190 JAMES A. WEISHEIPL 



Strangely, there is no known manuscript of this work extant, 

 but it seems to be of English origin, written, as Grabmann has 

 pointed out, some time after June 1271/°" In it the author 

 rejects at length the tradition represented by Robert Kilwardby 

 as well as the animation theory presented by Simplicius. The 

 author defends vigorously the Thomistic view that celestial 

 movers are two-fold: the passive nature of the celestial body 

 and the active power of angels ministering to the will of God. 

 The medieval views of celestial movers which we have out- 

 lined in this paper are rarely considered today. Yet they are 

 important for an understanding of St. Thomas, and they do 

 have serious implications which deserve the attention of modern 

 Thomists, implications of interest to theologians as well as to 

 philosophers of nature. 



James A. Weisheipl, 0. P. 



Alhertus Magnus Lyceum 

 Dominican Hou^e of Studies 

 River Forest, Illinois 



nounced: " Quaestiones duae S. Thomae de Aquino nuper repertae ac in lucem 

 editae, una de principio individuationis, altera vero de motoribus coelestium cor- 

 porum, quae nuper repertae fuerunt Florentiae in bibliotheca S. Marci." This new 

 manuscript was copied for San Marco by order of Cosmo de Medici and notarized 

 on June 5, 1587; this document is published on fol. 2r of the edition. Boninsegnio 

 rests his argument for the authenticity of the treatise (fol. 2v S.) on the Thomistic 

 character of the doctrine and on the credibility of the manuscript, which also 

 contained St. Thomas' De potentia. The same scribe had written the two new 

 questions on folios 287-290 of the original manuscript, which is now lost. 



"*M. Grabmann, Die Werke des hi. Thomas von Aquin. 3rd ed. (Miinster, 

 1949). Beitrdge z. Gesch. d. PhU. u. Theol. d. M.-A., Bd. XXU, heft 1-2, p. 415. 



