In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Reviewed by: The Singular Voice of Being: John Duns Scotus and Ultimate Difference by Andrew Lazella Christopher Cullen S.J. Andrew Lazella, The Singular Voice of Being: John Duns Scotus and Ultimate Difference. Medieval Philosophy: Texts and Studies. New York: Fordham University Press, 2019. Pp. x + 260. $72.00. ISBN: 9780823284573. John Duns Scotus (c. 1265–1308) is aptly called the Subtle Doctor. His thought is filled with subtleties and (...) distinctions that embody medieval Scholasticism's attempt to master the science of metaphysics, especially as it had been recast by the rediscovery of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a text that Scotus wrote about at length. Andrew Lazella's book, The Singular Voice of Being: John Duns Scotus and Ultimate Difference aims precisely at presenting the subtleties of Scotus' answer to Parmenides with the Eleatic's denial of the reality of the multiplicity of beings and of change. Lazella first illumines in detail Scotus's central metaphysical doctrine, namely, that the mind attains a univocal concept of being. But the problem then becomes, as Lazella rightly perceives, that this "univocity of being" might seem to be in danger of collapsing being into a Parmenidean monism. Hence, the urgency for Scotus "to divide being at its joints" (as Lazella refers to the task; 2). Scotus has to find the ultimate differences that demarcate the multiplicity and divisions of being, if his univocity of being is not to collapse being into a false unity. Lazella shows how Scotus attempts to escape the monism of Parmenides while also avoiding a Heraclitean flux and multitude that destroys the possibility of knowledge and science. For Scotus, only the univocal concept of being is adequate to this task. An analogy of being is inadequate, primarily because it is on the side of equivocation. The univocal concept is "the singular voice of being" that illumines the unity of the finite world, with its vast multitude of things, and that also grounds the concepts of a natural theology of the infinite God. Lazella insightfully begins the book by presenting Scotus's work as an answer to Parmenides and thus to the most basic of all metaphysical questions, as discussed above. Part 1 of the book includes three chapters: the first two discuss in detail the univocal concept that unites beings, and [End Page 237] chapter 3 outlines the concept of the ultimate difference that divides being. Lazella highlights a threefold taxonomy of ultimate differences that are found in the modes, species, and individuals of being. Part 2 of the book includes three chapters, one on each of the "regions" of ultimate difference: chapter 4 treats the intrinsic modes of being; chapter 5 the ultimate specific differences that account for the diversity of species; and chapter 6 presents the ultimate individual difference, i.e., "thisness" or haeceitas, which accounts for the reality of the individual substances. A helpful conclusion summarizes the argument of the book as a whole."In his early Quaestiones super Praedicamenta Aristotelis, Scotus says that things are univocally named when they share not only the same term (vox) or name (nomen) but also the same account (ratio)" (17). The opposite extreme from univocty is equivocity. Equivocity obtains when things only share a name but have different accounts. In between these two extremes is analogy: "Analogical names require that the name signify multiple rationes, which are unified according to some order or relation" (17). This account of these three terms is uncontroversial. Lazella thinks that Scotus's turn to univocity, as the ground of metaphysics, is driven largely by his epistemology. For Scotus, "cognition is rooted in sensible accidents and is unable to gain access to the real essences of substances themselves" (6). Hence the isomorphism between mind and reality cannot be secured without a univocal concept of being, contra the views of the majority of his fellow thirteenth-century Scholastics, such as Bonaventure and Aquinas. A key point is that, for Scotus, the intelligible species, or likeness, abstracted from the phantasm by the agent intellect, is not understood as a mirror that re-presents the form found in the concrete substances of the world. For Scotus, the intelligible species is no longer understood as a formal sign that... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Salmanticenses, On the Motive of the Incarnation by Dylan SchraderJustus HunterThe Salmanticenses, On the Motive of the Incarnation, trans. Dylan Schrader. Early Modern Catholic Sources 1. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019. Pp. xlix + 203. $65.00. ISBN: 978-0-813-23179-2. This is the first volume in the much-anticipated Early Modern Catholic Sources Series edited by Ulrich Lehner and Trent Pomplun. Fr. Dylan Schrader has done (...) an admirable job, in quality of translation and notes, as well as in offering a concise yet robust historical introduction to the argument of the text. This is a seminal text on a topic of perennial interest, from a period of time too often neglected in contemporary theological discourse in general, and on the motive for the incarnation in particular. The translation spans the four dubia of the second disputatio (de motivo incarnationis) of tractatus 21 (de incarnatione) of the famous Cursus theologicus of the Discalced Carmelites of the College of San Elias at the University of Salamanca (the Salmanticenses). The Cursus itself occupied the Salmanticenses for nearly a century; the first volume was published in 1631, and the final in 1712. Tractatus 21 was produced by Juan de la Anunciación and published in 1687. It was reprinted in an editio nova, correcta in 1878, though Schrader tells us there are no substantial differences between the original and the new editions with respect to tract. 