THE LEONINE COMMISSION, 125 YEARS AFTERITS FOUNDING, SETTLES IN PARIS

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

The origin, historical development and ciinenl projects of theLeonine Commission, which is in charge of Ihe critical edition ofihe complete works of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Keywords: Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII, Leonine Commission,works, critical edition.

I. " Q u o LATIUS SPARGATUR AC DISSEMINETUR A N G E L I C I

DOCTORIS SAPIENTIA".'

With these words, in his Letter lampridem considerando.published on the 15'" of October of 1879. Leo XIII indicated hismotive for undertaking a new edition of the complete works ofSaint Thomas Aquinas: "so that the wisdom of the Angelic Doctormight propagate and be spread as widely as possible". And thePope judged such an undertaking "of such importance because itpertains strongly to the common good of the Church".{"Conftdimtis enim in re tatn gravi, quae ad commune Ecclesiaehonutn magnopere pertinet. adfore nohis divinam opem ... ").-

1. LEO XUI. "Littera lampridem considerando", 15" of October. 1879 (ed.Leon., t. l ,p. XXI).

2. Ibidem.

Anuario Filosdfico, XXXIX/2 (2006), 497-520 497

ADRLANOOLIVA.OP

The Letter lampridem considerando was a kind of decree whichput into effect the recommendations of the recent EncyclicalAetemi Patris (4* of August of 1879), in which professorial chairsin the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor were instituted, and theAcademy of Saint Thomas in Rome was created. Along with thesetwo initiatives, the papal letter decreed that a complete edition ofthe works of Saint Thomas should be printed, considering that thePiana edition of 1570 was not easily accessible, and that thecollections of his works which had recently been printed —inparticular the Parma edition (25 volumes, 1852-1873) and theVives edition (34 volumes. 1871-1872)— suffered from a doubledeficiency: in the quality of the printing, and In the completenessof the works of the Holy Doctor.

Therefore, the new edition first of all had to remedy these twodeficiencies, but also it had to contribute a critical revision of thetext, "basing itself upon the manuscripts discovered recently andwhich thus have been returned to being of service in our age"{'^accurateque emendata; Us etiam adhibitis codicum manuscriptorum subsidiis, quae aetate beam nostra in probroad iucemet usum sunt").-^

In obedience to the Letter lampridem considerando, which isdated the 15" of October of 1879. the Order of Preachers(Dominicans) was immediately put in charge of searching for themanuscripts of works of Saint Thomas: this is testified in a letter ofthe 9'" of November of 1879, directed to the entire Order, by FatherGiovanni Maria Sanvito, who at that time governed theDominicans as Vicar General of the Order. This letter —publishedby Father P. de Contenson in a famous article dedicated to theorigins of the Leonine Commission—** begins by announcing tothe entire Order the initiative of Leo XIII of beginning a newedition of the complete works of Saint Thomas: it continues. later,

3. thidem.4. P. M. DE CONTENSON, "Documents sur les origines et Ics premieres

anndes de la Commission Leonine," in St. Thomas Aquinas 1274-1974.Commemoratives Studies, vol. 2. Toronto, 1974, p. 354 1331-3881.

498

THE LEONINE COMMISSION. 125 YEARS AFTER TTS FOUNDING

by mentioning that some members of the Order were alreadyresearching, in the most important libraries of Europe, themanuscripts of the works of the Angelic Doctor. In addition, henoted that other friars, "erudite" and "experienced", were applyingthemselves diligently ("destidant") to the revision of the Pianaedition, correcting and improving it from the manuscripts.

This letter, and the results of the work of those "ex Ordinedoctissimi Viri" is important in several aspects. First of all. itshows that, 25 days after the Letter lampridem considerando.. twogroups of friare were already working on the new edition,anticipating the Pope's decree: doing the research necessary tocomplete the Piana edition, looking in all possible libraries forunpublished works of Saint Thomas, with which to correct thisedition. Secondly, this letter reveals the attempts of the Pope topromote this revised edition, already called "Leonine"^ in the letterof Fr. Giovanni Maria Sanvito: Leo XIII did not have in mind thelaunch of a new critical edition of the works of Aquinas, but ratheronly a very good revision of the 1570 Piana edition, completing itwith any newly-discovered genuine works lacking there. The useof tbe "manuscripts discovered recently and thus returned to use"^to which the papal letter makes reference, does not have anythingto do with the reestablisbment of a critical text (something that wasa true novelty at that time), but consists simply in resorting to themanuscript tradition to eorrect texts that were consideredunsatisfactory: something that had been practiced even before theinvention of the press! On the other hand, the reference to themethod of preparation of the new edition, contained in the Letterlampridem considerando, disappears in later letters of Leo XIII.

And indeed when, on the 18'" of January of 1880, in his Motuproprio Placere Nohis the Pope ordered three cardinals (De Luca.Simeoni. Zigliara) to preside over these works of revision

5. P. M. DE CONTENSON. op. cit.. p. 354. The dedication to Leo XUI of thefirst volume of the edition (1882), calls it precisely "Leonine" (ed. Leon., t. 1).

