CHAPTER XIX

ON THE DISTINCTION OF SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCES

ACCORDING TO SACRED TEACHING

             104.--Furthermore, we consequently consider next what we must hold according to Sacred Teaching concerning the distinction of spirits. Our first consideration is the difference between good and evil. For it has been accepted among many thinkers that certain spirits are good and certain others, evil. This is likewise proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For it is said about the good spirits in Hebrews I, "They are all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who receive the inheritance of salvation." About the evil spirits, however, it is said in Matthew XII, "And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none." And afterwards it is added, "Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself." And although, as Augustine narrates in the ninth book of On the City of God, certain thinkers posited both good and evil spirits to be gods, and likewise good and evil spirits to be called demons, nevertheless, others more correctly assert only the good spirits to be gods. These we call "angels", whereas according to the received manner of speaking, "demons" are accepted only as evil. This distinction, as he says, is reasonable. For the demons are named from the word "science" in Greek, which, without charity, according to the opinion of the Apostle, puffs up through pride.

             105.--But the cause of the wickedness of the demons is not assigned by all thinkers in the same way. For some of them assert that demons are naturally evil, as having been produced by an evil principle and thus their nature must be evil--which is part and parcel of the error of the Manicheans, as is clear from what has been said. But Dionysius refutes this error most effectively in the fourth chapter of On the Divine Names when he says, "But neither are the demons evil by nature." He proves this first, because if they were naturally evil, it would be necessary to say at one and the same time that neither had they been produced by a good principle nor should they be numbered among existing beings, since evil is not something existing, nor if there existed an evil nature, was it caused by a good principle.

             In the second place, because if they are evil by nature, they are evil to themselves or to others: if to themselves, they would destroy themselves (which is impossible), since evil has the nature of something corruptive; but if they are evil to others, then they would have to destroy those things to which they are evil. However, what is such by nature, must be completely such with respect to all. It would follow therefore that they would destroy all things and this completely. This is impossible, both because certain beings are incorruptible and cannot be destroyed and also because those which are destroyed, are not destroyed completely. Therefore the nature itself of the demons is not evil.

             In the third place, if they were naturally evil, they would not have been made by God because good produces good effects and makes them subsist. This is impossible according to that which has been proved above, namely, that God must be the source of all things.

             In the fourth place, because if the demons are always disposed in the same way, they are not evil, for that which is always the same, belongs to the good. If, however, they are not always evil, they are not evil by nature.

             In the fifth place, they are not completely devoid of good, for according as they are and live and have understanding, they desire some good.

             106.--Now there were others who held that the demons were naturally evil, not because their nature is evil, but because they have a certain natural inclination to evil, as Augustine advances in the tenth book of On the City of God through Porphyry, who says in the Epistle to Anebontes: "Some men thought that there is a certain class of spirits which it is proper to obey and which is deceitful by nature in all forms and in many ways, imitating the gods and demons and the very souls of the dead." This opinion cannot have any truth if it be posited that demons are incorporeal and certain separate intellects. For, since every nature is good, it is impossible that some nature should have an inclination to evil, except under the character of some particular good. For nothing prevents some thing which is good in a particular manner, to be called "bad" with respect to a certain nature, insofar as it is opposed to the perfection of a higher nature; just as to be raging is a certain good with respect to a dog--nevertheless, it is an evil with respect to man who has reason. Yet it is possible that there should be in man, according to his sensible and corporeal nature which he shares with brutes, a certain inclination to raging which is evil for man. But this cannot be said of an intellectual nature because the intellect has an order to the good in general. Accordingly, it is impossible for a natural inclination to evil to be found in demons, if they are purely intellectual and have no admixture of a corporeal nature.

             107.--It must be known, therefore, that the Platonists posited, as has likewise been said above, that the demons are certain corporeal animals which have an intellect. And inasmuch as they have a corporeal and sensible nature, they are subject to various passions of the soul, just as men are subject to passions, which incline them towards evil. Accordingly, when Apuleius was defining the demons in the book, On the God of Socrates, he said that they are "animals in genus, passible in soul, rational in mind, airy in body, eternal in time." And just as he himself says: "The mind of the demons is subject to the passions of lusts, fears, and angers and all other such things. Therefore the demons are likewise locally separated from the gods--whom we call angels--attributing the airy places to the demons but the ethereal ones to the angels or gods."

             Certain of the Doctors of the Church follow this position in some respect. For in the third book of the Literal Commentary On Genesis, Augustine seems to say or to leave unsettled that the demons are airy animals because they have the nature of airy bodies; and, for that reason, they are not destroyed by death, because there prevails in them an element, namely air, which is quite suitable both for acting as well as being acted upon--and he says the same thing in several other places. And Dionysius seems to posit in demons those attributes which belong to a sensible soul; for he says in the fourth chapter of On the Divine Names that there is in demons an evil--"an irrational rage, a mad concupiscence, and wanton fancy." And it is clear that fancy and concupiscence and anger or rage pertain not to the intellect but to a part of the sensitive soul. And with respect to place, certain doctors agreed with these thinkers because they did not consider the demons to be either celestial or super-celestial angels, as Augustine relates in the third book of the Literal Commentary on Genesis. And Damascene says in the Second Book that the demons were among the angelic powers which were in command of the earthly order. And the Apostle in II Ephesians calls the devil a "prince of the power of this air."

             108.--But something presents itself here which is worthy of consideration. For, since matter is attributed to each species according to the suitability of its form, it does not seem possible that there should be in a whole of a given species a natural inclination to that which is evil for that species according to the nature of its proper form; just as there is not present in all men, a natural inclination to the immoderation of concupiscence or anger. Therefore, it is not possible that all demons should have a natural inclination to deception and to other evils, even if they were all of one species. Much less, therefore, if there should be individuals in individual species; although if they are corporeal, nothing seems to prevent many of them from being contained under one species; for a diversity of individuals of one species could be caused according to a diversity of matter. Therefore we shall have to say that the demons were not always evil but some of them began to be evil, when by their own choice, they followed the inclination of the passions. And accordingly, Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of On the Divine Names that "aversion", namely from God, "is an evil for the demons themselves, and it is a forsaking of those things which are fitting to them because they were carried away by pride beyond themselves." And later on, he adds certain remarks pertaining to punishment as "not reaching the ultimate end" and imperfection through a lack of a due perfection, and "impotence" of pursuing that which they desire by nature and an "infirmity" of the power conserving in them, a natural order, calling them back from evil.

             109.--Augustine likewise says in the third book of the Literal Commentary On Genesis that the transgressing angels were before their transgression, along with their leader, now a devil and formerly an archangel, in the higher part of the air near the heaven. He gives us clearly to understand that through their transgression, some of the angels were made evil. And Damascene says in the second book, "The devil was not created evil in nature but, existing as good and begotten in the good, he used the election of his own choice." In addition, both Origen in I Periarchon and Augustine in Book XI of On the City of God confirm this with texts of the Sacred Scriptures, when they introduce what is contained in Isaias XIV about the devil under the likeness of the king of Babylon, "How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning?" And in Ezechiel XXVIII, it is said to him in the person of the king of Tyre, "Thou seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty, thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God." And afterwards, it is added, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee." In the same place, Augustine resolves what is said in John VIII, "He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth"; and what is said in the canonical Epistle of St. John that "the devil sinneth from the beginning," referring this to the "beginning" when he began to sin, or to the "beginning" of the human state when he killed man spiritually after having deceived him.

             110.--Furthermore, the opinion of the Platonists, who say that certain demons are good and others are evil--as if having been made good or evil by their own free choice--seems to agree with this opinion. Accordingly, Plotinus, proceeding further, says that the souls of men become demons and the Lares are made of men if the latter are of good merit; the Lemures or Larvae, however, if they are of evil merit, and they are called Manes, if it is uncertain whether they are of good or evil merit, as Augustine sets forth in IX of On the City of God. This opinion, agrees with the aforementioned position of the saints in this that the latter assert some demons to be good and others evil because of good or evil merits, although it is not customary for us to call the good spirits "demons" but rather "angels".

             As to what he says, namely that the souls of the dead become demons, his position is in error. Accordingly, Chrysostom, expounding on what is contained in Matthew VIII, that two men possessed with devils came out of the sepulchres says, "Through this fact, namely that they were going out of the sepulchres, they wanted to impose a pernicious doctrine, that the souls of the dying become demons. Accordingly, many soothsayers killed children so that they might have their cooperating soul. And because of this, many demoniacs shout that 'I am that one's soul.' However, it is not the dead person's soul which shouts, but the demon pretends so that he might deceive the hearers. For if it were possible for the soul of one dead to enter the body of another, it would be much more possible for it to enter its own body. Nor is it reasonable for a soul suffering iniquities to cooperate with the one that brings iniquities on it. Nor likewise is it reasonable that a soul separated from the body should still be wandering here. 'The souls of the just are in the hand of God'. But those which are of sinners are led away from here at once, as is evident from Lazarus and Dives." Nevertheless, we must not think that in this respect, Plotinus deviated from the opinion of the Platonists who posited the demons to be airy bodies--namely, because Plotinus thought that the souls of men become demons after death--for according to the Platonists' opinion, even the souls of men have, over and above these corruptible bodies, certain ethereal bodies to which they are always joined as to something incorruptible, even after the dissolution of these sensible bodies. Accordingly, Proclus says in the Book of the Divine Elementations that "every soul capable of participating, uses the first and perpetual body and one having an ungenerated and incorruptible hypostasis." And thus, according to them, the souls separated from the bodies, do not cease to be airy animals.

             111.--But according to the opinion of other Saints, the demons, whom we call evil angels, not only came from a lower order of angels but also from the higher orders, whom we have shown to be incorporeal and immaterial, so that among them, there was one who was the highest of all. Accordingly, Gregory, explaining in a certain homily the words of Ezechiel XXVIII, "Every precious stone has covering," says that the leader of the evil angels was, in comparison with the other angels, more brilliant than the rest. And in this respect, he seems to agree with those who asserted some demons to be good and others to be evil, according to which demons are called angels. And therefore it is said in Job IV, "Behold they that serve him are not steadfast, and in his angels he found wickedness." But this presents many difficulties. For in an incorporeal and intellectual substance, there seems to be no appetite except the intellectual, which is of that which is absolutely good, as appears through the Philosopher in XII Metaphysics. Now no one is made evil from the fact that his intellect tends toward that which is good absolutely, but from the fact that it tends toward a qualifiedly good thing, as though it were absolutely good. Therefore it does not seem possible that an incorporeal and intellectual substance should be made evil by its own appetite.

