or

he

dead,

Thomas

notes:

that

s

to

say,

f he

hings

hich

elong

o our

present

ife nd

which

weknow.For the hingshat elong othe tate fthe oulsafter eath re

not

visible

o us

Commentary

n the

Nicomachean

thics,

Bk.

3,

esson

14.




11/26

38 LEO ELDERS

Thomas

gives

a

different

urn to or further

evelops

Aristotle's

doctrine. nBooksA, T,and E of hisMetaphysics ristotleresents

divergent

iews s to the

nature

f

his cience.

n his

Proem,

homas

manages

o

reconcile he

tudy

fthe ast cause

(A),

that

f

themost

universal ealities

.T),

nd that f mmaterial

hings

divinity

(£)

as

belonging

o the ame

discipline.

When

n Book

6 Aristotle

rites

hat

the first

hilosophy

tudiesunmovable

mmaterial

eings,

Thomas

makes correction

y

adding

not

nly,

s it also

considers

material

things

n so far s

they

re

beings.29

ut,

n

this

onnection

ristotle

speaks

of causes that re

eternal,

meaning

hemovers

fthe

celestial

bodies,which exercisean eternal ausality. In n. 1164,Thomas

explains

hat hefirst auses

of he

hings

hich ome

nto

eing

must

be

eternal; hey

re

beings

n

the

highest

egree,

ccording

o

the

principle

aid down

n Book 2

(the

causes of

perfections

ossess

these

in

the

highest egree),

nd

so

they

re

thecauses of

things

n so far s

these

re

beings.

Thosewho

ay

that

ccording

o

Aristotle od

s

not

the cause

of

the substance

of the heavens

are

manifestly rong.

Bonaventure

as one of these.30 et

most modern

ommentators

disagree

withThomas on

this matter.31

n his late

De substantiis

separatis,he comes backto thequestion,dmits hat ome believe

that

Aristotlexcludes

from he First

Mover he

knowledge

f

things

other han

himself,

ut

he

says

that

f one looks

carefully

t

thetext

(diligenter

onsideranti),

his

s

not

rue. What

homas

xpresses

o

politely

as,

s

I

see

it,

more

r

ess

the

following

eaning:

fwe

bring

in

some

principles

or scarce remarks

from elsewhere

n the

Aristotelian

orpus,

we

can read the

text s

excluding

rom he First

Mover he

way

n whichwe

acquire

ur

knowledge,

y

receiving

t,

but

not

the

knowledge lowing

orth rom hat f his own

being

which s

theuniversal rinciplendsourceof all being. 32ikewisensome

other

exts,

uch as In

Physicorum,,

esson

2,

n.

975,

he writes

hat

Plato and

Aristotlerrived t the

knowledge

f the

principle

f all

being

a

text, however,

which

does

not

necessarily

mean that

29

In

Metaphysica,,

lesson

,

n.

1165.

30

In I

Sentent,

.

1,p. 1,

.

1,

1.

31

See

also J.

Chevalier,

rois

conférences,

:

Aristote,

aint Thomas

t

Vidée e

création

Paris Flammarion,

928),

0;

and R.

Jolivet,

ssai

sur es

rapports

ntre a

pensée

grecque

t la

pensée

chrétienne. ristote t saint

Thomas

ou Vidéede

création. lotin et saint

Augustin

u Vidéedu mal

(Paris Vrin, 931), 2-82.32

De

substantiis

eparatis,

hap.

14.




12/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

OMMENTARIES

OF

AQUINAS 39

Aristotle

xplicitly

ttributed

o God

the

production

f

all

things,

ut

couldsaythatGod is thefinal ndandprincipleforder, he first

being

n

nobility.

It s

very

ignificant

hat

whenThomas id

not ddresshimselfo

a

university

ublic

nor

had

to defend

ristotelianism

gainst

ll sorts

of

ttacks,

e

uses a different

anguage.

This s

the ase

in

the um/ma

theologiae33

here

he deals with

he

question

f the

origin

f

primary

matter:

id

t

exist

lways

s Platobelieved t did n his

theory

f the

receptacle

r substrate

also

known s world

pace),

and

as

Aristotle

assumed

it did

in

order

to make

possible

the eternal

cycle

of

generations?

Thomas

egins

y

aying

hat he arliest

hilosophersnly

knew

material

hings;34

n unmistakable

eference o the Presocratics.

Progress

was

made when

philosopherscknowledged

he difference

between

he substantial

orm nd

matter,

ut

they

elievedmatter o

be eternal.

Next

hey

aw that

hanges

ccur n bodies

n

respect

o

their

essential

forms.

They

attributed

hese

changes

to certain

universal

auses,

uch s the

movement

f he un

long

he

cliptic

r

the

deas.

