DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19137/circe-2018-220204

ARTÍCULOS

A few Thomas’ Neologisms (from the Commentary on John) not registered in Lexicons. A contribution to the study of Thomas’ language and Medieval Latin Lexicography

Quelques néologismes de Thomas (Commentaire sur Jean) pas enregistrés dans les dictionnaires. Une contribution à l’étude du langage thomiste et à la lexicographie latine médiévale

Unos pocos neologismos de Tomás (del Comentario a Juan) no registrados en diccionarios. Una contribución al estudio del lenguaje tomista y a la lexicografía latina medieval

Pablo Cavallero
[Conicet - Universidad de Buenos Aires - Universidad Católica Argentina]
[pablocavallero@uca.edu.ar]

Abstract: Our objective is twofold: 1) to point out the convenience of incorporating some possible neologisms or other words found in Aquinas’ Commentary on John in future editions of lexicons or in new works devoted to Medieval Latin; 2) to reflect on the problems that a nonspecialist reader may face when consulting the common Latin dictionaries.

Keywords: Thomas Aquinas; Lexicon; Neologism; Commentary on John

Résumé: Nous avons deux objectifs: 1) souligner la convenance d’incorporer quelques possibles néologismes et d’autres mots que nous avons trouvés dans le Commentaire sur Jean, à l’occasion de faire de nouvelles éditions des dictionnaires ou de nouvelles oeuvres dédiées au latin médiéval; 2) réfléchir sur les problèmes qu’un lecteur non spécilisé dans Thomas peut avoir quand il consulte les dictionnaires courants de Latin.

Mots Clé: Thomas d’Aquin; Dictionnaires; Néologismes; Commentaire sur Jean

Resumen: Nuestro objetivo tiene dos aspectos: 1) destacar la conveniencia de incorporar algunos posibles neologismos u otras palabras halladas en el Comentario a Juan del Aquinate en futuras ediciones de diccionarios o en nuevas obras dedicadas al latín medieval; 2) reflexionar sobre los problemas que un lector no especialista puede enfrentar al consultar los diccionarios comunes de latín.

Palabras-clave: Tomás de Aquino; Diccionario; Neologismo; Comentario a Juan

As a natural outcome of our Spanish translation of Aquinas’ Commentary on John¹, we have published a short book with this title: El Comentario a Juan de Tomás de Aquino. Rasgos de latín medieval y actitudes filológicas². In its first chapter, we have analysed the different characteristics of the Late and Medieval Latin present in the text, paying special attention to the morphological and syntactical aspect, as well as the lexical one. Regarding the vocabulary, we have noticed that it is possible to make a humble contribution about Thomas’ language in several aspects³.
In order to determine the possible novelties existent in this corpus, we have looked up in classical and Medieval Latin dictionaries whether the terms were listed and, if so, with what (different/new) senses⁴; if the terms did not appear therein, we paid special attention to the specific dictionaries of the Late Middle Ages⁵. We have verified if these entries were consistent with those of the TLL and with those of the LLT⁶, since these corpora allow for a more reliable and trustworthy access to the sources⁷. In the case of Thomas, another advantage of these corpora is the possibility to look up the specific works about his language⁸, and the Index Thomisticus⁹, works that excel over any other previous production¹⁰.
Our goal now is to reconsider our earlier approach in order to make some new observations about the situation of the dictionaries in relation to Thomistic language. But we must warn the reader that the goal of this work is to a certain extent hypothetical, for several reasons: a) we do not have a critical edition of the Commentarium, and, therefore, we cannot control the textual variants¹¹; b) this commentary was made by Thomas in Paris between 1269-1272 and we conserve a Latin version that a student wrote based on Thomas’ oral exposition and that was revised by Reginald of Piperno (something similar to the situation of the texts of Aristotle or Ferdinand de Saussure). These notes would form a reportatio or lectura; but Tolomeus of Luca reports that the first five chapters were dictated by Thomas and the rest was corrected by Reginald on the base of the pupil’s notes: the result is, then, an ordinatio or expositio¹². Therefore, some questions arise: is this language Thomas’ or is it a ‘Universitary’ language? The revision suggests Thomas’ style, but we cannot claim it. Thus, we must take these results as a hypothetical advance.

False neologisms

First of all, in our research on the Comm. on John we identified some terms that appeared in the Medieval Period (as from the 6th century) and we focused particularly on those which pertain to Aquinas’ time, viz., 13th century. We have noticed that there are words, which, though already in use in his time, acquire a new meaning in Aquinas’ texts¹³. Nevertheless, if the reader consults the DMLBS or the LLT, he finds that, for some of these words, the meaning used by Thomas appears as present already in earlier authors. In addition, a non-specialist reader of Thomas’ work who searches these words in other dictionaries, can be led to think that the meanings that appear there are valid for Thomas Aquinas, when this is not the case¹⁴.
In order to appraise this important issue, it is worth noting that dictionaries that sometimes cite theologians and, specifically Thomas, do not include some terms or omit Thomistic specific usage, which could make the reader think that a term is a neologism, when it is not. Other words are not considered to be Thomas’ neologisms, although, in some cases (e. g. consiliatiuus), the sense could be new. Thus, the word acceptio appears in the 12th century, according to Niermeyer; Blaise (1975) gives the sense «acception (d’un mot)» without examples; but Deferrari-Barry does not register the sense «meaning» or «semantic value of a word» which is the one used by Thomas (cfr. 8-9); in addition, Deferrari-Barry does not include incompossibilis (2051), «mutually impossible», and presents artificiatum (1142), «mechanism, device», only as an adjective. As we can see, in many cases dictionaries can be deceptive and mislead the reader.