6. ibidem.

499

ADRIANO OLIVA, OP

("editioni [...} praeesse"),'^ there is no reference to any particularmethod for carrying out the work. Nevertheless, a new elementappears: the rate at which each new volume should appear wouldhave to be established by the cardinals.

It has already been noted by Father P. M. de Contenson that theMotu proprio does not institute a commission of cardinals, butrather personally directs the three cardinals to take over thetask. The selection of these cardinals, on the other hand, isspecified in the document: Cardinal de Luca as Prefect of Studies;Cardinal Simeoni as Prefect de Propaganda Fide (and thereforealso in charge of the Vatican Press, where the new edition wouldbe printed); and Cardinal Zigliara, insofar as he was an eminentdisciple of Saint Thomas {"ad disciplinam S. Thomae apprimeinstitutum atque eruditum").^ Although the "Leonine Commis-sion" as such did not take its current form until the years 1934-1935, nevertheless, at least from the 11" of December of 1882, thefriars who worked on the editio Leonina were grouped in aCollegium editorum operum Sancti Thomae Aquinatis.*^ Theexpression editio Leonina is already used in the letter which theVicar General. Fr. G. M. Sanvito. sent to the entire DominicanOrder on the 9"' of November of 1879. and would be consecrated inthe dedication of the first volume of the series to Pope Leo Xlll.

What do we know about the work undertaken at the dawn ofthis publishing enterprise?

In order to obtain an answer, it is sufficient to refer to thevolumes themselves of this collection. The first volume appearedin July 1882, only two and a half years after the beginning of theenterprise. In his introduction. Cardinal Zigliara explains how therevision of the text was carried out: the friars who researched thecopies of the works of Thomas in European libraries have

7. "Editioni autem curandae destinamus ac praecipua auctoriiate praeessevolumus tres sandae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales." Placere Nobis, 18 ianuarii188O(ed. Leon., t. I. p. XXV).

8. Ibidem.9. P. M. DE CONTENSON, op. cit.. p. 332. n. 3.

500

THE LEONINE COMMISStON. 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

compared the text of the Piana with the manuscripts thusdiscovered, and have communicated the textual variants to theteam of friars who, in Rome, were in charge of performing therevision.'" Wherever the text of the Piana had to be corrected, itwas done based on the readings of the manuscripts, following,however, the most scientific rules of textual criticism {"legessapientioris critices")^^ and not without indicating in a footnotethe reading of the Piana edition {"neque mmni iota aut ttnurnapicem in Editione Piana mittare nisi auctoritate fretuscodicum " ).

Although it is true that we cannot speak of a critical edition forthe series of volumes prior to the IW Pars (1906). the expression"scientific edition" is perfectly applicable to these firstpublications.

The first issue of the 2005 Revue des Sciences Philosophiqueset Theoiogiques has just published an article by Concetta Lunaabout the history of the Leonine edition. This study. 80 pages long,demonstrates the scientific seriousness of the first Leonineeditions, and highlights the skill with which the friars of theCollegiutn editorum S. Thotnae applied the earliest achievementsof philological science to the medieval Latin texts of ThomasAquinas, which until then had been mainly developed in therevision of classic editions of Latin and Greek authors, and of theSacred Scriptures.'-

10. "Huic Summi Pontificis desiderio ut faeeret satis Magister GeneralisOrdinis F*raedicatoriini, cui dcmandala est a Leone XIII ciira huius novae Editionisoperum s. Thomae, quosdam religiosos in scientiis simut et artc paleographicaeruditos designavit. qui Bibliothecas perlustrant, codices optimae notae inquirunt.scripta s. Tbomae inedita diligenter investigant. atque omnia in scripto noiaia alil.sreligiosis Romae degentibus et novani hanc editioncm curanlihus trans mi ttunt."(ed. Leon., t. I. p. XXXVI-XXXVII).

11. "Quid vero in adomando ... leges .sapientioris entices Inculcani" [Ibidem.p. XXXVIl).

12. Cf. C. LUNA, "L'edition Leonine de saint Thoma.s: ven; une mtfthode decritique texiuelle et d'ecdotique." Revue des Sciences Phihsnphiqttes etTheologique.s. 89/1 (2005), pp. 31-110. . -

501

ADRIANO OLIVA, OP

The Dominicans working in the publishing house certainlywanted to make a true critica! edition, or at least to make aneffort. We preserve a rich correspondence between the VicarGeneral of the Order of Preachers, Cardinal Zigliara, and theProvincial Generals of Europe as well as various friars, amongthem the fatuous historians Chapotin, Balmes, Denifie. whichshows that the highly cotnpetent Dominican friars maintained theeffort to perform their work in a scientific manner. In the course ofjust the three months which intervened between, on the one hand,the publication of the Letter Jampridem considerando on the 15'" ofOctober of 1879, which began the work of revision officially, andon the other hand the publication of the Motu proprio on the 18'" ofJanuary, which ordered the three cardinals to administer therevision, there was at least one letter per fortnight exchangedbetween the institutions and the above-mentioned officials to whowere to organize the task.

