medieval scholarship and philosophy in t

7/26/2019 Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in t

1/22

1

FREDERICK

J.

CROSSON

>me

time

on both the

national an d, possibly

one

day,

the international

vel.

But encyclicals

can-and

must-still address questions of ustice

1d

of right

and

wrong

and continue

to assess

and

teach morality with

ut having to assume governments

to be more than

merely governmen

l.

s

Maritain never tired of pointing out, it is possible to agree about

tings to

be done

without necessarily agreei ng on the reason to do them.

nd

the

Church

can try to

bring to the

consciences

of

its hearers

the

per

~ p t i o n

of

what

demands

simply

being human

makes. Would the struc-

1res and

public arenas

of

democracies allow those sparks

in

consciences

turn into

flame? Only God knows.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy

n

the Last One undred Years

TIMOTHY NOON

To trace the course

of

scholarship

on

medieval philosophy in the last one

hundred

years would seem to anyone familiar with

the

subject a difficult,

if

not

daunting, task. Add to this task the

further

goals

of

relating the

themes

of

such scholarship to the developments

of

philosophy itself in

the last

one hundred

years

and of

confining one s remarks

to

less

than

fifty minutes; now

the

task might

be

described as nigh

on impossible-at

least Herculean,

if

not

Sisphyean. So I shall not, cont rary to the title

of

the

present

lecture,

attempt the

task

here

in all

of

its breadth,

depth and

complexity, for to

do

the topic justice would require

nothing

less

than

a

book. Ins tead, I shall restrict my efforts

and

remarks to that

part

of

Latin,

Christian medieval philosophical

thought in

which its historians have de

clared its greatest richest treasures are to

be

found, the

thirteenth

and

fourteent h centuries. Happily enough, this period is

the

primary

area of

my own researc h

and

interest, so I can speak with some degree of familiar

ity

on the

subject. But even within

the

confines

of

these two centuries,

the

number of

historians

of

philosophy

and

the diversity

of their

approaches

are so great

as

to preclude

the

possibility

of

discussing

them

in a compre

hensive fashion. Accordingly, I shall focus

our

attention

on

a small

group

of a t h o l ~ c historians-Maurice de Wulf, Etienne Gilson, Philotheus

Boehner,

and Ferdinand

Van

Steenberghen-whose

works

are

exemplary

either

in respect to

the method of

their approach,

the

impact they

had on

the advance of scholarship,

or

the issues thei r works raised for

other

histo

rians

of

philosophy. Closely relat ed to

the

historiography

of

this past cen

tury

and

stimulating research into

the

history

of

medieval

thought are the

critical editions of

the

works

of

medieval philosophers

and

theologians.

Thus the advancement of the knowledge of medieval philosophy in the

1.

The focus on Catholic historians is justified partially by the occasion of these remarks

and

partially by the weighty influenc e

that

these historians have wielded

on

the

development

of studies on thirteenth- and fourteenth-century thought.

111


2/22

112

T IM O T Y

NOONE

last century also needs to

be

seen in light of the critical editions

that

have

made, and continue to make,

much of

it possible. Finally, I shall suggest

some general reflections

on

what maj or lessons have

been

learned about

the nature of medieval philosophy through the scholarship of the last

century

and

how the development of such historical knowledge has inter

acted with twentieth-cen tury philosophy.

To

approach

our

subject properly,

we

must

begin by recalling briefly

the state

of

medieval philosophical scholarship in

1895.

Within the do

main of Catholic scholarship, a tremendous stimulus had been given to

research on medieval philosophy, after centuries of neglect, through the

publication of Aeterni Patris (

1879),

the celebrated encyclical of Leo

XIII. Although Aeterni

Patris

by

no

means originated the revival of inter

est in

the thought

of St Thomas

and

Scholasticism,2 it

spurred

on the ef-

forts already underway and encouraged new studies to be undertaken.

Indeed,

by

1895

the outlook of Leo XIII may be said already to have had,

after

encountering

stiff resistance, an institutional effect with the found

ing

of

the Institut Superieur de phiwsophie at Louvain under Cardinal Mer

cier,

the

establishment

of

the

Academy

of

St

Thomas

in

Rome,

and

the

formation

of

the

Leonine

Commission to edi t the works

of

St. Thomas.3

Meanwhile, outside

of

Catholic circles

there

was a similar revival

of

interest in medieval culture, arising partly

out of

nineteenth-century ro

manticism and partly out of

the burgeoning

of historical studies so char

acteristic of late

nineteenth-century European

intellectual culture.

In

Germany, this was the era of the great classical scholars Ranke, Momm

sen, and Mollendorff as well as

the

medieval historians publishing

the

early volumes

of

the Monumenta Germaniae Historica; in England, the

historical editors of

the

Rolls Series were just in mid-stride; and

in

France the great medieval historian Michelet only recently had died. 4

Within medieval philosophy proper, in Germany Georg von Herrling

(1843-1919)

and Clemens Baeumker

(1853-1924),

professors at Bonn

and Breslau respectively, had just

founded

a new

book

series devoted to

2. Etienne Gilson, Thomas Langan, and Armand Maurer, Recent Philosophy: Hegel

to

the

Present (New

York:

Random House, i962 , pp. 330-45; Arma nd Maurer, Medieval

Philosophy

and

Its Historians (

i97

4; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,

i990 , pp. 465-66. For bibliographical information on

the

latter, see below, p. i 13, n.

7

3

Rober t Wielockx, De Mercie r ade Wulf: debuts de l'ecole de Louvain, in

Gli

studi

di filosofia medieuale fra otto e novecento: contributo a

un

bilancio storiografico Storia e

letteratura: raccolta di studi

et

testi, 79, a cura

di

Ruedi Imbach

et

Alfonso Maieru

(Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1991), pp.

l-20;

R Aubert, Aspects divers

du

nfo-thomisme sous le pontificat du Leon XIII, in Aspetti

della

cultura cattolica nell eta di

Leone XIII

(Rome, 1961); L de Raeymaeker,

Le Cardinal Mercier et l1nstitut Supirieur de

philosophie de Louvain (Louvain, 1952).

4. For a discussion of Ranke, Mommsen, and Michelet, see G P Gooch, History

nd

Historians

in

the Nineteenth Century

(1913; Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 72-97,


3/22

TIMOTHY NOONE

entury also needs to

be

seen in light of the critical editions that have

e,

and

continue to make,

much

of it possible. Finally, I shall suggest

general reflections on what major lessons have been learned

about

ature of medieval philosophy through the scholarship of the last

ry

and

how the development of such historical knowledge has inter

with twentieth-century philosophy.

approach

our

subject properly, we

must

begin by recalling briefly

tate

of

medieval philosophical scholarship in i 895. Within the do-

of Catholic scholarship, a

tremendous

stimulus had been given to

rch on medieval philosophy, after centuries

of

neglect, through the

ication of Aeterni Patris (1879), the celebrated encyclical

of

Leo

. Although Aeterni Patris by no means originated the revival of inter

r the

thought of St.

Thomas

and

Scholasticism,2 it

spurred

on

the ef-

already underway and encouraged new studies to be undertaken.

~ e d by 1895 the outlook

of

Leo XIII may be said already to have had,

encountering stiff resistance,

an

institutional effect with the found

f the Institut Supmeur de philosophie at Louvain under Cardinal Mer

the

establishment

of

the

Academy

of

St. Thomas

in

Rome,

and the

ation of the Leonine Commission to edit the works

of

St. Thomas.3

while, outside of Catholic circles there was a similar revival

of

est

in

medieval culture, arising partly out of

nineteenth-century

ro

ticism and partly out of the burgeoning of historical studies so char

ristic of late

nineteenth-century

European intellectual culture.

In

nany, this was the era of the great classical scholars Ranke, Momm

and Mollendorff as well as the medieval historians publishing the

r volumes of

the

Monumenta Germaniae Historica; in England, the

1rical editors of the Rolls Series were just

in

mid-stride; and in

ce the great medieval historian Michelet only recently

had

died.4

in medieval philosophy

proper, in Germany

Georg von

Hertling

3-1919) and Clemens Baeumker 1 8 5 3 - 1 9 ~ 4 ) , professors at Bonn

Breslau respectively, had just

founded

a new

book

series devoted to

Etienne Gilson, Thomas Langan, and Annand Maurer,

Recent Phiwsophy: Hegel

to

the

(New

York:

Random House, 1962), pp. 330-45;

Annand

Maurer, Medieval

ophy and Its Historians (1974; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,

, pp. 465-66. For bibliographical information on the latter, see below, p. 113, n.

