Thomas Aquinas. A Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima

250 Pages·1999·17.745 MB·English

by  Robert Pasnau, tr.

Previously Published
William of Ockham, Quodlibetal Questions Thomas Aquinas
VOLUME 1
A Commentary
Quodlibets1-4
TranslatedbyAlfredJ. Freddoso
and FrancisE. Kelley
on Aristotle's
VOLUME 2
Quodlibets5-7
TranslatedbyAlfredJ. Freddoso
De anima
Francisco Suarez, S.]., On Efficient Causality
Metaphysical Disputations17,18,and19
TranslatedbyAlfredJ. Freddoso
Translated by Robert Pasnau
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
New Haven &London
Yale Library of Medieval Philosophy
PublishedwiththeassistanceoftheErnstCassirerPublicationsFund. GENERAL EDITORS
Copyright©1999byYaleUniversity.
Allrightsreserved. NormanKretzmann
Thisbookmaynotbereproduced,inwholeorinpart,including
illustrations,inanyform(beyondthatcopyingpermittedbySections Cornell University
107and108oftheU.S.CopyrightLawandexceptbyreviewersforthe
publicpress),withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublishers.
EleonoreStump
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
St. Louis University
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Thomas,Aquinas,Saint,1225?-1274.
[SentencialibriDeanima.English] JohnF.Wippel
AcommentaryonAristotle'sDeanima/ ThomasAquinas;
Catholic UniversityofAmerica
translatedbyRobertPasnau.
p. cm. - (Yalelibraryofmedievalphilosophy)
Includesbibliographicalreferences(p. )andindex.
TheYaleLibraryofMedievalPhilosophyisaseriesofcommissioned
ISBN0-300-07420-4(alk.paper)
1.Aristotle.Deanima. 2.Soul. 3.Psychology-Earlyworksto1850. translationsofphilosophicaltextsfrom theLatinMiddleAges.Theseriesis
I.Pasnau,Robert. II.Title. III.Series.
B415·T5713 1999 intendedtomakeavailableinEnglishcompleteworksofphilosophical
128-dc21 98-35986
andhistoricalimportance,translatedbyscholarswhoselinguisticabilities
CIP
arecomplementedbyaphilosophicalunderstandingofthesubjectmatter.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
Eachtranslationpublishedintheserieswillbe
Thepaperinthisbookmeetstheguidelinesforpermanenceand accompaniedbyabriefintroduction,sparsenotes(confined to
durabilityoftheCommitteeonProductionGuidelinesforBook
LongevityoftheCouncilonLibraryResources. indispensableexplanationsandreferences),andanindex.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction xi
SymbolsandReferences xxvi
TheCommentary'sAnalysisoftheText xxvii
BOOKI 1
BOOKII 115
BOOKIII 289
TextualEmendations 431
Bibliography 433
Index 437
vii
Acknowledgments
Muchofthe creditfor this translationgoes to Norman Kretzmann. Itwas he
who initiallysawthe needfor anew translationofAquinas's Deanima com
mentary, onebasedonthe Leonine edition, and he arranged for this transla
tion tobe publishedas partoftheYaleLibraryofMedievalPhilosophy. Fur
ther,Kretzmannwas theoriginaltranslatorofeightchaptersinBookIII,and
hecarefullycomparedtheentirefinishedtranslationagainsttheLatin-atire
sometask,butonethatgreatlyimprovedthefinalwork.Lastbuthardlyleast,
itwas Kretzmannwhofirst taughtme howtoreadandtranslate Aquinas. So
while all mistakes herein are my own, much ofthe credit should go to him:
his wisdom played a critical role de primoad ultimum. Iwish he had lived to
seethebook'spublication.
Thefirstdraftofthistranslationwasmadeduringtheacademicyear1994
1995,whileIwasascholar-in-residenceattheCatholicUniversityofAmerica.
