ADDEN DA

p. XXXIV : lors de la mise en page du volume, la date indiquée par le Père Torrell à la
fin de son introduction a malheureusement disparu. Il faut donc ajouter : "En la fête de
saint Thomas d'Aquin, 28 janvier 2000."

p. 22 : le texte de la note 29 est le suivant : Henry of Ghent, Qdl. 1.35, (1276C) in

Henrici Gandavensis Quaestiones Quodlibetales (Paris, 1518), f. 23 v.

p. 59 : il faut lire la dernière ligne de la note 67 de la manière suivante : haec secundum

Jo. in Summa confessorum, lib. 3, C. 24, q.78.
La note 68 a sauté lors de l'impression. Le texte en est : Confessionale (Paris 1516), f.
186 V.
Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales
TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 13

Leonard E. BOYLE O.P.

FACING HISTOR Y:
A DIFFERE NT THOMAS AQUINAS

with an Introduction by J ..:.P. TORRELL O.P.

LOUVAIN-LA -NEUVE
2000
 FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DES INSTITUTS
D'ÉTUDES MÉDIÉVALES

Président:
L.E. BOYLE (t) (Commissio Leonina, Roma)

Vice-Président:
L. HOLTZ (Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris)

Membres du Comité :
M. FASSLER (Yale University, Connecticut)
C. LEONARD! (Società lntemazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo
Latino, Firenze)
J. MARTÎNEZ GAZQUEZ (Universitad Autèmoma de Barcelona,
Departament de Ciències de l'Antiguitat i de l'Edat Mitjana,
Barcelona)
M.C. PACHECO (Universidade do Porto, Gabinete de Filosofia
Medieval, Porto)
A. RINGBOM (lnstitute of Medieval Studies of the Abo Akademi,
Turku)

Secrétaire et Editeur responsable :

J. HAMESSE (Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Louvain-la-Neuve)

Trésorier:
O. WEIJERS (Constantijn Huygens Instituut, Den Haag)
Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales
TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 13

Leonard E. BOYLE O.P.

FACIN G HISTO RY:

A DIFFER ENT THOMA S AQUIN AS

with an Introductio n by J.-P. TORRELL O.P.

LOUY AIN-LA-NE UVE

2000
Tous droits de traduction, de reproduction et d'adaptation réservés pour tous pays.
Copyright © 2000 Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales

Collège Cardinal Mercier

Place du Cardinal Mercier, 14
B-1348 LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE
D/2000/7243/1
 TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Préface .......................................................................................................... vii

Introduction par J.-P. TORRELL, O.P .............................................................. .ix

The "De regno" and the Two Powers, in Essays in Honour ofAnton
Charles Pegis, edited by J. Reginald O'Donnell, pp.237-47.
Toronto, 1974 ....................................................................................... 1

The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care, in The Thomist,

38 (1974), pp.232-56 ......................................................................... 13

The "Summa confessorum" ofJohn of Freiburg and the Popularization of the

Moral Teaching of St. Thomas and of Sorne of His Contemporaries,
in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974: Commemorative Studies,
edited by Armand A. Maurer et al., vol.2, pp.245-68.
Toronto, 1974 .................................................................................... 37

The Setting of the "Summa theologiae" of Saint Thomas (The Etienne

Gilson Series 5). Toronto, 1982 .......................................................... 65

''Alia lecturafratris Thome", in Mediaeval Studies, 45 (1983),

pp.418-429 .......................................................................................... 93

Thomas Aquinas and the Duchess of Brabant, in Proceedings of the

PMR Conference, 8 (1983), pp.25-35 .............................................. 107

An Autograph of St. Thomas at Salerno, in Littera, sensus, sententia :

Studi in onore del Prof Clemente J. Vansteenkiste O.P., edited
by Abelardo Lobato (Studia Universitatis S. Thomae in Urbe, 33).
Milan, 1991, pp.117-134 .................................................................. 123

Saint Thomas d'Aquin et le troisième millénaire, in La vie spirituelle,

79 (1999), n°733, t.153, pp. 624-642 ................................................ 141

Index des auteurs anciens et médiévaux ..................................................... 161

Index des auteurs modernes ........................................................................ 165

Index des manuscrits .................................................................................. 169

 PREFACE

Quelques jours avant sa mort, intervenue le 25 octobre 1999, le Père

Boyle avait eu le temps de dicter ce qu'on peut appeler ses dernières volontés
scientifiques. Il avait dressé la liste des travaux qu'il aurait souhaité terminer
lui-même si la maladie qui le minait lui avait laissé quelques mois de répit.
Hélas, usé par les épreuves qu'il venait de traverser, il s'éteignit avant d'avoir
pu mener à bien les projets qu'il avait.
Réaliser ses dernières volontés constitue un devoir de mémoire pour tous
ceux qui l'ont entouré et ont collaboré avec lui jusqu'aux derniers jours. La
réédition des articles qu'il avait consacrés à Thomas d'Aquin figurait en-tête
de ses priorités. Le présent volume concrétise donc le projet qui lui tenait le
plus à cœur. Il a paru opportun de le publier dans la collection de la
F.I.D.E.M., puisqu'il était Président de cette fédération depuis sa création en
1987. Les dernières préoccupations qu'il a manifestées sur son lit de mort
concernaient d;ailleurs les activités de cette fédération.
Si ce livre paraît aussi rapidement, c'est grâce à la bonne volonté d'une
série de personnes qui ont voulu lui rendre hommage de cette manière. Je
voudrais remercier tout d'abord son confrère, le Père J.-P. Torrell, qui a
accepté de rédiger une introduction substantielle, destinée à tracer la voie aux
lecteurs afin qu'ils pénètrent la nouveauté présentée par le Père Boyle dans
son approche de Thomas d'Aquin. Nul mieux que lui n'était qualifié pour
mettre en valeur l'intérêt des recherches rassemblées dans ce volume et l'ori-
ginalité de la méthode utilisée.
Les premiers éditeurs de tous ces articles ont répondu très rapidement à
la demande qui leur était adressée et ont donné immédiatement leur autori-
sation de republier l'ensemble des textes. Je leur en suis très reconnaissante.
Les références des publications originales figurent dans la table des matières.
Une seule étude a été mise à jour et augmentée grâce aux notes que le Père
Boyle avait préparées lui-même en vue d'une réédition. Il s'agit de The Setting
of the "Summa theologiae" of Saint Thomas.
D'autre part, ce volume n'aurait pas vu le jour aussi rapidement sans les
compétences techniques de Paul Normand qui s'est chargé de la récupération
des textes et de l'acribie de Maria Elena Bertoldi qui a revu l'ensemble du
viii J. HAMESSE

travail et a réalisé avec minutie les index indispensables à la consultation de

l'ouvrage.
Ce livre revêtait une importance toute particulière aux yeux du Père
Boyle; en second lieu, il souhaitait republier les articles qu'il avait consacrés à
l'étude des manuscrits. Ils paraîtront donc l'an prochain dans la même col-
lection.
Ce travail de réédition constitue un témoignage de la reconnaissance que
nous lui devons pour tout ce qu'il a donné à chacun de nous. Puissent ces
ouvrages rendre plus aisément accessible aux médiévistes l'essentiel des
résultats de ses recherches et concrétiser à jamais la contribution originale
qu'il a apportée aux études médiévales.

Jacqueline Hamesse,
die natali Divi Thomae, 7 mars 2000
 JEAN-PIERRE TORRELL 0.P.

(Albertinum, Fribourg)

LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT

Replacés dans l'ensemble de sa considérable production, les articles de

Leonard Boyle sur Thomas d'Aquin paraissent n'occuper qu'une place
relativement modeste, et même marginale. D'autant plus que la plupart
d'entre eux semblent avoir été provoqués par des circonstances occasion-
nelles. Il suffit pourtant de les parcourir pour s'apercevoir qu'ils n'ont rien
d'insignifiant. Par le simple fait de replacer la moindre question dans son
contexte le plus large, ce médiéviste averti avait l'art de la renouveler
profondément. En relisant cet ensemble de travaux à quelques années de
distance on ne peut qu'être frappé de leur pertinence. Souvent livré, et à juste
titre, aux philosophes et aux théologiens, Thomas d'Aquin n'a pas toujours
été situé par eux dans le contexte historique nécessaire à sa bonne
compréhension. Il y a pourtant bien longtemps que le P. Chenu (et bien
d'autres!) avait attiré l'attention sur ce point. C'est précisément ce qu'a fait
Leonard Boyle 1.
Personne, certes, n'eût été mieux qualifié que lui pour dire l'intention qui
le guidait; mais à défaut de pouvoir l'entendre lui-même, il n'est peut-être pas
impossible de dégager l'originalité des études ici rassemblées. D'autres ont
souligné ses qualités d'enseignant et de chercheur dans le vaste domaine qu'il
a dominé avec aisance, mais on ne semble pas jusqu'ici s'être particu-

1 Ce résumé cavalier de sa méthode ne suffit évidemment pas à lui rendre justice;

on trouvera plus de détails sous la plume de G. CONSTABLE, « Leonard Boyle: The
Teacher and Scholar », dans Roma, Magistra Mundi. ltineraria culturae medievalis,
Mélanges offerts au Père L.E. Boyle à l'occasion de son 75° anniversaire, «Textes et
Études du Moyen Âge 10,1-3 »,éd. par J. HAMESSE, F.I.D.E.M., Louvain-La-Neuve,
1998, t. 1, p. 1-10; on verra en particulier les p. 7-8, où Constable rappelle le couple
via inventionis et via compositionis, avec les diverses subdivisions que propose Boyle.
X J.-P. TORRELL

lièrement intéressé à ses travaux du point de vue de la théologie. De ce fait, ils

n'ont peut-être pas encore trouvé tout le retentissement qu'il était en droit
d'en attendre. Ils ont parfois besoin d'être un peu rafraîchis, mais leurs
intuitions demeurent actuelles et il reste urgent de les prendre en compte. Il
faut donc se réjouir de la nouvelle publication de ces études qu'il avait lui-
même projetée, et souhaiter que cette réédition parvienne entre les mains de
ceux qui s'intéressent à la pensée de saint Thomas et les alerte sur l'intérêt, et
parfois la nécessité de l'approcher de manière différente.

1. THE DE REGNO AND THE Two POWERS

L'étude par laquelle s'ouvre ce volume se heurte d'emblée au petit livre

intitulé: «Du royaume», écrit par Thomas à une date incertaine (vers
1265/67), à l'intention du «roi de Chypre »2. Cet opuscule inachevé a
longtemps constitué un casse-tête pour les spécialistes, en raison de ses
inexactitudes historiques et de sa faiblesse doctrinale: sa théorie monarchique
absolue surtout est peu conforme à celle qu'on rencontre dans les autres
œuvres de Thomas, qui soutient habituellement l'idée d'un gouvernement
mixte où le souverain collabore avec une aristocratie élue par l'ensemble du
peuple. De nombreux érudits, et parmi eux I.T. Eschmann, en étaient donc
venus à suspecter l'authenticité thomasienne de l'opuscule. L'examen serré
auquel L. Boyle soumet ici les idées soutenues par Eschmann allait donc bien
au-delà d'un simple désaccord sur un point particulier.
Ce désaccord était pourtant loin d'être sans portée puisqu'il s'agissait de
savoir quel genre de pouvoir reconnaître au pape sur la société civile. Alors
qu'un texte lumineux des Sentences, le premier ouvrage de Thomas (1252-

2 De regno ad regem Cypri, éd. Léon., t. 42, p. 421-471; il vaut mieux éviter le
titre ancien et inexact: De regimine principum. Les éditeurs de la Léonine précisent
que la partie authentique de l'œuvre s'arrête au milieu du chapitre II 8 (II 4 selon les
éditions plus anciennes; le reste étant dû à Tolomeo de Lucca). On trouvera une brève
présentation dans J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à saint Thomas d'Aquin. Sa personne et
son œuvre, « Vestigia 13 », Cerf - Éditions Universitaires, Paris-Fribourg, 1993, p.
247-249 (trad. anglaise: Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. I, The Persan and His Work, The
Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 169-171).
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xi

1256), exposait avec la plus grande netteté l'idée d'une autonomie respective
des deux pouvoirs, temporel et spirituel, chacun ayant la primauté dans son
ordre propre (thèse qu'il reprend partout ailleurs), un chapitre du De Regno
promeut au contraire la théorie d'une soumission du temporel au spirituel,
même dans le domaine strictement temporel. Cette contradiction ne pouvait
donc qu'engendrer la suspicion quant à l'authenticité de l'opuscule. Il est
inutile de rappeler le détail de la discussion, puisqu'on le trouvera ci-après,
mais il faut mettre en évidence les grandes lignes de l'argumentation de
Boyle, car elle a le mérite de proposer in actu une méthode de lecture des
textes thomasiens.
Boyle souligne en effet, et à très juste titre, que la faiblesse principale
d'Eschmann est de ne s'appuyer que sur un seul chapitre du De Regno (I 14)
et d'ignorer les chapitres qui le précèdent ou qui le suivent immédiatement.
Fût-il authentique, comme c'est le cas, un seul chapitre ne suffit pas à
permettre un jugement sur tout un livre. Une fois restitué à son contexte
naturel, il ne dit plus tout à fait ce qu'on croyait y lire et il supporte au
contraire tout à fait d'être comparé au reste de l'œuvre thomasienne. Loin d'y
voir la théorie du « grégorianisme théologique » (selon lequel le pouvoir
politique suprême revenait au pape en raison même de sa primauté spirituelle)
qu'Eschmann prétendait y lire, Boyle soutient que dans le De regno, comme
partout ailleurs, Thomas se montre partisan du « sain dualisme gélasien » qui
prône la séparation des deux pouvoirs (le pouYoir temporel n'étant soumis au
pouvoir spirituel que lorsque celui-ci intervient dans la sphère qui lui est
réservée: l'ordination de l'être humain à sa fin dernière surnaturelle).
Outre ce renvoi au contexte thomasien de l'œuvre, Boyle met encore en
œuvre un autre critère: celui d'un contexte historique plus large, et notamment
la lecture qu'a faite Jean de Paris de ce même chapitre du De regno. Cet
incontestable tenant du dualisme dénonce l'interprétation hiérocratique que
d'aucuns font déjà de ce texte et n'hésite pas à citer Thomas en faveur de sa
propre position. Boyle voit dans cette utilisation la preuve que Jean de Paris se
reconnaissait dans les idées de Thomas et il en retient même une clé
d'exégèse du texte discuté en distinguant entre imperare per modum
auctoritatis (ce qui serait la perspective du grégorianisme théologique) et
imperare per modum dirigentis (ce qui relève du rappel de la fin dernière et
qui appartient bien au pouvoir spirituel). Appuyé sur cette triple convergence
(exégèse littérale, contexte immédiat, contexte plus éloigné), Boyle peut donc
rejeter le principal argument mis en avant par Eschmannn et, par le fait même,
conclure à !'authenticité du De regno.
Xll J.-P. TORRELL

En relisant les pièces de ce débat avec le recul que permet le temps

écoulé (quarante-deux ans depuis l'article d'Eschmann, en 1958; vingt-six ans
après celui de Boyle, en 1974), on se prend à regretter qu'il ait eu lieu avant la
publication de cet opuscule par la Commission Léonine (1979) et les clarifi-
cations qu'elle apporte. De même, on regrette aussi un peu que la discussion
se soit aussi étroitement focalisée sur le De regno (par choix de méthode, au
moins chez Boyle), car la considération d'un contexte plus ample encore eût
permis de relativiser cette œuvre inachevée, non exempte d'une certaine
ambiguïté et qui reste mineure par rapport à la Somme de théologie. Il ne faut
pas hésiter à reconnaître que dans cet ouvrage, comme dans son commentaire
sur la Politique d'Aristote, lui aussi non terminé, la pensée de Thomas
d'Aquin se cherche encore. Les divergences sur sa pensée politique qui
opposeront plus tard les thomistes trouvent en grande partie leur origine dans
la méconnaissance du caractère provisoire de ces essais non achevés. Nous ne
saurions poursuivre dans cette voie sans quitter le terrain d'une simple analyse
de l'étude ici présentée, mais il est capital de ne ·pas perdre cela de vue3.

2. THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE

Le titre de cette seconde étude mérite qu'on s'y arrête un instant. Cette
savante recherche, qui reste un des très bons travaux sur les Quodlibets,
s'intéresse à un sujet qui n'avait jusqu'alors guère retenu les familiers du
Maître d'Aquin. La «pratique pastorale» (ou la «charge» ou la
«sollicitude» pastorales, pour tenir compte de la polyvalence de l'anglais:

3 Signalons que nous avons fait un résumé de ces interprétations dans Saint Tho-
mas d'Aquin, Maître spirituel, Initiation 2, « Vestigia 19 »,Cerf - Éditions Universi-
taires, Paris-Fribourg, 1996, p. 394-407; parmi les travaux parus après celui de Boyle,
il faut renvoyer à l'étude neuve et pertinente de M. JORDAN, «De regno and the Place
of Political Thinking in Thomas Aquinas », Medioevo 18 (1992) 151-168; quant aux
mises au point sur les divergences d'interprétation, on verra surtout R. IMBACH,
« Démocratie ou monarchie ? La discussion sur le meilleur régime politique chez
quelques interprètes français de Thomas d'Aquin (1893-1928) »,dans Saint Thomas
au XX siècle, éd. S.-Th. BONINO, Saint-Paul, Paris, 1994, 335-350; J.M. BLYTHE,
« The Mixed Constitution and the Distinction Between Regal and Political Power in
the Work of Thomas Aquinas »,Journal of the History of Ideas 47 (1986), 547-565.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xm

Pastoral Care) était par contre un des thèmes privilégiés de L. Boyle. Il est au
premier plan d'une autre étude, publiée à la même date et dont nous allons
parler dans un instant; on le retrouve dans l'intitulé d'un autre article
légèrement postérieur (1979) consacré à Robert Grosseteste; il est finalement
repris dans le titre d'un recueil déjà publié, qui contient plusieurs autres
études qui exploitent cette même veine4 . Cette insistance souligne d'emblée
une préoccupation majeure de L. Boyle: ce médiéviste chevronné, animé du
souci d'unir dans une même visée l'investigation scientifique et l'intérêt pour
la réalité vécue des hommes de ce temps lointain, offrait du même coup
l'exemple vécu d'une certaine manière de pratiquer la recherche en notre
propre temps5.
Ce n'est pas le lieu ici de rappeler ce qu'étaient les Quodlibets, leur
histoire, la manière dont ils se déroulaient, etc.; on trouvera tout cela dans
l'article de Boyle, qui réussit avec bonheur à faire percevoir l'espèce de
fascination ou, si le mot est trop fort, l'attrait singulier qu'exerce ce geme de
littérature sur le lecteur d'aujourd'hui, ainsi que son intérêt exceptionnel pour
la connaissance du milieu universitaire de l'époque. On se contentera d'attirer
l'attention sur l'un ou l'autre aspect de cette étude. D'abord, deux petites
mises au point. Au moment de sa publication, ce travail avait l'avantage de
proposer un tableau récapitulatif des diverses positions des érudits concernant
la chronologie des Quodlibets de Thomas d'Aquin; étant donné !' éparpil-
lement de ces essais, leurs divergences et leur incomplétude, ce n'était pas un
mince mérite que de dresser cette synopse. Les lecteurs de ce recueil doivent
pourtant savoir que l'édition critique due à René-Antoine Gauthier a surclassé
cet essai, qui ne pouvait être que provisoire. Il faut donc maintenant se référer
à des ouvrages plus récents qui ont pu mettre à profit les recherches de
Gauthier et où l'on trouvera pour la première fois une proposition de datation
complète pour l'ensemble des douze Quodlibets6.

4 L.E. BOYLE, Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200-1400,
Variorum Reprints, London, 1981.
5 Ses anciens étudiants en témoignent avec ferveur; cf. la « Preface » dans A Dis-
tinct Voice. Medieval Studies in Honor of Leonard E. Boyle, O.P., ed. by J. BROWN
and W. P. STONEMAN, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1997,
p. ix-x.
6 S. Thomae de Aquino, Quaestiones de Quolibet, éd. Léon., t. 25, 2 vol., Cerf,
Paris, 1996; en m'inspirant du tableau du P. Boyle, j'ai rassemblé moi-même les
résultats du P. Gauthier en une nouveau tableau synoptique qu'on trouvera dans mon
xiv J.-P. TORRELL

L'édition critique permet encore de valoriser une suggestion de Boyle à

propos du Quodlibet XII. Ce texte pose un problème particulier en raison de
son inachèvement: on a d'abord suspecté son authenticité, puis suggéré que
c'était une mauvaise reportation, et enfin que c'étaient peut-être des notes
brèves rédigées par Thomas en vue de la determinatio que devait donner le
Maître après la discussion. Cette dernière suggestion est celle de Boyle lui-
même; Gauthier qui la discute sur un point de détail, reconnaît par contre la
justesse de son intuition et résume ainsi sa propre position: «Voici donc ce
que nous avons conservé: les notes écrites par saint Thomas avant la séance
de détennination, notes personnelles qu'il se réservait de développer plus
clairement par oral et de rédiger plus tard par écrit »7. On peut ajouter que
l'état dans lequel nous est parvenu le Quodlibet XII permet aussi de mesurer
le long chemin parcouru par les Quodlibets et autres Questions disputées
avant d'en arriver au texte final que nous connaissons: la discussion publique
menée par le bachelier n'était guère que le point de départ, et la détermination
orale faite par le Maître dans les jours suivants n'était elle-même qu'une étape
avant la rédaction définitive, qui pouvait n'intervenir que beaucoup plus tard.
Outre ces deux points particuliers, le thème principal de cette étude reste
pourtant la mise en évidence de la portée pastorale de ces textes. Du fait
même qu'ils reflètent les préoccupations des participants, les Quodlibets
offrent en général au lecteur une matière des plus variées; les sujets de pure
actualité universitaire y côtoient certes des thèmes de haute spéculation, mais
les questions pratiques sont loin d'en être absentes; parfois même elles sont
prévalentes: ce public, composé essentiellement de clercs, soulevait
effectivement les problèmes qui se posaient à lui (confessions, cumul de
bénéfices, etc.). Boyle en cite des exemples savoureux et souligne que dès
l'époque même de leur invention, chez Guerric de Saint-Quentin (peut-être le
premier initiateur du genre, avec Alexandre de Halès, entre 1235 et 1240), on
rencontre déjà des questions de pure casuistiques. Elles ne se retrouvent pas à

Initiation à saint Thomas d'Aquin, p. 306; cf. p. 301-310 (trad. anglaise: p. 211, cf. p.
207-212). - N.B.: mon livre est paru en 1993, mais le P. Gauthier avait eu l'amabilité
de me communiquer les résultats de son travail avant publication.
7 «Le Quodlibet XII», éd. Léon., t. 25/1, p. 152-153*.
8 Profitons de cette occasion pour signaler leur prochaine publication:
Guerric of
Saint-Quentin: Quaestiones Quodlibetales. A Critical edition by t WALTER H.
PRINCIPE, With Editorial Revision and a Preface by JONATHAN BLACK, Introduction
by JEAN-PIERRE TORRELL 0.P., P.I.M.S., Toronto (à paraître prochainement).
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT XV

ce niveau caricatural chez Thomas, mais même chez lui il n'est guère de
Quodlibet qui n'ait sa question pratique. Boyle remarque à juste titre que ces
questions sont d'ailleurs plus nombreuses dans la seconde série (tenue de
1269 à 1272) que dans la première (1256-1259) et avance deux hypothèses:
une des raisons serait que le public aurait été plus varié; l'autre viendrait de la
concurrence de Gérard d'Abbeville, dont les dix-neuf Quodlibets représentent
certainement la plus belle collection de cas de pratique pastorale à cette
époque. On peut aussi penser à une troisième hypothèse: durant ces mêmes
années, Thomas rédigeait lui-même la Secunda Pars de la Somme de
théologie, et sa propre recherche le rendait peut-être plus attentif aux
questions de théologie morale. On sait d'ailleurs que le Maître qui se
soumettait à l'exercice du Quodlibet pouvait prendre lui-même l'initiative de
proposer des sujets sur lesquels il souhaitait s'exprimer. En toute hypothèse,
l'essai de Boyle montre éloquemment que la théologie selon Thomas ne se
définit pas uniquement par sa finalité spéculative et il rappelle fort à propos ce
passage d'un Quodlibet (I q. 7 a. 2 [14]) où le Maître d'Aquin définissait son
propre travail de théologien comme celui d'un architecte qui enseigne aux
autres, simples ouvriers manuels, de quelle manière il faut travailler à la
construction de l'Église. Thomas a certes très haute conscience de sa fonction,
mais il ne peut mieux la souligner qu'en mettant en relief sa finalité
pastorale9.

3. THE« SUMMA CONFESSORUM »OF JOHN OF FREIBURG

La troisième étude s'inscrit dans le prolongement de la précédente, qui

esquissait en finale l'histoire de la diffusion des Quodlibets de saint Thomas.

9 Parmi les travaux parus après l'étude de Boyle, rappelons la synthèse de J.W.
WIPPEL, « Quodlibetal Questions, Chiefly in Theology Faculties »,dans B.C. BAZÀN,
J. W. WIPPEL, G. FRANSEN, D. JACQUART, Les Questions disputées et les Questions
quodlibétiques dans les Facultés de Théologie, de Droit et de Médecine, «Typologie
des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 44-45 », Turnhout, 1985, p. 150-222. A.
BOUREAU et E. MARMURSZTEJN, « Thomas d'Aquin et les problèmes de morale
pratique au XIIIe siècle », Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et théologiques 83
(1999) 685-706, qui examine dans la perspective de L. Boyle quelques unes des
questions soulevées dans les Quod!ibets de Thomas (argent, propriété et responsabi-
lité sociale, sacrements et liberté personnelle).
xvi J.-P. TORRELL

A priori on aurait pu douter que, malgré son intérêt pour l'historien ou le

théologien, cette littérature ait jamais connu une très grande diffusion, puisque
par définition le petit public universitaire auquel elle était destinée était très
localisé dans le temps et l'espace. Or, c'est tout le contraire qui s'est produit.
Quelques chiffres suffisent à le montrer: pour l'édition critique des
Quodlibets, la Commission Léonine a relevé 187 témoins manuscrits, ce qui
est considérable; même si 50 d'entre eux ne sont que des extraits peu
utilisables, il en reste un nombre plus que suffisant pour témoigner de la
réception attentive qui leur a été réservée. Cela s'explique assez simplement si
l'on veut bien se souvenir que le Paris de l'époque n'était guère moins
cosmopolite que celui d'aujourd'hui et que les étudiants de Thomas et de ses
collègues, venus de l'Europe entière, emportaient avec eux toutes les copies
possibles des œuvres de leurs Maîtres, les répandant ainsi très au-delà de leur
milieu d'origine.
L'intérêt de cette étude est précisément de nous faire connaître la
manière concrète dont s'est effectuée cette diffusion grâce à l'un de ces
anciens étudiants probables du second enseignement parisien de Thomas. Jean
de Fribourg s'était d'abord attaché à moderniser l'enseignement de la morale
dans l'ordre dominicain en ajoutant de nombreux extraits de la Secunda
Secundae de Thomas à la Summa de Casibus de Raymond de Pefiafort; puis,
en 1297/98, il composa sa propre Summa Confessorum, pour laquelle il utilise
Ulrich de Strasbourg et Albert le Grand, mais plus encore Pierre de Tarentaise
et Thomas d'Aquin. Pour ce dernier, Boyle montre que Jean s'inspire essen-
tiellement de la Secunda Secundae, mais aussi des Quodlibets dont il a relevé
systématiquement les questions de morale. S'il semble ignorer les Quodlibets
de la première période (VII-XI), il connaît fort bien ceux de la seconde
période (I-VI et XII), les cite largement et les introduit selon une formule
consacrée, qui revient vingt-deux fois: secundum Thomam in quadam
questione de quolibet. Rien de très normal, pensera-t-on, que cette référence
d'un disciple à son ancien professeur. Sans doute, mais il est plus étonnant de
constater que la Summa Confessorum, manuel de théologie morale des plus
répandus durant les deux siècles suivant, fut beaucoup plus diffusée que la
Somme de Théologie dont elle s'inspirait. Certes, les grandes œuvres de
Thomas furent très vite connues, suivies ou combattues, par leurs destinataires
naturels qu'étaient les écoles de théologie, mais il n'est pas sans signification
pour l'histoire de la pensée que, dans le domaine moral, son œuvre ne trouva
son public le plus large que grâce aux abrégés de ses disciples (il faut ici le
pluriel, car Jean de Fribourg a eu de nombreux émules). Et c'est ainsi,
remarque Boyle, que ces questions morales des Quodlibets faisaient retour au
milieu dont elles étaient issues.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xvii

L'étonnante érudition dont témoigne notre auteur dans sa recherche des

abréviateurs et imitateurs, manifestes ou tacites de Jean de Fribourg, importe
moins pour nous ici que la voie qu'il ouvre ainsi à la recherche par son
application à détecter les moindres traces de l'influence d'une œuvre. Seul un
très grand savant peut se livrer à cet exercice avec un tel succès et il n'y a
guère avant lui que Martin Grabmann pour avoir fait un travail comparable (et
de façon notable justement sur la théologie morale)!O. Il s'agissait donc bien
d'une recherche novatrice; on peut en donner deux illustrations significatives.
Le premier est que Boyle lui-même ne tarda pas à publier (en 1978) une étude
analogue sur l'éducation des fratres communes de l'ordre dominicain, dans
laquelle il présente un anonyme anglais qui, à la manière de Jean de Fribourg
(mais trente ans avant lui), compose un manuel de cas de morale largement
inspiré de Raymond de Pefiafort et de Simon de Hinton 11. Le second exemple
nous est offert par M. Michèle Mulchahey qui s'avance sur cette même piste
en étudiant avec soin le Libellus de doctrina fratrum d'Élie de Ferrières
(1333). Beaucoup moins importante, moins connue et diffusée que celle de
Jean de Fribourg, l'œuvre de ce dominicain de la province de Toulouse
poursuivait pourtant le même but: mettre à la disposition du prédicateur et
confesseur de base le bagage minimum nécessaire à l'exercice compétent de
sa fonction, en résumant pour lui l'enseignement de docteurs fiables (Pierre
Lombard et Thomas d'Aquin surtout), et en lui signalant où il pourrait trouver
des renseignements plus amples (notamment chez Jean de Fribourg)l2.
Puisque c'est le propre d'un Maître de susciter des disciples, cet exemple
vient à point pour souligner l'influence de l'enseignement de Boyle; mais il
est évident que ce n'est pas le seul et on pourrait en citer bien d'autres qui

10 Bien qu'il soit maintenant un peu vieilli, on peut encore s'y reporter avec pro-
fit: M. GRABMANN, « Das Weiterleben und Weiterwirken des moraltheologischen
Schrifttums des hl. Thomas von Aquin im Mittelalter », Divus Thomas (Fr.) 25 (1947)
3-28.
11 L.E. BOYLE,« Notes on the Education of the Fratres Communes in the Domini-
can Ortler in the Thirteenth Century », dans le recueil Pastoral Care, Étude VI.
12 M.M. MULCHAHEY, «More Notes on the Education of the Fratres Communes
in the Dominican Ortler: Elias de Ferreriis of Salagnac's Libellus de doctrina Fra-
trum »,dans A Distinct Voice, p. 328-369. M. M. MULCHAHEY, "First the Bow is Bent
in Study ... ". Dominican Education before 1350, "Studies and Texts 132", Toronto,
P.I.M.S., 1998, où dans la lignée de L. Boyle, l'auteure étudie avec une ampleur sans
précédent le système complet de formation des frères prêcheurs à leurs débuts.
xviii J.-P. TORRELL

témoigneraient en divers autres domaines de la fécondité des voies ouvertes

par lui.

4. THE SETTING OF THE« SUMMA THEOLOGIAE »

S'il est toujours hasardeux de dresser un palmarès, personne ne devrait

pourtant hésiter à reconnaître dans l'étude que nous abordons maintenant, le
fleuron de ce recueil. Cette mince plaquette de trente pages, résultat elle aussi
d'une production apparemment occasionnelle, n'en est pas moins une
contribution majeure à l'histoire de la naissance de l'œuvre maîtresse de
Thomas d'Aquin. Sous ce titre, Boyle propose une contribution originale et
vraiment neuve à l'intelligence de ce texte. Suivant une démarche que nous
connaissons bien maintenant, il rappelle d'abord le contexte le plus large dans
lequel il faut situer l'ouvrage. C'est en fait celui de la naissance de l'ordre
dominicain avec la double mission que lui confie le pape Honorius III de
prêcher (en 1217) et de confesser (en 1221). Si la prédication a généralement
été bien perçue par les historiens comme caractéristique du nouvel ordre, on
s'attarde beaucoup moins sur l'obligation d'entendre les confessions. Elle est
pourtant tout aussi nouvelle et aussi importante que la première et les premiers
frères dominicains l'avaient prise très au sérieux: dans les cinq années qui ont
suivi, pas moins de quatre manuels de morale pratique avaient déjà vu le jour
à Bologne, Paris, Cologne et Barcelone, en vue d'aider les frères ainsi
envoyés à remplir correctement leur tâche. Le plus célèbre de ces manuels est
celui de Raymond de Pefiafort, mais ce n'était que le début d'une remarquable
floraison qui devait se poursuivre durant tout le siècle, dont la Summa
vitiorum et la Summa virtutum de Guillaume Peyraut sont des illustrations
typiques, au même titre que la très répandue Summa confessorum de Jean de
Fribourg dont nous venons de parler.
Parallèlement, un effort sans précédent connu était poursuivi en vue de la
formation continue des fratres communes - l'immense majorité des frères de
l'ordre (neuf sur dix)- qui n'avaient pas eu la possibilité de bénéficier
d'études théologiques supérieures dans les grands centres théologiques de la
chrétienté. Chaque couvent devait instituer un lecteur conventuel qui avait
pour charge d'assurer cette formation permanente sous la forme d'une ou
deux leçons in moralibus par semaine, auxquelles tous les frères, y compris
les prieurs, étaient strictement tenus d'assister. C'est précisément cette charge
que Thomas d'Aquin occupa de 1261 à 1265 pendant qu'il résidait au couvent
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT XlX

d'Orvieto. De nombreux indices permettent d'assurer qu'il se familiarisa alors

profondément avec l 'œuvre de Raymond de Pei'iafort, de tendance plutôt
canonique, et avec celle de Guillaume Peyraut, qui était son double plus
théologique. Du même coup, il en perceYait les deux carences les plus
criantes: absence totale de fondement dogmatique pour la morale d'une part,
et, d'autre part, manque de structuration interne autre que matérielle quant à la
morale elle-même. L'insatisfaction alors éprouvée par Thomas devant cet état
de choses est à l'origine de son projet de pallier à cette carence en produisant
à son tour un nouveau manuel où théologie morale et théologie dogmatique
seraient étroitement articulées et dans lequel la matière morale serait elle-
même organisée de façon cohérente pour en faire ressortir l'intelligibilité. Ce
nouveau manuel c'est la Somme de théologie.
Quiconque relira à la suite de Boyle les célèbres Prologues à la Prima
Pars et à la Secunda Pars ne pourra plus douter qu'ils parlent d'une situation
précise, celle que Thomas a connue à Orvieto, et il comprendra du même coup
que ces textes manifestent sa volonté d'y remédier. On comprend aussi
beaucoup mieux qu'avant de destiner cette œuvre à l'École en général, il
s'adressait aussi et probablement d'abord à des étudiants concrets, ceux du
studium personale (pour reprendre une expression contestable de Boyle, qui
laisse croire à une« institution», alors qu'il n'en est rien), qu'il dirigeait alors
à Rome avec pleine liberté d'y expérimenter de nouvelles formes d'enseigne-
ment. Il est assez connu qu'il a surestimé les capacités intellectuelles de ses
frères (et de bien d'autres «débutants»!), mais on sait moins qu'il a dépassé
aussi leurs attentes inconscientes: il ne donnait pas seulement plus, mais bien
autre chose que ce qu'ils pouvaient attendre. Notre auteur en apporte une
preuve frappante: les parties dogmatiques de la Somme (la Prima et la Tertia)
ont été beaucoup moins diffusées que sa partie morale (la Secunda Pars); et
dans cette dernière, la partie théorique (la Prima Secundae), a elle-même été
négligée au profit de la Secunda Secundae, qui traite plus directement des
vertus et des vices. On prenait au mot la réflexion de Thomas lui-même selon
qui, «lorsqu'il s'agit de morale, les considérations générales sont peu utiles,
car les actions sont des faits particuliers» (Prologue à la Secunda Secundae).
Suprême ironie: un lecteur, bien intentionné pourtant (Godefroid de
Fontaines), qui avait fait recopier pour lui la Secunda Secundae, la
caractérisait en ces termes: Summa de virtutibus et vitiis edita afratre Thoma
de Aquino. On était donc revenu à la case de départ: à son corps défendant,
Thomas se trouvait emôlé parmi ces manualistes dont il dénonçait les
insuffisances.
XX J.-P. TORRELL

Il est difficile de mettre en évidence en peu de mots la nouveauté de cet

essai. Pour un dominicain moyen de ma génération (à peu de choses près celle
de Boyle lui-même), découvrir de cette manière concrète que l'ordre des
prêcheurs avait été à ses débuts tout autant un ordre de confesseurs que de
prédicateurs était une véritable révélation. S'apercevoir aussi que la préoccu-
pation doctrinale du combat pour la foi n'était pas la seule et peut-être même
pas le souci majeur de la majorité des frères de ces premières générations était
aussi très nouveau. Cela l'était également de réaliser que les maîtres domi-
nicains de l'université de Paris et les frères venus de l'ordre entier qui
peuplaient le couvent Saint-Jacques, n'étaient que la fine fleur intellectuelle et
peu fournie d'une foule d'autres frères aux aspirations beaucoup plus
modestes. S'il était aussi courant qu'inexact d'entendre dire que Thomas avait
été le second fondateur de l'ordre (outrance comparable à celle qui consiste à
voir en saint Paul le fondateur du christianisme), on ne disait pas non plus
avec assez de netteté que les dominicains avait vécu près de cinquante ans
sans la Somme et que, si cette œuvre a contribué à forger son identité
définitive, cet ordre avait pourtant déjà donné de beaux fruits.
Par ailleurs, le fait que la partie morale de la Somme ait été diffusée
comme un livre séparé et qu'elle ait été beaucoup plus répandue que les autres
parties allait, certes, contre l'intention de son auteur. Que la Secunda
Secundae ait été incorporée à son tour sous la forme d'extraits dans des
manuels, comme celui de Jean de Fribourg et de bien d'autres, et qu'elle ait
ainsi contribué à consolider ce système que Thomas avait précisément l 'inten-
tion de combattre, cela aussi est profondément dommageable. Mais, parado-
xalement, cela met en relief un autre aspect des choses mieux reconnu de nos
jours: quelle que soit la valeur de la partie dogmatique de la Somme (qu'on
redécouvre en notre temps par le biais d'un approfondissement de la
recherche de ses sources), il se pourrait que sa partie morale soit encore plus
novatricel3. Sans doute, elle ne saurait avoir cette qualité hors de l'intégralité
du projet thomasien, mais on ne peut exclure une perception confuse de cette
nouveauté dans l'utilisation qu'en ont faite ses épigones. Ils amélioraient ainsi

13 Cf. J.-P. TORRELL, «La "philosophie" morale de Thomas d'Aquin», dans Dic-
tionnaire d'éthique et de philosophie morale, éd. M. CANTO-SPERBER, P.U.F., Paris,
p. 1517-1523; mais si l'on veut mesurer ce que l'on a perdu à ignorer d'autres parties
de la Somme tout aussi novatrices, on nous permettra de renvoyer à une recherche
récente: J.-P. TORRELL, Le Christ en ses mystères. La vie et l'œuvre de Jésus selon
saint Thomas d'Aquin,« Jésus et Jésus-Christ 78-79 », 2 vol., Desclée, Paris, 1999.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT XXl

considérablement leurs propres productions, mais c'était aussi une manière de

lui rendre hommage. Tout en reconnaissant le grand intérêt de ce travail, un
recenseur - anonyme, mais bien connu - soulignait qu'il contenait une bonne
part d'hypothèse14 ... Sans doute! Mais à la relecture, elles gardent aussi une
bonne part de plausibilité. En attirant l'attention sur les différents aspects du
phénomène de cette genèse, L. Boyle a rendu un service peu ordinaire aux
lecteurs de la Somme de Théologie.

5. « ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME»

Avec la cinquième étude, nous retrouvons un peu le même climat

qu'avec la première: la controverse scientifique - courtoise et même amicale
- est un genre que Boyle affectionnait. Ici encore, comme dans le premier
article, l'enjeu n'est pas mince, puisqu'il y est question de nouveau de
l'authenticité thomasienne d'un texte. On sait par Tolomeo de Lucca, un de
ses biographes, que Thomas à son arrivée à Rome, en 1265, avait entrepris de
commenter de nouveau les Sentences à l'intention des étudiants qui lui étaient
confiés, et Tolomeo assure qu'il a vu un exemplaire de ce texte pendant qu'il
était à Lucques (vers 1300). Depuis lors, personne n'avaitjamais revu quelque
chose qui ressemblât à ce livre, jusqu'au jour où le Père L.-J. Bataillon, de la
Commission Léonine, ait repéré, dans un manuscrit des Sentences conservé à
Oxford, une série de 94 annotations marginales plus ou moins longues, dont
trois au moins font mention d'une alia lectura fratris Thome. Après avoir
soumis la moitié environ de ces textes à un examen minutieux, le Père
Hyacinthe Dondaine en avait édité une quinzaine à titre d'échantillon,
accompagnant chacun d'entre eux d'un bref '~ommentaire où il signalait
rapprochements et différences avec les tex'ies connus de Thomas. Sa
conclusion était plutôt négative: ces annotations sont le fait d'un auteur

14 Il s'agit du regretté C. Vansteenkiste; cf. Rassegna di Letteratura Tomistica 18

(1985) 45-46: n° 78. L.-J. BATAILLON est, quant à lui, beaucoup plus positif: «La
conception de la Somme de théologie et la rédaction de la Prima Pars de saint Tho-
mas d'Aquin ont eu lieu au couvent dominicain romain de Sainte Sabine dans des
conditions que le P. Leonard Boyle a désormais élucidées», cf. «Recherches sur le
texte de la Prima Pars de la Summa theologiae de Thomas d'Aquin», dans Roma,
Magistra Mundi, t. 1, p. 11-24 (cf. p. 11).
xxii J.-P. TORRELL

anonyme qui s'inspire du Maître d'Aquin de façon généralement fidèle, mais

on ne peut en tirer d'arguments décisifs qui permettraient d'assurer qu'elles
viennent de l'alia lectura faite à Romel5.
L'article de Boyle que nous avons sous la main dans ce recueil reprend
point par point l'examen mené par Dondaine. Il loue hautement les qualités de
son analyse dans les termes les plus choisis, mais il en tire une conclusion
inverse: le texte de ces annotations, que Dondaine assure être parfois plus
clair que celui de Thomas et dont il souligne ailleurs l'audace, n'est pas dû à
un anonyme, si doué soit-il, mais bien à Thomas lui-même. Quant à la main
qui les a écrites, c'est ou bien celle d'un copiste qui se sert d'une reportation
des cours tenus à Rome en 1265-66, ou bien plus probablement celle de
quelqu'un qui a lui-même suivi ces cours et qui en rapporte l'essentiel sur son
exemplaire personnel du commentaire de Thomas sur les Sentences (donné à
Paris, en 1252-1254, et dont la rédaction s'est étendue jusqu'en 1256),
indiquant même les endroits où il faut insérer ces annotations. Quant à l' alia
lectura, il ne faut pas entendre par là l'enseignement de Rome, mais bien celui
de Paris, car pour quelqu'un qui a suivi les cours de Rome, c'est, bien sûr,
celui de Paris qui est l' alia lectura. Mettant en œuvre son exceptionnel métier
de paléographe et sa connaissance elle aussi peu commune du milieu
dominicain du XIIIe siècle, Boyle pense même pouvoir identifier le repor-
tateur d'Oxford en la personne de Jacobus Raynuccii, qui devint archevêque
de Florence en 1286, et dont il est tout à fait possible qu?il ait été un des
étudiants de Thomas en 1265-66, à Sainte Sabine 16.

15 H.-F. DONDAINE, « Alia lectura fratris Thome? (Super I Sent.) », Mediaeval

Studies 42 (1980), 308-336.
16 Sur ce personnage, on peut voir maintenant E. P ANELLA, « Jacopo di Ranuccio
da Castelbuono O.P. testimone dell'alia lectura fratris Thome », Memorie Domeni-
cane N.S. 19 (1988) 369-385. - Les travaux de Dondaine et de Boyle ont été prolon-
gés quelques années plus tard par MARK F. JOHNSON, «A lia lectura fratris Thome: A
List of the New Texts found in Lincoln College, Oxford, MS. Lat. 95 »,Rech. Theo!.
Ane. Méd. 57 (1990), 34-61; cet auteur a publié une liste des incipit et explicit (assez
largement cités pour qu'on puisse s'en faire une idée) de ces 94 additions marginales.
C'est de lui que nous tenons l'écho de la lettre du P. Dondaine dont nous parlons ci-
dessus (cf. p. 37, note 11); il signalait aussi que L. Boyle lui-même préparait une
édition complète de ces textes en collaboration avec le Dr John F. Boyle, mais à ma
connaissance et à celle du P. Adriano Oliva, de la Commission Léonine, à qui Boyle
avait parlé plusieurs fois de ce sujet, rien de nouveau n'a été publié depuis l'article de
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xxiii

Cette argumentation qui donne un écho plausible à l'indication de

Tolomeo a immédiatement reçu l'agrément d'un autre spécialiste de ce
milieu 17 et, dans une lettre privée adressée à Boyle, H. Dondaine aurait
reconnu n'avoir même pas pensé à interpréter alia lectura, dans le sens de
l'enseignement parisien. Impressionné par la rencontre d'aussi éminents
chercheurs, j'avais jadis été conduit à une appréciation favorable de la thèse
du P. Boyle; je soulignais toutefois qu'il fallait attendre la publication des
textes pour juger de leur authenticité en meilleure connaissance de causel8_
Par la suite, j'ai ressenti une certaine hésitation, et, en relisant maintenant ces
travaux à quelques années de distance, mes doutes n'ont fait que croître. Ce
n'est pas le lieu de discuter ici l'argumentation de Boyle mais, comme il le dit
lui-même, non sans un brin d'humour, à propos de l'identification du
reportateur de Rome, possesseur du fameux manuscrit, sa thèse est far .from
watertight (in fine). Il n'est pas non plus évident que les annotations
marginales représentent autant d'extraits des leçons tenues à Rome. Leur
contenu ne va pas en effet sans soulever quelques interrogations; sans trop s'y
attarder, il est possible de donner un exemple qui permettra d'illustrer notre
difficulté.
Dans un des échantillons reproduits par Dondainel9, l'auteur des anno-
tations écrit sans beaucoup de nuances que la pluralité des personnes tri-

M. Johnson. A. Oliva, qui prépare l'édition du premier Livre des Sentences, se pro-
pose de comparer systématiquement les textes dès que l'édition critique sera établie.
17 Cf. L.-J. BATAILLON, «Bulletin», Rev.Sc.Phil.Théol. 73 (1989), p. 591: «L.
Boyle ... a donné des arguments, à mon avis pleinement convaincants, en faveur de
(!)'authenticité thomiste»; C. VANSTEENKISTE, Rassegna di lett. tom. 19 (1986), n°
73, p. 40, exprimait un avis plus mitigé. Le P. Bataillon, qui a eu l'amabilité de relire
le texte de cette introduction me communique (par un courrier, daté du 31 janvier
2000) que le P. Antoine Dondaine (l'éditeur du De veritate, entre autres) tenait lui
aussi ces annotations pour authentiques, de même que le P. Jaime Ramirez à qui il les
avait communiquées; la chose n'a rien d'étonnant, puisque certains de ces passages
sont des extraits purs et simples d'autres œuvres de Thomas (le Compendium theolo-
giae, par exemple); le problème est de savoir s'ils représentent bien le second com-
mentaire des Sentences que Thomas aurait donné à Rome et si tous les passages ont
un titre égal d'authenticité à faire valoir.
18 Cf. J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation, p. 68 (trad. anglaise: p. 47).
19 DONDAINE, lac. cit., exemple VII (p. 318-320), à rapprocher de l'exemple XIV
(p. 330-331), discuté par BOYLE, p. 426 n. 3 (cette portion de texte n'est pas repro-
duite par Johnson).
xxiv J.-P. TORRELL

nitaires peut être établie par la raison (sicut fides ponit, ita et ratio); de même,
lorsqu'il s'agit de la procession du Verbe selon l'intelligence et de l'Esprit
selon la volonté, il assure d'emblée: in qualibet natura intellectiva necesse est
ponere .. ., et il enchaîne les déductions: oportet ponere .. ., etc. Dondaine
remarque à juste titre que cela ne ressemble guère à ce que Thomas écrit dans
les Sentences 1 d. 2 a. 4, où il souligne au contraire que si le théologien
enseigne la pluralité des personnes, «ce n'est pas à cause des raisons qu'il
avance, car elles ne concluent pas de façon nécessaire, mais bien à cause de la
foi (non propter rationes inductas, quae non necessario concludunt, sed
propter fldei veritatem) ». À Dondaine qui souligne encore que «ce climat
strictement rationnel détonne un peu dans un commentaire des Sentences »,
Boyle réplique que le Bachelier de jadis est devenu un Maître et qu'il peut
donc enseigner avec plus d'assurance. On regrette de le dire, mais cet
argument n'a guère de poids; il s'agit de beaucoup plus que d'une simple
question de maturité de l'enseignant. Si vraiment Thomas était l'auteur de ces
assertions, il s'inscrirait en faux contre lui-même, car il tient partout ailleurs
que les vérités de la foi ne se démontrent pas: prétendre le contraire serait
prêter à rire aux infidèles20. Plus précis'ément, dans un texte strictement
contemporain à celui qui est ici discuté (De potentia q. 9 a. 5 sol., qui date
aussi de la période romaine: 1265-66), on trouve la même approche
respectueuse du mystère que dans les Sentences: « Pluralitas personarum in
divinis, est de his quae fidei subjacent, et naturali ratione humana nec
investigari nec sufficienter intelligi potest »21. Cet exemple ne suffit certes
pas à invalider à lui seul la thèse de Boyle dans sa totalité (l'identification de
l 'alia lectura avec le commentaire parisien, par exemple, pourrait rester
vraisemblable), mais il montre au moins la nécessité de faire un tri dans ces
annotations. Il est donc plus que jamais urgent d'attendre la publication de ces
textes afin de pouvoir juger sur pièces et de ne pas attribuer à Thomas ce qui
ne lui appartient pas.

20 Il dit cela notamment à propos de la création du monde dans le temps (ST la

q. 46 a. 2), mais il s'agit d'un thème bien connu; pour faire bref, renvoyons seulement
à J.-P. TORRELL, Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Maître spirituel, p. 304 et note 7.
21 Nous devons l'indication de ce passage à G. EMERY, La Trinité créatrice, Tri-
nité et création dans les commentaires aux Sentences de Thomas d'Aquin et de ses
précurseurs Albert le Grand et Bonaventure, « Bibliothèque thomiste 47 », Vrin,
Paris, 1995, p. 346, note 3, qui a bien remarqué lui aussi le problème posé par les
textes que nous discutons.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT XXV

6. THOMAS AQUIN AS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT

Nous retrouvons les deux mêmes savants - Dondaine et Boyle - dans

une nouvelle discussion du travail du premier par le second. Dondaine est en
effet l'auteur de l'édition critique publiée par la Léonine d'une lettre de
Thomas d'Aquin adressée à la« duchesse de Brabant» (ducissa Brabantiae).
Cet écrit est aussi connu sous un autre titre, attesté par Tolomeo de Lucca et
un bon nombre de manuscrits, qui parlent quant à eux de la « comtesse des
Flandres» (comitissa Flandriae). On le désigne aussi parfois comme le De
regimine Iudeorum, mais cette appellation est impropre, car ce texte, qui parle
tout autant des sujets non-juifs de la duchesse/comtesse, s'intitulerait aussi
bien: «De regimine subditorum ».Nous pouvons laisser de côté ici le contenu
de cette lettre; ce qui a retenu l'attention de Boyle, c'est l'identification de la
destinataire22.
L'identité de la correspondante de Thomas intrigue les historiens depuis
longtemps déjà. Une première position (celle de H. Pirenne, le grand historien
belge, suivi notamment par B. Blumenkranz) l'identifie à Alix (ou Adélaïde)
de Bourgogne, veuve de Henri III de Brabant; alors qu'une seconde (celle de
P. Glorieux, lui aussi célèbre médiéviste, suivi par de nombreux autres) veut
voir en elle Marguerite de France, fille de Louis IX, épouse du duc Jean de
Brabant, deuxième fils d'Alix. Pour Boyle, il ne s'agit ni de l'une ni de
l'autre, mais de Marguerite de Constantinople, fille de Baudouin I°', comte de
Flandres et premier empereur de Constantinople, qui fut elle-même comtesse
de Flandre pendant 33 ans (1245-1278). Grande bienfaitrice des dominicains,
elle était bien connue dans l'ordre et Thomas aurait pu la rencontrer à
Valenciennes, en 1259, où elle recevait le chapitre général dans une ville de
son comté; cela expliquerait qu'il puisse s'adresser à elle sur un ton relative-
ment familier. Dans ces conditions, cette lettre est à dater de Paris en 1271, et
cela explique aussi (puisque la comtesse est alors assez âgée) qu'il puisse lui
souhaiter de régner encore plus longtemps qu'elle ne l'a déjà fait: per
longiora tempora. Ce qui n'aurait décemment pas convenu à aucune des deux
autres candidates.

22 On trouvera le texte dans let. 42 de !'éd. Léonine, p. 360-378, avec la Préface

du P. Dondaine; pour éviter de surcharger cette introduction par des indications
bibliographiques que Boyle lui-même donne ci-après, renvoyons à notre Initiation,
p. 318-321 (trad. anglaise: p. 218-220).
XXVl J.-P. TORRELL

S'il fallait rappeler brièvement la conclusion de Boyle, nos lecteurs

seront sans doute plus intéressés par la démarche qu'il a mise en œuvre pour y
parvenir. On en est presque étonné, mais il s'est tout simplement mis en quête,
très classiquement, des arguments de critique interne et de critique externe
dont il pouvait disposer. Seulement, quand un chercheur aussi avisé met la
bonne vieille méthode en application, il en obtient des résultats que d'autres
n'ont pas su recueillir, car il prête attention au moindre détail. En l'occur-
rence, le per longiora tempora se trouve dans la formule de salutation finale,
qu'on aurait tendance à négliger comme protocolaire et de peu d'intérêt
doctrinal. Deux autres expressions ont aussi retenu l'attention de Boyle:
dominatio vestra et potencia vestra qui indiquent le pouvoir en exercice de la
comtesse d'une manière qui ne convenait pas aux deux autres (voir la
démonstration dans l'étude elle-même). Cela est si vrai que le P. Dondaine
s'était cru autorisé à corriger potentia par provincia contre l'avis unanime de
tous les manuscrits (opération évidemment périlleuse).
Pour les vérifications de critique externe, notre auteur a évidemment été
servi par sa connaissance hors pair de l'histoire et son habileté de profession-
nel à utiliser les instruments à sa disposition. C'est donc un jeu pour lui de
rappeler que les deux grands historiens dominicains du XVIIIe s., Quétif et
Échard, n'avaient aucun doute quant à l'identité de la comtesse, pas plus que
Tolomeo de Lucca, dont le témoignage méritait une considération spéciale.
Mais Boyle a aussi été favorisé par la chance, lorsqu'un de ses amis lui a
signalé la présence à New York d'un manuscrit contenant une lettre de Jean
Pecham, le contemporain franciscain de Thomas, adressée ad comitissam
Flandriae, qui, à une exception près, traite exactement des mêmes sujets que
la lettre de Thomas. L'apport de ce nouveau document est des plus précieux,
car non seulement il parle bien lui aussi de potencia vestra, mais surtout
Pecham s'y identifie comme enseignant actuellement à Paris, c'est-à-dire
entre 1270 et 1272 (Thomas et Pecham quitteront tous deux Paris au
printemps de 1272), recoupant ainsi la datation du document de Thomas23.
Le contenu de la lettre de Pecham est assez différent de celui de la lettre
de Thomas (il s'étend beaucoup plus sur les juifs), mais cela importe moins ici
que le parallélisme des deux documents. Leur concordance est elle-même
redoublée par celle d'un autre document semblable découvert par Gilbert

23 Signalons que les arguments de L. Boyle n'ont pas trouvé grâce devant la criti-
que de C. VANSTEENKISTE; on pourra voir sa recension dans Rassegna di lett. tom. 20
(1984), n° 11, p. 423.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xxvii

Daban; il s'agit d'une troisième lettre à la comtesse des Flandres émanant

cette fois, non plus d'un théologien, mais d'un juriste séculier (peut-être
Gérard d'Abbeville); lui aussi traite des mêmes questions que les deux autres:
non seulement la conduite à tenir à l'égard des juifs, mais aussi envers les
usuriers chrétiens, et la question des taxes et impôts généraux24. On s'aperçoit
ainsi que la comtesse Marguerite avait lancé une assez large consultation
théologique afin de mieux s'informer sur les sujets qui lui tenaient à cœur.
Pour nous qui essayons de retrouver Leonard Boyle au travail, cette
brève note critique permet d'apporter une nouvelle touche à son «portrait».
En effet, la remarquable convergence de ces trois documents anciens n'est pas
seulement intéressante pour l'historien, elle permet d'admirer aussi la
solidarité de la communauté scientifique qui s'est si bien manifestée en cette
occasion25. Or c'était une vertu que Leonard Boyle pratiquait avec chaleur et
qu'il a exercée sous forme officielle à la tête de la F.l.D.E.M. Il nous plaît de
croire que la constatation de cette solidarité en acte sera aussi un réconfort
pour ceux et celles qui se dépensent généreusement à mettre en relation les
chercheurs d'aujourd'hui en diverses sociétés médiévales, dans la conviction
que nul ne peut suffire à lui seul aux exigences de ce vaste chantier26.

7. AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO

Cette contribution est l'unique spécimen dans ce recueil de l'art sous

lequel L. Boyle est probablement le plus connu de son public habituel, celui
du paléographe et du critique textuel. C'est peut-être aussi pourquoi un lecteur
non familier de ces techniques risque de ne pas suivre aisément son
argumentation. Il faut donc d'abord rappeler ce que sont les peciae dont il
parle à propos de cet autographe de saint Thomas. Le manuscrit d'origine de

24 Cf. G. DAHAN, recension de l'article de Boyle dans Bull. Theo!. Ane. Méd. 14
(1986-1990), n° 1121, p. 530-531.
25 On en a un autre exemple dans le fait qu'un autre témoin de la lettre de Pecham
avait été signalé à Boyle par le regretté H.V. Shooner de l'Institut d'études médiéva-
les de Montréal (cf. note 20).
26 À notre connaissance, le P. Boyle n'a pas donné suite au projet qu'il annonçait
dans la note 21 de publier un jour les deux lettres de Thomas et de Pecham.
xxviii J.-P. TORRELL

ce fragment (traité comme une relique) présente en effet deux particularités:

non seulement il est divisé en cahiers, ou « pièces » numérotées, de quatre
folios chacune, mais d'après certaines présentations il serait en outre le
premier témoin parisien connu de ce système de la pecia. Pour comprendre ce
que cela signifie, il faut savoir qu'on a ici affaire à une découverte décisive
pour la reproduction du livre universitaire avant l'invention de l'imprimerie.
Chaque pièce étant ainsi numérotée, on pouvait confier les diverses pièces
séparées d'un livre à reproduire en plusieurs exemplaires à divers copistes
sans avoir besoin d'immobiliser la totalité du volume; ce qui avait l'avantage
précieux de réduire considérablement la durée de fabrication du livre. Si l'on
suppose vingt copistes travaillant simultanément sur les vingt pièces d'un
même ouvrage, celui-ci se trouvait reproduit dans le temps de copie d'une
seule pièce27.
C'est à ce point précis que Boyle entre en discussion avec deux autres
savants. Étant donné que le commentaire d'Albert le Grand au De caelesti
hierarchia du Pseudo-Denys a été recopié de la main même du jeune Thomas
d'Aquin selon ce système des pièces, Paul Simon, l'éditeur d'Albert (suivi par
Hugues Shooner), en avait déduit le lieu et la date de composition de ce
commentaire: à Paris (puisque le système n'était pas encore importé à
Cologne), entre 1245 et 1248 (date où Albert et Thomas se trouvaient
ensemble à Paris). Ceci n'est pas mis en question par Boyle. Mais Simon
faisait un pas de plus et prétendait que la copie faite par Thomas selon ce
système des pièces avait servi de modèle (d'exemplar ou d'apographe) pour
tous les autres manuscrits connus de ce commentaire d'Albert. Cela revenait

27 Il faut le dire au passage, cet énorme avantage s'est accompagné d'un désagré-
ment qui ne l'est pas moins. À partir du moment où la demande croissante d'un
ouvrage a conduit à augmenter le rythme de sa fabrication, il a fallu établir de nou-
veaux modèles à partir du premier, et aucun d'eux n'était exempt de ses erreurs et
variantes propres. Aussi longtemps que les vingt pièces d'un même modèle secon-
daire étaient recopiées dans l'ordre, ces variantes étaient autant d'indices de l'appar-
tenance à une seule et même famille. Les choses se compliquent à partir du moment
où, pour diverses raisons, les pièces de ce modèle secondaire sont mélangées à celles
d'un autre modèle ou même à celles de l' exemplar: la succession des vingt pièces
peut rester matériellement exacte (bien que ce ne soit pas toujours le cas), mais elles
relèvent désormais de familles différentes et cela complique singulière le travail de
l'édition critique, qui doit retrouver le texte original par une voie plus compliquée; on
en trouvera un bon exemple dans l'édition des Quodlibets de S. Thomas par R.-A.
Gauthier (éd. Léon., t. 2511).
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xxix

aussi à faire de Thomas le premier praticien à Paris du système de la pecia. Or

ce sont précisément ces deux points que conteste Boyle. Il fait remarquer que
l'écriture de Thomas (déjà difficile, même en sa jeunesse) n'en faisait pas un
copiste idéal, et surtout que son texte est grevé de plusieurs erreurs (dont un
homéotéleuton caractérisé) qui n'ont pas été reproduites dans les autres
manuscrits censés avoir été copiés sur le sien28. Boyle pense donc pouvoir
conclure que la copie faite par Thomas n'était pas destinée à une diffusion
publique, mais simplement à son usage personnel et que, si ses pièces portent
des numéros, c'est tout simplement parce qu'il a recopié un manuscrit qui lui-
même les portait. C'est donc ce manuscrit aujourd'hui perdu qui serait le
premier « exemplar » dont dépendent les autres manuscrits connus et c'est
l'anonyme auteur de ce premier modèle qui est le premier praticien du
système de la pecia à Paris; Thomas n'en est que le premier témoin connu. Le
système ayant été importé d'Italie du Nord peu de temps auparavant29.
Ce résumé simplifie outrageusement les divers aspects de la démarche,
tant celle de Simon et Shooner, que celle de Boyle (notamment en ce qui

28 À l'époque où il a composé son texte, Boyle ne pouvait encore connaître la pas-

sionnante étude de P.-M. GILS, «S. Thomas écrivain», éd. Léonine, t. 50, 1992,
p. 175-209, mais les accidents qu'il décrit correspondent exactement à ceux que Gils a
constatés lui-même; à défaut d'avoir ce gros volume sous la main, on pourra voir
notre résumé: Initiation, p. 136-137 (trad. anglaise: p. 93-95), avec quelques indica-
tions bibliographiques supplémentaires.
29 Dans le même courrier dont j'ai parlé ci-dessus, le P. Bataillon me
fait savoir
qu'à son avis ce commentaire d'Albert n'a jamais fait l'objet d'une mise en exemplar
comme on en connaîtra par la suite; quelqu'un aura simplement numéroté ces cahiers
en les appelant pecia, mais c'était un procédé «tout à fait banal»; il pense qu'il y
aurait encore lieu de vérifier sur le manuscrit de Naples «s'il y a une différence
d'encre et de parchemin entre les différents éléments, ce qui permettrait peut-être de
savoir où le texte a été écrit». Le P. Adriano Oliva, qui s'intéresse de très près à ce
manuscrit pour son propre travail, partage le même point de vue et me communique
que le Pr. R. Wielockx a déjà procédé aux vérifications souhaitées par le P. Bataillon;
il me fait connaître aussi très généreusement toute une série de précieuses observa-
tions à propos de ce manuscrit, mais on comprendra que je ne puisse en dévoiler le
détail sans anticiper sur la publication des résultats de sa propre recherche. - Pour en
savoir davantage sur la pecia, on pourra consulter: La production du livre universi-
taire au Moyen Âge. Exemplar et Pecia, Actes du Symposium tenu au Collegium San
Bonaventura de Grottaferrata en mai 1983, Textes réunis par L.-J. BATAILLON, B.-G.
GUYOT, R.H. ROUSE, C.N.R.S, Paris, 1988.
XXX J.-P. TORRELL

concerne les copies faites à partir de l'exemplar); mais nous pouvons nous
dispenser de la suivre pas à pas puisqu'on en trouvera le détail ci-dessous. On
y trouvera aussi d'ailleurs l'histoire mouvementée du manuscrit de Naples
d'où provient le fragment étudié et, naturellement, tous les tableaux
comparatifs qui permettent d'étayer la conclusion - qui montrent éloquem-
ment que Boyle ne s'est pas fié à son intuition et a pratiqué some homework,
comme il disait plaisamment. La démonstration est minutieuse et ardue et
demande toute l'attention du lecteur, mais on ne peut s'empêcher d'admirer
l'incomparable brio de l'auteur et de penser qu'il y a pris autant, et sinon plus,
de plaisir que de peine. Il faudrait être soi-même très versé en ces matières
pour intervenir dans cette discussion entre trois spécialistes de très haut
niveau. Précisons seulement pour l'information du non spécialiste, qui aurait
quelque mal à voir l'enjeu de la recherche, que rien de ce que l'on savait de
certain concernant la date et le lieu de composition du commentaire d'Albert
ne s'en trouve modifié fondamentalement. Il s'agissait simplement de ne pas
« attribuer à César » ce qui ne lui appartient pas30. Si des recherches
complémentaires devaient partiellement infirmer certaines des conclusions de
Boyle, il lui resterait le mérite inaliénable d'avoir déchiffré et publié ce
fragment inédit du reliquaire de Salemo.

8. SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE

Ceux qui ont eu le privilège d'assister à la conférence que le P. Boyle a

donné à l'intention de ses confrères dominicains à Chicago, à Pâques 1999, en
ont gardé un souvenir très fort. Ce vieil homme fatigué, éprouvé par la
maladie, parlait de son expérience personnelle de la vie d'étude à l'école de
saint Thomas, comme s'il allait de soi que l'entrée dans le futur du troisième
millénaire ne pouvait se concevoir que dans une profonde continuité avec le
passé, et plus précisément avec le XIIl 0 siècle. Quelque chose de cette impres-

30 Critique exigeant, C. VANSTEENKJSTE s'est déclaré convaincu par la démons-

tration de Boyle et il formule deux remarques dont nous pouvons faire notre profit:
c'est la première fois que ce fragment de Salemo a été étudié avec autant de soin;
cette étude est aussi une contribution importante à la tradition manuscrite de cette
œuvre d'Albert et elle apporte quelques améliorations à l'édition de Cologne; cf.
Rassegna di lett. tom. 27 (1994), n° 28, p. 19.
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT XXXI

sion se ressent encore à la lecture, même à travers la traduction française; il

est donc heureux que le présent volume s'achève par ce texte, car non
seulement on y retrouve nombre de thèmes déjà rencontrés, mais surtout il est
possible de le considérer un peu comme le testament spirituel de notre ami31 _
À la vérité, il faut dépasser la première page! Si l'on ne savait que
l'auteur en est celui qui a produit la splendide analyse de l'autographe de
Salemo, cette captatio benevolentiae aurait de quoi indisposer. Très rapide-
ment pourtant, sans cesser d'être familier, le ton change et l'exposé rappelle à
grands traits la vocation intellectuelle de l'ordre dominicain et son utilité au
service de la cura animarum. On perçoit alors la profonde unité qui régissait
la vie, la pensée et les travaux de ce chercheur éminent. Frère dominicain,
comme Thomas d'Aquin, sa vocation religieuse ne faisait pas nombre avec sa
vocation intellectuelle, et il se plaît à citer Humbert de Romans (quatrième
maître de l'ordre après saint Dominique), le premier auteur d'un exposé
d'ensemble de la vie dominicaine, selon qui «l'étude appartient à notre
profession de religieux». Ce que confirme Thomas d'Aquin à la même
époque, pour qui son ordre est tout entier une societas studii: « Il y a des
religieux dont, par les Constitutions de leur ordre, l'enseignement est le but».
Ces deux citations suffisent à montrer que malgré la simplicité de
l'expression, Boyle n'oublie pas de référencer son propos (que l'on jette un
regard sur ses notes!). Il l'oublie si peu qu'il revient une nouvelle fois à sa
grande découverte: le XIIIe siècle n'a pas été seulement un grand siècle
intellectuel, il a été aussi « le premier siècle de la vie de l'Église dans lequel
une sensibilité générale au souci pastoral se soit manifestée ». Et si on lui
objecte que la partie de la Bulle Cum qui recipit d'Honorius III (qui, en 1221,
confie aux dominicains la mission de confesser et de conseiller) risque de
n'être pas authentique3 2 , il réplique non seulement par la pratique même de
l'ordre, mais aussi par la justification qu'en donnent ses maîtres à penser.
Dans une formule qui semble reprendre Cum qui recipit, Humbert de Romans
allie prédication et confession en soulignant que « le fruit de la prédication est
recueilli en confessant et en conseillant ». Thomas lui fait écho en se
rapportant plutôt à Latran IV, mais de façon tout aussi claire il montre qu'il
était possible d'instituer un ordre dont la mission serait de coopérer avec les

31 Il n'en dit rien, mais il est fort peu probable qu'il ait lui-même choisi ce titre;
signalons que la version anglaise de ce texte est publié par le P.I.M.S., Toronto.
32 Cf. S. TUGWELL, «Notes on the Life of St Dominic », Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum 65 (1995), p. 46, note 67.
xxxii J.-P. TORRELL

pasteurs des différents diocèses « en vue de la prédication et de la

confession » et que, de fait, un tel ordre a été « institué pour ces deux tâches,
comme on peut s'en apercevoir du fait même de son nom». Nous sommes
bien dans le prolongement des études que nous avons lues précédemment et
Boyle reste fidèle à l'originalité de son intuition quand il répète ici que
« Thomas est sans aucun doute le plus grand représentant de la tradition
dominicaine de formation pastorale des frères ».
Ce résumé ne vise pas à remplacer la lecture de ces pages; j'aimerais
cependant attirer l'attention sur deux points particuliers. Tout d'abord la
manière dont Boyle caractérise la vie de chercheur de Thomas d'Aquin:
« Societas studii: non pour soi-même mais au service de la cura
animarum. Pour ceux qui étudient Aristote, Avicenne, Averroès et tous les
autres grands penseurs commentés ou utilisés par Thomas, cette approche
est quelque chose de difficile à accepter. Il est moins déconcertant pour
eux de considérer que Thomas fonctionne sur deux plans: d'un côté, c'est
un splendide penseur indépendant; de l'autre, il reconnaît de temps en
temps, pendant les week-ends peut-être, l'existence d'un souci pastoral
sous une forme ou une autre. Il est pourtant plus facile de le voir comme il
était réellement: un théologien qui, dans tout ce qu'il touchait, d'Aristote
et Platon à Maïmonide et au Pseudo-Denys, avait toujours à l'esprit la
cura animarum et les deux fins de l'ordre» (p. 635).
Dans leur sobriété voulue, ces quelques lignes restent importantes et
actuelles; elles traduisent une conviction partout présente dans les études ici
rassemblées: Thomas est avant tout un théologien. Alors que nous sortons à
peine d'une époque où le. néothomisme avait accrédité l'idée qu'il était avant
tout un philm;ophe, cette prise de position appuyée sur les sources était plus
originale qu'il ne semble aujourd'hui, où sans nier, bien sûr, son incontestable
qualité de philosophe, on reconnaît de plus en plus largement que ce n'est pas
elle qui caractérise d'abord le Maître d'Aquin. Ces lignes sont encore précieu-
ses, car elles n'expriment pas seulement la façon dont Thomas concevait sa
tâche, mais du même coup, au moins dans l'idéal, la vocation propre de Boyle
lui-même et celle de ses confrères33.

33 On ne peut qu'être frappé de constater qu'un autre savant récemment disparu

s'exprimait de même à propos de l'intention de Thomas, commentateur d'Aristote, et
de son souci apostolique; cf. R.-A. GAUTHIER, « Introduction» à la Sentencia libri de
Anima, éd. Léon., t. 45/1, p. 288*-294*; à défaut de ce volume, on pourra voir ce que
 LIRE SAINT THOMAS AUTREMENT xxxm

L'autre chose qu'il ne faut pas manquer à la lecture de ces pages, c'est ce
que signifie l'évocation de l'épisode de la Samaritaine narré dans le quatrième
évangile (Jn 4, 1-42), souvenir que Boyle tient de ses enfances dominicaines
et de la première lecture qu'il fit alors du commentaire de Thomas sur ce
passage. Il voit dans l'urbanité avec laquelle Jésus s'adresse à cette femme,
pourtant étrangère et pécheresse, le paradigme de tous les prêcheurs et
enseignants du monde dans leur façon de transmettre la Parole de Dieu. Plus
encore, c'est la Samaritaine, première apôtre non juive connue, qui est elle-
même le modèle de l'apôtre, et plus spécifiquement de l'apôtre dominicain:
dès qu'elle a compris ce que Jésus veut dire, elle se précipite pour apporter la
Bonne Nouvelle à ses compatriotes. Le moment où elle fait cela a son
importance: «Elle n'est pas partie la tête la première. Elle a attendu d'avoir
entendu Jésus. En d'autres termes, avant de se précipiter pour communiquer,
on doit avoir quelque chose à communiquer ».
On reconnaît ici l'à-propos de Thomas, qui sait si bien retrouver partout
l'idéal de son ordre: contemplari et contemplata aliis tradere. À sa suite,
Boyle souligne que la Samaritaine est aussi le modèle de l'apôtre en son
instrumentalité, si l'on peut dire: elle appelle les autres, non à soi, mais au
Christ. Mais il y a plus. Quand il revient en finale sur la manière dont
s'achève l'épisode évangélique (ce n'est plus sur l'annonce de la femme que
croient les samaritains, mais bien sur le dire même de Jésus), Boyle sans le
dire dépasse le commentaire de Thomas et donne sa propre interprétation de la
scène: «C'est vraiment le destin de l'apôtre ou de l'enseignant de parvenir à
ce point d'inutilité où il en voit d'autres semer et moissonner de nouveau sur
le terrain où lui-même a une première fois semé et abondamment moisson-
né». Simple fait d'expérience, pensera-t-on. Peut-être. Seulement, lorsque
l'auteur insiste dans la même page sur le fait que la Samaritaine est
« brutalement repoussée » par les siens et que, « trop souvent nous soyons
apparemment rejetés ... comme la Samaritaine», et quand il continue à la
page suivante en cherchant dans la biographie de Thomas lui-même (avec peu
de vraisemblance, craignons-nous) le moment où« en pleine euphorie, le vent
froid de la vérité le jeta à terre», serait-ce trop s'avancer que de voir là une
discrète allusion à l'épisode douloureux qui attrista les dernières années de sa
vie? ...

nous en disons: Initiation à S. Thomas d'Aquin, p. 347-350 (trad. anglaise: p. 236-

239).
xxxiv J.-P. TORRELL

*****

L'observateu r attentif qui aura accepté de nous suivre dans la brève

présentation de ces quelques travaux de Leonard Boyle n'aura guère besoin
d'une conclusion très développée. Il aura pu constater avec nous que ces
études n'ont effectivement rien de marginal. La maestria avec laquelle il met
en œuvre les différents aspects d'une méthode bien rôdée pour l'étude des
textes médiévaux aurait suffi à elle seule à justifier leur reprise en un volume.
Non seulement leur qualité les fait émerger très au-dessus de nombreux autres
travaux, mais certaines d'entre elles touchent aux questions les plus graves
quant au sens de l'œuvre thomasienne, de la mission et de la spiritualité de
0
l'ordre dominicain, et même quant à la vision d'ensemble du XIII siècle
religieux tout entier. En raison même de leur date, certains de ces travaux
appelaient quelques compléments; bien que ce n'en fût pas le lieu, d'autres
méritaient quelque discussion; la plupart pourtant suscitent l'assentiment , et
tous éveillent la gratitude, car par la générosité de son travail Boyle a
sensiblement renouvelé les questions qu'il a touchées. Quiconque voudra bien
porter à sa recherche l'attention qu'elle mérite devra reconnaître avec nous
qu'il nous fait découvrir un saint Thomas« différent».
 LEONARD E. BOYLE, 0.P.

THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS

In a well-know n article of 19581, the late Fr 1. T. Eschmann, O.P., dis-

cussed the two main texts in the writings of St Thomas which deal with the
relations between the "spiritual" and "temporal" powers. The first (S) is at the
end of Book Two of the Scriptum super sententiis2. The second (R) is in Book
One, c. 14 of the opusculum De regno ad regem Cipri, also called, though Jess
correctly, De regimine principum3. In Fr Eschmann' s opinion, "The two texts
do not present an identity of views nor such a similarity as could easily be
synthesized . Rather they are contradicto ry" (177); Texts S and R are contra-
dictory in doctrine as well as method. They a!so originate in differing and
conflicting schools of thought" (182).

1 I. T. ESCHMANN, "St. Thomas Aquinas

on the Two Powers", in Mediaeval
Studies 20 (1958), 177-205. ln the present essay page-references to this article are
given in brackets immediately after citations from Eschmann.
2 2 D 44, q. 2 a. 3, expositio textus:
S. Thomae Aquinatis Scriptum super senten-
tiis, II, ed. P. MANDONNET (Paris, 1929), pp. 1135-6.
3 This writing, which is attributed to St Thomas by the earliest catalogues of his
works, is incomplete and seems to belong to the years 1265-1267. It is generally
agreed that the De regno in its incomplete form consisted of 21 chapters, ending at
Book Two c. 4 as found in ·modern editions; the remainder is probably the work of
Ptolomy of Lucca (ob. 1327). The "Vulgate" text of the work, which Eschmann uses,
is that in various editions of the Opera omnia of St Thomas, e.g., Roman edition, 1,
pp. 160v-168v; Parma edition, XVI, pp. 225-291; Vivès edition, XXVII, pp. 336-412.
The same "Vulgate" text is also to be found in P. MANDONNET, Opuscula omnia S.
Thomae (Paris, 1927), 1, pp. 312-487; J. MATHIS, S. Thomae Aquinatis De Regimine
Principum et De Regimine Judaeorum politica opuscula duo (Turin, 1948). A fresh,
but interim, edition is in S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia necnon Minora, ed. J.
PERRIER, I (Paris, 1949), pp. 221-267. An English translation, with valuable introduc-
tion, notes, and textual appendices, is to be found in G. B. PHELAN and I. T.
ESCHMANN, St. Thomas Aquinas On Kingship to the King of Cyprus (Toronto, 1949).
The text followed in this essay is the "Vulgate" text used by Eschmann in his arti-
cle. The Perrier edition, which uses four Paris MSS., numbers the chapters differently
to that of the "Vulgate" edition. Thus 1 c. 14 of the "Vulgate" is I c. 15 in Perrier.
2 L. BOYLE

For Eschmann (and he shows this at some length), the Scriptum "recalls
to mind the dualistic thesis of some 12th and 13th century canonists" (183).
The roots of this thesis lie in a letter of pope Gelasius in 494 to the emperor
Anastasius4, an extract from which was celebrated in the middle ages as the
canon Duo quippe sunt potestates in the Decretum of Gratian (D96 C10)5 .
Broadly speaking, and as described by Fr Eschmann, advocates of the dualis-
tic thesis held that "spiritual and secular powers are not derivative but original
imperia. They are like first causes, each autonomous in its own order, the
spiritual power in the things belonging to the salvation of souls, the political
power in things concerning the civil good" (178). If, in a given case, e.g., the
popes of the time of St Thomas, the two powers are found in one person, they
still remain "formally distinct" though "materially united". "Not one but two
specifically different competences and jurisdictions are attributed to the pope"
in such circumstances, and "these two are not reduced one to the other" (178-
9).
The De regno, on the other hand, "contradicts" the Scriptum "exactly at
this point", since it holds, according to Eschmann, that "the pope has one
power only: the spiritual power", which, of its nature, "includes secular
power" (179). In a word, the De regno, contrary to the Scriptum, "brings
about a formal reductio ad unum by formally subsuming secular power under
spiritual power, especially the papal power" (ibid.). For the Scriptum, "the
pope as pope, i.e. as spiritual sovereign and head of the Church, has no politi-
cal power whatsoever" (ibid.). For the De regno, however, "supreme political
power is given him by reason ofhis spiritual primacy" (180).
Fr Eschmann, then, sees the De regno as a prime example of "theological
Gregorianism", the fundamental principle of which, in Fr Eschmann's words,
"Is that both potestas sacerdotalis and potestas saecularis are found within
the one church, which therefore emerges as the one super-comprehensive
society" (192). it is, moreover, the only work of St Thomas in which there is
"any trace of that curious theology of the Primacy which includes secular
power in its essence and appeals to a certain christological materialism for its
support" (189). Having compared the De regno text on the two powers with
that of the Scriptum, Eschmann is inevitably persuaded to question the very
authenticity of the De regno as a work of St Thomas, because of "the pres-

4 Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, ed. A. THIEL, I (Braunsberg, 1868), pp. 349-

58.
5 Corpus iuris canonici, ed. A FRIEDBERG (Leipzig, 1879-1881), I, cols. 340-1.
 THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS 3

ence, in works of an author of the stature of St Thomas, of two texts belong-

ing to different worlds" (195).

***

Now, in all of this Eschmann confines himself to c. 14 of Book One of

De regno. He does not use any other chapter, nor does he situate that chapter
in relation to the chapters that precede or follow it. Further, he presents the
Scriptum and De regno passages as though they were speaking of precisely
the same subject. Yet, unlike the Scriptum, where the problem is one of con-
flicting obediences (spiritual and secular), the subject of c. 14 of De regno is
the precise limits of secular or royal power. Spiritual or papal power is dis-
cussed only in order to establish these limits and to highlight the "intrinsic
end" of secular power or kingship.
In c. 12 of De regno the author had outlined the office of kings, ending
with the striking statement, "Hoc igitur officium rex se suscepisse cognoscat,
ut sil in regno sicut in corpore anima et sicut Deus in mundo 1'6. In c. 13 he
explains just what he meant by that statement, saying that a king is like Godin
that he "creates", "produces", "provides", "govems". Does this mean, the
author then asks, that, like God, the king has complete power over his king-
dom and, in particular, over any and every end of his kingdom? Not at all, he
explains in c. 14 (the crucial chapter). For although it is true that "ad ornnes
reges pertinet gubematio et a gubemationis regimine regis nomen accipitur"
(c. 13), this only applies to the "intrinsic end" of the kingdom.
For the kingdom also has an "extrinsic end": "Sed est quoddam bonum
extrinsecum homini quamdiu mortaliter vivit, scilicet ultima beatitudo quae in
fruitione Dei expectatur post mortem"7. This "ultima beatitudo" belongs to
Christ. The king's rule does not embrace that "divine kingdom". For the office
of bringing man to the "ultima beatitudo" or final end is not confided to kings
or princes (that would be to confuse the intrinsic and extrinsic ends of society,
the spiritual with the temporal) but rather to the priests, the representatives of

6 Ed. PERRIER, par. 40. Chapters 12-15 in the Vulgate edition are cc. 13-16 in that
of Perrier.
7 PERRIER, par. 44, reads "extrinsecum" where the "Vulgate" and other editions
read "extraneum".
4 L. BOYLE

Christ. In particular this office is entrusted to the Roman Pontiff in as much as

he is, by the authority of Christ, the supreme ruler of the kingdom of Christ
and the supreme earthly guardian of the final end of man. Where the ministry
of this kingdom of Christ is concemed, even the kings of Christian peoples are
subject to the pope as to Christ, and must obey his rule:
Huius ergo regni [Christi] ministerium, ut a terrenis spiritualia es-
sent distincta, non terrenis regibus sed sacerdotibus est commissum,
et praecipue summo sacerdoti, successori Petri, Christi vicario, ro-
mano pontifici, cui omnes reges populi christiani oportet esse sub-
ditos sieut ipsi Domino Iesu Christo8.
In Fr Eschmann's view, this passage in the De regno gives "supreme po-
litical power" to the pope "precisely by reason ofhis spiritual primacy" (180).
It is difficult to see how the text can bear this interpretation. For the passage
above never suggests that popes have political power, whether direct or indi-
rect, much less that "secular power is, subsumed under spiritual power, espe-
cially the papal power" (179). Moreover, it is already clear from c. 13, which
Eschmann does not cite, that temporal well-being (the intrinsic end of a king-
dom) is the preserve of the ruler (secular power) and of no one else. The point
that is made directly in c. 14 of the De regno, and precisely in the text above,
is that spiritual power, the "divine kingdom", does not belong to kings but to
priests: "Huius ergo regni ministerium ... ". lfthe kings ofChristendom are said
by De regno to be subject to the pope as to Christ, this is only in terms of the
spiritual regimen committed by Christ to the priesthood and, in particular, to
the pope. Kings and princes have to obey the pope and be guided by him
whenever there is question of the relationship of the intrinsic end which they
control to the extrinsic end, salvation, which is not under their control.
A philosophical justification of this conclusion is advanced by the author
of De regno immediately after the passage ("Huius ergo regni ministerium ...
sicut ipsi Domino Iesu Christo") quoted above:
Sic enim ei ad quem finis ultimi cura pertinet subdi debent illi ad
quos pertinet cura antecedentium finium, et eius imperio dirigi9.

8 PERRIER, par. 46, reads, probably correctly, "Huiusmodi" for "Huius".

9 PERRIER, par. 46, has a slightly different word-order for the opening phrase: "Sic
enim ei ad quem ultimi finis pertinet cura".
 THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS 5

For Fr Eschmann, this brings about a formal reductio ad unum by for-

mally subsuming secular power under spiritual power' (179). He strongly
objects to the principle, as he also does forcefully (197) to another statement
of the same principle in the preceding paragraph of De regno:
Semper enim invenitur ille ad quem pertinet ultimus finis imperare
operantibus ea quae ad ultimum finem ordinantur; sicut gubemator
ad quem pertinet navigationem disponere imperat ei qui navem
constituit qualem navem navigationi aptam facere debeat!O ...
According to Fr Eschmann, the author's practical conclusion from this
principle and the shipbuilding example is that "all kings in Christendom must
obey the pope" - a conclusion which, Eschmann says, "begs the question, for
the captain has no authority over the shipbuilder in the sense of' what St
Thomas would call the ordo praelationis, in virtue of' which obligation and
subjection is constituted" (197).
The only difficulty is that the "practical conclusion" is Fr Eschmann's,
not that of the author of the De regno. For the De regno does not conclude
from the principle invoked that the shipbuilder (king) is "obliged and subject
to" the captain (pope) in an ordo praelationis, as though his whole existence
sprang from and was "subsumed under" the authority of the captain. The
shipbuilder is subject to the captain precisely in as much as the ship he builds
(finis antecedens) must be fit for sailing (finis ultimus). This in no way makes
him dependent upon the captain for his very existence ("reductio ad unum"),
no more than it implies that the captain builds ships or "makes" shipbuilders.
Like the captain, the spiritual power (the pope), and no other power, has
charge of the final end of man, salvation. Like the shipbuilder, the secular
power (kings) has to obey the spiritual power in all that involves that final
end. But this leaves kings in complete charge of the well-being of their own
kingdoms (antecedent end).
Contrary to what Fr Eschmann proposes, there is nothing of Theological
Gregorianism' here. Rather there is the simple, unadomed Gelasian "dualism"
which Fr Eschmann finds so clearly in the Scriptum. A king, the De regno
holds, rules over his kingdom as a priest (pope) rules over the kingdom of
God; but he is subject to the priest (pope) whenever there is question of the
"dominium et regimen quod administratur per sacerdotis officium" (c. 15),

IO PERRJER, par. 45, reads "ea quae in finem ordinantur ultimum" instead of "ea
quae ad ultimum finem ordinantur".
6 L. BOYLE

that is, the salvation of souls, the end or good that is extrinsic to that of the
secular power. As pope Gelasius put it in his famous letter to the emperor
Anastasius in 494:
Duo quippe sunt, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic re-
gitur: auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas. In quibus tanto
gravius est pondus sacerdotum quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in
divino reddituri sunt examine rationem.
Nosti [etenim, fili clementissime, quod licet praesideas humano generi
dignitate, rerum tamen praesulibus divinarum devotus colla submittis
atque ab eis causas tuae salutis expectas inque sumendis coelestibus
sacramentis eisque ut competit disponendis, subdi te debere cognoscis re-
ligionis ordini potius quam praeesse,} itaque inter haec ex illorum te
pendere iudicio non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem 11.
If further proof were needed of just how Gelasian the De regno is, then
one can turn to the beginning of the next chapter (c. 15) of the De regno and
to a passage which Eschmann never quotes. There it is stated clearly, and in
the best dualistic tradition, that the spiritual and temporal powers are distinct
juridical entities:
Si igitur, ut dictum est, qui de ultimo fine curam habet praeesse de-
bet his qui curam habent de ordinatis ad finem et eos dirigere sua
imperio, manifestum ex dictis fit quod rex sicut dominio et regimini
quod administratur per sacerdotis officium subdi debet, ita praeesse
debet omnibus humanis officiis et ea imperio sui regiminis ordi-
narel 2.
In a word, kings rule as directly over their own kingdoms as priests over
the kingdom of God. The two powers, spiritual and temporal, are so in com-
mand of their own separate spheres that the same terminology is applied in
each case in the De regno. If the spiritual power "praeesse debet" and is

11 This is the first part of par. 2 of the letter of Gelasius as edited by Thiel, op. cit.,
pp. 350-1. The version in Gratian, D96 clO, has the opening sentences, "Duo quippe
sunt ... examine rationem", but then jumps ("Et post pauca") from "Nosti" to "itaque
inter haec ex illorum te pendere iudicio non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem".
The remainder of the text in Gratian is not that of Gelasius but of Gregory VII.
12 For "rex sicut dominio et regimini ... subdi debet", PERRIER, par. 48, reads "rex,
sicut Domino, regimini ... subdi debet". For other readings (e.g. "rex sicut divino
regimini") see PHELAN and ESCHMANN, Kingship, p. 88.
 THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS 7

entitled to "dirigere suo imperio", so also the secular power "praeesse debet"
and has the right to "imperio sui regiminis ordinare".
Again the principle invoked twice in c. 14 is present in c. 15: "qui de ul-
timo fine curam habet praeesse debet his qui curam habent de ordinatis ad
finem et eos dirigere suo imperio". This principle, which Eschmann called
"the comerstone of the construction" of c. 14, is depicted by Eschmann (182)
as formally denoting that the ends of the spiritual and secular powers "are
subordinated perse". Later (197), arguing that the conclusion drawn by De
regno "begs the question", he approves of Bellarmine's insight when he "dis-
creetly suggested that the general notion of architektonike, taken from Eth. I,
l 894a 10, be replaced by the more specific politike of Eth. I, 1094a 27". For
Eschmann, convinced as he was that the De regno was using the architectonie
principle to bolster an hierocratic argument, "The ail too general idea of an
architectonie art will not carry the argument one step ahead ... The Aristotelian
polis must first be transformed into the respublica christiana, then Aristote-
lian principles will be applicable. St. Bellarmine has shown with refreshing
clarity and vigour how an hierocratic argument should be constructed so as to
be at least formally correct" (197-8) 13.
The plain fact is, however, that Bellarmine simply had to change from
architectonice to politike so as to tum what the De regno I. 14 had to say into
a "hierocratic argument". For (as Bellarmine seems to have recognized), De
regno I. 14 is anything but hierocratic. If it were, and if the Aristotelian prin-
ciple invoked in cc. 14 and 15 were meant to prove an absolute subordination
of the secular to the spiritual power, then it is curious that the conclusion from
that principle in c. 15 is that the secular power is an independent juridical
entity.
In fine, the "ail too general idea of an architectonie art" was used delib-
erately by the author of the De regno for the very good reason that he was not

13 R. BELLARMINE, De summo pontifice 5.7, in Bellarmini Opera omnia, 1 (Naples

1856), p. 532 b: "Prima ratio eiusmodi est. Potestas civilis subjecta est potestati
spirituali, quando utraque pars est ejusdem reipublicae christianae; ergo potest prin-
ceps spiritualis imperare principibus temporalibus, et disponere de temporalibus rebus
ad bonum spirituale: omnis enim superior imperare potest inferiori suo". While not
questioning Eschrnann's version of Bellarmine, 1 must point out that most of the
Bellarmine argument here, if it depends in any way on De regno, does not reflect De
regno 1.14 but rather Book Three. See next note.
8 L. BOYLE

advancing an hierocratic argument. Had he resorted, as Bellarmine did, to the

politike notion, then of necessity he would have arrived at a conclusion which
he did not hold and which, 1 may venture to suggest, Bellarmine saw that he
did not hold and therefore changed, brilliantly perhaps, to suit his own "hiero-
cratic" purposel4.

***

If Bellarmine, unlike Eschmann, saw the real, untheocratic thrust of the

architectonie argument as deployed by the De regno, so also did John of Paris,
that celebrated proponent of dualism at the beginning of the fourteenth cen-
tury.
Eschmann mentions John of Paris once or twice, but apparently without
realizing just how much of cc. 14 and 15 of the De regno was taken over by
John in his De potestate regia et papali (1302-1303)15. Commenting on the
principle invoked by the De regno, "Semper enim invenitur ille ad quem

14 It is surely significant (though Eschmann does not mention it) that when Bel-
larmine cites De regno I.14 and the architectonie argument there, all that he is able to
conclude is that the passage teaches a simple dualism: "Sic igitur loquitur Lib. 1. c. 14:
Huius ergo regni ... et eius imperio dirigi. Haec ille. Qui clarissime distinguit regna
terrena, quae habent pro fine pacem temporalem, a regno spirituali Christi et eius
vicarii, quod pro fine habet vitam aeternam" (De summo pontifice, 5.5: ed cit., p.
530a). To support his own moderately theocratic position, Bellarmine turns at once,
after this unexceptionable comment, to Book Three of De regno, the work, probably,
of the ultra-theocrat Ptolomy of Lucca. Citing De regno III, cc. 13 and 15, Bellarmine
comments: "Haec ille; quibus verbis significat Christum habuisse quidem dominium
temporale totius mundi, sed indirecte; directe autem solum dominium spirituale". He
then goes on to discuss III. c. 19, and to mitigate an ultra-theocratic statement there
and in III. c. 1O.
15 This work bas had two recent editions: J. LECLERCQ, Jean de Paris et l'ecclési-
ologie du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1942), pp. 168-260, and F. BLEIENSTEIN, Johannes
Quidort von Paris Über konigliche und pi:ipstliche Gewalt. Textkritische Edition mit
deutschen Uebersetzung (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 67-352. There is an English translation
by J. WATT, John of Paris on Royal and Papal Power (Toronto, 1971 ). A section in
Leclercq's introduction gives most but not all of the borrowings from the De regno in
John of Paris (pp. 35-6). Bleienstein does not note any borrowings, nor does Watt.
 THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS 9

pertinet ultimus finis imperare operantibus ea quae ad ultimum finem ordi-

nantur", Eschmann notes (182) that "imperare" has "a jurisdictional sense".
Then in a long footnote to "imperare" (181 n. 18) he states that John of Paris
simply suppressed "the embarrassing authority" of the De regno "on this
point", for on "p. 178.30 ofLeclercq's edition" of John of Paris "a long quota-
tion of De regno 1.14 is suddenly eut short" just before the architectonie
principle is introduced.
Now it is true that John of Paris breaks off his quotation from the De
regno I. 14 in c. 2 of the De potestate just before the phrase, "Semper enim
invenitur ille ... ", which precedes the example of the captain and the ship-·
builder. But Eschmann nowhere notes that John of Paris explicitly retums
later in c. 5 to that very same "embarrassing authority":
Ex praedictis patet de facili quid sit prius dignitate regnum vel sa-
cerdotium ... Et ideo dicimus potestatem sacerdotalem maiorem
esse potestate regali et ipsam praecellere dignitate, quia hoc semper
reperimus quod il/ud ad quod pertinet ultimus finis perfectius est et
melius et dirigat illud ad quod pertinet inferior finis16. [De regno
1.14: "Semper enim invenitur ille ad quem pertinet ultimus finis im-
perare operantibus ea quae ad ultimum finem ordinantur"].
Although John of Paris does not reproduce the De regno text word for
word, it does seem clear that he had the passage in question before him, and
has taken over from there the architectonie principle which Eschmann implies
he avoided.
lt must be admitted, however, that the "imperare" of De regno, which
according to Eschmann has a jurisdictional sense, has been replaced by John
of Paris with the seemingly milder "dirigere". But, in fact, John of Paris is
simply following the usage of the De regno itself, and for reasons which we
shall see later. It is true that the De regno uses "imperare" in the example of
the captain and the shipbuilder from which the above quotation ("Semper
enim invenitur ... ") cornes, but when it cites the same principle a few sen-
tences later in relation to the spiritual power and the pope, it uses "imperio
dirigi" instead: "Sic enim ei ad quem finis ultimi cura pertinet subdi debent illi
ad quos pertinet cura antecedentium finium, et eius imperio dirigi". Again,
when in c. 15 the De regno speaks of the independent spheres of spiritual and
secular power, "praeesse" and "imperio dirigere" are used in place of "impe-

16 De potestate, c. V: ed. LECLERCQ, p. 183; ed. BLEIENSTEIN, p. 87.

10 L. BOYLE

rare" - and, significantly, in respect of both powers: "Si igitur, ut dictum est,
qui de ultimo fine curam habet, praeesse debet his qui curam habet de ordina-
tis ad finem et eos dirigere sua imperio, manifestum ex dictis fit quod rex,
sicut dominio et regimini quod administratur per sacerdotis officium subdi
debet, ita praeesse debet omnibus humanis officiis et ea imperio sui regiminis
ordinare".
John of Paris, then, by using "dirigere" instead of "imperare", is follow-
ing the terminology employed by the De regno itself. Far from rejecting the
architectonie principle and its application, as anyone who has read Fr Esch-
mann might expect of a forthright proponent of the "dualistic" system, John of
Paris accepts it, and indeed uses it to show, as the De regno does, that in the
spiritual order, where the relationship is that of final end to "inferior" end, the
spiritual power is not only over and above but also directs ("dirigit") the
secular power.
As it happens (and this, again, is a point that Fr Eschmann overlooks), it
is John of Paris himself who states very clearly what is meant by "imperare"
and "imperio eius dirigi" and who provides an answer to Fr Eschmann's blank
assertion that "imperare" has a jurisdictional sense". For among the many
hierocratic arguments that John of Paris lists ("Nunc videndum est quibus
innitantur fundamentis qui dicunt sacerdotes et praecipue papam habere
potestatem primariam et ipsam a summo pontifice derivare ad principem") 17,
there is one that arrives at a hierocratic conclusion exactly in the same way
that Fr Eschmann draws a hierocratic conclusion from the architectonie argu-
ment of the De regno:
[23] Item idem arguunt ex ordine finium. In artibus enim ordinatis
ars ad quem pertinet ultimus et principalis finis imperat aliis artibus
ad quas pertinent fines secundarii. Sed saecularis potestas intendit
bonum multitudinis quod est vivere secundum virtutem ad quod
pervenire potest virtute naturae et eis quae huic adminiculantur.
Potestas autem spiritualis intendit bonum multitudinis supematu-
rale, scilicet aeternam beatitudinem et in ipsum dirigit. Finis autem
supematuralis potior est et principalior quolibet alio fine. Ergo
spiritualis potestas quae ministris ecclesiae collata est superior est

17 Ibid, c. XI: ed. LECLERCQ, p. 201; ed. BLEIENSTEIN, p. 118.

 THE DE REGNO AND THE TWO POWERS 11

non solum dignitate sed etiam causalitate saeculari et ei praecipit

qualiter debeat operari 18.
Of course, as was pointed out above, the De regno never arrives at a hi-
erocratic conclusion such as this. Again, it was also pointed out above that the
architectonie argument, which Eschmann (rightly) felt was too "limping" to
support the hierocratic position with which he credited the De regno, was
deliberately employed precisely because the author of the De regno was not
establishing a hierocratic thesis. Now John of Paris, who himselfhad used the
architectonie argument earlier, shows in his reply to the hierocratic argument
above just how the "ordo finium" is to be understood, and how one cannot
jump from the architectonie principle to a hierocratic conclusion:
Quod vero dicitur vigesimo tertio de ordine finium, respondeo:
multipliciter deficit. Primo, quia ars ad quam pertinet superior finis
movet et imperat artem ad quam pertinet finis inferior non quidem
simpliciter sed quantum ei competit ad necessitatem ultimi sui finis,
et hoc alignaliter est concessum superius in proposito. Amplius,
deficit quia ars illa superior non semper necessario imperat inferi-
ori movendo per modum auctoritatis et instituendo eam, sed solum
ei imperat per modum dirigentis19 ...
This, 1 submit, is sufficient to modify Fr Eschmann's unqualified asser-
tion that "The word imperare [in the De regno passage] must be understood in
the jurisdictional sense is evident from the text and context where the univo-
cally jurisdictional words: subdi, esse subjectum, subjacere, obedire, servire,
famulari, are frequently and emphatically used" (182). Certainly it does not
bear out his further assertion (181 n. 18) that "imperare" in the De regno
passage "has been so understood [i.e. in a jurisdictional sense] by all ancient
commentators". John of Paris, at least, saw a distinction between "imperare
per modum auctoritatis" and "imperare per modum dirigentis 11 20.

18 Ibid., c. IX: ed. LECLERCQ, p. 204; ed. BLEIENSTEIN, p. 121. For "et eis quae
huic adminiculantur" Bleienstein reads "et ea quae huic adminiculantur".
19 Ibid., c. XI: ed. LECLERCQ, pp. 226-7; ed. BLEIENSTEIN, p. 159.
20 It may be noted that in c. 15, when delineating the spheres of the two powers,
the De regno speaks of the superior (spiritual) power as being in a position to "diri-
gere suo imperio" when there is question of the final end of man; and it then goes on
to say that the secular power has a similar right to "imperio sui regiminis ordinare"
with respect own, human end. Eschmann does not cite the passage, but had he cited it
he would have had to explain why his "jurisdictional sense" of imperare (here "diri-
12 L. BOYLE

***

The teaching of the De regno, therefore, is not "Theological Gregorian-

ism" but that of undoubted dualists such as John of Paris (who, indeed, may
well have been combating those who, like Fr Eschmann, interpreted the work
as hierocratic, or who were adapting it, as Bellarmine would later do, for
hierocratic purposes). Further, the De regno is no more at variance with the
dualistic teaching of the Scriptum super sententiis of St Thomas than it is out
of hannony with the ("univocally jurisdictional"?) language of that font of
dualism, the Gelasian letter, with its "subdi debere" and, rather startlingly,
"colla submitti".
What, then, of the De regno as an authentic or non-authentic work of St
Thomas? In some brilliant pages (195-6 especially), Fr Eschmann advanced
the opinion that the De regno occasioned "mistrust", chiefly because De regno
1.14 "belonged to a different world" than that of the Scriptum. And in con-
cluding his article (204) he entered a resonant plea for the rejection of the De
regno: "On the foregoing pages St. Thomas' legacy in the matter of the two
powers, its native integrality, its substance and meaning, has been put on trial.
The defence submits the plea that the testimony of the De regno be rejected,
this witness not being reliable".
The present essay has suggested, on the other hand, that the De regno
text is as "dualistic" as the rest of St Thomas' "legacy on the two powers", and
it has called John of Paris, an ùnimpeachable dualist, to witness for the very
passage upon which the case for the "defence" rested. If it now respectfully
submits that the defence's plea be denied forthwith, it also expresses the
deepest regret (not unmingled with relief) that Fr Eschmann's massive schol-
arship is no longer with us to sweep the submission fraternally aside.

gere, ordinare, suo imperio") is not as applicable to the secular imperium as he claims
it is to the spiritual imperium.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE

AS THE NAME SUGGESTS, the Quodlibet or Quaestio de quolibet

was an open, "free for all," debate in which the questions discussed were not,
as in the Quaestio disputata, announced and specified beforehand, but were
put at random from the floor on the day of the debatel.
The procedure of the medieval quodlibetal disputation was first estab-
lished by P. Glorieux in bis pioneer work, La littérature quodlibétique, in
1925, and bis findings were later refined in articles over the next forty-five
years, as well as in bis second volume on La Littérature quodlibétique in
1935 2 . According to Glorieux, this type of unprepared public discussion first
came to be used at Paris in the Mendicants' schools, and probably during the
student strike of 1229-1231. From Paris it later spread to Oxford, Toulouse,
Cologne, and the Roman curia. Altogether some 356 Quodlibets are extant
from the Paris schools, and some Paris and Oxford masters, e. g., Henry of
Ghent, Geoffrey of Fontaines, and Roger Marston, became so enamoured of
the form that they made the Quodlibet their chief means of literary expres-
sion3.

1 "de quolibet ad voluntatem cuiuslibet," as the General of the Dominicans,

Hum-
bert de Romanis, put it in his Instructiones de officiis ordinis, c. 12, ed. J. J.
BERTHIER, Beati Humberti de Romanis Opera de Vita Regulari, II (Rome, 1889),
p. 260.
2 P. GLORlEUX, La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320, I (Kain, 1925),
pp. 11-95, II (Paris, 1935), pp. 9-50 "Le Quodlibet et ses procédés rédactionnels," in
Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 42 (1939), 61-93; "Où en est la question du Quodlibet?", in
Revue du moyen âge latin 2 (1946), 405-414.
3 P. GLORIEUX, "L'enseignement au moyen âge. Techniques et méthodes en usage
à la Faculté de Théologie de Paris au XIIIe siècle," in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et
littéraire du moyen âge 43 (1968), 65-186 at pp. 128-134. Quodlibets were not
confined to university circles but were common where the various orders of friars had
schools and at chapters of these orders: see L. MEIER, "Les disputes quodlibétiques
en-dehors des universités," in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 53 (1958) 401-442.
14 L. BOYLE

Like the more forma! Quaestio disputata, the Quodlibet was held under
the direction of a regent-master of the University, after whom the Quodlibet
was named ("Quodlibet Petri," "Quodlibet Thomae," etc.). It was held twice a
year, in Advent before Christmas and in Lent towards Easter, and seems to
have been designed to test both the bachelors who were preparing for the
degree of master and the regent-masters themselves. That the Quodlibet was a
rough test there can be no doubt, for only an exceptional bachelor would be
able to field without flinching a series of unpredictable questions from an
audience composed ofmasters, students, and visitors4.
Sorne modem authors, however, give the impression that the Quodlibet
was first and foremost a test of the regent-master, and that it was such a
formidable test that "many a master refused to risk himself at it, or felt satis-
fied when he had done so once in his career"5. There is possibly some exag-
geration here. For one thing, a Quodlibet involved two really distinct sessions,
a "Disputatio generalis de quolibet" and a "Determinatio de quolibet". In the
General Disputation the master's role was hardly more than that of referee,
immediate answers to questions from the floor being left to the Responsalis,
that is, to the bachelor who was being put through his paces in public. If the
regent-master entered at all into the discussion, it was probably only to stress
a point here or make more explicit a point there, in the replies of the Respon-
salis. Sometimes, indeed, the master might throw in a question himself, as
Robert Holcot certainly did in the early part of the 14th century: " In disputa-
tione generali de quolibet proponebantur a sociis decem questiones praeter
duas quas proposui ego ipse 11 6.
From the regent-master's point of view the second stage of the Quod-
libet, the "Determinatio de quolibet," was much more important. For if the
purpose of the General Disputation seems to have been to expose a bachelor
or bachelors to random questions from the audience, the scope of the Deter-
mination was to demonstrate to the bachelors and the master's immediate

4 For some examples, with names, of those who were bachelors or who submitted
objections at Quodlibets at Oxford, see A. G. LITTLE and F. PELSTER, Oxford Theol-
ogy and Theologians, c. A.D. 1282-1302 (Oxford, 1934), pp. 335-362.
5 M.-D. CHENU, Toward understanding St. Thomas, trans. A. M. LANDRY and W.
D. HUGHES (New York, 1964), p. 92.
6 Oxford, Balliol College, MS. 246, f. 257v. On the Quodlibets of Holcot, see
GLORIEUX, La littérature quodlibétique (henceforward cited as GLORIEUX, Littéra-
ture, I or II), II, pp. 258-261.
 THE QL'ODLIBETSOF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 15

students how best to handle these questions. What is more, the Determination
did not take place on the same day as the General Disputation but rather on
the day following or on the next teaching day, so the master had a chance in
the meantime to ponder the questions and to reduce them to some sort of
logical order. As James ofViterbo put it at a Determination in 1293-1295, "ln
disputatione de quolibet praehabita quaesita sunt in universo viginti duo, que
ut enumerentur non ordine quo fuerint proposita sed secundum ordinem
alicuius connexionis ... procedendum est"7. In a word, the regent-master was
not expected to provide an exhaustive answer off the cuff to the questions
proposed at the General Disputation. Rather, the General Disputation was an
occasion on which the master was presented through his bachelor or bachelors
with a series of questions which he had to "determine" or answer definitively
at a Determination at a later date8.
Glorieux and others are inclined to think that this second or "determin-
ing" session of the Quodlibet was not as open to the general public as the first
or General Disputation session and that the Determination took place "in the
quiet of the classroom" with only the master's own students present. This
seems a little odd, since it was only at the second session that the master
delivered his measured reply to the questions to which he had given only the
sketchiest of responses (or no response at al!) on the day of the General Dis-
putation. Since Quodlibets were held only twice a year, and the Determination
followed hard on the General Disputation, it seems reasonable to suppose that
the audience of the first session made it a point to be present at the second
session in order to hear the magisterial replies to the questions posed at the
first. That this indeed was the case seems clear from a 14th-century story
about Albert the Great. As the story has it, at a "generalis disputatio de
quolibet" in the presence of a "maxima comitiva magistrorum et scolarium "
Albert was at such a Joss for a ready and convincing reply to three questions
about angels put to him by the devil in the guise of a scholar that he spent the
whole night awake trying to find an answer (w)lich he did eventually, but by

7 GLORIEUX, Littérature, I, p. 216.

8 See the preface of Nicholas de Vaux-Cernay to his Quodlibet (c. 1324) in S.
AXTERS, "Le maître cistercien Nicholas de Vaux-Cernay et son Quodlibet," in New
Scholasticum 12 (1938), 242-253 at pp. 244-245: "Haec quaestiones propositae
fuerunt die lunae tertiae septimanae adventus domini coram magistro Nicholao in
scholis sancti Bernardi Parisius, qua die dictus magister de quolibet disputavit. Et
dictas quaestiones prout in isto libello recitentur determinavit die sabbati insequenti".
16 L. BOYLE

divine inspiration) before the Determination on the next day. What is impor-
tant is that the story states that it was the same audience that turned up next
day for the Determination: "omnes cras revertuntur .. . Et totum in crastino
coram omnibus refert et dicit in scolis"9.
Most of our unpublished or published Quodlibets record the proceedings
of the Determination, not those of the first stage of the Quodlibet. Hence the
Quodlibets as we know them do not really represent the heat of the debate that
followed on the questions thrown at the bachelors by the audience but rather
the considered reply of the master after be had had time to sort the questions
out, to consult some sources, and to marshal bis arguments. However, what
we find in the Quodlibets of St. Thomas and others is not exactly the Deter-
mination as such but a version which was reworked and refined for publica-
tion. After the "Disputatio generalis" and the "Determinatio" there came the
"Ordinatio," as may be seen in Quodl. III, q. 5, a. 4 of St. Thomas, where
there is the cross-reference, "sicut supra dictum est," to the first article of the
same quaestio.
Sorne Quodlibets, of course, survive in an unpolished state. A good case
is that ofQuodlibet III of the Dominican Bernard ofTrilia, who <lied in 1292.
According to Bernard Gui some twenty or thirty years later, this Quodlibet
was in such a jumbled state on Bernard's death that bis executors were quite
confused: "Sed quia illa [quodlibet] nondum quando obiit ordinaverat ad
votum suum ad plenum, et quaedam quaestiones particulares et sexterni
dispersi manebant, illi qui nimis praeoccupaverunt pro magna parte con-
fuderunt et truncaverunt"lo. Quodlibet XII of St. Thomas, too, bas an unfin-
ished look about it when compared with bis other Quodlibets and clearly had
not had the benefit of "Ordinatio" before bis death in 1274. Sorne questions
(e. g., 4, 6, 8-11, 21-24) entirely lack objections and replies, containing only
the corpus ("Respondeo dicendum"); others (e. g., 2) carry nothing more than
drafts of replies to objections. Perhaps the truth is that what we now possess
of Quodlibet XII of St. Thomas is not, as bas been suggested, a student's

9 James of Aqui, Chronicon imaginis mundi, cited by P. MANDONNET, "Thomas

d'Aquin, Créateur de la dispute quodlibétique," in Revue des sciences philosophiques
et théologiques 16 (1927), 9 n. 1. (= RSPT henceforward).
10 J. QUÉTIF and J. ECHARD, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum, I (Paris, 1719),
p. 432.
 THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 17

"Reportatio" of, or St. Thomas's own notes towards, the Determinationll, but
rather, for the most part, the text of the Determination precisely as it was held
in 1270 or 1272 and before he had had time to prepare more than a few ques-
tions for eventual publication. If this is so, then it may aiso be true that a
Determination did not consist in much more than the master's main reply
("Respondeo dicendum") to the questions raised at the General Disputation
and that the replies to the objections were not drawn up until the "Ordinatio "
stage of the Quodlibet.

