The De fato seems at variance with the opinions of Aquinas as expressed elsewhere upon the following points. It correctly cites Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae that the incident of finding hidden treasure while digging a grave is an example of “the inevitable connection of causes which proceeds from the fount of the knowledge of God,” whereas Aquinas incorrectly cited it as an illustration of an accidental event. Again, the author of De fato regards the story of the Magi and the star of Bethlehem as an evidence of the truth of astrology. He also seems to believe that “intelligence through the motion of the sky rules and causes the intellectual operations of the soul,” which Aquinas refused to concede. De fato also explains fascination somewhat differently from Aquinas. It appears to agree with him that the soul of the person exercising the power of fascination affects the person fascinated through the sense of sight; but it suggests that the soul of the fascinator has been endowed by the stars with power over the soul of the fascinated, whereas Aquinas denied that certain men were made magicians by their nativities. Finally De fato does not, like Aquinas, reject astrological images, but declares that celestial influence is received by artificial as well as by natural objects, “and therefore the figures of magic images are engraved according to the constellations.”
[1969] Ptolemy of Lucca, Hist. Eccles., XXIII, 7 (Muratori, XI, 1169), recounting the death of Aquinas remarks, “Unde cum multa devotione et mentis puritate et corporis qua semper floruit et in Ordine viguit, quemque ego probavi inter homines quos umquam novi qui suam saepe confessionem audivi et cum ipso multo tempore conversatus sum familiari ministerio ac ipsius auditor fui, ex hac luce transiit ad Christum....”
[1970] Ibid., XXII, 20 (Muratori, XI, 1152).
[1971] Brewer (1859), p. 426.
[1972] Bonum universale de apibus, I, 20, xi.
[1973] Peter of Prussia (1621), pp. 90-104.
[1974] v. Hertling (1914), p. 9, note, where, however, he says, “Albert’s Lehrtätigkeit an der Universität Paris schloss sich unmittelbar an jene von Strassburg,” which leaves no time for Aquinas to come to Albert in the first instance at Cologne.
[1975] Some measure of Aquinas’ hold upon the later middle ages may be had from the list of his works printed before 1500 and contained in the Magliabechian library at Florence: F. Fossi, Catalogus codicum saeculo XV impressorum qui in publica Bibliotheca Magliabechiana Florentiae adservantur, 1793-1795, II, 663-98.
[1976] I have not had access to M. Grabmann, Les Commentaires de Saint Thomas d’Aquin sur les ouvrages d’Aristote, in Annales de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Louvain, III (1914), 229-82, nor to R. Simiterre, Sur les condemnations d’Aristote et de Saint Thomas d’Aquin au XIIIe siècle, in Revue pratique d’Apologétique, V (1907), 502-15.
[1977] Thus Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 1895, I, 361, says, “Thomas Aquinas endeavored to procure better translations from the original Greek, and his efforts were seconded by Pope Urban IV. Special translations or special revisions of the existing Graeco-Latin translations were prepared for his use by a Dominican Friar of Greek birth, variously known as Wilhelmus de Brabantia or Wilhelmus de Moerbeka. To him at least the common tradition of the Middle Ages ascribes the translatio nova of the books of Natural and Moral Philosophy, which, in spite of many imperfections, held its place in the schools as a kind of authorized version of Aristotle till the dawn of the New Learning.” Citing Jourdain, Recherches, p. 67, et seq.; Denifle, Archiv, II, 226-7. William the Fleming, as he is also called, was scarcely of Greek birth, but of course finally became archbishop of Corinth.
[1978] In the 14th century bibliography of writings by Dominicans, Denifle (1886), p. 237, it is stated that William of Brabant, archbishop of Corinth (he became so in 1277 after Aquinas’ death), “translated all the books of natural and moral philosophy from Greek into Latin at the instance of brother Thomas.” But of the numerous signed translations by William extant very few are of works by Aristotle. Moreover, is the Thomas here mentioned Aquinas? The very next name in the bibliography in question to follow this Wilhelmus Brabantinus is Thomas Brabantinus or Thomas of Cantimpré, who may have been the person to suggest the translation to his fellow Fleming. However, Aquinas and William were both connected with the popes in Italy in the 1260’s, and Aquinas would seem to have had more interest in a translation of Aristotle than Albert’s other “auditor,” Thomas of Cantimpré.