7.

R.obert Wielockx, De Mercie r ade Wulf: debuts de l'ecole de Louvain, in

Gli studi

rofia

medievale fra otto e novecento: contributo a un bilancio storiografico, Storia e

tura: raccolta di studi et testi, 179, a cura di Ruedi Imbach et Alfonso Maieru

Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1991), pp. 1-20;

R.

Aubert, Aspects divers du

omisme sous le pontificat du Leon XIII, in Aspetti delta cultura cattolica nell eta di

Kiii (Rome, 1961);

L.

de Raeymaeker, e

Cardinal Mercier

et

l1nstitut

upmeur de

Mie

de

Louvain (Louvain, 1952).

For a discussion of Ranke, Mommsen, and Michelet, see G. P. Gooch,

Histury

istorians in the Nineteenth Century (1913; Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp.

72-97,

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

113

the

study

of the

subject,

Beitriige zur

Geschichte der Philosophie des

Mittdal-

ters 5 while in France the work

of

the great medievalists Victor Cousin and

Barthelemy

Haureau had

attracted so

much

attention that there

was

a

post created for the study of medieval philosophy in Paris at the Ecol e pra-

tique des hautes etudes a post which in 1895

was

occupied by r a n ~ o i s Pica

vet, one of the future teachers of Etienne Gilson.6

Yet in retrospect, we

must

say

that the amount of

advanced study de

voted to

the

Middle Ages and

the

number

of

scholars

pursuing

medieval

philosophical subjects

in 1895

were quite small

compared

to

the

intel

lectual

culture of

today. Indeed, so

great

was

the ignorance of

medieval

philosophy among philosophers of the time and so correspondingly

great

their prejudice against it that

most

would probably have con

curred

with

the

judgment of Octave Hamelin when he said, about a

decade after 1895, the philosophy of Descartes came afte r the ancients

almost as though there was nothing in between. 7 That few of our con

temporaries, even those in the largely ahistorical Anglo-American ana

lytic tradition, would subscribe to

such

a view today is in large part at

tributable to

the

veritable flood

of

books, articles, critical editions,

and

centers for

the

study of medieval culture that have appeared in the

twentieth century.

The most important feature of the background just sketched for

our

purposes is the papal document Aeterni Patris. This document encour

aged

Catholic scholars, both the ones to whom we shall devote

our

atten

tion and numerous others, to carry certain expectations with them to

their

study

of

the Middle Ages.

It encouraged

them to seek

for

an under

lying unity

in

Scholastic thought,

one

which would

be found

to

an

emi

nent degree

in the thought

of St. Thom as Aquinas; it also inclined them,

168-77,

459-77. For information on the Rolls Series

and

the Monumenta Gerrnaniae

Histmica, consult David Knowles, Great Historical Enterprises: Problems in Monastic Histury

(London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1963), pp . 65-97, 101-34.

5. Kurt Flasch, La concezione storiografica della filosofia in Baeumeker e Grabmann,

in Gli studi, pp.

51-67;

Martin Grabmann, Clemens Baeumker und die Erforschung

der

Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, in

Beitriige zur Geschichte

der

Philosophie

des

Mittelalters, vol. 25 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1927), pp. 1-38,

6. Jean Jolivet, Les etudes de philosophie medievale

en

France de Victor Cousin a

Etienne Gilson, in

Gli studi,

1-13.

7. Octave Hamelin,

Le systeme

de

Descartes

(Paris: Felix Akan, 1921),

p.

15: Ainsi, de

tous cotes, nous retombons sur la meme conclusion: c'est que Descartes vient apres

Jes

anciens, presque comme si'il n'y avait rien entre eux et lui Quoted also in Annand

Maurer, Medieval Philosophy

and

Its Historians , in Essays on the Reconstruction

of

Medieval

History, ed. V Murdoch and G. S. Couse (Montreal and London: McGill-Queens University

Press, 1974), pp. 69-84, and reprinted in Armand Maurer, Being

and

Knowing: Studies in

Tlwmas Aquinas and Later Medieval Phiwsophers (Toronto: Pontifical Institute

of

Medieval

Studies, 1990), pp. 461-79. It is noteworthy that Hamel in would have

penned

these words

prior to the publication of Gilson's doctoral thesis on Descartes.


4/22

4 T IMOTHY

NOONE

however, to think that this unity would be doctrinal and hence did not

prepare them adequately for the true diversity of Scholastic doctrine. To

see why, let us refresh our memories

on

some of the document's key

points.

First, this

and other

papal

documents

originating

in

Leo XIII's pontif-

icate speak of Scholastic philosophy and Christian philosophy, while

narrating

a history

of

this philosophy

that

finds its culmination in

the

thought

of

St. Thomas Aquinas, commending Thomas's wisdom above

all other Catholic thinkers, whether Scholastic or Patristic.s Unfortu-

nately, this

means that

there is a certain ambiguity in

the

documents.

Were Catholic philosophers to study

Thomism

chiefly

or perhaps

exclu-

sively) 9 to the neglect of whatever

other

Scholastic traditions of thought

were prevalent among

their

religious orders

or

universities?

Or

was

the

Pope encouraging a revival of Scholastic philos ophy as a whole, how-

ever pluralistic it might be, in which

Thomism

would be the pars praeci-

pua What did

the documents mean

by Christian philosophy? Was this

Christian philos ophy a historical reality to be found in the Middle Ages

or

was

it

a

methodological

construct

of

the

historian? Did

the term

Christian philosophy simply designate Catholic

philosophy

as receiv-

ing

external

guidance from religious

teaching

or did

it

suggest a more

intimate and immediate connection? Furthermore,

whichever way the

relation between religious teaching and philosophy proper was con-

ceived,

did such

Christian

philosophy respect the proper autonomy of

reason? Finally, what exactly were Cathol ic thinkers to

do

with respect to

Thomistic and Scholastic thought? On the one hand,

the need for

read-

ing

and teaching Scholastic thought in suc h a way as to recapture its orig-

inal insights

seemed

to

be

in

order

(a historical recovery

of the

Middle

8. Leo Pa pa XIII,

Aeterni Patris,

in

Acta Sanctae Sedis,

studio

et cura

Iosep

hi

Pennacchi

et

Victorii Piazzesi (Rome: Vaticana Polyglotta, 1894), 12.108: lam vero inter Scholasticos

Doctores, omnium princeps et magister, lon ge eminet Thomas Aquinas: qui, uti Caietanus

animadvertit,

doctores

sacros quia summe veneratus est

ideo

intellectum omnium quodoammodo

sortitus est. Illorum doctrinas, velut dispersa cuiusdam corporis membra, in unum Thomas

collegit et coagmentavit, miro ordine digessit, et magnis incrementis ita adauxit, ut

catholicae Ecclesiae singulare praesidium et decus iure merito que habeatur. (Italics are

found in original.)

g. On the possibility of the exclusionist reading

and

the unprecedented elevation of

Aquinas,

Leonard

Boyle, O.P., writes: This famous encyclical took the world of learning,

within and without the Catholic Church, by surprise.

There had

been nothing like it before

in the history

of

the church. Popes had praised Thomas

and

recommended him. Councils

had

consulted, cited and accepted him. But at

no

point, not even in the pontificates of the

Dominican Pop es Pius V

and

Benedict XIII,

had

any

pope

attempted to put Thomas

on

the

pedestal on which Leo XIII now placed him, and to th e exclusion, seemingly, of all others.

Leonard

Boyle, A Remembrance

of

Pope Leo XIII:

The

Encyclical

Aeterni Patris,

in

One

Hundred Thars

of

Thomism: Aeterni Patris and Afterwards, A Symposium, ed. Victor B. Brezik

(Houston, Tex.: Center

for Thomistic Studies,

1981),

p. 11.


5/22

4

T IM O T Y N O O N E

Wever,

to

think that

this unity would be doctrinal

and hence did

not

epare them

adequately for the true diversity of Scholastic doctrine.

To

why,

let

us refresh our memories on some of

the document s

key

ints.

First, this

and

other papal documents originating in Leo XIII's pontif

tte speak of Scholastic philosophy and Christian philosophy, while

rrating a history

of

this

philosophy

that

finds its

culmination

in the

ought

of St.

