The Influence of Aquinas (Prof. Upham)

Obviously, the vast majority of people being illiterate, Aquinas could only be known indirectly to most during the High Middle Ages. Notwithstanding this impediment, even an uneducated commoner could meet with Aquinas’s infl uence in two venues: fi rst, in the confessional booth; second, in public lectures.

Aquinas influenced Dante:

The most likely point of contact between the Common Doctor and Dante Alighieri, who appears to have received his exposure to Thomist doctrines in a public setting—not in a university—from a student of Aquinas himself, Dominican Friar Remigio of Girolami (Eugenio Garin , History of Italian Philosophy , tran. Giorgio A. Pinton, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008), 86). As with John of Freiburg, Dante was most interested in the moral theology of Aquinas. A perusal of Dante’s Commedia suggests the impact of many of Aquinas’s moral doctrines, namely, concerning the nature and severity of sins, the relationship between grace and merit, as well as the characterization of beatitude in visual terms (See Dante, Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise). Admittedly, Aquinas’s hold on Dante’s mind was far from exclusive. Yet, in a poignant example of Aquinas’s influence, the Doctor Communis would be immortalized in Dante’s heaven before the Church completed his canonization in 1323.

Aquinas Influence Among the Byzantines:

At the time of Aquinas’s death, the Western Church was attempting to repair the rift with the Eastern Orthodox. Despite the significant barriers between the Latin West and Greek Byzantium, Aquinas earned an unmistakable authority among some Orthodox theologians, an authority that is evident not long after his passing in 1274. Although some would refer to the rise of Byzantine Thomism, this is certainly too triumphalist, since those who appropriated Aquinas in the Eastern Church were rarely, if ever, unequivocal proponents of his theological doctrines.

1. Aquinas received serious attention from Eastern Orthodox theologians during the late Byzantine renaissance of the fourteenth and first half of the fifteenth century. At least, the fact that Aquinas had any Byzantine advocates seems noteworthy, especially in this era when the Vatican was making efforts at reunification with the East. Some extant texts carried over to the Greek offers some suggestive insights into the interests of these Byzantine translators, but these are mere proposals. One of the earliest conveyors of Aquinas into Byzantium was Maximus Planudes (1260–1310), who translated a reportatio of Aquinas, Expositio in symbolum apostolorum (An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (Romanus Cessario, O.P. , A Short History of Thomism (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 57). Another of Aquinas’s writings suitable to more conciliatory purposes, the Summa contra Gentiles , was translated into Greek in the mid-fourteenth century by Demetrius Cydones (c. 1320–1400). This piece of philosophical theology also takes on particular relevance for Byzantine Christians due to their uneasy proximity to the rising Ottoman Empire (Charles L. Stinger , Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386– 1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1977), 90). By the fifteenth century, Aquinas was familiar enough in Eastern Christianity that exceptional Byzantine theologians, such as George Courtesis (c. 1405–1472), would study Aquinas closely and manifest open respect for his thinking (Steven Runciman , The Last Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 80).
2. Among Rabbis: We have seen some ways that Aquinas influenced thinkers outside the university, both in Christian Europe and in Byzantium. But his works also reached beyond Christian audiences, finding favor with certain Jewish rabbis, for example, Hillel of Verona (c. 1220–c. 1295) and Judah Romano (c. 1280–c. 1325). These Italian Jews sought to interpret Moses Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed without adopting the radical Averroistic Aristotelianism of some of their contemporaries (Seymour Feldman, “Maimonides—A Guide for Posterity,” in Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 332–35). As a decidedly anti-Averroist reader of Aristotle, Aquinas was an ally in opposing doctrines like the possibility of affirming two contradictory truths (one based on reason and one on faith), the necessity of eternal creation, the immortality of the soul in an unindividuated state, or the human intellect as a separate and unified faculty. To speak of “Jewish Thomism” in reference to these rabbis would be misleading at best, even less apt than the term “Byzantine Thomism.” For these rabbis, Aquinas was not an unquestioned philosophical authority, much less a theological master. Rather than defending and advancing the whole scheme of Aquinas’s views, these rabbis very selectively translated the Common Doctor into Hebrew (Cf. Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 1, The Person and His Work, tran. Robert Royal (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 316), finding in him a superb commentator on Aristotle and a rich source of arguments against Averroists.

