Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in T

10
FREDERICK
J.
CROSSON
>me time on both the national and, possibly one day, the international
,vel. But encyclicals can-and must-still address questions of justice
1d of right and wrong and continue to assess and teach morality withut having to assume governments to be more than merely governmen,l. As Maritain never tired of pointing out, it is possible to agree about
tings to be done without necessarily agreeing on the reason to do them.
nd the Church can try to bring to the consciences of its hearers the per~ption of what demands simply being human makes. Would the struc1res and public arenas of democracies allow those sparks in consciences
1 turn into flame? Only God knows.
Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy

in the Last One Hundred Years
TIMOTHY NOONE
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, contrary 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. Instead, I shall restrict my efforts and remarks to that part of Latin,
Christian medieval philosophical thought in which its historians have declared its greatest richest treasures are to be found, the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries. Happily enough, this period is the primary area of
my own research and interest, so I can speak with some degree of familiarity 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 comprehensive fashion. Accordingly, I shall focus our attention on a small group
of Cathol~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 their works raised for other historians of philosophy. I Closely related to the historiography of this past century 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 influence that these historians have wielded on the development
of studies on thirteenth- and fourteenth-century thought.
111
112
TIMOTHY 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 major 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 interacted with twentieth-century philosophy.
To approach our subject properly, we must begin by recalling briefly
the state of medieval philosophical scholarship in 1895. Within the domain 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 interest in the thought of St. Thomas and Scholasticism,2 it spurred on the efforts 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 founding of the Institut Superieur de phiwsophie at Louvain under Cardinal Mercier, the establishment of the Academy of St. Thomas in Rome, and the
formation of the Leonine Commission to edit 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 romanticism and partly out of the burgeoning of historical studies so characteristic of late nineteenth-century European intellectual culture. In
Germany, this was the era of the great classical scholars Ranke, Mommsen, 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; Armand 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. Robert Wielockx, "De Mercier a de 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, i 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
and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (1913; Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 72-97,
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
e general reflections on what major lessons have been learned about
nature of medieval philosophy through the scholarship of the last
ury and how the development of such historical knowledge has interd with twentieth-century philosophy.
o approach our subject properly, we must begin by recalling briefly
1tate of medieval philosophical scholarship in i 895. Within the do1 of Catholic scholarship, a tremendous stimulus had been given to
arch on medieval philosophy, after centuries of neglect, through the
lication of Aeterni Patris (1879), the celebrated encyclical of Leo
. Although Aeterni Patris by no means originated the revival of interrl the thought of St. Thomas and Scholasticism,2 it spurred on the ef; already underway and encouraged new studies to be undertaken.
~ed, 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 Merthe establishment of the Academy of St. Thomas in Rome, and the
iation of the Leonine Commission to edit the works of St. Thomas.3
nwhile, outside of Catholic circles there was a similar revival of
rest in medieval culture, arising partly out of nineteenth-century roticism and partly out of the burgeoning of historical studies so charristic of late nineteenth-century European intellectual culture. In
nany, this was the era of the great classical scholars Ranke, Mommand 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 (1853-19~4), 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 Mercier a de 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, Le Cardinal Mercier et l1nstitut Supmeur 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 Mittdalters, 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 pratique des hautes etudes, a post which in 1895 was occupied by Fran~ois Picavet, one of the future teachers of Etienne Gilson.6
Yet, in retrospect, we must say that the amount of advanced study devoted to the Middle Ages and the number of scholars pursuing medieval
philosophical subjects in 1895 were quite small compared to the intellectual 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 concurred with the judgment of Octave Hamelin when he said, about a
decade after 1895, the "philosophy of Descartes came after the ancients
almost as though there was nothing in between."7 That few of our contemporaries, even those in the largely ahistorical Anglo-American analytic tradition, would subscribe to such a view today is in large part attributable 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 encouraged Catholic scholars, both the ones to whom we shall devote our attention and numerous others, to carry certain expectations with them to
their study of the Middle Ages. It encouraged them to seek for an underlying unity in Scholastic thought, one which would be found to an eminent degree in the thought of St. Thomas 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 Hamelin would have penned these words
prior to the publication of Gilson's doctoral thesis on Descartes.
114
TIMOTHY 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 pontificate 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 Unfortunately, this means that there is a certain ambiguity in the documents.
Were Catholic philosophers to study Thomism chiefly (or perhaps exclusively) 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 philosophy as a whole, however pluralistic it might be, in which Thomism would be the pars praecipua?What did the documents mean by Christian philosophy? Was this
Christian philosophy 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 receiving 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 conceived, did such Christian philosophy respect the proper autonomy of
reason? Finally, what exactly were Catholic thinkers to do with respect to
Thomistic and Scholastic thought? On the one hand, the need for reading and teaching Scholastic thought in such a way as to recapture its original insights seemed to be in order (a historical recovery of the Middle
8. Leo Papa 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, longe 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 meritoque 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 Popes Pius V and Benedict XIII, had any pope attempted to put Thomas on the
pedestal on which Leo XIII now placed him, and to the 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.
TIMOTHY NOONE
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
in ts.
First, this and other papal documents originating in Leo XIII's pontiftte 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 Unfortutely, this means that there is a certain ambiguity in the documents.
~re Catholic philosophers to study Thomism chie'fly (or perhaps excluely)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, hower pluralistic it might be, in which Thomism would be the pars praeci:a? What did the documents mean by Christian philosophy? Was this
iristian 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 receivg external guidance from religious teaching or did it suggest a more
timate and immediate connection? Furthermore, whichever way the
lation between religious teaching and philosophy proper was conived, did such Christian philosophy respect the proper autonomy of
ason? Finally, what exactly were Catholic thinkers to do with respect to
10mistic and Scholastic thought? On the one hand, the need for read5 and teaching Scholastic thought in such a way as to recapture its origal insights seemed to be in order (a historical recovery of the Middle
8. Leo Papa XIII, Aeterni Patris, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, studio et cura Iosep hi Pennacchi et
torii 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
titus est. Illorum doctrinas, velut dispersa cuiusdam corporis membra, in unum Thomas
legit et coagmentavit, miro ordine digessit, et magnis incrementis ita adauxit, ut
holicae Ecclesiae singulare praesidium et decus iure meri toque habeatur." (Italics are
md in original.)
9. On the possibility of the exclusionist reading and the unprecedented elevation of
uinas, Leonard Boyle, O.P., writes: "This famous encyclical took the world of learning,
hin and without the Catholic Church, by surprise. There had been nothing like it before
the history of the church. Popes had praised Thomas and recommended him. Councils
i consulted, cited and accepted him. But at no point, not even in the pontificates of the
minican Popes Pius V and Benedict XIII, had any pope attempted to put Thomas on the
iestal on which Leo XIII now placed him, and to the exclusion, seemingly, of all others."
Jnard 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
ouston, Tex.: Center for Thomistic Studies, i981 ), p. 11.
Ages); on the other, the papal documents themselves pointed out the
need to synthesize Scholastic philosophy with the findings of modern science and to bring its principles to bear upon the problems of modern societies (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, considered itself officially justified and therefore continued, albeit under intermittent strain and pressure from the Holy See;ll at Louvain, the Institut
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. Pennacchi, 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 ill 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). If anything, Leo's immediate 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 was 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 philosophiae 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 Thomism 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.
116
TIMOTHY NOONE
psychology and science with a view to synthesizing them with Scholastic