The

progress

onsisted

n

a better

omprehension

f

change

whichwas now understoods occurringlso in substantial eing.

Thomas

does

not

mention lato

and Aristotle

y name,

ut t s

quite

obvious

who are

meant.

Plato

rejected

the

theory

f

change,

generation,

nd

corruption

f natural

things

professed

by

his

predecessors,

eplacing

t

with

is owndoctrine f

he

causality

f

he

ideas

and

participation.35

n

chapters

even

o nineof

Metaphysics

and

in

Metaphysics

,

chapter

, 1045al4,

Aristotle

onsiders

his

solution

nadequate:

he

hypothesis

fforms

oes not

xplain

hanges

in

nature

nd

even

ess

why

ew

ubstances

ome nto

eing

t

certain

intervals.He advances hetheoryfthe movementf the sunalong

the

ecliptic, limbing igher

n

the

sky

during

he

summer,

nd

33

1, .

44,

.

2.

It

s notunusual

o

distinguish

eriods

n

the

history

f

philosophy.

Aristotle

imself

oes

o

repeatedly,

irst

f ll

n

Metaphysica

. See also

Philoponus

n his

Vestigium

,

19 and

Thomas

n

his De substantiis

separatis.

35

Pkaedo,

6

A.




13/26

40

LEO ELDERS

standing

ower bove

the horizon

n

winter

ime,

ausing

hanges

n

temperature,ryness,ndhumidity.36

Plato's

theory explains

the

presence

of certain

formal

determinations

taleens],

whileAristotleccounts

or he

generation

of ndividualubstances

hocens].

For

all

its concision

hetext

s a

masterly

escription

f the

essential

rientations

f the

philosophies

ofPlato nd Aristotle. homas ontinues is

exposé

tating

hat ome

other uthors

aliqui]

went further

nd reachedthe

knowledge

f

being

ua

being

nd

assigned

cause to

things,

ot

ust

as

they

re

these r such

hings,

ut

n

so

far

s

they

re

beings.

The problem s to determine ho these aliqui are. In his

commentary

n

the

Metaphysics,

homas

ays

that

Aristotleame

to

consider

he FirstMover he ource nd cause

of the

being

f

things,

but the textwe

have

ust

read

seems to

say

the

opposite.

See

In

Physica 8,

lesson

2,

n.

975,

where

it indicates that

the first

philosophers

onsidered hecause of accidental

hanges;

inally

lato

and

Aristotle

rrived t the

principle

f all

being.

A careful

eading,

however,

f

this ext howsthat t does

not

ay

more han hat

lato

and

Aristotle ave shown hat here s a

highest

eing,

God.

In

the

Quaestiodisputatadepotentia, uestion ,article ,which eemsto

date to

Thomas'

years

at Santa

Sabina,

he writes

that the first

philosophers nly

knew

accidental

hanges,

thers

ntroduceduch

factorss love

ndhatred. ater

hilosophers,

uch s

Plato,Aristotle,

and thosewho

followed

hem,

ame to consider niversal

eing

tself

and

so

accepted

heexistence f

a universal

ause,

fromwhich ther

things

eceive

heir

eing.

As

Augustine

ays

n

his De civitate

ei,

book

2, chapter ,

thosewhofollowed lato

penetrated

eeper

nto he

truthnd

attained he

knowledge

f God as thecause

of

being

nd as

thefoundationf houghtnd of herightrder f iving.

We

shouldnotice hat

Augustine

oes not o much ttributehis

insight

o Plato

himselfs to

ater latonists. ne

may

ssume hat he

gist

of the

argument

f

the

De

potentia

s the same. The

difficulty

remains

what o

makeof

such statementss

Metaphysics

,

esson

2,

n.

1164,

which

ndicates hat hese

first

eings

re

thecause

of

beings

qua

beings,

o that t

s clear

that hose re

wrong

who

say

that

t

s

36

The

locus

classicus of the

theory

s De

generatione

t

corruptione

2.10.336al4. See also C. J. F. Williams, ristotle's e generatione t

corruptione

Oxford:

xford

niversityress,

982).




14/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

COMMENTARIES OF

AQUINAS

41

Aristotle's

iew hat

God s not

he

ause

of

he

being

f

he ubstance

ofheaven, ut nly f tsmovement.

But,

etus consider

ertain tatements

fAristotle

ut

forward

n

Book

12 and

the

respective

ommentaries

f

Aquinas.

As to

the

place

of this

book

in

the

whole of the

Metaphysics

e

writes hat after

dealing

with

mperfect

eings

Aristotle ow

begins

o summarize hat

he had

said

n

Books

7 and

8 about ubstances.

Yet ince

metaphysics

is

wisdom,

t must

tudy

he

first

rinciples

nd causes ofsubstances.

