In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Thomists at War:Pierre Mandonnet, Étienne Gilson, and the Contested Relationship between Aquinas's and Dante's Thought (1879-2021)*George CorbettAt the turn of 1921, the French Dominican Pierre Mandonnet (1858–1936) helped to launch a new historical institute for Thomistic Studies at the Dominican study house of Le Saulchoir in Belgium. One of the pressing purposes of the foundation of the Institut historique d'études thomistes was to provide a properly historical (...) approach to Aquinas's doctrine which would defend its integrity and authority, and refute the alarming assertations of those outside the Dominican order who were, on the view of its founders, abusing the historical method to undermine the true sense of Aquinas's thought.1 The founders singled out Étienne Gilson (1884–1978), whose Le Thomisme, introduction au système de saint Thomas [End Page 1053] was published a couple of years earlier (in 1919); according to Mandonnet, Gilson's volume distorted the very nature and pedagogy of Thomist philosophy.2 Mandonnet and Gilson would become principal antagonists in the famous debates about Aquinas's thought in the 1920s and 1930s. Less known, however, are their parallel skirmishes in the field of Dante studies. In this article, I suggest that we need to consider the battles in Thomism and Dante studies together, as part of a wider intellectual war that would question the very nature of Catholic theology and philosophy. I first survey the main battlefield—the debates about Aquinas's thought—with specific reference to the controversies in the 1920s and 1930s about Gilson's "Christian philosophy" and about Marie-Dominique Chenu (1895—1990)'s Une école de théologie. In the second part, I turn to the skirmishes in the field of Dante studies between scholars such as, on the one hand, the French Dominicans Mandonnet and Joachim Berthier (1848—1924), who presented Dante as an essentially Thomist and Catholic poet, and, on the other hand, the lay historians Gilson and Bruno Nardi (1884—1968), who deconstructed the "myth of the Thomist Dante" and saw a fundamental disharmony between Aquinas's and Dante's thought, a view which profoundly influenced post-war Dante scholarship to the present day. In light of this intellectual history, in the third part, I reappraise constructively eight alleged points of divergence between Aquinas's and Dante's thought. I demonstrate that these key points of apparent divergence—as on the natural desire for the beatific vision, on the doctrine of two final ends for man, or on the relationships between philosophy and theology and between nature and grace—have as much to do with these scholars' interpretations of Aquinas's works as with their interpretations of Dante.Mandonnet, Gilson, and a Civil War in ThomismThe Institut historique d'études thomistes: Maintaining the "Authority" and "Integrity" of Aquinas's DoctrineHaving entered the Dominican order in 1882, Mandonnet was professor of history at the University of Fribourg from 1891 to 1918; on retirement, he continued to research and teach at Le Saulchoir.3 Author of significant research on Siger of Brabant and St. Dominic, he collaborated on the critical edition of Aquinas's works commissioned by Pope Leo XIII as [End Page 1054] editor, for example, of Aquinas's commentary on the Sentences and was one of three founders of the Revue thomiste in 1893.4 At Le Saulchoir, Mandonnet was also instrumental in the founding and mission of the Institut historique d'études thomistes from its inception in 1921 to his death in early 1936.5 One of "the giants of medieval studies," and founder (also in 1921) and honorary president of the Société Thomiste (which published the Bulletin Thomiste beginning in 1924), Mandonnet's name became "synonymous with fundamental research into the thought and writings of Thomas Aquinas."6 For Mandonnet, the historical method facilitated a greater penetration into the thought of Aquinas and his contemporaries, and historical research, in this way, enriched and complemented the institutional teaching of Thomism as Scholastic theology and a perennial philosophy.7 But, like other founders of the institute, Mandonnet believed [End Page 1055] that some recent scholars were using the historical method to undermine Aquinas's doctrine, and... (shrink)