principles; and finally at Paris, Rome, Louvain, and elsewhere the historical 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.
HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Maurice de Wulf (1867-1947), having studied neo-Thomism at Louvain under Mercier, embarked, at Mercier's suggestion, on a comprehensive historical study of medieval philosophy; this study was to occupy de
Wulf for the remainder of his scholarly career. As each successive edition
of his Histoire de la philosophie midievaleshowed,12 de Wulf strove to develop
an overarching view of the whole of medieval philosophy. Medieval philosophy was best divided, according to de Wulf, into three periods: a period
of formation lasting from the fifth to the twelfth centuries inclusive; a period 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, despite 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 without any direct 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 opinion of ordinary early twentieth-century philosophers, who held that
there was no philosophy in the Middle Ages worthy of the name. Second,
12. Historie de la philosophie medievak (first published 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 la philosophie mediivak, sixieme edition, entierement 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.
-------------------~-~~--------
TIMOTHY NOONE
ychology and science with a view to synthesizing them with Scholastic

inciples; and finally at Paris, Rome, Louvain, and elsewhere the historal study of Thomism and its relation to medieval thought in general
~gan to quicken with the first of our historians, Maurice de Wulf, as a
incipal representative.
ISTORIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Maurice de Wulf (1867-1947), having studied neo-Thomism at Louin under Mercier, embarked, at Mercier's suggestion, on a comprehenre historical study of medieval philosophy; this study was to occupy de
ulf for the remainder of his scholarly career. As each successive edition
'his Histoire de la philosophie midievale showed,12 de Wulf strove to develop
i overarching view of the whole of medieval philosophy. Medieval philos)hy was 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;
final 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
~es, 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 diet 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 opinn of ordinary early twentieth-century philosophers, who held that
ere was no philosophy in the Middle Ages worthy of the name. Second,
12. Historie de la 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 de la philosophie midievak, sixieme edition, entiere
~nt refondue [Louvain; Paris: lnstitut Superieur de Philosophie; J. Vrin, 1934-1947],
~0-31); in the previous edition, de Wulf proposed four periods: formation (ninth
rough the twelfth centuries); culmination (thirteenth century); decline (the fourteenth
ntury and first half of the fifteenth century); transition to modem philosophy (second
If of the fifteenth century through the seventeenth century). On the latter, see Maurice
Wulf, Histoire de la 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.
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 doctrinal unity characteristic of medieval thought was believed by de Wulf to
have been a historical reality,15 not merely an artificial and abstract construct, 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 distinctions 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 famous Dominican scholar Pierre Mandonnet, who complained that the
Scholastic synthesis of de Wulf was 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 witnessed the triumph of the Scholastic synthesis (or the finest expression
of the common patrimony); try as he would, his theory could only accommodate the recognition of such diversity with difficulty. His convictions are understandable, however, when seen in light of the background
of Aeterni Patris, which implied there was such a unity to be found in medieval philosophy. Before we leave de Wulf, moreover, emphasis must be
placed on his notion of philosophy. For what we see in de Wulf we 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 revelation 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 philosophical education or personal convictions, but to maintain a notion of
the philosophical fairly close to that found among modern philosophers 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 de 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.
118
s
a
R
le
TIMOTHY NOONE
the reappropriation of medieval thought in the modern world. It was on

precisely this point that Etienne Gilson would disagree.
Bold indeed would be any attempt to summarize in a few short paragraphs the work of a philosopher, historian, and man of letters as prolific
and influential as Etienne Gilson ( 1884-1978). 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 as 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 as the Director of the Institute.20 Fortunately, 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 repeatedly to what made his approach to medieval thought distinctive and
summed it up in a single phrase: Christian philosophy.
To appreciate Gilson's novelty, we need to remember that, unlike the
vast majority of his colleagues in medieval philosophy, he was not formally trained in the Scholastic tradition. In fact, quite the opposite was
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. It was 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 became acquainted for the first time with Saint Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic theologians .... As the work progressed, I experienced a
growing feeling of intellectual dismay in seeing what impoverishment metaphysics had suffered at the hands of Descartes. Most of the philosophical positions he
had retained had their proper justification, not in his own works, but in those of
the Scholastics ...., From Scholasticism to Cartesianism the loss in metaphysical
substance seemed 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
a nosjours," 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.
TIMOTHY NOONE
he 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
nd 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
lltellectual culture set the stage, according 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
anged 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
ound 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 Forunately, 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
he historiography being sketched here, for Gilson himself returned reeatedly to what made his approach to medieval thought distinctive and
ummed it up in a single phrase: Christian philosophy.
To appreciate Gilson's novelty, we need to remember that, unlike the
ast majority of his colleagues in medieval philosophy, he was not for11ally trained in the Scholastic tradition. In fact, quite the opposite was
rue. He had become interested in medieval philosophy only through
he happenstance of writing a thesis comparing Descartes's metaphysical
ioctrines 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 Aquias 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 justification, not in his own works, but in those of
1e Scholastics .... From Scholasticism to Cartesianism the loss in metaphysical
Jbstance 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 Laurence K. Shook, Etienne Gilson, Etienne Gilson
eries, 6 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984).
21. Etienne Gilson, The Philowpher and Theology, trans. Cecile Gilson (New York:
andom House, 1962), p. 88.
119
Gilson owed, then, both his interest in and his ever-growing understanding of medieval thought to an immersion in the historical texts
themselves; that is why he often came to such historically well-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 philosophers 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 philosophers such as St. Thomas and Duns Scotus to attain such brilliant 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 La 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 of Mediaeval Philosophy:
Thus I call Christian, every philosophy which, although keeping the two orders [offaith
and reason] formally distinct, nevertheless considers the Christian revelation as an indispensable auxiliary to reason. For whoever understands it thus, the concept does
not correspond to any simple essence susceptible of abstract definition; but corresponds 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 philosophy only to the extent that it contained analyses that could be legitimately
considered apart from any connection to revelation.23 Despite these controversies, however, Gilson continued to use the notion of Christian philosophy 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 Martyr 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, "The 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.
120
TIMOTHY NOONE
Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in particular,