One of these letters is particularly useful in showing that PopeLeo XIII and the Dominicans understood the work to be done indiametrically opposite ways. The Pope had anticipated a reprintingof the Piana edition, nothing else, and had calculated that twoyears would be sufficient to complete the work. On the other hand,the Dominicans, in particular Fr. Denifie, were in contact with themost important academic centers of Europe, and had collectedcritiques from scholars concerning the project proposed by thePope. Father Denille echoed their critique, and in a letter to theMaster Genera! of the Order, prior to the 28" of October of 1880,he wrote: "all the German scholars and some of the French whom 1have met here have told me that if the Supreme Pontiff does notmodify his project, our Order, and the Supreme Pontiff hitiiself,will later suffer damage, because the critiques, since I myself havealready listened, will be directed first against the Cardinal[ZIgliaraJ and our Order, and then also against the SupremePontiff. 13

L3. "Omnes docti in Germania et aliqiii Galli, qiiibiisciim conveni. niihidixerunt. quotl si Summus Poniifex consilium suum non mutabil. |...| ordo nosterel ipse Summus Poniifex in detrimemum veniret, quia critici, ut iam audlvi, primo

502

THE LEONINE COMMISSION, 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

We must suppose that Father Denitle was. in a way, therepresentative of an opinion shared within the Order, opposed tothe intentions of the Supreme Pontiff; this latter would solve theproblem in 1883. by promoting Father Denifle to be Prefect of theVatican Secret Archive. Next, on the 3"' of October of 1886. PopeLeo XIII himself, in a letter to Cardinal Zigliara, would establishthe plan to be followed in the re-editing of the Piana edition,dictating that it would be begun by publishing the two Summas.^^

Given that in 2005 we are commetnorating the 125'" anniversaryof the declaration, on the 4"' of August of 1880, of Thomas Aquinasas the Patron Saint of all universities, academies, grammar schoolsand Catholic schools, it seems to me opportune to revisit theorigins ofthe Leonine edition, which, as we have seen, dates fromthe 15'" of October of 1879, and to highlight two things: first of all.that Pope Leo XIII and the Dominican friars who collaborated withCardinal Zigliara conceived in different ways the publishingenterprise which they had initiated together. And, secondly, thatthe Dominican friars were conscious from the beginning of thescientific requirements that the new science of textual criticismdemanded of the Leonine edition. If they were limited to produce a"scientific edition",'^ this was due, from the beginning, to the willofthe Supreme Pontiff.'^

contra Card, et nostrum ordinem insurgent et deinde etiam contra SummumPontificem" fP. M. DE CONTENSON, op. cit.. p. 369).

14. Cf P. M. DE CONTENSON, op. cit.. pp. 379-380. We are preparing amonograph focusing on the role of the Dominicans during those difticultbeginnings of the Leonine Edition, which will include the publishing of newdocuments.

15. Concetta Luna, in the article mentioned, not only demonstrates the lackof basis of the criticism of Clemens Baeumker to the edition of the /" pars, butalso demonstrates that the option chosen by the Leonine editors was. to a greatdegree, more scientific than the solution proposed by the critic Baeumker.

16. About the origins of the Leonine Commission, apart from the article ofFr. M. de Contenson, see also L. J. BATAILLON, "L'edition leonine des oeuvresde saint Thomas et les titudes mtJdidvales," in L'enciclica 'Aeterni Patris"nett'arco di tm secolo. Atti deii'VIll Congres.w Tomistico internazionale.Pontificia Accademia di S. Tommaso e di Religione Cattolica, Cittii del Vaticano.1981, pp. 452-464; IDEM, "Le edizioni di Opera Omnia degli scolastici e

503

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

2. THE LEONINE EDITION IN THE PRESENT DAY

Beginning on the 10'" of June of 2003, the Leonine Commissionfor the Critical Edition of the Works of Saint Thomas Aquinas hasbeen based in Paris. The legal headquarters of the Commissioncontinues to be in Rome, along with the administrative offices, onwhich the Leonine depends directly; its main headquarters,however, is now in Paris, where it can make use of specializedlibraries and the numerous research centers on the Medieval era.

a) The Leonine in Paris: Chronicle of a Retum

In a certain sense, it is possible to speak of a retum of theLeonine to Paris. In fact, beginning on the 1" of October of 1952, abranch of the Leonine Commission was founded in Etiolles. next tothe studium of Le Salchoir, that "School of theology" made famousby its method and research, and which continued later, throughvarious initiatives, in the convent of Saint Jacques (Paris XIII).These new surroundings were advantageous for the whole LeonineCommission. In fact, it was this branch that promoted thereorganization of the work requested by the General Chapter of1949: a campaign to photograph about 4000 manuscripts of theworks of Sainl Thomas (and also of contemporary authors, or ofthose who could have served as Aquinas's sources), a campaignwhich was brought to fruition by the Leonine team. In addition, themethod of collating manuscripts was totally renewed: historicaland codex-related research was improved, and the rules of textualcritique were adapted to the editing of medieval texts of varioustraditions; the study of paleography was greatly deepend throughmeticulous and scientific study of the autographs of Thomas

I'ediziotie Leonina." in R. IMBACH; A. MAIERU (eds.). Gli studi di ftlosofiamedievate fra Otto e Novecento. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 21-23settembre 1989, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Roma, 1991. pp. 141-154.