             112.--Again, appetite can be only of the good or of the seeming good, for the good is that which all beings seek and one is not rendered evil because he seeks the true good. Therefore, every individual who is made evil through his own appetite, must seek a seeming good as though it were truly good. This, however, cannot be unless he is deceived in his judgment, which does not seem capable of happening in an incorporeal and intellectual substance which, as it seems, cannot have a false apprehension. For even in our case, insofar as we understand something, there can be no falsity. Accordingly, Augustine says in the Book of Eighty-Three Questions "Everyone who is deceived, that, indeed, in which he is deceived, he does not understand." And accordingly, concerning those things which we grasp properly by our intellect as well as concerning the first principles, no one can be deceived. Therefore it seems impossible that some incorporeal and intellectual substance should become evil through its own appetite.

             113.--Furthermore, a substance which is of an intellectual nature and separate from a body must be absolutely free of time. For the nature of a thing is grasped from its operation while the character of an operation is known from its object. The intelligible, however, as such, is neither here nor now; but it is rather something abstracted both from the dimensions of place as well as from the succession of time. Therefore, the intellectual operation itself, if it be considered by itself, must likewise rise above all temporal succession just as it is abstracted from all corporeal dimension. And if a magnitude or time be joined to any intellectual operation, this happens only accidentally, just as it happens in our case, in so far as our intellect abstracts intelligible species from phantasms which it likewise considers in them--which can have no place in an incorporeal and intellectual substance. It remains therefore that the operation of such a substance and consequently the substance itself should be altogether outside all temporal succession. And accordingly, Proclus says, "Every intellect has in eternity, substance, and power, and operation." And in the Book On Causes, it is said that understanding "is on a par with eternity." Therefore, whatever befits those incorporeal and intellectual substances, befits them always and without succession. Therefore either they were always evil--which is against what has been set down--or they could in no way have been made evil.

             114.--Moreover, since God is the very essence of goodness, as Dionysius says in the first chapter of On the Divine Names, it is necessary that the closer they are to God, the more firmly are certain beings strengthened in the participation of goodness. But it is evident that intellectual, incorporeal substances are above all bodies. If, therefore, the highest bodies, namely, the heavenly bodies are not receptive of any disorder or evil, much less could those super-celestial substances be capable of disorder and evil. Accordingly, Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy "The holy ornaments of the celestial substances participated in the divine teaching in greater measure than those beings that only exist, those that live with an irrational life and those that we call rational; and they have more abundant communications with God, with their minds fixed and, as is befitting, stretched towards what is above them in the power of a love that is divine and unswerving." The order of things then seems to have this, that just as the lower bodies can be subject to disorder and evil but not the heavenly bodies, so likewise, the intellects joined to the lower bodies can be subject to evil, but not those super-celestial substances. And this view those thinkers seemed to follow who posited that the demons, who for us are the bad angels, are from a lower order and corporeal.

Authors cited by St. Thomas

AUTHORS CITED BY ST. THOMAS

(Numbers refer to paragraph divisions)

ALGAZEL

 Metaphysics, 53

 APULEIUS

 De Deo Socratis, 107

ARISTOTLE

 De Anima, 6, 7, 10, 41, 48, 71, 80, 88, 100

 De Generatione et Corruptione, 27, 48

 Metaphysics, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 41, 48, 49, 52, 53, 58, 61, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 111

 Physics, 2, 3, 8, 9, 27, 47, 48

 Politics, 17, 66

AUGUSTINE, ST.,

 De Civitate Dei, 2, 3, 11, 17, 95, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109 110

 De Genesi ad litteram, 95, 100, 102, 107, 109

 De Natura Boni Contra Manichaeos, 86

 Enchiridion De Fide, Spe et Caritate, 7

 Liber LXXXIII Quaestionum, 112

AVICEBRON

 Fons Vitae, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

AVICENNA

 Metaphysics, 14, 46, 53

BASIL, ST.,

 In Hexaemeron, Homiliae, 97, 102

DIONYSIUS, THE PSEUDO-AREOPAGITE,

 De Coelesti Hierarchia, 91, 92, 100, 101, 114

 De Divinis Nominibus, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 114

GREGORY THE GREAT, ST.,

 Moralia in Job, 111

JEROME, ST.,

 Commentarium in Epistolam ad Titum, 96

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ST.,

 Homiliae in Mattheum, 110

JOHN DAMASCENE, ST.,

 De Fide Orthodoxa, 96, 100, 102, 107, 109

 Liber de Causis, 46, 72, 113

NEMESIUS (PSEUDO-GREGORY OF NYSSA)

 De Natura Hominis, 102

ORIGEN

 Periarchon, 62, 65, 98, 109

PROCLUS

 Elements of Theology, 16, 17, 110

** SACRED SCRIPTURE **

Genesis, 95

Exodus, 93

Deuteronomy, 93

Job, 95, 111

Psalms, 91, 99

Wisdom, 110

Isaias, 94, 98, 99, 109

Ezechiel, 108, 111

Daniel, 98

Matthew, 7, 93, 98, 104, 110

Luke, 94, 99

John, 99, 109

Acts, 2

Romans, 94

I Corinthians, 104

Ephesians, 107

Hebrews, 99, 104

I John, 109

Bibliography

Footnotes

  . P. Mandonnet, Des écrits authentiques de S. Thomas d'Aquin, Fribourg, 2nd edit., 1910, pp. 40-41. C. Vansteenkiste, review in Bulletin thomiste, VIII, 1947-1953, I, points out however, "La dédicace à fr. Reginald n'empêche pas que ce soit une oeuvre destinée au grand public, comme d'ailleurs le Compendium Theologiae. Les deux oeuvres, parce qu'incomplètes, ont pu rester assez longtemps inédites. D'ailleurs le fait que fr. Reginald ait hérité de ces papiers inachevés a pu faire naître la dédicace." (p. 29). Cf. P. Mandonnet, Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, Tomus I, Paris, 1927, pp. iv-v; A. Dondaine, Secrétaires de Saint Thomas, Rome, 1956, pp. 16, 17; 198-203.

  . M. Grabmann, Die Werke des hl. Thomas von Aquin in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, XXII, Heft 1-2, Münster i Westf., says, "Die gegebene Persönlichkeit hierfür war ohne Zweifel Reginald von Piperno, der von 1259-1274 der unzertrennliche Begleiter des Aquinaten gewesen war, der Nachschriften (Reportata) mehrerer seiner Vorlesungen hergestellt hatte, dem Thomas mehrere Opuscula gewidmet hatte, der auch seinem heissgeliebten Lehrer und Freund auf dem Lehrstuhl an der Universität nachgefolgt war und auch das Supplementum zu der unvollendet gebliebenen Summa theologiae redigiert hatte." (p. 70); P. Mandonnet, op. cit., observes that "Raynald de Piperno avait été le compagnon, le socius, comme on disait dans la langue du temps, de Thomas d'Aquin, depuis le retour de ce dernier en Italie en 1259, jusqu'a sa mort." (p. iv); ______, Des écrits authentiques de S. Thomas d'Aquin, quotes the following notation made by a contemporary of Reginald, "Explicit postilla super partem Psalterii secundum Fratrem Thomam de Aquino ordinis Praedicatorum quia non invenitur plus in exemplari Fratri Raynaldi di Piperno qui fuit socius fratris Thome usque ad mortem, et habuit omnia scripta sua." (p. 41).

  . M. Grabmann, Die echten Schriften des hl. Thomas von Aquin, Münster, 1949, pp. 324-325; P. Mandonnet, Des écrits authentiques de S. Thomas d'Aquin, p. 104, no. 20; A. Michelitsch, Thomas-schriften. Untersuchungen über die Schriften Thomas von Aquino, Band I, Graz und Wien, 1913, p. 185, no. 67; P. Synave, Le Catalogue officiel des oeuvres de S. Thomas d'Aquin, Critique-Origine-Valeur in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, III, 1928, pp. 25-103.

  . Cf. below, Cap. I, no. 1 (p. 35).

  . I. Eschmann, A Catalogue of St. Thomas's Works in E. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, New York, 1956, p. 381.

  . E. Gilson, op. cit., p. 166.

  . I. Eschmann, op. cit., p. 412.

  . R. Henle, A Note on Certain Textual Evidence in Fabro's 'Nozione Metafisica di Partecipazione' in Modern Schoolman, XXX, 1957, p. 278.

  . Cf. below, Cap. I, no. 1 (p. 35).

  . P. Mandonnet, Opuscula Omnia, I, p. lii; P. Glorieux, Répertoire des maîtres en théologie de Paris au xiiie siècle (Études de philosophie médiévale), Paris, 1933, p. 98.

             The 1490, 1498, and 1508 Pizzamanus printed editions contain the following colophon: "Hucusque scripsit sanctus doctor de angelis sed morte praeventus non potuit perficere hunc tractatum sicut nec plura alia quae imperfecta reliquit." (Opuscula praeclarissima eximii ac divini doctoris sancti Thomae de Aquino ordinis fratrum praedicatorum . . . emendata atque correcta, ed. Antonius Pizzamanus. Impressa Venetiis ingenio ac impensa Hermanni Liechtenstein Coloniensis, 1490. The De Substantiis Separatis is listed as De angelis seu de substantiis separatis, Opus 15. It is preceded by the De natura veri and followed by De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. No foliation.

             Opuscula Sancti Thomae: quibus alias impressis nuper haec addidimus, videlicet Summam totius Logicae. Tractatum celeberrimum de usuris nusquam alias impressum, ed. Antonius Pizzamanus. Impressum Venetiis mandato et expensis nobilis viri Domini Octaviani Scoti Livi Modoetiensis. Cura et ingenio Boneti Locatelli Bergomensis, 1498. The colophon appears in this edition on fol. 83v.