Gilson's fundamental judgment 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 fundamental metaphysical notions that constituted the common patrimony; Thomism, a la 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 supreme 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 insights 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, although inferior manner of Christian philosophizing, in the final philosophical judgment.
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 regained his health and during his convalescence managed to translate
into German Gilson's La philosophie de Saint Bonaventure, which had recently appeared (1924). Moreover, after receiving holy orders and finishing a doctorate from Munich in biology, Boehner came to Paris to attend one of Gilson's summer seminars on medieval philosophy 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 Geschichte der Christlichen Philosophie von ihren Anfiingen 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 perceived that the fourteenth-century Franciscans Scotus and Ockham had
a unique contribution to make to the story of Christian philosophy-Seo24. For the details of Boehner's life, see Gedeon Gal, "Philotheus Boehner, O.F.M.," in
Dictionary of Medieval Scholarship (forthcoming); The Editors, "Father Philotheus Boehner,
O.F.M.," The Cord 5 (1955): 206-15.
20
TIMOTHY NOONE
Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in particular,

~ilson's fundamental judgment was remarkably similar to that of de Wulf:
iedieval philosophy had reached an unprecedented height in the
1oughtofSt. Thomas Aquinas. Unlike de Wulf, however, he did not tend
) see that height in terms of a more elaborate synthesis of the fundamen11 metaphysical notions that constituted the common patrimony; Thom>m, a la 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.
ens esse was the greatest philosophical achievement of the Middle Ages,
1 fact of the whole history of metaphysics, and simultaneously the su1reme expression of Christian philosophy, since the Thomistic originality
lowed directly from reflection on the data of revelation. Yet Gilson was
ufficiently sensitive to the diversity of historical data to grant that there
rere other syntheses that were both original in their metaphysical inlghts and also Christian philosophies: the metaphysics of St. Augustine,
t. Bonaventure, and John Duns Scotus all could claim to be such. They
lid not need to be seen, not even in the case of Scotus, as a decline so
1uch as alternative, although inferior manner of Christian philosophiz1g, in the final philosophical judgment.
Our third historian in this historiographical sketch, Fr. Philotheus
~oehner ( 1901-1955), was in many ways a pupil and disciple of Gilson.
~om in 1901 at Lichtenau, Westphalia (Germany), Boehner developed
uberculosis while studying for the priesthood and was never expected to
aake his final vows in the Franciscan order. Quite surprisingly, he re;ained his health and during his convalescence managed to translate
ato German Gilson's La philosophie de Saint Bonaventure, which had reently appeared ( 1924). Moreover, after receiving holy orders and finohing a doctorate from Munich in biology, Boehner came to Paris to atend one of Gilson's summer seminars on medieval philosophy and the
wo became close friends. Gilson suggested to Boehner that he write a
tistory of medieval philosophy in German and Gilson made his lecture
totes on the subject available to Boehner; the resulting volume, Die Gechichte der Christlichen Philosophie von ihren Anfiingen bis Nicolaus von Cues,
1ecame a standard German text in the history of philosophy and gained
1rominence for Boehner in the study of medieval philosophy.24
Although his training in medieval studies was largely due to Gilson,
~oehner's own pursuits took him in a quite different direction. He per:eived that the fourteenth-century Franciscans Scotus and Ockham had
L unique contribution 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.
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 Franciscans of Holy Name Province to teach at a small college in rural western 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 monographs and texts known as the Franciscan Institute Publications, and finally, years after Boehner's own death in 1955, the critical edition in
seventeen volumes of William of Ockham's philosophical and theological writings (completed in 1988).
Our interest in this extraordinarily varied, if sadly brief, career concerns 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 continuation 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, Boehner had many more contemporaries, scholars such as Grabmann, Bochenski, 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 understandable 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 century had largely been written off as hopelessly obscure even by most medievalists. True, medievalists noted strange-sounding questions in medieval 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 philosophical literature than any sense of the importance of such questions; only
25. The Editors, "Philotheus Boehner," pp. 208-209.
26. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).
122
TIMOTHY 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 confirmed in numerous studies since his death, is that medieval philosophers and theologians had anticipated many of the discoveries of modem 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 philosophy 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 recognized 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 investigations 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 highpoints in the medieval period: the first was the age of original
metaphysical speculation 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 humanism. As Boehner saw the matter, medieval thinkers only developed the
logical tools to express clearly and concisely their metaphysical distinctions and insights at the close of the Middle Ages, when, tragically
enough, the creative era of metaphysical speculation had drawn to a
close.27
If with the work of Philotheus Boehner we begin to see the appreciation 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 Steenberghen (1904-1993).28 Educated 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 la memoire du chanoine Ferdinand Van Steenberghen,"
Bulletin de la philosophie medievale 35 ( i993): 254-58.
TIMOTHY NOONE
ehner and a few other highly trained specialists bothered to analyze