He

quotes

he entence

hat

lso

in

the

ategory

f ubstances e must

arrive

t

some

first,

ut hen

dds that

ccording

o Aristotle's

pinion

these firstprinciples re the celestialbodies clearlydistancing

himself

rom his

osition.37

rom

hapter

ix

onward

Aristotle

egins

to

study

nmoved

ubstances,

xisting

eparately

rom

matter.

He

argues

as

follows:

f all

things

re

perishable,

imewould also be

perishable,

epending

s it

does

on

motion.

But,

that

cannotbe.

Therefore,

here

must e

continuous

motion,

amely

ircularmotion.

Thomas

eformulates

he

rguments:

f ll

things

re

corruptible,

here

is

nothing

ternal.

But,

that

s

impossible.

This

is

precisely

he

argument

f he

Third

Way

nthe umma

Theologiae.38

Thomas ontinuesy sayinghatAristotleemonstrateshat t s

impossible

hatthere

s

no eternal

eing,

s

this would

mply

hat

movement

tarts new

from

othing

r at

one

time

will

otally

ease.

Aristotle

emonstrated

n

Book

8

of

he

Physics

hatmovement

imply

is

eternal,

nd

so it

appears

hat

imemust

e

eternal.

f

time

would

have

begun,

ot-being-time

ouldbe

prior

o

time,

e

says,

but that

cannot

be,

since

time

s the

number

f a

movement

ccording

o

earlier

nd

later,

nd

so

there

would

have

been

time

before

ime.

Aristotle

urthermore

rgues

thatto

obtain

perpetual

movement,

therehas to be an eternal ubstance, lways n act, without he

potentiality

o act.

He

finally

oncludes

hat

his

ubstance

mustbe

immaterial.39

Thomas

goes

on, saying

hat

Aristotle

ery

strongly

elieved

(firmiter

pinatus

est

et

credidif)

hat

ime

s

eternal s movement

is.40

lse

he

would

not

have

based

his

nvestigation

fthe

mmaterial

37

In

Metaphysica

12,

esson

4,

n.

2476.

38

Ibid.,

n. 2489.

39Ibid.,nn. 2490-5.

40

Ibid.,

esson

5,

n. 2496.




15/26

42

LEO ELDERS

substances

n

this conviction.

However,

he reasons

he

alleges

n

Physics infavor f n eternalmovementrenot onvincing,utonly

have some

probability.

What he

says

about

time

applies

to an

imaginary

ime.

On theother

and,

what

he writes bout

he

eternity

and

mmateriality

f thefirst ubstance s

a

necessary

onclusion.

f

theworld tselfs

not

ternal,

t must avebeen

produced

y

another,

but

in

such a series

of causes

one

cannot

proceed

ad

infinitum.

Therefore t

is

necessary

o

affirm he existence

of an eternal

substance

which

s without

ny

potentiality

nd

consequently

s

immaterial.41

t

he

background

f

his

ext here s thedoctrine

f

he

creationf heworld, utThomas oesnot xplicitly entiont.

In

lesson

6,

Thomas

ays

that

ccording

o Aristotlehedifferent

generations

f

plants

nd animals ucceed

one

another

nd

havebeen

doing

so

forever,

wing

to

the

alleged

perpetuity

f

the

circular

movement

f

the first eaven.42

n infinite

eries

of movers

n

act

being

excluded,

his eads to the conclusion hat

heremust

be an

eternal,

nmovedmover.

This

FirstMover s

not n

potency,

ut

s a

substancewhich xists

y

tself nd

whose

being

s

in act. As one

can

see from

he First

Way

n theSumma

Theologiae,

homasdistances

himself rom he connectionAristotle aid betweenthe circular

movementsf

he elestial odies ndthe

First,

nmoved

Mover.

Another

ifficulty

s that

n

the

following

ines of the

chapter

Aristotle rites

hat

he

FirstMovermoves s desired.He

is

thinking

of he

ouls of he elestial

odies,

which esire o attain he

resting

n

self-contemplation

f the

FirstMover. Thomas vails

of

this

passage

to

add thatwhen

God s

intelligible

n

act,

he is also

willingvolens).

In

Aristotle's

ext here s no

question

f

will,

ut

Aquinas

eels

ntitled

to add this

conclusion,

ince both

in

sensitive nd

in

intellectual

knowledgewhat is known s followed nd accompaniedby an

approval,

striving,

r

a

rejection.

Somewhat

urther

n,

in line

1072bl3,

Aristotle

ays

that

upon

this

principle

the

First

Mover)

depend

he heaven

nd

nature,

or

ll natural

rocessdepends

upon

the

motion f he

first eaven.

St.