             Opuscula Sancti Thomae: quibus alias impressis nuper haec addidimus, videlicet Summam totius Logicae. Tractatum celeberrimum de usuris nusquam alias impressum, ed. Antonius Pizzamanus. Impressum Venetiis mandato et expensis Petri Liechtenstein Coloniensis Germani. Cura et ingenio Jacobi Pentio de Leucho, 1508. The colophon is on fol. 76r. Cf. also, M. Grabmann, Die Werke des hl. Thomas von Aquin, who reports the following notation at the end of the Tractatus de Substantiis Separatis in Ms NAPLES, Bibl. Naz. VII. B. 16: "Si plus vixisset, auctor hic non tacuisset." (p. 214).

  . P. Walz, Saint Thomas Aquinas, A Biographical Study, Eng. trans., S. Bullough, Westminster, 1951, p. 184.

  . D. Callus, Les sources de Saint Thomas in Aristote et Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Louvain-Paris, 1956, p. 150.

  . Cf. C. Vansteenkiste, Procli Elementatio translata a Guilelemo de Moerbeke (Textus ineditus) in Tijdschrift voor Philosophie, XIII, 1951, which contains the following colophon: "Procli Diadochi Lycii Platonici Philosophi Elementatio theologica explicit. Capitula 211. Completa fuit translatio hujus operis Viterbii a fratre G. de Morbecca ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, XV Kal. Iunii anno Christo 1268, pontificatus Clementis papae IV anno 4º" (p. 531).

  . Cf. R.-A. Gauthier, La date du commentaire de saint Thomas sur l'Ethique à Nicomaque in Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, XVIII, 1951, pp. 84-92; D. Salman, Saint Thomas et les traductions latines des Métaphysiques d'Aristote in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, VII, 1932, pp. 85-120; F. Pelster, Die griechisch-lateinischen Metaphysikübersetzungen des Mittelalters in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Suppl. Bd. II, Münster, 1923, pp. 89-118; --------, Die Übersetzungen der aristotelischen Metaphysik in den Werken des hl. Thomas von Aquin in Gregorianum, XVII, 1936, pp. 377-406, esp. 380-389.

  . Cf. H. Saffrey, Sancti Thomae de Aquino Super Librum de Causis Expositio, Fribourg--Louvain, 1954, p. xxxiv.

  . Inasmuch as these passages appear toward the end of the Tractatus, our portion of the 12th manuscript used, i.e., METZ, Bibl. de la Ville 1158 does not contain them. Cf. Introduction: Manuscripts Used in the Preparation of the Text, pp. 12-21.

  . Cf. below, Cap. XIII, nos. 70, 73 (pp. 111, 114); Cap. XIX, no. 111 (p. 159).

  . C. Vansteenkiste, Bulletin thomiste, pp. 29-30.

  . I. Eschmann, op. cit., p. 412.

  . H. Denifle et E. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Paris, 1889-1897, I, p. 487; cf. P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l'Averroisme au xiiime siècle, Louvain, 2nd edit., 1911, I, p. 111.

  . J. Riedl, The Nature of the Angels in Essays in Thomism, ed. R. E. Brennan, New York, 1942, also refers to this striking similarity between the text of St. Thomas and the wording of the condemned propositions. Since Riedl was not concerned with the date of the composition of the Tractatus de Substantiis Separatis his interest was merely one of literary dependence and hence he does not make what appears to us this valid inference. (Cf. p. 136 and notes 86, 88).

  . H. Saffrey, op. cit., pp. xxxiii-xxxvi; A. Dondaine, op. cit., cites the frequent use of the conjunction NAM in the Tractatus de Substantiis Separatis as proof that the work belongs to a later period in the writing activity of St. Thomas. The conjunction is never found in such incontestably early works as De Ente et Essentia, De Principiis Naturae, Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem or Quodlibet VII. On the other hand, it appears, according to Dondaine's count, 24 times in the De Substantiis Separatis. Although Dondaine does not offer any specific date for the composition of this work, he does point out that the conjunction NAM began to appear "un peu avant la fin de son enseignement magistral parisien." (pp. 218-220).

  . Cf. below, Cap. I, no. 1 (p. 35), "Intendentes igitur sanctorum angelorum excellentiam utcumque depromere incipiendum videtur ab his quae de angelis antiquitus conjectura existimat." Cap. XVII, no. 91 (p. 134), ". . . restat ostendere quid de angelis habeat christiana religionis assertio."

  . Cf. below, Cap. I, no. 1 (p. 35), ". . . ut si quid invenerimus fidei consonum accipiamus, quae vero doctrinae repugnant catholicae refutemus." Cf. J. Riedl, op. cit., "His intention of using Holy Scripture as a criterion, however, does not prevent him from coming to grips philosophically with those men whose opinions he evaluates, and from employing in his criticism the very principles to which they themselves either assented explicitly or would have to assent in order to remain true to their basic philosophy." (p. 114).

  . Cf. below, Cap. XVII, no. 91 (p. 134), "Ad quod utemur praecipue Dionysii documentis, qui super alios ea quae ad spirituales substantias pertinent, excellentius tradidit." On St. Thomas' use of Dionysius as an authority, cf. L. B. Geiger, La participation dans la philosophie de S. Thomas d'Aquin (Bibliothèque Thomiste, XXIII), Paris, 2nd edit., 1953, who observes, "Dans son commentaire sur le Traité des noms divins de Denys, cap. 5, lect. 1, éd. Mand. pp. 480-490, S. Thomas fait remarquer que Denys, tout en usant d'un langage analogue à celui des platoniciens, n'admet pas, pour autant, la distinction réelle entre les différents principes premiers . . . au chapitre XVI de l'opuscule De subst. sep., S. Thomas s'autorise à la fois de Denys et l'enseignement de l'Écriture pour nier l'existence de plusieurs principes premiers superposés. Il est possible et même vraisemblable que Denys, fidèle à sa méthode habituelle, s'inspire surtout de l'enseignement révelé. Pour S. Thomas, c'est par une démonstration philosophique, fondée avant tout sur une saine conception de l'être que se trouve éliminée la thèse platonicienne touchant les principes premiers." (p. 95, note 1).

             R. Henle, Saint Thomas and Platonism, The Hague, Nijhoff, 1956, holds that it was part of St. Thomas' polemical strategy in the commentary On the Divine Names to align the auctoritas of Dionysius on his side of the argument by freeing Dionysius "from the force of Platonic principles" and thus "to make him an auctor of Thomistic positions." And so, Henle points out that "St. Thomas, we may recall, explicitly selected Dionysius as his main auctoritas in the theological critique at the end of the De substantiis separatis. It is impressive--and almost amusing--to find the Platonizing Dionysius selected to speak for Saint Thomas against the Platonizers. No polemical device could be more effective, and perhaps one is justified in conjecturing, at least, that this is deliberate and conscious strategy." (p. 424).

  . Part I, Caps. I-XVI, nos. 1-90 (pp. 35-133); Part II, Caps. XVII-XIX, nos. 91-114 (pp. 134-162).

  . Cf. above, note 10.

  . Cf. below, Cap. XVII, no. 91 (p. 134), "Quia igitur ostensum est quid de substantiis spiritualibus praecipui philosophi Plato et Aristoteles senserunt quantum ad earum originem, conditionem naturae, distinctionem et gubernationis ordinem . . . restat ostendere quid de singulis habeat christiana religionis assertio."

  . The following explicit appears in all the manuscripts which were used in the preparation of this text: "Et hoc secuti esse videntur qui posuerunt daemones, quos malos angelos esse dicimus, ex inferiori ordine et corporeos esse." (Cap. XIX, no. 114, p. 162).

  . Cf. below, Cap. II, no. 8 (p. 43), "Et ideo Aristoteles manifestiori et certiori via processit ad investigandum substantias a materia separatas, scilicet per viam motus."

  a. ". . . firmissime docet christiana traditio omnes spirituales substantias sicut et ceteras creaturas a Deo esse productas." No. 91 (p. 134). "Similiter etiam doctrinae christianae repugnat quod spirituales substantiae ab alio et alio principio habent bonitatem et esse et vitam et alia hujusmodi quae pertinent ad earum perfectionem. Nam in canonica Scriptura uni et eidem Deo attribuitur quod sit ipsa essentia bonitatis". No. 93 (p. 136) . . . "per quod dat intelligere quod omnes spiritualium substantiarum ordines ex divina dispositione instituuntur, non ex hoc quod una earum causatur ab illa." No. 92 (pp. 135-136).

  b. "Manifestum est quod circa conditionem spiritualium substantiarum, id est angelorum, sacri Doctores tradiderint, asserentes eos incorporeos et immateriales esse." No. 103 (p. 140) "Non solum angeli non sunt corpora, sed etiam non sunt spiritus corporibus uniti . . . angeli non sunt in loco corporali modo sed quodam modo spirituali." Nos. 101, 103 (pp. 147, 149).

  c. "Oportet autem consequenter considerare quid secundum sacram doctrinam de distinctione spirituum sit tenendum: ubi et primum considerationi occurrit differentia boni et mali." No. 104 (p. 150).

  . M. Grabmann, Die Werke des hl. Thomas von Aquin, "Diese Handschrift . . . entstammt dem frühen 14. Jahrhundert, wie ja auch Thomas als frater Thomas bezeichnet ist." (p. 211); P. Mandonnet, Opuscula Omnia, I, xxxii; P. Castagnoli, L'opusculo 'De forma absolutionis' di san Tommaso d'Aquino in Divus Thomas, Piacenza, 1933, pp. 370-371; M. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, I, 1912, pp. 69-71.

  . M. Grabmann, loc. cit.

  . I. Rossi, S. Thomae Aquinatis Expositio Salutationis Angelicae in Divus Thomas, Piacenza, 1931, p. 461. Although Rossi attempted no classification of his manuscripts, he does make the following observation concerning the close dependence between Mss. "A" and "C", i.e., CAMBRIDGE, Corpus Christi Libr. ms. 35 and PARIS, Ste. Geneviève 238: "Eandem relationem (i.e. necessitatem intimam) videtur habere Codex S. Genovefae cum Codice Cantabrigiensi." (note 36).

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 197; cf. P. Beltrán de Heredia, Los manoscritos de Santo Tomás en la Biblioteca del Cabildo de Toledo in La Ciencia Tomista, XXXIII, 1926, pp. 405-409.

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., pp. 160-161.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., p. 394.

