1. Dating of the Commentary on the Sentences:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi in four passages in his Commentary on
the Sentences:
1.
In I Sententiarum, distinction 8, question 1, article 1, corpus.
2.
In I Sententiarum, distinction 8, question 4, article 2, ad 2.
3.
In I Sententiarum, distinction 8, question 5, article 2, corpus.
4.
In III Sententiarum, distinction 11, question 1, article 2, ad 2.
The
Commentary on the Sentences seems to have been written between 1252-1256,
and the date of composition has been framed within the following setting:
After
some difficulties with his blood family concerning his vocation to the Dominican
Order, and “since his resolve remained unbroken, he [Aquinas] was permitted to rejoin
the Dominican confreres and made his way to Paris in 1245. At Paris
he first came into contact with Albert the Great during the period 1245-1248, and
in 1248 he accompanied Albert to Cologne
in order to continue his theological formation there. In 1252 he was sent back to
Paris to begin working
for the highest degree offered by the University there, that of Magister in Theology,
and pursued the rigorous academic program required for this until 1256. Not least
among his duties during this period was his responsibility to comment on the Sentences
of Peter the Lombard, and this resulted in the eventual publication of his first
major theological writing, his Commentary on the Sentences” (John F. Wippel,
The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2000], xiii-xiv).
About
the commentary on the Sentences, Weisheipl for his part writes that “According
to William of Tocco, Thomas composed his Scriptum while he was Baccalaureus
Sententiarum (1252-1256)” (James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino: His
Life, Thought, and Works [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1983], 358).
These
comments are in agreement with what Jean-Pierre Torrell wrote on this subject:
“Upon
his arrival in Cologne, after Naples and Paris (and whatever may have been the details
about his years of study), Thomas already had seven or eight years of formation
behind him, even without counting what he learned on his own during the imprisonment
by his family. Some scholars (De Groot, Berthier, Pelster) even think that he was
already a lecturer in theology and probably the biblical bachelor for Albert (Scheeben,
Eschmann). Weisheipl takes up this hypothesis and suggests that Thomas taught cursorie
on Jeremiah, Lamentations, and a part of Isaiah at Cologne. … Weisheipl’s arguments are not without
weight. On the one hand, he reminds us that Thomas was sent to Paris to lecture on the Sentences, not
the Bible. Besides, he emphasizes that, if he had begun by reading the Bible, Thomas
would have been an exception, since none of the masters who had occupied the second
Dominican chair up until then had begun their teaching as bachelors with a cursory
reading of the Bible. All had begun with the Sentences. Furthermore, by the
middle of the thirteenth century it was no longer an absolute rule that the bachelor
of the Sentences would earlier have been a biblical bachelor. Weisheipl’s
suggestion is, therefore, well founded and it has been well received by accomplished
scholars” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work
- Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington.
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005], 27-28).
Torrell
then adds:
“The ampleness of this work [the Commentary on
the Sentences] fits only with difficulty into the chronological framework
that assigns the two first years in Paris
to biblical teaching and the next two to the Sentences. But if we accept
the solution that naturally suggests itself from the sources, we may spread out
the composition of this immense, five-thousand-page commentary over a little more
than four academic years (though the teaching, according to the university statutes,
had to be completed within two years). All this accords with Tocco, who makes the
time of composition spill over into the following period, not just the time of the
‘formed’ bachelor, but that of the master as well. [Footnote:] Ystoria 15,
p. 236 (Tocco 14, p. 81): ‘Scripsit in baccellaria et principio sui magisterii
super quatuor libros Sententiarum.’ We may thus understand Thomas’s achievement
much better. He was far from thinking his work definitive, however, and, from all
appearances, he modified it, trying to improve it, when he took it up again to deliver
to his students at Santa Sabina almost a decade later” (Ibid., 45).
But
Torrell makes clear that “it was not this return to the subject in Rome that came down to posterity, but the Paris lectura” (ibid., 47).
2. Dating of the Quaestiones disputatae de veritate:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi in four passages in his Quaestiones
disputatae de veritate:
1.
De veritate, question 1, article 1, corpus
2.
De veritate, question 1, article 1, ad 1
3.
De veritate, question 1, article 1, ad sc 3
4.
De veritate, question 10, article 8, ad 13
There
seems to be very little doubt that Aquinas wrote the Quaestiones disputatae de
veritate in the period between 1256 and 1259.
Jean-Pierre
Torrell states simply that “The disputed questions De veritate date from
the three years of Thomas’s first period teaching as a master in Paris, from 1256
to 1259” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work
- Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington. D.C.: The Catholic University
of America
Press, 2005], 334).
And
in agreement with this John F. Wippel writes: “From 1256 until 1259 Thomas carried
out the functions of a Master (Professor) of Theology at the University of Paris.
These duties included conducting formal disputed questions (resulting in his Quaestiones
disputatae De veritate) and quodlibetal disputations (where any appropriate
question could be raised by any member in the audience, and would ultimately have
to be answered by the presiding Master). His Quodlibets 7-11 and his Commentary
on the De Trinitate of Boethius resulted from this period” (John F. Wippel,
The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 2000], xiv).
Torrell
elaborates further on the issue of the date of composition of De veritate by
offering the following remarks: “To return to De veritate … its existence
is attested very early. Well before the deposition during the canonization process
at Naples by Bartholomew
of Capua (Processus canonizationis S. Thomae, Neapoli, ed. M.-H Laurent,
in Fontes, 85, p. 388), a catalogue of Thomas’s works published prior to
1293 mentions the questions De veritate ‘quas disputavit Parisius.’ (This
is the list of the ms. Praha, Metr. kap. A 17/2, of which we can find
a transcription in M. Grabmann, Die Werke des hl. Thomas von Aquin: Eine literarhistorische
Untersuchung und Einfuhrung, in Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie und
Theologie des Mittelalters 22 (1-2), pp. 97-98. …) But we have two other even
earlier testimonies. Beginning in 1278, William de la Mare, Thomas’s Franciscan
adversary, author of the famous Correctorium, dedicated a section of nine
articles attacking the (in his eyes) faulty theses of the De veritate—an
indisputable sign of Thomist authenticity. Thomas’s friends also evidently recognized
this, since they came to his defense. (See some of the details of this subject in
the Leon. ed., vol. 22/1, p. 6*. …) At a still earlier period, Vincent of Beauvais
introduced (prior to 1264/65, the date of his death), in his second edition of the
Speculum maius, important fragments from questions 11, 12, and 13 of the
De veritate under the explicit name of their author. (See Leon., vol. 22,
p. 7*, and p. 189* for a list of these borrowings by Vincent.) The use of the book
was therefore practically contemporaneous with its completion, and this permits
us to emphasize both the rapidity of its diffusion and the vitality of Parisian
university circles at the time” (Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and
His Work, 63-64).
According
to Weisheipl the questions De veritate “were disputed in Paris during Thomas’s first
Parisian regency [1256-1259] and distributed over the course of three years. Thus
questions 1-7 (in 67 articles) were disputed during the first year (1256-1257);
questions 8-20 (in 99 articles) were disputed during the second year (1257-1258);
and questions 21-29 (in 63 articles), during the third year (1258-1259)” (Weisheipl,
Friar Thomas D’Aquino, 362-363).
Thus
there seems to be very little doubt that Aquinas wrote the Quaestiones disputatae
De veritate in the period between 1256 and 1259.
In
his doctoral dissertation, The Philosophical Vocabulary of St. Thomas Aquinas
in De Veritate, James E. Royce explores in greater detail the evidence that
substantiate the assigned date of composition of De veritate.
Royce’s
study relies on the work of Henry Denifle (1844-1905) who collected and edited documents
referring to the history of the University
of Paris during the time of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. In his dissertation Royce writes a section entitled “De Veritate:
Circumstances and Date of Its Composition.” Here I report the entire section.
Royce
writes:
“Henry
Denifle, O.P., the great authority on documentary sources for the history of the
history of the University of Paris during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, makes
the remark in a note in the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis that the
old lives of St. Thomas agree about one date if about nothing else: St. Thomas was
made a magister in theology at the University of Paris in the year 1256”
(Henrious Denifle et Aemilio Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis,
Delalain, Paris, 1889, I, 307, note 1).
