Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:31:45.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

St. Thomas Aquinas in Historical Perspective: The Modern Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Marcia L. Colish
Marcia L. Colish
Affiliation:
Professor of history in Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Witnessing as it did the seven hundredth anniversary of the death of St. Thomas Aquinas, the year 1974 was marked by multiple conferences and publications dedicated to his life, his thought and his place in medieval intellectual history. The recently completed septicentennial also provides a useful vantage point from which to examine the current historiographical assessment of St. Thomas' influence in modern intellectual history. Aquinas scholars devoted little systematic attention to this topic in 1974, a fact which, in itself, reflects a striking and persistent imbalance within the field of Aquinas studies. It is a commonplace to state that St. Thomas enjoyed an authority in the period since the thirteenth century far exceeding any he achieved in his own day. Yet, a consideration of the historiography of Thomas' place in modern thought reveals the fact that the Angelic Doctor's substantial post-medieval reputation has not generally been matched by an equally plentiful measure of historical understanding. For two generations, historians of the Middle Ages have made great strides toward the systematic recovery of the historical Thomas Aquinas. But the task of uncovering the historical significance of his thought within the changing contexts of post-medieval culture still awaits its Grabmanns and Chenus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1975 , pp. 433 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The term “neo-Thomism” will be used to denote express revivals of Thomas' thought. The term “Thomism” will be used to denote the influence of Thomas in a more general sense, and will also be used simply as an adjective referring to Thomas' thought. The one term does not necessarily imply greater or lesser fidelity to the mind of Thomas than the other.

2. The best brief general surveys are by Weisheipl, James A., “Contemporary Scholasticism,” s.v. “Scholasticism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967),Google Scholar and “Thomism,” ibid. Sec also Dezza, P., Riesenhuber, K., and Santinello, G., “Neoscolastica e ncotomismo,” Enciclopedia filosofica. 2d ed. (Firenze, 1967)Google Scholar; Carlo Giacon, “Tomismo,” ibid.; “Tommaso d'Aquino,” Enciclopedia cattolica (Vatican City, 1954)Google Scholar. The bibliographies supplied by these articles, especially Weisheipl's, are an excellent guide to existing surveys of neo-Thomism. Literature which might be mentioned specifically or in addition: on Thomism in the later Middle Ages see Roensch, Frederick J., Early Thomistic School (Dubuque, 1954)Google Scholar: Vella, Andrew P., Les premières polémiques thomistes: Robert d'Orford. Reprobationes dictorum a fratre Eoidio in Primum Sententiarum, Edition critique (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Weisheipl, James A., Friar Thomas d'Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Work (Garden City, New York, 1974), pp. 333–349.Google Scholar On the non-Thomist revival of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries see Giacon, Carlo, La seconda scolastica, 3 vols. (Milan, 1940–1950)Google Scholar; Werner, Karl, Der heilige Thomas von Aquin (Regensburg, 1859),Google Scholar vol. 3. On attempts to revive Thomas in the eighteenth century, see Coulon, R., “Le mouvement thomiste au XVIIIe siècle,” Revue thomiste 19 (1911): 421–444, 628–650Google Scholar; Narciso, E. L., La Summa Philosophica di Salvatore Rosselli e la rinascità del Tomismo (Rome, 1966).Google Scholar The best survey of the neo-Thomist revival from the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century is Weisheipl, James A., ‘The Revival of Thomism as a Christian Philosophy, in New Themes in Christian Philosophy, ed. Mclnerny, Ralph M. (NotreDame, 1908), pp. 164–185.Google Scholar On the nineteenth century, see also Perrier, Joseph Louis, The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the 19th Century (New York, 1909).Google Scholar On the morphology of twentieth-century neo-Thomist schools see John, Helen James, The Thomist Spectrum (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; Sciacca, Michele Federico, Philosphical Trends in the Contemporary World, trans. Salerno, Attilio (Notre Dame, 1964), pp. 517–552Google Scholar; Riet, Georges Van, Thomistic Epistemology: Studies concerning the Problem of Cognition in the Contemporary Thomistic School, trans. Franks, Gabriel (St. Louis, 1963), 1:3–215.Google Scholar

3. Leo, Pope XIII, Aeterni Patris, ¶19, in The Church to the Modern World: The Social Teachings of Leo XIII, ed. Gilson, Étienne (Garden City, New York, 1954), p. 44.Google Scholar Susbsequent references to Leo's encyclicals will be taken from this edition.

