Tips on reading Thomas Aquinas

[Lepanto]

What do you think about this?

bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/st_tips.htm

Also, can anyone help me understand how to interpret the shorthand used when Thomas’ works are cited, as in a bibliography? For example, what do these mean abbreviations mean?

Thomas, Summa Theologia, Ia. q. 1, art. 1-7

Thomas, Summa Theologia, Ia. q. 22

 

[Nita]

…Also, can anyone help me understand how to interpret the shorthand used when Thomas’ works are cited, as in a bibliography? For example, what do these mean abbreviations mean?

Thomas, Summa Theologia, Ia. q. 1, art. 1-7

Thomas, Summa Theologia, Ia. q. 22

Will start with the 1a:

Thomas’ Summa is composed of three major parts
Part 1 is on God and is not subdivided; so “1a”, by itself, refers to this first Part.

Part 2 is on man (the advance of the rational creature to God). But, Part 2 itself is divided into two sections. Therefore, you have the “first part of Part II” designated by “1a 11ae” and the “second part of Part II” designated by “11a 11ae”.

Part 3 is on Christ and is undivided; hence “111a”

At least, that’s what I think it means!

If you’ve seen the Summa at all, you’ll know that it contains sections within each major part titled “Question (number)” (kind of like chapter headings. Question 1 is designated “q. 1”; Question 22 is “q. 22”, etc.

Under each Question, there will be several Articles. The First Article is designated “art. 1”, etc…

So, Summa Theologica, Ia. q. 1, art. 1-7 means:
Part 1, Question 1, Artlcles 1 through 7

Summa Theologica 11a 11ae, q.144, art. 3 would be:
The second part of Part II, Question 144, Article 3

---

The Summa set I have consists of 5 volumes, and I think that is probably standard since occasionally when something is referenced, the Volume number is also included. eg. Vol IV, IIIa, q. 2, art. 2
I like it when they include the volume number - easier to know immediately which volume to grab.

Nita

 

[Nita]

What do you think about this?

bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/st_tips.htm

I think it’s fine.

Generally it is Aquinas’ response (“I answer that,…”) that I find most interesting - moreso than the replies to the specific objections.

The most difficult part for me when I started reading Aquinas was the terminology. I had never had philosophy - and unfortunately there is no dictionary at the end of the book!! Forced me to get into philosophy enough to at least understand the terms.

Nita

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita, great explanation.

Two things: I don’t think those things are 1’s (1, 11, 111) but rather roman numerals (I, II, III).

And I would add, by way of explanation that the reason the shorthand is Ia or IIa or IIae is because of the Latin names for each part:

PRIM**A PARS (First Part)
Ia

PRIMA** SECUNDAE PARTIS (First Part of the Second Part)
Ia IIae

SECUNDA SECUND**AE **PARTIS (Second Part of the Second Part)
IIa IIae

TERTIA PARS (Third Part)
IIIa

The above is somewhat cumbersome for forum work – so I often use another shorthand and just say I, I-II, II-II, III. Note this too is bit idiosyncratic because of the Latin, i.e. I-II, instead of II-I.

VC

 

[Nita]

Nita, great explanation.

Two things: I don’t think those things are 1’s (1, 11, 111) but rather roman numerals (I, II, III).

You are so right. Otherwise it would have been eleven (11) and not two (II).

Thanks for pointing that out.

Nita

 

[Nita]

Oh, and thanks much for the meaning behind the “a” and “ae” notation. I wondered about that.

Nita

 

[Verbum_Caro]

:tiphat: You are welcome!

[sign]Summa Fan Club[/sign]

 

[dacoobob]

Nita, great explanation.

Two things: I don’t think those things are 1’s (1, 11, 111) but rather roman numerals (I, II, III).

And I would add, by way of explanation that the reason the shorthand is Ia or IIa or IIae is because of the Latin names for each part:

PRIM**A PARS (First Part)
Ia

PRIMA** SECUNDAE PARTIS (First Part of the Second Part)
Ia IIae

SECUNDA SECUND**AE **PARTIS (Second Part of the Second Part)
IIa IIae

TERTIA PARS (Third Part)
IIIa

The above is somewhat cumbersome for forum work – so I often use another shorthand and just say I, I-II, II-II, III. Note this too is bit idiosyncratic because of the Latin, i.e. I-II, instead of II-I.

VC

Oh, so it is like writing 1st, 2nd, etc. Neat.