Thomas

Aquinas, commending

Thomas s

wisdom above

other

Catholic thinkers,

whether

Scholastic

or

Patristic.s Unfortu

tely, this means

that there is

a certain ambiguity

in

the documents.

Catholic philosophers to study Thomism chie'fly (or

perhaps

exclu

ely)9 to the neglect of whatever

other

Scholastic traditions of thought

:re prevalent

among

their religious

orders or

universities? Or was the

pe encouraging a revival of Scholastic

philosophy

as a whole, how

er pluralistic it

might

be,

in

which

Thomism

would

be the pars praeci-

a?

What

did

the

documents

mean by Christian philosophy? Was this

ristian philosophy a historical reality to

be

found in

the

Middle Ages

was it a

methodological

construct

of

the

historian?

Did

the term

hristian philosophy simply

designate Catholic philosophy

as receiv

external guidance from religious teaching or did it suggest a more

imate and immediate connection? Furthermore, whichever way

the

ation between religious teaching and

philosophy

proper was con

ved, did such Christian

philosophy respect the proper

autonomy of

son? Finally, what exactly were Catholi c thinkers to do with respect to

0mistic

and

Scholastic thought?

On the

one

hand, the need for

read-

and

teaching

Scholastic thought in such a way as to recapture its orig

l insights seemed to be in order (a historical recovery of the Middle

8.

Leo Pap a XIII,

Aeterni Patris,

in

Act a Sanctae Sedis,

studio

et

cura

Iosep hi Pennacchi

et

orii Piazzesi (Rome: Vaticana Polyglotta, 1894), 12.108: lam vero inter Scholasticos

ctores, omnium princeps

et

magister, longe

eminet

Thomas Aquinas: qui, uti Caietanus

madvertit,

doctores

sacros quia summe veneratus est

ideo

inteUectum omnium quodoammodo

itus est.

Illorum doctrinas, velut dispersa cuiusdam corporis membra, in

unum

Thomas

legit

et

coagmentavit, miro

ordine

digessit,

et

magnis incrementis ita adauxit, ut

olicae Ecclesiae singulare praesidium et decus iure meri oque habeatur. (Italics are

d in original.)

9. On the possibility of the exclusionist reading and the unprecedented elevation of

inas, Leona rd Boyle, O.P., writes: This famous encyclical took the world

of

learning,

in and without the Catholic Church, by surprise. There had been nothing like it before

he history

of

the church. Popes had praised Thomas

and

recommended him. Councils

consulted, cited

and

accepted him. But at no point, not even in the pontificates of the

inican Popes Pius V and Benedict XIII, had any

pope attempted

to

put

Thomas

on

the

estal on which Leo XIII now placed him, and to the exclusion, seemingly, of all others.

nard Boyle,

A

Remembrance

of

Pope

Leo XIII:

The

Encyclical

Aeterni Patris,

in

One

ndred

Years

of Thomism: Aeterni Patris and Afterwards, A Symposium, ed. Victor B. Brezik

uston, Tex.: Cente r for Thomistic Studies, i981 ), p. 11.

Medieval Scholarship

and

Philosophy in the

Last

Hundred

Years

Ages); on

the

other, the papal documents themselves pointed out the

need to synthesize Scholastic philoso phy with the findings of modern sci

ence

and to bring its principles

to

bear upon the

problems of

modern so

cieties

(an

updating of ancient wisdom) .10 In the actual course of events,

the documents were diffuse and manifold in their influence on Catholic

scholarship generally: at

Quaracchi

and Rome,

the

interest in medieval

Franciscan

thought,

which

had

already

begun prior to

Leo XIII, consid

ered itself officially ustified and

therefore

continued, albeit under inter

mittent

strain

and

pressure from

the

Holy See;ll

at

Louvain, the

nstitut

Supirieur

de

philosophie turned its attention to

putting

into practice

what

the documents recommended

by studying the findings

of modern

10. Leo XII, Aeterni Patris (ed. Pennacch i, 12.114): Sapientiam sancti

Thomae

dicimus: si quid

enim

est a doctoribus Scholasticis vel nimia subtilitate quaesitum, vel

parum considerate traditum,

si

quid cum exploratis posterioris aevi doctrinis minus

cohaerens,

vel

denique

quoquo modo non

probabile,

id

nullo pacto in animo est aetati

nostrae ad imitandum proponi.

11. Organizations such as the Jesuit and Franciscan Orders that cultivated the

Scholastic,

but

non-Thomistic, philosophies

of

Francesco Suarez, St. Bonaventure, and

John Duns Scotus found themselves, at times,

hard

pressed. Since Leo XIII became

increasingly ll disposed towards non-Thomistic forms of Scholastic thought as his

pontificate wore on,

he tended

to bring the weight of papal authority to setting a

Thomistic direction to the progress of the neo-Scholastic revival that his encyclical helped

to promote. For example, he warned

the

minister general of the Franciscan order (and by

extension the professors

of

the Athenaeum Antonianum, the main center for Franciscan

philosophy

and

theology in Rome)

not

to allow their teaching to deviate from

the

principles

of

St. Thomas (see Acta Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, vol. 17 [ 1898 ], pp. 201-203,

epistola Leonis XIII, datum die XXV Nov. 1898), just

as

he

had

earlier urged the

professors of the Antonianum during an audience to study Bonaventure after the manner

the Dominicans study Thomas (see Audientia sumrni Pontificis Leonis XIII Collegio S.

Antonii, in Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum: ab origine ad praesens [Rome: Ed.

Antonianum, 1970] , p. 556).

f

anything, Leo's immed iate successors were even

more

firm

on this point: in 1911, professors of the

Antonianum

who favored non-Thomist views were

dismissed and

sent to

minor seminaries to teach, while the Minister General of

the

Order

was removed (this story w s related in the lecture of Fr. Conrad Harkins, O.F.M., Jn

sanctitate

et

doctrina: Franciscan Studies since Aeterni Patris, p.

7,

delivered at

the

Convention of the American Maritain Association on the Centenary

of

Pope Leo XIII'

Encyclical Aeterni Patris, Toronto, April

20,

1979); in 1915, Catholic teachers

of

philosophy were directed to teach the jundamenta and principia

of

Thomism in Catholic

universities and colleges (Pius X's Doctoris Angelici,

datum 29Jun.

1914, in ActaApostolicae

Sedis 6, no. 10 Quly 1914]: 336-41 ), while the Sacred Congregation of Studies identified

these fundamenta as the famous twenty-four theses ( Theses quaedam, in doctrina Sancti

Thomae Aquinatis contentae,

et

a philoso phiae magistris propositae, adprobantur, die 27

Jul. 1914, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 6, no. 11 [August 1914]: 383-86]). Only in the

pontificate of Benedict XV was the legal authority of the theses relaxed so as to

accommodate the teaching of Suarez (and by extension other non-Thomistic Scholastic

philosophers).

For

the impact

of these and related developments on the critical editions of

Bonaventure's writings, see below; for

an

account

of

the progressive impact of

Aeterni Patris

in the pontificates of Pius X and Benedict XV as well as some keen observations about the

current position of Thomis m within Catholic circles, see Nicholas Lobkowicz, v\lhat

Happened to Thomism?: From Aeterni Patris to Vaticanum Secundum, American Catholic

Philosophical Quarterly 59 (1995): 397-423.


6/22

116 TI M O TH Y NOONE

psychology

and

science with a view to synthesizing

them

with Scholastic

principles;

and

finally

at

Paris, Rome, Louvain,

and

elsewhere

the

histor

ical study

of

Thomism

and

its relation to medieval

thought

in general

began

to quicken with

the

first

of our

historians, Maurice

de

Wulf,

as

a

principal representative.