4. Ibid., ¶20, p. 45.

5. Ibid., ¶21, pp. 45–46.

6. Ibid., ¶22, p. 46.

7. Ibid., ¶23, p. 46; p. 54 n. 37.

8. Ibid., ¶24, pp. 46–47.

9. Saitta, Giuseppi, Le origini del neo-tomismo ncl secolo XIX (Bari, 1912).Google Scholar

10. The general lack of brilliance among the first generation of Thomas' defenders within his order has been noted by Roensch, , Early Thomistic School, passim; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas, pp. 338–339.Google Scholar

11. Weisheipl, , Friar Thomas, pp. 342–343.Google Scholar

12. Grabmann, Martin, “Forschungen zur Geschichte der ältesten deutschen Thomistenschule des Dominikanerordens;” “Einzelgestalten aus der mittelalterlichen Dominikaner-und Thomistonschule,” Mittelalterliches Geistesleben (Münster, 1926–1936), 1: 392–431Google Scholar; 2: 512–613; idem., Die Geschichte der katholischer Theologie seit dem Ausgang der Väterseit 2d ed. (Darmstadt, 1961), pp. 73–75, 95–102Google Scholar; Zdzislaw Kuksewicz, Albertyzm i tomizm w XV weiku w Krakowie i Koloni, Doktryna psychologiczna, Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Filozofi i Socjologii (Wroclaw, 1973). Yet, compare Weisheipl, , Friar Thomas, p. 343Google Scholar: “By the time Thomas was canonized in 1323, almost all Dominicans had made the teaching of Thomas their own and considered it a privilege, as well as an obligation, to study and defend it.”

13. Kristoller, Paul Oskar, Le thomisme et la pensée italienne de la renaissance (Montréal, 1967), pp. 36–39.Google Scholar

14. Roensch, , Early Thomistic School, p. ixGoogle Scholar et passim.

15. Ullman, Walter, Medieval Papalism: The Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949), chs. 4–5.Google Scholar

16. Beck, H., “Der Kampf um den Thomistischen Theologiebegriff in Byzanz,” Divus Thomas 73 (1935): 3–22Google Scholar; Buda, C., “Iuflusso del tomismo a Bisanzio nel secolo XIV,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49 (1956): 318–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DeRosa, Giuseppi, “LaFigura dell' Angelico nel ponsiero e nell 'insegnamento teologico dell'Oriente cristiano slavo-bizantino,” Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 52 (1949): 249–275Google Scholar: Salaville, S., “Un thomiste à Byzance au XVe siècle,” Echoes d'orient 27 (1924) 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. The ground-breaking work in this field has been done by G. Sermoneta, “Per una storia del tomismo ebraico,” Congresso Internazionale Tommaso d'Aquino ncl suo VII Centenario, Rome-Naples, 17–24 April 1974 Proceedings (forthcomng.)

18. The most important study of this topic is Noonan, John T., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957), pp. 24, 51–81.Google Scholar See also DeRoover, Raymond A., La pensée économique des scolastiques: Doctrines et méthodes (Montréal, 1971) pp. 42–45, 76–90Google Scholar; Gilchrist, J., The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London, 1969), pp. 69–70Google Scholar; Ibanès, Jean, La doctrine de l'église et les réalités économiques an XIII siecle (Paris, 1967), chs. 2–3Google Scholar; McLaughlin, T. P., “The Teachings of the Canonists on Usury (XII, XIII, and XIV Centuries),” Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939): 81–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 2 (1940): 1–22.