Thomas

bserves

hat his

dependence

ftheheaven oncerns

the

perpetuity

f

ts

substantial

eing

nd of

ts movement. e adds

that he

necessity

f

the

being

f

thefirst eaven

s not

absolute,

ut

41N.2499.42

N.

2516:

praedicta

ositione

ervata




16/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN OMMENTARIESOF

AQUINAS

43

depends

on the

will

of

God,

forbesides

moving

s an

end,

God moves

by his will. This comment s somewhatforcefulwithregardto the

letter

f Aristotle's

ext,

but a form f efficient

ausality

of

the First

Mover s

clearly

taught

n

Physics

8. Its

causality

with

regard

to the

being

of

things

s an elaboration of the

meaning

of

the

verb to

depend

or to be

suspended [fyrrirai],

nd the

assumption

of the

presence

of will in

God

fits

entirely

n the framework

f Aristotle's

philosophy,

which ttributes

oy

and

pleasure

to

God.

In Lesson

8

Aquinas

deals with the text of

chapter

7,

lines

1072b

6-1073al4. He

begins

by

explaining

what the

Philosopher

s

doing,which s comparing he FirstMoveras intelligiblend desirable

with the

spirit

r

soul

who

knows and desires

him.

What

he

says

is

true within he

limits of his view

of a firstheaven

ensouled

by

an

intelligent

nd

desiring

soul,

but it is

no

better than an

opinion.

Because

of the

clumsy

Latin translation of

the

term

iiayoyrq

by

deductio

delectabilis

ispositio

esiderantis

t

ntettigentis

and

of the

word

desiderantis,

which does

not

apply

to

God,

Thomas

understands

he

following

ine

on God's life

¿Hiaycuy'}))

s

one

of

oy,

as

not

referring

o the

FirstMover

but

to

the

soul ofthe first eaven.

Next, n nn. 2539-43, Aquinas gives a fineexplanationof what

happens

in

actual

thinking:

he intellect becomes the

intelligible.

When

ttaining

nd

acquiring

omething

ntelligible,

he intellect tself

becomes

the

intelligible,

nd the intellect

nd the

intelligible

re the

same.

The intellect

s

in

potency

nd is

perfectible.

When

thinking,

t

is actualized.

Man's

mind s actualized

by

the

cognitive

pecies,

but

the

mind

of

pure

spirits

s actualized

by

their wn

substance,

by

what

they

re.

We are

in

oy

when we are

thinking,

o God

must

be

much

more

so,

forhe

is the

cause of

all

perfections,

s the

principle

that

y

whicheach thing s such,is also that perfection)n a higherdegree

'propter

quod

autem

unumquodque

tale,

et iUud

magis]

says.43

Thomas

concludes,

in

agreement

with the

text,

that whatever

perfection

nd

goodness

are

found

n

the

world,

hey

xist

much

more

so

in the

First

Mover.

At the end

of the

chapter

Aristotle dds that

his

First

Mover has

no

parts

and

is

indivisible,

ince

it moves

during

n

infinite

ime.

Nothing

which s

limited

has an unlimited

ower.

The

43Thomas ses t ntheFourthWay fhisdemonstrationf he xistence

ofGod.




17/26

44

LEO ELDERS

First

Mover s also

impassible

nd

unchangeable.

homasmentions

these rgumentsotinghat omepoints eserve obe clarified.

In

Lessons

9

and

10

Thomas

ives

fair

nd

complete

verview

f

Aristotle's

heory

f

a

plurality

f moversof the

celestial

bodies,

pointing

ut that the

precise

number

f celestial

spheres

s

only

probable

ut

that t

is

reasonable

o assumethat

here re as

many

immaterial

oving

ubstances s there re

movements

f celestial

bodies.44 t this

point

Thomas ntroduces

wholly

ew

thought:

t

s

not

necessary

hat

every

mmaterialubstance

s the

end

of

some

celestialmovement. ne

may

easonably

ssume

hat here

re some

highermmaterialubstances otproportionateo celestial odiesor

spheres.

mmaterialubstances

o not existfor hesake

of material

things.

Rather,

he

opposite

s the ase.

Already

the Greek commentators uch

as Plotinus

5

and

Simplicius

nd

modern

tudents

f Aristotleuch

as Werner

aeger

and

W.

K. C.

Guthrie ave

drawn ttentiono a

discrepancy

etween

the contents f

chapter

ight

nd

the

doctrine

f

chapter

even.46

Thomas

circumvents

he

difficulty

n an

elegant

way

(n. 2589)

by

suggesting

hat hesenumerousmovers

might

e

angels

ontologically

causedby heFirstMover.

In

Chapter

,

Aristotle etermines hat he

activity

f

the

First

Mover s

(who

is

said to move

by

being

desired).