504 . .

THE LEONtNE COMMISSION, 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

Aquinas: this has led, among other things, to the publishing of textsaccording to a spelling that follows medieval usage.

The works published in this period were as follows: thecommentary on the book of Job (1965); the commentaries on twoworks of Aristotle, i.e. the Nicomachean Ethics (1969) and thePolitics (1971J; and the fust two volumes of opuscules (1968;1970). Aside from the commentary on Job, prepared by the Ottawabranch and finished in Rome, the other volumes were prepared bythe branch of Le Saulchoir.

b) 771 Last Thirty Years in Italy

At the beginning of January 1973, after the closing of theStudium of the French Dominican Province in ^tiolles (Paris), theLeonine branch of Lc Saulchoir was transferred to Grottaferrata.where part of the Leonine branch of Santa Sabina (Rome) had alsobeen transferred. In Grottaferrata, the Dominicans were welcomedby the Franciscan Friars Minor, the famous "Editors of Quaracchi,"who had had to leave Quaracchi. near to Florence, after thedisastrous Hoods of 1969. The Franciscans had just finishedsettling in to the south of Rome, above the "castelli romani," in the"School of St. Bonaventure."

The collaboration with the team of Franciscans was particularlypositive, and the first ten years were crowned by the organizationof an international colloquium, in May of 1983, concerning theproduction of exemplar manuscripts and pccie. This medievalsystem of reproducing manuscript consisted of not giving the entiretext to the person who wanted to make the copy, but rather anexemplar, formed of separate booklets called pecie. The copyistswere lent texts divided in this manner, and would copy oncpecia ala time, while at the same time other copyists could borrow othersections of the same work. The classical technique for reproducinga codex, however, required that it be monopolized by a singlecopyist who would make only one single copy at a time.

505

, OP

It is important to remember that the celebration of thiscolloquium was the culmination of extensive research on pecia,initiated by the Leonine Commission at the beginning of thecentury. It was in 1906, in the introduction to the edition of theSupplementum of the ///" Pars, when the Leonine scholarspublished a study on pecia, that the componenis that distinguishthe exemplar and pecia are described accurately. The pecia was nolonger treated as a unit of text, instead being accurately consideredto correspond to a booklet of folios. It was also determined that,generally, one pecia was made up of 2 bifolios (four folios),although sometimes there were pecie of 3 bifolios.''^ The results ofthis research into codices were later examined in the light of theStatutes of the Universities of Paris and Bologna, where there arementions of exemplaria and pecie; the conclusion was finallyreached that pecia served not only to determine the unit of work ofthe copyist, but also to provide a certain guarantee of"authenticity" of the copied text.

The later investigations of the Leonine editors on this secondpoint have allowed for greater precision and caution. However, inthe introduction to the Supplementum the foundations were alreadylaid for understanding the system of the university textualtradition. The stages of these studies on pecia can be brieflyrecalled: in 1954, thanks to Father H. D. Saffrey —who worked inclose collaboration with the Leonine branch of Le Saulchoir,especially with Fr. L. J. Bataillon— the edition of the Super Decausis showed the various exemplaria simultaneously available,and the interchangeability of tbe pecie. The edition of Super lob, in1965, permitted the editors to state that the text of the work

17. "Ilia scilicet mensurae unhas. quam ratio petiae imponat. existebat inexemplarium petiis tamquam in re mensurante. et quia scHptor L. occa.sioneaccepta e casu extraordinario. rem mensurantem dicit esse de sex chartis, excluditni fallor mensurani quae supra margines exemplaris signata tantum esset; expHmite contrario fomialiier mcnsuram-fasciculum. Si auiem haec exemplaris petia eratverus temio, petiae ordinariae amplitudinis veri duemiones fuerunt; quae veropetiae notabiliter medium linearum numerum excedunl. terniones fuissc videntur,ita scilicet ut sextae chartae aut totae aut niagnam partem albae relictae fuerint"(ed. t^on.. t. XII, 2' pars, p. X).

506

THE l^ONINE COMMISSION. 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

transmitted by the e.xemplar does not necessarily belong to the bestfamily. The system of loaning exemplaria was studied in theintroduction to Super Ethicam (multiplicity of exemplaria: revisionpecia by pecia) and to the Super Politicam (duplicate exemplar andreworked e.xemplar).