19. Boyle, Leonard E., “The Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg and the Popularization of the Moral Teachings of St. Thomas and Some of His Contemporaries,” in St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies, ed. Maurer, Armand A. (Toronto, 1974), 2: 245–268Google Scholar; Häring, Bernard and Vereecke, Louis, ‘La théologie morale de S. Thomas d'Aquin à S. Alphonse de Liguori,” Nouvelle revue théologique 77 (1955): 683–685Google Scholar; Michaud-Quantin, Pierre, Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au moyen age (XII-XV siècles) (Louvain, 1962), pp. 43–111Google Scholar; Tentler, Thomas N., “The Summa for Confessors as an Instrument of Social Control,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion: Papers from the University of Michigan Conference, ed. Trinkaus, Charles with Oberman, Heiko A. (Leiden, 1974), pp. 106, 110Google Scholar; L. E. Boyle's comment, “The Summa for Confessors as a Genre, and Its Religious Intent,” ibid., p. 130; and Tentler's “Response and Retractatio,” ibid., p. 136.

20. Courtenay, William J., “Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion,” The Pursuit of Holiness, p. 56.Google Scholar

21. Pike, R. E., “St. Thomas Aquinas and the ‘Songe du Vergier,'” Speculum 14 (1939): 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bourke, Vernon J., “Thomas Aquinas and Early British Ethics,” Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 66 (1974): 825–826.Google Scholar I am indebted to Professor Bourke for bringing this latter reference to my attention.

22. Centi, Tito Santo, “La teologia di S. Tommaso nell'arte del Beato Angelico,” Sapienza 8 (1955): 143–157.Google Scholar This study would have been even more convincing had it been illustrated.

23. Godwin, Frances G., “An Illustration to the De sacramentis of St. Thomas Aquinas,” Speculum 26 (1951): 609–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Clark, James M., Meister Eckhart: An Introduction to the Study of His Works with an Anthology of His Sermons (London, 1957), pp. 26–81Google Scholar; Copleston, Frederick C., A History of Philosophy (Westminster, Maryland, 1953), 3:184–200Google Scholar; Grabmann, , Geschichte der kathol. Theologie, pp. 127–130Google Scholar; Knowles, David, The English Mystical Tradition (London, 1961), pp. 29, 36–37.Google Scholar

25. The study by Grion, Alvaro, Santa Caterina da Siena: Dottrina o fonti (Cremona, 1953), pp. 265–274, 331–347Google Scholar supersedes previous analyses. For the estimate of Catherine's theological knowledge provided by her confessor and earliest biographer, see Raymund, of Capua, , The Life of St. Catherine of Siena, trans. Lamb, George (New York, 1960), pp. 79–88, 283–296.Google Scholar

26. Löhr, G. L., “Aus spätmittelaltenichen Klosterpredigten,” Zeitschrift für schweitzerische Kirchengeschichte 38 (1944): 33–46, 108–120, 199–208.Google Scholar

27. Kristeller, , Le thomisme, pp. 43–48, 50–56Google Scholar; Piana, Celestino, “La facoltà teologica dell' Università di Bologna nella prima metà del cinquecento,” Archivum Franciscanum Historioum 62 (1969): 196–266.Google Scholar

28. Kristeller, , Le thomisme, pp. 56–61Google Scholar; idem., Eight Philosophers of the Italian Rennaissance (Stanford, 1964), pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

29. Kristeller, , Le thomisme. pp. 90–104Google Scholar; idem., Eight Philosophers, pp. 39–40, 59–60. On Ficino now see also Collins, Ardis B., The Secular Is Sacred: Platonism and Thomism in Marsilio Ficino's Platonic Theology (The Hague, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Kristeller, , Le thomisme, pp. 62–76.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., pp. 79–90. Kristeller provides an edition of Spagnoli's, Opus aureum in Thomistas, pp. 129–185.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., pp. 76–79. See also Gray, Hanna H., “Valla's Encomium of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Humanist Conception of Christian Antiquity,” Essays in History and Literature Presented by Fellows of the Newberry Library to Stanley Pargellis, ed. Bluhm, Heinz (Chicago, 1965), pp. 37–43Google Scholar; Mesnard, Pierre, “Une application curieuse de l'humanisme critique à la théologie: L'Éloge de saint Thomas par Laurent Valla,” Revue thomiste 55 (1955): 159–167Google Scholar with a French translation of the text, pp. 168–176; Schiavone, Michele, “Intorno all' ‘Encomion Thomae Aquinatis' di Lorenzo Valla,’” Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 45 (1955): 73–79.Google ScholarO'Malley, John W., “Some Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas,” Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974): 174–192,CrossRefGoogle Scholar has studied a series of fourteen such panegyrics delivered before Dominican audiences at Rome and elsewhere between the 1460s and 1470s and 1511. These orations likewise stress Thomas' virtues and tend to be vague about his teachings, even though some of the speakers were professional theologians. However, they reverse Valla's critique of Thomas' cloquence and draw no distinctions between his theology and that of other scholastic or patristic thinkers.