His

activity

s

thought,

ut a

question

arises: is his

intelligibleobject)

more

important,

ore

noble than his intellect

n. 2602)?

Is

the act

of

thinking

ther han

his

ntellect

tself?

Thomas

grees

withAristotle

thatboth re to be

identifiednd thatGod

always

hinks imself. t

does not

follow,

owever,

hat heFirstMover oes not know

hings

other

hanhimself

ecause

in

knowing

imself

e

knows ll other

things2614). This s an inference romwhatAristotleaid before,

namely,

hat he

heavens

nd all nature

epend

pon

him

ut

dictum

est).

The more

owerful

n

intellect

s,

the

better

t

knows he ffects

44

N.

2586:

ccording

othenumber

f elestialodies

nd heir otions

rationabilest

opinavi

ot

sse

substantial

mmateriales

Ennead

5,

treatise

, chap.

.

46

See

Simplicius,

n

De

Cáelo

n

Commentarlan

Aristotelem

raeca,

vol.

7

(Berlin,

884),

70, -14;

Werner

aeger,

ristotle:undamentals

f

he

History f

his

Development

Oxford:

larendon

ress,

1948),

63;

and W.

K.

C. Guthrie, History fGreek hilosophy,ol. 6 (Cambridge: ambridge

Universityress,

981),

70.




18/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN OMMENTARIESOF

AQUINAS

45

it

produces.

Hence,

by

knowing

imself

God knows all

things.

Thomas ext esolves hedifficultyaised yAristotlethattheworld

is

of too

low

a

quality

o

be

an

object

of

divine

hought

by

arguing

that he

object

does

notreduce he

nobility

f

thought,

rovided

ne

does

not take it as

an end. One should noticethathere

Thomas

remains

aithfulo

the context nd does

not

go

so far s to

say

that

God

knows

hings

ecause he

made

them,

ut uses the Aristotelian

expression

f

things epending

pon

God to

underpin

is

conclusion

that

Goddoes know

hings

ther han imself.

VI

The

Commentary

n the

Physics.

Aristotle's

hysics

had a

profound

nfluence

n

the Arab and

Westernworld and marked

practically

ll studies

f

physical

ature

ntil

he

time f

Galilei

nd

Descartes,

ut for

many

moderns

t is

only

a historical

ocument.

Thomas

wrote

detailed

nd

profound

ommentary

n it.

To

what

extent

oes he

make

his own

Aristotle's

hilosophy

f

nature? The

lastinggreatness nd the unsurpassed uality f his Eocposition

libros

Physicorum

ies

in

its

unequaled

penetration

f the basic

principles

f Aristotle's

hilosophy

f nature.

Occasionally quinas

delves

deeper

nto

he

ntelligibility

f

physical

ature

hanAristotle

himself

ad

done.

The

numerousciendum

st

autem,

dvertendum

est,

nd

considerandum

st

passages

bring

orward

he ruth hich s

expressed

ess

completely

r

correctly

n thetext tself.

The doctrine

is

developed

rom

ithin

hedoctrine

tself

ith

he

help

ofAristotle's

own

principles

Foran evaluationfAquinas' ositionnrespect f thedoctrinal

content

f

the

Physics

one must

ake

nto

ccount hat

he considers

large

sections

of

the

text as

not

containing

efinite

octrinal

statements.

tsome

places

he

points

ut

thatAristotle

iscusses

he

theories

f others

t

the

evelof

a

dispute

without

eaching

ertitude

or that

n

argument

eads

to an

inconvenient

onclusion.47

n several

occasions

he

draws

ttention

o

Aristotle's

ustom

f

proceeding

rom

47

In libros

hysicorum,

k.

1,

esson

13,

n. 114: Sic

igitur

atetquod

priores ermones isputati d utramque artemueruntecundumliquid

veri,

ed

non totaliter




19/26

46

LEO ELDERS

the

ssumptions

f

others,

hich

re

only robable,

efore

ositing

is

own view.48Thomas even offers n explanation f whyAristotle

resorts o

common

pinion:

urmind

ometimes

ends

o truth

y

ts

natural

nclination,

lthough

t

may

notunderstand

he

ause of

what

t

accepts.49

t s Aristotle'sustom o

proceed

from he

ssumptions

f

others

rriving

n

the nd

t formulation

f

his

owndefinite

iew.

In

his

commentary

quinas

uses

repeatedly

he

expressions

secundum

intentionem

Aristotelis

and contra

intentionem

Aristotelis r also

répugnât

eritati t ntentioni

ristotelis.

We

should understand

hese as references

to Aristotle's

overall

philosophicalhought,r at east o tsprinciples hich llowThomas

to advance

an

explanation

which

goes

furtherhan

the text

he is

commenting

n.

