[FREE PDF sample] Aristotle in aquinas s theology 1st edition emery ebooks

Page 1


https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-inaquinas-s-theology-1st-edition-emery/ Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

God the Father in the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas

American University Studies Ku

https://ebookgate.com/product/god-the-father-in-the-theology-ofst-thomas-aquinas-american-university-studies-ku/

Aristotle Rhetoric 1st Edition Aristotle

https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-rhetoric-1st-editionaristotle/

Theology after Postmodernity Divining the Void A Lacanian Reading of Thomas Aquinas 1st Edition Tina T. Beattie

https://ebookgate.com/product/theology-after-postmodernitydivining-the-void-a-lacanian-reading-of-thomas-aquinas-1stedition-tina-t-beattie/

Aristotle On Poetics 1st Edition Aristotle

https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-on-poetics-1st-editionaristotle-2/

Aristotle on Poetics 1st Edition Aristotle

https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-on-poetics-1st-editionaristotle/

Aristotle s Metaphysics Beta 1st Edition Michel Crubellier

https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-s-metaphysics-beta-1stedition-michel-crubellier/

Plato Gorgias and Aristotle Rhetoric Aristotle

https://ebookgate.com/product/plato-gorgias-and-aristotlerhetoric-aristotle/

Aristotle s Problemata in Different Times and Tongues 1st Edition Pieter De Leemans

https://ebookgate.com/product/aristotle-s-problemata-indifferent-times-and-tongues-1st-edition-pieter-de-leemans/

Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle s Science of Nature 1st Edition Mariska Leunissen

https://ebookgate.com/product/explanation-and-teleology-inaristotle-s-science-of-nature-1st-edition-mariska-leunissen/

ARISTOTLEINAQUINAS ’ STHEOLOGY

AristotleinAquinas’ s Theology

MATTHEWLEVERING

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries

# OxfordUniversityPress2015

Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2015

Impression:1

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015940445

ISBN978–0–19–874963–9

Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY

LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.

Editors’ Preface

ThisworkinvestigatestheroleofAristotelianconcepts,principles,andthemes inThomasAquinas’stheology.Thetenchaptersareintendedtoprovidean introductiontothesigni ficanceofAquinas’stheologicalreceptionofAristotle incertainmajorloci:theTrinity,theangels,soulandbody,theMosaiclaw, grace,charity,justice,contemplationandaction,Christ,andthesacraments. Someofthesechaptersfocusonthe Summatheologiae ,whileothersrange morewidelyinAquinas’scorpus.Aristotelianconcepts,ofcourse,appear throughoutAquinas’stheology.Jean-PierreTorrellhaspointedoutthat “the presenceandinfluenceofAristotleinThomas’swritingsnolongerhaveto beshown. ... ThomasretainedsomanyimportantelementsofAristotle’ s thoughtthattheycannotbenumbered.”1 Ontheonehand,forquitesome time,ithasaboveallbeentheinfluenceofAristotleonAquinas’ s philosophy thathasbeenthecenterofattention.ThomasO’Mearastates, “Oftenthe approachtoThomasAquinasduringtheneo-Thomistrevivalfrom1850to 1960wastodescribeaphilosophy.Duringthattimefarmorebookstreatedhis philosophythanhistheology. ... Asearchthroughalibrarycatalogueora perusalofabibliographyofarticlesonAquinaswrittenpriortoVaticanII yieldsmorematerialonthemetaphysicsofanunmovedmoverortheabstract descriptionofphilosophicalvirtuesthanonsalvationbyJesusortheroleofa sacrament.”2 Ontheotherhand,perhapsinreactiontophilosophicalneoThomism,orperhapsbecausethisAristotelianinfluenceappearsnolonger necessarytodemonstrate,theroleofAristotleinAquinas’ s theology presently receiveslesstheologicalattentionthandoesAquinas’suseofotherauthorities, especiallyindomainsoutsideoftheologicalethics somuchsothatinsome theologicalcirclestheinfluenceofAristotleuponAquinas’stheologyisno longerwellunderstood.

WhenAquinasdescribeshisuseof “authorities” inthe Summatheologiae,he statesthat sacradoctrina accepts “theauthorityofphilosophersinthosequestionsinwhichtheywereabletoknowthetruthbynaturalreason.”3 Hecarefully adds,however,that sacradoctrina “makesuseoftheseauthoritiesasextrinsic andprobablearguments,” bycontrasttotheproperandincontrovertible

1 Jean-PierreTorrell,OP, Aquinas’sSumma:Background,Structure,andReception ,trans. BenedictM.Guevin(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2005), pp.76–7.

2 ThomasF.O’Meara,OP, ThomasAquinasTheologian (NotreDame,IN:Universityof NotreDamePress,1997),pp.xi–xii.

3 ST I,q.1,a.8,ad2.Englishtranslationfrom:ThomasAquinas, SummaTheologiae,trans. FathersoftheEnglishDominicanProvince,vol.1(Westminster,MD:ChristianClassics,1981).

“authorityofthecanonicalScriptures ” andtheproperbutonlyprobable authorityoftheFathers.4 Hisvisionandpracticeoftheology firmlyavoid rationalism.Inthislight,TorrellaptlypresentsAquinasasa “spiritualmaster” anda “mystic” : “The figurewhoattimesseemstobeknownonlyforhis philosophyisalso firstandforemostatheologian,acommentatoronSacred Scripture,anattentivestudentoftheFathersoftheChurch,andaman concernedaboutthespiritualandpastoralrepercussionsofhisteaching.”5 Aquinasisindeed “firstandforemostatheologian.” AsRobertBarronwrites: “WhenoneinterpretsThomasasarationalistphilosopherortheologian,one missestheburningheartofeverythinghewrote.Aquinaswasasaintdeeplyin lovewithJesusChrist,andtheimageofChristpervadestheentireedificethat ishisphilosophical,theological,andscripturalwork.Aboveall,Thomas Aquinaswasaconsummatespiritualmaster,holdinguptheiconofthe Wordmade fleshandinvitingothersintoitstransformativepower.”6

NotleastbecauseofthesuccessofTorrell’smasterfulwork,scholarstoday tendtofocusonthebiblical,patristic,andliturgicalsourcesofAquinas’ s theology,aswellasonAquinas’sdebtstoPlatonicinsightssuchasparticipation.7 Butforthisveryreason,Aquinas’stheologicaluseofAristotlerequires

4 ST I,q.1,a.8,ad2.SeeM.-D.Chenu’sclassicdiscussionofAquinas ’suseof “auctoritates” in Marie-DominiqueChenu,OP, TowardUnderstandingSaintThomas,trans.AlbertM.Landry andDominicHughes(Chicago:HenryRegnery,1964),ch.4.

5 Jean-PierreTorrell,OP, SaintThomasAquinas,vol.2,SpiritualMaster,trans.RobertRoyal (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2003),p.vii.SeealsoJean-Pierre Torrell,OP, ChristandSpiritualityinSt.ThomasAquinas,trans.BernhardBlankenhorn (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2011);PaulD.Murray,OP, AquinasatPrayer:TheBible,MysticismandPoetry (London:Bloomsbury,2013).

6 RobertBarron, ThomasAquinas:SpiritualMaster (NewYork:Crossroad,1996),p.13.

7 Amongmanyexcellentstudies,seeThomasF.Ryan, ThomasAquinasasReaderofthe Psalms (NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2000);AntoineGuggenheim, Jésus Christ,grandprêtredel’ancienneetdelanouvelleAlliance:Étudethéologiqueetherméneutique ducommentairedesaintThomasd’Aquinsurl’ÉpîtreauxHébreux (Paris:ParoleetSilence, 2004);ThomasG.Weinandy,O.F.M.Cap.,DanielA.Keating,andJohnP.Yocum,eds., Aquinas onScripture:AnIntroductiontohisBiblicalCommentaries (London:T.&T.Clark,2005); MatthewLeveringandMichaelDauphinais,eds., ReadingRomanswithSt.ThomasAquinas (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2012);Paweł Klimczak,OP, ChristusMagister:LeChristMaîtredanslescommentairesévangéliquesdesaintThomasd’Aquin (Fribourg:AcademicPress,2014);FranO’Rourke, Pseudo-DionysiusandtheMetaphysicsof Aquinas (Leiden:Brill,1992);RudiA.teVelde, ParticipationandSubstantialityinThomas Aquinas (Leiden:Brill,1995);GregoryT.Doolan, AquinasontheDivineIdeasasExemplar Causes (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2008);MichaelDauphinais, BarryDavid,andMatthewLevering,eds., AquinastheAugustinian (Washington,DC:The CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2007).Recentworksinmoraltheologyandphilosophy havecontinuedtoexploreAquinas’sdebttoAristotle:seeforinstanceMaryM.Keys, Aquinas, Aristotle,andthePromiseoftheCommonGood (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006); NicholasE.Lombardo,OP, TheLogicofDesire:AquinasonEmotion (Washington,DC:The CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2011);DanielMcInerny, TheDifficultGood:AThomistic ApproachtoMoralConflictandHumanHappiness (NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress, 2006);FabrizioAmerini, AquinasontheBeginningandEndofHumanLife,trans.Mark Henninger(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2013).

renewedattention,lestthestudyofAquinas’stheologybecomeone-sided.Our work,therefore,highlightsthesignificanceofAristotleinAquinas’stheology. ReaderswillencounterherethegreatAristotelianthemes,suchasactand potency,Godaspureact,substanceandaccidents,powerandgeneration, changeandmotion,fourfoldcausality,formandmatter,hylomorphicanthropology,thestructureofintellection,therelationshipbetweenknowledgeand will,happinessandfriendship,habitsandvirtues,contemplationandaction, politicsandjustice,thebestformofgovernment,privateproperty,andthe commongood.