  . P. Mandonnet, op. cit., p. xxxii; cf. C. Kohler, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, I, Paris, 1893, pp. 142-146; Quétif-Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, I, Paris, 1719, p. 332. Concerning the dating of this manuscript as prior to 1323 because of the designation of St. Thomas as "frater" rather than "sanctus", B. Decker, Sancti Thomae de Aquino Expositio Super Librum Boethii De Trinitate, Leiden, 1955, says, "Inter peritos constat appellationem fratris non esse argumentum sufficiens ad probandum hunc codicem ante annum 1323 scriptum esse." (p. 6).

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 206; cf. J. Valentinelli, Bibliotheca manuscripta ad St. Marci Venetiarum, II, Venice, 1869, p. 86; P. Mandonnet, Des écrits authentiques, p. 36; A. O'Rahilly, Notes on St. Thomas in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XXX, 1927, pp. 381 ff.

  . P. Mandonnet, La canonisation de saint Thomas d'Aquin in Mélanges Thomistes, Le Saulchoir, Kain, 1928, p. 44, no. 1; cf. M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 173; F. Ehrle, Historia Bibliothecae Romanorum Pontificum, I, Rome, 1890, p. 303, notes 111 and 752; A. Pelzer, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codices Manu Scripti Recensiti; Codices Vaticani Latini, II, Pars prior, Rome, 1931, pp. 144-148.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., pp. 406-409.

  . Cf. below, Cap. III, no. 15; Cap. IV, no. 18 (pp. 51, 54).

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 191.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., p. 379; cf. F. Pelster, Zur Forschung nach den echten Schriften des hl. Thomas von Aquin in Philosophisches Jahrbuch, XXXVI, 1923, pp. 46 ff.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., p. 408.

  . P. Mandonnet, Opuscula Omnia, p. xxxvi.

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 189; cf. L. Delisle, Inventaire des Manuscrits de l'Abbaye de St. Victor conservés à la Bibliothèque Impériale, sous les numéros 14232-15175, Paris, 1869; A. O'Rahilly, op. cit., pp. 487-489; J. Pauson, Saint Thomas Aquinas De Principiis Naturae, Introduction and Critical Text, Fribourg-Louvain, 1950, p. 42; I. Eschmann, review in Divus Thomas, Freiburg, XXVII, pp. 452-454.

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 189.

  . Cf. below, Introduction, pp. 21-28.

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 195; cf. L. Frati, Indice dei codici latini conservati nelle R. Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna in Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, XVI, 1908, p. 372.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., pp. 365-366.

  . M. Grabmann, op. cit., pp. 153-160; C. Couderc, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque publique de Bordeaux (Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, Départements, XXIII, Paris, 1894, pp. 69-75.

  . J. Pauson, op. cit., p. 46.

  . P. Mandonnet, op. cit., p. xxxiii; A. O'Rahilly, op. cit., pp. 376-381; cf. A. Sanderus, Bibliotheca Belgica Manuscripta, II, Lille, 1644.

             B. Kruitwagen, Sancti Thomae de Aquino Summa Opusculorum. Anno circiter 1485 typis edita (Bibliothèque thomiste IV), Le Saulchoir, Kain, 1924 (p. 71) bases his date on the testimony of P. De Alva, Radii solis zeli seraphici, Louvain, 1666, who writes, "In monasterio Parcensis Patrum praemonstratensium, prope Lovanium, exstat quoddam manuscriptum super tertium Sententiarum sub nomine fratris Thomae de Aquino, ut ibidem dicitur ad finem, laboratum a quodam P. Praemonstratensi, anno 1282 . . . Cum isto exstat aliud manuscriptum, eodem charactere, forma ac dispositione, in folio in quo continentur Opuscula fratris Thomae de Aquino." (col. 943, quoted by I. Rossi, op. cit., p. 446).

             D. De Bruyne, on the other hand, in a review in Revue Bénédictine, XXXVII, 1925 disputes Kruitwagen's dating. According to De Bruyne, METZ 1158, i.e., "le manuscrit Parcensis connu par Sanderus et le P. De Alva . . . à la Bibliothèque de Metz où il porte la cote 1158 (Collection Salis 12)", was joined in the 17th century to another manuscript which bears the date 1282; Kruitwagen is therefore dating the wrong manuscript. (pp. 114, 115). Rossi points out, however, that De Bruyne does not prove his assertion and he concludes, "Non videtur tamen assertio Patris Alva a priori rejicienda dum sit bene fundata." (p. 446).

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., pp. 384-385; 403-404.

  . I. Rossi, op. cit., pp. 446, 461, 464.

  . J. Pauson, op. cit., p. 20.

  . Letter from Dom. O. Lottin, O.S.B. to Professor Etienne Gilson, dated February 7, 1957.

  . I am indebted for a photostat of this section to the Reverend Father Basil, O.S.B., of St. Meinrad, Indiana and to the Reverend Dr. Peter O'Reilly of Xavier University, Cincinnati.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., pp. 403-404.

  . J. Perrier, Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia necnon Opera Minora, Tomus Primus, Opuscula Philosophica, Paris, 1949, pp. 122-201.

  . Ibid.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., pp. 403-411.

  . Ibid., pp. 410-411.

  . P. Castagnoli, op. cit., observes, "Anzi è permesso fare un 'ipotesi, che non mi sembra priva di serio fondamento; il possessore parigino del cod. D (PARIS, 14546-il cui testo del De forma absolutionis era stato trascritto dalla copia fatta fare non molti anni avanti da Goffredo), essendo venuto in possesso dell'autografo, mandato forse a Parigi da Reginaldo di Piperno dopo la morte del Santo Dottore, ha su quello compiute le sue correzioni." (p. 406).

  . I. Rossi, op. cit., pp. 445-479.

  . I. Rossi, ibid., points out, "Textum studiosis trado ut ex antiquorum manuscriptorum collatione erutum, et praesertim ex codicibus ATV (Cod. Met. Bibl. Civit. 1158, Codex Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546, Cod. Pommersfeld Bibl. Schönborn, 90-2656), Iº quia inter antiquissimos recensentur et mendosum textum non praebent; IIº quia, etsi ab invicem non dependent--hanc tamen rationem non excludo--tanta habitudo inter illos invenitur, quod necessario eiusdem familiae reputandi sunt, ac proinde exemplari propinquissimi." (p. 464).

  . L. Keeler, Tractatus de unitate intellectus, Pont. Univ. Greg. Textus et Documenta, Series Philosophica, Rome, 1936, p. ix; A. Dondaine, review in Bulletin thomiste, XIV, V. no. 1, 1937, describes PARIS Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546 as "l'une de nos plus belles collections de l'opuscules . . . ce manuscrit important pour la critique d'authenticité des opuscules de S. Thomas." (p. 49).

  . J. Perrier, op. cit., pp. ix-xvii; cf. C. Vansteenkiste, op. cit., pp. 17-22.

  . Cf. above, Introduction, note 60.

  . R. Spiazzi, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Philosophica, Rome, 1954. The editor remarks, "In hac editione . . . maluimus adhibere textum traditionis editionum, praecipue Pianae et Parmensis, denuo correctum et emendatum collatione cum aliis et praesertim notationibus criticis peritorum super textus non paucis." (p. xix).

  . Cf. J. Perrier, op. cit., p. 122. The editor presents his reasons for the particular selection on pp. vi-xvii. B. Decker, op. cit., Prolegomena, has much the same complaint with respect to Perrier's limited manuscriptural tradition for his projected edition of the Expositio super librum de Trinitate. (p. 34, note 1). Cf. also, J. Koch, review in Theologische Revue, XLVII, 1951, pp. 121-123; C. Vansteenkiste, op. cit., pp. 25-26 for corrections in Perrier's text.

  . Cf. above, Introduction, pp. 22, 23.

  . J. Perrier, op. cit., pp. xix, 122.

  . C. Vansteenksite, op. cit., "On peut se demander à cette occasion s'il est possible de donner un bon texte en prenant un seul manuscrit comme base. C'est plutôt une question de mots. Si on se sert beaucoup d'un second manuscrit, on pourrait dire qu'on prend deux manuscrits comme base. Le cas où l'on pourrait prendre un seul manuscrit comme base presque exclusive est plutôt exceptionnel (même un autographe ne dispense pas toujours d'un recours à d'autres temoins.") (p. 22).

  . Cf. above, Introduction, p. 19.

  . Cf. C. Vansteenkiste, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

  . Cf. above, Introduction, pp. 21, 22.

  . Ibid.

  . Cf. C. Vansteenkiste, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

  . Cf. above, Introduction, pp. 14-16.

  . The chapter divisions and titles in Perrier's text do not follow PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546, in spite of the lengthy plea made by the editor for its superiority over the other manuscripts. Specifically, the second chapter division mentioned above is completely disregarded by the editor. Chapter III, which begins with division no. 18 (p. 135) in PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546 and in every other manuscript used in the preparation of our text is likewise ignored by Perrier. No mention is made of Chapter VII beginning with no. 32, p. 69. These divisions and titles are all contained in PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546. On the other hand, Perrier lists a new chapter with no. 71 (p. 170) as "Caput XII. In quo ostenditur Deum habere omnium cognitionem." Neither Perrier's basic manuscript (PARIS 14546) nor the other three used by him, i.e., PARIS, Ste. Geneviève, 238, PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 15813, and PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 15814, nor any other manuscript used for our text gives the slightest indication of a new chapter division or title.