In

8,

lesson

21,

n.

1153

Thomas hifts he

argument

from he

incorruptibility

f the celestialbodies

to the substantiae

simplices

n

order o assert

gainst

Averroës

hat

ccording

o the

intentionf Aristotlehere

s no

potency

or

not-being

n the

simple

substances,

statement hich

oes

beyond

whatAristotle

ays.

The

same

applies

to

a

passage

in

8, chap. 1,

lesson

2,

n. 974

in which

Aristotle

rgues

hat n

agent

needs matter

o workwith.

This does

not mean that according o the intention f Aristotle he First

Universal ause

would lso

presuppose

omething

o

its

activity.

o

demonstrateis

nterpretation

homas

efers,

s

he

does

repeatedly,

to

a

sentence

n

Metaphysics , chapter ,

that tates hat he

most

true

eing

nd

the

being

n

the

highest

egree

s

the ause

of he

being

of ll

things.50

On numerous

ccasions

n

the course of his

Eocpositio quinas

corrects

tatements r makes additions. At the

beginning

f

the

commentary

e

presents

division

f

he ciences ased on the

heory

of abstractionnd on theplace of thephilosophyf nature. When

Aristotle

peaks

of

the

principle

f movement

f

perceptible

hings,

Thomas dds

a noteon thehuman

oul as the erminus

f

he

tudy

f

forms

n

the

philosophy

f nature: he

soul exists

n

matter,

ut

n a

48

Ibid.,

3

,

lesson

8,

n.

353:

Semper ntequamprobet

uod

est suae

opinionis.

rocedit

x

suppositione pinionis

liorum ommunius.

Ibid.,1,

esson

10,

n.

79: Ita

interdurn

nteUectus ominis

uadam

naturali

inclinatione

endit n

veritatem,

icet rationemveritatisnon

verciviat50

Ibid., ,

esson

,

n. 974.

See

also

Metaphysica ,

993b26.




20/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARIES

OF

AQUINAS

47

sense t

s

separate,

ince

t

can exist

n

separation

rom he

body.51

n

a statement f Aristotle hat in coming nto being causes are

simultaneous

ith heir

ffects,

e comments

hat he divine

gent,

who

s the ause of he ctual xistence

f

hings,

s

simultaneous

ith

the

ctually

xistinghings.

f t

ceases

to

cause

them, hey

eturn

o

nothingness,

ust

as it

gets

dark when

the sun sinks below the

horizon.52

In

discussing

hanceAristotle

ays

that

eople

ometimesscribe

events

o a sort

of divine

cause,

which

s inaccessible o human

reason.

Thisviewhas some

truth,

homas

ays,

but

he

word hance

is wronglysedbythem: he divine ause governs hings y reason,

and

so events

hould

not

be

ascribed o chance.53

n

a

following

section

Thomas

xplainswhy

here re four

auses,

all

of which re

studied

n the

philosophy

f

nature.54

n

the context f Aristotle's

thesis hat

ature

ends o

an

end,

Thomas

rings

n

divine

rovidence,

stating

hat

hings

evoid

f

knowledge

o

nottend o an end unless

directed

y

an

intelligentgent.55

fter ristotle's emonstration

f

finality

n

nature,

quinas

dds:

So it s evident

hatnature s

nothing

else

but

he

plan

of certain

rt,

c. divine

rt, laced

within

hings,

y

which hingsremoved oa determinatend. 56 e addsaningenious

comparison:

ature

s

like

shipbuilder

ho could endow

heboards

he uses

with

he

power

o move

y

hemselves.

Commenting

n Book

3,

chapter ,

n

order o

explain

why

ction

and

passion,

despitebeing

one

movement,

re

placed

in

different

categories,

Thomas

presents

a

systematic

deduction of

the

predicaments,

hich

is,

as

far as

I

know,

an

entirely

new

development.57

t

the

end of

Book

4,

lesson

8,

Thomaswrites hat

t

has

become

vident

hat

here

s no subsistent

mptypace

before

he

creationf heworld.Aristotlerequentlysessomeproofswhich re

wrong

when ne

considers

he

proper

ature

f

bodies,

ut

which re

possible

when ne

s

speaking

bout he ommon

ature

fbodies.58

t

51

In libros

Physicorum,

bk.

2,

esson

5,

n. 175.

52

Ibid.,

esson

6,

n. 195.

M

Ibid.,

esson

7,

n. 206.

54

Ibid.,

esson

11,

n.

240.

55

Ibid.,

esson

12,

n. 250.

56

Ibid.,

esson

14,

n. 268.

57Ibid.,bk.3, esson3,n. 322.

58

Ibid.,

bk.

4,

esson

12,

n.

538.




21/26

48

LEO

ELDERS

seems

thatThomas discards certainmathematization

f

physical

nature.