Somegeneralbackgroundtoourtopicwillbehelpful,sinceAquinas’suseof AristotleshouldnotbeviewedinisolationfromthewholeofChristian theology.Thisisespeciallysoinanintroductoryworksuchasthepresent volume,whosetheologicalaudiencecanbeassumedtopossesswidelydifferingdegreesoffamiliaritywithAristotle’sreceptioninChristiantheologyover thecenturies.Itisnosecret,ofcourse,thatstrongcritiquesofAristotlehave beencommonplaceinthehistoryoftheology.Forexample,Gregoryof Nazianzus,thoughbenefitingfromAristotle’sphilosophyinsomeways, nonethelesscondemnedAristotle’ s “meanconceptionofProvidence,hisartificialsystem,hismortalviewofthesoul,andthehuman-centerednatureofhis teaching.”8 Likewise,AugustinecomplainedthathisreadingofAristotle’ s Categories ledhimtothinkofGodassimplyanothersubstance.9 Andinthe thirteenthcenturyalone,theCatholicChurch’ shierarchywarnedagainstthe theologicaluseofAristotlein1215,1228,1231,1245,1263,1270,and1277.10

DuringtheRenaissanceandReformationperiod,Aristotleoftencame underparticularlystrongattack.Thus,inhisLettertoMartinDorp(1514), DesideriusErasmuscriticized “moderntheology” as “socontaminatedwith Aristotle,withtriflingideasthoughtupbymen,evenwithsecularlaws,that IhardlyseehowitcanpreservethetruesavorofChrist,whoispureand uncontaminated.”11 Erasmuswentontoaskrhetorically: “Whatconnectionis there,Iaskyou,betweenChristandAristotle?orbetweensophisticalquibbles andthemysteriesofeternalwisdom?Wherewilltheselabyrinthsofquestions

8 GregoryofNazianzus, Oration 27,inGregoryofNazianzus, OnGodandChrist:TheFive TheologicalOrationsandTwoLetterstoCledonius,trans.FrederickWilliamsandLionelWickham(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,2002),p.33.GregoryequallycriticizesPlato forhisdoctrineofideasandhishypothesisthatsoulsarecyclicallyreincarnated.

9 Augustine, Confessions IV,XVI;trans.HenryChadwick(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1991),pp.69–70.

10 UlrichG.Leinsle, IntroductiontoScholasticTheology,trans.MichaelJ.Miller(Washington, DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2010),pp.138–41and144–7.SeealsoRobert Pasnau, “TheLatinAristotle,” in TheOxfordHandbookofAristotle,editedbyChristopher Shields(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),pp.665–89.

11 DesideriusErasmus, “Erasmus’ LettertoMartinDorp(1514),” in ThePraiseofFolly,trans. ClarenceH.Miller(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1979),pp.139–74,at155.

getus?”12 Afewyearslater,MartinLutherrejected(asheputit) “the Thomistic thatis,theAristotelianchurch.”13 Inthecourseofarguingagainst transubstantiation,Lutherobservedthat “Aristotlespeaksofsubjectand accidentssoverydifferentlyfromSt.Thomasthatitseemstomethisgreat man[St.Thomas]istobepitiednotonlyforattemptingtodrawhisopinions inmattersoffaithfromAristotle,butalsoforattemptingtobasethemupona manwhomhedidnotunderstand,thusbuildinganunfortunatesuperstructureuponanunfortunatefoundation.”14

Morerecently,butalongquitesimilarlines,KarlBarthaffirmedthat “the ChristianChurchcertainlydoesnotnumberAristotleamongitsancestors.”15 TheRussianOrthodoxtheologianSergiusBulgakov,forhispart,warnedthat “withinthelimitsofAristotle’scategories,therecanbenomaningeneral; humannatureexistsonlyinparticularindividuals(thatispreciselywhythe heresyoftritheismgrewoutofthesoilofAristotelianism).”16 And,voicinga representativepostmodernviewpoint,thecontemporaryphilosopherGianni Vattimohasrejected “theattributesfoundinAristotle’spureactorinParmenides’sBeing,whichstandradicallyopposedtotheideaofBeingasacreation ofafreeandlovingGod.”17

Asonewouldexpect,however,defendersoftheroleofAristotleintheology havenotbeenlacking.Indeed,thedepthandbreadthoftheologicalindebtednesstoAristotleoverthecenturiescaneasilygounappreciatedtoday, evenbyscholarswhorecognizeAristotle’ssignificanceforAquinas.Richard Rubensteinpointsoutthatformanycenturies,Aristotlewasutterlycentralin awidevarietyof fieldsofstudyforJewish,Christian,andIslamicscholars. Duringthemedievalperiod, “onecouldnotbeginadiscussionofmetaphysics, naturalscience,logic,theology,ethics,aesthetics,orpoliticswithoutreferring

12 Erasmus, “Erasmus’ LettertoMartinDorp,” p.155.

13 MartinLuther, “TheBabylonianCaptivityoftheChurch,” in MartinLuther’sBasic TheologicalWritings,ed.TimothyF.Lull(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1989), pp.267–313,at285.SeeDenisR.Janz, LutheronThomasAquinas:TheAngelicDoctorinthe ThoughtoftheReformer (Stuttgart:F.SteinerVerlag,1989);OttoH.Pesch, MartinLuther, ThomasvonAquinunddiereformatorischeKritikanderScholastik:ZurGeschichteund WirkungsgeschichteeinesMißverständnissesmitweltgeschichtlichenFolgen (Hamburg:Joachim Jungius-GesellschaftderWissenschaften,1994).

14 Luther, “TheBabylonianCaptivity,” p.285.

15 KarlBarth, ChurchDogmatics,vol.1,TheDoctrineoftheWordofGod,part1,trans. GeoffreyW.Bromiley,2nded.(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1975),p.11.SeealsoThomasJoseph White,OP, “Introduction:ThomasAquinasandKarlBarth,AnUnofficialCatholic–Protestant Dialogue,” in ThomasAquinasandKarlBarth:AnUnofficialCatholic–ProtestantDialogue, editedbyBruceL.McCormackandThomasJosephWhite(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans, 2013),pp.1–39.

16 SergiusBulgakov, TheLambofGod,trans.BorisJakim(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans, 2008),p.67.

17 GianniVattimo, AfterChristianity,trans.LucaD’Isanto(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press,2002),p.120.

toAristotle’sviewsanddealingrespectfullywiththem.”18 Dependingonthe Latintranslationsthatweregraduallymadeavailabletothem,19 allhigh-and late-medievalChristiantheologiansintheWestwereindialoguewithAristotleandwithMusliminterpretersofAristotlesuchasIbnSina(Avicenna) andIbnRushd(Averroes).20

IntheChristianEast,amongthemanyEasternFatherswhocouldbe named,BasiltheGreat’ s AgainstEunomius exhibitsthefruitfulinfluenceof Aristotle’ s Categories andotherworks asdoesJohnofDamascus’swellknown PhilosophicalChapters,whichdrawsheavilyupontheeclecticAristotelianismofNemesiusofEmesa.21 Indeed,MarcusPlestedhasdemonstrated Aquinas’ s “continuityandaffinitywithalongtraditionofByzantinescholasticismgoingbacktotheChristologicaldebatesofthe fifthcenturyand recapitulatedinJohnofDamascus.”22 TheByzantinescholasticismthat Plestedtracesthroughthenineteenthcentury,ascholasticismthat(atleast withrespecttotheplacegiventoAristotelianphilosophy)includedGregory Palamas, findsaparallelnotonlyinthelongtraditionofCatholicscholasticismbutalsointhecenturiesofLutheranandReformedscholasticism,ledby figuressuchasFrancisTurretin.

18 RichardE.Rubenstein, Aristotle’sChildren:HowChristians,Muslims,andJewsRediscoveredAncientWisdomandIlluminatedtheDarkAges (NewYork:Harcourt,2003),p.283.