  . In the preparation of the text, we found a number of discrepancies between the readings contained in PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546 and those which J. Perrier attributes to this manuscript in his printed edition of the De Substantiis Separatis (Op. cit., pp. 122-201). In a number of instances, the editor fails to note that a variant reading was taken from another manuscript and incorporated into the text. Inasmuch as he has clearly indicated that PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546 is his basic text, readings taken from other manuscripts appear as if they were to be found in PARIS 14546. As a result of these substitutions, this manuscript appears to be more correct and therefore of greater value than it actually is. Even if we are convinced that it is the best of the manuscripts used in the preparation of our text, we believe no greater value should be imputed to a manuscript than it actually has. To give what seems to us a more objective picture of PARIS, Bibl. Nat. lat. 14546, we note below some 70 substitutions and variants not accounted for in Perrier's apparatus:

PERRIER'S EDITION                         PARIS 14546              PERRIER'S READING

p. 124, no. 2, 1. 13      ponebat                                      ponebant

no. 3, 1. 11.                               qui                                              quia

p. 127, no. 7, 1. 21      ponebat                                      ponebant

p. 129, no. 9, 1. 1                     invenitur                                    inveniatur

--------------, 1. 3          concludebat                  concludit

--------------, 1. 8          add. se

                                                                after secundum                          no note

--------------, 1. 16        omit. et

                                                                after appetens               no note

p. 132, no. 13, 1. 6      omit. et ad infima

                                                                after finem                    no note

p. 133, no. 16, 1. 5      autem                            enim

p. 134, no. 17, 1. 13    item                                            itemque

--------------, 1. 28        non quam                                  nunquam

p. 137, no. 20, 1. 11    omit. coelestis

                                                                before qua                    no note

p. 139, no. 25, 1. 2      antiquam                                   antiquorum

p. 140, no. 26, 1. 17    dici                                             dicit

p. 141, no. 27, 1. 9      sequetur                                     sequitur

p. 144, no. 34, 1. 5      particularem

                                                                crossed out                   retains and

                                                                                                                   no note

p. 146, no. 36, 1. 3      universaliter                 naturaliter

p. 147, no. 38, 1. 9      potentialitatem             possibilitatem

------, no. 39, 1. 9         sicut                              sic

p. 148, no. 40, 1. 8      subjecto                                     subsistere

--------------, 1. 14        omit. secundum

                                                                after numeri                  no note

                                                                specie                            speciem

p. 152, no. 47, 1. 5      proprio                                      primo

p. 153, ------, 1. 11       naturam                                     materiam

p. 154, no. 49, 1. 13    sit                                               fit

--------------, 1. 16        sic                                               sit

--------------, 1. 24        alia                                             alias

p. 155, no. 50, 1. 9      originis                                      originem

--------------, 1. 27        quia                                            quod

p. 156, no. 51, 1. 1      add. solutio

                                                                before his                      no note

p. 157, no. 53, 1. 5      omit. etiam

                                                                before Aristoteles         no note

--------------, 1. 7          immateriales                 materiales

p. 160, no. 57, 1. 7      possunt                                      ponunt

p. 161, no. 59, 1. 33    ex                                               sex

p. 162, no. 60, 1. 3      quam                                          quod

p. 163, no. 61, 1. 3      id                                                in

p. 164, no. 63, 1. 3      earum                            causarum

p. 165, ------, 1. 7         inordinatae                   inordinato

p. 166, no. 65, 1. 20    superfluerent                superfluere

------, no. 66, 1. 10       requiritur                      requirit

p. 167, ------, 1. 6         maxime                                      maximam

p. 173, no. 76, 1. 2      sit                                               sic

p. 174, ------, 1. 11       add. etiam (?)

                                                                after unde                     no note

p. 175, no. 78, 1. 15    ipsum                            primum

p. 176, no. 79, 1. 3      add. quod

                                                                after quam                    no note

p. 178, no. 82, 1. 24    add. et

                                                                after cognoscant          no note

p. 179, no. 83, 1. 5      conveniens                   consequens

--------------, 1. 11        perveniunt                    proveniunt

p. 183, no. 92, 1. 3      distinctionem               distinctionis

--------------, 1. 4          dissenserint                  dissenserunt

p. 184, ------, 1. 3         omit. capitulum

                                                                after IV                                      no note

------, no. 93, 1. 13       omit. in

                                                                after dicitur                  no note

p. 185, no. 94, 1. 2      scriptura                                    doctrina

--------------, 1. 11        autem                            etiam

p. 187, no. 97, 1. 2      omnium                                     omnem

p. 188, no. 98, 1. 9      aliqua                            aliquid

p. 189, no. 99, 1. 5      add. sacrae

                                                                after verba                    no note

-----, no. 100, 1. 1        add. sit

                                                                after autem                   no note

--------------, 1. 19        add. dicitur

                                                                after XXI                                   no note

p. 191, no. 102, 1. 27  cum                                            tamen

p. 192, no. 104, 1. 10  unice                             unitae

---------------, 1. 12       inegressibiliter ingressibiliter

p. 193, -------, 1. 2       tradiderunt                    tradiderint

-------,no. 105, 1. 13    posuerunt                                  posuerint

p. 197, no. 110, 1. 7    omit. et

                                                                after insuper                 no note

---------------, 1. 17       omit. id

                                                                after et                           no note

---------------, 1. 18       omit. vel

                                                                after peccare                 no note

p. 199, no. 112, 1. 11  vel                                              et

  . St. Thomas Aquinas, Opuscula praeclarissima divi Thomae Aquinatis sacri ordinis praedicatorum, maxima cum diligentia castigata per fratrem Paulum Soncinatem . . . et Benignum et Johannem fratres de Honate, Mediolani, 1488. The Tractatus de Substantiis Separatis appears in this incunabulum as De angelis sive substantiis separatis--opus decimumtertium. It is preceded by Scriptum super Boetio de Hebdomadibus and followed by De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. No foliation.

  . Cf. above, Introduction, note 10. I am indebted to the Sterling Memorial Library Rare Books Collection of Yale University for the use of the above Soncinas and Pizzamanus incunabula.

  . P. O'Reilly, review of J. Pauson, Saint Thomas, De Principiis Naturae, Introduction and Critical Text in Bulletin thomiste, VIII, no. 1, 1951 (pp. 143-151).

  . P. O'Reilly, op. cit., ". . . rien ne prouve qu'il (Soncinas) ne disposait pas de tous les manuscrits anterieures à 1488 que nous posédons aujourd'hui. De plus . . . il n'y a pas de raison pour que Soncinas n'ait pas utilisé des manuscrits plus anciens et meilleurs que tous ceux que nous avons--et même il n'y a pas de raison, en droit, pour qu'il n'ait pas utilisé l'autograph, s'il existe conformement à l'hypothese de M.P." (p. 151).

  . Ibid., pp. 150-151; cf. also, pp. 147-149.

  . M. Martin, Notes critiques su sujet de l'Opuscule IX de saint Thomas d'Aquin, ses manuscrits, ses éditions in Mélanges Auguste Pelzer, Louvain, 1947, "Et voici la conclusion générale de cette étude. A la suite de la comparaison de textes que nous venons de faire il nous paraît clairement établi que les premières éditions de l'opuscule IX (Rome, Venise), dont dépendent généralement les suivantes, ont été basées sur des manuscrits plus complets et plus corrects. (Italics mine) Il est possible que l'un ou l'autre de ces manuscrits demeure encore caché dans une bibliothèque peu explorée." (p. 323).

  . Cf. above, Introduction, pp. 21, 22.

  . Since the appearance of the English translation of the De Substantiis Separatis, C. Vansteenkiste has proposed another solution. Inasmuch as "Hippasus" appears in all the Latin editions of the Metaphysics (cf. St. Thomas, In Metaphysicam Aristotelis, ed. Cathala, I, lect. IV), Vansteenkiste suggests that "aut vaporem ut" is a corrupt reading of what follows "Hippasus" in the Metaphysics, i.e., "autem Metapontinus", which is palaeographically possible.

  . Ibid., pp. 19-23.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 3-4 (983b 6-985b 22); II, 5 (1002a 8); Phys., IV, 6 (213a 29); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 2 (PL 41, 225). For St. Thomas' use of these texts: ST, I, 44, 2 (BW, I, pp. 428-429); De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a. 10 ad 8, ed. L. Keeler, pp. 131-133 (OSC, pp. 121-122); Q. D. De Potentia III, 5; A. C. Pegis, A Note on St. Thomas' Summa Theologica, I, 44, 1-2 in Mediaeval Studies, VIII, 1946, pp. 159-168.

  . Palaeographically, there is little justification for this particular reading which we have adopted, since all 12 mss. seem to be representative of a tradition which attributes "vapor" to Heraclitus. Manuscripts "A" and "B", i.e., CAMBRIDGE, Corpus Christi, Libr. ms. 35 and TOLEDO, Bibl. del Cabildo, 19-15 do omit Hippasus but still attribute both fire and "vapor" to Heraclitus. Manuscript "D", i.e., VENICE, S. Marco 31, IV suppresses the phrase "ut Hippasus aut vaporem ut" and substitutes for it "ac" leaving, at the same time, a space between "ac" and "Heraclitus". The scribe of "D" evidently deleted the troublesome phrase and left a space for a future correction. Since no sources of Greek philosophy credit Heraclitus with "vapor", the phrase "ut Hippasus aut vaporem" seems to be an interpolation which, most interestingly, is not found in the 1488 Soncinas nor in the 1490 and 1498 Pizzamanus printed editions. Hence, we have made an emendation by suppressing the obvious interpolation and the text reads: "Et si unum, aut aquam ut Thales Milesius, aut aërem ut Diogenes, aut ignem ut Heraclitus". For the relative value of incunabula in the establishment of a critical text, cf. above, Introduction: Literary Problems, pp. 29-34.

  . Aristotle, Phys., I, 5 (188b 34).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 4 (985b 3-20); Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, I, 421 ff. (Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, ed. W. Oates, pp. 76 ff.; cf. K. Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, pp. 91-120; The Pre-Socratic Philosophers, pp. 289-326.

  . St. Thomas, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a. 5, ed. L. Keeler, p. 65 (OSC, p. 67) calls them "anthropomorphitae"; cf. St. Augustine, Epist. 148, IV (PL 33, 628).

  . Acts, XXIII, 8; cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 50, 1 (BW, I, p. 480).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 3 (984a 15-22); I, 8 (989a 30-989b 21); Phys., VIII, 1 (250b 24); Plato, Phaedo, 97A.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6-7 (987a 30-988b 16); I, 9 (992b 7); III, 5 (1009a 38-1009b 33).

  . Plato, Phaedo, 96A, 100D; Theaetetus, 156A; cf. Aristotle, Metaph., I, 9 (991b 3).

  . Cf. St. Augustine, Liber LXXXIII Quaestionum, q. 46 (PL 40, 30); Avicenna, Metaph., VII, 2 (fol. 96ra).

  . Cf. A. C. Pegis, Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas, pp. xiii-xxx.

  . St. Thomas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 1, ed. B. Decker, pp. 161 ff. (The Division and Methods of the Sciences, tr. A. Maurer, pp. 3 ff).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 2 (1028b 20); XII, I (1076a 20).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6 (987b 14-18).