With these premises, it will be easily understood that theProceedings of the colloquium held in Grottaferrata in !983, andpublished by the C.N.R.S. of Paris, came to constitute the work ofreference on this subject in the eyes of the entire academiccommunity of medievalists.^^

During its thirty years in Grottaferrata (January of 1973-June of2003), the Leonine Edition has published fourteen volumes. Theediting of some texts was begun and brought to completion inGrottaferrata; other texts were reviewed and prepared for printingthere.

c) The Move to the "Space Saint-Jacques" in Paris (W*' ofJune, 2003)

With the agreement of the Holy See. the administrativeheadquarters (curia) of the Order of Preachers implemented thetransfer to Paris of the Leonine Commission, with the aid of theDominican Province of France. The Leonine settled at the "Libraryof Le Saulchoir," next to the Revue des Sciences philosophiques ettheologiques, in the convent of Saint-Jacques.

The patrimony of the Leonine consists first of all of itscollection of manuscripts reproduced on microfilm: nearly 500.000photographs. Umberto Misso. a professor of Philosophy (Logic) at

18. L. J. BATAILLON; B. G. GUYOT; R.H. ROUSE (eds.). La production dulivre urtiversiloire au Moyen-Age. "exemplar" el "pecia". Actes du Sympo.siumtenu au Collegio San Bonaventura de Grottaferrata en mai 1983, Ed. duC.N.R.S., Pari.s, 1988. Concerning ihe role of ihe first Leonine editions in thestudy of the system of pecia, vid. C. LUNA, op. cit.

507

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

the University Roma 3. has produced a database for the differentkinds of reproductions of manuscripts (microfilm, printed photos,digital photos, transliterations, transcriptions, collations) thatconstitute the treasure of the library. We are currently working on aproject to develop this database as soon as possible so that it can bemade available to other libraries. The library of the Leonine alsoconserves nearly 18,0(X) volumes, mostly for aiding in theproduction of the critical edition: a small specialized library.

In addition to the collaboration with the Library of LeSaulchoir, and with Revue des Sciences philosophiques ettheologiques, the Leonine Commission in Paris has initiatedprivileged contacts with the "institut de Recherche et d'Histoiredes Textes," and in the course of 2004-2005 the two institutionshave promoted common training initiatives in tbe production ofcritical editions of medieval texts.

Under the auspices of the "Centre Pierre Abelard," Paris IV-Sorbonne, on the 13* of December of 2003, Professor RuediImbach organized a colloquium with the title "The LeonineCommission: Philology and History at the Service ofThought". The lecturers positioned the Commission vis-a-vis thehistory of the intellectual movements at the end of tbe 19'" centuryand the beginnings of the 2O'\ At the same time they highlightedthe contribution of the work of the Leonine Commission tomultiple areas of the philological sciences. This colloquium,besides celebrating the arrival of the Leonine Commission in Paris,also offered an occasion to express public gratefulness to Father L.J. Bataillon. who has been working for more than 50 years in theLeonine, not only for the high scientific quality of his works, butalso for the cheerful availability and the amiability thatcharacterize his style of being both a scholar and a friar. Themorning presentations of the colloquium were published in the firstissue of the 2(K)5 Revue de Sciences philosophiques et theolo-giques.

508

THE LEONINE COMMISStON. 125 YEARS AFTER FTS FOUNDING

d) Works in Progress

The preparation of volume 44/1 is very advanced: it containsthe critical editions of 21 sermons of Thomas, prepared by FatherL. J. Bataillon. The text is at the stage of correcting the typesetter'sproofs. The richness of this volutne is twofold. The first, in themost general sense, corresponds to the study of preaching, mainlyin university contexts, in the Middle Ages: the general introductionof the volume studies all the collections of manuscripts that havetransmitted the sermons of Thomas, authentic or only attributed,and thus represents a small introduction to this sort of preachingand the method with which it should be studied. The secondcontribution of the introduction, and also of the edition of thesermons itself, is to reveal an unedited Thotnas: the reportaiionesof his homilies introduce us to his presence. It seems as though hewere speaking directly to those who read the sermons today. Onthe other hand, the topics treated by Aquinas lead us to anencounter, sometimes with the teacher, at other times with the friar,and at other times with the uir euangelicus.

Another edition which is very advanced in production is theqiiaestio disputata De potentia (volume 21). This text was workedon, first by Father Gallet, and later Father Gauthier, who died in1999; the latter prepared the text but was unable to finish thework. It remains to review the text, and also to write half of theintroduction and half of the source apparatus. Although it is not asmall amount of work, is is not imposing either. The team in Pariswill work together to complete this publication.

The editions of several works are at the moment in the phase ofrevision. Of particular importance is volume 24/3, which willcontain the quaestiones disputatae De uirtutibus in communi., Despe, De caritate, De unione Verhi incamati, and De duobuspraeceptis. The edition has been prepared by Father E. Deionne, ofLouvain. and now it must be reviewed and prepared for printing.

In addition to these works, the edition most advanced is that ofthe Commentary on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans. Father

509

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

G. de Grandpre will complete the introduction shortly, and then theentire work will be able to be reviewed, and should be sent to thepress before long.

The edition of the other Biblical commentaries is not veryadvanced, with the exception of the Commentary on the Psalms,being prepated by Dr. M. Morard, who has also prepared theBiblical text of the Psalms commented on by Thomas (1-56), andwho has prepared up to half of the text of the commentary.