19 Theseries “AristotelesLatinus” (medievaltranslationsoftheworksofAristotle),partofthe “CorpusPhilosophorumMediiAevi,” isofthegreatesthelpinthisregard.Theproject,stillin progress,startedin1930,withthe firstvolumebeingpublishedin1951.Itiscurrentlysupervised andsupportedbytheInternationalUnionofAcademies.Forinstance,thanksto “Aristoteles Latinus,” MartaBorgowasabletodemonstratethatAquinas’scommentaryonthe firstbookof the Sentences makesuseofnolessthanfourdifferenttranslationsofAristotle’ s Metaphysics: MartaBorgo, “La Métaphysique d’Aristotedansle Commentaire deThomasd’AquinauIer livre des Sentences dePierreLombard:Quelquesexemplessignifi catifs,” RSPhTh 91(2007): pp.651–92.

20 See,forexample,MarilynMcCordAdams, SomeLaterMedievalTheoriesoftheEucharist: ThomasAquinas,GilesofRome,DunsScotus,andWilliamOckham (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2010);RussellL.Friedman, MedievalTrinitarianThoughtfromAquinastoOckham (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010).WhilecriticalofAristotleincertain respects largelytheveryrespectsidentifiedbyGregoryofNazianzus thegreatmedieval MuslimtheologianandlegalscholarAl-GhazalilikewisedrewuponAristotle,asdidmedieval JewishtheologiansandlegalscholarssuchasMaimonides,Gersonides,andSaadiahGaon.

21 SeeAndrewRadde-Gallwitz, BasilofCaesarea,GregoryofNyssa,andtheTransformationof DivineSimplicity (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);AndrewLouth, StJohnDamascene: TraditionandOriginalityinByzantineTheology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).

22 MarcusPlested, OrthodoxReadingsofAquinas (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012), p.223.Foracontrastingperspective,seeDavidBradshaw, AristotleEastandWest:Metaphysics andtheDivisionofChristendom (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004).Bradshaw holdsthatthebiggerproblemisAugustine: “ClearlythegulfseparatingAugustinefromthe easterntraditionisimmense.Itencompassessuchbasicissuesasthenatureofbeing,the simplicityofGod,theintelligibilityofGod,andthe finalgoalofhumanexistence.Whatis perhapsmostremarkableisthattheAugustinianpresuppositionswehavesketchedcouldcome todominatethethoughtoftheWest,whilehavingvirtuallynoinfluenceintheEast,andyetfor almostathousandyearsneithersiderecognizedwhathadhappened” (p.229).

Itisthusanexaggerationtosay,asFernandVanSteenberghendid,that inthethirteenthcentury, “Forthe firsttimeChristianthinkersweretobe confrontedwithAristotle;hisnaturalisticviewoftheuniversewastocome facetofacewiththeChristianoutlooksolongfamiliartothemindsofmen.”23 Nonetheless,giventhecenturies-longabsenceofmostofAristotle’sworks fromtheLatinWest,thethirteenthcenturymarkedinmanyrespectsanew beginning.24 ThatthiswassoisdemonstratednotleastbythemanycommentariesonAristotle’sworksauthoredbyAquinasandbyhisteacherAlbert theGreat.25 ThisdoesnotmeanthatAlbertandThomaswerethe firstto integrateAristotleinLatinscholastictheology.Theirworkhadbeenprepared bymanyothers,tothepointthatRené-AntoineGauthiersuggestedthat AquinasinheritedanAristotle “alreadyentirelyChristian” andthathiseffort wastogiveAristotleacertainpurity,inordertomakehimaninstrument ofhisowntheologicalreflection.26 AsFergusKerrremarked, “Thomasis palpablyathomeinAristotle’sworld:aworldthatissaturatedwithpurposefulness,aworldthatismeanttobeunderstoodinthesensethatitisour natureasrationalbeingstoinquireintotheworld’sorderandtocometo understandit.”27

Yet,whatdiditmeanforAquinastobe “athomeinAristotle’sworld”?In fact,inthelatethirteenthcentury,somemedievalthinkerssuchasDietrichof FreibergsharplycriticizedAquinasforwronglyreadingAristotle,28 thatis,for submittingAristotletotherequirementsofChristiantheology.Inourday,the

23 FernandVanSteenberghen, AristotleintheWest:TheOriginsofLatinAristotelianism, trans.LeonardJohnston(NewYork:HumanitiesPress,1970),p.59.

24 SeeRalphM.McInerny, TheQuestionofChristianEthics (Washington,DC:The CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1993),pp.4 –5.SeealsoRalphM.McInerny, “ Why IAmaThomist, ” AmericanCatholicPhilosophicalQuarterly 83(2009):pp.323– 30;Jude P.Dougherty, “WretchedAristotle,” in IndubitanteradVeritatem:StudiesOfferedtoLeo J.EldersSVDinHonoroftheGoldenJubileeofhisOrdinationtothePriesthood ,editedby JörgenVijgen(Budel:Damon,2003),pp.126 –32.ForarebuttaloftheologicalandphilosophicaleffortstodistanceAquinasfrom Aristotle,seealsoRalphM.McInerny, Praeambula Fidei:ThomismandtheGodofthePhilosophers (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,2006).

25 FortherelationshipbetweenAlbert’sworkandAquinas’s,seetheintroductionsprovided bySimonTugwellinSimonTugwell,OP,ed., AlbertandThomas:SelectedWritings (Mahwah, NJ:PaulistPress,1988).

26 Onthis,seeJean-PierreTorrell,OP, SaintThomasAquinas,vol.1,ThePersonandhis Work,trans.RobertRoyal,rev.ed.(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress, 2005),p.238.

27 FergusKerr, ThomasAquinas:AVeryShortIntroduction (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2009),p.28.

28 SeeRuediImbach, “PourquoiThierrydeFreiberga-t-ilcritiquéThomasd’Aquin?Remarquessurle Deaccidentibus, ” FreiburgerZeitschriftfürPhilosophieundTheologie 45(1998): pp.116–29.Onthisanti-ThomisticreceptionofAristotle,seeCatherineKönig-Pralong, “DietrichdeFreiberg:Métaphysicienallemandantithomiste,” RThom 108(2008):pp.57–79.This issueoftheFrench Revuethomiste (108/1)isentirelydedicatedtoanti-Thomisminmedieval andmodernthought. x Editors’ Preface

degreeofAquinas’srealindebtednesstoAristotlehasbeenquestionedby MarkJordaninhis TheAllegedAristotelianismofThomasAquinas. 29 Wayne HankeyandFranO’RourkehaveemphasizedtheNeoplatoniccharacterof Aquinas’sthought,oftenagainsttheviewthatAristotleisAquinas’sprimary philosophicalsource.30 HankeyremarkswithregardtoAquinas’sphilosophy of esse,forexample, “WhatservedtodistinguishThomasfromAristotleinthis regard ... infactratherservestodistinguishhispositionasNeoplatonicas opposedtoAristotelian.Indeed,thecharacteristicsmeanttoplaceThomas andAvicennatogetherinthetraditionofExodusratherservetoidentifytheir common filiationfromPorphyry.”31 InlightofJordan’sworkandthatof others,KerrobservesthatcallingAquinasan “Aristotelian”“requiresnuancing,inthelightofrecentscholarship,evenifitisplausibleatall.”32

IntheperiodleadinguptotheSecondVaticanCouncil,Aristotle’srolein Catholictheologybecameamatterofintensedebate.Scholarsassociatedwith whatcametobecalledthe nouvellethéologie foundtheregnantscholastic formsoftheologytobedryandoverlyabstract.Theyblamedmuchofthison theinfluenceofAristotle,aswellasonAquinas’sbaroquecommentatorswho seemedtothemtohaveminimizedthebiblicalandpatristicsourcesof Aquinas’sthoughtandtohavemaximizedtheAristotelianelements.At issue,inlargepart,waswhatisrequiredtoensurethe “scientific ” character ofdogmatictheology.

Marie-DominiqueChenu’searlycontributiontothisdebate, UneÉcolede théologie:LeSaulchoir,wasplacedontheIndexofForbiddenBooksin1942 andledtohisremovalfromhisteachingposition.33 Inlaterworks,he

29 SeeMarkD.Jordan, TheAllegedAristotelianismofThomasAquinas (Toronto:Pontifi cal InstituteofMediaevalStudies,1992).

30 SeeO’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius;WayneJ.Hankey, GodinHimself:Aquinas’ Doctrineof GodasExpoundedinthe SummaTheologiae(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987).Seealso thebalancedanderuditestudybyteVelde, ParticipationandSubstantiality

31 Hankey, GodinHimself,p.6.SeealsothenumerousmorerecentstudiesbyWayne J.Hankey,includinghis “DenysandAquinas:AntimodernColdandPostmodernHot,” in ChristianOrigins:Theology,RhetoricandCommunity,editedbyLewisAyresandGarethJones (London:Routledge,1998),pp.139–84.SimonTugwellrightlyobservedthat “Thomashada muchsharperawarenessthanAlbertdidofthedifferencesbetweenAristotelianismandPlatonism” (SimonTugwell,OP, “Aquinas:Introduction,” in AlbertandThomas,pp.201–351,at203).