:h texts carefully.
What Boehner proposed in his Medieval Logi,c, and what has been conned in numerous studies since his death, is that medieval philosoers and theologians had anticipated many of the discoveries of modL logic and most of the problems plaguing contemporary philosophy
.anguage; in fact, Boehner suggested that, in many cases, the medieval
ilosophers had developed better solutions to the problems of the phiophy oflanguage than those offered in the writings of Russell, Frege,
:l contemporary analytic philosophy generally. Such a conclusion was
t only revolutionary at the time, it also encouraged many others to use
: tools of modern logic in order to analyze medieval philosophical and
ical texts. The resulting studies, in turn, allowed more and more of
: thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth-logical treatises to be recoged for the valuable, technical pieces of logical theory that they are
her than as arcana of mere historical curiosity.
Regarding the theme of unity in the High Middle Ages, Boehner's intigations tended to broaden the range of philosophical positions that
uld 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
~iod of advances in formal logic and the philosophy of language,
ich began in the late thirteenth century, reached its zenith in the
trteenth century, and entered into a state of decline at the opening of
: modem era, under the withering criticism of Renaissance humanL. As Boehner saw the matter, medieval thinkers only developed the
ical tools to express clearly and concisely their metaphysical distincns 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 appreciatl for, and appropriation of, fourteenth-century philosophy among
tholic historians, we return once more to the world of the thirteenth
1tury with the work of our final historian, Ferdinand Van Steenber~n (1904-1993).28 Educated at Louvain and interested in the role of
: 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.
emann, "vetera novis augere: a la memoire du chanoine Ferdinand Van Steenberghen,"
'tin de la philoso-phie medievale 35 ( 1993): 254-58.
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 philosophical and a phenomenal command of thirteenth-century philosophical literature, Van Steenberghen produced a rich study of thirteenthcentury thought, La 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 condemnations 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 PseudoDionysius. 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 philosophical 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 culmination of medieval thought; indeed, he goes even further in some
ways when he claims that Thomism is the "first truly original philosophy 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 stature of recognition. For when radical Aristotelianism produced an
understandable institutional reaction in the form of the condemnations, a new philosophico-religious movement arose, which Van Steenberghen 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 challenged, what is of more interest to us is the mixed success he had in discovering 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 titut 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.
124
TIMOTHY NOONE
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 Steenberghen's portrayal of the century, and for his depiction of medieval philosophy 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 developments, 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 inadequate: 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 opposite) 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 scholars that medieval philosophy represents a unity of philosophical approach may well be correct and we shall return to the problems raised by
this historiographical excursus later.
CRITICAL EDITIONS
If the 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 of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random
House, 1955), p. 471.
--------------------
TIMOTHY NOONE
ory the dramatic 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
ns neo-Augustinianism. What poses difficulties for Van Steenbern's portrayal of the century, and for his depiction of medieval philosty more generally, is the blossoming of metaphysical speculation in
writings of late thirteenth-century philosophers and theologians,
h as Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and John Duns Scotus.
example, Henry of Ghent tends to become, in this history, a highly
led proponent ofneo-Augustinianism, much to the neglect of Henry's
:k of original ideas that so influenced later philosophical developnts, while Scotus is omitted altogether on the grounds that his
ught is more an anticipation of fourteenth-century thought than an
~gral aspect of thirteenth-century philosophy.
With the work of Van Steenberghen, our historiographical sketches
complete. From a thematic point of view, we have seen a continuous
lectic 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.
~haps the clearest example of this is to be found in our final author,
1 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 fourteenth century. Yet the intuition of Catholic scholthat 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.
~ITICAL
EDITIONS
If the last century has witnessed an explosion of historical knowledge
regard to the Middle Ages, of no area within medieval studies is this
125
tnier than that of the editions of medieval philosophers. Presently, critical editions are in progress on the works of the following better known
authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: William of Auvergne, 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: Alexander
Hales, Phillip the Chancellor, William of Auxerre, Robert Grosseteste,
St. Bonaventure, Robert Kilwardby, Peter John Olivi, Roger Marston,
Siger ofBrabant,John Peckham, Godfrey ofFontaines,James ofViterbo,
Dietrich ofFribourg, William of Ockham, Adam Wodeham, Walter Chatton, 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, only 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 editing generally by providing a kind oflaboratory 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 instead 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, Alexander Hales, and the BibliothecaFranciscana 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, general 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
31. Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosaphy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random
use, i955), P 471.
32. For details on the formation and work of the Quaracchi editors, see Ignatius C.
Brady, "The opera omnia of St. Bonaventure Revisited," in Proceedings of the Seventh Centenary
126
TIMOTHY NOONE
Working together in a small religious house outside Florence after conducting preliminary research that involved examining some 5,000 codices scattered in 400 European libraries, the patres editores of Quaracchi
produced in their Opera omnia Sancti Bonaventurae a fine humanistic edition that was a model of excellence for its time. The consultation of manuscript 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 difficulties with the edition.33
First, the editors disagreed sharply among themselves regarding the
method to be employed in establishing the text: Fr. Fanna, trained in les
belles lettres, favored the techniques of the Maurists; Fr.Jeiler, imbued with
the latest critical methods of German classical scholarship, inclined towards a more "scientific" approach in the tradition of Lachmann. Instead of thrashing the matter out in a frank and thorough discussion, the
editorial team tended to split along national lines (four Italians; six Germans) and the Minister General was finally left to decide the matter. He
decided to favor Fanna, but the latter's premature death and the elevation ofjeiler to Fanna's post meant the prevalence ofjeiler's method in
the actual production of the volumes. Second, the Quaracchi editors
knew altogether too little about the transmission of texts in the Middle
Ages to avoid mistakes. At the time, no one knew anything about the
pecia system or its use at medieval universities. What this meant for editorial technique was that, even if the patres followed the more rigorous
"scientific" method of Jeiler, they could not develop justifiable criteria
for rejecting or including manuscripts for collation. Lastly, Fr. Jeiler's
decision to include, probably under pressure from higher ecclesiastical
authorities, scholia purporting to show fundamental philosophical agreement between the Seraphic and Angelic Doctors marred the edition, as
both Cardinal Ehrle and Etienne Gilson subsequently pointed out.34
Cekbration of the Death of St. Bonaventure (St. Bonaventure, N.Y: Franciscan Institute, 1975),
pp. 47-59; Ignatius C. Brady, "The Edition of the Opera omnia of Saint Bonaventure
(1882-1902)," in fl Colkgio San Bonaventura di Quaracchi: Volume commemorativo del
Centenario delta fondazione r877-r977 (Grottaferrata, Rome: Collegio S. Bonaventura,
1977), pp. 116-40.
33. Brady, "The Edition," pp. 130-40; Jacques G. Bougerol, "Pour des Prologemena
Postquam de !'edition critique de S. Bonaventure Quaracchi 1882-1902," in The Editing
of Theowgical and Philosophical Texts from the Middl,e Ages, ed. Monika Asztalos (Stockholm:
Alenquist and Wiksell International, 1986), pp. 121-36.
34. Etienne Gilson, La phiwsophie de Saint Bonaventure, 3eme ed. (Paris:]. Vrin, 1953),
p. 11 n. i; Franz Ehrle's views are discussed in Bougerol, "Pour des Prolegomena," p.
126, 126 n. i 8.
J
.
r,.w,,,
TIMOTHY NOONE
~king together in a small religious house outside Florence after can-
ting preliminary research that involved examining some 5,000 codiscattered in 400 European libraries, the patres editores of Quaracchi
duced in their Opera omnia Sancti Bonaventurae a fine humanistic edit that was a model of excellence for its time. The consultation of manript material was considerable, if not exhaustive; the documentation
naterials used by St. Bonaventure was adequate; and the presentation
he opera in handsome folio volumes over the course of twenty years
82-1902) was prompt, even speedy, for the genre.
3ut, for all that, there were and remain difficulties with the edition.3 3
1t, the editors disagreed sharply among themselves regarding the
thod to be employed in establishing the text: Fr. Fanna, trained in les
~s /,ettres, favored the techniques of the Maurists; Fr.Jeiler, imbued with
latest critical methods of German classical scholarship, inclined tods a more "scientific" approach in the tradition of Lachmann. Intd of thrashing the matter out in a frank and thorough discussion, the
torial team tended to split along national lines (four Italians; six Gerns) and the Minister General was finally left to decide the matter. He
:ided to favor Fanna, but the latter's premature death and the eleva11 ofJeiler to Fanna's post meant the prevalence ofJeiler's method in
actual production of the volumes. Second, the Quaracchi editors
~w altogether too little about the transmission of texts in the Middle
es to avoid mistakes. At the time, no one knew anything about the
ia system or its use at medieval universities. What this meant for ediial technique was that, even if the patres followed the more rigorous
ientific" method of J eiler, they could not develop justifiable criteria
rejecting or including manuscripts for collation. Lastly, Fr. Jeiler's
:ision to include, probably under pressure from higher ecclesiastical
:horities, scholia purporting to show fundamental philosophical agree~nt between the Seraphic and Angelic Doctors marred the edition, as
th Cardinal Ehrle and Etienne Gilson subsequently pointed out.34
bration of the Death of St. Bonaventure (St. Bonaventure, N.Y: Franciscan Institute, i975),
47-59; Ignatius C. Brady, "The Edition of the Opera omnia of Saint Bonaventure
82-1902)," in fl Collegio San Bonaventura di Quaracchi: Volume commenwrativo del
tenario della fondazione 1877-1977 (Grottaferrata, Rome: Collegio S. Bonaventura,
7), PP 116-40.
33. Brady, "The Edition," pp. i30-4o;Jacques G. Bougerol, "Pour des Prologemena
tquam de !'edition critique de S. Bonaventure Quaracchi 1882-1902," in The Editing
''heological and Philosophical Texts from the Middle Ages, ed. Monika Asztalos (Stockholm:
nquist and Wiksell International, 1g86), pp. 121-36.
34. Etienne Gilson, La philosophie de Saint Bonaventure, 3eme ed. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1953),
t I n. 1; Franz Ehrle's views are discussed in Bougerol, "Pour des Prolegomena," p.
i, 126 n. 18.
i{;i
.\'
127
Yet much was learned of lasting value through the process of editing
the Bonaventurean writings. The practice of working as a group rather
than in isolation, despite its pitfalls with quarrels over method, was successfully used in the later Quaracchi productions of Alexander Hales
and the Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica series, 35 and imitated elsewhere
in editions of Scotus at Rome and of Ockham and Scotus at the Franciscan Institute. The perceived need to settle on a scientific method, felt so
strongly by Fr. Jeiler, brought home to the Franciscan editors early in
their history the question of alternative methods and their effectiveness.
The great Franciscan editors of the twentieth century-Ferdinand
Delorme, Victorinus Doucet, Ignatius Brady, Charles Bali<;:, and Gedeon
Gal-can be credited with developing a meta-method, if not a method.
Actual experimentation with texts copied under divergent circumstances, many of which were copied by friar-scholars none too concerned to reproduce the wording of their exemplars, taught them to be
wary of adhering strictly to either the methods of Bedier or Lachmann
and instead encouraged them to adapt the method employed in editing
a text to the state of the evidence available for the text. If there was a
fine professionally or semi-professionally produced copy of a text surviving from early in a text's history perhaps a Bedier method would be
used, although random samplings (known as soundings) in the other
witnesses would also be made; if the text, as was usually the case, survived in numerous witnesses produced by friar-scholars, a group of manuscripts would be chosen after soundings were made of all available witnesses. Victorinus Doucet termed this meta-method, if such it can be
called, the "rational method"36 and characterized it as basing one's editorial decisions on the full range of the manuscript eviden(:e, bearing in
mind that both the codex optimus (Bedier's preference) and even the full
range of witnesses (the evidence favored by Lachmann) may, in a given
place, prove false; the duty of the editor becomes, then, to establish a
critical text by making the most sensible reading, considering the genre
of the work, the context of the statement, and the known proclivities of
the author.
Turning to the Leonine Commission of St. Thomas's works, we find
many parallels in its history to that of Quaracchi. Early in its history, the
35. For a history of the institutional setting for the vast production of the Quaracchi
team of editors, see Clement Schmitt, "Le College de S. Bonaventure de 1877 a 1977," in fl
CoUegio, pp. 11-70.
36. Cf. Victorinus Doucet, Prologomena in librum Ill necnon in libros I et II "Summae fratris
A~xandri" (Quaracchi prope Florentiam: Collegium Sancti Bonaventurae, i948), pp. xiv,
xhx-1.
128
TIMOTHY NOONE
Leonine too was plagued with disagreements over editorial technique,