The edition of the Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle(volume 46) is being prepared by Professor J. Reilly. who is set tofinish the introduction and the source apparatus. The revision ofthe text will begin soon, because Professor Reilly has just sent thedefinitive text and tbe apparatus of almost all the books.

Of the other commentaries on Aristotle, the edition of the SuperMeteora (volume 3/3) is also in progress, under the direction ofDr. Kevin White, of the Cathohc University of America(Washington), who had already published, several years ago, threeunpublished chapters of the commentary on book 2 (chapters 13-15). The collation ofthe manuscripts is very advanced.

Also the work of editing is proceeding apace on theCommentary on the Sentences. The text of the third book, preparedby Father Hinnebusch. is already prepared, and Dr. R. Wielockx,who has to carry the work to completion, is advancing inresearching the sources and in the editing ofthe text. Fr. P. M. Gils(t 2001) prepared the edition of the text of book II; Father A. Olivais in charge of the editing of the text, and Father Z. Pajda is incharge of the manuscript sources. The text of Book IV will beestablished in the course of 2005 by Father W. Fauser. SJ. Also hehas written part of the introduction. It remains to establish who willbe in charge of preparing the sources for the fourth book, whichhas a wordeount superior to the total of Books I and II.

The work on the edition of Book I are still in the stage ofcollating the manuscripts: Father H, Dondaine has organized adozen manuscripts that allow for following the formation andevolution of the text. The edition of the prologue to the Commen-

510

THE LEONINE COMMISSION. 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

tary will be published by the publishing house J. Vrin, of Paris,preceded by two studies: one on lhe inanuscript tradition of Book 1,and another one on the teaching of the Sentences by Thomas.'^

Father L. J. Bataillon has done some preliminary research onthe text of the Prima pars that has allowed him to identify severaltextual traditions: two exemplaria from Paris, one Neapolitan andone from an independent family. Father W. Senner, with an eye tothe publication of the German translation of the treatise on sin ofthe Prima Secundae, has studied the printed tradition of this part ofthe Sunima.-^

Dr. Denise Bouthillier is preparing the edition of volumes IVand V of the Codices manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino. Herwork is based on notes gathered by partners of the Leonine,especially by Hugues Shooner. The description of the manuscriptsin libraries from Prague to Vama has finished already (volume IV);and the description of the codices conserved in the VaticanApostolic Library (volume V) has been undertaken.

At the moment, 12 researchers work in the LeonineCommission, and three young Dominican friars have begunformation.

3. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Now that we have come this far, the question could arise abouthow much time is required for publishing a volume of the LeonineEdition.

19. A. OLIVA. Les debuts de renseignemeni de Thomas d'Aquin et saconception de la 'Sacra Docirina'. Edition du prologue de son 'Commentaire desSentences' de Pierre Lombard, J. Vrin, Paris, 2006.

20. L.J. BATAILLON, "Recherches sur te texte de la Prima pars de laSumma Theotogie de Ttiomas d'Aquin." in Roma magistra mundi. Itinerariaculturae medievalis (Melanges L, E, Boyle. OP), Loiivuin-la-Neuve, 1998, vol. !,pp. 11-24. W. SENNER, Deut.iche Thomas Ausgahe, t. 12.

511

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

Naturally, many of you will already have formulated an answer,bearing in mind the long list of variants studied byFr. R. A. Gauthier, or the beautiful stemmata of the Qtuiestiones detieritate, each a small work of art from the typesetter's point ofview. Certainly, it is not a matter of responding to the question byreferring to the editions already published, which constitute amodel of applying textual criticism to medieval Latin texts. Permitme to provide some information about the textual tradition of thecommentary of Thomas on the first Book of Sentences of PeterLombard.

These are the stages to follow in producing a critical edition ofa work: (I) Census and analysis of all the preserved manuscripts;(2) classification of the manuscripts according to provenance andcharacteristics; (3) tests {collation.'i) of all manuscripts on onesignificant pan of the text (at least 8000 words); (4) if themanuscript tradition has a university branch, collation (mutualcomparison) of all the manuscripts in peciis whenever there is achange of pecia:, (5) possible tests of all the manuscripts inparticularly significant variants; (6) elaboration of a stemma (agenealogical tree of the manuscripts).

What is a university tradition of a medieval work? Earlier, as Ispoke about the history of the Leonine Commission. I emphasizedthe role of this institution in the discovery of the purpose oi peciain the production of medieval books. I would like at this point toshow the application of this discovery to a critical edition.

The great demand for books, originally for legai writings andlater theological as well, at the end of the 12'" century and thebeginnings of the 13'\ caused the university students to develop aspecial system of reproducing manuscripts. Until that point,habitually, a manuscript would be bonowed by a copyist, whoretained it during the time required to copy it. Consider that aprofessional copyist could copy five or six columns of text perday. This means thai the manuscript could not be used for studyduring the time required to make the copy.