32 FergusKerr, AfterAquinas:VersionsofThomism (Oxford:Wiley–Blackwell,2002),p.9.

33 FordiscussionseeHansBoersma, NouvelleThéologieandSacramentalOntology:AReturn toMystery (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),pp.135–48;McInerny, PraeambulaFidei, ch.5: “TheChenuCase”;JanetteGray,R.S.M., “Marie-DominiqueChenuandLeSaulchoir: AStreamofCatholicRenewal,” in Ressourcement:AMovementforRenewalinTwentiethCenturyCatholicTheology,editedbyGabrielFlynnandPaulD.Murray(Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2012),pp.205–18.SeealsotheparticularlyimportantarticlebyThomasJoseph White,OP, “ThePrecarityofWisdom:ModernDominicanTheology,Perspectivalism,andthe TasksofReconstruction,” in RessourcementThomism:SacredDoctrine,theSacraments,andthe MoralLife:EssaysinHonorofRomanusCessario,OP,editedbyReinhardHütterandMatthew Levering(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2010),pp.92–123.

addressedourtopicdirectly.Thus,in TowardUnderstandingSaintThomas, Chenutooknoteof “theinnumerableAristotelianthreadsthatrunthrough thewarpandwoofofthe Summatheologiae, ” andhepraisedthewaysin whichAquinasappropriatedandtransformedAristotle’santhropology, “just asgraceperfectsnaturewithoutviolencetoitsoriginalstructure.”34 Atthe sametime,hecautionedthatAquinascanonlyrightlybecalledan “Aristotelian” solongaswerecallthatAquinas’suseofAristotle,likeAelredof Rievaulx’suseofCicero,is “Newwineinoldskins! ”35 Chenuwascriticalofthe Aristotelianismthathefoundintheneo-scholastictradition,andheoften complainedoftheconfinesofAristotelianlogicwhentakentoostrictly.36

Fromthesametimeperiod,JosefPieper’ s GuidetoThomasAquinas devotedagoodbitofattentiontoAquinas’suseofAristotle.ForPieper,it wasnecessarytoinsistthatAquinasisnotan “Aristotelian,” lestthePlatonic andNeoplatonicaspectsofAquinas’sthoughtbeoverlooked.37 Ofcourse PieperdidnottherebymeantodenythatAquinasmadeextensiverecourse toAristotle.Onthecontrary, “We findThomasgivingusevernewshadesof thefundamentalAristotelianposition.Aristotle,hesays,refusestowithdraw fromtherealitiespresenttothesenses,refusestobedistractedfromthose thingsthatareevidenttotheeyes.AndThomashimselfemphaticallyaccepted thisprinciple.”38 YetAquinasdidnotdoso,Pieperemphasized,inthemanner ofsomeearliermedievalstudentsofAristotle,whoembracedAristotle’ s thoughtasanantidotetothespiritualsymbolismthathadpreviouslydominatedthemedievalworldview.PieperheldthatAquinasinstead “succeededin unitingthisheartyworldlinesswiththeradicalityoftheevangelicalspirit, whichhasalwaysrathertendedtowardnegationoftheworld,oratleast towardunworldliness.”39 Entrancedbythecreation,Aquinascouldembrace “Aristotle’sfundamentalattitudetowardtheuniverse,inhisaffirmationofthe

34 Chenu, TowardUnderstandingSaintThomas,pp.29and31.

35 Chenu, TowardUnderstandingSaintThomas,p.29.Foritsforce,Chenu’scomparison requiresthatoneknowthatonethirdofAelred’ s SpiritualFriendship (alongwiththestructureof thiswork)isdrawndirectlyfromCicero’ s Deamicitia.

36 SeeforexampleMarie-DominiqueChenu,OP, IsTheologyaScience?,trans.Adrian H.N.Green-Armytage(London:HawthornBooks,1959),p.78.Nonetheless,Chenuaffirmed that “theChurch’spreferenceforThomismisbaseduponthecoherenceofasystemwhich, throughcenturiesof fluxinphilosophyandreligiousexperience,hasprovedthebestadaptedto keepthetruthsofreligionintheirrightplace truthswhichmayeasilybecomedistortedbytheir veryattractiveness,whetherinthepassionatepreachingoftheGospelorinthediscoveryofthe powersofpurereason.Themaintenanceofawisebalanceguaranteesthebreadthofhisthought” (p.112).SeealsoPopeJohnPaulII’ sreflectionsonAquinasandAristotleinhis Memoryand Identity:ConversationsattheDawnoftheMillennium (NewYork:RizzoliInternationalPublications,2005),pp.39–41.

37 JosefPieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,trans.RichardandClaraWinston(SanFrancisco: IgnatiusPress,1991),p.43.

38 Pieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,p.44.

39 Pieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,p.48.

concreteandsensuousrealityoftheworld” preciselyontheologicalgrounds.40 InPieper’sphrase,Aquinascouldbeboth “for the ‘Gospel’ and for ‘Aristotle.’”41 Pieperconcluded: “ThomaswasneitherPlatonistnorAristotelian;he wasboth.”42

WhenChenuandPieperwerewriting,thetheologicalinterpretationof AquinasgenerallyemphasizedhisindebtednesstoAristotle.Iftodaythe theologicalsituationisquitedifferent,especiallyoutsideofthedomainof theologicalethics,itbehoovesustoexaminewhyAquinasfoundAristotle’ s philosophysovaluableforallareasoftheology.Itisnotpossibleinashort worktoexamineeachofthe Summa’ s “innumerableAristotelianthreads.” Thescopeofthepresentworkislimited.Butthestudiescontainedhere, writtenbytheologians,philosophers,andmedievalists,shouldhelpreadersto seehowandwhyAquinasfoundAristotleusefulinChristiantheology.

Asa finalstep,letusbrieflysurveythetenchaptersofthiswork.Someof themtakeastheirmaingoalafaithfulhistoricalexpositionofAquinas’suseof Aristotleonaparticulartopic.Others,whilestrivingtodescribeAquinas’ suse ofAristotlewithhistoricalaccuracy,envisionaprimarilyconstructiveand contemporarycontextfortheirwork.Theorderingofthechaptersfollowsthe planofthe(unfinished) Summatheologiae,beginningwithGodandending withthesacraments.Theopeningchapter,byGillesEmery,delvesinto Aquinas’suseofAristotleinhistheologyoftheTrinity.AsEmeryshows, Aristotleisamajorsourceforthestructure,theconcepts,andlanguagethat Aquinasemploysinordertodeepenhistheologicalaccountoftherevealed mystery.Serge-ThomasBoninotreatsAristotle’sroleintheangelologyof Aquinas,bothinhis Summatheologiae andinotherworkssuchashis De substantiisseparatis.AquinasusesAristotletoreflectupontheintegrityof angelicnatureandangelicaction,thepossiblemodesofangelicmovement andknowledge,theimmaterialityofangels,andthefactthateachangelisits ownspecificform.RaymondHaintreatsAristotle’sinfluenceonAquinas’ s doctrineofthesoul.AquinasthinksthatAristotleconsidersthesoultobe separableandimmortal,butevenso,thesoulistheformofthebodyandthus isgenuinelyunitedtomatter.Onthisbasis,Hainaddressestheissueofthe resurrectionofthebodyandthesoul’sexistenceafterdeath.MatthewLevering takesupAristotle’sroleinAquinas’streatiseontheOldLaw.Aquinasuses AristotletohelphimshowthattheMosaiclawisagoodandreasonablelaw, thekindoflawthatonewouldwantone’scommunitytohave.SimonFrancis GaineexaminesAristotle’sroleinAquinas’ stheologyofgrace,andshowshow AquinasemployedAristotletoclarifyimportantmatterspertainingtoour deification.GuyMansiniarguesthatAquinas’sunderstandingofcharityas

40 Pieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,p.49. 41 Pieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,p.49. 42 Pieper, GuidetoThomasAquinas,p.22.PieperrefersheretoLouis-BertrandGeiger,OP, LaparticipationdanslaphilosophiedeS.Thomasd’Aquin (Paris:Vrin,1942).

friendshipaccords,bothstrictlyandanalogously,withAristotle’sdefinitionof friendship.ChristopherA.FrankspresentsAquinas’suseofAristotlewith respecttothevirtueofjustice.Aquinastakeshisdefinitionofjusticefrom Aristotle,sothatourrights flowfromourconcretelyembodiedrelational dutiesratherthangroundingtheserelationalduties.MaryCatherineSommers discussesAquinas’stheologyofcontemplationandaction.Shenotesthat Aristotleofferseightargumentsinsupportoftheviewthatthecontemplative lifeisbetterthantheactivelife,andAquinasusesallofthemin ST II-II, q.182.YetAquinasholdsthatChrist,thoughhedidnotlivethecontemplative life,livedthemostperfectlife.CoreyL.BarnesreflectsuponAquinas’ s ChristologyasexhibitingwhatitmeanstodotheologyasanAristotelian scientia,withparticularattentionto fittingness, actionessuntsuppositorum, instrumentality,andChrist’sresurrection.Lastly,JohnP.YocumtracesAquinas ’suseofAristotleinhisteachingonthesacraments.Aquinascombines Augustine’stheoryofsignswithAristotle’sviewsofhumanlearningthrough thesenses.AquinasalsoemploysAristotle’sdoctrineofcausalitytoexpress thewayinwhichthesacramentscausegraceandleadustooursupernatural fulfillment.

