By JUDE DOUGHERTY
Elders, Leo. Thomas Aquinas and His Predecessors: Philosophers and the Church Fathers in His Works. Washington, D.C. The Catholic University of America Press. 2018. Pp. xv + 381.
This is a valuable survey of the sources that Thomas Aquinas consulted in the development of his philosophy and theology. It is not merely a textual survey of those sources, but an account of how Thomas related to or assessed the authors he consulted. In writing the book, Professor Leo Elders has drawn not only on his knowledge of the works of Thomas Aquinas, but he has utilized the work of scores of secondary sources as he develops his exposition.
The philosophers Thomas drew upon were many, as one may expect: notably, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Pseudo Dionysius, Augustine, Anselm, Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides, and this list is not complete. Among the Church Fathers, he favors Jerome, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, and John Damascene.
Leo Elders provides this insight: “During the time of the Fathers the dominant thought was a mixture of Platonism and Stoicism with some influence of Gnosticism. Clement of Alexandria and Origin were close to Plato, and the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil who had been educated in Athens, still worked in a Platonic climate but began to use the categories of thought elaborated by Aristotle.”
Although Thomas is a thoroughgoing Aristotelian, he will both accept and reject Aristotelian doctrines in the light of his own perspective, a perspective colored by Plato and Augustine. Plato’s influence is far from negligible. In his use of Basil and Augustine, Thomas recognizes that they follow the opinions of Plato only to the extent that their faith will allow.
Elders observes: “Despite his appreciation of Plato’s greatness and the value of certain of his theories, Thomas was convinced that Aristotle offers a greater clarity, stays within limits of available evidence, and demonstrates with greater certitude the existence of immaterial beings.”
Thomas cites both Aristotle and Plato for their acknowledgment of divine Providence.
When commenting on the De Anima, Thomas approves of Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s postulate of the existence of intelligible forms separate from the material world. Plato, he thinks, did not understand how the intellect abstracts forms from nature. Aristotle, Thomas thinks, rightly faults Plato’s rejection of Heraclitus’ doctrine of continuous flux, where he accuses Plato, in his doctrine of the “universal,” for ignoring what the senses tell us.
Thomas admires Plato when he speaks of “the good” and of God, and when he engages in a quest for the universal cause of being. Thomas finds support for his own position in Plato’s doctrine of participation and in his affirmation of the immortality of the soul and its destiny beyond life on Earth. Thomas takes over Plato’s four cardinal virtues. He believes that Plato and his school have exercised enormous influence for the good, and have contributed significantly to the development of Christian theology.
A brief review can only hint at the richness of this multilayered volume. There is an important chapter on the state of philosophy in the thirteenth century, wherein Elders describes the intellectual divide between the Faculty of Liberal Arts and the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris. In the Faculty of Arts, studies were organized around the works of Aristotle. In the Faculty of Theology, students pursued subjects oriented to their careers, notably in the Church.
Subsequent chapters are devoted to the thought of Avicenna and Averroes. Thomas made use of the Commentaries of both when interpreting difficult passages in Aristotle, but Thomas did not hesitate to correct both when he encountered dubious interpretations.
In the words of the distinguished medievalist, Georges Anawati: “Thomas saved Aristotle from Averroes, but he also saved the positive contributions of Averroes.”
Elders finds that there are 340 references to the thought of Averroes in the writings of Aquinas. He cites a saying that apparently circulated among academics in thirteenth-century Paris: “Aristotle was an interpreter of nature; Averroes an interpreter of Aristotle.” Start where you may.
Thomas accepts Avicenna’s doctrine of being, his distinction between ens and esse, and his use of that distinction in reasoning to the existence of God. With Avicenna, Thomas can say that “none of the beings of this world is its own being; we can conceive of its quiddity without thinking of it as existent. God is the only basis and source of the existence of things.” Avicenna agrees with Aristotle in affirming God’s knowledge of Himself.
The final chapter of the book is devoted to Jewish philosophy, notably that of Avicebron [Solomon ibn Gabirol] and Moses Maimonides. Avicebron, author of Fons Vitae, was both a philosopher and a poet. Thomas, in his De substantiis separatiis, devotes several chapters to an analysis of Avicebron’s doctrine of matter and form and to his notion of potency.
Thomas shows great respect for Maimonides: “Rabbi Moses,” he calls him. Maimonides takes over the central doctrines of Aristotle. His Guide for the Perplexed is appreciated by Thomas because it shows that it is possible to adhere to both true philosophy and the teachings of Israel. Maimonides differs from Aristotle on the eternity of the world insofar as he accepts the creation account as found in Genesis. He embraces the cosmological system of Aristotle with its nine spheres, in each of which resides an angel-like “intelligence.” A tenth intelligence is an agent intellect that illuminates and provides us with our universal concepts.
For Maimonides there is no supernatural life grafted upon our natural thought, elevating it beyond its natural status. But after our death we preserve the knowledge which we have acquired during our life on Earth. Maimonides places an emphasis on man’s faculty of “free will” which allows us to determine the direction of our life. Important is the practice of moral virtue for it makes intellectual life possible.
Thomas discusses Maimonides’ several proofs for the existence of God. The proof from motion occupies first place. According to Rabbi Moses, God exists and is a necessary being, but we do not know what he is. His existence is not immediately known to us, but must be shown by arguments. For some his existence is known only by faith. The best name for God is “being.” Coming to know God is the end of human life.
Elders finds that Maimonides exercised considerable influence on Christian writers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He notes that Thomas, in developing his own philosophy, quotes Rabbi Moses over eighty times.
Thomas Aquinas and His Predecessors obviously presupposes some knowledge of ancient and medieval philosophy. For anyone interested, whether as a beginner or as a seasoned scholar, Leo Elders provides insight not only with respect to the development of Thomas’ philosophy, but to the intellectual climate of his day.
Putting the book down, one is reminded of an old saying: “People do not write original books, books beget books.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress