of 26
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/
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/17/2019 aristotelian st thomas.pdf
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