No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Philosophy of St. Bonaventure and of St. Thomas
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2024
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
St. Bonaventure’s touchstone in philosophy was exemplarism. A philosophy is true or false according to its acceptance or refusal of the ideas. It was then natural that his preference would be given to Plato, who, because of his discovery of the reality of ideas, was in his eyes the most excellent philosopher, to whom the gift of wisdom was fittingly appropriated. Aristotle, on the contrary, a great scholar but a bad philosopher, built up a philosophy of the useless: his philosophy is irrelevant to the real, and hence worthless. Aquinas’s keystone, on the other hand, was that doctrine, so typically Aristotelian, of actuality and potentiality; accordingly, it is no matter of surprise that he should hold Aristotle in such esteem, for the latter’s metaphysics and his whole philosophy are pervaded throughout by the doctrine of actuality and potentiality, built up on this as upon two pillars.
To view a problem from the wrong angle leads inevitably to disastrous consequences and utter failure. Aquinas made his own, as a fundamental basis of all his enquiries, the Aristotelian principle, stated also by Boethius, that it is a scholar’s duty to formulate his belief about anything according to its real nature. As each science has its special subject-matter, which constitutes it as a particular science and distinguishes it from any other, so it has to be dealt with according to its proper method, strictly adhered to and used rigorously according to its special nature; consequently nothing adventitious or extraneous ought to be introduced in the process, if utter confusion and gross blunders are to be avoided.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1940 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 S. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, I, iii, referring to Aristotle’s Ethics, I, ii, 1094 b ; Boethius, De Trinitate, ii.
2 Contra Gentiles, I, ii-viii; In Boet. de Trin., qq. 1-2; cfr.
3 Gilson, op. cit., p. 104.
4 Vol. v, pp, 329-149.
5 S. Bonventurae Colltiiones in Hexaëmeron ad fidern codd. MSS. edidit F. Delorme, O,F.M. .Ad Claras Aquas, 1934.
6 Delorme, op. cit., p. 275 cfr, the editor’s Preafatio, pp. xxvi, where the relation between both reportationes is discussed.
7 Coll. I, n. 9, Quaracchi edit., p, 330.
8 Coll. XVII, n. 7, Quar., p. 410; Delorme, p, 196.
9 Coll. IV, n. 10, Quar., p. 351 ; Delorme, p. 54.
10 Cfr. the pertinent remark of the Quaracchi editors : ‘Unde sequitur, ut verba scripti non sint premenda.’ Vol. V, ,p. xxxviii.
11 Jules d’.Albi, O.M.Cap. Saint Bonaventure et les luttes doctritnales de 1267-1277. Tamines-Paris, 1923, cc. vii-viii. This work contains some good things which are, unfortunately, spoiled by the bias, the uncritical method and the combative spirit of the author.
12 F. Tinivella, O.F.M. De impossibili sapientiae adeptione in plalosophia pagalla iuxta Collationes in Hexaërmeron S. Bona- venturae, in ‘Antonianum,’ II (1936, pp. 31-33. .An accurate study, conscientious and balanced on the whole).
13 Vide a good description of ‘collations’ by the Quaracchi editors, Prolegomena, c. vi, Vol. V, p. xxxvi.
14 In the Quaracchi edit. of the Opera omnia, V, pp. 507-532.
15 Ibid ., pp, 457-503, By a strange oversight, both in the French and in the English editions of Gilson's Phil. of S. Bon., the title of this work is given throughout as De decem Donis s,s.
16 See nn. 4 and 5, supra, p. 253. For the date of the Collationes cfr. P. Glorieux, La date des Collationes ‘ de S. Bonaventure, in ‘Archivum Hist. Franciscanum,’ 22 (1929), pp, 257-272.
17 Gilson, op. cit., p. 36. As a slight detail of fact, the Collationes in Hexaëmeron were not left unfinished by St. Bonaventure's death, which occurred a year later, July 15th, 1274, but but by his elevation to the Cardinalate on May 28th , 1274.
18 Gilson, ibid., p. 29; see also p. 35 .
19 E. Longpré, O.F.M. Saint Bonaventure, in ‘Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographic occlésiastiques, IX, coll. 777.
20 In Hex., coll. XXII, n. 22, Delorme, p. 256; Quaracchi P. 440.
21 Ibid., coll. XIX, n. 14, Delorme, p. 217; Quar., p. 422.
22 Ibid., coll. III, n. I, Delorme, p. 33; Quar., p. 343.
23 Ibid., coll. XVIII, n. 23, Delorme, p. 209; Quar., p. 418.
24 Delorme, op . cil., p. 2 7 5 . Cfr. also Tinivella, op. cit., p. 33. It is clear from the context that the masters and bachelors present were not seculars,but friars : ‘praesentibus aliquibus magistris et baccalauriis theologiae et aliis fratribus.’
25 In Hex., coll. XVII, n. 25, Delorme, p. 200; Quaracchi, p. 413.
26 Ibid., coll. IV, n. 16, Delorme, p. 59; Quaracchi omitted.
27 Contra Gentiles, I, iv; In Boethium de Trin., q. 3, a. I ; S. Theol. I, q. I , a. I .
28 See Blackfriars, March, p. 163.
29 St. Thorn., Quodlibet III, p. 31 : Utrum mundum non esse aeternum possit demonstrari. Disputed at Easter, 1270, against Gerard D’Abbeville; cfr. P. Glorieux, Pour une edition de Gerard d’Abbeville, in ‘Recherches de Theologie ancienne et médievales,’ 9 (1937), pp. 58-60. Cfr. I, p. 46, a. 2 : ‘ Dicendurn quod mundum non semper fuisse sola fide tenetur, et demonstrative probari non potest’; Contra Gentiles, 11, 38 ; De aetemitate mundi contra murmurantes.
30 St. Thomas, Declaratio quadraginta duo quaestionum, .q. 33. The whole opuscule is to be read ; it is most illuminating with regard to this question.
31 In de Coelo et Mundo, I, lect. 22.
32 Clement Alex., Strom., VI, 10 (P.G. 9, 301).
33 Metaphysics, A, i, 981 b ; ii, 982 b.
34 Contra Gentiles, I , i ; In II Sent., Prol., cfr. In Metaph.,
35 Contra Gentiles, III, xxv (edit, minor Leon,, p. 252 b).
36 Summa Theologica, I, q. I, a. I , particularly ad 2m; a. 7; Contra Gentiles, II, iv.
37 Contra Gentiles, II, iv; I, q. I , a, 6.
38 Card. J. H. Newman, The ldea of a University. London, 1902, pp. 221-222. Cfr. St. Thomas, Contra Gent., II, iv.
39 E. Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience. London, 1938; p. 51.
40 For the distinction between different and diverse, cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 8 ad 3m.
41 For the significance of St. Thomas’ synthesis see E. Gilson, La signification historique du Thomisme, in ‘Etudes de Phil, Méd.,’ Strasbourg, 1921, pp. 76-124.
You have
Access