“This
is important, because it clinches beyond all doubt the dating of the Quaestiones
Disputatae De Veritate. Biographers, historians, and critical scholars are in
unanimous agreement that the work was the fruit of his first years of teaching at
the University of
Paris, immediately after he
was advanced to the magisterium.
“The
oldest sources for the life of St Thomas are in remarkable
agreement on the facts of these years of St.
Thomas’s life and work. A study of the writings of William
of Tocco, Bernard Guido, and Peter Calo reveals that St. Thomas was made licentiate
in theology in the early months of 1256, and master later in that same year. (See
Friedrich Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie [rev. Bernhard
Geyer], Mittler and Son, Berlin
1928, II, 423. An excellent bibliography on the life of St. Thomas Aquinas is contained
in P. Mandonnet and J. Destrez, Bibliographie Thomiste [Bibliotheque Thomiste,
I], Le Saulchoir, Kain, Belgique, 1921, 1-7. More recent is the bibliography found
in P. A. Waltz, O.P., ‘Chronotaxis Vitae et Operum s. Thomae de Aquino,’ Angelicum,
1939, XVI, 463-473. The Bollandists list the old sources and reproduce many of them,
Acta Sanctorum: Martii, I, 655-657).
“Bartholomew,
or Ptolemy, or Tolomey, of Lucca was a disciple of
St. Thomas and a
church historian who died in the year 1327. In his life of St. Thomas he says, ‘Post hoc, ipso magistrato,
fecit Questiones de Veritate. Post tres annos magisterii sui redit in Italiam’ (Fide
Pierre Mandonnet, O.P., Des Ecrits Authentiques de S. Thomas D’Aquin [2me
edition], Saint-Paul, Fribourg, 1910, 59).
“Another
early biographer, Bartholomew of Capua (Logotheta), a Sicilian who as a student
followed the lectures of St. Thomas, dates the De Veritate as being written
after St. Thomas was made master and during his first period of teaching· at Paris,
before going to Italy in 1259 (Alexander Birkenmajer, ‘Kleinere Thomasfragen,’ Phi1osophisches
Jahrbuch, 1921, XXXIV, 32).
“The
English Dominican Nicholas Trevet, who died in 1328, made a catalogue of the works
of St. Thomas between the years 1319 and 1323, in which he notes that St. Thomas
‘scripsit etiam primam partem de Quaestionibus disputatis de Veritate et ultra,
quas Parisiis disputavit’ (Mandonnet, Des Ecrits Authentiques, 47-48).
“The
older historians, following these sources, tell us that the young Thomas came to
Paris in 1252 from the school
of Albert the Great at Cologne, and spent the years 1252-1256 as a bachelor in theology
in Paris. Although
they agree that he was made master in 1256, there seems to be good evidence that
the formal inceptio by which he was recognized as a master by the faculty
of the University
of Paris did not take place
until October, 1257. This is the opinion of J. Echard in his life of St. Thomas. (See Echard-Quetif
[Bibliothecae Scriptorum Ordinis Praedicatorum, Paris, 1719-. 1721, I, ad
annum 1274], S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera, Simon Occhi, Venetiis, 1775, I, ix-xxv.)
It is also the opinion of the church historian Fleury; of John Francis Bernard Maria
de Rubeis (see Dissertationes Criticae etc. [Pasquali, Venetiis, 1750, Dissertatio
XI, caput ii], S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera [ed. Leonina], Romae, 1882, I, clxxv);
and of Ueberweg (see op. cit., 424). Since all agree that he left for Italy in
1259, Quaestio I of the De Veritate was almost certainly written in
1257. The editors of the Vives edition, however, say ‘1257 Parisiis… Laurea donatus,
ab anno 1258 ad annum sequentem Questiones de Veritate … scripsit’ (Opera Omnia
S. Thomae Aquinatis [ed. Stanislaus Edward Frette et Paul Mare], Apud Ludovicum
Vives, Paris, 1871, I, xii).
“(The
fact mentioned by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum [Martii, I,
‘Commentarius praevius,’ 657b] that St. Thomas was made doctor of theology in the
year 1253, must not be confused with his being made magister at the University
of Paris, for the doctorate was always previous even to the licentiate in those
days, and in this case was probably granted by the Dominican Order rather than by
the University.)