ones made perhaps more acute by the fact that Leo XIII wanted an edition to be placed, in short order, in the hands of Catholic teachers of philosophy and theology. 37 Yet it is not so much the history of the Commission which I wish to illustrate this morning as the remarkable success the
Commission had in adapting and improving a fundamentally Lachmannian technique to the editing of St. Thomas's Parisian productions. This
remarkable success was thanks in the main to an equally remarkable
man, Jean Destrez.
Destrez was a Dominican scholar who was forced tragically to separate
from the Dominican order when both his parents died and the duty of
supporting his younger siblings fell to him.38 Despite these confining
circumstances, Destrez managed to amass a great deal of evidence, based
on the study of some seven thousand manuscripts, regarding the publication and reproduction of medieval philosophical and theological
works during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although his conclusions were occasionally erroneous concerning the precise import of
his findings for editorial method,39 Destrez's studies revealed that there
was a system of professional copyists that copied small sections (peciae) of
works under the direction of a university official (petionarius or stationarius ),
who was duty-bound to maintain the fidelity of the pieces lent for copying with reference to the copy originally received from the author. To be
sure, the stationers often were negligent in their duties of checking the
accuracy of the peciae, and the demand for certain authors, such as St.
Thomas Aquinas, caused them to engage in the questionable practice of
having more than one set of peciae in circulation at once, contrary to
what Destrez surmised. Yet despite all we have learned about the system
since Destrez's work, it was chiefly through his seminal work La pecia that
this official copying system, now known simply as the pecia system, became known to the scholarlyworld.40
3 7. For the early history of the Leonine Commission, see Louis:Jacques Bataillon, "Le
edizioni di opera QIT!nia degli Scholastici e l'Edizione Leonina," in Gli stud~ pp. 141-54;
auteur anonyme, "La Commission Leonine pour !'edition des oeuvres de S. Thomas
d'Aquin," Anakcta S.O.P. 47 (1983): 72-83; Louis:Jacques Bataillon, "L'Edition Leonine
des oeuvres de Saint Thomas et !es etudes medievales," in Atti dell'Vlll Congresso Tomistico
Internazionak, L L'enciclica Aeterni Patris nell'arco di un secolo, Studi Tomistici 10 (Citta de!
Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticane; Pontificia Academia di S. Tornmaso e di Religione
Cattolica, i981), pp. 452-64;James P. Reilly, "The Leonine Commission and the Seventh
Centenary of St. Thomas Aquinas," Thomas and Bonaventure: A Septicentenary Commemoration:
Proceedings of the American Catholic Phiwsophical Association 48 ( 1974) : 286-94.
38. On Destrez's life, see G. Fink-Errera, ''.Jean Destrez et son oeuvre: La pecia dans les
manuscrits universitairp du XllleetXIVesieck," Scriptwium 11 (1957): 264-65.
39. Bataillon, "L'Edition Leonine," pp. 460-62.
40. See Jean Destrez, La pecia dans ks manuscrits universitaires du XI/le et XIVe swcl.e (Paris:
Editions Jacques Vautrain, i935). For a further discussion of the pecia system, see Richard
f
t
c
a
:8
TIMOTHY NOONE
:onine too was plagued with disagreements over editorial technique,