Sincethen Ihave revisedthe workseveraltimes,andthetranslationis much
improved, thanks to Eleonore Stump, who pushed me to make itbetter, and
to Jack Zupko, who read the work for Yale University Press and supplied
commentsmore helpfuland detailedthananyauthorcouldhave reasonably
hoped for. Iam grateful to my colleagues at St.Joseph's University for their
friendship and encouragement and also to Brenda Kolb, Danuta Shanzer,
ChrisShields,SamSmith,andKevinWhitefor theirhelpandadvice. Finally,
special thanks go to my wife, Kim, under whose bewitching auspices this
translationtookshape.
ix
Introduction
For much of the Middle Ages, western Europe was largely unacquainted
with the philosophical legacy of ancient Greece. Almost all of Plato's writ
ings remained unknown until the Renaissance, and Aristotle's most impor
tant works-among themthe Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, andDe
anima- begantobeavailableonlyinthemiddleofthetwelfthcentury.Asare
sult,itwasnotuntilthethirteenthcenturythatphilosophersandtheologians
intheLatinWestwereabletobegininterpretingandmakinguseofAristotle's
works. Byfar themostinfluentialofthesephilosopherswasThomasAquinas
(1224or 1225-1274).In his Aristoteliancommentaries,ofwhich the Deanima
commentarywas thefirst, notonlydid Aquinas help to reclaim Aristotlefor
western philosophy, but he also grappled with the philosophical principles
thatwouldunderlie hisownbroader,systematicworks innaturalandphilo
sophicaltheology.
Aquinas arrived at the University ofParis as a young Dominican in 1245,
justastheartsfacultytherewasbeginningtofocusitsattentiononAristotle.J
Such attention would have come earlier ifnot for a series of prohibitions at
the University of Paris and elsewhere, beginning in 1210, which prohibited
masters from lecturing on Aristotle's works in natural philosophy. By 1240
these prohibitions had fallen by the wayside, and the LatinWest immersed
itselfin the Aristotelian tradition.2This traditionprovedto bejustthe impe
tus thatwestern philosophyneeded. Fromthe sixththroughthe twelfthcen
turies, western Europe had produced only a handful of significant philoso
phers, most notably Anselm (c. 1033-1109) and Abelard (1079-1142). In the
thirteenthcenturythe qualityand quantityofphilosophyinwesternEurope
grew dramatically, partly as a consequence of the development of universi
ties.ThestudyofAristotle(whobecameknownas"thePhilosopher")rapidly
1. ThebeststudyofAquinas'slifeisJean-PierreTorrell,SaintThomasAquinas,vol.1:The
PersonandHis Work, translatedbyRobert Royal (Washington,D.C.: CatholicUniversityof
AmericaPress,1996),aworkthatsupersedesallearlierbiographies.Manydetailsconcern
ingAquinas'slifearestilluncertainandcontroversial.InthisIntroductionIfollowtheac
countthatisgenerallyaccepted,butfutureresearchislikelytooverturnsomeofthedetails.
2. Forfurther information on the medieval reception of Aristotle, see chapters 2 and 3
of Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of
LaterMedievalPhilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),andMarkJordan,
"MedievalAristotelianism,"inRoutledgeEncyclopediaofPhilosophy, editedbyEdwardCraig
(NewYork:Routledge,1998).
xi
xii INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xiii
cameto dominate theartscurriculumin the universities, and a sophisticated beenanydoubtaboutthevalueofAquinas'sAristoteliancommentaries. (The
philosophicaltrainingbecamea prerequisitefor thestudyoftheology. Renaissance philosopher Pico della Mirandola is said to have remarked that
In this environment the fundamental areas of research and study all sur "withoutThomas,Aristotlewouldbemute.") Aquinasbringstohiscommen
rounded the Aristotelian corpus itself. Arts masters specialized in lecturing tariesathoroughfamiliaritywiththeAristoteliancorpus,adeepappreciation
on Aristotle's work, and most prominent theologians wrote commentaries and understanding ofAristotle's philosophy, and, of course, an acute philo
on the Aristotelian corpus. We know that Aquinas heard his teacher Albert sophical mind. But beyond making a contribution to our understanding of
the Greatlectureon at least the Nicomachean Ethics (indeed, Aquinas himself Aristotle,thecommentariescontainsomeofAquinas'smostsustainedreflec
is thought to have written the surviving account ofthese lectures). It seems tions oncentralphilosophicaltopics.