33. Paradiso, 10. It may be noted that the conception of the Divine Comedy as the Summa theologiae set to music has been laid to rest. For the view of Dante as a Thomist, see in particular Mandonnet, P., Dante le théologien: Introduction à l'intelligence de la vie, des oeuvres et de l'art de Dante (Paris, 1935), pp. 10. 130–131, 137–141, 153–157, 255–281; 263–278Google Scholar; Wicksteed, Philip H., Dante & Aquinas (London, 1913)Google Scholar. For the rebuttal, see Curtius, Ernst Robert, “Dante und das lateinische Mittelalter,” Domanische Forschungen 57 Heft 2–3Google Scholar (1943): 171; European Literature and the Latin Midde Ages, trans. Willard Trask (New York, 1953), pp. 372, 595Google Scholar; Gilson, Etienne, Dante the Philosopher, trans. Moore, David (New York, 1949), p. 307Google Scholar; Sargent, Daniel, “Dante and Thomism,” The Thomist 5 (1943): 256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sayers, Dorothy L., Further Papers on Dante (New York, 1957), pp. 38–43Google Scholar; Stewart, H. L., “Dante and the Schoolmen,” Journal of the History of Ideas 10 (1949): 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Kristeller, , Le thomisme, pp. 39, 123–125.Google Scholar

35. The most important study of them is Walz, A., I domenicani al concilio di Trento (Rome, 1960).Google Scholar

36. Jedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent, trans. Graf, Ernest (London, 1961), 2:375.Google Scholar

37. Ibid., pp. 118–123. For the text of the decree, see Schroeder, H. J., ed., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, 1941), pp. 4–26.Google Scholar

38. Jedin, , History, 2:152–162,Google Scholar text in Schroeder, , Canons and Decrees, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

39. Jedin, , History, 2:166–196, 239–261, 283–298, 307–311Google Scholar; text in Schroeder, , Canons and Decrees, pp. 29–46.Google Scholar

40. Jedin, , History, 2:370–395Google Scholar; text in Schroeder, , Canons and Decrees, pp. 51–55.Google Scholar

41. Broderick, James, The Origin of the Jesuits (London, 1940), p. 44Google Scholar; Ganss, George E., in his commentary on St. Ignatius Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (St. Louis, 1970), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Willaert, Léopold, Après le concile de Trente: La Restauration catholique, 1563–1645 (Paris, 1960), p. 281.Google Scholar

42. A phenomenon which began with the style of Thomistic pedagogy permitted by the Jesuits, as shown by Filograssi, Giuseppe, “La teologia dogmatica nella ‘Ratio studiorum’ della Compagnia di Gesù” La compagnia de Gesù e le sciense sacre (Rome, 1942), pp. 13–44.Google Scholar

43. On this general topic see in particular Copleston, Frederick C., Aquinas (Baltimore, 1955), pp. 244–246Google Scholar; idem., History of Philosophy, 3:337–379.Google Scholar On Cajetan see also Grabmann, Martin, “Die Stellung des Kardinal Cajetan in der Geschichte des Thomismus und Thomistenschule,” Mittelalterliches Gerstesleben, 2:602–612.Google Scholar

44. Popkin, Richard H., A History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (Assen, 1960), pp. 66–87.Google Scholar

45. Noonan, , Usury, pp. 199–362.Google Scholar

46. Noonan, John T., “An Almost Absolute Value in History,” in The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, ed. Noonan, John T. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970), pp. 27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965), pp. 323–326.Google Scholar Similarly, Bellarmine reversed Thomas' prohibition of non-procreative intercourse between spouses by arguing from his doctrine of original sin and its effects, ibid., pp. 314–316.