1es made perhaps more acute by the fact that Leo XIII wanted an edim to be placed, in short order, in the hands of Catholic teachers of phimphy and theology.37 Yet it is not so much the history of the Commism which I wish to illustrate this morning as the remarkable success the
>mmission had in adapting and improving a fundamentally Lachmanan technique to the editing of St. Thomas's Parisian productions. This
markable success was thanks in the main to an equally remarkable
an, Jean Destrez.
Destrez was a Dominican scholar who was forced tragically to separate
)m the Dominican order when both his parentsdied and the duty of
pporting his younger siblings fell to him.38 Despite these confining
~cumstances, Destrez managed to amass a great deal of evidence, based
L the study of some seven thousand manuscripts, regarding the publition and reproduction of medieval philosophical and theological
>rks during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although his con.1sions were occasionally erroneous concerning the precise import of
s findings for editorial method,39 Destrez's studies revealed that there
ts a system of professional copyists that copied small sections (peciae) of
>rks under the direction of a university official (petionarius or stationarius),
10 was duty-bound to maintain the fidelity of the pieces lent for copyg with reference to the copy originally received from the author. To be
re, the stationers often were negligent in their duties of checking the
curacy of the peciae, and the demand for certain authors, such as St.
10mas Aquinas, caused them to engage in the questionable practice of
Lving more than one set of peciae in circulation at once, contrary to
lat Destrez surmised. Yet despite all we have learned about the system
lee Destrez's work, it was chiefly through his seminal work La pecia that
is official copying system, now known simply as the pecia system, heme known to the scholarly world. 40
37. For the early history of the Leonine Commission, see Louis:Jacques Bataillon, "Le
izioni di opera omnia degli Scholastici e l'Edizione Leonina," in Gli studi, pp. 141-54;
teur anonyme, "La Commission Leonine pour l'edition des oeuvres, de S. Thomas
\quin," Analecta S.O.P. 47 (1983): 72-83; Louis:Jacques Bataillon, "L'Edition Leonine
s oeuvres de Saint Thomas et les etudes medievales," in Atti dell'VIII Congresso Tomistico
:ernazionale, L L'enciclica Aeterni Patrfo, nell'arco di un secolo, Studi Tomistici 10 (Citta de!
ticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticane; Pontificia Academia di S. Tommaso e di Religione
ttolica, 1981), pp. 452-64;James P. Reilly, ''The Leonine Commission and the Seventh
ntenary of St. Thomas Aquinas," Thomas and Bonaventure: A Septicentenary Commemoration:
1ceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 48 ( 1974): 286-94.
38. On Destrez's life, see G. Fink-Errera, ''.Jean Destrez et son oeuvre: La pecia dans les
:nuscrits universitaires du Xllle et XIVe sii!cle," Scriptorium 11 ( 1957): 264-65.
39. Bataillon, "L'Edition Leonine," pp. 460-62.
40. See Jean Destrez, La pecia dans les manumits universitaires du Xllle et XIVe siecle (Paris:
itionsJacques Vautrain, 1935). For a further discussion of the pecia system, see Richard
129
Knowledge of the pecia system and its vicissitudes has enabled the Leonine Commission to refine considerably its basically Lachmannian
method. When a pecia was used for copying, the copyist who borrowed it
normally placed a mark in the lateral margin indicating the new number
of the pecia from which he was beginning to copy. Careful observation of
the numerical sequencing and textual location of these peciae breaks or
divisions has allowed scholars to determine which manuscripts were copied from the same peciae grouping and hence, ultimately, to determine
which manuscripts were part of a given stream of derivation from the
copy sent to the stationer by the author (the apograph). This determination means, in turn, that later and derivative copies can be eliminated
with some confidence, provided that soundings do not indicate any internal variations in the allegiance of a codex. What this implies for textual
editing is that one can base one's edition on a relatively small portion of
the total manuscripts surviving, yet do so armed with the knowledge that
one is drawing upon the best evidence available for reconstructing the
text.
Not only has the Leonine's study of the pecia system revolutionized
the Commission's own editorial procedures, it also has proven to be of
tremendous value for editors working on Parisian or Bolognese masters
whose writings were reproduced through the pecia system. For example,
the works of Henry of Ghent are currently being edited using an approach similar to that of the Leonine.41 Indeed, I would venture to say
that the Leonine Commission has provided a model of excellence for editors of medieval and classical texts to follow generally since it has shown
how to cope successfully with large numbers of manuscripts in a scientifically rigorous manner.
REFLECTIONS
To say the least, we have learned an enormous amount, through the