H I ST O R I O G R A PH I C A L

SKETCHES

Maurice

de

Wulf

1867-1947),

having studied neo-Thomism

at

Lou

vain under Mercier, embarked,

at

Mercier s suggestion, on a comprehen

sive historical study of medieval philosophy; this study was to occupy de

Wulf for the remainder of his scholarly career. s each successive editi on

of

his

Histoire de laphilosophie

midievaleshowed,12

de

Wulf strove to develop

an overarch ing view

of

the whole of medieval philosophy. Medieval philos

ophywas

best divided, according to de Wulf, into three periods: a

period

of formation lasting from the fifth to the twelfth centuries inclusive; a pe

riod

of

culmination apogee) which coincided with the

thirteenth

century;

a final

and

long

period

of

decline

diclin

consisting

of

the

fourteenth

and

first half of the fifteenth centuries with the second half of the latter and

the

sixteenth century

preparing the way

for

modem

philosophy.13

Within this progression

of

philosophical periods,

de

Wulf

maintained

that

were two constants. First,

there

was true

philosophy in

the

Middle

Ages, despit e

the

religious character

that

Christian theology imparted to

the

philosophy

of

the

period-that is

to

say

philosophy, in

the

sense

of

a

systematic

and

rational

understanding

of reality, existed wi thout an y di

rect

doctrinal

dependence on

theology.14 This

independence

was a

point that de

Wulf insisted

upon both

against

the

rationalist school of

nineteenth-century

historians, such as Victor Cousin, who considered

medieval philosophy to

be

nothing other than

the more

rational parts

of

medieval theology,

and

against

the

less scholarly

but commonplace

opin

ion

of ordinary early twentieth-century philosophers, who

held that

there

was

no

philosophy in the Middle Ages worthy

of

the name. Second,

12. Historie e la philosophie

medievak

(first publi shed in 1900; final revision 1947).

13. This division of medieval philosophy s history is the

one

found in

de

Wulf s final

edition (see Maurice

de

Wulf, Histoire de

l

philosophie mediivak, sixieme edition, entiere

ment

refondue

[Louvain; Paris: Institut

Superieur

de

Philosophie;].

Vrin,

1934-1947],

i.30-31);

in the

previous edition, de Wulf

proposed four

periods: formation ninth

through the

twelfth centuries); culmination

thirteenth

century); decline the fourteenth

century and first half

of

the fifteenth century); transition to modern philosophy (second

half of the fifteenth century through the seventeenth century). On the latter, see Maurice

de

Wulf, Histoire

de

la philosophie mediivak, cinquieme edition (Louvain: Institut Superieur

de

Philosophie, 1924),

i.33-34.

References are to the sixth edition unless

noted

otherwise.

14. de Wulf,

Histoire,

i.284-85.


7/22

TI M O TH Y NOONE

ychology and science with a view to synthesizing

them

with Scholastic

nciples; and finally at Paris, Rome, Louvain, and elsewhere the histor

l

study of Thomism and its relation to medieval

thought in

general

~ g a n

to quicken with the first of our historians, Maurice de Wulf, as a

ncipal representative.

ISTORIOGRAPHICAL

SKETCHES

Maurice de Wulf 1867-1947), having studied neo-Thomism at Lou

n

under

Mercier, embarked,

at

Mercier s suggestion,

on

a comprehen

re

historical study of medieval philosophy; this study was to occupy de

lf for the remainder of his scholarly career. s each successive edition

his Histoire e la philosophie midievale showed,12 de Wulf strove to develop

overarching viewof he whole of medieval philosophy. Medieval philos

hy

w s

best divided, according to

de

Wulf, into three periods: a

period

formation lasting from the fifth to the twelfth centuries inclusive; a pe

>d of

culmination (apogee) which coincided with the thirteenth century;

inal

and

long

period

of

decline (

declin)

consisting

of

the fourteenth

and

st half of the fifteenth centuries with the second half of the latter and

e

sixteenth century preparing the way for

modern

philosophy.13

Within this progression of philosophical periods, de Wulf maintained

at were two constants. First,

there

was true philosophy

in

the Middle

~ e s despite

the

religious character

that

Christian theology imparted to

e

philosophy

of

the

period-that

is to say philosophy, in the sense

of

a

stematic and rational understanding of reality, existed without any di

et

doctrinal dependence

on

theology.14 This independence

was

a

int

that de

Wulf insisted upon both against the rationalist school

of

neteenth-century historians, such

as

Victor Cousin, who considered

edieval philosophy to be nothing other than the

more

rational parts

of

edieval theology, and against the less scholarly but commonplace opin

n

of

ordinary early twentieth-century philosophers, who held that

ere

was no

philosophy in

the

Middle Ages worthy

of the

name. Second,

12. Historie

e l

philosophie midiivak (first published in 1900; final revision 1947).

13. This division of medieval philosophy s history

is

the one found in de Wulf s final

ition (see Maurice de Wulf, Histoire e l philosophie midievak, sixieme edition, entiere

~ n t refondue [Louvain; Paris: lnstitut Superieur

de

Philosophie;

J.

Vrin, 1934-1947],

~ 0 - 3 1 ;

in the previous edition,

de

Wulf proposed four periods: formation ninth

ough the twelfth centuries); culmination thirteenth century); decline the fourteenth

tury and first half of

the

fifteenth century); transition to modem philosophy (second

f

of the fifteenth century through

the

seventeenth century). On the latter, see Maurice

Wulf, Histoire de l philosophie midiivak cinquieme edition (Louvain: lnstitut Superieur

Philosophie, 1924), 1.33-34. References are to the sixth edition unless

noted

otherwise.

14.

de

Wulf, Histoire, 1.284-85.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred ears

117

and more controversially,

de

Wulf claimed

that

there

was

a doctrinal

unity to

be

found among the thinkers

of

the High Middle Ages, one that

he

characterized initially as a Scholastic synthesis, but eventually as a

common patrimony. Whether synthesis

or

patrimony, however, the doc

trinal unity characteristic of medieval

thought

was believed by

de

Wulf to

have been a histor ical reality,15 not merely

an

artificial and abstract con

struct,

and

to

have

had

its

supreme

expression

in

the thirteenth

century,

when

the

vast majority of philosophers universally

endorsed

a certain set

of theses. Among these theses de Wulf included the formal procedural

distinction of philosophy from theology, and the metaphysical distinc

tions

of

essence and existence,

of

act and potency,

of

matter and form,

and

of

substance and accident.16

Objections to

de

Wulf s synthetic

approach

to medieval philosophy

arose within his own lifetime. Among the critics was of course, the fa-

mous Dominican scholar Pierre Mandonnet, who complained that the

Scholastic synthesis of de Wulfwas only the Christian Aristotelianism of

St. Thomas and St. Albert to which neither the Franciscans inspired by

Augustine

nor

the

Latin Averroists subscribed.17 De Wulf simply

had

to

face the fact

of

considerable diversity even within the

century

that

wit-

nessed

the

triumph

of the

Scholastic synthesis

or the

finest expression

of the

common patrimony); try

as

he would, his theory could only ac

commodate

the

recognition of such diversity with difficulty. His convic

tions are understandabl e, however, when seen

in

light of

the

background

of Aeterni Patris,

which implied there

was

such a unity to

be found

in me

dieval philosophy. Before we leave de Wulf, moreover, emphasis must

be

placed on his notion of philosophy. For what we see in de Wulfwe shall

also see in a modified form in Van Steenberghen: the tendency of

the

Louvain historians was to accept the

notion

of philosophy as the rational

explanation of the real

neither in

formal doctrinal

dependence

on reve

lation nor in any intrinsic connection with it, a notion of philosophy not

unlike the commonplace

one found among modern

philosophers.

Their

propensity to

do

so may simply

be

the result of their own philo

sophical education or personal convictions, but to maintain a

notion

of

the

philosophical fairly close to

that found among

modern philoso

phers

was essential, in

their

opinion,

both in

order to justify

the

study of

medieval

thought

in the

modern

academy

and

to provide a context for

15. Ibid., pp. 367-68.

16. Ibid., pp. 370-74.

17. Pierre Mandonnet, Siger

e

Brabant

et

l averroosme latin au Xllle sieck,

2

vols.

(Louvain: lnstitut Superieur

de

Philosophie, 1908, l9u ,

1.28-42,

51-55. See also the

discussion by

Anton

C.

Pegis,

The Midd/,e Ages

and

Philosophy

(Chicago:

Henry

Regnery

and

Co., 1963), pp.

42-47.


8/22

s

a

le

118

TIMOTHY

N O O N E

the reappropriation of medieval thought in the

modern

world. It w s

on

precisely this

point that

Etienne Gilson would disagree.

