Lives of Great Religious Books
Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae
LIVES OF GREAT RELIGIOUS BOOKS
Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, Bernard McGinn
The Dead Sea Scrolls, John J. Collins
The Bhagavad Gita, Richard H. Davis
The Book of Mormon, Paul C. Gutjahr
The Book of Genesis, Ronald Hendel
The Book of Common Prayer, Alan Jacobs
The Book of Job, Mark Larrimore
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Donald S. Lopez, Jr.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison, Martin E. Marty
The I Ching, Richard J. Smith
The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, David Gordon White
Augustine’s Confessions, Garry Wills
FORTHCOMING:
The Book of Revelation, Timothy Beal
Confucius’s Analects, Annping Chin and Jonathan D. Spence
Josephus’s Jewish War, Martin Goodman
John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bruce Gordon
The Lotus Sutra, Donald S. Lopez, Jr.
C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, George Marsden
The Greatest Translations of All Time: The Septuagint and the Vulgate, Jack Miles
The Passover Haggadah, Vanessa Ochs
The Song of Songs, Ilana Pardes
The Daode Jing, James Robson
Rumi’s Masnavi, Omid Safi
The Talmud, Barry Wimpfheimer
Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae
A BIOGRAPHY
Bernard McGinn
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Princeton and Oxford
Copyright © 2014 by Princeton University Press
Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street,
Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW
press.princeton.edu
Jacket art: Triumph of Saint Thomas Aquinas over Heretics by Filippino Lippi (ca. 1457–1504), fresco, Basilica of Saint Mary Above Minerva, Carafa Chapel, Rome, 1489–1492 / De Agostini Picture Library / V. Pirozzi / Courtesy of The Bridgeman Art Library. The scene shows Thomas seated on a throne between personifications of Philosophy and Theology on his right and Dialectic and Grammar on his left, with the figure of vanquished Evil under his feet. In the foreground groups of the heretics refuted by Thomas in the Summa theologiae are escorted to Thomas by a papal official on our left and a Dominican on the right.
All Rights Reserved
ISBN 978-0-691-15426-8
British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available
This book has been composed in Garamond Premier Pro
Printed on acid-free paper.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my classmates at the North American College
Class of 1963
Ad multos annos, gloriosque annos, vivas!
CONTENTS
PREFACE ix
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1
The World That Made Thomas Aquinas 7
CHAPTER 2
Creating the Summa theologiae 19
CHAPTER 3
A Tour of the Summa theologiae 74
CHAPTER 4
The Tides of Thomism, 1275–1850 117
CHAPTER 5
The Rise and Fall of Neothomism 163
EPILOGUE 210
ABBREVIATIONS FOR THOMAS’S WORKS 215
NOTES 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245
Translations of the Summa theologiae 245
General Books on Thomas and His Thought 246
Particular Studies of Thomas’s Thought Relating to the Summa 247
Histories of Thomism 247
Online Resources 248
INDEXES
Name and Title Index 249
Subject Index 254
PREFACE
This book owes its origin to the polite persistence of Fred Appel of Princeton University Press, who kept asking me to think of contributing something to a new series, Lives of Great Religious Books. I considered composing a short book on a mystical classic, such as Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermons on the Song of Songs, but the more I thought about the possibilities the more I was drawn to the scary idea of writing a book on Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, one of the longest works in the canon of religious classics and one of the most studied. I am not a card-carrying member of any Thomist party and I’ve written only a few things on Thomas over my academic career. Nevertheless, I’ve been reading Thomas for almost sixty years and teaching him for over forty. When I was studying a dry-as-dust version of Neothomist philosophy from 1957 to 1959, I was rescued from despair by reading the works of Etienne Gilson, especially his Being and Some Philosophers. Doing theology at the Gregorian University in Rome between 1959 and 1963, I was privileged to work with two great modern investigators of Thomas, Joseph de Finance and Bernard Lonergan. It was then I realized that no matter what kind of theology one elects to pursue in life, there is no getting away from Thomas. So the opportunity to come back to Thomas and the Summa was both a challenge and a delight. Rereading the Summa and trying to catch up on at least some of the always-increasing literature on Aquinas was a homecoming. I hope the reader may be able to experience some of the intellectual stimulation I felt in what follows. I want to thank Fred Appel for valuable suggestions about shortening an originally bloated text to more manageable dimensions, and I also thank my wife, Patricia, for her customary discernment in helping with the editing process. Debbie Tegarden of Princeton University Press was unfailingly helpful in the editing process. My friends and colleagues Susan Schreiner and David Tracy gave valuable assistance with the last two chapters. Finally, three anonymous readers were also very helpful with corrections and suggestions. Any errors that remain are my own.