WewishtoexpressourparticularthankstoÉmileFriche,adoctoral candidateattheUniversityofFribourgwhocurrentlyservesasGillesEmery’ s ResearchAssistant.Émileunifiedthestyleofreferencesinthefootnotes,he helpedtodrawupthe finalbibliographyandtheindices,andhealsocontributedinnumerousotherwaystothepreparationofthiswork.

GillesEmery,OP

MatthewLevering

Contents

Abbreviations xvii

ListofContributors xix

1.CentralAristotelianThemesinAquinas’sTrinitarian Theology1 GillesEmery,OP

2.AristotelianismandAngelologyAccordingtoAquinas29 Serge-ThomasBonino,OP

3.AquinasandAristotelianHylomorphism48 RaymondHain

4.AristotleandtheMosaicLaw70 MatthewLevering

5.Aristotle’sPhilosophyinAquinas’sTheologyofGrace inthe SummaTheologiae 94 SimonFrancisGaine,OP

6.AristotleandAquinas’sTheologyofCharityinthe SummaTheologiae 121 GuyMansini,OSB

7.AristotelianDoctrinesinAquinas’sTreatmentofJustice139 ChristopherA.Franks

8.ContemplationandActioninAristotleandAquinas167 MaryCatherineSommers

9.Aristotleinthe SummaTheologiae ’sChristology186 CoreyL.Barnes

10.AristotleinAquinas’ sSacramentalTheology205 JohnP.Yocum

Abbreviations

Ang.Angelicum

Demalo ThomasAquinas, Quaestionesdisputataedemalo Depotentia ThomasAquinas, Quaestionesdisputataedepotentia

Deveritate ThomasAquinas, Quaestionesdisputataedeveritate

InPhysic. ThomasAquinas, ExpositiolibriPhysicorum (or Commentariainocto librosPhysicorumAristotelis)

InSent. ThomasAquinas, ScriptumsuperSententiis (I Sent. =commentaryon BookIofthe Sentences,andsoon)

Leonineed.ThomasAquinas, OperaomniaiussuLeonisXIIIP.M.edita,Curaet studioFratrumPraedicatorum(Rome–Paris:CommissioLeonina, 1882–)

Mariettied.ThomasAquinas, Opera (Marietti:Turin)

PGPatrologiaGraeca,ed.J.-P.Migne,Paris

RSPhThRevuedessciencesphilosophiquesetthéologiques

RThomRevuethomiste

SCG ThomasAquinas, SummacontraGentiles

Sent.Ethic. ThomasAquinas, SententialibriEthicorum

Sent.Metaph. ThomasAquinas, SententialibriMetaphysicae (or Induodecimlibros MetaphysicorumAristotelisexpositio)

ST ThomasAquinas, Summatheologiae (ST I= PrimaPars; ST I-II= PrimaSecundae; ST II-II= SecundaSecundae; ST III= TertiaPars)

Thom.TheThomist

TSTheologicalStudies

ReferencestoAquinas’sandAristotle’sworksfollowthestandarddivisionsofthese worksandinsomecasesalsoincludeparagraphorlinenumbersoftherelevant editions.InthereferencestoAquinas’sworks,numbersgiveninparentheses (no./nos.)refertotheparagraphsoftheLeonineandMariettieditions.Fordetails abouteditionsandEnglishtranslationsoftheseworks,seethebibliography.

InadditiontoabbreviationsforAquinas’sworks,wemakeuseofothercommon abbreviations:

a. articulus

aa. articuli

adreplytoanargument(toanobjection)

arg.argument(=objection)

ch(s).chapter(s)

Abbreviations

col.column

dist. distinctio(nes)

lect. lectio

q. quaestio

qq. quaestiones

un. unicus

ThenamesofBiblebooksareabbreviatedaccordingtoMichaelD.Coogan,ed., The OxfordEncyclopediaoftheBooksoftheBible,vol.1,Acts–LXX(Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2011),pp.xxiii–xxx.

ListofContributors

CoreyL.Barnes isAssociateProfessorofReligionatOberlinCollegein Oberlin,Ohio.

Serge-ThomasBonino,OP, isDeanoftheFacultyofPhilosophyatthe PontificalUniversityofSt.ThomasAquinas(Rome)andistheGeneral SecretaryoftheInternationalTheologicalCommission.

GillesEmery,OP, isProfessorofDogmaticTheologyattheUniversityof Fribourg,Switzerland.

ChristopherA.Franks isAssociateProfessorofReligionatHighPoint UniversityinHighPoint,NorthCarolina.

SimonFrancisGaine,OP, istheRegentofBlackfriarsinOxford.

RaymondHain isAssistantProfessorofPhilosophyatProvidenceCollegein Providence,RhodeIsland.

MatthewLevering isPerryFamilyFoundationProfessorofTheologyat MundeleinSeminaryinMundelein,Illinois.

GuyMansini,OSB, isProfessorofSystematicTheologyatSt.Meinrad SeminaryinSt.Meinrad,Indiana.

MaryCatherineSommers isProfessorofPhilosophyattheCenterfor ThomisticStudies,UniversityofSt.Thomas,Texas.

JohnP.Yocum teachestheologyatSacredHeartMajorSeminaryinDetroit, Michigan.

CentralAristotelianThemesinAquinas’ s TrinitarianTheology

GillesEmery,OP

Thischapterasksthefollowingquestion:whatarethecentralAristotelian themesthatAquinasusesinhisTrinitariantheology?Or,moregenerally: whatisAristotle’sinfluenceonAquinas’saccountoftheTrinity?Inwhat follows,aftersomepreliminaryobservations,Iwilllimitmyselfto explicit references madetoAristotleinthecontextofTrinitarianwritingsbyAquinas, withnopretenseofbeingexhaustive.

Twopreliminaryobservationsareinorder.Firstly,in ST I,qq.27–43, AristotleisfarfrombeingthemainsourcequotedormentionedbyAquinas. Thathonorbelongs,notsurprisingly,toHolyScripture.Aristotleiscitedor mentionedexplicitlytwenty-fourtimes(ifwecountareferenceinanobjection anditsdiscussioninthereplyasonesingleoccurrence) roughlythesameas thenumberofreferencestoBoethius.Itisfewerthanthenumberofcitations ofHilaryofPoitiers,andfourtimesfewerthanreferencestoSt.Augustine (whomAquinasmentionsalittlemorethanonehundredtimes).Certainly, themerenumberofexplicitquotesandreferencesisnotenoughinorderto evaluatetheimportanceofAristotle(andofotherauthorsaswell),since Aristotleispresentinthebackgroundofmanytextsthatdonotexplicitly mentionhim.So,forexample,thereisnoexplicitmentionofAristotleinthe firstarticleof ST I,q.27ontheprocessions,buttheparallelarticleinthe De potentia showsanexplicituseofAristotle(seesection1.3).Acompletestudy ofAristotle’spresenceinAquinas’sTrinitariantheologygoesbeyondthe scopeofthepresentstudy.Themetaphysicsofbeing,act,andsimplicityis omnipresentandplaysadecisiverolethatwillnotbeexaminedhere.

Secondly,whenSt.ThomasdealswiththemysteryoftheTrinity,hisdiscourseproceedsontwolevels.The firstisthatofthemysteryitself,namely,the mysteryoftheTrinityasthe “object” offaithandoftheologicalcontemplation, themysteryconfessedandtaught.Aristotle,notsurprisingly,doesnotappearon thislevel;indeed,heisexplicitlyexcludedfromthislevel,sincephilosophers

2 GillesEmery,OP

werenotabletodiscernthatGodisTriune,atruththatonlyrevelationmakes known.Thesecondlevelisthatofthe concepts thatallowustoaccountforthe faith,andthatoftheanalysisofour language,ourmodeofspeakingaboutGod (intellectus fidei).Thesetwolevelsarecloselyinterconnectedbuttheirdistinctionisessentialinordertoavoidconfusions.TheuseofAristotleisofcapital importanceonthesecondlevel.Ihavedistinguishedthreespheresofinfluence: firstly,structuralthemesthatshapedAquinas’sTrinitariantheology;secondly, centralconceptsofTrinitariantheologythatareexplicitlymarkedbythe influenceofAristotle;andthirdly,theplaceofAristotle’slogicofsignification andofpredication,andoftheAristoteliandoctrineonhumanknowledge.1