‘Possible’ neologisms

There are words that appear in authors who are contemporary to Thomas. We are not sure, then, if they were coined by Thomas himself. We say that these are “possible” neologisms, because Busa and Deferrari cite authors who were born after Thomas Aquinas (and in some cases –we highlight that–, the word is not registered in Deferrari). In addition, the date of the writing of the works is usually uncertain. It is impossible, therefore, to determine with accuracy the first use of the word.
This is the case of:

• ablutiuus (1748), «that which washes», that appears in Albertus Magnus (LLT);

• accessorie (896), «in an accessory way»; it is listed by Blaise’s Lex. without examples. Deferrari-Barry does not include this word. Busa registers this Thomas’ locus and only one usage that occurs in Petrus de Alvernia (1240-1304); in the Du Cange édition augmentée, the manuscript text of the Constitutiones ordinis Cluniacensis is cited, but without date. The LLT adds 3 cases of Sigerus de Brabantia (1240-1280). The DMLBS registers the word in documents of the 13th century;

• aliqualiter (1681 et alii), «in some way», registered by the LLT already in Albertus Magnus (1206-1280), in Bonaventura, Thomas’ schoolmate, and Rogerus Bacon;

• exaltatiuus (1732, 1734), «that which extols», is registered by the LLT only in the two loci of Super Iohannem, but we found that the adjective already appears in Thomas Vercellensis or Gallus (1200-1246)¹⁵;

• explicite (580), «explicitly»: the LLT adds some uses by contemporary authors like Albertus Magnus, Bonaventura, Augustinus de Dacia († 1285);

• participatiue (1460 etc.), «participatively », adverb used –according to LLT– by Albertus Magnus, Rogerus Bacon, Bonaventura.

Some of these words, such as ablutiuus, alterabilis, artificiatum (sust.), promotiuus, are not registered in the «general» lexicons. The cases of praeparatiuus and connexim are significant because these adjectives are used already in the 7th and the 9th century respectively; then, they should have been registered in many Medieval Latin lexicons.

Thomas’ neologisms

More important are the following cases. We argue that these should be considered ‘Thomistic neologisms’:

• contristatiuus (2078), «that which causes sadness;» Busa registers this adjective in 11 Thomas’ cases, but does not mention it in other authors. The LLT gives 9 Thomas’ loci;

• irreuersibilitas (438), «the condition of irreversible;». Busa finds this word once in Super Iohannem and once in De ueritate; he mentions no other authors. The LLT confirms Thomas’ loci and adds no other. The word, then, seems to be a neologism¹⁶;

• obumbrate (1554), «secretly, stealthily»; Busa finds the adverb 6 times in Thomas’ Summa, Catena and Super Iohannem; but in no other authors. The LLT lists 14 cases, but these loci are forms of the feminine participle obumbratae. This adverb, then, seems to be Thomas’ creation;

• sputatio (1309), «spit, sputum,» «the action of spiting»; Busa lists it in Super Iohannem, as a hapax legomenon and the LLT confirms it. But it is not a hapax: the word seems a Thomistic neologism embraced later by the Medical language¹⁷.

• terdenarius (880), «number of three tens»¹⁸; Busa lists this adjective in Super Iohannem, as a hapax legomenon. The LLT confirms it¹⁹.

New senses in Thomas’ usage

There are some cases, which seem to have a new sense in Thomas’ usage:

• claria (1826 «gloria enim dicitur quasi claria»), «praise, extolment» apparently this word is coined on the base of gloria, because it cannot be the plural neuter of clarus (clara): cfr. «nam gloria dicitur quasi claria», Summa II-2 q.103 a. 1 ad 3. Only Blaise’s Lexicon gives the entry claria, but it designates an«uncovered carriage.» Deferrari-Barry links the word to the Greek «κληρία, glory» (158 a). Busa includes these two Thomas’ loci; all the others are forms of the adjective clarus. The LLT lists these loci and texts with the adjective or with Claria as proper noun;

• conditionalis: Thomas employs it as a grammatical term (1285), a meaning that does not appear in the lexicons²⁰. Busa includes 155 cases (occurrences) in Thomas; many of them have the meaning of «adverbial conditional proposition in a text»; there are 41 cases in unknown authors, 3 in Leonardus Pistoriensis, 6 in Helvicus Theutonicus (14th century) and 1 in Cajetanus (15-16th century). But not all these usages, in Thomas and in the others, have the linguistic sense. The unknown author of Summa totius logicae Aristotelis declares (VII 16): «Sed quia ex propositionibus conditionalibus et disjunctivis aliter fiunt syllogismi quam in propositionibus categoricis, ideo...», where there is an explicit reference to the linguistic meaning of this word;