“The
most recent investigations confirm these conclusions. Dr. Martin. Grabmann in his
Thomas von Aquin (F. Pustet, Munchen, 1926, 3-5) states that St. Thomas received his licentiate in 1256 and left Paris in 1259, and in his latest
work on Die Werke des Hl. Thomas von Aquin (Aschendorff, Munster, 1931, 276,
280) he makes these the outside dates for the writing of the De Veritate.
Pierre Mandonnet in the latest expression of his mind on the subject dates the De
Veritate I as somewhere in the year 1256-1257. (See S. Thomae Aquinatis Quaestiones
Disputatae, Lethielleux, Paris,
1925, ‘Introduction,’ I, 19. He here summarizes his ‘Chronologie des questions disputes
de saint Thomas
d’Aquin,’ Revue Thomiste, 1918, XXIII, 266-287, 341-371.) A most recent summary
(1939) of the investigations on the subject lays down the following chronology:
1252-1256
Parisiis, Baccalaureus
1256
Obtenta licentia, fit magister in theologia
1257
a collegiis magister agnoscitur
1259
in Italiam rediit
and
states that the disputed questions De Veritate date at the outside from 1256
to 1259. (See Walz, op. cit., 470.) From all this we gather that it is quite safe
to assign the year 1257 as the extremely probable date for the first question, for
it is certain that St. Thomas was at work on them by that time and it is highly
probable that he at least did not progress very far during 1256.
“It
must be noted that the controversies which raged for some time in the various European
learned periodicals between Grabmann, J. Koch, Mandonnet, P. Synave, and others
regarding the chronology of the disputed questions does not touch the date of the
De Veritate at all, but centers rather around the dating of De Anima,
De Spiritualibus Creaturis, and De Unione Verbi Incarnati. A good
idea of these discussions can be obtained from the reviews in the Bulletin Thomiste
for 1924 and 1926. (See Bulletin Thomiste, 1924, I, 58-61; III, 1-21 especially.)
All the authorities, as well as all of the old catalogues, especially two ‘book
lists’ of the University of Paris dating from 1275-1286 and 1292-1294 respectively,
assure us that the De Veritate is the first of the disputed questions of
St. Thomas. (See Denifle-Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Paris, I, 646.)
“The
historical facts being established, it remains to interpret them in terms of their
setting. The De Veritate represents the work of St. Thomas during a relatively early period in
his productive career. But he was by this time no novice in the realm of philosophy
and theology. He had been commenting on Peter the Lombard’s
books of Sentences since 1252 and had committed the fruits of this teaching
to writing. He had composed some seven or eight small philosophical works, including
the De Ente et Essentia. He was by then a veteran of the battle which grew
out of the antagonism which the secular clergy and laity of the University of Paris had shown toward the new Order of Preachers;
as his own share in the controversy he had contributed the Contra Impugnantes
Dei Cultum et Religionem. Now with William of St. Amour condemned and his own
Order vindicated by the Pope, Aquinas began to teach as master of theology in one
of the Dominican colleges which by that time had been incorporated into the University of Paris. (See J. Echard, Vita Santi Thomae,
uses the expression, ‘Pacatis tandem rebus laurea donatus questiones de veritate
disputavit …’ loc. cit., x.)
“This
meant a very active engagement in the public scholastic life of that violently intellectual
atmosphere. For in the Paris
of that day school meant more than dull classroom routine. In the twelfth century
a question arising out of the interpretation of scripture or some author, usually
Peter the Lombard, had formed the basis of the
lecture of the master. This easily turned into a discussion or dispute. The dispute
finally detached itself from the lesson and became a separate exercise in its own
right, being known as the ‘ordinary disputation.’ Every master in theology at Paris had to put on several
of these ordinary disputations a year. According to Mandonnet and Synave St. Thomas
held them as often as twice a week. Pelster and Birkenmajer disagree with the methods
used to arrive at that conclusion, but only, it would seem, in order to dispute
about the chronology of some of the later Quaestiones Disputatae. At any
rate, he certainly held them oftener than a few times a year (see F. Pelster, review
of P. Synave, ‘Le Probleme chronologique des questions disputees de S. Thomas d’Aquin,’
Scholastik, 1926, I, 587-590; and of Birkenmajer, see op. cit., 36-45).