  . Plato, Republic, VI, 508C; Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6 (1096a 22-23; 1096a 35-1096b 3); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 8 (PL 41, 233); cf. Proclus, Elem, Props. 12, 13, 20, 119 (pp. 15, 17, 23, 105).

  . Proclus, Elem, Props. 63, 129, 139 (pp. 61, 115, 123).

  . Nemesius, De Nat. Hom., 44 (PG 40, 793, 796); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XIII, 16 (PL 41, 388).

  . Proclus, Elem, Props, 6, 14, 21, 116 (pp. 7, 17, 25, 103).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 4 (p. 38); Proclus, Elem, Props. 114, 161 (pp. 101, 141).

  . Plato, Timaeus, 33A ff.; Aristotle, De Anima, I, 3 (406b 25-407b 26); cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology, pp. 117 ff.; Proclus, Elem, Props. 129, 161 (pp. 115, 141).

  . This division into gods, intellects, and souls seems to be taken directly from Proclus, Elem, Props. 12, 13, 20, 113, 116, 119, 121, 184, 189, 190, 196 (pp. 15, 17, 23, 101-107, 161, 165, 167, 171); cf. St. Thomas, In Librum de Causis, Props. 2 ff., ed. H. D. Saffrey, pp. 10 ff.

  . Plato, Phaedrus, 246A; Proclus, Elem, Props. 20, 188, 201 (pp. 23, 165, 177).

  . Cf. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 13, 16; IX, 8; XIII, 16 (PL 41, 237-247; 255-276; 387-389); On demons in neo-Platonic literature, cf. Proclus, Elem, pp. 294-296; 313-321; St. Thomas, In Librum de Causis, Prop. 19, ed. H. Saffrey, pp. 104-107.

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 196 (p. 171).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, II, 1 (413a 8); St. Thomas, In De Anima, II, lect. 2, ed. Pirotta, no. 243 AACTA, p. 178); cf. Nemesius. De Nat. Hom., I, III (PG 40, 505; 593); Proclus, Elem, Props. 186, 187 (p. 163).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, I, 2 (PL 41, 255-257).

  . Matt., XXII, 30; XXV, 41.

  . St. Augustine, Enchiridion de Fide, Spe et Caritate, 58 (PL 40, 259-260); cf. A. C. Pegis, Cosmogony and Knowledge, I, pp. 643-664; The Dilemma of Being and Unity, pp. 179-183; St. Thomas and the Problem of the Soul in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 147 ff.; St. Thomas and the Greeks, pp. 9 ff.

  . Aristotle, Metaph, XII, 1-5 (1076a 8-1080a 11); St. Thomas, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a. 3; a. 9 ad 6 (OSC, pp. 41-55; 106-108; ST, I, 84, 1 (BW, I, pp. 793-796); A. C. Pegis, Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas, pp. xiii-xxx.

  . Aristotle, Phys., VIII, 5-10 (256a 4-267b 26).

  . Aristotle, Phys., III, 1 (201a 10); VII, 1 (241b 24-242a 17).

  . Aristotle, Phys., VII, 1 (241b 24); VIII, 5 (256a 13-21; 256b 3-9); cf. for this discussion, St. Thomas, SCG, I, 13 (OCTF, I, pp. 85-96).

  . Aristotle, Phys., VIII, 10 (266b 6-24).

  . Aristotle, Phys., VIII, 10 (267b 17-26).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072a 19-1073a 12).

  . Aristotle, Phys., VIII, 6 (259b 31-260a 10); Metaph., XI, 8 (1073a 11-37).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 8 (1073b 1-1074a 14).

  . Avicenna, Metaph., IX, 3 (fol. 104rb).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 1 (1068a 30).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, II, 2 (413b 4); St. Thomas, In De Anima, II, lect. 3, ed. Pirotta, no. 260 (AACTA, p. 185).

  . All 12 mss. read variously from Anempotem (A) to Cermephontem (L); hence, the emendation according to Cap. XIX, no. 106 (p. 152) below, where St. Thomas cites St. Augustine's De Civ. Dei, X, 11 (PL 41, 288-291) concerning Porphyry's letter.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 8 (1074a 17-30).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 8 (1073a 26).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, (1073a 36; 1074a 5-15).

  . i.e it does not stand to reason.

  . Avicenna, Metaph., IX, 3 (fol. 104rb).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 8 (1074a 15).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, SCG, I, 13 (OTCF, I, pp. 85 ff.).

  . See above, Cap. I, no. 5 (pp. 39-40); cf. Proclus, Elem, Props. 12, 13 (pp. 15-16).

  . Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6 (1096a 22-23; 1096a 35-1096b 3); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 6, 8 (PL 41, 231-233); cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 2, 3 (BW, I, p. 21).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 1 (993b 24-31; transl. Ross).

  . Proclus, Elem, Props. 3, 4, 8, 12, 13 (pp. 5, 9-11, 15-16); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 6, 8 (PL 41, 231-233).

  . Cf. Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072a 24-28).

  . Proclus, Elem, Props. 119, 120, 122, 134, 141, 145, 204 (pp. 105-109, 119, 125, 129, 179).

  . Nemesius, De Nat. Hom., 44 (PG 40, 793, 796).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 14 (PL 41, 328).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 10 (1075a 11-25); On providence in Aristotle, cf. E. Gilson, Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, pp. 148-167, 457-458; God and Philosophy, pp. 32 ff.

  . Aristotle, Politics, I, 3 (1253b 1 ff.).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 7 (p. 41); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 13; IX, 2 (PL 41, 237-238, 257).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 6 (pp. 40-41).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, In Librum de Causis, Prop. 3 (ed. H. Saffrey, p. 18): "Ideo omnes hujusmodi formas sic subsistentes 'deos' vocabat."

  . Proclus, Elem, Props. 101, 161, 163 (pp. 91, 141, 143).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 33-35).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074a 10-16).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 26).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 35-1075a 5).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6 (987b 1-10).

  . Cf. above, Cap. II, no. 8 (pp. 43-44).

  . Cf. above, Cap. II, nos. 9-10 (pp. 44-45).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 7 (pp. 41-42); Cap. III, no. 17 (pp. 52-53); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 13, 14, 16; IX, 2, 8, 12; X, 1 (PL 41, 237-239, 241-242, 257, 263, 265-266, 267-279).

  . This composite doctrine of Plato and Aristotle which St. Thomas uses in his critique of other philosophical positions in Cap. V-XVI, nos. 19-90 (pp. 35-96) has been advanced by C. Fabro, La nozione metafisica di Partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso d'Aquino, Turin, 2nd edit. 1950, as an argument for a real assimilation of the metaphysical content of the Platonic notion of participation within Aristotelian thought by the Angelic Doctor, (pp. 58-64). R. Henle, on the other hand, in A Note on Certain Textual Evidence in Fabro's 'La Nozione Metafisica di Partecipazione', pp. 265-282 and in Saint Thomas' Methodology in the Treatment of 'Positiones', pp. 391-409, thoroughly disagrees with Fabro's thesis.

  . Avicebron, (Ibn Gabirol) Fons Vitae, I, 2-4, ed. C. Baeumker, pp. 3-6; cf. E. Gilson, Pourquoi saint Thomas a critiqué saint Augustin, pp. 25-35, 108-116, 217-219; HCP, pp. 226-229 and notes 27-35 (pp. 647-649); J. Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels, pp. 44-74; E. Kleineidam, Das Problem der hylomorphen Zusammensetzung der geistigen Substanzen im 13 Jahrhundert, behandelt bis Thomas von Aquin, pp. 9-15.

  . Avicebron, op. cit., I, 8 (p. 11); IV, 7 (p. 226).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6 (987b 1-18).

  . Avicebron, op. cit., IV, 6 (p. 223).

  . Avicebron, op. cit., I, 14 (p. 17).

  . Ibid., (p. 18).

  . Ibid., I, 15 (p. 19).

  . Ibid., I, 17 (p. 20).

  . Ibid., I, 16-17 (pp. 19-21).

  . Avicebron, op. cit., IV, 6 (p. 226).

  . Ibid., II, 6 (p. 35); IV; 34 (p. 320).

  . Ibid., V, 42 (p. 333).

  . Ibid., II, 22 (p. 64).

  . Avicebron, op. cit., II, 24 (p. 69); IV, 1 (p. 211); IV, 2 (p. 213).

  . Ibid., IV, 2, 3 (pp. 215ff.).

  . Ibid., IV, 2 (pp. 212-213).

  . Ibid., IV, 2 (pp. 214-215).

  . Avicebron, op. cit., IV, 4 (p. 217).

  . Ibid., IV, 6 (p. 222).

  . Ibid., IV, 6 (pp. 223-224).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, nos. 19-23 (pp. 56-60); for a shorter refutation of Avicebron, see St. Thomas, De ente et essentia, IV, ed. M.-D. Roland-Gosselin, pp. 29-37 (OBE, pp. 43 ff.); De spiritualibus creaturis, a. 1, a. 3, (ed. L. Keeler, pp. 1-19; 33-50 (OSC, pp. 15-29; 41-55); ST, I, 50, 2 (BW, I, p. 482); In II Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. 1, (pp. 85-89).

  . Cf. Louis-M. Régis, O.P., Analyse et synthèse dans l'oeuvre de saint Thomas, pp. 313-328.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 1 (993b 24-31); St. Thomas, SCG, I, 13 (OTCF, I, p. 95).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-7 (pp. 38-42); Aristotle, Metaph., I, 7 (988a 34-988b 6); Proclus, Elem, Prop. 18 (p. 21).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 2 (pp. 35-37).

  . Ibid.

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, nos. 20, 21 (pp. 56-58).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 19 (p. 56).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 20 (pp. 56-57).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 21 (pp. 57-58); Avicebron, Fons Vitae, IV, 2 ff. (pp. 211 ff.; cf. Dominicus Gundissalinus, De Anima, VII (p. 55).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 3 (1029a 20).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 12 (1038a 9).

  . Aristotle, Phys., V, 1 (225a 12-20); De Gen. et Corrup., I, 2 (317a 17-31); Metaph., X, 11 (1067b 22).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 12 (1037b 12).