Este artículo pretende realizar un repaso por la historiografía de la noción de averroísmo latino, desde los primeros trabajos de E. Renan hasta las investigaciones más recientes. Se destaca la falta de acuerdo entre las distintas posiciones y las grandes dificultades de definición que ésta categoría ha comportado para los historiadores de la filosofía durante los dos últimos siglos.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free Thought PAUL OSKAR KRISTELLER WITHIN THE VAST AND COMPLEX area of Renaissance philosophy, the thought of Pietro Pomponazzi and of the entire Italian school of Aristotelianism of which he is the best known representative has not yet been studied in all its aspects? Apart from a number of recent studies, mostly Italian or American, there is an important (...) body of French studies on the subject that are distinguished by their ample documentation and by a general and consistent tendency of interpretation and that have exercised a predominant influence in this field of research. The fountainhead of this French scholarship on Renaissance Aristotelianism is E. Renan's book on Averroes and Averroism, a remarkable achievement for its time, and a classical study still worth reading after more than a hundred years have passed since it was first published. 2 It is generally recognized that Renan's conclusions about Averroes himself and about the Latin Averroism of the thirteenth century have been superseded by the later studies of P. Mandonnet and others? It is less well known that, for the This paper was read many years ago at the New England Conference on the Renaissance at Brown University, and at the Universit~ de Fribourg. It was published as "El Mito del Ateismo Renacentista y la Tradici6n Francesa del Librepensamiento" in Notas y Estudios de Filoso]la, ed. Prof. Juan Adolfo Vazquez, IV, 13 (Tucums Argentina, 1953), pp. 1-14. The present version has been only slightly revised, and I hope to return to the subject on a later occasion. Among recent studies, I should like to mention G. Spini, Ricerca dei l.,ibertini (Rome, 1950) and D. C. Allen Doubt's Boundless Sea (Baltimore, 1964), who follow on the whole the view criticized in this paper, and L. Febvre, Le problhme del lincroyance au XVI ~ si~cle (Paris, 1947) and R. H. Popkin, "Skepticism and the Counter-Reformation in France," Archiv ]iir Re]ormationsgeschichte LI (1960), 58-88, who seem to concur with my view. See also a paper by Popkin~"Skepticism, Theology and the Scientific Method in the 17th century," in Problem8 in the Phdosophy o] Science, ed. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1968). 1See now B. Nardi, Saggi sull'Aristotelismo Padovano dal secolo XIV al XVI (Florence, 1958) and Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi (Florence, 1965); J. H. Randall, The School o] Padua and the Emergence o] Modern Science (Padua, 1961); P. Pomponazzi, De ]ato, de libero arbitrio et de praedestinatione, ed. R. Lemay (Lugano, 1957); Tractatus de immortalitate animae, ed. G. Morra (Bologna, 1954); Corsi inediLi dell'insegnamento padovano I, Super libello de substantia orbis et quaestiones quattuor, ed. A. Poppi (Padua, 1966); P. O. Kristeller, "A New Manuscript Source for Pomponazzi's Theory of the Soul from his Paduan Period," Revue Internationale de Philosophie, V: 2 (16, 1951), 144-157,and "Two Unpublished Questions on the Soul by Pietro Pomponazzi," Medievalia et Humanistica, IX (1955), 76-101,and X (1956), 151. See also: G. Di Napoli, L'immortalit~ dell'anima nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1963); E. GiN ~L,, 3 son, Autour de Pomponazzi, Archives d histoire doctrinale et litt~raire du Moyen Age, c,,,, LXIII (1961, pub. 1962), 163-279and Laffaire de limmortalit~ de ls ~ Venise au debut 9,, du XVI si~cle, in Umanesimo europeo e umanesimo veneziano, ed. V. Branca (Florence, 1963), 31-61. Relevant are also the unpublished Columbia dissertations by William F. Edwards (on Zabarella), Martin Pine (on Pomponazzi and his critics) and Edward Mahoney (on Agostino Nifo). Averro$s et l Averro~me (Paris, 1852). 8Siger de Brabant et l'averroisme latin au XIII ~ si$cle (2nd ed.; Paris, 1908-11); F. Van [233] 234 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY history of Italian Aristotelianism after the thirteenth century, this book by Renan has never been completely superseded, but still constitutes the general basis for a large part of the later literature on the subject. Recent studies have added numerous details, but have failed to correct numerous errors and misconceptions. The main thesis of Renan's book on which we shall focus our attention in this paper is the following: Paduan Averroism... (shrink)