“The
subject was fixed in advance, and was usually confined to a single topic although
more than one might be discussed if they were related. All the classes of the other
bachelors and masters ceased for that morning, and we may imagine with what curiosity
they flocked to the disputation hall of the brilliant young disciple of the Aristotelian
Albert, already making a name for himself. At this session, however, the magister
only presided; he might summarize and otherwise help, but the bachelors did the
arguing. The next day, or the first day on which nothing prevented, there followed
the magisterial ‘determination,’ the formal recapitulation and pronouncement of
the master upon the subject of the previous disputation. Bachelors could not ‘determine,’
this being the sole right of the master, though the preliminary arguments which
he presented were usually those proposed by the bachelors the day before. The Quaestiones
Disputatae as we have them are the written form, then, not of the disputation
but of the determinatio of the master. (See Hastings Rashdall, The Universities
of Europe in the Middle Ages [new ed. Rev. F. M. Powicke], Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1936, I, 490-496; Mandonnet, Quaestiones Disputatae, ‘Introduction,’
I, 8-15.) Each article of the present form represents one such determination. We
possess 510 of these written by St. Thomas, of which 253 are under the general title
De Veritate, though only twelve are included under the first question which
really forms the treatise bearing that name.
“These
disputations with their magisterial determinations gave St. Thomas a chance to work
out at great length and in a controversial atmosphere much of what he was later
to set forth more positively and succinctly in the two Summas. They do not, it is
true, represent his best period, namely that from 1268 (when he got hold of certain
material in translation from the Greek) until his death in 1274. Yet they do form
an important part of his writings being often his fullest treatment of a topic.
The De Veritate shows a decisiveness and a firmness of touch not observed
in the commentaries on the Sentences. The problems essayed are difficult, the manner
of their treatment profound and skillful. Since in them historical background is
more prominent than in the Summa Theologica, they reflect better the doctrinal
milieu in which he was working.”
See
James E. Royce, “The De Veritate: Circumstances and Date of Its Composition,” chapter
I in The Philosophical Vocabulary of St. Thomas Aquinas in De Veritate I,
Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, 1945, 1-7.
3. Dating of the Summa theologiae, part I:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi in the Summa theologiae only once
in part I, question 3, article 4, ad 2.
Concerning
the dating of the Prima Pars, there seems to be very little doubt that Aquinas
wrote it in Rome
in the period between 1266 and 1268.
Wippel
writes that “Thomas returned to Italy
in 1259 and served there at various Dominican houses of study as Lecturer or as
Regent Master, continuing to teach and to write at a rapid pace. During this period
he completed his Commentary on the De anima, thereby commencing a series
of intensive studies of Aristotle which would eventually result in partial or total
commentaries on twelve works by the Stagirite. He completed his Summa contra
Gentiles (1259-1265) and the Prima Pars of the Summa theologiae
(1266-1268). Also dating from this period are his Exposition on the Divine Names
(of Pseudo-Dionysius), Disputed Questions on the Power of God (De potentia),
Disputed Questions on Spiritual Creatures, Disputed Questions on the Soul,
and many other works of a theological or religious nature” (John F. Wippel, The
Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 2000], xiv).
In
1259 Aquinas took part in the General Chapter of the Dominicans in Valenciennes, France, where he was a member of a commission
that established the Dominican Order’s program of studies.
Soon
after that, Aquinas returned to Italy.
From 1261 to 1265, he was in Orvieto, where Pope Urban IV, who had high esteem for
Aquinas, commissioned him to compose the liturgical texts for the Feast of Corpus Christi, the
feast which, in addition to Holy Thursday, commemorates the institution of the Eucharist.
From
1265 until 1268 Thomas Aquinas lived in Rome
where he directed the Study House of the Dominican Order. And in 1269 he was recalled
to Paris for a second
cycle of lectures.
Franklin
T. Harkins reports more precisely that “From his inception at Paris
in the Spring of 1256 until he stopped writing in Naples on 6 December 1273, Thomas Aquinas was—above
all else—a teacher of sacred doctrine, a master of theology. (See Josef Pieper,
Guide to Thomas Aquinas, trans. Richard and Clara Winston [Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1987], 89-102.)