Despite ecclesiastic and scholastic opponents, no other contemporary Thomists seem to have met such a dire end as Knapwell. For instance, his confrère Thomas Sutton (c. 1250–1315) produced extensive works that defended Aquinas and responded to influential critics, one of whom was the famous Oxford Franciscan, John Duns Scotus 27 (c. 1266–1308). Indeed, for every powerful and vocal antiThomist—such as Henry of Ghent (d. 1293) or Durandus of St. Pourçain (c. 1275– 1334)—there appeared to be an equally able pro-Thomist—like Hervaeus [Harvey] Natalis (c. 1250–1323) or Nicolai Medensis (fl . 1325–1330), usually called “Durandellus” because of his opposition to Durandus of St. Pourçain. One upshot of these earliest defenses was a growing consensus that Aquinas’s interpretations of Aristotle needed to be distinguished from those of the Latin Averroists, something that the initial condemnations seemed to overlook.

Thomistic Renaissance: From Plague to Prominence

Europe recovered slowly from the plague, and the Great Western Schism (1378–1417) only enhanced the instability in all facets of life during this time. After the Black Death of the plague, this second period, spanning the fifteenth century, can be fittingly described as a Thomist renaissance. One of the first to sow the seeds for this season of new life among the Thomists was the rather unlikely Henry of Gorkum (c. 1386–1431). Not a Dominican, but a secular priest from what is now Gorinchem, in the Netherlands, Henry would earn the title Thomistarum Coloniensium monarcha (Monarch of the Thomists at Cologne). He penned treatises on predestination and just war, and even finished a compendium on the Summa theologia, which was probably the first commentary on Aquinas’s magnum opus. Yet, perhaps the most important Thomist of this period hailed from the University of Paris. Known as the Princeps Thomistarum (Prince of the Thomists), John Capreolus (c. 1380–1444) composed his Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis (Defenses of the Theology of Thomas Aquinas) (John Capreolus , Defensiones Theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis (Turonibus: Sumptibus Alfred Cattier, 1900), a commentary on the Summa theologiae that aspired to elucidate Aquinas’s doctrines and refute his critics. Even as Aquinas gathered an increasing number to his following during the fifteenth century, these Thomists remained limited to a specialized class of university scholars. In a review of medieval libraries, Jocelyn Hillgarth confi rms this narrow demographic of Thomists, inasmuch as one could hardly be considered a Thomist without access to some of his works (J. N. Hillgarth , “Who Read Thomas Aquinas?” in The Gilson Lectures on Thomas Aquinas (Toronto: Pontifi cal Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), 46–73 . The quote is from page 70).

Thomists Enter the Baroque: From Eminence to Decadence

Thomists were fl ourishing internally but, viewed from the outside, they were gradually becoming ossifi ed. This trend continued through this third period of Thomists, though the authority of Aquinas would reach a new pinnacle. Arguably, at the utmost peak of his infl uence, Aquinas would be pivotal in the Catholic counterreformation, with his doctrines being decisive at the Council of Trent (1545–1563) in defi ning Rome’s responses to Protestant “heresies.” Notwithstanding Aquinas’s active and often authoritative role in shaping Catholic thought during this period, Thomists during the third period—in its entirety, encompassing the years 1500 to 1650—were preoccupied with problems that were meaningful to only a select few, even during their own time. For this reason, I fi nd it instructive to juxtapose the eminence of these Thomists within Catholic Europe with the decadence manifested by their relative seclusion from concerns in the wider culture. Continuing the trends among Thomists in the fi fteenth century, this period would reap the harvests of the renaissance, as it were. One superbly gifted lecturer, Peter Crockaert 48 (d. 1514) would make a mid-life conversion from Ockhamist to Thomist, and subsequently, his students would read the Summa theologiae as their textbook at the University of Paris. Crockaert would effectively export this practice to Spain, when his pupil, Francisco de Vitoria 49 (1492/93–1546), returned to his native country and obtained the principle chair in theology at Salamanca in 1526.

