Aquinas on Oral Teaching

The Thomist 71 (2007): 505-28 AQUINAS ON ORAL TEACHING KEVIN WHITE The Catholic University ofAmerica Washington, D.C. IN QUESTION 42, article 4 of the Tertia Pars, Aquinas asks whether Christ should have handed on his teaching in writing. He argues that it was fitting he did not, for three reasons: because of his dignity, because of the excellence of his teaching, and so that his teaching might go forth from him to everyone else in an order. I propose to consider this article more closely.1 By way of a prologue, I will begin with a look at its most important written philosophical antecedent, even though Aquinas does not seem to have known it, namely, the argument in Plato's Phaedrus that no serious teaching can be transmitted in writing. To contextualize the issue in Aquinas's work I will then briefly mention some passages on writing in his commentary on Boethius's De Trinitate and his Summa Theologiae. Finally, with respect to the article on Christ's not having written, I will discuss its Augustinian source, its sed contra, and its three arguments. 1 For a thoughtful earlier consideration of Aquinas's article see Domenico Farias, "Utrum Christus debuerit doctrinam suam scripto tradere," Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 59 (1956): 2037 . The present discussion differs in emphasis from that of Farias, who, for instance, draws some useful connections with texts ofAquinas on the nature of teaching. See also Jean-Pierre Torrell, Le Christ en ses mysteres: La vie et !'oeuvre de Jesus selon saint Thomas d'Aquin (Paris: Desclee, 1999), 2:250-54. For the general context of STh III, q. 42, see the discussion of the structure of the Tertia Pars in John F. Boyle, "The Two-fold Division of Thomas's Christology in the Tertia pars," The Thomist 60 (1996): 439-47. 505 506 KEVIN WHITE I. THE PHAEDRUS ON TEACHING AND WRITING The Phaedrus consists of a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus that treats the question of how to compose a speech addressed to a beloved, then goes on to discuss written composition in general and the difference between good and bad writing. Towards the end Socrates offers a critique of the art of writing in three parts.2 First he presents a myth about the invention of writing (274c275d ). Someone who had invented writing and many other arts showed them to a king, praising the art of writing in particular as a drug for improving memory and wisdom. The king disagreed. He said that writing would instill forgetfulness rather than memory, because men would come to rely on written marks instead of exercising their memories; it is a drug for being reminded rather than for improving memory, and it would instill an appearance of wisdom rather than the reality, because its users would lack instruction, although they would be "hearers" of many things who as a result would seem to know a lot. Socrates comments that anyone who believes he can put knowledge into writing, and anyone who accepts writing as if anything clear and steady could come from it, are foolish to think that written words can do more than serve as a reminder to someone who already knows what the writing is about. Socrates next compares writing to painting (275d-276a). The products of the art of painting stand there as if they were alive, he says, but if you ask them something they are very silent and solemn. It is the same with written words: they speak as if they had understanding, or so you would think, but if you want to learn something and ask them about it, they just keep signifying the same one thing. Once a speech is written, it rolls around promiscuously in all directions, among those who understand it and those for whom it is unsuitable, and it does not know the difference between those to whom it should and those to whom it should not speak. If it is attacked and unfairly accused it always 2 Cf. Plato, Seventh Letter 341a-342a. AQUINAS ON ORAL TEACHING 507 needs the help of its "father" or author, since it is unable to defend itself. By contrast, the living...