A Note on Citing Thomas
There is no best edition for all of Thomas Aquinas, although the Leonine Edition begun in 1880 and still under way offers a critical text for most of his writings, but not the Summa theologiae. I cite and translate the Summa from the student edition based on the Leonine text and published by the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos in Madrid in 1955. Abbreviating the work as STh, I cite from the three parts in four sections as Ia, IaIIae, IIaIIae, and IIIa, making use of the standard divisions into question (q.) and article (a.). For example, Ia, q. 1.3 indicates the First Part, the first question, and the third article. Sometimes, for greater precision, I use corp. for the body of Thomas’s response, and ad 1, ad 2, and so on for his responses to the objections to his position. Other works of Thomas are cited according to standard abbreviations, a list of which can be found at the end of the book. I have included a number of endnotes to the chapters. These can easily be disregarded by readers who wish to follow the narrative without distraction, but they may be useful for those who wish to pursue aspects of Thomas’s thought on specific issues, especially in light of the vast literature on the Summa.
Bernard McGinn
Chicago, January 2013
INTRODUCTION
Every civilization has classic expressions. There are some cultural artifacts that come to sum up a period and a style while also becoming part of the common patrimony of human society. In European civilization Shakespeare’s plays not only epitomize Elizabethan England, but continue to be read around the world. The same is true of the art of Michelangelo and Leonardo, the music of Bach and Beethoven, the writings of Cervantes and Goethe. In terms of the long Middle Ages (ca. 500–1500 C.E.), when Catholic Christianity was
a dominant force, it is not surprising that many of the most famous cultural artifacts are religious. Disputes about which expressions of medieval culture are the most characteristic continue, but few would question that in art the medieval cathedral plays a central role, just as Dante’s Divine Comedy does in literature. From the perspective of religious thought the Summa theologiae of the Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) has a unique place, in terms of both its profundity and its influence. Given its length, few have ever read the whole of the Summa. College graduates, especially students of religion and philosophy, may have studied a few selections, but somehow the Summa remains one of the few medieval works, along with Dante, known to the general public, at least in name.
This is a brief account of the Summa theologiae. More specifically it is a biography of the Summa, introducing its intellectual gestation in the mind of Thomas, its structure and contents, and some aspects of its impact on later history. It may seem foolhardy to attempt a short book about such a large book. The Summa is a massive work, containing over a million and a half words divided into three large parts containing 512 topics (quaestiones) and no fewer than 2,668 articles (articuli) dealing with particular issues (some topics are given only two articles; the longest receives seventeen). In the translation of the English Dominicans published in the early decades of the past century the Summa takes up 2,565 double-column pages. Even more daunting is the vast literature that has been devoted to explaining the Summa. Although the work was contentious from the start, and its history has had ups and downs, the Summa has never lacked for readers and commentators. It has been calculated that over a thousand commentaries have been written on the Summa, not a few longer than the original. Commentary, however, scarcely tells the whole story, because some of the most interesting chapters in the reception of the Summa in the seven and a half centuries since its writing concern thinkers who did not consider themselves followers of Thomas, but who pondered his thought to enrich their own speculation, sometimes in appreciation, sometimes in opposition. Even today, when the age of long commentaries seems over, scores of books and even more articles are published every year dealing with Thomas and especially with what is universally admitted to be his most important work, the Summa theologiae.
The following account is selective and personal—one scholar’s attempt to present what an interested and curious reader might want to know about the Summa and its reception. In thinking about the book, I have been guided by something dear to Thomas and central to what he was trying to do in writing the Summa—what he called sapientia, that is, wisdom. According to Thomas, wisdom is to be numbered among the “intellectual virtues,” or operative habits of the mind. It is the greatest of these because “it deals with the highest cause, which is God.” Thomas continues, “And because judgment is made about an effect through its cause, and the same is true about lower causes through the higher cause, so wisdom is the judge of all the other intellectual virtues; it belongs to it to put them all in order. It has a kind of commanding role (quasi architectonica) with respect to all the others.”1 Thomas tells us at the start of the Summa (Ia, q. 1) that the subject of the work is what he calls sacra doctrina (sacred teaching or instruction) and argues that it is a scientia, a “science” in the Aristotelian philosophical sense of an organized body of knowledge based on strict deductive reasoning (see chapter 2). But he also insists that sacra doctrina is a sapientia (q. 1.6), and not just the metaphysical wisdom that Aristotle argued was the judging and ordering habit of the human mind insofar as it philosophically considers the First Cause, but a wisdom that is found in God and communicated to humans through revelation. The cultivation of this higher form of wisdom rooted in revealed truth is what the Summa is all about. Sometimes this wisdom rooted in faith is supplemented by a third form of wisdom, the sapientia that Christians held was one of the seven special graces or gifts of the Holy Spirit, enabling the recipient to have a “connatural” awareness of divine truth and proper action.
Thomas, like other medieval authors, thought that the etymological root of sapientia was sapida scientia, literally, “tasteful, or savory knowing,”2 thus emphasizing that sapientia has a greater affective, even experiential, quality than abstract deductive reasoning. He also holds that wisdom is its own reward: finding wisdom is not merely instrumental to achieving some other goal. In the prologue to his Commentary on Boethius’s “De hebdomadibus” he summarizes, “Zeal for wisdom has this privilege, namely that in pursuing its work, it pleases itself even more. … Hence, the contemplation of wisdom is like a game for two reasons. First, because a game is enjoyable and the contemplation of wisdom brings the greatest delight. … Second, because a game is not ordered to something else but only to itself; this belongs to the delights of wisdom.”