The following extracts from medieval chronicles specifically mention Aquinas, but as their dates are obviously incorrect not much reliance is to be placed upon them.
In Chronico Slavicorum apud Lindenbrogium ad annum 1249. “Wilhelmus de Brabantia Ordinis Praedicatorum transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis de graeco in Latinum verbum a verbo (qua translatione scholares adhuc hodierna die utuntur in scholis) ad instantiam sancti Thomae de Aquino Doctoris.”
In Chronico Susati, quod MS servat Veneta SS. Ioannis et Pauli bibliotheca. “Anno Domini 1267 fr. Wilhelmus Brabantinus, corinthiensis de Ordine fratrum Praedicatorum, rebus excessit humanis, baccalarius in theologia. Hic transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis Rationalis Naturalis et Moralis Philosophiae et Metaphysicae de graeco in latinum, verbum a verbo, quibus nunc utimur in scholis ad instantiam sancti Thomae de Aquino. Nam temporibus domini Alberti translatione vetere omnes communiter utebantur.” “Albert’s day” was of course no different from Aquinas’ whom he outlived by six years.
In 1847 the Histoire Littéraire, XXI, 147, said, “Guillaume de Meerbeke passe pour avoir traduit tous les livres d’Aristote, à la prière de saint Thomas. Nous n’oserions affirmer ni cette intervention du docteur angélique, ni cette immensité des travaux du traducteur brabançon. Il s’en faut qu’on ait de lui une série si volumineuse de versions latines.”
[1979] As has been pointed out by HL XXI, 147, in the case of the “new translation” of the Ethics, dated in the colophon in 1282, whereas Aquinas died in 1274. Quetif and Echard (1719), I, 390, had argued, however, that this date was when the MS was copied and not when the translation was made; but this is far-fetched as most of William’s translations are similarly dated. Certainly William’s labors as a translator did not cease with his elevation to the archbishopric of Corinth, since he translated Galen De alimentis in 1277 and works by Proclus in 1281.
Quetif and Echard, in order to maintain the cooperation supposed to exist between William and Aquinas, also hold that William’s translation of the Elementatio theologica of Proclus made at Viterbo in 1268 was from the Arabic and not from the Greek, since Aquinas says in his commentary on that work that the Greek text had not yet been found. This conclusion is also drawn by HL XXI, 148.
[1980] See Duhem II (1914), 394, for a like opinion expressed by Augustine.
[1981] Opera, 27, 248.
[1982] Chartularium univ. Paris. (1889-1891), I, 504-5, dated May 2, 1274, “... humiliter supplicamus ut cum quaedam scripta ad phylosophiam spectantia, Parisius inchoata ab eo, quae in suo recessu reliquerit imperfecta, et ipsum credamus, ubi translatus fuerit, complevisse, nobis benevolentia vestra cito communicari procuret, et specialiter super librum Simplicii, super librum de celo et mundo; et expositionem Tymei Platonis, ac librum de aquarum conductibus et ingeniis erigendis; de quibus nobis mittendis speciali promissione fecerat mentionem.”
[1983] Of this commentary the third and fourth books were finished by Peter of Auvergne.
[1984] Aquinas is even credited with an abridgement of the Almagest in CLM 56, 1436 A. D., “Almagesti abbreviatum per magistrum Thomam de Aquino”; cited by Björnbo (1911), p. 129. But this, I take it, is the same as the abridgement of the Almagest which Averroes is said to have made and which was translated by the order of Alfonso the Great: see Digby 236, 14th century, fol. 190, where the writer of a prologue to another work of Averroes remarks, “Scivit enim Averoys optime Almagestum. Nam vidi per eum Almagesti abbreviatum, quem librum fecit transferri Rex Alfonsus Magnus, et habetur Bononie et in Hispania.”
[1985] Summa, Prima pars, Quaest. 110, Art. 4, and Quaest. 111, Art. 3; Contra Gentiles, III, 101-3; De potentia, VI, 5; Sententiae, II, Dist. 7, Quaest. 2-3.
[1986] Summa, Secundae secunda, Quaest. 96, Art. 2.
[1987] Contra Gentiles, III, 101-5; De potentia, VI, 10; Summa, Prima pars, Quaest. 115, Art. 5; De substantiis separatis, cap. 2.
[1988] Quodlibet, IV, 16.
[1989] Summa, Secundae secunda, Quest. 96, Art. 1.
[1990] Contra Gentiles, III, 106.
