Thomas Aquinas, On Evil, translated by Richard Regan, edited with an introduction and

notes by Brian Davies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. xviii + 535 pp.

St. Thomas Aquinas, On Evil. translated by John A. Oesterle and Jean T. Oesterle. Notre

Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. (Paperback edition 2001.) xxii + 547

pp.

The Quaestiones disputatae de malo are a neglected masterpiece. Composed around 1270, these

sixteen questions show Thomas Aquinas at his very best, arguing in careful and extended

detail for a wide range of theses surrounding the ethical questions that he cared so deeply

about. As the title suggests, the questions are all clustered around the nature of the bad

(malum), particularly moral badness. To my mind, the De malo is Aquinass finest work in

moral philosophy.

After an initial, highly difficult question (Q1) on the metaphysics of the bad (it is, in

short, a privation), Aquinas turns his attention to bad action (peccatum), and then very quickly

turns to focus on the sort of bad actions most relevant to theology: voluntary bad action

(culpa). At this point we are squarely in the moral domain, and so we might as well speak (as

both translations do) of bad actions as sins. In Q2, Aquinas takes up questions regarding the

character of sin, assessing the way in which intentions, actions, objects, and circumstances

contribute to the moral status of an action, and exploring questions about omissions and

neutral actions. (He covers similar ground in Summa theol. 1a2ae QQ18-20, but the discussion

here is much more clear and expansive, offering many illuminating examples.) In Q3, he

takes up the causes of sin, distinguishing between temptation, ignorance, weakness, and

malice. QQ4-5 turn to original sin; Q6 contains his most extensive and sophisticated

treatment of free will; Q7 discusses venial sins (a more philosophically interesting topic than
one might suppose); QQ8-15 discuss the seven deadly sins (or capital sins, as he calls

them); finally, Q16 rounds out the volume with a fascinating discussion of the psychology of

devils, and their relationship to us.

Ten years ago, there were no published English translations of the De malo; now,

suddenly, we have two. The main thing to report about these two volumes is that,

unsurprisingly, each is perfectly solid and dependable, but neither is ideal. Regans volume

has the immediate advantage of OUPs elegant design and typesetting, which in comparison

makes the efforts of the UND Press appear even clumsier than usual. But if one manages to

get past the appearances, one finds that each volume has its advantages. For instance,

although both volumes are based on the 1982 Leonine edition, Jean Oesterle has gone to the

trouble of translating the Leonine source apparatus word-for-word, while Regan has

supplied only the basic references. Although I myself would have followed Regans

approach, assuming that readers interested in the fine scholarly details would have the

Leonine edition in front of them anyway, there will no doubt be some who are glad to have

Oesterles more detailed notes. The Oesterles further supply a very detailed appendix of

English translations for all the sources that are cited. Regan doesnt give us that, but does

supply a brief biography for each of Aquinass many sources, as well as an index, a glossary

of terms, and a fairly extensive bibliography (all lacking in the Oesterle volume). Moreover,

Regan has the very good fortune of being able to include a 53 page introduction by his

colleague Brian Davies. John Oesterles introduction, in contrast, is best skipped, not least

because its information about the dating of the De malo is badly obsolete.

As for the translations themselves, they are generally quite reliable. A close reading of

several dozen pages from each volume against the Latin turned up only a handful of outright

mistranslations. The Oesterle volume seemed to have somewhat fewer of the slips and
omissions that plague all translations, but these were few enough even in the Regan volume.

The Oesterle volume, however, has the annoying habit of occasionally inserting explanatory

phrases into the text without marking them as editorial insertions. Moreover, the Oesterles

seem to have only a dim sense of where Latin stops and English begins. Their version

contains the rather amusing claim, for instance, that Sin consists in affection (affectu), and

speaks of deordination (inordinatio) in the flesh and opinionable matters (opinabilia) all

within Q3a3. Regan, in contrast, gives us sin consists of desire, disorder in the flesh,

and probable things. But Regans translation is not always superior. For instance, the long

series of initial objections often note and then reply to preliminary responses, using the

phrase Sed dicebat quod . Sed contra (e.g., Q1a3 obj. 6-7). Regan renders this as

People have said . But which entirely obscures what is happening. The Oesterles

get this right with the phrases But it was argued . But counter to this .

What tips the scale toward the Regan volume is the notably superior quality of its

prose. Whereas the Oesterles tend to follow Aquinass word order quite closely, Regan takes

great pains to produce something that sounds like English. (This is his best feature as a

translator.) Consider this passage from Q3a1c:

Peccatum enim communiter dictum secundum quod in rebus naturalibus et artificialibus invenitur, ex

eo provenit quod aliquis in agendo non attingit ad finem propter quem agit. Quod contingit ex

defectu activi principii; sicut si gramaticus non recte scribat, contingit ex defectu artis, si tamen recte

scribere intendit; et quod natura peccat in formatione animalis, sicut contingit in partubus

monstruosis, contingit ex defectu activae virtutis in semine.

Here are the Oesterles:

For sin commonly so called as it is found in the things of nature and of art arises from this that

someone in acting does not attain the end for which he acts. Which occurs from a defect of the active

principle; for example, if a grammarian writes incorrectly, it happens from a deficiency of the art, at
 least if he intended to write correctly; and that nature sins, i.e., fails in the formation of an animal, as

occurs in the birth of monstrosities, happens from a defect in the active power of the seed (3.1c).

The problem with this translation is not that the Oesterles have a poor grasp of Latin, but

that they have a poor grasp of English. Regan does much better:

For sin in the general sense, as found in things of nature and artifacts, comes about because persons

actions do not attain the ends as they intend. And this happens because of a deficiency in the causal

source. For example, a grammarians poor composition, if he intends to write well, comes about

because of his deficient skill. And natures sin in forming animals, as happens in the birth of monsters,

comes about because of the deficient causal power of semen.

It should be noted that both translations obscure the meaning of the passage by translating

peccatum as sin, when in this context it has the general meaning of defective action. There is

perhaps no good solution to that problem in English, other than to supply a note but

neither translation provides clarifying footnotes of this sort (and Regans glossary oddly

omits sin). The Oesterles strategy of adding the phrase i.e. fails is surely an unhappy

solution.

Ultimately, both translations are quite serviceable in most respects. What a close

comparison of the two reveals, more than anything, is just how important it is to read

Aquinas in the original Latin.

Robert Pasnau, University of Colorado