***

The Quodlibets of St. Thomas, of course, present some special problems

of their own. Until Denifle discovered the dates of two of the Quodlibets (III,
V) in 190712, there was very little interest in the Quodlibets as literary pro-
ductions or as part of the Thomistic corpus. Denifle's discovery enabled
Mandonnet in 1910 to establish for the first time ever a chronology of Quod-
libets 1-VI (1269-1272) 13. Mandonnet, however, on the authority of the 14th-
century English Dominican, Nicholas Trivet, continued to assign Quodlibets
VII-XI to the "Italian period" of the teaching career of St. Thomas, dating
them vaguely between 1264 and 126814. In this he was followed by Destrez
(1923) in his catalogue of the manuscripts of the Quodlibets and by Synave
(1924) and Glorieux (1925).
lt was not until 1926 that Mandonnet tumed his full attention to Quod-
libets VII-XI, proving beyond al! doubt (and to the confusion of Synave and

11 See J. DESTREZ. "Les disputes quodlibétiques de saint Thomas d'après la tradi-

tion manuscrite," in Mélanges Thomistes (Kain, 1923) 61-66; F. PELSTER, "Wann ist
das Zwolfte Quodlibet des hl. Thomas von Aquin entstanden?," in Gregorianum 5
(1924), 978-286; P. GLORIEUX, "Le Quodlibetum XII de saint Thomas," in RSPT 14
(1925), 90-46.
12 H.-S. DENIFLE, "Die Statuten der Juristen-Universitat Bologna, I," in Archiv für
Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 3 ( 1907), 196-34 7, at p. 320.
13 P. MANDONNET, Siger de Brabant et l'averroïsme latin au 13e siècle, second
ed., I (Paris, 1911), pp. 85-87.
14 P. MANDONNET, Les écrits authentiques de saint Thomas d'Aquin, second ed.
(Fribourg, 1910), p. xvi; P. Mandonnet and J. Destrez, Bibliographie Thomiste (Paris,
1921), p. xvi.
18 L. BOYLE

Glorieux, who had just published an elaborate "ltalian" chronology) that they
belonged to the first teaching period of St. Thomas at Paris (1256-1259) 15.
Since then his conclusions about certain individual Quodlibets within this
group have been challenged or refined by scholars such as Synave, Glorieux,
and Isaac. For what it is worth, the following schema attempts to summarize
the twists and turns of chronological research on the Quodlibets of St. Thomas
from 1910, when Mandonnet published the revised edition of his Siger de
Brabant, to the present day, here represented by Marc's introduction to an
edition of the Summa contra Gentiles (1967) and by the most recent biogra-
phy of St. Thomas, that of Weisheipl (1974). The schema (in which C stands
for Christmas and E for Easter) is not exhaustivel6, but it does suggest where
the chronology proposed by Mandonnet for individual Quodlibets in the two
series has not met with universal acceptancel 7.

15 P. MANDONNET, "Thomas d'Aquin, créateur de la dispute quodlibétique," in

RSPT 15 (1996), 477-506, 16 (1997), 5-38. The conclusions about the new chronol-
ogy of Quodlibets VII-XI in this article had been stated briefly the previous year, but
without any documentation, in his introduction to the "Lethielleux" edition of the
Quodlibets: S. Thomae Aquinatis Quaestîones Quodlibetales (Paris, 1925), pp. V-
VIII.
16 "Sorne studies of individual Quodlibets are not included, e.g., P. GLORIEUX,
"Le plus beau Quodlibet de S. Thomas (IX) est-il de lui?", in Mélanges de science
religieuse, 3 (1946), 235-268, answered in the affirmative by PELSTER (1946 - see
next note) and by J. ISAAC, "Le Quodlibet 9 est bien de S. Thomas," in Archives
d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 16 (1947-1948), 145-186. Nor is there
any mention of P. CASTAGNOL!, "Le dispute Quodlibetali VII-XI di S. Tommaso," in
Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 31 (1998), 276-296, who held that these Quodlibets be-
longed to the "ltalian" period and could be dated as a block between 1259 and 1268.
There are good summaries of the conclusions of chronological research on the Quod-
libets in the appendix by I. T. ESCHMANN, "A Catalogue of St. Thomas's Works," in
E. GILSON, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York, 1956), pp.
381-439, at p. 392.
17 "The following abbreviations are used in this table:
Mandonnet I =P. MANDONNET, Siger de Brabant, see. ed. I (Paris, 1911), 85-87.
Mandonnet 2 =P. MANDONNET, "Chronologie sommaire de la vie et des écrits de
Saint Thomas," in RSPT9 (1920), 142-152, at p. 148.
Destrez = J. DESTREZ, "Les disputes quodlibétiques de saint Thomas d'après la
tradition manuscrite," in Mélanges Thomistes (Kain, 1923), 49-108, at p. 51.
Synave 1 =P. SYNAVE, review ofDestrez in Bulletin Thomiste I (1924) [32]-[50].
 THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 19

X VI V IV III II 1 XI X IX VIII VII QUODLIBET

II

-
N -::::! -- - - -
N N N N N N
OO 0\ t-.,) .....,. • .p..°' N......,. Mandonnet 1
1910
°'
f'
--.) --.)
-o
t'I1 ()
°' --.)
0 °'
\0 \0
() t'I1 () t'I1
N
°'
OO

-
N
--.)
Mandonnet 2
1920
N
t'I1

-
N
000\N-· \OVIN__. Destrez 1923

-
--.)

t'I1

-::::!
N -
N
--.)
- -
N
°' °'
N - °'-
N
°'
N -
N
°'
Synave 1
1924
t'I1
0
()
--.)
t'I1 °'
() °'
t'I1
--.)
()
V.
() Glorieux 1
1925

Glorieux 1 =P. GLORIEUX, La littérature quodlibétique I (Kain, 1925), pp. 276-

290.
Mandonnet 3 = P. MANDONNET, "S. Thomas d'Aquin, créateur de la dispute
quodlibétique," in RSPT 15 (1926), 477-506, 16 (1927), 5-38.
Synave 2 =P. SYNAVE, "L'ordre des Quodlibets VII à XI de S. Thomas d'Aquin,"
in Revue Thomiste, n. s., 9 (1926), 43-47.
Pelster 1 = F. PELSTER, "Beitrage zur Chronologie der Quodlibeta des Hl. Thomas
von Aquin," in Gregorianum 8 (1927), 508-538; 10 (1929), 52-71, 387-403, on
which see Synave, Bull. Thomiste 2 (1930) [114].
Glorieux 2 =P. GLORIEUX, La littérature, II (Paris, 1935), p. 272.
Van Steenberghen = F. V AN STEENBERGHEN, Siger de Brabant dans ] 'histoire de
!'Aristotélisme, II (Louvain, 1942), p. 541.
Glorieux 3 =P. GLORIEUX, "Les Quodlibets VII-XI de S. Thomas d'Aquin. Etude
critique," in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 13 (1946), 282-303.
Pelster 2 = F. PELSTER, " Literarische Probleme der Quodlibeta des hl. Thomas
von Aquin," in Gregorianum 28 (1947), 78-100; 29 (1948), 62-87.
Isaac= J. ISAAC, review of Pelster 2 in Bull. Thomiste 8 (1947-1953), 169-172.
Marc= P. MARC, C. PERA, F. CARAMELLO, S. Thomae Aquinatis Summa contra
Gentiles, I (Turin, 1947), p. 412.
Weisheipl = J. A. WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d'Aquino (New York, 1974), p. 367.
20 L. BOYLE

XII VI V IV III II I XI X IX VIII VII QUODLIBET

-_,
N
0
-_,
N

(") trJ

;:;
_,
0
-_,
N ;:;
V>
'ô
-
N
V>
OO
;:;
V>
OO
;:;
_,
V>
-
N
V>
Mandonnet3
1926
(") trJ trJ (") trJ (") "'(")

-_,
N

trJ
-_,
N
0
(")
-_,
N
V>
Synave 2 1926
(")

z-
~~
-N
(\)
-"'
N
'ô
(")
-_, -
0
(")
N N
;::!
trJ
?;:!-

~ s:
Pelster 1 1927

"'

;:; Glorieux 2 1935

V>
,.,
V>

~§ (")
--_,
N

trJ
Van Steenberghen·
1942

;:;
V>
-
N
V>
-
N
V>
-
N
V>
Glorieux 3 1946

"'""' "'""'
(")
-!>-
(")
V>
(")
""'
;:; 1 1
_, 2
;:; Pelster 2 1947
2 V>
OO
trJ 7 6 V.
'ô
0 9
c c
-
N
V>
-_,
N
V>
Isaac 1948

"'(") (")

;:;
_,
V>
-
N
..,.
V>
;:;
_,
V>
Marc 1967
(")
°'
0
"'
0
""'
-_,
N
0
(")
-m_,
N Weisheipl 1974
 THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 21

In spite of some uncertainties of chronology these Quodlibets of St.

Thomas have a fascination ail their own in comparison with his other works.
This fascination is not peculiar to the Quodlibets of St. Thomas but is rather
something that flows from the nature of a Quodlibet. For even in its final,
polished state at some distance removed from the excitement of the original
General Disputation, a Quodlibet reflects the interests of the audience that
attended the General Disputation and not those of the master. The question
that then came from the floor are the questions that the master answers, the
pragmatic ("Utrum melius sit facere phlebotomiam in novilunio quam in
plenilunio") with the deeply theological ("Utrum emanatio Filii sit ratio
emanationis creaturarum")18.
The type of question asked at the General Disputation seems to have de-
pended very much on the reputation or speciality of the master. The Quod-
libets of the Augustinian Giles of Rome (1286-1291) are quite "speculative"
from start to finish whereas the Quodlibet (5 March 1282) of Berthaud of
Saint Denis, canon of Paris, is severely practical: "Utrum clerici teneantur
solvere pedagia vel tributa .... Utrum molere dominicis diebus sit peccatum
mortale"19. By and large, however, the extant Quodlibets from Paris and
Oxford are a mixed bag of speculative and practical questions, ranging from
the heavily practical Quodlibets (1262-1272) of Gerard of Abbeville to the
long and rather contorted Quodlibets attributed to Peter John Olivi from the
end of the 13th century20. The audience, clearly, was a mixed one, too. A
master with a reputation for practicality would attract a different audience
from that of a master known for a speculative approach. Ail the same, the
presence of a number of practical questions in most of the Quodlibets suggests
that there really was no hard and fast rule about what questions might be
asked.
An air of immediacy is rarely absent. A Quodlibet gave the students a
chance to take the floor for a change, and they made the most of the moment.
Sorne questions are somewhat pointed, like that in the Quodlibet of an
anonymous (English?) Franciscan about 1300 ("Utrum frater minor peccat

18 Herny of Lübeck, Qdt I. 33 (1323) in GLORIEUX, Littérature Il, p. 136; Gites of

Rome, Qdl. 1.3 (1286), ibid., I, p. 141.
19 See the tist of Gites' quodlibetal questions in GLORIEUX, Littérature, I, pp. 141-
147, and that ofthose ofBerthaud, ibid., pp. 105-106.
20 For Gerard's see ibid., I, pp. 112-117, for those of Olivi, ibid., II, pp. 205-211.
22 L. BOYLE

mortaliter portando pecuniam alicuius")21, or that in an Oxford Quodlibet of

Thomas Wylton about 1312: "Utrum sit magis licitum magistro in theologia
tenere plura beneficia quam alteri 11 22. Others have ail the openended quality of
a High School debate of "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword" type: "Utrum
melius sit regi ab optima viro quam ab optimis legibus"23. And if there are
questions which sound a tired, perfunctory note, being repeated from Quod-
libet to Quodlibet, there are others which bear upon buming issues or events
of the day. The question of where to bury the body of Philip III of France,
who died on 5 October 1285, was the subject of a question in a Quodlibet of
Geoffrey of Fontaines the following Christrnas 24 . The resignation of Celestine
V in December 1294 came up in a Quodlibet of Peter of Auvergne some two
years later: "Utrum summus pontifex possit cedere vel renuntiare officio suo
in aliquo casu" 25 . The implications of Boniface VIIl's Clericis laicos, issued
in February 1296, were considered at a Quodlibet of Eustace of Grandecourt
at Paris the following Christmas or Spring26. A prevailing conviction that the
end of the world was at hand in 1300 is present in a Quodlibet of Peter of
Auvergne in that same year27.
From time to time the students were moved to question the teaching
methods. Sorne clearly felt that the Universities and the teachers should be
doing more for the ordinary clergy and for their education ("Utrum ignorantia
sacerdotum doctoribus imputetur in peceatum")28; others that too much em-
phasis was being placed on advancement and on academic honors and not
enough on the pastoral care ("Utrum melius est manere in studio seu scholis,
spe plus proficiendi, quam ire ad animas, intentione salutem eis pro-
curandi")29. Although Henry of Ghent, in another context, fumished a classic
answer to the latter question ("Audientiam intelligo non tam praesentium

21 Listed ibid., II, p. 217.

22 Ibid., II, p. 279.
23 Ibid., II, p. 147.
24 Qdl. I. 11, ed. M. DE WULF and A. PELZER, Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de
Godefroid de Fontaines (Louvain, 1904), pp. 27-31.
25 Qdl. I.15, listed in GLORIEUX, Littérature, I, p. 259.
26 Qdl. II. 5, ibid., II, p. 82.
27 Qdl. V. 15, ibid., I, p. 262.
28 William de Falegar, Qdl. I. 15 (1280-1281), ibid., II, p. 126.
29 Henry of Ghent, Qdl. I.35, (1276C) in Henrici Gandavensis Quaestiones
Quodlibetales (Paris, 1518), f. 23 v.
 THE QUODLIBETSOF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 23

quam etiam illorum ad quos per audientes doctrina illa poterit pervenire")30,
there were many students who were less than enchanted with the teaching. If
one may judge from a question that occurs in at least three different Quod-
libets, there were masters who were reluctant to answer any and every ques-
tion at a Quodlibet: "Utrum magister in theologia disputans de quolibet, qui
renuit accipere quaestionem sibi propositam quia tangit aliquos quos timet
offendere, peccat in hoc mortaliter 11 3l. There were others, too, who were more
adept at parrying questions than facing up to them squarely: "Utrum doctor
sive magister determinans quaestiones sive exponens scripturas publice,
peccet mortaliter non explicando veritatem quam novit"32. Still others devoted
too much time to exotic questions at the expense of those of greater import:
"Utrum magistri tractantes quaestiones curiosas, dimittentes utiles ad salutem,
peccent mortaliter 11 33.

* * *

"Utiles ad salutem": most strikingly of all, the Quodlibets reflect an

abiding interest among the students in the cura animarum. This is only natu-
ral. For a large proportion of the students in the theological faculties of Paris,
Oxford, and elsewhere, was engaged in or destined for pastoral care at one
level or another. What the proportion exactly was is not ascertainable, but
until the constitution Lice! canon of the second council of Lyons disrupted the
practice, many of the clergy were able to take leave from their curae anima-
rum for a few year's study at Universities. Certainly after 1298, when Boni-
face VIIl's educational constitution, Cum ex eo, was issued, the number of
parochial clergy attending the Universities must have been appreciable34.

30 Henry ofGhent, Qdl. X. 16 (1286 C), ed. cit., f. 437.

31 Q. 55 of Quodlibet of Gervase of Mont Saint-Eloi (1282-1291) in GLORIEUX,
Littérature, I, p. 137. See also Qdl. III. 23 (1287) of Richard ofMiddleton (ibid., I. p.
270), and Qdl. XII. 6 (1295) of Geoffrey of Fontaines (ibid., I, p. 270).
32 Henry ofGhent, Qdl. X. 16 (1286 C), ed. cit., f. 437.
33 Qdl. II. 16 (1308) of Hervé Nédellec, in GLORIEUX, Littérature, I. 202.
34 See L. E. BOYLE, "The Constitution Cum ex eo of Pope Boniface VIII," in Me-
diaeval Studies 24 (1962), 263-302.
24 L. BOYLE

The preoccupations of these students are reflected in questions about

residence and study, benefices and beneficial obligations, the sacraments and
pastoral responsibilities. The imposition on rectors of persona! residence in
their livings at the second council of Lyons naturally occasioned a number of
questions, for example, conceming the obligation of becoming a priest within
a year oftaking possession of a rectory35. And when the constitution Cum ex
eo of Boniface had relaxed the Lyons legislation in 1298, allowing rectors to
be supported from the revenues of their parishes while studying at a Univer-
sity, there were rectors who were not too scrupulous about observing the
conditions of their licences to study, as may be gathered from a question in a
Quodlibet of Jam es of Ascoli in 1311-1312: "Utrum clericus beneficiatus qui
habet licentiam standi in studio, si stet in studio sine spe proficiendi ita quod
studio non vacet sed potius ludat, discurrat et sit vagabundus, utrum teneatur
ad restitutionem fructuum perceptorum tempore intermedio pro quo debuit
vacare studio"36.
If a certain distaste for the way of life of the Parisian clergy may be de-
tected in a question about the size of the stipends demanded by the "rich
curates" of Paris37, a distinct pride in the quality of the parochial clergy vis-à-
vis the privileged friars is to be noticed in a question put to Henry of Ghent in
1287 about preaching: "Si sacerdos curatus in parochia sua paratus sit et velit
praedicare, et similiter frater habens privilegium ut possit praedicare, nullo
eum impediente, uter eorum potior sit in iure, et utri cedere debeat alter"38?
The friars and their privileges, particularly those of hearing confessions and
preaching, were, of course, very sore points, and provoked a number of que-
ries, as in this question in a Quodlibet of Geoffrey of Fontaines four or five

35 Thus Qdl. III. 18 of the Franciscan Roger Marston at Oxford in 1283: "Utrum
aliquis legitime institutus in beneficio habente curam animarum si non fuerit ordinatus
infra annum possit illud beneficium licite retinere post concilium Lugdunense," ed. G.
F. ETZKORN and I. C. BRADY, Fr. Rogerus Marston: Quodlibeta Quatuor (Quaracchi,
1968), p. 346.
36 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. lat. 932, f. 68r-v (Qdl. I. 16);
GLORIEUX, La littérature, II, p. 142.
37 See q. 8 ofQuodlibet (1282-1291) ofGervase of Mont Saint-Eloi in GLORIEUX,
La littérature, I, p. 134: "Utrum divites curati peccent in accipiendo quando admini-
strant sacramenta, ut in ista villa, scilicet Parisius, quando accipiunt duodecim de-
narios in administratione sacramenti extremae unctionis, duos solidos vel tres in
desponsatione coniugum".
38 Qdl. VII. 21, ed. Paris, 1518, f. 272.
 THE QL'ODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 25

years after Martin IV had endowed the friars with some unpopular privileges:
"Utrum confessus ab aliquo habente potestatem audiendi confessiones et
absolvendi confitentes virtute privilegii Martini VI, teneatur eadem peccata
proprio sacerdoti iterum confiteri 11 39.
On the whole, the practical questions, such as one from a Quodlibet of
John of Naples at the beginning of the 14th century, are as vital and pertinent
as those with which the pastoral clergy in any age is faced: "Utrum medicus
debeat dare medicinam mulieri praegnanti ex qua sequeretur mors filii, et si
non daret eam, sequeretur mors utriusque 11 40. At times, indeed, the questions
in some Quodlibets have more the look of casus in moral theology than that of
classic quaestiones.

***

The casus-type question appears in Quodlibets as early as those of Guer-

ric of Saint-Quentin (1233-1242)41. It was, of course, a very common method
ofteaching in the law schools of the late 12th century, from which, in fact, the
schools of theology borrowed the technique of both the Disputed Question

39 Qdl. III. 7. ed. DE WULF and PELZER, Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de Go-
defroid de Fontaines (Louvain, 1904), p. 214. A similar question was put in 1283 to
Roger Marston at Oxford (Qdl III. 25): "Si ex privilegio nobis concesso possumus
audire confessiones si praelati prohibeant" (ed. ETZKORN and BRADY, Fr. Rogerus
Marston: Quodlibeta Quatuor, pp. 359-388). In one form or another the question
crops up time and again over the next centuries, e. g., in the late 14th century when
the Irish Cistercian Henry Crump was arraigned at London on seven charges involv-
ing confessional jurisdiction, one of which was that he held that those were "darnned
for eternity" who did not confess to their own parish priest after confessing to a friar.
Obviously it was possible to approach the question from all sorts of angles, as in this
version in Quodlibet IV. 24 (c. 1286) of the English Dominican Thomas Sutton at
Oxford: "Posito quod sacerdos parochialis sit sufficiens in scientia et moribus ad
curam animarum, quaeritur utrum debeat licentiare subditum si petat ut possit con-
fiteri sacerdoti alieno, nisi exprimat causam rationabilem et evidentem suae peti-
tionis": Thomas von Sutton Quodlibeta, ed. M. SCHMAUS and M. GONZALEZ-RABA
(Munich, 1969), pp. 655-658.
40 Qdl. X. 27 in GLORIEUX, Littérature, II, p. 170.
41 Qdl. IV. 18, ibid., p. 109.
26 L. BOYLE

and the Quodlibet. Here in the theological Quodlibets from Paris and Oxford
in the second half of the 13th century the presence of these casus is quite
striking. Though there is little evidence of practical "moral" theology in the
works of the main scholastic writers of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries,
there is plenty of evidence in these Quodlibets that a discussion of practical
casus was not left entirely to authors of Summae de casibus, like Raymund of
Pefiafort (1234) or to writers of Summae confessorum such as John of
Freiburg (1298). Indeed, as will be suggested later, it was precisely because of
these casus and practical moral conclusions that the Quodlibets of some of the
greater scholastics of the 13th century were almost as well-known to the
manualists and summists as the Summa of St. Thomas or the Repertorium of
Durand us.
A typical casus is to be found in Qdl. III, 49 (1277) of the Franciscan
John Pecham: "Posito quod Titius promisit locare seu ad firmam <lare conce-
dere Gaio fundum usque ad quinquennium pro decem aureis, sed non fecit
quod promisit, pro quo Gaius dicit se lucra plurima perdidisse, quaeritur an
Titius teneatur aliquid <lare pro damno ipsi Gaio 11 42. Variants on this "Posito
quod" statements of a casus are to be found in many Quodlibets, for example,
in those of John de Pouilly43. On many occasions, however, the casus is
presented with ail the terseness of a "problem" in mathematics (to which, in
any case, legal and theological casus and quaestiones reach back in origin),
thus: "Ponatur: Ali quis commisit decem peccata. Confitetur _novem non reco-
lendo de decimo. Sufficienter est contritus et bene confiteretur decimum si
recoleret. Absolvitur a sacerdote. Post aliquod tempus recordatur. Utrum
teneatur confiteri"44?; or again, "Item, ponitur talis casus: Iste scholasticus
habet conferre scholas grammaticales. Quidam clericus dat ei argentum hac
intentione ut possit eas obtinere. Obtinet. Utrum sit simonia"457

***

42 Ibid., p. 179.
43 Qdl. III. 12 (1309): "Ponamus quod aliquis sit excommunicatus pluribus ex-
communicationibus et quod absolvatur ab una illarum ... ": GLORIEUX, Littérature, I, p.
227.
44 Qdl. I. 4 (1287-1288) of John de Weerde: ibid., II, p. 188.
45 Qdl. II. 8 (1300-1301) of Renier of Clairmarais: ibid., II, 255.
 THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 27

Although there are none of these casus-quaestiones in the Quodlibets of

St. Thomas, there is the usual quota of practical questions. In fact, there is
scarcely one of his Quodlibets that does not carry a question or two bearing
directly on the cura animarum. As is common in quodlibetal literature, the
practical questions generally corne at the end of each Quodlibet, where they
were placed when the questions from the General Disputation were being
sorted out for the Determination. After the questions "De Deo" and "De
angelis," to take the simplest division of a Thomistic Quodlibet, there are
those "De homine".
The very first Quodlibet of St. Thomas (VII) is devoid of practical ques-
tions, apart from two very long questions on manual work (VII. 7 and 8)
which appear to be Disputed Questions and to have been tacked on to this
Quodlibet when the first Parisian group of Quodlibets were put in circulation
long after the death of St. Thomas 11 46.
From the next Quodlibet (VIII) onwards, however, matters of practical
morals become more prominent, e. g., "Utrum ille qui vadit ad ecclesiam
propter distributiones, alias non iturus, peccet". (VIIl.1, 1) There is also a brief
reply to a question about pluralism (VIll.6,3) where there is a discussion of
the difficulty pluralists encounter in forming their consciences because of the
varying opinions of masters. The same point about a pluralist's conscience is
made at much greater length in the next Quodlibet (IX.7, 2: "Utrum habere
plures praebendas sine cura animarum absque dispensatione sit peccatum
mortale").
Prebends, according to some authorities, are so many apples to be
plucked at will; according to others, a plurality of prebends offends against
the natural law, and a dispensation is impossible. So far as St. Thomas is
concemed, it is an extremely dangerous thing to give a straightforward deci-
sion about mortal sin in a question such as this where the truth of the matter is
not clear and unambiguous and where jurist contradicts jurist and theologian
is at odds with theologian: "inveniuntur enim theologi theologis et juristae
juristis contrarie sentire". The controversy over whether the ancient laws
prohibiting pluralism have been abrogated or not is, he feels, something that

46 See P. GLORIEUX, "Les Quodlibets VII-XI de S. Thomas d'Aquin," in Recher-

ches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 13 (1946), 286-289; C. MOLARI, "I luoghi
paralleli nelle opere di S. Tommaso e la loro cronologia (un esempio di analisi: il
lavoro manuale dei religiosi)," in Euntes Docete II (1958), 371-391.
28 L. BOYLE

"should be left to the jurists". If the laws still hold, then, customs to the con-
trary notwithstanding, it is his view as a theologian that several benefices
cannot be held without a dispensation. But if, on the other hand, it is certain
that these laws have been abrogated by custom, then there is no question of
having to seek a dispensation.

***

On the whole, however, practical questions are not as thick on the

ground in these Quodlibets (VII-XI) from St. Thomas's first Parisian period of
teaching (1256-1259) as they are in those (1-Vl, and possibly XII) from his
second (1269-1272). The audience, perhaps, was a little more varied then than
in the first period; and the presence of influential "practical" theologians such
as Gerard of Abbeville has also to be taken into account. When St. Thomas
arrived in Paris in 1269, Gerard had been teaching for some seven or eight
years and had a wide following47. His nineteen Quodlibets (1262-1272) are
probably the most pastoral of the Quodlibets of the 13th century and include a
splendid example of a casus-quaestio: "Quoddam cimiterium a praelato loci
fuit benedictum. Per multa vehicula illi terrae benedictae addita et adiecta et
superposita fuit terra non benedicta usque ad altitudinem unius stagii vel
duorum, in qua terra non benedicta sepeliuntur funera quae in parte tangit
terram prius benedictam. Utrum illa corpora sunt sepulta in cimiterio bene-
dicto, vel utrum tale cimiterium iterum sit benedicendum 11 487
None of the questions in the Quodlibets 1-VI of St. Thomas are quite as
"casuistic" as this, but there are a few which are notas innocent as they seem.
If, in answer to a straight question, there is a reply (later repeated ad litteram
in his Summa: 11-11, q. 10, a. 12) that calmly and firmly establishes that Jewish
children should not be baptized behind their parents' backs (11.4, 2), there is a
long and over-emphatic defence (with answers to twenty-three objections) of

47 Gerard headed a group of very vocal anti-mendicant masters at Paris. Sorne of

the questions in the Quodlibets of St. Thomas (especially Qdl. I. 14; III. 11-12, 17;
IV. 23-24) were inspired by or aimed at the "Geraldine" circle: see P. GLORJEUX, "Les
polémiques "contra Geraldinos"," in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 6
(1934), 5-41.
48 Qdl. IV. 12 (1265) listed in GLORJEUX, Littérature, I, p. 115.
 THE QUODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 29

the admission of "callow youths" to religious orders (IV.12, 1). St. Thomas
clearly regarded the question and the objections as mischievous, since he
begins his reply rather testily: "Respondeo dicendum quod hoc quod pro
quaestione hic inducitur, dubitationem non habet, nisi quod quidam conten-
tioni studentes veritatem obnubilare conantur 49. This is almost the only
11

occasion on which he drops his guard a little, though a question in Quodlibet 1

(9, 4) on whether monks who eat meat sin mortally, moves him to make
comparisons between the rules of various religious orders and to blow a
trumpet for the admirably balanced legislation of his own Dominican Ortler:
"in ordine fratrum praedicatorum est cautissima et securissima forma
profitendi qua non promittit [frater] servare regulam sed obedientiam secun-
dum regulam5°.
At events, this second Parisian group of Quodlibets is full of good, prac-
tical, everyday questions covering many aspects of the pastoral care: alms-
giving (111.6, 1; Vl.7; Vl.8, 1), baptism (11.4, 2), benefices and beneficial
practice (1.7, 1; IV.8, 4; IV.12, 1; V.11, 3; Vl.5, 3), bigamy (IV.8, 2), buying
and selling (11.5, 2), conscience (IIl.12, 1-2), crusades and indulgences (11.8,
2; IV.7, 2; V.7, 2), death (111.9, 2), the Eucharist (V.6, 1-2), excommunication
(IV.8, 3), fasting (V.9, 2), hell (IIl.10, 2), ignorance (1.9, 3), lies (Vl.9, 3),
loans and restitution (V.9, 1), martyrdom (IV.10, 1-2), matrimony (111.7; IV.8,
2; V.8, 1-2), penance and confessional practice (1.5; 1.6, 1-3; IIl.13, 1-2; IV.7,
1; V.7, 1), perjury (1.9, 2), precepts (V.10, 1-2), priests and their obligations
(1.7; 1; III. 13, 2; V.14; Vl.5, 2), purgatory (11.8, 2), study and teaching (1.7, 2;
III.4, 1-2), tithes (11.4, 3; Vl.5, 4), usury (IIl.7, 2), vows (111.5, 1-3), wills and
executors' responsibilities (Vl.8, 1-2).
Generally these questions are answered with courtesy and leaming and
out of a conviction (echoed later by Henry of Ghent) that teachers of theology

49 Probably he had some of the "Geraldines" in mind, since this question in Qdl.
IV and that following (IV. 12, 1-2) are noted in MS. Vat. lat. 799 in the Vatican
Library as follows: "Isti duo articuli fuerunt disputati a fratre Thoma contra Geroldum
in principio quadragesimae [1271]": GLORIEUX, art. cit., pp. 34-36.
50 The edition of the Quodlibets used here is "Marietti" edition: S. Thomae Aqui-
natis Quaestiones Quodlibetales, ed. R. SPIAZZI (Marietti: Rome-Turin, 1956), where
parallel passages in other works of St. Thomas are clearly indicated and where the
alternative methods of citing the Quodlibets (by question and article within the
question, as in the present essay, or by the consecutive number of the article in the
Quodlibet) are used side by side, most conveniently.
30 L. BOYLE

have no mean place in the salvation of souls51: "Theologiae doctores sunt

quasi principales artifices [aedificii spiritualis] qui inquirent et docent qualiter
alii debeant salutem animarum procurare " (1.7, 2). Teaching was so impor-
tant, in fact, that, given a proper disposition on the part of the teacher, it was a
higher and better occupation than pastoral care: "Ipsa enim ratio demonstrat
quod melius est erudire de pertinentibus ad salutem eos qui et in se et in aliis
proficere possunt quam simplices qui in se tantum proficere possunt" (ibid.).
And to those who were of the opinion that study was a waste of time and
should take second place to the cura animarum, he answered drily, "nullam
iacturam temporis patitur qui quid est melius operatur docendo vel qui ad hoc
per studium se disponit" (ibid.). St. Thomas took his teaching very seriously
indeed. Certainly he had no time for those who in a "Disputatio magistralis"
(presumably he is speaking here of the Determination stage of the Quodlibet)
answer questions with a battery of authorities and leave the hearers dazed and
no wiser than they were before. The duty of a teacher is to instruct and not to
send his students away empty, as he says in this interesting passage in Quod-
libet IV (9, 3):
Quaedam vero disputatio est magistralis in scholis, non ad re-
movendum errorem sed ad instruendum auditores ut inducantur ad
intellectum veritatis quam intendit: et tune oportet rationibus inniti
investigantibus veritatis radicem et facientibus scire quomodo sit
verum quod dicitur; alioquin si nudis auctoritatibus magister quae-
stionem determinet, certificabitur quidem auditor quod ita est, sed
nichil scientiae vel intellectus acquiret et vacuus abscedet.
True to the conviction expressed in Quodlibet IV, St. Thomas never an-
swers questions, however simplistic, with anything approaching glibness,
from "Utrum sufficiat confiteri scripto" (1.6, 1) to "Utrum habens duas eccle-
sias teneatur utriusque officium dicere" (1.7). And he rarely lets slip an op-
portunity to instruct, as in the question, "Utrum sacerdos parochialis teneatur
credere suo subdito dicenti se alteri esse confessum" (1.6, 3), where he nicely
sets the confessional off from civil courts and combats a tendency in confes-
sional practice to tum confessionals into tribunals: "In foro iudiciali creditur
homini contra se sed non pro se. In foro autem poenitentiae creditur homini
pro se et contra se". In some of the replies there is a down-to-earth realism

51 See J. LECLERCQ, "L'idéal du théologien au moyen âge," in Recherches de sci-

ence religieuse 21 (1947), 121-148.
 THE QUODLIBETSOF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 31

that allows that matins may be anticipated "propter necessitatem et licitarum

honestarum occupationum, puta si clericus vel magister debet videre lectiones
suas de nocte " (V.14), and that it is nota sin for a preacher "to have an eye on
earthly things," provided he is simply looking to the necessities of life, "sicut
ad stipendia pro necessitate sustentationis vitae" (II.6 2) . On the question of
the support of the clergy, indeed, he is uncompromising, arguing that to
support the clergy is of divine and natural law (II.4, 3) and that the question of
tithes has nothing to do with whether a priest is poor or rich (Vl.5, 4).
But for all his humanity and his sympathetic understanding of the prob-
lems of pastoral care, St. Thomas made no attempt to court the favor of the
parochial clergy in his audience. He was totally convinced of the relative
superiority of the teaching office over the pastoral, and he said so more than
once. In his opinion the pastoral c!ergy are simply the "manual workers" in
the spiritual edifice, where the doctors of theology are the "skilled workers"
showing how things should be done: "In aedificio autem spirituali sunt quasi
manuales operarii qui particulariter insistunt curae animarum.... Sed quasi
principales artifices sunt et episcopi .... Et simili ter theologiae doctores sunt
quasi principales artifices, qui inquirunt et docent qualiter alii debeant salutem
animarum procurare". (1.7, 2) He was no Jess adamant on the point that the
parochial clergy belonged to a lower grade of perfection than religious (I. 7, 2;
III.6, 3). Which is why, he explains rather finely, religious and not parish
priests become bishops (I.7, 2)52.

***

At least 127 manuscripts of the Quodlibets of St. Thomas are extant from
the Middle Ages, and they mostly corne from college libraries, monasteries,

52 Qdl. III. 6, 3 is explicitly devoted to this question ofrelative perfection: "Utrum

presbiteri parochiales et archidiaconi sint maioris perfectionis quam religiosi". The
Quodlibet was held towards Easter of 1270, some four or five months after a similar
question ("Utrum sacerdotes curati sint in statu perfectiori quam religiosi": GLO-
RIEUX, Littérature, I, p. 122) had been answered rather differently by Gerard of
Abbeville. Sorne of the objections putto St. Thomas echo Gerard's position.
32 L. BOYLE

and Dominican houses53. What possible impact, then, could these Quodlibets
have had on pastoral care at large from which so many of the questions were
drawn and to which the replies were of some interest? Oddly, an appreciable
impact, albeit indirectly. For, although there is nothing to indicate that the first
Parisian Quodlibets (VII-XI) or Quodlibet XII were ever known outside a
small, narrowly professional circle, it is otherwise with the second Parisian
block, Quodlibets I-VI. The pastoral teaching in these Quodlibets of 1269-
1272 was known and quoted all over Europe from about 1300, finding its way
into all sorts of small pastoral manuals, from the Oculus sacerdotis of William
of Pagula in England about 132054 to the Manipulus curatorum of Guido de
Monte Rocherii in Spain about the same time55, and into more authoritative
works such as the Confessionale of Antoninus of Florence in the middle of the
l Sth century56 and the Summa of Sylvester Prierias at the beginning of the
15th57.
This, as it happens, was not because these Quodlibets 1-VI of St. Thomas
were widely known as such, but because of the industry if not the perceptive-
ness of a German Dominican called John of Freiburg or John the Lector58. A
pupil at one time of Ulrich Engelbrecht of Strasbourg, John of Freiburg ac-
companied Albert the Great to Mecklenberg in 1269 and may, indeed, have
attended some of the Quodlibets of St. Thomas at Paris in 1269-1272, when
Albert went there to assist St. Thomas. After his appointment as Lector in the

53 J. DESTREZ, "Les disputes quodlibétiques de saint Thomas d'après la tradition

manuscrite," in Mélanges Thomistes (Kain, 1923), pp. 49-108, who lists 96 MSS.
Another 31 are listed by S. AXTERS, "Où en est 1'état des manuscrits des questions
quodlibétiques de saint Thomas d'Aquin?," in Revue Thomiste 41 (1936), 505-530.
54 New College, Oxford, MS. 292, f. 76r, etc.
55 Manipulus curatorum, ed. Louvain, 1552, e.g., f. 128r: "Sanctus Thomas in
quadam quaestione de quolibet ponit casus in quibus tenetur existens in peccato
mortali confiteri".
56 Confessionale, ed. Paris, 1516, f. 21 v: "Item secundum Thomam in quolibet et
Innocentium contritus debet magis diligere Deum quam seipsum.
57 Summa summarum quae Sylvestrina dicitur, ed. Cologne, 1518, ff. 35v, 165v,
etc.
58 For a more specific discussion of John ofFreiburg, his Summa confessorum and
the place of St. Thomas in popular theology, see L. E. BOYLE, "The Summa confesso-
rum Ôf John of Freiburg and the popularization of the moral teaching of St. Thomas
and some ofhis contemporaries," in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974: Commemora-
tive Studies, ed. A. A. MAURER (Toronto, 1974) II, pp. 245-268.
 THE Ql 'ODLIBETS OF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 33

Dominican house at Freiburg-im-Breisgau about 1280, John decided to bring

his textbook of practical theology, the Summa de casibus of Raymund of
Pefiafort, up to date and supplemented it with excerpts from the Secunda
secundae, Quodlibets 1-VI, and other works of St. Thomas, and from other
theological and canonical sources that had appeared in the interval of some
fifty years since the Summa de casibus was published in its final edition
(1234). In a Summa confessorum of his own which he published in 129859
John incorporated most of the material from St. Thomas and others which he
had collected in this way, including the corpus of at least 22 quaestiones from
Quodlibets 1-VI. IfQuodlibets VII-XI and Quodlibet XII seem to be unknown
to him (thus, incidentally, confirming the view of many scholars that these
Quodlibets were not put into circulation until sometime after 1300), John was
thoroughly familiar with all of Quodlibets 1-VI and had searched them thor-
oughly (together with another Quodlibet which he thought was by Thomas but
which really was by John Pecham)60 for moral teaching6 l. Hardly one of the
"pastoral" questions in these Quodlibets has been missed, and no one quota-
tion is repeated twice, as may be seen from the following summary table of
borrowings (which does not claim to be exhaustive):

59 There are various editions of the work, e. g., that at Nuremberg, 1517. Incunab-
ula of the Summa are in L. HAIN, Repertorium bibliographicum (Stuttgart-Paris,
1896-1838), nn. 7365 (1476) and 7366 (1498).
60 "Pecham's Quodlibet occurs in at least 2 MSS. of the Quodlibets of St. Thomas
but is attributed to St. Thomas in only one of these MSS: see DESIREZ, art. cit. in 53
above, pp. 59-81. It is interesting to note that the 14th-century English Dominican
Robert Holcot, when quoting one of these Pecham questions attributed to St. Thomas
by the Summa confessorum, suspected that there was something wrong: "... sicut
dicitur in Summa confessorum et imponitur sancto Thomae in quodam quaestione de
quolibet. Sed puto quod non est suum .... ": In IV libros Sententiarum, ed. Lyons, 1518,
ID. 7, casus XVI.
61 John of Freiburg also uses Quodlibets of Peter of Tarentaise (Summa confesso-
rum 3.33, 8 and 3.34, 254) and Ulrich of Strasbourg (ibid., 8. 34, 272). He was not the
only one of the manualists to comb the Quodlibets for practical doctrine. The Francis-
can Summa astesana ( 1317) uses Quodlibets of Henry of Ghent: Summa astesana, ed.
Regensburg, 1480, f. 20 r, etc. Guido de Monte Rocherrii used Quodlibets of Geof-
frey of Fontaines: Manipulus curatorum, ed. Louvain, 1522, f. 142v, etc.
34 L. BOYLE

Quodlibet SummaC
I 5 3.34.26 Utrum contritus debeat magis velle esse in inferno quam pec-
care
62 3.34.69 Utrum confessio differri possit usque ad quadragesimam

63 3.34.48 Utrum sacerdos parochialis teneatur credere suo subdito dicenti

se alteri esse confessum
71 1. 7.19 Utrum habens duas ecclesias teneatur utriusque officium dicere

72 3. 5.4 Utrum vacans saluti animarum peccet, si circa studium tempus

occupa!
92 1. 9.23 Utrum periurium sit gravius peccatum quam homicidium

Il 42 !. 4. 4 Utrum pueri Iudaeorum sint baptizandi invitis parentibus

Ill 41 3. 5. 5 Utrum liceat alicui petere licentiam pro se docendi in theologia

42 3.32.18 Utrum discipuli sequentes diversas opiniones magistrorum

excusentur a peccato erroris
62 3.34.249 Utrum religiosus possit egredi claustram absque licentia sui
praelati ut patri subveniat in necessitate existenti

92 1.11.23 Utrum liceat requirere ab aliquo moriente ut statum suum post

mortem revelet
13 1 3.34.110 Utrum satisfactio universaliter iniuncta a sacerdote sit sacra-
mentalis
IV 72 1. 8.62 Utrum vir possit accipere crucem uxore nolente, si de eius in-
continentia timeatur
83 3.33.194 Utrum debeant vitari illi excommunicati circa quorum excom-
municationem est apud peritos diversa sententia

V 72 3.34.192 Utrum melius moriatur crucesignatus qui moritur in via eundi

ultra mare quam qui moritur redeundo
11 3 3.34.237 Utrum praelatus qui dat beneficium alicui suo consanguineo ut
exaltetur, simoniam committat
14 1. 7.20 Utrum liceat clerico qui tenetur ad horas canonicas dicere ma-
tutinas sequentis diei de sero
VI 52 1. 7.21 Utrum clericus beneficiatus teneatur in scholis existens dicere
officium mortuorum
53 3.34.236 Utrum episcopus peccet dans beneficium bono si praetei:rnittet
meliorem
81 2. 5.113 Utrum mortuus aliquod detrimentum sentiat ex hoc quod elee-
mosynas quas mandavit dari retardantur
82 2. 5.114 Utrum executor debeat tardare distributiones eleemoysynarum
ad hoc quod res defuncti melius vendantur

93 1.10. 5 Utrum maius peccatum sit cum aliquis mentitur facto quam
cum aliquis mentitur verbo

Armed with the corpus of these quàestiones, each introduced by the

phrase, "secundum Thomam in quadam quaestione de quolibet," the Summa
confessorum spread all over Europe and was the dominant Summa for confes-
 THE QUODLIBETSOF ST. THOMAS AND PASTORAL CARE 35

sors over the next two centuries. lt was copied, abbreviated, arranged in
alphabetical order, translated into German and (partly) into French. And it
became a prime source for the moral teaching of St. Thomas (especially as
found in the Secunda secundae and these Quodlibets) in scholastic as well as
in unprofessional circles - so much so, indeed, that, if one finds in a scholastic
writer or confessor's manual a quotation from St. Thomas, "in quadam quae-
stione de quolibet," the source almost invariably proves to be John of
Freiburg's Summa confessorum or a derivative and not the Quodlibets of St.
Thomas themselves. Thus when Ranulph Higden, monk of Chester and author
of the well-known Polychronicon, states in his Speculum curatorum (1343),
"Sanctus Thomas in quadam quaestione de quolibet dicit quod in foro conten-
tioso creditur homini pro se et contra se et sine probationibus," the source, if a
little garbled in this particular manuscript of the Speculum, is not St. Thomas
but John of Freiburg (Summa 3.34.48)62. The same is true when the English
canonist and parish priest, William of Pagula, writes in his Summa summarum
in about 1320, "An clericus praebendatus in scholis existens tenetur dicere
officium mortuorum? .... Sciendum secundum Thomam in quadam quaestione
de quolibet 11 63.
These and a host of other manuals of the l 4th and I 5th centuries were
written for and generally circulated among those engaged in the cura anima-
rum. It is surely not inappropriate that the replies fumished so carefully by St.
Thomas in Determinations at Paris in 1269-1272 to chance questions from
pastoral care should have reached, however indirectly, over the next two
centuries and more, that very milieu from which these practical questions had
corne in the first instance.

62 Cambridge University Library, MS. Mm.i.20, f. 188v.

63 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 293, f. 140 v, from Summa confessorum
1.7.19.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

THE SUMMA CONFESSO RUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG AND THE

POPULARI ZATION OF THE MORAL TEACHING OF ST. THOMAS
AND OF SOME OF HIS CONTEMPO RARIES

JUST as in the wake of the theological and legal advances of the twelfth
century there was a demand for popularization at the beginning of the thir-
teenth that produced, for example, the summae of Robert of Flamborough,
Thomas Chobham or Raymund of Pefiafort, so in the years that followed the
age of Aquinas, Bonaventure and Hostiensis, there was another, and possibly
more spectacular, wave of popular treatises that was, for the most part, to
endure until about 1500.
Summaries of Bonaventure's commentary on the Sentences were numer-
ous by 13001; while as early as 1273, material from the commentary of Aqui-
nas on the Sentences was incorporated into a popular Dialogus de quaestioni-
bus animae et spiritus2 by the Dominican, John of Genoa ("Januensis", the
author of the influential Catholicon, in which there is also much of the moral
theology of Aquinas). Later, between 1280 and 1288, the General of the
Dominicans, John of Vercelli, commissioned Galienus Orto to make an ab-
breviated version of the Secunda secundae3.
Lesser works of Bonaventure and Aquinas also had their share of popu-
larity, in particular Bonaventure's Breviloquium and the De articulis .fidei et

1 S. ALZEGHY, "Abbreviationes Bonaventurae. Handschrifliche Auszüge aus dem

Sentenzenkommentar des hl. Bonaventure im Mittelalter," Gregorianum 18 (1947)
474-510. See also K. RUH, Franziskanisches Schrifttum im deutschen Mittelalter,
(Munich 1965), pp. 192-197, 214-221.
2 M. GRABMANN, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, 1 (Munich 1926), pp. 369-373,
and "Die Weiterleben und Weiterwerken des moraltheologischen Schrifttums des hl.
Thomas von Aquin im Mittelalter," Divus Thomas (Freiburg in d. Schweiz) 25 (1947)
10.
3 GRABMANN, art. cit., pp. 5-6.
38 L. BOYLE

de sacramentis of Aquinas4. The most popular work of all, however, was a

product of neither Aquinas nor Bonaventure, although it often circulated
under their names: the Compendium theologicae veritatis of Hugh of Stras-
bourg. Written between 1265 and 1270 on a basis of Albert the Great's
Summa de creaturis and Bonaventure's Breviloquium5, it had a remarkable
influence on popular theology in the 14th and 15th centuries, in England, for
example, where it is prominent in William of Pagula's Speculum praelatorum
(c. 1320), and in the anonymous Regimen animarum (1343) and Speculum
christiani (1360-13 70)6. And if the De instructione sacerdotum which Albert
of Brescia compiled about 1300 "ex libris et quaestionibus et tractatibus fratris
Thomae de Aquino" had no great success7, the Dialogus de administratione
sacramentorum which William of Paris put together between 1300 and 1313
"de scriptis fratris Thomae ... ac Petri Tarentoize", proved so useful that it
survives in very many manuscripts and in numerous printed editions8.

Aquinas and Peter of Tarentaise are also at the centre of the subject of
the present essay, the Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg. Its author was
a contemporary of William of Paris, and <lied a year or so after William. Like

4 J. HARTZHEIM, Concilia Germaniae, V (Cologne 1763), pp. 401, 414, 423. See
also F. W. OEDIGER, Ueber die Bildung der Geistlichen im spaten Mittelalter (Lei-
den-Cologne 1953), p. 123.
5 G. BONER, "Ueber den Dominikanertheologen Hugo von Strassburg," Divus
Thomas (Fr.) 25 (1954) 268-286. In the middle ages the Compendium was variously
attributed to Albert, Bonaventure, Thomas, Giles of Rome, Peter of Tarentaise, etc.
Sorne of the medieval uncertain~ about authorship is reflected in a 15th-century
English treatise on the seven deadly sins (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Rawlinson
C. 288, f. Sr): 2 "To this answereth a grete clerk (et est sanctus Thomas secundum
quosdam, et sanctus Albertus secundum alios) in Compendio theologiae, lib. 3, cap.
de avarita".
6 Speculum praelatorum: Oxford, Merton College, MS. 217, f. 5r-v; Regimen
animarum: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Hatton 11, f. 4r; Speculum christiani, ed.
G. Holmstedt (London 1933), p. 182.
7 M. GRABMANN, "Albert von Brescia O.P. (ob. 1314) und sein Werk De officia
sacerdotis," Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, III (Munich 1956), pp. 323-351.
8 A. TEETAERT, "Un compendium de théologie pastorale du XIIIe-XIVe siècle,"
Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 26 (1930) 66-102.
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUMOF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 39

William, who also produced several compilations of canon law, he was an

indefatigable compiler.
Born at Freiburg-im-Breisgau towards the middle of the 13th century,
John was to spend most of his life there as Lector in the Dominican priory.
Even when he was unwillingly elected prior of the house about 1290 he was
allowed to retain his lectorship by Hermann of Minden, the provincial of
Germany, "ne conventus vestrae doctrinae salutaris interim accipiat detri-
mentum "9. Until his death in 1314, John continued to combine these offices of
"prior per se" and "lector per accidens", as Hermann of Minden nicely put
itlO.
A pupil of Ulrich Engelbrecht, under whom he had studied at Strasbourg
before 1272", John the Lector (as he was often known) had accompanied
Albert the Great to Mecklenburg in 126912, and may have studied for a time
at Paris, perhaps while Aquinas and Peter of Tarentaise were lecturing
therel3. When he entered about 1280 on his fonction as Lector at Freiburg
(which was mainly to hold public lectures which his own brethren and those
of the local clergy who so desired would attend)l 4, John soon found that
Raymund of Pefiafort's Summa de casibus, the standard work of confessional
practice, and other similar compilations, were badly in need of revisionl5.

9 H. PINKE, Ungedruckte Dominikanerbriefe des 13. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn

1891),p.165.
10 See H. PLAMM, "Die Grabstatte des Dominikaners Johannes von Preiburg," in
Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Beforderung der Geschichts-, Altertums- und Volk-
skunde von Freiburg 31 ( 1916) 272.
11 A. PRIES, "Johannes von Preiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg," Recherches
de théologie ancienne et médiévale 18 (1951) 332-340.
12 H.-C. SCHEEBEN, "Albert der Grosse. Zur Chronologie seines Lebens," Quel/en
und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens in Deutschland 27 (1931)
53.
13 A. WALZ, "Hat Johann von Preiburg in Paris studiert?," Angelicum li (1934)
245-249.
14 See H.-M. PERET, "Vie intellectuelle et vie scolaire dans l'ordre des Prêcheurs,"
Archives d'histoire dominicaine 1(1948)11, 20-24.
15 "Quoniam dubiorum nova quotidie difficultas emergit casuum, doctores mo-
demi tam theologi quam iuristae plures casus et legendo et scribendo determinaverunt
qui in antiquioribus compilationibus non habentur,. .. ": John of Preiburg, first prologue
to the Summa confessorum. - The edition of the Summa corifessorum (here cited,
where convenient, as SC) used in the present essay is that of Nuremberg 1517. Since
40 L. BOYLE

Raymund had written his Summa at Barcelona about 122516, and although it
had been revised by Raymund himself some ten years later and had been
glossed extensively by William of Rennes about 124117, it was, inevitably,
very much out of date by 1280. Given his background, it is not surprisingi to
find that when John of Freiburg came to the conclusion after some years of
teaching that the Summa de casibus would have to be revised, he tumed at
once to the writings of Ulrich Engelbrecht, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas
and Peter of Tarentaise, for material which would bring the Summa up to date.
As we know from John himself (first prologue to his Summa confesso-
rum), the earliest form ofhis revision ofRaymund's Summa was a Registrum:
an alphabetical index that combined the matter in the Summa de casibus with
that in the Apparatus of William of Rennes. Then, spreading his net a little, he
began to collect casus which were not covered by the Summa and the Appa-
ratus, the result being a Libellus quaestionum casualium that followed the
order of Raymund's Summa but contained much more material. Finally, he
embarked on a full-blown Summa confessorum ofhis own, the first summa, in
fact, to be so called 18.
The date usually assigned to this Summa confessorum by bibliographers
and others is 1280 x 1298, the terminus ante quem being determined by the
fact that John added a supplement to the Summa when the Liber sextus of
Boniface VIII was issued in 129819. This span ofyears may now be narrowed

John of Freiburg has arranged his work very carefully, and it is very easy to locate a
given reference in any of the editions of the SC, it will not be cited here by the page of
the Nuremberg edition, but simply by book, titulus and quaestio, thus: 1.7,1 (Book
One, title 7, question 1).
l6 S. KUTTNER, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Summa de casibus poenitentiae
des hl. Raymund von Pennafort," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung far Rechts-
geschichte, kan. Abt., 83 (1953) 419-448. The edition of the Summa de casibus (cited
on occasion as SdC) used in this essay is that of Paris 1603, but the work is cited only
by book and title, e.g. SdC 3.24.
17 A. WALZ, "Sanctus Raymundus auctor Summae casuum," in Acta Congressus
iuridici internationalis, Romae 1934, III (Rome 1936) 25-34.
l 8 The use of this title in editions of pre-1300 works for confessors is anachronis-
tic, as in F. BROOMFIELD, Thomae de Chobham Summa confessorum (Louvain 1968).
l9 For example, in H. FINKE, "Die Freiburg Dominikaner und der Münsterbau,"
(Freiburg in Breisgau 1901 ), pp. 163-171; J. DIETTERLE, "Die Summa confessorum,"
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 25 (1904) 257-260; M.-D. CHENU in Dictionnaire
de théologie catholique VIII.1 (1924), cols. 701-702; A. TEETAERT, La confession
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 41

considerably. For example, John (SC 3.13, 12, etc.) quotes Garsias Hispanus
on the second Council of Lyons, a commentary written in 128220; he also
refers (SC 3.35, 5) to the Summula of "frater Burchardus", a work that is
probably to be dated 1290 x 129521; further, he speaks of a treatise on ex-
communication by "Hermannus, ordinis praedicatorum, quondam provincialis
Teutoniae" (SC 3.22, 219, etc.), who can only be Hermann of Minden, the
provincial who confirmed John as prior about 1290 and who was in office ·
from 1286 to 129022.
If these references take us much nearer to 1298 than to 1280, a further
important reference enables the Summa to be da~ed even closer to 1298. In
that year Boniface VIII published the Liber sextus, and John therefore ap-
pended a section correlating his Summa with the Sext, "ne libri qui de Summa
confessorum iam scripti erant appositione statutorum domini Bonifatii nuper
in suo sexto libro decretalium de novo editorum destruerentur". This, I take it,
means that when the Sext came to John's attention, a large part of his Summa
("libri qui de Summa confessorum iam scripti erant") had already been com-
pleted and he was loth to tamper with it, preferring to add "utiles indices in
fine ipsius summae sub titulis eiusdem summae". Certainly John was in a
position fully to analyze the Sext before he compiled the index to his Summa,
since he states expressly in his preamble to the index that he is including there
"additiones quas de sexto libro decretalium collectas in fine summae in spe-
ciali tractatu addidi". Given that the Sext was published in March 1298, a date
1297/1298 may therefore be suggested for the composition of the Summa
confessorum.