[1991] For the opinions of Hincmar, Gratian, Peter Lombard, and other ecclesiastical authorities on this question of witchcraft and impotency see Hansen (1900), p. 153.
[1992] Quodlibet, XI, 10; Comment. in Lib. IV Sententiarum, Dist. 34, Art. 3.
[1993] In Isaiam, cap. 3; Summa, II, ii, 95; De sortibus, passim.
[1994] Contra Gentiles, III, 154.
[1995] Summa, II, ii, 95, art. 5.
[1996] Ibid., art. 6.
[1997] Summa, II, ii, 95, art. 7.
[1998] De sortibus, caps. 3-4.
[1999] Summa, II, ii, 95, art. 8, and 96.
[2000] For the Lots of the Saints or Apostles see: CLM 14846, 10th century, fols. 106-21, “Sortilegia per literas et sacros libros quorum meminit Gregorius Turonensis” (see Historia Francorum, IV, 16); Egerton 821, fols. 54v-56r; BN nouv. acq. 4227, 13th century, in Provençal (consult Felix Rocquain, Bibl. d. l’École des Chartes, 1880, pp. 457-74; ed. by C. Chabaneau, with Latin original, Montpellier, 1881, and Revue des langues romanes, XVIII-XIX); Vienna 2155, 14th century, fols. 54-56, Sortes apostolorum.
[2001] Aquinas’ discussion occurs in his De sortibus, caps. 4-5. This treatise, which he wrote for the duchess of Brabant, is apt to precede or follow his equally brief De occultis operibus in the MSS: as in Corpus Christi 225, 14th century, fol. 232; Brussels (Library of Dukes of Burgundy) 2471, 15th century; CLM 3754, 14-15th century, fol. 51.
In Bologna University Library 1158, fols. 49v-52v, is a different De Sortibus from that of Aquinas. It has six or seven sections: the first inquiring what lots are; the second whether they are good or bad, permitted or prohibited; third, if prohibited, when, and if not always, why not; fourth, whether to cast lots is to tempt God; fifth, whether they were permissible before Christ but not since; sixth, why women are often better at lot-casting than men. The last question, which appears to have been whether the subjects of lot casting could be evil, seems to be left unfinished.
[2002] Opera, 27, 504-7, De occultis operibus naturae ad quemdam militem. Other forms of the title found in the MSS are, De actionibus occultis naturae, De occultis actionibus rerum, and De operationibus occultis. MSS are numerous: for instance, at Paris alone, BN 3899, 6738A, 6786, 16195; an anonymous De operibus occultis in BN 16096, 13th century, fols. 120v-122r, I find on examination to be that of Aquinas. MSS of it at Munich are: CLM 402, 3754, 6942.
[2003] Summa, II, ii, 96, art. 2, “Res autem naturales habent quasdam virtutes occultas quarum ratio ab homine assignari non potest.”
[2004] Meteor., III, 9.
[2005] Ibid., “Unde etiam ipsi Alchimistae per veram artem alchimiae sed tamen difficilem, propter occultas operationes virtutis coelestis....”
[2006] Pico della Mirandola (1586), II. 6. p. 51.
[2007] Contra Gentiles, III, 103; Summa I, 117, 3.
[2008] Summa, II, ii, 96, art. 4.
[2009] Responsio ad Magistrum Joannem de Vercellis. Responsio ad lectorem Venetum, Artic. 1-2. De substantiis separatis., cap. 1 (Opera, 27, 275), “Ipsae etiam animae coelestium corporum si tamen sint animata, inter Angelos sint connumerandae, ut Augustinus definit in Enchyridione.”
[2010] Besides the treatises mentioned in the preceding note, see the Summa, Tractatus de fide, Meteorologicorum libri IV, De judiciis astrorum ad fratrem Reginaldum, Commentary on Matthew.
[2011] Opera, 27, 249, Ad J. de Vercellis.
[2012] De trinitate, III.
[2013] De divinis nominibus, IV.
[2014] De judiciis astrorum, Opera 27, 449. MSS of this treatise, too, are numerous: for instance, at Paris BN 6786, 3109, 3899, 6512, 15690; and at Munich CLM 402, 5594, 27001, 3754, 6942.
[2015] De sortibus, cap. 4.
[2016] Summa I, 115. 4. De fide, cap. 129.
[2017] Ibid., and De sortibus, cap. 4.
[2018] Peter of Prussia (1621), cap. 15.