In order to avoid this problem, it was decided to create specialmanuscripts, called exemplaria, formed by booklets, like any other

512

THE LEONINE COMMISSION. 12S YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

manuscript, bul nol sewn, so that a copyist could borrow eachbooklet separately. These booklets were caWed pecie {"pieces") andtogether constituted an exemplar (the "moder').^'

I invite you to consider that this one innovation in the system ofbook reproduction in the Middle Ages has resulted in at least twoimportant consequences: (1) first of all. it made it possible tosimultaneously copy more codices from the same exemplar; (2)secondly, it changed the relation of each copy to the archetype ofthe text.

This second innovation is certainly the most significant fromthe point of view of the textual critic, who tries to reconstruct a textas close as possible to the original, based on the testimonies of theconserved codices.

The commentary of Thomas on the first Book of the Sentenceshas been transmitted via this system of exemplar-pecie. Limitingourselves to the first pecia, which contain the prologue to theCommentary, we have compared all of the 76 manuscripts thattransmit this work. The result bas been the identification of threelarge families, represented in stemma (see figure I).

21, As an aside. I'd like to retnind you that the Library of the CathedralChapter of Pamplotia preserves a famous exemplar of Aquinas's Super IIISententiarum: sec P. M. GILS, "Codicologie et critk|ue textuelle pour une dtudedu ms. Pamplona. Catcdrtil 51". Scriptorium, 32 (1978). pp. 221-230.

513

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

[autographe suppose]

apographe

Figure 1

What is it that has allowed me to place tbe manuscripts of thefamily V (alpha) in such a close relation with the archetype? There

514

THE LEONINE COMMISSION. 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

are a series of special variants, which provide added explanationsor highly significani additions which mark the difference betweenthe first edition of the text and the second edition.

How can we speak of two successive editions and in addition toprivilege one over the other? To explain this, it will be helpful topresent an analysis of how Thomas himself edited the third book ofthe Sentences, an anaiysis that we will derive from the autographmanuscript, preserved today in the Vatican Apostolic Library.

As Father Gils has shown, with ample evidence, in his threearticles dedicated to this manuscript,-^- Thomas made some verycharacteristic corrections to the first edition of his text. We canobserve some of these in folio 31 r of the codex.

It has to do with explanations added or short corrections(although, sometimes, they can be very ample corrections) whichwe found in the autograph codex, written sometimes by the hand ofSt. Thomas himself, others by that of his secretary, as in thiscase. It is is important to aiso observe that Thomas returned tothese corrected passages time and time again; thus, we can be surethat these corrections have his approval and are therefore variantsfrom the author himself.

This same phenomenon can be found in the textual tradition ofthe commentary on the first book of the Sentences. Here are someexamples (the references made here are to the lines of theupcoming edition of the prologue;--'' V* (alpha)* indicates the firstversion, not reviewed by ThomasJ;

Prol.,a. 3,ad2,I.u.61-63;

"Et hoc usitatur etiam in scientia morali, quia operationesparticularium, et circa particularia sunt, unde per exempla

22. P. M. GILS. 'Textes inc'dit.s de st. Thomas. \jfs premiferes nSdaciiotis du'Scriplum super tertio Senlentiarum'", Revue des Sciences Fhilosophiques etTheologiques. 43 (1961), pp. 201-228; 46 (1962). pp. 445-462. 609-628.

23. A. OUVA, Les debuts cil.

5i5

ADRIANO OLrVA. OP

particularia ea que ad mores pertinent meliusmanifestantur'*

unde per exempla particularia ea que ad mores pertinentmelius manifestantur ] def V* (alfa) *(suppi. mg. .sec. m. Md). O' pr. m. O

ProL, a. 3, ad 3, u. 1 IMI2 :

"Habitus istorum principiorum, scilicet articulorum, ideodicitur fides et non intellectus,..."

scilicet articulorum] def. V *(alfa) *, Bg ' Bx! P ' P jmg. 0\ F' Mo Zw : scilicet sup. ras. (articulorum) W^: est(articulorum) V'

Prol., a. 5, resp., u. 21-23:

"modus aceipiendi ista principia debet esse reuelatiuus expane infundentis ut in uisionibus prophetarum et oratiuusex pane recipientis ut patet in Psalmis"

ut in uisionibus '"' "'""" ] def * (suppl. mg. sec. m. Bx),pr. m. P\ O' ac pr. m. O' {suppi mg. see. m. P , ac O^): transp. ante ex pane (= reuelatiuus ut in uisionibusprophelarum ex pane infundentis) W'

Super I Sent, d. 7, q. 1, a. 2, resp., on potentia generandi

Here is the first revision of V* (alfq)* (in italics):

"Similiter dico quod, cum proprietas realiter sit ipsa essentia,aliquis actus egreditur ah ipsa essentia secundutn quod ip.saest patemitas et iste actus est generare, unde principiumgenerationis est essentiale sub ratione relationis";

However, the corrected version is as

24. Ed. Mandonnet, p. 179. The italics are mine.

516

THE LEONINE COMMISSION, 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

"Similiter dico quod, cum proprietas realiter sit ipsa essentiasecundum quod est paternitas est principiuni huitis actus quiest generare, non sicut agens sed sicut quo agitur undeprincipium generationis est essentiale sub ratione relationis".