• grossities (2549), «coarseness». As «fatness, thickness», it is registered by Niermeyer in the 12th century, but here it seems to have another meaning. Busa registers 40 cases in Thomas, including that of Super Iohannem, but all the others have the meaning of «thickness» or «width»; the unknown author of De sacramento Eucharistiae 3 says «Item tam longa est longitudo turris sicut ipsa turris, et tam lata quam lata est latitudo, et grossities ita grossa»; and Petrus de Alvernia says: «subtilitas autem et grossities sunt idem quod magnitudo et parvitas; subtile enim dicimus, quod est parvarum partium; quod enim multum extensum est per rarefactionem subtile est; tale autem est quod componitur ex corporibus parvis. Grossum autem est quod est magnarum partium»²¹. Thomas’ usage here, then, seems to be new;

• ministerialiter (2542), «as an instrument, as a way or means». Blaise’s Lex. registers this adverb with two meanings: «by virtue of his ministry,» III Hispanic Council, without date; and as a synonym of instrumentaliter («instrumentalement, comme un instrument, un moyen») opposite to per auctoritatem or auctoritatiue or principaliter (= «à la façon d’un auteur, d’un maître»), and this value appears in Thomas, Summa III 8: 1 ad 1²²; Busa registers 12 cases in Thomas, 2 in unknown authors and 1 in Johannis Michaelis (17th century).

The verb ueneo has no new meaning, but in Nº 1602 Thomas points out that this verb is equivalent to the passive form of the active verb uendo, also a classical one²³; this indication suggests that back in his time the verb ueneo was unusual or its meaning was obscure²⁴.
There are some theological neologisms that have succeeded in time²⁵. In addition to this, it is evident that there is a trend to make adjectives with the suffix -iuus²⁶ and to create adverbs finished in -e²⁷, and this trend is confirmed, if we consider other terms coined in the 12th and 13th centuries that are not Thomas’.
Besides the words accessorie, connexim, exaltatiuus and incompossibilis, only three neologisms are not included in Deferrari-Barry: irreuersibilitas, sputatio, terdenarius.
The additions of Antoine Thomas²⁸ do not include any of the words that have been considered in these tables. On his behalf, Arnaldi includes only acceptio and aliqualiter. However, the DMLBS does not include many terms²⁹ because –it seems– they are absent in British sources. But this tool incorporates earlier registers of causalitas, incompossibilis, lenitiuus, quidditas and tristabilis in Grossetestis, who was ten or fifteen years older than Alexander Halensis: these words, then, could be his creations. Regarding the other words, the DMLBS provides examples extracted from documents or authors of the 13th century or later³⁰.
With this study we aim at calling the lexicologists’ attention to the fact that some of the terms just mentioned do not appear with the new sense that is found in Thomas or his contemporaries in the lexicons that we have mentioned. We observe, therefore, that, in works that sometimes incorporate terms used by Thomas, some words are missing or the meanings are incomplete, even those included among those senses that are identified specifically as of this author. This does not only limit the information available to the reader, but it can also create methodological problems. The clarification expressed in this work is not intended to censure these texts, but serves as an indication or warning to the scholar or the reader interested in Medieval Latin. If he is not a specialist in Thomas or has no access to Busa’s or Deferrari’s works or to the GLPh, when he searches a word in the common dictionaries, he could be misled.

Conclusions

What would we contribute, then, to Thomas’ Lexicography and to Medieval Latin Lexicography?

1) The words that seemed neologisms according to the « general » dictionaries’ entries must be considered:

1.a. Creations of other earlier authors, according to the data items of databases³¹. These words, then, are not Thomas’ creations.

1.b. «Possible» Thomas’ neologisms, because the words appear also in other authors, contemporary to Thomas: i.e. ablutiuus.

1.c. Thomas’ neologisms, because of their sense.

2) The words that had no entry in «general» dictionaries but have it in Busa’s and Deferrari’s lexicons could be broken down as follows:

2.a. Words that were coined by very earlier authors³² or by few earlier authors (second half of 12th century)³³. These terms are medieval creations that in many cases Thomas has spread.

2.b. Words that are «possible» neologisms, because they appear in authors contemporary to Thomas, many of them in Albertus Magnus³⁴;

2.c. Words that seem to be really Thomas’ neologisms.

3) Among the words that are not included in Deferrari-Barry, we can find:

3.1. A term that is a medieval creation: connexim (Eriugena, 9th century);

3.2. A term that could be coined slightly earlier in time: exaltatiuus (Thomas Vercellensis, 1200-1246);

3.3. Some terms that seem to be Thomas’ neologisms.

We stress that Busa or the LLT are not exhaustive in some cases³⁵. In addition, the adjective praeparatiuus (Ildephonsus Toletanus, 7th century), and the adverb connexim, (Eriugena, 9th century), ought to be included in many Early Medieval Latin lexicons.

Then, we point out:

1) That the following words seem to be Thomas’ neologisms: a) because of their sense: claria, conditionalis, grossities, ministerialiter, ueneo; b) because they appear in Thomas for the first time: contristatiuus, irreuersibilitas, obumbrate, sputatio, terdenarius, even though they are not hapax legomena of the Commentary on John (and, in this case, the other uses claim the authenticity of Thomas’ words)³⁶. These words confirm Thomistic novelty, even if Hubert considers that «S. Thomas est le plus classique de ses contemporains»³⁷. These words would be kept in mind in a global study on Thomas’ neologisms.