Bold indeed would be any attempt to summarize in a few short para

graphs the

work

of

a philosopher, historian, and

man of

letters as prolific

and

influential as Etienne Gilson ( 1884-197 8). Over

one hundred

books

came from his

pen

during

his long career, most of them detailed studies

of

medieval philosophers

and

theologians,

and

an

even greater

number

of articles.

ls

In Europe, his legacy

s

a promoter

of

the value of medieval

intellectual culture set the stage, according to a recent essay by Alain de

Libera,19 for the discussion, lasting now over forty years, of Heidegger's

criticism of medieval metaphysics. In North America, his teaching career

ranged from the period of the 1920s when he lectured at the University

of Virginia and Harvard, to the end

of that

decade when he

helped

to

found the Pontifical Institute in Toronto, to the 1950s when he lived most

of

the year in Toronto, functioning

s

the Director

of

the Institute.20 For

tunately, there is

no need

to summarize all of his scholarly achievements

or findings in order to appreciate the novelty of his

thought

in terms

of

the

historiography

being

sketched here, for Gilson himself

returned

re

peatedly to what made his approach to medieval thought distinctive and

summed it up in a single phrase: Christ ian philosophy.

To appreciate Gilson's novelty,

we

need to remember that, unlike the

vast majority of his colleagues in medieval philosophy, he w s not for

mally trained in the Scholastic tradition. In fact, quite the opposite w s

true. He

had

become interested in medieval philosophy only through

the happenstance

of

writing a thesis comparing Descartes's metaphysical

doctrines to those of the Scholastic tradition of the Middle Ages.

In

his

own words, Gilson describes the results

of that

thesis as follows:

The

conclusions were surprising to me.

t w s on

the occasion

of

this work that,

having to go back from Descartes to what I supposed to be the medieval sources

of

his philosophy, I becam e acquainted for t he first time with Saint Thomas Aqui

nas

and other

Scholastic theologians As the work progressed, I exp erienced a

growing feeling

of

intellectual dismay in seeing what impoverishment metaphys

ics

had

suffered at the hands

of

Descartes. Most

of

the philosophical positions

he

had

retained

had

their proper ustification,

not

in his own works,

but

in those of

the Scholastics From Scholasticism to Cartesianism the loss

in

metaphysical

substance seeme d to

me

frightening.21

18. Margaret McGrath, Etienne Gilson: A Bibliography (Toronto: Pontifical Institute

of

Mediaeval Studies, 1982 ), pp, 1-83.

ig. Alain de Libera, Les etudes

de

philosophie medievale en France d Etienne Gilson

anosjours, in

Gli studi

pp.

23-24.

20.

For the details ofGilson's life, see Laurence

K

Shook, Etienne Gilson Etienne Gilson

Series, 6 ( Toronto: Pontifical Institute

of

Mediaeval Studies,

i

984).

2 i

Etienne Gilson, The Phiwsapher and Theowgy trans. Cecile Gilson (New York:

Random House, 1962), p. 88.


9/22

TIMOTHY NOONE

e

reappropriation ofmedieval thought in the

modern

world. It was on

recisely this

point

that Etienne Gilson would disagree.

Bold indeed would be any attempt to summarize in a few short para

raphs the work

of

a philosopher, historian,

and

man

of

letters

as

prolific

d influential as

Etienne

Gilson (1884-1978). Over one

hundred

books

ame

from his

pen

during his

long

career, most of them detailed studies

,f medieval philosophers

and

theologians,

and

an

even

greater number

,f articles.18

In

Europe, his legacy as a

promoter of the

value

of

medieval

ltellectual culture set the stage, acc ording to a

recent

essay by Alain

de

,ibera,19 for the discussion, lasting now over forty years, of Heidegger's

riticism of medieval metaphysics. In North America, his teaching career

nged from

the

period of

the

1920s

when

he lectured at the University

f Virginia

and

Harvard, to

the end of that decade

when he

helped

to

und the

Pontifical Institute

in

Toronto,

to the

1950s when he lived most

f

the

year in Toronto, functioning as

the

Director of the Institute.20 For

nately, there is no need to summarize all of his scholarly achievements

r

findings

in order

to appreciate the novelty of his thought in _terms of

e historiography

being

sketched

here, for

Gilson himsel f

returned

re

eatedly to what made his approach to medieval thought distinctive

and

mmed it up in

a single phrase: Christian philosophy.

To

appreciate

Gilson's novelty, we need to remember that, unlike the

st majority of his colleagues in medieval philosophy, he was

not

for-

1ally trained

in the Scholastic tradition.

In

fact, quite

the

opposite

was

ue.

He

had

become

interested

in

medieval philosophy only

through

e

happenstance

of writing a thesis

comparing

Descartes's metaphysical

octrines to those

of the

Scholastic tradition of

the

Middle Ages.

In

his

wn

words, Gilson describes

the

results

of

that thesis as follows:

'he conclusions were surprising to me. It

was

on the occasion of this work that,

aving to go back from Descartes to what I supposed to be the medieval sources

fhis philosophy, I became acquainted for the first time with

Saint Thomas Aqui-

as and other Scholastic theologians

. . . As

the work progressed, I experienced a

rowing feeling of intellectual dismay in seeing what impoverishment metaphys

s had suffered at the hands of Descartes. Most of the philosophical positions he

ad retained had their proper ustification, not in his own works but in those of

e Scholastics From Scholasticism

to

Cartesianism the loss in metaphysical

bstance seemed to me frightening.21

18. Margaret McGrath,

Etienne Gilson: A Bibliography

(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of

ediaeval Studies, 1982) , pp. 1-83.

19. Alain de Libera, "Les etudes de philosophie medievale en France

d Etienne

Gilson

nosjours," in Gli studi pp. 23-2+

20. For the details of Gilson's life, see Lauren ce K Shook, Etienne Gilson Etienne Gilson

ries, 6 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute

of

Mediaeval Studies, 1984 ).

21. Etienne Gilson, The Philowpher and Theology trans. Cecile Gilson (New York:

ndom House, 1962), p. 88.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

119

Gilson owed, then, both his interest in and his ever-growing under

standing of

medieval thought to

an

immersion in

the

historical texts

themselves; that is why he

often came

to such historically we ll-grounded

but independent

conclusions.

What Gilson was to emphasize throughout his long

and

fruitful study

of

medieval philosophy was

that the

most creative

and

innovative philoso

phers

of

the

Middle Ages were theologians.

Of

course, most historians

had

noticed this fact before. But for Gilson this fact

was

not incidental to

the philosophical achievements of medieval thinkers; rather, in his view

being

theologians was precisely what

enabled the

great medieval philoso

phers

such as St. Thomas

and

Duns Scotus to attain such brilli ant insights.

In

short, the theological

context of

medieval philosophy had resulted in

advances in philosophy itself; indeed, it had engendered a new type of

philosophy

that

Gilson

termed

"Christian philosophy." Although he had

formulated

his basic ideas about this type of philosophy when he wrote Le

thomisme

(1919) and a philosophie de saint Bonaventure (1924), the

most

succinct statement

of

what he meant by "Christian philosophy" may

be

found in

his Gifford Lectures, The

Spirit ofMediaeval

Philosophy:

Thus I call Christian,

every

philosophy which although keeping

the

two orders [of aith

and reason] formally distinct nevertheless considers

the

Christian

revelation

as an indis-

pensable

auxiliary to

reason. For whoever understands it thus, the concept does

not correspond to any simple essence susceptible of abstract definition; but cor-

responds much rather to a concrete historical reality as something calling for

description.22

Naturally this notion of philosophy quickly aroused hostility among

historians,

whether

rationalist

or

Catholic, since

it

called

into

question

their

basic assumption

that

medieval

thought merited the name

philoso

phy only to the extent that it

contained

analyses that

could

be legitimately

considered

apart

from any

connection

to revelation.23 Despite these con

troversies, however, Gilson

continued

to use the notion

of

Christian phi

losophy

and

employed

it as

a generic

term

to cover

the

whole history

of

Christian speculation which employed

Greek

philosophical sources,

of

various pedigrees, to construct a rational

understanding of

the world in

light of the Christian revelation, a history

that began

with Justin

the

Mar

tyr

and

concluded, perhaps, with Nicholas

of

Cusa.

22. Etienne Gilson, The Spirit

of

Mediaeval Philosophy trans.

A

H. C. Downes (New

York:

Scribner's, 1940), p. 13. For excellent discussions

of

Gilson's understanding

of

Christian

philosophy, see Helen James

John, The Thomist Spectrum

Orestes Brownson Series 5 (New

York: Fordham University Press, 1966), pp . 32-51, and Armand A Maurer, "Th e Legacy of

Etienne Gilson," in One Hundred Years of Thomism pp. 28-44.

23. De Wulf, Histoire

I.17-21;

Pierre Mandonnet, BuUetin Thomiste I (1924-1926),

i926: 50-54.