Super I Sent., d. 37, q. 3, a. 1, resp.: Vtrum angelus sit in loco.

And next, the corrected passage from the text, V* (alpha) *,not witnessed by the printed tradition until the edition ofParma, inclusive:^

"Angelus et quaelibet substantia incorporea non potest essein corpore vel in loco nisi per operationem. quae effectumaliquem in eo causat. Hoc autem conlingit multipliciter"

The following version is, however, the text authorized byThomas and published only in the Vives edition:^^

"Angelus el quaelibet substantia incorporea non potest essein corpore vel in loco nisi per operationem, quae effectumaliquem in eo facit, vel praesidendo, vel ministrando, velaliquo modo agendo, ut dictum est; vel eciam a corpore inea efficitur, quae in passione spirituum sotum accidit; undede hoc nihil ad praesens. EJfectum autem facit in locomultipliciter"

Thanks to the autograph manuscript of Super III Sententiarum,we can identify which is the primitive version and which thecorrected one; and, naturally, it is necessary to treat the correctedmanuscript as Thomas's authorized version, certainly not theprimitive one. The revision by Thomas, not only of folio 31, butalso of other parts of the autograph, assures us of the authorizationof the revised text.

25. Ed. Parmensis, p. 303 a.26. Ed. Mandonnei. p. 871. The italics are mine.

517

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

Another observation about the text of Super III Sententiarum:the autograph has been corrected only up to distinction28. Afterwards there are no further corrections. Nevertheless, themanuscript tradition testifies to a double revision, the original andthe secondary. This means that, at the same moment at whichThomas was revising his text, a copy of the autograph was beingprepared, which would be the archetype of the tradition and itsexemplar. Once the e.xemplar had been prepared, Thomas made nofurther corrections to the autograph, which was quite difficult toread, but corrected the archetype (or the exemplar itself)-

This fact also testifies to the frenetic rate at which works in theMiddle Age were published. And it confirms our research, whichhas led to us to establish that, in only a single year, Thomascommented in class on two books of the Sentences ofLombard: Book III (1252-1253) and Books III-IV (1253-1254).

If we now take a look at the representation of family V (alpha)in Figure 2, we will see that the three manuscripts Bx' Md y V',which transmits the primitive text, are copies of the pecia number 1of exemplar V (alpha).

Pecia 1 de Vexempiar o*

=;> revision =^>

Figure 2

In these three manuscripts there are copying incidents thattestify with certainty to their dependancy on the exemplar. Also itis safe to say that the other manuscripts of V (alpha) are copied

518

THE LEONINE COMMISSION. 125 YEARS AFTER ITS FOUNDING

from the same pecia, because they react to the same errors in theprimitive version of pecia V* (alpha*). And this means that therevision of the text was performed after Thomas's first versionalready was in circulation!

At the beginning of these considerations about textual criticism,I observed that the manuscripts copied from the pecie of anexemplar maintain a close relation with the original text. Duringthe period that a single pecia is used as a model by many copyists,the copyists make marks; some copyists write their names in themargin, "Bemardus" for example, so that they could rememberwhere they had tmished copying. It could then happen that a latercopyist, when returning to copy the same pecia, might think thatthe name is some auctoritas that should be inserted in the text. Inthis way, the text of a pecia^ even those close to the origin of thetradition, is exposed to a series of corruptions of the followingtype:-''

lambilicus = > Istimblicus = > Isiumblicum ==> SimpUcus = > Simplicius

or else:

naturam-communem = > numeracionem = > intencionem

In addition, the text of an exemplar can depend, not on anarchetype made by Thomas or his secretaries, but from amanuscript of low quality, as is the case, for example, with thecommentary of Thomas on the Book of Job.^^ In contrary to whatwas believed when the system of e.vemplar-pecia was discovered,^^the fact that a textual tradition is trasmitted by means of exemplaris not really a guarantee that the text based on the e.xemplar is atext very close to the original one: the text transmitted by theexemplar must be studied next to that of all the other manuscripts,and be located in the totality of the textual tradition.

27. Cf, ed. Leonina, t. 23, p. 31 *.28. Ed. Leonina. t. 26.29. J. DESTREZ, Ui Pecia dans te.i manii.\cHt.'i universltaires du XIJT et du

AVV'.wA7f?.Vautrain, Paris, 1935, 104 pp.

. 5 1 9

ADRIANO OLIVA. OP

After having clarified the characteristics of the universitymanuscript tradition, we can conclude by saying that this studydoes not eliminate the need to put into practice the traditional rulesof textual criticism as applied to a classic tradition of the text. Weare not dealing with a petitio principii (in the negative sense of theterm), but rather of arriving at, or at least glimpsing, the origin ofthe text, which constitutes the ideal for all critical editions.

Adriano Oliva. OPj Commissio Leonina\ ' 20 rue des Tanneries

F - 75013 Paris, Franceemail; aoliva@nerim.net

520