21, d. 2 (xiii).Schrader's translation is preceded by a 40-page introduction, including a brief synopsis of the historical origins of the text, an overview of the history of debates over the motive for the incarnation from its origins in Anselm's Cur Deus homo? down to the present, and notes on the translation. The extended history of debates is especially notable. Schrader covers the standard terrain accurately and efficiently (perhaps too efficiently with respect to the Summa Halensis), leading up to the seminal figures of Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Most valuable, however, is Schrader's narration of the subsequent history of the debates over the motive for the incarnation. [End Page 241]Schrader's introduction is a welcome alternative to Juniper Carol's Why Jesus Christ? (Trinity Communications, 1987). Carol's study is a remarkably comprehensive analysis of the entire history of debates over the motive for the incarnation. While Carol is unparalleled in his analysis of the issues at stake, key conceptual developments, and the sheer volume of texts considered, his analysis tends to be shaped by his constructive arguments for the Scotist position, and the book struggles at times with the task of sorting hundreds of figures into Carol's typology. Schrader, in his even-handedness and concision, has produced a superb primer on the history of the same debates. It is a much crisper, briefer, and descriptive account of major moments in the debates over the reason for the incarnation between the High Middle Ages and the twentieth century, the standard periods treated by contemporary theologians. He shows the important contributions of familiar figures like Cajetan, Molina, and Suarez, but also the significance of lesser known (usually Franciscan) theologians like Juan de Rada and Francesco Lychetus. The introduction is both a helpful historical background for the translation that follows, in which the Salmanticenses develop several important "mitigated" Thomistic themes (e.g. Capreolus's distinction between the finis cuius gratia and the finis cui), as well as an instructive historical overview of the history of the question itself. Schrader extends beyond the Salmanticenses into the present, showing both important subsequent developments of the Salmanticenses arguments in figures like Billuart and Gotti, as well as transitions in emphasis and approach with figures like Scheeben and Barth. The result is a clear sense that there are many arguments awaiting recovery and reconsideration, and Schrader offers helpful direction to those who would pursue them. He has already pursued some of them, especially in conversation with modern theologians Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, in his constructive A Thomistic Christocentrism: Recovering the Carmelites of Salamanca on the Logic of the Incarnation (The Catholic University of America Press, 2021). Regarding the translation itself... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Bonaventure, the Body, and the Aesthetics of Salvation by Rachel DaviesRobin LandrithRachel Davies, Bonaventure, the Body, and the Aesthetics of Salvation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Pp. Xii + 187. $105.00. ISBN: 9781108485371. Rachel Davies's Bonaventure, the Body, and the Aesthetics of Salvation finds in Bonaventure a resource for contemporary theological efforts to read embodied experience as a primary text. She argues that Bonaventure supports these efforts (...) by affirming the body as an aid to the soul in the whole self's sanctification. In her effort to read Bonaventure's account of the body in aesthetic terms, Davies argues that Bonaventure sees the suffering body as the site of the revelation of God's beauty. Distinguishing her reading from that of Hans Urs von Balthasar, however, Davies avoids suggesting that bodily suffering is beautiful per se (19–21), emphasizing instead the need to seek the beauty unique to bodily suffering "through" that suffering, looking toward its redemption (25). The beauty of suffering is beauty in potency—beautiful only insofar as it is grafted onto Christ's suffering, and, like Christ's suffering, only revealed as beautiful when it appears in the resurrected body. For Davies, the "deep logic" (32) by which Christ's suffering and resurrection transform human suffering permits hope that suffering can be made meaningful, but that same logic also refuses premature attempts to say how it will be made meaningful. Davies's argument is most persuasive when read as a mystical meditation on the beauty unique to human suffering—that is, as a theo-logical text in the formal sense. There is a pastoral sensitivity motivating her scholarly contribution. The book attempts to address "a common human struggle: the experience of bodily diminishment, which threatens to turn corporeality into a noetic obstacle rather than the communicative medium it was intended to be" (170). In some ways, Davies shows Bonaventure to be a useful resource in pursuit of this aim. At the same time, Bonaventure's works and milieu create conditions within which Davies's scholarly and pastoral theses occasionally work against each other. Davies first intends to highlight Bonaventure's (occasionally) favorable view [End Page 245] of the body—a view which stands apart from less-favorable assessments frequent in medieval theology (32). In doing so, Davies recovers an important, surprisingly tender, instance of medieval sensitivity to the soul's abandonment of the body in sin alongside medieval references to the body's rebellion against the soul. As a scholarly contribution, Davies's work draws attention to these existing, if at times undeveloped, intuitions within Bonaventure's account of the role of the body in the process of sanctification. Still, it is difficult to see an obvious pastoral application for the claim that the soul abandons the body when we consider cases of involuntary