10/22

120

T IM O T Y NOONE

Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in particular,

Gilson's fundamental udgment was remarkably similar to that

of de

Wulf:

medieval philosophy had

reached

an

unprecedented height

in

the

thought

of St.

Thomas Aquinas. Unlike de Wulf, however, he did not

tend

to see that height in terms

of

a

more

elaborate synthesis

of

the fundamen-

tal metaphysical notions that constituted the common patrimony; Thom-

ism,

a

a Gilson,

was

rather

a

quantum

leap

in

the

understanding

of

what

is first in the nature of reality, namely being. Thomas s notion of ens as har

bens esse was the greatest philosophical achievement of the Middle Ages,

in fact of the whole history

of

metaphysics, and simultaneously the su-

preme expression

of

Christian philosophy, since the Thomistic originality

flowed directly from reflection on the data

of

revelation. Yet Gilson was

sufficiently sensitive to the diversity of historical data to grant that there

were other syntheses that were both original in their metaphysical in-

sights and also Christian philosophies: the metaphysics

of

St. Augustine,

St.

Bonaventure, and

John

Duns Scotus all could claim to

be

such. They

did not need to be seen, not even in the case of Scotus, as a decline so

much

as

alternative, alt hough inferior

manner of

Christian philosophiz-

ing, in

the

final philosophical udgment.

Our third historian in this historiographical sketch, Fr. Philotheus

Boehner (1901-1955),

was

in many ways a pupil and disciple

of

Gilson.

Born in

1901

at Lichtenau, Westphalia (Germany), Boehner developed

tuberculosis while studying for the priesthood and was never expected to

make his final vows in the Franciscan order. Quite surprisingly,

he

re-

gained his health and during his convalescence managed to translate

into German Gilson's

La

philosophie de

Saint

Bonaventure which had re-

cently

appeared

(1924). Moreover, after receiving holy orders and fin-

ishing a doctorat e from Munich in biology,

Boehner

came to Paris to at-

tend one

of Gilson's

summer

seminars on medieval phi losophy

and

the

two

became

close friends. Gilson suggested to Boehner that he write a

history

of

medieval philosophy in

German and

Gilson made his

lecture

notes on the subject available to Boehner ; the resulting volume, Die Ge-

schichte der

Christlichen Philosophie von ihren

nfiingen bis Nicolaus

von

Cues

became a standard German text

in

the history of philosophy and gained

prominence for Boehner in the study of medieval philosophy.24

Although his training

in

medieval studies was largely due to Gilson,

Boehner's own pursuits took

him

in a quite different direction. He per-

ceived that

the fourteenth-century

Franciscans Scotus and

Ockham had

a unique contribution to make to the story

of

Christian philosophy-Seo-

24.

For

the

details

of Boehner's

life, see

Gedeon

Gal, Philotheus

Boehner,

O.F.M.,

in

Dictionary o Medieval

Scholarship

(forthcoming);

The

Editors, Father Philotheus Boehner,

O.F.M.,

The

Cord 5 (1955): 206-15.


11/22

20

T IM O T Y NOONE

Regarding the thirteenth

and

fourteenth centuries

in

particular,

~ i l s o n s fundamental judgment

was

remarkably similar to that

of de

Wulf:

edieval philosophy had

reached

an unprecedented

height

in

the

oughtofSt. Thomas Aquinas. Unlike de Wulf, however, he did not tend

see that

height

in terms

of

a

more

elabora te synthesis

of the

fundamen-

metaphysical notions that constituted the common patrimony; Tho m

m,

a

a Gilson,

was

rather

a

quantum

leap

in

the understanding

of

what

first

in

the nature ofreality, namely being. Thomas's notion of ens as

ha.

ns

esse

was the greatest philosophical achievement of the Middle Ages,

fact

of the

whole history

of

metaphysics, and simultaneously

the

su-

reme

expression

of

Christian philosophy, since the Thomisti c originality

owed directly from reflection on

the

data

of

revelation. Yet Gilson was

fficiently sensitive to the diversity of historical data to

grant

that there

ere other syntheses that were both original in their metaphysical in

ghts

and

also Christian philosophies: the metaphysics of

St.

Augustine,

. Bonaventure, and

John

Duns Scotus all could claim to

be

such. They

id

not need to

be

seen, not even in the case

of

Scotus,

as

a decline so

uch

as

alternative, alth ough infer ior

manner of

Christian philosophiz-

g, in the final phi losophical judgment.

Our third historian

in

this historiographical sketch, Fr. Philotheus

~ o e h n e r (1901-1955),

was

in many ways a pupil and disciple

of

Gilson.

in

1901 at Lichtenau, Westphalia (Germany),

Boehner

developed

berculosis while studying for the priesthood and was never expected to

ake his final vows

in

the Franciscan order. Quite surprisingly, he re

ained his health and during his convalescence managed to translate

to German Gilson's

La

philosophie de

Saint Bonaventure

which had re

ently appeared ( 1924). Moreover, a fter receiving holy orders and fin

hing a doctorate from Munich

in

biology,

Boehner

came to Paris to at

nd one

of

Gilson's

summer

seminars

on

medieval philosophy

and

the

o became close friends. Gilson suggested to

Boehner that he

write a

istory of medieval philosophy

in German

and Gilson

made

his lecture

otes on

the

subject available to Boehner;

the

resulting volume, Die

Ge-

chichte der Christlichen Philosophie

von

ihren

Anfiingen

bis

Nicolaus von

Cues,

ecame a standard German text in the history

of

philosophy and gained

rominence for

Boehner in

the study of medieval philosophy.24

Although his training

in

medieval studies

was

largely

due

to Gilson,

~ o e h n e r s own pursuits took him in a quite differen t direction. He per

eived that the fourteent h-century Franciscans Scotus and Ockham had

unique

contribut ion to make to

the

story of Christian philosophy-Seo-

2

For the

details

of

Boehner's life, see

Gedeon

Gal, Philotheus Boehner, O.F.M.,

in

ictionary of Medieval

Scholarship

(forthcoming);

The

Editors, Father Philotheus Boehner,

.F.M., TheCord5 (1955): 206-15.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in

the

Last Hundred

Years

121

tus in metaphysics and Ockham in logic. At Gilson's invitation, Boehner

came to the Pontifical Institute

in

Toronto

in

April 1939 to lay the

groundwork for a critical edition of Ockham. Scarcely

had Boehner

begun this task, when war broke out and Boehner,

as

a

German

citizen,

was a persona

non grata in

Canada. Fortunately,

he

did not have to

return

to Germany where his stirring preaching against the Reich had already

made

him

unpopular

with

the

Nazis; instead,

he

was

invited by the Fran

ciscans

of

Holy Name Province to teach at a small college in rural west

ern New York, St. Bonaventure College.

Here

at last Boehner, finding a

kindred spirit in Bonaventure's president Thomas Plassman, settled

down to intensive research on Scotus and Ockham.25 This research

found its expression in the foundation

of

the Franciscan Institute and

the

journal

Franciscan Studies, the production of

the

series of mono

graphs and texts known as the Franciscan Institute Publications, and fi-

nally, years after Boehner's own

death in

1955, the critical editi on

in

seventeen volumes of William of Ockham's philosophical and theologi

cal writings ( completed in 1988).

Our

interest in this extraordinarily varied,

if

sadly brief, career con

cerns the research that Boehner published on Franciscan studies and

medieval logic. Gilson's own publications, of course, had focused in part

on

Franciscan topics and Boehner's work

was,

in many

ways,

a continua

tion

and deepening of the

work done by Gilson and a host

of

Franciscan

scholars in

Europe

since the time

of

the formation

of

the research group

at Quaracchi in the 1870s. In the area

of

medieval logic, however, Boeh

ner

had many more contemporaries, scholars such as Grabmann,

Bo-

chenski, and the Kneales, than predecessors. Naturally, his scientific

training and disposition served him well in this

area-in

particular,

we

must credit Boehner s remarkable talent to state clearly, in terms under

standable to contemporary logicians, the achievements of medieval logic

for the success

accorded

his Medieval

Logic: An

Outline of Its Development

from

I2JO

to

circa

I4oo 26

To appreciate, moreover, the full scope

of

his

contribution, we must

bear

in

mind that

the logic of the fourteenth cen

tury had largely

been

written off as hopelessly obscure even by mos t me

dievalists. True, medievalists

noted

strange-sounding questions in medi

eval manuscripts such as whether 'Caesar' has any signification, given

that no

man

exists and whether this is logically proper: I promise you a

horse; therefore, I promise you this horse. But they had

done

so more

out of a sense of duty to

document

the full range of medieval philosoph

ical literat ure

than

any sense of the importance of such questions; only

25.