“On
8 September 1265, not quite a decade into his teaching career, Thomas was charged
by his Dominican provincial chapter at Anagni ‘for the remission of his sins’ with
establishing and directing a studium at Rome for the education of select friars. (See
Leonard E. Boyle, The Setting of the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas [Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982], 8-15; Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, vol. 1: The Person and His Work, rev. ed., trans. Robert Royal
[Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
2005], 142-59; and M. Michèle Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study….’ Dominican
Education before 1350 [Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1998), 278-306.])
“Having
served the previous four years as conventual lector at Orvieto where he was responsible
for the pastoral formation of the fratres communes, Aquinas had by this time
become quite well aware of the deficiencies then characterizing Dominican education,
particularly its narrow emphasis on applied and moral theology. (See Mulchahey,
‘First the Bow is Bent in Study….’, 184-203; Boyle, The Setting of the
Summa theologiae, 1-8; and Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas 1, 117-20.)
“As
head of his studium at Santa Sabina in Rome Master Thomas took terrific advantage
of the opportunity to devise a new, more comprehensive theological curriculum for
his young Dominican students by beginning to compose—and presumably teach—the Summa
theologiae. (See Boyle, The Setting of the Summa theologiae.)”
This
passage is from Franklin T. Harkins, “Primus doctor Iudaeorum: Moses as Theological
Master in the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas,” The Thomist 75 (2011):
91-92.
Regarding
the Prima Pars of the Summa theologiae, Weisheipl writes that Aquinas “did
not begin work on the Summa until 1266, when he discarded his plan to rework
his commentary on the Sentences. The prima pars was completed in 1268,
before Thomas was sent to Paris
for a second time. Part I, q. 79, a. 4, was completed after November 22, 1267, for
he utilized Themistius’s paraphrase of Aristotle’s De anima, translated at
this date by William of Moerbeke. Therefore the whole prima pars seems to
have been written between 1266 and the spring of 1268” (Weisheipl, Friar Thomas
D’Aquino, 361 as corrected on p. 479).
And
Torrell points out that “It seems certain that during the time he was at Rome [from
1265] until September 1268, Thomas composed the Prima Pars in its entirety and that
this portion [of the Summa theologiae] was in circulation in Italy even before
his return to Paris [in 1269]” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The
Person and His Work - Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington. D.C.: The Catholic University
of America
Press, 2005], 146).
4. Dating of the Quaestiones disputatae de potentia:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi in the Disputed Questions on the Power
of God (De potentia) only once, in question 7, article 2, ad 1.
Scholars
seem to have fixed the date of composition of De potentia. After returning
to Italy in 1259, Aquinas first
worked in Orvieto from 1261 to 1265, and then he moved to Rome where he directed the Study House of the
Dominican Order from 1265 to 1268. There seems to be very little doubt that it was
during this period in Rome
that Aquinas wrote the disputed questions De potentia.
Referring
to this teaching activity of Aquinas in Rome, Torrell
accordingly remarks that “the disputed questions De potentia are precisely
situated in this period” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person
and His Work - Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington. D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2005], 161).
Weisheipl
for his part comments that “De potentia is chronologically and speculatively
the immediate predecessor of the first part of the theological Summa” (James
A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Works, 2nd
ed. [Washington.
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1983], 200). Aquinas
wrote the Prima Pars of the Summa theologiae in Rome in the period between 1266 and 1268.
And
concurring with this, Susan C. Selner-Wright begins the introduction of her translation
of De potentia, question 3, by saying that “Thomas Aquinas wrote his Disputed
Questions On the Power of God (Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei
or De potentia) in Rome
in 1265–66. It was begun, but probably not completed, before he began the first
part of his most famous work, the Summa theologiae, also composed during
this time in Rome” (Thomas Aquinas, On Creation: Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia
Dei-Q. 3, trans. S. C. Selner-Wright, [Washington. D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 2011], vii).
5. Dating of the Quodlibet 9:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi in the quodlibetal questions only once,
in Quodlibet 9, question 4, article 1, corpus.
There
seems to be very little doubt that Quodlibet 9 was written between 1256 and 1259
when Aquinas was regent master in theology at the University of Paris.