In another development of earlier trends, the third period of Thomists boasts the two paradigmatic commentaries on Aquinas’s major works, both devised by Italians. Thomas de Vio Cajetan 52 (1469–1534) took up the Summa theologiae , and the resulting volumes remain to this day as the standard commentary on Aquinas’s masterpiece, published along with the Summa theologiae in the Leonine edition. Cajetan’s compatriot, Francesco Sylvester of Ferrara (1474–1528), followed suit by commenting on Aquinas’s Summa contra Gentiles . Of these two, there is no question that Cajetan produced a more remarkable imprint in his own lifetime and in the centuries to follow. Besides the Summa theologiae commentary, Cajetan penned a perspicuous defense of Aquinas’s metaphysics in the form of an exposition of the De ente et essentia . He also composed the noteworthy treatise De nominum analogia (On the Analogy of Names), which synthesizes Aquinas’s disparate remarks regarding analogy. The result goes beyond a mere summary of Aquinas and is perhaps best regarded as an original theory of analogy in its own right, though certainly inspired by Thomistic theses
Thomists thrived especially in the Iberian Peninsula, as this region would avoid the ravages of the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). Yet, even during the Council of Trent (1545–1563), well-poised Thomists would bring about signifi cant triumphs for Aquinas’s theological doctrines, with certain key defi nitions from the Council following Aquinas closely. To mention perhaps one of the most bitterly contested between Catholics and Protestants, the Council’s decree on the doctrine of justifi cation, its preconditions and its causes, is nearly a paraphrase of certain passages in the Summa theologiae. A sort of Thomist rivalry between Dominicans and the Jesuits would goad each to outdo the others. Among the Jesuits, Luis de Molina 61 (1535–1600), Francisco Suárez 62 (1548–1617), and Gabriel Vasquez 63 (1549–1604) would stand out, and often stand against, Dominicans like Bartholomew of Medina (1527–1581) and Dominic Báñez 64 (1528–1604).

Although the accomplishments of Thomists during this period endure as the classic expressions of the Thomist school, they failed to answer the challenges by humanists, remained foreign to Protestant intellectual formation, and seemed totally ignorant of the advances in the new science. When Francis Bacon, in his 1623 treatise De augmentis scientiarum (On the Advancement of Learning), subjected scholastic thinkers to ridicule, 68 the absence of a Thomist rebuttal spoke volumes. By the mid-seventeenth century, Aquinas suffered three counts against him, each a considerable limit upon the reach of his infl uence: (1) he was Scholastic in method and language; (2) his religious affi liation was decidedly Catholic; (3) his authority in philosophy was Aristotle, and an Aristotle often read in conjunction with Muslim commentators.
Later Thomists

If one turns to the groundbreaking philosophers at the outset of this period, both among rationalists and empiricists, already one can barely discover any connection to Aquinas. Descartes (1596–1650) and Leibniz (1646–1716), to be sure, seemed bound to pay their respects to Aquinas, not willing to declare themselves against such an authority. But their deference to Aquinas amounts to so much lip service; their philosophical positions depend very little upon Aquinas, and often run counter to his teachings. Despite Descartes’s protests that the presuppositions of his ontological argument “do not differ from the Angelic Doctor in any respect,” Descartes quite tellingly goes on to urge that “existence belongs to [God’s] true and immutable nature” ( René Descartes , The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , vol. 2, tran. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 82–8). In the case of Leibniz, his formulation of God as a necessary being should not be confused with Aquinas’s claims in the Tertia Via . For, Leibniz was dealing with logical necessity, whereas Aquinas relied on no such notion in his arguments for the truth of “Deus est.” Quite the contrary, Aquinas held that logic alone could defi nitely not solve the question of God’s existence (Cf. ST I q.2 a.1).

Finally, there were those who would emphasize Aquinas’s originality, at least in his characterization of the actus essendi . These were the existential Thomists (e.g., Jacques Maritain 85 [1882–1973] and Étienne Gilson 86 [1884–1978]), raised in the school of Bergson and drawn to Aquinas’s metaphysics of esse . For them, Aquinas had helpfully gone further than Aristotle, positing esse as a perfection created by God alone and irreducible to forms.