  . i.e., this means to be one by being in the same subject. Cf. Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 4 (1029b 16).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., II, 4 (999b 25); VII, 6 (1045b 16); cf. St. Thomas, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, a. 3, ed. L. Keeler, pp. 33-50 (OSC, pp. 41-55).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, nos. 19-23 (pp. 56-60).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 19 (p. 56).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 21 (pp. 57-58).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 2 (pp. 35-37).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VIII, 4-6 (1047b 2-1048b 34); VIII, 8 (1049b 14).

  . St. Thomas, ST, I, 50, 2 (BW I, p. 482).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 9 (1034b 7-19).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 84, 1 (BW, I, p. 793).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VIII, 8 (1049b 3).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 21 (pp. 57-58); Cap. VI, no. 29 (pp. 66-67).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 3 (1029a 20); Plato, Timaeus, 49A, 52D.

  . Cf. above, Cap. 1, no. 2 (pp. 35-37).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 22 (pp. 58-59).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VI, no. 27 (pp. 63-64).

  . Cf. above, Vap. V, no. 22 (pp. 58-59).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 22 (pp. 58-59).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VI, no. 28 (pp. 64-65).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 23 (pp. 59-60).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., III, 1 (1003a 20-1003b 18); X, 3 (1060b 30-1061a 10).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 1 (1028a 18); XI, 1 (1069a 21).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, III, 4 (429b 5); St. Thomas, In De Anima, III, lect. 7, ed. Pirotta, no. 699 (AACTA, p. 410).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 23 (pp. 59-60).

  . St. Thomas, ST, I, 50, 1-2 (BW I, pp. 480-485); Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 4 ad 4 ed. B. Decker, pp. 197-199 (The Division and Methods of the Sciences, tr. A. Maurer, pp. 44-45).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 3, 4; 7, 1 ad 3 (BW I, pp. 30-31, 57, 58).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, SCG, II, 52 (OTCF II, p. 152).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VI, no. 27 (pp. 63-64).

  . St. Thomas, De Ente et Essentia, IV, V, ed. Roland-Gosselin, pp. 29-42 (OBE, IV, V, pp. 41-54); cf. E. Gilson, Being And Some Philosophers, pp. 173 ff.

  . St. Thomas, In Metaph., VII, lect. 7, ed. Cathala, no. 1419.

  . St. Thomas, In Metaph., VII, lect. 2, ed. Cathala, no. 1292.

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 23 (pp. 59-60).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VIII, no. 43 (p. 80).

  . Cf. above, Caps. V-VIII, nos. 19-45 (pp. 56-82).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6 (987b 1-18).

  . In all likelihood the Averroists in Paris; cf. H. Denifle et E. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, Props. 46, 47 (p. 546), also printed in P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l'Averroisme latin au XIIIme siècle, II, pp. 179, 184.

  . Avicenna, Metaph., IX, 4 (fol. 104va); cf. A. Forest, La structure métaphysique du concret selon Saint Thomas d'Aquin, pp. 331-360, for a list of references to Avicenna in St. Thomas' works. Siger of Brabant likewise teaches the doctrine of cascade creation; cf. De Necessitate et contingentia causarum, II in P. Mandonnet, op. cit., p. 112; Denifle-Chatelain, Chartularium, I, Props. 55, 64 (pp. 546, 547).

  . This is definitely from the Liber de causis: cf. O. Bardenhewer, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift über das reine Gute bekannt unter dem Namen de causis, no. 1 (pp. 163-164); Proclus, Elem, Props. 55, 56, 70 (pp. 53, 55, 67).

  . Aristotle, Phys., I, 4 (187a 28).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, no. 46, note 3.

  . Aristotle, Phys., III, 1 (201a 15).

  . Condemnation of 1277, cf. Chartularium, I, Prop. 70 (p. 547), P. Mandonnet, op. cit., II, p. 179; St. Thomas, ST, I, 61, 1 (BW, II, p. 565).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 8 (PL 41, 263); Proclus, Elem, Prop. 169 (pp. 147-149).

  . Cf. Chartularium, I, Prop. 70 (p. 547). Siger of Brabant cites Aristotle in support of the position that nothing prevents an eternal and necessary being from having a cause of its eternity and necessity. Cf. Quaestiones de Anima Intellectiva, q. 5 in P. Mandonnet, op. cit., II, p. 159.

  . Cf. above, Caps. V-VIII, nos. 19-45 (pp. 56-82); Aristotle, De Anima, III, 3 (427a 21); St. Thomas, In De Anima, III, lect. 4, ed. Pirotta, nos. 616-623 (AACTA pp. 378-380).

  . Cf. Aristotle, Metaph., I, 3, 4 (985b 6-985b 22); Phys., I, 4 (187a 30); De Gen. et Corrup., II, 9 (335b 24); St. Thomas, ST, I, 44, 2 (BW, I, p. 428); A. C. Pegis, A Note on St. Thomas' Summa Theologica, I, 44, 1-2, pp. 159-168.

  . Cf. Aristotle, Phys., IV, 6 (213a 29); Metaph., II, 5 (1002a 8); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, VIII, 2 (PL 41, 225).

  . Empedocles, according to Aristotle, Metaph., I, 4 (985a 8); Phys., I, 5 (188b 34).

  . Cf. Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 2 (1069b 5 ff.).

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 26 (p. 31).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VIII, no. 42 (p. 79).

  . Aristotle, Phys., I, 8 (191b 16-23).

  . i.e., as common denominator and basis belonging to elements; cf. Aristotle, Metaph., I, 1 (993b 23).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, no. 47 (pp. 83-84).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., IV, 5 (1015b 9).

  . Aristotle, Phys., VIII, 1 (252b 3).

  . Cf. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, X, 31 (PL 41, 311-312).

  . For the reference, see above, Cap. IX, no. 46, note 4 (p. 170); cf. also, Algazel, Metaph., V, ed. J. Muckle (p. 119).

  . Avicenna, Metaph., IX, 4 (fol. 104va); cf. Plotinus, Enneads, V, 2, 4, ed. Bréhier, vol. V, pp. 33, 80 (The Enneads, tr. S. MacKenna, pp. 380-400); E. Gilson, HCP, pp. 187-216; A.-M. Goichon, La distinction de l'essence et de l'existence d'après Ibn Sina (Avicenne), Bk. II, Cap. II, A, B (pp. 201-243); Lexique de la langue philosophique d'Ibn Sina (Avicenne), p. 421, par. 754; p. 20, par. 45; p. 327, par 604; pp. 228-231, par. 439, nos. 3, 8; p. 239, par. 450; p. 41, par. 91.

  . On the Liber de Causis, cf. E. Gilson, HCP, pp. 235-237, 367, note 3.

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, no. 49 (p. 86-88).

  . Ibid.

  . Cf. above, Cap. VIII, nos. 37, 41 (pp. 74-75, 77-79).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 49, 50 (pp. 86-88).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., I, 6; 9 (987b 1-14; 991a 20-991b 1); II, 2 (997b 8); VI, 8 (1033b 19-1034a 8); XI, 5 (1071a 17-30).

  . Aristotle, Phys., II, 2 (194b 13).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 49, 50 (pp. 86-88); Cap. X, no. 56, (pp. 94-95).

  . Cf. C. L. Sweeney, Divine Infinity in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, II, Caps. 2, 3 (pp. 283-300).

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 26 (p. 31).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-7 (pp. 38-42).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 49, 50, 56, 58 (pp. 86-88, 94-97).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, no. 46, note 4 (p. 170).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 14; 15 (1039a 30-32; 1040b 32-34); Ethics, I, 6 (1096a 35-1096b 3).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., VI, 12, 15 (1037b 21-24; 1040a 8-29).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 46ff. (pp. 83ff.).

  . Origen, Periarchon, I, c. 8 (PG 11, 177A-B).

  . i.e., originating cause. Cf. St. Thomas, In Evangel. S. Joannis, I, (Vivès XX, 679-680).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VII, nos. 34-36 (pp. 70-73); Cap. VIII, nos. 41, 44 (pp. 77-82).

  . St. Thomas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, q. 4, a. 2, ed. B. Decker, pp. 137-145.

  . Cf. St. Thomas, SCG, I, 29 (OTCF, I, p. 139).

  . Cf. Ibid., I, 1 (p. 59).

  . All this concerning order is what Origen is discussing in Periarchon, I, c. 8 (PG 11, 177A-B).

  . Aristotle, Politics, II, 2 (1061a 20-b 15).

  . Very likely certain Averroists at Paris whose doctrines are given in the Condemnations of 1270 and 1277. St. Thomas follows the same order and cites almost verbatim Props. 10, 11, 12 of the Condemnation of 1270. Cf. above, Introduction pp. 5-6; also Chartularium, I, p. 487; P. Mandonnet, op. cit., I, p. 111; II, p. 175. For Averroist doctrine of angels, cf. A. Vacant, Angélologie parmi les averroistes latins in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. I, coll. 1260-1264, esp. col. 1262.

  . Cf. Chartularium, I, Props. 76, 85, (pp. 547-548); P. Mandonnet, Op. cit., II, p. 180.

  . Cf. Chartularium, I, Prop. 3, p. 544; P. Mandonnet, op. cit., II, p. 177.

  . Cf. Chartularium, I, Props. 21, 42, pp. 545-546; P. Mandonnet, op. cit., II, pp. 177-178, 183.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., V, 3 (1027a 29-1027b 16); cf. Siger of Brabant, De Necessitate et contingentia causarum in P. Mandonnet, op. cit., Part II, pp. 111-114; A. Maurer, Siger of Brabant's De Necessitate et Contingentia Causarum and Ms Peterhouse 152 in Mediaeval Studies, 14, 1952, pp. 48-60; F. Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant d'après ses oeuvres inédites, Vol. II, pp. 606-607.

  . Cf. Chartularium, Prop. 21, p. 545; P. Mandonnet, op. cit., II, p. 183.

  . Cf. above, Cap. VIII, no. 43 (p. 80); Cap. IX, nos. 48, 49 (pp. 85-88); Cap. X, no. 58 (pp. 96-97).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072b 26-30).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VI, no. 24 (p. 61); Cap. VIII, nos. 41, 42 (pp. 77-79).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, I, 5 (410b 4-7); St. Thomas, In De Anima, I, lect. 12, ed. Pirotta, no. 186 (AACTA, pp. 146-147).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., II, 4 (1000b 4-6).