2) That the following words are «possible» Thomas’ neologisms, because they are used also by coetaneous authors: ablutiuus, accessorie, aliqualiter, explicite, participatiue.

3) That it would be desirable to incorporate the terms that Blaise’s Lexicon has not included, as an appendix in future editions (like it was made in LSJ, for example), keeping in mind that Blaise’s Lexicon includes many of said words, attributing them to Thomas or to «theol.» This incoherence creates confusion when consulting the Lexicon as a general work of Medieval Latin, even though the author advises about the scholastic vocabulary «dans ce domaine, il ne faut pas s’étendre outre mesure. Le plus important pour nous est sûrement le vocabulaire liturgique, théologique et ascétique» (p. vi; the highlight is ours). What is this limit or measure? Something similar could be said about Niermeyer’s Lexicon, because the limit that the author establishes (c. 1150, cfr. «Avant propos» p. iii)³⁸ is not clearly declared or specified in the title «minus», as really do, for example, Souter and Arnaldi. In addition, there is no excuse to omit some words such as praeparatiuus or connexim in these dictionaries.

4) That it would be desirable that the Busa’ and Deferrari-Barry’s works be completed, since, provided they are specific works on Thomas or on Thomas and his time, they ought to give certain and reliable data for the specialist researcher; even though Deferrari-Barry tries to be complete only about the Summa, the expression «and selected passages of his other works» may create confusion about what the reader can find, whether or not the word searched is Thomas’. Something similar could be said about the LLT, where some testimonies that introduce a different starting date of the usage of the word are omitted. If this tool were complete and easily accessible, it could supply –it is true– all the others; and it would be even more useful if it gave the data in strict chronological order.

5) It would be desirable to compile a more general and complete new lexicon about Mediaeval Latin, using the information or data provided by the modern databases, since said databases are very useful and more exact (accurate). If neither Blaise nor Niermeyer or Du Cange are complete and reliable lexicons, then, there would be a new one compiling all the results of the recent investigations, even if not giving all the text citations in each of the entries. This work would be a very useful tool for any person who would like to search the existence, the occurrence and the sense/s of a Medieval Latin word. It is obviously a hard and long task, because there are many medieval texts that are unedited and because we do not have, therefore, modern databases of all Medieval Latin literature. But we think –and we hope– that these works will be created over time, and that in the future one will have at his disposal a «general» dictionary that will say «this word exists”, “this word means this”, “this word was used first by this author with this sense». We hope and we encourage the UAI to devote itself to this endeavour by providing here some simple clues.

Notes

¹ The translation was made from the edition of Cai (1952) whose numeration we follow.

² Cavallero (2014).

³ The studies on Thomas’ language are numerous; cfr. for example fr. Hubert (1949), where the author points out the influence of the Classical, Biblical and Patristic traditions, the influence of Boethius, of the Aristotelian translations; Hubert says: «Les solutions souvent hardies adoptées en ces cas par les grands maîtres qualifient le latin médiéval comme une langue philosophique authentique et originale» (p. 225); Chenu (1950), who refers to Thomas’ Latin as «le latin ‘barbare’ du moyenâge» (p. 87) but praises the «vivacité créatrice» of the scholastic language (p. 97); the same expression is used by Hubert (1949: 231), who points out that in Thomas «la langue est consubstantielle à la pensée» (p. 104); Hubert (1952); Hubert (1956); Hubert (1957-1969); Hubert (1984); Busa (1983-1985). Hubert, with great erudition, was concerned with the sense of some terms or turns (ianae, unicornis / cattus, restautario gemmarum), he was also dealt with the tool-words that aid to mark punctuation or that give an expositive order; and he considered the words that are not registered in lexicons (deiectivus); but he did not consider the words that we include here. General studies are, for example, Chenu (1927) and Chenu (1952).
In vol. 47 of Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia iussu edita Leonis XIII, Sententia libri Ethicorum (Romae, ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1969), I praefatio 191*-201*, one can find linguistic characteristics of Thomas’scripta, similar to those we have pointed out about the Comm. in Iohannem: terms «rariora», autograph forms that have nonclassical morphology, proper nouns with strange form, Greek words badly adapted to Latin or that reflect the Byzantine pronunciation, grammatical changes (desinence, comparatives, pronouns, agent form, indefinite use of homo, no genre or number concordances, change of verbal regimen, change of connectives, apodosis with «logical future», protasis with subjunctive or indicative, mixture of verbal modes, general use of quod, duplication of quod, ut, ideo, anacoluthon, changes in citations, omission of words.

⁴ With the expression «dictionaries of Medieval Latin» (we consider that the Middle Ages start in 476 a.C.) we make reference to: Blaise (19672); Forcellini (1864-1871); Arnaldi (1939-1964. Italian Latin until 1050 a.C.), Arnaldi-Blatt-UAI (1957-); Souter (1949, until 600 a.C.); the Thesaurus linguae Latinae until 600 a.C. Cfr. the next note.

⁵ Blaise (1975); even though the author states that this work is not exhaustive in the Scholastic field (p. vi), nevertheless he usually cites Thomas’ words; Niermeyer (1976), although it is also oriented primarily toward historical texts and documents until c. 1150; Du Cange (1678). This last work, although outdated, can contain the words we are concerned with. Cfr. Roques (1951-2). In addition, it is possible to check the édition augmentée de Favre (1883), «aucta pluribus verbis aliorum scriptorum».