1.1.STRUCTURALTHEMESOFTRINITARIAN THEOLOGYDRAWNFROMARISTOTLE

1.1.1.ImmanentAction

Attheverystartofthestudyof “whatconcernstheTrinityofthepersonsin God” (ST I,q.27,a.1),Aquinasexplainsthatthefundamentalmistakeofboth ArianismandSabellianismwastounderstandthedivineprocessionsasdirected towardsomethingexternal,sothatneitherofthempositedaprocession within Godhimself.Theonlywaytodojusticetothefaithistotakethedivine processionsnotasinvolvinganactiondirectedtowardsomethingexternal, butasinvolvinganactionthatremainswithintheagentandthatgivesriseto aprocession adintra.Here,AquinasdoesnotrefertoAristotle,butinthe parallelarticleof Depotentia (q.10,a.1,corpus)hegivesthreereferencesto Aristotle: Metaphysics X,toshowhowwordsimplyingmovement andthat primarilyapplytosensiblethings canbeattributedtoimmaterialbeings;2

1 Aquinas’sindebtednesstoAristotle’ s doctrines, concepts,and method (includingpredication inTrinitariantheology)isunderlinedbyJamesDoig, “AquinasandAristotle,” in TheOxford HandbookofAquinas,editedbyBrianDaviesandEleonoreStump(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2012),pp.33–44,at39–41.MyreferencestoSt.Thomas’sworksaretakenfromthe Leonineedition;whenaworkhasnotbeenpublishedintheLeonineedition,IusetheMarietti edition,withtwoexceptions: Summatheologiae ,ed.InstitutumStudiorumMedievaliumOttaviense,5vols.(Ottawa:Harpell,1941–1945); ScriptumsuperlibrosSententiarum,vol.1,ed. PierreMandonnet(Paris:Lethielleux,1929).EnglishtranslationsofSt.Thomasaretaken,with somemodifications,from “St.ThomasAquinas’ WorksinEnglish,” DominicanHouseof Studies,Washington,DC,accessedFebruary20,2015,<http://dhspriory.org/thomas/>.English translationsofAristotle(includingthedivisionofAristotle’sworksinbooksandchapters)are takenfrom TheWorksofAristotle,trans.WilliamD.Ross,2vols.(Chicago:Encyclopædia Britannica,1952).Inthelimitsofthisstudy,Idonotspecify(apartfromafewexceptions)the LatintranslationsofAristotleusedbyAquinas.

2 Aristotle, Metaphysics X,4(1055a8–10);seealsoAquinas, ST I,q.67,a.2,ad3; ST I-II,q.7, a.1,corpus; Quaestiodisputatadevirtutibusincommuni,a.11,corpus.

Deanima III,toshowthat “movement” (motus)canbetakeninabroadsense foranykindofoperation,includingunderstandingas actusperfecti; 3 and Physics III,todistinguishsuchoperationfrommovementas actusimperfecti. 4 ItisonthisbasisthatAquinasdevelopshisexplanationsoftwokindsof operationsthatgiverisetoprocessionsincreatures,andthatarealsosaidof Godbyanalogy: firstly, “transitiveoperation” thatleadstotheprocession ofsomethingexternal(creation,conservation,government);andsecondly, “immanentoperation” thatgivesrisetoanimmanentprocession.Themost illuminatingreferencetoAristotleisfoundatthebeginningofthesecondbook ofthe SummacontraGentiles:

Thereare,however,twosortsofoperation,asAristotleteachesin Metaphysics IX: onethatremainsintheagentandisaperfectionofit,astheactofsensing, understanding,andwilling;anotherthatpassesoverintoanexternalthing,andis aperfectionofthethingmadeasaresultofthatoperation,suchastheactsof heating,cuttingandbuilding.Now,bothkindsofoperationbelongtoGod:the former,inthatheunderstands,wills,rejoices,andloves;thatlatter,inthathe bringsthingsintobeing,preservesthem,andgovernsthem.5

AlthoughAristotlehadhardlyanyideaofthe “immanentprocession” ofa termreallydistinctfromitsprincipleintheactsofunderstandingandwilling,6 heprovidedAquinaswiththefundamentalkeythatallowsanaccountofthe generationoftheSonandtheprocessionoftheHolySpirit,inordertoavoid thepitfallsofArianismandSabellianism.

1.1.2. “OrdoDisciplinae”:Processions,Relations,andPersons

Aquinasinheritsthetraditionthatthedivinepersonsaredistinguishedby relative properties;nameslike “Father” and “Son” signifyarelation.However, hegoesfurtherthanthatinaffirmingthatthedivinepersonsare constituted bya relation(“personalrelation”),andthatthedivinepersons are relationsthat

3 Aristotle, Deanima III,7(431a6–7);seealsoAquinas, ST I,q.18,a.1,corpus.

4 Aristotle, Physics III,1(201b31–32);seealso(amongotherreferences)Aquinas, Deveritate, q.4,a.1,ad1.

5 SCG II,ch.1(nos.853–854): “Estautemduplexreioperatio,utPhilosophustradit,inIX Metaphysicae:unaquidemquaeinipsooperantemanetetestipsiusoperantisperfectio,ut sentire,intelligereetvelle;aliaveroquaeinexterioremremtransit,quaeestperfectiofactiquod peripsamconstituitur,utcalefacere,secareetaedifi care.Utraqueautemdictarumoperationum competitDeo:primaquidemineoquodintelligit,vult,gaudetetamat;aliaveroineoquodresin esseproducit,eteasconservatetregit.” Aristotle, Metaphysics IX,8(1050a23–b3).Seealso Aquinas, Sent.Metaph. IX,lect.8(nos.1862–1865); Sent.Ethic. I,lect.1,withthesamereference to Metaphysics IX(Leonineed.,vol.47/1,p.6).

6 Aristotle, Metaphysics IX,8(1050a34–b1): “Ofsomethereisnoproduct(ergon)apartfrom theact(energeia);theactexistsinthem:sotheseeingisintheoneseeing,thecontemplationisin theonecontemplating,andlifeisinthesoul.”

subsist.Inordertoshowthis,the Summatheologiae unfoldsinapreciseorder: firstly,processions(q.27);secondly,relations(q.28);andthirdly,persons (q.29).ThisorderisrootedinAristotle’steachingonrelation.Aquinasoften recalls,withreferencetoAristotle,thatrealrelationscanhaveonlytwofoundations,thatis,twocausesthatmakearealrelationexistinasubject:(1) quantity,and(2)action/passion. “AccordingtothePhilosopherin Metaphysics V,everyrelationisbased(fundatur)eitheronquantity,e.g.doubleandhalf;or onactionandpassion,e.g.makerandmade,fatherandson,masterandservant, andthelike.”7 Infact,Aristotle’stextmentionsthreekindsof “relatives.”8

Aquinas’scommentaryonthe Metaphysics specifiesthatquantityandaction/ passionarethefoundationsofrelationsaccordingtowhich “thingsarerelative” insofarasthesethingsarereferredtosomethingelse,andnotbecausesomethingelseisreferredtothem.9 Putotherwise,onlyquantityandaction/passion canbethecauseofrelationsthatarebilaterallyreal.Ontheonehand,quantity mustbeexcludedfromGod.Ontheotherhand,thereisno “passive” inGod: “Theonly ‘passive’ thatwepositamongthedivinepersonsisgrammatical (solumgrammaticeloquendo),accordingtoourmodeofsignifying;i.e.we speakoftheFather begetting andoftheSon beingbegotten. ”10 Thus,only actionsremaintoaccountforrealrelations.InGod,theseare “notionalacts” (tobeget,tospirate)thatgiverisetoprocessions(tobebegotten,toproceed), namelyprocessionsthatcorrespondtoactionsthatremainwithintheagent.11

ThisAristoteliananalysisofrelationexplainsthestructureofthe firstthree questionsofthe Summa’sTrinitariantreatise:sincethedivinepersonwillbe understoodasasubsistingrelation(q.29),thestudyofthepersonrequiresa teachingonrelations(q.28),whichinturnpresupposesastudyofthe processions(q.27).Theorderofteachingwillthereforebe:processions,

7 ST I,q.28,a.4,corpus: “Respondeodicendumquod,secundumPhilosophum,in V Metaphys.,relatioomnisfundaturvelsupraquantitatem,utduplumetdimidium;velsupra actionemetpassionem,utfaciensetfactum,pateret filius,dominusetservus,ethuiusmodi.” In ISent.,dist.26,q.2,a.2,ad4: “UtpatetexPhilosopho,V Metaph.,ubidicit,quodquaedam fundantursupraquantitatemetquaedamsupraactionem.” InPhysic.III,lect.1(no.280): “Hanc igiturdivisionemmanifesteexpressitPhilosophusin VMetaphys.;sedhicbrevitertangit,dicens quod adaliquid aliudquidemestsecundumsuperabundantiametdefectum;quodquidem fundatursuperquantitatem,utduplumetdimidium;aliudautemsecundumactivumetpassivum,etmotivumetmobile.” ExplicitreferencestoAristotleonthefoundationofrelationsare foundinotherplaces,forinstancein Depotentia,q.7,a.9,corpus;q.8,a.3,arg.7;q.10,a.3,arg. 2; InISent.,dist.27,q.1,a.2,arg.3.