  . St. Thomas, In Librum de Causis, Prop. I, ed. H. Saffrey, (pp. 4-10).

  . i.e., the Averroists.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072b 22-23); 9 (1074b 15-1075a 10).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-6 (pp. 38-41).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072b 22).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 15).

  . Ibid. (1074b 18).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 20).

  . Ibid., (1074b 25).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 73 (pp. 114-115).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 28-30).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 9 (1074b 28).

  . Ibid., (1074b 30).

  . Ibid., (1074b 30); cf. St. Thomas, SCG, I, 45 (OTCF, I, p. 173).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, ST, I, 14, 6, 8 (BW, I, pp. 143, 147).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-6 (pp. 19-21); Proclus, Elem, Prop. 117 (pp. 103-105).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, nos. 70-76 (pp. 111-119).

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XII, 10 (1075a 11-23).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 70, note 2 (p. 173).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 67 (pp. 108-109).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, II, 4 (415a 27); St. Thomas, In De Anima, II, lect. 7, ed. Pirotta, nos. 311-314 (AACTA, pp. 213-214).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 68 (pp. 109-110).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-6 (pp. 38-41); Proclus, Elem, Prop. 117 (pp. 103-105).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 9ff. (pp. 44ff).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 70 (pp. 111-112).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 68 (pp. 109-110).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 68 (pp. 109-110).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIII, no. 69 (p. 110).

  . St. Thomas' source is most likely St. Augustine's De Natura Boni Contra Manichaeos.

  . Cf. St. Augustine, De Natura Boni Contra Manichaeos, 41 (PL 42, 563, 564); Confessions, V, 10, 20 (PL 32, 715).

  . St. Augustine, De Natura Boni Contra Manichaeos, 42 (PL 42, 565).

  . Ibid. (PL 42, 566).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, III, 4 (429a 18-25), St. Thomas, In De Anima, III, lect. 7, ed. Pirotta, nos. 677-683 (AACTA, pp. 404-406).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XVI, no. 86 (p. 130).

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, nos. 4-7 (pp. 38-42); Cap. III, nos. 15-18 (pp. 51-55); Cap. XI, nos. 60-61 (pp. 99-101).

  . Cf. above, Cap. II, no. 8-Cap. IV, no. 18 (pp. 43-55).

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 19-Cap. X, no. 59 (pp. 56-98); Cap. XII, no. 62-Cap. XVI, no. 90 (pp. 102-133).

  . Cf. Conc. Lateran. IV, anno 1215 (Denziger, 428).

  . Ps. CXLVIII, 2, 5.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia, IV, no. 1 (PG 3, 177C); Dionysiaca, II, c. IV, sec. 60 (pp. 800-801).

  . Ibid., IV, no. 2 (PG 3, 180A-B); Dionysiaca, II, c. IV, sec. 61 (p. 826).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, I (PG 3, 693B-C); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 16 (pp. 146, 147).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, V, 8 (PG 3, 821C); Dionysiaca, I, c. V, sec. 21 (pp. 350-351).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia, IV, I (PG 3, 177C); Dionysiaca, II, c. IV, sec. 60 (pp. 800-802).

  . Matt., XIX, 17.

  . Exod., III, 14.

  . Deut. III, 20.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, V, 2 (PG 3, 816D-817A); Dionysiaca, I, c. V. sec. 21 (pp. 325-326).

  . Proclus, Elem, Props. 8, 13 (pp. 9-11; 15-17).

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 138 (p. 123).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XI, nos. 60-61 (pp. 99-101).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, XI, 6 (PG 3, 9531D); Dionysiaca, I, c. IX, sec. 38 (pp. 519-521).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 46-52 (pp. 83-91); St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 8, 12, 13, 23; X, 31 (PL 41, 261-262; 265-268; 275-276; 311-312).

  . Isa., XL, 26.

  . Luke, II, 13.

  . Romans, IV, 17.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, X, 3 (PG 3, 937C); Dionysiaca, I, c. X, sec. 36 (p. 489).

  . Job, XXXVIII, 7.

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XI, 9 (PL 41, 324).

  . Ibid., (PL 41, 323).

  . Gen. I, 1.

  . St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Litt., II, 8 (PL 34, 269-270).

  . St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 3 (PG 94, 873A-B).

  . St. Jerome, Commentarium in Epistola ad Titum, I (PL 26, 560A).

  . St. Basil, In Hexaemeron hom. II, 5 (PG 29, 40C-41A).

  . Cf. below, Cap. XVIII, nos. 102, 103 (pp. 148-149).

  . Origen, Periarchon, I, 1 (PG 11, 129).

  . Matt., XVIII, 10.

  . Isa., VI, 6, 2.

  . Dan., X, 5-6.

  . Cf. above, Cap. V, no. 19 (p. 54); Cap. VIII, no. 45 (p. 82).

  . Ps. CIII, 4.

  . Heb., I, 14.

  . John, IV, 24.

  . Isa., XXXI, 3.

  . Ps. CII, 20, 21.

  . Luke, XXI, 26.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, 1 (PG 3, 693C); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 16 (pp. 147-148).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia, I, 3 (PG 3, 121C); Dionysiaca, II, c. I, sec. 56 (pp. 733-736).

  . Ibid., in its entirety (PG 3, 136-145); Dionysiaca, II, c. II, secs. 57-58 (pp. 740-784).

  . Aristotle, De Anima, III, 4 (429a 10-b 5); St. Thomas, In De Anima, III, lect. 7, ed. Pirotta, nos. 671-699 (AACTA, pp. 402-410).

  . St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Litt., II, 8 (PL 34, 269).

  . St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 3 (PG 94, 865B-868A).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia, I, 3 (PG 3, 121C-D); Dionysiaca, II, c. 1 sec. 56 (pp. 735-736).

  . Ibid., XV in its entirety (PG 3, 328-340); Ibid., II, c. XV, sec. 71 (pp. 983-1071).

  . Ibid., II, 4 (PG 3, 141D); Ibid., II, c. II, sec. 58 (pp. 765-766).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 5 (PL 41, 261).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, V, 8 (PG 3, 821C); Dionysiaca, I, c. V, sec. 21 (p. 350). Cf. St. Thomas, In Librum de Causis, Prop. 19, ed. H. Saffrey, pp. 104-107.

  . St. Basil, In Hexaemeron, Hom. II, c. 5 (PG 29, 41A).

  . Nemesius, De Nat. Hom., 3 (PG 40, 600A).

  . St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 3 (PG 94 869B-C).

  . St. Augustine, Super Gen. ad Litt., VIII, 20 (PL 34, 388).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, 8 (PG 3, 704D); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 18 (pp. 189-190).

  . Cf. St. Thomas, ST, II-IIae, 180, 6.

  . Heb., I, 14.

  . Matt., XII, 43, 45.

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 1 ff. (PL 41, 255).

  . Ibid., IX, 20 (PL 41, 273).

  . I Cor., VIII, 1.

  . Cf. above, Caps. XVI, nos. 86-90 (pp. 130-133).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, 23 (PG 3, 724C); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 20 (pp. 271-272).

  . Cf. above, Cap. IX, nos. 49-50 (pp. 86-88); Cap. X, nos. 56, 58, 59 (pp. 94, 96-98).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, X, 11 (PL 41, 289).

  . As in the case of Cap. I, no. 2, note 2, there seems to be no palaeographical justification for the reading which we give. Eleven manuscripts used in the preparation of this text (METZ, Bibl. de la Ville 1158 comprises only folios 12v and 13r, i.e., Cap. I, no. 1 to Cap. II, no. 13, pp. 35-49, as noted in the Introduction, p. 33) read "essent". We have preferred the reading "sunt" which is found in the 1488 Soncinas, the 1490, 1498, and 1508 Pizzamanus printed editions. Concerning the value of these incunabula with respect to the establishing of a truly critical text, cf. above, Introduction: Literary Problems, pp. 29-34.

  . Cf. above, Cap. I, no. 7 (pp. 41-42).

  . Cf. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 8 (PL 41, 263).

  . St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Litt., II, 10 (PL 34, 284).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, 23, (PG 3, 725C); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 20 (p. 280).

  . St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Litt., III, 10 (PL 34, 285).

  . St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 4 (PG 94, 873C-876A).

  . Eph., II, 2.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, IV, 23 (PG 3, 735B); Dionysiaca, I, c. IV, sec. 20 (p. 279).

  . St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Litt., III, 10 (PL 34, 285).

  . St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 4 (PG 94, 876A).

  . Origen, Periarchon, I, 5 (PG 11, 160C ff., 163A-C).

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XI, 15 (PL 41, 330).

  . Isa., XIV, 12.

  . Ezech., XXVIII, 12, 13, 15.

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, XI, 14-15 (PL 41, 330-331).

  . John, VIII, 44.

  . I John, III, 8.

  . St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, IX, 1-2 (PL 41, 255-257).

  . Ibid., IX, 11 (PL 41, 265).

  . Cf. above, Cap. XIX, nos. 104ff. (pp. 150ff.); Cap. I, no. 7 (pp. 41-42).

  . St. John Chrysostom, Homilia in Matt., XXVIII (PG 57, 353).

  . Matt., VIII, 28.

  . Wis., III, 1.

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 196 (p. 171).

  . Cf. above, Cap. VII, nos. 32-36 (pp. 69-73).

  . St. Gregory the Great, Moral. in Job, XXXII, 23 (PL 76, 665C).

  . Ezech., XXVIII, 13.

  . Job, IV, 18.

  . Aristotle, Metaph., XI, 7 (1072b 18-19); 9 (1074b 23-24).

  . St. Augustine, Liber LXXXIII Quaestionum, q. 32 (PL 40, 22).

  . Proclus, Elem, Prop. 169 (pp. 147-149).

  . Liber de Causis, II, ed. O. Bardenhewer, p. 165, 14.

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Divinis Nominibus, I, 5 (PG 3, 593D); Dionysiaca, I, c. I, sec. 4 (pp. 39-41).

  . Pseudo-Dionysius, De Coelesti Hierarchia, IV, 2 (PG 3, 180A); Dionysiaca, II, c. 4 sec. 60 (pp. 803-805).