likely that Aquinas also heard lectures on Aristotle by members of the arts Itwould be misleading to say that in these commentaries Aquinas is pur
faculty at the University of Paris. Recent studies of Parisian commentaries suing philosophy without regard for its theological implications. But he is
from the 1240S have revealed many respects in which the method and style bracketing the theology as much as possible, in order to pursue an under
ofAquinas'sowncommentarieswereinfluencedbytheseearlierworks.3But standing of Aristotle's philosophy. His approach canbe illustratedby a pas
it was not untilsometwentyyears laterthat Aquinasbeganwriting hisown sage from the De anima commentary. At II1.lO Aquinas reports Aristotle as
Aristoteliancommentaries. claiming that, with regard to our sensory powers, "without this perishable
From1265to1268AquinaslivedinRome,where,atthebehestofhisDomi partofthesoul...ourintellectunderstandsnothing."Thisclaimisobviously
nicanorder,hewasestablishingahouseofstudies.DuringthistimeAquinas in tension with Christian doctrine, which holds that, after death, the human
devoted hisscholarlyeffortsto topics closelyassociated withthose ofthe De intellectdoeshaveunderstandingwhileseparatedfromtheperishablesenses.
anima. His Disputed Questionson the Soul, Disputed Questionson Spiritual Crea Aquinasthereforeimmediatelyoffersacarefulelaboration: "Andsowhenthe
tures, and the first part ofhis Summa theologiae all date from this period. Itis bodyisdestroyed, the knowledgeofthings does notremainintheseparated
no surprise, then, that onceAquinas formed the intention ofwritinga series soulin thesamewayinwhichit now intellectively cognizes" (245-248).There
ofAristoteliancommentaries,hechosetobeginwith the Deanima. Hebegan is noevidenttextualbasisfor this elaboration ofthe text, and Aquinasoffers
writing his Sententia libri"De anima"at some pointafter November 1267and no defense orfurther clarification. Hesimply says: "Butto discuss thewayit
finished itbySeptember1268,whenhe leftRome for hissecondstayinParis. intellectivelycognizesthen is no partofthe present plan" (248-249). Onthis
During the next five years he embarked on eleven more Aristotelian com note the chapterends. Aquinasiscarefulto leaveenoughroomto accommo
mentaries, completing six of them, including the long commentaries on the datethetenetsoffaith,butheisnotgoingtopermithimselftostopandwork
Physics,Metaphysics, andNicomachean Ethics. outthedetails.
ScholasticphilosophyingeneralandAquinas'sworkinparticularhavenot TheDeanimacommentaryisparticularlyimportantforunderstandingcer
alwaysbeenaccorded the respect that theynow receive. Butthere has never tainaspectsofAquinas'sphilosophy.Here,morethananywhereelse,Aquinas
gives detailed accounts ofthe processes involved in human cognition. In so
3. ParticularlyclearevidencethatAquinasknewofearliercommentariesfromtheParis doing Aquinas is following the structure ofthe text itself.The general struc
arts faculty appearsin thiscommentary,at III.17.n8.ThereAquinasdiscussesaviewthat tureofthe Deanima, accordingtoAquinas'sanalysis, runs asfollows.
seemstohavebeenproposedbyamemberoftheartsfaculty.
ItnowseemsthatearlierscholarsexaggeratedthestylisticoriginalityofAquinas's Aris
1. Prologue (1.1-2)
toteliancommentaries.ForadetaileddiscussionofhowAquinasfollowsthestructureand
II. Theviewsofother philosophers (1.3-14)
setphrasesofthisearliercommentarytradition,seeRene-AntoineGauthier'sintroduction
III. Thecorrectviewofsoul (II-III)
to the LeonineeditionofAquinas's Sententia Iibri"Ethicorum"(Rome: CommissioLeonina,
A. Whatsoulis (Ib-4)
1969),pp.237"-246".