47. Vitoria, Francisco de, De Indiis recenter inventis, ed. Wright, Herbert Francis, trans. Bate, John Pawley (Washington, 1917), pp. 115–162Google Scholar [English text], pp. 217–268 [Latin text]. On Vitoria, see Hamilton, Bernice, Political Thought in 16th-Century Spain: A Study of the Political Ideas of Vitoria, DeSoto,. Suárcz, and Molina (Oxford, 1963), pp. 119–134Google Scholar; Mesuard, Pierre, L'Essor de la philosophic politique au XVIe siècle, 3d ed. (Paris, 1969), pp. 454–472Google Scholar; Parry, J. H., The Spanish Thory of Empire in the 16th Century (Cambridge, 1940) pp. 12–26, 48–53Google Scholar; Scott, James Brown, The Catholic Conception of International Law (Washington, 1934), ch. 1.Google Scholar

48. Karl A. Kottman, “16th and 17th Century Iberian Controversy over St. Thomas' Theory of Ius Gentium and Natural Law: The Interpretation of Antonio Vieira, S. J.,” Congresso Internazionale Tommaso d'Aquino nel suo VII Centenario, Rome-Naples, 17–24 April 1974, Proceedings (forthcoming). I am indebted to Professor Kottman for permission to refer to the text of his paper prior to publication.

49. Willaert, , Après le concile de Trent, pp. 181–271.Google Scholar

50. Brémond, Henri, A Literary History of Religious Thought in France, trans. Montgomery, K. L. (New York, 1930), 2:356–360, 372–373Google Scholar; Grabmann, , Geschichte der kathol. Theologie, pp. 173–175, 179Google Scholar; Maritain, Jacques, Distinguish to Unite, or the Degrees of Knowledge, 4th ed., trans. Phelan, Gerald B. (New York, 1959), pp. 310–351Google Scholar; Martz, Louis L., The Poetry of Meditation: A Study in English Religious Literature of the 17th Century (New Haven, 1954), pp. 112–117Google Scholar; Peers, E. Allison, Studies of the Spanish Mystics (London, 1930Google Scholar [repr. 1960]), 2:6, 14, 302–303, 334, 360, 363, 366 n., 377 n.; 3:14, 26–27, 40, 49–52, 57 n., 59, 83–92, 115, 124, 130, 142, 172, 192, 213, 224, 228.

51. Connell, Desmond, The Vision in God: Malebrancke's Scholastic Sources (Louvain, 1967), pp. 2–3, 52, 58–91, 101–230, 236–261, 358–366.Google Scholar His main points are summarized in “The Thomistic Origin of Malebranehe's Ontologism,” Irish Theological Quarterly 34 (1967): 207–219.Google Scholar

52. Levi, Anthony, French Moralists: The Theory of the Passions, 1585–1649 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 39, 88–91, 106–107, 114–122, 128–133, 144–148, 152–165, 273–284.Google Scholar

53. Allen, J. W., A History of Political Thought in the 16th Century (London, 1961), pp. 186–198Google Scholar; Bourke, , “Aquinas and Early British Ethics,” pp. 826, 827–830, 835–840Google Scholar; Figgis, John Neville, Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 1414–1625, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 150–166Google Scholar; Greenleaf, W. H., “The Thomasian Tradition and the Theory of Absolute Monarchy,” English Historical Review 79 (1964): 747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, , Political Thought, pp. 4–5, 11–29, 30–33, 98–108Google Scholar et passim; Mesnard, L'Essor de la philos. politique, pp. 549–566, 617–660; d'Entrèves, Alexander Passerin, The Medieval Contribution to Political Thought: Thomas Aqumas, Marsilius of I'adua, Richard Hooker (Oxford, 1939), pp. 31–32, 91–142Google Scholar; Scott, , Catholic Conception of International Law, che. 3–6, 12–13Google Scholar; Tooke, Joan D., The Just War in Aquinas and Grotius (London, 1964), pp. 181–230.Google Scholar

54. Malloch, A. E., “The Definition of Sin in Donne's Biathanatos,” Modern Language Notes 77 (1957): 332–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Technique and Function of Renaissance Paradox,” Studies in Philology 53 (1956): 191–203Google Scholar; Martz, , Poetry of Meditation, pp. 112–117Google Scholar of passim, which draws upon the thesis of Ong, Walter J., “Wit and Mystery: A Revaluation in Medieval Latin Hymnody,” Speculum 22 (1947): 310–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar and strengthens Ong's argument.

