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.
The Franciscan Bonaventure of Bagnorea and the Dominican Thomas Aquinas are typical of their respective Orders.
St. Bonaventure has been described as ‘one of the most lovable figures in the whole history of mediaeval thought, the great doctor of mystical contemplation, the most perfect exponent of Franciscan theology, that is of a theology thoroughly imbued with the religious genius of St. Francis of Assisi.’ St. Thomas has been characterized as the architect of the most perfect philosophical synthesis, ‘one of the three greatest metaphysicians who ever existed,’ whose only love was the quest for and the championing of truth, unice veritatis amator, the most eminent personification of St. Dominic’s ideal, that is, to uphold, to spread and to defend the Truth.
If it is true that St. Francis never condemned learning for itself, it is equally true that he had no desire to see it developed in his Order. The pursuit of learning was always considered by St. Francis to be more dangerous than useful, and desired it neither for himself nor the members of his Order. His personal influence, profound as it was, did not, however, and could not prevail against the pressure of facts; and the Franciscans soon realized the necessity of developing theological studies.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1940 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 E. Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience. London, 1938; PP. 49-50.
2 Gilson, ibid., p. 321. The other two greatest metaphysicians of whom Gilson speaks are Plato and Aristotle.
3 Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris, Aug. 4, 1879.
4 S. Bonavent., In Hexuemeroa, collatio xxii (ed. Quaracchi, V, n. 21, p. 440).
5 E. Gilson, The Philorophy of St . Bonaventure,translated by Dom I. Trethowan and F. J. Sheed. (Sheed & Ward); pp. xiv- 551; 18s.
6 G. M. Manser, O.P., Das Wesen des Thomisnus, 2, erweiterte Auflage. Freiburg, Schweiz. (Verlag der Unirersitats-buchhandlung : F. Rutschi), pp. viii-679.
7 St. Albert. Mag., In I Physic., tr. I, c. i (edid. Borgnet, III, p. 2a).
8 St. Bonav., In Hexaem., coll. xix, 12 (ed. Quaracchi, V, 422).
9 In 11 Sent., 23, 2, 3 (editio ininor, Quaracchi, 1938, 566); Praelocutio (ibid., p. I). For Books I and II of the commentary on the Sentences I quote from the editio minor, which reproduces the text of the Opera Omnia critically revised.
10 Opus Minus, ed. Brewer in Opera hactetms inedita (R.S.) Londm, 1859; p. 236.
11 H. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. A new edition by F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden.
12 Cfr. the Prolegonrena in the Quaracchi edition of Alexander’s , 1924, 11, 20 : ‘Alexander Summa Theoiogica.Haleiisis et Aristotelismus,’ p. xxxix.
13 O. Lottin, Les trailes s u r l’ame et les vertus de Jean de la Rochelle, in ‘Rev. Neoscolastique de Philosophie,’ 32 (1930)’ 5-32.
14 See a striking instance of Richard’s attitude in D. A. Callus, Two early Oxford Masters on the Problem of Plurality of forms, Adam of Buckfield and Richard Rufus of Cornwall, in ‘Rev. Neoscol. de Phil.,’ 42 (1939)427 and ff.
15 Richard of Cornwall mas not one of St. Bonaventure’s teachers, as Gilson suggests, but his immediate successor as bachelor in the Sentences. Since Gilson’s book appeared in I924 much research work has been done on Rufus.
16 In II Sent., Praelocutio (ed. cit., p. II). I read adinvenire with the minor ed. instead of adversare, as Gilson reads with the Opera Omnia edition.
17 This does not appear clearly in the English translation. It is regrettable, and it seems to me unfair to the English reader that in the English translation many footnotes have been altogether omitted, and others so curtailed that it is sometimes very difficult to realise what weight of evidence they bear on the argument.
18 F. Tinivella, O.F.M. De impossibili sapientiae adeptione in philosophia pagana iuxta Collationes in Hexaemeron S. Bonaventurae, in ‘Antonianum,’ II (1936), pp. 30-31.
19 Cfr. Gilson, The Philosophy of St . Bonaventure, pp. 89-92.
20 Ibid., FP. 92-93.
21 In Hexaem., coll. VI, 1-5 (ed, Quaracchi, V. 360-361 ; ed, Delorme, 91-92) ; Gilson, pp, 94-99.
22 De Donis Spiritus Sancti, IV, 12 (ed. Quar., V, 476); Gilson, 100.
23 In Hexnem., Coll. VII, 3-12 (ed. Quar., V, 365-367; ed. Delorrne, 99-103) ; Gilson, 99-102.
24 Gilson, op, cit., pp. 104-105.
You have
Access