II

In character, the Summa confessorum is a mixture of practical theology

and canon law. Like the Summa copiosa of the canonist Hostiensis (d. 1271),
upon which John draws extensively, the Summa is in question and answer

aux laïques (Louvain 1926), pp. 440-444; P. MICHAUD-QUANTIN, Sommes de casui-

stique et manuels de confession au moyen âge (Louvain 1962), p. 44 ("vers 1290").
20 London, British Museum, MS. Royal 9 C 1.
21 DIETTERLE, art. cit., p. 208.
22 P. VON LOË, "Statistisches über die Ordensprovinz Teutonia," Quellen und For-
schungen ... Dominikanerordens 1 (1907) 13.
42 L. BOYLE

form, each question being answered "according to" one or other of several of
John's main authorities: Raymund, William of Rennes' Apparatus, Hostiensis,
Geoffrey of Trani, William Durandus the Elder (Speculum and Reportorium),
the glossa ordinaria on the Decretals, Albert, Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise,
Ulrich of Strasbourg.
Following the plan of Raymund's Summa de casibus, John's Summa is
divided into four books, each of which reproduces the chapterheadings in
Raymund, from De symonia in Book One to De donationibus in Book Four.
Like Raymund, John also breaks each chapter into numbered quaestiones, but
John's quaestiones do not always coincide with those of Raymund. And where
Raymund often discusses several subjects under a single heading, John gives
each new subject a special rubricella, without, however, disturbing the con-
secutive numeration of the quaestiones23. Thus in SC 1.1 (= Summa confesso-
rum, libro 1, titulo 1), where there are 92 quaestiones in all, the full titulus
(from Raymund, SdC 1,1), is De symonia et de iure patronatus, but qq. 1-79
are entitled De symonia, and qq. 80-92 are given a rubricella, De iure patro-
natus. Again, where Raymund (SdC 3.24) has 70 paragraphs for De poeniten-
tia et de remissionibus, John of Freiburg (SC 3.34) has a large number of
rubricellae embracing some 288 quaestiones. On occasion, as in SC 3.33, q.
34, John sets up special but unnumbered quaestiones within a single num-
bered quaestio. The overall impression of the Summa as a well-planned and
carefully-executed piece of work is heightened by the author's numerous and
very explicit cross-references, for example, in SC 1.4,3, where the reader is
referred from the beginning of the First Book to the middle of the Third: "vide
de hoc infra libro 3, titulo 38, De transitu clericorum, "utrum aliquis"".
Since much of the method and material of the Summa confessorum de-
rives from his earlier compilation, the Libellus quaestionum casualium, John
of Freiburg included the preface to the Libellus in the SC, immediately before
the preface to the SC itself. His purpose, he explains in the first (Libellus)
preface, was to aid his own Dominican brethren in the pastoral care:
Cum igitur quamplurimae quaestiones ad consilia animarum peru-
tiles diversorum doctorum per volumina sint dispersae, ego frater
Johannes lector de ordine praedicatorum minimus, aliquas ex illis
quas magis utiles iudicavi in unum decrevi colligere ad meum et

23 John often cites Raymund by paragraph, e.g. SC 3.34, 6: "Post haec quaero quot
et quae sunt actiones poenitentiae. Respondeo secundum Raymundum, par. 5".
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 43

aliorum fratrum profectum, ut si qui forte librorum copiam non

habuerint, vel ad tot summas et scripta transcurrenda non vacave-
rint, hic collecta sub compendio multa de his inveniant quae requi-
runt...
To that end he had written his earlier Registrum of the Summa of Ray-
mund and of the Apparatus of Wilfü~m of Rennes. Now in the Libellus he has
put together quaestiones casuales which elaborate upon Raymund's or are not
to be found in Raymund, and which he has taken from certain canonists and
from four theologians ofhis own Ortler:
... in isto libello quaestiones casuales quae vel non continentur vel minus
plene continentur in ipsa praedicta summa fratris Raymundi et apparatu
eius, quas in pluribus doctorum libris et scriptis invenire potui, in unum
collegi easque sub titulis eiusdem summae et eorumdem librorum et titulo-
rum ordine disposui, aliquas insuper rubricellas de specialibus materiis
quibusdam titulis supponendo. Sunt autem haec collecta maxime de libris
horum doctorum memorati ordinis, videlicet, fratris Alberti quondam Ra-
tisponensis episcopi, fratris Thomae de Aquino, et fratris Petri de Tharan-
tasia, postmodum summi pontificis Innocentii quinti, magistrorum solem-
nium in theologia. Item, fratris Ulrici, quondam lectoris Argentinensis ei-
usdetn ordinis, qui quamvis magister in theologia non fuerit, tamen ma-
gistris inferior non extitit, ut in libro suo quem tam de theologia quam de
philosophia conscripsit evidenter innotescit, et famosorum lectorum de
scholis ipsius egressorum numerus protestatur: unde et postea provin-
cialatus Theutoniae laudabiliter administrato officia, Parisius ad legendum
directus, ante lectionis inceptionem ibidem a domino est assumptus. Item
ponuntur hic aliqua de summa Goffredi et plura de summa domini
Ebrudunensis quae dicitur Copiosa, qui postmodum fuit cardinalis Hosti-
ensis: unde et a quibusdam nominatur summa domini Hostiensis. Addun-
tur quoque hic aliqua de novis statutis summorum pontificum sive in mo-
dernis conciliis editis sive in curia publicatis. Sed et hic considerandum est
quod cum secunda pars secundae de summa fratris Thomae praedicti quasi
pro maiori parte sit moralis et casualis, plurima de illa sumpta in hoc opu-
sculo posui: et ideo ubicumque solum dicitur "Respondeo secundum Tho-
mam in summa" vel simile, nullo addito, semper intelligendum est de se-
cunda secundae nisi alia pars specialiter exprimatur.
The preface to the Summa confessorum itself presumes that one has read
the above preface to the Libellus, although there is a slight variation on the
warning about references to the Summa of Aquinas: "quod cum nominatur hic
"in summa Thomae", semper intelligitur de secunda parte secundae nisi alia
pars specialiter exprimatur". John is also careful to point out that when he
44 L. BOYLE

states at the beginning of a reply that he is following a given author, then all
of that reply is to be understood as coming from that author:
Nota etiam quod cum cuiuscumque doctoris nomen vel liber ponitur in
principio responsionis ad quaestionem, puta cum dicitur "Respondeo se-
cundum Raymundum vel Thomam" aut similia, ab illo accepta est tota
solutio quaestionis usque in finem nisi alius doctor interponatur. Cum vero
duo vel plures doctores simul ponuntur in principio quaestionis, ut cum di-
citur "Respondeo secundum talem et talem," solutio totius quaestionis
communis est illis doctoribus, licet aliqua verba ponat unus ad explanatio-
nem quae non ponit alius, sed in sententia non discordant.

John explains, too, what precisely he means when he adds (typically, as

it happens) at the end of a citation from an author that several other authors (e.
g. Thomas and Albert and Peter) support this position:
Verum cum in fine alicuius quaestionis sic dicitur "Concordat" vel "Idem
dicit talis et talis", et nullus alius doctor interpositus est, concordia intel-
ligitur totius solutionis vel in sententia et quasi in verbis vel saltem in
sententia, nisi solutio plura membra et plures articulas habeat; tune enim
respondet illi versui vel sententiae cui immediate adiungitur, nisi per ali-
quid additum designetur ad omnia praecedentia vel ad aliqua plura de
praedictis esse referendum ...
Again, as in the Libellus, the audience to which the Summa is directed is
the "animarum medici". John now hopes that in this present work "multa de
his quae requirunt inveniant, et ex diversorum concordia doctorum sciant quid
sit probabilius et securius iudicandum".
Now, although John does not claim to be doing anything more than
bringing Raymund up to date ("... de summa fratris Raymundi quam quasi
totam huic operi includo ... ": SC 3.34,84), his Summa is, in fact, a much differ-
ent work from that of Raymund. For one thing, his range of canonical
authorities naturally goes far beyond that of the Summa de casibus to include
the chief legal writers between 1234 and 1298: Innocent IV, Peter Sampson,
Geoffrey of Trani, Garsias Hispanus, Hostiensis, William Durandus. For
another, the tone of the Summa is much more theological than that of Ray-
mund. This is largely because of John's adroit use of theological authorities,
and in particular of his four Dominican sources. John claims that he is simply
filling out Raymund's summa with "casus morales", but in fact he presents the
reader with quotation after quotation from his "doctores modemi", and thus
places some ofRaymund's legal solutions in a wider, theological framework.
A good example is Raymund's chapter De sacramentis iterandis et de
consecrationibus ecclesiarum (SdC 3. 24). Raymund is entirely preoccupied
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 45

with irregularities in this chapter, and only a few lines are allowed to the
sacraments as such: "Quoniam quorundam sacramentorum iteratio irregulari-
tates inducit, merito post praedicta impedimenta (sexus, etc.) de hoc aliqua
sunt tangenda, pauca sacramentorum generatim praemittendo". As usual, John
repeats the opening words of Raymund, "Quoniam ... tangenda", but then
adds, "et quia de aliquibus sacramentis non ponuntur - puta de baptismo,
confirmatione, eucharistia et extrema unctione - quarum notitia non modicae
est utilitatis, de his in hoc titulo aliquantulum latius prosequamur, maxime
secundum theologos a quibus haec materia perfectius determinatur" (SC 3. 24,
prologue). As a result, John now devotes 149 elaborate quaestiones, with
replies mostly from Aquinas, to the four sacraments in question, and a further
14 to a separate rubricella De consecratione.

Of course, John never forgets that his primary text is that of Raymund. It
was, in its way, sacred in the Dominican Ortler. For Raymund, who had been
a General of the Dominicans for a briefperiod, was the known compiler of the
Decretales promulgated by Gregory IX in 1234; besides, his Summa was one
of the few books to be singled out for mention in the Ratio studiorum which a
committee composed of Albert, Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and two others
had drawn up for the Ortler in 125924. This reverence is reflected in the care
with which John of Freiburg quotes the Summa at length at the beginning of
each chapter and keeps to the order of Raymund's paragraphs. Here and there
it restrains him when he is tempted to jettison parts of Raymund: "... praeter-
missa vero hic posui, ne de summa fratris Raymundi ... viderer partem no-
tabilem detruncasse" (SC 3. 34, 84).
Yet John was quite aware of Raymund's limitations. For example Ray-
mund has nothing at all on the sacrament of Orders. In fact, under the title De
aetate ordinandorum et de temporibus ordinationum, he plunges into im-
pediments, without as much as a glance at the nature of the sacrament: "Re-
pellitur quis ab ordinatione et electione propter defectum aetatis, dist, 77"
(SdC 3. 22). John, on the other hand, will have none of this too legalistic
approach: "De hoc titulo circa ordines, ordinantes et ordinatos magis specialia
exequens, primo quaero ... quid sit ordo .... "; and proceeds in some 54 quae-
stiones to give long quotations from Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and others,
on the meaning of order, character, etc. Again, in the title De bigamis (SC 3.

24 Acta capitulorum genera/ium, 1, ed. B. M. REICHERT (Monumenta ordinis

praedicatorum historica 3), (Rome 1898), p. 99; see pp. 110, 174.
46 L. BOYLE

3), John is content to repeat Raymund almost word for word for the first three
quaestiones, but then breaks away with the question (q. 4): "Sed quare ad
perfectionem sacramenti (matrimonii) non requiritur virginitas in viro sicut in
muliere?" And his reply possibly has a sting in its tail: "Respondeo secundum
Thomam in scripto (4 D. 27, cited earlier by John), quia defectus in ipso
sacramento causat irregularitatem ... . Juristae tamen di versas rationes alias
assignaverunt quae stare non possunt .....
By and large, there is scarcely one place where John is satisfied to repeat
Raymund without some comment or addition. Sometimes it is simply a ques-
tion of filling out a casual reference in Raymund, as when in SC 3. 34, 6 he
adds a Decretum reference ("ab Augustino: De pe. dist. 1") where Raymund
has a vague, "ut ait Augustinus". At other times, and especially on purely
legal matters, there is an unexpected display (for a theologian) of legal leam-
ing. Thus, in the title De negotiis saecularibus, et utrum de illicite acquisitis
possitfieri elemosina (SC 2. 81), John devotes four quaestiones (qq. 39-42) to
De iure emphiteosis where Raymund has only a few desultory sentences.
Of course, John's command of legal sources was not entirely at firsthand.
Most of his acquaintance with the finer points of law, and with the major
Decretists and Decretalists, was due, as he admits in his prologues, to the
Summa copiosa of Hostiensis, the Apparatus of William of Rennes on Ray-
mund, and the Summa of Geoffrey of Trani (not to speak of the Speculum
iudiciale of William Durandus, which he does not mention there). Thus, in SC
3. 33, 245, after what appears to be an uncommon familiarity with some of the
Decretists, John admits disarmingly: "Haec omnia in glossa". Ail the same,
John appears to have made a fair attempt to keep abreast of legal scholarship.
If it is not unexpected to find him using the Speculum (1287) of Durandus, or
the Manuale ofhis fellow-Dominican, Burchard of Strasbourg (SC 3. 33, 105,
135, etc.) and the De interdicto of his former superior, Hermann of Minden
(SC 3. 33, 219, 226, 251, etc.), it is a little surprising at first glance to note the
presence of the commentary ( 1282) of Garsias Hispanus on the legislation of
the Second Council of Lyons (SC 3. 13, 12; 3. 34, 221, 227, etc.). But, then, as
befitted an assiduous teacher of practical theology, John had more than a
passing interest in the constitutions issued by that Council, for he quotes them
often (SC 1. 7, 29; 2. 7, 71, 72; 4. 24, 149, etc.).
Since Raymund of Pefiafort has many chapters of purely le gal content in
his Summa de casibus, there are, inevitably, some quite long stretches of
almost unrelieved quotations from legal authorities in John of Freiburg's
Summa confessorum. Otherwise, John never lets slip an opportunity of draw-
ing extensively on the "doctores modemi" oftheology. As John states in both
 THESUMMA CONFESSORUMOF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 47

his prologues, these theological sources are generally limited to the writings
of Albert, Ulrich of Strasbourg, Peter of Tarentaise and Thomas Aquinas.
Albert and Ulrich, however, are much less in evidence than Peter and Tho-
mas.
The Liber de missa of Albert is quoted extensively on many occasions
(e. g. SC 3. 24, 56, 60, 75, 85, 105, 110), but his Summa de creaturis is used
sparingly (SC 1. 8, 47, 48; 4. 1, 21, etc.), though it is often cited in support of
an opinion of one of the other theologians. One of the more notable instances
of dependence upon it occurs in the rubricella De consecratione et velatione
virginum (SC 3. 3, 14-24), where in q. 17 John shows that he is well aware of
the relationship between Albert and Thomas: "Quid de virginibus occultis, si
sine scandalo earum consecratio intermitti non potest? Respondeo secundum
Albertum in Summa de quatuor coaequaevis, in tractatu de virtutibus cardi-
nalibus, di. 58. Et quasi eadem verba sunt Thomae et Alberti, quia Thomas
sumpsit de Alberto, qui doctor eius fuerat in studio Coloniensi". Although the
"Summa de bono" of Ulrich of Strasbourg is cited more frequently than
Albert's Summa, it ceases to be prominent after Books One and Two (e. g. SC
1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12: 2. 5, 64-99), and appears only fitfully in Book Three
(where, as it happens, there is a citation from Ulrich "in quadam quaestione de
quolibet": SC 3. 34, 272).
The two theological mainstays of the Summa confessorum are, in fact,
Peter of Tarentaise and Thomas Aquinas. The Quodlibets of Peter are quoted
only twice25, but his commentary on the Sentences is almost as frequently
invoked as the Summa or the commentary on the Sentences of Thomas.
Sometimes there are long runs of citations from Thomas, but just as often
there are passages of equal length from Peter, one after the other. Thus, in SC
3. 34, qq. 144-148 (Pro quibus peccatis requiratur poenitentia?), all five
replies are from Peter; and this black of questions is followed by De remis-
sione venialium (qq. 149-158), where Peter is the source called on for qq. 149-

25 "Utrum religiosus teneatur obedire praelato suo praecipienti sibi aliquid contra
regulam. Respondeo secundum Petrum in quadam quaestione de quolibet" (SC 3.33,
8). This is Qdl. 1.34 in P. GLORIEUX, La littérature quodlibetique, II, (Paris 1935),
p. 227, and is printed in GLORIEUX, "Le Quodlibet de Pierre de Tarentaise," Recher-
ches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 9 (1937) 270. A second reference, "Respon-
deo secundum Petrum in quaestionibus de quolibet" (SC 3.34, 254), may really be to
Peter's Quaestiones de peccato, on which see GLORIEUX, "Questions nouvelles de
Pierre de Tarentaise," ibid., 14 (1947) 98-103.
48 L. BOYLE

152, Thomas for q. 153, Peter again for q. 154, Thomas for qq. 155-156, Peter
for 157, and so on. Unless one were to count, and then add up the lines of
explicit borrowings from these two authors, it would be difficult to state with
any exactitude which one of them is relied upon more than the other in John's
Summa. But in view of John's own remarks in his prologues, it is not unfair to
suggest that Thomas would possibly prove the winner.
Of the works of Thomas quoted in the Summa confessorum, the least ex-
pected is that known as De regimine Judaeorum ad ducissam Brabantiae. It
first occurs in SC 1. 4, 9 ("Utrum liceat dominis terrarum aliquam exactionem
facere in Iudaeos? Respondeo secundum Thomam in quadam epistola ad
ducissam Lotharingiae et Brabantiae ... "), and is cited at length on at least 10
occasions - practically all of the letter, in fact (SC 1. 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
2. 5, 34, 36, 40, 41).
John's use of the Quodlibets of Thomas is even more striking, for he
cites Thomas "in quadam quaestione de quolibet" on at least 33 occasions,
and generally in full. Obviously he had searched through the Quodlibets and
had utilized as much as possible of those with a "pastoral" bearing26, e. g.,
"Utrum clericus praebendatus in duabus ecclesiis, in die quo diversum est
officium in utraque ecclesia, debeat utrumque officium dicere ... Respondeo
secundum Thomam in quadam quaestione de quolibet..." (SC 1. 7, 19 = Tho-
mas, Qdl. 1. 7, 1: all of corpus); "Utrum executor debeat tardare distributio-
nem elemosinarum ... Respondeo secundum Thomam ... " (SC 2. 5, 114 = Qdl.
VI. 8, 2: all of corpus): "Utrumque aliquis teneatur dimittere studium theolo-
giae, etiam si aptus ad docendum alios, ad hoc quod intendat saluti animarum.
Respondeo ... " (SC. 3. 5. 4 = Qdl. 1. 7, 2: all of corpus).
Curiously, not all of the Quodlibets which John attributes to Thomas
prove to be really his. Here and there one's suspicions are aroused by passages
which do not have the ring of Thomas, as in SC 3. 28, 23: "Utrum periculum
sit claustralibus monachis si cura ecclesiarum spectantium ad claustrum
negligatur a monachis officialibus? Respondeo secundum Thomam in quadam
quaestione de quolibet .... Et si esset mihi notum aliquid tale monasterium,
non auderem consulere quod aliquis in tali collegio eligeret monachatum". As
it happens, this quotation cornes from q. 24 of the first Quodlibet (1270) of

26 See L. E. BOYLE, "The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and the Pastoral Care," The
Thomist 38 (1974).
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 49

John Peckham27. This is quite interesting, when one remembers that, begin-
ning from 1279, this Quodlibet of Peckham occurs in at least 23 MSS of the
Quodlibets of Thomas, but that only one of these MSS explicitly attributes it
to Thomas. This is a late 13th-century MS (Paris, BN, lat. 15351), and it
seems reasonable to suppose that the manuscript of the Quodlibets of Thomas
to which John ofFreiburg had access, belonged to that same tradition28. At all
events, in 11 of the following 33 instances, John of Freiburg tums out to be
quoting from Peckham's first Quodlibet and not at all from Thomas "in
quadam quaestione de quolibet":

S. confessorum St. Thomas Peckham

* 1. 1: 1,66 I. 20a
2. 4,4 Il.4, 2
3. 7,19 I.7, 1
4. 20 V.13, 3
5. 21 VI.5, 2
6. 8,62 IV.7,2
* 7. 78 I.26
8. 79 I.26
9. 9,23 I.9,2
10. 10,5 VI.9, 3
11. 11,23 Ill.9, 2
* 12. 2: 5,93 I.17
13. 113 VI.8, 1
14. 114 2
15. 3: 5,4 I.7, 2
16. 5 III.4, 1
* 17. 24,23 I.22
* 18. 28,23 I.24
19. 32,18 III.4, 2
* 20. 33,6 I.19
* 21. 10 I.25
22. 194 IV.8, 3
23. 34,26 I.5
6,3

27 For the quodlibets of Peckham see P. GLORIEUX, La littérature quodlibetique I

(1925), pp. 220-222, II (1935), pp. 174-175.
28 See J. DESTREZ, "Les disputes quodlibetiques de Saint Thomas d'après la tradi-
tion manuscrite", Mélanges Thomistes, (Paris, 1923), pp. 49-108, at pp. 59-61. The
MS. is Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS. lat. 15351 (n. 69 in Destrez).
50 L. BOYLE

24. 48 2
25. 69
* 26. 73 I.23
* 27. 74 III.13, 1 I.23a
28. 110 V.7, 2
29. 192 VI.5, 3
30. 236 V.11, 3
31. 237 III.6, 2
32. 249
* 33. 289 I.18
S. confessorum St. Thomas Peckham

Needless to say, the work of Thomas that is used most of ail in the
Summa confessorum is the Secunda secundae of his Summa. Other parts of
the Summa, of course, are cited: the Prima secundae occasionally; the Tertia
pars (with the commentary on 4 Sentences) frequently in SC 3. 33, qq. 24-
167, on Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist and Extreme Unction. But pride of
place is given to the Secunda secundae, "cum (as John states in his first pro-
logue) secunda pars secundae de summa fratris Thomae praedicti pro maiori
parte sit moralis et casualis ... " And in both of his prologues he wams the
reader, "quod cum nominatur hic in summa Thomae, semper intelligitur de
secunda parte secundae, nisi alia pars specialiter exprimatur".
The Secunda secundae is present right from the opening title of the
Summa (De symonia) and it is invoked on every occasion that some moral
point is being considered, even in the midst of long legal passages. If it is very
notable in sections on the De lege et consuetudine (SC 2. 5, 203-208), or De
emptione et venditione (SC 2. 8, 7-19), or De sententia praecepti (SC 3. 33, 5-
26, etc.), it is at its most evident in the rubricella De iudiciis peccatorum (qq.
196-288) of SC 3. 34 (De poenitentiis et remissionibus). After some quota-
tions from Raymund, and one from the Prima secundae, John introduces a
long selection from the Secunda secundae with the words, "Post haec descen-
dendo ad spiritualia, de fi.de primo quaero ... " (q. 202). There now follow the
essentials of the teaching of Thomas on most of the theological and moral
virtues:
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 51

S. confessorum St. Thomas Subiect

q. 202 2.2 2. 6, 7 explicit faith
203 8 "
204 3,2 confession of faith
205 10, 6 infidelity
206 7 infidels
207 13, 1 blasphemy
208 2 "
209 15, 1 torpor
210 2 despair
211 20, 1 "
212 21, 2 presumption
213 25, 8 charity
214 9 "
215 10 "
216 12 "
217 26,2 "
218 7 "
219 34,2 hate
220 35, 1 sloth
221 2 "
222 36, 1 envy
223 2 "
224 3 "
"
"
"
288 168,2 games

In all of the Summa confessorum, however, there is very little to be seen

of John of Freiburg himself, apart, that is, from a few asides such as "in hoc
tamen casu credo quod ... " (SC 3. 33, 61), "Ego sine praeiudicio credo" (3. 33,
86), "Fateor dictum fratris Thomae, cum ex ratione procedat, mihi magis
placere" (2. 8, 25), "Prima opinio benignior et communior" (3. 30, 12), and
from a possibly autobiographical glimpse when he speaks of John de Varzy, a
Dominican who taught at Paris in 1266: "Et hanc formam (absolutionis)
exposuit magister Iohannes de Verziaco in scholis ... " (3. 34, 89).
For all that, it would be a mistake to dismiss the Summa as a mere, if
gifted, compilation. Rather, it may prove not to be an exaggeration to state
that the Summa confessorum was the most influential work of pastoral theol-
ogy in the two hundred years before the Reformation. Certainly it was en-
dowed by its author with a doctrinal character which few manuals before it
52 L. BOYLE

had possessed - and one which would be imitated but rarely improved upon
by the manuals and manualists of the next two centuries29.

III

Whatever its originality, the Summa confessorum was an immediate suc-

cess. lt attracted followers from professional theologians such as Rainerius of
Pisa (Pantheologia, c. 1330)30 and legists such as Albericus de Rosate (Re-
pertorium iuris, c. 1338)31 to humble manuals such as the Fasciculus morum
(1320 x 1340) 32, the Cilium oculi (1330 x 1340) 33, the Speculum christiani
(1370 x 1400)34, the Lucerna conscientiae (c. 1400)35, the ethico-medical
Florarium Bartholomaei (1395 x 1407) of John Mirfie]d36, and the Speculum
iuratorum (c. 1450) of Thomas Wygenha]e37_ And if we are to believe the
Summa rudium (c. 1338), Pope John XXII held the Summa confessorum in
such high esteem that he remarked on one occasion of its author, "Qui istam
summam collegit, reputo unam esse de melioribus personis totius eccle-
siae"38. There may be some truth in this report, for, as we know from an

29 For a slightly different opinion, see P. MICHAU9-QUANJ

IN, Les Sommes de
casuistique, p. 50. While allowing that the SChas a theological character, he feels that
it is so faithful to Raymund that there is no new direction there.
30 Pantheologia (Louvain 1570), I, p. 384a; II, p. 896b, etc. The SC is not cited as
such.
31 See R. ABBONDANZA in Dizionario biografico italiano 4 (Rome 1962), cols.
463-465.
32 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 332, f. 142vb, etc. The SC is not cited
byname.
33 Oxford, Balliol College, MS. 86, f. 233rb, etc. Again, there is no explicit refer-
ence to the SC.
34 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Rawl. C. 19, ff. 7v, 8r, etc., but again not by
name. This MS. contains a larger, if not an original, version of the Speculum as
printed by G. HOLMSTEDT(London 1933).
35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodley 801, passim, but not by name.
36 Cambridge University Library, MS. Dd. xi. 83, f. 82v, etc., but not explicitly.
There is a general study of the Florarium in P. HARTLEY and H. R. ALDRIDGE,
Johannes de Mirfield (Cambridge 1936).
37 Cambridge University Library, MS. li. vi. 39, ff. 3v, 4r, etc., but not by name.
38 Summa rudium, (Reutlingen 1487), prologue. The 15th-century chronicler Jo-
hann Meyer also reports this eulogy, but his source is probably the Summa rudium.
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 53

inventory of 1327, the Summa was indeed among the books in John XXII's
study39.
Not unexpectedly the Dominicans of the 14th and 15th centuries re-
sponded with enthusiasm to the new, up-to-date, pattern of confessional
manual set by John of Freiburg. From the earliest days of their Ortler there
had been a sturdy tradition of manuals for confessors, mainly because Hon-
orius III had commissioned them in 1221 to hear confessions and had com-
mended them as confessors to the bishop of Christendom. As a result, the
Dominicans had entered the field of theology for the very first time, when
manuals of practical theology were hurriedly put together at various points of
the expanding Order. At Balogna, a Summa by Conrad Hôxter was possibly
ready by May 1221; in 1222 the Dominicans at St. Jacques combined to
produce a handy vademecum for the Paris area; another handbook appeared at
Cologne in 1224; and in 1225 a first version of a Summa de casibus was
composed at Barcelona for the Dominicans of Spain by Raymund of Pefia-
fort40. It was in this way that a tradition began which Raymund was to domi-
nate in the thirteenth century, and John of Freiburg from 1300 onwards.
Raymund, of course, was a great name al! through the middle ages41, but it is
not unlikely that some of the fame attached to Raymund and the Summa de
casibus is to a large extent due in the later middle ages to the fact that John of
Freiburg's ubiquitous Summa, with its superficial likeness to that of Raymund,
was sometimes mistaken (especially by library catalogues) for the Summa de
casibus, and cited as "Raymundi Summa confessorum", through ignorance of
its real author42.

See H.-C. Sc_HEEBEN, "Johannes Meyer O.P., Chronica brevis ordinis praedicato-
rum," in Quellen und Forschungen ... Dominikanerordens 29 (1933) 53.
39 A. MAIER, "Annotazioni autografe di Giovanni XXII in codici vaticani," Aus-
gehendes Mittelalter II (Rome 1967), pp. 81-96, at p. 94, n. 28.
40 See P. MANDONNET, Saint Dominique, ed. M.-H. VICAIRE and R. LADNER
(Paris 1938), I, pp. 249-269.
41 A. W ALZ, "S. Raymundi de Penyafort auctoritas in re paenitentiali," Angelicum
12 (1935) 346-396.
42 Thus the Regimen animarum (1343): "Compilavi enim hoc opusculum ex
quibusdam libris, videlicet, Summa summarum, Raymundi Summa confessorum, .... "
(Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Hatton 11, f. 4r). John of Preiburg himselfis partly to
blame for any mistake of identity. Shom of its two prologues, the SC could easily
have been taken for the Summa de casibus. The incipits of both works are largely
identical, as are the prologues to each titulus.
54 L. BOYLE

The readiness with which the Dominicans abbreviated, translated or

simply used the Summa confessorum leaves little doubt that John had taken
over the field from Raymund. The Summa rudium, with its eulogy of John, is
largely a simplified version of the Summa by an anonymous Dominican43;
another Dominican, William of Cayeux, published an abridgement about
134044; in 1338, Bartholomew of S. Concordia composed at Pisa an influen-
tial Summa de casibus (often called Pisanella or Magistruccia) that is basi-
cally an alphabetical arrangement of the Summa confessorum45; about a
hundred years later a small Dominican Tractatus de sacramento a/taris is
described by its author as "ex Summa confessorum quasi totaliter extrac-
tus"46.
Dominicans, too, contributed to vemacular versions of the Summa. Ber-
thold of Freiburg, John's successor as superior, made a German translation
which was to find its way into print at least four times before 150047. In the
middle of the 14th century the Summa is used, if not directly translated at
times, by the Tugenden Buch, a work which translates selections from the
Secunda secundae of Thomas, and with which John of Freiburg himself is
credited in some three manuscripts48. At the end of the 15th century a French
translation was printed of a Regula mercatorum which Guy of Evreux had

43 J. F. VON SCHULTE, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen

Rechts, II (Stuttgart 1877), pp. 528-529; R. STINTZING, Geschichte der populiiren
Literatur des romisch-kanonischen Rechts in Deutschland (Leipzig 1867), p. 514; J.
DIETTERLE, "Die Summae .. .," in ZKG 27 (1906) 78-80. Since this article of Dietterle,
"Die Summae confessorum ... von ihren Anfângen an bis zu Silvester Prierias .... ," is
cited often in the following notes, it may be useful to note here that the whole article
runs through five volumes of the Zeitschriftfor Kirchengeschichte (ZKG), as follows:
24 (1903) 353-374, 520-548; 25 (1904) 248-272; 26 (1905) 59-81, 350-362; 27
(1906) 70-83, 166-188, 296-310, 431-442; 28 (1907) 401-431.
44 SCHULTE, II, p. 423; DIETTERLE, ZKG 26 (1905) 59-63.
45 SCHULTE, II, pp. 428-429; DIETTERLE ZKG 27 (1906) 166-171.
46 Cambridge University Library, MS. Ee. iii. 58, ff. 80r-88r.
47 DIETTERLE, ZKG 26 (1905) 67-77; R. STANKA, Die Summa des Berthold von
Freiburg (Vienna 1937).
48 K. BERG, Der tugenden Buch. Untersuchungen zu mittelhochdeutschen Pro-
satexten nach Werken des Thomas von Aquin (Munich 1964), pp. 77-78, 97-100, 109-
112. The Summa confessorum is also present in German works of Nicholas of
Dinkelsbühl (ob. 1433), one of the great 15th-century popularizers of scholasticism
(ibid., pp. 30-32, 41-52).
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUMOF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 55

pulled together about 1320 from John of Freiburg's chapters on usury and just
price in the Summa49.
Finally, if the influence of the Summa confessorum is to be seen in the
two great Franciscan Summae of the end of the 15th century, the Rosella
casuum ofBaptista de Sa!is50 and the Summa angelica of Angelo Carletti51, it
is even more present in the last, and perhaps the most ambitious, of the me-
dieval Dominican manuals, the Summa summarum Sylvestrina (1516) of
Sylvester Mazzolini de Prierio52. A man of formidable leaming, Sylvester
nevertheless draws, as so many others had done for over 200 years, on the
Summa of John of Freiburg for quotations from the Quodlibets and the Se-
cunda secundae of Thomas, from the Summa of Raymund, from the Appara-
tus of William of Rennes and, need it be said, from the writings of Albert the
Great and Peter of Tarentaise. At the end of the Sylvestrina there is a long
catalogue of the main "summistae" of the preceding centuries. It is surely not
inappropriate that the Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg should appear
there simply and anonymously as "Summa confessorum ordinis praedicato-
rum"53. If anything, the impact of the Summa confessorum on the manualist
tradition at large was as pronounced as that on the Dominican manualists. As
early as 1303 it was used (but without acknowledgement) by the Franciscan,
John of Erfurt, in the second edition ofhis Summa de poenitentia54. About the
same time there also appeared the first Franciscan counterpart to the Summa,
an anonymous Labia sacerdotis. While this leans heavily on the pre-1300
manualists, and on Bonaventure, it also cites Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and
Raymund. The Summa confessorum, however, is never mentioned. Yet it is

49 P. MICHAUD-QUANTIN, "Guy d'Evreux, technicien du sermonnaire médiéval,"

Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 20 (1950) 216-217.
50 SCHULTE, II, pp. 448-450; DIETTERLE, ZKG 27 (1906) 431-442.
51 SCHULTE, II, pp. 452-453; DIETTERLE, ZKG 27(1906) 296-310; MICHAUD-
QUANTIN, Sommes, pp. 99-101.
52 SCHULTE, II, pp. 455-456; DIETTERLE, ZKG 28 (1907) 416-431; MICHAUD-
QUANTIN, Sommes, pp. 101-104.
53 Summa summarum quae Sylvestrina dicitur (Cologne 1518), ff. xxxvv, clxvr,
etc.
54 A first edition ofthis Summa was written c. 1296 (see F. DüELLE, "Johann von
Erfurt," in ZKG 31 (1910) 225-238). A second edition in 1302 (e.g. Oxford, Oriel
College, MS. 38) uses the Summa confessorum, for example at f. 150r, where, citing
Aquinas on the Eucharist through the SC, John of Erfurt says, "Ego tamen credo cum
Bonaventura .... ".
56 L. BOYLE

clear from the whole layout of the Labia, and from its citations from these
Dominican sources, that the author had John of Freiburg's work before him55.
The most successful attempt to do for Franciscan moralists what John of
Freiburg had done for Ulrich, Albert, Peter and Thomas, cornes some ten
years later with the Summa Astesana of Astesanus of Asti56. Written in 1317,
and dedicated to cardinal Giovanni Caetani, it was probably as influential as
John's Summa over the next two centuries. The preface, which is not unlike
that of John of Freiburg57, carries a massive list of authorities, mostly Fran-
ciscan moralists and theologians such as Bonaventure, William de la Mare,
Alexander of Hales and John Scotus ("Famosissimus et subtilissimus"). If
there are also the Quodlibets of Henry of Ghent, the commentary on the
Sentences of Richard of Middleton, and the recently-published Apparatus of
Johannes Andreae on the Sext, the Astesana, nevertheless, has a batch of
authorities in common with John of Freiburg: Thomas ("famosissimus"),
Raymund, William of Rennes, Peter of Tarentaise, Hostiensis, Garsias Hispa-
nus and William Durandus. There is no sign, however, of the Summa confes-
sorum among the sources cited, whether in the prologue or the text. This is a
little strange. For although the Astesana does appear to show some independ-
ent knowledge of Raymund, Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, there are sec-
tions where quotations from these authors are undoubtedly through John of
Freiburg's work58.

55 For example, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Hamilton 34, f. 279r: "Numquid
participans excommunicato in casibus non concessis peccat mortaliter? Respondetur.
Quidam dicunt sic, ut Ray. et Gau., et istud durum est dicere. Sed Bon., Thomas et
Petrus dicunt..." (= Summa confessorum, 3.33, 165, without, of course, the reference
to Bonaventure).
56 For an account of Astesanus see G. G!ORGINO, Sponsalium institutum in fr. Ast-
esani de Ast Summa de casibus (Caiazzo 1942), pp. 4-17. See also SCHULTE, II, 425-
427; DIETTERLE, ZKG 26 (1905) 35-62; MICHAUD-QUANTIN, Sommes, pp. 57-60.
57 "... exhortatione ven. patris et domini supra memorati, et etiam plurium fratrum,
surnmam de casibus deo auxiliante compilavi," prologue.
58 Compare, for example, Summa astesana (Regensburg 1480), 4.3, 4, with SC
3.24, 13. Often, as in Astesana 4.3, 4 and 4.3, 5, the author gives a precise reference
to Aquinas and Peter of Tarentaise where the SC has only a general reference.
Anonymous borrowings from John of Freiburg are also to be found in the Summa de
casibus (c. 1315) of the Franciscan Durandus de Campania: see DIETTERLE, ZKG 27
(1906) 70-78.
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 57

The unacknowledged use of John of Freiburg's Summa was, in

fact, widespread. One of the most striking instances is that of the Berk-
shire vicar, William of Pagula. In three of his works, and particularly in
his very popular Oculus sacerdotis (1320-1327), Pagula quietly uses
the Summa confessorum, without once mentioning it by name, for
matter from various canonists and, on many occasions, for quotations
from Albert, Thomas, Raymund and Peter of Tarentaise59. One small
example will suffice to illustrate the point:

Oculus60 Summa (3. 34, 28)

Tanta potest esse contritio quod tota
poena remittitur absque confessione.
Nichilominus tamen confessio et poe-
nitentia iniuncta expleri debent non
propter remedium sed propter prae-
ceptum.
Utrum contritio possit tollere totum
reatum poenae? Respondeo secundum
Petrum: ...
Tantum potest incendi contritio quod
tota poena remittitur. Nichilominus
tamen confessio et poenitentiae ini-
unctae expletio requiritur etiam, non
propter remedium sed propter prae-
ceptum.

Et non solum propter praeceptum Concordat his Thomas, et addit quod

tenetur quis confiteri et satisfacere, sed
etiam propter incertitudinem, quia non
est certus quod sua contritio fuit suffi-
ciens ad totum reatum tollendum, se-
cundum Thomam et Petrum.
non solum propter praeceptum tenetur
confiteri et satisfacere sed etiam pro-
pter incertitudinem, quia, scilicet, non
est certus quod sua contritio fuerit
sufficiens ad totum reatum totlendum.

The same unacknowledged dependence on John of Freiburg is again to

be noted in William of Pagula's Summa summarum, a massive and not unsuc-
cessful compilation of law and theology which was put together between 1319
and 1322. The same is true of his Speculum praelatorum of much the same

59 On the Oculus see L. E. BOYLE, "The Oculus sacerdotis... of William of Pa-

gula," in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 5 (1955) 81-11 O.
60 Oxford, New Cotlege, MS. 292, f. 76r.
58 L. BOYLE

period61. And when Pagula's Oculus sacerdotis was revised, and in part re-
written, some sixty years later by John de Burgo, chancellor of Cambridge,
there is an even greater exploitation of the Summa confessorum. But there is a
difference. Like William of Pagula, the Pupilla oculi (13 84) of de Burgo cites
Albert, Aquinas, Peter, Raymund, etc. through the Summa confessorum, but
unlike Pagula, de Burgo explicitly admits that the Summa of John of Freiburg
is his source, as when he states in his tract on the Eucharist, after a series of
quotations from Aquinas: "Haec omnia notat Johannes in Summa confesso-
rum, lib. 3, tit. XXIIII, c. XXIX"62. Again, his debt to the Summa conjesso-
rum is obvious, even though he does not explicitly acknowledge it, when he
says that his exposition of the Peckham "Syllabus of pastoral instruction"
(1281) cornes "ex dictis sancti Thomae in secunda secundae, diversis articu-
lis"63.
Borrowings from the Summa confessorum, whether explicit or implicit,
were not at ail confined to popular manuals. Thus, John Baconthorpe, the
English Carmelite theologian, whom one would have expected to have known
his Thomas at first-hand, is content in his Postillon St. Matthew (1336-1337)
and Quaestiones canonicae on the 4th book of the Sentences (c. 1344) to draw
on the Summa confessorum for many passages from Aquinas64. What is more
interesting, perhaps, is the fact that although Baconthorpe possessed John of
Freiburg's Summa, he often quotes Thomas, Peter, etc., not through the
Summa confessorum but through William of Pag'ula's Summa summarum
which, in tum, was totally dependent upon the Summa confessorum. There are
occasions, indeed, when he prefers to quote Thomas from the Summa summa-
rum rather than from Thomas himself, or, for that matter, from the Summa
confessorum, the source of the Summa summarum. Thus when he writes, "In

61 Thus, at the end of the Summa summarum (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS.
Bodley 293, f. 83r): "Quare requiritur maior numerus testium contra episcopos et
superiores quam contra alios simplices homines? Die quod triplex est ratio ... secun-
dum Thomam in Summa" (=SC 2.5, 183); "Quid si testis producatur super re de qua
non est omnino certus? Die secundum Thomam in Summa .... " (=SC 2.5, 183), etc.
See L. E. BOYLE, "The Summa summarum," in Proceedings of the Second Interna-
tional Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Boston 1963, ed. S. KUTTNER and J. J.
RYAN, (Vatican City 1965), pp. 415-456, at p. 423.
62 Pupilla oculi, 4.10 (Strasbourg 1518), f. xxxiii.
63 Ibid., 10.5 (Strasbourg 1518), f. clxxvr.
64 See B. SMALLEY, "John Baconthorpe's Postill on St. Matthew," Medieval and
Renaissance Studies 4 (1958) 99-110, 119, 143.
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 59

Summa summarum et Summa confessorum habes multos casus expressos

necessitatis excusantes (a ieiunio) .... Primo quid de laborantibus in vineis ....
Respondetur ibidem (i. e. Summa summarum) .... Sic tenet Thomas in se-
cunda secundae q. 174, art. iv," the wording of the passage from Thomas is
that of the Summa summarum and not of the Summa confessorum or Thomas
himself. Y et John Baconthorpe clearly had the Summa confessorum of John of
Freiburg open before him at the same time. For where Pagula's treatment of
fasting ends simply "secundum Thomam in Summa"65, Baconthorpe proceeds
to give a more precise reference to Thomas, taking it straight from the Summa
confessorum66.
While one can understand that a canonist such as William of Pagula (or,
a hundred years later, William Lyndwood in his Provinciale)67 would have
found the Summa confessorum convenient for quotations from the great
theologians, it is otherwise in the case of John Baconthorpe or of equally
professional theologians such as Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459) and Robert
Holcot (d. 1349). If, for example, the Confessionale of Antoninus is based
mainly on the Pisanella of Bartholomew of Pisa, a derivative of the Summa
confessorum, there are numerous instances when Antoninus tums (sometimes
without acknowledgement) to the Summa confessorum itself for references to
Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, etc., thus: "Duplex est contritionis dolor secun-
dum Thomam et Petrum in 4 d. xvii .... Item secundum Petrum in 4 d. xvii,
dolor maior intellectualis debet esse de maiori peccato habitualiter et non
actualiter si considerentur peccata in communi .... Item secundum Thomam in
quolibet et Innocentium, contritus debet magis diligere Deum quam seipsum"
(= Summa confessorum 3. 34, 22-26)68. Robert Holcot, in his commentary on
the fourth book of the Sentences, also uses the Summa confessorum exten-
sively, but with a certain amount of caution. Citing the Summa confessorum

65 Summa summarum, MS. Bodley 293, f. 149v.

66 Baconthorpe, Commentary on 4 Sent. 20.2, 2 (Cremona 1616, II, p. 446). The
same passage is also to be found in the Pastilla in Matthaeum, Trinity College,
Cambridge, MS. 348, f. 120v.
67 Provinciale 3.23 (Oxford 1679), pp. 227-235, on Penance, etc. Thus at p. 229,
note 1: "ln hac materia dicunt beatus Thomas et Petrus in scriptis, et idem recitat Jo.
in Summa confessorum, tit. de penitentiis et remissionibus, rubrica de suffragiis, q.
163 ... ;" p. 232n.: "Sed numquid contritus, non tamen confessus, recipiendo corpus
Christi, peccat? Die secundum Petrum .... Et his concordat Albertus d. 16 ... Notantur
haec secundum Jo. in Summa confessorum, lib. 3, c. 24, q. 78".
68 Confessionale (Paris 1516), f 186v.
60 L. BOYLE

for a Quodlibet of Aquinas which is, in fact, one of John Peckham's, Holcot
voices his suspicions as follows, "Numquid debet baptizari (monstrum) ut
unus homo an ut duo? Dicendum est ... sicut dicitur in Summa confessorum et
imponitur sancto Thomae in quadam quaestione de quolibet. Sed puto quod
non est dictum suum. Tamen satis bene dicit"69 ...
Holcot's fellow Dominican and exact contemporary, John Bromyard,
probably makes the greatest use of the Summa confessorum of all the writers
of the 14th and 15th centuries who borrowed from John of Freiburg. Both in
Bromyard's Opus trivium (c. 1330)70 and the massive Summa praedicantium
(1330-1348), there are passages through the Summa confessorum "ex respon-
sione sancti Thomae ad ducissam Lotharingiae" (Summa praedicantium M. 8,
36; U. 12, 27), from Raymund and the canonists, as well as from Albert,
Ulrich of Strasbourg and Peter of Tarentaise. At times Bromyard acknowl-
edges his source, thus "Contrariae vero opinionis sunt sanctus Thomas et
Petrus et Ulricus, qui volunt .... Nota s. Thomam ad hoc, prima secundae, q.
64, art. 4. Vide in Summa confessorum, lib. 3, tit. 34, q. 321" (Summa praedi-
cantium D. 5, 5). But there are other moments when there is no reference to
the Summa confessorum, and an unwary reader might be led to conclude that
Bromyard had consulted all the numerous sources which he lists, as when he
states, "Ad omnia namque haec secundum Hostiensem, Raymun-
dum, ... Tancredum, Ulricum, tenentur... 11 (Summa praedicantium R. 6, 2 =
Summa confessorum 2. 5, 91), or again, "Quibus concordat sanctus Thomas de
Aquino in scripto super 4 sent. d. 25 .... His etiam concordat idem in Summa q.
1OO, art. 4. Et Petrus et Albertus in scripto super 4 dist. 25 ... " (ibid., S. 9, 1 =
Summa confessorum 1. 1, 1) 71.

IV

If the general influence of the Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg

on canonists, theologians and manualists is impressive, there is, in respect of
the works of Aquinas and Peter of Tarentaise, a further point that has not been

69 ln quattuor libros Sententiarum (Lyons 1518), 1.7, casus XVI.

70 Opus trivium, R 7 B-C, S 1 C, etc.; London, British Museum, MS. Royal 10 C
X, ff. 123v, 125v, etc.
71 Summa praedicantium (Venice 1586). On Bromyard see L. E. BOYLE, "The
Date of the Summa praedicantium of John Bromyard," Speculum 48 (1973) 533-537.
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 61

fully appreciated by scholars. This is the fact that much of the knowledge of
the moral teaching of Aquinas and Peter (not to speak of Albert, Ulrich of
Strasbourg, Raymund and the others) in the 14th and 15th centuries is due to a
great extent to the Summa confessorum72. So ubiquitous, indeed, was the
Summa that it is not surprising to find references to Albert or Aquinas or Peter
in places as unlikely as the jottings of a confessor's notebook in St. John's
College, Cambridge73, or the notes scribbled at the end of a Canterbury copy
of the Summa de casibus of Thomas Chobham74, or in the interlinear gloss of
the Manuale confessorum metricum of a Cologne Dominican towards the end
of the 15th century75. And if the name of one of John of Freiburg's teachers,
John de Varzy, was known to John Gerson in the early 15th century, this is
precisely because, as he himself tells us, he possessed a copy of the Summa
confessorum:
Petis primo, si apud aliquem doctorem reperiatur forma authentica
absolutionis sacramentalis. Respondeo quod sic. Et de hoc videatur
Summa confessorum .... Tenor quaestionis de qua fit superius men-
tio in Summa confessorum, lib. 3, tit. 34, q. 91, secundum quotatio-
nem libri mei sic se habet: ... Respondeo secundum Albertum .... Et
hanc formam exposuit magister Johannes de Varziaco .... Thomas
etiam in ultima parte summae ... 11 76.
Leaving John de Varzy aside, there is no doubt that Albert, Thomas and
Peter of Tarentaise were known in their own right by many scholastics. But
where their moral teaching is concemed, and particularly in non-professional

72 Thus, many of the works cited by GRABMANN, "Das Weiterleben und

Weiterwerken des moraltheologischen Schrifttums des hl. Thomas von Aquin im
Mittelalter," inDivus Thomas (Fr.) 25 (1947) 3-28, as evidence of the influence ofthe
moral theology of Aquinas in the middle ages, in fact derive much of their knowledge
of Aquinas from John of Freiburg, e.g. the Summa astesana, the Summa rudium, the
Consolatorium of John Nider (ob. 1438).
73 Cambridge, St. John's College, MS. 355, f. 84r. 15th c.
74 For example, "Utrum satisfactio possit fieri per opera extra caritatem facta? Re-
spondeo secundum Petrum in scriptis d. 15, et Iohannem in Summa, lib. 3, c. de
satisfactione ... Dicit Thomas ... :"Canterbury, Dean and Chapter Library, MS. B.10, f.
23r. 14th century.
75 (Cologne 1498), f. cxxxvii, etc.
76 J. GERSON, De absolutione sacramentali, in Opera omnia, ed. E. du Pin (Ant-
werp 1706), II, cols. 406-407.
62 L. BOYLE

circles, the evidence seems to point to the Summa confessorum and its many
derivatives. In the case of Peter and Thomas one has to allow, of course, for
the influence of the very popular Dialogus de administratione sacramentorum
which the Dominican William of Paris compiled between 1300 and 1314 "de
scriptis fratris Thomae principaliter ... ac Petri Tarentoize"77. In practice,
however, one can rule it out, since, unlike John of Freiburg, William of Paris
rarely identifies his quotations.
But even when the Summa confessorum is not mentioned by name, it is
fairly easy to recognize its presence where there are citations from Albert,
Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise, Ulrich of Strasbourg or Raymund of Pefiafort.
The juxtaposition of two or more of these names is usually a good indication.
The phrase, "ut dicit Thomas in quadam quaestione de quolibet", also pro-
vides a strong hint, as in the Summa summarum of William of Pagula ( 1319-
1322)78, the Manipulus curatorum of the Spaniard Guido de Monte Rocherii
(c. 1330)79, or the Speculum curatorum of the Benedictine Ranulph Higden
(c. 1340)80.
The key, however, is in the formula by which John of Freiburg cites his
authorities. He drew attention to it in his second prologue ("Verum cum in
fine alicuius quaestionis sic dicitur Concordat... "), and he is unfailingly true to
it from the very opening chapter of the Summa, thus:
Quaestio prima. Quaero quid sit symonia. Respondeo. Symonia est stu-
diosa voluntas emendi vel vendendi aliquid spirituale vel annexum spiritu-
ali. Sic diffinitur communiter a theologis et iuristis. Communiter enim ad-

77 A. TEETAERT, "Un compendium de théologie pastorale," Revue d'histoire ec-

clésiastique 26 (1930) 66-102.
78 For example (MS. Bodley 293, f. 140v): "An clericus
praebendatus in duabus
ecclesiis in die quo diversum est officium in ecclesia debeat dicere utrumque officium
vel unius ecclesiae officium dicere debet? Die ... secundum Thomam in quadam
quaestione de quolibet" (=SC 1.7, 19); "An clericus praebendatus in scholis existens
tenetur dicere officium mortuorum? ... Sciendum ... secundum Thomam in quadam
quaestione de quolibet"(= SC 1.7, 21).
79 Manipulus curatorum (Louvain 1552), e. g. at f. 128r: "Sanctus Thomas
quadam quaestione de quolibet ponit aliquos casus in quibus tenetur existens in
peccato mortali statim confiteri" (=SC 3. 34, 69).
80 Cambridge University Library, MS. Mm. i. 20, f. 188v: "Sanctus Thomas in
quadam quaestione de quolibet dicit quod in foro contentioso creditur homini pro se
et contra se et sine probationibus" (=SC 3. 34, 48).
 THE SUMMA CONFESSORUM OF JOHN OF FREIBURG ... 63

dunt "vel spirituali annexum", ut Thomas in scripto super 4 sent.. dist. xxv,
et Petrus de Tarentasia, etiam Albertus, eadem distinctione, et Thomas in
Summa q. 100, art. 1 .... Quare etiam symonia dicitur haeresis? .... Re-
spondeo secundum Thomam in Summa art. i et art. x. Ideo symonia dicitur
haeresis quia sicut protestatio fi dei exterior quaedam religio est .... Con-
cordat his Petrus in scripto et Ulricus par. ii .... Quare symoniaci dicuntur
a Symone ... quam Giezite? .... Respondeo secundum Ulricum, par.
Dicuntur autem, quod completior huius ratio peccati fuit in actu Symonis
quam in facto Giezi, nam ille solum vendidit donum Dei .... Concordant
his Thomas et Petrus ... ".
Armed with this key, and remembering in particular John of Freiburg's
variations on the "Concordat" theme, it is not too difficult to suggest what
must be the source, directly or at a remove, of, for example, a gloss that
begins, "Declarantur praefati versus quoad restitutionem secundum beatum
Thomam, Albertum et Ulricum, sic ... 11 81. Above all, it allows us to estimate
just how widespread was the direct influence of Thomas or Albert in certain
areas of scholasticism, and to eut down to size some of the supposed influence
of Peter of Tarentaise and Ulrich of Strasbourg"82. And if an author claims
rather plausibly, as a certain Henricus de Belle of Lôwenich does in a fif-
teenth-century treatise, that he has compiled his work from notes taken "dum
studueram in 4 lib. sententiarum", and, further, goes on to urge his readers to
study "in libris Thomae et Alberti", this seeming evidence for the availability
of certain works of Albert and Thomas to the common clergy of the Rhine-
land crumbles away when one discovers the said Henricus using phrases such
as "et concordant Albertus et Thomas 11 83_
As for Raymund and his well-known, ifnot axiomatic, domination of the
penitential theory and practice of the middle ages, much of this was just as

81 Manuale confessorum metricum (Cologne 1498), f. cxxxviiv. For the Manuale

see DIETTERLE, ZKG 27 (1906) 177-183.
82 J. DAGUILLON, Ulrich de Strasbourg, O.P., "Summa de bono" (Paris 1930),
pp. 3*-5*, and H.-D. SIMONIN, "Les écrits de Pierre de Tarentaise," in Beatus Inno-
centius Papa V (Rome 1943), pp. 163-335, make no allowance whatever for the
Summa confessorum when discussing the influence of their respective authors in the
later middle ages.
83 Cambridge University Library, MS. Kk. i. 9, ff. 54r-65v, at ff. 54r, 58r. Hemi-
cus de Belle was pastor of Lôwenich, and his treatise is addressed to his curate, John.
Another copy, dated 1470, is in Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS. 2070 (2434-52),
ff. 64r-8lv.
64 L. BOYLE

vicarious from 1300 onwards as the reputed influence of Albert and Thomas
and Peter of Tarentaise on popular (and some non-popular) theology.
Sylvester de Prierio was not far from the truth in 1516 when he gave the label
"Summa confessorum ordinis praedicatorum" to John ofFreiburg's work. For
although it never had the blessing of official approval in the Dominican Order
that Raymund's Summa had had, the Summa confessorum was the Dominican
manual in as much as it had distilled the moral teaching of the greatest of the
Dominican theologians, and had placed it at the disposa! of a vast audience.
From 1300 onwards, Raymund was, in fact, obsolete. It is surely not without
some significance that whereas John of Freiburg's Summa confessorum was
printed twice before 150084 and repeatedly in the following century, the
Summa de casibus of Raymund did not appear in print until 1603.

84 L. HAIN, Repertorium bibliographicum (Stuttgart-Paris 1826-1838), nn. 7365

(1476) and 7366 (1498). Incunabula of the German translation by Berthold of
Freiburg are at nn. 7367-7377.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS

Sorne time in the second half of 1261, probably in September, and

almost two years after he had retumed from Paris to Naples as a Master in
Theology, there to continue work on his Summa contra Gentiles, Thomas
Aquinas was appointed to the Dominican bouse at Orvieto as Lector
conventus and, aged about thirty six, took his place in the normal stream of
the Dominican educational system in the Roman Province of the Ortler to
which he belonged.
By now the Dominican Ortler was almost fifty years old and fairly set in
its ways. It had emerged as a recognized religious order in January 1217 when
the Spaniard Dominic obtained from Pope Honorius III a mandate which
tumed his small band of local preachers in the diocese of Toulouse into an
Ortler of Preachers-in-General. Four years later, shortly before the death of
Dominic, it was entrusted as well by the same Honorius with a general
mission of hearing confessions. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 had
explicitly allied the fonction of hearing confessions to that of preaching in its
constitution Inter caetera. From 1221 onwards the implementation of that
constitution in both its facets was, in effect, the mission of the Dominican
Orderl.
Perhaps the young Ortler of Preachers was taken a little by surprise by
this second papal mandate. A general mandate to hear confessions was as new
a thing in the )ife of the church as the earlier commission of the members of
Dominic's Ortler as Preachers-in-General. But it met the challenge at once.