past century of scholarship, about medieval philosophical texts, their authors, and their doctrines. What I would like to underscore here are
questions raised by the historiography sketched and the problems as well
as the prospects for future text editions.
Let us begin with the latter. The use of computers has improved and
eased in many ways the process and progress of text editing. No longer
Rouse, "The Book Trade at the University of Paris ca. 1250-1350," in La production du livre
universitaire au Mcyen Age: exemplar et pecia, ed. Richard Rouse, L.]. Bataillon, and B. G.
Guyot (Paris:]. Vrin, 1988), pp. 41-11+
41. Cf., for example, the introduction ofR. Macken in Henrici de Gandavo, Quodlibet I
(Leuven/Leiden: Leuven University Press/E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. xliii-lxxxvii.
130
TIMOTHY NOONE
does one record variant readings on lengthy collation sheets, a practice

that tended, when the text was typed and re-typed, to result in errors
reminiscent of medieval scribes' copying errors. Instead, the base text of
a given manuscript is entered once into a computer file where its accuracy, dependability, and strength are constantly challenged as variant
readings of other witnesses are recorded in the same file. The ability of
the contemporary editor to transfer directly to printed text the results of
his collation and deliberative judgment about the proper reading of a
Latin text is an unparalleled development in the history of text editions,
one that must be accounted a great boon. The benefit of computer
usage for indices, concordances, and word searches is even greater; what
customarily took hours or days of patient scholarly labor can now be accomplished in minutes, or in some cases seconds, by a computer database search program.
Nonetheless, despite the incalculable advantages of using computers
in the production of text editions, the prospects for editing the mass of
yet unedited material in the areas of medieval philosophy and theology
are not entirely bright. Too few scholars, especially young scholars, are
trained well enough in the somewhat peculiar combination of disciplines needed for solid textual research: medieval Latin, paleography,
codicology, philosophy, and theology. Indeed, all too commonplace are
young aspirants in philosophy and theology interested in an exclusively
systematic, as opposed to a historical, understanding of their subjects
and who look with disdain upon the research of text editors, while, on
the other hand, most students of medieval Latin studies lack either the
interest or the training in philosophical and theological topics to become reliable editors of philosophical texts. There is, in fact, a legitimate
basis for asking where the next generation of text editors for medieval
Latin philosophical texts will come from.
Related to this cautionary note is a second, and in many ways more disturbing, one. All the distinguished editors mentioned above, and a host
of others not mentioned, were not simply excellent readers of Latin texts;
they were themselves speakers and writers of the Latin language. In comparison even to the best Latinists of the present day, they were native
speakers, for they were imbued through their scholarly and ecclesiastical
training with an intellectual culture that took philosophical and theological courses in Latin and produced studies written in Latin. Sadly enough,
this culture, both in its academic and ecclesiastical forms, has passed
away. What impact the loss of this Latin-speaking culture may have upon
the quality of text editions in the long run simply remains to be seen.
Promised at the beginning of this lecture were reflections on what the
last century of scholarship has revealed about the nature of medieval
TIMOTHY NOONE
; one record variant readings on lengthy collation sheets, a practice