Readers can see such stylistic similarities for themselves by comparing Aquinas's De B. Soul'spowers (II.5-IIb8)
animacommentarywiththeanonymousLecturainlibrum"Deanima"(c.1246),editedbyGau 1. Soul'spowersingeneral (I1.5-6)
thier(Rome:CollegiumS.Bonaventurae,1985).LikeAquinas,theanonymousmasterfrom 2. Soul'sindividualpowers (II.7-IIb6)
theartsfacultybeginsbyanalyzingthemaindivisionsofthetextandthenoffersaline-by a. Thenutritionalpart (II.7-9)
linerestatementofthetext,pausingperiodicallytoconsideratlengthspecialdifficulties. b. Thesensorypart (II.1O-III.6)
xv
xiv INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
not Aquinas's style, and so the pattern seen here is rather puzzling. Perhaps
c. Theintellectivepart (II1.7-13)
Aquinas began this, his first Aristotelian commentary, with the thought that
d. Thepartofsoulthatproducesmovement (III.14-16)
he would benefit from closely following Themistius. Perhaps he switched to
3. Theorderamongsoul'spowers (III.17-18)
AlbertoutofdissatisfactionwithThemistius. Andperhapshedroppedthem
Most of Aristotle's positive account, in Books II and III, is concerned with
bothneartheendofBookIbecausehedecided hecoulddo withoutsuchex
soul's individual powers-in particular, the five external senses, the internal
plicit guidance. Other explanations are possible. Perhaps Aquinas intended
senses,andintellect.Naturally,Aquinas'scommentaryhasthesamefocus.As
from the start to rely more heavily on others only in Book 1. Here, after all,
aresult, this commentaryis thebestsingle placeto lookfor Aquinas's views Aristotle is primarily reciting the views of his predecessors. The discussion
onourcognitivefaculties,perception,abstractthought,andmentalrepresen is frequently obscure and contributes only obliquely to "the correct view of
tation. The commentary also contains detailed and illuminating discussions soul,"asAquinascharacterizesthecontentsofBooksII-III.
oftopics that Aquinas frequently discusses in his more theological writings, Untilrecentlyitwasbelieved,basedontheearliestcataloguesofAquinas's
suchastherelationshipbetweensoulandbody(II.1-4),actiontheory(III.14 work, that our text of Book Iis a reportatio-that it consists, in other words,
16),theemotions(1.10,III.14),andeventhe problemofuniversals(I1.12). of notes taken at Aquinas's public lectures on this material. Books II-III, in
As noted, the surface structure ofAquinas's commentaries owes much to contrast, were characterized as an expositio, a polished version edited by the
earliercommentarieswrittenbytheartsfacultyattheUniversityofParis.But author.SuchastorymightexplaintheheavydependenceinBookIonThemis
thecontentoftheDeanimacommentaryalsodrawsheavilyonothersources.4 tiusandAlbert;itwouldalsoexplaincertainstylisticdifferencesthatreaders
Aquinas benefited from a wide range ofearlier scholars, including the early maynoticeinBook1.(In1.1,forinstance,Aquinasquotesfragmentsofthetext
Greek commentators on Aristotle (especially Themistius), Islamic philoso andthencommentsonthem,apracticehequicklygivesupinfavorofamore
I phers (especially Avicenna and Averroes), and thirteenth-century Christian fluid style.) The idea that Book Iisa reportatio has now been discredited.sIt
philosophers and theologians (especially Albert the Great). For most of the seemsquiteunlikely,first, thatAquinaseverdeliveredthesecommentariesin
commentary these sources stay well in the background: Avicenna is men a lecture format. Moreover, the stylistic differences can be explained by the
tioned twice, Averroes only once, and the others not at all. But for much of fact that this is Aquinas's first Aristotelian commentary; the techniques that
Book I Aquinas does something uncharacteristic: hardly a chapter goes by arefirmlyinplacebyBookIIIemergepiecebypieceinthecourseoftheearly
without his using, verbatim and without acknowledgment,Themistius's De chapters.
animacommentary. (Thiscommentarydatesfromthefourth centuryandwas
firsttranslatedintoLatinatthesametimethatAquinasbeganworkingonhis
own commentary.) These direct borrowings from Themistius abruptly stop
THE LATIN TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
at the end of1.11,only to be replaced, in the next two chapters, withequally
directborrowingsfrom Albert the Great's paraphrase ofthe Deanima. Then, InmedievalwesternEurope,knowledgeofGreekwasanexceptionalaccom
at I.14, the borrowing stops altogether, and for the rest of the commentary plishment, even in the most learned circles. Aquinas knew no Greek, and
Aquinas works much more on his own. The influence of earlier writers re consequently he was entirely dependent on Latin translations of Aristotle's
mains,butthe wordsareAquinas'sown. work. HisDeanimacommentaryisbasedonaLatintranslationbyWilliamof
Thissortofdirectandunacknowledgeddependenceonearlierwriterswas Moerbeke (c. 1215-1286),itselfa revision ofa twelfth-century translationby
notunusualintheMiddleAges;scholarshipwasthenviewedasamorecom JamesofVenice.Moerbeketranslatedorrevisedtranslationsofalargepartof
munal enterprise, and there was less ofa sense of ownership attached to an theAristoteliancorpus,alongwithseveralGreekAristoteliancommentaries.
individual's words and thoughts. Nevertheless, this sort ofdependence was In many cases these translations became the standard Latin texts for several
centuries.