Wippel,
for example, writes that “From 1256 until 1259 Thomas carried out the functions
of a Master (Professor) of Theology at the University of Paris.
These duties included conducting formal disputed questions (resulting in his Quaestiones
disputatae De veritate) and quodlibetal disputations (where any appropriate
question could be raised by any member in the audience, and would ultimately have
to be answered by the presiding Master). His Quodlibets 7-11 and his Commentary
on the De Trinitate of Boethius resulted from this period” (John F. Wippel,
The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 2000], xiv).
About
the dating of Quodlibet 9,
Weisheipl writes that the quodlibetal questions “fall into two groups, the earliest
of which is the grouping 7-11 in a never varying series, and 1-6, which often vary
in the manuscripts. … The group 7-11 belongs to Thomas’s first Parisian regency,
[1256-1259]” (Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino, 367).
And
towards the end of his book, Torrell writes that “Thomas’s Quodlibets can be divided
into two groups, according to the two periods of teaching in Paris. Quodlibets I-VI and XII (the reportatio
of the latter was not revised by Thomas) come from the second period (1268-72)”
(Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work - Volume
1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington.
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005], 337). In other
words, by process of elimination, Quodlibet 9 belongs to the group written during
the first Paris
regency.
Earlier
Torrell was more specific about the dating of the quodlibetal questions: “As to
dates, after the first tentative steps, the researchers have reached agreement on
dividing the Quodlibets into two groups according to the two Parisian sojourns:
Quodlibets VII-XI belong to the first period [1256-1259], while Quodlibets I-VI
and XII (the reportatio of this latter was not revised by Thomas) belong
to the second [1268-72]” (Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 208-209).
Torrell
explains that at the time of Aquinas at the University of Paris
there were two types of disputed questions, private and public. “The first, private
dispute (disputatio privata), was held within the school—the master with
his students and bachelor only. The second type was public (disputatio publica
or ordinaria), and the master had to hold it at regular intervals, though
many willingly dispensed themselves from it, for the exercise could be perilous.”
“The difference between the first and the second form was therefore the public,”
Torrell adds, “since the students from other schools could attend, and sometimes
masters as well. On occasion, they did not refrain from raising difficulties for
the colleague engaged in the exercise. In one of its forms,” Torrell continues,
“this second genre of disputed questions could even be a solemn public occasion
(the famous Quodlibets), which were held twice a year, during Lent and Advent.
They interrupted the regular courses at the university. As a result of P. Mandonnet’s
labors, we can agree today in dating from this first period of teaching in Paris
[1256-1259] Thomas’s Quodlibets VII though XI” (Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas,
60-61).
6. Dating of the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics:
Aquinas
uses the expression actus essendi only once in his Commentary on Aristotle’s
Metaphysics, in the commentary on book 4, lecture 2, paragraph no. 6.
Aquinas’s
Commentary on the Metaphysics seems to have been written between 1270 and
1272. Here are some remarks concerning the date of composition of this work.
Commenting
on the derivation of the predicaments reported in the Commentary on Aristotle’s
Physics and in the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, John F.
Wippel notes that “While there is no substantial disagreement between these two
attempts on Thomas’s part to derive the ten predicaments, we may wonder which comes
later in time. It is as difficult to answer this question with certainty as it is
to determine whether the Commentary on the Metaphysics is prior to the Commentary
on the Physics, or perhaps vice versa. In fact, Weisheipl suggested that
Thomas may have been working on the two commentaries at approximately the same time
-- the Physics (at Paris from 1270 to 1271)
and the Metaphysics (at Paris, and possibly
at Naples, from
1269 to 1272). As Weisheipl also warns, we should not assume that Thomas composed
his Commentary on the Metaphysics, at least in its final version, in the
order in which we number its books today. While accepting this final point, Torrell
places the Commentary on the Physics during the earlier part of Thomas’s
second teaching period at Paris,
ca. 1268-1269. Although he acknowledges the uncertainties surrounding the dating
of the Commentary on the Metaphysics, he suggests that its beginning may
date from the academic year 1270-1271, with the Commentary on Books VII-XII falling
after mid-1271 but before 1272-1273. Since Torrell has been able to take into account
more recent research concerning this, he should be followed on this point. Consequently,
it now appears that Thomas’s derivation of the predicaments in his Commentary on
the Metaphysics expresses his most mature thought on this issue” (John F.