⁶ Thesaurus linguae Latinae; Brepols’ Library of Latin Texts.

⁷ We have checked the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British sources (= DMLBS), which was very useful, and the Glossaire du latin philosophique de l’Institut de Recherche et Histoire des Texts (= GLPh): http://gestion-fiches.irht.cnrs.fr/. These “fiches” include only aliqualiter, explicite, participative, conditionalis and grossities amongst the words we consider here. Cfr. Michaud-Quentin (1958), Merle (1979-1980), Verbeke (1978), Hamesse (2010). Habel-Gröbel (1989) has no citation for the meanings of the listed words. We had no access to the Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch nor to Peter Stotz, Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, 1996-2004.

⁸ i.e. Deferrari-Barry-McGuiness (1948-1949). Later, Deferrari-Barry (1956).

⁹ Busa (1974-1980), 56 voll. Cfr. http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age.

¹⁰ de Bergame (1497), and other editions; Schütz (1881), with reprints. Cfr. the « Indices» in vol. xvi of Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia iussu edita Leonis xiii (Romae, ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1948) but there is no index verborum. Hubert (1956) p. 258, in his critic consideration of these works, says that none of them secures a «dépouillement complet».

¹¹ The Leonine edition does not include the text of Super Iohannem. Cfr. Luna (2005). Dahan (2005), p. 13 compares some loci of Thomas’ John with the text of the Weber’s edition of the Vulgata and the citations of Hughes de Saint-Cher. See also Dauphinais-Levering (2005), where we can find studies about Super Ioannem: the Theological role of the Fathers, the speculative doctrine of the Trinity, the relation between theologia and oikonomia, the Creation, eternity and time, divine Providence, the concept of life, Christ as teacher, Jesus’ human knowledge, anti-docetism, the influence on the Summa about Christ’s resurrection, the Church militant, wisdom and Eucharist and the role of the Apostles. About the chapter 14, cfr. Baglow (2005).

¹² Torrell (1993), p. 496 says «Il paraît peu probable que Thomas ait revu lui-même le texte». Cfr. Keating-Levering (2010), p. ix. See also Torrell (2005), p. 199.

¹³ Hubert (1956), p. 262 has affirmed that Thomas did not use Medieval senses of Classical words.

¹⁴ This is the case of words that were used by Ildephonsus Toletanus, 7th century, praeparatiuus (1836: the number refers to Thomas’ paragraph of the Commentary on John), «preparatory» (LLT); Johannes Scotus Eriugena, 9th century: connexim (1793), «transitively, accordingly» (LLT), that Busa lists apparently as a hapax legomenon; Guillelmus a Sancto Theodorico, 1080-1148: uiuificatiuus (744, 780, 914, 959, 1118, 1471, 1516), «revitalizing, life-giving» (LLT); Ranulphus de Glanville, 1112-1190: acceptio (102) «meaning» or «semantic value of a word», according to the DMLBS; Johannes de Salisbury, 1120-1180: conformitas (748), «harmony between members», according to the DMLBS (Niermeyer provides the meanings «analogy, similarity,» without examples); Gualterus Mappus, 1140-1210: alterabilis (1801), «changeable» (DMLBS); Innocentius III, 1161-1216: concomitantia (1876), according to the LLT; influentia (86) «influence»; causalitas (38, 76, 84, 88, 94) «causality» (DMLBS); cognoscitiuus (443et alii), «cognoscitive» (DMLBS); incompossibilis (2051), «mutually impossible», according to DMLBS; quidditas (603), technical term (cfr. Summa I 3,4 ob.2 etc.), «essence, nature of a thing» (DMLBS); tristabilis (2503), «that which causes sadness» (DMLBS); Favre (1883) p. 187 registers it in letters of the fourteenth century, but we have found it in the Aristoteles latinus, translation of Guillelmus de Moerbecke (1215-1286) and many later authors like Iohannis Peckham (1230-1292); besides, lenitiuus (1599), «softening» (DMLBS); praemiatio (485), «prize, award» (LLT). Rodericus Ximenius de Rada, 1170-1247: alietas (1912), «otherness», according to the LLT; Gervasius Tiburensis, 1177-1222: dispensatiue (551) «in the way of an exemption, leaving the law aside», according to the DMLBS; Guillelmus Alvernus, 1180-Paris 1249): mititas (923), «suavity» (LLT); this word is registered by Blaise (1975), without examples, as a synonym of miticitas and of mititia. Alexander Halensis, 1185-1245, who died in Paris the same year when Thomas visited this city: certitudinaliter (1554, 2531), «with certainty»; consiliatiuus (1656), «reflexive», according to the LLT; imaginatiuus (1742), «able to imagine» (LLT); immutatiuus (366), «that which causes change, which has the power to transform» (LLT); notionaliter (753 etc.) (LLT); summarie (575), «concisely, briefly» (LLT); artificiatum (1142), «mechanism, device» (LLT); impeditiuus (2036), «impeding, stopping» (LLT); praedominor (706), «to prevail» (LLT); promotiuus (1732), «that which moves forward, promoter» (LLT); Balduinus de Forda and Bartholomaeus Exoniensis, 12th century: infallibilitas (2203), «infallibility» (LLT; this noun could seem a Thomas’s neologism apud Blaise’s Lexicon s.v.); Eberhardus Bethuniensis, 12-13th century: expositiue (2360), «explanatorily» (LLT).