4. In his prefaceto the Leonineeditionofthis commentary,Gauthier writes, "Research
Aquinas's commentary is apparently the first to have been based on
overthelastfifty years hasshownthat, contraryto whatwaslongbelieved,SaintThomas
Moerbeke's revised translation of the De anima. Until very recently it was
tookadvantageofawiderangeofsources,andgreatlybenefitedfrom theworkofhispre
decessors"(Sentencialibri"Deanima"[Paris:Vrin,19841,p.201*).Gauthierdocumentsthese
connectionswithscrupulOUScareinhisnotestothetext. 5. Fordetails,seeibid.,pp.276*-281*.
xvi INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xvii
believed that Aquinas commissioned this revision directly from Moerbeke, expanded. Allusions to other texts or doctrines are spelled out. Inallofthis,
a fellow Dominican. Scholars imagined that Aquinas and Moerbeke must Aquinas takes himself to be doing no more than rendering Aristotle's own
haveworkedinclosecollaboration,withMoerbekeprovidingneworrevised thoughtmoreaccessible.
translations-and even offering notes on the Greek-to fill Aquinas's schol A further way in which Aquinas seeks to clarify the text is by providing
arly needs. New research has established beyond any doubt that the image an analysisofthe work's structure. Each chapterbeginswithand is periodi
of these two men working closely together is but a fiction.6 Comparison of cally punctuatedby a short outline. Aquinas gives each paragraph of text a
Aquinas's commentary with the best available copies of Moerbeke's trans definite role in the emergingargument; inthisway thereaderalways knows
lation reveals many places where Aquinas is relying on a corrupt text. Ifhe wherethe text isgoing(atleastonAquinas's reading ofit)and howacertain
had been in close working contact with Moerbeke, he surely would have passageismeanttocontributetothebroaderargument. (Theaboveoutlineof
possessedabettercopyofthetranslation. the Deanima'sbasic structureis takenfrom this analysis.TheCommentary's
ThenatureofMoerbeke'stranslationexplainscertainfeaturesofAquinas's Analysis oftheText, a much more detailed outline that is also derived from
commentary. Moerbeke's approach, standard at the time, is to be literalin a Aquinas'sownanalysis,beginsonp. xxvii.)
waythatwillstrikemodernreadersasodd.Translatorstriedasfaraspossible Through paraphraseand analysis Aquinas aims to fulfill the primary goal
tomatchtheGreekwordforword,oftenretainingeventheGreekwordorder. of his commentaries: to make Aristotle's own meaning clear and accessible.
In translating Greekinto Latin, this is not ahopeless strategy. For one thing, ButAquinas regularly takes ona second kind ofproject: to expand onAris
the languages sharemanystructural similarities. Moreover, because Latin is totle at particularly interesting or difficult points. There is often a clear de
ahighlyinflectedlanguage,itswordorderismuchmoreflexiblethanEnglish marcationbetweentheseexpansiveremarksandthemerelyexpositoryones.
word order. (The medieval translators' approach would certainlynotbe fea Aquinas characteristicallybegins the former with a phrase like "it is impor
siblefor translatingGreek,Latin,orevenGermaninto English.)Thestrategy tanttoconsider..."(considerandumest). AquinasthenseemstoputAristotle's
also has an obvious advantage in bringing the Greekless reader as close as text aside, shifting from a careful exposition ofAristotle's words to his own
possible to the originaltext. Even so, the inevitableresult is a Latintext that familiarvocabularyandthought. Detailsofthepassageunderdiscussionwill
is sometimes extremely puzzling. The strange Latin combined with the ex be forgotten for the time being, while Aquinas focuses exclusively on the
ceptionallydifficultnatureofAristotle'swritingspresentsthewould-becom philosophical issue at hand. It is at these points that the commentaries be
mentatorwithaconsiderablechallenge.Moreover,thesesamecircumstances comemostinteresting.The Deanimacommentarycontainsmanydiscussions
makeacommentaryvirtuallyessentialas acompaniontothetextitself. of this sort. Sometimes they merely explain points that are presupposed by
These doubly opaque texts call for commentaries that attempt first to an Aristotle'sargument;atothertimestheymakepointsthatgowellbeyondthe
swerthemostbasicquestionsaboutwhatisbeingsaid.Thisisthefundamen text, as when Aquinas stops in 11.1 to criticize the eleventh-century Jewish
tal aim of each of Aquinas's Aristotelian commentaries. His commentaries philosopher Avicebron for supposing that there is a plurality of substantial
fallintothegenreofthemedieval"literalcommentary"ratherthanthe"ques forms within one human being. (In the Commentary's Analysis of the Text,
tion commentary."Aquestioncommentarystandsata greaterdistancefrom briefdescriptionsofthesediscussionsappear initalictype.)