55. See, in general, Ferguson, Wallace K., The Renaissance in Historical Thought: Five Centuries of Interpretation (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1948), pp. 50–52.Google Scholar

56. Armstrong, Brian G., Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in 17th-Century France (Madison, 1969), ch. 1, pp. 130–131, 139Google Scholar et passim; Bourke, , “Aquinas and Early British Ethics,” pp. 830–835Google Scholar; John Patrick Donnelly, “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator (forthcoming, 1976); idem., “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” (unpublished) [I am deeply indebted to Father Donnelly for permission to consult these unpublished papers]; idem., “Peter Martyr on Fallen Man: A Protestant Scholastic View” (Ph. D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1972), pp. 11–17Google Scholar, ch. 6, pp. 53–54, 80–82, 86–87, 105; Grundler, Otto, “The Influence of Thomas Aquinas upon the Theology of Girolamo Zanchi (1510–1590),” in Studies in Medieval Culture, ed. Sommerfeldt, J. R. (Kalamazoo, 1964), pp. 102–117Google Scholar; Scharlemann, Robert P., Thomas Aquinas and John Gerhard (New Haven, 1964), chs. 1–3Google Scholar. These four authors supply useful bibliographical guidance into the previous literature in the field. See also Costello, William T., The Scholastic Curriculum in Early 17th Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Marsachusetts, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, Kevin T., A Thomistic Appraisal of the Concept of Conscience and Its Place in Moral Theology in the Writings of Bishop Robert Sanderson and Other Early English Protestant Moralists (London, 1967)Google Scholar: Morison, Samuel Eliot, Harvard College in the 17th Century (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1936), pt. 1, 153–154, 214–215, 224–226, 252–258, 276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ryan, John K., The Reputation of St. Thomas among English Protestant Thinkers of the 17th Century (Washington, 1948).Google Scholar

57. The fullest study is Noon, William T., Joyce and Aquinas (New Haven, 1957)Google Scholar. See also Beebe, Maurice, “Joyce and Aquinas: The Theory of Aesthetics,” Philological Quarterly 36 (1957): 20–35Google Scholar: Morin, Edward, “Joyce as Thomist,” Renascence 9 (1957): 127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sartre, Jean-Paul, Saint Genet: Actor and Martyr, trans. Frechtman, Bernard (New York, 1963), pp. 469–478Google Scholar has made some perceptive remarks on Genet's use of inverted scholasticism in Our Lady of the Flowers, although without referring expressly to Aquinas.

58. Weisheipl, , “Revival of Thomism,” New Themes, pp. 165–171.Google Scholar

59. On some of these movements, see Gelinas, Jean-Paul, La Restauration du thomisme sous Léon XIII et les philosophies nouvelles (Washington, 1959)Google Scholar; Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York, 1959), pp. 154–156Google Scholar; Rynne, Xavier, Vatican Counci II (New York, 1968), pp. 14–15, 19–21Google Scholar; Sciocca, , Philosophical Trends, pp. 552–638Google Scholar; Weisheipl, , “Revival of Thomism,” New Themes, pp. 182–183.Google Scholar

60. Weisheipl, , “Revival of Thomism,” New Themes, pp. 176–177.Google Scholar

61. The problem was noted as early as Saitta, , Le origini del neo-tomismo, pp. 282–283Google Scholar. The most recent defender of this position is Wallace, William, “The Case for Developmental Thomism,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 44 (1970): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., “Galileo and the Thomists,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974, 2:293–330Google Scholar; idem., “Thomism and Modern Science: Relationships Past, Present, and Future,” The Thomist 32 (1968): 67–83.Google Scholar Scientists themselves have rarely deigned to comment on such claims. One exception is Margenau, Henry, Thomas and the Physics of 1958: A Confrontation (Milwaukee, 1958),Google Scholar whose politeness does not manage to hide the gaps between the poles of the confrontation.