Wippel, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas [Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 2000], 223-224).
Torrell
points out that by the end of 1271, Thomas had adopted the numbering of the books
of the Metaphysics of William of Moerbeke’s translation. “This fact,” Torrell
explains, “is too little known by the average reader of Saint Thomas, but its importance is great. Until
Moerbeke’s translation, one referred to the Metaphysics according to the
translation by Michael Scot or according to the Translatio media, which was
anonymous; both having omitted book Kappa, the book designated Lambda
was referred to as book XI. William of Moerbeke is the first to translate book Kappa,
which in his translation will become XI, while the book Lambda will become
book XII. This criterion has permitted us to divide Saint Thomas’s works into two series, the one
which dates before the Moerbecana, where the book Lambda is called
XI, the other which dates from after the Moerbecana, when book Lambda
is called XII. … The key date, which is to say the date when Saint Thomas knew the
Moerbecana of the Metaphysics, is situated towards the middle or the
end of 1271” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work
- Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2005], 225, n. 2).
Torrell,
however, affirms that “The date and place of composition for the commentary on Aristotle’s
Metaphysics pose numerous problems. The designation of Book Lambda
as Book XII, a title that Thomas adopted toward the middle of 1271, invites us to
date the commentary on Books VII-XII after that date. The beginning of the commentary
may date from the academic year 1270-71. The commentary on Books II and III may
be the fruit of self-correction or of later editing. Begun in Paris,
the composition of this work may have been finished in Naples. The only sure thing, in the current state
of research, is that this text is earlier than the De caelo et mundo, probably
composed in Naples, 1272-73” (Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 344).
7. Dating of the Commentary on Boethius’s De
ebdomadibus:
The
expression actus essendi appears twice in Aquinas’s commentary
on Boethius’s De Hebdomadibus.
This
work seems to have been composed between 1257 and 1259, during Aquinas’s first regency
in Paris. This is
the opinion of Eleonore Stump who writes: “Aquinas’s commentaries on Boethius’s
De Trinitate (On the Trinity) and De Hebdomadibus (sometimes
referred to as ‘How Substances are Good’) are his other philosophically important
writings from this period of his first regency” (Aquinas [New York: Routledge,
2003], p. 4).
The
Oxford Handbook of Aquinas also situates
the composition of the commentary on Boethius’s De Hebdomadibus around 1257-1259,
the same date that they report for the composition of the commentary on Boethius’s
De Trinitate. (See The Oxford Handbook
of Aquinas, ed. Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump [New York:
Oxford University Press, 2012] 534.)
Brendan
Thomas Sammon places the composition of this commentary on 1258. (See B. T. Sammon,
The God Who Is Beauty [Eugene,
Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2013]
207.)
Concerning
the dating of Expositio libri Boetii De ebdomadibus, Weisheipl affirms that
this commentary is generally dated in conjunction with the Super Boetium De trinitate
“as being written during the first Parisian regency, 1256-1259” (Weisheipl, Friar
Thomas D’Aquino, 382). Earlier in the book Weisheipl had remarked that in the
catalogues, the In librum Boethii De hebdomadibus “is listed with
In Boethium De trinitate, and many scholars accept the association, dating
both around 1256-1259” (ibid., 138).
Torrell, for his part, seems to agree with this dating
but is inclined to think that the commentary on Boethius’s De Trinitate was
written first. Thus Torrell writes: “Historians habitually mention these two works
one after another because of their common subject. In the preface to the Leonine
edition, Father Bataillon thinks instead—given the internal data that reveal differences—that
the Expositio libri Boetii De ebdomadibus is probably later than the Super
Boetium De Trinitate. But without external data that would permit us to situate
it better (through dated sources, for example), Bataillon declares himself unable
to propose a precise date” (Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person
and His Work - Volume 1, trans. Robert Royal [Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 2005], 68). Torrell then concludes that
“The date of this work is doubtless later than that of the other commentary on Boethius,
but the current state of research does not allow us to specify the date further,
nor its circumstances” (Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 345-346).