[2019] Contra Gentiles, III, 105; Summa, II, ii, 96, artic. 2; De occultis operibus.
[2020] Comment. in Math., cap. 2.
[2021] Summa, III, 36.
[2022] Responsio de vi articulis ad lectorem Bisuntinum.
[2023] As we have already been over their arguments, Aquinas’ presentation thereof may perhaps be better summarized here than in the text. The Gospel account led the Priscillianists to subject all human acts to fate and the Manicheans to repudiate the Book of Matthew as inculcating a belief in fate. Against them are rehearsed the following arguments. First, as Augustine says (Contra Faustum, II, 5), no astrologer asserts that a star will leave its usual position at a man’s birth and go to him, as the Gospel narrative asserts that the star in the east did, and hence Matthew confounds rather than defends the error of astrology. Aquinas then quotes with apparent approval the erroneous assertion of Chrysostom (Homily 6 in Matth.) that “it is not astronomy’s task to tell from the stars who are being born, but to predict the future from the hour of nativity.” He also notes Chrysostom’s objection that it took the Magi over two years to travel to Bethlehem so that the star must have appeared two years before Christ’s birth. This, by the way, would make the date 4 B. C., usually given for the birth of Christ, fit nicely into Münter’s date of 6 B. C. for the constellation which portended it. Aquinas also repeats the argument that the star was probably a new creation of God.
But all these criticisms are really quite beside the point, since even according to the Bible story, the Magi, who were evidently astronomers, knew perfectly well what the star meant. Indeed, Aquinas himself repeats the statement that the birth of Christ was announced to them by a star, although to Simon and Anna and to the shepherds by other methods, because they were used to stars. If it was a very unusual kind of star and had a very unusual meaning, all that simply goes to show that a good astrologer is equal to any emergency. Aquinas, indeed, or rather, his authorities, sees the need of stating some other method than astrological skill by which the Magi comprehended the significance of the star. He adduces two explanations from Augustine (Sermo 374 de Epiphania, and De quaest. vet. et nov. test., Quaest. 63); one that they were admonished by angels, which makes us wonder why there was any star at all; the other, that Balaam had left them a prediction concerning the coming of the star.
Aquinas also repeats something of what the fathers have said on the allegorical significance of the Magi. But on the whole he, like his authorities, fails signally to explain away the astrological significance of the Magi.
[2024] Hist. eccles. XXIII, 13 (Muratori XI, 1170). Michelitsch Thomasschriften, I (1913), p. 126, dates Ptolemy’s list between 1312 and 1317, but I do not know why.
[2025] It is included in Fretté and Maré, Opera, 27, 454-64.
[2026] Denifle (1886), p. 237.
[2027] Pierre Mandonnet, O. P. Des Écrits Authentiques de S. Thomas d’Aquin, Fribourg, 1910.
[2028] See the list of writings ascribed to Albert in Borgnet’s edition of his works, I, lxii. I have also seen the treatise ascribed to Albert in the Explicit of Sloane 2156, 15th century, fols. 154-9.
In Bologna University Library, 1158, 14th century, where the first treatise in the MS at fols. 1-39 is the treatise of Aquinas against William of St. Amour, our treatise together with another De fato which follows it and brief treatises on divination and lots are catalogued together as fols. 41-52, “Magistri Alberti theotonici de fato, de divinatione, de sortibus.” In the MS itself, however, the only statements as to authorship are headings in the margin. That at the beginning of our De fato seems to be “Magri” (Magistri) “Alrti” (or Alxri, rather than Alberti) and a third word which looks like “Theotonici.” The second De fato is headed “Magri (Magistri) Alexandri” in the upper margin of fol. 45r, and the next treatise is headed, fol. 47r, “Questio de divinatione Alexandri.” The anonymous De sortibus which follows it is also not Aquinas’. The second treatise on fate considers six questions, of which the last is whether Christ was physically subject to the influence of the constellations like other men.
[2029] In BN 16096, 13th century, fol. 138r-, is another which seems different from either of the De fato’s mentioned in the preceding note. The catalogue questioningly assigns it to Alexander, but is probably misled by a rubric at fol. 139v which seems to be simply a citation (“in sic inscripto libro”) and which reads, “Alexandri affridisei ad imperatores antoninum et severinum liber de fato.” In this same MS at fols. 120v-122r occurs Aquinas’ De occultis operibus.