Aquinas, Thomas
Assigned: Aquinas, Saint Thomas. From Summa Theologica (191-94). Also read the editors’ introduction (188-90).
From Summa Theologica (1265-73)
Question 1, Ninth Article
1. On 191 (“Obj. 1. It seems that the Holy Scripture…”), what is the first objection raised against the use of metaphor in Scripture? What view of poetry is assumed in this objection?
2. On 191 (“Obj. 2. Further, this doctrine seems…”), what is the second objection raised against the use of metaphor in Scripture?
3. On 191 (“Obj. 3. Further, the higher creatures are…”), what is the third objection raised against the use of metaphor in Scripture?
4. On 191 (“On the contrary, It is written…”), what view of human nature leads Aquinas to assert that metaphor is entirely appropriate as a vehicle for clarifying Scripture? How does he describe people’s way of appreciating “intellectual truths” (191)? In particular, how does he describe the capacities of “simple” people in a way that emphasizes the moral imperative to teach them Scriptural truth by means of figurative language? (In responding, it would be useful to look up the meaning of the Christian theological principle of accommodation. This principle or doctrine is the one that Aquinas’ commentary here would seem to derive from.)
5. On 191-92 (“Reply Obj. 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors…”), how does Aquinas reply to each of the three objections he has raised? With respect to the response to Objection 1, how does he differentiate poetry’s use of metaphors from Scripture’s use of them? With regard to Objection 2, in what sense does divine revelation, according to Aquinas, transcend the metaphoric or figurative language through which it may have been initially given? Moreover, what utility is there in “The very hiding of truth in figures” (192)? As to Objection 3, how does metaphor even of the lowlier sort criticized in the third Objection preserve fallen humanity’s respect for the gap between the human and the divine? In Aquinas’ view, what spiritual and intellectual danger does this kind of metaphor help to ward off? (In responding, it would help to look up the terms “negative theology” and “doctrine of accommodation.”)
Question 1, Tenth Article
6. On 192 (“Obj. 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word…”), what is the first objection raised against the propriety of a word having several senses in Scripture?
7. On 192 (“Obj. 2. Further, Augustine says that the…”), what are the second and third objections against the propriety of a word having several senses in Scripture?
8. On 192-93 (“On the contrary, Gregory says…”), on what basis does Aquinas defend the polysemous quality of Scripture? In what sense does God, unlike human beings, “signify […] not by words only […] but also by things themselves” (193)? What gloss does Aquinas go on to offer of the four levels of signification that are standard in Christian semiology, and of their relationship to one another? In what way is it significant to Aquinas’ defense of Scriptural “levels” of meaning (i.e., of Scriptural polysemy) that God “comprehends all things by His intellect…” (193)?
9. On 193 (“Reply Obj. 1. The multiplicity of these senses…”), in responding to the first objection raised against the propriety of a word having several senses in Scripture, Aquinas insists that the “multiplicity” of levels of signification he has been exploring “does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity.” Why are the Bible’s four “senses” or levels of meaning and its figurative language not a threat to stable meaning or to God’s providential order—i.e., to his all-encompassing plan for humans and the universe? What importance does the “literal” level of signification take on in Aquinas’ argument here, and why?
10. On 193 (“Reply Obj. 2. These three—history, etiology, analogy…”), Aquinas addresses the second objection raised against the propriety of a word having several senses in Scripture. Here, the issue involves a claim of inconsistent use of terminology. How, in Aquinas’ view, should the various aspects of the “literal sense” be understood? Why is it important for him to define the term “literal” as carefully as he does—why, in other words, is the literal sense of Scripture so important? How, too, does Aquinas demarcate the term “allegory”?
11. On 193-94 (Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in…”), Aquinas addresses the third objection raised against the propriety of a word having several senses in Scripture. In this instance, the issue is that the “parabolical” sense has not been mentioned. How does Aquinas answer this charge? In doing so, how does he further refine the meaning of the vital “literal sense” of the words in Scripture—what is the implication of his assertion that it is not “the figure itself, but that which is figured” (194) that constitutes the literal sense” of an expression?
12. General question: In our selections from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas validates the use of metaphors and other figures in the Scriptures. Using metaphors and other figures is part of our everyday experience, and of course metaphor is a central type of figurative language in literature. We tend to use the term without thinking much about its significance. What, then, is metaphor? Explain this linguistic phenomenon in your own terms with as much technical accuracy as you can, but also try to get at the heart of what using metaphors accomplishes and why metaphor matters in our everyday experience and in literature.
Edition: Leitch, Vincent B. et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 3rd ed. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2018. ISBN-13: 978-0-393-60295-1.
Copyright © 2021 Alfred J. Drake