¹⁵ Cfr. Venerabilis Thomae Vercellensis Commentarius hierarchicus in Canticum canticorum, in Pez (1721), II p. 612. Later, in Philippus Aranda (1642-1695), cfr. Aranda (1694), p. 581 A.

¹⁶ We found the term in a modern text, a document of the Church teaching: Benedictus XVI Adhortatio apostolica postsynodalis « Sacramentum Caritatis », Nº 29.

¹⁷ We find that the word appears later six times in the medical treatise of Jacobus Hollery Stempanus (16th century), other times in a similar work of Antonius Constantinus (17th century), five times in Gerardus van Switen (1700-1772).

¹⁸ «Per triginta autem signatur perfectio novi testamenti, quae deerat legi: nam si ipsa quinque multiplicentur per sex, qui est numerus perfectus, consurgit numerus terdenarius».

¹⁹ It is interesting to stress that Martinus’ Lexicon philologicum includes this word with the sense «τρισκαιδεκὰς, numerus tredecim» (1655, uide sub uoce «triscadecas»), which is another sense. Accordingly, in Explicación de la syntaxis de Torrella it is stated that terdenarius means «thirteenth» and that the sense «thirtieth» is said tricenarius: Torrella (1777), p. 184; the author said it already in his Syntaxis (1761), p. 137; an identical concept is given by Marcos Márquez de Medina (1825), p. 194, to terdenarius. And the curious Richelet’s Dictionary says «Treizain. terdenarius» (1702), p. 33): in these cases, the meanings are different from that of Thomas’.

²⁰ Blaise’ Lex. gives no entry of the term; Niermeyer registers it as «1. conditional» without any example or clarification, «2. concerning servile status».

²¹ De caelo et mundo continuatio III 9. The same sense we find in other five loci of Petrus de Alvernia, one of Petrus Iohannis Olivi, one of Helvicus Theutonicus and three of unknown authors.

²² Thomas himself makes the synonymy in Summa III q. 8 a.1 ad 1: «Augustinus autem negat Christum, secundum quod est homo, dare Spiritum Sanctum per auctoritatem. Instrumentaliter autem sive ministerialiter, etiam alii sancti dicuntur dare Spiritum Sanctum».

²³ It is glossed by Aquinas as «unguentum non veniit, idest venditum est» (cfr. Johannes 12: 5); this verb had an active form with passive sense («to be sold, to be put on sale»).

²⁴ Blaise’s Dict. glosses it as uendo but cites only Hilary of Poitiers; in Niermeyer’s it is not included and the Medieval Lexicon refers to the Acta of the Holy See. The DMLBS provides no entry of this word. Hubert (1956) p. 262, n. 1, has affirmed that Thomas did not utilise active verbs made from Classical deponent verbs. Thomas also employs the turn of phrase de nouo «miraculose de novo creat vel format» («he creates miraculously or he forms something new», 2598), which indicates object, not a point of departure.

²⁵ causalitas, quidditas, cognoscitiuus, praedominari, uiuificatiuus, imaginatiuus, alterabilis, praeparatiuus, infallibilitas.

²⁶ cognoscitiuus, uiuificatiuus, lenitiuus, consiliatiuus, promotiuus, exaltatiuus, imaginatiuus, ablutiuus, praeparatiuus, impeditiuus, contristatiuus. Cfr. Hubert (1957), p. 291, about deiectiuus, where the author mentions the classical suffix as a frequent one in Thomas (primitiuus, affirmatiuus, manifestatiuus, aestimatiuus, dillusiuus, determinatiuus, productiuus, potestatiuus). Bautier-Duchet-Suchaux (1983-1985), p. 48, mention «le grand succès au Moyen Âge des adjectifs en -ivus (maiestativus, minorativus). Il s’agit des créations si naturelles qu’un oeil non exercé n’en décèle pas toujours immédiatement la nouveauté».

²⁷ summarie, explicite, accessorie, participatiue, obumbrate, expositiue. Cfr. Bautier-Duchet-Suchaux (1983-1985), p. 49-50. The authors mention the examples materne, mediate, meditatiue, palinodiace, maledice.

²⁸ Cfr. Roques (1951-1952).

²⁹ ablutiuus, artificiatum, claria, connexim, exultatiuus, irreuersibilitas, obumbrate, praedominor, sputatio, terdenarius.

³⁰ Before the conclusions, we would like to add a mere clarification. Thomas could have utilised also the verb poteo, as a regularization of possum according to Väänänen (1968) § 31; cfr. § 315, 320; this verb would have had a short –e–, although –it is clear– in Aquinas’ time it was no longer possible to perceive the vocalic quantity or length: in the Nº 1449 it appears the form poterunt, which would be a third person plural of the perfect tense, instead of the classical potuerunt (§ 31); but the context would prefer a sense of present or, better, the regular and classical future of possum, because in this locus Thomas makes reference to Origen who thinks that the saints who are in glory will be able to sin (cfr. Principia II 3.3, PG 11: 190-2). It is not, then, a Medieval feature.