The wisdom found in revelation and the wisdom that is the gift of the Holy Spirit go beyond any wisdom we can acquire by our own thinking—they are what Thomas calls “supernatural gifts.” They come forth from God and are integral in our return to God, that is, they are salvific. For Thomas there is a cycle of wisdom, a circular process of emanation and return to God, following the order of the circular model of the creation and return of the universe. This cycle is also written into the plan of the Summa (more on this in chapter 2). For Thomas, as for most ancient and medieval thinkers, circular movement was the highest form of motion. As he put it in his other Summa, the Summa contra Gentiles (SCG), “An effect is most perfect when it returns to its source. Hence the circle among figures and circular motion among all the forms of movement are the most perfect, because there is a return to the source in them. For this reason in order that the whole of creation attain its final perfection, it is necessary for creatures to return to their source.”3
The cycle of wisdom is a useful way of thinking about the production of the Summa theologiae in Thomas’s mind and the story of its reception. The friar’s efforts in creating his masterpiece were generated by wisdom and designed to cultivate and increase wisdom (not just knowledge) in those to whom the book was taught, as well as in its later readers. What follows is my attempt to illustrate the cycle of wisdom that for Thomas Aquinas was the purpose of the Summa theologiae.4
The World That Made Thomas Aquinas
CHAPTER 1
The intimate relation between culture and religion in the Middle Ages is helpful for understanding Thomas Aquinas. As Bernard Lonergan once put it, “Besides being a theologian and a philosopher St. Thomas was a man of his time meeting the challenge of his time. What he was concerned to do may be considered as a theological or philosophical synthesis but, if considered more concretely, it turns out to be a mighty contribution towards the medieval cultural synthesis.”1 In order to comprehend the significance of Thomas’s synthesis, it is helpful to consider three contexts that formed Thomas’s life and work: first, the papal reordering of Western medieval Christianity; second, the rise of the university and scholastic theology; and third, the birth of the mendicant religious life, including the Dominican Order to which Thomas belonged.
In early medieval Latin Christianity the bishops of Rome often had little influence over what went on in other parts of Europe. Popes, bishops, and priests were mostly under the control of lay lords, especially the Carolingian and German emperors. In the mid-eleventh century, however, a group devoted to reforming Christian society emerged in Rome, one whose adherents not only argued for freeing ecclesiastics from lay control, but also held that the pope, not the emperor or any layman, had ultimate authority over Christian society. These reformers, of whom the most forceful was Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073–85), set out an agenda for the cleansing of church and society that led to ideological clashes and even armed conflict between the emperors and their followers and Gregory and his adherents. As is often the case with revolutionary movements, several decades of turmoil eventually led to a compromise based on a clearer distinction between what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God. The Gregorian Reform, by freeing the papacy from lay control, helped sp
ur important advances in the legal, financial, and administrative machinery of the pope and his court. The growth of papal government in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was not only a material reality, but also a symbolic triumph as the popes came to be seen as the direct masters of Western ecclesiastical structures and the arbiters of Western religious beliefs and values. The Gregorian Reform emphasized the separation between the clergy and the laity, while encouraging efforts to support more effective education of priests. Precisely how much authority the popes had in what today we would call political decisions remained a contentious issue; subsequent conflicts between popes and lay rulers disturbed Europe throughout the later Middle Ages. Nevertheless, no good Christian in Thomas’s time doubted the pope’s supremacy over the church, and Thomas and his fellow Dominicans were among the papacy’s most loyal supporters.
The emergence of the medieval university and its distinctive style of theology, that is, scholastic theology, are also important for grasping Thomas Aquinas’s intellectual world. Scholasticism, understood in the broad sense as a structured, “rationalized” interpretation of religious belief, was integrally related to the growth of the university as the distinctive institution for higher learning between the late eleventh and the early thirteenth centuries. The eleventh century witnessed the beginnings of a revival in both the monastic and the episcopal schools that had experienced serious decline in the ninth and tenth centuries. The French monastery of Bec, under the leadership of Lanfranc (d. 1089) and Anselm (d. 1109), both later archbishops of Canterbury, became a center of advanced theology. Episcopal schools in Germany (e.g., Cologne) and especially in France (e.g., Chartres, Laon, Paris) acquired reputations as effective places for the education of the clergy. By the mid-twelfth century the episcopal schools of northern France had begun to acquire an organization showing much similarity to modern universities, including structures of administration, basic curricula of teaching, and the employment of famous “masters” (magistri) who could attract students on an international level. The stages in the development of the schools in Paris (there were several in the twelfth century) into the full-fledged university which emerged between about 1150 and 1215 are not fully clear, but by the time Thomas Aquinas went to study there in 1245, the university had been flourishing for about a half century.2
Thomas Aquinas's Summa theologiae Page 1