8 Aristotle, Metaphysics V,15(1020b26–1021b11).Thethirdkindconcernstherelative “asthe measurabletothemeasure,andtheknowabletoknowledge,andtheperceptibletoperception.”

9 Aquinas, Sent.Metaph. V,lect.17(no.1026).

10 ST I,q.41,a.1,ad3.InGod, “toproceed” isan act.See InISent.,dist.20,q.1,a.1,ad1: “It isbyoneandthesameoperationthattheFatherbegetsandtheSonisbegotten,butthis operationisintheFatherandintheSonaccordingtotwodistinctrelations(sedhaecoperatioest inPatreetFiliosecundumaliametaliamrelationem).”

11 ST I,q.27,a.5,corpus: “Processionesindivinisaccipinonpossuntnisisecundumactiones quaeinagentemanent.”

thenrelations,and finallypersons.ThisorderrestslargelyonAristotle’ s teachingonthefoundationofrealrelations.

1.1.3.RelativeOpposition

RelativeoppositioniscentraltoSt.Thomas’sTrinitariantheology:thedivine personsaredistinguishedbyvirtueofrelativeopposition(whichalsoaccounts fortheequalityandconsubstantialityofthedivinepersons).12 TheTrinitarian themeof “opposition” comesfromSt.BasilofCaesarea,13 andwasthen elaboratedintheLatinWestbySt.AnselmofCanterbury:Aquinasdidnot inventit,butdevelopedhisteachinginthelineofSt.Anselm.WhatcharacterizesAquinas’steachingonrelativeoppositionisthesystematicanalysisof “opposition,” whichisguidedbyAristotle.

Firstly,AquinasreferstoAristotleinordertoshowthat “everydistinction ordivisioniseitherbyquantityorbyform,” sothattherecanbenodistinction amongimmaterialthingsexceptbysomeopposition.14 Sincethereisno quantityinGod,thedistinctionofthedivinepersonshastodowithan oppositionoftheformalorder:

Everyformaldistinctionisbyreasonofsomeopposition,especiallyinthingsof thesamegenus:becauseagenusisdividedbycontrarydifferences,bywhichthe speciesaredistinguished,asissaidin Metaphysics X.Accordingly,iftherebea distinctionbetweenthedivineprocessions,thismustbebyreasonofsome opposition.15

12 ST I,q.28,a.3.

13 BasilofCaesarea, AgainstEunomius II,28,inBasilofCaesarea, ContreEunome,Suivide Eunome,Apologie,trans.BernardSesboüé(Paris:Cerf,1983),p.120;seealsoII,26(p.108): “antithesis. ” Onthis,seeGillesEmery,OP, TheTrinity:AnIntroductiontoCatholicDoctrineon theTriuneGod,trans.MatthewLevering(Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmerica Press,2011),pp.87–8.

14 InISent.,dist.26,q.2,a.2,corpus: “Etideodicimus,quodnihilaliudestprincipium distinctionisindivinis,nisirelatio.Cujusratioest,quiaomnisdistinctioveldivisioestvelper quantitatemvelperformam,secundumPhilosophum.Secundumquantitatemvelmateriam, divisioindivinisnonest,cumnonsitibiquantitasetmateria.Omnisautemdistinctionis formalisprincipiumestaliquaoppositio.” SCG IV,ch.24(no.3612): “Inrebusenim,remota materialidistinctione ... noninveniunturaliquadistinguinisiperaliquamoppositionem.” In Physic.III,lect.12(no.394): “Estautemduplexdivisio:unaformalis,quaeestperopposita;et aliasecundumquantitatem. ” Compendiumtheologiae I,ch.60: “Formalisdistinctiononestnisi peroppositionem. ” Seealso Sent.Metaph.IV,lect.3(no.566).

15 Depotentia,q.10,a.2,arg.2: “Omnisautemformalisdistinctioestperaliquamoppositionem,etmaximeeorumquaesuntuniusgeneris:namgenusdividiturcontrariisdifferentiis, perquasspeciesdistinguuntur,utdiciturinX Metaph.Oportetergo,siprocessionesdistinguanturindivinis,quodhocsitrationealicuiusoppositionis.” Theargumentisconceded. Aristotle, Metaphysics X,8(1058a9–10): “Forallthingsaredividedbyopposites( I ØŒ Ø Ø ).” Aquinas, Sent.Metaph. X,lect.10(nos.2120–2121): “Videmusenimquodomniagenera dividunturperopposita.Quodquidemnecesseest.Nameaquaenonsuntopposita,possunt

Secondly,ThomasreceivesfromAristotle’ s Categories 10(11b15–13b35),16 Metaphysics V,10(1018a20–21),and Metaphysics X,4(1055a38–b1),thefour kindsof “opposites” thathediscussesinthecontextofTrinitariantheology: contradictories,contraries,oppositesaccordingtoprivationandpossession, andrelatives.Hethereforeholds:(1)theoppositionofaffirmationand negation;(2)theoppositionofcontrariety(contrarietas,whichimpliesa diversityofform);(3)theoppositionofpossessionandprivation;and(4) theoppositionofrelation.Onthisbasis,Aquinasnotes(onceagainwith Aristotle)thattheoppositionsofnegation,contrariety,andprivationeither removetheothertermorincludeanoppositionofcontradiction whichis notthecasewithrelatives.17

AccordingtoAquinas’sinterpretationofAristotle,theoppositionofrelation istheonlyonethat doesnotsuppress oneoftheterms,andwhich,initself, does notimplyanyimperfection inonetermbycomparisonwiththecorrelative term.18 ThistraitholdsspecialinterestforTrinitariantheology:itallowsoneto showthatthedivinepersonsare distinguished by “opposedrelationsoforigin,” whilepreservingtheperfect equality and consubstantiality ofthesepersons.

1.1.4.TwoImmanentActionsinanIntellectualNature: UnderstandingandWilling

Aquinas’saccountoftheTrinityretainsonlytwoimmanentactionsinGod, namely, intelligere and velle,whichgiverisetotheprocessionsoftheWord (theSon)andofLove(theHolySpirit).19 Theanalogicalfoundationofthis thesiscanbefoundinthefollowingstatement: “Inanintellectualnature,there areonlytwo[operationsthatremainwithintheagent],namely,understanding andwilling.”20 Theanalogy(“similitude”)ofthe “dictionoftheword” andof simulexistereineodem.” In Depotentia,q.10,a.5,corpus,AquinasalsoreferstoAristotle’ s De caelo I,9(278b1–8).

16 Onthings “opposedasrelatives,” seeAristotle, Categories 10(11b24–33).

17 Depotentia,q.7,a.8,ad4: “Oppositiorelationisinduobusdiffertabaliisoppositionibus: quorumprimumestquodinaliisoppositisunumdicituralteriopponi,inquantumipsum removet:negatioenimremovetaffirmationem,etsecundumhoceiopponitur;oppositiovero privationisethabitusetcontrarietatisincluditoppositionemcontradictionis,utIV Metaph. dicitur.Nonautemesthocinrelativis.” Aristotle, Metaphysics IV,6(1011b15 –22).

18 InISent.,dist.26,q.2,a.2,corpus; SCG IV,ch.24(no.3612); Depotentia ,q.7,a.8,ad4; Depotentia,q.8,a.1,ad13.

19 ST I,q.27,a.5,corpus: “Processionesindivinisaccipinonpossuntnisisecundumactiones quaeinagentemanent.Huiusmodiautemactionesinnaturaintellectualietdivinanonsuntnisi duae,scilicetintelligereetvelle ... .RelinquiturigiturquodnullaaliaprocessiopossitesseinDeo, nisiVerbietAmoris.”

20 Depotentia,q.9,a.9,corpus: “operationesquaenontranseuntextra,sedmanentin operante.Haeauteminnaturaintellectualisuntsolumduae,scilicetintelligereetvelle.”

the “spirationoflove,” onwhichtheentireTrinitariantreatiseofthe Summa is built,restspreciselyonthis.

Theabsenceofthethemeof “ memory ” in ST I,qq.27–43representsa certainshiftfromAugustine’ s DeTrinitate 21 Thisshiftisnotcompletelynew. BeforeThomas,AlberttheGreat(whoadoptedanArabic–Aristotelianepistemology)hadproposedareductivereadingofAugustinianillumination,by replacingAugustinianmemorywiththeagentintellect(whereas,forAugustine,memoryisthesiteofthemind’sillumination,theplacewhereGod dwells):inAlbert’sDionysiancommentaries,memoryplaysalmostno role.22 ThomascontinuedthetrajectorythatAlbertstarted.