the original text: its method is to raise a series of pertinent questions and Itis sometimes suggested that Aquinas's Aristotelian commentaries grew
to answer them on the basis of the text. A literal commentary, in contrast, outofhiseffortstorebut"LatinAverroism"- athirteenth-centurymovement
focusesontheoriginaltextatthelevelofindividualsentences,explainingany that interpreted Aristotle along supposedly Averroistic and heretical lines
obscure or controversial passages. As befits a literal commentary, the heart andthattookrootintheParisartsfaculty?Aquinascertainlywasengagedin
ofeachchapterofAquinas'scommentariesis arestatementofthe text, para battlingthis movementduringthetime when he composedmostofhisAris
graph by paragraph. In constructing these restatements Aquinas sometimes totelian commentaries (1269-1273). And some of the commentaries do bear
simplyrearranges thewordsofasentence,imposinganorderthatreaders of tracesofthisconflict,inparticularthePhysics commentary,where,inchapter
medieval Latin would find more natural. When necessary, unfamiliar words after chapter, Averroistic readings ofthe textare systematicallyrejected. But
and opaque phrases are explained.Unclear or tightly packed arguments are
7. SeeJamesWeisheipl'sFriarThomas dJ1..quino(GardenCity,N.Y.: Doubleday,1974),pp.
6. Seeibid.,p.176*. 279-282.
I
!I
I
xviii INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xix
i
anti-AverroismcannothavebeentheoriginalmotivationbehindallAquinas's all, the conventionsgoverning thissortofcommentarydictate thatifthe text
commentaries.The first ofthe series, this Deanima commentary,was written being studied says that something is so, then the commentary (making due
while Aquinas was in Italy, far from the academic conflicts in Paris. More clarifications) must report that it is SO.9 On the other hand, it seems entirely
over,the tone ofthis commentaryis markedlycalmandunpolemical; itdoes reasonable to suppose that Aquinas would never say anything that he does
not stress the issues that would become so divisive in Aquinas's later years, not believe (unless he goes on to retract the claim).This supposition would
whenhe returnedto Parisand confrontedthe Averroists.8 leadonetointerpretAquinas'scommentariesasstatementsofhisownviews,
In fact, Aquinas never indicates precisely why he took up the project of notjustAristotle's.The expectationwouldbe that Aquinas'sviews are Aris
commentingonAristotle.The timingofthe Deanimacommentary,asalready totle'sviews,unlessAquinas tellsus otherwise.
noted, suggests that it served as a kind of preliminary study for Aquinas's We cannot resolve this interpretative issue without answering some far
theological works, particularly the "Treatise on Human Nature," in the first rangingquestionsabout the relationshipbetweenAristotleandAquinas. But
part of the Summa theologiae (qq. 75-89). Similarly, Aquinas composed his several observations will help to shed light on the problem. First, only very
commentaryonthe Nicomachean Ethics while he was at work on his detailed rarely-and neverin the Deanima commentary-does Aquinas dissent from
treatment of the virtues, in the Summa's second part. Obviously, however, oneofAristotle'sclaims.!oHedoes, ofcourse,proposequestionableinterpre
these commentarieswere not justpreliminary studiesmade solely for Aqui tations ofdifficult passages, as everyinterpreter ofAristotle must do. Buthe
nas's own benefit. At the start of his commentary on the De interpretatione, seldomreads Aristotleina way thatseemsobviouslycontrivedor unreason
Aquinas says that his exposition is meant for both beginning students and ably slanted toward his own views.]] So, given that Aquinas almost always
more advanced ones. This expressed intention seems to fit the structure of offers credible interpretations ofAristotle, and given that his De anima com
his commentaries: beginners will benefit most from the literal commentary, mentaryneverrejectsoutrightaclaimmadebyAristotle,weface aquestion:
whereas the more advanced will appreciate most the extended digressions arewe to supposethatAquinasbelieveseverythinghetakes Aristotle to have
il:
andelaborations. saidintheDeanima?Ifthisseemsunlikely,thenitwillalsoseemunlikelythat
this commentarystatesAquinas'sownviews throughout.