The term „Latin Averroism" was introduced by P. Mandonnet to define a heretical version of Aristotle's teaching inspired by Averroes' philosophy. Latin Averroism separated philosophy from theology, negated free will, and stated that there was an eternal world and one intellect for all mankind. Those statements were taken from Averroes' commentaries on De anima by Aristotle. It was agreed that it was enough for any statement to bear rational truth and not necesserly Church dogma. That opinion was criticized by (...) theologians. The Latin Averroism was introduced in 13th century at the university in Paris in the faculty ofartes liberales — Siger from Brabant, Boethius from Sweden and others - as well as at Oxford University and Hohenstaufen School. The development of Latin Averroism was slowed by criticism of this doctrine in 1270 and 1277. However, it did not stop it. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Disputing the Unity of the World: The Importance of Res and the Influence of Averroes in Giles of Rome’s Critique of Thomas Aquinas concerning the Unity of the WorldG. J. Mcaleer1. introductiongiles of rome (1243–1316) earned, after a decidedly difficult start, the most complete honors open to an academic religious in the Middle Ages. Joining the Hermits of St. Augustine at age 14, he became the first regent master (...) of his order at the University of Paris (1285–1291); his works were made compulsory in the education of students entering the Hermits in 1287; finally, in 1292 he became the general of the order itself.1 Giles is significant, as Mandonnet puts it, because he “est incontestablement au premier rang des théologiens de la fin du XIIIe siècle.”2 But this is not all. Giles is also important to the period because his writings were censured by the same commission that composed the famous Parisian condemnation of 1277. As a result of this [End Page 29] censure, Giles had to leave Paris, returning only in 1285.3 Perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that his teacher was Thomas Aquinas: Giles studied with Thomas at Paris during the years 1269–1272.4 It has been acknowledged for a long time now that Giles did not slavishly follow his teacher but wrought his own subtle and wide-ranging philosophical synthesis out of the various grand traditions of medieval thought.5 As the critical editions of Giles’s works appear (an enormous task currently moving forward under the guidance of F. Del Punta and G. Fioravanti) it will become clearer on how many issues Giles saw fit to criticize the positions of Thomas. It is one of these issues, Giles’s dispute with Thomas over the unity of the matter of the universe, that I wish to elaborate and analyze in this essay.6The thirteenth century is surely one of the greatest for philosophical innovation. Thinkers of the stature of Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, and Giles of Rome engaged great metaphysical themes ranging from the unity of being and creation to the composition of material substances. These speculations were prompted by their efforts to systematize the vast theological heritage of Christian thought and their encounter with the rich and varied traditions of Greek, Islamic, and Jewish thought newly entering the Latin West in translation. Questions involving matter were especially common amongst these speculations, carrying special significance in that they redounded upon conceptions of human nature and thus upon the Incarnation and Resurrection. Moreover, disputes about matter demanded arduous thought on the interrelations of the fundamental metaphysical notions of the period: act and potency; substance and accident; generation and corruption; essence and existence; principle and thing; and so on. The productivity of these thinkers, and the range and complexity of the [End Page 30] questions they treated, was stunning, and ultimately led to a massive condemnation of 219 philosophical and theological propositions at the University of Paris in 1277. The Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, with the aid of a theological commission that included Henry of Ghent, hoped to efface certain errors contained in these speculations. A large number of the condemned propositions were associated with Siger of Brabant and other so-called “Radical Aristotelians.” However, theses found in the works of Aquinas were included, and, as already mentioned, Tempier soon turned his attention to Giles of Rome.7A dominant issue throughout the condemnations and the works of the period, especially in questions concerning matter, is that of unicity and plurality. This is true of perhaps the two most famous debates: whether human nature is a composition of one or many forms and whether the intellect is one for all human persons. The latter is probably the most studied of all the disputes of that time and the controversy most often associated with Averroes. The question of whether there is one matter in the universe or two is very much connected with the plurality of forms debate. Regarding this debate, thinkers wanted to know not only the number of forms in material composites but also what material... (shrink)

Disputing the Unity of the World: The Importance of Res and the Influence of Averroes in Giles of Rome's Critique of T homas Aquinas concerning the Unity of the World G. j. MCALEER 1. INTRODUCTION tILES OF ROME earned, after a decidedly difficult start, the most complete honors open to an academic religious in the Middle Ages. Joining the Hermits of St. Augustine at age 14, he became the first regent master of his order at the University of Paris ; (...) his works were made compul- sory in the education of students entering the Hermits in 1287; finally, in 1292 he became the general of the order itself.' Giles is significant, as Mandonnet puts it, because he "est incontestablement au premier rang des th~ologiens de la fin du XIII e si~cle. "2 But this is not all. Giles is also important to the period because his writings were censured by the same commission that composed the famous Parisian condemnation of 1277. As a result of this I would like to thank Robert Wielockx, Jos Decorte, Jennifer DeRose, and especially two anonymous referees of theJHP, for their extremely useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. P. Nash, "Giles of Rome," New Catholic Eneydopedia, vol. 6 , 485 9 "P. Mandonnet, O. P., "La carri6re scolaire de Gilles de Rome," Revue des sciences philosophiques et thlologiques 4 09t~ 497. [~9] 3 ~ JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 36: I JANUARY 1998 censure, Giles had to leave.. (shrink)

Cet article comprend deux parties nettement distinctes. La première retrace l’histoire, de 1925 à 1955, de ce que Henri-Xavier Arquillière a cru bon d’appeler l’« augustinisme politique ». Cette théorie ne prolonge nullement les travaux de Pierre Mandonnet et d’Étienne Gilson ; elle est tissée de nombreuses contradictions ; elle procède d’une erreur sur les idées augustiniennes de nature et de justice. Comme l’avait déjà montré Henri de Lubac en 1984, le prétendu « augustinisme politique » n’est qu’un mythe. (...) La seconde partie relit la façon dont Augustin a critiqué la définition cicéronienne du populus et la définition qu’il en a proposée à son tour : une définition neutre, libérée des connotations religieuses, en pleine cohérence avec son idée de la concorde possible entre les deux cités. Augustin n’est donc pas seulement libre de toute tendance théocratique ; il se situe même aux antipodes de ce que l’on n’aurait jamais dû appeler « augustinisme politique ». (shrink)

