No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The Master of St. Thomas Aquinas
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2024
Albert the Great is chiefly entitled to fame as having been for seven years the teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas, and to the end of his life the devoted admirer of his pupil and staunch defender of his doctrine.
To say this is not to belittle Albert personally; it is to place him very high indeed in the hierarchy of great men.
The excellences by which St. Thomas was most distinguished were not mere reproductions of the greatness that was his master’s; they were either peculiar to St. Thomas himself, or possibly, in some points at least, derived from other masters who influenced St. Thomas before he first came under Albert’s notice. Albert’s principal title to greatness is the detachment with which he enabled Thomas to develop seeds of greatness independent of anything he had to give, and to advance to heights that he himself could never reach.
1 Q II. a. I.
2 A facsimile from Cod. Miscell. 44 in the Library of Monterassino, has been published by Abbot Amelli in the Corpus Extravagantium Codicum, Rome, 1922, seq. Dr. Grabmann, who has examined this MS., hints, but without saying so explicitly, that it anticipates St. Thomas's teaching in the Summa, Pars. I, Qu. I, a. 7.
3 Comm. on Sentences, ad init.
4 Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, p. 252 (Munich, 1926).
5 Physics, Lib. 2, Cap. viii.
6 C. Baeumker, Petrus de Hibernia der Jugendlehrer des Thomas von Aquino. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie, p. 39 (1920). Baeumker's thesis is not strengthened by subsequent research. it has recently been pointed out by M. M. Gorce, O.P. (Bulletin Thomiste, Nov., 1930, p. 183), that in the Commentary on the Sentences St. Thomas has a predilection for Avicenna, who, however, has lost favour and ‘is always censured in the Contra Gentiles.’
7 On March 7th, 1277, Stephen Tempier condemned 219 propositions, including three from the writings of St. Thomas.
8 Probably one of the University Chairs occupied by the Dominicans.
9 The text reads gloriosas et excelsas, and in this passage shows signs of being corrupt. Possibly there is some play on Gloria in Excelsis. Albert's point seems to be that Thomas is alive in heaven where he is meriting the only praise that is worthy of him. Compared with him, all those present are no better than dead; therefore, whether they praise him or not matters nothing. Whether this is what he preached or not, his defence seems to have been principally responsible for the widespread enthusiasm for St. Thomas which quickly followed, especially in his own Order where he still had some opponents.
10 ‘Post multa dicta et collecta.’ Collecta may refer to the lectiones which masters gave to their pupils. (Cf. Tocco, Cap. III, § 13 ad fin.) But more probably the meaning here is that in the course of his conversations Albert ‘picked up’much edifying information about divine favours granted to Thomas while writing.
11 The inference that Albert studied first at Bologna, then at Padua, is based on the Brief of Honorius III referred to below and other indirect evidence. The conclusion cannot be regarded as certain, but it is very highly probable. It is possible, though very improbable, that the sick youth who vowed at Bologna to become a Dominican, and was later dispensed by Honorius, was not Albert at all.
12 The text of the brief is given by Mandonnet, Revue Thomiste, p. 254, T. XIV, No. 65, Mars-Avril, 1931.
13 Mandonnet, loc. Cit., p. 254.
14 Vitae Fratrum, cf. Mandonnet, ibid., p. 255.
15 Mandonnet, loc. cit., p. 254.
16 Cf. Dante, Paradiso, x, 97–99.
17 Revue Neo-Scholastique Août-Sept. 1932; and de Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, Eng. Trans. 1926, Vol. I, p. 396.
18 Mandonnet, ibid., p. 256.
You have
Access