³¹ alietas, causalitas, cognoscitiuus, incompossibilis, quidditas, tristabilis, concomitantia, mititas, expositiue, infallibilitas, certitudinaliter, consiliatiuus, imaginatiuus, immutatiuus, notionaliter, summarie.

³² Ildephonsus Toletanus (praeparatiuus), Gualterus Mappus (alterabilis), Guillelmus a Sancto Theodorico (uiuificatiuus).

³³ Robertus Grossetestis (lenitiuus, praemiatio) or Alexander Halensis (artificiatum, impeditiuus, praedominor, promotiuus), etc.

³⁴ accessorie, aliqualiter, explicite, participatiue. It is not strange that so many words that Thomas utilises appear early in Albertus Magnus. As Hubert (1952), p. 244, has said, it was very important « pour la langue de saint Thomas », « celle du pionnier de la science, du maître de notre auteur, Albert le Grand ». Cfr. also as general framework, de Ghellinck (1946); Blatt (1958). About the use of rhetoric in the University, cfr. Ward (1996). See also Weisheipl (1974).

³⁵ As in the registers of ablutiuus, exaltatiuus, impeditiuus, lenitiuus, sputatio, uiuificatiuus.

³⁶ About the neologisms in Medieval Latin, cfr. Bautier-Duchet Suchaux (2005) and the complete volume 63, 2005, of Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevii. These words are not registered in Habel-Gröbel (1989) either.

³⁷ Cfr. Hubert (1956), p. 263. Hubert points out that Thomas could learn his classicism in Monte Cassino; and he makes an effort to demonstrate it comparing the epigraphic Christian vocabulary collected by Knott (1956), especially in 72 ff, with the work of Deferrari-Barry. Cfr. also Busa (1983-1985) where he laments that in this time some works similar to his Index Thomisticus did not exist: it was not possible to make a certain study about Thomas’ linguistic originality, but it was possible to «mettre en évidence quelques qualités de sa langue et quelques contenus de sa linguistique» (p. 66). He points out the Classical morphology of Thomas, but «le latin de ST est un autre latin» (p. 69); also the philosophical vocabulary is «très large et en quelque mesure encyclopédique». About the vocabulary, he emphasizes four aspects: the words that do not exist in Forcellini; the terms that Thomas did not write; the hapax; the progressive appearance of the words in his different works (cfr. p. 70 and Tables 14, 27, 29 in vol. 10 of the Index).

³⁸ «Aussi nous sommes-nous borné, pour la plupart des mots nouveaux et des acceptions nouvelles du bas Moyen Âge, à une simple indication de l’époque à laquelle ils apparaissent, en ajoutant, les cas échéant, la région à laquelle ils appartiennent. Nos citations se situent donc en grande majorité, dans les six siècles compris entre 550 et 1150».

Bibliography

1. Aranda, Ph. (1694). In primam secundae sancti Thomae libri duodecim, Caesar-Augustae.

2. Arnaldi, F. (1939-1964). Latinitatis Italicae Medii Aevi inde ab a. CDLXXVI usque ad a. MXXII lexicon imperfectum (in IV voll., a cura di Franciscus 3. Arnaldi, Paschalis Smiraglia), Union académique internationale, Bruxelles (cfr. Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2001).

3. Arnaldi, F. - Blatt, F. & Union Académique Internationale (1957-), Novum glossarium mediae latinitatis ab anno DCCC usque ad annum MCC, Hafniae-Bruxelles, Munksgaard.

4. Baglow, Ch. (2005). Rediscovering St. Thomas Aquinas as Biblical Theologian, in Letter & Spirit 1; 137-146.

5. Bautier, A. - Duchet-Suchaux, M. (1983-1985), Des néologismes en latin médiéval: approche statistique et répartition linguistique in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevii; 55-45.

6. Bergame de, P. (1497). Tabula aurea. Venezia.

7. Blaise, A. (1967²). Dictionnaire latinfrançais des auteurs chrétiens. Paris.

8. Blaise, A. (1975). Lexicon Latinitatis Medii Aevi. Turnholt.

9. Blatt, F. (1958). L’évolution du latin médiéval, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevii 28/2; 201-219.

10. Brepols’ Library of Latin Texts, cfr. http://www.brepols.net/publishers/pdf/Brepolis_Library_of_latin_Texts_EN.pdf.

11. Busa, R. (1974-1980). Index Thomisticus: Sancti Thomae Aquinatis operum omnium indices et concordantiae, Stuttgart.

12. Busa, R. (1983-1985). L’originalité linguistique de Saint Thomas d’Aquin, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 44-45; 65-90.

13. Cai, R. (1952). S. Thomae Aquinatis, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, cura P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., editio V revisa, Taurini-Romae.

14. Cavallero, P. (2014). El Comentario a Juan de Tomás de Aquino. Rasgos de latín medieval y actitudes filológicas, colección Textos & Estudios 12 (UBA). Buenos Aires.

15. Chenu, M.D. (1927), Notes de lexicographie philosophique médiévale, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 16; 435-446.

16. Chenu, M.D. (1950). Introduction à l’étude de saint Thomas. Montréal-Paris.

17. Chenu, M.D. (1952). Vocabulaire biblique et vocabulaire théologique in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 74; 1029-1041.