Aquinas’sdiscussionofmemoryisextremelycomplex,andrevealsan evolutionofhisownthought.23 Inthelimitedscopeofthisstudy,Iwill consideronlyoneaspectofhisteaching.ForAquinas,the “memorybelonging tothemind” (bycontrastwiththesensitivememory)pertainstotheintellect: “Memoryisnotapowerdistinctfromtheintellect.”24 Tobemoreprecise, memoryistheplaceoftheconservationofintelligible species ,anditispartof thepossibleintellect(intellectuspossibilis).Aquinasgroundsthisviewinhis readingofAristotle: “Fromitsnature,thememoryisthetreasuryorstorehouseofspecies.Butin Deanima III,thePhilosopherattributesthistothe intellect ... Thereforethememoryisnotanotherpowerfromtheintellect.”25 ThetensionbetweentheAugustinianheritageandAristotelianpsychology comestotheforeinthefollowingobjection,takenfromthe Deveritate: “Differentactsbelongtodifferentpowers.Butthepossibleintellectand memory,aspartofthemind,havethesameact,namely,topreservespecies (speciesretinere).Now, Augustineassignsthisfunctiontomemoryandthe Philosopherassignsittothepossibleintellect ”26 Consequently,sincethesoul’ s powersaredistinguishedfromoneanotherbytheiractsandbytheformal natureoftheirobjects,Aquinasassignsmemorytotheintellect,hereagain

21 Thetriadofmemory,understanding,andwillorlove,isdiscussedinthecontextofthe imageoftheTrinity(ST I,q.93),butnotin ST I,qq.27–43.

22 SeeBernhardBlankenhorn,OP, “HowtheEarlyAlbertusMagnusTransformedAugustinianInteriority,” FreiburgerZeitschriftfürPhilosophieundTheologie 58(2011):pp.351–86.For whatfollows,IamindebtedtoBernhardBlankenhorn,OP, “AquinasasInterpreterofAugustinianIlluminationinLightofAlbertusMagnus,” NovaetVetera 10(2012):pp.689–713.

23 SeeMarcoF.Manzanedo, LaimaginaciónylamemoriasegúnSantoTomás (Roma: Herder,1978).

24 ST I,q.79,a.7,corpus: “Memorianonestaliapotentiaabintellectu. ”

25 ST I,q.79,a.7,sedcontra;cf.a.6,ad1.Aristotle, Deanima III,4(429a27–29): “Itwasa goodideatocallthesoul ‘theplaceofforms,’ thoughthisdescriptionholdsonlyofthe intellectivesoul,andeventhisistheformsonlypotentially,notactually.”

26 Deveritate,q.10,a.3,arg.1(emphasismine).Theanswerreads: “Althoughmemoryas belongingtothemindisnotapowerdistinctfromthepossibleintellect,thereisadistinction betweenmemoryandpossibleintellectaccordingtoorientationtodifferentthings” (Deveritate, q.10,a.3,ad1).

drawingonhisreadingofAristotle’ s Deanima. 27 Aquinasthusdeniesthat memorymaybeapowerdifferentfromtheintellect.28

Inthetreatmentofthe imagoDei in ST I,q.93,althoughSt.Thomasdoes valuethetriad “memory,understanding,andwill,”29 memoryplaysnoessentialrole.InAquinas’sview,Augustine “locatestheimageofthedivineTrinity morein actualunderstandingandactualwilling,thanintheseasexistingin thehabitualretentionofthememory;althougheventhustheimageofthe Trinityexistsinthesoulincertainway.”30 TheimageoftheTrinityisfound primarilyinthe acts ofthesoul actsthathaveGodastheirobjectandthat havealikenesswithGod’sownacts(thedictionoftheWord,andthespiration ofLove).31 Thismodestplacegiventomemoryisdue,atleastinpart,tothe prevalenceofAristotelianpsychology.

1.2.CENTRALCONCEPTSOFTRINITARIAN THEOLOGY

AgoodnumberofconceptscentralforTrinitariantheologyareexplainedin directreferencetoAristotle.Withnopretenseofbeingexhaustive,Iwilllimit myselftoapresentationofthemostsignificantones.

1.2.1.Substance

Inhisdiscussionofthe “ person, ” Aquinasexplainstheword “substance” in referencetoAristotle.Aspecialattentionispaidtothedistinctionbetween “firstsubstance” and “secondsubstance” accordingto Metaphysics V,8 (1017b23–26)and Categories 5.32 Aquinasspecifiesthat,althoughthesingular assuchcannotbedefined,Aristotle’sdefinitionof “firstsubstance” (“the ultimatesubject,whichisnotpredicatedofsomethingelse”)concernswhat pertainstothe “ common ratio ofsingularity.”33

27 ST I,q.79,a.7,corpus;cf.q.77,a.3,sedcontra.

28 OntheinterpretationofSt.AugustinebyAquinas,see ST I,q.79,a.7,ad1: “Augustine doesnottakethesethree(memory,intelligence,andwill)asthreepowers;butbymemoryhe understandsthesoul’shabitofretention;byintelligence,theactoftheintellect;andbywill, theactofthewill.” Seealso ST I,q.93,a.7,ad3.Weshouldnotethat,inhiscommentaryonthe Sentences,Aquinasacceptedthateveryproperty(proprietas )consecutivetotheessenceofthe soulmaybecalleda “powerofthesoul ” (potentiaanimae),sothat “therearethreepowers distinctfromanother:memory,intelligence,andwill” (InISent.,dist.3,q.4,a.1,corpus).

29 See,forinstance, ST I,q.93,a.7,ad2. 30 ST I,q.93,a.7,ad3(emphasismine).

31 ST I,q.93,a.8. 32 ST I,q.29,a.2,corpus; Depotentia,q.9,a.1,corpus.

33 ST I,q.29,a.1,ad1.

Whendiscussingwhether,inBoethius’sdefinitionofthepersonas rationalisnaturaeindividualissubstantia, “substance” referstothe firstsubstance ortothesecondsubstance(“secondsubstance” signifiesthe “natureofthe genusabsolutelyinitself,” while “firstsubstance” signifies “thatnatureas subsistingindividually”),Aquinasinsiststhatthedivisionof substantia into “firstsubstance” and “secondsubstance” shouldnotbetakenasadivisioninto genusandspecies,butratherasadivision “accordingtodifferentmodesof being” (secundumdiversosmodosessendi),sincethisdivisionisanalogous.34 Healsospecifiesthat,inBoethius’sdefinitionoftheperson,itispreferableto taketheword substantia accordingtowhatiscommonto firstandsecond substances:itbelongstotheadditionof individualis tomakeclearthatthe personisahypostasis(firstsubstance).35 Theclaimthat substantia applies first andprincipallyto “particularsubstances” (firstsubstances)ismadewith referencetoAristotle’ s Categories 5(2a11–14).36 Aquinasalsotakesupfrom Aristotle’ s Metaphysics VII,6(1032a5 –6)theconceptionthatsimplesubstancesaretheiressence.37

1.2.2.Nature

Inthecontextofthe “ person, ” theconceptof natura andthedevelopmentof itsmeaning(startingfromgenerationandbirth, natura hascometosignify theintrinsicprincipleofmovement,andthentheessence)areexplainedwith referencetoAristotle,especially Metaphysics V,4(1014b16–1015a19)and Physics II,1(192b8–23).38 InBoethius’sdefinitionoftheperson, “nature” is nottakenastheprincipleofmovement,butassignifyingthespeci ficdifference,thatis,theessence.39

Aquinasalsoexplainsthe “orderofnature” intheTrinity(theorderofthe divinepersonsaccordingtothecommunicationofthedivinenature)with thehelpofAristotle’sdiscussionof “nature” in Metaphysics V,4(1014b17–18): theconceptof “nature” impliestheideaof “origin.”40

34 Depotentia,q.9,a.2,ad6. 35 Depotentia ,q.9,a.2,ad7.

36 InISent.,dist.23,q.1,a.1,corpus.

37 Depotentia,q.9,a.1,corpus.SeealsoAristotle, Metaphysics VIII,6(1045a36–b7).Inthe samecontext(thepersonassubstance),thedistinctionbetweensubstanceandaccidentsclearly drawsonAristotle’ s Categories and Metaphysics;see,forinstance, ST I,q.29,a.1; Depotentia,q. 9,a.2,corpus.

38 See,forinstance, ST I,q.29,a.1,arg.4(Physics II,1)andad4(Metaphysics V,4).

39 ST I,q.29,a.1,ad4.Seealso Depotentia,q.9,a.2,ad11; ST III,q.2,a.1,corpus(anda.2, corpus).

40 InISent.,dist.20,q.1,a.3,quaestiuncula1,corpus: “Ordooriginissignaturcumdicitur ordonaturae,secundumquoddiciturnaturaaPhilosopho,V Metaph.,exquapullulatpullulans primo.Undenomennaturaeimportatrationemoriginis.” ForthisArabic–Latintranslation,see AristotelisoperacumAverroiscommentariis ,vol.8, AristotelisMetaphysicorumlibriXIIIcum CentralAristotelianThemesinAquinas

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TOM SWIFT AND HIS CHEST OF SECRETS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1

with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information

about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or

damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH

1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will

remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.