St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibetal Questions 1 and 2 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 585 The book suffers seriously from an overall lack of organization. The reader is constantly being referred to later chapters to fill in the details of a discussion. One misses a general account of Aristotle's theory of time that would help illuminate the numerous references to its details. Also, there is a curious lack of detailed consideration of Plotinus' treatise On Eternity and Time (Ennead 3.7), surely both historically and philosophically one of the most important texts of the period. STEVEN K, STRANGE The University of Pittsburgh St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibetal Questions z and 2. Translated by Sandra Edwards. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1983. Pp. viii + 128. Paper, $7.5 o. As the editor indicates in her helpful Introduction, Quodlibets were a special kind of formal disputation conducted by Masters, especially Masters in theology, in medieval universities. Introduced into the theology faculty at Paris during the earlier thirteenth century, they were already an established aspect of university life when Thomas Aquinas began his studies there in 1~52. When he assumed his teaching duties as a regent Master in that faculty in 1256, he himself began to conduct them. Five of these (Quodlibets 7 through 1 1) date from his first Parisian teaching period as a Master (12561259 ), and the others, Quodlibets 1 through 6 and Quodlibet 1~, date from his second Parisian regency (1269-1~72). While conducting formal disputations fell within a Master's normal teaching duties, Quodlibetal disputations differed from other forms in important respects. Masters were not required to conduct them, and not all did so. They were reserved for only two periods during the academic year--shortly before Christmas, and shortly before Easter. Unlike other formal disputations, in the case of Quodlibets the Master did not have the right to fix in advance the particular questions to be debated orally. As the very term "Quodlibet" indicates, questions could be raised by anyone including other Masters (a quolibet), and about any suitable topic (de quolibet). Hence there was no necessary connection in terms of topic betwen the particular issues raised for discussion at the first day's oral disputation. The Master would return for a second day's disputation soon thereafter. In the meantime he would be expected to have imposed some organizing plan upon the many and disparate questions originally raised and to offer his definitive solution (or determination) for each, It is this second and definitive version which he would eventually prepare for publication. As time went on in the later thirteenth century, the written versions of Quodlibets disputed at Paris tended to become much greater in length. Witness, for example, the 15 disputed by Henry of Ghent from 1~76 until 1291, or the 15 debated by Godfrey of Fontaines from 1~85 until ca. 13o3/o4, or to cite an even lengthier example, Duns Scotus's single Quodlibet which dates from the first decade of the fourteenth century. One suspects that many of these later Quodlibets were expanded considerably by their respective authors in their written forms. The relative brevity of Thomas's Quodlibets, on the other hand, suggests that they are fairly close in their 586 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY a3:4 OCTOBER 1985 written form to the version which he presented in oral fashion on the second day of each disputation. Their brevity notwithstanding, many of the particular issues debated within Thomas's Quodlibets 1 and a are important, both because they reflect the concerns of those proposing questions to Aquinas, and because of the philosophical and theological precisions introduced by their author. Like most Quodlibets, they are remarkable for their range. Questions are disputed from the fields of speculative and moral theology, various parts of philosophy, sacramental theology, and canon law, to name some areas. Among issues of interest to students of medieval philosophy, mention should be made of Thomas's treatment of the then hotly contested question of unicity vs. plurality of substantial form in individual substances, especially human beings, and the theologically related question concerning the numerical identity of the body of Christ during the period in the tomb (Quodlibet 1, qu. 4, art. 1; Quodlibet 2, qu...