ButifAquinas is systematicallypresentingclaims that he does notalways
WHOSE VIEWS ARE BEING PRESENTED? believe to be true, then we would expect him to say as much at some point.
He neverdoes. Innoneofhis commentariesdoes he warn the reader against
The Aristotelian commentaries plainly do offer evidence of Aquinas's own takinghisexpositionasastatementofhisownviews. Eveninliteralcommen
views. Buthow canwedistinguishbetweenplaceswhere Aquinasis merely tariesoneexpectstofindthecommentatorsatleastoccasionallyputtingsome
stating or expounding Aristotle's view and those where he is presentinghis distancebetweenthemselves and the text-unless, ofcourse,a commentator
own position? Inthe passageswhere Aquinas interrupts his literal commen iscommittedtoeverywordoftheoriginaltext.Weneverfind Aquinasdoing
tary to expand on some particular question, in remarks often clearly dis that sort of thing in his De anima commentary, which suggests that we are
tinguished from the commentary proper, it seems perfectly clear that he is meanttounderstandthecompositeworkas a statementofAquinas'saswell
announcing his own view. In such passages Aquinas is taking characteristic asAristotle'sviews.
positionsonfamiliar topics,andthere isnoreasontodoubtthatwearebeing
givenhisownviewofthe issues.
9· Foraclearstatementofthisposition,seeMarkJordan,"ThomasAquinas'Disclaimers
It is more difficult, however, to evaluate the passages where Aquinas is
intheAristotelianCommentaries,"inPhilosophyandtheGodofAbraham(Toronto: Pontifical
paraphrasingAristotleoraddinganexplanationthatgoesbeyondparaphrase
InstituteofMediaevalStudies,1991).
butthatstillseemstobeanextrapolationfromthetext. Eitheroftwoextreme
10. OneofthemostnotableinstanceswhereAquinasdoestakeissuewithAristotle,and
attitudes towardsuch passages canseemplausible. Ononehand, ifwefocus
wherehearguesatlengthagainstAristotle'sposition,isinhisPhysicscommentary(bk.VIII,
onthefact thatAquinasiswritingaliteralcommentary,thenitcanseemthat
lee. 2), where he takes up and rejects Aristotle's argumentsfor the claim that motion has
we should take these passages merely as reports of Aristotle's views. After
alwaysexisted.
11. Perhaps wesawoneofthoserareinstancesearlier,inconsideringAquinas'sdiscus
8. GauthierstressesthesepointsinSentencialibri"Deanima,"pp.234*-235*· sion,at111.10,oftheknowledgeofseparatedsouls.
xx INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xxi
Weseem,then, tobefaced withanaporia-touse Aristotle'sfavorite word Readerswillhavetodecideforthemselveshowquestionsofthissortshould
forapuzzlethatneedsresolving.Becausesomuchrestsontheissue,itseems beanswered. Itis worth keeping in mind, however, thatAquinas is not very
worthwhile to lookataspecific casewherethis puzzlearises: Aquinas's dis interested in historical scholarship for its own sake. In his Decaelo commen
cussion of imagination (or phantasia, the Greek word that Aquinas usually tary, he concludes a discussion about the correct interpretation of Plato in
retains). Inhis theologicalworksAquinasconsistentlyspeaksofphantasiaas this way: "Whichever ofthese is somakes no difference to us. Forthe study
an inner sensory power that plays two quite limitedroles. First, it preserves ofphilosophyis notabout knowing whatindividuals thought, butabout the
prior sensoryimpressions. As the Summa theologiaeputsit, phantasia "serves way things are" (1.22). Presumablythissentimentinformsall ofhis Aristote
as a kind of storehouse for forms received through the senses" (first part, liancommentaries.