62. Leo's own statements on this point can be found in Aeterni Patris, ¶2, pp. 28–29; Rerun Novarum (1891), ¶14, pp. 32–33, 48–49, 212.Google Scholar See also Perrier, , Revival of Scholastic Philosophy, pp. 8–13Google Scholar; Schmandt, Raymond H., “The Life and Work of Leo XIII,” in Leo XIII and the Modern World, ed. Gargan, Edward T. (New York, 1961), p. 37Google Scholar; Weisheipl, , “Revival of Thomism,” New Themes, p. 177.Google Scholar

63. Marchesi, Angelo, “II pensiero di S. Tommaso d'Aquino e delle encicliche sociali dei papi sul tema della proprietà privata,” Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 62 (1970): 334–344.Google Scholar

64. Agócs, Sándor, “The Road to Charity Leads to the Picket Lines: The Neo-Thomist Revival and the Italian Catholic Labor Movement,” International Review of Social History 18 (1973): 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. A discussion of contemporary journalistic reactions is provided by Edward T. Gargan, introduction to Leo XIII, p. 5; Schmandt, “Life and Work of Leo XIII,” ibid., p. 39; Lillian ParkerWallace, Leo XIII and the Rise of Socialism (Durham, 1966), pp. 211–214. Indices of contemporary scholarly criticism of Leo on this score are provided by Barthélemy Hauréau, Historie de la philosophic scolastique (Paris, 1880) 2:462: Saitta. Le origini del neo-tomismo, pp. 269–270, 275.

66. Apart from Aeterni Patris, evidence of this fact can also be found in the encyclicals Inscrutabili (1878) ¶2, p. 5Google Scholar; Immortale Dei (1885), ¶21–23, pp. 278–279, 280, 171–172.Google Scholar Also noted by Gargan, , Leo XIII, p. 3.Google ScholarWallace, , Leo XIII, p. 215Google Scholar, even suggests that Leo may have been reacting against a Luther centennial currently being staged by the Protestant world.

67. Noted by Schmandt, , “Life and Work of Leo XIII,” Leo XIII, p. 39Google Scholar

68. Foucher, Louis, La philosophie catholique en France an XIXe siècle avant la renaissance thomiste et dans son rapport avec elle (1800–1880) (Paris, 1955).Google Scholar A well-known popular summa of Romantic Catholic support for Leo's policy in English is Walsh, James J., The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, 5th ed. (New York, 1924,Google Scholar [first publ. 1907]), pp. 270 ff., although the author's Anglo-Saxon sensibilities lead him to associate the Middle Ages with the “origins of modern democracy” rather than with the consolations of monarchism. Further details on this movement as it affected historiography are supplied by Ferguson, , Renaissance in Historical Thought, pp. 338–339,Google Scholar although he sees it as a consequence of the Leonine revival and does not explore the possibility that it may have helped to produce a climate of opinion favoring that revival.

69. John, , Thomist Spectrum, pp. 4–6Google Scholar; Melnerny, Ralph M., Thomism in an Age of Renewal (Garden City, New York, 1966), p. 16.Google Scholar

70. de Contenson, Pierre M., “Documents sur les origincs et les premières années de la commission Leonine,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1574–1974, 2:331.Google Scholar

71. Aeterni Patris, ¶30–31, pp. 49–51.Google Scholar This aspect of Leo's attitude is stressed by Collins, James, “Leo XIII and the Philosophical Approach to Modernity,” Leo XIII and the Modern World, pp. 181–201Google Scholar; Gustave Wiegel, “Leo XIII and Contemporary Theology,” ibid., pp. 214–223.