SÍNTESE - O autor tece algumas consideraçõesem torno do contexto e das características doprincipal alvo das condenações de 1277: o movi-mento filosófico cunhado de “averroismo”.Aponta a necessidade de rever a equivocadaleitura tradicional realizada, principalmente porhistoriadores como Renan e Mandonnet, sobre aposição e a atitude filosófica de seus principaisexpoentes.Estes "aristotélicos radicais” seguem a concep-ção de filosofia de Aristóteles, contaminada porelementos neopiatônicos e pela interpretaçãoárabe, os quais são justamente caracterizadosnos estudos recentes de modo mais moderado,reavaliando-se as suas contribuições nos debatesem torno (...) do estatuto teórico do fazer filosófico. (shrink)

This may be the most impressive and important single study of Bonaventure’s philosophy that has appeared to date or for many a year to come. Obviously the fruit of many years of painstaking research, this monumental work begins with an 80 page review of characterizations of Bonaventure’s philosophy given by such historians as De Wulf, Mandonnet, Gilson, Patrice Robert, Van Steenberghen, Van der Laan and Ratzinger. Next follows a careful and detailed analysis of the saint’s own teaching about natural (...) knowledge in terms of its foundations, principles and modes, certitude and the role illumination plays in his theological synthesis. This material, used to reveal the historical constitution of Bonaventure’s original and personal philosophy, is organized under nine chapter headings: Composition of Body and Soul in Man; Essence and the Nature of Human Soul; Problem of Plural Forms; Potency of Human Knowledge; Acts and Modes of Human Knowledge; Certitude of Natural Knowledge; Illumination of Natural Knowledge; Order of Reason to Faith in Theology; Problem of Christian Philosophy. Despite the author’s disclaimer that his primary objective is not to settle the historical disputes over the nature of Bonaventures’s philosophy, the general conclusions at which he arrives often differ so markedly from what other’s have said on that subject that he finds it useful to conclude his independent source-study with a 56 page analysis of how far the saint’s own writings support or disprove the opinion of the historians mentioned above. Since it is impossible to even summarize more than a small slice of this detailed study in any informative way, the remainder of the review will concentrate on this concluding portion in view of its more general interest. (shrink)

The book opens with an article on the chronology and life of St. Thomas, which was written originally in 1920 by the well-known Thomistic scholar, Pierre Mandonnet, for the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques. In a critical study, written in 1932 and reproduced here in its German version, Palémon Glorieux challenges Mandonnet's conclusions with regard to Thomas's Quaestiones disputatae, while in another essay, also appearing in this volume, he advances hypotheses and clarifies certain points about Aquinas's treatise, (...) De regimine Judaeorum. Many penetrating insights into Thomas's life and personality are furnished by Martin Grabmann in his essay on Aquinas's relationship to the civil and religious authorities of his time, while Heribert Scheeben discusses Thomas's sojourn in Cologne and his personal rapport with his master, Albert the Great. Aquinas's helpers and secretaries are also the subject of a special study by Antoine Dondaine. (shrink)

«Chesterton was one of the deepest thinkers who ever existed [...]». Ces mots ont été écrits par Étienne Gilson pour la commémoration de la mort de Gilbert Keith Chesterton. De prime abord, l’affirmation surprend. On pense ensuite qu’il ne s’agit, après tout, que d’un jugement porté par un historien de la philosophie, important certes, mais partageant tout de même avec l’auteur commémoré de fortes convictions chrétiennes. Légitime ou non, le doute soulevé s’estompe passablement au regard de l’évaluation émise par le (...) même médiéviste au sujet de l’étude de Chesterton intitulée St. Thomas Aquinas. The Dumb Ox : «I consider it, dit-il, as being without possible comparison the best book ever written on St. Thomas. Nothing short of genius can account for such an achievement». Notons que l’opinion de l’historien de la pensée n’est pas isolée et fut partagée par ses pairs contemporains les plus illustres, dont Mandonnet et Grabmann. (shrink)

Este artículo pretende realizar un repaso por la historiografía de la noción de averroísmo latino , desde los primeros trabajos de E. Renan hasta las investigaciones más recientes. Se destaca la falta de acuerdo entre las distintas posiciones y las grandes dificultades de definición que ésta categoría ha comportado para los historiadores de la filosofía durante los dos últimos siglos.

Este artículo pretende realizar un repaso por la historiografía de la noción de averroísmo latino, desde los primeros trabajos de E. Renan hasta las investigaciones más recientes. Se destaca la falta de acuerdo entre las distintas posiciones y las grandes dificultades de definición que ésta categoría ha comportado para los historiadores de la filosofía durante los dos últimos siglos.