The

Editors, P hilotheus Boehner, p p.

208-209.

26. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).


12/22

22 TIM O TH Y

NOONE

Boehner

and

a few

other

highly trained specialists

bothered

to analyze

such texts carefully.

What Boehner proposed in his Medieval

Logi,c, and

what has

been

con

firmed in numerous studies since his death,

is that

medieval philoso

phers

and

theologians

had

anticipated many of the discoveries of mod

em logic and most of the problems plaguing contemporary philosophy

oflanguage;

in

fact,

Boehner

suggested that,

in

many cases,

the

medieval

philosophers had developed better solutions to the problems of the phi

losophy of language

than

those offered in the writings of Russell, Frege,

and contemporary analytic philosophy generally. Such a conclusion was

not only revolutionary at the time, it also encouraged many others to use

the tools of modem logic in

order

to analyze medieval philosophical

and

logical texts.

The

resulting studies, in tum, allowed more and more of

the thirteenth, fourteenth,

and

fifteenth-logical treatises to be recog

nized for the valuable, technical pieces of logical theory that they are

rather

than

as

arcana of mere historical curiosity.

Regarding the theme of unity

in

the High Middle Ages, Boehner s in

vestigations

tended

to

broaden

the

range

of

philosophical positions

that

would have to be recognized

and subsumed

within any unitary vision of

medieval thought. Boehner himself contended

that

there were really

two highpoint s in the medieval period: the first was the age of original

metaphysical speculat ion beginning in the mid-thirteenth century

and

lasting until the

end

of the

fourteenth;

the second was the remarkable

period

of advances in formal logic and the philosophy of language,

which began in the late thirteenth century, reached its zenith in the

fourteenth century, and

entered

into a state of decline

at

the opening of

the modem era, under the withering criticism of Renaissance human

ism. s

Boehner

saw the matter, medieval thinkers only developed the

logical tools to express clearly and concisely their metaphysical distinc

tions and insights

at

the close of the Middle Ages, when, tragically

enough, the creative era

of

metaphysical speculatio n had drawn to a

close.27

f with the work of Philotheus Boehner

we

begin to see the apprecia

tion for, and appropriation of, fourteenth-century philosophy among

Catholic historians, we return once more to the world of the thirteenth

century with the work

of

our final historian, Ferdinand Van Steenber

ghen

(1904-1993).28 Educate d

at

Louvain and interested in the role of

the Latin Averroists in the development of medieval philosophy, Van

27. Boehner,

MedievalLogi,c,

pp. 92-93.

28.

On

Van Steenberghen's career, see James McEvoy Jacques Follon,

and

Philipp

W.

Rosemann, Vi?tera

novis

augere: a memoire du chanoine Ferdinand Van Steenberghen,

ulletin

e l

philosophie medievale

35 ( i993): 254-58.


13/22

T IM O T Y NOONE

hner and a few other highly trained specialists bothered to analyze

h

texts carefully.

hat Boehner proposed in his Medieval Logi,c, and what has been con

ed in numerous studies since his death, is that medieval philoso

rs and theologians had anticipated many

of the

discoveries

of

mod

L logic

and

most of the problems plaguing contemporary philosophy

anguage; in fact,

Boehner

suggested that, in many cases,

the

medieval

losophers had developed better solutions to the problems of

the

phi

phy oflanguage

than

those offered

in

the writings of Russell, Frege,

l

contemporary analytic philosophy generally. Such a conclusion was

only revolutionary at the time, it also encouraged many others to use

tools

of

modern logic in order

to

analyze medieval philosophical and

cal texts.

The

resulting studies, in turn, allowed

more and

more of

thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth-logical treatises to

be

recog

ed for the valuable, technical pieces of logical theory

that

they are

er than as arcana of

mere

historical curiosity.

egarding the theme

of

unity in the High Middle Ages, Boehner s in

tigations

tended

to

broaden the

range

of

philosophical positions

that

ld have to be recognized and subsumed within any unitary vision

of

dieval thought. Boehner himself contended that there were really

highpoints in the medieval period: the first

was

the age

of

original

taphysical speculation

beginning

in the mid-thirteenth century and

ing until

the end of the fourteenth; the

second

was

the remarkable

~ i o of

advances in formal logic

and

the philosophy

of

language,

ch began in the late thirteenth century, reached its zenith in the

rteenth century, and entered into a state of decline at the opening

of

modem

era, under

the

withering criticism

of

Renaissance

human

As Boehner saw

the

matter, medieval thinkers only developed

the

cal tools to express clearly and concisely their metaphysical distinc

s and insights at the close

of

the Middle Ages, when, tragically

ugh, the creative

era of

metaphysical speculation

had

drawn to a

se 27

f with the work of Philotheus Boehner we begin to see the apprecia

for, and appropriation of, fourteenth-century philosophy

among

holic historians, we

return

once more to the world of the thirteenth

tury with

the

work

of our

final historian,

Ferdinand

Van Steenber

(1904-1993).28 Educated

at

Louvain and interested in

the

role

of

Latin Averroists in the development of medieval philosophy, Van

7 Boehner, MedievalLogi,c, pp.

92-93.

8

On

Van Steenberghen's career, see

James

McEvoy,Jacques Follon,

and

Philipp

W

mann, vetera novis augere: a a memoire du chanoine Ferdinand Van Steenberghen,

tin de

la philoso-phie medievale

35 ( 1993):

254-58.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the

ast

Hundred Years

123

Steenberghen was

among

the early critics of Gilson's idea of Christian

philosophy.29 Like his great predecessor

at

Louvain, de Wulf,

he adopted

an account of the philosophical

that

was similar to the

one

advocated by

modern philosophers: thought

could

only be truly philosophical to the

extent that it

proceeded

on rationally discernible principles

in

no formal

doctrinal dependence

on

revelation. Using this account of the philo

sophical

and

a

phenomenal command of

thirteenth-century

philosophi

cal literature, Van Steenberghen

produced

a rich study of thirteenth

century thought,

a

philosophie au XIIJeme siecle, which was recently

re-issued (

1991)

in

a revised edition shortly before his death.

In his revised history, Van

Steenberghen

constructs the story of

thirteenth-century

philosophy

along

dramatic lines leading to

the

con

demnations

of 1270

and

1277. Prior to 1250,

Latin philosophy

is

characterized by

an

eclectic Aristotelianism, a mixture,

in

different

measures,

of

the

newly translated Aristotelian writings with doctrinal

elements drawn from Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, and Pseudo

Dionysius. Between 1250 and

1275,

there appear

two new forms

of

neo-platonizing

Aristotelianism-more

synthetic

in

character-in

the

philosophies of St. Bonaventure and St. Albert, a wholly new philo

sophical outlook in Thomism, and a revival

of

ancient thought in the

radical Aristotelianism

of

the Latin Averroists. As much

as de

Wulf and

Gilson, Van Steenberghen argues that Thomism is the intellectual cul

mination of medieval thought; indeed, he goes even further in some

ways when he claims that

Thomism

is the first truly original philoso

phy

produced by Christianity. 30

Yet

this innovative philosophy

was

checked in its infancy by the more radical Aristotelianism

of

Boethius

of

Dacia and Siger

of

Brabant and prevented from attaining its full stat

ure

of

recognition. For when radical Aristotelianism produced an

understandable

institutional reaction in

the

form

of

the condemna

tions, a new philosophico-religious

movement

arose, which Van Steen

berghen labels neo-Augustinianism, one that tended to confuse

Thomism with radical Aristotelianism and oppose them both on the

same grounds.

Although Van Steenberghen's claim

that

Augustinianism

as

a distinctly

philosophical movement

was

a reaction to Thomism has been chal

lenged, what is of more interest to us is the mixed success he had in dis-

covering unity in the thirteenth century. Certainly in Van Steenberghen's

29. See Ferdinand Van Steenberghen, Aristote en Occident: les origi,nes

de

l'aristotelisme

parisien (Louvain: Ins i

ut

superieur

de

philosophie, 1946), pp.

139-47 On

his career, see

Ferdinand Van Steenberghen,

in

Contemporary

Authors ed. Susan

M

Trosky (Detroit,

New York, and London: Gale Research Inc., 1990), pp.

454-55.

