The Leonine Commission

Fr. John Frederick Hinnebusch, O.P.

The Dominican House of Studies
The Leonine Commission, established by Pope Leo XIII in 1880, is an apostolate of the
Dominican Order that aims to produce critical editions (not translations) of all the writings of St.
Thomas. A critical edition seeks to restore the original Latin text as it came from the author's pen
in its final form. It entails a critique of all extant manuscripts, so as to select the best witnesses
and to eliminate the poor ones.
Since 1981 the American Section has been editing Aquinas's Scriptum on the Third Book
of the Sentences of Peter Lombard (c. 1000-60), commonly called Tertius Thomae in the
medieval schools. A new Bachelor was expected to lecture on the four books of the Sentences as
part of his advance to the doctorate, and so the Sentences commentaries represent the thought of
the young Thomas, and one of his major writings. The Third Book comprises approximately
335,000 words and has survived in 101 manuscripts.
Our project is unique, for the manuscripts include an autograph manuscript (Vatican Latin
Ms. 9851) in the hand of Thomas (about 63% of the total work), and also the university exemplar
manuscript (Pamplona, Cathedral Ms. 51), that is, the master copy of the Paris stationer from
which other manuscripts were copied. This manuscript is the source of the "university tradition"
and represents the actual "publication" of the work by St. Thomas. The possession of two such
manuscripts is a rare phenomenon indeed in the history of medieval, texts.
An editing process begins with the study of the whole manuscript tradition to determine
how faithfully the text has been handed down through successive copying. Five soundings were
made by reading all the 101 manuscripts in large blocs of the text. This study clearly showed the
existence of four distinct families: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta. Next the secondary, second
generation manuscripts were eliminated by determining which manuscripts were "pecia,
manuscripts", that is, copied directly or indirectly from the exemplar manuscript. The medieval
codex, like the modern book, was a composite of pecias (quires, gatherings). A pecia manuscript
is identified by different signs. A scribe often made a note in his copy where one pecia ended and
a new one began, or entered some marking at the place, or paused to sharpen his quill, causing a
change in the lettering. We identified forty-four pecia manuscripts from such signs.
Subsequent research was limited to these forty-four manuscripts, which were studied in
about 250 samplings, that is, testing of words, phrases, sentences, or even half a column, where
problems were indicated by our collation of the autograph manuscript (A) and the Pamplona
exemplar (Pp). Such samplings determined both the existence of a family in a given pecia (each
pecia has its own history), and which manuscript witnesses belonged to each family in the pecia.
Our collation of manuscripts, that is, comparing the different, variant readings between
manuscripts, has shown that A is a first draft of the text by Thomas, for, when compared with Pp,
whole blocs of text have been rearranged, other blocs completely revised or expanded in the text
of Pp. Therefore, the text "published" by Thomas is that of Pp, not that of A. Collation also
showed that four manuscripts had access to two intermediate stages (apographs) of the text
between A and Pp, revealing further revision before Pp. Two large fragments in the hand of
Secretary E also testify to this.
On this basis twelve manuscripts were studied in their entirety: A, Pp, the four
"primitive" Alpha manuscripts which very faithfully reflect Pp before decay set in, one
representative each of the Beta and Gamma families, and the four apograph manuscripts: the two
Delta manuscripts and two others. Because of their importance A and Pp were read through
twice.
Delta represents the "independent" tradition, for it has numerous variants proper to it
alone and not shared by the "university" manuscripts. Commonly such a tradition derived not
from the university centers but in a religious house. A characteristic of these two manuscripts is
their very frequent reading with A against Pp and the rest of the tradition. Our theory, unprovable
of course, is that their common ancestor was copied in a Dominican priory (Naples?) and
possibly had access to the autograph manuscript of Aquinas.
How then do we establish the critical text, a text as close to that which Thomas actually
published? It would be facile simply to say: publish. Pp. But the Pp scribe was human, had his
lapses, his script at times is obscure, easily misleading copyists. Two complete pecias and four
folios have disappeared entirely. In time with constant use as a model Pp was blemished: tears
and punctures in the parchment, ink blots, flaking away of the letters, etc. Faced with obscurity
later copyists made their "guesses" as to what was there, never happily. When Pp was rewritten
in parts or repaired by overwrite or pasteover, the text always came from a late, corrupted
manuscript, a fair copy reflecting the original state of Pp not being at hand. Our reconstructed
text reflects primarily Pp, but Pp corrected by A, the four primitive Alphas, and the four
apograph manuscripts. The Beta and Gamma witnesses have no role. Beta manifestly stemmed
from Pp in its worst corrupted state, while Gamma, even if it often derives earlier than Beta,
seeks to "correct" the Beta or the late, corrupted Alpha source from which it originated. Both
Beta and Gamma thus create new "texts".
Our critical apparatus – the "foot-noting" giving variant readings of manuscripts – is two-tiered:
one for A, one for Pp and the manuscripts. Every incident in A and Pp has been included, so that
the reader can study the evidence and make his own judgments, if he disagrees with the editors.
For the other manuscripts only significant variants are included, those which reflect the history
and transmission of the text. A third apparatus identifies the sources used by Thomas, directly by
quotation or indirectly by implicit citation.
The critical preface states the principles of the edition. It describes the manuscripts and
printed editions, gives evidence for the pecia manuscripts, presents a study of the authoritative
manuscripts with their problems and their role in the transmission of the text, offers reasons and
proofs for editorial decisions, and explains the mechanics of the edition. Perhaps this short
resume will depict the meticulous, detailed labor, constant attention to minutiae, the need for
checking and rechecking by Leonine editors. Perhaps it can give a partial answer to that constant
query: "Why is it taking you so long?" To some the work might seem penitential – Sitzfleisch is
indeed a necessity – but it can also be exciting detective work. Without Pp many of the strange
things that happen in the manuscript tradition would remain a mystery. The close study of the
autograph gives a deep insight into the personality of St. Thomas, and he has become very
human to us. Some of his lapses, due to rapid composing, are famous, as peccatum Christi
instead of peccatum Adae (corrected of course). My vision of Thomas is not that of a slow,
corpulent man, but a wiry dynamo, always in a hurry, always pressed for time.
The American Section completed work on the Third Sentences in 2004 and delivered the
critical text and introduction and annotations to the director of the international Leonine
Commission, Fr. Adriano Oliva, O.P.. The commission relocated the Couvent Saint Jacques in
Paris (leonina.nerim.net). The friars working for the commission in Paris will see to the
definitive editing and publication of the texts prepared by the American Section.

The American Section in 1989

Fr. Hinnebusch, Fr. Conlan, Fr. Cos, and Fr. Harkins