When in the 1950s Antoine Dondaine published his work on Thomas Aquinas’ “secretaries,” he relied on his study of codices BAV, Vat. lat. 718 and Vat. lat. 9851. He claimed that the scribe C and the other scribes on the same staff were in the service of Thomas Aquinas when they executed those codices. The present contribution deals with the work of C in those two codices and in two more manuscripts, i.e., Paris, Bibliothèque Mazerine, Ms. 873 and Wien, ÖNB, (...) Cod. 1479. In Vat. lat. 718, C, a French scribe, works in the service of A, the Italian scholar who upon examination proves to be the original owner of that codex. In Vat lat. 9851, no direct link can be substantiated between Thomas Aquinas and C. On f. 5va C simply begins to copy a model without special quality, while on f. 5rb, scribe E, an Italian scholar who was a direct associate of Thomas, finishes his copy from an independent and excellent textual tradition. In Paris Maz. 873 and Wien ÖNB 1479, C writes in the service of the original owners, who... (shrink)

When in the 1950s Antoine Dondaine published his work on Thomas Aquinas’ “secretaries,” he relied on his study of codices BAV, Vat. lat. 718 and Vat. lat. 9851. He claimed that the scribe C and the other scribes on the same staff were in the service of Thomas Aquinas when they executed those codices. The present contribution deals with the work of C in those two codices and in two more manuscripts, i.e., Paris, Bibliothèque Mazerine, Ms. 873 and Wien, ÖNB, (...) Cod. 1479. In Vat. lat. 718, C, a French scribe, works in the service of A, the Italian scholar who upon examination proves to be the original owner of that codex. In Vat lat. 9851, no direct link can be substantiated between Thomas Aquinas and C. On f. 5va C simply begins to copy a model without special quality, while on f. 5rb, scribe E, an Italian scholar who was a direct associate of Thomas, finishes his copy from an independent and excellent textual tradition. In Paris Maz. 873 and Wien ÖNB 1479, C writes in the service of the original owners, who... (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Metaphysics: from creatures to creator Creatures The creator A spiritualistic anthropology.

The opinion according to which Thomas Aquinas was the original owner of ms. Vat. lat. 718 has proved wrong and cannot serve anymore for dating the codex before Thomas’ departure to Italy . The Parisian tradition of De progressu animalium and De motu animalium integrated Moerbeke’s two translations not only into the Aristotelian Corpus recentius of zoological treatises, but also into the corpora recentiora of the parua. It is probable that De historia animalium was augmented with Book X in a (...) secondary stage of its circulation. As far as the university tradition of De motibus animalium et aliorum paruorum is concerned, not all questions regarding three successive exemplaria, and more precisely those of the exact contents, composition and number of peciae are definitively resolvable for the moment. R.-A. Gauthier’s position regarding the composition of the exemplar of the psychological parua in Np3 must be corrected after new examination of the manuscript witnesses . Several Italian witnesses do not depend on the university text, but regularly attest to the existence of independent traditions. Moerbeke’s Greek codex used in his first version of the Latin translation has some similarities with the Greek codex used by the Anonymous whose translation became the basis of Albert the Great’s De principiis motus processivi. This latter Greek codex is not preserved, but it had some striking similarities with ms. Firenze Laur. LXXXVII.21, which originated in the monastery of Hagios Nikalaos in Casole near Otranto. Moerbeke’s Greek model was certainly not identical with that used by the Anonymous and was, indeed, obviously better. (shrink)