18. Dahan, G. (2005). Les éditions des commentaires bibliques de saint Thomas d’Aquin. Leur apport à la connaissance du texte de la Bible au xiiie siècle, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 89/1; 9-15.

19. Dauphinais, M. - Levering, M. (2005). Reading John with St.Thomas Aquinas Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

20. Deferrari, R, Barry, M.I.& McGuiness, I. (1948-1949), A lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas based on the Summa theologica and selected passages of his other works, Washington.

21. Deferrari, R. - Barry, M.I. (1956). A complete index of the ‘Summa Theologica’ of S. Thomas Aquinas. Washington.

22. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British sources (1975). Oxford University Press & British Academy.

23. Du Cange, Ch. du Fresne, Seigneur (1678). Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. Lutetiae Parisiorum.

24. Esparza, M. de (1668), Quaestiones disputandae de passionibus seu affectibus, Pottendorff.

25. Favre, L. (1883), Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis, version augmentée, Niort (ducange.enc.sorbonne. fr).

26. Forcellini, E. (1864-1871). Lexicon totius latinitatis. Patavii.

27. Ghellinck, J. de (1946). L’essor de la littérature latine au XIIe siècle. Louvain-Paris.

28. Habel, E. - Gröbel, F. (1989). Mittellateinisches Glossar. Paderborn.

29. Hamesse, J. (2010). Le glossaire du latin philosophique médiéval de la Sorbonne: histoire, but et utilisation, in G. Weijers – I. Costa – A. Oliva edd. Les innovations du vocabulaire latinà la fin du Moyen Âge: autour du Glossaire du latin philosophique. Actes de la journée d’étude du 15 mai 2008. Turnhout: Brepols; 9-20.

30. Hubert, M. (1949). Aspects du latin philosophique aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, in Revue des Études Latines 27, 221-233.

31. Hubert, M. (1952). Notes de latin médiéval, in Revue des Études Latines 30; 309-317.

32. Hubert, M. (1956). Vers une lexicographie thomiste, in Revue des Études Latines 34; 254-267.

33. Hubert, M. (1957-1969). Notes de lexicographie thomiste, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 27, p. 5-28, 167-188, 287-292; 32, 1962, p. 227-253; 38, 1969; 59-108.

34. Hubert, M. (1984). Éléments provisoires de linguistique thomiste. Mots outils et ponctuation dans les écrits de saint Thomas, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 53; 57-63.

35. Iesu, L. a (1748). Controuersiarum scholastico-polemico-historico-criticarum tractatus, Mediolani.

36. Keating, D. - Levering, M. (2010). «Introduction » to The commentary on the Gospel of John, translated by Fabian Larcher and James Weisheipl, Washington, The Catholic University Press.

37. Knott, B. (1956). The Christian ‘special language’ in the inscriptions, in Vigiliae Christianae 10/2; 65-79.

38. Luna, C. (2005). L’édition léonine de saint Thomas d’Aquin, in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 89/1; 31–110.

39. Márquez de Medina, M. (1825). Arte explicado y gramático perfecto. Madrid.

40. Martinus, M. (1655). Lexicon philologicum praecipue etymologicum et sacrum. Francofurti ad Moenum.

41. Merle, H. (1979-1980). Le Glossaire du latin philosophique médiéval, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 42; 142-147.

42. Michaud-Quentin, P. (1958). Le Glossaire du latin philosophique médiéval, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 28; 239-243.

43. Niermeyer, J.F. (1976). Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. Leiden.

44. Pez, B. (1721). Thesaurus anecdotorum nouissimus, Augustae Vindelicorum.

45. Richelet, P. (1702). Dictionnaire de rimes dans un nouvel ordre. Paris.

46. Roques, M. (1951-1952). Additions et corrections d’Antoine Thomas au Glossaire de Du Cange, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 22; 89-156.

47. Schütz, L. (1881). Thomas lexicon. Paderborn.

48. Souter, A. (1949). A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. Oxford.

49. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Latin texts from the classical period up to about 600 A.D.); cfr. www.degruyter.com.

50. Torrell, J.P. (1993). Initiation à saint Thomas. Paris: Cerf (reedited in 2004).

51. Torrell, J.P. (2005). Saint Thomas Aquinas. The person and his work, revised edition. Washington: The Catholic University Press.

52. Torrella, J. (1761). Syntaxis seu compendiaria partium orationis institutio. Cervariae.

53. Torrella, J. (1777). Explicación de la syntaxis de Torrella. Valencia.

54. Väänänen, V. (1968). Introducción al latín vulgar. Trans. Manuel Carrión. Madrid.

55. Verbeke, G. (1978). Lexicographie du latin médiéval et philosophie médiévale in La Lexicographie du Latin médiéval et ses rapports avec les recherches actuelles sur la civilisation du Moyen Âge, Paris, Colloques CNRS; 261-287.

56. Ward, J.(1996). Rhetoric in the Faculty of Arts at the Universities of Paris and Oxford in the Middle Ages: a Summary of the Evidence, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevii 54, p. 159-232.

57. Weisheipl, J.A. (1974). The Parisian Faculty of Arts in mid-thirteenth century: 1240-1270 in The American Benedictine Review 25; 200-217.

Recibido: 31-08-2018
Evaluado: 11-09-2018
Aceptado: 12-09-2018