In

his

commentary

n Aristotle's

reatise

f

time

Thomas

nsists

that ime s such s

notmovement.

llmovements

epend

n

thefirst

movement.59

o we have

timewhen here s

no soul to

count t?

The

being

esse]

of the

thing

ounted

does not

depend

on

the

counting

intellect,

nless here s some

ntellect

hich s thecause

ofthe

being

of

things.60

homas dds

that here s

only

one timebecause

of the

unity

f the firstmovement

hich s the source

and

measure f

all

othermovements.61

AccordingoThomas,nBook8Aristotletudieswhat rhow he

FirstMover

s.

Speaking

f he elestial

odies,

homas lso

mentions

the mmaterialubstances

hich eceive heir

eing,

ut

do nothave

potency

or

not-being.

his addition

might

e

a

sign

hat

Thomas

s

moving

way

somewhat rom he

physics

f the celestial

odies.

At

this

oint

e introduces

gain

his doctrinehat

God s the

ause of

he

being

f

things.

n

the

closing

entence

f his

commentary

e writes

that he

tudy

fnature

as

shown

hat here s a

first

rinciple

f

the

whole

of

nature,

ho s

above

everything

nd

s

God,

blessed

for

ver,

a conclusion hich oesbeyondhe ext.62

VII

The

Commentary

n

the

De cáelo. In his

explanations

f

thefirst

part

of theDe cáelo

Thomas omments

n whatAristotle

ays

about

the

number : nowhere

else does

the

Stagirite

se

Pythagorean

speculations,

nd the

argument

s not conclusive.

M

Different

hypothesesavebeen advanced o give rational xplanationf theobserved

movements f

the celestial

bodies,

none of which are

demonstrations.64

ater n

in

his

commentary

homas omesback to

the same

question:

uccessive

stronomers ave tried o formulate

theories to

reduce

the observed

apparent

rregularities

n

the

59

Ibid.,

k.

4,

esson

3,

n.

636.

w

Ibid.,

.

629.

01

Ibid.,

.

636.

Ibid.,

k.

8,

esson

3,

n.

1123.

InDe cáelo,bk.1, esson ,n.11.64

Ibid.,

esson

,

n.

28.




22/26

THE

ARISTOTELIAN

COMMENTARIES OF

AQUINAS

49

movements

f the

celestialbodies

to

the correct rder

ad

rectum

ordinerà].We shouldnot aythat hesehypothesesre true ecause

by

omeother

ypotheses,

ot

yet

onceived

y

stronomers,

e

shall

be able to

explain

hemovementsf

the celestial odies

differently.65

The

question

s whether e are allowed

o

apply

hisremark

o the

entire

osmological

onstructionf

Aristotle,

he

movement

p

and

down,

nd

the elements.

n

the

following

essons

of his

commentary

on Book

2 Thomas

repeatedly

mentions

he

incertitudef certain

conclusions

bout

hecelestial odies.

In

n

Meteorologica,

ookl he

writes

hat

n

much

of this

subject

matter

ne cannothave

wholly

certain emonstrations.66

VIII

The Sententia

uper

libram

Ethicorum.

For

measuring

he

extent

f Thomas'

greement

ith

Aristotle

s well as for

discovering

discrepancies,

he

commentary

n the

NicomacheanEthics is a

treasure

rove.

Let

me

put

forward

ome

mqjorpoints.

Thomas'

explanations faithfulo thegistofwhatAristotleaysabout man's

last

end,

but

explains

what the

object

of this

contemplation

s.

Aristotle

mainly

tresses

he

subjective

ide of

this

happiness

s a

bonum

peratum,

ut

Thomas

makes

t

clearthat his

eparate

ood

which s

the ause

of

ll

things,

ust e

of

higher

egree

f

goodness

than

he

goods

we find

n earth67

nd that

erfect appiness

annot

e

attained

n

this

arth.68

homas

reminds

he

reader hatAristotle

s

speaking

of the

imperfect

appiness

of this

life,

but uses an

opportunity

rovided

y

thetext

an

allusion

o

happiness

s a

gift

f

thegods),69obringnGodas a cause ofman'shappiness.He means

God's

general

motive

orce,

he

need of

whichbecomes clear

from

Aristotle's

octrine

f

potency

nd

act,

so

that

he

addition

s

in line

with

the

principles

f

the

Stagirite.

The

passage

provides

an

interesting

xample

f

how St.

Thomas

omments

n Aristotle's

exts.

He

is faithful

o the

literal

ense,

but

nevertheless

roadens the

65

Ibid.,

bk.

2,

esson

17,

n. 451.

00

Ibid.,

esson

11,

n. 68.

67

Sententia

n libros

thicorum,

k.

