Abstract

THE SCHOLARLY LITERATURE on Aquinas' De aeternitate mundi is considerable; the controversy which has spawned it seems to have involved two major points of dispute. First there is the problem of dating the work; while some commentators believe it to have been written at an earlier stage in Aquinas' career--in the 1250s--the majority view is that it is a much later work, written in the early 1270s. Second, there is the problem of the continuity of doctrine between this work and the other texts Aquinas has left us on the issue of the world's temporal duration. Does he propose the same position in all, or does De aeternitate mundi represent a departure? These two points of dispute come together when scholars discuss the historical context of this work. Thomas Bukowski sees it as an early defence of an unchanging position against the attacks of Bonaventure; Ignatius Brady sees it as a late defence of an unchanging position against the attacks of John Pecham. John Wippel, by contrast, takes it as a late departure from a previous view, and James Weisheipl, concurring with Wippel, attributes this change to Aquinas' study of Aristotle's Physics in the period before his second Paris regency.