q. 78, a. 4c). Second, phantasia creates new images by putting these sensory
forms together in novel ways. This account draws heavily on Avicenna and
Averroes.12ButAristotleisgenerallythoughttohaveofferedamorecomplex THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
accountofphantasia.Forhim,phantasiaplaysadirectroleinsensoryexperi
ence: it does not merely preserve leftover images but at least in some cases Untilnow the onlypublishedEnglishtranslationofAquinas'sDeanimacom
accounts for the sensory experience itself.B And, indeed, when we look at mentary was by Kenelm Foster and Silvester Humphries; first published in
Aquinas's Deanimacommentary,wefind suggestionsofthisbroaderrole for 1951,itwas reprintedin1994.14Thetranslationisadmirablygracefulinstyle
phantasia. EspeciallyinIII.5.97-115andIII.6.85-116,Aquinas,closelyfollow but has a number of grievous faults. The first and most serious is that the
ingAristotle,speaksofphantasiaoperatingconcurrentlywithactivesensory translation often strays wildly from AqUinas's words, even in places where
perception. And considerhow Aquinas reads Aristotle in the following pas philosophicalprecision is most needed. A typical example occurs in the dis
sage(whereAristotle'swordsappearinboldface): "SoAristotlesaysfirstthat, cussiononthesenseofhearing. First,hereis theLatintext.
since phantasia is that invirtue ofwhich we saythat some phantasm-i.e.,
Sonus autem causatur ex motu et non habet esse fixum et quiescens in
somethingthatcanappear-isproducedinus..."(II1.5.25-27).HereAquinas
subiecto,sedinquadamimmutationeconsistit;undesimuldeterminatur
might have tried to preserve his standard view by taking phantasms in the
deeosecundumquodgeneraturinsuaspecieetsecundumquod immu
narrowsense that was commoninlater medieval discussions: as stored sen
tatsensum. (II.16.33-37)
soryimages. Insteadheseems to opt for abroaderreading: thatphantasia is
engaged whenever an object appears to us in a certain way. In other words, HereisFosterandHumphries'stranslation.
phantasiaseemsdirectlyinvolvedinallkindsofsensoryexperience.
Butassoundiscausedbychangeandhasnofixedandstableexistencein
ThustheDeanimacommentarysuggestsanaccountofphantasiathatisvery
a subject,butactuallyconsists in amovement or change, therefore it can
differentfromtheoneAquinasoffersinhistheologicalworks. Shouldwedis
be consideredat one and the same time in its objective origin and in its
miss the commentarypassages as mere paraphrases ofAristotle? Or can we
effectonthesenses. (§439; pp.279-280)
supposethatwritingthiscommentarybroughtAquinastoanew,broaderac
countofphantasia?Thereare problemswitheitherapproach. Ifwe takethis Here, thirdly,ismyowntranslation.
accountofphantasiatobeAquinas'sownview,thenweneedtoconsiderwhy
Sound,however,iscausedbymotion. Itdoes nothaveafixed andstable
we don't find this new account in his later theological works. On the other
existenceinitssubject,butconsistsinacertainalteration. Soatthesame
hand,ifthisisnotAquinas's theoryofphantasia,whydoesn'the tellusso?
time he presents an account of it as regards its generation (as a species)
andasregardsitsalteringsense.
12. See the discussion of the internalsenses inSimon Kemp, Cognitive Psychology in the
MiddleAges(Westport,Conn.:GreenwoodPress,1996). The older translation is not entirely disastrous, but it displays two sorts
13. ThepreciseroleofphantasiainAristotleishotlydisputed,althoughthereisabroad of faults. First, it scrambles Aquinas's terminology. Ex motu (by motion) is
consensusthatitdoesmorethanjustpreserveleftoverimpressions-ifitdoesthatatall.For
abriefsummaryofthestateofthe literatureonthis topic,seeChristopherShields, "Some 14· KenelmFosterandSilvesterHumphries,Aristotle's"Deanima"intheVersionofWilliam
RecentApproachestoAristotle'sDeanima,"pp.173-175,appendedtothesecondeditionof ofMoerbeke and the Commentary ofSt. Thomas Aquinas (New Haven: Yale University Press,
D.W. Hamlyn'sEnglishtranslationofDeanima,bks.II-III(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1993). 1951;reprint,NotreDame,Ind.:DumbOxBooks,1994).