1 For what follows see in general L.E. BOYLE, "Notes on the Education of the
Fratres communes in the Dominican Ortler in the Thirteenth Century," in Xenia medii
aevi historiam illustrantia ablata Thomae Kaeppeli O.P., ed. R. CREYTENS and P.
KONZLE, 2 vols. (Rome, 1978), 1: 249-267 at pp. 249-251; now reprinted in Pastoral
Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London, 1981). -The present
article is a slight reworking of The Setting of the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas
(Toronto 1982), being the fifth of the Etienne Gilson Series of Lectures at the Pontifi-
cal Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
66 L. BOYLE

Within a few years of this encyclical letter of Honorius III in 1221, and just
about the time that Thomas was bom at Roccasecca in 1224 or 1225, at least
four useful manuals of the administration of the sacrament of penance had
been put together by members of the Order at Balogna, Paris, Cologne and
Barcelona, and soon were circulating with the Dominicans as they spread in
those years between 1221 and 1225 beyond France, Italy, Spain and the
Rhineland, the confines of the Order in its first flush, to Britain, Ireland,
Scandinavia, Poland, Hungary and the Near East.
These four manuals, the most celebrated of which is the Summa de
casibus of Raymund of Pennafort, first drafted at Barcelona about 1224,
represent the very first literary activity of the Dominican Order, something
which is all too readily forgotten, if ever mentioned, by historians of the
Order. They were the forerunners of a remarkable flow of pastoral manuals of
various sizes and shapes from Dominican pens over the three centuries before
the Reformation, the better-known of which, to confine ourselves to the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, are the revised edition of Raymund's
Summa in 1234-1235, the Speculum ecclesiae of Hugh of St. Cher ca. 1240,
the Summa vitiorum (ca. 1236) and Summa virtutum (ca. 1236 x 1249-1250)
of Willelmus Peraldus, the Speculum maius of Vincent of Beauvais (1244 x
1259), the Legenda aurea of James of Varazze (1265 x 1267), the
Compendium theologicae veritatis of Hugh Ripelin of Strasbourg (1265-
1268), the Catholicon of John of Genoa (1286), the Summa confessorum of
John of Freiburg (1298), and the Summa praedicantium of John Bromyard
(1326-1349).
By and large these manuals and aids were meant for the generality of the
members of the Dominican Order, for the "Fratres communes" generally
engaged in the twin fonction of the Ortler, preaching and hearing confessions,
whose "whole zeal and labour should be directed chiefly towards the
advancement of souls," as Vincent of Beauvais apologetically said of himself
in his Speculum maius2. These "Fratres communes," no matter what their age,
are the "iuniores," "incipientes," and "simplices" who are addressed in so
many Dominican prefaces. They are, on the whole, those who had not had the
chance of a higher education in the manner of Albert or Thomas or Peter of
Tarentaise or other intellectual lights of the "docibiles" or Lector class. It was

2 S. LUSIGNAN, Preface au Speculum maius de Vincent de Beauvais: réfraction et

diffraction (Montréal-Paris, 1979), p. 138.
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOG!AE OF SAINT THOMAS 67

for them, principally, that Raymund, William Peraldus and John of Freiburg
wrote. lt was for them, explicitly, that Simon ofHinton, probably in the 1250s
when Provincial of England, composed his Summa iuniorum, and Aag of
Denmark, when Provincial of Scandinavia at intervals between 1254 and
1284, his Rotolus pugillaris ("for the instruction of young and other
Dominicans who have to engage in preaching and hearing confessions")3.
This wide and varied pastoral output hardly needs explanation. From its
very beginnings the Dominican Ortler was dedicated to education, but it was
education with a distinctly pastoral bent: "AU our training," the prologue to
the first constitutions of 1220 states, "should principally and wholeheartedly
be directed towards making us useful to the souls of our neighbours"4. Any
and every aid and possible resource was therefore pressed into the service of
the cura animarum. Preachers had to have the Bible at their finger-tips, so a
great alphabetical concordance, the "Concordantiae S. Iacobi," was begun by
the community of St. Jacques in Paris before 1239, probably under Hugh of
St. Cher, and was brought to perfection over the next two generations5. The
education of youth in faith and morals was a special challenge, so William of
Tournai put together his De instructione puerorum, a work commended to the
whole Ortler by the General Chapter at Paris in 12646. Chess was a popular
game, so about 1290 Jacobus de Cessolis of the Dominican house in Genoa
composed a mnemonic treatise on virtues and vices in terms of a chess-board
and chess-pieces, a treatise which had an enormous general circulation and
was translated before 1500 into English (by Caxton), Dutch, French, Italian,
Catalan, Spanish, Swedish and Czech7.
Every Dominican house of any size, too, was geared to study in the
interests of the pastoral care, and was supposed to haveüs own Lector to look

3 BOYLE, "Notes," p. 254.

4 A.H. THOMAS, De oudste Constituties van de Dominicanen (Louvain, 1965),
pp. 311-312.
5 R.H. and M.A. ROUSE, "The Verbal Concordance to the Scripture," Archivum
Fratrum Praedicatorum 44 (1974), 5-30.
6 T. KAEPPELI, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, 2: (Rome, 1975),
167; ed. J.A. CORBETT, The De instructione puerorum of William of Tournai O.P.
(Notre Dame, Indiana, 1955).
7 KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 2: 311-317; R.D. DI LORENZO, "The Collection Form and
the Art of Memory in the Libellus super ludo schachorum of Jacobus de Cessolis,"
Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973), 205-221.
68 L. BOYLE

after the instruction of the community. And even after the younger "Fratres
communes" had become priests and were engaged in preaching and hearing
confessions, only an ad hoc dispensation could excuse them at any point from
attendance at the Lector's classes. In this sense the "Fratres communes" were
for ever "iuniores".
St. Thomas, so far as we know, had his first taste of this ordinary
Dominican world of "Fratres communes," pastoral aids and practical theology
when, after a seemingly studious period of almost two years at Naples, he
took on the post ofLector at Orvieto in September or October 12618. He was
far removed from the bubbling atmosphere of the Studia generalia at Cologne
and Paris, between which he had spent some thirteen or fourteen years in all.
Although he had the local stimulus and challenge of the papal court, then at
Orvieto, his main job was to be at the disposa} of his own "Fratres
communes," the old with the young.
As we know from Humbert of Romans, who was General of the
Dominican Order precisely at this time (1254-1263) and compiled an
invaluable Liber de instructione officialium Ordinis Praedicatorum, Lectors
were supposed to be totally at the disposition of their brethren. Their
vacations were to be taken only at times when the greater part of the
community was absent, during the summer, for example, or during the
preaching seasons of Advent and Lent. In their lectures they should always
aim at practical and uncluttered instruction. In their periodic disputations they
should confine themselves to "useful and intelligible matters"9.
In theory at least St. Thomas was not unaware of the demands on Lectors
and of the limitations ofthese priory schools. In June 1259, some six months
before he left Paris for Naples and, eventually, Orvieto, he had been, with
Albert the Great and Peter of Tarentaise, a member of a committee of five that
presented a Ratio studiorum for the whole Order to the General Chapter at
Valenciennes, north of Paris. In their report Thomas and his fellow Masters
had suggested, among other things, that each conventual Lector should have a
tutor to assist him, that no one, not even the Prior of the community, was to be
absent from lectures, and that priories that found themselves temporarily

8 Acta Capitulorum Provincialium Provinciae Romanae (1248-1344), ed. T.

KAEPPELI and A. DONDAINE (Rome, 1941), p. 29.
9 Humbertus de Romanis, Opera, ed. J.J. BERTHIER, 2 vols. (Rome, 1888-1889),
2: 254-261.
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 69

without Lectors should set up private classes for the brethren on the Historia
scholastica (of Peter Comestor), the Summa de casibus (of Raymund), or
some such manual, to offset any danger ofidlenesslO.
St. Thomas himself, as Lector at Orvieto, may have lectured on the Bible
as such rather than on the standard medieval work of biblical history, the
Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor. His literai Expositio in Job is
probably a reworking of lectures during his four-year term at Orvieto.
Possibly the Pastilla super leremiam and Pastilla super Threnos corne from
the same stablell. But these are works of an exceptional Lector. In ail
conventual schools practical theology - "Collationes de moralibus,'' in
Humbert's terms - was the order of the day, and this was the principal
function of any conventual Lector, St. Thomas not excluded. And although we
do not possess any record of "Collationes" over which Thomas may have
presided, some idea of the type of question with which a Lector might be
confronted is afforded by some questions sent to Thomas at Orvieto in 1262-
1263 by his fellow Lector of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, James of
Viterbo.
Presumably because he was unable to frame an answer from the Summa
de casibus of Raymund to some tricky questions on buying and selling on
credit in various Tuscan merchant circles, James sent the questions down the
road from Florence to the Lector of Orvieto. Thomas, in tum, consulted with
Marinus of Eboli, archbishop-elect of Capua, and with the Dominican
Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher, both of whom were then at the papal curia in
Orvieto. Then, with a passing glance at what Raymund of Pennafort had to
say in the Summa de casibus, he penned the brief, lucid reply which is now
among his Opera omnia as De emptione et venditione ad tempus and upon
which he later based a part of an article in the Secunda secundae of his
Summa theologiae (2-2, 78, 2 ad 7)12.

10 Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum, 1 (Rome, 1898), 99-100.

11 See J.A. WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d'Aquino, His Life, Thought and Works
(New York, 1974; sec. ed. Washington D.C., 1983), pp. 147-195, for these and other
works.
12 De emptione et venditione ad tempus, ed. H.-F. DONDAINE, in Sancti Thomae
de Aquino Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M, Tomus 42. Opuscula 3 (Rome, 1979),
pp. 393-394, with introduction pp. 383-390.
70 L. BOYLE

As one may see from a collection of moral problems put together about
this time by a Lector in the North of England, solving casus was one of the
principal methods of teaching practical theology in the Dominican Order 13 .
Inevitably, and like any other Lector - this English Dominican, for example,
or, notably, John of Freiburg - Thomas at Orvieto would have had to use
Raymund's Summa de casibus as his springboard for occasional casus and for
the regular conventual "Collationes de moralibus." By 1261, and indeed long
before that date, the Summa of the former General of the Dominicans (1238-
1240) had become part and parce! ofDominican training. William of Rennes,
Lector of the house at Orléans, had written a valuable Apparatus to it about
1241, as well as a series of Quaestiones adiectae, and Vincent of Beauvais
had incorporated long extracts from both Raymund and William into Books
Nine and Ten ofhis Speculum doctrinale between 1244 and 1259. The acts of
the General Chapter at Valenciennes in 1259, echoing the commission on
which St. Thomas had served, single the Summa de casibus out by name, as
does Humbert of Romans when speaking of conventual libraries. According
to Simon of Hinton a few years earlier, it was "possessed everywhere by the
brethren," and there is evidence that abbreviations of it were common within
and outside of the Dominican Orderl4.
Scholars allow that Thomas, who may have embarked upon his Summa
contra Gentiles (1259-1264) at Raymund's request, probably owes many of
his civil and canon law references in the Summa and in the Scriptum super
Sententiis to the Summa de casibus. But the dependence runs much deeper
than this. Thomas had a healthy respect for Raymund as the fine legist and
able moralist that he was. There is a manifest reliance on Raymund in St.
Thomas' treatment of matrimony in his Scriptum super Sententiis (1252-
1256)15. There are large and unsuspected borrowings from the Summa de
casibus in the one question 1 have examined closely in the Summa theologiae,
that on simony in the Secunda secundae, which corresponds to the opening

13 BOYLE, "Notes," pp. 259-267.

14 A. WALZ, "S. Raymundi de Penyafort auctoritas in re paenitentiali," Angelicum
12 (1935), 346-396; K. PENNINGTON, "Summae on Raymond of Pennafort's Summa
de casibus in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich," Traditio 27 (1971), 471-480;
A. DONDAINE, "La Somme de Simon de Hinton", Recherches de théologie ancienne
et médiévale 9 (1937), 5-22, 205-218.
l5 J.-M. AUBERT, Le droit romain dans !'oeuvre de saint Thomas (Paris, 1955),
pp. 19-23,32,43,45,60,62, 109, 129-130.
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 71

chapter ofRaymund's Summa. The whole of the Ad quintum in 2-2, 100, 1 is

word for word from Raymund, as are the Ad sextum in 2-2, 1OO, 2 and the
long Ad quintum in 2-2, 100, 616.
A professional familiarity as Lector at Orvieto with the Summa de
casibus and with the system of casus and "collationes morales" certainly
stood Thomas in good stead later when he came to compose his Summa
theologiae, and particularly the Secunda secundae, and it enabled him to field
with ease the many questions conceming the pastoral care at the six
quodlibets (1-VI) which he held during his second Parisian sojoum from 1268
to 1272. All the same, Thomas may have felt that practical theology was too
much with the Dominican Ortler and that the "Fratres communes" and the
students in particular, both at Orvieto and in the Roman Province and the
Dominican Ortler at large, were not being allowed more than a partial view of
theology. Perhaps this is why, as 1 shall now suggest, Thomas began a Summa
theologiae at Rome soon after his move there from Orvieto in 1265. Perhaps,
indeed, this is precisely why he moved.

***

On or about 8 September 1265, the annual Chapter of the Roman

Province to which Thomas belonged enjoined on him from Anagni, and
probably in his presence as Preacher General for the bouse in Naples, the task
of setting up a studium at Rome for students from various bouses of the
Province. The place selected, although not specified in the acts of the Chapter,
was Santa Sabina on the Aventine Hill, Dominic's second Roman foundation,
and Thomas probably took up residence there in late September or early
October of that year, remaining for three full scholastic years until posted to
Paris in, probably, summer 1268 by the then General of the Ortler, John of
Vercelli 17 .

16 Compare 2.2, 100, 1 ad 5 and Summa de casibus 1.1, par. 2 (ed. Rome 1603,
p. 3a); 2.2, 100, 2 ad 6 and Summa de casibus 1.1, par. 16 (p. 18a); 2.2, 100, 6 ad 5
and Summa de casibus 1.1, par. 14 (p. 14b).
17 Acta Capitulorum Provincialium, p. 32. The long-accepted idea (on the sug-
gestion in passing, it appears, of P. Mandonnet) that Thomas spent 1267-1268 at
Viterbo, has been shown to be without foundation by R.A. GAUTHIER, "Quelques
72 L. BOYLE

During these three years (1265-1268) at Rome Thomas was very active.
He preached, made joumeys out of Rome, and held Quaestiones disputatae
De potentia, De malo (probably), and "De attributis divinis" (the latter of
which he then inserted into his Scriptum super sententiis as 1 D, 2, art. 3)18.
As well, he supervised and taught the students at Santa Sabina.
Just what he taught them is a little difficult to ascertain. According to
Tolomeo of Lucca in 1315-1317, who as a young Dominican had been his
friend and confessor at Naples in 1272-1274, Thomas "expounded almost all
of the philosophical works of Aristotle, whether natural or moral, while in
charge of the studium at Rome, and wrote his lectures up in the fonn of a
scriptum or commentary on each work, particularly on the Ethics and
Metaphysics"I9.
At first sight this may seem to suggest that Thomas taught these books of
Aristotle to his students. Perhaps he did, but Tolomeo does not say so. What
he says is that while Thomas was in charge of the studium at Rome, he
lectured on certain works of Aristotle. In fact it is highly unlikely that the
immediate audience of Thomas at these lectures was his young and
presumably untried bunch of students. Sorne of these may have been bright
enough to audit without undue stress Thomas' leamed and lengthy expositions
of Aristotle, but what the majority would have had need of would have been
some straight, basic instruction in the fundamentals of Christian teaching.
Santa Sabina, in any case, was not an advanced studium generale like the
five official studia of the Ortler (Paris, Bologna, Cologne, Montpellier,
Oxford) to which each Province was allowed to send no more than two
promising students ("docibiles") or, in the case of Paris, the senior studium,
three. It is doubtful even that Santa Sabina was a studium provinciale, or half-
way house between a priory school, under the control of a Lector, and a
studium generale or solemne, presided over by a Regent-Master or Principal

questions à propos du commentaire de S. Thomas sur le De anima," Angelicum 51

(1974), 419-472 at 438-443.
18 See A. DONDAINE, "Saint Thomas a-t-il disputé à Rome la question des attri-
buts divins?" Bulletin Thomiste IO (1933), 171*-182*; "Saint Thomas et la dispute
des attributs divins," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 8 (1938), 253-262.
19 Historia ecclesiastica nova, Book 22,, c. 24, ed. A. DONDAINE in "Les
"Opuscula fratris Thomae" chez Ptolomée de Lucques", Archivum Fratrum Praedi-
catorum 31(1961),142-203 at 151, lines 21-25.
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 73

Lector. Central houses of study, or studia provincialia as they were later

known, certainly were established in the Roman Province, at Viterbo and
Naples, in 1269, but all that we know of the studium at Santa Sabina in 1265-
1268 is that Thomas was ordered to set it up, that "the students there with him
for the sake of study" were to have "sufficient clothing from the priories of
their origin," and that Thomas was in complete charge of them, having "full
authority to send them back to their respective houses" if they did not corne
up to scratch20.
Santa Sabina, to my mind, has all the looks of what 1 may call a
"studium personale," a studium set up for or by a given Master. The Anagni
enactrnent of 1265 speaks of the students as "studying with" Thomas, and
makes no mention of any assistants or Sublectores (the term used by
Humbert). It is not without interest, too, that when Thomas was transferred to
Paris in the summer of 1268, the Roman studium seems to have died with his
departure.
Perhaps the studium at Rome was simply an experiment to allow Thomas
special scope and to expose select students from all over the Province to his
influence. It may well be, indeed, that at the Chapter of Anagni in September
1265, which he as a Preacher General would have attended, a suggestion on
his part that something more than mixed priory schools was necessary for the
training of students in theology had been taken up by the Chapter, and that he
had been given a free hand to open and conduct a persona! studium.
On the other hand, what we may be witnessing at Anagni is simply the
beginnings of a movement inspired by Thomas to improve education in his
Province in the wake of the Valenciennes General Chapter of 1259, and which
led not long afterwards to the establishment of studia provincialia for
theology in Italy.
Something of the sort probably was sorely needed in Thomas' large and
scattered Roman Province. Before his arriva! on the home scene in late 1259,
studies seem not to have had any priority in the Province. The first time,

20 "Fratri Thome de Aquino iniungimus in remissionem peccatorum quod teneat

studium Rome. Et volumus quod fratribus qui stant secum ad studendum provideatur
in necessariis vestimentis a conventibus de quorum predicatione traxerunt originem.
Si autem illi studentes inventi fuerint negligentes in studio, damus potestatem fratri
Thome quod ad conventus suos possit eos remittere." (Acta Capitulorum Provincia-
lium, p. 32).
74 L. BOYLE

indeed, that a Lector as such is mentioned in the extant Acta of the Province is
in 1259, when a house, with the constitutional "Prior and Lector," was
founded at Pistoia. As for references of any kind to study, they are few and far
between, apart from a prohibition, for example, of the study of astronomy and
"artes saeculares" in 1258 at Viterbo.
Thomas was commissioned as Preacher General for Naples in Sptember
1260, and since this gave him a voice in the annual Provincial Chapter, he
probably began to attend Chapters from the following September. He may not
have made his presence felt at once, but in view of the singular act in his
respect of the Chapter at Anagni in 1265, that voice is hardly to be mistaken
in the two Chapters that immediately preceded it. At Rome in 1263 the
Chapter for the first time ever cornes out openly on studies, ruling that all the
brethren, the old with the young, should attend classes and "repeat" what they
had leamed. At Viterbo in 1264 the Chapter stated bluntly that "study in this
Province is neglected." It made provision for the financial support of the
maximum three students which the Province could send to Paris. It ordered
that Lectors should not drop classes at will, that Priors should compel the
brethren to study, that they should see to it that weekly "repetitiones" were
held for all, and that they should direct the Master of Students to examine
everyone, and the young especially, in what had been taught during each
week21.
Perhaps this was not enough for Thomas, and as a result the Chapter at
Anagni a year later gave him his head.
At all events, the studium at Santa Sabina probably was no more than an
attempt by the Roman Province to allow select students to prepare themselves
under a single master, Thomas, for the priesthood and the Dominican
apostolate. Basically the course there would have had the same pastoral
orientation as that in which we presume Thomas to have been engaged for the
previous four years at Orvieto.
But there was at least one great difference between Orvieto and Rome.
Where in the former Thomas would have had to divide his time between
students and community, now at Santa Sabina he had the students all to
himself. He was on his own, and no longer tied to a curriculum which was
geared not to students as such but to the pastoral education of the "Fratres
communes" at large, the students with the generality of the brethren. He was,

21 Ibid., pp. 22 (1258), 24 (1259), 28 (1263), 29-30 (1264).

 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGJAE OF SAINT THOMAS 75

in a word, free to devise a curriculum of his own, and one which would have
the student body as its focus. More importantly, he was now in a position to
broaden the basis oftheir theological education and to break out of the narrow
tradition of practical theology that had hitherto marked the Dominican
educational system.
One hint of a change of direction is that, according to Tolomeo of Lucca,
Thomas wrote on the first book of the Sentences while teaching at Rome.
Although Tolomeo says that there was for a time a copy in his own home
priory at Lucca, there is no trace of that commentary as such now. But, as 1
hope to suggest elsewhere in detail, we are lucky to possess a part of a student
reportatio of that class-room commentary which shows, among other things,
that it was not at all, as has been conjectured, a reworking of his Scriptum
super Sententiis of 1252-1256 at Paris but an independent work in a simple,
direct style not unlike that of the later Summa, which drew at times on the
Scriptum itself, the De Veritate and the commentary on Boethius' De
Trinitate22. What is important, however, for the present argument, is not the

22 Historia ecclesiastica nova, Book 23, c. 15, ed. DONDAINE, p. 155, lines 160-
163: "Scripsit etiam eo tempore quo fuit Rome, de quo dictum est supra, iam magister
existens, Primum super Sententias, quem ego vidi Luce sed inde subtractus nusquam
ulterius vidi." Since Thomas probably was at the Provincial Chapter of 1267 at Lucca,
then the copy of this "second" commentary of Thomas on the first book of the Sen-
tences which Tolomeo saw there later, may have been one which Thomas left behind
him after the Chapter. - A recent article of H.-F. DONDAINE, ""Alia lectura fratris
Thome"? (Super 1 Sent.)", Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980), 308-336, announces the
discovery of a copy (probably before 1286) of the Parisian commentary of Thomas on
1 Sent. (Lincoln College, Oxford, ms. lat. 95, fols. 3r-122ra), which carries in its
margins another commentary or partial commentary on I Sent. with references on
three occasions to an "alia lectura fratris Thome." - In an article in this same journal
three years later ("Alia lectura fratris Thome", Mediaeval Studies 45 (1983), 418-29),
the present writer suggested that the "alia lectura" was not, as Fr. Dondaine was
inclined to think, this commentary in margins of the Lincoln College MS, but rather
the Parisian commentary of Thomas on the Sentences (1252-1256), and therefore that
this marginal commentary could well be a copy of a reportatio of the Santa Sabina
class-room lectures of Thomas on 1 Sent. in 1265-1266. This suggestion has been
accepted by many scholars: see J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à Thomas d'Aquin. Sa
personne et son oeuvre (Fribourg-Paris, 1993), pp. 66-9, or in the English translation
by ROBERT ROYAL, Saint Thomas Aquinas, I: The Persan and his Work (Washington
D.C., 1996), 45-7.
76 L. BOYLE

nature of that "Roman" commentary, but the fact that this appears to be the
first time that a book of the Sentences was taught formally to Dominican
students outside of the studia generalia. Later on, of course, as studia
provincialia began to be the fashion from the 1270s, first on the Roman
Province in 1269 (possibly a result of the Roman experiment with Thomas),
then generally in the Order, the Sentences of Peter Lombard became a set text
in these studia in each Dominican Province. But there is no evidence that
formal lectures on the Sentences were among the duties of the ordinary
conventual Lectors before or after this time. From this point of view it is
notable that it was at Rome and not during his Lectorship at Orvieto that
Thomas is reputed to have lectured on the Sentences.
This is not to say that Peter Lombard's work was unknown in Dominican
houses. Humbert of Romans in his Instructiones gives the Sentences, with the
Bible and Comestor's Historia, as one of the texts on which Lectors gave
practical instruction23. In the summer of 1267, while Thomas was still
teaching the students at Santa Sabina, his own Roman Province, in Chapter at
Lucca, urged the brethren in general and young priests in particular, to apply
themselves "more than usual" to the study of "the Bible, the Sentences, the
Historiae, the writings of the saints, and the Summa de casibus"24.
But Humbert and the Lucca Chapter probably did not have the Sentences
as a whole in mind but rather the fourth book, and this in order to supplement
Raymund's Summa in its treatment of the sacraments. For Raymund himself,
when dealing with aspects of the administration of some of the sacraments,
probably set a headline for the whole Dominican Order when he noted there
that any of the "simplices" who wished to know more about the sacraments
should read certain parts of the Decretum and the Decretales "and the fourth
book of the Sentences"25.
Book Four was, of course, the locus classicus for sacramental theology,
which is the reason why, for example, John of Freiburg in his Summa
confessorum of 1298 cites extensively the commentaries of Albert, Thomas
and Peter of Tarentaise on that book of the Sentences and, generally, on that
book alone. Yet, significantly, it was not this fourth book upon which Thomas
lectured at Rome. What he taught the Dominican students at Santa Sabina was

23 Humbertus, Opera, 2: 254.

24 Acta Capitulorum Provincialium, p. 33.
25 Summa de casibus, 3, 24 (ed. Lyons, 1603, p. 327b).
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 77

not, if we may trust Tolomeo of Lucca and the newly-identified reportatio,

the expected sacramental theology, the subject of the fourth book, upon which
he had commented professionally a decade or so earlier at Paris, but rather
God, Trinity and Creation, the burden of the first book. By opting for Book
One (upon which, of course, he had lectured at great length while a Bachelor
at Paris) rather than for Book Four, Thomas gives fair waming that he was
setting a new course. By concentrating on God, Creation and Trinity, and
other "dogmatic" areas of theology, he makes it clear, it seems to me, that
what he was about was a breakaway from the customary "practical" theology
of the Order to which the Valenciennes Chapter, Humbert and, needless to
say, Raymund's Summa de casibus, are eloquent witnesses.
A second hint of the revolutionary character of the studium at Santa
Sabina is the fact that it was there that Thomas began his great work "for the
instruction of beginners," the Summa theologiae. Since the Prima pars of the
Summa covers much the same ground as Book One of the Sentences, and
since Thomas is not reputed to have taught at Rome on any book of the
Sentences but the first, this suggests that the commentary which Tolomeo saw
at Lucca on Book One of the Sentences and which now survives at second or
third band in a reportatio or copy thereof, may well represent all or most of
bis teaching during Thomas' first scholastic year (October 1265-July 1266),
while the Prima pars of the Summa (with, probably, a part of the Prima
secundae) is the outcome of bis second and third years of teaching (October
1266-July 1268).
In other words, having availed himself of the freedom of the studium in
Rome to depart from the practical theology traditional to bis Order by
commenting in bis first year there on Book One of the Sentences, Thomas in
bis second and third year dropped the Sentences altogether and set out on a
road of bis own. It was no chance road, but one which he was determined to
travel. Even when plucked out of Rome in summer 1268 for university
teaching at Paris far removed from the "beginners" at Santa Sabina, he did not
abandon his design. By the time he departed Paris four years later for Naples,
there to embark on, although not to finish, bis Tertia pars, he had completed
the Prima secundae and had put all of the massive Secunda secundae together.
This persistence with the Summa over five heavy years at Paris and
Naples (1268-1273) during which he wrote voluminously on the
Perihermeneias, Analytica posteriora, Physica, De caelo et mundo, De
generatione et corruptione, Meteora, De anima, Metaphysica, Politica and,
possibly, Ethica Nicomachea of Aristotle, to mention only some of bis
writings in these years - this persistence at least suggests that for Thomas the
78 L. BOYLE

Summa was something out of the ordinary and, indeed, meant much to him. It
was, one may suggest, his legacy as a Dominican to his Ortler and to its
system of educating the brethren in priories all over Europe. It may have been
begun at Santa Sabina in Rome where the "incipientes" were young students
of the Ortler, but it was Orvieto and his four years of practical teaching there
among the "Fratres communes" that had really occasioned it. With the
Summa, in effect, Thomas made his own persona! contribution as a
Dominican to the longstanding manualist and summist tradition of the Ortler
in which he had been a participant at Orvieto (and at Valenciennes), and at the
same time attempted to set the regular training in practical theology in the
Dominican Ortler on a more truly theological course.

***

What had been missing before Thomas and Santa Sabina in the
curriculum was what one may term "dogmatic" or "systematic" theology.
Writing about a decade or so before Thomas began his Summa, the then
General of the Dominicans, Humbert of Romans, noted in his Liber de
instructione officialium that it was up to the librarian of each Domnican house
to provide a ready-reference area somewhere in which there would be good,
legible copies of, among other books, the Decretum (of Gratian), the
Decretales (of Gregory IX), the Summa super titulis of the canonist Geoffrey
of Trani, Distinctiones morales (of which there were many in circulation),
Concordantiae (probably those of the Paris Dominicans noted above), the
Summa de casibus (of Raymund of Pennafort), and the Summa de vitiis et
virtutibus (of William Peraldus), "so that the community may always have
them to hand." Humbert also lists the Bible and the Historiae of Peter
Comestor, but if there is anything at ail obvious about the professional
volumes above, it is that they are wholly legal or "moral"." There is not a
trace, for example, of any specific summa de sacramentis, not to speak of a
summa of "Sacra doctrina" as such. "Scientific" theology, in so far as it
occurs in the list, is represented by Raymund's Summa de casibus and the
Summa de vitiis et virtutibus of Peraldus, the two well-springs, as it happens,
of Dominican practical or "moral" theology26.

26 Humbertus, Opera, 2: 265

 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 79

This gap in the system, a "doctrinal" gap, is precisely what Thomas

attempted to fill with his Summa. AU Dominican writers of summae previous
to Thomas had valiently covered various aspects of learning for their
confrères in the pastoral care - Raymund and his fellows for confessional
practice, Peraldus for vices and virtues, Aag of Denmark for missionaries,
William of Tournai for the instruction of children, James of Varazze for the
lives of saints and preaching, Simon of Hinton for the practical theological
needs of his English brethren. Now Thomas went further than anything
hitherto attempted. He provided a summa of general theology, a manual which
dealt with God and Trinity and Creation and Incarnation as well as with man,
his strengths and weaknesses.
St. Thomas, of course, had nothing against practical theology. After all,
he had taught it himself, as we presume, for some years, and is far from
neglecting it in his Summa where, indeed, the largest part as it came from his
pen, the Secunda pars, is precisely on man and his acts. But he now gave that
practical theology a setting which had not been very evident in Dominican
circles before him. By prefacing the Secunda or "moral" part with a Prima
pars on God, Trinity and Creation, and then rounding it off with a Tertia pars
on the Son of God, Incarnation and the Sacraments, Thomas put practical
theology, the study of Christian man, his virtues and vices, in a full
theological context. Christian morality, once for all, was shown to be
something more than a question of straight ethical teaching or of vices and
virtues in isolation. Inasmuch as man was an intelligent being who was master
of himself and possessed of freedom of choice, he was in the image of God.
To study human action is therefore to study the image of God and to operate
on a theological plane. To study human action on a theological plane is to
study it in relation to its beginning and end, God, and to the bridge between,
Christ and his sacraments.
St. Thomas, one may add, was not alone in his dissatisfaction with the
Dominican curriculum and tradition of theology. Just about the time that
Thomas was beginning his Summa, Hugh Ripelin, Lector of Strasbourg, who
died in 1268, wrote a Compendium theologicae veritatis in seven books (God,
Creation, Sin, Christ, Virtues, Sacraments, Last Things) which, with some 620
manuscripts, numerous printed editions, and translations into Armenian
(1344), Flemish, French, German and Italian, had a huge success and may,
80 L. BOYLE

indeed, have inspired Thomas' own Compendium theologiae (1269 x

1273) 27.
But if Thomas and Hugh Ripelin were at variance with the practical
tradition of vices and virtues, casus and "Collationes de moralibus" within
their Ortler, ail the same both the Compendium of Hugh and the Summa of
Thomas very much belonged in intent and purpose to the Dominican strain of
practical manuals. Like Raymund of Pennafort, Aag of Denmark, Simon of
Hinton and other Dominican manualists who had written specifically for the
"iuniores" and "simplices," and for the generality of their Dominican
brethren, Thomas in particular probably had young and run-of-the-mill
Dominicans primarily in mind and not a more sophisticated, perhaps
university audience when in chiselled prose and in easy, logical steps he put
his Summa theologiae together: "My purpose," he wrote, "is so to propose the
things that pertain to faith that the instruction of beginners will better be
served"28.
This, needless to say, is far from evident in the Prologue. As the
Prologue stands, Thomas could be referring to any and every beginner. But
given the context of the genesis of the Summa at Santa Sabina, and the
remarkable commission given him at Anagni in 1265, the assumption is
hardly out of question that his beginners are Dominican beginners first and
foremost, in the manner of other Dominican colleagues ofhis.
There is certainly nothing in the Prologue to indicate that his sights were
set on "university" students, although, of course, he would later release at
Paris for general consumption all that he had then completed of the Summa; in
any case, there was nothing in 1266-1267 to suggest that Thomas would ever
again retum to Paris or indeed teach in any university whatever. Ali that he
says in the Prologue is that he found existing expositions of theology
inadequate. They were a hindrance under three heads for beginners. They
indulged in a multitude of useless questions, articles and arguments. They did

27 KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 2: 260-269. For the Compendium of Hugh see the edition
(as of Albert) in Beati Alberti Magni Opera omnia, ed. A. BORGNET, vol. 33 (Paris,
1893), 1-261.
28 "Quia catholicae veritatis doctor non solum provectos debet instruere sed ad
eum pertinet etiam incipientes erudire, ... propositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere
est ea quae ad christianam religionem pertinent eo modo tradere secundum quod
congruit ad eruditionem incipientium."
 THE SETTJNG OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 81

not give the essentials of Christian teaching in an ordered fashion but only as
these came up in whatever text the writers were commenting on ("secundum
quod requirebat librorum expositio") or whenever the writers seized on a
particular point and dilated on it ("vel secundum quod se praebebat occasio
disputandi"). Finally, writers treated ofthese fundamentals in so many places
that the result on the part of the hearers was aversion and boredom.
It is often assumed that Thomas is here speak:ing of texts such as the
Bible and the Sentences, but on the surface his plaint, rather, is against
writings or commentaries on texts ("ea quae scripta sunt a diversis") and the
procedures employed by their authors ("secundum quod requirebat librorum
expositio ... vel se praebebat occasio disputandi"). Père Chenu and others,
however, understand the Prologue as "a reflection on the current teaching
method," where the teacher was bound to the text ("librorum expositio") and
the principal in a quaestio disputata to "the contingent circumstances of
controversy" ("occasio disputandi")29. Yet although the subject of this part of
the prologue is "ea quae scripta sunt a diversis" and not, if it were teaching,
"ea quae traduntur," there is a possible ambiguity in the passage, as though
Thomas were speaking on two levels at once. For his complaint against the
longueurs and disorder in the writings on theology in question ends with a
seeming reference to classrooms and teaching ("eorumdem frequens repetitio
et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis auditorum") rather than, as
one would have expected, to reading and studying.
If, as well may be, the prologue has this second edge, criticism on the
part of Thomas of his own Dominican educational system is not to be ruled
out in favour of the more obvious setting of universities and studia generalia
- if, that is, "expositio librorum" also means "teaching a text" and "occasio
disputandi" also denotes disputations and "quaestiones disputatae." For as we
lmow from Humbert of Romans in his Liber a few years earlier, "expositions"
of text (Thomas' own Expositio in Job, for example) and "disputations"
(complete with "opponentes" and "respondentes" and even invited guests)
were very much part of the Dominican curriculum.
These criticisms by Thomas may even betray a memory of some remarks
of his former General there on the office of Lector. Where, for example,
Humbert cautions the Lector, when teaching the Bible, the Historiae and the

29 See M.D. CHENU, Toward understanding St. Thomas, trans. A.M. LANDRY and
D. HUGHES (Chicago, 1964), pp. 300-301.
82 L. BOYLE

Sententiae, to keep to the text, to avoid "too many divisions of the matter and
frivolous expositions," and to strive always for the sake of the "auditores"
after "quaestionum utilium intelligentiam," Thomas notes the hazard of a
multitude of "inutilium quaestionum, articulorum et argumentorum." Again,
where Humbert gives advice on the care to be taken to select "useful subjects"
for the regular conventual disputations, Thomas underlines the "occasional"
role, with respect to the fundamentals oftheology, which disputations played.
Finally, and more significantly, where Humbert begs the Lector, for the good
of his "auditores," to refrain "a fastidiosa prolixitate quae accidere solet ex
nimia repetitione eiusdem," Thomas likewise makes the point that "eorumdem
frequens repetitio et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis
auditorum"30.
From the point of view, then, both of commentaries on theological texts
(the primary plaint, as it seems, of the Prologue) and of teaching methods (a
secondary or at least implied plaint), the "beginners" th~re are just as likely to
have been Thomas' students at Santa Sabina and his Dominican brethren in
general as beginners at large or in the studia generalia and universities. And
even if what Thomas was about in the Prologue was simply current methods
ofteaching theology, then these are as arguably Dominican as those described
by Humbert in his Liber are explicitly, and would have been recognizable as
such by any of the colleagues of Thomas.
But probably it was the drawbacks to the commentaries and glosses in
use at the time in the Dominican Order that stirred him more than anything
else to write his Summa. Remembering his own four years at Orvieto as
Lector, and the pronounced summist tradition of practical theology within is
own Order, it is therefore not at all unreasonable to suggest that the "quae a
diversis scripta sunt" which principal:ly impeded the "novitii" and
"incipientes" of his Prologue are just as likely to have been the various
summae of Dominican authorship to which the young students and the body
of "Fratres communes" had to tum for their theology as the better-known or
standard treatises of the universities and schools.
How conscious Thomas was of both that summist tradition and its
limitations is, to my mind, clearly to be seen in the Secunda secundae of the
Summa theologiae and its Prologue, for in its own right the Secunda secundae
is a straight summa de virtutibus et vitiis, a summa of moral theology if you

30 For Humbert see Opera, 2: 254-256, 259-262.

 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 83

wish, although not at all of the casus or anecdotal type hitherto in vogue in the
Dominican Ortler.
Thomas himself specifies that the first part of the Secunda pars covers
"moral matter" in general, while the second part or Secunda secundae deals
with it in particular: "After a general consideration of virtues and vices and
other points pertaining to moral matter in general," be writes in the Prologue
to the Secunda secundae, "it is necessary to consider each of these one by
one." Hence, be goes on, the best procedure will be to devote a tractate in turn
to "each virtue, the gift corresponding to it, and the vices opposed to it." In
this way, be says, " the whole of moral matter is placed in the context of the
virtues," and so "nothing in morals will be overlooked"3 i.
His point of departure, and possibly the chief target of bis strictures on
works in this area, was, I suspect, the great and, by bis time, hallowed Summa
de vitiis et virtutibus of bis senior colleague, William Peraldus or Peyraut, the
two parts of which were written over a span of thirteen or fourteen years
between 1236 and 1249-1250. In Dominican circles it clearly had the role of
"speculative" companion to Raymund's Summa de casibus. With Raymund's
Summa it is one of the volumes recommended by Humbert of Romans for a
ready-reference area in bouses of the Ortler, and it is presumably the Summa
de vitiis et virtutibus which is mentioned with the Summa de casibus in
Humbert's Liber as one of the sources from which Lectors could draw points
for discussion at the weekly or bi-weekly "Collationes de moralibus." A
chapter of the Province of Spain at Toledo in 1250 ordered each bouse in the
Province to inscribe its name on its copies ofbreviaries, Bibles and and these
two Summae. In 1267 the two Summae are again mentioned in one breath at a
Chapter at Carcassonne of the Province of Provence. Sorne five hundred
manuscripts of the Summa of Peraldus are extant. It was translated in whole or
in part into French, ltalian and Flemish in, respectively, the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and was printed repeatedly from 1469
onwards32.

31 "Post communem considerationem de virtutibus et vitiis et aliis ad materiam

moralem pertinentibus, necesse est considerare singula in speciali. Sermones enim
morales universales minus sunt utiles eo quod actiones in particularibus sunt. ... "
32 KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 2: 133-147; A. DONDAINE, "Guillaume Peyraut. Vie et
oeuvres", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 18 (1948), 162-236, where the referen-
ces above will be found at pp.164-167.
84 L. BOYLE

Needless to say, the Summa of Peraldus is looser in structure and far

more discursive than the Secunda secundae of St. Thomas, but the ground it
covers is more or less the same. Peraldus opens with the topic "De virtute in
communi"; so does Thomas, but unlike Peraldus be devotes a whole volume
to it, the Prima secundae. Peraldus then goes on, with a vast array of
quotations from scripture, the Fathers (Augustine, Gregory, Isidore, John
Damascene, in particular), classical "Philosophers" such as Aristotle, Cicero,
Seneca and Ovid, and, finally, more recent authors such as Anselm, Bernard
and Guigo the Carthusian, to define and document the theological and
cardinal virtues, the gifts, the beatitudes and the seven "capital vices" or
deadly sins33.
This, too, is exactly the range of the Secunda secundae. And although
there is no cogent evidence that Thomas relied on or borrowed very much
from Peraldus, except, possibly, for a quotation here and there from his
battery of authorities, 1 am sure that Thomas was as aware to the Summa de
vitiis et virtutibus as he was of the Summa de casibus of Raymund. His
colleague Peraldus had written a thorough, leamed and valued piece of work,
and Thomas appears to have made sure that nothing Peraldus had touched
upon did not find a place in the Secunda secundae. lt is hardly by chance, for
example, that when Peraldus notes immediately after bis brief opening chapter
on virtues in general, "Dictum est de virtute in communi. Nunc dicendum est
de speciebus virtutum," Thomas marks the transit1ofi from the first to the
second part of the Secunda in almost the same words, "Post communem
considerationem de virtutibus et vitiis et aliis ad materiam moralem
pertinentibus, necesse est considerare singula in speciali." This sort of
"bridge" can hardly be a commonplace, particularly when one remembers that
the division between "De virtutibus in communi" and "De virtutibus in
speciali" has been claimed as original to Thomas34.
There is, nevertheless, a world of difference between the approach of
Thomas to moral matters and that of Peraldus, not least because Thomas
relates the gifts, beatitudes and vices to each of the seven theological and
cardinal virtues where Peraldus simply takes the virtues, vices, gifts and
beatitudes in tum, each in its own right.

33 Peraldus, Summa aurea de virtutibus et vitiis (Venice: Paganinus de Paganinis,

1497). The proper title and order should be, of course, Summa de vitiis et virtutibus.
34 T. DEMAN, Aux origines de la théologie morale (Montreal-Paris, 1951), p. 105:
"Aucun auteur précédant ne nous annonça rien de pareil".
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 85

St. Thomas seems to have been very much aware of his departure from
the customary treatment of virtues and vices in summae and manuals and in
particular, one may suggest, in this semi-official Summa of his own Ortler.
Probably there is an oblique apology for abandoning the scheme in Peraldus'
Summa when in the Prologue to the Secunda secundae, and in terms
reminiscent of the Prologue to the Prima pars, Thomas notes that it is "more
expeditious by far to take in turn each virtue with its corresponding gift, the
vices opposed to it, and the appropriate precepts, than to take each virtue, gift,
vice and precept in isolation, for the latter course begets much repetition."
Besides, he adds, this is a more logical and theological procedure, since it
nicely includes all moral matter under the seven great virtues.

***

It is a commonplace that of all the writings of St. Thomas the Summa

theologiae "was the most widely circulated work both in manuscript and in
print"3 5 . Yet if one examines the extant manuscripts it soon becomes evident
that "the Summa" as often as not means the Secunda secundae, not the
tripartite Summa. It is, in fact, rarely or relatively so that one finds all the parts
of the Summa as a unit. Each part - and here I mean the two sections of the
Secunda pars as well as the Prima pars and the Tertia pars - seems to have
circulated independently, as though each had its own identity, with the
Secunda secundae a clear winner. By my rough count, and out of a total of
almost six hundred manuscripts examined thus far for all parts on their own of
the Summa as Thomas wrote it, the Tertia pars accounts for only 18 percent,
the Prima secundae for 20 percent, the Prima pars for 25 percent, and the
Secunda secundae for all of 37 percent36.

35 WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d'Aquino, p. 222.

36 The percentages are based on an analysis of Codices manuscripti operum Tho-
mae de Aquino, 1, Autographe et Bibliothecae A-F, ed. H.-F. DONDAINE and H.V.
SHOONER (Rome, 1967), 2, Bibliothecae Gdansk-Münster, ed. H.V. SHOONER (1973);
a third and a fourth volume are in preparation, and it will be of interest to see how
they will affect the above figures. - (These have since appeared, and do not modify
these figures). Oddly, the presence of these parts of the Summa in the extant catalo-
gues of medieval libraries for Austria (Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Oester-
reichs. 1. Niederosferreich: Register, ed. A. GOLDMAN, [Vienna, 1929]. p. 153) works
86 L. BOYLE

The "popularity" of the Secunda secundae is hardly to be wondered at.

As it stands, and for all its originality and watertight Aristotelianism, the
Secunda secundae bas the trappings of a Summa de virtutibus et vitiis, replete
with dicta of Aristotle, Cicero, Macrobius and the rest, and the Prologue
quoted above does not dispel that impression. Tolomeo of Lucca, in bis note
of works of Thomas ca. 1315, wrote of it that "bis part of the Summa contains
a specific treatment of all the virtues and vices, and is totally based on, and
adomed with, the sayings and teachings of Philosophers and the authentic
opinions of sacred doctors" - a description that is equally applicable to the
Summa of Peraldus or any other manual of virtues and vices37. This is
precisely how some of Thomas' contemporaries saw it, and this is surely why
it outdid any other part of the Summa in circulation. It is not for nothing that
the copy of the Secunda secundae that the theologian Geoffrey of Fontaines
had made for himself at Paris in the 1290s bears the following explicit,
"Summa de virtutibus et vitiis edita a fratre Thoma de Aquino"38.
As for the axiomatic influence of the Summa as a whole within the
Dominican Ortler, the dogged effort on the part of Thomas to give a full
theological direction to the pastoral preparation of Dominicans seems to have
gone over the head of the generality of bis brethren. Even after bis
canonization in 1323 and the withdrawal of the ban of 1277 on Thomas at the
University of Paris, the Summa never became a part of the curriculum of the
priory schools which, as I have suggested, really occasioned it. In these priory
schools, practical theology in the old mould continued to dominate the

out at much the same percentage for each part: Secunda secundae, 38%; Prima pars,
29%, Prima secundae, 15%; Tertia, 13%; all parts of the Summa occur together only
once, as is also the case for the two parts of the Secunda pars, amounting to five per
cent in all. Again, in volume 3 (the only one I have examined) of Mittelalterliche
Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz: Augsburg-Basel, ed. P. RUF
(Münster, 1932), p. 1073 (Index), the percentages are Secunda secundae, 43%; Prima
pars, 25%; Tertia pars, 18%; Prima secundae, 14%.
37 Historia ecclesiastica nova, Book 22, c. 39, ed. DONDAINE, p. 151, 37-43.
38 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ms. lat. 15795, fol. 268r: "Explicit summa de
uirtutibus et uiciis edita a fratre Thoma de Aquino, scripta sumptibus magistri Gode-
fridi canonici Leodiensis, labore Henrici de Bavenchien." See Catalogue des manus-
crits en écriture latine portant des dates ... , ed. C. SAMARAN and R. MARICHAL, 3
(Paris, 1974), p. 439 and plate LIV. Geoffrey (t 1306) donated the copy to the Sor-
bonne, as well as a copy of the Prima secundae (BN lat. 15791) written by the same
scribe.
 THE SETT!NG OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE OF SAINT THOMAS 87

curriculum, with Raymund and Peraldus ruling the roost, although the Summa
de casibus of Raymund gave way in the fourteenth century to John of
Freiburg's Summa conjessorum of 1298.
In the various provincial studia which corne into the light in the last
quarter of the thirteenth century, and which may have been a result of
Thomas' Roman experiment of 1265-1268, the Sentences of Peter Lombard,
in line with the usage of studia generalia and universities, became and
remained throughout the Middle Ages the textbook oftheology.
Thomas' own Roman Province, which in 1269 began what was to
become a network of studia provincialia, seems never to have granted the
Summa a place in its system. There is no sign even that any of the annual
Provincial Chapters ever recommended Thomas or any of his works in the
way in which, a shade umealistically, the Chapter of 1284 at Aquila ordered
that "Lectors and others of the brethren in their lectures and disputations"
should use the formulary book of papal and other letters compiled by Marinus
of Eboli, lately archbishop of Capua39. Sorne bright spirits in the Province
seem to have attempted to replace the Sentences with the Summa at the
beginning of the fourteenth century, but they were firmly put in their places
by the Chapter at Perugia in 1308: "We wish and order that all Lectors and
Bachelors lecture on the Sentences and not on the Summa of Thomas"40.
However, the General Chapter of the Ortler at Metz in 1313 was a little more
accomodating. It allowed that Lectors when teaching the Sentences, "should
treat briefly of at least three or four articles of Brother Thomas" (presumably
from his commentary on the Sentences), and ruled that no one was to be sent
to the studium generale at Paris "unless he has studied diligently the teaching
of Thomas for three years"41.
The Summa had rather more sucess at another level. There were
Dominicans who were aware of the "pastoral" possibilities of the work and
were not slow to exploit it in that direction. About 1290 the anonymous
Dominican who added the Speculum morale to Vincent of Beauvais' great
Speculum maius of fifty years earlier, borrowed liberally from the Secunda

39 Acta Capitulorum Provincialium, p. 69.

40 Ibid., p. 169.
41 Acta Capitulorum Generalium, 2: 64-65.
88 L. BOYLE

secundae42. A decade or so later, Albert, Lector of Brescia, who a few years

afterwards campaigned mightily for Thomas' canonization and, reputedly, had
a vision of Augustine and Thomas together, wrote a Summa de instructione
sacerdotis in three books (virtues, vices, sacraments) and drew almost all his
material from the Secunda secundae and the Tertia pars 43. Between 1310 and
1314, William of Paris, of the priory of St. Jacques, composed a Dialogus de
septem sacramentis which is extant in fifty manuscripts and at least fifteen
printed editions, and leans heavily on the Tertia pars as well as on the
commentary of Peter of Tarentaise on the fourth book of the Sentences44.
Almost inevitably, given the bias of the Ortler, it was the Secunda
secundae that captured the attention of Dominicans at large. Shortly before
1283 when he <lied, the then General of the Dominicans, John ofVercelli (the
same who, recently-elected, had snatched Thomas away unexpectedly from
Rome and his students there in 1268, sending him to the University of Paris
with Peter of Tarentaise), commissioned Galienus de Orto, probably while he
was Lector at Pisa, to make an abridgement of the Secunda secundae. This
summary, now extant in at least five manuscripts, had no success45. It is
schematic and perfunctory, and, in any case, another Dominican Lector of the
period, John of Freiburg, took the ground from under Galienus by doing more
or less the same thing in a more imaginative fashion a few years later. Where
John scored over Galienus was not by engaging in any sort of précis of the
Secunda secundae but rather by relating Thomas' work to the curriculum of
practical theology in the priories and, specifically, to the Summa de casibus of
Raymund which he was then teaching as Lector in the priory at Freiburg-im-
Breisgau46.

42 LUSIGNAN, Préface au Speculum maius, p. 87. The Prima secundae is also used
there.
43 KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 1: 27-28; D. PRÜMMER and M.-H. LAURENT, Fontes Vi-
tae S. Thomae Aquinatis (Toulouse, 1912-1937), pp. 356-358; M. GRABMANN,
"Albert von Brescia und sein Werk De officia sacerdotis", Mittelalterliches Geis-
tesleben, 2 (Munich, 1956), 323-351 at pp. 336-338.
44 See KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 2: 130-131.
45 Ibid., 2: 6.
46 For what follows see L.E. BOYLE, "The Summa confessorum of John of Frei-
burg and the Popularization of the Moral Teaching of St. Thomas and of some of his
Contemporaries", in St. Thomas Aquinas 12 74-1974 Commemorative Studies, [ed.
A.A. MAURER] (Toronto, 1974), 2: 245-268, and "The Quodlibets of St. Tomas and
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOG/AE OF SAINT THOMAS 89

"Johannes Lector," as he was known, was a remarkable man whose place

in the spread of the teaching of Thomas has largely escaped historians. He had
been a pupil of Ulrich Engelbert, Lector of Strasbourg, before 1272, had
accompanied Albert the Great to Mecklenberg in 1269, and seems to have
studied at Paris for a time, perhaps between 1268 and 1272, when Peter of
Tarentaise and Thomas occupied the Dominican chairs there for a second
time, and when Thomas held his second batch of quodlibets which are so
prominent in John's Summa confessorum.
Posted about 1280 to the Dominican house at Freiburg-im-Breisgau as
Lector, an office which he held even as Prior until his death shortly before
1314, John at first occupied himself with an index to Raymund's Summa and
to William of Rennes' Apparatus on it. Tuen, in typical Lector fashion, he
began to collect "quaestiones casuales" for purposes of teaching. In his search
for these (meaning, as he states in his preface, "useful questions which bear
on the counselling of souls"), he ranged far and wide, combing councils,
canonists and theologians and, naturally the writings of his teachers and
confrères, Albert, Peter, Thomas and Ulrich. From this point of view, the
second sextet of Parisian quodlibets of Thomas proved to be a goldmine, as
did the Secunda secundae.
As a result of this intense research while lecturing on the Summa de
casibus, John of Freiburg was able to produce in 1298 a Summa confessorum
of his own (and the first manual to bear such a title) in which he totally
revamped Raymund and deployed as much as possible of the material he had
collected in his Libellus quaestionum casualium, notably the corpus of some
twenty-two quaestiones from those Parisian quodlibets of St. Thomas, bits
and pieces from the Prima and Tertia pars of the Summa, and passage after
passage from the Secunda secundae. The "moral" teaching of Thomas, with
borrowings as well from Albert, Peter and Ulrich, is the backbone of John's
Summa, and sharply differentiates it in tone and content from the Summa de
casibus of Raymund and, indeed, from any previous summa of the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance. What is more, the Summa
confessorum is much broader than Raymund's, and is as mucha summa de
sacramentis as it is of penitential practice.

Pastoral Care," The Thomist 38 (1974), 232-256, both now reprinted in Pastoral
Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London, 1981).
90 L. BOYLE

It had a resounding success. Sorne 160 manuscripts of it are extant, and it

enjoyed three printed editions before 1500 and several afterwards. In the
century after its publication it inspired in Dominican circles an abridgement
(by William of Cayeux, shortly after 1300), a simplified version (the Summa
rudium, ca. 1333), an alphabetical arrangement (which, as the Pisanella, after
its compiler, Bartholomew of Pisa, is extant in some 600 manuscripts ), and a
German adaptation ante 1390 by Berthold ofFreiburg47.
In spite of the great number of manuscripts of the Secunda secundae
itself for the years 1300-1500, it is probably fair to state that it was largely
through the Summa confessorum of John ofFreiburg or derivatives such as the
popular Pisanella, that the moral teaching of St. Thomas in the Secunda
secundae became known and respected all over Europe in that period, and, as
the Summa confessorum gradually replaced Raymund's Summa de casibus in
the course ofpractical theology, within the Dominican Ortler itself.
In that sense at least, Thomas' legacy in the Summa theologiae to
beginners and to Dominicans at large, had its reward. But, in the whole
context of the Summa, this was not quite what Thomas had hoped for. Rather,
it only compounded the situation which I have suggested he had attempted to
correct. Where Thomas had striven to provide an integral theology for his
brethren in their dedication to the cura animarum, the Secunda secundae, and
a guttcd Secunda secundae at that, was now through_the Summa confessorum
of John of Freiburg irretrievably adrift from the other parts of the Summa,
especially the first and the third, to which St. Thomas had so carefully moored
it.
But one should not place all the blame squarely on the shoulders of John
of Freiburg. John had been attracted to the Secunda secundae because it was,
as he put it, "pro maiori parte moralis et casualis"48. He had a point. The
Secunda secundae is indeed "casualis," if by that one means, as John
explicitly does, that it contains "useful questions bearing on the counselling of
souls." And, if one is to take Thomas himself at his word in the Prologue, it is
also very much "moralis," since it considers "virtues and vices and other
things pertaining to moral matter," and claims not to omit "anything related to

47 KAEPPELI, Scriptores, 2: 428-433, nn. 2340-2345 (John of Freiburg), 94-95

(Cayeux); 1: 157-165 (Bartholomew), 238-239 (Berthold); BOYLE, "The Summa ... ,
pp. 258-261.
48 Summa confessorum (ed. Nuremberg, 1517), first preface (from the Libellus).
 THE SETTING OF THE SUMMA THEOLOG/AE OF SAINT THOMAS 91

morals." John, too, may be excused for not paying much attention to the
Prima secundae, which establishes the principles on which the Secunda
secundae rests, for Thomas himself seems to diminish the role of the Prima
when in the Prologue to the Secunda be says that "after this general
consideration [in the Prima secundae] of virtues and vices and other things
pertaining to moral matter, it is necessary to take these up in detail one by
one. For moral teaching in the abstract is not ail that useful, since what takes
place in practice is with repect to particular things".
It is hardly surprising, then, to find that far from being invariably
accompanied by the Prima secundae, the Secunda secundae had a circulation
that was almost twice that of its supposed prerequisite. One could argue,
indeed, that Thomas was not al! that concemed about the circulation of these
parts individually, or about the inviolability of the Summa theologiae as a
whole. In the list of taxes for copying university exemplars which the
University of Paris issued about 1280, the Prima pars, the Prima secundae and
the Secunda secundae (and, 1 may add, by these precise titles) all occur as
separate items, and with separate sets of peciae or certified quires49. Since
there is no trace in this list of the Tertia pars, written at Naples in 1272-1273,
and we are sure that the Secunda secundae had been finished before St.
Thomas departed Paris for Naples, and probably by spring 1272, then it is
quite likely that Thomas released the three sections already completed for
general copying before leaving for Naples in late 1272. This at least would
explain to some extent the poor showing of the Tertia pars in the circulation
stakes, for it accounts for only about 18 percent of all the extant manuscripts
of al! the parts of the Summa as written by Thomas. Clearly it never recovered
from a late start.
One could argue, finally, that in any case the relationship between the
parts of the Summa is not as clear as it might be in the various prefaces, and
that Thomas profitably could have been more forthright about precisely what
be was up to when, in the Summa theologiae, be wrote what 1 may now
venture to call his one "Dominican" work, and made what I have suggested
was bis own very personal contribution to a lopsided system of theological
education in the Order to which he belonged.