chronic or terminal suffering. Davies does not try to offer one, but neither does she address the fact that shifting the accent to the guilt of the soul in abandoning the body risks shifting the blame for suffering—even chronic suffering—to the sufferer herself. Davies by no means thinks the blame lies here. She is attentive to the challenges that such suffering presents to the sufferer. Indeed, it is to alleviate some of these challenges that Davies emphasizes the mystical, rather than imitative, aspect of Bonaventure's account of the effect of Christ's suffering on other instances of human suffering (109). She observes that Christ's "victory is a victory for the entire Church," which means that "those who cannot begin to imagine the transfiguration of their own sufferings, or direct their feelings toward any sort of fruitfulness, can at least consent to be carried along passively in Christ's return to the Father" (108). This "requires nothing but blind trust, and does not ask people to find meaning in their own suffering, or even to be at peace with it" (108). I am convinced by the pastoral merit of this point, and of the capacity of Bonaventure's mystical soteriology to sustain it. But the notion of an unconscious or unintentional transfiguration of suffering raises two further questions regarding attempts to apply Davies's... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Human Nature in Early Franciscan Thought: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance by Lydia SchumacherStephen TomlinsonLydia Schumacher, Human Nature in Early Franciscan Thought: Philosophical Background and Theological Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. Pp. vii + 343. ISBN: 978-1-009-20111-7. $120.00This latest monograph from Lydia Schumacher is a welcome addition to the growing body of contemporary scholarship on the early Franciscan intellectual tradition. It offers something of a consolidation of (...) Schumacher's recent work, particularly on the Summa Halensis, where she and others have sought to clarify and establish the sources behind many of the fundamental philosophical and theological positions articulated by prominent members of the early Franciscan Order and faculty at the University of Paris in the first decades of the thirteenth century. Success in this endeavor has afforded scholars a more accurate sense of both the diverse array of auctoritates, particularly non-Christian, from whom these theologians freely drew, as well as the subsequent influence of their work upon the later medieval intellectual tradition. In this respect, the present study, which surveys the field of anthropology as developed and articulated by the friars in the early thirteenth century at the University of Paris, aims to deconstruct certain long-standing narratives regarding early Franciscan theology and especially philosophy, particularly its opposition or aversion to Aristotle on the one hand, and its status as a simple reiteration of Augustine on the other. In support of this objective, Schumacher brings forth compelling evidence that suggests a more complex and unique synthesis, one not only between Augustine and other Christian authors, but especially Arabic and Jewish sources, whose ideas were readily received and subsequently transmitted under Augustine's name. The governing logic for this synthesis, as Schumacher argues, was to secure intellectual justification of and rationale for the religious vision set forth by Francis of Assisi. [End Page 249]Following a brief introduction, where Schumacher establishes her principal thesis and reviews pertinent trends in contemporary scholarship, the first two chapters situate the focus of the book by reviewing the tradition of the philosophy of soul as it developed in the ancient world and early Middle Ages, and its subsequent reception in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. We are first introduced to a survey of seminal contributions in the field of psychology, including the medical works of Galen and Avicenna, as well as certain writings of Gregory Nyssa and John Damascene (pg. 13-15). Moving into the twelfth century, attention is given to the Cistercian authors, particularly William of St. Thierry and Isaac of Stella, and the influential De spiritu et anima (pg. 15-21). During this time the Middle Ages also saw the first translations of key anthropological texts from the Islamic and Jewish tradition, including Avicenna's De Anima, Book of the Cure, and Avicebron's Fons Vitae (pg. 21-31). Once into the thirteenth century, Schumacher provides a helpful overview of the reception and early attempts at a synthesis of the foregoing tradition undertaken at the University of Paris by certain secular masters such as William of Auxerre and Philip the Chancellor, as well as John of La Rochelle and the early Franciscan friars involved in the composition and compilation of the Summa Halensis (pg. 31-64).Having established the historical context and background to the intellectual ferment taking place at the University of Paris in the early thirteenth century, the book then shifts to a systematic examination of various topics of interest within the field of anthropology. Here, Schumacher observes that when it comes to the friars, they do intend to adhere to a basic Augustinian framework as it regards certain fundamentals such as the substance and composition of the soul, its various powers, and its relationship to the body, all the while supplementing and integrating this paradigm with material taken from other non-Christian philosophers, especially Avicenna and Avicebron (pg. 65-103). In light of this, the majority of the subsequent chapters examine closely the teaching of the early friars, especially John of La Rochelle, on the various powers of the soul and in particular, cognition and the mechanics of epistemology (pg. 104-227).Additionally, Schumacher traces the doctrine of... (shrink)