72. Aeterni Patris, ¶29–30, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

73. Contenson, , “Documents sur … la commission Léonine,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974, 2:331–333, 354–388.Google Scholar

74. Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, 11 October 1962, in Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbott (New York, 1966), p. 714–715.Google Scholar

75. Rynne, , Vatican Council II, pp. 41–59, 128–129.Google Scholar

76. Ibid., pp. 301–308.

77. Declaration on Christian Education, ch. 10, Documents, p. 648.

78. Decree on Priestly Formation, ch. 5, art. 15, Documents, p. 450.

79. Ibid., art. 16, Documents, p. 452.

80. Ibid., pp. 451–52.

81. Clarke, W. Norris, “The Future of Thomism,” New Themes, pp. 191–193.Google Scholar

82. Used as the epigraph for the essay of Mascall, E. L., “Guide-Lines from St. Thomas for Theology Today,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974, 2:489.Google Scholar

83. A sampler of easily accessible positions at all points along the spectrum might include the following: as an exponent of the hard-shell, business-as-usual neo-Thomists, who see no imperatives for change articulated by Vatican II, see the Master General of the Dominican Order, Fernandez, Aniceto, “Il pensiero di S. Tommaso nell'epoca post-concillare,” Sapienza 19 (1956): 385–398Google Scholar [widely reprinted in translation, for esample Revue thomiste 16 (1966): 177–189Google Scholar] Ralph M. McInerny, Thomism in an Age of Renewal, while willing to concede that neo-Thomism should no longer be taught via stultifying manuals, also reads Vatican II as a reiteration of official neo-Thomism and is impatient with the view that it should be accommodated either to the historical Thomas or to modern thought: for him neo-Thomism is basically correct and satisfying as is: the new is not to be confused with the true; and in any event there is no maestro di color che sanno nowadays and it is tiresome to try to focus on a moving target. Closer to the middle of the spectrum is Steenberghen, Fernand Van, Le retour à saint Thomas a-t-il un sens aujoura'hui? (Montréal, 1967),Google Scholar who notes gaps and weaknesses in both neo-Thomism and in Thomas' thought itself but who concludes that neo-Tbomism should be retained as the Catholic philosophy. Speaking for the group urging neo-Thomists to get back to the historical Thomas, Pegis, Anton C., The Middle Ages and Philosophy: Some Reflections on the Ambivalence of Modern Scholasticism (Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar. notes the disjunction between the modern neo-Thomists' conception of their own work and the historical conception of medieval thought on which it was originally based, from DeWulf's picture of a monolithic medieval mind identical with Thomism through the inroads of the pluralistic picture of medieval thought contributed by Mandonnet to the recovery of the philosophia ancilla theologiae perspective in the work of Gilson. Pegis' historiographical overview is useful so far as it goes, but it neglects the fact that pluralism in medieval thought had been discovered as early as Hauréau's, B.Histoire de la philosophic scolastique, 2 vols. in 3 (Paris 1872–1880),Google Scholar and that the Christian philosophy-cum-pluralism perspective had been discovered as early as Picavet's, F.Esquisse d'une histoire générale et comparée des philosophies médiévales (Paris, 1905).Google Scholar He also omits the reassessment of Thomas' place in medieval thought brought about by the more positive re-evaluations of fourteenth-century scholasticism in the 1950s and 1960s. As far as the future of Catholic philosophy goes, Pegis argues that once purged of neo-Thomist accretions, Thomas' thought will serve as a perfectly satisfactory basis for Catholic thought in the twentieth century. At the more liberal end of the spectrum, Clarke, W. N., “The Future of Thomism,” New Themes, pp. 187–207,Google Scholar urges that those aspects of Thomas' thought which are still valid, of which he provides a very short list, be salvaged and synthesized with modern ideas. The Anglican neo-Thomist, Mascall, E. L., “Guide-Lines,” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974, 2:489–501,Google Scholar opts for the spirit of Thomas rather than the letter, arguing that those contemporary theologians who have grasped Thomas' spirit the best are the ones who eschew the literal sense of his teachings the most whole-heartedly. An outstanding representative of the most dégagé wing of the liberal group is Danielou, Jean, “Le pluralisme de la pensée,” Sapienza 19 (1966): 11–23,Google Scholar who points to the diversities that have always existed in Catholic thought, even among neo-Thomisms, who depreciates the utility of any version of Thomism as the best vehicle for the Catholic faith in the twentieth century, and who dismisses the need for any one official Catholic philosophy.