49 Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. DENIFLE and E. CHATELAIN, 1

(Paris, 1889), 645-646. The Prima pars was in 56 peciae at 3 solidi each, the Prima
secundae in 60 peciae, again at 3 solidi, the Secunda secundae in 82 peciae at 4 solidi.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

"ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME"

In the 1980 volume of this journal Hyacinthe Dondaine of the Leonine

Commission for the critical edition of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas
published an article on a question which has engaged the attention of scholars
of St. Thomas for many years: did Thomas write a second commentary on the
first book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard during his period of teaching in
Rome 1265-681?
What gave rise to the question at all is the fact that Tolomeo of Lucca,
who as a young Dominican had been his friend and confessor at Naples in
1272-73, says in a work ofc. 1313-16 that Thomas "already a Master, wrote
at the time he was in Rome on the first book of the Sentences". Tolomeo
indeed states that he had seen the commentary in his own home Dominican
priory at Lucca be fore his departure for good from there2.

1 H.-F. DONDAINE, ""Alia lectura fratris Thome"? (Super I Sent.)", Mediaeval

Studies 42 (1980) 308-36 (cited henceforth as DONDAINE).
2 "Scripsit etiam eo tempore quo fuit Rome, de quo dictum est supra, iam magister
existens, primum super Sententias, quem ego uidi Luce sed inde subtractus nusquam
ulterius uidi": Tolomeo of Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova 23.15, as critically
edited by A. DONDAINE, "Les "Opuscula fratris Thomae" chez Ptolémée de Lucques',
Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 31 (1961) 155. The text as cited by his brother H.-
F. Dondaine from the Rerum italicarum scriptores 40 .11 72-73 in the article under
discussion reads "subtractum" for "subtractus", meaning that it was the commentary
which was removed from Lucca, not Tolomeo. The variant "subtractum" seems to
have been in the manuscript ofTolomeo's Historia known to Bernard Guic. 1323, six
or seven years after the composition of the Historia: "[frater Thomas] existens rome
scripsit iterum scriptum super primum sententiarum sicut testatur in cronica sua
dominus frater Ptholomaeus episcopus torsellanus qui discipulus et auditor eius fuit,
asserens se vidisse illud in conventu luchano, quod nunc non invenitur, quia clam
sublatum fuisse creditur et ideo non fuit multiplicatum" (B. Gui, Legenda sancti
Thomae Aquinatis in A. FERRUA, Thomae Aquinatis vitae fontes [Alba, 1968], p.
189).
94 L. BOYLE

Nothing resembling that second commentary or even hinting at its exis-

tence had ever corne to light to substantiate Tolomeo's claim until in recent
years the Leonine Commission, in doing a survey of all surviving manuscripts
of works of Thomas, and specifically of his Scriptum super Sententiis (Paris,
1252-56), came across a manuscript of the Super primum Sententiarum at
Lincoln College, Oxford (ms. Lat. 95), which has at least three references in
the margins of the Parisian commentary of Thomas to an "alia lectura fratris
Thome"3.
These references are not in isolation. They go with what Dondaine calls
"a second commentary" on 1 Sent. which, written in a hand (B) different from
that (A) of the Parisian commentary, consists of ninety or more notes or·
glosses on various distinctions of 1 Sent., thus: on distinctions 1-18 at fols.
1v-2v (two "guard" folios before the Parisian commentary proper), 4r-54v
(margins of the Parisian commentary), 123ra-125ra (after the end of the
Parisian commentary on fol. 123ra); on d. 23 (fols. 67v-69v); on d. 24 (fol.
73v)4. The references in question occur as follows:
2vb Isti articuli possunt poni in distinctione secunda primi libri
secundum aliam lec. fratris T.
30va Hic queritur utrum filius possit dici alius a patre secundum
aliam let. f. t.
123vb d. ij' secundum <aliam> lecturam5.
Naturally these references to "alia lectura fratris Thome" are intriguing.
As Dondaine puts it (p. 309), "Le renvoi à frater T. désigne assez clairement
l'auteur du Commentaire A, qui est de fait celui de saint Thomas, la main B
dit donc qu'elle ajoute copie d'une alia lectura du même auteur". ln other
words, if these three references suggest that there was an alia lectura of

3 The codex, an unpretentious ltalian production of the second half of the thir-
teenth century, came into the possession of Lincoln College in or about 1434. It
belonged to M. Richard Chester (fols. 2v and 5r) who, presumably, obtained it while
at the Council of Basel in 1433, and then presented it to the first Rector of Lincoln
College (ob. 1434). On Chester see A. B. EMDEN, A Biographical Register of the
University of Oxford to A. D. 1500, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957-59), 1. 407-408.
4 This description differs a little from that given by DONDAINE, p. 309.
5 I print these entries as they are in DONDAINE, p. 309, but it may be noted that at
fol. 30va "let." should read "let." and that at fol. 123vb "secundum <aliam> lecturam"
should be "secundum aliam lecturam".
 "ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME" 95

Thomas to which band B had access, then perhaps one has here in commen-
tary B some or all of the Roman commentary on 1 Sent. with which Tolomeo
of Lucca credits Thomas many years after the Parisian commentary (A) of
Thomas as a bachelor at Paris in 1252-56.
In an attempt to get to the bottom of all of this, Dondaine transcribed
forty-five of the ninety or so "articles" in commentary B, fifteen of which he
prints in full in his article (nos. 1-XV: pp. 311-33). In each case he sought out
sources or parallels in the works of Thomas, and, after a meticulous examina-
tion of all of the texts in commentary B, came to the conclusion that all in all
commentary B was the work of someone who, apart from two or three lapses
in citing sources, was possessed of much sensitivity to the thought of Thomas,
and had adroitly culled or adapted (and sometimes made clearer) passages
with which to gloss the Parisian commentary of Thomas from the prima pars
of the Summa theologiae (passages VIII-X, XII, XIV-XV in Dondaine), the
Compendium theologiae (VII, XI), the In Boethium De Trinitate (I-111), and
the De veritate (X) of Thomas. As for the meaning of "alia lectura", and proof
of Tolomeo's statement, Dondaine had to admit that in the long run, and in
spite of one or two passages (notably V and VI) which had no "formai paral-
lel" in the writings of Thomas and therefore might qualify as "alia lectura",
the evidence for an "alia lectura" in the sense of a second or Roman com-
mentary of Thomas on 1 Sent. was so insubstantial in commentary B, "qu'il
reste peu d'espoir de trouver appui dans le manuscrit d'Oxford pour l'hy-
pothèse d'un second Commentaire thomiste du premier livre des Sentences"
(p. 335).

All the same 1 think that Dondaine gave in too easily, and that this was
because he, very understandably, took "secundum aliam lecturam" to mean
the Roman commentary with which Tolomeo of Lucca credits Thomas, in
contradistinction to the first or Parisian commentary of Thomas on 1 Sent. In
fact, it is the other way around: "secundum aliam lecturam" means the Pari-
sian over against some other commentary. In other words, if Tolomeo is
correct in attributing to Thomas a commentary on 1 Sent. at Rome, then to a
student taking notes from Thomas as he lectured at Rome on that first book,
"alia lectura" would not mean the notes he was taking down but rather "the
other", Parisian commentary.
To me this is evident from the very first "alia lectura" reference at fol.
2vb, where hand B writes, "Isti articuli poni possunt in distinctione secunda
primi libri secundum aliam lecturam fratris T." (ed. Dondaine, p. 318). At first
sight and as, apparently, Dondaine has read it, what this says is that "These
articles may be placed in the second distinction of the first book according to
96 L. BOYLE

the other lectura ofbrother T.", meaning that according to the alia lectura one
should place these articles in the second distinction of the first book of the
Sentences (as commented on by Thomas at Paris). To say the least, this is a
curious way of speaking. But there is another way of rendering "secundum
aliam lecturam" if one is not predisposed to thinking of "alia lectura" as
"second" or "further": "These articles may be placed in the second distinction
of the first book as it is found in the other lectura ofbrother T.".
If this means, as it does to me, that the articles in question in commen-
tary B "may be placed" with or in the second distinction of the Parisian com-
mentary of Thomas on 1 Sent., this is quite plausible in the circumstances. For
at the point where the reference occurs in commentary B Gust after article 3
on fol. 2vb), "isti articuli" must mean articles 1 (Dondaine V: pp. 316-17), 3
(VI: pp. 317-18) and 4 (VII: pp. 318-20), all of which have the very same
subject, "summum bonum" - a subject of which there is no special treatment
whatever in the second distinction of the Parisian commentary.
The second reference in commentary B (fol. 30va: "Hic queritur utrum
filius possit dici alius a patre secundum aliam let. f. t.") is even more instruc-
tive than the first. This is the only occasion in the extracts printed by Don-
daine (passage XIII: p. 329) that commentary B has a title ("utrum filius
possit dici alius a patre") which is exactly that of an article in the Parisian
commentary of Thomas (d. 9, q. 1, a. 1). It is also the only time in the pas-
sages printed by Dondaine that the opening objections in B are reduced to a
minimum and are eut offwith an "etc.". So what the note "Hic queritur ... " is
saying is that the title here in B is that of the "other", Parisian commentary.
And ifthe three objections are shortened by an "etc." this is precisely because
they are present in the Parisian commentary beside which they occur at fol.
30va in commentary B: "Sicut dicit Priscianus, alius est relatiuum diuersitatis
etc." is exactly the second objection in the Parisian commentary; "Preterea.
Alius et aliud differunt sola consignificatione; sed constat quod filius non
potest dici aliud a patre etc." is more or less the third objection. But there is no
abbreviation when one reaches the "Responsio", for in fact the "Responsio" in
B is quite different from the Parisian "Solutio", prompting Dondaine to allow
that B "est plus clair que le Commentaire de saint Thomas" in the Parisian
version.
The third reference to "alia lectura" noted by Dondaine (fol. 123vb: "d.
ij" secundum aliam lecturam"), coming as it does immediately after the end of
 "ALIA LECTURA FRA TRIS THOME" 97

the Parisian commentary, is a simple reference to the place where the article
in question ("Videtur quod hoc nomen deus predicetur de tribus personis in
plurali") should go in the Parisian commentary (d. 9, q. 1, a. 2) 6.
If then the "alia lectura" to which commentary B refers is the Parisian
commentary of Thomas on 1 Sent., here represented by commentary A in the
manuscript from Lincoln College, Oxford, what is commentary B itselfwhich
provides these references in the margins of the commentary from Paris?
Nothing else, I am sure, than a copy of or selections from a student reportatio
of the Roman lectures of Thomas on book 1 of the Sentences to which
Tolomeo of Lucca attests.
What happened, I may surmise (though I shall refine the point later), is
that sometime around or perhaps sometime before 1300, the approximate date
assigned by Dondaine to hands A and B, someone or other who owned a copy
of the Parisian commentary of Thomas on 1 Sent. also owned or had access to
a reportatio by a student of the Roman lectures of Thomas on 1 Sent. in 1265-
66, when Thomas was teaching that book of Peter Lombard's Sentences to
students at Santa Sabina in the new, experimental and probably "personal"
studium there7. Perhaps, indeed, hand B in the Lincoln College manuscript
was actually one of those students. At all events, what he did when he had
obtained a copy of the Parisian commentary was to attempt to correlate the
reportatio of the Roman lectures with the text of the Parisian commentary -
and on at least one occasion (fol. 2vb) gave the game away by citing a direc-
tive (whether of the reportator himself or of Thomas does not matter) which
indicated just where the articuli in question in the reportatio were to be
placed in copies of the Parisian commentary: "Isti articuli possunt poni in
distinctione secunda primi libri secundum aliam lecturam fratris T.".
Granted, then, that the "alia lectura" to which commentary B refers is
neither B itself nor some indeterminate "alia lectura" but the Parisian corn-

6 These are the three references to "alia lectura" which Dondaine gives, but in fact
there are others which he does not mention, e.g. "secundum aliam lecturam" (fols.
16va, 17rb), "secundum aliam lecturam fratris Thome" (fols. 19vb, 20r, 21rb), "resu-
matur in principio huius columpne secundum aliam lecturam fratris" (fol. 30rb,
bottom, with the word after "fratris" cropped in rebinding). Ail of these notes are in a
very cryptic form and therefore easily to be missed, e.g., "sec. a. 1. f. t.".
7 See L. E. BOYLE, The Setting of the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas (To-
ronto, 1982), pp. 9-11.
98 L. BOYLE

mentary of Thomas, it seems to follow at once, because of the placing of the

three references above, that all of commentary B may well be the Roman
commentary on 1 Sent. ofwhich Tolomeo of Lucca speaks.
From the point of view of doctrine there certainly is no difficulty. As
Dondaine has shown with his customary fine touch, the doctrine is as Tho-
mistic as one could wish for: "La doctrine est évidemment celle de Frère
Thomas" (p. 334). But in spite ofthis, Dondaine cannot allow that Thomas is
the author. For him, commentary B in the Lincoln College manuscript is the
work of an "unknown and discerning" disciple of Thomas who was bright
enough to employ, for example, in passages VII and XI, "des clairs chapitres
du Compendium pour emichir le Commentaire thomiste du premier livre des
Sentences" (p. 334), copying seven passages almost ad litteram from the
Compendium theologiae in sample VII and five in sample XI (see pp. 320,
327, 335-36). He knew, Dondaine admits, "how to exploit" the prima pars of
the Summa theologiae in samples VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV and XV; there are
"echoes" of In Boethium de Trinitate in samples I-III, and of the De veritate in
sample X. There are times when, in Dondaine's view, the anonymous B "se
montre informé" (p. 314), or is capable of giving "un clair exposé" (p. 315) of
a question which is not to be found as such anywherein the works of Thomas.
He seems to Dondaine to be "the first commentator" on the Sentences to allow
that reason, in spite of its limitations, "potest considerare trinitatem persona-
rum ... in unitate essentie" (p. 320). In sample X indeed he shows himselfto be
"bien informé" on Jewish usage with respect to God (p. 323). He is not above
borrowing "sans le dire" a definition which Thomas has in his De veritate of
the Augustinian "imago trinitatis" in man (p. 325). He is even at one point
(sample XIII) "plus clair que le Commentaire de saint Thomas" (p. 330) on
the Sentences (d. 9, q. 1, a. 1 ).
A remarkable commentator, indeed, this commentator B, and one who is
able to treat matters "avec une rigueur intrépide" and with close rational
argumentation which "détonne un peu dans un commentaire des Sentences"
(p. 331). On occasion he clearly gets carried away by the rational arguments
of Thomas, in sample XIV, for example, giving more attention to reason than
to faith, "comme si le succès de l'argument thomiste absorbait l'attention et
l'intérêt du disciple inconnu" (ibid.).
Needless to say, once one sees the real meaning of "secundum aliam
lecturam", the unknown student of such exceptional ability disappears to be
replaced by Thomas himself; and all the perception, all the staggering sensi-
tivity to the thought of Thomas, all the adroit deployment of certain works of
Thomas then begin to make sense.
 "ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME" 99

There is no need, however, to tamper with Dondaine's brilliant and ex-

haustive research. It is sufficient to read "Thomas" for every mention of the
"unknown student" or "commentator B". All that Dondaine has to say about
the use by "B" of works of Thomas written before 1265-66 (the Parisian
commentary on 1 Sent. and the De veritate) may stand unchanged. But with
respect to the relationship of" commentary B" to works of Thomas after 1265-
66 such as the prima pars of the Summa theologiae and, notably, the Compen-
dium theologiae, Dondaine's conclusions should be reversed. If, for example,
Dondaine has been able to show, as he has done convincingly (pp. 320, 327,
335-36), that there are ideas, sentences and even whole passages common to
"commentary B" and the Compendium, then this is not, as Dondaine holds,
because "B" is indebted to the Compendium but because the Compendium is a
reworking by Thomas of parts of "B".
I say "reworking" advisedly, since the relationship between the Compen-
dium and "B" is so close (with, for example, more than forty lines in common
at one point) that Dondaine has to admit that "il est difficile de reconstruire
l'ordre de genèse entre les deux textes" (p. 327). In fact, when examining
sample XI from "B" against the Compendium theologiae (pp. 325-27 and the
comparative table at 335-36), Dondaine came very near to allowing that this
part of "commentary B" might well be Thomas. But he resisted the moment.
In spi te of the fact that it is well known that Thomas was not above incorpo-
rating passages from previous writings of his into later ones, Dondaine found
it difficult to accept that Thomas could possibly have taken over so much ad
litteram from a previous work, if "commentary B" really was his. Hence he
concluded that the "borrowing" must have been in the other direction: "On
pensera aussi bien à quelque disciple disposant du Compendium" (p. 327).
The idea of Thomas "engageant à plein un rôle de compilateur" rather horri-
fied him (p. 335).
Far from being shocking, the discovery that Thomas borrowed heavily
from "B" when putting together the Compendium is rather a cause for rejoic-
ing. In fact, with "commentary B" on 1 Sent. now restored to Thomas (how-
ever much, as I shall note, at second or third hand), the whole array of texts
from "B" in Dondaine's article, not to speak ofthose still to be published from
the Lincoln College manuscript, take on a new life and indeed provide us with
a window through which to view some of the teaching of Thomas at Santa
Sabina in Rome in 1265-66.
Two examples from Dondaine's texts will suffice. In sample XIII (fol.
30va: Dondaine, pp. 329-30), one finds Thomas actually remaking an article
in his Parisian commentary (which is surely why it is the only sample of the
100 L. BOYLE

fifteen in Dondaine which explicitly states that its title is precisely that of the
"other" or Parisian commentary: "Hic queritur utrum filius possit dici alius a
patre secundum aliam lecturam fratris t."). As I noted above, the objections in
"B" are practically the same as those in the Parisian commentary and are
indicated to be such by an "etc." in each case. But the corpus and the replies to
the objections are much more taut and straightforward than those in the corre-
sponding article in the Parisian commentary (d. 9, q. 1, a. 1), prompting
Dondaine (p. 330) to note that "L'Anonyme est plus clair que le Commentaire
de saint Thomas", a remark which he repeats again at p. 335 when allowing
that "commentator B" might well have culled this sample XIII from some
unknown "alia lectura" of Thomas on 1 Sent.: "il n'est pas impossible qu'il l'ait
recueillie d'une alia lectura". Again, in sample VIII (fol. 123vb: Dondaine,
pp. 321-22). where there is the reference to "d. ij" secundum aliam lecturam",
there is another example of a reworking of an article in the Parisian commen-
tary (d. 9, q. 1, a. 2). The interesting thing here is that the reworked version is
what is taken over, with some changes, by Thomas when composing the
prima pars of the Summa (1. 39. 3) a year or so later (of course Dondaine, p.
322, from whom I take the data, says the opposite: "La Responsio de la pièce
VIII expose la doctrine de la pars q. 29 a. 2 [rectius q. 39 a. 3), qui est déjà
celle de Super 1 Sent. d. 9 q. 1 a. ·2 11 ).
The most telling example, however, is one that for some reason or other
escaped the attention of Dondaine; it is also one that gives us a rare glimpse of
Thomas in the classroom. In the Parisian commentary, when treating of the
question "Utrum verbum dicatur personaliter in divinis" (1 Sent. d. 27, q. 2, a.
2), Thomas states, "Et ideo dicendum est cum aliis quod hoc nomen verbum
ex virtute vocabuli potest et personaliter et essentialiter accipi". At this point
in the Lincoln College codex of the Parisian commentary (fol. 81va), there is
a siglum in the margin which is answered at the foot of the folio (8 1 vb) by
the following note: "Communitas Parisiensis modo tenet quod uerbum tantum
personaliter dicatur, et quod etiamfrater Thomas modo in hoc consentit - non
quod distinctio hic posita sit erronea sed quia sancti communiter non utuntur
hoc nomine nisi personaliter". Thomas, then, by the time he was lecturing for
a second time on 1 Sent. in 1265-66, had corne to accept ("modo in hoc con-
sentit") the position of the "communitas Parisiensis" (presumably the general
body of theological opinion at Paris), but ail the same was reluctant to admit
that his position in the Parisian commentary a decade or so earlier was erro-
neous ("non quod distinctio hic posita sit erronea"). A year or more later, it
may be noted, he abandoned entirely his "personaliter - essentialiter" distinc-
tion when he came to compose the prima pars of the Summa theologiae (1. 34,
le): "Unde oportet quod nomen verbi secundum quod proprie in divinis
 "ALIA LECTURA FRA TRIS THOME" 101

accipitur non sumatur essentialiter sed personaliter tantum" (see also 1. 34, ad
3).
There are certain difficulties, however, which cannot be ignored, and
clearly they prevented Dondaine, who mentions them several times, from
accepting all or any of the obviously "Thomistic" teaching of "commentary B"
as that of Thomas himself.

1. Sample X, lines 19-20: "la main B transcrit bravement "Dicere nichil

aliud est summo spiritui quam cogitando intueri, ut dicit Dyonisius"
(f. 124rb). Cet extrait du Monologion 63 (PL 158.208D) est cinq fois
cité par saint Thomas sous Je nom exact Anselmus" (Dondaine,
p. 334). One must remember, however, that band B in the Lincoln
College manuscript is not, as Dondaine supposes, composing a com-
mentary but rather, as 1 see it, is copying out ail or part of the lectures
of Thomas on 1 Sent. at Rome. Since it is unlikely that be had Tho-
mas' notes in the band of Thomas himself before him, there are thus
two possible sources on which be could have drawn. Rand B could be
copying from a reportatio which be himself had made while attending
the lectures of Thomas at Santa Sabina or, ifhe himselfhad not been a
student of Thomas there, from a reportatio of some student who had
been. In either case band B was faced with a reportatio, whether bis
own or not does not matter for the moment. A reportatio usually is
written in a simple, highly-abbreviated littera notularis and, indeed,
often in a very persona! version of this, so it is not bard to imagine that
band B could have been trapped into reading An 9 as Dn 9 and thus into
writing "Dyonisius" instead of the "Anselmus" of Thomas.

2. Sample VIII, line 2: "Le cas VIII 2 est plus compromettant:

!'Anonyme explique bénignement (VIII 34-40) un soi-disant dictum
Damasceni qui n'est ni authentique ni vraisemblable" (Dondaine, p.
334). This indeed is a ditticult one, though 1 must say that Dondaine is
rather bard on bis "commentator B" for bis "faiblesses occasionnelles"
(p. 334), remarking, for example, with respect to the above "dictum
Damasceni", that "On touche là une limite des moyens critiques dont
dispose notre Anonyme" (p. 322). He is particularly surprised because
the "anonymous author" "donne une explication bénigne du dictum
Damasceni, sans soupçonner ce que l'attribution au Damascène a d'in-
vraisemblable. Nous ignorons d'où provient ce dictum, avec pareille
attribution" (ibid.).
102 L. BOYLE

Here again Dondaine takes it for granted that hand B is the author of
"commentary B", and does not consider the possibility that hand B was not
that of an author but of a copyist. Looking at hand B as that of a copyist, what
1 would suggest is this. There must have been such a dictum around in the
scholarly world at the time, but probably not attributed to John Damascene.
However, as the dictum occurred in the reportatio in front of hand B, the
name attached to it when it first appears in the first objection in sample VIII
was so illegible that hand B, noting that "Damascenus" was cited as the source
for an objection in the very next item in the reportatio (sample IX: Dondaine,
p. 322), solved the problem of illegibility by adopting "Damascenus". This is
not at all unlikely to be what happened. Samples VIII and IX, which are
together on the same folio (123vb) in the Lincoln College manuscript, proba-
bly were also cheek-by-jowl in the reportatio. What is more, the opening
words of these two first objections in samples VIII and IX are so similar that
hand B surely merits our sympathy; "Damascenus enim dicit quod hoc nomen
deus ita est commune patri et filio et spiritui sancto, sicut ... " (VIII, obj. 1);
"Damascenus enim dicit quod qui est est maxime nomen dei proprium" (IX,
obj. 1). This, of course, does not account for the appearance of "Damascenus"
in the reply to objection 1 in sample VIII, but, conceivably, if "Damascenus"
had wormed its way into the objection as 1 have suggested, then hand B may
be excused ifhe repeated "Damascenus" in the reply (or encountered a siglum
in the reply that he presumed from the objection he had just copied out to be
"Damascenus").

3. Sample XIV: "Et même comment l'entendre pour la pièce XIV, au

climat rationnel si différent du Super Sententias?" (Dondaine, p. 335).
The wave of "rationality" in sample XIV should not be a surprise.
When Thomas wrote on the Sentences at Paris he was a Bachelor ful-
filling a formal role. At Rome, however, he was a Master, and not at
all tied clown by the text of Peter Lombard (or, for that matter, by the
text of his own Parisian commentary of twelve or thirteen years ear-
lier). He now had a freedom that a Bachelor did not enjoy. Here one
with profit may recall that it was precisely Thomas' status as Master to
which Tolomeo of Lucca drew attention when he wrote, "Scripsit
etiam eo tempore quo fuit Rome ... iam magister existens, primum
super Sententias .... "

4. Sample XV: "[Et même comment l'entendre ... ] pour la pièce XV, dont
le vocabulaire nous a fait difficulté?" (Dondaine, p. 335). The diffi-
culty here for Dondaine if "commentator B" is in fact Thomas, is that
 "ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME" 103

in sample XV the commentator exploits the prima pars of the Summa

(37, 1), "avec un déploiement verbal qui n'est guère dans la manière
sobre de saint Thomas". For one thing, "Pour un simple article de cin-
quante-et-une lignes onze emplois du mot actio, dont quatre actio in-
tellectus et cinq actio uoluntatis "(p. 333). For another, Dondaine
knows of only one example in Thomas of the expression "actio uo-
luntatis" in a Trinitarian context, namely, the doublet actio intellectus
et actio uoluntatis in the prima pars, 27 3c. It seems to me, however,
that once one allows that what we have here in this Lincoln College
manuscript in "commentary B" is a reportatio of, presumably, viva
voce lectures, then such repetition hardly seems horrendous. It might
be if Thomas never in his life had used terminology such as actio in-
tellectus and actio uoluntatis. But he did.

5. Finally, there are objections to Thomas' authorship that, to Dondaine,

arise from the fact that hand B writes as though he were the author of
"commentary B". Thus, according to Dondaine, hand B proves to be
an editor "qui surveille l'expression de sa pensée" (p. 333), changing
words or correcting mistakes as he goes along. Tome, rather, hand B
is a scholar-copyist who on occasion (eight occasions, as a matter of
fact, in the fifteen extracts printed by Dondaine) realizes that what he
has just copied does not make sense either because he has taken one
word in the reportatio before him for another (thus "hiis" for an ab-
breviated form of "principiis" - ;piis - in sample IV, line 16) or, in the
seven other cases noted by Dondaine (p. 333), because he had fallen
into the common trap of the scholar-copyist: allowing oneselfto think
while copying. In any case, if hand B really was drafting or compos-
ing his text as he went along, then it is very strange that there are so
few changes. That there are, on the other hand, lacunae at times (e.g.,
fols. 29vb, 38va - the latter a long one), argues as clearly as possible
that hand B is not that of an author but that of a copyist who, like so
many other copyists in all ages, cannot always fathom the script be-
fore him in his exemplar.
Who, in conclusion, might this scholar-scribe have been? Whoever he
was, he certainly was someone who sometime in the late thirteenth century,
when he owned a copy of the Parisian commentary of Thomas on 1 Sent.,
went to the trouble of copying into its margins or spare folios all or most of a
reportatio of the Roman lectures of Thomas on that same book in 1265-66. As
it happens, there is a possible candidate, if only because his name is carried by
104 L. BOYLE

the manuscript at Lincoln College, Oxford, in which these two commentaries

occur.
An erased note at the top of fol. 2r (one of the two "guard" folios before
the Parisian commentary proper), which Dondaine was able to read in part
under ultra-violet, states, according to Dondaine's transcription, "Frater Iacob-
bus Ray(nucii) perusinus Ill .xlij. sol. pro isto libro et pro predicte pecunie
predictus ... "). Noting simply, with just one reference (pp. 308-309 n. 6), that
"Fr. Iacobus Raynucii mourut en 1286", Dondaine makes nothing of this
Dominican of Perugia beyond allowing that hand B in the Lincoln College
manuscript may be "dès avant 1286" if, that is, hand B had already penned
"commentary B" before the volume was bought by Iacobus Raynucii.
Yet Iacobus Raynucii was not just some Dominican or other of Perugia
"who died in 1286". When he died he was in fact archbishop of Florence and
had been so for some four or five months. What is more, he was prior of Santa
Sabina in Rome when named archbishop in early 1286 by Pope Honorius IV,
and previous to that had been the very first Lector of the Dominic an ho use at
Città di Castello when that house was founded from Perugia in 1273. Possibly
this was his first appointment as Lector, but he was distinguished enough by
1281 to have been appointed a Preacher General8.
But that is not the whole story. The partially erased inscription is richer
than one would suspect from Dondaine's rendition of it. For the inscription
does not say that Iacobus Raynucii bought the volume, but rather that he sold
it to another Dominican, possibly Nicholas of Milan, as the following tran-
scription with the aid of an ultra-violet lamp suggests (erased words which
have responded to ultra-violet are in italics, uncertain words are in angled
brackets): "Frater Iacobbus Ray. perusinus debet recipere de fratre <Nicola
de Mediolano> xlij. sol. pro isto libro. Et pro predicta pecunia predictus
frater <Nicola promisit>" (the remainder is utterly illegible).
Now, since Iacobus Raynucii is simply called "Frater Iacobbus Ray. pe-
rusinus" in the erased note and is not specified either as archbishop or
Preacher General, it is likely that the sale of the volume took place well before

8 Acta capitulorum provincialium provmcwe Romanae (1248-1344), ed. T.

KAEPPELI and A. DONDAINE (Rome, 1941), pp. 43, 47; Stephanus de Salaniaco et
Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus Deus Praedicatorum Ordinem insignivit,
ed. T. KAEPPELI (Rome, 1949), p. 88 and n. 1. His full name was lacobus Raynucii de
Alexiis de Castelbuono.
 "ALIA LECTURA FRATRIS THOME" 105

1286 (archbishop) and possibly before 1281 (Preacher General). If, further,
the Dominican colleague to whom lacobus sold the codex really is Nicholas
of Milan, then the sale would have taken place between c. 1273, when
Nicholas began teaching, and 1283, when be gave up teaching to devote
himself exclusively to preaching (1283-c. 1293)9. And since lacobus is known
to have been appointed Lector to Città di Castello in 1273 and seems to have
continued teaching until appointed Prior of Santa Sabina in, perhaps, 1281.
then the date for the sale of the Lincoln College manuscript to Nicholas could
be narrowed to the years 1281-83.
What really matters, however, is that Iacobus clearly possessed the co-
dex well before be became archbishop of Florence in 1286. Given this, the
chances are good that be first acquired the codex when be was appointed to,
as I presume, bis first Lectorship in 1273, and then, when be began to teach
the first book of the Sentences at Città di Castello, copied all or most of the
Roman lectures of Thomas into this copy of the Parisian commentary of
Thomas. Certainly there is a record of lecturing from time to time in the
volume, at fols. 38r ("Lectio XXXVII"), 62v ("Lectio XXXVI"), and 74v
("Lectio XXXX").
Perhaps, finally, the reportatio from which lacobus copied was bis own,
which would mean that be was one of those select students at Santa Sabina in
1265-66 to whom Thomas lectured on the first book of the Sentences before
embarking a year later on the prima pars ofhis Summa theologiae. Again, this
is not an improbable assumption. Certainly it would explain why Iacobus
possessed the commentary of Thomas on 1 Sent. on its own, and it would go a
long way to explaining a devotion on bis part to the fragmentary Roman
commentary of Thomas at a time when other and more important works of
Thomas were in circulation. For if the appointment to Città di Castello was, as
it appears to be, bis first as a "Lector conventus", then at the time that Thomas
was teaching the first book of the Sentences in Rome in 1265-66, Iacobus
would have been beginning bis studies in the Dominican Ortler and could thus
have been one of the students selected from all over the Roman Province of
the Dominican Ortler for study with Thomas at Santa Sabina.

9 G. G. MEERSSEM AN, Ordo fraternitatis. Confraternite e pietà dei laici

ne! me-
dioevo, 3 vols. (Rome, 1977), 3. 1121-43; "Sermoni e collazioni di Fra Nicola da
Milano nelle Congregazioni Mariane (1273-1283)".
106 L. BOYLE

The case for Iacobus Raynucii is, of course, far from watertight; but
whoever the owner of hand B was, he must have been a student of Thomas at
Santa Sabina in 1265-66. Who else but one of the students who had been there
at that time would have bothered with the Roman commentary and with its
directions on where to place certain passages or articles in copies of the Pari-
sian commentary of Thomas? Who else would have been aware of just what
really was meant by "secundum aliam lecturam fratris T. "?
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT

The letter generally known as Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiael is a

brief reply by Thomas Aquinas to some eight questions put to him by a lady
ruler with respect to the taxing and treatment of Jews, the taxing of her sub-
jects in general, and the morality of the sale of public offices in her gift.
Thomas answers the questions patiently and respectfully, though he
pleads that he had found it difficult to reply adequately because of the pres-
sures of his teaching duties (officium lectionis) and because he would really
be happier if she had recourse to others more leamed than he in such matters.
In dealing with the Jews under ber rule, Thomas tells her, she should al-
ways act with moderation. Although, as the law states, Jews should wear
distinctive dress and had merited perpetual subjection, this does not mean that
they should be deprived of the necessities oflife.
The problem for the addressee, however, was that in her territory Jews
depended almost entirely on usury for a living, and she was not sure whether
it was correct for ber to tax them. In Thomas's opinion, it was not. The monies
thus acquired by usury should be restored to those from whom the Jews had
extorted them or, ifthese people could not be found, should be handed over to
pious uses or some fund or other for the common good.
As for taxes on her subjects in general, she had every justification for
this in scripture, as also she had for special levies to meet special needs,
provided, of course, that it was the common good, and not personal gain,

1 Apart from the critical edition in note 2 below, there are various editions of the
Epistola available in printed Opera omnia of Aquinas, e. g., the Parma (Parma:
Fiaccadori, 25 vols., 1852-1873, XVI, 292-93) or the Paris (Paris: Viv-8a-s, 34 vols.,
1871-82), XXVII, 413-16. An English translation is to be found in Thomas Aquinas,
Selected Political Writings, ed. A. P. D'ENTRÈVES (Oxford: Blackwell, 1948), pp. 84-
95. A good summary of the contents is in B. BLUMENKRANZ, "Le De regimine Ju-
daeorum: ses modèles, son exemple," in Aquinas and Problems of his Time, ed. G.
VERBEKE and D. VERHELST (Leuven: University Press, 1976), pp. 101-17.
108 L. BOYLE

which was at heart. She was justified, too, in selling offices, such as that of
bailiffs, though he was inclined to think that this sort of thing fell into St.
Paul's category of "things which are lawful but not necessarily helpful".

***

Like many of the smaller occasional works of Thomas, the Epistola has
attracted only a slender body of scholarship, and what it has attracted has been
concemed on the whole with an identification of the addressee of the letter2.
Seven years ago, H. F. Dondaine made the first critical edition of this
letter from 82 MSS, which he published under the precise title Epistola ad
ducissam Brabantiae, in the Opera omnia of Aquinas known as the Leonine
edition. There, in a short preface, the editor has admirably set out the main
positions of scholars with respect to the addressee of the letter.
As it is found in manuscripts, various catalogues, and printed editions,
the Epistola is addressed either to a Duchess of Brabant or a Countess of
Flanders. The latter, Fr. Dondaine is sure, need not be bothered with. The
former is the one that matters. For, he shows, the attestation of the letter to a
Duchess of Brabant has a very solid backing. The Dominicans John of
Freiburg, at the end of the 13th century, and Bartholomew of Capua and
Bernard Gui at the beginning of the 14th, all give the addressee as Duchess of
Brabant, as does just over half of the 82 extant MSS, including most impor-
tantly, a text of the Epistola in a persona} notebook of Godfrey of Fontaines
from Liège just about the time Thomas was teaching in Paris for the second
time, and certainly about 1270-1272. The only problem, in Fr. Dondaine's
view, is which of two possible Duchesses of Brabant during the teaching
career of Thomas was the occasion of the Epistola.
According to Fr. Dondaine, one group of scholars, led by Justus Lipsius
in 1605 and bolstered by the authority of the great Belgian historian Henri
Pirenne in an address of 1918, argues that the date of the letter of Thomas is
Spring 1261, and that the addressee is Adelaide of Burgundy, widow of Henry

2 Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae, ed. H.-F. DONDAINE, in Sancti Thomae de

Aquino Opera Omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, (Roma: Editori di San Tommaso,
1976), XLII, 357-78 (text at pp. 375-78).
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 109

III of Brabant, who ruled the Duchy as regent from Henry's death in 1261 to
1267, when she handed the reins over to her second son, John. This position,
as Dondaine shows, has the support of 9 MSS, though all, as it happens, are of
the 15th century. In Pirenne's opinion, the reason for Duchess Adelaide's
queries to Thomas about the Jews is the fact, well documented by Pirenne,
that her husband, the Duke Henry, in his will urged her to expel all Jews who
engaged in usury3.
A second group of scholars, in which Fr. Dondaine, because of the wit-
ness of Godfrey of Fontaines, seems to place himself, argues for a date for the
letter between 1268 and 1272, when Thomas was teaching at Paris for the
second time.
This group proposes that the Duchess in question was the young Marga-
ret of France, a daughter of King Louis, who married John, Duke of Brabant,
the second son of Adelaide mentioned above, in February 1270, shortly before
John departed on the Crusade of St. Louis, leaving Margaret in charge of the
Duchy while he was away.
The spearhead of this view is the late Palémon Glorieux, in an article of
1936. Over the years, he has won to his sicle Grabmann, Eschmann,
W eisheipl, and, to some extent, Dondaine. Glorieux bases his opinion on the
fact that the letter of Thomas is to be found in a collection of tracts put to-
gether, in his opinion, in the years 1270-1272, by the scholar Godfrey of
Fontaines while studying at Paris as a young man in the Faculty of Arts4.

3 H. PIRENNE, "La duchesse Aleyde de Brabant et le "De Regimine Judaeorum" de

Saint Thomas d'Aquin", Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et
Politiques de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, 5th ser., 14 (1928), 43-55, rpt. Revue
Néo-scholastique de Philosophie, 30 (1928), 193-203.
4 P. GLORIEUX, "Le "De Regimine Judaeorum''. Hypothèses
et précisions", Divus
Thomas (Piacenza), 39 (1936), 153-60, now rpt. in German in Thomas von Aquino,
ed. K. BERNATH (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgese!lschaft, 1978), 1, 132-43; I.
Th. ESCHMANN, "A Catalogue of St. Thomas's Works. Bibliographical Notes", in E.
GILSON, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Random
House, 1956), p. 422; J. A. WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas d'Aquino. His Life, Thought,
and Works (New York; Doubleday, 1974), p. 398 (rpt. Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America, 1983, with an appendix of "Corrigenda and Addenda", pp.
465-87, in which, at p. 486, the results of the present paper are summarized and
accepted, with, unfortunately, "Marguerite of Constantinople" noted as "daughter of
King Louis IX of France").
110 L. BOYLE

Godfrey's notebook, now BN MS. lat. 16297 - a codex famous to schol-

ars of Siger of Brabant - is, according to Glorieux, the oldest surviving wit-
ness to the Epistola of Thomas. Since Godfrey was from the Liège area, a
territory bordering on that of Brabant, and since he calls the addressee of the
letter Duchess of Brabant, then Glorieux argues, he must be presumed to have
known what he was talking about. And since in 1270-1272, when, as Glorieux
presumes, Godfrey was compiling his collection, the Duchess of Brabant was
the young Margaret of France, not the dowager Adelaide, then, Glorieux
concludes, Margaret must be the addressee of the letter of Thomas - perhaps
between Marchand June 1270, when Margaret, on the departure of her hus-
band Duke John for the Crusade, would have turned for advice, as ber father
King Louis is reputed to have done on occasion, to the great Dominican
scholar, whom, indeed, Glorieux reminds us, she could have met on one or
other of the occasions that Thomas had been her father's guest after his arrivai
back in Paris from Rome in 1268.
As things stand at present, then, and particularly because of the Leonine
edition of 1976, it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that the ad-
dressee of the letter of Thomas was a Duchess of Brabant - and Margaret of
France in 1270 or 1271 rather than Duchess Adelaide, her mother-in-law,
some ten years earlier.
But there are difficulties about the addressee being either of these Duch-
esses of Brabant, and indeed about the whole Brabant destination of the letter.
Sorne of the difficulties stem from internai evidence which seems to have
escaped the attention of scholars over the years, and notably that of the Leo-
nine editor. Sorne derive from external evidence, much of which has only
recently corne to light.
First of all, the internai evidence. Sorne years ago when I first read this
letter of Thomas, in search of internai evidence which might help to locate it
in time - if not actually date it - I was struck by the farewell of Thomas to the
addressee of the letter: "Valeat dominatio tua per longiora tempora". And, try
as I might, I could not see how either Adelaide or Margaret, the two Duch-
esses of Brabant, could have decently merited a wish "per longiora tempora,"
since this implied, on the one hand, that the addressee had been in power for
some considerable time already, and, on the other, that Thomas was wishing
her longer years of rule in the future.
The implications of this greeting are basic to the whole problem of the
addressee of the letter of Thomas, yet no scholar over the years, to my knowl-
edge, has mentioned or commented on the phrase. For if, to take Duchess
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 111

Adelaide first, Thomas was addressing her, as Pirenne and others have held,
just after her husband's death in 1261, when her six-year regency began, then
the wish "per longiora tempora" was inept; and, in respect of the future, it was
misplaced, since Adelaide was simply holding the fort until one of her young
sons was willing or of age to take over, as her second son John did in 12675.
On the other hand, if applicable to Adelaide's young daughter-in-law Margaret
of France, when she married John and as Duchess was quasi-regent in 1270
during his absence, the farewell "Valeat dominatio tua per longiora tempora"
is little short of singular. In 1270, Margaret was in her teens and had no more
"dominatio" behind her than her mother-in-law had had in 1261. Freshly
married to John of Brabant, the only "dominatio" she knew was whatever her
husband had entrusted to her when he departed on her father's Crusade a few
months after the marriage. By any measure, need 1 add, it would have been
tactless if not callous of Thomas, at a moment when Margaret was in charge
simply because her husband was away from her, to have wished her, in effect,
more years of separation from her husband6.
If the anomaly of this greeting is not enough to wipe both Adelaide and
Margaret from the lists, there is also the fact that the addressee of the letter is
clearly a ruler in her own right, which neither Adelaide nor Margaret could
claim to be, with sons living, in the first case, and a husband in the second. To
Thomas, the addressee of his letter is not some sort of stand-in, as Margaret
was, nor regent, as Adelaide was: she is "dominatio vestra," as he terms her in
his farewell; "potentia vestra," as he denotes her a few lines earlier, when he
writes, "Ultimo quaeritis si bonum est ut per potenciam vestram Iudaei sig-
num distinctum a Christianis cogantur deportare" - you ask if it is a good

5 R. V AN UYTVEN, "The Date of Thomas Aquinas's Epistola ad ducissam Bra-

bantiae", in Pascua Mediaevalia. Studies voor Prof Dr. J. M. De Smet, ed. R.
LIEVENS, E. VAN MINGROOT, and W. VERBEKE (Leuven: University Press, 1983),
pp. 631-43, maintains that there are "solid arguments to connect" the De regimine "to
the regency of Adelaide of Burgundy in Brabant," noting that "For any unbiassed
reader there is no doubt that Thomas is addressing a duchess goveming in her own
person" (p. 368). But "goveming in her own person" is not quite the same as gover-
ning "in her own right". Anyway, the problem with Adelaide, to which Van Uytven
does not advert, is what possibly could "per longiora tempora" mean in her case,
since, to use Van Uytven's own words, she was simply "regent of the duchy of Bra-
bant until the majority ofher son John I (1267)" (pp. 638-39).
6 For details of the life of Margaret of France, her marriage to Adelaide's son,
John I, and her early death, see VAN UYTVEN, art. cit. in note 5 above, pp. 632-35.
112 L. BOYLE

thing that Jews should be compelled by "your power" to wear a distinctive

sign. The use of "potentia" here must have struck Dondaine in his Leonine
edition as incongruous, at least in the case of the fledgling Margaret, since,
flying in the face of the unanimous witness of ail the manuscripts, he conjec-
tured that "per poteniam vestram" should really read "per provinciam ve-
stram," and changed the text accordingJy7.

***

With, as 1 hope is clear by now, no Duchess left standing in Brabant as a

plausible addressee of the letter of Thomas, it is time surely to go further
afield to Flanders and to test the possibilities of the other manuscript tradition
of the Epistola of Thomas, not to speak of the longevity of the Countesses
there.
As luck would have it, there is one and only one possible Countess in
Thomas's lifetime as a teacher - a formidable and mighty lady named Marga-
ret of Constantinople, who ruled Flanders in her own right with much sagacity
and not a little stubbomess from 1245 until 12788. The second of two chil-
dren, both daughters, of Baldwin 1, Count of Flanders and first Emperor of
Constantinople, Margaret was bom about 1191 and was baptized at Valen-
ciennes in Hainaut. When her eider sister Joan became Countess of Flanders
on the death of Baldwin in 1205, Margaret married Bouchard d'A vesnes, by
whom she happily had two sons but from whom she reluctantly separated later
on, under pressure from Philip Augustus of France, on the grounds (totally
false, it appears) that Bouchard had been a subdeacon when she married him.
Again under pressure, this time that of her sister Countess Joan, Margaret
tnarried William of Dampierre in 1218, by whom she had seven children, only

7 DONDAINE, ed. cit. in note 2 above, p. 378, line 242.

8 For Margaret of Constantinople in general, see A. WAUTERS, "Marguerite de
Constantinople", Biographie nationale publiée par l'Académie Royale des Sciences,
des Lettres et des Beaux-arts de Belgique (Brussels: Bruylant Christophe, 1894-
1895), XIII, 612-29; R. MONIER, Les institutions centrales du Comté de Flandre de la
fin du IXe à 1384 (Paris: Loviton, 1943), pp. 34-35, 63-67, 94-96; M. WADE
LABARGE, Saint Louis. The Life of Louis IX of France (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968),
pp. 151-54.
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 113

three ofwhom survived childhood. In 1245, when Countess Joan died, Marga-
ret succeeded ber sister as Countess of Flanders, goveming this large county
(and that of Hainaut) for thirty-three years afterwards, until, within sight of
ber ninetieth year, she abdicated in 1278 in favour ofher eldest son, who, now
aged sixty-two, had been waiting in the wings for quite some time.
Not all of those thirty-three years as Countess were rosy and peaceful.
The first eleven were rough and tumble, but with the resolute backing of
Louis IX of France, Margaret was firmly in place by 1256, and the years
1256-1278 were full ofpeace and progress for Margaret and Flanders.
She had ber enemies, of course, particularly in the earliest years; and
Matthew Paris, feeding at St. Albans on gossip from Flanders before bis death
in 1259, paints a grim picture ofher in bis Chronica majora as another Medea
in relation to ber sons by ber first (d'Avesnes) marriage9. As "Black Marga-
ret", she bas had a bad press from Matthew Paris and other chroniclers and is,
curiously for one who had such a long and momentous reign, one of the most
neglected figures in Belgian if not European history. Yet, as the latest histo-
rian to write of ber at any great length remarked in 1894, it is to the reign of
Margaret, to ber network of canals, ber monetary reforms and promotion of
commerce, that Flanders owed its rise as an entrepôt of trade in the second
half of the thirteenth century. It was due to Margaret, too, he says, that poetry
and literature thrived in Flanders as never before, and that religious move-
ments. particularly those connected with the Domincians, prospered hugelylO.
An obvious candidate as addressee of Thomas's letter, one would have
thought, given the altemate manuscript tradition of the Epistola. One certainly
to whom, at any point of bis teaching career, Thomas could justly and nicely
have said, "May you rule even longer than you have ruled to date" - per
longiora tempora.
And he could have said it out of a certain familiarity. Margaret of Con-
stantinople, Countess of Flanders, was not unknown to Thomas or the Do-
minican Ortler. lt was to ber sister Joan and herself, as successive rulers of
Flanders, that the Dominicans of Flanders owed much of their existence and
position in the county. Joan had founded Dominican bouses at Ghent and
Bruges, and Margaret had carried on the good work after Joan's death in 1245,

9 M. PARIS, Chronica majora, ed. J. R. LUARD, 7 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 57,
1872-1883), V, 382, 433-37, 439-40 ("altera Medea").
10 WAUTERS, art. cit. in note 8 above, cols. 628-29.
114 L. BOYLE

for example confirming in 1256 the Dominicans in the house which Joan had
founded at Valenciennes in Hainaut. Ten years or so later, Margaret herself
set up the Dominicans at Douai and Ypres 11.
In fact it may be said that as benefactress, Margaret achieved a certain
notoriety in Dominican circles, mainly because of her unbending insistence
that Joan's two foundations of Ghent and Bruges, then under the Dominican
province of Germany, be incorporated into the province of France. Her first
chance came at the general chapter of 1259 at Valenciennes in Hainaut (of
which Margaret, like Joan, was also Countess). She refurbished the house
there for the chapter, and lavished attention on the delegates. Aided by Hugh
of St. Cher, the Dominican Cardinal and papal legate, former Provincial of
France and her great adviser and friend, Margaret had a motion put to the
chapter that the houses of Bruges and Ghent should be transferred from the
province of Germany to that of France. The chapter, in the circumstances, was
hardly in a position to say no to a generous hostess, and gave the motion a
first hearing. But this action of the Countess, and the complaisance of the
chapter, caused such general offence in the Dominican Ortler at large, that the
motion was quietly dropped at the general chapter at Strasbourg the year
following, when it should have had, if it were to be effective, the second of
three successive and successful hearings. But Margaret persisted, and with
Hugh of St. Cher at her elbow until his death in 1263, circunwented the
democratic processes of the Ortler, finally obtaining a papal bull of incorpora-
tion into the province of France for the two houses in, probably, 126512.
For all the scandai that this action caused in the Ortler, relations between
the Countess and the Dominicans seem rather to have grown closer than to
have cooled over the thirteen years that remained of Margaret's rule in
Flanders. Two years before she stepped down in favor ofher son in 1278, the
then provinical of France, in a general letter, spoke ofher unblushingly as "the

11 For the patronage of the Dominicans by Joan and Margaret, see G.

MEERSEMAN, "Les débuts de !'Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs dans le comté de Flandre
(1224-1280)", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 17 (1947), 5-40, especially, for
Margaret, pp. 13-16, 23, 30-38; "Les Frères Prêcheurs et le mouvement dévot en
Flandre au XIIIe siècle", ibid., 18 (1948), 69-130, esp. pp. 89-90, 96-101 (Margaret);
"Jeanne de Constantinople et les Frères Prêcheurs", ibid., 19 (1949), 122-68, esp.
pp 139-45 (Joan, Margaret, and the house at Valenciennes).
12 M.-D. CHAPOTIN, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France. Le Siè-
cle des Fondations (Rouen: Cagniard, 1898), pp. 374-76, 488-90, 523-31, 538-44.
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 115

splendid patron and foundress of houses within her domain, the devoted
mother and provider, and the tireless guardian, of the brethren in those
houses 11 !3. After her death in 1280, the general chapter at Vienna in 1282 14
ordered each priest in the order to celebrate two masses for her soul.
Given Margaret's prominence in the period, and her undoubted devotion,
for better or worse, to the Dominicans of Flanders, Hainaut and France, it is a
matter of surprise that no modem scholar has bothered to look into the
Flanders tradition of the Epistola of Thomas or to document in any serious
way the devotion of the addressee to the Dominican order which Thomas
acknowledges in his preamble: 'Thave received the letter of your excellency,
and from it 1 fully appreciate your concem about your subjects and your
loving solicitude for the brethren of our order". lt is all the more surprising
when it is clear from these opening lines that Thomas's addressee was some-
one who had written him personally, as though she knew or had met him -
which of course Margaret could have done, since Thomas was present at the
famous chapter of Valenciennes in 1259 to which Margaret played the host-
ess.
No scholar, so far as 1 know, has supported the Flanders tradition of the
letter since the great Dominican bibliographers Quétif and Echard in their
Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum of 1721, who in fact do not countenance
any other tradition and name Margaret firmly as the addressee·15. Yet the
tradition has a solid backing of 15 MSS, some ofthem from circa 1300, and is
witnessed by the nine earliest (1471-1488) of the thirteen incunable editions.
Above all else, the Flanders tradition has the considerable authority of
Tolomeo of Lucca circa 1315, who, as a young Dominican at Naples in 1271-
1274, had been Thomas's friend and confessor. Among the writings of Tho-
mas, he notes unambiguously, "Determinatio quorumdam casuum ad comitis-
sam Flandrie, qui sic incipit: Excellentie vestre litteras recepi" - which is
precisely the incipit of our Episto[a16.

13 CHAPOTIN, op. cit., p. 635.

14 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum (Rome, 1898), I, 219.
15 J. QUETIF and J. ECHARD, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris: Ballard-
Simart, 1719), I, 337ab. See also note 26 below.
16 Historia ecclesiastia nova, Bk. XXIII. c. 13, ed. A. DONDAINE, "Les "Opuscula
fratris Thomae" chez Ptolomée de Lucques", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 31
(1961), 142-203, at 133, note 14.
116 L. BOYLE

But in spite of Tolomeo's credentials as a confidant of Thomas, he has

carried little or no weight in the present case. Henri Pirenne benignly ex-
plained that "Countess of Flanders" instead of "Duchess of Brabant" was an
understandable lapse on Tolomeo's part, "because Flanders was better known
in Italy than the Duchy of Brabant". Glorieux; with Godfrey of Fontaines'
notebook under his arm, said the whole thing was impossible, since the
Countess of Flanders in St. Thomas's day never was a Duchess of Brabant.
Dondaine echoes Pirenne, and is overly impressed by "the witness of the great
majority of the manuscripts" 17, and by the witness of Godfrey of Fontaine as
presented to Glorieux.