1,

esson

7,p.

25.

68Ibid., esson 1,10,37.

69

Nicomathean

Ethics

1.9.1099bl2.




23/26

50

LEO

ELDERS

outlook

with he

help

of

occasional emarks fAristotle

lsewheren

his works and theprinciples f his philosophy.He refrainsrom

introducingheological

onsiderations

nd does not

try

o

improve

on

Aristotle,

uthe has in mind

uestions

aised

concerning

hetext

by

his

contemporaries

rAverroës.

A

difficulty

entioned

y

Aristotle imself

oncerns

he

question

whether

he

changing

ortune

f a deceased

person's

hildrenffects

the man's

happiness

in

the evaluation f it

by

others)

something

which Aristotle alls

insignificant,

ut

Thomas

uses this as an

opportunity

o note that he

question

f an afterlife

ies outside

he

field fethics,70uthedoes suggest hat ccordingoAristotle'swn

principles

he

possibility

f

another,

more

perfect

appiness

an be

conceived.

n

all ofus there s a natural esire or

erfect appiness,

and

such

desire annot e

invain.71

An

mportant

uestion

n

ethics s how to

determine

he

morality

ofour ctions.Aristotle

entions

ertain

riteria,

uch

s the onduct

of the

wise

man,

ight

eason, onformity

ith

nature,

nd the mean

between xcess and

deficiency.

e

writes hat he

good

man

udges

correctly

hat our

duty

s.

Thomas comments hat

the

wise man

knows he aw, pplies t, nd so becomes heruleofwhat ne should

do.72

xperienced

eople

re awareof he

principles

elling

hemwhat

to do.73When

Aristotle

peaks

of the

eye

of

the

oul,

which ecomes

prudent

y

the

practice

f

virtue,

homasrefers

gain

to the

first

principles

f the

practical

ntellect s the basis of normative

oral

conduct.

Aquinas

s in

full

greement

ith

Aristotle

nasmuch s he

stresses heroleof

reason

n

establishing

orms fconduct.

n

writing

right

eason

he

stresses ts

objective

haracter,

amely,

hat

t is

guided

by

the

first

rinciples

f the

practical

ntellect,

f which

Aristotle oesnot peak,butwhichThomas ringsn sixtimesnhis

commentary.

hesefirst

rinciples

f

practical

eason

re an addition

or further

evelopment,

ut

they

orrespond

o the

principles

f

the

theoretical

ntellect

hich he

Stagirite

uts

forward

ndto

his

viewof

ethics s a

practical

cience.

It

wouldbe

far

beyond

he

scope

of

this rticle

o

go

intodetail

with

regard

o

Aquinas'

omments n

whatAristotle

ays

about the

70

Sententian

libros

thicorum,

k.

1,

esson

17,

n. 63.

Ibid.,

k.

1,

esson

16,

n.

60.

Ibid., k.3, esson10,n.148.73

Ibid.,

k.

6,

esson

,

n.

368.




24/26

THE ARISTOTELIAN

OMMENTARIESOF

AQUINAS

51

different

irtues,

gnorance,

nd

sin.

Let

me

mention ow he

resolves

a difficulty:fwe must ecomevirtuousyacting irtuously,henwe

are

already

irtuous.

homas nswers hat

rom

ur

naturewe receive

principles

hich re

at

the

origin

f virtuous cts

in

us,

meaning

y

principles

hat has been called

synderesis.74

last

example

s

Aristotle's

escription

f

he

virtue f

magnanimity.

tfirst

ight

ome

of ts

characteristics,

hich

he

sketches,

eem

contrary

o Christian

morality.

homas

ries

o reconcile

oth

by

pointing

utthat ne can

be at the

ame

time

magnanimous

nd humble.The

magnanimous

ill

attach

ittle

alue

to honor nd

will consider

many

ther

hings

s

insignificant.ikewisehe does notshowcontemptorothers, ut

does

not

pay

them

greater

ributes

han

hey

deserve.

He does not

care

whether

eople

praise

him r not.

These

explanations

re

n ine

with

Aristotle's

rinciples

nd even

with he

wording

f the

text,

nd

they

how

that

this virtue

its

n

with

the

Christian

oncept

of a

virtue.75

It s

true,

s

Harry

.

Jaffa

rgued,

hat

n

several

laces

Thomas

adds

to

the

ext,76

utone can

say

that

Thomasdelves

deeper

nto

he

intelligibility

f

things

han

Aristotle

imself ad done. He

uncovers

underlyingtructuresnd offers moresystematicnd coherent

presentation.

He

transforms

ristotle's

oosely

knit

summary

f

prudential

nowledge

bout

man's

aristotelian st thomas.pdf

Documents

Transcript of aristotelian st thomas.pdf