tended, when the text was typed and re-typed, to result in errors
tniscent of medieval scribes' copying errors. Instead, the base text of
ren manuscript is entered once into a computer file where its accudependability, and strength are constantly challenged as variant
ings of other witnesses are recorded in the same file. The ability of
:ontemporary editor to transfer directly to printed text the results of
:ollation and deliberative judgment about the proper reading of a
1 text is an unparalleled development in the history of text editions,
that must be accounted a great boon. The benefit of computer
e for indices, concordances, and word searches is even greater; what
~marily took hours or days of patient scholarly labor can now be acplished in minutes, or in some cases seconds, by a computer datasearch program.
'onetheless, despite the incalculable advantages of using computers
te production of text editions, the prospects for editing the mass of
medited material in the areas of medieval philosophy and theology
1ot entirely bright. Too few scholars, especially young scholars, are
ted well enough in the somewhat peculiar combination of discies needed for solid textual research: medieval Latin, paleography,
cology, philosophy, and theology. Indeed, all too commonplace are
ig aspirants in philosophy and theology interested in an exclusively
matic, as opposed to a historical, understanding of their subjects
who look with disdain upon the research of text editors, while, on
)ther hand, most students of medieval Latin studies lack either the
est or the training in philosophical and theological topics to bee reliable editors of philosophical texts. There is, in fact, a legitimate
for asking where the next generation of text editors for medieval
l philosophical texts will come from.
~lated to this cautionary note is a second, and in many ways more disng, one. All the distinguished editors mentioned above, and a host
hers not mentioned, were not simply excellent readers of Latin texts;
were themselves speakers and writers of the Latin language. In comon even to the best Latinists of the present day, they were native
cers, for they were imbued through their scholarly and ecclesiastical
tng with an intellectual culture that took philosophical and theologimrses in Latin and produced studies written in Latin. Sadly enough,
:ulture, both in its academic and ecclesiastical forms, has passed
What impact the loss of this Latin-speaking culture may have upon
uality of text editions in the long run simply remains to be seen.
omised at the beginning of this lecture were reflections on what the
entury of scholarship has revealed about the nature of medieval
philosophy. Perhaps the easiest way to approach this matter is by re,tuming to the historiographical sketches with which we began and by pondering the basic question they raise. All of the historians whose works we
reviewed attempted to locate a unity, whether doctrinal or otherwise,
within medieval philosophy. To what extent is there unity in medieval
philosophy? Or are all attempts to find unity in medieval thought pointless? Certainly, the state of historical knowledge is in flux, and the efforts
we reviewed to discover unity within medieval thought seem to be premature; yet the search for a unity in medieval philosophy is not pointless.
The type of unity there actually is in medieval thought, however, challenges our notion of the philosophical, perhaps even, as Macintyre suggests,42 of the rational. On this point, Gilson's insistence that Christian
philosophy is fundamentally a historical reality may well come closest to
the mark: quite unlike contemporary philosophers, medieval philosophers enjoyed a shared conception of what intellectual enquiry should
be like. This rather obvious fact is what makes even the greatest doctrinal
diversity within the medieval philosophy seem slight; the medieval philosophers had a shared cultural inheritance, in which revelation formed
the principal part, that allowed them to disagree intelligently and to
communicate their speculative insights clearly to an appreciative audience. Consequently, one thing I would like to suggest that we have
learned about medieval thought in the past century is the extent to
which it possessed a cultural unity that our own intellectual culture lacks;
the unity we perceive there is real, but it is so acutely perceptible to us because of our own fragmentary culture.
How has the study of medieval philosophy influenced twentiethcentury philosophy and how, conversely, has twentieth-century philosophy influenced the study of medieval philosophy? To answer the first
question, medieval philosophy has influenced twentieth-century philosophy mainly in the way already suggested, by substantially revising the
way in which even the most contemporarily minded philosopher looks
upon the history of his subject. The conventional modern outlook on
medieval thought, so clearly expressed in Hamelin's words quoted earlier, has been thoroughly discredited. But the study of medieval philosophy has also, more recently, begun to have a more properly philosophical influence. Through the work of Macintyre and others, contemporary
philosophers are beginning to appreciate to what extent medieval philosophy calls into question the manner in which philosophical problems are approached nowadays; what has seemed, especially to analytic
42. Alasdair Macintyre, Three Rival Ver.sions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and
Tradition (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 7-31, 58-195.
132
TIMOTHY NOONE
philosophers, the obvious places to start in philosophy are beginning tp

be recognized as largely modem preoccupations that may be entrances
to blind alleys after all.
What, then, of the influence of twentieth-century philosophy upon
the study of medieval philosophy? Here I would like to suggest that both
in research on medieval metaphysics and in research on medieval logic,
awareness of twentieth-century discussions has caused historians to
bring to medieval texts - questions they would otherwise never have
brought. In the area of logic, clearly the works of Boehner, Bochenski,
Knutilla, Pinborg, De Rijk, and Kretzmann are all heavily indebted to
contemporary discussions in the philosophy of language. The Cambridge
History of Later Medieval Philosophy, for all its faults and its unfortunate
tendency to overlook the theological dimension of medieval philosophizing, is a testimony to the extent to which contemporary philosophy
has affected the questions that medievalists put to philosophical texts. In
the area of metaphysics, the influence of contemporary discussions of
being and its history, discussions largely arising out of Heidegger's writings, has been equally telling. The focus of study on Aquinas's notion of
esse as existential act and efforts to discover to what extent other medieval philosophers shared a like notion of being are obviously indebted to
the critique of traditional metaphysics and its object marshaled by the
existentialist movement. Nor has the case of existentialism been unique:
the use of analytical tools by contemporary Christian philosophers of religion has certainly encouraged students of medieval philosophy to
frame their studies of philosophical theology in the terminology of contemporary discussions. 43
In general, we must conclude that medieval philosophy has been a
field of historical research in which tremendous progress has been made
in the last century. But the field is far from exhausted. The number of
important philosophers still unstudied from the fourteenth century
alone is remarkable, while many of the lesser lights of the thirteenth century are also neglected. What I hope I have given here is some idea of the
questions this branch of historical lore raises for philosophers and historians as well as some of the tentative answers given to date.
43. For a recent book illustrating the use of such analytic tools in the study of medieval
philosophical theology, see the commentaries of Antoine Vos in John Duns Scotus,
Contingency and Freedom: Lectura I 39, intro., trans., and comm. by A Vos Jaczn et al.
(Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1 gg4).

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in T

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in T

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy

To trace the course of scholarship on medieval philosophy in the last one

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

psychology and science with a view to synthesizing them with Scholastic

ychology and science with a view to synthesizing them with Scholastic

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

and more controversially, de Wulf claimed that there was a doctrinal

the reappropriation of medieval thought in the modern world. It was on

he reappropriation ofmedieval thought in the modern world. It was on

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

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in particular,

Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in particular,

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

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

Boehner and a few other highly trained specialists bothered to analyze

ehner and a few other highly trained specialists bothered to analyze

27. Boehner, MedievalLogi,c, pp. 92-93.

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

Steenberghen was among the early critics of Gilson's idea of Christian

history the dramatic flow of events and succession of philosophical ideas

If the last century has witnessed an explosion of historical knowledge

ory the dramatic flow of events and succession of philosophical ideas

If the last century has witnessed an explosion of historical knowledge

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

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

~king together in a small religious house outside Florence after can-

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

Leonine too was plagued with disagreements over editorial technique,

:onine too was plagued with disagreements over editorial technique,

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

To say the least, we have learned an enormous amount, through the

does one record variant readings on lengthy collation sheets, a practice

; one record variant readings on lengthy collation sheets, a practice

Medieval Scholarship and Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years

philosophers, the obvious places to start in philosophy are beginning tp

Вам также может понравиться