30. Van Steenberghen, La philoso-phie, p. 454.


14/22

124 T IM O T Y

N O O N E

history the dramatic flow of events and succession of philosophical ideas

and approaches finds its culmination in the 1270s: Thomism, radical

Aristotelianism, the condemnations,

and

the conservative reaction he

terms neo-Augustinianism. What poses difficulties for Van Steenber

ghen s portrayal of the century,

and

for his depiction of medieval philos

ophy more generally, is the blossoming of metaphysical speculation in

the

writings

of

late thirteenth-century philosophers

and

theologians,

such as Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and

John

Duns Scotus.

For example, Henry of

Ghent

tends to become, in this history, a highly

skilled

proponent

ofneo-Augustinianism,much to the neglect of Henry s

stock of original ideas that so influenced later philosophical develop

ments, while Scotus

is

omitted altogether on

the

grounds

that

his

thought

is more

an

anticipation of fourteenth-century thought than an

integral aspect

of

thirteenth century philosophy.

With the work of Van Steenberghen, our historiographical sketches

are complete. From a thematic

point

of view

we

have seen a continuous

dialectic between the search on the part of Catholic scholars to discover

unity

in

medieval

thought

and

their

encounter

with

greater

diversity

among

medieval thinkers

than

their historical models would tolerate.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is to be found in our final author,

Van Steenberghen, whose unitary conception of

the

thirteenth century

works admirably for three quarters of that century,

but then hampers

him from organizing the balance of the century. Gilson s depiction of

the

High Middle Ages, however, also seems inadequa te: not only

in

the

sense that his notion of Christian philosophy is questionable

and

needs

to

be

defended on philosophical grounds

independent

of its historical

deployment,

but

also in the sense that in his depiction of the Middle

Ages (despite rather

acute observations in his History suggesting

the

op

posite) 31 Gilson strains to recognize metaphysical achievements after

St.

Thomas

and

does

not

give due weight to the importance of the logical

discoveries of the fourteenth century. Yet the intuition of Catholic schol

ars that medieval philosophy represents a unity of philosophical ap

proach

may well

be

correct and

we

shall return to the problems raised by

this historiographical excursus later.

CRITICAL EDITIONS

f he last century has witnessed an explosion of historical knowledge

in regard to the Middle Ages, of no area within medieval studies is this

31.

Etienne Gilson, History

o

hristian

Philosophy

in

the

Middle

ges

(New

York:

Random

House, 1955), p. 471.


15/22

T IM O T Y NOONE

ry the dramat ic flow of events and succession of philosophical ideas

approaches finds its culmination in the i 27os: Thomism, radical

totelianism,

the

condemnations,

and

the conservative reaction

he

s neo-Augustinianism. What poses difficulties for Van Steenber

n's portrayal of the century, and for his depiction

of

medieval philos

y more generally, is the blossoming

of

metaphysical speculation

in

writings

of

late thirteenth-century philosophers

and

theologians,

as Henry

of

Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and

John

Duns Scotus.

example, Henr y

of

Ghent tends to become, in this history, a highly

ed proponent ofneo-Augustinianism, much

to

the neglect

of

Henry's

k

of

original ideas that so influenced later philosophical develop

ts, while Scotus is

omitted

altogether on the grounds

that

his

ght is more an anticipation of fourteenth-century thought than

an

~ g r l

aspect

of

thirteenth-centuryphilosophy.

ith the work of Van Steenberghen, our historiographical sketches

complete. From a thematic point of

view,

we have

seen

a continuous

ectic between the search on the part

of

Catholic scholars to discover

ty in

medieval

thought and

their

encounter

with

greater

diversity

ong

medieval thinkers

than

their historical models would tolerate.

~ h p s the clearest example of this is to

be found in

our final author,

Steenberghen, whose unitary conception of

the

thirteenth century

rks

admirably for three quarters

of

that century,

but

then hampers

n from organizing the balance of the century. Gilson's depiction

of

: High Middle Ages, however, also seems inadequate: not only

in

the

tse

that

his notion of Christian philosophy is questionable and needs

be defended

on

philosophical grounds independent

of

its historical

Jloyment, but also in the sense

that

in his depiction of the Middle

es (despite rather acute observations in his History suggesting the op

>ite

31

Gilson strains

to

recognize metaphysical achievements after St.

omas and does not give due weight to the importance of the logical

coveries of the fourteent h century.Yet the intuition of Catholic schol-

that medieval philosophy represents a unity of philosophical ap

)ach may well

be

correct and we shall return to

the

problems raised by

s historiographical excursus later.

~ I T I C L EDITIONS

f he

last century has witnessed an explosion

of

historical knowledge

regard to the Middle Ages, of

no area

within medieval studies

is

this

31.

Etienne Gilson, History o hristian Philosaphy in the Middle Ages (New York: Rand om

use,

i955),

P 471.

Medieval Scholarship and

Philosophy

in the Last Hundred Years

125

tnier than

that

of

the

editions of medieval philosophers. Presently, criti

cal editions are

in

progress on the works

of

the following better known

authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: William

of

Au

vergne, St. Albert the Great, Henry of Ghent,

John

Duns Scotus, St.

Thomas Aquinas, and Peter Aureolus. During the past century either the

entire corpus or at least substantial portions

of

the

following authors

have

appeared,

to

mention

only

the more

significant names: Alex ander

Hales, Phillip

the

Chancellor, William

of

Auxerre,

Robert

Grosseteste,

St. Bonaventure, Robert Kilwardby,

Peter

John Olivi, Roger Marston,

Siger ofBrabant,John Peckham, GodfreyofFontaines,James ofViterbo,

Dietrich ofFribourg, William

of

Ockham, Adam Wodeham, Walter Chat

ton, and Gregory of Rimini. Comparing these extensive lists

of

critical

editions, which are by no means exhaustive, to the number of medieval

philosophers of

the

same period whose works were either available in

critical edition a

century

ago

or

whose works were being prepared for

critical edition, we

can

readily appreciate the progress;

in

1895, on ly two

major projects had been

begun

or had borne

much

fruit:

the

edition of

the

opera

of

St.

Bonaventure

at

Quaracchi,

and

the

Leonine

edition

of

St. Thomas's writings at Rome.

Yet an

enumeration of

the editions

that

have

either appeared or

are

in

progress by no means gives an adequate picture of the amount we have

learned during the course

of

the

past century about medieval texts and

their transmission. For both in preparing materials for these editions and

in the editing process itself, scholars have discovered a great deal about

how medieval authors worked, how their works were disseminated and

copied,

and the

overall material circumstances for the intellectual milieu

of the High Middle Ages. Furthermore, editors of medieval philosophical

texts have made substantial contributions to,

and

considerable analysis of,

the methods employed

in

editi ng generally by providing a kind oflabora

tory in which different methodological approaches to editing are tested

and re-tested. Since to narrate, within

the

available space, the history of all

the

major text editions

mentioned

would

be

preposterous, I propose in

stead

to

give a sketch

of

a few

of

the highlights by confining

our

attention

to the accomplishments

and techniques of only two of the major projects:

the Quaracchi editors of St. Bonaventure, Alexande r Hales, and the Biblio-

thecaFranciscana Historica and the Leonine editors of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Quaracchi editors

of

the Bonaventurian Opera were a group

that

originated from

the

inspiration of Fr. Fidelis Fanna, gener al director of

Quaracchi until his death, Fr. Ignatius Jeiler, Fanna's successor, and Fr.

Bernadina del Vago, then Minister

General of

the Franciscan order.32

32. For details on the formation

and

work

of

the Quaracchi editors, see Ignatius

C.

Brady, The opera omnia

of

St. Bonaventu re Revisited,

in

Proceedings o

he

Seventh Centenary


16/22

126

T IMOTHY

NOON

Working

together

in a small religious

house

outside Florence after con

ducting preliminary research that involved examining some

5,000

codi

ces scattered

in 400

European libraries,

the patres

editores of

Quaracchi

produced

in their Opera omnia Sancti Bonaventurae a fine humanistic edi

tion

that was a

model

of excellence

for

its time.

The

consultation of man

uscript material was considerable,

if not

exhaustive; the documentation

of

materials

used

by St. Bonaventure was adequate;

and

the presentation

of the opera

in

handsome

folio volumes over

the

course

of

twenty years

1882 -1902 was prompt,

even speedy, for

the

genre.

But, for all that, there were and remain difficulti

medieval scholarship and philosophy in t

Documents