***

For my part, 1 am inclined to take Tolomeo at his word, as 1 have done

before in another context1 8 . But lest the internai evidence 1 have adduced here
in favor of Tolomeo's veracity and of Margaret of Flanders should not seem
wholly persuasive, 1 may, before 1 close, mention one piece of external evi-
dence which serves both to confirm the internai evidence in the Epistola and
to document the case for Margaret further.
Margaret of Flanders, it turns out, hedged herbets wlîen she wrote Tho-
mas in Paris. At the same time she also sent the same questions to a Francis-
can counterpart of Thomas, or at least to the Franciscans in Paris.
This 1 know now because a friend, Professor Charles Faulhaber, when
cataloguing the MSS of the Hispanie Society of America in New York, kindly
drew my attention to a codex there, one of the earliest in existence, of opu-
scula of St. Thomas. Among the usual opuscula there is our Epistola - ad-
dressed, need 1 add, "ad comitissam Flandriae". Since there are many MSS
with a similar inscription, this is hardly exciting. What is of more importance

17 "Mais le témoignage de la grande majorité des manuscrits plaide pour ducissa

Brabantie. On ne peut guère récuser, croyons-nous, le témoignage du plus ancien
témoin, P24: c'est le recueil scolaire de Godefroid de Fontaines, daté par Mgr. Glo-
rieux des années 1270-72", preface to critical edition of Epistola as in note 2 above, p.
362.
18 L. E. BOYLE, The Settings of the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas (Toronto:
Pontifical Institute, 1982), p. 12.
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 117

is the fact that immediately after it, wedged in between the Epistola and De
fallaciis of Thomas, there is a hitherto unknown work of the Franciscan John
Pecham: a work which considers the same questions covered by Thomas in
his Epistola and again, like the letter of Thomas in many codices, is addressed
"ad comitissam Flandriae". Happily, Pecham is much more forthcoming than
Thomas is. He says precisely who he is in his preamble - "frater lonnes servi-
ens fratribus minoribus pro tempore Parysius in officio lectionis" - and nicely
corroborating all the MSS of the Epistola against the recent Leonine edition,
addresses the Countess as "potencia vestra 11 19_
I do not think, however, that the queries of the Countess were personally
addressed to Pecham, for he begins with a flowery tribute to the Countess
which lacks the directness and the note of familiarity of Thomas. Probably
what happened was that the Countess wrote to the Franciscan Studium at Paris
and that the queries were passed onto Pecham, the regent master, for a theo-
logical reply, and also to a colleague possessed of legal expertise. For
Pecham's severely theological reply is followed in the New York MS (and in a
second MS at Paris which had just corne to light)20 by a legal reply which
treats the questions of the Countess as a Quaestio disputata: "Quaestio est si
liceat alico tempore et quo exactionem facere in iudeos. Ad hoc respondeo ... ".
The questions Pecham answers, with one exception, are the same as
those put to Thomas. The main question, as in Thomas, is "qualiter iudeos

19 Hispanie Society of America, MS. B2716: see CHARLES B. FAULHABER, Me-

dieval Manuscripts in the Library of the Hispanie Society of America. Religious,
Legal, Historical, and Literary Manuscripts, 2 vols. (New York: Hispanie Society of
America, 1983), I, 101, note 95 (St. Thomas), 53-54, note 43 (John Pecham), 97-99,
note 91 (description ofwhole MS). The codex may have belonged in the middle ages
to the Dominican house of St. Dominic at Gatea (see pp. xxix, 43-44).
20 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS. 1652, fols. 78rb-79va. I owe my knowledge
of this MS to the kindness of Professor H. V. Shooner of the Institut d'études médié-
vales, Montreal. Unlike the MS in New York, the Paris MS does not carry the title
"Iohannes de Pichano, Epistola ad comitissam Flandrie", but it does identify the
author in exactly the same words of the New York MS: "frater Iohannes serviens
fratribus minoribus pro tempore Parisius in officio lectionis". It may therefore be the
"texte inconnu" to which B. BLUMENKRANTZ, without giving any location or number,
draws attention in the article cited above in note 1, at. pp. 116-117. He suggests there
that the Franciscan John in question in his unspecified MS may be the English Fran-
ciscan John of Wales, "who taught at Paris towards 1270", but makes no attempt to
identify the "illustre dame" to whom the Franciscan's letter is addressed.
118 L. BOYLE

generaliter regere debeatis". With respect to general toleration he is more

specific than Thomas. They should be tolerated because most Jews will be
converted to Christ after the coming of the anti-christ, and many indeed, will
be converted beforehand. Further, since Jews are scattered all over the world
and carry the books of the Old Testament with them everywhere, they con-
tribute, albeit unknowingly, to the defence of the Christian faith. Accordingly,
they are to be permitted to observe their law and ceremonies, and to have, but
with certain precautions, their own synagogues. They are to wear distinctive
dress, and Christians should avoid trucking with them as far as possible. Jews
should eam a living by engaging in commerce, but if they resort to usury they
are to be forced to restitution. As for the taxation of Jews, they may be taxed
just as any other subject is taxed by a ruler. It does not matter (and here
Pecham differs considerably from Thomas) ifthe taxes are paid out ofmonies
eamed through usury. Later on the Jews in question can by their own industry
eam enough money to pay back those from whom the usurious monies have
corne. In any case, Pecham argues rather finely, when a ruler takes up usuri-
ous monies like these in taxes from Jews or others, he is in effect acting in
behalf ofthose from whom these monies had been squeezed through usury.
Tuming to the one non-Jewish question among the Countess' queries,
Pecham is as guarded as Thomas: although in a given case it may be allow-
able to a ruler to sell bailiffships, it cannot be recommended as a general rule.
If money is taken in advance from new bailiffs, the danger is that these bail-
iffs will attempt to recoup the outlay of monies at once through extortion from
those in their bailiwicks. Rulers may be justified because of custom or need in
levying money or taxes on their subjects, but ifbailiffs or other officiais extort
monies in any notable quantities for the benefit ofthemselves or their masters,
the monies thus extorted must be restored to the rightful owners or their heirs,
or if owners or heirs cannot be found, must be tumed over to the poor21.
Although in itself no more momentous than the Epistola of Thomas,
Pecham's unexpected letter to the Countess of Flanders at least has the merit
of making fairly precise the time at which he and Thomas answered the ques-
tions of the Countess. Pecham, like Thomas, describes himself as occupied "in
officio lectionis," and precisely, unlike Thomas, gives the location as Paris, in

21 I hope to publish the texts of the letters of Aquinas and Pecham at a later date in
Mediaeval Studies, Toronto. The summary here of the letter of Pecham is based on
the Mazarine MS. The text in the New York MS, about a century and a half earlier,
differs very little from that now at Paris.
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 119

the house of the Franciscans. Since Pecham became regent-master in theology

at Paris in or after Spring 1270, and since both Pecham and Thomas left Paris
for good in Spring 1272, then the letters of Pecham and Thomas may be dated
between Spring 1270 and Spring 1272, and, possibly (though I cannot at
present adduce any firm evidence for this) to some time in 127122.
These two years, 1270-1272, are precisely those to which Glorieux as-
signed the Epistola of Thomas on the basis of the copy of the Epistola in the
collection of tracts and extracts from Thomas and others which Glorieux
claimed that Godfrey of Fontaines had put together while a student at Paris in
those years. The only difference is that for Glorieux, the addressee of the
Epistola was not the Countess of Flanders, but the then Duchess of Brabant,
the young Margaret of France.
To me, however, it is not at all clear from an examination of Godfrey's
codex, that the codex as a whole should be assigned to the years 1270-1272.
For example, it contains a Quodlibet of Henry of Ghent held in 1279, and
therefore as a compilation probably was completed, ifnot wholly put together,
in the 1280's, when Godfrey of Fontaines was regent in theology at Paris23.
From Glorieux and Dondaine, I obtained a distinct impression that the
Epistola of Thomas, or at least the inscription "frater tho. ducisse Brabantie,"
was in the hand of Godfrey. In fact, the Epistola tums out to have been writ-
ten in a set scrivener's hand, while the inscription is a later addition, possibly
c. 1300, in a hand which is definitely not that of Godfrey.
What is very interesting, however, is that Godfrey knew the above letter
of John Pecham. For the professional scribe, immediately after the summary
of the Epistola of Thomas, leaves a space at the end before embarking on the
next stint of copying - a space which Godfrey (I am sure it is he) proceeds to
fill in with a summary of precisely the one question which Pecham has over

22 On Pecham at Paris, see I BRADY, "Questions at Paris c. 1260-1270", Archivum

Franciscanum historicum, 61(1968),447-61; 62 (1969), 681-89; and "John Pecham
and the Background of Aquina's De aeternitate mundi", in St. Thomas Aquinas 1227-
1274 Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1974), pp. 141-78, esp.
pp. 149-52. Pecham began his regency at Paris in Hilary Term, 1270, and left there
perhaps in Spring 1272 to teach at Oxford.
23 V AN UYTVEN, note 5 above, pp. 635-38, arguing for Duchess Adelaide of Bra-
bant against Glorieux, also mentions Henry of Ghent's Quodlibet of Christmas 1279
or later.
120 L. BOYLE

and above the letter of Thomas. Very obligingly, Godfrey of Fontaines noted
"fr. Io," in the margin at the beginning of the extract from Pecham (though
Dondaine, who remarks on this passage in bis catalogue of the manuscripts of
the Epistola, but not on the "fr. Io" in the margin, thought that the passage
belonged to Thomas's Epistola) 24.
Since Godfrey of Fontaines was thus acquainted with the letters which
we know to have been written by Thomas and Pecham to the Countess of
Flanders, 1 doubt very much that the inscription "fr. tho. ducisse Brabantie"
over the Epistola of Thomas was written in bis lifetime. Possibly, it was put in
after bis death in 1309, when his books passed to the Sorbonne25.
Why, then, in conclusion, if Margaret of Flanders is so demonstrably,
even on interna! evidence alone, the correspondent of Thomas in bis Epistola,
are there two traditions of the Epistola - "ad comitissam Flandriae", "ad
ducissam Brabantiae"?
Y ou may remember little Margaret of France, Duchess of Brabant, to
whom Glorieux and, with some hesitation, the Leonine edition have Thomas,
quite improbably, addressing his letter in 1270. Well, she died in childbirth in
1271, and two years later her husband John, Duke of Brabant, married again.
The new Duchess of Brabant was also Margaret - and, as it happens, was
Margaret ofFlanders, granddaughter of our indomitable Countess Margaret.
This must have been confusing to bibliographers one and all in years to
corne. With a Margaret of Flanders Duchess of Brabant from 1273-1285, it
would have been quite easy for a letter addressed to the Countess of Flanders
to have been taken for a letter to the Duchess of Brabant, especially after the
abdication of the old Countess Margaret in 127326, when the male line took
over in the person of ber son.

24 The MS is P23 in Dondaine's catalogue, as in note 2 above, p. 307. Likewise, J.

PERRJER in his edition of the Epistola for his S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula omnia
necnon Opera minora, I, Opuscula philosophica (Paris: Lethielleux, 1949), 212-19,
although basing his text explicitly on four MSS, one of which was the MS of Godfrey
of Fontaines (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS 16297), makes no mention whatever
of the passage marked "fr. Io." in the MS (fol. 103v).
25 On Godfrey in general see C. RENARDY, Le monde des maîtres universitaires
du diocèse de Liège 1140-1350 (Paris-Vrin, 1979), pp. 257-60.
26 See also the remarks of Cardinal T. M. ZIGLIARA in his catalogue of the works
of St. Thomas in the introduction to the very first volume of the Leonine edition,
 THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DUCHESS OF BRABANT 121

At all events, 1 submit now, and without any disrespect to Margaret of

Flanders, Duchess of Brabant, that she should now move aside and, after all
these misguided centuries, allow her grandmother, Margaret, Countess of
Flanders, her rightful place in the life and historiography of Thomas Aquinas.

Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII. P.M., (Rome,
1882), I, CCLVIII, where, following Tolomeo of Lucca, he argues that the addressee
of the Epistola is the Countess of Flanders and explains how the confusion between
Brabant and Flanders came about: "Ptolomeo Lucensi adhaerendum sane .... Cur ergo
irrepserit Ducissa Brabantiae? Nempe Guillelmo, marito sue secundo, Margareta
Comitissa Flandriae genuit Guidonem, qui successit. Filiam hic habuit Margaretam,
anno 1273 nuptam Ioanni I Duci Brabantiae. Hinc alteram pro priore fortasse ac-
cepere Margaretam minus attenti scriptores". So far as I know, John of Freiburg,
Summa Confessorum (1298), is the first independent witness to the Duchess of Bra-
bant tradition. In fact he names the addressee "Duchess of Brabant and Lorraine",
which of course the wife of the Duke of Brabant was, since her husband John was
Duke of both Brabant and Lorraine. Hence it is not surprising to find that some MSS,
mostly of the 15th century, list the addressee simply as Duchess of Lorraine. For John
Duke of Brabant and Lorraine, and Margaret of Flanders, his wife, see Neue deutsche
Biographie, 10 (Berlin 1974), 470-71. Margaret <lied in 1285, some five years after
the famous grandmother and namesake.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO

A few years before his death in the Summer of 1990, Hugues Shooner of
Montreal, Canada, drew my attention to a reliquary in the Museo del Duomo
at Salemo, for it housed what appeared to be a fragment from a manuscript in
the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples of commentaries of Albert the Great on
works of pseudo-Denis, a manuscript (l.B. 54) reputedly copied by Thomas of
Aquino when he was a student of Albert in the years 1245-1252.
Shooner was then putting the finishing touches to the fourth volume of
Codices manuscripti Operum Thomae de Aquino, but had not had any success
in obtaining permission to study the fragment. He therefore handed the matter
over to me in a hope - correctly as it happens - that the Vatican Library might
succeed where he had not. Through the kindness of the Archbishop of Salemo
and of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e
Storici di Salemo e Avellino, the photographs of the reliquary which are
published here for the first time, were supplied to the Vatican Library in early
1989 1.

***

The manuscript in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples is well-known, and

after studies on it by Frs Théry and Gils, in 1931 and 1965 respectively, is
generally accepted as an autograph of the young Thomas when he was a
student of Albert at Paris and Cologne from 1245-1252 2 .

1 1 On the late H.V. Shooner and his work, see B. ROY, "La disparition d'un grand
chercheur: Hugues Shooner (6 avril 1921-30 août 1990)", Bulletin des Médiévistes
Québécois 20 (1990) 5-7.
2 G. Théry, "L'autographe de S. Thomas conservé à la Biblioteca Nazionale de
Naples", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 1 (1931) 15-86, with three plates of the
Naples MS.; P.-M. Gils, "Le manuscrit Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale LB. 54, est-il de
124 L. BOYLE

Gils, for example, in a close study of MS. 1. B. 54 in relation to "l'écri-

ture des autographes thomistes certifiés", bas concluded that in spite of dis-
concerting differences between the handwriting of the young Thomas in this
manuscript and the "certified autographs" of an older Thomas, it is still the
band of one and the same person: "il s'agit pourtant d'une seule et même
écriture en des avatars successifs"3.
So far as we know the manuscript belonged to the Dominican bouse of
S. Domenico Maggiore in Naples from the days of Thomas until about 1800.
On which of the two tours of duty of Thomas at S. Domenico it came into the
possession of the bouse is debatable, but probably this was on the second
(1272-1274) rather than the first (1259-1261).
There is however very little mention of it at S. Domenico until the 17th
century, when there is evidence that it was housed in casket and treated as a
reJic4. An interest in the manuscript was sparked first of al!, probably, by the
reference toit in 1624 in the Napoli Sacra of A. Caracciolo, then more widely
by the visit to S. Domenico in 1661 of the Bollandist Daniel Papebroch, who
seven years later wrote in bis notice of St. Thomas in the first of the March
volumes of the Acta Sanctorum: "Est praeterea cella S. Thomae in piissimum
sacellum commutata ubi et liber supra Dionysium de coelesti hierarchia,
propria S. Thomae manu conscriptus, habetur. Nos ipsi anno MDCLXI Nea-
poli in festo S. Thomae existentes, singula ista monumenta venerati su-
mus ... "5.
When exactly the manuscript entered the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples,
opened in 1804, is far from clear, but certainly it was before 1820 when an
appeal was made by the community of S. Domenico to have it back. P .A.
Uccelli, who was the first in modem times to discuss it, wrote in 1869 that
what had happened was that during the revolutionary years the manuscript
was found on a hawker's stall by the Jesuit Jean Andres, who bought it for few

la main de S. Thomas?", Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 49 (1965)

37-59, with four plates illustrating the hand of Thomas at various stages of his life;
H.F. DONDAINE and H.V. SHOONER, Codices manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino,
I (Autographa et Bibliothecae A-F; Rome 1967), n. 4 (p. 8); H.V. SHOONER, Codices
manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino, III (Bibliothecae Namur-Paris; Montreal-
Paris 1985), n. 1905A (p. 2).
3 GILS, art. cit., p. 47.
4 THÉRY, art. cit., gives a good survey of the history of the MS.
5 Acta Sanctorum Martii, I (Antwerp 1668), 655-747, at p. 741A.
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO

A few years before his death in the Summer of 1990, Hugues Shooner of
Montreal, Canada, drew my attention to a reliquary in the Museo del Duomo
at Salemo, for it housed what appeared to be a fragment from a manuscript in
the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples of commentaries of Albert the Great on
works of pseudo-Denis, a manuscript (I.B. 54) reputedly copied by Thomas of
Aquino when he was a student of Albert in the years 1245-1252.
Shooner was then putting the finishing touches to the fourth volume of
Codices manuscripti Operum Thomae de Aquino, but had not had any success
in obtaining permission to study the fragment. He therefore handed the matter
over to me in a hope - correctly as it happens - that the Vatican Library might
succeed where he had not. Through the kindness of the Archbishop of Salemo
and of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e
Storici di Salemo e Avellino, the photographs of the reliquary which are
published here for the first time, were supplied to the Vatican Library in early
1989 1.

***

The manuscript in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples is well-known, and

after studies on it by Frs Théry and Gils, in 1931 and 1965 respectively, is
generally accepted as an autograph of the young Thomas when he was a
student of Albert at Paris and Cologne from 1245-12522.

1 1 On the late H.V. Shooner and his work, see B. ROY, "La disparition d'un grand
chercheur: Hugues Shooner (6 avril 1921-30 août 1990)", Bulletin des Médiévistes
Québécois 20 (1990) 5-7.
2 G. Théry, "L'autographe de S. Thomas conservé à la Biblioteca Nazionale de
N aptes", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 1 ( 1931) 15-86, with three plates of the
Naples MS.; P.-M. Gils, "Le manuscrit Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale I.B. 54, est-il de
124 L. BOYLE

Gils, for example, in a close study of MS. I. B. 54 in relation to "l'écri-

ture des autographes thomistes certifiés", has concluded that in spite of dis-
concerting differences between the handwriting of the young Thomas in this
manuscript and the "certified autographs" of an older Thomas, it is still the
hand of one and the same person: "il s'agit pourtant d'une seule et même
écriture en des avatars successifs"3.
So far as we know the manuscript belonged to the Dominican house of
S. Domenico Maggiore in Naples from the days of Thomas until about 1800.
On which of the two tours of duty of Thomas at S. Domenico it came into the
possession of the house is debatable, but probably this was on the second
(1272-1274) rather than the first (1259-1261).
There is however very little mention of it at S. Domenico until the 17th
century, when there is evidence that it was housed in casket and treated as a
relic 4 . An interest in the manuscript was sparked first of ail, probably, by the
reference toit in 1624 in the Napoli Sacra of A. Caracciolo, then more widely
by the visit to S. Domenico in 1661 of the Bollandist Daniel Papebroch, who
seven years later wrote in his notice of St. Thomas in the first of the March
volumes of the Acta Sanctorum: "Est praeterea cella S. Thomae in piissimum
sacellum commutata ubi et liber supra Dionysium de coelesti hierarchia,
propria S. Thomae manu conscriptus, habetur. Nos ipsi anno MDCLXI Nea-
poli in festo S. Thomae existentes, singula ista monumenta venerati su-
mus ... 115.
When exactly the manuscript entered the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples,
opened in 1804, is far from clear, but certainly it was before 1820 when an
appeal was made by the community of S. Domenico to have it back. P.A.
Uccelli, who was the first in modem times to discuss it, wrote in 1869 that
what had happened was that during the revolutionary years the manuscript
was found on a hawker's stall by the Jesuit Jean Andres, who bought it for few

la main de S. Thomas?", Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 49 (1965)

37-59, with four plates illustrating the hand of Thomas at various stages of his life;
H.F. DONDAINE and H.V. SHOONER, Codices manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino,
I (Autographa et Bibliothecae A-F; Rome 1967), n. 4 (p. 8); H.V. SHOONER, Codices
manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino, III (Bibliothecae Namur-Paris; Montreal-
Paris 1985), n. 1905A (p. 2).
3 G!LS, art. cit., p. 47.
4 THÉRY, art. cit., gives a good survey of the history of the MS.
5 Acta Sanctorum Martii, I (Antwerp 1668), 655-747, at p. 741A.
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 125

carlini and later presented it to Joachim Murat, then king of Naples, who in
tum gave it to the Biblioteca Nazionale.
It is a nice story, but appears to have no foundation. In fact in a later arti-
cle on the same subject Uccelli does not bother to mention it6. What is certain
however is that when the manuscript reached the Biblioteca Nazionale, it had
only 142 folios where once it had 2147.
Most if not all of the damage was done long before the French Revolu-
tion. Over at least the previous two centuries the autograph at San Domenico
had been plundered for souvenirs and relies. So notorious indeed were the
"borrowings" from this and other reputed autographs in the Naples area, that
the superiors of S. Domenico Maggiore at Naples, S. Luigi at Anversa and S.
Maria at Salemo, were ordered on 25 July 1693 by Fr. Antonine Cloche, the
Dominican Master General, with respect to their manuscripts of Thomas, "ne
quocumque praetextu aut ratione folia, aut folium quodlibet, aut partes folii ex
iisdem manuscriptis aut extrahant aut extrahere permittant"8.
Indeed by the time Fr. Cloche intervened, there were 60 folios missing.
Over the following hundred years another 12 disappeared, leaving MS. B 154
today with gaps all over the place that may be summarized as follows:

Contents Foliation Gatherinzs Chavters

orig. today missing missing
1 De cael. 1-60 1-41 19 Peciae al! of 1; parts
hier. 15 4 of2,8-15
2 De eccl. 61-84 42-63 2 Qu ires ail of 2-4,7;
hier. 1-8 8 , 94 parts of 1,5-6
10-18 8
19 6, 20 8
Contents Foliation Gatherim;rs Chapters

6 P.A. UCCELLI, Di un codice autografo di S. Tommaso d'Aquino conservato nella

Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli (Naples 1869), being an extract from the periodical
Carità, An. II, Quad. IX, pp. 3-32; and his valuable appendix Un appendice alle
notizie storico-critiche del Codice tomistico napoletano, in his Del hello. Questione
inedita di S. Tommaso d'Aquino (Naples 1869), pp. 57-60.
7 Details of the folio counts from sacristy registers of San Domenico Maggiore in
1694, 1705, 1734, are in THÉRY, pp. 50-4.
8 UCCELLI, "Un'appendice", p. 59, "ex Regesto Magistri Generalis Antonii Cloche
pro Provincia Regni", which THÉRY, p. 52, also prints, and identifies as Reg. V. 191,
fol. 5, in archives of the Ortler at Santa Sabina.
126 L. BOYLE

3 De divin. 85-190 64-130 39 all of 1, 7; parts

nomin. of 2-6,8, li, 13
4 Theologia 191-198 131-136 2 all of5
mystica
5 Epistolae 199-214 137-142 10 a!l of 1-7, 10-
11; parts of 8-
9
Total 214 142 72

From time to time some of these "borrowings" from the autograph have
corne to light in places as far apart as Bologna, Madrid, Malta, Naples itself
(S. Domenico in fact), Valladolid and Zaragoza9. There is no reason to doubt
that the Salemo fragment is another, or to take with a grain of sait the inscrip-
tion on each si de of the fragment: Ex Manuscripto S. Thomae Aquinatis in S.
Dionysium.
The text is indeed that of a commentary on pseudo-Denis (though the
commentator is not Thomas, as the inscription implies), and it is written in a
hand which is certainly that in the first part of the autograph at Naples. The
thirty-eight lines the fragment carries recto and verso prove to be from chapter
two of Albert's commentary on the De caelesti hierarchia (ed. Borgnet, pp.
26b28-27bl7; 30bl9-31bll), and are in fact missing from the Naples auto-
graph, where the De caelesti hierarchia is the first of the five writings of
pseudo-Denis commented on there.

9 Balogna (S. Domenico): T. KAEPPELI, "Ein Fragment des Neapler Thomasauto-

graph in S. Domenico in Balogna", Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 5 (1935) 343-
6; Madrid (Bibl. nacional, MS 5544): A. DONDAINE in a note at p. 355 of following
article; Malta (La Valette Cathedra!): M. INGUANEZ, "Un fragment autographe de S.
Thomas d'Aquin conservé à la cathedrale de la Valette (Malta)", Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum 26 (1956) 348-55; Naples (S. Domenico Maggiore): G. THÉRY, "Le
petit reliquaire au couvent de San Domenico Maggiore contenant un page autographe
de S. Thomas", ibid., 1 (1932) 336-40; Valladolid (Scots College): A. ROBLES
SIERRA, "A prop6sito de un nuevo fragmenta aut6grafo de Santo Tomas de Aquino",
Analecta Sacra Terraconensia 40 (1967) 65-71, 72-6; Zaragoza (Santa Inés): A.
ROBLES SIERRA, "Nuevo fragmenta aut6grafo de Santo Tomas de Aquino", Escritos
del Vedat 7 (1977) 381-8.
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 127

***

The Salerno fragment is the only one of the seven known snippets from
the autograph to make good some of the loss from the De caelesti hierarchia
part of the autograph; all the others, with the exception of that at Zaragoza
(Epistolae), corne from Albert's commentary on the De divinis nominibus.
From this point of view the Salerno fragment has an interest all its own,
even though it only helps to recover a part of a folio from the nineteen that are
missing from the autograph of the commentary on the De caelesti hierarchia.
For, unlike the rest of the Naples autograph (items 2-5 above), the sixty folios
that originally housed the commentary of Albert in the hand of Thomas, forrn
a distinctive codicological unit. Where, in particular, the rest of the autograph
(o.f. 61-214; n.f. 42-142) is made up of commonplace quires of eight folios
each (9 and 19 excepted), the De caelesti hierarchia unusually is in peciae,
each of four folios, all but four of the extant thirteen peciae of which bear a
serial pecia number, as on the present fol. lOr (o.f. 17r), where the fifth pecia
begins: V' Petia de Dyonisio.
Altogether nineteen folios are missing today from the sixty that origi-
nally carried the text in fifteen peciae of Albert's commentary on the De
caelesti hierarchia. Seven of those that are missing are from the very begin-
ning of the treatise and represent one full pecia - the first - and three folios of
the second (the last folio of the second pecia is fol. 1 of the manuscript today).
It is to this second pecia (fols 5-8) that the Salerno fragment probably belongs,
and indeed to folio 5, the first of that pecia. For, as we noted above, the frag-
ment cornes from chapter two which, as seems clear from Fr Théry's recon-
struction of the pecia-structure of the MS, and from my own calculations,
must have begun in the second pecia, towards the beginning.

***

It is reasonably certain that the commentary of Albert on the De caelesti

hierarchia is from the years that he and the young Thomas of Aquino were
together in the Dominican studium at Paris (1245-1248), and that the com-
mentaries on the Ecclesiastica hierarchia and the De divinis nominibus, and
probably on the two other works of pseudo-Denis, were composed when
128 L. BOYLE

Thomas moved with Albert to the new studium at Cologne (1248-1252)10_

This is borne out by the difference there is between the make-up of the De
caelesti hierarchia and the rest of the autograph of Thomas at Naples. There
is clearly a time-lag between the two parts. As one might expect with the
passage of three or four years, there is a slight but perceptible change in the
handwriting. Above all, there is the change from the pecia-format of the De
caelesti hierarchia to the quires of the bulk of the autograph. It is as clear an
indication as any that Thomas was no longer at Paris, where peciae were
coming into fashion.
But if the fact that the De caelesti hierarchia is in peciae sets it apart
from the rest of the autograph, it also raises some interesting questions. But
first of all a more general one with respect to the whole autograph is in order.
When Thomas went to so much trouble to copy out five commentaries of his
master Albert on pseudo-Denis, was this simply the zeal of a young student
anxious to have before him every word of his teacher, or was it that Thomas
was commissioned to do so by Albert?
Fr. Gils seems to favour the latter explanation when he says that it
should not astonish anyone that Thomas, then between twenty-two and
twenty-six years of age when at Paris, should have been asked by Albert to
write out a fair copy of his commentaries for purposes of distribution: "Et
n'est-il pas normal que le maître ait confié à un disciple plus intelligent et plus
intime le soin de transcrire des textes destinés à être publiés, même si l'écri-
ture du jeune scribe n'était ni jolie, ni bien formée, ni surtout particulièrement
lisible? 11.
H.V. Shooner, in one of his last writings, is of a similar opinion, but
faces up more squarely than Fr Gils to the problem of the handwriting of
Thomas. Since the first part of the autograph is made up of peciae, he sees this
part as an early example of the pecia-system at Paris, and one furthermore
which can be dated very precisely to 1247.

lO On the date of the De caelesti hierarchia commentary, see H. F. DONDAINE,

"Date du Commentaire de la Hiérarchie céleste de saint Albert le Grand", Recherches
de théologie ancienne et médiévale 20 (1953) 315-22; P. SIMON, Prolegomena to
Sancti Doctoris Ecclesiae Alberti Magni Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum episcopi
Opera Omnia, XXXVII, Pars. I: Super Dionysium De divinis nominibus (Münster-in-
W., 1972), pp. V-XX.
11 GILS, art. cit., n. 1, p. 377.
Sa
Sb
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 129

This part in peciae was, he says, "destiné à servir de modèle pour la

multiplication rapide des copies" and probably was a reportatio or perhaps a
fair copy of the notes that Thomas took during Albert's lectures. Whatever the
origin of the text, there is no doubt whatever that "toutes les copies connues
dépendent en définitive de cet autographe".
All the same, given that the hand is sometimes impenetrable, it is highly
unlikely, Shooner thinks, that these peciae of the De caelesti hierarchia were
ever deposited in a stationer's office, as would have been the normal proce-
dure on the completion of peciae. He suggests rather that the peciae or exem-
plar penned by Thomas probably aimed at nothing more than a limited num-
ber of copies for private circulation. Why then did Thomas bother to set
Albert's commentary in peciae, if this was the only purpose? Probably, Shoo-
ner says, "afin de permettre à ses condisciples d'en prendre copie sans re-
tard1112.
Although he does not bring the hapless fellow-students of Thomas into
the picture, Paul Simon, when editing Albert on the De divinis nominibus
some fifteen years before Shooner, takes much the same line. For him, as for
Shooner and others, the autograph at Naples is the textual source directly or
indirectly of all the known copies of the commentaries of Albert on pseudo-
Denis. A strong argument in favour of this opinion, Simon states in the intro-
duction to his edition, is the fact that the autograph of Thomas of the com-
mentary on the De caelesti hierarchia of Albert is divided into peciae, which
he characterises as a Paris custom of the period that allowed different scribes
to copy different parts - peciae - more readily and expeditiously at one and
the same time from an exemplar.
The De caelesti hierarchia autograph, Simon goes on, must therefore
have been envisaged as an exemplar for easy multiplication of the text of
Albert. However, given the very difficult cast of the hand of Thomas, Simon
argues nicely that the Naples autograph in peciae probably was meant as an
exemplar to be handed over for a fair copy or apograph to a professional
scribe, from which apograph, as though from an exemplar, copies which we
have today derive in one way or another.

12 H.V. SHOONER, "La production du livre par la pecia", in La production du livre

universitaire au moyen age: Exemplar et pecia, ed. L. BATAILLON, B.G. GUYOT, R.
H. ROUSE (Paris 1988), pp. 17-37, at p. 25.
130 L. BOYLE

The one snag to this theory, Simon admits, is that there are some changes
or corrections in the Naples peciae which are not to be found in all the extant
codices. Indeed, he notes, of eleven codices examined, seven carried an un-
corrected text while only four have the changes. This, he explains, is because
a first apograph was made at Paris soon after Thomas had completed his
peciae, and it is from copies of this apograph that codices stem that have an
"uncorrected" text. Later on, perhaps at Cologne, and certainly after changes
had been introduced by Thomas, a second apograph was made, giving rise to
a second tradition now represented by four manuscripts 13.

***

To me it seems that Simon and Shooner and others have been so over-
whelmed by the presence of peciae in the Naples autograph of Albert's com-
mentary on the De cae/esti hierarchia that willy-nilly they have turned the
unlikely young Thomas into the first, or at least the first datable practitioner at
Paris of the pecia-system.
This is to overlook another possibility. Given his wayward hand (or "lit-
tera inintelligibilis" as it was to be known later)l4, it would be more plausible
to conclude from his deployment of peciae that Thomas is the first known
witness to, rather than practitioner of, the peciae-system at Paris shortly after
it had been imported, as we suppose, from N. Italy around the time he and
Albert reached the Dominican studium there.
In other words, the autograph of the De cae/esti hierarchia is in the form
of peciae simply because what the young Thomas was copying was in peciae,
and he had copied it piece by piece as the peciae became available to him, one
by one. So if, as Hugues Shooner says, "son autographe doit êre versé au
dossier de la pecia", this is not for the reasons he gives but rather because the
autograph testifies indirectly to the existence of the pecia-system at Paris in
1245-1248. As such, it is the earliest known witness to the beginnings of a
system which may have had the Dominicans of St. Jacques as a stimulus but

13 P. SIMON, op. cit., pp. VI-VIII.

14 According to H.F. DONDAINE and H.V. SHOONER, Codices manuscripti operum
Thomae de Aquino, I (Rome 1967), p. 7, "inintelligibilis" a misreading of "illegibilis".
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 131

would not in fact become very prominent at Paris until the last quarter of the
century15.
What, then, Thomas was about in his autograph was not setting up an
exemplar of Albert on the De caelesti hierarchia in pecia form for his fellow-
students (Shooner) or in view of an apograph (Simon). He was simply making
a copy for himself from an exemplar in peciae. As we shall see shortly, even
in the short texts printed here from the Salerno fragment and what may well
be the second pecia of the autograph, it is clear that he is copying for himself,
and indeed at times not coping too well with what is in front of him. Apart
from a system of abbreviation that on occasion seems very persona! (the sort
of private shorthand to which some of us have recourse when copying rapidly
for ourselves), there are some notable lapses and at least one plain case of
homoeoteleuton.
As we noted above, Paul Simon advanced the hypothesis that there were
at least two apographs of the autograph of Thomas, one made at Paris shortly
after Thomas had written out his text, a second apograph later, perhaps at
Cologne, when Thomas had had time to correct or to adjust his autograph.
According to Simon, seven of the eleven manuscripts he cites carry the text of
the uncorrected autograph, and therefore must derive from that first apograph,
while the other four, embodying the text of the corrected autograph, depend
on the second apograph.
All ofthis hypothesis, however, takes it for granted that the prime source
in each case is the autograph of Thomas. But if this so, then it is hard to
explain certain differences between the text of the Salerno fragment and that
of Albert's commentary on the De caelesti hierarchia as it is transmitted in
other surviving manuscripts.
These differences may be summed up in a tabular form in which the
following sigla are used: Sa = Salerno fragment, photograph a, with line
number; Sb= Salerno fragment, photograph b, with line number; B =Vatican
Library, MS Barb. lat. 718, a codex, probably Parisian, of the last quarter of
the 13th century which, according to Simon, derives from the second apog-
raph; V =Vatican Library, MS Vat. lat. 712, from about 1470, which again

15 See R.H. and M.A. RoUSE, "The Book Trade at the University of Paris ca.
1250-ca. 1350", in La production (above, n. 12), pp. 40-113, who suggest (p. 84) that
"the Parisian form ofpecia publication was devised by the Dominicans of St-Jacques,
probably in the 1240s", as one oftheir innovative aids to scholarship.
132 L. BOYLE

Simon says cornes from the corrected autograph; P =the Lyons edition by P.
Jammy in 1651 as reissued "religiose castigata" at Paris by A. Borgnet in
1892 in vol. XIV of the Vivès edition of the Opera omnia of Albertl6:

Small differences

Sal (intellect)us enim intelligit abstrahendo

BVP noster
Sa2 non indigemus corporalibus similitudinibus
BVP figuris
Sa3 cum sint
BVP sit
Sa7 secundum philosophum in poste.
BVP libro posteriorum
Sa8 Dicimus quod intellectus noster ad hoc quod intelligat
BVP ad hoc quod (om. B) intellectus noster
Sal 7 quo distinctam de rebus cognitionem accipimus
BVP cognitionem de re
Sb 11 Et essentiis dico supereminentibus
B Dico et supereminentibus
V Dico supereminentibus
P Et supereminentibus
Sbl8 dum ignobilibus comparantur
BVP ignobilioribus
Sbl8 Et in hoc est tertia ratio
BVP haec
Sbl9 in immundas id est erroneas compositiones id est
figurationes
BVP compositiones id est
erroneas

16 B. Alberti Magni Ratisbonensis Episcopi Opera Omnia ab editione lugdunensi

religiose castigata ... , ed. A. BORGNET, XIV (Paris 1892). It may be noted that MS
Barb. lat. 718, where the commentary on the De caelesti hierarchia is at fol. 139-159,
has an erased inscription of the couvent of S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome.
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 133

Greater differences

Sa5 Contra idem quod ponitur ad oppositum:

BVP
Sa5 secundum philosophum intellectus noster
B intellectus noster secundum philosophum
V per philosophum intellectus noster
p secundum philosophum intellectus noster

Sa 6 BVP
eorum quae intelligit accipere eorum quae intelligit accipere
----------------------------------------- ante intelligere: sed non potest spe-
----------------------------------------- cies eorum quae intelligit accipere
nisi a phantasmate nisi a phantasmate
Salo BVP
Unde cum non possit sine Unde cum non possit sine
phantasmate secundum phantasmate secundum
conditionem vitae huius conditionem huius vitae
intelligere --------------------------------- intelligere nisi ea quae
---------------------------------------------- per essentiam in ipso, ut
----------------- oportet in Deum et se, oportet in
eius cognitionem devenire eius cognitionem devenire
Sa16 BVP
licet (lumen spirituale) licet lumen spirituale
potentius corporali, lumen corporali sirnpliciter sit
tamen corporale activum potentius, lumen tamen
est corporale simpliciter (om.
V) activum est

The "small differences" over these thirty-eight fragmentary lines may

seem insignificant, but they tell their own tale when taken with the "greater
differences", in particular the homoeoteleuton in Sa6, what seems to be a line
skipped at SalO, and the curious "Contra idem quod ponitur ad oppositum" in
Sas.
The homoeoteleuton, caused surely by "eorum quae intelligit accipere"
in successive lines, is not easy to brush aside. For if the autograph of Thomas
of the commentary on the De caelesti hierarchia is, as it is claimed, a pecia-
exemplar or the exemplar of apographs, one would have expected to find this
homoeoteleuton in one or other of those seven manuscripts which Simon
postulates as dependent upon the "Paris" apograph. But it is not, nor is it in
134 L. BOYLE

the Lyon-Paris edition to which Simon assigns the same level of dependence
on the uncorrected autograph.
This suggests strongly that the Naples autograph cannot be the source of
the "Paris" apograph; and since there is no sign that Thomas caught the ho-
moeoteleuton when he corrected his autograph, then this adjusted autograph is
again hardly the source of the postulated second or "Cologne" apograph, upon
which Simon's four manuscripts, including our MSS Vat. lat. 712 and Barb.
lat. 718, are said to depend for their text.
This is not the only instance of an homoeoteleuton in the autograph at
Naples. When editing Albert's commentary on the De divinis nominibus from
that autograph and from nine manuscripts which he was sure did not derive
from the autograph itselfbut, at some removes perhaps, from an apograph that
had been done after corrections to the autograph, Paul Simon happily detected
for the first time ever a homoeoteleuton which had trapped Thomas when
copying Albert's notes or some other exemplar, and which had not at all been
caught by later copyists of the textl 7.
This is not at all the situation here. If the homoeoteleuton which Thomas
committed and later failed to catch in his autograph of Albert's commentary
on the De caelesti hierarchia is not to be found in any of the extant manu-
scripts, this can only be because their exemplar is in no way the autograph of
Thomas. Rather their exemplar must be the peciae exemplar which 1 sug-
gested above for Thomas. Unlike Thomas, who missed out words and lines
and may have added a phrase or two on occasion for his own benefit "Contra
idem quod ponitur ad oppositum", for example) their scribes, being profes-
sionals, copied more or less exactly what was in front of them. If the seven
manuscripts which seem to depend on the original or uncorrected Naples
autograph prove by and large to have the same text, this is because they
depend on the same exemplar as Thomas. Likewise, the four manuscripts
which appear to carry the text of the autograph as corrected, probably do so
because they derive their text, and Thomas some corrections (but obviously
not all)l8, from the corrected exemplar or a copy thereof.

17 SIMON, op. cit., p. XIIIA.

18 In order not to overload the Appendix with footnotes, I simply note here some
of the changes, insertions or cancellations in the Salemo fragment: Sa3 essentiis:
originally "etiis" but "e" was added above the first letter to give "essentiis"; Sa8
Solutio: G cancelled before it, "noster" added above "intellectus", "Unde", super-
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO 135

In fine, it is difficult to accept on the present evidence that, as is com-

monly held, the manuscript tradition for Albert's commentary on the De
caelesti hierarchia depends on the autograph of Thomas now in Naples. What
is much more likely is that the tradition rests on a lost Parisian exemplar in
pecia form, the earliest, though not necessarily the most reliable, witness to
the existence of which is that Naples manuscript of Thomas, and now this
Salemo fragment from it.

APPENDIX Albertus Magnus, De caelesti hierarchia

Ed. Borgnet, XIV: Salemo fragment: Sa

26b28-27b17 lines 1-19
Circa prirnam istam occurrunt
tria dubia. Primo utrum sit neces
sarium nobis describi spiritualia
per sensibilia. Secundo utrum sint
describenda per corporalia nobi
liora vel ignobiliora. Tertio utrum
cognitio spiritualium per corpora
lia valde optime et artificialiter
fiat.
Circa prirnum sic proceditur.
1. Videtur enirn quod non
oporteat nos duci in cognitionem
Angelorum per corporalem simi
litudinem. lntellectus enim noster us emm
intelligit abstrahendo: quae igitur intelligit abstrahendo: quae igitur
abstracta sunt secundum se pos
sunt optime intelligi: Angeli sunt
tales: ergo ad eos intelligendos non in di
indigemus corporalibus figuris. gemus corporalibus sirnilitudinibus.
2. Ad idem. Omnis cognitio fit Ad idem. Omnis cog ...
per assirnilationem cognoscentis
ad cognitum: intellectus autem
noster magis assirnilatur spiritua ... spiri
libus essentiis quam corooralibus tualibus essentiis auam rebus cor

script; SalO vite: changed from "vie" by superscript "t"; Sal3 cuiuscumque: "eius",
followed by cancelled word, corrected above to "cuiuscumque"; SblO theologos et
formare: originally "the formare", but "olo" added above "the" and "et" (7 form)
squeezed in between "the" and "formare"; Sbl 1 ea: a cancelled word before; Sb12
facere: four words cancelled after; b 13 id est: inserted superscript.
136 L. BOYLE
cum sit spiritualis et intellectualis:
ergo magis ea cognoscit per se
quam per corporalia.
3. Ad idem. Lumen corporale
alteri potest uniri sine medio: lu
men autem spirituale fortius est:
cum igitur intel!ectus noster et An
geli sint quaedam spiritualia lumi
na, possunt conjungi sine medio.
Contra. 1. Secundum Philoso
phum intellectus noster nihil est
habens eorum quae intelligit ante
intelligere: sed non potest species
eorum quae intelligit accipere nisi a
phantasmate: ergo oportet quod per
phantasma quod est rerum corpo
ralium ducatur in intellectum quo
rumcumque.
2. Ad idem. Secundum Philo
sophum in libro Posteriorum,
omnis nostra cognitio ortum ha
bet a sensibili: ergo de Angelis co
gnitionem accipere non poterimus
nisi per sensibilia.
Solutio. Dicimus quod ad hoc
quod intellectus noster intelligat,
oportet quod informetur specie rei
quae debet intelligi. Unde et apud
Philosophas dicitur informatio in
tellectus in cognoscendo incomple
xa. A substantiis autem spiritua
libus non potest accipere aliquam
speciem qua informetur, quae fa
ciat phantasiam substantiae ejus.
Unde cum non possit sine phan
tasmate secundum conditionem
hujus vitae intelligere nisi ea quae
sunt per essentiam in ipso, ut Deum,
et se, oportet in ejus cognitionem
devenire per effectum, ut per mo
tum, et per symbola quae sibi fa
ciant phantasiam: et concedimus
rationes ad hoc.
Ad prirnum autem dicendum,
quod est quaedam abstractio se
cundum distinctivam rationem,
secundum quod mathematica
sunt abstracta ratione tantum,
poralibus cum sint spirituales et
int...
... corporale
alteri potest unm sine medio spi
rituale autem fortius est: cum igi
tur intel...
... sunt sibi coniungi sine medio.
Contra idem quod ponitur ad opposi
tum secundum philosophum intel
lectus nos ter ... ... bens
eorum que intelligit (deest per ho
moeoteleuton? ---------------------------
----------------------) accipere nisi a
phantasmate: ergo oportet quod per
phantasma ...
... ctumquo
rumcumque.
Ad idem. Secundum Philoso
phum in Poster.
omnis nostra cognitio ortum ha
bet a sensibili: ergo de angelis
cogn ...
... sensibilia.
Solutio. Dicimus quod intellec
tus nostei ad hoc quod intelligat
oportet quod informetur specie
eius quod intelligit. Unde et ap ...
... ellectus in cognoscendo in-
complexa. A substantiis autem spiri-
tualibus non potest accipere ali
quam speciem qua informetur ...
... tiae eius.
Unde cum non possit sine phan
tasmate secundum conditionem
vite huius intelligere ------------------
----------- oportet in eius cognitionem
devenir ...
... et per simbola quae sibi fa
ciant aliquam phantasiam: et con
cedimus rationes ad hoc.
Ad primum autem dicendum
quod est quaedam abstract...
... rationem
secundum quod mathematica
sunt abstracta ratione tantum,
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO
spirituales autem substantiae se
cundum esse et rationem. Et est
alia abstractio qua indiget intel
lectus in conditione cujuscumque,
et haec est universalis a particu
lari, abstrahit enim universalem
lineam ab hac linea et angulum
ab hoc angulo.
Ad secundum dicendum est,
quod cognitio non fit per assimi
lationem quae est in participando
easdem qualitates, qualis est inter
intellectum nostrum et Angelas,
sed per illam quae consistit in in
formatione per speciem acceptam
are.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod li
cet lumen spirituale corporali sim
pliciter sit potentius, lumen tamen
corporale simpliciter activum est, et
ideo potest se multiplicare usque
ad aliud lumen. Intellectus autem
noster, quo distinctam cognitionem
de re accipimus, receptivus tantum
est, et ideo indiget recipere per ali
quas species: et sic patet solutio.
Circa secundum sic proceditur.
1. Videtur enim quod per no
biliora sive spiritualia, sive corpo
ralia, mellus cognoscuntur, ex quo
sine medio non possunt cognosci.
Omnis enim res magis cognosci
tur per id quod ipsam magis re
praesentat. Cum igitur nobiliora
magis rapraesentent ipsum Ange
lum magis per illa cognoscetur.
Ed. Borgnet, XIV:
30b19-3 lbll
Expositio textus
Si cui autem videtur sacras, etc.
In parte ista ponit objectiones
quorumdam contra determinatum
modum sacrae Scripturae in ma
nifestando spiritualia, et supposi
to quod spiritualia corooralibus
137
spirituales autem substantiae se
cundum esse et rationem. Et est
alia ... ... intel
lectus in cognitione cuiuscumque 7
et haec est abstractio universalis a
particulari: abstrahit enim univer
salem lineam ab ...
... ab hoc angulo.
Ad secundum dicendum --------------
quod cognitio non fit per assimi
lationem quae est in participando
easdem qualitates, qualis ...
... et angelos
super illam quae consistit in infor
matione per speciem acceptam
are.
Ad tertium dicendum quod
li cet...
potentius corporali, lumen ta
men corporale activum est, et ideo
potest se multiplicare usque ad
aliud ...
... quo distinctam de rebus cogni
tionem accipimus, receptivus tan
tum est, et ideo indiget recipere
per ali ...
... enim quod per no
biliora sive spiritualia sive corpo
ralia melius cognoscuntur, ex quo
sine medio non ...
.... .. res per i'êl quod 'ipsam
magis representat.
Cum igitur nobiliora
magis repraesentent ipsum..
Salerno fragment: Sb
lines 1-19
138 L. BOYLE

sint describenda. Circa quod

etiam primo in quaestione ponit
quinque rationes, quod non de
bent figuris viliurn tradi ...
Et ad hoc ultimurn quia beatus
Dionysius non solvit, dicendum
quod non semper est litteralis sen
sus quem verba faciunt, sed quem
scribens intendit per verba, sive
expresse id dicentia, sive per simi
litudinum.
Littera sic legatur: Autem, id
est, sed, adversando his quae dicta
sunt, si, id est, alicui videtur, de
bere recipi quidem, id est, certe, sa
cras compositiones, id est, figuratio
nes quas Scriptura de sacris con
fingit, tamquam subsistentium, id
est, in se existentium simplicium in
seipsis, id est, in sua natura, que, id
est, et ob hoc ignotorum et incon-
tempfabilium per seipsa, tamquam
causam notat concessionis. Si quis
hoc, dico, concedat, vero, id est, sed
aestimat sacras descriptiones in elo-
quiis, id est, in sacris Scripturis, de-
scriptiones, dico, sanctorum intel-
lectuurn, id est, Angelorum esse in
convenientes, ut dicetur. Nos ita
solvemus. Et aestimat dico durum, id
est, ineptum esse sic dicere, id est,
omnem talem modurn dicendi esse
theatrum angelicorum nominum, id
est, fabulosam inventionem de no
minibus quibus Angeli nominan
tur in sacra Scriptura. Theatrum
enim locus erat in quo recitaban
tur quaedam fabulosa gesta qui
busdam Jarvis. Et ait, id est, dicit
Theologos venientes, id est, deven-,
ientes ad corpoream facturam uni-
versaliter incorporalium, id est, ad
faciendum corpora Angelis, qui
omnino incorporei sunt, de-
scribendo eos, debuisse, scilicet
Theologos, et formare, id est, figu-
rare, et manifestare ea, scilicet in-
corporalia figurationibus propriis, eis
scilicet et cognatis, id est, similibus
... ba sive
expresse id dicentia ...
... recipi quidem, id est, certe, sa-
cras compositiones, id est, figura
tiones ...
... sei-
psis, id est in sua natura, que id
est et ob hoc, ignotorum et inconte ...
... vero id est
set, estimat sacras descriptiones in
eloquiis, id est in sacris scripturis,
descriptiones dico sancto ...
........... Nos ita solvemus. Et esti-
mat, dico durum, id est ineptum esse
sic dicere, id est
cum omnem talem ...
... sam inventionem de no-
minibus quibus angeli nominan
tur in sacra scriptura. Theatrum
enim locus erat in quo recita ..
... vis. Et ait, id est, idem
dicit, theo!ogos venientes id est deve
nientes, ad corpoream facturam uni-
versaliter incorporalium, id est ad
fac ...
... describendo eos, debuisse scilicet
theologos, et formare, id est, figu-
rare, et manifestare ea, scilicet incor-
poralia figurationibus propriis ...
 AN AUTOGRAPH OF ST. THOMAS AT SALERNO
quantum possibile est, scilicet for-
mare ex essentiis pretiosissimis, id
est, nobilis
simis apud nos, id est, eorum quae
apud nos, scilicet scibilium, id est
coelestibus ex corporibus. Et es
sentiis dico immaterialibus quoquo
modo: non enim simpliciter imma
terialibus, cum ornne corpus ex
materia et forma compositum sit:
sed non habent materiam quae sit
in potentia ad esse, sicut est ma
teria generabilium et corruptibi
lium, sed tantum ad ubi, vel situm,
ut dicit Philosophus. Et superemi
nentibus, scilicet aliis corporibus et
in natura et in situ. Ait, dico, sic
debuisse facere, et non aptare sim
plicitatibus coelestibus et deifor-
mibus, id est, simplicibus substantiis
Deo simillimis, scilicet Angelis,
multiformitates, id est, figuras mul-
tarum formarum, terrenas nov1ss1-
mas, id est, viles, circumpositas, id
est cir
dantes vel circumvelantes sacras
spiritus. Et in hoc tacta est prima
ratio.
Hoc quidem, scilicet si
traderetur per nobiliora corpora et
esset futurum sublimius nostrum, id
est, ex hoc noster intellectus in sub-
limiora duceretur propter nobiliores
proprietates in eis repertas, et non
deduce
ret manifestationes supermundanas,
id est, in mundanarum rerum, sci
licet Angelorum, qui supra mun
dum nostrum sunt, in dissimilitu
dines, id est, figuras dissimiles, in
convenientes, id est, non congruen
tes eis: et sic nabis utilius et illis
esset decentius. Et in hoc facta est
secunda ratio. Etiam hoc, scilicet
per nobiliora figurare, non faceret
injuste, id est, indecenter, lllJuriam
in virtutes divinas, id est, in Ange
los, qui dicuntur divinae virtutes,
Videtur autem eis fieri iniuria,
139
... quantum possibile est, scili-
cet formare ex essentiis pretiosissi-
mis, id est nobilis
simis apud nos, id est eorum que
apud nos sunt, scilicet scibilium...
... Et es-
sentiis dico immaterialibus quoquo
modo: non enim simpliciter sunt im
materialia, cum ornne corpus ex
materia et forma compositum sit:
set non habent materiam ...
... ium et corruptibi-
lium set tantum ad ubi, ut dicit
Philosophus. Et essentiis dico su
pereminentibus scilicet aliis corpo
ribus et in natura et in situ ...
... uisse facere (... )et non adap-
tare simplicitatibus celestibus et dei-
formibus, id est simplicibus
sub.............. ... mis, scilicet An-
gelis, multiformitates, id est figuras
multaruum formarum, terrenas novis-
simas, id est viles, circumpositas, id
est CirCUffi
cumvela ...
... acta est
prima ratio.
Hoc quidem scilicet tradere per
nobiliora corpora et esset futurum
sublimius nostrum, id est ex hoc no
ster intellectus in sublim...
... obiliores proprie-
tates in eis repertas, et non deduce
ret manifestationes supermundanas,
id est, supermundanarum rerum,
scilicet angelo ...
... in dis simili
tudines, id est figuras dissimiles, in
convenientes, id est, non congruen
tes eis: et sic nabis utilius et illis
esset decentius. Et in hoc ...
... scilicet
per nobiliora figurare, non faceret
iniuste, id est, indecenter, injuriam
in virtutes divinas, id est in ange
los, qui dicuntur divine virtu ...
140 L. BOYLE

dum ignobilioribus comparantur. Et ... eis fieri iniuria,

haec est tertia ratio.
Et hoc scilicet per nobiliora fi
gurare, non seducerent aeque ani-
mum nostrum, id est, intellectum, in-
serentem se, id est, praeparatum se
inserere propter admixtionem phan
tasiae, in immundas compositiones,
id est, erroneas figurationes, creden
do esse in rei veritate quae per si
rnilitudinem dicuntur.
dum ignobilibus comparantur. Et in
hoc est tertia ratio.
Et hoc scilicet per nobiliora fi
gurare non eque seducerent animum
nostrum, id est intellectum....
... preparatum se in-
serere propter amm1xt10nem
phantasie, in immundas, id est, er
roneas, compositiones, id est, figura
tiones, creden...
 LEONARDE. BOYLE, 0.P.

SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLENAIRE

Je commence par une captatio benevolentiae pour donner un avant-goût,

car je crois que, si un exposé apporte du concret, les auditeurs seront ferme-
ment convaincus qu'ils ont quelque chose à retirer de cette conférence.
Cette introduction a peu à voir avec le contenu de l'article et rien du tout
avec son titre. C'est simplement une façon d'attirer l'attention sur un épisode
de la jeunesse de Thomas d'Aquin et sur l'illisibilité de son écriture qui, vous
le savez j'en suis sûr, était qualifiée de littera inintelligibifisl.
En raison de son immense réputation, il est facile d'oublier que Thomas
fut un jour un étudiant ordinaire et qu'il n'était pas du tout parfait dès le début
de sa vie dominicaine.
J'ai publié récemment un fragment de commentaire sur le De caelesti
hierarchia du Pseudo-Denys par Albert le Grand, le professeur de Thomas,
que celui-ci avait copié quand il était étudiant à Paris en 1245-1248, alors qu'il
avait une vingtaine d'années. Ce fragment dont chacun d'entre vous a mainte-
nant un exemplaire, en souvenir de cette conférence, est dans un reliquaire à
la cathédrale de Salerne. Il a été tiré, il y a plusieurs siècles, d'un manuscrit
autographe de Thomas, maintenant à la Bibliothèque nationale de Naples, qui
a autrefois appartenu aux dominicains de Saint-Dominique à Naples, la der-
nière demeure dominicaine de Thomas.
Il est à peu près certain que ce commentaire d'Albert sur le De caelesti
hierarchia date des années où lui-même et le jeune Thomas étaient ensemble
au Studium generale de Saint-Jacques à Paris, en 1245-1248. Pour la plupart
des étudiants qui ont travaillé cette période de la vie d'Albert et de Thomas,
cet autographe de Naples provenant du fragment de Salerne est la source
textuelle, l'archétype direct ou indirect de toutes les copies de manuscrits du

1 Selon H.F. DONDAINE et H.V. SHOONER, Codices manuscripti operum Thomae

de Aquino, J (Rome 1967), p. 7, inintelligibilis est la transcription erronée de illegibi-
lis mais ce mot a tenu la route pendant longtemps.
142 L. BOYLE

commentaire d'Albert, que les éditeurs de la récente édition critique de Colo-

gne tiennent pour authentique2.
Je n'ai jamais étudié l'autographe de Naples dans son entier mais seule-
ment ce morceau de trente-huit lignes du fragment de Salerne que vous avez
en face de vous (quoique vous ayez seulement en main un côté du fragment,
soit seulement dix-neuf lignes).
D'après un examen récent des autres manuscrits existant du commentaire
d'Albert qui sont supposés dériver textuellement de l'autographe de Naples de
Thomas, il n'y a aucun doute maintenant que cet autographe est tout au plus
une copie fantaisiste du commentaire d'Albert. Dans ces courtes trente-huit
lignes du fragment de Salerne, on voit clairement qu'il s'agit d'une copie
personnelle de Thomas, qu'il a faite lui-même à Paris. Et c'est moins que
brillant! Il y a des fautes notables dans ces trente-huit lignes et au moins un
exemple où il a sauté une ligne de l'original qu'il avait en face de lui, en
faisant homoeoteleuton (ou des fins de lignes semblables): à l'occasion, il a
ajouté une phrase ou deux de son propre cru. Ainsi l'autographe de Naples ne
peut-il, en aucun cas, être l'archétype exemplaire d'où dérivent tous les autres
manuscrits comme le prétendent tous les étudiants et la récente édition criti-
que.
Tel est le jeune Thomas: travailleur mais loin d'être infaillible. C'est là
l'une des quelques occasions où nous voyons en Thomas un étudiant domini-
cain ordinaire, se débrouillant comme tout le monde, et ne réussissant pas
toujours. Plus loin nous verrons s'il s'est amélioré avec l'âge.

L'EXEMPLE DE LA SAMARITAINE

Après avoir essayé de capter votre bonne volonté en mettant Thomas,

pour ainsi dire, au même niveau que nous, je vais maintenant vous parler d'un
passage de l'évangile de saint Jean qui m'a beaucoup parlé depuis que j'ai eu la

2 L.E. BOYLE, "Un autographe de S. Thomas", dans Lettera, sensus, sententia:

Studi in onore del Prof Clemente J. Vansteenkiste o.p., éd. A. Lobato (Milan 1991 ),
p. 117-34; voir Alberti Magni Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Super Dionysium De
Caelesti Hierarchia, ed. P. SIMON et W. KOBEL (Munster-in-W. 1993), p. 9.
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 143

chance d'étudier le commentaire de saint Thomas quand j'étais jeune étudiant

à Tallaght, il y a une cinquantaine d'années. C'est le passage de la Samaritaine
(Jn 4, 1-42).
C'est une merveilleuse histoire, merveilleusement racontée. Bien qu'elle
ne soit pas attestée dans le reste du Nouveau Testament, elle est néanmoins
plausible historiquement.
Le déroulement du récit est l'un des plus détaillés du Nouveau Testament
et l'évangéliste montre une connaissance impressionnante du milieu local et
des croyances des Samaritains. Il se pourrait bien que l'évangéliste ait saisi un
moment historique de la vie de Jésus et qu'il l'ait décrit pour nous familiariser
avec la manière d'enseigner de Jésus.
Il présente l'histoire brillamment. L'usage qu'il fait d'un large procédé de
techniques rhétoriques - malentendus, ironie, "chœur grec des villageois" -, en
fait l'une des scènes les plus vivantes et théâtrales des évangiles, seulement
égalée peut-être par les superbes dialogues, quelques chapitres plus loin, entre
l'aveugle-né et les pharisiens. Le passage entier est plein de symbolisme et de
doctrine, mais je voudrais faire une brève remarque sur cette Samaritaine.
Sur un premier plan, elle est le paradigme d'une âme luttant pour s'élever
du souci des choses matérielles, pour croire en Jésus et en sa Parole. De plus,
en tant que Samaritaine, elle est la première convertie non juive mentionnée et
le premier fruit de la mission envers les Gentils. Peu importe si sa foi est
imparfaite. Ce qui est important, pour nous Dominicains, c'est la manière
pleine de gentillesse, d'habileté et de tolérance dont Jésus a vu en elle la
semence de la foi, modèle pour tous les prêcheurs et les enseignants du
monde. Sur un autre plan, la Samaritaine est la première apôtre non juive
connue. Ici, elle est donc, comme elle l'était pour saint Thomas dans son
commentaire, le modèle de l'apôtre. Car, comme le note Thomas, dès qu'elle a
compris ce que Jésus voulait lui dire, elle s'est précipitée, tout excitée, aban-
donnant sa précieuse jarre d'eau, pour apporter la bonne et enthousiasmante
nouvelle à ses compatriotes du village: "Venez et voyez un homme qui m'a dit
tout ce que j'avais fait. Ne serait-ce pas le messie"3?

3 S. Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici Super Evangelium S. Joannis Lectura;

éd. R. Cai (Turin-Rome, Marietti 1952), n° 549-637 (p. 105-19) particulièrement n°
624-629.
144 L. BOYLE

C'est cet enthousiasme à propos de la Parole qui est le cœur et l'âme de

l'ordre des Prêcheurs. Nous sommes prêcheurs de la Parole. C'est notre raison
d'être et notre propos. Comme Humbert de Romans, le cinquième Maître de
l'Ordre, l'a dit il y a sept siècles et demi, notre nom n'est pas un titre vide. Il
nous appelle à vivre pleinement et partout ce qu'il signifie: "Non est sepelien-
dum sed potius authenticandum ubique" 4 . En raison de notre vocation, tout ce
qui peut être apporté au service de la Parole devrait être recherché et rattaché
sans crainte à nos besoins de prêcheurs. Ceci n'a rien de neuf. Dès les pre-
miers jours de l'Ordre, la recherche des meilleurs moyens de communiquer la
Parole était la priorité et la marque propre de l'Ordre. Par exemple, dès 1230,
Hugues de Saint-Cher et ses étudiants de Saint-Jacques à Paris produisaient la
première concordance de la Bible, afin de rendre celle-ci aussi accessible que
possible à nos frères pour préparer leur prédication. Un peu plus tard, les
dominicains de Paris et d'Oxford divisaient chaque page de la Bible en sept
parties, notées de a à g, pour que les références puissent plus facilement être
localisées dans les concordances5.
Ces deux moments de l'histoire de l'Ordre apparemment insignifiants
sont considérés comme importants par les historiens de la technologie. De ce
point de vue, les Dominicains ne doivent pas se désintéresser des progrès de la
technologie mais ils ont au contraire à les mettre adroitement au service de la
Parole. Nous étions à la pointe à ce moment-là.
Nous ne devrons pas être à la traîne alors que nous entrons dans le troi-
sième millénaire. Comme l'a fait remarquer le Chapitre général de Rome en
1983, au sujet de l'actuelle explosion de la communication: n'ayons pas de
crainte là où il n'y a rien à craindre: "Non est timendum nobis ubi non est
timor"6. De ce point de vue, nous avons lu avec plaisir dans un récent numéro
des Informations Dominicaines Internationales (IDI) que la Province Saint-
Martin avait mis en place un "forum de prêcheurs" sur Internet et que, à la
suite des propositions du Chapitre général de Bologne, l'été dernier, la Pro-
vince de Toulouse avait commencé à mettre sur pied une Université domini-

4 B. HUMBERT! DE ROMANIS, Opera De Vita Regulati, éd. J.-J. Berthier (Rome

1889), Il. 41 (commentaire des Constitutions).
5 Voir R.H. et M.A. RousE, "Concordance des mots des Écritures", Archivum
Fratrum Praedicatorum 44 (1974), 5-30.
6 Acta Capituli Generalis Electivi Ordinis Praedicatorum Romae 1983 (Rome
1983), p. 108.
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 145

caine sur Internet?. Ainsi, dès les débuts, l'Ordre s'est efforcé sans crainte de
mettre tous les outils - à l'époque approximatifs - de toutes les disciplines du
savoir au service de la Parole.
Comme le dit aussi Humbert: un modeste bagage de connaissances peut
suffire au salut de chacun, mais c'est insuffisant si l'on désire enseigner aux
autres les moyens du salut. Dans l'Ordre dominicain, continue-t-il, l'étude est
poursuivie dans l'intérêt des autres plus que de nous-mêmes et de nos propres
intérêts. Ainsi les sciences profanes ne doivent pas être exclues de notre
formation au service de la Parole, car par ces sciences notre intelligence
s'affine, elle se forme mieux pour pénétrer la sainte Écriture8. L'exemple
parfait est ici, naturellement, celui de Thomas puisant sans cesse dans les
trésors variés des sciences profanes, particulièrement chez Aristote.
Mais peu importe que l'Ordre fût à l'avant-garde de la communication et
de l'étude à l'époque médiévale; elles n'étaient jamais considérées comme une
fin en elles-mêmes. Comme l'étude, la communication est un moyen, non une
fin pour un dominicain. La fin est de répandre la Parole de salut de Dieu. Ce
n'est que lorsque la Parole a été assimilée aussi pleinement que possible que
l'on peut communiquer effectivement.
Si nous retournons un instant à la Samaritaine, ce qui est remarquable
dans sa conversion, dit Thomas, ce n'est pas la manière dont elle a parlé de
Jésus mais plutôt quand elle a commencé à le faire. Elle n'est pas partie la tête
la première. Elle a attendu d'avoir entendu Jésus. En d'autres termes, avant de
se précipiter pour communiquer, on doit avoir quelque chose à communiquer.
Par-dessus tout, pour un dominicain, la communication ne peut pas être autre
chose que le partage de sa réflexion: "Contemplata aliis tradere" - ce qu'on
peut traduire approximativement "Transmettre ce qu'on a contemplé"9.

7 IDI (International Dominican Information) n° 367 (nov.

1988, p. 241-2:
"Preachers" Exchange and DOMUNI (http://www.tradere.org).
8 Humbert, Opera omnia, I. 436-7: "Aliud (utile) est seruitio ingenii ad scinden-
dum parietem Sacrae Scripturae".
9 Summa theologiae 2.2. 188, 6c "... sicut enim maius est illuminare quam lucere
solum: ita maius est contemplata aliis tradere quam solum contemplari". Cette
fameuse assertion de Thomas a été remarquablement commentée par SIMON
TUGWELL, Albert and Thomas. Selected Writings (The Classics of Western Spiritua-
lity, New York-Mahwah 1988), p. 254, 335, n° 516 et 630, n° 8, où il confirme la
version donnée ci-dessus. L'ensemble de 2.2. 188, 6 est imprimé dans cette version
146 L. BOYLE

Ces remarques peuvent s'appliquer aux divers niveaux de la communica-

tion. Peu importe lesquels: nous ne devons jamais perdre de vue notre origine,
notre raison d'être dominicains; c'est la raison pour laquelle Humbert dit que
l'étude est "notre prérogative parmi les autres Ordres religieux"!O. C'est notre
place dans la cura animarum telle que l'envisageait le concile de Latran IV, en
1215, concile dont nous sommes les créatures en tant que "Prêcheurs de la
Parole".

LA MISSION ORIGINELLE DE L'ORDRE DES PRÊCHEURS

La mission originelle de l'Ordre dominicain fut, naturellement de prêcher

la Parole, selon la constitution Inter caetera du quatrième concile du Latran à
la fin de 1215, sous le pontificat d'Innocent III. Les évêques étaient en effet
surchargés et ne pouvaient· répondre aux demandes de prédication. Aussi
instituèrent-ils des groupes de prédicateurs dans leurs diocèses pour les aider
et devenir leurs collaborateurs dans la cura animarum et le soin pastoral 11.
Saint Dominique qui était présent à ce concile avec son évêque, Foul-
ques de Toulouse, fut, on s'en doute, convaincu pendant le concile qu'avec le
groupe de prédicateurs qu'il avait formés peu auparavant à Toulouse il avait
un moyen tout prêt pour permettre à la constitution Inter caetera de ne pas
demeurer lettre morte dans l'Église. Un peu plus tard, en janvier 1217, il
obtint du nouveau pape, Honorius III, le décret Gratiarum omnium qui don-
nait une approbation générale à la tâche de prédication déjà commencée à
Toulousel2. Mais la prédication n'était pas la seule activité pastorale mention-
née par la constitution Inter caetera. Celle-ci enjoignait aussi explicitement
d'avoir à entendre les confessions et d'assigner des pénitences:

aux p. 628-32: "C'est un ordre religieux voué à la contemplation plus qu'aux tâches de
la vie active".
10 Humbert, Opera omnia, I. 433: "De utilitate studii in O~dine Praedicatorum ...
Prima est praerogativa quaedam super alios ordines".
11 Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, éd. J. ALBERlGO, etc. (Bologne-
Barcelone-Fribourg 1962), p. 215-16 (c. 10).
12 Monumenta diplomatica S. Dominici, éd. V.J. KOUDELKA et R.J. LOENERTZ
(Rome 1996),n°79{21 Jan.1217).
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 147

Unde precipimus tam in cathedralibus quam in aliis conventualibus

ecclesiis viros idoneos ordinari, quos episcopi possint coadiutores
et cooperatores habere, non solum in praedicationis officia verum
etiam in audiendis confessionibus et poenitentiis iniungendis ac
ceteris quae ad salutem pertinent animarum.
Peut-être cette seconde fonction était-elle implicite dans le décret Gra-
tiarum omnium, mais il n'est pas fait jusque-là de références aux confessions
dans les nombreux documents du pape relatifs au nouvel Ordre, dans une
lettre encyclique Cum qui recipit prophetam du 4 février 1221. Il est dit que
Honorius III confia plus tard la fonction de confession et de conseil spirituel à
l'Ordre dominicain des Prêcheurs "benigne permittentes presbiteris eorumdem
cum expediret poenitentium confessiones audire et consilium eis iniungere
salutare".
Cette double mission papale et cette vue plus large de la prédication sont
à peine évoquées dans les histoires de l'Ordre; il en est rarement question dans
les discussions sur l'étude. Certains doutent de l'authenticité de cette partie de
Cum qui recipit de 1221 et, donc, de la mission de confesser et de con-
seillerl3.
Cependant les toutes premières Constitutions de l'Ordre tiennent claire-
ment compte des deux fonctions, comme le fait Humbert dans son commen-
taire de la règle de saint Augustin (vers 1266). Faisant écho à Cum qui recipit,
il établit que "le fruit de la prédication est recueilli en confessant et en con-
seillant": "Fructus praedicationis colligitur in confessionibus et in consiliis
animarum"14. Ici, je suis heureux de le noter, le témoignage de Thomas est
aussi convaincant qu'il est passé inaperçu.
Dans sa défense de l'étude et de l'enseignement par les ordres religieux,
dans son Contra impugnantes (1260), Thomas cite Inter caetera de Latran IV
sur la prédication et la confession et, partant du fait que les prêtres de nom-
breuses paroisses ne sont pas préparés à la prédication et au conseil ("imperi-
tia multorum sacerdotum"), il indique que "heureusement il peut y avoir un

13 Ed. ibid, n° 143. Selon S. TuGWELL, "Notes sur la vie de saint Dominique", Ar-
chivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 65 (1995) 40, n° 67, "il est presque certain que la
bulle elle-même est un faux, surtout parce que des nombreux documents, soit des
originaux, soit des copies, qui ont transmis Cum qui recipit, deux seulement, tous
deux du XIVe siècle, ont un paragraphe sur les confessions".
14 Humbert, Opera omnia, I. 52.
148 L. BOYLE

ordre religieux institué pour aider les évêques dans ces deux domaines", puis
il en vient à se référer à son propre Ordre en exposant que en vérité, un tel
Ordre fut institué dans une visée apostolique pour le service de ces deux
domaines, comme l'atteste son nom:
His viis, ostendum est aliquam religionem ad hoc specialiter salu-
briter posse institui ad cooperandum praelatis ecclesiarum in prae-
dicatione et confessionibus audiendis ex commissione praelatorum
[. ..] Cum ergo per Apostolicam Sedem religiones aliquae sint in-
stituta ad praedicta, quod etiam ex ipso nomine ostenditur [. ..];
manifeste se damnabilem reddit quicumque talem religionem dam-
nare conatur 15 .
Prédication et conseil spirituel. De ce point de vue, l'ordre dominicain est
un enfant de ce temps-là et du quatrième concile du Latran; Thomas le savait
bien et en était bien conscient. On dit souvent que le xm• siècle est l'un des
plus grands siècles intellectuels de la vie de l'Église. C'est tout à fait vrai; mais
il est encore beaucoup plus que cela. Car il est vraiment le premier siècle de la
vie de l'Église dans lequel une sensibilité générale au souci pastoral se soit
manifestée.
Au XII" siècle, le sens du souci pastoral - la cura animarum - avait
commencé à prendre forme depuis que le prêtre de paroisse ou curé fut men-
tionné par son nom au deuxième concile du Latran de 1123. C'est en 1179
environ, au troisième concile du Latran, que l'on discuta sur les prêtres de
paroisses et les curés pour la première fois dans un concile. Au quatrième
concile du Latran, en 1215 - le premier concile pastoral de l'histoire de
l'Église - le souci pastoral avait pris un fort élan et les prêtres engagés dans
cette cura animarum avaient acquis une identité reconnue et ratifiée par
l'Église. Pour le concile, l'art des arts ("ars artium") était le "regimen anima-
rum".
La montée en puissance de divers groupes bien intentionnés mais peu
orthodoxes, au XII" siècle, avait montré combien la préparation du clergé était
inadéquate à la charge paroissiale, au moment même où un enseignement très

15 Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem; c.4, lignes 840-79 dans Sancti
Thomae de Aquino opera omnia, cura et studio Fratrum Praedicatorum, XLI (Rome
1970). Glose de l'éditeur "ex ipso nomine" (ligne 944) ainsi que "scilicet ordo Praedi-
catorum".
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 149

adapté était développé dans les écoles, surtout dans les domaines de la péni-
tence et du mariage.
Vers 1200, le clergé des paroisses était au courant mais mal informé sur
ces nouveaux développements, à Bologne et à Paris. Il était, comme le théolo-
gien anglo-normand Robert Courçon le décrivit en 1209, "frappant aux portes
de la théologie". Il s'ensuivit toute une littérature de manuels qui commença à
apparaître vers 1200 pour répondre à cette demande, et qui fleurit abondam-
ment après le quatrième concile du Latran, en 121516.
Ce fut dans cet éveil et cette nouvelle appréhension de la charge pasto-
rale que l'Ordre dominicain entra, avec sa double mission de prédication et de
conseil. Il devint le pilier d'une nouvelle et vibrante littérature du souci pasto-
ral: manuels pour les confesseurs, aides pour la prédication, aides visuelles,
concordances bibliques, vies de saints, tracts sur les vertus et les vices - tout
ce qui pouvait porter la Parole de Dieu pour vivifier les âmes et affermir en
elles l'image de Dieu. Il n'est vraiment pas exagéré de dire que de facto toute
la mission intellectuelle de l'ordre doit autant à cette littérature de la cura
animarum qu'à la stricte mission de prédication.
La majorité de ces manuels et de ces aides visait l'éducation pastorale de
ce qu'on appelait les Fratres communes de l'Ordre, c'est-à-dire le corps des
frères dont la principale occupation était la prédication et la direction des
âmes, ou ce qu'on appelait à l'époque la cura animarum. Ces Fratres commu-
nes sont lesjuniores, les simplices auxquels l'élite des frères qui a eu la possi-
bilité de recevoir une éducation supérieure au Studium generale ou au Stu-
dium provinciale dédie préface après préface. Ils entreprennent maintenant
des manuels pour communiquer leur savoir à leurs frères - la vaste majorité de
l'Ordre - directement engagés dans la cura animarum ou le soin des âmes.
C'est vraiment "Contemplata aliis tradere".
Ce n'était pas un hasard. Depuis les tout débuts de l'Ordre, on avait le
plus grand souci de veiller à ce que les frères, les communes avec les docibi-
les, les lectores et les doctores reçoivent une instruction méthodique et que
celle-ci ait une portée pastorale. Comme le mentionne le prologue de la toute

16 Voir L.E. BOYLE, "The Inter-Conciliar Period 1179-1215 and the Beginnings
Of Pastoral Manuals", dans Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli, Pape Alessandro III, éd.
F.F. LIOTTA (Sienne 1986), p. 43-56.
150 L. BOYLE

première Constitution: "Toute notre étude doit porter principalement sur ceci:
essayer d'être aussi utiles que possible aux âmes de notre prochain11 17_
Malgré cette sensibilité pastorale, la double tradition (issue de la mis-
sion) de confession et de direction des âmes a un côté négatif. Bien que l'étude
des Écritures soit au premier plan, la théologie dogmatique ou systématique a
été délaissée.
Dans les Constitutions primitives (1220-1228), il était établi que chaque
Province devait pourvoir chaque étudiant envoyé à Paris d'au moins "trois
livres de théologie" qu'il devait étudier et comprendre: le Historia scholastica,
ou l'histoire continue de la création à !'Ascension, de Peter Comestor, les
Sentences de Pierre Lombard, et une Bible avec gloses - trois textes que, selon
Humbert, "le lecteur devait enseigner dans chaque maison" 18.
Mais ni là ni dans la fameuse liste de Humbert de 1260, des livres que
chaque couvent devait posséder19, on ne trouve trace, par exemple, de la
Summa de Sacramentis, encore moins d'une summa de doctrine sacrée. La
"théologie scientifique" autant qu'elle se trouve dans la liste de Humbert, est
représentée par Raymond de Pe:fiafort, Summa de casibus, et la Summa de
vitiis et virtutibus de William Peraldus, les deux sources de la théologie prati-
que ou morale dominicaine.
Cette absence, un trou "doctrinal", si l'on veut, est précisément ce que
Thomas aspirait à combler avec sa Somme. Tous les auteurs dominicains

17 "Cum ordo noster specialiter ob predicationem et salutem animarum ab initio

noscetur institutus faisse, et studium nostrum ad hoc principaliter ardenterque summo
opere debeat intendere, ut proximorum animabus possimus utiles esse": A.H.
THOMAS, De oudste Constituties van de Dominicanen (Louvain 1965), p. 311-12.
C'est à partir de ce contexte que date la dispense des observances qui empêcheraient
l'étude. À noter que le terme "Fratres communes" n'a pas un sens péjoratif. On peut le
trouver dans les actes du Chapitre général de Gênes de 1305: "Communes vero fratres
singulis diebus ad scolas vadant lectoris principales et ibidem lectiones audiant... "
Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum, éd. B.M. Reichert, II (Rome
1899), p. 13.
18 Humbert, Opera omnia, IL 254; actes du chapitre général, Paris 1228: "Statui-
mus autem ut quaelibet provincia fratribus suis missis ad studium ad minus tribus
libris theologiae providere teneatur, et fratres missi ad studium in ystoriis et senten-
tiis et textus et glosis precipue studeant et intendant". Chartularium Universitatis
Parisiensis, éd. H. DENIFLE et E. CHATELAIN, l, n° 57 (p. 112-13).
19 Humbert, Opera omnia, II. 265.
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÈNAIRE 151

antérieurs à Thomas se sont vaillamment efforcés de couvrir les domaines

variés du savoir pour leurs confrères, les Fratres communes - Raymond et ses
compagnons pour la pratique du confessionnal et de la direction en général,
Peraldus pour les vices et les vertus, Aag de Danemark pour les missionnaires,
Guillaume de Tournai pour l'instruction des enfants, Jacques de Voragine et
sa Légende dorée pour les vies de saints et la prédication, Simon de Hinton
pour les besoins théologiques de ses frères anglais. Mais Thomas alla plus
loin que ce qui était visé jusqu'ici. Il fournit une Somme de théologie générale,
un manuel qui portait sur Dieu et sur la Trinité, sur la création et l'incarnation,
aussi bien que sur l'homme, image de Dieu, sur ses forces et ses faiblesses.
Pour moi, la Somme est la propre contribution dominicaine, très person-
nelle et pointue, de Thomas au système d'éducation exclusivement pratique et
par là bancal de la cura animarum qui a prévalu dans !'Ordre dominicain
depuis ses toutes premières années20.
Dans l'un de ses Quodlibeta à Paris, entre 1268 et 1271, Thomas définit
très clairement le rôle du théologien à l'égard de la cura animarum. Les doc-
teurs en théologie sont, dit-il, les principaux architectes de l'édifice spirituel
qu'est la cura animarum: ils cherchent, puis ils enseignent comment d'autres
pourraient faire avancer le salut des âmes: "inquirent et docent qualiter alii
debeant salutem animarum procurare" 2 i. C'est, je suppose, ce que Thomas, le
"doctor veritatis" voulut faire dans sa Somme - non pas, je me hâte d'ajouter,
la théologie au service de la cura animarum, mais la théologie comme cura
animarum: la doctrine sacrée non dans l'abstrait mais dans le concret. Pour
adapter son Quodlibet, il composa la Somme à partir de ses propres études,
afin d'enseigner à ses frères "comment ils pourraient faire avancer le salut des
âmes", comment ils pourraient mieux s'engager dans ce progrès sans fin et
cette sauvegarde de l'image de Dieu dans les créatures de Dieu qu'est la cura
animarum.
L'étude était alors - elle l'est encore et devrait toujours l'être - de pre-
mière importance dans la manière de vivre dominicaine. Comme le dit si bien
Humbert: "L'étude appartient à notre profession de religieux 11 22 ou comme

20 Voir L.E. BOYLE, The Setting of the "Summa theologiae" of Saint Thomas
(Etienne Gilson Séries 5, Toronto 1982).
21 Quodlibet I. 7,2, dans Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M edita, XXXV, 2,
Quaestiones de Quodlibet (Rome 1996), p. 196, lignes 51-3.
22 Humbert, Opera omnia, I. 247.
152 L. BOYLE

Thomas l'a dit en parlant certainement de son ordre dans le Contra impu-
gnantes, "il y a des religieux dont, par les Constitutions de leur Ordre, l'ensei-
gnement est le but (aliqui religiosi sunt qui doctrinam ex institutione sui
ordinis habent) 23.
11

Nous connaissons tous la première injonction, quelque peu surprenante,

de nos Constitutions de réciter l'office divin "breviter et succincte", pour ne
pas trop empiéter sur le temps de l'étude; mais peut-être que tout le monde
n'est pas au courant que Thomas - peut-être par amusement - fait plus ou
moins la même chose en introduisant l'étude des anges dans le prologue de
son De sustantiis separatis, dédié à Reginald de Pipemo: "Ce n'est pas parce
que nous ne nous joignons pas aux célébrations liturgiques des anges que nous
devons dilapider le temps gagné. Nous devrions plutôt utiliser le temps gagné
sur la récitation des psaumes à écrire sur les anges". "Quia sacris angelorum
solemniis interesse non possumus, non debet nobis devotionis tempus transire
in vacuum, sed quod psallendi officia subtrahitur scribendi studio compense-
tur"24.
Il est clair dans le Contra impugnantes et ailleurs que, pour Thomas,
l'étude n'est pas une activité solitaire ni même simplement un entraînement à
la perfection individuelle·. Une maison religieuse ou couvent est un lieu de
travail en équipe, de coopération, un "collegium studii", ou, comme Thomas
l'écrit dans le Contra impugnantes, quand il justifie la présence de religieux
dans un corps académique non religieux tel qu'un Studium generale ou une
université, une "societas studii" engagée dans l'étude et l'enseignement: "So-
cietas studii est ordinata ad actum docendi et discendi"25. C'est vraisembla-
blement dans cet esprit que, selon Ptolémée de Lucques, Thomas a dédié son
De ente et essentia, vers 1252-1256 "aux frères et compagnons", les frères qui
avaient travaillé avec lui dans un groupe à Saint-Jacques à Paris26.
"Societas studii": Thomas était certainement l'héritier d'un tel concept.
Sans l'assistance d'un certain nombre de socii - cinq à un moment de sa vie - il
aurait difficilement pu accomplir tout ce qu'il a accompli. Comme "docteur de

23 Contra impugnantes, c.2 ("Utrum alicui religiose docere liceat") éd. cit. note
15 ci-dessus, p. A 62, lignes 615-19.
24 Opera omnia, éd. cit. note 15 ci-dessus, XL (Rome 1969), p. D, LI.
25 Contra impugnantes, éd. cit. note 15 ci-dessus, p. A 65, lignes 226-27.
26 Cité par les éditeurs de l'édition "Léonine" de De ente et essentia dans Sancti
Thomae opera omnia, XLIII (Rome 1976), p. 319.
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 153

la vérité", il cherchait la vérité ou la trace de la vérité partout où elle pouvait

être trouvée pour le progrès de ses frères ou celui de leur cura animarum. Et
sachant cela, ses frères ne le laissaient pas seul dans son travail. Ils pouvaient
ne pas toujours comprendre ce qu'il désirait au juste (particulièrement dans le
cas de la Somme théologique) mais au moins ils le soutenaient au mieux de
leurs capacités27.
"Societas studii": non pour soi-même mais au service de la cura anima-
rum. Pour ceux qui étudient Aristote, Avicenne, Averroès et tous les autres
grands penseurs commentés ou utilisés par Thomas, cette approche est quel-
que chose de difficile à accepter. Il est moins déconcertant pour eux de consi-
dérer que Thomas fonctionne sur deux plans: d'un côté, c'est un splendide
penseur indépendant; de l'autre, il reconnaît de temps en temps, pendant les
week-ends peut-être, l'existence d'un souci pastoral sous une forme ou une
autre. Il est pourtant plus facile de le voir comme il était réellement: un théo-
logien qui, dans tout ce qu'il touchait, d'Aristote et Platon à Maïmonide et au
Pseudo-Denys, avait toujours à l'esprit la cura animarum et les deux fins de
!'Ordre.
Celui qui cherche quelque lumière sur Thomas pour le nouveau millé-
naire ne devrait peut-être pas omettre l'idée de la "Societas studii" au service
de la cura animarum.
On ne ferait pas mal, non plus, de se souvenir que Thomas ne parle pas
seulement d'une "Societas studii" tel un Studium generale ou Studium provin-
ciale, mais de chaque couvent, maison ou unité de l'Ordre. Chaque maison
peut être une "Societas studii" et à l'occasion une Province donnée de l'Ordre
pourrait devenir "Societas studii" plus générale, maintenant que le Régent des
Études n'est plus attaché aujourd'hui à une maison particulière mais à la
Province tout entière.
Il pourrait en résulter l'éclatement des antagonismes bien connus dans
certaines Provinces entre ceux qui sont directement engagés dans le souci
pastoral - dans la prédication et la direction spirituelle - et les "docteurs" ou
(pour reprendre ce que dit Thomas dans le Quodlibet précité), les "chercheurs
en chambre" engagés indirectement à travers l'étude, la recherche et l'ensei-
gnement. Une "Societas studii" n'est pas une "académie" fondée contre ou par

27 Voir A. DONDAINE, Secrétaires de saint Thomas d'Aquin (Rome 1956), I. 1-25,

Il. 186-208, et J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation à saint Thomas 4'Aquin. Sa personne et son
œuvre (Fribourg-Paris 1993), p. 350-57.
154 L. BOYLE

opposition au souci pastoral. Elle est plutôt ce souci qui coopère lui-même à
l'étude et à l'enseignement. Naturellement s'il lui arrive de se considérer elle-
même comme au-dessus ou au-delà ou complètement distincte du souci
pastoral, il en résultera inévitablement une condescendance envers l'approche
pastorale qui mènera rapidement à la dissension.
On peut objecter que certains efforts de coopération cadrent difficilement
avec ce schéma de "Societas studii" - la Commission Léonine, par exemple.
Elle peut sembler trop pointue et inaccessible pour mériter le nom de "Socie-
tas studii". Cependant une "Societas studii" ne comporte pas nécessairement
la participation active de chaque membre de la communauté dans tout projet
qu'elle conduit. Ce qui est nécessaire, faut-il le rappeler, c'est que la commu-
nauté tout entière l'accueille, la soutienne, se réjouisse de son existence et
soutienne son projet. Ceci afin que, au moins jusqu'à un certain point, les
membres actifs de ce projet ne se sentent pas isolés ou peu appréciés. Dans le
cas de la Commission Léonine, ce que j'appelle un "support affectif' est
essentiel puisque le travail y est aussi solitaire qu'exigeant et ne peut porter de
fruits visibles et palpables pendant des années.
Un autre effet de la "Societas studii" pourrait être que, d'un côté, ceux
qui sont plus âgés comprennent mieux les besoins et les aspirations des jeunes
dominicains et que, de l'autre, ceux qui débutent reconnaissent mieux les
efforts et les réalisations de ceux qui approchent de la fin de leurs travaux
dans la vigne de la cura animarum. Mais pour situer tout ceci dans un con-
texte plus large, il nous faut retourner un moment vers la Samaritaine.

RETOUR VERS LA SAMARITAINE

De bien des manières encore, la Samaritaine est le paradigme de l'apôtre.

Au moment de son triomphe, quand elle semble sentir qu'elle a pris de l'im-
portance dans son village, elle est brutalement repoussée: de plus en plus de
villageois deviennent croyants en raison de ce qu'ils ont eux-mêmes entendu
des lèvres de Jésus: "Ce n'est plus à cause de ce que tu as dit que nous
croyons, lui disent-ils, mais parce que nous l'avons entendu nous-mêmes".
C'est vraiment le destin de l'apôtre ou de l'enseignant de parvenir à ce
point d'inutilité où il en voit d'autres semer et moissonner de nouveau sur le
terrain où lui-même a une première fois semé et abondamment moissonné. Ce
destin est encore plus rude si, comme il arrive souvent, l'apôtre qui réussit est
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 155

enclin à oublier que tous les apôtres et les ministres ne sont, en fin de compte,
que des instruments dans l'économie du salut et que peu importe leur succès et
les vicissitudes de leur mission.
Car c'est un fait simple et indubitable que nous, qui revendiquons d'être
des apôtres et des prêcheurs, nous ne sommes que de simples instruments de
la Parole de Dieu. C'est cette parole, cet esprit et cette vérité qui nous touchent
et nous atteignent le cœur. C'est aussi un fait simple et indubitable qu'à un
moment ou à un autre nous cessons d'être les instruments même imparfaits
que nous sommes: nos méthodes deviennent encroûtées, usées, ou simplement
dépassées.
Le plus déchirant alors n'est pas que nous nous trouvions rattrapés par les
nouvelles idées, alors que nous pensions les nôtres éternelles, ou par des
apôtres plus jeunes, frais, vigoureux, imaginatifs qui, inexplicablement, ne
marchent pas de notre pas mesuré, mais que, trop souvent, nous soyons appa-
remment rejetés, oserais-je ajouter, comme la Samaritaine.
Allons-nous alors nous laisser décliner ou abattre par le désespoir? Pas
du tout. Si nous nous sommes toujours considérés comme des instruments de
la Parole de Dieu et non comme ses maîtres, alors il n'y aura pas de place pour
le découragement. Bien mieux, nous nous réjouirons qu'une nouvelle généra-
tion d'instruments soit à l'œuvre pour succéder à l'ancienne, comme le montre
merveilleusement le cas du frère William Hi1128.
Ce qui unit la vieille génération d'instruments à la nouvelle, les jeunes
pousses aux apôtres parvenus à maturité, c'est que tous, les jeunes comme les
anciens, appartiennent à la communauté de la Parole qui fait de bons ministres
et de bons ministères. C'est l'amour de la Parole qui fait les bons prêcheurs et
les bonnes prédications. C'est l'amour de la Parole qui fait les bonnes commu-
nautés.
Et c'est l'amour qui jaillit comme une eau de source des cœurs et des es-
prits, toujours ouverts, toujours à l'écoute de la parole des uns aux autres.
C'est un amour qui est si sensible à ce rôle d'instrument qu'il ne le perd jamais
de vue et demeure toujours prêt à le reconnaître, toujours prêt à soutenir toute
nouvelle expression de l'amour de cette parole et, par-dessus tout, les pas

28 On fait ici référence à la session plénière du Symposium de River Forest du 10

avril 1999 dans lequel trois dominicains, tous spécialistes, ont exposé des "Thèmes de
Th. d'Aquin- en honneur de William Hill, o.p.".
156 L. BOYLE

tâtonnants des nouveaux praticiens de cet amour. La "Societas studii" pour

Thomas; et pour Albert qui a soutenu si gentiment le jeune Thomas quand ses
camarades se moquaient de lui, "in dulcedine societatis quaerere veritatem":
"pour chercher la vérité dans la douce harmonie de la camaraderie 11 29.
En retour, l'amour de la Parole qui conduit les apôtres néophytes et
anime leur ministère est un amour accordé au rôle fragile, subordonné qu'ils
ont à jouer à l'égard de la Parole. Ils reprendront courage auprès des vieux
apôtres, peut-être aujourd'hui à leur déclin, qui agirent avant eux. Ils prieront
des profondeurs de leur cœur afin de ne jamais tomber dans le piège du dé-
mon en s'imaginant être eux-mêmes indispensables à cette Parole ou avoir la
seule approche possible à son égard; ils garderont leur cœur et leur esprit aussi
ouverts que possible à l'esprit et à la vérité de la Parole; et quand leur tour
viendra d'être rejetés de la même façon que ceux qui ont été instruments de la
Parole, ils n'en seront pas accablés mais heureux, ils n'éprouveront ni peine ni
chagrin mais espoir et joie.
On ne sait jamais au juste quand survient l'inévitable inadéquation de
quelqu'un à l'égard de la Parole. Mais cela viendra et peut-être au moment où
l'on est le plus rayonnant de fierté.
Il y eut un tel moment dans la vie de Thomas d'Aquin quand, en pleine
euphorie, le vent froid de la vérité le jeta à terre. Vous vous souvenez peut-
être de l'épisode relaté dans l'Ystoria de Guillaume de Tocco, lorsque Thomas
fut appelé à Paris par son Père Maître, vraisemblablement vers 1268-1271,
pour donner une réplique magistrale - "dicere sententialiter" - aux questions
qui agitaient alors les écoles, particulièrement celle de la présence du Corps
du Christ dans !'Eucharistie et celle de l'existence des accidents sans sujet.
Tocco avait entendu ce récit à Saint-Maximin en 1318, sur la route
d'Avignon, par Martin Scola (ou de Stela), un dominicain espagnol qui disait
à son tour la tenir d'un témoin. Les commentateurs modernes, y compris

29 Dans son commentaire sur les politiques d'Aristote, Opera omnia; éd. A.
BORGNET (Paris 1890-1899), VIII. 804, sur lequel voir Y.-M.-J. CONGAR, "In dulce-
dine societatis quaerere veritatem. Note sur le travail en équipe chez S. Albert et chez
les Prêcheurs au XIIIe siècle", dans Albertus Magnus - Doctor Universalis
128011980, éd. G. MEYER et A. ZIMMERMANN (Mainz 1980), p. 47-57.
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 157

l'éditeur de la récente édition de l'Ystoria de Tocco la jugent suspecte. Mais

elle ne peut pas être entièrement sans fondement30.
Selon cette histoire, quand Thomas eut écrit ses réponses aux deux ques-
tions ci-dessus, il étendit la main sur le livre de l'autel, en demandant au
Christ sur la croix si ce qu'il avait écrit était juste. Reginald de Pipemo qui
était près de lui avec quelques autres de la "Societas studii" ou de la commu-
nauté de Saint-Jacques, vit alors le Christ descendre près du livre et dire:
"Bene de hoc mei corporis sacramento scripsisti [ .. .} et de quaestione tibi
proposita bene et veraciter determinasti".
Tous ceux qui étudient Thomas connaissent et célèbrent ces paroles du
Christ: "En vérité, tu as bien écrit sur le sacrement de mon corps et tu as bien
et justement répondu aux questions qui t'étaient posées". Mais ce qui est
moins bien connu et ce qui est rarement mentionné, c'est la restriction qui suit:
"sicut ab homine in via potest intelligi et humanitus diffiniri". ("tu as bien
répondu dans la mesure où cette question peut être comprise par un homme
dans cette vie et où elle peut être résolue en termes humains").
Nous ne sommes que des instruments...
Tout apôtre comme notre femme au puits, tout enseignant, comme ici
Thomas, et en général tout propagateur de la bonne nouvelle de l'Évangile, ou
tout praticien de la double mission de l'Ordre dominicain, doit se mettre en
face, à un moment ou à un autre, de cette cruelle réalité: il n'est qu'un instru-
ment faible et passager, un jour ici, disparu le lendemain: "Venit finis scriptu-
rae meae (c'est la fin de mes écrits)". Thomas l'avait dit à son "socius conti-
nuus", Reginald de Pipemo, quand, trois mois avant sa mort, il qualifiait tout
ce qu'il avait écrit comme étant "de la paille" (paleae)31.

30 Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco (1323), éd. C. LE

BRUN-GOUANVIC (Toronto 1996), p. 187-89, et 68, 70, 76. TuGWELL, Albert and
Thomas (note 9 ci-dessus), p. 265, et TORRELL, Initiation (note 27 ci-dessus) p. 416-
17, doutent tous deux de l'authenticité de cet épisode; Tugwell l'attribue, s'il est vrai,
au premier séjour de Thomas à Paris, vers 1256.
31 Ystoria, ibid. p. 181: "Venit finis scripture mee, quia sunt michi revelata quod
ea que scripsi et docui modica michi videntur". Selon Barthélemy de Capoue, le
terme qu'employait Thomas était "paleae" non "modica" comme dans Tocco: Proces-
sus canonizationis S. Thomae, Neapoli, éd. M.H. LAURENT dans Fons Vitae S. Tho-
mae 4 (Toulouse s.d.), p. 376-77.
158 L. BOYLE

Il y a quelque chose que nous, prédicateurs et professeurs, avons ten-

dance à oublier trop promptement - et je soupçonne Thomas d'avoir pu l'ou-
blier un moment à Paris quand il écrivit sur !'Eucharistie. Nous n'avons pas un
tracé intérieur de la révélation divine, quoique maintenant comme alors nous
puissions en avoir une lueur qui excite collègues et étudiants pendant une
heure ou deux.
Par conséquent nous devons toujours être préparés à ne pas être compris
ou, même, comme dans le cas de la Samaritaine, à être rejetés. Plus important
encore, comme dans l'anecdote de Thomas à Paris, nous devons aussi être
préparés à regarder en face la dure réalité: nous sommes humains et, aussi
intelligents que nous soyons, nous sommes irrémédiablement à notre dés-
avantage quand nous sommes confrontés au divin.
Comme Thomas, que ce soit dans ce millénaire ou dans le prochain,
nous sommes tous en chemin et limités par notre humanité. Dans de telles
circonstances, nous ne pouvons tous que gérer au mieux notre humanité -
"sicut ab homine in via potest intelligi et humanitus diffiniri" - pleinement con-
scients qu'un mot n'est pas le meilleur ou le dernier possible. Complètement et
charitablement conscients aussi qu'il y a place pour ce que d'autres jugent être
leur meilleur, même si nous-mêmes sommes incapables de voir pourquoi.
Si, comme je l'ai suggéré, Thomas a pu quelque peu succomber à l'auto-
satisfaction à Paris, nous dominicains, et particulièrement nous thomistes, si je
peux employer ce terme, nous sommes enclins à tomber dans un piège plus
grand.
Nous avons souvent fait de Thomas un gourou et de sa Somme une sorte
de Bible, perdant complètement de vue le fait que cette Somme n'est rien
d'autre que la plus haute expression de la tradition des manuels ou des Som-
mes dans l'Ordre, une tradition qui n'a jamais été oubliée depuis ses débuts,
même dans ses moments les plus faibles: la fin de !'Ordre était la cura anima-
rum, c'était la seule mission que l'Église lui ait jamais confiée, mission de
prêcher la Parole et de diriger les âmes.
En dépit du fait que l'Ordre dominicain en son temps n'a jamais complè-
tement compris ce que Thomas avait fait dans sa Somme, Thomas est sans
aucun doute le plus grand représentant de la tradition dominicaine de forma-
tion pastorale des frères. Pour la cura animarum confiée à l'Ordre à travers la
prédication, la confession et la direction des âmes, il ne suffisait pas de savoir
quoi faire. Il était nécessaire, d'abord et surtout, de savoir pourquoi - puis de
toujours maintenir ses connaissances à jour - afin de mieux comprendre ce
qu'est l'homme, ce qui l'anime, quelles sont les forces intellectuelles ou autres
 SAINT THOMAS D'AQUIN ET LE TROISIÈME MILLÉNAIRE 159

qui le forment, le meuvent et l'influencent. Et celles-ci changent de génération

en génération.
Thomas était suprêmement conscient de tout cela. Il ne serait sûrement
pas sans profit de le considérer à cette lumière, alors que nous entrons dans le
prochain millénaire de la cura animarum.
 INDEX DES AUTEURS ANCIENS ET MÉDIÉVAUX
Aegidius Romanus 21, 38
Albericus de Rosate 52
Albertus de Brixia 38, 88
Albertus Magnus xvi, xxiv, xxviii-
xxx, 15,32,38-40,42-45,47,55-
64, 66, 68, 76, 80, 89, 123, 126-
132, 134, 141, 142, 145, 156
Alexander Halensis xiv, 56
Angelus Carletus de Clavasio 55
Anselmus Cantuariensis, 84, 101
Antoninus Florentinus 32, 59
Aristote les xii, xxxii, 72, 77, 84, 86,
145, 153
Astesanus de Ast 56
Augustinus de Dacia 67, 79, 80, 151
Augustinus Hipponensis 46, 84, 88,
147
Averroes, uide Ibn RuSd, Abû l'Walid
Avicenna, uide Ibn Sinâ, Abû ' Ali
Baptista de Salis 55
Bartholomaeus de Capua 108, 157
Bartholomaeus Pisanus (uide Bartho-
lomaeus de Sancto Concordio)
Bartholomaeus de Sancto Concordio
54,59,90
Bemardus Claraevallensis 84
Bemardus de Trilia 16
Bemardus Guidonis 16, 104, 108
Bertaudus de Sancto Dionysio 21
Bertholdus Friburgensis 54, 90
Boethius (A.M.T. Severinus) 75, 95,
98
Bonaventura xxiv, 37, 38, 55, 56
Bonifatius VIII papa (Benedictus
Caietanus) 22-24, 40, 41
Burchardus Anerbe de Argentina 41,
46
Cicero (Marcus Tullius) 84, 86
Conradus de Huxaria 53
Dionysius Areopagita (Pseudo-)
xxviii, xxxii, 101, 123, 124, 126-
128, 141, 153
Durandus de Campania 56
Elias de Ferreriis xvii
Eustachius de Grandicuria 22
Galienus de Orto 37, 88
Garsias Hispanus 41, 44, 46, 56
Gelasius I papa 2, 6
Gerardus de Abbatisvilla xv, xxvii,
21,28,31
Gervasius Montis Sancti Eligi 23, 24
Godefridus de Fontibus xix, 13, 22-
25, 33, 86, 108-110, 116, 119, 120
Godefridus de Trano 42-44, 46, 56, 78
Gratianus 26, 78
Gregorius I Magnus papa 84
Gregorius VII papa (Hildebrandus) 6
Gregorius IX papa (Hugo(linus)
Segninus) 45, 78
Guerricus de Sancto Quintino xiv, 25
Guido de Monte Rocherii 32, 33, 62
Guido Ebroicensis 54, 55
Guigo Carthusiensis 84
Guilelmus de Caioco 54, 90
Guilelmus Durandus 26, 42, 44, 46,
56
Guilelmus de Falegar 22
Guilelmus Lyndwood 59
Guilelmus de Mara 56
Guilelmus de Pagula 32, 35, 38, 57-
59, 62
Guilelmus de Parisiis 38, 39, 62, 88
Guilelmus Peraldus xviii, xix, 66, 67,
78, 79, 83-87, 150, 151
162 L. BOYLE

Guilelmus Redonensis 40, 42, 43, 46, Johannes Baconthorpe 58, 59

55, 56, 70 89 lohannes Bromyard 60, 66
Guilelmus de Tocco 156, 157 Iohannes de Balbi Ianuensis 37, 66
Guilelmus de Tomaco 67, 79, 151 Johannes de Burgo 58
Johannes Damascenus 84, 101, 102
Henricus Baltinglassensis, siue Crum- Johannes Duns Scotus 56
pe 25 Johannes Erfordiensis 55
Henricus de Belle 63 lohannes evangelista xxxiii, 142, 143
Henricus Crumpf (uide Henricus lohannes de Friburgo xv-xviii, xx, 26,
Baltinglassensis, siue Crumpe) 32,33,35,37- 64,66,67, 70, 76,
Henricus de Gandavo 13, 22-24, 33, 88-91, 108, 121
56, 119 Iohannes Gerson 61
Henricus Lubecensis 21 Johannes Lector (vide Johannes de
Henricus de Segusio, Hostiensis card. Friburgo)
37,41-44,46, 56,60 lohannes Meyer 52, 53
Hermannus de Minda 39, 41, 46 Johannes de Mirfield 52
Hervaeus Natalis 23 lohannes de Neapoli 25
Honorius III papa (Cencius Sabellus) lohannes Nider 61
xviii, xxxi, 53, 65, 66, 146, 147 lohannes Peckham xxvi, xxvii, 26, 33,
Hostiensis (uide Henricus de Segusio) 49, 50, 58, 60, 117-120
Hugo de Argentina (siue Ripelin) 38, Iohannes de Polliaco 26
66, 79,80 Johannes Quidort Parisiensis xi, 8-12
Hugo de Sancto Caro 66, 67, 69, 114, Johannes de Versiaco 51, 61
144 lohannes Wallensis 117
Humbertus de Romanis xxxi, 13, 68- Johannes de Wardo 26
70, 73, 76-78, 81-83, 144-147, Isidorus Hispatensis-(siue de Sevilla)
150, 151 84

Iacobus de Aqui 16 Macrobius (Ambrosius Theodosius)

Iacobus de Ascolo 24 86
Iacobus de Cessolis 67 Maimonides xxxii, 153
Jacobus Perusinus xxii, 104-106 Marinus de Ebulo 69, 87
Iacobus Rainucii de Castrobono (uide Matthaeus evangelista 58, 59
Iacobus Perusinus) Matthaeus Parisiensis 113
Iacobus de Viterbio 15
lacobus de Voragine 66, 79, 151 Nicolaus de Dinkelsbühl 54
Ibn Rusd, Abû l'Walid (siue Aver- Nicolaus de Mediolano 104, 105
mes) xxxii, 153 Nicolaus Trevetus 17
Ibn Sinâ, Abû' Ali (siue Avicenna) Nicolaus de Valle Cemaii 15
xxxii, 153
Innocentius III papa (Lotarius Segni- Ovidius (Publius O. Naso) 84
nus) 146
Innocentius IV papa (Sinibaldus de Paulus apostolus 108
Flisco) 44 Petrus de Alvemia 22
Johannes XXII papa (lacobus de Petrus Comestor 69, 76, 78, 150
Eusa) 52, 53 Petrus Johannes Olivi 21
Johannes Andreae 56
 INDEX DES AUTEURS ANCIENS ET MÉDIÉVAUX
Petrus Lombardus xvii, 76, 87, 93, 97,
102, 150
Petrus Sampson 44
Petrus de Tarentasia xvi, 33, 38-40,
42-45, 47, 55-64, 66, 68, 76, 88,
89
Plato xxxii, 153
Priscianus 96
Raimundus de Pennaforti xvi-xix, 26,
33,37,39,40,42-46,50,53-58,
60-64, 66, 67, 69-71, 76-78, 80,
83, 84, 87-90, 150
Rainaldus de Piperno 152, 157
Rainerius de Pisis 52
Rainerius de Claromaresco 26
Ranulphus Higden 35, 62
Ricardus de Mediavilla 23, 56
Robertus Curtonus (siue de Chor-
ceone, Chorcon uel Curson) 149
Robertus de Flainesbure siue de
Flamborough (uide Robertus de
Sancto Victore)
Robertus Grossatesta xiii
Robertus Holcot 14, 33, 59, 60
163
Robertus de Sancto Victore 37
Rogerus Marston 13, 24, 26
Seneca (Lucius Annaeus) 84
Sigerus de Brabantia 17-19, 110
Silvester de Prierio (siue Prierias) 32,
54, 55,64
Simon de Hinton xvii, 67, 70, 79, 80,
151
Stephanus de Salaniaco 104
Tancredus Bononiensis 60
Tholomaeus de Fiadonis Lucanus x,
xxi, xxv, xxvi, 1, 8, 72, 75, 77, 86,
93-95, 97, 98, 102, 115, 121, 152
Thomas de Chobham 37, 40, 61
Thomas de Sutton 25
Thomas Wygenhale 52
Thomas de Wylton (siue Wilton) 22
Ulricus Engelberti de Argentina xvi,
32,33,39,40,42,43,47,56,60-
63, 89
Vincentius Bellovacensis 66, 70, 87
 INDEX DES AUTEURS MODERNES

Abbondanza, R. 52 Creytens, R. 65
Alberigo, J. 146
Aldridge, H.R.52 d'Entrèves, A.P. 107
Alzeghy, S.37 Daguillon, J. 63
Aubert, J.M. 70 Dahan, G. xxvii
Axters, S. 15, 32 Deman, T. 84
Denifle, H.-S. 17, 91, 150
Bataillon, L.-J. xxi, xxiii, xxix, 129 Destrez, J. 17, 18, 32, 33, 49
Bazan, B.C. xv de Wulf, M. 22, 25
Bellarmino, R. 7, 8, 12 Di Lorenzo, R.D. 67
Berg, K. 54 Dietterle, J. 40, 41, 54-56, 63
Bemath, K. 109 Doelle, F. 55
Berthier, J.J. 13, 68 Dondaine, A. 68, 70, 72, 75, 83, 86, 93,
Black, J. xiv 104, 115, 126, 153
Bleienstein, F. 8-11 Dondaine, H.-F. xxi-xxvi, 69, 75, 85,
Blumenkranz, B. xxv, 107, 117 93-104, 108, 109, 112, 116, 119,
Blythe, J.M. xii 124, 128, 130, 141
Boner, G. 38 du Pin, E. 61
Bonino, S.-Th. xii
Borgnet, A. 80, 126, 132, 135, 137, Echard, J. xxvi, 15, 115
156 Emden, A.B. 94
Boureau, A. xv Emery, G. xxiv
Boyle, J.F. xxii Eschmann, I.T. x-xii, 1-12, 18, 109
Boyle, L.E. xiii, xvii, 23, 57, 58, 60, Etzkom, G.F. 24, 25
65,67, 70, 149
Brady, I.C. 24, 25, 119 Fau!haber, C.B. 116, 117
Broomfield, F. 40 Feret, H.-M. 39
Brown, J. xiii Ferrua, A. 93
Finke, H. 39, 40
Cai, R. 143 Flamm, H. 39
Canto-Sperber, M. xx Fransen, G. xv
Caracciolo, A. 124 Friedberg, A. 2
Caramello, F. 19 Fries, A. 39
Castagnoli, P. 18
Chapotin, M.-D. 114, 115 Gauthier, R.-A. xiii, xiv, xxviii, xxxii,
Chatelain, E. 91, 150 72
Chenu, M.-D. ix, 14, 40, 81 Gils, P.-M. xxix, 123, 124, 128
Congar, Y.-M.-J. 156 Gilson, E. 18, 109
Constable, G. ix Giorgino, G. 56
Corbett, J.A. 67
166 L. BOYLE

Glorieux,P.xxv, 13-15, 17-29,31, Marmursztejn, E. xv

47, 49, 109, 110, 116, 119, 120 Mathis, J. 1
Goldman, A. 85 Maurer, A.A. 32, 88
Gonzalez-Haba, M. 25 Meersseman, G.G. 105, 114
Grabmann, M. xvii, 37, 38, 61, 88, Meier, L. 13
109 Meyer, G. 156
Guyot, B.-G. xxix, 129 Michaud-Quantin, P. 41, 52, 55, 56
Molari, C. 27
Hain, L. 33, 64 Monier, R. 112
Hamesse, J. ix Mulchahey, M.M. xvii
Hartley, P. 52
Hartzheim, J. 38 Oediger, F.W. 38
Holmstedt, G. 52 Oliva, A. xxii, xxiii, xxix

Imbach, R. xii Panella, E. xxii

Inguanez, M. 126 Papenbroeck, D. 124
Isaac, J. 18-20 Pelster, F. 14, 17-20
Pelzer, A. 22, 25
Jacquart, D. xv Pennington, K. 70
Johnson, M. xxii, xxiii Pera, C. 19
Jordan, M. xii Perrier, J. 1, 3-6
Phelan, G.B. 1, 6
Kaeppeli, T. 67, 68, 80, 83, 88, 90, Pirenne, H. xxv, 108, 109, 111, 116
104, 126 Principe, W.H. xiv
Koudelka, V.J. 146 Prümmer, D. 88
Kübel, W. 142
Klinzle, P. 65 Quetif, J. xxvi, 16, 115
Kuttner, S. 40, 58
Ramirez, J. xxiii
Ladner, R. 53 Reichert, B.M. 45, 150
Laurent, M.H. 88, 157 Renardy, C. 120
Le Brun-Gouanvic, C. 157 Robles Sierra, A. 126
Leclercq, J. 8-11, 30 Rouse, M.A. 67, 131, 144
Lievens, R. 111 Rouse, R.H. xxix, 67, 129, 131, 144
Liotta, F.F. 149 Roy, B. 123
Lipsius, J. 108 Ruf, P. 86
Little, A.G. 14 Ruh, K. 37
Lobato, A. 142 Ryan, J.J. 58
von Loë, P. 41
Loenertz, R.J. 146 Samaran, C. 86
Luard, J.R. 113 Scheeben, H.-C. 39, 53
Lusignan, S. 66, 88 Schmaus, M. 25
von Schulte, J.F. 54-56
Maier, A. 53 Shooner, H.V. xxvii-xxix, 85, 123, 124,
Mandonnet, P. 1, 16-20, 53, 71 128-131, 141
Marc, P. 18-20 Simon, P. xxviii, xxix, 128-131, 133,
Marichal, R. 86 134, 142
 INDEX DES AUTEURS MODERNES 167

Simonin, H.-D. 63
Smalley, B. 58
Spiazzi, R. 29
Stanka, R. 54
Stintzing, R. 54
Stoneman, W.P. xiii
Synave, P. 17-20

Teetaert, A. 38, 40, 62

Théry, G. 123-127
Thiel, A. 2, 6
Thomas, A.H. 67, 150
Torrell, J.-P. x, xiv, xx, xxiii, xxiv, 75,
153, 157
Tugwell, S. xxxi, 145, 147, 157

Uccelli, P.A. 124, 125

Van Mingroot, E. 111

Van Steenberghen, F. 19, 20
Van Uytven, R. 111, 119
Vansteenkiste, C.J. xxi, xxiii, xxvi,
XXX
Verbeke, G. 107
Verbeke, W. 111
Verhelst, D. 107
Vicaire, M.-H. 53

Wade Labarge, M. 112

Walz, A. 39, 40, 53, 70
Watt, J. 8
Wauters, A. 112, 113
Weisheipl, J.A. 18-20, 69, 85, 109
Wielockx, R. xxix
Wippel, J.W. xv

Zigliara, T.M. 120

Zimmermann, A. 156
 INDEX DES MANUSCRITS
Bologna, Convento di S. Domenico,
s.n.: 126, 127
Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale, 2070
(2434-52): 63
Cambridge, St. John's College, 355:
61
Cambridge, Trinity College, 348: 59
Cambridge, University Library, Dd.
xi. 83: 52
Cambridge, University Library, Ee.
iii. 58: 54
Cambridge, University Library, li. vi.
39:52
Cambridge, University Library, Kk. i.
9:63
Cambridge, University Library, Mm.
i. 20: 35, 62
Canterbury, Dean and Chapter Libra-
ry, B. 10: 61
London, British Museum, Royal 9 C
1: 41
London, British Museum, Royal 10 C
X: 60
Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional. 5544:
126, 127
Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, I. B. 54:
123-125, 134, 135, 141, 142
Napoli, Convento di S. Domenico
Maggiore, s.n.: 126, 127
New York, Hispanie Society of
America, B2716: 117, 118
Oxford, Balliol College, 86: 52
Oxford, Balliol College, 246: 14
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley
293: 35,58,59,62
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley
332: 52
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley
801:52
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hamilton
34: 56
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 11:
38,53
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson
C. 19: 52
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson
C.288:38
Oxford, Lincoln College, lat. 95: 75,
94, 95, 97-105
Oxford, Merton College, 217: 38
Oxford, New College, 292: 32, 57
Oxford, Oriel College, 38: 55
Paris, Bobliothèque Mazarine, 1652:
117,118
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat.
15351:49
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat.
15795: 86
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat.
16297: 120
Salemo, Museo del Duomo, s.n.: 123-
142
Valladolid, Colegio Escocés, s.n.:
126, 127
Valletta, La (Malta), Cathedra!, s.n.:
126, 127
Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat.
718: 131-134
170 L. BOYLE

Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca

Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 712:
131-134
Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 799:
29
Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 932:
24
Zaragoza, Monasterio de Santa Inés,
s.n.: 126, 127